Time to Use Our Heads to Resolve Real Problems
China Times Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 31, 2008
Call it breaking the ice. Call it melting the ice. The leaders of the ruling parties on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait finally met yesterday amidst an atmosphere of goodwill. They agreed to resume talks between the SEF and ARATS in mid-June. The mainland will open up four locations for direct flights from Taoyuan's CKS Airport. In an unprecedented move, CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao personally committed to negotiate with Taipei over increasing the ROC's international space. This must await follow-up consultations by the SEF and ARATS before it becomes official of course. But the success of the Wu Hu Meeting has already created an optimistic atmosphere for the SEF and ARATS negotiations comin up in June. The check the KMT issued, promising direct charter flights and the arrival of mainland tourists by July, may not bounce after all.
Watching the KMT and CCP party hierarchy shake hands and exchange ritual greetings was emotionally overwhelming. These two political parties have been locked in a life and death struggle for over half a century. How many historical grievances have they accumulated? How many lives have been lost? How many families have been torn apart? Today the leaders of the two parties are citing peace as their highest value. They are vowing to put the interests of the people first. Looking back at these struggles between the KMT and the CCP, one can't help wondering how many generations have been carried away by these currents of history? To dismiss these struggles with a wave of the hand seems disrespectful. Without this tangled history, there would be no complex and intractable cross-strait problems today. But in the end what can one say, other than "It's all in the past?"
Whatever might have happened, in the end these matters must be left to the historians. How future history will be written, is in the hands of a new generation. Will cross-strait relations move towards peace, reconciliation, dialog, cooperation, and mutual benefit? It all depends on the leaders on both sides. Since the second ruling party change in March, Siew and Hu have met at the Boao Forum, and President Ma has delivered his inaugural address. These made the current Wu Hu Meeting possible. As we can see, the authorities on the two sides used informal contacts as feelers for formal contacts. They invested considerable energy and used considerable discretion. They avoided all sensitive language. They even expressed good faith through the manner in which they presented their positions, making sure the other side could interpret their position in their own manner.
This linguistic sleight of hand is necessary because cross-strait dialogue has been interrupted by prolonged confrontation and stalemate, by a vicious cycle of zero sum provocations and mutual recriminations on the international stage. If the two sides can stop picking each other's arguments apart in an attempt to make political hay, but instead seek the greatest common denominator, they can transform the process into a virtuous circle.
The Wu Hu Meeting is reestablishing bilateral talks as soon as possible. It is authorizing direct charter flights and mainland tourism to Taiwan. It is also confronting the issue of the ROC's international space, particularly membership in the WHO, head on. This was always an issue Taipei would raise, but to which Beijing would give either the cold shoulder or an non-commital response. This time however, Beijing has taken the initiative. It has explicitly stated that once cross-strait consultations resume, "priority will be given to Taiwan's participation in WHO," and that "we should be smart enough to find a solution." These words were spoken by Hu Jintao himself, the highest ranking leader of the CCP. They have ground-breaking significance and deserve our attention.
We need to realize that as long as we do not deliberately bring up sensitive issues, direct flights or mainland tourists are mainly technical issues. But the Republic of China's international space and participation in international organizations is an another matter altogether. These touch upon the core issue of the dispute over sovereignty. Beijing has consistently adopted a hard-line policy in the past. Most of the obstacles to cross-strait reconciliation reside here. Now, on its own initiative, Beijing has offered to begin consultations on this matter. Therefore one can predict with near certainty that the two sides will find a way to enable the ROC to participate in the WHO. This will become the focus of the next stage of cross-strait relations. Can the two sides create a virtuous circle? This will be a key indicator.
in the past neither side was willing to give an inch. The other side always had to do this, that, and the other before one responded in kind. The result was each side would obsess over its own concerns, and no one got to talk about anything. Now the two sides have learned to shelve their differences. Call it what you like. Call it looking the other way. Call it Different Interpretations of One China. At least the two sides are now willing to seek common ground, willing to tackle what is mutually beneficial, and postpone more sensitive issues until the establishment of greater mutual trust. As long as the two sides maintain such a pragmatic attitude, and seek mutually acceptable solutions, they will encounter little difficulty. The KMT vs. CCP struggle is history. So is the cross-strait propaganda war. It is time to resolve issues of substance. It is time to use our heads.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.05.30
兩岸應就解決實質問題拚智慧
中時社論
是破冰也好，是融冰也罷，兩岸執政黨的領導人，日前終於在善意的氛圍下會面了，雙方除了確定六月中旬讓兩岸兩會復談，大陸開放四個定點與桃園直航外，對台灣參與國際空間的問題，中共總書記胡錦濤也首度親口承諾可以商談。當然這都還得要等後續的兩會協商後才算正式拍板，但至少這場吳胡會的成功，已經為六月啟動的兩會協商營造了樂觀的氛圍，國民黨所謂七月落實包機直航與陸客來台的承諾，應該是不會跳票了。
看到國共兩黨高層握手寒喧的畫面，實在令人感慨萬千！這兩個政黨對立鬥爭了大半個世紀，種下多少歷史恩怨？曾讓多少生靈塗炭？又讓多少家庭分隔兩地？如今兩黨領導人都將「和平」標舉為最高價值，都宣稱要把人民的利益擺在最前面，回首前塵那一頁頁國共鬥爭史，曾讓多少世代的青春歲月、生命記憶，綁在這滾動的大歷史洪流裡？如今這一切俱成歷史陳跡，說它「一切盡付笑談中」好像太輕，但好像也只能說「一切俱往矣」，不是嗎？沒有這一頁複雜糾結的歷史，也就不會有今天這般複雜難解的「兩岸關係」了。
無論歷史的過往如何，終究還是只能交給史家去評斷。而怎麼書寫未來歷史的任務，還是操持在新世代的手上。該怎麼讓未來的兩岸關係邁向和平的、和解的、對話的，再進一步進展到合作的、互利的狀態，機會其實也全都操在雙方領導人的手中。僅就這一點而論，從三月間二次政黨輪替後，先是博鰲論壇的蕭胡會，然後是馬總統的就職演說，次第再推進到這次的吳胡會，可以看得出來，兩岸執政當局從迂迴試探到正面對話，都付出了相當的心力，雙方都在語言修辭上細心斟酌，所有可能引發彼此敏感聯想的字句都盡量避免；雙方也都在傳達善意的論述上悉心布局，好讓彼此都有各自的詮釋空間。
某種意義上，這種語言工程的重建是必須的。畢竟兩岸對話的中斷，乃至長期的對立僵持，除了彼此在國際社會零和對抗的挑釁外，很大部分就是肇因於雙方長期惡言相向所形成的惡性循環。當兩岸不再在對方的語言中挑毛病、作文章，而是致力尋找彼此的最大公約數與善意，自然也就轉而形成良性循環了。
這次的吳胡會，除了確立兩岸盡快復談、盡快落實包機與觀光外，也正面觸及了台灣的國際空間問題，特別是參與ＷＨＯ的問題。這個議題往昔都是台灣這邊片面呼籲，北京那邊不是冷處理就是模糊以對，但這次北京卻主動表態，明示未來啟動兩岸協商後，「可優先討論台灣參加世界衛生組織的問題」，而且認為「應有智慧找到可行的方式」。由於這些話是由中共最高領導人胡錦濤親口說出，其所具有的突破性意義，當然值得重視。
要知道，直航或觀光只要不在敏感議題上挑剔，剩下就是技術問題了。但台灣國際空間的參與議題則完全不同，它勢必得觸及更核心的主權爭議，過去北京當局對此一貫都採取零和的強硬政策，兩岸和解的障礙有大半也就是卡在這裡。如今北京當局既然主動提出願意就此啟動協商，那麼幾乎就可以確定，兩岸未來怎麼「有智慧的」就台灣參與ＷＨＯ，「找到可行的方式」，將會是各方觀察兩岸關係下一階段進展的焦點，甚至將會是兩岸能否進一步邁向良性循環的關鍵指標。
不諱言說，兩岸過往都對「前提」的堅持一步不讓，永遠都是「先要對方如何如何……，才能如何如何……」，結果落得雙方都在努力「鑽牛角尖」，最後當然是什麼都談不下去。如今兩岸顯然都學會了暫時擱置爭議，說是「存而不論」也好，說是「各自表述」也罷，至少都願意求同存異，也都願意讓對雙方都有利的部分議題「先行」，等到累積了一定的互信基礎，再往更敏感、更高層次的議題推進，只要維持這種「務實」的態度不變，那麼一步步找出雙方都可以接受的模式，就一點都不困難了。真的，國共鬥爭的年代已經過去了，兩岸政治喊話的年代也該過去了，如今何妨都集中在實質問題的解決上，各自發揮智慧呢！
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Wu Hu Meeting: Sun Yat-sen and the 1992 Consensus
The Wu Hu Meeting: Sun Yat-sen and the 1992 Consensus
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 29, 2008
On May 22, the United Daily News published an editorial on KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's upcoming visit to the mainland. We urged him to deliver a message to CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, saying: "The two sides of the strait cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides of the strait can avoid war."
Yesterday, the Wu Hu Meeting took place. Wu Po-hsiung told Hu Jintao, before live television cameras, before viewers watching in realtime on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, "No one can guarantee that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will not experience natural disasters. But through our joint effort, we can ensure that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will never experience war."
Sichuan earthquake relief efforts motivated authorities on both sides of the strait to value the historic opportunity and to redouble their efforts to communicate. As expected, weekend charter flights, mainland tourists to Taiwan, and other "Four Constants" received Hu Jintao's endorsement. This was essentially Hu Jintao's gift to the Ma Ying-jeou administration. Its significance extended beyond specific policies. It established a foundation for stable and amicable cross-strait relations. It significantly reduced internal and external pressure on the new KMT government regarding its cross-strait policy promises.
Wu and Hu repeatedly underscored the importance of the new cross-strait situation and the importance of the new cross-strait opportunities. We hope cross-strait relations will grow following the Wu Hu Meeting, both at the macro level and at the practical level. At the macro level, the two sides need a common political ideal. We suggest a "Sun Yat-sen Framework." At the practical level, the two sides need a better political framework, one that reflects the way they actually interact. We suggest the "1992 Consensus."
First, the Sun Yat-sen Framework. In 2005, during the Lien Hu Meeting, Hu Jintao told Lien Chan, "The Chinese Communist Party... has long been a staunch supporter of Sun Yat-sen, a collaborator with Sun Yat-sen, and an heir to Sun Yat-sen's tradition. During this visit, when Chen Yunlin greeted Wu Po-hsiung at the Nanjing Airport, Wu quoted Sun's proposal for national unity. The staff of the Sun Yat-sen Tomb noted that the 392 stone steps leading up to the tomb symbolized the "Three People's Principles, the nation's territory, and cooperation between the two parties." Wu Po-hsiung did not pass up an opportunity to present his own views. He mentioned Sun Yat-sen's formulation, "Of the People, by the People, and for the People," and with a brush penned the words, "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." (the earth is our common heritage, the people above all else."
During the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, the United Daily News published an editorial noting that cross-strait interaction lacked an overarching framework. Communism could not provide that framework. Afer all, the Communists themselves were engaged in De-Communization. But the two sides respected Sun Yat-sen, therefore a Sun Yat-sen Framework for cross-strait interaction could ensure long term stability.
Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, "The Chinese People" seems to be the buzzword in current discussions of cross-strait relations. Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Poh-hsiung have both stated that "People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese." During yesterday's Wu Hu Meeting, expressions such as "love for one's compatriates," "blood is thicker than water," and "one's own flesh and blood" emerged. The problem is that in addition to "tian xia wei gong" and "the people above all else," a reunified China needs civil rights and economic prosperity. The Taiwan region's second change in ruling parties is considered a significant achievement by many in the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao regions.
Regarding the "Big Tent" Theory, Beijing's "One China" hard sell seems to have been replaced by a "One People" soft sell. Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, Beijing is stressing Chinese nationalism. Taipei is stressing "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity" in equal measures. Wu Po-hsiung's couplet "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da" summed up his position.
Wu Po-hsiung's couplet has three implications. First, it is an internal memo to the KMT. That is why he said the KMT must "clean house." Second, it is a message to Beijing. If Beijing wishes to stabilize cross-strait relations, it needs to understand that leaders on Taiwan must honor the concept of "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." Beijing must understand it is no easy matter to preserve the Republic of China. Third, Wu Poh-hsiung apparently wanted to encourage Beijing, as a friend. Upholding civil rights and achieving economic prosperity are probably goals Beijing aspires to, but feels it is unable to fulfill as yet. This does not negate the reforms and liberalizations Beijing has implemented over the past 30 years. If one day Beijing can ensure civil rights and economic prosperity on mainland China, then the Divided China problem will be solved. The two sides will most assuredly find a solution. The Sun Yat-sen Framework offers an elevated perspective, one that can provide the overarching superstructure for cross-strait interaction.
Let's review the 1992 Consensus. Between the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, and the current Wu Hu Meeting, the language of the 1992 Consensus has remained the same. But the substance of the 1992 Consensus remains unfulfilled. After 20 years of ups and downs, Beijing realizes that in order to stabilize cross-strait relations, it must secure the Republic of China. Without a secure Republic of China, there can be no stable cross-strait relations. When Taipei stresses the need to face reality, the reality it refers to is the reality of divided rule. When Beijing stresses that it is setting aside disputes, the disputes have merely being set aside. They have not been resolved.
When Hu Jintao took the initiative to invite Wu Poh-hsiung to visit, he did so on the understanding that Wu Po-hsiung was the Chairman of the ruling party of the Republic of China. But he did not officially refer to the Republic of China. When Wu Po-hsiung stood before the tomb of KMT Founder Sun Yat-sen, he reported that the KMT had regained political power. He referred to Nanjing as the seat of the national government. In his eulogy to Sun, he noted the date as "May 27 of the 97th Year of the Republic." But he never uttered the words "Republic of China." Only when he referred to Sun Yat-sen's date of burial, "June 1 of the 18th Year of the Republic," did he finally utter the words "Republic of China." Wu Po-hsiung's frustration can be imagined. The 1992 Consensus merely shelves disputes. It does not confront reality. The two sides must not limit themselves merely to shelving disputes on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. They must also confront reality. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait could use the former East and West German model, or the current South and North Korean model as their framework for interaction. We believe the results would be more salutory than those for East and West Germany, or those for South and North Korea.
A major earthquake in Sichuan has inspired the public on both sides of the strait to interact in an exemplary manner. They became the theme of yesterday's talks in Beijing, Wu and Hu wound up acting as the peoples' spokesmen. Such an atmosphere is beneficial to cross-strait interaction. It puts the people first. The role of leaders is to accurately reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people.
If we look at cross-strait relations purely on the basis of who is bigger or smaller, the question inevitably becomes "Who will gobble up whom?" But if we look at cross-strait relations on the basis of ideas, then it leads to competition in the pursuit of "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity." If we look at the Sun Yat-sen Framework and the 1992 Consensus from this perspective, then the two sides are unlikely to squander this historic opportunity.
吳胡會：孫中山的啟示與九二共識的詮釋
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.29 03:00 am
五月二十二日，本報社論曾請即將往訪大陸的國民黨主席吳伯雄帶給中共總書記胡錦濤一句話：「兩岸不會沒有地震，但可以沒有戰爭！」
昨天，吳胡會登場，吳伯雄面對胡錦濤，在兩岸電視直播的致詞中帶到了這一句話。他說：「兩岸之間，誰也不能保證沒有自然災害；但可以透過共同的努力，來保證兩岸永遠沒有戰爭。」
四川震災使得兩岸當局所相互強調的「歷史機遇」更添動力。果如預料，周末包機、大陸觀光客來台等「四個繼續」皆獲胡錦濤背書。這形同是胡錦濤致送馬英九政府的就任禮物，其意義尚不僅是幾項政策個案如周末包機能如期實現，更是對兩岸關係的友善穩定下錨定樁，使國民黨新政府在兩岸的領域中大幅減低了內外壓力。
然而，在吳胡二人一再強調的兩岸「新形勢」、「新契機」中，我們更希望此次吳胡會後的兩岸關係，能夠在「宏觀願景」及「現實基礎」上皆有所長進。就宏觀願景言，是指兩岸應當發展出一個共同的政治理念追求，我們想談的是「孫中山架構」；就現實基礎言，是指兩岸應當有一更能反映現實的互動架構，我們想談的是「九二共識」。
先談「孫中山架構」。二○○五年「連胡會」，胡錦濤曾當著連戰說：「中國共產黨人……從來就是中山先生的堅定支持者、合作者、繼承者。」此次吳伯雄往訪，陳雲林在首站南京接機，亦當場引述了孫中山「民族大團結」的主張；連中山陵的接待人員也說，三九二級石階，寓有「三民主義、九州方圓、兩黨合作」之義。吳伯雄當然也未錯過借題發揮的機會，標舉「民有、民治、民享」的理念，並當場揮毫題了八個大字：「天下為公、人民最大。」
二○○五年連胡會時，本報社論即指出，兩岸互動交流中缺少一個「巨型架構」；因為，共產主義不能成為此一架構，連中共當局也在「去共產主義化」；而既然兩岸皆推崇孫中山，則倘若兩岸能以「孫中山架構」為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」，應可期諸久遠。
就「孫中山架構」言，「民族」似為當前兩岸對話中最突出的話題，馬英九及吳伯雄皆已道出「兩岸同屬中華民族」；昨日吳胡會，「同胞之愛」、「骨肉之情」、「血肉相連」，亦是聲聲入耳；但問題在於「民權」與「民生」，亦即在於「天下為公」及「人民最大」。此次台灣實現「二次政黨輪替」，被許多大陸及港澳人民視為華人世界的民主成就，亦緣於此。
從「屋頂理論」來看北京當局現今的兩岸操作，「一個中國」的「硬屋頂」似已漸漸退至第二線，「中華民族」的「軟屋頂」則站上了第一線。倘以孫中山架構來說，北京當局強調的是「民族主義」；但台北方面則希望能將「民族／民權／民生」均衡體現，吳伯雄的八個字「天下為公／人民最大」，透露了心曲。
吳伯雄的這八個大字，也許可從三方面來看。一方面是自我惕厲，因此他說國民黨必須「好自為之」；再一方面是傳話北京當局，若欲穩定兩岸關係，不能不知台灣的主政者有「天下為公／人民最大」的責任，亦不能不知「中華民國」這個架構之維持非易。最後，吳伯雄似亦有以諍友地位與北京當局互勉之意；「民權／民生」應非中共當局所不願為或所不想為，而是形格勢禁做不到，然亦不能據此否定中共在改革開放三十年來已經實現的成績；倘若中共有朝一日能將中國的民權與民生成就至一定程度，則中國問題即可解決，兩岸問題亦必會找到出路。倘能站在此一高度看「孫中山架構」，當然可以作為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」。
再談九二共識。自二○○五年「連胡會」，至此次「吳胡會」，「九二共識」的政策標誌已趨穩固；但是，「九二共識」的內涵「一中各表」，卻仍待體現。經歷過去二十年來的跌宕曲折，北京當局應知，欲穩固兩岸關係，即必須穩固「中華民國」；無穩固的「中華民國」，即無穩固的兩岸關係。然而，就此以論，台北方面強調的是「正視現實」，亦即「正視」兩岸分治的「現實」；但北京當局強調的卻是「擱置爭議」，只是「擱置」而已，「爭議」仍在。
胡錦濤主動邀請吳伯雄往訪，當然是承認了吳伯雄「中華民國執政黨主席」的身分，卻未同等表現出「正視」中華民國的「現實」。於是，吳伯雄此行在言詞之間，雖向國民黨總理孫中山報告「重新取回政權」，又稱南京曾是「國民政府所在地」，再在祭文標出「維民國九十七年五月二十七日」，卻始終說不出一個「中華民國」；一直到引據孫中山下葬日為「中華民國十八年六月一日」，才說出「中華民國」四個字。吳伯雄心中的壓抑可想而知，而「九二共識」只是「擱置爭議」卻未「正視現實」，亦是有目共睹。寄望兩岸當局，未來在「九二共識」的基礎上，不能只是「擱置爭議」，也應有更多「正視現實」的表現。海峽兩岸，其實可用類如過去東西德、如今南北韓的模式來建立互動架構，相信必有東西德、南北韓所難及的較佳表現。
一場四川大地震，以乎使得「兩岸人民」的相互感應成了昨日北京會談的主題，吳胡二人反而成了人民的代言人。這樣的氛圍，有益於兩岸的互動；將人民擺在首位，主政者的角色則是準確反映人民的思維情感。
兩岸關係若以大小論，不免變成「誰吃掉誰」的問題；但若以理念論，則在於「民族／民權／民生」的競爭與追求。倘若能以這個高度來看「孫中山架構」與「九二共識」，兩岸始不致錯失當前彌足珍貴的「歷史機遇」。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 29, 2008
On May 22, the United Daily News published an editorial on KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's upcoming visit to the mainland. We urged him to deliver a message to CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, saying: "The two sides of the strait cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides of the strait can avoid war."
Yesterday, the Wu Hu Meeting took place. Wu Po-hsiung told Hu Jintao, before live television cameras, before viewers watching in realtime on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, "No one can guarantee that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will not experience natural disasters. But through our joint effort, we can ensure that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will never experience war."
Sichuan earthquake relief efforts motivated authorities on both sides of the strait to value the historic opportunity and to redouble their efforts to communicate. As expected, weekend charter flights, mainland tourists to Taiwan, and other "Four Constants" received Hu Jintao's endorsement. This was essentially Hu Jintao's gift to the Ma Ying-jeou administration. Its significance extended beyond specific policies. It established a foundation for stable and amicable cross-strait relations. It significantly reduced internal and external pressure on the new KMT government regarding its cross-strait policy promises.
Wu and Hu repeatedly underscored the importance of the new cross-strait situation and the importance of the new cross-strait opportunities. We hope cross-strait relations will grow following the Wu Hu Meeting, both at the macro level and at the practical level. At the macro level, the two sides need a common political ideal. We suggest a "Sun Yat-sen Framework." At the practical level, the two sides need a better political framework, one that reflects the way they actually interact. We suggest the "1992 Consensus."
First, the Sun Yat-sen Framework. In 2005, during the Lien Hu Meeting, Hu Jintao told Lien Chan, "The Chinese Communist Party... has long been a staunch supporter of Sun Yat-sen, a collaborator with Sun Yat-sen, and an heir to Sun Yat-sen's tradition. During this visit, when Chen Yunlin greeted Wu Po-hsiung at the Nanjing Airport, Wu quoted Sun's proposal for national unity. The staff of the Sun Yat-sen Tomb noted that the 392 stone steps leading up to the tomb symbolized the "Three People's Principles, the nation's territory, and cooperation between the two parties." Wu Po-hsiung did not pass up an opportunity to present his own views. He mentioned Sun Yat-sen's formulation, "Of the People, by the People, and for the People," and with a brush penned the words, "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." (the earth is our common heritage, the people above all else."
During the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, the United Daily News published an editorial noting that cross-strait interaction lacked an overarching framework. Communism could not provide that framework. Afer all, the Communists themselves were engaged in De-Communization. But the two sides respected Sun Yat-sen, therefore a Sun Yat-sen Framework for cross-strait interaction could ensure long term stability.
Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, "The Chinese People" seems to be the buzzword in current discussions of cross-strait relations. Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Poh-hsiung have both stated that "People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese." During yesterday's Wu Hu Meeting, expressions such as "love for one's compatriates," "blood is thicker than water," and "one's own flesh and blood" emerged. The problem is that in addition to "tian xia wei gong" and "the people above all else," a reunified China needs civil rights and economic prosperity. The Taiwan region's second change in ruling parties is considered a significant achievement by many in the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao regions.
Regarding the "Big Tent" Theory, Beijing's "One China" hard sell seems to have been replaced by a "One People" soft sell. Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, Beijing is stressing Chinese nationalism. Taipei is stressing "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity" in equal measures. Wu Po-hsiung's couplet "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da" summed up his position.
Wu Po-hsiung's couplet has three implications. First, it is an internal memo to the KMT. That is why he said the KMT must "clean house." Second, it is a message to Beijing. If Beijing wishes to stabilize cross-strait relations, it needs to understand that leaders on Taiwan must honor the concept of "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." Beijing must understand it is no easy matter to preserve the Republic of China. Third, Wu Poh-hsiung apparently wanted to encourage Beijing, as a friend. Upholding civil rights and achieving economic prosperity are probably goals Beijing aspires to, but feels it is unable to fulfill as yet. This does not negate the reforms and liberalizations Beijing has implemented over the past 30 years. If one day Beijing can ensure civil rights and economic prosperity on mainland China, then the Divided China problem will be solved. The two sides will most assuredly find a solution. The Sun Yat-sen Framework offers an elevated perspective, one that can provide the overarching superstructure for cross-strait interaction.
Let's review the 1992 Consensus. Between the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, and the current Wu Hu Meeting, the language of the 1992 Consensus has remained the same. But the substance of the 1992 Consensus remains unfulfilled. After 20 years of ups and downs, Beijing realizes that in order to stabilize cross-strait relations, it must secure the Republic of China. Without a secure Republic of China, there can be no stable cross-strait relations. When Taipei stresses the need to face reality, the reality it refers to is the reality of divided rule. When Beijing stresses that it is setting aside disputes, the disputes have merely being set aside. They have not been resolved.
When Hu Jintao took the initiative to invite Wu Poh-hsiung to visit, he did so on the understanding that Wu Po-hsiung was the Chairman of the ruling party of the Republic of China. But he did not officially refer to the Republic of China. When Wu Po-hsiung stood before the tomb of KMT Founder Sun Yat-sen, he reported that the KMT had regained political power. He referred to Nanjing as the seat of the national government. In his eulogy to Sun, he noted the date as "May 27 of the 97th Year of the Republic." But he never uttered the words "Republic of China." Only when he referred to Sun Yat-sen's date of burial, "June 1 of the 18th Year of the Republic," did he finally utter the words "Republic of China." Wu Po-hsiung's frustration can be imagined. The 1992 Consensus merely shelves disputes. It does not confront reality. The two sides must not limit themselves merely to shelving disputes on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. They must also confront reality. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait could use the former East and West German model, or the current South and North Korean model as their framework for interaction. We believe the results would be more salutory than those for East and West Germany, or those for South and North Korea.
A major earthquake in Sichuan has inspired the public on both sides of the strait to interact in an exemplary manner. They became the theme of yesterday's talks in Beijing, Wu and Hu wound up acting as the peoples' spokesmen. Such an atmosphere is beneficial to cross-strait interaction. It puts the people first. The role of leaders is to accurately reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people.
If we look at cross-strait relations purely on the basis of who is bigger or smaller, the question inevitably becomes "Who will gobble up whom?" But if we look at cross-strait relations on the basis of ideas, then it leads to competition in the pursuit of "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity." If we look at the Sun Yat-sen Framework and the 1992 Consensus from this perspective, then the two sides are unlikely to squander this historic opportunity.
吳胡會：孫中山的啟示與九二共識的詮釋
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.29 03:00 am
五月二十二日，本報社論曾請即將往訪大陸的國民黨主席吳伯雄帶給中共總書記胡錦濤一句話：「兩岸不會沒有地震，但可以沒有戰爭！」
昨天，吳胡會登場，吳伯雄面對胡錦濤，在兩岸電視直播的致詞中帶到了這一句話。他說：「兩岸之間，誰也不能保證沒有自然災害；但可以透過共同的努力，來保證兩岸永遠沒有戰爭。」
四川震災使得兩岸當局所相互強調的「歷史機遇」更添動力。果如預料，周末包機、大陸觀光客來台等「四個繼續」皆獲胡錦濤背書。這形同是胡錦濤致送馬英九政府的就任禮物，其意義尚不僅是幾項政策個案如周末包機能如期實現，更是對兩岸關係的友善穩定下錨定樁，使國民黨新政府在兩岸的領域中大幅減低了內外壓力。
然而，在吳胡二人一再強調的兩岸「新形勢」、「新契機」中，我們更希望此次吳胡會後的兩岸關係，能夠在「宏觀願景」及「現實基礎」上皆有所長進。就宏觀願景言，是指兩岸應當發展出一個共同的政治理念追求，我們想談的是「孫中山架構」；就現實基礎言，是指兩岸應當有一更能反映現實的互動架構，我們想談的是「九二共識」。
先談「孫中山架構」。二○○五年「連胡會」，胡錦濤曾當著連戰說：「中國共產黨人……從來就是中山先生的堅定支持者、合作者、繼承者。」此次吳伯雄往訪，陳雲林在首站南京接機，亦當場引述了孫中山「民族大團結」的主張；連中山陵的接待人員也說，三九二級石階，寓有「三民主義、九州方圓、兩黨合作」之義。吳伯雄當然也未錯過借題發揮的機會，標舉「民有、民治、民享」的理念，並當場揮毫題了八個大字：「天下為公、人民最大。」
二○○五年連胡會時，本報社論即指出，兩岸互動交流中缺少一個「巨型架構」；因為，共產主義不能成為此一架構，連中共當局也在「去共產主義化」；而既然兩岸皆推崇孫中山，則倘若兩岸能以「孫中山架構」為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」，應可期諸久遠。
就「孫中山架構」言，「民族」似為當前兩岸對話中最突出的話題，馬英九及吳伯雄皆已道出「兩岸同屬中華民族」；昨日吳胡會，「同胞之愛」、「骨肉之情」、「血肉相連」，亦是聲聲入耳；但問題在於「民權」與「民生」，亦即在於「天下為公」及「人民最大」。此次台灣實現「二次政黨輪替」，被許多大陸及港澳人民視為華人世界的民主成就，亦緣於此。
從「屋頂理論」來看北京當局現今的兩岸操作，「一個中國」的「硬屋頂」似已漸漸退至第二線，「中華民族」的「軟屋頂」則站上了第一線。倘以孫中山架構來說，北京當局強調的是「民族主義」；但台北方面則希望能將「民族／民權／民生」均衡體現，吳伯雄的八個字「天下為公／人民最大」，透露了心曲。
吳伯雄的這八個大字，也許可從三方面來看。一方面是自我惕厲，因此他說國民黨必須「好自為之」；再一方面是傳話北京當局，若欲穩定兩岸關係，不能不知台灣的主政者有「天下為公／人民最大」的責任，亦不能不知「中華民國」這個架構之維持非易。最後，吳伯雄似亦有以諍友地位與北京當局互勉之意；「民權／民生」應非中共當局所不願為或所不想為，而是形格勢禁做不到，然亦不能據此否定中共在改革開放三十年來已經實現的成績；倘若中共有朝一日能將中國的民權與民生成就至一定程度，則中國問題即可解決，兩岸問題亦必會找到出路。倘能站在此一高度看「孫中山架構」，當然可以作為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」。
再談九二共識。自二○○五年「連胡會」，至此次「吳胡會」，「九二共識」的政策標誌已趨穩固；但是，「九二共識」的內涵「一中各表」，卻仍待體現。經歷過去二十年來的跌宕曲折，北京當局應知，欲穩固兩岸關係，即必須穩固「中華民國」；無穩固的「中華民國」，即無穩固的兩岸關係。然而，就此以論，台北方面強調的是「正視現實」，亦即「正視」兩岸分治的「現實」；但北京當局強調的卻是「擱置爭議」，只是「擱置」而已，「爭議」仍在。
胡錦濤主動邀請吳伯雄往訪，當然是承認了吳伯雄「中華民國執政黨主席」的身分，卻未同等表現出「正視」中華民國的「現實」。於是，吳伯雄此行在言詞之間，雖向國民黨總理孫中山報告「重新取回政權」，又稱南京曾是「國民政府所在地」，再在祭文標出「維民國九十七年五月二十七日」，卻始終說不出一個「中華民國」；一直到引據孫中山下葬日為「中華民國十八年六月一日」，才說出「中華民國」四個字。吳伯雄心中的壓抑可想而知，而「九二共識」只是「擱置爭議」卻未「正視現實」，亦是有目共睹。寄望兩岸當局，未來在「九二共識」的基礎上，不能只是「擱置爭議」，也應有更多「正視現實」的表現。海峽兩岸，其實可用類如過去東西德、如今南北韓的模式來建立互動架構，相信必有東西德、南北韓所難及的較佳表現。
一場四川大地震，以乎使得「兩岸人民」的相互感應成了昨日北京會談的主題，吳胡二人反而成了人民的代言人。這樣的氛圍，有益於兩岸的互動；將人民擺在首位，主政者的角色則是準確反映人民的思維情感。
兩岸關係若以大小論，不免變成「誰吃掉誰」的問題；但若以理念論，則在於「民族／民權／民生」的競爭與追求。倘若能以這個高度來看「孫中山架構」與「九二共識」，兩岸始不致錯失當前彌足珍貴的「歷史機遇」。
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Donate the Balance of the Chung Hsing Bills Fund to Charity
Donate the Balance of the Chung Hsing Bills Fund to Charity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 28, 2008
No sooner had the new administration opened its doors for business, than reports emerged that the KMT hoped to reclaim the 240 million NT balance in the controversial Chung Hsing Bills Fund. In terms of both timing and procedure, this is an unwise move. To stir up dust that had long settled, for the sake of a tainted sum of money, can only damage the KMT's image.
Both the KMT and PFP are being naive. The KMT hopes to reclaim 240 million NT belonging to the party. James Soong hopes to emerge from the shadow of the Chung Hsing Bills scandal. One party hopes to receive monetary benefits. The other hopes to clear his name. Both see a win/win scenario. But they are forgetting the third keyholder in the case -- Lee Teng-hui. They are also forgetting the public on Taiwan, which has been following this case for the past eight years. Besides, even assuming the procedural knots can be untangled, this case is not as simple as "You get your money back. I get my name cleared." Public perception is a tricky matter.
The Chung Hsing Bills Case is not just an internal KMT scandal. It is also an old-fashioned backroom deal. During the 2000 Presidential Election, Lee Teng-hui fought tooth and nail with James Soong. James Soong lost because Lee Teng-hui used the Chung Hsing Bills scandal to block Soong's path to the presidency. The KMT also lost power. It was a lose/lose proposition. The public on Taiwan endured eight years of Chen regime misrule and degeneracy. Nothing good can come out of revisiting the Chung Hsing Bills scandal.
Wu Po-hsiung and James Soong appear interested in bringing closure to this affair. But if the 240 million NT is treated as a reward for making peace with Lee Teng-hui, this could make matters even worse. After so much storm and strife, the air surrounding the Chung Hsing Bills Case may never clear. All we can do is allow bygones be bygones, then donate that dirty money to charity. Only this can result in a win/win/win scenario.
Each of the parties should deal with the personal and financial issues separately. Personal issues must not be linked with financial issues. Money must not be the price of reconciliation. Only then can the Chung Hsing Bills scandal finally be resolved.
The concerned parties include Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, and James Soong. Much has changed since then. Lee and Lien once stood on the same side with regards the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal. Following the debacle however, Lien and Soong ended up as running mates. Now that the political winds are blowing from Ma Ying-jeou's direction, Lee Teng-hui has once again changed course. Obviously changes in the strategic scenario influence personal attitudes. Over the past eight years, the concerned parties have formed and broken alliance after alliance. Witness the ruling Democratic Progressive Party drunk with power. Witness Taiwan's regression and the people's suffering. How can one not be chagrined?
The public on Taiwan is fed up. It has endured eight years of pain. The public on Taiwan has handed the incoming administration a new mandate for Taiwan's future. Lee Teng-hui and James Soong have receded into the shadows. That they might wish to resolve old grievances is understandable. Besides, the pain of the Chung Hsing Bills Finance case is something Lee, Lien, and Soong inflicted upon Taiwan. If those responsible for the scandal can reconcile, then they can apologize to the people. The disposal of the money however allows no room for ambiguity. According to James Soong and Wu Po-hsiung, the 240 million NT slush fund came from various secret channels. Lee Teng-hui ordered James Soong to establish the fund. The fund definitely belongs to the KMT. According to Lee Teng-hui, this is untrue. But Lee has flip-flopped on this allegation repeatedly. The two sides differ on what happened, primarily on the main reason why this fund couldn't be withdrawn. Besides caring for the Chiang family, this "Party/Government Operation Fund" includes private campaign contributions, grants, and other sources of income. funneled through private channels. Under such circumstances, can one really regard them as KMT funds, to be reclaimed by the KMT and used for other purposes?
Controversy over KMT party assets has never subsided. If the KMT attempts to reclaim these funds, whose origins remain unclear, and brings back bad memories of improper party assets, is it really worth it? Besides, 240 million NT may be tempting, but attempting to reclaim will summon the ghosts of a bygone era -- an era of palace intrigues and political infighting. The KMT barely has time to look to the future. Why let this dirty money destroy its image?
If these political elders are willing to set aside old scores, they may as well donate the money to charity. Or else simply allow the time limit to expire. The funds will automatically forfeited. They will then be returned to the state treasury, to the people. Consider the funds a contribution these political elders owe the people of Taiwan.
興票餘緒：人的恩仇難解，錢應捐作公益
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.28 03:06 am
新政府方才開張，國民黨即傳出希領回興票案提存的二點四億元，就時機和作法而言，均屬不智。為了一筆爛帳，重新掀起漫天歷史塵埃，對國民黨的形象有害無益。
在這裡，國親兩黨各有一個天真的想像：國民黨拿回屬於黨的二點四億元，宋楚瑜則可從「興票案」的陰影底下完全脫困；一方獲得實惠，一方還得清白，想像中是兩全其美的好事一樁。但他們忽略了握有此案「第三把鑰匙」的李登輝，還有旁觀此事八年而備覺疑惑的台灣民眾；況且，即使提存的程序糾結得以解開，從社會觀感而言，此案已絕非「你拿回錢，我洗刷名」這麼簡單。
回顧興票案始末，它不只是國民黨內部惡鬥的醜陋一頁，也讓舊式密室政治的汙穢現形。二 ○○○年的總統大選，是李登輝與宋楚瑜的惡鬥；結果宋楚瑜因李登輝主導的興票案而阻斷了總統之路，國民黨也痛失政權，可謂兩敗俱傷，而台灣人民則由此承受了扁政權八年失政敗德的苦果。就此而言，興票案已是絕無可能討回「公道」。
如今，吳伯雄和宋楚瑜似有意將這段恩怨作個了結，但如果把二點四億視為與李登輝言和的「報償」，卻可能是治絲益棼。事實上，經過這麼巨大的風暴，興票案要返歸純淨的天空已無可能；唯一可以做的事，是將人的恩怨情仇作一了斷，然後讓那筆罪惡源頭的錢回歸社會，才有三贏的可能。
亦即，當事的各方，應該把「人」和「錢」的問題分開來處理，不可彼此勾聯，更不必以錢的解套作為彼此和解的前提。如此，興票案才可能尋得最後的救贖。
從「人」的問題看，李連宋等人當年的情仇，如今已有了莫大的變化：原本於興票案站在同一陣營的「李連」，在慘敗後演變成「連宋」攜手搭檔的局面；至馬英九出線，李登輝又見風轉舵。顯然，政治情境的變化，可以催化政治情仇的變化。過去八年，相關人等歷經分分合合，目睹民進黨執政的顛狂，看到台灣的倒退和人民的痛苦，不可能對自己的作為沒有絲毫懊惱吧？
當台灣飽經艱難，熬過痛苦的八年，新的民意對台灣前途也已作出新的選擇，李宋這些已退至舞台邊緣的人物，若思化解舊日恩怨，自是可以理解。何況，興票案是李連宋共同加給台灣的歷史疼痛，現在始作俑者若能就此和解，至少可表達對人民今是昨非的歉意。但是，對於錢的處置，卻沒有含糊的餘地。根據宋楚瑜和吳伯雄的認知，這二點四億元來自不同管道的秘密撥款，是李登輝委託宋楚瑜動支，確屬國民黨所有；李登輝的說法，則與此不同，且一再反覆。雙方認知上的不同，是這筆錢無法提取的主因。事實上，撇開蔣家遺族照護經費不談，所謂的「黨政運作基金」包含了民間政治捐款及競選補助款等紛雜來源，且經過私人管道的輾轉理財運用；在這種情況下，能否視為國民黨資金而由國民黨領回並另作他用，自然大有可議。
試想，國民黨的黨產爭議多年來未曾平息，如今若要為這筆妾身未明的興票款，再度勾起社會對其不當黨產的記憶，豈屬明智？更何況，二點四億的巨款固然誘人，卻是充滿「舊時代」、「宮廷風」、「政治惡鬥」的魅影；國民黨往前看都來不及，何必為這筆錢再讓自己沾滿歷史的汙穢？
如果老巨頭們願意放下恩怨，大家不妨把這筆錢領出來，然後捐出供作公益用途；否則就讓提存時限屆滿自動充公，歸入國庫後自然而然地回到民間。如此，就算政治巨頭們積欠台灣社會的少許補償吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 28, 2008
No sooner had the new administration opened its doors for business, than reports emerged that the KMT hoped to reclaim the 240 million NT balance in the controversial Chung Hsing Bills Fund. In terms of both timing and procedure, this is an unwise move. To stir up dust that had long settled, for the sake of a tainted sum of money, can only damage the KMT's image.
Both the KMT and PFP are being naive. The KMT hopes to reclaim 240 million NT belonging to the party. James Soong hopes to emerge from the shadow of the Chung Hsing Bills scandal. One party hopes to receive monetary benefits. The other hopes to clear his name. Both see a win/win scenario. But they are forgetting the third keyholder in the case -- Lee Teng-hui. They are also forgetting the public on Taiwan, which has been following this case for the past eight years. Besides, even assuming the procedural knots can be untangled, this case is not as simple as "You get your money back. I get my name cleared." Public perception is a tricky matter.
The Chung Hsing Bills Case is not just an internal KMT scandal. It is also an old-fashioned backroom deal. During the 2000 Presidential Election, Lee Teng-hui fought tooth and nail with James Soong. James Soong lost because Lee Teng-hui used the Chung Hsing Bills scandal to block Soong's path to the presidency. The KMT also lost power. It was a lose/lose proposition. The public on Taiwan endured eight years of Chen regime misrule and degeneracy. Nothing good can come out of revisiting the Chung Hsing Bills scandal.
Wu Po-hsiung and James Soong appear interested in bringing closure to this affair. But if the 240 million NT is treated as a reward for making peace with Lee Teng-hui, this could make matters even worse. After so much storm and strife, the air surrounding the Chung Hsing Bills Case may never clear. All we can do is allow bygones be bygones, then donate that dirty money to charity. Only this can result in a win/win/win scenario.
Each of the parties should deal with the personal and financial issues separately. Personal issues must not be linked with financial issues. Money must not be the price of reconciliation. Only then can the Chung Hsing Bills scandal finally be resolved.
The concerned parties include Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, and James Soong. Much has changed since then. Lee and Lien once stood on the same side with regards the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal. Following the debacle however, Lien and Soong ended up as running mates. Now that the political winds are blowing from Ma Ying-jeou's direction, Lee Teng-hui has once again changed course. Obviously changes in the strategic scenario influence personal attitudes. Over the past eight years, the concerned parties have formed and broken alliance after alliance. Witness the ruling Democratic Progressive Party drunk with power. Witness Taiwan's regression and the people's suffering. How can one not be chagrined?
The public on Taiwan is fed up. It has endured eight years of pain. The public on Taiwan has handed the incoming administration a new mandate for Taiwan's future. Lee Teng-hui and James Soong have receded into the shadows. That they might wish to resolve old grievances is understandable. Besides, the pain of the Chung Hsing Bills Finance case is something Lee, Lien, and Soong inflicted upon Taiwan. If those responsible for the scandal can reconcile, then they can apologize to the people. The disposal of the money however allows no room for ambiguity. According to James Soong and Wu Po-hsiung, the 240 million NT slush fund came from various secret channels. Lee Teng-hui ordered James Soong to establish the fund. The fund definitely belongs to the KMT. According to Lee Teng-hui, this is untrue. But Lee has flip-flopped on this allegation repeatedly. The two sides differ on what happened, primarily on the main reason why this fund couldn't be withdrawn. Besides caring for the Chiang family, this "Party/Government Operation Fund" includes private campaign contributions, grants, and other sources of income. funneled through private channels. Under such circumstances, can one really regard them as KMT funds, to be reclaimed by the KMT and used for other purposes?
Controversy over KMT party assets has never subsided. If the KMT attempts to reclaim these funds, whose origins remain unclear, and brings back bad memories of improper party assets, is it really worth it? Besides, 240 million NT may be tempting, but attempting to reclaim will summon the ghosts of a bygone era -- an era of palace intrigues and political infighting. The KMT barely has time to look to the future. Why let this dirty money destroy its image?
If these political elders are willing to set aside old scores, they may as well donate the money to charity. Or else simply allow the time limit to expire. The funds will automatically forfeited. They will then be returned to the state treasury, to the people. Consider the funds a contribution these political elders owe the people of Taiwan.
興票餘緒：人的恩仇難解，錢應捐作公益
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.28 03:06 am
新政府方才開張，國民黨即傳出希領回興票案提存的二點四億元，就時機和作法而言，均屬不智。為了一筆爛帳，重新掀起漫天歷史塵埃，對國民黨的形象有害無益。
在這裡，國親兩黨各有一個天真的想像：國民黨拿回屬於黨的二點四億元，宋楚瑜則可從「興票案」的陰影底下完全脫困；一方獲得實惠，一方還得清白，想像中是兩全其美的好事一樁。但他們忽略了握有此案「第三把鑰匙」的李登輝，還有旁觀此事八年而備覺疑惑的台灣民眾；況且，即使提存的程序糾結得以解開，從社會觀感而言，此案已絕非「你拿回錢，我洗刷名」這麼簡單。
回顧興票案始末，它不只是國民黨內部惡鬥的醜陋一頁，也讓舊式密室政治的汙穢現形。二 ○○○年的總統大選，是李登輝與宋楚瑜的惡鬥；結果宋楚瑜因李登輝主導的興票案而阻斷了總統之路，國民黨也痛失政權，可謂兩敗俱傷，而台灣人民則由此承受了扁政權八年失政敗德的苦果。就此而言，興票案已是絕無可能討回「公道」。
如今，吳伯雄和宋楚瑜似有意將這段恩怨作個了結，但如果把二點四億視為與李登輝言和的「報償」，卻可能是治絲益棼。事實上，經過這麼巨大的風暴，興票案要返歸純淨的天空已無可能；唯一可以做的事，是將人的恩怨情仇作一了斷，然後讓那筆罪惡源頭的錢回歸社會，才有三贏的可能。
亦即，當事的各方，應該把「人」和「錢」的問題分開來處理，不可彼此勾聯，更不必以錢的解套作為彼此和解的前提。如此，興票案才可能尋得最後的救贖。
從「人」的問題看，李連宋等人當年的情仇，如今已有了莫大的變化：原本於興票案站在同一陣營的「李連」，在慘敗後演變成「連宋」攜手搭檔的局面；至馬英九出線，李登輝又見風轉舵。顯然，政治情境的變化，可以催化政治情仇的變化。過去八年，相關人等歷經分分合合，目睹民進黨執政的顛狂，看到台灣的倒退和人民的痛苦，不可能對自己的作為沒有絲毫懊惱吧？
當台灣飽經艱難，熬過痛苦的八年，新的民意對台灣前途也已作出新的選擇，李宋這些已退至舞台邊緣的人物，若思化解舊日恩怨，自是可以理解。何況，興票案是李連宋共同加給台灣的歷史疼痛，現在始作俑者若能就此和解，至少可表達對人民今是昨非的歉意。但是，對於錢的處置，卻沒有含糊的餘地。根據宋楚瑜和吳伯雄的認知，這二點四億元來自不同管道的秘密撥款，是李登輝委託宋楚瑜動支，確屬國民黨所有；李登輝的說法，則與此不同，且一再反覆。雙方認知上的不同，是這筆錢無法提取的主因。事實上，撇開蔣家遺族照護經費不談，所謂的「黨政運作基金」包含了民間政治捐款及競選補助款等紛雜來源，且經過私人管道的輾轉理財運用；在這種情況下，能否視為國民黨資金而由國民黨領回並另作他用，自然大有可議。
試想，國民黨的黨產爭議多年來未曾平息，如今若要為這筆妾身未明的興票款，再度勾起社會對其不當黨產的記憶，豈屬明智？更何況，二點四億的巨款固然誘人，卻是充滿「舊時代」、「宮廷風」、「政治惡鬥」的魅影；國民黨往前看都來不及，何必為這筆錢再讓自己沾滿歷史的汙穢？
如果老巨頭們願意放下恩怨，大家不妨把這筆錢領出來，然後捐出供作公益用途；否則就讓提存時限屆滿自動充公，歸入國庫後自然而然地回到民間。如此，就算政治巨頭們積欠台灣社會的少許補償吧！
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
How Will Chow Mei-ching Fulfill Her New Role?
How Will Chow Mei-ching Fulfill Her New Role?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 27, 2008
Once the news came out that First Lady Chow Mei-ching intended to retire, charitable groups began fighting over her tooth and nail, trying desperately to recruit her to their cause.
This was hardly unexpected. If Chow Mei-ching had continued going to work, had continued being a career woman, the public would have respected her decision. They wouldn't have bothered her too much. But now that she is retiring, the public has a whole new set of expectations of her. They want her to take part in charitable work. That the public would react this way was entirely predictable.
To Chow Mei-ching and the larger community, this is a big deal. Chow Mei-ching may be willing to meet the public's expectations. But would she be merely sticking her big toe in the water? Or would she be diving in head first? Would she be taking on all comers, or concentrating her efforts in a single area, for maximum effect?
Thirty years ago, Song Mei-ling retired from public life. She has been followed by a secession of First Ladies, including Liu Chi-chun (Mrs. Yen Chia-kan), Chiang Fang-liang, Tseng Wen-hui, and Wu Shu-cheng. None of these are the kind of First Lady we wish to discuss at the moment. Today the public has all sorts of expectations of Chow Mei-ching, and Chow Mei-ching appears duty bound to meet these expectations. In fact, If a nation has a First Lady who can participate in charitable activities and touch the hearts and minds of the entire nation, she is not merely a sidekick who can amass approval points for the president, she is a precious asset to the entire community. Does Chow Mei-ching have such expectations of herself? Is she ready for such expectations from the public?
We believe that Chow Mei-ching is willing to fulfill her new role. If Chow Mei-ching is conscientious, she should not merely dabble. She should devote all her energies to a specific charitable activity, enabling her to make a genuine contribution. She may wish to focus on families, with an emphasis on youth. If Chow Mei-ching becomes a field worker for a charitable organization, her high media profile may become a hindrance. It may be best if she settles down inside some particular charitable organization. She can then network horizontally with other organizations that deal with families and youth. For example, If Chow Mei-ching were to settle down inside the Tzu Chi Foundation, or the Family Support Center, she could set up a "workshop" within such a reputable charity, and through such a workshop connect with other charities willing to be part of a larger network. She could even link to universities and vocational schools. Each charity would solve problems its own way, but each charity would support other charities. She could do great things. Chow Mei-ching could become "The People's Chow Mei-ching." Chow Mei-ching would be working for everyone.
Chow Mei-ching participating in such an effort would be a golden opportunity for all sorts of charities. Helping families lies at the heart of all charitable activity. This includes low-income households and elderly people living alone. Helping youth, in turn, lies at the center of the heart of all charitable activity. One cannot not wait until parents, driven by despair, kill themselves and their children by setting charcoal fires in their living rooms. Such efforts as delivering meals, visiting the housebound, and tutoring, require vast amounts of human resources, financial resources, and love. If the various charities can establish horizontal links, they can share resources, eliminate dead corners, and reduce blind spots, They would complement each other and increase each others' effectiveness. Therefore instead of squabbling over her, the various charities should come up with a win/win approach that pools their resources. Only this will enable Chow Mei-ching to maximize her potential. Only this will enable her to benefit the entire community.
If by some miracle Chow Mei-ching still has energy to spare, she can participate in other charitable activies. But we think it would be best if she stuck to the same theme, such as families or youth. She should establish a solid reputation in a specific area before expanding out to others. Two years from now, in her capacity as a charity worker, Chow Mei-ching may even wish to visit children in the Sichuan region who were victimized by the earthquake.
Based on recent public reaction, charitable groups have exerted a great deal of pressure on Chow Mei-ching. But Chow Mei-ching should see these expectations as well-intentioned. The public should allow Chow Mei-ching to decide how she wishes to participate in charitable activities and to what extent. Chow Mei-ching is known for being as cool as a cucumber. But if you look closely at her forehead, you can detect a trace of tension and a touch of melancholy. The shackles imposed by the Ma family are something she can't talk about. If she dives into charitable activities right now, her public persona may lack softness, warmth, and openness. Becoming involved in charitable activities may not be much of a challenge for her. But if Chow Mei-ching keeps an open mind, and plunges headlong into charitable activities, she has a good chance of achieving something meaningful. Once she unleashes her full potential, and reveals the full extent of her charisma, the public will see a sunnier, brighter, more charismatic Chow Mei-ching. If so, the cool as a cucumber Chow Mei-ching we know so well, may finally allow the public to see her smile.
The public considers Chow Mei-ching more charismatic than Ma Ying-jeou. In fact, just as Song Mei-ling was able to be her own woman, Chow Mei-ching does not need to be conceived exclusively in terms of his relationship to Ma Ying-jeou. Why not take this historic opportunity to allow Chow Mei-ching to make a name for herself?
周美青如何擔當她的新角色？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.27 02:27 am
第一夫人周美青打算退休的消息傳出後，社福慈善團體出現搶人大戰。
這是意料中事。周美青若繼續上班，當她的職業婦女，社會大眾會尊重她的選擇，不至於太過打攪她；但如今一旦「退休」，國人不免對她另有期待，各方希望她能參與公益慈善工作，則是用膝蓋想也可知道的社會反應。
這對周美青自己及對整個社會，都是一件「大事」。對周美青而言，她也許會願意回應社會的期待，但究竟是打算蜻蜓點水式地淺嘗輒止，或是準備整個人「←落去」？究竟是來者不拒地四處放煙火，或是選擇一個主題深耕密耘？
對整個社會來說，則自宋美齡隱退後，三十餘年來，劉期純（嚴家淦夫人）、蔣方良、曾文惠、吳淑珍皆非此刻我們要討論的那類「第一夫人」；但如今社會大眾卻對周美青頗有期待，周美青似乎也是義不容辭。其實，一個國家如果有一位能夠參與社會並感動國人的「第一夫人」，她非但是可為總統加分的「賢外助」，抑且是整個社會的珍貴資產。不知這是否周美青的自我期許，亦不知她是否準備好了？
我們認為，周美青應會樂於承當起她的新角色。倘若周美青是有心人，則最好不要蜻蜓點水地四出作花瓶，而不妨集中心力在一個社福主題上，作出一些實質的貢獻。或許可以選擇以「家庭」為主題，並以「青少年」為重點；且周美青似乎不便作為某一社福機構的專屬義工，而最好能「寄靠」在一機構中，卻能將其他機構有關「家庭」及「青少年」的工作橫向聯結起來，形成整合的大網絡。例如，周美青如果「寄靠」在慈濟功德會或家扶中心，而這個有公信力的「寄靠」單位能設立一個「工作室」，再透過這個「工作室」將其他願意「加盟」的相關社福機構聯結起來，亦可連繫大專學校慈善社團，分頭發掘問題，相互支援資源，即必可有大作為。如此，周美青始可能成為「大家的周美青」，而周美青亦始可能「為大家工作」。
周美青若能參與，也是各社福團體群策群力的契機。「家庭扶助」是社福工作最核心的課題，包括了中低收入戶、獨居老人等項目；「青少年」則又是核心中的核心，不能等到父母帶孩子燒炭才來掉淚。然而，這些工作，如送餐、親訪、課輔等，皆需極大的人力、資源及愛心；若能將各社福機構橫向聯結起來，資源更充裕，死角減少，盲點也減少，自有相輔相成的效益。因此，各社福團體與其對周美青爭相「挖角」，何如想出一個「資源共享」的共贏之道；倘能如此，就不但成全了周美青，也嘉惠了整個社會。
當然，周美青若行有餘力，仍可參與其他社福工作；但我們認為，最好是在一個「主題」（如家庭、青少年）的工作上有若干基礎後，亦即以實際績效建立了自己的品牌後，再行漸進地拓展工作領域。周美青甚至不妨思考，兩年後可以慈善義工的身分，往訪四川災區兒童。
從近日社會的反應看，社福團體似乎給了周美青不小的壓力；但周美青不妨皆視為善意的期許，社會公眾最後仍應尊重周美青自己決定參與的項目及程度。其實，被稱為酷酷嫂的周美青，眉間常有一絲淡淡的憂鬱與緊張；馬家的拘謹，對她應是難以言說的束縛；以她現在的形象，若投身慈善工作，或許仍少了幾分柔軟、溫暖與開放；因此，未來她若投身社會福利，在應對上未嘗不是一大挑戰。不過，我們認為，周美青若能開放胸懷，投身社會工作，對她的自我實現也是甚佳的契機；或許，待她充分釋放了能力與魅力，國人應可看到一個更陽光、更開朗，更具感動力的周美青。倘能如此，未來走入社會的酷酷嫂周美青，也許會讓國人看到多一些笑容。
輿論曾經認為，周美青有超越馬英九的魅力。其實，正如宋美齡享有自我實現的榮譽，周美青也不必認為自己只是馬英九的分身；何妨在這個歷史機遇中，也為周美青三字寫下一段傳奇？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 27, 2008
Once the news came out that First Lady Chow Mei-ching intended to retire, charitable groups began fighting over her tooth and nail, trying desperately to recruit her to their cause.
This was hardly unexpected. If Chow Mei-ching had continued going to work, had continued being a career woman, the public would have respected her decision. They wouldn't have bothered her too much. But now that she is retiring, the public has a whole new set of expectations of her. They want her to take part in charitable work. That the public would react this way was entirely predictable.
To Chow Mei-ching and the larger community, this is a big deal. Chow Mei-ching may be willing to meet the public's expectations. But would she be merely sticking her big toe in the water? Or would she be diving in head first? Would she be taking on all comers, or concentrating her efforts in a single area, for maximum effect?
Thirty years ago, Song Mei-ling retired from public life. She has been followed by a secession of First Ladies, including Liu Chi-chun (Mrs. Yen Chia-kan), Chiang Fang-liang, Tseng Wen-hui, and Wu Shu-cheng. None of these are the kind of First Lady we wish to discuss at the moment. Today the public has all sorts of expectations of Chow Mei-ching, and Chow Mei-ching appears duty bound to meet these expectations. In fact, If a nation has a First Lady who can participate in charitable activities and touch the hearts and minds of the entire nation, she is not merely a sidekick who can amass approval points for the president, she is a precious asset to the entire community. Does Chow Mei-ching have such expectations of herself? Is she ready for such expectations from the public?
We believe that Chow Mei-ching is willing to fulfill her new role. If Chow Mei-ching is conscientious, she should not merely dabble. She should devote all her energies to a specific charitable activity, enabling her to make a genuine contribution. She may wish to focus on families, with an emphasis on youth. If Chow Mei-ching becomes a field worker for a charitable organization, her high media profile may become a hindrance. It may be best if she settles down inside some particular charitable organization. She can then network horizontally with other organizations that deal with families and youth. For example, If Chow Mei-ching were to settle down inside the Tzu Chi Foundation, or the Family Support Center, she could set up a "workshop" within such a reputable charity, and through such a workshop connect with other charities willing to be part of a larger network. She could even link to universities and vocational schools. Each charity would solve problems its own way, but each charity would support other charities. She could do great things. Chow Mei-ching could become "The People's Chow Mei-ching." Chow Mei-ching would be working for everyone.
Chow Mei-ching participating in such an effort would be a golden opportunity for all sorts of charities. Helping families lies at the heart of all charitable activity. This includes low-income households and elderly people living alone. Helping youth, in turn, lies at the center of the heart of all charitable activity. One cannot not wait until parents, driven by despair, kill themselves and their children by setting charcoal fires in their living rooms. Such efforts as delivering meals, visiting the housebound, and tutoring, require vast amounts of human resources, financial resources, and love. If the various charities can establish horizontal links, they can share resources, eliminate dead corners, and reduce blind spots, They would complement each other and increase each others' effectiveness. Therefore instead of squabbling over her, the various charities should come up with a win/win approach that pools their resources. Only this will enable Chow Mei-ching to maximize her potential. Only this will enable her to benefit the entire community.
If by some miracle Chow Mei-ching still has energy to spare, she can participate in other charitable activies. But we think it would be best if she stuck to the same theme, such as families or youth. She should establish a solid reputation in a specific area before expanding out to others. Two years from now, in her capacity as a charity worker, Chow Mei-ching may even wish to visit children in the Sichuan region who were victimized by the earthquake.
Based on recent public reaction, charitable groups have exerted a great deal of pressure on Chow Mei-ching. But Chow Mei-ching should see these expectations as well-intentioned. The public should allow Chow Mei-ching to decide how she wishes to participate in charitable activities and to what extent. Chow Mei-ching is known for being as cool as a cucumber. But if you look closely at her forehead, you can detect a trace of tension and a touch of melancholy. The shackles imposed by the Ma family are something she can't talk about. If she dives into charitable activities right now, her public persona may lack softness, warmth, and openness. Becoming involved in charitable activities may not be much of a challenge for her. But if Chow Mei-ching keeps an open mind, and plunges headlong into charitable activities, she has a good chance of achieving something meaningful. Once she unleashes her full potential, and reveals the full extent of her charisma, the public will see a sunnier, brighter, more charismatic Chow Mei-ching. If so, the cool as a cucumber Chow Mei-ching we know so well, may finally allow the public to see her smile.
The public considers Chow Mei-ching more charismatic than Ma Ying-jeou. In fact, just as Song Mei-ling was able to be her own woman, Chow Mei-ching does not need to be conceived exclusively in terms of his relationship to Ma Ying-jeou. Why not take this historic opportunity to allow Chow Mei-ching to make a name for herself?
周美青如何擔當她的新角色？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.27 02:27 am
第一夫人周美青打算退休的消息傳出後，社福慈善團體出現搶人大戰。
這是意料中事。周美青若繼續上班，當她的職業婦女，社會大眾會尊重她的選擇，不至於太過打攪她；但如今一旦「退休」，國人不免對她另有期待，各方希望她能參與公益慈善工作，則是用膝蓋想也可知道的社會反應。
這對周美青自己及對整個社會，都是一件「大事」。對周美青而言，她也許會願意回應社會的期待，但究竟是打算蜻蜓點水式地淺嘗輒止，或是準備整個人「←落去」？究竟是來者不拒地四處放煙火，或是選擇一個主題深耕密耘？
對整個社會來說，則自宋美齡隱退後，三十餘年來，劉期純（嚴家淦夫人）、蔣方良、曾文惠、吳淑珍皆非此刻我們要討論的那類「第一夫人」；但如今社會大眾卻對周美青頗有期待，周美青似乎也是義不容辭。其實，一個國家如果有一位能夠參與社會並感動國人的「第一夫人」，她非但是可為總統加分的「賢外助」，抑且是整個社會的珍貴資產。不知這是否周美青的自我期許，亦不知她是否準備好了？
我們認為，周美青應會樂於承當起她的新角色。倘若周美青是有心人，則最好不要蜻蜓點水地四出作花瓶，而不妨集中心力在一個社福主題上，作出一些實質的貢獻。或許可以選擇以「家庭」為主題，並以「青少年」為重點；且周美青似乎不便作為某一社福機構的專屬義工，而最好能「寄靠」在一機構中，卻能將其他機構有關「家庭」及「青少年」的工作橫向聯結起來，形成整合的大網絡。例如，周美青如果「寄靠」在慈濟功德會或家扶中心，而這個有公信力的「寄靠」單位能設立一個「工作室」，再透過這個「工作室」將其他願意「加盟」的相關社福機構聯結起來，亦可連繫大專學校慈善社團，分頭發掘問題，相互支援資源，即必可有大作為。如此，周美青始可能成為「大家的周美青」，而周美青亦始可能「為大家工作」。
周美青若能參與，也是各社福團體群策群力的契機。「家庭扶助」是社福工作最核心的課題，包括了中低收入戶、獨居老人等項目；「青少年」則又是核心中的核心，不能等到父母帶孩子燒炭才來掉淚。然而，這些工作，如送餐、親訪、課輔等，皆需極大的人力、資源及愛心；若能將各社福機構橫向聯結起來，資源更充裕，死角減少，盲點也減少，自有相輔相成的效益。因此，各社福團體與其對周美青爭相「挖角」，何如想出一個「資源共享」的共贏之道；倘能如此，就不但成全了周美青，也嘉惠了整個社會。
當然，周美青若行有餘力，仍可參與其他社福工作；但我們認為，最好是在一個「主題」（如家庭、青少年）的工作上有若干基礎後，亦即以實際績效建立了自己的品牌後，再行漸進地拓展工作領域。周美青甚至不妨思考，兩年後可以慈善義工的身分，往訪四川災區兒童。
從近日社會的反應看，社福團體似乎給了周美青不小的壓力；但周美青不妨皆視為善意的期許，社會公眾最後仍應尊重周美青自己決定參與的項目及程度。其實，被稱為酷酷嫂的周美青，眉間常有一絲淡淡的憂鬱與緊張；馬家的拘謹，對她應是難以言說的束縛；以她現在的形象，若投身慈善工作，或許仍少了幾分柔軟、溫暖與開放；因此，未來她若投身社會福利，在應對上未嘗不是一大挑戰。不過，我們認為，周美青若能開放胸懷，投身社會工作，對她的自我實現也是甚佳的契機；或許，待她充分釋放了能力與魅力，國人應可看到一個更陽光、更開朗，更具感動力的周美青。倘能如此，未來走入社會的酷酷嫂周美青，也許會讓國人看到多一些笑容。
輿論曾經認為，周美青有超越馬英九的魅力。其實，正如宋美齡享有自我實現的榮譽，周美青也不必認為自己只是馬英九的分身；何妨在這個歷史機遇中，也為周美青三字寫下一段傳奇？
The Historical Significance of the KMT/CCP Meeting
The Historical Significance of the KMT/CCP Meeting
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 27, 2008
KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung will depart today on a visit to the mainland. The day after tomorrow he will meet with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao. This is the first time the leaders of the ruling parties on both sides of the strait have met. Needless to say, this is a major event.
History unfolds like myth. Had the KMT not lost power in 2000, Party Chairman Lien Chan would never have been able to visit the mainland in 2005. Had Chen Shui-bian and the ruling DPP not been guilty of such rampant misrule, the "KMT CPC Platform" would have remained Politically Incorrect and beyond the pale. Had the KMT not made a comeback in 2008, the leaders of the two ruling parties, Wu and Hu, would not have been able to meet today. History unfolds spontaneously. It morphs mysteriously, like the clouds. It flows relentlessly, like the rivers. It conceals forces that can change our world.
Wu Po-hsiung is the Chairman of the Chung-kuo Kuomintang, the ruling party of the Republic of China. General Secretary Hu Jintao did not evade this political reality when he extended his personal invitation to Wu Po-hsiung. Admittedly, Hu Jintao extended his invitation to "KMT Chairman" Wu Po-hsiung. But by implication, the invitation was extended to the ruling party of the Republic of China. After all, without the Republic of China to rule, Wu Po-hsiung could hardly be the chairman of a ruling party.
Naturally these implications have remain unstated. They have remained implicit and unofficial. Hu Jintao is not greeting Wu Po-hsiung in Hu's capacity as President of the People's Republic of China. He is greeting him as the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. This, ironically, exemplifies the separation of party and state. Nevertheless, Wu Po-hsiung is in fact the "Chairman of the ruling party of the Republic of China." Both sides know this perfectly well. This is precisely why the Wu Hu Meeting is of unprecedented historical significance.
The history of modern China has been the history of struggle and reconciliation between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. This includes struggles over who would rule the nation, and struggles over "Whither China?" After 1949, the two parties governed separately. The KMT was determined to "counterattack the mainland." The CCP was determined to "liberate Taiwan." During the late 1970s however, the CCP embarked on its own version of Perestroika and Glasnost. During the 1980s, the KMT lifted martial law. By 1990, the Cold War was over and the buzzword was "globalization." In 2000 the KMT lost control of the Republic of China for eight years. Now however, it is back in power. Thirty long years have passed. Heaven has turned on its axis. People have come and gone. Major changes have taken place within the CCP and the KMT, both in form and content. The Wu Hu Meeting scheduled to take place the day after tomorrow sums up the vicissitudes of life over those 30 years. It is a new beginning for a future without limits.
To sum up, the Civil War between the KMT and the CCP is over. They no longer have anything to fight about. The prevailing international framework does not permit a cross-strait war. Mainstream public opinion on both sides of the strait will not countenance fellow Chinese killing each other. Numerous mainland leaders have said "There is no issue of who will do away with whom." The new point of departure is that KMT vs. CCP conflict should evolve into competition, and competition should evolve into cooperation. This is what Ma Ying-jeou means when he speaks of "peace and mutual prosperity."
Before 1949, the KMT and the CCP were both situated on the mainland. A life and death struggle was inevitable. This led to a loss of a perspective regarding the question, "Whither China?" In retrospect, China's fate seems like the Wrath of Heaven. But ever since the two sides have been governed separately, they seem increasingly in competition than in conflict, and increasingly in cooperation than in competition. Whither China? Whither the Chinese people? That we leave the tender mercies of History.
When Wu and Hu meet the day after tomorrow, they should no longer be thinking in terms of who will do away with whom. They should be thinking of coexistence and mutual prosperity. Destiny is unfathomable. A life and death struggle between the KMT and the CCP on the mainland led to separate rule, then to today's competition and to tomorrow's cooperation. Surely Wu and Hu appreciate these ironies of history. Surely they will not fritter away this historic opportunity.
That historic opportunity is here. That historic opportunity is now. After many ups and downs, Taiwan is now a democracy and a free market economy. After 30 years of reform and opening up, the mainland is now on the right path. With the rise of China, new opportunities present themselves. The mainland authorities have more work to do, for example, in the area of democracy and human rights. We believe the mainland authorities genuinely wish to resolve these issues, and are merely waiting for the right time. That being the case, must the KMT and the CCP continue their civil war? Can't they coexist and prosper?
Therefore we hope that these two ruling party leaders, will take the road to democracy. We hope that together they will build a better future for the people, that they will encourage and assist each other, that they will minimize conflict and maximize competition, or better yet, cooperation. They have no need continue the civil war.
兩岸執政黨黨魁首會的歷史意義
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.26
國民黨主席吳伯雄今日啟程訪問大陸，並將於後天會見中共總書記胡錦濤，這是兩岸執政黨黨魁的首次見面，意義重大。
歷 史的流變宛如神話。倘若不是國民黨在二○○○年失去政權，黨主席連戰不可能在二○○五年訪問大陸；又倘若不是陳水扁與民進黨政府的倒行逆施，「國共平台」 亦不可能具有社會正當性；再倘若不是國民黨又在二○○八年贏回了政權，又豈可能出現今日兩岸執政黨黨魁聚首的「吳胡會」？上述歷史流變，看似有如行雲流水 地自然與流暢，其實卻寓藏著旋乾轉坤的重大意義。
吳伯雄是中華民國執政黨中國國民黨主席，這是胡錦濤總書記親自邀請吳伯雄往訪時所未迴避的政治事實。然而，胡錦濤既接受了吳伯雄為「國民黨主席」，當然也必然隱含著同時也默認了國民黨所執政的中華民國。畢竟，若無中華民國，吳伯雄怎麼會是執政黨主席？
當 然，這些意義，目前尚是「潛台詞」，並未在台前宣諸語言文字。胡錦濤未以「國家主席」的身分接待吳伯雄，而以「黨總書記」的身分會客，可見仍在「黨國分 離」的操作階段；但即使如此，吳伯雄的身分是「中華民國執政黨主席」，這卻是賓主皆知的政治事實，而這正是「吳胡會」空前無匹的歷史意義。
國 民黨與共產黨的和解與鬥爭，曾是中國現代史上的主軸。其間當然有政權的爭奪，卻也有「中國往何處去」的義理之爭。一九四九年以後，兩黨隔海分治，又有「反 攻大陸／解放台灣」的鬥爭。然而，隨著中共在一九七○年代末期嘗試改革開放，一九八○年代末期台灣解嚴，及一九九○年代「冷戰結束」及「全球化」以來，再 加上二○○○年以後國民黨失去中華民國政權八年，以至如今又重新執政；漫長三十年來，物換星移，人事代謝，共產黨與國民黨的互動關係在形式及內涵上皆有重 大變化，後天的「吳胡會」可謂是這三十年滄桑的總結，亦是無限未來的新起點。
這個總結應當是：「國共內戰」已無延續的條件，國際主流架構 不容兩岸開戰，兩岸主流民意亦不容相互殘殺。這正是中共數位領導人曾經說過的，兩岸不存在「誰吃掉誰的問題」。所謂的新起點則是：國共兩黨之間，應當從 「鬥爭」，轉為「競爭」，再由「競爭」轉為「合作」。這正是馬英九總統所說的「和平共榮」的憧憬。
一九四九年以前，國共兩黨共處中國大陸 之內，你死我活的「鬥爭」不可避免，反而扭曲了「中國往何處去」的義理追求；回首前塵，真有如造化的天譴。然而，兩岸隔海分治以來，如今反而儼然出現了兩 黨「競爭」的態勢，與「合作」的契機，以及對「中國往何處去」或「中華民族往何處去」的更深刻思考，這卻是歷史的恩典。
吳胡後天會面之 時，內心不應再有「誰吃掉誰」的意念，而應存有「共生共榮」的思維。回顧冥冥之中歷史意志的顯示，造化竟能將曾經同處大陸、「鬥爭」得你死我活的國共兩 黨，安排到今日隔海分治，進而出現了可能互勉互惠的「競爭」與「合作」的契機；吳胡二人皆應體驗此一歷史恩典，不要辜負了此一歷史機遇。
此 時此際，確是最佳的「歷史機遇」。就台灣而言，經歷了跌宕起伏，終於實現了民主政治與自由經濟。就大陸而言，三十年的改革開放無疑已走在正確的道路上，而 有了「中國崛起」的願景與機會；即使中共當局目前尚有作不到的地方，譬如民主及人權，但我們亦深信這並非中共當局所不想作，應是尚待來日。倘係如此，國共 兩黨還有什麼理由延續所謂的「內戰」，又豈有什麼理由不能「共生共榮」？
因此，我們希望：此次兩岸執政黨黨魁的「吳胡會」，應以共赴民主道途、共創民生福祉為共同志業，相互勉勵、相互祝福；盡量減低「鬥爭」的意味，盡量提升「競爭」與「合作」的氣氛，更當然不必將此視為「內戰」的延續。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 27, 2008
KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung will depart today on a visit to the mainland. The day after tomorrow he will meet with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao. This is the first time the leaders of the ruling parties on both sides of the strait have met. Needless to say, this is a major event.
History unfolds like myth. Had the KMT not lost power in 2000, Party Chairman Lien Chan would never have been able to visit the mainland in 2005. Had Chen Shui-bian and the ruling DPP not been guilty of such rampant misrule, the "KMT CPC Platform" would have remained Politically Incorrect and beyond the pale. Had the KMT not made a comeback in 2008, the leaders of the two ruling parties, Wu and Hu, would not have been able to meet today. History unfolds spontaneously. It morphs mysteriously, like the clouds. It flows relentlessly, like the rivers. It conceals forces that can change our world.
Wu Po-hsiung is the Chairman of the Chung-kuo Kuomintang, the ruling party of the Republic of China. General Secretary Hu Jintao did not evade this political reality when he extended his personal invitation to Wu Po-hsiung. Admittedly, Hu Jintao extended his invitation to "KMT Chairman" Wu Po-hsiung. But by implication, the invitation was extended to the ruling party of the Republic of China. After all, without the Republic of China to rule, Wu Po-hsiung could hardly be the chairman of a ruling party.
Naturally these implications have remain unstated. They have remained implicit and unofficial. Hu Jintao is not greeting Wu Po-hsiung in Hu's capacity as President of the People's Republic of China. He is greeting him as the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. This, ironically, exemplifies the separation of party and state. Nevertheless, Wu Po-hsiung is in fact the "Chairman of the ruling party of the Republic of China." Both sides know this perfectly well. This is precisely why the Wu Hu Meeting is of unprecedented historical significance.
The history of modern China has been the history of struggle and reconciliation between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party. This includes struggles over who would rule the nation, and struggles over "Whither China?" After 1949, the two parties governed separately. The KMT was determined to "counterattack the mainland." The CCP was determined to "liberate Taiwan." During the late 1970s however, the CCP embarked on its own version of Perestroika and Glasnost. During the 1980s, the KMT lifted martial law. By 1990, the Cold War was over and the buzzword was "globalization." In 2000 the KMT lost control of the Republic of China for eight years. Now however, it is back in power. Thirty long years have passed. Heaven has turned on its axis. People have come and gone. Major changes have taken place within the CCP and the KMT, both in form and content. The Wu Hu Meeting scheduled to take place the day after tomorrow sums up the vicissitudes of life over those 30 years. It is a new beginning for a future without limits.
To sum up, the Civil War between the KMT and the CCP is over. They no longer have anything to fight about. The prevailing international framework does not permit a cross-strait war. Mainstream public opinion on both sides of the strait will not countenance fellow Chinese killing each other. Numerous mainland leaders have said "There is no issue of who will do away with whom." The new point of departure is that KMT vs. CCP conflict should evolve into competition, and competition should evolve into cooperation. This is what Ma Ying-jeou means when he speaks of "peace and mutual prosperity."
Before 1949, the KMT and the CCP were both situated on the mainland. A life and death struggle was inevitable. This led to a loss of a perspective regarding the question, "Whither China?" In retrospect, China's fate seems like the Wrath of Heaven. But ever since the two sides have been governed separately, they seem increasingly in competition than in conflict, and increasingly in cooperation than in competition. Whither China? Whither the Chinese people? That we leave the tender mercies of History.
When Wu and Hu meet the day after tomorrow, they should no longer be thinking in terms of who will do away with whom. They should be thinking of coexistence and mutual prosperity. Destiny is unfathomable. A life and death struggle between the KMT and the CCP on the mainland led to separate rule, then to today's competition and to tomorrow's cooperation. Surely Wu and Hu appreciate these ironies of history. Surely they will not fritter away this historic opportunity.
That historic opportunity is here. That historic opportunity is now. After many ups and downs, Taiwan is now a democracy and a free market economy. After 30 years of reform and opening up, the mainland is now on the right path. With the rise of China, new opportunities present themselves. The mainland authorities have more work to do, for example, in the area of democracy and human rights. We believe the mainland authorities genuinely wish to resolve these issues, and are merely waiting for the right time. That being the case, must the KMT and the CCP continue their civil war? Can't they coexist and prosper?
Therefore we hope that these two ruling party leaders, will take the road to democracy. We hope that together they will build a better future for the people, that they will encourage and assist each other, that they will minimize conflict and maximize competition, or better yet, cooperation. They have no need continue the civil war.
兩岸執政黨黨魁首會的歷史意義
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.26
國民黨主席吳伯雄今日啟程訪問大陸，並將於後天會見中共總書記胡錦濤，這是兩岸執政黨黨魁的首次見面，意義重大。
歷 史的流變宛如神話。倘若不是國民黨在二○○○年失去政權，黨主席連戰不可能在二○○五年訪問大陸；又倘若不是陳水扁與民進黨政府的倒行逆施，「國共平台」 亦不可能具有社會正當性；再倘若不是國民黨又在二○○八年贏回了政權，又豈可能出現今日兩岸執政黨黨魁聚首的「吳胡會」？上述歷史流變，看似有如行雲流水 地自然與流暢，其實卻寓藏著旋乾轉坤的重大意義。
吳伯雄是中華民國執政黨中國國民黨主席，這是胡錦濤總書記親自邀請吳伯雄往訪時所未迴避的政治事實。然而，胡錦濤既接受了吳伯雄為「國民黨主席」，當然也必然隱含著同時也默認了國民黨所執政的中華民國。畢竟，若無中華民國，吳伯雄怎麼會是執政黨主席？
當 然，這些意義，目前尚是「潛台詞」，並未在台前宣諸語言文字。胡錦濤未以「國家主席」的身分接待吳伯雄，而以「黨總書記」的身分會客，可見仍在「黨國分 離」的操作階段；但即使如此，吳伯雄的身分是「中華民國執政黨主席」，這卻是賓主皆知的政治事實，而這正是「吳胡會」空前無匹的歷史意義。
國 民黨與共產黨的和解與鬥爭，曾是中國現代史上的主軸。其間當然有政權的爭奪，卻也有「中國往何處去」的義理之爭。一九四九年以後，兩黨隔海分治，又有「反 攻大陸／解放台灣」的鬥爭。然而，隨著中共在一九七○年代末期嘗試改革開放，一九八○年代末期台灣解嚴，及一九九○年代「冷戰結束」及「全球化」以來，再 加上二○○○年以後國民黨失去中華民國政權八年，以至如今又重新執政；漫長三十年來，物換星移，人事代謝，共產黨與國民黨的互動關係在形式及內涵上皆有重 大變化，後天的「吳胡會」可謂是這三十年滄桑的總結，亦是無限未來的新起點。
這個總結應當是：「國共內戰」已無延續的條件，國際主流架構 不容兩岸開戰，兩岸主流民意亦不容相互殘殺。這正是中共數位領導人曾經說過的，兩岸不存在「誰吃掉誰的問題」。所謂的新起點則是：國共兩黨之間，應當從 「鬥爭」，轉為「競爭」，再由「競爭」轉為「合作」。這正是馬英九總統所說的「和平共榮」的憧憬。
一九四九年以前，國共兩黨共處中國大陸 之內，你死我活的「鬥爭」不可避免，反而扭曲了「中國往何處去」的義理追求；回首前塵，真有如造化的天譴。然而，兩岸隔海分治以來，如今反而儼然出現了兩 黨「競爭」的態勢，與「合作」的契機，以及對「中國往何處去」或「中華民族往何處去」的更深刻思考，這卻是歷史的恩典。
吳胡後天會面之 時，內心不應再有「誰吃掉誰」的意念，而應存有「共生共榮」的思維。回顧冥冥之中歷史意志的顯示，造化竟能將曾經同處大陸、「鬥爭」得你死我活的國共兩 黨，安排到今日隔海分治，進而出現了可能互勉互惠的「競爭」與「合作」的契機；吳胡二人皆應體驗此一歷史恩典，不要辜負了此一歷史機遇。
此 時此際，確是最佳的「歷史機遇」。就台灣而言，經歷了跌宕起伏，終於實現了民主政治與自由經濟。就大陸而言，三十年的改革開放無疑已走在正確的道路上，而 有了「中國崛起」的願景與機會；即使中共當局目前尚有作不到的地方，譬如民主及人權，但我們亦深信這並非中共當局所不想作，應是尚待來日。倘係如此，國共 兩黨還有什麼理由延續所謂的「內戰」，又豈有什麼理由不能「共生共榮」？
因此，我們希望：此次兩岸執政黨黨魁的「吳胡會」，應以共赴民主道途、共創民生福祉為共同志業，相互勉勵、相互祝福；盡量減低「鬥爭」的意味，盡量提升「競爭」與「合作」的氣氛，更當然不必將此視為「內戰」的延續。
Friday, May 23, 2008
Big Tent Theory: A De Facto rather than De Jure Solution?
