陳菊要小心這波尾巴搖狗現象
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.22 01:49 am
民進黨立委高志鵬在國會質詢，
面對陳冲。
以同一問題連續追問了八十八次「應不應特赦阿扁」，
創下紀錄。
高志鵬頗以自己的質詢招數自得，
立院同仁則認為是無聊的作秀；
但仔細觀察，
這其實反映了民進黨在這波救扁運動中「尾巴搖狗」的失衡現象。
「救扁行動」最初是由客社、
北社等本土社團發起，
以陳水扁患有冠心症為由，
串連扁系人馬連署，
要求法務部讓扁保外就醫。
接著，在派系施壓及操作下，
保外就醫的籲求很快在民進黨內升高為要求「特赦」。
再隔一日，
林佳龍等一批青壯立委連署提案，
要求要為扁修法恢復卸任元首的醫療「禮遇」；
同時，也有了高志鵬跳針八十八次的挺扁演出。
短短數日，
民進黨拋棄「反美牛」的戰場，
全力轉攻「搶救阿扁」的聖戰，
不能不說是一個突兀的轉折。
往好處看，
民進黨確實很團結，
總是能齊心合力作戰；
往壞處看，
當下的民進黨似乎缺乏方向感，
甚且輕重不分，
因此大軍徒有戰力卻只會蠻幹。
否則，在這個節骨眼，
有何必要傾全黨之力去進行救扁、
護扁之役？
試問：陳水扁在獄中受到了非人道待遇嗎？
或者法務部門置他的健康於不顧了嗎？
答案是沒有。
那麼，民進黨要求的人道待遇，
立論根據何在？
再問：陳水扁懇切認錯反省了嗎？
他的貪瀆款項全數吐清了嗎？
台灣多數民眾已覺得扁珍之罪「其情可憫」嗎？
答案也全是否定。
那麼，民進黨要求給他特赦和禮遇，
又正當性何在？
更別忘了，
作為扁家貪瀆的共犯結構，
民進黨本身過去四年也從未就此向台灣人民道過歉。
如今，卻以為時過境遷，
又可以拿阿扁來向馬政府施壓，
豈非太過天真？
更耐人尋味的是，
蔡英文過去四年和陳水扁保持「敬而遠之」的關係，
雖嫌機巧，
至少無礙觀瞻；
而陳菊代理主席職務不到一個月，
整個黨即瞬間向阿扁轟然傾斜，
這又是什麼原因？
之所以形容民進黨這波救扁運動是「尾巴搖狗」，
有幾個原因：
第一，陳水扁的處境當然可以關切，
卻不是黨當前的迫切要務；
挺扁社團發起行動後，
民進黨只要敲敲邊鼓略事聲援即可，
無需全黨上下群起呼喝響應。
而如今鬧到整個黨被周邊社團牽著鼻子走，
不是「尾巴搖狗」、
輕重不分，
卻是什麼？
第二，救援行動的手段選擇，
超乎了界線。
以民進黨最大在野黨的地位，
只要透過質詢或記者會提出合理訴求，
相信執政黨絕對不敢輕慢；
但綠委卻要動用立法權去為阿扁量身打造禮遇，
甚至利用不恰當的質詢手段來壓迫執政黨。
這種作法，
在民眾看來，
才是典型的公器私用；
浪費國家資源和國會職務來保護一個敗德者，
當然是本末倒置。
第三，救扁行動之所以如火如荼，
據傳主要是扁系人馬在幕後施壓，
迫使其他立委表態挺扁；
這樣的運作，
也反映了黨中央在青黃不接之際的失控狀態。
陳菊只是代理主席，
或許因此無意在此期間表現積極領導的作為，
但缺乏政策指引的結果，
便造成了派系操作引導政黨走向的錯亂現象，
這能說不是尾巴搖狗嗎？
大選失敗後，
民進黨可以做的，
應該是利用立委在國會的犀利問政，
來鞭策馬政府，
並召喚選民的認同。
遺憾的是，
民進黨雖有一批戰力不錯的新秀進入國會，
卻無法改掉好戰、
為反而反的習性，
因而難以展現反對黨矯正國家決策的積極作用。
尤其這波救扁行動，
烽火雖然燒得熾烈，
高舉的卻不是讓人振奮的正義或公益的大旗，
徒然讓人感到師心自用，
甚至暴露了黨內的盲動與失控，
得不償失。
看到民進黨連串的本末倒置景象，
外界也許更能看出，
蔡英文任內的領導模式確有其所長。
陳菊或許只是以過渡者自居，
但在五月交卸主席職務前，
她仍有責任扮好領導角色，
不要再讓民進黨的能量虛擲。
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Prosecute Those Who Obstructed Investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident
Prosecute Those Who Obstructed Investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2012
Summary: This is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, which had a major impact on political and social evolution on Taiwan. Most people have been unwilling to revisit this event, which tore society apart. The key figures in the shooting incident were former president Chen Shui-bian and former vice president Annette Lu. Paradoxically, they are the very ones who have called on the Ma administration to reopen the case. The DPP legislative caucus has proposed the establishment of a fact-finding commission within the Legislative Yuan. These moves have left observers wondering. Maybe the shooting was a hoax after all?
Full Text below:
This is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, which had a major impact on political and social evolution on Taiwan. Most people have been unwilling to revisit this event, which tore society apart. The key figures in the shooting incident were former president Chen Shui-bian and former vice president Annette Lu. Paradoxically, they are the very ones who have called on the Ma administration to reopen the case. The DPP legislative caucus has proposed the establishment of a fact-finding commission within the Legislative Yuan. These moves have left observers wondering. Maybe the shooting was a hoax after all?
The 3/19 Shooting Incident occurred eight years ago, on the eve of the presidential election. It is widely seen as the reason for the election upset. Two bullets allowed Chen and Lu to win re-election, by the slimmest of margins. Following the incident, the National Security Bureau and the president's right-hand man Chiou I-jen, replete with his Cheshire Cat smile, prevented Chang Shi-liang, former National Police Administration Chief, from entering Chi Mei hospital to investigate. As a result, over half the people do not believe the incident was a genuine assassination attempt.
Over the next four years, the ruling and opposition parties spent most of their time at loggerheads with each other. The Chen regime invited internationally renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee home to investigate. But even he could not gain the public trust. Eight years later, Henry Lee expressed regret. He conducted so many investigations. This one was a "minor case." But due to political factors, it was the most difficult one he ever dealt with.
As a forensic scientist, Henry Lee could only carry out forensic analysis of the physical evidence. He discovered the vehicle used during the presidential campaign had not been properly taken into evidence. This raised eyebrows. Some think those in charge may even have replaced the car's windshield. If so, Henry Lee's painstaking forensic analysis was all for naught.
Henry Lee even cited "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," a TV series the public on Taiwan is familiar with. He said real world cases are handled very differently from the way they are depicted on TV. To conduct a proper investigation one needs a good team. One needs good detectives, crime scene investigators, forensic specialists, medical examiners, and prosecutors. The TV series was correct about one thing. The physical evidence must be analyzed as soon as possible. The chain of custody must be maintained to avoid suspicion that it has been altered or damaged. Failure to do so could lead to questions about the credibility of the investigation. That is how we know the investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident was carried out reluctantly, under unprofessional circumstances.
The crime scene was also the scene of a mass gathering. It was almost completely destroyed. The two bullets were retrieved long after the incident took place. The authorities used the bullets to find the pistol. They used the pistol to find the suspects. They tracked the pistol to Tang Shou-yi, the maker of the pistol. But was this home-made pistol really powerful enough to fire two rounds in a matter of seconds? No one can answer this question. The pistol was tracked to its owner, Chen Yi-hsiung. But he was already dead. Not only had he drowned, he had been hastily cremated, without a post-mortem, in contravention of normal procedure. It is now impossible to determine whether Chen Yi-hsiung drowned, or was already dead when he landed in the water.
Annette Lu was shot. She has never believed the police and prosecutors' account of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. She has long suspected that she was the real target. Alleged gunman Chen Yi-hsiung's family members have long maintained that there was sufficient evidence to prove he was the perpetrator. They want Chen Yi-hsiung's name cleared. But the case was mishandled. Discovering the truth at this late date is no longer possible. None of the questions have been answered over the past eight years. Many members of the public have offered their own accounts of the incident. Academia Sinica researcher Chu Hung-yuan says the 3/19 Shooting Incident was unquestionably a hoax. He even claims to have three witnesses. All he needs is for the case to be reopened.
Lest we forget, eight years ago the KMT established a Truth Commission within the legislature. The Chen regime could easily have cooperated with the Truth Commission investigation and proved Chen Shui-bian's innocence. It could easily have proved that he did not orchestrate a false flag operation. Instead, Chen did everything in his power to obstruct the investigation. He even declared an "executive right of resistance." Former Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng attempted to investigate. Chen denied her access to the information and the witnesses. Her efforts ran into a brick wall, and went nowhere.
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP refused to uncover the truth. Now suddenly, eight years later. they want the current legislature to establish a fact-finding commission to uncover the truth. The two bullets are in the custody of the CIB. But what other evidence can legislators examine? Then presidential bodyguard Chen Chai-fu made a last moment phone call to Chen Shui-bian. Just exactly what was the call about? And what about the vehicle they used. None of these will help us discover the truth. Does the DPP expect Chen Chai-fu to confess that he orchestrated a hoax? Former CIB Commissioner Hou Yu-yi is now Xinbei City deputy mayor. Does the DPP expect him to confess that he conspired with Chen Shui-bian to fake the grazing wound on his abdomen? Does the DPP expect former Agricultural Minister and former National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen to confess that the shooting was a hoax, and that Chen Shui-bian was its mastermind?
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP's biggest mistake eight years ago was to stonewall the Truth Commission, and to flatly refuse to allow a credible investigation to take place. They left a black mark on the island's history that can never be erased. This black mark haunts Chen Shui-bian. The people do not trust Chen Shui-bian. They do not believe the 3/19 Shooting Incident was a genuine assassination attempt. They believe the Chen regime orchestrated a false flag operation against itself. Chen wants the Ma administration to reopen the case. Chen knows the Ma administration cannot possibly uncover the truth. The public knows this. The Ma administration can do one thing however. It can prosecute the police, the prosecutors, and the national security personnel who obstructed the fact-finding process. It can make them pay for concealing the truth, and for dividing the nation.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.21
社論－嚴懲阻礙319槍擊案真相調查者
本報訊
影響台灣政治社會重大的「三一九槍擊案」八周年，本來沒有多少人願意再想起這個撕裂社會的案件，偏偏槍擊案當事人、前正副總統陳水扁與呂秀蓮都呼籲馬政府重啟調查，民進黨立院黨團更將提案在立法院成立真相調閱委員會；種種動作直令人匪夷所思，難不成這起槍擊案還真是造假的？
三一九槍擊案發生在八年前的總統大選前夕，一般相信這也是讓選情逆轉的關鍵，兩顆子彈讓陳、呂以極小票差當選連任；但是，事發後包括國安局和總統身邊左右手邱義仁等神祕的微笑，或阻擋前警政署長張四良進入奇美醫院探視，搞得舉國大半民眾不相信此案真偽。
接續下來的四年中，有大半時間是在朝野嚴重對立的情勢下度過，即使扁政府請回國際知名鑑識專家李昌鈺返國調查，還是無法取信於國人。整整八年之後，李昌鈺感慨，這個案子在他辦過這麼多案件中「算是小案」，然而政治因素的壓力卻是最大。
身為鑑識人員，李昌鈺只能就現有證物進行鑑識。他回國的時候，總統競選座車有沒有妥善保管不無疑問；迄今甚至有人相信有關單位可能根本就把座車的擋風玻璃換掉了；如果此說為真，那李昌鈺的任何鑑識都是枉然。
李昌鈺還以國人非常熟悉的《ＣＳＩ犯罪現場》舉例，辦案的真實情況和影集差距甚遠，辦好一件案子要有好的團隊，包括優秀的刑警、現場人員、鑑識人員、法醫和檢察官等等。然而，單就影集裡任何現場物證一定要在最短時間送驗，中途不得逗留以避免變造或毀損的可能，連引發無謂的揣測都不行，就可以知道三一九槍擊案是在多麼不專業的情況下勉強查辦。
不要說事發現場是一個群眾場合，幾乎全毀，兩顆子彈的彈頭還是事後街上撿回來的；即使以彈追槍，以槍追人，追到了造槍的唐守義，但這把土製手槍真能這麼厲害的在短短數秒內擊發兩彈嗎？這個疑問到現在沒人能給一個答案；由槍還追到了用槍的陳義雄，然而，追到人之後，此人不但已經溺水，甚至未經正常程序驗屍即在最短時間內火化，到現在已無人可以再調查陳義雄到底是落水死亡，或落水前即已身故。
挨彈之一的呂秀蓮始終不相信三一九槍擊案的真相確如檢警當時的調查，甚至始終懷疑槍手根本是衝著她而來；被視為用槍者陳義雄的家屬迄今都認為沒有足夠證據認定陳是嫌犯，要求還給陳義雄和他們一個清白。但是，錯失辦案的第一時間，再想追索真相簡直就是緣木求魚；八年來所有的疑問都無法得到答案，民間調查版本紛紛出爐；中研院研究員朱浤源指證三一九槍擊案確係造假，甚至他還聲言掌握「三位核心證人」，就等重啟調查。
但是，別忘了，八年前國民黨在立法院成立真相調查委員會的時候，最可配合調查以證明自己清白沒造假的扁政府，傾全力抗拒，甚至行使「行政抵抗權」；參與調查的前法務部長王清峰不論想調閱任何資料，或詢問任何相關人等，全部碰壁，無功而返。
八年前拒絕調查真相的陳水扁和民進黨，突然在八年後想通了，要在立法院成立調閱委員會追查真相。但是，除了還擺在刑事局的兩顆子彈，請問還能留下什麼資料給立委調閱？當年身為總統侍衛長的陳再福最後一通電話到底是給陳水扁買碗粿，或者變更宣傳車內容，都無助於釐清真相，民進黨是要陳再福承認配合造假？還是要已轉任新北市副市長的前刑事局長侯友宜承認配合陳水扁的腹遭彈擊擦傷？或要卸任務農的前國安會秘書長邱義仁承認安排造假？還是要陳水扁承認主導造假？
陳水扁和民進黨犯的最大錯誤就是在八年前阻擋真調會。全面抗拒可讓民眾信賴的調查，讓台灣民主政治烙下一個永難抹滅的恥辱。這個恥辱同樣標記在陳水扁身上，民眾不信任陳水扁、不相信三一九槍擊案，也是扁政府自己造成的。要求馬政府重啟調查，可以預見查不出真相，但是至少可以做到一件事：嚴懲所有在過程中阻礙真相調查的檢警調和國安人員，讓他們付出真相難明撕裂社會人心的代價。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2012
Summary: This is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, which had a major impact on political and social evolution on Taiwan. Most people have been unwilling to revisit this event, which tore society apart. The key figures in the shooting incident were former president Chen Shui-bian and former vice president Annette Lu. Paradoxically, they are the very ones who have called on the Ma administration to reopen the case. The DPP legislative caucus has proposed the establishment of a fact-finding commission within the Legislative Yuan. These moves have left observers wondering. Maybe the shooting was a hoax after all?
Full Text below:
This is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, which had a major impact on political and social evolution on Taiwan. Most people have been unwilling to revisit this event, which tore society apart. The key figures in the shooting incident were former president Chen Shui-bian and former vice president Annette Lu. Paradoxically, they are the very ones who have called on the Ma administration to reopen the case. The DPP legislative caucus has proposed the establishment of a fact-finding commission within the Legislative Yuan. These moves have left observers wondering. Maybe the shooting was a hoax after all?
The 3/19 Shooting Incident occurred eight years ago, on the eve of the presidential election. It is widely seen as the reason for the election upset. Two bullets allowed Chen and Lu to win re-election, by the slimmest of margins. Following the incident, the National Security Bureau and the president's right-hand man Chiou I-jen, replete with his Cheshire Cat smile, prevented Chang Shi-liang, former National Police Administration Chief, from entering Chi Mei hospital to investigate. As a result, over half the people do not believe the incident was a genuine assassination attempt.
Over the next four years, the ruling and opposition parties spent most of their time at loggerheads with each other. The Chen regime invited internationally renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee home to investigate. But even he could not gain the public trust. Eight years later, Henry Lee expressed regret. He conducted so many investigations. This one was a "minor case." But due to political factors, it was the most difficult one he ever dealt with.
As a forensic scientist, Henry Lee could only carry out forensic analysis of the physical evidence. He discovered the vehicle used during the presidential campaign had not been properly taken into evidence. This raised eyebrows. Some think those in charge may even have replaced the car's windshield. If so, Henry Lee's painstaking forensic analysis was all for naught.
Henry Lee even cited "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," a TV series the public on Taiwan is familiar with. He said real world cases are handled very differently from the way they are depicted on TV. To conduct a proper investigation one needs a good team. One needs good detectives, crime scene investigators, forensic specialists, medical examiners, and prosecutors. The TV series was correct about one thing. The physical evidence must be analyzed as soon as possible. The chain of custody must be maintained to avoid suspicion that it has been altered or damaged. Failure to do so could lead to questions about the credibility of the investigation. That is how we know the investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident was carried out reluctantly, under unprofessional circumstances.
The crime scene was also the scene of a mass gathering. It was almost completely destroyed. The two bullets were retrieved long after the incident took place. The authorities used the bullets to find the pistol. They used the pistol to find the suspects. They tracked the pistol to Tang Shou-yi, the maker of the pistol. But was this home-made pistol really powerful enough to fire two rounds in a matter of seconds? No one can answer this question. The pistol was tracked to its owner, Chen Yi-hsiung. But he was already dead. Not only had he drowned, he had been hastily cremated, without a post-mortem, in contravention of normal procedure. It is now impossible to determine whether Chen Yi-hsiung drowned, or was already dead when he landed in the water.
Annette Lu was shot. She has never believed the police and prosecutors' account of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. She has long suspected that she was the real target. Alleged gunman Chen Yi-hsiung's family members have long maintained that there was sufficient evidence to prove he was the perpetrator. They want Chen Yi-hsiung's name cleared. But the case was mishandled. Discovering the truth at this late date is no longer possible. None of the questions have been answered over the past eight years. Many members of the public have offered their own accounts of the incident. Academia Sinica researcher Chu Hung-yuan says the 3/19 Shooting Incident was unquestionably a hoax. He even claims to have three witnesses. All he needs is for the case to be reopened.
Lest we forget, eight years ago the KMT established a Truth Commission within the legislature. The Chen regime could easily have cooperated with the Truth Commission investigation and proved Chen Shui-bian's innocence. It could easily have proved that he did not orchestrate a false flag operation. Instead, Chen did everything in his power to obstruct the investigation. He even declared an "executive right of resistance." Former Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng attempted to investigate. Chen denied her access to the information and the witnesses. Her efforts ran into a brick wall, and went nowhere.
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP refused to uncover the truth. Now suddenly, eight years later. they want the current legislature to establish a fact-finding commission to uncover the truth. The two bullets are in the custody of the CIB. But what other evidence can legislators examine? Then presidential bodyguard Chen Chai-fu made a last moment phone call to Chen Shui-bian. Just exactly what was the call about? And what about the vehicle they used. None of these will help us discover the truth. Does the DPP expect Chen Chai-fu to confess that he orchestrated a hoax? Former CIB Commissioner Hou Yu-yi is now Xinbei City deputy mayor. Does the DPP expect him to confess that he conspired with Chen Shui-bian to fake the grazing wound on his abdomen? Does the DPP expect former Agricultural Minister and former National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen to confess that the shooting was a hoax, and that Chen Shui-bian was its mastermind?
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP's biggest mistake eight years ago was to stonewall the Truth Commission, and to flatly refuse to allow a credible investigation to take place. They left a black mark on the island's history that can never be erased. This black mark haunts Chen Shui-bian. The people do not trust Chen Shui-bian. They do not believe the 3/19 Shooting Incident was a genuine assassination attempt. They believe the Chen regime orchestrated a false flag operation against itself. Chen wants the Ma administration to reopen the case. Chen knows the Ma administration cannot possibly uncover the truth. The public knows this. The Ma administration can do one thing however. It can prosecute the police, the prosecutors, and the national security personnel who obstructed the fact-finding process. It can make them pay for concealing the truth, and for dividing the nation.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.21
社論－嚴懲阻礙319槍擊案真相調查者
本報訊
影響台灣政治社會重大的「三一九槍擊案」八周年，本來沒有多少人願意再想起這個撕裂社會的案件，偏偏槍擊案當事人、前正副總統陳水扁與呂秀蓮都呼籲馬政府重啟調查，民進黨立院黨團更將提案在立法院成立真相調閱委員會；種種動作直令人匪夷所思，難不成這起槍擊案還真是造假的？
三一九槍擊案發生在八年前的總統大選前夕，一般相信這也是讓選情逆轉的關鍵，兩顆子彈讓陳、呂以極小票差當選連任；但是，事發後包括國安局和總統身邊左右手邱義仁等神祕的微笑，或阻擋前警政署長張四良進入奇美醫院探視，搞得舉國大半民眾不相信此案真偽。
接續下來的四年中，有大半時間是在朝野嚴重對立的情勢下度過，即使扁政府請回國際知名鑑識專家李昌鈺返國調查，還是無法取信於國人。整整八年之後，李昌鈺感慨，這個案子在他辦過這麼多案件中「算是小案」，然而政治因素的壓力卻是最大。
身為鑑識人員，李昌鈺只能就現有證物進行鑑識。他回國的時候，總統競選座車有沒有妥善保管不無疑問；迄今甚至有人相信有關單位可能根本就把座車的擋風玻璃換掉了；如果此說為真，那李昌鈺的任何鑑識都是枉然。
李昌鈺還以國人非常熟悉的《ＣＳＩ犯罪現場》舉例，辦案的真實情況和影集差距甚遠，辦好一件案子要有好的團隊，包括優秀的刑警、現場人員、鑑識人員、法醫和檢察官等等。然而，單就影集裡任何現場物證一定要在最短時間送驗，中途不得逗留以避免變造或毀損的可能，連引發無謂的揣測都不行，就可以知道三一九槍擊案是在多麼不專業的情況下勉強查辦。
不要說事發現場是一個群眾場合，幾乎全毀，兩顆子彈的彈頭還是事後街上撿回來的；即使以彈追槍，以槍追人，追到了造槍的唐守義，但這把土製手槍真能這麼厲害的在短短數秒內擊發兩彈嗎？這個疑問到現在沒人能給一個答案；由槍還追到了用槍的陳義雄，然而，追到人之後，此人不但已經溺水，甚至未經正常程序驗屍即在最短時間內火化，到現在已無人可以再調查陳義雄到底是落水死亡，或落水前即已身故。
挨彈之一的呂秀蓮始終不相信三一九槍擊案的真相確如檢警當時的調查，甚至始終懷疑槍手根本是衝著她而來；被視為用槍者陳義雄的家屬迄今都認為沒有足夠證據認定陳是嫌犯，要求還給陳義雄和他們一個清白。但是，錯失辦案的第一時間，再想追索真相簡直就是緣木求魚；八年來所有的疑問都無法得到答案，民間調查版本紛紛出爐；中研院研究員朱浤源指證三一九槍擊案確係造假，甚至他還聲言掌握「三位核心證人」，就等重啟調查。
但是，別忘了，八年前國民黨在立法院成立真相調查委員會的時候，最可配合調查以證明自己清白沒造假的扁政府，傾全力抗拒，甚至行使「行政抵抗權」；參與調查的前法務部長王清峰不論想調閱任何資料，或詢問任何相關人等，全部碰壁，無功而返。
八年前拒絕調查真相的陳水扁和民進黨，突然在八年後想通了，要在立法院成立調閱委員會追查真相。但是，除了還擺在刑事局的兩顆子彈，請問還能留下什麼資料給立委調閱？當年身為總統侍衛長的陳再福最後一通電話到底是給陳水扁買碗粿，或者變更宣傳車內容，都無助於釐清真相，民進黨是要陳再福承認配合造假？還是要已轉任新北市副市長的前刑事局長侯友宜承認配合陳水扁的腹遭彈擊擦傷？或要卸任務農的前國安會秘書長邱義仁承認安排造假？還是要陳水扁承認主導造假？
陳水扁和民進黨犯的最大錯誤就是在八年前阻擋真調會。全面抗拒可讓民眾信賴的調查，讓台灣民主政治烙下一個永難抹滅的恥辱。這個恥辱同樣標記在陳水扁身上，民眾不信任陳水扁、不相信三一九槍擊案，也是扁政府自己造成的。要求馬政府重啟調查，可以預見查不出真相，但是至少可以做到一件事：嚴懲所有在過程中阻礙真相調查的檢警調和國安人員，讓他們付出真相難明撕裂社會人心的代價。
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Must Ordinary Taxpayers Subsidize Big Business?
Must Ordinary Taxpayers Subsidize Big Business?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2012
Summary: Suppose someone proposed having ordinary citizens subsidize Big Businesses such as TSMC, Hon Hai, China Steel, and the filthy rich? Everyone would express angry opposition. There would be a public backlash. The government would be terrified of doing so. But consider the current gas and electricity price control system. It is precisely that. It is a system that compels ordinary citizens to subsidize Big Business and the filthy rich. Many people don't see this. That is why when the government proposes unfreezing prices, they say no.
Full Text below:
Suppose someone proposed having ordinary citizens subsidize Big Businesses such as TSMC, Hon Hai, China Steel, and the filthy rich? Everyone would express angry opposition. There would be a public backlash. The government would be terrified of doing so. But consider the current gas and electricity price control system. It is precisely that. It is a system that compels ordinary citizens to subsidize Big Business and the filthy rich. Many people don't see this. That is why when the government proposes unfreezing prices, they say no.
Taipower and China Petroleum are state owned enterprises. Any profits they earn are returned to the treasury. Any losses they suffer are made up by the national treasury. In other words, when gas and electricity prices fall, China Petroleum and Taipower suffer losses. The treasury, i.e., taxpayers, are compelled to subsidize users of gas and electricity. This subsidy resembles the social welfare system. Social welfare is a form of income redistribution. It redistributes money from those who have more, to those who have less. Gas and electricity subsidies are also a form of income redistribution, in reverse. They redistribute wealth from ordinary taxpayers to Big Business and the filthy rich. Big Business and the filthy rich receive the most. The economically disadvantaged receive little -- pitifully little.
Let us examine the data. Say the cost of Taipower's power generation is $100. Industrial users of electricity and ordinary users of electricity pay about $70. In other words, the government subsidizes industrial users of electricity and ordinary users of electricity about $30. Ordinary users of electricity receive slightly more. This arrangment appears to benefit the general public. But examine some of the other data. The average family consumes about 350 kWh of electricity per month. But major commercial and industrial users consume an average of seven million kWh of electricity per month, or about 20,000 times as much as the average family. Homes of the super-rich consume about 10,000 kWh of electricity per month, or about 30 times as much as the average family.
Mega-enterprise power consumption is even more mind-boggling. Each month they use hundreds of millions of kWh of electricity. China Steel's electric bill last year was 4.86 billion NT, If we continue to freeze electricity rates this year, the taxpayer will be compelled to subsidize the steel industry to the tune of one billion NT. TSMC's electric bill accounts for only 3% of its annual revenues, One year of electricity costs 12 billion NT. Freezing the price of electricity this year will cost taxpayers 2.5 billion NT in subsidies to TSMC. These figures show that Big Business and the filthy rich consume the most electricity and receive the largest subsidies from the nation's coffers.
The gas price control system means a China Petroleum shortfall of 600 million NT per year. The price of electricity has been rising. Therefore Taipower estimates it will lose $1.1 billion this year, This year's electricity price freeze will cost $1.8 billion NT. If gas and electricity prices reflected costs, the treasury would not have to bear this $1.8 billion NT burden, Consider what this means. The money could then be used on people and society. It could expand social welfare, strengthen investment in education, improve technology and public investment. It could benefit the people as a whole. It could improve our national competitiveness. But as matters currently stand, it can do none of these things.
By now everyone realizes who the biggest beneficiaries of gas and electricity price freezes are. They are classic examples of "robbing the poor to pay the rich." How can we begin to speak of fairness and justice? These Big Businesses demand government subsidies. Electricity prices are kept artificially and unreasonably low for them out of political considerations.
Some businesses have been screaming that if gas and electricity prices increase further, they will not survive. But Taiwan's gas and electricity prices are among the lowest in the developed world, Even after they are hiked, they will still be among the lowest. If these businesses cannot survive, even with such low energy prices, it means they lack competitiveness and ought to be phased out. Moreover, in manufacturing, electricity accounts for only two to three percent of total capital costs. Even if the price of electricity increased 20%, it would only increase capital costs 4%. Its impact on business is limited. It definitely does not imply that capital costs will increase 20%. If a business cannot survive without taxpayer gas and electricity subsidies, it should be ashamed of itself. Why should taxpayers be compelled to underwrite such uncompetitive businesses?
The most important and most convincing reason to oppose unfreezing gas and electricity prices, is concern for the general public, particularly the underprivileged. This concern is justified. The government should look after the economically disadvantaged. The solution however, is simple. Within a certain range of energy consumption, prices would be kept low. The government currently sets the cap at 110 kWh. This would look after the disadvantaged. It would not increase their cost of living. If on the other hand, we freeze prices across the board. Big Business and the filthy rich will be the ones looked after. Artificially low prices would also lead to energy waste.
