THE NIGHT when the results of Taiwan's 2000 presidential election were announced, angry crowds including members of the Nationalist Party of China, or Kuomintang （KMT）, surrounded the premises of the party's headquarters. Waving flags and shouting protests, the indignant people demanded that Lee Teng-hui take responsibility for the party's defeat in the poll and step down as chairman of the KMT.
The candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party（DPP）, Chen Shui-bian, obtained nearly 40% of the votes；independent candidate James Soong secured about 37%； while the KMT candidate Lien Chan got a dismal 23%.
Such a crushing defeat and disastrous loss of popular support must be a staggering blow to the KMT, a party with a history of a century. Predictably, it will split and fall apart by and by, though it may not crumble instantly.
Although one may not lay the blame on Lee Teng-hui alone, definitely he must take substantial responsibility for what the KMT has suffered today.
When the late President Chiang Ching-kuo handed the helm of party and government over to Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan was fairly well off. The economy was thriving, public order was satisfactory, the international milieu was quiet, and the ties with China were progressing smoothly.
Given all this, Lee Teng-hui could have done well if only he had been a responsible helmsman bent on steering Taiwan steadily towards prosperity.
But he was not. Instead, he was bent on infighting. As soon as he came to power, he began pushing his comrades around, starting with Lee Huan, Hau Pei-tusn, Jaw Shau-kong, Wang Chien-shien and Lin Yang-kang, and finishing with James Soong, Liu Sung-pan and David J C Chung.
As a result, these KMT veterans had to quit the party one after another. This caused splits within the KMT, destabilised the political scene on the island, and wore away the energy of Taiwanese society.
True, in their time, the late presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo had not been entirely law-abiding, but they had not violated law blatantly. For example, when Chiang Kai-shek was seeking another term as president, he dared not tamper with the Constitution itself. All he did was to wring what he needed from the provisional articles and clauses.
But Lee Teng-hui was much bolder. To give himself still greater power and justify his bid for another term as president, he had the Constitution revised several times, which betrayed his unconstitutional intentions.
Moreover, he connived at the National Assembly members' attempt to get re-elected, which went directly against the will of the people.
Officialdom in the late Chiangs' era deserved criticism, but at least it did not gang up with the business sector for dirty profits, and could handle corruption cases with tolerable justice and impartiality.
By contrast, for the dozen years of Lee Teng-hui's rule, the official-business collusion and money politics have become so rampant that corruption is now almost something taken for granted. Not only has this eaten away the island's political conscience, but it has smashed the people's faith in the government.
In the recent electoral campaign, the KMT candidate Lien Chan put forward six planks in his party's platform, among which were “wiping out money politics” and “eradicating corruption”。 But the Taiwanese people had lost all faith in the KMT, and refused it another chance.
Understandably, not many people were surprised at the defeat of the KMT or felt sorry for it. It has been clear to all that, acting the way it has been doing, the KMT would certainly meet its doom sooner or later.
Besides, it is doubtful how much affection Lee Teng-hui did have for his party. In an interview with the late Japanese writer Ryotaro Shiba in 1993, he had called the KMT an alien authority that came to rule Taiwan. It was a sheer chance of history that made him chairman of the KMT. Inwardly, he may not feel he should be responsible to his party.
Misfortune may prove to be a blessing in disguise, as the saying goes. Should the defeated KMT be able to earnestly examine how it failed and correct its mistakes and errors, there can still be chances for it to stage a comeback someday.
But this seems improbable so far, judging by the fact that the KMT leadership has attributed its defeat, first of all, to James Soong's campaigning efforts as an independent candidate outside the party. It has totally ignored the people's desire for reforms.
It is indeed shocking that, even after such a devastating defeat, the KMT is still trying to gloss over its vices and explain away its failure.
The KMT is a shop of a century's standing. If the shopkeeper himself wants it closed down, the customers cannot help in any way, can they？
（The Chinese original was published in the April issue of Taiwan's Global Vista Monthly. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
店東自己要關(guān)門了！
兩千年總統(tǒng)大選揭曉之夜,激憤的中國國民黨黨員和民眾,包圍國民黨中央黨部前門,搖旗怒吼,要求李登輝立即辭去黨主席的職務(wù),為國民黨的敗選負責。
這次選舉,陳水扁得了將近40%的選票,宋楚瑜得票約37%,連戰(zhàn)只得了23%.輸?shù)萌绱酥畱K,失民心如此之鉅,對百年老店的國民黨來說,真是情何以堪？而選后的國民黨,雖或不致于立即瓦解,但分崩離析的窘境,恐怕是難以避免的。
國民黨有今天的下場,這筆帳雖未必全應(yīng)記在李登輝頭上,但李登輝應(yīng)負極大責任則應(yīng)無疑義。蔣經(jīng)國把黨和國家交托給李登輝的時候,臺灣大體上還算一個小康局面：經(jīng)濟欣欣向榮,社會安定,國際上無大風波,兩岸關(guān)系平穩(wěn)進展；李登輝只要在舊有秩序上,掌穩(wěn)舵,在安定中求繁榮就行。
但李登輝不此之圖,甫上任就搞內(nèi)斗,從李煥、郝柏村、趙少康、王建煊、林洋港,以迄宋楚瑜、劉松藩和鐘榮吉等人紛紛求去,使黨內(nèi)分裂、政局不安,社會力在分化是不斷消耗。
兩蔣時代誠然不太守法,但尚不敢公然為之。就拿憲法來說,老蔣先生要連任,不敢動憲法本文,只能打臨時條款的念頭。李先生就比較有“膽識”得多,為了擴權(quán),為了連任,幾次修憲無不有“毀憲亂政”的痕跡。尤其去年縱容國代延任,更是大失人心。
兩蔣時代的政風雖也有可議之處,但政商分途,不使合流；而對于貪污案件,大體上也能秉公依法處理。而李登輝執(zhí)政的十幾年,政商勾結(jié)和黑金政治的深化,使貪污幾乎變成正常與合理的現(xiàn)象。不僅腐蝕了政治良心,更失去了人民的信心。
黨提名候選人連戰(zhàn)競選口號的“六大主張”中,“徹底消滅黑金”和“徹底消滅貪污”就占了兩條。但百姓對國民黨已失望透頂,不再給它機會。
所以說,國民黨這次失敗,社會大眾感到驚訝或惋惜的人并不多；因為大家知道,以國民黨這樣的作風,失敗是早晚要來的。
再說,李登輝與司馬遼太郎的談話,指國民黨是“外來政權(quán)”等等,他對國民黨有多少感情,實在難說。他做了黨主席,只是歷史的偶然,在他內(nèi)心,也許不覺得對國民黨負有多少責任。
“塞翁失馬,焉知非?！眹顸h失敗了,如能認真檢討,決心改過,未來仍有再起的機會。但是觀乎黨中央檢討敗選的八點原因,頭兩項居然都歸咎于宋楚瑜的“執(zhí)意參選”,而完全規(guī)避了渴望改革的民意。
這樣慘重的失敗,竟然還粉飾依舊,敷衍依舊；百年老店,若是店東一心想關(guān)門,顧客也愛莫能助,是不是？
The candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party（DPP）, Chen Shui-bian, obtained nearly 40% of the votes；independent candidate James Soong secured about 37%； while the KMT candidate Lien Chan got a dismal 23%.
Such a crushing defeat and disastrous loss of popular support must be a staggering blow to the KMT, a party with a history of a century. Predictably, it will split and fall apart by and by, though it may not crumble instantly.
Although one may not lay the blame on Lee Teng-hui alone, definitely he must take substantial responsibility for what the KMT has suffered today.
When the late President Chiang Ching-kuo handed the helm of party and government over to Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan was fairly well off. The economy was thriving, public order was satisfactory, the international milieu was quiet, and the ties with China were progressing smoothly.
Given all this, Lee Teng-hui could have done well if only he had been a responsible helmsman bent on steering Taiwan steadily towards prosperity.
But he was not. Instead, he was bent on infighting. As soon as he came to power, he began pushing his comrades around, starting with Lee Huan, Hau Pei-tusn, Jaw Shau-kong, Wang Chien-shien and Lin Yang-kang, and finishing with James Soong, Liu Sung-pan and David J C Chung.
As a result, these KMT veterans had to quit the party one after another. This caused splits within the KMT, destabilised the political scene on the island, and wore away the energy of Taiwanese society.
True, in their time, the late presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo had not been entirely law-abiding, but they had not violated law blatantly. For example, when Chiang Kai-shek was seeking another term as president, he dared not tamper with the Constitution itself. All he did was to wring what he needed from the provisional articles and clauses.
But Lee Teng-hui was much bolder. To give himself still greater power and justify his bid for another term as president, he had the Constitution revised several times, which betrayed his unconstitutional intentions.
Moreover, he connived at the National Assembly members' attempt to get re-elected, which went directly against the will of the people.
Officialdom in the late Chiangs' era deserved criticism, but at least it did not gang up with the business sector for dirty profits, and could handle corruption cases with tolerable justice and impartiality.
By contrast, for the dozen years of Lee Teng-hui's rule, the official-business collusion and money politics have become so rampant that corruption is now almost something taken for granted. Not only has this eaten away the island's political conscience, but it has smashed the people's faith in the government.
