The Plebiscite has changed. Refuse to accept plebiscite ballots
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 31, 2007
An editorial in this newspaper recently noted that Chen Shui-bian and the DPP's attempt to "package deal" the plebiscite with the election has disrupted the election and may even nullify the election. This view has now become the consensus.
By disrupting or even nullifying the election, the plebiscite promoted by Chen Shui-bian and the DPP has forfeited what little legitimacy it might have had. It has become the enemy of constitutionalism and the rule of law. In order to oppose their attempt to disrupt or even nullify the election, more and more people are saying, "Boycott the Plebiscite."
The people may or may not approve of demands to "recover party assets" or "recover national assets." But they look askance on Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party for exploiting the plebiscite process in such a lawless manner. Plebiscites and referenda were originally a means of enhancing constitutional rule. Now they have been reduced to populist weapons by which Chen Shui-bian and the DPP can destroy constitutional rule. Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have manipulated the plebiscite and plebiscite process to the point where it no longer has any legitimacy. That is why we are hearing calls from the people to boycott the plebiscite altogether.
People approve of plebiscites. But most people don't approve of lawless manipulation of the plebiscite process. People approve of plebiscites. But most people don't approve of plebiscites being used as tools for political manipulation.
The plebiscite has changed. One. AIT Chairman Raymond F. Burghardt pointed out that the plebiscite has been transformed into a instrument by which Chen Shui-bian can to hijack the election and manipulate the post-election political scenario. As a result, Anyone unwilling to be a hijack victim must oppose this plebiscite, even pale green voters. Chen Shui-bian has taken the DPP hostage. If you want to liberate the DPP from Chen, you should oppose the plebiscite, This will reduce the effectiveness of this tool in Chen Shui-bian's hands.
The plebiscite has changed. Two. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP's manipulation of the plebiscite, is unconstitutional and illegal, illogical and unreasonable. Its defects are too numerous to list. Chen Shui-bian has openly proclaimed that "package dealing the plebiscite with the presidential election is the primary means by which the DPP will win the election." Furthermore, the DPP is misappropriating public funds, extorting money from banks and savings and loans, hijacking the Central Election Committee, engaging in every kind of unconstitutional, illegal, shameless, and unconscionable behavior conceivable. If the people of the nation still have one iota of respect for civilization and the rule of law, how can we tolerate these brigands? How can we allow ourselves to be manipulated by their phony plebiscite?
The plebiscite has changed. Three. As Frank Hsieh noted, the plebiscite will have "after effects." The first after effect will be a vicious struggle between "Deep Green" pro-Chen and "Reformist" anti-Chen factions within the DPP after the election. The second after effect will be the need to heal the rift between Taiwan and the United States. Prevention, as always, is the best cure. Opposing the plebiscite will reveal whether pro-Chen "Deep Green" supporters or anti-Chen "Reformist" supporters are the winners. Chen Shui-bian will be subdued by the outcome. Those taken hostage by Chen Shui-bian can then be liberated as soon as possible, in which case there will be no after effects. As for trust between Taipei and Washington, as long as Chen Shui-bian's phony plebiscite fails, the after effects can be reduced to a minimum.
The plebiscite has changed. Next year's January and March plebiscites are not plebiscites to recover party assets or national assets, or to join the UN or rejoin the UN. They are plebiscites on whether the government has the right to ram illegal and phony plebiscites down the public's throat. They are plebiscites on whether to preserve Taipei/Washington relations. They are plebiscites on whether Chen Shui-bian is going to remain the chessmaster of the political arena, and we are going to remain his pawns. They are votes of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian's phony plebiscite.
The people must not allow themselves to be manipulated by Chen Shui-bian's phony plebiscite. This newspapers urges voters: Refuse to accept either of the two plebiscite ballots. If we go along with the CEC's "four balloting sequences" at the polling stations, we will have chaos. To solve the problem at its root, refuse to accept any plebiscite ballots. That is the best solution. That is the only countermeasure.
The pendulum always swings back in the opposite direction. Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party have overplayed their hand. The public is reacting vehemently. The nature of the plebiscite has changed. The public cannot endorse a phony plebiscite, and will refuse to accept the plebiscite ballots.
The plebiscite has turned into a vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian. The plebiscite has turned into a plebiscite on rule of law vs. the rule of the mob. The plebiscite has turned into a plebiscite on law and order vs. the law of the jungle. The showdown will take place on March 22, during the presidential election. The prelude will take place on January 12, during the legislative elections. Boycott the plebiscite. If Chen's attempt to package deal the plebiscite with the legislative elections fails, Chen's attempt to package deal a plebiscite with the presidential elections will fail as well.
公投已變質，拒領公投票！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.31 02:16 am
本報社論日前指出，陳水扁及民進黨的「公投綁大選」，已經惡化變質為「公投亂大選」，「公投毀大選」；此一觀點已漸成為社會共識。
事態至此，陳水扁及民進黨的「公投」，非但已失正當性，且已變質為「亂大選／毀大選」的民主憲政「公敵」。為了反對陳水扁及民進黨「公投毀大選」，社會上「拒領公投票」的呼聲已處處可聞。
國 人或皆同意「討黨產／討國產」及「入聯／返聯」的政治訴求，但不能同意陳水扁及民進黨將「公投」操弄到如今這種無法無天的地步。「公投」原是「提升國家治 理」的憲政公器，如今卻淪為陳水扁及民進黨「摧毀國家治理」的民粹凶器。陳水扁及民進黨操弄下的「公投」已經變質，已失正當性，所以社會上才會出現「拒領 公投票」的呼聲。
國人率皆贊同公投，但多數國人必不贊同無法無天的「操弄公投」；國人率皆贊同公投，但多數國人必不贊同「變質的公投」！
公 投已經變質：一、薄瑞光指出，入聯公投已經變質為陳水扁欲綁架新總統及挾持選後政局的公投。因此，這波公投儼然已成為對陳水扁的「信任投票」。凡不願見陳 水扁繼續綁架挾持台灣政局者，就應反對公投。即使淺綠選民，若欲使民進黨擺脫陳水扁的挾持綁架，亦應反對公投，這是降低陳水扁聲勢的有力手段。
公 投已經變質：二、陳水扁及民進黨操弄公投的手段，違憲違法、違理背情，已至罄竹難書的地步。陳水扁公開宣稱「公投綁大選，就是民進黨要贏得選舉的主要手 法」，接下來，民進黨即盜用公帑推動，綁架行庫挹注，更挾持中選會幹盡一切違憲違法、無品無恥的下流下賤勾當；國人倘若對民主憲政及文明廉恥尚有一念顧 惜，豈能贊同這些民主盜匪、憲政蟊賊所操弄的「變質公投」？
公投已經變質：三、如謝長廷所說，公投會有「後遺症」。後遺症之一，是選後必 將引爆民進黨內「深綠／改革」、「挺扁／反扁」的慘烈鬥爭；後遺症之二，是台美信任及友誼的傷口，必須有以療癒。對於「後遺症」的最佳治療，就是事先防 範，不使它發生「後遺症」。只要反對公投，就能使「深綠／改革」、「挺扁／反扁」的勝負早日揭曉，將陳水扁制伏在「公投」之下，即可趁勢早日擺脫陳水扁的 挾持綁架，也就不會有後遺症。至於台美信任，也只要使陳水扁的「公投」失敗，後遺症亦可望減輕至最低程度。
公投已經變質。明年一月及三月兩次公投，其實已非「討黨產／討國產」或「入聯／返聯」的公投，而是要不要容許如此「無法無天」的公投，也是要不要維護台美信任關係的公投，也是要不要政局繼續被陳水扁挾持綁架的公投，更是要不要繼續信任陳水扁的「信任案公投」！
國人應當抵制這場陳水扁操弄的「變質的公投」。本報曾經主張：不妨兩張都不領，絕對不可領兩張。但若聽任「四種流程」在投開票所併行，這無異提供了製造混亂的條件。為正本清源，全面拒領公投票，才是最佳對策，亦已是唯一對策。
物極必反。陳水扁及民進黨將「公投」操弄到如此無法無天的地步，終使國人強烈感知公投已經走調、變質。對於走調的公投，不可支持；對於變質的公投，拒領公投票！
這 是一場「挺陳水扁vs.反陳水扁」的公投，一場「挺憲政民主vs.反憲政民主」的公投，一場「守法畏天vs.無法無天」的公投。決戰點在三二二的總統大 選，序幕戰則是一一二的立委選舉。拒領公投票，只要使陳水扁在綁立委選舉的「公投」失敗，經此「演習」，其綁總統大選的「公投」亦無得逞的可能。
Monday, December 31, 2007
96.12.31 Press Release
96.12.31 Press Release
Kuomintang Cultural and Communications Committee
96.12.31
translated by Bevin Chu
This this morning (12/31) the KMT held a meeting of its Central Standing Committee. It issued a formal resolution appealing to voters in the January 12 legislative elections to "Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots." Party Chairman Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP was misusing the plebiscite to create chaos and generate conflict. For the sake of Taiwan's democracy, the KMT is asking voters to "Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots." The KMT also issued a solemn appeal to the CEC, urging that that the plebiscites and the presidential election be held separately, If the CEC continued to act recklessly, if the election led to confusion or conflict, the Central Election Commission and the DPP would have to bear full responsibility, "History will take note of what they did. "
Wu Po-hsiung convened a provisional Central Standing Committee press conference today. Vice-Chairman Chiang Pin-kung, Kuan Chung, Tsan Bo, and Lin Feng-cheng were in attendance. Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP had misused the plebiscite, turning it into a DPP election tool. Creating chaos so that the election can no longer be held is a DPP political ploy. First the DPP refused to permit the legal codification of the CEC's rules and regulations. Then it distorted the law and intimidated election officials. It even threatened illegal firings. Observers began to suspect the DPP was looking for an excuse to nullify the election, or even impose martial law, For the sake of Taiwan's democratic development, the KMT has been forced to make this concession.
Wu Po-hsiung said that four years ago the Democratic Progressive Party tied two plebiscites to the presidential election. It used a two-stage balloting procedure, and the election proceeded without incident. Chen Shui-bian now says that the election process used four years ago was unconstitutional. Has Chen forgotten that he himself was elected president using just such a method?
He stressed that the DPP is bent on changing the balloting procedure to ensure that there will be numerous loopholes, that will lead to balloting procedure conflicts. In order to prevent the Democratic Progressive Party from using the plebisite as a pretext to nullify the election, the KMT has made a painful decision. It is appealing to voters to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots. It is also solemnly urging the CEC to pull back from the brink, and not to persist in its error. As long as it uses the same balloting procedure that it used four years ago, in which the election ballots and plebiscite ballots were handled separately, that would forstall any further controversy, and allow democracy to proceed smoothly.
Wu stressed that although CEC has reached a compromise between the single-stage and two-stage balloting procedures, there is still too much room for mistakes. These include ballots being removed from or placed into the wrong ballot boxes, leading to counting errors. If the CEC persists in its error, the CEC and the Democratic Progressive Party must bear full responsibility for any problems arising from this election.
Wu Po-hsiung said that for the moment the KMT is asking the public to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots only for the January 12 plebiscite, to be held on the same day as the legislative elections. He made no mention of the "Join the UN" and "Rejoin the UN" plebiscites, to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election. If the CEC pulls back from the brink, or reverts to the balloting procedure used four years ago, the KMT will re-evaluate its policy for the plebiscite to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election.
Wu also said that the KMT apologizes to the many voters who petitioned for the "anti-corruption, recover national assets" plebiscite. The KMT promises to pursue justice by other means, in order to implement its anti-corruption policies.
新 聞 稿 中國國民黨文化傳播委員會 96.12.31
國民黨今 日上午（12/31）召開臨時中常會，正式決議呼籲選民在一月十二日立委選舉時「拒領公投票」。黨主席吳伯雄表示，神聖的公投已被民進黨扭曲為「亂大 選」，甚至是引起衝突的工具，為了台灣的民主繼續下去，國民黨因而痛心的決定呼籲選民「拒領公投票」。國民黨同時嚴正呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，將公投與大選分 開舉行，若中選會繼續蠻幹，導致引發選務混亂或衝突，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任，「歷史會記他們這一筆」。
吳伯雄今日親自召開臨時中常 會會後記者會，副主席江丙坤、關中、詹春柏、林豐正均一同出席。吳伯雄表示，公投是神聖的，但是已經變質為民進黨拿來綁大選、亂大選、甚至製造混亂，讓選 舉辦不下去的工具，民進黨在這段期間先是不讓中選會法制化，之後一再扭曲法律，威脅選務人員，甚至違法將選務人員撤職，外界懷疑民進黨期盼越亂越好，可作 為停止選舉的藉口，甚至想製造戒嚴的可能，為了台灣的民主發展，國民黨唯有委屈忍讓。
吳伯雄表示，四年前民進黨公投綁大選，但採取兩階段領投票，選務平和沒有糾紛，陳水扁說四年前的作法違法違憲，但「陳總統你別忘了，你就是在你說的違法違憲方式中當選總統」。
他 強調，如今民進黨執意要改成一定會有漏洞、甚至導致衝突的領投票方式，為了不給民進黨公投毀大選的藉口，國民黨痛心的決定，呼籲選民拒領公投票，同時也鄭 重呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，不要一直錯下去，只要開會決定將大選與公投分開辦理，或至少依照四年前實驗過的領投票方式舉行選舉，即可化解紛爭，讓民主順暢進 行。
吳伯雄強調，儘管中選會做出一階段、二階段的折衷案，但仍有很大的機會出錯，包括容易造成選票被攜出及投錯票匭的計算等等變數，若中選會堅持繼續下去，這次的選舉發生任何錯誤，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任。
吳伯雄說，國民黨目前只決定對一月十二日立委選舉當天的兩項公投案要求拒領公投票，並未提及預定在三月二十二日總統大選時舉行的返聯公投及入聯公投，若中選會能懸崖勒馬，或回復至四年前的領投票方式，國民黨將重新評估三月二十二日總統大選當日同時進行的公投案。
吳伯雄並表示，國民黨呼籲選民拒領公投票，必須要向眾多連署「反貪腐、討國產」公投案的選民致歉，但國民黨保證會用其他司法的方式，貫徹反貪腐討國產的政策。
Kuomintang Cultural and Communications Committee
96.12.31
translated by Bevin Chu
This this morning (12/31) the KMT held a meeting of its Central Standing Committee. It issued a formal resolution appealing to voters in the January 12 legislative elections to "Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots." Party Chairman Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP was misusing the plebiscite to create chaos and generate conflict. For the sake of Taiwan's democracy, the KMT is asking voters to "Refuse to accept Plebiscite Ballots." The KMT also issued a solemn appeal to the CEC, urging that that the plebiscites and the presidential election be held separately, If the CEC continued to act recklessly, if the election led to confusion or conflict, the Central Election Commission and the DPP would have to bear full responsibility, "History will take note of what they did. "
Wu Po-hsiung convened a provisional Central Standing Committee press conference today. Vice-Chairman Chiang Pin-kung, Kuan Chung, Tsan Bo, and Lin Feng-cheng were in attendance. Wu Po-hsiung said that the DPP had misused the plebiscite, turning it into a DPP election tool. Creating chaos so that the election can no longer be held is a DPP political ploy. First the DPP refused to permit the legal codification of the CEC's rules and regulations. Then it distorted the law and intimidated election officials. It even threatened illegal firings. Observers began to suspect the DPP was looking for an excuse to nullify the election, or even impose martial law, For the sake of Taiwan's democratic development, the KMT has been forced to make this concession.
Wu Po-hsiung said that four years ago the Democratic Progressive Party tied two plebiscites to the presidential election. It used a two-stage balloting procedure, and the election proceeded without incident. Chen Shui-bian now says that the election process used four years ago was unconstitutional. Has Chen forgotten that he himself was elected president using just such a method?
He stressed that the DPP is bent on changing the balloting procedure to ensure that there will be numerous loopholes, that will lead to balloting procedure conflicts. In order to prevent the Democratic Progressive Party from using the plebisite as a pretext to nullify the election, the KMT has made a painful decision. It is appealing to voters to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots. It is also solemnly urging the CEC to pull back from the brink, and not to persist in its error. As long as it uses the same balloting procedure that it used four years ago, in which the election ballots and plebiscite ballots were handled separately, that would forstall any further controversy, and allow democracy to proceed smoothly.
Wu stressed that although CEC has reached a compromise between the single-stage and two-stage balloting procedures, there is still too much room for mistakes. These include ballots being removed from or placed into the wrong ballot boxes, leading to counting errors. If the CEC persists in its error, the CEC and the Democratic Progressive Party must bear full responsibility for any problems arising from this election.
Wu Po-hsiung said that for the moment the KMT is asking the public to refuse to accept plebiscite ballots only for the January 12 plebiscite, to be held on the same day as the legislative elections. He made no mention of the "Join the UN" and "Rejoin the UN" plebiscites, to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election. If the CEC pulls back from the brink, or reverts to the balloting procedure used four years ago, the KMT will re-evaluate its policy for the plebiscite to be held on March 22, the same day as the presidential election.
Wu also said that the KMT apologizes to the many voters who petitioned for the "anti-corruption, recover national assets" plebiscite. The KMT promises to pursue justice by other means, in order to implement its anti-corruption policies.
新 聞 稿 中國國民黨文化傳播委員會 96.12.31
國民黨今 日上午（12/31）召開臨時中常會，正式決議呼籲選民在一月十二日立委選舉時「拒領公投票」。黨主席吳伯雄表示，神聖的公投已被民進黨扭曲為「亂大 選」，甚至是引起衝突的工具，為了台灣的民主繼續下去，國民黨因而痛心的決定呼籲選民「拒領公投票」。國民黨同時嚴正呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，將公投與大選分 開舉行，若中選會繼續蠻幹，導致引發選務混亂或衝突，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任，「歷史會記他們這一筆」。
吳伯雄今日親自召開臨時中常 會會後記者會，副主席江丙坤、關中、詹春柏、林豐正均一同出席。吳伯雄表示，公投是神聖的，但是已經變質為民進黨拿來綁大選、亂大選、甚至製造混亂，讓選 舉辦不下去的工具，民進黨在這段期間先是不讓中選會法制化，之後一再扭曲法律，威脅選務人員，甚至違法將選務人員撤職，外界懷疑民進黨期盼越亂越好，可作 為停止選舉的藉口，甚至想製造戒嚴的可能，為了台灣的民主發展，國民黨唯有委屈忍讓。
吳伯雄表示，四年前民進黨公投綁大選，但採取兩階段領投票，選務平和沒有糾紛，陳水扁說四年前的作法違法違憲，但「陳總統你別忘了，你就是在你說的違法違憲方式中當選總統」。
他 強調，如今民進黨執意要改成一定會有漏洞、甚至導致衝突的領投票方式，為了不給民進黨公投毀大選的藉口，國民黨痛心的決定，呼籲選民拒領公投票，同時也鄭 重呼籲中選會懸崖勒馬，不要一直錯下去，只要開會決定將大選與公投分開辦理，或至少依照四年前實驗過的領投票方式舉行選舉，即可化解紛爭，讓民主順暢進 行。
吳伯雄強調，儘管中選會做出一階段、二階段的折衷案，但仍有很大的機會出錯，包括容易造成選票被攜出及投錯票匭的計算等等變數，若中選會堅持繼續下去，這次的選舉發生任何錯誤，中選會及民進黨要負完全責任。
吳伯雄說，國民黨目前只決定對一月十二日立委選舉當天的兩項公投案要求拒領公投票，並未提及預定在三月二十二日總統大選時舉行的返聯公投及入聯公投，若中選會能懸崖勒馬，或回復至四年前的領投票方式，國民黨將重新評估三月二十二日總統大選當日同時進行的公投案。
吳伯雄並表示，國民黨呼籲選民拒領公投票，必須要向眾多連署「反貪腐、討國產」公投案的選民致歉，但國民黨保證會用其他司法的方式，貫徹反貪腐討國產的政策。
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Can a Society devoid of Hope honor its Checks?
Can a Society devoid of Hope honor its Checks?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2007
It's the end of the year, and political candidates are rushing from one event to another, partaking of the festive atmosphere. Frank Hsieh took part in a "I Love Taiwan, Happiness Party" with "economic prosperity" as his theme. He issued blank checks to the youth of Taiwan, including: housing for young people, cheap rents, good jobs, and an end to debt slavery. Hsieh said the government should encourage young people to pursue their dreams, not just make money. He said the government must provide an environment that makes young people happy and helps them fulfill their dreams.
This is merely a rehash of the Democratic Progressive Party's campaign slogan from eight years ago: "Dare to hope, follow your dream." The mood now however is considerably different. Some new trends and new terms have appeared. For example, the Directorate General of Budget and Manpower's latest survey makes reference to a "hop hop class," i.e., a work force subject to rapid turnover. According to the Job Bank, nearly a quarter of this year's college graduates have yet to find work and have joined the ranks of the unemployed. Among those who found jobs, 48% have already quit. According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics' latest survey, the number of people employed part time this year has reached 252,000, a record high.
Young people who attend raves are modern Taiwan's "lost generation." Surveys conducted by employment agencies found that as many as 23% of college graduates have yet to find jobs five months after graduation. Their pay was low -- an average of 23,000 NT. Even those with Master's degrees earned only 34,000 NT. Low wages were among the principle factors behind high turnover among younger employees. The Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics found that the number of part time workers has soared. This is a new phenomenon that took place over the past two years. From only 100,000 part time workers in 2005, a sharp recession last year created 200,000 part time workers this year, a new high. The quality of the workplace is declining. Taiwan has the world's longest work hours. Over the past five years, the average hourly wage has experienced zero growth. Even though the minimum wage was increased to 95 NT, hourly workers worry that corporate managers will reduce their manpower demands.
Scholars have expressed concern about the workplace. It is not merely the economy that is in decline, but an entire generation's confidence in the future. Such low salaries in today's inflationary environment are sure to make life hard. Young people no longer have confidence in the future. Worse, if young people do not find suitable jobs within a short time, they can easily become frustrated from long-term unemployment, sink into poverty, and begin abusing drugs. They may even commit crimes or end their own lives. These warnings come not from ivory tower academics, but from the school of hard knocks.
After Japan's bubble economy burst, the negative impact expanded from the economic to the social. The incidence of suicide, unemployment, part time work, job shopping, and domestic violence, all soared. Students abandoned their studies and after graduation became "single parasites." Japanese sociologist Masahiro Yamada's disturbing treatise, "A Society devoid of Hope" described young people's sense of sheer futility, the feeling that "No matter how hard you try, the cards are stacked against you." Isn't the same thing happening now on Taiwan? According to a study by the Academia Sinica, Taiwan's society has changed over the past 20 years, and not for the better. The public now believes that "Unless one is extraordinarily lucky, one is unlikely to be promoted and to become wealthy." The public now believes people no longer trust each other, no longer feel they are in control of their own destinies, and no longer feel that society supports them. In Japan, the collapse of a once dependable education and employment track led to "A Society devoid of Hope." The same pattern is appearing on Taiwan with the younger generation.
Frank Hsieh has written a blank check promising "Jobs and Homes for Youth," targeting today's "low income, no income, single parasite" class. Hsieh has promised a pie in the sky. But these problem cannot be addressed by reversing cause and effect. They can only be addressed by issuing the right prescription for the ailment. The question is which regime was responsible for the "low income, no income, single parasite" phenomenon? Presidential candidates' promises of economic prosperity cannot be fulfilled overnight. The question is who can lead Taiwan out of its current status as a "Society devoid of Hope?"
希望落差社會如何兌現幸福經濟支票？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.27 03:21 am
歲末充滿節慶氣氛，連候選人也趕場湊趣。謝長廷日前參加了一場「我愛台灣、幸福PARTY」晚會，以「幸福經濟」的主題向台灣青年開出支票，包括：年輕人有房子住，租到便宜房子，人人有工作，不要成為債務奴隸。謝長廷說，政府應該鼓勵年輕人追求夢想，不應該只鼓勵拚命賺錢；政府有責任提供快樂的環境給年輕人，幫年輕人圓夢。
這是民進黨過去總統大選的「希望相隨，有夢最美」口號的翻版。不過，與此相對照的社會氣氛卻大不相同。台灣就業市場最近出現了一些新趨勢與新名詞，都是根據主計處和人力調查相關資料而來。例如「跳跳族」，是指工作更換頻繁的族群；根據人力銀行業者最新調查，今年的應屆畢業生有將近四分之一至今未找到工作，淪為失業族，有正職工作者也有四成八離職求去。另外則是主計處最新調查顯示：今年「非典型就業」的部分時間工作者人數高達二十五萬兩千人，創歷年新高。
狂歡派對主角的年輕人，可能也是當今台灣最感徬徨的一個世代。人力資源業者針對畢業五個月的應屆畢業生進行的問卷調查發現，不僅二成三到現在仍未找到工作；即使找到工作，薪資也偏低，大學學歷平均只有二萬三千元，碩士學歷三萬四千元；低薪資成為青年工作不穩定的原因之一。此外，主計處調查所發現的部分工時工作者人數飆升，則是近兩年的現象。九十四年只有十萬人左右，但景氣急凍，去年即超過二十萬人，今年再創新高，而職場品質卻越來越差。台灣是世界工時最長的國家，近五年的平均時薪幾乎零成長；但即使最低時薪調整為九十五元，計時工卻反而擔心企業主將減少聘用人力。
學者對這些職場現象表示憂心，因為向下沈淪的不但是經濟景氣，也是一整個世代的前途與信心。以如此低的薪資水準，在現今物價飛漲的環境中，勢必生活辛苦，造成青年對前途和未來愈來愈沒信心。更糟糕的是，年輕人萬一短時間內找不到適合的工作，很容易因挫敗淪為長期失業者，陷入貧窮、濫用藥，甚至犯罪、自殺等惡性循環中。這不是出自象牙塔的危言聳聽，而是前車之鑑的嚴厲教訓。
日本自泡沫經濟發生之後，負面影響從經濟面擴展到社會結構面；自殺人數、失業族、打工族和約聘人員、乃至家庭暴力的個案，都同步遽增。在青少年層次，則出現了放棄學習的學生，和大學畢業後的「單身寄生族」。日本社會學家山田昌弘轟動一時的「希望格差社會」，就在描述年輕人之間這種「失去希望，也就是認為即使努力也不會有回報」的心理現象。隔海與此間看似無關的情景，如今是否也在台灣滋長？採用中研院二十年來調查台灣社會變遷的資料所進行的研究顯示，民眾對於「除非碰上好運，一個人很難升官發財」、「人與人之間再也沒有可靠而值得信任的關係了」等問卷題目的回答，呈現出民眾對自己人生的「控制感」和感受的「社會支持度」越來越低的趨勢。在日本因原先穩定的升學、就業管道搖搖欲墜所造成的「希望格差社會」，在台灣是否也複製產生了具有嚴重「希望落差感」的青年世代？
謝長廷在此時所開出的「青年有工作，有房住」的支票，應是針對時下青年「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象所提出，儼然是畫餅充飢。因為，問題不能倒果為因，而是該如何對症下藥；「青年有工作，有房住」不是能即期兌現的支票，反而應追問「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象是誰人執政所種下的果。總統候選人承諾的「幸福經濟」顯非一蹴可幾，誰能帶領台灣走出「希望落差社會」的困境？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2007
It's the end of the year, and political candidates are rushing from one event to another, partaking of the festive atmosphere. Frank Hsieh took part in a "I Love Taiwan, Happiness Party" with "economic prosperity" as his theme. He issued blank checks to the youth of Taiwan, including: housing for young people, cheap rents, good jobs, and an end to debt slavery. Hsieh said the government should encourage young people to pursue their dreams, not just make money. He said the government must provide an environment that makes young people happy and helps them fulfill their dreams.
This is merely a rehash of the Democratic Progressive Party's campaign slogan from eight years ago: "Dare to hope, follow your dream." The mood now however is considerably different. Some new trends and new terms have appeared. For example, the Directorate General of Budget and Manpower's latest survey makes reference to a "hop hop class," i.e., a work force subject to rapid turnover. According to the Job Bank, nearly a quarter of this year's college graduates have yet to find work and have joined the ranks of the unemployed. Among those who found jobs, 48% have already quit. According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics' latest survey, the number of people employed part time this year has reached 252,000, a record high.
Young people who attend raves are modern Taiwan's "lost generation." Surveys conducted by employment agencies found that as many as 23% of college graduates have yet to find jobs five months after graduation. Their pay was low -- an average of 23,000 NT. Even those with Master's degrees earned only 34,000 NT. Low wages were among the principle factors behind high turnover among younger employees. The Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics found that the number of part time workers has soared. This is a new phenomenon that took place over the past two years. From only 100,000 part time workers in 2005, a sharp recession last year created 200,000 part time workers this year, a new high. The quality of the workplace is declining. Taiwan has the world's longest work hours. Over the past five years, the average hourly wage has experienced zero growth. Even though the minimum wage was increased to 95 NT, hourly workers worry that corporate managers will reduce their manpower demands.
Scholars have expressed concern about the workplace. It is not merely the economy that is in decline, but an entire generation's confidence in the future. Such low salaries in today's inflationary environment are sure to make life hard. Young people no longer have confidence in the future. Worse, if young people do not find suitable jobs within a short time, they can easily become frustrated from long-term unemployment, sink into poverty, and begin abusing drugs. They may even commit crimes or end their own lives. These warnings come not from ivory tower academics, but from the school of hard knocks.
After Japan's bubble economy burst, the negative impact expanded from the economic to the social. The incidence of suicide, unemployment, part time work, job shopping, and domestic violence, all soared. Students abandoned their studies and after graduation became "single parasites." Japanese sociologist Masahiro Yamada's disturbing treatise, "A Society devoid of Hope" described young people's sense of sheer futility, the feeling that "No matter how hard you try, the cards are stacked against you." Isn't the same thing happening now on Taiwan? According to a study by the Academia Sinica, Taiwan's society has changed over the past 20 years, and not for the better. The public now believes that "Unless one is extraordinarily lucky, one is unlikely to be promoted and to become wealthy." The public now believes people no longer trust each other, no longer feel they are in control of their own destinies, and no longer feel that society supports them. In Japan, the collapse of a once dependable education and employment track led to "A Society devoid of Hope." The same pattern is appearing on Taiwan with the younger generation.
Frank Hsieh has written a blank check promising "Jobs and Homes for Youth," targeting today's "low income, no income, single parasite" class. Hsieh has promised a pie in the sky. But these problem cannot be addressed by reversing cause and effect. They can only be addressed by issuing the right prescription for the ailment. The question is which regime was responsible for the "low income, no income, single parasite" phenomenon? Presidential candidates' promises of economic prosperity cannot be fulfilled overnight. The question is who can lead Taiwan out of its current status as a "Society devoid of Hope?"
希望落差社會如何兌現幸福經濟支票？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.27 03:21 am
歲末充滿節慶氣氛，連候選人也趕場湊趣。謝長廷日前參加了一場「我愛台灣、幸福PARTY」晚會，以「幸福經濟」的主題向台灣青年開出支票，包括：年輕人有房子住，租到便宜房子，人人有工作，不要成為債務奴隸。謝長廷說，政府應該鼓勵年輕人追求夢想，不應該只鼓勵拚命賺錢；政府有責任提供快樂的環境給年輕人，幫年輕人圓夢。
這是民進黨過去總統大選的「希望相隨，有夢最美」口號的翻版。不過，與此相對照的社會氣氛卻大不相同。台灣就業市場最近出現了一些新趨勢與新名詞，都是根據主計處和人力調查相關資料而來。例如「跳跳族」，是指工作更換頻繁的族群；根據人力銀行業者最新調查，今年的應屆畢業生有將近四分之一至今未找到工作，淪為失業族，有正職工作者也有四成八離職求去。另外則是主計處最新調查顯示：今年「非典型就業」的部分時間工作者人數高達二十五萬兩千人，創歷年新高。
狂歡派對主角的年輕人，可能也是當今台灣最感徬徨的一個世代。人力資源業者針對畢業五個月的應屆畢業生進行的問卷調查發現，不僅二成三到現在仍未找到工作；即使找到工作，薪資也偏低，大學學歷平均只有二萬三千元，碩士學歷三萬四千元；低薪資成為青年工作不穩定的原因之一。此外，主計處調查所發現的部分工時工作者人數飆升，則是近兩年的現象。九十四年只有十萬人左右，但景氣急凍，去年即超過二十萬人，今年再創新高，而職場品質卻越來越差。台灣是世界工時最長的國家，近五年的平均時薪幾乎零成長；但即使最低時薪調整為九十五元，計時工卻反而擔心企業主將減少聘用人力。
學者對這些職場現象表示憂心，因為向下沈淪的不但是經濟景氣，也是一整個世代的前途與信心。以如此低的薪資水準，在現今物價飛漲的環境中，勢必生活辛苦，造成青年對前途和未來愈來愈沒信心。更糟糕的是，年輕人萬一短時間內找不到適合的工作，很容易因挫敗淪為長期失業者，陷入貧窮、濫用藥，甚至犯罪、自殺等惡性循環中。這不是出自象牙塔的危言聳聽，而是前車之鑑的嚴厲教訓。
日本自泡沫經濟發生之後，負面影響從經濟面擴展到社會結構面；自殺人數、失業族、打工族和約聘人員、乃至家庭暴力的個案，都同步遽增。在青少年層次，則出現了放棄學習的學生，和大學畢業後的「單身寄生族」。日本社會學家山田昌弘轟動一時的「希望格差社會」，就在描述年輕人之間這種「失去希望，也就是認為即使努力也不會有回報」的心理現象。隔海與此間看似無關的情景，如今是否也在台灣滋長？採用中研院二十年來調查台灣社會變遷的資料所進行的研究顯示，民眾對於「除非碰上好運，一個人很難升官發財」、「人與人之間再也沒有可靠而值得信任的關係了」等問卷題目的回答，呈現出民眾對自己人生的「控制感」和感受的「社會支持度」越來越低的趨勢。在日本因原先穩定的升學、就業管道搖搖欲墜所造成的「希望格差社會」，在台灣是否也複製產生了具有嚴重「希望落差感」的青年世代？
謝長廷在此時所開出的「青年有工作，有房住」的支票，應是針對時下青年「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象所提出，儼然是畫餅充飢。因為，問題不能倒果為因，而是該如何對症下藥；「青年有工作，有房住」不是能即期兌現的支票，反而應追問「薪資低，沒工作，寄生族」等現象是誰人執政所種下的果。總統候選人承諾的「幸福經濟」顯非一蹴可幾，誰能帶領台灣走出「希望落差社會」的困境？
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan's "Provocations?"
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan's "Provocations?"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the "nativist" Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the "pro reunification media." It is no longer a member of the "Pan Blue media." It is no longer even a member of the "Pale Blue media."
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP's "rectification of names" campaign to itself. It is time for the "China Times" to change its name to the "Taiwan Times."
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan's "Provocations?"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign as a "provocative policy" that "unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage." This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan's moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government's diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian's next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons' plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What's the US so worried about? What's Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian's total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan's geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US's strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That's why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian's provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing's side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn't hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US's ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US's Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what's in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan's biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan's democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan's national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US's.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
Comment: With the following editorial, the China Times has hit a new low.
The China Times can no longer see the Republic of China forest for the "nativist" Taiwan trees.
With the following editorial, the China Times is no longer a member of the "pro reunification media." It is no longer a member of the "Pan Blue media." It is no longer even a member of the "Pale Blue media."
It is now a de facto member of the Pale Green media.
It is time for the China Times to apply the DPP's "rectification of names" campaign to itself. It is time for the "China Times" to change its name to the "Taiwan Times."
Will the Taiwan/US Split Worsen after Taiwan's "Provocations?"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2007
If you had predicted four or five years ago that the US would soon be constantly reprimanding Taiwan, probably no one on either the Taiwan side or the US side would have believed you. But today the US is criticizing Taiwan in harsher and harsher terms, through spokespersons of higher and higher rank. Yet Taiwan seems inured to such criticisms, and merely criticizes right back. If this trend continues, will Taiwan/US relations undergo some sort of fundamental change?
Just before Christmas, at a year end press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign as a "provocative policy" that "unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage." This is how the US is suppressing Taiwan's moves to join the UN, in private and in public, from bottom to top. Now its highest ranking officials have spoken out. That may not be the end of the matter. Whether Bush Junior will scold Taiwan remains to be seen. But the US government's diplomatic tune has already been set, from top to bottom, from ruling party to opposition party.
When Chen Shui-bian immediately lashed back, no one was surprised. After all, when it comes to elections, nothing matters more than victory, and Chen regards the Plebiscite to Join the UN as a panacea that guarantees victory. Therefore no matter how the US might rant and rave, no one is in a position to slam on the brakes and prevent the Plebiscite to Join the UN Express from derailing. Furthermore, the US is worried that Chen Shui-bian's next step following his Plebiscite to Join the UN is a declaration of Taiwan indepdendence. Beijing is worried that after the Plebiscite to Join the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party will officially move towards de jure Taiwan independence. None of these scenarios are part of the average persons' plans for the future. The average person thinks the Plebiscite to Join the UN is a long way off from Taiwan independence. After all, the ruling regime is not holding a Plebiscite on Taiwan independence. What's the US so worried about? What's Beijing getting so upset about?
This gap in perception is the result of Chen Shui-bian's total loss of credibility. Once the US lost confidence in Chen, it decided he was crazy enough to do do anything. including harming the people on Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, on the other hand, saw that Taiwan's geopolitical and ideological value was something hard for the US to relinquish. Washington had no intention of watching idly as Beijing broke through the US's strategic line of containment in the western Pacific.
Therefore no matter how much trouble Taiwan makes, no matter how angry Washington gets, no matter how loudly Washington rants, it cannot allow its own national interests to be harmed. But waging a war with Beijing over Taiwan also harms the US national interest. Iraq alone has given America a splitting headache. If the standoff in the Taiwan Strait worsens, no matter what, the US is going to feel as if it is under seige. That's why it is more alarmed than the people of Taiwan.
In any event, the ruling DPP regime has decided to bet the farm. Ever since Chen Shui-bian's provocative brinksmanship racheted up cross straits tensions by manipulating reunification vs. independence issues, the DPP has gradually forced the US to take Beijing's side. The US government usually does not pay much attention to public opinion on Taiwan. It has underestimated the political impact of an increasingly Taiwan-centric public consciousness. It lacks a farsighted cross straits policy. It routinely resorts to ad hoc remedies. When something goes wrong, it always wants Taiwan to compromise and make concessions. If it doesn't hear any protests, it assumes everything is fine. As a result the public on Taiwan feels betrayed and less willing to trust the US.
The hidden concern is that the public on Taiwan will no longer trust the US, reducing US influence. The US's ability to control the Taiwan Straits will then be diminished. This will put the US's Taiwan Straits policy in a whole new light. It may not be entirely different from the past, but it will no longer be the same as it was. So far the US does not seem to be aware of this problem. It assumes that after election fever dies down, US/Taiwan/China relations will return to normal. As always, the US sees only what's in front of its nose.
Another problem is that differences between Taiwan and the US have arisen that appear to be irreconcilable. With democratization and the election process, a Taiwanese political consciousness is gradually taking root and growing. Within the framework of this new national consciousness, the continued pursuit of sovereignty, dignity, and international breathing space is something that any democratic country will pursue. But when Taiwan demonstrates this desire, it inevitably bumps up against a ceiling imposed by the international community and the US.
From the maintenance of security to democracy and freedom, the US has always been Taiwan's biggest backer. The US has continually encouraged Taiwan. How will it explain to Taiwan that Taiwan's democracy can only develop to a certain degree? That it cannot expect to enjoy the same status and dignity as other nations? To the people of Taiwan, this is unacceptable discrimination and hypocrisy. The disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the Taiwan public is not confined to the issue of plebiscites. Taiwan's national growth and national interests, already appear to be in opposition with the US's.
But the US appears to be indifferent to this fundamental, far reaching problem. This being the case, if the storm over the plebiscite passes without incident, relations between Taiwan and the US will remain troubled. Compared to the Middle East and other regions, the cross straits issue has more room to maneuveur. But if the US is unable to formulate a farsighted cross straits policy, and procrastinates due to inertia, then Taiwan/US/China relations will remain mired in conflict.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.26
「挑釁」風波後，台美裂痕還會再擴大？
中時社論
四、五年前，要說美國會一再嚴詞指責台灣，大概台美兩邊都無法置信。但如今，美國批評台灣的用語愈來愈嚴厲，出面官員的層級愈來愈高，而台灣卻似乎已經被罵皮了，一再頻頻回嗆。再這麼下去，台美關係是否將會出現一些根本性的變化？
趕在耶誕節前，由國務卿萊斯主動在年終記者會上，批判以台灣名義入聯的公投是「挑釁性的政策」，「不必要地升高台海緊張，對台灣人民的國際舞台沒有實際助益」。這是美國從私下到公開、從低階到高層一連串壓制台灣入聯公投的動作，最後推出了迄今為止最高層級的官員，但未必就到此為止。不過，無論是不是連小布希都將會開口罵台灣，這已是美國政府上下一貫朝野認同的外交基調。
陳水扁馬上反嗆，並不讓人意外，畢竟勝選為上，而入聯公投被他視為勝選的唯一靈丹。因此美國再怎麼疾言厲色，入聯公投也依舊像是出軌的列車，誰也煞不住。何況，美國擔心入聯公投的下一步就是陳水扁宣布台灣獨立，中共擔心入聯公投通過後，民進黨會正式走向法理台獨；但那些議程並不在台灣一般民眾的盤算裡，事實上，一般人覺得入聯公投和台獨相差很遠，又沒有舉行台獨公投，到底美國在急什麼、中共在跳什麼？
這項認知落差，主要是陳水扁徹底搞壞了自己的名聲和信用，美國一旦失去了對他的信任，就覺得他什麼事情都做得出來，包括最瘋狂、將傷害台灣人民至深的事。另一方面，陳水扁也看準台灣在地緣政治和意識形態上的價值，是美國很難放棄的。華府當然不可能坐視台灣這個太平洋島鏈樞紐被北京所突破。
所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。 所以台灣再怎麼無理取鬧，美國氣歸氣、罵歸罵，還是不能因此讓自己的國家利益受到傷害。但若說要為了台灣而和中共開戰，同樣傷害美國的國家利益。美國人光是一個伊拉克就傷透腦筋，台海這個僵局再發展下去，怎麼看，美國都覺得危機四伏，所以比台灣人還心驚膽戰。
民進黨政府如今反正是豁出去了，自從陳水扁以挑釁的邊緣手法，激化兩岸緊張炒作統獨議題後，漸漸把美國趕到和中共一邊。美國政府平時不注意台灣民意，低估了台灣主體意識茁壯後的政治效應，也沒有前瞻性的兩岸政策。平時頭痛醫頭腳痛醫腳，出了事老要台灣妥協讓步，不吵就以為沒問題了。台灣民眾於是感覺遭到美國背叛，也降低了對美國的好感與信任。
隱憂就在這裡，一旦台灣民眾不再信任美國，美國對台灣的影響力將會降低，控制台海變數的籌碼也會流失，這將把美國的台海政策置於新的操作環境中。即使不是和過去截然不同，至少也不再是完全相同了。但到目前為止，美國似乎還沒發現這個問題，以為選舉的激情過後，美台中關係就可以回到原點，依舊是過去只顧眼前的老毛病。
另一個更值得注意的問題是，台美雙方的基本立場，已經開始出現難以妥協的矛盾。隨著民主化及選舉動員，台灣的主體意識正在逐漸生根茁壯，在這個國民意識下，繼續追求主權尊嚴與國際空間，恐怕會是任何一個民主國家都必然出現的趨勢，但當台灣展現這個意志到某種程度時，勢必就會碰撞到國際社會及美國設定的上限。
從安全維護到民主自由，一直是台灣最大後盾、也一直鼓勵台灣的美國，如今怎麼向台灣解釋，台灣的民主只可以做到某種程度、不能要求擁有和其他國家一樣的地位與尊嚴？對台灣民眾來說，這是無法接受的歧視與偽善。台灣民眾的失望與不滿，不只在於公投一事而已，更在於台灣的國家發展與利益，已經和美國出現了對立。
但美國對這個更根本性、影響更深遠的問題，似乎未加重視。如此一來，公投風波即使有驚無險地過關，台美問題仍然會繼續暗潮洶湧。比起中東等其他地區，兩岸問題其實有比較大的政策設計空間，但如果美國不能以前瞻的眼光構思新的兩岸政策，仍然因循舊有思考能拖則拖，那麼，台美中的關係將繼續陷在一次次的尖銳風波中。
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2007
The Republic of China Constitution was promulgated on January 1, 1947, and enacted on December 25 of the same year. Today is its 60th anniversary. In Chinese tradition 60 years marks the completion of a cosmic cycle. By coincidence, this year is also the 20th anniversary of the rescinding of martial law. The ruling DPP is aggressively trumpeting the rescinding of martial law, but pointedly ignoring the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution. Apparently the constitution will have to celebrate its 60th birthday in solitude and silence.
This republican constitution underwent a difficult birth and considerable growing pains. Even before it was born, the Chinese Communist Party withdrew from the constitutional convention. For over 60 years, the CCP has adopted the attitude that the ROC Constitution has no legal authority. Even after it was born, it remained in swaddling clothes. Kuomintang President Chiang Kai-Shek, by means of temporary provisions and the implementation martial law, virtually nullified the constitution and the democratic process. As a result, during its first 40 years, constitutional rule was severely constrained. The lifting of martial law was in part the result of Democratic Progressive Party members joining "party outsiders" in demanding the restoration of the constitution. With the rescinding of martial law, the restoration of the constitution and even the peaceful transfer of power became a reality, affirming the feasibility of a constitutional republic. [Translator's note: the editorial uses the term "democracy" but constitutionally speaking this is incorrect. The Republic of China, as the name clearly denotes, is a republic, NOT a democracy. Democracies are unstable systems based on the subjective rule of the majority. Republics are relatively more stable systems based on the objective rule of law.] The ruling DPP regime however, is hostile to to this constitution. President Chen advocates the authoring of a new constitution, by hook or by crook. He is in essence repudiating the very constitution by which he was elected and swore a solemn oath to defend. This behavior is known as "dismantling the bridge after you've crossed it" or "love 'em and leave 'em." On the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution, a ruling regime that is obligated to uphold and defend the constitution, is deafening us with its silence. The ruling DPP is the very picture of a political authority unwilling to abide by constitutional constraints.
Since the rescinding of martial law twenty years ago, the constitution has regained some of its former lustre. This is the main reason the Republic of China can boast that it is a constitutional republic. The constitution has been amended seven times. The content of these amendments has been highly controversial, and has been both praised and panned. The constitution was successfully amended to allow it to apply to a smaller territorial jurisdiction. Since then it has provided a rule of law foundation for winning candidates and parties, granting them the right to govern. It has provided an umbilical cord linking the present to the past, while leaving room for new developments in the future. It allows people of different political affiliations and even national identities to take what they want from the constitution and coexist side by side. The constitution has frequently been criticized as defective, but it is the product of the democratic process. It embodies a wide range of compromises between hostile and opposed political parties. Most importantly, its amendments reflect 60 years of democratic evolution and fulfill a dual role. They provide continuity with the past even as they break with the past. This is why a 60 year old constitution remains in good health even today.
The Republic of China Constitution has been abused by the Chinese Communist Party, the Kuomintang, and the Democratic Progressive Party. That it is now able to quietly enjoy its 60th birthday, must be considered a miracle. The constitution may appear fragile, but is in fact quite durable. The path of constitutional rule remains rocky. The future is difficult to predict. But the truth is not complicated. A constitution's raison d'etre is to limit political authority. The face of authority changes constantly. But its essential character remains the same. No one in power likes being constrained by a constitution. Everyone in power seeks the expansion of authority and its concentration in their hands. Taiwan lacks grounding in constitutionalism. It lacks acculturation in the rule of law. Its politicians lack the necessary commitment to constitutional government. In practice, the separation of the powers often degenerates into partisan strife. Blue and Green political loyalties trump concern for constitutionalism and a sense of right and wrong. Will the future be one in which power struggles destroy the constitution? Or will the constitution be able to limit the abuse of political authority? This is the test facing the Republic of China.
The real enemy of constitutional law is political power and influence. Every citizen has a responsibility to help the constitution limit political power and influence. For example, constitutional interpretations require enhanced vigilance regarding key constitutional checkpoints. One must never permit deviation from the constitution merely because the person in authority is charismatic, or his political style is dramatic. The separation of powers must be maintained. Checks and balances must not be relinquished. One's party must not be valued above the nation. One must not change one's stand on constitutional limits merely because one has changed positions and become the ruling party. When Chang Chun-hsiung was an opposition legislator, he challenged the KMT's appointing of the vice president to the position of premier, expanding the power of the executive. Now that Chang holds the post of premier, how can he knowingly violate his own principles? How can he allow himself to be the president's instrument for the expansion of executive power? Intellectuals and academics must demand that political leaders strictly observe constitutional limits. Political office holders must accept the fact that constitutional standards cannot be custom tailored for certain individuals or political parties. Ambitious politicians cannot be permitted to seize power and trample over the constitution by means of constitutional exceptions.
A once endangered constitution has managed to survive many winters and achieve something akin to permanency. This vital and tenacious constitution is the foundation of our republic. Those who celebrate the Republic of China's constitutional government, should celebrate Asia's oldest constitution. No matter how tyrannical a political authority might be, constitutional government is like a cool breeze or bright moonlight illuminating a river. A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.25
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂
中時社論
中華民國憲法於民國三十六年一月一日公布，同年十二月廿五日施行；今天，是行憲六十周年，中華民國憲法的花甲之慶。巧合的是，今年也是解嚴廿周年，相對於紀念解嚴時的積極，政府似乎嗅不出任何慶祝行憲六十周年的氣氛。憲法，只能是一位默默享受六十歲生日的壽星。
做為一部民主憲法，它的誕生與成長均不順利。在它出生之前，中國共產黨即宣告退出孕育制憲的政治協商會議，之後六十餘年來，從來都對這部憲法採取否定其效力的態度。憲法誕生之後，尚在襁褓中即遭遇國民黨蔣介石總統以憲法臨時條款及實施戒嚴的方式，幾乎架空了民主憲政的運作，所以行憲六十年的前四十年間，憲政的成長受到了極大的壓抑。解嚴，其實很大一部分來自於當時以黨外人士出現的民進黨人長期要求「回歸憲法」的努力。解嚴之後，「回歸憲法」得到實現，甚至完成了政黨輪替的和平政權移轉，驗證了憲法的民主可行性。但是民進黨政府卻又對這部憲法抱持敵意，陳總統以各種方式提倡制憲，實質上否定他賴以當選且宣誓遵守的憲法，謂之為過河拆橋、始亂終棄也不為過，行憲六十周年，負有行憲責任的政府悄然無聲，正是權力不肯心甘情願接受憲法約束的寫照。
平心而論，解嚴廿年來，憲法開始恢復生機，就是台灣今日可以自詡為民主國家的主要原因之一。憲法增修條文歷經七次修訂，其內容雖然屢見爭議而有仁智互見的評價，但是原本在台灣運作有所侷限的憲法，因為增修條文而克服了領土管轄區域與國民範圍調整所引起的困難。它為每次在選舉中獲勝而執政的政府，提供了民主正當性的法治基礎，不但建立了連結過去的臍帶，更為未來國家發展的各種走向與可能，預留了彈性想像空間。讓生活在台灣，懷有不同政治信念甚至國家認同觀的人們，均有各取所需且共同相處的可能。這部經常遭受批評而瑕疵似乎很多的憲法，卻是民主程序下的產物，也容納了敵對政黨的各種妥協，最重要的，憲法增修條文為六十年來的台灣民主發展歷程，同時負載了斷裂時代與延續往昔的雙重功能。這正是六十年的憲法，今日仍然健在的道理。
中華民國憲法，先後歷經了共產黨、國民黨與民進黨的糟蹋，現在還能靜度六十壽辰，真是台灣的另一項奇蹟。憲法的生命看似脆弱，其實旺盛，然則憲政道路前景卻依舊坎坷，甚至有些前程未卜，這其間道理並不複雜，憲法存在的價值，在於拘束政治權力，可是權力的外貌變幻不羈，掌權者的面容也不一樣，卻有著相同的本質，他們都不樂意受憲法的拘束，也總是追求權力的擴張與集中。台灣沒有牢固的憲政傳統，也缺乏豐富的憲法文化，政治權力人物的憲政素養不足，權力分立的制衡實踐，往往變質為政黨之間的惡質傾軋。時至今日，藍綠的標籤，勝過了憲法意識與憲政是非。未來會是權力的競逐淹沒憲法，還是憲法足以規範權力的步伐，正就是台灣民主的考驗。
憲法的真正敵人是政治權勢，協助憲法馴服政治權勢，各方都有責任，例如釋憲者必須隨時提高警覺，嚴守憲法關隘，不因權力人物身分特殊、當權者姿態張狂，即予縱容曲從；權力分立機關不能輕易放棄制衡責任，也不該黨同伐異，換了權力位置就變更憲政立場。像是張俊雄在野擔任立委時，曾在憲法法庭上質疑總統不該差遣副總統擔任行政院長，覬覦行政權力；有朝一日執政擔任行政院院長，就不能明知故犯，成為暗助總統掌控行政權力的推手。還有許許多多的知識分子、學界領袖，也應該時時刻刻要求政治領袖嚴守分際，虛心接受憲法的規範不能因人而異，因黨而異，成為權力政客攫取權力破壞憲法，踐踏憲政的幫凶。
曾經危如纍卵的憲法，只要一息尚存也可經冬回春，彌足恆久。生命力強韌的憲法，就是民主政治的福音；慶幸台灣能夠享受民主的有識之士，應該慶幸台灣有著一部在亞洲國家之中堪稱長壽的民主憲法，任由政治權力強橫，憲政猶能如清風拂岡，明月照江，不絕如縷。
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2007
The Republic of China Constitution was promulgated on January 1, 1947, and enacted on December 25 of the same year. Today is its 60th anniversary. In Chinese tradition 60 years marks the completion of a cosmic cycle. By coincidence, this year is also the 20th anniversary of the rescinding of martial law. The ruling DPP is aggressively trumpeting the rescinding of martial law, but pointedly ignoring the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution. Apparently the constitution will have to celebrate its 60th birthday in solitude and silence.
This republican constitution underwent a difficult birth and considerable growing pains. Even before it was born, the Chinese Communist Party withdrew from the constitutional convention. For over 60 years, the CCP has adopted the attitude that the ROC Constitution has no legal authority. Even after it was born, it remained in swaddling clothes. Kuomintang President Chiang Kai-Shek, by means of temporary provisions and the implementation martial law, virtually nullified the constitution and the democratic process. As a result, during its first 40 years, constitutional rule was severely constrained. The lifting of martial law was in part the result of Democratic Progressive Party members joining "party outsiders" in demanding the restoration of the constitution. With the rescinding of martial law, the restoration of the constitution and even the peaceful transfer of power became a reality, affirming the feasibility of a constitutional republic. [Translator's note: the editorial uses the term "democracy" but constitutionally speaking this is incorrect. The Republic of China, as the name clearly denotes, is a republic, NOT a democracy. Democracies are unstable systems based on the subjective rule of the majority. Republics are relatively more stable systems based on the objective rule of law.] The ruling DPP regime however, is hostile to to this constitution. President Chen advocates the authoring of a new constitution, by hook or by crook. He is in essence repudiating the very constitution by which he was elected and swore a solemn oath to defend. This behavior is known as "dismantling the bridge after you've crossed it" or "love 'em and leave 'em." On the 60th anniversary of the enacting of the constitution, a ruling regime that is obligated to uphold and defend the constitution, is deafening us with its silence. The ruling DPP is the very picture of a political authority unwilling to abide by constitutional constraints.
Since the rescinding of martial law twenty years ago, the constitution has regained some of its former lustre. This is the main reason the Republic of China can boast that it is a constitutional republic. The constitution has been amended seven times. The content of these amendments has been highly controversial, and has been both praised and panned. The constitution was successfully amended to allow it to apply to a smaller territorial jurisdiction. Since then it has provided a rule of law foundation for winning candidates and parties, granting them the right to govern. It has provided an umbilical cord linking the present to the past, while leaving room for new developments in the future. It allows people of different political affiliations and even national identities to take what they want from the constitution and coexist side by side. The constitution has frequently been criticized as defective, but it is the product of the democratic process. It embodies a wide range of compromises between hostile and opposed political parties. Most importantly, its amendments reflect 60 years of democratic evolution and fulfill a dual role. They provide continuity with the past even as they break with the past. This is why a 60 year old constitution remains in good health even today.
The Republic of China Constitution has been abused by the Chinese Communist Party, the Kuomintang, and the Democratic Progressive Party. That it is now able to quietly enjoy its 60th birthday, must be considered a miracle. The constitution may appear fragile, but is in fact quite durable. The path of constitutional rule remains rocky. The future is difficult to predict. But the truth is not complicated. A constitution's raison d'etre is to limit political authority. The face of authority changes constantly. But its essential character remains the same. No one in power likes being constrained by a constitution. Everyone in power seeks the expansion of authority and its concentration in their hands. Taiwan lacks grounding in constitutionalism. It lacks acculturation in the rule of law. Its politicians lack the necessary commitment to constitutional government. In practice, the separation of the powers often degenerates into partisan strife. Blue and Green political loyalties trump concern for constitutionalism and a sense of right and wrong. Will the future be one in which power struggles destroy the constitution? Or will the constitution be able to limit the abuse of political authority? This is the test facing the Republic of China.
The real enemy of constitutional law is political power and influence. Every citizen has a responsibility to help the constitution limit political power and influence. For example, constitutional interpretations require enhanced vigilance regarding key constitutional checkpoints. One must never permit deviation from the constitution merely because the person in authority is charismatic, or his political style is dramatic. The separation of powers must be maintained. Checks and balances must not be relinquished. One's party must not be valued above the nation. One must not change one's stand on constitutional limits merely because one has changed positions and become the ruling party. When Chang Chun-hsiung was an opposition legislator, he challenged the KMT's appointing of the vice president to the position of premier, expanding the power of the executive. Now that Chang holds the post of premier, how can he knowingly violate his own principles? How can he allow himself to be the president's instrument for the expansion of executive power? Intellectuals and academics must demand that political leaders strictly observe constitutional limits. Political office holders must accept the fact that constitutional standards cannot be custom tailored for certain individuals or political parties. Ambitious politicians cannot be permitted to seize power and trample over the constitution by means of constitutional exceptions.
A once endangered constitution has managed to survive many winters and achieve something akin to permanency. This vital and tenacious constitution is the foundation of our republic. Those who celebrate the Republic of China's constitutional government, should celebrate Asia's oldest constitution. No matter how tyrannical a political authority might be, constitutional government is like a cool breeze or bright moonlight illuminating a river. A Happy 60th Birthday to the Republic of China Constitution
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.25
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂
中時社論
中華民國憲法於民國三十六年一月一日公布，同年十二月廿五日施行；今天，是行憲六十周年，中華民國憲法的花甲之慶。巧合的是，今年也是解嚴廿周年，相對於紀念解嚴時的積極，政府似乎嗅不出任何慶祝行憲六十周年的氣氛。憲法，只能是一位默默享受六十歲生日的壽星。
做為一部民主憲法，它的誕生與成長均不順利。在它出生之前，中國共產黨即宣告退出孕育制憲的政治協商會議，之後六十餘年來，從來都對這部憲法採取否定其效力的態度。憲法誕生之後，尚在襁褓中即遭遇國民黨蔣介石總統以憲法臨時條款及實施戒嚴的方式，幾乎架空了民主憲政的運作，所以行憲六十年的前四十年間，憲政的成長受到了極大的壓抑。解嚴，其實很大一部分來自於當時以黨外人士出現的民進黨人長期要求「回歸憲法」的努力。解嚴之後，「回歸憲法」得到實現，甚至完成了政黨輪替的和平政權移轉，驗證了憲法的民主可行性。但是民進黨政府卻又對這部憲法抱持敵意，陳總統以各種方式提倡制憲，實質上否定他賴以當選且宣誓遵守的憲法，謂之為過河拆橋、始亂終棄也不為過，行憲六十周年，負有行憲責任的政府悄然無聲，正是權力不肯心甘情願接受憲法約束的寫照。
平心而論，解嚴廿年來，憲法開始恢復生機，就是台灣今日可以自詡為民主國家的主要原因之一。憲法增修條文歷經七次修訂，其內容雖然屢見爭議而有仁智互見的評價，但是原本在台灣運作有所侷限的憲法，因為增修條文而克服了領土管轄區域與國民範圍調整所引起的困難。它為每次在選舉中獲勝而執政的政府，提供了民主正當性的法治基礎，不但建立了連結過去的臍帶，更為未來國家發展的各種走向與可能，預留了彈性想像空間。讓生活在台灣，懷有不同政治信念甚至國家認同觀的人們，均有各取所需且共同相處的可能。這部經常遭受批評而瑕疵似乎很多的憲法，卻是民主程序下的產物，也容納了敵對政黨的各種妥協，最重要的，憲法增修條文為六十年來的台灣民主發展歷程，同時負載了斷裂時代與延續往昔的雙重功能。這正是六十年的憲法，今日仍然健在的道理。
中華民國憲法，先後歷經了共產黨、國民黨與民進黨的糟蹋，現在還能靜度六十壽辰，真是台灣的另一項奇蹟。憲法的生命看似脆弱，其實旺盛，然則憲政道路前景卻依舊坎坷，甚至有些前程未卜，這其間道理並不複雜，憲法存在的價值，在於拘束政治權力，可是權力的外貌變幻不羈，掌權者的面容也不一樣，卻有著相同的本質，他們都不樂意受憲法的拘束，也總是追求權力的擴張與集中。台灣沒有牢固的憲政傳統，也缺乏豐富的憲法文化，政治權力人物的憲政素養不足，權力分立的制衡實踐，往往變質為政黨之間的惡質傾軋。時至今日，藍綠的標籤，勝過了憲法意識與憲政是非。未來會是權力的競逐淹沒憲法，還是憲法足以規範權力的步伐，正就是台灣民主的考驗。
憲法的真正敵人是政治權勢，協助憲法馴服政治權勢，各方都有責任，例如釋憲者必須隨時提高警覺，嚴守憲法關隘，不因權力人物身分特殊、當權者姿態張狂，即予縱容曲從；權力分立機關不能輕易放棄制衡責任，也不該黨同伐異，換了權力位置就變更憲政立場。像是張俊雄在野擔任立委時，曾在憲法法庭上質疑總統不該差遣副總統擔任行政院長，覬覦行政權力；有朝一日執政擔任行政院院長，就不能明知故犯，成為暗助總統掌控行政權力的推手。還有許許多多的知識分子、學界領袖，也應該時時刻刻要求政治領袖嚴守分際，虛心接受憲法的規範不能因人而異，因黨而異，成為權力政客攫取權力破壞憲法，踐踏憲政的幫凶。
曾經危如纍卵的憲法，只要一息尚存也可經冬回春，彌足恆久。生命力強韌的憲法，就是民主政治的福音；慶幸台灣能夠享受民主的有識之士，應該慶幸台灣有著一部在亞洲國家之中堪稱長壽的民主憲法，任由政治權力強橫，憲政猶能如清風拂岡，明月照江，不絕如縷。
中華民國憲法，六十歲生日快樂！
Monday, December 24, 2007
Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China
Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2007
The Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party are engaged in a contest of wills over whether to eliminate the Republic of China.
Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have clarified their respective definitions of the nation. Ma Ying-jeou and the Pan Blue camp define the Republic of China as a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to undergo de jure independence. Therefore it opposes the establishment of a new "Nation of Taiwan." Ma Ying-jeou has declared he will maintain the status quo, no reunification, no independence, no war. If elected, Ma will not negotiate with Beijing over the issue of reunification for the duration of his term.
Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party argue that the Republic of China is a not normal country, that it is not even a country. Therefore it is necessary to "rectify names and author a new constitution," eliminating the Republic of China and establishing a new "Nation of Taiwan." This is the essence of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." They want to "rectify names and author a new constitution." They want to promote Taiwan independence. They want to destroy the Republic of China. When Frank Hsieh visited Japan he said the Democratic Progressive Party expects to win only about 50 seats in the legislature. That is insufficient to amend the constitution. Therefore the "rectification of names" is impossible, and talking about it is nonsense. The Democratic Progressive Party has been making a fuss about "rectifying names and authoring a new constitution" for years. But when has it ever come close to the threshold for amending the constitution?
The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China." The resolution argues that the "Republic of China is a form of Taiwan independence" (de facto Taiwan independence), therefore there is no need to declare Taiwan independence.But the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" that the Democratic Progressive Party passed this year, demands the "prompt rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution." It repudiates the Republic of China. It denies that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" (de jure Taiwan independence). Frank Hsieh cannot overrule the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." He cannot prevent himself from being hijacked by the Democratic Progressive Party.
Tsao Hsing-cheng has encouraged the public to consider a "Plebiscite on Reunification" that would clarify the Blue and Green camps' respective positions. Tsao Hsing-cheng's definition of the Republic of China resembles the "Republic of China" referred to in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." He is willing to accept the Republic of China as de facto Taiwan independence. He does not accept the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" and "de jure Taiwan independence" because that would bring disaster upon the nation. Tsao Hsing-cheng's perspective represents the perspective of some Pan Blues. It is also the Democratic Progressive Party's de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." However Tsao opposes the Democratic Progressive Party's taboo "de jure Taiwan independence" expressed in its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Ma Ying-jeou's "no reunification, no independence, no war" position says essentially the same thing.
Therefore, in the struggle between Hsieh and Ma, and between Blue and Green over the definition of the nation, a strange anomaly has appeared. The Blue camp seems to be defending the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, has abandoned this line of defense in favor of its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." The "Resolution for a Normal Nation" denies that either the "Republic of China" nor "Taiwan" enjoys de facto Taiwan independence. Instead, it demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," in order to achieve de jure Taiwan independence.
As a result, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh has been reduced to its simplest and most basic form: Is it necessary to eliminate the Republic of China? Ma advocates maintaining the Republic of China. Hsieh advocates the "prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," arguing that sooner or later it will be necessary to eliminate the Republic of China. He once proposed a "five year timetable for the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." Now Hsieh says the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" is impossible. How can he contradict himself so flagrantly?
As we can see, the Blue and Green camps' definition of national identity has clearly evolved. For some in the Blue camp the Republic of China means "no reunification, no independence, no war." Some even advocate the codification of a "Plebiscite on Reunification" in order to "allow Taiwan's future to be decided by 23 million people." In fact this has much in common with the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Ma Ying-jeou even said that, in the Kuomintang's view "Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China." By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence argument repudiates the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its own "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Resolution for a Normal Nation" does not merely assert that the "Republic of China is not a sovereign and independent nation." It also asserts that "Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation," because it still awaits the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution."
In other words, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh, and between the Blue camp and the Green camp, has unconsciously evolved into a Blue camp "de facto independent Taiwan" (The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China). The Green camp meanwhile, demands "de jure Taiwan independence" (the elimination of the Republic of China, the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan). Under the circumstances, the debate between the Blue and Green camps is not over national identity or Taiwan independence. It is over whether to eliminate the Republic of China. After all, if the Democratic Progressive Party was still arguing that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its name is the Republic of China," then they would already have an "independent Taiwan." Why bother with "Taiwan independence?" Why demand the elimination of the Republic of China?
This is the question that Frank Hsieh must answer. Since he demands the elimination of the Republic of China, then why is he running for the Republic of China presidency? Why did he declare that he would eliminate the Republic of China within five years? Is this Frank Hsieh's justification for running for the presidency of the Republic of China?
馬英九：台灣在語義上等於中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.24 02:13 am
國民黨與民進黨正在進行一場是否要消滅中華民國的角力。
馬謝二人的國家論述已漸成型。馬英九及泛藍方面的論述是：中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再經「法理台獨」，因此反對另建「台灣國」。馬英九並宣示，維持現狀，不統、不獨、不武；他若當選總統，在任內不會與中共談判統一問題。
謝長廷及民進黨的論述則是：中華民國是一不正常的國家，甚至不是一個國家，因此必須「正名制憲」，以消滅中華民國，另建台灣國。此即《正常國家決議文》所主張的，將繼續不斷地搞「正名制憲」，繼續不斷地搞台獨，繼續不斷地毀滅中華民國。至於謝長廷訪日時稱，民進黨未來立委僅五十席左右，未達修憲門檻，因此不可能「修憲正名」，這卻是胡說；試問，民進黨的「正名制憲」鬧到今日地步，何嘗在立院跨過修憲門檻？
民進黨《台灣前途決議文》指出，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」；這是承認「中華民國亦是台獨的一種形式」（實質台獨），因此即不必再宣布「台獨」；但是，至民進黨今年制定《正常國家決議文》，又主張「及早正名制憲」，卻又否定了中華民國，甚至亦否定了「台灣已經是一主權獨立的國家」，所以必須再經「正名制憲」（法理台獨）。謝長廷不能否決《正常國家決議文》，就不能擺脫民進黨的挾持。
曹興誠帶動「統一公投」的討論，使藍綠國家論述的對照更形鮮明。曹興誠似乎直指他的「中華民國」，與民進黨《台灣前途決議文》中所指的「中華民國」頗有交集；他可以接受將「中華民國」視為「實質台獨」，只是不贊同「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」，因為那將為國家帶來災禍。曹興誠的觀點應可代表相當比例的泛藍觀點，也就是認為民進黨應當守住《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」底線，但反對民進黨跨入《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」禁區。馬英九所稱的「不統、不獨、不武」，其實也有這個意味。
於是，在馬謝藍綠國家論述的攻防戰中，出現了奇異的弔詭。藍軍似在全力防守民進黨《台灣前途決議文》「實質台獨」的防線，民進黨卻已棄守此一防線，代之以《正常國家決議文》，否定「中華民國」或「台灣」的「實質台獨」，而認為必須「正名制憲」，以實現「法理台獨」。
這使得馬謝國家論述的辯論，急劇地化約成一個最簡單與最根本的議題：要不要消滅中華民國？馬主張維護中華民國；謝主張「及早正名制憲」，亦即遲早要消滅中華民國，並曾提出「五年後正名制憲」時間表。如今謝又提出「不可能修憲正名」，怎能如此顛三倒四？
有目共睹，藍綠雙方的國家論述已有顯著的演化。就藍營言，中華民國不統、不獨、不武，甚至有人主張將「統一公投」法制化，以落實「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」，這其實已與《台灣前途決議文》有重大交集；馬英九甚至說，依國民黨的看法，「台灣在語義上等於中華民國」。相對而言，民進黨的台獨論述，則撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」，另採《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」，這不但是宣示「中華民國不是主權獨立的國家」，也不啻宣告「台灣亦尚非主權獨立的國家」，因為仍待「正名制憲」。
準此而言，馬謝藍綠的國家論述，竟在不知不覺間，似漸演變成藍主「實質獨台」（中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，台灣在語義上等於中華民國），綠主「法理台獨」（非消滅中華民國不可，亦非另建台灣國不可）的對峙；倘係如此，藍綠的國家論述之辯，其實不是「台獨」與否之辯，而只是一場要不要消滅中華民國的角力。畢竟，如果民進黨仍然承認「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，她的名字叫中華民國」，則「獨台」即可，何必再搞「台獨」？更何必主張非消滅中華民國不可？
這正是謝長廷必須答覆的質疑：既要消滅中華民國，則何必競選中華民國總統？宣示在五年後要消滅中華民國，難道這就是謝長廷競選中華民國總統的正當理由？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2007
The Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party are engaged in a contest of wills over whether to eliminate the Republic of China.
Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have clarified their respective definitions of the nation. Ma Ying-jeou and the Pan Blue camp define the Republic of China as a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to undergo de jure independence. Therefore it opposes the establishment of a new "Nation of Taiwan." Ma Ying-jeou has declared he will maintain the status quo, no reunification, no independence, no war. If elected, Ma will not negotiate with Beijing over the issue of reunification for the duration of his term.
Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party argue that the Republic of China is a not normal country, that it is not even a country. Therefore it is necessary to "rectify names and author a new constitution," eliminating the Republic of China and establishing a new "Nation of Taiwan." This is the essence of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." They want to "rectify names and author a new constitution." They want to promote Taiwan independence. They want to destroy the Republic of China. When Frank Hsieh visited Japan he said the Democratic Progressive Party expects to win only about 50 seats in the legislature. That is insufficient to amend the constitution. Therefore the "rectification of names" is impossible, and talking about it is nonsense. The Democratic Progressive Party has been making a fuss about "rectifying names and authoring a new constitution" for years. But when has it ever come close to the threshold for amending the constitution?
The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China." The resolution argues that the "Republic of China is a form of Taiwan independence" (de facto Taiwan independence), therefore there is no need to declare Taiwan independence.But the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" that the Democratic Progressive Party passed this year, demands the "prompt rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution." It repudiates the Republic of China. It denies that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" (de jure Taiwan independence). Frank Hsieh cannot overrule the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." He cannot prevent himself from being hijacked by the Democratic Progressive Party.
Tsao Hsing-cheng has encouraged the public to consider a "Plebiscite on Reunification" that would clarify the Blue and Green camps' respective positions. Tsao Hsing-cheng's definition of the Republic of China resembles the "Republic of China" referred to in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." He is willing to accept the Republic of China as de facto Taiwan independence. He does not accept the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" and "de jure Taiwan independence" because that would bring disaster upon the nation. Tsao Hsing-cheng's perspective represents the perspective of some Pan Blues. It is also the Democratic Progressive Party's de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." However Tsao opposes the Democratic Progressive Party's taboo "de jure Taiwan independence" expressed in its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Ma Ying-jeou's "no reunification, no independence, no war" position says essentially the same thing.
Therefore, in the struggle between Hsieh and Ma, and between Blue and Green over the definition of the nation, a strange anomaly has appeared. The Blue camp seems to be defending the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, has abandoned this line of defense in favor of its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." The "Resolution for a Normal Nation" denies that either the "Republic of China" nor "Taiwan" enjoys de facto Taiwan independence. Instead, it demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," in order to achieve de jure Taiwan independence.
As a result, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh has been reduced to its simplest and most basic form: Is it necessary to eliminate the Republic of China? Ma advocates maintaining the Republic of China. Hsieh advocates the "prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," arguing that sooner or later it will be necessary to eliminate the Republic of China. He once proposed a "five year timetable for the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." Now Hsieh says the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" is impossible. How can he contradict himself so flagrantly?
As we can see, the Blue and Green camps' definition of national identity has clearly evolved. For some in the Blue camp the Republic of China means "no reunification, no independence, no war." Some even advocate the codification of a "Plebiscite on Reunification" in order to "allow Taiwan's future to be decided by 23 million people." In fact this has much in common with the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Ma Ying-jeou even said that, in the Kuomintang's view "Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China." By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence argument repudiates the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its own "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Resolution for a Normal Nation" does not merely assert that the "Republic of China is not a sovereign and independent nation." It also asserts that "Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation," because it still awaits the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution."
In other words, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh, and between the Blue camp and the Green camp, has unconsciously evolved into a Blue camp "de facto independent Taiwan" (The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China). The Green camp meanwhile, demands "de jure Taiwan independence" (the elimination of the Republic of China, the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan). Under the circumstances, the debate between the Blue and Green camps is not over national identity or Taiwan independence. It is over whether to eliminate the Republic of China. After all, if the Democratic Progressive Party was still arguing that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its name is the Republic of China," then they would already have an "independent Taiwan." Why bother with "Taiwan independence?" Why demand the elimination of the Republic of China?
This is the question that Frank Hsieh must answer. Since he demands the elimination of the Republic of China, then why is he running for the Republic of China presidency? Why did he declare that he would eliminate the Republic of China within five years? Is this Frank Hsieh's justification for running for the presidency of the Republic of China?