Therefore the government must offer a convincing policy. It must hike the price of gas and electricity, as soon as possible. Delays will only undermine China Petroleum and Taipower's fiscal health. The treasury will only have to make to make up a greater shortfall. The government must establish a gas and electricity pricing mechanism. It must take advantage of the opportunity to create a floating price mechanism. Officials on Taiwan lack courage. Elected representatives on Taiwan are populists who pander to the mob. The current rate hike has proceeded smoothly. But one day a smooth rate hike will no longer be possible. Every rate hike will become a major political and social crisis. The problem must be solved, once and for all,Gas and electricity prices are a political football that must be solved, once and for all. Give us a floating price mechanism.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.20
社論－豈有小市民補貼大企業的道理
本報訊
如果有人主張，讓小市民去補貼如台積電、鴻海、中鋼等大企業，去補貼富豪、有錢人，大概任何人都會強烈反對，民眾更會憤怒反彈，讓政府不敢如此做。但可知現在的油電價格凍漲、緩漲機制，就是這麼一個「小市民補貼大企業、富豪」的制度。因為看不透這個事實，現實上反而是政府想解除凍漲，外界反對。
台電、中油是公營企業，賺錢是繳回國庫，虧損則是最後終究要由國庫補貼。換句話說，油、電價格壓低，讓中油、台電虧損，其實就是拿國庫─也就是納稅人的錢去補貼用油、用電者。如果這個補貼過程就如一些社會福利制度一樣，是一個正向的所得重分配─即把多一點的錢從有錢人手上移轉到弱勢者身上─也罷，但遺憾的是油電價的補貼，卻正好是一種逆向的所得重分配；它把小市民繳交的稅做移轉補貼，但卻是企業、富豪拿得多，經濟弱勢者分得少，而且少得可憐。
讓我們看一些數據吧。如果台電的發電成本是一百元，工業用電與民生用電價格大概在七十多元，也就是說政府給予工業用電與民生用電同樣接受廿多元的補貼，而且，民生用電的補貼還多一點哩，聽起來似乎一般民眾受惠較多。不過，再看另一個數據，一般家庭平均每個月用電大概是三百五十度，但一個大型工商業用戶，一個月的用電度數平均是七百萬度─大概是一般家庭的二萬倍；富豪家庭每個月用電度數也都在萬度左右，也是小市民的三十倍左右。
至於超大型企業用電量之龐大就更不在話下了，每個月是以數億元計。中鋼去年電費支出四八．六億，如果繼續涷漲，今年納稅人給中鋼的電費補貼至少十億元。台積電的電費占營收約三％左右，以一年四千億營收計，一年電費支出一二○億；凍漲則今年納稅人補貼台積電約廿五億元。這些數字非常明顯看得出，規模越龐大、用電量越多的企業、富豪，得到國庫的補貼就越多。
中油因為油價緩漲機制，一年要短收六百億元；台電因為電價凍漲，加上燃料成本一直漲，估計今年要虧損一千一百億元，今年油電凍漲的成本是一千八百億元。如果油電反映成本，國庫不必負擔這一千八百億元，想想：這可以為民眾、社會做多少事？增加社會福利、加強教育投入、提高科技及公共投資…，這些都能讓全民受惠、提高國家競爭力。但現在，都沒有了！
看到這裡，大家應該知道油電凍漲，最大的受惠者是誰了吧？這種補貼，算是標準的「劫貧濟富」，有什麼公平正義可言？更何況，也不是這些大企業要求政府補貼，而是電價在政治考量下，人為、不合理的被壓低。
雖然也有部分企業高喊：油電再漲，企業就活不下去了。但台灣的油、電已經是主要國家中幾乎最低者，即使調漲後還是最低者。這些低的能源價格都無法生存的企業，代表其根本缺乏競爭力，該被淘汰。更何況在製造業中，電費占成本的比重大概只有二到三％不到，即使電價漲兩成，對其成本的增加也只有○．四％，其影響應在企業承受範圍內，更絕對不是一般直覺性聯想的「成本漲兩成」。如果一個企業須靠納稅人補貼油電費用才能生存，豈不汗顏？納稅人有什麼義務要養這種沒有競爭力的企業？
反對油電價格解凍，最重要、也最有說服力的理由是：擔心影響一般民眾─特別是弱勢者的生活。這個擔心有道理，政府也該照顧經濟弱勢者，解決方式更簡單，一定度數內的基本用電量完全不調漲─政府目前的方案是訂為一一○度內，這樣就能達到照顧弱勢、不增加其生活成本的目的。如採取一律凍漲方式，我們可發現其實被「照顧」補貼最多者，反而是企業與富豪。更別提這種刻意壓低價格造成的能源浪費了。
因此，政府應該展現良好的政策說服力，不僅應該儘快調漲油電價格，因為慢一天調，中油台電的財務就傷得更重，也代表國庫未來要「回補」的金額就更多；而且，這次就該建立一套油電價調整制度。如果不趁這次建立浮動調整機制，以台灣官員的缺乏擔當、民代的民粹習性，這次即使順利調漲，未來還是要碰到無法再調漲的問題，搞得每次電價調整都成為「重大政治與社會事件」。要一勞永逸、永遠解決油電價的「政治問題」，就給我們一個浮動機制吧！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2012
Summary: Suppose someone proposed having ordinary citizens subsidize Big Businesses such as TSMC, Hon Hai, China Steel, and the filthy rich? Everyone would express angry opposition. There would be a public backlash. The government would be terrified of doing so. But consider the current gas and electricity price control system. It is precisely that. It is a system that compels ordinary citizens to subsidize Big Business and the filthy rich. Many people don't see this. That is why when the government proposes unfreezing prices, they say no.
Full Text below:
Suppose someone proposed having ordinary citizens subsidize Big Businesses such as TSMC, Hon Hai, China Steel, and the filthy rich? Everyone would express angry opposition. There would be a public backlash. The government would be terrified of doing so. But consider the current gas and electricity price control system. It is precisely that. It is a system that compels ordinary citizens to subsidize Big Business and the filthy rich. Many people don't see this. That is why when the government proposes unfreezing prices, they say no.
Taipower and China Petroleum are state owned enterprises. Any profits they earn are returned to the treasury. Any losses they suffer are made up by the national treasury. In other words, when gas and electricity prices fall, China Petroleum and Taipower suffer losses. The treasury, i.e., taxpayers, are compelled to subsidize users of gas and electricity. This subsidy resembles the social welfare system. Social welfare is a form of income redistribution. It redistributes money from those who have more, to those who have less. Gas and electricity subsidies are also a form of income redistribution, in reverse. They redistribute wealth from ordinary taxpayers to Big Business and the filthy rich. Big Business and the filthy rich receive the most. The economically disadvantaged receive little -- pitifully little.
Let us examine the data. Say the cost of Taipower's power generation is $100. Industrial users of electricity and ordinary users of electricity pay about $70. In other words, the government subsidizes industrial users of electricity and ordinary users of electricity about $30. Ordinary users of electricity receive slightly more. This arrangment appears to benefit the general public. But examine some of the other data. The average family consumes about 350 kWh of electricity per month. But major commercial and industrial users consume an average of seven million kWh of electricity per month, or about 20,000 times as much as the average family. Homes of the super-rich consume about 10,000 kWh of electricity per month, or about 30 times as much as the average family.
Mega-enterprise power consumption is even more mind-boggling. Each month they use hundreds of millions of kWh of electricity. China Steel's electric bill last year was 4.86 billion NT, If we continue to freeze electricity rates this year, the taxpayer will be compelled to subsidize the steel industry to the tune of one billion NT. TSMC's electric bill accounts for only 3% of its annual revenues, One year of electricity costs 12 billion NT. Freezing the price of electricity this year will cost taxpayers 2.5 billion NT in subsidies to TSMC. These figures show that Big Business and the filthy rich consume the most electricity and receive the largest subsidies from the nation's coffers.
The gas price control system means a China Petroleum shortfall of 600 million NT per year. The price of electricity has been rising. Therefore Taipower estimates it will lose $1.1 billion this year, This year's electricity price freeze will cost $1.8 billion NT. If gas and electricity prices reflected costs, the treasury would not have to bear this $1.8 billion NT burden, Consider what this means. The money could then be used on people and society. It could expand social welfare, strengthen investment in education, improve technology and public investment. It could benefit the people as a whole. It could improve our national competitiveness. But as matters currently stand, it can do none of these things.
By now everyone realizes who the biggest beneficiaries of gas and electricity price freezes are. They are classic examples of "robbing the poor to pay the rich." How can we begin to speak of fairness and justice? These Big Businesses demand government subsidies. Electricity prices are kept artificially and unreasonably low for them out of political considerations.
Some businesses have been screaming that if gas and electricity prices increase further, they will not survive. But Taiwan's gas and electricity prices are among the lowest in the developed world, Even after they are hiked, they will still be among the lowest. If these businesses cannot survive, even with such low energy prices, it means they lack competitiveness and ought to be phased out. Moreover, in manufacturing, electricity accounts for only two to three percent of total capital costs. Even if the price of electricity increased 20%, it would only increase capital costs 4%. Its impact on business is limited. It definitely does not imply that capital costs will increase 20%. If a business cannot survive without taxpayer gas and electricity subsidies, it should be ashamed of itself. Why should taxpayers be compelled to underwrite such uncompetitive businesses?
The most important and most convincing reason to oppose unfreezing gas and electricity prices, is concern for the general public, particularly the underprivileged. This concern is justified. The government should look after the economically disadvantaged. The solution however, is simple. Within a certain range of energy consumption, prices would be kept low. The government currently sets the cap at 110 kWh. This would look after the disadvantaged. It would not increase their cost of living. If on the other hand, we freeze prices across the board. Big Business and the filthy rich will be the ones looked after. Artificially low prices would also lead to energy waste.
Therefore the government must offer a convincing policy. It must hike the price of gas and electricity, as soon as possible. Delays will only undermine China Petroleum and Taipower's fiscal health. The treasury will only have to make to make up a greater shortfall. The government must establish a gas and electricity pricing mechanism. It must take advantage of the opportunity to create a floating price mechanism. Officials on Taiwan lack courage. Elected representatives on Taiwan are populists who pander to the mob. The current rate hike has proceeded smoothly. But one day a smooth rate hike will no longer be possible. Every rate hike will become a major political and social crisis. The problem must be solved, once and for all,Gas and electricity prices are a political football that must be solved, once and for all. Give us a floating price mechanism.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.20
社論－豈有小市民補貼大企業的道理
本報訊
如果有人主張，讓小市民去補貼如台積電、鴻海、中鋼等大企業，去補貼富豪、有錢人，大概任何人都會強烈反對，民眾更會憤怒反彈，讓政府不敢如此做。但可知現在的油電價格凍漲、緩漲機制，就是這麼一個「小市民補貼大企業、富豪」的制度。因為看不透這個事實，現實上反而是政府想解除凍漲，外界反對。
台電、中油是公營企業，賺錢是繳回國庫，虧損則是最後終究要由國庫補貼。換句話說，油、電價格壓低，讓中油、台電虧損，其實就是拿國庫─也就是納稅人的錢去補貼用油、用電者。如果這個補貼過程就如一些社會福利制度一樣，是一個正向的所得重分配─即把多一點的錢從有錢人手上移轉到弱勢者身上─也罷，但遺憾的是油電價的補貼，卻正好是一種逆向的所得重分配；它把小市民繳交的稅做移轉補貼，但卻是企業、富豪拿得多，經濟弱勢者分得少，而且少得可憐。
讓我們看一些數據吧。如果台電的發電成本是一百元，工業用電與民生用電價格大概在七十多元，也就是說政府給予工業用電與民生用電同樣接受廿多元的補貼，而且，民生用電的補貼還多一點哩，聽起來似乎一般民眾受惠較多。不過，再看另一個數據，一般家庭平均每個月用電大概是三百五十度，但一個大型工商業用戶，一個月的用電度數平均是七百萬度─大概是一般家庭的二萬倍；富豪家庭每個月用電度數也都在萬度左右，也是小市民的三十倍左右。
至於超大型企業用電量之龐大就更不在話下了，每個月是以數億元計。中鋼去年電費支出四八．六億，如果繼續涷漲，今年納稅人給中鋼的電費補貼至少十億元。台積電的電費占營收約三％左右，以一年四千億營收計，一年電費支出一二○億；凍漲則今年納稅人補貼台積電約廿五億元。這些數字非常明顯看得出，規模越龐大、用電量越多的企業、富豪，得到國庫的補貼就越多。
中油因為油價緩漲機制，一年要短收六百億元；台電因為電價凍漲，加上燃料成本一直漲，估計今年要虧損一千一百億元，今年油電凍漲的成本是一千八百億元。如果油電反映成本，國庫不必負擔這一千八百億元，想想：這可以為民眾、社會做多少事？增加社會福利、加強教育投入、提高科技及公共投資…，這些都能讓全民受惠、提高國家競爭力。但現在，都沒有了！
看到這裡，大家應該知道油電凍漲，最大的受惠者是誰了吧？這種補貼，算是標準的「劫貧濟富」，有什麼公平正義可言？更何況，也不是這些大企業要求政府補貼，而是電價在政治考量下，人為、不合理的被壓低。
雖然也有部分企業高喊：油電再漲，企業就活不下去了。但台灣的油、電已經是主要國家中幾乎最低者，即使調漲後還是最低者。這些低的能源價格都無法生存的企業，代表其根本缺乏競爭力，該被淘汰。更何況在製造業中，電費占成本的比重大概只有二到三％不到，即使電價漲兩成，對其成本的增加也只有○．四％，其影響應在企業承受範圍內，更絕對不是一般直覺性聯想的「成本漲兩成」。如果一個企業須靠納稅人補貼油電費用才能生存，豈不汗顏？納稅人有什麼義務要養這種沒有競爭力的企業？
反對油電價格解凍，最重要、也最有說服力的理由是：擔心影響一般民眾─特別是弱勢者的生活。這個擔心有道理，政府也該照顧經濟弱勢者，解決方式更簡單，一定度數內的基本用電量完全不調漲─政府目前的方案是訂為一一○度內，這樣就能達到照顧弱勢、不增加其生活成本的目的。如採取一律凍漲方式，我們可發現其實被「照顧」補貼最多者，反而是企業與富豪。更別提這種刻意壓低價格造成的能源浪費了。
因此，政府應該展現良好的政策說服力，不僅應該儘快調漲油電價格，因為慢一天調，中油台電的財務就傷得更重，也代表國庫未來要「回補」的金額就更多；而且，這次就該建立一套油電價調整制度。如果不趁這次建立浮動調整機制，以台灣官員的缺乏擔當、民代的民粹習性，這次即使順利調漲，未來還是要碰到無法再調漲的問題，搞得每次電價調整都成為「重大政治與社會事件」。要一勞永逸、永遠解決油電價的「政治問題」，就給我們一個浮動機制吧！
Monday, March 19, 2012
Even Chen Shui-bian Considers 3/19 Shooting Incident Unsolved
Even Chen Shui-bian Considers 3/19 Shooting Incident Unsolved
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2012
Summary: Tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Chen Shui-bian recently wrote Annette Lu, saying "I implore you. Call on President Ma. Persuade him to re-open the 3/19 Shooting Incident case, Uncover the real truth. After all, the Ma administration has been in office for over four years. Yet it still has no explanation for what took place."
Full Text below:
Tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Chen Shui-bian recently wrote Annette Lu, saying "I implore you. Call on President Ma. Persuade him to re-open the 3/19 Shooting Incident case, Uncover the real truth. After all, the Ma administration has been in office for over four years. Yet it still has no explanation for what took place."
Even Chen Shui-bian says he considers the 3/19 Shooting Incident unsolved. Even he says the truth remains unknown. That is why he wrote a letter to Annette Lu, imploring her to persuade President Ma to reopen the case. That is why Chen complained that the Ma administration has no explanation for what took place, even though it has been in office for over four years.
Without the truth, there is no president. The 3/19 Shooting Incident led to the complete and utter discrediting of DPP rule and the Chen Shui-bian regime. It was one of the main reasons the Democratic Progressive Party was unable to restore public trust in its governance. Eight years later, Chen Shui-bian has the temerity to make an about face, and demand that the case be reopened so that we may uncover the truth. His gesture is absurd and shameless. After all, the Chen regime ruled for four years following the 3/19 Shooting Incident. It dismissed the incident as "water under the bridge." It offered "no explanation for what took place."
Let us click the rewind button. Consider the results of the report issued by the Chen Shui-bian regime's ad hoc investigative group. Consider the actions of the Chen Shui-bian regime's "fact finding group," eight years ago.
On August 17, 2005, the fact finding group announced the results of its investigation. It identified the murderer as Chen Yi-hsiung. It claimed he fired two rounds. One bullet struck one person. The other bullet struck another. That same day, President Chen Shui-bian issued a comment. He said, "The ad hoc group took over a year to investigate the case. It expended enormous manpower and materiel. It aggressively pursued the matter. It made use of forensic techniques to examine the evidence and question the witnesses. It did the best job it could, I, Chen Shui-bian, respect the investigators' findings. I hope the community will respect the findings of the ad hoc group's professional, objective, and independent investigation."
This was how Chen Shui-bian spun the incident seven years ago, Later he often cited the group's findings. He said it proved he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Now however, he repudiates this "professional, objective, and independent" investigative report. Now he wants the case reopened.
Does Chen Shui-bian really want to uncover the truth? Consider his attitude eight years ago. Blue Camp legislators established a "3/19 Shooting Incident Fact-Finding Group" within the Legislative Yuan, to be headed by Wang Ching-feng. No sooner had they begun to investigate, then the Chen regime asserted an "executive right of resistance." It stonewalled completely, obstructing any effort to investigate. In October 2004, when Su Jia-chyuan was Minister of the Interior, he argued that "Civil servants have a 'executive right of resistance' to illegal and unconstitutional demands. They can refuse to comply." Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian asserted an "executive right of resistance." Eight years later, Chen Shui-bian wants President Ma to re-open the case and uncover the truth. Are we supposed to believe that Chen Shui-bian experienced a Pauline conversion, on the Road to Damascus?
Even Chen Shui-bian has repudiated the results of the 3/19 Shooting Incident Report. The case may remain unsolved. The case was riddled with problems from the start, from the traces of ointment and blood on Chen Shui-bian's abdomen. In particular, the assertion that "one gunman fired two shots from one gun" was incredible. According to the report, the two rounds were light loads with only half the amount of powder. The round loaded with a copper jacketed bullet was slightly more powerful. It could wound a human target. But it was fired through the windshield. It lost much of its energy after penetrating the windshield. The round loaded with a plain lead bullet was less powerful. It merely scratched the skin. It was the one that grazed Chen Shui-bian's abdomen. If the two bullets had been reversed, then the lead bullet would not have penetrated the windshield. The copper plated bullet would have inflicted more damage on the person struck. Most incredible of all, the report, purportly based on "forensic science," alleges that the two rounds were fired within 0.63 seconds of each other. Anyone can simulate this scenario by pulling a trigger twice in 0.63 seconds. It is extremely difficult. Furthermore, the recoil from the first round would elevate the muzzle. Could one really aim the second round accurately enough to merely graze Chen Shui-bian across the belly?
We can be certain of only one thing about the 3/19 Shooting Incident: one copper jacketed bullet penetrated the windshield and wounded Annette Lu in the knee. This however, does not prove that Chen Shui-bian's wounds were inflicted at the same time and at the same location. This does not prove that "two rounds were fired from one gun" within 0.63 seconds of each other.
For years, the catechism about the 3/19 Shooting Incident report has been: "Believers remain believers. Skeptics remain skeptics." But Chen Shui-bian once insisted that the report was "professional, objective, and independent." Now he openly repudiates the report, and wants the case re-opened, to uncover the truth. Now he argues that the report was utterly incredible. Chen Shui-bian has in effect, affirmed the skeptics who never believed the original report.
The most suspicious aspect of the 3/19 Shooting Incident was its role Chen Shui-bian's "re-election." This suspicion discredited DPP rule and Chen Shui-bian's second term. The conclusions of the report were suspicious. The Chen regime invoked an "executive right of resistance" to obstruct any investigation. It deepened public suspicion of Chen Shui-bian, and inspired contempt for the Chen regime. The lesson of the 3/19 Shooting Incident is: Without the truth, there is no president.
The report claimed that two rounds were fired within 0.63 seconds of each other. But people who have been asked to duplicate the feat own their own find it difficult to believe. Chen Shui-bian is the last person who ought to give any credence to the report. Now, even he has declared that he does not believe the report. As far as the world is concerned, the 3/19 Shooting Incident investigation is back to square one.
連陳水扁也不相信三一九槍擊案破案
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.19 02:37 am
明天是三一九槍擊案八周年。陳水扁致函呂秀蓮說：「懇請您代為籲請馬總統，能下令重查『三一九事件』的真相。畢竟馬政府四年過去了，迄無交代。」
也就是說，連陳水扁也不相信三一九槍擊案已經偵結破案；他認為「真相」未明，因此函呂秀蓮轉請馬總統重啟調查；且抱怨馬政府「畢竟四年過去了，迄無交代」。
沒有真相，沒有總統。三一九槍擊案是造成民進黨扁政府統治正當性崩盤的事件，影響所致，這也是民進黨迄今難以恢復「執政信賴感」的主因之一。陳水扁在八年後的今天，居然回過頭來，要求重新調查「真相」，尤其顯得荒唐無恥；「畢竟」扁政府在槍擊案後的執政四年也早已「過去了」，亦是「迄無交代」。
歷史倒帶，先看陳水扁在七年前如何評價專案小組的偵結報告，再看陳水扁在八年前如何應對「真相調查小組」的查案動作。
二○○五年八月十七日，專案小組宣布偵結，認定陳義雄是兇手，一人一槍兩彈。當日，陳水扁總統發表評論稱：「專案小組一年多來投入大量人力、物力，積極偵辦，以科學鑑證方式找尋所有可能證據、證人，已盡全力，阿扁尊重此項司法調查結果，並希望社會各界也都能尊重專案小組專業、客觀、獨立的調查結果。」
這是七年前陳水扁的說法，後來他又幾次引據此項偵結報告，謂已洗刷了他的「不白之冤」。但是，現在竟連他自己也否定了這個「專業、客觀、獨立」的偵結報告，主張重啟調查真相。
陳水扁真的想調查真相嗎？且看八年前他的態度。八年前，藍營經立法院的程序成立「三一九槍擊案真相調查小組」，由王清峰領軍；進行之際，扁政府發動「行政抵抗權」，全面杯葛，阻撓調查。二○○四年十月，時任內政部長的蘇嘉全說：「公務員對違法違憲的要求有『行政抵抗權』，可以不遵從指揮。」如今，八年前發動「行政抵抗權」的陳水扁，竟然在八年後籲請馬總統重新調查真相，莫非真是此一時彼一時耶？
現在，連陳水扁也否定了三一九槍擊案的偵結報告，本案可能成為永遠的歷史懸案。此案自第一現場陳水扁肚子上油膏多於血跡開始，即充滿疑點；偵結報告謂為「一人一槍兩彈」，尤其匪夷所思。這兩彈，火藥裝填量都極少（僅正常量的五成）；銅彈的力道略強，可以傷人，但用於射擋風玻璃，唯在射穿玻璃後已無殺傷力；鉛彈的力道更弱，剛好可以劃傷皮層，是劃破陳水扁肚皮的一彈。如果兩彈對調，則鉛彈射不穿玻璃，銅彈直接射人卻可能傷況較重。尤其不可思議者，偵結報告據「科學鑑證」，指兩彈連發射擊是在○‧六三秒內完成；其實，任何人皆不妨自我模擬在○‧六三秒鐘內紮實連扣兩次板機的情境，莫說在生理上幾無可能，更何況因第一彈射出後的後座力所抬高的槍口，如何能使子彈水平劃過陳水扁的肚皮？
因此，三一九槍擊案迄今唯一可以確定的事實是，有一發銅彈在現場射穿擋風玻璃並傷了呂秀蓮的膝蓋；但此一事實，並不能引伸證明陳水扁的傷口是在同一現場造成，尤其不可能是「一槍兩彈」在○‧六三秒內造成。
多年來，對於三一九槍擊案的偵結報告，常聞「信者恆信，不信者恆不信」的說法；但是，如今連當年視此報告為「專業、客觀、獨立」的陳水扁，也公開否定此一報告，並主張「重查真相」，則此一報告之不可置信，不啻已經獲得陳水扁的背書。
對三一九槍擊案的最核心質疑，是懷疑陳水扁贏得大選的手法不正當，因而亦使扁政府的第二任期失去統治正當性；而偵結報告之疑竇叢生，及扁政府以「行政抵抗權」之阻擾調查真相，更深化了國人對陳水扁的懷疑與鄙視。三一九案的教訓是：沒有真相，沒有總統。
偵結報告可以主張○‧六三秒兩彈連發，但模擬摳動自己手指的國人都可以不相信。本來，陳水扁應是這世界上最後一個仍然相信偵結報告者，如今竟然連他自己也宣示其否定這個報告的立場，則世人對三一九槍擊案的所有質疑皆可回到原點。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2012
Summary: Tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Chen Shui-bian recently wrote Annette Lu, saying "I implore you. Call on President Ma. Persuade him to re-open the 3/19 Shooting Incident case, Uncover the real truth. After all, the Ma administration has been in office for over four years. Yet it still has no explanation for what took place."
Full Text below:
Tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Chen Shui-bian recently wrote Annette Lu, saying "I implore you. Call on President Ma. Persuade him to re-open the 3/19 Shooting Incident case, Uncover the real truth. After all, the Ma administration has been in office for over four years. Yet it still has no explanation for what took place."
Even Chen Shui-bian says he considers the 3/19 Shooting Incident unsolved. Even he says the truth remains unknown. That is why he wrote a letter to Annette Lu, imploring her to persuade President Ma to reopen the case. That is why Chen complained that the Ma administration has no explanation for what took place, even though it has been in office for over four years.
Without the truth, there is no president. The 3/19 Shooting Incident led to the complete and utter discrediting of DPP rule and the Chen Shui-bian regime. It was one of the main reasons the Democratic Progressive Party was unable to restore public trust in its governance. Eight years later, Chen Shui-bian has the temerity to make an about face, and demand that the case be reopened so that we may uncover the truth. His gesture is absurd and shameless. After all, the Chen regime ruled for four years following the 3/19 Shooting Incident. It dismissed the incident as "water under the bridge." It offered "no explanation for what took place."
Let us click the rewind button. Consider the results of the report issued by the Chen Shui-bian regime's ad hoc investigative group. Consider the actions of the Chen Shui-bian regime's "fact finding group," eight years ago.
On August 17, 2005, the fact finding group announced the results of its investigation. It identified the murderer as Chen Yi-hsiung. It claimed he fired two rounds. One bullet struck one person. The other bullet struck another. That same day, President Chen Shui-bian issued a comment. He said, "The ad hoc group took over a year to investigate the case. It expended enormous manpower and materiel. It aggressively pursued the matter. It made use of forensic techniques to examine the evidence and question the witnesses. It did the best job it could, I, Chen Shui-bian, respect the investigators' findings. I hope the community will respect the findings of the ad hoc group's professional, objective, and independent investigation."
This was how Chen Shui-bian spun the incident seven years ago, Later he often cited the group's findings. He said it proved he was innocent of any wrongdoing. Now however, he repudiates this "professional, objective, and independent" investigative report. Now he wants the case reopened.
Does Chen Shui-bian really want to uncover the truth? Consider his attitude eight years ago. Blue Camp legislators established a "3/19 Shooting Incident Fact-Finding Group" within the Legislative Yuan, to be headed by Wang Ching-feng. No sooner had they begun to investigate, then the Chen regime asserted an "executive right of resistance." It stonewalled completely, obstructing any effort to investigate. In October 2004, when Su Jia-chyuan was Minister of the Interior, he argued that "Civil servants have a 'executive right of resistance' to illegal and unconstitutional demands. They can refuse to comply." Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian asserted an "executive right of resistance." Eight years later, Chen Shui-bian wants President Ma to re-open the case and uncover the truth. Are we supposed to believe that Chen Shui-bian experienced a Pauline conversion, on the Road to Damascus?
Even Chen Shui-bian has repudiated the results of the 3/19 Shooting Incident Report. The case may remain unsolved. The case was riddled with problems from the start, from the traces of ointment and blood on Chen Shui-bian's abdomen. In particular, the assertion that "one gunman fired two shots from one gun" was incredible. According to the report, the two rounds were light loads with only half the amount of powder. The round loaded with a copper jacketed bullet was slightly more powerful. It could wound a human target. But it was fired through the windshield. It lost much of its energy after penetrating the windshield. The round loaded with a plain lead bullet was less powerful. It merely scratched the skin. It was the one that grazed Chen Shui-bian's abdomen. If the two bullets had been reversed, then the lead bullet would not have penetrated the windshield. The copper plated bullet would have inflicted more damage on the person struck. Most incredible of all, the report, purportly based on "forensic science," alleges that the two rounds were fired within 0.63 seconds of each other. Anyone can simulate this scenario by pulling a trigger twice in 0.63 seconds. It is extremely difficult. Furthermore, the recoil from the first round would elevate the muzzle. Could one really aim the second round accurately enough to merely graze Chen Shui-bian across the belly?
We can be certain of only one thing about the 3/19 Shooting Incident: one copper jacketed bullet penetrated the windshield and wounded Annette Lu in the knee. This however, does not prove that Chen Shui-bian's wounds were inflicted at the same time and at the same location. This does not prove that "two rounds were fired from one gun" within 0.63 seconds of each other.
For years, the catechism about the 3/19 Shooting Incident report has been: "Believers remain believers. Skeptics remain skeptics." But Chen Shui-bian once insisted that the report was "professional, objective, and independent." Now he openly repudiates the report, and wants the case re-opened, to uncover the truth. Now he argues that the report was utterly incredible. Chen Shui-bian has in effect, affirmed the skeptics who never believed the original report.
The most suspicious aspect of the 3/19 Shooting Incident was its role Chen Shui-bian's "re-election." This suspicion discredited DPP rule and Chen Shui-bian's second term. The conclusions of the report were suspicious. The Chen regime invoked an "executive right of resistance" to obstruct any investigation. It deepened public suspicion of Chen Shui-bian, and inspired contempt for the Chen regime. The lesson of the 3/19 Shooting Incident is: Without the truth, there is no president.
The report claimed that two rounds were fired within 0.63 seconds of each other. But people who have been asked to duplicate the feat own their own find it difficult to believe. Chen Shui-bian is the last person who ought to give any credence to the report. Now, even he has declared that he does not believe the report. As far as the world is concerned, the 3/19 Shooting Incident investigation is back to square one.
連陳水扁也不相信三一九槍擊案破案
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.19 02:37 am
明天是三一九槍擊案八周年。陳水扁致函呂秀蓮說：「懇請您代為籲請馬總統，能下令重查『三一九事件』的真相。畢竟馬政府四年過去了，迄無交代。」
也就是說，連陳水扁也不相信三一九槍擊案已經偵結破案；他認為「真相」未明，因此函呂秀蓮轉請馬總統重啟調查；且抱怨馬政府「畢竟四年過去了，迄無交代」。
沒有真相，沒有總統。三一九槍擊案是造成民進黨扁政府統治正當性崩盤的事件，影響所致，這也是民進黨迄今難以恢復「執政信賴感」的主因之一。陳水扁在八年後的今天，居然回過頭來，要求重新調查「真相」，尤其顯得荒唐無恥；「畢竟」扁政府在槍擊案後的執政四年也早已「過去了」，亦是「迄無交代」。
歷史倒帶，先看陳水扁在七年前如何評價專案小組的偵結報告，再看陳水扁在八年前如何應對「真相調查小組」的查案動作。
二○○五年八月十七日，專案小組宣布偵結，認定陳義雄是兇手，一人一槍兩彈。當日，陳水扁總統發表評論稱：「專案小組一年多來投入大量人力、物力，積極偵辦，以科學鑑證方式找尋所有可能證據、證人，已盡全力，阿扁尊重此項司法調查結果，並希望社會各界也都能尊重專案小組專業、客觀、獨立的調查結果。」
這是七年前陳水扁的說法，後來他又幾次引據此項偵結報告，謂已洗刷了他的「不白之冤」。但是，現在竟連他自己也否定了這個「專業、客觀、獨立」的偵結報告，主張重啟調查真相。
陳水扁真的想調查真相嗎？且看八年前他的態度。八年前，藍營經立法院的程序成立「三一九槍擊案真相調查小組」，由王清峰領軍；進行之際，扁政府發動「行政抵抗權」，全面杯葛，阻撓調查。二○○四年十月，時任內政部長的蘇嘉全說：「公務員對違法違憲的要求有『行政抵抗權』，可以不遵從指揮。」如今，八年前發動「行政抵抗權」的陳水扁，竟然在八年後籲請馬總統重新調查真相，莫非真是此一時彼一時耶？
現在，連陳水扁也否定了三一九槍擊案的偵結報告，本案可能成為永遠的歷史懸案。此案自第一現場陳水扁肚子上油膏多於血跡開始，即充滿疑點；偵結報告謂為「一人一槍兩彈」，尤其匪夷所思。這兩彈，火藥裝填量都極少（僅正常量的五成）；銅彈的力道略強，可以傷人，但用於射擋風玻璃，唯在射穿玻璃後已無殺傷力；鉛彈的力道更弱，剛好可以劃傷皮層，是劃破陳水扁肚皮的一彈。如果兩彈對調，則鉛彈射不穿玻璃，銅彈直接射人卻可能傷況較重。尤其不可思議者，偵結報告據「科學鑑證」，指兩彈連發射擊是在○‧六三秒內完成；其實，任何人皆不妨自我模擬在○‧六三秒鐘內紮實連扣兩次板機的情境，莫說在生理上幾無可能，更何況因第一彈射出後的後座力所抬高的槍口，如何能使子彈水平劃過陳水扁的肚皮？
因此，三一九槍擊案迄今唯一可以確定的事實是，有一發銅彈在現場射穿擋風玻璃並傷了呂秀蓮的膝蓋；但此一事實，並不能引伸證明陳水扁的傷口是在同一現場造成，尤其不可能是「一槍兩彈」在○‧六三秒內造成。
多年來，對於三一九槍擊案的偵結報告，常聞「信者恆信，不信者恆不信」的說法；但是，如今連當年視此報告為「專業、客觀、獨立」的陳水扁，也公開否定此一報告，並主張「重查真相」，則此一報告之不可置信，不啻已經獲得陳水扁的背書。
對三一九槍擊案的最核心質疑，是懷疑陳水扁贏得大選的手法不正當，因而亦使扁政府的第二任期失去統治正當性；而偵結報告之疑竇叢生，及扁政府以「行政抵抗權」之阻擾調查真相，更深化了國人對陳水扁的懷疑與鄙視。三一九案的教訓是：沒有真相，沒有總統。
偵結報告可以主張○‧六三秒兩彈連發，但模擬摳動自己手指的國人都可以不相信。本來，陳水扁應是這世界上最後一個仍然相信偵結報告者，如今竟然連他自己也宣示其否定這個報告的立場，則世人對三一九槍擊案的所有質疑皆可回到原點。
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Beta-Adrenergic Agonist Controversy Undercuts Government Credibility
Beta-Adrenergic Agonist Controversy Undercuts Government Credibility
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2012
Summary: The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.
Full Text below:
The U.S. beef controvery has raged for an entire month. This is no small feat, and is bringing with it new problems, It has led to a controversy over whether Taiwan pork contains beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine. Suddenly no one knows what meat is safe to eat, Government agricultural authorities were supposed to be the gatekeepers. What have they been doing? Is there really a conspiracy to attack Taiwan pork to divert attention from US beef? Another controversy is now sweeping the island, It is the topic on everyone's lips.
Is Taiwan pork safe or unsafe? Is there a conspiracy or not? Consider a story that has been circulating on the Internet.
A young man applies for a job, The interviewer is duly impressed. The young man and his parents assume the job is his. The family is overjoyed. But suddenly they receive a letter saying he has been rejected. The family is desolate. Despondent, the young man threatens suicide. Soon afterwards, the employer arrives to apologize. The notice was mailed to the wrong address. The young man has been hired.
The story does not end there. It goes on to show how the scenario unfolds in different countries and regions, with people of a different national character. In Japan the company says, if the young man cannot even endure such a minor setback, and threatens to commit suicide, how can he possibly cope with future work pressure? In Germany, the parents forbid the young man to report to work, If blunders as serious as this can happen, then company efficiency is clearly poor. The job is clearly one with no future. In America, the young man becomes a folk hero. He reports to work amidst cheering throngs. Lawyers to swarm about him and threaten to sue the company for causing him mental anguish.
On Taiwan scholars and experts of all political stripes. talking heads, civic organizations, emerge from the woodwork. They demand to know why he was first rejected then hired. Did someone with connections lobby on his behalf? Did the interviewer accept a bribe? Who was the young woman who accompaned the young man during his interview? Questions like these multiply. But does the young man ever get the job? No one knows, and no one cares.
The story is an allegory. Questions about food safety have arisen over U.S. beef, Taiwan pork, chicken, and goose containing beta-adrenergic agonists. The real issue is what toxins are involved, and in what amounts? The former concerns the nature of the toxin. The latter concerns the amount. The nature and amount of the toxin must be made clear. Only then can we conduct a risk assessment. Only then can we decide whether to allow their sale. How should the government determine the permissible limits? Not by attacking pork to divert attention from beef. That hardly addresses the problem. We must retrace our steps. So what if the conspiracy theories are true? The uncovering of domestic inspection loopholes or unscrupulous breeders using illegal drugs is forcing the government to remedy the situation. That is hardly a bad thing.
That said, the authorities should be ashamed. The AIT's Taipei Office Chief issued a list of Taiwan agricultural products containing hundreds of illegal additives. It presented scientific evidence. Leave aside the issue of whether the government made concessions and allowed US beef imports, at least for the moment. How can our own agricultural authorities face the public? Have consumers been ingesting toxins on a daily basis? Why was everyone unaware of this?
The agricultural authorities explained that they uncovered these violations long ago. They merely failed to publicize them, Either that, or they publicized them but the media failed to report them. Blaming the media in this manner is extremely unfair. The Government Information Office (GIO) recently issued a press release on domestic pork with salbutamol, It contained only one word: salbutamol. But is salbutamol more toxic than ractopamine? The report said nothing. Do government agencies expect citizens to be experts in toxicology? Do they expect citizens to understand the significance of these reports at a glance? The government did its job, but failed to communicate with the public. As the expression goes, it "performed twice the work, and received half the credit." It performed a truly thankless task.
The public is bickering over U.S. beef imports. It ought to be more concerned about food safety inspections. Legislators are applying pressure, Health Director Wen-Ta Chiu has made a commitment. Beginning next week the government will conduct lot by lot inspections of U.S. beef imports. Is such a promise realistic? The Food and Drug Administration has a staff of only 45, spread out over four control centers on the island: north, south, east, and west. Currently customs has the ability to sample 5% of the U.S. beef entering the country. Beef imports from past offenders are sampled at a 20% rate, or more. The Department of Health has committed to test every batch of beef from every country. Privately, officials confide that this is unreasonable and unscientific. Other countries could protest the erection of non-tariff barriers. It could lead to international trade disputes.
The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.16
社論－這場肉的風暴 瘦了政府的公信力
本報訊
美牛風暴果然兇猛，連吹一個月不但欲小不易，還吹出新問題，又產生台灣豬肉究竟有無使用更毒的瘦肉精的爭議！一時間，到底什麼肉能吃、該把關的政府農政單位到底在幹什麼、到底有沒有圍魏（豬）救趙（牛）的陰謀等問題，又舖天蓋地的橫掃全台，成了熱門話題！
在討論台灣豬肉安不安全、到底有沒有陰謀論之前，先說一個在網路流傳已久的故事。
有個年輕人去應徵工作，主考官對他頗表肯定，年輕人與父母都以為錄取已是囊中物，舉家欣喜。哪知，對方寄來的通知單竟然是「未錄取」，舉家皆悲，年輕人難過到鬧自殺。不久，對方登門道歉，原來之前的通知寄錯了，年輕人名列錄取。
故事還沒完。如果這個情境發生在不同的國家、不同民族性的人身上，會有什麼結果？若是日本人，公司方面會說，年輕人這一點挫折都受不了就自殺，將來還能應付工作壓力嗎？不錄取。如果在德國，父母一定不讓年輕人去公司報到，這種事都弄錯，可見公司效率之差，是一個沒有前途的單位。如果在美國，年輕人必定如英雄般、在眾人掌聲和歡迎酒會中報到，並且全美律師蜂擁而至，爭取代表他控告公司造成精神損失。
如果是在台灣呢？非常可能的場景是，各方學者專家、媒體名嘴、民間團體齊出，追究為何先不錄取、後來又錄取？有沒有人事關說？主考官是否受賄？當初陪年輕人去應徵的女朋友是誰？…等等。至於年輕人最後有沒有去上班，沒有人知道、也沒有人關心。
說這個故事的意思是，這從美牛、台豬到雞、鵝含瘦肉精一波波的食品安全問題，真正的核心是：到底含的是何種毒物？劑量多寡？前者是對毒物「定性」，後者是對毒物「定量」，當徹底釐清這兩大有關毒物的真相事實後，才能做風險評估、決定是否開放、政府又該擬定何種強度的管制方式。是不是圍豬救牛，根本不是重點。退一萬步說，即使陰謀論成立，但因此發現國內檢驗漏洞或不肖畜牧業者違法用藥，使政府開始亡羊補牢，也是好事一件。
但國內主管機關應汗顏的是，當ＡＩＴ台北辦事處長司徒文出示一份台灣各種農產品使用禁藥的清單時，羅列了上百項法所禁止的毒物，面對科學的舉證，先不論政府是否因此讓步，開放美牛進口，我們的農政單位就難以面對民眾的質疑：難道消費者天天都在「服毒」？為什麼大家不知道這些訊息？
農政單位的辯解是，以前也有查到，只是沒有公布，或公布了媒體也不報導。這種把責任推給媒體的說法，非常不公平。以新聞局日前發出國內豬肉查到沙丁胺醇的新聞稿來說，白紙黑字只寫了「沙丁胺醇」四個字，至於其毒性是否比萊克多巴胺高，隻字未提。難道，政府單位把國民都當成毒物學專家，一看就懂？政府做了事，卻沒有將資訊清楚傳達給民眾，這是事倍功半，非常吃力不討好。
其實，國內與其為美牛爭吵不休，更應該關切的是食品安全檢驗能量的問題。在立委壓力下，衛生署長邱文達承諾，最快下周一開始，逐批檢驗進口美牛。這個承諾的可行性，大有問題。食品藥物管理局北中南東四大區管中心的總人力只有四十五人，目前對美牛的邊境抽驗比率一般只有五％，對有前科的業者才會上升到廿％或更多。但衛生署承諾對來自各國的牛肉逐批檢驗，食管局官員私下認為這是不合理、不科學的做法，甚至可能導致他國以非關稅障礙的名義抗議，產生國際貿易糾紛的風險。
美牛與台豬瘦肉精風波教我們的是，面對層出不窮的食品安全問題，先要從科學與理性的觀點弄清事實真相與問題輕重，再檢討政策走向與管理方式。否則，只會讓民眾困擾、業者受害，政府則困在新舊夾纏的問題中，瘦了公信力而於事無補。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2012
Summary: The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.
Full Text below:
The U.S. beef controvery has raged for an entire month. This is no small feat, and is bringing with it new problems, It has led to a controversy over whether Taiwan pork contains beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine. Suddenly no one knows what meat is safe to eat, Government agricultural authorities were supposed to be the gatekeepers. What have they been doing? Is there really a conspiracy to attack Taiwan pork to divert attention from US beef? Another controversy is now sweeping the island, It is the topic on everyone's lips.
Is Taiwan pork safe or unsafe? Is there a conspiracy or not? Consider a story that has been circulating on the Internet.
A young man applies for a job, The interviewer is duly impressed. The young man and his parents assume the job is his. The family is overjoyed. But suddenly they receive a letter saying he has been rejected. The family is desolate. Despondent, the young man threatens suicide. Soon afterwards, the employer arrives to apologize. The notice was mailed to the wrong address. The young man has been hired.
The story does not end there. It goes on to show how the scenario unfolds in different countries and regions, with people of a different national character. In Japan the company says, if the young man cannot even endure such a minor setback, and threatens to commit suicide, how can he possibly cope with future work pressure? In Germany, the parents forbid the young man to report to work, If blunders as serious as this can happen, then company efficiency is clearly poor. The job is clearly one with no future. In America, the young man becomes a folk hero. He reports to work amidst cheering throngs. Lawyers to swarm about him and threaten to sue the company for causing him mental anguish.
On Taiwan scholars and experts of all political stripes. talking heads, civic organizations, emerge from the woodwork. They demand to know why he was first rejected then hired. Did someone with connections lobby on his behalf? Did the interviewer accept a bribe? Who was the young woman who accompaned the young man during his interview? Questions like these multiply. But does the young man ever get the job? No one knows, and no one cares.
The story is an allegory. Questions about food safety have arisen over U.S. beef, Taiwan pork, chicken, and goose containing beta-adrenergic agonists. The real issue is what toxins are involved, and in what amounts? The former concerns the nature of the toxin. The latter concerns the amount. The nature and amount of the toxin must be made clear. Only then can we conduct a risk assessment. Only then can we decide whether to allow their sale. How should the government determine the permissible limits? Not by attacking pork to divert attention from beef. That hardly addresses the problem. We must retrace our steps. So what if the conspiracy theories are true? The uncovering of domestic inspection loopholes or unscrupulous breeders using illegal drugs is forcing the government to remedy the situation. That is hardly a bad thing.
That said, the authorities should be ashamed. The AIT's Taipei Office Chief issued a list of Taiwan agricultural products containing hundreds of illegal additives. It presented scientific evidence. Leave aside the issue of whether the government made concessions and allowed US beef imports, at least for the moment. How can our own agricultural authorities face the public? Have consumers been ingesting toxins on a daily basis? Why was everyone unaware of this?
The agricultural authorities explained that they uncovered these violations long ago. They merely failed to publicize them, Either that, or they publicized them but the media failed to report them. Blaming the media in this manner is extremely unfair. The Government Information Office (GIO) recently issued a press release on domestic pork with salbutamol, It contained only one word: salbutamol. But is salbutamol more toxic than ractopamine? The report said nothing. Do government agencies expect citizens to be experts in toxicology? Do they expect citizens to understand the significance of these reports at a glance? The government did its job, but failed to communicate with the public. As the expression goes, it "performed twice the work, and received half the credit." It performed a truly thankless task.
The public is bickering over U.S. beef imports. It ought to be more concerned about food safety inspections. Legislators are applying pressure, Health Director Wen-Ta Chiu has made a commitment. Beginning next week the government will conduct lot by lot inspections of U.S. beef imports. Is such a promise realistic? The Food and Drug Administration has a staff of only 45, spread out over four control centers on the island: north, south, east, and west. Currently customs has the ability to sample 5% of the U.S. beef entering the country. Beef imports from past offenders are sampled at a 20% rate, or more. The Department of Health has committed to test every batch of beef from every country. Privately, officials confide that this is unreasonable and unscientific. Other countries could protest the erection of non-tariff barriers. It could lead to international trade disputes.
The U.S. beef and Taiwan pork controversies have taught us a lesson. We face an endless stream of food safety issues. We must approach the problem from a scientific and rational perspective. We must uncover the truth and ascertain the severity of the problem. We must review of our policy direction and management techniques. Otherwise both the public and industry will suffer. The government will both remain mired in old problems and entangled in new ones. It will lose credibility, and contribute nothing to the solution of our problems.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.03.16
社論－這場肉的風暴 瘦了政府的公信力
本報訊
美牛風暴果然兇猛，連吹一個月不但欲小不易，還吹出新問題，又產生台灣豬肉究竟有無使用更毒的瘦肉精的爭議！一時間，到底什麼肉能吃、該把關的政府農政單位到底在幹什麼、到底有沒有圍魏（豬）救趙（牛）的陰謀等問題，又舖天蓋地的橫掃全台，成了熱門話題！
在討論台灣豬肉安不安全、到底有沒有陰謀論之前，先說一個在網路流傳已久的故事。
有個年輕人去應徵工作，主考官對他頗表肯定，年輕人與父母都以為錄取已是囊中物，舉家欣喜。哪知，對方寄來的通知單竟然是「未錄取」，舉家皆悲，年輕人難過到鬧自殺。不久，對方登門道歉，原來之前的通知寄錯了，年輕人名列錄取。
故事還沒完。如果這個情境發生在不同的國家、不同民族性的人身上，會有什麼結果？若是日本人，公司方面會說，年輕人這一點挫折都受不了就自殺，將來還能應付工作壓力嗎？不錄取。如果在德國，父母一定不讓年輕人去公司報到，這種事都弄錯，可見公司效率之差，是一個沒有前途的單位。如果在美國，年輕人必定如英雄般、在眾人掌聲和歡迎酒會中報到，並且全美律師蜂擁而至，爭取代表他控告公司造成精神損失。
如果是在台灣呢？非常可能的場景是，各方學者專家、媒體名嘴、民間團體齊出，追究為何先不錄取、後來又錄取？有沒有人事關說？主考官是否受賄？當初陪年輕人去應徵的女朋友是誰？…等等。至於年輕人最後有沒有去上班，沒有人知道、也沒有人關心。
說這個故事的意思是，這從美牛、台豬到雞、鵝含瘦肉精一波波的食品安全問題，真正的核心是：到底含的是何種毒物？劑量多寡？前者是對毒物「定性」，後者是對毒物「定量」，當徹底釐清這兩大有關毒物的真相事實後，才能做風險評估、決定是否開放、政府又該擬定何種強度的管制方式。是不是圍豬救牛，根本不是重點。退一萬步說，即使陰謀論成立，但因此發現國內檢驗漏洞或不肖畜牧業者違法用藥，使政府開始亡羊補牢，也是好事一件。
但國內主管機關應汗顏的是，當ＡＩＴ台北辦事處長司徒文出示一份台灣各種農產品使用禁藥的清單時，羅列了上百項法所禁止的毒物，面對科學的舉證，先不論政府是否因此讓步，開放美牛進口，我們的農政單位就難以面對民眾的質疑：難道消費者天天都在「服毒」？為什麼大家不知道這些訊息？
農政單位的辯解是，以前也有查到，只是沒有公布，或公布了媒體也不報導。這種把責任推給媒體的說法，非常不公平。以新聞局日前發出國內豬肉查到沙丁胺醇的新聞稿來說，白紙黑字只寫了「沙丁胺醇」四個字，至於其毒性是否比萊克多巴胺高，隻字未提。難道，政府單位把國民都當成毒物學專家，一看就懂？政府做了事，卻沒有將資訊清楚傳達給民眾，這是事倍功半，非常吃力不討好。
其實，國內與其為美牛爭吵不休，更應該關切的是食品安全檢驗能量的問題。在立委壓力下，衛生署長邱文達承諾，最快下周一開始，逐批檢驗進口美牛。這個承諾的可行性，大有問題。食品藥物管理局北中南東四大區管中心的總人力只有四十五人，目前對美牛的邊境抽驗比率一般只有五％，對有前科的業者才會上升到廿％或更多。但衛生署承諾對來自各國的牛肉逐批檢驗，食管局官員私下認為這是不合理、不科學的做法，甚至可能導致他國以非關稅障礙的名義抗議，產生國際貿易糾紛的風險。
美牛與台豬瘦肉精風波教我們的是，面對層出不窮的食品安全問題，先要從科學與理性的觀點弄清事實真相與問題輕重，再檢討政策走向與管理方式。否則，只會讓民眾困擾、業者受害，政府則困在新舊夾纏的問題中，瘦了公信力而於事無補。
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Moral Posturing Frustrates Real World Implementation
Moral Posturing Frustrates Real World Implementation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2012
Summary: When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?
Full Text below:
The war over beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine has escalated beyond control. It has shaped the perception of the livestock and meat industry on Taiwan. The public initially assumed that beta-adrenergic agonist residues were a problem confined to U.S. beef imports. Who knew that Australian and New Zealand beef imports contained the even more toxic qipateluo? The public initially assumed that domestic livestock growers refused to use beta-adrenergic agonists. Who knew pig farmers on Taiwan have been using the illegal zilpaterol? The situation is out of control. Many well-known restaurants and food manufacturers have been caught in the net. The public is the ultimate victim.
The reality is so far removed from the rhetoric. This is what happens when opportunistic political posturing takes precedence over rational decision-making. By now people realize the magnitude of the challenge. This is more than a diplomatic and trade tussle over U.S. beef imports. This is a domestic disconnect between administrative efficiency and political commitment.
In 2006 the Chen administration trumpeted its total ban on beta-adrenergic agonists. People mistakenly assumed they were safe and secure. But the Chen administration's moral posturing was deflated by harsh reality. In 2009 the Ma administration responded to mad cow disease in the US. It established "three controls and five gateways." But who knew that beta-adrenergic agonists would slip through the net? Who knew that controls imposed at the source, at the border, and in the marketplace would all fail? The administration stopped mad cow disease, but allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to slip through the net. Preoccupied with U.S. beef, it let down its guard against beta-adrenergic agonists from New Zealand, Australian, and from here at home. What is the crux of the problem? Did political posturing or failed implementation lead to the policy debacle? Maybe both?
Take the "three controls, five gateways." The three contols, five gateways were established in response to mad cow disease in the US. Oversights during implementation were inevitable. The five gateways tested for "38 veterinary drugs, heavy metals and E. coli." But it allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to make their way onto market shelves, Its controls failed. On this point, the Ma administration cannot avoid blame. The government boasted that it would track down violations, one by one. But it failed to provide customs and inspection agencies with the necessary manpower and materiel. This led to less than 10% of the samples being tested. Can the central government really can blame lower echelon officials for inadequate implementation?
Now take industry responsibility for the irregularities. Since last year, the Department of Health and Customs tested over 200 batches of imported beef. About 20% failed to pass muster. The product was returned, removed from market shelves, or destroyed. But no fines were imposed on any industry. The government's net had a gaping hole: The importer or dealer was not considered the "perpetrator." He was not the one who added the beta-adrenergic agonists. Therefore according to the Food Sanitation Management Act, he cannot be punished. Ruling and opposition legislators have harshly condemned such violations. But they failed to pass the appropriate legislation. They failed to provide enforcement officials with the necessary authority. Opportunistic businessmen often take advantage of the situation. They have no fear of the government's "three controls, five gateways." On this point, the legislative branch can hardly shirk responsibilit y. It too was negligent.
A policy must be developed, then promoted. Verification, tracking, interpretation, and implementation is a long process. It is easy to lose one's way. It is easy to deviate from one's original goal. Take the penalties for non-compliance. The Department of Health does not consider the importers "perpetrators." Therefore it does not punish them. But Pingtung pig farms were caught using salbutamol. They used highly toxic, illegal beta-adrenergic agonists. Worse still, they were repeat offenders. Yet neither the central or local governments imposed any fines whatsoever. This was not merely hypocritical, it amounted to aiding and abetting. The government openly boasts that is the "champion of public health." But whenever industry ignores the law. it immediately becomes a "champion of industry." Is aiding and abetting law-breaking really compatible with ensuring food safety?
Former Department of Agriculture Epidemic Prevention Bureau Chief Hsu Tian was forced to step down for covering up the avian flu epidemic. He said he hid the truth for fear "the bottom would drop out of the chicken market." This was his excuse. Alas, it was probably what he was actually thinking. Lest we forget, Hsu Tian was the same person who formulated and implemented the "three controls, five gateways" policy, He occupied this important post -- guardian of public health. Yet in his heart he always put "management" and "chicken prices" above public health. How can the public expect individuals like this to implement public health policy?
When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?
別讓道德高調掉進執行鴻溝
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.15 03:09 am
美牛瘦肉精之爭像一把野火，燒出了台灣畜牧及肉品業的原形。人們原以為瘦肉精問題是美國牛肉所獨有，豈料在澳洲、紐西蘭進口牛肉驗出了毒性更強的齊帕特羅；原以為國內畜牧業者早就不使用瘦肉精，卻查出有養豬場一直在違規使用禁藥沙丁胺醇。環環失控下，許多知名餐廳及食品業者同遭此劫，廣大民眾更同蒙其殃。
這種現實與目標悖離的現象，反映了決策的政治高調在行政執行中被架空的窘境。至此，民眾應該了解，我們當下面對的挑戰，其實已不只是一場美牛的外交貿易戰，而是更嚴酷的內部行政效能與政治承諾的脫節問題。
扁政府自二○○六年高調宣布全面管制瘦肉精，讓民眾誤以為自己身處安全無虞的環境；最後這項道德神話卻是被「未檢驗」的冷酷事實所戳破。而馬政府二○○九年針對美國狂牛設下了「三管五卡」的重重防線，不料卻讓瘦肉精成了漏網之魚，源頭、邊境、市場三道關卡均告失守。守狂牛，就漏了瘦肉精；專攻美牛，就讓紐、澳及國內防線唱空城。其中癥結，是行政失效或政治膨脹導致決策失靈，或兩者兼而有之？
先談「三管五卡」的問題。三管五卡是針對美國狂牛而設，在執行上不免有偏廢之失；然而，「五卡」中既訂出了針對「卅八項動物用藥、重金屬及大腸桿菌」的檢驗項目，讓含瘦肉精的美牛流入市面，就是行政把關不力。這點，馬政府難辭其咎。問題是，政府在誇下「逐批檢驗」的海口時，若未考量海關及檢驗機構的人力與設備能量，導致「逐批檢驗」最後被稀釋成不到一成的「抽樣檢驗」，中央能將責任都推給基層人員執行不力嗎？
再談違規業者的責任問題。去年至今，衛生署在海關及賣場抽驗了兩百多批進口牛肉，不合格率約達兩成，但最後都僅以退運、下架、銷毀等方式處理，未曾對任何業者處以罰金。其中關鍵缺口，就在這些進口商或販賣商並非添加瘦肉精的「行為人」，無法依照「食品衛生管理法」給予懲處。也就是說，儘管朝野立委都嚴詞譴責違規事件，他們卻未能訂出適當的法令，授予行政人員足夠的執法寶劍。如果心存僥倖的業者，投機倒耙往往能夠得逞，他們對政府的三令五申會有何忌憚？這點，難道不是立法部門的疏怠？
一項政策從制定到推動，在漫長的查核、追蹤、釋法及執行的過程中，往往會不斷流失、耗損，乃至遠離了根本的目標。以違規的懲處為例，衛生署認為進口業者不是「行為人」，所以無法處分；但是，被查獲使用沙丁胺醇的屏東養豬場，不僅是違規添加了強毒性的瘦肉精，而且是累犯，但地方和中央至今均未對其開罰。這樣的行政處理，已不只是鄉愿，而根本是放縱。政府口口聲聲以「國民健康」為念，但遇到不法業者，馬上變成以「業者的生計」為念；請問，在縱容非法與執行食品安全之間，豈有兩全之計？
因隱匿禽流感疫情而去職的前農委會防疫局長許天來說，他之所以隱瞞真相，是因為怕「雞價崩盤」；這雖是他的託詞，或恐也有部份真實。別忘了，許天來也正是美牛「三管五卡」政策的主要擬訂者與執行者，但如果坐在這麼重要職位上的把關者，心中卻總是把「老闆」、「雞價」放在上位，人們如何指望那些看似天衣無縫的決策在執行時能獲得貫徹？
浮誇的決策，往往導致執行的虛應故事；六年來，從藍綠政府禁止瘦肉精的起伏虛實，已說明了一切。也因此，在民進黨執政六縣市聲言組成「反美牛」的聯合陣線之際，他們如果看看自己失火的後院，看著縣內養豬場連續使用禁藥卻毫無作為，看著市場攤架上各國牛肉陸續淪陷，他們不覺得自己還在搖著「反美牛」的旗幟，真的太低估了問題嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2012
Summary: When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?
Full Text below:
The war over beta-adrenergic agonists such as clenbuterol and ractopamine has escalated beyond control. It has shaped the perception of the livestock and meat industry on Taiwan. The public initially assumed that beta-adrenergic agonist residues were a problem confined to U.S. beef imports. Who knew that Australian and New Zealand beef imports contained the even more toxic qipateluo? The public initially assumed that domestic livestock growers refused to use beta-adrenergic agonists. Who knew pig farmers on Taiwan have been using the illegal zilpaterol? The situation is out of control. Many well-known restaurants and food manufacturers have been caught in the net. The public is the ultimate victim.
The reality is so far removed from the rhetoric. This is what happens when opportunistic political posturing takes precedence over rational decision-making. By now people realize the magnitude of the challenge. This is more than a diplomatic and trade tussle over U.S. beef imports. This is a domestic disconnect between administrative efficiency and political commitment.
In 2006 the Chen administration trumpeted its total ban on beta-adrenergic agonists. People mistakenly assumed they were safe and secure. But the Chen administration's moral posturing was deflated by harsh reality. In 2009 the Ma administration responded to mad cow disease in the US. It established "three controls and five gateways." But who knew that beta-adrenergic agonists would slip through the net? Who knew that controls imposed at the source, at the border, and in the marketplace would all fail? The administration stopped mad cow disease, but allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to slip through the net. Preoccupied with U.S. beef, it let down its guard against beta-adrenergic agonists from New Zealand, Australian, and from here at home. What is the crux of the problem? Did political posturing or failed implementation lead to the policy debacle? Maybe both?
Take the "three controls, five gateways." The three contols, five gateways were established in response to mad cow disease in the US. Oversights during implementation were inevitable. The five gateways tested for "38 veterinary drugs, heavy metals and E. coli." But it allowed beta-adrenergic agonists to make their way onto market shelves, Its controls failed. On this point, the Ma administration cannot avoid blame. The government boasted that it would track down violations, one by one. But it failed to provide customs and inspection agencies with the necessary manpower and materiel. This led to less than 10% of the samples being tested. Can the central government really can blame lower echelon officials for inadequate implementation?
Now take industry responsibility for the irregularities. Since last year, the Department of Health and Customs tested over 200 batches of imported beef. About 20% failed to pass muster. The product was returned, removed from market shelves, or destroyed. But no fines were imposed on any industry. The government's net had a gaping hole: The importer or dealer was not considered the "perpetrator." He was not the one who added the beta-adrenergic agonists. Therefore according to the Food Sanitation Management Act, he cannot be punished. Ruling and opposition legislators have harshly condemned such violations. But they failed to pass the appropriate legislation. They failed to provide enforcement officials with the necessary authority. Opportunistic businessmen often take advantage of the situation. They have no fear of the government's "three controls, five gateways." On this point, the legislative branch can hardly shirk responsibilit y. It too was negligent.
A policy must be developed, then promoted. Verification, tracking, interpretation, and implementation is a long process. It is easy to lose one's way. It is easy to deviate from one's original goal. Take the penalties for non-compliance. The Department of Health does not consider the importers "perpetrators." Therefore it does not punish them. But Pingtung pig farms were caught using salbutamol. They used highly toxic, illegal beta-adrenergic agonists. Worse still, they were repeat offenders. Yet neither the central or local governments imposed any fines whatsoever. This was not merely hypocritical, it amounted to aiding and abetting. The government openly boasts that is the "champion of public health." But whenever industry ignores the law. it immediately becomes a "champion of industry." Is aiding and abetting law-breaking really compatible with ensuring food safety?
Former Department of Agriculture Epidemic Prevention Bureau Chief Hsu Tian was forced to step down for covering up the avian flu epidemic. He said he hid the truth for fear "the bottom would drop out of the chicken market." This was his excuse. Alas, it was probably what he was actually thinking. Lest we forget, Hsu Tian was the same person who formulated and implemented the "three controls, five gateways" policy, He occupied this important post -- guardian of public health. Yet in his heart he always put "management" and "chicken prices" above public health. How can the public expect individuals like this to implement public health policy?
When political posturing takes precedence over decision-making, officials charged with implementation frequently end up merely going through the motions. Over the past six years, DPP and KMT administrations banned beta-adrenergic agonists. But they failed utterly to prevent them from reaching the market. As a result, the six counties and municipalities ruled by the DPP opposed only US beef imports. They need to look in the mirror. They need to clean house. They need to look at how pig farms in counties under their rule continued using illegal beta-adrenergic agonists with total impunity. They need to look at market shelves filled with beef products containing beta-adrenergic agonists, imported from other countries. When they persist in sanctimoniously waving the "No American Beef!" banner, aren't they underestimating the problem?
別讓道德高調掉進執行鴻溝
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.15 03:09 am
美牛瘦肉精之爭像一把野火，燒出了台灣畜牧及肉品業的原形。人們原以為瘦肉精問題是美國牛肉所獨有，豈料在澳洲、紐西蘭進口牛肉驗出了毒性更強的齊帕特羅；原以為國內畜牧業者早就不使用瘦肉精，卻查出有養豬場一直在違規使用禁藥沙丁胺醇。環環失控下，許多知名餐廳及食品業者同遭此劫，廣大民眾更同蒙其殃。
這種現實與目標悖離的現象，反映了決策的政治高調在行政執行中被架空的窘境。至此，民眾應該了解，我們當下面對的挑戰，其實已不只是一場美牛的外交貿易戰，而是更嚴酷的內部行政效能與政治承諾的脫節問題。
扁政府自二○○六年高調宣布全面管制瘦肉精，讓民眾誤以為自己身處安全無虞的環境；最後這項道德神話卻是被「未檢驗」的冷酷事實所戳破。而馬政府二○○九年針對美國狂牛設下了「三管五卡」的重重防線，不料卻讓瘦肉精成了漏網之魚，源頭、邊境、市場三道關卡均告失守。守狂牛，就漏了瘦肉精；專攻美牛，就讓紐、澳及國內防線唱空城。其中癥結，是行政失效或政治膨脹導致決策失靈，或兩者兼而有之？
先談「三管五卡」的問題。三管五卡是針對美國狂牛而設，在執行上不免有偏廢之失；然而，「五卡」中既訂出了針對「卅八項動物用藥、重金屬及大腸桿菌」的檢驗項目，讓含瘦肉精的美牛流入市面，就是行政把關不力。這點，馬政府難辭其咎。問題是，政府在誇下「逐批檢驗」的海口時，若未考量海關及檢驗機構的人力與設備能量，導致「逐批檢驗」最後被稀釋成不到一成的「抽樣檢驗」，中央能將責任都推給基層人員執行不力嗎？
再談違規業者的責任問題。去年至今，衛生署在海關及賣場抽驗了兩百多批進口牛肉，不合格率約達兩成，但最後都僅以退運、下架、銷毀等方式處理，未曾對任何業者處以罰金。其中關鍵缺口，就在這些進口商或販賣商並非添加瘦肉精的「行為人」，無法依照「食品衛生管理法」給予懲處。也就是說，儘管朝野立委都嚴詞譴責違規事件，他們卻未能訂出適當的法令，授予行政人員足夠的執法寶劍。如果心存僥倖的業者，投機倒耙往往能夠得逞，他們對政府的三令五申會有何忌憚？這點，難道不是立法部門的疏怠？
一項政策從制定到推動，在漫長的查核、追蹤、釋法及執行的過程中，往往會不斷流失、耗損，乃至遠離了根本的目標。以違規的懲處為例，衛生署認為進口業者不是「行為人」，所以無法處分；但是，被查獲使用沙丁胺醇的屏東養豬場，不僅是違規添加了強毒性的瘦肉精，而且是累犯，但地方和中央至今均未對其開罰。這樣的行政處理，已不只是鄉愿，而根本是放縱。政府口口聲聲以「國民健康」為念，但遇到不法業者，馬上變成以「業者的生計」為念；請問，在縱容非法與執行食品安全之間，豈有兩全之計？
因隱匿禽流感疫情而去職的前農委會防疫局長許天來說，他之所以隱瞞真相，是因為怕「雞價崩盤」；這雖是他的託詞，或恐也有部份真實。別忘了，許天來也正是美牛「三管五卡」政策的主要擬訂者與執行者，但如果坐在這麼重要職位上的把關者，心中卻總是把「老闆」、「雞價」放在上位，人們如何指望那些看似天衣無縫的決策在執行時能獲得貫徹？
浮誇的決策，往往導致執行的虛應故事；六年來，從藍綠政府禁止瘦肉精的起伏虛實，已說明了一切。也因此，在民進黨執政六縣市聲言組成「反美牛」的聯合陣線之際，他們如果看看自己失火的後院，看著縣內養豬場連續使用禁藥卻毫無作為，看著市場攤架上各國牛肉陸續淪陷，他們不覺得自己還在搖著「反美牛」的旗幟，真的太低估了問題嗎？
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Bipartisan: The One Word Taiwan Most Desperately Needs
Bipartisan: The One Word Taiwan Most Desperately Needs
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 14, 2012
Summary: Bipartisanship is essential on major policy issues. Without it, Taiwan will remain forever divided, forever at loggerheads, forever spinning its wheels. President Ma has extended an invitation to the DPP, TSU, and PFP, inviting them to participate in a ruling and opposition party leader summit. We hope the opposition parties will participate. We hope they will reach a consensus on US beef imports, a free economic zone, TIFA, TPP, and other major issues. We hope they will achieve bipartisanship. That is the one thing Taiwan most desperately needs.
Full Text below:
The two major parties disagree on U.S. beef imports. The KMT advocates "conditional opening." The DPP leadership insists it has "never wavered in its opposition to clenbuterol and ractopamine."
The two parties are at loggerheads. The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) has linked U.S. beef imports to TIFA. It has said the Ma administration "never made any promises" to the United States regarding beef imports. Just the opposite. It made clear that the DPP under Chen Shui-bian was the administration that made promises to the US regarding beef imports, that wrote the World Trade Organization (WTO) promising to allow beef imports and establish standards for clenbuterol and ractopamine content in US pork and beef products.
It was a situation rife with irony. The United States longs to market beef to consumers on Taiwan. But the target of its pressure is not the Ma administration. It is the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). It paradoxically defends the Ma administration, saying that it "never made any promises."
The AIT wants to know why the DPP agreed to beef imports when it was in office, but rejects them now that it is in the opposition. The AIT is essentially backing the DPP leadership into a corner. It is forcing the DPP to lie, espouse anti-Americanism, and oppose TIFA. It has already left the DPP without a leg to stand on. What the AIT has not said, is that when the KMT was in the opposition, it too opposed the importation of meats treated with clenbuterol and ractopamine. The KMT performed an about face and conditionally agreed to permit US beef imports only because it is now the ruling party. What this shows is that when it comes to clenbuterol and ractopamine, the DPP and the KMT are textbook cases of Miles' Law, which says "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It is also a living, breathing example of why bipartisanship is so difficult to achieve on Taiwan.
The term "bipartisan" is found in such terms as "bipartisan agreement," "bipartisanship," and "bipartisan support." The concept of bipartisanship evolved from party politics in the United States. Partisan political wrangling became "opposition for the sake of opposition" and tore the nation apart. This led to the gradual realization that regarding important matters such as foreign policy, political parties require consistency. Hence the birth of bipartisanship. Hence the appearance of such phenomenon as a congressional "bipartisan committee" passing a "bipartisan resolution," a "bipartisan deficit reduction committee," a "bipartisan Katrina Hurricane Investigation Committee," or a private sector think tank such as the "Bipartisan Policy Center."
Bipartisanship is virtually non-existent in party politics on Taiwan. Between the two parties, one finds only "opposition for the sake of opposition." The lack of bipartisanship begins with allegiance to the nation and to its constitution. On this, there is no bipartisanship. One party operates under the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China. The other party is determined to "de-Sinicize." Cross-strait policy is no exception, One-party supports the 1992 Consensus. The other party refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. One party promoted ECFA. The other party insists that ECFA "panders to [Mainland] China and sells out Taiwan." Such confrontation seldom represents principled dissent. Instead it often represents partisan political maneuvering. For example, when Chen Shui-bian was in the opposition, he advocated Taiwan independence. When he came into office, he advocated the "Five Noes." When he found himself in a crisis of governance he advocated the "rectification of names." When he once again found himself out of power, he reverted to "one nation on each side." As newly appointed Party Chairman, Tsai Ing-wen denounced ECFA as "humiliating." But when she became a presidential candidate, she said she would "accept it unconditionally."
Such policy flip-flopping fails more than the test for bipartisanship. It fails even the test for partisan consistency and individual consistency. Such examples abound. Take the two major parties' policy on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The two parties disagreed with each other. But the two parties have also flip-flopped, repeatedly. The same is true of subsidies for elderly farmers. Has the situation ever been otherwise? Needless to say, there is no bipartisanship on U.S. beef imports. Even worse, both parties are faithful adherents to Miles' Law." Where they stand depends on where they sit.
The AIT pulled no punches. It underscored the lack of bipartisanship on the US beef imports issue. U.S. beef is not a trivial issue, It is vital to national health. It is a trade issue that affects TIFA, FTAs, and Taipei/Washington relations. It could even undermine Taipei's chances of joining the TPP. Can we really oppose something merely for the sake of opposing it on such issues? Shouldn't we establish bipartisanship?
The DPP has flip-flopped on clenbuterol and ractopamine. The rival political parties must seek common ground on national and constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait policy, industrial policy, nuclear energy policy, agricultural policy, tax policy, and other major policies. They must establish a bipartisanship policy framework, beginning with clenbuterol and ractopamine.
Bipartisanship is essential on major policy issues. Without it, Taiwan will remain forever divided, forever at loggerheads, forever spinning its wheels. President Ma has extended an invitation to the DPP, TSU, and PFP, inviting them to participate in a ruling and opposition party leader summit. We hope the opposition parties will participate. We hope they will reach a consensus on US beef imports, a free economic zone, TIFA, TPP, and other major issues. We hope they will achieve bipartisanship. That is the one thing Taiwan most desperately needs.
Bipartisan 台灣最需要的一個字
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.14 01:54 am
關於美牛進口問題，國民黨主張「有條件開放」，民進黨中央則稱「反瘦肉精立場絕不動搖」。
在兩黨相持不下之際，美國在台協會（ＡＩＴ）一方面將美牛與ＴＩＦＡ掛勾，另一方面更調轉槍口稱，馬政府對美牛「沒有做任何承諾」，反而是民進黨扁政府曾對美牛進口做出「承諾」，並曾致函世貿組織（ＷＴＯ）表態，謂將對豬肉牛肉的萊克多巴胺建立殘留量標準。
這真是一個充滿諷刺性的場景。美國要推銷牛肉，主要的施壓目標不在馬政府，卻是針對在野的民進黨而發，且反而為馬政府辯護稱「沒有做任何承諾」。
ＡＩＴ的質疑是：民進黨何以在執政時同意，卻於在野後就反對？ＡＩＴ不啻是將民進黨中央逼到了「失信」、「反美」與「反ＴＩＦＡ」的角落，已使民進黨陷於進退失據之境。不過，ＡＩＴ沒有說的是，國民黨在野時，也是持反對瘦肉精的立場，只是如今執政又轉過身來同意有條件開放。這幅圖像顯示：民進黨及國民黨在瘦肉精的議題上，皆陷於「麥爾斯法則」，即「位子決定立場／屁股決定腦袋」，這也正是台灣政治難以達成「兩黨一致路徑」（Bipartisan Approach）的鮮活寫照。
Bipartisan，可譯為「兩黨一致的」，也有譯為「兩黨連立的」，或逕譯為「兩黨支持的」。Bipartisan這個概念，演化自美國的政黨政治；由於政黨之間「為反對而反對」的制衡角力，演成了國家社會的撕裂；因此逐漸領悟到，各政黨須在有些重要政策（如外交政策）上，持一致立場，遂有Bipartisanship這個概念產生。於是，美國國會時有「兩黨委員會」（Bipartisan Committee），並通過「兩黨決議」（Bipartisan Resolution），如「兩黨刪減赤字委員會」，或「兩黨卡翠納颶風事件調查委員會」，另民間亦有智庫稱「兩黨政策中心」（Bipartisan Policy Center）。
台灣的政黨政治則幾乎沒有Bipartisanship的存在，兩黨之間只有「為反對而反對」。從國憲認同的源頭處，即無「兩黨一致」；一黨「在中華民國憲法架構下」，另一黨要「去中國化」。兩岸政策亦然，一黨支持九二共識，另一黨否定九二共識；一黨推倡ＥＣＦＡ，另一黨稱ＥＣＦＡ是傾中賣台。而且，這類的對立，其實往往不是在原則立場上的真實歧異，而是完全出自政黨鬥爭的權謀反覆而已。例如，陳水扁在野時主張「台獨建國」，執政初期則主張「四不一沒有」，至執政出現危機又操作「正名制憲」，失去政權又回到「一邊一國」；再如，初任黨主席的蔡英文指ＥＣＦＡ喪權辱國，至成為總統候選人又改口說要「概括承受」。
也就是說，這種政策立場的搖擺反覆，不但沒有「兩黨一致」，甚至在同一黨也前後反覆，在同一人也先後搖擺。諸如此類，不勝枚舉。例如，核四政策，兩黨不一致，同一黨也反覆搖擺；國光石化，亦是異曲同工；老農津貼，何嘗不然？當然，美牛事件又是一個沒有Bipartisanship、且兩黨皆演出「麥爾斯法則」的顯例。
由於ＡＩＴ說了重話，使得台灣在美牛問題的「沒有兩黨一致」顯得特別突出。其實，美牛議題不是一個小問題，這是一個攸關國民健康的議題，也是一個貿易問題，牽動到ＴＩＦＡ、ＦＴＡ，影響到台美外交，甚至可牽涉到台灣未來能否融入ＴＰＰ的問題；而這樣的議題，能不能「為反對而反對」？應不應建立一條「兩黨一致的路徑」？
因而，在民進黨出爾反爾的瘦肉精政策困境中，各政黨可共同思考，在國憲認同、兩岸政策、產業選題、核能問題、農業政策、租稅方案等重大國政上，力求共同建立Bipartisanship的政策架構，且就從瘦肉精做起！
在重大政策上沒有Bipartisanship這個概念，台灣將永遠陷於撕裂、反覆、內耗、空轉。馬總統正透過幕僚，邀請民進黨、台聯及親民黨參加朝野政黨領袖高峰會議；我們希望各在野黨能共襄盛舉，使此會能對美牛、自由經濟示範區、ＴＩＦＡ、ＴＰＰ等重大議題，獲致共識，為Bipartisanship建立里程碑，因為，台灣最需要這一個字。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 14, 2012
Summary: Bipartisanship is essential on major policy issues. Without it, Taiwan will remain forever divided, forever at loggerheads, forever spinning its wheels. President Ma has extended an invitation to the DPP, TSU, and PFP, inviting them to participate in a ruling and opposition party leader summit. We hope the opposition parties will participate. We hope they will reach a consensus on US beef imports, a free economic zone, TIFA, TPP, and other major issues. We hope they will achieve bipartisanship. That is the one thing Taiwan most desperately needs.
Full Text below:
The two major parties disagree on U.S. beef imports. The KMT advocates "conditional opening." The DPP leadership insists it has "never wavered in its opposition to clenbuterol and ractopamine."
The two parties are at loggerheads. The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) has linked U.S. beef imports to TIFA. It has said the Ma administration "never made any promises" to the United States regarding beef imports. Just the opposite. It made clear that the DPP under Chen Shui-bian was the administration that made promises to the US regarding beef imports, that wrote the World Trade Organization (WTO) promising to allow beef imports and establish standards for clenbuterol and ractopamine content in US pork and beef products.
It was a situation rife with irony. The United States longs to market beef to consumers on Taiwan. But the target of its pressure is not the Ma administration. It is the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). It paradoxically defends the Ma administration, saying that it "never made any promises."
The AIT wants to know why the DPP agreed to beef imports when it was in office, but rejects them now that it is in the opposition. The AIT is essentially backing the DPP leadership into a corner. It is forcing the DPP to lie, espouse anti-Americanism, and oppose TIFA. It has already left the DPP without a leg to stand on. What the AIT has not said, is that when the KMT was in the opposition, it too opposed the importation of meats treated with clenbuterol and ractopamine. The KMT performed an about face and conditionally agreed to permit US beef imports only because it is now the ruling party. What this shows is that when it comes to clenbuterol and ractopamine, the DPP and the KMT are textbook cases of Miles' Law, which says "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It is also a living, breathing example of why bipartisanship is so difficult to achieve on Taiwan.
The term "bipartisan" is found in such terms as "bipartisan agreement," "bipartisanship," and "bipartisan support." The concept of bipartisanship evolved from party politics in the United States. Partisan political wrangling became "opposition for the sake of opposition" and tore the nation apart. This led to the gradual realization that regarding important matters such as foreign policy, political parties require consistency. Hence the birth of bipartisanship. Hence the appearance of such phenomenon as a congressional "bipartisan committee" passing a "bipartisan resolution," a "bipartisan deficit reduction committee," a "bipartisan Katrina Hurricane Investigation Committee," or a private sector think tank such as the "Bipartisan Policy Center."
Bipartisanship is virtually non-existent in party politics on Taiwan. Between the two parties, one finds only "opposition for the sake of opposition." The lack of bipartisanship begins with allegiance to the nation and to its constitution. On this, there is no bipartisanship. One party operates under the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China. The other party is determined to "de-Sinicize." Cross-strait policy is no exception, One-party supports the 1992 Consensus. The other party refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. One party promoted ECFA. The other party insists that ECFA "panders to [Mainland] China and sells out Taiwan." Such confrontation seldom represents principled dissent. Instead it often represents partisan political maneuvering. For example, when Chen Shui-bian was in the opposition, he advocated Taiwan independence. When he came into office, he advocated the "Five Noes." When he found himself in a crisis of governance he advocated the "rectification of names." When he once again found himself out of power, he reverted to "one nation on each side." As newly appointed Party Chairman, Tsai Ing-wen denounced ECFA as "humiliating." But when she became a presidential candidate, she said she would "accept it unconditionally."
Such policy flip-flopping fails more than the test for bipartisanship. It fails even the test for partisan consistency and individual consistency. Such examples abound. Take the two major parties' policy on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The two parties disagreed with each other. But the two parties have also flip-flopped, repeatedly. The same is true of subsidies for elderly farmers. Has the situation ever been otherwise? Needless to say, there is no bipartisanship on U.S. beef imports. Even worse, both parties are faithful adherents to Miles' Law." Where they stand depends on where they sit.
The AIT pulled no punches. It underscored the lack of bipartisanship on the US beef imports issue. U.S. beef is not a trivial issue, It is vital to national health. It is a trade issue that affects TIFA, FTAs, and Taipei/Washington relations. It could even undermine Taipei's chances of joining the TPP. Can we really oppose something merely for the sake of opposing it on such issues? Shouldn't we establish bipartisanship?
The DPP has flip-flopped on clenbuterol and ractopamine. The rival political parties must seek common ground on national and constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait policy, industrial policy, nuclear energy policy, agricultural policy, tax policy, and other major policies. They must establish a bipartisanship policy framework, beginning with clenbuterol and ractopamine.
Bipartisanship is essential on major policy issues. Without it, Taiwan will remain forever divided, forever at loggerheads, forever spinning its wheels. President Ma has extended an invitation to the DPP, TSU, and PFP, inviting them to participate in a ruling and opposition party leader summit. We hope the opposition parties will participate. We hope they will reach a consensus on US beef imports, a free economic zone, TIFA, TPP, and other major issues. We hope they will achieve bipartisanship. That is the one thing Taiwan most desperately needs.
Bipartisan 台灣最需要的一個字
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.03.14 01:54 am
關於美牛進口問題，國民黨主張「有條件開放」，民進黨中央則稱「反瘦肉精立場絕不動搖」。
在兩黨相持不下之際，美國在台協會（ＡＩＴ）一方面將美牛與ＴＩＦＡ掛勾，另一方面更調轉槍口稱，馬政府對美牛「沒有做任何承諾」，反而是民進黨扁政府曾對美牛進口做出「承諾」，並曾致函世貿組織（ＷＴＯ）表態，謂將對豬肉牛肉的萊克多巴胺建立殘留量標準。
這真是一個充滿諷刺性的場景。美國要推銷牛肉，主要的施壓目標不在馬政府，卻是針對在野的民進黨而發，且反而為馬政府辯護稱「沒有做任何承諾」。
ＡＩＴ的質疑是：民進黨何以在執政時同意，卻於在野後就反對？ＡＩＴ不啻是將民進黨中央逼到了「失信」、「反美」與「反ＴＩＦＡ」的角落，已使民進黨陷於進退失據之境。不過，ＡＩＴ沒有說的是，國民黨在野時，也是持反對瘦肉精的立場，只是如今執政又轉過身來同意有條件開放。這幅圖像顯示：民進黨及國民黨在瘦肉精的議題上，皆陷於「麥爾斯法則」，即「位子決定立場／屁股決定腦袋」，這也正是台灣政治難以達成「兩黨一致路徑」（Bipartisan Approach）的鮮活寫照。
Bipartisan，可譯為「兩黨一致的」，也有譯為「兩黨連立的」，或逕譯為「兩黨支持的」。Bipartisan這個概念，演化自美國的政黨政治；由於政黨之間「為反對而反對」的制衡角力，演成了國家社會的撕裂；因此逐漸領悟到，各政黨須在有些重要政策（如外交政策）上，持一致立場，遂有Bipartisanship這個概念產生。於是，美國國會時有「兩黨委員會」（Bipartisan Committee），並通過「兩黨決議」（Bipartisan Resolution），如「兩黨刪減赤字委員會」，或「兩黨卡翠納颶風事件調查委員會」，另民間亦有智庫稱「兩黨政策中心」（Bipartisan Policy Center）。
台灣的政黨政治則幾乎沒有Bipartisanship的存在，兩黨之間只有「為反對而反對」。從國憲認同的源頭處，即無「兩黨一致」；一黨「在中華民國憲法架構下」，另一黨要「去中國化」。兩岸政策亦然，一黨支持九二共識，另一黨否定九二共識；一黨推倡ＥＣＦＡ，另一黨稱ＥＣＦＡ是傾中賣台。而且，這類的對立，其實往往不是在原則立場上的真實歧異，而是完全出自政黨鬥爭的權謀反覆而已。例如，陳水扁在野時主張「台獨建國」，執政初期則主張「四不一沒有」，至執政出現危機又操作「正名制憲」，失去政權又回到「一邊一國」；再如，初任黨主席的蔡英文指ＥＣＦＡ喪權辱國，至成為總統候選人又改口說要「概括承受」。
也就是說，這種政策立場的搖擺反覆，不但沒有「兩黨一致」，甚至在同一黨也前後反覆，在同一人也先後搖擺。諸如此類，不勝枚舉。例如，核四政策，兩黨不一致，同一黨也反覆搖擺；國光石化，亦是異曲同工；老農津貼，何嘗不然？當然，美牛事件又是一個沒有Bipartisanship、且兩黨皆演出「麥爾斯法則」的顯例。
由於ＡＩＴ說了重話，使得台灣在美牛問題的「沒有兩黨一致」顯得特別突出。其實，美牛議題不是一個小問題，這是一個攸關國民健康的議題，也是一個貿易問題，牽動到ＴＩＦＡ、ＦＴＡ，影響到台美外交，甚至可牽涉到台灣未來能否融入ＴＰＰ的問題；而這樣的議題，能不能「為反對而反對」？應不應建立一條「兩黨一致的路徑」？
因而，在民進黨出爾反爾的瘦肉精政策困境中，各政黨可共同思考，在國憲認同、兩岸政策、產業選題、核能問題、農業政策、租稅方案等重大國政上，力求共同建立Bipartisanship的政策架構，且就從瘦肉精做起！
在重大政策上沒有Bipartisanship這個概念，台灣將永遠陷於撕裂、反覆、內耗、空轉。馬總統正透過幕僚，邀請民進黨、台聯及親民黨參加朝野政黨領袖高峰會議；我們希望各在野黨能共襄盛舉，使此會能對美牛、自由經濟示範區、ＴＩＦＡ、ＴＰＰ等重大議題，獲致共識，為Bipartisanship建立里程碑，因為，台灣最需要這一個字。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)