Martial Law? Don't even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007
Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law." Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he "absolutely would not declare martial law." This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation's military would "obey the Command in Chief." He even added that if he were to implement martial law, "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment."
We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment," how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang's 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?
We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian's talk of "martial law" as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu's declaration that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment" as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said "It probably wouldn't come to that." It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how "hypothetical" the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one's spine.
What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not "whether he mispoke and changed his tune." What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he "absolutely would not declare martial law" during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law." It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation's highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law" at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.
By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief's orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation's military has the option of backing the "Commander in Chief," right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu's statement, his "slip of the tongue," is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.
Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one's mind. Often the first words to escape one's mouth are the ones that were in one's heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one's tune and say "No harm, no foul." Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a "Soft Coup." This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as "election rhetoric" and get off scot-free?
On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A "declaration of martial law" is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is "giving careful consideration." Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment." True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan's commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論
十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！
我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？
我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。
我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。
同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。
不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？
選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
A Single Standard for Vote-Buying Prosecutions
A Single Standard for Vote-Buying Prosecutions
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2007
The State Public Prosecutor General's Office launched its "Project Minefield" with a great deal of fanfare. It boasted that it had cast a dragnet over 3,000 cases of vote-buying. The very next day, ironically, the Kaohsiung District Court announced its ruling on the Kaohsiung Mayoral Race Per Diem scandal from last year. The court ruled that the 500 NT Per Diem the DPP issued to supporters had nothing to do with vote-buying! They were merely "wages" paid to participants in election rallies. Everyone involved was ruled "not guilty." Even the Ministry of Justice was outraged by the court's ruling, and issued a stern warning that same night: Those involved in the Per Diem scandal should not assume they won't be prosecuted.
When the public questioned the handling of the State Affairs Confidential Expense case, the Discretionary Fund case, and other major cases, the Ministry of Justice merely offered explanations and clarified doubts. It did not react as strongly as it has now. For the Ministry of Justice to express a legal opinion on an isolated case is extraordinary. The ministry's reaction underscores its concern about the negative impact this ruling may have on future vote-buying prosecutions.
The Kaohsiung Per Diem decision defied the average person's common sense understanding of what it means to buy votes. For several years, both the ruling and opposition parties have been competing to catch the other engaging in vote-buying. Issuing Per Diem is recognized by both camps as vote-buying. Catching someone red-handed issuing Per Diem has become an effective campaign tactic. To cite a random example, during the Taipei County Magistrate Election two years ago, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Luo Wen-chia's election campaign was videotaped issuing its supporters 300 NT in Per Diem. Whether the videotape had a decisive impact on Luo's election campaign and led to his loss is hard to say. Although the Banqiao District Court handed down a suspended sentence, it unequivocally ruled that issuing Per Diem was vote-buying.
The Taipei County Magistrate Election was not the only case. The Kaohsiung Mayoral Election last year was another. A campaign worker for Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator Luo Chih-ming also issued participants in an election rally 500 NT in Per Diem. He was sentenced to three years and two months in prison, and deprived of his political rights for three years. When one compares the sentences doled out to Ku Hsin-ming and Tsai Neng-hsiang, one has to wonder, was there really that much difference between 300 NT and 500 NT in Per Diem for attending a evening election rally?
For several years, the ruling and opposition camps have resorted to large scale mobilization to increase attendance at their rallies. Any large-scale event involving tens of thousands or even thousands of supporters, inevitably necessitate tour buses to transport flag-waving, slogan-shouting supporters. Not all these supporters are constituents from the candidate's own electoral district. Campaign workers responsible for mobilizing these supporters know perfectly well it is impossible to recruit that many people willing to spend hours riding buses, wolfing down brown bag lunches, and shouting campaign slogans, without paying them "wages." The only question is how they are to be paid. One must never get caught. One must never issue Per Diem on the buses, where there is no place to hide.
It is true that some individuals who issued Per Diem in the past have been found "not guilty." The justification given for such verdicts was that Per Diem and voting did not amount to a quid pro quo. Per Diem was merely "wages for work on behalf of the campaign." Admittedly, prosecutors and judges must be discrete before convicting someone of a crime. One cannot convict based on mere suspicions. Whether there was a quid pro quo is something that must be verified. But how did the judge determine that there was no quid pro quo? Elections require secret ballots. Judges cannot demand that people who were issued Per Diem reveal how they voted. Are we really going to check recipients against voter registration lists to see whether they were qualified to vote? Or are we simply going to take one side at its word?
Ku Hsin-ming admitted during his trial that people on the bus said they were voting for candidate number one, and that he replied, "Uh huh." Nevertheless the judge ruled that because so many people were talking at the same time, Ku could not be sure what they meant! If we are to believe the judge, Ku Hsing-ming's testimony and the testimony of supporters on the bus jibe. If we are to believe the judge, these supporters were on their way to a rally, but didn't know whose rally they were going to, and had to verify whose rally they were going to before deciding whom to vote for.
These campaign supporters were recruited by local party bosses. Certainly the local party bosses knew who they were supporting. Rallies have become an integral part of election campaigns. As a result, the staging of rallies has evolved into a profession all its own. Rally organizers have become hired guns able to take on jobs at a moment's notice. If the judges presiding over such cases accept such rationalizations, it will be increasingly difficult to prove that issuing Per Diem constitutes vote-buying. Any vote-buying activity can and will be disguised as Per Diem, as "wages for work on behalf of the campaign," exempt from prosecution. How will the prosecutors who laid down 3000 land mines be able to investigate vote-buying? Will they simply indict everyone and let the judges separate the sheep from the goats? Suppose every candidate who issued Per Diem then lost his election bid decides to file suit? Isn't that a frightening prospect? If public prosecutors abide by this decision, and fail to indict those who issue Per Diem for campaign rallies, how can they indict those who hold fund-raising dinners?
On the eve of the election, at the very moment public prosecutors have promised comprehensive anti-corruption initiatives, the Kaohsiung District Court dropped its bombshell. Just as the legal system must adopt a single standard for the Four Princes Discretionary Fund cases, so it must adopt a single standard for the Per Diem cases. Only then can the public trust the legal system and reconcile its judgments with common sense. Only then will controversy over public prosecutors' vigorous investigation of vote-buying die down.
中國時報 2007.11.28
查賄該訂出統一的標準了
中時社論
就在最高檢察署大張旗鼓推出「布雷專案」，號稱布下三千多天羅地網查察賄選的隔日，高雄地方法院對去年高雄市長選舉走路工疑案做出一審判決，指五百元走路工並無選票的對價關係，而是給參與造勢晚會者的「工資」，全案無罪！這個判決一出，連法務部都傻眼，連夜發出聲明呼籲：不要以為走路工就一定不涉刑責。
即使國務機要費、特別費等重大案件，外界責難、懷疑湧入之際，法務部都沒有這麼反應直接，僅僅被動說明和澄清疑慮。法務部對單一判決做出特別聲明，確實是非常非常特殊的狀況，也凸顯這個判決確有可能對未來的查察賄選造成相當影響。
高雄走路工案的判決，確實改變過去一般人對賄選的「常識性定義」。尤其在這幾年，朝野藍綠競相抓賄，「走路工」不但被認定應屬賄選，甚至也成為攻擊對手的選戰方法。隨便舉例，前年底台北縣長選舉，民進黨候選人羅文嘉陣營就被拍到支持者為他發放三百元走路工的錄影帶，這支錄影帶對羅的選舉造成重大衝擊，雖然很難講因此讓他落選，而最後板橋地院審理後亦確認為賄選，但以緩刑處分。
不只台北縣長選舉的例子，同樣是去年高雄市長選舉，候選人之一台聯立委羅志明的競選幹部，也是發給參加造勢晚會的民眾三百元走路工，結果被判刑三年二個月，還褫奪公權三年。對比古鋅酩和蔡能祥的無罪境遇，真不免讓人懷疑，這三百元和五百元的造勢晚會走路工，真的差這麼多嗎？
事實上，這幾年選舉，朝野陣營習慣性地以動員方式擴大造勢，任何大型晚會，不要說萬人晚會，即使數千人的場合，都難免有遊覽車載運民眾，以為搖旗吶喊助勢之用。這些遊覽車載來的民眾，當然不可能都屬選區內擁有投票權的選民；負責動員的黨政幹部，多數人心知肚明，要找這麼多肯花數小時坐車、吃便當、喊「凍蒜」的民眾，不給點「工資」是不可能的，只是給的方法要格外注意，千萬不能給逮到小辮子，尤其不能在車上發放，讓自己躲都無處躲。
過去發放走路工判無罪的案例不是沒有，認定無罪的理由和這次判決如出一轍，認為沒有對價關係，而是「催票的工錢」。檢審要入人於罪，當然要慎重，不能看到影就說有罪，對價關係確實應該是一個必須考量的標準。只是法官怎麼認定有沒有對價關係呢？選舉是秘密投票，法官既不能要求拿到走路工的民眾報告他到底投給誰，難道要一一比對民眾戶籍所在地，確認他們到底有沒有投票權？還是只聽信一面之詞呢？
在這次個案上，法官認為，古鋅酩雖在審理時承認，有民眾在車上講要投給一號，他也說「嗯嗯」，但因為一路上都有人在講話，他無法確認自己的意思到底是什麼。從相信法官、古鋅酩與車上民眾的說詞推衍，這群在車上準備前往造勢的民眾，還不能確認到底自己是參加哪一位候選人的場子？才要確認一下，是不是要投給一號。
從輔選實務來說，助勢民眾既是樁腳號召動員，至少樁腳應該知道自己是支持誰？是誰的樁腳，但是，當造勢晚會成為選戰主流，自然會衍生出專門因應動員的「特殊行業」：可以隨時接案的臨時工。如果承審相關案件的法官，未來都接受這個社會現實，走路工是否賄選的認定勢必愈來愈困難，而任何可能涉及賄選的行為，都可以藉由舉辦造勢晚會，順帶發放「助勢工資」而免責，那布下三千地雷的檢察官，還能如何查察賄選呢？他是不管三七二十一，全部先起訴再丟給法官嗎？萬一所有因涉入走路工又落選的候選人，全部以此為影響選舉之變數，在選後提出選舉訴訟，這選務爭端豈不多得嚇人？檢察官若依此判決，造勢晚會的走路工不起訴，那餐會要不要起訴？
值此大選前夕，檢察官宣示全面查賄的同時，高雄地方法院的判決確實像丟下一顆震撼彈，或許，就像天王特別費應該訂定統一的標準和見解一般，有關查賄的標準，檢審應該取得法律的齊一見解，如此才不致任由民眾「常識性的判準」懷疑司法公信力，也可有效緩和檢察官雷厲風行查賄可能引爆的衝突。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2007
The State Public Prosecutor General's Office launched its "Project Minefield" with a great deal of fanfare. It boasted that it had cast a dragnet over 3,000 cases of vote-buying. The very next day, ironically, the Kaohsiung District Court announced its ruling on the Kaohsiung Mayoral Race Per Diem scandal from last year. The court ruled that the 500 NT Per Diem the DPP issued to supporters had nothing to do with vote-buying! They were merely "wages" paid to participants in election rallies. Everyone involved was ruled "not guilty." Even the Ministry of Justice was outraged by the court's ruling, and issued a stern warning that same night: Those involved in the Per Diem scandal should not assume they won't be prosecuted.
When the public questioned the handling of the State Affairs Confidential Expense case, the Discretionary Fund case, and other major cases, the Ministry of Justice merely offered explanations and clarified doubts. It did not react as strongly as it has now. For the Ministry of Justice to express a legal opinion on an isolated case is extraordinary. The ministry's reaction underscores its concern about the negative impact this ruling may have on future vote-buying prosecutions.
The Kaohsiung Per Diem decision defied the average person's common sense understanding of what it means to buy votes. For several years, both the ruling and opposition parties have been competing to catch the other engaging in vote-buying. Issuing Per Diem is recognized by both camps as vote-buying. Catching someone red-handed issuing Per Diem has become an effective campaign tactic. To cite a random example, during the Taipei County Magistrate Election two years ago, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Luo Wen-chia's election campaign was videotaped issuing its supporters 300 NT in Per Diem. Whether the videotape had a decisive impact on Luo's election campaign and led to his loss is hard to say. Although the Banqiao District Court handed down a suspended sentence, it unequivocally ruled that issuing Per Diem was vote-buying.
The Taipei County Magistrate Election was not the only case. The Kaohsiung Mayoral Election last year was another. A campaign worker for Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator Luo Chih-ming also issued participants in an election rally 500 NT in Per Diem. He was sentenced to three years and two months in prison, and deprived of his political rights for three years. When one compares the sentences doled out to Ku Hsin-ming and Tsai Neng-hsiang, one has to wonder, was there really that much difference between 300 NT and 500 NT in Per Diem for attending a evening election rally?
For several years, the ruling and opposition camps have resorted to large scale mobilization to increase attendance at their rallies. Any large-scale event involving tens of thousands or even thousands of supporters, inevitably necessitate tour buses to transport flag-waving, slogan-shouting supporters. Not all these supporters are constituents from the candidate's own electoral district. Campaign workers responsible for mobilizing these supporters know perfectly well it is impossible to recruit that many people willing to spend hours riding buses, wolfing down brown bag lunches, and shouting campaign slogans, without paying them "wages." The only question is how they are to be paid. One must never get caught. One must never issue Per Diem on the buses, where there is no place to hide.
It is true that some individuals who issued Per Diem in the past have been found "not guilty." The justification given for such verdicts was that Per Diem and voting did not amount to a quid pro quo. Per Diem was merely "wages for work on behalf of the campaign." Admittedly, prosecutors and judges must be discrete before convicting someone of a crime. One cannot convict based on mere suspicions. Whether there was a quid pro quo is something that must be verified. But how did the judge determine that there was no quid pro quo? Elections require secret ballots. Judges cannot demand that people who were issued Per Diem reveal how they voted. Are we really going to check recipients against voter registration lists to see whether they were qualified to vote? Or are we simply going to take one side at its word?
Ku Hsin-ming admitted during his trial that people on the bus said they were voting for candidate number one, and that he replied, "Uh huh." Nevertheless the judge ruled that because so many people were talking at the same time, Ku could not be sure what they meant! If we are to believe the judge, Ku Hsing-ming's testimony and the testimony of supporters on the bus jibe. If we are to believe the judge, these supporters were on their way to a rally, but didn't know whose rally they were going to, and had to verify whose rally they were going to before deciding whom to vote for.
These campaign supporters were recruited by local party bosses. Certainly the local party bosses knew who they were supporting. Rallies have become an integral part of election campaigns. As a result, the staging of rallies has evolved into a profession all its own. Rally organizers have become hired guns able to take on jobs at a moment's notice. If the judges presiding over such cases accept such rationalizations, it will be increasingly difficult to prove that issuing Per Diem constitutes vote-buying. Any vote-buying activity can and will be disguised as Per Diem, as "wages for work on behalf of the campaign," exempt from prosecution. How will the prosecutors who laid down 3000 land mines be able to investigate vote-buying? Will they simply indict everyone and let the judges separate the sheep from the goats? Suppose every candidate who issued Per Diem then lost his election bid decides to file suit? Isn't that a frightening prospect? If public prosecutors abide by this decision, and fail to indict those who issue Per Diem for campaign rallies, how can they indict those who hold fund-raising dinners?
On the eve of the election, at the very moment public prosecutors have promised comprehensive anti-corruption initiatives, the Kaohsiung District Court dropped its bombshell. Just as the legal system must adopt a single standard for the Four Princes Discretionary Fund cases, so it must adopt a single standard for the Per Diem cases. Only then can the public trust the legal system and reconcile its judgments with common sense. Only then will controversy over public prosecutors' vigorous investigation of vote-buying die down.
中國時報 2007.11.28
查賄該訂出統一的標準了
中時社論
就在最高檢察署大張旗鼓推出「布雷專案」，號稱布下三千多天羅地網查察賄選的隔日，高雄地方法院對去年高雄市長選舉走路工疑案做出一審判決，指五百元走路工並無選票的對價關係，而是給參與造勢晚會者的「工資」，全案無罪！這個判決一出，連法務部都傻眼，連夜發出聲明呼籲：不要以為走路工就一定不涉刑責。
即使國務機要費、特別費等重大案件，外界責難、懷疑湧入之際，法務部都沒有這麼反應直接，僅僅被動說明和澄清疑慮。法務部對單一判決做出特別聲明，確實是非常非常特殊的狀況，也凸顯這個判決確有可能對未來的查察賄選造成相當影響。
高雄走路工案的判決，確實改變過去一般人對賄選的「常識性定義」。尤其在這幾年，朝野藍綠競相抓賄，「走路工」不但被認定應屬賄選，甚至也成為攻擊對手的選戰方法。隨便舉例，前年底台北縣長選舉，民進黨候選人羅文嘉陣營就被拍到支持者為他發放三百元走路工的錄影帶，這支錄影帶對羅的選舉造成重大衝擊，雖然很難講因此讓他落選，而最後板橋地院審理後亦確認為賄選，但以緩刑處分。
不只台北縣長選舉的例子，同樣是去年高雄市長選舉，候選人之一台聯立委羅志明的競選幹部，也是發給參加造勢晚會的民眾三百元走路工，結果被判刑三年二個月，還褫奪公權三年。對比古鋅酩和蔡能祥的無罪境遇，真不免讓人懷疑，這三百元和五百元的造勢晚會走路工，真的差這麼多嗎？
事實上，這幾年選舉，朝野陣營習慣性地以動員方式擴大造勢，任何大型晚會，不要說萬人晚會，即使數千人的場合，都難免有遊覽車載運民眾，以為搖旗吶喊助勢之用。這些遊覽車載來的民眾，當然不可能都屬選區內擁有投票權的選民；負責動員的黨政幹部，多數人心知肚明，要找這麼多肯花數小時坐車、吃便當、喊「凍蒜」的民眾，不給點「工資」是不可能的，只是給的方法要格外注意，千萬不能給逮到小辮子，尤其不能在車上發放，讓自己躲都無處躲。
過去發放走路工判無罪的案例不是沒有，認定無罪的理由和這次判決如出一轍，認為沒有對價關係，而是「催票的工錢」。檢審要入人於罪，當然要慎重，不能看到影就說有罪，對價關係確實應該是一個必須考量的標準。只是法官怎麼認定有沒有對價關係呢？選舉是秘密投票，法官既不能要求拿到走路工的民眾報告他到底投給誰，難道要一一比對民眾戶籍所在地，確認他們到底有沒有投票權？還是只聽信一面之詞呢？
在這次個案上，法官認為，古鋅酩雖在審理時承認，有民眾在車上講要投給一號，他也說「嗯嗯」，但因為一路上都有人在講話，他無法確認自己的意思到底是什麼。從相信法官、古鋅酩與車上民眾的說詞推衍，這群在車上準備前往造勢的民眾，還不能確認到底自己是參加哪一位候選人的場子？才要確認一下，是不是要投給一號。
從輔選實務來說，助勢民眾既是樁腳號召動員，至少樁腳應該知道自己是支持誰？是誰的樁腳，但是，當造勢晚會成為選戰主流，自然會衍生出專門因應動員的「特殊行業」：可以隨時接案的臨時工。如果承審相關案件的法官，未來都接受這個社會現實，走路工是否賄選的認定勢必愈來愈困難，而任何可能涉及賄選的行為，都可以藉由舉辦造勢晚會，順帶發放「助勢工資」而免責，那布下三千地雷的檢察官，還能如何查察賄選呢？他是不管三七二十一，全部先起訴再丟給法官嗎？萬一所有因涉入走路工又落選的候選人，全部以此為影響選舉之變數，在選後提出選舉訴訟，這選務爭端豈不多得嚇人？檢察官若依此判決，造勢晚會的走路工不起訴，那餐會要不要起訴？
值此大選前夕，檢察官宣示全面查賄的同時，高雄地方法院的判決確實像丟下一顆震撼彈，或許，就像天王特別費應該訂定統一的標準和見解一般，有關查賄的標準，檢審應該取得法律的齊一見解，如此才不致任由民眾「常識性的判準」懷疑司法公信力，也可有效緩和檢察官雷厲風行查賄可能引爆的衝突。
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Love for Taiwan should not be a Political Posture
Love for Taiwan should not be a Political Posture
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2007
Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook the dramatic changes that can occur over time. Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook one's own stagnation or even regression. Over the past three months, the China Times has mobilized substantial manpower and resources producing its "Taiwan's Hope 2008" retrospective, which examines Taiwan's progress over the past two decades. We interviewed people from every walk of life, reminiscing with them about the past, and sharing their concerns about the future.
During this process, we rediscovered Taiwan. Sadly, Taiwan has remained stagnant for the past decade, its vitality sapped by an endless political soap opera that repeats and repeats and never goes anywhere. Happily, Taiwan retains its resilience. As a result of their love for this land, more and more people are refusing to be politically manipulated. More and more people are speaking out, voicing their aspirations for the future. We must find our own way. The Chinese people on Taiwan deserve a better life. Those who live on this land, have no excuse to give up and no right to despair. Just as in the past, whenever Taiwan touched bottom, that is when things turned around. Taiwan underwent the White Terror, then the economy took off. Taiwan underwent chaos, then a Quiet Revolution. Taiwan underwent regime change, and the public welcomed the advent of a new era. Tragically, to everyone's surprise, the world continued on its way, while Taiwan stagnated.
During these years, a Taiwan which prided itself on its economic miracle, found itself eclipsed by South Korea in annual GDP. Taiwan's replacement by a rapidly rising mainland China became a global phenomenon that could no longer be ignored. Taiwan, it was once said, was "up to its knees in money." Now it is up to its neck in red ink. The next generation will be born owing money. A formerely egalitarian Taiwan is becoming an "M Shaped Society" in which the middle class has vanished. This M Shaped Society will be the next generation's unwelcome legacy. Children will be born into two different worlds. From the moment they are born, the will start out unequal. We are unlikely to witness another child from a "Category Three Impoverished Household" become ROC president.
When discussing Taiwan's past, many members of the public, including scholars and experts, find themselves imagining Taiwan's future, and feel a deep sense of unease. When asked what worries them most, they sigh and reply, "Everything. Everything worries me." When asked whether Taiwan will be better off in ten years, only 20% of the public says it will be. As many as 34% think otherwise. Such numbers were unimaginable ten or twenty years ago. Taiwan was once a society brimming with confidence. No matter what occupation, give a man a suitcase and he would conquer the world. So how did it all come to this?
To many anxious and angry members of the public, politics is a curse they can't seem to rid themselves of. Reunification vs. independence, Blue vs. Green, so-called "ethnicity," which is nothing more than communal groups, and cross-Straits issues, all involve politics. Put bluntly, ideology is leading everyone around by the nose. Being led around by the nose is bad enough. What's worse is that for the past several years Taiwan's society has been led around in circles, and gone nowhere. Political indoctrination and mobilization have deepened social divisions. Political rhetoric rides roughshod over the Rule of Law and fills people's hearts with hatred. Opposition between "us" and "them" helps justify cronyism and corruption. Professional expertise is treated with contempt. As a consequence public works and tax policy become means of buying votes and winning elections. Cross-Straits policies are impossible to implement. Direct Links have become a chimera. The 40% upper limit for investments on the mainland has remained in place. Taiwan's wealth is outsourcing itself at a rate and in a manner the government cannot fathom.
What can Taiwan do? If current trends cannot be reversed, what is Taiwan going to look like ten years from now? Will it look like Brazil or the Philippines? During our investigations, many people said that whether Taiwan can turn things around depends on what we do in the coming year or two. The hour is late. Action is overdue.
The media is a part of the larger environment. It cannot divorce itself from this environment. When politics possesses everyone like a demon, much of the media gets led around by the nose as well. They parrot the politicians, classifying individuals as enemy or friend. They willingly act as the government's mouthpieces and attack dogs. The result is the language of hate trips off the tongues of third rate demagogues and insinuates itself into every household. One turns on the television, and lo and behold, there is the enemy, there is the spectacle of civil war in the guise of democratic elections, a waking nightmare.
