Confronting New Strains of Influenza
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 30, 2009
In April 2009, the world was just beginning to recover from the havoc wreaked by the financial tsunami. US President Barack Obama confidently declared that signs of an economic recovery were already evident. Who knew another storm was already brewing? The World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the epidemic caused by the H1N1 virus, a "new type of influenza," to a Level Four Alert. This may be revised at any time to a Level Five Alert. Many nations, including the Republic of China, have begun working to prevent a repeat of the panic and harm caused In 2003 by SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).
At the same time, we have good news. This year, 12 years later, the Republic of China government will finally acquire observer status under the name "Chinese Taipei." On May 18 it will participate in the World Health Assembly (WHA). Some people consider WHA observer status under the name "Chinese Taipei" unsatisfactory. They compare it to World Trade Organization (WTO) membership under the name "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu Customs Territory." But this is nevertheless an important step in the Republic of China government's return to the international community. Especially since this new type of influenza may touch off international concerns. Taipei has been invited to the meeting. It has been presented with the opportunity to join the international dialogue on public health and the cross-border health cooperation program led by the World Health Organization (WHO). This will provide Taipei with valuable experience in public health surveillance and the prevention of enterovirus infections and Influenza epidemics. For Taipei, participation in WHA is an important breakthrough.
Participation in international organizations is one thing. But disaster prevention efforsts must not be taken lightly. A new outbreak of influenza caused by a four-year-old boy's illness on a pig farm near the US-Mexican border appears random, like the outbreak of SARS in 2003. On February 26, 2003, an American businessman who fell ill in Hanoi and was hospitalized in Hong Kong, died. This was the prelude to SARS, known as the 21st Century plague. Soon afterwards, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Vietnam, and other Asian regions reported cases of SARS.
The first SARS cases were discovered in March. Initially, health authorities believed the epidemic was under control. But in April Heping Hospital experienced a massive outbreak. Patients, health care workers, and nursing personnel were all infected. This was Taiwan's first mass infection of SARS. The public experienced widespread panic and confusion. The government classified it as a fourth category of SARS Notifiable Diseases. For the first time since 1949, hospitals, streets, and buildings were quarantined. Both the central government Director of Health and the Taipei City Director of Health were forced to step down. The "anti-SARS hero" at the time, the man who on his own initiative entered the already quarantined Heping Hospital and took command, is today's Director of Health Yeh Chin-chuan.
SARS reminded many people of what well-known sociologist Ulrich Beck calls the "risk society." Society treats individuals as units. But modern risk is globalized (Glocal Risk). Individual behavior has collective consequences. Many people believe that one reason the SARS epidemic got out of control was that the Beijing government covered it up during its outset. The global community means constant interaction. Public health is an issue that requires everyone's participation. Any one nation or region's negligence may lead to unpredictable and unfortunate consequences. On Taiwan, SARS screening and isolation measures led to widespread public discussion of ethical issues. For example, a high school student quarantined at home violated quarantine to attend a cram school class. This created a hole in the quarantine system, and widespread criticism that the high school student had "absolutely no sense of public spirit." Some Heping Hospital medical staff refused to go back to work. Then Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou had some harsh words for them. He said fighting SARS was akin to waging war. If health care workers refuse to work, it is akin to cowardice in the face of the enemy. He would punish them according to the "Infectious Diseases Prevention Law," and seek administrative accountability.
The SARS epidemic taught Taiwan valuable lessons about collective risk, personal responsibility, and medical ethics. The fight against SARS also helped established standard operating procedures. Three and a half months after SARS erupted on Taiwan, WHO announced Taiwan's removal from its list of SARS infected areas. During this period, 664 were infected and 73 died. Approximately 110,000 were quarantine at home. Three in ten thousand returning to Taiwan from infected areas became infected. Twelve in ten thousand who came in contact with them became infected. The incidence of SARS on Taiwan was low. But the risk of death among those infected was high.
During that period, Taipei's application for WHA observer status was rejected. Six years later, a new type of influenza led to 160 deaths in nine countries. Asia already has its first confirmed cases, in South Korea. Will it cause a global pandemic? Everyone is concerned. In addition to public health security issues, scholarly studies reveal that the economic damage caused by the epidemic on Taiwan caused a drop in consumption of over 200 billion NT. Excluding the cost of fighting SARS, the financial losses amounted to 16 billion NT. Will the new type of influenza have a similar impact on a still recovering economy? The nations of the world must work together to survive the economic and social impact of the disease. During the SARS crisis, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said pandemics remind us that public health knows no borders and is not a political issue. Without a global public health cooperation mechanism, we will not be able to control such diseases.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.30
社論－以萬全準備迎接新流感挑戰
本報訊
二 ○○九年四月，這個世界剛剛開始要從金融海嘯的肆虐中回神過來、準備迎接美國總統歐巴馬的信心喊話：「景氣已看到復甦的契機。」沒想到新風暴又成形，世界衛生組織（ＷＨＯ）已將因Ｈ１Ｎ１病毒感染所造成的「新型流感」升級為第四級警戒，並且隨時可能上修為大量流行的第五級警戒。包括台灣在內，各國已紛紛投入防疫工作，以免二○○三年ＳＡＲＳ（嚴重急性呼吸道症候群）恐慌與傷害再現。
與此同時，台灣接獲一樁好消息。叩關十二年後，台灣終於在今年以「中華台北」名義的觀察員身分，參加五月十八日舉行的「世界衛生大會」（ＷＨＡ）。或許對某些想比照世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）「台澎金馬關稅領域」會籍名稱的人來說，ＷＨＡ觀察員「中華台北」這個名稱不盡如人意，但是這畢竟是台灣重返國際社會所跨出的重要一步；特別是在這次新型流感可能引爆國際流行的隱憂之際，台灣此時獲邀與會，不但有機會加入國際公衛對話，參與世界衛生組織（ＷＨＯ）主導的跨國醫衛合作計畫，台灣更能在腸病毒、流感疫情監控等公共衛生及疾病預防上，提供寶貴的經驗，因此參與ＷＨＡ堪稱近年來台灣的一項重要突破。
能夠參與國際組織是一回事，但防疫抗災的努力更不可掉以輕心。這次從美墨邊境一家豬隻養殖場裡的四歲小男童生病所引發的新流感，彷彿出於一個看似輕微的偶然，一如二○○三年的ＳＡＲＳ。二○○三年二月二十六日，越南河內一位美商發病送至香港就醫後，不幸死亡，揭開了ＳＡＲＳ這個被稱為是二十一世紀人類第一場流行瘟疫的序幕；之後香港、中國大陸、越南等亞洲國家紛紛傳出了ＳＡＲＳ病例。
記得當時三月間發現第一個ＳＡＲＳ病例，起初衛生主管機關還認為疫情在控制中；四月就爆發和平醫院集體感染，病患、看護工、醫護人員先後發病，這個台灣第一次發生的ＳＡＲＳ集體感染，讓台灣進入了集體恐慌，社會氣氛大亂。政府宣布將ＳＡＲＳ列入為第四類法定傳染病，並創下自一九四九年以來，首度封院（醫院）、封街封樓、院外發燒篩檢的景況；中央和台北市的衛生首長雙雙下台。當時主動進入已遭封院的和平醫院指揮大局「抗煞英雄」就是今天的衛生署長葉金川。
ＳＡＲＳ讓很多人深刻體認到著名的社會學家貝克（Ulrich Beck）所一再提醒的「風險社會」特質：社會看似以「個人」為單位，但現代風險卻已展現出一種全球在地化的趨勢（Glocal Risk），個別行為具有集體的影響力。很多人相信，ＳＡＲＳ疫情之所以會一發不可拾，原因之一是中國大陸一開始隱瞞疫情；對交流頻繁的國際社會而言，公衛是「一個都不能少」風險連動課題，任何一個國家、地區的疏忽，都可能造成難以估計的不幸後果；而在台灣，ＳＡＲＳ的篩檢與隔離措施，也引發了公共倫理議題的高度討論，例如，某位被居家隔離的高中生跑去補習，造成防疫漏洞，引發各界責難，認為這名高中生「完全沒有公共道德意識」；此外，當時和平醫院有醫護人員不願意返回醫院工作，進行抗爭，時任台北市長的馬英九特別說了重話，強調抗煞視同作戰，醫護人員如有抗爭，即視同敵前抗命，將依《傳染病防治法》懲處，並追究行政責任。
在ＳＡＲＳ流行期間，在有關集體風險中個人的道德倫理與醫療專業等議題上，台灣上了寶貴的一課，也建立了抗煞的ＳＯＰ（標準作業模式），ＳＡＲＳ病例在台灣出現的三個半月後，ＷＨＯ宣布台灣從ＳＡＲＳ感染區除名。在此期間，台灣共有六六四個病例，其中七十三人死亡；居家隔離者共有十一萬人左右，由疫區返台者的發病率為○○三％（一萬人有三人），接觸者則有○一二％發病；ＳＡＲＳ在台灣可以說是一種獲病比例低，但是死亡風險高的疾病。
那段期間，台灣也曾申請成為ＷＨＡ觀察員未成。六年後，新型流感已在九國家造成一六○例死亡，亞洲也已在韓國出現第一起確定病例，是否會進一步造成全球大流行，世人極為憂慮；除了公共衛生安全的問題之外，從ＳＡＲＳ的經驗看來，疫情還會造成經濟損害，以台灣為例，學者研究，ＳＡＲＳ期間，台灣的消費減少了二百餘億元，不計抗煞經費，財務損失約為一六○億元，新型流感是否會對尚未恢復元氣的經濟造成新的打擊，同樣令人關切。總之，無論是疫情本身或者經濟、社會層面，各國必須通力合作才有可能度過這場猛烈的疫情危機。一如ＳＡＲＳ期間，美國衛生部長湯普森強調的：疫情讓世人警惕到，公共衛生是沒有國界的，也是非政治性的，若沒有全球公共衛生合作的機制，就無法控制疾病。
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides
The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2009
Summary: The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.
Full Text below:
The third Chiang/Chen Summit has successfully adjourned. The two sides signed agreements covering regularly scheduled cross-Strait air flights, financial cooperation, and anti-crime measures. They also achieved consensus on Mainland investments on Taiwan. According to the latest newspaper poll 53% of the public is in favor of allowing Mainland investments on Taiwan. Public satisfaction with President Ma Ying-jeou's policies rose slightly, to 45%. Public satisfaction with the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies rose to 49%. This shows that since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, its emphasis on cross-Strait exchanges are beginning to pay off, and have met with public approval.
Public opinion diverged considerably on whether the third Chiang/Chen Summit was convened on a peer-to-peer basis, and whether it undermined the Republic of China's sovereignty. Thirty-five percent felt it did not undermine our sovereignty. Another 35% felt it did undermine our sovereignty. Approximately 30% had no opinion. Compared to the second Chiang/Chen Summit, the proportion that felt it undermined our sovereignty increased. The proportion that felt it did not undermine our sovereignty declined. The poll figures explain to some extent why the opposition DPP invariably resorts to criticism of the Ma administration as the basis of its cross-Strait policy. Because by doing so it need not put forth any concrete data or evidence. One-third of the public will always oppose cross-Strait exchanges.
For the Ma administration this is a poll number about which it must remain vigilant. Ever since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, it has been unable to open a window of dialogue with opposition party leaders. Will the "two Yings" (Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen) meet? Every time the question is raised the two sides end up shouting at each from a distance. They never make real progress. Society desperately needs a consensus on cross-Strait policy. But without the participation of the opposition DPP, the public will remain divided between Blue and Green. The fracture between the two parties will never be healed. A democratic society should accomodate different views. Opinions both pro and con should be heard. Only then can we arrive at the broadest possible consensus. Only then can the policies implemented maintain social harmony. Those in authority must bear the greatest responsibilty and expend the greatest effort.
The Democratic Progressive Party is the largest opposition party. It must not ignore reality. It must not be content to embrace 30% of the public. It must not be content to bask in the approval of a minority. It must not be content to succumb to the pressure exerted by that minority. It must not Ignore the demands of the majority. Otherwise we will never be able to achieve a consensus among the majority. After all, if the DPP wishes to once again assume office, it can hardly rely on the support of only 30% of the public.
The Democratic Progressive Party is asking the public to take to the streets on May 17 to protest the Ma administration. This is understandable. But what connection is there between combating unemployment and accusing the Ma administration of undermining our sovereignty? DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's harshest criticism is that the extension requested by the opposition DPP was "never even touched upon." Therefore they consider the Chiang/Chen Summit a total failure. Tsai Ing-wen was once Chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan. During her term she rejected any and all calls for cross-Strait negotiations. Perhaps she does not understand. Just because the opposition DPP tosses out an issue prior to negotiations, that does not mean the ruling administration must discuss it or successfully negotiate it. Ma Ying-jeou also expressed a desire for an extension prior to the Chiang/Chen Summit. But the Ma administration has been in office less than a year. The institutionalization of the two sides' proxies, the SEF and the ARATS, appears to be on track. During the three years remaining in the Ma administration's first term, it will surely have a chance to raise this issue of such concern to the opposition DPP. The only question is, when the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party still consider this a "significant advance" in cross-Strait relations and policy?
Chen Po-chih was a Chairman of the CEPD and a Chairman of the Taiwan Think Tank under the DPP administration. Chen offered an even-handed evaluation of the Chiang/Chen Summit. He said it was good that they only signed a broad financial cooperation agreement, not a memorandum of understanding. He said "It must be properly laid out before signing." According to the Ma administration, a memorandum of understanding will be signed in about two months. Most important of all, the signing will be completed by officials from the two sides in direct, face-to-face talks, rather than through proxies. This amounts to significant progress in the negotiation process.
In fact, in less than a year, the three Chiang/Chen Summits have already established a precedent for cross-Strait talks. The three agreements signed this time were all finalized after secret talks by senior officials from the two sides, and signed by officials of MAC and ARATS. The Chiang/Chen Summits in Taipei and Nanjing signed cross-Strait airline services agreements and supplemental agreements. They incorporated the terms "the two sides" into the text. Their structure and content followed the same model many nations use for bilateral agreements. The cross-Strait joint anti-crime and mutual legal assistance agreement avoided the use of the term "extradition treaty." But it too applied all the relevant legal norms, further confirming cross-Strait cooperation among criminal investigation agencies. It too involved a giant step forward.
The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.29
社論－兩黨距離不應大於兩岸距離
本報訊
三次江陳會順利落幕，兩岸簽署包括定期航班、金融合作、共同打擊犯罪等三項協議，以及開放陸資來台的一項共識。根據本報最新民調顯示，有五成三的民眾贊成陸資來台，而馬英九總統的施政滿意度微幅上揚到四成五，至於民眾對馬政府的兩岸政策滿意度則達到四成九。顯示馬政府就任近一年來，以兩岸交流為主軸的施政漸獲成果，也得到民意的認可。
但值得注意的是，對於三次江陳會是否符合對等協商、是否傷害台灣主權，民眾看法相當紛歧，認為無損主權者有三成五，認為損及主權者也有三成五，沒意見的也達到三成左右。對比二次江陳會，認為損及主權者比例上升，認為未損及主權者比例卻下降，這個民調數字，某種程度可說明，為什麼在野黨始終可以負面批評馬政府的任何兩岸政策作為，因為不必提出什麼實際數據或事證，總會有三分之一的民意反對兩岸交流。
對馬政府而言，這是一個必須時時自我警惕的民調數字，馬政府自就任以來近一年時間，始終無法與在野黨領袖有正常對話的窗口，雙英為了見不見面、辯不辯論總是隔空喊話，卻無實質進展，最需要社會最大共識的兩岸政策，因此失去取得在野黨的參與，民意依舊陷入藍綠壁壘之爭，對立裂痕無法有效撫平。民主社會本來就有贊成與反對的不同意見，正反兩方的民意都要傾聽，並從中取得最大的共識，才能在施政的同時，維繫社會的和諧，這一點無論如何執政者要負較大的責任，盡更多心力。
對最大在野黨的民進黨而言，同樣不能枉顧現實，慣性地擁抱三成民意自得自滿，耽溺於少數民意的喝采和壓力，忽視社會真正多數的聲音和需求，否則就永遠不可能取得多數中間選民的認可，畢竟重返執政之途不可能僅僅依賴三成民意。
民進黨為了嗆馬，號召民眾五一七上街頭，可以理解，但是，從救失業到嗆馬談判失了主權，就有點莫名其妙了。民進黨主席蔡英文批評力度最大的是：在野要求的延遠權「碰都沒碰」，江陳會談判完全失敗，蔡英文曾任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，在她任內拒絕任何兩岸政策談判協商的可能，或許因此不理解任何談判都不是在野黨突如其來在談判出發前拋出一個議題，就非談不可，遑論非談成不可。馬英九在江陳會行前也曾表達延遠權確要爭取，但馬政府就任不滿一年，以兩岸兩會制度化協商愈來愈上軌道的情況看來，至少在馬政府第一任的未來三年多時間中，總會有機會將這個在野黨最在乎的議題端上檯面，就不知道屆時民進黨會不會認為這是兩岸關係和政策的「重大進展」？
曾任民進黨政府經建會主委的台灣智庫董事長陳博志持平地評價這次江陳會，他說，只簽一個「籠統」的金融合作協議，沒簽ＭＯＵ，這是好的，「本來就該規畫完善才能簽。」根據馬政府的規畫，ＭＯＵ大概兩個月後就能簽成，最重要的，接下來的簽署工作將由兩岸官方機構直接面對面商談，而不再透過兩會白手套代行，這當然是對等談判的重大進展。
事實上，一年不到時間中，三次江陳會已經讓兩岸官員上桌形成「慣例」。以這次會談簽署的三項協議，無一不是兩岸主管官員密商敲定文稿後，再由兩會人員簽署。台北與南京兩次江陳會的兩岸航空協議和補充協議，除了冠之以「兩岸」的文字，其架構和內涵均等同於各國簽署雙邊協定的模式；至於兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議及司法互助協議，唯未到援用「引渡條約」的法律用詞，卻也套用相關法律規範，且進一步確認了兩岸司法調查單位的合作，同是邁出了一大步。
兩岸分隔六十年，自廿年前開放交流後，兩岸關係有潛礁、有暗流，但潮流趨勢不可逆，兩岸不可能再回到那個彼此封鎖、敵意相抗的年代，兩岸既已取得「先經濟後政治」的共識，擱下政治爭議，以民眾利益為優先考量，政府責無旁貸，寄望有過八年執政經驗的反對黨，同樣回歸台灣優先、民利為重的初衷，正視現實、回應民意。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2009
Summary: The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.
Full Text below:
The third Chiang/Chen Summit has successfully adjourned. The two sides signed agreements covering regularly scheduled cross-Strait air flights, financial cooperation, and anti-crime measures. They also achieved consensus on Mainland investments on Taiwan. According to the latest newspaper poll 53% of the public is in favor of allowing Mainland investments on Taiwan. Public satisfaction with President Ma Ying-jeou's policies rose slightly, to 45%. Public satisfaction with the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies rose to 49%. This shows that since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, its emphasis on cross-Strait exchanges are beginning to pay off, and have met with public approval.
Public opinion diverged considerably on whether the third Chiang/Chen Summit was convened on a peer-to-peer basis, and whether it undermined the Republic of China's sovereignty. Thirty-five percent felt it did not undermine our sovereignty. Another 35% felt it did undermine our sovereignty. Approximately 30% had no opinion. Compared to the second Chiang/Chen Summit, the proportion that felt it undermined our sovereignty increased. The proportion that felt it did not undermine our sovereignty declined. The poll figures explain to some extent why the opposition DPP invariably resorts to criticism of the Ma administration as the basis of its cross-Strait policy. Because by doing so it need not put forth any concrete data or evidence. One-third of the public will always oppose cross-Strait exchanges.
For the Ma administration this is a poll number about which it must remain vigilant. Ever since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, it has been unable to open a window of dialogue with opposition party leaders. Will the "two Yings" (Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen) meet? Every time the question is raised the two sides end up shouting at each from a distance. They never make real progress. Society desperately needs a consensus on cross-Strait policy. But without the participation of the opposition DPP, the public will remain divided between Blue and Green. The fracture between the two parties will never be healed. A democratic society should accomodate different views. Opinions both pro and con should be heard. Only then can we arrive at the broadest possible consensus. Only then can the policies implemented maintain social harmony. Those in authority must bear the greatest responsibilty and expend the greatest effort.
The Democratic Progressive Party is the largest opposition party. It must not ignore reality. It must not be content to embrace 30% of the public. It must not be content to bask in the approval of a minority. It must not be content to succumb to the pressure exerted by that minority. It must not Ignore the demands of the majority. Otherwise we will never be able to achieve a consensus among the majority. After all, if the DPP wishes to once again assume office, it can hardly rely on the support of only 30% of the public.
The Democratic Progressive Party is asking the public to take to the streets on May 17 to protest the Ma administration. This is understandable. But what connection is there between combating unemployment and accusing the Ma administration of undermining our sovereignty? DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's harshest criticism is that the extension requested by the opposition DPP was "never even touched upon." Therefore they consider the Chiang/Chen Summit a total failure. Tsai Ing-wen was once Chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan. During her term she rejected any and all calls for cross-Strait negotiations. Perhaps she does not understand. Just because the opposition DPP tosses out an issue prior to negotiations, that does not mean the ruling administration must discuss it or successfully negotiate it. Ma Ying-jeou also expressed a desire for an extension prior to the Chiang/Chen Summit. But the Ma administration has been in office less than a year. The institutionalization of the two sides' proxies, the SEF and the ARATS, appears to be on track. During the three years remaining in the Ma administration's first term, it will surely have a chance to raise this issue of such concern to the opposition DPP. The only question is, when the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party still consider this a "significant advance" in cross-Strait relations and policy?
Chen Po-chih was a Chairman of the CEPD and a Chairman of the Taiwan Think Tank under the DPP administration. Chen offered an even-handed evaluation of the Chiang/Chen Summit. He said it was good that they only signed a broad financial cooperation agreement, not a memorandum of understanding. He said "It must be properly laid out before signing." According to the Ma administration, a memorandum of understanding will be signed in about two months. Most important of all, the signing will be completed by officials from the two sides in direct, face-to-face talks, rather than through proxies. This amounts to significant progress in the negotiation process.
In fact, in less than a year, the three Chiang/Chen Summits have already established a precedent for cross-Strait talks. The three agreements signed this time were all finalized after secret talks by senior officials from the two sides, and signed by officials of MAC and ARATS. The Chiang/Chen Summits in Taipei and Nanjing signed cross-Strait airline services agreements and supplemental agreements. They incorporated the terms "the two sides" into the text. Their structure and content followed the same model many nations use for bilateral agreements. The cross-Strait joint anti-crime and mutual legal assistance agreement avoided the use of the term "extradition treaty." But it too applied all the relevant legal norms, further confirming cross-Strait cooperation among criminal investigation agencies. It too involved a giant step forward.
The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of "economics before politics." They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.29
社論－兩黨距離不應大於兩岸距離
本報訊
三次江陳會順利落幕，兩岸簽署包括定期航班、金融合作、共同打擊犯罪等三項協議，以及開放陸資來台的一項共識。根據本報最新民調顯示，有五成三的民眾贊成陸資來台，而馬英九總統的施政滿意度微幅上揚到四成五，至於民眾對馬政府的兩岸政策滿意度則達到四成九。顯示馬政府就任近一年來，以兩岸交流為主軸的施政漸獲成果，也得到民意的認可。
但值得注意的是，對於三次江陳會是否符合對等協商、是否傷害台灣主權，民眾看法相當紛歧，認為無損主權者有三成五，認為損及主權者也有三成五，沒意見的也達到三成左右。對比二次江陳會，認為損及主權者比例上升，認為未損及主權者比例卻下降，這個民調數字，某種程度可說明，為什麼在野黨始終可以負面批評馬政府的任何兩岸政策作為，因為不必提出什麼實際數據或事證，總會有三分之一的民意反對兩岸交流。
對馬政府而言，這是一個必須時時自我警惕的民調數字，馬政府自就任以來近一年時間，始終無法與在野黨領袖有正常對話的窗口，雙英為了見不見面、辯不辯論總是隔空喊話，卻無實質進展，最需要社會最大共識的兩岸政策，因此失去取得在野黨的參與，民意依舊陷入藍綠壁壘之爭，對立裂痕無法有效撫平。民主社會本來就有贊成與反對的不同意見，正反兩方的民意都要傾聽，並從中取得最大的共識，才能在施政的同時，維繫社會的和諧，這一點無論如何執政者要負較大的責任，盡更多心力。
對最大在野黨的民進黨而言，同樣不能枉顧現實，慣性地擁抱三成民意自得自滿，耽溺於少數民意的喝采和壓力，忽視社會真正多數的聲音和需求，否則就永遠不可能取得多數中間選民的認可，畢竟重返執政之途不可能僅僅依賴三成民意。
民進黨為了嗆馬，號召民眾五一七上街頭，可以理解，但是，從救失業到嗆馬談判失了主權，就有點莫名其妙了。民進黨主席蔡英文批評力度最大的是：在野要求的延遠權「碰都沒碰」，江陳會談判完全失敗，蔡英文曾任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，在她任內拒絕任何兩岸政策談判協商的可能，或許因此不理解任何談判都不是在野黨突如其來在談判出發前拋出一個議題，就非談不可，遑論非談成不可。馬英九在江陳會行前也曾表達延遠權確要爭取，但馬政府就任不滿一年，以兩岸兩會制度化協商愈來愈上軌道的情況看來，至少在馬政府第一任的未來三年多時間中，總會有機會將這個在野黨最在乎的議題端上檯面，就不知道屆時民進黨會不會認為這是兩岸關係和政策的「重大進展」？
曾任民進黨政府經建會主委的台灣智庫董事長陳博志持平地評價這次江陳會，他說，只簽一個「籠統」的金融合作協議，沒簽ＭＯＵ，這是好的，「本來就該規畫完善才能簽。」根據馬政府的規畫，ＭＯＵ大概兩個月後就能簽成，最重要的，接下來的簽署工作將由兩岸官方機構直接面對面商談，而不再透過兩會白手套代行，這當然是對等談判的重大進展。
事實上，一年不到時間中，三次江陳會已經讓兩岸官員上桌形成「慣例」。以這次會談簽署的三項協議，無一不是兩岸主管官員密商敲定文稿後，再由兩會人員簽署。台北與南京兩次江陳會的兩岸航空協議和補充協議，除了冠之以「兩岸」的文字，其架構和內涵均等同於各國簽署雙邊協定的模式；至於兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議及司法互助協議，唯未到援用「引渡條約」的法律用詞，卻也套用相關法律規範，且進一步確認了兩岸司法調查單位的合作，同是邁出了一大步。
兩岸分隔六十年，自廿年前開放交流後，兩岸關係有潛礁、有暗流，但潮流趨勢不可逆，兩岸不可能再回到那個彼此封鎖、敵意相抗的年代，兩岸既已取得「先經濟後政治」的共識，擱下政治爭議，以民眾利益為優先考量，政府責無旁貸，寄望有過八年執政經驗的反對黨，同樣回歸台灣優先、民利為重的初衷，正視現實、回應民意。
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Mainland Tourists are not Passersby
Mainland Tourists are not Passersby
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2009
As predicted, problems have arisen as the number of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan has rapidly increased. Taiwan's tourism industry is clearly inadequate in both quantity and quality. More importantly, the government and the tourism industry must disabuse themselves of the myth of quantifiable business opportunities. Only then will Taiwan's tourism industry be able to make something of itself.
The government has been promoting mainland tourism on based on how long a mainland tourist stays on Taiwan and how much he spends each day. The total purportedly constitutes the increase in tourist revenue, the amount of foreign exchange earned, and the employment opportunities created. The government uses statistics to calculate the effectiveness of its policies. These calculations reveal the government and the tourism industry's mindset. Because the mainland has a population of 1.3 billion, local tour operators have treated mainland tourists not as Taiwan's guests. Instead they have myopically viewed each mainland tourist as a one-time business opportunity. They have viewed mainland tourists as passersby. That is why problems with mainland tourists have rapidly increased.
One. One mainland tour group's visa applications were not correctly filed. Without an entry permit the entire tour group was forced to return on the same plane. This revealed communication problems between the two sides. Two. Some tour groups overbooked, then found themselves unable to provide enough tour buses, forcing tourists to wait at the airport. Three. More and more tour guides complain that the three must-see tourist destinations for mainland tourists have problems. The dining facilities at Alishan require standing in line. The National Palace Museum has turned into a farm market. Sun Moon Lake is now littered with trash. All these circumstances were predictable, but we have yet to see any attempt to improve the situation. In particular, price competition within the industry, including below cost price wars, kickbacks from shops, a reduction in the number of tourist attractions, and changing modes of transportation to reduce costs, have led to a decline in the quality of tourism.
The other side is allowing the mainland public to visit Taiwan. Naturally it has political motives. But it also constitutes a show of goodwill. It hopes that interaction between the two sides will reach from top to bottom, via non-governmental exchanges. It hopes to expand contacts to enhance mutual understanding. It hopes to eliminate misunderstanding and hostility. Yet when we encounter mainland tourists on Taiwan, all we see is dollar signs. This fails to make the best use of the opportunity. Worse, it allows mainland vistors to see that Taiwan lacks even a rudimentary understanding of hospitality. The minimal standards Taiwan's tourism industry require have been lost during the quantification of business opportunities.
The tourism industry must not merely make money from tourists. It must become the medium through which visitors can experience the quality of our life, the content of our culture, and the character of our people. The quality of a tourist's experience is the measure of a nation's quality of life. As Landis Hotels and Resorts President Stanley Yen put it, tourism is a way for Taiwan to make friends with the world. A single friendly experience can make a friend. Having made a friend, the rewards that can flow from such a friendship are endless. Conversely, one negative impression after another will lead to the loss of friends, and the loss of any opportunity to develop our tourism industry. If Taiwan wants to develop its tourism industry, it must not harbor only a desire to take tourists to the cleaners. This is true for mainland visitors or foreigners.
Large numbers of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan provide us with the opportunity to develop our tourism industry. But the government and industry must stop treating mainland tourists as passersby. They must take concrete action. Mainland China will soon be restoring its May 1st long vacation. Government agencies responsible for reviewing and issuing permits to visit Taiwan should ensure that every visitor departs as happily as he arrived. Based on the number of visitors to Taiwan, they must assume an active role in coordinating transportation, dining, and living facilities, ensuring that they meet the surge in tourist demand, As for cases already being dealt with, the relevant authorities should control tourist volume. Until the overall quality of service has been upgraded, they should maintain a strict limit of 3000 tourists a day. They must not use previously unfilled quotas. The purpose is not to limit quanity, but to control quality. In addition, the government must better evaluate and manage travel agencies. It may use quota allocations as an incentive, to prevent cutthroat competition.
The Executive Yuan recently passed its "Tourism Pilot Project." It intends to invest 30 billion NT in a four-year Tourism Development Fund to create 550 billion NT in business opportunities. The government's plans are extravagant and ambitious. But developing tourism requires more than paper planning. It requires a wide range of industries and services. From the executive branch it requires entry and exit permits. From the aviation industry it requires quality flight services. From travel agencies it requires itinerary planning and professional standards for tour guides. From the hotel industry it requires quality facilities and trained personnel. To create a tourist attraction requires efficient transportation routes and even high quality public toilets. It requires efficient cooperation between public authority and private creativity to link all these into a sustainable tourism industry. This is not merely about earning foreign exchange. It is also about improving the quality of life on Taiwan.
We must not view tourists arriving on Taiwan as cash cows to be milked, regardless of where they come from. We must make improvements based on our visitors' perceptions. We must then impress visitors with the improvements we have made.
勿將陸客當路客：觀光業要永續經營
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.28 05:47 am
果不其然，當初規劃開放大陸人民來台觀光時預期可能出紕漏的問題，隨著陸客來台人數的急速增加，一個個冒了出來。顯然，台灣觀光產業的量與質都還不夠水準；更重要的是，在數量商機的迷思下，政府及觀光業的心態都需要大大的調整，台灣觀光業才有可為。
政府推銷陸客觀光，是依一個大陸客在台停留多久、每天花費多少，合計為觀光業增加多少營收、為台灣經濟帶進多少外匯收益及創造多少就業機會，在做標榜，亦即用數字計算政策收益。這樣的計算方式正凸顯了政府及業者的心態，因為大陸有十三億人口，國內旅遊業者沒把陸客當成來台灣做客的旅客，反而存著每個大陸人做一次生意就能賺飽的短線心理，把陸客當成是偶爾經過的路客，於是所有的問題都隨著陸客的快速增加而一一浮現。
其一，有大陸旅行團來台簽證作業不及，在未獲入境許可下整團原機遣返，這代表雙方的溝通出問題；其二是旅行社承攬過多陸客團，卻因租不到遊覽車而讓陸客在機場空等；其三是愈來愈多的導遊抱怨，陸客團必去的三大景點──阿里山用餐須得排隊、故宮有如菜市場、日月潭變髒。這一切都在預期之中，卻迄未見改善之對策；尤其是業者殺價競爭，以低於成本的價格搶生意，再另以商店購物賺回扣、減少旅遊景點、改變交通工具等降低成本，導致旅遊品質節節下降。
彼岸開放大陸民眾來台旅遊，難謂沒有政治目的，既是展現善意，也是期待兩岸間互動能由上層往下普及到民間交流，以擴大接觸而增進了解，進而消除彼此的誤解及敵意；但我們對陸客來台，腦袋裡想到的卻盡是鈔票，不只沒有善用這個機會，讓彼岸人民看到台灣的風土民情、文化內涵、生活品味，更連基本的待客之道都沒有，台灣觀光業應有的水準顯已迷失在完全數字化的商機裡。
觀光產業不能只是賺來客的錢，更是希望成為來客能親身體驗我國生活水準、文化內涵及人民素質的最直接媒介，是國家總體生活機能的總檢驗。所以，一如亞都麗緻飯店集團總裁嚴長壽所言，觀光旅遊是「讓台灣和世界交朋友」，一次友善的體驗、交上了朋友，可以讓朋友源源不斷而來；反之，一次又一次打壞印象，朋友一個個流失，觀光產業不可能發展起來；台灣要發展觀光產業，就不能存著只撈來客一把的心理，不管來客是大陸人還是外國人。
大陸為數龐大的觀光客，正是台灣發展觀光產業的契機，但政府及業者將陸客當路客的心態必須改變，並須有相應的作法。在短期內，大陸五一長假將屆，負責審理、核發來台許可的政府機關，應儘速依據陸客來台人數，積極協調相關的交通、餐飲及住宿服務，以滿足陸客激增的需求，做到讓每位來客乘興而來、盡興而去；至於處理中的案件，政府主管機關應做好總額控管，在整體服務質量尚未提升之前，應嚴守每日三千人上限，不能再移用之前未用滿的額度；須知此一上限的目的不在控管數量，而在控管品質。再者，政府必須強化旅行社的評鑑及管理，並以名額的分配做為誘因，不容惡質競爭下去。
行政院最近通過「觀光拔尖領航計畫」，打算在四年內投入三百億元觀光發展基金，以創造五千五百億元商機。政府的規劃洋洋灑灑，但觀光業的發展不只是紙上作業的規劃，其涉及的產業及服務廣泛，從行政部門的入出境許可、航空業的飛航品質、旅行社的行程規劃及導遊的專業水準、觀光飯店的軟硬體設施、旅遊景點的打造、交通動線的效率，甚至公共廁所的品質等，可謂公權力與民間創意、效率的大結合，而能緊密串起這一切的共同認知是永續經營台灣觀光產業的心。這不只是創匯而已，更是在改善台灣自己的生活品質。
對於任何的來台觀光客，都不能只從如何賺錢的角度思考；必須從來客的感受中切實改善自我，亦從改善自我後的成效來感動來客。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2009
As predicted, problems have arisen as the number of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan has rapidly increased. Taiwan's tourism industry is clearly inadequate in both quantity and quality. More importantly, the government and the tourism industry must disabuse themselves of the myth of quantifiable business opportunities. Only then will Taiwan's tourism industry be able to make something of itself.
The government has been promoting mainland tourism on based on how long a mainland tourist stays on Taiwan and how much he spends each day. The total purportedly constitutes the increase in tourist revenue, the amount of foreign exchange earned, and the employment opportunities created. The government uses statistics to calculate the effectiveness of its policies. These calculations reveal the government and the tourism industry's mindset. Because the mainland has a population of 1.3 billion, local tour operators have treated mainland tourists not as Taiwan's guests. Instead they have myopically viewed each mainland tourist as a one-time business opportunity. They have viewed mainland tourists as passersby. That is why problems with mainland tourists have rapidly increased.
One. One mainland tour group's visa applications were not correctly filed. Without an entry permit the entire tour group was forced to return on the same plane. This revealed communication problems between the two sides. Two. Some tour groups overbooked, then found themselves unable to provide enough tour buses, forcing tourists to wait at the airport. Three. More and more tour guides complain that the three must-see tourist destinations for mainland tourists have problems. The dining facilities at Alishan require standing in line. The National Palace Museum has turned into a farm market. Sun Moon Lake is now littered with trash. All these circumstances were predictable, but we have yet to see any attempt to improve the situation. In particular, price competition within the industry, including below cost price wars, kickbacks from shops, a reduction in the number of tourist attractions, and changing modes of transportation to reduce costs, have led to a decline in the quality of tourism.
The other side is allowing the mainland public to visit Taiwan. Naturally it has political motives. But it also constitutes a show of goodwill. It hopes that interaction between the two sides will reach from top to bottom, via non-governmental exchanges. It hopes to expand contacts to enhance mutual understanding. It hopes to eliminate misunderstanding and hostility. Yet when we encounter mainland tourists on Taiwan, all we see is dollar signs. This fails to make the best use of the opportunity. Worse, it allows mainland vistors to see that Taiwan lacks even a rudimentary understanding of hospitality. The minimal standards Taiwan's tourism industry require have been lost during the quantification of business opportunities.
The tourism industry must not merely make money from tourists. It must become the medium through which visitors can experience the quality of our life, the content of our culture, and the character of our people. The quality of a tourist's experience is the measure of a nation's quality of life. As Landis Hotels and Resorts President Stanley Yen put it, tourism is a way for Taiwan to make friends with the world. A single friendly experience can make a friend. Having made a friend, the rewards that can flow from such a friendship are endless. Conversely, one negative impression after another will lead to the loss of friends, and the loss of any opportunity to develop our tourism industry. If Taiwan wants to develop its tourism industry, it must not harbor only a desire to take tourists to the cleaners. This is true for mainland visitors or foreigners.
Large numbers of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan provide us with the opportunity to develop our tourism industry. But the government and industry must stop treating mainland tourists as passersby. They must take concrete action. Mainland China will soon be restoring its May 1st long vacation. Government agencies responsible for reviewing and issuing permits to visit Taiwan should ensure that every visitor departs as happily as he arrived. Based on the number of visitors to Taiwan, they must assume an active role in coordinating transportation, dining, and living facilities, ensuring that they meet the surge in tourist demand, As for cases already being dealt with, the relevant authorities should control tourist volume. Until the overall quality of service has been upgraded, they should maintain a strict limit of 3000 tourists a day. They must not use previously unfilled quotas. The purpose is not to limit quanity, but to control quality. In addition, the government must better evaluate and manage travel agencies. It may use quota allocations as an incentive, to prevent cutthroat competition.
The Executive Yuan recently passed its "Tourism Pilot Project." It intends to invest 30 billion NT in a four-year Tourism Development Fund to create 550 billion NT in business opportunities. The government's plans are extravagant and ambitious. But developing tourism requires more than paper planning. It requires a wide range of industries and services. From the executive branch it requires entry and exit permits. From the aviation industry it requires quality flight services. From travel agencies it requires itinerary planning and professional standards for tour guides. From the hotel industry it requires quality facilities and trained personnel. To create a tourist attraction requires efficient transportation routes and even high quality public toilets. It requires efficient cooperation between public authority and private creativity to link all these into a sustainable tourism industry. This is not merely about earning foreign exchange. It is also about improving the quality of life on Taiwan.
We must not view tourists arriving on Taiwan as cash cows to be milked, regardless of where they come from. We must make improvements based on our visitors' perceptions. We must then impress visitors with the improvements we have made.
勿將陸客當路客：觀光業要永續經營
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.28 05:47 am
果不其然，當初規劃開放大陸人民來台觀光時預期可能出紕漏的問題，隨著陸客來台人數的急速增加，一個個冒了出來。顯然，台灣觀光產業的量與質都還不夠水準；更重要的是，在數量商機的迷思下，政府及觀光業的心態都需要大大的調整，台灣觀光業才有可為。
政府推銷陸客觀光，是依一個大陸客在台停留多久、每天花費多少，合計為觀光業增加多少營收、為台灣經濟帶進多少外匯收益及創造多少就業機會，在做標榜，亦即用數字計算政策收益。這樣的計算方式正凸顯了政府及業者的心態，因為大陸有十三億人口，國內旅遊業者沒把陸客當成來台灣做客的旅客，反而存著每個大陸人做一次生意就能賺飽的短線心理，把陸客當成是偶爾經過的路客，於是所有的問題都隨著陸客的快速增加而一一浮現。
其一，有大陸旅行團來台簽證作業不及，在未獲入境許可下整團原機遣返，這代表雙方的溝通出問題；其二是旅行社承攬過多陸客團，卻因租不到遊覽車而讓陸客在機場空等；其三是愈來愈多的導遊抱怨，陸客團必去的三大景點──阿里山用餐須得排隊、故宮有如菜市場、日月潭變髒。這一切都在預期之中，卻迄未見改善之對策；尤其是業者殺價競爭，以低於成本的價格搶生意，再另以商店購物賺回扣、減少旅遊景點、改變交通工具等降低成本，導致旅遊品質節節下降。
彼岸開放大陸民眾來台旅遊，難謂沒有政治目的，既是展現善意，也是期待兩岸間互動能由上層往下普及到民間交流，以擴大接觸而增進了解，進而消除彼此的誤解及敵意；但我們對陸客來台，腦袋裡想到的卻盡是鈔票，不只沒有善用這個機會，讓彼岸人民看到台灣的風土民情、文化內涵、生活品味，更連基本的待客之道都沒有，台灣觀光業應有的水準顯已迷失在完全數字化的商機裡。
觀光產業不能只是賺來客的錢，更是希望成為來客能親身體驗我國生活水準、文化內涵及人民素質的最直接媒介，是國家總體生活機能的總檢驗。所以，一如亞都麗緻飯店集團總裁嚴長壽所言，觀光旅遊是「讓台灣和世界交朋友」，一次友善的體驗、交上了朋友，可以讓朋友源源不斷而來；反之，一次又一次打壞印象，朋友一個個流失，觀光產業不可能發展起來；台灣要發展觀光產業，就不能存著只撈來客一把的心理，不管來客是大陸人還是外國人。
大陸為數龐大的觀光客，正是台灣發展觀光產業的契機，但政府及業者將陸客當路客的心態必須改變，並須有相應的作法。在短期內，大陸五一長假將屆，負責審理、核發來台許可的政府機關，應儘速依據陸客來台人數，積極協調相關的交通、餐飲及住宿服務，以滿足陸客激增的需求，做到讓每位來客乘興而來、盡興而去；至於處理中的案件，政府主管機關應做好總額控管，在整體服務質量尚未提升之前，應嚴守每日三千人上限，不能再移用之前未用滿的額度；須知此一上限的目的不在控管數量，而在控管品質。再者，政府必須強化旅行社的評鑑及管理，並以名額的分配做為誘因，不容惡質競爭下去。
行政院最近通過「觀光拔尖領航計畫」，打算在四年內投入三百億元觀光發展基金，以創造五千五百億元商機。政府的規劃洋洋灑灑，但觀光業的發展不只是紙上作業的規劃，其涉及的產業及服務廣泛，從行政部門的入出境許可、航空業的飛航品質、旅行社的行程規劃及導遊的專業水準、觀光飯店的軟硬體設施、旅遊景點的打造、交通動線的效率，甚至公共廁所的品質等，可謂公權力與民間創意、效率的大結合，而能緊密串起這一切的共同認知是永續經營台灣觀光產業的心。這不只是創匯而已，更是在改善台灣自己的生活品質。
對於任何的來台觀光客，都不能只從如何賺錢的角度思考；必須從來客的感受中切實改善自我，亦從改善自我後的成效來感動來客。
Monday, April 27, 2009
Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations
Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2009
The Third Chiang/Chen Summit will be held in Nanjing. Rumor has it Taipei suggested the location, because Nanjing was the capital of the Republic of China, and Taipei wanted to underscore the institutional origins of the Chiang Pin-kung-led delegation. The mainland side was of course well aware of the implications of Taipei's proposal. But it made no attempt to evade it. The host was happy to accomodate the guest.
Chiang Ping-kun's plan to visit the "Republic of China Office of the President" however was canceled, allegedly for fear of arousing undue controversy. Too low a profile, and Taipei risks being written off as a relic of history. Too high a profile, and Taipei risks being suspected of creating "Two Chinas."
In Nanjing, the "Office of the President Republic of China" has already become an historical monument. That is an undeniable fact. But the Chiang Pin-kung delegation from Taipei was authorized by the Office of the President of the Republic of China. That is also an undeniable fact.
Mutual non-recognition, in combination with mutual non-repudiation -- this is the main reason cross-Strait relations have been able to develop to the extent they have today. If the two sides' position was "mutual recognition," they would have no need of proxies such as SEF and ARATS. The two sides' position is "mutual non-repudiation," meaning that the two sides do not deny each other's legitimacy. They recognize that the two sides do in fact exist. Hence the need for proxies such as SEF and ARATS. After all, if the two sides did not exist, why would they need proxies?
For Taipei, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law and abolition of the Temporary Provisions during the Period of Communist Rebellion, were made in preparation of recognizing the People's Republic of China government. But Beijing was concerned about any departure from the "One China Principle," and refused to recognize the Republic of China. This is why the Beijing authorities are unwilling to recognize the ROC government. This is why legally speaking, the two sides refuse to recognize each other. They must maintain internal and external accountability and "reciprocity." But the two sides' reciprocity is not simply "mutual non-recognition." Although the two sides do not recognize each others' legitimacy legally, they cannot deny each others' actual existence physically. Therefore the two sides' reciprocity is actually "mutual non-recognition, plus mutual non-repudiation." Otherwise, how could the two sides talk about market access and mutual legal assistance?
It has been less than a year since the second change in ruling parties on Taiwan. From last year's Six Agreements to this year's Three Major Issues, plus ECFA, which may be addressed during the second half of the year, cross-Strait interaction has expanded rapidly. The more cross-Strait relations are elevated, deepened, and broadened, and the more prominent the role of the two sides' governments, then the more willing the two sides are to engage in "mutual non-repudiation." Take for example the choice of Nanjing as the venue for the Chiang/Chen Summit. Three items, including air transport, finance, and the administration of justice, require the establishment of a working window in a real world context. They will no longer be government proxies. Cross-Strait exchanges will inevitably be elevated, deepened, and broadened. If the two sides deny each other's legitimacy, how can they establish a government with legal jurisdiction? How can they even sbegin to discuss mutual legal assistance?
For the time being, the two sides neither recognize each other nor repudiate each other. This, according to Hu Jintao, is central to the "Framework for Peaceful cross-Strait Development." In other words, Beijing's policy toward Taipei cannot be be based on the premise that the "Republic of China has already perished." Without "mutual non-repudiation," cross-strait relations will be shattered and impossible to maintain. Without governments, how can one have government proxies?
If cross-Strait relations in 2008 are to return to the "1992 Consensus," the two sides must maintain a position of "mutual non-repudiation." Let us examine the two sides' rhetorical formulations. Taipei invariably brings up "confront reality by not repudiating each other." Beijing avoids responding directly, but substitutes "peaceful development, set a new course for the future." The current Chiang/Chen Summit is no exception. As long as Beijing does not formally repudiate Taipei's "confront reality by not repudiating each other," the two sides still have room to maneuver. In short, some things can be done, but cannot be talked about.
For example, President Ma interpreted "1992 Consensus" as "One China, Different Interpretations." Beijing did not respond directly, but neither did it repudiate it directly. This "mutual non-repudiation" is made possible by the "Different Interpretations" premise. It is essential to "peaceful cross-Strait development." It is the absolute minimum requirement.
The achievements of the three Chiang/Chen Summits over the past two years have been based on "mutual non-repudiation." The elevating, deepening, and broadening of cross-Strait relations will require increased "mutual non-repudiation." We hope the authorities on both sides will appreciate the importance of this tacit understanding, and not undermine it lightly. As we see it, it may be unfortunate that we cannot recognize each other, but at least we must not repudiate each other!
「互不否認」是兩岸關係的中心支柱
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.27 05:45 am
三次江陳會選在南京舉行，據說是台灣方面的提議；因為南京曾是中華民國的首都，而欲藉此顯示江丙坤代表團的體制淵源。大陸方面對此提議的寓意，當然是心知肚明，卻也無所避忌，主隨客意。
不過，江丙坤畢竟取消了參訪南京「中華民國總統府」的計畫，據說是怕會引發見仁見智的效應。姿態低了，怕被說成是憑弔「遺跡」；姿態高了，又怕被說成操弄「兩個中國」。
然而，南京的「中華民國總統府」已成歷史遺跡，無可否認；但江丙坤代表團卻是出自台北的中華民國總統府之授權，同樣也是無可否認的事實。
互不承認，但也互不否認；這是兩岸關係能夠發展至今日境界的主要原因。倘若「相互承認」，就不必海基、海協當「白手套」了；但主要則是因「互不否認」，亦即雙方皆不否認對方有一隻真正的「手」存在，始會有海基、海協的「白手套」。否則，沒有手，空有白手套何用？
就台灣方面言，蔣經國解嚴，廢止動員戡亂時期臨時條款，這些都是預備「承認」中華人民共和國政府的動作；但北京方面則顧慮可能形成任何背離「一個中國原則」的情勢，而拒絕承認中華民國政府。正因中華民國政府不能得到北京政府的相對承認，也就必須「在法理上不承認」對方，以維持一個向內外交代的「對等關係」。然而，兩岸的「對等關係」，也並非只是「互不承認」；因為，雖然雙方在法理上互不承認，卻也不能否認雙方在法理上的實際存在。所以，較準確地說，兩岸此時所謂的「對等關係」，其實是「互不承認，但亦互不否認」。否則，談什麼市場准入及司法互助？
台灣第二次政黨輪替後，迄今不到一年的光陰，從去年的六項協議到今次的三大議題，且在下半年可能處理ＥＣＦＡ，兩岸互動的進度可謂是飛速躍進；在這一段進程中，可以明確地感知到，兩岸關係越往高處、深處及大處發展，兩岸政府的角色即越形凸顯，兩岸「互不否認」的程度也必然伴隨升高。以此次南京江陳會為例，空運、金融、司法三個項目，皆是以「框架」的形式呈現，未來實際運作的「窗口」，將皆是不再戴「白手套」的政府機構，這毋寧是兩岸交流往高處化、深處化及大處化後的必然發展。例如，如果相互否認為一個具有司法主權的政府，談什麼司法互助？
兩岸暫時不易進入「相互承認」的境地；但「互不否認」，卻是維持兩岸「和平發展框架」（胡錦濤語）的中心支柱。也就是說，北京對台政策，不能建立在「中華民國已經滅亡」的論述之上。倘若失去「互不否認」此一支柱，兩岸關係必告解構，無以維繫。沒有手，哪來的白手套？
兩岸關係在二○○八年回到「九二共識」，就是要維持一個「互不否認」的表述空間。且看雙方每次交手吟詩作對，台北幾乎次次都要提起「正視現實／互不否認」；但北京則皆避不回應，而代以「和平發展／開創未來」等語。此次江陳會，亦非例外。不過，只要北京不正面回拒或否認台北「正視現實／互不否認」的主張，只能做，不願說，兩岸即有了迴旋轉圜的空間。
正如，馬總統一直將「九二共識」引申為「一中各表」；北京方面雖未正面回應，但也未正面否認。這種「互不否認」的「各自表述」空間，實是兩岸「和平發展」的必要空間，也可謂是捨此即無生理的最低限度的空間了。
兩年三次江陳會的成就，是建立在「互不否認」上；未來兩岸關係若要更往高處、深處及大處發展，「互不否認」的意涵與效用亦將更形升高。希望兩岸當局能珍惜此一寶貴的默契，不要輕易傷損，我們的看法是：
可惜未能「相互承認」，但千萬不要「相互否認」！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2009
The Third Chiang/Chen Summit will be held in Nanjing. Rumor has it Taipei suggested the location, because Nanjing was the capital of the Republic of China, and Taipei wanted to underscore the institutional origins of the Chiang Pin-kung-led delegation. The mainland side was of course well aware of the implications of Taipei's proposal. But it made no attempt to evade it. The host was happy to accomodate the guest.
Chiang Ping-kun's plan to visit the "Republic of China Office of the President" however was canceled, allegedly for fear of arousing undue controversy. Too low a profile, and Taipei risks being written off as a relic of history. Too high a profile, and Taipei risks being suspected of creating "Two Chinas."
In Nanjing, the "Office of the President Republic of China" has already become an historical monument. That is an undeniable fact. But the Chiang Pin-kung delegation from Taipei was authorized by the Office of the President of the Republic of China. That is also an undeniable fact.
Mutual non-recognition, in combination with mutual non-repudiation -- this is the main reason cross-Strait relations have been able to develop to the extent they have today. If the two sides' position was "mutual recognition," they would have no need of proxies such as SEF and ARATS. The two sides' position is "mutual non-repudiation," meaning that the two sides do not deny each other's legitimacy. They recognize that the two sides do in fact exist. Hence the need for proxies such as SEF and ARATS. After all, if the two sides did not exist, why would they need proxies?
For Taipei, Chiang Ching-kuo's lifting of martial law and abolition of the Temporary Provisions during the Period of Communist Rebellion, were made in preparation of recognizing the People's Republic of China government. But Beijing was concerned about any departure from the "One China Principle," and refused to recognize the Republic of China. This is why the Beijing authorities are unwilling to recognize the ROC government. This is why legally speaking, the two sides refuse to recognize each other. They must maintain internal and external accountability and "reciprocity." But the two sides' reciprocity is not simply "mutual non-recognition." Although the two sides do not recognize each others' legitimacy legally, they cannot deny each others' actual existence physically. Therefore the two sides' reciprocity is actually "mutual non-recognition, plus mutual non-repudiation." Otherwise, how could the two sides talk about market access and mutual legal assistance?
It has been less than a year since the second change in ruling parties on Taiwan. From last year's Six Agreements to this year's Three Major Issues, plus ECFA, which may be addressed during the second half of the year, cross-Strait interaction has expanded rapidly. The more cross-Strait relations are elevated, deepened, and broadened, and the more prominent the role of the two sides' governments, then the more willing the two sides are to engage in "mutual non-repudiation." Take for example the choice of Nanjing as the venue for the Chiang/Chen Summit. Three items, including air transport, finance, and the administration of justice, require the establishment of a working window in a real world context. They will no longer be government proxies. Cross-Strait exchanges will inevitably be elevated, deepened, and broadened. If the two sides deny each other's legitimacy, how can they establish a government with legal jurisdiction? How can they even sbegin to discuss mutual legal assistance?
For the time being, the two sides neither recognize each other nor repudiate each other. This, according to Hu Jintao, is central to the "Framework for Peaceful cross-Strait Development." In other words, Beijing's policy toward Taipei cannot be be based on the premise that the "Republic of China has already perished." Without "mutual non-repudiation," cross-strait relations will be shattered and impossible to maintain. Without governments, how can one have government proxies?
If cross-Strait relations in 2008 are to return to the "1992 Consensus," the two sides must maintain a position of "mutual non-repudiation." Let us examine the two sides' rhetorical formulations. Taipei invariably brings up "confront reality by not repudiating each other." Beijing avoids responding directly, but substitutes "peaceful development, set a new course for the future." The current Chiang/Chen Summit is no exception. As long as Beijing does not formally repudiate Taipei's "confront reality by not repudiating each other," the two sides still have room to maneuver. In short, some things can be done, but cannot be talked about.
For example, President Ma interpreted "1992 Consensus" as "One China, Different Interpretations." Beijing did not respond directly, but neither did it repudiate it directly. This "mutual non-repudiation" is made possible by the "Different Interpretations" premise. It is essential to "peaceful cross-Strait development." It is the absolute minimum requirement.
The achievements of the three Chiang/Chen Summits over the past two years have been based on "mutual non-repudiation." The elevating, deepening, and broadening of cross-Strait relations will require increased "mutual non-repudiation." We hope the authorities on both sides will appreciate the importance of this tacit understanding, and not undermine it lightly. As we see it, it may be unfortunate that we cannot recognize each other, but at least we must not repudiate each other!
「互不否認」是兩岸關係的中心支柱
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.27 05:45 am
三次江陳會選在南京舉行，據說是台灣方面的提議；因為南京曾是中華民國的首都，而欲藉此顯示江丙坤代表團的體制淵源。大陸方面對此提議的寓意，當然是心知肚明，卻也無所避忌，主隨客意。
不過，江丙坤畢竟取消了參訪南京「中華民國總統府」的計畫，據說是怕會引發見仁見智的效應。姿態低了，怕被說成是憑弔「遺跡」；姿態高了，又怕被說成操弄「兩個中國」。
然而，南京的「中華民國總統府」已成歷史遺跡，無可否認；但江丙坤代表團卻是出自台北的中華民國總統府之授權，同樣也是無可否認的事實。
互不承認，但也互不否認；這是兩岸關係能夠發展至今日境界的主要原因。倘若「相互承認」，就不必海基、海協當「白手套」了；但主要則是因「互不否認」，亦即雙方皆不否認對方有一隻真正的「手」存在，始會有海基、海協的「白手套」。否則，沒有手，空有白手套何用？
就台灣方面言，蔣經國解嚴，廢止動員戡亂時期臨時條款，這些都是預備「承認」中華人民共和國政府的動作；但北京方面則顧慮可能形成任何背離「一個中國原則」的情勢，而拒絕承認中華民國政府。正因中華民國政府不能得到北京政府的相對承認，也就必須「在法理上不承認」對方，以維持一個向內外交代的「對等關係」。然而，兩岸的「對等關係」，也並非只是「互不承認」；因為，雖然雙方在法理上互不承認，卻也不能否認雙方在法理上的實際存在。所以，較準確地說，兩岸此時所謂的「對等關係」，其實是「互不承認，但亦互不否認」。否則，談什麼市場准入及司法互助？
台灣第二次政黨輪替後，迄今不到一年的光陰，從去年的六項協議到今次的三大議題，且在下半年可能處理ＥＣＦＡ，兩岸互動的進度可謂是飛速躍進；在這一段進程中，可以明確地感知到，兩岸關係越往高處、深處及大處發展，兩岸政府的角色即越形凸顯，兩岸「互不否認」的程度也必然伴隨升高。以此次南京江陳會為例，空運、金融、司法三個項目，皆是以「框架」的形式呈現，未來實際運作的「窗口」，將皆是不再戴「白手套」的政府機構，這毋寧是兩岸交流往高處化、深處化及大處化後的必然發展。例如，如果相互否認為一個具有司法主權的政府，談什麼司法互助？
兩岸暫時不易進入「相互承認」的境地；但「互不否認」，卻是維持兩岸「和平發展框架」（胡錦濤語）的中心支柱。也就是說，北京對台政策，不能建立在「中華民國已經滅亡」的論述之上。倘若失去「互不否認」此一支柱，兩岸關係必告解構，無以維繫。沒有手，哪來的白手套？
兩岸關係在二○○八年回到「九二共識」，就是要維持一個「互不否認」的表述空間。且看雙方每次交手吟詩作對，台北幾乎次次都要提起「正視現實／互不否認」；但北京則皆避不回應，而代以「和平發展／開創未來」等語。此次江陳會，亦非例外。不過，只要北京不正面回拒或否認台北「正視現實／互不否認」的主張，只能做，不願說，兩岸即有了迴旋轉圜的空間。
正如，馬總統一直將「九二共識」引申為「一中各表」；北京方面雖未正面回應，但也未正面否認。這種「互不否認」的「各自表述」空間，實是兩岸「和平發展」的必要空間，也可謂是捨此即無生理的最低限度的空間了。
兩年三次江陳會的成就，是建立在「互不否認」上；未來兩岸關係若要更往高處、深處及大處發展，「互不否認」的意涵與效用亦將更形升高。希望兩岸當局能珍惜此一寶貴的默契，不要輕易傷損，我們的看法是：
可惜未能「相互承認」，但千萬不要「相互否認」！
Friday, April 24, 2009
Throw off the Shackles of History
Throw off the Shackles of History
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2009
Can you believe it? The day before yesterday Ma Ying-jeou proposed a "new conception of geography" that bore a striking resemblance to the "blueprint for the next century" issued by the DPP 12 years ago.
President Ma held a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank. He proposed a "new conception of geography." He said his administration attaches greater importance to Taiwan's "geographical location" than to its "history." To Taiwan's east, west, south, and north are the United States, Mainland China, ASEAN, and Japan. Along with the European Union, these constitute the world's six largest economic zones. Therefore his adminstration hopes to make good use of Taiwan's status as a hub, and allow Taiwan to link these economic zones.
Twelve years ago, in 1997, the DPP issued a "blueprint for the next century -- national land development plan." It noted that Taiwan is not at the center, nor is it at the periphery. It has vitality, the ability to reflect upon its circumstances, and the ability to create a bridge between the sea and the land, and between east and west.
Ma's "new conception of geography" is remarkably similar to the DPP's.
Twelve years ago DPP Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang proposed his "boldly go west / do business in China" policy. The aforementioned "blueprint for the next century" was based precisely on such lofty sentiments and aspirations. Back then Taiwan was mired in controversy over "Taiwan's primacy." Was Taiwan at the center, or was it at the periphery? The "blueprint for the next century" was an attempt to use "Taiwan's functionality" as an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west," to replace or supplement "Taiwan's primacy." Taiwan's primacy emphasizes politics and history. Taiwan's functionality emphasizes economics and geography.
We on Taiwan have for too long been constrained by history and politics. To free ourselves from such constraints we must take advantage of our economic strengths and geopolitical advantages. President Ma said he attached greater importance to the Taiwan region's "geographical location" than to its "history." Actually the only way we on Taiwan can improve our political situation and open up new possibilities, is to make maximum use of our geographical advantage and economic vitality. Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party's "blueprint for the next century", said Taiwan had "vitailty, the ability to reflect upon its condition, and creativity." It too stressed adjusting one's thinking. It too stressed that Taiwan can function as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. In short, it was a harbinger of President Ma's "new conception of geography."
The DPP's "blueprint for the next century" was eventually shredded, and Hsu Hsin-liang ousted from the party. But it showed that even within the Democratic Progressive Party, one could find a "new conception of geography." It remains a latent force even today. Hsu Hsin-liang has returned to the Democratic Progressive Party. Reread this "blueprint for the next century" from 12 years ago. Had Chen Shui-bian implemented even a tiny part of this blueprint during his eight years in office, the DPP would not have led the nation down the garden path as far as it has.
President Ma's "new conception of geography" stressed Taiwan's location at the center of four major economic zones. He hopes to use economics to improve the nation's political situation. He hopes to use geography to improve the nation's historical fortunes. Twelve years ago the DPP's "blueprint for the next century - national land development plan" aspired to establish Taiwan as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. Was it not engaged in the same sort of political and economic thinking? Was it not using the same strategy for national survival?
At this point, one can't help but feel pity for the Democratic Progressive Party. One can't help but feel sad for the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to change history. But it defies global trends and remains a captive of history. It wants to improve the nation's political circumstances. But it remains bound by ideological and political constraints. The Democratic Progressive Party's "rectification of names, declaration of independence, and founding of a new nation" can only tear society apart and provoke internal conflict. How can it change history? How can it improve the nation's political situation? Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party spoke of "vitality, an ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity." Where is that "vitality, ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity" today?
We on Taiwan must liberate ourselves from the shackles of history. We must think instead in terms of geography. It matters not whether we call it a "new conception of geography," or an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west." The road ahead will be difficult. But it is the only road to our salvation.
To people of vision within the Democratic Progressive Party, why not revisit this courageous moment in your own history? If the shackles of history cannot save Taiwan, how can they possibly save the DPP?
解脫「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.24 05:44 am
你信不信？馬英九總統最近（就在前天）提出的「新地理思維」，竟然與民進黨十二年前發表的「跨世紀建設藍圖」有六七分神似。
前天，馬總統與美國智庫ＣＳＩＳ舉行視訊會議，提出「新地理思維」。他說：他的政府重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；台灣的東、西、南、北邊，分別是美國、中國、東協與日本等世界前五大經濟區（除了歐盟）；因此應善用台灣的樞紐地位，讓台灣串聯這些經濟區。
十二年前，一九九七年，民進黨發表「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」。大要指出：台灣不是中心，也不是邊陲；而是一個有活力、有反省力及有創造力的海陸界面與東西橋樑。
兩者皆屬「新地理思維」，豈不有六七分神似？
十二年前，許信良任民進黨主席，主張「大膽西進／經營中國」；前述「跨世紀藍圖」就是出自那般的豪情壯志。當年，台灣正陷於「台灣主體論」的爭議之中（是中心？或是邊陲？）；但「跨世紀藍圖」，則試圖以「台灣機能論」（是海陸界面與東西橋樑）來取代或補充「台灣主體論」。「主體論」的主軸，是政治的、歷史的；「機能論」的主軸，則是經濟的、地理的。
台灣久陷歷史與政治的束縛之中，但台灣欲脫離束縛的機會，卻在我們的經濟能量及地緣優勢。馬總統說，他重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；此話或可作部分補充，較周延的表達應是：台灣唯有善用其地緣優勢及經濟能量，始有改善其政治處境及開創歷史新運的可能性。在這一方面，民進黨十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，指台灣「有活力、有反省力、有創造力」，其所強調者應也是這種思維境界的調整；至於指出了台灣可以作為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，則豈不儼然可說是馬總統「新地理思維」的預言與先聲？
雖然，後來民進黨的這一張「跨世紀藍圖」淪為廢紙，許信良亦被掃地出門；但畢竟顯示，民進黨內也有此類「新地理思維」，且迄今依然潛伏存在，而許信良也又回到了民進黨。如今重閱這張十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，倘若後來陳水扁八年執政能稍存此念，民進黨大概也不會誤國殃民到今日這種地步。
看馬總統的「新地理思維」，將台灣在全球四大經濟區的中心地位點出，應可感知他想用經濟改善國家政治處境、想用地理開創歷史機運的用心。而十二年前，民進黨的「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」，欲將台灣建設為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，難道不是同樣的政經思維？又難道不是同樣的國家生存戰略？
談到這裡，不能不令人為民進黨惜，更令人為民進黨悲！民進黨想要改變歷史，卻因昧於國際潮流而被歷史束縛；想要改善國家政治處境，卻因囿於意識形態而被政治束縛。民進黨那一套「正名制憲／獨立建國」的論調，只是一場撕裂族群的民主內戰而已，如何能改變歷史？又如何能改善國家政治處境？民進黨十二年前所說的「活力、反省力、創造力」，今安在哉？
台灣必須從「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」。不論稱此為「新地理思維」，或「海陸界面／東西橋樑」。此路雖必是坎坷崎嶇，但這是台灣更生的唯一道途，捨此不能救台灣。
民進黨中的有心人，何不回視十二年前那浪漫豪壯的一頁？「歷史束縛」不能救台灣，焉能救黨？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2009
Can you believe it? The day before yesterday Ma Ying-jeou proposed a "new conception of geography" that bore a striking resemblance to the "blueprint for the next century" issued by the DPP 12 years ago.
President Ma held a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank. He proposed a "new conception of geography." He said his administration attaches greater importance to Taiwan's "geographical location" than to its "history." To Taiwan's east, west, south, and north are the United States, Mainland China, ASEAN, and Japan. Along with the European Union, these constitute the world's six largest economic zones. Therefore his adminstration hopes to make good use of Taiwan's status as a hub, and allow Taiwan to link these economic zones.
Twelve years ago, in 1997, the DPP issued a "blueprint for the next century -- national land development plan." It noted that Taiwan is not at the center, nor is it at the periphery. It has vitality, the ability to reflect upon its circumstances, and the ability to create a bridge between the sea and the land, and between east and west.
Ma's "new conception of geography" is remarkably similar to the DPP's.
Twelve years ago DPP Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang proposed his "boldly go west / do business in China" policy. The aforementioned "blueprint for the next century" was based precisely on such lofty sentiments and aspirations. Back then Taiwan was mired in controversy over "Taiwan's primacy." Was Taiwan at the center, or was it at the periphery? The "blueprint for the next century" was an attempt to use "Taiwan's functionality" as an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west," to replace or supplement "Taiwan's primacy." Taiwan's primacy emphasizes politics and history. Taiwan's functionality emphasizes economics and geography.
We on Taiwan have for too long been constrained by history and politics. To free ourselves from such constraints we must take advantage of our economic strengths and geopolitical advantages. President Ma said he attached greater importance to the Taiwan region's "geographical location" than to its "history." Actually the only way we on Taiwan can improve our political situation and open up new possibilities, is to make maximum use of our geographical advantage and economic vitality. Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party's "blueprint for the next century", said Taiwan had "vitailty, the ability to reflect upon its condition, and creativity." It too stressed adjusting one's thinking. It too stressed that Taiwan can function as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. In short, it was a harbinger of President Ma's "new conception of geography."
The DPP's "blueprint for the next century" was eventually shredded, and Hsu Hsin-liang ousted from the party. But it showed that even within the Democratic Progressive Party, one could find a "new conception of geography." It remains a latent force even today. Hsu Hsin-liang has returned to the Democratic Progressive Party. Reread this "blueprint for the next century" from 12 years ago. Had Chen Shui-bian implemented even a tiny part of this blueprint during his eight years in office, the DPP would not have led the nation down the garden path as far as it has.
President Ma's "new conception of geography" stressed Taiwan's location at the center of four major economic zones. He hopes to use economics to improve the nation's political situation. He hopes to use geography to improve the nation's historical fortunes. Twelve years ago the DPP's "blueprint for the next century - national land development plan" aspired to establish Taiwan as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. Was it not engaged in the same sort of political and economic thinking? Was it not using the same strategy for national survival?
At this point, one can't help but feel pity for the Democratic Progressive Party. One can't help but feel sad for the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to change history. But it defies global trends and remains a captive of history. It wants to improve the nation's political circumstances. But it remains bound by ideological and political constraints. The Democratic Progressive Party's "rectification of names, declaration of independence, and founding of a new nation" can only tear society apart and provoke internal conflict. How can it change history? How can it improve the nation's political situation? Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party spoke of "vitality, an ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity." Where is that "vitality, ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity" today?
We on Taiwan must liberate ourselves from the shackles of history. We must think instead in terms of geography. It matters not whether we call it a "new conception of geography," or an "interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west." The road ahead will be difficult. But it is the only road to our salvation.
To people of vision within the Democratic Progressive Party, why not revisit this courageous moment in your own history? If the shackles of history cannot save Taiwan, how can they possibly save the DPP?
解脫「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.24 05:44 am
你信不信？馬英九總統最近（就在前天）提出的「新地理思維」，竟然與民進黨十二年前發表的「跨世紀建設藍圖」有六七分神似。
前天，馬總統與美國智庫ＣＳＩＳ舉行視訊會議，提出「新地理思維」。他說：他的政府重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；台灣的東、西、南、北邊，分別是美國、中國、東協與日本等世界前五大經濟區（除了歐盟）；因此應善用台灣的樞紐地位，讓台灣串聯這些經濟區。
十二年前，一九九七年，民進黨發表「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」。大要指出：台灣不是中心，也不是邊陲；而是一個有活力、有反省力及有創造力的海陸界面與東西橋樑。
兩者皆屬「新地理思維」，豈不有六七分神似？
十二年前，許信良任民進黨主席，主張「大膽西進／經營中國」；前述「跨世紀藍圖」就是出自那般的豪情壯志。當年，台灣正陷於「台灣主體論」的爭議之中（是中心？或是邊陲？）；但「跨世紀藍圖」，則試圖以「台灣機能論」（是海陸界面與東西橋樑）來取代或補充「台灣主體論」。「主體論」的主軸，是政治的、歷史的；「機能論」的主軸，則是經濟的、地理的。
台灣久陷歷史與政治的束縛之中，但台灣欲脫離束縛的機會，卻在我們的經濟能量及地緣優勢。馬總統說，他重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；此話或可作部分補充，較周延的表達應是：台灣唯有善用其地緣優勢及經濟能量，始有改善其政治處境及開創歷史新運的可能性。在這一方面，民進黨十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，指台灣「有活力、有反省力、有創造力」，其所強調者應也是這種思維境界的調整；至於指出了台灣可以作為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，則豈不儼然可說是馬總統「新地理思維」的預言與先聲？
雖然，後來民進黨的這一張「跨世紀藍圖」淪為廢紙，許信良亦被掃地出門；但畢竟顯示，民進黨內也有此類「新地理思維」，且迄今依然潛伏存在，而許信良也又回到了民進黨。如今重閱這張十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，倘若後來陳水扁八年執政能稍存此念，民進黨大概也不會誤國殃民到今日這種地步。
看馬總統的「新地理思維」，將台灣在全球四大經濟區的中心地位點出，應可感知他想用經濟改善國家政治處境、想用地理開創歷史機運的用心。而十二年前，民進黨的「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」，欲將台灣建設為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，難道不是同樣的政經思維？又難道不是同樣的國家生存戰略？
談到這裡，不能不令人為民進黨惜，更令人為民進黨悲！民進黨想要改變歷史，卻因昧於國際潮流而被歷史束縛；想要改善國家政治處境，卻因囿於意識形態而被政治束縛。民進黨那一套「正名制憲／獨立建國」的論調，只是一場撕裂族群的民主內戰而已，如何能改變歷史？又如何能改善國家政治處境？民進黨十二年前所說的「活力、反省力、創造力」，今安在哉？
台灣必須從「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」。不論稱此為「新地理思維」，或「海陸界面／東西橋樑」。此路雖必是坎坷崎嶇，但這是台灣更生的唯一道途，捨此不能救台灣。
民進黨中的有心人，何不回視十二年前那浪漫豪壯的一頁？「歷史束縛」不能救台灣，焉能救黨？
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Politics as a Profession
Politics as a Profession
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2009
We once believed politicians saw politics as a calling, in accord with sociologist Max Weber's ideal. Politicians must strike a difficult balance between their ethical convictions and their political constraints. We assumed that even politicians such as Machiavelli, who stopped at nothing and sold his soul to the devil, were acting for the greater good. But over the past several years, we have witnessed Taiwan's politicians amass huge fortunes and act solely for their own self-interest.
Such politicians defy our expectations. Moreover, when politicians openly reveal concern only for their own self-interest, how can we still believe they are qualified to engage in politics, which is everybody's business?
To answer this question, one must take a hard look at this business called politics. In general, the only time one will ever encounter professional politicians is in regions such as mainland China or nations such as the Soviet Union, which were founded by professional revolutionaries. In democratic countries, most politicians are people who have undergone a mid-life career change. The current issue of The Economist calculates that out of 5000 politicians in democracies over the world, most are lawyers and law-related professionals. They constitute nearly 20%. President Barack Obama of the United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Half of all U.S. senators are in law-related professions.
Are lawyers qualified to be politicians? Following the Chen Shui-bian administration, lawyers turned politicians have left society a highly negative image of themselves as people concerned only with procedural technicalities and eager to win at any cost. And yet America's greatest President Abraham Lincoln was a prominent lawyer. In his book "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville heaped praise upon lawyers for their respect for due process as a means of moderating public passions. .
Second on the list was businessmen. Businessmen turned politicians are even more controversial than lawyers. Take Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, or former President of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra. Both blurred the line between their private accounts and the national treasury. Thaksin is currently in exile over charges of corruption. Silvio Berlusconi remains immune from prosecution because he is Prime Minister. Their methods of sheltering and expanding their private fortunes, have left a negative image of businessmen turned politicians.
But if one looks at examples at home and abroad, businessmen turned politicians are hardly the only ones who profit by assuming political office. Moreover, businessmen turned politicians are not without merits. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was once seen as an exemplar of entrepreneurs turned statesmen. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is typical transplant from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of figures from the financial sector joined the British Cabinet.
Then there are academics turned politicians. when former President Lee Teng-hui was in office he was praised as Mr. Democracy. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, was formerly an academic famous for his theory of interdependence. During his term of office he helped Brazil remake itself and gain international respect. But the performance of academics turned politicians is difficult to predict. Dr. Liu Chao-hsuan's cabinet has been referred to as a "cabinet of professors." Yet its performance has been below expectations.
Lawyers, businessmen, and academics turned politicians once considered politics a mission. But in recent decades a new trend has appeared, politics as a profession. British journalist Peter Oborne's book, "The Triumph of the Political Class," points to think tanks, political consultants, public relations firms, and other quasi-political institutions which have become a reserve of political talent. These people may not have had any other form of work experience. In other words, politics has finally become a profession.
Peter Oborne cites the new British Labor Party as a prime example. If you want to stand out in politics, first, you must express an interest in politics while in school. Second, you must become an aide to a promising politician. Third, if you wish to reach the top, you must breath the same air and drink the same water as politicians at the top. This kind of politics doesn't concern itself with policy, only with marketing. Once in office, anything goes in the struggle for power, utterly indifferent to the perceptions of others.
Does this sound familiar? Everyone from members of the student movement on Taiwan who turned to politics, to Karl Rove, aka "Bush's brain," has taken the same shortcut to the top. This has led to either their own downfall, or their superior becoming the most unpopular president in history.
Every profession has its own code of ethics. But establishing a code of ethics for the "profession of politics" may be difficult. Those who seek political office have only one objective - to win. And after all, it is a zero-sum game. My win is your loss. My political survival means your political death. The new Political Class lives amidst such fierce competition. How can one possibily expect them to behave as professionals? How can one not expect them to degenerate into unprincipled schemers? Many people consider politics a necessary evil. There is no reason to expand this new Political Class.
The plight of Wang Hsueh-feng and numerous other former legislators is sad. But if this inspires us to establish pensions for legislators, it will only attract more unsuitable people. It will also expand the class of political professionals of dubious merit. Perhaps the best approach is to return to the classic model of politics as a mission, in which one enters the field without any expectations of profit.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.23
政治，作為一種專業
本報訊
曾經，我們認為政治人物應該將政治當作一種志業，就如社會學家馬克斯．韋伯的理想，政治人物必須在信念倫理與責任倫理之間辛苦掙扎求取平衡，即使是馬基維利式的政治人物，雖然不擇手段出賣靈魂，也應該是為了眾人更大的利益；但是，這幾年來，我們看到台灣的政治人物，不是為己聚斂巨利，就是為自己的生計哀哀求告。
這樣的政治人物不但違反我們的期許，而且，當政治人物敢於公然斤斤計較自己的福利時，我們能相信他們有能力作好政治這個眾人之事嗎？
要回答這個問題，就必須先好好面對政治這一行。一般而言，只有在靠著革命建國的中國或前蘇聯，才會有一群專以政治維生的職業革命家；在民主國家，多數的政治人物都是半途轉行的。這期的《經濟學人》統計全球名人榜五千個政治人物發現，在民主國家，律師或法律相關人士從政還是最吃香的，高達二成，不但美國總統歐巴馬、國務卿希拉蕊是律師出身，美國半數參議員都從事法律相關行業。
律師能不能成為合格的政治家？經過前總統陳水扁時代，律師從政確實留下不少陰影，他們執迷於程序問題、往往為了勝利不擇手段；但是，美國最偉大的總統林肯就是相當傑出的律師，托克維爾在《民主在美國》一書，就高度稱讚律師這種尊重程序的態度，可以平衡群眾的激情。
高居排行榜第二名的，就是商人。商人從政的爭議性，遠甚於律師，如義大利總理貝魯斯科尼，泰國前總統戴克辛都有國產、家產不分的問題；戴克辛涉貪流亡海外，貝魯斯科尼則藉總理身分取得刑事豁免權，他們保護及擴大個人私產的作法，是商人從政的負面示範。
不過，觀諸國內外的例子，藉從政牟利，並非商人獨有；而且，商人從政並非全無優點，例如韓國總統李明博，就一度被視為是企業家治國的典範，美國前財長鮑爾森則是華爾街進軍華府的典型，金融風暴後，英國內閣也增加了金融界出身的官員。
學者從政也是一種典型，前總統李登輝在任時被尊為民主先生，巴西前總統卡多索原來就是提出依賴理論的有名學者，他任內讓巴西脫胎換骨成為受重視的國家；不過，學者從政表現難以預測，劉內閣號稱博士內閣，但是表現不如預期。
不論律師、商人還是學者從政，初衷可能是將政治當作一種志業，但近幾十年來的新趨勢，則是「將政治當作一種專業」。英國記者Peter Oborne的《The Triumph of the Political Class》一書，點出智庫、政治顧問、公關公司等「准」政治機構，已成為政治人才的儲備所，這些人不必有任何其他工作經驗，政治終於變成一種專業。
Peter Oborne描述的是以英國新工黨為主的例子，如果你想在政治上出頭，第一步，在校時你就必須凸顯自己對政治的興趣；第二步，你務必要幫一個有前途的政治人物作事；第三步，最後若要登上頂峰，你必須與最能搞政治的人吃在一起，玩在一起。這樣的人從政不管政策內容只管行銷，一旦在位就無所不用其極的爭權奪利，完全無視他人觀感。
這樣的形容聽起來是不是熟悉？從台灣的學運世代從政，到號稱「布希大腦」的卡爾羅夫，走的都是同樣的登龍捷徑，最後不是自己身敗名裂，就是害頂頭上司成為史上最不受歡迎的總統。
如果說每一個行業都會有其職業倫理，看來，「政治專業」殊難建立合理的職業規範，因為，從事公職選舉的目標向來就是要贏，而且是零和遊戲、你死我活的勝利。政治新階層長期處於這樣的激烈競爭，如何要求此一專業的人，不發展出陰狠狡詐的心態！因此，就像許多人將政治視為必要之惡一樣，這樣的政治新階級確實不宜擴大。
王雪峰等諸多下台立委的處境確實堪憐，但是，如果真的為此去訂定立委退職金，只是吸引更多不適合的人，而且也擴大了看不出有什麼好處的政治專業階層；也許，回到古典的「政治作為一種志業」才是最好的一種模式，要進這一行前，你必須要有無法獲利的心理準備及決心。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2009
We once believed politicians saw politics as a calling, in accord with sociologist Max Weber's ideal. Politicians must strike a difficult balance between their ethical convictions and their political constraints. We assumed that even politicians such as Machiavelli, who stopped at nothing and sold his soul to the devil, were acting for the greater good. But over the past several years, we have witnessed Taiwan's politicians amass huge fortunes and act solely for their own self-interest.
Such politicians defy our expectations. Moreover, when politicians openly reveal concern only for their own self-interest, how can we still believe they are qualified to engage in politics, which is everybody's business?
To answer this question, one must take a hard look at this business called politics. In general, the only time one will ever encounter professional politicians is in regions such as mainland China or nations such as the Soviet Union, which were founded by professional revolutionaries. In democratic countries, most politicians are people who have undergone a mid-life career change. The current issue of The Economist calculates that out of 5000 politicians in democracies over the world, most are lawyers and law-related professionals. They constitute nearly 20%. President Barack Obama of the United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Half of all U.S. senators are in law-related professions.
Are lawyers qualified to be politicians? Following the Chen Shui-bian administration, lawyers turned politicians have left society a highly negative image of themselves as people concerned only with procedural technicalities and eager to win at any cost. And yet America's greatest President Abraham Lincoln was a prominent lawyer. In his book "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville heaped praise upon lawyers for their respect for due process as a means of moderating public passions. .
Second on the list was businessmen. Businessmen turned politicians are even more controversial than lawyers. Take Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, or former President of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra. Both blurred the line between their private accounts and the national treasury. Thaksin is currently in exile over charges of corruption. Silvio Berlusconi remains immune from prosecution because he is Prime Minister. Their methods of sheltering and expanding their private fortunes, have left a negative image of businessmen turned politicians.
But if one looks at examples at home and abroad, businessmen turned politicians are hardly the only ones who profit by assuming political office. Moreover, businessmen turned politicians are not without merits. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was once seen as an exemplar of entrepreneurs turned statesmen. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is typical transplant from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of figures from the financial sector joined the British Cabinet.
Then there are academics turned politicians. when former President Lee Teng-hui was in office he was praised as Mr. Democracy. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, was formerly an academic famous for his theory of interdependence. During his term of office he helped Brazil remake itself and gain international respect. But the performance of academics turned politicians is difficult to predict. Dr. Liu Chao-hsuan's cabinet has been referred to as a "cabinet of professors." Yet its performance has been below expectations.
Lawyers, businessmen, and academics turned politicians once considered politics a mission. But in recent decades a new trend has appeared, politics as a profession. British journalist Peter Oborne's book, "The Triumph of the Political Class," points to think tanks, political consultants, public relations firms, and other quasi-political institutions which have become a reserve of political talent. These people may not have had any other form of work experience. In other words, politics has finally become a profession.
Peter Oborne cites the new British Labor Party as a prime example. If you want to stand out in politics, first, you must express an interest in politics while in school. Second, you must become an aide to a promising politician. Third, if you wish to reach the top, you must breath the same air and drink the same water as politicians at the top. This kind of politics doesn't concern itself with policy, only with marketing. Once in office, anything goes in the struggle for power, utterly indifferent to the perceptions of others.
Does this sound familiar? Everyone from members of the student movement on Taiwan who turned to politics, to Karl Rove, aka "Bush's brain," has taken the same shortcut to the top. This has led to either their own downfall, or their superior becoming the most unpopular president in history.
Every profession has its own code of ethics. But establishing a code of ethics for the "profession of politics" may be difficult. Those who seek political office have only one objective - to win. And after all, it is a zero-sum game. My win is your loss. My political survival means your political death. The new Political Class lives amidst such fierce competition. How can one possibily expect them to behave as professionals? How can one not expect them to degenerate into unprincipled schemers? Many people consider politics a necessary evil. There is no reason to expand this new Political Class.
The plight of Wang Hsueh-feng and numerous other former legislators is sad. But if this inspires us to establish pensions for legislators, it will only attract more unsuitable people. It will also expand the class of political professionals of dubious merit. Perhaps the best approach is to return to the classic model of politics as a mission, in which one enters the field without any expectations of profit.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.23
政治，作為一種專業
本報訊
曾經，我們認為政治人物應該將政治當作一種志業，就如社會學家馬克斯．韋伯的理想，政治人物必須在信念倫理與責任倫理之間辛苦掙扎求取平衡，即使是馬基維利式的政治人物，雖然不擇手段出賣靈魂，也應該是為了眾人更大的利益；但是，這幾年來，我們看到台灣的政治人物，不是為己聚斂巨利，就是為自己的生計哀哀求告。
這樣的政治人物不但違反我們的期許，而且，當政治人物敢於公然斤斤計較自己的福利時，我們能相信他們有能力作好政治這個眾人之事嗎？
要回答這個問題，就必須先好好面對政治這一行。一般而言，只有在靠著革命建國的中國或前蘇聯，才會有一群專以政治維生的職業革命家；在民主國家，多數的政治人物都是半途轉行的。這期的《經濟學人》統計全球名人榜五千個政治人物發現，在民主國家，律師或法律相關人士從政還是最吃香的，高達二成，不但美國總統歐巴馬、國務卿希拉蕊是律師出身，美國半數參議員都從事法律相關行業。
律師能不能成為合格的政治家？經過前總統陳水扁時代，律師從政確實留下不少陰影，他們執迷於程序問題、往往為了勝利不擇手段；但是，美國最偉大的總統林肯就是相當傑出的律師，托克維爾在《民主在美國》一書，就高度稱讚律師這種尊重程序的態度，可以平衡群眾的激情。
高居排行榜第二名的，就是商人。商人從政的爭議性，遠甚於律師，如義大利總理貝魯斯科尼，泰國前總統戴克辛都有國產、家產不分的問題；戴克辛涉貪流亡海外，貝魯斯科尼則藉總理身分取得刑事豁免權，他們保護及擴大個人私產的作法，是商人從政的負面示範。
不過，觀諸國內外的例子，藉從政牟利，並非商人獨有；而且，商人從政並非全無優點，例如韓國總統李明博，就一度被視為是企業家治國的典範，美國前財長鮑爾森則是華爾街進軍華府的典型，金融風暴後，英國內閣也增加了金融界出身的官員。
學者從政也是一種典型，前總統李登輝在任時被尊為民主先生，巴西前總統卡多索原來就是提出依賴理論的有名學者，他任內讓巴西脫胎換骨成為受重視的國家；不過，學者從政表現難以預測，劉內閣號稱博士內閣，但是表現不如預期。
不論律師、商人還是學者從政，初衷可能是將政治當作一種志業，但近幾十年來的新趨勢，則是「將政治當作一種專業」。英國記者Peter Oborne的《The Triumph of the Political Class》一書，點出智庫、政治顧問、公關公司等「准」政治機構，已成為政治人才的儲備所，這些人不必有任何其他工作經驗，政治終於變成一種專業。
Peter Oborne描述的是以英國新工黨為主的例子，如果你想在政治上出頭，第一步，在校時你就必須凸顯自己對政治的興趣；第二步，你務必要幫一個有前途的政治人物作事；第三步，最後若要登上頂峰，你必須與最能搞政治的人吃在一起，玩在一起。這樣的人從政不管政策內容只管行銷，一旦在位就無所不用其極的爭權奪利，完全無視他人觀感。
這樣的形容聽起來是不是熟悉？從台灣的學運世代從政，到號稱「布希大腦」的卡爾羅夫，走的都是同樣的登龍捷徑，最後不是自己身敗名裂，就是害頂頭上司成為史上最不受歡迎的總統。
如果說每一個行業都會有其職業倫理，看來，「政治專業」殊難建立合理的職業規範，因為，從事公職選舉的目標向來就是要贏，而且是零和遊戲、你死我活的勝利。政治新階層長期處於這樣的激烈競爭，如何要求此一專業的人，不發展出陰狠狡詐的心態！因此，就像許多人將政治視為必要之惡一樣，這樣的政治新階級確實不宜擴大。
王雪峰等諸多下台立委的處境確實堪憐，但是，如果真的為此去訂定立委退職金，只是吸引更多不適合的人，而且也擴大了看不出有什麼好處的政治專業階層；也許，回到古典的「政治作為一種志業」才是最好的一種模式，要進這一行前，你必須要有無法獲利的心理準備及決心。
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Allow Mainland Tourists to Go From Alishan and Sun Moon Lake to the Night Market
Allow Mainland Tourists to Go From Alishan and Sun Moon Lake to the Night Market
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 22, 2009
When ARATS Vice Chairman Zheng Lizhong came to Taiwan, he could only shuttle back and forth from the hotel and the conference center, under heavy guard. Before he left, he said with regret that he originally hoped to visit the Shihlin Night Market, but unfortunately "conditions did not permit."
By "conditions did not permit," he of course was referring to the Yuanshan Hotel protests of last year, when Chen Yunlin visited, which led to bloody clashes. Fearing a repeat of the incident, security was made extremely tight, even at the expense of the guest's enjoyment. The host authorities were impotent to control the masses, so they resorted to controlling the guests. Their caution was excessive. Tourists spots such as the Shihlin Night Market, and Keelung Temple Entrance are full of local Taiwan flavor. If mainland visitors lack the freedom to come and go from them as they please, is that not a sad commentary on Taiwan's democracy?
Zheng Lizhong wanting to see the Shihlin Night Market was no accident. Most Mainland tourists who come to Taiwan follow the standard tourist itinerary. They visit Alishan, Sun Moon Lake, and the National Palace Museum. Members of large corporations such as Amway visit boutiques shops in Taipei's East District. But those who have visited Taiwan several times, and those with greater curiosity about Taiwan society, often choose to visit such local hot spots as the Shilin Night Market, On the one hand they can enjoy a wide variety of local Taiwanese delicacies. On the other they can experience first hand contact with local Taiwanese. That is authentic, in-depth tourism. As an official in charge of Taiwan affairs, Zheng Lizhong naturally wanted to make personal contact with the people of Taiwan. Sad to say, given current circumstances, "conditions did not permit."
After a concerted effort by both sides, the number of visitors coming to Taiwan during the last two months has surged. It has exceeded the daily limit of 3000 people. The government is considering increasing the limit to the 7200 people a day. This means that tourism is likely to bring economic benefits. It also means that Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan are undergoing a change. They are beginning to value quality over quantity. Put simply, we now need to consider more than the tourist capacity of our tourist attractions and tourist hotels. We need to think outside the definition of traditional tourism. We need to think more about genuine contact and comprehensive interaction. If the Shihlin Night Market or roadside shops can receive Mainland tourists freely, that will represent a real expansion in cross-Strait exchange.
Zheng Lizhong was not alone in wanting to visit the Shihlin Night Market. A few days ago Terry Gou treated a large number of guests from Shanxi to snacks. Many Mainland exchange students, accompanied by local students, go there for an enjoyable taste experience. From wanting to visit Alishan to wanting to visit the Shihlin Night Market, reflects an evolution in Mainland tourist preferences. It also reflects an inevitable deepening of cross-Strait exchanges. For Mainland tourists, Alishan is a United Front era textbook image of a Taiwan tourist attraction. It is a must see attraction, but not necessarily as impressive as the one in one's imagination. On the other hand, the Shihlin Night Market is part of contemporary Taiwan's urban culture. Tourists can quickly experience first hand the diverse nature of society on Taiwan. If "conditions permit," who wants to be confined to restaurants designated by their tour groups? Who wouldn't prefer a real taste of Taiwan? For shop owners in the Night Market, who wouldn't want to have Mainland tourists publicize their artistry through word-of-mouth praise?
Neither Zhao Gengda from Changzhou, who despoiled a tourist attraction with graffiti, nor the wealthy elites of the Amway corporation are typical Mainland tourists. The majority of Mainland tourists merely want to come and see how Taiwan and mainland China differ. They are neither extravagant nor rude. They are curious and envious of the ROC's democracy. They silently observe Taiwan's culture. They remain vigilant against anti-Mainlander agitators. Some people on Taiwan may be concerned about large numbers of Mainland tourists flooding in. But let's not forget that 20 years ago, the public on Taiwan explored the mainland in the same way. The Mainland survived it just fine, and the opening led to change and progress.
For Taiwan the same is true. Allowing Mainland tourists to visit is not about anything so short-sighted as "boosting consumption." It is about allowing people on both sides of the Strait to engage in exchanges to enhance mutual understanding and friendship, thereby reducing hostility and conflict, learning from each other, and finding more things in common. That is why the government should allow Mainland tourists greater latitude. It should not limit Mainland tourists to the standard tourist attractions. It should allow them to freely associate with the public. Pro independence elements inclined to act out their hostility toward Mainland tourists should stop and think. They should consider a soft offensive against Mainland tourists, using gourmet cuisine and the human touch to persuade these Mainland pioneers to acknowledge and support the ROC's democracy, instead of merely haranguing them with insults.
If you encounter Mainland tourists at the Shihlin Night Market, what will you do? Will you chat with them? Will you share a few insights about the food? Or will you quietly observe them? The Night Market is a kind of forum, but one in which one need not speak. Just remember that when you observe others, others are observing you as well.
讓陸客從阿里山日月潭走向廟口夜市
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.22 05:57 am
海協會副會長鄭立中來台，幾天都只能在維安森嚴的旅館和會場間進出。離台前，他不勝遺憾地說，本來想去士林夜市看看，可惜「條件不具備」。
所謂「條件不具備」，指的當然是去年陳雲林遇上的圓山抗議事件，最後釀成了流血衝突。我方惟恐舊事重演，因此採取嚴密維安，連客人的好興致也顧不得了。接待當局這種「管不了群眾，只好管制客人」的作法，固顯得因噎廢食；但像士林夜市、基隆廟口這類充滿台灣情調的市集，如果竟容不得大陸來客自由來去，豈不是民主台灣的遺憾？
士林夜市成為鄭立中的造訪目標，並非偶然。一般陸客來台的標準觀光行程，多半直指阿里山、日月潭、故宮等地，或者諸如安利菁英團大掃台北東區精品名店。但那些曾數度來台，或者對台灣社會有不同想像與好奇的人，卻會選擇士林夜市這類在地人消費的熱點，一則品嘗各式各樣的台式小吃，二則和台灣人作第一類接觸，那才是真正的深度旅遊。身為對台工作的官員，鄭立中當然想親身體驗台灣的民情，但現狀下確實「條件不具備」。
在兩岸的努力下，近兩個月陸客來台人數激增，突破了每日三千人的上限，正考慮上修為每日七千兩百人。這除反映「觀光帶動經濟」的效益更可能實現，也意味陸客來台即將進入一個從「量變」到「質變」的過程。簡單地說，我們面對的情況，不僅僅是考慮旅遊景點及觀光飯店的接待能力，而是要跨越傳統的「觀光」定義，思考更真實的接觸和更全面的互動。如果士林夜市或街旁小店都能隨時接待陸客，那才是兩岸交流效益的極大化。
不只鄭立中想去士林夜市，郭台銘日前也才招待了大批山西鄉親在那裡大啖小吃，更多大陸交換學生則在本地同學陪伴下，在此有過愉快的味覺經驗。從志在一遊「阿里山」到嚮往「士林夜市」，不僅可看出陸客口味的蛻變，也是兩岸交流深化的必然。對陸客而言，阿里山是統戰年代教科書上的台灣樣板名勝，此生必要親訪，有時卻未若神遊；而諸如士林的各地夜市卻是現代台灣市井文化的新藝綜合體，來客在短短時間即能親炙台灣社會的生猛多元。如果「條件具備」，誰願被局限在團進團出的定點餐廳中，而不去品嘗一下活生生的台灣滋味？而在夜市攤商而言，又有誰不想讓自己的好手藝留在陸客讚嘆的口碑裡？
常州的趙根大，光鮮闊綽的安利菁英團，其實都不是典型的大陸觀光客。多數陸客只是想來看看台灣究竟和中國有什麼不同，他們既不囂張，也不粗魯；他們對台灣民主懷著好奇和欽慕，對台灣文化默默比較觀察，對反中人士的嗆聲則保持作客者的警覺。如果有人對於陸客大量湧到感到不安，別忘了廿年前台灣人曾以同樣的方式進入中國探索，中國並未因此受害，反而因開放而有了變化與進步的動力。
對台灣而言，也是如此。開放陸客觀光，絕不只是為了「提振消費」那樣短視近利的目的，而是希望兩岸人民在交流中增進了解和友誼，從而減少敵意、降低衝突，進而彼此學習，發現彼此更大的共同利基。也因此，政府應再提供更大的空間，讓陸客的行程不必局限在制式景點，使他們有深入民間的機會與自由。而那些隨時想給陸客一記「當頭棒喝」的獨派人士，若肯往深處想，說不定也能換一個比較積極的思維，設法用美食、溫情及文化攻勢，爭取這些先鋒陸客成為支持與認同台灣民主的朋友，而不只是始終用一盤「嗆聲」的冷菜來轟炸他們。
如果在士林夜市遇見大陸觀光客，你會怎麼做？也許可以和他聊聊，也許為他解說一下小吃，也許只是默默觀察。夜市本身就是一場雄辯，無需多言。只是別忘了，當你在觀察對方時，人家也在觀察你。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 22, 2009
When ARATS Vice Chairman Zheng Lizhong came to Taiwan, he could only shuttle back and forth from the hotel and the conference center, under heavy guard. Before he left, he said with regret that he originally hoped to visit the Shihlin Night Market, but unfortunately "conditions did not permit."
By "conditions did not permit," he of course was referring to the Yuanshan Hotel protests of last year, when Chen Yunlin visited, which led to bloody clashes. Fearing a repeat of the incident, security was made extremely tight, even at the expense of the guest's enjoyment. The host authorities were impotent to control the masses, so they resorted to controlling the guests. Their caution was excessive. Tourists spots such as the Shihlin Night Market, and Keelung Temple Entrance are full of local Taiwan flavor. If mainland visitors lack the freedom to come and go from them as they please, is that not a sad commentary on Taiwan's democracy?
Zheng Lizhong wanting to see the Shihlin Night Market was no accident. Most Mainland tourists who come to Taiwan follow the standard tourist itinerary. They visit Alishan, Sun Moon Lake, and the National Palace Museum. Members of large corporations such as Amway visit boutiques shops in Taipei's East District. But those who have visited Taiwan several times, and those with greater curiosity about Taiwan society, often choose to visit such local hot spots as the Shilin Night Market, On the one hand they can enjoy a wide variety of local Taiwanese delicacies. On the other they can experience first hand contact with local Taiwanese. That is authentic, in-depth tourism. As an official in charge of Taiwan affairs, Zheng Lizhong naturally wanted to make personal contact with the people of Taiwan. Sad to say, given current circumstances, "conditions did not permit."
After a concerted effort by both sides, the number of visitors coming to Taiwan during the last two months has surged. It has exceeded the daily limit of 3000 people. The government is considering increasing the limit to the 7200 people a day. This means that tourism is likely to bring economic benefits. It also means that Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan are undergoing a change. They are beginning to value quality over quantity. Put simply, we now need to consider more than the tourist capacity of our tourist attractions and tourist hotels. We need to think outside the definition of traditional tourism. We need to think more about genuine contact and comprehensive interaction. If the Shihlin Night Market or roadside shops can receive Mainland tourists freely, that will represent a real expansion in cross-Strait exchange.
Zheng Lizhong was not alone in wanting to visit the Shihlin Night Market. A few days ago Terry Gou treated a large number of guests from Shanxi to snacks. Many Mainland exchange students, accompanied by local students, go there for an enjoyable taste experience. From wanting to visit Alishan to wanting to visit the Shihlin Night Market, reflects an evolution in Mainland tourist preferences. It also reflects an inevitable deepening of cross-Strait exchanges. For Mainland tourists, Alishan is a United Front era textbook image of a Taiwan tourist attraction. It is a must see attraction, but not necessarily as impressive as the one in one's imagination. On the other hand, the Shihlin Night Market is part of contemporary Taiwan's urban culture. Tourists can quickly experience first hand the diverse nature of society on Taiwan. If "conditions permit," who wants to be confined to restaurants designated by their tour groups? Who wouldn't prefer a real taste of Taiwan? For shop owners in the Night Market, who wouldn't want to have Mainland tourists publicize their artistry through word-of-mouth praise?
Neither Zhao Gengda from Changzhou, who despoiled a tourist attraction with graffiti, nor the wealthy elites of the Amway corporation are typical Mainland tourists. The majority of Mainland tourists merely want to come and see how Taiwan and mainland China differ. They are neither extravagant nor rude. They are curious and envious of the ROC's democracy. They silently observe Taiwan's culture. They remain vigilant against anti-Mainlander agitators. Some people on Taiwan may be concerned about large numbers of Mainland tourists flooding in. But let's not forget that 20 years ago, the public on Taiwan explored the mainland in the same way. The Mainland survived it just fine, and the opening led to change and progress.
For Taiwan the same is true. Allowing Mainland tourists to visit is not about anything so short-sighted as "boosting consumption." It is about allowing people on both sides of the Strait to engage in exchanges to enhance mutual understanding and friendship, thereby reducing hostility and conflict, learning from each other, and finding more things in common. That is why the government should allow Mainland tourists greater latitude. It should not limit Mainland tourists to the standard tourist attractions. It should allow them to freely associate with the public. Pro independence elements inclined to act out their hostility toward Mainland tourists should stop and think. They should consider a soft offensive against Mainland tourists, using gourmet cuisine and the human touch to persuade these Mainland pioneers to acknowledge and support the ROC's democracy, instead of merely haranguing them with insults.
If you encounter Mainland tourists at the Shihlin Night Market, what will you do? Will you chat with them? Will you share a few insights about the food? Or will you quietly observe them? The Night Market is a kind of forum, but one in which one need not speak. Just remember that when you observe others, others are observing you as well.
讓陸客從阿里山日月潭走向廟口夜市
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.22 05:57 am
海協會副會長鄭立中來台，幾天都只能在維安森嚴的旅館和會場間進出。離台前，他不勝遺憾地說，本來想去士林夜市看看，可惜「條件不具備」。
所謂「條件不具備」，指的當然是去年陳雲林遇上的圓山抗議事件，最後釀成了流血衝突。我方惟恐舊事重演，因此採取嚴密維安，連客人的好興致也顧不得了。接待當局這種「管不了群眾，只好管制客人」的作法，固顯得因噎廢食；但像士林夜市、基隆廟口這類充滿台灣情調的市集，如果竟容不得大陸來客自由來去，豈不是民主台灣的遺憾？
士林夜市成為鄭立中的造訪目標，並非偶然。一般陸客來台的標準觀光行程，多半直指阿里山、日月潭、故宮等地，或者諸如安利菁英團大掃台北東區精品名店。但那些曾數度來台，或者對台灣社會有不同想像與好奇的人，卻會選擇士林夜市這類在地人消費的熱點，一則品嘗各式各樣的台式小吃，二則和台灣人作第一類接觸，那才是真正的深度旅遊。身為對台工作的官員，鄭立中當然想親身體驗台灣的民情，但現狀下確實「條件不具備」。
在兩岸的努力下，近兩個月陸客來台人數激增，突破了每日三千人的上限，正考慮上修為每日七千兩百人。這除反映「觀光帶動經濟」的效益更可能實現，也意味陸客來台即將進入一個從「量變」到「質變」的過程。簡單地說，我們面對的情況，不僅僅是考慮旅遊景點及觀光飯店的接待能力，而是要跨越傳統的「觀光」定義，思考更真實的接觸和更全面的互動。如果士林夜市或街旁小店都能隨時接待陸客，那才是兩岸交流效益的極大化。
不只鄭立中想去士林夜市，郭台銘日前也才招待了大批山西鄉親在那裡大啖小吃，更多大陸交換學生則在本地同學陪伴下，在此有過愉快的味覺經驗。從志在一遊「阿里山」到嚮往「士林夜市」，不僅可看出陸客口味的蛻變，也是兩岸交流深化的必然。對陸客而言，阿里山是統戰年代教科書上的台灣樣板名勝，此生必要親訪，有時卻未若神遊；而諸如士林的各地夜市卻是現代台灣市井文化的新藝綜合體，來客在短短時間即能親炙台灣社會的生猛多元。如果「條件具備」，誰願被局限在團進團出的定點餐廳中，而不去品嘗一下活生生的台灣滋味？而在夜市攤商而言，又有誰不想讓自己的好手藝留在陸客讚嘆的口碑裡？
常州的趙根大，光鮮闊綽的安利菁英團，其實都不是典型的大陸觀光客。多數陸客只是想來看看台灣究竟和中國有什麼不同，他們既不囂張，也不粗魯；他們對台灣民主懷著好奇和欽慕，對台灣文化默默比較觀察，對反中人士的嗆聲則保持作客者的警覺。如果有人對於陸客大量湧到感到不安，別忘了廿年前台灣人曾以同樣的方式進入中國探索，中國並未因此受害，反而因開放而有了變化與進步的動力。
對台灣而言，也是如此。開放陸客觀光，絕不只是為了「提振消費」那樣短視近利的目的，而是希望兩岸人民在交流中增進了解和友誼，從而減少敵意、降低衝突，進而彼此學習，發現彼此更大的共同利基。也因此，政府應再提供更大的空間，讓陸客的行程不必局限在制式景點，使他們有深入民間的機會與自由。而那些隨時想給陸客一記「當頭棒喝」的獨派人士，若肯往深處想，說不定也能換一個比較積極的思維，設法用美食、溫情及文化攻勢，爭取這些先鋒陸客成為支持與認同台灣民主的朋友，而不只是始終用一盤「嗆聲」的冷菜來轟炸他們。
如果在士林夜市遇見大陸觀光客，你會怎麼做？也許可以和他聊聊，也許為他解說一下小吃，也許只是默默觀察。夜市本身就是一場雄辯，無需多言。只是別忘了，當你在觀察對方時，人家也在觀察你。
The Economy has Yet to Recover, the Government must Redouble Its Efforts
The Economy has Yet to Recover, the Government must Redouble Its Efforts
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 22, 2009
Next week the government will announce several March economic indicators. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the numbers will be generally be better than February, but worse than March last year. The exception may be the unemployment rate. But the government's financial and economic officials have already announced that "spring is here and the swallows have returned." The government's intention is obvious. It hopes to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It hopes to use a slowing decline to inspire public confidence, and to ignite the flames of an economic recovery. But after a wild ride, the economy remains shakey. It is easy to make a bad judgment call. At the moment the market is still seeking the bottom. It is s much too early to talk of a recovery. Doing so may lead to a loss in vigilance, causing the economy to undergo additional cycles, making governance even more difficult.
Pitfalls await anyone attempting to analyze today's economy. The first pitfall is the stock market. The Taiex rose sharply following the Lunar New Year. Last Thursday the Taiex approached the 6000 mark, a level unseen since September 15 last year, when the financial tsunami struck. On Friday trading volume exploded. Since February trade volume has increased 35% percent. The stock market is reacting to future expections. It is viewed a key economic indicators. The wealth effect brought about by rising stocks will increase consumption and investment, in a virtuous circle. This is indeed one possible sign of economic rejuvenation. We may be experiencing a rebound or zero interest rate environment beneficial to the performance of the stock market. But the stock market is more and more like the stock market last May. The easing of cross-Strait relations offered hope for a peace dividend. The index peaked on the May 20 anniversary of the presidential inauguration last year, only to plummet afterwards. Investors need to keep a cool head.
The second trap is statistics. Officials often use these to mislead the public. For example, the current spin is "March is better than February." This involves claims that over the counter sales, stock market trade volume, and domestic exports have improved from one month to the next. But March had 10% more working days than February. Of course the numbers increased. Most analyses compare any period with the same period last year, usually a minimum of three months. One must not jump to conclusions based on monthly data. The indicators released this week include export orders, industrial production, unemployment rate, and money supply. No surprises are expected this month. But if added to the previous two months, they may be a better indicator.
The choice of indicators is also a trap that may affect judgments about the impact of various factors upon the economy. The key indicators government heads use when they say spring is here and the swallows have returned, include the stock index and export figures. The third, indicator, which was unmentioned, is consumer spending. Take exports. The rate of decline in March clearly slowed. But the first quarter decline was worse than expected. It is hard to interpret this as recovery in exports. Also, Taiwan re-exports much of what it imports. Import figures, especially the leading indicators for agricultural and industrial raw materials, show no improvement in export momentum. This is true even if one factors in falling imports and oil prices during the first quarter.
Among the seven leading indicators prepared by the CEPD, only the money supply increased. This was one of the results of a loose monetary policy. But another leading indicator, housing construction permits, calculated by area, fell three months in a row. It is currently less than half of what it was when the financial tsunami struck. As for the labor market, the figure for overtime hours per month is even lower. Industry has yet to stabilize. The remaining indicators were good in one month, bad in the next, indicating bottom-seeking. These indicators show that the economy is still at the bottom struggling to move up. For government heads to claim that spring is here and the swallows have returned is truly premature.
The business cycle must go through certain phases, especially following the major damage caused by the decline from the previous peak. The financial system was on the verge of collapse, rapidly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. Businesses were forced to close due to supply chain production shortfalls. These are among the challenges the economy must face while clawing its way back from the bottom. It is both difficult and time-consuming. Therefore one must not be so naive as to assume that as the economy falls, so it will rise. It is unlikely to recover as quickly as it fell during the SARS crisis. If one is careless, one may find oneself at the bottom again. Another lesson of this recession is that the Internet and globalization have accelerated the business cycle. Only businesses that can respond swiftly can survive. This is true for governments as well. Therefore, the government should not be in a hurry to turn in a report card. Instead it should intensify specific measures to revive the economy. This is the right way to ensure a steady recovery when one is at the bottom.
What shape will Taiwan's economic recovery take? Will it be a stable U-shaped recovery? Will it be a W-shaped recovery with a second dip? Or will it be an L-shaped long-term recession? The answer is uncertain, and the government must not take matters lightly.
景氣尚未復甦，政府仍須努力
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.20 02:02 am
未來這一周，政府要發布多項三月經濟指標，如無意外，大致會呈現比二月好、但比去年三月差的結果，唯一的例外可能是失業率。但在此之前，政府財經首長卻已預告景氣春燕飛回的好消息。政府的意圖明顯，期望借力使力，順著景氣跌勢稍緩的苗頭，以此激勵民間信心，點燃景氣復甦之火；但劇烈波動後的景氣走勢向不穩定，極易掉入判斷陷阱，目前僅能視為打底階段；且過早論斷景氣復甦，反將失去警戒之心，令景氣反覆，治理更棘手。
目前對景氣判斷存在幾個陷阱，第一個就是股市。今年農曆春節過後，台股漲勢凌厲，上周四股價指數一度攻上去年九月十五日金融海嘯爆發時的六千點大關，周五爆量長黑，但二月以來漲幅仍高達三成五。以股市反應未來經濟預期的特性，被視為景氣即將好轉的關鍵指標；而股價上漲帶來的財富效果，也會引動消費投資增加的正向循環。這確是景氣回春的可能跡象之一，無論是跌深反彈或零利率環境，均有利股市表現；但近來的台股愈來愈像去年五月的台股，因特有的兩岸關係和緩而存有和平紅利的想像空間，加以五二○總統就職周年將屆，去年五月台股衝上最高點後反轉下挫的過程，值得投資人冷靜思考。
第二個陷阱是數據的比較基準，也是最常被官員誤用、以致誤導民眾的方式。例如近來最常見的說法就是三月比二月好，包括上市櫃公司營收、股市成交量、出口值等，強調一月比一月好；但三月工作天數本來就比二月多一成，數量成長是理所當然。一般觀察趨勢的比較方式是與去年同期相比，而且至少應連看三個月，不應以單月數據遽下論斷。因此，本周公布的指標如外銷訂單、工業生產、失業率、貨幣供給額等，儘管單月結果不會有太多意外，但與前兩月連在一起觀察，將可提供更有用的景氣動向訊息。
指標的選用，也是影響景氣判斷的陷阱之一。政府首長用以研判景氣春燕歸的主要指標，除了股市，還有出口，尚未現身的第三隻燕子是消費。以出口來說，三月跌幅明顯縮小，但第一季衰退幅度卻比預期還大，實難謂出口景氣復甦；此外，由於台灣經濟的進口加工再出口結構高，進口額、尤其是農工原料的變化更具指標領先性，但首季進口額竟是腰斬，即使剔除油價下跌因素仍呈大減，未見出口好轉的勢頭。
再者，依據經建會編製的領先指標，其七項指標中，只有貨幣供給額連三月上升，這是寬鬆貨幣政策的效果之一；但做為房市領先指標的建照核發面積，則是連三月下降，目前水準還不到金融海嘯爆發時的半數；至於勞動市場，每月加班工時已是連七降，尚未見企穩之象；其餘指標，則是一月好、一月壞的反覆打底之勢。這些指標顯示，景氣尚在底部掙扎向上，政府首長的景氣春燕說，實在是說得太快了。
景氣循環有其一定的過程，尤其是這波自高峰急速摔落造成的重大破壞，例如奄奄一息的金融體系、急速增加的失業人口，以及部分企業被迫退場導致的生產供應鏈缺口等，都是景氣自谷底爬升時要面對的重重挑戰，不只困難，更需要時間，因而不能天真地以為景氣怎麼跌下去、就怎麼升上來，更不會像前波ＳＡＲＳ導致的不景氣般快速復元，卻可能是稍有不慎，就又掉回谷底。這波不景氣的另一啟示是，網路傳播及全球化等兩大因素，已讓景氣循環的波動加劇加速，能快速應變的企業才能生存，政府亦然。因此，政府別急著為施政找績效，而是加緊落實各項既定的振興經濟方案，才是讓打底中的景氣穩定回升的正確態度。
台灣的景氣復甦形式，是回升後穩定向上的U、復甦後再衰退的W，還是陷入長期衰退L，尚在未定之天，政府可別掉以輕心。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 22, 2009
Next week the government will announce several March economic indicators. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the numbers will be generally be better than February, but worse than March last year. The exception may be the unemployment rate. But the government's financial and economic officials have already announced that "spring is here and the swallows have returned." The government's intention is obvious. It hopes to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It hopes to use a slowing decline to inspire public confidence, and to ignite the flames of an economic recovery. But after a wild ride, the economy remains shakey. It is easy to make a bad judgment call. At the moment the market is still seeking the bottom. It is s much too early to talk of a recovery. Doing so may lead to a loss in vigilance, causing the economy to undergo additional cycles, making governance even more difficult.
Pitfalls await anyone attempting to analyze today's economy. The first pitfall is the stock market. The Taiex rose sharply following the Lunar New Year. Last Thursday the Taiex approached the 6000 mark, a level unseen since September 15 last year, when the financial tsunami struck. On Friday trading volume exploded. Since February trade volume has increased 35% percent. The stock market is reacting to future expections. It is viewed a key economic indicators. The wealth effect brought about by rising stocks will increase consumption and investment, in a virtuous circle. This is indeed one possible sign of economic rejuvenation. We may be experiencing a rebound or zero interest rate environment beneficial to the performance of the stock market. But the stock market is more and more like the stock market last May. The easing of cross-Strait relations offered hope for a peace dividend. The index peaked on the May 20 anniversary of the presidential inauguration last year, only to plummet afterwards. Investors need to keep a cool head.
The second trap is statistics. Officials often use these to mislead the public. For example, the current spin is "March is better than February." This involves claims that over the counter sales, stock market trade volume, and domestic exports have improved from one month to the next. But March had 10% more working days than February. Of course the numbers increased. Most analyses compare any period with the same period last year, usually a minimum of three months. One must not jump to conclusions based on monthly data. The indicators released this week include export orders, industrial production, unemployment rate, and money supply. No surprises are expected this month. But if added to the previous two months, they may be a better indicator.
The choice of indicators is also a trap that may affect judgments about the impact of various factors upon the economy. The key indicators government heads use when they say spring is here and the swallows have returned, include the stock index and export figures. The third, indicator, which was unmentioned, is consumer spending. Take exports. The rate of decline in March clearly slowed. But the first quarter decline was worse than expected. It is hard to interpret this as recovery in exports. Also, Taiwan re-exports much of what it imports. Import figures, especially the leading indicators for agricultural and industrial raw materials, show no improvement in export momentum. This is true even if one factors in falling imports and oil prices during the first quarter.
Among the seven leading indicators prepared by the CEPD, only the money supply increased. This was one of the results of a loose monetary policy. But another leading indicator, housing construction permits, calculated by area, fell three months in a row. It is currently less than half of what it was when the financial tsunami struck. As for the labor market, the figure for overtime hours per month is even lower. Industry has yet to stabilize. The remaining indicators were good in one month, bad in the next, indicating bottom-seeking. These indicators show that the economy is still at the bottom struggling to move up. For government heads to claim that spring is here and the swallows have returned is truly premature.
The business cycle must go through certain phases, especially following the major damage caused by the decline from the previous peak. The financial system was on the verge of collapse, rapidly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. Businesses were forced to close due to supply chain production shortfalls. These are among the challenges the economy must face while clawing its way back from the bottom. It is both difficult and time-consuming. Therefore one must not be so naive as to assume that as the economy falls, so it will rise. It is unlikely to recover as quickly as it fell during the SARS crisis. If one is careless, one may find oneself at the bottom again. Another lesson of this recession is that the Internet and globalization have accelerated the business cycle. Only businesses that can respond swiftly can survive. This is true for governments as well. Therefore, the government should not be in a hurry to turn in a report card. Instead it should intensify specific measures to revive the economy. This is the right way to ensure a steady recovery when one is at the bottom.
What shape will Taiwan's economic recovery take? Will it be a stable U-shaped recovery? Will it be a W-shaped recovery with a second dip? Or will it be an L-shaped long-term recession? The answer is uncertain, and the government must not take matters lightly.
景氣尚未復甦，政府仍須努力
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.20 02:02 am
未來這一周，政府要發布多項三月經濟指標，如無意外，大致會呈現比二月好、但比去年三月差的結果，唯一的例外可能是失業率。但在此之前，政府財經首長卻已預告景氣春燕飛回的好消息。政府的意圖明顯，期望借力使力，順著景氣跌勢稍緩的苗頭，以此激勵民間信心，點燃景氣復甦之火；但劇烈波動後的景氣走勢向不穩定，極易掉入判斷陷阱，目前僅能視為打底階段；且過早論斷景氣復甦，反將失去警戒之心，令景氣反覆，治理更棘手。
目前對景氣判斷存在幾個陷阱，第一個就是股市。今年農曆春節過後，台股漲勢凌厲，上周四股價指數一度攻上去年九月十五日金融海嘯爆發時的六千點大關，周五爆量長黑，但二月以來漲幅仍高達三成五。以股市反應未來經濟預期的特性，被視為景氣即將好轉的關鍵指標；而股價上漲帶來的財富效果，也會引動消費投資增加的正向循環。這確是景氣回春的可能跡象之一，無論是跌深反彈或零利率環境，均有利股市表現；但近來的台股愈來愈像去年五月的台股，因特有的兩岸關係和緩而存有和平紅利的想像空間，加以五二○總統就職周年將屆，去年五月台股衝上最高點後反轉下挫的過程，值得投資人冷靜思考。
第二個陷阱是數據的比較基準，也是最常被官員誤用、以致誤導民眾的方式。例如近來最常見的說法就是三月比二月好，包括上市櫃公司營收、股市成交量、出口值等，強調一月比一月好；但三月工作天數本來就比二月多一成，數量成長是理所當然。一般觀察趨勢的比較方式是與去年同期相比，而且至少應連看三個月，不應以單月數據遽下論斷。因此，本周公布的指標如外銷訂單、工業生產、失業率、貨幣供給額等，儘管單月結果不會有太多意外，但與前兩月連在一起觀察，將可提供更有用的景氣動向訊息。
指標的選用，也是影響景氣判斷的陷阱之一。政府首長用以研判景氣春燕歸的主要指標，除了股市，還有出口，尚未現身的第三隻燕子是消費。以出口來說，三月跌幅明顯縮小，但第一季衰退幅度卻比預期還大，實難謂出口景氣復甦；此外，由於台灣經濟的進口加工再出口結構高，進口額、尤其是農工原料的變化更具指標領先性，但首季進口額竟是腰斬，即使剔除油價下跌因素仍呈大減，未見出口好轉的勢頭。
再者，依據經建會編製的領先指標，其七項指標中，只有貨幣供給額連三月上升，這是寬鬆貨幣政策的效果之一；但做為房市領先指標的建照核發面積，則是連三月下降，目前水準還不到金融海嘯爆發時的半數；至於勞動市場，每月加班工時已是連七降，尚未見企穩之象；其餘指標，則是一月好、一月壞的反覆打底之勢。這些指標顯示，景氣尚在底部掙扎向上，政府首長的景氣春燕說，實在是說得太快了。
景氣循環有其一定的過程，尤其是這波自高峰急速摔落造成的重大破壞，例如奄奄一息的金融體系、急速增加的失業人口，以及部分企業被迫退場導致的生產供應鏈缺口等，都是景氣自谷底爬升時要面對的重重挑戰，不只困難，更需要時間，因而不能天真地以為景氣怎麼跌下去、就怎麼升上來，更不會像前波ＳＡＲＳ導致的不景氣般快速復元，卻可能是稍有不慎，就又掉回谷底。這波不景氣的另一啟示是，網路傳播及全球化等兩大因素，已讓景氣循環的波動加劇加速，能快速應變的企業才能生存，政府亦然。因此，政府別急著為施政找績效，而是加緊落實各項既定的振興經濟方案，才是讓打底中的景氣穩定回升的正確態度。
台灣的景氣復甦形式，是回升後穩定向上的U、復甦後再衰退的W，還是陷入長期衰退L，尚在未定之天，政府可別掉以輕心。
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Taiwan Must Not Hesitate in the Face of a Rising Mainland
Taiwan Must Not Hesitate in the Face of a Rising Mainland
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2009
The Boao Forum recently adjourned. The third Chiang/Chen cross-Strait summit is about to convene. For the two sides, last year's change in ruling parties was an important turning point in cross-Strait relations. This year is crucial to closer cross-Strait cooperation. Last year's Boao Forum was Beijng's world-class economic conference. This year, Beijing was not at all shy about incorporating the issue of cross-Strait economic and financial cooperation into the official agenda. Its intent was to announce to the world that the two sides are working together to combat the global economic crisis. It was also a direct response to President Ma Ying-jeou's previous recommendation that bilateral relations be integrated into multilateral relations.
Beijing's "goodwill" toward Taipei is overwhelming. Beijing allowed Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. When Taipei complained that the number of tourists was inadequate, Beijing issued a directive ordering Mainland provinces and cities to immediately increase the number of tourists to Taiwan this year. Wave upon wave arrived, with ten thousand tourists in each wave. Just before Taipei's delegation to the Boao Forum departed for the Mainland, President Ma Ying-jeou asked delegation leader Fredrick Chien to convey a message to Beijing: "Help each other, support each other, deepen cooperation create a common future." Mainland China Premier Wen Jiabao responded with: "Face the future, put the past behind us, cooperate closely, advance hand in hand." Not only that, Fredrick Chien's meeting with Wen Jiabao was extended from 20 minutes to 50 minutes. Premier Wen Jiabao had much more he wanted to say. Matters that Fredrick Chien hesitated to breach, Premier Wen Jiabao brought up on his own. He said "ECFA is also open to discussion." Fredrick Chien was so surprised he demurred, saying he was there merely as an NGO representative, in an unofficial capacity, and not at liberty to say too much.
The mainland has reason to be in a hurry. Since Chiang Ching-kuo first opened up cross-Strait exchanges, the process has undergone numerous ups and downs. Premier Wen Jiabao's response to Ma Ying-jeou, "put the past behind us" had important implications. When Lee Teng-hui first assumed power, the other side had high expectations. But toward the latter part of Lee's rule, they encountered hidden reefs, and eventually Lee's "no haste, be patient" policy. Cross-Strait civilian exchanges never ceased. But political dialogue was frequently filled with disagreement. When Chen Shui-bian first assumed power, the Mainland also had expectations. It even attempted to establish underground channels. But the Chen administration's cross-Strait policy was soon held hostage by pro-independence advocates, and "effective management" was replaced by "aggressive management." Now that President Ma Ying-jeou has taken office, leaders in Beijing are sending him a message of goodwill. Will it work with Ma Ying-jeou? Will it change the cross-Strait political atmosphere? Doubts remain.
The tense cross-Strait situation has lasted 12 to 13 years. Non-governmental exchanges never ceased. They became even closer. Private entrepreneurs who hoped to profit from exchanges no longer looked to government policy. Many business owners ignored official policy and acted on their own, even at the cost of lawsuits. But politically the cross-Strait political atmosphere changed. Chiang Ching-kuo once declared that "I am Chinese, I am also Taiwanese." Today a declaration that "I am Chinese" is almost taboo on Taiwan. Buddhist Master Hsing Yun was born on the Mainland. During a cross-Strait forum on Buddhism, he was subjected to a firestorm of criticism for uttering these words. The cross-Strait political atmosphere was subjected to 12 to 13 years of political reshaping following the change in ruling parties. As one can imagine, undoing these changes so soon after returning to power is no easy matter. Cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation has been restored at great difficulty. No one wants to see this undone and the opportunity to write history lost, yet again.
Closer cross-Strait co-operation accords with Taiwan's interests. But whether such cooperation will affect the sovereignty of the Republic of China, or incite pro-independence or pro-reunification sentiment on Taiwan, remains a nameless anxiety. Such anxiety is understandable, but must not impede the island's progress.
When the two sides first opened up, Beijing viewed Taipei as its teacher. Its hunger and thirst for knowledge exceeded our imagination. It was interested in improving everything from the stock market to the financial regulatory system, from agricultural products to factory management. Even now, Taiwan's experience in policy-making remains one of considerable importance to mainland officials. Heads of State Owned Enterprises with Communist Party affiliations and financial officials say Beijing's land policy is not open enough, lacks respect for the market, and always meddle in the market process. They are able to recite the history of Taiwan's economic miracle, chapter and verse. They can even discuss in detail the roster of former ROC Ambassadors to the United States with Fredrick Chien. We can see how determined Beijing is to understand Taiwan. By contrast, how well do we on Taiwan understand the mainland? How thorough is our own research?
As Taipei simultaneously welcomes and resists cooperation and exchanges with Beijing, Beijing is already accelerating its cooperation and exchanges with the international community. When Beijing and six nations sign a currency exchange agreement, can Taipei turn a blind eye? Mainland China has become an indispensable link in the international economic and financial system. Other nations have their eyes wide open. They look to Beijing and Asia for leadership in overcoming the global economic crisis. Taipei must not remain outside the Asian regional economy. It cannot ignore international economic trends and refuse to associate with Beijing. Cross-Strait exchanges are irreversible. No matter how the political situation evolves, no matter how long the cross-Strait process is prolonged, one thing is certain, fear and anxiety can never create a second economic miracle. Faced with a rising Mainland, Taiwan needs determination and courage.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.21
社論－面對崛起的中國 台灣不能遲疑
本報訊
博鰲論壇才閉幕，兩岸三次江陳會即將上場。對兩岸而言，去年政黨再輪替，是兩岸交流回溫的重要轉捩點，今年則可能是兩岸更緊密互動合作的關鍵年。博鰲論壇是中國年度國際級的經濟大會，今年，中國卻毫不避諱地特別在正式議程中，納入兩岸經濟金融合作議題，意在向國際宣示：兩岸攜手對抗全球經濟危機；也直接回應馬英九總統之前的建議：在多邊之中納入雙邊。
中國對台灣的「善意」，簡直可以舖天蓋地形容。開放大陸觀光客，台灣抱怨來台人數不足，政策指令下達，大陸各省市立刻在今年初遽增來台觀光客，動輒就是萬人團；馬英九總統在博鰲代表團行前，請團長錢復帶上十六個字：「同舟共濟，彼此扶持，深化合作，開創未來」，中國總理溫家寶隨即回應十六個字：「面向未來，捐棄前嫌，密切合作，攜手並進」。非但如此，錢溫會從預定廿分鐘延長為五十分鐘，溫家寶談得意猶未盡，錢復沒提的事，溫家寶反而主動提出，「ＥＣＦＡ也可以談」，讓錢復急乎乎地聲明他只是民間代表不具官方身分，不宜多言。
大陸的急切不是沒有原因；從蔣經國末期開放兩岸交流以來，兩岸進程時有波折，溫家寶回贈馬英九的十六字箴言中的「捐棄前嫌」，顯有弦外之音。李登輝初掌大位，對岸也曾寄望甚殷，但執政後期即遇潛礁，從此戒急用忍，即使兩岸民間交流不斷，但政治對話常有齟齬；陳水扁執政初期，大陸同樣猶有期待，甚至曾試圖透過傳話管道打開窗口，但是，沒多久扁政府的兩岸政策就被獨派主張鎖死，積極管理取代了有效管理。馬英九總統上任以來，中國領導階層強力放送他們的善意，卻對馬英九能不能有效、強勢地扭轉兩岸政治氣氛，猶有懷疑。
這段兩岸關係緊張期長達十二、三年，民間交流無一日停滯，甚至愈來愈密切，期望交流獲利的民間業者，對政府政策不再期待，脫政策而先行的企業主所在多有，甚至不惜付出官司纏身的代價；但是，政治上兩岸氣氛丕變，從當年蔣經國說，「我是中國人，我也是台灣人。」到如今，「我是中國人」這五個字，彷彿成了台灣的禁詞，出生在大陸的星雲法師，不過在兩岸佛教論壇上說了這五個字，就面對嚴厲的批判，十二、三年形塑的兩岸政治氣氛，要在政黨再輪替後的短時間再逆轉，困難度有多高，可以想見。但，最重要的，好不容易重啟兩岸交流合作的契機，沒有人希望再橫生變數，使歷史機遇再次隨風而逝。
然而，對台灣而言，兩岸緊密合作，符合台灣的利益，但這樣的合作到底會不會影響台灣做為主權國家的主體性，始終是一股暗流，牽動台灣內部敏感的統獨神經，甚至莫名所以的焦慮。這樣的焦慮不是完全沒道理，但不能因為焦慮阻礙了台灣的進步。
兩岸初開放，大陸以台灣為師，饑渴的程度超乎想像，從股票市場到金融監管系統，從工廠管理到農產品改良，即使到現在，台灣經驗仍是大陸決策官員相當重視一環。當具有共產黨籍的國企領導或財經金官員，大談中國政府土地政策不夠開放、不夠尊重市場機制、老想把黑手伸進市場裡窮攪和，甚至對台灣創造經濟奇蹟過程中的政策之爭如數家珍，還能與錢復細數台灣歷任駐美大使，就可想見大陸對台灣研究的用力與用心。相對的，台灣對大陸了解到底有多少？研究到底有多深？
當台灣對與中國合作交流欲拒還迎的同時，中國已經加速與國際接軌。當中國已經和六個國家簽訂貨幣互換協議，台灣能完全不理會嗎？中國已經成為全球布局國際經濟金融戰略不可或缺的一環，各國張大了眼，期待中國和亞洲成為衝破經濟危機的領頭羊，台灣不可能自外於亞洲區域經濟，更不可能無視國際經濟的大趨勢，悶著頭拒絕與中國為伍。兩岸交流不可逆轉，不論政治形勢如何發展，兩岸進程的時間要拉得多長，有一點是確定的：恐懼與焦慮，絕對創造不出第二輪經濟奇蹟，面對崛起的中國，台灣，需要魄力和膽氣。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2009
The Boao Forum recently adjourned. The third Chiang/Chen cross-Strait summit is about to convene. For the two sides, last year's change in ruling parties was an important turning point in cross-Strait relations. This year is crucial to closer cross-Strait cooperation. Last year's Boao Forum was Beijng's world-class economic conference. This year, Beijing was not at all shy about incorporating the issue of cross-Strait economic and financial cooperation into the official agenda. Its intent was to announce to the world that the two sides are working together to combat the global economic crisis. It was also a direct response to President Ma Ying-jeou's previous recommendation that bilateral relations be integrated into multilateral relations.
Beijing's "goodwill" toward Taipei is overwhelming. Beijing allowed Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. When Taipei complained that the number of tourists was inadequate, Beijing issued a directive ordering Mainland provinces and cities to immediately increase the number of tourists to Taiwan this year. Wave upon wave arrived, with ten thousand tourists in each wave. Just before Taipei's delegation to the Boao Forum departed for the Mainland, President Ma Ying-jeou asked delegation leader Fredrick Chien to convey a message to Beijing: "Help each other, support each other, deepen cooperation create a common future." Mainland China Premier Wen Jiabao responded with: "Face the future, put the past behind us, cooperate closely, advance hand in hand." Not only that, Fredrick Chien's meeting with Wen Jiabao was extended from 20 minutes to 50 minutes. Premier Wen Jiabao had much more he wanted to say. Matters that Fredrick Chien hesitated to breach, Premier Wen Jiabao brought up on his own. He said "ECFA is also open to discussion." Fredrick Chien was so surprised he demurred, saying he was there merely as an NGO representative, in an unofficial capacity, and not at liberty to say too much.
The mainland has reason to be in a hurry. Since Chiang Ching-kuo first opened up cross-Strait exchanges, the process has undergone numerous ups and downs. Premier Wen Jiabao's response to Ma Ying-jeou, "put the past behind us" had important implications. When Lee Teng-hui first assumed power, the other side had high expectations. But toward the latter part of Lee's rule, they encountered hidden reefs, and eventually Lee's "no haste, be patient" policy. Cross-Strait civilian exchanges never ceased. But political dialogue was frequently filled with disagreement. When Chen Shui-bian first assumed power, the Mainland also had expectations. It even attempted to establish underground channels. But the Chen administration's cross-Strait policy was soon held hostage by pro-independence advocates, and "effective management" was replaced by "aggressive management." Now that President Ma Ying-jeou has taken office, leaders in Beijing are sending him a message of goodwill. Will it work with Ma Ying-jeou? Will it change the cross-Strait political atmosphere? Doubts remain.
The tense cross-Strait situation has lasted 12 to 13 years. Non-governmental exchanges never ceased. They became even closer. Private entrepreneurs who hoped to profit from exchanges no longer looked to government policy. Many business owners ignored official policy and acted on their own, even at the cost of lawsuits. But politically the cross-Strait political atmosphere changed. Chiang Ching-kuo once declared that "I am Chinese, I am also Taiwanese." Today a declaration that "I am Chinese" is almost taboo on Taiwan. Buddhist Master Hsing Yun was born on the Mainland. During a cross-Strait forum on Buddhism, he was subjected to a firestorm of criticism for uttering these words. The cross-Strait political atmosphere was subjected to 12 to 13 years of political reshaping following the change in ruling parties. As one can imagine, undoing these changes so soon after returning to power is no easy matter. Cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation has been restored at great difficulty. No one wants to see this undone and the opportunity to write history lost, yet again.
Closer cross-Strait co-operation accords with Taiwan's interests. But whether such cooperation will affect the sovereignty of the Republic of China, or incite pro-independence or pro-reunification sentiment on Taiwan, remains a nameless anxiety. Such anxiety is understandable, but must not impede the island's progress.
When the two sides first opened up, Beijing viewed Taipei as its teacher. Its hunger and thirst for knowledge exceeded our imagination. It was interested in improving everything from the stock market to the financial regulatory system, from agricultural products to factory management. Even now, Taiwan's experience in policy-making remains one of considerable importance to mainland officials. Heads of State Owned Enterprises with Communist Party affiliations and financial officials say Beijing's land policy is not open enough, lacks respect for the market, and always meddle in the market process. They are able to recite the history of Taiwan's economic miracle, chapter and verse. They can even discuss in detail the roster of former ROC Ambassadors to the United States with Fredrick Chien. We can see how determined Beijing is to understand Taiwan. By contrast, how well do we on Taiwan understand the mainland? How thorough is our own research?
As Taipei simultaneously welcomes and resists cooperation and exchanges with Beijing, Beijing is already accelerating its cooperation and exchanges with the international community. When Beijing and six nations sign a currency exchange agreement, can Taipei turn a blind eye? Mainland China has become an indispensable link in the international economic and financial system. Other nations have their eyes wide open. They look to Beijing and Asia for leadership in overcoming the global economic crisis. Taipei must not remain outside the Asian regional economy. It cannot ignore international economic trends and refuse to associate with Beijing. Cross-Strait exchanges are irreversible. No matter how the political situation evolves, no matter how long the cross-Strait process is prolonged, one thing is certain, fear and anxiety can never create a second economic miracle. Faced with a rising Mainland, Taiwan needs determination and courage.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.04.21
社論－面對崛起的中國 台灣不能遲疑
本報訊
博鰲論壇才閉幕，兩岸三次江陳會即將上場。對兩岸而言，去年政黨再輪替，是兩岸交流回溫的重要轉捩點，今年則可能是兩岸更緊密互動合作的關鍵年。博鰲論壇是中國年度國際級的經濟大會，今年，中國卻毫不避諱地特別在正式議程中，納入兩岸經濟金融合作議題，意在向國際宣示：兩岸攜手對抗全球經濟危機；也直接回應馬英九總統之前的建議：在多邊之中納入雙邊。
中國對台灣的「善意」，簡直可以舖天蓋地形容。開放大陸觀光客，台灣抱怨來台人數不足，政策指令下達，大陸各省市立刻在今年初遽增來台觀光客，動輒就是萬人團；馬英九總統在博鰲代表團行前，請團長錢復帶上十六個字：「同舟共濟，彼此扶持，深化合作，開創未來」，中國總理溫家寶隨即回應十六個字：「面向未來，捐棄前嫌，密切合作，攜手並進」。非但如此，錢溫會從預定廿分鐘延長為五十分鐘，溫家寶談得意猶未盡，錢復沒提的事，溫家寶反而主動提出，「ＥＣＦＡ也可以談」，讓錢復急乎乎地聲明他只是民間代表不具官方身分，不宜多言。
大陸的急切不是沒有原因；從蔣經國末期開放兩岸交流以來，兩岸進程時有波折，溫家寶回贈馬英九的十六字箴言中的「捐棄前嫌」，顯有弦外之音。李登輝初掌大位，對岸也曾寄望甚殷，但執政後期即遇潛礁，從此戒急用忍，即使兩岸民間交流不斷，但政治對話常有齟齬；陳水扁執政初期，大陸同樣猶有期待，甚至曾試圖透過傳話管道打開窗口，但是，沒多久扁政府的兩岸政策就被獨派主張鎖死，積極管理取代了有效管理。馬英九總統上任以來，中國領導階層強力放送他們的善意，卻對馬英九能不能有效、強勢地扭轉兩岸政治氣氛，猶有懷疑。
這段兩岸關係緊張期長達十二、三年，民間交流無一日停滯，甚至愈來愈密切，期望交流獲利的民間業者，對政府政策不再期待，脫政策而先行的企業主所在多有，甚至不惜付出官司纏身的代價；但是，政治上兩岸氣氛丕變，從當年蔣經國說，「我是中國人，我也是台灣人。」到如今，「我是中國人」這五個字，彷彿成了台灣的禁詞，出生在大陸的星雲法師，不過在兩岸佛教論壇上說了這五個字，就面對嚴厲的批判，十二、三年形塑的兩岸政治氣氛，要在政黨再輪替後的短時間再逆轉，困難度有多高，可以想見。但，最重要的，好不容易重啟兩岸交流合作的契機，沒有人希望再橫生變數，使歷史機遇再次隨風而逝。
然而，對台灣而言，兩岸緊密合作，符合台灣的利益，但這樣的合作到底會不會影響台灣做為主權國家的主體性，始終是一股暗流，牽動台灣內部敏感的統獨神經，甚至莫名所以的焦慮。這樣的焦慮不是完全沒道理，但不能因為焦慮阻礙了台灣的進步。
兩岸初開放，大陸以台灣為師，饑渴的程度超乎想像，從股票市場到金融監管系統，從工廠管理到農產品改良，即使到現在，台灣經驗仍是大陸決策官員相當重視一環。當具有共產黨籍的國企領導或財經金官員，大談中國政府土地政策不夠開放、不夠尊重市場機制、老想把黑手伸進市場裡窮攪和，甚至對台灣創造經濟奇蹟過程中的政策之爭如數家珍，還能與錢復細數台灣歷任駐美大使，就可想見大陸對台灣研究的用力與用心。相對的，台灣對大陸了解到底有多少？研究到底有多深？
當台灣對與中國合作交流欲拒還迎的同時，中國已經加速與國際接軌。當中國已經和六個國家簽訂貨幣互換協議，台灣能完全不理會嗎？中國已經成為全球布局國際經濟金融戰略不可或缺的一環，各國張大了眼，期待中國和亞洲成為衝破經濟危機的領頭羊，台灣不可能自外於亞洲區域經濟，更不可能無視國際經濟的大趨勢，悶著頭拒絕與中國為伍。兩岸交流不可逆轉，不論政治形勢如何發展，兩岸進程的時間要拉得多長，有一點是確定的：恐懼與焦慮，絕對創造不出第二輪經濟奇蹟，面對崛起的中國，台灣，需要魄力和膽氣。
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Party Chairmanship won't help a Teflon President
The Party Chairmanship won't help a Teflon President
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 17, 2009
Last year, following Ma Ying-jeou's May 20th inauguration, a controversy erupted over whether he ought to stand on the "first line" of battle or the "second line." At the time President Ma declared that he had "absolutely no intention" of assuming the KMT party chairmanship.
At the time, we had two comments. First, for the President to assume the party chairmanship, is an important strategic weapon. It is also a kind of lifeboat. The President can choose not to assume the party chairmanship. But he must never say "I absolutely will not assume the party chairmanship." Because on a rapidly evolving political battlefield, no one should ever declare that he will never make use of a strategic weapon or a lifeboat. Secondly, given the situation following the 2008 Presidential Election, President Ma must not "retreat to the second-line." Therefore, if necessary, he must consider assuming the party chairmanship.
President Ma should assume the party chairmanship for two reasons. One. When Ma was elected president in 2008, the electorate expected him to be a leader of the nation. But he apparently only wants to be a President as spelled out in the wording of the constitution. There is a world of difference between a "sitting President" and a "leader of the nation."
Two. Fundamentally speaking, three different relationships are possible between a nation's ruling government and the ruling party. One. Under a cabinet system, with its internally created political parties, the Premier is also the party chairman. Two. Under a presidential system such as the United States, the executive and the legislature are separate. The party is merely a machine for fund-raising and for waging election campaigns. It cannot control the legislature. Naturally there is no party chairman to rival the President. Three. Under Communist dictatorships, with their externally created political parties, the party chairman trumps the head of state, and can assume the role of head of state. The Kuomintang and Democratic Progressive Party were originally Leninist political parties. The party was the government. Following the nation's democratization, the President could still choose to act as party chairman. To wit, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. The party and the government will then be in synchronization. If the president chooses not to, then a party chairman can organize a legislative caucus and make trouble for the directly-elected president. Broadly speaking, the last possibility is structurally defective. It stands outside the first three possibilities.
In fact cooperation between Ma and Wu is quite smooth. It is unlikely to lead to the sort of scenario outside agitators describe. But Ma and Wu are "two heads." Wu Poh-hsiung is Ma Ying-jeou's senior. He has his own political style, his own political consciousness, and his own political connections. That is why Chiu Yi was able to scuttle Shen Fu-hsiung's nomination as Vice President of the Control Yuan. That is why the "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act" ran aground. That is why the Diane Lee incident dragged on past the point of remedy. Ma Ying-jeou "respects Uncle Wu." He respects the separation of party and government. Wu Poh-hsiung has his own political style, political consciousness, and political connections. This ensures that such fiascoes will occur again and again, and this is what the public will sees. An old saying in the West states that "When two ride on a horse, one must ride behind." Ma and Wu may be close, but two heads cannot ride a horse side by side.
Ma Ying-jeou's problem is not limited to whether he should assume the party chairmanship. If the "teamwork" method of doing business remains unchanged, assuming the party chairmanship will only increase the burden. The situation will only become more difficult. We would like to offer the following two suggestions.
First, Ma Ying-jeou must give up his Teflon Presidency. Ma has enormous charisma. But his key staffers are removed from the public. In fact, Ma Ying-jeou need not assume the chairmanship of the party. All he needs to do is unite Ma Ying-jeou, Vincent Siew, Liu Chao-hsuan, Wang Jyng-ping, and Wu Po-hsiung. If he can inspire the other four to unite and dedicate themselves to their comrades, the structure of his administration will be decided. But Ma Ying-jeou's "sense of propriety" could easily degenerate into a reluctance to assume responsibility and alienation from the public. Otherwise, Ma, Siew, Liu, Wang, and Wu would not be watching their backs and so fearful of each other. They would not have allowed Shen Fu-hsiung's nomination to be scuttled, the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act to run aground, and the Diane Lee incident to deteriorate past the point of remedy. What are these five leaders doing for the nation? They are standing right next to each other. They are not at opposite ends of the world. The crux of the problem is a "Teflon Presidency" concerned only with a sense of propriety.
Secondly, Ma must establish a dedicated task force. The Ma administration is populated with thinkers, not doers who are inclined to empty talk, and unable to make things happen. Nan Fang-shuo's criticism of Ma Ying-jeou as "style over substance" is dead on the mark. Ma Ying-jeou initially hoped to "retreat to the second-line." This is decadent Confucianist "Heaven is silent and the seasons pass in orderly fashion" thinking. In today's democratic politics, crises arise daily. In such hand-to-hand combat, there is no "second-line." If Ma is only about style, and has no team that can produce anything of substance, he will find it impossible to shake off his image as "just another pretty face." For example, together the Presidential Office, the Cabinet, and the Party have three Secretary-Generals. They lack vitality, lack creativity, or are merely assigned to the wrong positions. They have been assigned to their posts merely on the basis of seniority or to keep up appearances. Such individuals have no ability to lead or unite whatsoever. If Ma Ying-jeou assumes the party chairmanship, he must not be a top down KMT leader. He must inspire his team to lead from the bottom up. To lead the party, he must transform his political style into a political mission, and his political mission into political accomplishments.
Ma Ying-jeou should consider assuming the chairmanship of the party. Throughout the government and the party, there must be a single political vision, and not several "heads," each attempting to promote his own vision. This new political vision must demand integrity and transform style into substance.
不沾鍋不改，兼黨主席也沒用
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.17 05:44 am
去年五二○後，爆發「第一線／第二線」風波，馬英九總統並宣布「絕對沒有」兼任黨主席的意思。
當時，我們曾有兩點評論。一、總統兼任黨主席，可說是一項重要戰略武器，也可說是在重大情況下的救生艇。總統可以不兼黨主席，但是不能說出「絕對不兼黨主席」等語；因為，沒有人會在瞬息萬變的政治戰場上，自己宣布放棄戰略武器及救生艇。二、二○○八大選後的情勢，馬總統不可能扮演「退居第二線」的角色，因而在必要時即應考慮兼任黨主席。
馬總統應兼黨主席，理由有二：一、馬當選二○○八總統，選民期待的是他成為一個「國家領袖」，但他卻似乎僅以做為一個受到憲法形式條件規範制約的「總統」自命。「總統府裡的總統」與「國家領袖」，其間有極大落差，必須彌補。
二、舉世大約有三種政體，而有不同的黨政介面。一是內閣制，內造政黨，閣揆就是黨魁。二是總統制，如美國，行政與立法分立，但黨部只是募款與選舉機器，不能指揮國會黨團，自然亦無與總統分庭抗禮的「黨魁」。三是共產專制，外造政黨，黨魁高於國家元首，亦可「兼」國家元首。然而，國民黨（民進黨亦仿效）則原屬「列寧式政黨」，黨政一體；但在國家憲政民主化以後，總統若兼黨主席（如李登輝與陳水扁），即屬黨政同步，若不兼，則可能出現一位領導國會黨團而與直選總統分庭抗禮的「黨魁」。橫豎看來，後者都是一個畸形體制，竟在前述三種政體之外別樹一幟。
其實，馬吳的「磨合」已是相當密切，似非外界挑撥所描繪的那種狀況。但是，馬吳並稱「二巨頭」，而吳伯雄的輩分又高於馬英九，且有其自己的政治風格、品牌意識，又有自己的人情世故要考慮；所以，就出現了邱毅毀了沈富雄的監院副院長提名、「財產來源不明罪」擱淺，及李慶安事件拖至不可收拾等局面。馬英九「尊重伯公」，也尊重黨政分際；吳伯雄則有自己的風格品牌與人情世故，這類事情層出迭見，於是就成了國人如今所見的這個畫面。西諺有云：「二人共騎一馬，必有一人坐在前頭。」即使以馬吳的親密，也不可能在馬背上並排坐著「兩巨頭」。
但是，馬英九的問題，尚不只在兼不兼任黨主席；倘若其「團隊工作」（Team Work）的經營方法不變，兼黨主席後，恐只是更增勞瘁而已，反而可能更陷捉襟見肘的境地，在此也有兩點評論：
一、馬英九不沾鍋的調子要改。馬在群眾間極有親和力，但左右大員要角對他卻有「咫尺天涯」的感覺。其實，馬英九也未必要兼黨主席，只要他能在「馬蕭劉王吳」五人之間，扮演好強力黏著劑的角色即可；若能與其他四人結交成推心置腹、肝膽相照的同志與知交，則整個統治結構即可泰半底定。但是，馬英九的「分際」，卻可能演成「疏離」；「不沾鍋」，亦可能演成「咫尺天涯」；倘非如此，馬蕭劉王吳五人，也不至於你看我、我看你，坐視沈富雄提名、「財產來源不明罪」，及李慶安事件惡化至那般地步。五人之不治，何以天下國家為？明明近在咫尺，何以竟如遠在天涯？一切癥結，豈不皆在太重形式分際的「不沾鍋」？
二、必須建立精粹的工作部隊。馬團隊是書房族而不是田野族，頗易流於空談，不能證驗於實際。南方朔批評馬英九「以風格替代政績」，誠是一針見血。馬英九原本想「退居第二線」，那是「天何言哉，四時行焉」的腐儒思想；今日民主政治，天天都有狀況，形同肉搏戰，豈有什麼第二線可言？馬若只有「風格」，卻無工作部隊將之化為「政績」，即不可能擺脫花瓶形象。但是，例如，現今府閣黨三個秘書長，不是已無活動力及創新力，或是根本放錯了位置，要不就是只擅身段或擺譜；這類人格性向，可謂根本談不上穿針引線、化異求同的效益。馬英九若兼黨主席，不只是由上而下君臨國民黨，而是要用工作部隊由下而上來帶動這個黨，領導這個黨，將風格化為使命，由使命化為政績。
馬英九應考慮兼任黨主席。整個政府與整個黨，未來只有一個品牌意識，而不是幾個「巨頭」以自我的品牌來互別苗頭。這個新的品牌意識就是：應堅持廉能風格，並堅定地將風格化作政績。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 17, 2009
Last year, following Ma Ying-jeou's May 20th inauguration, a controversy erupted over whether he ought to stand on the "first line" of battle or the "second line." At the time President Ma declared that he had "absolutely no intention" of assuming the KMT party chairmanship.
At the time, we had two comments. First, for the President to assume the party chairmanship, is an important strategic weapon. It is also a kind of lifeboat. The President can choose not to assume the party chairmanship. But he must never say "I absolutely will not assume the party chairmanship." Because on a rapidly evolving political battlefield, no one should ever declare that he will never make use of a strategic weapon or a lifeboat. Secondly, given the situation following the 2008 Presidential Election, President Ma must not "retreat to the second-line." Therefore, if necessary, he must consider assuming the party chairmanship.
President Ma should assume the party chairmanship for two reasons. One. When Ma was elected president in 2008, the electorate expected him to be a leader of the nation. But he apparently only wants to be a President as spelled out in the wording of the constitution. There is a world of difference between a "sitting President" and a "leader of the nation."
Two. Fundamentally speaking, three different relationships are possible between a nation's ruling government and the ruling party. One. Under a cabinet system, with its internally created political parties, the Premier is also the party chairman. Two. Under a presidential system such as the United States, the executive and the legislature are separate. The party is merely a machine for fund-raising and for waging election campaigns. It cannot control the legislature. Naturally there is no party chairman to rival the President. Three. Under Communist dictatorships, with their externally created political parties, the party chairman trumps the head of state, and can assume the role of head of state. The Kuomintang and Democratic Progressive Party were originally Leninist political parties. The party was the government. Following the nation's democratization, the President could still choose to act as party chairman. To wit, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. The party and the government will then be in synchronization. If the president chooses not to, then a party chairman can organize a legislative caucus and make trouble for the directly-elected president. Broadly speaking, the last possibility is structurally defective. It stands outside the first three possibilities.
In fact cooperation between Ma and Wu is quite smooth. It is unlikely to lead to the sort of scenario outside agitators describe. But Ma and Wu are "two heads." Wu Poh-hsiung is Ma Ying-jeou's senior. He has his own political style, his own political consciousness, and his own political connections. That is why Chiu Yi was able to scuttle Shen Fu-hsiung's nomination as Vice President of the Control Yuan. That is why the "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act" ran aground. That is why the Diane Lee incident dragged on past the point of remedy. Ma Ying-jeou "respects Uncle Wu." He respects the separation of party and government. Wu Poh-hsiung has his own political style, political consciousness, and political connections. This ensures that such fiascoes will occur again and again, and this is what the public will sees. An old saying in the West states that "When two ride on a horse, one must ride behind." Ma and Wu may be close, but two heads cannot ride a horse side by side.
Ma Ying-jeou's problem is not limited to whether he should assume the party chairmanship. If the "teamwork" method of doing business remains unchanged, assuming the party chairmanship will only increase the burden. The situation will only become more difficult. We would like to offer the following two suggestions.
First, Ma Ying-jeou must give up his Teflon Presidency. Ma has enormous charisma. But his key staffers are removed from the public. In fact, Ma Ying-jeou need not assume the chairmanship of the party. All he needs to do is unite Ma Ying-jeou, Vincent Siew, Liu Chao-hsuan, Wang Jyng-ping, and Wu Po-hsiung. If he can inspire the other four to unite and dedicate themselves to their comrades, the structure of his administration will be decided. But Ma Ying-jeou's "sense of propriety" could easily degenerate into a reluctance to assume responsibility and alienation from the public. Otherwise, Ma, Siew, Liu, Wang, and Wu would not be watching their backs and so fearful of each other. They would not have allowed Shen Fu-hsiung's nomination to be scuttled, the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act to run aground, and the Diane Lee incident to deteriorate past the point of remedy. What are these five leaders doing for the nation? They are standing right next to each other. They are not at opposite ends of the world. The crux of the problem is a "Teflon Presidency" concerned only with a sense of propriety.
Secondly, Ma must establish a dedicated task force. The Ma administration is populated with thinkers, not doers who are inclined to empty talk, and unable to make things happen. Nan Fang-shuo's criticism of Ma Ying-jeou as "style over substance" is dead on the mark. Ma Ying-jeou initially hoped to "retreat to the second-line." This is decadent Confucianist "Heaven is silent and the seasons pass in orderly fashion" thinking. In today's democratic politics, crises arise daily. In such hand-to-hand combat, there is no "second-line." If Ma is only about style, and has no team that can produce anything of substance, he will find it impossible to shake off his image as "just another pretty face." For example, together the Presidential Office, the Cabinet, and the Party have three Secretary-Generals. They lack vitality, lack creativity, or are merely assigned to the wrong positions. They have been assigned to their posts merely on the basis of seniority or to keep up appearances. Such individuals have no ability to lead or unite whatsoever. If Ma Ying-jeou assumes the party chairmanship, he must not be a top down KMT leader. He must inspire his team to lead from the bottom up. To lead the party, he must transform his political style into a political mission, and his political mission into political accomplishments.
Ma Ying-jeou should consider assuming the chairmanship of the party. Throughout the government and the party, there must be a single political vision, and not several "heads," each attempting to promote his own vision. This new political vision must demand integrity and transform style into substance.
不沾鍋不改，兼黨主席也沒用
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.17 05:44 am
去年五二○後，爆發「第一線／第二線」風波，馬英九總統並宣布「絕對沒有」兼任黨主席的意思。
當時，我們曾有兩點評論。一、總統兼任黨主席，可說是一項重要戰略武器，也可說是在重大情況下的救生艇。總統可以不兼黨主席，但是不能說出「絕對不兼黨主席」等語；因為，沒有人會在瞬息萬變的政治戰場上，自己宣布放棄戰略武器及救生艇。二、二○○八大選後的情勢，馬總統不可能扮演「退居第二線」的角色，因而在必要時即應考慮兼任黨主席。
馬總統應兼黨主席，理由有二：一、馬當選二○○八總統，選民期待的是他成為一個「國家領袖」，但他卻似乎僅以做為一個受到憲法形式條件規範制約的「總統」自命。「總統府裡的總統」與「國家領袖」，其間有極大落差，必須彌補。
二、舉世大約有三種政體，而有不同的黨政介面。一是內閣制，內造政黨，閣揆就是黨魁。二是總統制，如美國，行政與立法分立，但黨部只是募款與選舉機器，不能指揮國會黨團，自然亦無與總統分庭抗禮的「黨魁」。三是共產專制，外造政黨，黨魁高於國家元首，亦可「兼」國家元首。然而，國民黨（民進黨亦仿效）則原屬「列寧式政黨」，黨政一體；但在國家憲政民主化以後，總統若兼黨主席（如李登輝與陳水扁），即屬黨政同步，若不兼，則可能出現一位領導國會黨團而與直選總統分庭抗禮的「黨魁」。橫豎看來，後者都是一個畸形體制，竟在前述三種政體之外別樹一幟。
其實，馬吳的「磨合」已是相當密切，似非外界挑撥所描繪的那種狀況。但是，馬吳並稱「二巨頭」，而吳伯雄的輩分又高於馬英九，且有其自己的政治風格、品牌意識，又有自己的人情世故要考慮；所以，就出現了邱毅毀了沈富雄的監院副院長提名、「財產來源不明罪」擱淺，及李慶安事件拖至不可收拾等局面。馬英九「尊重伯公」，也尊重黨政分際；吳伯雄則有自己的風格品牌與人情世故，這類事情層出迭見，於是就成了國人如今所見的這個畫面。西諺有云：「二人共騎一馬，必有一人坐在前頭。」即使以馬吳的親密，也不可能在馬背上並排坐著「兩巨頭」。
但是，馬英九的問題，尚不只在兼不兼任黨主席；倘若其「團隊工作」（Team Work）的經營方法不變，兼黨主席後，恐只是更增勞瘁而已，反而可能更陷捉襟見肘的境地，在此也有兩點評論：
一、馬英九不沾鍋的調子要改。馬在群眾間極有親和力，但左右大員要角對他卻有「咫尺天涯」的感覺。其實，馬英九也未必要兼黨主席，只要他能在「馬蕭劉王吳」五人之間，扮演好強力黏著劑的角色即可；若能與其他四人結交成推心置腹、肝膽相照的同志與知交，則整個統治結構即可泰半底定。但是，馬英九的「分際」，卻可能演成「疏離」；「不沾鍋」，亦可能演成「咫尺天涯」；倘非如此，馬蕭劉王吳五人，也不至於你看我、我看你，坐視沈富雄提名、「財產來源不明罪」，及李慶安事件惡化至那般地步。五人之不治，何以天下國家為？明明近在咫尺，何以竟如遠在天涯？一切癥結，豈不皆在太重形式分際的「不沾鍋」？
二、必須建立精粹的工作部隊。馬團隊是書房族而不是田野族，頗易流於空談，不能證驗於實際。南方朔批評馬英九「以風格替代政績」，誠是一針見血。馬英九原本想「退居第二線」，那是「天何言哉，四時行焉」的腐儒思想；今日民主政治，天天都有狀況，形同肉搏戰，豈有什麼第二線可言？馬若只有「風格」，卻無工作部隊將之化為「政績」，即不可能擺脫花瓶形象。但是，例如，現今府閣黨三個秘書長，不是已無活動力及創新力，或是根本放錯了位置，要不就是只擅身段或擺譜；這類人格性向，可謂根本談不上穿針引線、化異求同的效益。馬英九若兼黨主席，不只是由上而下君臨國民黨，而是要用工作部隊由下而上來帶動這個黨，領導這個黨，將風格化為使命，由使命化為政績。
馬英九應考慮兼任黨主席。整個政府與整個黨，未來只有一個品牌意識，而不是幾個「巨頭」以自我的品牌來互別苗頭。這個新的品牌意識就是：應堅持廉能風格，並堅定地將風格化作政績。
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Red vs. Yellow Confrontation: A Wrong Turn in Thailand's Road to Democracy
Red vs. Yellow Confrontation: A Wrong Turn in Thailand's Road to Democracy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2009
The shockwaves from last year's Yellow Shirt seige of the Prime Minister's Office and occupation of the National Airport have yet to subside. Several months have passed, and it's the Red Shirts' turn to disrupt the ASEAN summit, raid the Ministry of the Interior, and set fires in the streets of the capital. Thailand's vicious political clashes involve rival political camps alternately taking to the streets to vent their anger. This has not merely damaged the nation's peaceful image, it has sown the seeds of mutual confrontation and mutual hatred.
Recently Thailand's democracy has been a horsedrawn carriage that has taken a wrong turn. Having gone down the wrong fork in the road, it is unable to find its way. Politicians with selfish motives have used a basically gentle people as tools in their political struggles. The King of Thailand, who has long been a stabilizing factor, has unfairly been given a political label. The military is adopting a wait-and-see attitude. It is sitting back watching the social chaos, hoping to profit politically. The greatest irony is that while all of Thailand is in turmoil, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in exile because of his corruption, is laughing as he manipulates the conflict from overseas.
Thailand's Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts have taken to the streets one after the other. Recently a number of nations have undergone largely similar democratic "color revolutions." One. They do not involve people rising up as one in protest against authoritarianism, but masses taking to the streets in support of their own political parties. Ordinary citizens are mere pawns in the struggle between politicians. Two. Protest tactics have gone beyond simple pro-democracy demonstrations. They now include the deliberate targeting of international airports, political and economic summits, and international hotels, by crowds numbering in the tens of thousands, that can easily harm the nation's image. Three. No holds barred protest tactics divide society and breed mutual hatred. Meanwhile the politicians who fomented the unrest remain above the fray.
Today Thailand finds itself in an impasse. The main reason is that three years ago Thaksin's corruption was not dealt with effectively, either politically or legally. The military resorted to a politically expedient coup d'etat to force Thaksin out of office. The courts twice ruled the elections invalid. This sowed the seeds of future instability. Unfortunately, the corrupt and derelict Thaksin is a charismatic political leader. He enjoys broad support in rural villages. He even dares to challenge the authority of the royal family. Even in exile, he has massive financial resources and political momentum, enough to mobilize domestic forces to do his bidding. Take one exiled politician with unquenched ambitions. Add masses with irrepressible political passions, a ruling administration impotent in the face of crisis, and vested interests content to watch from the sidelines, and you have the recipe for today's out-of-control Thailand.
The Filipino people took to the streets and overthrew the Marcos dictatorship. Amidst the carnival atmosphere of "People Power," myths about democracy gained currency. Developing nations competed with each other to follow suit. But from what we have seen of the Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts, Thailand's "People Power" revolution has gone awry. The people have unwittingly become the pawns of politicians. They have fallen into the politicians vortex of hate. Political knots are harder and harder to untie. The nation is finding it harder and harder to fulfill its potential.
The Red Shirts have temporarily retreated. But the chaos that forced the ASEAN Summit to adjourn early has already embarrassed current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva. Thaksin, who sits on piles of gold and silver but who cannot return home, will miss no opportunity to induce the masses to fight his proxy war. Meanwhile, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the aging King of Thailand, is finding it harder and harder to maintain the credibility of the royal family amidst the chaotic transition to democracy.
An even more serious problem is the people of Thailand have misunderstood democracy. In addition to the pro-Thaksin Red Shirts, the anti-Thaksin, royalist Yellow Shirts, the pro-Abhisit Vejajiva Blue Shirts have recently emerged. Reds, Yellows, and Blues struggle against each other. Is Thailand's democracy nothing more than a chess game between rival political camps?
Think back to the Red Shirt "anti-corruption, depose Ah-Bian" movement on Taiwan. Although the DPP ridiculed it as a failed middle class revolution, one millions people never lost control or erupted into violent conflict. Crowds outraged by corruption exercised restraint and maintained their reason. In the end, they used the ballot box to settle disputes. Is that not something Republic of China citizens can be proud of?
If a nation takes a wrong turn at a critical juncture in its development, who knows how much time and effort must be expended to get back on track? It is hard to believe Thailand has spun its wheels for three years. The Thai Baht has been devalued. Tourists have been frightened away. The economy has stagnated. By contrast, neighboring Indonesia underwent a period of intense turbulence following the end of Suharto's dictatorial rule. But in recent years anti-corruption, counter-terrorism, and economic development are back on track, leaving the international community amazed. The ruling party recently won re-election. If this trend continues, in a few years Thailand and Indonesia may switch places!
紅黃對抗，泰國走岔的民主路
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.16 05:19 am
去年底黃衫軍包圍總理府、佔領國家機場的驚魂未定，事隔數月，換成紅衫軍直搗東協峰會會場、突襲內政部，並在首都街頭隨意縱火。泰國的政治惡鬥，演變成不同陣營的民眾輪流上街示威洩憤，不僅讓這個國家一向的和平形象付諸一炬，更深深埋下人民彼此仇恨、對立的種子。
近幾年，泰國的民主像一輛轉錯彎的馬車，駛進岔路後，再也找不回方向感。各懷鬼胎的政治人物，將素來溫和的人民當成動員鬥爭工具；一向能穩定大局的泰皇，被染上偏袒的色彩標籤；軍方在其間投機觀望，等待自己的機會，坐視社會脫序。最諷刺的是，當整個泰國為此蒙羞動盪，因貪瀆而流亡的前總理塔信卻在海外遙控，笑看國內的連天烽火。
泰國的紅衫軍與黃衫軍的輪流演出，與近年世界各國標榜「顏色革命」的民主運動其實已大相徑庭。第一，這已非人民共同反抗威權的行動，而是群眾上街力挺自己傾心的政黨，人民只是政治人物相爭的棋子。第二，抗爭手段均已跨越單純的民主示威，刻意選擇國際機場、國際峰會、國際飯店下手，幾萬人即輕易賠掉國家形象。第三，在不擇手段的抗爭中，人民互相仇視，社會被分化，煽風點火的政客卻置身事外。
泰國之所以陷入今天的僵局，主要原因在，三年前塔信的貪瀆問題，無法透過有效的政治及司法途徑處理，軍方卻採取政變的便宜手段逼走塔信，司法又兩度判決選舉結果失效，埋下日後一波波動盪的因子。不幸的是，貪瀆的塔信卻是具有民粹魅力的領袖，在農村地區擁有廣大的支持群眾，甚至敢於挑戰皇室權威。而即使流亡海外，他仍擁有龐大的財力和聲勢，足以動員國內勢力為其聲張旗鼓。野心未盡的流亡政客，激情難耐的民眾，缺乏作為的現任政府，再加上袖手旁觀的既得利益者，共同造就了今天失控的泰國。
當年菲律賓人民從街頭推翻了馬可仕的獨裁統治，在嘉年華氣氛中締造了「人民民主」，傳為民主佳話，許多開發中國家曾競相仿效。但從黃衫軍和紅衫軍的表現看，泰國卻對「人民民主」作了變調的演出，人民淪為政客的馬前卒而不自知，深陷政客布置的仇恨漩渦。政治糾結愈發無解，國家大局越難開展。
對現任總理艾比希而言，紅衫軍雖暫時退場，但這場亂局和東協峰會被迫停開，已夠他灰頭土臉了。對坐擁金山銀山卻有家歸不得的塔信而言，一定還會伺機召喚國內的群眾，進行他的隔空戰鬥。對於年事漸高的泰皇蒲美蓬，如何在民主轉型的亂局中確保皇室一言九鼎的地位，似乎也越來越為不易。
更大的問題，在泰國人民的民主認知。除了支持塔信的「紅衫軍」，反塔信、擁泰皇的群眾是身著黃衣的「黃衫軍」，曼谷最近更出現擁艾希比的「藍衫軍」。紅黃藍的對抗，如果只是充當各種政治力量的政爭棋子，泰國的民主政治有什麼厚度可言？
回看當年台灣紅衫軍的反貪倒扁，雖被綠營譏為失敗的中產階級革命，但百萬人的隊伍從未恃眾而失控暴衝，洶湧的反貪民氣始終保持節制與理性，最後在投票箱前平定了大局，那才是台灣可堪自豪的民主品質，不是嗎？
一個國家的發展，在重要關頭轉錯一個彎，不曉得要耗掉多少時間精力才走得回去。泰國這三年的耗損，難以想像，泰銖貶值，觀光客卻步，經濟發展停滯。相對的，鄰近的印尼在擺脫蘇哈托的獨裁統治後，雖曾歷經一段激烈的動盪盤整，但近幾年在肅貪、反恐及經濟發展上漸漸走上軌道，讓國際社會刮目相看，其執政黨也在日前的選舉蟬聯獲勝。照這樣的路走下去，泰國和印尼幾年後的地位將易地而處了！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2009
The shockwaves from last year's Yellow Shirt seige of the Prime Minister's Office and occupation of the National Airport have yet to subside. Several months have passed, and it's the Red Shirts' turn to disrupt the ASEAN summit, raid the Ministry of the Interior, and set fires in the streets of the capital. Thailand's vicious political clashes involve rival political camps alternately taking to the streets to vent their anger. This has not merely damaged the nation's peaceful image, it has sown the seeds of mutual confrontation and mutual hatred.
Recently Thailand's democracy has been a horsedrawn carriage that has taken a wrong turn. Having gone down the wrong fork in the road, it is unable to find its way. Politicians with selfish motives have used a basically gentle people as tools in their political struggles. The King of Thailand, who has long been a stabilizing factor, has unfairly been given a political label. The military is adopting a wait-and-see attitude. It is sitting back watching the social chaos, hoping to profit politically. The greatest irony is that while all of Thailand is in turmoil, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in exile because of his corruption, is laughing as he manipulates the conflict from overseas.
Thailand's Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts have taken to the streets one after the other. Recently a number of nations have undergone largely similar democratic "color revolutions." One. They do not involve people rising up as one in protest against authoritarianism, but masses taking to the streets in support of their own political parties. Ordinary citizens are mere pawns in the struggle between politicians. Two. Protest tactics have gone beyond simple pro-democracy demonstrations. They now include the deliberate targeting of international airports, political and economic summits, and international hotels, by crowds numbering in the tens of thousands, that can easily harm the nation's image. Three. No holds barred protest tactics divide society and breed mutual hatred. Meanwhile the politicians who fomented the unrest remain above the fray.
Today Thailand finds itself in an impasse. The main reason is that three years ago Thaksin's corruption was not dealt with effectively, either politically or legally. The military resorted to a politically expedient coup d'etat to force Thaksin out of office. The courts twice ruled the elections invalid. This sowed the seeds of future instability. Unfortunately, the corrupt and derelict Thaksin is a charismatic political leader. He enjoys broad support in rural villages. He even dares to challenge the authority of the royal family. Even in exile, he has massive financial resources and political momentum, enough to mobilize domestic forces to do his bidding. Take one exiled politician with unquenched ambitions. Add masses with irrepressible political passions, a ruling administration impotent in the face of crisis, and vested interests content to watch from the sidelines, and you have the recipe for today's out-of-control Thailand.
The Filipino people took to the streets and overthrew the Marcos dictatorship. Amidst the carnival atmosphere of "People Power," myths about democracy gained currency. Developing nations competed with each other to follow suit. But from what we have seen of the Yellow Shirts and Red Shirts, Thailand's "People Power" revolution has gone awry. The people have unwittingly become the pawns of politicians. They have fallen into the politicians vortex of hate. Political knots are harder and harder to untie. The nation is finding it harder and harder to fulfill its potential.
The Red Shirts have temporarily retreated. But the chaos that forced the ASEAN Summit to adjourn early has already embarrassed current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva. Thaksin, who sits on piles of gold and silver but who cannot return home, will miss no opportunity to induce the masses to fight his proxy war. Meanwhile, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the aging King of Thailand, is finding it harder and harder to maintain the credibility of the royal family amidst the chaotic transition to democracy.
An even more serious problem is the people of Thailand have misunderstood democracy. In addition to the pro-Thaksin Red Shirts, the anti-Thaksin, royalist Yellow Shirts, the pro-Abhisit Vejajiva Blue Shirts have recently emerged. Reds, Yellows, and Blues struggle against each other. Is Thailand's democracy nothing more than a chess game between rival political camps?
Think back to the Red Shirt "anti-corruption, depose Ah-Bian" movement on Taiwan. Although the DPP ridiculed it as a failed middle class revolution, one millions people never lost control or erupted into violent conflict. Crowds outraged by corruption exercised restraint and maintained their reason. In the end, they used the ballot box to settle disputes. Is that not something Republic of China citizens can be proud of?
If a nation takes a wrong turn at a critical juncture in its development, who knows how much time and effort must be expended to get back on track? It is hard to believe Thailand has spun its wheels for three years. The Thai Baht has been devalued. Tourists have been frightened away. The economy has stagnated. By contrast, neighboring Indonesia underwent a period of intense turbulence following the end of Suharto's dictatorial rule. But in recent years anti-corruption, counter-terrorism, and economic development are back on track, leaving the international community amazed. The ruling party recently won re-election. If this trend continues, in a few years Thailand and Indonesia may switch places!
紅黃對抗，泰國走岔的民主路
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.16 05:19 am
去年底黃衫軍包圍總理府、佔領國家機場的驚魂未定，事隔數月，換成紅衫軍直搗東協峰會會場、突襲內政部，並在首都街頭隨意縱火。泰國的政治惡鬥，演變成不同陣營的民眾輪流上街示威洩憤，不僅讓這個國家一向的和平形象付諸一炬，更深深埋下人民彼此仇恨、對立的種子。
近幾年，泰國的民主像一輛轉錯彎的馬車，駛進岔路後，再也找不回方向感。各懷鬼胎的政治人物，將素來溫和的人民當成動員鬥爭工具；一向能穩定大局的泰皇，被染上偏袒的色彩標籤；軍方在其間投機觀望，等待自己的機會，坐視社會脫序。最諷刺的是，當整個泰國為此蒙羞動盪，因貪瀆而流亡的前總理塔信卻在海外遙控，笑看國內的連天烽火。
泰國的紅衫軍與黃衫軍的輪流演出，與近年世界各國標榜「顏色革命」的民主運動其實已大相徑庭。第一，這已非人民共同反抗威權的行動，而是群眾上街力挺自己傾心的政黨，人民只是政治人物相爭的棋子。第二，抗爭手段均已跨越單純的民主示威，刻意選擇國際機場、國際峰會、國際飯店下手，幾萬人即輕易賠掉國家形象。第三，在不擇手段的抗爭中，人民互相仇視，社會被分化，煽風點火的政客卻置身事外。
泰國之所以陷入今天的僵局，主要原因在，三年前塔信的貪瀆問題，無法透過有效的政治及司法途徑處理，軍方卻採取政變的便宜手段逼走塔信，司法又兩度判決選舉結果失效，埋下日後一波波動盪的因子。不幸的是，貪瀆的塔信卻是具有民粹魅力的領袖，在農村地區擁有廣大的支持群眾，甚至敢於挑戰皇室權威。而即使流亡海外，他仍擁有龐大的財力和聲勢，足以動員國內勢力為其聲張旗鼓。野心未盡的流亡政客，激情難耐的民眾，缺乏作為的現任政府，再加上袖手旁觀的既得利益者，共同造就了今天失控的泰國。
當年菲律賓人民從街頭推翻了馬可仕的獨裁統治，在嘉年華氣氛中締造了「人民民主」，傳為民主佳話，許多開發中國家曾競相仿效。但從黃衫軍和紅衫軍的表現看，泰國卻對「人民民主」作了變調的演出，人民淪為政客的馬前卒而不自知，深陷政客布置的仇恨漩渦。政治糾結愈發無解，國家大局越難開展。
對現任總理艾比希而言，紅衫軍雖暫時退場，但這場亂局和東協峰會被迫停開，已夠他灰頭土臉了。對坐擁金山銀山卻有家歸不得的塔信而言，一定還會伺機召喚國內的群眾，進行他的隔空戰鬥。對於年事漸高的泰皇蒲美蓬，如何在民主轉型的亂局中確保皇室一言九鼎的地位，似乎也越來越為不易。
更大的問題，在泰國人民的民主認知。除了支持塔信的「紅衫軍」，反塔信、擁泰皇的群眾是身著黃衣的「黃衫軍」，曼谷最近更出現擁艾希比的「藍衫軍」。紅黃藍的對抗，如果只是充當各種政治力量的政爭棋子，泰國的民主政治有什麼厚度可言？
回看當年台灣紅衫軍的反貪倒扁，雖被綠營譏為失敗的中產階級革命，但百萬人的隊伍從未恃眾而失控暴衝，洶湧的反貪民氣始終保持節制與理性，最後在投票箱前平定了大局，那才是台灣可堪自豪的民主品質，不是嗎？
一個國家的發展，在重要關頭轉錯一個彎，不曉得要耗掉多少時間精力才走得回去。泰國這三年的耗損，難以想像，泰銖貶值，觀光客卻步，經濟發展停滯。相對的，鄰近的印尼在擺脫蘇哈托的獨裁統治後，雖曾歷經一段激烈的動盪盤整，但近幾年在肅貪、反恐及經濟發展上漸漸走上軌道，讓國際社會刮目相看，其執政黨也在日前的選舉蟬聯獲勝。照這樣的路走下去，泰國和印尼幾年後的地位將易地而處了！
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The 2009 Elections, A Knock-Off of the 2008 Election?
The 2009 Elections, A Knock-Off of the 2008 Election?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2009
Less than eight months from now the counties and municipalities will be holding local elections. It now appears that the year end County and Municipality Elections will be a facsimile of last year's Presidential Election. This tells us that for the past year the entire island has remained mired in the political morass of the Presidential Election, unable to go beyond it, unable to extricate itself.
The major issues in this year's County and Municipal Elections are, for the most part, identical to last year's Presidential Election.
One. During last year's Presidential Election, the Democratic Progressive Party engaged in serious infighting over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian." This year the infighting is worse. During last year's Presidential Election, Frank Hsieh tried to distance himself from Ah-Bian, but couldn't quite pull it off. Although Ah-Bian had already been marginalized, the two sides maintained their decorum. This year however, Chen Shui-bian has already opened fire on "Tsai, Su, Hsieh, Wu" (Tsai Ing-wen, Su Tseng-tsang, Frank Hsieh, and Wu Nai-jen). He has also declared Tainan County the epicenter of his Shock and Awe campaign. Chen Tang-shan asked, "How can a political party dominated by heartless people transform the nation into a society with heart?" That the tense atmosphere has yet to ease comes as no surprise. This year's Democratic Progressive Party in-fighting may well be worse than last year's.
Two. During last year's Presidential Election, the Frank Hsieh/Su Tseng-chang election team's final campaign theme was the accusation that the KMT was creating a "One China Market," in which "Taiwan men will be unable to find work. Taiwan women will be unable to find husbands. Taiwan children will end up as child labor in Heilongjiang." This year, given the fourth Chiang/Chen Summit in the second half of the year, the DPP will probably rail against ECFA. Therefore it is certain to become the theme of the County and Municipal Elections. In which case the County and Municipal Election campaigns will heat up whether one wants them to or not. The final card is bound to be the tired old accusation that the KMT is "pro-Beijing" and "selling out Taiwan."
Last year's Presidential Election campaign was two intertwined themes. The first was whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian," and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" The year end County and Municipal Elections will revisit these themes and intensify them. DPP infighting over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian" will intensify. Now that ECFA is on the table, allegations that the KMT is "selling out Taiwan" are even less likely to end.
This means that Ma Ying-jeou's attempt to use his landslide victory at the polls last year to educate or win over those who oppose him has failed. At least his hope of changing the Democratic Progressive Party has been dashed. Meanwhile, ever since the Democratic Progressive Party's debacle in 2008, it has sought to extricate itself from endless controversies over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian." It has sought to transcend its past positions on cross-Strait policy and national identity. But for the time being its hopes have also been dashed.
For both the Pan Blue and Pan Green camps, the 2008 Presidential Election was a rare historical opportunity. It initially seemed that Ma Ying-jeou might be able to use his victory at the polls to reunite a divided nation, and that Tsai Ing-wen might have been able to use the DPP's defeat to faciliate the party's transformation. Now it appears both have failed. Otherwise, why is the year end election turning into a knock-off of last year's Presidential Election?
Tsai Ing-wen's methods suggest that she will not retreat from her decision to "Dump Chen Shui-bian." She finds herself in a "Do or Die" situation. Therefore she must intensify her rhetoric on issues such as ECFA. If she wants to maintain control over a "Democratic Progressive Party without Chen Shui-bian," she must play issues such as "sovereignty" and "Taiwan-centric thought" and ECFA for all they are worth. She must assure Pan Green supporters that although the DPP is no longer the party of Chen Shui-bian, it remains the party of Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen fails to persuade its supporters, she will not be able to dump Chen Shui-bian. But if Tsai Ing-wen treats supporting Taiwan independence as a substitute for supporting Chen Shui-bian, and denounces ECFA as "selling out Taiwan," the Democratic Progressive Party will paint itself into a corner.
As for Ma Ying-jeou, he failed to make take proper advantage of his 2008 election victory. He retreated from the frontlines. He refused to assume the party chairmanship. Not only did he fail to seize the opportunity, he drove his own ratings and his party's ratings so low they became an embarrassment. He relieved the Democratic Progressive Party of external pressure to reform. He ensured that the Pan Blue and Pan Green camps would remain mired in a McCarthyite struggle over "Who is pro-China?" and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" In 2008, the public mood and political circumstances presented Ma Ying-jeou with the perfect opportunity to do the right thing. But Ma Ying-jeou failed to live up to the public's expectations, and missed a rare historical opportunity.
In democratic politics, every election constitutes "extra innings." Therefore going into extra innings is a matter of course. As long as each election helps unify the nation and achieve consensus, it can advance constitutional rule. Today however, the 2009 elections, remain mired in mud-slinging over how to deal with Chen Shui-bian and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" We would like to ask Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen, haven't you let down your nation and your fellow citizens?
二○○九選舉是二○○八大選的山寨版？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.15 06:09 am
只剩不到八個月，縣市選舉就要投票。如今看來，年底的縣市選舉，在選戰議題的大結構上，很明顯地竟然仍是去年總統大選的複製與延續；這顯示，一年多來，整個國家仍然深陷於總統大選當時想要跳脫的政治泥淖中，無以超越，不能自拔。
今年縣市選舉與去年總統大選，在選戰議題的大結構上，有兩大雷同：
一、去年總統大選，民進黨陷於「挺扁／去扁」的嚴重內鬥；今年亦然，尚且變本加厲。去年總統大選，謝長廷奮力與扁切割而不可得；最後雖在大體上已將扁邊緣化，然雙方尚未撕破臉。但今年陳水扁已與「蔡蘇謝吳」公然反目，又宣布台南縣是「震央」，陳唐山更質問：「一群無情無義的人把持的政黨，如何帶領國家成為一個有情有義的社會？」此種氛圍倘未及時緩解，可以預估，今年的民進黨內鬥，或將更甚於去年。
二、去年總統大選，謝蘇配最後主打的議題是「一中市場」、「查甫找無工／查某找無尪」；今年則ＥＣＦＡ可望成為下半年江陳四次會的議題，因而亦必將成為縣市選舉的主題。如此一來，縣市選舉的選戰議題的高度與熱度，也就想低也低不下來了；最後勢必又以「是否向中國傾斜」大打泥巴仗，再度上演「賣台集團」的老戲碼。
也就是說，去年總統大選選戰議題的大結構，是以「挺扁／去扁」與「賣台集團」為兩條像麻花一般交纏在一起的主軸構成；今年底的縣市選舉，這根麻花非但將全盤拷貝複製出爐，而且可能變本加厲；亦即，民進黨「挺扁／去扁」將鬥得更兇，而ＥＣＦＡ既是已端上檯面的案子，「賣台集團」的惡戰當然更是難以善罷甘休。
此一情勢顯示：去年總統大選以來，馬英九想要藉其高得票率來同化、教化或感化其反對者的期望，迄未實現，至少在他想要改變民進黨這一方面已告落空；相對而言，民進黨自二○○八大敗後，原本期待能跳出「挺扁／去扁」的泥淖，並在兩岸政策及國家認同上有所自我超越及昇華，如今也已不存任何希望。
二○○八總統大選，對藍綠陣營而言，可謂皆曾是極為難得的歷史機遇。原本想像，馬英九可乘勝整合這個破碎的國家，而蔡英文亦可就此帶動民進黨轉型；但如今看來，二人至少到現在皆是失敗者。否則，年底選舉的議題架構，怎麼儼然竟是去年大選的複刻版或山寨版？
觀察蔡英文現今的手法，她在「去扁」上可能不會退讓，且也似已一退即無死所；因而，她相對地在ＥＣＦＡ之類的議題上，勢須升高戰火。也就是說，她若想要操作一個「沒有陳水扁的民進黨」，她就要更加升高關於「主權／台灣主體性」如ＥＣＦＡ的議題，使民進黨在綠色支持者心目中，仍可保有曖曖昧昧的一個「沒有陳水扁的台獨黨」的形象。倘若蔡英文不能給綠色選民留下如此印象，她就更不可能切割陳水扁；但是，倘若蔡英文欲以「挺獨」交換「去扁」，又把ＥＣＦＡ唱成「賣台集團」的戲碼，則民進黨恐就再也轉型無望了。
至於馬英九，未能在第一時間準確操持二○○八勝選的優勢，自縛於「第一線／第二線」及「兼不兼黨主席」的框架中，非但失去先機，使自己及國民黨的民意支持度趨至難堪的地步，也使民進黨失去了轉型的外部壓力，遂亦使藍綠鬥爭仍陷於「向中傾斜／賣台集團」的紅帽子大戰之中。二○○八年，民意與時局運勢都曾給了馬英九極佳條件，但馬英九辜負及錯失了這場難得的歷史機遇。
在民主政治中，每一場選舉，都是「延長賽」。所以，一場接一場的延長賽，是理所當然；但只要每場選舉，在國家整合及政策共識上能有所精進昇華，即是民主憲政的成長與成就。如今，二○○九的選舉，卻仍陷於「陳水扁」及「賣台集團」兩個二○○八年留下來的大泥淖中，請問馬英九與蔡英文，你們如何對得起國家與人民？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2009
Less than eight months from now the counties and municipalities will be holding local elections. It now appears that the year end County and Municipality Elections will be a facsimile of last year's Presidential Election. This tells us that for the past year the entire island has remained mired in the political morass of the Presidential Election, unable to go beyond it, unable to extricate itself.
The major issues in this year's County and Municipal Elections are, for the most part, identical to last year's Presidential Election.
One. During last year's Presidential Election, the Democratic Progressive Party engaged in serious infighting over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian." This year the infighting is worse. During last year's Presidential Election, Frank Hsieh tried to distance himself from Ah-Bian, but couldn't quite pull it off. Although Ah-Bian had already been marginalized, the two sides maintained their decorum. This year however, Chen Shui-bian has already opened fire on "Tsai, Su, Hsieh, Wu" (Tsai Ing-wen, Su Tseng-tsang, Frank Hsieh, and Wu Nai-jen). He has also declared Tainan County the epicenter of his Shock and Awe campaign. Chen Tang-shan asked, "How can a political party dominated by heartless people transform the nation into a society with heart?" That the tense atmosphere has yet to ease comes as no surprise. This year's Democratic Progressive Party in-fighting may well be worse than last year's.
Two. During last year's Presidential Election, the Frank Hsieh/Su Tseng-chang election team's final campaign theme was the accusation that the KMT was creating a "One China Market," in which "Taiwan men will be unable to find work. Taiwan women will be unable to find husbands. Taiwan children will end up as child labor in Heilongjiang." This year, given the fourth Chiang/Chen Summit in the second half of the year, the DPP will probably rail against ECFA. Therefore it is certain to become the theme of the County and Municipal Elections. In which case the County and Municipal Election campaigns will heat up whether one wants them to or not. The final card is bound to be the tired old accusation that the KMT is "pro-Beijing" and "selling out Taiwan."
Last year's Presidential Election campaign was two intertwined themes. The first was whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian," and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" The year end County and Municipal Elections will revisit these themes and intensify them. DPP infighting over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian" will intensify. Now that ECFA is on the table, allegations that the KMT is "selling out Taiwan" are even less likely to end.
This means that Ma Ying-jeou's attempt to use his landslide victory at the polls last year to educate or win over those who oppose him has failed. At least his hope of changing the Democratic Progressive Party has been dashed. Meanwhile, ever since the Democratic Progressive Party's debacle in 2008, it has sought to extricate itself from endless controversies over whether to "Support Chen Shui-bian" or "Dump Chen Shui-bian." It has sought to transcend its past positions on cross-Strait policy and national identity. But for the time being its hopes have also been dashed.
For both the Pan Blue and Pan Green camps, the 2008 Presidential Election was a rare historical opportunity. It initially seemed that Ma Ying-jeou might be able to use his victory at the polls to reunite a divided nation, and that Tsai Ing-wen might have been able to use the DPP's defeat to faciliate the party's transformation. Now it appears both have failed. Otherwise, why is the year end election turning into a knock-off of last year's Presidential Election?
Tsai Ing-wen's methods suggest that she will not retreat from her decision to "Dump Chen Shui-bian." She finds herself in a "Do or Die" situation. Therefore she must intensify her rhetoric on issues such as ECFA. If she wants to maintain control over a "Democratic Progressive Party without Chen Shui-bian," she must play issues such as "sovereignty" and "Taiwan-centric thought" and ECFA for all they are worth. She must assure Pan Green supporters that although the DPP is no longer the party of Chen Shui-bian, it remains the party of Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen fails to persuade its supporters, she will not be able to dump Chen Shui-bian. But if Tsai Ing-wen treats supporting Taiwan independence as a substitute for supporting Chen Shui-bian, and denounces ECFA as "selling out Taiwan," the Democratic Progressive Party will paint itself into a corner.
As for Ma Ying-jeou, he failed to make take proper advantage of his 2008 election victory. He retreated from the frontlines. He refused to assume the party chairmanship. Not only did he fail to seize the opportunity, he drove his own ratings and his party's ratings so low they became an embarrassment. He relieved the Democratic Progressive Party of external pressure to reform. He ensured that the Pan Blue and Pan Green camps would remain mired in a McCarthyite struggle over "Who is pro-China?" and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" In 2008, the public mood and political circumstances presented Ma Ying-jeou with the perfect opportunity to do the right thing. But Ma Ying-jeou failed to live up to the public's expectations, and missed a rare historical opportunity.
In democratic politics, every election constitutes "extra innings." Therefore going into extra innings is a matter of course. As long as each election helps unify the nation and achieve consensus, it can advance constitutional rule. Today however, the 2009 elections, remain mired in mud-slinging over how to deal with Chen Shui-bian and "Who is selling out Taiwan?" We would like to ask Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen, haven't you let down your nation and your fellow citizens?
二○○九選舉是二○○八大選的山寨版？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.15 06:09 am
只剩不到八個月，縣市選舉就要投票。如今看來，年底的縣市選舉，在選戰議題的大結構上，很明顯地竟然仍是去年總統大選的複製與延續；這顯示，一年多來，整個國家仍然深陷於總統大選當時想要跳脫的政治泥淖中，無以超越，不能自拔。
今年縣市選舉與去年總統大選，在選戰議題的大結構上，有兩大雷同：
一、去年總統大選，民進黨陷於「挺扁／去扁」的嚴重內鬥；今年亦然，尚且變本加厲。去年總統大選，謝長廷奮力與扁切割而不可得；最後雖在大體上已將扁邊緣化，然雙方尚未撕破臉。但今年陳水扁已與「蔡蘇謝吳」公然反目，又宣布台南縣是「震央」，陳唐山更質問：「一群無情無義的人把持的政黨，如何帶領國家成為一個有情有義的社會？」此種氛圍倘未及時緩解，可以預估，今年的民進黨內鬥，或將更甚於去年。
二、去年總統大選，謝蘇配最後主打的議題是「一中市場」、「查甫找無工／查某找無尪」；今年則ＥＣＦＡ可望成為下半年江陳四次會的議題，因而亦必將成為縣市選舉的主題。如此一來，縣市選舉的選戰議題的高度與熱度，也就想低也低不下來了；最後勢必又以「是否向中國傾斜」大打泥巴仗，再度上演「賣台集團」的老戲碼。
也就是說，去年總統大選選戰議題的大結構，是以「挺扁／去扁」與「賣台集團」為兩條像麻花一般交纏在一起的主軸構成；今年底的縣市選舉，這根麻花非但將全盤拷貝複製出爐，而且可能變本加厲；亦即，民進黨「挺扁／去扁」將鬥得更兇，而ＥＣＦＡ既是已端上檯面的案子，「賣台集團」的惡戰當然更是難以善罷甘休。
此一情勢顯示：去年總統大選以來，馬英九想要藉其高得票率來同化、教化或感化其反對者的期望，迄未實現，至少在他想要改變民進黨這一方面已告落空；相對而言，民進黨自二○○八大敗後，原本期待能跳出「挺扁／去扁」的泥淖，並在兩岸政策及國家認同上有所自我超越及昇華，如今也已不存任何希望。
二○○八總統大選，對藍綠陣營而言，可謂皆曾是極為難得的歷史機遇。原本想像，馬英九可乘勝整合這個破碎的國家，而蔡英文亦可就此帶動民進黨轉型；但如今看來，二人至少到現在皆是失敗者。否則，年底選舉的議題架構，怎麼儼然竟是去年大選的複刻版或山寨版？
觀察蔡英文現今的手法，她在「去扁」上可能不會退讓，且也似已一退即無死所；因而，她相對地在ＥＣＦＡ之類的議題上，勢須升高戰火。也就是說，她若想要操作一個「沒有陳水扁的民進黨」，她就要更加升高關於「主權／台灣主體性」如ＥＣＦＡ的議題，使民進黨在綠色支持者心目中，仍可保有曖曖昧昧的一個「沒有陳水扁的台獨黨」的形象。倘若蔡英文不能給綠色選民留下如此印象，她就更不可能切割陳水扁；但是，倘若蔡英文欲以「挺獨」交換「去扁」，又把ＥＣＦＡ唱成「賣台集團」的戲碼，則民進黨恐就再也轉型無望了。
至於馬英九，未能在第一時間準確操持二○○八勝選的優勢，自縛於「第一線／第二線」及「兼不兼黨主席」的框架中，非但失去先機，使自己及國民黨的民意支持度趨至難堪的地步，也使民進黨失去了轉型的外部壓力，遂亦使藍綠鬥爭仍陷於「向中傾斜／賣台集團」的紅帽子大戰之中。二○○八年，民意與時局運勢都曾給了馬英九極佳條件，但馬英九辜負及錯失了這場難得的歷史機遇。
在民主政治中，每一場選舉，都是「延長賽」。所以，一場接一場的延長賽，是理所當然；但只要每場選舉，在國家整合及政策共識上能有所精進昇華，即是民主憲政的成長與成就。如今，二○○九的選舉，卻仍陷於「陳水扁」及「賣台集團」兩個二○○八年留下來的大泥淖中，請問馬英九與蔡英文，你們如何對得起國家與人民？
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Is "Love for Taiwan" synonymous with "Made in Taiwan?"
Is "Love for Taiwan" synonymous with "Made in Taiwan?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 14, 2009
The controversy over the "Made in China" National Palace Museum Jadeite Cabbage souvenir is merely a tempest in a teacup. But some legislators refuse to let the storm subside. The National Palace Museum is asking manufacturers to change the labels to read, "Designed in Taiwan." But some students are continuing the protests. They are asking rhetorically whether the National Palace Museum in Taipei is a "branch of the Imperial Palace in Beijing." They chopped up a Jadeite Cabbage souvenir to show their disdain for "Chinese goods." They demanded that mainland tour groups issue leaflets saying "Boycott Chinese goods!" The above actions were purportedly evidence of their "I Love MIT" sentiment.
Students wanting to "buy domestic products" is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially now, when we need to stimulate domestic demand, who does't "Love MIT?" But in addition to book knowledge, college students also need common sense. Love for Taiwan is hardly synonymous with "Love for MIT." When it comes to MIT, several issues need clarification. Fortunately, a number of teaching examples will help us understand.
The first is from Nobel Award winning economist Milton Friedman. His famous "I, Pencil" has become a classic taught in universities. [Translator's Note: "I, Pencil" was written by Leonard Read in 1958, and incorporated into "Free to Choose," a television show produced by Milton Friedman in 1980] Freeman said that even a simple commodity such as a pencil cannot be manufactured by a single person in a single country. Take the wooden shaft of the pencil. Begin with the lumbermill. The stainless steel in the electric saws requires iron ore mined somewhere else. Take the lead core. It might have come from a graphite mine in South America. Take the eraser. It might have come from a rubber tree in Malaysia. Take the glue used to bind the halves of the pencil together, or the paint on the outside surface. The entire process involves the contributions of tens of thousands of people the world over, cooperating via the "Invisible Hand." This is what Friedman refers to as the beauty of the free market. "I, Pencil" has undergone countless permutations. Three years ago, "The Global Economic Voyage of a T-Shirt," which was translated into Chinese and published on Taiwan, dealt with the same theme.
The second is from Stan Shih, or Francis Chen Li-heng, or any other entrepreneur on Taiwan who has succeeded in establishing his own brand. Take a high-tech company such as Acer. Can anyone say that its computers are entirely MIT? By the time all the components, from the CPU to the outer shell have been assembled and the finished product delivered to the customer, it is a "United Nations" product. In recent years, Franz Porcelain has been all the rage. The design studio and company headquarters are in Taipei. The manufacturing plants are in Xiamen and Jingdezhen, on the mainland. The "Jingdezhen Franz Park" produced over one million items last year, sold all over the world. This "Glory of Taiwan" was also "Made in China." But so what?
The third is a from a laughable item recently in the news. Indignant worshippers of designer labels recently took two Armani T-shirts to the store, and demanded an explanation. One T-shirt was labeled "Made in China." The other, labeled "Made in Italy," was cheaper. It turned out the one labeled "Made in Italy" was counterfeit. Armani no longer produces T-shirts in Italy. There are innumerable similar examples. Famed British rainwear maker Burberry has moved its plants to mainland China. The move provoked controversy among the British public. The British may be saddened, but they are not about to vent their spleen at mainland China.
Wanting to use domestic products is all well and fine. But globalization has progressed to the point that hardly any product is 100% made locally. MIT products were once marketed around the world, earning the ROC a great deal of foreign exchange. But the public on Taiwan knows perfectly well that most MIT products are OEM products. They are hardly anything the public on Taiwan can be truly proud of. When foreign companies sneezed, OEM manufacturers on Taiwan caught colds. This is why for so many years industries on Taiwan have wanted to move "upstream" from manufacturing OEM products to manufacturing their own brands. They have finally made a start. That is why trinkets such as these souvenirs are no longer "MIT," but instead "Made in [mainland] China." This is hardly something to wring our hands over. If we really want to move upstream, then turning over low-end manufacturing to mainland factories is precisely what Taiwan's industrial upgrading requires. What justification is there for "national outrage?"
It is true that "Made in China" products have yet to established a reputation for quality. If the goods are defective, then yes, protests are warranted. But to single out the National Palace Museum for criticism over the Jadeite Cabbage souvenirs clearly involves ulterior motives. That some people on Taiwan are afflicted with Sinophobia is no surprise. But the division of labor in today's globalized economy is not merely necessary, it is mutually beneficial. As Milton Friedman noted, free market forces promote world peace. Another Friedman, Thomas Friedman, author of "The World is Flat," has been vigorously promoting his "Golden Arches Theory," which states that any two countries that have McDonald's franchises, i.e., that are integrated into the global market, will never go to war against each other. That being the case, for customers on Taiwan to place orders for products "Made in China," is not a bad thing for cross-Strait relations. College students who want to "Love Taiwan" also need to understand the facts.
「愛台灣」是否非要MIT不可？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.14 05:57 am
故宮翠玉白菜禮品「中國製」風波，本來小事一樁，但立委咬住不放，故宮隨即要求廠商改標籤為「台灣設計」。但仍有青年學生接棒抗議，先是責問台北故宮是否「北京故宮分院」，還以「刀斬翠玉白菜」以示不屑「中國貨」，又盯住大陸旅遊團發放「拒買中國貨」傳單。而這一切，都以「我愛ＭＩＴ」的名目行之。
青年學生「愛用國貨」，原是好事，尤其此刻應振興內需經濟，誰不愛ＭＩＴ呢！不過，大學生，有知識更要有常識，「愛台灣」跟「愛台灣製」不全是同一回事。關於ＭＩＴ，有幾個問題要澄清一下，也有好幾個老師可以去請教一下。
第一個老師是諾貝爾獎得主的經濟學家密爾頓．佛里曼。他有個著名的「鉛筆」故事，已成經典教材。佛里曼說，縱然是簡單商品如一支鉛筆，也不可能以一人一國之力完成。光是筆身的木材，從伐木場開始，連鋸樹的電鋸都要溯及不鏽鋼和某處的鐵礦原料；而筆心的鉛，可能來自南美某石墨礦場；筆頭橡皮擦，可能源自馬來西亞樹膠；還有內裡黏合的膠，外殼塗上的漆……。這整個過程，牽涉全球成千上萬的人力投入，透過「看不見的手」組合而成。此乃佛里曼所稱自由市場之美。這個「鉛筆理論」已經過無數的詮釋和演繹，約三年前台灣翻譯出版的「一件Ｔ恤的全球經濟之旅」，講的是同樣道理。
第二個老師，可以去找施振榮或陳立恆，或任何一位台灣自創品牌的企業家。高科技如宏碁，有那一部電腦敢說是從頭到腳ＭＩＴ？從晶片到外殼，組裝成品送到消費者手中，一定是「聯合國」的產品。又如近年爆紅的法藍瓷，設計與營運總部在台北，工廠則在中國廈門和景德鎮，「法藍瓷景德鎮園區」去年產品達一百萬件，熱銷全球。這樣的「台灣之光」也免不了「中國製」，有什麼好異議的嗎？
第三個例子，是最近一則挺好笑的新聞。有崇尚名牌者，氣沖沖拿了兩件亞曼尼Ｔ恤前去店裡質問。一件是「中國製」，另件標籤「義大利製」的反而較便宜。原來「義大利製」才是仿冒品，因為亞曼尼已經不再在義大利本地生產Ｔ恤了。類似例子不可勝數。英國以風衣著名的老牌Burberry，移廠到中國，也曾在英國民眾間引起議論；但英國人就算感傷，也不致遷怒於中國。
愛用國貨，本意是不錯的。但全球化到如此地步，其實很難有什麼產品是百分百的「本國製」。ＭＩＴ曾行遍全球，為台灣賺進不少外匯，但台灣人心知肚明，絕大多數的ＭＩＴ乃接單製作的代工產品，難謂真正的台灣驕傲。國外一打噴嚏，台灣就感冒，原因正在於此。多少年來，台灣喊產業升級，希望往代工製造的「上游」走，現在總算建立了一點成績。也因此，諸如禮品、紀念品那些小玩意，從ＭＩＴ變成了Made in China，未必值得我們捶胸頓足。果真做到以台灣為上游，把低階的代工交給大陸廠，不正是台灣產業升級的實踐嗎？有什麼好表現「民族義憤」呢？
中國製產品，的確還未能全面確立信譽，如果是黑心商品，也應該抗議。只不過，這次翠玉白菜禮品的例子裡，單挑故宮找碴，恐怕抗議者另有醉翁之意。台灣有人有反中情結，不是不能理解，但今天全球化之下的經濟分工，不但必要，且能兩蒙其利。按照佛里曼的想法，自由市場的力量足以促成世界和平呢。另一位佛里曼，寫「地球是平的」的湯瑪士．佛里曼，也曾大力推銷「黃金拱門理論」，說有麥當勞的國家（表示融入全球市場）不會相互打仗。這樣說起來，由台灣下單走到 Made in China，對兩岸都不是壞事。大學生愛台灣，要有正確的知識基礎才是。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 14, 2009
The controversy over the "Made in China" National Palace Museum Jadeite Cabbage souvenir is merely a tempest in a teacup. But some legislators refuse to let the storm subside. The National Palace Museum is asking manufacturers to change the labels to read, "Designed in Taiwan." But some students are continuing the protests. They are asking rhetorically whether the National Palace Museum in Taipei is a "branch of the Imperial Palace in Beijing." They chopped up a Jadeite Cabbage souvenir to show their disdain for "Chinese goods." They demanded that mainland tour groups issue leaflets saying "Boycott Chinese goods!" The above actions were purportedly evidence of their "I Love MIT" sentiment.
Students wanting to "buy domestic products" is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially now, when we need to stimulate domestic demand, who does't "Love MIT?" But in addition to book knowledge, college students also need common sense. Love for Taiwan is hardly synonymous with "Love for MIT." When it comes to MIT, several issues need clarification. Fortunately, a number of teaching examples will help us understand.
The first is from Nobel Award winning economist Milton Friedman. His famous "I, Pencil" has become a classic taught in universities. [Translator's Note: "I, Pencil" was written by Leonard Read in 1958, and incorporated into "Free to Choose," a television show produced by Milton Friedman in 1980] Freeman said that even a simple commodity such as a pencil cannot be manufactured by a single person in a single country. Take the wooden shaft of the pencil. Begin with the lumbermill. The stainless steel in the electric saws requires iron ore mined somewhere else. Take the lead core. It might have come from a graphite mine in South America. Take the eraser. It might have come from a rubber tree in Malaysia. Take the glue used to bind the halves of the pencil together, or the paint on the outside surface. The entire process involves the contributions of tens of thousands of people the world over, cooperating via the "Invisible Hand." This is what Friedman refers to as the beauty of the free market. "I, Pencil" has undergone countless permutations. Three years ago, "The Global Economic Voyage of a T-Shirt," which was translated into Chinese and published on Taiwan, dealt with the same theme.
The second is from Stan Shih, or Francis Chen Li-heng, or any other entrepreneur on Taiwan who has succeeded in establishing his own brand. Take a high-tech company such as Acer. Can anyone say that its computers are entirely MIT? By the time all the components, from the CPU to the outer shell have been assembled and the finished product delivered to the customer, it is a "United Nations" product. In recent years, Franz Porcelain has been all the rage. The design studio and company headquarters are in Taipei. The manufacturing plants are in Xiamen and Jingdezhen, on the mainland. The "Jingdezhen Franz Park" produced over one million items last year, sold all over the world. This "Glory of Taiwan" was also "Made in China." But so what?
The third is a from a laughable item recently in the news. Indignant worshippers of designer labels recently took two Armani T-shirts to the store, and demanded an explanation. One T-shirt was labeled "Made in China." The other, labeled "Made in Italy," was cheaper. It turned out the one labeled "Made in Italy" was counterfeit. Armani no longer produces T-shirts in Italy. There are innumerable similar examples. Famed British rainwear maker Burberry has moved its plants to mainland China. The move provoked controversy among the British public. The British may be saddened, but they are not about to vent their spleen at mainland China.
Wanting to use domestic products is all well and fine. But globalization has progressed to the point that hardly any product is 100% made locally. MIT products were once marketed around the world, earning the ROC a great deal of foreign exchange. But the public on Taiwan knows perfectly well that most MIT products are OEM products. They are hardly anything the public on Taiwan can be truly proud of. When foreign companies sneezed, OEM manufacturers on Taiwan caught colds. This is why for so many years industries on Taiwan have wanted to move "upstream" from manufacturing OEM products to manufacturing their own brands. They have finally made a start. That is why trinkets such as these souvenirs are no longer "MIT," but instead "Made in [mainland] China." This is hardly something to wring our hands over. If we really want to move upstream, then turning over low-end manufacturing to mainland factories is precisely what Taiwan's industrial upgrading requires. What justification is there for "national outrage?"
It is true that "Made in China" products have yet to established a reputation for quality. If the goods are defective, then yes, protests are warranted. But to single out the National Palace Museum for criticism over the Jadeite Cabbage souvenirs clearly involves ulterior motives. That some people on Taiwan are afflicted with Sinophobia is no surprise. But the division of labor in today's globalized economy is not merely necessary, it is mutually beneficial. As Milton Friedman noted, free market forces promote world peace. Another Friedman, Thomas Friedman, author of "The World is Flat," has been vigorously promoting his "Golden Arches Theory," which states that any two countries that have McDonald's franchises, i.e., that are integrated into the global market, will never go to war against each other. That being the case, for customers on Taiwan to place orders for products "Made in China," is not a bad thing for cross-Strait relations. College students who want to "Love Taiwan" also need to understand the facts.
「愛台灣」是否非要MIT不可？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.14 05:57 am
故宮翠玉白菜禮品「中國製」風波，本來小事一樁，但立委咬住不放，故宮隨即要求廠商改標籤為「台灣設計」。但仍有青年學生接棒抗議，先是責問台北故宮是否「北京故宮分院」，還以「刀斬翠玉白菜」以示不屑「中國貨」，又盯住大陸旅遊團發放「拒買中國貨」傳單。而這一切，都以「我愛ＭＩＴ」的名目行之。
青年學生「愛用國貨」，原是好事，尤其此刻應振興內需經濟，誰不愛ＭＩＴ呢！不過，大學生，有知識更要有常識，「愛台灣」跟「愛台灣製」不全是同一回事。關於ＭＩＴ，有幾個問題要澄清一下，也有好幾個老師可以去請教一下。
第一個老師是諾貝爾獎得主的經濟學家密爾頓．佛里曼。他有個著名的「鉛筆」故事，已成經典教材。佛里曼說，縱然是簡單商品如一支鉛筆，也不可能以一人一國之力完成。光是筆身的木材，從伐木場開始，連鋸樹的電鋸都要溯及不鏽鋼和某處的鐵礦原料；而筆心的鉛，可能來自南美某石墨礦場；筆頭橡皮擦，可能源自馬來西亞樹膠；還有內裡黏合的膠，外殼塗上的漆……。這整個過程，牽涉全球成千上萬的人力投入，透過「看不見的手」組合而成。此乃佛里曼所稱自由市場之美。這個「鉛筆理論」已經過無數的詮釋和演繹，約三年前台灣翻譯出版的「一件Ｔ恤的全球經濟之旅」，講的是同樣道理。
第二個老師，可以去找施振榮或陳立恆，或任何一位台灣自創品牌的企業家。高科技如宏碁，有那一部電腦敢說是從頭到腳ＭＩＴ？從晶片到外殼，組裝成品送到消費者手中，一定是「聯合國」的產品。又如近年爆紅的法藍瓷，設計與營運總部在台北，工廠則在中國廈門和景德鎮，「法藍瓷景德鎮園區」去年產品達一百萬件，熱銷全球。這樣的「台灣之光」也免不了「中國製」，有什麼好異議的嗎？
第三個例子，是最近一則挺好笑的新聞。有崇尚名牌者，氣沖沖拿了兩件亞曼尼Ｔ恤前去店裡質問。一件是「中國製」，另件標籤「義大利製」的反而較便宜。原來「義大利製」才是仿冒品，因為亞曼尼已經不再在義大利本地生產Ｔ恤了。類似例子不可勝數。英國以風衣著名的老牌Burberry，移廠到中國，也曾在英國民眾間引起議論；但英國人就算感傷，也不致遷怒於中國。
愛用國貨，本意是不錯的。但全球化到如此地步，其實很難有什麼產品是百分百的「本國製」。ＭＩＴ曾行遍全球，為台灣賺進不少外匯，但台灣人心知肚明，絕大多數的ＭＩＴ乃接單製作的代工產品，難謂真正的台灣驕傲。國外一打噴嚏，台灣就感冒，原因正在於此。多少年來，台灣喊產業升級，希望往代工製造的「上游」走，現在總算建立了一點成績。也因此，諸如禮品、紀念品那些小玩意，從ＭＩＴ變成了Made in China，未必值得我們捶胸頓足。果真做到以台灣為上游，把低階的代工交給大陸廠，不正是台灣產業升級的實踐嗎？有什麼好表現「民族義憤」呢？
中國製產品，的確還未能全面確立信譽，如果是黑心商品，也應該抗議。只不過，這次翠玉白菜禮品的例子裡，單挑故宮找碴，恐怕抗議者另有醉翁之意。台灣有人有反中情結，不是不能理解，但今天全球化之下的經濟分工，不但必要，且能兩蒙其利。按照佛里曼的想法，自由市場的力量足以促成世界和平呢。另一位佛里曼，寫「地球是平的」的湯瑪士．佛里曼，也曾大力推銷「黃金拱門理論」，說有麥當勞的國家（表示融入全球市場）不會相互打仗。這樣說起來，由台灣下單走到 Made in China，對兩岸都不是壞事。大學生愛台灣，要有正確的知識基礎才是。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)