In the recent electoral campaign, the KMT candidate Lien Chan put forward six planks in his party's platform, among which were “wiping out money politics” and “eradicating corruption”。 But the Taiwanese people had lost all faith in the KMT, and refused it another chance.
Understandably, not many people were surprised at the defeat of the KMT or felt sorry for it. It has been clear to all that, acting the way it has been doing, the KMT would certainly meet its doom sooner or later.
Besides, it is doubtful how much affection Lee Teng-hui did have for his party. In an interview with the late Japanese writer Ryotaro Shiba in 1993, he had called the KMT an alien authority that came to rule Taiwan. It was a sheer chance of history that made him chairman of the KMT. Inwardly, he may not feel he should be responsible to his party.
Misfortune may prove to be a blessing in disguise, as the saying goes. Should the defeated KMT be able to earnestly examine how it failed and correct its mistakes and errors, there can still be chances for it to stage a comeback someday.
But this seems improbable so far, judging by the fact that the KMT leadership has attributed its defeat, first of all, to James Soong's campaigning efforts as an independent candidate outside the party. It has totally ignored the people's desire for reforms.
It is indeed shocking that, even after such a devastating defeat, the KMT is still trying to gloss over its vices and explain away its failure.
The KMT is a shop of a century's standing. If the shopkeeper himself wants it closed down, the customers cannot help in any way, can they？
（The Chinese original was published in the April issue of Taiwan's Global Vista Monthly. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
店東自己要關(guān)門了！
兩千年總統(tǒng)大選揭曉之夜,激憤的中國國民黨黨員和民眾,包圍國民黨中央黨部前門,搖旗怒吼,要求李登輝立即辭去黨主席的職務(wù),為國民黨的敗選負責。
這次選舉,陳水扁得了將近40%的選票,宋楚瑜得票約37%,連戰(zhàn)只得了23%.輸?shù)萌绱酥畱K,失民心如此之鉅,對百年老店的國民黨來說,真是情何以堪？而選后的國民黨,雖或不致于立即瓦解,但分崩離析的窘境,恐怕是難以避免的。
國民黨有今天的下場,這筆帳雖未必全應(yīng)記在李登輝頭上,但李登輝應(yīng)負極大責任則應(yīng)無疑義。蔣經(jīng)國把黨和國家交托給李登輝的時候,臺灣大體上還算一個小康局面：經(jīng)濟欣欣向榮,社會安定,國際上無大風波,兩岸關(guān)系平穩(wěn)進展；李登輝只要在舊有秩序上,掌穩(wěn)舵,在安定中求繁榮就行。
但李登輝不此之圖,甫上任就搞內(nèi)斗,從李煥、郝柏村、趙少康、王建煊、林洋港,以迄宋楚瑜、劉松藩和鐘榮吉等人紛紛求去,使黨內(nèi)分裂、政局不安,社會力在分化是不斷消耗。
兩蔣時代誠然不太守法,但尚不敢公然為之。就拿憲法來說,老蔣先生要連任,不敢動憲法本文,只能打臨時條款的念頭。李先生就比較有“膽識”得多,為了擴權(quán),為了連任,幾次修憲無不有“毀憲亂政”的痕跡。尤其去年縱容國代延任,更是大失人心。
兩蔣時代的政風雖也有可議之處,但政商分途,不使合流；而對于貪污案件,大體上也能秉公依法處理。而李登輝執(zhí)政的十幾年,政商勾結(jié)和黑金政治的深化,使貪污幾乎變成正常與合理的現(xiàn)象。不僅腐蝕了政治良心,更失去了人民的信心。
黨提名候選人連戰(zhàn)競選口號的“六大主張”中,“徹底消滅黑金”和“徹底消滅貪污”就占了兩條。但百姓對國民黨已失望透頂,不再給它機會。
所以說,國民黨這次失敗,社會大眾感到驚訝或惋惜的人并不多；因為大家知道,以國民黨這樣的作風,失敗是早晚要來的。
再說,李登輝與司馬遼太郎的談話,指國民黨是“外來政權(quán)”等等,他對國民黨有多少感情,實在難說。他做了黨主席,只是歷史的偶然,在他內(nèi)心,也許不覺得對國民黨負有多少責任。
“塞翁失馬,焉知非?！眹顸h失敗了,如能認真檢討,決心改過,未來仍有再起的機會。但是觀乎黨中央檢討敗選的八點原因,頭兩項居然都歸咎于宋楚瑜的“執(zhí)意參選”,而完全規(guī)避了渴望改革的民意。
這樣慘重的失敗,竟然還粉飾依舊,敷衍依舊；百年老店,若是店東一心想關(guān)門,顧客也愛莫能助,是不是？