|
The Liberty Times
Editorial: Ma’s ‘concern’ is only skin deep
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legislator-at-large list includes
representatives of child and welfare organizations as well as organizations for
people with physical disabilities. It has been praised by the pro--government
press as the best thing since powdered milk. However, it is precisely as
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) puts it: “It
is commendable that the KMT has considered these issues for the first time.”
The KMT has clearly included these representatives on their at-large legislator
list because the party’s election campaign is losing momentum. What really
counts is whether they will be able to make a difference after the elections.
Yet, just as the KMT has been trying to create a fresh image with the
announcement of the list, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been battered by the
media for allegedly meeting in secret with a bookmaker. These two events make
for an ironic contrast, and it is not very strange that the public is talking.
This list, which was reportedly decided on by the campaign headquarters of Ma
and his co-runner in the presidential elections, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), does
not necessarily mean that Ma is showing concern for disadvantaged groups. Quite
the contrary: Over the past three years, Ma’s policies have favored pro-Chinese
political and business groups and hurt most other people, disadvantaged groups
in particular. As he faces an increasingly difficult election battle, it is
because of the sheer dissatisfaction of these groups that Ma has included their
representatives on the legislator-at-large list in an attempt to cover up three
years of neglect. The problem is that the Ma administration’s insensitivity to
these groups has made them even more disadvantaged. Will this cosmetic inclusion
of these representatives bring any tangible improvements for these groups?
Many KMT legislative candidates knew that the recently suggested increase of an
insubstantial NT$316 (US$10) in the farmers’ pension would have a negative
impact on their own election campaigns, but they still submitted to Ma’s will
and agreed to implement his orders even though they were unfair to elderly
farmers. Facing public uproar, Ma then decided to increase the raise to
NT$1,000, as originally suggested by the DPP. As Ma flip-flops, so the party’s
legislators have to flip-flop.
With such a president and such a party chairman, what is the real significance
of including a few representatives of disadvantaged groups on the party’s
legislator-at-large list? After having ignored those voters for more than three
years, Ma must think they are weak-minded in addition to being disadvantaged.
Ma’s major turnaround on the farmers’ pension increase once again highlights
that his leadership style is to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Such an
imperious and overbearing leader, who would be happiest if the legislature were
the Presidential Office’s legislative office, simply ignores public opinion —
the foundation of the legislators’ power.
Take the signing of the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA),
for example. Once Ma’s orders went out, KMT legislators did not dare submit the
agreement to a substantive review, and did what they could to implement Ma’s
wishes. Ma decided that the farmers’ subsidy should be raised by NT$316, and it
was Ma who, in a major policy turnaround, decided that it should be raised by
NT$1,000. What was the role of legislators in this process? They are supposed to
speak for the general public, after all. Where is the dignity that the masters
of the nation (the public) should enjoy?
This also reveals the hypocrisy that underlies the inclusion of representatives
of disadvantaged groups on the legislator-at-large list. And not only them: Even
a legislator-at-large who has been chief of the army is a weak representative
among KMT legislators because they are appointed from above and do not have the
foundation of a popularly elected legislator. After those “weak representatives”
enter the legislature, they must toe the party line and, at the moment, the
party line is dictated by Ma. Anyone who doesn’t listen is expelled from the
party, and then they lose their qualifications for remaining legislators. Given
this situation, how could legislators representing disadvantaged groups ever
dare oppose Ma to fight for the disadvantaged?
There is a saying to the effect that those in the loop watch the exit, while
outsiders watch the show. No one should think that Ma has repented and will now
only do good just because he included representatives of disadvantaged groups in
the legislator-at-large list and raised the proposed farmers’ pension increase
to NT$1,000.
In ordinary times, does Ma focus on disadvantaged groups or on the so-called
“1992 consensus”? Is he friendly toward disadvantaged groups or toward big
business and powerful people? When raising salaries, did he first think of
military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers, or of the working
class, fishermen, farmers and temporary workers? Does he say: “We’re right
behind you,” to disadvantaged groups or to bookmakers?
If he has not been concerned about disadvantaged groups for the past three
years, but tricks them into voting for him by adding a few of their
representatives to his legislator-at-large list, it would not necessarily mean
that he would suddenly see the error of his ways if he is reelected.
Translated by Perry Svensson
|
