Sunday, March 25, 2007

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 25, 2007

Comment: Taiwan independence Quislings want Taiwan to be a "normal country." But Taiwan can never be a "normal country" because Taiwan is not a country, "normal" or otherwise. It is a province of China.

The reason Taiwan is abnormal, the reason Taiwan is experiencing the myriad problems cataloged in the following China Times editorial, is that Taiwan independence Quislings persist in trying to make Taiwan into something that it isn't. The only way to make Taiwan "normal" is to make it what it is, a province of China, specifically, the Republic of China.

Taiwan independence Quislings need to wise up to the fact that Taiwan as a province of the Republic of China is as normal as it's going to get.

Taiwan independence Quislings who refuse to accept Taiwan as a province of the Republic of China need to ask themselves if they would prefer Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China, because those are the only two choices they're ever going to get.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it, accurately as well as bluntly, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."

A "sovereign and independent nation of Taiwan" is not in the cards, not in this universe.

Google's Map of the Chinese province of Taiwan

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"

China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 25, 2007

What must Taiwan [the Republic of China government on Taiwan] do before the Republic of China can be considered a "normal country?" Must it ignite the flames of war by "rectifying names," starting from Taipei and ending up overseas? Must it tear down company signs containing the words "China" or "Chinese," from the southern tip of Taiwan to the northern tip of Taiwan? Or should it undertake reforms, develop the economy, and seek consensus?

As the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "Green Son of Heaven" Chen Shui-bian sponsors conferences questioning whether the constitution is a "One China" constitution and whether the premier "attempted to force the king to abdicate," and as the Legislative Yuan repeatedly blocks ruling DPP government-sponsored bills and budgets, these controversies underscore the great divide in Taiwan society. If either the ruling party or the opposition party adheres rigidly to ideology, and deliberately ignores such differences, even if it succeeds in removing every last sign reading "China," Taiwan will still not qualify as a "normal country." If, under such a regime, one is engaged in politics and promoting policies that impact the lives of large numbers of people, yet is blind to any considerations except political considerations, then one is disregarding the people's real needs.

Democratic politics means seeking consensus through the democratic process, and based on such a consensus, promoting the nation's social development. The DPP government, disregarding the will of the majority, insists on "rectifying names." The result may satisfy the ideological needs of certain elements within society, but they increase social polarization and make it impossible to pass important legislation or budgets in the national legislature, leaving the country and the government in chaos.

For example, the ruling DPP illegally removed all "China Postal Company" signs and stamps and changed them to read "Taiwan Post Co. Ltd." even before the relevant laws were passed. The ruling DPP government may consider its "rectification of names" campaign a success, but the China Postal Company annual budget still hasn't been approved by the Legislative Yuan. Relevant legislation has not only been repeatedly blocked, it hasn't even been submitted for deliberation. The democratic process requires a nation's policies to be approved by its legislature. The strategic scenario of a minority ruling party and a majority opposition party is a political reality that the ruling DPP government has no choice but to accept.

China Postal Company signs may have been changed to read "Taiwan Postal Co. Ltd." but the company's legal footing remains dubious. The China Petroleum Corporation was craftier. It changed its name to "Taiwan China Petroleum," sidestepping the need to revise its name legally. Nevertheless, it remains a state-owned enterprise whose budget must be approved by the Legislative Yuan. Sure enough, China Petroleum's budget remains deadlocked.

Next, there is the "Draft Law for the National Language" which has been criticized by opposition parties as an attempt to desinicize the Republic of China, and which was blasted even before being sent to the legislature. To be fair, it is not wrong for the DPP to want a legal basis for the nation's language. Preserving linguistic diversity is a global trend. Previous governments adopted strong arm tactics while promoting the current official language. Perhaps this contributed to the hostility DPP or pro-independence elements feel toward the current official language. But adopting a "win/lose" attitude and refusing to communicate can only lead to legislation becoming mired in political considerations. It can only deepen the mistrust and insecurity felt by ethnic groups accustomed to using different languages. The fate of such legislation can easily be imagined.

The language of the revised draft law for the "Organic Laws for the National Palace Museum," which deletes references to "ancient Chinese cultural relics and art objects," and to the "National Beijing Palace Museum" on museum labels, has also provoked charges of desinicization. Whether one wishes to desinicize or not is a political question. But the history of the National Palace Museum is clear. Its main collection of cultural relics came from Beijing's National Palace Museum. One may be able to delete mention of these facts from museum labels, but that does not mean one can delete the historical memory of the National Palace Museum's origin. More to the point, why is such Orwellian historical revisionism the ruling DPP government's highest priority? The National Palace Museum South Building is currently under construction. The National Palace Museum South Building could have been made separate and distinct from the National Palace Museum. In fact, if the DPP government had wanted to establish another museum, why did it insist on attaching the South Building to the side of the National Palace Museum? Why didn't it define the current South Building as an entirely new museum?

Proposed legislation and budgets, whether they have been sent to the legislature or not, all provoke ruling government and opposition party polarization and unrest. Legislative review of budgets and bills require certain set procedures. Ruling DPP administrative improprieties and legal violations have made smooth passage of the annual budget impossible. The 2008 budget is looming, even as the 2007 budget recedes toward the horizon. Is this the way a "normal government" operates?

Don't even mention proposed legislation. With few exceptions, legislative review of proposed legislation is a waste of time. Without negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties, expecting bills to become law is wishful thinking. Among the bills currently stalled in the legislature is the Revised Draft Law for Central Election Committee. This bill is tied up with the arms budget. Old bills remain stalled, even as new controversies arise. With the legislature and the executive locked in endless political struggles, what can we expect the government to get done?

Don't place all the blame on the legislature. Reviewing budgets is the responsibility of the legislature. But pointless, deliberately provocative, irresponsible attempts to push through legislation that one knows perfectly well will never pass, that fail to respect the need to establish priorities, that ignore majority opinion, that is the responsibility of the executive! Motivated by the upcoming presidential election, the political stars of the DPP are falling over each other ingratiating themselves with Deep Green extremists. As a result, Taiwan's economic development and social harmony will suffer irreparable damage.

Original Chinese below:



正 當民進黨綠天王舉行辯論會,爭執憲法是否一中、閣揆是否逼宮時,立法院一次又一次擋下了民進黨政府提送的法案和預算案,凸顯了台灣社會的反差。不論執政 者或在野黨,若執著於意識形態,刻意忽視這樣的落差,即使拆遍「中華」的招牌,台灣,都還不能謂為「正常的國家」。因為,在這個國度裡,從事政治、推動政 策因而影響多數人民生活的人,眼睛裡只看到政治,卻無視於人民真正的需要。

民主政治就是要透過民主程序,尋求最大共識,並在這個最大共識 下,推動國家社會的發展。民進黨政府無視多數民意,執意「正名」,其結果就是滿足特定人士的 意識形態,卻擴大社會的兩極對立,更麻煩的是,所有的重大法案、預算都不可能得到國會的支持,國家、政府運轉其實是處於扭曲狀態。

舉例而 言,中華郵政公司在相關法律修改前,即先行拆換全台郵局的招牌,郵品上的「中華」標誌全面變更。民進黨政府認為「正名」成功,但是,中華郵政的年度 預算,迄今不被立法院接受,相關修法案,一再被封殺,連審議的邊都沾不上。民主程序必須在國會中完成,朝小野大的國會生態,是民進黨政府不能不接受的現 實。


接 下來,還有被在野政黨批評為「去國語化」的《國語法草案》,還沒送到立法院就被罵翻天。持平而論,民進黨政府要讓國家語言有一個法定基礎,並不為過;保 存多種語言也是世界潮流。無可諱言,前朝政府在推動現行通用的官方語言時,同樣採取了強行壓制的手段,或許是讓民進黨,或獨派人士對現行通用官方語言敵視 的原因。然而,以爭輸贏的心態,不做溝通,只會讓這樣的立法案,摻入政治因素,讓慣用不同語言的族群,加深彼此的不信任感和自己的不安全感,這個法案的下 場可想而知。

一路數下來,包括《國立故宮博物院組織條例》修正草案,在內文中刪掉了有關「中國古代文物藝術品」和「國立北平故宮博物院」 等文字敘述,同樣引發去中國化 的爭議,去不去中國化是政治問題,但是故宮存在的歷史清清楚楚,其主要收藏文物確係來自北平的故宮博物院,刪掉了這樣的文字敘述,卻刪不掉故宮的歷史淵 源;最重要的,此時此刻,有必要把這樣的文字修正,列為優先施政項目嗎?故宮南院刻正興建中,南院與故宮本身即可做一區隔,甚至如果民進黨政府要另立博物 院,為什麼南院還要沾故宮的邊?就明確清楚的將現行故宮南院定位為新博物院不好嗎?

上述法案與預算案,不論已送立法院或待送立法院,都引 起朝野的對立和不安。國會審議預算與法案,有一定的程序,從預算案而言,因為民進黨政府不當的行政措 施,或者未依法行政,造成年度預算無法順利通關,眼看著九十七年度預算即將開編,九十六年度預算卻還遙遙無期,這豈是政府正常運轉之道?

法 案就更不要提了,幾無例外,立法院審查法案曠日廢時,若非經朝野協商簽字,預期法案三讀,直如天方夜譚。眼前擺在立法院過不了的修法案,中選會組織法修 正草案即是其一,因為這個法案,還連帶綁住了軍購預算。舊案未過,新的爭議又來,立法院朝野永遠為了新的政治口水,纏鬥不休,政府還能做什麼事呢?

不 要把責任都丟給立法院,審議預算法案,是立法院的責任,但是,漫無標的,甚至刻意以引起爭議的方式,狂推明知通不過的法案,既未弄清楚己身職權的優先順 序,亦未體會多數民意需求所在,那就是行政機關不負責任!為了總統大選,民進黨天王競相向深綠忠誠表態拚政治,台灣的經濟發展、社會和諧,卻將因此遭到無 法彌補的傷害。

No comments: