The DPP's Dilemma in Tainan County
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 31, 2009
The Ma administration's job performance has been poor. The negative impact of the Chen family corruption and money-laundering case has already been felt. The Democratic Progressive Party sees the year end County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections as a chance for a comeback. But Chen Shui-bian refuses to go away. Over the past few days, rumors suggest Chen Shui-bian intends to run in the Tainan County Legislative by-election. These rumors alone were enough to make DPP leaders wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
Picture Tsai Ing-wen at DPP campaign rallies, blasting Ma administration ineptitude, the economic downturn, and rapidly worsening unemployment. Meanwhile everyone's attention is focused on Chen Shui-bian's election prospects in Tainan County. How can the Democratic Progressive Party possibly rally support under such conditions? How can it possibly maintain any political momentum it might get from Su Tseng-chang's campaign for Taipei County Commissioner?
Bad as that might be, it's not the worst case scenario. Suppose Chen Shui-bian is actually elected and becomes a Legislator. Chen Shui-bian, not to mention his followers, can inject billions of dollars into the campaigns of Democratic Progressive Party candidates. As Chen put it, "Which faction doesn't owe me favors?" Also, once Ah-Bian stepped down the DPP descended into factional strife. The "Four Princes of the DPP" are terrified of the damage slanderous accusations might inflict upon them. The party has a leadership vacuum. If Chen Shui-bian becomes a Legislator, given his aptitude for political intrigue, and DPP Legislators' habitual deference toward him, Chen could shatter the traditional separation between the DPP party leadership and the DPP legislative caucus. He could become the leader of the DPP legislative caucus, with his own troops to shield him and to do battle with the DPP party leadership.
In fact, Chen Shui-bian, whose reputation has already plumbed the depths, remains the Shadow Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. He wields more real power than Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Never mind that she was elected by the party membership. The entire year end County Magistrate and City Mayor Election is unfolding according to Chen Shui-bian's plans.
For example, the DPP party leadership wants Su Tseng-chang to run for Taipei County Magistrate. They hope he can consolidate the DPP's core support, and build momentum for the entire party. But Su Tseng-chang has his own plans for 2012. Therefore, to avoid offending fundamentalists within the party, Su Tseng-chang is unlikely to make any obvious moves to distance himself from Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, has repeatedly expressed goodwill towards Su Tseng-chang, simultaneously containing him, ensuring that he doesn't dare make any dramatic moves to jettison Chen.
Add to this Tainan County. Ah-Bian first said he wanted Chen Tang-shan to run for Tainan County Magistrate. Later on rumors suggested he might support Yeh Yi-ching for the post, in the process opening up Yeh Yi-ching's Legislative Yuan post for himself. If the DPP is afraid that Chen Shui-bian will act as a spoiler, undermining Yeh Yi-ching's chances, it will be forced to support Chen Tang-shan instead. Ah-Bian would, in effect, have forced DPP party leaders to change their plans, and instead choose the candidate Ah-Bian wanted for Tainan County. Ah-Bian would have completely undermined the candidacies of the new generation candidates the Democratic Progressive Party was grooming.
If the Democratic Progressive Party insists on supporting new generation candidate Yeh Yi-ching, quid pro quo or not, then Yeh Yi-ching will be forced to resign her Legislative Yuan post before the election. If Yeh Yi-ching is elected Tainan County Magistrate, she will leave open a Legislative slot, and Chen Shui-bian will run for certain. If Chen Shui-bian is elected, the DPP's worst nightmare will come true.
How did the Democratic Progressive Party get itself into such a predicament -- one of its own making?
In fact, the harm Chen Shui-bian has inflicted upon the DPP, is hardly limited to his two terms as President. When Chen Shui-bian was President, he indeed had a plan for "long-term rule." During the County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections of 2005, Ah-Bian hand-picked Luo Wen-chia and Lin Chia-lung, in the name of generational change. He forced out Barry Hou, with the intention of grooming Chen Chi-mai for Mayor of Kaohsiung. But when the Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering scandals broke, one after another, the Democratic Progressive Party suffered one defeat after another. An entire generation of younger candidates vanished from the political stage. If they want to make a comeback, they will need extraordinary political skills.
Chen Shui-bian of course has never possessed any political skills other than expediency and trickery. Now, in his own selfish interest, he is no longer trumpeting generational change. He is not even supporting Yeh Yi-ching, who was always extremely loyal to him in the past.
Chen Shui-bian may be selfish, but as long as Chen Shui-bian stirs the pot, Democratic Progressive Party elites will find it hard to escape blame. This is the DPP's moment of truth. The Tainan County Commissioner's Election has put the Democratic Progressive Party on the horns of a dilemma. It may indulge in wishful thinking or self-deception. But its past abetting of Chen Shui-bian's conniving was politically and morally dubious, and also inflicted serious harm upon the Democratic Progressive Party, from which it will have difficulty recovering.
Tainan County has become a litmus test. The Democratic Progressive Party must stand by its own candidates and its own strategy. It must boldly disown Chen Shui-bian. Doing this may put Tainan County at risk. But it may help consolidate other counties and municipalities in which the Blue and Green camps are more evenly matched. More importantly, if Chen Shui-bian does make it into the Legislative Yuan, the Democratic Progressive Party must draw a clear line of distinction between itself and him. It must offer a bold new political platform befitting a major political party. Only then can it avoid becoming Chen Shui-bian's "shadow party."
中國時報 2009.03.31
民進黨在台南縣的兩難困局
本報訊
馬政府施政狀況不佳，扁案負面效應告一段落，今年底的縣市長選舉，民進黨一直視為是谷底翻身的機會；但是，陳水扁陰影仍然揮之不去，這幾天傳出扁有意投身台南縣立委補選，單單想像此一訊息，就夠民進黨領導人夜半嚇出一身冷汗。
試想，當蔡英文帶領的團隊在競選造勢場合痛批馬政府執政，經濟不景氣、失業急速惡化時，全國焦點卻都是陳水扁台南縣選情，民進黨的勢還造得起來嗎？蘇貞昌參選台北縣所帶來的利基，還能維持嗎？
如果這個圖像令人怵目驚心，這可能還不是最糟的。假設陳水扁真的當選，進了立法院，不要說扁子弟兵眾多，扁就曾爆料，他至少拿出十億挹注民進黨候選人，「哪個派系沒欠我人情？」再加上，扁下台之後，民進黨派系惡鬥，天王們憂讒畏譏，黨內彌漫著一股「領導真空症候群」；一旦扁進入立院，以他之擅長權力操作，再加上民進黨立委對他的慣性服從，扁不無可能打破民進黨中央與立院黨團分立的傳統，仗著成為立院黨團老大，擁兵自重和黨中央對抗。
事實上，聲望已到谷底的陳水扁，迄今都還是民進黨的地下黨主席，比黨員選出的黨主席蔡英文更有實權，而整個年底縣市長的棋局也是照著扁的鋪排走。
例如，民進黨希望蘇貞昌角逐台北縣長，是希望他能穩住民進黨的基盤，帶動全黨的氣勢；但是，蘇貞昌自己則還有二○一二大位的考量，因此，為免得罪黨內基本教義派，蘇貞昌不太可能大動作和扁切割；而扁也一再表達善意，卻也同時牽制蘇貞昌，讓他不敢有大開大闔的動作。
再如台南縣，扁先表達支持陳唐山選台南縣長，事後卻又傳出可能支持葉宜津角逐縣長，扁則順理成章角逐葉宜津留下來的立委一職。如果民進黨因擔心扁攪局，波及葉宜津選情、被迫改支持陳唐山，則是形同黨中央硬生生改變規畫，不得不挑扁屬意的台南縣長人選，徹底的破壞民進黨裁培中生代布局。
如果民進黨中央堅持支持中壯代的葉宜津，則不論交不交換，或是葉宜津選前辭不辭立委，只要葉宜津當選縣長，留下來的立委一職，扁是選定了，如果扁當選，對民進黨而言，真是噩夢一場。
民進黨為何讓自己掉入這樣兩難的困局?
其實，扁對民進黨的傷害，並不是一、兩次的執政失敗而已。扁任總統時，確實有一套「長久執政」計畫，二○○五年縣市長選舉，以世代交替之名，扁欽點了羅文嘉、林佳龍等逐逐百里侯，更有意扶植陳其邁參選高雄市長，但是扁案陸續爆發，民進黨接連幾次大敗，好不容易裁培出來的中壯世代，幾乎全跟著落馬，一整個世代就此沒落，他們要再起來，都必須有非凡的戰功不可。
當然，扁向來只有權宜與權謀，現在為了自己的利益，不要說不會再唱世代交替的高調，連過去一向對他極為效忠的葉宜津，他也未必要支持。
扁可以自私自利，但是任扁如此翻雲覆雨，民進黨菁英難辭其咎。現在可以說是民進黨的「The Moment of Truth」（說真話的關鍵時刻），看到民進黨在台南縣長選舉的兩難處境，再如何鄉愿或自我欺騙，也應該清楚，過去縱容陳水扁，不但是「同流合污」的政治道德問題而已，也對民進黨發展造成難以復原的傷害。
台南縣已成指標，唯今之計，民進黨更要堅持既定的人選及步調；但是同時大力與扁切割，如此作法，也許危及台南縣，但可穩住其他藍綠比例均衡的縣市。更重要的，萬一扁將來真的進了立法院，民進黨不僅要義正嚴詞的和他畫清界線，也要提出大格局的政黨方針，才不會淪為扁的「影子政黨」。
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Committee's Difficult Birth
The Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Committee's Difficult Birth
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2009
The KMT and the DPP always sing a different tune depending upon whether they are in or out of power. Over the past nine years, the Republic of China has had two different ruling parties. The thinking and rhetoric of the two major political parties has always varied depending on whether they were in or out of power. A typical example is their support or opposition to a Legislative Yuan committee on cross-Strait affairs.
Broad segments of society have long hoped to participate in formulating cross-Strait policy. During the Lee Teng-hui administration the National Unification Council invited Kang Ning-hsiang and others to participate. These invitations triggered conflicts within the Democratic Progressive Party. In 2000, the ROC underwent ruling party change. Chen Shui-bian immediately set up a "Bipartisan Cross-Strait Group," with Lee Yuan-tse as convener. The purpose of the group was to replace the now hollowed out National Unification Council. Lee Yuan-tse had his own ideas about cross-Strait exchanges. Chen Shui-bian was also aggressive about cross-Strait policy. His bipartisan group went so far as to arrive at three understandings and four recommendations that clashed with the beliefs of Democratic Progressive Party fundamentalists. Among the most important recommendation was that the "One China" issue ought to be dealt with by referring to the ROC Constitution.
But the Kuomintang, which had just lost power, refused to take part in the non-partisan group. It felt the party with a ruling majority in the Legislative Yuan had the right to direct cross-Strait affairs. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, the highest ranking member of the KMT at the time, first proposed this idea. By the end of June 2000 the "Legislative Yuan Mainland Policy and Cross-Strait Affairs committee" had prepared a draft law. Half a month later the Legislative Yuan issued a version approved by both parties. By the end of the year they were even holding meetings on Three Mini-Links. Not only did Democratic Progressive Party members not reject the bill, their representatives put their signatures to it. But shortly thereafter Chen Shui-bian dropped his "One Country on Each Side" bombshell, immediately putting a damper on cross-Strait exchanges. The cross-Straits committee, whose composition corresponded to that of the Legislative Yuan, found itself promptly mired in a Blue vs. Green partisan dispute. Democratic Progressive Party members boycotted the committee, and even accused it of infringing upon the constitutional authority of the Legislative Yuan's Domestic Policy Committee and the constitutional authority of the President. A bipartisan committee that had alread met with the approval of the Office of the President and the Legislative Yuan was now shut down.
The KMT may have lost the initiative in cross-Strait decision-making, but not the desire to participate. In this context, a KMT/CCP forum was established. Pan Blue leaders visited the Mainland one after another, competing for the right to formulate cross-Strait policy. National Assembly Speaker Wang Jin-pyng was never able to visit the Mainland in his official capacity as Legislative Yuan Speaker. But he never abandoned the idea of strengthening the influence of the Legislative Yuan. From 2000 onwards, he periodically called upon the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee, especially before and after the Legislative Yuan Election.
Wang's hope never became a reality. One reason was that the KMT/CCP forum ignored Chen Shui-bian's "active management," i.e., obstructionism, and bypassed the Legislative Yuan.
Cross-Strait exchanges are of the utmost importance to the Republic of China. During the Chen administration the DPP refused to allow the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. They were worried about the Pan Blue Camp's greater numbers. They were worried they couldn't control the Chen administration's austerity policy. Unfortunately, after nine years, the KMT, which has regained control of the government, and which enjoys a supermajority in the Legislative Yuan, has completely forgotten how forcefully it argued on behalf of a cross-Strait Legislative Yuan committee, and how it demanded that the government's cross-Strait policy be subject to Legislative Yuan oversight and checks and balances. Wang Jing-pyng once urged the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. But now the situation is reversed. The Democratic Progressive Party is now calling for the establishment of such a committee. The KMT is now refusing, citing the same reasons as the DPP.
The Ma administration took office on May 20 last year. It has been forced to cope with the global economic crisis. Cross-Strait affairs has become its highest priority. Its responsibilities are varied and heavy. It has also had little time to implement them -- less than a year. Far less time than Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian had -- 20 years. The Ma administration, particularly the President, must incorporate the views of the Legislature into its policymaking process. This includes major and minor cross-Strait policies, including those of life and death importance, providing they don't affect ROC national sovereignty. The right to administer cross-Strait policy does not mean the right to act arbitrarily and unilaterally. These affairs affect everyone. For example, Premier Liu opposes a referendum on a cross-Strait economic cooperation. But besides the Legislative Yuan, what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the policies have been subjected to public debate? Demands that the Legislative Yuan participate in the decision-making process are an integral part of our constitutional system. Besides, the KMT commands a supermajority. What does it have to fear?
Cross-Strait issues are the most controversial of all. The Legislature should be involved. Legislative participation will blunt objections from both the ruling and opposition parties. Providing of course that they reach agreements on key issues such as whether to first sign or first review cross-Strait agreements. The Legislature should take part in the process. Legislative participation will provide a buffer for cross-Strait negotiations. Legislative participation will prevent policy disputes from getting out of control and spilling onto the streets. The Legislative Yuan cross-Strait committee should set up the necessary mechanisms. It must not spin its wheels debating whether they are possible.
What Chen Shui-bian refused to do, Ma Ying-jeou must do. The Legislature must participate in the formulation of cross-Strait policy. A cross-Strait committee set up by the Legislative Yuan is a sensible move.
立法院兩岸小組因何難產
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.30 03:49 am
「換了位子就換了腦袋」，這句話在國、民兩黨身上，隨時隨地都適用；九年來，台灣歷經兩次政黨輪替，朝野兩大政黨從思維到語言，始終擺脫不掉這九字真言的魔咒。立法院應否設置兩岸事務對策小組，就是典型的例子
兩岸事務希能廣納參與，非始於今日，早在李登輝執政時代，國統會即延請康寧祥等，甚至引發民進黨內訌。二○○○年政黨輪替，陳水扁隨即成立「跨黨派兩岸小組」，由李遠哲出任召集人，取代虛而未廢的國統會。當時的李遠哲對兩岸交流很有想法，陳水扁同樣非常積極，跨黨派小組甚至做出不符合民進黨基本教義派的三點認知、四項建議，其中，最重要的建議就是：依據憲法處理一中爭議。
不過，甫失政權的國民黨卻拒絕參與跨黨派小組，並認為兩岸事務的主導權應回歸由多數黨掌控的立法院，當時國民黨所餘唯一最高權力人物的立法院長王金平就率先提出此一主張。二○○○年六月底「立法院大陸政策暨兩岸事務因應對策小組」設置要點草案旋即提出，半個月後朝野協商版本出爐，同年底甚至還為了兩岸小三通召開過會議。民進黨人本來不排斥，甚至協商代表都簽了字，但沒多久因陳水扁拋出「一邊一國論」，兩岸交流善意瞬間凍凝，這個依照國會政黨席次比例組成的兩岸小組，從此陷入藍綠口水爭議；民進黨人翻臉拒絕參與，甚至批評這個小組有摧毀立法院內政委員會與違憲侵犯總統職權之虞。結果，總統府與立法院兩個原本可以容納朝野共商兩岸政策的小組全部停擺。
當時國民黨在兩岸事務決策體系失去了角色，卻沒失去熱烈投入兩岸事務的企圖心，國共論壇遂在這個背景下順理成章地成立；藍營領袖先後登陸，爭搶兩岸發言權。王金平欲以國會議長身分訪問大陸的夢想落空，但他希望強化立法院政策影響力的想法並未放棄，從二○○○年開始，幾乎每隔一段時間，特別是在立法院換屆選舉前後，他總會一再呼籲，立法院「應該」成立兩岸事務小組。王金平的期盼迄未實現，原因之一是國共論壇無視扁政府的積極管理，間接取代了立法院的角色。
兩岸交流是影響台灣最重要的政策，扁時代民進黨排斥立法院成立兩岸小組，擔心的是人頭數不過藍營，難以主控扁政府緊縮的政策路線。遺憾的是，經過九年，國民黨重新掌握政權，又在立法院擁有絕對多數席次，卻完全忘記當年如何力主應在立法院成立兩岸小組，以及如何要求政府的兩岸政策應該受到國會合理監督制衡的那段往事。如今，倡議立法院成立兩岸小組的仍是王金平，這一回卻形勢逆轉，變成民進黨致函王金平要求成立，反對的倒是國民黨，但理由竟與當年的民進黨如出一轍。
馬政府自去年五二○就任以來，除了因應全球經濟危機，兩岸事務已經成為最高優先順位的政策主軸，不但是質量俱重，幅度與速度亦在一年不到的時間中，遠遠超越包括李登輝與陳水扁時代加總的二十年。但兩岸政策不論大小，若非涉及主權，即是攸關人民生活的實際利益，馬政府、特別是馬總統必須思考如何將代表最高民意的國會，納進決策程序之中；畢竟兩岸事務並非行政權可獨斷獨行，而是全民的事務，例如劉內閣反對兩岸經濟合作架構協議舉行公投，但除了立法院外還有什麼機制能確保此一協議能經過民意的激盪錘煉？立法院參與也許增加了決策過程的雜音，卻是憲政體制不可或缺的一環；何況，國民黨掌控絕對多數，又何懼之有？
兩岸政策是最具爭議的議題，國會參與非僅是應有之義，且足為朝野內外之緩衝。只要在重大關鍵上有所規範，如兩岸協議之先簽後審，即應使國會發生功能，一可作兩岸交涉之緩衝，再可免政策爭執失控於街頭。立院兩岸小組應朝如何設置來討論，而不宜阻滯在可否設置。
陳水扁拒絕的事，正是馬英九應該慎重思考的事。應當讓國會在兩岸事務中扮演應有的角色，而設置立院兩岸小組是合理的思考。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2009
The KMT and the DPP always sing a different tune depending upon whether they are in or out of power. Over the past nine years, the Republic of China has had two different ruling parties. The thinking and rhetoric of the two major political parties has always varied depending on whether they were in or out of power. A typical example is their support or opposition to a Legislative Yuan committee on cross-Strait affairs.
Broad segments of society have long hoped to participate in formulating cross-Strait policy. During the Lee Teng-hui administration the National Unification Council invited Kang Ning-hsiang and others to participate. These invitations triggered conflicts within the Democratic Progressive Party. In 2000, the ROC underwent ruling party change. Chen Shui-bian immediately set up a "Bipartisan Cross-Strait Group," with Lee Yuan-tse as convener. The purpose of the group was to replace the now hollowed out National Unification Council. Lee Yuan-tse had his own ideas about cross-Strait exchanges. Chen Shui-bian was also aggressive about cross-Strait policy. His bipartisan group went so far as to arrive at three understandings and four recommendations that clashed with the beliefs of Democratic Progressive Party fundamentalists. Among the most important recommendation was that the "One China" issue ought to be dealt with by referring to the ROC Constitution.
But the Kuomintang, which had just lost power, refused to take part in the non-partisan group. It felt the party with a ruling majority in the Legislative Yuan had the right to direct cross-Strait affairs. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, the highest ranking member of the KMT at the time, first proposed this idea. By the end of June 2000 the "Legislative Yuan Mainland Policy and Cross-Strait Affairs committee" had prepared a draft law. Half a month later the Legislative Yuan issued a version approved by both parties. By the end of the year they were even holding meetings on Three Mini-Links. Not only did Democratic Progressive Party members not reject the bill, their representatives put their signatures to it. But shortly thereafter Chen Shui-bian dropped his "One Country on Each Side" bombshell, immediately putting a damper on cross-Strait exchanges. The cross-Straits committee, whose composition corresponded to that of the Legislative Yuan, found itself promptly mired in a Blue vs. Green partisan dispute. Democratic Progressive Party members boycotted the committee, and even accused it of infringing upon the constitutional authority of the Legislative Yuan's Domestic Policy Committee and the constitutional authority of the President. A bipartisan committee that had alread met with the approval of the Office of the President and the Legislative Yuan was now shut down.
The KMT may have lost the initiative in cross-Strait decision-making, but not the desire to participate. In this context, a KMT/CCP forum was established. Pan Blue leaders visited the Mainland one after another, competing for the right to formulate cross-Strait policy. National Assembly Speaker Wang Jin-pyng was never able to visit the Mainland in his official capacity as Legislative Yuan Speaker. But he never abandoned the idea of strengthening the influence of the Legislative Yuan. From 2000 onwards, he periodically called upon the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee, especially before and after the Legislative Yuan Election.
Wang's hope never became a reality. One reason was that the KMT/CCP forum ignored Chen Shui-bian's "active management," i.e., obstructionism, and bypassed the Legislative Yuan.
Cross-Strait exchanges are of the utmost importance to the Republic of China. During the Chen administration the DPP refused to allow the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. They were worried about the Pan Blue Camp's greater numbers. They were worried they couldn't control the Chen administration's austerity policy. Unfortunately, after nine years, the KMT, which has regained control of the government, and which enjoys a supermajority in the Legislative Yuan, has completely forgotten how forcefully it argued on behalf of a cross-Strait Legislative Yuan committee, and how it demanded that the government's cross-Strait policy be subject to Legislative Yuan oversight and checks and balances. Wang Jing-pyng once urged the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. But now the situation is reversed. The Democratic Progressive Party is now calling for the establishment of such a committee. The KMT is now refusing, citing the same reasons as the DPP.
The Ma administration took office on May 20 last year. It has been forced to cope with the global economic crisis. Cross-Strait affairs has become its highest priority. Its responsibilities are varied and heavy. It has also had little time to implement them -- less than a year. Far less time than Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian had -- 20 years. The Ma administration, particularly the President, must incorporate the views of the Legislature into its policymaking process. This includes major and minor cross-Strait policies, including those of life and death importance, providing they don't affect ROC national sovereignty. The right to administer cross-Strait policy does not mean the right to act arbitrarily and unilaterally. These affairs affect everyone. For example, Premier Liu opposes a referendum on a cross-Strait economic cooperation. But besides the Legislative Yuan, what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the policies have been subjected to public debate? Demands that the Legislative Yuan participate in the decision-making process are an integral part of our constitutional system. Besides, the KMT commands a supermajority. What does it have to fear?
Cross-Strait issues are the most controversial of all. The Legislature should be involved. Legislative participation will blunt objections from both the ruling and opposition parties. Providing of course that they reach agreements on key issues such as whether to first sign or first review cross-Strait agreements. The Legislature should take part in the process. Legislative participation will provide a buffer for cross-Strait negotiations. Legislative participation will prevent policy disputes from getting out of control and spilling onto the streets. The Legislative Yuan cross-Strait committee should set up the necessary mechanisms. It must not spin its wheels debating whether they are possible.
What Chen Shui-bian refused to do, Ma Ying-jeou must do. The Legislature must participate in the formulation of cross-Strait policy. A cross-Strait committee set up by the Legislative Yuan is a sensible move.
立法院兩岸小組因何難產
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.30 03:49 am
「換了位子就換了腦袋」，這句話在國、民兩黨身上，隨時隨地都適用；九年來，台灣歷經兩次政黨輪替，朝野兩大政黨從思維到語言，始終擺脫不掉這九字真言的魔咒。立法院應否設置兩岸事務對策小組，就是典型的例子
兩岸事務希能廣納參與，非始於今日，早在李登輝執政時代，國統會即延請康寧祥等，甚至引發民進黨內訌。二○○○年政黨輪替，陳水扁隨即成立「跨黨派兩岸小組」，由李遠哲出任召集人，取代虛而未廢的國統會。當時的李遠哲對兩岸交流很有想法，陳水扁同樣非常積極，跨黨派小組甚至做出不符合民進黨基本教義派的三點認知、四項建議，其中，最重要的建議就是：依據憲法處理一中爭議。
不過，甫失政權的國民黨卻拒絕參與跨黨派小組，並認為兩岸事務的主導權應回歸由多數黨掌控的立法院，當時國民黨所餘唯一最高權力人物的立法院長王金平就率先提出此一主張。二○○○年六月底「立法院大陸政策暨兩岸事務因應對策小組」設置要點草案旋即提出，半個月後朝野協商版本出爐，同年底甚至還為了兩岸小三通召開過會議。民進黨人本來不排斥，甚至協商代表都簽了字，但沒多久因陳水扁拋出「一邊一國論」，兩岸交流善意瞬間凍凝，這個依照國會政黨席次比例組成的兩岸小組，從此陷入藍綠口水爭議；民進黨人翻臉拒絕參與，甚至批評這個小組有摧毀立法院內政委員會與違憲侵犯總統職權之虞。結果，總統府與立法院兩個原本可以容納朝野共商兩岸政策的小組全部停擺。
當時國民黨在兩岸事務決策體系失去了角色，卻沒失去熱烈投入兩岸事務的企圖心，國共論壇遂在這個背景下順理成章地成立；藍營領袖先後登陸，爭搶兩岸發言權。王金平欲以國會議長身分訪問大陸的夢想落空，但他希望強化立法院政策影響力的想法並未放棄，從二○○○年開始，幾乎每隔一段時間，特別是在立法院換屆選舉前後，他總會一再呼籲，立法院「應該」成立兩岸事務小組。王金平的期盼迄未實現，原因之一是國共論壇無視扁政府的積極管理，間接取代了立法院的角色。
兩岸交流是影響台灣最重要的政策，扁時代民進黨排斥立法院成立兩岸小組，擔心的是人頭數不過藍營，難以主控扁政府緊縮的政策路線。遺憾的是，經過九年，國民黨重新掌握政權，又在立法院擁有絕對多數席次，卻完全忘記當年如何力主應在立法院成立兩岸小組，以及如何要求政府的兩岸政策應該受到國會合理監督制衡的那段往事。如今，倡議立法院成立兩岸小組的仍是王金平，這一回卻形勢逆轉，變成民進黨致函王金平要求成立，反對的倒是國民黨，但理由竟與當年的民進黨如出一轍。
馬政府自去年五二○就任以來，除了因應全球經濟危機，兩岸事務已經成為最高優先順位的政策主軸，不但是質量俱重，幅度與速度亦在一年不到的時間中，遠遠超越包括李登輝與陳水扁時代加總的二十年。但兩岸政策不論大小，若非涉及主權，即是攸關人民生活的實際利益，馬政府、特別是馬總統必須思考如何將代表最高民意的國會，納進決策程序之中；畢竟兩岸事務並非行政權可獨斷獨行，而是全民的事務，例如劉內閣反對兩岸經濟合作架構協議舉行公投，但除了立法院外還有什麼機制能確保此一協議能經過民意的激盪錘煉？立法院參與也許增加了決策過程的雜音，卻是憲政體制不可或缺的一環；何況，國民黨掌控絕對多數，又何懼之有？
兩岸政策是最具爭議的議題，國會參與非僅是應有之義，且足為朝野內外之緩衝。只要在重大關鍵上有所規範，如兩岸協議之先簽後審，即應使國會發生功能，一可作兩岸交涉之緩衝，再可免政策爭執失控於街頭。立院兩岸小組應朝如何設置來討論，而不宜阻滯在可否設置。
陳水扁拒絕的事，正是馬英九應該慎重思考的事。應當讓國會在兩岸事務中扮演應有的角色，而設置立院兩岸小組是合理的思考。
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?
Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2009
Tsai Ing-wen has proposed championing Taiwan by adopting a "New Nativism." In her view, the DPP's "Old Nativism" has become too narrowly exclusive. That narrow understanding of nativism lacks the tolerance that an "immigrant society" needs the most.
[Translator's Note: Referring to the Taiwan region as an "immigrant society" or "society of immigrants" is politically misleading. The term "immigrant" denotes movement from one nation to another. Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China. ROC citizens who migrate from the Mainland to Taiwan are migrants, not "immigrants."]
Why is tolerance necessary? Tsai Ing-wen says the Democratic Progressive Party must adhere to its ideals, and that the difference between the DPP and the KMT is in their ideals. To achieve its ideals the DPP must expand its political base by becoming more tolerant. Tsai Ing-wen effectively conceded that the DPP's "ideals" were not inclusive enough. She spoke repeatedly about "ideals," but she never made clear what those "ideals" were. All that hemming and hawing. She obviously had something to say, but just couldn't spit it out.
In fact, amidst all of Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric, her so-called "ideals" was merely a euphemism for Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party has used many euphemisms for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen can hardly deny that the Democratic Progressive Party's ideal is Taiwan independence. But she apparently hopes to lead the Democratic Progressive Party away from the constraints of "narrowly defined Taiwan independence." Hence her euphemistic invocation of "ideals." As for her affirmation that "what an immigrant society most needs is tolerance," she was unwilling to openly state that "an immigrant society must not divide people according to tribes." She wanted to avoid criticism from members of her own party. Her rhetoric was sufficiently convoluted to resembled a pretzel.
Put simply, Tsai Ing-wen's "New Nativism" can be understood as no further resort to dividing people by provinicial origin, i.e., "tolerance," in the pursuit of independence, which will remain the DPP's "ideal," but which will no longer be spelled out.
This kind of thinking was intended to be a kind of breakthrough. But frankly, it offered nothing new. The DPP's "Resolution on the Nation's Future" and "Resolution on Ethnic Groups" covered these issues long ago. The problem is the DPP's past actions have already made Taiwan independence and a "Taiwanese ethnic identity" two sides of the same coin. One can no longer advocate Taiwan independence without dividing Republic of China citizens into "Native Taiwanese" and "Mainlanders." Perhaps Taiwan independence is a phony issue. Perhaps the DPP's real forte is dividing people into tribes.
Tsai Ing-wen deserves affirmation for being sensitive to the problem. But she has not offered much of a solution. If Taiwan independence is still the DPP's ideal, it will remain mired in a double dilemma. It will remain incapable of achieving Taiwan independence in the global arena, even as it continues to divide Republic of China citizens into "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" in the domestic arena. Taiwan independence, by its very nature, divides people. A "Taiwan independence ideology that tolerates diversity" is a logical impossibility. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen avoid the term "Taiwan independence" and substitute the euphemism "ideal?"
The fact that "Nativism" is considered compatible with tolerance is due to the DPP's past efforts. But Taiwan independence is, on the face of it, anything but tolerant. After all, its goal is to overthrow the Republic of China. It is tolerant neither in name nor in substance. And since it is not even tolerant in name, how can it possibly be tolerant in substance? Yet Tsai Ing-wen would make a conceptual leap from "Tolerant Nativism" to "Tolerant Taiwan independence." That is akin to expecting a strawberry patch to yield apples.
The DPP's problem is its adherence to Taiwan independence. Its increasingly narrow definition of "Old Nativism" was the inevitable result of its stubborn adherence to Taiwan independence. But for the majority of people on Taiwan, if the DPP refrains from advocating Taiwan independence, "Nativism" is not an issue. Apart from the DPP, most people assume that "new and old immigrants, regardless of provincial origin, are all Natives." The above is a quote from Tsai Ing-wen. But it is something that Tsai Ing-wen knows the DPP cannot possibly either endorse or achieve.
Take Fan Lanqin for example. Fan's remarks can be characterized as an isolated extreme. Criticism from within the Pan Blue attests to that. By contrast, for the DPP ethnic demagoguery is second nature. Ethnic demagoguery is the DPP's defining characteristic. Fan Lanqin referred to himself, in self-mockery, as a "high class mainlander." Overnight the DPP twisted his meaning and transformed it into a politcal codeword. They even mocked Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan as "high class mainlanders," attempting to equate them with Fan Lanqin. Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen was trying to use euphemisms such as "Tolerant Nativism" to clean up the Democratic Progressive Party's image. She appears to be a slow learner.
The Democratic Progressive Party has long equated Taiwan independence with Nativism. Taiwan independence is Nativism. Nativism is Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Nativism to dress up Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Taiwan independence to distort the meaning of Nativism. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to distinguish between the two. She wants to use "Tolerant Nativism" to achieve their "ideal," i.e., Taiwan independence. She can talk about "Tolerant Nativism." She can avoid talking about Taiwan independence, by referring to it euphemistically as their "ideal." But this is akin to "covering one's ears while stealing a bell."
If the DPP does not resolve the issue of Taiwan independence, it will never resolve the issue of Nativism. As mentioned before, the main reason "Nativism" has been so narrowly defined is Taiwan independence. Without Taiwan independence, Nativism need no longer be so narrowly defined. A "Tolerant Taiwan independence" is a contradiction in terms. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to emancipate liberate itself from narrowly defined Nativism. If one is determined to overthrow the nation, how can one possibly avoid tearing society apart?
Has Chairman Tsai thought this through?
蔡英文為何吞吞吐吐
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.27 04:37 am
蔡英文主張「以新本土觀」捍衛台灣；她認為，民進黨的「舊本土觀」，被窄化成一種排他性的觀念，那種窄化的本土詮釋忽視了移民社會最需要的包容。
為何必須包容？蔡英文說：因為民進黨必須堅持理想性，而民進黨與國民黨的區隔就在理想性；要實現理想，就必須以包容性擴大社會基礎。蔡英文不啻指出，民進黨的「理想」的「包容性」不夠；但她提出了一連串的「理想」，卻終篇未敘明「理想」為何物？吞吞吐吐，欲言又止。
其實，在蔡英文此次提出的整套論述體系中，所謂「理想」，就是「台獨」的代稱（民進黨曾用過許多代稱，來代替指涉「台獨」）。此時此際，蔡英文不可能否認「台獨」是民進黨的「理想」，但她似亦有意帶領民進黨擺脫「窄化的台獨」之束縛，於是就用了「理想」這個「心照不宣」的詞彙。至於「移民社會最需要的包容」（提出期許），則應當是她不願直言的「移民社會不宜撕裂族群」（避免批判），語氣亦極盡曲折迂迴之能事。
因此，蔡英文的「新本土論述」，可以被解讀為：不再用族群撕裂的手法（要包容），來追求台獨（理想，但不可明說）。
這樣的思考雖然意在突破，卻無太多新意，其實民進黨的《國家前途決議文》及《族群決議文》，皆已早著先鞭。問題是：民進黨過去的政治操作，已使台獨與族群撕裂變成一體兩面；不可能倡台獨而不談撕裂，甚至台獨只是假議題，而撕裂才是民進黨的真本事。
蔡英文的警覺與思考是可以肯定的，但她提出的救治辦法卻無甚高論。因為，民進黨若仍以「台獨」為「理想」，即勢將繼續陷於對外台獨不成，對內繼續撕裂的困境；簡約而言，台獨就是撕裂，根本不可能出現一種所謂的「族群包容的台獨建國論述」。倘非如此，蔡英文何以諱言「台獨」，而用「理想」來代稱？
「本土」如今已然是一個具有包容性的概念，對此民進黨過去的努力與貢獻有目共睹；但「台獨」在應然面上卻不是一個包容性的概念（畢竟是要顛覆中華民國），且在實然面上也不可能是一個包容性的概念（既在應然面上不包容，如何在實然面包容？）。蔡英文若欲從「包容性的本土」跳躍至「包容性的台獨」，不啻是想從草莓園裡長出蘋果。
民進黨的問題在「台獨」。「舊本土觀」之所以「窄化」，正是因為「台獨」；但對於整體台灣的多數民眾而言，若不主張台獨，「本土」即無「窄化」的問題。除了民進黨以外，多數民眾皆理所當然地認為：「新舊移民不分族群都能共享『本土』。」此處引號內為蔡英文的用語，這卻正是蔡英文知道民進黨做不到之處。
以范蘭欽事件為例。范的言論可謂是一極端的孤例，由泛藍內部對其批判可證；但民進黨對族群議題的惡劣操弄，卻形同是該黨「天賦」的「集體人格」。范蘭欽一句耍冷自我調侃的「我是高級外省人哦」，一夕之間被民進黨廣泛地扭曲用為族群操作的口頭禪，甚至公開比附指馬英九及劉兆玄皆是「高級外省人」，欲將之「范蘭欽化」。而蔡英文竟然欲以純屬修詞技法的所謂「包容性的本土」來期許民進黨，實在猶不如一般書生之見。
民進黨始終將「台獨」與「本土」劃上等號。台獨就是本土，本土就是台獨；以本土裝飾台獨，以台獨扭曲本土。現在，蔡英文似乎想將之剝離分割，欲以「包容的本土」來實現「理想」（台獨），甚或只談「包容的本土」，諱談台獨（代稱為「理想」），此皆不啻掩耳盜鈴。
民進黨不解決「台獨」問題，即無可能解決其「本土」問題。如前所述，本土「窄化」的主因是台獨；若無台獨，本土必可走出「窄化」。其實，正因為不可能有「包容的台獨」，所以民進黨才始終走不出其「窄化的本土」。欲顛覆國家，如何可能不撕裂社會？
不知蔡主席以為然否？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2009
Tsai Ing-wen has proposed championing Taiwan by adopting a "New Nativism." In her view, the DPP's "Old Nativism" has become too narrowly exclusive. That narrow understanding of nativism lacks the tolerance that an "immigrant society" needs the most.
[Translator's Note: Referring to the Taiwan region as an "immigrant society" or "society of immigrants" is politically misleading. The term "immigrant" denotes movement from one nation to another. Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China. ROC citizens who migrate from the Mainland to Taiwan are migrants, not "immigrants."]
Why is tolerance necessary? Tsai Ing-wen says the Democratic Progressive Party must adhere to its ideals, and that the difference between the DPP and the KMT is in their ideals. To achieve its ideals the DPP must expand its political base by becoming more tolerant. Tsai Ing-wen effectively conceded that the DPP's "ideals" were not inclusive enough. She spoke repeatedly about "ideals," but she never made clear what those "ideals" were. All that hemming and hawing. She obviously had something to say, but just couldn't spit it out.
In fact, amidst all of Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric, her so-called "ideals" was merely a euphemism for Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party has used many euphemisms for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen can hardly deny that the Democratic Progressive Party's ideal is Taiwan independence. But she apparently hopes to lead the Democratic Progressive Party away from the constraints of "narrowly defined Taiwan independence." Hence her euphemistic invocation of "ideals." As for her affirmation that "what an immigrant society most needs is tolerance," she was unwilling to openly state that "an immigrant society must not divide people according to tribes." She wanted to avoid criticism from members of her own party. Her rhetoric was sufficiently convoluted to resembled a pretzel.
Put simply, Tsai Ing-wen's "New Nativism" can be understood as no further resort to dividing people by provinicial origin, i.e., "tolerance," in the pursuit of independence, which will remain the DPP's "ideal," but which will no longer be spelled out.
This kind of thinking was intended to be a kind of breakthrough. But frankly, it offered nothing new. The DPP's "Resolution on the Nation's Future" and "Resolution on Ethnic Groups" covered these issues long ago. The problem is the DPP's past actions have already made Taiwan independence and a "Taiwanese ethnic identity" two sides of the same coin. One can no longer advocate Taiwan independence without dividing Republic of China citizens into "Native Taiwanese" and "Mainlanders." Perhaps Taiwan independence is a phony issue. Perhaps the DPP's real forte is dividing people into tribes.
Tsai Ing-wen deserves affirmation for being sensitive to the problem. But she has not offered much of a solution. If Taiwan independence is still the DPP's ideal, it will remain mired in a double dilemma. It will remain incapable of achieving Taiwan independence in the global arena, even as it continues to divide Republic of China citizens into "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" in the domestic arena. Taiwan independence, by its very nature, divides people. A "Taiwan independence ideology that tolerates diversity" is a logical impossibility. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen avoid the term "Taiwan independence" and substitute the euphemism "ideal?"
The fact that "Nativism" is considered compatible with tolerance is due to the DPP's past efforts. But Taiwan independence is, on the face of it, anything but tolerant. After all, its goal is to overthrow the Republic of China. It is tolerant neither in name nor in substance. And since it is not even tolerant in name, how can it possibly be tolerant in substance? Yet Tsai Ing-wen would make a conceptual leap from "Tolerant Nativism" to "Tolerant Taiwan independence." That is akin to expecting a strawberry patch to yield apples.
The DPP's problem is its adherence to Taiwan independence. Its increasingly narrow definition of "Old Nativism" was the inevitable result of its stubborn adherence to Taiwan independence. But for the majority of people on Taiwan, if the DPP refrains from advocating Taiwan independence, "Nativism" is not an issue. Apart from the DPP, most people assume that "new and old immigrants, regardless of provincial origin, are all Natives." The above is a quote from Tsai Ing-wen. But it is something that Tsai Ing-wen knows the DPP cannot possibly either endorse or achieve.
Take Fan Lanqin for example. Fan's remarks can be characterized as an isolated extreme. Criticism from within the Pan Blue attests to that. By contrast, for the DPP ethnic demagoguery is second nature. Ethnic demagoguery is the DPP's defining characteristic. Fan Lanqin referred to himself, in self-mockery, as a "high class mainlander." Overnight the DPP twisted his meaning and transformed it into a politcal codeword. They even mocked Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan as "high class mainlanders," attempting to equate them with Fan Lanqin. Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen was trying to use euphemisms such as "Tolerant Nativism" to clean up the Democratic Progressive Party's image. She appears to be a slow learner.
The Democratic Progressive Party has long equated Taiwan independence with Nativism. Taiwan independence is Nativism. Nativism is Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Nativism to dress up Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Taiwan independence to distort the meaning of Nativism. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to distinguish between the two. She wants to use "Tolerant Nativism" to achieve their "ideal," i.e., Taiwan independence. She can talk about "Tolerant Nativism." She can avoid talking about Taiwan independence, by referring to it euphemistically as their "ideal." But this is akin to "covering one's ears while stealing a bell."
If the DPP does not resolve the issue of Taiwan independence, it will never resolve the issue of Nativism. As mentioned before, the main reason "Nativism" has been so narrowly defined is Taiwan independence. Without Taiwan independence, Nativism need no longer be so narrowly defined. A "Tolerant Taiwan independence" is a contradiction in terms. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to emancipate liberate itself from narrowly defined Nativism. If one is determined to overthrow the nation, how can one possibly avoid tearing society apart?
Has Chairman Tsai thought this through?
蔡英文為何吞吞吐吐
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.27 04:37 am
蔡英文主張「以新本土觀」捍衛台灣；她認為，民進黨的「舊本土觀」，被窄化成一種排他性的觀念，那種窄化的本土詮釋忽視了移民社會最需要的包容。
為何必須包容？蔡英文說：因為民進黨必須堅持理想性，而民進黨與國民黨的區隔就在理想性；要實現理想，就必須以包容性擴大社會基礎。蔡英文不啻指出，民進黨的「理想」的「包容性」不夠；但她提出了一連串的「理想」，卻終篇未敘明「理想」為何物？吞吞吐吐，欲言又止。
其實，在蔡英文此次提出的整套論述體系中，所謂「理想」，就是「台獨」的代稱（民進黨曾用過許多代稱，來代替指涉「台獨」）。此時此際，蔡英文不可能否認「台獨」是民進黨的「理想」，但她似亦有意帶領民進黨擺脫「窄化的台獨」之束縛，於是就用了「理想」這個「心照不宣」的詞彙。至於「移民社會最需要的包容」（提出期許），則應當是她不願直言的「移民社會不宜撕裂族群」（避免批判），語氣亦極盡曲折迂迴之能事。
因此，蔡英文的「新本土論述」，可以被解讀為：不再用族群撕裂的手法（要包容），來追求台獨（理想，但不可明說）。
這樣的思考雖然意在突破，卻無太多新意，其實民進黨的《國家前途決議文》及《族群決議文》，皆已早著先鞭。問題是：民進黨過去的政治操作，已使台獨與族群撕裂變成一體兩面；不可能倡台獨而不談撕裂，甚至台獨只是假議題，而撕裂才是民進黨的真本事。
蔡英文的警覺與思考是可以肯定的，但她提出的救治辦法卻無甚高論。因為，民進黨若仍以「台獨」為「理想」，即勢將繼續陷於對外台獨不成，對內繼續撕裂的困境；簡約而言，台獨就是撕裂，根本不可能出現一種所謂的「族群包容的台獨建國論述」。倘非如此，蔡英文何以諱言「台獨」，而用「理想」來代稱？
「本土」如今已然是一個具有包容性的概念，對此民進黨過去的努力與貢獻有目共睹；但「台獨」在應然面上卻不是一個包容性的概念（畢竟是要顛覆中華民國），且在實然面上也不可能是一個包容性的概念（既在應然面上不包容，如何在實然面包容？）。蔡英文若欲從「包容性的本土」跳躍至「包容性的台獨」，不啻是想從草莓園裡長出蘋果。
民進黨的問題在「台獨」。「舊本土觀」之所以「窄化」，正是因為「台獨」；但對於整體台灣的多數民眾而言，若不主張台獨，「本土」即無「窄化」的問題。除了民進黨以外，多數民眾皆理所當然地認為：「新舊移民不分族群都能共享『本土』。」此處引號內為蔡英文的用語，這卻正是蔡英文知道民進黨做不到之處。
以范蘭欽事件為例。范的言論可謂是一極端的孤例，由泛藍內部對其批判可證；但民進黨對族群議題的惡劣操弄，卻形同是該黨「天賦」的「集體人格」。范蘭欽一句耍冷自我調侃的「我是高級外省人哦」，一夕之間被民進黨廣泛地扭曲用為族群操作的口頭禪，甚至公開比附指馬英九及劉兆玄皆是「高級外省人」，欲將之「范蘭欽化」。而蔡英文竟然欲以純屬修詞技法的所謂「包容性的本土」來期許民進黨，實在猶不如一般書生之見。
民進黨始終將「台獨」與「本土」劃上等號。台獨就是本土，本土就是台獨；以本土裝飾台獨，以台獨扭曲本土。現在，蔡英文似乎想將之剝離分割，欲以「包容的本土」來實現「理想」（台獨），甚或只談「包容的本土」，諱談台獨（代稱為「理想」），此皆不啻掩耳盜鈴。
民進黨不解決「台獨」問題，即無可能解決其「本土」問題。如前所述，本土「窄化」的主因是台獨；若無台獨，本土必可走出「窄化」。其實，正因為不可能有「包容的台獨」，所以民進黨才始終走不出其「窄化的本土」。欲顛覆國家，如何可能不撕裂社會？
不知蔡主席以為然否？
Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous
Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009
Two days ago the Government Information Office fired Kuo Kuan-ying for making inappropriate remarks. President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-hsuan rushed to quench any fires. President Ma's remarks were basically feeling oriented. He said "We are all one people. We should accommodate and care for each other." He made a low-keyed appeal for ethnic harmony. Premier Liu, on the other hand, proposed the passage of an "Ethnic Equality Act." He wanted a law promoting ethnic equality. [Translator's Note: On today's Taiwan "ethnic" and "ethnicity" are misleading terms that actually refer to provincial origin.]
Five years ago a number of legislators proposed ethnic equality draft laws. Four or five different versions were put forth. The laws would punish speech the incitement of ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination. Five years later, none of them have become law. Yesterday, the head of the Executive Yuan again proposed the passage of legislation promoting ethnic equality. We contend that we must be concerned about ethnic issues, but that we must do not rush to pass laws. Before speaking, the Premier should also be careful and do some homework.
First of all, if we want to discuss ethnic harmony, we must first understand a few concepts from cultural anthropology. And if we want to promote ethnic equality, we must first appreciate the relevance of political philosophy. Human civilization is dynamic, and is undergoing evolution. Although each nation's development varies, humanism has been ascendant ever since the Middle Ages. Human society has steadily moved away from the Law of the Jungle, in which the strong bully the weak, and to the victor belong the spoils. It has steadily moved towards civilization, toward mutual respect, mutual concern, and mutual tolerance. The United States liberated black slaves. South Africa abolished Apartheid. Many nations elevated women's status. The international community imposed sanctions against race wars. These trends were inevitable. In other words, given humanist concepts of mutual respect and mutual concern, social evolution was already tending toward ethnic equality.
We now have a clearer understanding of when a nation should use political or legal means to intervene in social evolution. Unless a nation's culture makes it naturally resistant to equality, unless the move toward equality is so sluggish that disadvantaged groups are unlikely to receive equal treatment in the foreseeable future, the government should refrain from intervention. It should refrain from forcibly imposing an "Ethnic Equality Act" on the public. The United States' affirmative action laws and South Africa's racial equality laws or domestic gender equality laws are examples. Legislators should first take note of a nation's speed of evolution. Only then are they justified in using political force to provide an extra push. Philosophers in the United States who favored equal rights laws pushed for an equal rights law only because long-oppressed black people found it difficult to improve their social status in the short term. They promoted equal rights laws only to prevent the adverse socio-economic environment of earlier generations handicapping the development of later generations.
But let's return to Taiwan. We see no need for such legislation. Taiwan's so-called "native" and "mainlander" groups are hardly comparable to blacks and whites in the US, with their highly visible genetic differences. One can hardly distinguish who's who with the naked eye. Marriages between "natives" and "mainlanders" is widespread. Decades later, unless one digs out the family tree, one has no way to determine one's ethnic background. Not only is provincial origin difficult to determine, it is even increasingly difficult to distinguish between Han Chinese and Aborigines. Moreover, Taiwan's educational standards are high. The public is cultured. People seldom encounter ethnic antagonism or discrimination in their daily exchanges. Kuo Kuan-ying is a rare case, and constitutes only a minute part of Taiwan's cultural evolution. He has no affect on the overall trend toward social harmony and equality. To pass a law with great fanfare in response to something that has no impact on the overall situation is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It may create ethnic stereotypes where none existed.
The real lesson to be learned from Kuo Kuan-ying's inappropriate remarks, is to seek improvement. The crux of the problem is politicians, not laws. These problems arise within the halls of parliament and at political rallies, rather than amidst civil society. These problems are incited by extremist talking heads, not by ordinary people in daily life. In short, almost all ethnic frictions are incited by a tiny minority of extremists with political axes to grind. Over the past decade, such terms as "Chinese Pigs," and remarks as "We reserve the right to rape Chinese women" have emerged, along with Kuo Kuan-ying's "tai ba zi" and "dai wan." Behind all of these are reunification vs. independence political agendas. A tiny minority have falsely equated ethnicity with advocacy of reunification or independence. The source of ethnic frictions on Taiwan today is the result of narrowly defining ethnicity in order to attack another's ' political stance.
Given the rapid integration of ethnic groups on Taiwan, and the social harmony that prevails within civil society, any troubles have been stirred up by a tiny minority of politicians. Why pass laws to constrain speech relating to ethnicity? If one really wishes to constrain such speech, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee should constrain demagogues in parliament. If these disgusting individuals cease their demagoguery, ethnic equality will naturally prevail. Do we really expect these demagogues to enact an "Anti-Ethnic Demagoguery Law?" Spare us.
中國時報 2009.03.26
社論－族群本無事 立法惹塵埃
本報訊
針對郭冠英的不當言論，行政院新聞局在兩天前做出免職的處分，而馬總統與行政院劉院長也在日前跳上火線，做進一步的消毒。馬總統的發言基本上是感性面的，以「大家都是一家人，彼此本應包容關愛」的基調，去柔性訴求族群和諧。而劉院長則提出催生「族群平等法」的看法，希望以法律的規範去進一步促成族群平等。
族群平等法草案在五年前已有立委提出，先後累積了四至五個不同的版本，其立法目的都是要對仇恨或歧視族群的言論予以處罰，但是五年來皆未完成立法。昨天，由最高行政首長再提族群平等立法之議，我們認為值得對此表達嚴肅的看法。我們的論點是：族群問題可以關心，但千萬不要倉卒立法規範。行政首長在發言之前，也該謹慎地做些功課。
首先，要談族群融合，就必須要具備些文化人類學的基本概念，而要促成族群平等，也要先理解相關的政治哲學理念。人類文明本來就是一動態演進的歷程，雖然各國各地發展的軌跡不一，但中世紀以來隨著人本理念的擴展，人類社會總是逐漸從弱肉強食、凌弱暴寡的生物競逐，慢慢往禮樂教化、尊重關懷、多元包容的方向發展。在這樣的文化演進大潮流之下，美國黑奴的解放、南非種族隔離的廢除、各地女性地位的提升、國際社會對種族戰事的制裁，都是必然的趨勢。換言之，在尊重與關注的人本理念下，族群之間原本就有「趨向平等」的文化演進趨勢。
有了這樣的了解，我們就能清楚掌握國家是否應該以政治或法律手段介入社會演進，去強行推動「族群平等法」。大體而言，除非社會文化自然趨向族群平等的速度極為緩慢，使得社會上的弱勢族群難以在可見未來得到平等的待遇，否則國家都不該以立法手段介入。以美國的平權法案(affirmative action)、南非的種族平等法案或國內有關兩性平權的法案為例，立法者一定要先看到平等文化演變的滯慢，才有理由以政治力強推一把。事實上，美國諸多贊成平權法案的哲學家更明白指出，正因為在短期內黑人久經壓抑的社會地位難以改變，為免前一代不利的社經環境繼續影響下一代的發展，才會去推動平權法案。
但是回過頭來看看台灣的情況，我們委實看不出有強制立法的必要性。台灣的所謂「本省」與「外省」族群並沒有如黑人、白人間的基因外顯特質，因此根本難以用肉眼區辨誰是哪一族群之人。此外，台灣不同省籍之間通婚普遍，數十年下來除非強翻族譜，否則也無從判斷族群背景，不但省籍難辨，連漢人與原住民之間都漸難區分。再者，台灣的教育水準高、民風淳厚，民間交往也鮮聞族群對立或歧視。因此，像郭冠英這樣的特例，頂多只是台灣文化演進的極少數，完全不影響社會整體的和諧平等走向。若要以不影響大局的特例去大張旗鼓制定一個法，我們認為實在沒有必要，反而可能把原本模糊的族群標記刻板化。
如果真要從郭冠英的不當言論中得到教訓、尋求改進，恐怕癥結在於政治人物、而非法律條文；在國會殿堂與競選活動、而非民間社會；在那些唯恐天下不亂的偏頗媒體名嘴、而非台灣人民之間的日常對話。簡言之，幾乎所有的族群摩擦都來自少數人的政治症候群。過去十年間，台灣社會出現「中國豬」、「保留強姦中國婦女的權利」的謬言，也出現此次郭冠英的「台巴子」、「歹丸」荒腔，其背後都有或統或獨的政治牽連。少數人主觀上將族群背景與統獨立場結合，就以族群偏狹的字句攻擊政治立場之異己；這正是今日台灣族群摩擦的源頭。
既然台灣族群之間融合迅速、民間社會和諧，只有極少數政治人物性喜興風作浪，那麼哪有必要治絲益棼，對族群言論另行立法呢？如果真要約束言論，那麼最該做約束的就是立法院紀律委員會。只要那些討厭的政治人物少造些口業，台灣社會的族群就自然平等。若要由這些造口業的政治人物制定一部「族群口業禁制法」，省省吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009
Two days ago the Government Information Office fired Kuo Kuan-ying for making inappropriate remarks. President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-hsuan rushed to quench any fires. President Ma's remarks were basically feeling oriented. He said "We are all one people. We should accommodate and care for each other." He made a low-keyed appeal for ethnic harmony. Premier Liu, on the other hand, proposed the passage of an "Ethnic Equality Act." He wanted a law promoting ethnic equality. [Translator's Note: On today's Taiwan "ethnic" and "ethnicity" are misleading terms that actually refer to provincial origin.]
Five years ago a number of legislators proposed ethnic equality draft laws. Four or five different versions were put forth. The laws would punish speech the incitement of ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination. Five years later, none of them have become law. Yesterday, the head of the Executive Yuan again proposed the passage of legislation promoting ethnic equality. We contend that we must be concerned about ethnic issues, but that we must do not rush to pass laws. Before speaking, the Premier should also be careful and do some homework.
First of all, if we want to discuss ethnic harmony, we must first understand a few concepts from cultural anthropology. And if we want to promote ethnic equality, we must first appreciate the relevance of political philosophy. Human civilization is dynamic, and is undergoing evolution. Although each nation's development varies, humanism has been ascendant ever since the Middle Ages. Human society has steadily moved away from the Law of the Jungle, in which the strong bully the weak, and to the victor belong the spoils. It has steadily moved towards civilization, toward mutual respect, mutual concern, and mutual tolerance. The United States liberated black slaves. South Africa abolished Apartheid. Many nations elevated women's status. The international community imposed sanctions against race wars. These trends were inevitable. In other words, given humanist concepts of mutual respect and mutual concern, social evolution was already tending toward ethnic equality.
We now have a clearer understanding of when a nation should use political or legal means to intervene in social evolution. Unless a nation's culture makes it naturally resistant to equality, unless the move toward equality is so sluggish that disadvantaged groups are unlikely to receive equal treatment in the foreseeable future, the government should refrain from intervention. It should refrain from forcibly imposing an "Ethnic Equality Act" on the public. The United States' affirmative action laws and South Africa's racial equality laws or domestic gender equality laws are examples. Legislators should first take note of a nation's speed of evolution. Only then are they justified in using political force to provide an extra push. Philosophers in the United States who favored equal rights laws pushed for an equal rights law only because long-oppressed black people found it difficult to improve their social status in the short term. They promoted equal rights laws only to prevent the adverse socio-economic environment of earlier generations handicapping the development of later generations.
But let's return to Taiwan. We see no need for such legislation. Taiwan's so-called "native" and "mainlander" groups are hardly comparable to blacks and whites in the US, with their highly visible genetic differences. One can hardly distinguish who's who with the naked eye. Marriages between "natives" and "mainlanders" is widespread. Decades later, unless one digs out the family tree, one has no way to determine one's ethnic background. Not only is provincial origin difficult to determine, it is even increasingly difficult to distinguish between Han Chinese and Aborigines. Moreover, Taiwan's educational standards are high. The public is cultured. People seldom encounter ethnic antagonism or discrimination in their daily exchanges. Kuo Kuan-ying is a rare case, and constitutes only a minute part of Taiwan's cultural evolution. He has no affect on the overall trend toward social harmony and equality. To pass a law with great fanfare in response to something that has no impact on the overall situation is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It may create ethnic stereotypes where none existed.
The real lesson to be learned from Kuo Kuan-ying's inappropriate remarks, is to seek improvement. The crux of the problem is politicians, not laws. These problems arise within the halls of parliament and at political rallies, rather than amidst civil society. These problems are incited by extremist talking heads, not by ordinary people in daily life. In short, almost all ethnic frictions are incited by a tiny minority of extremists with political axes to grind. Over the past decade, such terms as "Chinese Pigs," and remarks as "We reserve the right to rape Chinese women" have emerged, along with Kuo Kuan-ying's "tai ba zi" and "dai wan." Behind all of these are reunification vs. independence political agendas. A tiny minority have falsely equated ethnicity with advocacy of reunification or independence. The source of ethnic frictions on Taiwan today is the result of narrowly defining ethnicity in order to attack another's ' political stance.
Given the rapid integration of ethnic groups on Taiwan, and the social harmony that prevails within civil society, any troubles have been stirred up by a tiny minority of politicians. Why pass laws to constrain speech relating to ethnicity? If one really wishes to constrain such speech, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee should constrain demagogues in parliament. If these disgusting individuals cease their demagoguery, ethnic equality will naturally prevail. Do we really expect these demagogues to enact an "Anti-Ethnic Demagoguery Law?" Spare us.
中國時報 2009.03.26
社論－族群本無事 立法惹塵埃
本報訊
針對郭冠英的不當言論，行政院新聞局在兩天前做出免職的處分，而馬總統與行政院劉院長也在日前跳上火線，做進一步的消毒。馬總統的發言基本上是感性面的，以「大家都是一家人，彼此本應包容關愛」的基調，去柔性訴求族群和諧。而劉院長則提出催生「族群平等法」的看法，希望以法律的規範去進一步促成族群平等。
族群平等法草案在五年前已有立委提出，先後累積了四至五個不同的版本，其立法目的都是要對仇恨或歧視族群的言論予以處罰，但是五年來皆未完成立法。昨天，由最高行政首長再提族群平等立法之議，我們認為值得對此表達嚴肅的看法。我們的論點是：族群問題可以關心，但千萬不要倉卒立法規範。行政首長在發言之前，也該謹慎地做些功課。
首先，要談族群融合，就必須要具備些文化人類學的基本概念，而要促成族群平等，也要先理解相關的政治哲學理念。人類文明本來就是一動態演進的歷程，雖然各國各地發展的軌跡不一，但中世紀以來隨著人本理念的擴展，人類社會總是逐漸從弱肉強食、凌弱暴寡的生物競逐，慢慢往禮樂教化、尊重關懷、多元包容的方向發展。在這樣的文化演進大潮流之下，美國黑奴的解放、南非種族隔離的廢除、各地女性地位的提升、國際社會對種族戰事的制裁，都是必然的趨勢。換言之，在尊重與關注的人本理念下，族群之間原本就有「趨向平等」的文化演進趨勢。
有了這樣的了解，我們就能清楚掌握國家是否應該以政治或法律手段介入社會演進，去強行推動「族群平等法」。大體而言，除非社會文化自然趨向族群平等的速度極為緩慢，使得社會上的弱勢族群難以在可見未來得到平等的待遇，否則國家都不該以立法手段介入。以美國的平權法案(affirmative action)、南非的種族平等法案或國內有關兩性平權的法案為例，立法者一定要先看到平等文化演變的滯慢，才有理由以政治力強推一把。事實上，美國諸多贊成平權法案的哲學家更明白指出，正因為在短期內黑人久經壓抑的社會地位難以改變，為免前一代不利的社經環境繼續影響下一代的發展，才會去推動平權法案。
但是回過頭來看看台灣的情況，我們委實看不出有強制立法的必要性。台灣的所謂「本省」與「外省」族群並沒有如黑人、白人間的基因外顯特質，因此根本難以用肉眼區辨誰是哪一族群之人。此外，台灣不同省籍之間通婚普遍，數十年下來除非強翻族譜，否則也無從判斷族群背景，不但省籍難辨，連漢人與原住民之間都漸難區分。再者，台灣的教育水準高、民風淳厚，民間交往也鮮聞族群對立或歧視。因此，像郭冠英這樣的特例，頂多只是台灣文化演進的極少數，完全不影響社會整體的和諧平等走向。若要以不影響大局的特例去大張旗鼓制定一個法，我們認為實在沒有必要，反而可能把原本模糊的族群標記刻板化。
如果真要從郭冠英的不當言論中得到教訓、尋求改進，恐怕癥結在於政治人物、而非法律條文；在國會殿堂與競選活動、而非民間社會；在那些唯恐天下不亂的偏頗媒體名嘴、而非台灣人民之間的日常對話。簡言之，幾乎所有的族群摩擦都來自少數人的政治症候群。過去十年間，台灣社會出現「中國豬」、「保留強姦中國婦女的權利」的謬言，也出現此次郭冠英的「台巴子」、「歹丸」荒腔，其背後都有或統或獨的政治牽連。少數人主觀上將族群背景與統獨立場結合，就以族群偏狹的字句攻擊政治立場之異己；這正是今日台灣族群摩擦的源頭。
既然台灣族群之間融合迅速、民間社會和諧，只有極少數政治人物性喜興風作浪，那麼哪有必要治絲益棼，對族群言論另行立法呢？如果真要約束言論，那麼最該做約束的就是立法院紀律委員會。只要那些討厭的政治人物少造些口業，台灣社會的族群就自然平等。若要由這些造口業的政治人物制定一部「族群口業禁制法」，省省吧！
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act
Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009
The "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act" has remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan for a full year. Now suddenly, we hear it has been scheduled for consideration tomorrow. But whether it will actually become law remains uncertain.
Responsibility for failure to pass this law is rests with the KMT. The KMT is the largest party in the Legislature. It commands a supermajority. It is the ruling party. A simple law which ought to have been passed, hasn't been passed. If the responsibility is not the KMT's, whose is it?
Fine. If the KMT doesn't want it to pass, so be it. But the year-end County and Municipal Elections are coming up. The electorate has ways of dealing with the KMT. Think about it. If centrist voters amounting to 10% of the electorate support the KMT's opponents instead of the KMT, or stay away from the polls, they could conceivably cause the KMT to lose in every county and every municipality.
If the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act is not passed, we intend to remind the public to use their ballots to demand its passage come election day.
The Chen corruption and money-laundering case is a living example. Sacks of cash were piled high all over the Presidential Mansion. Yet the Chen family passes it off as "campaign contributions." The Chen family picks a few names out of hundreds or even thousands of wealthy contributors, and creates its "Great Reservoir." The Special Investigation Unit then subpoenas these alleged contributors one by one. Some of them admit having contributed money. But the vast majority deny having contributed money. Some of those who denied contributing money may have lied, But some may have contributed money to the Democratic Progressive Party, only to have it pocketed by the Chen family. Some may have been falsely accused by the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit should send questionnaires to both parties, asking them to answer according to their consciences. As long as the Chen family refuses to spit out the truth, as long as those who contributed funds refuse to admit doing so, existing laws are powerless against both. Without the sanctions provided by a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," how can one possibly ensure justice?
Forget big fish like the Chen family. Even the likes of Lin Wen-yuan could buy five luxury condominiums in a single breath. Lin's payments were nearly 2 million dollars a month. When asked about the source of his financing, all he said was, "I financed it myself." This apparently marked the end of the interrogation. Is this the Ma administration's position on the law? Is this the KMT's notion of criminal justice?
In fact, the draft law under consideration by the Legislative Yuan is toothless compared to the law in other regions. In Hong Kong for example, as long as a public official's "lifestyle is inconsistent with his income" he risks conviction. Twelve years ago the Chinese mainland passed its "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." Recently, the National People's Congress (NPC) increased the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Moreover, the draft law provisions currently in the Legislature would apply only in the event of suspected corruption. What excuse is there for not passing such a modest law? In the absence of a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," dark clouds will continue shroud the peaks. In which case, why bother talking about "Sunshine Laws"?
Such laws touch upon issues of presumption of innocence and self-incrimination. But this law applies only to powerful public officials. Besides, existing asset declaration laws and campaign contribution laws already provide public officials with the means to establish their innocence. Aren't such crime-fighting mechanisms also a means of protecting oneself by establishing one's innocence? Today's society persecutes the virtuous and kowtows to the corrupt. Public officials suspected of corruption must account for their unexplained wealth. Costs should be weighed against the benefits. If laws are not passed today, tomorrow we will be confronted with more of the likes of Chen Shui-bian and Lin Wen-yuan.
The laws must include certain provisions. Campaign contribution laws must be updated. Running political parties and waging political campaigns are expensive propositions. Current limits on campaign contributions are so low as to be unrealistic. The limits should be substantially increased. We may wish to reduce the limits on contributions to individuals, while increasing the limits on contributions to political parties, Under certain circumstances we could allow political parties to collect a percentage from individual party members. This would support political parties while suppressing individual candidates. It would prevent cheating, and ensure fairness. We might even consider legal standards for the management of party assets. Having political parties operate openly would help prevent such abnormal phenomenon such as Chen Shu-bian becoming the biggest party operated corrupt enterprise.
In short, campaign contribution laws should be changed. Instead of strict limits with lax enforcement and punishment, we need generous limits with strict enforcement and punishment. Any violations would be subject to heavy penalties. The situation must not be allowed to degenerate into what we have today: contributors who deny having contributed, and recipients who cannot prove having received. A Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act would make such a farce impossible. By the same token, large and illegal campaign contributions would be punished according to a "Unaccounted For Large Contributions Act."
The KMT may demonstrate indifference to calls for a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." But election day is here. Has it already forgotten the lesson of Miaoli?
用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.25 05:53 am
貪汙治罪條例增訂「公務員財產來源不明罪」，在立法院擱淺將屆一整年；據聞明天又將排定審議，但能否就此順利完成立法，仍在未定之天。
這筆帳必須算在國民黨頭上。國民黨是據有絕對多數的國會最大黨，又是執政黨；區區一個法條，該過而不過，這筆帳不找國民黨算該找誰？
沒關係，國民黨愛過不過隨便你。但隨著年底縣市長選舉接近，選民不是沒有對付國民黨的辦法。想像中，只要約有百分之十的中間選民，能因「財產來源不明罪」未立法，而從傾向支持國民黨改成支持其對手，或棄權不投票，這些中間選民一來一回，即可能教國民黨在任何縣市輸掉選舉！
倘若國民黨此番在立院再不完成立法程序，我們會為國人記得此事，將在選季開始後不斷用力提醒大家，用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」！
扁案是個活生生血淋淋的猙獰樣板。現金堆得「全厝間」，卻諉稱皆是「政治獻金」，然後再信手從可能上百逾千的金主中選擇性地交代幾個名字，來構築其「大水庫」……。特偵組於是就扁家拋出的名單一一傳訊，其中有些人承認，卻竟然絕大多數否認；否認者中有些可能說謊，卻也可能有捐給民進黨而被扁家私吞者，甚至不排除其中亦有被扁家誣指混充者。但是，特偵組所能做的，不啻猶如送一份調查問卷請兩造各憑良心打鉤鉤，只要扁家不吐實，送錢的不承認，依現行法律就對授受巨金的雙方無可奈何。如果不用「財產來源不明罪」制裁此類個案，正義寧論，公道何在？
不說扁家這個大咖，以林文淵的角色居然也能一口氣買下五棟豪宅，每月支付近二百萬元工程款；被問及資金來源，他只答覆一句「自行籌措」，好像就將問答畫下了最後句點。這是馬政府的法律觀點嗎？這是國民黨的社會正義嗎？
其實，立院正在審議的草案，較諸他國已甚保留。以香港為例，只要公務員的「收入與生活顯不相稱」，即可問罪；而中國大陸在十二年前即有「財產來源不明罪」，最近全國人大又將最高刑期從五年提高至十年。何況，立院的草案規定只在涉及貪汙罪嫌時，始可追究財產來源。如此謹慎保守的法條，還有什麼理由不立法？而若無「財產來源不明罪」，烏雲罩頂，還談什麼「陽光法案」？
當然，此法涉及「無罪推定」及「不自證有罪或無罪」等法理爭議。但畢竟本法是用於「特別權利關係」的公職人員，何況國家原即設有財產申報及政治獻金等法制，已提供公職人員自表清白、自我保護及阻卻犯罪的機制（豈不亦有自證無罪的用意？）。在肅貪倡廉的社會法益下，命涉及貪汙罪嫌的公職人員交代其不明財產的來源，在此時此地，應是符合比較利益與比例原則的。今天不立法，明天仍將有層出迭見的「陳水扁們」和「林文淵們」！
不過，在此也要提醒須完成配套措施，比如政治獻金法等亦應翻修。政黨及選舉運作皆是花大錢的事務，現在法定的獻金額度全然低得不切實際，應當大幅放寬限額；放寬限額後，且不妨相對縮限對個人的捐獻，提高對政黨的捐獻，且可在一定條件下規定政黨可對個別黨員所收獻金抽成。養政黨，抑個人；可以防弊，亦符公道。此外，甚至可考慮立法規範政黨經營「黨產」，公開正當操作，庶免形成陳水扁一人成為最大「黨營貪腐事業」的畸形異象。
總之，如政治獻金法等，應當從現在的「限制嚴，執法及懲罰輕」，改變成「限制寬，執法及懲罰重」；也就是對授受雙方皆要鬆綁，但違法即予重罰，絕不能鬧成如今這般收者說有、送者卻不敢認的荒唐景象。倘送者不認，收者又不能證實，那就涉嫌「財產來源不明罪」；同理，倘若出現違法巨量獻金，何妨亦以「違法巨量獻金動機不明罪」論處。
國民黨，你儘管無動於衷把「財產來源不明罪」擱著吧。選舉到了，苗栗的教訓你還記得嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009
The "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act" has remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan for a full year. Now suddenly, we hear it has been scheduled for consideration tomorrow. But whether it will actually become law remains uncertain.
Responsibility for failure to pass this law is rests with the KMT. The KMT is the largest party in the Legislature. It commands a supermajority. It is the ruling party. A simple law which ought to have been passed, hasn't been passed. If the responsibility is not the KMT's, whose is it?
Fine. If the KMT doesn't want it to pass, so be it. But the year-end County and Municipal Elections are coming up. The electorate has ways of dealing with the KMT. Think about it. If centrist voters amounting to 10% of the electorate support the KMT's opponents instead of the KMT, or stay away from the polls, they could conceivably cause the KMT to lose in every county and every municipality.
If the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act is not passed, we intend to remind the public to use their ballots to demand its passage come election day.
The Chen corruption and money-laundering case is a living example. Sacks of cash were piled high all over the Presidential Mansion. Yet the Chen family passes it off as "campaign contributions." The Chen family picks a few names out of hundreds or even thousands of wealthy contributors, and creates its "Great Reservoir." The Special Investigation Unit then subpoenas these alleged contributors one by one. Some of them admit having contributed money. But the vast majority deny having contributed money. Some of those who denied contributing money may have lied, But some may have contributed money to the Democratic Progressive Party, only to have it pocketed by the Chen family. Some may have been falsely accused by the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit should send questionnaires to both parties, asking them to answer according to their consciences. As long as the Chen family refuses to spit out the truth, as long as those who contributed funds refuse to admit doing so, existing laws are powerless against both. Without the sanctions provided by a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," how can one possibly ensure justice?
Forget big fish like the Chen family. Even the likes of Lin Wen-yuan could buy five luxury condominiums in a single breath. Lin's payments were nearly 2 million dollars a month. When asked about the source of his financing, all he said was, "I financed it myself." This apparently marked the end of the interrogation. Is this the Ma administration's position on the law? Is this the KMT's notion of criminal justice?
In fact, the draft law under consideration by the Legislative Yuan is toothless compared to the law in other regions. In Hong Kong for example, as long as a public official's "lifestyle is inconsistent with his income" he risks conviction. Twelve years ago the Chinese mainland passed its "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." Recently, the National People's Congress (NPC) increased the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Moreover, the draft law provisions currently in the Legislature would apply only in the event of suspected corruption. What excuse is there for not passing such a modest law? In the absence of a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," dark clouds will continue shroud the peaks. In which case, why bother talking about "Sunshine Laws"?
Such laws touch upon issues of presumption of innocence and self-incrimination. But this law applies only to powerful public officials. Besides, existing asset declaration laws and campaign contribution laws already provide public officials with the means to establish their innocence. Aren't such crime-fighting mechanisms also a means of protecting oneself by establishing one's innocence? Today's society persecutes the virtuous and kowtows to the corrupt. Public officials suspected of corruption must account for their unexplained wealth. Costs should be weighed against the benefits. If laws are not passed today, tomorrow we will be confronted with more of the likes of Chen Shui-bian and Lin Wen-yuan.
The laws must include certain provisions. Campaign contribution laws must be updated. Running political parties and waging political campaigns are expensive propositions. Current limits on campaign contributions are so low as to be unrealistic. The limits should be substantially increased. We may wish to reduce the limits on contributions to individuals, while increasing the limits on contributions to political parties, Under certain circumstances we could allow political parties to collect a percentage from individual party members. This would support political parties while suppressing individual candidates. It would prevent cheating, and ensure fairness. We might even consider legal standards for the management of party assets. Having political parties operate openly would help prevent such abnormal phenomenon such as Chen Shu-bian becoming the biggest party operated corrupt enterprise.
In short, campaign contribution laws should be changed. Instead of strict limits with lax enforcement and punishment, we need generous limits with strict enforcement and punishment. Any violations would be subject to heavy penalties. The situation must not be allowed to degenerate into what we have today: contributors who deny having contributed, and recipients who cannot prove having received. A Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act would make such a farce impossible. By the same token, large and illegal campaign contributions would be punished according to a "Unaccounted For Large Contributions Act."
The KMT may demonstrate indifference to calls for a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." But election day is here. Has it already forgotten the lesson of Miaoli?
用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.25 05:53 am
貪汙治罪條例增訂「公務員財產來源不明罪」，在立法院擱淺將屆一整年；據聞明天又將排定審議，但能否就此順利完成立法，仍在未定之天。
這筆帳必須算在國民黨頭上。國民黨是據有絕對多數的國會最大黨，又是執政黨；區區一個法條，該過而不過，這筆帳不找國民黨算該找誰？
沒關係，國民黨愛過不過隨便你。但隨著年底縣市長選舉接近，選民不是沒有對付國民黨的辦法。想像中，只要約有百分之十的中間選民，能因「財產來源不明罪」未立法，而從傾向支持國民黨改成支持其對手，或棄權不投票，這些中間選民一來一回，即可能教國民黨在任何縣市輸掉選舉！
倘若國民黨此番在立院再不完成立法程序，我們會為國人記得此事，將在選季開始後不斷用力提醒大家，用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」！
扁案是個活生生血淋淋的猙獰樣板。現金堆得「全厝間」，卻諉稱皆是「政治獻金」，然後再信手從可能上百逾千的金主中選擇性地交代幾個名字，來構築其「大水庫」……。特偵組於是就扁家拋出的名單一一傳訊，其中有些人承認，卻竟然絕大多數否認；否認者中有些可能說謊，卻也可能有捐給民進黨而被扁家私吞者，甚至不排除其中亦有被扁家誣指混充者。但是，特偵組所能做的，不啻猶如送一份調查問卷請兩造各憑良心打鉤鉤，只要扁家不吐實，送錢的不承認，依現行法律就對授受巨金的雙方無可奈何。如果不用「財產來源不明罪」制裁此類個案，正義寧論，公道何在？
不說扁家這個大咖，以林文淵的角色居然也能一口氣買下五棟豪宅，每月支付近二百萬元工程款；被問及資金來源，他只答覆一句「自行籌措」，好像就將問答畫下了最後句點。這是馬政府的法律觀點嗎？這是國民黨的社會正義嗎？
其實，立院正在審議的草案，較諸他國已甚保留。以香港為例，只要公務員的「收入與生活顯不相稱」，即可問罪；而中國大陸在十二年前即有「財產來源不明罪」，最近全國人大又將最高刑期從五年提高至十年。何況，立院的草案規定只在涉及貪汙罪嫌時，始可追究財產來源。如此謹慎保守的法條，還有什麼理由不立法？而若無「財產來源不明罪」，烏雲罩頂，還談什麼「陽光法案」？
當然，此法涉及「無罪推定」及「不自證有罪或無罪」等法理爭議。但畢竟本法是用於「特別權利關係」的公職人員，何況國家原即設有財產申報及政治獻金等法制，已提供公職人員自表清白、自我保護及阻卻犯罪的機制（豈不亦有自證無罪的用意？）。在肅貪倡廉的社會法益下，命涉及貪汙罪嫌的公職人員交代其不明財產的來源，在此時此地，應是符合比較利益與比例原則的。今天不立法，明天仍將有層出迭見的「陳水扁們」和「林文淵們」！
不過，在此也要提醒須完成配套措施，比如政治獻金法等亦應翻修。政黨及選舉運作皆是花大錢的事務，現在法定的獻金額度全然低得不切實際，應當大幅放寬限額；放寬限額後，且不妨相對縮限對個人的捐獻，提高對政黨的捐獻，且可在一定條件下規定政黨可對個別黨員所收獻金抽成。養政黨，抑個人；可以防弊，亦符公道。此外，甚至可考慮立法規範政黨經營「黨產」，公開正當操作，庶免形成陳水扁一人成為最大「黨營貪腐事業」的畸形異象。
總之，如政治獻金法等，應當從現在的「限制嚴，執法及懲罰輕」，改變成「限制寬，執法及懲罰重」；也就是對授受雙方皆要鬆綁，但違法即予重罰，絕不能鬧成如今這般收者說有、送者卻不敢認的荒唐景象。倘送者不認，收者又不能證實，那就涉嫌「財產來源不明罪」；同理，倘若出現違法巨量獻金，何妨亦以「違法巨量獻金動機不明罪」論處。
國民黨，你儘管無動於衷把「財產來源不明罪」擱著吧。選舉到了，苗栗的教訓你還記得嗎？
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian
Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2009
If someone were to tell you that Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui, and Chen Shui-bian have a lot in common, would you believe it?
First let's look at Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui. Fan Lan Ching wrote an article dealing with 2/28, in which he argued on behalf of Chen Yi. He wrote, "Chen Yi was an upright official who cared for the people." Lin Cho-shui, in his new book, "The Theater of History" wrote, "Chen Yi has long been the designated villain. Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian, and brutal, all rolled into one. Most people think he is the chief culprit behind the 2/28 Incident. But this is not Chen Yi's true face. I found myself unable to go along with this view of him, and was surprised to find that Chen Yi and his administration were good officials seldom found in Chinese politics." Lin Cho-shui agreed that "Chen Yi was extremely honest and never violated the law.'
Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui have different views on the overall significance of the 2/28 Incident of course. But the two men actually share many views about Chen Yi. Not every view, but some of the most important views. Lin Cho-shui said that after intensive reading and interviewing many respected elders, he was surprised to learn this. Fan Lan Ching probably knew all this. Lin Cho-shui and Fan Lan Ching, a.k.a. Kuo Kuan-ying, are about the same age. Both have conducted in-depth investigations of Taiwan's politics and history. Yet both have arrived at the same conclusion about Chen Yi. Is that not surprising?
A proper evaluation of Chen Yi's place in history is difficult. But how one perceives Chen Yi and 2/28 need not bear any relationship to whether one advocates Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence rhetoric distorts the meaning of 2/28 in order to justify independence. In order to distort the meaning of 2/28, Taiwan independence advocates attribute all manner of evil to Chen Yi. Lin Cho-shui wants to reverse this distorted assessment of Chen Yi. He wants to correct Taiwan independence advocates' perception of 2/28. He says "2/28 was a predestined historical tragedy." This is Fan Lan Ching/Kuo Kuan-ying's view as well. He too considers 2/28 an "historically predetermined tragedy," a legacy of the Opium War and the KMT vs. CCP Civil War.
Lin Cho-shui is the "Master Theoretician of the Taiwan independence Movement." Yet decades later, he has made these surprising discoveries about Chen Yi. Alas, the Taiwan independence movement long ago decided to make Chen Yi the designated villain. It has used 2/28 as an excuse to divide society and the nation. Fan Lan Ching's thinking is different because he has a different understanding of history. He does not think Chen Yi was so villainous. He does not think hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of people died during the incident. Fan made note of 800 mainlanders and 1000 Taiwanese killed or wounded. He also disagrees with the Taiwan independence movement's spin on 2/28. Differing perceptions about the truth of 2/28 hardly end with Chen Yi.
Even more surprising is the fact that Chen Shui-bian shares many of the same views as Fan Lan Ching. Fan Lan Ching says the "Republic of China" is merely "Chinese territory occupied by the US." He says "Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province. It has no existence. It is not a province, because the provincial government has been dissolved. Still less is it a nation. It is a mere apparition." On the one hand, such arguments constitute opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, they sing the same tune as Taiwan independence. They too repudiate the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian denies that Taiwan is part of China. But he agrees with Fan Lan Ching when he says "What the hell is the Republic of China anyway?" and "The Republic of China is dead!" Their language is nearly identical. So why has Fan Lan Ching been removed from office, while Chen Shui-bian still enjoys the privileges of a former President?
Fan Lan Ching's views regarding 2/28 have been characterized as "insults to Taiwan." But if so, what are we to make of Lin Cho-shui's nearly identical views? Furthermore, if we can change our view of Chen Yi, why can't we change our view of 2/28? Why can't we perceive 2/28 in the same light as Lin Cho-shui, as a "predestined historical tragedy?" If we make the 2/28 Incident a hostage to Taiwan independence mythology, we will never learn the truth about 2/28, and Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching will dog us forever.
For mid-level civil servant Kuo Kuan-ying to discuss state affairs in such terms under a pen name is indeed questionable. But it hardly compares with President Chen Shui-bian open declaration that "The Republic of China is dead!" Chen makes Fan look like a piker. Tit for tat. You want to destroy the Republic of China, and I will show no mercy towards Taiwan. Emotions run higher and higher. The language becomes more and more outrageous. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching are two mutually destructive extremes.