The China Times champions freedom, democracy, and openess. It never cozies up to authority. It refuses to divide people into "us" and "them." The "Taiwan's Hopes 2008" retrospective focused on the people of this land. We wanted to hear the people's voices and understand their aspirations. In the process, even though we were subjected to political persecution and smears, we never flinched. Members of the media are society's guardians. We uncover problems and seek solutions alongside the Chinese people on Taiwan.
Our investigation revealed deep skepticism about the government's competence, shared by experts and laymen alike. As many as 75% of the people do not believe the government has the ability to solve society's problems. Such numbers would be enough to leave us deeply pessimistic about Taiwan's future. After all, the government is incapable of even maintaining the status quo, let alone reversing a downward trend. But we feel just the opposite. During our investigation, experts and laymen alike still harbored hope for the future of Taiwan. Most importantly, 80 to 90% of the leaders polled were willing to take action on behalf of Taiwan's future. Even among those ambivalent about Taiwan's future, some 46% are committed to take action.
"Don't always rely on the government!" Taiwan's vitality and competitiveness derives from the people. Taiwan's resilience will be our greatest asset in our reversal of fortune. The people mistrust the government. Yet the government refuses to open its eyes and see the problems. It refuses to open its ears and listen to the people's wishes. It remains drunk with power. It continues to believe that winning elections is everything. The Chinese people on Taiwan need wait for them no longer.
Look to the land. Identify with the people. Every individual can do more. The China Times' "Taiwan's Hope 2008" retrospective is a beginning, not an end. Our efforts show that love for Taiwan is not a short term political ploy. Only selfless love will enable Taiwan to thrive.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.27
愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作
中時社論
不經過比較，不曉得時間的力量；不經過比較，不會驚覺人可能在時間之流中完全停滯，甚至後退。《中國時報》用了超過三個月的時間，動員龐大的人力與資源，製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，重新回望這十年、廿年來的台灣。我們採訪各行各業的人們，回味他們的記憶與愛，分享他們的焦慮和迷惘。
這是一個重新認識台灣、重新尋找台灣的過程。讓我們嘆息的是，台灣的生命力在這十年竟彷彿被困在週而復始、永不下檔的政治連續劇裡；讓我們高興的是，台灣的韌性依舊在，因為對這塊土地的愛，愈來愈多人再不願意被政治綁架；愈來愈多人願意大聲說出自己的盼望：我們要走自己的路，台灣人值得擁有更高品質的生活。因為生活在這塊土地上的人們，沒有放棄的道理，沒有絕望的權力，就像是台灣過去曾經走過的路，當沈悶到極致，跌盪到谷底，就該是會翻轉而起的時刻。
回顧過去的歲月，台灣走過白色恐怖，就走出了經濟起飛；走過街頭狂飆，就走出了寧靜革命；走過了政黨輪替，在眾人欣喜迎接新時代到來的同時，的確，沒有太多人料到世界運轉未嘗停止，但台灣卻停滯了。
就在這幾年，以創造經濟奇蹟為傲的台灣，國民平均所得被南韓超越；取代台灣成為全球化趨勢下不可忽略的現象是「中國崛起」；曾經號稱「台灣錢淹腳目」的國家財政連年赤字，我們的下一代尚未出生就開始負債；相對均富的台灣，開始討論著中產消失的「Ｍ型社會」；Ｍ型社會反映到下一代，就造成兩個世界的孩子，從他們來到這個世界的第一刻起，他們就站在一個不公平的起跑點上。台灣還創造得出「三級貧戶當總統」的神話嗎？
許許多多民眾和學者專家，與我們談起台灣的過去，想像台灣的未來，憂心不已，他們一路勾選著他們最擔憂的問題，一路嘆氣，「唉，都是問題，都是問題。」問起未來十年台灣會不會更好？只有百分之廿的民眾給予肯定答案，認為台灣未來十年會變得更不好的竟高達百分之卅四以上。這個數據在過去十年、甚至廿年，都是難以想像的，台灣曾經是這麼一個有信心的社會，不論各行各業，一卡皮箱就能走遍全世界，為什麼迷惘了呢？
在林林總總民眾擔憂、甚至憤怒的問題中，「政治」就像個擺脫不了的詛咒。從統獨、藍綠、族群到兩岸關係，無一不緊扣著政治，直接的說，就是被政治識意型態牽著跑；牽著能跑也罷了，這幾年的景況是台灣社會各面向被政治牽著團團轉─原地打轉。政治操作與動員，擴大了社會對立；政治語言既無法治觀念，還充滿仇恨；因為敵我壁壘分明，表現在政商關係上就更容易造成掛勾和貪腐的小圈圈；專業決策空間不受尊重，結果公共建設與租稅政策，成為討好選民的選舉利多；兩岸關係因此無法有效開展，不但三通直航迄今猶如鏡花水月，開放赴大陸投資百分之四十上限亦始終未能調整，台灣財富以一種政府看不見的速度和方向：加速外移。
台灣還能怎麼辦呢？如果這一切不能翻轉，台灣未來十年將會是什麼局面？是曾經紛亂的巴西還是菲律賓？在我們調查過程中，許多人都說，台灣能不能從這幾年的呆滯中逐漸灰暗，翻轉到光明躍動的另一面，「關鍵就在這一、二年。」事實上，時間也容不得台灣再拖延，我們一定得採取行動。
媒體做為大環境的一環，不可能自外於這個行動。當政治如同詛咒般充斥各面向的同時，很大部份的媒體同樣被政治牽著鼻子跑，用類如政客的語言分敵分友，自甘為政客的傳聲筒和打擊政敵的工具，結果仇恨的語言，就這麼從不入流的政客口中，鑽進了每一個市井小民的家中，打開電視機就看得到敵人，就看得到選舉的戰爭，成為日常生活甩不開的噩夢。
《中國時報》秉持自由、民主、開放的精神，從來不向權力者靠攏，更不屑屈從於劃分敵我的政治動員。因此，《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，從一開始就鎖定這塊土地的人民，我們要聽到人民的呼吸、人民的心聲。在過程中，即使遭到莫明的政治打壓和抹黑，我們從未退縮，因為我們堅信：既身為媒體，就要扮演好守望者、警示者的角色，我們毫不鬆懈地挖掘問題，找出問題，同時，與台灣人民一同追尋答案。
在我們的調查過程中，對政府能力的不信任，是民眾和學者專家的高度共識。高達百分之七十五的人，根本不相信政府有解決問題的能力。這麼高的比例，足以讓我們對台灣未來完全悲觀，因為沒能力的政府改變不了現狀，改善不了愈趨惡化的各種情況。但是，結果剛好相反，在我們的調查中，不論是民眾或學者專家絕大多數還是對台灣懷抱希望；最重要的，高達八、九成受訪的意見領袖毫不猶疑地表達，願意為台灣的未來採取行動。即使對台灣未來彷徨無力的一般民眾，仍有四成六的受訪者，不吝於採取行動。
「不要只想著靠政府！」是的，台灣的生命力和競爭力，向來都是從民間勃發，台灣人的韌性是我們扭轉未來的最大資產。這麼不被人民信賴的政府，如果還是不肯張開眼睛，看清楚問題何在？不肯打開耳朵，聆聽人民的心聲，依舊自以為是地陷入政治動員的狂喜之中而不可自拔，以為選舉就是一切，勝選就是唯一，台灣人民不必等他。
面向土地、心向人民的時候，每一個人都可以做更多事。《中國時報》製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，只是一個開端，不是結束。我們的努力可以証明：愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作；唯有深沉無私的愛，得以讓台灣生命力，生生不息。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2007
Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook the dramatic changes that can occur over time. Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook one's own stagnation or even regression. Over the past three months, the China Times has mobilized substantial manpower and resources producing its "Taiwan's Hope 2008" retrospective, which examines Taiwan's progress over the past two decades. We interviewed people from every walk of life, reminiscing with them about the past, and sharing their concerns about the future.
During this process, we rediscovered Taiwan. Sadly, Taiwan has remained stagnant for the past decade, its vitality sapped by an endless political soap opera that repeats and repeats and never goes anywhere. Happily, Taiwan retains its resilience. As a result of their love for this land, more and more people are refusing to be politically manipulated. More and more people are speaking out, voicing their aspirations for the future. We must find our own way. The Chinese people on Taiwan deserve a better life. Those who live on this land, have no excuse to give up and no right to despair. Just as in the past, whenever Taiwan touched bottom, that is when things turned around. Taiwan underwent the White Terror, then the economy took off. Taiwan underwent chaos, then a Quiet Revolution. Taiwan underwent regime change, and the public welcomed the advent of a new era. Tragically, to everyone's surprise, the world continued on its way, while Taiwan stagnated.
During these years, a Taiwan which prided itself on its economic miracle, found itself eclipsed by South Korea in annual GDP. Taiwan's replacement by a rapidly rising mainland China became a global phenomenon that could no longer be ignored. Taiwan, it was once said, was "up to its knees in money." Now it is up to its neck in red ink. The next generation will be born owing money. A formerely egalitarian Taiwan is becoming an "M Shaped Society" in which the middle class has vanished. This M Shaped Society will be the next generation's unwelcome legacy. Children will be born into two different worlds. From the moment they are born, the will start out unequal. We are unlikely to witness another child from a "Category Three Impoverished Household" become ROC president.
When discussing Taiwan's past, many members of the public, including scholars and experts, find themselves imagining Taiwan's future, and feel a deep sense of unease. When asked what worries them most, they sigh and reply, "Everything. Everything worries me." When asked whether Taiwan will be better off in ten years, only 20% of the public says it will be. As many as 34% think otherwise. Such numbers were unimaginable ten or twenty years ago. Taiwan was once a society brimming with confidence. No matter what occupation, give a man a suitcase and he would conquer the world. So how did it all come to this?
To many anxious and angry members of the public, politics is a curse they can't seem to rid themselves of. Reunification vs. independence, Blue vs. Green, so-called "ethnicity," which is nothing more than communal groups, and cross-Straits issues, all involve politics. Put bluntly, ideology is leading everyone around by the nose. Being led around by the nose is bad enough. What's worse is that for the past several years Taiwan's society has been led around in circles, and gone nowhere. Political indoctrination and mobilization have deepened social divisions. Political rhetoric rides roughshod over the Rule of Law and fills people's hearts with hatred. Opposition between "us" and "them" helps justify cronyism and corruption. Professional expertise is treated with contempt. As a consequence public works and tax policy become means of buying votes and winning elections. Cross-Straits policies are impossible to implement. Direct Links have become a chimera. The 40% upper limit for investments on the mainland has remained in place. Taiwan's wealth is outsourcing itself at a rate and in a manner the government cannot fathom.
What can Taiwan do? If current trends cannot be reversed, what is Taiwan going to look like ten years from now? Will it look like Brazil or the Philippines? During our investigations, many people said that whether Taiwan can turn things around depends on what we do in the coming year or two. The hour is late. Action is overdue.
The media is a part of the larger environment. It cannot divorce itself from this environment. When politics possesses everyone like a demon, much of the media gets led around by the nose as well. They parrot the politicians, classifying individuals as enemy or friend. They willingly act as the government's mouthpieces and attack dogs. The result is the language of hate trips off the tongues of third rate demagogues and insinuates itself into every household. One turns on the television, and lo and behold, there is the enemy, there is the spectacle of civil war in the guise of democratic elections, a waking nightmare.
The China Times champions freedom, democracy, and openess. It never cozies up to authority. It refuses to divide people into "us" and "them." The "Taiwan's Hopes 2008" retrospective focused on the people of this land. We wanted to hear the people's voices and understand their aspirations. In the process, even though we were subjected to political persecution and smears, we never flinched. Members of the media are society's guardians. We uncover problems and seek solutions alongside the Chinese people on Taiwan.
Our investigation revealed deep skepticism about the government's competence, shared by experts and laymen alike. As many as 75% of the people do not believe the government has the ability to solve society's problems. Such numbers would be enough to leave us deeply pessimistic about Taiwan's future. After all, the government is incapable of even maintaining the status quo, let alone reversing a downward trend. But we feel just the opposite. During our investigation, experts and laymen alike still harbored hope for the future of Taiwan. Most importantly, 80 to 90% of the leaders polled were willing to take action on behalf of Taiwan's future. Even among those ambivalent about Taiwan's future, some 46% are committed to take action.
"Don't always rely on the government!" Taiwan's vitality and competitiveness derives from the people. Taiwan's resilience will be our greatest asset in our reversal of fortune. The people mistrust the government. Yet the government refuses to open its eyes and see the problems. It refuses to open its ears and listen to the people's wishes. It remains drunk with power. It continues to believe that winning elections is everything. The Chinese people on Taiwan need wait for them no longer.
Look to the land. Identify with the people. Every individual can do more. The China Times' "Taiwan's Hope 2008" retrospective is a beginning, not an end. Our efforts show that love for Taiwan is not a short term political ploy. Only selfless love will enable Taiwan to thrive.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.27
愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作
中時社論
不經過比較，不曉得時間的力量；不經過比較，不會驚覺人可能在時間之流中完全停滯，甚至後退。《中國時報》用了超過三個月的時間，動員龐大的人力與資源，製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，重新回望這十年、廿年來的台灣。我們採訪各行各業的人們，回味他們的記憶與愛，分享他們的焦慮和迷惘。
這是一個重新認識台灣、重新尋找台灣的過程。讓我們嘆息的是，台灣的生命力在這十年竟彷彿被困在週而復始、永不下檔的政治連續劇裡；讓我們高興的是，台灣的韌性依舊在，因為對這塊土地的愛，愈來愈多人再不願意被政治綁架；愈來愈多人願意大聲說出自己的盼望：我們要走自己的路，台灣人值得擁有更高品質的生活。因為生活在這塊土地上的人們，沒有放棄的道理，沒有絕望的權力，就像是台灣過去曾經走過的路，當沈悶到極致，跌盪到谷底，就該是會翻轉而起的時刻。
回顧過去的歲月，台灣走過白色恐怖，就走出了經濟起飛；走過街頭狂飆，就走出了寧靜革命；走過了政黨輪替，在眾人欣喜迎接新時代到來的同時，的確，沒有太多人料到世界運轉未嘗停止，但台灣卻停滯了。
就在這幾年，以創造經濟奇蹟為傲的台灣，國民平均所得被南韓超越；取代台灣成為全球化趨勢下不可忽略的現象是「中國崛起」；曾經號稱「台灣錢淹腳目」的國家財政連年赤字，我們的下一代尚未出生就開始負債；相對均富的台灣，開始討論著中產消失的「Ｍ型社會」；Ｍ型社會反映到下一代，就造成兩個世界的孩子，從他們來到這個世界的第一刻起，他們就站在一個不公平的起跑點上。台灣還創造得出「三級貧戶當總統」的神話嗎？
許許多多民眾和學者專家，與我們談起台灣的過去，想像台灣的未來，憂心不已，他們一路勾選著他們最擔憂的問題，一路嘆氣，「唉，都是問題，都是問題。」問起未來十年台灣會不會更好？只有百分之廿的民眾給予肯定答案，認為台灣未來十年會變得更不好的竟高達百分之卅四以上。這個數據在過去十年、甚至廿年，都是難以想像的，台灣曾經是這麼一個有信心的社會，不論各行各業，一卡皮箱就能走遍全世界，為什麼迷惘了呢？
在林林總總民眾擔憂、甚至憤怒的問題中，「政治」就像個擺脫不了的詛咒。從統獨、藍綠、族群到兩岸關係，無一不緊扣著政治，直接的說，就是被政治識意型態牽著跑；牽著能跑也罷了，這幾年的景況是台灣社會各面向被政治牽著團團轉─原地打轉。政治操作與動員，擴大了社會對立；政治語言既無法治觀念，還充滿仇恨；因為敵我壁壘分明，表現在政商關係上就更容易造成掛勾和貪腐的小圈圈；專業決策空間不受尊重，結果公共建設與租稅政策，成為討好選民的選舉利多；兩岸關係因此無法有效開展，不但三通直航迄今猶如鏡花水月，開放赴大陸投資百分之四十上限亦始終未能調整，台灣財富以一種政府看不見的速度和方向：加速外移。
台灣還能怎麼辦呢？如果這一切不能翻轉，台灣未來十年將會是什麼局面？是曾經紛亂的巴西還是菲律賓？在我們調查過程中，許多人都說，台灣能不能從這幾年的呆滯中逐漸灰暗，翻轉到光明躍動的另一面，「關鍵就在這一、二年。」事實上，時間也容不得台灣再拖延，我們一定得採取行動。
媒體做為大環境的一環，不可能自外於這個行動。當政治如同詛咒般充斥各面向的同時，很大部份的媒體同樣被政治牽著鼻子跑，用類如政客的語言分敵分友，自甘為政客的傳聲筒和打擊政敵的工具，結果仇恨的語言，就這麼從不入流的政客口中，鑽進了每一個市井小民的家中，打開電視機就看得到敵人，就看得到選舉的戰爭，成為日常生活甩不開的噩夢。
《中國時報》秉持自由、民主、開放的精神，從來不向權力者靠攏，更不屑屈從於劃分敵我的政治動員。因此，《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，從一開始就鎖定這塊土地的人民，我們要聽到人民的呼吸、人民的心聲。在過程中，即使遭到莫明的政治打壓和抹黑，我們從未退縮，因為我們堅信：既身為媒體，就要扮演好守望者、警示者的角色，我們毫不鬆懈地挖掘問題，找出問題，同時，與台灣人民一同追尋答案。
在我們的調查過程中，對政府能力的不信任，是民眾和學者專家的高度共識。高達百分之七十五的人，根本不相信政府有解決問題的能力。這麼高的比例，足以讓我們對台灣未來完全悲觀，因為沒能力的政府改變不了現狀，改善不了愈趨惡化的各種情況。但是，結果剛好相反，在我們的調查中，不論是民眾或學者專家絕大多數還是對台灣懷抱希望；最重要的，高達八、九成受訪的意見領袖毫不猶疑地表達，願意為台灣的未來採取行動。即使對台灣未來彷徨無力的一般民眾，仍有四成六的受訪者，不吝於採取行動。
「不要只想著靠政府！」是的，台灣的生命力和競爭力，向來都是從民間勃發，台灣人的韌性是我們扭轉未來的最大資產。這麼不被人民信賴的政府，如果還是不肯張開眼睛，看清楚問題何在？不肯打開耳朵，聆聽人民的心聲，依舊自以為是地陷入政治動員的狂喜之中而不可自拔，以為選舉就是一切，勝選就是唯一，台灣人民不必等他。
面向土地、心向人民的時候，每一個人都可以做更多事。《中國時報》製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，只是一個開端，不是結束。我們的努力可以証明：愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作；唯有深沉無私的愛，得以讓台灣生命力，生生不息。
Monday, November 26, 2007
Oppose the Anti-Democratic Tide on Taiwan
Oppose the Anti-Democratic Tide on Taiwan
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2007
Taipei City and other Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. Last night, Chen Shui-bian responded that he was seriously considering four possibilities suggested by his advisors. These include: One, declaring martial law. Two, declaring the results of any plebiscites from counties and cities that use the two stage balloting procedure invalid. Three, firing all election officials in Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities and reappointing new ones. Four, postponing the election until an agreement has been reached. Assuming Chen Shui-bian was not merely running off at the mouth, we appeal to all individuals of conscience on Taiwan. Do not allow a solitary individual to destroy the ROC's democracy. We must not allow the ROC, which is already on the road to democracy, to backslide into authoritarianism and martial law.
The sad fact is an anti-democratic tide is rising on Taiwan. It already threatens the ROC's political framework. Some counties and cities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. They are protesting the Central Election Commitee's violation of laws mandating secret balloting and administrative neutrality. To everyones' astonishment, the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of the Interior, the Central Election Committee, and the Ministry of Justice convened a press conference, threatening to punish any polling station workers who participate in the two stage balloting process. The ruling regime even threatened to press criminal charges against them and take away their pensions. It is resorting to unbelievably thuggish means to increase the number of plebiscite ballots cast. It is threatening criminal penalties and administrative punishments against these civil servants, who have a sworn duty to remain scrupulously neutral. The methods the ruling regime are using to impose its flagrantly biased balloting procedure upon local governments are barbaric. Martial law was rescinded twenty years ago. The DPP boasts of its love for the people. Yet it reveals its contempt for the people, its ostensible masters, by flagrantly manipulating the balloting procedure to ensure the results it wants. How can discriminating Individuals not be distressed?
Several months ago the Democratic Progressive Party, attempting to rationalize its opposition to Central Election Committee reform, obstructed the conduct of official business in the Legislature by means of physical violence. DPP legislators even locked the doors of the Legislature, then physically attacked opposition legislators. Whether the proposed Pan Blue bill for the Central Election Committee reform was ideal can be subjected to rational debate. But it absolutely may not be obstructed by resort to physical violence. In retrospect, the DPP's thuggish, anti-democratic behavior, was to ensure that the Central Election Committee would remain the ruling DPP's regime's reelection committee. The Central Election Committee is supposed to be objective and neutral. It is supposed to ensure free and fair elections, and thereby maintaining the core values of democracy. But Central Election Committee members controlled by today's Democratic Progressive Party, are willing to sell their souls, to betray their consciences, to be stooges for a specific political party. Not one of them understands the value of democracy. The Democratic Progressive Party is the political party which has destroyed the ROC's democracy. It is no exaggeration to say that these members of the Central Election Committee are the executioners of free and fair elections.
The ruling party has violated democratic principles by manipulating the Central Election Committee, in order to promote its Plebiscite to Join the UN. Over the past several months, the Democratic Progressive Party has illegally diverted government funds into promoting its "Join the UN" campaign. It has coerced the media into cooperating. It has resorted to a wide range of executive orders to coerce the public into signing or supporting its Petition to Join the UN. It has used official office hours to hold private meetings. It has stamped or pasted political slogans on private citizens' letters and packages, and on government property. It has filled government webpages with Join the UN propaganda. It has committed all sorts of violations of administrative neutrality. It has violated its obligation to behave like public servants, with a sense of propriety. Its sins truly are too many to enumerate.
The ruling party has turned its back on democratic ideals. The opposition parties and media have not been remiss. They have pointed out the ruling party's wrongdoings and harshly criticized it. But the ruling party has reacted to such criticisms and accusations as if they were Red Guards. Whenever any member of the public faults the Plebiscite to Join the UN for its violations of administrative neutrality or electoral neutrality, the ruling party immediately unleashes its official government media attack dogs upon them. The first thing they invariably do is change the subject. The very next thing they do is accuse any media that uphold media freedom as "pro reunification." They beatify themselves, depicting themselves as nativist defenders of the sacred soil of Taiwan. They use such simplistic dichotomies as cover for the violence they have done to democratic values in the name of the Plebiscite to Join the UN. The balloting procedure affects only the polling station process. Yet the ruling DPP's talking heads began ranting that any ballots cast by means of the two stage voting process would be declared invalid, that any unrest must be put down, and that it may be necessary to impose martial law. What sort of insane logic is this?
Opposition party criticisms regarding violations of administrative neutrality and electoral neutrality are reduced to struggles over reunification vs. independence, love for Taiwan vs. lack of love for Taiwan, nativist sentiment vs. non-nativist or even anti-nativist sentiment. As a consequence, the ruling DPP's thuggish and arbitrary behavior, becomes a necessary evil for these self-styled "lovers of Taiwan." Any criticisms leveled against them, are turned into nitpicking by those who are "selling out Taiwan." These "public servants" have sundered, divided, and hoodwinked their nominal bosses, "We, the People." Frankly, the political atmosphere on Taiwan reminds one of the Chinese Communist Party's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution."
Chen Shui-bian is not averse to declaring martial law, to nullifying the results of any two stage balloting procedures, to postponing the election, or resorting to other forms of intimidation. Leave aside the fact that Chen Shui-bian once swore he "absolutely, positively would not declare martial law within the duration of his term. Everyone on Taiwan has the right to ask: Is this the way a democratically elected leader ought to be talking? Is this the way a political party that claims to believe in democracy ought to be thinking? This year is the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. The DPP has long attempted to claim exclusive credit for the lifting of martial law. Now their own party chairman is publicly threatening to impose martial law upon citizens of the Republic of China. Why? Merely because certain counties and municipalities refused to knuckle under to the ruling regime's will regarding balloting procedures. Even authoritarian regimes don't have the chutzpah to impose martial law on such a flimsy pretext. Yet Chen Shui-bian blurted it right out. Even more shockingly, Chen Shui-bian is planning to declare the result of a democratically held election invalid. In other words, after voters of 2/3 of Taiwan's counties and municipalities exercise their right to vote, Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party intend to declare their votes invalid. To paraphrase an infamous DPP political ad, "no matter how barbaric one might be," and no matter how little the voters' ballots might figure in one's hearts, such madness is intolerable.
Our hearts are heavy leveling such harsh criticisms against the ruling party. Taiwan is our home, our only home. However painful, we must point out that any behavior that violates the principle of democracy for the sake of election victories, inflicts harm upon Taiwan. Democratic Progressive Party political figures have long mouthed slogans such as: "Elections are fleeting, democracy is forever" or "[So and so] may lose, but Taiwan must not lose." Today, their hypocrisy grates on the ears. We issue a stern warning to individuals of conscience within the DPP, if any. Whether the DPP will lose next year's election we don't know. But if you refuse to speak out, yet again, Taiwan's democracy surely will lose. We issue a stern warning to all politicians. ROC citizens' eyes are wide open. You may undermine Taiwan's democracy by resorting to deception. But the people will not allow you to win the upcoming elections. Finally, we appeal to everyone on Taiwan, treasure and defend our democratic ideals. Courageously protest, spurn, and resist any anti-democratic behavior. Only by defending democracy can we prevail against the reactionary currents of Taiwan's own Cultural Revolution.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.26
請正視台灣日漸升高的反民主氛圍
中時社論
面對北市與泛藍執政縣市堅持兩階段領投票，陳水扁昨晚宣稱他正在慎重思考有人建議的四項方案，包括，宣布戒嚴、兩階段公投縣市選舉無效、撤銷泛藍縣市選委會主委重新指派，甚至由中央選委會宣布延後選舉，等說好之後再投票。如果陳水扁這些語言不是「信口開河」，那麼我們真的要呼籲台灣所有有識之士，千萬別讓台灣的民主根基毀在他一個人手上！更千萬別讓已邁向民主的台灣，走回威權戒嚴的回頭路！
事實上，最近台灣的「反民主」氛圍，正在日漸升高，已經危及到台灣整個民主體質。要知道，若干縣市會堅持採取兩階段投票，主要是為抗議中選會違反基於祕密投票與選務中立，結果竟引來行政院、內政部、中選會、法務部等單位聯合召開記者會，揚言要對採取兩階段領票的選務人員逕行懲處，甚至以刑罰、退休金之有無做要脅。執政黨為了衝高公投領票率而採行爭議極大的領票方式已經是極為粗暴，如今竟還要用刑罰與行政懲處的手段脅迫本應中立的公教選務人員配合其粗暴，簡直就是野蠻。在台灣已經解嚴廿年之後，一個號稱愛鄉土的政黨，用這等不尊重人民頭家的方式肆行操弄選舉，真的是令有識之士痛心。
早在數月之前，民進黨就為阻擋中央選委會的法制化與合理化，在立法院多次干擾議事，甚至封鎖議場、大打出手。泛藍所提的中選會組織法可能不理想，但絕對要用理性的方式討論，而非以粗野的方式阻止其討論。事後看來，這些粗野、反民主的行為，似乎都是在為今日執政黨操控中選會做準備。中央選委會理應是個客觀、中立、保障選舉公平運作、維護民主核心價值的機構，但是今日民進黨所主控的若干中選會委員，一個個都像是不知民主價值為何物的化外之民，甘為特定政黨之狹隘目的，而出賣自己的靈魂與良知。以今日情勢觀之，若說民進黨是蹂躪台灣民主的政黨、說中選會若干委員是摧毀選舉公平的劊子手，似乎並不為過。
此外，執政黨為了拉抬入聯公投，其違背民主原則的手段不只是操控中選會而已。在過去數月之中，民進黨非法挪用法定預算宣傳該黨之入聯活動、壓迫媒體配合行銷、以各種行政手段脅迫民眾連署或支持其公投案、在公務上班時間召開徇私會議、在民眾文件與政府公物上貼標語貼紙、將政府網頁網站濫加入聯文宣連結，其種種違反行政中立、違反人民公僕應有分際的倒行逆施，真的是族繁不及備載。
面對執政黨這樣悖離民主理念的作為，在野黨不是沒有指責、媒體也不是沒有嚴厲批評，但執政黨對此批評與指責，竟然是以幾近紅衛兵的方式回應。輿論若是指責入聯公投違反行政中立或選務中立，立刻就有御用媒體邀集鷹犬級的名嘴予以回擊。他們一貫的作法，就是先模糊焦點，再一竿子把自由派媒體濫批為統派，把自己神聖化為本土、愛台灣，以這樣的胡亂二分法，去遮掩其種種為入聯公投而扭曲民主價值的作為。無論如何，領票方式只涉及選務流程，但竟有名嘴以幾近瘋狂的語氣主張行兩階段投票的選區一律選舉無效，動亂要弭平，甚至不惜採取戒嚴。這是什麼樣的猖狂邏輯？
同樣的，對於在野黨有關行政中立與選舉中立的質疑，執政黨也是把一切的批評都歸納為統／獨、愛台／不愛台、本土／反本土的二分法。於是，所有的粗魯蠻橫，似乎都成了這一批自稱愛台者的必要之惡。而一切對他們的質疑，又都變成了賣台者的吹毛求疵。一群人民公僕，竟然把人民頭家撕裂、分化、利用、蒙蔽到這種地步，坦白說，簡直已經有了中共當年「文革」的氛圍。
如今，陳水扁連不惜宣布戒嚴、兩階段投票無效、延後選舉等的恫嚇都搬出來了，先不必提陳水扁曾做過他任內「絕不會宣布戒嚴」的保證，至少所有台灣人都有權利要問一聲：這該是一個民選領袖該吐出的語言嗎？這該是一個以民主信仰為尚的政黨該有的念頭嗎？今年剛好還是解嚴二十周年，一個幾乎把「解嚴」的功業全攬在自己身上的政黨，他們黨主席竟然公開恫嚇台灣人民要宣布戒嚴，理由只不過是有些縣市在投票程序上不依執政黨的意志而為，這恐怕是連威權國家都不敢有的作為，陳水扁一句話就說出來了！更駭人聽聞的是，陳水扁還意圖要將民主選舉所產生的結果直接宣布無效，換言之，當台灣占有三分之二版圖縣市的選民行使完他們投票權以後，陳水扁或是民進黨可以逕自宣布其為無效，再怎麼野蠻，再怎麼不把台灣人民的選票看在眼裡，也容不得這般胡作非為吧？
我們今天對執政黨做這麼嚴厲的批評，心情是非常沉重的。台灣是我們的家園，我們唯一的家園。我們要沉痛地指出；任何為求勝選而悖離民主原則的行為，都是對台灣的傷害。民進黨政治人物常在嘴上掛著兩句話：「選舉是一時的、民主是永久的」、「某某人可以輸、台灣卻不能輸」，如今讀來都十分刺耳。我們要正告民進黨內的有識之士，明年的選舉民進黨輸不輸尚未可知，但倘若你們再不仗義執言，台灣的民主就絕對是在慘輸。我們也要正告所有的政客，台灣人民的眼睛是雪亮的；即便你們使出敗壞台灣民主的欺矇手段，人民也不會讓你們贏得一時的選舉。最後，我們也要呼籲所有的台灣人民，珍惜並堅持我們共有的民主理想，勇敢地抗議、唾棄、抵制所有悖離民主原則的作為。唯有我們堅持真正的民主，才能擊潰這一股文革逆流。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2007
Taipei City and other Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. Last night, Chen Shui-bian responded that he was seriously considering four possibilities suggested by his advisors. These include: One, declaring martial law. Two, declaring the results of any plebiscites from counties and cities that use the two stage balloting procedure invalid. Three, firing all election officials in Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities and reappointing new ones. Four, postponing the election until an agreement has been reached. Assuming Chen Shui-bian was not merely running off at the mouth, we appeal to all individuals of conscience on Taiwan. Do not allow a solitary individual to destroy the ROC's democracy. We must not allow the ROC, which is already on the road to democracy, to backslide into authoritarianism and martial law.
The sad fact is an anti-democratic tide is rising on Taiwan. It already threatens the ROC's political framework. Some counties and cities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. They are protesting the Central Election Commitee's violation of laws mandating secret balloting and administrative neutrality. To everyones' astonishment, the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of the Interior, the Central Election Committee, and the Ministry of Justice convened a press conference, threatening to punish any polling station workers who participate in the two stage balloting process. The ruling regime even threatened to press criminal charges against them and take away their pensions. It is resorting to unbelievably thuggish means to increase the number of plebiscite ballots cast. It is threatening criminal penalties and administrative punishments against these civil servants, who have a sworn duty to remain scrupulously neutral. The methods the ruling regime are using to impose its flagrantly biased balloting procedure upon local governments are barbaric. Martial law was rescinded twenty years ago. The DPP boasts of its love for the people. Yet it reveals its contempt for the people, its ostensible masters, by flagrantly manipulating the balloting procedure to ensure the results it wants. How can discriminating Individuals not be distressed?
Several months ago the Democratic Progressive Party, attempting to rationalize its opposition to Central Election Committee reform, obstructed the conduct of official business in the Legislature by means of physical violence. DPP legislators even locked the doors of the Legislature, then physically attacked opposition legislators. Whether the proposed Pan Blue bill for the Central Election Committee reform was ideal can be subjected to rational debate. But it absolutely may not be obstructed by resort to physical violence. In retrospect, the DPP's thuggish, anti-democratic behavior, was to ensure that the Central Election Committee would remain the ruling DPP's regime's reelection committee. The Central Election Committee is supposed to be objective and neutral. It is supposed to ensure free and fair elections, and thereby maintaining the core values of democracy. But Central Election Committee members controlled by today's Democratic Progressive Party, are willing to sell their souls, to betray their consciences, to be stooges for a specific political party. Not one of them understands the value of democracy. The Democratic Progressive Party is the political party which has destroyed the ROC's democracy. It is no exaggeration to say that these members of the Central Election Committee are the executioners of free and fair elections.
The ruling party has violated democratic principles by manipulating the Central Election Committee, in order to promote its Plebiscite to Join the UN. Over the past several months, the Democratic Progressive Party has illegally diverted government funds into promoting its "Join the UN" campaign. It has coerced the media into cooperating. It has resorted to a wide range of executive orders to coerce the public into signing or supporting its Petition to Join the UN. It has used official office hours to hold private meetings. It has stamped or pasted political slogans on private citizens' letters and packages, and on government property. It has filled government webpages with Join the UN propaganda. It has committed all sorts of violations of administrative neutrality. It has violated its obligation to behave like public servants, with a sense of propriety. Its sins truly are too many to enumerate.
The ruling party has turned its back on democratic ideals. The opposition parties and media have not been remiss. They have pointed out the ruling party's wrongdoings and harshly criticized it. But the ruling party has reacted to such criticisms and accusations as if they were Red Guards. Whenever any member of the public faults the Plebiscite to Join the UN for its violations of administrative neutrality or electoral neutrality, the ruling party immediately unleashes its official government media attack dogs upon them. The first thing they invariably do is change the subject. The very next thing they do is accuse any media that uphold media freedom as "pro reunification." They beatify themselves, depicting themselves as nativist defenders of the sacred soil of Taiwan. They use such simplistic dichotomies as cover for the violence they have done to democratic values in the name of the Plebiscite to Join the UN. The balloting procedure affects only the polling station process. Yet the ruling DPP's talking heads began ranting that any ballots cast by means of the two stage voting process would be declared invalid, that any unrest must be put down, and that it may be necessary to impose martial law. What sort of insane logic is this?
Opposition party criticisms regarding violations of administrative neutrality and electoral neutrality are reduced to struggles over reunification vs. independence, love for Taiwan vs. lack of love for Taiwan, nativist sentiment vs. non-nativist or even anti-nativist sentiment. As a consequence, the ruling DPP's thuggish and arbitrary behavior, becomes a necessary evil for these self-styled "lovers of Taiwan." Any criticisms leveled against them, are turned into nitpicking by those who are "selling out Taiwan." These "public servants" have sundered, divided, and hoodwinked their nominal bosses, "We, the People." Frankly, the political atmosphere on Taiwan reminds one of the Chinese Communist Party's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution."
Chen Shui-bian is not averse to declaring martial law, to nullifying the results of any two stage balloting procedures, to postponing the election, or resorting to other forms of intimidation. Leave aside the fact that Chen Shui-bian once swore he "absolutely, positively would not declare martial law within the duration of his term. Everyone on Taiwan has the right to ask: Is this the way a democratically elected leader ought to be talking? Is this the way a political party that claims to believe in democracy ought to be thinking? This year is the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. The DPP has long attempted to claim exclusive credit for the lifting of martial law. Now their own party chairman is publicly threatening to impose martial law upon citizens of the Republic of China. Why? Merely because certain counties and municipalities refused to knuckle under to the ruling regime's will regarding balloting procedures. Even authoritarian regimes don't have the chutzpah to impose martial law on such a flimsy pretext. Yet Chen Shui-bian blurted it right out. Even more shockingly, Chen Shui-bian is planning to declare the result of a democratically held election invalid. In other words, after voters of 2/3 of Taiwan's counties and municipalities exercise their right to vote, Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party intend to declare their votes invalid. To paraphrase an infamous DPP political ad, "no matter how barbaric one might be," and no matter how little the voters' ballots might figure in one's hearts, such madness is intolerable.
Our hearts are heavy leveling such harsh criticisms against the ruling party. Taiwan is our home, our only home. However painful, we must point out that any behavior that violates the principle of democracy for the sake of election victories, inflicts harm upon Taiwan. Democratic Progressive Party political figures have long mouthed slogans such as: "Elections are fleeting, democracy is forever" or "[So and so] may lose, but Taiwan must not lose." Today, their hypocrisy grates on the ears. We issue a stern warning to individuals of conscience within the DPP, if any. Whether the DPP will lose next year's election we don't know. But if you refuse to speak out, yet again, Taiwan's democracy surely will lose. We issue a stern warning to all politicians. ROC citizens' eyes are wide open. You may undermine Taiwan's democracy by resorting to deception. But the people will not allow you to win the upcoming elections. Finally, we appeal to everyone on Taiwan, treasure and defend our democratic ideals. Courageously protest, spurn, and resist any anti-democratic behavior. Only by defending democracy can we prevail against the reactionary currents of Taiwan's own Cultural Revolution.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.26
請正視台灣日漸升高的反民主氛圍
中時社論
面對北市與泛藍執政縣市堅持兩階段領投票，陳水扁昨晚宣稱他正在慎重思考有人建議的四項方案，包括，宣布戒嚴、兩階段公投縣市選舉無效、撤銷泛藍縣市選委會主委重新指派，甚至由中央選委會宣布延後選舉，等說好之後再投票。如果陳水扁這些語言不是「信口開河」，那麼我們真的要呼籲台灣所有有識之士，千萬別讓台灣的民主根基毀在他一個人手上！更千萬別讓已邁向民主的台灣，走回威權戒嚴的回頭路！
事實上，最近台灣的「反民主」氛圍，正在日漸升高，已經危及到台灣整個民主體質。要知道，若干縣市會堅持採取兩階段投票，主要是為抗議中選會違反基於祕密投票與選務中立，結果竟引來行政院、內政部、中選會、法務部等單位聯合召開記者會，揚言要對採取兩階段領票的選務人員逕行懲處，甚至以刑罰、退休金之有無做要脅。執政黨為了衝高公投領票率而採行爭議極大的領票方式已經是極為粗暴，如今竟還要用刑罰與行政懲處的手段脅迫本應中立的公教選務人員配合其粗暴，簡直就是野蠻。在台灣已經解嚴廿年之後，一個號稱愛鄉土的政黨，用這等不尊重人民頭家的方式肆行操弄選舉，真的是令有識之士痛心。
早在數月之前，民進黨就為阻擋中央選委會的法制化與合理化，在立法院多次干擾議事，甚至封鎖議場、大打出手。泛藍所提的中選會組織法可能不理想，但絕對要用理性的方式討論，而非以粗野的方式阻止其討論。事後看來，這些粗野、反民主的行為，似乎都是在為今日執政黨操控中選會做準備。中央選委會理應是個客觀、中立、保障選舉公平運作、維護民主核心價值的機構，但是今日民進黨所主控的若干中選會委員，一個個都像是不知民主價值為何物的化外之民，甘為特定政黨之狹隘目的，而出賣自己的靈魂與良知。以今日情勢觀之，若說民進黨是蹂躪台灣民主的政黨、說中選會若干委員是摧毀選舉公平的劊子手，似乎並不為過。
此外，執政黨為了拉抬入聯公投，其違背民主原則的手段不只是操控中選會而已。在過去數月之中，民進黨非法挪用法定預算宣傳該黨之入聯活動、壓迫媒體配合行銷、以各種行政手段脅迫民眾連署或支持其公投案、在公務上班時間召開徇私會議、在民眾文件與政府公物上貼標語貼紙、將政府網頁網站濫加入聯文宣連結，其種種違反行政中立、違反人民公僕應有分際的倒行逆施，真的是族繁不及備載。
面對執政黨這樣悖離民主理念的作為，在野黨不是沒有指責、媒體也不是沒有嚴厲批評，但執政黨對此批評與指責，竟然是以幾近紅衛兵的方式回應。輿論若是指責入聯公投違反行政中立或選務中立，立刻就有御用媒體邀集鷹犬級的名嘴予以回擊。他們一貫的作法，就是先模糊焦點，再一竿子把自由派媒體濫批為統派，把自己神聖化為本土、愛台灣，以這樣的胡亂二分法，去遮掩其種種為入聯公投而扭曲民主價值的作為。無論如何，領票方式只涉及選務流程，但竟有名嘴以幾近瘋狂的語氣主張行兩階段投票的選區一律選舉無效，動亂要弭平，甚至不惜採取戒嚴。這是什麼樣的猖狂邏輯？
同樣的，對於在野黨有關行政中立與選舉中立的質疑，執政黨也是把一切的批評都歸納為統／獨、愛台／不愛台、本土／反本土的二分法。於是，所有的粗魯蠻橫，似乎都成了這一批自稱愛台者的必要之惡。而一切對他們的質疑，又都變成了賣台者的吹毛求疵。一群人民公僕，竟然把人民頭家撕裂、分化、利用、蒙蔽到這種地步，坦白說，簡直已經有了中共當年「文革」的氛圍。
如今，陳水扁連不惜宣布戒嚴、兩階段投票無效、延後選舉等的恫嚇都搬出來了，先不必提陳水扁曾做過他任內「絕不會宣布戒嚴」的保證，至少所有台灣人都有權利要問一聲：這該是一個民選領袖該吐出的語言嗎？這該是一個以民主信仰為尚的政黨該有的念頭嗎？今年剛好還是解嚴二十周年，一個幾乎把「解嚴」的功業全攬在自己身上的政黨，他們黨主席竟然公開恫嚇台灣人民要宣布戒嚴，理由只不過是有些縣市在投票程序上不依執政黨的意志而為，這恐怕是連威權國家都不敢有的作為，陳水扁一句話就說出來了！更駭人聽聞的是，陳水扁還意圖要將民主選舉所產生的結果直接宣布無效，換言之，當台灣占有三分之二版圖縣市的選民行使完他們投票權以後，陳水扁或是民進黨可以逕自宣布其為無效，再怎麼野蠻，再怎麼不把台灣人民的選票看在眼裡，也容不得這般胡作非為吧？
我們今天對執政黨做這麼嚴厲的批評，心情是非常沉重的。台灣是我們的家園，我們唯一的家園。我們要沉痛地指出；任何為求勝選而悖離民主原則的行為，都是對台灣的傷害。民進黨政治人物常在嘴上掛著兩句話：「選舉是一時的、民主是永久的」、「某某人可以輸、台灣卻不能輸」，如今讀來都十分刺耳。我們要正告民進黨內的有識之士，明年的選舉民進黨輸不輸尚未可知，但倘若你們再不仗義執言，台灣的民主就絕對是在慘輸。我們也要正告所有的政客，台灣人民的眼睛是雪亮的；即便你們使出敗壞台灣民主的欺矇手段，人民也不會讓你們贏得一時的選舉。最後，我們也要呼籲所有的台灣人民，珍惜並堅持我們共有的民主理想，勇敢地抗議、唾棄、抵制所有悖離民主原則的作為。唯有我們堅持真正的民主，才能擊潰這一股文革逆流。
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Taiwan's Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound
Taiwan's Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2007
Our national leaders are in the habit of reminding us that Beijing has a large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, therefore everybody ought to remain vigilant. This is not entirely wrong. But Taiwan's biggest threat is not necessarily Beijing's missiles. It is a brain drain that has inflicted a mortal wound upon Taiwan's competitiveness.
Taiwan is experiencing a brain drain. White collar workers are in a hurry to leave. This is no longer a phenomenon that can be ignored. Most of them leave for mainland China, primarily due to Taiwan's internal political struggles. Ruling DPP leaders reason that "So what if we revive the economy? That doesn't mean we'll get reelected." Whereupon they continue their ideologically-motivated Closed Door Policy. They allow industry to wither. Young workers can no longer find work, and must leave to survive.
In the past, most countries did not welcome immigrants. They tried to stop them. Now circumstances are different. Now we have Globalization and the Global Village. Now the World is Flat. To be competitive one must have talented people. The countries of the world now compete for the most talented people. They have launched a "Global Talent Hunt." The nations of the world have one by one revised their immigration policies, and are recruiting foreign students from all over the globe. They offer all sorts of enticements to make them come.
The mainland Chinese economy is growingly rapidly, by double digits every year. It is estimated that next year its total output may surpass Germany's. It will become the world's third largest economic entity. Such enormous productivity creates enormous purchasing power. Transnational corporations are all struggling to be the first to profit from a market of 1.3 billion customers. Taiwan's major corporations have been directly or indirectly entering the mainland. Taiwan's economy has stagnated due to internal political strife. Businesses have had no choice but to seek refuge on the mainland. At first they tested the waters. Eventually they stayed to sink roots.
Taiwan businesspersons who move to the mainland take personnel along with them. The mainland desperately needs business managers and financial managers who understand global markets. According to Taiwan's 104 Job Bank, a head-hunting firm, Taiwan businesspersons and mainland businesspersons alike approach them for workers. The Job Bank invariably asks jobseekers a question: "Are you willing to work on the mainland?" Not long ago National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of Business Administration surveyed 30 students. Forty percent of them said they were willing to work on the mainland
In fact, many white collar managerial and technical personnel have already moved to the mainland. According to estimates by the Taiwanese Businessmen's Association, the Shanghai, Suzhou, and Kunshan regions alone have over 500,000 Taiwan businesspersons. If one adds nearby Guangdong, the number approaches 800,000 to 900,000. Naturally this does not include Taiwan talent recruited by mainland businesses.
Taiwan Media Watch conducted a survey. They asked people why they were willing to work on the mainland. Their answers were illuminating:
One. Rapid salary increases. In some years their salary increased 20% to 30%. Approximately 10% of the increase was due to market growth.
Two. Working on the mainland is a simple way of moving toward internationalization.
Three. Taiwan is no longer a link in the global market. Taiwan businesses have no future. Individuals working for Taiwan businesses have no future either.
Four. Working on the mainland is like participating in the Olympics, One is competing with world class competitors. It is both a personal challenge and a learning opportunity.
Many human resource firms and consulting firms have noted that among the economies of the Asian Pacific region, Taiwan's manpower requirements have been the lowest for five straight years. In October of this year, 100,000 university graduates, including those with masters and doctorates, cannot find work. Therefore the age of those who have gone to the mainland or hope to go to the mainland is getting younger and younger. Now entire families are picking up and moving to the mainland. The children no longer study in foreign schools or bilingual schools. Instead they enroll in local schools. They do so because their future is there. Therefore they feel they must integrate into local society as soon as possible.
Our Ministry of Education recognizes diplomas from third rate universities in the US. But it refuses to recognize diplomas from mainland China's Beijing University, Qinghua University, and other famous schools. As a result, many students from Taiwan who studied and obtained degrees on the mainland, are only able to work on the mainland.
