Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Difference between Statesmen and Politicians

The Difference between Statesmen and Politicians
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 27, 2013


Summary: Nineteenth century American pastor James Freeman Clarke said "A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation." DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang refused to participate in the great debate over TISA. He dodged reporters' questions. Chairman Su is clearly a typical politician.

Full text below:

Nineteenth century American pastor James Freeman Clarke said "A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation." DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang refused to participate in the great debate over TISA. He dodged reporters' questions. Chairman Su is clearly a typical politician.

What constitutes the well-being of the next generation? Does the just signed TISA count? Chairman Su argues that TISA seriously undermines our national security, job security, and social order. He insists this is an agreement harmful to Taiwan, that sells out Taiwan. Clearly it was a major issue, one that affects the dignity, autonomy, and happiness of 23 million citizens of the Republic of China. Much is at stake. The agreement affects not just this generation, but the next generation, perhaps even the generation after that. On this point, Chairman Su agrees. Since he does, why not stand up on stage and accept questions by reporters from the four newspapers and one news service seated below? Yet Chairman Su remains tight-lipped.

According to news reports, Chairman Su was convinced that the media had preconceived positions on the issue, and he was afraid of walking into a trap. Su was probably thinking of media support for TISA. But there are 23 million people on Taiwan. Some support TISA. Some oppose it. And didn't Chairman Su say it was his intent to support the service industry, to help Taiwan? Now a rare opportunity has come along. Reporters from four newspapers and one news service sit in the audience. Here is a perfect opportunity for you to display your eloquence. Here is your chance to expound your "phony TISA, actual sell out of Taiwan" thesis. Here is your chance to demolish these "preconceived positions" in front of everyone. Here is your chance to show these "preconceived positions" for what they are, incapable of withstanding close scrutiny. What reason is there to fear walking into a trap? Unless of course Chairman Su is still under the spell of McCarthyism, seeing Reds under the bed, and impervious to reason. In which case, why fear walking into a trap? He has already painted himself into a corner.

Next, consider the media perspective. Reporters from four newspapers and one news service do not speak with a single voice. They would not simply sit in the audience asking questions. They wanted to participate, to ask questions, because they hoped to hear what different people had to say about TISA, so that the truth could emerge. Chairman Su was fearful. To ensure that the debate took place, the presidential office reluctantly agreed to participate. But lest Chairman Su forget, the next day's news would write about and comment on this major issue, taking up several pages. Yet he pretended not to see, not to hear, and refused to respond. What sort of attitude was this, except laughable self-deception?

Let us back up for a moment. Is the Fourth Estate really so terrifying? Chairman Su, suppose you become the Democratic Progressive Party's candidate for the 2016 presidential election? When you participate in a TV debate, will you be afraid of the media's "preconceived positions?" Will you be afraid of walking into a trap? Will you do as you did during the recent TISA debate? Will you refuse to allow any media organizations other than PTV to participate? Will you forbid all questions from reporters? We certainly hope not.

A presidential term is four years long. How will it impact the public on Taiwan? What about TISA? Once TISA is signed into law, its impact will persist for 8 years, 10 years, perhaps longer. It is of immensely greater importance than a presidential election. Yet Chairman Su refused to reporters' questions. But when the presidential election rolls around, it is suddenly okay for reporters to ask questions again. Chairman Su, why is that? What is your motivation? Personal power and status? Or the well-being of the nation? What do you care about? Do you care about the chaos you incited over national security, job security, and social order? Or do you care only about a four-year term as president?

Another reason why Chairman Su refused to allow reporters to ask questions may have to do with former DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Three years ago, the ruling and opposition parties organized a "Two Yings Debate" over ECFA. Reporters were forbidden to ask questions then as well. You cited that precedent. Were you afraid of losing twice in one battle?

The Two Yings Debate forbade reporters to ask questions. Frankly, that was a defect in an otherwise important policy debate. If the public and the media could have joined the war of words on stage, the result would have been even more satisfactory.

Furthermore, what former Chairman Tsai lacked back then, Chairman Su could make up for. But you failed to consider this. Instead you were afraid that former Chairman Tsai would not appear before certain "designated media." This time however, it is your turn. Now all you can do is suffer in silence.

What's worse? Losing to President Ma was no problem. He will not be running for president again anyway. But losing to former Chairman Tsai, that would be a catastrophe. During the DPP party chairman election next year, she could be your rival. She could end up as the 2016 presidential candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party. For you it is a tightrope walk, all the way. Put bluntly, the outcome of the "lose-lose battle" is your individual responsibility. It has nothing to do with TISA.

In short, TISA has an impact on future cross-Strait development. Politically, economically, and socially, it is having a critical impact. At this juncture, we hope that opposition party Chairman Su Tseng-chang is not using every trick in the book merely to cling to his personal power, personal status, and personal interests. We hope that he is actually concerned about the well-being of 23 million people.

After all, Taiwan has no shortage of politicians. What it lacks is statesmen.
  
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2013.08.27
社論-政治家與政客的差別
本報訊

     19世紀美國一位牧師克拉克(James Freeman Clarke)說過,「政治家與政客的區別在於,政治家著眼於下一代的福祉,而政客,只看下一次的選舉」。在服貿辯論的大舞台上,民進黨主席蘇貞昌拒絕媒體參與、迴避第四權提問,從這件事上看得出來,蘇主席就是一典型政客。

     什麼事情是下一代的福祉,已經簽署的《兩岸服務貿易協議》算不算?蘇主席之前認為,服貿協議嚴重影響台灣國安、就業、社會秩序等等,總之,在他看來,這是一個害台、賣台的協議。這麼大的議題,與台灣2300萬人民的這一代、下一代,甚至下下一代的尊嚴、自主與幸福,都至為攸關。這一點,蘇主席應該可以認同。既然認同,為何不能站在台上,坦然接受台下4報1社的提問?蘇主席迄今仍諱莫如深。

     根據報載,蘇主席認為,「媒體有預設立場,怕墮入圈套」。所謂「預設立場」,大概指的是支持服貿協議簽署的媒體。試問,台灣2300萬人民,挺服貿者有之,反服貿者亦有之,蘇主席苦口婆心、想方設法,不就是要戳破「挺服貿、助台灣」的假象嗎?如此難得,台下有4報1社的媒體菁英,您不正好一展滔滔雄辯之才,力數「假服貿、真賣台」的理論與例證,一一駁斥這些「預設立場」,讓全民看看,這些預設立場如同摧枯拉朽、不堪一擊,又何懼「圈套」之有?除非,蘇主席提的依舊是「恐共、畏共、懼共」的陳言老套,無法以理服人,果真如此,也不必別人下什麼套,自己就把自己套死了。

     其次,站在媒體的立場,4報1社既非只有一種聲音,也不是當天非坐在台下發問不可,之所以願意參與、提問,就是希望能從方方面面的角度來看服貿協議,讓真理愈辯愈明。既然蘇主席有所顧忌,府方為了讓辯論成局,也勉強同意,但蘇主席不要忘了,第二天見刊的報導分析,難道不會寫、不會評論,那可是幾個全版操作的大議題,您就只當沒看到、沒聽到,所以也不用回應了,是這個邏輯嗎?如果是,那是可笑,是自欺欺人。

     退一步說,被第四權提問如果這麼可怕,試問蘇主席,假設您代表民進黨參選2016年總統大選,到了電視辯論的時候,就不怕有「預設立場」的媒體設下圈套?是不是也要比照這次服貿辯論,除了公視以外,不准其他媒體參與,禁止所有媒體發問呢?應該不至於吧。

     總統一任,對台灣老百姓的影響也就是4年,服貿協議呢?一旦簽署生效,影響的是8年、10年,甚至更久,一個比選總統還大的事,蘇主席居然拒絕媒體提問,到了總統大選,媒體又突然可以發問了,請問蘇主席,您為的是什麼?是個人權位,還是國家福祉?您關心的是什麼?是您念茲在茲因服貿協議簽署所扯出來的國安、就業、社會秩序等種種亂象,還是4年一任的總統大位?

     另一個蘇主席不准媒體提問的理由,可能與民進黨前主席蔡英文有關。朝野兩黨3年多前就ECFA議題舉辦「雙英論戰」,當時沒有媒體發問,您要求援例辦理;還有,不知道您是否怕「一戰雙輸」?

     雙英論戰沒有媒體發問,坦白講,是美中不足之處,一個重大政策的論證,除了台上兩人唇槍舌戰之外,如果還有代表輿論的媒體加入,豈不更為周延。

     更進一步說,蔡前主席當年沒做到的,恰是蘇主席可以補強的,可您慮不及此,反倒怕當年對蔡前主席下套不成的「特定媒體」,這次對您下套了,那您豈不成了吃了黃蓮的啞巴。

     尤有甚者,輸給馬總統也就算了,反正他也不會再出來選總統了,輸給蔡前主席,可就不划算了,因為明年民進黨黨主席競選,她可是個勁敵,更何況,2016年誰代表民進黨參選總統,對您更是步步為營輸不得。所謂「一戰雙輸」,說穿了,還是以個人勝負為己任、置服貿危安於度外。

     總之,服貿協議對兩岸未來的發展,從政治面、經濟面,到社會面、文化面,在在發揮其關鍵性的影響,值此關鍵時刻,我們衷心期待在野的蘇貞昌主席不是想盡辦法、用盡手?q,只為了保有一己的權力、地位或利益站在台上,而是真正為2300萬老百姓謀福祉、興大利去辯、去爭。

     畢竟,台灣不缺少政客,缺的是政治家!


No comments: