|
Chen supporters seize
DPP debate
By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水
The election for chairperson of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for
which campaigning is currently underway, is very unusual. What makes it unusual
is not the fact that there are five candidates standing for the post — a record
number for the DPP — nor the anxiety expressed by many party members at the
start of the race, but that it has centered around seeking amnesty for former
president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
On the day the candidates were due to present their policies in the first
debate, six DPP county commissioners and mayors issued a joint statement urging
the candidates to put unity first, present their platforms in a rational way and
desist from personal attacks.
The message this gave was that solving internal problems is the DPP’s top
priority at this moment. However, a party that is only concerned with handling
its internal problems will find it hard to inspire enthusiastic support among
the public, and even among its own members.
There is indeed a clear contrast between the last election for the DPP
chairmanship in 2008 and the present one. The 2008 election was held in the wake
of successive major defeats for the DPP in presidential and legislative
elections, and influential senior party figures were not very interested in the
post of chairperson. Nevertheless, grassroots party members who did not want to
see the DPP fade into oblivion did care and got actively involved in
campaigning.
The situation now is rather different.
In January’s presidential election, the DPP managed to get its candidate, Tsai
Ing-wen (蔡英文), just 800,000 votes shy of her Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
rival, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). In the four months since that election, a
lot of people have come to strongly regret having voted for the wrong person.
Although Ma was voted in for a second term, he is now more unpopular than ever.
This presents a great opportunity for the DPP, changing the attitude of senior
party members toward the chairperson election. While some of them have chosen to
stand as candidates, others have gotten actively involved in campaigning to
influence the election.
In spite of this, party members in general are a lot less enthusiastic this time
around. The most enthusiastic and active ones are Chen’s supporters. As a result
of their efforts, the recent election debate turned into a rally to save Chen,
and that is what is really unique about this election.
Even though the public and DPP members gave the debate a cool reception, Chen
was very pleased with it. His office released a statement expressing its
gratitude to the five candidates for stating their unified support of him.
During the debate, four of the five candidates explicitly called for Chen to be
given a presidential amnesty. Only one former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), took
a more moderate position by proposing that Chen could be saved by allowing him
to receive medical attention outside the prison.
Before January’s presidential election, Chen’s supporters were pinning their
hopes for his salvation on the prospect of Tsai winning the presidency. They
thought that Chen’s conviction for corruption was an act of political
oppression, so there would be no point in asking Ma to pardon him. They also
knew that talking about amnesty would not be good for the party’s prospects in
the national elections, so during the campaign they were against calling for
amnesty. Contrary to their expectations, however, the DPP lost the elections.
Following this defeat, Chen’s supporters did a complete about-face and started
demanding that Ma give Chen amnesty. During the DPP chairperson debate, there
were plenty of calls to save Chen and endless criticism of Ma, but apart from
that, the candidates hardly engaged in any other policy issues. Consequently,
the public got only the vaguest impression of what policies the candidates
actually support. This would explain why people’s reaction to the debate has
been so cool.
If Chen’s conviction was politically motivated, then his supporters should be
protesting, instead of pleading for amnesty. This is basic moral integrity. DPP
Legislator Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) was right when she observed that none of the
comrades who were sent to jail after the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident begged for
mercy or asked for amnesty even when some of their families broke up, relatives
died or they found themselves destitute — they all stood firm and fearless.
The other possibility is that Chen’s conviction was legitimate. If so, he could
persuade the public to support him by owning up to his wrongdoings and
repenting. Then he might get amnesty on the back of this public support.
However, it is important to note that in the case of amnesty the country’s
rulers are not expected to admit that the person in question was wrongly
convicted. All it means is that they feel pity for the imprisoned person — let’s
be clear about that.
The situation now is that Chen’s supporters are calling for amnesty, but cannot
give a clear reason why. In addition the calls for amnesty do not enjoy support
from the majority of the people. Is it likely that Ma would forget about
potential votes and let Chen go just because he felt sorry for him? Hardly.
Thus, as Su said, begging for amnesty for Chen is just asking to be humiliated
over and over. Yet Chen and his supporters insist on doing just that.
Maybe the candidates think that most DPP members do support pardoning Chen, so
espousing this will help them get elected as party leader. If the candidates
think this, they have misjudged the members of the DPP. Su is the only one of
the candidates who has not called for Chen to be amnestied, but his popularity
surged more than all the others after the debate. In contrast, the candidates
who talked most about amnesty for Chen were the ones whose popularity dropped
the furthest.
Is amnesty for Chen a good demand to be making? It is worth recalling what Tsai
said after she was elected as chairperson of the DPP in 2008. She said a heavy
price had been paid for the things Chen had done during his two terms as
president, and that the DPP’s biggest problem was that during those eight years
it forfeited its image and lost the public’s trust.
Tsai said the DPP had a big problem with inner-party discipline and promised
that she would be a reasonable chairperson and always act in accordance with the
law. Based on what she said, people felt Tsai could revive the party’s fortunes,
and her speech received applause from both within and outside the party.
A party must demonstrate moral integrity and the ability to distinguish right
from wrong. If it cannot do that, people are unlikely to entrust to it their
hopes and aspirations.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
|