In 1949 Nationalist troops were routed in the Battle of Xu Bang. The government retreated to Taiwan. Acting General Tu Yu-ming was captured by Chen Yi's troops. He was released after "Successful Thought Reform" in a Chinese Communist Party POW camp. On May 26, 1960, he was invited to a banquet held by Premier Zhou Enlai and Vice-Premier Chen Yi in honor of British Field Marshal Montgomery. While introducing Tu Yu-ming, Zhou Enlai said Tu once fought a battle with Chen Yi. Montgomery asked: Who won? Zhou answered: Chen Yi won. Montgomery asked Tu: How many troops did you command during that campaign? Tu answered: One million. Montgomery said: Anyone with a million troops under his command should not have lost. Tu explained: He had two million. Because my one million defected to his side.
This story is not necessarily true. But it is certainly something to think about.
人才流失是台灣競爭力的致命傷
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.22 03:34 am
國家領導人經常提醒民眾，對岸有多少多少顆飛彈正瞄準台灣，要大家提高警覺。話也許沒有錯，但台灣面臨的最大威脅未必是對岸的飛彈，而是人才流失對台灣競爭力造成的致命傷。
今天的台灣，腦力外移，白領階級出走，已是不容忽視的現象，其中又以去中國大陸者為多。主要是因為台灣內鬥不止，政客認為「把經濟搞好也不一定選得上」，於是繼續以意識形態鎖國，繼續讓產業萎縮；中青年找不到工作，只好外逃尋生路。
在過去，多數國家都不歡喜外來移民，設限阻止。現在不一樣了，全球化，地球村，世界是平的，有人才而後有競爭力，各國競自延攬人才，一場「全球人才爭奪戰」於焉展開。各國紛紛修改移民政策，並廣納外國留學生，以種種優惠條件，歡迎人才來歸。
中國大陸經濟發展快速，每年都以兩位數字成長。預估明年生產總值將可超過德國，成為世界第三大經濟體。由於這樣的產能及相應的消費力，全世界的跨國企業，都爭先到這個十三億人口的大市場尋求商機。而台灣的大企業更多已直接或迂迴進入大陸，再加上台灣因政治內耗而經濟停滯，使企業界在無從選擇下不得不「投奔」對岸。他們從初期的「試探」，到最後留下去「深耕」。
台商到大陸發展，要帶幹部過去。大陸自身對有國際觀的經理人才和金融人才也極端缺乏。據台灣一○四人力銀行說，台商和大陸商家都向它要人。人力銀行徵才會提一個問題：「你願去大陸工作嗎？」台大商學所不久前向三十名學生調查，有四成學生表示不排除去大陸工作。
實際上，很多白領階級的主管及技術人員已去了大陸。據台商協會的估計，單在上海與蘇州、昆山一帶的台籍人士就超過五十萬，再加上廣東附近的，應接近八十到九十萬之間。當然，這還不包括大陸企業聘請去的台灣人才。
台灣媒體曾做過調查，問這些人為什麼願去大陸工作，答案主要有以下這些：
一、薪水增加快，有年增百分之二十到三十者；其中百分之十因市場成長而來。
二、去大陸工作是跨向國際化最簡單的一步。
三、台灣已不是世界市場的一環，台灣企業沒有前途，個人未來自然也沒有發展。
四、到大陸工作像參加奧運，一起競爭的全是世界高手，對自己是挑戰，也是學習。
多家人力資源和顧問公司都觀察到，亞太各國的人力需求，台灣連五季墊底，今年十月底有十萬大學畢業生和碩、博士找不到工作，因此已去大陸和願去大陸工作者的年齡層，有日漸下降的趨勢。尤其值得注意的，現在很多人都是舉家遷往大陸，孩子也不再只選擇外國學校或雙語學校，而是進入當地學校就讀。這些人的理由是：既然要在當地發展，就要盡早融入當地社會。
我們的教育部承認美國的三流大學，但不承認中國大陸的北大、清華等名校的學歷，眾多到大陸讀書而取得學位的台灣學生，只有被迫「楚才晉用」。
一九四九年「徐蚌會戰」國軍大敗，政府被迫遷到台灣。實際指揮作戰的杜聿明將軍被陳毅軍隊俘虜，在中共戰俘營「改造成功」後獲釋。一九六○年五月二十六日應邀參加總理周恩來和副總理陳毅招待英國蒙哥馬利元帥的宴會。周恩來介紹杜聿明說：他跟陳毅打過戰。蒙問：誰贏了？周答：陳毅贏了。蒙問杜：那次戰役你有多少軍隊？杜答：一百萬。蒙說：擁有一百萬軍隊的統帥是不應該被打敗的。杜指著陳說：他有兩百萬人，因為我的一百萬都跑到他那裡去了。
這故事的內容未必全為真實，但這故事給人啟發，更給人警惕。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2007
Our national leaders are in the habit of reminding us that Beijing has a large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, therefore everybody ought to remain vigilant. This is not entirely wrong. But Taiwan's biggest threat is not necessarily Beijing's missiles. It is a brain drain that has inflicted a mortal wound upon Taiwan's competitiveness.
Taiwan is experiencing a brain drain. White collar workers are in a hurry to leave. This is no longer a phenomenon that can be ignored. Most of them leave for mainland China, primarily due to Taiwan's internal political struggles. Ruling DPP leaders reason that "So what if we revive the economy? That doesn't mean we'll get reelected." Whereupon they continue their ideologically-motivated Closed Door Policy. They allow industry to wither. Young workers can no longer find work, and must leave to survive.
In the past, most countries did not welcome immigrants. They tried to stop them. Now circumstances are different. Now we have Globalization and the Global Village. Now the World is Flat. To be competitive one must have talented people. The countries of the world now compete for the most talented people. They have launched a "Global Talent Hunt." The nations of the world have one by one revised their immigration policies, and are recruiting foreign students from all over the globe. They offer all sorts of enticements to make them come.
The mainland Chinese economy is growingly rapidly, by double digits every year. It is estimated that next year its total output may surpass Germany's. It will become the world's third largest economic entity. Such enormous productivity creates enormous purchasing power. Transnational corporations are all struggling to be the first to profit from a market of 1.3 billion customers. Taiwan's major corporations have been directly or indirectly entering the mainland. Taiwan's economy has stagnated due to internal political strife. Businesses have had no choice but to seek refuge on the mainland. At first they tested the waters. Eventually they stayed to sink roots.
Taiwan businesspersons who move to the mainland take personnel along with them. The mainland desperately needs business managers and financial managers who understand global markets. According to Taiwan's 104 Job Bank, a head-hunting firm, Taiwan businesspersons and mainland businesspersons alike approach them for workers. The Job Bank invariably asks jobseekers a question: "Are you willing to work on the mainland?" Not long ago National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of Business Administration surveyed 30 students. Forty percent of them said they were willing to work on the mainland
In fact, many white collar managerial and technical personnel have already moved to the mainland. According to estimates by the Taiwanese Businessmen's Association, the Shanghai, Suzhou, and Kunshan regions alone have over 500,000 Taiwan businesspersons. If one adds nearby Guangdong, the number approaches 800,000 to 900,000. Naturally this does not include Taiwan talent recruited by mainland businesses.
Taiwan Media Watch conducted a survey. They asked people why they were willing to work on the mainland. Their answers were illuminating:
One. Rapid salary increases. In some years their salary increased 20% to 30%. Approximately 10% of the increase was due to market growth.
Two. Working on the mainland is a simple way of moving toward internationalization.
Three. Taiwan is no longer a link in the global market. Taiwan businesses have no future. Individuals working for Taiwan businesses have no future either.
Four. Working on the mainland is like participating in the Olympics, One is competing with world class competitors. It is both a personal challenge and a learning opportunity.
Many human resource firms and consulting firms have noted that among the economies of the Asian Pacific region, Taiwan's manpower requirements have been the lowest for five straight years. In October of this year, 100,000 university graduates, including those with masters and doctorates, cannot find work. Therefore the age of those who have gone to the mainland or hope to go to the mainland is getting younger and younger. Now entire families are picking up and moving to the mainland. The children no longer study in foreign schools or bilingual schools. Instead they enroll in local schools. They do so because their future is there. Therefore they feel they must integrate into local society as soon as possible.
Our Ministry of Education recognizes diplomas from third rate universities in the US. But it refuses to recognize diplomas from mainland China's Beijing University, Qinghua University, and other famous schools. As a result, many students from Taiwan who studied and obtained degrees on the mainland, are only able to work on the mainland.
In 1949 Nationalist troops were routed in the Battle of Xu Bang. The government retreated to Taiwan. Acting General Tu Yu-ming was captured by Chen Yi's troops. He was released after "Successful Thought Reform" in a Chinese Communist Party POW camp. On May 26, 1960, he was invited to a banquet held by Premier Zhou Enlai and Vice-Premier Chen Yi in honor of British Field Marshal Montgomery. While introducing Tu Yu-ming, Zhou Enlai said Tu once fought a battle with Chen Yi. Montgomery asked: Who won? Zhou answered: Chen Yi won. Montgomery asked Tu: How many troops did you command during that campaign? Tu answered: One million. Montgomery said: Anyone with a million troops under his command should not have lost. Tu explained: He had two million. Because my one million defected to his side.
This story is not necessarily true. But it is certainly something to think about.
人才流失是台灣競爭力的致命傷
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.22 03:34 am
國家領導人經常提醒民眾，對岸有多少多少顆飛彈正瞄準台灣，要大家提高警覺。話也許沒有錯，但台灣面臨的最大威脅未必是對岸的飛彈，而是人才流失對台灣競爭力造成的致命傷。
今天的台灣，腦力外移，白領階級出走，已是不容忽視的現象，其中又以去中國大陸者為多。主要是因為台灣內鬥不止，政客認為「把經濟搞好也不一定選得上」，於是繼續以意識形態鎖國，繼續讓產業萎縮；中青年找不到工作，只好外逃尋生路。
在過去，多數國家都不歡喜外來移民，設限阻止。現在不一樣了，全球化，地球村，世界是平的，有人才而後有競爭力，各國競自延攬人才，一場「全球人才爭奪戰」於焉展開。各國紛紛修改移民政策，並廣納外國留學生，以種種優惠條件，歡迎人才來歸。
中國大陸經濟發展快速，每年都以兩位數字成長。預估明年生產總值將可超過德國，成為世界第三大經濟體。由於這樣的產能及相應的消費力，全世界的跨國企業，都爭先到這個十三億人口的大市場尋求商機。而台灣的大企業更多已直接或迂迴進入大陸，再加上台灣因政治內耗而經濟停滯，使企業界在無從選擇下不得不「投奔」對岸。他們從初期的「試探」，到最後留下去「深耕」。
台商到大陸發展，要帶幹部過去。大陸自身對有國際觀的經理人才和金融人才也極端缺乏。據台灣一○四人力銀行說，台商和大陸商家都向它要人。人力銀行徵才會提一個問題：「你願去大陸工作嗎？」台大商學所不久前向三十名學生調查，有四成學生表示不排除去大陸工作。
實際上，很多白領階級的主管及技術人員已去了大陸。據台商協會的估計，單在上海與蘇州、昆山一帶的台籍人士就超過五十萬，再加上廣東附近的，應接近八十到九十萬之間。當然，這還不包括大陸企業聘請去的台灣人才。
台灣媒體曾做過調查，問這些人為什麼願去大陸工作，答案主要有以下這些：
一、薪水增加快，有年增百分之二十到三十者；其中百分之十因市場成長而來。
二、去大陸工作是跨向國際化最簡單的一步。
三、台灣已不是世界市場的一環，台灣企業沒有前途，個人未來自然也沒有發展。
四、到大陸工作像參加奧運，一起競爭的全是世界高手，對自己是挑戰，也是學習。
多家人力資源和顧問公司都觀察到，亞太各國的人力需求，台灣連五季墊底，今年十月底有十萬大學畢業生和碩、博士找不到工作，因此已去大陸和願去大陸工作者的年齡層，有日漸下降的趨勢。尤其值得注意的，現在很多人都是舉家遷往大陸，孩子也不再只選擇外國學校或雙語學校，而是進入當地學校就讀。這些人的理由是：既然要在當地發展，就要盡早融入當地社會。
我們的教育部承認美國的三流大學，但不承認中國大陸的北大、清華等名校的學歷，眾多到大陸讀書而取得學位的台灣學生，只有被迫「楚才晉用」。
一九四九年「徐蚌會戰」國軍大敗，政府被迫遷到台灣。實際指揮作戰的杜聿明將軍被陳毅軍隊俘虜，在中共戰俘營「改造成功」後獲釋。一九六○年五月二十六日應邀參加總理周恩來和副總理陳毅招待英國蒙哥馬利元帥的宴會。周恩來介紹杜聿明說：他跟陳毅打過戰。蒙問：誰贏了？周答：陳毅贏了。蒙問杜：那次戰役你有多少軍隊？杜答：一百萬。蒙說：擁有一百萬軍隊的統帥是不應該被打敗的。杜指著陳說：他有兩百萬人，因為我的一百萬都跑到他那裡去了。
這故事的內容未必全為真實，但這故事給人啟發，更給人警惕。
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2007
Confronted with an increasingly ennervated Taiwan, Shen Fu-hsiung said he hoped Taiwan would experience prosperity once again. He suggested that if the Blue camp won over 60% of the legislative seats, Green camp voters should not vote for Frank Hsieh in the presidential race, in order to avoid a recurrence of political deadlock, a situation in which one party controls the Executive while another controls the Legislature.
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan is something many on Taiwan no longer dare hope for. Taiwan's political dilemma has left many people bereft of hope for a rosy future. But his dream of prosperity is not an irrelevant fantasy. It suggests a way out of Taiwan's political deadlock. Only if this deadlock is broken, can Taiwan's economic engine be restarted.
From the perspective of political theory, Shen Fu-hsiung's hope that the power of the Executive and the Legislature will be held by the same political party, is not entirely consistent with the principle of checks and balances. His former comrades in the Democratic Progressive Party have severely criticized him for this. But from a realpolitik perspective, Shen Fu-hsiung's proposed "exception to the rule" is the result of his understanding that the system of checks and balances has been so thoroughly undermined by politicians, democracy no longer functions. His solution may appear extreme and simplistic. But it reveals this "lone wolf's" detached eye and deep concern for Taiwan's political health.
The implementation of a system of checks and balances on Taiwan, has led to some eye-opening moments. The Democratic Progressive Party championed high-minded ideals before it came to office. Its political posture reflected a reaction to the Kuomintang's attitude back then. The existence of a political opposition provided checks and balances on the ruling party, and advanced democracy. When Chen Shui-bian first took office, the composition of his cabinet and his so-called New Centrist Path, approximated attempts to share power. But within six months, it gave up any such pretense. It arrogated all power to itself, and began acting unilaterally. The Democratic Progressive Party resorted to cut-throat tactics and a scorched earth strategy. It had no qualms about destroying the people's livelihood and dividing Taiwan's society, for partisan political benefit. Its perversion of party politics cast a pall over Taiwan's democracy.
We can now see that the decline of the ROC's system of checks and balances was not due to opposition party resistance, but to ruling party arrogance and bigotry. The DPP was both incapable of ruling the nation and unwilling to accept outside advice. It chose to ignore the complaints of the multitudes, rather than to yield even an inch. Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Wang To criticized Shen Fu-hsiung. He said that Taiwan's problem was that the KMT/PFP coalition, which constituted a majority in the legislature, was unwilling to behave like a loyal opposition party. This is typical Democratic Progressive Party buck-passing. When has the Democratic Progressive Party ever behaved like a loyal opposition party? The minority Chen regime has never accorded the slightest respect to the majority in the legislature. The ruling DPP is unethical, incompetent, and intolerant. It brooks no dissent from ordinary citizens. When have the people ever figured in its calculations? The Democratic Progressive Party has the temerity to accuse the Blue camp of not being a "mature opposition party." When has the DPP ever behaved like a "mature ruling party?"
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan sounds remote and impossible, but he has written a prescription that can dispell a myth about democracy. The fact is, a political authority that will not allow its power to be checked, is the source of political disaster. For ROC voters, this reminder has a kind of special significance. Because over the years, a kind of self-regulating mechanism has appeared in the ROC's elections. If one camp scores a major political victory this time, the next time swing voters shift their support to the opposite camp. This kind of pendulum effect ensures that a political party which wins will not let success go to its head. Shen Fu-hsiung is now reminding people that this pendulum effect has led to political deadlock and wheel-spinning. Everyone must reject this pendulum effect. Only then can we liberate Taiwan's democracy from the curse of political deadlock.
Taiwan's political polarization, is unquestionably more complex than Shen Fu-hsiung's simple diagnosis. In Shen Fu-hsiung's vision of party politics, the ruling regime and the political opposition have room for compromise, and share a common national objective. But the Democratic Progressive Party makes partisan politics a showdown over reunification vs. independence. Domestic opposition is turned into undying enmity between "Us" and "Them." What room is there for reconciliation between Blue and Green given the DPP's attitude? Chen Shui-bian railed, "The Pacific Ocean doesn't have a lid on it, those who gripe about Taiwan can swim to [mainland] China!" Democracy has been reduced to Mobocracy. The ruling authorities no longer feel any constraints whatsoever. Talk of a system of checks and balances is irrelevant.
Shen Fu-hsiung resigned from his political party at the age of 70. Yet he dreams of a prosperous Taiwan. Is he courageous, or merely naive? The final answer does not depend on the strength of Shen Fu-hsiung's proposal, but on how many people still cling to hope for a prosperous Taiwan. The final answer depends on whether the people of Taiwan can divest themselves of their deeply entrenched cynicism.
沈富雄的盛世想像和台灣的政治解方
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.21 03:20 am
面對日漸委頓的台灣，沈富雄宣稱他「希望看到台灣盛世」。他提供的解方是：若藍軍贏得六成以上立委席次，他將呼籲「總統不能選謝長廷」，以免再陷入朝小野大的覆轍。
沈富雄的「台灣盛世夢」，恐怕是許多台灣人民想都不敢想望的事，因為台灣的政局，早已讓人失去美好想像的能力。但這個盛世想像，倒不純然是個不著邊際的幻想，因為它對台灣民主僵局提出了一個「解咒」錦囊：五五波的對峙態勢必須打破，台灣的引擎才有重新發動的可能。
從政治理論面看，沈富雄希望行政權和立法權能同歸一黨的說法，其實並不符合民主政治鼓勵制衡的原理，這也是他昔日的民進黨同志對他批評最厲的地方。但從實務面看，沈富雄之所以提出如此「破格」的見解，正是洞悉了制衡理論在現實上已被政客玩弄殆盡，甚至已達使民主政治無法運作之地步；也正因為如此，他的解方看來或許太過簡單而直接，卻透顯了這位「政治孤鳥」對台灣政治的冷眼和苦心。
事實上，制衡理論在台灣政治上的實踐，確曾有過令人刮目和感動的時刻；那是在民進黨懷抱理想的在野年代，相應於當時國民黨對把持權力的心虛或戒懼，因而構成了相當程度的朝野平衡，推促了民主的前進。即使在陳水扁就任之初，他的內閣組成及所謂的新中間路線，似仍試圖表達權力分享和共治的理念；但不及半載，旋即全盤放棄，走向獨攬、獨斷的偏鋒。甚至，民進黨時常運用割喉及焦土戰略，不惜毀棄民生經濟，撕裂台灣社會，只為達成其本黨的政治利益。至此，不僅政黨政治變形走樣，台灣民主也形同塗炭。
從這個過程看，台灣民主制衡精神的淪落，問題不在在野黨的杯葛，而在執政黨的傲慢和偏見，既拙於施政治國，卻又吝於接受不同的意見，寧可承受千夫所指也要硬拗到底。民進黨立委王拓批評沈富雄說，台灣朝小野大的問題，全出在國親不願扮演「忠誠的反對黨」；這是最典型的民進黨推諉策略。反過來看，民進黨又何曾善盡「忠誠執政黨」的責任？且不說「朝小」的扁政府從來不將「野大」的反對黨放在眼裡，它失德失政卻又不容輿論批評、不許百姓嗆聲，它眼裡還有人民嗎？民進黨罵藍營是「不成熟的反對黨」，它自己何曾像個「成熟的執政黨」？
沈富雄的台灣盛世夢，聽起來遙不可及，但他開出的解咒處方箋，主要就是在戳破這層民主假象：不願接受任何節制的權力，才是民主災難之源。這項提醒，對台灣選民而言，也有一種特別切顯的意義。因為多年來，台灣選舉已出現一種自動平衡的功能：上次選舉某一陣營大勝，下次選舉中間選民會移向另一陣營；這種鐘擺效用，讓一次獲勝的政黨不致得意忘形。現在，沈富雄要提醒的是：規律的擺盪如果已造成了台灣僵持及內耗不前，那麼大家必須合力打破這個鐘擺規律，才能解除台灣民主的內耗魔咒。
不可諱言，台灣的政治對立，其實遠比沈富雄診斷的病情還要複雜許多。在沈富雄的政黨政治想像中，朝野雙方還能有妥協餘地，以及彼此共同的國家目標；但民進黨將政黨競爭上綱為統獨對峙，「內部矛盾」已變質為「敵我關係」，藍綠還有和解、共生的餘地？更何況，當陳水扁膽敢對人民喊出「太平洋沒有加蓋」、「嫌台灣的人游出去」，民主實已淪為個人民粹的填塞物；當權力已毫無界限可言，再談什麼制度、談什麼尊重，都是太奢侈的事了！
在年屆七十之齡選擇退黨，還念念不忘做一個台灣盛世夢，沈富雄究竟是勇敢，還是天真？最後的答案，其實不在沈富雄個人的主張有多強烈，而在對台灣盛世仍懷有渴望的人民有多少。而要挑戰的，則是台灣人民憤世嫉俗的深度。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2007
Confronted with an increasingly ennervated Taiwan, Shen Fu-hsiung said he hoped Taiwan would experience prosperity once again. He suggested that if the Blue camp won over 60% of the legislative seats, Green camp voters should not vote for Frank Hsieh in the presidential race, in order to avoid a recurrence of political deadlock, a situation in which one party controls the Executive while another controls the Legislature.
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan is something many on Taiwan no longer dare hope for. Taiwan's political dilemma has left many people bereft of hope for a rosy future. But his dream of prosperity is not an irrelevant fantasy. It suggests a way out of Taiwan's political deadlock. Only if this deadlock is broken, can Taiwan's economic engine be restarted.
From the perspective of political theory, Shen Fu-hsiung's hope that the power of the Executive and the Legislature will be held by the same political party, is not entirely consistent with the principle of checks and balances. His former comrades in the Democratic Progressive Party have severely criticized him for this. But from a realpolitik perspective, Shen Fu-hsiung's proposed "exception to the rule" is the result of his understanding that the system of checks and balances has been so thoroughly undermined by politicians, democracy no longer functions. His solution may appear extreme and simplistic. But it reveals this "lone wolf's" detached eye and deep concern for Taiwan's political health.
The implementation of a system of checks and balances on Taiwan, has led to some eye-opening moments. The Democratic Progressive Party championed high-minded ideals before it came to office. Its political posture reflected a reaction to the Kuomintang's attitude back then. The existence of a political opposition provided checks and balances on the ruling party, and advanced democracy. When Chen Shui-bian first took office, the composition of his cabinet and his so-called New Centrist Path, approximated attempts to share power. But within six months, it gave up any such pretense. It arrogated all power to itself, and began acting unilaterally. The Democratic Progressive Party resorted to cut-throat tactics and a scorched earth strategy. It had no qualms about destroying the people's livelihood and dividing Taiwan's society, for partisan political benefit. Its perversion of party politics cast a pall over Taiwan's democracy.
We can now see that the decline of the ROC's system of checks and balances was not due to opposition party resistance, but to ruling party arrogance and bigotry. The DPP was both incapable of ruling the nation and unwilling to accept outside advice. It chose to ignore the complaints of the multitudes, rather than to yield even an inch. Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Wang To criticized Shen Fu-hsiung. He said that Taiwan's problem was that the KMT/PFP coalition, which constituted a majority in the legislature, was unwilling to behave like a loyal opposition party. This is typical Democratic Progressive Party buck-passing. When has the Democratic Progressive Party ever behaved like a loyal opposition party? The minority Chen regime has never accorded the slightest respect to the majority in the legislature. The ruling DPP is unethical, incompetent, and intolerant. It brooks no dissent from ordinary citizens. When have the people ever figured in its calculations? The Democratic Progressive Party has the temerity to accuse the Blue camp of not being a "mature opposition party." When has the DPP ever behaved like a "mature ruling party?"
