Ma Ying-jeou Must Consider Public Sentiment a Warning
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen has won the DPP presidential primaries, and will represent the DPP in the 2012 presidential race. On the same day, President Ma Ying-jeou received the KMT's blessing in his quest for a second term. President Ma trailed Tsai Ing-wen in polls commissioned by the DPP. He even found himself in a draw or trailing slightly in polls conducted by the media. These results should have put President Ma and the Blue Camp on high alert.
The presidential election is still nine months away. What will happen to public opinion remains difficult to foresee. President Ma Ying-jeou enjoys the advantage of the incumbency. He has a variety of administrative resources at his disposal. During his three years in office, he has liberated the ROC from the previous two administrations' Closed Door Policy. The economy has gradually recovered. So why does the public think less of him than it does of the opposition party leader, who is guilty of endless flip-flopping? Is this not a paradox?
According to the averaged result of five primary polls commissioned by the DPP, Ma Ying-jeou trails Tsai Ing-wen by 7.5 percentage points, and Su Tseng-chang by 7.3 percentage points. The gap is enormous. The DPP changed its usual tactic of "waiting by the phone" and the "institutional effect" created by poll takers. But the fact that Ma Ying-jeou trailed by Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen by so much, is indeed worth pondering. According to a poll conducted by this newspaper, 36% of all respondents supported Ma Ying-jeou, and 37% of all respondents supported Tsai Ing-wen. The difference of one percentage point was within the sampling error. This means the two candidates are currently evenly matched. This means Ma Ying-jeou enjoys no advantage at all.
This result was a huge surprise for the Blue Camp. Not long ago, the Central Election Commission announced that the presidential election would be combined with the legislative primaries. The Blue Camp hoped to hitch a ride on Ma Ying-jeou's coat tails. But now Ma Ying-jeou enjoys no advantage at all. He may even be at a disadvantage. In which case his "coat tails" could become an albatross. Candidates could end up throwing good money after bad. The Green Camp expressed no objection to the two elections being combined. They already realized this could be the case. They decided to gamble and to try to win both elections. Both the ruling and opposition parties are betting the farm.
The KMT seems content with itself. Ma Ying-jeou is behind in the polls. Alarm bells should be ringing. Consider this newspaper's poll results. The key is President Ma's governing style. Ma Ying-jeou trailed Tsai Ing-wen on matters of "policy resolve." Ma Ying-jeou's score was 21%. Tsai Ing-wen's was 36%. On the surface, for an opposition party not in power to score higher on policy resolve, may seem contradictory. But Tsai Ing-wen smoothed over factional troubles within the DPP. She led the party to a string of victories. She led the party out from under the shadow of Chen Shui-bian's corruption. She won over the elderly, the middle-aged, and youth. This constituted an impressive feat of leadership. By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou remains a "by the book" person, to a fault. He often becomes fixated on trivialities. When recruiting talent, he lacks audacity. He often finds himself in no-win, "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations. All these convince people that he is an irresolute and indecisive chief executive. This is a problem he must realize and ponder.
Current polls provide only a rough impression of public sentiment. Voting will take place in nine months. By then voters may have reconsidered the pros and cons of each candidate, and arrived at different conclusions. The two candidates still have a long battle ahead of them. Ma Ying-jeou has won considerable public approval for boosting the island's economy, and for his handling of cross-Strait affairs. Clear political accomplishments such as these are something Tsai Ing-wen cannot match. More importantly, the DPP espouses radical ideology and flip-flops on cross-Strait policy. It incites communal group hatred and refuses to engage in honest soul-searching. If the DPP fails to address these matters, they will become stumbling blocks for Tsai Ing-wen on her way to the presidency. Which of the two candidates will emerge victorious? That may be decided by issues larger than the two candidates' personal traits.
As a leader, Ma Ying-jeou has a better sense of balance and a greater sense of responsibility. But he and his team are too rigid and too indecisive. They waffle constantly, They lack "true grit." In particular, Ma repeatedly panders to the opposition, while ignoring his own Blue Camp and centrist voters. This has led to an erosion of support from his core constituency. The polls have revealed this chink in his armor. Tsai Ing-wen's cool demeanor meanwhile, has changed the DPP's violent nature. She has helped normalize party politics. But just exactly who has a parasitical attachment to whom? This remains a worrying question. Is the change in the DPP's character a qualitative change, or merely an illusion? Will Tsai Ing-wen turn out to be nothing more than an "accidental tourist?"
A random poll, after all, is not an election. Before candidates they can persuade voters to cast their ballots, they must undergo more stringent tests. President Ma must confront his loss of core support. The public has repeatedly pointed out a plethora of problems. He must no longer dismiss them lightly. Leave aside other matters, and consider his choice of running mate. The DPP's more open policy has given many aspirants hope. Ma Ying-jeou, on the other hand, must choose either Siew or Wu, He can offer nothing new. Once again, he may find himself paling in comparison to Tsai Ing-wen.
馬英九應深以民意為警惕
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.29 01:55 am
蔡英文初選勝出代表民進黨角逐2012總統大選，同一天，馬英九總統則獲國民黨推舉角逐連任。值得注意的是，馬總統不僅在民進黨的初選民調中落後蔡英文，在媒體隨後所做的民調中也都陷於膠著或劣勢。此一現象，值得馬總統及藍軍陣營高度警惕。
距離大選還有約九個月，這期間民意將發生什麼變化，仍難逆料。但馬英九總統居執政之優勢地位，集各種行政資源於一身，三年施展打開了台灣的鎖國局面，經濟逐漸恢復起色；在這種情況下，民意對他的評價竟還不如立場反覆的在野黨領袖，豈非弔詭之至？
根據民進黨五家初選民調的平均值，馬英九落後蔡英文七點五個百分點，落後蘇貞昌七點三個百分點。這樣大的差距，或許可說是民進黨發動「在家等電話」改變了常態分佈，及調查者的「機構效應」所致，但馬英九對蘇、蔡二人形成等差落後，確值得玩味。而根據本報隨後所做的「雙英對決」民調，馬英九仍以百分之卅六的支持度，落後蔡英文的百分之卅七。一個百分點之差，其實在抽樣誤差範圍之內，但這不啻說明兩人目前不分軒輊，馬英九毫無優勢可言。
這種態勢，恐怕大出藍軍意料之外。前不久，中選會宣布將總統大選與立委初選合併舉行，對藍營而言，或許寄望可藉馬英九的優勢，來護航藍軍立委，帶動選情。而今，如果馬英九不僅沒有優勢，甚至處於劣勢，那麼「帶動」變成「帶衰」，恐怕將賠了夫人又折兵。綠營不反對兩項選舉合併，其實也正看準這點，打算孤注一擲，力拚雙贏。朝野雙方都在賭這一盤。
當國民黨猶在自我感覺良好，馬英九民調的落後，實是一大警訊；從本報民調看，馬總統的施政風格恐是關鍵因素。馬英九落後蔡英文最多的項目在「施政魄力」，馬英九僅獲百分之廿一的支持，蔡英文卻得到百分之卅六的肯定。表面上看，不掌權的在野黨反而更有施政魄力，似乎頗為矛盾；但蔡英文能整合派系紛擾的民進黨，帶領幾次選舉連勝，走出陳水扁貪腐的陰影，讓一幫老中青心悅誠服，這或者是讓民眾印象深刻的領導能力。相對的，馬英九過度謹守個人界限，在施政上有時流於瑣碎，用人缺乏大開大闔氣魄，甚至時而陷於父子騎驢的困境，在在都讓一般民眾覺得他身為元首的剛毅果決不足，這是他必須警覺及反省的問題。
此刻民調反映的，畢竟只是現下民眾的概略印象；九個月後投票，選民可能對兩人執政的利弊進行深刻判斷再作出抉擇，兩人還有很長的戰役要打。例如，馬英九在「提振國內經濟」及「兩岸關係處理」上，獲得更多民眾肯定；如此直接的政績，就不是一味迴避的蔡英文所能企及。更重要的是，民進黨意識形態及兩岸政策的反覆不定，以及操弄族群仇恨和缺乏反省能力的問題，若不能釐清，也勢必成為蔡英文前進總統之路的絆腳石。兩人最後的勝負，恐得在這些個人特質之外的大議題上進行決戰。
作為領導人，馬英九有較佳的平衡感和責任感，但他和他的團隊過於墨守成規，瞻前顧後，反覆搖擺，少了一點「英氣」。尤其，他一再為少數意見掣肘，卻對藍營及中間選民缺乏回應，這使他不斷流失基本盤，民調暴露的正是這處要害。而蔡英文以其冷靜和異質，改變了民進黨的粗暴性格，有利政黨政治的正常化；但這種不知誰寄生於誰的共存關係，也讓人擔憂：民進黨的變化究竟真是質變或者只是假象，蔡英文會不會只是一個偶然的過客？
民調抽樣終歸不是選舉，要召喚選民投下神聖的一票，得歷經更嚴苛的民意檢驗。無論如何，馬總統須正視自己民氣流失的現象，許多輿論反覆指出的問題，慎勿再輕率以對。別的不說，光是挑選副總統搭檔一事，民進黨的開放性就讓人更有期待；而馬英九若仍是非蕭即吳，不僅了無新意，恐會讓人再一次覺得與蔡英文相形失色。
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen's Achilles Heel
Tsai Ing-wen's Achilles Heel
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen has won the DPP presidential primary poll, and become the party's presidential candidate. She must now address the damage done to the legitimacy of the party primary by the "exclusive support" and "Tsai/Ma/Ma" controversies. She faces an even greater test. She must change her tune on cross-Strait and economic policy, and move closer to the political center.
Tsai Ing-wen has three Achilles Heels. They are: her economic policy, her cross-Strait policy, and her split personality.
Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She questions ECFA. She opposes nuclear power generation and the construction of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Her opposition to "growth oriented" economic policy forces her to champion "non-growth oriented" economic policy. She proposes a slow down. She wants to de-emphasize economic growth, and emphasize environmentalism. The inevitable result of her proposal to slow economic growth, is to de-emphasize cross-Strait exchanges. In 2000, Tsai Ing-wen prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. By doing so, she painted herself into a corner. How can she extricate herself from her dilemma? How can she reconcile slowing "growth oriented" economic policies with promises of full employment and social welfare? How can she do so, while resisting the magnetic attraction of the Mainland? All this has made the public question her integrity, and wonder if she has a split personality. Tsai Ing-wen's economic policy, cross-Strait policy, and split personality, will be her Achilles Heels on the road to the presidency. Ultimately, they will be a test her character.
Tsai Ing-wen painted herself into a corner when she refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus, and "questioned ECFA." She must extricate herself from her predicament as soon as possible, before the presidential election. The public has no desire to see a suicide bomber who "refuses to recognize 1992 Consensus" elected president and butt heads with Beijing. Beijing could slow official exchanges, cut the number of Mainland tourists allowed to visit Taiwan, reduce the amount of milkfish purchased from Taiwan, and reduce the number of scheduled cross-Strait airline flights. Beijing could announce that it is "listening to what she says, and watching what she does." That would be something Taiwan could not withstand. That is why Tsai Ing-wen dared not incorporate her refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus and her call for a public referendum on ECFA into her campaign platform. That is why she cannot make these part of her governing strategy in the event she is elected. Tsai Ing-wen must turn back now. She must not wait until she is forced to jump from a moving vehicle.
Tsai Ing-wen's hawkish cross-Strait policy has influenced her economic policies. According to her logic, economic development pressures on Taiwan make it impossible to reduce economic and trade exchanges with the Mainland. Therefore her answer is to overturn our "growth oriented" and "pursuit of economic growth only" economic policy, and develop an agriculturally oriented "local economy" in our villages and towns. In other words, we must diminish our desire for economic development, and support her hawkish cross-Strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen's opposition to nuclear power generation and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant also force her to champion an "anti-growth" policy. Her political platform has become Utopian rural economic self-sufficiency. This of course is flagrant self-deception.
Cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges cannot be blocked. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian tried to block them for nearly two decades and failed. Besides, cross-Strait relations have already passed the point of no return. The signing of ECFA heralded a new era. Tsai Ing-wen cannot cut back on cross-Strait economic and trade relations. She can no longer question EFCA. She cannot justify her hawkish cross-Strait policy. She can no longer refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus. All she can do is change her cross-Strait political rhetoric, and reconcile it with cross-Strait economic and trade relations.
During last April's Two Yings Debate, Tsai Ing-wen advocating overturning our "growth oriented" economic policy. She questioned our "export-oriented" economic policy. But during the last round of primary debates, she said that "for the past four centuries, Taiwan has been a trading nation." Tsai Ing-wen's presidential primary speech surely must have been written and rewritten a hundred times. How could it contain such a glaring contradiction? Just exactly what is it that Tsai Ing-wen advocates? A nation founded on trade? Or opposition to an export-oriented economy?
Furthermore, the local economy, the cross-Strait economy, and the global economy are not mutually exclusive. They fit within each other. The global economy contains the cross-Strait economy, which in turn contains the local economy. The local economy is contained within the cross-Strait economy, which in turn is contained within the global economy. Each includes the other. As long as one starts from Taiwan, one will end up on Taiwan. How can one distinguish between "moving toward [Mainland] China by way of the world," and "moving toward the world by way of [Mainland] China?" Look at the swarms of Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. How can one distinguish between the "local economy" and the "cross-Strait economy?" Look at the Flora Expo. How can one distinguish between the "global economy," the "cross-Strait economy," and the "local economy?" If Taiwan adopts Tsai Ing-wen's "local economy," it will be unable to afford increased welfare spending. It will be even less able to resist the siren call of the Mainland.
The presidential race has begun. Such cross-Strait and economic issues should be thoroughly debated. For Tsai Ing-wen, this presents a serious problem. This requires a public assessment of Tsai Ing-wen's integrity. Consider her environmental policy. When Tsai Ing-wen was Vice Premier, she lobbied on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Now, with the wave of a magic wand, she has transformed herself into an environmentalist standard bearer, standing up against the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. With another wave of a magic wand, she has transformed herself from the Vice Premier who urged the swift completion of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, into the opponent of of commercial operations for the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, and the champion of a nuclear-free homeland by 2025. Was her about face really the result of earnest soul-searching? Or merely the behavior of an opportunistic turncoat? Consider her cross-Strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen helped concoct the "two states theory." In 1999 the theory landed Lee Teng-hui in diplomatic hot water, without and within. Does Tsai Ing-wen really intend to repudiate the 1992 Consensus, and One China, Different Interpretations? Does she really intend to return the nation to the internal social divisions and external diplomatic crises of the Lee/Chen era? Tsai Ing-wen prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus in 2000. She made it impossible for Chen Shui-bian to proceed down his "new centrist path." Does she truly intend to "refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen talks of "strengthening democracy through rationality" Does she truly intend to make people wonder "What in the world is she is talking about?"
Tsai Ing-wen dismisses the 1992 Consensus as an "historical framework." But it was Tsai Ing-wen who imposed this "Tsai Ing-wen framework" on herself, in 1999 and 2004. Tsai Ing-wen refuses to divest herself of this framework. She wants the public to consider her framework a collective framework. She would have Beijing believe that this Tsai Ing-wen framework has public endorsement and support. Is Tsai Ing-wen merely ambitious? Or is she a raving lunatic?
All these questions reflect poorly on Tsai Ing-wen's character and integrity. She was a beneficiary of the 18% preferential interest rate for civil service employees. But now she denounces it. She lobbied on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. But now she denounces it. She expedited construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. But now she denounces it. She boasted that "Taiwan was founded on trade." But now she opposes export-oriented economic policy. Her own family's cemetery is costly and extravangant. Yet she demonized Ma Ying-jeou's late father merely over the inscription on his funerary urn. She championed clean primary elections. Yet she exploited "exclusive support" and "Tsai/Ma/Ma" tactics. Her two states theory harmed Lee Teng-hui. Yet she remains obdurately opposed to "One China, Different Interpretations." Her opposition to the 1992 Consensus harmed Chen Shui-bian. Yet she refuses to divest herself of her "Tsai Ing-wen framework."
Tsai is capricious and self-contradictory. Tsai Ing-wen's character must be able to withstand public scrutiny. Tsai Ing-wen's advantage is her clean image. But a clean image is not the same as character and integrity. As the public begins to scrutinize Tsai Ing-wen's character, doubts will arise about her integrity. The election may change from one based on electioneering skill, to one based on fundamental principles. Tsai Ing-wen has won the party primary. She must now address her policy contradictions and her split personality.
蔡英文的三個罩門
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.28
蔡英文在民進黨總統初選民調獲勝出線。接下來，她須在黨內修補「唯一支持」及「蔡馬馬」造成的初選正當性破口；更大的考驗是，她須在兩岸政策及經濟政策上改變口吻，朝中間移動。
綜合而言，經濟政策、兩岸政策及人格整合是蔡英文的三大罩門，而三者又交互影響。
蔡英文「不承認九二共識」、「質疑ＥＣＦＡ」的兩岸政策，及非核、反國光石化的環保政策，造成了她必須反對「成長掛帥」，並主張「不以經濟成長率為主」的經濟政策；反過來說，她主張放緩、放低的經濟路線，及抬升的環保姿態，則是支撐其放緩、放低其兩岸交流的必然結論。而蔡英文將如何從在二○○○年阻擋陳水扁承認九二共識的窘境中脫困，又如何能以放緩「成長掛帥」的經濟政策去實現其就業與社福承諾及抗拒中國大陸的磁吸作用，皆將引發國人對其人格之平衡及整合的質疑。因而，經濟政策、兩岸政策與人格整合，將是蔡英文總統大選之路上的三大罩門，並歸結到對其人格品質的考驗。
蔡英文必須在總統大選前及早設法從「不承認九二共識」、「質疑ＥＣＦＡ」的困局中解套。一者因國人恐不願見蔡英文若當選總統後捆著「不承認九二共識」的人肉炸彈，去與北京攤牌；再者，屆時北京只要「放緩兩會交流」或「降低陸客來台人數、減購虱目魚及直航減班」，即可對「蔡總統」發出「聽其言，觀其行」的訊息，這絕對是台灣承受不起的。所以蔡英文不宜以「不承認九二共識」、「ＥＣＦＡ公投也是一個選項」為競選政見，更不可能以此作為若當選總統後的治國戰略。蔡英文宜早些轉彎，勿待被迫下車。
蔡英文的鷹派兩岸政策，強烈地影響了她的經濟政策。在她的邏輯中，台灣因經濟發展的壓力而無法降低與大陸的經貿交流；因而，她提供的答案是，應翻轉「成長掛帥」及「只追求經濟成長率」的經濟路線，向農業、鄉鎮去發展「在地經濟」。也就是要以降低經濟發展的欲求，去支撐其鷹派兩岸路線。此外，蔡英文非核及反石化的立場，也使她必須以「反成長」為訴求主調，鄉鎮自給自足的「桃花源經濟」成了她的品牌政見。這些，當然是自欺欺人。
兩岸的經貿交流絕無可擋，即使經李扁二屆政府近二十年來的切割也切不斷，何況兩岸如今已進入無可折返的「後ＥＣＦＡ」時代。因而，蔡英文不可能再以降低兩岸經貿關係（質疑ＥＣＦＡ），來支撐其鷹派的兩岸政策（不承認九二共識）；而只有調整其兩岸政治論述，以與兩岸經貿關係合轍。
在去年四月雙英辯論中，蔡英文主張翻轉「成長掛帥」，質疑「出口導向」；但在最後一場初選政見會中，她又說台灣四百年來皆以「貿易立國」。蔡英文豈可在千錘百鍊的總統初選演說稿中，出現如此水火不容的自相矛盾：究竟妳是主張貿易立國？還是反對出口導向？
何況，在同心圓的概念中，在地經濟、兩岸經濟及全球化經濟，其實是「全球→兩岸→在地」，及「在地→兩岸→全球」往復循環的體系，你泥中有我，我泥中有你；只要從台灣出發又回到台灣，誰能分出「由世界走向中國」或「由中國走向世界」？只要看一看高雄六合夜市的陸客盛況，誰能將「在地經濟」與「兩岸經濟」切割？也只要看一看花博，誰又能將「全球／兩岸／在地」切割？台灣若回到蔡英文的「在地經濟」，將更無力量支付社福支出，尤更無力量抵拒中國大陸的磁吸作用。
