How Long Will the Legislative Yuan Remain Ker Chien-ming's Hostage?

How Long Will the Legislative Yuan Remain Ker Chien-ming's Hostage?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 17, 2013

Summary: The DPP's call for a no confidence vote failed. Party insiders are pointing fingers. Legislator Chiu Yi -ying was blunt. "The entire party has been hijacked by Ker Chien-ming!" The DPP has finally realized the danger presented by Ker Chien-ming. Consider the matter carefully. As soon as the Green Camp's motion for a no confidence vote failed, it declared an immediate end to all ruling and opposition party consultations. As things now stand, the entire legislature remains locked in a cage built by Ker Chien-ming.

Full text below:

The DPP's call for a no confidence vote failed. Party insiders are pointing fingers. Legislator Chiu Yi -ying was blunt. "The entire party has been hijacked by Ker Chien-ming!" The DPP has finally realized the danger presented by Ker Chien-ming. Consider the matter carefully. As soon as the Green Camp's motion for a no confidence vote failed, it declared an immediate end to all ruling and opposition party consultations. As things now stand, the entire legislature remains locked in a cage built by Ker Chien-ming.

When the influence peddling scandal first broke, the DPP's behavior was outrageous. It allowed Ker Chien-ming to lead it around by the nose. First the Green Camp acted as "Wang Jin-pyng's Praetorian Guard. Then it acted as Ker Chien-ming's pawn. Su Tseng-chang personally spearheaded the "Topple Chiang" and "Impeach Ma" campaigns. Meanwhile DPP elders were sitting pretty in their sedan chairs, the image of righteousness. On the one hand, they demanded justice. On the other, they whitewashed their own officials' misconduct. Their words and deeds were so far apart, they could hardly expect the public to buy their arguments.

Did Schadenfreude do President Ma in when the influence peddling scandal erupted? Perhaps. But the DPP was equally guilty, and paid just as high a price. Was President Ma's punishment of Wang Jin-pyng for influence peddling disproportionate? Perhaps. But the DPP's call for Ma's impeachment was even more disproportionate. The DPP is smart. It is adept at spotting other's weaknesses. Unfortunately the DPP is too smart for its own good. It is not so adept at spotting its own weaknesses. it foolishly assumes others cannot see its mistakes.

Were Huang Shi-ming's reports to Ma Ying-jeou conducted in a proper manner? Were the Special Investigation Unit's wire taps indiscriminate and illegal? These are all fair questions. They must be examined, both systemically and practically. Strategically speaking, the Green Camp took advantage of Ma Ying-jeou's low approval numbers. It attempted to kick him while he was down. Its attempt to profit from his troubles was a good plan. But Schadenfreude got the better of its leaders. Its leaders got greedy and overplayed their hand. They refused to call a spade a spade. Needless to say, people saw through their game. Hence the failed motion for a no confidence vote. Was this the result of Ker Chien-ming's hijacking of the party? Or was it merely the result of DPP combativeness, combined with Ker's selfishness? It is probably impossible to tell.

DPP insiders offer several reasons why the party's motion for a no confidence vote failed. One. They misjudged the situation. Two. They failed to discuss the matter within the party. Three. Their timing and approach were off. These reasons are true enough. But when the entire party is hijacked by Su Tseng-chang and Ker Chien-ming, why were cooler heads unable to prevail? The DPP can blame Su and Ker's reckless abandon. But a major contributor to the party's problems is a kind of false pride and arrogance, or perhaps lack of pragmatism, that permeates the DPP. The DPP saw President Ma's approval rating fall to under 10%. They leapt to the conclusion that 90% of the public identified with the Green Camp. The DPP saw Premier Chiang's disapproval rating rise to 70%. They assumed that a motion for a no confidence vote would be a sure thing. They clutched a poll consisting of less than 1000 samples and held it up as a "new mandate." They turned their noses up at the actual mandate manifested in the number of Legislative Yuan seats, Such is the Green Camp's false pride and misjudgment.

This false pride is the reason the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to position itself as an opposition political party. All it cares about is regaining political office. When Su Tseng-chang proposed a no confidence vote he said, "If we do nothing, how can we oversee the ruling party?" In his mind, only mindless obstructionism qualifies as "oversight." Ensuring budgetary restraint, questioning administration officials in the legislature, proposing alternatives to ruling adminstration policies, updating obsolete governmental structures, amending outdated laws, and exposing official incompetence, apparently count for nothing. Apparently these are not what opposition parties responsible for oversight should be doing. The DPP never wants to solve problems as they arise. It only wants to engage in mindless obstructionism and politlcal vendettas. It only wants to topple the premier and impeach the president, the peoples' peace of mind be damned.

The motion for a no confidence vote failed. Su Tseng-chang and Ker Chien-ming demanded that the "Kuomintang pay double indemnity." They were combative in the extreme. Some in the Green Camp even argued that the DPP's "legislative approach' had failed. The implication was that it must take to the streets in order to win. But this perception will only sink the DPP deeper and deeper into its quagmire. The Ma administration faces difficult political, economic, and social problems. All of these are the result of Taiwan's long-term internal frictions. There is no magic formula that can cure the patient. The DPP wants to regain power. But to do so it must give serious thought to these issues. Otherwise cross-Strait relations and economic development will present problems. The DPP has left painful and repugnant memories. If it assumes that taking to the streets will win elections, it will be sorely disappointed.

Is the DPP willing to be hijacked by Ker Chien-ming? We do not care. But if Ker Chien-ming repeatedly uses the DPP to hijack the Legislative Yuan, then the public on Taiwan must decide whether they want this show to go on.

立法院還要被柯建銘綁架到何時？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.10.17 03:08 am

民進黨倒閣失敗，黨內檢討聲音四起，立委邱議瑩直言：「整個黨被柯建銘綁架了！」民進黨現在總算看出柯建銘的危險了，但仔細思索，綠營倒閣失敗後立刻宣布關閉朝野協商，如此一來，整個立法院其實仍形同坐困在柯建銘架設的牢籠之中。

關說案發生後，民進黨的表現荒腔走板，一路被柯建銘牽著鼻子走。綠營先是扮演「王金平的親衛隊」，然後又變成「柯建銘的馬前卒」；蘇貞昌親自率領全黨「倒江」、「罷馬」，喊打喊殺，卻忘了回頭看看坐在自己抬的轎子上的大老又是什麼德行。一邊高呼正義，一邊卻簇擁著失德者，如此言行分裂，民進黨如何期待民眾相信它的主張？

如果說馬總統在關說事件中犯了「見獵心喜」的錯誤，那民進黨因見獵心喜而付出的代價不會更小；如果說馬總統為司法關說鍘王金平是不符合比例原則，那民進黨為關說案而發動倒閣倒馬，更是不符比例原則。問題在，民進黨太聰明，太容易抓住別人的弱點；問題也在，民進黨太自以為聰明，因而看不見自己的缺點，甚至以為別人也看不到自己的錯誤。

平情而論，馬英九聽取黃世銘報告的程序正當性如何、特偵組監聽有無浮濫不法，都是可受公評之事，也必須從制度面和實踐面去檢討釐清。而從戰略面看，綠營趁著馬英九民調低迷，一舉將他打倒打趴，以求坐收漁利，也不失為一個好盤算。然而，為了見獵心喜而無限上綱，由於貪功躁進而罔顧事理，兩相加乘而無法就事論事，當然會被看破手腳；失敗的「倒閣」之役便是這樣來的。事實上，這究竟是民進黨遭到柯建銘「綁架」，或是民進黨的好戰與老柯的私心一拍即合，恐已難分難解。

民進黨內部對於倒閣失利的反省主要有幾：一是誤判形勢，二是未經黨內討論程序，三是時機和策略選擇不當。這些意見皆所言不虛，然而，在全黨被蘇貞昌、柯建銘牽著走的時候，為什麼理性的聲音出不來？這除了要歸咎蘇、柯的獨斷外，一個主要的因素是，民進黨內部存在一種虛驕狂妄或至少很不務實的想法：以為馬總統的支持度不到一成，即意味另九成民意是「歸心」綠營；以為有某個民調說七成民眾不支持江揆，倒閣便具正當性或有成功之希望。捧著空氣中不到一千個樣本數的浮泛民調，稱之為「新民意」，對立法院一票票堆砌出來的真實民意卻嗤之以鼻，這就是綠營的驕妄和誤判。

事實上，這種驕妄心態，和民進黨始終無法在反對黨的位置上找到積極角色，卻只是一心想奪回執政權有關。就如蘇貞昌在發動倒閣時說：「什麼都不做，作什麼監督者！」在他的認知中，好像只有窮盡手段阻擋施政進行，才是反對黨的「監督」功能。然而，對預算把關，在國會質詢，就各項決策提出相對方案，對過時的國家制度和法令提出修正法案，乃至向公眾揭發不正當的官員和施政，這些不都是反對黨、監督者可以扮演的角色嗎？如果不想一件一件地解決問題，卻每天只想著杯葛、算總帳、推倒內閣、罷免總統，人民豈有寧日？

倒閣失敗後，蘇貞昌和柯建銘揚言「要讓國民黨加倍奉還」，好戰意味強烈。綠營更有人主張，這是民進黨「議會路線」的失敗，言下之意，必須用「街頭路線」奪回勝利。但這樣的認知，恐怕只會使民進黨越陷越深。試想，馬政府目前面對的政經、社會難題，無一不是台灣長期在內耗中日積月累種下的病灶，皆不是任何神奇祕方可以藥到病除；民進黨一面想著如何奪回政權，同時也得嚴肅思考這些問題的解方。否則，光是兩岸關係和經濟發展兩項，民進黨留給人民的慘痛記憶已夠令人反胃，倘若還想靠「街頭路線」贏得選舉，結果恐將適得其反。

民進黨是不是甘願被柯建銘綁架，我們並不關心；但是，如果柯建銘竟一再驅使民進黨來綁架立法院，那就要看台灣人民是否欣賞這樣的演出了。