Shen Fu-hsiung's Dream of a Prosperous Taiwan sounds remote and impossible, but he has written a prescription that can dispell a myth about democracy. The fact is, a political authority that will not allow its power to be checked, is the source of political disaster. For ROC voters, this reminder has a kind of special significance. Because over the years, a kind of self-regulating mechanism has appeared in the ROC's elections. If one camp scores a major political victory this time, the next time swing voters shift their support to the opposite camp. This kind of pendulum effect ensures that a political party which wins will not let success go to its head. Shen Fu-hsiung is now reminding people that this pendulum effect has led to political deadlock and wheel-spinning. Everyone must reject this pendulum effect. Only then can we liberate Taiwan's democracy from the curse of political deadlock.
Taiwan's political polarization, is unquestionably more complex than Shen Fu-hsiung's simple diagnosis. In Shen Fu-hsiung's vision of party politics, the ruling regime and the political opposition have room for compromise, and share a common national objective. But the Democratic Progressive Party makes partisan politics a showdown over reunification vs. independence. Domestic opposition is turned into undying enmity between "Us" and "Them." What room is there for reconciliation between Blue and Green given the DPP's attitude? Chen Shui-bian railed, "The Pacific Ocean doesn't have a lid on it, those who gripe about Taiwan can swim to [mainland] China!" Democracy has been reduced to Mobocracy. The ruling authorities no longer feel any constraints whatsoever. Talk of a system of checks and balances is irrelevant.
Shen Fu-hsiung resigned from his political party at the age of 70. Yet he dreams of a prosperous Taiwan. Is he courageous, or merely naive? The final answer does not depend on the strength of Shen Fu-hsiung's proposal, but on how many people still cling to hope for a prosperous Taiwan. The final answer depends on whether the people of Taiwan can divest themselves of their deeply entrenched cynicism.
沈富雄的盛世想像和台灣的政治解方
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.21 03:20 am
面對日漸委頓的台灣，沈富雄宣稱他「希望看到台灣盛世」。他提供的解方是：若藍軍贏得六成以上立委席次，他將呼籲「總統不能選謝長廷」，以免再陷入朝小野大的覆轍。
沈富雄的「台灣盛世夢」，恐怕是許多台灣人民想都不敢想望的事，因為台灣的政局，早已讓人失去美好想像的能力。但這個盛世想像，倒不純然是個不著邊際的幻想，因為它對台灣民主僵局提出了一個「解咒」錦囊：五五波的對峙態勢必須打破，台灣的引擎才有重新發動的可能。
從政治理論面看，沈富雄希望行政權和立法權能同歸一黨的說法，其實並不符合民主政治鼓勵制衡的原理，這也是他昔日的民進黨同志對他批評最厲的地方。但從實務面看，沈富雄之所以提出如此「破格」的見解，正是洞悉了制衡理論在現實上已被政客玩弄殆盡，甚至已達使民主政治無法運作之地步；也正因為如此，他的解方看來或許太過簡單而直接，卻透顯了這位「政治孤鳥」對台灣政治的冷眼和苦心。
事實上，制衡理論在台灣政治上的實踐，確曾有過令人刮目和感動的時刻；那是在民進黨懷抱理想的在野年代，相應於當時國民黨對把持權力的心虛或戒懼，因而構成了相當程度的朝野平衡，推促了民主的前進。即使在陳水扁就任之初，他的內閣組成及所謂的新中間路線，似仍試圖表達權力分享和共治的理念；但不及半載，旋即全盤放棄，走向獨攬、獨斷的偏鋒。甚至，民進黨時常運用割喉及焦土戰略，不惜毀棄民生經濟，撕裂台灣社會，只為達成其本黨的政治利益。至此，不僅政黨政治變形走樣，台灣民主也形同塗炭。
從這個過程看，台灣民主制衡精神的淪落，問題不在在野黨的杯葛，而在執政黨的傲慢和偏見，既拙於施政治國，卻又吝於接受不同的意見，寧可承受千夫所指也要硬拗到底。民進黨立委王拓批評沈富雄說，台灣朝小野大的問題，全出在國親不願扮演「忠誠的反對黨」；這是最典型的民進黨推諉策略。反過來看，民進黨又何曾善盡「忠誠執政黨」的責任？且不說「朝小」的扁政府從來不將「野大」的反對黨放在眼裡，它失德失政卻又不容輿論批評、不許百姓嗆聲，它眼裡還有人民嗎？民進黨罵藍營是「不成熟的反對黨」，它自己何曾像個「成熟的執政黨」？
沈富雄的台灣盛世夢，聽起來遙不可及，但他開出的解咒處方箋，主要就是在戳破這層民主假象：不願接受任何節制的權力，才是民主災難之源。這項提醒，對台灣選民而言，也有一種特別切顯的意義。因為多年來，台灣選舉已出現一種自動平衡的功能：上次選舉某一陣營大勝，下次選舉中間選民會移向另一陣營；這種鐘擺效用，讓一次獲勝的政黨不致得意忘形。現在，沈富雄要提醒的是：規律的擺盪如果已造成了台灣僵持及內耗不前，那麼大家必須合力打破這個鐘擺規律，才能解除台灣民主的內耗魔咒。
不可諱言，台灣的政治對立，其實遠比沈富雄診斷的病情還要複雜許多。在沈富雄的政黨政治想像中，朝野雙方還能有妥協餘地，以及彼此共同的國家目標；但民進黨將政黨競爭上綱為統獨對峙，「內部矛盾」已變質為「敵我關係」，藍綠還有和解、共生的餘地？更何況，當陳水扁膽敢對人民喊出「太平洋沒有加蓋」、「嫌台灣的人游出去」，民主實已淪為個人民粹的填塞物；當權力已毫無界限可言，再談什麼制度、談什麼尊重，都是太奢侈的事了！
在年屆七十之齡選擇退黨，還念念不忘做一個台灣盛世夢，沈富雄究竟是勇敢，還是天真？最後的答案，其實不在沈富雄個人的主張有多強烈，而在對台灣盛世仍懷有渴望的人民有多少。而要挑戰的，則是台灣人民憤世嫉俗的深度。
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Pro Reunification Plebiscite
The Pro Reunification Plebiscite: Chen Shui-bian rails against Tsao Hsing-cheng for 20 Minutes
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2007
Last week, Tsao Hsing-cheng bought a half-page ad in several major newspapers, promoting his "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act." Its main provision was a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." According to reports, Chen Shui-bian spent a full 20 minutes railing against Tsao, accusing Tsao of "manipulating politics" under the pretext of promoting peace, when his real motive was to oppose independence and to promote reunification.
This newspaper proposed a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" ten years ago, opening up new possibilities for cross-Straits relations. Its reverberations have been endless. Over the past decade, the Democratic Progressive Party has drafted several "Pro Reunification Plebiscites" as replacements for "Pro Independence Plebiscites." Lee Yuan-tse established a cross-Straits group based on the same guiding principles. While discussing politics Frank Hsieh has frequently raised such a possibility. Tsao Hsing-cheng is an entrepreneur who is highly enthusiastic about such a plebiscite. His current proposal for legislation to that effect is probably the result of years of pondering the possibilities.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal has some points worth considering. Chen Shui-bian's criticisms were rude and inappropriate. He was smearing and labeling Tsao. Tsao Hsing-cheng advocates a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." Tsao's main assertion was that when the time comes to reunify, the people have a right to decide whether or not to do so. In other words, if the people on Taiwan do not agree to reunify, then they have legal recourse. They have a mechanism that conveys their opinion. Chen Shui-bian quoted him out of context, and leveled false charges against him. Tsao Hsing-cheng said "citizens have the right to decide whether or not to reunify." Chen spun this as "opposition to independence and promotion of reunification." He referred to the "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act" as nothing more than a "Cross-Straits Unification Act," a "Taiwan's Forced Reunification Act," and a "Taiwan Surrender Act." Chen sounded like a thug, and nothing at all like a president.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft is of course not perfect. For instance, he states that the Taiwan side has the right of approval when the mainland side proposes a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." This, we feel, is inappropriate. We believe the initiative for any "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" must remain in the hands of the Taiwan side. This must be prescribed by law. The initiative must not fall into the hands of the mainland side.
Tsao's proposal however, is motivated by concern for Taiwan. Every word is filled wtih heartfelt concern for the people's feelings. The ruling regime's response in the face of such opinions, was not to separate the wheat from the chaff, to extract the marrow from the bones, or to be inspired Tsao's earnest patriotism. Chen Shui-bian's response surprised everyone. He used the crudest, most caustic language to blast Tsao Hsing-cheng. Not only did he distort Tsao's statements, he questioned his patriotism. He treated Tsao Hsing-cheng like a traitor. Chen revealed the mentality of a petty tyrant, for whom heartfelt counsel is perceived as intolerable disloyalty.
Leave aside Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft for the moment. Ten years ago, this newspaper proposed its own "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" framework: One. The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. According to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. If, on the other hand, it needs to declare independence, then by implication the Republic of China (or Taiwan) is not a sovereign and independent nation. Two. Reunification changes the nation's status quo, therefore it requires the agreement of 23 million people. The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" says that "changing Taiwan's independent status" by reunifying with the mainland, requires "a plebiscite/referendum by all of Taiwan's residents." Tsao's proposal contains similar stipulations.
In other words, the "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" is not what Chen Shui-bian refers to as an "Anti-independence Plebiscite." Its two main provisions are: One. The Republic of China (the Democratic Progressive Party will want to substitute "Taiwan") is a sovereign and independent nation. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "anti-independence?" It might even be considered "a defense of independence." Two. To change the status quo (by opting for reunification), must be decided collectively by 23 million people. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "promoting reunification?" It might even be considered "opposition to reunification."
Tsao's proposal contains ill-considered aspects. But its basic concept is that the nation is already independent, that its sovereignty should be defended, and any changes to the status quo must undergo a plebiscite/referendum process. In other words, any pro reunification plebiscite must take place only when the time is ripe. If a plebiscite opposes reunification, then Taiwan's sovereignty can be guaranteed. Such thinking, in the context of a complex cross-Straits strategic scenario, may come across as wishful thinking. But it bears scant resemblance to what Chen Shui-bian made it out to be.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal may not have been completely thought out. But his patriotism does not deserve to be questioned. Any flaws in his proposal do not outweigh its virtues. Nor do they undermine his image as a world class entrepreneur. Chen Shui-bian's remarks were caustic, vicious, and cruel. If we were to compare him to Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we would be flattering him. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are nasty towards foreigners, unlike Chen Shui-bian, who is nasty towards his own compatriots.
統一公投：陳水扁罵曹興誠二十分鐘！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.20 03:59 am
上周，曹興誠登報鼓吹制定《兩岸和平共處法》，其中的主要機制是「統一公投」；詎料竟被陳水扁公開罵了二十分鐘，指曹興誠「操弄政治」，「假和平之名，行反獨促統之實」。
「統一公投」是本報約在十年前首先提出，為兩岸關係開闢了新思維，迄今回響不絕。十年以來，民進黨曾幾度擬以「統一公投」取代「獨立公投」，李遠哲組建的兩岸小組亦曾有意列為綱領，謝長廷論政時也曾多次提及；曹興誠則是企業家中對此議最熱中者，此次提議立法應是他多年思考所致。
曹興誠的提議誠有可待斟酌之處，但陳水扁的批評卻是失格失態，簡直是栽贓、扣帽子。曹興誠提議的「統一公投」，其主要用心是在「倘若有『統一』之提案時，必須賦予台灣人民對提案有決定可否之權利」；亦即，若台灣人民不同意「統一」，依法即可有一民主機制來表達並保障民意。但是，陳水扁竟斷章取義、誣陷栽贓，將曹興誠所主張的「國民對統一擁有可否的自主權」，誣指為「反獨促統」，並指《兩岸和平共處法》根本就是《兩岸統一法》、《台灣被統法》、《台灣投降法》。這簡直是流氓口氣，那裡像是總統的言語？
當然，曹興誠的《草案》尚有可待商榷之處；比如，該案主張應在中國大陸提出「統一公投」之「要求」時，台灣「方予辦理」，此議恐非允當。我們認為，若要實施「統一公投」，其發動權仍應操在台灣方面，並在法制上訂出發動之條件，主動權絕不可落在對岸。
然而，曹案畢竟係為台灣利益著想，字斟句酌之間充滿憂時傷民的情愫，可謂嘔心瀝血；主政當局面對此類建言，即使不能沙中淘金，摘其神髓，亦當會受到如曹某這般愛國企業家的熱誠所感動。但是，陳水扁的反應卻是大出眾人意料，竟以如此尖刻粗暴的言語訾罵曹興誠，非但扭曲其議論，更汙蔑其愛國之心，儼然將曹興誠視作台奸國賊！這是統治者以諍友為寇讎的刻薄表現，委實令人齒冷。
擱下曹興誠的《草案》，本報十年前提議「統一公投」時所舉出的基本架構是：一、中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。若用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，則台灣是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。否則，若須再宣布獨立，即代表中華民國（或台灣）不是主權獨立的國家。二、統一會改變國家現狀，所以須經二千三百萬人同意。用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，倘若面臨「台灣獨立現狀之更動」（亦即統一），即必須「經由台灣全體住民以公民投票的方式決定」。在曹案中，亦有類似申論。
也就是說，「統一公投」絕非陳水扁所說的「反獨促統」，其兩大支柱是：一、中華民國（民進黨可將主詞易作「台灣」）是一主權獨立的國家。既是如此，則曹案豈是「反獨」？反而是「護獨」。二、若要改變現狀（表決統一選項），應經兩千三百萬人共同決定。既是如此，則曹案豈是「促統」？反而可以說是「反統法制化」。
曹案或有思慮未周之處，但其基本思維只在確立國家主權（國家已經獨立），並維護國民主權（若要統一而改變現狀，須經公民投票決定）。換言之，倘若公投同意統一，必是兩岸整合已至水到渠成之時；若是公投反對統一，則台灣的自主性仍可確保。這樣的思維，在複雜的兩岸情勢中，即使顯得有點一廂情願，但豈容陳水扁恣意誣陷栽贓？
曹興誠的提案容或未盡周延，但他此時此刻愛國傷民的情懷不容汙蔑，其提案內容瑕不掩瑜，無損其為心繫天下的企業家形象；陳水扁則是言語尖刻，思維骯髒，道德陰損，倘稱其與查維茲、阿馬丁加德同類，恐怕尚有抬舉之嫌。因為，阿查二人大多是對異邦口出惡言，未聞像陳水扁如此詆毀謾罵自己的國民！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2007
Last week, Tsao Hsing-cheng bought a half-page ad in several major newspapers, promoting his "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act." Its main provision was a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." According to reports, Chen Shui-bian spent a full 20 minutes railing against Tsao, accusing Tsao of "manipulating politics" under the pretext of promoting peace, when his real motive was to oppose independence and to promote reunification.
This newspaper proposed a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" ten years ago, opening up new possibilities for cross-Straits relations. Its reverberations have been endless. Over the past decade, the Democratic Progressive Party has drafted several "Pro Reunification Plebiscites" as replacements for "Pro Independence Plebiscites." Lee Yuan-tse established a cross-Straits group based on the same guiding principles. While discussing politics Frank Hsieh has frequently raised such a possibility. Tsao Hsing-cheng is an entrepreneur who is highly enthusiastic about such a plebiscite. His current proposal for legislation to that effect is probably the result of years of pondering the possibilities.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal has some points worth considering. Chen Shui-bian's criticisms were rude and inappropriate. He was smearing and labeling Tsao. Tsao Hsing-cheng advocates a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." Tsao's main assertion was that when the time comes to reunify, the people have a right to decide whether or not to do so. In other words, if the people on Taiwan do not agree to reunify, then they have legal recourse. They have a mechanism that conveys their opinion. Chen Shui-bian quoted him out of context, and leveled false charges against him. Tsao Hsing-cheng said "citizens have the right to decide whether or not to reunify." Chen spun this as "opposition to independence and promotion of reunification." He referred to the "Cross-Straits Peaceful Coexistence Act" as nothing more than a "Cross-Straits Unification Act," a "Taiwan's Forced Reunification Act," and a "Taiwan Surrender Act." Chen sounded like a thug, and nothing at all like a president.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft is of course not perfect. For instance, he states that the Taiwan side has the right of approval when the mainland side proposes a "Pro Reunification Plebiscite." This, we feel, is inappropriate. We believe the initiative for any "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" must remain in the hands of the Taiwan side. This must be prescribed by law. The initiative must not fall into the hands of the mainland side.
Tsao's proposal however, is motivated by concern for Taiwan. Every word is filled wtih heartfelt concern for the people's feelings. The ruling regime's response in the face of such opinions, was not to separate the wheat from the chaff, to extract the marrow from the bones, or to be inspired Tsao's earnest patriotism. Chen Shui-bian's response surprised everyone. He used the crudest, most caustic language to blast Tsao Hsing-cheng. Not only did he distort Tsao's statements, he questioned his patriotism. He treated Tsao Hsing-cheng like a traitor. Chen revealed the mentality of a petty tyrant, for whom heartfelt counsel is perceived as intolerable disloyalty.
Leave aside Tsao Hsing-cheng's draft for the moment. Ten years ago, this newspaper proposed its own "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" framework: One. The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. According to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to declare independence. If, on the other hand, it needs to declare independence, then by implication the Republic of China (or Taiwan) is not a sovereign and independent nation. Two. Reunification changes the nation's status quo, therefore it requires the agreement of 23 million people. The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" says that "changing Taiwan's independent status" by reunifying with the mainland, requires "a plebiscite/referendum by all of Taiwan's residents." Tsao's proposal contains similar stipulations.
In other words, the "Pro Reunification Plebiscite" is not what Chen Shui-bian refers to as an "Anti-independence Plebiscite." Its two main provisions are: One. The Republic of China (the Democratic Progressive Party will want to substitute "Taiwan") is a sovereign and independent nation. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "anti-independence?" It might even be considered "a defense of independence." Two. To change the status quo (by opting for reunification), must be decided collectively by 23 million people. That being the case, how is Tsao's proposal "promoting reunification?" It might even be considered "opposition to reunification."
Tsao's proposal contains ill-considered aspects. But its basic concept is that the nation is already independent, that its sovereignty should be defended, and any changes to the status quo must undergo a plebiscite/referendum process. In other words, any pro reunification plebiscite must take place only when the time is ripe. If a plebiscite opposes reunification, then Taiwan's sovereignty can be guaranteed. Such thinking, in the context of a complex cross-Straits strategic scenario, may come across as wishful thinking. But it bears scant resemblance to what Chen Shui-bian made it out to be.
Tsao Hsing-cheng's proposal may not have been completely thought out. But his patriotism does not deserve to be questioned. Any flaws in his proposal do not outweigh its virtues. Nor do they undermine his image as a world class entrepreneur. Chen Shui-bian's remarks were caustic, vicious, and cruel. If we were to compare him to Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we would be flattering him. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are nasty towards foreigners, unlike Chen Shui-bian, who is nasty towards his own compatriots.
統一公投：陳水扁罵曹興誠二十分鐘！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.20 03:59 am
上周，曹興誠登報鼓吹制定《兩岸和平共處法》，其中的主要機制是「統一公投」；詎料竟被陳水扁公開罵了二十分鐘，指曹興誠「操弄政治」，「假和平之名，行反獨促統之實」。
「統一公投」是本報約在十年前首先提出，為兩岸關係開闢了新思維，迄今回響不絕。十年以來，民進黨曾幾度擬以「統一公投」取代「獨立公投」，李遠哲組建的兩岸小組亦曾有意列為綱領，謝長廷論政時也曾多次提及；曹興誠則是企業家中對此議最熱中者，此次提議立法應是他多年思考所致。
曹興誠的提議誠有可待斟酌之處，但陳水扁的批評卻是失格失態，簡直是栽贓、扣帽子。曹興誠提議的「統一公投」，其主要用心是在「倘若有『統一』之提案時，必須賦予台灣人民對提案有決定可否之權利」；亦即，若台灣人民不同意「統一」，依法即可有一民主機制來表達並保障民意。但是，陳水扁竟斷章取義、誣陷栽贓，將曹興誠所主張的「國民對統一擁有可否的自主權」，誣指為「反獨促統」，並指《兩岸和平共處法》根本就是《兩岸統一法》、《台灣被統法》、《台灣投降法》。這簡直是流氓口氣，那裡像是總統的言語？
當然，曹興誠的《草案》尚有可待商榷之處；比如，該案主張應在中國大陸提出「統一公投」之「要求」時，台灣「方予辦理」，此議恐非允當。我們認為，若要實施「統一公投」，其發動權仍應操在台灣方面，並在法制上訂出發動之條件，主動權絕不可落在對岸。
然而，曹案畢竟係為台灣利益著想，字斟句酌之間充滿憂時傷民的情愫，可謂嘔心瀝血；主政當局面對此類建言，即使不能沙中淘金，摘其神髓，亦當會受到如曹某這般愛國企業家的熱誠所感動。但是，陳水扁的反應卻是大出眾人意料，竟以如此尖刻粗暴的言語訾罵曹興誠，非但扭曲其議論，更汙蔑其愛國之心，儼然將曹興誠視作台奸國賊！這是統治者以諍友為寇讎的刻薄表現，委實令人齒冷。
擱下曹興誠的《草案》，本報十年前提議「統一公投」時所舉出的基本架構是：一、中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。若用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，則台灣是一主權獨立的國家，不必再宣布獨立。否則，若須再宣布獨立，即代表中華民國（或台灣）不是主權獨立的國家。二、統一會改變國家現狀，所以須經二千三百萬人同意。用民進黨《台灣前途決議文》的語言來說，倘若面臨「台灣獨立現狀之更動」（亦即統一），即必須「經由台灣全體住民以公民投票的方式決定」。在曹案中，亦有類似申論。
也就是說，「統一公投」絕非陳水扁所說的「反獨促統」，其兩大支柱是：一、中華民國（民進黨可將主詞易作「台灣」）是一主權獨立的國家。既是如此，則曹案豈是「反獨」？反而是「護獨」。二、若要改變現狀（表決統一選項），應經兩千三百萬人共同決定。既是如此，則曹案豈是「促統」？反而可以說是「反統法制化」。
曹案或有思慮未周之處，但其基本思維只在確立國家主權（國家已經獨立），並維護國民主權（若要統一而改變現狀，須經公民投票決定）。換言之，倘若公投同意統一，必是兩岸整合已至水到渠成之時；若是公投反對統一，則台灣的自主性仍可確保。這樣的思維，在複雜的兩岸情勢中，即使顯得有點一廂情願，但豈容陳水扁恣意誣陷栽贓？
曹興誠的提案容或未盡周延，但他此時此刻愛國傷民的情懷不容汙蔑，其提案內容瑕不掩瑜，無損其為心繫天下的企業家形象；陳水扁則是言語尖刻，思維骯髒，道德陰損，倘稱其與查維茲、阿馬丁加德同類，恐怕尚有抬舉之嫌。因為，阿查二人大多是對異邦口出惡言，未聞像陳水扁如此詆毀謾罵自己的國民！
Monday, November 19, 2007
Will the Chen vs. Hsieh Struggle kill the Plebiscite to Join the UN?
Will the Chen vs. Hsieh Struggle kill the Plebiscite to Join the UN?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2007
Chen Shui-bian and Frank Hsieh have divided the 2008 presidential election into two parts. One is the economy. The other is the Plebiscite to Join the UN. They have equated reviving the economy with the feeding of domestic animals. Frank Hsieh referred to it contemptuously as the feeding of "pigs, dogs, and chickens." They would have us believe that only demagoguing the Plebiscite to Join the UN can uphold the "national honor."
Chen Shui-bian went so far as to say that, "Just because you revive the economy, doesn't mean you will win the election." What he meant was the Plebiscite to Join the UN must trump all economic issues, and will be the DPP's strategy for winning the election.