馬英九：台灣在語義上等於中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.24 02:13 am
國民黨與民進黨正在進行一場是否要消滅中華民國的角力。
馬謝二人的國家論述已漸成型。馬英九及泛藍方面的論述是：中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再經「法理台獨」，因此反對另建「台灣國」。馬英九並宣示，維持現狀，不統、不獨、不武；他若當選總統，在任內不會與中共談判統一問題。
謝長廷及民進黨的論述則是：中華民國是一不正常的國家，甚至不是一個國家，因此必須「正名制憲」，以消滅中華民國，另建台灣國。此即《正常國家決議文》所主張的，將繼續不斷地搞「正名制憲」，繼續不斷地搞台獨，繼續不斷地毀滅中華民國。至於謝長廷訪日時稱，民進黨未來立委僅五十席左右，未達修憲門檻，因此不可能「修憲正名」，這卻是胡說；試問，民進黨的「正名制憲」鬧到今日地步，何嘗在立院跨過修憲門檻？
民進黨《台灣前途決議文》指出，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」；這是承認「中華民國亦是台獨的一種形式」（實質台獨），因此即不必再宣布「台獨」；但是，至民進黨今年制定《正常國家決議文》，又主張「及早正名制憲」，卻又否定了中華民國，甚至亦否定了「台灣已經是一主權獨立的國家」，所以必須再經「正名制憲」（法理台獨）。謝長廷不能否決《正常國家決議文》，就不能擺脫民進黨的挾持。
曹興誠帶動「統一公投」的討論，使藍綠國家論述的對照更形鮮明。曹興誠似乎直指他的「中華民國」，與民進黨《台灣前途決議文》中所指的「中華民國」頗有交集；他可以接受將「中華民國」視為「實質台獨」，只是不贊同「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」，因為那將為國家帶來災禍。曹興誠的觀點應可代表相當比例的泛藍觀點，也就是認為民進黨應當守住《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」底線，但反對民進黨跨入《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」禁區。馬英九所稱的「不統、不獨、不武」，其實也有這個意味。
於是，在馬謝藍綠國家論述的攻防戰中，出現了奇異的弔詭。藍軍似在全力防守民進黨《台灣前途決議文》「實質台獨」的防線，民進黨卻已棄守此一防線，代之以《正常國家決議文》，否定「中華民國」或「台灣」的「實質台獨」，而認為必須「正名制憲」，以實現「法理台獨」。
這使得馬謝國家論述的辯論，急劇地化約成一個最簡單與最根本的議題：要不要消滅中華民國？馬主張維護中華民國；謝主張「及早正名制憲」，亦即遲早要消滅中華民國，並曾提出「五年後正名制憲」時間表。如今謝又提出「不可能修憲正名」，怎能如此顛三倒四？
有目共睹，藍綠雙方的國家論述已有顯著的演化。就藍營言，中華民國不統、不獨、不武，甚至有人主張將「統一公投」法制化，以落實「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」，這其實已與《台灣前途決議文》有重大交集；馬英九甚至說，依國民黨的看法，「台灣在語義上等於中華民國」。相對而言，民進黨的台獨論述，則撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」，另採《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」，這不但是宣示「中華民國不是主權獨立的國家」，也不啻宣告「台灣亦尚非主權獨立的國家」，因為仍待「正名制憲」。
準此而言，馬謝藍綠的國家論述，竟在不知不覺間，似漸演變成藍主「實質獨台」（中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，台灣在語義上等於中華民國），綠主「法理台獨」（非消滅中華民國不可，亦非另建台灣國不可）的對峙；倘係如此，藍綠的國家論述之辯，其實不是「台獨」與否之辯，而只是一場要不要消滅中華民國的角力。畢竟，如果民進黨仍然承認「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，她的名字叫中華民國」，則「獨台」即可，何必再搞「台獨」？更何必主張非消滅中華民國不可？
這正是謝長廷必須答覆的質疑：既要消滅中華民國，則何必競選中華民國總統？宣示在五年後要消滅中華民國，難道這就是謝長廷競選中華民國總統的正當理由？
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Out with the Old, In with the New
Out with the Old, In with the New
South Korea gives Taiwan a Lesson in Electoral Politics
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2007
Even though he was besieged by President Roh Moo-hyun and others on the eve of the election, Lee Myung-bak won by a landslide. The message was clear. The South Korean people wanted regime change. They wanted an incompetent ruling party out. No election tricks could change their mind.
South Korea's ruling and opposition parties found themselves face to face, daggers drawn. The public, however, had already lost its former political enthusiasm. Five years ago Roh Moo-hyun was elected on a wave of popular sentiment. Once elected however, his behavior was tyrannical, ignorant, stubborn, and betrayed the public's expectations. This is the main reason the public has lost its former political fervor. The younger generation in particular had high expectations for Roh Moo-hyun. But when they saw with their own eyes Roh's arrogance and decadence, the myth of the reformist ruling party was shattered. Chung Dong-Young, the candidate for the ruling party, was regarded as a clone of Roh and soundly rejected.
Given this background, the desolate mood during the election actually reflected a kind of calm. The public rejected Roh Moo-hyun, the lawyer. It affirmed Lee Myung-bak, the business manager. This reflected two changes in South Korean society. First, South Korea's old notion of "political turf," following a decade of tumultuous regime change, was swept away. Secondly, intense commitment to political ideology has been transformed into pragmatic concern for economic prosperity. This lowering of political temperature is a phase that people in a democracy must pass through if they are to become politically mature.
This election was essentially a test of strength between Lee Myung-bak and Roh Moo-hyun. Mayor Lee Myung-bak defeated President Roh Moo-hyun, on the basis of his record as mayor of the nation's capital. It was not that Lee had any personal charisma. Quite the contrary. Lee lacked the typical politician's polish and wit. Lee defeated Roh by virtue of his legendary restoration of the Cheonggyecheon waterway and his bulldozer tenacity. He demolished Roh Moo-hyun's ex cathedra sophistries. The key factor was the people. They decided they wanted to punish an incompetent ruling party and remove it from power.
South Korea's election has special implications for Taiwan. In both cases, the ruling regime lost popular support due to incompetence. Power struggles led to the indictment of major candidates, increasing social unrest. In the end, whether the public understands the Big Picture, and is able to successfully choose a new leader, will determine a nation's competitiveness and future prospects.
Over the past several years, South Korea's economic performance has been far better than Taiwan's. Nevertheless the gap between rich and poor, between old and young, has increased. This led to middle and lower middle class discontent and is the main force behind demands for regime change. In South Korean politics, the process of "out with the old, in with the new" happens very quickly, with little sentimentality. Take the Yeollin Uri Party, aka "Our Open Party." In four short years, a party that rose with Roh Moo-hyun, fell with Roh Moo-hyun. Althought the party changed its name and leadership, it could not win back the peoples' hearts. The voters' ruthlessness is a force for political change, and something to be reckoned with.
Taiwan's economy, meanwhile, is mired in depression. Yet we have people who insist on voting for Chen even though they are starving because of him. If voters forfeit their intellectual independence and blindly support political figures, what reason do political figures have to engage in self-introspection? Because Roh Moo-hyun lost the support of the people, he was forced to resign as leader of his party. Chen Shui-bian is knee-deep in scandals. Yet he is able to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party, force it to do his bidding, and continue dividing Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian is past redemption. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party hierarchy is content to accompany him into hell. No wonder DPP members are so demoralized.
The South Korean and international media still use "conservative" and "liberal" to refer to the nation's ruling and opposition parties. They consider Lee Myung-bak's victory a "conservative" victory. Similarly, the Democratic Progressive Party still refers to itself as Taiwan's "reform party." Alas these labels are no longer consistent with reality. Roh Moo-hyun and Chen Shui-bian may at one time have represented a force for the overthrow of authoritarianism and the implementation of liberal reforms. But once they assumed power they shattered their former image as idealistic reformers. They changed into arrogant despots who trampled democracy into the ground. These one-time liberals morphed into populist demagogues, leaving people with an overwhelming feeling of disillusionment and impotence. This was hardly democracy's original promise.
The Republic of China and the Republic of Korea have long been competitors. Citizens of both nations have long looked forward to democracy, reform, and prosperity. The ROC has obviously fallen behind the ROK in the economic realm. The ROC has always prided itself on its stability and pragmatism. But that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. A new generation of leaders has appeared. How the two nations will compare in the future is something worth contemplating.
Roh Moo-hyun and Chen Shui-bian's political moves have been attempts to prolong their own rule by plunging the nation into chaos. If the people do not use their ballots to sanction them, then they are willingly handing their own destinies over to the devil.
無能的執政黨下台：南韓大選給台灣的啟示
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.20 03:01 am
儘管在選舉前夕遭總統盧武鉉和其他對手的聯手圍剿，李明博仍以極大的差距贏得大選。這項結果傳達了一個清晰的訊息：南韓人民一心一意要把無能的執政黨輪替掉，任何招數皆改變不了他們的心志。
此次大選，南韓朝野政黨雖依舊鬥得橫眉豎目，但民眾已失去往日的激情。五年前盧武鉉藉著強大的民氣上台，結果卻以強橫和愚頑背棄了人民的期待，這是使人民失去政治熱情的主因。尤其當年對盧武鉉寄予厚望的年輕世代，眼見他傲慢、墮落，認為執政黨的改革神話已然破滅；代表執政黨出征的鄭東泳被視做一丘之貉，原因正在於此。
在這種背景下，這次大選氣氛的冷淡，反而呈現一種特殊的冷靜。從「法律人」盧武鉉被棄，到「經理人」李明博勝出，反映南韓社會的兩項心理變化：第一，長年左右南韓政治的「地域主義」情結，歷經過去十年政黨輪替的滌盪，已大為消退。第二，民眾對政治的期待，由強烈的符號及意識形態信仰，轉化為務實的經濟民生追求。這種「政治退燒」現象，卻也是民主成熟化的必經歷程。
這場選舉，其實是李明博與盧武鉉的角力。李明博以首都市長資歷打敗大總統盧武鉉，並非他有何過人的魅力，相反的，他缺乏典型政治人物的圓滑和機巧；但他以恢復清溪川的傳奇和「推土機」般的實踐能力，打敗盧武鉉坐擁大權的空談和狡辯，關鍵因素還在人民決定要懲罰無能的執政黨，把它趕下台。
從台灣看南韓，這場選舉之所以殊堪玩味，除了兩國主政者都因無能而失去民心，政治惡鬥使得主要候選人皆官司纏身，因而加深了社會不安；更值得觀察的是，兩國人民如何反省大局、如何選擇新領導人，那才是決定下一階段的國家視野和競爭力的因素。
過去幾年，南韓經濟表現其實遠較台灣為佳，但貧富懸殊化及青年失業擴大，讓中下階層高度不滿，這是造成政黨輪替的主要力量。政治上，南韓「汰舊換新」的速度一向極快，沒有溫情或浪漫可言。以「開放的我們黨」為例，短短四年間，因盧武鉉而成立，又因他而備受唾棄，甚至整個黨更名、被併而消失，都喚不回選民的心。選民的無情，其實是鞭策政治轉進的力量。
反觀台灣，經濟一片蕭條，民間竟仍有「肚子扁扁、也選阿扁」的說法；選民若失去自主意志，一味盲目追隨，如何催促政治人物反省？再看，盧武鉉因而失去民心，遭執政黨逼迫退黨；醜聞纏身的陳水扁卻能挾持整個民進黨繼續供他差役，乃至繼續分裂台灣。陳水扁的墮落固無可救藥，但民進黨的自甘沈淪，難道不是它目前選情低迷的原因？
直到今天，南韓或國際媒體都仍以「自由派」和「保守派」來稱呼朝野政黨，認為李明博的勝出是「保守派」獲勝；同理，民進黨迄今亦仍以「台灣維新」自命。但在事實上，在現實框架中，這些標籤已名不副實了。第一，不論盧武鉉（或陳水扁）所代表的自由或改革力量，在推倒威權體制上雖有其意義，但他們執政的無能與顢頇，已將「改革者」的形象揮霍殆盡。第二，他們掌權時所表現的傲慢和專斷，踐踏了民主體制，也破壞了人民對民主的美好憧憬。第三，意識形態上的「自由派」，卻在權力催眠下走向民粹，並使多數人民產生濃重的無力感，這當然不是民主追求的目標。
台灣和南韓，一向是彼此參照的競爭夥伴，兩國人民也同樣嚮往民主、改革和繁榮。在經濟上，近年台灣顯然落後了；在政治上，台灣一向自豪的穩定和務實正快速消失；在新一波的領導人出線後，兩國下一個五年的競賽又會發生什麼變化，這是值得大家深思的事。
盧武鉉和陳水扁最近的招數，都企圖把國家的混亂從自己任內延續到選後。人民如果不能用選票給予制裁，就是自甘把自己的命運所託非人了。
South Korea gives Taiwan a Lesson in Electoral Politics
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2007
Even though he was besieged by President Roh Moo-hyun and others on the eve of the election, Lee Myung-bak won by a landslide. The message was clear. The South Korean people wanted regime change. They wanted an incompetent ruling party out. No election tricks could change their mind.
South Korea's ruling and opposition parties found themselves face to face, daggers drawn. The public, however, had already lost its former political enthusiasm. Five years ago Roh Moo-hyun was elected on a wave of popular sentiment. Once elected however, his behavior was tyrannical, ignorant, stubborn, and betrayed the public's expectations. This is the main reason the public has lost its former political fervor. The younger generation in particular had high expectations for Roh Moo-hyun. But when they saw with their own eyes Roh's arrogance and decadence, the myth of the reformist ruling party was shattered. Chung Dong-Young, the candidate for the ruling party, was regarded as a clone of Roh and soundly rejected.
Given this background, the desolate mood during the election actually reflected a kind of calm. The public rejected Roh Moo-hyun, the lawyer. It affirmed Lee Myung-bak, the business manager. This reflected two changes in South Korean society. First, South Korea's old notion of "political turf," following a decade of tumultuous regime change, was swept away. Secondly, intense commitment to political ideology has been transformed into pragmatic concern for economic prosperity. This lowering of political temperature is a phase that people in a democracy must pass through if they are to become politically mature.
This election was essentially a test of strength between Lee Myung-bak and Roh Moo-hyun. Mayor Lee Myung-bak defeated President Roh Moo-hyun, on the basis of his record as mayor of the nation's capital. It was not that Lee had any personal charisma. Quite the contrary. Lee lacked the typical politician's polish and wit. Lee defeated Roh by virtue of his legendary restoration of the Cheonggyecheon waterway and his bulldozer tenacity. He demolished Roh Moo-hyun's ex cathedra sophistries. The key factor was the people. They decided they wanted to punish an incompetent ruling party and remove it from power.
South Korea's election has special implications for Taiwan. In both cases, the ruling regime lost popular support due to incompetence. Power struggles led to the indictment of major candidates, increasing social unrest. In the end, whether the public understands the Big Picture, and is able to successfully choose a new leader, will determine a nation's competitiveness and future prospects.
Over the past several years, South Korea's economic performance has been far better than Taiwan's. Nevertheless the gap between rich and poor, between old and young, has increased. This led to middle and lower middle class discontent and is the main force behind demands for regime change. In South Korean politics, the process of "out with the old, in with the new" happens very quickly, with little sentimentality. Take the Yeollin Uri Party, aka "Our Open Party." In four short years, a party that rose with Roh Moo-hyun, fell with Roh Moo-hyun. Althought the party changed its name and leadership, it could not win back the peoples' hearts. The voters' ruthlessness is a force for political change, and something to be reckoned with.
Taiwan's economy, meanwhile, is mired in depression. Yet we have people who insist on voting for Chen even though they are starving because of him. If voters forfeit their intellectual independence and blindly support political figures, what reason do political figures have to engage in self-introspection? Because Roh Moo-hyun lost the support of the people, he was forced to resign as leader of his party. Chen Shui-bian is knee-deep in scandals. Yet he is able to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party, force it to do his bidding, and continue dividing Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian is past redemption. Yet the Democratic Progressive Party hierarchy is content to accompany him into hell. No wonder DPP members are so demoralized.
The South Korean and international media still use "conservative" and "liberal" to refer to the nation's ruling and opposition parties. They consider Lee Myung-bak's victory a "conservative" victory. Similarly, the Democratic Progressive Party still refers to itself as Taiwan's "reform party." Alas these labels are no longer consistent with reality. Roh Moo-hyun and Chen Shui-bian may at one time have represented a force for the overthrow of authoritarianism and the implementation of liberal reforms. But once they assumed power they shattered their former image as idealistic reformers. They changed into arrogant despots who trampled democracy into the ground. These one-time liberals morphed into populist demagogues, leaving people with an overwhelming feeling of disillusionment and impotence. This was hardly democracy's original promise.
The Republic of China and the Republic of Korea have long been competitors. Citizens of both nations have long looked forward to democracy, reform, and prosperity. The ROC has obviously fallen behind the ROK in the economic realm. The ROC has always prided itself on its stability and pragmatism. But that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. A new generation of leaders has appeared. How the two nations will compare in the future is something worth contemplating.
Roh Moo-hyun and Chen Shui-bian's political moves have been attempts to prolong their own rule by plunging the nation into chaos. If the people do not use their ballots to sanction them, then they are willingly handing their own destinies over to the devil.
無能的執政黨下台：南韓大選給台灣的啟示
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.20 03:01 am
儘管在選舉前夕遭總統盧武鉉和其他對手的聯手圍剿，李明博仍以極大的差距贏得大選。這項結果傳達了一個清晰的訊息：南韓人民一心一意要把無能的執政黨輪替掉，任何招數皆改變不了他們的心志。
此次大選，南韓朝野政黨雖依舊鬥得橫眉豎目，但民眾已失去往日的激情。五年前盧武鉉藉著強大的民氣上台，結果卻以強橫和愚頑背棄了人民的期待，這是使人民失去政治熱情的主因。尤其當年對盧武鉉寄予厚望的年輕世代，眼見他傲慢、墮落，認為執政黨的改革神話已然破滅；代表執政黨出征的鄭東泳被視做一丘之貉，原因正在於此。
在這種背景下，這次大選氣氛的冷淡，反而呈現一種特殊的冷靜。從「法律人」盧武鉉被棄，到「經理人」李明博勝出，反映南韓社會的兩項心理變化：第一，長年左右南韓政治的「地域主義」情結，歷經過去十年政黨輪替的滌盪，已大為消退。第二，民眾對政治的期待，由強烈的符號及意識形態信仰，轉化為務實的經濟民生追求。這種「政治退燒」現象，卻也是民主成熟化的必經歷程。
這場選舉，其實是李明博與盧武鉉的角力。李明博以首都市長資歷打敗大總統盧武鉉，並非他有何過人的魅力，相反的，他缺乏典型政治人物的圓滑和機巧；但他以恢復清溪川的傳奇和「推土機」般的實踐能力，打敗盧武鉉坐擁大權的空談和狡辯，關鍵因素還在人民決定要懲罰無能的執政黨，把它趕下台。
從台灣看南韓，這場選舉之所以殊堪玩味，除了兩國主政者都因無能而失去民心，政治惡鬥使得主要候選人皆官司纏身，因而加深了社會不安；更值得觀察的是，兩國人民如何反省大局、如何選擇新領導人，那才是決定下一階段的國家視野和競爭力的因素。
過去幾年，南韓經濟表現其實遠較台灣為佳，但貧富懸殊化及青年失業擴大，讓中下階層高度不滿，這是造成政黨輪替的主要力量。政治上，南韓「汰舊換新」的速度一向極快，沒有溫情或浪漫可言。以「開放的我們黨」為例，短短四年間，因盧武鉉而成立，又因他而備受唾棄，甚至整個黨更名、被併而消失，都喚不回選民的心。選民的無情，其實是鞭策政治轉進的力量。
反觀台灣，經濟一片蕭條，民間竟仍有「肚子扁扁、也選阿扁」的說法；選民若失去自主意志，一味盲目追隨，如何催促政治人物反省？再看，盧武鉉因而失去民心，遭執政黨逼迫退黨；醜聞纏身的陳水扁卻能挾持整個民進黨繼續供他差役，乃至繼續分裂台灣。陳水扁的墮落固無可救藥，但民進黨的自甘沈淪，難道不是它目前選情低迷的原因？
直到今天，南韓或國際媒體都仍以「自由派」和「保守派」來稱呼朝野政黨，認為李明博的勝出是「保守派」獲勝；同理，民進黨迄今亦仍以「台灣維新」自命。但在事實上，在現實框架中，這些標籤已名不副實了。第一，不論盧武鉉（或陳水扁）所代表的自由或改革力量，在推倒威權體制上雖有其意義，但他們執政的無能與顢頇，已將「改革者」的形象揮霍殆盡。第二，他們掌權時所表現的傲慢和專斷，踐踏了民主體制，也破壞了人民對民主的美好憧憬。第三，意識形態上的「自由派」，卻在權力催眠下走向民粹，並使多數人民產生濃重的無力感，這當然不是民主追求的目標。
台灣和南韓，一向是彼此參照的競爭夥伴，兩國人民也同樣嚮往民主、改革和繁榮。在經濟上，近年台灣顯然落後了；在政治上，台灣一向自豪的穩定和務實正快速消失；在新一波的領導人出線後，兩國下一個五年的競賽又會發生什麼變化，這是值得大家深思的事。
盧武鉉和陳水扁最近的招數，都企圖把國家的混亂從自己任內延續到選後。人民如果不能用選票給予制裁，就是自甘把自己的命運所託非人了。
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Are Politicians willing to allow Balloting Technicalities stop the Election?
Are Politicians willing to allow Balloting Technicalities stop the Election?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2007
It is now less than one month away from the legislative elections, yet the dispute over balloting procedures remains unresolved. Central Election Committee General Secretary Teng Tien-yu, under questioning by legislators, conceded that any ballots cast at a polling station using a two-stage balloting procedure would still be valid. But 24 hours later, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party blasted Teng's statement as "merely his personal opinon ... he spoke out of turn." The ruling DPP repeated its threat to press criminal charges against any election official who dared implement the two-stage balloting procedure. It was then that Teng Tien-yu solemnly intoned: The dispute over balloting procedures must not be permitted to deprive citizens of their right to vote! Teng's statement should make politicians who ignore the interests of the nation and society blush with shame.
The dispute over the balloting procedure for the plebiscite/referendum has dragged on for half a year. Each side has had time to make the case for its own procedure, and cite its advantages over its opponent's. The greatest concern now is whether a balloting procedure technicality will prevent a successful election, or worse, deprive citizens of their right to vote.
Regrettably, both central and local governments, both Blue and Green camps, have never considered how to resolve such disputes. Instead, they only want to escalate the controversy. Their mutual denunciations and mutual intimidation are a vicious circle. They have enveloped the legislative election in a cloud of haze. Many people wonder whether the election can actually be held. Even assuming the voting process can be successfully completed, what about the vote counting process? Even assuming the vote counting process can be successfully completed, what about the announcement of the vote counting process?
We raise these questions not to frighten people. These are not groundless fears. An election on Taiwan has virtually become two separate elections. Blue counties are holding one election. Green counties are holding another election. Blue counties and Green counties have their own Blue and Green supporters. Add a tense election atmosphere, and who can be sure that Blue and Green camp supporters won't insist on having their own way at polling stations implementing either a two-stage balloting process or single-stage balloting process? Who can be sure they won't make trouble after being forcibly removed? Who can be sure any trouble won't be blown out of proportion by live media coverage and affect the entire island? With 73 electoral districts and 10,000 polling stations, it would take only a few incidents to start an island-wide conflagration. Will it still be possible to keep the polling stations open after that?
Once the ballots are cast, they must be counted. Because Chen's plebiscite/referendum has been illegally "package-dealed" with the legislative election, voters will cast up to four ballots. Therefore four ballot boxes must be counted. According to Central Election Committee estimates, the counting process will take two to three hours. What sort of incidents might take place in the interim? If they do, will the counting process continue? If not, will the ballot boxes be sealed and delivered straight to the Central Election Committee? Will that even be possible?
It gets worse. The Executive Yuan has alleged repeatedly that the two stage balloting process is "invalid." But according to what law? This has become a question in everyones' mind. According to the Civil Service Election and Recall Law, regardless of whether the election is considered valid or invalid, the Central Election Committee must announce the results. Any challenges to the results must be made after the the results have been announced. Four years ago the Blue camp protested the 319 Shooting Incident. They held a week long vigil in front of the Presidential Palace to prevent the CEC from announcing the results. But from a legal standpoint, if the CEC doesn't announce the results, how can one file a legal challenge? Four years later the Democratic Progressive Party is in office. Everyone in the ruling DPP, including Chen Shui-bian, repeatedly alleges that the two-stage balloting procedure is invalid. But according to what law? No one knows. The Central Election Committee's rulings on electoral matters can only be described as "Chen's word is law." What could be simpler than governing in accordance with the letter of the law? How could something so simple become a matter of public controversy? What will happen if the Central Election Committee really does decide not to announce the election results?
Both the Blue and Green camps will have supervisory personnel at 10,000 polling stations. Regardless of whether the Central Election Committee announces the election results, or posts the returns on the Internet, or delays announcing the results, these Blue and Green camp supervisory personnel will report the results of each polling station back to their campaign headquarters. The possibility remains that some candidates will prematurely declare that they won. When the time comes, election controversies will invariably erupt. No candidate can tolerate a rival illegally and prematurely declaring victory. An illegal announcement will lead to prosecution by the Central Election Committee for election law violations. Via the Central Election Committee, the Executive Yuan will determine whether the election results are valid or invalid.
The Democratic Progressive Party was once out of power. Now it is in power. All along the way, the DPP has prided itself on being a champion of democracy and progress. Is the DPP really willing to sit by as Taiwan's democracy descends to this? Is the DPP really willing to deprive citizens of their right to vote over a purely technical issue involving balloting procedure? Is the DPP really willing to precipiate chaos? The Central Election Committee is the primary agency responsible for overseeing election affairs. In the event a dispute arises with local authorities, it is obligated to do everything in its power to resolve such disputes. So why is it provoking disputes and creating social polarization?
It is now less than one month away from from the legislative elections. Whether Blue or Green, whether candidate or gofer, all politicians must put the people first, must put Taiwan's democracy first. Let them treasure this past half century and the hard-won achievements of our forbears. Do not allow Taiwan's democracy to regress. Do not allow society to descend into chaos and people to be overwhelmed by fear. Find solutions. Assume responsibility. Take concrete action. Find a way out of the balloting procedure controversy!
