Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Alarming Numbers: Is the Government Listening?

Alarming Numbers: Is the Government Listening?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2010

The government recently made public three sets of numbers. These numbers, which came from the Executive Yuan Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS), the Financial Data Center, and the Ministry of the Interior, revealed a consistent trend. The gap between rich and poor is greater than it was a decade ago. Actually, the numbers are merely the tip of the iceberg. The structural problems behind the numbers are even more important. These problems, which include an imbalanced, unjust tax structure, are not problems the poor can remedy by themselves. These are problems for which the government is clearly responsible. If the government concentrates only on changing industry structure, and ignores tax reform, it will not be enough.
The economy is booming this year. The DGBAS has revised its GDP growth rate upward, to 8.24%, a 20 year record high. Department stores in Taipei held a "VIP Night." In six hours they set a record by selling over 800 million NT in merchandise. Wives of wealthy tycoons used their credit cards to buy jewelry. They made staggeringly extravagant single purchases as high as 70 million NT. By contrast, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, are living from hand to mouth. Even average wage earners are making less than they did 10 years ago, after accounting for inflation. They have become the working poor.

The DGBAS Family Income and Expenditure Survey has five income tax categories. Between 2000 and 2009, the ratio between the disposable income of the poorest 20% and the wealthiest 20% increased from 5.57 times to 8.22 times. This does not include social welfare and tax revenue transfers. The Ministry of Finance Finanicial Data Center (FDC) has 20 income tax categories. Between 1998 and 2008, the income gap between the wealthiest 5% and the poorest 5% increased from 33 times to 66 times. Both numbers were record highs.

The DGBAS and FDC findings may or may not have blind spots. The former relies mainly on questionnaires. It has access to over 13,000 samples. But in fact gaining access to both the very rich and the very poor is extremely difficult. The questionnaire does not include real estate transactions and stock market gains. The Financial Data Center bases its findings mainly on the "taxable income" of over 5.4 million taxpayers. Capital gains and overseas income are not included. Therefore, these two statistics seriously underestimate the true gap between rich and poor. Second quarter Ministry of the Interior statistics showed a total of 108,000 poor families, and 260,000 poor people, Both reached record highs. But the survey does not include the "nouveau pauvres" able to work but unable to find jobs because industries relocated or went under due to lack of competitiveness. Low tech, low wage, and low income workers are members of the near poor, hence ineligible for government subsidies. According to conservative estimates, Taiwan has nearly one million nouveau pauvres. These invisible poor find it nearly impossible to share in the fruits of economic growth.

The FDC Family Income and Expenditure Survey found that over the past 10 years the average disposable income of the lowest income group has fallen from 275,000 NT to 222,000 NT. It has regressed to the level of 1991. People are asking questions. If the fruits of economic growth cannot be shared among all citizens, what is the point of such economic growth?

The growing gap between rich and poor is due in part to the impact of globalization and imbalances in industry structure. But an even bigger problem is an unfair tax system. As the DGBAS numbers show, the government has narrowed the wealth gap by means of social welfare and tax measures. Of the two, social welfare is becoming more important, while taxes are becoming less important. The impact of taxes two years ago was 0.16 times. Last year it fell to 0.13 times. The impact of the income tax has shrunk to the point where it is almost undetectable.

The Republic of China is the one of the world's few nations that do not tax capital gains. In recent years, it has continued to give tax cuts to the rich, further increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. The government's improper tax cuts have resulted in a loss of tax revenue, and increased financial constraints on the government. The central government debt will reach a peak in 2011. In a vicious cycle, fiscal difficulties will directly impact social welfare and education. Even civil service salaries may be impacted. Interior Ministry officials say frankly that "The real problem on Taiwan is that the government never taxes the rich."

Internationally, income inequality is usually measured by means of the Gini Coefficient. The higher the number, the greater the gap between rich and poor. Singapore, Mainland China, and Hong Kong have wealth gaps more serious than Taiwan. The Nordic countries, Japan, and South Korea, have wealth gaps less serious than Taiwan. Do we want to compare ourselves against our betters? Or our inferiors? If we compare ourselves against ourselves ten years ago, we find the wealth gap on Taiwan has increased significantly. We have over a million newly poor and near poor families scattered over all corners of our society. They are not included in the statistics. Yet President Ma had the chutzpah to say that "The wealth gap on Taiwan is not that serious."

Poor people rarely have the opportunity to speak out on their own behalf. Even when they do, no one listens. If the Ma administration is only willing to put a gloss on the economic growth figures, if it persists in complacency, if it ignores the increasing gap between rich and poor, the poor can do little about it.

Three years ago, President Ma criticized the ruling Chen administration. He said, "It is deeply regrettable that the Chen administration has turned a blind eye to the urgent needs of newly poor families." President Ma has been in office for over two years. The public must now ask President Ma whether he hears the voices of the poor.

驚人的數據,主政者聞出警訊嗎
2010-08-28
中國時報

最近官方公布的三項統計數字,從主計處、財稅資料中心到內政部的統計皆呈現一致的趨勢,即國內貧富差距問題比十年前來得嚴重。其實,統計數字所呈現的只是冰山一角,更重要的是數字背後隱藏的結構問題,包括失衡的產業結構與不公的稅制,這些問題並非窮人自己可以解決,政府當然責無旁貸。不過,如果政府僅著眼於產業結構的調整,卻忽視租稅改革,這是不夠的。

今年景氣大好,主計處上修GDP成長率至八.二四%,創下廿一年新高。台北百貨公司舉辦貴賓之夜,六小時創下八億多元的消費奇蹟,貴婦人刷卡買珠寶,一出手就是七千萬元,令人咋舌;相對地,生活在社會最底層的窮人,日子一直苦哈哈,即使是一般薪水階級,十年來的薪資成長扣除通膨之後,實際是負成長,成了窮忙族。

主計處家庭收支調查以五等分位計,最富有二○%與最窮二 ○%可支配所得差距(未納入社福與租稅移轉收支),從二○○○年的六.五七倍增至二○○九年的八.二二倍。財稅資料中心依綜合所得資料分為二十等份,最富有五%與最窮五%的所得差距,從一九九八年的卅三倍增加至二○○八年的六十六倍,兩項統計均創歷史新高。

不論主計處或財稅資料中心的統計均有盲點,前者主要透過問卷調查,訪問一萬三千多個樣本,但實際上很難訪問到真正的富人與窮人,問卷內容也不包括大筆買賣房地產交易與進出股市獲利的所得;財稅資料中心以五百四十多萬納稅人「課稅所得」為主,而資本利得、海外所得均不在報稅範圍內,因此這兩項統計均嚴重低估了貧富差距的真實情況。至於內政部貧窮家庭統計,截至今年第二季止共有十萬八千戶,貧窮人數達廿六萬多人,雙雙創下歷史新高。不過這項統計不包括因產業外移或競爭力不足,有工作能力卻找不到工作的新貧一族;以及低技術、低薪資且被排除在政府低收入補助標準外的近貧一族。保守估計,國內新貧與近貧一族逾百萬人,這些看不見的窮人幾乎無法分享到經濟成長果實。

值得注意的是,主計處家庭收支調查,十年來,最低所得組平均可支配所得不增反減,從廿七萬五千元降為廿二萬二千元,已退步到一九九一年水準。民眾要問,如經濟成長果實無法由全民共享,這樣的成長有什麼意義呢?

貧富差距不斷惡化,除了來自於全球化衝擊、產業結構失衡,更大問題在於稅制不公。主計處的統計可以看出,政府透過社會福利與租稅工具縮小貧富差距,其中,社會福利的比重越來越高,而租稅的效果卻越來越小,前年租稅效果還有○.一六倍,去年甚至降至○.一三倍,租稅的功能不斷萎縮,幾乎快要看不見了。

台灣是全球少數給予資本利得免稅的國家,近年又不斷為富人減稅,進一步擴大貧富差距。政府不當減稅的後果,造成稅收減少,財政更加拮据,中央政府債務餘額將在民國一百年達到最高峰;在惡性循環下,財政困難將直接衝擊政府各項社福、教育支出,甚至連為公務員加薪都辦不到。內政部官員不諱言「台灣真正的問題是,永遠課不到有錢人的稅。」

在國際上,通常以吉尼係數做比較,數字越高表示貧富差距越大,新加坡、中國、香港的貧富差距均比台灣嚴重;北歐各國、亞洲的日本、南韓則比台灣小。我們究竟要比好的,還是比爛的?如果自己跟自己比,相較於十年前,台灣的貧富差距顯著惡化,而且還有逾百萬的新貧與近貧族散布在各個角落,未列入統計。在這樣的情況下,馬總統卻說:「台灣貧富差距還不算太差。」

窮人平常很少有發言的機會,即使有,也沒人肯聽。如果馬政府只看到表面亮麗的經濟成長數字,即沾沾自喜,無視於貧富差距擴大的事實,窮人也莫可奈何。

三年前,馬總統曾批評當時的扁政府「看不到新貧族的迫切需求,令人遺憾」;如今馬總統就任二年多,人民也要問問馬總統,是否聽到了窮人的聲音?

Monday, August 30, 2010

Peace is Essential, Reunification is Optional

Peace is Essential, Reunification is OptionalUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 30, 2010

Yang Chiu-hsing has resigned from the DPP and is running as an independent. He has proposed a novel perspective on cross-Strait relations. He said we should realize that the relationship between Taipei and Beijing is no longer a hostile relationship.

Why were relations across the Strait hostile? Reason One. Some on Taiwan wanted to promote de jure Taiwan independence. Beijing was opposed. Hence the hostility. Reason Two. Beijing wanted to reunify the nation by "gobbling up Taipei." Taipei resisted. Hence the hostility. Reason Three. Reasons One and Two could well lead to war. Hence the hostility.

Therefore, if the two sides wish to change their relationship from one of hostility to one of harmony, the solution is "no [short term] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." The reasoning behind this solution is sound. The fact that it is President Ma Ying-jeou's proposal ought to be irrelevant. In fact, if Ma had not been the one to propose it, some opponents might not feel so compelled to oppose it. People might better be able to appreciate its soundness. One might just as easily rephrase it as "confront reality, ensure peaceful development."

In recent years, "opposition to [short term] reunification" has gained ground. Taipei, Washington, and Beijing have reached a tacit agreement to "maintain the status quo." This has not ruled out reunification. But it has significantly relaxed pressures and tensions associated with reunification. Furthermore, the Ma administration's explicit policy of "no [short term] reunification" as an explicit policy is an unprecedented breakthrough. A precondition of Ma's policy is of course, opposition to independence as well. "One China, different interpretations" can be regarded as "no reunification, no independence." It can also be regarded as "both reunification and independence." Beijing has made an international commitment not to "unilaterally change the status quo." It has argued that "although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they are nevertheless inseparable parts of one China." It has argued that "although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they can reexamine their special relationship from a pragmatic perspective." It is even willing to "discuss the status of the Republic of China." Beijing's arguments show that the definition of reunification is open to interpretation. They show that pressure to reunify has eased.

The main cause of hostile cross-Strait relations was Taiwan independence. The global scenario has evolved to where Taiwan independence is no longer a feasible solution to cross-Strait problems. All Taiwan independence can do is generate cross-Strait hostility. Taiwan independence cannot solve Taiwan's internal problems. Its primary purpose is to generate internal divisions on Taiwan for the sake of short term political advantage. Taiwan independence has generated cross-Strait hostility, but has not harmed a hair on Beijing's head. It has fostered internal divisions on Taiwan, and ripped apart its society. Isn't this hostility precisely what Yang Chiu-hsing characterized as "unnecessary conflict?"

"No reunification, no independence" are relative and complimentary concepts. If Taiwan does not move toward independence, Beijing can relax its pressures for reunification. If Beijing relaxes its pressures for reunification, that may weaken, moderate, and transform pressures for independence. They key for the ruling government of the Republic of China is to preclude Taiwan independence. Only by precluding Taiwan independence, can it maintain a situation with "no reunification, no war." Only then can it promote ECFA as the basis for cross-Strait peaceful development.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Progressive Party cannot bring itself to forsake Taiwan independence. It remains committed to perpetuating hostile relations, both in cross-Strait and internal affairs. It is being held hostage by Taiwan independence elements, unable to break free. Regarding ECFA, the DPP may wish to resolve cross-Strait hostilities. But as long as the DPP remains committed to Taiwan independence, it must insist on hostile relations. How can it possibly express approval of ECFA? As long as it wishes to abolish ECFA if and when it returns to power, it must incite increased cross-Strait hostility. It is convinced that only by rejecting ECFA, can it achieve Taiwan independence and found a new nation.

The Democratic Progressive Party continues to see Taiwan independence as the opposite of reunification. It seems to think that if it fails to advocate Taiwan independence, then it is "pandering to Beijing and selling out Taiwan," and "endorsing reunification." But years of agitation have made clear that political struggles on Taiwan involve mainly "Taiwan independence vs. opposition to Taiwan independence," rather than "Taiwan independence vs. reunification." As mentioned earlier, President Ma also advocates "no reunification, no independence." Even President Hu Jintao has diluted "peaceful reunification," reframing it as "peaceful development." One might say that the main goal of the authorities on both sides, as well as the majority of the public, is peace rather than [short term] reunification.

Yang Chiu-hsing says the relationship between Taipei and Beijing is no longer a hostile one. This ought to be the greatest common denominator in cross-Strait relations, as well as in local politics. Even the DPP knows better than to publicly advocate hostile cross-Strait relations. The DPP's political Achilles Heel is not its opposition to reunification, but rather its demands for Taiwan independence. It is possible to maintain peace if the two sides do not reunify, at least for the time being. But if the government on Taiwan demands independence, only hostile relations are possible. When it comes to cross-Strait relations, Taiwan independence is the antonym of peace.

Cross-Strait relations must be based on peace. Peaceful development is possible even if one "opposes reunification." It is possible even if one insists that the two sides "have yet to be reunified." It is possible even if one advocates "temporarily delaying reunification." It is possible even if one "wonders whether reunification is feasible."

Peacefully promoting development, and promoting the development of peace is possible only if one maintains cross-Strait peaceful development. Only then can one establish the conditions necessary for long term, beneficial, democratic development. Only then can one achieve a permanent cross-Strait peace.