Fortunately, Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching constitute a tiny minority. Apart from the likes of Kuan Bi-ling, few people want to use the Fan Lan Ching incident as an excuse to take sides.
Most people hope that Taiwan and the Republic of China can coexist.
范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的略同所見
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.24 04:47 am
若說范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的見解有相同之處，你信不信？
先說范蘭欽與林濁水。范蘭欽有一篇文章論及二二八，為陳儀伸冤。他寫道：「實在陳儀是愛民清官。」林濁水則在他的新著《歷史劇場》中說：「陳儀在社會通論中長期以來也成為箭垛人物（即箭靶），集貪腐、無能、專制、殘暴於一身，一般人認為他是二二八的罪魁禍首……。但這不是陳儀的本來面目。……我發現我不能同意前述通論，並遽然心驚地發現陳儀和他的團隊在中國政界是不容易找到的好官。」林濁水並同意「陳儀本人非常清廉，絕不枉法」的說法。
范蘭欽與林濁水各自腦海中的「二二八全圖」當然不同。但二人對陳儀的「部分評價」竟然如此相同（不是全部，卻是最重要的部分），仍可令人驚異不置。林濁水說，他是在「傾力閱讀」並訪問耆宿後，始「遽然心驚」地有此發現；但是，對於范蘭欽而言，這或許卻是他早已建立的認知。林濁水與筆名范蘭欽的郭冠英年歲學歷相若，且皆對台灣政治及歷史探掘極深，但二人竟然會遲至今天始對陳儀出現相似的評價，豈能不令人也「遽然心驚」？
陳儀的歷史評價是一個難題。但陳儀的評價如何，與二二八的定論如何，或與應否主張台獨，其實並無必然關係；然而，如今的台獨論調，卻因為要主張台獨所以扭曲二二八，又因為要扭曲二二八所以將萬惡歸於陳儀。林濁水現在想從扭轉對陳儀的評價，來修正台獨人士對二二八的認知，並主張「二二八是一個歷史命定的悲劇」；這卻是「范蘭欽」郭冠英的一貫主張，亦即他也認為二二八是自鴉片戰爭至國共內戰的「歷史命定的悲劇」。
林濁水號稱是「台獨理論大師」，卻在數十年後始對陳儀有「遽然心驚的發現」；但台獨論述卻早已將陳儀定位鎖死當作箭靶，亦將二二八操作成撕裂族群、分裂國家的台獨圖騰；相對而言，「范蘭欽式思維」則可能因為有不同的史識史觀，例如不認為陳儀是那般不堪，亦不認為事件中有台獨所稱數十萬或數萬台灣人死難（范指外省人死傷八百，本省人死傷千餘人），而對台獨的二二八論述不能同意。何況，台灣社會對二二八「本來面目」的認知差異，又豈僅只在對陳儀的評價不同而已？
更令人「遽然心驚」的是，范蘭欽與陳水扁也有所見略同之處。范蘭欽指「中華民國」只是「靠美國占領了中國的一角」；他且說：「台灣只是中國叛離的一個省……其實根本沒有這個東西，她不是省，自廢了，更不是國，只是一個鬼島。」這樣的論調，一方面是反台獨的；但另一方面卻不啻與台獨同調，亦即也否定中華民國。陳水扁的台獨論述一直糾纏於「台灣是中國的一部分」，與「范蘭欽」同；更指「中華民國是什麼碗糕」、「中華民國已經滅亡」，這豈不也是「范蘭欽」的口吻？然而，范蘭欽已遭免職，而陳水扁迄今仍享受卸任總統禮遇。
范蘭欽對二二八的論述，被指為「辱台」，但要如何解釋林濁水為陳儀翻案？再者，如果對陳儀的評價可以調整，吾人對二二八的思考，有無可能也朝向林濁水所稱「歷史命定的悲劇」方向移動？否則，如果非要以後來的台獨論述挾持二二八的「本來面目」，不但二二八真相難現，且「陳水扁們」及「范蘭欽們」也將永遠存在。
中階公務員郭冠英用筆名以那類措詞來議論國是，確屬可議；但是，這與陳水扁以總統身分公然詛咒「中華民國已經滅亡」相較，卻是小巫見大巫。你來我往，你要摧毀「中華民國」，我就不放過「台灣」；情緒愈來愈敗壞，言語愈來愈離譜。冤冤相報，相激相盪，「陳水扁們」與「范蘭欽們」遂成了相互毀滅的兩個極端。
幸而，陳水扁們與范蘭欽們畢竟是兩個少數的極端。今天，除了管碧玲之類，已經很少人會藉此又要撕裂大家選邊站了！
多數國人皆希望：台灣和中華民國能一起好好活下去。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2009
If someone were to tell you that Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui, and Chen Shui-bian have a lot in common, would you believe it?
First let's look at Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui. Fan Lan Ching wrote an article dealing with 2/28, in which he argued on behalf of Chen Yi. He wrote, "Chen Yi was an upright official who cared for the people." Lin Cho-shui, in his new book, "The Theater of History" wrote, "Chen Yi has long been the designated villain. Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian, and brutal, all rolled into one. Most people think he is the chief culprit behind the 2/28 Incident. But this is not Chen Yi's true face. I found myself unable to go along with this view of him, and was surprised to find that Chen Yi and his administration were good officials seldom found in Chinese politics." Lin Cho-shui agreed that "Chen Yi was extremely honest and never violated the law.'
Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui have different views on the overall significance of the 2/28 Incident of course. But the two men actually share many views about Chen Yi. Not every view, but some of the most important views. Lin Cho-shui said that after intensive reading and interviewing many respected elders, he was surprised to learn this. Fan Lan Ching probably knew all this. Lin Cho-shui and Fan Lan Ching, a.k.a. Kuo Kuan-ying, are about the same age. Both have conducted in-depth investigations of Taiwan's politics and history. Yet both have arrived at the same conclusion about Chen Yi. Is that not surprising?
A proper evaluation of Chen Yi's place in history is difficult. But how one perceives Chen Yi and 2/28 need not bear any relationship to whether one advocates Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence rhetoric distorts the meaning of 2/28 in order to justify independence. In order to distort the meaning of 2/28, Taiwan independence advocates attribute all manner of evil to Chen Yi. Lin Cho-shui wants to reverse this distorted assessment of Chen Yi. He wants to correct Taiwan independence advocates' perception of 2/28. He says "2/28 was a predestined historical tragedy." This is Fan Lan Ching/Kuo Kuan-ying's view as well. He too considers 2/28 an "historically predetermined tragedy," a legacy of the Opium War and the KMT vs. CCP Civil War.
Lin Cho-shui is the "Master Theoretician of the Taiwan independence Movement." Yet decades later, he has made these surprising discoveries about Chen Yi. Alas, the Taiwan independence movement long ago decided to make Chen Yi the designated villain. It has used 2/28 as an excuse to divide society and the nation. Fan Lan Ching's thinking is different because he has a different understanding of history. He does not think Chen Yi was so villainous. He does not think hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of people died during the incident. Fan made note of 800 mainlanders and 1000 Taiwanese killed or wounded. He also disagrees with the Taiwan independence movement's spin on 2/28. Differing perceptions about the truth of 2/28 hardly end with Chen Yi.
Even more surprising is the fact that Chen Shui-bian shares many of the same views as Fan Lan Ching. Fan Lan Ching says the "Republic of China" is merely "Chinese territory occupied by the US." He says "Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province. It has no existence. It is not a province, because the provincial government has been dissolved. Still less is it a nation. It is a mere apparition." On the one hand, such arguments constitute opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, they sing the same tune as Taiwan independence. They too repudiate the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian denies that Taiwan is part of China. But he agrees with Fan Lan Ching when he says "What the hell is the Republic of China anyway?" and "The Republic of China is dead!" Their language is nearly identical. So why has Fan Lan Ching been removed from office, while Chen Shui-bian still enjoys the privileges of a former President?
Fan Lan Ching's views regarding 2/28 have been characterized as "insults to Taiwan." But if so, what are we to make of Lin Cho-shui's nearly identical views? Furthermore, if we can change our view of Chen Yi, why can't we change our view of 2/28? Why can't we perceive 2/28 in the same light as Lin Cho-shui, as a "predestined historical tragedy?" If we make the 2/28 Incident a hostage to Taiwan independence mythology, we will never learn the truth about 2/28, and Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching will dog us forever.
For mid-level civil servant Kuo Kuan-ying to discuss state affairs in such terms under a pen name is indeed questionable. But it hardly compares with President Chen Shui-bian open declaration that "The Republic of China is dead!" Chen makes Fan look like a piker. Tit for tat. You want to destroy the Republic of China, and I will show no mercy towards Taiwan. Emotions run higher and higher. The language becomes more and more outrageous. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching are two mutually destructive extremes.
Fortunately, Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching constitute a tiny minority. Apart from the likes of Kuan Bi-ling, few people want to use the Fan Lan Ching incident as an excuse to take sides.
Most people hope that Taiwan and the Republic of China can coexist.
范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的略同所見
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.24 04:47 am
若說范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的見解有相同之處，你信不信？
先說范蘭欽與林濁水。范蘭欽有一篇文章論及二二八，為陳儀伸冤。他寫道：「實在陳儀是愛民清官。」林濁水則在他的新著《歷史劇場》中說：「陳儀在社會通論中長期以來也成為箭垛人物（即箭靶），集貪腐、無能、專制、殘暴於一身，一般人認為他是二二八的罪魁禍首……。但這不是陳儀的本來面目。……我發現我不能同意前述通論，並遽然心驚地發現陳儀和他的團隊在中國政界是不容易找到的好官。」林濁水並同意「陳儀本人非常清廉，絕不枉法」的說法。
范蘭欽與林濁水各自腦海中的「二二八全圖」當然不同。但二人對陳儀的「部分評價」竟然如此相同（不是全部，卻是最重要的部分），仍可令人驚異不置。林濁水說，他是在「傾力閱讀」並訪問耆宿後，始「遽然心驚」地有此發現；但是，對於范蘭欽而言，這或許卻是他早已建立的認知。林濁水與筆名范蘭欽的郭冠英年歲學歷相若，且皆對台灣政治及歷史探掘極深，但二人竟然會遲至今天始對陳儀出現相似的評價，豈能不令人也「遽然心驚」？
陳儀的歷史評價是一個難題。但陳儀的評價如何，與二二八的定論如何，或與應否主張台獨，其實並無必然關係；然而，如今的台獨論調，卻因為要主張台獨所以扭曲二二八，又因為要扭曲二二八所以將萬惡歸於陳儀。林濁水現在想從扭轉對陳儀的評價，來修正台獨人士對二二八的認知，並主張「二二八是一個歷史命定的悲劇」；這卻是「范蘭欽」郭冠英的一貫主張，亦即他也認為二二八是自鴉片戰爭至國共內戰的「歷史命定的悲劇」。
林濁水號稱是「台獨理論大師」，卻在數十年後始對陳儀有「遽然心驚的發現」；但台獨論述卻早已將陳儀定位鎖死當作箭靶，亦將二二八操作成撕裂族群、分裂國家的台獨圖騰；相對而言，「范蘭欽式思維」則可能因為有不同的史識史觀，例如不認為陳儀是那般不堪，亦不認為事件中有台獨所稱數十萬或數萬台灣人死難（范指外省人死傷八百，本省人死傷千餘人），而對台獨的二二八論述不能同意。何況，台灣社會對二二八「本來面目」的認知差異，又豈僅只在對陳儀的評價不同而已？
更令人「遽然心驚」的是，范蘭欽與陳水扁也有所見略同之處。范蘭欽指「中華民國」只是「靠美國占領了中國的一角」；他且說：「台灣只是中國叛離的一個省……其實根本沒有這個東西，她不是省，自廢了，更不是國，只是一個鬼島。」這樣的論調，一方面是反台獨的；但另一方面卻不啻與台獨同調，亦即也否定中華民國。陳水扁的台獨論述一直糾纏於「台灣是中國的一部分」，與「范蘭欽」同；更指「中華民國是什麼碗糕」、「中華民國已經滅亡」，這豈不也是「范蘭欽」的口吻？然而，范蘭欽已遭免職，而陳水扁迄今仍享受卸任總統禮遇。
范蘭欽對二二八的論述，被指為「辱台」，但要如何解釋林濁水為陳儀翻案？再者，如果對陳儀的評價可以調整，吾人對二二八的思考，有無可能也朝向林濁水所稱「歷史命定的悲劇」方向移動？否則，如果非要以後來的台獨論述挾持二二八的「本來面目」，不但二二八真相難現，且「陳水扁們」及「范蘭欽們」也將永遠存在。
中階公務員郭冠英用筆名以那類措詞來議論國是，確屬可議；但是，這與陳水扁以總統身分公然詛咒「中華民國已經滅亡」相較，卻是小巫見大巫。你來我往，你要摧毀「中華民國」，我就不放過「台灣」；情緒愈來愈敗壞，言語愈來愈離譜。冤冤相報，相激相盪，「陳水扁們」與「范蘭欽們」遂成了相互毀滅的兩個極端。
幸而，陳水扁們與范蘭欽們畢竟是兩個少數的極端。今天，除了管碧玲之類，已經很少人會藉此又要撕裂大家選邊站了！
多數國人皆希望：台灣和中華民國能一起好好活下去。
Monday, March 23, 2009
ECFA: Prior Deliberation, or Prior Negotiation?
ECFA: Prior Deliberation, or Prior Negotiation?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2009
When President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Wen Jiabao talk about CECA, they treat it as a fait accompli. They act as if the arrow is already nocked and the bow already drawn. Some people have proposed that ECFA be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation prior to negotiation with the other side. Their proposal presents serious problems, both for the rule of law and for practical negotiations.
Prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan reverses normal procedure. It also presents practical obstacles. A consensus has yet to be reached with the other side. The Executive Yuan does not even know the other side's views. All that can be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation at the moment is a rough draft. That is all the Legislative Yuan would have to deliberate on. Any such deliberation would have no real significance. Also, if one insists on prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation, any version that has undergone prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan would bind the Executive Yuan hand and foot. The Executive Yuan would have to force the other side to accept its terms, lock, stock, and barrel. If this is the case, how can one possibly negotiate?
If one insists on prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation, any disagreement with the other side over anything, even tiny changes in the language, would require the submission of the measure to the Legislative Yuan for another round of prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation. How can one possibly negotiate while going back and forth in such a manner? Also, prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan would allow the other side to see all our internal contradictions, to see whether they had any room for bargaining. It would present a serious obstacle to practical negotiations.
Prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation is contrary to constitutional jurisprudence, and inconsistent with the principle of the separation of powers. Leave aside for the moment whether the setting of mainland policy is the prerogative of the President. At least the negotiation of mainland policy is an Executive power. That much is certain. Similar examples include negotiating treaties with foreign countries. These are of course negotiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The results of talks, i.e., draft treaties, are then submitted to the Legislative Yuan for approval, in accordance with the Constitution, and go into effect only upon adoption. This separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature is part of the constitution's checks and balances. If the Legislative Yuan insists on prior deliberation of the government's treaties with foreign countries, that constitutes an infringement of the Executive by the Legislature.
By the same token, suppose negotiations with the other side must be submitted to the Legislative Yuan for prior deliberation, then turned over to the Executive Yuan for "negotiation" with the other side. Suppose any disagreements must be sent back to the Legislative Yuan for further deliberation. That would be tantamount to the Legislative Yuan conducting negotiations with the other side through the Executive Yuan. That would be tantamount to the Legislative Yuan replacing the Executive Yuan. That would be unconstitutional and would undermine the principle of the separation of powers.
Based on existing ordinances pertaining to cross-Strait relations, prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation also conflicts with the law. In other words, such a proposal would be illegal. Article V, Item 1, of the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations, states that "agencies authorized to sign draft agreements will send them to the Executive Yuan for approval." Article V, Item 2, states that the content of such agreements shall be classified as legal or illegal. Those classified as illegal will require amendment by the Legislative Yuan. Those classified as legal will be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation. The law is crystal clear on this. It contains no provision for prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation.
Furthermore, if the outcome of negotiations over cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation agreements involves direct trade or the introduction of mainland workers, all resolutions must be sent to the Legislative Yuan before implementation, regardless of whether the law has been amended. Article 95 of the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations states that the Legislative Yuan's failure to pass a resolution within one month shall be construed as consent. Our previous agreement to allow direct flights was handled in accordance to just such procedures. They involved prior negotiation and subsequent deliberation, not prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation. Furthermore, according to the Organic Law of the Legislative Yuan and the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan`s Power, prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation has no basis in law.
Of course when signing ECFA-related cross-Strait agreements, the government should seek public consensus. On the one hand, the government should take the initiative to explain its position. On the other hand, it should encourage the airing and hearing of public opinions. The Legislative Yuan must not engage in "prior deliberation." But during the formulation of policy, it must respond to the opinions of all people and all parties, and convey these opinions to the ruling administration. Only then can uphold the rule of law while drawing upon collective wisdom.
Cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation agreements are not a panacea for our political and economic plight. Opponents can of course raise objections. But insisting on "prior deliberation and subsequent negotitation," is not merely illegal, it is unconducive to substantive cross-Strait talks.
ECFA：先審後簽或先簽後審？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.23 03:58 am
馬總統談ＥＣＦＡ，溫總理談ＣＥＣＡ，儼然已是箭在弦上，蓄勢待發。有人主張，ＥＣＦＡ應先送立法院審議，再與對岸協商。但不論就法制或談判實務言，此議皆待商榷。
立法院先審議，在流程上前後顛倒，在談判實務上恐也窒礙難行。既然尚未與對岸協商，行政部門亦尚不知對岸的意見，若真要送到立法院審查，就只能送出我方草擬的議題和主張，而立法院所能「審議」的也限於這部分。這樣的審議，並無實質意義。然而，倘若真要「先審後談」，經立法院先審議通過一個約本，行政部門將隻字都動不得，亦即必須強迫對岸照單全收，倘係如此，如何協商談判？
若是先審後談，則對岸對約本有任何不同意或增減的部分，那怕只是文字修正，皆須再跑一遍「送立法院審議通過、再與對岸協商」的程序；如此反覆往返，如何談判？何況，在立法院先審議的過程中，我方的立場、內部折衝的矛盾情形，有無迴旋空間等等，皆將被對岸窺察得一清二楚，這在談判實務上恐怕窒礙難行。
先審後談，亦違背憲政法理，牴觸權力分立的原則。暫不論大陸政策是否屬總統職權，但大陸政策的協商談判是行政權的一部分，這是可以確定的。類似的例子：與外國談判條約，當然是政府外交部門去談，談出的結果（條約草案），再依憲法送交立法院議決，通過之後生效。這是行政立法兩權分立相互制衡的憲政架構。倘若政府要與外國談判條約，立法院堅持我方草案先送立法院審議通過，則恐是立法權侵越了行政權。
同理，與對岸談判，若是立法院先審議、先決定了約本，再交給行政部門與對岸「談判」，有不同意的地方送回立法院再議，等於是立法院透過行政部門間接和對岸談判，亦即立法院取代了行政部門，這是違憲的主張，破壞了權力分立的原則。
再從現行兩岸關係條例的法律規範來看，先審後談的主張亦是與法不合，也就是說這種主張是違法的。兩岸條例對兩岸協議的規範方式，在程序上先規定「受託簽署協議機構將草案送行政院同意始得簽署」（第五條第一項）；再將簽妥的協議內容區分為是否涉及法律修正，涉及法律修正者送立法院審議，無涉修法者行政院核定之後送立法院備查（第五條第二項）。法律規定得十分明白，並無先審後談的規定。
除此之外，倘若兩岸經貿合作協議的談判結果，我方將同意直接通商或者引進大陸勞工，不論是否涉及修法，在實施之前，都必須先送立法院決議；立法院會期內一個月未為決議視為同意（兩岸條例第九十五條）。此前我方同意直航，就是依此法定程序辦理。也就是先談後審，而非先審後談。再依立法院職權行使法以及議事規則，「先審後談」的主張亦於法無據，不可自創法律。
當然，簽訂ＥＣＦＡ之類的兩岸協議，政府應當盡量尋求全民共識。有關當局一方面應製作說帖，主動說明；另一方面亦應廣開言路，以聽證會等方式採擇民意。立法院雖不宜「先審」，但在形成政策的過程中，必然亦可將各界民意及黨派主張反映、傳達給行政當局。如此，既可維護法制，亦能集思廣益。
兩岸經貿合作協議未必是解決政經困境的萬靈丹，反對者亦大可提出異議主張。但若在程序上堅持「先審後談」，則非但是違法主張，且恐極不利於兩岸談判之實務。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2009
When President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Wen Jiabao talk about CECA, they treat it as a fait accompli. They act as if the arrow is already nocked and the bow already drawn. Some people have proposed that ECFA be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation prior to negotiation with the other side. Their proposal presents serious problems, both for the rule of law and for practical negotiations.
Prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan reverses normal procedure. It also presents practical obstacles. A consensus has yet to be reached with the other side. The Executive Yuan does not even know the other side's views. All that can be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation at the moment is a rough draft. That is all the Legislative Yuan would have to deliberate on. Any such deliberation would have no real significance. Also, if one insists on prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation, any version that has undergone prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan would bind the Executive Yuan hand and foot. The Executive Yuan would have to force the other side to accept its terms, lock, stock, and barrel. If this is the case, how can one possibly negotiate?
If one insists on prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation, any disagreement with the other side over anything, even tiny changes in the language, would require the submission of the measure to the Legislative Yuan for another round of prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation. How can one possibly negotiate while going back and forth in such a manner? Also, prior deliberation by the Legislative Yuan would allow the other side to see all our internal contradictions, to see whether they had any room for bargaining. It would present a serious obstacle to practical negotiations.
Prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation is contrary to constitutional jurisprudence, and inconsistent with the principle of the separation of powers. Leave aside for the moment whether the setting of mainland policy is the prerogative of the President. At least the negotiation of mainland policy is an Executive power. That much is certain. Similar examples include negotiating treaties with foreign countries. These are of course negotiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The results of talks, i.e., draft treaties, are then submitted to the Legislative Yuan for approval, in accordance with the Constitution, and go into effect only upon adoption. This separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature is part of the constitution's checks and balances. If the Legislative Yuan insists on prior deliberation of the government's treaties with foreign countries, that constitutes an infringement of the Executive by the Legislature.
By the same token, suppose negotiations with the other side must be submitted to the Legislative Yuan for prior deliberation, then turned over to the Executive Yuan for "negotiation" with the other side. Suppose any disagreements must be sent back to the Legislative Yuan for further deliberation. That would be tantamount to the Legislative Yuan conducting negotiations with the other side through the Executive Yuan. That would be tantamount to the Legislative Yuan replacing the Executive Yuan. That would be unconstitutional and would undermine the principle of the separation of powers.
Based on existing ordinances pertaining to cross-Strait relations, prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation also conflicts with the law. In other words, such a proposal would be illegal. Article V, Item 1, of the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations, states that "agencies authorized to sign draft agreements will send them to the Executive Yuan for approval." Article V, Item 2, states that the content of such agreements shall be classified as legal or illegal. Those classified as illegal will require amendment by the Legislative Yuan. Those classified as legal will be sent to the Legislative Yuan for deliberation. The law is crystal clear on this. It contains no provision for prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation.
Furthermore, if the outcome of negotiations over cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation agreements involves direct trade or the introduction of mainland workers, all resolutions must be sent to the Legislative Yuan before implementation, regardless of whether the law has been amended. Article 95 of the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations states that the Legislative Yuan's failure to pass a resolution within one month shall be construed as consent. Our previous agreement to allow direct flights was handled in accordance to just such procedures. They involved prior negotiation and subsequent deliberation, not prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation. Furthermore, according to the Organic Law of the Legislative Yuan and the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan`s Power, prior deliberation and subsequent negotiation has no basis in law.
Of course when signing ECFA-related cross-Strait agreements, the government should seek public consensus. On the one hand, the government should take the initiative to explain its position. On the other hand, it should encourage the airing and hearing of public opinions. The Legislative Yuan must not engage in "prior deliberation." But during the formulation of policy, it must respond to the opinions of all people and all parties, and convey these opinions to the ruling administration. Only then can uphold the rule of law while drawing upon collective wisdom.
Cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation agreements are not a panacea for our political and economic plight. Opponents can of course raise objections. But insisting on "prior deliberation and subsequent negotitation," is not merely illegal, it is unconducive to substantive cross-Strait talks.
ECFA：先審後簽或先簽後審？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.23 03:58 am
馬總統談ＥＣＦＡ，溫總理談ＣＥＣＡ，儼然已是箭在弦上，蓄勢待發。有人主張，ＥＣＦＡ應先送立法院審議，再與對岸協商。但不論就法制或談判實務言，此議皆待商榷。
立法院先審議，在流程上前後顛倒，在談判實務上恐也窒礙難行。既然尚未與對岸協商，行政部門亦尚不知對岸的意見，若真要送到立法院審查，就只能送出我方草擬的議題和主張，而立法院所能「審議」的也限於這部分。這樣的審議，並無實質意義。然而，倘若真要「先審後談」，經立法院先審議通過一個約本，行政部門將隻字都動不得，亦即必須強迫對岸照單全收，倘係如此，如何協商談判？
若是先審後談，則對岸對約本有任何不同意或增減的部分，那怕只是文字修正，皆須再跑一遍「送立法院審議通過、再與對岸協商」的程序；如此反覆往返，如何談判？何況，在立法院先審議的過程中，我方的立場、內部折衝的矛盾情形，有無迴旋空間等等，皆將被對岸窺察得一清二楚，這在談判實務上恐怕窒礙難行。
先審後談，亦違背憲政法理，牴觸權力分立的原則。暫不論大陸政策是否屬總統職權，但大陸政策的協商談判是行政權的一部分，這是可以確定的。類似的例子：與外國談判條約，當然是政府外交部門去談，談出的結果（條約草案），再依憲法送交立法院議決，通過之後生效。這是行政立法兩權分立相互制衡的憲政架構。倘若政府要與外國談判條約，立法院堅持我方草案先送立法院審議通過，則恐是立法權侵越了行政權。
同理，與對岸談判，若是立法院先審議、先決定了約本，再交給行政部門與對岸「談判」，有不同意的地方送回立法院再議，等於是立法院透過行政部門間接和對岸談判，亦即立法院取代了行政部門，這是違憲的主張，破壞了權力分立的原則。
再從現行兩岸關係條例的法律規範來看，先審後談的主張亦是與法不合，也就是說這種主張是違法的。兩岸條例對兩岸協議的規範方式，在程序上先規定「受託簽署協議機構將草案送行政院同意始得簽署」（第五條第一項）；再將簽妥的協議內容區分為是否涉及法律修正，涉及法律修正者送立法院審議，無涉修法者行政院核定之後送立法院備查（第五條第二項）。法律規定得十分明白，並無先審後談的規定。
除此之外，倘若兩岸經貿合作協議的談判結果，我方將同意直接通商或者引進大陸勞工，不論是否涉及修法，在實施之前，都必須先送立法院決議；立法院會期內一個月未為決議視為同意（兩岸條例第九十五條）。此前我方同意直航，就是依此法定程序辦理。也就是先談後審，而非先審後談。再依立法院職權行使法以及議事規則，「先審後談」的主張亦於法無據，不可自創法律。
當然，簽訂ＥＣＦＡ之類的兩岸協議，政府應當盡量尋求全民共識。有關當局一方面應製作說帖，主動說明；另一方面亦應廣開言路，以聽證會等方式採擇民意。立法院雖不宜「先審」，但在形成政策的過程中，必然亦可將各界民意及黨派主張反映、傳達給行政當局。如此，既可維護法制，亦能集思廣益。
兩岸經貿合作協議未必是解決政經困境的萬靈丹，反對者亦大可提出異議主張。但若在程序上堅持「先審後談」，則非但是違法主張，且恐極不利於兩岸談判之實務。
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wu Shu-chen Statement Exposes Shenanigans at the Presidential Mansion
Wu Shu-chen Statement Exposes Shenanigans at the Presidential Mansion
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2009
The Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering trial officially begins next week. This week Wu Shu-chen and Chen Cheng-hui confronted each other. The court issued a warrant for Huang Fang-yen's arrest. Four charges have been made. The broad outlines of the Discretionary Fund case have been established. Wu Shu-chen's statement will provide the public with an inside look at the shenanigans that went on inside the Presidential Residence.
