President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students

President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 26, 2014

Summary: Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition

Full text below:

The student occupation of the Legislature has intensified yet again. It led to an unprecedented "occupation" of the Executive Yuan, and a bloody eviction by the police. The image of the government has been battered. The day before yesterday, Christine Chow, the president's wife, responded on Chen Yu-hui's FaceBook page. She said "The government has explained its position repeatedly. But since the people still have doubts, it has a responsibility to say it a few more times." Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services.

To being with, public opinion is as mercurial as flowing water. Changes in the political situation are constant. The moment the students succeeded in occupying the grounds of the legislature, the solution ceased being the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan Speaker. Nor was it the responsibility of the students. It became the responsibility of the Ma administration. The police stormed the Executive Yuan and expelled the students. From that moment on, any "violence" was the result of the government, not the students, and definitely not the opposition.

Those opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services accused the government of "black box operations." As we know perfectly well, such accusations are false. Take a step back. Before and during negotiations, government agencies held a total of 110 small-scale seminars with industry representatives from domestic finance, video games, exhibition, shipping, printing, cosmetics , food, travel, advertising, and logistics. According to the Legislative Yuan, the Legislative Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services in 2013. One on April 20, one on May 2, and one on May 30. Government officials reported in detail the negotiation process. The second session was a secret meeting. It concerned the content of the agreement we were preparing to sign with the other side.

During these three briefing sessions, DPP legislators were present along with KMT legislators. They included Chen Chi-mai, Li Chun-yi, Tuan Yi-kang, Lin Chia-lung, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Pi-ling, Yeh Yi-Ching, Yao Wen-chih, Chen Ou-po, Hsu Tain-Tsair, Chiu Chih-wei, Hsueh Ling, Tsai Chi-Chang, Yu Mei-nu, Lee Kun-tse, Wu Ping-jui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lin Shu-Fen, Tien Chiu-chin, Huang Wei-cher, Wei Ming Ku, and other committee members. Also in attendance were the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party and independents.

Large numbers of ruling and opposition party legislators took part in the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services hearings. No one can say the administration ignored the legislature. No one can say the administration operated inside a black box. Furthermore, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in July 2013.  Between then and March 10 of this year, the legislature held 20 public hearings. According to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the executive is required only to inform the Legislative Yuan of what it intends to do. Yet KMT legislators consented to a line item review and line item vote. This was a public hearing, public review, and public vote, conducted entirely within the glare of the public spotlight. How can anyone accuse the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services of being a black box operation?

We know the students are opposed to more than black box operations. We know they are opposed to matters other than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. They are more concerned that the Ma administration's cross-strait policy is leaning too far toward the Mainland. They accuse the government's negotiating team of failing to obtain the best terms, and of allowing Taiwan to get a raw deal. Others of course, are indeed motivated by deep-seated Sinophobia.

Former National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi best summed up the problem. He says the struggle over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a continuation of an ongoing internal struggle inside Taiwan, over three issues: policy, reunification vs.independence, and the system. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services by itself has no bearing on reunification vs. independence. That is why President Ma repeatedly emphasized that the legislature must pass the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services "solely for the sake of of Taiwan's economy." Taiwan's trade liberalization and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and the RCEP, are merely "policy" issues. But for the DPP and the protesting students, they are reunification vs. independence issues. Some students even argue that the trade dispute proves that the legislative process no longer works, and that therefore the "system" of political representation needs reconsideration. Enormous cognitive differences exist regarding all three issues. This is why after President Ma held his March 23 press conference, the protesting students accused President Ma of being "a broken record."

We hope President Ma and the student representatives can meet and talk without preconditions. We hope they can break the current political impasse. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The dialogue must be open and transparent. The Presidential Office may wish to televise the process in toto. This would prevent students from accusing him of merely giving them a "pat on the head." The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition. They must not issue all sorts of demands about the venue and the program.

The president must consider the fact that the students have already made various demands. Student representatives proposed "convening a citizens' constitutional convention." In terms of political reality, this was a jarring suggestion. But six large business groups have also suggested convening a similar "national conference." This suggests a social consensus. Presidential staffers must respond to society's expectations. They must make comprehensive plans and preparations. They must ensure that the students and the community feel the president's sincerity. He must not sound like a broken record.

We would like to caution the DPP. You know and we know that the negotiations over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services were not black box operations. Yet you deliberately created a false public perception. DPP political leaders, including Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang should issue public vows regarding the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. This is the only attitude proper for any politican answerable to history.

社論－與學生對話 總統須展現誠意
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月26日 04:10

學生占領立法院行動一再激化，造成行政院大樓前所未見的「淪陷」，及警察驅離過程的血腥，重創政府形象。繼前天總統夫人周美青在作家陳玉慧臉書回文，同意「政府覺得已經說過許多次了，但是人民既然有疑慮，就有責任再多說幾次」，總統府昨天終於願意在不預設任何前提下，邀請學生代表來總統府會談。學生代表林飛帆立即回應，願意在公開的平台跟總統對話，服貿僵局呈現突破的一線曙光。

首先，民意如流水，政治情勢變動不居，從學生成功占領立法院議場那一刻開始，「解套」就不是立法院長，更不是學生的責任，而是馬政府的責任，從警察被迫衝進行政院辦公大樓驅離學生開始，「暴力」的印記就要由政府承擔，而非學生，更不是反對黨。

當然，我們非常清楚，反對《服貿協議》人士訴求的「反對黑箱作業」並非事實。回溯相關資料可以發現，在談判前及談判期間，政府相關部門曾與國內金融、遊戲、會展、海運、印刷、美容、餐飲、旅遊、廣告、物流等產業代表，總共舉行110次小型座談會。依據立法院議事資料，在《兩岸服貿協議》談判過程中，立法院內政委員會曾於102年4月20日、5月2日及5月30日舉行3場會議，政府官員詳細報告了談判進程，其中第二場會議為祕密會議，實質說明了我方準備與對岸簽訂的內容。

在這3場行簡報會議中，除國民黨立委外，民進黨的陳其邁、李俊俋、段宜康、林佳龍、陳亭妃、管碧玲、葉宜津、姚文智、陳歐珀、許添財、邱志偉、薛凌、蔡其昌、尤美女、李昆澤、吳秉叡、蕭美琴、林淑芬、田秋堇、黃偉哲、魏明谷等委員，都在出列席名單中，台聯、親民黨及無黨籍立委也曾出列席。

這麼多朝野立委都聽過《服貿協議》簡報，不能說是不尊重國會，更不應該是黑箱作業，何況《服貿協議》在進入立法院後，從102年7月到今年的3月10日，立法院已舉行過20場公聽會，依《兩岸人民關係條例》第五條，原本只需立法院備查，在國民黨立委同意下，已決定要進行逐條逐項審查及表決，這種公開聽證、公開審查的做法，又怎能說《服貿協議》是黑箱作業呢？

我們也理解，學生並非單純「反對黑箱作業」，更不只是「反服貿」，更多的是憂心馬政府兩岸政策傾中，認定政府談判團隊並未爭取到最好條件，讓台灣吃虧。其中當然也有些人，是根深柢固的「反中」心態。

其實，前國安會祕書長蘇起的分析最能捕捉到核心，他認為服貿爭議是台灣內部在「政策」、「統獨」和「制度」3個層次上爭論不休的延續。《服貿協議》本身與統一、獨立無涉，所以馬總統反覆強調，立法院一定要通過《服貿協議》「完全是為了台灣經濟的未來」，是台灣貿易自由化、加入TPP與RCEP的一環，是單純的「政策」議題。但對民進黨與抗議學生而言，卻是一個與「統獨」有關的議題，部分學生更認為，服貿爭議顯示國會運作已經失靈，所以還是一個必須重新檢討代議政治的「制度」議題。三方認知差異極大，這也是馬總統3月23日記者會後，抗爭學生認為「馬總統只是一再跳針」的原因。

我們期待馬總統與學生代表，都能不預設立場促成對話實現，共同尋找突破當前政治僵局之道。首先，總統應該展現最大誠意，務期對話環境公開透明，總統府可考慮全程開放電視轉播，避免學生產生「被摸頭」的疑慮，學生亦不能心存「公審總統」的企圖，提出場域與程序的條件。

總統也要全盤思考學生已經提出與可能提出的各項訴求，包括學生代表倡議的「召開公民憲政會議」，雖然從政治現實面而言顯得突兀，但六大工商團體也提出意義接近的召開「國是會議」建言，顯示社會的部分共識。總統幕僚應對如何回應社會的期待，有完整的思考與準備，要讓學生及全社會體會到總統溝通的誠意，絕不能再讓人感覺「又是跳針」。

我們還要敬告民進黨，你知我知，服貿談判絕非黑箱，卻在有心人刻意操作下造成社會錯誤認知，民進黨政治領袖，包括蔡英文、蘇貞昌，應對是否贊成簽署《兩岸服貿協議》立下「軍令狀」，表示為人民立誓、對歷史負責的政治家應有態度。