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.19
朝野政治人物何忍讓選務爭議摧毀選舉
中時社論
距離立委投票日已不到一個月，領投票爭議依舊糾結未解，中選會祕書長鄧天祐好不容易在立院公開答詢時宣稱二階段投票仍屬有效；事隔不到廿四小時，立刻被執政當局痛斥為個人之見、發言不當，並再度端出刑法伺候選務人員。鄧天祐則語重心長講了一句話：選務爭議不能影響投票權益！這句話，應讓所有只求勝選、不思國家社會利益的政客為之汗顏。
領投票的爭議已經持續了半年，此中各種利弊得失，各方論述久矣，眼前最急迫的是，究竟會不會因為特定選務技術面問題，干擾選舉的順利進行，甚至直接影響人民的投票權益。
遺憾的是，從中央到地方，從藍到綠，怎麼解決爭議一直未被重視與考量，反倒是有志一同致力擴大爭議。這種相互叫囂、甚至相互恐嚇的惡性循環，讓首次實施新選制的國會改選，蒙上揮之不去的陰霾。許多人擔心，選舉能順利進行嗎？就算能投完票能順利開票嗎？就算能順利開票，能有效公告嗎？
這些疑問不是危言聳聽，不是杞人憂天，試想，當全台選舉一分為二，藍縣市用一套、綠縣市用一套，藍綠各縣市又各有藍綠支持者，加上緊繃的選舉氣氛，誰能預料會不會發生若干激情、急進的藍綠民眾，堅持在執行一階段的投開票所要求二階段領投票？或者，堅持在執行二階段的投開票所堅持要求一階段領投票？堅持未遂之後會不會鬧事？鬧事之後，當天經過媒體現場連線的轉播，會不會有擴大效應，波及全台？不要說全台七十三個選區，上萬個投開票所個個發生爭議，只要數個引爆爭議，這票還能繼續投下去嗎？
甚至投完票之後，進入開票程序，由於這次立委併公投，有四張票要領，有四個票匭要開，根據中選會的規畫，開票時程至少會延宕二、三個小時，過程會不會發生什麼事？如果又生事端，還能繼續開票嗎？如果不能，是否要封匭直送中選會？更重要的，送不送得出來呢？
更恐怖的是，由於行政院三番兩次宣稱二階段票「無效」，這個無效到底是依什麼法宣告？也成為各界疑慮的關鍵。根據公職人員選舉罷免法，不論是當選無效或者選舉無效，都得在中選會公告之後，再行提出選舉訴訟。四年前，藍軍抗議三一九兩顆子彈，靜坐凱道一周為的就是阻止中選會公告，但是，從法律面而言，不公告如何打這個選舉官司？然而，四年後，換成民進黨政府，包括陳水扁總統本人，都一而再、再而三強調二階段無效論，民進黨政府依的是什麼法？卻無人聞問，偏偏中選會辦選務迄今，唯扁意是從，有法依法的最簡單選務，竟成了眾人皆疑的爭議：萬一中選會真不公告該如何？
坦白講，上萬投開票所，藍綠都有監票人員，中選會公不公告、要不要將票數上網，舉凡在投開票所的藍綠監票人員無不會將票數回報總部，不要說中選會不公告，即使晚公告，都可能出現候選人先行宣告當選的狀況，可以預期，屆時，選舉紛爭勢必更多、更大。沒有任何候選人可能忍受、遑論接受，一個不依法公告、依法定程序進行選舉官司，逕由中選會、甚至行政院認定有效與無效的選舉結果。
民進黨政府從在野到執政，堅持的無非就是民主進步，忍心看到攸關台灣民主進步的重要選舉，落到這步田地嗎？忍心因為理應單純的選務技術問題，干擾人民的投票權益嗎？甚至成為社會紛亂不安的導火線嗎？中選會是辦理選務的主管機關，與基層發生爭議該做的事是盡量疏通、化解，何忍主動擴大事端，造成社會對立呢？
距離立委選舉不到一個月了，不論藍的、綠的，競選者或抬轎者，請所有政治人物以人民為念，以台灣民主為念，珍惜這半世紀多來，所有民主前輩以血汗換來的成果，不要讓台灣的民主倒退，不要讓社會的不安與恐懼成真，想一點辦法，盡一點責任，展開具體的行動，為領投票爭議找出一個解套方案吧！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2007
It is now less than one month away from the legislative elections, yet the dispute over balloting procedures remains unresolved. Central Election Committee General Secretary Teng Tien-yu, under questioning by legislators, conceded that any ballots cast at a polling station using a two-stage balloting procedure would still be valid. But 24 hours later, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party blasted Teng's statement as "merely his personal opinon ... he spoke out of turn." The ruling DPP repeated its threat to press criminal charges against any election official who dared implement the two-stage balloting procedure. It was then that Teng Tien-yu solemnly intoned: The dispute over balloting procedures must not be permitted to deprive citizens of their right to vote! Teng's statement should make politicians who ignore the interests of the nation and society blush with shame.
The dispute over the balloting procedure for the plebiscite/referendum has dragged on for half a year. Each side has had time to make the case for its own procedure, and cite its advantages over its opponent's. The greatest concern now is whether a balloting procedure technicality will prevent a successful election, or worse, deprive citizens of their right to vote.
Regrettably, both central and local governments, both Blue and Green camps, have never considered how to resolve such disputes. Instead, they only want to escalate the controversy. Their mutual denunciations and mutual intimidation are a vicious circle. They have enveloped the legislative election in a cloud of haze. Many people wonder whether the election can actually be held. Even assuming the voting process can be successfully completed, what about the vote counting process? Even assuming the vote counting process can be successfully completed, what about the announcement of the vote counting process?
We raise these questions not to frighten people. These are not groundless fears. An election on Taiwan has virtually become two separate elections. Blue counties are holding one election. Green counties are holding another election. Blue counties and Green counties have their own Blue and Green supporters. Add a tense election atmosphere, and who can be sure that Blue and Green camp supporters won't insist on having their own way at polling stations implementing either a two-stage balloting process or single-stage balloting process? Who can be sure they won't make trouble after being forcibly removed? Who can be sure any trouble won't be blown out of proportion by live media coverage and affect the entire island? With 73 electoral districts and 10,000 polling stations, it would take only a few incidents to start an island-wide conflagration. Will it still be possible to keep the polling stations open after that?
Once the ballots are cast, they must be counted. Because Chen's plebiscite/referendum has been illegally "package-dealed" with the legislative election, voters will cast up to four ballots. Therefore four ballot boxes must be counted. According to Central Election Committee estimates, the counting process will take two to three hours. What sort of incidents might take place in the interim? If they do, will the counting process continue? If not, will the ballot boxes be sealed and delivered straight to the Central Election Committee? Will that even be possible?
It gets worse. The Executive Yuan has alleged repeatedly that the two stage balloting process is "invalid." But according to what law? This has become a question in everyones' mind. According to the Civil Service Election and Recall Law, regardless of whether the election is considered valid or invalid, the Central Election Committee must announce the results. Any challenges to the results must be made after the the results have been announced. Four years ago the Blue camp protested the 319 Shooting Incident. They held a week long vigil in front of the Presidential Palace to prevent the CEC from announcing the results. But from a legal standpoint, if the CEC doesn't announce the results, how can one file a legal challenge? Four years later the Democratic Progressive Party is in office. Everyone in the ruling DPP, including Chen Shui-bian, repeatedly alleges that the two-stage balloting procedure is invalid. But according to what law? No one knows. The Central Election Committee's rulings on electoral matters can only be described as "Chen's word is law." What could be simpler than governing in accordance with the letter of the law? How could something so simple become a matter of public controversy? What will happen if the Central Election Committee really does decide not to announce the election results?
Both the Blue and Green camps will have supervisory personnel at 10,000 polling stations. Regardless of whether the Central Election Committee announces the election results, or posts the returns on the Internet, or delays announcing the results, these Blue and Green camp supervisory personnel will report the results of each polling station back to their campaign headquarters. The possibility remains that some candidates will prematurely declare that they won. When the time comes, election controversies will invariably erupt. No candidate can tolerate a rival illegally and prematurely declaring victory. An illegal announcement will lead to prosecution by the Central Election Committee for election law violations. Via the Central Election Committee, the Executive Yuan will determine whether the election results are valid or invalid.
The Democratic Progressive Party was once out of power. Now it is in power. All along the way, the DPP has prided itself on being a champion of democracy and progress. Is the DPP really willing to sit by as Taiwan's democracy descends to this? Is the DPP really willing to deprive citizens of their right to vote over a purely technical issue involving balloting procedure? Is the DPP really willing to precipiate chaos? The Central Election Committee is the primary agency responsible for overseeing election affairs. In the event a dispute arises with local authorities, it is obligated to do everything in its power to resolve such disputes. So why is it provoking disputes and creating social polarization?
It is now less than one month away from from the legislative elections. Whether Blue or Green, whether candidate or gofer, all politicians must put the people first, must put Taiwan's democracy first. Let them treasure this past half century and the hard-won achievements of our forbears. Do not allow Taiwan's democracy to regress. Do not allow society to descend into chaos and people to be overwhelmed by fear. Find solutions. Assume responsibility. Take concrete action. Find a way out of the balloting procedure controversy!
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.19
朝野政治人物何忍讓選務爭議摧毀選舉
中時社論
距離立委投票日已不到一個月，領投票爭議依舊糾結未解，中選會祕書長鄧天祐好不容易在立院公開答詢時宣稱二階段投票仍屬有效；事隔不到廿四小時，立刻被執政當局痛斥為個人之見、發言不當，並再度端出刑法伺候選務人員。鄧天祐則語重心長講了一句話：選務爭議不能影響投票權益！這句話，應讓所有只求勝選、不思國家社會利益的政客為之汗顏。
領投票的爭議已經持續了半年，此中各種利弊得失，各方論述久矣，眼前最急迫的是，究竟會不會因為特定選務技術面問題，干擾選舉的順利進行，甚至直接影響人民的投票權益。
遺憾的是，從中央到地方，從藍到綠，怎麼解決爭議一直未被重視與考量，反倒是有志一同致力擴大爭議。這種相互叫囂、甚至相互恐嚇的惡性循環，讓首次實施新選制的國會改選，蒙上揮之不去的陰霾。許多人擔心，選舉能順利進行嗎？就算能投完票能順利開票嗎？就算能順利開票，能有效公告嗎？
這些疑問不是危言聳聽，不是杞人憂天，試想，當全台選舉一分為二，藍縣市用一套、綠縣市用一套，藍綠各縣市又各有藍綠支持者，加上緊繃的選舉氣氛，誰能預料會不會發生若干激情、急進的藍綠民眾，堅持在執行一階段的投開票所要求二階段領投票？或者，堅持在執行二階段的投開票所堅持要求一階段領投票？堅持未遂之後會不會鬧事？鬧事之後，當天經過媒體現場連線的轉播，會不會有擴大效應，波及全台？不要說全台七十三個選區，上萬個投開票所個個發生爭議，只要數個引爆爭議，這票還能繼續投下去嗎？
甚至投完票之後，進入開票程序，由於這次立委併公投，有四張票要領，有四個票匭要開，根據中選會的規畫，開票時程至少會延宕二、三個小時，過程會不會發生什麼事？如果又生事端，還能繼續開票嗎？如果不能，是否要封匭直送中選會？更重要的，送不送得出來呢？
更恐怖的是，由於行政院三番兩次宣稱二階段票「無效」，這個無效到底是依什麼法宣告？也成為各界疑慮的關鍵。根據公職人員選舉罷免法，不論是當選無效或者選舉無效，都得在中選會公告之後，再行提出選舉訴訟。四年前，藍軍抗議三一九兩顆子彈，靜坐凱道一周為的就是阻止中選會公告，但是，從法律面而言，不公告如何打這個選舉官司？然而，四年後，換成民進黨政府，包括陳水扁總統本人，都一而再、再而三強調二階段無效論，民進黨政府依的是什麼法？卻無人聞問，偏偏中選會辦選務迄今，唯扁意是從，有法依法的最簡單選務，竟成了眾人皆疑的爭議：萬一中選會真不公告該如何？
坦白講，上萬投開票所，藍綠都有監票人員，中選會公不公告、要不要將票數上網，舉凡在投開票所的藍綠監票人員無不會將票數回報總部，不要說中選會不公告，即使晚公告，都可能出現候選人先行宣告當選的狀況，可以預期，屆時，選舉紛爭勢必更多、更大。沒有任何候選人可能忍受、遑論接受，一個不依法公告、依法定程序進行選舉官司，逕由中選會、甚至行政院認定有效與無效的選舉結果。
民進黨政府從在野到執政，堅持的無非就是民主進步，忍心看到攸關台灣民主進步的重要選舉，落到這步田地嗎？忍心因為理應單純的選務技術問題，干擾人民的投票權益嗎？甚至成為社會紛亂不安的導火線嗎？中選會是辦理選務的主管機關，與基層發生爭議該做的事是盡量疏通、化解，何忍主動擴大事端，造成社會對立呢？
距離立委選舉不到一個月了，不論藍的、綠的，競選者或抬轎者，請所有政治人物以人民為念，以台灣民主為念，珍惜這半世紀多來，所有民主前輩以血汗換來的成果，不要讓台灣的民主倒退，不要讓社會的不安與恐懼成真，想一點辦法，盡一點責任，展開具體的行動，為領投票爭議找出一個解套方案吧！
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Why Dirty Tricks Persist
Why Dirty Tricks Persist
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2007
The details of the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Meeting" between American Insitute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt and KMT vice presidential candidate Vincent Hsiew were recently leaked to the press by Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Sandy Yen. Details of "Chen Shui-bian's Dirty Tricks" have been emerging over the past several days. Chen Shui-bian has screamed himself hoarse saying "Only the Kuomintang uses dirty tricks during elections!" But no matter how Chen Shui-bian might try to feign innocence, the public doubts that next year's legislative and presidential elections will be incident free. A pall hangs over Taiwan and refuses to go away.
The Blue camp has ample reason to distrust Chen. The wounds from the 319 Shooting Incident of 2004 have yet to heal. For the past seven years the Blue camp has endured too many frustrations, too many insults. The Democratic Progressive Party might mock the Kuomintang and accuse it of having a persecution complex. But it must face the fact that the US no longer trusts Chen Shui-bian either. Following regime change in 2000, Chen Shui-bian boasted he was responsible for the closest relations ever between Taipei and Washington. Now, in Washington's eyes, Chen Shui-bian is the political figure most likely to make trouble for the US in the Taiwan Strait during the upcoming elections.
The Democratic Progressive Party knows how to win elections. The public knows this. It knows that the DPP is led by a highly capable campaign strategist -- none other than Chen himself. Washington's deep distrust of Chen Shui-bian did not begin yesterday. Nor was it revealed only after the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Meeting." Similar reports were leaked earlier this year, one after another, directly and indirectly, by US officials, culminating with Raymond Burghardt's arrival one month before the legislative elections. Why did Burghardt come? Why did he personally call on ruling and opposition political leaders? Raymond Burghardt is hardly unfamiliar with Taiwan. He experienced the 1996 Straits Crisis. He came because he was conveying an important message and expressing a deep concern.
Before leaving, Raymond Burghardt met with reporters. He was tactful but direct. During his discussion with Chen Shui-bian, Chen reiterated his pledges to the US. The one pledge Washington took most seriously was his pledge that political power would be peacefully transferred in 2008.
Taiwan has already undergone a peaceful transfer of power. The Democratic Progressive Party bills itself as "democratic" and "progressive." It wrested power from the authoritarian KMT via the ballot box. Yet Washington repeatedly demanded that it provide assurances that "political power would be transferred peacefully." Isn't the DPP embarrassed? Leaks from the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Conference" alleged that for the sake of victory, Chen Shui-bian might even sacrifice the life of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh. Hsieh poo-pooed the possibility. But does Hsieh really trust Chen Shui-bian? Hsieh's campaign manager Lee Ying-yuan accused the Ma Ying-jeou camp of collecting comments Hsieh made on different occasions, then quoting them out of context to US officials. Lee accused the Ma camp of attempting to give US officials the impression that "Hsieh is just like Chen, someone who flip-flops constantly, therefore someone who cannot be trusted." Lee's remarks revealed that Hsieh was even more frustrated wtih Chen than he was with Ma.
Earlier this year, Chen Shui-bian pushed hard on his Plebiscite to Join the UN. The issue remains an unexploded bomb, buried in Taiwan's political landscape. Over this unexploded bomb, the US has repeatedly chastised Chen Shui-bian. Over this unexploded bomb, Chen Shui-bian feels compelled to ram through his single-stage balloting procedure. Because his single-stage balloting procedure has not met with acceptance by rank and file election officials, he is threatening to impose martial law, to "postpone" the legislative elections, to declare the election null and void. Chen's threat to impose martial law has provoked US anger. Yet Chen had the cheek to pass the buck to political pundits. The Central Election Committee, in accordance with Chen Shui-bian's wishes, delayed the codification of the single-stage vs. two-stage balloting procedure until one month before the election. According to the Central Election Committee's draft proposal, all sorts of changes are possible. The design of the polling stations may be changed, and even the results of the election may be withheld from voters. These arbitrary changes are like a giant stone pressing down on the hearts of ordinary citizens. Will there even be an election in January? If there is an election, will the Central Election Committee withhold the results? Will Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party acknowledge the validity of the results? Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party may be unwilling to accept the results, but the ongoing controversy tells us the public has already cast a vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party.
Why doesn't the US government trust Chen and the DPP? For the same reason that the public on Taiwan doesn't trust Chen and the DPP. Just look at the ruling regime's lawless behavior over the past year. Without Legislative Yuan approval, the Ministry of Education changed the name of the China Postal Service and the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial. In defiance of the will of a democratic majority, the Central Election Committee imposed a single-stage balloting procedure on every jurisdiction on the island. Interpreting the law as it saw fit, as any dictator might, it negated the jurisdiction and autonomy of local government. Its understanding of the Rule of Law is: "I'm the government, therefore what I say is the law." The Executive Yuan is preparing to assume direct control over the independent National Communications Commission. Does the ruling party really not understand that the dirty tricks it has pulled to ensure victory at the polls are trampling over constitutionalism and the rule of law? That the harm they are inflicting on others also harms themselves?
Today, everyone within a government nominally founded on the rule of law, is able to get away with violating the law or manipulating the law. Any law that benefits them is carved in granite. Any law that inconveniences them is flushed down the toilet. Are there any constitutional checks and balances that can restrain such a government? What kind of outrages is such a government free to commit? Does Chen Shui-bian have any dirty tricks planned for the upcoming elections? Only Chen bian knows for certain. How many dirty tricks does Chen have planned? The public on Taiwan had better wake up and find out!
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.18
為什麼選舉奧步的陰影揮之不去？
中時社論
美國在台協會主席薄瑞光與蕭萬長的一場「薄蕭密會」
，卻被民進黨立委莊和子爆出「陳水扁的選舉奧步」內幕；連日來，陳總統聲嘶力竭痛斥，「只有國民黨才會用選舉奧步」。但不論陳水扁如何澄清或撇清，明年的立委或總統大選「會不會有什麼意外」，早就是籠罩在台灣上空、揮之不去的陰霾了。
藍營對陳水扁的不信任，其來有自。可以說，四年前三一九兩顆子彈的傷痕猶未撫平；也可以說，這七年多來受了太多氣或吃了太多虧。民進黨大可譏笑國民黨有被 迫害妄想症，但卻不能不面對陳水扁已不被美國信任的現實。二千年政黨輪替前後，陳水扁曾經自豪是創造台美關係最高峰的國家領導人，曾幾何時，陳水扁在美國 政府眼中，卻成了會以製造台海衝突來影響選舉的人。
民進黨擅於操作選舉，眾所皆知，箇中翹楚，非扁莫屬。美國對陳水扁的高度疑慮，非始 自今日，更非「薄蕭密會」後才曝光，類似訊息，不必推得太遠，從上半年就陸續、不斷、直接、間接從美方人士口中說出。一直到薄瑞光於立委選舉前一個月來 台，親自走訪朝野政治領袖，他到底所為何來？薄瑞光並非「不識台灣事務」的人，他是經歷過九六台海危機的重要角色，他帶來的訊息、他關切的議題，莫不反映 某種意義。
薄瑞光在離台記者會中，含蓄但不隱諱地直言，在他和陳水扁的會談中，陳水扁曾反覆重申其承諾，而美國所非常重視的一項重要承諾即是：陳水扁保證政權可以和平轉移！
對已經有過政黨輪替經驗的台灣而言，對以民主進步自許、透過選舉打敗威權政黨的民進黨而言，「政權和平轉移」竟是一個需要一再重申的保證，這還不夠難堪 嗎？「薄蕭密會」外洩文件甚至直指，陳水扁可能為了勝選犧牲民進黨總統參選人謝長廷，謝長廷淡然以對，但是，問問謝長廷相信陳水扁嗎？謝總部執行總幹事李 應元一句批評馬營的話，或許反而真實反映謝對扁的隱痛無奈，李應元說，馬營經常性的搜集謝在各種場合的發言，並斷章取義後送給美國，為的就是要造成美國友 人的印象，「以為謝長廷和扁一樣，是個變來變去、不可信任的人」。
上半年，陳水扁硬推入聯公投，到現在還是台灣政局的未爆彈；為了這顆 未爆彈，陳水扁一再被美方人士痛批；為了這顆未爆彈，他非要在立委選舉之際硬推一階段投票；因為一階段不被多數基層選務人員接受，他又搞出戒嚴、延選、停 選、選舉無效等「思考的腹案」；戒嚴說讓美國跳腳後，扁竟將責任推給電視名嘴；一階段二階段爭議未了，中選會又秉持扁意志在選舉前一個月「籌畫延選條件法 制化」，根據中選會提出的草案，從變更投開票所到選舉結果不公告，都是造成延選的可能劇本，凡此種種，就像一塊大石頭壓住台灣人的心：元月分還有選舉嗎？ 即使選了會有結果嗎？即使有結果，陳水扁或民進黨肯承認嗎？陳水扁和民進黨可能不接受，但這一連串問號，其實已經對扁和民進黨投下否定票了。
為什麼美國政府不信任？台灣社會也懷疑？看看這一年來，執政當局到底做了什麼事，未經國會的正規法定民主程序，逕行為中華郵政和中正紀念堂更名、拆換牌； 中選會無視民主多數執意推行一階段領投票，甚至獨裁詮釋法令，否定地方選務的自治權限；如今同樣要跳過修法程序，準備以「法理論述」由行政院直接接管獨立 機關的國家傳播委員會；執政黨難道真的不知道一系列為勝選而無視民主法治程序的作法，其實就是奧步？傷人也會傷己？
當一個以法律人為主 所建構的政府，上上下下竟能如此違法玩法，法於己有利者則適用之，不利者則否定之，試問，還有什麼能約束制衡得了這個政府？一個約束制衡不了的政府，還有 什麼做不出來的事？陳水扁到底有沒有選舉奧步？陳水扁自己最清楚；而他還有多少選舉奧步？台灣人民可得張大眼睛，瞧清楚了！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2007
The details of the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Meeting" between American Insitute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt and KMT vice presidential candidate Vincent Hsiew were recently leaked to the press by Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker Sandy Yen. Details of "Chen Shui-bian's Dirty Tricks" have been emerging over the past several days. Chen Shui-bian has screamed himself hoarse saying "Only the Kuomintang uses dirty tricks during elections!" But no matter how Chen Shui-bian might try to feign innocence, the public doubts that next year's legislative and presidential elections will be incident free. A pall hangs over Taiwan and refuses to go away.
The Blue camp has ample reason to distrust Chen. The wounds from the 319 Shooting Incident of 2004 have yet to heal. For the past seven years the Blue camp has endured too many frustrations, too many insults. The Democratic Progressive Party might mock the Kuomintang and accuse it of having a persecution complex. But it must face the fact that the US no longer trusts Chen Shui-bian either. Following regime change in 2000, Chen Shui-bian boasted he was responsible for the closest relations ever between Taipei and Washington. Now, in Washington's eyes, Chen Shui-bian is the political figure most likely to make trouble for the US in the Taiwan Strait during the upcoming elections.
The Democratic Progressive Party knows how to win elections. The public knows this. It knows that the DPP is led by a highly capable campaign strategist -- none other than Chen himself. Washington's deep distrust of Chen Shui-bian did not begin yesterday. Nor was it revealed only after the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Meeting." Similar reports were leaked earlier this year, one after another, directly and indirectly, by US officials, culminating with Raymond Burghardt's arrival one month before the legislative elections. Why did Burghardt come? Why did he personally call on ruling and opposition political leaders? Raymond Burghardt is hardly unfamiliar with Taiwan. He experienced the 1996 Straits Crisis. He came because he was conveying an important message and expressing a deep concern.
Before leaving, Raymond Burghardt met with reporters. He was tactful but direct. During his discussion with Chen Shui-bian, Chen reiterated his pledges to the US. The one pledge Washington took most seriously was his pledge that political power would be peacefully transferred in 2008.
Taiwan has already undergone a peaceful transfer of power. The Democratic Progressive Party bills itself as "democratic" and "progressive." It wrested power from the authoritarian KMT via the ballot box. Yet Washington repeatedly demanded that it provide assurances that "political power would be transferred peacefully." Isn't the DPP embarrassed? Leaks from the "Secret Burghardt/Hsiew Conference" alleged that for the sake of victory, Chen Shui-bian might even sacrifice the life of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh. Hsieh poo-pooed the possibility. But does Hsieh really trust Chen Shui-bian? Hsieh's campaign manager Lee Ying-yuan accused the Ma Ying-jeou camp of collecting comments Hsieh made on different occasions, then quoting them out of context to US officials. Lee accused the Ma camp of attempting to give US officials the impression that "Hsieh is just like Chen, someone who flip-flops constantly, therefore someone who cannot be trusted." Lee's remarks revealed that Hsieh was even more frustrated wtih Chen than he was with Ma.
Earlier this year, Chen Shui-bian pushed hard on his Plebiscite to Join the UN. The issue remains an unexploded bomb, buried in Taiwan's political landscape. Over this unexploded bomb, the US has repeatedly chastised Chen Shui-bian. Over this unexploded bomb, Chen Shui-bian feels compelled to ram through his single-stage balloting procedure. Because his single-stage balloting procedure has not met with acceptance by rank and file election officials, he is threatening to impose martial law, to "postpone" the legislative elections, to declare the election null and void. Chen's threat to impose martial law has provoked US anger. Yet Chen had the cheek to pass the buck to political pundits. The Central Election Committee, in accordance with Chen Shui-bian's wishes, delayed the codification of the single-stage vs. two-stage balloting procedure until one month before the election. According to the Central Election Committee's draft proposal, all sorts of changes are possible. The design of the polling stations may be changed, and even the results of the election may be withheld from voters. These arbitrary changes are like a giant stone pressing down on the hearts of ordinary citizens. Will there even be an election in January? If there is an election, will the Central Election Committee withhold the results? Will Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party acknowledge the validity of the results? Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party may be unwilling to accept the results, but the ongoing controversy tells us the public has already cast a vote of non-confidence in Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party.
Why doesn't the US government trust Chen and the DPP? For the same reason that the public on Taiwan doesn't trust Chen and the DPP. Just look at the ruling regime's lawless behavior over the past year. Without Legislative Yuan approval, the Ministry of Education changed the name of the China Postal Service and the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial. In defiance of the will of a democratic majority, the Central Election Committee imposed a single-stage balloting procedure on every jurisdiction on the island. Interpreting the law as it saw fit, as any dictator might, it negated the jurisdiction and autonomy of local government. Its understanding of the Rule of Law is: "I'm the government, therefore what I say is the law." The Executive Yuan is preparing to assume direct control over the independent National Communications Commission. Does the ruling party really not understand that the dirty tricks it has pulled to ensure victory at the polls are trampling over constitutionalism and the rule of law? That the harm they are inflicting on others also harms themselves?
Today, everyone within a government nominally founded on the rule of law, is able to get away with violating the law or manipulating the law. Any law that benefits them is carved in granite. Any law that inconveniences them is flushed down the toilet. Are there any constitutional checks and balances that can restrain such a government? What kind of outrages is such a government free to commit? Does Chen Shui-bian have any dirty tricks planned for the upcoming elections? Only Chen bian knows for certain. How many dirty tricks does Chen have planned? The public on Taiwan had better wake up and find out!
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.18
為什麼選舉奧步的陰影揮之不去？
中時社論
美國在台協會主席薄瑞光與蕭萬長的一場「薄蕭密會」
，卻被民進黨立委莊和子爆出「陳水扁的選舉奧步」內幕；連日來，陳總統聲嘶力竭痛斥，「只有國民黨才會用選舉奧步」。但不論陳水扁如何澄清或撇清，明年的立委或總統大選「會不會有什麼意外」，早就是籠罩在台灣上空、揮之不去的陰霾了。
藍營對陳水扁的不信任，其來有自。可以說，四年前三一九兩顆子彈的傷痕猶未撫平；也可以說，這七年多來受了太多氣或吃了太多虧。民進黨大可譏笑國民黨有被 迫害妄想症，但卻不能不面對陳水扁已不被美國信任的現實。二千年政黨輪替前後，陳水扁曾經自豪是創造台美關係最高峰的國家領導人，曾幾何時，陳水扁在美國 政府眼中，卻成了會以製造台海衝突來影響選舉的人。
民進黨擅於操作選舉，眾所皆知，箇中翹楚，非扁莫屬。美國對陳水扁的高度疑慮，非始 自今日，更非「薄蕭密會」後才曝光，類似訊息，不必推得太遠，從上半年就陸續、不斷、直接、間接從美方人士口中說出。一直到薄瑞光於立委選舉前一個月來 台，親自走訪朝野政治領袖，他到底所為何來？薄瑞光並非「不識台灣事務」的人，他是經歷過九六台海危機的重要角色，他帶來的訊息、他關切的議題，莫不反映 某種意義。
薄瑞光在離台記者會中，含蓄但不隱諱地直言，在他和陳水扁的會談中，陳水扁曾反覆重申其承諾，而美國所非常重視的一項重要承諾即是：陳水扁保證政權可以和平轉移！
對已經有過政黨輪替經驗的台灣而言，對以民主進步自許、透過選舉打敗威權政黨的民進黨而言，「政權和平轉移」竟是一個需要一再重申的保證，這還不夠難堪 嗎？「薄蕭密會」外洩文件甚至直指，陳水扁可能為了勝選犧牲民進黨總統參選人謝長廷，謝長廷淡然以對，但是，問問謝長廷相信陳水扁嗎？謝總部執行總幹事李 應元一句批評馬營的話，或許反而真實反映謝對扁的隱痛無奈，李應元說，馬營經常性的搜集謝在各種場合的發言，並斷章取義後送給美國，為的就是要造成美國友 人的印象，「以為謝長廷和扁一樣，是個變來變去、不可信任的人」。
上半年，陳水扁硬推入聯公投，到現在還是台灣政局的未爆彈；為了這顆 未爆彈，陳水扁一再被美方人士痛批；為了這顆未爆彈，他非要在立委選舉之際硬推一階段投票；因為一階段不被多數基層選務人員接受，他又搞出戒嚴、延選、停 選、選舉無效等「思考的腹案」；戒嚴說讓美國跳腳後，扁竟將責任推給電視名嘴；一階段二階段爭議未了，中選會又秉持扁意志在選舉前一個月「籌畫延選條件法 制化」，根據中選會提出的草案，從變更投開票所到選舉結果不公告，都是造成延選的可能劇本，凡此種種，就像一塊大石頭壓住台灣人的心：元月分還有選舉嗎？ 即使選了會有結果嗎？即使有結果，陳水扁或民進黨肯承認嗎？陳水扁和民進黨可能不接受，但這一連串問號，其實已經對扁和民進黨投下否定票了。
為什麼美國政府不信任？台灣社會也懷疑？看看這一年來，執政當局到底做了什麼事，未經國會的正規法定民主程序，逕行為中華郵政和中正紀念堂更名、拆換牌； 中選會無視民主多數執意推行一階段領投票，甚至獨裁詮釋法令，否定地方選務的自治權限；如今同樣要跳過修法程序，準備以「法理論述」由行政院直接接管獨立 機關的國家傳播委員會；執政黨難道真的不知道一系列為勝選而無視民主法治程序的作法，其實就是奧步？傷人也會傷己？
當一個以法律人為主 所建構的政府，上上下下竟能如此違法玩法，法於己有利者則適用之，不利者則否定之，試問，還有什麼能約束制衡得了這個政府？一個約束制衡不了的政府，還有 什麼做不出來的事？陳水扁到底有沒有選舉奧步？陳水扁自己最清楚；而他還有多少選舉奧步？台灣人民可得張大眼睛，瞧清楚了！
Monday, December 17, 2007
Reclaiming a Diverse, Open, and Tolerant Taiwan
Reclaiming a Diverse, Open, and Tolerant Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2007
In order to discern Taiwan's future and promote Taiwan's social and economic development, the China Times Cultural and Educational Foundation convened a two-day long, closed-door seminar for over a dozen scholars and experts from the humanities and social sciences. These scholars and experts asked a wide range of hard questions about Taiwan's political, cultural, economic, and environmental trends. At a moment when election banners have blotted out the sky, some might consider the timing of such questions inopportune. But if the people on Taiwan are to extricate themselves from their current plight, asking such questions is essential.
The people on Taiwan cannot stop the world because they want to get off. They cannot ignore the rapid transformation of the Chinese mainland and East Asia. Taiwan's declining competitiveness and escalating economic polarization is the direct result of this regional and international transformation. Taiwan's society must not be subjected to continual divisions. The collective experiences and shared memories of different generations and different community groups represent Taiwan's precious diversity. They must not be treated as means of dividing people at election time. Furthermore, the moral accountability of a civil society established by democratic reforms must not be trampled under foot by a handful of politicians. These issues directly affect Taiwan's destiny. Yet consideration of such issues is grossly neglected on today's Taiwan.
Many concepts must be restored to their original meanings. Transitional Justice, for example, has been milked for all it is worth on Taiwan. Transitional Justice originally meant "truth and reconciliation." It meant uncovering the truth about the past in order to promote reconciliation in the present, including the truth about the 228 Incident, the White Terror, "Nativization," and the legacy of the Two Chiangs. Transitional Justice was once a serious issue. But a handful of politicians have debased it by turning it into a rationalization for exacting revenge or winning votes. Transitional justice has not been realized. It has been perverted.
With the lifting of martial law and media controls, with the amending of the constitution and the passage of political reforms, democracy on Taiwan earned high marks for safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law. But when the time came for democracy to pass its severest test -- regime change -- the new regime's flagrantly anti-democratic proclivities tendencies cast a pall over the landscape. Ominous hints that the new regime might reimpose martial law, "postpone" regular elections, replace duly elected civilian leaders with military commanders, and resort to dirty tricks, filled the air and occupied peoples' thoughts. The new regime incited "ethnic" opposition (more precisely, communal strife), undermined constitutional rule, ignored demands for moral accountability, demonstrated its contempt for due process, pigeonholed citizens according to partisan labels, resorted to populist demagoguery, used coarse language, filling many with dread and leaving them dubious about the viability of Taiwan's democracy.
What role should intellectuals fulfill during such a process? Many intellectuals who championed new thinking during martial law, who midwifed the new political order, have fallen strangely silent and lost all desire to criticize the Nouvelle Regime. As a result, Taiwan's "lively, thriving, vibrant" democracy no longer has any effective checks and balances. Many intellectuals have been bought off and become part of the ruling nomenklatura. Others cannot bring themselves to criticize their erstwhile comrades. The vanishingly small minority that dares to criticize, is subjected to McCarthyite smears. As a result, just when society most desperately needs intellectuals with the courage to speak truth to power, they are conspicuous by their absence. Will intellectuals on Taiwan ever redeem themselves? Will they ever resume their role as society's conscience? That is an excellent question.
Today, election considerations trump all else. Everything we see and hear is motivated by short term expediency. Inciting polarization between "us" and "them" wins votes. Shouting abuses replaces rational debate. Politicians and pundits monopolize the public fora. Concern for the larger historical context, for a global outlook, for the universal values of truth and justice, have all been relegated to the margins. This is what ails Taiwan.
Two days is hardly enough time to find answers for so many perplexing problems, or to arrive at any firm conclusions. But no matter how complex or controversial the issue, rational dialog and mutual respect are essential. A democratic, enduring, open, diverse, and tolerant Taiwan must not remain a hollow dream. It must become an achievable goal.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.17
重拾一個多元、開放與包容的台灣
中時社論
為了替台灣下一階段永續經營與社會發展思索方向，時報文教基金會日前特別邀集十數位來自人文、社會科學相關領域的學者專家，閉門舉行為期兩天的研討會，就 台灣當前的政治、經濟、文化、環境等所爭議與糾葛的若干議題，進行深層的反省與廣泛的對話，並嘗試梳理出若干出路。值此選舉喧囂鋪天蓋地的時刻，重拾對這 些問題的關注或許有些不合時宜，但我們始終認為，要讓台灣走出困局，讓相關課題重回公共討論的平台，恐怕是必要踏出的一步。
要知道，當 下的台灣不可能自外於全球化的浪潮，也不可能完全忽視東亞與中國正在進行的劇烈變革，畢竟台灣的競爭力與社會分配的兩極化，正是與這個外環境的變革糾纏在 一起；同樣的，當下的台灣社會也實在不能再被持續的切割與對立，畢竟不同世代或族群的認同或記憶，該是象徵台灣多樣與多元的珍貴資產，不是在選舉操作中不 斷被用來為撕扯的工具；更有甚者，藉由民主轉型所辛勤打造出的公民社會與責任倫理，實在不能再讓少數政客的操弄與踐踏，就輕易的給摧毀掉了。這些林林總總 的課題，其實都與台灣未來的命運息息相關，但圍繞這些問題的思考與對話，卻在當下的台灣被嚴重忽略。
我們發現，許多議題在經過對話後， 逐漸就能夠還原其真義。以最近在台灣被過度消費的「轉型正義」為例，在最早被提出時原本旨在正面看待台灣的歷史過往，包括二二八、白色恐怖、本土化、兩蔣 評價等在內，期盼能藉以重建台灣社會的和解與包容，本是具有相當嚴肅時代意義的概念，然而這組理念在被部分政治人物收編為口號之後，很快的就淪為操作政治 報復的廉價修辭，甚至是算計選票多寡的工具。結果「轉型正義」的實踐不僅未見落實，原始的精神卻遭嚴重扭曲與摧毀。
同樣的，台灣在歷經 解嚴、開放黨禁報禁、修憲等改革進程後，原本在民主、法治、人權保障的成就上已經享有極高的評價，卻在跨過民主化進程最關鍵的門檻│ 政黨輪替後開始面臨嚴酷考驗，包括國族認同的紛歧、憲政體制的紊亂、責任倫理的淪喪、程序正義的破壞、黨派識別的標籤、民粹動員的操作、政治語言的粗 鄙……等都讓許多人對台灣的民主現狀感到不滿，甚至是彌漫著焦慮與畏懼，若干明顯反民主的陰影，如戒嚴、延選、軍管、操作奧步等傳言，已經開始飄浮在台灣 的輿論氛圍中，怎麼重拾台灣社會對民主基本理念的信守，恐怕已是刻不容緩。
當然在這個過程中，知識分子究竟該扮演怎樣的角色，也值得進 一步的思索。不諱言說，不少原本在戒嚴期間積極扮演觀念啟蒙、改革催生甚至行動參與的知識分子，很弔詭的在政黨輪替後陸續陷入進退維谷的境地，逐漸喪失對 既有體制的批判與制衡能量，甚至根本選擇噤聲不語。結果這股在台灣原本最蓬勃的批判力量，竟然在政黨輪替後逐漸沉寂，導致這種情境的因素有多端，有的是被 收編成為體制內的一部分、有的則是礙於昔日情誼不忍苛責，少數還敢於堅持批判者則被扣上各種帽子，結果在當下最需要知識分子站出來匡正時弊的亂局中，這股 力量卻缺席了。而台灣知識分子究竟該怎麼重拾這股批判力量，絕對是需要嚴肅對待的課題。
值此選舉考量凌駕一切的時代氛圍中，彌漫於社會 視聽空間的議題，舉目所見皆短線操作、區分敵我、擴大對立、情緒渲染的語言，罵街式叫囂取代了理性的對話，政客與媒體名嘴壟斷了輿論的發言位置，屬於更高 層次的議題，例如對全球化視野之觀照、對大歷史意識的反省、對普世價值的信守、對公義理念追尋等，都被推擠到邊緣的位置上，這種輕忽的本身或許也是台灣的 所面臨的危機之一。
兩天的研討當然不可能為許多難題找到答案，也不易獲致清晰肯定的結論，但透過研討也終究發現，再複雜敏感的爭議，都可在理性溝通中獲致彼此的理解與尊重，一個民主、永續、開放、多元、包容的台灣，不該僅只是個夢想，而是本來就可藉由實踐就能達到的目標。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2007
In order to discern Taiwan's future and promote Taiwan's social and economic development, the China Times Cultural and Educational Foundation convened a two-day long, closed-door seminar for over a dozen scholars and experts from the humanities and social sciences. These scholars and experts asked a wide range of hard questions about Taiwan's political, cultural, economic, and environmental trends. At a moment when election banners have blotted out the sky, some might consider the timing of such questions inopportune. But if the people on Taiwan are to extricate themselves from their current plight, asking such questions is essential.
The people on Taiwan cannot stop the world because they want to get off. They cannot ignore the rapid transformation of the Chinese mainland and East Asia. Taiwan's declining competitiveness and escalating economic polarization is the direct result of this regional and international transformation. Taiwan's society must not be subjected to continual divisions. The collective experiences and shared memories of different generations and different community groups represent Taiwan's precious diversity. They must not be treated as means of dividing people at election time. Furthermore, the moral accountability of a civil society established by democratic reforms must not be trampled under foot by a handful of politicians. These issues directly affect Taiwan's destiny. Yet consideration of such issues is grossly neglected on today's Taiwan.
Many concepts must be restored to their original meanings. Transitional Justice, for example, has been milked for all it is worth on Taiwan. Transitional Justice originally meant "truth and reconciliation." It meant uncovering the truth about the past in order to promote reconciliation in the present, including the truth about the 228 Incident, the White Terror, "Nativization," and the legacy of the Two Chiangs. Transitional Justice was once a serious issue. But a handful of politicians have debased it by turning it into a rationalization for exacting revenge or winning votes. Transitional justice has not been realized. It has been perverted.
With the lifting of martial law and media controls, with the amending of the constitution and the passage of political reforms, democracy on Taiwan earned high marks for safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law. But when the time came for democracy to pass its severest test -- regime change -- the new regime's flagrantly anti-democratic proclivities tendencies cast a pall over the landscape. Ominous hints that the new regime might reimpose martial law, "postpone" regular elections, replace duly elected civilian leaders with military commanders, and resort to dirty tricks, filled the air and occupied peoples' thoughts. The new regime incited "ethnic" opposition (more precisely, communal strife), undermined constitutional rule, ignored demands for moral accountability, demonstrated its contempt for due process, pigeonholed citizens according to partisan labels, resorted to populist demagoguery, used coarse language, filling many with dread and leaving them dubious about the viability of Taiwan's democracy.
What role should intellectuals fulfill during such a process? Many intellectuals who championed new thinking during martial law, who midwifed the new political order, have fallen strangely silent and lost all desire to criticize the Nouvelle Regime. As a result, Taiwan's "lively, thriving, vibrant" democracy no longer has any effective checks and balances. Many intellectuals have been bought off and become part of the ruling nomenklatura. Others cannot bring themselves to criticize their erstwhile comrades. The vanishingly small minority that dares to criticize, is subjected to McCarthyite smears. As a result, just when society most desperately needs intellectuals with the courage to speak truth to power, they are conspicuous by their absence. Will intellectuals on Taiwan ever redeem themselves? Will they ever resume their role as society's conscience? That is an excellent question.
Today, election considerations trump all else. Everything we see and hear is motivated by short term expediency. Inciting polarization between "us" and "them" wins votes. Shouting abuses replaces rational debate. Politicians and pundits monopolize the public fora. Concern for the larger historical context, for a global outlook, for the universal values of truth and justice, have all been relegated to the margins. This is what ails Taiwan.
Two days is hardly enough time to find answers for so many perplexing problems, or to arrive at any firm conclusions. But no matter how complex or controversial the issue, rational dialog and mutual respect are essential. A democratic, enduring, open, diverse, and tolerant Taiwan must not remain a hollow dream. It must become an achievable goal.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.17
重拾一個多元、開放與包容的台灣
中時社論
為了替台灣下一階段永續經營與社會發展思索方向，時報文教基金會日前特別邀集十數位來自人文、社會科學相關領域的學者專家，閉門舉行為期兩天的研討會，就 台灣當前的政治、經濟、文化、環境等所爭議與糾葛的若干議題，進行深層的反省與廣泛的對話，並嘗試梳理出若干出路。值此選舉喧囂鋪天蓋地的時刻，重拾對這 些問題的關注或許有些不合時宜，但我們始終認為，要讓台灣走出困局，讓相關課題重回公共討論的平台，恐怕是必要踏出的一步。
要知道，當 下的台灣不可能自外於全球化的浪潮，也不可能完全忽視東亞與中國正在進行的劇烈變革，畢竟台灣的競爭力與社會分配的兩極化，正是與這個外環境的變革糾纏在 一起；同樣的，當下的台灣社會也實在不能再被持續的切割與對立，畢竟不同世代或族群的認同或記憶，該是象徵台灣多樣與多元的珍貴資產，不是在選舉操作中不 斷被用來為撕扯的工具；更有甚者，藉由民主轉型所辛勤打造出的公民社會與責任倫理，實在不能再讓少數政客的操弄與踐踏，就輕易的給摧毀掉了。這些林林總總 的課題，其實都與台灣未來的命運息息相關，但圍繞這些問題的思考與對話，卻在當下的台灣被嚴重忽略。
我們發現，許多議題在經過對話後， 逐漸就能夠還原其真義。以最近在台灣被過度消費的「轉型正義」為例，在最早被提出時原本旨在正面看待台灣的歷史過往，包括二二八、白色恐怖、本土化、兩蔣 評價等在內，期盼能藉以重建台灣社會的和解與包容，本是具有相當嚴肅時代意義的概念，然而這組理念在被部分政治人物收編為口號之後，很快的就淪為操作政治 報復的廉價修辭，甚至是算計選票多寡的工具。結果「轉型正義」的實踐不僅未見落實，原始的精神卻遭嚴重扭曲與摧毀。
同樣的，台灣在歷經 解嚴、開放黨禁報禁、修憲等改革進程後，原本在民主、法治、人權保障的成就上已經享有極高的評價，卻在跨過民主化進程最關鍵的門檻│ 政黨輪替後開始面臨嚴酷考驗，包括國族認同的紛歧、憲政體制的紊亂、責任倫理的淪喪、程序正義的破壞、黨派識別的標籤、民粹動員的操作、政治語言的粗 鄙……等都讓許多人對台灣的民主現狀感到不滿，甚至是彌漫著焦慮與畏懼，若干明顯反民主的陰影，如戒嚴、延選、軍管、操作奧步等傳言，已經開始飄浮在台灣 的輿論氛圍中，怎麼重拾台灣社會對民主基本理念的信守，恐怕已是刻不容緩。
當然在這個過程中，知識分子究竟該扮演怎樣的角色，也值得進 一步的思索。不諱言說，不少原本在戒嚴期間積極扮演觀念啟蒙、改革催生甚至行動參與的知識分子，很弔詭的在政黨輪替後陸續陷入進退維谷的境地，逐漸喪失對 既有體制的批判與制衡能量，甚至根本選擇噤聲不語。結果這股在台灣原本最蓬勃的批判力量，竟然在政黨輪替後逐漸沉寂，導致這種情境的因素有多端，有的是被 收編成為體制內的一部分、有的則是礙於昔日情誼不忍苛責，少數還敢於堅持批判者則被扣上各種帽子，結果在當下最需要知識分子站出來匡正時弊的亂局中，這股 力量卻缺席了。而台灣知識分子究竟該怎麼重拾這股批判力量，絕對是需要嚴肅對待的課題。
值此選舉考量凌駕一切的時代氛圍中，彌漫於社會 視聽空間的議題，舉目所見皆短線操作、區分敵我、擴大對立、情緒渲染的語言，罵街式叫囂取代了理性的對話，政客與媒體名嘴壟斷了輿論的發言位置，屬於更高 層次的議題，例如對全球化視野之觀照、對大歷史意識的反省、對普世價值的信守、對公義理念追尋等，都被推擠到邊緣的位置上，這種輕忽的本身或許也是台灣的 所面臨的危機之一。
兩天的研討當然不可能為許多難題找到答案，也不易獲致清晰肯定的結論，但透過研討也終究發現，再複雜敏感的爭議，都可在理性溝通中獲致彼此的理解與尊重，一個民主、永續、開放、多元、包容的台灣，不該僅只是個夢想，而是本來就可藉由實踐就能達到的目標。
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Election may not be "Postponed"
The Election may not be "Postponed"
China Times editoral (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 13, 2007
When the Associated Press interviewed Chen Shui-bian the other day, he solemnly promised that "The legislative and presidential elections will be held as scheduled." But the Central Election Committee suddenly began making noises about "emergency measures in the event of a natural disaster or other force majeure circumstances on the eve of the election," leaving one with an uneasy sense of dread. Sure enough, the scenario we most feared has materialized.
Frankly, we aren't really worried about Chen declaring martial law, because he doesn't dare. Nor are we worried that the Plebiscite to Join the UN will nullify his "Five Noes" pledge. After all, given relentless pressure from Washington, whether a majority of the voters participate in the plebiscite, or whether the plebiscite passes, is irrelevant. What worries us is that everyones' attention is focused on the controversy over martial law and the Plebiscite to Join the UN. Everyone is neglecting the possibility that Chen may "postpone" the election. This scenario, which Washington may permit Chen to get away with, is Chen's most realistic means of remaining in office and avoiding prosecution.
We are concerned about several issues: First, Chen Shui-bian did indeed say that "Some people have suggested postponing the election." Because he mentioned this the same time he dropped his "martial law" bombshell, the impact was diluted, and it went unnoticed. Public attention was focused elsewhere, and the prospect that the election might be "postponed" was given a free pass. Secondly, why did the Central Election Committee raise this issue now, and not earlier or later? Why did it choose this moment to mention "emergency measures in the event of force majeure circumstances?" Since the ROC lifted martial law two decades ago, it has held dozens of major and minor elections. It has encountered every kind of natural disaster in the interim. What's so special about the two elections next year? Is something going to happen that existing laws cannot cope with? What exactly does the Chen regime mean by "other force majeure circumstances"? Are we really supposed to believe that it isn't up to its usual tricks?
Now think back. Why did Chen Shui-bian deliberately mention "postponing" the election as an option he was considering? Why did he mention it in the same breath as "declaring martial law?" Could it be that he was resorting to "diversionary tactics?" His "martial law" bombshell got everyones' attention. Martial law is not feasilbe. But "postponing" the election is. And maybe "postponing" the election he wanted all along. For example, the legislative election might be postponed and held on the same day as the presidential election. Don't assume it's impossible. On today's Taiwan, given Chen Shui-bian's lawlessness, nothing is impossible?
Besides, the holding of regular elections is something that we ought to be able to take for granted. Any responsible ruling party has a duty to ensure that elections are exempt from interference. Assuming that's the case, why did Chen make such a show of assuring Associated Press reporters that "Of course the legislative and presidential elections will be held as scheduled?" Why did a routine matter require such special assurances?
First Chen Shui-bian dropped a hint that "Some people have suggested postponing the election." Then he guaranteed that the election "would be held as scheduled." Then the Central Election Committee made funny noises about "emergency measures in the event of a natural disaster or other force majeure circumstances on the eve of the election." All this adds up to a sneaking suspicion that behind all of Chen's talk of "postponing the election," he has a hidden agenda.
The Blue and Green camps have yet to agree on whether to adopt a single stage or two stage balloting procedure. And in the short term, it does not appear that they will. Only one month remains before election day. Time is growing short, and room for compromise is diminishing. The prospect of a "one country, two systems" balloting procedure may be unavoidable. But isn't that precisely what Chen Shui-bian had in mind with his tough talk of "declaring martial law" and "postponing the election?" The situation remains unresolved. Martial law, as we have noted, is impossible. But "postponing the election" is not. As long as Chen can take advantage of the dispute over the balloting procedure, and allege that it constitutes some sort of "force majeure circumstance," anything is possible.
We hope that our concerns are unwarranted, that our speculations are illusory, and that the rumors are untrue. The Central Election Committee must explain to the nation why they raised the spectre of unspecified "force majeure circumstances" at such a sensitive moment. Absent any convincing reasons, they must immediately desist from such provocations. Prevailing election laws ought to adequate to deal with any eventualities. The Central Election Committee, an agency charged with policing elections, must not become a criminal guilty of sabotaging elections!
The ruling party must assure the public, not the foreign media, that it will hold the legislative and presidential elections, as scheduled, regardless of whether the Plebiscite to Join the UN is "package dealed" with the presidential election, and regardless of whether the controversy over the balloting procedure is resolved. That is its duty. If the Central Election Committee and the ruling party are unwilling to provide such an assurance, then the citizens of the nation cannot be blamed for sharing our concerns.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.13
小心！別讓延後選舉弄假成真！
中時社論
儘管陳總統日前在接受美聯社專訪時，鄭重宣布「一定如期舉行立委與總統大選」，但隨著中選會傳出正在著手研擬「選舉投票日前投開票當日發生天災或其他不可抗力情事處理辦法」，立即令人有某種不詳的預感，我們一直以來最擔憂的事，似乎真的悄悄在浮現了。
說得直接一點，我們其實並不擔心陳總統會宣布戒嚴，因為他確實不敢；我們其實也並不擔憂入聯公投會不會衝擊所謂「四不」承諾，畢竟在美國華府不斷加壓關切 下，選民數過不過得半，公投案成不成得了案都還是問題。我們反倒擔心的是，大家太將注意力集中在戒嚴說以及入聯公投上，反而忽略了「延後選舉」這個變數， 因為這個選項或許是所有劇本中既能避免激怒美國華府，又最具可操作性的方案。
我們的擔憂來自幾個方面：首先，陳水扁確實提過「有人建議 延後選舉」，這個說法在提出的同時因為恰好與戒嚴說並置而被沖淡，整個輿論關注焦點也全被轉移，「延後選舉」的可能性就這麼被忽略了；其次，中選會為什麼 早不研擬，晚不研擬，偏偏選這個時機突然要研擬什麼投開票日不可抗力情事處理辦法？台灣從戒嚴走到解嚴，辦了幾十年的大小選舉，什麼大風大浪沒遭遇過？明 年即將到來這兩次的選舉有非常特別嗎？有可能會發生現行法令完全無從處理的狀況嗎？什麼叫做「其他不可抗力情事」？這難道不是在暗示或預期什麼嗎？
現在再回頭想想，當初陳水扁為何刻意要將「延後選舉」列為慎重考慮的方案之一？特別是將之與「宣布戒嚴」放在一起提，是不是有所謂「聲東擊西」的寓意？戒 嚴說固然吸引大多數人的關注，但可行性畢竟不高，但「延後選舉」可能才是真正想要的結果！譬如說，將立委選舉延後到與總統選舉同時舉行，有沒有這種可能？ 千萬別說絕對不可能，現時的台灣，以陳水扁的操作風格，還有什麼事是一定不可能發生的？
更何況，定期舉行各項選舉，本來就是不需要再去 懷疑的基本原則，任何一個負責任的執政黨，都有義務要讓選舉在不受任何干預的情形下順利舉行，不是嗎？既然如此，那麼陳總統為什麼還刻意要向美聯社記者保 證「一定如期舉行立委與總統大選」？一個原本就該遵守的本分，幹嘛還要特別加以保證呢？
從陳水扁先放言「有人建議要延後選舉」，繼之又保證讓選舉「如期舉行」，再加上中選會沒來由的突然傳出在研擬什麼投開票日不可抗力情事處理辦法，種種跡象加總起來，都讓我們忍不住懷疑，難道前一陣子甚囂塵上的「延後選舉」傳言，確實是有所本？
至少到此刻為止，藍綠陣營都還未在領投票應採一階段還是二階段上取得共識，而且也看不出這個爭議在短期內有獲得共識的跡象，而距離投票日就剩下一個月了， 想也知道隨著時程愈近，雙方讓步的空間也就愈小，換言之，非常有可能投開票「一國兩制」的情況就這麼無從避免了。而當初陳水扁會放出慎重考慮「戒嚴」、 「延後選舉」的狠話，不就是衝著這個狀況嗎？如今這個狀況並未解決，戒嚴說既已不可能，祭出「延後選舉」為什麼不可能？只要藉著領投票爭議鬧出衝突，要塑 造出某種人為的「不可抗力情事」，有什麼不可能？
我們但願一切的顧慮都是多餘的，一切的猜測都是子虛烏有的，一切的傳言都是胡說八道 的。但我們此刻非常需要中選會向全國民眾交代清楚，有什麼特別的考量，要在這個敏感的時刻研擬什麼不可抗力情事處理辦法？如果沒有特別必要，請立即停止這 個耐人尋味的做為，現有的選罷法應該可以處理所有狀況了，請中選會千萬別讓辦選務的機關，淪為摧毀選舉的幫凶！
我們也需要執政黨再一次的做保證，不是去對外國媒體保證，而是向全國的百姓做承諾，不論公投綁不綁得了大選，不論投開票爭議能否獲得解決，都將如期舉行立委與總統大選，這是義務，也是本分！如果中選會與執政黨不願表態或承諾，那麼請全國民眾千萬要正視我們的憂慮！
China Times editoral (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 13, 2007
When the Associated Press interviewed Chen Shui-bian the other day, he solemnly promised that "The legislative and presidential elections will be held as scheduled." But the Central Election Committee suddenly began making noises about "emergency measures in the event of a natural disaster or other force majeure circumstances on the eve of the election," leaving one with an uneasy sense of dread. Sure enough, the scenario we most feared has materialized.
Frankly, we aren't really worried about Chen declaring martial law, because he doesn't dare. Nor are we worried that the Plebiscite to Join the UN will nullify his "Five Noes" pledge. After all, given relentless pressure from Washington, whether a majority of the voters participate in the plebiscite, or whether the plebiscite passes, is irrelevant. What worries us is that everyones' attention is focused on the controversy over martial law and the Plebiscite to Join the UN. Everyone is neglecting the possibility that Chen may "postpone" the election. This scenario, which Washington may permit Chen to get away with, is Chen's most realistic means of remaining in office and avoiding prosecution.
We are concerned about several issues: First, Chen Shui-bian did indeed say that "Some people have suggested postponing the election." Because he mentioned this the same time he dropped his "martial law" bombshell, the impact was diluted, and it went unnoticed. Public attention was focused elsewhere, and the prospect that the election might be "postponed" was given a free pass. Secondly, why did the Central Election Committee raise this issue now, and not earlier or later? Why did it choose this moment to mention "emergency measures in the event of force majeure circumstances?" Since the ROC lifted martial law two decades ago, it has held dozens of major and minor elections. It has encountered every kind of natural disaster in the interim. What's so special about the two elections next year? Is something going to happen that existing laws cannot cope with? What exactly does the Chen regime mean by "other force majeure circumstances"? Are we really supposed to believe that it isn't up to its usual tricks?
Now think back. Why did Chen Shui-bian deliberately mention "postponing" the election as an option he was considering? Why did he mention it in the same breath as "declaring martial law?" Could it be that he was resorting to "diversionary tactics?" His "martial law" bombshell got everyones' attention. Martial law is not feasilbe. But "postponing" the election is. And maybe "postponing" the election he wanted all along. For example, the legislative election might be postponed and held on the same day as the presidential election. Don't assume it's impossible. On today's Taiwan, given Chen Shui-bian's lawlessness, nothing is impossible?
Besides, the holding of regular elections is something that we ought to be able to take for granted. Any responsible ruling party has a duty to ensure that elections are exempt from interference. Assuming that's the case, why did Chen make such a show of assuring Associated Press reporters that "Of course the legislative and presidential elections will be held as scheduled?" Why did a routine matter require such special assurances?
First Chen Shui-bian dropped a hint that "Some people have suggested postponing the election." Then he guaranteed that the election "would be held as scheduled." Then the Central Election Committee made funny noises about "emergency measures in the event of a natural disaster or other force majeure circumstances on the eve of the election." All this adds up to a sneaking suspicion that behind all of Chen's talk of "postponing the election," he has a hidden agenda.
The Blue and Green camps have yet to agree on whether to adopt a single stage or two stage balloting procedure. And in the short term, it does not appear that they will. Only one month remains before election day. Time is growing short, and room for compromise is diminishing. The prospect of a "one country, two systems" balloting procedure may be unavoidable. But isn't that precisely what Chen Shui-bian had in mind with his tough talk of "declaring martial law" and "postponing the election?" The situation remains unresolved. Martial law, as we have noted, is impossible. But "postponing the election" is not. As long as Chen can take advantage of the dispute over the balloting procedure, and allege that it constitutes some sort of "force majeure circumstance," anything is possible.
We hope that our concerns are unwarranted, that our speculations are illusory, and that the rumors are untrue. The Central Election Committee must explain to the nation why they raised the spectre of unspecified "force majeure circumstances" at such a sensitive moment. Absent any convincing reasons, they must immediately desist from such provocations. Prevailing election laws ought to adequate to deal with any eventualities. The Central Election Committee, an agency charged with policing elections, must not become a criminal guilty of sabotaging elections!
The ruling party must assure the public, not the foreign media, that it will hold the legislative and presidential elections, as scheduled, regardless of whether the Plebiscite to Join the UN is "package dealed" with the presidential election, and regardless of whether the controversy over the balloting procedure is resolved. That is its duty. If the Central Election Committee and the ruling party are unwilling to provide such an assurance, then the citizens of the nation cannot be blamed for sharing our concerns.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.13
小心！別讓延後選舉弄假成真！
中時社論
儘管陳總統日前在接受美聯社專訪時，鄭重宣布「一定如期舉行立委與總統大選」，但隨著中選會傳出正在著手研擬「選舉投票日前投開票當日發生天災或其他不可抗力情事處理辦法」，立即令人有某種不詳的預感，我們一直以來最擔憂的事，似乎真的悄悄在浮現了。
說得直接一點，我們其實並不擔心陳總統會宣布戒嚴，因為他確實不敢；我們其實也並不擔憂入聯公投會不會衝擊所謂「四不」承諾，畢竟在美國華府不斷加壓關切 下，選民數過不過得半，公投案成不成得了案都還是問題。我們反倒擔心的是，大家太將注意力集中在戒嚴說以及入聯公投上，反而忽略了「延後選舉」這個變數， 因為這個選項或許是所有劇本中既能避免激怒美國華府，又最具可操作性的方案。
我們的擔憂來自幾個方面：首先，陳水扁確實提過「有人建議 延後選舉」，這個說法在提出的同時因為恰好與戒嚴說並置而被沖淡，整個輿論關注焦點也全被轉移，「延後選舉」的可能性就這麼被忽略了；其次，中選會為什麼 早不研擬，晚不研擬，偏偏選這個時機突然要研擬什麼投開票日不可抗力情事處理辦法？台灣從戒嚴走到解嚴，辦了幾十年的大小選舉，什麼大風大浪沒遭遇過？明 年即將到來這兩次的選舉有非常特別嗎？有可能會發生現行法令完全無從處理的狀況嗎？什麼叫做「其他不可抗力情事」？這難道不是在暗示或預期什麼嗎？
現在再回頭想想，當初陳水扁為何刻意要將「延後選舉」列為慎重考慮的方案之一？特別是將之與「宣布戒嚴」放在一起提，是不是有所謂「聲東擊西」的寓意？戒 嚴說固然吸引大多數人的關注，但可行性畢竟不高，但「延後選舉」可能才是真正想要的結果！譬如說，將立委選舉延後到與總統選舉同時舉行，有沒有這種可能？ 千萬別說絕對不可能，現時的台灣，以陳水扁的操作風格，還有什麼事是一定不可能發生的？
更何況，定期舉行各項選舉，本來就是不需要再去 懷疑的基本原則，任何一個負責任的執政黨，都有義務要讓選舉在不受任何干預的情形下順利舉行，不是嗎？既然如此，那麼陳總統為什麼還刻意要向美聯社記者保 證「一定如期舉行立委與總統大選」？一個原本就該遵守的本分，幹嘛還要特別加以保證呢？
從陳水扁先放言「有人建議要延後選舉」，繼之又保證讓選舉「如期舉行」，再加上中選會沒來由的突然傳出在研擬什麼投開票日不可抗力情事處理辦法，種種跡象加總起來，都讓我們忍不住懷疑，難道前一陣子甚囂塵上的「延後選舉」傳言，確實是有所本？
至少到此刻為止，藍綠陣營都還未在領投票應採一階段還是二階段上取得共識，而且也看不出這個爭議在短期內有獲得共識的跡象，而距離投票日就剩下一個月了， 想也知道隨著時程愈近，雙方讓步的空間也就愈小，換言之，非常有可能投開票「一國兩制」的情況就這麼無從避免了。而當初陳水扁會放出慎重考慮「戒嚴」、 「延後選舉」的狠話，不就是衝著這個狀況嗎？如今這個狀況並未解決，戒嚴說既已不可能，祭出「延後選舉」為什麼不可能？只要藉著領投票爭議鬧出衝突，要塑 造出某種人為的「不可抗力情事」，有什麼不可能？
我們但願一切的顧慮都是多餘的，一切的猜測都是子虛烏有的，一切的傳言都是胡說八道 的。但我們此刻非常需要中選會向全國民眾交代清楚，有什麼特別的考量，要在這個敏感的時刻研擬什麼不可抗力情事處理辦法？如果沒有特別必要，請立即停止這 個耐人尋味的做為，現有的選罷法應該可以處理所有狀況了，請中選會千萬別讓辦選務的機關，淪為摧毀選舉的幫凶！
我們也需要執政黨再一次的做保證，不是去對外國媒體保證，而是向全國的百姓做承諾，不論公投綁不綁得了大選，不論投開票爭議能否獲得解決，都將如期舉行立委與總統大選，這是義務，也是本分！如果中選會與執政黨不願表態或承諾，那麼請全國民眾千萬要正視我們的憂慮！
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Looking at Chiang Kai-Shek and Chen Shui-bian's Approval Ratings
Looking at Chiang Kai-Shek and Chen Shui-bian's Approval Ratings
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2007
東森新聞報
誰對台灣民主毫無貢獻？全班大部分學生都選阿扁
2006/04/15 11:17
北市一所國中的歷史考題，問誰對台灣的民主沒有貢獻，蔣中正、蔣經國、李登輝以及陳水扁四個選項，全班36個學生，竟然就有30個學生選擇陳水扁總統。
This newspaper recently conducted an opinion poll. The poll's first question was: Of all the presidents of the Republic of China, who contributed the most to Taiwan? The answers were: One, Chiang Ching-kuo (50%), Two, Lee Teng-hui (11%), Three, Chiang Kai-Shek (6%), Fourth, Chen Shui-bian (5%).
These answers are consistent with the results of opinion polls conducted but not made public by various political parties. Chen Shui-bian, who bills himself as the "Son of Taiwan" received an approval rating lower than Chiang Kai-shek, the man he accuses of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident."
The poll also asked: Of all the presidents, whose merits outweighed their demerits? The answers were: Chiang Ching-kuo, 65% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 12% say his merits equaled his demerits, 3% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chiang Kai-Shek, 29% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% say his merits equaled his demerits, 9% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chen Shui-bian, 54% say his demerits outweighed his merits, 19% say his merits equaled his demerits, 5% say his merits outweighed his demerits;
As for the Democratic Progressive Party's "Anti-Chiang Campaign," the same poll found that 60% opposed it, 17% supported it.
The Democratic Progressive Party's anti-Chiang witch hunt reached its climax with the demolition of the name plaque on the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. But the DPP did not bother to seek either social consensus or legal authority before it acted. First, with regards legal authority, the Legislative Yuan did not consent to the name change and demolition. Legally speaking, the state institution located at No. 21 Zhongshan South Road is the "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall." The state violence committed by the ruling DPP regime when it installed crowd control barriers and mobilized riot police in order to demolish the name plaque, was the behavior of a Third World warlord, a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law. Second, with regards social consensus, the Democratic Progressive Party accused Chiang Kai-shek of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" to justify its anti-Chiang witch hunt. The Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education expanded the scope of their campaign by dragging in "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and by taunting Ma Ying-jeou, referring to him as "faggoty" and a "little wimp." Their intent was to link "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" Chiang Kai-shek and "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo" to "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou," as part of the DPP's election strategy. Unfortunately for the DPP, the poll results show that its perceptions are miles apart from society's perceptions.
In truth Chiang Kai-Shek's approval rating was rather low. Those who think he contributed the most to Taiwan numbered only 6%. But let's not forget that 29% thought his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% thought his merits equalled his demerits, and a mere 9% thought his demerits outweighed his merits. Obviously, the DPP's attempt to sum up Chiang Kai-shek's political legacy with the label, "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" isn't working. Some people feel that replacing the four characters "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" with "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan" would more accurately sum up Chiangs's legacy and do him greater justice. Had Chiang Kai-Shek chosen foreign exile, like Lee Chung-jen, three to four generations on Taiwan and tens of millions of people would have fallen under Communist rule. Chiang Kai-Shek's merits and demerits are difficult to reconcile. But the Democratic Progressive Party chooses to see only the 228 Incident. It totally blanks out his role as "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan." Their story is not the complete story. Their history is not genuine history. The poll reveals that the public doesn't go along with the DPP's demonization of Chiang and its anti-Chiang witch hunt.
Besides,the poll compared "all past presidents." Chiang Kai-Shek was compared with Chiang Ching-kuo. As a result, the kudos naturally went to Chiang Ching-kuo. But affirmations of Chiang Ching-kuo also amount to an affirmation of Chiang Kai-Shek. Without Chiang Kai-Shek, after all, one would not have had Chiang Ching-kuo. In fact, if one were to remove Chiang Ching-kuo from the poll, and compare only Chiang Kai-Shek against Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, one might really get one's eyes opened.
The Democratic Progressive Party knows that flogging only Chiang Kai-Shek's corpse is not enough. They must also go on to demonize "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou." Only then can they totally repudiate the Kuomintang and the Republic of China. Only then can they legitimize their demands for Taiwan independence and a Nation of Taiwan. But as the poll shows, even though Chiang Ching-kuo may be controversial, his stature among the people will not be easy to undermine. Few people believe Chiang Ching-kuo "didn't love Taiwan," or was a "Chi-Com fellow traveller," or was "selling out Taiwan." The Democratic Progressive Party wants to tar the younger Chiang with the same brush as they are tarring the elder Chiang. They want to spin the younger Chiang as "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo." Instead they are merely undercutting the persuasiveness of their anti-Chiang campaign.
The least surprising aspect of this poll was Chen Shui-bian's last place showing among the four presidents. Note that 54% of the public felt Chen's demerits outweighed his merits, and only 5% felt his merits outweighed his demerits. By contrast self-styled "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian didn't begin to compare with the man Chen accused of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" (a mere 9% said Chiang's demerits outweighed his merits). Obviously history cannot be distorted, reality cannot be falsified, and public opinion cannot be hijacked as easily as the DPP would like. This most sobering aspect of this poll is: Chiang Kai-shek, who has already been objectified as an authoritarian strongman still had a 29% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating. Currently serving populist autocrat Chen Shui-bian, meanwhile, despite the immense resources of the State at his disposal, was only able to achieve a 5% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating.
The public has a common historical memory: Taiwan's transition from martial law authoritarianism to liberalism constituted a Golden Age of sorts. Once the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power however, the public's realistic perception is that Taiwan underwent a relentless decline in many imporant respects. The perversions of the lawless Chen Shui-bian regime have turned Taiwan into a spiritual and moral Hell on Earth.
Today, the public has a higher opinion of "authoritarian strongman" Chiang Kai-Shek than it does of self-proclaimed "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian. The public does this not in order to defend authoritarianism. It does this in order to reprimand Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party for trampling over democracy and human decency.
談蔣介石與陳水扁的民調名次
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.12 03:11 am
歷屆總統，誰對台灣的貢獻最大？本報民意調查所得的名次是：一、蔣經國（五十％），二、李登輝（十一％），三、蔣介石（六％），四、陳水扁（五％）。
此一排序，據知與各政黨最近所做未發表的民調結果一致。自命為「台灣之子」的陳水扁之民意評價，尚不如他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石。
民 調再問：歷屆總統的功過比例如何？答案是：蔣經國，六十五％功大於過，十二％功過相當，三％過大於功；蔣介石，二十九 ％功大於過，三十％功過相當，九％過大於功；陳水扁，五十四％過大於功，十九 ％功過相當，五％功大於過。至於國人支不支持民進黨的「去蔣化」，同一民調發現，六成反對，一成七支持。
民進黨的「去蔣化」，至中正紀念 堂拆匾改名推向高潮，但在社會共識及法律程序上皆無依據。一、就法律程序言，因立法院不同意撤廢，中正紀念堂迄今在法制及名稱上仍是坐落於中山南路二十一 號的唯一合法國家機構；民進黨用拒馬及鎮暴部隊的政治暴力進行拆匾改名，不啻是流氓盜匪的行徑，有違「依法行政」。二、就社會共識言，民進黨以「二二八元 凶」的罪名對蔣介石鞭屍，現場主事者更延伸戰線斥「蔣經國他媽的」，再罵馬英九「小孬孬」，欲藉「鞭屍老蔣↓小蔣他媽的↓馬英九小孬孬」以建立首尾貫通的 選戰論述。然而，若與前述民意調查對照，即知民進黨的認知與社會共識相去甚遠。
在民調中，蔣介石的評價偏低固是事實（認為其貢獻最大者僅 六％），但亦有二十九 ％認為其功大於過，三十％認為功過相當，而僅九％認為過大於功。可見，現今「二二八元凶」的政治鬥爭標籤，難為蔣介石的畢生功過定論；有人認為，若將「大 中至正」四字卸下，換上「反共保台」四字的匾額，對蔣介石或許才是實至名歸。倘若蔣介石當年如李宗仁逃亡異邦，台灣三四代幾千萬人口已淪赤禍。蔣介石確實 功過難論，但民進黨眼中只有「二二八」，而完全抹殺了「反共保台」，這不是真歷史，更不是全歷史。民調顯示，民間對蔣介石的評價應當不至於到政治鞭屍的地 步。
何況，民調是將「歷屆總統」一起比較， 蔣介石因與蔣經國比， 正面評價自然流向蔣經國； 然而，肯定蔣經國， 從某種角度看亦是肯定蔣介石， 畢竟無蔣介石即無蔣經國。 其實，若在民調中拿掉蔣經國， 而以蔣介石與李登輝或陳水扁比， 也許會有更啟人省思的發現。
當 然，民進黨只鞭屍蔣介石是不夠的，必須再把蔣經國定位為「他媽的」，再將馬英九汙名化為「小孬孬」，這才能全盤否定國民黨及中華民國，也才能建立起台獨或 台灣國的正當性。不過，民調顯示，蔣經國儘管亦頗具爭議性，但他在民間的地位已經不易撼動；極少人會認為蔣經國不愛台灣，是中共同路人，是賣台集團；這次 民進黨欲從打老蔣順手打小蔣，把蔣經國說成「他媽的」，反而使其「去蔣」行動的正當性及說服力大打折扣。
此一民調最令人不感意外的是，陳 水扁在四人中排名最後；且五十四％認為其過大於功，僅五％認為其功大於過。若以陳水扁的功過比例與蔣介石對比，「台灣之子」陳水扁（五十四％過大於功）， 竟然尚遠遜於他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石（九％過大於功）；可見歷史不能扭曲，現實亦不能矯飾，民意更不能挾持。此一民調所顯示的最令人感慨的意義是： 已經物化的威權強人蔣介石尚有二十九％功大於過的評價，如今活著掌握一切政治資源優勢的民粹獨夫陳水扁，卻只有五％認為其功大於過。
民間的共同歷史記憶是：台灣在威權戒嚴到解嚴開放時代，國家社會在諸多方面皆曾漸入佳境。民間共同的現實認知則是：民進黨執政後，台灣在許多重要層面卻不斷向下沉淪。無法無天的陳水扁之倒行逆施，使台灣在精神及道德上實已儼如人間地獄。
如今，國人對「威權強人」蔣介石的民意評價，竟然超過自封「台灣之子」的陳水扁；這絕對不是國人欲為威權體制辯護，而是為了民主與人性受到陳水扁及民進黨的蹂躪摧殘而痛心疾首。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2007
東森新聞報
誰對台灣民主毫無貢獻？全班大部分學生都選阿扁
2006/04/15 11:17
北市一所國中的歷史考題，問誰對台灣的民主沒有貢獻，蔣中正、蔣經國、李登輝以及陳水扁四個選項，全班36個學生，竟然就有30個學生選擇陳水扁總統。
This newspaper recently conducted an opinion poll. The poll's first question was: Of all the presidents of the Republic of China, who contributed the most to Taiwan? The answers were: One, Chiang Ching-kuo (50%), Two, Lee Teng-hui (11%), Three, Chiang Kai-Shek (6%), Fourth, Chen Shui-bian (5%).
These answers are consistent with the results of opinion polls conducted but not made public by various political parties. Chen Shui-bian, who bills himself as the "Son of Taiwan" received an approval rating lower than Chiang Kai-shek, the man he accuses of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident."
The poll also asked: Of all the presidents, whose merits outweighed their demerits? The answers were: Chiang Ching-kuo, 65% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 12% say his merits equaled his demerits, 3% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chiang Kai-Shek, 29% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% say his merits equaled his demerits, 9% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chen Shui-bian, 54% say his demerits outweighed his merits, 19% say his merits equaled his demerits, 5% say his merits outweighed his demerits;
As for the Democratic Progressive Party's "Anti-Chiang Campaign," the same poll found that 60% opposed it, 17% supported it.
The Democratic Progressive Party's anti-Chiang witch hunt reached its climax with the demolition of the name plaque on the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. But the DPP did not bother to seek either social consensus or legal authority before it acted. First, with regards legal authority, the Legislative Yuan did not consent to the name change and demolition. Legally speaking, the state institution located at No. 21 Zhongshan South Road is the "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall." The state violence committed by the ruling DPP regime when it installed crowd control barriers and mobilized riot police in order to demolish the name plaque, was the behavior of a Third World warlord, a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law. Second, with regards social consensus, the Democratic Progressive Party accused Chiang Kai-shek of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" to justify its anti-Chiang witch hunt. The Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education expanded the scope of their campaign by dragging in "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and by taunting Ma Ying-jeou, referring to him as "faggoty" and a "little wimp." Their intent was to link "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" Chiang Kai-shek and "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo" to "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou," as part of the DPP's election strategy. Unfortunately for the DPP, the poll results show that its perceptions are miles apart from society's perceptions.
In truth Chiang Kai-Shek's approval rating was rather low. Those who think he contributed the most to Taiwan numbered only 6%. But let's not forget that 29% thought his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% thought his merits equalled his demerits, and a mere 9% thought his demerits outweighed his merits. Obviously, the DPP's attempt to sum up Chiang Kai-shek's political legacy with the label, "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" isn't working. Some people feel that replacing the four characters "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" with "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan" would more accurately sum up Chiangs's legacy and do him greater justice. Had Chiang Kai-Shek chosen foreign exile, like Lee Chung-jen, three to four generations on Taiwan and tens of millions of people would have fallen under Communist rule. Chiang Kai-Shek's merits and demerits are difficult to reconcile. But the Democratic Progressive Party chooses to see only the 228 Incident. It totally blanks out his role as "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan." Their story is not the complete story. Their history is not genuine history. The poll reveals that the public doesn't go along with the DPP's demonization of Chiang and its anti-Chiang witch hunt.
Besides,the poll compared "all past presidents." Chiang Kai-Shek was compared with Chiang Ching-kuo. As a result, the kudos naturally went to Chiang Ching-kuo. But affirmations of Chiang Ching-kuo also amount to an affirmation of Chiang Kai-Shek. Without Chiang Kai-Shek, after all, one would not have had Chiang Ching-kuo. In fact, if one were to remove Chiang Ching-kuo from the poll, and compare only Chiang Kai-Shek against Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, one might really get one's eyes opened.
The Democratic Progressive Party knows that flogging only Chiang Kai-Shek's corpse is not enough. They must also go on to demonize "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou." Only then can they totally repudiate the Kuomintang and the Republic of China. Only then can they legitimize their demands for Taiwan independence and a Nation of Taiwan. But as the poll shows, even though Chiang Ching-kuo may be controversial, his stature among the people will not be easy to undermine. Few people believe Chiang Ching-kuo "didn't love Taiwan," or was a "Chi-Com fellow traveller," or was "selling out Taiwan." The Democratic Progressive Party wants to tar the younger Chiang with the same brush as they are tarring the elder Chiang. They want to spin the younger Chiang as "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo." Instead they are merely undercutting the persuasiveness of their anti-Chiang campaign.
The least surprising aspect of this poll was Chen Shui-bian's last place showing among the four presidents. Note that 54% of the public felt Chen's demerits outweighed his merits, and only 5% felt his merits outweighed his demerits. By contrast self-styled "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian didn't begin to compare with the man Chen accused of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" (a mere 9% said Chiang's demerits outweighed his merits). Obviously history cannot be distorted, reality cannot be falsified, and public opinion cannot be hijacked as easily as the DPP would like. This most sobering aspect of this poll is: Chiang Kai-shek, who has already been objectified as an authoritarian strongman still had a 29% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating. Currently serving populist autocrat Chen Shui-bian, meanwhile, despite the immense resources of the State at his disposal, was only able to achieve a 5% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating.
The public has a common historical memory: Taiwan's transition from martial law authoritarianism to liberalism constituted a Golden Age of sorts. Once the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power however, the public's realistic perception is that Taiwan underwent a relentless decline in many imporant respects. The perversions of the lawless Chen Shui-bian regime have turned Taiwan into a spiritual and moral Hell on Earth.
Today, the public has a higher opinion of "authoritarian strongman" Chiang Kai-Shek than it does of self-proclaimed "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian. The public does this not in order to defend authoritarianism. It does this in order to reprimand Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party for trampling over democracy and human decency.
談蔣介石與陳水扁的民調名次
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.12 03:11 am
歷屆總統，誰對台灣的貢獻最大？本報民意調查所得的名次是：一、蔣經國（五十％），二、李登輝（十一％），三、蔣介石（六％），四、陳水扁（五％）。
此一排序，據知與各政黨最近所做未發表的民調結果一致。自命為「台灣之子」的陳水扁之民意評價，尚不如他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石。
民 調再問：歷屆總統的功過比例如何？答案是：蔣經國，六十五％功大於過，十二％功過相當，三％過大於功；蔣介石，二十九 ％功大於過，三十％功過相當，九％過大於功；陳水扁，五十四％過大於功，十九 ％功過相當，五％功大於過。至於國人支不支持民進黨的「去蔣化」，同一民調發現，六成反對，一成七支持。
民進黨的「去蔣化」，至中正紀念 堂拆匾改名推向高潮，但在社會共識及法律程序上皆無依據。一、就法律程序言，因立法院不同意撤廢，中正紀念堂迄今在法制及名稱上仍是坐落於中山南路二十一 號的唯一合法國家機構；民進黨用拒馬及鎮暴部隊的政治暴力進行拆匾改名，不啻是流氓盜匪的行徑，有違「依法行政」。二、就社會共識言，民進黨以「二二八元 凶」的罪名對蔣介石鞭屍，現場主事者更延伸戰線斥「蔣經國他媽的」，再罵馬英九「小孬孬」，欲藉「鞭屍老蔣↓小蔣他媽的↓馬英九小孬孬」以建立首尾貫通的 選戰論述。然而，若與前述民意調查對照，即知民進黨的認知與社會共識相去甚遠。
在民調中，蔣介石的評價偏低固是事實（認為其貢獻最大者僅 六％），但亦有二十九 ％認為其功大於過，三十％認為功過相當，而僅九％認為過大於功。可見，現今「二二八元凶」的政治鬥爭標籤，難為蔣介石的畢生功過定論；有人認為，若將「大 中至正」四字卸下，換上「反共保台」四字的匾額，對蔣介石或許才是實至名歸。倘若蔣介石當年如李宗仁逃亡異邦，台灣三四代幾千萬人口已淪赤禍。蔣介石確實 功過難論，但民進黨眼中只有「二二八」，而完全抹殺了「反共保台」，這不是真歷史，更不是全歷史。民調顯示，民間對蔣介石的評價應當不至於到政治鞭屍的地 步。
何況，民調是將「歷屆總統」一起比較， 蔣介石因與蔣經國比， 正面評價自然流向蔣經國； 然而，肯定蔣經國， 從某種角度看亦是肯定蔣介石， 畢竟無蔣介石即無蔣經國。 其實，若在民調中拿掉蔣經國， 而以蔣介石與李登輝或陳水扁比， 也許會有更啟人省思的發現。
當 然，民進黨只鞭屍蔣介石是不夠的，必須再把蔣經國定位為「他媽的」，再將馬英九汙名化為「小孬孬」，這才能全盤否定國民黨及中華民國，也才能建立起台獨或 台灣國的正當性。不過，民調顯示，蔣經國儘管亦頗具爭議性，但他在民間的地位已經不易撼動；極少人會認為蔣經國不愛台灣，是中共同路人，是賣台集團；這次 民進黨欲從打老蔣順手打小蔣，把蔣經國說成「他媽的」，反而使其「去蔣」行動的正當性及說服力大打折扣。
此一民調最令人不感意外的是，陳 水扁在四人中排名最後；且五十四％認為其過大於功，僅五％認為其功大於過。若以陳水扁的功過比例與蔣介石對比，「台灣之子」陳水扁（五十四％過大於功）， 竟然尚遠遜於他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石（九％過大於功）；可見歷史不能扭曲，現實亦不能矯飾，民意更不能挾持。此一民調所顯示的最令人感慨的意義是： 已經物化的威權強人蔣介石尚有二十九％功大於過的評價，如今活著掌握一切政治資源優勢的民粹獨夫陳水扁，卻只有五％認為其功大於過。
民間的共同歷史記憶是：台灣在威權戒嚴到解嚴開放時代，國家社會在諸多方面皆曾漸入佳境。民間共同的現實認知則是：民進黨執政後，台灣在許多重要層面卻不斷向下沉淪。無法無天的陳水扁之倒行逆施，使台灣在精神及道德上實已儼如人間地獄。
如今，國人對「威權強人」蔣介石的民意評價，竟然超過自封「台灣之子」的陳水扁；這絕對不是國人欲為威權體制辯護，而是為了民主與人性受到陳水扁及民進黨的蹂躪摧殘而痛心疾首。
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Ministry of Education should return to Its Main Duties
The Ministry of Education should return to Its Main Duties
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2007
Ministry of Education officials announced yesterday that 15 year old students from the ROC participated in the OECD sponsored "Programme for International Student Assessment" (PISA). Among the 57 participating countries, they scored first in mathematics and fourth in science. These were brilliant achievements, they said. They hoped to take advantage of this to alleviate public anxieties about constructive mathematics and the nine year curriculum. Meanwhile, everyone's attention was focused on the Ministry of Education's demolition of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque, and the Ministry of Education Chief Secretary's inflammatory political rhetoric. For a while, the Ministry of Education was on the frontlines of the Blue vs. Green battleground. Faced with hundreds of unsolved educational problems, the government agency charged with education was dedicating all its energy to political campaigning on behalf of the ruling party. How is one to rationalize that?
PISA is considered the International Olympics of education. The government often points to it as a political achievement, even as part of its "educational reform" campaign. It expends an enormous amount of time and energy congratulating itself on its successes. By contrast, officials and educators in Hong Kong and Singapore, which have also gotten good marks, immediately compare their scores against their original targets, discover problems, inform the public about the nation's educational weaknesses and recommend the necessary remedies. By means of self-criticism, they continually improve the quality of education. Meanwhile, our own educators are often busy campaigning for the ruling DPP, giving people the uneasy feeling they are neglecting their basic educational responsibilities.
For example, last month Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng touted the achievements of "educational reform," citing the Swiss World Economic Forum's (WEF) favorable ranking of our government's health and elementary education achievements (incidence of infectious diseases and elementary student enrollment). He failed utterly however to mention other issues related to student health and educational quality such as: physical fitness, nutrition, adequate sleep, physical growth rates, and incidence of myopia, according to which we rank behind other Asian nations. Due to insufficient sleep, nutritional imbalances, and lack of exercise, our elementary and middle school students' running abilities don't even compare to Japan's!
In fact, Taiwan students' positive PISA scores in mathematics and science may be the result of 15 year olds (9th and 10th graders) spending long hours in class, enrolling in extracurricular "cram schools," losing sleep, enduring pressures to make the grade, forsaking their personal dreams, suppressing their self-doubts, and putting their noses to the grindstone. Yet none of these problems have motivated advocates of "educational reform" to change their minds, to ask themselves why students prefer to read books not on the curriculum, why interest in mathematics and science is dropping, or why the academic scores of 30,000 fifteen year olds are increasingly polarized.
Everyone knows the answers to these questions. Even Ministry of Education officials acknowledge that the academic ranking of students on Taiwan is unrelated to class attendance figures. School hours are long (including supplementary classes). Children on Taiwan are good at taking tests, but few of them stand out in any specialty. The average person does not like to read. The Council for Cultural Affairs has learned that people over the age of 15 seldom read books. Forty percent of those who do, read only one book every few months. Half have not bought either a book or a magazine in six months. Forty-six percent of an average child's leisure activity involves playing video games on a PC or watching television. That's why according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), another literacy index, our fourth grade students' reading ability badly trail students in Hong Kong and Singapore. Nearly one in four never reads after school, far lower than the international average.
In addition, according to a survey by Commonwealth magazine, nearly seven out of ten students in the fifth and sixth grades, attend after school programs or "cram schools." Five out of ten spend over 6,000 NT a month for tutoring. Two out of ten receive tutoring in up to four subjects. By junior high, their childrens' education and its attendant costs have become parents' heaviest burden. Nearly seven out of ten junior high students are enrolled in "cram schools." One in four families must spend over 6,000 NT a month in additional tuition. Over half of all families must sacrifice their family's entertainment allowance to pay for their childrens' junior high educations. The "Taiwan Education Panel Survey" (TEPS) conducted by the Academia Sinica discovered that by the ninth grade (15 year olds), as many as 97% of all students in both urban and rural regions were enrolled in "cram schools." By high school the number was approximately five out of ten. Under such pressure cooker conditions, it's no wonder elementary and high school students seek relief by watching televison and playing video games. They don't read books. Those books they read are textbooks or reference books. Another index of student aptitude, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), in contrast with PISA, revealed that elementary and high school students generally dislike mathematics and science and lack self-confidence. This shows that children on Taiwan only know how to take tests.
The Ministry of Education has successfully demolished "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque. The garrulous Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education is currently basking in his Fifteen Minutes of Fame. Green camp political candidates have even presented him with garlands. Few officials receive such adulation. Isn't it time for the good minister to quit while he's ahead, and return to his job of education? Otherwise, he may win his political struggle, but Taiwan's next generation will be the losers. Where is the honor in that?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.11
教育部該回到本業了吧
中時社論
教育部官員日前向國人宣布十五歲學生在參加ＯＥＣＤ主辦的「學生基礎素養國際研究計畫」（ＰＩＳＡ），在五十七個參與國中數學成績第一、科學第四，成績斐然，希望藉此一掃以往國人對建構式數學與九年一貫課程的疑慮。然而在此同時，整個社會注目焦點，全都在教育部主導拆除中正紀念堂「大中至正」牌匾，以及教育部主祕挑釁的政治語言，教育部頃刻間站到藍綠政治衝突的第一線，面對百廢待舉的教育問題，教育主管單位用心最力竟是在配合選舉造勢，能怎麼說呢？
素有教育奧林匹亞之稱的ＰＩＳＡ等國際評比，國內經常把他們當成施政業績，甚至奉為教改成就加以宣傳，甚少在事後認真評估與研究。與同獲佳績的香港與新加坡相比，他們的政府與學界不但在成績公布後，快速分析各種評估指標、發掘問題，並會具體告訴民眾本國教育的強、弱之處，甚至將採取哪些補救措施等。藉由這些深入的檢討，繼續提升教育的品質。相形之下，我們的教育主管當局則往往忙於政治服務，予人荒疏教育本務之感。
再例如，上個月杜部長曾以瑞士世界經濟論壇（ＷＥＦ）對我國在健康與初等教育（傳染病等及小學生入學比率）的優異排名，而誇讚教改有成，但卻完全不提在其它若干真正關係到學生健康與教育品質等項目，如：體適能、營養、睡眠、長高速度與近視比例等指標，我國在亞洲國家的排名都落後甚多，甚至因學童普遍睡眠不足、營養不均衡與缺乏運動，中小學生的體適能差到連跑步都比不上日本孩子！
事實上，台灣學生在ＰＩＳＡ數學與科學能獲得佳績，很可能是靠十五歲（國三與高一階段）的孩子超長上課時數、課外補習、犧牲睡眠、忍受升學壓力、不顧興趣、缺乏信心之下勉強而學的結果。而這些問題都未因推動教改而有所改變！否則國內學生就不該不愛閱讀課外書，甚至對數學與科學的興趣逐年下降，更何況每年有卅萬「十五歲」考生在國中基測上，愈來愈明顯地出現學習成績兩極化現象。
這些問題其實大家心裡都有數，因為連教育部官員都承認台灣學生不論上課的日數和時數都排在世界前幾名。因為上課時間長（包括補習），台灣孩子考試很厲害，但在各領域傑出人才卻不多，尤其一般人不愛閱讀。文建會調查發現：十五歲以上民眾從不看書或幾個月才看一次的比例將近四成，半年內不曾買書或雜誌者占半數以上，而四十六％小朋友的休閒活動是玩電腦、看電視。所以在另一項國際閱讀成就的研究（ＰＩＲＬ），我國小四學童的識字與閱讀能力，成績遠遠落在香港、新加坡之後，且近四分之一放學後幾乎從不閱讀，遠低於國際平均水準。
此外，根據天下雜誌調查發現，小學裡中、高年級生有近七成參加安親班或補習班，其中五成每月花超過六千元補習，甚至有兩成補四科以上。到了國中，孩子的課業和經濟負擔成為親子間的最痛，其中近七成國中生正在補習，四分之一家庭每月負擔六千元以上補習費，超過半數家庭為了國中孩子的教育而排擠家庭娛樂或生活開銷。同時中研院「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」調查也發現，到了國三（十五歲）不分城鄉，高達九成七補習，高中職約五成。在此種高壓教育環境下，中小學生變得「愛看電視、玩電腦，不看書，要看也只看教科書、參考書」，也就不足為奇了！而相對於ＰＩＳＡ的優異數理成績表現，另一份學生學科能力測驗及教育研究計畫調查（ＴＩＭＳＳ）卻發現，台灣國中小學生普遍不喜歡數學、科學，也缺乏自信心，顯示台灣的孩子其實是「比較會考試」而已！
是的，教育部確實成功地拆掉了「大中至正」的牌匾，教育部主祕就靠著幾句伶牙俐齒的政治語言，短時期就在全國爆紅，還接受綠營候選人的獻花，這般的風光也沒幾個部會能比得上，此刻是不是該見好就收，回到教育本業上了？否則，政治鬥爭贏了，台灣下一代卻是輸家，又有什麼值得光彩的呢？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2007
Ministry of Education officials announced yesterday that 15 year old students from the ROC participated in the OECD sponsored "Programme for International Student Assessment" (PISA). Among the 57 participating countries, they scored first in mathematics and fourth in science. These were brilliant achievements, they said. They hoped to take advantage of this to alleviate public anxieties about constructive mathematics and the nine year curriculum. Meanwhile, everyone's attention was focused on the Ministry of Education's demolition of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque, and the Ministry of Education Chief Secretary's inflammatory political rhetoric. For a while, the Ministry of Education was on the frontlines of the Blue vs. Green battleground. Faced with hundreds of unsolved educational problems, the government agency charged with education was dedicating all its energy to political campaigning on behalf of the ruling party. How is one to rationalize that?
PISA is considered the International Olympics of education. The government often points to it as a political achievement, even as part of its "educational reform" campaign. It expends an enormous amount of time and energy congratulating itself on its successes. By contrast, officials and educators in Hong Kong and Singapore, which have also gotten good marks, immediately compare their scores against their original targets, discover problems, inform the public about the nation's educational weaknesses and recommend the necessary remedies. By means of self-criticism, they continually improve the quality of education. Meanwhile, our own educators are often busy campaigning for the ruling DPP, giving people the uneasy feeling they are neglecting their basic educational responsibilities.
For example, last month Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng touted the achievements of "educational reform," citing the Swiss World Economic Forum's (WEF) favorable ranking of our government's health and elementary education achievements (incidence of infectious diseases and elementary student enrollment). He failed utterly however to mention other issues related to student health and educational quality such as: physical fitness, nutrition, adequate sleep, physical growth rates, and incidence of myopia, according to which we rank behind other Asian nations. Due to insufficient sleep, nutritional imbalances, and lack of exercise, our elementary and middle school students' running abilities don't even compare to Japan's!
In fact, Taiwan students' positive PISA scores in mathematics and science may be the result of 15 year olds (9th and 10th graders) spending long hours in class, enrolling in extracurricular "cram schools," losing sleep, enduring pressures to make the grade, forsaking their personal dreams, suppressing their self-doubts, and putting their noses to the grindstone. Yet none of these problems have motivated advocates of "educational reform" to change their minds, to ask themselves why students prefer to read books not on the curriculum, why interest in mathematics and science is dropping, or why the academic scores of 30,000 fifteen year olds are increasingly polarized.
Everyone knows the answers to these questions. Even Ministry of Education officials acknowledge that the academic ranking of students on Taiwan is unrelated to class attendance figures. School hours are long (including supplementary classes). Children on Taiwan are good at taking tests, but few of them stand out in any specialty. The average person does not like to read. The Council for Cultural Affairs has learned that people over the age of 15 seldom read books. Forty percent of those who do, read only one book every few months. Half have not bought either a book or a magazine in six months. Forty-six percent of an average child's leisure activity involves playing video games on a PC or watching television. That's why according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), another literacy index, our fourth grade students' reading ability badly trail students in Hong Kong and Singapore. Nearly one in four never reads after school, far lower than the international average.
In addition, according to a survey by Commonwealth magazine, nearly seven out of ten students in the fifth and sixth grades, attend after school programs or "cram schools." Five out of ten spend over 6,000 NT a month for tutoring. Two out of ten receive tutoring in up to four subjects. By junior high, their childrens' education and its attendant costs have become parents' heaviest burden. Nearly seven out of ten junior high students are enrolled in "cram schools." One in four families must spend over 6,000 NT a month in additional tuition. Over half of all families must sacrifice their family's entertainment allowance to pay for their childrens' junior high educations. The "Taiwan Education Panel Survey" (TEPS) conducted by the Academia Sinica discovered that by the ninth grade (15 year olds), as many as 97% of all students in both urban and rural regions were enrolled in "cram schools." By high school the number was approximately five out of ten. Under such pressure cooker conditions, it's no wonder elementary and high school students seek relief by watching televison and playing video games. They don't read books. Those books they read are textbooks or reference books. Another index of student aptitude, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), in contrast with PISA, revealed that elementary and high school students generally dislike mathematics and science and lack self-confidence. This shows that children on Taiwan only know how to take tests.
The Ministry of Education has successfully demolished "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque. The garrulous Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education is currently basking in his Fifteen Minutes of Fame. Green camp political candidates have even presented him with garlands. Few officials receive such adulation. Isn't it time for the good minister to quit while he's ahead, and return to his job of education? Otherwise, he may win his political struggle, but Taiwan's next generation will be the losers. Where is the honor in that?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.12.11
教育部該回到本業了吧
中時社論
教育部官員日前向國人宣布十五歲學生在參加ＯＥＣＤ主辦的「學生基礎素養國際研究計畫」（ＰＩＳＡ），在五十七個參與國中數學成績第一、科學第四，成績斐然，希望藉此一掃以往國人對建構式數學與九年一貫課程的疑慮。然而在此同時，整個社會注目焦點，全都在教育部主導拆除中正紀念堂「大中至正」牌匾，以及教育部主祕挑釁的政治語言，教育部頃刻間站到藍綠政治衝突的第一線，面對百廢待舉的教育問題，教育主管單位用心最力竟是在配合選舉造勢，能怎麼說呢？
素有教育奧林匹亞之稱的ＰＩＳＡ等國際評比，國內經常把他們當成施政業績，甚至奉為教改成就加以宣傳，甚少在事後認真評估與研究。與同獲佳績的香港與新加坡相比，他們的政府與學界不但在成績公布後，快速分析各種評估指標、發掘問題，並會具體告訴民眾本國教育的強、弱之處，甚至將採取哪些補救措施等。藉由這些深入的檢討，繼續提升教育的品質。相形之下，我們的教育主管當局則往往忙於政治服務，予人荒疏教育本務之感。
再例如，上個月杜部長曾以瑞士世界經濟論壇（ＷＥＦ）對我國在健康與初等教育（傳染病等及小學生入學比率）的優異排名，而誇讚教改有成，但卻完全不提在其它若干真正關係到學生健康與教育品質等項目，如：體適能、營養、睡眠、長高速度與近視比例等指標，我國在亞洲國家的排名都落後甚多，甚至因學童普遍睡眠不足、營養不均衡與缺乏運動，中小學生的體適能差到連跑步都比不上日本孩子！
事實上，台灣學生在ＰＩＳＡ數學與科學能獲得佳績，很可能是靠十五歲（國三與高一階段）的孩子超長上課時數、課外補習、犧牲睡眠、忍受升學壓力、不顧興趣、缺乏信心之下勉強而學的結果。而這些問題都未因推動教改而有所改變！否則國內學生就不該不愛閱讀課外書，甚至對數學與科學的興趣逐年下降，更何況每年有卅萬「十五歲」考生在國中基測上，愈來愈明顯地出現學習成績兩極化現象。
這些問題其實大家心裡都有數，因為連教育部官員都承認台灣學生不論上課的日數和時數都排在世界前幾名。因為上課時間長（包括補習），台灣孩子考試很厲害，但在各領域傑出人才卻不多，尤其一般人不愛閱讀。文建會調查發現：十五歲以上民眾從不看書或幾個月才看一次的比例將近四成，半年內不曾買書或雜誌者占半數以上，而四十六％小朋友的休閒活動是玩電腦、看電視。所以在另一項國際閱讀成就的研究（ＰＩＲＬ），我國小四學童的識字與閱讀能力，成績遠遠落在香港、新加坡之後，且近四分之一放學後幾乎從不閱讀，遠低於國際平均水準。
此外，根據天下雜誌調查發現，小學裡中、高年級生有近七成參加安親班或補習班，其中五成每月花超過六千元補習，甚至有兩成補四科以上。到了國中，孩子的課業和經濟負擔成為親子間的最痛，其中近七成國中生正在補習，四分之一家庭每月負擔六千元以上補習費，超過半數家庭為了國中孩子的教育而排擠家庭娛樂或生活開銷。同時中研院「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」調查也發現，到了國三（十五歲）不分城鄉，高達九成七補習，高中職約五成。在此種高壓教育環境下，中小學生變得「愛看電視、玩電腦，不看書，要看也只看教科書、參考書」，也就不足為奇了！而相對於ＰＩＳＡ的優異數理成績表現，另一份學生學科能力測驗及教育研究計畫調查（ＴＩＭＳＳ）卻發現，台灣國中小學生普遍不喜歡數學、科學，也缺乏自信心，顯示台灣的孩子其實是「比較會考試」而已！
是的，教育部確實成功地拆掉了「大中至正」的牌匾，教育部主祕就靠著幾句伶牙俐齒的政治語言，短時期就在全國爆紅，還接受綠營候選人的獻花，這般的風光也沒幾個部會能比得上，此刻是不是該見好就收，回到教育本業上了？否則，政治鬥爭贏了，台灣下一代卻是輸家，又有什麼值得光彩的呢？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)