Going Our Own Way: Taipei and Beijing Sign MOU during Barack Obama's Mainland Visit
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2009
United States President Barack Obama arrived in Beijing on Air Force One, at the same time that Taipei and Beijing were signing a MOU (memorandum of understanding) on cooperation regarding cross-Strait financial supervision.
This coincidence shows that in recent years both the global climate and the cross-Strait micro-climate have changed. Washington and Beijing are on a very different path than in the past. Taipei and Beijing are also going their own way.
Over the past several decades, especially during the Cold War, Taipei took its cue from Washington. When Washington attempted to contain Beijing, Taipei and remained Beijing's Cold War rival. Today however, given Washington-Beijing relations under Barack Obama and Hu Jintao, Taipei can no longer follow Washington's lead on cross-Strait relations. Instead, it must go its own way, and must think about how to go its own way.
The situation can be seen from many different angles. A detailed interpretation of Barack Obama's visit to Beijing and its implications for Washington-Beijing and Taipei-Beijing relations may be a matter of interpretation. But few disagree about its core significance. First, the larger trend reveals a clear tilt toward Beijing. Beijing holds close to a trillion dollars in U.S. debt. Secondly, during the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington's tune was, "Do not contain Mainland China, instead welcome its participation in the international community." Today Obama's tune is, "There are very few global challenges that can be solved unless the United States and China agree." Thirdly, Obama is leading the U.S. out of Bush's era of "unilateralism." The United States' experience in Iraq and the impact of the financial tsunami have forced it to reexamine its role in the world. Together, these massive changes have impacted Washington-Beijing and Taipei-Beijing relations. Washington-Beijing relations are becoming friendler and more co-operative, and Beijing speaks with greater and greater authority. By the same token, given the new relationship between Washington and Beijing, Taipei must find its own way.
This tilt was hardly an overnight phenomenon. It is a steady trend that has prevailed for over ten years. In 1996, the Republic of China Presidential Election led to a U.S. aircraft carrier intervening in a missile crisis in the Taiwan Strait. The following year, United States President Bill Clinton spoke of a One-China Policy beneficial to Taiwan. The year after that, in 1998, Bill Clinton visited Mainland China, and in Shanghai issued the "Three Noes" policy. The Three Noes meant the United States did not support Taiwan independence, did not support One China, One Taiwan, and did not support Taiwan's membership in international organizations requiring national sovereignty. At the time, a reporter asked White House national security adviser Samuel Berger "If the democratically elected government on Taiwan were to choose Taiwan independence, or if a plebiscite on Taiwan independence won by a landslide, would the United States still refuse to support it?" Berger's reply at the time was "We would not." Newspaper editorials referred to this framework as "Five Noes." In 2005 Chen Shui-bian proclaimed his support for "democracy without conditions," and the holding of a "Referendum on UN membership." U.S. officials sternly referred to Chen Shui-bian as an advocate of Taiwan independence, who was betraying Taipei's interests. They pointed out that Ah-Bian's attempt to challenge Washington's One-China Policy was akin to driving headlong into a wall. These were the first two times Clinton's "Five Noes" were put into practice. This occurred during the most hawkish, most pro-Taipei Bush administration. Washington-Beijing relations are much closer under Obama and Hu Jintao. Taipei is bound to be more and more marginalized. The trend in cross-Strait relations over the past ten years is even more predictable, given the lack of disagreement between the two sides.
In fact, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law, his implementation of a fully democratic system, and his opening of cross-Strait exchanges, could be considered a preview of the huge changes that were to occur. Chiang Ching-kuo was attempting to free Taipei from dependence upon the United States, and to allow Taipei to find its own way. But Lee Teng-hui took a wrong turn in the road. Chen Shui-bian marched farther down that road into a dead end. Chen Shui-bian eventually filed suit with a U.S. military tribunal, and proposed "ceding Taiwan to the United States." He attempted to turn the clock back to a time when Taipei was dependent upon the United States. He succeeded only in acting out an ugly farce.
After 9/11, the quagmire in Iraq, and the financial tsunami, Washington faced massive changes in the state of the world and the state of the nation. It had to reexamine its global strategy. Its relationship with Beijing was among the first it needed to reexamine and change. Any changes were bound to affect Taipei-Washington relations and Taipei-Beijing relations. Although Washington is still concerned about Taipei, it is no longer as powerful as it once was. Taipei must guard against its increasing marginalization in cross-Strait relations, given improving Washington-Beijing relations. It must go its own way.
Since the Ma administration took office, it has improved cross-Strait relations. The U.S. government, including the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, have all sung their praises, with nary a dissenting voice. Some people consider this a sign of close agreement between Taipei and Washington on cross-Strait policy. But others hear overtones of something else entirely. Perhaps this is Washington's way of telling Taipei that it is time for Taipei to go its own way, that it is now on its own.
The MOU the two sides have signed use the terms, "the Taiwan side" and "the Mainland side." This is Taipei going its own way. It is also the two sides finding their own way. Beijing has made a point of reminding Washington that the MOU means Taipei and Beijing have already begun going their own way. The role of the United States will rapidly diminish. A new era of cross-Strait relations has truly arrived!
走自己的路：兩岸在歐巴馬訪陸日簽署MOU
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.18 04:14 am
大概就在美國總統歐巴馬搭乘空軍一號抵達北京的那一刻，台灣和大陸正在進行ＭＯＵ（兩岸金融監理合作瞭解備忘錄）的簽署換文。
此一巧合顯示：在近年世界大氣候及兩岸小氣候的巨變中，美國與中國大陸的關係已經走上了一條與往昔相當不同的道路，而台灣在兩岸關係上也走上了自己的道路。
過去幾十年，在冷戰時代，台灣在兩岸關係上，可以說是走在由美國主導及扶持的道路上。美國以圍堵政策操作冷戰，台灣則藉冷戰與大陸分庭抗禮。但是，如今在歐巴馬與胡錦濤所標舉的美中關係下，台灣不再能走在由美國主導及扶持的路上，而是要走自己的路，且要思考如何以自己的方式走下去。
橫看成嶺側成峰。歐巴馬訪中在美中關係及兩岸關係上應作如何解讀的細節，或許仍有見仁見智之處，但其核心意義卻沒有爭議：一、大勢向中國傾斜，北京掌握約近一兆美元的美國債權只是其中一項。二、柯林頓、布希時代的口吻是：「不要遏堵中國，應歡迎他參加國際社會。」如今歐巴馬的措詞卻是：「除非美中一致聯手，否則許多全球挑戰無以解決。」三、歐巴馬以帶領美國走出布希的「片面主義」自期，而美國經過伊拉克困局及金融海嘯的衝擊，也已開始深切反省其世界角色。這些巨變加總起來，對美中及兩岸關係的影響是：美中關係已經走向一條較往昔友善及合作的道路，且中國的話語權只升不降；相對而言，台灣在新的美中關係下，也必須嘗試走出一條自己的路。
值得注意的是，這種傾斜的大勢，不是一夕造成，而是十餘年來一貫的不變趨勢。一九九六年，總統大選引發美國航空母艦介入台海飛彈危機以後，翌年美國總統柯林頓即發表「一個中國政策對台灣有利」的評論；又次年，一九九八年柯林頓訪問中國，更在上海發表「三不支持」，亦即美國不支持台獨，不支持一中一台，也不支持台灣以國家身分加入國際組織。當場有記者問白宮國家安全顧問柏格：「是否縱使台灣民選政府選擇了（台獨）那條路，或（經由）公民投票而有壓倒性的傾向支持（台獨）時，美國也不支持？」柏格的答覆是：「也不支持。」當時，本報社論曾將此一架構指為「五不支持」。直到二○○八年陳水扁揚言「民主無紅線」，舉行「入聯公投」；美國官方疾言厲色指陳水扁是台獨分子，背叛了台灣的利益，並指：「（扁）欲挑戰『美國的一個中國政策』，是在推車撞壁（hitting into a wall）。」這可視為柯林頓「五不支持」後面兩項的首度實踐，當時卻是一度最挺台灣、最鷹派的布希主政時代。如今，歐巴馬胡錦濤之間更加親密的美中關係，與在美中關係中勢將更加邊緣化、也更不具歧見的兩岸關係，可謂只是順著十餘年來此一大勢巨變的必趨必至而已。
其實，蔣經國的解嚴實施全面民主與開放兩岸交流，可謂正是出於對大勢巨變的預知預感；就本文題旨而言，蔣經國正是嘗試要走出依賴美國的路，而要走上台灣自己的路。但是，後來李登輝把路走岔了，陳水扁更是把路走死了。陳水扁控告美國軍事法庭，主張「割台獻美」；這其實就是想要倒撥時鐘走回由美國扶持的路，卻是徒然演出了一場醜聞鬧劇。
美國在九一一、伊拉克困局及金融海嘯後，面對巨變的世局與國情，當然必須重新設定其全球政略，而美中關係正是美國必須首先調整的樞紐，因而亦必然影響到台美關係與兩岸關係。美國雖然仍會關注台灣，但其性質與力道已非昔比；台灣必須警覺兩岸關係在美中關係中日漸邊緣化的一貫趨勢，而應當及早在兩岸關係上開闢出自己的路，自己走下去。
馬政府就任以來，美國政府對台灣改善兩岸關係的表現，自白宮、國務院、五角大廈，皆一概吐露稱許讚譽之聲，幾乎未聞一語批駁。有人認為，這是台美在兩岸政策上更加契合的象徵；但是，也有人聽出了弦外之音，這或許正是美國要告訴台灣：台灣該走自己的路，該自己走下去了！
ＭＯＵ在此時換文，雙邊各用「台灣方面」及「大陸方面」的名義簽署；這是台灣自己開的路，也是兩岸自己開的路（北京不無以ＭＯＵ向美表示兩岸已有「自己的路」之意），美國的角色將快速淡出，兩岸的新時代已真正來臨了！
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
From Cross-Strait Negotiations to Regional and International Economic and Trade Negotiations
From Cross-Strait Negotiations to Regional and International Economic and Trade Negotiations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2009
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (APEC), which opened on the 15th in Singapore, has reached a successful conclusion. In the wake of the global financial tsunami, many nations are struggling to get back on the road to recovery. The theme of the summit was "sustainable growth, regional linkage." It clearly conveyed the inevitable trend toward regional economic integration. In order to to safeguard the nation's development, and to avoid being isolated, the Republic of China must pick up the pace by actively seeking opportunities to participate.
APEC is often regarded as nothing more than a political shindig. The main attraction has long been the impromptu "fashion show" put on by the leaders of the summit, who appear before the media in traditional clothing from the host nation. But this year discussions resulted in a clear consensus. Asia-Pacific regional reconstruction and trade and economic integration increased. And Mainland China has been acknowledgeds as the locomotive that will lead the Asia-Pacific region out of its economic plight.
Even the United States was afraid of being shut out. President Barack Obama announced that the United States would join the "Pan-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement," and conduct exchanges with TPP Member States. He believes it will provide jobs and economic prosperity for the American people. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also pointed out that the TPP can be a model for regional free trade agreements. Following Obama's unambiguous declaration, the desire of Asia-Pacific nations to join was even greater. The TPP may develop to the point where it includes the twenty-one Member States of the APEC free trade region.
In fact, the pace of Asia-Pacific trade and economic integration has accelerated in recent years. Mainland China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are already principal members of "ASEAN plus One." This has had an immediate impact on Taiwan. We may soon face "ASEAN plus Three" and other such free trade blocs. Taiwan is dependent on foreign trade. Being excluded from such free-trade groups, means the loss of important opportunities for development. The impact will be incalculable.
Last year's financial tsunami flooded the world. It also led to an unprecedented global fight to save the economy. It highlighted the importance of regional trade groups. As the economies of Europe and the United States gasp for air, emerging nations have seized the opportunity to establish themselves. The light of the G8 has faded. The G20 has become a forum for the discussion and establishment of new financial standards. Many feel that only the G2 ─ the United States and Mainland China, are able to lead the world. An economic catastrophe has changed the world's political and economic ecology. Their thinking is now very different. The Asia-Pacific region's evaluation of Mainland China is much higher. Nations around the world now pay much more attention to Mainland China's influence.
Amidst such an atmosphere, many regions have formed free trade blocs. The Asia-Pacific countries in particular see Beijing as a candidate for free trade links. In the past Taipei was subject to political constraints. Establishing free trade agreements was very difficult. Suppose the twenty one countries of APEC establish a free trade zone. This once loose organization will become a free-trade group that includes over 200 million people. At the very least it will increase APEC's trade and economic integration. If Taipei can not join, the situation will become critical. Especially this time, APEC nations held a climate conference outside the conference. Taipei alone was left out in the cold. This underscored even more the importance of joining more international groups as soon as possible.
In the past, the one blocking Taipei was Beijing. This pressure has now diminished. Taipei now has more opportunities to participate. This demonstrates the importance of signing the agreement on cross-Strait economic cooperation (ECFA). ECFA is not merely a channel by which Taipei can expand cross-Strait business opportunities. It is also a basis by which it can talk and establish free trade agreements with other nations. During an era in which economic and trade exchanges are increasingly conducted through groupings, If Taipei fails to find a way in, will find itself with less and less room to maneuver.
This of course, is no easy task. Cross-Strait consultations on ECFA were a complex and difficult process, filled with surprises. The atmosphere was uncertain. Even though it was finally signed, will follow-up co-operation proceed smoothly? Will it break the impasse over negotiations with other countries regarding FTAs? Just what are the limits of Beijing's goodwill? Can Taipei establish a new model of international cooperation in the space opened up? Taipei continues to face many challenges.
Former Vice President Lien Chan attended the APEC summit as President Ma Ying-jeou's representative. Fortunately he and Mainland Chinese President Hu Jintao made clear that the launching of ECFA this year established a new starting point. The MOU concerning further cross-Strait financial cooperation was signed on the 16th. We hope its provisions can be implemented smoothly, creating additional opportunities for Taiwan's economic development.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.17
社論－經由兩岸協商 連結區域與國際經貿
本報訊
本屆亞太經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）十五日在新加坡圓滿落幕，在全球金融海嘯後，各國正努力走出低迷邁向復甦，這次會議以「永續成長，連結區域」為主題，鮮明傳達出區域經貿整合已是必然趨勢。為了維護國家發展避免受到孤立，台灣必須加緊腳步，積極尋求參與的機會。
雖然ＡＰＥＣ過去常被視為一場政治大拜拜，最熱鬧的主秀是參與峰會的領袖穿上當地傳統服裝亮相，但綜觀今年的研討與結論，亞太地區攜手重建、加強經貿整合的氣氛比以往更濃，共識相當一致，而無疑地，中國則已被公認是帶領亞太走出經濟險灘的火車頭。
這樣的大趨勢，美國也不敢置身於外。美國總統歐巴馬因此宣布，美國將加入「泛太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協定」（the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement），與ＴＰＰ會員國交往，相信將帶給美國人民就業機會和經濟繁榮。新加坡總理李顯龍也指出，ＴＰＰ可以成為一個區域自由貿易協定的模範。在歐巴馬明確表態之後，亞太地區國家加入的意願更高，未來ＴＰＰ可能發展成涵蓋ＡＰＥＣ廿一個會員國的自由貿易區。
事實上，亞太經貿整合的腳步近年來不斷加速，以中國與東南亞國協為主軸的「東協加一」即將上路，勢必對台灣造成立即的衝擊，而接下來我們還可能面對的「東協加三」等不同的自貿板塊。對於依賴外貿甚深的台灣，被排除在這些自由貿易集團之外，將意味著失去許多重要的發展機會，影響將難以估計。
去年底金融海嘯淹沒全球，也因此促成史上前所未見的全球聯手挽救經濟大作戰。集團的重要性因此受到彰顯，而在歐美經濟奄奄一息的同時，新興國家趁勢取得更重要的地位；Ｇ８光芒褪色，Ｇ20成為討論及設定金融新規範的論壇，而最能主導世局的，咸認唯有Ｇ２─美國與中國。一場經濟浩劫，讓全球政經生態為之丕變，思維觀念也大為不同；亞太地區對中國的評價與寄望更高，世界各國也更加重視中國的影響力。
在這種氣氛下，許多地區紛紛形成自由貿易區塊，亞太國家更是以中國為連結標的。台灣過去受限於政治問題，自由貿易協定的談判很不順利。如果未來ＡＰＥＣ廿一個國家進一步形成自由貿易區，讓這個原本鬆散的組織變成涵蓋廿多億人口的自貿集團，或至少讓ＡＰＥＣ國家的經貿整合更加緊密，那麼台灣能不能加入，就至關緊要了。尤其這次ＡＰＥＣ國家又針對氣候問題舉行會外會，獨獨台灣無緣參加，更凸顯出儘早加入更多國際運作的重要性。
過去卡住台灣的是中共的阻擋，當這個壓力減輕時，台灣可能會有機會爭取更多的參與。由此可知，兩岸簽署經濟合作架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）的重要性，因為它不僅是台灣擴展兩岸商機的管道，更是進一步與其他國家商談自由貿易協議的基礎。在這個經貿交流日趨集團化的時代，台灣不找到入門的路，生存空間恐怕會愈來愈窄。
當然，這不是一項容易的工程，光是兩岸協商ＥＣＦＡ，就已經需要一番複雜困難的過程，其間變數百出，氣氛晴雨不定，而即使終能簽定，後續的合作能否順利推動，是不是能因此打破與其他國家洽談自貿協定的僵局，而中共善意的上限又在哪裡，台灣能不能在新的空間裡開創新的國際合作模式，也面臨著諸多考驗。
所幸這次代表馬英九總統出席ＡＰＥＣ峰會的前副總統連戰與中國國家主席胡錦濤會晤時，胡錦濤明確表示兩岸ＥＣＦＡ協商在今年內啟動，算是明確設定了一個起跑點，而攸關兩岸進一步金融合作的ＭＯＵ也於十六日完成換文簽署，希望各項協商能自此順利推動，為台灣的未來發展開創更多契機。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2009
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (APEC), which opened on the 15th in Singapore, has reached a successful conclusion. In the wake of the global financial tsunami, many nations are struggling to get back on the road to recovery. The theme of the summit was "sustainable growth, regional linkage." It clearly conveyed the inevitable trend toward regional economic integration. In order to to safeguard the nation's development, and to avoid being isolated, the Republic of China must pick up the pace by actively seeking opportunities to participate.
APEC is often regarded as nothing more than a political shindig. The main attraction has long been the impromptu "fashion show" put on by the leaders of the summit, who appear before the media in traditional clothing from the host nation. But this year discussions resulted in a clear consensus. Asia-Pacific regional reconstruction and trade and economic integration increased. And Mainland China has been acknowledgeds as the locomotive that will lead the Asia-Pacific region out of its economic plight.
Even the United States was afraid of being shut out. President Barack Obama announced that the United States would join the "Pan-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement," and conduct exchanges with TPP Member States. He believes it will provide jobs and economic prosperity for the American people. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also pointed out that the TPP can be a model for regional free trade agreements. Following Obama's unambiguous declaration, the desire of Asia-Pacific nations to join was even greater. The TPP may develop to the point where it includes the twenty-one Member States of the APEC free trade region.
In fact, the pace of Asia-Pacific trade and economic integration has accelerated in recent years. Mainland China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are already principal members of "ASEAN plus One." This has had an immediate impact on Taiwan. We may soon face "ASEAN plus Three" and other such free trade blocs. Taiwan is dependent on foreign trade. Being excluded from such free-trade groups, means the loss of important opportunities for development. The impact will be incalculable.
Last year's financial tsunami flooded the world. It also led to an unprecedented global fight to save the economy. It highlighted the importance of regional trade groups. As the economies of Europe and the United States gasp for air, emerging nations have seized the opportunity to establish themselves. The light of the G8 has faded. The G20 has become a forum for the discussion and establishment of new financial standards. Many feel that only the G2 ─ the United States and Mainland China, are able to lead the world. An economic catastrophe has changed the world's political and economic ecology. Their thinking is now very different. The Asia-Pacific region's evaluation of Mainland China is much higher. Nations around the world now pay much more attention to Mainland China's influence.
Amidst such an atmosphere, many regions have formed free trade blocs. The Asia-Pacific countries in particular see Beijing as a candidate for free trade links. In the past Taipei was subject to political constraints. Establishing free trade agreements was very difficult. Suppose the twenty one countries of APEC establish a free trade zone. This once loose organization will become a free-trade group that includes over 200 million people. At the very least it will increase APEC's trade and economic integration. If Taipei can not join, the situation will become critical. Especially this time, APEC nations held a climate conference outside the conference. Taipei alone was left out in the cold. This underscored even more the importance of joining more international groups as soon as possible.
In the past, the one blocking Taipei was Beijing. This pressure has now diminished. Taipei now has more opportunities to participate. This demonstrates the importance of signing the agreement on cross-Strait economic cooperation (ECFA). ECFA is not merely a channel by which Taipei can expand cross-Strait business opportunities. It is also a basis by which it can talk and establish free trade agreements with other nations. During an era in which economic and trade exchanges are increasingly conducted through groupings, If Taipei fails to find a way in, will find itself with less and less room to maneuver.
This of course, is no easy task. Cross-Strait consultations on ECFA were a complex and difficult process, filled with surprises. The atmosphere was uncertain. Even though it was finally signed, will follow-up co-operation proceed smoothly? Will it break the impasse over negotiations with other countries regarding FTAs? Just what are the limits of Beijing's goodwill? Can Taipei establish a new model of international cooperation in the space opened up? Taipei continues to face many challenges.
Former Vice President Lien Chan attended the APEC summit as President Ma Ying-jeou's representative. Fortunately he and Mainland Chinese President Hu Jintao made clear that the launching of ECFA this year established a new starting point. The MOU concerning further cross-Strait financial cooperation was signed on the 16th. We hope its provisions can be implemented smoothly, creating additional opportunities for Taiwan's economic development.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.17
社論－經由兩岸協商 連結區域與國際經貿
本報訊
本屆亞太經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）十五日在新加坡圓滿落幕，在全球金融海嘯後，各國正努力走出低迷邁向復甦，這次會議以「永續成長，連結區域」為主題，鮮明傳達出區域經貿整合已是必然趨勢。為了維護國家發展避免受到孤立，台灣必須加緊腳步，積極尋求參與的機會。
雖然ＡＰＥＣ過去常被視為一場政治大拜拜，最熱鬧的主秀是參與峰會的領袖穿上當地傳統服裝亮相，但綜觀今年的研討與結論，亞太地區攜手重建、加強經貿整合的氣氛比以往更濃，共識相當一致，而無疑地，中國則已被公認是帶領亞太走出經濟險灘的火車頭。
這樣的大趨勢，美國也不敢置身於外。美國總統歐巴馬因此宣布，美國將加入「泛太平洋戰略經濟夥伴關係協定」（the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement），與ＴＰＰ會員國交往，相信將帶給美國人民就業機會和經濟繁榮。新加坡總理李顯龍也指出，ＴＰＰ可以成為一個區域自由貿易協定的模範。在歐巴馬明確表態之後，亞太地區國家加入的意願更高，未來ＴＰＰ可能發展成涵蓋ＡＰＥＣ廿一個會員國的自由貿易區。
事實上，亞太經貿整合的腳步近年來不斷加速，以中國與東南亞國協為主軸的「東協加一」即將上路，勢必對台灣造成立即的衝擊，而接下來我們還可能面對的「東協加三」等不同的自貿板塊。對於依賴外貿甚深的台灣，被排除在這些自由貿易集團之外，將意味著失去許多重要的發展機會，影響將難以估計。
去年底金融海嘯淹沒全球，也因此促成史上前所未見的全球聯手挽救經濟大作戰。集團的重要性因此受到彰顯，而在歐美經濟奄奄一息的同時，新興國家趁勢取得更重要的地位；Ｇ８光芒褪色，Ｇ20成為討論及設定金融新規範的論壇，而最能主導世局的，咸認唯有Ｇ２─美國與中國。一場經濟浩劫，讓全球政經生態為之丕變，思維觀念也大為不同；亞太地區對中國的評價與寄望更高，世界各國也更加重視中國的影響力。
在這種氣氛下，許多地區紛紛形成自由貿易區塊，亞太國家更是以中國為連結標的。台灣過去受限於政治問題，自由貿易協定的談判很不順利。如果未來ＡＰＥＣ廿一個國家進一步形成自由貿易區，讓這個原本鬆散的組織變成涵蓋廿多億人口的自貿集團，或至少讓ＡＰＥＣ國家的經貿整合更加緊密，那麼台灣能不能加入，就至關緊要了。尤其這次ＡＰＥＣ國家又針對氣候問題舉行會外會，獨獨台灣無緣參加，更凸顯出儘早加入更多國際運作的重要性。
過去卡住台灣的是中共的阻擋，當這個壓力減輕時，台灣可能會有機會爭取更多的參與。由此可知，兩岸簽署經濟合作架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）的重要性，因為它不僅是台灣擴展兩岸商機的管道，更是進一步與其他國家商談自由貿易協議的基礎。在這個經貿交流日趨集團化的時代，台灣不找到入門的路，生存空間恐怕會愈來愈窄。
當然，這不是一項容易的工程，光是兩岸協商ＥＣＦＡ，就已經需要一番複雜困難的過程，其間變數百出，氣氛晴雨不定，而即使終能簽定，後續的合作能否順利推動，是不是能因此打破與其他國家洽談自貿協定的僵局，而中共善意的上限又在哪裡，台灣能不能在新的空間裡開創新的國際合作模式，也面臨著諸多考驗。
所幸這次代表馬英九總統出席ＡＰＥＣ峰會的前副總統連戰與中國國家主席胡錦濤會晤時，胡錦濤明確表示兩岸ＥＣＦＡ協商在今年內啟動，算是明確設定了一個起跑點，而攸關兩岸進一步金融合作的ＭＯＵ也於十六日完成換文簽署，希望各項協商能自此順利推動，為台灣的未來發展開創更多契機。
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Next 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations: A Broader Path, A More Elevated Perspective
The Next 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations: A Broader Path, A More Elevated Perspective
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2009
The current "Two Sides, One Jiazi (traditional Chinese 60 year cycle) Seminar" is perceived as a second channel for communications between Taipei and Beijing. Speaking from a packed hall, Zheng Bijian, head of the Mainland delegation, made two remarks that left a deep impression. She said "Our vision will determine our prospects. Our thinking will offer us solutions."
The function of the seminar is to test the waters. Each side will of course express its views. Differences may arise during the seminar, whether from 60 years ago or a mere five years ago. There may be significant differences of opinion. But our vision and thinking are considerably more sophisticated than they once were, and cannot be thought of in the same terms. Consider the mainland delegation's remark that 30 years ago, Mainland China spoke of "assuming responsibility for world revolution," of "liberating Taiwan," and of "class struggle as the key." Today Zheng Bijian speaks of "Three Harmonies," specifically, international peace (he ping), domestic tranquility (he xie), and cross-strait reconciliation (he jie). Compare the present and the past. Our vision is bolder, and our thinking is freer. Twenty years ago, Beijing was saying that "The Republic of China has been destroyed." But today Liu Guosheng, President of Xiamen University, spoke of "national spheres vs. international spheres." He openly proclaimed that "China is a national sphere. It is comprised of two political authorities: the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. They sit back to back, each representing China like the two sides of the same coin." This represents an elevation of vision, and a broadening of thinking.
Zheng Bijian's interpretation allows us to borrow and fine-tune our vision and our thinking. The two sides have come a long way. Our vision does indeed determine our prospects. Our thinking does indeed offer solutions. But perhaps we should invert Zheng's formulation, and instead allow our prospects to determine our vision, and our solutions to determine out thinking.
What is vision? The main component of vision is knowledge. Mao Zedong foisted the Cultural Revolution and people's communes upon the public. He created a lethal cocktail of "Marxi/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao" thinking. He did so primarily because he was intellectually ignorant. Song Jiang and Zhang Xienzhong could not control 20th century China. When Deng Xiaoping launched the "Bianshi (flog Mao's corpse) Revolution," he was forced to do so by circumstances. When he embarked on "reform and liberalization," he really wasn't sure where he was headed. Hence the metaphor of "crossing the river by feeling the stones" that has guided Beijing for the past twenty years. All of this was originally a result of intellectual uncertainty. But today, thirty years of reform and liberalization have been a huge success. Right and wrong are now clear-cut. Scientific data has replaced "satellite launches" (the exaggerated reporting of production figures). The profit motive has replaced the waving of red flags. Politics was once in command. Now knowledge rules the roost. Today the problem is no longer a lack of knowledge or a lack of vision. From this day forward, the limiting factor will be our prospects, our willingness to apply our knowledge and consult our consciences, and our determination to remain true to our ideals. Yesterday political ideology prevented us from finding a solution to our dilemma. Today we have found a solution, because our thinking is no longer constrained by political ideology. The main theme of cross-Strait relations in the future must be: "Our prospects determine our vision, our solution determines our thinking."
Given such an understanding, we were surprised by Zheng's conclusion: "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Actually "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems" should be considered obsolete pre-2008 thinking. Why? Because such a prospect prevents us from finding any solution. That is why the 2005 Lien/Hu Summit set forth the theory of "peaceful development." Our prospects were suddenly better. Our solution was suddenly obvious. Today we live in a post-2008 era. The "1992 Consensus" remains the overarching framework for cross-Strait policy, followed logically by "One China, Different Interpretations." This, in terms of our vision, our prospects, our thinking, and our solutions, has transcended the rhetoric of "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Were Zheng's remarks a case of backpedalling regarding prospects and solutions?
During the seminar the Beijing delegation said it recognized only the "1992 Consensus." It did not recognize "One China, Different Interpretations." But if even "One China, Different Interpretations" is seen as contrary to the "One China Principle," then "unification" means "I intend to swallow you up." Does such a prospect really offer any solution?
Beijing has said that "Anything is up for discussion." In fact, what the two sides need to discuss most is prospects and solutions. For example, what is "China," but a question of prospects? Must one side swallow up the other in cross-Strait politics? That is an issue pertaining to solutions.
Despite our differences, we vigorously affirm the vision and thinking of the current cross-Straits seminar. We expect that the coming 60 year cycle will offer an even broader vision, even brighter prospects, even more liberated thinking, and even more solutions for cross-Strait relations.
兩岸下一甲子：出路要寬，境界要高
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.16 03:37 am
這次「兩岸一甲子研討會」，被視為雙方的「二軌對話」。發言盈庭之中，大陸團長鄭必堅的兩句話令人印象深刻；他說：「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路。」
此會的功能既是投石問路，各抒己見亦是理所當然。然而，會中出現的歧見若與一甲子前、甚或五年前的歧見相較，歧見雖仍有歧見，但「眼界」與「思路」皆已有大幅的精進，不可同日而語。即以大陸方面的發言而論，三十年前，中國大陸對外主張「以世界革命為己任」，對台灣主張「解放台灣」，對內主張「以階級鬥爭為綱」；如今則出現了鄭必堅的「三和理論」（對外和平，對內和諧，兩岸和解）。今昔對照，眼界提高，思路亦開。又如，二十年前，北京的主旋律是「中華民國已經滅亡」，但如今則有廈門大學劉國深院長的「國家球體／國際星系」論，明白標舉：「中國這個『國家球體』的球面，是由中華人民共和國與中華民國兩個競爭中的政權構成，她們分別在背對背的空間和場合代表著中國，雙方形成了事實上『一體兩面』的關係。」這裡也看到了眼界與思路的提高和放大。
鄭必堅的說法，容我們借用並調整一下。我們認為，兩岸能從過去走到今天，確實是「眼界決定境界／思路決定出路」；但欲從今天走向未來，也許應當調整成「境界決定眼界／出路決定思路」。
什麼是眼界？眼界的主要成分是知識。毛澤東之所以用人民公社及文化大革命，來實踐其「馬／恩／列／史／毛」的「雞尾酒式的共產主義」，主要是因他的知識貧弱；宋江加張獻忠不能治理二十世紀的中國。到了鄧小平等發動對毛澤東的鞭屍革命，則主要仍是迫於形勢不得不然；至於提出「改革開放」的主張，其實當時一切都還說不準，所以「摸著石頭過河」這句話用了二十餘年，原因亦在知識上的不確定性。但是，到了今天，改革開放三十年已見巨大成效，是非黑白已是一清二楚，科學統計數字已代替了「放衛星」，利潤誘因則代替了「搖紅旗」；一切已從政治掛帥變成知識掛帥。所以，就知識與眼界而論，如今皆已不是問題；從現在走向未來，決定因素是在境界，也就是決定在使用知識的良知、理想與胸襟。相對而言，過去以政治意識形態的「思路」，侷限了「出路」；如今若看見了「出路」，則不能再被政治意識形態的「思路」所綑綁。同樣的道理，這也應當是未來兩岸關係的主軸思維：「境界決定眼界，出路決定思路。」
出於這樣的見解，我們對鄭必堅的談話仍以「和平統一／一國兩制」為歸結，頗感意外。其實，「和平統一／一國兩制」應當是「前二○○八」的語彙；正因此一論述的「境界」與「出路」皆有侷限，所以才有二○○五年「連胡會」提出了「和平發展論」，是「境界」的提升，也是「出路」的放大。到了「後二○○ 八」的今天，「九二共識」已是兩岸的政策主軸，「一中各表」則是其必然存在的潛台詞；這無論在眼界、境界、及思路、出路上，皆已超越了「和平統一／一國兩制」的論述。鄭必堅的談話，會不會是境界與出路上的倒退？
北京方面有人在會中說，只承認「九二共識」，不承認「一中各表」。但是，倘若連「一中各表」也被視為違背「一個中國的原則」，且所謂的「統一」也就是「我吃掉你」；試問，這個方案的「境界」如何？又難道會是「出路」？
北京一直說「什麼都能談」；其實，兩岸要談的就是「境界」與「出路」。例如，什麼是「中國」，其實是一個「境界」的問題；又如，兩岸的政治方案是否只有「我吃掉你」一個版本，則是「出路」問題。
我們對這次充滿「歧見」、但眼界與思路皆已見相對開闊的兩岸研討會表示高度肯定，亦對下一甲子的兩岸關係可望有更加開闊的眼界、境界、思路、出路，寄以高度的期待。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2009
The current "Two Sides, One Jiazi (traditional Chinese 60 year cycle) Seminar" is perceived as a second channel for communications between Taipei and Beijing. Speaking from a packed hall, Zheng Bijian, head of the Mainland delegation, made two remarks that left a deep impression. She said "Our vision will determine our prospects. Our thinking will offer us solutions."
The function of the seminar is to test the waters. Each side will of course express its views. Differences may arise during the seminar, whether from 60 years ago or a mere five years ago. There may be significant differences of opinion. But our vision and thinking are considerably more sophisticated than they once were, and cannot be thought of in the same terms. Consider the mainland delegation's remark that 30 years ago, Mainland China spoke of "assuming responsibility for world revolution," of "liberating Taiwan," and of "class struggle as the key." Today Zheng Bijian speaks of "Three Harmonies," specifically, international peace (he ping), domestic tranquility (he xie), and cross-strait reconciliation (he jie). Compare the present and the past. Our vision is bolder, and our thinking is freer. Twenty years ago, Beijing was saying that "The Republic of China has been destroyed." But today Liu Guosheng, President of Xiamen University, spoke of "national spheres vs. international spheres." He openly proclaimed that "China is a national sphere. It is comprised of two political authorities: the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. They sit back to back, each representing China like the two sides of the same coin." This represents an elevation of vision, and a broadening of thinking.
Zheng Bijian's interpretation allows us to borrow and fine-tune our vision and our thinking. The two sides have come a long way. Our vision does indeed determine our prospects. Our thinking does indeed offer solutions. But perhaps we should invert Zheng's formulation, and instead allow our prospects to determine our vision, and our solutions to determine out thinking.
What is vision? The main component of vision is knowledge. Mao Zedong foisted the Cultural Revolution and people's communes upon the public. He created a lethal cocktail of "Marxi/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao" thinking. He did so primarily because he was intellectually ignorant. Song Jiang and Zhang Xienzhong could not control 20th century China. When Deng Xiaoping launched the "Bianshi (flog Mao's corpse) Revolution," he was forced to do so by circumstances. When he embarked on "reform and liberalization," he really wasn't sure where he was headed. Hence the metaphor of "crossing the river by feeling the stones" that has guided Beijing for the past twenty years. All of this was originally a result of intellectual uncertainty. But today, thirty years of reform and liberalization have been a huge success. Right and wrong are now clear-cut. Scientific data has replaced "satellite launches" (the exaggerated reporting of production figures). The profit motive has replaced the waving of red flags. Politics was once in command. Now knowledge rules the roost. Today the problem is no longer a lack of knowledge or a lack of vision. From this day forward, the limiting factor will be our prospects, our willingness to apply our knowledge and consult our consciences, and our determination to remain true to our ideals. Yesterday political ideology prevented us from finding a solution to our dilemma. Today we have found a solution, because our thinking is no longer constrained by political ideology. The main theme of cross-Strait relations in the future must be: "Our prospects determine our vision, our solution determines our thinking."
Given such an understanding, we were surprised by Zheng's conclusion: "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Actually "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems" should be considered obsolete pre-2008 thinking. Why? Because such a prospect prevents us from finding any solution. That is why the 2005 Lien/Hu Summit set forth the theory of "peaceful development." Our prospects were suddenly better. Our solution was suddenly obvious. Today we live in a post-2008 era. The "1992 Consensus" remains the overarching framework for cross-Strait policy, followed logically by "One China, Different Interpretations." This, in terms of our vision, our prospects, our thinking, and our solutions, has transcended the rhetoric of "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Were Zheng's remarks a case of backpedalling regarding prospects and solutions?
During the seminar the Beijing delegation said it recognized only the "1992 Consensus." It did not recognize "One China, Different Interpretations." But if even "One China, Different Interpretations" is seen as contrary to the "One China Principle," then "unification" means "I intend to swallow you up." Does such a prospect really offer any solution?
Beijing has said that "Anything is up for discussion." In fact, what the two sides need to discuss most is prospects and solutions. For example, what is "China," but a question of prospects? Must one side swallow up the other in cross-Strait politics? That is an issue pertaining to solutions.
Despite our differences, we vigorously affirm the vision and thinking of the current cross-Straits seminar. We expect that the coming 60 year cycle will offer an even broader vision, even brighter prospects, even more liberated thinking, and even more solutions for cross-Strait relations.
兩岸下一甲子：出路要寬，境界要高
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.16 03:37 am
這次「兩岸一甲子研討會」，被視為雙方的「二軌對話」。發言盈庭之中，大陸團長鄭必堅的兩句話令人印象深刻；他說：「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路。」
此會的功能既是投石問路，各抒己見亦是理所當然。然而，會中出現的歧見若與一甲子前、甚或五年前的歧見相較，歧見雖仍有歧見，但「眼界」與「思路」皆已有大幅的精進，不可同日而語。即以大陸方面的發言而論，三十年前，中國大陸對外主張「以世界革命為己任」，對台灣主張「解放台灣」，對內主張「以階級鬥爭為綱」；如今則出現了鄭必堅的「三和理論」（對外和平，對內和諧，兩岸和解）。今昔對照，眼界提高，思路亦開。又如，二十年前，北京的主旋律是「中華民國已經滅亡」，但如今則有廈門大學劉國深院長的「國家球體／國際星系」論，明白標舉：「中國這個『國家球體』的球面，是由中華人民共和國與中華民國兩個競爭中的政權構成，她們分別在背對背的空間和場合代表著中國，雙方形成了事實上『一體兩面』的關係。」這裡也看到了眼界與思路的提高和放大。
鄭必堅的說法，容我們借用並調整一下。我們認為，兩岸能從過去走到今天，確實是「眼界決定境界／思路決定出路」；但欲從今天走向未來，也許應當調整成「境界決定眼界／出路決定思路」。
什麼是眼界？眼界的主要成分是知識。毛澤東之所以用人民公社及文化大革命，來實踐其「馬／恩／列／史／毛」的「雞尾酒式的共產主義」，主要是因他的知識貧弱；宋江加張獻忠不能治理二十世紀的中國。到了鄧小平等發動對毛澤東的鞭屍革命，則主要仍是迫於形勢不得不然；至於提出「改革開放」的主張，其實當時一切都還說不準，所以「摸著石頭過河」這句話用了二十餘年，原因亦在知識上的不確定性。但是，到了今天，改革開放三十年已見巨大成效，是非黑白已是一清二楚，科學統計數字已代替了「放衛星」，利潤誘因則代替了「搖紅旗」；一切已從政治掛帥變成知識掛帥。所以，就知識與眼界而論，如今皆已不是問題；從現在走向未來，決定因素是在境界，也就是決定在使用知識的良知、理想與胸襟。相對而言，過去以政治意識形態的「思路」，侷限了「出路」；如今若看見了「出路」，則不能再被政治意識形態的「思路」所綑綁。同樣的道理，這也應當是未來兩岸關係的主軸思維：「境界決定眼界，出路決定思路。」
出於這樣的見解，我們對鄭必堅的談話仍以「和平統一／一國兩制」為歸結，頗感意外。其實，「和平統一／一國兩制」應當是「前二○○八」的語彙；正因此一論述的「境界」與「出路」皆有侷限，所以才有二○○五年「連胡會」提出了「和平發展論」，是「境界」的提升，也是「出路」的放大。到了「後二○○ 八」的今天，「九二共識」已是兩岸的政策主軸，「一中各表」則是其必然存在的潛台詞；這無論在眼界、境界、及思路、出路上，皆已超越了「和平統一／一國兩制」的論述。鄭必堅的談話，會不會是境界與出路上的倒退？
北京方面有人在會中說，只承認「九二共識」，不承認「一中各表」。但是，倘若連「一中各表」也被視為違背「一個中國的原則」，且所謂的「統一」也就是「我吃掉你」；試問，這個方案的「境界」如何？又難道會是「出路」？
北京一直說「什麼都能談」；其實，兩岸要談的就是「境界」與「出路」。例如，什麼是「中國」，其實是一個「境界」的問題；又如，兩岸的政治方案是否只有「我吃掉你」一個版本，則是「出路」問題。
我們對這次充滿「歧見」、但眼界與思路皆已見相對開闊的兩岸研討會表示高度肯定，亦對下一甲子的兩岸關係可望有更加開闊的眼界、境界、思路、出路，寄以高度的期待。
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Science and Technology Advisory Group Must Do Its Job
The Science and Technology Advisory Group Must Do Its Job
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 13, 2009
The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group was established 30 years ago. Last week the group held its annual meeting. It made a point of screening a documentary short commemorating the Godfather of Taiwan's Technology, Li Kuo-ting. Thinking back, we cherish the memory of this incomparably courageous visionary, who laid the foundation for Taiwan's information and communications industry. On the other hand, we bemoan the fact that the future of Taiwan's industries remains in question. As we examine the political landscape, no one emerges as a worthy helmsman to guide the future development of emerging industries and science and technology.
