United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 18, 2016
Executive Summary: The KMT has suffered an unprecedented election defeat, for three main reasons. Reason One. The public was disappointed in Ma Ying-jeou's eight year record. Reason Two. Factional strife within the KMT drove supporters away. Reason Three. The party forgot the need to win over the grass roots. As a result, it became more and more alienated from the public on Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
The KMT has suffered an unprecedented election defeat, for three main reasons. Reason One. The public was disappointed in Ma Ying-jeou's eight year record. Reason Two. Factional strife within the KMT drove supporters away. Reason Three. The party forgot the need to win over the grass roots. As a result, it became more and more alienated from the public on Taiwan.
The KMT was at a total loss how to deal with the Sunflower Student Movement. It failed dismally to deal with the cabinet reshuffle following the nine in one election debacle. It was terrified to compete during last year's presidential and legislative elections. This was followed by Eric Chu's high-handed replacement of Hung Hsiu-chu. Never mind that she was the party's duly nominated presidential candidate. The KMT defied all logic in its legislator at large nominations. Every move made foretold the evaporation of blue camp support. The debacle was hardly a surprise. The turnout was 66%, a new low. This revealed utter and irreversible disillusionment among blue camp supporters. Many veteran legislators were handily defeated by young DPP and New Power Party (NPP) novices. This showed that the KMT is no longer the party it once was.
In 2014, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou left behind him a mess. In 2016, KMT Chairman Eric Chu resigned as party chairman, leaving behind him an ever bigger mess. The party "elites" were annihilated. Party member morale has hit rock bottom. Supporters are utterly demoralized. Regional support has been shattered. What will the KMT do next? It must be said that the KMT's current situation is even sorrier than it was in 2000, during the first change in ruling parties. Back then Lee Teng-hui sold out the party from within. This provided the party with an object of disdain. Today supporters have no one to blame for their sorrow and anger. On the night of the election debacle, how many tears were shed in front of KMT headquarters?
The irony is that Ma Ying-jeou has been preoccupied with his "personal legacy". Yet eight years later, this is how it ends. How sad is that? The answer to "Why?" lies in the words "personal legacy".
First. Ma valued his personal legacy more than the party's legacy. This has been common among KMT officials in recent recent years, and Ma Ying-jeou is no exception. He often sacrificed his party in pursuit of his personal goals. Local party factions and central party leadership often fought, no holds barred. Nothing was beneath them. Party faithful complained that Ma Ying-jeou felt little loyalty to the Kuomintang. The fact is during President Ma's concurrent term as party chairman, the KMT failed to cultivate a new generation of leaders. Nor did he establish a new manner of blue camp governance. He lacked fighting ability. Yes men became trusted confidants. This doomed the KMT to eventual decline and fall.
Secondly, President Ma eagerly anticipated a glowing evaluation of his "personal legacy". But he ignored changes in Taiwan society. No one questions Ma Ying-jeou's faith in the cross-Strait historical heritage. But generational change on Taiwan led to differing perceptions. Is Taiwan independence a "natural ingredient" for the younger generation? So-called "Taiwan-centrism" has undoubtedly become stronger. The Chou Chi-yi incident shows that the younger generation may embody "natural Taiwan independence", but it nevertheless recognizes the ROC national flag. This makes it very different from Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan independence. Under the circumstances, the KMT's use of old slogans and an old frame of reference to address cross-Strait issues, comes across as out of touch to the younger generation. The younger generation has never experienced war or separation. To them the world has always been flat. How can they be persuaded about the value of cross-Strait peace?
For some time now, reunification vs. independence has been the line of demarcation between the blue and green parties. This made the KMT more focused on historical legacy and the maintenance of cross-Strait relations. Unfortunately this also led to comparative neglect when winning hearts and minds at the grass roots. This led to the incremental erosion of public support. In recent years, Cabinet ministers have come and gone, leaving behind them no trace. Academics for whom politics was not their career became "guest stars". They contributed nothing to long-term grass roots support for the KMT. Early immigrants to New England integrated themselves into the New World. The Puritans settled in Massachusetts. Their evangelistic spirit developed the American continent. The Quakers settled in Pennsylvania. The rigid constraints of their pacifist ideology was unable to cope with harsh reality, and they were eventually forced to retreat from politics. Country squires settled in Virginia. They became the backbone of the Continental Congress. If the KMT wants to avoid being swept into the dustbin of history, it must not follow in the footsteps of the Quakers.
Faced with this avalanche like defeat, the KMT's sole choice is a return to the grassroots. Serve the public. Show concern for society. Cultivate talent. Only this can enable the KMT to resusciate itself. Only this can enable it to move peoples' hearts. Only then will it not be impotent when confronted with mobs in the streets. Only then will it not be speechless when confronted by Cyber Army attacks. Only then will it not be tone deaf and color blind when challenged by the younger generation. Over the past eight years, the DPP has been in Chen Shui-bian's shadow. Yet today it has re-emerged into the light. The Kuomintang may wish to learn from the DPP's experience.
A political party without a vision is an embarrassment. Over the past two years, Ma government ineptitude and KMT internal collapse has left supporters embarrassed or alienated. The situation will not improve merely because someone withdraws or someone else seizes the opportunity to become party chairperson. What matters is that more people must cultivate grass-roots support. The KMT must sink its roots into territory captured by the green camp. It must allow people to see blue camp idealism in action.
Cynics have predicted that once the DPP demonstrates its inability to govern, the KMT will rise once again from the ashes. But if both parties are counting on being the lesser of two evils, that will be Taiwan's misfortune.
沒有生根欲望的國民黨如何再起？
2016-01-18 聯合報
國民黨這次大選面臨空前挫敗，主要原因有三：一是馬英九的八年政績，令人民失望至極；二是國民黨內離心離德，使支持者棄它而去；三是政黨經營忘卻基層扎根的工作，導致它與台灣社會的脈動越來越遠。
從處理太陽花運動的不知所措，從九合一選後內閣的草草改組及毫無作為，從去年國民黨在總統和立委選舉的雙雙怯戰，從朱立倫的粗暴換柱與不分區立委提名的荒腔走板；每一項舉措，皆預告了藍軍得票版圖消失的難堪不會是意外。六成六的超低投票率，說明失望性棄選的藍軍支持者，已喚不回來。而多位國會老將輕易被民進黨及時代力量的年輕對手擊敗，更凸顯了垂垂老矣的國民黨已時不我予。
二○一四年馬英九辭黨主席，丟下的是一個爛攤子；二○一六年朱立倫辭黨主席，留下一個更破碎的局面。如今放眼望去，黨內菁英摧折，黨員信心渙散，支持者心灰意冷，疆土殘破，國民黨下一步將如何？不可諱言，國民黨今天的局面，比二○○○年的首度政黨輪替後的情況還要悲淒；當年還有個「賣黨」的李登輝成為眾人唾棄的標的，而今天支持者卻連憤怒和悲哀都無處傾吐，敗選之夜在中央黨部前又掉了幾滴眼淚？
弔詭的是，馬英九念茲在茲其個人執政的「歷史評價」，八年後竟會以如此悲慘的方式收場，何其可悲。而答案，也許就藏在「個人歷史評價」這幾個關鍵字中。
首先，把「自己」看得比「黨」還大，這正是國民黨近年的普遍現象，馬英九更不例外，有時他甚至不惜以耗損黨來成就個人的目標；而地方派系人物與中央的纏鬥，更是無所不用其極。黨內人士感嘆，也許馬英九對國民黨根本沒有感情。事實是，在馬總統兼黨主席任內，幾未替國民黨培養出新一代的人才，亦未替藍軍建立起新的政治風格；戰將缺乏，庸懦得寵，註定了國民黨的傾頹。
其次，當馬總統一心憧憬著「歷史評價」之際，他卻忽略了台灣社會的鉅大變化。人們不會懷疑馬英九的跨越兩岸、傳承歷史信念，但台灣社會卻因世代變化而有了不同的想像，無論台獨是否「天然成分」，民眾的台灣主體性越來越強卻是事實。周子瑜事件即說明，年輕世代的「天然台獨」，認同的是中華民國國旗，這和李登輝的台獨已大相逕庭。在這種情況下，國民黨還用舊口號、舊框架談兩岸問題，便顯得與新一代脫節。對於從未經歷兩岸戰亂或分隔的年輕人，世界本來就是平的，要如何說服他們相信兩岸和平是多麼可貴的突破？
長期以來，統獨作為藍綠政黨的主要分野，使得國民黨更專注歷史傳承和兩岸關係的維繫，卻也相對忽略基層草根的經營，致使執政根基一步步遭到侵蝕。近幾年，內閣閣員來來去去，未留下真正的足跡；不以政治為志業的客串型學者，無助於國民黨的長期扎根。如果拿早期美國新英格蘭移民融入新大陸的過程作為參照，落腳麻州的清教徒更能將布道精神發展成美洲制度，而落腳賓州的貴格會卻受其和平主義思想的拘囿而無能應付嚴苛的現實，終於被迫從政治引退；而落腳維吉尼亞鄉紳，則儼然成為美國制憲會議的中堅分子。國民黨的老店若不想變成歷史，絕不能步上貴格會的後塵。
面對這場雪崩式的潰敗，國民黨只有回到社會基層深耕，重新服務大眾、關注社會、培養人才，才有可能重新生根茁壯，才有可能找回感動人民的力量，才不會遇到街頭運動就束手無策，才不會遇到網民便百口莫辯，才不會面對新世代卻聽不懂他們在說什麼。過去八年，民進黨曾在陳水扁的陰影下自慚形穢，但他們今天又重新再造輝煌；國民黨不妨參考學習。
一個沒有願景的政黨，是可恥的。這兩年，馬政府的失能和國民黨的分崩，讓許多支持者感到臉上無光，或變成隱性選民。這個局面，絕對不是誰撒手而去，或者誰伺機搶進主席大位，就可以迎刃而解。重要的是，要有更多人到基層去經營，讓國民黨的根能扎在被綠營攻陷的土地上，讓人民重新看見藍軍的用心。
有一種狡猾的預言是：一旦民進黨暴露其技窮時，國民黨便可再起。但如果政黨要靠著「比爛」而存在，那台灣就太可悲了！
2016-01-18 聯合報
國民黨這次大選面臨空前挫敗，主要原因有三：一是馬英九的八年政績，令人民失望至極；二是國民黨內離心離德，使支持者棄它而去；三是政黨經營忘卻基層扎根的工作，導致它與台灣社會的脈動越來越遠。
從處理太陽花運動的不知所措，從九合一選後內閣的草草改組及毫無作為，從去年國民黨在總統和立委選舉的雙雙怯戰，從朱立倫的粗暴換柱與不分區立委提名的荒腔走板；每一項舉措，皆預告了藍軍得票版圖消失的難堪不會是意外。六成六的超低投票率，說明失望性棄選的藍軍支持者，已喚不回來。而多位國會老將輕易被民進黨及時代力量的年輕對手擊敗，更凸顯了垂垂老矣的國民黨已時不我予。
二○一四年馬英九辭黨主席，丟下的是一個爛攤子；二○一六年朱立倫辭黨主席，留下一個更破碎的局面。如今放眼望去，黨內菁英摧折，黨員信心渙散，支持者心灰意冷，疆土殘破，國民黨下一步將如何？不可諱言，國民黨今天的局面，比二○○○年的首度政黨輪替後的情況還要悲淒；當年還有個「賣黨」的李登輝成為眾人唾棄的標的，而今天支持者卻連憤怒和悲哀都無處傾吐，敗選之夜在中央黨部前又掉了幾滴眼淚？
弔詭的是，馬英九念茲在茲其個人執政的「歷史評價」，八年後竟會以如此悲慘的方式收場，何其可悲。而答案，也許就藏在「個人歷史評價」這幾個關鍵字中。
首先，把「自己」看得比「黨」還大，這正是國民黨近年的普遍現象，馬英九更不例外，有時他甚至不惜以耗損黨來成就個人的目標；而地方派系人物與中央的纏鬥，更是無所不用其極。黨內人士感嘆，也許馬英九對國民黨根本沒有感情。事實是，在馬總統兼黨主席任內，幾未替國民黨培養出新一代的人才，亦未替藍軍建立起新的政治風格；戰將缺乏，庸懦得寵，註定了國民黨的傾頹。
其次，當馬總統一心憧憬著「歷史評價」之際，他卻忽略了台灣社會的鉅大變化。人們不會懷疑馬英九的跨越兩岸、傳承歷史信念，但台灣社會卻因世代變化而有了不同的想像，無論台獨是否「天然成分」，民眾的台灣主體性越來越強卻是事實。周子瑜事件即說明，年輕世代的「天然台獨」，認同的是中華民國國旗，這和李登輝的台獨已大相逕庭。在這種情況下，國民黨還用舊口號、舊框架談兩岸問題，便顯得與新一代脫節。對於從未經歷兩岸戰亂或分隔的年輕人，世界本來就是平的，要如何說服他們相信兩岸和平是多麼可貴的突破？
長期以來，統獨作為藍綠政黨的主要分野，使得國民黨更專注歷史傳承和兩岸關係的維繫，卻也相對忽略基層草根的經營，致使執政根基一步步遭到侵蝕。近幾年，內閣閣員來來去去，未留下真正的足跡；不以政治為志業的客串型學者，無助於國民黨的長期扎根。如果拿早期美國新英格蘭移民融入新大陸的過程作為參照，落腳麻州的清教徒更能將布道精神發展成美洲制度，而落腳賓州的貴格會卻受其和平主義思想的拘囿而無能應付嚴苛的現實，終於被迫從政治引退；而落腳維吉尼亞鄉紳，則儼然成為美國制憲會議的中堅分子。國民黨的老店若不想變成歷史，絕不能步上貴格會的後塵。
面對這場雪崩式的潰敗，國民黨只有回到社會基層深耕，重新服務大眾、關注社會、培養人才，才有可能重新生根茁壯，才有可能找回感動人民的力量，才不會遇到街頭運動就束手無策，才不會遇到網民便百口莫辯，才不會面對新世代卻聽不懂他們在說什麼。過去八年，民進黨曾在陳水扁的陰影下自慚形穢，但他們今天又重新再造輝煌；國民黨不妨參考學習。
一個沒有願景的政黨，是可恥的。這兩年，馬政府的失能和國民黨的分崩，讓許多支持者感到臉上無光，或變成隱性選民。這個局面，絕對不是誰撒手而去，或者誰伺機搶進主席大位，就可以迎刃而解。重要的是，要有更多人到基層去經營，讓國民黨的根能扎在被綠營攻陷的土地上，讓人民重新看見藍軍的用心。
有一種狡猾的預言是：一旦民進黨暴露其技窮時，國民黨便可再起。但如果政黨要靠著「比爛」而存在，那台灣就太可悲了！
No comments:
Post a Comment