Even Officials Cannot Survive: Why is KMT Morale So Low?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 11, 2014
Summary: The KMT is currently holding a "History Exhibition Tour." But for
the KMT, is history a burden or asset? Party members probably differ on
the answer. The KMT is unable to consolidate its demands when it is in
power. It merely reacts passively. Now it faces the prospect of losing
power altogether. How then will the KMT deal with that situation? These
questions can probably be answered only by those in the KMT leadership.
Full Text Below:
Following the gas explosion, the Kaohsiung City Government passed the buck to the central government. But eventually its lies were exposed, one by one. As a result, Deputy Mayor Wu Hong-mo and three bureau chiefs must step down. But lo and behold, just when public opinion was turning against the Kaohsiung City Government, Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Jia-chu announced his resignation, in response to green camp verbal abuse. This was the fifth resignation of a cabinet official over the past three months. One could say that in Ma administration, "Even officials are finding it hard to survive."
Former CCA Chairman Emile C. J. Sheng was forced to step down as a result of a firestorm over the musical production, "Dreamer." Sheng said that Chang Chia-chu was forced out because "When the green camp attacks Ma administration political appointees, the blue camp refuses to rally behind them." Former and current Ma administration cabinet officials know this all too well. From a single leaf one knows that autumn has arrived. "When greens attack, blues refuse to rally" is the reason Ma administration policy is blocked at every turn
Strictly speaking, there was nothing new about how the DPP dealt with Chang Chia-chu. The DPP's standard tactic is to ignore right and wrong. Whenever any emergency arises, the entire party marches to the same drummer, and blasts the KMT full force. First it shapes public opinion, making it impossible for its opponent to respond. By the time it has achieved momentum, it already has the upper hand. The Kaohsiung City Government clearly bears far greater responsibility for the gas explosion than the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Yet just when the truth was about to come out, the DPP's high-decibel attack and smoke screen abruptly shifted blame onto others and reversed the DPP's declining fortunes.
Even though the responsibile parties have largely been indentified, no one in the DPP, from top to bottom, has any intention of relenting. Kaohsiung Deputy Mayor Lee Yung-teh continues to denounce the central government as "evil." His wife, DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying, and former Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chi-mai, blast Chang Chia-chu as "cold-blooded" and "inhuman" in the Legislative Yuan. Even after Chang Chia-chu announced his resignation, and the central government announced that it would underwrite reconstruction entirely, the DPP still refused to relent. It raised the ante and demanded the "resignation of the entire cabinet." Contrast this with the Kaohsiung City Government, which has lied and shirked responsibility all the way. The only officials who have resigned are a deputy mayor and three bureau chiefs. Chen Chu persists n standing behind them, and has expressed reluctance to accept their resignations. As far as the DPP and Chen Chu are concerned, their strategic goal has already been achieved.
The DPP doesn't have a leg to stand on, yet it has adopted a posture of unassailable self-righteousness. By contrast, the KMT, from top to bottom, has responded feebly to the DPP's "air land battle doctrine." The sole exceptions have been KMT Legislator Huang Chao-shun and KMT City Councilman Lin Kuo-cheng, who lashed back individually. Most elected representatives did nothing but sit on the sidelines and watch. The KMT should have assumed total responsiblity and opposed the Kaohsiung City government. Instead the Minister of Economic Affairs and one or two blue camp elected representatives found themselves pitted against the full force of the entire DPP. As these examples show, KMT legislators attack each other more often than they attack their common enemy. The current blue camp consent vote is an even bloodier example. Most blue camp officials are watching from the sidelines. They refuse to stand up for Chang Chia-chu. He should count himself lucky they haven't stabbed him in the back.
The KMT is undisciplined, defeatist, and falling apart, as we will see from the following points. One. Following the second change in ruling parties, President Ma persisted in "hiring from within." When forming a government, the proportion of academics, technocrats, elected leaders, and elected representatives must be balanced. If it is, one can govern effectively. One can respond with sensitivity to the needs of society. Unfortunately, the Ma administration puts undue emphasis on academics and bureaucrats. Such officials have limited connections to political parties. They lack cohesion and the ability to resist pressure. If elected leaders and elected representatives cannot join the administration, if the party and the government cannot make use of their talent, it they cannot support each other, this often results in policy out of touch with public opinion.
Two. The ruling and opposition parties control all consultation in the legislature. The power rests in the hands of Wang Jin-pyng and a handful of others. The KMT may have an absolute majority. But the relations between Ma and Wang are poor. Ma Ying-jeou and legislators are alienated from each other. Blue camp legislators lack unity. They remain intractable. They lack any desire to fight for the party. Everyone prefers to engage in obstructionism and wheel-spinning, instead of reviewing legislation. They seek only to protect themselves. Calls for "unity" are utterly futile.
Three. The most critical factor, is that since the KMT's return to power, it has failed to re-establish cohesion within the party. The KMT glibly speaks of "founding the century old Republic of China." But during political debates it is not even willing to defend the constitution. During the DPP's eight years in office, it successfully created a "de-Sinicization" mindset. But in the face of such ideological struggles the KMT, from top to bottom, has been utterly helpless. Some even lean towards this way of thinking. Given its loss of guiding principles, how can the KMT possibly unite the party?
The KMT is currently holding a "History Exhibition Tour." But for the KMT, is history a burden or asset? Party members probably differ on the answer. The KMT is unable to consolidate its demands when it is in power. It merely reacts passively. Now it faces the prospect of losing power altogether. How then will the KMT deal with that situation? These questions can probably be answered only by those in the KMT leadership.
官不聊生:國民黨士氣為何如此低落?
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.08.11 03:17 am
氣爆案發生後,高雄市府一直把責任推給中央,最後在謊言一一被戳破後,由副市長吳宏謀領銜三位局長下台。但令人意外的是,在輿論砲火轉向高雄市政府之際,經濟部長張家祝竟因不堪綠委辱罵,自行宣布辭職。近三個月以來,這已是第五位請辭的內閣閣員;若以「官不聊生」來形容馬政府目前的處境,可說再貼切不過。
對此,曾因「夢想家」音樂劇之爭被迫下台的前文建會主委盛治仁有感而發地說,張家祝請辭,是因為馬政府的政務官總是被「綠的羞辱,藍的不挺」。此一描述,曾經或目前仍任職馬政府的閣員們,應該都感同身受。一葉知秋,「綠羞辱,藍不挺」,正是馬政府施政處處受阻的癥結。
嚴格而論,民進黨上下對付張家祝的手法,其實並不新鮮。民進黨一向的戰術,就是不問是非對錯,一有事,全黨先統一口徑對準國民黨猛轟一場,先運用攻擊策略塑造輿論走向,逼得對手來不及出手反應,聲勢上即先取得上風。今天看來,高雄市政府在氣爆事件中應負的責任,絕對是遠大於經濟部;但在真相未明之際,民進黨的高分貝批評煙硝,很快達到了「災禍轉嫁」的效果,逆轉了頹勢。
儘管責任分際已泰半釐清,民進黨上下仍無收手的打算。高雄市副市長李永得繼續批評中央政府「邪惡」,其妻立委邱議瑩和曾代理高雄市長的陳其邁,厲聲在立法院斥責張家祝「冷血」、「還是人嗎」。更有甚者,在張家祝掛冠求去、中央宣布幾全額支應重建經費後,民進黨仍不罷休,並拉高層級要求「內閣總辭」。相對於此,一路說謊、卸責的高雄市府,卻僅一名副市長、三名局長請辭,陳菊甚且還在力挺,大表不捨。至此,對民進黨和陳菊而言,戰略目的已經達成。
相對於民進黨的「理不直,氣很壯」,國民黨上下對於民進黨這種撲天蓋地式的攻擊,回應卻顯得軟弱無力。除了立委黃昭順、市議員林國正等少數民代獨力反擊,多數民代卻以事不關己的姿態冷眼旁觀。在這種情況下,本來是「完全執政的國民黨對抗犯錯的高雄市府」的局面,實際上,卻演成「經濟部長與一二藍軍對抗民進黨全黨」。從以往的事例看,更多見的情況是國民黨立委窩裡反,砲打自己人;日前監委同意權投票的慘狀,便是血跡斑斑。今天,藍軍只是「旁觀」、「不挺」張家祝,他的境遇恐已堪稱幸運。
國民黨的散漫、消極與分崩離析,可從下列幾點觀察。第一,二次政黨輪替後,馬總統的用人圈始終無法打開。政府的組建,若以學者、技術官僚、民選首長和民意代表的架構比例搭配,不難有效推動政務,並靈敏因應社會需求。遺憾的是,馬政府用人過度偏重學者及行政官僚,而這兩類官員與政黨的連結有限,抗壓性、向心力往往不足,遇上大場面便畏怯。相對的,民選首長和民代無法進入行政體系,使黨和政的人才庫無法流通,除無法發揮互為支援的作用,也往往導致政策與民意脫節。
其次,在朝野協商制度主導立法院一切議事運作的情況下,權力掌握在王金平等少數人手上。國民黨雖在席次上具有絕對優勢,但在馬王關係不睦、馬英九又對立委敬而遠之的情況下,藍委認同分崩離析,難以駕御。由於缺乏「為黨而戰」的意志,大家寧願在議事杯葛中消耗空轉,只求自保,所謂「團結」即如緣木求魚。
第三,最關鍵的因素,是國民黨重新執政後,未能重新建立凝聚黨內向心力的訴求。國民黨侈言是「創建中華民國的百年老店」,但在政治辯論中,卻連「捍衛憲法」都喊不出來。民進黨執政八年,成功建立「去中國化」的思維;但面對這樣的意識型態鬥爭,國民黨上下卻是束手無策,有些人甚至向此思維靠攏。失去中心思想,國民黨還能靠什麼來團結黨?
國民黨正在舉行「黨史巡迴展」,但對國民黨而言,「黨史」是包袱還是資產,恐怕黨內早就意見分歧。無法在執政時鞏固自己的訴求,這是消極怠惰;而面對可能丟掉政權的未來,國民黨又該如何自處?這個大哉問,恐怕是所有國民黨檯面人物必須慎思的問題。
No comments:
Post a Comment