Big Tent Theory: A De Facto rather than De Jure Solution?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 23, 2008
In his inaugural speech, President Ma Ying-jeou said "People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese." Together with Beijing's "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China," the two statements have caught peoples' attention.
At a meeting chaired by Vincent Siew during April's Boao Forum, Beijing's Minister of Commerce Chen Deming said more than once that "under the premise that we are all part of the same family, everything is negotiable." To everyones' surprise however, a press release issued by the Ministry of Commerce changed Chen's wording to "under the the premise of One China, everything is negotiable." But after bilateral discussion the press release was amended and the passage "under the premise of One China" was deleted. These developments suggest that Beijing's official position is that "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" is interchangeable with "under the premise of One China," and that the Ministry of Commerce press release was in error.
Hu Jintao and Vincent Siew seem to have validated this notion during their talks. Hu told Hsiao "Compatriots on both sides of the strait are all part of the same family. They are all kinfolk, all part of the same community." What Beijing did was to replace "One China" with "One Family." Perhaps they were using "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" or "under the premise that we are all Chinese" interchangeably with "under the premise of One China." Chen Deming used "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" as a synonym for "under the premise of One China." Yesterday, during Chen Yunlin's remarks to Taiwan, he omitted any mention of "One China." Instead he referred to "the renaissance of the Chinese people and a brighter future." He also spoke of "safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese people" and of "allowing the spirit of the Chinese people to shine."
The two sides are distinct political entities. This is a political reality. Beijing initially maintained that "Taiwan is part of China" or that "Taiwan is a province of China." Such formulations have encountered resistance. Beijing now maintains that "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China." This is a significant change from Beijing's original formulation. If "Taiwan is part of China," the "China" means "People's Republic of China." But if "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China" then "China" refers something other than either the mainland or Taiwan.
This third definition is the underlying premise for the "Big Tent Theory." It means that although both Taiwan and the mainland sit beneath a "Big Tent" known as "China," this China is neither the People's Republic of China nor the Republic of China. It means that the mainland and Taiwan, as well as the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, fall under the aegis of a third entity, a Big Tent. This Big Tent may actually have more structure than the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. One China, Different Interpretations amounts to each side establishing its own political edifice. The Big Tent on the other hand, puts both political entities under the same roof.
But what precisely is this Big Tent? Is it a third definition of "China?" If so, perhaps the two sides can become a confederation? If not, then how can one maintain such a Big Tent? If a third, de jure definition of China as a Big Tent is infeasible, perhaps a de facto definition of China as a Big Tent would be more acceptable? Perhaps "the Chinese people" or "we are all part of the same family" would be more acceptable? Perhaps if we move in this direction, we can find a way out.
Hu Jintao said "compatriots on both sides are all part of the same family," Ma Ying-jeou said "people on both sides are Chinese." Chen Yunlin spoke of the "spirit of the Chinese people" and "the Chinese peoples' fundamental interests." That all three used such formulations at such a critical juncture is no accident. The two sides may be attempting to find a mutually acceptable Big Tent when "reunification, independence, and war" are all unacceptable.
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian was elected president. He presented floral wreaths before Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, acknowledging that he was heir to the Republic of China's legal system. He honored his ancestors from afar. He acknowledged his roots. He acknowledged that he had inherited the traditions of the Chinese people. Political solutions are one means of linking the two sides of the strait. But shared cultural traditions are also an important means. In fact, shared cultural traditions often kick in when political solutions are inadequate. The impact of shared cultural traditions may even be stronger than political solutions. The impact of the Sichuan earthquake on the two sides of the strait is a clear example.
Besides, according to Chinese tradition, political solutions involving the imposition of laws are predicated upon "Might makes Right." Social cohesion within a civil society, on the other hand, is predicated upon "The Way." Must the two sides be linked by political solutions involving the imposition of laws? Why not first promote a Big Tent based on mutual trust among the Chinese people. Why rush to impose a de jure political solution based on the imposition of laws?
Perhaps the substitution of a Big Tent for de jure political solutions amounts to a Big Tent Theory?
新屋頂理論：「軟屋頂」取代「硬屋頂」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.23 02:51 am
馬英九總統在就職演說中稱，「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，與北京當局所主張的「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，兩相形成對比的概念，頗受矚目。
可從四月的博鰲論壇談起。當時在蕭萬長主持的座談中，北京方面的商務部長陳德銘幾次談及「在一家人的前提下，沒有什麼問題不可協商」等語；不料，會後商務部所發新聞稿卻稱，「在一個中國的前提下」如何如何。後經雙方對證，在新華社的新聞稿中刪去了「在一個中國的前提下」等語。這一段曲折，似乎顯示，北京當局如今的官方口徑是：以「在一家人的前提下」代換了「在一個中國的前提下」；卻意外地在商務部的新聞稿中出了錯。
此一論斷，亦可在當時胡錦濤會蕭萬長的談話中獲得佐證。胡對蕭說：「兩岸同胞是一家人，是血脈相連的共同體。」如今可待觀察的發展是：北京當局倘不是以「一家人」取代了「一個中國」，或許是認為可將「一家人前提」或「中華民族前提」與「一個中國前提」相互替代使用。陳德銘就是用「一家人前提」替換了「一個中國前提」。昨天，陳雲林的對台談話，就未見「一個中國」，卻有「中華民族偉大復興的美好未來」、「維護中華民族根本利益」及「讓中華民族精神煥發新的光彩」等句，或許又是一個例證。
兩岸是分治的政治實體，這是政治現實。北京當局原本所持的兩岸聯結是「台灣是中國的一部分」，甚至稱「台灣是中國的一個省」，此類論述已難維持；事實上，最近幾年北京已改口稱「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，此與原本的論述已有極大改變。因為，若稱「台灣是中國的一部分」，則「中國」即指「中華人民共和國」；但稱「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，則「中國」應指超越大陸與台灣的「第三概念」。
「第三概念」是「屋頂理論」的前提。意指在台灣與大陸之上有一「屋頂」，雖稱作「中國」，卻不是中華人民共和國，也不是中華民國；而「大陸／台灣」或「中華人民共和國／中華民國」，就是靠這個「第三概念」的「屋頂」來聯結。若就程度而言，「屋頂理論」可能較「九二共識／一中各表」有規範性；因為，「一中各表」是分立門戶，而「屋頂理論」則是在同一屋頂之下。
問題是：這個「屋頂」究竟是什麼？是「第三概念」的「中國」嗎？那麼，兩岸有否可能成為「邦聯」？否則，這個「屋頂」如何維持？反過來說，既然不可能出現一個「法制化的第三概念中國」為兩岸的「硬屋頂」，則「中華民族」或「一家人」是否可能成為兩岸共同接受並維護的「軟屋頂」？若朝此一方向思考，兩岸也許可有新出路。
因而，值此關鍵時刻，胡錦濤強調「兩岸同胞是一家人」，馬英九表示「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，陳雲林又稱「中華民族精神／中華民族根本利益」；恐怕未必只是巧合，而可能是雙方在「不（能）統／不（能）獨／不（能）武」的現狀之上，找到了可以共同接受的「軟屋頂」。
八年前，陳水扁首次當選總統，除了向孫中山、蔣介石獻花行禮，表示承繼了「中華民國」的法統外；尚且「遙祭黃陵」，意在宣示「認祖歸宗」，表示也承繼了「中華民族」的宗祧。可見，若欲聯結兩岸，政治體制固然是一工具，民族文化也是重要的憑藉；而且，民族文化的聯結，往往可在政治聯結闕如之時發生效應，且其效應更強於、大於、深於政治聯結。此次四川震災在兩岸之間產生的感應，即是鮮明的例證。
何況，就中國傳統言，政治法制的聯結是基於「霸道」，民族人心的聯結則是合於「王道」。兩岸若無使人心聯結的方法，豈可能出現以政治法制聯結的方法？準此以論，兩岸何妨先以「中華民族」的「軟屋頂」、「軟聯結」進行互勉互惠；而不應急於用「政治法制」的「硬屋頂」、「硬聯結」來強人所難。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 23, 2008
In his inaugural speech, President Ma Ying-jeou said "People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese." Together with Beijing's "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China," the two statements have caught peoples' attention.
At a meeting chaired by Vincent Siew during April's Boao Forum, Beijing's Minister of Commerce Chen Deming said more than once that "under the premise that we are all part of the same family, everything is negotiable." To everyones' surprise however, a press release issued by the Ministry of Commerce changed Chen's wording to "under the the premise of One China, everything is negotiable." But after bilateral discussion the press release was amended and the passage "under the premise of One China" was deleted. These developments suggest that Beijing's official position is that "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" is interchangeable with "under the premise of One China," and that the Ministry of Commerce press release was in error.
Hu Jintao and Vincent Siew seem to have validated this notion during their talks. Hu told Hsiao "Compatriots on both sides of the strait are all part of the same family. They are all kinfolk, all part of the same community." What Beijing did was to replace "One China" with "One Family." Perhaps they were using "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" or "under the premise that we are all Chinese" interchangeably with "under the premise of One China." Chen Deming used "under the premise that we are all part of the same family" as a synonym for "under the premise of One China." Yesterday, during Chen Yunlin's remarks to Taiwan, he omitted any mention of "One China." Instead he referred to "the renaissance of the Chinese people and a brighter future." He also spoke of "safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese people" and of "allowing the spirit of the Chinese people to shine."
The two sides are distinct political entities. This is a political reality. Beijing initially maintained that "Taiwan is part of China" or that "Taiwan is a province of China." Such formulations have encountered resistance. Beijing now maintains that "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China." This is a significant change from Beijing's original formulation. If "Taiwan is part of China," the "China" means "People's Republic of China." But if "both the mainland and Taiwan are part of China" then "China" refers something other than either the mainland or Taiwan.
This third definition is the underlying premise for the "Big Tent Theory." It means that although both Taiwan and the mainland sit beneath a "Big Tent" known as "China," this China is neither the People's Republic of China nor the Republic of China. It means that the mainland and Taiwan, as well as the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, fall under the aegis of a third entity, a Big Tent. This Big Tent may actually have more structure than the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. One China, Different Interpretations amounts to each side establishing its own political edifice. The Big Tent on the other hand, puts both political entities under the same roof.
But what precisely is this Big Tent? Is it a third definition of "China?" If so, perhaps the two sides can become a confederation? If not, then how can one maintain such a Big Tent? If a third, de jure definition of China as a Big Tent is infeasible, perhaps a de facto definition of China as a Big Tent would be more acceptable? Perhaps "the Chinese people" or "we are all part of the same family" would be more acceptable? Perhaps if we move in this direction, we can find a way out.
Hu Jintao said "compatriots on both sides are all part of the same family," Ma Ying-jeou said "people on both sides are Chinese." Chen Yunlin spoke of the "spirit of the Chinese people" and "the Chinese peoples' fundamental interests." That all three used such formulations at such a critical juncture is no accident. The two sides may be attempting to find a mutually acceptable Big Tent when "reunification, independence, and war" are all unacceptable.
Eight years ago, Chen Shui-bian was elected president. He presented floral wreaths before Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek, acknowledging that he was heir to the Republic of China's legal system. He honored his ancestors from afar. He acknowledged his roots. He acknowledged that he had inherited the traditions of the Chinese people. Political solutions are one means of linking the two sides of the strait. But shared cultural traditions are also an important means. In fact, shared cultural traditions often kick in when political solutions are inadequate. The impact of shared cultural traditions may even be stronger than political solutions. The impact of the Sichuan earthquake on the two sides of the strait is a clear example.
Besides, according to Chinese tradition, political solutions involving the imposition of laws are predicated upon "Might makes Right." Social cohesion within a civil society, on the other hand, is predicated upon "The Way." Must the two sides be linked by political solutions involving the imposition of laws? Why not first promote a Big Tent based on mutual trust among the Chinese people. Why rush to impose a de jure political solution based on the imposition of laws?
Perhaps the substitution of a Big Tent for de jure political solutions amounts to a Big Tent Theory?
新屋頂理論：「軟屋頂」取代「硬屋頂」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.23 02:51 am
馬英九總統在就職演說中稱，「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，與北京當局所主張的「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，兩相形成對比的概念，頗受矚目。
可從四月的博鰲論壇談起。當時在蕭萬長主持的座談中，北京方面的商務部長陳德銘幾次談及「在一家人的前提下，沒有什麼問題不可協商」等語；不料，會後商務部所發新聞稿卻稱，「在一個中國的前提下」如何如何。後經雙方對證，在新華社的新聞稿中刪去了「在一個中國的前提下」等語。這一段曲折，似乎顯示，北京當局如今的官方口徑是：以「在一家人的前提下」代換了「在一個中國的前提下」；卻意外地在商務部的新聞稿中出了錯。
此一論斷，亦可在當時胡錦濤會蕭萬長的談話中獲得佐證。胡對蕭說：「兩岸同胞是一家人，是血脈相連的共同體。」如今可待觀察的發展是：北京當局倘不是以「一家人」取代了「一個中國」，或許是認為可將「一家人前提」或「中華民族前提」與「一個中國前提」相互替代使用。陳德銘就是用「一家人前提」替換了「一個中國前提」。昨天，陳雲林的對台談話，就未見「一個中國」，卻有「中華民族偉大復興的美好未來」、「維護中華民族根本利益」及「讓中華民族精神煥發新的光彩」等句，或許又是一個例證。
兩岸是分治的政治實體，這是政治現實。北京當局原本所持的兩岸聯結是「台灣是中國的一部分」，甚至稱「台灣是中國的一個省」，此類論述已難維持；事實上，最近幾年北京已改口稱「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，此與原本的論述已有極大改變。因為，若稱「台灣是中國的一部分」，則「中國」即指「中華人民共和國」；但稱「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」，則「中國」應指超越大陸與台灣的「第三概念」。
「第三概念」是「屋頂理論」的前提。意指在台灣與大陸之上有一「屋頂」，雖稱作「中國」，卻不是中華人民共和國，也不是中華民國；而「大陸／台灣」或「中華人民共和國／中華民國」，就是靠這個「第三概念」的「屋頂」來聯結。若就程度而言，「屋頂理論」可能較「九二共識／一中各表」有規範性；因為，「一中各表」是分立門戶，而「屋頂理論」則是在同一屋頂之下。
問題是：這個「屋頂」究竟是什麼？是「第三概念」的「中國」嗎？那麼，兩岸有否可能成為「邦聯」？否則，這個「屋頂」如何維持？反過來說，既然不可能出現一個「法制化的第三概念中國」為兩岸的「硬屋頂」，則「中華民族」或「一家人」是否可能成為兩岸共同接受並維護的「軟屋頂」？若朝此一方向思考，兩岸也許可有新出路。
因而，值此關鍵時刻，胡錦濤強調「兩岸同胞是一家人」，馬英九表示「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，陳雲林又稱「中華民族精神／中華民族根本利益」；恐怕未必只是巧合，而可能是雙方在「不（能）統／不（能）獨／不（能）武」的現狀之上，找到了可以共同接受的「軟屋頂」。
八年前，陳水扁首次當選總統，除了向孫中山、蔣介石獻花行禮，表示承繼了「中華民國」的法統外；尚且「遙祭黃陵」，意在宣示「認祖歸宗」，表示也承繼了「中華民族」的宗祧。可見，若欲聯結兩岸，政治體制固然是一工具，民族文化也是重要的憑藉；而且，民族文化的聯結，往往可在政治聯結闕如之時發生效應，且其效應更強於、大於、深於政治聯結。此次四川震災在兩岸之間產生的感應，即是鮮明的例證。
何況，就中國傳統言，政治法制的聯結是基於「霸道」，民族人心的聯結則是合於「王道」。兩岸若無使人心聯結的方法，豈可能出現以政治法制聯結的方法？準此以論，兩岸何妨先以「中華民族」的「軟屋頂」、「軟聯結」進行互勉互惠；而不應急於用「政治法制」的「硬屋頂」、「硬聯結」來強人所難。
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Chairman Wu Po-hsiung: Please give Chairman Hu Jintao the Following Message
Chairman Wu Po-hsiung: Please give Chairman Hu Jintao the Following Message
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 22, 2008
Next week, at the invitation of Hu Jintao, Wu Po-hsiung will visit the mainland. We would like to ask Chairman Wu to convey a message to Chairman Hu. That message is: The two sides cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides of the Taiwan Strait can avoid war.
The Great Sichuan Earthquake created an unexpected climate of reconciliation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This climate of reconciliation grew from a spontaneous reaction on the part of the public on Taiwan. Wang Yung-ching started the ball rolling by donating 100 million NT. This set the tone for the public's perception of the Sichuan earthquake and its subsequent response. The DPP government, not wanting to find itself behind the curve of mainstream public opinion, promptly announced a 2 billion NT disaster relief program. This was followed by humanitarian charter flights between the two sides, waves of volunteers, and large quantities of relief supplies rushed to disaster areas. A major earthquake brought down all kinds of barriers between the two sides, liberating everyone from psychological and physical barriers built up over the years. Liberated psychologically, people on Taiwan were free to express their heartfelt concern for mainland quake victims. Conversely, people on the mainland were free to express their gratitude and appreciation for their Taiwan compatriots' compassion and goodwill. Liberated physically, humanitarian charter flights were able to shuttle back and forth freely, exposing the folly of previously imposed political shackles.
The earthquake stimulated cross-strait dialogue at two levels. First, the humanitarian level. In essence, the living and dead from the September 21, 1999 Taiwan Earthquake spoke with the living and dead from the May 12, 2008 Sichuan Earthquake. The deceased in Taiwan and in Sichuan bled the same blood. The survivors in Taiwan and Sichuan shed the same tears. Second, the political level. The heartfelt concern of the public on Taiwan for mainland quake victims unconsciously repaired years of trauma to cross-strait political relations. People on Taiwan blazed a trail for both governments. Fortunately both governments elected to make the most of the opportunity that presented itself. They used earthquake efforts to raise cross-strait relations to a new level.
The Wu/Hu Conference will debut under these circumstances. Wu Poh-hsiung will express sympathy for mainland quake victims on behalf of the Taiwan public. Hu Jintao will express gratitude to the Taiwan public for its generosity on behalf of mainland quake victims. This meeting will be the first between these two chairmen. As chairmen of their respective ruling parties, they must remind each other to heed the common aspirations of people on both sides of the strait. An earthquake may be an extraordinary event. But in a sense it is merely a magnified version of the hardships people every day. An event such as an earthquake reminds political leaders about the nature of their responsibilities. When Hu Jintao and Wu Po-hsiung meet and discuss the earthquake, they must remind each other to live up the expectations of the people.
The theme of the Wu/Hu Conference will of course be cross-strait relations. Both sides must treasure the friendly cross-strait atmosphere created by the earthquake. They must offer concrete policy prescriptions in response to public expectations. Official gestures of goodwill will encourage and sustain friendly people-to-people relations, creating a virtuous circle. Friendly cross-strait people-to-people relations is a precious commodity. The atmosphere of compassion and mutual concern that emerged as a result of the earthquake must be nurtured by leaders on both sides of the strait. It must become an integral part of the framework for cross-strait relations.
In terms of cross-strait relations, the lesson the earthquake offers authorities on both sides is that peaceful cross-strait relations cannot be achieved by means of war. The lives taken by the earthquake have cut people to the quick. If one day the two sides are driven by their leaders to shoot at each other, that would be an offense to god and man. The authorities and the public on Taiwan must remain confident in their ability to persuade the public on the mainland to cherish and preserve Taiwan's democracy and way of life. They must persuade the public on the mainland to soften their leaders' attitudes toward Taiwan. As a previous editorial in this newspaper stated, when mainland authorities "pin their hopes on the people of Taiwan," they must consider the people of Taiwan's hopes.
Natural disasters are unavoidable. The two sides of the strait cannot avoid earthquakes. But if people on both sides of the strait can demonstrate the kind of concern for each other they did during the Sichuan Earthquake, they are already blood brothers. Man-made disasters can be avoided. The two sides can avoid war. If an earthquake can inspire people to shed the same tears, might not an earthquake prevent people from shedding each others' blood?
We would like to ask Chairman Wu to carry a message to Chairman Hu. That message is: The two sides cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides can avoid war.
請吳伯雄主席帶給胡錦濤主席一句話
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.22 02:59 am
吳伯雄應胡錦濤之邀，將於下周訪問大陸。我們想請吳主席給胡主席帶一句話：兩岸不會沒有地震，但兩岸可以沒有戰爭！
四川大地震給兩岸關係帶來了意料之外的和解氣氛，且這種氣氛是由台灣民間自動自發地發動。首先，王永慶在第一時間拋出一億元人民幣捐款，可謂為台灣民間的認知與態度定了調；接著，民進黨政府宣布二十億台幣賑災方案，毋寧也是感知到不能自外於台灣主流民意使然。接下來，兩岸人道包機往返，大批的台灣志工與救援物資湧向災區。一場大地震，彷彿震垮了兩岸之間近年來若有似無的種種矜持與障礙，使得雙方多年來在心理及實體上的阻絕立即獲得大幅解放。就心理層面的解放言，台灣人民慷慨地向大陸災民表達關懷，大陸人民亦深刻感受到台灣人民真摯的善意；就實體層面的解放言，人道包機的往返，正好反襯了過去五花大綁的政治束縛是多麼無謂無聊。
大地震所觸動的兩岸對話，有兩個層次：一、人道層次。可謂是「九二一」與「五一二」的對話，畢竟兩岸死者流的血是一樣的血，兩岸生者流的淚是一樣的淚。二、政治層次。台灣人民此次對大陸災民的熱心關切，在不知不覺間也是對兩岸多年來惡化的政治關係進行修補；這一次，可說是台灣民間走在兩岸政府的前面，民間打開了政府打不開的局面，且幸而兩岸政府亦能因勢利導，藉震災互動而將兩岸關係推升了幾個台階。
吳胡會在這樣的背景下登場，吳伯雄自然會代表台灣人民向大陸災民表達慰問，而胡錦濤亦會代表大陸人民向台灣人民的關懷與捐輸表達謝意。但最重要的是，這是兩岸「執政黨主席」的首次會晤；二人應就各自身為兩岸執政黨主席的責任相互勉勵，並且共同傾聽兩岸人民的心聲。震災固然是非常事件，卻將民間疾苦放大呈現在主政者的眼前；救災亦是非常任務，卻可使主政者更能領悟自己的執政天職。當吳伯雄及胡錦濤兩位執政黨主席面對面地論及慘重的震災，二人應當自我提醒及相互勉勵，皆要做一個不辜負人民喁喁殷望的執政者。
兩岸關係當然是吳胡會的主題。賓主雙方尤應珍惜震災所形成的兩岸民間友善氣氛，以具體的政策宣示來回應民間的期許；如此，兩岸官方釋放的善意政策，又能回過頭來鼓勵及滋長兩岸民間的友好氛圍，即可形成良性循環。兩岸民間的相互珍惜，是兩岸互動的重大資產；此種相惜相憐的民間氛圍因震災而密集顯現，主政者應當善加維護，並使之成為架構兩岸關係的脊柱。
就兩岸關係的角度來看，大震災給兩岸執政者的啟示應是：兩岸關係必須和平穩定，絕不能以戰爭解決。地震滅殺生命已使兩岸民間有連心之痛，倘若有一天兩岸主政者驅使兩岸人民用槍砲互相殘殺，豈是天理民心所容？準此以言，台灣的主政者與人民，應當自信有能力說服大陸人民對台灣的民主與民生知所珍惜與維護，並藉大陸的民心與民意來軟化改善大陸主政者對台灣的態度；相對而言，則如日前本報社論所言，當大陸當局「寄希望於台灣人民」之時，亦當多想一想「台灣人民的希望」是什麼？
天災難免，兩岸不會沒有地震；發生地震，兩岸民間若能如這次四川震災一般地相互關懷與扶持，其實猶如「兄弟之邦」。但是，人禍則可避，兩岸可以沒有戰爭；倘若今日震災尚且教兩岸人民一同淚眼相對，誰能想像有一天兩岸人民會倒在對方槍口下的血泊中？
請吳主席帶給胡主席一句話：兩岸不會沒有地震，但兩岸可以沒有戰爭！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 22, 2008
Next week, at the invitation of Hu Jintao, Wu Po-hsiung will visit the mainland. We would like to ask Chairman Wu to convey a message to Chairman Hu. That message is: The two sides cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides of the Taiwan Strait can avoid war.
The Great Sichuan Earthquake created an unexpected climate of reconciliation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This climate of reconciliation grew from a spontaneous reaction on the part of the public on Taiwan. Wang Yung-ching started the ball rolling by donating 100 million NT. This set the tone for the public's perception of the Sichuan earthquake and its subsequent response. The DPP government, not wanting to find itself behind the curve of mainstream public opinion, promptly announced a 2 billion NT disaster relief program. This was followed by humanitarian charter flights between the two sides, waves of volunteers, and large quantities of relief supplies rushed to disaster areas. A major earthquake brought down all kinds of barriers between the two sides, liberating everyone from psychological and physical barriers built up over the years. Liberated psychologically, people on Taiwan were free to express their heartfelt concern for mainland quake victims. Conversely, people on the mainland were free to express their gratitude and appreciation for their Taiwan compatriots' compassion and goodwill. Liberated physically, humanitarian charter flights were able to shuttle back and forth freely, exposing the folly of previously imposed political shackles.
The earthquake stimulated cross-strait dialogue at two levels. First, the humanitarian level. In essence, the living and dead from the September 21, 1999 Taiwan Earthquake spoke with the living and dead from the May 12, 2008 Sichuan Earthquake. The deceased in Taiwan and in Sichuan bled the same blood. The survivors in Taiwan and Sichuan shed the same tears. Second, the political level. The heartfelt concern of the public on Taiwan for mainland quake victims unconsciously repaired years of trauma to cross-strait political relations. People on Taiwan blazed a trail for both governments. Fortunately both governments elected to make the most of the opportunity that presented itself. They used earthquake efforts to raise cross-strait relations to a new level.
The Wu/Hu Conference will debut under these circumstances. Wu Poh-hsiung will express sympathy for mainland quake victims on behalf of the Taiwan public. Hu Jintao will express gratitude to the Taiwan public for its generosity on behalf of mainland quake victims. This meeting will be the first between these two chairmen. As chairmen of their respective ruling parties, they must remind each other to heed the common aspirations of people on both sides of the strait. An earthquake may be an extraordinary event. But in a sense it is merely a magnified version of the hardships people every day. An event such as an earthquake reminds political leaders about the nature of their responsibilities. When Hu Jintao and Wu Po-hsiung meet and discuss the earthquake, they must remind each other to live up the expectations of the people.
The theme of the Wu/Hu Conference will of course be cross-strait relations. Both sides must treasure the friendly cross-strait atmosphere created by the earthquake. They must offer concrete policy prescriptions in response to public expectations. Official gestures of goodwill will encourage and sustain friendly people-to-people relations, creating a virtuous circle. Friendly cross-strait people-to-people relations is a precious commodity. The atmosphere of compassion and mutual concern that emerged as a result of the earthquake must be nurtured by leaders on both sides of the strait. It must become an integral part of the framework for cross-strait relations.
In terms of cross-strait relations, the lesson the earthquake offers authorities on both sides is that peaceful cross-strait relations cannot be achieved by means of war. The lives taken by the earthquake have cut people to the quick. If one day the two sides are driven by their leaders to shoot at each other, that would be an offense to god and man. The authorities and the public on Taiwan must remain confident in their ability to persuade the public on the mainland to cherish and preserve Taiwan's democracy and way of life. They must persuade the public on the mainland to soften their leaders' attitudes toward Taiwan. As a previous editorial in this newspaper stated, when mainland authorities "pin their hopes on the people of Taiwan," they must consider the people of Taiwan's hopes.
Natural disasters are unavoidable. The two sides of the strait cannot avoid earthquakes. But if people on both sides of the strait can demonstrate the kind of concern for each other they did during the Sichuan Earthquake, they are already blood brothers. Man-made disasters can be avoided. The two sides can avoid war. If an earthquake can inspire people to shed the same tears, might not an earthquake prevent people from shedding each others' blood?
We would like to ask Chairman Wu to carry a message to Chairman Hu. That message is: The two sides cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides can avoid war.
請吳伯雄主席帶給胡錦濤主席一句話
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.22 02:59 am
吳伯雄應胡錦濤之邀，將於下周訪問大陸。我們想請吳主席給胡主席帶一句話：兩岸不會沒有地震，但兩岸可以沒有戰爭！
四川大地震給兩岸關係帶來了意料之外的和解氣氛，且這種氣氛是由台灣民間自動自發地發動。首先，王永慶在第一時間拋出一億元人民幣捐款，可謂為台灣民間的認知與態度定了調；接著，民進黨政府宣布二十億台幣賑災方案，毋寧也是感知到不能自外於台灣主流民意使然。接下來，兩岸人道包機往返，大批的台灣志工與救援物資湧向災區。一場大地震，彷彿震垮了兩岸之間近年來若有似無的種種矜持與障礙，使得雙方多年來在心理及實體上的阻絕立即獲得大幅解放。就心理層面的解放言，台灣人民慷慨地向大陸災民表達關懷，大陸人民亦深刻感受到台灣人民真摯的善意；就實體層面的解放言，人道包機的往返，正好反襯了過去五花大綁的政治束縛是多麼無謂無聊。
大地震所觸動的兩岸對話，有兩個層次：一、人道層次。可謂是「九二一」與「五一二」的對話，畢竟兩岸死者流的血是一樣的血，兩岸生者流的淚是一樣的淚。二、政治層次。台灣人民此次對大陸災民的熱心關切，在不知不覺間也是對兩岸多年來惡化的政治關係進行修補；這一次，可說是台灣民間走在兩岸政府的前面，民間打開了政府打不開的局面，且幸而兩岸政府亦能因勢利導，藉震災互動而將兩岸關係推升了幾個台階。
吳胡會在這樣的背景下登場，吳伯雄自然會代表台灣人民向大陸災民表達慰問，而胡錦濤亦會代表大陸人民向台灣人民的關懷與捐輸表達謝意。但最重要的是，這是兩岸「執政黨主席」的首次會晤；二人應就各自身為兩岸執政黨主席的責任相互勉勵，並且共同傾聽兩岸人民的心聲。震災固然是非常事件，卻將民間疾苦放大呈現在主政者的眼前；救災亦是非常任務，卻可使主政者更能領悟自己的執政天職。當吳伯雄及胡錦濤兩位執政黨主席面對面地論及慘重的震災，二人應當自我提醒及相互勉勵，皆要做一個不辜負人民喁喁殷望的執政者。
兩岸關係當然是吳胡會的主題。賓主雙方尤應珍惜震災所形成的兩岸民間友善氣氛，以具體的政策宣示來回應民間的期許；如此，兩岸官方釋放的善意政策，又能回過頭來鼓勵及滋長兩岸民間的友好氛圍，即可形成良性循環。兩岸民間的相互珍惜，是兩岸互動的重大資產；此種相惜相憐的民間氛圍因震災而密集顯現，主政者應當善加維護，並使之成為架構兩岸關係的脊柱。
就兩岸關係的角度來看，大震災給兩岸執政者的啟示應是：兩岸關係必須和平穩定，絕不能以戰爭解決。地震滅殺生命已使兩岸民間有連心之痛，倘若有一天兩岸主政者驅使兩岸人民用槍砲互相殘殺，豈是天理民心所容？準此以言，台灣的主政者與人民，應當自信有能力說服大陸人民對台灣的民主與民生知所珍惜與維護，並藉大陸的民心與民意來軟化改善大陸主政者對台灣的態度；相對而言，則如日前本報社論所言，當大陸當局「寄希望於台灣人民」之時，亦當多想一想「台灣人民的希望」是什麼？
天災難免，兩岸不會沒有地震；發生地震，兩岸民間若能如這次四川震災一般地相互關懷與扶持，其實猶如「兄弟之邦」。但是，人禍則可避，兩岸可以沒有戰爭；倘若今日震災尚且教兩岸人民一同淚眼相對，誰能想像有一天兩岸人民會倒在對方槍口下的血泊中？
請吳主席帶給胡主席一句話：兩岸不會沒有地震，但兩岸可以沒有戰爭！
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Taiwan's Renaissance Depends on the Rebirth of the Republic of China
Taiwan's Renaissance Depends on the Rebirth of the Republic of China
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 21, 2008
The title of Ma Ying-jeou's inaugural address is "Taiwan's Renaissance." But within the text you see only phrases such as "the Republic of China's Renaissance on Taiwan."
Democracy is blessing. Yesterday, The skies over Taiwan remained unchanged. Life on the island remained unchanged. Apart from a few sections of road in Taipei being closed to traffic for the duration of the inaugural ceremony, traffic remained unchanged. Inside the Presidential Palace however, Chen Shui-bian handed the Great Seal of the Republic of China, the symbol of our nation's sovereignty, over to Ma Ying-jeou. Within minutes, they completed a peaceful transfer of political power. At that moment the entire nation changed. The head of state changed. The nation's course changed. The nation's prospects changed. Everything changed. Democracy is a blessing, a strange and wondrous blessing.
In his inaugural address Ma Ying-jeou said Taiwan is the only region of the world ruled by ethnic Chinese that has undergone a "second change of ruling parties." What is particularly astonishing about this "second change of ruling parties" is that Chen Shui-bian, who asserted that the "Republic of China is dead," will be handing over the reins of the Republic of China government to Ma Ying-jeou, whom champions of Taiwan independence consider an "alien regime." This, in effect, is the "Renaissance of the Republic of China on Taiwan."
One could say that yesterday's democratic transfer of political power nullified Chen Shui-bian's imprecation that the "Republic of China is dead." The people of Taiwan used their ballots to rescue the Republic of China. This aspect of democracy, this "second change of ruling parties" is even more astonishing, and has left people incredulous.
The principle theme of President Ma's inaugural address was the rehabilitation of the Republic of China. First he told his domestic audience "the Republic of China has gained a new lease on life on Taiwan" and that he intends to restore public identification with the Republic of China. Second, he told listeners on both sides of the Taiwan Strait the vital role of the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. He proposed maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, under the framework of the Republic of China Constitution.
This is how President Ma is positioning himself relative to his two major internal and external problems. With regards Taiwan, to borrow Frank Hsieh's phrase, he seeks "Reconciliation and Coexistence," to establish a consensus concerning the Republic of China. With regards cross-strait relations, he seeks Beijing's respect for the Republic of China's status quo, and "peace and mutual prosperity." These problems have vital internal and external implications. If Beijing allows the Republic of China greater breathing room, the public on Taiwan will identify more closely with the Republic of China. If on the other hand, pro independence sentiment on Taiwan increases, Beijing will surely reduce Taiwan's room to maneuver.
Let's take a closer look at his inaugural address, which he entitled "Taiwan's Renaissance." The only place where the word "renaissance" appears is "the Republic of China has received a new lease on life on Taiwan." President Ma pointed out that during his term of office the Republic of China will celebrate its centennial. He underscored the fact that the Republic of China ruled the mainland region for only 38 years, but the Taiwan region for over 60 years. He underscored the fact that "the fate of the Republic of China is now inextricably intertwined with the fate of Taiwan." In fact, the notion that "the Republic of China has received a new lease on life on Taiwan" is inextricably intertwined with the notion of a "second change of ruling parties." After all, If President Ma cannot persuade the public on Taiwan to identify with "the Republic of China's renaissance," how can he talk of "One China, Different Interpretations?"
In his speech President Ma referred to his own status as a "post war immigrant." He said Taiwan was his home, and that his loved ones were buried here. He said he was grateful to Taiwan society for accepting, cultivating, and embracing this "post war immigrant." His words may have reflected Ma Ying-jeou's deeply ingrained sense of Original Sin. His words may have paid obeisance to "earlier immigrants'" sense of entitlement. They did demonstrate that Ma Ying-jeou lacks confidence in his own appeals for "Reconciliation and Coexistence." This may be a tough nut for Ma Ying-jeou to crack.
As expected, President Ma's cross-strait relations will be built on the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. He called for "no unification, no independence, and no war." In his speech, President Ma specifically mentioned "Mr. Hu Jintao's last three most recent remarks on cross-strait relations," He endorsed Hu Jintao's 1992 Consensus and his Four Constants, i.e., building of mutual trust, shelving of disputes, seeking of commonalities, and creation of win/win. Usually inaugural addresses mention only abstract principles. For Ma Ying-jeou to specifically address and dialogue with Hu Jintao in his inaugural address is rather extraordinary. This is because even though the 1992 Consensus has now become the new point of reference for cross-strait interaction, it still takes two to Tango. This is not a solo performance for either side. If Ma and Hu truly believe this is a rare, historic opportunity, they must work together and on the basis of the 1992 Consensus gradually improve cross-strait relations. In which case Beijing will not perceive the 1992 Consensus as a means of indefinitely postponing cross-strait talks, and will be more inclined to allow Taiwan more international space.
President Ma said that the President of the Republic of China's most sacred duty is to defend the Constitution. This is the President of the Republic of China's greatest challenge. On Taiwan, defending the Constitution means two things. One is maintaining public identification with the Republic of China. The other is complying with provisions of the Republic of China Constitution regarding one's powers and responsibilities. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian failed because they had no desire or intention to defend the Republic of China and its Constitution. That is why they promoted their "Two States Theory," their "Rectification of Names" campaigns, and their "Authoring of a New Constitution" campaigns. They were unable to defend the ROC Constitution because Beijing knew Lee and Chen were merely using the ROC Constitution as cover while they promoted "creeping independence." Ma Ying-jeou by contrast, is someone willing to defend the ROC Constitution. If Ma Ying-jeou is unable to defend the ROC Constitution, then nobody can defend it. Then nobody will be willing to defend it. Then nobody will dare to defend it. Beijing cannot treat the Republic of China the same way it treated Taiwan independence. Beijing cannot treat Ma Ying-jeou the same way it treated Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.
President Ma Ying-jeou and Chairman Hu Jintao have an historic opportunity to break the current cross-strait deadlock. Both are aware that the recent presidential election rescued the Republic of China from Chen Shui-bian's imprecation that the "Republic of China is dead." Therefore Ma Ying-jeou must midwife the rebirth of the Republic of China. Hu Jintao must respect the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations premise. Only this will enable ROC voters on Taiwan to support and identify politically with the Republic of China and with ROC cross-strait policy. If the Republic of China can not be kept alive, it will be difficult to maintain cross-strait relations. The two sides need such an understanding. Ma Ying-jeou's speech concluded with two rallying cries: Long live Taiwan's democracy! Long live the Republic of China! Normal relations across the Taiwan Strait must be built on Taiwan's democracy and the Republic of China. If the Republic of China loses the support of Taiwan's democracy, cross-strait relations are bound to degenerate. This is Ma Ying-jeou's problem. It is something Hu surely can appreciate.
Taiwan's Renaissance depends on the rebirth of the Republic of China. The rebirth of cross-strait relations depends on Beijing's understanding and implementation of the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
台灣的新生建立在中華民國的新生之上
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.21 02:12 am
馬英九總統就職演說的標題有「台灣新生」四字，但文中僅見「中華民國在台灣的新生」等語。
民主是美妙的恩典。昨天，台灣天空的太陽沒有變，整個島上的生活運作，除了台北市幾條路段因慶典而短暫交通管制外，一切也都沒有變；然而，在象徵國家主權的總統府內，陳水扁把中華民國國璽移交給馬英九，在幾分鐘內就完成了「政權和平轉移」的程序，整個國家卻立即從元首到路線、到憧憬皆全盤改變。民主真是何其美妙！民主又是何等恩典！
新總統馬英九的就職演說指出：台灣是全球華人文化土壤中，唯一完成「二次政黨輪替」的範例。尤其令人震撼的是：這場「二次政黨輪替」，是由宣布「中華民國已死」的陳水扁，將中華民國政權交給原被他指為「外來政權」的馬英九手中。這正是「中華民國在台灣的新生」。
可以這麼說，昨天這場政權交替的最核心意義是：台灣的民主政治使得陳水扁「中華民國已死」的詛咒未能應驗，最後是由台灣人民在投票箱前救回了中華民國。就這一層意義而言，更使人驚嘆民主政治的神奇，也更使人為這場「二次政黨輪替」感到震懾。
其實，馬總統的就職演說，也是以重建中華民國的角色為主軸：一、對台灣內部，他說「中華民國在台灣得到了新生」，因此，致力於修補重建國家認同；二、對海峽兩岸，他則楬櫫「九二共識／一中各表」，主張「在中華民國憲法架構下，維持台灣海峽的現狀」。
誠然，這也正是馬總統在國家定位工程上，對內與對外的兩大難題：對台灣內部，必須「和解共生」（他借用了謝長廷的佳句），以建立「中華民國」的認同與共識；對海峽兩岸，則必須爭取北京政權正視並尊重「中華民國的現狀」，以求「和平共榮」。其實，在此一議題上，對內對外存在著生剋關係；北京若給中華民國空間，台灣內部的中華民國認同即可望升高；反之，台灣內部倘若台獨高張，北京恐怕就會更加緊縮台灣的空間。
進一步解讀「對內」部分。就職演說的標題是「台灣新生」，但文中唯一出現「新生」二字之處，則是「中華民國在台灣得到了新生」。馬總統指出，他任內將慶祝中華民國一百周年國慶；又稱中華民國在大陸僅三十八年，在台灣則將逾一甲子；並稱「中華民國與台灣的命運已經緊緊結合在一起」。這些論述，其實皆在建構「中華民國在台灣的新生」，也是這場「二次政黨輪替」最重大的意義所在。畢竟，倘若馬總統不能對內在國家認同上創造「中華民國的新生」，對外亦將失去「一中各表」的憑藉。
可附一筆的是：馬總統在演講中，標示出自己的「戰後新移民」的角色。他說：台灣是我的故鄉（應是「家鄉」之誤，身處異鄉時始稱「故鄉」），是我親人埋骨之處；台灣社會對他這個「戰後新移民」的「包容之義／栽培之恩／擁抱之情」令他感念。這些話充分反映了馬英九的「原罪感」，或許滿足了「老移民」的優越感，卻顯示馬英九對「和解共生」並無足夠的信心；這也可見馬英九處境艱難之一斑。
再談「對外」部分。一如預料，馬總統將兩岸關係建立在「一中各表／九二共識」之上，並主張「不統／不獨／不武」。馬總統在演說中且特別提到「胡錦濤先生最近三次有關兩岸關係的談話」，並表示贊同胡錦濤「九二共識」、「四個繼續」、「建立互信／擱置爭議／求同存異／共創雙贏」等幾項觀點。通常，就職演說往往只在標舉抽象原則，如今像馬英九這般以就職演說指名與胡錦濤對話，應是很不尋常的作法；這是因為，即使「九二共識」已成兩岸互動的新準據，但這畢竟仍是「兩人探戈」，不是任何單方面能唱得成的獨腳戲。倘若馬胡二位兩岸領導人，果真認為此時此際正是兩岸之間難得的「歷史機遇」，即應共同努力在「九二共識的基礎上」漸次「發展」兩岸關係，那麼北京方面就不宜將「九二共識」視為使兩岸關係「停格」的工具，而應在「開放國際空間」等方面對台灣有所回應。
馬總統說：中華民國總統最神聖的職責就是守護憲法；但這正是最近幾任中華民國總統的最大難題。在台灣，守護憲法有兩層意義，一是守護中華民國的國家認同，一是遵守憲政的權責規範。李登輝與陳水扁的失敗，一方面是因不想守護及不願守護，於是搞「兩國論」、「正名制憲」或「台獨建國」；另一方面其實亦因北京的因素而使他們二人守護不住中華民國憲法。如今，馬英九相對而言應是一個願意守護中華民國憲法者，倘若北京方面仍使馬英九也「守護不住」，那麼恐怕也就無人能守，亦無人願守、無人敢守了。北京不能將「中華民國」與「台獨」一般對待，也不可將馬英九與李登輝、陳水扁一般對待！
馬英九總統及胡錦濤主席，皆用「歷史機遇」一詞來形容兩岸現今所處時空情境，二人皆應心知肚明的是：如前所述，這次總統大選不啻是台灣選民從詛咒「中華民國已死」的陳水扁手中，將中華民國搶救了回來；因而，未來馬英九必須能夠創造「中華民國的新生」，胡錦濤應當尊重「九二共識／一中各表」，才能使站在投票箱前的台灣選民願意支持中華民國的政治認同與兩岸政策。倘若「中華民國」不能維持，兩岸關係就難以維繫。兩岸當局若能有此認知，即知馬英九昨日演說結尾的兩句口號也許有相互呼應的關係，他說：台灣民主萬歲！中華民國萬歲！其實，海峽兩岸的正常關係，正是必須建立在「台灣民主」與「中華民國」的正常關係之上；當「中華民國」失去「台灣民主」的支撐，兩岸關係也必定變質。這是馬英九的難題，也是胡錦濤應有的領悟。
台灣的新生，建立在中華民國的新生之上；兩岸關係的新生，則建立在北京政府對「九二共識／一中各表」的真正理解與實踐之上。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 21, 2008
The title of Ma Ying-jeou's inaugural address is "Taiwan's Renaissance." But within the text you see only phrases such as "the Republic of China's Renaissance on Taiwan."
Democracy is blessing. Yesterday, The skies over Taiwan remained unchanged. Life on the island remained unchanged. Apart from a few sections of road in Taipei being closed to traffic for the duration of the inaugural ceremony, traffic remained unchanged. Inside the Presidential Palace however, Chen Shui-bian handed the Great Seal of the Republic of China, the symbol of our nation's sovereignty, over to Ma Ying-jeou. Within minutes, they completed a peaceful transfer of political power. At that moment the entire nation changed. The head of state changed. The nation's course changed. The nation's prospects changed. Everything changed. Democracy is a blessing, a strange and wondrous blessing.
In his inaugural address Ma Ying-jeou said Taiwan is the only region of the world ruled by ethnic Chinese that has undergone a "second change of ruling parties." What is particularly astonishing about this "second change of ruling parties" is that Chen Shui-bian, who asserted that the "Republic of China is dead," will be handing over the reins of the Republic of China government to Ma Ying-jeou, whom champions of Taiwan independence consider an "alien regime." This, in effect, is the "Renaissance of the Republic of China on Taiwan."
One could say that yesterday's democratic transfer of political power nullified Chen Shui-bian's imprecation that the "Republic of China is dead." The people of Taiwan used their ballots to rescue the Republic of China. This aspect of democracy, this "second change of ruling parties" is even more astonishing, and has left people incredulous.
The principle theme of President Ma's inaugural address was the rehabilitation of the Republic of China. First he told his domestic audience "the Republic of China has gained a new lease on life on Taiwan" and that he intends to restore public identification with the Republic of China. Second, he told listeners on both sides of the Taiwan Strait the vital role of the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. He proposed maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, under the framework of the Republic of China Constitution.
This is how President Ma is positioning himself relative to his two major internal and external problems. With regards Taiwan, to borrow Frank Hsieh's phrase, he seeks "Reconciliation and Coexistence," to establish a consensus concerning the Republic of China. With regards cross-strait relations, he seeks Beijing's respect for the Republic of China's status quo, and "peace and mutual prosperity." These problems have vital internal and external implications. If Beijing allows the Republic of China greater breathing room, the public on Taiwan will identify more closely with the Republic of China. If on the other hand, pro independence sentiment on Taiwan increases, Beijing will surely reduce Taiwan's room to maneuver.
Let's take a closer look at his inaugural address, which he entitled "Taiwan's Renaissance." The only place where the word "renaissance" appears is "the Republic of China has received a new lease on life on Taiwan." President Ma pointed out that during his term of office the Republic of China will celebrate its centennial. He underscored the fact that the Republic of China ruled the mainland region for only 38 years, but the Taiwan region for over 60 years. He underscored the fact that "the fate of the Republic of China is now inextricably intertwined with the fate of Taiwan." In fact, the notion that "the Republic of China has received a new lease on life on Taiwan" is inextricably intertwined with the notion of a "second change of ruling parties." After all, If President Ma cannot persuade the public on Taiwan to identify with "the Republic of China's renaissance," how can he talk of "One China, Different Interpretations?"
In his speech President Ma referred to his own status as a "post war immigrant." He said Taiwan was his home, and that his loved ones were buried here. He said he was grateful to Taiwan society for accepting, cultivating, and embracing this "post war immigrant." His words may have reflected Ma Ying-jeou's deeply ingrained sense of Original Sin. His words may have paid obeisance to "earlier immigrants'" sense of entitlement. They did demonstrate that Ma Ying-jeou lacks confidence in his own appeals for "Reconciliation and Coexistence." This may be a tough nut for Ma Ying-jeou to crack.
As expected, President Ma's cross-strait relations will be built on the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. He called for "no unification, no independence, and no war." In his speech, President Ma specifically mentioned "Mr. Hu Jintao's last three most recent remarks on cross-strait relations," He endorsed Hu Jintao's 1992 Consensus and his Four Constants, i.e., building of mutual trust, shelving of disputes, seeking of commonalities, and creation of win/win. Usually inaugural addresses mention only abstract principles. For Ma Ying-jeou to specifically address and dialogue with Hu Jintao in his inaugural address is rather extraordinary. This is because even though the 1992 Consensus has now become the new point of reference for cross-strait interaction, it still takes two to Tango. This is not a solo performance for either side. If Ma and Hu truly believe this is a rare, historic opportunity, they must work together and on the basis of the 1992 Consensus gradually improve cross-strait relations. In which case Beijing will not perceive the 1992 Consensus as a means of indefinitely postponing cross-strait talks, and will be more inclined to allow Taiwan more international space.
President Ma said that the President of the Republic of China's most sacred duty is to defend the Constitution. This is the President of the Republic of China's greatest challenge. On Taiwan, defending the Constitution means two things. One is maintaining public identification with the Republic of China. The other is complying with provisions of the Republic of China Constitution regarding one's powers and responsibilities. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian failed because they had no desire or intention to defend the Republic of China and its Constitution. That is why they promoted their "Two States Theory," their "Rectification of Names" campaigns, and their "Authoring of a New Constitution" campaigns. They were unable to defend the ROC Constitution because Beijing knew Lee and Chen were merely using the ROC Constitution as cover while they promoted "creeping independence." Ma Ying-jeou by contrast, is someone willing to defend the ROC Constitution. If Ma Ying-jeou is unable to defend the ROC Constitution, then nobody can defend it. Then nobody will be willing to defend it. Then nobody will dare to defend it. Beijing cannot treat the Republic of China the same way it treated Taiwan independence. Beijing cannot treat Ma Ying-jeou the same way it treated Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.
President Ma Ying-jeou and Chairman Hu Jintao have an historic opportunity to break the current cross-strait deadlock. Both are aware that the recent presidential election rescued the Republic of China from Chen Shui-bian's imprecation that the "Republic of China is dead." Therefore Ma Ying-jeou must midwife the rebirth of the Republic of China. Hu Jintao must respect the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations premise. Only this will enable ROC voters on Taiwan to support and identify politically with the Republic of China and with ROC cross-strait policy. If the Republic of China can not be kept alive, it will be difficult to maintain cross-strait relations. The two sides need such an understanding. Ma Ying-jeou's speech concluded with two rallying cries: Long live Taiwan's democracy! Long live the Republic of China! Normal relations across the Taiwan Strait must be built on Taiwan's democracy and the Republic of China. If the Republic of China loses the support of Taiwan's democracy, cross-strait relations are bound to degenerate. This is Ma Ying-jeou's problem. It is something Hu surely can appreciate.
Taiwan's Renaissance depends on the rebirth of the Republic of China. The rebirth of cross-strait relations depends on Beijing's understanding and implementation of the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
台灣的新生建立在中華民國的新生之上
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.21 02:12 am
馬英九總統就職演說的標題有「台灣新生」四字，但文中僅見「中華民國在台灣的新生」等語。
民主是美妙的恩典。昨天，台灣天空的太陽沒有變，整個島上的生活運作，除了台北市幾條路段因慶典而短暫交通管制外，一切也都沒有變；然而，在象徵國家主權的總統府內，陳水扁把中華民國國璽移交給馬英九，在幾分鐘內就完成了「政權和平轉移」的程序，整個國家卻立即從元首到路線、到憧憬皆全盤改變。民主真是何其美妙！民主又是何等恩典！
新總統馬英九的就職演說指出：台灣是全球華人文化土壤中，唯一完成「二次政黨輪替」的範例。尤其令人震撼的是：這場「二次政黨輪替」，是由宣布「中華民國已死」的陳水扁，將中華民國政權交給原被他指為「外來政權」的馬英九手中。這正是「中華民國在台灣的新生」。
可以這麼說，昨天這場政權交替的最核心意義是：台灣的民主政治使得陳水扁「中華民國已死」的詛咒未能應驗，最後是由台灣人民在投票箱前救回了中華民國。就這一層意義而言，更使人驚嘆民主政治的神奇，也更使人為這場「二次政黨輪替」感到震懾。
其實，馬總統的就職演說，也是以重建中華民國的角色為主軸：一、對台灣內部，他說「中華民國在台灣得到了新生」，因此，致力於修補重建國家認同；二、對海峽兩岸，他則楬櫫「九二共識／一中各表」，主張「在中華民國憲法架構下，維持台灣海峽的現狀」。
誠然，這也正是馬總統在國家定位工程上，對內與對外的兩大難題：對台灣內部，必須「和解共生」（他借用了謝長廷的佳句），以建立「中華民國」的認同與共識；對海峽兩岸，則必須爭取北京政權正視並尊重「中華民國的現狀」，以求「和平共榮」。其實，在此一議題上，對內對外存在著生剋關係；北京若給中華民國空間，台灣內部的中華民國認同即可望升高；反之，台灣內部倘若台獨高張，北京恐怕就會更加緊縮台灣的空間。
進一步解讀「對內」部分。就職演說的標題是「台灣新生」，但文中唯一出現「新生」二字之處，則是「中華民國在台灣得到了新生」。馬總統指出，他任內將慶祝中華民國一百周年國慶；又稱中華民國在大陸僅三十八年，在台灣則將逾一甲子；並稱「中華民國與台灣的命運已經緊緊結合在一起」。這些論述，其實皆在建構「中華民國在台灣的新生」，也是這場「二次政黨輪替」最重大的意義所在。畢竟，倘若馬總統不能對內在國家認同上創造「中華民國的新生」，對外亦將失去「一中各表」的憑藉。
可附一筆的是：馬總統在演講中，標示出自己的「戰後新移民」的角色。他說：台灣是我的故鄉（應是「家鄉」之誤，身處異鄉時始稱「故鄉」），是我親人埋骨之處；台灣社會對他這個「戰後新移民」的「包容之義／栽培之恩／擁抱之情」令他感念。這些話充分反映了馬英九的「原罪感」，或許滿足了「老移民」的優越感，卻顯示馬英九對「和解共生」並無足夠的信心；這也可見馬英九處境艱難之一斑。
再談「對外」部分。一如預料，馬總統將兩岸關係建立在「一中各表／九二共識」之上，並主張「不統／不獨／不武」。馬總統在演說中且特別提到「胡錦濤先生最近三次有關兩岸關係的談話」，並表示贊同胡錦濤「九二共識」、「四個繼續」、「建立互信／擱置爭議／求同存異／共創雙贏」等幾項觀點。通常，就職演說往往只在標舉抽象原則，如今像馬英九這般以就職演說指名與胡錦濤對話，應是很不尋常的作法；這是因為，即使「九二共識」已成兩岸互動的新準據，但這畢竟仍是「兩人探戈」，不是任何單方面能唱得成的獨腳戲。倘若馬胡二位兩岸領導人，果真認為此時此際正是兩岸之間難得的「歷史機遇」，即應共同努力在「九二共識的基礎上」漸次「發展」兩岸關係，那麼北京方面就不宜將「九二共識」視為使兩岸關係「停格」的工具，而應在「開放國際空間」等方面對台灣有所回應。
馬總統說：中華民國總統最神聖的職責就是守護憲法；但這正是最近幾任中華民國總統的最大難題。在台灣，守護憲法有兩層意義，一是守護中華民國的國家認同，一是遵守憲政的權責規範。李登輝與陳水扁的失敗，一方面是因不想守護及不願守護，於是搞「兩國論」、「正名制憲」或「台獨建國」；另一方面其實亦因北京的因素而使他們二人守護不住中華民國憲法。如今，馬英九相對而言應是一個願意守護中華民國憲法者，倘若北京方面仍使馬英九也「守護不住」，那麼恐怕也就無人能守，亦無人願守、無人敢守了。北京不能將「中華民國」與「台獨」一般對待，也不可將馬英九與李登輝、陳水扁一般對待！
馬英九總統及胡錦濤主席，皆用「歷史機遇」一詞來形容兩岸現今所處時空情境，二人皆應心知肚明的是：如前所述，這次總統大選不啻是台灣選民從詛咒「中華民國已死」的陳水扁手中，將中華民國搶救了回來；因而，未來馬英九必須能夠創造「中華民國的新生」，胡錦濤應當尊重「九二共識／一中各表」，才能使站在投票箱前的台灣選民願意支持中華民國的政治認同與兩岸政策。倘若「中華民國」不能維持，兩岸關係就難以維繫。兩岸當局若能有此認知，即知馬英九昨日演說結尾的兩句口號也許有相互呼應的關係，他說：台灣民主萬歲！中華民國萬歲！其實，海峽兩岸的正常關係，正是必須建立在「台灣民主」與「中華民國」的正常關係之上；當「中華民國」失去「台灣民主」的支撐，兩岸關係也必定變質。這是馬英九的難題，也是胡錦濤應有的領悟。
台灣的新生，建立在中華民國的新生之上；兩岸關係的新生，則建立在北京政府對「九二共識／一中各表」的真正理解與實踐之上。
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Two Tigers: Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian
Two Tigers: Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 20, 2008
Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou were both born in 1950, under the sign of the tiger. Today, President Chen Shui-bian will hand power over to Ma Ying-jeou.
This is the second time Chen Shui-bian has handed over power to Ma Ying-jeou. Ten years ago, In 1998, Taipei Mayor Chen Shui-bian lost his bid for re-election to Ma Ying-jeou. The consensus was that Chen's loss to Ma was a one time event. Chen Shui-bian was optimistic about a comeback. Today, 10 years later, in 2008, Hsieh has lost to his bid for the presidency to Ma Ying-jeou. But the consensus is it was really Chen Shui-bian who lost to Ma Ying-jeou. This time Chen Shui-bian lost more than political power. He lost his reputation. He lost his bona fides as the "Son of Taiwan" and his right to speak for "Taiwanese Values." He sullied the reputation of the DPP. He discredited the very notion of a 400 year old heritage of "native Taiwanese values."
Ma Ying-jeou has succeeded Chen Shui-bian twice in a single decade. Such are the vicissitudes of political life. Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian lost his bid for reelection as Taipei Mayor to Ma Ying-jeou. That evening, as Chen thanked supporters, a tearful audience shouted, "A-bian for President!" Ten years later, all one hears across the land is cries of "A-Bian, Step Down!" Chen Shui-bian has twice paved the way for Ma Ying-jeou. Ten years ago, Ma Ying-jeou provided the springboard for Chen Shui-bian's presidential bid. Ten years later, Chen Shui-bian has provided the springboard for Ma Ying-jeou's presidential bid.
Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian compared himself to a "mutt" and Ma Ying-jeou to a "poodle." Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou are indeed two very different political animals. One is "Taiwanese," the other is a "Second Generation Mainlander." One is an attorney, the other is an academic. Ten years later however, the difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian has little to do with "mutts" and "poodles." Ten years later Chen Shui-bian is the "Shame of Taiwan," and Ma Ying-jeou symbolizes Taiwan's renewal of values.
Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian was a sore loser. His satisfaction rating as mayor was high, yet he lost to Ma Ying-jeou. Chen Shui-bian was regarded as a man of ability. But he was unable to persuade others that he was a man of virtue, a man who could be trusted. As a result he was replaced by Ma Ying-jeou, a man who was perceived as a man of virtue, and a man who could be trusted. Ten years later, Chen Shui-bian has left an indelible image of himself as a corrupt and evil man, particularly next to Ma Ying-jeou.
By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou has always been regarded as a man of virtue. In fact, he has even been regarded as a man of virtue who was not a man of ability. Of course it may be that a man of virtue's abilities are not always immediately apparent. Whether this dichotomy between men of virtue and men of ability holds water remains to be seen. After all, Ma Ying-jeou's ability to maintain an image of himself as a man of virtue in the political arena is itself a kind of ability. Conversely, if Chen Shui-bian is a man of ability, yet has ended up defeated and disgraced, having destroyed his party and undermined his nation, is he really a man of ability?
How the future will unfold remains unknown. But if one had to sum up the lives of these two men today, one would have to say that Chen Shui-bian is the man who destroyed the DPP. He destroyed the DPP's political authority, he destroyed the DPP's political reputation. By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou, by helping the KMT regain its former status as the ruling party, is seen as a man who has given the KMT a new lease on life. Whether Ma Ying-jeou can help the KMT recast itself as the representative of mainstream Taiwan values remains to be seen.
Chen Shui-bian won the 2000 presidential election due to internal divisions within the KMT. As the standard bearer of the DPP's calls for reform, he once championed a "New Centrist Path." As a champion of "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution" however, his approval rating plummeted to mere 13%. By contrast, ever since Ma Ying-jeou accused the Lee Teng-hui regime of "abusing power for personal gain" in 1997, and resigned his position as a Minister of State, he has been seen as a reformist. Ma Ying-jeou is perceived as an antithesis of the machine politician, as someone who is "lonely at the top." Chen Shui-bian, who cast himself as a "reformer," wound up in bed with Deep Green Taiwan independence extremists, sealing his fate. Ma Ying-jeou is also cast as a reformer. What will be his fate? Will he be lonely at the top, or will he turn into a player who cuts sweetheart deals in smoke-filled rooms?
Two tigers. Chen Shui-bian became president eight years before Ma Ying-jeou. But during his eight years Chen Shui-bian divided the nation, demagogued Taiwan independence, and exploited "ethnic" bigotry to shield himself from prosecution for corruption. These two men are polar opposites. Ma Ying-jeou became president eight years later than Chen Shui-bian. If Chen Shui-bian hadn't demagogued these issues so shrilly, underscoring his rampant misrule and moral degeneracy, Ma Ying-jeou might not have won by such a landslide. Ma Ying-jeou might not have received such a clear mandate, even before assuming office. Over the past eight years, Chen Shui-bian destroyed himself and created President Ma Ying-jeou.
Ma Ying-jeou's integrity is a silent indictment of Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, is Ma Ying-jeou's object lesson.
兩隻老虎：馬英九與陳水扁的十年滄桑
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.20 03:01 am
陳水扁與馬英九同庚，皆生於一九五○年，肖虎。今天，陳水扁將把總統職位移交給馬英九。
這是扁馬第二次交接職務。十年前，一九九八年，陳水扁連任台北市長之役輸給了馬英九，當年輿論認為陳水扁只是輸掉一場選舉而已，但皆看好陳水扁有東山再起的潛能。如今十年後，二○○八年，雖是謝長廷在總統大選中敗給馬英九，但輿論皆認為是陳水扁再次輸給了馬英九；這一次，陳水扁且不僅輸掉了政權，更輸掉了人格形象，輸掉了他代表台灣價值的「台灣之子」地位，也輸掉了民進黨的名譽聲望，甚至羞辱玷汙了四百年來的台灣本土政治傳承。
扁馬十年兩次交接職位，呈現出耐人玩味的政治滄桑。十年前，陳水扁在市長之役被馬英九打敗，當晚的謝票晚會上，台下群眾噙淚高呼「阿扁仔，選總統！」；十年後，卻是幾乎在舉國皆聞「阿扁，下台」的怒吼聲中，由陳水扁親自為馬英九鋪平了邁入總統府的紅地毯。十年前，馬英九是陳水扁出馬競選總統的槓桿；十年後，陳水扁則是馬英九當選總統的槓桿。
十年前，陳水扁一開始就將自己與馬英九的對照比作「土狗／貴賓狗」。扁馬二人確屬兩個迥然不同的類型，其差異自「台灣人／外省人第二代」開始，就一路不同到「律師／學者」的總體人格特質。但是，十年後的今天，扁馬的對照似乎已不是「土狗／貴賓狗」；陳水扁幾乎被視為台灣之恥，而馬英九則彷彿被視為台灣價值重建的新標誌。
十年前，陳水扁輸得不甘願。他的市長施政滿意度不低，但連任之役卻輸給了馬英九。其實，早在當年，陳水扁就被視為「能人」，卻一直未能建立「可以信任」的「好人」的形象；因此，在十年前，馬英九「可堪信任」的「好人」形象，就擊敗了陳水扁。十年後的今天，陳水扁更是徹底毀於他自己所建立的「貪官／壞人」形象；尤其，在馬英九「好人」形象的對比下，將陳水扁的「壞人」樣貌襯托得更形鮮明強烈。
相對而言，馬英九則一直被視為「好人」；甚至因為「好人」而被視為不是「能人」，或者因「好人」而使人看不到他也是「能人」。然而，這種「好人／能人」的二分法究竟是否準確，尚待驗證；畢竟，馬英九能夠在濁惡的政壇保持「好人」的形象，這即是一種過人的能力；反過來說，陳水扁若是一名「能人」，最後卻弄到身敗名裂、黨毀國傷的地步，這難道還是「能人」嗎？
未來尚未可知，如果現在就對扁馬作一定論，或可謂：扁是毀滅民進黨之人，不但毀了民進黨政權，更且毀了民進黨所標榜的台灣價值。相對而言，馬英九則是中興國民黨之人，贏回了失去八年的執政地位；但馬英九能否重建再造國民黨穩居台灣主流價值的代表地位，卻是未定之數。
陳水扁在國民黨的分裂中贏得二○○○年總統大選之時，曾經以民進黨的改革旗手自詡，楬櫫「新中間路線」；但如今卻在「正名制憲」的台獨風潮中落敗，民調跌到只剩十三％。相對而言，馬英九自一九九七年指控李登輝政權「以權謀私，爭功諉過」而辭去政務委員以來，亦一直被視為國民黨內的改革派；所謂「孤峰頂上／紅塵浪裡」，或許正是馬英九的寫照。就此以言，標榜「改革」的陳水扁，最後反而與深綠極獨相互挾持，即注定了他今日的下場；現在就看也是標榜「改革」的馬英九，究竟將是「孤峰鎮紅塵」，抑或是「紅塵鎖孤峰」了？
兩隻老虎。陳水扁比馬英九早八年當上總統，但這八年來陳水扁在分裂國家、炒作台獨、族群鬥爭及政治貪腐上，皆有「非常極致」的表現；而馬英九比陳水扁晚八年當總統，但若非陳水扁將這些議題操作到如此極致且證明是失政敗德，馬英九或許不會如此順利地高票當選總統，亦不會在上任時就取得了如此鮮明的社會信任與共識。這個八年，陳水扁毀了自己，卻成就了馬英九。
馬英九是陳水扁的致命對照，陳水扁是馬英九的鮮明殷鑑！
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 20, 2008
Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou were both born in 1950, under the sign of the tiger. Today, President Chen Shui-bian will hand power over to Ma Ying-jeou.
This is the second time Chen Shui-bian has handed over power to Ma Ying-jeou. Ten years ago, In 1998, Taipei Mayor Chen Shui-bian lost his bid for re-election to Ma Ying-jeou. The consensus was that Chen's loss to Ma was a one time event. Chen Shui-bian was optimistic about a comeback. Today, 10 years later, in 2008, Hsieh has lost to his bid for the presidency to Ma Ying-jeou. But the consensus is it was really Chen Shui-bian who lost to Ma Ying-jeou. This time Chen Shui-bian lost more than political power. He lost his reputation. He lost his bona fides as the "Son of Taiwan" and his right to speak for "Taiwanese Values." He sullied the reputation of the DPP. He discredited the very notion of a 400 year old heritage of "native Taiwanese values."
Ma Ying-jeou has succeeded Chen Shui-bian twice in a single decade. Such are the vicissitudes of political life. Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian lost his bid for reelection as Taipei Mayor to Ma Ying-jeou. That evening, as Chen thanked supporters, a tearful audience shouted, "A-bian for President!" Ten years later, all one hears across the land is cries of "A-Bian, Step Down!" Chen Shui-bian has twice paved the way for Ma Ying-jeou. Ten years ago, Ma Ying-jeou provided the springboard for Chen Shui-bian's presidential bid. Ten years later, Chen Shui-bian has provided the springboard for Ma Ying-jeou's presidential bid.
Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian compared himself to a "mutt" and Ma Ying-jeou to a "poodle." Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou are indeed two very different political animals. One is "Taiwanese," the other is a "Second Generation Mainlander." One is an attorney, the other is an academic. Ten years later however, the difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian has little to do with "mutts" and "poodles." Ten years later Chen Shui-bian is the "Shame of Taiwan," and Ma Ying-jeou symbolizes Taiwan's renewal of values.
Ten years ago, Chen Shui-bian was a sore loser. His satisfaction rating as mayor was high, yet he lost to Ma Ying-jeou. Chen Shui-bian was regarded as a man of ability. But he was unable to persuade others that he was a man of virtue, a man who could be trusted. As a result he was replaced by Ma Ying-jeou, a man who was perceived as a man of virtue, and a man who could be trusted. Ten years later, Chen Shui-bian has left an indelible image of himself as a corrupt and evil man, particularly next to Ma Ying-jeou.
By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou has always been regarded as a man of virtue. In fact, he has even been regarded as a man of virtue who was not a man of ability. Of course it may be that a man of virtue's abilities are not always immediately apparent. Whether this dichotomy between men of virtue and men of ability holds water remains to be seen. After all, Ma Ying-jeou's ability to maintain an image of himself as a man of virtue in the political arena is itself a kind of ability. Conversely, if Chen Shui-bian is a man of ability, yet has ended up defeated and disgraced, having destroyed his party and undermined his nation, is he really a man of ability?
How the future will unfold remains unknown. But if one had to sum up the lives of these two men today, one would have to say that Chen Shui-bian is the man who destroyed the DPP. He destroyed the DPP's political authority, he destroyed the DPP's political reputation. By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou, by helping the KMT regain its former status as the ruling party, is seen as a man who has given the KMT a new lease on life. Whether Ma Ying-jeou can help the KMT recast itself as the representative of mainstream Taiwan values remains to be seen.
Chen Shui-bian won the 2000 presidential election due to internal divisions within the KMT. As the standard bearer of the DPP's calls for reform, he once championed a "New Centrist Path." As a champion of "Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution" however, his approval rating plummeted to mere 13%. By contrast, ever since Ma Ying-jeou accused the Lee Teng-hui regime of "abusing power for personal gain" in 1997, and resigned his position as a Minister of State, he has been seen as a reformist. Ma Ying-jeou is perceived as an antithesis of the machine politician, as someone who is "lonely at the top." Chen Shui-bian, who cast himself as a "reformer," wound up in bed with Deep Green Taiwan independence extremists, sealing his fate. Ma Ying-jeou is also cast as a reformer. What will be his fate? Will he be lonely at the top, or will he turn into a player who cuts sweetheart deals in smoke-filled rooms?
Two tigers. Chen Shui-bian became president eight years before Ma Ying-jeou. But during his eight years Chen Shui-bian divided the nation, demagogued Taiwan independence, and exploited "ethnic" bigotry to shield himself from prosecution for corruption. These two men are polar opposites. Ma Ying-jeou became president eight years later than Chen Shui-bian. If Chen Shui-bian hadn't demagogued these issues so shrilly, underscoring his rampant misrule and moral degeneracy, Ma Ying-jeou might not have won by such a landslide. Ma Ying-jeou might not have received such a clear mandate, even before assuming office. Over the past eight years, Chen Shui-bian destroyed himself and created President Ma Ying-jeou.
Ma Ying-jeou's integrity is a silent indictment of Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, is Ma Ying-jeou's object lesson.
兩隻老虎：馬英九與陳水扁的十年滄桑
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.20 03:01 am
陳水扁與馬英九同庚，皆生於一九五○年，肖虎。今天，陳水扁將把總統職位移交給馬英九。
這是扁馬第二次交接職務。十年前，一九九八年，陳水扁連任台北市長之役輸給了馬英九，當年輿論認為陳水扁只是輸掉一場選舉而已，但皆看好陳水扁有東山再起的潛能。如今十年後，二○○八年，雖是謝長廷在總統大選中敗給馬英九，但輿論皆認為是陳水扁再次輸給了馬英九；這一次，陳水扁且不僅輸掉了政權，更輸掉了人格形象，輸掉了他代表台灣價值的「台灣之子」地位，也輸掉了民進黨的名譽聲望，甚至羞辱玷汙了四百年來的台灣本土政治傳承。
扁馬十年兩次交接職位，呈現出耐人玩味的政治滄桑。十年前，陳水扁在市長之役被馬英九打敗，當晚的謝票晚會上，台下群眾噙淚高呼「阿扁仔，選總統！」；十年後，卻是幾乎在舉國皆聞「阿扁，下台」的怒吼聲中，由陳水扁親自為馬英九鋪平了邁入總統府的紅地毯。十年前，馬英九是陳水扁出馬競選總統的槓桿；十年後，陳水扁則是馬英九當選總統的槓桿。
十年前，陳水扁一開始就將自己與馬英九的對照比作「土狗／貴賓狗」。扁馬二人確屬兩個迥然不同的類型，其差異自「台灣人／外省人第二代」開始，就一路不同到「律師／學者」的總體人格特質。但是，十年後的今天，扁馬的對照似乎已不是「土狗／貴賓狗」；陳水扁幾乎被視為台灣之恥，而馬英九則彷彿被視為台灣價值重建的新標誌。
十年前，陳水扁輸得不甘願。他的市長施政滿意度不低，但連任之役卻輸給了馬英九。其實，早在當年，陳水扁就被視為「能人」，卻一直未能建立「可以信任」的「好人」的形象；因此，在十年前，馬英九「可堪信任」的「好人」形象，就擊敗了陳水扁。十年後的今天，陳水扁更是徹底毀於他自己所建立的「貪官／壞人」形象；尤其，在馬英九「好人」形象的對比下，將陳水扁的「壞人」樣貌襯托得更形鮮明強烈。
相對而言，馬英九則一直被視為「好人」；甚至因為「好人」而被視為不是「能人」，或者因「好人」而使人看不到他也是「能人」。然而，這種「好人／能人」的二分法究竟是否準確，尚待驗證；畢竟，馬英九能夠在濁惡的政壇保持「好人」的形象，這即是一種過人的能力；反過來說，陳水扁若是一名「能人」，最後卻弄到身敗名裂、黨毀國傷的地步，這難道還是「能人」嗎？
未來尚未可知，如果現在就對扁馬作一定論，或可謂：扁是毀滅民進黨之人，不但毀了民進黨政權，更且毀了民進黨所標榜的台灣價值。相對而言，馬英九則是中興國民黨之人，贏回了失去八年的執政地位；但馬英九能否重建再造國民黨穩居台灣主流價值的代表地位，卻是未定之數。
陳水扁在國民黨的分裂中贏得二○○○年總統大選之時，曾經以民進黨的改革旗手自詡，楬櫫「新中間路線」；但如今卻在「正名制憲」的台獨風潮中落敗，民調跌到只剩十三％。相對而言，馬英九自一九九七年指控李登輝政權「以權謀私，爭功諉過」而辭去政務委員以來，亦一直被視為國民黨內的改革派；所謂「孤峰頂上／紅塵浪裡」，或許正是馬英九的寫照。就此以言，標榜「改革」的陳水扁，最後反而與深綠極獨相互挾持，即注定了他今日的下場；現在就看也是標榜「改革」的馬英九，究竟將是「孤峰鎮紅塵」，抑或是「紅塵鎖孤峰」了？
兩隻老虎。陳水扁比馬英九早八年當上總統，但這八年來陳水扁在分裂國家、炒作台獨、族群鬥爭及政治貪腐上，皆有「非常極致」的表現；而馬英九比陳水扁晚八年當總統，但若非陳水扁將這些議題操作到如此極致且證明是失政敗德，馬英九或許不會如此順利地高票當選總統，亦不會在上任時就取得了如此鮮明的社會信任與共識。這個八年，陳水扁毀了自己，卻成就了馬英九。
馬英九是陳水扁的致命對照，陳水扁是馬英九的鮮明殷鑑！
Monday, May 19, 2008
Tsai Ing-wen's Challenge: Restoring DPP Morale
Tsai Ing-wen's Challenge: Restoring DPP Morale
China Times Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 19, 2008
Not surprisingly, Tsai Ing-wen led, all the way. A clear majority of DPP members handed the future of the DPP over to Tsai Ing-wen. This is the first time the DPP has ever elected a female chairperson. Tsai Ing-wen has no experience at running party affairs. She has no campaign experience. Over the next few years, the DPP must pick itself up after a long string of defeats. This will be a difficult ordeal for both Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP.
This DPP party chairman election was highly unorthodox. The Princes of the Party did not have a showdown. Factional leaders did not engage in infighting. The new generation of Young Turks did not make waves. In the end only Koo and Tsai were left standing. These two have never been close to the power center of the DPP. They are not your usual DPP politicians. Koo Kuan-min is an older generation aristocrat and Taiwan independence hardliner. Tsai Ing-wen is a think tank academic, with some degree of expertise in policy planning. The two candidates neatly symbolize the DPP's options for its future. Namely, will the DPP cling to the Deep Green path, or take a more inclusive, more pragmatic path?
As it turns out, the DPP has chosen the latter. Tsai support crossed factional lines. Despite conflict between the Chen, Hsieh, and New Tide factions, they unanimously supported Tsai Ing-wen. This means that both the DPP elite and grass-roots are aware that notwithstanding Koo Kuan-min's credentials as Deep Green champion of Taiwan independence, the Tsai Ing-wen path is the one the DPP must take in order to have a political future.
The ruling party is about to relinquish power. Tsai Ing-wen has no "honeymoon period." The DPP she commands will face the most difficult period in its history. And circumstances may well get worse. She must immediately stop the bleeding, then lead the DPP out of the political wilderness. Frankly this is an impossible task. But Tsai Ing-wen has no time to think about any of this.
Tsai Ing-wen faces a number of difficult problems. She must heal the fissures that developed within the party as a result of the party chairman election. Nearly 40 percent of the DPP did not support her. She must swiftly unite rival factional leaders and create a unified party hierarchy in order to be an effective opposition party. She must begin the nomination process for the upcoming Mayoral and County Magistrate Elections. Above all, she must restore the DPP's morale, which has hit bottom after a long string of defeats. These goals were no problem for past party chairmen, but they are for Tsai Ing-wen, whose qualifications are limited to the halls of academia and the corridors of power.
If it were merely a matter of problem-solving, that would be one thing. But Tsai Ing-wen must deal with a number of intractable issues. First: the across the board loss of ruling party status, being completely cut off from all access to the resources of the state. Will a handful of Princes of the Party with access to resources be willing to share them with Tsai Ing-wen for the good of the party? Frankly no one knows. When Tsai Ing-wen attempts to get things done, she will face serious financial constraints. Second: many officials of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party are still face prosecution for corruption. If investigators and prosecutors find anything illegal, the DPP's image may explore new lows. Third: Princes of the Party who enjoy seniority are surely waiting to make their move. Tsai Ing-wen lacks both resources and seniority. It is surprising they have been as respectful as they have towards her. The danger is they may not show much respect for a future "President Tsai." For Tsai Ing-wen, money is short, problems are many, and nobody cares.
The only thing Tsai Ing-wen can do is rally the Best and the Brightest among the new generation of Young Turks. This group has its roots in the student movement. They have yet to be bought by special interests, and they have the gift of gab. They are the DPP's last hope. If they are able to transcend factional loyalties and work with Tsai Ing-wen, who can say they won't become a force for the party's renewal?
On the eve of May 20, as the Blue camp is mired in petty squabbles over seating protocol, once triumphant DPP officials are packing their bags, preparing to return to civilian life. The DPP fell as swiftly as it rose. The problems it needs to contemplate and confront are overwhelming. This is a reality the entire DPP leadership must confront together. To demand that Tsai Ing-wen bear this cross alone is unreasonable. How the DPP navigates this downturn is something worth watching.
蔡英文的功課：重新召喚民進黨員的熱情
中國時報 2008.05.19
不出意外，在開票後一路領先的優勢下，絕大多數的民進黨員，終究還是將民進黨的未來交給了蔡英文。這除了是讓民進黨出現第一位女黨魁外，更意謂著一位沒有任何黨務經驗，也不曾打過任何選戰的政治新鮮人，將要在今後的幾年，領導民進黨從連續的挫敗中再站起來，不論是對蔡英文，亦或是對民進黨而言，這都將是一項艱鉅的考驗。
細數民進黨歷屆的黨主席選舉，大概沒有任何一屆有這次的競選這般「另類」。沒有天王的頂尖對決，沒有派系領袖的捉對廝殺，也未見新生世代的風起雲湧，拚到最後對決的辜蔡兩人，在昔日民進黨中長期都居於權力核心的外緣，他們也都不是傳統型的民進黨政客，辜寬敏是元老世代的士紳，對台獨有著宗教信仰般的執著；而蔡英文則是思辨型的學者出身，在政策規畫上有其專業，他們兩人的對決，恰恰好也反映了對民進黨未來兩種「想像」的抉擇：即民進黨的未來，是該選擇更進一步的擁抱深綠路線，還是邁向一個更包容、更務實的本土路線？
結果，民進黨員選擇了後者。從跨派系的動員亦可看出若干端倪，即不論扁謝新等各主流派系內部有多大的矛盾，在支持蔡英文出線上這一點倒是有志一同。這也意謂不論是民進黨的多數精英或是基層黨員都心知肚明，不論辜寬敏所標誌的深綠台獨路線有多麼的純正，蔡英文所代表的路線，才應該是民進黨應該選擇的未來。
對一個馬上就要卸下執政權力的政黨而言，蔡英文其實根本沒有所謂的蜜月期，她所接手的民進黨，恐怕是民進黨史上前所未有的最壞時刻，而且情況接下來還有可能會更糟，她必須迅速的為民進黨的挫敗傷痛止血，她更需要領導民進黨從逆境中重新再起，不諱言說，這是一項近乎不可能的任務，但此刻的蔡英文恐怕也無暇再考慮這些了。
替蔡英文算算擺在她面前的難題吧！她必須撫平黨內因為競選黨主席所埋藏的裂痕，畢竟還是有近四成的黨員並沒有挺她；她必須迅速整合各派系的精英，籌組一支黨務團隊，扮演好在野黨的角色；她也必須準備展開提名布署，以迎接接下來的縣市長選舉。最重要的是，她必須將民進黨連續遭逢挫敗後，已經跌到谷底的熱情與信心，重新再召喚出來。這些任務對過去幾屆的黨主席都不是難題，但處在此時此刻，對一個僅有學院與行政資歷的蔡英文而言，想也知道會是非常辛苦的。
如果只是單純的解決難題，那倒是還好，當下的蔡英文還面臨幾項難堪的處境：第一：執政權的全面喪失，也意謂著行政資源的支持將完全斷絕，少數還享有資源的天王或派系願不願意釋出與蔡英文「共赴黨難」，坦白說誰也沒這個把握。未來蔡英文推動黨務，在資源動員上勢必面臨嚴重財務吃緊；第二，許多民進黨執政期間的弊案或醜聞都還在追訴中，如果未來的司法偵辦再查出任何的不法，民進黨的形象還有可能再落谷底；第三，黨內具資歷與輩份的幾位天王，未來勢必各擁人馬伺機而動，他們面對資源匱乏、輩份不高的蔡英文，能維持基本的「尊重」已經是不錯了，怕的是他們未來根本不會把「蔡主席」放在眼裡。面臨這些處境，我們真的擔心，蔡英文未來會陷入「錢少事多沒人理」的境遇。
蔡英文唯一的依恃，就是看她能否有效整合起民進黨新世代的精英，這群在昔日學運崛起的世代，尚未有太多利益的牽絆，也都具備論述能力，是民進黨僅存的翻身本錢，只要他們願意捐棄派系成見，與蔡英文合作搭配，誰說不會成為一支中興的隊伍呢？
處在五二○的前夕，當藍軍還在為就職大典的「座位學」鬧意氣的同時，曾經冠蓋滿京華的民進黨大員們，都在紛紛打包行囊，退居尋常百姓家，一個迅速爆起卻又迅速崩落的政黨，需要思索與面對的課題實在是太多了，這是所有民進黨精英都必須面對的「共業」，如果都只讓蔡英文一個人來揹，真的是太沈重了，民進黨會怎麼走過這個低潮期，我們也都在拭目以待！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 19, 2008
Not surprisingly, Tsai Ing-wen led, all the way. A clear majority of DPP members handed the future of the DPP over to Tsai Ing-wen. This is the first time the DPP has ever elected a female chairperson. Tsai Ing-wen has no experience at running party affairs. She has no campaign experience. Over the next few years, the DPP must pick itself up after a long string of defeats. This will be a difficult ordeal for both Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP.
This DPP party chairman election was highly unorthodox. The Princes of the Party did not have a showdown. Factional leaders did not engage in infighting. The new generation of Young Turks did not make waves. In the end only Koo and Tsai were left standing. These two have never been close to the power center of the DPP. They are not your usual DPP politicians. Koo Kuan-min is an older generation aristocrat and Taiwan independence hardliner. Tsai Ing-wen is a think tank academic, with some degree of expertise in policy planning. The two candidates neatly symbolize the DPP's options for its future. Namely, will the DPP cling to the Deep Green path, or take a more inclusive, more pragmatic path?
As it turns out, the DPP has chosen the latter. Tsai support crossed factional lines. Despite conflict between the Chen, Hsieh, and New Tide factions, they unanimously supported Tsai Ing-wen. This means that both the DPP elite and grass-roots are aware that notwithstanding Koo Kuan-min's credentials as Deep Green champion of Taiwan independence, the Tsai Ing-wen path is the one the DPP must take in order to have a political future.
The ruling party is about to relinquish power. Tsai Ing-wen has no "honeymoon period." The DPP she commands will face the most difficult period in its history. And circumstances may well get worse. She must immediately stop the bleeding, then lead the DPP out of the political wilderness. Frankly this is an impossible task. But Tsai Ing-wen has no time to think about any of this.
Tsai Ing-wen faces a number of difficult problems. She must heal the fissures that developed within the party as a result of the party chairman election. Nearly 40 percent of the DPP did not support her. She must swiftly unite rival factional leaders and create a unified party hierarchy in order to be an effective opposition party. She must begin the nomination process for the upcoming Mayoral and County Magistrate Elections. Above all, she must restore the DPP's morale, which has hit bottom after a long string of defeats. These goals were no problem for past party chairmen, but they are for Tsai Ing-wen, whose qualifications are limited to the halls of academia and the corridors of power.
If it were merely a matter of problem-solving, that would be one thing. But Tsai Ing-wen must deal with a number of intractable issues. First: the across the board loss of ruling party status, being completely cut off from all access to the resources of the state. Will a handful of Princes of the Party with access to resources be willing to share them with Tsai Ing-wen for the good of the party? Frankly no one knows. When Tsai Ing-wen attempts to get things done, she will face serious financial constraints. Second: many officials of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party are still face prosecution for corruption. If investigators and prosecutors find anything illegal, the DPP's image may explore new lows. Third: Princes of the Party who enjoy seniority are surely waiting to make their move. Tsai Ing-wen lacks both resources and seniority. It is surprising they have been as respectful as they have towards her. The danger is they may not show much respect for a future "President Tsai." For Tsai Ing-wen, money is short, problems are many, and nobody cares.
The only thing Tsai Ing-wen can do is rally the Best and the Brightest among the new generation of Young Turks. This group has its roots in the student movement. They have yet to be bought by special interests, and they have the gift of gab. They are the DPP's last hope. If they are able to transcend factional loyalties and work with Tsai Ing-wen, who can say they won't become a force for the party's renewal?
On the eve of May 20, as the Blue camp is mired in petty squabbles over seating protocol, once triumphant DPP officials are packing their bags, preparing to return to civilian life. The DPP fell as swiftly as it rose. The problems it needs to contemplate and confront are overwhelming. This is a reality the entire DPP leadership must confront together. To demand that Tsai Ing-wen bear this cross alone is unreasonable. How the DPP navigates this downturn is something worth watching.
蔡英文的功課：重新召喚民進黨員的熱情
中國時報 2008.05.19
不出意外，在開票後一路領先的優勢下，絕大多數的民進黨員，終究還是將民進黨的未來交給了蔡英文。這除了是讓民進黨出現第一位女黨魁外，更意謂著一位沒有任何黨務經驗，也不曾打過任何選戰的政治新鮮人，將要在今後的幾年，領導民進黨從連續的挫敗中再站起來，不論是對蔡英文，亦或是對民進黨而言，這都將是一項艱鉅的考驗。
細數民進黨歷屆的黨主席選舉，大概沒有任何一屆有這次的競選這般「另類」。沒有天王的頂尖對決，沒有派系領袖的捉對廝殺，也未見新生世代的風起雲湧，拚到最後對決的辜蔡兩人，在昔日民進黨中長期都居於權力核心的外緣，他們也都不是傳統型的民進黨政客，辜寬敏是元老世代的士紳，對台獨有著宗教信仰般的執著；而蔡英文則是思辨型的學者出身，在政策規畫上有其專業，他們兩人的對決，恰恰好也反映了對民進黨未來兩種「想像」的抉擇：即民進黨的未來，是該選擇更進一步的擁抱深綠路線，還是邁向一個更包容、更務實的本土路線？
結果，民進黨員選擇了後者。從跨派系的動員亦可看出若干端倪，即不論扁謝新等各主流派系內部有多大的矛盾，在支持蔡英文出線上這一點倒是有志一同。這也意謂不論是民進黨的多數精英或是基層黨員都心知肚明，不論辜寬敏所標誌的深綠台獨路線有多麼的純正，蔡英文所代表的路線，才應該是民進黨應該選擇的未來。
對一個馬上就要卸下執政權力的政黨而言，蔡英文其實根本沒有所謂的蜜月期，她所接手的民進黨，恐怕是民進黨史上前所未有的最壞時刻，而且情況接下來還有可能會更糟，她必須迅速的為民進黨的挫敗傷痛止血，她更需要領導民進黨從逆境中重新再起，不諱言說，這是一項近乎不可能的任務，但此刻的蔡英文恐怕也無暇再考慮這些了。
替蔡英文算算擺在她面前的難題吧！她必須撫平黨內因為競選黨主席所埋藏的裂痕，畢竟還是有近四成的黨員並沒有挺她；她必須迅速整合各派系的精英，籌組一支黨務團隊，扮演好在野黨的角色；她也必須準備展開提名布署，以迎接接下來的縣市長選舉。最重要的是，她必須將民進黨連續遭逢挫敗後，已經跌到谷底的熱情與信心，重新再召喚出來。這些任務對過去幾屆的黨主席都不是難題，但處在此時此刻，對一個僅有學院與行政資歷的蔡英文而言，想也知道會是非常辛苦的。
如果只是單純的解決難題，那倒是還好，當下的蔡英文還面臨幾項難堪的處境：第一：執政權的全面喪失，也意謂著行政資源的支持將完全斷絕，少數還享有資源的天王或派系願不願意釋出與蔡英文「共赴黨難」，坦白說誰也沒這個把握。未來蔡英文推動黨務，在資源動員上勢必面臨嚴重財務吃緊；第二，許多民進黨執政期間的弊案或醜聞都還在追訴中，如果未來的司法偵辦再查出任何的不法，民進黨的形象還有可能再落谷底；第三，黨內具資歷與輩份的幾位天王，未來勢必各擁人馬伺機而動，他們面對資源匱乏、輩份不高的蔡英文，能維持基本的「尊重」已經是不錯了，怕的是他們未來根本不會把「蔡主席」放在眼裡。面臨這些處境，我們真的擔心，蔡英文未來會陷入「錢少事多沒人理」的境遇。
蔡英文唯一的依恃，就是看她能否有效整合起民進黨新世代的精英，這群在昔日學運崛起的世代，尚未有太多利益的牽絆，也都具備論述能力，是民進黨僅存的翻身本錢，只要他們願意捐棄派系成見，與蔡英文合作搭配，誰說不會成為一支中興的隊伍呢？
處在五二○的前夕，當藍軍還在為就職大典的「座位學」鬧意氣的同時，曾經冠蓋滿京華的民進黨大員們，都在紛紛打包行囊，退居尋常百姓家，一個迅速爆起卻又迅速崩落的政黨，需要思索與面對的課題實在是太多了，這是所有民進黨精英都必須面對的「共業」，如果都只讓蔡英文一個人來揹，真的是太沈重了，民進黨會怎麼走過這個低潮期，我們也都在拭目以待！
Saturday, May 17, 2008
A Bian Confers Chinese Medals Upon Taiwan Independence Elders
A Bian Confers Chinese Medals Upon Taiwan Independence Elders
[United Daily News / Black and White Issues]
Translated by Bevin Chu
May 17, 2008
Chen Shui-bian, who will soon step down, has been handing out medals as if they were product samples. More than a few Taiwan independence elders have been so honored. The more familiar names include Peng Ming-min, Koo Kuan-min, Chen Chi-sheng, Chen Long-chi, and Wu Li-fu.
Chen Shui-bian asserts that the Republic of China is dead. Yet he solemnly confers Republic of China medals upon Taiwan independence elders who would relegate the Republic of China to the dustbin of history. What an absurd scenario this is!
Taiwan independence is a revolutionary movement. Early champions of Taiwan independence refused to participate in Republic of China elections. They considered participation in Republic of China elections tacit recognition of the Republic of China's political legitimacy, hence contrary to revolutionary thinking. Who knew that under Chen Shui-bian, these champions of Taiwan independence would eventually concede the legitimacy of Republic of China elections? Who knew that after eight years, on the eve of Chen's departure from office, these Taiwan independence elders would line up to receive Republic of China medals?
The DPP refuses to acknowledge Sun Yat-sen's status as founding father. Yet Annette Lu accepted a Sun Yat-sen Medal. Chang Chun-hsiung is also an advocate of Taiwan independence. Yet he was delighted to be awarded a Chiang Kai-shek Medal, even though he and his peers have labeled Chiang Kai-shek "chief culprit in the 228 Incident." It's hard to decide whether this is an insult to the Republic of China medals, or an insult to champions of Taiwan independence.
The Republic of China has not had an easy time of it. It has been trampled into the dust by champions of Taiwan independence for the past eight years. For the past eight years champions of Taiwan independence have waged campaigns to "Rectify the Name of the Nation and Author a New Constitution," and to eliminate the name "Republic of China." One of their numbers has even occupied the office of the Republic of China President for eight years. But in the end the Republic of China survived. Champions of Taiwan independence have been driven out of office, and the Republic of China has gained a new lease on life.
From this perspective, Taiwan independence has paradoxically contributed to he Republic of China's survival. Champions of Taiwan independence hijacked the Republic of China for eight years. But ultimately they merely confirmed that Taiwan independence was a pipe dream. Under the Chen Shui-bian regime champions of Taiwan independence looted the nation three ways from Sunday, and showed the world their true faces. The result was a pendulum effect. The Republic of China returned to life. From this perspective, perhaps bestowing prized Republic of China medals on these champions of Taiwan independence makes perfect sense. After all, their eight years of rampant misrule and moral degeneracy unwittingly rescued the Republic of China from oblivion.
Besides, Chen Shui-bian conferred these medals upon these champions of Taiwan independence out of gratitude. It is only right that he reward them for shielding him from the consequences of eight years of rampant misrule and moral degeneracy.
阿扁贈勳台獨大老
【聯合報╱黑白集】
2008.05.17 04:24 am
下台在即，陳水扁近日頻頻贈勳，多名台獨大老也在榮典名單之列，較耳熟能詳的名字有彭明敏、辜寬敏、陳繼盛、陳隆志、吳澧涪等。
主張中華民國已死的陳水扁總統，以中華民國的勳章，頒授給欲置中華民國於死地 的台獨大老。這是何等荒謬的鏡頭！
台獨是革命運動，早期的台獨人士反對參與選舉，認為參與選舉就是認同了中華民國的體制，有違革命思維；誰知自陳水扁以下，這些獨派後來不但認同選舉，而且陳水扁還當了八年的總統，且在下台前夕他們個個都領到了中華民國的勳章。
民進黨否定孫中山的國父地位，呂秀蓮卻得了一個中山勳章；張俊雄也是個台獨，他則高高興興地領到一個「二二八元凶」的中正勳章。這是汙辱了中華民國的勳章？還是這些台獨汙辱了自己？
說起來中華民國還真不簡單，被這些台獨蹂躪摧殘了八年，正名制憲、去中華民國化，連總統都給台獨幹了八年；但最後中華民國竟仍能僥倖存活下來，把這些台獨 趕下了台，恢復了中華民國的一線生機。
就這個角度來看，台獨又似乎對中華民國頗有貢獻。台獨襲奪了中華民國八年，但最後終能證實台獨不可行，而自陳水扁以下的許多台獨人士更是貪腐無狀，醜態畢露；因此，始能產生鐘擺效應，中華民國也才能漸漸在台灣絕處逢生。就此而言，即不枉中華民國頒給這些台獨以美麗的勳章，正因他們八年的失政敗德救了中華民國！
何況，陳水扁為了感謝台獨大老對他八年失政敗德的包庇支持，也理當對他們贈勳 表揚！
[United Daily News / Black and White Issues]
Translated by Bevin Chu
May 17, 2008
Chen Shui-bian, who will soon step down, has been handing out medals as if they were product samples. More than a few Taiwan independence elders have been so honored. The more familiar names include Peng Ming-min, Koo Kuan-min, Chen Chi-sheng, Chen Long-chi, and Wu Li-fu.
Chen Shui-bian asserts that the Republic of China is dead. Yet he solemnly confers Republic of China medals upon Taiwan independence elders who would relegate the Republic of China to the dustbin of history. What an absurd scenario this is!
Taiwan independence is a revolutionary movement. Early champions of Taiwan independence refused to participate in Republic of China elections. They considered participation in Republic of China elections tacit recognition of the Republic of China's political legitimacy, hence contrary to revolutionary thinking. Who knew that under Chen Shui-bian, these champions of Taiwan independence would eventually concede the legitimacy of Republic of China elections? Who knew that after eight years, on the eve of Chen's departure from office, these Taiwan independence elders would line up to receive Republic of China medals?
The DPP refuses to acknowledge Sun Yat-sen's status as founding father. Yet Annette Lu accepted a Sun Yat-sen Medal. Chang Chun-hsiung is also an advocate of Taiwan independence. Yet he was delighted to be awarded a Chiang Kai-shek Medal, even though he and his peers have labeled Chiang Kai-shek "chief culprit in the 228 Incident." It's hard to decide whether this is an insult to the Republic of China medals, or an insult to champions of Taiwan independence.
The Republic of China has not had an easy time of it. It has been trampled into the dust by champions of Taiwan independence for the past eight years. For the past eight years champions of Taiwan independence have waged campaigns to "Rectify the Name of the Nation and Author a New Constitution," and to eliminate the name "Republic of China." One of their numbers has even occupied the office of the Republic of China President for eight years. But in the end the Republic of China survived. Champions of Taiwan independence have been driven out of office, and the Republic of China has gained a new lease on life.
From this perspective, Taiwan independence has paradoxically contributed to he Republic of China's survival. Champions of Taiwan independence hijacked the Republic of China for eight years. But ultimately they merely confirmed that Taiwan independence was a pipe dream. Under the Chen Shui-bian regime champions of Taiwan independence looted the nation three ways from Sunday, and showed the world their true faces. The result was a pendulum effect. The Republic of China returned to life. From this perspective, perhaps bestowing prized Republic of China medals on these champions of Taiwan independence makes perfect sense. After all, their eight years of rampant misrule and moral degeneracy unwittingly rescued the Republic of China from oblivion.
Besides, Chen Shui-bian conferred these medals upon these champions of Taiwan independence out of gratitude. It is only right that he reward them for shielding him from the consequences of eight years of rampant misrule and moral degeneracy.
阿扁贈勳台獨大老
【聯合報╱黑白集】
2008.05.17 04:24 am
下台在即，陳水扁近日頻頻贈勳，多名台獨大老也在榮典名單之列，較耳熟能詳的名字有彭明敏、辜寬敏、陳繼盛、陳隆志、吳澧涪等。
主張中華民國已死的陳水扁總統，以中華民國的勳章，頒授給欲置中華民國於死地 的台獨大老。這是何等荒謬的鏡頭！
台獨是革命運動，早期的台獨人士反對參與選舉，認為參與選舉就是認同了中華民國的體制，有違革命思維；誰知自陳水扁以下，這些獨派後來不但認同選舉，而且陳水扁還當了八年的總統，且在下台前夕他們個個都領到了中華民國的勳章。
民進黨否定孫中山的國父地位，呂秀蓮卻得了一個中山勳章；張俊雄也是個台獨，他則高高興興地領到一個「二二八元凶」的中正勳章。這是汙辱了中華民國的勳章？還是這些台獨汙辱了自己？
說起來中華民國還真不簡單，被這些台獨蹂躪摧殘了八年，正名制憲、去中華民國化，連總統都給台獨幹了八年；但最後中華民國竟仍能僥倖存活下來，把這些台獨 趕下了台，恢復了中華民國的一線生機。
就這個角度來看，台獨又似乎對中華民國頗有貢獻。台獨襲奪了中華民國八年，但最後終能證實台獨不可行，而自陳水扁以下的許多台獨人士更是貪腐無狀，醜態畢露；因此，始能產生鐘擺效應，中華民國也才能漸漸在台灣絕處逢生。就此而言，即不枉中華民國頒給這些台獨以美麗的勳章，正因他們八年的失政敗德救了中華民國！
何況，陳水扁為了感謝台獨大老對他八年失政敗德的包庇支持，也理當對他們贈勳 表揚！
Friday, May 16, 2008
Humanitarianism and Humanism
Humanitarianism and Humanism:
A Major Earthquake turns into an Opportunity for Dialogue
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
May 16, 2008
The outgoing DPP government has announced that it will raise two billion NT in disaster relief for victims of the Sichuan Earthquake, to be followed by another 700 million NT. Civil servants will donate one day's wages, funds will be raised from the community, and humanitarian charter flights will take off immediately.
This has provoked controversy. Those who object ask, "Why should we contribute to [mainland] China, when it is aiming its missiles at Taiwan?" Or, "Why didn't we contribute the same amount to Myanmar?" Or, "Why propose such an extravagant project five days before you step down?" Nevertheless we would maintain that based on the merits alone, the DPP government's initiative is timely and correct.
The Sichuan Earthquake occurred during a political administration change on Taiwan. The fact that disaster relief activities were initiated by the outgoing DPP's Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet makes it more symbolically meaningful than if it had been initiated by the incoming KMT's Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet. By the same token, Frank Hsieh's donation of 200,000 NT to disaster relief is more meaningful than Ma Ying-jeou's 200,000 NT donation. The ruling DPP government's relief program is significant because it offers an opportunity to conduct humanitarian cross-strait dialogue.
Taiwan's political infighting and cross-strait conflict have complicated public perception of the Chinese mainland. During the early stages of the Sichuan earthquake, the public on Taiwan seemed embarrassed, as if it didn't quite know how to react. Once upon a time, people on Taiwan referred to people on the mainland as "compatriots." But "de-Sinicization" has led to subtle change. Moreover, because leaders on both sides perceive the relationship to be one of hostility, an ambivalent relationship has developed among the people as well. The Sichuan earthquake has triggered powerful humanitarian sentiments. It has swept aside hostility and suspicion. It has led to fence-mending between authorities and people on both sides of the strait. The DPP government can and must seize the opportunity to pledge large scale disaster relief. This would amount to a clear expression of goodwill toward the mainland. Now at least, if the public on Taiwan wishes to express sympathy for disaster victims and offer assistance, they need no longer be constrained by Political Correctness.
The theme of this round of cross-strait dialogue is humanitarian and people-oriented. One could say it is a dialogue between September 21 and May 12, i.e., between the Chi Chi Earthquake in Taiwan and the Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan. When people on both sides of the strait experienced catastrophic earthquakes on May 12 and September 21, they knew the only real issue was how to save lives. In fact it is the common concern for authorities on both sides of the strait. When leaders on each side confront the aftermath of September 21 and May 12, they know how the other feels. The overriding concern for both sides is how to save lives. Politics is supposed implement humanitarian and humanist ideals. If the ruling and opposition parties on both sides of the strait cherish and uphold humanitarian and humanist ideals, then they can look forward to mutually beneficial relations.
The tragic scenes of disaster resemble hell on earth. This has focused everyone's attention on humanitarian concerns alone. This has forced governments to resume their proper role as servants of the people. A tearful Wen Jiabao told a young girl orphaned by the quake, "Fortunately you lived, therefore you must live on." He told her "Don't worry. The government will take care of you, will help you get an education." He spoke the orphan's pain. He also underscored the government and the nation's responsibilities. The lesson of the May 12 and September 21 earthquakes is that nations must be founded on humanitarian and humanist values. Whether one refers to China as the "People's Republic of China" or the "Republic of China" is secondary. If future cross-strait dialogue is based on humanitarian and humanist values, including democracy, it may lead to a better understanding of each others' political positions, and encourage mutually beneficial interactions. For example, the mainland authorities say they are pinning their hopes on the people on Taiwan. If one approaches the issue from a humanitarian, humanist, and democratic perspective, then when the mainland authorities say they are "pinning hopes on the people on Taiwan" they must consider what the people on Taiwan want.
The primary cause for the deterioration in cross-strait relations was not conflict between the political authorities on the two sides, but a the absence of commonly held interests among the people on the two sides. We hope the current September 21/May 12 dialogue will help the people on the two sides to reclaim lost goodwill, and through people to people contacts, encourage their leaders to improve cross-straits relations. In other words, let 23 million people and 1.3 billion people talk to each other. Let 23 million people and 1.3 billion talk to their leaders. Let the earthquake break up the cross-strait political impasse. Renew cross-strait dialogue and on this humanitarian, humanist foundation, seek common cross-strait goals.
Why is Taiwan's reaction to the Sichuan earthquake different from its reaction to the floods in Myanmar? Even before Chang Chun-hsiung announced that the government's intention to raise two billion NT for disaster relief, Wang Yung-ching and other entrepreneurs had already contributed far than that. It was perfectly natural. It was only right. No one should have expected otherwise.
The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet's disaster relief effort is more symbolically meaningful than the Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet's disaster relief effort. And by the same token, Frank Hsieh's 200,000 NT is more symbolically meaningful than Ma Ying-jeou's 200,000 NT donation.
人道與民本：大地震給了兩岸人民對話機會！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.16 02:20 am
即將交卸政權的民進黨政府宣布，對四川大地震啟動規模新台幣二十億元的賑災方案；其中包括動用第二預備金七億元，發動公務員捐一日所得，及向社會大眾募款，人道包機亦立即起飛。
此一舉動引來見仁見智的議論，異議包括：為什麼要捐款給飛彈對準台灣的中國？為什麼不以同等標準賑濟緬甸？為什麼竟在下台五天前提出如此誇張的方案？然而，我們要說：就事論事，民進黨政府的此一舉措，是及時且正確的決策。
四川大地震發生在台灣政權交接之際。台灣的賑災活動，由民進黨張俊雄內閣來發動，比由國民黨劉兆玄內閣發動有意義；正如謝長廷捐二十萬元賑災，亦較馬英九捐二十萬元賑災有意義。民進黨政府適時宣布賑災方案，最重大的意義是：給了海峽兩岸進行人道對話的機會。
近年來台灣的政治內鬥與兩岸衝突，使得台灣人對中國大陸的認知趨於複雜；四川震災發生之初，台灣社會似乎有一點不知該如何反應的尷尬。往昔曾有一度，台灣人民稱大陸人民為「同胞」；但是在「去中國化」的政客操作下，味道已漸漸變化；而且，由於兩岸主政者之間的關係時見敵意，竟使兩岸人民之間也出現微妙的芥蒂。如今，四川大地震觸發強烈的人道主題，撥開了政治的敵對與猜疑，使得兩岸當局與兩岸人民有了修補關係的對話題材；而民進黨政府能因應並掌握此一時機，宣布高規格的賑災方案，非但是向對岸表達善意，亦是將台灣人民從近年的兩岸仇恨中釋放出來。至少，現在台灣人民若欲對大陸災民表達同情並給予協助，不必再有是否「政治正確」的困擾。
這場兩岸對話的主題是人道與民本；也許可說是九二一與五一二的對話。當兩岸民眾分別經歷九二一及五一二的地震浩劫，應能共同感知，「安身立命」其實是兩岸人民最根本的共同對話主題；而當兩岸主政者分別面對九二一及五一二的善後難題，亦可共同感知，如何使人民「安身立命」，其實也是兩岸當局最根本的共同對話主題。政治，歸結而言不外即是人道與民本的實踐；兩岸朝野倘皆能珍惜維護人道與民本，自然即可望有互勉互惠的兩岸關係。
災區的悲慘場景猶如人間煉獄，使人們的思維聚焦到「人道」二字，亦使政府的職責回歸至「民本」二字。溫家寶與淚眼孤女的一場對話，「妳倖存活下來，就要好好活下去」「妳放心，政府管妳生活，管妳學習」，說出了孤兒的哀苦，也道出了政府及國家的職責。九二一及五一二震災的啟示是：一個國家，不論是中華人民共和國，或中華民國，都必須從人道出發，從民本做起；而未來的兩岸對話，若亦能以人道及民本（當然也包括民主）為基本架構，就有可能導正彼此的政治思維，發展出一種互勉互惠的兩岸互動關係。例如，中共當局若能從人道、民本及民主的思維切入，則當他們說「寄希望於台灣人民」之時，也應多想想「台灣人民的希望」是什麼？
近年來兩岸關係的惡化，最嚴重者尚不只是兩岸主政當局之間的衝突，更遺憾的是兩岸人民也失去了互勉互惠的對話題材。希望如今正在進行的這一場「九二一／五一二」對話，能夠充分釋放兩岸人民原本潛藏或壓抑的善意，再透過民間認知及心態的改善，進而供作兩岸主政者調整改善兩岸總體關係的寶貴資源。也就是說，先讓兩千三百萬人民與十三億人民「對話」，再由兩千三百萬人民與十三億人民共同向兩岸的主政者「傳話」。如此，這場地震即可能也打開了兩岸政治對立的死結，而在人道及民本的基礎上，重新找到了兩岸對話的共同新題材，與兩岸追求的共同新目標。
若問為何台灣會對四川震災及緬甸水災有不同規格及情態的反應？只要看張俊雄宣布將向民間募款十億台幣賑災之前，王永慶等數名企業家的捐款早已超逾此數，即知這是自然如此，也是應當如此，甚至是無人能使之不如此。
我們仍然認為：由張俊雄內閣啟動賑災，比由劉兆玄內閣啟動有意義；謝長廷捐二十萬也比馬英九捐二十萬有意義！
A Major Earthquake turns into an Opportunity for Dialogue
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
May 16, 2008
The outgoing DPP government has announced that it will raise two billion NT in disaster relief for victims of the Sichuan Earthquake, to be followed by another 700 million NT. Civil servants will donate one day's wages, funds will be raised from the community, and humanitarian charter flights will take off immediately.
This has provoked controversy. Those who object ask, "Why should we contribute to [mainland] China, when it is aiming its missiles at Taiwan?" Or, "Why didn't we contribute the same amount to Myanmar?" Or, "Why propose such an extravagant project five days before you step down?" Nevertheless we would maintain that based on the merits alone, the DPP government's initiative is timely and correct.
The Sichuan Earthquake occurred during a political administration change on Taiwan. The fact that disaster relief activities were initiated by the outgoing DPP's Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet makes it more symbolically meaningful than if it had been initiated by the incoming KMT's Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet. By the same token, Frank Hsieh's donation of 200,000 NT to disaster relief is more meaningful than Ma Ying-jeou's 200,000 NT donation. The ruling DPP government's relief program is significant because it offers an opportunity to conduct humanitarian cross-strait dialogue.
Taiwan's political infighting and cross-strait conflict have complicated public perception of the Chinese mainland. During the early stages of the Sichuan earthquake, the public on Taiwan seemed embarrassed, as if it didn't quite know how to react. Once upon a time, people on Taiwan referred to people on the mainland as "compatriots." But "de-Sinicization" has led to subtle change. Moreover, because leaders on both sides perceive the relationship to be one of hostility, an ambivalent relationship has developed among the people as well. The Sichuan earthquake has triggered powerful humanitarian sentiments. It has swept aside hostility and suspicion. It has led to fence-mending between authorities and people on both sides of the strait. The DPP government can and must seize the opportunity to pledge large scale disaster relief. This would amount to a clear expression of goodwill toward the mainland. Now at least, if the public on Taiwan wishes to express sympathy for disaster victims and offer assistance, they need no longer be constrained by Political Correctness.
The theme of this round of cross-strait dialogue is humanitarian and people-oriented. One could say it is a dialogue between September 21 and May 12, i.e., between the Chi Chi Earthquake in Taiwan and the Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan. When people on both sides of the strait experienced catastrophic earthquakes on May 12 and September 21, they knew the only real issue was how to save lives. In fact it is the common concern for authorities on both sides of the strait. When leaders on each side confront the aftermath of September 21 and May 12, they know how the other feels. The overriding concern for both sides is how to save lives. Politics is supposed implement humanitarian and humanist ideals. If the ruling and opposition parties on both sides of the strait cherish and uphold humanitarian and humanist ideals, then they can look forward to mutually beneficial relations.
The tragic scenes of disaster resemble hell on earth. This has focused everyone's attention on humanitarian concerns alone. This has forced governments to resume their proper role as servants of the people. A tearful Wen Jiabao told a young girl orphaned by the quake, "Fortunately you lived, therefore you must live on." He told her "Don't worry. The government will take care of you, will help you get an education." He spoke the orphan's pain. He also underscored the government and the nation's responsibilities. The lesson of the May 12 and September 21 earthquakes is that nations must be founded on humanitarian and humanist values. Whether one refers to China as the "People's Republic of China" or the "Republic of China" is secondary. If future cross-strait dialogue is based on humanitarian and humanist values, including democracy, it may lead to a better understanding of each others' political positions, and encourage mutually beneficial interactions. For example, the mainland authorities say they are pinning their hopes on the people on Taiwan. If one approaches the issue from a humanitarian, humanist, and democratic perspective, then when the mainland authorities say they are "pinning hopes on the people on Taiwan" they must consider what the people on Taiwan want.
The primary cause for the deterioration in cross-strait relations was not conflict between the political authorities on the two sides, but a the absence of commonly held interests among the people on the two sides. We hope the current September 21/May 12 dialogue will help the people on the two sides to reclaim lost goodwill, and through people to people contacts, encourage their leaders to improve cross-straits relations. In other words, let 23 million people and 1.3 billion people talk to each other. Let 23 million people and 1.3 billion talk to their leaders. Let the earthquake break up the cross-strait political impasse. Renew cross-strait dialogue and on this humanitarian, humanist foundation, seek common cross-strait goals.
Why is Taiwan's reaction to the Sichuan earthquake different from its reaction to the floods in Myanmar? Even before Chang Chun-hsiung announced that the government's intention to raise two billion NT for disaster relief, Wang Yung-ching and other entrepreneurs had already contributed far than that. It was perfectly natural. It was only right. No one should have expected otherwise.
The Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet's disaster relief effort is more symbolically meaningful than the Liu Chao-hsuan cabinet's disaster relief effort. And by the same token, Frank Hsieh's 200,000 NT is more symbolically meaningful than Ma Ying-jeou's 200,000 NT donation.
人道與民本：大地震給了兩岸人民對話機會！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.16 02:20 am
即將交卸政權的民進黨政府宣布，對四川大地震啟動規模新台幣二十億元的賑災方案；其中包括動用第二預備金七億元，發動公務員捐一日所得，及向社會大眾募款，人道包機亦立即起飛。
此一舉動引來見仁見智的議論，異議包括：為什麼要捐款給飛彈對準台灣的中國？為什麼不以同等標準賑濟緬甸？為什麼竟在下台五天前提出如此誇張的方案？然而，我們要說：就事論事，民進黨政府的此一舉措，是及時且正確的決策。
四川大地震發生在台灣政權交接之際。台灣的賑災活動，由民進黨張俊雄內閣來發動，比由國民黨劉兆玄內閣發動有意義；正如謝長廷捐二十萬元賑災，亦較馬英九捐二十萬元賑災有意義。民進黨政府適時宣布賑災方案，最重大的意義是：給了海峽兩岸進行人道對話的機會。
近年來台灣的政治內鬥與兩岸衝突，使得台灣人對中國大陸的認知趨於複雜；四川震災發生之初，台灣社會似乎有一點不知該如何反應的尷尬。往昔曾有一度，台灣人民稱大陸人民為「同胞」；但是在「去中國化」的政客操作下，味道已漸漸變化；而且，由於兩岸主政者之間的關係時見敵意，竟使兩岸人民之間也出現微妙的芥蒂。如今，四川大地震觸發強烈的人道主題，撥開了政治的敵對與猜疑，使得兩岸當局與兩岸人民有了修補關係的對話題材；而民進黨政府能因應並掌握此一時機，宣布高規格的賑災方案，非但是向對岸表達善意，亦是將台灣人民從近年的兩岸仇恨中釋放出來。至少，現在台灣人民若欲對大陸災民表達同情並給予協助，不必再有是否「政治正確」的困擾。
這場兩岸對話的主題是人道與民本；也許可說是九二一與五一二的對話。當兩岸民眾分別經歷九二一及五一二的地震浩劫，應能共同感知，「安身立命」其實是兩岸人民最根本的共同對話主題；而當兩岸主政者分別面對九二一及五一二的善後難題，亦可共同感知，如何使人民「安身立命」，其實也是兩岸當局最根本的共同對話主題。政治，歸結而言不外即是人道與民本的實踐；兩岸朝野倘皆能珍惜維護人道與民本，自然即可望有互勉互惠的兩岸關係。
災區的悲慘場景猶如人間煉獄，使人們的思維聚焦到「人道」二字，亦使政府的職責回歸至「民本」二字。溫家寶與淚眼孤女的一場對話，「妳倖存活下來，就要好好活下去」「妳放心，政府管妳生活，管妳學習」，說出了孤兒的哀苦，也道出了政府及國家的職責。九二一及五一二震災的啟示是：一個國家，不論是中華人民共和國，或中華民國，都必須從人道出發，從民本做起；而未來的兩岸對話，若亦能以人道及民本（當然也包括民主）為基本架構，就有可能導正彼此的政治思維，發展出一種互勉互惠的兩岸互動關係。例如，中共當局若能從人道、民本及民主的思維切入，則當他們說「寄希望於台灣人民」之時，也應多想想「台灣人民的希望」是什麼？
近年來兩岸關係的惡化，最嚴重者尚不只是兩岸主政當局之間的衝突，更遺憾的是兩岸人民也失去了互勉互惠的對話題材。希望如今正在進行的這一場「九二一／五一二」對話，能夠充分釋放兩岸人民原本潛藏或壓抑的善意，再透過民間認知及心態的改善，進而供作兩岸主政者調整改善兩岸總體關係的寶貴資源。也就是說，先讓兩千三百萬人民與十三億人民「對話」，再由兩千三百萬人民與十三億人民共同向兩岸的主政者「傳話」。如此，這場地震即可能也打開了兩岸政治對立的死結，而在人道及民本的基礎上，重新找到了兩岸對話的共同新題材，與兩岸追求的共同新目標。
若問為何台灣會對四川震災及緬甸水災有不同規格及情態的反應？只要看張俊雄宣布將向民間募款十億台幣賑災之前，王永慶等數名企業家的捐款早已超逾此數，即知這是自然如此，也是應當如此，甚至是無人能使之不如此。
我們仍然認為：由張俊雄內閣啟動賑災，比由劉兆玄內閣啟動有意義；謝長廷捐二十萬也比馬英九捐二十萬有意義！
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Government Business Collusion Must End
Government Business Collusion Must End
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 15, 2008
Vice President-elect Vincent Siew recently resigned his position as Chairman of the Cross-Strait Common Market Foundation, an NGO he personally founded. As predicted, most observers approved of his action. On the surface, the foundation bears no responsibility for matters related to national defense, diplomacy, or economics and finance. It has no necessary connection with government matters. But the position of Vice President is a solemn one. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety Mr. Siew was right to resign.
The same standards must be applied to senior officials of other political parties. Miss Tsai Ying-wen is a candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party chairmanship. She also heads two companies: TaiMed Biologics and the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association. Miss Tsai nurtured these two companies from birth. Their purpose is to organize Taiwan's biotechnology talent and develop related industries. The companies are of course for profit enterprises. Miss Tsai is expected to be successful in her May 18 bid for the DPP party chairmanship. Until then the DPP will still be the ruling party. Even though only two days remain between May 18 and May 20, for the chairman of the ruling party to be a chairman of profit-making enterprises, even for a short period, could invite public criticism and taint her public image. Even though after May 20 the DPP will be in the opposition, it will still hold one-fourth of all the seats in the Legislative Yuan. The DPP Chairman's potential conflicts of interest will surely be the focus of public attention.
Another candidate for the DPP Chairmanship, Koo Kwang-ming, also has business undertakings, If he is elected he will also have conflict of interest issues. But the public is particularly concerned with TaiMed Biologics and the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association, because political influence plays a key role in these two companies. According to news reports, TaiMed Biologics has a total investment of 600 million NT. The Executive Yuan Development Fund accounts for about 40%. Beginning this year, the National Development Fund approved a 30% investment in the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association. These two cases make Tsai Ying-wen's conflicts of interest quite clear. The Chairman of the DPP can influence dozens of members of the Legislature. Is there really no problem with the appearance of impropriety? Tsai Ying-wen said that if she is elected, she will resign as chairman of TaiMed Biologics. But this is not enough to ease public concerns. Even if she resigns as chairman of these two companies, family members can serve in her stead. The conflict of interests will remain. Therefore, to truly avoid the even the appearance of impropriety, Miss Tsai and the Executive Yuan Development Fund must adopt even stricter measures.
Concern over collusion between government and business targets collusion, not individuals. This is not selective sided criticism directed exclusively at the Democratic Progressive Party or Tsai Ying-wen. No one who wields government authority may have commercial conflicts of interest. After May 20, the DPP's authority will be diminished. The new ruling Kuomintang will need more stringent external supervision. This includes the Kuomintang President, Vice President, cabinet members, Party Chairman, Honorary Chairman, Vice Chairman, Central Standing Committee, Secretary-General, and Party Chiefs. As long as they wield political authority or can influence it, they must make their financial assets and the financial assets of their next of kin public, for all to see. This includes investments, stocks, and companies they own or for which they consult. Tsai Ying-wen is the CEO of TaiMed Biologics. She campaigned for tax exemptions only after she resigned her post as Vice Premier of the Executive Yuan. Even then, it was inevitable that the public would question her actions. When it comes to domestic economic activity or cross-strait SEF negotiations relating to cross-strait business opportunities, Taipei to Beijing policy, or KMT to CCP dialogue, everyone must be treated equally, according to the same standards.
We would like to remind politicians of the ruling and opposition parties: avoiding conflicts of interest is not merely a legal issue. It is not merely an issue of revolving doors. It is not something the Public Service Act can cover. As a result, even the founding of Taiwan Goals is alleged to be entirely legal, no evidence of corruption has been found in the PNG diplomatic relations case, and Wu Shu-chen's diamond watch was merely borrowed. In the end such arguments convince no one. An amendment to the laws on blind trusts sits idle in the Legislative Yuan. It requires public officials to declare their assets and property, and attempts, as much as possible, to eliminate institutional gray areas. In Ma Ying-jeou's remarks to his new cabinet members, he made particular mention of the need for "honesty, caution, and diligence." Cabinet members may not accept gifts or free hospitality. Since the party's cabinet members must abide by these rules, should Party Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen, and Standing Committee members be exempt? Since one may not even accept gifts, policy decisions that Involve even larger interests require even more discretion.
May 20 will be the starting point for the second change of ruling parties on Taiwan. After enduring years of intolerable corruption, the public is demanding clean government. Those who play in the mud and are already dirty may have trouble understanding the intensity of public outrage. We would like to take this opportunity to remind them. If these political big shots refuse to distance themselves from corrupt practices until they are struck by wave after wave of criticism, it will alread be too late.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.05.15
政商糾葛 要當機立斷
中時社論
副總統當選人蕭萬長先生日前辭去其一手創辦之「兩岸共同市場基金會」董事長一職，外界大都予以肯定。就表面上看，這個基金會並未負擔國防、外交、財經周邊 業務，未必與政務推展有任何牽連；但是以副總統職位之崇隆，當然要避免任何可能的瓜田李下，故蕭先生辭去職位，絕對是謹守分際的表現。
用同樣的標準，我們也要檢視其他黨政高層的兼職情形。目前正在參選民進黨主席的蔡英文女士，也是宇昌、台懋兩家公司的負責人。這兩家公司都是蔡女士一手催 生，其目的之一固然是整合台灣生技人力、帶動相關事業的發展，但無論如何，公司就是公司，當然要以營利為目的。外界預期，蔡女士將可順利於五月十八日之黨 主席選舉勝出。屆時，民進黨還是執政黨，雖然離五二○僅僅剩下兩天，但執政黨主席即使是短時間擔任營利事業董事長，在形象上都是惹人非議的。即使在五二 ○之後民進黨是在野黨，但該黨在立法院仍然擁有四分之一的席次。民進黨主席的利益與政治分際要如何拿捏，絕對是大家關注的焦點。
當然， 另一位民進黨主席參選人辜寬敏也有經營事業，萬一他當選恐怕也有政商分際的問題。但是，外界之所以特別關注宇昌與台懋公司，是因為「政治力」在這兩家公司 裡扮演了重要的角色。據報載，宇昌總投資額六億之中，行政院開發基金投資占約四成；而國發基金今年初又通過投資台懋公司百分之三十。這兩案加起來，「國 家」與「蔡家」疊合的共同利益就非常明顯了。民進黨主席若能影響數十位國會議員，難道這裡面沒有瓜田李下的問題嗎？蔡英文表示她若當選，將要辭去宇昌的董 事長一職，但我們認為這還不足以解除外界的疑慮。即使蔡女士辭去兩家公司的董事，其家族仍然可以另派法人代表，利益株連就仍然存在。因此，若要真正迴避政 商之間說不清楚的關係，蔡女士與行政院開發基金就必須要有更果決的做法。
我們關心政商之間的分際，當然是對事不對人，不會只就民進黨一 黨、蔡英文一人做片面的批評。整體而言，所有掌握廣義公權力的人，身上都不該有任何商業利益的牽連。五二○之後，民進黨所能影響的公權力畢竟較小，新執政 的國民黨更是大權在握，更需要外界嚴密的監督。國民黨籍的總統、副總統、內閣閣員、黨部的主席、榮譽主席、副主席、中常委、書記長、幹事長等等，只要他們 掌握或能影響公權力，就有義務要將其本人及近親所涉入的事業、投資、乾股、顧問，完全攤在陽光下，讓大家檢驗。蔡英文擔任宇昌董事長與推動生技免稅條例， 都是在她辭卸行政院副院長以後的事。但即使如此，外界都難免有質疑之聲。依照同樣的標準，國人對於牽涉到國內經濟活動的部會措施、涉及兩岸商機的海基會談 判、與聞台北/北京之間政策對話的國共平台，都會一視同仁，用同樣的尺規予以檢視。
我們要提醒朝野政黨的從政人員：利益迴避絕對不是單 純的法律問題，也不是形式上的旋轉門條款或公務人員服務法所能涵蓋。正因為如此，即使鐽震公司設立完全合法、巴紐建交案沒有查到貪瀆證據、吳淑珍的鑽表有 可能是「借來的」，終究無法獲得國人的諒解。目前躺在立法院的公職人員財產申報法修正案之所以要求財產盲目信託，就是要在體制上盡可能杜絕灰色空間。馬英 九先生在其對新閣員的談話中特別期勉閣員要「清慎勤」，不可以亂收禮、亂接受招待。既然黨的閣員如此，黨主席、副主席、中常委等又焉能豁免？既然禮物都不 能收，牽涉到更大利益的政策制定當然更該迴避。
五二○是台灣二次政黨輪替的起始點。在歷經數年不堪聞問的貪腐醜聞之後，全國人民對於政 治清明的期待都很高。在政壇打滾多時的人也許近墨者黑，不能體會現況與民意的落差，所以在此特別抒論提醒：這些政治大員當下能夠難捨能捨；如果要在一波波 批評聲浪湧現之後才開始切割辯解，那就為時已晚了。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 15, 2008
Vice President-elect Vincent Siew recently resigned his position as Chairman of the Cross-Strait Common Market Foundation, an NGO he personally founded. As predicted, most observers approved of his action. On the surface, the foundation bears no responsibility for matters related to national defense, diplomacy, or economics and finance. It has no necessary connection with government matters. But the position of Vice President is a solemn one. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety Mr. Siew was right to resign.
The same standards must be applied to senior officials of other political parties. Miss Tsai Ying-wen is a candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party chairmanship. She also heads two companies: TaiMed Biologics and the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association. Miss Tsai nurtured these two companies from birth. Their purpose is to organize Taiwan's biotechnology talent and develop related industries. The companies are of course for profit enterprises. Miss Tsai is expected to be successful in her May 18 bid for the DPP party chairmanship. Until then the DPP will still be the ruling party. Even though only two days remain between May 18 and May 20, for the chairman of the ruling party to be a chairman of profit-making enterprises, even for a short period, could invite public criticism and taint her public image. Even though after May 20 the DPP will be in the opposition, it will still hold one-fourth of all the seats in the Legislative Yuan. The DPP Chairman's potential conflicts of interest will surely be the focus of public attention.
Another candidate for the DPP Chairmanship, Koo Kwang-ming, also has business undertakings, If he is elected he will also have conflict of interest issues. But the public is particularly concerned with TaiMed Biologics and the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association, because political influence plays a key role in these two companies. According to news reports, TaiMed Biologics has a total investment of 600 million NT. The Executive Yuan Development Fund accounts for about 40%. Beginning this year, the National Development Fund approved a 30% investment in the Taiwan Rubber Industries Association. These two cases make Tsai Ying-wen's conflicts of interest quite clear. The Chairman of the DPP can influence dozens of members of the Legislature. Is there really no problem with the appearance of impropriety? Tsai Ying-wen said that if she is elected, she will resign as chairman of TaiMed Biologics. But this is not enough to ease public concerns. Even if she resigns as chairman of these two companies, family members can serve in her stead. The conflict of interests will remain. Therefore, to truly avoid the even the appearance of impropriety, Miss Tsai and the Executive Yuan Development Fund must adopt even stricter measures.
Concern over collusion between government and business targets collusion, not individuals. This is not selective sided criticism directed exclusively at the Democratic Progressive Party or Tsai Ying-wen. No one who wields government authority may have commercial conflicts of interest. After May 20, the DPP's authority will be diminished. The new ruling Kuomintang will need more stringent external supervision. This includes the Kuomintang President, Vice President, cabinet members, Party Chairman, Honorary Chairman, Vice Chairman, Central Standing Committee, Secretary-General, and Party Chiefs. As long as they wield political authority or can influence it, they must make their financial assets and the financial assets of their next of kin public, for all to see. This includes investments, stocks, and companies they own or for which they consult. Tsai Ying-wen is the CEO of TaiMed Biologics. She campaigned for tax exemptions only after she resigned her post as Vice Premier of the Executive Yuan. Even then, it was inevitable that the public would question her actions. When it comes to domestic economic activity or cross-strait SEF negotiations relating to cross-strait business opportunities, Taipei to Beijing policy, or KMT to CCP dialogue, everyone must be treated equally, according to the same standards.
We would like to remind politicians of the ruling and opposition parties: avoiding conflicts of interest is not merely a legal issue. It is not merely an issue of revolving doors. It is not something the Public Service Act can cover. As a result, even the founding of Taiwan Goals is alleged to be entirely legal, no evidence of corruption has been found in the PNG diplomatic relations case, and Wu Shu-chen's diamond watch was merely borrowed. In the end such arguments convince no one. An amendment to the laws on blind trusts sits idle in the Legislative Yuan. It requires public officials to declare their assets and property, and attempts, as much as possible, to eliminate institutional gray areas. In Ma Ying-jeou's remarks to his new cabinet members, he made particular mention of the need for "honesty, caution, and diligence." Cabinet members may not accept gifts or free hospitality. Since the party's cabinet members must abide by these rules, should Party Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen, and Standing Committee members be exempt? Since one may not even accept gifts, policy decisions that Involve even larger interests require even more discretion.
May 20 will be the starting point for the second change of ruling parties on Taiwan. After enduring years of intolerable corruption, the public is demanding clean government. Those who play in the mud and are already dirty may have trouble understanding the intensity of public outrage. We would like to take this opportunity to remind them. If these political big shots refuse to distance themselves from corrupt practices until they are struck by wave after wave of criticism, it will alread be too late.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.05.15
政商糾葛 要當機立斷
中時社論
副總統當選人蕭萬長先生日前辭去其一手創辦之「兩岸共同市場基金會」董事長一職，外界大都予以肯定。就表面上看，這個基金會並未負擔國防、外交、財經周邊 業務，未必與政務推展有任何牽連；但是以副總統職位之崇隆，當然要避免任何可能的瓜田李下，故蕭先生辭去職位，絕對是謹守分際的表現。
用同樣的標準，我們也要檢視其他黨政高層的兼職情形。目前正在參選民進黨主席的蔡英文女士，也是宇昌、台懋兩家公司的負責人。這兩家公司都是蔡女士一手催 生，其目的之一固然是整合台灣生技人力、帶動相關事業的發展，但無論如何，公司就是公司，當然要以營利為目的。外界預期，蔡女士將可順利於五月十八日之黨 主席選舉勝出。屆時，民進黨還是執政黨，雖然離五二○僅僅剩下兩天，但執政黨主席即使是短時間擔任營利事業董事長，在形象上都是惹人非議的。即使在五二 ○之後民進黨是在野黨，但該黨在立法院仍然擁有四分之一的席次。民進黨主席的利益與政治分際要如何拿捏，絕對是大家關注的焦點。
當然， 另一位民進黨主席參選人辜寬敏也有經營事業，萬一他當選恐怕也有政商分際的問題。但是，外界之所以特別關注宇昌與台懋公司，是因為「政治力」在這兩家公司 裡扮演了重要的角色。據報載，宇昌總投資額六億之中，行政院開發基金投資占約四成；而國發基金今年初又通過投資台懋公司百分之三十。這兩案加起來，「國 家」與「蔡家」疊合的共同利益就非常明顯了。民進黨主席若能影響數十位國會議員，難道這裡面沒有瓜田李下的問題嗎？蔡英文表示她若當選，將要辭去宇昌的董 事長一職，但我們認為這還不足以解除外界的疑慮。即使蔡女士辭去兩家公司的董事，其家族仍然可以另派法人代表，利益株連就仍然存在。因此，若要真正迴避政 商之間說不清楚的關係，蔡女士與行政院開發基金就必須要有更果決的做法。
我們關心政商之間的分際，當然是對事不對人，不會只就民進黨一 黨、蔡英文一人做片面的批評。整體而言，所有掌握廣義公權力的人，身上都不該有任何商業利益的牽連。五二○之後，民進黨所能影響的公權力畢竟較小，新執政 的國民黨更是大權在握，更需要外界嚴密的監督。國民黨籍的總統、副總統、內閣閣員、黨部的主席、榮譽主席、副主席、中常委、書記長、幹事長等等，只要他們 掌握或能影響公權力，就有義務要將其本人及近親所涉入的事業、投資、乾股、顧問，完全攤在陽光下，讓大家檢驗。蔡英文擔任宇昌董事長與推動生技免稅條例， 都是在她辭卸行政院副院長以後的事。但即使如此，外界都難免有質疑之聲。依照同樣的標準，國人對於牽涉到國內經濟活動的部會措施、涉及兩岸商機的海基會談 判、與聞台北/北京之間政策對話的國共平台，都會一視同仁，用同樣的尺規予以檢視。
我們要提醒朝野政黨的從政人員：利益迴避絕對不是單 純的法律問題，也不是形式上的旋轉門條款或公務人員服務法所能涵蓋。正因為如此，即使鐽震公司設立完全合法、巴紐建交案沒有查到貪瀆證據、吳淑珍的鑽表有 可能是「借來的」，終究無法獲得國人的諒解。目前躺在立法院的公職人員財產申報法修正案之所以要求財產盲目信託，就是要在體制上盡可能杜絕灰色空間。馬英 九先生在其對新閣員的談話中特別期勉閣員要「清慎勤」，不可以亂收禮、亂接受招待。既然黨的閣員如此，黨主席、副主席、中常委等又焉能豁免？既然禮物都不 能收，牽涉到更大利益的政策制定當然更該迴避。
五二○是台灣二次政黨輪替的起始點。在歷經數年不堪聞問的貪腐醜聞之後，全國人民對於政 治清明的期待都很高。在政壇打滾多時的人也許近墨者黑，不能體會現況與民意的落差，所以在此特別抒論提醒：這些政治大員當下能夠難捨能捨；如果要在一波波 批評聲浪湧現之後才開始切割辯解，那就為時已晚了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)