Interview: Chang Chau-hsiung of the People First Party

Q: In the run-up to the year-end elections, both the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have been making their positions loud and clear. In contrast, the People First Party (PFP) has been less forthcoming. Is this deliberate?

A: We have established a party; naturally we have views. While the PFP sticks to the middle path, we do not equivocate about our positions-for it is very clear to us that the DPP is incapable of ruling and that the KMT is irredeemably corrupt. And while the current election is for the legislature, the PFP is looking forward to winning the presidency in two and a half years.

In the current effort to reform the legislature only the PFP has done what it said it would do. Everyone has been talking about saving the economy, but it was the PFP that named three of the nation's top economic experts-Norman Ying, Christina Liu and Thomas Lee-as its first three choices for legislator-at-large. And it is the PFP that is seeking to change the old system of "party rule" in the legislature. Specifically, we hope to make inter-party negotiations in the legislature meaningful and use them to set policy. Given these priorities, we have made PFP Chairman Soong our 11th choice for legislator-at-large. [Legislator-at-large positions are allocated to political parties based on their total share of the vote in the legislative elections.]

The ruling party must naturally consider whom it owes when it makes its selections for legislator-at-large. Those who contributed heavily to the ruling party's effort to get its candidate elected president expect to be repaid. In this situation, you have to decide which is more important: your obligations to the nation and society, or your obligation to these individuals. You have to set up a system, nurture a culture to make such a decision. For example, what other party would dare not name Liu Sung-pan [a former president of the Legislative Yuan and one of the founders of the PFP] as its first choice for the position of legislator-at-large? But the PFP's culture is such that Liu has come to accept this.

Q: What kind of changes would you like to see Mr. Soong make in the legislature if he is elected?

A: We don't want to see the parties running the legislature any more. For example, often the DPP's Central Standing Committee says one thing; the President says another; and the Executive Yuan says something else still. The result is that the government is pulled in three different directions. The KMT, on the other hand, operates the same way regardless of whether it is the ruling party-legislators acting for their own personal gain lead it about by the nose. Take [alleged gangster] Luo Fu-juh's recent efforts to get himself named as one of the conveners of the legislature's finance committee. The committee includes 10 KMT members, yet Luo was selected. And afterwards, the KMT took no action against party members on the committee [who had been accused of selling their votes to Luo]. How do you even begin to reform a party like this?

The PFP leadership is less hard-line in its administration of the party. We don't want party functionaries setting policy. We want to apply the US model, wherein legislators representing the people guide policy, and party functionaries simply support party members, allowing representatives to focus on their legislative responsibilities.

James Soong and I were cast from the same mold. Once we get into the legislature, we will keep a close eye on policy making. Take the counterfeit money problem, for example. PFP legislator Huang Yi-chiao called the first hearings on the issue, and now Pang Chien-kuo has called another round. These men are not simply hunting publicity. They want to look at the problem, discuss systemic issues, and come up with a means of curbing the counterfeiting of our currency. Why doesn't the public report the printing of counterfeit money? Why aren't police willing to go after counterfeiters? We want to make systemic improvements. In this kind of situation, a group must demand changes before people will change.

Q: The PFP has always seemed unwilling to join a KMT alliance. Can you comment?

A: A pan-blue alliance. . . If everyone shared the same views, it would be a possibility. But I don't think there would have been much point in establishing the PFP if we were willing to ally ourselves with the corrupt and despised KMT. We can't let ourselves be hamstrung by their dirty money and their resistance to reform. But we do acknowledge the spirit of the founders of the KMT. And we acknowledge Sun Yat-sen's ideal of government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

Q: With the approach of the year-end elections, controversies over the reunification-independence issue and ethnicity have been magnified. What is your view?

A: The PFP stresses that Taiwan is Taiwan. There is no question of native or non-native-those who live here are all New Taiwanese. Ethnic harmony is important to us. There are people who spend all day shouting about how much they love Taiwan. But I recall back when we were offering guidance counseling to university students, we used to warn girls to be especially careful of the boys who spent all day declaring their love.

As for the reunification question, the tragedy is that such an important issue has been reduced to a few short, inflammatory election slogans. This is just no good. Expressions such as "one country, two systems," are incapable of describing the actual situation. Such phrases cannot be the basis for future cross-straits talks.

Independence. . . Taiwan missed its chance to declare its independence. It is very clear that reunification is a certainty at some point in the future. But what form will reunification take? And can it take place under a system that provides for freedom, democracy and prosperity? These are the issues. We fundamentally approve of the National Reunification Guidelines. That would seem to make our position the same as that of the KMT. However, while the KMT speaks of reunification, it is covertly working towards creating two Chinas. To this day, it won't admit that its "no haste, be patient" policy was mistaken.

Q: The reunification-independence question is an emotional one. Some candidates ask, "Are you going to cast a vote for China or Taiwan in this year's election?" What do you think?

A: I think this is just an election tactic. Of course they can say that. But the economy is in a slump, and demagoguery will not bring about a recovery. The public already knows that this year's vote will determine whether or not Taiwan has a bright future.

Of course, some say that Taiwan's economy is suffering because China has stolen all our jobs. But this is globalization. Taiwan can't avoid globalization. The situation is reminiscent of 20 years ago when some politicians called National Taiwan University (NTU) students the country's most unpatriotic, and claimed that NTU was just a prep school for American graduate schools. But aren't all those people now working in the Hsinchu Science Park the very ones who worked in the US for years? You have to open your eyes and take the long view on this kind of thing.

President Chen likes to say that people are selling out Taiwan by supporting "one country, two systems." But a company isn't sold off because it is or is not run by a pureblooded son of its founder. Such a decision depends instead upon whether the person in charge has the skill to run the business. It's the same for a nation.

Before President Chen's election last year, only 3% of the public supported the idea of "one country, two systems." A few months ago a survey done by the Mainland Affairs Council showed that support had grown to more than 16%. So, if "one country, two systems" equates to selling Taiwan, the new government has sold off some 13% of Taiwan's stock over the last year and a half.

Q: What's your view of a possible post-election coalition government?

A: A coalition government is a necessity. But a coalition government must be formed by groups with similar positions. You don't form a coalition just for the sake of doing so. That is a meaningless exercise and just leads to squabbling. The PFP won't be able to work with the DPP unless the DPP accepts the 1992 Consensus ["one China," but different interpretations of what the phrase means] and changes its China policy. As for the KMT, cooperation will depend on whether they have any genuine interest in reform. If a few corrupt legislators continue to control the legislature, or local KMT factions continue to dominate the party, we will not work with them. We would rather focus on developing talent within the PFP and on serving the public as an honest opposition party.

p.032

PFP vice-chairman Chang Chau-hsiung, a former hospital administrator, looks at things from a "management" angle, bringing new ideas into the world of politics.