Chen Shui-bian wants to use the Plebiscite to Join the UN to spark a war over reunification vs. independence. He wants a war over reunification vs. independence to eclipse economic issues. Because in order to stress economic issues, he must improve cross-Straits relations. But improving cross-Straits relations requires undermining the war over reunification vs. independence. Since Chen Shui-bian has already decided that the Plebiscite to Join the UN is going to be the primary issue in the war over reunification vs. independence, he has no choice but to belittle economic issues. He is belittling economic issues because he is unwilling to acknowledge that improving cross-Straits relations is a necessary prerequisite to improving the economy. In other words championing Taiwan independence necessitates clinging to the Taiwan independence Economic Doctrine. Within Chen Shui-bian's strategic framework, reviving the economy and promoting a Plebiscite to Join the UN are either/or propositions.
Once the euphoria of the Plebiscite to Join the UN Torch Relay died down, the defects in Chen Shui-bian's phony dichotomy became apparent. The public soon realized that promoting a Plebiscite to Join the UN could not be simplistically equated with defending the national honor. All it did was rub salt in one's own wounds. All it did was embarrass the Republic of China by underscoring its diplomatic dilemma. All it did was sell people a bill of goods, a Never Never Land called the "Nation of Taiwan." On the one hand it demeaned the Republic of China. On the other hand it failed to establish a Nation of Taiwan. How can this sort of self-demeaning election rhetoric and politically divisive election strategy uphold the "national honor?"
Besides, what is Chen saying? Is he saying that since reviving the economy doesn't mean you will win the election, therefore failing to revive the economy means you will win the election? Is he asking Frank Hsieh to admit that even if he wins the election, he won't be able to revive the economy? Chen and Hsieh are intentionally and maliciously belittling economic concerns by equating such concerns with the feeding of domestic animals. But for ordinary people, "national honor" is the consequence of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If individual citizens are deprived of these rights, how much "national honor" are they going to feel?
To summarize Chen and Hsieh's current situation: First, the people find themselves in dire economic straits. The ruling DPP has deprived people of their dignity. Second, after careful consideration, they have discovered that promoting the Plebiscite to Join the UN simply cannot be equated with upholding the national honor. All it can do is wound the Republic of China's national honor, and sell the public a bill of goods, a fictitious "Nation of Taiwan." In short, the people are deprived of dignity in their impoverished state, and the Plebiscite to Join the UN is destroying any remnants of "national honor."
Frank Hsieh has been abducted. His campaign has been hijacked. The Democratic Progressive Party's Resolution for a Normal Nation compels him to implement the Prompt Rectification of Names & Authoring of a New Constitution, and commits him to the Doctrine of Perpetual Taiwan independence. The war over reunification vs. independence provoked by the Plebiscite to Join the UN compels him to run for election of the president of the Nation of Taiwan. As a result, Frank Hsieh has advanced his incomprehensible "pigs, dogs, and chickens" economic theory. He has caved in to Chen Shui-bian's election strategy. That strategy maintains that reviving the economy somehow sacrifices the national honor, but demagoguing the "Join the UN" campaign upholds the national honor.
But Frank Hsieh recently did an about face. He said that "without Deep Green support, Chen Shui-bian wouldn't have any support at all." He said "if Chen Shui-bian kept it up, Taiwan would wind up with nothing." He said "How does destroying Taiwan's competitiveness constitute love for Taiwan?" He declared that he would "pardon Taiwan businessmen" for the mortal sin of investing in mainland China. He declared that Taiwan "cannot afford to give up the [mainland] Chinese market." Frank Hsieh's positions on these issues have drawn a line in the sand between himself and Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. He has turned back in the direction of policies he himself denounced only a few months ago as Pro Reunification Economics.
Frank Hsieh's dilemma is taking shape. Frank Hsieh now advocates what he himself denounced as Pro Reunification Economics. How will he deal with the Resolution for a Normal Nation and the Doctrine of Perpetual Taiwan independence? How will he complete the Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution within five years? How will he account for his failure to promote the Plebiscite to Join the UN and defend the "national honor?" How will he remove the albatross around his neck known as Chen Shui-bian?
We have repeatedly pointed out that championing a Taiwan Independence Policy requires one to implement a Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. Championing a Non-Taiwan Independence Policy requires one to implement a Non-Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. Frank Hsieh, who advocates Taiwan independence, has switched back to what he himself denounced as Pro Reunification Economics. He has drawn a line in the sand between himself and the Resolution for a Normal Nation, the Plebiscite to Join the UN, and the albatross around his neck known as Chen Shui-bian. Apparently everything depends on the ability to talk a good game after all.
The Chen vs. Hsieh struggle is heating up. Is the Plebiscite to Join the UN trial balloon losing air? Will it gradually shrivel up in the wind?
扁謝鬥爭將使「入聯公投」消風洩氣？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.19 02:15 am
陳水扁與謝長廷一度以二分法將大選議題切成兩塊。一塊是經濟，一塊是入聯公投。經濟被他們認為是等而下之的豬狗雞議題，唯有操作入聯公投，始能維護「國格尊嚴」。
陳水扁甚至說，「經濟搞好，也不一定選得上」；言下之意，就是要將「入聯公投議題」凌駕、壓制「經濟議題」，並以此一「選戰策略」贏得大選。
陳 水扁欲以「入聯公投」帶動「統獨鬥爭」。既欲帶動「統獨鬥爭」，即必須壓制貶抑「經濟議題」。因為，倘要強調「經濟議題」，毫無疑問地必須以改善兩岸關係 為前提；但若要改善兩岸關係，「統獨鬥爭」即告動搖。因此，陳水扁既要以「入聯公投」的統獨鬥爭為選戰主軸，即無可選擇地必須貶抑經濟議題；而其貶抑「經 濟議題」，只因不願承認勢須改善兩岸關係的必要前提。也就是說，主張「台獨路線」，即必須堅持「台獨經濟」。於是，在陳水扁二分法的戰略架構中，「拚經 濟」與「入聯公投」遂成矛盾對立之勢。
在「入聯公投」聖火接力的高潮過後，陳水扁的「只拚經濟無尊嚴／專搞入聯有尊嚴」的二分法已漸露破 綻。因為，國人已漸發現，「入聯公投」與「國格尊嚴」之間，根本不能畫上等號。「入聯公投」的操作手法，完全不在追求「國格尊嚴」；反而是在傷口撒鹽，羞 辱「中華民國」的外交困境，並買空賣空地推銷「台灣國」的幻境。一方面醜化中華民國，但另一方面又不能建立台灣國。這種自貶國格的「選舉語言」，與撕裂國 家的「選戰策略」，如何能夠建立「國格尊嚴」？
何況，若謂「經濟搞好，也不一定選得上」，則難道「經濟搞壞，就選得上」，或要謝長廷承認 「選上，也搞不好經濟」？扁謝故意並惡意地將「經濟」貶抑為等而下之的畜生議題，但在一般人民的生活經驗中，「國格尊嚴」的基礎在民生樂利，民生經濟若無 「尊嚴」，尚有何「國格尊嚴」可言？
扁謝走到今日地步，總結戰果：一、民生經濟窘困，不能給人民足夠的光榮與「尊嚴」；二、仔細思量，又 發現「入聯公投」根本不是要提升「國格尊嚴」，而只是要毀傷中華民國的「尊嚴」，並買空賣地推銷台灣國這個「假國家」。總之，民生經濟無「尊嚴」，入聯公 投也是在摧毀「國格尊嚴」。
謝長廷陷於重重的挾持與綁架中。民進黨的《正常國家決議文》，命令他必須執行「早日正名制憲」的「不斷台獨 論」；「入聯公投」的統獨鬥爭，也逼他表態「選台灣國的總統」。於是，謝長廷稍早終於匪夷所思地提出了一套「豬狗雞畜生經濟論」，全面倒向陳水扁「拚經濟 無尊嚴／搞入聯有尊嚴」的大選戰略。
但是，謝長廷最近突然變臉。既說陳水扁「沒有深綠支持，就無人支持」，又說「陳水扁這樣管下去，台灣 會一無所有」、「害台灣沒競爭力，怎是愛台灣」；並宣布「大赦台商」等政見，又宣示「不能放棄中國市場」。謝長廷的這些主張，已經完全脫離了陳水扁的「獨 派經濟」，而竟然轉向了謝長廷自己在幾個月前親口所痛斥的「統派經濟」。
謝長廷的困局正在形成之中。謝長廷現在改為主張他自己所謂的「統派經濟」，則《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」如何處理？他自己宣示的「五年正名制憲論」如何實踐？「入聯公投」所渲染的「國格尊嚴」如何交代？陳水扁的「許純美效應」又如何化解？
我 們曾一再指出：主張「台獨政策」，即必須貫徹「台獨經濟」；若採取「非台獨政策」，則必須推動「非台獨經濟」。如今，主張台獨的謝長廷竟轉向了他自己所稱 的「統派經濟」，即勢須與《正常國家決議文》、「入聯公投」及「陳純美水扁先生」全面劃清界線。畢竟，這不能只靠一張嘴。
扁謝鬥爭正在升溫，難道入聯公投的氣球已被戳破，漸將消風洩氣？
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2007
Chen Shui-bian and Frank Hsieh have divided the 2008 presidential election into two parts. One is the economy. The other is the Plebiscite to Join the UN. They have equated reviving the economy with the feeding of domestic animals. Frank Hsieh referred to it contemptuously as the feeding of "pigs, dogs, and chickens." They would have us believe that only demagoguing the Plebiscite to Join the UN can uphold the "national honor."
Chen Shui-bian went so far as to say that, "Just because you revive the economy, doesn't mean you will win the election." What he meant was the Plebiscite to Join the UN must trump all economic issues, and will be the DPP's strategy for winning the election.
Chen Shui-bian wants to use the Plebiscite to Join the UN to spark a war over reunification vs. independence. He wants a war over reunification vs. independence to eclipse economic issues. Because in order to stress economic issues, he must improve cross-Straits relations. But improving cross-Straits relations requires undermining the war over reunification vs. independence. Since Chen Shui-bian has already decided that the Plebiscite to Join the UN is going to be the primary issue in the war over reunification vs. independence, he has no choice but to belittle economic issues. He is belittling economic issues because he is unwilling to acknowledge that improving cross-Straits relations is a necessary prerequisite to improving the economy. In other words championing Taiwan independence necessitates clinging to the Taiwan independence Economic Doctrine. Within Chen Shui-bian's strategic framework, reviving the economy and promoting a Plebiscite to Join the UN are either/or propositions.
Once the euphoria of the Plebiscite to Join the UN Torch Relay died down, the defects in Chen Shui-bian's phony dichotomy became apparent. The public soon realized that promoting a Plebiscite to Join the UN could not be simplistically equated with defending the national honor. All it did was rub salt in one's own wounds. All it did was embarrass the Republic of China by underscoring its diplomatic dilemma. All it did was sell people a bill of goods, a Never Never Land called the "Nation of Taiwan." On the one hand it demeaned the Republic of China. On the other hand it failed to establish a Nation of Taiwan. How can this sort of self-demeaning election rhetoric and politically divisive election strategy uphold the "national honor?"
Besides, what is Chen saying? Is he saying that since reviving the economy doesn't mean you will win the election, therefore failing to revive the economy means you will win the election? Is he asking Frank Hsieh to admit that even if he wins the election, he won't be able to revive the economy? Chen and Hsieh are intentionally and maliciously belittling economic concerns by equating such concerns with the feeding of domestic animals. But for ordinary people, "national honor" is the consequence of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If individual citizens are deprived of these rights, how much "national honor" are they going to feel?
To summarize Chen and Hsieh's current situation: First, the people find themselves in dire economic straits. The ruling DPP has deprived people of their dignity. Second, after careful consideration, they have discovered that promoting the Plebiscite to Join the UN simply cannot be equated with upholding the national honor. All it can do is wound the Republic of China's national honor, and sell the public a bill of goods, a fictitious "Nation of Taiwan." In short, the people are deprived of dignity in their impoverished state, and the Plebiscite to Join the UN is destroying any remnants of "national honor."
Frank Hsieh has been abducted. His campaign has been hijacked. The Democratic Progressive Party's Resolution for a Normal Nation compels him to implement the Prompt Rectification of Names & Authoring of a New Constitution, and commits him to the Doctrine of Perpetual Taiwan independence. The war over reunification vs. independence provoked by the Plebiscite to Join the UN compels him to run for election of the president of the Nation of Taiwan. As a result, Frank Hsieh has advanced his incomprehensible "pigs, dogs, and chickens" economic theory. He has caved in to Chen Shui-bian's election strategy. That strategy maintains that reviving the economy somehow sacrifices the national honor, but demagoguing the "Join the UN" campaign upholds the national honor.
But Frank Hsieh recently did an about face. He said that "without Deep Green support, Chen Shui-bian wouldn't have any support at all." He said "if Chen Shui-bian kept it up, Taiwan would wind up with nothing." He said "How does destroying Taiwan's competitiveness constitute love for Taiwan?" He declared that he would "pardon Taiwan businessmen" for the mortal sin of investing in mainland China. He declared that Taiwan "cannot afford to give up the [mainland] Chinese market." Frank Hsieh's positions on these issues have drawn a line in the sand between himself and Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. He has turned back in the direction of policies he himself denounced only a few months ago as Pro Reunification Economics.
Frank Hsieh's dilemma is taking shape. Frank Hsieh now advocates what he himself denounced as Pro Reunification Economics. How will he deal with the Resolution for a Normal Nation and the Doctrine of Perpetual Taiwan independence? How will he complete the Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution within five years? How will he account for his failure to promote the Plebiscite to Join the UN and defend the "national honor?" How will he remove the albatross around his neck known as Chen Shui-bian?
We have repeatedly pointed out that championing a Taiwan Independence Policy requires one to implement a Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. Championing a Non-Taiwan Independence Policy requires one to implement a Non-Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine. Frank Hsieh, who advocates Taiwan independence, has switched back to what he himself denounced as Pro Reunification Economics. He has drawn a line in the sand between himself and the Resolution for a Normal Nation, the Plebiscite to Join the UN, and the albatross around his neck known as Chen Shui-bian. Apparently everything depends on the ability to talk a good game after all.
The Chen vs. Hsieh struggle is heating up. Is the Plebiscite to Join the UN trial balloon losing air? Will it gradually shrivel up in the wind?
扁謝鬥爭將使「入聯公投」消風洩氣？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.19 02:15 am
陳水扁與謝長廷一度以二分法將大選議題切成兩塊。一塊是經濟，一塊是入聯公投。經濟被他們認為是等而下之的豬狗雞議題，唯有操作入聯公投，始能維護「國格尊嚴」。
陳水扁甚至說，「經濟搞好，也不一定選得上」；言下之意，就是要將「入聯公投議題」凌駕、壓制「經濟議題」，並以此一「選戰策略」贏得大選。
陳 水扁欲以「入聯公投」帶動「統獨鬥爭」。既欲帶動「統獨鬥爭」，即必須壓制貶抑「經濟議題」。因為，倘要強調「經濟議題」，毫無疑問地必須以改善兩岸關係 為前提；但若要改善兩岸關係，「統獨鬥爭」即告動搖。因此，陳水扁既要以「入聯公投」的統獨鬥爭為選戰主軸，即無可選擇地必須貶抑經濟議題；而其貶抑「經 濟議題」，只因不願承認勢須改善兩岸關係的必要前提。也就是說，主張「台獨路線」，即必須堅持「台獨經濟」。於是，在陳水扁二分法的戰略架構中，「拚經 濟」與「入聯公投」遂成矛盾對立之勢。
在「入聯公投」聖火接力的高潮過後，陳水扁的「只拚經濟無尊嚴／專搞入聯有尊嚴」的二分法已漸露破 綻。因為，國人已漸發現，「入聯公投」與「國格尊嚴」之間，根本不能畫上等號。「入聯公投」的操作手法，完全不在追求「國格尊嚴」；反而是在傷口撒鹽，羞 辱「中華民國」的外交困境，並買空賣空地推銷「台灣國」的幻境。一方面醜化中華民國，但另一方面又不能建立台灣國。這種自貶國格的「選舉語言」，與撕裂國 家的「選戰策略」，如何能夠建立「國格尊嚴」？
何況，若謂「經濟搞好，也不一定選得上」，則難道「經濟搞壞，就選得上」，或要謝長廷承認 「選上，也搞不好經濟」？扁謝故意並惡意地將「經濟」貶抑為等而下之的畜生議題，但在一般人民的生活經驗中，「國格尊嚴」的基礎在民生樂利，民生經濟若無 「尊嚴」，尚有何「國格尊嚴」可言？
扁謝走到今日地步，總結戰果：一、民生經濟窘困，不能給人民足夠的光榮與「尊嚴」；二、仔細思量，又 發現「入聯公投」根本不是要提升「國格尊嚴」，而只是要毀傷中華民國的「尊嚴」，並買空賣地推銷台灣國這個「假國家」。總之，民生經濟無「尊嚴」，入聯公 投也是在摧毀「國格尊嚴」。
謝長廷陷於重重的挾持與綁架中。民進黨的《正常國家決議文》，命令他必須執行「早日正名制憲」的「不斷台獨 論」；「入聯公投」的統獨鬥爭，也逼他表態「選台灣國的總統」。於是，謝長廷稍早終於匪夷所思地提出了一套「豬狗雞畜生經濟論」，全面倒向陳水扁「拚經濟 無尊嚴／搞入聯有尊嚴」的大選戰略。
但是，謝長廷最近突然變臉。既說陳水扁「沒有深綠支持，就無人支持」，又說「陳水扁這樣管下去，台灣 會一無所有」、「害台灣沒競爭力，怎是愛台灣」；並宣布「大赦台商」等政見，又宣示「不能放棄中國市場」。謝長廷的這些主張，已經完全脫離了陳水扁的「獨 派經濟」，而竟然轉向了謝長廷自己在幾個月前親口所痛斥的「統派經濟」。
謝長廷的困局正在形成之中。謝長廷現在改為主張他自己所謂的「統派經濟」，則《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」如何處理？他自己宣示的「五年正名制憲論」如何實踐？「入聯公投」所渲染的「國格尊嚴」如何交代？陳水扁的「許純美效應」又如何化解？
我 們曾一再指出：主張「台獨政策」，即必須貫徹「台獨經濟」；若採取「非台獨政策」，則必須推動「非台獨經濟」。如今，主張台獨的謝長廷竟轉向了他自己所稱 的「統派經濟」，即勢須與《正常國家決議文》、「入聯公投」及「陳純美水扁先生」全面劃清界線。畢竟，這不能只靠一張嘴。
扁謝鬥爭正在升溫，難道入聯公投的氣球已被戳破，漸將消風洩氣？
Sunday, November 18, 2007
To the Powers that Be
To the Powers that Be
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2007
The media has a duty to oversee the government. Unfortunately in the eyes of the government, members of the media who fulfill their duty are agents bought and paid for by the political opposition. According to this logic, are members of the media who willingly act as government mouthpieces, who persecute dissenters, not bought and paid for by the government? Do members of the media bought and paid for by the government have any credibility whatsoever?
Since the China Times began publishing its special column, entitled "Taiwan's Hope 2008," the ruling regime has continually attempted to vilify this paper. It has evaded questions this paper has raised and attempted to change the subject. Review our column and ask yourself: Did any topics fail to accord with the facts? Did any statistics not originate from the government's own agencies? Frank Hsieh is the Democratic Progressive Party's own presidential candidate. To quote Frank Hsieh, no matter how good a job the government does, it is never going to score 100. Even if it scores 80, that still means that it has fallen short by 20. That means it will have to do better. This is how public servants whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers should be thinking. Your salary, your wealth, is the sweat and blood of the people. The government does not exist to serve either political parties or individual politicians. The government exists to serve the peoples' needs.
In our column, we raised the issue of government waste. This is not merely the current administration's problem. It was the previous administration's problem. It is a problem for anyone in current or past administrations. Shouldn't it be a problem for which those struggling mightily to ascend to the imperial throne and wield political power, ought to be seeking solutions?
Sad to say, the Democratic Progressive Party government, which has been in power for over seven years, has nothing to say in its own defense. All it can do is attempt to discredit its critics using political labels. Concerned only about its election prospects, it denies responsibility altogether. Forget the unusable and unoccupied public buildings constructed at enormous public expense. A single, year long national conference of civil servants cost 1.8 billion dollars. Is this normal? Even the Control Yuan Ministry of Audit has urged that such excesses be corrected. Can the Executive Yuan really look us straight in the eye and claim that government officials are right to spend so much money on junkets at luxury vacation spots?
The gap between rich and poor has widened. Taiwan has become an "M-Shaped Society." "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer" sums up our next generation. We see children growing up in two different worlds, starting out from very different stations in society. The wealthy lavish enormous resources on their children, allowing them to develop their innate talents and acquire valuable skills. The poor can't even afford 3000 dollars a month to enroll their children in tutoring classes. Their children bring their school lunches home, to be served as the entire family's dinner.
How can anyone learning of such hardships in our society, not feel a twinge of pain in his heart? Yet our government spokesman have the temerity to say "The China Times is unqualified to report that life is hard." Apparently they weren't aware that the Ministry of Interior is already preparing to revise the poverty line downward, enabling more people to obtain relief, to prevent them from committing suicide. Apparently they weren't aware that the Child Welfare League has confirmed that 3.5% of all children cannot afford to buy school lunches. Of this 3.5%, approximately 30,000 are elementary school children in the fourth to sixth grades. If we include elementary school children in the first through third grades, as well as junior high and high school students, the numbers are staggering.
Those in office refer to 3000cc vehicles on Taiwan as small cars. They tell us "Since produce is expensive, why are you buying them at traditional farmer's markets?" They ask us "If you can't afford to live, what are you doing at a hi fi exhibit?" They obviously have no conception of how hard life is for the poor. They lack first hand experience. Seeing living examples of such suffering, most peoples' response would be, "How can I help them?" Not our government. Its reaction is to point an accusing finger at the media, insisting that the media is unqualified to report that life is hard under its misrule. High ranking political appointees lives are indeed good. Ordinary citizens must work hard and pay taxes. Their taxes become these political appointees' salaries, special allowances, and per diem. We must ask in response: What right do political appointees who live off the people's tax money, have to pass judgment on ordinary people struggling to get by, let alone forbid them to speak the truth?
The ruling DPP regime has accused the Jungli Investment Co and the Kuomintang of making a "Three Chinas" deal, involving the Broadcasting Corporation of China, the Central Motion Picture Corporation, and the China Television Company. It says the China Times has sacrificed its journalistic ethics, therefore it is unqualified to comment on the government's record. Excuse me, but the withdrawal of the government and the military from the media is government policy. The Jungli Investment Company's transactions were carried out under government oversight, in accordance with government regulation. What do they have to do with the China Times' journalistic ethics? The only reason the ruling DPP regime is using the "Three Chinas" deal to smear the China Times, is that it hasn't knuckled under to the ruling regime, but instead embarrassed it by reporting the truth. The real issue is the upcoming elections. The Democratic Progressive Party has decided that its election strategy will be to demand that the KMT account for its party assets. That is why the DPP is treating privately owned and operated businesses as expendable "collateral damage" in its election campaign.
