The President and the Character Issue

The President and the Character Issue
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 31, 2008

Over the past few days, DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh, by playing his “green card,” left the Ma Ying-jeou camp scrambling to play catch up. First denials. Then press conferences. First aides speak. Then text messages offer clarifications. In terms of election tactics, media spin control, and viewer perception, the Hsieh camp has certainly demonstrated its combat effectiveness. But after such attention-grabbing campaign ploys, we would like to ask a more profound question: What kind of president does the Republic of China need in the coming years? Voters need to first consider this issue. Only then can they arrive at a clear judgment concerning the green card controversy.

Citizens of the Republic of China need to ask what kind of leadership the nation needs. They need to make comparisons with past presidents. Peoples’ expectations vary with their social context. If their lives are predictable and boring, they may long for something new. If their lives are in turmoil, they may long for a steady leader. As we look back at the pain inflicted upon the people over the past eight years, it is not hard to guess what the people on Taiwan hope for.

President Chen has been in office for eight years. No one on the island, no one on the other side of the Taiwan Strait, no one among our foreign allies trusts our national leader. To opposition leaders such as Lien Chan, Chen Shui-bian will pretend to listen attentively to suggestions on the issue of nuclear power generation, even as he is announcing the suspension of construction on the No. Four Nuclear Plant. To Beijing, he will announce his Five Noes Policy, then do a complete about face by proclaiming “One Nation, Each Side.” To Washington, he will promise to maintain the status quo for the duration of his term, then abruptly declare that Taiwan must join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan. He will hammer away relentlessly at “nativism,” integrity, and “love for Taiwan,” all the while winking as his relatives and cronies engage in corruption, the abuse of power, and bullying behavior . It is said that “A man is only as good as his word.” Because its leaders are capricious and untrustworthy, the DPP has nothing to show for its eight years in office. Take Taipei/Washington relations for example. The US once staunchly supported the DPP. Now Chen Shui-bian is no longer allowed to transit the continental United States. US officials of all ranks have been issuing stern warnings to the DPP. This is a sign of their intense frustration with a capricious president whose solemn assurances mean nothing.

In fact, citizens of the ROC feel the same way as the USA. Uncle Sammy is sick to death of the DPP manipulating cross-straits relations and so-called “ethnic divisions,” more precisely “social tensions.” Mainland China plays an increasingly important role on the world economic stage. Therefore a chill in cross-strait relations is tantamount to a freeze in Taiwan’s economic environment. During the past eight years, most Taiwan businesses have taken this fact to heart and hope to see change. Citizens of the ROC understand that the key to improved cross-strait relations is mutual trust. Not insincere lip service. Not semantic games. Not sophistry. Not the belated invoking of “hard logic” as an excuse to break off talks. As long as leaders are content to play smarmy word games with “active management, effective opening,” or “active opening, effective management,” or “case by case, flexible management,” then neither cross-strait relations nor Taiwan’s economic situation can improve.

Only after understanding the public’s expectations, can we comment on Ma Ying-jeou’s green card controversy. We agree with Jason Hu. He did not believe it was necessary to dig up dirt on the candidates’ past. Twenty years ago, Ma Ying-jeou held a green card. He wasn’t a government official back then. His future was uncertain. He may have considered becoming a lawyer in the United States. Possession of a green card can hardly be considered an act of treason. In the 20 years since, every time Ma Ying-jeou entered the United States he applied for a visa. Substantively speaking the “green card” issue is a non-issue. Public criticism has concentrated on the Ma Ying-jeou camp’s underestimation of its opponent and its inept handling of the matter. The public has not faulted Ma for having held a green card. By contrast, the media has been awed by the Hsieh camp’s sophistication in setting its agendas, designing its pitfalls, and entrapping its opponent. But are such tactics conducive to Hsieh’ election campaign? We really can’t say.

When the Ma Ying-jeou camp was tripping over its own tongue trying to get its story straight, the public decided that Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign committee was a bunch of klutzes, that the KMT’s election moves were not terribly well coordinated. When Frank Hsieh used the green card issue on his opponent, the public agreed that the way his team waged his election campaign was indeed slick. It wasn’t far from Su Tseng-chang’s characterization of Frank Hsieh last year. Su called Hsieh “conniving.” Following the Legislative Yuan debacle, Frank Hsieh promised to take the middle road, to compete against KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou in a gentlemanly fashion. He promised not to persist in practices that made people disgusted with the DPP. But within two short weeks the Hsieh campaign was back to muck-raking and mud-slinging. We have no desire to pass judgment on the two camps’ election strategies. We merely wish to remind citizens of the Republic of China not to allow the candidates to lead you around by the nose, by means of tactical ploys. Maintain a strategic vision. Think about what character traits a President of the Republic of China ought to have. Once you have thought this question through, the details are not that important.

Fifty years ago, both Ma and Hsieh were awarded Gold Stars for Good Behavior in kindergarten. Does anyone really care about such matters today?

重新思考總統應有的人格特質
中國時報
2008.01.31　

　最近數日，民進黨總統候選人謝長廷以一記簡單的「綠卡」招式，就弄得馬英九團隊手忙腳亂。先是否認、後是記者會；先由幕僚發言、再有簡訊澄清。就選戰戰術、新聞操作、閱聽觀感各方面而言，謝營都展現出其戰鬥力。但在精彩選戰操作之後，我們倒是很想問一個更深刻的問題：台灣接下來這幾年，需要一位什麼樣的總統？選民必須要先思考這個問題，才能對此次的綠卡風波做清楚的判斷。

　要問台灣人民需要什麼樣的國家領導，當然要與我們過去的總統對照比較。一般而言，人民的期待是有社會情境背景的。若是生活平順沉悶，也許就想要嘗鮮試猛；若是久經動盪，也許就期待踏實沉穩的領導人。回顧過去八年台灣政局烙印在民眾心靈上的痛楚，或許我們也就不難對當前的台灣人民期待，做一番解讀了。

　陳總統執政八年下來，不論是台灣政壇、對岸領導或國際盟邦，大概都對我們的國家領導人產生極大的不信任感。對國內的反對黨，阿扁可以一邊聽連戰核電建言、另一邊宣布核四停建。對於中國大陸，他則是先說四不一沒有，後主張一邊一國。對於美國，他宣稱任內不改變現狀，卻又要以台灣名義加入聯合國。對於人民，他一再強調本土、清廉、愛台、主體，卻縱容家人及親信貪腐、濫權、跋扈、撕裂。「人無信不立」；正由於領導人這樣的輕浮善變、輕諾寡信，所以民進黨執政八年幾乎是難以成事。以台美關係為例，美國人從對民進黨的極度支持，到不再讓阿扁過境美國本土、再到大小官員對台灣聲色俱厲地提出警告，正是反映出他們對一位善變寡信總統的不耐與厭煩。

　其實，美國人的感受多少也正是台灣人的感受。老美厭煩民進黨炒作兩岸關係，其實與台灣人民厭煩撩撥統獨、族群議題如出一轍。由於中國大陸在世界經濟舞台中扮演的角色日益重要，兩岸關係的冷凍幾乎就等同於台灣經濟大環境的冷凍。八年下來，大多數台灣企業對此都了然於心，也都希望看到改變。台灣人民也理解，兩岸關係的解凍，最重要的就是要建立彼此的互信，不要在言語上、文字上玩些小花樣、留些小步數，事後再以「嚴密的邏輯」拗掰。如果國家領導人只是在「積極管理、有效開放」或「積極開放、有效管理」或「個案審查、彈性管理」上耍些嘴皮，那麼兩岸關係與台灣經濟斷無改善之可能。

　明瞭前述的人民期待，我們就可以回過頭來評論馬英九這次綠卡的爭議。平心而論，我們很同意胡志強的主張，認為這次總統大選不需要對候選人「上古」時代雞毛蒜皮的往事扒糞。馬英九持有綠卡是廿幾年前的事；當年，他只是擔任中階公務人員，生涯規畫還不確定，也許考慮赴美擔任律師，持有一張綠卡恐怕稱不上大奸大惡。廿幾年間，馬英九如果每次赴美都申請簽證，實質上也就沒有「持綠卡」的疑慮。正因為如此，輿論對此次之風波，都是從團隊輕敵、處理不當的角度切入分析，而未予苛責。另一方面，媒體對於謝團隊切割問題、分段提問、設計陷阱、誘敵深入的戰術，都認為操作高明。但若是回過頭來問一問這樣的戰術是否有利於選情，恐怕就得打個問號了。

　當馬英九陣營左支右絀、三番兩次更正發言時，外界都認為馬團隊很愚拙、國民黨的競選招式很不靈活。當謝長廷以綠卡問題設局誘敵成功的時候，外界也都同意，他們打選戰確實是油滑機伶，離蘇貞昌去年批評的「奸巧」二字，只有一線之隔。在立委選後，謝長廷曾經承諾未來會展現中道，和國民黨總統參選人馬英九良性競爭，不會讓人民繼續厭惡民進黨。可是在短短兩周之後，謝團隊就再以戰術扒糞而揚威。我們無意對雙方選戰策略的應然面下斷語，只是要提醒台灣人民：不要太被候選人一時操作的戰術與策略牽著走，而是要從更宏觀的高度，來思考台灣總統所應該具備的人格特質。想清楚這個問題，其餘細節也就不重要了。

　閒話一句：五十多年前馬謝二人讀幼稚園時，各有領到幾張「乖寶寶」的貼紙，今天真的有人會在乎嗎?

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2008

As we approach the presidential election, the Democratic Progressive Party has been warning people that if the DPP loses the presidential election on the heels of the legislative election, the Republic of China will return to a one-party state, and that the ROC’s democracy may regress. DPP legislators are also demanding a constitutional interpretation. They are challenging the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system, claiming that it violates the principle that “all votes should be equal.” Chen Shui-bian meanwhile has rejected the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet’s resignation. He has made clear all personnel are to remain put. Faced with so many uncertain political developments, and knowing that democracy must not regress, we have made the following observations.

First of all, for a single political party to win a stable majority in the legislature, win the presidential election, gaining control over both the executive and legislative branches, is entirely consistent with the requirements of democracy. It is not a regressive step, as long as it is the people’s free choice, as expressed by their votes. In every presidential, semi-presidential, or dual-leadership system in the world, a single political party often gains control of both the legislative and executive branches following an election. This is hardly something to be alarmed about. In every cabinet system state in the world, the party that wins a stable majority in the parliament automatically gains control of both the legislative and executive branches. This is the democratic norm. On the contrary, it is divided government that is abnormal. It is abnormal for a party that has won a majority in the legislative and presidential elections to be relegated to the status of an opposition party for eight years. For democracy to advance from abnormal to normal can only be described as progress, not regress.

Eight years ago, the KMT lost the presidential election, but retained a majority in the Legislative Yuan. The KMT handed over executive power to president elect Chen Shui-bian, who mocked the legislature as representatives of the “old mandate.” Chen proclaimed that he was the representative of a “new mandate,” despite the fact that he received merely 39% of the votes. Times have changed. Now the president would appear to be the representative of the “old mandate.” Yet when confronting the legislature, which represents a new mandate, he denounces it as a setback for democracy. Does this wash? Only voters who vote for the DPP represent the people. Voters who vote for rival political parties do not represent the people. What is truly regressive is the DPP’s anti-democratic attitude.

Secondly, as they approach the end of their terms, DPP legislators have filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system. Is this progressive, or regressive? Never mind that the new electoral system was something the DPP demanded, a key plank in its policy platform. Never mind that it required a constitutional amendment, one that the DPP rammed through the legislature by holding a hunger strike. The DPP is now doing an about face. It is now denouncing its own system for unfairness based on the outcome of the election. Forget the DPP’s contempt for the democratic process. How about its utter lack of sportsmanship? Their constitutional challenge alleges that the single member district electoral system violates the constitutional principle that “all votes should be equal.” But the single member district electoral system was subjected to the referendum process. It was the result of a constitutional amendment. How can one demand that a written provision already part of a constitutional amendment be declared unconstitutional? The single member district electoral system has been applied to the administrative districts of municipalities and counties, all in accordance with constitutional requirements. How can these be considered unconstitutional? Is the DPP trying to tell us that single member district electoral systems are unconstitutional per se? This is unheard of. We have no desire to get too exercised over the fact that such unheard of constitutional challenges will be presented to the Grand Justices. What worries us is the anti-democratic attitude behind the DPP’s refusal to admit defeat. It is akin to the host of a tournament complaining that the home team lost because the host’s ground rules were unfair. To refuse to accept the outcome of a game merely because one lost is hardly a democratic and progressive attitude.

Thirdly, the requirement that the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet resign at the end of the legislative term is not mere convention. It is a clear cut requirement imposed by the Grand Justices during a previous constitutional interpretation (Interpretation 387). The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet submitted its joint resignation. What right does the president have to decide that the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution no longer applies? Can a president wilfully ignore the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution? Why did President Chen retain the cabinet by rejecting its joint resignation? The Grand Justices have already explained that the resignation of a cabinet at the end of a legislative term is a “compulsory resignation.” The cabinet must resign. It has no choice. Nor can the president refuse to accept its resignation. (Interpretations 387, 419) If on the other hand, the cabinet resigns during the president’s term of office, its resignation is a “courtesy resignation.” (Interpretation 419). In other words, it can either resign or not resign. For Chen Shui-bian to reject the cabinet’s resignation is contrary to constitutional intent. His hidden agenda is to retain the cabinet. If Hsieh is elected president, the cabinet will stage a showdown with the legislature. It will respond only to the president. It will refuse to respond to the legislature. If Ma Ying-jeou is elected president, the cabinet can then refuse to submit courtesy resignations. Since the Grand Justices have said they have no obligation to resign in such a case, the cabinet will refuse to resign and refuse to hand over executive power. If the legislature attempts to bring down the cabinet via a vote of no-confidence, the Executive Yuan will demand a constitutional interpretation. The DPP will allege that the electoral system for the legislative elections is unconstitutional. It has already filed an appeal for a constitutional interpretation, alleging that the legislature has no legitimacy. If the ruling regime’s overall strategy is to selectively twist the meaning of the constitution, and to refuse to hand over power when defeated at the polls, that can hardly be termed democratic and progressive.

The ruling DPP is displaying utter contempt for the new public mandate. It is demanding constitutional interpretations to negate the results of the parliamentary elections. It is resorting to unconstitutional means to reject the cabinet resignation. It is attempting to leave open the possibility of refusing to hand over political power in the event of a debacle in the presidential election. We have good reason to worry that the Republic of China’s system of constitutional government is on the verge of regression. The ruling DPP may well attempt to split asunder a duly elected government by such unconstitutional and underhanded means. Let us hope are fears are unfounded.

台灣的民主是否進入退步期？
中國時報 2008.01.30　

　民進黨面對即將到來的總統選戰，不斷提醒國人，如果總統選舉民進黨再度敗選，台灣將要恢復一黨獨大的狀態，並警告台灣的民主恐將進入退步期；另一方面民進黨立委也預備提案聲請釋憲，挑戰單一選區制度違反憲法上「票票等值」原則，陳水扁總統則同時退回張俊雄內閣總辭，以張內閣原班人馬留任。面對充滿變數的政治發展，思考台灣的民主不能退步，在這有以下諸點觀察。

　首先，單一政黨獲得勝選並掌握國會穩定多數，甚至進而贏得總統選舉同時掌握行政與立法兩權，只要是出自人民透過選票的自由選擇，就符合民主要求，不是民主的倒退。世界上所有的總統制、半總統制或雙首長制國家，經常出現單一政黨先後在總統與國會大選中獲勝同時掌握立法與行政兩權的現象，並不值得大驚小怪；世界上所有的內閣制國家，贏得國會穩定多數的政黨，都必然同時掌握立法權與行政權，這一向就是民主政治的常態。反而是台灣過去在國會及總統選舉中難得取得超過半數以上選票的政黨，以少數政府的行政權與國會的立法權對抗八年之久，才是異態。民主從異態進入常態，只能說是進步，不能說是退步。

　八年前，國民黨輸了總統大選，仍在立法院中掌握多數，國民黨交出了政權，當時得票不滿四成的陳水扁總統以代表新民意自居，譏諷國會是舊民意的象徵。現在時移勢易，總統似乎該被視為舊民意的代表了，面對新民意的國會，卻質疑為民主退步的現象，說得過去嗎？只認為支持自己的是人民，不承認投票給對手政黨的多數是人民，這種民主素養，才是退步！

　第二，民進黨立委們在任期終了前夕，聯手提案聲請大法官釋憲，挑戰單一選區選舉制度違憲，這是民主的進步還是退步呢？且不說新選制曾經是民進黨堅持的政見主張，是民進黨人不惜用絕食換來的修憲成果，現在反口要用制度不公為由挑戰敗選的結局，缺乏民主政治裡的運動家精神。聲請釋憲的基調是說單一選制違反「票票等值」的憲法原則，可是單一選制是立院提案經過複決完成修憲程序後，已寫成憲法增修條文的規定，是要釋憲者說修憲違憲嗎？單一選區跟著直轄市與縣市的行政區域劃分而走，也是憲法增修條文的要求，怎會構成違憲呢？難道單一選區制度是修憲不能逾越的界線？似是聞所未聞的主張。我們並不想擔心聞所未聞的憲法主張交給大法官解釋，但對於隱藏在主張背後不肯認輸的反民主態度，深感應該提高警覺。好像主辦球賽地主隊在輸球後說是主辦單位公布的球賽規則不公；敗了想要否定賽制來否定比賽結果，絕對不是民主進步的表現。

　第三、張俊雄內閣在立委任期屆滿時總辭，可不是憲政慣例而已，而是大法官曾為憲法解釋（釋三八七）的明白要求。張俊雄內閣據之提出總辭，總統憑什麼自行認定大法官的憲法解釋業已失效？總統應該任意忽視或否定大法官的憲法解釋嗎？那麼陳總統為何用退回總辭案的方式留任內閣呢？大法官曾經解釋過，內閣跟著立委改選辭職，是「義務性辭職」，也就是非辭不可，總統不能拒絕（釋三八七、四一九）；內閣若是在總統上任時辭職，則是「禮貌性辭職」（釋四一九），也就是可辭可不辭。陳水扁退回內閣總辭，是違反憲法解釋意旨的動作，其背後的玄機可能在於保留張內閣在任，謝長廷選上總統，內閣就正式向國會攤牌，只對總統負責，不對國會負責；馬英九選上總統，張內閣則可拒為禮貌性辭職，因為大法官說過並無辭職的義務，所以內閣拒絕辭職交出政權。屆時若國會要以不信任投票倒閣，行政院還可說國會選制違憲，已經聲請釋憲，國會並無正當性。執政者總的策略，如果就是選擇性的玩弄憲法文字，拒絕在敗選時交出政權，絕非民主進步。

　如果可以無視最新展現的多數民意，利用聲請釋憲埋藏否定國會選舉結果，再以違憲的手法退回內閣總辭案，預留總統大選敗選時拒不交出政權的可能性，我們就有理由擔心，台灣的民主正在進入退步期，而且可能因此裂解民選政府正當性的手段，但願我們只是杞人憂天！

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2008

As we approach the presidential election, the Democratic Progressive Party has been warning people that if the DPP loses the presidential election on the heels of the legislative election, the Republic of China will return to a one-party state, and that the ROC’s democracy may regress. DPP legislators are also demanding a constitutional interpretation. They are challenging the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system, claiming that it violates the principle that “all votes should be equal.” Chen Shui-bian meanwhile has rejected the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet’s resignation. He has made clear all personnel are to remain put. Faced with so many uncertain political developments, and knowing that democracy must not regress, we have made the following observations.

First of all, for a single political party to win a stable majority in the legislature, win the presidential election, gaining control over both the executive and legislative branches, is entirely consistent with the requirements of democracy. It is not a regressive step, as long as it is the people’s free choice, as expressed by their votes. In every presidential, semi-presidential, or dual-leadership system in the world, a single political party often gains control of both the legislative and executive branches following an election. This is hardly something to be alarmed about. In every cabinet system state in the world, the party that wins a stable majority in the parliament automatically gains control of both the legislative and executive branches. This is the democratic norm. On the contrary, it is divided government that is abnormal. It is abnormal for a party that has won a majority in the legislative and presidential elections to be relegated to the status of an opposition party for eight years. For democracy to advance from abnormal to normal can only be described as progress, not regress.

Eight years ago, the KMT lost the presidential election, but retained a majority in the Legislative Yuan. The KMT handed over executive power to president elect Chen Shui-bian, who mocked the legislature as representatives of the “old mandate.” Chen proclaimed that he was the representative of a “new mandate,” despite the fact that he received merely 39% of the votes. Times have changed. Now the president would appear to be the representative of the “old mandate.” Yet when confronting the legislature, which represents a new mandate, he denounces it as a setback for democracy. Does this wash? Only voters who vote for the DPP represent the people. Voters who vote for rival political parties do not represent the people. What is truly regressive is the DPP’s anti-democratic attitude.

Secondly, as they approach the end of their terms, DPP legislators have filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system. Is this progressive, or regressive? Never mind that the new electoral system was something the DPP demanded, a key plank in its policy platform. Never mind that it required a constitutional amendment, one that the DPP rammed through the legislature by holding a hunger strike. The DPP is now doing an about face. It is now denouncing its own system for unfairness based on the outcome of the election. Forget the DPP’s contempt for the democratic process. How about its utter lack of sportsmanship? Their constitutional challenge alleges that the single member district electoral system violates the constitutional principle that “all votes should be equal.” But the single member district electoral system was subjected to the referendum process. It was the result of a constitutional amendment. How can one demand that a written provision already part of a constitutional amendment be declared unconstitutional? The single member district electoral system has been applied to the administrative districts of municipalities and counties, all in accordance with constitutional requirements. How can these be considered unconstitutional? Is the DPP trying to tell us that single member district electoral systems are unconstitutional per se? This is unheard of. We have no desire to get too exercised over the fact that such unheard of constitutional challenges will be presented to the Grand Justices. What worries us is the anti-democratic attitude behind the DPP’s refusal to admit defeat. It is akin to the host of a tournament complaining that the home team lost because the host’s ground rules were unfair. To refuse to accept the outcome of a game merely because one lost is hardly a democratic and progressive attitude.

Thirdly, the requirement that the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet resign at the end of the legislative term is not mere convention. It is a clear cut requirement imposed by the Grand Justices during a previous constitutional interpretation (Interpretation 387). The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet submitted its joint resignation. What right does the president have to decide that the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution no longer applies? Can a president wilfully ignore the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution? Why did President Chen retain the cabinet by rejecting its joint resignation? The Grand Justices have already explained that the resignation of a cabinet at the end of a legislative term is a “compulsory resignation.” The cabinet must resign. It has no choice. Nor can the president refuse to accept its resignation. (Interpretations 387, 419) If on the other hand, the cabinet resigns during the president’s term of office, its resignation is a “courtesy resignation.” (Interpretation 419). In other words, it can either resign or not resign. For Chen Shui-bian to reject the cabinet’s resignation is contrary to constitutional intent. His hidden agenda is to retain the cabinet. If Hsieh is elected president, the cabinet will stage a showdown with the legislature. It will respond only to the president. It will refuse to respond to the legislature. If Ma Ying-jeou is elected president, the cabinet can then refuse to submit courtesy resignations. Since the Grand Justices have said they have no obligation to resign in such a case, the cabinet will refuse to resign and refuse to hand over executive power. If the legislature attempts to bring down the cabinet via a vote of no-confidence, the Executive Yuan will demand a constitutional interpretation. The DPP will allege that the electoral system for the legislative elections is unconstitutional. It has already filed an appeal for a constitutional interpretation, alleging that the legislature has no legitimacy. If the ruling regime’s overall strategy is to selectively twist the meaning of the constitution, and to refuse to hand over power when defeated at the polls, that can hardly be termed democratic and progressive.

The ruling DPP is displaying utter contempt for the new public mandate. It is demanding constitutional interpretations to negate the results of the parliamentary elections. It is resorting to unconstitutional means to reject the cabinet resignation. It is attempting to leave open the possibility of refusing to hand over political power in the event of a debacle in the presidential election. We have good reason to worry that the Republic of China’s system of constitutional government is on the verge of regression. The ruling DPP may well attempt to split asunder a duly elected government by such unconstitutional and underhanded means. Let us hope are fears are unfounded.

台灣的民主是否進入退步期？
中國時報 2008.01.30　

　民進黨面對即將到來的總統選戰，不斷提醒國人，如果總統選舉民進黨再度敗選，台灣將要恢復一黨獨大的狀態，並警告台灣的民主恐將進入退步期；另一方面民進黨立委也預備提案聲請釋憲，挑戰單一選區制度違反憲法上「票票等值」原則，陳水扁總統則同時退回張俊雄內閣總辭，以張內閣原班人馬留任。面對充滿變數的政治發展，思考台灣的民主不能退步，在這有以下諸點觀察。

　首先，單一政黨獲得勝選並掌握國會穩定多數，甚至進而贏得總統選舉同時掌握行政與立法兩權，只要是出自人民透過選票的自由選擇，就符合民主要求，不是民主的倒退。世界上所有的總統制、半總統制或雙首長制國家，經常出現單一政黨先後在總統與國會大選中獲勝同時掌握立法與行政兩權的現象，並不值得大驚小怪；世界上所有的內閣制國家，贏得國會穩定多數的政黨，都必然同時掌握立法權與行政權，這一向就是民主政治的常態。反而是台灣過去在國會及總統選舉中難得取得超過半數以上選票的政黨，以少數政府的行政權與國會的立法權對抗八年之久，才是異態。民主從異態進入常態，只能說是進步，不能說是退步。

　八年前，國民黨輸了總統大選，仍在立法院中掌握多數，國民黨交出了政權，當時得票不滿四成的陳水扁總統以代表新民意自居，譏諷國會是舊民意的象徵。現在時移勢易，總統似乎該被視為舊民意的代表了，面對新民意的國會，卻質疑為民主退步的現象，說得過去嗎？只認為支持自己的是人民，不承認投票給對手政黨的多數是人民，這種民主素養，才是退步！

　第二，民進黨立委們在任期終了前夕，聯手提案聲請大法官釋憲，挑戰單一選區選舉制度違憲，這是民主的進步還是退步呢？且不說新選制曾經是民進黨堅持的政見主張，是民進黨人不惜用絕食換來的修憲成果，現在反口要用制度不公為由挑戰敗選的結局，缺乏民主政治裡的運動家精神。聲請釋憲的基調是說單一選制違反「票票等值」的憲法原則，可是單一選制是立院提案經過複決完成修憲程序後，已寫成憲法增修條文的規定，是要釋憲者說修憲違憲嗎？單一選區跟著直轄市與縣市的行政區域劃分而走，也是憲法增修條文的要求，怎會構成違憲呢？難道單一選區制度是修憲不能逾越的界線？似是聞所未聞的主張。我們並不想擔心聞所未聞的憲法主張交給大法官解釋，但對於隱藏在主張背後不肯認輸的反民主態度，深感應該提高警覺。好像主辦球賽地主隊在輸球後說是主辦單位公布的球賽規則不公；敗了想要否定賽制來否定比賽結果，絕對不是民主進步的表現。

　第三、張俊雄內閣在立委任期屆滿時總辭，可不是憲政慣例而已，而是大法官曾為憲法解釋（釋三八七）的明白要求。張俊雄內閣據之提出總辭，總統憑什麼自行認定大法官的憲法解釋業已失效？總統應該任意忽視或否定大法官的憲法解釋嗎？那麼陳總統為何用退回總辭案的方式留任內閣呢？大法官曾經解釋過，內閣跟著立委改選辭職，是「義務性辭職」，也就是非辭不可，總統不能拒絕（釋三八七、四一九）；內閣若是在總統上任時辭職，則是「禮貌性辭職」（釋四一九），也就是可辭可不辭。陳水扁退回內閣總辭，是違反憲法解釋意旨的動作，其背後的玄機可能在於保留張內閣在任，謝長廷選上總統，內閣就正式向國會攤牌，只對總統負責，不對國會負責；馬英九選上總統，張內閣則可拒為禮貌性辭職，因為大法官說過並無辭職的義務，所以內閣拒絕辭職交出政權。屆時若國會要以不信任投票倒閣，行政院還可說國會選制違憲，已經聲請釋憲，國會並無正當性。執政者總的策略，如果就是選擇性的玩弄憲法文字，拒絕在敗選時交出政權，絕非民主進步。

　如果可以無視最新展現的多數民意，利用聲請釋憲埋藏否定國會選舉結果，再以違憲的手法退回內閣總辭案，預留總統大選敗選時拒不交出政權的可能性，我們就有理由擔心，台灣的民主正在進入退步期，而且可能因此裂解民選政府正當性的手段，但願我們只是杞人憂天！

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2008

As we approach the presidential election, the Democratic Progressive Party has been warning people that if the DPP loses the presidential election on the heels of the legislative election, the Republic of China will return to a one-party state, and that the ROC’s democracy may regress. DPP legislators are also demanding a constitutional interpretation. They are challenging the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system, claiming that it violates the principle that “all votes should be equal.” Chen Shui-bian meanwhile has rejected the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet’s resignation. He has made clear all personnel are to remain put. Faced with so many uncertain political developments, and knowing that democracy must not regress, we have made the following observations.

First of all, for a single political party to win a stable majority in the legislature, win the presidential election, gaining control over both the executive and legislative branches, is entirely consistent with the requirements of democracy. It is not a regressive step, as long as it is the people’s free choice, as expressed by their votes. In every presidential, semi-presidential, or dual-leadership system in the world, a single political party often gains control of both the legislative and executive branches following an election. This is hardly something to be alarmed about. In every cabinet system state in the world, the party that wins a stable majority in the parliament automatically gains control of both the legislative and executive branches. This is the democratic norm. On the contrary, it is divided government that is abnormal. It is abnormal for a party that has won a majority in the legislative and presidential elections to be relegated to the status of an opposition party for eight years. For democracy to advance from abnormal to normal can only be described as progress, not regress.

Eight years ago, the KMT lost the presidential election, but retained a majority in the Legislative Yuan. The KMT handed over executive power to president elect Chen Shui-bian, who mocked the legislature as representatives of the “old mandate.” Chen proclaimed that he was the representative of a “new mandate,” despite the fact that he received merely 39% of the votes. Times have changed. Now the president would appear to be the representative of the “old mandate.” Yet when confronting the legislature, which represents a new mandate, he denounces it as a setback for democracy. Does this wash? Only voters who vote for the DPP represent the people. Voters who vote for rival political parties do not represent the people. What is truly regressive is the DPP’s anti-democratic attitude.

Secondly, as they approach the end of their terms, DPP legislators have filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system. Is this progressive, or regressive? Never mind that the new electoral system was something the DPP demanded, a key plank in its policy platform. Never mind that it required a constitutional amendment, one that the DPP rammed through the legislature by holding a hunger strike. The DPP is now doing an about face. It is now denouncing its own system for unfairness based on the outcome of the election. Forget the DPP’s contempt for the democratic process. How about its utter lack of sportsmanship? Their constitutional challenge alleges that the single member district electoral system violates the constitutional principle that “all votes should be equal.” But the single member district electoral system was subjected to the referendum process. It was the result of a constitutional amendment. How can one demand that a written provision already part of a constitutional amendment be declared unconstitutional? The single member district electoral system has been applied to the administrative districts of municipalities and counties, all in accordance with constitutional requirements. How can these be considered unconstitutional? Is the DPP trying to tell us that single member district electoral systems are unconstitutional per se? This is unheard of. We have no desire to get too exercised over the fact that such unheard of constitutional challenges will be presented to the Grand Justices. What worries us is the anti-democratic attitude behind the DPP’s refusal to admit defeat. It is akin to the host of a tournament complaining that the home team lost because the host’s ground rules were unfair. To refuse to accept the outcome of a game merely because one lost is hardly a democratic and progressive attitude.

Thirdly, the requirement that the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet resign at the end of the legislative term is not mere convention. It is a clear cut requirement imposed by the Grand Justices during a previous constitutional interpretation (Interpretation 387). The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet submitted its joint resignation. What right does the president have to decide that the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution no longer applies? Can a president wilfully ignore the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution? Why did President Chen retain the cabinet by rejecting its joint resignation? The Grand Justices have already explained that the resignation of a cabinet at the end of a legislative term is a “compulsory resignation.” The cabinet must resign. It has no choice. Nor can the president refuse to accept its resignation. (Interpretations 387, 419) If on the other hand, the cabinet resigns during the president’s term of office, its resignation is a “courtesy resignation.” (Interpretation 419). In other words, it can either resign or not resign. For Chen Shui-bian to reject the cabinet’s resignation is contrary to constitutional intent. His hidden agenda is to retain the cabinet. If Hsieh is elected president, the cabinet will stage a showdown with the legislature. It will respond only to the president. It will refuse to respond to the legislature. If Ma Ying-jeou is elected president, the cabinet can then refuse to submit courtesy resignations. Since the Grand Justices have said they have no obligation to resign in such a case, the cabinet will refuse to resign and refuse to hand over executive power. If the legislature attempts to bring down the cabinet via a vote of no-confidence, the Executive Yuan will demand a constitutional interpretation. The DPP will allege that the electoral system for the legislative elections is unconstitutional. It has already filed an appeal for a constitutional interpretation, alleging that the legislature has no legitimacy. If the ruling regime’s overall strategy is to selectively twist the meaning of the constitution, and to refuse to hand over power when defeated at the polls, that can hardly be termed democratic and progressive.

The ruling DPP is displaying utter contempt for the new public mandate. It is demanding constitutional interpretations to negate the results of the parliamentary elections. It is resorting to unconstitutional means to reject the cabinet resignation. It is attempting to leave open the possibility of refusing to hand over political power in the event of a debacle in the presidential election. We have good reason to worry that the Republic of China’s system of constitutional government is on the verge of regression. The ruling DPP may well attempt to split asunder a duly elected government by such unconstitutional and underhanded means. Let us hope are fears are unfounded.

台灣的民主是否進入退步期？
中國時報 2008.01.30　

　民進黨面對即將到來的總統選戰，不斷提醒國人，如果總統選舉民進黨再度敗選，台灣將要恢復一黨獨大的狀態，並警告台灣的民主恐將進入退步期；另一方面民進黨立委也預備提案聲請釋憲，挑戰單一選區制度違反憲法上「票票等值」原則，陳水扁總統則同時退回張俊雄內閣總辭，以張內閣原班人馬留任。面對充滿變數的政治發展，思考台灣的民主不能退步，在這有以下諸點觀察。

　首先，單一政黨獲得勝選並掌握國會穩定多數，甚至進而贏得總統選舉同時掌握行政與立法兩權，只要是出自人民透過選票的自由選擇，就符合民主要求，不是民主的倒退。世界上所有的總統制、半總統制或雙首長制國家，經常出現單一政黨先後在總統與國會大選中獲勝同時掌握立法與行政兩權的現象，並不值得大驚小怪；世界上所有的內閣制國家，贏得國會穩定多數的政黨，都必然同時掌握立法權與行政權，這一向就是民主政治的常態。反而是台灣過去在國會及總統選舉中難得取得超過半數以上選票的政黨，以少數政府的行政權與國會的立法權對抗八年之久，才是異態。民主從異態進入常態，只能說是進步，不能說是退步。

　八年前，國民黨輸了總統大選，仍在立法院中掌握多數，國民黨交出了政權，當時得票不滿四成的陳水扁總統以代表新民意自居，譏諷國會是舊民意的象徵。現在時移勢易，總統似乎該被視為舊民意的代表了，面對新民意的國會，卻質疑為民主退步的現象，說得過去嗎？只認為支持自己的是人民，不承認投票給對手政黨的多數是人民，這種民主素養，才是退步！

　第二，民進黨立委們在任期終了前夕，聯手提案聲請大法官釋憲，挑戰單一選區選舉制度違憲，這是民主的進步還是退步呢？且不說新選制曾經是民進黨堅持的政見主張，是民進黨人不惜用絕食換來的修憲成果，現在反口要用制度不公為由挑戰敗選的結局，缺乏民主政治裡的運動家精神。聲請釋憲的基調是說單一選制違反「票票等值」的憲法原則，可是單一選制是立院提案經過複決完成修憲程序後，已寫成憲法增修條文的規定，是要釋憲者說修憲違憲嗎？單一選區跟著直轄市與縣市的行政區域劃分而走，也是憲法增修條文的要求，怎會構成違憲呢？難道單一選區制度是修憲不能逾越的界線？似是聞所未聞的主張。我們並不想擔心聞所未聞的憲法主張交給大法官解釋，但對於隱藏在主張背後不肯認輸的反民主態度，深感應該提高警覺。好像主辦球賽地主隊在輸球後說是主辦單位公布的球賽規則不公；敗了想要否定賽制來否定比賽結果，絕對不是民主進步的表現。

　第三、張俊雄內閣在立委任期屆滿時總辭，可不是憲政慣例而已，而是大法官曾為憲法解釋（釋三八七）的明白要求。張俊雄內閣據之提出總辭，總統憑什麼自行認定大法官的憲法解釋業已失效？總統應該任意忽視或否定大法官的憲法解釋嗎？那麼陳總統為何用退回總辭案的方式留任內閣呢？大法官曾經解釋過，內閣跟著立委改選辭職，是「義務性辭職」，也就是非辭不可，總統不能拒絕（釋三八七、四一九）；內閣若是在總統上任時辭職，則是「禮貌性辭職」（釋四一九），也就是可辭可不辭。陳水扁退回內閣總辭，是違反憲法解釋意旨的動作，其背後的玄機可能在於保留張內閣在任，謝長廷選上總統，內閣就正式向國會攤牌，只對總統負責，不對國會負責；馬英九選上總統，張內閣則可拒為禮貌性辭職，因為大法官說過並無辭職的義務，所以內閣拒絕辭職交出政權。屆時若國會要以不信任投票倒閣，行政院還可說國會選制違憲，已經聲請釋憲，國會並無正當性。執政者總的策略，如果就是選擇性的玩弄憲法文字，拒絕在敗選時交出政權，絕非民主進步。

　如果可以無視最新展現的多數民意，利用聲請釋憲埋藏否定國會選舉結果，再以違憲的手法退回內閣總辭案，預留總統大選敗選時拒不交出政權的可能性，我們就有理由擔心，台灣的民主正在進入退步期，而且可能因此裂解民選政府正當性的手段，但願我們只是杞人憂天！

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?

Is the Republic of China’s Democracy Regressing?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30, 2008

As we approach the presidential election, the Democratic Progressive Party has been warning people that if the DPP loses the presidential election on the heels of the legislative election, the Republic of China will return to a one-party state, and that the ROC’s democracy may regress. DPP legislators are also demanding a constitutional interpretation. They are challenging the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system, claiming that it violates the principle that “all votes should be equal.” Chen Shui-bian meanwhile has rejected the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet’s resignation. He has made clear all personnel are to remain put. Faced with so many uncertain political developments, and knowing that democracy must not regress, we have made the following observations.

First of all, for a single political party to win a stable majority in the legislature, win the presidential election, gaining control over both the executive and legislative branches, is entirely consistent with the requirements of democracy. It is not a regressive step, as long as it is the people’s free choice, as expressed by their votes. In every presidential, semi-presidential, or dual-leadership system in the world, a single political party often gains control of both the legislative and executive branches following an election. This is hardly something to be alarmed about. In every cabinet system state in the world, the party that wins a stable majority in the parliament automatically gains control of both the legislative and executive branches. This is the democratic norm. On the contrary, it is divided government that is abnormal. It is abnormal for a party that has won a majority in the legislative and presidential elections to be relegated to the status of an opposition party for eight years. For democracy to advance from abnormal to normal can only be described as progress, not regress.

Eight years ago, the KMT lost the presidential election, but retained a majority in the Legislative Yuan. The KMT handed over executive power to president elect Chen Shui-bian, who mocked the legislature as representatives of the “old mandate.” Chen proclaimed that he was the representative of a “new mandate,” despite the fact that he received merely 39% of the votes. Times have changed. Now the president would appear to be the representative of the “old mandate.” Yet when confronting the legislature, which represents a new mandate, he denounces it as a setback for democracy. Does this wash? Only voters who vote for the DPP represent the people. Voters who vote for rival political parties do not represent the people. What is truly regressive is the DPP’s anti-democratic attitude.

Secondly, as they approach the end of their terms, DPP legislators have filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the single member district electoral system. Is this progressive, or regressive? Never mind that the new electoral system was something the DPP demanded, a key plank in its policy platform. Never mind that it required a constitutional amendment, one that the DPP rammed through the legislature by holding a hunger strike. The DPP is now doing an about face. It is now denouncing its own system for unfairness based on the outcome of the election. Forget the DPP’s contempt for the democratic process. How about its utter lack of sportsmanship? Their constitutional challenge alleges that the single member district electoral system violates the constitutional principle that “all votes should be equal.” But the single member district electoral system was subjected to the referendum process. It was the result of a constitutional amendment. How can one demand that a written provision already part of a constitutional amendment be declared unconstitutional? The single member district electoral system has been applied to the administrative districts of municipalities and counties, all in accordance with constitutional requirements. How can these be considered unconstitutional? Is the DPP trying to tell us that single member district electoral systems are unconstitutional per se? This is unheard of. We have no desire to get too exercised over the fact that such unheard of constitutional challenges will be presented to the Grand Justices. What worries us is the anti-democratic attitude behind the DPP’s refusal to admit defeat. It is akin to the host of a tournament complaining that the home team lost because the host’s ground rules were unfair. To refuse to accept the outcome of a game merely because one lost is hardly a democratic and progressive attitude.

Thirdly, the requirement that the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet resign at the end of the legislative term is not mere convention. It is a clear cut requirement imposed by the Grand Justices during a previous constitutional interpretation (Interpretation 387). The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet submitted its joint resignation. What right does the president have to decide that the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution no longer applies? Can a president wilfully ignore the Grand Justices’ interpretation of the constitution? Why did President Chen retain the cabinet by rejecting its joint resignation? The Grand Justices have already explained that the resignation of a cabinet at the end of a legislative term is a “compulsory resignation.” The cabinet must resign. It has no choice. Nor can the president refuse to accept its resignation. (Interpretations 387, 419) If on the other hand, the cabinet resigns during the president’s term of office, its resignation is a “courtesy resignation.” (Interpretation 419). In other words, it can either resign or not resign. For Chen Shui-bian to reject the cabinet’s resignation is contrary to constitutional intent. His hidden agenda is to retain the cabinet. If Hsieh is elected president, the cabinet will stage a showdown with the legislature. It will respond only to the president. It will refuse to respond to the legislature. If Ma Ying-jeou is elected president, the cabinet can then refuse to submit courtesy resignations. Since the Grand Justices have said they have no obligation to resign in such a case, the cabinet will refuse to resign and refuse to hand over executive power. If the legislature attempts to bring down the cabinet via a vote of no-confidence, the Executive Yuan will demand a constitutional interpretation. The DPP will allege that the electoral system for the legislative elections is unconstitutional. It has already filed an appeal for a constitutional interpretation, alleging that the legislature has no legitimacy. If the ruling regime’s overall strategy is to selectively twist the meaning of the constitution, and to refuse to hand over power when defeated at the polls, that can hardly be termed democratic and progressive.

The ruling DPP is displaying utter contempt for the new public mandate. It is demanding constitutional interpretations to negate the results of the parliamentary elections. It is resorting to unconstitutional means to reject the cabinet resignation. It is attempting to leave open the possibility of refusing to hand over political power in the event of a debacle in the presidential election. We have good reason to worry that the Republic of China’s system of constitutional government is on the verge of regression. The ruling DPP may well attempt to split asunder a duly elected government by such unconstitutional and underhanded means. Let us hope are fears are unfounded.

台灣的民主是否進入退步期？
中國時報 2008.01.30　

　民進黨面對即將到來的總統選戰，不斷提醒國人，如果總統選舉民進黨再度敗選，台灣將要恢復一黨獨大的狀態，並警告台灣的民主恐將進入退步期；另一方面民進黨立委也預備提案聲請釋憲，挑戰單一選區制度違反憲法上「票票等值」原則，陳水扁總統則同時退回張俊雄內閣總辭，以張內閣原班人馬留任。面對充滿變數的政治發展，思考台灣的民主不能退步，在這有以下諸點觀察。

　首先，單一政黨獲得勝選並掌握國會穩定多數，甚至進而贏得總統選舉同時掌握行政與立法兩權，只要是出自人民透過選票的自由選擇，就符合民主要求，不是民主的倒退。世界上所有的總統制、半總統制或雙首長制國家，經常出現單一政黨先後在總統與國會大選中獲勝同時掌握立法與行政兩權的現象，並不值得大驚小怪；世界上所有的內閣制國家，贏得國會穩定多數的政黨，都必然同時掌握立法權與行政權，這一向就是民主政治的常態。反而是台灣過去在國會及總統選舉中難得取得超過半數以上選票的政黨，以少數政府的行政權與國會的立法權對抗八年之久，才是異態。民主從異態進入常態，只能說是進步，不能說是退步。

　八年前，國民黨輸了總統大選，仍在立法院中掌握多數，國民黨交出了政權，當時得票不滿四成的陳水扁總統以代表新民意自居，譏諷國會是舊民意的象徵。現在時移勢易，總統似乎該被視為舊民意的代表了，面對新民意的國會，卻質疑為民主退步的現象，說得過去嗎？只認為支持自己的是人民，不承認投票給對手政黨的多數是人民，這種民主素養，才是退步！

　第二，民進黨立委們在任期終了前夕，聯手提案聲請大法官釋憲，挑戰單一選區選舉制度違憲，這是民主的進步還是退步呢？且不說新選制曾經是民進黨堅持的政見主張，是民進黨人不惜用絕食換來的修憲成果，現在反口要用制度不公為由挑戰敗選的結局，缺乏民主政治裡的運動家精神。聲請釋憲的基調是說單一選制違反「票票等值」的憲法原則，可是單一選制是立院提案經過複決完成修憲程序後，已寫成憲法增修條文的規定，是要釋憲者說修憲違憲嗎？單一選區跟著直轄市與縣市的行政區域劃分而走，也是憲法增修條文的要求，怎會構成違憲呢？難道單一選區制度是修憲不能逾越的界線？似是聞所未聞的主張。我們並不想擔心聞所未聞的憲法主張交給大法官解釋，但對於隱藏在主張背後不肯認輸的反民主態度，深感應該提高警覺。好像主辦球賽地主隊在輸球後說是主辦單位公布的球賽規則不公；敗了想要否定賽制來否定比賽結果，絕對不是民主進步的表現。

　第三、張俊雄內閣在立委任期屆滿時總辭，可不是憲政慣例而已，而是大法官曾為憲法解釋（釋三八七）的明白要求。張俊雄內閣據之提出總辭，總統憑什麼自行認定大法官的憲法解釋業已失效？總統應該任意忽視或否定大法官的憲法解釋嗎？那麼陳總統為何用退回總辭案的方式留任內閣呢？大法官曾經解釋過，內閣跟著立委改選辭職，是「義務性辭職」，也就是非辭不可，總統不能拒絕（釋三八七、四一九）；內閣若是在總統上任時辭職，則是「禮貌性辭職」（釋四一九），也就是可辭可不辭。陳水扁退回內閣總辭，是違反憲法解釋意旨的動作，其背後的玄機可能在於保留張內閣在任，謝長廷選上總統，內閣就正式向國會攤牌，只對總統負責，不對國會負責；馬英九選上總統，張內閣則可拒為禮貌性辭職，因為大法官說過並無辭職的義務，所以內閣拒絕辭職交出政權。屆時若國會要以不信任投票倒閣，行政院還可說國會選制違憲，已經聲請釋憲，國會並無正當性。執政者總的策略，如果就是選擇性的玩弄憲法文字，拒絕在敗選時交出政權，絕非民主進步。

　如果可以無視最新展現的多數民意，利用聲請釋憲埋藏否定國會選舉結果，再以違憲的手法退回內閣總辭案，預留總統大選敗選時拒不交出政權的可能性，我們就有理由擔心，台灣的民主正在進入退步期，而且可能因此裂解民選政府正當性的手段，但願我們只是杞人憂天！

A Negative Constitutional Precedent:

A Negative Constitutional Precedent: Chen Shui-bian destroys the System before his Departure
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 29, 2008

During his final cabinet reshuffle, President Chen did not assume a humble posture in response to changed public opinion. On the contrary. By turning down the cabinet resignation, he retained Premier Chang Chun-hsiung. By doing so he checked the new legislature. Chen Shui-bian claims he is establishing a new “constitutional precedent.” In fact, he is merely flaunting his characteristic egocentricity and indifference to the nation’s larger interests.

After eight years in office he has no achievements to speak of. Yet he wants to give constitutional rule a final swift kick before he leaves. Chen Shui-bian’s thinking is simply incomprehensible. Chen Shui-bian talks a good game. He said he wanted to avoid another cabinet resignation three months from now. But the Constitution mandates that “the Executive Yuan must be responsible to the Legislative Yuan.” The new cabinet must resign before the establishment of the new legislature. This protocol is part of the relationship between the cabinet and the legislature. Chen Shui-bian’s refusal to accept the resignation of his cabinet is tantamount to defying the constitution, to an unconstitutional power grab. A president with hardly any time left in his term, casually invents a pretext for indiscriminate constitutional violations. Is this how Chen Shui-bian demonstrates his “love for Taiwan?”

In fact Chen Shui-bian’s last cabinet is merely a caretaker government. Its responsibility is merely to maintain the basic functions of government and not make any untoward changes. Those officials deemed most unfit should be replaced. If possible the cabinet should be strengthened with new appointments. Unfortunately this is the farthest thing from Chen Shui-bian’s mind. Chen is not concerned about how to respond to the people’s expectations, or even how to restore the image of the DPP. Chen is concerned only with how many more photo ops he can enjoy and how many cards he can play before he is forced to step down. This is why he rejected the cabinet resignation.

In other words, Chen’s rejection of the cabinet resignation is a declaration that “Chang Chun-hsiung is going to stay right where he is.” Chen Shui-bian could have chosen to abide by the constitution. He could have first accepted the cabinet resignation, then reappointed Chang Chun-hsiung. That would have achieve the same purpose. But Chen Shui-bian was unwilling to follow due process. He devised his “turning down the cabinet resignation” ploy. He concocted his “stabilizing the political arrangement” pretext. All to conceal the ugly reality of his own constitutional violations.

A president with little time left in his term, is still racking his brains trying to destroy the system and create conflict. A Bian’s unauthorized “rejection of the cabinet resignation” was a flagrant usurpation of the authority of the legislature. It was a demonstration of open contempt for the newly elected legislature, an open provocation. Under such circumstances, how can the ruling and opposition parties reconcile and coexist? What is most absurd is that over the past eight years a president who has been relentlessly creating chaos is now mouthing platitudes about “stabilizing the political arrangement.”

In fact, we don’t need need political commentators to do the analysis. People can see for themselves that Chen Shui-bian made up his mind long ago. Chang Chun-hsiung would stay put, because he is the premier over whom A Bian has the most control. But A Bian has chosen a tortuous road. He has turned this chess game into a charade. His purpose is twofold: First, to take advantage of the opposition parties and the new legislature. Second, to gain extra leverage in dealing with Frank Hsieh. Most likely the latter is purpose is has priority.

Premier Chang suddenly announced he was “resigning in advance.” Then he enacted his “asked to stay on in advance” charade. On the surface we may have been entertained by a string of twists and turns. But for the Chen regime, it was business as usual. Nothing unexpected happened. Even Tu Cheng-sheng and Hsieh Chi-wei, the two officials most detested by the public, were brazenly asked to stay on following the election debacle. How does this meet with the public’s expectations? The presidential office and the DPP legislative caucus joined hands and undermined Frank Hsieh’s “CEO premier” trial balloon, blunting Hsieh’s momentum. In effect Frank Hsieh, as the DPP’s presidential candidate, lost the first battle in his struggle to blaze his own trail and deviate from the Chen Shui-bian path.

In the wake of this tempest over the cabinet, people are beginning to see Chen Shui-bian’s selfish nature. Even in the final stages of his rule, Chen thinks only of himself: How to maintain his own power, how to save face, how to provide cover for his own henchmen. From the way he has hobbled Frank Hsieh, it is easy to see that even the future of the DPP means nothing to him. If he doesn’t care even about the future of the Democratic Progressive Party, how can the people expect Chen’s seventh cabinet reshuffle to consider the “aspirations of the people?”

It’s ironic. Frank Hsieh was anxious to draw a clear line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. Instead the struggle over the cabinet Club left him caught in Chen’s web, forced to dance to Chen’s tune. Chang Chun-hsiung protected his rice bowl. But as a premier without a mind of his own, all he can do now is watch as his reputation and his “Benefit of the Week” policy proposals go down with Chen Shui-bian. The DPP has sunk pretty low. Although Chang Chun-hsiung may have been able to wrangle himself a third term, what has he bequeathed the party?

As Chen Shui-bian boasted, he has won another internecine struggle. He has pulled another fast one. He has successfully undermined the nation’s system of constitutional rule. He may be able to gloat for a few days, but he will make the Democratic Progressive Party pay a heavy price for his behavior.

憲政惡例：陳水扁臨下台還要破壞體制
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.29 03:02 am

任內最後一次內閣改組，陳總統未謙卑回應新民意，卻逕自以「退回總辭」的方式留任張內閣，趁便「將」新國會一軍。陳水扁雖自詡將創下新的「憲政慣例」，但此舉只是愈發凸顯其凡事皆從自我中心出發，從不考慮國家大局。

八年沒有留下可堪肯定的政績，臨走卻還要對憲政狠踹一腳，陳水扁的居心，簡直匪夷所思。阿扁說得好聽，此舉是為避免內閣三個月後再度總辭；但憲法規定「行政院向立法院負責」，內閣必須在新國會成立前總辭，目的即在確立此一精神。陳水扁自說自話地「退回總辭」，不啻否定憲政設計，掠奪國會權力。一個任期所剩無幾的總統，隨便編個藉口即濫行侵犯憲政，這就是陳水扁「愛台灣」的手法嗎？

事實上，扁任內最後一屆內閣，責任只在「看守」，以維持政府的基本行政運作為務，調幅未必要大。因此，原則上應先汰換外界公認極不適任的官員，行有餘力，再稍事設法補強內閣人事。可惜，陳水扁的布局卻全然不作此想，他考慮的，不是如何因應人民期待，甚至亦非如何挽回民進黨形象，而只是一味盤計自己在其中還有多少表演機會與鬥爭籌碼，也因此才有「退回總辭」的專斷。

所謂「退回總辭」，換個說法，就是「張內閣留任」。陳水扁原本可以選擇依憲政規章行事，接受內閣總辭、並重新任命張俊雄組閣，即達到同一目的。但阿扁偏不甘按部就班，他想出「退回總辭」的花招，並編出「穩定政局」的藉口，卻暗槓自己侵犯憲政體制的事實。

一個任期所剩無幾的總統，還在處心積慮破壞體制、製造紛擾；阿扁擅自「退回總辭」，立法權遭總統侵奪，是對新國會的藐視與挑釁，如此一來，朝野如何和解共生？最荒謬的是，一個八年來不斷製造亂象的總統，這回竟把「穩定政局」的大話掛在嘴邊，真讓人啼笑皆非！

其實，不需要政論家代為分析，民眾都看得出來，陳水扁老早就打定主意要張俊雄留任，因為這是一個他最能全盤控制的閣揆。然而，阿扁卻選擇了一條極其迂迴曲折的路，把這盤棋下得煞有介事。他的主要目的有二：一是藉機消費在野黨和新國會，二是借力使力對付謝長廷；而且，對付後者的比重可能還要大些。

試想，從張揆驟然宣布「提前總辭」，到後來演成「提前留任」，表面看來雖轉折起伏，但就扁政府而言，卻是一切照舊，啥事也沒發生；就連敗選後備遭各界指責的上杜下謝，也都又厚顏留任了下來，這豈符合人民的期待？對民進黨而言，這次是府院聯手，共同戳破了謝長廷「ＣＥＯ閣揆」的氣球，挫折了謝的銳氣。亦即，謝長廷作為民進黨總統候選人，他要擺脫陳水扁路線的第一波戰鬥，目前已慘遭敗北。

歷經這波閣潮，人們也愈發看清楚陳水扁的自私性格；即使在執政的最後階段，他心裡想的仍然只有自己：如何捍衛自己的權位、如何維持自己的顏面、如何保住自己的人馬。從他牽制謝長廷的不留餘地，不難想見，連民進黨的前景在他心中也沒有多少位置。而如果民進黨的未來他都不在乎，那麼，人民又如何奢望他的第七度內閣改組會想到「民之所欲」？

說來諷刺，謝長廷本來急欲與陳水扁切割，但這場閣潮鬥爭失利，反使他深陷陳水扁的羅網中，必須與之共舞。而張俊雄雖然保住了寶座，但作為一個缺乏自由意志的閣揆，也只能讓自己的名聲與「一周一利多」的劣政隨著陳水扁俱沉。民進黨勢頹至此，張俊雄雖奮勇締造個人「三連任」，他能為黨留下光榮嗎？

至於大言不慚的陳水扁，又一次內鬥勝出，又一次出奇招惡整國家憲政；就算自己得意個幾天，苦果終將留給整個民進黨品嘗吧！

The KMT must transcend Blue vs. Green, the DPP must return to the Truth

The KMT must transcend Blue vs. Green, the DPP must return to the Truth
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 28, 2008

Those still counting on Blue and Green core support have been swept away by a tidal wave of public opinion. Chen Shui-bian maintains that Taiwan “has no centrist voters.” But his political credentials have just been stamped “null and void” by these allegedly non-existent centrist voters.

Turning Taiwan into only two colors — Blue and Green, then spinning everything of value as Green, has been the Democratic Progressive Party’s most grievous sin against the people of Taiwan. It is an even more grievous sin than its poor political record.

This sort of political culture inquires only about one’s political colors. It is indifferent to right and wrong. If it is not changed, it will inflict inestimable damage upon the Republic of China. Today the Blue Camp has an absolute majority in the legislature. If Ma Ying-jeou is elected president, the KMT will have the perfect opportunity to rid us of this endless Blue vs. Green standoff, to restore a “two-toned Taiwan” to its original rich hues. This is a duty the KMT must not shirk.

To make clear political distinctions is easy. But anyone who has had a taste of Taiwan’s Blue vs. Green politics in recent years, knows this two-colored universe in which “either you are with us, or you are against us” is far from desirable. Reducing every issue to two colors, to two positions, treating every value as one held by either us or them, by either friend or foe, has turned Taiwan into a demoralized realm lacking in tolerance and creativity.

Over the past eight years, Taiwan has been mired in a standoff between the ruling and opposition political camps. All society has been affected, deprived of middle ground, deprived of the right to dissent, forced to take sides. It is said that people voted “for the Blues.” It would be more accurate to say that people voted “against the Greens.” They opposed the Green Regime’s imposition of an exclusively Green ideology and value system upon Taiwan. The people demanded liberation from the shackles of ideology. They demanded a return to right and wrong, a return to reason. If the DPP still hopes to consolidate its Deep Green core support, it is turning a deaf ear to the cries of the people.

In recent years, the Democratic Progressive Party has been in the thrall of a terrible myth. It believed it had an exclusive franchise on “Taiwanese identity.” It believed that as long it shouted “We love Taiwan!” it enjoyed carte blanche. Election victories were theirs for the taking. Make no mistake, their talisman could once work miracles. But the recent election showed that their talisman has lost its magic. The main reason is the DPP has never been able link its “Taiwanese identity” with anything concrete. Under the aegis of this grand concept, one finds … exactly nothing. To the public “Nativism” is mere idolatry. It is nothing one can sink one’s teeth into. And when peoples’ survival is at stake, they begin wondering whether this idol has feet of clay.

How to manifest a “Taiwanese identity” in a way that is meaningful for the people is what the DPP must think about. Rampant “Nativism” has sanctified the DPP’s image.

But politics is not religion. In the end politicians must pass muster on ability, professionalism, and character. An endless string of corruption scandals involving the presidential office and DPP legislators have taken the lustre off the Green Camp’s nativist halo. If the DPP refuses to admit it has distorted the truth and polarized society, it had better prepare for the next round of voter punishments.

This election was a major victory for the Blue Camp. The public could no longer tolerate stagnation, bickering, and regression. Otherwise why would they overwhelmingly choose to punish the chief culprits, Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party? Many small parties were squeezed out of the picture. The electorate could no longer tolerate the Blue/Green stalemate. They felt a need to grant a clear majority to the Blue Camp, to reduce the oppressive Green Camp to a minority. Only then, they felt, cold Taiwan experience a rebirth of hope.

If the KMT understands the voters’ disgust with this “War of the Colors” it won’t gloat over its victory. It won merely because a large number of rational voters voted Blue in order to defeat the Greens. Once it is fully in authority, the KMT must assume responsibility for breaking the bipartisan deadlock. It must unmuzzle voices that have been silenced for the past eight years. It must allow a hundred flowers to bloom. It must create more room for rational debate. It must seized the opportunity to lead Taiwan out of the 2008 recession and advance toward peace and prosperity.

The victor must adopt a broader vision that transcends Blue and Green. The defeated must humbly return to the values of the people, to right and wrong. The Blue and Green camps must not misread public opinion.

國民黨應超越藍綠，民進黨須回歸是非
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.28 03:09 am

往前看，那些還在精心清點藍綠「基本盤」的人，都該被民氣捲起的滔天巨浪淘汰了。事實上，當陳水扁還在鐵齒說台灣「沒有中間選民」，他的政治信用，已經被移動的中間選民蓋章作廢了。

把台灣變成只剩藍綠兩色，再把所有價值統統漆上綠色，這是民進黨對台灣最大的荼毒，比它政績惡劣還可怕。

這種「只問顏色、不問是非」的風氣，若不設法改變，對台灣將貽害無窮。如今藍軍在國會佔有絕對優勢，若馬英九日後又勝選，國民黨將有絕佳機會清洗這種「兩色對立」的恐怖單調，讓「兩色的台灣」恢復它的多元色彩，這也是國民黨無可旁貸的使命。

用顏色區分政治固簡單明瞭，但任何品嘗過近年台灣「藍綠政治」之愚昧與恐怖的人，絕對不會喜歡這種「非藍即綠」的雙色世界。把一切是非、論辯都簡化成兩種顏色、兩個立場，把所有價值都依「非我即彼」、「非友即敵」來歸類，台灣不僅變得無趣，變得激情對立，也失去了創意和寬容。

過去八年，台灣何止是陷入朝野政治對立的泥淖，整個台灣社會人心都被波及、腐蝕，被剝奪了中間地帶，被剝奪了異議的資格，被強制在兩色之中選邊。這次選舉結果，與其說是人民選擇「投藍」，不如說是人民選擇「反綠」，亦即反對綠色執政加諸台灣的單一意識形態和單一價值判斷。更積極的意義，是人民要求去除意識形態的枷鎖，要求政治回歸是非，論辯回歸理性。因此，民進黨若還在慶幸綠色「基本盤」鞏固如昔，那就是捂耳不聽人民震耳欲聾的吶喊了。

這幾年，民進黨陷入一個可怕的迷思：自以為取得「台灣主體性」代表政黨的神主牌，只要喊一喊「愛台灣」，自己即變得「法相莊嚴」，選舉即可手到擒來。不錯，這套邏輯曾經呼風喚雨，但這次選舉證明它已然失效。主要原因在，民進黨始終無法將「主體性」的口號與具體的施政聯結，在這頂尊貴的大帽子底下，內容一直空空如也。對人民而言，本土變成只能膜拜、無法品嘗的東西，而當人們連自己的生活都捉襟見肘，遂開始懷疑這個神是假的。

如何將台灣「主體性」落實為對人民有意義的施政，這是民進黨必須深切思考之處。在本土化崇拜沸騰的年代，民進黨的形象，在那個光暈下，曾被相當程度地神聖化了。

但政治畢竟不是宗教，它終究要回到能力、專業和道德形象的天平上，接受人民的檢驗。在府院貪腐弊案層出不窮的行跡逐一曝光後，曾經照耀綠營的本土神聖光芒已漸蒙塵；如果民進黨還看不到自己對是非的曲解、對專業的蹂躪、對中間地帶的踐踏，那就準備迎接選民下一次的懲罰吧！

這次選情之所以被逼成藍軍大勝，不正是因為人民對停滯、內耗、倒退的台灣已感到忍無可忍，否則，怎會如此有志一同選擇痛懲民進黨及陳水扁這個罪魁？眾多小黨之所以被擠壓到毫無空間，不也是選民覺得藍綠五五波的對峙必須用最「決絕」的手段打破，霸道的綠營必須變成少數，台灣才有重新整合的希望？

國民黨若能體會選民這種厭憎「兩色對峙」的心情，即不該為這次大勝私心竊喜，因為其間包含了太多理性選民的感情煎熬，「集中投藍」無非是為了「團結反綠」。一旦全面執政，國民黨自應承擔起打破社會「二元對立」的責任，將過去八年台灣被禁錮的聲音釋放出來，讓民間更多元燦爛的色彩自由綻放。幫台灣打造出更寬敞的中間地帶，讓理性的主張有激盪、砥礪的機會，那才是台灣走出八年衰退、走向太平盛世最重要的基礎建設。

勝者要用更寬廣的胸襟超越藍綠，敗者要謙卑反省以回歸人民的價值和是非，這是藍綠解讀選舉民意不可錯過的要點。

Unable to "manage a majority," Hsieh still wants to be President

Unable to “manage a majority,” Hsieh still wants to be President
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 24, 2008

During the DPP primaries Yu Shyi-kun advocated “total government.” By this he meant that the DPP, having won the presidency, should win a majority in the legislature. Yu’s dream may well come true, not for the DPP, but for the KMT. During the Legislative Yuan elections Frank Hsieh boasted that if elected president, he would “manage [to get] a majority.” By this he meant he would incite defections from the Blue Camp. Hsieh’s boast has been shattered by the KMT’s landslide victory.

Both Yu Shyi-kun’s advocacy of “total government” and Frank Hsieh’s dream of “managing a majority” were responses to eight frustrating years of divided government, in which the executive was controlled by the DPP, while the legislature was controlled by the opposition. This led to the advocacy of “integration of the executive and legislature,” to a return to constitutional norms.

But following the DPP’s catastrophic loss in the legislative elections, Frank Hsieh’s campaign theme suddenly changed. It suddenly became “Because the KMT controls the legislature, therefore the DPP must control the presidency.” It suddenly became “defending Taiwan and saving democracy via joint governance.” Not only does Hsieh’s new theme flatly contradict his “total government” proposal, it openly proclaims “So what if I wasn’t able to create a majority? I still ought to be president!”

Overnight, Frank Hsieh went from “If elected president, I will manage a majority” to “So what if I wasn’t able to manage a majority? I still ought to be president!” Will Hsieh’s proposals, utterly contrary to constitutional norms, win the approval of moderate voters during the 50 days leading up to the presidential election? Not a chance.

Frank Hsieh is clearly caught in a contradiction. He assured the public that if elected, he would be a “passive president,” that he would “relinquish executive power,” that he would “allow the KMT to form a cabinet.” But Hsieh is merely a presidential candidate. Yet here he is, boasting about how he allow the CEO of a major corporation to form a cabinet. What happened to his promise to “allow the KMT to form a cabinet?” If that was not enough, he promised a general amnesty on all National Health Insurance debts, and to reduce the inheritance tax to less than 10%. Is this how a “passive president” behaves?

Frank Hsieh’s recent policy proposals prove that he would never be a “passive president.” They merely confirm that “divided government,” in which the executive and controlling majority in the legislature belong to different parties, is a horrible state of affairs. Suppose Frank Hsieh is elected president, but the cabinet is formed by the KMT. Suppose the president wants to declare a general amnesty on all National Health Insurance debts today, reduce the inheritance tax tomorrow, and implement the “Resolution for a Normal Nation” the day after. Suppose further that he wants to promote the “prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution.” Can you imagine the consequences under divided government?

Hsieh is caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he must promise to be a “passive president.” Otherwise voters will be afraid he will make trouble. On the other hand, Hsieh must boast of his ability to “grow the economy.” But if the cabinet is presided over by the KMT, how is Hsieh going to be the one who “grows the economy?” Are the president and the cabinet each going to implement their own strategies for growing the economy?

Hsieh proposes “defending Taiwan and saving democracy by means of joint governance.” But the public holds the Democratic Progressive Party responsible for destroying Taiwan’s values. That’s why the public used its ballots to defend Taiwan from the DPP. That’s why the public used its ballots to save democracy from the DPP. As for his “joint governance” proposal, that’s precisely the nightmare of “divided government” the public has endured for the past eight years. Does Frank Hsieh really believe the voters won’t realize how horrible divided government is during the next 50 days?

Besides, campaign planks such as “defending Taiwan and saving democracy via joint governance” have already exposed the self-destructive appeal at the core of Frank Hsieh’s presidential campaign. By highlighting such appeals, the Hsieh camp is announcing that it intends to offer up the same same discredited old “I am Taiwanese. Those who oppose me are not Taiwanese. I am democratic. Those who oppose me are not democratic” pitch. Hsieh and Su have been mouthing arguments that “The KMT will sell out Taiwan because Ma Ying-jeou advocates eventual reunification.” These arguments proved to be ineffective during the legislative elections. Is this Frank Hsieh’s notion of “not encouraging populist mob sentiment,” of “not inciting ethnic strife [i.e., social conflict]?” Is this Frank Hsieh’s notion of “drawing a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian?”

Hsieh’s original plan, if elected, was to “manage a [DPP] majority” in the legislature. No wonder voters are suspicious. If Hsieh already knows he cannot “make a majority,” why is he claiming he will simultaneously be a “passive president” and “a president who acts as a check on the legislature?” Why is he asking voters to use their ballots to create yet another divided government? Why is he asking voters to use their ballots to commit political suicide?

Frank Hsieh faces a tough election. If he adopts “divided government” as his campaign theme, he is going to have a difficult time winning over voters. His campaign will inevitably be reduced to fanning mob sentiment and inciting social conflict. The Hsieh/Su campaign will find itself caught in a self-destructive downward spiral. Not only will Hsieh lose the election, he will lose any chance of becoming the Democratic Progressive Party’s standard-bearer following the election. That’s because fanning mob sentiment and inciting social conflict is Chen Shui-bian’s strong suit.

If Frank Hsieh loses the election having run a righteous campaign, the consequences for him will be more salutary than if he loses the election having run a dirty campaign. If he loses the election having run a righteous campaign, he can reinvent himself as a “New Frank Hsieh.” But if he loses the election having run a dirty campaign, he will merely wind up as a Chen Shui-bian clone.

分裂政府：不能「喬過半」，仍要當總統？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.24 04:03 am

游錫?在初選時所主張的「完全執政」，可能由國民黨實現；謝長廷在立委選舉前所倡言的「喬過半」，則因國民黨大勝而完全破滅。

不論是游錫?的「完全執政」，或是謝長廷的「喬過半」，皆是深感八年來「朝小野大」、「分裂政府」的痛苦，因而主張必須實現「府院合體」，回歸憲政生理。

但是，民進黨立委選舉大敗後，謝長廷的競選訴求，卻突然變成「國民黨已贏得立法院，所以應由民進黨任總統」，而有「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」的主張；此一論調，非但已違反「完全執政」的主張，且竟是擺明了說：「即使已不能喬過半，總統也應由我謝長廷來當！」

謝長廷從「當選總統後，要喬過半」，轉變到「不能喬過半，仍要當總統」；這種完全違反憲政生理的主張，未來經過大選投票前五十餘日的激盪沉澱，能否獲得中間選民的認同，實在不無疑問。

謝長廷顯已陷於自相矛盾之中。他說，他若當選，會當一個「消極總統」，又稱他會「釋出行政權」，並謂將由國民黨組閣。但是，謝長廷如今尚只是一個總統參選人而已，他竟已主張由ＣＥＯ組閣，這是尊重國民黨的組閣權嗎？又主張健保大赦及遺產稅調降至十％以下，這難道是「消極總統」的作為嗎？

謝長廷近日所提的政見主張，證明他不可能當一個「消極總統」，亦證明了總統與國會分屬兩黨的「分裂政府」的可怕。倘若謝長廷當選總統，內閣由國民黨組成，但總統卻今天要大赦健保，明天要調降遺產稅，後天又要實踐《正常國家決議文》，而主張「及早正名制憲」，那種四分五裂的「分裂政府」怎堪想像？

謝長廷進退維谷。一方面，他必須聲明將是「消極總統」，否則選民會怕他亂搞；但另一方面，謝長廷又必須揚言他也能「拚經濟」，唯內閣既由國民黨主持，謝長廷憑什麼「拚經濟」？難道總統與內閣要分別拚兩套經濟？

謝長廷主張「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」。但是，現今的主流民意卻認為：正因台灣價值已被民進黨所毀，所以選民用選票護住了台灣；而選民用選票護住了台灣，也就救回了民主。至於「兩黨共治」的主張，其實正是「分裂政府」的噩夢。試問：謝長廷難道認為多數選民在未來五十幾天的日子裡，還想不透「分裂政府」的恐怖？

何況，「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」這樣的訴求，對謝長廷的大選論述，已經暴露了「內建」的自我毀滅危機。因為，謝營既要凸顯這一套訴求，必又回到「我是台灣，反我者非台灣／我是民主，反我者非民主」的老路；近日謝蘇二人口中，又大量出現「國民黨賣台／馬英九終極統一」的論調，但這套說法其實在立委選舉中已證實為無效。難道這是「不鼓動民粹／不挑動族群」嗎？難道這是與陳水扁切割嗎？

謝長廷原本主張，他若當選，要將國會「喬過半」，曾使選民頗覺疑懼；如今，既已明知全無「喬過半」的可能，卻仍宣稱要當一個既「消極」又「制衡」的總統，這更不啻是要選民自己用選票來製造「分裂政府」，即用選票來進行政治自殺了！

在如此艱困的選情中，謝長廷若以主張「分裂政府」為論述主軸，恐怕在理智上不易說服選民，且亦必會使其競選的手法迅速趨向「鼓動民粹／挑動族群」發展，進而使謝蘇選局陷於自我毀滅的向下螺旋之中。那就不但可能使謝長廷輸掉大選，且亦可能一併失去了他在選後成為民進黨新旗手的可能性。因為，若要「鼓動民粹／挑動族群」，陳水扁才是個中翹楚。

畢竟，對於謝長廷來說，用正確的論述，卻輸掉選舉；與用錯誤的論述，又輸掉選舉，是不同的。前者，即使輸掉了選舉，但可望塑造一個新的「謝長廷」；後者，輸掉了選舉，只是多了一個「扁二世」。

The DPP should critique its Policies, not the System

The DPP should critique its Policies, not the System
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 23, 2008

After the KMT won nearly three-fourths of all the seats during the Legislative Yuan elections, political blame began to fall on the electoral system. Allegations that a single party in control of the Presidency, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan, might lead to a dangerous concentration of power began to surface. Worrying about the concentration of power is a good thing. But experience has shown that the ROC lacks a mature understanding of the rule of law. How can one conclude from the outcome of a single election that the system ought to be changed? Such an attitude fails to understand that an electoral system is not an instrument to ensure a certain election outcome. It is a mechanism that provides checks on power. The results of the ROC Legislative Yuan elections demonstrate that the system is functioning quite well.

Two years ago, the ruling and opposition parties, under intense pressure from Deep Green elders Lin I-hsiung and Nobel Laureate Lee Yuan-tseh, adopted the single member district, two ballot electoral system for the ROC Legislative Elections. One of greatest benefits from a single member district electoral system is that it helps moderates gain entry to the legislature. The fact is, the Democratic Progressive Party adopted precisely the wrong strategy in the Legislative Yuan elections. During its party primaries it adopted a “Blues Excluded” provision, keeping moderates and centrists within the party out of the running. During the election campaign its underlying tone was not “reconciliation and coexistence,” but the shrill “us vs. them” rhetoric of Taiwan independence fundamentalism. That this led to the total alienation of moderate voters is not at all surprising. The result was entirely consistent with the new, smaller voting districts. People were surprised with the results merely because they lacked experience with the “winner takes all” system. Once they familiarize themselves with its operating principles, they will find that the system encourages moderate social policies. They will find that it leads to increasing social consensus. This will have a positive effect on the behavior of political candidates.

The same principle applies in the presidential election. If the voters don’t want a single party to control both the presidency and the legislature, that is their choice. It is not a crime to win a landslide majority. Voters may prefer a moderate political party in control of the legislature. Any candidate who understands the voters’ preferences, and who adopts a moderate, centrist political path, has a chance of winning. Candidates who adopt extreme policies will alienate or anger a majority of voters. If voters want a political party with moderate policies to win both a majority in the legislature and also the presidency, that is their prerogative. It is hardly a result that needs to be prohibited by a constitutional republic.

Put plainly, the Constitution does not prohibit any one party receiving a majority in the legislature. Nor does it prohibit the same party from winning both the presidency and a majority in the legislature. This is true not only of the Republic of China. This is true all over the world. No constitution in the world prohibits the same political party from controlling both the legislative and executive branches.

If we are going to demand that the electoral system be changed merely because the results of the legislative elections surprised some of us, are we going prohibit voters from casting “too many” votes for any particular political party? Are any “extra votes” to be nullified? Are we going to prohibit political parties from offering election platforms that a majority of voters find appealing? Are we going to find ways to ensure that political parties are positioned at opposite ends of the political spectrum, staring each other down?

To say that the system must be changed merely because the presidency and legislature are controlled by the same political party, is the same as saying that the constitution must not allow a single political party to control both the legislature and the executive. That is the same as saying that if a party wins a landslide victory in the legislature, then it must not be permitted to field a candidate for the presidency. We need to understand that for a single political party to receive an overwhelming majority in both legislative and presidential elections is perfectly normal. A political party that champions extreme positions cannot survive. Other political parties will fill the vacuum by advocating policies more acceptable to the voters.

A more fundamental reason is that under a constitutional republic checks and balances do not depend upon political parties, but upon the separation of powers among the different branches of government. Political parties must not behave like criminal gangs. A political party that achieves power must not refuse to check and balance another branch of government merely because it is controlled by its own party. For example, the Executive Yuan must not refuse to check and balance the president merely because he or she belongs to the same party. The Legislative Yuan must not refuse to check and balance the Executive Yuan merely because it is controlled by the same party. Conversely, the different branches of government must transcend partisan loyalties. They must refrain from engaging in purely partisan political battles. This will enable the nomination of political appointees to cease being a partisan power struggle. If a ruling party that controls both the legislature and executive ignores constitutional checks and balances, it cannot escape public condemnation. It cannot escape opposition party condemnation. It cannot escape judicial review for unconstitutional conduct. In the next election will be rejected by the electorate. It will be forced to surrender its legislative majority and even its executive authority.

The people have relegated a extremist political party to the scrap heap of history. This is hardly a defect in the constitution. It is not the public that should be engaging in soul-searching. It is not the winning political party that should be apologizing. It is the losing political party that should be deciding what kind of attitude it should adopt and what kind of policies it should advocate. The voters will be the arbiters during the next election. This is the norm under a constitutional republic. This is hardly a reason to change the system.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.01.23
敗選該檢討的是政策路線，不是制度！
中時社論

　國民黨在立委選舉中取得了近四分之三的席次後，政壇近日歸咎選制不當的說法甚囂塵上；而單一黨獨大，同時掌握總統、行政院與立法院可能形成權力集中的風險，也成為論辯的焦點。擔心權力的集中是一件好事，但此中也顯示出台灣法治發展過程中有欠成熟的部分，那就是只從選舉甚或一次選舉的勝負推敲制度應否改變的道理，尚不能體會制度存在的意義，不在成為選舉勝負的工具，而是提供一種可以控制權力的機制。台灣此次立委選舉的結果，可能正是制度有效運作的證明。

　兩年前朝野政黨因林義雄與李遠哲兩位兩位先生強力推動形成共識，立委選舉改採單一選區兩票制，而單一選區的最大好處，就是會使得立場較為溫和而非趨於極端者進入議會。平心而論，民進黨在此次立委選舉恰是反向操作，提名階段就利用「排藍」機制排除了黨內較為溫和而具有中間傾向的競爭者出線，在選舉期間的基調訴求，不是和解共生的慈眉善目，而是從基本教義發展的敵我意識與戰鬥語言，造成中間選民全然疏離的後果，其實並不令人意外，而且原本就符合小選舉區制的設計預期。大家普遍對結果感到意外，不過是因為缺乏經驗而不習慣「贏者通吃」而已。一旦熟悉制度的運作原理，制度上鼓勵溫和政策以提升社會趨同的用意，就會引導候選人的行為而發生效果。

　同樣的道理也在總統選舉上存在。如果選民不願意總統與國會多數同黨，本來即可自為選擇，國會中一黨獲壓倒性多數，不是民主憲政禁止的罪惡，如果選民欣賞的是政策溫和的政黨而使之掌控國會，瞭解選民取向而在總統選舉中採取溫和中間路線的候選人，其實都有獲勝的機會。如果因為候選人執意採取極端政策路線，而在總統大選中疏離或觸怒多數選民，選民的抉擇是要政策溫和的政黨同時取得總統與國會的掌握權，那也是選民自由意志的決定，並非民主憲政中禁止的現象。

　說得更清楚一些，憲法並未禁止任何一個政黨在國會中取得多數，也未禁止總統與國會在經過選舉之後由同一個政黨掌握。不僅我國如此，世界各國的憲法大概沒有明文規定單一政黨可以獲得國會席次上限或是禁止由單一政黨同時掌握立法與行政兩權的例子。

　如果因為立委選舉的結果出人意表就要改制，難道要憲法規定人民不得投票給單一政黨過多，超過一定額度的選票不算；還是要讓選舉制度不可鼓勵政黨提出可讓多數選民認同的政策，而必須設法讓政黨各走極端，互相視如寇仇？

　如果因為總統與國會由同一政黨掌握就要改變制度，難道說要憲法規定不允許單一政黨同時掌握立法與行政兩權，國會裡獲得壓倒性勝利的政黨，不許推出候選人選上總統？要知道，國會由單一政黨取得壓倒性多數，總統與國會多數屬於同一政黨，本來就是民主憲政中預設的結果之一。一個政黨在選舉中因立場極端而無法生存，還會有其他的政黨繼之而起，用更能為選民接受的政策贏得選舉而執政。

　更深層的道理，其實在於民主憲政存在的價值並不在於政黨間的制衡，而是在於權力部門分立的制衡。政黨不該是幫派，取得政權的政黨，不能只是因為黨籍相同，就放棄憲法上應該堅持的制衡關係，例如不能因為屬相同的政黨，行政院就不去制衡總統，或是立法院就不去制衡行政院；也不能只是因為黨籍相異，就超越應有的制衡關係而從事政黨惡鬥，例如怠於行使應該行使的人事同意權，讓政黨鬥爭使得憲法機關停擺。同時掌握了立法與行政兩權的執政黨，如果完全不按制衡關係運行而脫離憲法規定的軌道，必然不能逃脫輿論的聲討，在野政黨的反對，司法的違憲審查，而會在下一次的選舉中受到選民唾棄，交出席次多數或是整個政權。

　人民用選舉淘汰極端的政黨，絕非憲政的罪惡，應該檢討的不是人民，應該道歉的不是勝選的政黨，敗選的政黨應該在下一場選舉中採取什麼態度與政策路線，是自己的選擇，選民會在下一場選舉中給予裁判。這是民主政治的常態，不是改變制度的理由！

Uphold Neutrality and the Rule of Law

Uphold Neutrality and the Rule of Law
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2008

Chang Cheng-hsiung and his ilk must vacate the political arena. They must vanish without a trace. The Central Election Commission (CEC) was meant to be a professional and neutral institution. But Chang Cheng-hsiung and others like him have turned it into the Democratic Progressive Party’s political tool. Chang Cheng-hsiung and his ilk are a disgrace to democracy, a detriment to constitutional rule.

The results of the legislative elections is likely to be a second regime change. To the nation’s civil servants, this is an unforgettable experience. No party rules in perpetuity. But civil servants serve for a lifetime. Ruling parties come and go. It is civil servants who are the gatekeepers of constitutional values and the maintainers of government standards. If a ruling party tramples over the constitution, violates the law, misrules the nation, and undermines society’s morals, civil servants must be able to maintain order until regime change brings another party into power.

Chang Cheng-hsiung is not an ordinary civil servant. The CEC chairmanship is a constitutionally-mandate, specially-appointed, politically-neutral role. The Democratic Progressive Party applied Superglue to the locks on the doors to the Legislative Yuan. They prevented Chang Cheng-hsiung’s firing. Chang Cheng-hsiung then used the CEC as a tool in the DPP’s political struggles. He manipulated elections and violated neutrality. But even Chang Cheng-hsiung was unable to revive the Democratic Progressive Party. Not this time. Instead, his attempt to deliberately sow confusion by package-dealing the plebiscite with the election infuriated the electorate, who used their ballots to punish the DPP. In the end, Chang Cheng-hsiung destroyed himself. He destroyed the CEC. He destroyed the spirit of the constitution. He even destroyed the DPP.

The CEC is neutral in theory. It ought to be neutral in fact. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s has committed many sins during its eight years of misrule. But its most unforgiveable sin is that it has virtually destroyed all remnants of neutrality required under constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Can you imagine Nita Ying as the Minister of Audit, nominating members of the Bureau of Audit? Have you seen the list of rejected Control Yuan nominees? Is any political trust possible under such circumstances? Can you believe that Grand Justice Cheng Chung-mo strongarmed legislators on behalf of the ruling regime’s constitutional interpretation case? Have you seen the way the grand justices twisted the meaning of the constitution on behalf of the ruling regime during its constitutional interpretation cases? How could our Attorney General let us down so badly? How could our Special Investigative Unit be so flagrantly partisan? How could our state-owned enterprises become political spoils? How could our banks become underwriters of our ruling regime?

Grand justices, CEC officials, state-owned enterprises, and special investigative unit officials all require neutrality and professionalism to a greater or lesser degree. The black hand of political manipulators and partisan interests must be excluded. But every one of these these realms has been coopted. The nominally public Council of Grand Justices has become a private service provider for partisan interests. The nominally public CEC has become a private service provider for the ruling DPP. Neutrality has disappeared and constitutional rule is nowhere to be found.

Neutrality and professionalism are indispensable to constitutionalism and the rule of law. One must fight for them tooth and nail. Compromise is not an option. If the CEC is not neutral, then constitutional rule has been seriously undermined. When the CEC produced Chang Cheng-hsiung, the CEC became a DPP pawn, instead of a fair and impartial entity. The DPP’s special aptitude is its ability to plant counterparts of Chang Cheng-hsiung everywhere, from the Council of Grand Justices to the China Steel Corporation. No need to enumerate. The public can count.

Lin Wen-hu, the Vice-chairman of the National Parents Union, concluded that Minister of Education Tu Cheng-shen’s “political machinations were not good. He (Tu) is working for the DPP, not for education.” This remark rang true with many parents. In fact, it hit the nail on the head. Parents are concerned that professionalism and the spirit of education have been lost. By the same token, many peoples’ concern is that Chang Cheng-hsiung is working for the DPP, not for fair elections.

A second “regime change” is imminent. Major reconstruction is required to restore constitutionalism and the rule of law, along with neutrality and professionalism. Grand justices like Cheng Chung-mo, CEC Commissioners like Chang Cheng-hsiung, and Ministers of Education like Tu Cheng-shen are out of the question. Such individuals must not be nominated. Individuals nominated must display neutrality and professionalism, and not willingly debase themselves.

Parents’ representatives lament that Tu Cheng-sheng is “working for the Democratic Progressive Party, not for education.” Every civil servant today needs to hear this lament. If indeed a “second regime change” is imminent, every civil servant needs to hear it again: “The Civil Service does not belong to the KMT. It belongs to the people. It serves the people.”

憲政法治的中立領域不容斷送
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.22 03:16 am

務使「張政雄」之輩在政壇絕跡。中選會是一個「專業中立」及「特任中立」的機構，卻被張政雄等操弄成民進黨的政爭工具。張政雄等是民主的恥辱，憲政的災難。

這次立委選舉的結果顯示，「二次政黨輪替」不無可能。這對全國公務員，皆應是一個刻骨銘心的經歷。沒有永遠的執政黨，卻有終生任職的公務員。執政黨可以如走馬燈，公務員才是憲政價值與政府品質的守門人。如果換來一個毀憲亂法、失政敗德的執政黨，公務員就要挺得住，一直挺到政黨輪替為止。

張政雄不是一般的公務員，中選會主委是「特任中立」的憲政角色。民進黨用「三秒膠」鎖住了立法院，保住了張政雄；張政雄竟將中選會當作民進黨的政爭工具，玩弄選舉，盡失中立原則。然而，張政雄這次卻未救活民進黨，反而因「公投亂大選」，使國人義憤難遏，用選票唾棄了民進黨。最後，張政雄毀了自己，毀了中選會，毀了憲政精神，其實也毀了民進黨。

眾人皆知「行政中立」，中選會更應「絕對中立」。而民進黨執政八年來，最重大的罪孽，即在幾乎摧毀了一切在憲政法治上應當固守的「中立」地帶。

你能想像用殷琪做監察委員的提名審核人嗎？你看到上一波被否決的監委名單能夠產生政治信任嗎？你相信大法官如城仲模居然為釋憲案替主政者關說立委嗎？你難道看不出大法官釋憲案中那種曲筆護主的姿態嗎？我們的檢察總長何以如此令人失望？我們的特偵組何以如此惹人議論？我們的公營事業怎麼變成分贓的籌碼？甚至我們的銀行何以竟成了主政者的政治金主？

從大法官、中選會到公營事業、特偵組，其中皆有程度不一的中立地帶，及專業領域；不容政治黑手操弄，不容黨派利益入侵。但是，縱目四望，竟是無一倖免。大法官會議若成了黨派入侵的「公營事業」，中選會若成了黑手介入的「公私行庫」，中立既失，憲政民主也就不堪聞問了。

這些中立地帶及專業領域，是維持憲政法治之所需。寸土必爭，無可妥協。中選會不中立，憲政就受重傷；中選會出了一個張政雄，中選會就成了民進黨的政治籌碼，而非中立公正的憲政機關。民進黨的本事，就是從大法官會議到中鋼公司，都布置了「張政雄」這樣的角色。此處毋庸列舉，國人扳著手指算算即可。

全國家長聯盟副理事長林文虎，談到他對教育部長杜正勝的觀感，他說：「政治操弄不太好；他（杜正勝）是為民進黨工作，不是為教育！」這句話引發了極多家長的共鳴，誠是一針見血之論。家長們的憂慮是：教育的專業被摧毀了，教育的精神被汙染了。同理，豈不是也有許多國人深自怨嘆：張政雄是在為民進黨工作，不是為公正的選舉！

值此可能出現「二次政黨輪替」的時機，主要的「災後重建」工作之一，就是要回復憲政法治體制中一切的中立地帶與專業原則。大法官裡勿再有「城仲模」，中選會裡勿再有「張政雄」，教育部裡勿再有「杜正勝」。一方面，提名任命者不可拔擢這類人物；另一方面，接受任命者應當體現其職位上應具的中立專業角色，不可自甘墮落。

家長代表對杜正勝的評語：「他是為民進黨工作，不是為教育！」這句話可以說給今天的全體公務員聽；如果出現「二次政黨輪替」，亦應再說一次：「公務員不是為國民黨工作，要為國家、為人民！」