|
EDITORIAL: When
social instability is required
As lawmakers assemble to vote on a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet this
morning at the Legislative Yuan, chances are that the motion will fail like last
year’s no-confidence motion as legislators vote along party lines.
Chances are that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would then claim — again —
that the result reflects the public’s hope of a stable political and social
atmosphere, and that the opposition should be condemned for stalling legislative
proceedings and causing political instability.
With most public opinion polls showing that the majority of the public believes
Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) should step down over poor governance and his role
in the current political crisis, a failure of the no-confidence motion would
reflect the very reason the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) submitted the
proposal in the first place — not only has Jiang underperformed, but the
legislature no longer reflects mainstream public opinion.
However, revisiting the three previous no-confidence proposals, it would be
surprising to see a new outcome.
The DPP and the New Party joined hands in launching the first no-confidence
motion, against then-premier Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in 1999, before the DPP and the
Taiwan Solidarity Union collaborated in September last year for a no-confidence
motion against then-premier Sean Chen (陳?).
Both motions failed, and both efforts were followed by the KMT telling the
public that the opposition had neglected the economy by advancing politically
motivated proposals, adding that the maneuvers would jeopardize social
stability.
Stability could be one of Taiwan’s most familiar political terms. The
authoritarian KMT regime claimed the “rioters” caused social disorder during the
228 Massacre. After that, it said the Martial Law era was required to maintain
social stability. The regime told people the same things during the late 1980s
and early 1990s, when the democratic movement spread like wildfire through the
nation — that stability came first.
Changes, reforms and protests were all welcome, it said, but changes and reforms
must be nurtured incrementally. Protesters must not clash with police or disrupt
traffic. Opposition lawmakers can give speeches, but not engage in disruptive
behavior, such occupying the podium, it said.
The same things were said during the presidential campaign in 2000. Change
brings instability and having an inexperienced party, the DPP, lead the country
would be highly risky, the KMT said.
Decades of brainwashing appeared to have convinced Taiwanese that this is true.
Many people tell the media that stability comes first and they could not care
less about what happens in the political arena.
The concept has not only affected the public’s assessment of politics, but has
also infiltrated people’s views on other issues, among them education and labor
affairs, both of which could use a shake up.
Only rarely does the public think about why there were “rioters” in 1947, a
democracy movement in the 1980s and legislators boycotting podiums now. Neither
do they question why they think changing habits, traditions and mechanisms is
always a bad thing.
The root question that had to be asked — but was not asked — was whether the KMT
regime had exploited all Taiwan’s resources to help fight its civil war in China
in the mid-1940s, and whether the regime’s oppression had made Taiwanese find
the lack of democracy and freedom of speech intolerable.
The question that needs to be asked now is whether the administrative branch and
the ruling party have abused their authority and mandate by implementing
unpopular policies lacking public consultation and whether the current political
crisis was incited by Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Taiwanese are advised to make their final judgement of the current political
gridlock when they are given the answers to those questions.
|