We must solemnly advise the powers that be: The China Times, in contrast with certain other media organizations, will never allow itself to become a government mouthpiece, let alone a government attack dog. The China Times will forever stand with the people and speak for the people. This is the China Times' raison d'etre. As for trading insults in public, we refuse to play that game. Such individuals, who have forfeited their humanity, are unqualified to discuss journalistic ethics.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.15
我們必須嚴正告訴那些掌權的人
中時社論
媒體的天職就是監督政府，很遺憾，在政府眼中，盡職的媒體竟遭汙蔑為被政敵收買的第三者；照這個邏輯，我們不得不反問：甘為政府傳聲筒，並以此遂行打壓異己工具的媒體，是不是早被政府收買？我們更要問一句：被政府收買的媒體，還有任何公信力可言？
中國時報自從進行〈台灣希望二○○八〉系列專題以來，執政者就不斷以扣帽子的方式，迴避問題，轉移焦點。重新檢視這一系列的專題，有哪一樁不是事實？有哪個數據不是出自政府公部門的統計？持平而論，套用民進黨總統參選人謝長廷的話，政府做再好，做不到百分之百，只做到百分之八十，就還是有百分之廿的不滿意，不滿意？沒關係，我們就要再改進。這才是領納稅人薪俸的公僕所應為之事，爾俸爾祿，民脂民膏，政府的存在，不是為了政黨的勝選，更不是為了個人的成敗，政府的存在是為了服務人民的需要。
系列專題中，我們提到了政府財政浪費的問題，這不只是現政府的問題，還有前政府的問題，但是，不論前後，任何曾為或現為政府一員者，不該思考解決之道嗎？而那些卯足全力競逐大位，準備接掌政權者，不是更應該思索提出解決方案嗎？
遺憾的是，民進黨政府已執政七年多，面對這樣的檢討無詞以對，只會以抹黑式的政治語言栽贓，甚至因為擔心影響選情而全面否定。不要說全台各地蚊子館充斥的建設浪費，僅僅全國公務員開會一年就花了十八億，這個數字是正常的嗎？監察院審計部都提出糾正的事，行政院能如此臉不紅氣不喘認為公務員就該花這麼多錢到風景區開會嗎？
我們還提到貧富差距擴大，這使得台灣的社會愈趨向Ｍ型，貧者愈貧而富者愈富，歸結到我們的下一代，看到的就是兩個世界的孩子，他們從一開始就站在不公平的起跑點上，富者耗盡資源讓孩子學習各種才藝，貧者不但繳不起孩子一個月三千元的補習費，甚至還需要孩子從學校帶營養午餐回家，當一家人的晚飯。
這樣的社會現實，聞者莫不心酸以對，但是，我們的政府發言人卻說「中國時報有什麼資格評論日子不好過」，他們卻沒看到內政部已經準備向下調修貧窮線，讓多一點人能夠得到救濟，避免走上絕路，他們更不會看到兒福聯盟做的調查，證實百分之三點五的孩子，繳不起營養午餐費，這百分之三約三萬多人還只是小學四到六年級的學童，如果加計小學一到三年級，和國、高中生，弱勢學生的人數更超乎想像。
坦白講，當政者講得出「三千ＣＣ是小車」、「菜貴就不要到傳統市場去買」、「生活不下去還有閒情逸致逛音響展」，他們就看不到窮鄉僻壤的人到底怎麼應付這艱鉅的生活，但是，人同此心，即使你無法親身走訪，看到這樣活生生的案例和數字，絕大多數人的反應應該是：我要如何幫助他們？結果我們的政務官卻大剌剌地諷刺媒體沒有資格說生活過得不好！居上位的政務官確實沒有生活好不好的問題，小民再辛苦都得繳稅，人民繳的稅，成為政務官的薪水、特支費和油貼，我們同樣要反問一句：拿人民稅金的政務官，有什麼臉評論辛勤奮鬥的人們，還不讓人民講真話？
民進黨政府指責榮麗公司與國民黨進行三中交易案，說這讓中國時報失去報格，中國時報就沒有資格評論政府作為，很抱歉，黨政軍退出媒體是政府的政策，榮麗公司所有交易行為都在政府法令之下進行，這和中國時報有何干係？民進黨政府只是因為中國時報報導真相，不順其意，就假借三中交易之名栽贓抹黑，理由很簡單：一切為選舉，只因為民進黨設定了討黨產為其選戰策略，就任意把民營企業當做選舉戰場上的犧牲品。
我們必須嚴正告訴掌權者：中國時報一向不甘於、更不屑像某些媒體一樣，淪為政府的傳聲筒，甚至成為政客打擊政敵的工具，中國時報永遠站在人民的一邊，為小民發聲─這就是中國時報的報格！至於每日以尖刻言詞罵街者，我們不屑與之為伍，這種人沒有資格討論報格，因為他們連基本人格都扭曲了！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2007
The media has a duty to oversee the government. Unfortunately in the eyes of the government, members of the media who fulfill their duty are agents bought and paid for by the political opposition. According to this logic, are members of the media who willingly act as government mouthpieces, who persecute dissenters, not bought and paid for by the government? Do members of the media bought and paid for by the government have any credibility whatsoever?
Since the China Times began publishing its special column, entitled "Taiwan's Hope 2008," the ruling regime has continually attempted to vilify this paper. It has evaded questions this paper has raised and attempted to change the subject. Review our column and ask yourself: Did any topics fail to accord with the facts? Did any statistics not originate from the government's own agencies? Frank Hsieh is the Democratic Progressive Party's own presidential candidate. To quote Frank Hsieh, no matter how good a job the government does, it is never going to score 100. Even if it scores 80, that still means that it has fallen short by 20. That means it will have to do better. This is how public servants whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers should be thinking. Your salary, your wealth, is the sweat and blood of the people. The government does not exist to serve either political parties or individual politicians. The government exists to serve the peoples' needs.
In our column, we raised the issue of government waste. This is not merely the current administration's problem. It was the previous administration's problem. It is a problem for anyone in current or past administrations. Shouldn't it be a problem for which those struggling mightily to ascend to the imperial throne and wield political power, ought to be seeking solutions?
Sad to say, the Democratic Progressive Party government, which has been in power for over seven years, has nothing to say in its own defense. All it can do is attempt to discredit its critics using political labels. Concerned only about its election prospects, it denies responsibility altogether. Forget the unusable and unoccupied public buildings constructed at enormous public expense. A single, year long national conference of civil servants cost 1.8 billion dollars. Is this normal? Even the Control Yuan Ministry of Audit has urged that such excesses be corrected. Can the Executive Yuan really look us straight in the eye and claim that government officials are right to spend so much money on junkets at luxury vacation spots?
The gap between rich and poor has widened. Taiwan has become an "M-Shaped Society." "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer" sums up our next generation. We see children growing up in two different worlds, starting out from very different stations in society. The wealthy lavish enormous resources on their children, allowing them to develop their innate talents and acquire valuable skills. The poor can't even afford 3000 dollars a month to enroll their children in tutoring classes. Their children bring their school lunches home, to be served as the entire family's dinner.
How can anyone learning of such hardships in our society, not feel a twinge of pain in his heart? Yet our government spokesman have the temerity to say "The China Times is unqualified to report that life is hard." Apparently they weren't aware that the Ministry of Interior is already preparing to revise the poverty line downward, enabling more people to obtain relief, to prevent them from committing suicide. Apparently they weren't aware that the Child Welfare League has confirmed that 3.5% of all children cannot afford to buy school lunches. Of this 3.5%, approximately 30,000 are elementary school children in the fourth to sixth grades. If we include elementary school children in the first through third grades, as well as junior high and high school students, the numbers are staggering.
Those in office refer to 3000cc vehicles on Taiwan as small cars. They tell us "Since produce is expensive, why are you buying them at traditional farmer's markets?" They ask us "If you can't afford to live, what are you doing at a hi fi exhibit?" They obviously have no conception of how hard life is for the poor. They lack first hand experience. Seeing living examples of such suffering, most peoples' response would be, "How can I help them?" Not our government. Its reaction is to point an accusing finger at the media, insisting that the media is unqualified to report that life is hard under its misrule. High ranking political appointees lives are indeed good. Ordinary citizens must work hard and pay taxes. Their taxes become these political appointees' salaries, special allowances, and per diem. We must ask in response: What right do political appointees who live off the people's tax money, have to pass judgment on ordinary people struggling to get by, let alone forbid them to speak the truth?
The ruling DPP regime has accused the Jungli Investment Co and the Kuomintang of making a "Three Chinas" deal, involving the Broadcasting Corporation of China, the Central Motion Picture Corporation, and the China Television Company. It says the China Times has sacrificed its journalistic ethics, therefore it is unqualified to comment on the government's record. Excuse me, but the withdrawal of the government and the military from the media is government policy. The Jungli Investment Company's transactions were carried out under government oversight, in accordance with government regulation. What do they have to do with the China Times' journalistic ethics? The only reason the ruling DPP regime is using the "Three Chinas" deal to smear the China Times, is that it hasn't knuckled under to the ruling regime, but instead embarrassed it by reporting the truth. The real issue is the upcoming elections. The Democratic Progressive Party has decided that its election strategy will be to demand that the KMT account for its party assets. That is why the DPP is treating privately owned and operated businesses as expendable "collateral damage" in its election campaign.
We must solemnly advise the powers that be: The China Times, in contrast with certain other media organizations, will never allow itself to become a government mouthpiece, let alone a government attack dog. The China Times will forever stand with the people and speak for the people. This is the China Times' raison d'etre. As for trading insults in public, we refuse to play that game. Such individuals, who have forfeited their humanity, are unqualified to discuss journalistic ethics.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.15
我們必須嚴正告訴那些掌權的人
中時社論
媒體的天職就是監督政府，很遺憾，在政府眼中，盡職的媒體竟遭汙蔑為被政敵收買的第三者；照這個邏輯，我們不得不反問：甘為政府傳聲筒，並以此遂行打壓異己工具的媒體，是不是早被政府收買？我們更要問一句：被政府收買的媒體，還有任何公信力可言？
中國時報自從進行〈台灣希望二○○八〉系列專題以來，執政者就不斷以扣帽子的方式，迴避問題，轉移焦點。重新檢視這一系列的專題，有哪一樁不是事實？有哪個數據不是出自政府公部門的統計？持平而論，套用民進黨總統參選人謝長廷的話，政府做再好，做不到百分之百，只做到百分之八十，就還是有百分之廿的不滿意，不滿意？沒關係，我們就要再改進。這才是領納稅人薪俸的公僕所應為之事，爾俸爾祿，民脂民膏，政府的存在，不是為了政黨的勝選，更不是為了個人的成敗，政府的存在是為了服務人民的需要。
系列專題中，我們提到了政府財政浪費的問題，這不只是現政府的問題，還有前政府的問題，但是，不論前後，任何曾為或現為政府一員者，不該思考解決之道嗎？而那些卯足全力競逐大位，準備接掌政權者，不是更應該思索提出解決方案嗎？
遺憾的是，民進黨政府已執政七年多，面對這樣的檢討無詞以對，只會以抹黑式的政治語言栽贓，甚至因為擔心影響選情而全面否定。不要說全台各地蚊子館充斥的建設浪費，僅僅全國公務員開會一年就花了十八億，這個數字是正常的嗎？監察院審計部都提出糾正的事，行政院能如此臉不紅氣不喘認為公務員就該花這麼多錢到風景區開會嗎？
我們還提到貧富差距擴大，這使得台灣的社會愈趨向Ｍ型，貧者愈貧而富者愈富，歸結到我們的下一代，看到的就是兩個世界的孩子，他們從一開始就站在不公平的起跑點上，富者耗盡資源讓孩子學習各種才藝，貧者不但繳不起孩子一個月三千元的補習費，甚至還需要孩子從學校帶營養午餐回家，當一家人的晚飯。
這樣的社會現實，聞者莫不心酸以對，但是，我們的政府發言人卻說「中國時報有什麼資格評論日子不好過」，他們卻沒看到內政部已經準備向下調修貧窮線，讓多一點人能夠得到救濟，避免走上絕路，他們更不會看到兒福聯盟做的調查，證實百分之三點五的孩子，繳不起營養午餐費，這百分之三約三萬多人還只是小學四到六年級的學童，如果加計小學一到三年級，和國、高中生，弱勢學生的人數更超乎想像。
坦白講，當政者講得出「三千ＣＣ是小車」、「菜貴就不要到傳統市場去買」、「生活不下去還有閒情逸致逛音響展」，他們就看不到窮鄉僻壤的人到底怎麼應付這艱鉅的生活，但是，人同此心，即使你無法親身走訪，看到這樣活生生的案例和數字，絕大多數人的反應應該是：我要如何幫助他們？結果我們的政務官卻大剌剌地諷刺媒體沒有資格說生活過得不好！居上位的政務官確實沒有生活好不好的問題，小民再辛苦都得繳稅，人民繳的稅，成為政務官的薪水、特支費和油貼，我們同樣要反問一句：拿人民稅金的政務官，有什麼臉評論辛勤奮鬥的人們，還不讓人民講真話？
民進黨政府指責榮麗公司與國民黨進行三中交易案，說這讓中國時報失去報格，中國時報就沒有資格評論政府作為，很抱歉，黨政軍退出媒體是政府的政策，榮麗公司所有交易行為都在政府法令之下進行，這和中國時報有何干係？民進黨政府只是因為中國時報報導真相，不順其意，就假借三中交易之名栽贓抹黑，理由很簡單：一切為選舉，只因為民進黨設定了討黨產為其選戰策略，就任意把民營企業當做選舉戰場上的犧牲品。
我們必須嚴正告訴掌權者：中國時報一向不甘於、更不屑像某些媒體一樣，淪為政府的傳聲筒，甚至成為政客打擊政敵的工具，中國時報永遠站在人民的一邊，為小民發聲─這就是中國時報的報格！至於每日以尖刻言詞罵街者，我們不屑與之為伍，這種人沒有資格討論報格，因為他們連基本人格都扭曲了！
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Does Frank Hsieh expect to Talk his Way into the Presidency?
Does Frank Hsieh expect to Talk his Way into the Presidency?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 14, 2007
Frank Hsieh has been lashing back at Chen Shui-bian on a daily basis, for two possible reasons. One. Frank Hsieh wants to draw a clear line of demarcation between himself and Chen Shui-bian. He wants to form his own political camp. He wants to test the ruling Chen regime's tolerance for dissent. If this is the case, then Hsieh is for playing for keeps. Two. Chen and Hsieh are playing a game of Good Cop/Bad Cop. Hsieh is the Good Cop. Chen is the Bad Cop. If this is the case, then Chen and Hsieh are putting on an show for undecided voters.
A third possibility is that their conflict is half fake and half real. If Hsieh pulls on Chen Shui-bian's whiskers, Chen may dismiss Hsieh's impertinence as "election rhetoric." But if Hsieh goes too far and causes Chen pain, Chen Shui-bian may give Hsieh a spanking.
Frank Hsieh is unmistakably pressing forward, probing each step. On the fifth, Frank Hsieh issued his high-minded "Amnesty for Taiwan Businessmen Pledge," stating that "Each president has his own style. As long as one does not violate Democratic Progressive Party principles, we have room for differences." The key phrase was "different styles." The very next day, Chen fired back, opposing the cancellation of the 40% limit on mainland investments, saying that during Hsieh's term as premier and as primary candidate, Hsieh endorsed this item. On the eighth, while speaking before the American Chamber of Commerce, Frank Hsieh said "What Chen did poorly, what Chen can't do, what Chen failed to, I will do. Otherwise, what's the point of running for president?" He even added that "The Pan Blues say that without Deep Green support, Chen wouldn't have any support at all." Hsieh's clear implication was that he himself was not "Deep Green." He openly referred to Chen Shui-bian as "an autocrat whose sole support came from the Deep Greens." He said if Chen didn't have Deep Green support, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Frank Hsieh wasn't finished. He opened fire again on the 11th. "Ma Ying-jeou and President Chen Shui-bian may have unresolved issues, but next May they will both have to retire." Hsieh was referring to Ma Ying-jeou's remark that Chen Shui-bian's "days are numbered." Hsieh said that the most Chen could do is wreak havoc until next May. On the 12th, Frank Hsieh's tone was even harsher. "If the Chen administration continues this way, Taiwan will be left with nothing." He also added that "You (Chen) have destroyed Taiwan's competitiveness, how does that qualify as love for Taiwan?" This was nothing less than an accusation that Chen Shui-bian was Public Enemy Number One, was a detriment to Taiwan, and was leading Taiwan down the road to utter destitution. The language and tone of Frank Hsieh's criticisms of Chen Shui-bian have been far harsher than Ma Ying-jeou's.
Chen Shui-bian's unexpected response to continued attacks by Frank Hsieh was to turn the other cheek. He airily dismissed Hsieh's statements as "Election rhetoric. No need to take it too seriously." But can the sharp opposition between Hsieh and Chen really be dismissed as nothing more than "election rhetoric?" If Chen and Hsieh have real differences, to the point where Hsieh has accused Chen of leading Taiwan down the road to utter destitution, shouldn't the two hash out their differences, and let the Democratic Progressive Party and the people understand where they each stand? If on the other hand, the Chen vs. Hsieh confrontation is a half real, half fake charade, then won't the voters see right through it? Do Chen and Hsieh really think that Hsieh can talk his way into the the presidency next year?
Frank Hsieh wants to draw a line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. He wants to draw a line of distinction between himself and the "Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine" advocated by Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party. This is an article of faith for the Democratic Progressive Party. Can Frank Hsieh really say that "With Chen as president Taiwan will be left with nothing, but if I am president everything will be different?" After all, Frank Hsieh is the Democratic Progressive Party's nominee for president. If he is elected president can he really refuse to abide by the "Resolution for a Normal Nation?" Can he really refuse to foment Taiwan independence? Besides, Frank Hsieh pledged to "Rectify names and author a new constitution within five years." Can he really jettison the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine" after he is elected president? Has Frank Hsieh really forgotten that after winning the presidential primary, party elders warned him "If you don't promote Taiwan independence after you are elected, we will force you to?" Frank Hsieh may draw a line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. But can he really draw a line of distinction between himself and the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and the "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine?" Can he really draw a line of distinction between himself and the entire Democratic Progressive Party?
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian was elected president on the basis of his "Five Noes" and "New Centrist Path" platform. His tacit understanding with the Democratic Progressive Party was "Let's first win the presidency, then we can talk about policy." Now however, Chen has become what Hsieh calls a "Taiwan independence autocrat." By contrast, after eight years Frank Hsieh faces circumstances that are completely different. Hsieh must operate within the limits of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and the "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine." He has been hijacked by Chen Shui-bian. He is under duress from party elders who are forcing him to promote Taiwan independence, or else. How can he possibly say "If I am president, I will forsake Taiwan independence, and refuse to be a second Chen Shui-bian?"
Can Frank Hsieh really free himself from Chen Shui-bian's captivity with nothing more than a disclaimer or two? Can he really talk himself free of the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine?" Can he really win next year's election on the basis of his fast talk and slick manner?
In the ongoing duet cum duel betwen Chen and Hsieh, both individuals rely on their ability to talk up a storm. Will the Chinese people on Taiwan once again drown in the saliva generated by the Democratic Progressive Party's empty rhetoric?
謝長廷也想只憑一張嘴就當選總統？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.14 03:13 am
謝長廷連日回擊陳水扁，其原因有兩種可能：一、今後，謝長廷即與陳水扁作某種程度的切割，嘗試別樹一幟，並測試扁能容忍的底線。倘係如此，謝是玩真的。二、或者，此後扁謝二人即開始唱雙簧，一人扮白臉、一人扮黑臉。倘係如此，則扁謝二人是在玩假的。
另一種可能是，半真半假。謝去捋陳水扁的虎鬚，陳水扁或許以「選舉語言」視之，不作回應；但若謝得寸進尺，扯痛了老虎下巴，陳水扁也可能反噬。
謝 長廷確實在步步進逼、步步試探。五日，謝長廷發表「大赦台商」等高論，並稱：「每個人當總統，有不同風格，在不違反民進黨黨綱下，各有空間。」最關鍵的一 句話，是在區別扁謝的「不同風格」。次日，扁即回嗆，反對取消「百分之四十上限」，並稱謝在行政院長任內及初選時皆已為此背書。接著，八日謝長廷在美國商 會又回批，「他（扁）做不好、做不夠、沒有做的，我來做。不然，選新總統有什麼意思。」甚至又說：「泛藍攻擊他（扁），他若沒有深綠支持，就沒有人支持他 了。」至此，謝長廷表白自己不是「深綠」，並公然指陳水扁已是「深綠支持的獨夫」；若無深綠支持，陳水扁就無以立足。沒想到，謝長廷意猶未盡，十一日再開 砲：「馬英九與陳水扁總統有許多情結，但明年五月他們兩人都要退出了。」這更儼然是仿馬英九的口氣指陳水扁「來日無多」，最多只能作祟肆虐到明年五月。進 而，謝長廷十二日的口氣又更加麻辣：「（扁）政府再這樣管下去，台灣將會一無所有。」又稱：「你（扁）讓台灣沒有競爭力，怎麼是愛台灣？」這更不啻是指陳 水扁根本是台灣的罪人，害台灣，要害到台灣一無所有。謝長廷批扁的措辭與力道，已經遠遠超越馬英九。
陳水扁被謝長廷連番砲轟，其反應竟是 唾面自乾；只是輕描淡寫地說：「有些選舉語言，不要看得太嚴重。」然而，扁謝這種針鋒相對的尖銳情勢，豈是一句「選舉語言」即可輕鬆帶過？倘若扁謝確有歧 見，甚至已經到了謝指扁會將台灣害到「一無所有」的地步，二人豈可不就此徹底辯論，向民進黨及國人交代清楚？反過來說，倘若這只是扁謝二人表演的一場半真 半假的政治雙簧，則如何可能不遭眼睛雪亮的國人看穿識破？難道扁謝又想只憑言語機鋒再贏得明年的總統大選？
謝長廷與陳水扁切割，且其下刀 的切割點正是陳水扁及民進黨堅持的「獨派經濟」之肯綮所在。這種歧見，是對民進黨靈魂本質的一種歧見，謝長廷豈能說「他（扁）當總統要把台灣害到一無所 有，我當了總統絕不會像他一樣」？畢竟，謝長廷是民進黨提名的總統參選人，他當總統後難道能不遵行《正常國家決議文》而繼續搞台獨？何況，謝長廷亦承諾 「五年正名制憲論」，則豈有可能在當選總統後即推翻民進黨的「獨派經濟」？謝長廷難道忘了，在他贏得總統初選後，黨內大老已有言在先：「你（謝）當選後， 若不搞台獨，我們會逼你搞！」謝長廷即使可與陳水扁劃清界線，但他豈能與《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」劃清界線？又豈能與整個民進黨劃清界線？
八 年前，陳水扁在民進黨全黨「先贏再說」的默契下，以「新中間路線」及「四不一沒有」當選總統，如今扁竟然成了謝口中的「台獨獨夫」；相對而言，八年後謝長 廷面對的情勢已全然不同。謝如今是在《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」之範限下，及在陳水扁的挾持下，又在黨內大老「逼你搞台獨」的要脅下，他豈有可能 說「我若做總統，放棄台獨，不做第二個陳水扁」？
謝長廷難道只憑一張嘴就能甩掉陳水扁的挾持？難道只憑一張嘴就想擺脫民進黨「不斷台獨論」的範限？又難道想只憑覆雨翻雲的油嘴滑舌就贏得明年的總統大選？
扁謝雙簧惡鬥，各自只憑一張嘴。台灣人民會不會再次淹死在民進黨買空賣空的口水之中？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 14, 2007
Frank Hsieh has been lashing back at Chen Shui-bian on a daily basis, for two possible reasons. One. Frank Hsieh wants to draw a clear line of demarcation between himself and Chen Shui-bian. He wants to form his own political camp. He wants to test the ruling Chen regime's tolerance for dissent. If this is the case, then Hsieh is for playing for keeps. Two. Chen and Hsieh are playing a game of Good Cop/Bad Cop. Hsieh is the Good Cop. Chen is the Bad Cop. If this is the case, then Chen and Hsieh are putting on an show for undecided voters.
A third possibility is that their conflict is half fake and half real. If Hsieh pulls on Chen Shui-bian's whiskers, Chen may dismiss Hsieh's impertinence as "election rhetoric." But if Hsieh goes too far and causes Chen pain, Chen Shui-bian may give Hsieh a spanking.
Frank Hsieh is unmistakably pressing forward, probing each step. On the fifth, Frank Hsieh issued his high-minded "Amnesty for Taiwan Businessmen Pledge," stating that "Each president has his own style. As long as one does not violate Democratic Progressive Party principles, we have room for differences." The key phrase was "different styles." The very next day, Chen fired back, opposing the cancellation of the 40% limit on mainland investments, saying that during Hsieh's term as premier and as primary candidate, Hsieh endorsed this item. On the eighth, while speaking before the American Chamber of Commerce, Frank Hsieh said "What Chen did poorly, what Chen can't do, what Chen failed to, I will do. Otherwise, what's the point of running for president?" He even added that "The Pan Blues say that without Deep Green support, Chen wouldn't have any support at all." Hsieh's clear implication was that he himself was not "Deep Green." He openly referred to Chen Shui-bian as "an autocrat whose sole support came from the Deep Greens." He said if Chen didn't have Deep Green support, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Frank Hsieh wasn't finished. He opened fire again on the 11th. "Ma Ying-jeou and President Chen Shui-bian may have unresolved issues, but next May they will both have to retire." Hsieh was referring to Ma Ying-jeou's remark that Chen Shui-bian's "days are numbered." Hsieh said that the most Chen could do is wreak havoc until next May. On the 12th, Frank Hsieh's tone was even harsher. "If the Chen administration continues this way, Taiwan will be left with nothing." He also added that "You (Chen) have destroyed Taiwan's competitiveness, how does that qualify as love for Taiwan?" This was nothing less than an accusation that Chen Shui-bian was Public Enemy Number One, was a detriment to Taiwan, and was leading Taiwan down the road to utter destitution. The language and tone of Frank Hsieh's criticisms of Chen Shui-bian have been far harsher than Ma Ying-jeou's.
Chen Shui-bian's unexpected response to continued attacks by Frank Hsieh was to turn the other cheek. He airily dismissed Hsieh's statements as "Election rhetoric. No need to take it too seriously." But can the sharp opposition between Hsieh and Chen really be dismissed as nothing more than "election rhetoric?" If Chen and Hsieh have real differences, to the point where Hsieh has accused Chen of leading Taiwan down the road to utter destitution, shouldn't the two hash out their differences, and let the Democratic Progressive Party and the people understand where they each stand? If on the other hand, the Chen vs. Hsieh confrontation is a half real, half fake charade, then won't the voters see right through it? Do Chen and Hsieh really think that Hsieh can talk his way into the the presidency next year?
Frank Hsieh wants to draw a line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. He wants to draw a line of distinction between himself and the "Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine" advocated by Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party. This is an article of faith for the Democratic Progressive Party. Can Frank Hsieh really say that "With Chen as president Taiwan will be left with nothing, but if I am president everything will be different?" After all, Frank Hsieh is the Democratic Progressive Party's nominee for president. If he is elected president can he really refuse to abide by the "Resolution for a Normal Nation?" Can he really refuse to foment Taiwan independence? Besides, Frank Hsieh pledged to "Rectify names and author a new constitution within five years." Can he really jettison the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan Independence Economic Doctrine" after he is elected president? Has Frank Hsieh really forgotten that after winning the presidential primary, party elders warned him "If you don't promote Taiwan independence after you are elected, we will force you to?" Frank Hsieh may draw a line of distinction between himself and Chen Shui-bian. But can he really draw a line of distinction between himself and the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and the "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine?" Can he really draw a line of distinction between himself and the entire Democratic Progressive Party?
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian was elected president on the basis of his "Five Noes" and "New Centrist Path" platform. His tacit understanding with the Democratic Progressive Party was "Let's first win the presidency, then we can talk about policy." Now however, Chen has become what Hsieh calls a "Taiwan independence autocrat." By contrast, after eight years Frank Hsieh faces circumstances that are completely different. Hsieh must operate within the limits of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and the "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine." He has been hijacked by Chen Shui-bian. He is under duress from party elders who are forcing him to promote Taiwan independence, or else. How can he possibly say "If I am president, I will forsake Taiwan independence, and refuse to be a second Chen Shui-bian?"
Can Frank Hsieh really free himself from Chen Shui-bian's captivity with nothing more than a disclaimer or two? Can he really talk himself free of the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan independence without pause doctrine?" Can he really win next year's election on the basis of his fast talk and slick manner?
In the ongoing duet cum duel betwen Chen and Hsieh, both individuals rely on their ability to talk up a storm. Will the Chinese people on Taiwan once again drown in the saliva generated by the Democratic Progressive Party's empty rhetoric?
謝長廷也想只憑一張嘴就當選總統？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.14 03:13 am
謝長廷連日回擊陳水扁，其原因有兩種可能：一、今後，謝長廷即與陳水扁作某種程度的切割，嘗試別樹一幟，並測試扁能容忍的底線。倘係如此，謝是玩真的。二、或者，此後扁謝二人即開始唱雙簧，一人扮白臉、一人扮黑臉。倘係如此，則扁謝二人是在玩假的。
另一種可能是，半真半假。謝去捋陳水扁的虎鬚，陳水扁或許以「選舉語言」視之，不作回應；但若謝得寸進尺，扯痛了老虎下巴，陳水扁也可能反噬。
謝 長廷確實在步步進逼、步步試探。五日，謝長廷發表「大赦台商」等高論，並稱：「每個人當總統，有不同風格，在不違反民進黨黨綱下，各有空間。」最關鍵的一 句話，是在區別扁謝的「不同風格」。次日，扁即回嗆，反對取消「百分之四十上限」，並稱謝在行政院長任內及初選時皆已為此背書。接著，八日謝長廷在美國商 會又回批，「他（扁）做不好、做不夠、沒有做的，我來做。不然，選新總統有什麼意思。」甚至又說：「泛藍攻擊他（扁），他若沒有深綠支持，就沒有人支持他 了。」至此，謝長廷表白自己不是「深綠」，並公然指陳水扁已是「深綠支持的獨夫」；若無深綠支持，陳水扁就無以立足。沒想到，謝長廷意猶未盡，十一日再開 砲：「馬英九與陳水扁總統有許多情結，但明年五月他們兩人都要退出了。」這更儼然是仿馬英九的口氣指陳水扁「來日無多」，最多只能作祟肆虐到明年五月。進 而，謝長廷十二日的口氣又更加麻辣：「（扁）政府再這樣管下去，台灣將會一無所有。」又稱：「你（扁）讓台灣沒有競爭力，怎麼是愛台灣？」這更不啻是指陳 水扁根本是台灣的罪人，害台灣，要害到台灣一無所有。謝長廷批扁的措辭與力道，已經遠遠超越馬英九。
陳水扁被謝長廷連番砲轟，其反應竟是 唾面自乾；只是輕描淡寫地說：「有些選舉語言，不要看得太嚴重。」然而，扁謝這種針鋒相對的尖銳情勢，豈是一句「選舉語言」即可輕鬆帶過？倘若扁謝確有歧 見，甚至已經到了謝指扁會將台灣害到「一無所有」的地步，二人豈可不就此徹底辯論，向民進黨及國人交代清楚？反過來說，倘若這只是扁謝二人表演的一場半真 半假的政治雙簧，則如何可能不遭眼睛雪亮的國人看穿識破？難道扁謝又想只憑言語機鋒再贏得明年的總統大選？
謝長廷與陳水扁切割，且其下刀 的切割點正是陳水扁及民進黨堅持的「獨派經濟」之肯綮所在。這種歧見，是對民進黨靈魂本質的一種歧見，謝長廷豈能說「他（扁）當總統要把台灣害到一無所 有，我當了總統絕不會像他一樣」？畢竟，謝長廷是民進黨提名的總統參選人，他當總統後難道能不遵行《正常國家決議文》而繼續搞台獨？何況，謝長廷亦承諾 「五年正名制憲論」，則豈有可能在當選總統後即推翻民進黨的「獨派經濟」？謝長廷難道忘了，在他贏得總統初選後，黨內大老已有言在先：「你（謝）當選後， 若不搞台獨，我們會逼你搞！」謝長廷即使可與陳水扁劃清界線，但他豈能與《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」劃清界線？又豈能與整個民進黨劃清界線？
八 年前，陳水扁在民進黨全黨「先贏再說」的默契下，以「新中間路線」及「四不一沒有」當選總統，如今扁竟然成了謝口中的「台獨獨夫」；相對而言，八年後謝長 廷面對的情勢已全然不同。謝如今是在《正常國家決議文》的「不斷台獨論」之範限下，及在陳水扁的挾持下，又在黨內大老「逼你搞台獨」的要脅下，他豈有可能 說「我若做總統，放棄台獨，不做第二個陳水扁」？
謝長廷難道只憑一張嘴就能甩掉陳水扁的挾持？難道只憑一張嘴就想擺脫民進黨「不斷台獨論」的範限？又難道想只憑覆雨翻雲的油嘴滑舌就贏得明年的總統大選？
扁謝雙簧惡鬥，各自只憑一張嘴。台灣人民會不會再次淹死在民進黨買空賣空的口水之中？
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
A Modus Vivendi that Embraces the World
A Modus Vivendi that Embraces the World
translated by Bevin Chu
November 13, 2007
Translator's Note: Although I translated the following White Paper by the Ma/Hsiao election campaign, that does not mean I endorse the premises adopted or proposals advanced by the Ma/Hsiao campaign. I agree enthusiastically with some, and disagree vehemently with others.
One. Preface
Long term persecution by the mainland authorities plus eight years of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "scorched earth diplomacy" have left the Republic of China utterly isolated within the international community. The Kuomintang (KMT) champions the adoption of a dignified, pragmatic, and responsive "modus vivendi" that will blaze a new trail for the Republic of China.
Two. The Democratic Progressive Party's Artificially Created Diplomatic Dilemma
Mainland persecution of the Republic of China's (ROC) diplomacy has been a constant for decades. It is nothing new. But over the past eight years, DPP misrule has artificially created a new dilemma for the ROC. The ROC has fewer and fewer international allies. Those that remain feel less and less sympathy for the ROC, which has become more and more marginalized.
The reasons for this are:
-- Diplomatic Amateurism: The DPP regime has no respect for diplomatic professionalism. It mistrusts professional diplomats with years of hard-earned professional experience. Its diplomacy is informed exclusively by Deep Green ideological considerations. Its foreign relations are determined exclusively by domestic election considerations.
-- A Predilection for Confrontation: The DPP regime's impetuous, rash, and confrontational diplomacy has frittered away the last remnants of goodwill other nations might have once felt toward the ROC.
-- Capricious Policy-making: The DPP regime's foreign policy is entirely subservient to domestic political or election concerns. It has obliterated the ROC's international credibility.
-- Stubborn Dogmatism: The DPP regime is pursuing formal independence. The result has been no improvement whatsoever in the ROC's international standing. On the contrary, the ROC has been demoted from "Model Democracy" and "Economic Miracle" to "International Troublemaker."
Three. Principles of Diplomacy
If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, the KMT will blaze the following trail for the ROC's diplomacy:
-- Defense of Sovereignty: We will increase contact with nations with whom we lack formal relations. We will attempt to establish formal diplomatic relations, and defend the Republic of China's flag, national title, national anthem, and other symbols of sovereignty on the international stage.
-- Economic Strength: In an era of globalization, diplomacy and economics are inseparable. Economics can help promote one's diplomacy. Diplomacy can help defend one's economic interests. We must learn to make wise use of our economic influence to expand our diplomatic space.
-- Flexibility and Pragmatism: As long as membership in international organizations is in the ROC's interests, the name we use is negotiable. In other words, we don't rule out the use of the "Republic of China," "Taiwan," or other names consistent with our interests.
-- Equality and Dignity: Participation in the activities of international organizations can be under various names, provided we are accorded equal treatment and enjoy equal benefits.
Four. A Modus Vivendi
We must think anew in order to establish new relations with the outside world. If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, we will put an end to pointless "scorched earth diplomacy." On the premise of equality and mutual advantage, on the foundation of the "1992 Consensus," which neither side has repudiated, we can begin pragmatic negotiations. Such a search for the greatest mutual benefit is our modus vivendi. Future bilateral relations or participation in international organizations need no longer lead to confrontation and the squandering of resources. Each side will contribute what it can. Both will benefit. Both will contribute to the global community. Such a win/win/win approach benefits both sides of the Taiwan Strait and is favored by the global community.
Five. Bilateral Foreign Relations
1. Strengthen Relations with Allied Nations via Mutually Beneficial Arrangments and Mutual Assistance
Most of our allies are developing nations. We must do more for them. We must provide assistance to them in order to establish mutually beneficial relationships. The Realist Model does not opposed developing relations with allies and other nations or regions, provided the process does not harm the interests of the ROC.
2. Rebuild Trust between Taipei and Washington, Consolidate Bilateral Relations
The US has long been the Republic of China's most important ally. The Bush administration has been the friendliest administration in recent history. After the DPP took office, mutual trust between Taipei and Washington sharply diminished. If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, the first thing they will do is restore bilateral trust and firm up bilateral relations on the basis of the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Guarantees. We will be responsible stakeholders determined to bear the burden of our own defense, and to buy the necessary defensive weapons.
We will open up cross-Straits direct maritime shipping and commercial air flights, allowing Taiwan to become the springboard to the Chinese mainland for US and other nations' businesses. We will reach agreements with the US on eliminating tariffs, protecting intellectual property rights, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, government purchases and investments. We hope to sign mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) or Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreements (CECAs).
3. Support the US Japan Security Treaty, Improve ROC/Japan Relations
The ROC and Japan have long enjoyed close and amicable relations. Japan is an economically prosperous, politically democratic, and socially advanced nation. Over the past two decades both the ROC and Japan's political and economic environments have undergone huge changes. A new generation of political figures has debuted. Both nations must compare notes, increase mutual understanding, and develop mutually beneficial new policies. ROC/Japan relations require wide-ranging, in-depth exchanges and cooperation. The ROC and Japan must cultivate talent able to enhance bilateral understanding and improve bilateral relations.
We support the US Japan Security Treaty as an important mechanism for the maintenance of East Asian security. The ROC must establish strategic business alliances with Japan, and together develop the mainland Chinese market. We hope to sign Free Trade Agreements with Japan at an early date. We will adopt an objective, rational, and factual attitude while discussing controversial issues involving the ROC and Japan.
4. Love Thy Neighbor, Expand Asian Pacific Relations
As a member of the Asian Pacific region, we are eager to participate in the region's economic restructuring. We affirm and value ASEAN's recent achievements. We hope to sign separate Free Trade Agreements with its members. We hope to eventually achieve the goal of "ASEAN 10 + 3." We welcome peace on the Korean Penninsula and the development of stable relations between the ROC and Korea. We also welcome Australia, New Zealand, Russia, India and Canada's new orientation toward East Asia. We look forward to increasing bilateral, multilevel cooperation and relations with these nations.
5. Respect the European Union's Achievements, Deepen European Union Relations
We must strengthen bilateral relations with European nations. We must increase our exchanges with the European Parliament, obtain European Union membership and provisions for friendly treatment by the European Parliament. We must provide European businesses with better investment opportunities in Taiwan, and encourage and assist more Taiwan businesses to invest and operate in Europe. We must provide scholarships encouraging youths to study in Europe, and European youths to study in Taiwan. We must establish a "European Information Center" in Taipei, improving contacts with European agencies on Taiwan.
6. Obtain Membership in International Organizations
1. Promote our Return to the United Nations
The Republic of China is a founding member of the United Nations. After losing our right to represent the Republic of China in 1971, the Republic of China continued its struggle in the global community. In 1993, under KMT rule, we promoted our "Back to the UN" movement. We are currently promoting our "Return to the UN Plebiscite." These are merely two examples of the KMT's long-term efforts. We know that returning to the UN will be no easy matter, but unrelenting effort is a necessary ingredient for success.
2. Focus on Three Major International Organizations
Globalization means increasingly closer economic relations between nations. The ROC must aggressively seek membership in purpose-oriented international organizations If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew receive the peoples' endorsement in 2008, we will make returning to the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Health Organization (WHO) our prime objectives. We will first seek observer status, then official status. The name we use is negotiable, on condition we are accorded due respect.
7. Make Good Use of the ROC's Soft Power
Taiwan's geographical location is an important component of the Republic of China's soft power. So are the Chinese people's cultural values, free economy, open society, emotional warmth, multitude of highly active Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), and overseas Chinese distributed throughout the world. Once Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew assume office we must make good use of these resources, injecting life into our modus vivendi. We must adopt an "any man's death diminishes me" outlook and provide humanitarian assistance to nations and peoples in distress.
8. Conclusions
The Republic of China's diplomatic policy must be predicated upon the principles of dignity, pragmatism, and responsiveness, so that we may fulfill our responsibilities as citizens of the world. We hope that the global community will appreciate the ROC's economic development and democratic achievements. That it will give the ROC the opportunity to join like-minded nations in creating a peaceful and prosperous global community.
If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew assume office in 2008, we promise to put an end to "scorched earth diplomacy," changing it to a modus vivendi that will blaze a new trail for the Republic of China. We are convinced we can create a win/win/win scenario in which both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the global community can coexist and prosper.
translated by Bevin Chu
November 13, 2007
Translator's Note: Although I translated the following White Paper by the Ma/Hsiao election campaign, that does not mean I endorse the premises adopted or proposals advanced by the Ma/Hsiao campaign. I agree enthusiastically with some, and disagree vehemently with others.
One. Preface
Long term persecution by the mainland authorities plus eight years of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "scorched earth diplomacy" have left the Republic of China utterly isolated within the international community. The Kuomintang (KMT) champions the adoption of a dignified, pragmatic, and responsive "modus vivendi" that will blaze a new trail for the Republic of China.
Two. The Democratic Progressive Party's Artificially Created Diplomatic Dilemma
Mainland persecution of the Republic of China's (ROC) diplomacy has been a constant for decades. It is nothing new. But over the past eight years, DPP misrule has artificially created a new dilemma for the ROC. The ROC has fewer and fewer international allies. Those that remain feel less and less sympathy for the ROC, which has become more and more marginalized.
The reasons for this are:
-- Diplomatic Amateurism: The DPP regime has no respect for diplomatic professionalism. It mistrusts professional diplomats with years of hard-earned professional experience. Its diplomacy is informed exclusively by Deep Green ideological considerations. Its foreign relations are determined exclusively by domestic election considerations.
-- A Predilection for Confrontation: The DPP regime's impetuous, rash, and confrontational diplomacy has frittered away the last remnants of goodwill other nations might have once felt toward the ROC.
-- Capricious Policy-making: The DPP regime's foreign policy is entirely subservient to domestic political or election concerns. It has obliterated the ROC's international credibility.
-- Stubborn Dogmatism: The DPP regime is pursuing formal independence. The result has been no improvement whatsoever in the ROC's international standing. On the contrary, the ROC has been demoted from "Model Democracy" and "Economic Miracle" to "International Troublemaker."
Three. Principles of Diplomacy
If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, the KMT will blaze the following trail for the ROC's diplomacy:
-- Defense of Sovereignty: We will increase contact with nations with whom we lack formal relations. We will attempt to establish formal diplomatic relations, and defend the Republic of China's flag, national title, national anthem, and other symbols of sovereignty on the international stage.
-- Economic Strength: In an era of globalization, diplomacy and economics are inseparable. Economics can help promote one's diplomacy. Diplomacy can help defend one's economic interests. We must learn to make wise use of our economic influence to expand our diplomatic space.
-- Flexibility and Pragmatism: As long as membership in international organizations is in the ROC's interests, the name we use is negotiable. In other words, we don't rule out the use of the "Republic of China," "Taiwan," or other names consistent with our interests.
-- Equality and Dignity: Participation in the activities of international organizations can be under various names, provided we are accorded equal treatment and enjoy equal benefits.
Four. A Modus Vivendi
We must think anew in order to establish new relations with the outside world. If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, we will put an end to pointless "scorched earth diplomacy." On the premise of equality and mutual advantage, on the foundation of the "1992 Consensus," which neither side has repudiated, we can begin pragmatic negotiations. Such a search for the greatest mutual benefit is our modus vivendi. Future bilateral relations or participation in international organizations need no longer lead to confrontation and the squandering of resources. Each side will contribute what it can. Both will benefit. Both will contribute to the global community. Such a win/win/win approach benefits both sides of the Taiwan Strait and is favored by the global community.
Five. Bilateral Foreign Relations
1. Strengthen Relations with Allied Nations via Mutually Beneficial Arrangments and Mutual Assistance
Most of our allies are developing nations. We must do more for them. We must provide assistance to them in order to establish mutually beneficial relationships. The Realist Model does not opposed developing relations with allies and other nations or regions, provided the process does not harm the interests of the ROC.
2. Rebuild Trust between Taipei and Washington, Consolidate Bilateral Relations
The US has long been the Republic of China's most important ally. The Bush administration has been the friendliest administration in recent history. After the DPP took office, mutual trust between Taipei and Washington sharply diminished. If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew are elected, the first thing they will do is restore bilateral trust and firm up bilateral relations on the basis of the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Guarantees. We will be responsible stakeholders determined to bear the burden of our own defense, and to buy the necessary defensive weapons.
We will open up cross-Straits direct maritime shipping and commercial air flights, allowing Taiwan to become the springboard to the Chinese mainland for US and other nations' businesses. We will reach agreements with the US on eliminating tariffs, protecting intellectual property rights, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, government purchases and investments. We hope to sign mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) or Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreements (CECAs).
3. Support the US Japan Security Treaty, Improve ROC/Japan Relations
The ROC and Japan have long enjoyed close and amicable relations. Japan is an economically prosperous, politically democratic, and socially advanced nation. Over the past two decades both the ROC and Japan's political and economic environments have undergone huge changes. A new generation of political figures has debuted. Both nations must compare notes, increase mutual understanding, and develop mutually beneficial new policies. ROC/Japan relations require wide-ranging, in-depth exchanges and cooperation. The ROC and Japan must cultivate talent able to enhance bilateral understanding and improve bilateral relations.
We support the US Japan Security Treaty as an important mechanism for the maintenance of East Asian security. The ROC must establish strategic business alliances with Japan, and together develop the mainland Chinese market. We hope to sign Free Trade Agreements with Japan at an early date. We will adopt an objective, rational, and factual attitude while discussing controversial issues involving the ROC and Japan.
4. Love Thy Neighbor, Expand Asian Pacific Relations
As a member of the Asian Pacific region, we are eager to participate in the region's economic restructuring. We affirm and value ASEAN's recent achievements. We hope to sign separate Free Trade Agreements with its members. We hope to eventually achieve the goal of "ASEAN 10 + 3." We welcome peace on the Korean Penninsula and the development of stable relations between the ROC and Korea. We also welcome Australia, New Zealand, Russia, India and Canada's new orientation toward East Asia. We look forward to increasing bilateral, multilevel cooperation and relations with these nations.
5. Respect the European Union's Achievements, Deepen European Union Relations
We must strengthen bilateral relations with European nations. We must increase our exchanges with the European Parliament, obtain European Union membership and provisions for friendly treatment by the European Parliament. We must provide European businesses with better investment opportunities in Taiwan, and encourage and assist more Taiwan businesses to invest and operate in Europe. We must provide scholarships encouraging youths to study in Europe, and European youths to study in Taiwan. We must establish a "European Information Center" in Taipei, improving contacts with European agencies on Taiwan.
6. Obtain Membership in International Organizations
1. Promote our Return to the United Nations
The Republic of China is a founding member of the United Nations. After losing our right to represent the Republic of China in 1971, the Republic of China continued its struggle in the global community. In 1993, under KMT rule, we promoted our "Back to the UN" movement. We are currently promoting our "Return to the UN Plebiscite." These are merely two examples of the KMT's long-term efforts. We know that returning to the UN will be no easy matter, but unrelenting effort is a necessary ingredient for success.
2. Focus on Three Major International Organizations
Globalization means increasingly closer economic relations between nations. The ROC must aggressively seek membership in purpose-oriented international organizations If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew receive the peoples' endorsement in 2008, we will make returning to the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Health Organization (WHO) our prime objectives. We will first seek observer status, then official status. The name we use is negotiable, on condition we are accorded due respect.
7. Make Good Use of the ROC's Soft Power
Taiwan's geographical location is an important component of the Republic of China's soft power. So are the Chinese people's cultural values, free economy, open society, emotional warmth, multitude of highly active Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), and overseas Chinese distributed throughout the world. Once Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew assume office we must make good use of these resources, injecting life into our modus vivendi. We must adopt an "any man's death diminishes me" outlook and provide humanitarian assistance to nations and peoples in distress.
8. Conclusions
The Republic of China's diplomatic policy must be predicated upon the principles of dignity, pragmatism, and responsiveness, so that we may fulfill our responsibilities as citizens of the world. We hope that the global community will appreciate the ROC's economic development and democratic achievements. That it will give the ROC the opportunity to join like-minded nations in creating a peaceful and prosperous global community.
If Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Hsiew assume office in 2008, we promise to put an end to "scorched earth diplomacy," changing it to a modus vivendi that will blaze a new trail for the Republic of China. We are convinced we can create a win/win/win scenario in which both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the global community can coexist and prosper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)