DPP: Domestic Bullying, International Cowardice

DPP: Domestic Bullying, International Cowardice
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 11, 2014

Summary: Just as the student protests against the CSSTA reached he boiling point, the DPP began distributing talking points to concerned departments of the United States government. The DPP was anxious to make clear that it was not totally opposed to the CSSTA, and was willing to seek solutions to the impasse created by the student protests. Wang Jin-pyng however, beat the DPP to the punch. He took credit for ending the student protests. The DPP looked tough on the outside. But it was weak on the inside. It wore two faces. One domestic. One international. People could only shake their heads and sigh.

Full text below:

Just as the student protests against the CSSTA reached he boiling point, the DPP began distributing talking points to concerned departments of the United States government. The DPP was anxious to make clear that it was not totally opposed to the CSSTA, and was willing to seek solutions to the impasse created by the student protests. Wang Jin-pyng however, beat the DPP to the punch. He took credit for ending the student protests. The DPP looked tough on the outside. But it was weak on the inside. It wore two faces. One domestic. One international. People could only shake their heads and sigh.

Consider the DPP's domestic propaganda. Everywhere it painted the CSSTA as evil and ill-intentioned. It even accused Ma Ying-jeou of "helping the CCP infiltrate Taiwan," and of "using the CSSTA to exterminate Taiwan." In short, the CSSTA was depicted as an untouchable toxic substance. Over the past nine months, The DPP has done everything possible to delay passage of the CSSTA in the Legislative Yuan. It forcibly occupied the podium and conducted filibusters expressly to prevent passage of the CSSTA. But as soon as the US accused the DPP of illegal obstructionism, it immediately caved in and insisted that it was not opposed to the CSSTA. The DPP says one thing to foreigners, and something else altogether to citizens back home. Does it think the public on Taiwan is so stupid they can get away with this?

This is the sad reality of Taiwan politics. Politicians hurl baseless allegations all day long. But the public cannot discern the truth. Only when politicians feel the need to pander to a particular party, do they actually speak the truth. Filled with passion, the students held sit-ins. They saw themselves expressing their "love of Taiwan." They imagined themselves on a sacred mission to "defend Taiwan." Who knew they were mere extras in the DPP's political theatrics, and that the campaign had nothing to do with "love of Taiwan?"

Whenever the DPP encounters objections from Uncle Sam, it caves in. When students occupied the legislative hall, Wang Jin-pyng asked the DPP to allow him to convene the legislature. The Green Camp responded. It said the legislative hall was a "sacred space," and vehemently rejected his appeal. But as soon as the United States uttered a few harsh words, then the DPP promptly kowtowed and acquiesced. Such posturing. Such hypocrisy. If the DPP truly considers the legislative hall a "sacred space," why do DPP legislators repeatedly occupy it by force in order to obstruct legislative business? Why when the students occupied the legislative hall, did DPP legislators hold a sit-in, form a human wall, and prevent the police from carrying out their duty? The slang expression, "That's the way a slut behaves!" is apropos.

Once the student movement announced its withdrawal, uncontrolled infighting erupted within the DPP. Some said the party had been marginalized. Some said the legislative process had been bypassed. Some even said "The day when the public abandons us is not far off." The 3/18 student movement may have embarrassed the Ma administration. But the DPP reaped no windfall. Instead, it was forced to repudiate its own policy positions. Those positions are increasingly difficult to justify.

Consider the changes wrought by the protests. The DPP originally hoped to use the student movement to topple Ma and oppose the Blue Camp. It hoped to use the protests to engage in end of year electioneering. It hoped to reap a major windfall. But the student movement eventually took on an hysterical tone as it opposed the Mainland and the CSSTA. This shattered its plan. The DPP has hoped to straddle the fence and muddle its way through. But the student movement dragged the DPP down. Student leaders inspired passionate public support. This expressed itself in dissatisfaction with all political parties and their failures. The DPP assumed it was safe because it stood on the same side as the student movement. Instead it was perceived as part of a "dysfunctional system." It too became an object of condemnation.

The DPP watched as the Ma administration hemmed and hawed indecisively. Needless to say, it wallowed in Schadenfreude. But during the 3/30 protest march, DPP members were asked to put away their party flags and banners, and sit quietly in the audience. The DPP surely realized the situation had been turned on its head, and that the hosts had become the guests. One after another, U.S. officials praised Taiwan's democracy and condemned Green Camp obstructionism. The DPP found itself backed into a corner and forced to justify its behavior. Wang Jin-pyng seized the opportunity to take credit for ending the student protest. The DPP gained almost nothing out of the process. The DPP used every trick in the book. But in the end it was marginalized. Now how sad is that?

The student movement rallied public support from the Youth Corps and civic groups on the Green Camp periphery. One reason was discontent with the Ma administration. But the main reason was the DPP's practice of valuing political trickery more highly than political conviction. The DPP has long considered strategy more important than values. That is why it is often unscrupulous in its means. It is willing to occupy the legislature using brute force, to lock the legislative hall doors, to fling shoes at political opponents, and to engage in open obstructionism. This is why it invariably invokes high-minded rhetoric when justifying its actions. The Green Camp Youth Corps long ago internalized these tricks. Exploiting their status as students, they bulldozed others aside without concern, and declared themselves boss. Some even boasted about forming a student movement based political party. In such an atmosphere, the new generation may be dissatisfied with Blue vs. Green confrontation and the Ma administration. But it is also likely to spurn the DPP.

The DPP hurried explained to the United States government that it was not opposed to the CSSTA. Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu said, "If the procedures and provisions are legitimate, I support the CSSTA." Four Green Camp mayors chimed in. Currently only Chairman Su Tseng-chang is still demanding that negotiations be restarted from scratch. The students are withdrawing. The situation is changing. Will Green Camp legislators fall in line behind Su Tseng-chang? Will they oppose and obstruct legislative business? If they do, it will amount to domestic bullying and international cowardice. Worse, it will amount to self-deception and deception of others. 

欺內怕外：民進黨在台反服貿，在美忙說明
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.11 03:45 am

學生反服貿如火如荼之際，民進黨卻忙著在美國向相關部門散發說帖，聲稱民進黨並非全面反服貿，也願意提出解決學運僵局的方案。然而，學運解決的大功被王金平捷足先登，而民進黨這種色厲內荏、內外有別的嘴臉，則讓人搖頭三嘆。

且看民進黨在國內的宣傳，處處指控服貿協議多麼邪惡、如何包藏禍心，甚至稱之為馬英九引中共入台的「服貿滅台」計畫；總之，是不可碰觸的劇毒之物。九個月來，民進黨在立法院千方百計拖延杯葛，霸占主席台、阻撓議事，為的就是不讓服貿協議過關。而如今一遭美方指責非法杯葛，民進黨立刻示軟，聲明自己不反服貿。這種對外說一套、對內做一套的作風，是覺得台灣民眾愚昧可欺嗎？

台灣政治的可悲就在於此。政治人物每天在那裡指控、叫囂，民眾根本分不清哪一句才是真話；事實上，只有面對需要「抱大腿」的對象，政客才會吐出實言。學生們滿腔熱血在那裡靜坐、抗議，以為自己是在進行「愛台」、「護台」的神聖使命；誰知，在民進黨的策略中他們不過是一群臨時演員，而這場運動跟「愛台」並沒有真正的關係。

民進黨的「逢美必軟」不止於此。學生占領國會期間，王金平要求易地召開院會，綠營卻以議場具有「神聖性」，極力反對；然而，俟美方一說出重話，民進黨立刻低頭同意。這種態度，多麼虛偽！若覺得議場「神聖」，為何民進黨立委平日動輒在那裡霸占圍堵，不讓議事進行？又為何學生占領期間，他們一直在場外靜坐形成保護牆，妨礙警方執勤？「賤人就是矯情」一語，用在此處還真貼切。

學運宣布退場之後，民進黨的內訌一發不可收拾：有人指責整個黨遭到邊緣化，有人批評議會路線失能，甚至說出「距離被人民拋棄日子不遠」的重話。由此看來，三一八學運雖弄得馬政府灰頭土臉，但民進黨非僅未撈到好處，反而使自己的問政路線被迫倒退，愈發難以修補。

觀察整起事件的變化，民進黨原本以為可以利用學運來倒馬反藍，趁機為年底的選舉造勢，大肆坐收漁利。然而，學運形勢最後衝成反中、反服貿的激進調性，突破了民進黨妄想操弄的模糊地帶，也把民進黨拖進了泥淖。不僅如此，當學運領袖激發了支持群眾的熱情，同時投射的是對體制的不滿及對政黨政治失敗的反感；在這種情況下，自以為站在學運同一方的民進黨，其實已經被視為「無效體制」的共犯，也成為應予聲討的對象。

亦即，民進黨一開始看著馬政府左支右絀、進退兩難時，必然是私心竊喜；但當三三○上凱道時全員被要求收起旗幟在台下當觀眾，民進黨應明白形勢已經反客為主了。接著，當美國官員連續表態，讚揚台灣民主、卻譴責綠營不當杯葛時，民進黨已被逼到必須緊急辯解表態的牆角；而當王金平出手把學運收割一空時，民進黨恐怕連掉在地上的穀子都沒揀到幾粒。民進黨機關算盡，卻只落得一個「邊緣化」的下場，豈不可悲？

這次學運之所以能從綠營外圍的青年軍和社運團體呼喚出一股公民力量，除了對馬政府不滿，主要也是受到民進黨長期問政「手段」高過「信仰」的影響。民進黨一向認為「戰略」比「價值」重要，因此往往不擇手段，霸占、鎖門、丟鞋等杯葛手段從未間斷，且總能虛詞狡飾、自我正當化。作為綠營側翼的青年軍，早已熟悉這套行動辯證法，甚至憑藉著學生身分無所顧忌地衝撞，終而喧賓奪主。且看，近日已有人鼓動學運群眾組黨；在這種氛圍下，厭憎藍綠對峙的新一代固不滿馬政府，但也會一樣唾棄民進黨吧？

民進黨在美國政府解釋它並不是「反服貿」，在高雄市長陳菊說出「若符合程序正義且有配套，我支持服貿」後，有四名綠營縣市長也表態跟進；目前，唯獨主席蘇貞昌還在喊重啟談判。面對學生退場後的新形勢，如果綠營立委還跟著蘇貞昌在那裡喊反、喊擋，阻止議事進行，那不僅是欺內怕外，更是自欺欺人了！