可以不統一 不能不和平
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.30 01:44 am

楊秋興宣布退黨競選,對兩岸關係發表新論。他說:應當體認兩岸關係不再是「敵對的關係」。

兩岸為何會有「敵對關係」?一、台灣欲推動法理台獨,北京反對,因而敵對。二、北京欲推動「誰吃掉誰」的統一,台灣抗拒,因而敵對。三、以上二者,皆可能引爆戰爭,因而敵對。

所以,兩岸若欲改變「敵對關係」,方法就是「不統/不獨/不武」。此一觀點,即使不是馬英九總統說的,也是正確的;甚至,倘若不是馬說的,撇開逢馬必反的炒作,更能體會其正確。換句話說,就是:「正視現實/和平發展」。

近幾年來,「不統」的觀念略有進展。台美中三方面「維持現狀」的默契與實踐,雖然並未消除「統一」的議題,但已明顯放鬆放緩其壓力與張力。再者,馬政府以「不統」為明文政策,這也是前所未見的重大突破(當然是以「不獨」為支撐條件);「一中各表」即可視為「不統/不獨」(或許也可視為「亦統/亦獨」)。至於北京方面,除了接受「不片面改變現狀」的國際承諾,也提出「雖然尚未統一/仍是一個中國」,或「兩岸可就國家尚未統一的特殊情況下的政治關係展開務實探討」,甚至放出「討論中華民國定位問題」的試探等等;這些皆顯示「統一」的內涵或許有調整演化的空間,更顯示「統一」的壓力已放鬆放緩。

所以,如今可能造成兩岸「敵對關係」的主要因素就在「台獨」。全球情勢演化至今日地步,台獨已不可能解決兩岸問題,唯一的作用就是造成兩岸「敵對」;台獨亦不可能解決台灣內部的問題,主要的作用就是造成內部「敵對」。台獨造成了兩岸「敵對」,但不能動到北京一根汗毛;造成了台灣內部「敵對」,卻能撕裂國家社會。這樣的「敵對」,豈不正如楊秋興所說的「無謂的抗爭」?

「不統/不獨」是相因相成的概念。台灣不獨,可放鬆放緩北京促統的壓力;北京放鬆放緩促統的壓力,可淡化、柔化、轉化台獨的氛圍。因而,對於中華民國執政者的兩岸戰略而言,關鍵是在「不獨」;「不獨」始有可能維持「不統/不武」的局面,也始有可能以推動ECFA等作為來維持兩岸的「和平發展」。

相對以觀,民進黨迄仍不能否棄台獨的主張,除了使兩岸及台灣內部皆陷於「敵對關係」,亦使它自己被台獨挾持而不能施展。以ECFA而論,就是欲化解「敵對關係」的重大工程;但民進黨若主張台獨,就必須堅持「敵對」,則豈能贊同ECFA?而若欲在執政後廢止ECFA,更必將使兩岸陷入「敵對」。尤其,沒有 ECFA就能台獨建國嗎?

民進黨迄今仍將「台獨」視為「統一」的對立詞。好像不主張台獨,就是傾中賣台,就是贊同統一。但是,經歷多年激盪澄清,台灣的政爭其實主要是在「台獨/非台獨」的爭議,而非「台獨/統一」的爭議。如前所述,馬總統也說「不統/不獨」;而連胡錦濤也放淡了「和平統一」,轉為強調「和平發展」。可以這麼說:兩岸當局及主流民意如今努力的主要目標是「和平」,而不是「統一」。

楊秋興說「兩岸關係不再是敵對關係」,這應是兩岸之間及台灣內部的最大公約數。即使民進黨,也不至於公開主張兩岸應當陷於「敵對關係」。民進黨的政治罩門不在主張「反統」,而是主張「台獨」。兩岸不統一或暫不統一,皆有可能維持和平;但主張台獨,卻只有「敵對關係」一條路可走。在兩岸關係上,「台獨」是「和平」的對立詞。

因此,若將兩岸關係化約到「和平」二字,就知道,即使「反對統一」、「尚未統一」、「暫緩統一」或「不知能否統一」,仍應當並可以維持「和平發展」。

和平促進發展,發展促進和平。唯有維持兩岸「和平發展」,始有可能從長期的、善意的、民主的「發展」中,蓄積條件,找到兩岸永久「和平」的終極方案。

Friday, August 27, 2010

Five Cities Election Battles, Retail and Wholesale

Five Cities Election Battles, Retail and WholesaleUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2010

Internal divisions have appeared within the Green Camp over two mayoral races in southern Taiwan. But these divisions have not benefitted the Blue Camp. In fact the Blue Camp appears to have bogged down even in the two mayoral races in northern Taiwan. Some inside the KMT are concerned. If their candidates cannot increase their lead over the DPP by September, they had better be prepared for defeat. The Ma administration is proud of ECFA. Taiwan has experienced two consecutive quarters of double-digit economic growth. Therefore the low morale within the ruling party is surprising.

For the KMT, the chaos of the Five Cities Elections means public opinion has been hard to fathom. It also means the KMT has failed to generate any enthusiasm among the public. Therefore the Blue Camp has not gained as much advantage in the north as expected. Instead of complaining about voter indifference though, the KMT should reexamine its election strategy and ask if it has done enough to cultivate voter support. Sources within the party have revealed that the next round of campaign appeals will focus on cross-Strait and foreign affairs. These and other issues are the "Green Camp's Achilles Heel." The KMT will target Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, and hit them hard. Whether this tactic will work is uncertain, but it is worth exploring.

The Five Cities Elections can be regarded as a prelude to the 2012 Presidential Election. But basically they are local elections. Escalating the debate to the level of cross-Strait and foreign affairs may allow the KMT to check their opponents. But it will not necessarily allow the KMT to inspire a sense of urgency among its constituents. Su and Tsai both served as vice premier. Tsai Ing-wen is the chairman of the main opposition party. The Blue Camp can play their cross-Strait and foreign affairs cards. It can highlight the contradictions and weaknesses in the DPP candidates' election platforms. But in the mayoral elections, voters are more concerned about governance, expansion, and growth at the municipal level. If Su and Tsai can inspire people at the municipal level, voters may not care about their extremist views on cross-Strait and foreign affairs. After all, this is a mayoral election, not a presidential election.

Signing ECFA and improving cross-Strait relations is one of the Ma administration's crowning achievements. Follow-up economic effects can also be expected. But from a political perspective, after two years of setbacks, ECFA's marginal utility is close to exhausted. As the theme of the Five Cities Election, the issue is too old and tired. Besides, what inspires voters on Taiwan has never been glowing reports on the status quo, but shining visions of the future. From this perspective, no matter how much the Blue Camp may play up progress in cross-Strait relations, it is still only playing defense. The Green Camp can easily assume the offensive. It can easily claim that ECFA is merely a "pie in the sky," and will merely "increase the gap between rich and poor." The Ma administration's political achievements can be instantly transformed into public grievances. This is one of the cruel paradoxes of popular elections. It has proven true for the past 20 years, and there is no room for naivete.

By contrast, the DPP has treated the election as a local level campaign from day one. It never intended to make it a central government issue. It adopted a very different strategy. This is the advantage of being in the opposition. One need not lay out a larger framework. One need only zero in on weaknesses in the ruling party's governance. Doing so is enough to create a media effect and attract voter attention. Put simply, the KMT has launched a "wholesale war" at the central government level. The DPP meanwhile, is fighting a one on one "retail war" at the local government level. The entire nation is looking at these elections. But they are elections filled with local color. Who will emerge victorious? That will depend on the wisdom and adaptability of the two parties.

Given voter apathy, the KMT may need to alter its strategy. It may need to fight a "retail war." Only then can it narrow the distance between itself and local voters. The Blue Camp has always been less adept at offense than the Green Camp. It has always been less adept at spinning the issues. If its candidates blindly obey party leaders, they may find it even more difficul to underscore their individual merits. The most obvious example is Su Chih-fen's handling of the Number Six Naphtha Cracking Plant issue. The KMT watched helplessly as Green Camp apostate Yang Chui-hsing hijacked this "anti-business" issue. Clearly KMT candidates are sorely deficient in flexibility. Among the Blue Camp candidates, Jason Hu is is the most self-assured. This has much to do with his personal image. He is a bona fide expert in local retail sales.

There is a saying in American politics. All politics is local. It means one must meet the voters where one governs. One must speak the language they understand. One must implement policies they understand. One cannot say that the Five Cities Elections are not heating up. So why are voters so apathetic? The problem is candidates have yet to fully exploit the local level retail market. The ruling and opposition parties have yet to understand the needs and aspirations of their local constituents. They do not know what they should be selling. Yang Chiu-hsing left the DPP. If nothing else, he issued a bold challenge to the people of Kaohsiung. He offered voters a third way. Meanwhile, voters in the two cities of northern Taiwan have been presented with a surrogate for the presidential election. No one seems to know whether the candidates intend to complete their terms of office. The candidates are unwilling to promise they will not run off in the middle of their terms. No wonder voters are disaffected.

To overcome voter apathy, the KMT must change its one size fits all, wholesale level campaign strategy. It must be more flexible and responsive, closer to its local constituents. If it insists on campaigning on the basis of high-profile issues such as cross-Strait and foreign relations, it may well end up singing to an empty hall.

五都選舉的零售戰與批發戰
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.27 03:15 am

綠營南二都選局呈現分裂,藍營並未因此獲得漁利,似乎連北二都選情都陷入膠著。國民黨內有人憂心:若九月無法拉開差距,就得有「輸的準備」。正當馬政府自豪的ECFA箭在弦上,台灣接連兩季出現兩位數的經濟成長,而執政黨內部的鬥志卻如此低靡,令人驚訝。

對國民黨而言,五都選情混沌,顯示民意不易捉摸,也反映它在這場選舉尚未產生激發民眾熱情的議題,致使藍營在北二都民調看不出其原先期待的優勢。但與其怨嘆選民冷漠,國民黨更該檢討的是其選民經營與選戰策略。黨內人士透露,下一輪將針對兩岸、外交議題等「綠營罩門」,鎖定蘇貞昌、蔡英文兩人猛攻。此一戰術能否奏效,值得探討。

五都選舉雖可視為二O一二大選的前哨戰,但基本上,這畢竟是一場地方選舉,把攻防主調拉高到外交和兩岸層次,雖有制敵作用,卻未必能喚起選民的切身感。蘇、蔡曾任正副閣揆,蔡英文又身為在野黨主席,藍軍主打兩岸和外交固能凸顯兩人的矛盾及弱點;唯在市長選舉,選民更關切的毋寧是城市的經營、建設和發展,若蘇、蔡能在市政上提出打動人心的訴求,選民或許不會在意他們在兩岸、外交上的偏執。畢竟,這是在選市長,不是在選總統。

簽署ECFA與兩岸關係改善是馬政府的重要政績,後續經濟效應也可期待;但從政治上看,經過兩年周折,其邊際效用已接近「利多出盡」。作為五都選戰的主軸,這個議題稍嫌老舊,能量也不夠充沛。何況,台灣選舉最能驅動選民的因素,一向不是展示現狀的美好,而是強調人們想像的匱乏。從這點看,無論藍營如何標榜兩岸關係的進展,都只是守勢;綠營只要攻擊說「看得見、吃不到」、「會擴大貧富差距」,馬政府的「政績」也有可能立刻被翻寫「民怨」。這是選舉的吊詭和殘酷,二十餘年來屢試不爽,沒有天真以待的餘地。

相對的,民進黨一開始就把選戰定調為地方選舉,無意在中央議題上纏殺,則是截然不同的選擇。這正是在野黨的便利:不必在大架構上鋪陳,只要針對執政黨弱處猛政,就能製造媒體效果引起選民注意。簡單地說,國民黨著重的是從中央發動的「批發戰」,民進黨則強調單打獨鬥的「零售戰」;這在具有全國觀瞻、卻更富地方色彩的選戰中,誰將勝出,考驗兩黨的智慧和應變。

以目前選情偏冷看,國民黨恐怕有必要朝「零售戰」的方向調整,才能拉近和地方選民的距離感。藍軍候選人的攻擊性一向不如綠營,議題塑造能力也較弱,若一味聽命黨中央主導,個人形象更不易突出。最明顯的例子是,蘇治芬處理六輕的「反商」議題,竟是被從綠營出走的楊秋興一把搶走,可見國民黨候選人作戰的機動性確實相形見絀。這次五都選舉,藍營以胡志強的選情最穩,當然跟他個人形象最為自主有關;在面對地方,他是個不折不扣的零售專家。

美國政治上有句俗話:一切政治都是鄉土的。意即,你在哪裡從政,你得直接面對那裡的選民,說他們聽得懂的話,做他們能理解的事。五都選舉打到今天,表面溫度不能說不高,但為何燒不起選民的熱情?問題就在地方的零售市場還沒有被充分開發,或者朝野兩黨都仍未充分了解地方民眾的需求和渴望,不知道要把什麼東西賣給他們。楊秋興出走,至少對大高雄民眾的口味作了一次大膽的挑戰,讓選民有第三品牌可以挑選。但北二都選民面對的,卻更像是一場總統大選的替代戰役,沒有人知道當選人會不會做完任期,候選人也不願保證不會半途落跑,這正是民眾感到索然無味之處。

要打破冰冷選情,國民黨需要調整其統包、批發式的戰略,才能更靈活因應,並貼近地方民眾。一味高調主打兩岸外交議題,怕是曲高和寡。

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Court Must Restore Trust in Its Rulings

The Court Must Restore Trust in Its RulingsUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2010

After several months of searching, President Ma Ying-jeou has appointed Lai Hao-min President of the Judicial Yuan, and Su Yung-ching Vice President. The newly appointed Lai said that the public can no longer tolerate corrupt judges. People have taken all they can take. But corruption-free judges should be a given. The newly appointed president must do more than eliminate corruption. He must restore public trust in the court's rulings. He must restore public confidence in the justice system.

Recently, the number of judicial scandals exploded. Under nearly two decades of ineffectual "judicial self-management," several judges accepted bribes, another attempted to influence the outcome of his son's trial, another devoted more time and energy to his hobby than his duties as a judge, another used his illicit lover as a go between, others consorted with defendants, still others issued rulings utterly inconsistent with common sense. Their perversions of the law and abuses of power have opened the eyes of the public. Even the highest levels of the judicial system have come under suspicion, and seriously undermined confidence in the administration of justice.

In the short term, the new president must clean house and appoint new personnel. He must ensure that trials are once again fair. Cleaning house is not that difficult. The new president must start small. He must set an example. He must decline to attend unnecessary banquets. He must ensure that austerity once again becomes the judicial norm. Judges must no longer be wined and dined by criminal defendants. The air must be cleared. Clean officials must be appointed. The new appointees must be responsible individuals, unfraid to give offense, and willing to make tough administrative decisions. Those seeking favors or backdoor opportunities, those who care more about holding office than assuring justice, and bureaucrats adept at evading responsibility, need not apply. The new president has taken office. The secretary general will resign. The deputy secretary general, the president of the high court, and the president of the Kaohsiung Branch of the Judicial Yuan will all have to be replaced. The new president's first set of personnel appointments must demonstrate a commitment to integrity and responsibility. Only then can he restore the integrity of the justice system.

In addition to cleaning houseand appointing new personnel, rehabilitating the justice system will require breaking up the tight little circles judges currently inhabit. Judges place too high a value on seniority. They defer too much to their superiors. They care more about the judgment of insiders than the judgment of the outside world. They have forfeited their independence. They have formed tight little circles. That is why influence-peddling within their circles is taken for granted. That is why they have forgotten that their raison d'etre is to provide justice for the people. These tight little circles must be broken. Only then will judges have the courage to take responsibility for their rulings.

The new president should immediately examine the role of judges' assistants. He must ensure that presiding judges are actually doing what they are paid to do. He must establish ethical standards and job discipline. He must institute internal controls. He must improve discipline and eliminate indolence. He must root out judges who live abnormal lives. He must find ways to punish and eliminate them. He must show that the justice system is determined to clean house.

Nearly two decades of judicial self-oversight has revealed that judges are too susceptible to emotional appeals. They are unwilling to even criticize their peers, let alone punish them. Therefore we must implement a cabinet system. The cabinet chief's authority must be limited, and commensurate with his responsibilities. This will reverse the harm done by untrammeled judicial self-management.

If one wishes to prevent judicial rulings clearly beyond the pale, one must eliminate undue influence. One must ensure judicial independence. The new president must supervise and assist trial judges, because judicial independence will ensure the quality of judicial rulings, and help regain public trust. If judicial independence creates a sanctuary for judicial abuse of authority however, then judicial independence is rendered meaningless. Only quality judicial rulings can guarantee justice.

Of course, the newly appointed president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan must also minimize concerns about their political affiliations or political positions. There must be no doubts about their impartiality. Lai Hao-min was once an attorney. Attorneys and legal aid groups are the main force behind judicial reform. Lai must convince judges that his administrative decisions will be unbiased, will be in the best interest of the trial process, and that judicial reform will be effective. Su Yung-ching cast many doubts on Judicial Yuan reorganization and reform in the past. Now however, he will be working with Lai. Everyone hopes their roles as professionals will count for more than their friendship with President Ma. Lai and Su must redouble their efforts. They must prove themselves by walking the walk, as well as talking the talk.

Judicial reform is a monumental undertaking. In addition to short term reforms, there must be mid term reform and long term reforms. These include procedural law reforms, changing the way judges are created, improving the structure of the Judicial Yuan, and evaluating the feasibility of a jury system. But some reforms do not require amending the law. They do not require waiting for the results of another judicial reform conference. Judicial credibility has reached new lows. The new president and the judges must adopt extraordinary measures. They must reform the system. They must get serious about cleaning house. Only then can they meet public expectations regarding judicial integrity and the credibility of judicial rulings.

The public can no longer tolerate unjust and slipshod judicial rulings. The new president and vice president of the Judicial Yuan have only one job -- to restore public confidence in judicial rulings. They must do so not merely for litigants, but for society as a whole. Everyone must believe that judicial rulings are uncorrupt and fair.

法院要有讓人民安心接受裁判的信任
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.26 03:01 am

經過個把月的尋訪,馬英九總統決定提名賴浩敏、蘇永欽為新任司法院正副院長。新院長賴浩敏疾呼,人民不要貪汙的法官、已經不能再忍耐了;但法官不貪汙,只是基本條件,新院長要做的事,絕不止於此,當務之急是讓人民能夠安心接受裁判,重新相信司法。

近來司法弊案頻爆,不啻將十幾年來開放法官自治後的缺點一一呈現。法官涉嫌收賄、為子關說、兼業比正業用心、外遇情人成為白手套、與案件當事人不當往來、裁判認事用法過度逾越常情等,種種枉法濫權的行徑讓人民大開眼界,連首長都沾上風紀傳聞,嚴重影響司法裁判受到的信賴。

新院長的近程司法改革,首先必須清風氣、正人事,回復審判應有的乾淨空間。清風氣其實不難,從小處做起,只要院長能以身作則,帶領法官謝絕不必要的飲宴應酬,讓簡約風重新成為司法主流,不再受飯局流言所困,風氣即可廓清泰半。正人事,則是要用清廉、肯負責、願意得罪人的首長,作好行政監督工作。那些找人情、鑽門路、愛官位甚於愛司法,推責任一流的官僚,則可免矣。新院長上任,秘書長將請辭,副秘書長、高等法院院長、高雄高分院院長也都出缺,新院長的第一波人事如能展現廉潔、重責任的企圖,很快可以重塑司法新文化。

除了清風氣、正人事,司法新形象還包括打破目前法官的小圈圈文化。法官過於順從期別、庭長權威,在乎圈內人的評價甚於外界,失去獨立的立場,形成小圈圈,才會視圈內關說為當然,忘了司法實為人民存在的基本價值。打破小圈圈文化,才能使法官勇於為判決負責。

此外,新院長應即檢討法官助理的功能,避免法官其實不辦案之弊,並訂出法官倫理規範,整頓法官的工作紀律,透過內部控管,改善自由過度致生散漫的趨勢,找出怠惰生活不正常的法官,想辦法懲處、淘汰,表現司法可以自我除弊的氣魄。

從十幾年來法官自治的經驗可知,法官囿於人情,對自己人連說句重話都不肯,遑論下手處罰,因此必須兼行首長制,適度賦予首長一定的權限,並課予責任,扭轉法官自治放任之害。

若欲防止顯然不合常軌的裁判,除了要杜絕外力的不當介入,如何在避免干預審判獨立的前提下,給予審判法官監督和協助,也是新院長的重要任務。因為審判獨立本是為保護審判品質,贏取人民信任而設,若成為法官獨大的庇護所,即失去意義。判決唯具品質,正義才有保障。

當然,新任的司法院正副院長也必須減少外界對其個人政黨或立場上的疑慮,不容司法受到一絲懷疑。賴浩敏當過律師,民間司法改革、法律扶助團體都以律師為主力,他必須讓法官相信,其行事裁量不會偏於一隅,而是以增進審判品質為最大利益,並能端出司法改革的好菜。蘇永欽過去曾對司法院的組織、改革方向提出不少質疑,將來和賴搭配合作,各方皆期待其專業角色勝過總統好友的角色;賴蘇二人都必須更努力,以言行證明一切。

司法改革經緯萬端,除了近程,也有中遠程改革,如修改訴訟法、改變法官的產生方式、調整司法院的結構,是否實行參審等。然而,有些改革不需要修法,也不必等待再一次召開司法改革會議即可實現;值此司法公信極度低落的非常時代,新院長和法官們,若能實行非常手段,改變文化,認真清理內部,即能回應民眾對司法品操及裁判品質的要求。

對於不公、粗糙的判決,人民確實不能再忍耐,新任司法正副院長的責任無他,讓人民安心接受裁判而已。不但要使訴訟當事人安心,也要使全體國人安心地相信每一件司法裁判都是乾淨而公正的。

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Where is the DPP's Platform for the Five Cities Elections?

Where is the DPP's Platform for the Five Cities Elections?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2010

In its campaign for the Five Cities Elections, KMT leaders have chosen to play the ECFA card. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, who is also the DPP candidate for Xinbei City mayor, lashed out at them. "Once again, they are wrong!" Tsai Ing-wen argued that the Five Cities Elections are merely local elections. Only when the presidential and legislative by-elections roll around, will cross-Strait and foreign affairs become important. Tsai Ing-wen is partly right, and partly wrong. Regardless, neither the DPP nor the KMT have offered a coherent platform for the Five Cities Elections. As a result, the campaigns have lost their focus. They have become name-calling contests, in which neither side listens to the other. Voters are left with no basis on which to cast their votes -- no political platform, no policy prescription, and no political record.

In one sense, Tsai Ing-wen is correct. The Five Cities Elections are not central government elections. They need not address central government issues. But in another sense, Tsai Ing-wen is wrong. From day one, the Five Cities Elections have not been local elections. Every candidate for the Five Cities Elections is a "Party Prince." Whoever emerges victorious from these elections will be the Blue and Green Camp's rising stars. Even those who are defeated, may be able to run for president in 2012. That is why the candidates are sparing no effort or expense to run.

Tsai Ing-wen is right in another sense. Cross-Strait and foreign issues are usually relevant only during presidential and legislative elections. Basically they should never have been raised during the Five Cities Election campaign. But Tsai Ing-wen is wrong in another sense. The Five Cities Elections are simply too important. The five cities are too populous. Their areas are too large. Their outcome of the Five Cities Elections is sure to affect the political strength of the Blue and Green camps. Most importantly, the Five Cities Elections cannot be compared to past county and municipal elections. Anyone who emerges victorious from them will be assured a place in the pantheon of power. Taipei, Xinbei City, and Kaohsiung City became essential stepping stones to the presidency during the last three presidential elections. Naturally, both ruling and opposition party candidates must answer for their own policy proposals.

Tsai Ing-wen's opponent is KMT nominee Chu Li-lun. In an interview with this newspaper, Chu cited some numbers that demonstrated the revelance of ECFA for local politics. Chu noted that Xinbei City was the beneficiary of a 35 billion NT increase in annual trade, and 13,000 additional job opportunities. The other four cities have also benefitted significantly from ECFA. That is why all three Kaohsiung mayoral candidates, Blue and Green alike, have expressed total or conditional support for ECFA.

Such expressions of support are an embarrassment for Tsai Ing-wen. After all, she is DPP Chairman. Article One in the DPP's literature for the Five Cities Election campaign is opposition to ECFA. The DPP's stand on ECFA has changed constantly. The DPP has gone from opposing ECFA to ignoring ECFA to demanding a referendum on ECFA. It has gone from instigating strident protests to beating a quiet retreat. The DPP's strategy is clear. Before July, ECFA was its main battlefield. After August, it withdrew from this battlefield. Before the third reading of ECFA, the DPP pummeled the KMT, relentlessly. The KMT is hardly about to let the DPP set the agenda and tempo of the election. The DPP waffled on ECFA. It was irresolute on cross-Strait policy. Of course the KMT is going to hit the DPP over the head with ECFA. Of course it will remind the public what the DPP's eight year long Closed Door Policy did to the nation.

In short, whether to bring up ECFA is a matter of election strategy. The Blue and Green camps each have their own game plan. Each plan has its own pros and its cons. For the moment it is hard to say which is better. The tempo of life on Taiwan is fast. Public opinion shifts rapidly. The moment ECFA underwent its third reading, the debate should have ended. The case should have been closed. Since the DPP no longer wishes to fight this on this battlefield, it must find a new battlefield. Fortunately for the DPP, it is an opposition party. It can address whatever topic it prefers. It can harp on the president's governing ability. It can question the cabinet's accomplishments. It can cast doubt on its opponent's qualifications and experience. Every one of these can become the target of its campaign rhetoric.

Every election ploy has weaknesses as well as strengths. For example, the Tsai Ing-wen campaign accused Chu LI-lun of leaving behind a deficit far larger than any previous Taoyuan County Chief. His debt allegedly approached the debt limit, and made it "nearly impossible" for his successor to "hammer out a budget." This is certainly a matter of public policy worth discussing. Xinbei City is not alone. The other four cities face similar situations. Over the twenty years since political liberalization, "construction loans" to local governments have become central government routine. Chu Li-lun admits leaving Taoyuan County with over 15 billion NT in debt. But during his eight years in office, the wealth in county coffers increased by more than 220 billion NT. The debt was purely for construction. Construction attracted financial resources. The public is hardly going to object.

The same was true for Su Tseng-chang, DPP candidate for mayor of Taipei. Su Tseng-chang was Taipei County Chief for eight years. He left behind hundreds of billions in debt. But Taipei County residents remain impressed. They consider Su Tseng-tsang a capable county chief who promoted local development. The Tsai Ing-wen campaign fired a shot. Alas, it failed to strike its target. If anything, many DPP officials with local government experience are shaking their heads, wondering how to respond.

No one likes negative campaigning. But in order to elect officials of integrity and ability, the candidates' records must be subjected to public scrutiny. Only then can the candidates win voter support. The candidates' records must be subjected to review, criticism, and suspicion. When interviewed by the media, Chu Li-lun offered a new framework for Xinbei City development. Does the DPP wish to wage a positive campaign? If so, rather than cast suspicion on the ability of its rival to set the agenda, it ought to offer its own policy blueprint.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.08.25
社論-五都選舉 民進黨施政藍圖在哪
本報訊

因應五都選戰,國民黨大打ECFA牌,民進黨主席、新北市長參選人蔡英文直斥,「他們又搞錯了!」蔡英文的論點是:五都終究是地方選舉,只有在總統、國會改選時,兩岸、外交才會成為重要議題。蔡英文的說法有對、也有錯,但不論對或錯,目前,民進黨和國民黨都沒提出統合五都的政黨政見,使選舉全面失焦;你罵你的、我批我的,誰也不理誰,選民根本無從就政見、政策或政績,做為評比投票的參考。

蔡英文的看法沒錯,五都不是中央選舉,沒什麼道理繞著中央議題跑;蔡英文錯的是,五都選舉從一開始就不只是地方選舉,因為五都選戰牽涉的都是天王級參選人,誰能勝出就是下一梯次接班的藍綠明星;甚至誰若落敗,就可能直取二○一二,成敗輸贏間還頗費周章。

蔡英文還有一點是對的,兩岸、外交通常都是總統、立委選舉時的議題,五都選舉根本不該拿出來做主打;蔡英文錯的是,因為五都太重要,不論就人口數或面積,年底五都戰績勢必牽動藍綠政黨版圖。當然,最重要的,還是因為五都已非過去單一縣市長選舉可以比擬,任何一都勝出者都將位列接班梯隊;北市、新北市和高雄市已經是最近三次總統大選逐鹿中央者的必要資歷,參選者不論朝野當然要對自己的重大政策主張負責。

蔡英文的對手、國民黨提名的新北市參選人朱立倫接受本報專訪時,直接以數據印證ECFA與地方事務的關連性。以新北市來說,每年因此增加的貿易額達三百五十億,增加一萬三千個就業機會,其他四都同樣將因兩岸簽署ECFA實際受惠。這也是為什麼高雄的三位參選人,不分藍綠都對ECFA表態支持、或有條件的支持。

蔡英文的尷尬只是因為她是民進黨主席。民進黨第一支五都文宣就是反ECFA;精準的說,民進黨對ECFA的態度一路轉進,從反對到不談反對只談公投;從發動抗爭到軟性撤守。民進黨的策略很清楚,七月之前以ECFA為主戰場,八月之後,就要從這個戰場撤離,ECFA三讀前一路挨打的國民黨,又怎麼可能輕易讓民進黨主導選戰議題、節奏?民進黨對ECFA的反覆、對兩岸政策的猶疑,當然是國民黨必須一路追打的主軸,並藉此不斷喚醒民眾對民進黨執政八年半鎖國的反感和排斥。

質言之,談不談ECFA都是選戰策略;藍綠各有各的盤算,談與不談的利弊得失,此刻還真的很難評估。台灣社會節奏極快,民意變化迅速,ECFA簽署後完成三讀的那一刻開始,這個話題在民意市場上,應屬「原則結案」的話題,民進黨既然決定不在這個戰場上纏鬥,就得另闢戰場。好處是,身為在野黨什麼話題都能談,從挑剔總統的能力、質疑內閣的政績、到批判對手過去的資歷經驗,無一不能成為帶動選戰議題的標靶。

不過,打選戰不可能只有利沒有弊。舉例而言,蔡英文競選總部嚴厲質疑朱立倫在桃園縣長任內,舉債遠遠超過歷任縣長,舉債逼近上限,讓繼任者「幾乎編不出預算」。這肯定是非常值得討論的公共政策,不只新北市,其他四都同樣面對類似狀況,因為政治開放廿多年,「舉債建設」幾乎是從中央到地方的基本施政理念。朱立倫不諱言,他卸任時桃園縣舉債多了一百五十億,但八年下來縣庫資產足足多了兩千兩百多億,舉債只要是建設,建設能帶進更多財源,沒有民眾會反對。

這個狀況,和民進黨台北市長參選人蘇貞昌在台北縣主政八年,留下上千億債務並無二致。台北縣民對蘇貞昌的舉債並無惡評,相反的,還認為蘇貞昌是有能力帶動地方發展的好縣長。蔡英文競選總部掀起的炮火,可想而知,又是打不到痛處,卻很有可能讓民進黨內有過許多地方執政經驗的黨公職搖頭嘆息,不知從何說起。

沒有人喜歡負面選舉,但選賢與能的過程中,必須提出實例,以爭取選民認同;檢討、批評和質疑,都是無可避免的,但當對手朱立倫接受媒體訪問,已經提出一套他對新北市建設發展輪廓時,民進黨若要帶動正面選戰,與其不斷懷疑對手的議題設定能力,不如提出自己的施政藍圖。

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Elinor Ostrom and Global Warming

Elinor Ostrom and Global WarmingUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2010

The Economic Daily News is part of the United Daily News Group. Its "2010 Masters Forum" opened today. Its guest of honor was Elinor Ostrom, last year's Nobel Laureate in Economics, a professor at Indiana University and the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for Economics. Climate change is a difficult problem. According to Ostrom, modern man's selfishness and greed have reached extremes. Modern man must reclaim his lost integrity, his sense of altruism and other moral and ethical ideals. He must address the pressing issue of global warming from the level of the individual. Modern man must cherish the shared environment and resources. Only then he talk of sustainable development.

In an exclusive interview with this newspaper, Ostrom said that we must all work together for our communities, large, medium, or small, and for the sustainable development of the globe as a whole. In particular, she championed the concept of community. Tribes, nations, and the world as a whole may be different in scale. But their members are all mutually interdependent. Only by understanding our mutual interdependence can we design a system for "us." Only then can we abandon struggles for advantage, share resources, and enjoy sustainable development.

Ostrom is powerfully committed to "common pool resources." She hopes to prove that the outlook for mankind is not as pessimistic as suggested by Professor Garrett Hardin in his 1968 publication, "The Tragedy of the Commons." The two professors have arrived at very different conclusions. Hardin believes that human greed and selfishness will inevitably lead to environmental tragedy. The traditional solution to this problem is external intervention, either forceful government management or privatization. Only these can prevent tragedy. Ostrom on the other hand, firmly believes in people's "capacity for self-governance." She also believes that public affairs should not always be turned over to the government to handle. That is why she designed a system of "collective action." Public affairs require public participation and public concern. Only through collective study and cooperation can one ensure management efficiency. This is particularly true for the management of natural resources, and is no different for the management of global resources as a whole. They require the participation of everyone on earth. Backroom deals by politicians simply will not do.

Ostrom stressed the concept of "community." When managing common pool resources one must not overlook the power of cultural constraints. Social trust and social consensus is a prerequisite for successful public policy. Common pool resources need not end in disaster or tragedy. Whatever size or scope, as long as members of a community recognize their mutual interdependence, we can begin with the individual and avoid disaster to our common pool resources.

The theme of this year's Masters Forum was "Climate Change and Global Governance." Ostrom proposed new solutions and new ways of thinking about the depletion of earth's natural resources, global warming, and wild fluctuations between droughts and floods. One need not wait for the leaders of each nation to issue binding action plans. One can begin now, starting with the individual. Each individual's experience can become teaching material for members of the "community." Honesty and ethics can replace selfishness and self interest, Only then can one solve these problems.

Ostrom notes that the management of common pool resources faces a major obstacle -- internationally binding agreements. The first of these was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming and control carbon emissions. Its ratification allowed each nation to continue polluting until the protocol took effect in February 2005. Disputes over national interests delayed progress in global carbon reduction. The Copenhagen summit late last year was even worse. It was supposed to establish legally binding carbon reduction standards for the post-Kyoto era, beginning in 2012. Who knew a huge summit with 13,000 attendees would achieve absolutely nothing.

This year, early in April, German Chancellor Angela Merkel convened a small-scale climate summit. She hoped to address the problems overlooked during the Copenhagen summit. To her surprise, her own summit was utterly ineffectual, It even foreshadowed the debacle of the 16th UNFCCC in Cancun, Mexico. The chaos did not end here. US President Barack Obama promised the international community he would pass a Climate Change Bill promoting domestic carbon reduction. This did not even clear Congress. Since the 1992 Earth Summit, global efforts to reduce carbon emissions have all come to naught.

All this confirms Ostrom's conviction that common pool resources can no longer be managed in a traditional top-down manner. Instead of listening as world leaders yammer on, it is better to step forward and take action. Ostrom's convictions are the result of extensive field experience accumulated during her 40 year long academic career. Her experience with fishing grounds, pastures, forests, groundwater, even management studies of police systems, in both developing and developed countries, has confirmed that people have a strong "capacity for self-governance." The ability to participate in public affairs is the key to avoiding disaster in common pool resources.

Ostrom's visit to Taiwan coincides with drama-filled local controversies over the management of common pool resources. Should the mudflats at the mouth of the Cho Shui Creek be devoted to Chinese white dolphins, or the petrochemical industry? Can we strike a balance between agricultural revitalization and industrial development? Taiwan is a major contributor to carbon emissions, both total and per capita. The establishment of a system for the declaration and verification of greenhouse gas reduction is pending within the Legislative Yuan. The government once led environmental protection. Now the public is becoming increasingly involved.

Public controversy indicates demand for change. We look forward to greater public action in response to global climate change. We look forward to changes in the governance of public affairs on Taiwan. We look forward to the impact of new thinking by Professor Ostrom.

歐斯壯開講:以人心美化來治療地球暖化
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.24 01:51 am

本報系經濟日報「2010大師論壇」今天登場,邀請到的大師是去年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主美國印第安那大學歐斯壯(Elinor Ostrom)教授,這位諾貝爾經濟學獎首位女性得主針對氣候變遷這一當前最棘手的問題,開出的藥方是:現代人貪婪自私已達於極點,應找回失落的誠信、利他等倫理道德,從自身做起參與解決嚴重的暖化問題,珍惜共有的環境、資源,才有永續可言。

誠如歐斯壯接受本報系專訪時致讀者的話:「為我們所有的社區,不管中或小、乃至全球社區的永續發展,一起共同努力。」她特別提出社區的概念,是認為不管是部落、國家乃至地球,雖然規模有別,但成員間須能找出相互依存的關係,才能設計出一套「我們的」制度,拋棄爭鬥算計,共享資源,永續發展。

歐斯壯致力「共有財的治理」研究,要證明人類前景並不若1968年哈丁教授發表「共有資源的悲劇」那麼悲觀。兩位教授結論殊異的關鍵是:哈丁認為人類貪婪、自私,造成竭澤而漁的局面是必然的;解決這個問題,傳統的思維是靠外來干預,例如交給政府強力管理,或私有化兩條路,才能阻止悲劇發生。歐斯壯則一直對人民「自我治理能力」有很強的信心,也認為公共事務本質不全然相同,並非都適合交給政府管理,因此設計出「人民參與」的制度,公共事務要人民參與、關心,一起學習、合作,才會創造出管理效率,這尤其適用在自然資源之類的共有財管理。全球格局的共有財亦然,必須要地球人都參與,靠政治人物密室交易是談不出結果的。

歐斯壯強調「社區」概念,認為管理共有財絕不能忽略其中文化制約的力量,源於社會互信形成的社會共識,是凝聚出成功公共政策的前提。共有財不必然走向災難或悲劇,不論規模、範圍大小,只要成員體認大家相互依存的關係,就會從自己做起,避免共有財災難發生。

今年大師論壇主題「氣候變遷與全球治理」,歐斯壯將針對地球自然資源枯竭、暖化造成非旱即澇氣候災難提出解決的新思維,不必等各國領袖談出具約束力的行動方案,而是現下從每個人動起,把各個人的經驗當成「社區」更多成員的學習素材,以誠信、利他的倫理取代自私自利,這樣才能解決問題。

歐斯壯的論述正指出此刻共有財管理的困境。就國際約束力的形成而言,先是遏止暖化、控制碳排放的京都議定書1997年通過,開放各國批准到跨過生效門檻已是 2005年二月,各國的利益糾葛,嚴重蹉跎全球的減碳行動;去年底哥本哈根峰會情況更糟,原本該訂出2012後京都時代具法律約束力的新減碳文件,未料一萬三千人的大會一事無成。

今年四月初,德國總理梅克爾邀集一個小規模的氣候峰會,想把哥城峰會後的紊亂局面先做修補,未料這個會毫不發生作用,甚至預告年底墨西哥坎昆舉行的氣候公約第十六次締約國大會已經破局。紊亂局面還不止此,美國歐巴馬總統向國際減碳宣示及推動國內減碳依據的氣候變遷法案,國會竟然不通過,讓1992年地球高峰會以來推動全球減碳的努力跌回原點。

這一切都證實歐斯壯的信念,共有財的管理不能再以傳統由上而下的思維面對,與其空等世界領袖談出對策,不如自身先做。歐斯壯的信念源自她四十餘年學術生涯太多的田野調查證據,不論漁場、草場、森林、地下水,乃至警察制度設計等的管理研究,在開發中或已開發國家,都確認人民有很強的「自我治理能力」,這個能力參與公共事務運作,是避免共有財災難的關鍵力量。

歐斯壯這趟台灣行,正值台灣社會共有財管理爭議最劇烈的一刻,濁水溪口泥質灘地該留給中華白海豚,或是石化工業?農地在興辦工業或農用間該怎麼權衡?碳排放台灣不管總量或人均,都是世界大戶,但牽涉到申報、盤查的制度面建設,溫室氣體減量法至今還在立法院待審;而環境保護的主導權過去在政府,現在也有越來越強人民參與的聲音。

爭議代表求變,不管是參與全球氣候變遷行動,或是調整台灣公共事務的治理制度,我們期待歐斯壯教授的新思維帶來關鍵的衝擊。

Monday, August 23, 2010

The DPP: Still Leading Taiwan with a Broken Compass

The DPP: Still Leading Taiwan with a Broken CompassUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2010


The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is about to announce its Platform for the Coming Decade, which will lay out its proposal for Taiwan's future during the next ten years. The platform contains an article on "ethnic diversity," (or more accurately, "community diversity"). But judging by its recently released draft version, the DPP remains deeply confused about its vision for Taiwan. If even the DPP itself does not know where it stands, how can it talk about where it intends to lead Taiwan?

In its article on "ethnic diversity," the DPP mentions "Hoklo Chauvinism." But it adopted a holier than thou attitude and "magnanimously forgave" Mainlanders for their "Original Sin." It concluded that "post-war immigrants from Mainland China should not be regarded as "foreigners" or "others." But what is this "I hereby pardon you" tone, other than the embodiment of Hoklo Chauvinism?

Cross-Strait exchanges have led to an influx of Mainland spouses, Mainland students, and Mainland tourists. Yet the DPP was deeply resistant to making this concession toward "post-war Mainland immigrants" who have been on Taiwan for over six decades. Clearly the DPP's problem is not the public's inability to show tolerance toward each other, but rather the DPP's own "Sinophobia."

This circumstance reveals how out of touch the DPP is with the public on Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party is presenting a Platform for the Coming Decade because it hopes to revive its shrinking public approval ratings by offering more "exalted" political appeals. But judging by its article on "ethnic diversity." the DPP thinks it can diagnose Taiwan's ills from on high. In fact the real problem is that the DPP is unable to make up its mind about what Taiwan's status ought to be. Its attempts to address the defects in its arguments merely show how many holes they contain.

The DPP has gradually lost touch with the public on Taiwan, for three reasons. One. It remains mired in nostalgia. It persists in polishing its halo as "democratic reformer." It is unwilling to earnestly address the failure of its administration and the defects in its political path. The fact is, eight years in power dramatically altered the public's perception of the DPP. It is digusted by Chen Shui-bian's corruption. It has also come to the conclusion that the Green Camp's political path will only make Taiwan wither on the vine. These are incontrovertible facts. But the DPP has remained silent. It has chosen to engage in self-deception. Meanwhile, the more successfully it appeases its Deep Green core supporters, the more it alienates the general public.

Two. The DPP is much too opportunistic. Its political calculations often ensure short term victory. But in the long term they merely expose the DPP's self-contradictory and disingenuous behavior. Frequent changes in political platform merely expose the DPP's "relativistic" tap-dancing, and the absence of any sustainable strategic framework. Eight years in power have revealed a gaping chasm between DPP rhetoric and DPP reality. The DPP is now rushing to weave a master narrative by which it can lead Taiwan. But lo and behold, it never bothered to ask the public what it really wants.

Three. The DPP has long "used the system to overthrow the system." It has long used the "recitification of names," public referenda, and the authoring of a new constitution to bolster itself. It has attempted to eat away the nation and society from within. It has induced the public to doubt its national identity and national loyalty. The DPP's loyalty is to a "future Nation of Taiwan." Its real purpose is to destroy the Republic of China. Why should voters allow imposters to rule the nation by using the Republic of China as a "backdoor listing?" When and where will their fictitious Nation of Taiwan come into existence? These are questions the DPP must answer in its Platform for the Coming Decade.

But judging by what it has done so far, the DPP's Platform for the Coming Decade has simply evaded the issue of national identity and constitutional structure. Instead, it begins by addressing "foreign relations," democracy, human rights, economics, and environmentalism. This is flagrant evasion. The DPP must first clarify its stand on national identity. Does it still advocate Taiwan independence and nation-building? Is it willing to reaffirm the Republic of China Constitution? Does it still advocate the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution? If so, then its platform will be nothing more than a UFO without navigation coordinates. If the DPP uses a broken compass to navigate, even it will have no idea where it is headed, How can it lead us in a new direction?

Every political party must find an appropriate niche within a society. It cannot arrogate to itself the leadership of "us," while stigmatizing others as "them." But that is precisely what the DPP did with its article on "ethnic diversity." It zeroed in on "ethnicity," while making no mention of the poor and underprivileged. It lacked even the literary eloquence it had a few years ago. Its resolution on "ethnic diversity and social unity" showed signs of inexorable generational decline. The DPP had better pay attention to these warning signs. If the DPP has the courage to look ten years into the future, it ought to have the wisdom to update its navigation devices. It should not attempt to take to the road with a broken compass.

民進黨還要用失效的羅盤指引台灣?
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.23 12:06 pm

民進黨即將發表十年政綱,就台灣未來十年發展提出綱領性主張。但從其近日發表的「多元族群」綱領初稿看,它對自己要站在什麼位置看台灣,其實仍有很深的迷惘。民進黨如果連自己的定位都無法掌握,如何奢談指引台灣的未來?

在族群綱領中,民進黨雖對其「福佬沙文主義」提出反省,但檢討的最後竟是以高高在上的「寬恕」姿態來承認外省族群作為總結,說「戰後中國大陸移民不應再被視為『外來他者』」。這種「我現在宣布赦免你」的口吻,豈不正是福佬沙文心態?

兩岸交流發展至今,陸配、陸生、陸客已絡繹於途,而民進黨對於要割捨一席之地予已來台一甲子以上的「戰後大陸移民」,竟還顯得如此艱澀。看來,嚴重的是民進黨的「反中恐懼症」,而不是島內族群無法相互融合尊重吧?

這個景象,反映出民進黨與台灣社會的時空錯位。民進黨之所以要提十年政綱,是希望藉由較具高度的治國論述重新吸引民眾認同;但端看這篇族群綱領,它自以為能凌空審視台灣社會的病徵,真正的問題卻是它自己找不到嵌入台灣的位置,乃至連修補論述漏洞都顯得左支右絀。

民進黨之所以漸與台灣社會脫節,主要原因有三:第一,仍耽溺在早年「民主改革者」的光暈中,不願真誠反省執政的失敗及路線的錯誤。事實上,經過執政八年,台灣人民對民進黨的印象和評價已經大大改觀;除了陳水扁的貪腐令人厭憎,綠營的務虛路線只會讓台灣走向萎弱,也是不爭的事實。但民進黨迄今對黨的錯誤路線仍避而不談,這是自欺欺人。然而,它越以「深綠基本盤」為滿足,也越使自己侷限一隅。

第二,民進黨投機性格濃厚,工於算計的本事雖往往使其在短期交鋒中取勝,但長期卻反暴露它的自相矛盾和言不由衷。頻繁地修改政綱,更看出民進黨只有「相對」的戰術調整,而缺乏「可長可久」的戰略架構。八年執政,人民已看出民進黨在雄辯與實踐之間的偌大差距;如今民進黨還在忙著編織大論述來指導台灣,卻忘了問一問人民真正想要的是什麼?

第三,民進黨一直以來「打著體制反體制」,利用正名、公投、制憲等手段來壯大自己,卻從內部耗蝕國家和社會,也讓民眾對其國家認同及國家忠誠深感懷疑。如果民進黨效忠的是一個「未來台灣國」,而其目的只是要消滅中華民國,那麼台灣人民為何要支持一個「借殼上市」的假冒者來主持國家大政?那個未知的國度又存在於什麼時空中?這是民進黨提出十年政綱時,自己必須先誠實回答的問題。

但是,以目前的進度看,民進黨草擬中的十年政綱,卻根本迴避了國家認同與憲法架構的問題,一開始就談「對外關係」,然後是民主、人權、經濟、環境等,這完全是避重就輕的作法。如若不能先確認該黨的國家定位(還要不要台獨建國?),不能確定憲法的架構(還要不要正名制憲?),這部政綱恐怕只是一個沒有座標的不明飛行物罷了。要用一個失效的羅盤來導航,恐怕連民進黨也不知道自己要飛到哪裡,那又如何指引大家走出新方向?

作為一個政黨,必須找到自己切入社會的適當位置,不能為了霸佔「我群」的名號,而任意將別人汙名化為「他者」;即以已公布的「族群多元」政綱言,且不說論述貧弱,甚至連文采都不如幾年前的「族群多元/社會一體」決議文,這種一代不如一代的徵象,恐怕是民進黨必須面對的警訊。民進黨若有勇氣前瞻未來十年,就請好好把自家的導航儀器調整更新一番,別帶著失靈的羅盤上路。

Friday, August 20, 2010

Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao: Mutual Affirmation

Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao: Mutual AffirmationUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 20, 2010

Taipei and Singapore have announced the intention to sign an economic agreement. The Presidential Office clarified, saying that Beijing respects Taipei's move to sign an economic agreement with Singapore. It has not attempted to block the move. Its pragmatic approach is consistent with Taiwan's interests, and "We aprove."

We hope future cross-Strait exchanges will be more like this. Cross-Strait interaction is undergoing change. If the two sides affirm what the other is doing more often, such mutual encouragement can promote "peaceful development."

Over the past two years, cross-Strait coopetition has undergone dramatic change. One might even refer it as a "change in the course of heaven and earth." Future historians will note that these two years were critical, and that Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao were the key figures. They have not betrayed their responsibilities. They have seized this precious opportunity. For that, they deserve affirmation.

A few years ago, such an opportunity would not have arisen. Back then, the setbacks the two sides had endured were not serious enough. The price the two sides had paid was not heavy enough. The soul-searching the two sides had undertaken was not thorough enough. That is why a few years ago such an opportunity would never have arisen. But now the setbacks endured have been serious enough, and the price paid has been heavy enough. The soul-searching was thorough enough. Otherwise we would not have wound up with Hu and Ma. This precious opportunity would have been lost. That is why Ma and Hu should each affirm what the other has done. Needless to say, Lien Chan's courageous and historic "ice-breaking journey" must also be given the credit it deserves.

Deng Xiaoping's "reform and liberalization" rescued the Mainland. His "one country, two systems" rescued the Mainland and Hong Kong. Hu Jintao's historical legacy will be that he, Lien Chan, and Ma Ying-jeou introduced "peaceful development," and allowed the two sides to enter an era of peaceful coopetition.

Hu Jintao's "peaceful development" overrode "one country, two systems" and "peaceful reunification." He did not of course forsake peaceful reunification per se. He merely framed it in a different manner. He and George W. Bush committed to "One China, Different Interpretations" on the Hotline. He modified the "One China Principle," and reframed it as "Although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they are nevertheless both parts of One China." He affirmed that "the status quo manifests itself in the current status of Taiwan's existing regulations and documents." His "Hu Six Points" repeatedly affirmed a "people-oriented" perspective. He made major concessions regarding ECFA. He refrained from obstructing an economic agreement between Taipei and Singapore. Through a Mainland Defense Ministry spokesman, he announced a willingness to discuss the withdrawal of missiles. These actions show that Hu Jintao has refrained from using force. He has refrained from inciting civil unrest on Taiwan. Instead he has attempted to dialogue with the public on Taiwan and to promote cross-Strait "peaceful development." To be fair, such an opportunity was hardly inevitable. This path is not necessarily one that another leader in Beijing could have managed. President Hu Jintao's individual temperament and intellect may well have been a decisive factor.

The two sides are moving toward "peaceful development." This is often interpreted as "Beijing believes it can use economics to control Taiwan, while Taipei realizes it cannot economically separate itself from the Mainland." Some interpret the current cross-Strait economic situation as the anomalous result of economic pressure. Is this in fact the case? The answer will be an important determinant in the final evaluation of Hu Jintao's cross-Strait path. Everyone agrees that cross-Strait relations is a case of "the powerful must be benevolent when dealing with the weak." In other words, Beijing is powerful. It must not resort to trickery to achieve victory. So-called "benevolence" means seeing cross-Strait relations as a moral and civilizational enterprise. It must not be reduced to a case of "Who gobbles up whom?"

Deng Xiaoping had a moral vision for Hong Kong. Although the Mainland could not be made as free and democratic as Hong Kong in the near term, the Mainland would not destroy Hong Kong by imposing "One Country, One System" on Hong Kong. Today, when confronting Taiwan, Hu Jintao and his successors can hardly do less than Deng Xiaoping. Otherwise they would be turning the clock back. Not only would it be heartless, it would be unwise.

Therefore, Hu Jintao's "peaceful development" deserves affirmation. But its final success or failure must not depend on economic appeasement. It must not depend on political trickery. It must depend upon a moral vision of human civilization shared by the Chinese people on both sides of the Strait. Therefore Hu Jintao's record so far deserves affirmation. But difficult challenges remain ahead of him.

Ma Ying-jeou's record on cross-Strait relations can perhaps be best described using his own words, "silent courage." It is said that "the weak must be resourceful when dealing with the powerful." But the fact remains the weaker one is, the less room for resourcefulness one has. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian can testify to this. Therefore the Republic of China's survival may well depend upon the aforementioned principle, "the powerful must be benevolent when dealing with the weak." Benevolence is the practical expression of morality and civility. The morality and civility of the Republic of China's liberal democracy is its greatest strength. If Ma Ying-jeou can take advantage of this strength, he and the public on Taiwan can inspire the public on the Mainland and around the world. He can ensure that cross-Strait relations do not turn back from "peaceful development."

The two sides must be benevolent when dealing with each other. Being benevolent means being "people-oriented." It means pursuing a moral vision of human civilization shared by the Chinese people on both sides of the Strait. It means the two sides affirming each other, not hesitating to encourage one another, It means steady progress towards a win-win symbiosis.

馬英九與胡錦濤有可相互肯定之處
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.20 02:32 am

台星宣布研簽經濟協議,總統府發表聲明強調:中國大陸尊重台灣推動與新加坡洽簽經濟協議,並未介入阻撓,這是務實且符合台灣利益的作法,「我們表示肯定」。

我們期望,兩岸當局的對話,能常見這類語言。在兩岸互動轉型階段,雙方若能經常相互肯定,相互鼓勵,對於「和平發展」的推進必有裨益。

兩年來,兩岸在競合關係上的變化,可以用「旋轉乾坤」四字形容,未來的歷史將記載,這兩年是關鍵的兩年,而馬英九與胡錦濤則是關鍵的兩個人物,他們都沒有辜負這一場難能可貴的機遇,值得肯定。

倘若早幾年,不會出現此種機遇。因為,那時兩岸互動經歷的挫折還不夠大,兩岸付出的代價還不夠重,因此兩岸的反省也不夠徹底;所以,早幾年不會出現這種機遇。但是,即使挫折夠大,代價夠重,倘若不是反省夠徹底,不是剛好碰上馬胡二人,這一場難能可貴的機遇也可能會被白白錯失。所以,馬胡二人確有許多可以相互肯定之處。當然,連戰的破冰也功不可沒。

若謂鄧小平的「改革開放」救了大陸,「一國兩制」救了大陸與香港,則胡錦濤未來在歷史上的主要記載,可能是他與連戰、馬英九以「和平發展」將兩岸帶向一個較可期待的競合關係。

胡錦濤以「和平發展」凌駕「一國兩制/和平統一」(他未放棄和平統一),且在胡布熱線中承諾「一中各表」,並將「一個中國的原則」轉向「雖然尚未統一/仍是一個中國」、「現狀即是見之於台灣現行規定及文件的現狀」,且在「胡六點」中反覆呈現「以人為本」的觀點,又在ECFA中大量「讓利」,不阻撓台星協議,更透過其國防部發言人宣稱可討論撤飛彈……。這些動作顯示,胡錦濤沒有選擇武力壓迫的路徑,也沒有採取操弄台灣內亂的路徑,而是嘗試以與台灣人民對話的方法來引導兩岸「和平發展」。持平而論,這樣的機遇並非必然發生,而這樣的路徑亦非任何一位中共領導人所能操持,所以不能謂胡錦濤的個人胸懷與氣質不是關鍵因素。

兩岸走向「和平發展」,常被視作是因「北京認為在經濟上制得住台灣/台灣則認知在經濟上離不開大陸」所致。所以,也有人視兩岸當前只是因經濟壓力所形成的畸形結合;是否如此,這也將是最後評價胡錦濤兩岸路線的重要標尺。眾人皆曰:兩岸關係「大事小以仁」;這是說,北京大,即不能以權謀詐術取勝;而所謂的「仁」,是將兩岸關係視為一種道德實踐與文明憧憬。亦即,最後不是「誰吃掉誰」,而是看最後兩岸能夠在民族道德及人類文明上共同實現如何的境界。對於香港,鄧小平在道德及文明上的實踐是:大陸自知暫做不到香港如此自由民主,但大陸不會強求一國一制而毀了香港。如今,胡錦濤及其後繼者面對台灣,不能表現不如鄧小平。否則,反其道而行,非但不仁,尤屬不智。

因此,前述胡錦濤「和平發展」的種種作為,是值得肯定的。但其最後成敗,卻無可能僅取決於經濟懷柔,更絕無可能取決於權謀詐術,而要看能使兩岸關係在民族道德及人類文明上臻至何種境界。就此以論,胡錦濤迄至現今的表現固可肯定,但懸在他前面的考驗仍是艱巨重大無比。

馬英九在兩岸關係的表現,或可謂緣於他自己所說的「沉默的魄力」。雖曰「小事大以智」,其實,愈弱小,智謀權術的操弄空間愈小,李扁二人即是前車之鑑;因而,台灣的生存憑藉反而可能也是「小事大亦以仁」。如前所述,「仁」即是道德實踐及文明憧憬,而台灣的自由民主體制即是最有力的道德與文明。馬英九若能將自由民主的優勢有效表達,而台灣人民亦能共同協力發揮自由民主的美善,即可使對岸及世人受到感應,從而可確保兩岸關係朝「和平發展」的方向邁進,不會走回頭路。

「兩岸相事以仁」,仁就是「以人為本」,相互促進對於民族道德實踐與人類文明憧憬有共同的追求;讓兩岸不吝相互肯定,不吝相互鼓勵,朝向雙贏共生的方向穩步前進。

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Make a Star out of Kaohsiung, not Singapore

Make a Star out of Kaohsiung, not SingaporeUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2010

On Taiwan, Singapore has suddenly become a star. It has become the theme of the five cities mayoral elections.
Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County are being merged into one, and will hold its first mayoral election. Three camps are scrambling to transform Kaohsiung into another Singapore. The most dramatic of these was Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing, who quit the DPP and during his swearing-in ceremony declared his intention of transforming Kaohsiuing into another Singapore. The media splashed this news across their front pages. In fact Yang Chiu-hsing was merely following in the footsteps of KMT candidate Huang Chao-shun. The week before, at one of his rallies, Huang cited "surpassing Singapore" as his primary goal. Not to be outdone, another candidate, the DPP's Chen Chu, claimed she had already begun planning for a special economic and trading zone, with Singapore as her template.

Estimates for Singapore's economic growth this year begin at 13 percent, and run as high as 15 percent. Among those countries that have made strong recoveries from the global financial crisis, Singapore's has been especially noteworthy.

In recent years many people have called for a totally free "special economic and trading zone." They hope to transform Taiwan into an "island of freedom." They hope to persuade multinationals to establish operational headquarters and operations centers here. Special economic and trading zones share one fundamental trait. They are invariably situated within the freest and most open nations of the world. They take maximum advantage of their freedom and openess to achieve superior competitiveness. Among Asia's Four Little Dragons, Singapore's record is the most enviable. Singapore's per capita income is over twice as high as as Taiwan's.

The government has already created a dazzling variety of SARs. These range from the early "export processing zones" to the latest "free trade zones." Therefore people trumpet "special economic and trading zones," others cannot help wondering, why so many special zones? Why so much redundancy? Some even wonder whether special economic and trading zones are being tailor-made specifically for sweatshops such as Foxconn. Is the gap between wages for foreign workers in SARs and the minimum wage merely for the benefit of Taiwan businesses? Is it merely so they can use cheaper foreign labor? Such endless suspicions are difficult to rebut. But a simple answer is enough: "Create a New Singapore!"

Industries in Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County are withering. Unemployment is at record highs. From Kaohsiung's perspective, such a remedy is just what the doctor ordered. Whatever Singapore has, Kaohsiung has in equal measure. For example, it has an outstanding deep-water port, a pleasant climate all year round, wide expanses of fertile land, a hard-working, frugal, down to earth Chinese population. Greater Kaohsiung has no defects that would prevent her from becoming another Singapore. But for a long time, Kaohsiung was trapped behind an array of trade barriers. It blockaded itself from developments on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. This made it difficult for Kaohsiung to become another Singapore. Even worse, it demoted Kaohsiung from the 3rd largest port in the world to the 13th.

Singapore's governance ranks first in the world. Kaohsiung's city fathers, on the other hand, encased themselves within ideological cocoons. They remained indifferent to the people's desire for growth and prosperity. Everything in Singapore, from its national airport to its public housing, is beautiful and orderly. Kaohsiung on the other hand, remains chaotic and confused. The contrasts are endless. But they can be summed up simply. Singapore's government cares. Ours doesn't.

ECFA has opened Taiwan's doors. In the coming years, it will open itself up to the world. It will remove trade barriers. We are finally doing what Singapore has been doing for the past 30 years. We have finally removed the chains that prevented Taiwan from keeping up with Singapore. Consider this a starting point. Consider our objective circumstances. Greater Kaohsiung has the same natural resources as Singapore. It too can be transformed into a beautiful and pleasant city. Its infrastructure, central business district, and architecture can be raised to the same international standard. These, combined with its unique cultural characteristics, its human resources, its natural beauty, and its leisure facilities, can create an attractive residential and business environment. Kaohsiung will catch up with Singapore. It will also benefit from greater proximity to Mainland China's coastal areas. This will enable it to surpass Singapore.

Perhaps one day people will not talk about how "Kaohsiung hopes to become another Singapore." Perhaps one day the inhabitants of East Asian ports will talk about how they "hope to become another Kaohsiung!"

We have made a star of Singapore. How can we make a star of Kaohsiung? This is not impossible. Lest we forget, Kaohsiung was once the world's third largest port. Kaohsiung's rebirth will mark Taiwan's transformation.

要有捧紅新加坡不如捧紅高雄的志氣
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.19 03:14 am

新加坡忽然在台灣暴紅,成為年底五都選戰的焦點。

高雄市縣合併選舉第一任市長,三組人馬都爭著要讓高雄新加坡化。最富戲劇性的,當屬脫離民進黨的高雄縣長楊秋興,在其誓師大會中,高喊高雄要成為新加坡第二,被媒體以斗大的標題放在一版頭條。然而,楊秋興的口號顯然仿效自國民黨候選人黃昭順;因為一周之前,黃在其造勢大會中即以「超越新加坡」做為主要訴求。另一位候選人,民進黨的陳菊也不甘示弱,隨即宣稱已開始規劃設置以新加坡為藍本的經貿特區。

新加坡今年預估全年經濟成長率可高達十三%乃至十五%,在強自要從金融海嘯的創傷中掙扎再起的全球各國之中,表現格外亮眼。

其實,近年來不少有心人不斷鼓吹以全面自由開放的「經貿特區」,迎向台灣成為「自由島」的憧憬,並藉以廣招跨國企業投資設置營運總部、運籌中心;而經貿特區的基本輪廓,正是在全球各國中自由開放程度最高,且最善於利用其自由開放特色創造高人一等的競爭力,成為亞洲四小龍中最令人稱羨、每人所得高逾台灣兩倍的新加坡。

台灣已經設置了令人眼花撩亂的各種特區,從早期的「加工出口區」到最新的「自由貿易港區」,林林總總,不一而足;因而當鼓吹設置「經貿特區」時,不免有人質疑,已有這許多特區,何必再疊床架屋?甚至有人譏諷道:經貿特區難道是為了讓富士康之類的血汗工廠回流而特別量身打造?特區中的外勞薪資是否將與基本工資脫鉤,以利台商運用更廉價的外勞?這類完全從負面觀點出發,在細節上糾纏不休的質疑,的確會令人唇焦舌敝也難以回應。但一個簡單的答案即足以解說一切:「打造一個新加坡!」

這個答案對百業凋零、失業率名列前茅的高雄縣市而言,尤其對症無比,有如量身訂做。凡新加坡有的,高雄都有,諸如:傲視群倫、條件無與倫比的深水大港;一樣四季宜人的氣候;廣闊平坦、土地肥沃的自然環境;勤奮努力、節儉樸實的「華人」;大高雄可謂沒有任何缺陷能阻止她成為新加坡。但長久以來,高雄深陷於層巒疊障的貿易壁壘之中,又特別自我封鎖於海峽彼岸的蓬勃發展之外;這不僅讓高雄難望新加坡項背,而且坐視高雄港從全球前三名直落到十三名。

新加坡的治理能力全球第一,而高雄的治理者卻迄仍以意識形態作繭自縛,對人民求之若渴的發展與繁華則置之度外;新加坡從機場到住宅,處處美輪美奐、井然有序;高雄則蕪雜脫序、混亂無章。這樣的對比不勝枚舉,但可一言以蔽之:新加坡政府用心,而我們的政府則心不在焉。

如今,ECFA為台灣敲開了自由開放的大門,數年之間,將對全球自由開放、摒絕種種貿易壁壘,我們終於趕上了新加坡三十多年來的腳步,解除了台灣向新加坡看齊的最重大枷鎖。若以此為起點,先從外在環境下手,將天然環境與新加坡無殊的大高雄,也打造成同樣花團錦簇、美麗宜人的都市;將基礎設施、商圈、建築的水準提升到國際水準;結合文化特色、人文素養、天然美景、休閒設施,打造出宜人的生活空間、優美的經商環境;高雄不僅會趕上新加坡,而且挾其緊擁大陸沿海精華地區的優勢,輕易即可超越新加坡。

若是到了那一天,也許就再也聽不到「高雄要變成第二個新加坡」的說法,而可望見到東亞的海港說:「我們要變成第二個高雄!」

捧紅新加坡,何如捧紅高雄?這不是不可能,別忘了高雄畢竟曾是世界第三大港;當高雄再崛起之時,也就是台灣脫胎換骨的信號。

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

From Li Ruihuan to Li Yafei: The Presidential News Boycott 18 Years Ago

From Li Ruihuan to Li Yafei:The Presidential News Boycott 18 Years Ago
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2010

Li Yafei is Deputy Chairman of the Mainland Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS). On the 11th of this month, while in Taipei, Li publicly stated that the basis of cross-Strait mutual trust is opposition to Taiwan independence and a defense of the 1992 Consensus.

To the best of our recollection, this is the first time a Mainland official has ever publicly expressed "opposition to Taiwan independence" on Taiwan soil. This can be regarded as a milestone in cross-Strait interaction.

From the perspective of Taiwan independence advocates, Li Yafei's action was tantamount to breaking into their house and spitting in their face. Logically speaking it should have provoked a powerful reaction. But the general public treated Li Yafei's declaration of "opposition to Taiwan independence" in a matter of fact fashion. Even the DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups acted as if they hadn't heard it. They failed to utter a single protest, and remained dead silent.

Think back 18 years. On October 29, 1992, CCP Politbureau Standing Committee Member Li Ruihuan was in Beijing, addressing visiting members of the Chinese language media. He declared that Mainland China would not sit by and watch Taiwan declare independence. It would resort to any means to prevent it. Even if it meant blood sacrifices. It would fight to the end. It would spare no expense. The next day over a dozen newspapers on Taiwan faithfully reported his remarks. Who knew a few days later then president Lee Teng-hui would personally spearhead an all out newspaper boycott, the first since democracy was instituted on Taiwan.

On November 11, President Lee Teng-hui, Chairman of the Kuomintang, spoke before the Central Standing Committee. He said "After a certain reporter returned, he wrote a terrifying news story that Intimidated our people." The newspaper Lee Teng-hui was referring to was the United Daily News. The president clearly knew that over a dozen different newspapers faithfully reported Li's remarks. But he deliberately singled out the United Daily News. A few days later, Lee Teng-hui met with a number of Taiwan independence pressure groups, and again referred to the United Daily News. He said "I no longer read that newspaper. Do you?" It was then that Lee Teng-hui initiated the "newspaper subscription cancellation movement" or "newspaper boycott."

The president masterminded an all out, overwhelming, take no prisoners newspaper boycott. The DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups provided the muscle. Political mud flew through the air, accusing the United Daily News of "tilting toward [Mainland] China," of being the "mouthpiece of the CCP," of being the "Taiwan Edition of the People's Daily," of being "Communist fellow travelers." Mass rallies were held everywhere, urging people to cancel their subscriptions. Copies of the United Daily News were piled high then set alight. Movement members attached stickers onto people's mailboxes reading, "Our house does not read the United Daily News." Some stores would not even allow the United Daily News on their racks. Some airlines removed the United Daily News from their inflight reading bins. Some businesses were intimidated into withdrawing their ads from the United Daily News. The sole justification cited for this all out, overwhelming, take no prisoners presidential newspaper boycott was that the United Daily News, like all the other newspapers on Taiwan, truthfully reported Li Ruihuan's "opposition to Taiwan independence" remark.

Lee Teng-hui and Taiwan independence pressure groups intensified their campaign of repression against the media. They set up an "Advertisers Association" and used ad sales to suppress freedom of expression. The President's son-in-law Lai Kuo-chou was made Secretary-General of the Press Council. As we recall that day 18 years later, who could have imagined that "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui would consign the media on Taiwan to a living hell?

Recall this day 18 years ago. Li Ruihuan spoke of "opposition to Taiwan independence." A newspaper accurately reported Li's remarks. Lee Teng-hui, the DPP, and Taiwan independence pressure groups responded by subjecting the newspaper to a terror campaign. Eighteen years later, Li Yafei is invited to Taipei, the guest of a Taipei-based newspaper. He stood on Taiwan soil. He "broke into the house" and openly declared "opposition to Taiwan independence." Why have the DPP and Taiwan independence pressure groups pretended not to hear? More to the point, why has Lee Teng-hui pretended not to hear? Why are they silent? Is it because they agree with Li Yafei? Or is it that the public on Taiwan no longer agrees with them?

Another fact is equally interesting. The newspaper that invited Li Yafei to Taiwan and provided him with the podium on which he declared "opposition to Taiwan independence," was one of the newspapers that fanned the flames of the newspaper boycott 18 years ago. Never mind that they too published Li's remarks, on the front page. Never mind that 18 years ago they were accused of being "capitalist bandits" and "traitors to Taiwan." Today, 18 years later, these media moguls have the wherewithal to sponsor large scale cross-Strait fora. They are major players in cross-Strait "peaceful development." The 18 year difference truly is ironic. Accused "capitalist bandits" became key figures on both Taiwan and the Mainland. The supermarkets that refused to display copies of the United Daily News on their racks became giant supermarket chains with stores on both Taiwan and the Mainland. The airline which removed the United Daily News from its inflight reading bins became an aggressive advocate of cross-Strait exchanges. The Democratic Progressive Party, Taiwan independence pressure groups, and Lee Teng-hui once went berserk and persecuted the United Daily News, merely for printing Li Ruihuan's remark about "opposition to Taiwan independence." Today Li Yafei throws "opposition to Taiwan independence" in their faces. Yet they listen in silence. That was then. This is now.

Think back 18 years, to the presidential newspaper boycott movement. Lee Teng-hui conspired with Taiwan independence pressure groups. Together they used state power to hijack public opinion. But this was also the reason they eventually reached a dead end. Lee Teng-hui conspired with Taiwan independence pressure groups and the Democratic Progressive Party. They used smears such as "Communist sympathizers" "Communist mouthpieces" to block the free flow of information and restrict diversity of thought. They ripped the nation apart. They froze social dialogue. They traumatized the nation. They enabled Lee Teng-hui successor Chen Shui-bian to impose a Closed Door Policy on Taiwan, bringing the Republic of China economy to the brink of ruin.

Lee Teng-hui was ostensibly runhappy with the United Daily News. In fact the Li Ruihuan news article was merely a convenient pretext. During Lee Teng-hui's 12 year reign, he engaged in black gold corruption and destroyed the ROC Constitution. United Daily News criticisms provoked his hatred and enmity. Who today does not know that the nation's constitution was destroyed by Lee Teng-hui?

United Daily News founder Wang Ti-wu said "A president has a term limit. A newspaper does not." A president can in a fit of apoplexy, launch a newspaper boycott campaign. But history will eventually return to reason. Lee Teng-hui, the DPP, and Taiwan independence pressure groups may burn newspapers. But can they burn history?

從李瑞環到李亞飛:回視18年前的「總統退報運動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.18 10:26 am

本月11日,大陸海協會副會長李亞飛在台北公開指出,兩岸的互信基礎是反對台獨與堅持九二共識。

印象中,這是大陸官員首次在台灣公開表示「反對台獨」,可視為兩岸互動的一個里程碑。

照理說,對台獨人士言,李亞飛這個動作不啻是「侵門踏戶」的唾面之辱,理應給予強烈反擊。但是,對於李亞飛「反對台獨」四字,非但台灣主流社會似乎認為理所當然,甚至連民進黨及台獨社團亦好像有聽沒有到,未吭一聲,噤若寒蟬。

回憶拉到18年前。1992年10月29日,中共中央政治局常委李瑞環在北京對往訪的華文媒體說:中國大陸絕對不會坐視台灣獨立,將用任何方法來阻止,即使流血犧牲、前仆後繼,也在所不惜……。次日,台灣當時的十幾家報紙皆如實刊登了這個消息;不料,幾天以後,竟然爆發了台灣民主憲政史上一場由總統親身主導的鋪天蓋地的「退報運動」。

11月11日,總統李登輝以國民黨主席身分在中常會上說:「某某報記者回來之後,寫了一篇可怕的報導,恫嚇了我們的老百姓。」李登輝口中的「某某報」,是指聯合報;他雖明知十幾家報紙皆同樣如實地報導了李瑞環的談話,但只挑明了針對聯合報。數日後,李登輝與若干台獨元老會面又論及聯合報說:「我已經不看那個報紙了,你們還看嗎?」於是,李登輝這就吹響了「退報運動」的衝鋒號。

一場由總統發動及主導的鋪天蓋地、穿肌刺骨的「退報運動」於焉爆開,民進黨及台獨團體是操作的主力。政治血滴子漫天飛旋,指聯合報「向中國傾斜」,是「中共的傳聲筒」、「人民日報的台灣版」、「中共的同路人」。鼓動「退報」的群眾集會四處密集舉行,成堆的聯合報在台上被焚燒,家戶的信箱上被運動者貼上「我家不看聯合報」的貼紙,有些超商不容聯合報上架,有些航空公司在班機上撤去聯合報,企業被脅迫不可在聯合報上刊登廣告……。這場總統發動的鋪天蓋地的退報運動,穿肌刺骨的退報運動,原因只緣於聯合報當時與所有報紙一樣,如實報導了李瑞環「反對台獨」的談話。

後來,李登輝與台獨社團對媒體的壓制愈演愈烈,發動企業主成立了「廣告主協會」,用廣告箝制言論自由,總統女婿賴國洲則成了新聞評議會的秘書長…。在18年後的今日回憶那一段過程,誰能相信那竟然是由「民主之父」李登輝主持操作下的媒體煉獄!

回到18年後的今天。18年前,李瑞環在北京「反對台獨」,李登輝、民進黨及台獨社團竟如此對待一家如實報導的報紙;18年後,李亞飛則是台北一家報紙邀來的賓客,站在台灣的土地上「侵門踏戶」地公開宣示「反對台獨」。試問:民進黨及台獨社團為何佯裝沒聽到?李登輝更為何佯裝沒聽到?你們的噤聲不語,究竟是你們同意了李亞飛,還是知道台灣主流社會不再同意你們?

同樣耐人尋味的是,這次邀請李亞飛來台灣宣示「反對台獨」的媒體,18年前也曾幫著「退報運動」煽風點火;儘管他們自己當時也在一版頭條刊登了李瑞環的談話。而且,18年前一名被誣為「資匪」、「台奸」的台商,如今在18年後成了這家媒體的老闆,舉行盛大的兩岸論壇,扮演兩岸「和平發展」的要角。前後18 年,此一時、彼一時,真是歷史的反諷。「資匪者」變成兩岸要角,拒聯合報上架的超商成了兩岸鉅子,撤去聯合報的航空公司成了兩岸交流的積極擁護者;所以,也就難怪曾因李瑞環「反對台獨」而瘋狂迫害聯合報的民進黨、台獨團體及李登輝,如今面對李亞飛「反對台獨」四字噴濺到臉上的唾沫,竟然也就聽其自乾,噤若寒蟬。此一時,彼一時,不是嗎?

如今回顧18年前的那場「總統退報運動」,可知李登輝與台獨社團的結合,是他挾持政權及壓制社會的主要力量;這也是使得他最後在內外走投無路的主因。李登輝結合民進黨及台獨社團,欲用「中共同路人」、「中共傳聲筒」等血滴子,來封殺自由的資訊及多元思維的相對批判,撕裂了國家,凍結封殺了社會辯證,最後終於重創了國家,也使李登輝及後繼的陳水扁帶著台灣一起走上鎖國誤國的絕路。

李登輝對聯合報不悅,其實李瑞環的報導只是他信手拈來的「莫須有」的藉口而已;李登輝12年執政的黑金毀憲,在聯合報同步對其批判的同時亦被他仇視為異端,但如今全國有一人不知憲法已被李登輝所毀嗎?

聯合報創辦人王惕吾先生說:「總統有任期/報紙無任期」。總統可以瘋狂發動退報運動,但歷史的理性仍將漸次彰顯展露;李登輝、民進黨及台獨社團只會燒報紙,你們能燒歷史嗎?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Judicial Self-Management Requires Judicial Self-Discipline

Judicial Self-Management Requires Judicial Self-DisciplineUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2010

The Judicial Yuan has suspended three judges for influence-peddling and judicial misconduct. They have been handed over to the Control Yuan for prosecution, in the hope that the reputation of the justice system can be salvaged. The justice system has recently been plagued by one disease after another. The root of the problem is the failure of "judicial self-management." This failure has even cast doubt on the desirability of judicial independence. Clearly it is time to rethink judicial reform.

In 1995, a Taichung District Court judge refused to submit his verdict to the executive branch for approval. His action touched off a judicial independence movement. Since then the decisions of judges no longer require prior approval. The judiciary was fully liberated from executive interference. Eventually judges won the right to appoint personnel and assign cases, all under the banner of judicial independence. Judicial self-management took a giant step forward. Administrative oversight however, took a giant leap backward.

Fifteen years later, repeated incidents of judicial misconduct, judicial transgressions, and judicial dereliction of duty have shown that judicial self-management has resulted only in corruption and decadence.

Judge Yang Bing-long's rulings were often penned by his assistant. His office often stood empty. His status as an antiques expert nearly eclipsed his status as a judge. A High Court judgeship is not a sinecure. That Judge Yang could live the way he did, testifies to the failure of judicial oversight.

High Court Judge Kao Yu-shun came forward as a whistleblower. He blew the whistle on Supreme Court Judge Hsiao Ying-kui, who tried to influence the outcome of his son's hit and run case. When a judge's son becomes a defendant, why can his father intercede on his behalf? Why can a trial judge get away with doing favors for friends? Why are judges concerned about offending their colleagues? Why do judges "look after their own?" Why do judges go along and engage in legal sophistry? Why are judges unafraid of the "court of public opinion," but afraid of the ostensibly impartial justice system? Trial judges unthinkingly exchange the public good for personal interest. They undermine public confidence in the justice system by doing it system harm.

Judges luxuriate in judicial independence. But they have failed to demonstrate self-responsibility or self-respect. Therefore a judge's assistant can suddenly become a judge, He can suddenly become the prime mover behind a judicial ruling. Yet the court carries on as if nothing is wrong. A judge can bungle a case. He can commit glaring errors. But as long he does not engage in corruption or accept bribes, the courts look the other way.

When judges are assigned cases, judges with seniority are assigned civil cases, whereas judges with less experience are forced to preside over complex criminal cases. A new batch of "10,000 year judges" has settled in, and judges are assigned on the basis of seniority rather than ability. Judicial self discipline has gone out the window. But the Personnel Review Commission frets more about the rights of judges than their obligations. It worries more about judges than defendants. So-called "judicial independence" has evaporated. These are signs of degeneration. But judicial authorities merely turn a blind eye.

The credibility of the justice system has been severely damaged. It cannot withstand any more blows to its reputation. Fifteen years ago, judges spoke out. They asked everyone to believe them when they said they would manage themselves. The results have proven otherwise. The fact is, judicial independence is only possible with judicial self-respect. If judges lack self-respect, so-called judicial independence will merely provide unscrupulous people with more room to maneuver.

The Cheng Chi Project is courageously trying to clean house. Judges can begin freeing themselves from systemic peer pressure. This is a sign of judicial self-awareness. It is an opportunity for judges to prove themselves to outsiders. Will this opportunity lead to a renewal? That depends on the judges, on whether they follow through on what they have begun.

Judges must set ethical standards for themselves. They must demand moral rectitude and right conduct. They must institute rigorous oversight. They must not permit influence peddling to insinuate itself into the system. They must impose self-discipline. They must distinguish between right and wrong. They must not discriminate between high and low. Special laws for the impeachment of judges have yet to be passed. Until they are, the Civil Service Disciplinary Committee must play a disciplinary role and eliminate unfit judges.

People have yet to regain their faith in judicial self-management. Until they do, executive and other forms of oversight must be restored. Judges must be assigned cases based on the requirements of the trial in question. Long delayed cases must go forward. A review mechanism must be established. Indolent and corrupt judges must be removed from office. External oversight of individual cases must be provided. This will help judges resume their duties as trial judges.

The justice system is in trouble. If Acting President Hsieh Chai-chuan's only goal is to hold the line, he will forsake a rare opportunity for reform. Fifteen years ago, as fate would have it, Hsieh was President of the Taichung District Court. He was unable to deal with the judge who refused to submit to prior approval. This set off a wave of reform. One might say that Hsieh was and is a victim of fate.

Is he a victim of fate? Is this historical irony? The justice system is in decline. We must remind judges that 15 years ago, the public sided with the judges when they demanded the elimination of executive interference. The public yearned for a professional and independent trial system. But if judges become indolent, judicial self-managemtn will degenerate. The trial system will cease functioning, and public trust will be lost.

President Ma Ying-jeou must swiftly appoint a new Judicial Yuan President, one who understands the lesson of history. The new Judicial Yuan President must boldly eliminate the defects within the system. He must help judges reestablish self-discipline and self-management. He must oversee the system. Only then can judges once again hold their heads up high and proudly proclaim, "I am a judge."

「法官自治」必須「法官自律」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.17 01:45 am

司法院將三名涉及關說、行為失檢的法官停職,移送監察院追究責任,期以挽救急墜的司法聲譽。司法近來如得瘟疫,百病齊發,究其病根,都指向「法官自治」的功能淪喪,甚至動搖了審判獨立。顯然,司法改革已到了必須重新思考調整方向的關鍵期。

民國八十四年,台中地方法院法官發起拒絕判決書送閱運動,自此判決無須經過首長審閱即能出門,司法行政權徹底退出了對審判權的干涉。爾後,法官更進一步爭取在人事、事務分配上的各項權力,在「審判獨立」的大纛下,法官自治躍進,行政監督急退。

然而,十五年後的今天,法官接連的失德、失格、失職表現,不啻將法官實施自治後累積的陳腐敗壞,逐一揭露。

法官楊炳禎長期由法官助理代筆判決,辦公室常不見人影,他的「古董專家」的名號幾乎蓋過他的法官身分;高院法官並非輕鬆的工作,楊竟可如此悠遊,想見監督機制全部失靈。

高等法院法官高玉舜挺身擔任「吹哨者」,舉發最高法院法官蕭仰歸為兒子的肇事逃逸案關說。為什麼法官兒子涉案成為被告,就能有父親為他說項的機會,為什麼審判可以任由法官償還好友恩情,為什麼法官擔心得罪同僚,多淪為官官相護的鄉愿,寧悶頭在關說證據裡咬文嚼字,卻不害怕「社會法庭」不信任司法的公正?法官不自覺地把審判易公為私,儼然形成體系性戕害司法公信的暴力。

顯然,法官享盡了獨立審判、法官自治之利,但未善盡呵護自重的責任。因之,當法官助理變身地下法官,成為撰寫判決的主力,法院竟屬常態;當法官辦案品質差,錯誤明顯,只要沒被抓到貪汙拿錢,法院也便裝聾作啞。

當法官分配審判事務,資深的往民事庭跑,資淺的被迫辦理繁重的刑事案件;當新一批的萬年庭長成為氣候、審判長依年資而不論優劣出線;當法官自律的「神經失調」,人事審議會議關心法官權利多於義務,關心自己甚於審判民眾時,「法官自治」幾近解體。凡此種種向下沉淪的現象,司法當局竟都視若無睹。

司法審判的公信力極其脆弱,禁不起摧殘。十五年前法官們大聲疾呼,要大家相信他們可以完全管理自己,結果證明並非如此。其實,「審判獨立」須以法官的人格自重為前提,若不能人格自重,獨立就可能成了不肖者上下其手的空間。

「正己專案」勇於清理門戶,法官開始可以擺脫系統裡惡質同僚的壓力,是司法界自我覺醒、向外界證明的契機;但能否化為轉機,獲致新生,要看法官後續的表現。

法官應該訂立法官倫理規範,嚴格要求品性端正、行為合宜;應該惕勵監督,不容關說等審判以外的力量滲透;應該深化自律,區辨優劣,不以期別論高低;在法官淘汰特別規定未完成立法前,由法官組成的公務員懲戒委員應可積極發揮懲戒、淘汰的功能。

在法官自治重新獲得人民信賴前,行政及外力的監督恐需適度回復,以訴訟的實際需要為準而分派審判事務,強化對遲延案件的管控,建立確定判決的審查機制,踢走打混擺爛營私者,也加入外部對個案或全面性的評鑑監督,協助法官回到以審判為本的職責。

司法界現值多事之秋,代理院長謝在全若只抱持看守心態度日,便可能錯失大好的改革良機。巧的是,十五年前謝正是台中地方法院院長,無力招架法官拒絕送閱掀起的改革風潮,可謂造化弄人。

是造化弄人也罷,是歷史反諷也罷,司法沉淪的現狀,卻也在提醒法官,十五年前,社會支持法官起而推翻行政的干預,要的就是專業而獨立的審判;法官一旦因循怠惰,自治權就會變質,也無法產生優質的審判文化及可使社會信服的領導人才。

馬英九總統必須儘速擇定新的司法院長,新的院長必須看清歷史發出的訊息,大刀闊斧除弊,協助法官重新自律自治,輔以制度監督;唯有如此,法官才能抬頭挺胸地大聲說,我是法官。

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Name-Callers' Comeuppance

The Name-Callers' ComeuppanceChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 16, 2010

Many things in life cannot be understood until one has personally experienced them. Many people are accustomed to cavalierly smearing others. But only when they are the targets of such campaigns can they truly appreciate how vicious they are.
Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing recently declared himself a candidate for Kaohsiung City Mayor, and voiced his support for ECFA. He was immediately accused of "selling out Taiwan" and "pandering to [Mainland] China." He conceded he had smeared others the same way in the past, and therefore these smears left a deep impression upon him. As we look back today, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether other victims of such smear campaigns really were guilty of "selling out Taiwan?"

Yang Chiu-hsing was probably speaking from the heart. This five-star rated county chief merely announced his candidacy and called for a pragmatic review of the pros and cons of ECFA. But that was all the DPP nomenklatura needed to denounce him as "selling out Taiwan" and "pandering to [Mainland] China." That was enough to leave him speechless and unable to defend himself. Many rival party leaders know exactly how he feels. So do many DPP politicians. Unfortunately they usually engage in earnest soul-searching only after they have been sidelined and pushed out of the party's mainstream.

Cavalierly accusing others of "selling out Taiwan" is an expedient and anti-intellectual political tactic. It is expedient because it requires no proof and is impossible to defend against. It is anti-intellectual because it incites irrational passions. It reduces political and policy debate to name-calling and dogmatism. Even more frightening, it is a weapon to crush dissent, not just from rival parties, but even from rivals within one's own party. It leads to a party with a single voice. It permits only the rote repetition of dogma. It makes progressive thought impossible. Its most vicious after-effect is the manufacture of public hatred. It mires society in inextricable chaos, and retards the nation's progress.

Just how much truth there is to charges of "selling out Taiwan?" The Taiwan Region of the Republic of China has undergone democraticization. Therefore it belongs to all its citizens. It is not something that can belongs to any one individual. Therefore how can it possibly be sold out by any one individual? The President is merely a person elected by the people to administer for four years. Taiwan is not his personal property. As Yang Chiu-hsing noted, even assuming Ma Ying-jeou wanted to sell out Taiwan, he would have to call for a public referendum and a constitutional amendment. Selling out Taiwan is easier said than done. Since no one individual has the power to sell out Taiwan, the charge is essentially empty one, a lie.

Taiwan was once ceded, occupied, and subjected to martial law. The people truly did not determine their own destinies. Their sense of powerlessness and insecurity left a dark shadow. This makes it easy to revive old fears. This may be understandable, but it does not reflect reality. The people are now the masters of the nation. Whether to reunify or to become independent, can be decided only by legal procedures, not by any particular individual or inviduals. Attempting to apply old thinking in a new era can only leave one lost and directionless. Perpetually looking over one's shoulder can neither solve current problems nor enable one to plan for the future.

Yang Chiu-hsing feels that if Taiwan and the Mainland can coexist in peace, if they can treat each other with respect, both their economies will benefit. If the opportunity arises, he will emulate Yunlin County Chief Su Chih-fen and Tainan County Chief Su Huan-chih. He will visit the Mainland to promote the economic interests of businesses on Taiwan. Such voices of pragmatism have gradually begun to emerge within the DPP. They have begun to challenge the Deep Green party line. As they see it, the DPP cannot allow itself to fall behind the KMT in seeking business opportunities for its constituents. Cross-Strait exchanges are increasingly at a breakneck pace. If the DPP insists on treading water, the public on Taiwan will leave it behind. Therefore it must face reality and attempt to keep pace.

The DPP has long been the hostage of Deep Green ideology. So much so that when faced with major changes such as the rise of Mainland China and cross-Strait reconciliation, it was left dumbfounded and unable to cope. Why? Because the DPP is accustomed to exploiting the provincial origins issue. It has benefitted politically from cross-Strait hostility and "ethnic" (communal) tensions on Taiwan. Actually, even assuming one advocates Taiwan independence, as long as one is willing to shelve disputes, one can still promote cross-Strait exchanges. Attempting to help the Mainland understand and respect Taiwan is also a viable option. But the DPP has always defined residents of the Province of Taiwan and the island of Taiwan as victims of oppression, and itself as its loving guardian. Needless to say the role of villain has been assigned to [Mainland] China. Because unless the villain is sufficiently evil, the the value of the DPP will come into question.

Beijing has allowed Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan and made major concessions to Taiwan regarding ECFA. Local leaders have visited the Mainland in order to promote local agricultural products. Democratic Progressive Party and Deep Green forces have lashed back, insisting that Taiwan will eventually suffer dire consequences. After all, if the two sides reconcile, the Democratic Progressive Party will lose its raison d'etre. Alas, the DPP's logic has become less and less convincing. Not because people are naive, but because Mainland China's existence and rise to power is an unavoidable reality. To survive, they must face this reality and attempt to seize any opportunities for their own benefit.

Pragmatism has gradually emerged within the DPP. A political platform for the coming decade is in the works. The Democratic Progressive Party is about to engage in a struggle over its political future. This is more than a change in election strategy. The DPP must rethink its party constitution and its political niche. It must rethink its vision of cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's economic future. Cross-Strait relations are an unavoidable issue for Taiwan and the DPP. Chronic resort to smear tactics will only leave the DPP blinkered and blind. DPP leaders must have the courage to open their hearts and minds. Only then will the DPP become a party able to offer new hope for Taiwan.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.08.16
社論-當扣帽子的人被扣上帽子時
本報訊

很多事,不是親身經歷過,無法感受其滋味。當習慣動不動就扣別人帽子的人,有朝一日自己也被扣上帽子時,才能真正理解這種抹黑行徑有多麼粗暴惡毒。

高雄縣長楊秋興宣布參選並表達有條件認同ECFA後,立即被扣上賣台、傾中帽子,他感慨坦承,自己過去也曾犯同樣毛病,如今感受特別深。現在回想起來,似乎應該想一下,別人是不是真的會賣台?

楊秋興說的應該是真心話,這位五星級縣長只不過宣布參選並主張務實看待ECFA,就從民進黨菁英變成賣台傾中的叛徒,一個大帽子扣下來,讓人百口莫辯。這樣的滋味,民進黨的對手都嘗過,包括不少黨內同志,可惜通常要等到被排擠出主流之後才開始反省。

動輒扣人「賣台」帽子,是一種既廉價又反智的行為。廉價,是因為它不須舉證不容申辯;反智,是因為它訴諸感性煽動情緒,讓政治議題與公共政策的討論退化成簡單的標籤化與教條化。更可怕的是,它成為整肅異己的武器,不只對付其他黨派,更用於黨內鬥爭,使得黨內只剩下一種聲音,除了覆誦教條難以再進步。而它最惡毒的後遺症,是在挑撥人民對立製造仇恨,讓社會陷入撕裂紛亂難以自拔,束縛了國家前進的腳步。

而「賣台」這頂帽子到底有多少真實度,也頗值得懷疑。一個已民主化的台灣,主權屬全體國民,不在哪個人手中,又豈是任何人可出賣的?總統不過是被人民選出來施政四年的人,並不擁有國家主權。誠如楊秋興所說,即使馬英九要出賣台灣,也須經過公投、修憲程序,要賣台那是那麼容易。既然沒有誰有權賣台,那麼這樣的指控只是虛偽的謊言。

過去的台灣,曾經被割讓、被占領、被戒嚴統治,人民的確無法決定自己的命運。那時的無力感與不安全感,至今仍然留下陰影,很容易被喚起恐懼,這是可以理解的,但這已不是事實了。人民現在是國家的主人,要統要獨,大家可以經由法定程序來決定,沒有誰說了算。用舊思維活在新時代,是找不到方向的,因為一直往後看,既解決不了當前的問題,更無力規畫未來。

楊秋興認為,台灣與大陸若能和平相處、禮尚往來,經濟發展才能互蒙其利。有機會的話,他也會學雲林縣長蘇治芬、台南縣長蘇煥智前往大陸促銷。這種務實的聲音,近來在民進黨內部逐漸浮現,開始挑戰僵化的深綠路線。一方面是為選區爭取商機不能落於國民黨之後,一方面也是在兩岸關係大步往前時,民進黨如果堅持留在原地,就會被整個台灣社會拋下,因此必須正視現實努力跟上。

長期以來,民進黨被深綠意識形態捆綁,以至於面對中國崛起及兩岸和解的重大變局時,幾乎瞠目結舌不知如何應對。究其原因,和習慣操縱省籍情結,從兩岸敵對及台灣的族群緊張中獲取政治利益有關。其實即使是主張台獨,如果願意擱置爭議,也未必不能推動兩岸交往;而努力讓大陸理解及尊重台灣,也可以是一種路線選項。但民進黨向來把本省族群和台灣定位為受欺壓的被害者,而民進黨是愛台灣的捍衛者,那麼就很難解除中國的惡棍角色,因為惡棍如果沒那麼惡,民進黨的存在價值也會動搖。

因此可以看到,當對岸在開放陸客來台及ECFA中大幅對台讓利,當地方首長紛赴大陸促銷農產品時,民進黨及深綠陣營仍不斷宣稱台灣終會嘗到苦果,因為兩岸如果真的和解,民進黨也會失去定義自己的戰線。但這種邏輯愈來愈難說服民眾,不是因為老百姓天真,而是大陸的存在與崛起是不可迴避的現實,要生存就要面對,並且抓住或創造對自己有利的契機。

隨著黨內逐漸出現務實主張,以及十年政綱的研擬,民進黨終究要進行一場路線之爭。不只是選舉策略的改變,更必須重新思考政黨體質與定位,以及兩岸關係遠景與台灣發展方向。兩岸是台灣無可迴避的問題,對民進黨也是,老是施展「帽子戰法」,最後只會遮住自己的眼睛。民進黨必須勇敢放開心胸,尋找一個能夠為台灣帶來新希望的新民進黨。

Friday, August 13, 2010

The 1992 Consensus Remains Intact

The 1992 Consensus Remains IntactUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 13, 2010

Yesterday Li Yafei, deputy chairman of the Mainland China Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), proclaimed a soft landing for the recent discord over the 1992 Consensus. The 1992 Consensus is a "paper window." Recently this newspaper published an editorial urging the two sides not to poke holes in this paper window. Fortunately, it appears that the paper window is still intact.

Our editorial on the 9th urged authorities on both sides to return to the 1992 Consensus. We said that the 1992 Consensus is a work in progress, that has more room for development. It is a translucent paper window that permits the passage of light, but also provides a degree of separateness. We urged the two sides not to poke holes in this paper window.

Li Yafei's latest statement made two points. One. Opposing Taiwan independence. Two. Upholding the 1992 Consensus. But Li Yafei repeatedly stressed an even more important point. He said we should "seek commonalities, not differences." In other words, we should "shelve disputes and seek common ground."

Li Yafei said that since 2008, the basis of cross-Strait mutual trust has been: One. Opposing Taiwan independence. Two. Upholding the 1992 Consensus. Actually these are two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, the 1992 Consensus equals opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, the motive for supporting the 1992 Consensus in the first place, is opposition to Taiwan independence. The question has always been how the 1992 Consensus should be interpreted. The answer depends on how one defines "One China." For Li Yafei the 1992 Consensus means that "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have agreed to express their different interpretations of the One China Principle orally."

Newspapers in Taipei however published two different versions of his talk. One version was mentioned above. Another version appeared in the media that hosted his talk. Li Yafei supposedly said "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait agree to express their different interpretations of One China orally." One version says the "One China Principle." The other says "One China." The "One China Principle" has been proven correct.

One China and the One China Principle are not the same. Beijing's current expression, the "One China Principle," is broader. It sees "One China" as a deeper concept that can be further developed. In the past Beijing spoke only of One China, which had a narrower meaning. But no matter how the two sides interpret One China, the concept of One China has become a work in progress. It is no longer a rigid concept, but rather a fact that all can see. It is also the central pillar of cross-Strait "peaceful development."

In the "three old catchphrases," One China was narrowly defined to mean "There is only one China. Taiwan is a part of China. The People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China." Today however, One China has evolved. Today Beijing speaks of "the two sides have yet to be reunified, but they are nevertheless part of One China." "Maintaining the status quo means maintaining the status of existing regulations and documents on Taiwan." "Both the Mainland and Taiwan are part of One China," "A in-progress style One China." "Contemplating the status of the Republic of China." As we can see, One China is a work in progress. It is more akin to the One China Principle, rather than the arbitrary and rigid One China of yesteryear.

Li Yafei stressed "seeking commonalities, not differences," and "shelving disputes, seeking common ground." Based on this premise, and separated by the paper window of the 1992 Consensus, Beijing speaks of "One China, different interpretations," while Taipei speaks of "different interpretations of One China." "One China, different interpretations" is subsumed under the One China Principle. "Different interpretations of One China" is also subsumed under the One China Principle. As long as the two sides "seek commonalities, not differences," this translucent paper window will allow in light while remaining intact.

Examine Li Yafei's statement under a magnifying glass. What Li Yafei said was that Beijing's interpretation of the 1992 Consensus was "different interpetations of One China." But Li said it allowed room to "seek commonalities, not differences." Taipei's interpretation of the 1992 Consensus remains "One China, different interpretations." Li Yafei may have pressed against the paper window with his finger, but he did not poke any holes in it.

For the past two decades, Taiwan has been immersed in a certain manipulative political atmosphere, one predicated upon the notion that "Taiwan independence equals love for Taiwan," that "subverting the Republic of China equals love for Taiwan." This notion argues that "not to be annexed and reunified by China equals love for Taiwan." Society on Taiwan has a severe "China Complex." One could say we have been seeking a cure for a disease that has bedeviled Taiwan for the past 60 years. Therefore, before Beijing can talk about the One China Principle, it must first forsake its "decapitation principle," which calls for the decapitation of the Republic of China. Only then can we gradually change the minds of an obdurate but influential minority calling for the "recapitation" of the Republic of China by changing it to a Republic of Taiwan. Beijing must realize that without the Republic of China, the One China Principle will lose its backing.

Allow us to once again quote this newspaper's editorial of the 7th, entitled "The One China Principle: The Undeniable Republic of China." The key to the One China Principle is how the public on Taiwan "feels about China." One may wish to consider this newspaper's "Newest Three Catchphrases." "There is only one China. The ROC and the PRC are both part of China, China's territory and sovereignty are indivisible."

What is this, if not "different expressions of One China" plus "One China, different expressions," both taken from the 1992 Consensus?

沒有捅破九二共識那扇紙窗
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.08.13 02:59 am

大陸海協會副會長李亞飛日昨對「九二共識」的談話,形同使得近日兩岸當局的一段齟齬軟著陸;本報社論在事前期待雙方不要捅破「九二共識」那扇紙窗,還好現在那層窗戶紙也未戳破。

九日社論說:兩岸當局仍應回到「九二共識」的架構下。……「九二共識」是仍在發展及仍可發展的概念,這扇紙窗既有透光之效又有隔離之功,雙方都不要捅破了這一層朦朧的窗戶紙。

李亞飛的最新論述,一般指出,有兩個焦點。一、反對台獨;二、堅持九二共識。但我們認為,尚有一個更重要的焦點是,李亞飛幾度強調:「要求同/不挑異」、亦即「擱置爭議/求同存異」。

李亞飛說,二○○八年以來,兩岸的互信基礎是:一、反對台獨;二、堅持九二共識。其實,這兩個觀點是一體兩面:一方面,九二共識就是反台獨;另一方面,因反台獨所以認可九二共識。問題仍在如何解讀九二共識,關鍵則在如何定義「一個中國」。李亞飛對九二共識的解讀是:九二共識,就是「各自以口頭方式,表述海峽兩岸一個中國原則」的共識。

台北的報紙對這段關鍵談話竟出現兩種版本。一種版本已如上述,另一種版本出自主辦演說的媒體,則稱李亞飛說的是:「各自以口頭方式表述一個中國的共識。」兩者對比,少了「原則」二字。經查證,「一個中國原則」才是正確版本。

「一個中國」和「一個中國原則」,是不一樣的。北京現在說「一個中國原則」,外延較大,可視「一個中國」為一包羅涵泳的、可待發展的概念;但北京過去只說「一個中國」,則內涵較窄,排他性較大。不過,無論兩岸各自就「一個中國」如何分別闡釋,「一個中國」已然成為一個「發展性概念」,而不再是「僵固性概念」,當是有目共睹的事實,這也是兩岸得以「和平發展」的最重要支柱。

比如說,「一個中國」在「老三句」中被固化成:「世界上只有一個中國,台灣是中國的一部分,中華人民共和國是代表中國的唯一合法政府」。然而,今日歷經發展演化後的「一個中國」卻是:「兩岸尚未統一/仍是一個中國」、「維持現狀就是維持見之於台灣現行規定及文件的現狀」、「大陸與台灣同屬一個中國」、「現在進行式的一個中國」、「思考中華民國的定位問題」等等……。可見,「一個中國」已是一個發展性的概念,比較近似「一個中國原則」,而不再是對「一個中國」給予武斷的僵固的定義。

所以,李亞飛談話的重點是:「要求同/不挑異」、「擱置爭議/求同存異」。在這個前提下,隔著「九二共識」這一扇紙窗,北京「各表一中」,台北「一中各表」;「各表一中」在「一中原則」之內,「一中各表」也在「一中原則」之內。只要雙方「要求同/不挑異」,這一層朦朧的窗戶紙就能透光但不戳破。

若用放大鏡來看,李亞飛是在強調北京對「九二共識」的詮釋為「各表一中」;但是,也同時維持了「求同存異」的空間,所以台北對「九二共識」的詮釋仍是「一中各表」。倘係如此,李亞飛的談話,即使像是在紙窗上用手指沾了一點唾沫,但畢竟並未戳破。

二十年來,台灣始終有一股人為操作的政治氛圍,認為「台獨等於愛台灣」、「顛覆中華民國就是愛台灣」,其根源則皆來自「不被中國併吞統一就是愛台灣」。台灣社會的「中國感情」傷得如此深重,可謂是六十年之疾而求百年之艾;因此,若要談「一個中國原則」,北京首應改變其「砍頭論」(砍中華民國的頭),始有可能逐漸改變台灣社會中雖非占多數卻極端頑強且頗具政治輻輳效應的「換頭論」;應知,若無中華民國,「一個中國原則」即失依託。

再借用本報七日社論〈一中原則:不可否認中華民國〉一文的結語:「一中原則」的關鍵在台灣人民的「中國感情」,何妨再思考本報提出的「新新三句」:「世界上只有一個中國,中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國,中國的領土與主權不可分割。」

其實,這不正是九二共識的「各表一中」加「一中各表」?