Monday, January 14, 2013

Ketagalan Boulevard is not the DPP's Permanent Destination

Ketagalan Boulevard is not the DPP's Permanent Destination
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 14, 2012


Summary: Taiwan has never lacked "raging citizens." Nor has it ever lacked protest marches. The DPP in particular, has never lacked "raging citizens." Still less has it lacked protest marches. Merely expressing "rage" is not a solution. Merely expressing "rage" is not a policy. The DPP should rise above "rage." It should offer solutions to Taiwan's problems. The solution to Taiwan's problems is not "rage." The DPP went to a great deal of trouble to lead its supporters to Ketegelan Boulevard and back. It should offer Taiwan a way out in terms of policy.

Full Text below:

Taiwan has never lacked "raging citizens." Nor has it ever lacked protest marches. The DPP in particular, has never lacked "raging citizens." Still less has it lacked protest marches.

The weather of late has been both cold and wet. The protestors' enthusiasm was inspiring. The DPP has repeatedly marched to Ketegelan Boulevard and back. But just exactly where are they leading them? Are they merely spinning their wheels, while awaiting the next Ketegalan Boulevard "Raging Citizens Protest March?"

This particular protest march differed from past protest marches in three respects. One. There were no calls for "upholding sovereignty," or "defending Taiwan." On the one hand, this reflects pressure for reform. On the other hand, it reflects the vacuousness of the DPP's cross-Strait policy. Two. Su Tseng-chang, the instigator of the recent protest march, is the highly controversial. His support within the party and among the public is weak. Three. This is the first time voices from both inside and outside the party have loudly criticized the DPP for failing to include a credible policy proposal as part of the protest march. As critics put it, "All we see is rage. We see no policy proposals."

The protest marchers made three demands. They demanded a cabinet reshuffle. But this demand found little traction. They trumpeted "opposition to pro-[Mainland] China media bias" This demand failed to see the forest for the trees. They demanded "pension reform." This demand is trapped within a political struggle. The protest march was the consequence of "an abundance of rage, a dearth of proposals."

Consider the DPP's demands. The DPP alleges that the media is guilty of "pro-[Mainland] China media bias." Therefore it must not permitted to enjoy a "monopoly." We have no desire to debate the truth or falsity of this allegation. We agree that the media's commentary on social issues is subject to public criticism. But the DPP's "opposition to pro-[Mainland] China media bias" is part and parcel of its own anti-[Mainland] China political bias. It is clearly evading its own bias and indulging in selective indignation.

The DPP is currently under pressure from within to reform its cross-Strait policy. But it has yet to propose a policy that deals with the Big Picture. The DPP's only "China Policy" is to proclaim its "opposition to pro-[Mainland] China media bias." But the media is hardly alone in letting down its guard. The public on Taiwan is at risk in many respects. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lacks any grand strategy for cross-Strait relations. The best the DPP has been able to do, is trot out "opposition to pro-[Mainland] China media bias." What is this, if not failing to see the forest for the trees? What is this, if not seeing the mote in another's eye while ignoring the beam in one's own?

For the past twenty years, the DPP has equated Taiwan independence with cross-Strait policy. Return to the past for a moment. Recall Taiwan independence rhetoric about "demands for freedom of speech" and "calls for a single voice." This forced the public to endure a "death of a thousand cuts." The DPP wants once again to become the ruling party. Can it do nothing more than express "opposition to pro-[Mainland] China media bias?" Is it content to have no forward-looking, comprehensive cross-Strait policy? What is this, but the consequence of "an abundance of rage, a dearth of proposals?"

Now take the pension system for military veterans, civil servants, public school teachers, labor and farmers. The DPP approach is twofold. One. Demean the Legislative Yuan. Call for the convening of a "National Policy Conference." Two. Proclaim that it already has an "alternative," but offer absolutely no details.

If the DPP's undeclared "alternative" compassionately lavishes benefits on the public, it will contradict its current position. If it ruthlessly slashes benefits, it may receive little public support. Can the Presidential Office and the Cabinet reach a reasonable compromise? The public, military veterans, civil servants, public school teachers, labor, and farmers may conclude that if the DPP withdraws, a more reasonable solution is possible. The public may conclude that not convening a "National Policy Conference" was a good thing. The public may decide that they DPP should show them just what "alternative" they have in mind. Why not show us what you have? The DPP may increase or cut benefits. Either way, it will end up on the horns of a dilemma. What is this, if not the consequence of "an abundance of rage, a dearth of proposals?"

It is true. The Ma administration's record is unsatisfactory. Public "rage" and disappointment are universal. As the ruling administration, the Ma government is in no position to accuse the DPP of "an abundance of rage, a dearth of proposals." Instead, it should consider the protest march an indicator of public sentiment. It should examine the defects in its national policy. It should acknowledge the need for reform and improvement.

Critics accuse the protest organizers of having "an abundance of rage, a dearth of proposals." Yesterday, Su Tseng-chang responded to these charges. He announced that the DPP would impeach KMT legislators and President Ma. But this was hardly a declaration of policy. This was nothing more than a call to arms in a political struggle. The DPP is citing the KMT's attempt to impeach Chen Shui-bian as justification for its attempt to impeach Ma Ying-jeou. But Ma is not Chen. The two mens' situations are entirely different. The nation's situation, then and now, are entirely different. The DPP's moves may muddy the water. But it may also cover itself in mud.