One's first impression of the Presidential Mansion is that it was piled high with cash. At least 1.1 billion in cash was transported from the Presidential Mansion to the Cathay United Bank. The total weight of the cash was over 600 kilograms, or over 1300 pounds. Packing them into kraft paper bags containing 5 million dollars each, required over 220 bags. Wu Shu-chen said some of the money at the Presidential Mansion was locked in a safe, some was stuffed into a closet, some was locked in an unused room, and some was stuffed into gunny sacks sitting on the floor. With her own eyes Chen Cheng-hui saw sacks of cash taking up the entire floor.
Just imagine. Wu Shu-chen has limited mobility. Boxes and sacks filled with bank notes were moved back and forth within the Presidential Mansion because the First Family was afraid to entrust outsiders to move it elsewhere. Just picture President Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, and Chen Hsing-yu, constantly moving the money around. Just imagine, someone who has attained the rank of president, schlepping gunny sacks back and forth, stuffing banknotes into 5 million dollar kraft paper bags.
The Chen family had two billion in cash at home and abroad, that we know about. Chen Shui-bian says he contributed one billion to Democratic Progressive Party candidates. Add to this cash which already converted to real estate, jewelry, and other forms of wealth. No wonder this bizzare scenario, of rooms piled high with cash, would manifest itself at the Presidential Mansion. Visitors have even testified that the air in the Presidential Mansion was filled with the odor of bank notes. Within this money infested den of iniquity, Ah-Bian, Ah-Chen, Chih-chung, Hsing-yu received money, fondled money, played with money, counted money, hugged money, moved money, divvyed up money, bundled money, hid money, obssessed over money, laundered money, laid down in money. How did an entire family become so crooked, to where they no longer bore any resemblance to normal people?
Apparently these four members of the Chen family equated power with money, and the office of the president as a tool for obtaining money. Democracy was a pretext. Politics was merely a game of black gold. On the one hand, the money amassed could be spread around like confetti, sponsoring Democratic Progressive Party candidates, solidifying his hold on the presidency. On the other hand, the billions or even tens of billions of dollars amassed could earn more money, increasing his power. The Chen family business was a business that required zero capital but amassed astronomical profits. It was a uniquely Taiwanese Business Model.
The Presidential Mansion was filled to overflowing with money. Several hundred million dollars of this money was stuffed into vans and driven straight into the Presidential Mansion. Some was collected by the First Lady from various sources, one false invoice at a time, then sent to the Presidential Office. Each alleged "campaign contribution" amounted to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Many members of the public are asking themselves why Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen felt compelled to go after the relatively paltry sums involved in the State Affairs Fund case, the Nankang case, and the Lungtan case? Why did they go after Mrs. Luo and Ah-Ching Shao's monthly allowance of 20,000 dollars?
Ah-Ching Shao was a loyal retainer. Her monthly salary was reportedly only 20,000 NT. Given the Chen family's financial resources, to pay her such meager wages was not merely stingy, it was heartless. The Chen family amassed a fortune. Yet it paid her out of the public treasury. It drew upon an "Intelligence Services Allowance." It had taxpayers support her through the Presidential Office. Such calculation is hard-hearted and unscrupulous beyond belief.
What is Chen Cheng-hui but another Ah-Ching Shao? The Chen family took advantage of Chen Cheng-hui. It exploited her long and dependent relationship. Every month Chen Cheng-hui processed false invoices. On orders from President Chen she kept two sets of books. On orders from Lin Teh-hsing she destroyed receipts. She counted out bank notes in the Cathay United Bank vault. She accompanied armed bodyguards when they transported banknotes. Did Chen Cheng-hui, a Christian, have doubts about what she was doing? Did she wrestle with her conscience? The lid has already been blown off the scandal. Yet Wu Shu-chen still asserts that Chen Cheng-hui, "on her own initiative," asked to take custody of the State Affairs Funds and move it to the Presidential Mansion for safekeeping. We have just one question for Ah-Chen. Just how far do you intend to go in your abuse of Chen Cheng-hui?
The Presidential Mansion had a one-way safe into which money entered but never emerged. This presented a storage problem. Therefore Chen Shui-bian had another safe installed at the Presidential Office. After that vans drove directly into the Presidential Mansion, loaded up with cash, then delivered the bank notes to the Presidential Office. The Presidential Mansion and the Presidential Office sometimes operated independently and sometimes worked hand in han. Lee Chieh-mu personally visited the Presidential Mansion for orders on how to embezzle money. Ah-Bian, Ah-Chen, Ma Yung-chen, Lin Teh-hsung held conferences at the Presidential Mansion on how to evade prosecution. Huang Fang-yen convened meetings in the Presidential Office, attended by Ma Yung-cheng, Cheng Shen-chi, Ku Chung-liang, on how to launder money. Ku Chung-liang personally lugged 50 million NT in cash to the Presidential Office!
What sort of Presidential Office is this? What sort of Presidential Mansion is this? What sort of President and First Lady is this? Their crimes are too numerous to list.
吳淑珍對質揭露的總統官邸風景
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.20 05:23 am
扁案下周全面進入實質審理，本周吳淑珍與陳鎮慧對質，法庭外亦有發布通緝黃芳彥等進度；至此，四大案中特別費案的輪廓已可大致確立，而吳淑珍的供詞，亦使國人對總統官邸風景的諸般想像，化作宛若親眼目睹的畫面。
官邸風景的第一印象是「全厝間」的現鈔。從官邸搬至國泰世華的錢，至少高達十一億餘，總重量逾六百公斤；分裝成每袋五百萬元的牛皮紙袋，至少要多達二百二十餘袋。吳淑珍說，那些錢在官邸中，有些鎖在保險箱裡，有些放在衣櫥裡，有些鎖在空室裡，有些就裝在布袋中置於地上；陳鎮慧親目所見的景象則是：麻袋堆滿地！
想像中的畫面是，吳淑珍行動不便，而這成箱成袋成綑的鈔票，在官邸中搬來搬去恐不宜假手外人，則必然出現的鏡頭就是：陳水扁總統、陳致中、陳幸妤等，皆要三不五時將這些錢抱來抱去……。你能想像，堂堂一個總統在家裡將麻布袋拖著走，並將鈔票分裝成每封五百萬元的一個個牛皮紙袋嗎？
扁家在國內外露餡的現金約已二十億，陳水扁又稱他贊助民進黨候選人達十億，再加上許多現金已經變置房產、珠寶，更加上必然存在的未知黑數，難怪扁家出現現金「全厝間」的景象，連登門訪客都說，在扁府的空氣中聞得到「鈔票的味道」。在這個錢滿為患的宅邸中，扁珍致妤四人，三不五時收錢、摸錢、玩錢、數錢、抱錢、搬錢、分錢、綑錢、藏錢、想錢、洗錢……。躺在錢堆上，經年累月，這一家人的人格如何可能不扭曲？甚至其精神意識如何可能不異於正常人？
扁家四口的思想顯然是：權力就是金錢，「總統」這個職位就是生財營利的工具，民主就是騙錢的口實，政治則根本只是黑金遊戲。一方面，用聚斂來的錢財，天女散花似地贊助民進黨候選人十億元，以鞏固自己的權位；另一方面自己則「笑納」數十億元甚或數百億元。用權斂財，以錢養權。扁家這個「營利事業」，無本，天文數字的「利潤」，不啻是台灣獨一無二的Business Model。
這全厝間的錢，有些是幾億元塞進廂型車直入官邸，有些則是總統夫人四處蒐集一張張假發票向總統府錙銖詐取而得。許多人的共同感慨是：既然已有每筆動輒幾千萬、幾億元的所謂「獻金」，則扁珍夫婦怎麼連餅干屑式的國務費也要貪？連南港案及龍潭案那樣的錢也要貪？甚至連羅太太、阿卿嫂的每月二萬餘「情報津貼」也要貪？
說到阿卿嫂，這位忠誠的家僕，據說在扁家每月薪水僅二萬餘元；以扁家如今暴露的財力，竟然只付阿卿嫂如此菲薄的薪水，非僅吝嗇，簡直已是殘酷。而扁家如此多金，竟用公帑給阿卿嫂「情報津貼」，如今又將阿卿嫂塞給總統府由全民來供養，算盤打到如此地步，這不啻已是狼心狗肺才會有的行徑。
陳鎮慧豈不也是另一個阿卿嫂？扁家利用將陳鎮慧「從小帶大」的恩情，把基督徒陳鎮慧捲進如此罪孽深重的犯罪淵藪；陳鎮慧在處理假發票時，在將每月二百萬元機密費往官邸送時，在被阿扁指示作假帳時，在被林德訓指示銷毀單據時，在國泰世華保險室點鈔票時，在與隨扈荷槍實彈運送鈔票時……，內心難道沒有懷疑？又如何處理其理智與道德的煎熬掙扎？如今，東窗事發，吳淑珍卻說：因為總統府的保險箱放不下，陳鎮慧「主動」將國務費搬到官邸託我代她保管。請問扁珍賢伉儷：你們還要作踐陳鎮慧至何地步？
說到保險箱，玉山官邸有一座「有進無出」的保險箱，所以陳水扁就在堂堂總統辦公室內也自己設了一座。此後，廂型車運鈔直驅官邸者有之，拎著數箱現鈔送入總統府辦公室者亦有之。官邸與總統辦公室，有時「分進」，有時「合擊」；李界木可親赴總統官邸恭聆貪汙指令，扁、珍、馬、林又在官邸舉行串證脫罪會議，而黃芳彥則在總統辦公室召集馬永成、鄭深池、辜仲諒等商議洗錢大計，其中辜仲諒更曾親自扛送五千萬元現金到總統辦公室裡！
這是何其狗屁倒灶的總統辦公室？這又是何其藏汙納垢的總統官邸？這更是何其無恥可鄙的總統夫婦？罄此篇幅，不能盡書。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2009
The Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering trial officially begins next week. This week Wu Shu-chen and Chen Cheng-hui confronted each other. The court issued a warrant for Huang Fang-yen's arrest. Four charges have been made. The broad outlines of the Discretionary Fund case have been established. Wu Shu-chen's statement will provide the public with an inside look at the shenanigans that went on inside the Presidential Residence.
One's first impression of the Presidential Mansion is that it was piled high with cash. At least 1.1 billion in cash was transported from the Presidential Mansion to the Cathay United Bank. The total weight of the cash was over 600 kilograms, or over 1300 pounds. Packing them into kraft paper bags containing 5 million dollars each, required over 220 bags. Wu Shu-chen said some of the money at the Presidential Mansion was locked in a safe, some was stuffed into a closet, some was locked in an unused room, and some was stuffed into gunny sacks sitting on the floor. With her own eyes Chen Cheng-hui saw sacks of cash taking up the entire floor.
Just imagine. Wu Shu-chen has limited mobility. Boxes and sacks filled with bank notes were moved back and forth within the Presidential Mansion because the First Family was afraid to entrust outsiders to move it elsewhere. Just picture President Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, and Chen Hsing-yu, constantly moving the money around. Just imagine, someone who has attained the rank of president, schlepping gunny sacks back and forth, stuffing banknotes into 5 million dollar kraft paper bags.
The Chen family had two billion in cash at home and abroad, that we know about. Chen Shui-bian says he contributed one billion to Democratic Progressive Party candidates. Add to this cash which already converted to real estate, jewelry, and other forms of wealth. No wonder this bizzare scenario, of rooms piled high with cash, would manifest itself at the Presidential Mansion. Visitors have even testified that the air in the Presidential Mansion was filled with the odor of bank notes. Within this money infested den of iniquity, Ah-Bian, Ah-Chen, Chih-chung, Hsing-yu received money, fondled money, played with money, counted money, hugged money, moved money, divvyed up money, bundled money, hid money, obssessed over money, laundered money, laid down in money. How did an entire family become so crooked, to where they no longer bore any resemblance to normal people?
Apparently these four members of the Chen family equated power with money, and the office of the president as a tool for obtaining money. Democracy was a pretext. Politics was merely a game of black gold. On the one hand, the money amassed could be spread around like confetti, sponsoring Democratic Progressive Party candidates, solidifying his hold on the presidency. On the other hand, the billions or even tens of billions of dollars amassed could earn more money, increasing his power. The Chen family business was a business that required zero capital but amassed astronomical profits. It was a uniquely Taiwanese Business Model.
The Presidential Mansion was filled to overflowing with money. Several hundred million dollars of this money was stuffed into vans and driven straight into the Presidential Mansion. Some was collected by the First Lady from various sources, one false invoice at a time, then sent to the Presidential Office. Each alleged "campaign contribution" amounted to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Many members of the public are asking themselves why Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen felt compelled to go after the relatively paltry sums involved in the State Affairs Fund case, the Nankang case, and the Lungtan case? Why did they go after Mrs. Luo and Ah-Ching Shao's monthly allowance of 20,000 dollars?
Ah-Ching Shao was a loyal retainer. Her monthly salary was reportedly only 20,000 NT. Given the Chen family's financial resources, to pay her such meager wages was not merely stingy, it was heartless. The Chen family amassed a fortune. Yet it paid her out of the public treasury. It drew upon an "Intelligence Services Allowance." It had taxpayers support her through the Presidential Office. Such calculation is hard-hearted and unscrupulous beyond belief.
What is Chen Cheng-hui but another Ah-Ching Shao? The Chen family took advantage of Chen Cheng-hui. It exploited her long and dependent relationship. Every month Chen Cheng-hui processed false invoices. On orders from President Chen she kept two sets of books. On orders from Lin Teh-hsing she destroyed receipts. She counted out bank notes in the Cathay United Bank vault. She accompanied armed bodyguards when they transported banknotes. Did Chen Cheng-hui, a Christian, have doubts about what she was doing? Did she wrestle with her conscience? The lid has already been blown off the scandal. Yet Wu Shu-chen still asserts that Chen Cheng-hui, "on her own initiative," asked to take custody of the State Affairs Funds and move it to the Presidential Mansion for safekeeping. We have just one question for Ah-Chen. Just how far do you intend to go in your abuse of Chen Cheng-hui?
The Presidential Mansion had a one-way safe into which money entered but never emerged. This presented a storage problem. Therefore Chen Shui-bian had another safe installed at the Presidential Office. After that vans drove directly into the Presidential Mansion, loaded up with cash, then delivered the bank notes to the Presidential Office. The Presidential Mansion and the Presidential Office sometimes operated independently and sometimes worked hand in han. Lee Chieh-mu personally visited the Presidential Mansion for orders on how to embezzle money. Ah-Bian, Ah-Chen, Ma Yung-chen, Lin Teh-hsung held conferences at the Presidential Mansion on how to evade prosecution. Huang Fang-yen convened meetings in the Presidential Office, attended by Ma Yung-cheng, Cheng Shen-chi, Ku Chung-liang, on how to launder money. Ku Chung-liang personally lugged 50 million NT in cash to the Presidential Office!
What sort of Presidential Office is this? What sort of Presidential Mansion is this? What sort of President and First Lady is this? Their crimes are too numerous to list.
吳淑珍對質揭露的總統官邸風景
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.20 05:23 am
扁案下周全面進入實質審理，本周吳淑珍與陳鎮慧對質，法庭外亦有發布通緝黃芳彥等進度；至此，四大案中特別費案的輪廓已可大致確立，而吳淑珍的供詞，亦使國人對總統官邸風景的諸般想像，化作宛若親眼目睹的畫面。
官邸風景的第一印象是「全厝間」的現鈔。從官邸搬至國泰世華的錢，至少高達十一億餘，總重量逾六百公斤；分裝成每袋五百萬元的牛皮紙袋，至少要多達二百二十餘袋。吳淑珍說，那些錢在官邸中，有些鎖在保險箱裡，有些放在衣櫥裡，有些鎖在空室裡，有些就裝在布袋中置於地上；陳鎮慧親目所見的景象則是：麻袋堆滿地！
想像中的畫面是，吳淑珍行動不便，而這成箱成袋成綑的鈔票，在官邸中搬來搬去恐不宜假手外人，則必然出現的鏡頭就是：陳水扁總統、陳致中、陳幸妤等，皆要三不五時將這些錢抱來抱去……。你能想像，堂堂一個總統在家裡將麻布袋拖著走，並將鈔票分裝成每封五百萬元的一個個牛皮紙袋嗎？
扁家在國內外露餡的現金約已二十億，陳水扁又稱他贊助民進黨候選人達十億，再加上許多現金已經變置房產、珠寶，更加上必然存在的未知黑數，難怪扁家出現現金「全厝間」的景象，連登門訪客都說，在扁府的空氣中聞得到「鈔票的味道」。在這個錢滿為患的宅邸中，扁珍致妤四人，三不五時收錢、摸錢、玩錢、數錢、抱錢、搬錢、分錢、綑錢、藏錢、想錢、洗錢……。躺在錢堆上，經年累月，這一家人的人格如何可能不扭曲？甚至其精神意識如何可能不異於正常人？
扁家四口的思想顯然是：權力就是金錢，「總統」這個職位就是生財營利的工具，民主就是騙錢的口實，政治則根本只是黑金遊戲。一方面，用聚斂來的錢財，天女散花似地贊助民進黨候選人十億元，以鞏固自己的權位；另一方面自己則「笑納」數十億元甚或數百億元。用權斂財，以錢養權。扁家這個「營利事業」，無本，天文數字的「利潤」，不啻是台灣獨一無二的Business Model。
這全厝間的錢，有些是幾億元塞進廂型車直入官邸，有些則是總統夫人四處蒐集一張張假發票向總統府錙銖詐取而得。許多人的共同感慨是：既然已有每筆動輒幾千萬、幾億元的所謂「獻金」，則扁珍夫婦怎麼連餅干屑式的國務費也要貪？連南港案及龍潭案那樣的錢也要貪？甚至連羅太太、阿卿嫂的每月二萬餘「情報津貼」也要貪？
說到阿卿嫂，這位忠誠的家僕，據說在扁家每月薪水僅二萬餘元；以扁家如今暴露的財力，竟然只付阿卿嫂如此菲薄的薪水，非僅吝嗇，簡直已是殘酷。而扁家如此多金，竟用公帑給阿卿嫂「情報津貼」，如今又將阿卿嫂塞給總統府由全民來供養，算盤打到如此地步，這不啻已是狼心狗肺才會有的行徑。
陳鎮慧豈不也是另一個阿卿嫂？扁家利用將陳鎮慧「從小帶大」的恩情，把基督徒陳鎮慧捲進如此罪孽深重的犯罪淵藪；陳鎮慧在處理假發票時，在將每月二百萬元機密費往官邸送時，在被阿扁指示作假帳時，在被林德訓指示銷毀單據時，在國泰世華保險室點鈔票時，在與隨扈荷槍實彈運送鈔票時……，內心難道沒有懷疑？又如何處理其理智與道德的煎熬掙扎？如今，東窗事發，吳淑珍卻說：因為總統府的保險箱放不下，陳鎮慧「主動」將國務費搬到官邸託我代她保管。請問扁珍賢伉儷：你們還要作踐陳鎮慧至何地步？
說到保險箱，玉山官邸有一座「有進無出」的保險箱，所以陳水扁就在堂堂總統辦公室內也自己設了一座。此後，廂型車運鈔直驅官邸者有之，拎著數箱現鈔送入總統府辦公室者亦有之。官邸與總統辦公室，有時「分進」，有時「合擊」；李界木可親赴總統官邸恭聆貪汙指令，扁、珍、馬、林又在官邸舉行串證脫罪會議，而黃芳彥則在總統辦公室召集馬永成、鄭深池、辜仲諒等商議洗錢大計，其中辜仲諒更曾親自扛送五千萬元現金到總統辦公室裡！
這是何其狗屁倒灶的總統辦公室？這又是何其藏汙納垢的總統官邸？這更是何其無恥可鄙的總統夫婦？罄此篇幅，不能盡書。
Mainland Tour Groups Give Tourism a Boost
Mainland Tour Groups Give Tourism a Boost
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2009
"Sun Moon Lake is so beautiful!" So exclaimed a member of the first Amway Corporation tour group from Mainland China. Local officials personally received them. The Amway tour group "shopped til they dropped," and were full of praise for Taiwan's cultural amenities and scenic wonders. Members of this group, were considered "high-rollers," and offered one surprise after another. Some locals referred to them as financial patrons. Others scoffed at the notion that mainland tourists could save Taiwan's economy. Some politicians sniffed, "So they've got money? Big deal!" The Amway tour group served as a kind of litmus test. They touched a raw nerve, impacting Taiwan in a way that went beyond mere economics.
Both sides of the Strait have psychological issues. Mainland tourists look forward to touring Taiwan. Among other things, they feel a sense of identification with the island. Oddly enough, some Taiwanese find these tourists' feelings of identification offensive. Consequently they may even feel revulsion toward the Mainland tour group's purchasing power. In Hualien alone the group spent over 120 million dollars, making the Amway Corporation tour group welcome wherever it went. Yet some people felt only antagonism. They felt large numbers of Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan would lower the standards of Taiwan's tourism industry. Some fear these human waves will make Taiwan's tourism industry overly dependent upon the Mainland. Taiwan dependence upon Mainland tourism for economic survival is something many people on Taiwan cannot tolerate. It may not be the best path for Taiwan's development. Therefore the "Amway Model" needs careful evaluation.
Mainland tour groups have inspired considerable optimism. Taiwan's tourism industry appears to have gotten an economic reprieve/ Mainland officials have allowed mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. Mainland tourists are curious about Taiwan. Local businesses look forward to Mainland tourists the way farmers faced with drought look forward to rain. They hope Mainland tourists will give Taiwan's tourism industry and Taiwan's economy a boost. People on Taiwan must become accustomed to seeing more and more Mainland tourists. They must learn to to cater to them. When Mainland tourists are no longer "occasional visitors," how will people on Taiwan perceive them? We can hardly view them with disgust, contempt, and hostility, as we wear false smiles in the hope of making money from them. Treating one's customers with warmth and goodwill is central to the service industry. We ought to have the same attitude toward Mainland tourists.
Some Mainland tourists may make people uncomfortable by flashing their money around. But tour groups from any nation will includes such individuals. We should respond in a manner that is neither hostile nor servile, We hardly need to invoke "ethnic identity" and "national dignity" at every turn. We hardly need to engage in self-abasement or self-pity. The fact is many businesses welcome and need Mainland tourist dollars. How much Mainland tourists are willing to spend on Taiwan, depends in large part on how much of an effort Taiwan businesses are willing to make. Patronage is a form of affirmation. We really have no need to belittle ourselves, by thinking that we are recipients of other people's charity.
We should not perceive Mainland tourists as economic saviors of Taiwan's tourism and service industries. We should characterize Mainland tourism as an opportunity for our tourism and service industries to hone their skills. Large numbers of Mainland tourists will enable us to gauge our maximum capacity, including our hotel facilities, the quality of our tourist facilities, the convenience of our transportation services, and the quality of our customer service. These must all undergo continual improvement in order to make Taiwan a more attractive tourist destination.
If fewer mainland tourists visited, many of Taiwan's tourism industry providers could not afford to upgrade their services. It makes no difference attitude Mainland tourists may have when they visit. They provide us with the opportunity to upgrade the "hard power" and "soft power" of our tourism industry. Our tourism industry is not dedicated exclusively to serving Mainland customers. Mainland tourism allows Taiwan's tourism industry to prepare for increased tourism in general. Mainland tourists allow us to promote Taiwan's scenic and cultural attractions to the entire world, to make Taiwan a destination of choice, and to transform the island into a world-class vacation spot.
The Amway tour group's spending habits were extravagant. But we must not expect all Mainland tourists to spend so much. The Amway Corporation is merely the first tour group to arrive from the Mainland. Its may not reflect the economic wherewithal of future groups. As cross-strait tourism becomes more frequent, mutual understanding and mutual trust will increase. We should expect greater diversity among Mainland tourists. Not all of them will be high-rollers. Other classes of Mainland tourists will appear, including "Average Joes." Therefore, Taiwan's tourism industry and Taiwan's economy as a whole will need to consider how to provide a different mix of goods and services, in order to meet the different demands of consumers. Consumers are not limited to Mainland tourists. Taiwan's tourism service sector should aspire to attract tourists from all over the world.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.19
社論－藉陸客團提升觀光產業身手
本報訊
「日月潭真是太美了！」這是安利中國營銷菁英首發團的驚嘆！從地方首長紛紛親自接待，到安利團大手筆的採購實力，以及對台灣人文景物讚不絕口的高度喜愛，這個被認為是「頂級豪華旅遊團」的陸客觀光團正不斷創造驚奇；有人奉為是財神爺，但是也有人心裡酸酸的，對「靠陸客救觀光、救台灣經濟」的期待不以為然，甚至有民意代表嗆聲「有錢有什麼了不起」！作為陸客觀光指標的安利團，顯然已牽動了經濟理性之外的敏感神經。
複雜幽微的情結，兩岸都有。陸客對旅遊台灣的引頸期待，其中有多少所謂的家國情懷，是讓人好奇的，而如此情感上的投射，的確也讓一些台灣人「難以消受」，因而對大陸團甚至於他們的購買力產生了排斥；現實上，僅在花蓮一地消費就超過一二○萬元的消費能力，讓安利團所到之處都大受歡迎，但卻也有人並不領情，認為大量陸客來台會拉低台灣整體觀光水平，潛在的擔憂則是大陸的人海戰術將使得台灣觀光產業有過度向中國大陸傾斜的危險；台灣全靠大陸賞飯吃，這不但是很多台灣人受不了的心理障礙，實際上來說，也不是台灣發展的健康之途，因而在「安利模式」的背後，的確存在著值得深思的課題。
在對大陸團的無限想像中，觀光產業似乎有機會成為台灣經濟突破低迷窘境的「首發產業」。大陸官方對陸客遊台的開放、陸客對台灣的好奇嚮往、台灣對陸客有如大旱望雲霓的心情，都將使得台灣整個觀光產業，以至於台灣的街景風情，出現巨大的改變。台灣人恐怕要逐漸習慣眼目所見愈來愈多的大陸觀光客，要習慣很多地方為迎合陸客所做的調整與改變。當大陸觀光客不再是「稀客」時，台灣人要用什麼樣的心情來面對呢？我們不可能一方面嫌惡、輕視乃至敵視陸客，另一方面又勉強自己堆起笑容，想要賺他們的錢。發自內心的親切與善意是服務業最重要的特質，面對陸客，我們也應該有這樣的心態與態度。
或許有陸客大剌剌地炫耀財富，讓人感覺不舒服，但任何國家的任何旅遊團都可能出現這樣的客人，我們自己可以選擇以不卑不亢的態度應對，不需要動輒上綱到族群意識、國家尊嚴，更不需要因此自貶自憐；事實是，的確有很多商家歡迎也需要陸客的消費，而陸客願意在台灣花多少錢，很大一部分要看台灣業者的實力與努力；消費就是一種肯定，我們實在不必看輕自己，老覺得別人是在施捨。
與其說陸客是台灣觀光產業或者台灣經濟的「救星」，不如說，大陸觀光客是給台灣觀光產業以及廣義的服務業「鍛鍊身手」的機會。大量陸客幫助我們檢視自己的觀光能量，包括飯店、旅遊設施的質量水準到不到位，交通運輸的便捷性程度，以至於服務精神、服務態度的良窳等等，都可以藉著服務陸客不斷操練，不斷進步，往更好、讓人更喜愛的完美道路前進。
如果少了陸客，或許很多台灣觀光業者也沒有能力可以進行種種設施與服務的提升，所以不論陸客是用什麼樣的心情來旅遊台灣，對台灣來說，都是提升自己觀光產業「硬實力」與「軟實力」的機會；換言之，觀光產業所做的種種努力，不必以服務陸客為限，而是為台灣觀光業能廣開客源做準備，為的是能夠把台灣的好山好水好人情，推銷給世界各地更多人，讓人們願意把台灣列為觀光休憩的選擇，讓台灣這個寶島真的能夠成為世界級的寶島。
我們不必因為見識到安利的手筆，就期望未來的陸客都是這樣的規模；老實說，安利團只是陸客首發團，其成員未必能夠完全反應未來的陸客結構。隨著兩岸觀光交流的愈來愈頻繁，彼此間的了解與互信會慢慢加強，可以預期的是，來台陸客的構成也會愈來愈多元，不可能永遠都是豪氣的「大腕團」，需求不同的「平民團」、「一般團」，也會陸續出現，因此，台灣觀光業者或者說整個台灣，都需要思考如何提供不同的商品組合，以滿足消費者多樣化的需求；當然，所謂的消費者，也不單單是指陸客，台灣觀光服務業應該要有吸引全世界觀光客的旺盛企圖心與廣大胸懷。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2009
"Sun Moon Lake is so beautiful!" So exclaimed a member of the first Amway Corporation tour group from Mainland China. Local officials personally received them. The Amway tour group "shopped til they dropped," and were full of praise for Taiwan's cultural amenities and scenic wonders. Members of this group, were considered "high-rollers," and offered one surprise after another. Some locals referred to them as financial patrons. Others scoffed at the notion that mainland tourists could save Taiwan's economy. Some politicians sniffed, "So they've got money? Big deal!" The Amway tour group served as a kind of litmus test. They touched a raw nerve, impacting Taiwan in a way that went beyond mere economics.
Both sides of the Strait have psychological issues. Mainland tourists look forward to touring Taiwan. Among other things, they feel a sense of identification with the island. Oddly enough, some Taiwanese find these tourists' feelings of identification offensive. Consequently they may even feel revulsion toward the Mainland tour group's purchasing power. In Hualien alone the group spent over 120 million dollars, making the Amway Corporation tour group welcome wherever it went. Yet some people felt only antagonism. They felt large numbers of Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan would lower the standards of Taiwan's tourism industry. Some fear these human waves will make Taiwan's tourism industry overly dependent upon the Mainland. Taiwan dependence upon Mainland tourism for economic survival is something many people on Taiwan cannot tolerate. It may not be the best path for Taiwan's development. Therefore the "Amway Model" needs careful evaluation.
Mainland tour groups have inspired considerable optimism. Taiwan's tourism industry appears to have gotten an economic reprieve/ Mainland officials have allowed mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. Mainland tourists are curious about Taiwan. Local businesses look forward to Mainland tourists the way farmers faced with drought look forward to rain. They hope Mainland tourists will give Taiwan's tourism industry and Taiwan's economy a boost. People on Taiwan must become accustomed to seeing more and more Mainland tourists. They must learn to to cater to them. When Mainland tourists are no longer "occasional visitors," how will people on Taiwan perceive them? We can hardly view them with disgust, contempt, and hostility, as we wear false smiles in the hope of making money from them. Treating one's customers with warmth and goodwill is central to the service industry. We ought to have the same attitude toward Mainland tourists.
Some Mainland tourists may make people uncomfortable by flashing their money around. But tour groups from any nation will includes such individuals. We should respond in a manner that is neither hostile nor servile, We hardly need to invoke "ethnic identity" and "national dignity" at every turn. We hardly need to engage in self-abasement or self-pity. The fact is many businesses welcome and need Mainland tourist dollars. How much Mainland tourists are willing to spend on Taiwan, depends in large part on how much of an effort Taiwan businesses are willing to make. Patronage is a form of affirmation. We really have no need to belittle ourselves, by thinking that we are recipients of other people's charity.
We should not perceive Mainland tourists as economic saviors of Taiwan's tourism and service industries. We should characterize Mainland tourism as an opportunity for our tourism and service industries to hone their skills. Large numbers of Mainland tourists will enable us to gauge our maximum capacity, including our hotel facilities, the quality of our tourist facilities, the convenience of our transportation services, and the quality of our customer service. These must all undergo continual improvement in order to make Taiwan a more attractive tourist destination.
If fewer mainland tourists visited, many of Taiwan's tourism industry providers could not afford to upgrade their services. It makes no difference attitude Mainland tourists may have when they visit. They provide us with the opportunity to upgrade the "hard power" and "soft power" of our tourism industry. Our tourism industry is not dedicated exclusively to serving Mainland customers. Mainland tourism allows Taiwan's tourism industry to prepare for increased tourism in general. Mainland tourists allow us to promote Taiwan's scenic and cultural attractions to the entire world, to make Taiwan a destination of choice, and to transform the island into a world-class vacation spot.
The Amway tour group's spending habits were extravagant. But we must not expect all Mainland tourists to spend so much. The Amway Corporation is merely the first tour group to arrive from the Mainland. Its may not reflect the economic wherewithal of future groups. As cross-strait tourism becomes more frequent, mutual understanding and mutual trust will increase. We should expect greater diversity among Mainland tourists. Not all of them will be high-rollers. Other classes of Mainland tourists will appear, including "Average Joes." Therefore, Taiwan's tourism industry and Taiwan's economy as a whole will need to consider how to provide a different mix of goods and services, in order to meet the different demands of consumers. Consumers are not limited to Mainland tourists. Taiwan's tourism service sector should aspire to attract tourists from all over the world.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.19
社論－藉陸客團提升觀光產業身手
本報訊
「日月潭真是太美了！」這是安利中國營銷菁英首發團的驚嘆！從地方首長紛紛親自接待，到安利團大手筆的採購實力，以及對台灣人文景物讚不絕口的高度喜愛，這個被認為是「頂級豪華旅遊團」的陸客觀光團正不斷創造驚奇；有人奉為是財神爺，但是也有人心裡酸酸的，對「靠陸客救觀光、救台灣經濟」的期待不以為然，甚至有民意代表嗆聲「有錢有什麼了不起」！作為陸客觀光指標的安利團，顯然已牽動了經濟理性之外的敏感神經。
複雜幽微的情結，兩岸都有。陸客對旅遊台灣的引頸期待，其中有多少所謂的家國情懷，是讓人好奇的，而如此情感上的投射，的確也讓一些台灣人「難以消受」，因而對大陸團甚至於他們的購買力產生了排斥；現實上，僅在花蓮一地消費就超過一二○萬元的消費能力，讓安利團所到之處都大受歡迎，但卻也有人並不領情，認為大量陸客來台會拉低台灣整體觀光水平，潛在的擔憂則是大陸的人海戰術將使得台灣觀光產業有過度向中國大陸傾斜的危險；台灣全靠大陸賞飯吃，這不但是很多台灣人受不了的心理障礙，實際上來說，也不是台灣發展的健康之途，因而在「安利模式」的背後，的確存在著值得深思的課題。
在對大陸團的無限想像中，觀光產業似乎有機會成為台灣經濟突破低迷窘境的「首發產業」。大陸官方對陸客遊台的開放、陸客對台灣的好奇嚮往、台灣對陸客有如大旱望雲霓的心情，都將使得台灣整個觀光產業，以至於台灣的街景風情，出現巨大的改變。台灣人恐怕要逐漸習慣眼目所見愈來愈多的大陸觀光客，要習慣很多地方為迎合陸客所做的調整與改變。當大陸觀光客不再是「稀客」時，台灣人要用什麼樣的心情來面對呢？我們不可能一方面嫌惡、輕視乃至敵視陸客，另一方面又勉強自己堆起笑容，想要賺他們的錢。發自內心的親切與善意是服務業最重要的特質，面對陸客，我們也應該有這樣的心態與態度。
或許有陸客大剌剌地炫耀財富，讓人感覺不舒服，但任何國家的任何旅遊團都可能出現這樣的客人，我們自己可以選擇以不卑不亢的態度應對，不需要動輒上綱到族群意識、國家尊嚴，更不需要因此自貶自憐；事實是，的確有很多商家歡迎也需要陸客的消費，而陸客願意在台灣花多少錢，很大一部分要看台灣業者的實力與努力；消費就是一種肯定，我們實在不必看輕自己，老覺得別人是在施捨。
與其說陸客是台灣觀光產業或者台灣經濟的「救星」，不如說，大陸觀光客是給台灣觀光產業以及廣義的服務業「鍛鍊身手」的機會。大量陸客幫助我們檢視自己的觀光能量，包括飯店、旅遊設施的質量水準到不到位，交通運輸的便捷性程度，以至於服務精神、服務態度的良窳等等，都可以藉著服務陸客不斷操練，不斷進步，往更好、讓人更喜愛的完美道路前進。
如果少了陸客，或許很多台灣觀光業者也沒有能力可以進行種種設施與服務的提升，所以不論陸客是用什麼樣的心情來旅遊台灣，對台灣來說，都是提升自己觀光產業「硬實力」與「軟實力」的機會；換言之，觀光產業所做的種種努力，不必以服務陸客為限，而是為台灣觀光業能廣開客源做準備，為的是能夠把台灣的好山好水好人情，推銷給世界各地更多人，讓人們願意把台灣列為觀光休憩的選擇，讓台灣這個寶島真的能夠成為世界級的寶島。
我們不必因為見識到安利的手筆，就期望未來的陸客都是這樣的規模；老實說，安利團只是陸客首發團，其成員未必能夠完全反應未來的陸客結構。隨著兩岸觀光交流的愈來愈頻繁，彼此間的了解與互信會慢慢加強，可以預期的是，來台陸客的構成也會愈來愈多元，不可能永遠都是豪氣的「大腕團」，需求不同的「平民團」、「一般團」，也會陸續出現，因此，台灣觀光業者或者說整個台灣，都需要思考如何提供不同的商品組合，以滿足消費者多樣化的需求；當然，所謂的消費者，也不單單是指陸客，台灣觀光服務業應該要有吸引全世界觀光客的旺盛企圖心與廣大胸懷。
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Negative Remarks are Hateful. The Internet Witch Hunt Should End
Negative Remarks are Hateful. The Internet Witch Hunt Should End
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2009
Taiwan has a diverse society, which often leads to social friction or even social confrontation. Whether such a society is benign or malignant depends upon our commitment to mutual respect and social harmony.
Over the past few days some of the media have milked the "Fan Lan Qing Incident" for all it is worth. The incident raises at least three issues. One is the deliberate incitement of "ethnic" antagonisms. Another is freedom of speech. Yet another is appropriate behavior for public servants. If these issues are conflated, right and wrong will be confused. These issues must be clarified, one at a time.
First of all, Kuo Kuan-ying used his real name when he published the article in the newspapers. He related his childhood experiences eating oyster omelets at the Yuan Huan. In a self-deprecating manner he said "Here we were, high-class mainlanders, not knowing how a local Taiwanese uncle wound up bringing us to Taipei ..." The phrase "high-class mainlanders" was promptly taken out of context and played up by the Green Camp for all it was worth. It was cited as damning evidence of mainlander prejudice against locals. Kuo Kuan-ying returned and apologized for the article and for the troubles it caused the Junior Chamber of Commerce. He maintained that he was using the term in a spirit of self-mockery, without malice, without any intention of demeaning locals.
Frankly, if one reads the entire article, one will find that aside from this bit of self-mockery, the article contains nothing that expresses contempt for Taiwan. That said, language such as "high-class mainlander" also reflects the sense of superiority some mainlanders feel toward locals. Such tangible and intangible forms of prejudice have hurt the feelings of locals and done considerable harm to their self-esteem. Resentment over this has yet to dissipate. Some mainlanders do lack self-awareness, sensitivity, and self-restraint.
The "Fan Lan Qing" blog article was much blunter. Its stance on reunification vs. independence was much more direct. The name was clearly a pseudonym for "Pro Pan Blue." Its pro Blue position and even pro-mainland position is not surprising. But is it consistent with the principle of proportionality to leave no stone unturned tracking down the identity of an anonymous blogger, as if one were investigating Internet crime? Whether such efforts might impact freedom of speech on the Internet is also a concern.
The most valuable aspect of the Internet, but perhaps also its most troubling, is that one may hide behind a pseudonym and express oneself without inhibition. On Internet fora and blogs, too many people, having concealed their true identity, say and do things they would never say or do in their daily environment. They give free rein to radical positions and venomous criticism. They engage in irresponsible agitation and express unrestrained lust. Once they turn off their computers however, they return to polite normality.
Some of what appears on the Internet may be hard to stomach. It may make one wonder why human nature is so dark, so barbaric. But to breach layer after layer of Internet privacy over a politically controversial article, as if one were tracking down a violent criminal, in order to put the offender on trial, to be stoned by the mob, is even more chilling. After all, the individual hasn't violated any laws. He never agreed to reveal his identity. Who has the right to conduct such an Internet witch-hunt?
After all, the anonymous Internet article was just that, anonymous. That means the author did not lend weight to the article by identifying himself. That means the author wanted to enjoy the increased latitude anonymity granted him. We don't even know for certain whether the article was written by an overseas civil servant. Yet some people would destroy the anonymity the Internet has provided over such an article. Is this not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? There is no legal need to investigate. Kuo Kuan-ying says he did not write the anonymous article. True or false, there is not need to continue digging. He is not the issue. The issue is that we must safeguard freedom of expression on the Internet.
Civil servants who are paid out of the national treasury must of course behave with propriety. If they disagree with the nation's policies, they can quit. This is the way to be true to one's own beliefs. It is also the way to show respect for the nation's institutions.
To incite ethnic antagonism, to promote racial and gender prejudice and discrimination, by words or by deeds, is considered taboo in advanced nations in Europe and in the United States. It is not merely Politically Incorrect, it is immoral and unethical. Racial and gender prejudice and discrimination are difficult to eliminate. One must know right from wrong. One must not overstep the bounds of free expression. One must understand that everyone has the same rights. Only then can one ensure social harmony.
By contrast, much of the political language on Taiwan is not merely cruel, but reveals the moral vacuum that underlies our society. For example a certain Kuomintang legislator alleged that Chen Chu suffered a stroke because she demolished a bronze statue of Chiang Kai-shek. Such remarks raise one's hackles. He refuses to admit he made a mistake, and the KMT appears loath to intervene. People cannot help but wonder whether politicians are intrinsically immoral, or whether intrinsically immoral people choose to become politicians.
Freedom of speech is precious. It must be defended. Right and wrong and social harmony are also precious. They too must be defended. Freedom of speech must not become an excuse for inhumane behavior. Not should freedom of speech be abridged for partisan political reasons.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.18
社論－負面言論可惡 網路獵巫可休
本報訊
台灣是個多元社會，多元意味著可以激盪出許多火花，也可能意味著對立衝突；究竟是產生正面能量，抑或製造負面殺傷力，全看我們願不願意堅持尊重、包容與維護和諧。
連日來不斷成為部分媒體炒作的「范蘭欽事件」，當中固然有刻意煽動族群對立的成分，但也同時涉及了網路言論自由的空間，以及公務員的言行分際問題。全部攪和在一起，容易把是非黑白全部混為一談，應該一碼歸一碼地說清楚。
首先，Kuo Kuan-ying以本名發表在報端的文章，說到小時候去圓環吃蚵仔煎的美食經驗時，自嘲地說「我們是高級的外省人哦，不知怎會是一個本省伯伯帶我來台北…」這句「高級外省人」被綠營揪出來痛打，認為是外省族群歧視本省族群的佐證。Kuo Kuan-ying雖然回國說明，並且對文章對青商會帶來紛擾而道歉，但仍然認為該用語只是在自我調侃，並無歧視本省之惡意。
坦白說，看完全文會發現，該文除了一個小調侃之外，其餘全無任何輕視台灣的文字。不過，即使如此，「高級外省人」用語也反映了一個長久存在於台灣的社會背景，亦即當時不少外省族群是有相對於本省族群的優越感，這種生活中點點滴滴有形無形的歧視，對本省族群的感情與自尊造成了相當大的傷害，憤恨至今未消，而部分外省族群有時對此也確實較缺乏反省、敏感、自我警惕與自我約束。
至於「范蘭欽」部落格裡的文章，則更辛辣得多，統獨的政治立場也更為直接。明顯的，這個名字是「泛藍親」的代稱，立場傾藍甚至親中並不令人意外。但是，從網路部落格匿名文章的遣詞用字一一去比對本人到底是誰，以抽絲剝繭如偵辦網路犯罪的辦案手法去追查真正的作者，是否符合比例原則、又是否會影響網路的言論自由空間，卻是很值得商榷的。
網路空間最可貴、但或許也最令人頭痛的，是躲在無數匿名背後的不羈自由。網路上、論壇上、部落格裡，太多人隱藏起自己的真實名字身分，做出在日常禮教與環境拘束下絕對不會有的言行。偏激的立場、惡毒的批判、無厘頭的搗亂、赤裸裸的慾望，都可以奔放宣洩。電腦一關，大家又恢復了文質彬彬。
雖然網上有些言論實在讓人難以苟同，覺得人性為何陰暗蠻橫至此；但若要像抓犯人一樣，為了某篇文章激起的政治爭議，就硬要扒開網路的層層簾幕，把真正的執筆者強拉到陽光下梟首示眾，這卻更是令人不寒而慄的事。在當事人沒有違反任何一條法律、也沒有同意揭露身分的情況下，誰又有權力去進行這種網路獵巫？
而且，既然是網路上的匿名文章，擺明了就是要匿名，就是不想用自己的真實身分來負責，也就是要享受匿名時較大尺度的自由特權。為了幾篇至今還不確定是不是某位駐外人員寫的文章，就要把網路向來的匿名保護機制拆毀，恐怕是倒洗澡水時連嬰兒一起倒掉了。沒有司法偵查的必要，就不應率爾侵犯網路世界的匿名機制。如果Kuo Kuan-ying不認那些匿名文章，不管真假，都不宜再追殺下去。不是為他，而是為了維護整個網路世界的言論自由。
不過，拿國家俸祿的公務員，坦白說，言行舉止還是應該要有一定的分寸與分際。如果真不能認同現行的政策，大可選擇離去。這是對自己理念的誠實，也是對國家體制的尊重。
煽動族群對立、散播種族歧視與成見的言論，和性別歧視的言行一樣，在歐美先進國家是被列為禁忌的，這不只是政治不正確的問題，而是屬於道德不正確的程度了。固然種族歧見與性別歧視很難消除，但意識到其中的對錯是非，不容許逾越尺度的言論，背後其實存在著一種對平等人權的信念，以及對社會和諧的悉心維護。
相較之下，台灣有些政治語言不只粗暴殘忍，更暴露出背後價值的空洞與是非的虛無。例如有國民黨立委指陳菊中風是拆蔣公銅像的現世報，就簡直令人髮指。而他本人不但不認錯，國民黨也彷彿事不干己，讓人不禁納悶，到底是搞政治會沒人性、還是沒人性才去搞政治？
言論自由非常珍貴，需要努力維護；價值是非與社會和諧也同樣珍貴，需要大家一起來呵護。我們不應藉言論自由濫行人性之惡，但也不應為政治廝殺踐踏言論自由。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2009
Taiwan has a diverse society, which often leads to social friction or even social confrontation. Whether such a society is benign or malignant depends upon our commitment to mutual respect and social harmony.
Over the past few days some of the media have milked the "Fan Lan Qing Incident" for all it is worth. The incident raises at least three issues. One is the deliberate incitement of "ethnic" antagonisms. Another is freedom of speech. Yet another is appropriate behavior for public servants. If these issues are conflated, right and wrong will be confused. These issues must be clarified, one at a time.
First of all, Kuo Kuan-ying used his real name when he published the article in the newspapers. He related his childhood experiences eating oyster omelets at the Yuan Huan. In a self-deprecating manner he said "Here we were, high-class mainlanders, not knowing how a local Taiwanese uncle wound up bringing us to Taipei ..." The phrase "high-class mainlanders" was promptly taken out of context and played up by the Green Camp for all it was worth. It was cited as damning evidence of mainlander prejudice against locals. Kuo Kuan-ying returned and apologized for the article and for the troubles it caused the Junior Chamber of Commerce. He maintained that he was using the term in a spirit of self-mockery, without malice, without any intention of demeaning locals.
Frankly, if one reads the entire article, one will find that aside from this bit of self-mockery, the article contains nothing that expresses contempt for Taiwan. That said, language such as "high-class mainlander" also reflects the sense of superiority some mainlanders feel toward locals. Such tangible and intangible forms of prejudice have hurt the feelings of locals and done considerable harm to their self-esteem. Resentment over this has yet to dissipate. Some mainlanders do lack self-awareness, sensitivity, and self-restraint.
The "Fan Lan Qing" blog article was much blunter. Its stance on reunification vs. independence was much more direct. The name was clearly a pseudonym for "Pro Pan Blue." Its pro Blue position and even pro-mainland position is not surprising. But is it consistent with the principle of proportionality to leave no stone unturned tracking down the identity of an anonymous blogger, as if one were investigating Internet crime? Whether such efforts might impact freedom of speech on the Internet is also a concern.
The most valuable aspect of the Internet, but perhaps also its most troubling, is that one may hide behind a pseudonym and express oneself without inhibition. On Internet fora and blogs, too many people, having concealed their true identity, say and do things they would never say or do in their daily environment. They give free rein to radical positions and venomous criticism. They engage in irresponsible agitation and express unrestrained lust. Once they turn off their computers however, they return to polite normality.
Some of what appears on the Internet may be hard to stomach. It may make one wonder why human nature is so dark, so barbaric. But to breach layer after layer of Internet privacy over a politically controversial article, as if one were tracking down a violent criminal, in order to put the offender on trial, to be stoned by the mob, is even more chilling. After all, the individual hasn't violated any laws. He never agreed to reveal his identity. Who has the right to conduct such an Internet witch-hunt?
After all, the anonymous Internet article was just that, anonymous. That means the author did not lend weight to the article by identifying himself. That means the author wanted to enjoy the increased latitude anonymity granted him. We don't even know for certain whether the article was written by an overseas civil servant. Yet some people would destroy the anonymity the Internet has provided over such an article. Is this not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? There is no legal need to investigate. Kuo Kuan-ying says he did not write the anonymous article. True or false, there is not need to continue digging. He is not the issue. The issue is that we must safeguard freedom of expression on the Internet.
Civil servants who are paid out of the national treasury must of course behave with propriety. If they disagree with the nation's policies, they can quit. This is the way to be true to one's own beliefs. It is also the way to show respect for the nation's institutions.
To incite ethnic antagonism, to promote racial and gender prejudice and discrimination, by words or by deeds, is considered taboo in advanced nations in Europe and in the United States. It is not merely Politically Incorrect, it is immoral and unethical. Racial and gender prejudice and discrimination are difficult to eliminate. One must know right from wrong. One must not overstep the bounds of free expression. One must understand that everyone has the same rights. Only then can one ensure social harmony.
By contrast, much of the political language on Taiwan is not merely cruel, but reveals the moral vacuum that underlies our society. For example a certain Kuomintang legislator alleged that Chen Chu suffered a stroke because she demolished a bronze statue of Chiang Kai-shek. Such remarks raise one's hackles. He refuses to admit he made a mistake, and the KMT appears loath to intervene. People cannot help but wonder whether politicians are intrinsically immoral, or whether intrinsically immoral people choose to become politicians.
Freedom of speech is precious. It must be defended. Right and wrong and social harmony are also precious. They too must be defended. Freedom of speech must not become an excuse for inhumane behavior. Not should freedom of speech be abridged for partisan political reasons.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.18
社論－負面言論可惡 網路獵巫可休
本報訊
台灣是個多元社會，多元意味著可以激盪出許多火花，也可能意味著對立衝突；究竟是產生正面能量，抑或製造負面殺傷力，全看我們願不願意堅持尊重、包容與維護和諧。
連日來不斷成為部分媒體炒作的「范蘭欽事件」，當中固然有刻意煽動族群對立的成分，但也同時涉及了網路言論自由的空間，以及公務員的言行分際問題。全部攪和在一起，容易把是非黑白全部混為一談，應該一碼歸一碼地說清楚。
首先，Kuo Kuan-ying以本名發表在報端的文章，說到小時候去圓環吃蚵仔煎的美食經驗時，自嘲地說「我們是高級的外省人哦，不知怎會是一個本省伯伯帶我來台北…」這句「高級外省人」被綠營揪出來痛打，認為是外省族群歧視本省族群的佐證。Kuo Kuan-ying雖然回國說明，並且對文章對青商會帶來紛擾而道歉，但仍然認為該用語只是在自我調侃，並無歧視本省之惡意。
坦白說，看完全文會發現，該文除了一個小調侃之外，其餘全無任何輕視台灣的文字。不過，即使如此，「高級外省人」用語也反映了一個長久存在於台灣的社會背景，亦即當時不少外省族群是有相對於本省族群的優越感，這種生活中點點滴滴有形無形的歧視，對本省族群的感情與自尊造成了相當大的傷害，憤恨至今未消，而部分外省族群有時對此也確實較缺乏反省、敏感、自我警惕與自我約束。
至於「范蘭欽」部落格裡的文章，則更辛辣得多，統獨的政治立場也更為直接。明顯的，這個名字是「泛藍親」的代稱，立場傾藍甚至親中並不令人意外。但是，從網路部落格匿名文章的遣詞用字一一去比對本人到底是誰，以抽絲剝繭如偵辦網路犯罪的辦案手法去追查真正的作者，是否符合比例原則、又是否會影響網路的言論自由空間，卻是很值得商榷的。
網路空間最可貴、但或許也最令人頭痛的，是躲在無數匿名背後的不羈自由。網路上、論壇上、部落格裡，太多人隱藏起自己的真實名字身分，做出在日常禮教與環境拘束下絕對不會有的言行。偏激的立場、惡毒的批判、無厘頭的搗亂、赤裸裸的慾望，都可以奔放宣洩。電腦一關，大家又恢復了文質彬彬。
雖然網上有些言論實在讓人難以苟同，覺得人性為何陰暗蠻橫至此；但若要像抓犯人一樣，為了某篇文章激起的政治爭議，就硬要扒開網路的層層簾幕，把真正的執筆者強拉到陽光下梟首示眾，這卻更是令人不寒而慄的事。在當事人沒有違反任何一條法律、也沒有同意揭露身分的情況下，誰又有權力去進行這種網路獵巫？
而且，既然是網路上的匿名文章，擺明了就是要匿名，就是不想用自己的真實身分來負責，也就是要享受匿名時較大尺度的自由特權。為了幾篇至今還不確定是不是某位駐外人員寫的文章，就要把網路向來的匿名保護機制拆毀，恐怕是倒洗澡水時連嬰兒一起倒掉了。沒有司法偵查的必要，就不應率爾侵犯網路世界的匿名機制。如果Kuo Kuan-ying不認那些匿名文章，不管真假，都不宜再追殺下去。不是為他，而是為了維護整個網路世界的言論自由。
不過，拿國家俸祿的公務員，坦白說，言行舉止還是應該要有一定的分寸與分際。如果真不能認同現行的政策，大可選擇離去。這是對自己理念的誠實，也是對國家體制的尊重。
煽動族群對立、散播種族歧視與成見的言論，和性別歧視的言行一樣，在歐美先進國家是被列為禁忌的，這不只是政治不正確的問題，而是屬於道德不正確的程度了。固然種族歧見與性別歧視很難消除，但意識到其中的對錯是非，不容許逾越尺度的言論，背後其實存在著一種對平等人權的信念，以及對社會和諧的悉心維護。
相較之下，台灣有些政治語言不只粗暴殘忍，更暴露出背後價值的空洞與是非的虛無。例如有國民黨立委指陳菊中風是拆蔣公銅像的現世報，就簡直令人髮指。而他本人不但不認錯，國民黨也彷彿事不干己，讓人不禁納悶，到底是搞政治會沒人性、還是沒人性才去搞政治？
言論自由非常珍貴，需要努力維護；價值是非與社會和諧也同樣珍貴，需要大家一起來呵護。我們不應藉言論自由濫行人性之惡，但也不應為政治廝殺踐踏言論自由。
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Political Considerations vs. The Truth
Political Considerations vs. The Truth
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2009
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Former Vice President Annette Lu has published a new book, "Perspectives on 3/19: One Truth, One Taiwan." She is a victim of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, who remains troubled because the truth is still unknown. She rejects the conclusion of prosecutors and police that Chen Yi-hsiung was the shooter and that therefore the case is closed. She is also not satisfied with the 3/19 Truth Commission Report. She says it is hard to determine which of the four suspected perpetrators, the reds (Beijing), the blues (KMT and PFP), the greens (DPP) and blacks (triads) was responsible. She called for "another ad hoc group, appointed by the Prosecutor General," who will "set aside Blue vs. Green political concerns and simply demand the truth."
The 3/19 Shooting Incident has had a huge political impact. But like any criminal case, the truth must be sought in accordance with the law, free from political influence. We fully agree with Lu's perspective. But to be perfectly frank, we doubt that Lu herself is above Blue vs. Green political considerations. In her book she said that as early as October 2005, she "recommended that the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office establish another ad hoc group" to investigate the case from scratch. Her recommendation was ignored, yet she remained silent until she left office. Were political considerations involved? Lu and Chen were wounded. Like any normal person, Lu wondered why she had been targeted. She was troubled by how the shooting cast doubt on the legitimacy of her second term. But she never showed the same concern for Chen Shui-bian's abnormal lack of curiosity about the shooting. She never expressed any doubts about whether election fraud lay behind the shooting incident. Were political considerations involved? She wonders whether the shooting involved one gun firing two rounds, or two guns firing two rounds, and whether accomplices were involved. Her doubts do not end here. She wonders whether the motive was to kill or merely to wound. The answer has a bearing on the four possibilities she mentioned. Are these four possibilities the only ones? Lu thinks not. Are political considerations affecting her judgment?
Lu called on the Prosecutor General to preside over a new investigation. The Special Investigation Unit declared that it reviewed the 3/19 Shooting Incident two years ago and determined that "the truth has yet to emerge." But it was forced to shut down its investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident because it began investigating Chen Shui-bian last year. The Special Investigation Unit is under the command of Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming. So is the prosecutorial system. Since the Special Investigation Unit is overloaded with work, why not assign some of the work to other prosecutorial units? Does Chen Tsung-ming want to solve these cases or doesn't he? If he doesn't, why doesn't he? Is the truth about these cases being suppressed out of political considerations? Annette Lu does not know, and Chen Tsung-ming is not someone we can count on to answer these riddles.
Chen Tsung-ming's recent handling of the Chen corruption case has raised serious doubts about his determination to solve the case. He ordered the Special Investigation Unit to prosecute the Chen corruption case in piecemeal fashion, one charge at a time, enabling the Chen family to evade prosecution on charges yet to be made. After repeated instances of much thunder but little rain, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that he has no intention of prosecuting the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit is clearly understaffed. The Control Yuan has pointed this out. But he does nothing. He refuses to make use of manpower from other prosecutorial agencies, claiming that the Special Investigation Unit already has all the manpower it needs. His assertion is so transparently false, one wonders whether he wants to prosecute the case at all. Chen Shui-bian appointed Chen Tsung-ming Prosecutor General and placed him in charge of the Special Investigation Unit. The kid gloves manner in which the Special Investigation Unit is currently prosecuting Chen family cronies, including Chen Tsung-ming family friend Huang Fang-yan, is mind-boggling. On the pretext that Huang was emigrating to the United States, it waited idly for his return. Based on a suspiciously timed long-distance phone call from Huang, it seized jewelry worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a suit that had already been searched. It chose not to investigate co-defendant Ma Yung-cheng's testimony. It issued a statement asserting that Huang did not convene a money-laundering meeting between Ma, Cheng, and Koo at the Presidential Palace.
The Special Investigation Unit is nominally the highest-ranking independent prosecutorial unit in the nation. In order to ensure that the Prosecutor General would not intervene, its members swiftly indicted former Bureau of Investigation Chief Ye Sheng-mao. They openly endorsed their superior at a moment's notice. They eagerly issued a statement assuring the public their superior was not covering up on behalf of his cronies. Their loyalty to their superior leaves one breathless. Is this what passes for an independent prosecution? Chen Tsung-ming's biggest dilemma is whether to replace these loyal troops. Why is he turning a deaf ear to demands that he resign? Is it because he finds it hard to quit a cushy job? Is it because he wants to stay on to see justice done? Or is it because he wants to continue abusing the power of his office to shield his cronies? Annette Lu placed her trust in the wrong people. But Chen Shui-bian can certainly congratulate himself for trusting the right people!
Wang Ching-feng was responsible for the 3/19 Truth Commission's eight reports. At the time she lacked investigative powers. But for the sake of the truth, she overcame countless difficulties. She is now the Minister of Justice. She sits at the summit of the prosecutorial system. So why is she doing nothing? The Special Investigation Unit listens only to Chen Tsung-ming. Wang Ching-feng's wishes go unheeded. Does a Minister of Justice count for nothing? What happened to her determination to uncover the truth? Are political considerations involved? Annette Lu noted that less than two percent of the public believes the conclusions of the Ad Hoc 3/19 Prosecutorial and Police Commission. Is Chen Tsung-ming's credibility higher today? Chen Tsung-ming, as head of the Special Investigation Unit, is undermine the credibility of the prosecutorial system. Is Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng is watching idly as Chen Tsung-ming destroys the justice system. Is it only because she knows he has tenure?
Political considerations or the truth. Which is more important? Chen Tsung-ming and Wang Ching-feng. What are they afraid of?
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.17
社論》政治考量與發現真相 何者更重要
本報訊
三一九槍擊案將屆五周年。前副總統呂秀蓮出版了新書，《透視三一九：一個真相，一個台灣》。她是三一九槍擊案的受害者，苦於此案始終真相未明。她質疑檢警認定已故的陳義雄就是真兇結案；也不滿意三一九真調會的調查報告。她分析紅色（中國大陸）、藍營、綠營與黑道涉案的四種可能，難有定論，呼籲「另組專案小組，由檢察總長出任召集人」，「不管藍綠，只問真相。」
三一九槍擊案曾在政壇上引發巨大效應，但是和任何刑事案件一樣，應該依法發現事實真相，不受政治影響。呂有此看法，我們完全同意。但是，容我們直言，呂恐怕也未必能夠完全超越藍綠。她書中說到早在○五年十月，就曾「上簽建議應由最高法院檢察署另組專案小組」，重啟偵查機制。她的「上簽」石沉大海，但她保持沉默直到離任，此中有無政治考慮？呂陳二人受傷，如同任何常人，呂對於為何受傷疑問滿腹，也對槍擊案影響當選連任的正當性，耿耿於懷；但她對於陳水扁沒有相同程度好奇的反常舉止，卻諱莫如深，也不懷疑槍擊案背後有無選舉權謀斧鑿操縱，是否亦有政治考慮？她看槍擊案是一槍兩彈還是兩槍兩彈、有無共犯，均甚可疑，然而疑問並不只此，例如：作案動機是要殺人還是只開槍不殺人？就會影響呂提出的四種可能；四種可能之外即無其他可能？也是誰都要問的問題。呂的設想不及於此，是否仍是政治立場影響了判斷？
呂呼籲檢察總長主持重啟調查，特偵組則宣稱，二年前即已就三一九槍擊案重新審視，發現該案「真相並未大白」；只因去年偵辦扁案之後，三一九槍擊案調查工作被迫停擺。特偵組由檢察總長陳聰明指揮；檢察體系也由檢察總長陳聰明指揮。特偵組忙不過來，不能交給其他檢察單位偵辦嗎？陳聰明究竟是想辦還是不想辦？為什麼不想辦？是政治思考掩蓋了發現真相的需要嗎？呂秀蓮並不知道，陳聰明恐怕不是揭穿謎底的可靠人選。
陳聰明最近在辦理扁案上，也引起想辦不想辦的嚴重質疑。他領導特偵組，將扁案拆解，先起訴一部分；尚未起訴的部分，情節可能更為嚴重，但是久聞樓梯響始終無動靜，有無高舉輕縱的心思？特偵組人手明明不足，監察院為此提出糾正，他仍老神在在，放著所有檢調機關的充裕兵源不用，自稱足堪應付。說詞破綻如此之大，究竟是想辦不想辦？陳水扁當年獨具慧眼提名陳聰明出任檢察總長，主持特偵組。現在特偵組處理扁家密友、也是陳聰明家庭醫師朋友黃芳彥的溫柔體貼，簡直匪夷所思。以容許黃芳彥在美國辦理移民為由，癡癡等待不歸，有沒有聽過別的例子？靠著黃芳彥時機可疑的越洋電話，在已搜過的西裝中找到數億珠寶，有沒有聽過別的例子？放著共同被告馬永成的證詞不查，發表聲明辯解黃芳彥未在總統府中召集馬、鄭、辜等人舉行洗錢會議，有沒有聽過別的例子？
特偵組號為獨立辦案的最高檢察單位，高手雲集，為了保證檢察總長並未涉案，以迅雷不及掩耳的手段起訴前調查局長葉盛茂；隨時可以一字排開為長官的清白背書，也隨時發表聲明澄清長官好友的涉案程度。忠於長官之情，溢於言表，這就是所謂的檢察獨立性？陳聰明最近在傷腦筋：換不換這批死忠部隊？對於要他掛冠而去的高漲輿情為何充耳不聞？戀棧，是因為想辦案，還是因為想佔著位子不辦案？呂秀蓮所託非人，陳水扁倒是可以深慶得人！
還有王清峰，曾是孕育三一九真調會八份調查報告的王清峰。當時手無偵查權，為了真相，不惜排除政治萬難；現在出掌法務部，位居全國檢察體系的上峰，怎地水波不興？特偵組只聽命陳聰明，王清峰則是君命有所不受，部長難道就一籌莫展？找出真相的毅力勇氣還在嗎？是否有了政治考量？呂秀蓮指出只有不到二成的人相信三一九檢警專案小組的結案結論，今天陳聰明的辦案信用會更高嗎？陳聰明領導特偵組，快將整體檢察體系的公信力揮霍殆盡，王部長只因他有任期保障就坐視其摧毀一切而毫無作為嗎？
政治考量與發現真相，何者更重要？陳聰明與王清峰，各自在怕什麼？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2009
March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Former Vice President Annette Lu has published a new book, "Perspectives on 3/19: One Truth, One Taiwan." She is a victim of the 3/19 Shooting Incident, who remains troubled because the truth is still unknown. She rejects the conclusion of prosecutors and police that Chen Yi-hsiung was the shooter and that therefore the case is closed. She is also not satisfied with the 3/19 Truth Commission Report. She says it is hard to determine which of the four suspected perpetrators, the reds (Beijing), the blues (KMT and PFP), the greens (DPP) and blacks (triads) was responsible. She called for "another ad hoc group, appointed by the Prosecutor General," who will "set aside Blue vs. Green political concerns and simply demand the truth."
The 3/19 Shooting Incident has had a huge political impact. But like any criminal case, the truth must be sought in accordance with the law, free from political influence. We fully agree with Lu's perspective. But to be perfectly frank, we doubt that Lu herself is above Blue vs. Green political considerations. In her book she said that as early as October 2005, she "recommended that the Supreme Court Prosecutor's Office establish another ad hoc group" to investigate the case from scratch. Her recommendation was ignored, yet she remained silent until she left office. Were political considerations involved? Lu and Chen were wounded. Like any normal person, Lu wondered why she had been targeted. She was troubled by how the shooting cast doubt on the legitimacy of her second term. But she never showed the same concern for Chen Shui-bian's abnormal lack of curiosity about the shooting. She never expressed any doubts about whether election fraud lay behind the shooting incident. Were political considerations involved? She wonders whether the shooting involved one gun firing two rounds, or two guns firing two rounds, and whether accomplices were involved. Her doubts do not end here. She wonders whether the motive was to kill or merely to wound. The answer has a bearing on the four possibilities she mentioned. Are these four possibilities the only ones? Lu thinks not. Are political considerations affecting her judgment?
Lu called on the Prosecutor General to preside over a new investigation. The Special Investigation Unit declared that it reviewed the 3/19 Shooting Incident two years ago and determined that "the truth has yet to emerge." But it was forced to shut down its investigation of the 3/19 Shooting Incident because it began investigating Chen Shui-bian last year. The Special Investigation Unit is under the command of Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming. So is the prosecutorial system. Since the Special Investigation Unit is overloaded with work, why not assign some of the work to other prosecutorial units? Does Chen Tsung-ming want to solve these cases or doesn't he? If he doesn't, why doesn't he? Is the truth about these cases being suppressed out of political considerations? Annette Lu does not know, and Chen Tsung-ming is not someone we can count on to answer these riddles.
Chen Tsung-ming's recent handling of the Chen corruption case has raised serious doubts about his determination to solve the case. He ordered the Special Investigation Unit to prosecute the Chen corruption case in piecemeal fashion, one charge at a time, enabling the Chen family to evade prosecution on charges yet to be made. After repeated instances of much thunder but little rain, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that he has no intention of prosecuting the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit is clearly understaffed. The Control Yuan has pointed this out. But he does nothing. He refuses to make use of manpower from other prosecutorial agencies, claiming that the Special Investigation Unit already has all the manpower it needs. His assertion is so transparently false, one wonders whether he wants to prosecute the case at all. Chen Shui-bian appointed Chen Tsung-ming Prosecutor General and placed him in charge of the Special Investigation Unit. The kid gloves manner in which the Special Investigation Unit is currently prosecuting Chen family cronies, including Chen Tsung-ming family friend Huang Fang-yan, is mind-boggling. On the pretext that Huang was emigrating to the United States, it waited idly for his return. Based on a suspiciously timed long-distance phone call from Huang, it seized jewelry worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a suit that had already been searched. It chose not to investigate co-defendant Ma Yung-cheng's testimony. It issued a statement asserting that Huang did not convene a money-laundering meeting between Ma, Cheng, and Koo at the Presidential Palace.
The Special Investigation Unit is nominally the highest-ranking independent prosecutorial unit in the nation. In order to ensure that the Prosecutor General would not intervene, its members swiftly indicted former Bureau of Investigation Chief Ye Sheng-mao. They openly endorsed their superior at a moment's notice. They eagerly issued a statement assuring the public their superior was not covering up on behalf of his cronies. Their loyalty to their superior leaves one breathless. Is this what passes for an independent prosecution? Chen Tsung-ming's biggest dilemma is whether to replace these loyal troops. Why is he turning a deaf ear to demands that he resign? Is it because he finds it hard to quit a cushy job? Is it because he wants to stay on to see justice done? Or is it because he wants to continue abusing the power of his office to shield his cronies? Annette Lu placed her trust in the wrong people. But Chen Shui-bian can certainly congratulate himself for trusting the right people!
Wang Ching-feng was responsible for the 3/19 Truth Commission's eight reports. At the time she lacked investigative powers. But for the sake of the truth, she overcame countless difficulties. She is now the Minister of Justice. She sits at the summit of the prosecutorial system. So why is she doing nothing? The Special Investigation Unit listens only to Chen Tsung-ming. Wang Ching-feng's wishes go unheeded. Does a Minister of Justice count for nothing? What happened to her determination to uncover the truth? Are political considerations involved? Annette Lu noted that less than two percent of the public believes the conclusions of the Ad Hoc 3/19 Prosecutorial and Police Commission. Is Chen Tsung-ming's credibility higher today? Chen Tsung-ming, as head of the Special Investigation Unit, is undermine the credibility of the prosecutorial system. Is Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng is watching idly as Chen Tsung-ming destroys the justice system. Is it only because she knows he has tenure?
Political considerations or the truth. Which is more important? Chen Tsung-ming and Wang Ching-feng. What are they afraid of?
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.17
社論》政治考量與發現真相 何者更重要
本報訊
三一九槍擊案將屆五周年。前副總統呂秀蓮出版了新書，《透視三一九：一個真相，一個台灣》。她是三一九槍擊案的受害者，苦於此案始終真相未明。她質疑檢警認定已故的陳義雄就是真兇結案；也不滿意三一九真調會的調查報告。她分析紅色（中國大陸）、藍營、綠營與黑道涉案的四種可能，難有定論，呼籲「另組專案小組，由檢察總長出任召集人」，「不管藍綠，只問真相。」
三一九槍擊案曾在政壇上引發巨大效應，但是和任何刑事案件一樣，應該依法發現事實真相，不受政治影響。呂有此看法，我們完全同意。但是，容我們直言，呂恐怕也未必能夠完全超越藍綠。她書中說到早在○五年十月，就曾「上簽建議應由最高法院檢察署另組專案小組」，重啟偵查機制。她的「上簽」石沉大海，但她保持沉默直到離任，此中有無政治考慮？呂陳二人受傷，如同任何常人，呂對於為何受傷疑問滿腹，也對槍擊案影響當選連任的正當性，耿耿於懷；但她對於陳水扁沒有相同程度好奇的反常舉止，卻諱莫如深，也不懷疑槍擊案背後有無選舉權謀斧鑿操縱，是否亦有政治考慮？她看槍擊案是一槍兩彈還是兩槍兩彈、有無共犯，均甚可疑，然而疑問並不只此，例如：作案動機是要殺人還是只開槍不殺人？就會影響呂提出的四種可能；四種可能之外即無其他可能？也是誰都要問的問題。呂的設想不及於此，是否仍是政治立場影響了判斷？
呂呼籲檢察總長主持重啟調查，特偵組則宣稱，二年前即已就三一九槍擊案重新審視，發現該案「真相並未大白」；只因去年偵辦扁案之後，三一九槍擊案調查工作被迫停擺。特偵組由檢察總長陳聰明指揮；檢察體系也由檢察總長陳聰明指揮。特偵組忙不過來，不能交給其他檢察單位偵辦嗎？陳聰明究竟是想辦還是不想辦？為什麼不想辦？是政治思考掩蓋了發現真相的需要嗎？呂秀蓮並不知道，陳聰明恐怕不是揭穿謎底的可靠人選。
陳聰明最近在辦理扁案上，也引起想辦不想辦的嚴重質疑。他領導特偵組，將扁案拆解，先起訴一部分；尚未起訴的部分，情節可能更為嚴重，但是久聞樓梯響始終無動靜，有無高舉輕縱的心思？特偵組人手明明不足，監察院為此提出糾正，他仍老神在在，放著所有檢調機關的充裕兵源不用，自稱足堪應付。說詞破綻如此之大，究竟是想辦不想辦？陳水扁當年獨具慧眼提名陳聰明出任檢察總長，主持特偵組。現在特偵組處理扁家密友、也是陳聰明家庭醫師朋友黃芳彥的溫柔體貼，簡直匪夷所思。以容許黃芳彥在美國辦理移民為由，癡癡等待不歸，有沒有聽過別的例子？靠著黃芳彥時機可疑的越洋電話，在已搜過的西裝中找到數億珠寶，有沒有聽過別的例子？放著共同被告馬永成的證詞不查，發表聲明辯解黃芳彥未在總統府中召集馬、鄭、辜等人舉行洗錢會議，有沒有聽過別的例子？
特偵組號為獨立辦案的最高檢察單位，高手雲集，為了保證檢察總長並未涉案，以迅雷不及掩耳的手段起訴前調查局長葉盛茂；隨時可以一字排開為長官的清白背書，也隨時發表聲明澄清長官好友的涉案程度。忠於長官之情，溢於言表，這就是所謂的檢察獨立性？陳聰明最近在傷腦筋：換不換這批死忠部隊？對於要他掛冠而去的高漲輿情為何充耳不聞？戀棧，是因為想辦案，還是因為想佔著位子不辦案？呂秀蓮所託非人，陳水扁倒是可以深慶得人！
還有王清峰，曾是孕育三一九真調會八份調查報告的王清峰。當時手無偵查權，為了真相，不惜排除政治萬難；現在出掌法務部，位居全國檢察體系的上峰，怎地水波不興？特偵組只聽命陳聰明，王清峰則是君命有所不受，部長難道就一籌莫展？找出真相的毅力勇氣還在嗎？是否有了政治考量？呂秀蓮指出只有不到二成的人相信三一九檢警專案小組的結案結論，今天陳聰明的辦案信用會更高嗎？陳聰明領導特偵組，快將整體檢察體系的公信力揮霍殆盡，王部長只因他有任期保障就坐視其摧毀一切而毫無作為嗎？
政治考量與發現真相，何者更重要？陳聰明與王清峰，各自在怕什麼？
Monday, March 16, 2009
Beware the Arrogance of Power
Beware the Arrogance of Power
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2009
To the Democratic Progressive Party, Miaoli County is a political desert. Yet lo and behold, during the Miaoli County Legislative By-election, the KMT lost! An KMT official who ran an independent campaign and who was expelled for defying KMT orders, defeated the KMT candidate by 1600 votes. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to claim part of the credit. But Chu-nan Township Mayor Kang Shi-ju, who was clearly in tune with the public mood, emphasized that he was a member of the largest party -- the public. He did not rejoin the KMT after the election. Nor did he join the DPP. The two major parties on Taiwan have long controlled the island's politics. One party lost, the other party failed to win. The result reflected the mood of the majority on Taiwan.
The KMT made light of its defeat. It attributed the defeat to a low turnout, to insufficient effort on the KMT's part. It said the entire party was now in a state of heightened awareness, and in two weeks would mobilize its members for the Taipei City Da-an District By-election. But where are the signs of heightened KMT awareness? Where are the signs of KMT self-introspection? Painful lessons learned during eight years in the political wilderness seem to have been completely forgotten eight weeks after returning to power. The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the Party hierarchy all betray the KMT's "I'm the Boss" mindset. the KMT's contempt for public opinion has rapidly reawakened memories of the old KMT. The KMT richly deserved to lose the Miaoli County By-election. The question is how many times will the KMT have to lose before it finally awakens from its arrogant stupor?
Miaoli County has long been a region in which factional interests trumped party interests. As long as the KMT could pacify factional interests, the Democratic Progressive Party could never gain a foothold. This time, Kuomintang legislator Lee Yi-ting was convicted of vote-buying. His opponent had Lee's election victory declared null and void. The KMT cavalierly nominated Lee Yi-ting's wife Chen Luan-ying, "to do battle on her husband's behalf." The KMT flagrantly ignored its commitment to clean government. It ignored the impact of the invalidated election. For the KMT, any elections that factions can control may as well be handed over to the factions. When Taitung County Commissioner Wu Chun-li was relieved of office after being convicted of corruption, the KMT merely nominated Wu's wife Kwong Li-chen. The KMT may have won the County Commissioner Election, but it failed to win peoples' hearts and minds. Even today, in the eyes of constituents, Taitung County's political record comes in last place. Clearly Kwong's example failed to inspire self-introspection within the KMT.
The KMT is a huge dinosaur. Any reform or change is difficult, so difficult that it often unravels in short order. Eight years the KMT lost power. Ma Ying-jeou rode back to power on the crest of a new mandate. In contrast with the DPP, Ma Ying-jeou represented a new generation, a new political style, a new political rhetoric. Ma Ying-jeou succeeded in reversing public antipathy toward the KMT. Unfortunately, since Ma Ying-jeou was elected president last year, all we find at the central government level is Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, and Vincent Hsiew era political appointees from nine, ten years ago. The allegiance and sincerity of veteran statesmen is commendable. But it represents a significant gap between what Ma Ying-jeou is supposed to represent. An even more serious problem is that the KMT, which holds a supermajority in the Legislative Yuan, remains utterly oblivious to the changed political climate. The KMT supermajority in the legislature has not made the passage of budgets and bills promoted by the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan more efficient. It has merely revealed the KMT's cluelessness regarding the importance of such bills in saving the economy.
What does concern the KMT? Nine years ago, KMT power was on the wane. Calls for "generational change" rang out everywhere. These calls brought Ma Ying-jeou to the political fore. The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and Party hierarchy are filled with old authoritarian era faces, with so-called "political elites" cultivated during the Chiang Ching-kuo era. They are at least 60 years old. Some are over 70. Although old, they remain ambitious. Their power continues to grow. They refuse to pass the baton. The result is that even middle-aged leaders have been held back until they too are old. These old people from the Chiang Ching-kuo and Lee Teng-hui era occupy positions of power. All they think about is becoming Premier, SEF Chairman, or Party Chairman. Less than a year after returning to power, the KMT faces a crisis akin to the one the DPP faced during the latter stages of the Chen administration.
This includes even Ma Ying-jeou. One year later, his charisma has been seriously eroded. He helped the KMT return to power, but immediately reverted to the Teflon Ma Ying-jeou who disowns all responsibility for the KMT's shortcomings. The Legislative Yuan is unable to upgrade its efficiency. Defective candidate nomination procedures for Legislative By-elections or County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections have nothing to do with him. In less than a year the KMT has regressed to the KMT of ten years ago. Yet Ma Ying-jeou remains utterly clueless. Why does the public feel he is incompetent? The answer is simple. Because the KMT reforms he led or stood for have either been stalled or compromised.
Whether we are talking about Miaoli County or Taipei City's Da-an District, one or two seats more or less in the Legislative Yuan will not affect the KMT's supermajority. But peoples' hearts and minds are undergoing gradual change. Precisely because the Legislative By-election and year end County Magistrates and City Mayors Elections will not affect the central government, voters have decided to teach the KMT a lesson. When the KMT Central Committee vows that it will "annihilate Su Tseng-chang" in the year end Taipei County Magistrates election, it ought to remember the lesson of the Miaoli Legislative By-election. Those who become arrogant with power, usually annihilate themselves, rather than their opponents.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.16
社論－別輕忽權力傲慢帶來的警訊
本報訊
苗栗立委補選，在這個堪稱民進黨沙漠的選區，國民黨竟然輸了！以一千六百票打敗國民黨的，是自行參選而遭國民黨開除黨籍的候選人，儘管民進黨號稱策略支持，但這位竹南鎮長康世儒顯然頗知民心向背地強調自己是「全民最大黨」，選後既不重回國民黨，也不加入民進黨。左、右台灣政局的兩大黨，一個輸了、一個沒贏，卻反應台灣多數選民的心聲。
苗栗立委補選敗選後，國民黨舉黨低調只說投票率低、努力不夠，全黨開始更警覺地，為兩星期後將舉行的台北市大安區立委補選動員，卻看不到國民黨反省在哪裡？警惕在哪裡？政權易手八年來的生聚教訓，在重新執政八個星期不到，就完全拋諸腦後，府院黨流露的老大心態、對民意的輕慢，都加速喚醒民眾對老國民黨的記憶。苗栗立委補選，國民黨輸得一點都不冤枉，只是，不知道接下來，國民黨還要輸幾次，才能從重掌政權的狂喜和傲慢中醒過來？
苗栗一向是派系空間超越政黨壁壘的選區，只要擺平派系利益，民進黨從來嘗不到甜頭，這一回，國民黨原當選人李乙廷涉及賄選，並遭對手提起當選無效之訴，國民黨輕輕鬆鬆提名李乙廷妻子陳鑾英「代夫出征」，顯然輕忽過去「清廉政治」的承諾，也無視「當選無效之訴」的效應，對國民黨而言，凡是派系能左右選局者，就由派系主控，前台東縣長吳俊立因貪瀆遭訴判刑解職，國民黨就直截了當提名吳的太太鄺麗貞參選，國民黨即使贏得縣長選舉，卻沒贏得名聲，到現在台東縣還是選民心目中政績吊車尾的選區。鄺的例子，顯然也沒給國民黨太多啟示。
國民黨老大到簡直像個龐大的恐龍，任何改革與轉變都那麼困難，困難到即使轉過了身，三兩下又轉回去了。馬英九能在國民黨失去政權八年之後，重新站上權力的浪頭，因為相對民進黨，馬英九代表新的世代、新的政治風格、新的政治語言，馬英九成功地扭轉民眾對國民黨的惡感。很遺憾，自從馬英九當選總統一年以來，在中央政府多是以九、十年前李連蕭班底為主的政務官，固然老臣謀國，其忠其誠可感，但與馬英九應該代表的「新世代」就出現落差；更嚴重的是，在立法院掌握絕對多數的國民黨，完全看不出新氣象，與府院重大政策相關的預算案和法案，不但未因國民黨擁有多數席次而更有效率，甚至恍若未覺拚經濟預算案與法案的急迫性。
國民黨到底關心什麼呢？九年前，國民黨政權甫旁落，「世代交替」喊得鎮天價響，除了終於拱出了一個馬英九，府院黨高層無不是走過威權時代的老面孔，這些蔣經國時代開始培養的所謂「政治菁英」，年紀都在六十歲、甚至七十歲以上，老驥伏櫪，勁頭愈來愈大，中生代都被拖老了，棒子還交不下來，這些從蔣經國時代走到李登輝時代的老人們，坐在權力的位子，想的還是行政院長、海基會董事長、黨主席，一年不到，國民黨的氣象就有步上民進黨執政後期的隱憂。
包括馬英九總統本人，一年時間即已讓他的高人氣嚴重耗損，他帶著國民黨轉型攀上權力高峰之後，立刻回復那個不沾黨權的馬英九，從立法院運轉效能無法提升、到立委補選或縣市長選舉提名失當，都和他無關，國民黨一年不到即折舊到十年前的國民黨，馬英九卻還恍若未覺地不明白：為何民意會認為他無能？答案很簡單，因為他帶領或代表的國民黨改革半途而廢或中途妥協了。
不論是苗栗或台北大安區，一席或二席立委，都無法改變國民黨在立法院擁有絕對多數席次的現實，但是，民心就在點點滴滴中累積而轉變，正因為立委補選、甚或年底縣市長選舉，都不影響中央政權的再輪替，選民刻意以此「教訓」國民黨的可能性更高，當國民黨中央指三道四要在年底台北縣長選舉中「一次殲滅蘇貞昌」的時候，必須謹記苗栗立委補選的教訓：權力的傲慢，通常殲滅的會是自己，而非對手。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 16, 2009
To the Democratic Progressive Party, Miaoli County is a political desert. Yet lo and behold, during the Miaoli County Legislative By-election, the KMT lost! An KMT official who ran an independent campaign and who was expelled for defying KMT orders, defeated the KMT candidate by 1600 votes. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to claim part of the credit. But Chu-nan Township Mayor Kang Shi-ju, who was clearly in tune with the public mood, emphasized that he was a member of the largest party -- the public. He did not rejoin the KMT after the election. Nor did he join the DPP. The two major parties on Taiwan have long controlled the island's politics. One party lost, the other party failed to win. The result reflected the mood of the majority on Taiwan.
The KMT made light of its defeat. It attributed the defeat to a low turnout, to insufficient effort on the KMT's part. It said the entire party was now in a state of heightened awareness, and in two weeks would mobilize its members for the Taipei City Da-an District By-election. But where are the signs of heightened KMT awareness? Where are the signs of KMT self-introspection? Painful lessons learned during eight years in the political wilderness seem to have been completely forgotten eight weeks after returning to power. The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the Party hierarchy all betray the KMT's "I'm the Boss" mindset. the KMT's contempt for public opinion has rapidly reawakened memories of the old KMT. The KMT richly deserved to lose the Miaoli County By-election. The question is how many times will the KMT have to lose before it finally awakens from its arrogant stupor?
Miaoli County has long been a region in which factional interests trumped party interests. As long as the KMT could pacify factional interests, the Democratic Progressive Party could never gain a foothold. This time, Kuomintang legislator Lee Yi-ting was convicted of vote-buying. His opponent had Lee's election victory declared null and void. The KMT cavalierly nominated Lee Yi-ting's wife Chen Luan-ying, "to do battle on her husband's behalf." The KMT flagrantly ignored its commitment to clean government. It ignored the impact of the invalidated election. For the KMT, any elections that factions can control may as well be handed over to the factions. When Taitung County Commissioner Wu Chun-li was relieved of office after being convicted of corruption, the KMT merely nominated Wu's wife Kwong Li-chen. The KMT may have won the County Commissioner Election, but it failed to win peoples' hearts and minds. Even today, in the eyes of constituents, Taitung County's political record comes in last place. Clearly Kwong's example failed to inspire self-introspection within the KMT.
The KMT is a huge dinosaur. Any reform or change is difficult, so difficult that it often unravels in short order. Eight years the KMT lost power. Ma Ying-jeou rode back to power on the crest of a new mandate. In contrast with the DPP, Ma Ying-jeou represented a new generation, a new political style, a new political rhetoric. Ma Ying-jeou succeeded in reversing public antipathy toward the KMT. Unfortunately, since Ma Ying-jeou was elected president last year, all we find at the central government level is Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, and Vincent Hsiew era political appointees from nine, ten years ago. The allegiance and sincerity of veteran statesmen is commendable. But it represents a significant gap between what Ma Ying-jeou is supposed to represent. An even more serious problem is that the KMT, which holds a supermajority in the Legislative Yuan, remains utterly oblivious to the changed political climate. The KMT supermajority in the legislature has not made the passage of budgets and bills promoted by the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan more efficient. It has merely revealed the KMT's cluelessness regarding the importance of such bills in saving the economy.
What does concern the KMT? Nine years ago, KMT power was on the wane. Calls for "generational change" rang out everywhere. These calls brought Ma Ying-jeou to the political fore. The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and Party hierarchy are filled with old authoritarian era faces, with so-called "political elites" cultivated during the Chiang Ching-kuo era. They are at least 60 years old. Some are over 70. Although old, they remain ambitious. Their power continues to grow. They refuse to pass the baton. The result is that even middle-aged leaders have been held back until they too are old. These old people from the Chiang Ching-kuo and Lee Teng-hui era occupy positions of power. All they think about is becoming Premier, SEF Chairman, or Party Chairman. Less than a year after returning to power, the KMT faces a crisis akin to the one the DPP faced during the latter stages of the Chen administration.
This includes even Ma Ying-jeou. One year later, his charisma has been seriously eroded. He helped the KMT return to power, but immediately reverted to the Teflon Ma Ying-jeou who disowns all responsibility for the KMT's shortcomings. The Legislative Yuan is unable to upgrade its efficiency. Defective candidate nomination procedures for Legislative By-elections or County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections have nothing to do with him. In less than a year the KMT has regressed to the KMT of ten years ago. Yet Ma Ying-jeou remains utterly clueless. Why does the public feel he is incompetent? The answer is simple. Because the KMT reforms he led or stood for have either been stalled or compromised.
Whether we are talking about Miaoli County or Taipei City's Da-an District, one or two seats more or less in the Legislative Yuan will not affect the KMT's supermajority. But peoples' hearts and minds are undergoing gradual change. Precisely because the Legislative By-election and year end County Magistrates and City Mayors Elections will not affect the central government, voters have decided to teach the KMT a lesson. When the KMT Central Committee vows that it will "annihilate Su Tseng-chang" in the year end Taipei County Magistrates election, it ought to remember the lesson of the Miaoli Legislative By-election. Those who become arrogant with power, usually annihilate themselves, rather than their opponents.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.03.16
社論－別輕忽權力傲慢帶來的警訊
本報訊
苗栗立委補選，在這個堪稱民進黨沙漠的選區，國民黨竟然輸了！以一千六百票打敗國民黨的，是自行參選而遭國民黨開除黨籍的候選人，儘管民進黨號稱策略支持，但這位竹南鎮長康世儒顯然頗知民心向背地強調自己是「全民最大黨」，選後既不重回國民黨，也不加入民進黨。左、右台灣政局的兩大黨，一個輸了、一個沒贏，卻反應台灣多數選民的心聲。
苗栗立委補選敗選後，國民黨舉黨低調只說投票率低、努力不夠，全黨開始更警覺地，為兩星期後將舉行的台北市大安區立委補選動員，卻看不到國民黨反省在哪裡？警惕在哪裡？政權易手八年來的生聚教訓，在重新執政八個星期不到，就完全拋諸腦後，府院黨流露的老大心態、對民意的輕慢，都加速喚醒民眾對老國民黨的記憶。苗栗立委補選，國民黨輸得一點都不冤枉，只是，不知道接下來，國民黨還要輸幾次，才能從重掌政權的狂喜和傲慢中醒過來？
苗栗一向是派系空間超越政黨壁壘的選區，只要擺平派系利益，民進黨從來嘗不到甜頭，這一回，國民黨原當選人李乙廷涉及賄選，並遭對手提起當選無效之訴，國民黨輕輕鬆鬆提名李乙廷妻子陳鑾英「代夫出征」，顯然輕忽過去「清廉政治」的承諾，也無視「當選無效之訴」的效應，對國民黨而言，凡是派系能左右選局者，就由派系主控，前台東縣長吳俊立因貪瀆遭訴判刑解職，國民黨就直截了當提名吳的太太鄺麗貞參選，國民黨即使贏得縣長選舉，卻沒贏得名聲，到現在台東縣還是選民心目中政績吊車尾的選區。鄺的例子，顯然也沒給國民黨太多啟示。
國民黨老大到簡直像個龐大的恐龍，任何改革與轉變都那麼困難，困難到即使轉過了身，三兩下又轉回去了。馬英九能在國民黨失去政權八年之後，重新站上權力的浪頭，因為相對民進黨，馬英九代表新的世代、新的政治風格、新的政治語言，馬英九成功地扭轉民眾對國民黨的惡感。很遺憾，自從馬英九當選總統一年以來，在中央政府多是以九、十年前李連蕭班底為主的政務官，固然老臣謀國，其忠其誠可感，但與馬英九應該代表的「新世代」就出現落差；更嚴重的是，在立法院掌握絕對多數的國民黨，完全看不出新氣象，與府院重大政策相關的預算案和法案，不但未因國民黨擁有多數席次而更有效率，甚至恍若未覺拚經濟預算案與法案的急迫性。
國民黨到底關心什麼呢？九年前，國民黨政權甫旁落，「世代交替」喊得鎮天價響，除了終於拱出了一個馬英九，府院黨高層無不是走過威權時代的老面孔，這些蔣經國時代開始培養的所謂「政治菁英」，年紀都在六十歲、甚至七十歲以上，老驥伏櫪，勁頭愈來愈大，中生代都被拖老了，棒子還交不下來，這些從蔣經國時代走到李登輝時代的老人們，坐在權力的位子，想的還是行政院長、海基會董事長、黨主席，一年不到，國民黨的氣象就有步上民進黨執政後期的隱憂。
包括馬英九總統本人，一年時間即已讓他的高人氣嚴重耗損，他帶著國民黨轉型攀上權力高峰之後，立刻回復那個不沾黨權的馬英九，從立法院運轉效能無法提升、到立委補選或縣市長選舉提名失當，都和他無關，國民黨一年不到即折舊到十年前的國民黨，馬英九卻還恍若未覺地不明白：為何民意會認為他無能？答案很簡單，因為他帶領或代表的國民黨改革半途而廢或中途妥協了。
不論是苗栗或台北大安區，一席或二席立委，都無法改變國民黨在立法院擁有絕對多數席次的現實，但是，民心就在點點滴滴中累積而轉變，正因為立委補選、甚或年底縣市長選舉，都不影響中央政權的再輪替，選民刻意以此「教訓」國民黨的可能性更高，當國民黨中央指三道四要在年底台北縣長選舉中「一次殲滅蘇貞昌」的時候，必須謹記苗栗立委補選的教訓：權力的傲慢，通常殲滅的會是自己，而非對手。
Thursday, March 12, 2009
In Response to Wang Yi's Response
In Response to Wang Yi's Response
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 13, 2009
When Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi was interviewed by China Central Television recently, he mentioned cross-Strait issues, including CECA. Quoting a March 4 United Daily News editorial he said, "To use the United Daily News' metaphor, we hope the two sides will not engage in "Invitation to a Funeral" oriented wishful thinking, but instead offer each other a mutually beneficial win-win "Invitation to a Dance."
This is the first time one of Beijing's top policymakers has used a Taiwan-based newspaper editorial as part of his argument. We are deeply gratified that Beijing has taken note of public opinion on Taiwan. We heartily endorse Wang Yi's "Invitation to a Dance" declaration and his forswearing of any "Invitation to a Funeral." The theme of the March 4 United Daily News editorial was "Beijing: An Invitation to a Funeral, or an Invitation to a Dance?" The editorial argued that Beijing must not regard the signing of CECA as a short term "Invitation to a Funeral." Instead it should regard the signing of CECA as a win-win "Invitation to a Dance" that takes the long view and promotes mutual prosperity. If Beijing sees CECA as an "Invitation to a Funeral," as a means to seal Taipei up in a funerary urn, away from the outside world, it will be acting in defiance of justice and in defiance of public opinion. Cross-Strait relations will be led astray. The editorial also argued that Beijing should declare that it looks forward to seeing Taipei conclude FTAs with ASEAN and other countries. At this point, we would like to make the following recommendations to the mainland authorities and the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan.
One. Make an "Invitation to a Dance / Win-Win and Mutual Prosperity" an article of political faith and goal to strive for. This must be done in good faith, straight from the heart. One must not talk about an "Invitation to a Dance" while making Machiavellian preparations for an "Invitation to a Funeral." If our observation is correct, Hu Jintao and his generation have undergone a major transformation in their thinking about cross-Strait relations. Our reading is that they speak of "peaceful reunification" but are in fact pursuing "peaceful development." They are shelving goal-oriented "reunification vs. independence." They are implementing process-oriented "peaceful development." In the blink of an eye, the two sides have apparently emerged from a dark tunnel onto a sunlit plain.
Why do we wish to make an "Invitation to a Dance" an article of faith and a goal to strive for? In reality Beijing has many ways to deal with cross-Strait relations. It has many ways to gauge the success of its domestic and foreign policy. How Beijing handles the Taiwan question must be acceptable internationally. It must be acceptable to the public on the mainland. It must be acceptable to the public on Taiwan. Therefore, if Beijing is sincere about a "Win-Win Dance" with Taipei, it must uphold peace and democracy. If Beijing applies these two criteria to other areas of its domestic and foreign policy, all of China will undergo improvement. Surely Hu Jintao and his generation have the vision to deal with the Taiwan issue in a peaceful and democratic manner. After all, China's problems can only be solved under conditions of peace and democracy. Therefore an "Invitation to a Dance" must be an article of faith, not a means of deception.
Two. The "One China Principle", should be increasingly understood as "One China, Different Interpretations." The root cause of cross-Strait problems is Taiwan independence. The main reason Taiwan independence lingers on is that the Republic of China remains in dire straits, that the Republic of China is accorded little dignity. Beijing's bottom line is opposition to "de jure Taiwan independence." The Republic of China does not mean Taiwan independence. The Republic of China is founded on a "One China Constitution." If Beijing does not want Taiwan independence to take the place of the Republic of China, it must maintain the Republic of China's "One China Constitution." Beijing's current policy is to "maintain the status quo." It must accord the Republic of China sufficient respect and breathing room. Beijing may find it difficult to explicitly agree to "One China, Different Interpretations." The one time Hu Jingtao mentioned it was on the Hot Line to George W. Bush. But although he may not be able to say it, that doesn't mean he can't do it. For example, when the ROC flag recently appeared at the Tokyo Stadium, Beijing lodged no protests. This is a positive sign.
Three. If Beijing is not offering us an "Invitation to a Funeral," it should be happy to see Taipei's participation in the international community. Once CECA has been signed, the signing of FTAs between Taipei, ASEAN, the United States, and other countries should follow as a matter of course. After all, Beijing cannot possibly reunify the two sides by suffocating Taipei. Wang Yi said he is cautiously optimistic about WHA participation in May. Beijing must not regard this as merely a change in political tactics, but as a transformation in thought.
We once used the "chopsticks analogy" to characterize cross-Strait relations. If two chopsticks are solidly bound to each other, if they are "unified" in that sense, they become unusable. If they are totally separated, if they are "independent" in that sense, they also become unusable. The normal operation of a pair of chopsticks requires that they be both "unified" and "independent." Only then can they be used. CECA is a "Big Tent." It is like a pair of chopsticks. It is neither independent nor unified, while simultaneously independent and unified. This may be the best way to promote cross-Strait "peaceful development."
In fact, Deng Xiaoping said it long ago. Cross-Straits relations are not about who gobbles up whom. Deng Xiaoping's words are perhaps something Hu Jintao and his generation can make an article of faith and a goal to strive for.
回應王毅的回應
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.13 05:56 am
北京國台辦主任王毅接受中央電視台訪問時，針對兩岸簽署ＣＥＣＡ事宜，引據本報三月四日的社論稱：如果借用《聯合報》社論的比喻來說，我們希望雙方都不要搞一廂情願的「請君入甕」，而是要搞互利雙贏的「與卿共舞」。
記憶所及，這是北京高層政策官員，首次以台灣報紙社論作為其論證政策的引據。我們對北京方面注意及台灣的民間輿論頗感欣慰，亦對王毅贊同「與卿共舞」、否棄「請君入甕」的政策宣示深寄期待。
本報三月四日社論的題目是〈北京的思考：請君入甕或與卿共舞？ 〉文中指出：北京不可將簽訂ＣＥＣＡ視作「請君入甕」的短線操作，而應看成雙贏共榮的「與卿共舞」，追求的是可大可久。北京若將ＣＥＣＡ視為「甕」，欲封 死台灣在「甕」外的世界，則屬逆天理、反民意，兩岸關係亦將走上歧途絕路。社論並主張：北京應宣示樂見台灣與東協及其他國家締結ＦＴＡ。在此，我們願對彼 岸朝野再進數言：
一、要將「與卿共舞／雙贏共榮」作為一種政治信仰及境界的追求。要打從心裡就是這麼想，這麼相信；不要有口說「與卿共舞」、陰裡「請君入甕」的權謀思考。 如果我們的觀察無誤，胡錦濤這一代對兩岸關係的思維已有極大的昇華。我們的解讀是：他虛懸「和平統一」，而採取了「和平發展」的務實路線；也就是擱置了統 獨「目的論」的窠臼，改尚和平發展的「過程論」。一念之轉，兩岸似已出現柳暗花明的新形勢。
為什麼說要將「與卿共舞」這種思考，視為一種信仰及境界的追求？其實，北京可將其處理兩岸關係的方法，作為其對內對外治理的檢驗標尺。因為，北京處理台灣 問題的方法，對外必須被國際接受，對內必須被大陸民意接受，對台灣更須被台灣的民主體制接受；因此，如果真心實意要和台灣「雙贏共舞」，則必定要維持「和 平」與「民主」兩大準則。而北京若以這兩大準則，用於對內與對外其他領域的治理，則整個中國的境界亦可望相應提升。胡錦濤這一代應當有此抱負：要以和平民 主的方法處理台灣問題。因為，整個中國的問題，也唯有在「和平／民主」的準則下，始可能得到解決。所以說，「與卿共舞」只能是信仰，而不可是權謀。
二、關於「一個中國的原則」，應漸漸容納「一中各表」。兩岸問題的要害在台獨，而台獨之所以存在，主因是中華民國處境艱窘，中華民國沒有尊嚴。北京今日的 底線是反對「法理台獨」，而中華民國不是台獨；中華民國的立足基點是「一中憲法」，北京若不欲台獨取代中華民國，即應珍惜「一中憲法」之維持；北京今日政 策是「維持現狀」，就必須給中華民國應有的尊嚴與空間。北京或許暫難宣示「一中各表」（唯一的一次在布胡熱線），但雖不可說，卻不是不可慢慢做。例如，最 近東京球場上出現青天白日滿地紅旗，未見北京抗議，這應是佳兆。
三、北京倘不是要「請君入甕」，即應樂見台灣參與國際社會；ＣＥＣＡ簽訂後，台灣與東協及美國等其他國家簽訂ＦＴＡ，亦當是順理成章。畢竟，北京不可能以窒息台灣的手法來統一台灣。王毅已說，ＷＨＡ五月「審慎樂觀」，北京也不應自認這只是權謀的改變，而應視為境界的昇華。
我們曾以「筷子理論」喻兩岸關係。兩隻筷子若綁死在一起，是「統一」之害，不能有筷子的功能；若分離兩處，則是「獨立」之害，也不能有筷子的功用。一雙正 常操作的筷子，必定是有合有分，始能靈動自如。ＣＥＣＡ這類「軟屋頂」，正如有合有分的一雙筷子，不獨、不統、亦獨、亦統，或許正是兩岸「和平發展」的最 佳機制。
其實，鄧小平早就說過，兩岸不是誰吃掉誰的問題；這句話，也許今天到了胡錦濤這一代，始有可能成為一種信仰及境界的追求。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 13, 2009
When Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi was interviewed by China Central Television recently, he mentioned cross-Strait issues, including CECA. Quoting a March 4 United Daily News editorial he said, "To use the United Daily News' metaphor, we hope the two sides will not engage in "Invitation to a Funeral" oriented wishful thinking, but instead offer each other a mutually beneficial win-win "Invitation to a Dance."
This is the first time one of Beijing's top policymakers has used a Taiwan-based newspaper editorial as part of his argument. We are deeply gratified that Beijing has taken note of public opinion on Taiwan. We heartily endorse Wang Yi's "Invitation to a Dance" declaration and his forswearing of any "Invitation to a Funeral." The theme of the March 4 United Daily News editorial was "Beijing: An Invitation to a Funeral, or an Invitation to a Dance?" The editorial argued that Beijing must not regard the signing of CECA as a short term "Invitation to a Funeral." Instead it should regard the signing of CECA as a win-win "Invitation to a Dance" that takes the long view and promotes mutual prosperity. If Beijing sees CECA as an "Invitation to a Funeral," as a means to seal Taipei up in a funerary urn, away from the outside world, it will be acting in defiance of justice and in defiance of public opinion. Cross-Strait relations will be led astray. The editorial also argued that Beijing should declare that it looks forward to seeing Taipei conclude FTAs with ASEAN and other countries. At this point, we would like to make the following recommendations to the mainland authorities and the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan.
One. Make an "Invitation to a Dance / Win-Win and Mutual Prosperity" an article of political faith and goal to strive for. This must be done in good faith, straight from the heart. One must not talk about an "Invitation to a Dance" while making Machiavellian preparations for an "Invitation to a Funeral." If our observation is correct, Hu Jintao and his generation have undergone a major transformation in their thinking about cross-Strait relations. Our reading is that they speak of "peaceful reunification" but are in fact pursuing "peaceful development." They are shelving goal-oriented "reunification vs. independence." They are implementing process-oriented "peaceful development." In the blink of an eye, the two sides have apparently emerged from a dark tunnel onto a sunlit plain.
Why do we wish to make an "Invitation to a Dance" an article of faith and a goal to strive for? In reality Beijing has many ways to deal with cross-Strait relations. It has many ways to gauge the success of its domestic and foreign policy. How Beijing handles the Taiwan question must be acceptable internationally. It must be acceptable to the public on the mainland. It must be acceptable to the public on Taiwan. Therefore, if Beijing is sincere about a "Win-Win Dance" with Taipei, it must uphold peace and democracy. If Beijing applies these two criteria to other areas of its domestic and foreign policy, all of China will undergo improvement. Surely Hu Jintao and his generation have the vision to deal with the Taiwan issue in a peaceful and democratic manner. After all, China's problems can only be solved under conditions of peace and democracy. Therefore an "Invitation to a Dance" must be an article of faith, not a means of deception.
Two. The "One China Principle", should be increasingly understood as "One China, Different Interpretations." The root cause of cross-Strait problems is Taiwan independence. The main reason Taiwan independence lingers on is that the Republic of China remains in dire straits, that the Republic of China is accorded little dignity. Beijing's bottom line is opposition to "de jure Taiwan independence." The Republic of China does not mean Taiwan independence. The Republic of China is founded on a "One China Constitution." If Beijing does not want Taiwan independence to take the place of the Republic of China, it must maintain the Republic of China's "One China Constitution." Beijing's current policy is to "maintain the status quo." It must accord the Republic of China sufficient respect and breathing room. Beijing may find it difficult to explicitly agree to "One China, Different Interpretations." The one time Hu Jingtao mentioned it was on the Hot Line to George W. Bush. But although he may not be able to say it, that doesn't mean he can't do it. For example, when the ROC flag recently appeared at the Tokyo Stadium, Beijing lodged no protests. This is a positive sign.
Three. If Beijing is not offering us an "Invitation to a Funeral," it should be happy to see Taipei's participation in the international community. Once CECA has been signed, the signing of FTAs between Taipei, ASEAN, the United States, and other countries should follow as a matter of course. After all, Beijing cannot possibly reunify the two sides by suffocating Taipei. Wang Yi said he is cautiously optimistic about WHA participation in May. Beijing must not regard this as merely a change in political tactics, but as a transformation in thought.
We once used the "chopsticks analogy" to characterize cross-Strait relations. If two chopsticks are solidly bound to each other, if they are "unified" in that sense, they become unusable. If they are totally separated, if they are "independent" in that sense, they also become unusable. The normal operation of a pair of chopsticks requires that they be both "unified" and "independent." Only then can they be used. CECA is a "Big Tent." It is like a pair of chopsticks. It is neither independent nor unified, while simultaneously independent and unified. This may be the best way to promote cross-Strait "peaceful development."
In fact, Deng Xiaoping said it long ago. Cross-Straits relations are not about who gobbles up whom. Deng Xiaoping's words are perhaps something Hu Jintao and his generation can make an article of faith and a goal to strive for.
回應王毅的回應
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.13 05:56 am
北京國台辦主任王毅接受中央電視台訪問時，針對兩岸簽署ＣＥＣＡ事宜，引據本報三月四日的社論稱：如果借用《聯合報》社論的比喻來說，我們希望雙方都不要搞一廂情願的「請君入甕」，而是要搞互利雙贏的「與卿共舞」。
記憶所及，這是北京高層政策官員，首次以台灣報紙社論作為其論證政策的引據。我們對北京方面注意及台灣的民間輿論頗感欣慰，亦對王毅贊同「與卿共舞」、否棄「請君入甕」的政策宣示深寄期待。
本報三月四日社論的題目是〈北京的思考：請君入甕或與卿共舞？ 〉文中指出：北京不可將簽訂ＣＥＣＡ視作「請君入甕」的短線操作，而應看成雙贏共榮的「與卿共舞」，追求的是可大可久。北京若將ＣＥＣＡ視為「甕」，欲封 死台灣在「甕」外的世界，則屬逆天理、反民意，兩岸關係亦將走上歧途絕路。社論並主張：北京應宣示樂見台灣與東協及其他國家締結ＦＴＡ。在此，我們願對彼 岸朝野再進數言：
一、要將「與卿共舞／雙贏共榮」作為一種政治信仰及境界的追求。要打從心裡就是這麼想，這麼相信；不要有口說「與卿共舞」、陰裡「請君入甕」的權謀思考。 如果我們的觀察無誤，胡錦濤這一代對兩岸關係的思維已有極大的昇華。我們的解讀是：他虛懸「和平統一」，而採取了「和平發展」的務實路線；也就是擱置了統 獨「目的論」的窠臼，改尚和平發展的「過程論」。一念之轉，兩岸似已出現柳暗花明的新形勢。
為什麼說要將「與卿共舞」這種思考，視為一種信仰及境界的追求？其實，北京可將其處理兩岸關係的方法，作為其對內對外治理的檢驗標尺。因為，北京處理台灣 問題的方法，對外必須被國際接受，對內必須被大陸民意接受，對台灣更須被台灣的民主體制接受；因此，如果真心實意要和台灣「雙贏共舞」，則必定要維持「和 平」與「民主」兩大準則。而北京若以這兩大準則，用於對內與對外其他領域的治理，則整個中國的境界亦可望相應提升。胡錦濤這一代應當有此抱負：要以和平民 主的方法處理台灣問題。因為，整個中國的問題，也唯有在「和平／民主」的準則下，始可能得到解決。所以說，「與卿共舞」只能是信仰，而不可是權謀。
二、關於「一個中國的原則」，應漸漸容納「一中各表」。兩岸問題的要害在台獨，而台獨之所以存在，主因是中華民國處境艱窘，中華民國沒有尊嚴。北京今日的 底線是反對「法理台獨」，而中華民國不是台獨；中華民國的立足基點是「一中憲法」，北京若不欲台獨取代中華民國，即應珍惜「一中憲法」之維持；北京今日政 策是「維持現狀」，就必須給中華民國應有的尊嚴與空間。北京或許暫難宣示「一中各表」（唯一的一次在布胡熱線），但雖不可說，卻不是不可慢慢做。例如，最 近東京球場上出現青天白日滿地紅旗，未見北京抗議，這應是佳兆。
三、北京倘不是要「請君入甕」，即應樂見台灣參與國際社會；ＣＥＣＡ簽訂後，台灣與東協及美國等其他國家簽訂ＦＴＡ，亦當是順理成章。畢竟，北京不可能以窒息台灣的手法來統一台灣。王毅已說，ＷＨＡ五月「審慎樂觀」，北京也不應自認這只是權謀的改變，而應視為境界的昇華。
我們曾以「筷子理論」喻兩岸關係。兩隻筷子若綁死在一起，是「統一」之害，不能有筷子的功能；若分離兩處，則是「獨立」之害，也不能有筷子的功用。一雙正 常操作的筷子，必定是有合有分，始能靈動自如。ＣＥＣＡ這類「軟屋頂」，正如有合有分的一雙筷子，不獨、不統、亦獨、亦統，或許正是兩岸「和平發展」的最 佳機制。
其實，鄧小平早就說過，兩岸不是誰吃掉誰的問題；這句話，也許今天到了胡錦濤這一代，始有可能成為一種信仰及境界的追求。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)