The public naturally understands that Taiwan's political environment is not what it once was. Chief executives are no longer the authoritative figures they once were. The legislature would not tolerate such dictatorial strongmen. If Li Kuo-ting were alive today, he would probably be harangued by the the Legislative Yuan and the media to the point of humiliation. Even if he was spared, he would not be able to summon the wind and rain the way he did. That said, the changed political climate is no excuse for inaction and incompetence. Nor can it be used to rationalize absurd and mistaken arrangements and practices. Compare the accomplishments of the current Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group meeting with the accomplishments of Li Kuo-ting back then. Clearly there is room for improvement.
The theme of the current Science and Technology Advisory Group Conference is Taiwan's six emerging industries. The Executive Yuan is asking its science and technology consultants to discuss, one by one, the industrial policies it is promoting. One wonders what Li Kuo-ting would think of such an arrangement if he were alive today. The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory has about 20 members, including 10 from abroad. Among them are internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners. National consultants include the presidents of Academia Sinica, National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, the Vice-Chancellor of National Cheng Kung University, and other elders of academia. Their research has been impressive, but most of them have no business experience. They may be familiar with upstream technology R&D, but are unlikely to understand the downstream realm of industrial production. Isn't inviting these elders from academia to discuss Taiwan's industrial policy irrelevant?
Some members of the Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group may understand certain industry practices. But what is asking ten foreign scientists to offer advice for Chinese cultural and creative industries, but an embarrassing imposition? The cultural and creative industries involve many issue that have nothing to do with science or technology, but rather wisdom from the humanities. Why should we hand these issues over to a group of technology experts for discussion? Many foreign IT consultants may never have purchased a butterfly orchid, or eaten a grouper. How can they contribute anything to a discussion on quality agriculture? They might ad lib by saying that "scientific research must not be divorced from industry." But of how much significance would this be in a meeting dedicated to the in-depth examination of difficult, substantive, industry-related issues?
What worries us the most is not the waste of three days of valuable time for these scientists. But to promote industrial reform in such a heavy-handed manner, really makes makes us break out in a cold sweat. To promote an unprecedented new industry or previously unsuccessful industry requires clear vision and a development strategy. Such a strategy is the result of examining the overall situation, studying industry feasibility, making critical breakthroughs, and creating new markets. To use the vernacular of the popular media, industrial strategy requires key breakthroughs in Blue Ocean Strategy. What is not required is minor tweaks to various revenue producing items within the framework of the existing Red Ocean Strategy. Unfortunately the information provided by the Science and Technology Advisory Group shows that although they are working very hard, they have no clear strategic direction.
Six months ago, the Executive Yuan was apparently under pressure from President Ma. It hastily promoted a new solution every week or two for Taiwan's six emerging industries. At the time outsiders were concerned that some programs were merely administrative staffers wracking their brains competing in an essay contest. Sure enough, the information provided by various sectors to the Science and Technology Advisory Group was almost identical to the programs promoted by the Executive Yuan six months ago. As we can see, the organizer's implementation of the programs over the past six months has been slow. The authorities responsible are unclear on their strategic direction, and are having difficulty making any progress to speak of. They must consider better means of implementation, rather than discussing old programs that have led nowhere.
Politicians make no bones about labelling someone a hero on the basis of his success or failure. Li Kuo-ting is widely respected by the public because he "created " Taiwan's ICT industry. It was not because he presided over so many conferences, made the front page so many times, or spent so many dollars on advertising. Li Kuo-ting planned the financing for Taiwan's Science Parks. But he did not meddle in cultural creative industries he was unfamiliar with, such as the cultivation of butterfly orchids or groupers, That was why he was successful. The achievements of the Science and Technology Advisory Group back then are legendary the world over. Credit is always given to the Science and Technology Advisory Group. But take one look at last week's science and technology advisors meeting, and one can't help longing for the "Good Old Days."
請科技顧問組認真做份內的事
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.13 03:46 am
今年是行政院科技顧問組成立三十周年；該會上周在舉辦一年一度的科技顧問會議時，特地播放了一段紀念台灣科技教父李國鼎先生的短片。撫今追昔，我們一則緬懷昔日教父開創台灣資通產業基礎的前瞻視野與無比魄力，另一方面也要感傷今日台灣的產業前景不明；放眼政壇，已沒有任何人堪稱是新興產業與未來科技發展的掌舵者。
國人當然了解，台灣的政治生態今非昔比，行政首長不再有一言九鼎的威望人物，國會殿堂也容不下乾綱獨斷的強人。李國鼎先生如果處於今日，恐怕也會被立法院與媒體整得灰頭土臉，就算不致鎩羽而歸，也絕不可能有呼風喚雨的威勢。但是，政治形勢的改變終究不是無為無能的藉口，更不能用來合理化荒謬錯誤的安排與做法。如果拿這一次行政院科顧會議的內容與李國鼎先生當年的事蹟做對比，則有待改進的空間就格外清楚了。
這一次科技顧問會議的主題是台灣的六大新興產業，把行政院所推的產業政策端出來請科技顧問逐一討論。李國鼎先生如果在世，對於這樣的議程安排真不知道有何感想。行政院科技顧問約有二十人，其中有十位來自國外，都是國際知名的科學家，也有諾貝爾獎得主。國內顧問則包括中研院院長、台大、清大、成大校長等學界大老。他們的學術研究成績斐然，但是絕大多數都沒有企業經驗。他們或許熟悉科技研發的上游運作，卻不太可能了解中下游的產業世界。請這些學界大老對台灣的產業政策開會討論，是不是有些文不對題？
縱使部分行政院科技顧問也懂得他們那一行的若干產業實務，但是叫十位外國科學家對華人的文化創意產業發表高見，這不是強人所難是什麼？文化創意產業所涉面向有諸多既非科學、亦非技術，而屬人文智慧，為什麼要交給一群科技專家去討論呢？國外科技顧問可能有許多位沒有買過蝴蝶蘭、也沒有吃過石斑魚，他們又要如何對精緻農業案發表意見呢？就算能應景地說些「科研不能與產業脫節」的場面話，卻對產業推動的實質問題難做深入評論，開這個會又有多少意義？
令我們最擔心的，不是開三天會浪費了多少科學家的寶貴時間，而是以這種粗率方式推動產業改革，真的教國人捏把冷汗！推動一個前所未有或先前不成功的新產業，最需要的就是釐清視野、擬定策略。這樣的策略擬定，來自於盱衡全局、審酌利基、重點突破、開創新局的能力。用坊間出版品的通俗語言來說，產業策略必須要是具有重點突破的藍海策略，而不是在現行框架下，把各個現存營收項目都努力上修些微的紅海策略。令人遺憾的是，科顧會議中各主管部會所準備的資料，或許已呈現出他們的賣命付出，卻幾乎沒有清楚的策略方向。
半年前，行政院似乎是在馬總統的指示壓力下，才匆匆忙忙以每一周或兩周推一件的方式提出六大產業行動方案。當時，外界就擔心部分方案只是行政人員絞盡腦汁的作文比賽。果不其然，這次科顧會議多項產業所呈現的資料，有些根本與六個月前行政院的推動方案相差無幾，可見過去半年主辦單位推動執行的進度緩慢。當主管機關因為策略方向不明而難有進度可言時，就應該要努力構思更好的執行方式，而不是把一事無成的舊方案沒頭沒腦地提到一個不相干會議上去討論。
政治人物的功勳評價，誠然是以成敗論英雄。李國鼎先生之所以廣受國人崇敬，是因為他「做成」了台灣的ＩＣＴ產業，而不在於他主持開了幾次會、上了幾次媒體版面、花了多少錢買置入性廣告。李國鼎規劃科學園區與財政金融，但不曾旁涉他不熟悉的文化建設與石斑、蘭花，如此才能事竟功圓。當年的科顧組認真地做科技的事，不求聞達於天下，但做成之後功勞總是科顧組的。看看上周召開的科顧會議，真令人有「今不如昔」的感慨。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 13, 2009
The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group was established 30 years ago. Last week the group held its annual meeting. It made a point of screening a documentary short commemorating the Godfather of Taiwan's Technology, Li Kuo-ting. Thinking back, we cherish the memory of this incomparably courageous visionary, who laid the foundation for Taiwan's information and communications industry. On the other hand, we bemoan the fact that the future of Taiwan's industries remains in question. As we examine the political landscape, no one emerges as a worthy helmsman to guide the future development of emerging industries and science and technology.
The public naturally understands that Taiwan's political environment is not what it once was. Chief executives are no longer the authoritative figures they once were. The legislature would not tolerate such dictatorial strongmen. If Li Kuo-ting were alive today, he would probably be harangued by the the Legislative Yuan and the media to the point of humiliation. Even if he was spared, he would not be able to summon the wind and rain the way he did. That said, the changed political climate is no excuse for inaction and incompetence. Nor can it be used to rationalize absurd and mistaken arrangements and practices. Compare the accomplishments of the current Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group meeting with the accomplishments of Li Kuo-ting back then. Clearly there is room for improvement.
The theme of the current Science and Technology Advisory Group Conference is Taiwan's six emerging industries. The Executive Yuan is asking its science and technology consultants to discuss, one by one, the industrial policies it is promoting. One wonders what Li Kuo-ting would think of such an arrangement if he were alive today. The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory has about 20 members, including 10 from abroad. Among them are internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners. National consultants include the presidents of Academia Sinica, National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, the Vice-Chancellor of National Cheng Kung University, and other elders of academia. Their research has been impressive, but most of them have no business experience. They may be familiar with upstream technology R&D, but are unlikely to understand the downstream realm of industrial production. Isn't inviting these elders from academia to discuss Taiwan's industrial policy irrelevant?
Some members of the Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group may understand certain industry practices. But what is asking ten foreign scientists to offer advice for Chinese cultural and creative industries, but an embarrassing imposition? The cultural and creative industries involve many issue that have nothing to do with science or technology, but rather wisdom from the humanities. Why should we hand these issues over to a group of technology experts for discussion? Many foreign IT consultants may never have purchased a butterfly orchid, or eaten a grouper. How can they contribute anything to a discussion on quality agriculture? They might ad lib by saying that "scientific research must not be divorced from industry." But of how much significance would this be in a meeting dedicated to the in-depth examination of difficult, substantive, industry-related issues?
What worries us the most is not the waste of three days of valuable time for these scientists. But to promote industrial reform in such a heavy-handed manner, really makes makes us break out in a cold sweat. To promote an unprecedented new industry or previously unsuccessful industry requires clear vision and a development strategy. Such a strategy is the result of examining the overall situation, studying industry feasibility, making critical breakthroughs, and creating new markets. To use the vernacular of the popular media, industrial strategy requires key breakthroughs in Blue Ocean Strategy. What is not required is minor tweaks to various revenue producing items within the framework of the existing Red Ocean Strategy. Unfortunately the information provided by the Science and Technology Advisory Group shows that although they are working very hard, they have no clear strategic direction.
Six months ago, the Executive Yuan was apparently under pressure from President Ma. It hastily promoted a new solution every week or two for Taiwan's six emerging industries. At the time outsiders were concerned that some programs were merely administrative staffers wracking their brains competing in an essay contest. Sure enough, the information provided by various sectors to the Science and Technology Advisory Group was almost identical to the programs promoted by the Executive Yuan six months ago. As we can see, the organizer's implementation of the programs over the past six months has been slow. The authorities responsible are unclear on their strategic direction, and are having difficulty making any progress to speak of. They must consider better means of implementation, rather than discussing old programs that have led nowhere.
Politicians make no bones about labelling someone a hero on the basis of his success or failure. Li Kuo-ting is widely respected by the public because he "created " Taiwan's ICT industry. It was not because he presided over so many conferences, made the front page so many times, or spent so many dollars on advertising. Li Kuo-ting planned the financing for Taiwan's Science Parks. But he did not meddle in cultural creative industries he was unfamiliar with, such as the cultivation of butterfly orchids or groupers, That was why he was successful. The achievements of the Science and Technology Advisory Group back then are legendary the world over. Credit is always given to the Science and Technology Advisory Group. But take one look at last week's science and technology advisors meeting, and one can't help longing for the "Good Old Days."
請科技顧問組認真做份內的事
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.13 03:46 am
今年是行政院科技顧問組成立三十周年；該會上周在舉辦一年一度的科技顧問會議時，特地播放了一段紀念台灣科技教父李國鼎先生的短片。撫今追昔，我們一則緬懷昔日教父開創台灣資通產業基礎的前瞻視野與無比魄力，另一方面也要感傷今日台灣的產業前景不明；放眼政壇，已沒有任何人堪稱是新興產業與未來科技發展的掌舵者。
國人當然了解，台灣的政治生態今非昔比，行政首長不再有一言九鼎的威望人物，國會殿堂也容不下乾綱獨斷的強人。李國鼎先生如果處於今日，恐怕也會被立法院與媒體整得灰頭土臉，就算不致鎩羽而歸，也絕不可能有呼風喚雨的威勢。但是，政治形勢的改變終究不是無為無能的藉口，更不能用來合理化荒謬錯誤的安排與做法。如果拿這一次行政院科顧會議的內容與李國鼎先生當年的事蹟做對比，則有待改進的空間就格外清楚了。
這一次科技顧問會議的主題是台灣的六大新興產業，把行政院所推的產業政策端出來請科技顧問逐一討論。李國鼎先生如果在世，對於這樣的議程安排真不知道有何感想。行政院科技顧問約有二十人，其中有十位來自國外，都是國際知名的科學家，也有諾貝爾獎得主。國內顧問則包括中研院院長、台大、清大、成大校長等學界大老。他們的學術研究成績斐然，但是絕大多數都沒有企業經驗。他們或許熟悉科技研發的上游運作，卻不太可能了解中下游的產業世界。請這些學界大老對台灣的產業政策開會討論，是不是有些文不對題？
縱使部分行政院科技顧問也懂得他們那一行的若干產業實務，但是叫十位外國科學家對華人的文化創意產業發表高見，這不是強人所難是什麼？文化創意產業所涉面向有諸多既非科學、亦非技術，而屬人文智慧，為什麼要交給一群科技專家去討論呢？國外科技顧問可能有許多位沒有買過蝴蝶蘭、也沒有吃過石斑魚，他們又要如何對精緻農業案發表意見呢？就算能應景地說些「科研不能與產業脫節」的場面話，卻對產業推動的實質問題難做深入評論，開這個會又有多少意義？
令我們最擔心的，不是開三天會浪費了多少科學家的寶貴時間，而是以這種粗率方式推動產業改革，真的教國人捏把冷汗！推動一個前所未有或先前不成功的新產業，最需要的就是釐清視野、擬定策略。這樣的策略擬定，來自於盱衡全局、審酌利基、重點突破、開創新局的能力。用坊間出版品的通俗語言來說，產業策略必須要是具有重點突破的藍海策略，而不是在現行框架下，把各個現存營收項目都努力上修些微的紅海策略。令人遺憾的是，科顧會議中各主管部會所準備的資料，或許已呈現出他們的賣命付出，卻幾乎沒有清楚的策略方向。
半年前，行政院似乎是在馬總統的指示壓力下，才匆匆忙忙以每一周或兩周推一件的方式提出六大產業行動方案。當時，外界就擔心部分方案只是行政人員絞盡腦汁的作文比賽。果不其然，這次科顧會議多項產業所呈現的資料，有些根本與六個月前行政院的推動方案相差無幾，可見過去半年主辦單位推動執行的進度緩慢。當主管機關因為策略方向不明而難有進度可言時，就應該要努力構思更好的執行方式，而不是把一事無成的舊方案沒頭沒腦地提到一個不相干會議上去討論。
政治人物的功勳評價，誠然是以成敗論英雄。李國鼎先生之所以廣受國人崇敬，是因為他「做成」了台灣的ＩＣＴ產業，而不在於他主持開了幾次會、上了幾次媒體版面、花了多少錢買置入性廣告。李國鼎規劃科學園區與財政金融，但不曾旁涉他不熟悉的文化建設與石斑、蘭花，如此才能事竟功圓。當年的科顧組認真地做科技的事，不求聞達於天下，但做成之後功勞總是科顧組的。看看上周召開的科顧會議，真令人有「今不如昔」的感慨。
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Diplomatic Truce: Taking the Long View
Diplomatic Truce: Taking the Long View
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2009
The most important policy change the Ma administration made since taking office, was to transform cross-Strait confrontation into reconciliation and communication. The resulting "diplomatic truce" has been the most palpable change in the eyes of the international community. The diplomatic truce merits heartfelt affirmation.
Taipei's past diplomatic plight was not the result of anything it did wrong. It was the result of pressure from Beijing. Today, the two sides are moving towards reconciliation. The two sides have reached a tacit understanding. They will not attempt to undermine others' relations with their diplomatic allies. Over the past year the number of diplomatic allies on each side has remained constant. Several of our diplomatic allies in Central America repeatedly threatened to defect to Beijing, only to discover that Beijing was giving them the cold shoulder, and that Taipei was no longer willing to tolerate political extortion. These allies were forced to re-examine their way of relating to Taipei.
This bilateral diplomatic truce has given Taipei a badly needed respite. Suppose there had been no diplomatic truce, and Beijing had maintained its strategy of obstruction. The financial tsunami has greatly increased Beijing's international influence. Taipei has only 20 or so diplomatic allies. One can only imagine how many it would have lost. Externally and internally, the pressure on Taipei would be even greater than it is today.
In this respect, Beijing has indeed manifested goodwill. It didn't merely pass up an opportunity to steal Taipei's pitifully few diplomatic allies. It even allowed Taipei to participate in the World Health Assembly as an observer. Former ROC Vice President Lien Chan also represented President Ma Ying-jeou when he attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting (APEC) leaders summit. Meanwhile, Taipei is choosing its battles. It is no longer seeking direct readmission to the United Nations. Instead it is seeking participation in the International Climate Change Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and other organizations affiliated with the United Nations.
Of course, some people will criticize these gains as charity, and attribut to Beijing ulterior motives. If Taipei lowers its guard, and Beijing experiences a change of heart, then Taipei's situation could be even more perilous. These concerns have some basis. They also reflect doubts and fears at the grass roots level. The two sides' fundamental interests are still sharply at odds. Under threat from thousands of ballistic missiles, the public on Taiwan cannot be expected to lower its guard on such short order. But the two sides have created a new window of opportunity, and must boldly seize the initiative.
A diplomatic truce is superficially akin to the cease-fire during the bombardment of Kinmen. The two sides no longer undermine each others' diplomatic allies by making out larger and larger checks. But at an even deeper level, it has liberated the two sides from an endless and meaningless cycle of diplomatic battles. It has provided the two sides with an opportunity to create a different world, to gradually establish a new and mutually beneficial means of interaction.
Disputes are never resolved by arguing or fighting. Only through mutual consideration, understanding, tolerance, and the seeking of common ground can one establish long-term friendships. Only then can one truly eliminate over half a century of confrontation. Military force can only result in lasting enmity. Military intimidation can only make the public on Taiwan suspect Beijing's expressions of goodwill. Diplomatic obstructionism can only humiliate the public on Taiwan and generate lasting resentment. In every one of these areas, Beijing might appear to be the winner. But it would merely sacrifice a better future. Would it really behoove Beijing to act in such a manner? Beijing has a choice. All it needs is greater courage and imagination. All it needs is greater concern for the future of our children, the progress of our nation, and a greater sense of mission.
Beijing has definitely implemented a diplomatic truce." Unfortunately, some measures may not yet be fully in place. During international film festivals or book fairs Taipei has still been forced to change its signs. For example, at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair, the Taiwan exhibit must be renamed "Publishers from Taiwan."
This is truly incomprehensible. The ROC Director of Health is allowed to attend WHA and make politically sensitive speeches. But at a purely private sector book fair, the ROC remains subject to suppression. Beijing must understand that suppressing the ROC in civil sector, non-political international activities such as sports and culture will merely humiliate the public on Taiwan, and make them feel Beijing has gone too far.
The ROC has a democratic society. No one can force a democratic society to take orders. Because the concept of sovereignty is deeply rooted in people's minds. The direction of the nation must be decided by the people. A head of state does not have the final say. Nor can a nation be sold out by a single individual. Because without a public mandate, leaders have no power whatsoever. Here is where they differ from authoritarian systems.
Therefore if Beijing wishes to continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation, and gradually transforming bilateral hostility into friendship, it must demonstrate its goodwill through more concrete actions. Taipei must also take advantage of this rare opportunity to promote cultural exchanges, laying a solid foundation for its return to the international community. The respite will allow us to continue our advance. The truce will allow us to use our energy to perform other, more important work.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.12
休兵，是為了走更長遠的路
本報訊
馬政府上任以來，最重要的政策變化，在於將兩岸關係從激烈對抗轉向為和解交流，而「外交休兵」是國際社會最能明顯感受到的改變。「外交休兵」實踐至今，成果值得肯定。
台灣過去外交陷入困境，不在於自己本身有什麼問題，而是因為中共的打壓封殺。如今在兩岸走向和解下，雙方達成互不挖邦交牆腳的默契，一年多來，邦交國數目維持不變，幾個曾一再揚言要倒向北京的中美洲邦交國，發現中共不理不睬，台灣也不再接受政治勒索，必須重新檢視和台灣的交往模式。
這是兩岸外交停火後台灣難得的休養生息空間。如果沒有「外交休兵」，如果中共繼續原有的封鎖策略，加上金融海嘯讓中國的國際影響力更加增強，可以想見，台灣區區廿出頭的邦交國難免還要再掉幾個。內外交困，台灣遭受的衝擊與壓力將遠遠甚於現在。
在這方面，北京確實表達了善意，不只是暫時放過台灣少得可憐的邦交國，也讓台灣以觀察員身分參與世界衛生大會，我國前副總統連戰更代表馬英九總統出席亞太經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）領袖峰會。相對的，台灣轉移戰場，不再直接要求重返聯合國，而是轉向尋求參與國際氣候變化公約與民航組織等聯合國周邊組織活動。
當然，有人批評這些收穫全靠中共施捨，而對方居心叵測，台灣如果因此鬆懈，一旦對岸翻臉，台灣的處境將更加危險。這些話有其道理，也反映不少基層民眾的疑懼，因為兩岸的基本國家利益仍有相當的矛盾衝突，在上千枚飛彈的威脅下，台灣民眾不可能在短時間的示好拉攏後就放下心防。但兩岸既已為自己創造了一個新的機會之窗，就必須勇敢抓住機會。
「外交休兵」在表面上看來，彷彿金門炮戰的停火，雙方不挖邦交國不猛開支票，但更深層的功能，是把雙方從無休止、也無意義的惡鬥中釋放出來，讓雙方有機會創造一個不同的世界，逐漸建立一個新的、對雙方人民都有利的文明互動模式。
沒有爭執能靠吵架或打架解決，只有相互關懷、理解包容，在長期的求同存異建立情誼之後，才能真正消弭兩岸超過半世紀的對立。用武力壓制，只會鑄下血海深仇；用軍事恫嚇，只會讓台灣人民無法信任中共的善意；用外交封殺，只會讓台灣人民在羞辱下憤恨難消。凡此種種，表面上看來中共似乎是贏家，但其實是在替自己輸掉一個更好的未來。而究竟是不是非這樣不可，是可以選擇的，只要更有勇氣與想像力，只要對子孫未來與國家發展有更多、更真誠的使命感。
截至目前為止，中共方面的確在許多外交領域實踐了「外交休兵」，可惜的是，有些命令可能沒有到位，以至於仍然出現國際影展或書展強迫台灣改名的事件，例如今年的法蘭克福書展中，台灣參展單位便被改名為「台灣出版人」。
這實在很難令人理解，當台灣的衛生署長都能出席政治色彩較強世衛大會並發言時，在純民間的影展書展中，台灣竟然依舊遭到打壓。中共必須了解，在民間、非政治的國際活動中打壓台灣，例如體育、文化等等，會讓台灣人民在情感上感到更尖銳的羞辱，更覺得欺人太甚。
台灣是個民主社會，誰也不可能強迫一個民主社會接受指揮，因為主權在民的觀念早已深植人心。而國家的走向必須由全民決定，不是元首一個人說了算，也不會被一個人就出賣掉，因為沒有了民意的授權，領袖什麼權力都沒有，這點和威權體制完全不同。
因此，北京如果想繼續推動兩岸和解，讓雙方能逐漸化敵為友，就必須在「外交休兵」上以更多具體的行動展現真正的善意。而台灣也應該掌握這難得的機會，積極推動與國際社會的實質交流，為重返國際打下堅實的基礎。休息是為了走更遠的路，休兵，則是為了把精力用來做其他更重要的工作。
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2009
The most important policy change the Ma administration made since taking office, was to transform cross-Strait confrontation into reconciliation and communication. The resulting "diplomatic truce" has been the most palpable change in the eyes of the international community. The diplomatic truce merits heartfelt affirmation.
Taipei's past diplomatic plight was not the result of anything it did wrong. It was the result of pressure from Beijing. Today, the two sides are moving towards reconciliation. The two sides have reached a tacit understanding. They will not attempt to undermine others' relations with their diplomatic allies. Over the past year the number of diplomatic allies on each side has remained constant. Several of our diplomatic allies in Central America repeatedly threatened to defect to Beijing, only to discover that Beijing was giving them the cold shoulder, and that Taipei was no longer willing to tolerate political extortion. These allies were forced to re-examine their way of relating to Taipei.
This bilateral diplomatic truce has given Taipei a badly needed respite. Suppose there had been no diplomatic truce, and Beijing had maintained its strategy of obstruction. The financial tsunami has greatly increased Beijing's international influence. Taipei has only 20 or so diplomatic allies. One can only imagine how many it would have lost. Externally and internally, the pressure on Taipei would be even greater than it is today.
In this respect, Beijing has indeed manifested goodwill. It didn't merely pass up an opportunity to steal Taipei's pitifully few diplomatic allies. It even allowed Taipei to participate in the World Health Assembly as an observer. Former ROC Vice President Lien Chan also represented President Ma Ying-jeou when he attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting (APEC) leaders summit. Meanwhile, Taipei is choosing its battles. It is no longer seeking direct readmission to the United Nations. Instead it is seeking participation in the International Climate Change Convention, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and other organizations affiliated with the United Nations.
Of course, some people will criticize these gains as charity, and attribut to Beijing ulterior motives. If Taipei lowers its guard, and Beijing experiences a change of heart, then Taipei's situation could be even more perilous. These concerns have some basis. They also reflect doubts and fears at the grass roots level. The two sides' fundamental interests are still sharply at odds. Under threat from thousands of ballistic missiles, the public on Taiwan cannot be expected to lower its guard on such short order. But the two sides have created a new window of opportunity, and must boldly seize the initiative.
A diplomatic truce is superficially akin to the cease-fire during the bombardment of Kinmen. The two sides no longer undermine each others' diplomatic allies by making out larger and larger checks. But at an even deeper level, it has liberated the two sides from an endless and meaningless cycle of diplomatic battles. It has provided the two sides with an opportunity to create a different world, to gradually establish a new and mutually beneficial means of interaction.
Disputes are never resolved by arguing or fighting. Only through mutual consideration, understanding, tolerance, and the seeking of common ground can one establish long-term friendships. Only then can one truly eliminate over half a century of confrontation. Military force can only result in lasting enmity. Military intimidation can only make the public on Taiwan suspect Beijing's expressions of goodwill. Diplomatic obstructionism can only humiliate the public on Taiwan and generate lasting resentment. In every one of these areas, Beijing might appear to be the winner. But it would merely sacrifice a better future. Would it really behoove Beijing to act in such a manner? Beijing has a choice. All it needs is greater courage and imagination. All it needs is greater concern for the future of our children, the progress of our nation, and a greater sense of mission.
Beijing has definitely implemented a diplomatic truce." Unfortunately, some measures may not yet be fully in place. During international film festivals or book fairs Taipei has still been forced to change its signs. For example, at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair, the Taiwan exhibit must be renamed "Publishers from Taiwan."
This is truly incomprehensible. The ROC Director of Health is allowed to attend WHA and make politically sensitive speeches. But at a purely private sector book fair, the ROC remains subject to suppression. Beijing must understand that suppressing the ROC in civil sector, non-political international activities such as sports and culture will merely humiliate the public on Taiwan, and make them feel Beijing has gone too far.
The ROC has a democratic society. No one can force a democratic society to take orders. Because the concept of sovereignty is deeply rooted in people's minds. The direction of the nation must be decided by the people. A head of state does not have the final say. Nor can a nation be sold out by a single individual. Because without a public mandate, leaders have no power whatsoever. Here is where they differ from authoritarian systems.
Therefore if Beijing wishes to continue promoting cross-Strait reconciliation, and gradually transforming bilateral hostility into friendship, it must demonstrate its goodwill through more concrete actions. Taipei must also take advantage of this rare opportunity to promote cultural exchanges, laying a solid foundation for its return to the international community. The respite will allow us to continue our advance. The truce will allow us to use our energy to perform other, more important work.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.12
休兵，是為了走更長遠的路
本報訊
馬政府上任以來，最重要的政策變化，在於將兩岸關係從激烈對抗轉向為和解交流，而「外交休兵」是國際社會最能明顯感受到的改變。「外交休兵」實踐至今，成果值得肯定。
台灣過去外交陷入困境，不在於自己本身有什麼問題，而是因為中共的打壓封殺。如今在兩岸走向和解下，雙方達成互不挖邦交牆腳的默契，一年多來，邦交國數目維持不變，幾個曾一再揚言要倒向北京的中美洲邦交國，發現中共不理不睬，台灣也不再接受政治勒索，必須重新檢視和台灣的交往模式。
這是兩岸外交停火後台灣難得的休養生息空間。如果沒有「外交休兵」，如果中共繼續原有的封鎖策略，加上金融海嘯讓中國的國際影響力更加增強，可以想見，台灣區區廿出頭的邦交國難免還要再掉幾個。內外交困，台灣遭受的衝擊與壓力將遠遠甚於現在。
在這方面，北京確實表達了善意，不只是暫時放過台灣少得可憐的邦交國，也讓台灣以觀察員身分參與世界衛生大會，我國前副總統連戰更代表馬英九總統出席亞太經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）領袖峰會。相對的，台灣轉移戰場，不再直接要求重返聯合國，而是轉向尋求參與國際氣候變化公約與民航組織等聯合國周邊組織活動。
當然，有人批評這些收穫全靠中共施捨，而對方居心叵測，台灣如果因此鬆懈，一旦對岸翻臉，台灣的處境將更加危險。這些話有其道理，也反映不少基層民眾的疑懼，因為兩岸的基本國家利益仍有相當的矛盾衝突，在上千枚飛彈的威脅下，台灣民眾不可能在短時間的示好拉攏後就放下心防。但兩岸既已為自己創造了一個新的機會之窗，就必須勇敢抓住機會。
「外交休兵」在表面上看來，彷彿金門炮戰的停火，雙方不挖邦交國不猛開支票，但更深層的功能，是把雙方從無休止、也無意義的惡鬥中釋放出來，讓雙方有機會創造一個不同的世界，逐漸建立一個新的、對雙方人民都有利的文明互動模式。
沒有爭執能靠吵架或打架解決，只有相互關懷、理解包容，在長期的求同存異建立情誼之後，才能真正消弭兩岸超過半世紀的對立。用武力壓制，只會鑄下血海深仇；用軍事恫嚇，只會讓台灣人民無法信任中共的善意；用外交封殺，只會讓台灣人民在羞辱下憤恨難消。凡此種種，表面上看來中共似乎是贏家，但其實是在替自己輸掉一個更好的未來。而究竟是不是非這樣不可，是可以選擇的，只要更有勇氣與想像力，只要對子孫未來與國家發展有更多、更真誠的使命感。
截至目前為止，中共方面的確在許多外交領域實踐了「外交休兵」，可惜的是，有些命令可能沒有到位，以至於仍然出現國際影展或書展強迫台灣改名的事件，例如今年的法蘭克福書展中，台灣參展單位便被改名為「台灣出版人」。
這實在很難令人理解，當台灣的衛生署長都能出席政治色彩較強世衛大會並發言時，在純民間的影展書展中，台灣竟然依舊遭到打壓。中共必須了解，在民間、非政治的國際活動中打壓台灣，例如體育、文化等等，會讓台灣人民在情感上感到更尖銳的羞辱，更覺得欺人太甚。
台灣是個民主社會，誰也不可能強迫一個民主社會接受指揮，因為主權在民的觀念早已深植人心。而國家的走向必須由全民決定，不是元首一個人說了算，也不會被一個人就出賣掉，因為沒有了民意的授權，領袖什麼權力都沒有，這點和威權體制完全不同。
因此，北京如果想繼續推動兩岸和解，讓雙方能逐漸化敵為友，就必須在「外交休兵」上以更多具體的行動展現真正的善意。而台灣也應該掌握這難得的機會，積極推動與國際社會的實質交流，為重返國際打下堅實的基礎。休息是為了走更遠的路，休兵，則是為了把精力用來做其他更重要的工作。
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The NTU College of Medicine isn't the only Institution in need of Soul-searching
The NTU College of Medicine isn't the only Institution in need of Soul-searching
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2009
Prominent neuroscience professor Hong Lan told the media yesterday that students at the National Taiwan University College of Medicine were sleeping in class. They gnaw on chicken drumsticks, slurp down ramen noodles, chat on their cell phones, and send out text messages. They are unserious about their studies, and display scant respect for their teachers. Professor Hung denounced such behavior as the result of "sinecures."
After the story broke, the National Taiwan University College of Medicine responded in three different ways. First President Yang Pan-chyr said such mistakes must be corrected. Then students protested that the courses Hong Lan audited may have been elective non-major courses taken purely for credit, and that the professor was guilty of generalization. Finally the College of Medicine expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Professor Hung for going public with his complaints. Each of the three views have merit, but also require closer examination.
NTU is hardly alone. Observers have noticed that students on many college campuses today are increasingly self-absorbed. From childhood to adulthood, students are forced to memorize texts, attend cram schools, and take entrance exams. They have been all but suffocated by the educational monolith. Once they succeed in getting into college however, they suddenly find themselve absolved of the need to study. They soon undergo a process of untrammeled self-liberation. Their decade long educational experience forced them to neglect their athletic and social development. The result is "Anything Goes." This of course accounts for the outlandish behavior described by Professor Hung.
This syndrome is widespread. It is not confined to National Taiwan University. It is not confined to the students' first choice among three possible majors. From an educational perspective, it must be addressed. We need not single out the Faculty of Medicine at National Taiwan University. Their higher joint entrance exam scores invite criticism and calls for them to "vacate their seat to others."
Professor Hung does not teach at National Taiwan University. She was observing National Taiwan University classrooms merely because she was participating in a College of Medicine evaluation program. The courses she audited were probably not part of the core curriculum. Students in medical school labor under a heavy course load. Liberal arts courses have little to do with medical licensing exams. Are students wrong to attach little importance to liberal arts courses? That is a question worth asking. That said, in almost all professionally oriented university disciplines, including engineering, law, finance, accounting, students take liberal arts courses only to gain academic credits. If one wishes to review the liberal arts curriculum, it would be best to initiate a comprehensive review of the entire educational system. It would be best to avoid making a fuss over any particular discipline.
Even if the National Taiwan University College of Medicine or other colleges were to improve their liberal arts curricula, NTU is hardly alone. In fact, even high schools and their system for advancement should be reviewed. Taiwan's university entrance exams are divided into three categories. Apart from a handful of interdisciplinary applicants, the vast majority of high school students have already chosen their majors by their senior year. Medical students for example, stop studying history, geography, and civics in their junior year. Needless to say, they are utterly uninterested in humanities courses such as "Medicine and Society." Suppose they are forced to attend liberal arts courses. The class schedule may be inconvenient, the teacher may insist on calling roll, and the classroom location may be remote. Is it any surprise students sleep or surf the Net in class?
Compare this to the liberal arts curricula at well-known universities in the United States such as Harvard and Yale. Medical school is considered postgraduate education. At least half of the curriculum is devoted to liberal arts subjects. By contrast, on Taiwan, we do not provide students with a liberal education before allowing them to specialize. Just the opposite. We allow them to begin specializing during their junior and senior year in high school. We allow them to tread a narrow and specialized path. Anyway you look at it, liberal arts education on Taiwan is a systemic failure of major proportions. Singling out NTU for harsh criticism is unfair.
Finally, we would like to offer the following observations regarding Professor Hong's critique of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Education has only one goal. To put students on the right track, enabling them to fulfill their own potential. During the educational process, structured guidance is essential, and so is the occasional wake-up call. Children's dignity and honor must be respected. If primary and secondary students do not shape up, one can reprimand them in private. One must not call them onto the carpet to be humiliated. As Professor Chen Ting-hsing, a teacher at the College of Medicine said, since the medical evaluation is not yet over, all constructive suggestions should be given a proper hearing. It is better not to vent one's emotions via outside journals. Even though the magazine used the term "the top medical school on Taiwan," everyone knew what they meant. Professors and students at the College of Medicine have in effect been summoned before a military reviewing stand, to be humiliated. Isn't the Medical Evaluation Committee's move, made before the evaluation is complete, a little excessive?
The College of Medicine's core curriculum must be reviewed. But what about other colleges? Classroom discipline at NTU must be improved. But this is hardly a problem confined to National Taiwan University. Slacking off in the classroom must be criticized. But so must professors' disregard for students' heartfelt criticisms.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.11
社論－該檢討的不止是台大醫學系
本報訊
知名神經科學教授洪蘭日前對媒體表示，台大醫學系的學生上課睡覺、啃雞腿、吃泡麵、打手機、發簡訊，非常不認真，也不尊重授課老師。洪教授對這樣的言行作為予批判，說是「尸位素餐」。
新聞曝光之後，台大醫學院出現了三種聲音：其一是楊泮池院長表示要有錯就要改進，其二是學生辯稱洪蘭旁聽之課可能是通識營養學分，有以偏蓋全之嫌；其三則是醫院大老對於洪教授近似對外放話的意見表示方式極為不滿。以上這三種意見，都有些道理，也都值得拿出來好好檢視。
其實不止台大，許多在各大學校園有所觀察的人都會發現，現在的大學生確實越來越「自我」。就學生而言，他們從小到大，漫無目的地Ｋ書、補習、聯考，幾乎在一元化的升學管道被壓到窒息，一旦考上大學，他們瞬時掙脫了唯一升學的桎梏，遂開始了漫無邊際的自我「解放」。由於學生們在十幾年的求學過程中，其體育與群育都受到忽視，因此孩子們未受引領而恣意行為，當然會出現洪教授描述的脫軌現象。
但是，這種現象應該相當普遍，既不限於台灣大學，也不止學測三類組的第一志願科系。從教育的立場我們確實應該正視這個問題，但也不必特別把台大醫學系視為標靶；只因為他們聯考分數高，就特別予以批判，叫他們「把位子讓出來」。
洪教授並沒有在台大授課；她之所以對台大課堂有所觀察，是因為她參與醫學系評鑑。而其所訪視的課程，恐怕也如外界所說，是與醫學專業無關的通識課程。醫學系學生專業課程負擔很重，通識課又與醫師考照無關，學生不重視通識課程確實不該，背後也有相當值得檢討的問題；但是話又說回來，大凡專業取向較重的大學科系，不論工程、法律、金融、會計，學生們都是將通識課程當成營養學分；要檢討通識教育最好能全面性的開放檢討，最好宜避免針對特定科系大作文章。
就算台大醫學院或其他學院的通識教育要做改善，其背後牽動的環結，也不止是台大；其實連高中教育與升學制度也該一併檢討。台灣升大學的學測分為三大類組，除了少數跨組考生之外，絕大多數高中生在三年級就已經志趣有專攻。就醫學院學生而言，他們從高二開始就已經不碰史地公民，對於類似「醫學與社會」這樣的人文課程，當然也就興趣缺缺。如果再加上大班上課、時段不佳、老師點名、學院地點偏僻等因素，學生們到課堂上睡覺、上網、恐怕就不是新聞了。
如果拿美國通識教育知名的哈佛、耶魯做對比，則人家醫學教育根本是「學士後」的訓練，其在大學階段則至少有一半課程是在做通識學科的全面吸收。反觀台灣，我們不但不是先通識、後專業的延後分流，反而在高二、高三就提前分殊，讓學生走進又窄又專的小路。無論如何，台灣通識教育失敗是體制性的大問題，單單挑台大嚴批，恐怕是找偏了切入點。
最後，我們也要對洪蘭教授對台大醫學院的責觀方式做些檢視。教育的目的只有一個：將學生導向正軌，鼓勵其自我實踐。在教育的過程中，循循善誘絕不嫌少，而偶爾的當頭棒喝，也一定要顧及孩子們的尊嚴與榮譽。中、小學生們再不成材，頂多也只能私下訓斥鞭策，而不宜在朝會「叫到司令台上」予以羞辱。誠如醫學院陳定信教授所言，既然醫學評鑑還沒有結束，所有為孩子們好的意見，都該在會議中理性抒發，而不宜向外部雜誌做情緒宣洩。即便在雜誌上是用「台灣最頂尖醫學院」稱呼，但所指為何大家心知肚明。對醫學系教授與學生而言，他們似乎都有被請上朝會的司令台，體驗被羞辱的感受。醫科評鑑委員在評鑑結束之前這樣的舉措，是不是動作也太大了一些？
總之，醫學院的通識課要檢討，但別的學院又何嘗不然？台大的課堂倫理待改進，但這又豈止是台大一校獨然？學生們課堂無狀該批評，而教授們不顧學生顏面的評論，恐怕亦非全無可議之處。
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2009
Prominent neuroscience professor Hong Lan told the media yesterday that students at the National Taiwan University College of Medicine were sleeping in class. They gnaw on chicken drumsticks, slurp down ramen noodles, chat on their cell phones, and send out text messages. They are unserious about their studies, and display scant respect for their teachers. Professor Hung denounced such behavior as the result of "sinecures."
After the story broke, the National Taiwan University College of Medicine responded in three different ways. First President Yang Pan-chyr said such mistakes must be corrected. Then students protested that the courses Hong Lan audited may have been elective non-major courses taken purely for credit, and that the professor was guilty of generalization. Finally the College of Medicine expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Professor Hung for going public with his complaints. Each of the three views have merit, but also require closer examination.
NTU is hardly alone. Observers have noticed that students on many college campuses today are increasingly self-absorbed. From childhood to adulthood, students are forced to memorize texts, attend cram schools, and take entrance exams. They have been all but suffocated by the educational monolith. Once they succeed in getting into college however, they suddenly find themselve absolved of the need to study. They soon undergo a process of untrammeled self-liberation. Their decade long educational experience forced them to neglect their athletic and social development. The result is "Anything Goes." This of course accounts for the outlandish behavior described by Professor Hung.
This syndrome is widespread. It is not confined to National Taiwan University. It is not confined to the students' first choice among three possible majors. From an educational perspective, it must be addressed. We need not single out the Faculty of Medicine at National Taiwan University. Their higher joint entrance exam scores invite criticism and calls for them to "vacate their seat to others."
Professor Hung does not teach at National Taiwan University. She was observing National Taiwan University classrooms merely because she was participating in a College of Medicine evaluation program. The courses she audited were probably not part of the core curriculum. Students in medical school labor under a heavy course load. Liberal arts courses have little to do with medical licensing exams. Are students wrong to attach little importance to liberal arts courses? That is a question worth asking. That said, in almost all professionally oriented university disciplines, including engineering, law, finance, accounting, students take liberal arts courses only to gain academic credits. If one wishes to review the liberal arts curriculum, it would be best to initiate a comprehensive review of the entire educational system. It would be best to avoid making a fuss over any particular discipline.
Even if the National Taiwan University College of Medicine or other colleges were to improve their liberal arts curricula, NTU is hardly alone. In fact, even high schools and their system for advancement should be reviewed. Taiwan's university entrance exams are divided into three categories. Apart from a handful of interdisciplinary applicants, the vast majority of high school students have already chosen their majors by their senior year. Medical students for example, stop studying history, geography, and civics in their junior year. Needless to say, they are utterly uninterested in humanities courses such as "Medicine and Society." Suppose they are forced to attend liberal arts courses. The class schedule may be inconvenient, the teacher may insist on calling roll, and the classroom location may be remote. Is it any surprise students sleep or surf the Net in class?
Compare this to the liberal arts curricula at well-known universities in the United States such as Harvard and Yale. Medical school is considered postgraduate education. At least half of the curriculum is devoted to liberal arts subjects. By contrast, on Taiwan, we do not provide students with a liberal education before allowing them to specialize. Just the opposite. We allow them to begin specializing during their junior and senior year in high school. We allow them to tread a narrow and specialized path. Anyway you look at it, liberal arts education on Taiwan is a systemic failure of major proportions. Singling out NTU for harsh criticism is unfair.
Finally, we would like to offer the following observations regarding Professor Hong's critique of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Education has only one goal. To put students on the right track, enabling them to fulfill their own potential. During the educational process, structured guidance is essential, and so is the occasional wake-up call. Children's dignity and honor must be respected. If primary and secondary students do not shape up, one can reprimand them in private. One must not call them onto the carpet to be humiliated. As Professor Chen Ting-hsing, a teacher at the College of Medicine said, since the medical evaluation is not yet over, all constructive suggestions should be given a proper hearing. It is better not to vent one's emotions via outside journals. Even though the magazine used the term "the top medical school on Taiwan," everyone knew what they meant. Professors and students at the College of Medicine have in effect been summoned before a military reviewing stand, to be humiliated. Isn't the Medical Evaluation Committee's move, made before the evaluation is complete, a little excessive?
The College of Medicine's core curriculum must be reviewed. But what about other colleges? Classroom discipline at NTU must be improved. But this is hardly a problem confined to National Taiwan University. Slacking off in the classroom must be criticized. But so must professors' disregard for students' heartfelt criticisms.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.11
社論－該檢討的不止是台大醫學系
本報訊
知名神經科學教授洪蘭日前對媒體表示，台大醫學系的學生上課睡覺、啃雞腿、吃泡麵、打手機、發簡訊，非常不認真，也不尊重授課老師。洪教授對這樣的言行作為予批判，說是「尸位素餐」。
新聞曝光之後，台大醫學院出現了三種聲音：其一是楊泮池院長表示要有錯就要改進，其二是學生辯稱洪蘭旁聽之課可能是通識營養學分，有以偏蓋全之嫌；其三則是醫院大老對於洪教授近似對外放話的意見表示方式極為不滿。以上這三種意見，都有些道理，也都值得拿出來好好檢視。
其實不止台大，許多在各大學校園有所觀察的人都會發現，現在的大學生確實越來越「自我」。就學生而言，他們從小到大，漫無目的地Ｋ書、補習、聯考，幾乎在一元化的升學管道被壓到窒息，一旦考上大學，他們瞬時掙脫了唯一升學的桎梏，遂開始了漫無邊際的自我「解放」。由於學生們在十幾年的求學過程中，其體育與群育都受到忽視，因此孩子們未受引領而恣意行為，當然會出現洪教授描述的脫軌現象。
但是，這種現象應該相當普遍，既不限於台灣大學，也不止學測三類組的第一志願科系。從教育的立場我們確實應該正視這個問題，但也不必特別把台大醫學系視為標靶；只因為他們聯考分數高，就特別予以批判，叫他們「把位子讓出來」。
洪教授並沒有在台大授課；她之所以對台大課堂有所觀察，是因為她參與醫學系評鑑。而其所訪視的課程，恐怕也如外界所說，是與醫學專業無關的通識課程。醫學系學生專業課程負擔很重，通識課又與醫師考照無關，學生不重視通識課程確實不該，背後也有相當值得檢討的問題；但是話又說回來，大凡專業取向較重的大學科系，不論工程、法律、金融、會計，學生們都是將通識課程當成營養學分；要檢討通識教育最好能全面性的開放檢討，最好宜避免針對特定科系大作文章。
就算台大醫學院或其他學院的通識教育要做改善，其背後牽動的環結，也不止是台大；其實連高中教育與升學制度也該一併檢討。台灣升大學的學測分為三大類組，除了少數跨組考生之外，絕大多數高中生在三年級就已經志趣有專攻。就醫學院學生而言，他們從高二開始就已經不碰史地公民，對於類似「醫學與社會」這樣的人文課程，當然也就興趣缺缺。如果再加上大班上課、時段不佳、老師點名、學院地點偏僻等因素，學生們到課堂上睡覺、上網、恐怕就不是新聞了。
如果拿美國通識教育知名的哈佛、耶魯做對比，則人家醫學教育根本是「學士後」的訓練，其在大學階段則至少有一半課程是在做通識學科的全面吸收。反觀台灣，我們不但不是先通識、後專業的延後分流，反而在高二、高三就提前分殊，讓學生走進又窄又專的小路。無論如何，台灣通識教育失敗是體制性的大問題，單單挑台大嚴批，恐怕是找偏了切入點。
最後，我們也要對洪蘭教授對台大醫學院的責觀方式做些檢視。教育的目的只有一個：將學生導向正軌，鼓勵其自我實踐。在教育的過程中，循循善誘絕不嫌少，而偶爾的當頭棒喝，也一定要顧及孩子們的尊嚴與榮譽。中、小學生們再不成材，頂多也只能私下訓斥鞭策，而不宜在朝會「叫到司令台上」予以羞辱。誠如醫學院陳定信教授所言，既然醫學評鑑還沒有結束，所有為孩子們好的意見，都該在會議中理性抒發，而不宜向外部雜誌做情緒宣洩。即便在雜誌上是用「台灣最頂尖醫學院」稱呼，但所指為何大家心知肚明。對醫學系教授與學生而言，他們似乎都有被請上朝會的司令台，體驗被羞辱的感受。醫科評鑑委員在評鑑結束之前這樣的舉措，是不是動作也太大了一些？
總之，醫學院的通識課要檢討，但別的學院又何嘗不然？台大的課堂倫理待改進，但這又豈止是台大一校獨然？學生們課堂無狀該批評，而教授們不顧學生顏面的評論，恐怕亦非全無可議之處。
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Executive Yuan should Confront Taiwan's Brain Drain
The Executive Yuan should Confront Taiwan's Brain Drain
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2009
Recently the domestic media reported on the difference in starting salaries for beginning university professors in places such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Chinese Mainland, and Singapore. The discrepancy has many knowledgeable individuals worried. The data shows that accredited universities in Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China offered starting Assistant Professors salaries three to four times as much as those offered by National Taiwan University. Even ignoring elite schools, 15% of all universities on Mainland China offer new teacher salaries higher than those offered by universities on Taiwan. National Taiwan University, the Academia Sinica, and other institutions are having difficulty recruiting outstanding professors. The Executive Yuan's Science and Technology Advisors have also warned that over time, talented people on Taiwan will gradually be lost. If we are unable to attract talent to Taiwan, we will wind up with nothing.
Over the past decade, the economic situation on Taiwan has not been favorable compared to other Asian regions. In terms of real wages, university professors have gone 10 years without a salary increase. But society on Taiwan is highly populistic. Many people demand coercive egalitarianism. But in a knowledge economy, the driving force behind economic growth is research and innovation. If we are unable to offer higher pay to R&D personnel, then our economy will decline. Everyone's income will decrease. Put simply, the consequence of radical populist refusals to tolerate salary increases for others, will be salary cuts for oneself.
In fact, enhancing R&D competitiveness on Taiwan does not require increasing the salary of every university professor. It only requires a small increase in budgets, a minor operation, in order to have an effect. This is how it can be done:
First, under current rules, universities may set up visiting professorships, and enjoy some degree of flexibility in setting salaries. Therefore, experienced, internationally sought after professors with outstanding teaching records, may receive higher than average salaries. But universities have no flexibility in how much they pay new, inexperienced professors. Our reforms call for increases in the salaries of some new, inexperienced professors, rather than a comprehensive, across the board salary increase.
Second, there are 170 universities on Taiwan. Perhaps fewer than 20 of these are competing with Singapore, Hong Kong, and other places for talent. Therefore only a few universities need to increase their salaries in order to compete for qualified personnel. In other words, not all universities require salary increases -- only those under international competitive pressure.
Third, not every professor has an objective need for a salary increase, even at internationally competitive universities such as National Taiwan University and National Cheng Kung University. Some disciplines are internationally unpopular. Some professors have less than outstanding records. Therefore only a few disciplines actually require salary increases.
In short, attracting talent does not require across the board salary increases. Distinctions must be made between experienced and inexperienced professors, between better schools and lesser schools, between better teachers and lesser teachers within each school. The problem seems complicated. But one merely needs to grasp two principles. (A) Distinctions must be made within schools, in accordance with university autonomy. (B) Distinctions must be made between schools, in accordance with school performance and international competitiveness. Grasp these two principles, and the details will be a simple matter. Because salary increases will not be across the board, any budget increases will be insignificant.
According to newspaper reports six months ago, the Academia Sinica made just such a proposal to the Executive Yuan. Its proposal was endorsed by the Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, the Central Personnel Administration, the DGBAS, and well-known universities on Taiwan. The proposal inclued even the necessary budget and the means of raising the funds. Alas, as soon as such motions encounter political obstacles, they are either stalled or derailed. Basically the Academia Sinica proposed to increase management budgets for university research projects. It would allow professors' salaries to vary. Allocations would be determined by each university, in accordance with its own internal procedures. But recently the Ministry of Education said it wanted to make fundamental changes in the payroll system.
Basically, we agree with making professors' salaries variable. This flexibility must be linked with the university's performance in research. Only then can salaries reflect the realities of international competition for talent. Even if the Executive Yuan intends to make fundamental changes in the payroll system, it must create a system that is flexible, that reflects the distinctions between one school and the next, between experienced professors and inexperienced professors, and between one discipline and the next. The approach proposed by the Academia Sinica reflects the aforementioned real world distinctions. Objectively speaking it is highly feasible. The Ministry of Education may wish to start from scratch, and come up with some other flexible system. But if one wishes to ensure the aforementioned three types of flexibility, one cannot avoid linking salaries with research funding. If the Ministry of Education cannot come up with a better approach, it should consider accepting the current proposal. Surely it cannot cite long-term planning as an excuse to do nothing for the next half year. Loss of competitiveness on Taiwan is a serious problem. The Executive Yuan must urge its agencies to work harder, and swiftly offer corrective measures!
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.10
社論－行政院應正視台灣人才流失的危機
本報訊
國內若干媒體最近報導了台、港、新、中幾地大學新進教師的薪資差異，相當令有識之士憂心。資料顯示，香港、新加坡以及中國大陸上軌道的好大學，他們給助理教授的起薪，大約是台灣國立大學的三至四倍。即使不看名校，中國大陸已有約十五％的大學其新聘薪給優於台灣，而台大與中研院等單位也逐漸感受到招募不到優秀教授的壓力。行政院科技顧問們也提出警告：長此以往，台灣的人才優勢將逐漸流失。坦白說，一旦台灣無法吸引人才，我們將一無所有。
過去十年，台灣的經濟情況相對於亞洲諸國不算好；以實質薪資來看，大學教授已經有十幾年不曾調薪。但台灣是個民粹極強的社會，許多民眾都要求齊頭平等。然而在知識經濟時代，研發創新幾乎是一切經濟成長的原動力。如果我們不能對研發人才給與較高薪酬，吸引他們加入，則台灣的經濟必將走下坡，每一個人的待遇都會再往下修。簡單地說。以民粹觀點極端地看不得別人加薪，其結果就是自己也會減薪。
其實，要提升台灣的科研競爭力，並不需對「所有」的大學教師加薪，只需要花點小預算、動點小手術，就能克竟其功。以下，我們就描述一下這局部手術要怎麼做。
第一，在大學法的規定下，各大學原本就可以設置講座教授，對他們提供彈性薪給。因此，表現優良、國際上爭相挖角的資深教授，原本就可以得到頗高的待遇，但新進資淺者的待遇卻是全無彈性。故我們想要改革的，是部分新進資淺教師的薪給調整，而不是全面性的薪水調整。
第二，全台灣一百七十幾所大學中，真正在與新、港等地爭搶人才的，也許不到廿所，故為爭搶人才而需要調整待遇的大學，為數並不多。換言之，並不是所有大學都需要調薪，而只有受到國際競爭壓力的才有此需要。
第三，即使在台大、成大等具有國際競爭力的大學裡，也不是每個領域、每個教授都有調薪的客觀必要。有些學域是國際冷門、有些教授表現也不見得傑出。故真正要有薪給彈性的領域與範圍，只有一小部分。
總之，為吸引人才而設計的彈性薪給，並不需要統統有獎，但必須要做到資深/資淺區隔、學校品類區隔、校內教師區隔。這裡的問題看似複雜，但只要把握兩個原則即可：（一）學校之「內」的區分，依大學自治原則由各校自行決定。（二）學校之「間」的區分，依各校研究表現、國際競爭情況決定。把握住這兩個原則，則其他細節就不難處理了。由於並不是全面調薪，故需要增加的預算金額並不大。
報載大約半年前，中央研究院曾經向行政院提出了一套符合前述原則的解決辦法，也得到了教育部、國科會、人事行政局、主計處、與全台各知名大學的支持，甚至連所需預算、挪籌方式都設想好了。無奈所有的動議一旦遇上政治，不是停擺就是脫軌。中研院所提辦法的基本概念，是以提高研究計畫管理費比例的方式，將新增管理費撥給大學，並指定用於彈性教授薪給，由各大學的內部程序決定其校內分配。但最近教育部表示，他們希望從薪給制度上做根本的改變。
基本上，我們贊成教授薪水的彈性化，而且這個彈性一定要與大學的研究表現掛勾，如此才能正確反映國際人才競爭的實情。而即使行政院想在薪給制度上做根本改變，也一定要創造出彈性，反映跨校之間、資深與資淺之間、跨領域之間的需求差異。中研院所提做法，其實就是一種實質反映前述三種差異的建議，客觀上頗具可行性。當然，教育部可另起爐灶，訂出其他的彈性做法。但平心而論，如果要照顧到前述三種彈性，恐怕也逃不出與研究經費掛勾的設計。無論如何，假若教育部想不出更好的做法，就必須要考慮接受現有的提案，總不能以從長計議為由，半年下來一事無成吧！台灣人才競爭力流失的問題如此嚴重，行政院應督促所屬加把勁，趕緊提出矯治的辦法吧！
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2009
Recently the domestic media reported on the difference in starting salaries for beginning university professors in places such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Chinese Mainland, and Singapore. The discrepancy has many knowledgeable individuals worried. The data shows that accredited universities in Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China offered starting Assistant Professors salaries three to four times as much as those offered by National Taiwan University. Even ignoring elite schools, 15% of all universities on Mainland China offer new teacher salaries higher than those offered by universities on Taiwan. National Taiwan University, the Academia Sinica, and other institutions are having difficulty recruiting outstanding professors. The Executive Yuan's Science and Technology Advisors have also warned that over time, talented people on Taiwan will gradually be lost. If we are unable to attract talent to Taiwan, we will wind up with nothing.
Over the past decade, the economic situation on Taiwan has not been favorable compared to other Asian regions. In terms of real wages, university professors have gone 10 years without a salary increase. But society on Taiwan is highly populistic. Many people demand coercive egalitarianism. But in a knowledge economy, the driving force behind economic growth is research and innovation. If we are unable to offer higher pay to R&D personnel, then our economy will decline. Everyone's income will decrease. Put simply, the consequence of radical populist refusals to tolerate salary increases for others, will be salary cuts for oneself.
In fact, enhancing R&D competitiveness on Taiwan does not require increasing the salary of every university professor. It only requires a small increase in budgets, a minor operation, in order to have an effect. This is how it can be done:
First, under current rules, universities may set up visiting professorships, and enjoy some degree of flexibility in setting salaries. Therefore, experienced, internationally sought after professors with outstanding teaching records, may receive higher than average salaries. But universities have no flexibility in how much they pay new, inexperienced professors. Our reforms call for increases in the salaries of some new, inexperienced professors, rather than a comprehensive, across the board salary increase.
Second, there are 170 universities on Taiwan. Perhaps fewer than 20 of these are competing with Singapore, Hong Kong, and other places for talent. Therefore only a few universities need to increase their salaries in order to compete for qualified personnel. In other words, not all universities require salary increases -- only those under international competitive pressure.
Third, not every professor has an objective need for a salary increase, even at internationally competitive universities such as National Taiwan University and National Cheng Kung University. Some disciplines are internationally unpopular. Some professors have less than outstanding records. Therefore only a few disciplines actually require salary increases.
In short, attracting talent does not require across the board salary increases. Distinctions must be made between experienced and inexperienced professors, between better schools and lesser schools, between better teachers and lesser teachers within each school. The problem seems complicated. But one merely needs to grasp two principles. (A) Distinctions must be made within schools, in accordance with university autonomy. (B) Distinctions must be made between schools, in accordance with school performance and international competitiveness. Grasp these two principles, and the details will be a simple matter. Because salary increases will not be across the board, any budget increases will be insignificant.
According to newspaper reports six months ago, the Academia Sinica made just such a proposal to the Executive Yuan. Its proposal was endorsed by the Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, the Central Personnel Administration, the DGBAS, and well-known universities on Taiwan. The proposal inclued even the necessary budget and the means of raising the funds. Alas, as soon as such motions encounter political obstacles, they are either stalled or derailed. Basically the Academia Sinica proposed to increase management budgets for university research projects. It would allow professors' salaries to vary. Allocations would be determined by each university, in accordance with its own internal procedures. But recently the Ministry of Education said it wanted to make fundamental changes in the payroll system.
Basically, we agree with making professors' salaries variable. This flexibility must be linked with the university's performance in research. Only then can salaries reflect the realities of international competition for talent. Even if the Executive Yuan intends to make fundamental changes in the payroll system, it must create a system that is flexible, that reflects the distinctions between one school and the next, between experienced professors and inexperienced professors, and between one discipline and the next. The approach proposed by the Academia Sinica reflects the aforementioned real world distinctions. Objectively speaking it is highly feasible. The Ministry of Education may wish to start from scratch, and come up with some other flexible system. But if one wishes to ensure the aforementioned three types of flexibility, one cannot avoid linking salaries with research funding. If the Ministry of Education cannot come up with a better approach, it should consider accepting the current proposal. Surely it cannot cite long-term planning as an excuse to do nothing for the next half year. Loss of competitiveness on Taiwan is a serious problem. The Executive Yuan must urge its agencies to work harder, and swiftly offer corrective measures!
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2009.11.10
社論－行政院應正視台灣人才流失的危機
本報訊
國內若干媒體最近報導了台、港、新、中幾地大學新進教師的薪資差異，相當令有識之士憂心。資料顯示，香港、新加坡以及中國大陸上軌道的好大學，他們給助理教授的起薪，大約是台灣國立大學的三至四倍。即使不看名校，中國大陸已有約十五％的大學其新聘薪給優於台灣，而台大與中研院等單位也逐漸感受到招募不到優秀教授的壓力。行政院科技顧問們也提出警告：長此以往，台灣的人才優勢將逐漸流失。坦白說，一旦台灣無法吸引人才，我們將一無所有。
過去十年，台灣的經濟情況相對於亞洲諸國不算好；以實質薪資來看，大學教授已經有十幾年不曾調薪。但台灣是個民粹極強的社會，許多民眾都要求齊頭平等。然而在知識經濟時代，研發創新幾乎是一切經濟成長的原動力。如果我們不能對研發人才給與較高薪酬，吸引他們加入，則台灣的經濟必將走下坡，每一個人的待遇都會再往下修。簡單地說。以民粹觀點極端地看不得別人加薪，其結果就是自己也會減薪。
其實，要提升台灣的科研競爭力，並不需對「所有」的大學教師加薪，只需要花點小預算、動點小手術，就能克竟其功。以下，我們就描述一下這局部手術要怎麼做。
第一，在大學法的規定下，各大學原本就可以設置講座教授，對他們提供彈性薪給。因此，表現優良、國際上爭相挖角的資深教授，原本就可以得到頗高的待遇，但新進資淺者的待遇卻是全無彈性。故我們想要改革的，是部分新進資淺教師的薪給調整，而不是全面性的薪水調整。
第二，全台灣一百七十幾所大學中，真正在與新、港等地爭搶人才的，也許不到廿所，故為爭搶人才而需要調整待遇的大學，為數並不多。換言之，並不是所有大學都需要調薪，而只有受到國際競爭壓力的才有此需要。
第三，即使在台大、成大等具有國際競爭力的大學裡，也不是每個領域、每個教授都有調薪的客觀必要。有些學域是國際冷門、有些教授表現也不見得傑出。故真正要有薪給彈性的領域與範圍，只有一小部分。
總之，為吸引人才而設計的彈性薪給，並不需要統統有獎，但必須要做到資深/資淺區隔、學校品類區隔、校內教師區隔。這裡的問題看似複雜，但只要把握兩個原則即可：（一）學校之「內」的區分，依大學自治原則由各校自行決定。（二）學校之「間」的區分，依各校研究表現、國際競爭情況決定。把握住這兩個原則，則其他細節就不難處理了。由於並不是全面調薪，故需要增加的預算金額並不大。
報載大約半年前，中央研究院曾經向行政院提出了一套符合前述原則的解決辦法，也得到了教育部、國科會、人事行政局、主計處、與全台各知名大學的支持，甚至連所需預算、挪籌方式都設想好了。無奈所有的動議一旦遇上政治，不是停擺就是脫軌。中研院所提辦法的基本概念，是以提高研究計畫管理費比例的方式，將新增管理費撥給大學，並指定用於彈性教授薪給，由各大學的內部程序決定其校內分配。但最近教育部表示，他們希望從薪給制度上做根本的改變。
基本上，我們贊成教授薪水的彈性化，而且這個彈性一定要與大學的研究表現掛勾，如此才能正確反映國際人才競爭的實情。而即使行政院想在薪給制度上做根本改變，也一定要創造出彈性，反映跨校之間、資深與資淺之間、跨領域之間的需求差異。中研院所提做法，其實就是一種實質反映前述三種差異的建議，客觀上頗具可行性。當然，教育部可另起爐灶，訂出其他的彈性做法。但平心而論，如果要照顧到前述三種彈性，恐怕也逃不出與研究經費掛勾的設計。無論如何，假若教育部想不出更好的做法，就必須要考慮接受現有的提案，總不能以從長計議為由，半年下來一事無成吧！台灣人才競爭力流失的問題如此嚴重，行政院應督促所屬加把勁，趕緊提出矯治的辦法吧！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