Decades of political experience have taught the public that ideology is not policy, political struggle is not reform, and the incitement of social divisions is not love for Taiwan. The DPP is attempting to package deal its impeachment attempt with next year's seven in one elections. But it would be well-advised to make a rational evaluation of the pros and cons of its strategy first.

Merely expressing "rage" is not a solution. Merely expressing "rage" is not a policy. The DPP should rise above "rage." It should offer solutions to Taiwan's problems. The solution to Taiwan's problems is not "rage." The DPP went to a great deal of trouble to lead its supporters to Ketegalan Boulevard and back. It should offer Taiwan a way out in terms of policy.

凱達格蘭大道不是民進黨的永遠終站
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.14 02:56 am

台灣從來不缺「火大」,也不缺「遊行」;民進黨尤其不缺「火大」,更不缺「遊行」。

天寒雨冷,遊行群眾的熱情令人動容;但民進黨次次遊行均在凱達格蘭大道來回往復,究竟要帶著支持者與台灣社會前往何處,或只是空轉內耗,等待再下一次的凱道「火大遊行」?

此次遊行,較諸過去,有三大特徵:一、不見「顧主權」、「護台灣」之類的主題;一方面顯示轉型的壓力,另一方面也反映青黃不接的兩岸政策空虛。二、主持者蘇貞昌儼然是歷次遊行中,最具爭議性的總指揮;在黨內及社會上的支持均相對薄弱。三、「空有火大,不見主張」,這也是首次黨內外皆大聲質疑民進黨未提出可信可行之政策主張的一次遊行。

遊行標舉三大訴求。除「內閣改組」覓無槓桿外,「反傾中媒體」見樹不見林,「年金改革」亦陷於政爭操作,可謂具是「空有火大,不見主張」。

民進黨的訴求是:媒體「傾中」,因此不准其「壟斷」。我們不欲討論此一問題在實質上的真偽正誤,且也認為媒體的言論操作或言論集中是可受公評與應當關切的社會議題。但是,民進黨將「反傾中媒體」置於其一貫的「反中國」論述之下,卻顯得避重就輕,輕重失衡。

民進黨在這一波黨內兩岸政策的轉型風潮中,迄未提出一個足以瞻顧全局的論述,卻只知以「反傾中媒體」來宣示其「中國政策」的立場。然而,豈不知面對「中國」,其實不只媒體可能失守,台灣社會的方方面面亦皆承受重大風險;民進黨在兩岸關係的大戰略及大政策上迄無方案,只會拿「反傾中媒體」來起乩作法,豈不是見樹而不見林,只見他人腳上疥癬,而不見自己的膏肓之患?

何況,二十餘年來,民進黨以「台獨」為「兩岸政策」,何不回想其過去在「台獨」的「快意言論自由」與「意圖言論集中」,使台灣社會承受了多大的政治凌遲?如今,民進黨作為一個想要重返執政的政黨,更總不能只會喊叫「反傾中媒體」,自己卻始終拿不出一套瞻顧全局的「兩岸政策」吧?這豈不是「空有火大,不見主張」?

再言軍公教勞農的年金制度。民進黨的手法是:一、矮化立法院,主張召開國是會議;二、宣稱手上已有「對案」,卻密而不宣。

然而,民進黨密而不宣的對案,若是從優體恤的「加法」,即是自失立場;倘是大砍大殺的「減法」,又未必能獲得社會支持。所以,只要府閣方面的溝通能夠兼顧情理,如果社會大眾及軍公教勞農發現,在民進黨退出的空間中,反而可能是獲得合情合理方案的場域;那麼,整個社會即可能會回過頭來慶幸還好沒有開「國是會議」;而民進黨屆時到立法院端出的「對案」(何不現在端出來?),無論是「加法」或「減法」,恐皆是左右為難,進退失據。這又豈不是空有火大,主張何在?

不過,馬政府的政績確實不如人意,民眾的「火大」與失望可謂人同此心;站在主政者立場,馬政府並無資格指民進黨「空有火大,不見主張」,而應當將這場遊行所反映的民情視作一種砥礪,深刻檢視國政的鏽鈍,知所革新改進。

面對外界「空有火大,不見政策」的質疑,蘇貞昌昨天宣布,將發動罷免立法委員及罷免馬總統。但是,這畢竟不是「政策」的宣示,而是「政治鬥爭」的檄文。民進黨以「當年國民黨罷免陳水扁」,來建立「罷免馬英九」的正當性;但馬與扁的情況不同,今昔國家的處境亦迥異,民進黨的操作或許足可攪渾政局,卻也可能同時搞得自己一身汙泥。

經過數十年的政治閱歷,如今國人越來越知「意識形態」不是「政策」,「政爭」不是「改革」,「撕裂」不是「愛台灣」;民進黨若欲以罷免運動作為綁明年七合一選舉的權謀,恐須對其利弊得失作更清明理智的思索。

「火大」只是方法,「火大」不是政策。民進黨應從「火大」中自我超越,為台灣的難題在「政策」上找到解答。台灣的出路不在「火大」上,民進黨不宜帶著群眾在凱道來回往復,而應在「政策」上為他們找到台灣的生路。

No comments: