Green Camp Celebrates Victory with Confrontation

Green Camp Celebrates Victory with Confrontation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 10, 2014

Executive Summary: The DPP is apparently on the verge of returning to power. But if the  party princes blindly celebrate their victory by engaging in confrontation instead of winning people over through wise governance, they are being foolish indeed. In Tsai Ing-wen’s victory speech she said, "The people have given us their support. But it can be withdrawn at any time." She knows the final mile is the hardest. But are these county chiefs and city mayors too drunk with hubris to care?

Full Text Below:

The Democratic Progressive Party took 13 counties and municipalities during the recent elections. Wen-Je Ko won by a landslide in the capital city of Taipei. The green camp significantly expanded its territory. It won because the ruling KMT lost the peoples’ hearts and minds. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen however has not been carried away by the victory. She said the DPP “must remain vigilant, as if walking on thin ice." She said the DPP must see the KMT’s loss as a warning. Yet lo and behold, little more than a week after the elections, victorious DPP county chiefs and city mayors were talking and acting in just the opposite manner.

It is not wrong to say that the KMT lost this election. But is it right for the DPP to boast that it won this election? No, it is not. The reason is simple. The Kuomintang suffered a crushing defeat. The main reason was that the public was disappointed with the central government’s performance. Many people simply could not bring themselves to cast their ballots for the KMT. Under these circumstances, for the DPP to boast that they did something miraculous to win peoples’ hearts and minds, can only provoke ridicule.

This was why Tsai Ing-wen pledged to remain prudent and low-key about the DPP’s victory. Hers was the right attitude. She knew it was merely a one-time expression of dissatisfaction with the ruling KMT. It was not a heartfelt affirmation of the Democratic Progressive Party. Lest we forget, one of the main reasons Ma government policies could not be implemented was DPP obstructionism. Voters did not take the DPP to task on this during the recent election. But that does not mean they will not take them to task during the next election.

Pundits are scrutinizing the shortcomings of the Ma government. Many in the DPP cannot suppress their Schadenfreude. They constantly reveal their arrogance, even an overweening haughtiness. The most obvious examples are the DPP’s newly-elected county chiefs and city mayors. Upon emerging victorious, they did not inform voters how they intend to restart the economy. Instead, the very first thing they did was launch an attack on the central government. They threatened to push for a "fiscal revenue allocation law" and an "administrative regions law" demanding money and usurping authority from the central government. 

From a political perspective, this is entirely consistent with the DPP strategy of "using local governments to besiege the central government." But from an economic perspective, this is merely more evidence of local DPP government "ineptitude at wealth creation and aptitude at wealth redistribution.” Some DPP ruled counties have become accustomed to the long term abuse of welfare to buy voter support. But repeatedly rejecting necessary construction and development has led to financial embarrassments, accumulated debts, and increased unemployment. Under these circumstances, cities and counties must explore economic alternatives. If they habitually extort money from the central government when it is in trouble, can Taiwan's economy withstand such plundering of a weak central government by strong local governments?

Another result of the DPP victory has been calls to "Free Chen Shui-bian!" Is Chen's physical condition reason for medical parole? That is a question that ought to be decided by medical experts. But DPP county chiefs and city mayors have deliberately politicized the Chen corruption case. They explicitly or implicitly claim that the Chen corruption case was the result of "unjust verdicts" and a "miscarriage of justice." They are attempting to use political means to override the criminal justice system, and mislead the public about the facts of the case.

The green camp has begun a siege of the central government. The pan green “bai li hou” has adopted a confrontational posture. It is attempting to overthrow existing construction plans. The clearest example is Ilan County Chief Lin Tsung-hsien. He and Wen-Je Ko are demanding that the “Taipei-Ilan Direct Railway Line” plan be discarded, and the "shortest route" be adopted. In order to save eight to nine minutes of time, they are willing to jeopardize the safety and natural beauty of the Jade Reservoir. Wen-Je Ko considers himself smarter than other people. Whenever he challenges existing policies, he adopts an air of unassailable righteousness. But these routes were subjected to careful planning. Environmentalists, geologists, and ecologists have debated the options repeatedly. Why does a surgeon think he knows more than these experts?

Ko’s "Ilan direct railway route" is hardly an isolated case. The same drama is playing out in Taoyuan and Keelung. Taoyuan City Mayor Elect Cheng Wen-chan is demanding the overthrow of the already finalized "Nan Tao elevated railway plan" and demanding that it be built underground. He is even blackmailing Taoyuan by threatening to stop payment of 10 billion NTD. In Keelung, Lin You-chang is demanding that the Taipei MRT Bannan Line be extended to Keelung. He wants to overturn the Executive Yuan’s original decision to extend the Xizhi Minsheng Line. How these two construction projects should proceed may be a matter of opinion. But the plans are subject to real world constraints, and most of all, by limited funds. If every project on Taiwan must be built to the highest standards and biggest budgets, where will the money come from? Won’t these plans sacrifice the interests of other communities?

Even more incredibly, Tu Hsing-che insists on changing the name of "Chueiyang Road" in Chiayi City to “Chen Cheng-po Avenue." Why? Because he considers the name “chuei yang” to be "prejudicial to masculine honor." Chuei Yang means “hanging poplar.” But Tu Hsing-che thinks it can be read as “non-erect phallus.” When Tu Hsing-che raised this issue before the election, his poll numbers plummeted. After the election everyone assumed the matter would be laid to rest. But Tu insists that the issue be the subject of a public referendum. Is changing the name of old streets really the highest priority?

The DPP is apparently on the verge of returning to power. But if the  party princes blindly celebrate their victory by engaging in confrontation instead of winning people over through wise governance, they are being foolish indeed. In Tsai Ing-wen’s victory speech she said, "The people have given us their support. But it can be withdrawn at any time." She knows the final mile is the hardest. But are these county chiefs and city mayors too drunk with hubris to care?

綠營決以對抗模式慶祝勝選？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.10 01:54 am

民進黨在這次選舉中豪取十三個縣市，加上柯文哲在首都的大勝，泛綠執政版圖大幅擴張。因執政黨的不得人心而暴得勝利，民進黨主席蔡英文並未被欣喜沖昏頭，表示「誠惶誠恐、如履薄冰」，並強調會以國民黨的失敗為警惕。然而，觀察選後一個多星期以來民進黨新科縣市長們的言行，卻似與此背道而馳。

老實說，分析這次選舉結果，固然可以說國民黨敗得一點都不冤枉，但是民進黨能宣稱自己贏得理直氣壯嗎？恐怕不然！原因無他，國民黨這次落得一敗塗地，主要是中央執政成績欠佳使民眾失望，讓許多人覺得「投不下去」；在這種情況下，民進黨若要宣稱自己做了什麼大獲民心之舉而贏得勝選，只怕會招來訕笑。

也因此，蔡英文對勝利當頭而保持審慎的低調，是正確的態度；因為她了解這只是一次民意對執政黨的倒戈，而不是全民對民進黨的心悅誠服。更何況，馬政府施政之難以施展，其實有很大成分是受到民進黨的激烈掣肘所致；這筆帳，這次選舉無法清算，並不表示下次選舉不會被提起。

然而，正當輿論全面檢討馬政府施政缺失之際，民進黨不少人卻抑不住勝利的狂喜，而不斷露出驕態，甚至表現出唯我獨尊的倨傲。最明顯的例子是，民進黨新科縣市首長勝選後的第一件事，不是向選民談如何為地方創造財富，而是集體向中央政府叫陣，揚言推動《財政收支劃分法》和《行政區劃法》的修法，向中央搶錢、搶權。

從政治面看，這是民進黨「以地方包圍中央」的一貫策略；但從經濟面看，這卻是地方政府「拙於生產、巧於爭錢」現象的進一步惡化。民進黨長期執政的一些縣市慣於濫用社福措施討好選民，卻又屢屢否決相關的建設開發，導致財政越來越困窘，債務越積越多，失業率越來越高。在這種情況下，各縣市若不開發經濟出路，一味想對中央政府趁火打劫，台灣的經濟和財政豈禁得起這樣「弱中央、強地方」的掠奪嗎？

民進黨勝選軍團另一項急如星火的聯合訴求，是呼籲「釋放陳水扁」。陳水扁的身體狀況是否能獲保外就醫的機會，理應經由專業的評估決定，但民進黨縣市長的訴求，甚至故意將扁案政治化，明示或暗示扁案是「不公平審判」的結果，是個「冤獄」。這種態度，是試圖用政治手段干預司法，並誤導民眾對正義的認知。

除了發起包圍中央的戰爭，泛綠新百里侯也開始以對抗的姿態，試圖推翻一些既定的建設計畫。最具代表性的例子，是柯文哲聯合宜蘭縣長林聰賢要求對四月核定的「北宜直鐵」路線翻案，要求採「最短路線」，為了搶八、九分鐘的時間，寧可賭上翡翠水庫的安全與品質。柯文哲自許聰明過人，他要質疑或推翻什麼都理直氣壯；但是，這些路線的規劃與選擇早已經過不同環境、地質、生態專家的多少次辯論，憑什麼一名外科醫師覺得自己的才智可以壓倒這些專家？

「北宜直鐵」遭到質疑並非特例，桃園和基隆也有類似情事。桃園市長當選人鄭文燦要求推翻已定案的「南桃鐵路高架化方案」，要求改採地下化，甚至不惜以停編桃園要負擔的一百億元為要脅。基隆的林右昌則堅持捷運延伸至基隆之規劃，必須改採「板南線延伸」，推翻由「汐止民生線」延伸的行政院原決定。這兩項建設要如何選擇，容或見仁見智，但除了計畫本身的條件及可行性，問題主要都在經費是否容許；試想，若全台各地都要求以最高預算執行最佳計畫，政府財政哪裡足夠支應？如此一來，豈不要犧牲其他地方的利益？

更令人匪夷所思的，是涂醒哲執意將嘉義市的「垂楊路」更名「陳澄波大道」，理由竟是垂楊二字「有損男性雄風」。涂醒哲在選前提出此議時，曾一度讓他的選情跌落谷底；選後各方認為此議可以休矣，但他竟然堅持將此案交付公投。改掉一個有歷史記憶的路名，真是施政優先重點嗎？

民進黨在「重返執政」的路上大勢看好，如果這些諸侯們一味採取「對抗模式」來慶祝勝利，而不是透過良性的「治理模式」來爭取人心，絕非明智的選擇。那天蔡英文在勝選演說中說：「人民給予我們的支持，也隨時可能被收回」；她知道最難的是最後一哩路，但那些狂傲的縣市長在乎嗎？