Posturing on a National Policy Conference: Enough is Enough

Posturing on a National Policy Conference: Enough is Enough
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2012

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have called on the Ma administration to convene a "National Policy Conference on the Retirement Annuity." Tsai and Su should forget about their phony call for a national policy conference. They should return to the problem of reforming the DPP's cross-Strait policy. If they invite President Ma to a national policy conference on cross-Strait policy, the public will surely approve and applaud.

Full Text below:

Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have called on the Ma administration to convene a "National Policy Conference on the Retirement Annuity." President Ma shot down their proposal. Instead, President Ma invited Tsai and Su to the Presidential Palace to participate in a "National Policy Advisory Meeting." The three would discuss, face-to-face, issues such as the retirement annuities. They would even talk about whether to hold a national policy conference. Two hours later, Tsai and Su rejected this proposal.

Enough is enough. Ring down the curtain on this sorry farce. As Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jing-pyn put it, the Pension Annuities issue is a matter of law.  It must be handled with caution. He said "Matters of law are the Legislative Yuan's responsibility." He said other issues could be raised in a national policy conference. That would be a different matter. But the Pension Annuity issue is the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan. Wang Jinping's insights underscore a simple fact. The so-called "National Policy Conference on the Retirement Annuity" is a phony issue:

One. Can one address the Retirement Annuity issue without convening a national policy conference? Answer: Of course one can. As Wang Jinpyng noted, Retirement Pension and Annuity Reform is a highly specialized legislative matter. It requires debate by the legislature and by the political parties. They must bear responsibility. They must listen to differing views. A public hearing is perfectly adequate. Whence the need to convene a national policy conference?

When Tsai Ing-wen was DPP chairman, policies such as ECFA had powerful political overtones. Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly refused dialogue with President Ma. Did anyone ever hear her call for a national policy conference on ECFA? Instead Tsai Ing-wen led the DPP onto the streets, and engaged in bloody clashes. ECFA was eventually signed. It was a great achievement. Yet it did not require the convening of a national policy conference. Under DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang, the DPP legislative caucus held overnight sit-ins. The matter was eventually resolved. Did that require the convening of a national policy conference?

Two. Will failure to convene a national policy conference make "blue-green reconciliation" impossible? Answer: Of course not. If the blue and green camps can reconcile, then anything can be reconciled. Over the past two decades, a dozen or so large and small "national policy conferences" have been convened. What, if anything, was "reconciled?" Take the pension fund or end of year condolence fund. Blue-green reconciliation requires nothing more than bipartisan agreement within the legislature. That is enough to ensure the legislative responsibility Wang Jin-pyng spoke of. In this connection, we hope DPP Taipei City Council Members will cease their baseless and unfounded allegations that Mayor Hau Lung-bin's wife accepted a diamond ring as a bribe. Does that too require the convening of a national policy conference? The notion that "national policy conferences contribute to blue-green reconciliation" is a delusion. Two decades of political experience has confirmed that. Anyone who maintains otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous. Based on these reasons, there is no need to convene a national policy conference.

Do not whitewash Tsai Ing-wen's dismal record. Do not turn a blind eye to her political deceit. She did not call for a national policy conference on ECFA, on the Three Laws pertaining to Mainland Students, on US beef imports. She did not call for a national policy conference when Frank Hsieh provoked a storm of controversy over cross-Strait issues. She did not even call for a "party policy conference." Tsai Ing-wen is wearing the "emperors' new clothes." They are transparent ploys. Calling a national policy conference is mere show. It is "selective indignation." Should large sums of public monies be squandered on one? Should social resources be wasted to underwrite her national policy conference publicity stunt? Isn't she underestimating the intelligence of the public on Taiwan?

Three. The third reason one need not convene a national policy conference is that one must not allow insincere and opportunistic politicians to play times mind games on the public. If she wants to take to the streets, then let her take to the streets. If she wants reconciliation, then she can have her reconciliation. The president asked her to dialogue. She refused. She expects others to defer to her every whim. She expects the president "to take the lead in the public dialogue." When she was party chairman, she stubbornly refused to dialogue. Now that she is no longer party chairman, she demands dialogue. She did not call for a national policy conference on ECFA. Instead she took to the streets. She did not call for a national policy conference on the Three Laws pertaining to Mainland Students. Instead DPP legislators squirted superglue into the locks on the doors of the legislature. She did not call for a national policy conference on the U.S. beef imports issue. Instead DPP legislators conducted a sit-in on the legislature floor. She is calling for a national conference only on the retirement annuity issue. Her political deceit has sunk to this level. Whither her credibility?

We are deeply concerned about retirement annuities. But the solution is not another national policy conference. We look forward to blue-green reconciliation. But national policy conferences are hardly the sole means of reconciliation. Over the past two decades we have convened no less than a dozen "National Policy Conferences." The 1996 National Development Conference is considered the most successful one. But in fact the greatest achievement of that conference was bipartisan collusion in an outrageous and disastrous undermining of the constitution. Other national policy conferences were merely rubber stamps. The retirement annuity is an issue that has no utterly no need for a national policy conference. The matter would be far better handled by political parties inside the Legislative Yuan. Whence the need for a national conference?

Politicians should demonstrate good faith and seek reconciliation, always and everywhere. They should not put on a show by calling for a "national policy conference."

Finally, there is the infighting between Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang. Do not take this infighting onto the national stage. Suppose the two decide to meet with President Ma. Which of the two should meet with Ma first? Should they meet with him at the same time? This will probably be impossible to decide. As we can see, Tsai and Su should forget about their phony call for a national policy conference. They should return to the problem of reforming the DPP's cross-Strait policy. If they invite President Ma to a national policy conference on cross-Strait policy, the public will surely approve and applaud.

國是會議鬧夠 勿再歹戲拖棚
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.11.18

蔡英文領著蘇貞昌，主張馬政府出面召集「退休年金國是會議」，被馬總統否決；而馬總統開口邀請蔡蘇二人入府進行「國政諮詢會談」，面商包括退休年金等議題，甚至可談是否召開國是會議，亦在兩個小時後遭到拒絕。

好了，這就夠了，別再歹戲拖棚。立法院長王金平說：退撫年金議題是法律層次問題，應慎重其事，「法律層面的事，應由立法院負起責任。」他說，國是會議若有其他議題，或可另當別論；但退撫年金是立法院的責任。王金平的見解，點出了所謂「退休年金國是會議」只是一個假議題：

一、不開國是會議就不能處理「退休年金」的課題嗎？答案：絕對不是。如王金平言，退撫年金的興革，是一高度專業的立法事件，透過立法機構的政黨辯論，已可承擔責任；至於若要聽取意見，精緻細密的公聽會必可勝任。何勞召開國是會議？

相對而言，在蔡英文民進黨主席任內，如ＥＣＦＡ等政策，政治意涵極為濃重，蔡英文卻曾三番兩次拒絕馬總統相邀進行會談，遑論聽她主張過為ＥＣＦＡ召開國是會議？但是，在蔡英文率領民進黨血染街頭之下，ＥＣＦＡ也已簽成；倘若ＥＣＦＡ是一項巨大成就，卻非成自於「國是會議」。同樣的，在蘇貞昌主席麾下，美牛案鬧到民進黨夜宿議場，而最後亦終獲解決，又難道是成自於「國是會議」？

二、不開國是會議，就不能「藍綠和解」嗎？答案：絕對不是。藍綠若要和解，無事不能和解，無處不可和解；過去近二十年，開了不下十次大大小小、形形色色的「國是會議」，請問「和解」了什麼？即以退休基金或退休人員年終慰問金言，只要兩黨的立院黨團能夠「藍綠和解」，即可承擔起王金平所說「立法院的責任」；何況，倘是希望民進黨議員勿在無憑無據下誣指郝龍斌市長之妻收受鑽戒賄賂，難道也需召開國是會議？二十年來的政治經驗證實，「國是會議可促成藍綠和解」之說，倘非無知，即是故作天真。基於以上兩種理由，即知未必要召開國是會議。

不必為蔡英文塗脂抹粉，假裝看不懂她的政治權術。ＥＣＦＡ她未主張「國是會議」，「陸生三法」她未主張「國是會議」，「美牛案」她未主張「國是會議」；在謝長廷掀起的兩岸議題風暴中，她不僅未主張「國是會議」，連「黨是會議」都沒聽她提起。若能看穿蔡英文的這件「新衣」，即知她主張召開國是會議只是「插花」、「沾醬油」，更是高度「選擇性」的議題操作；然則，倘仍要動用大筆公帑、耗費社會資源去為她打造一個「國是會議超大醬油碟」，豈不低估汙辱了台灣人民的智慧？

因而，不需召開國是會議的第三個理由正是：不能讓不真誠的投機政客次次玩弄國家社會，而竟次次得逞。她要上街頭就上街頭，她要和解就和解。總統請她對話時，她拒絕對話；等她心血來潮，又要總統「引導社會對話」。任黨主席時，堅拒對話；不任黨主席，反而起鬨要對話。於是，ＥＣＦＡ不開國是會議要上街頭，陸生三法不開國是會議要三秒膠，美牛案不開國是會議要夜宿議場，唯獨退休年金要開國是會議。操弄至此，真誠何在？

我們萬分關切退休年金問題，但解決之道並非非國是會議不可；我們更期待藍綠和解，但和解之方亦非只有國是會議。二十年來不下十次的「國是會議」，被認為最成功者是民國八十五年的「國家發展會議」，但那次會議最大的成就，卻是兩黨勾結修出一部完全離譜、貽禍至今的憲法；其他的國是會議，則皆是「大拜拜」。其實，「退休年金」正是最無必要召開國是會議的題目，立法院的政黨互動已優為之。那麼，還要開國是會議嗎？

此時，政治人物應當示範與追求的，應是時時處處皆在的真誠「和解」與「對話」，而絕不在只是一場充滿表演意味的「國是會議」。

最後要指出的是：蔡英文與蘇貞昌的明爭暗鬥，不要搬到國是會議這個舞台來演出，二人若與馬總統見面，連誰先第一個赴會或是共同赴會也可能喬不定，可見一斑。蔡蘇應擱下國是會議這個假議題，回過頭去共同面對民進黨兩岸政策的轉型難題，若能以兩岸政策邀請馬總統召開國是會議，國人必全力喝采，大力贊成！