進入總統大選後，這類兩岸議題及經濟議題應當獲得徹底通透的辯論，這是蔡英文必須嚴肅面對的問題，因為這將涉及對蔡英文人格整合的評價。就環保政策言，蔡英文自關說國光石化環評的行政院副院長，搖身一變為反國光石化的旗手；又從督促核四趕工的行政院副院長，搖身一變開出了核四不商轉及二○二五非核家園的政治支票。這究竟是真實「反省」，還是投機「變臉」？就兩岸政策言，蔡英文參與製作的「兩國論」，已在一九九九年使李登輝陷於內外交迫；難道現在蔡英文還要再一次以否認「九二共識／一中各表」，讓國人回到內部痛苦撕裂、外交烽煙四起的李扁時代？再者，蔡英文已在二○○○年因阻擋陳水扁承認九二共識，而使陳水扁八年走不回他的「新中間路線」；難道現在還要再一次以「不承認九二共識」，讓國人去領教蔡英文的「理性讓民主更有力」？
蔡英文說，「九二共識」是「歷史框架」，其實那只是蔡英文在一九九九及二○○四年自己套在自己頭上的「蔡英文框架」。蔡英文不肯自己解下這副「框架」，卻想要國人在總統大選中承認並接受「蔡英文框架」成為「全民共業框架」，藉以向北京展現「蔡英文框架」的民意正當性；這究竟是蔡英文的宏謨大志，還是瘋人囈語？
這一切的辯論，可能皆將歸結到對蔡英文人格整合的評價。領十八趴，卻反十八趴；關說國光，卻反國光；催核四趕工，卻反核四；歌頌貿易立國，卻反對出口導向；自家墓園豪華，卻去消費馬英九的亡父；主張清正初選，卻縱容操作「唯一支持」、「蔡馬馬」；兩國論害了李登輝，自己仍反對「一中各表」；「反對九二共識」害了陳水扁，自己仍不肯脫下這個「蔡英文框架」。
如此善變且自相矛盾，蔡英文的人格品質必須禁得起民意的深究。蔡英文的優勢是形象清新，但形象清新並不等於人格整合；當社會評價逐漸開始思索蔡英文的人格品質，並引發議論及質疑，選戰的主軸或許將會由操作面，轉向基本面。蔡英文贏了初選，此時卻是修補政策矛盾及填充人格缺口的開端。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen has won the DPP presidential primary poll, and become the party's presidential candidate. She must now address the damage done to the legitimacy of the party primary by the "exclusive support" and "Tsai/Ma/Ma" controversies. She faces an even greater test. She must change her tune on cross-Strait and economic policy, and move closer to the political center.
Tsai Ing-wen has three Achilles Heels. They are: her economic policy, her cross-Strait policy, and her split personality.
Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She questions ECFA. She opposes nuclear power generation and the construction of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Her opposition to "growth oriented" economic policy forces her to champion "non-growth oriented" economic policy. She proposes a slow down. She wants to de-emphasize economic growth, and emphasize environmentalism. The inevitable result of her proposal to slow economic growth, is to de-emphasize cross-Strait exchanges. In 2000, Tsai Ing-wen prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. By doing so, she painted herself into a corner. How can she extricate herself from her dilemma? How can she reconcile slowing "growth oriented" economic policies with promises of full employment and social welfare? How can she do so, while resisting the magnetic attraction of the Mainland? All this has made the public question her integrity, and wonder if she has a split personality. Tsai Ing-wen's economic policy, cross-Strait policy, and split personality, will be her Achilles Heels on the road to the presidency. Ultimately, they will be a test her character.
Tsai Ing-wen painted herself into a corner when she refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus, and "questioned ECFA." She must extricate herself from her predicament as soon as possible, before the presidential election. The public has no desire to see a suicide bomber who "refuses to recognize 1992 Consensus" elected president and butt heads with Beijing. Beijing could slow official exchanges, cut the number of Mainland tourists allowed to visit Taiwan, reduce the amount of milkfish purchased from Taiwan, and reduce the number of scheduled cross-Strait airline flights. Beijing could announce that it is "listening to what she says, and watching what she does." That would be something Taiwan could not withstand. That is why Tsai Ing-wen dared not incorporate her refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus and her call for a public referendum on ECFA into her campaign platform. That is why she cannot make these part of her governing strategy in the event she is elected. Tsai Ing-wen must turn back now. She must not wait until she is forced to jump from a moving vehicle.
Tsai Ing-wen's hawkish cross-Strait policy has influenced her economic policies. According to her logic, economic development pressures on Taiwan make it impossible to reduce economic and trade exchanges with the Mainland. Therefore her answer is to overturn our "growth oriented" and "pursuit of economic growth only" economic policy, and develop an agriculturally oriented "local economy" in our villages and towns. In other words, we must diminish our desire for economic development, and support her hawkish cross-Strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen's opposition to nuclear power generation and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant also force her to champion an "anti-growth" policy. Her political platform has become Utopian rural economic self-sufficiency. This of course is flagrant self-deception.
Cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges cannot be blocked. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian tried to block them for nearly two decades and failed. Besides, cross-Strait relations have already passed the point of no return. The signing of ECFA heralded a new era. Tsai Ing-wen cannot cut back on cross-Strait economic and trade relations. She can no longer question EFCA. She cannot justify her hawkish cross-Strait policy. She can no longer refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus. All she can do is change her cross-Strait political rhetoric, and reconcile it with cross-Strait economic and trade relations.
During last April's Two Yings Debate, Tsai Ing-wen advocating overturning our "growth oriented" economic policy. She questioned our "export-oriented" economic policy. But during the last round of primary debates, she said that "for the past four centuries, Taiwan has been a trading nation." Tsai Ing-wen's presidential primary speech surely must have been written and rewritten a hundred times. How could it contain such a glaring contradiction? Just exactly what is it that Tsai Ing-wen advocates? A nation founded on trade? Or opposition to an export-oriented economy?
Furthermore, the local economy, the cross-Strait economy, and the global economy are not mutually exclusive. They fit within each other. The global economy contains the cross-Strait economy, which in turn contains the local economy. The local economy is contained within the cross-Strait economy, which in turn is contained within the global economy. Each includes the other. As long as one starts from Taiwan, one will end up on Taiwan. How can one distinguish between "moving toward [Mainland] China by way of the world," and "moving toward the world by way of [Mainland] China?" Look at the swarms of Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. How can one distinguish between the "local economy" and the "cross-Strait economy?" Look at the Flora Expo. How can one distinguish between the "global economy," the "cross-Strait economy," and the "local economy?" If Taiwan adopts Tsai Ing-wen's "local economy," it will be unable to afford increased welfare spending. It will be even less able to resist the siren call of the Mainland.
The presidential race has begun. Such cross-Strait and economic issues should be thoroughly debated. For Tsai Ing-wen, this presents a serious problem. This requires a public assessment of Tsai Ing-wen's integrity. Consider her environmental policy. When Tsai Ing-wen was Vice Premier, she lobbied on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Now, with the wave of a magic wand, she has transformed herself into an environmentalist standard bearer, standing up against the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. With another wave of a magic wand, she has transformed herself from the Vice Premier who urged the swift completion of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, into the opponent of of commercial operations for the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, and the champion of a nuclear-free homeland by 2025. Was her about face really the result of earnest soul-searching? Or merely the behavior of an opportunistic turncoat? Consider her cross-Strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen helped concoct the "two states theory." In 1999 the theory landed Lee Teng-hui in diplomatic hot water, without and within. Does Tsai Ing-wen really intend to repudiate the 1992 Consensus, and One China, Different Interpretations? Does she really intend to return the nation to the internal social divisions and external diplomatic crises of the Lee/Chen era? Tsai Ing-wen prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus in 2000. She made it impossible for Chen Shui-bian to proceed down his "new centrist path." Does she truly intend to "refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen talks of "strengthening democracy through rationality" Does she truly intend to make people wonder "What in the world is she is talking about?"
Tsai Ing-wen dismisses the 1992 Consensus as an "historical framework." But it was Tsai Ing-wen who imposed this "Tsai Ing-wen framework" on herself, in 1999 and 2004. Tsai Ing-wen refuses to divest herself of this framework. She wants the public to consider her framework a collective framework. She would have Beijing believe that this Tsai Ing-wen framework has public endorsement and support. Is Tsai Ing-wen merely ambitious? Or is she a raving lunatic?
All these questions reflect poorly on Tsai Ing-wen's character and integrity. She was a beneficiary of the 18% preferential interest rate for civil service employees. But now she denounces it. She lobbied on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. But now she denounces it. She expedited construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. But now she denounces it. She boasted that "Taiwan was founded on trade." But now she opposes export-oriented economic policy. Her own family's cemetery is costly and extravangant. Yet she demonized Ma Ying-jeou's late father merely over the inscription on his funerary urn. She championed clean primary elections. Yet she exploited "exclusive support" and "Tsai/Ma/Ma" tactics. Her two states theory harmed Lee Teng-hui. Yet she remains obdurately opposed to "One China, Different Interpretations." Her opposition to the 1992 Consensus harmed Chen Shui-bian. Yet she refuses to divest herself of her "Tsai Ing-wen framework."
Tsai is capricious and self-contradictory. Tsai Ing-wen's character must be able to withstand public scrutiny. Tsai Ing-wen's advantage is her clean image. But a clean image is not the same as character and integrity. As the public begins to scrutinize Tsai Ing-wen's character, doubts will arise about her integrity. The election may change from one based on electioneering skill, to one based on fundamental principles. Tsai Ing-wen has won the party primary. She must now address her policy contradictions and her split personality.
蔡英文的三個罩門
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.28
蔡英文在民進黨總統初選民調獲勝出線。接下來，她須在黨內修補「唯一支持」及「蔡馬馬」造成的初選正當性破口；更大的考驗是，她須在兩岸政策及經濟政策上改變口吻，朝中間移動。
綜合而言，經濟政策、兩岸政策及人格整合是蔡英文的三大罩門，而三者又交互影響。
蔡英文「不承認九二共識」、「質疑ＥＣＦＡ」的兩岸政策，及非核、反國光石化的環保政策，造成了她必須反對「成長掛帥」，並主張「不以經濟成長率為主」的經濟政策；反過來說，她主張放緩、放低的經濟路線，及抬升的環保姿態，則是支撐其放緩、放低其兩岸交流的必然結論。而蔡英文將如何從在二○○○年阻擋陳水扁承認九二共識的窘境中脫困，又如何能以放緩「成長掛帥」的經濟政策去實現其就業與社福承諾及抗拒中國大陸的磁吸作用，皆將引發國人對其人格之平衡及整合的質疑。因而，經濟政策、兩岸政策與人格整合，將是蔡英文總統大選之路上的三大罩門，並歸結到對其人格品質的考驗。
蔡英文必須在總統大選前及早設法從「不承認九二共識」、「質疑ＥＣＦＡ」的困局中解套。一者因國人恐不願見蔡英文若當選總統後捆著「不承認九二共識」的人肉炸彈，去與北京攤牌；再者，屆時北京只要「放緩兩會交流」或「降低陸客來台人數、減購虱目魚及直航減班」，即可對「蔡總統」發出「聽其言，觀其行」的訊息，這絕對是台灣承受不起的。所以蔡英文不宜以「不承認九二共識」、「ＥＣＦＡ公投也是一個選項」為競選政見，更不可能以此作為若當選總統後的治國戰略。蔡英文宜早些轉彎，勿待被迫下車。
蔡英文的鷹派兩岸政策，強烈地影響了她的經濟政策。在她的邏輯中，台灣因經濟發展的壓力而無法降低與大陸的經貿交流；因而，她提供的答案是，應翻轉「成長掛帥」及「只追求經濟成長率」的經濟路線，向農業、鄉鎮去發展「在地經濟」。也就是要以降低經濟發展的欲求，去支撐其鷹派兩岸路線。此外，蔡英文非核及反石化的立場，也使她必須以「反成長」為訴求主調，鄉鎮自給自足的「桃花源經濟」成了她的品牌政見。這些，當然是自欺欺人。
兩岸的經貿交流絕無可擋，即使經李扁二屆政府近二十年來的切割也切不斷，何況兩岸如今已進入無可折返的「後ＥＣＦＡ」時代。因而，蔡英文不可能再以降低兩岸經貿關係（質疑ＥＣＦＡ），來支撐其鷹派的兩岸政策（不承認九二共識）；而只有調整其兩岸政治論述，以與兩岸經貿關係合轍。
在去年四月雙英辯論中，蔡英文主張翻轉「成長掛帥」，質疑「出口導向」；但在最後一場初選政見會中，她又說台灣四百年來皆以「貿易立國」。蔡英文豈可在千錘百鍊的總統初選演說稿中，出現如此水火不容的自相矛盾：究竟妳是主張貿易立國？還是反對出口導向？
何況，在同心圓的概念中，在地經濟、兩岸經濟及全球化經濟，其實是「全球→兩岸→在地」，及「在地→兩岸→全球」往復循環的體系，你泥中有我，我泥中有你；只要從台灣出發又回到台灣，誰能分出「由世界走向中國」或「由中國走向世界」？只要看一看高雄六合夜市的陸客盛況，誰能將「在地經濟」與「兩岸經濟」切割？也只要看一看花博，誰又能將「全球／兩岸／在地」切割？台灣若回到蔡英文的「在地經濟」，將更無力量支付社福支出，尤更無力量抵拒中國大陸的磁吸作用。
進入總統大選後，這類兩岸議題及經濟議題應當獲得徹底通透的辯論，這是蔡英文必須嚴肅面對的問題，因為這將涉及對蔡英文人格整合的評價。就環保政策言，蔡英文自關說國光石化環評的行政院副院長，搖身一變為反國光石化的旗手；又從督促核四趕工的行政院副院長，搖身一變開出了核四不商轉及二○二五非核家園的政治支票。這究竟是真實「反省」，還是投機「變臉」？就兩岸政策言，蔡英文參與製作的「兩國論」，已在一九九九年使李登輝陷於內外交迫；難道現在蔡英文還要再一次以否認「九二共識／一中各表」，讓國人回到內部痛苦撕裂、外交烽煙四起的李扁時代？再者，蔡英文已在二○○○年因阻擋陳水扁承認九二共識，而使陳水扁八年走不回他的「新中間路線」；難道現在還要再一次以「不承認九二共識」，讓國人去領教蔡英文的「理性讓民主更有力」？
蔡英文說，「九二共識」是「歷史框架」，其實那只是蔡英文在一九九九及二○○四年自己套在自己頭上的「蔡英文框架」。蔡英文不肯自己解下這副「框架」，卻想要國人在總統大選中承認並接受「蔡英文框架」成為「全民共業框架」，藉以向北京展現「蔡英文框架」的民意正當性；這究竟是蔡英文的宏謨大志，還是瘋人囈語？
這一切的辯論，可能皆將歸結到對蔡英文人格整合的評價。領十八趴，卻反十八趴；關說國光，卻反國光；催核四趕工，卻反核四；歌頌貿易立國，卻反對出口導向；自家墓園豪華，卻去消費馬英九的亡父；主張清正初選，卻縱容操作「唯一支持」、「蔡馬馬」；兩國論害了李登輝，自己仍反對「一中各表」；「反對九二共識」害了陳水扁，自己仍不肯脫下這個「蔡英文框架」。
如此善變且自相矛盾，蔡英文的人格品質必須禁得起民意的深究。蔡英文的優勢是形象清新，但形象清新並不等於人格整合；當社會評價逐漸開始思索蔡英文的人格品質，並引發議論及質疑，選戰的主軸或許將會由操作面，轉向基本面。蔡英文贏了初選，此時卻是修補政策矛盾及填充人格缺口的開端。
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Opinion Polls are Not Inherently Evil
Opinion Polls are Not Inherently Evil
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2011
The two major parties are conducting polls to determine who will represent the party in the upcoming legislative elections. The Democratic Progressive Party's presidential poll has led to rumors of "Mother Tsai." Some have preemptively made public the results of opinion polls, provoking a backlash, and accusations that they were trying to mislead respondents in the ongoing polls. In the KMT legislative primary polls, Luo Shu-lei and John Chiang have been embroiled in a controversy over whether "a 0.00 percentage victory is still a victory." The KMT Taipei City Party Headquarters has already decided against changing the party's nomination criteria.
Opinion polls are not inherently evil. But so many irregularities have occurred critics cannot help wondering whether candidates are abusing the polls. Is it really true that "so many crimes and deceptions are perpetrated in thy name."
Polls are merely instruments to measure public sentiment. Their primary function is to "allow public sentiment to reveal itself," to "let the numbers speak." Now however, the two major parties have adopted opinion polls as the main basis for party primary nominations. Prospective candidates have agreed to abide by the poll results. This mechanism should function as a gauge of public opinion. Instead, each time a poll is held, a storm brews. Some people are even using the polls to make trouble. The "Mother Tsai" rumors and the Chiang vs. Luo struggle within the KMT are merely the tip of the iceberg. As we can see, polls may are not inherently evil, but behold the dust that they have stirred up!
How did this all come about? Polls are in theory merely neutral tools, They must be conducted in accordance with scientific guidelines. If polls are be exploited, their credibility will be undermined. But polls are essentially neutral tools. People who make use of opinion polls do not always hold neutral positions. Politicians pay lip service to "respect for democratic institutions." But once they acquire the power to influence the decision-making process, they resort to every means at their disposal. They look for the best way to promote their own interests. For example, the DPP has engaged in an internal tug of war over the use of "Blue excluded polls," "party member polls," and "all people polls." Was the final decision on which of these polls to use really made on the basis of the high-sounding reasons offered? The party is currently conducting an "all peoples poll." Even before the decision was made, rumors emerged. Given her public image, the rumors said, the "all peoples poll" might favor Tsai Ing-wen. Therefore once the resolution was passed, rumors emerged that some members might abandon the party. In other words, the very moment the polling method was chosen, political considerations already began playing a role.
Leave aside falsified data, sampling biases, and other extreme cases. Assume that when polling organizations conduct their polls, they attempt to remain neutral and adhere to the scientific method. Assume that "numbers don't lie." One must still interpret the numbers correctly. It is not as simple as "a 0,00 percent victory is still a victory." Under direct democracy voters personally cast their ballots. During an election, a one vote victory is still a victory. But polls are based on sampling. Out of the main body of the population, only a sample is polled. This sample is used to infer the results. John Chiang and Luo Shu-lei are embroiled in a dispute. A gap of less than one percentage point separates the two. This difference is extremely significant. One must be cautious when making any statistical interpretations.
But how did the KMT deal with this controversy? First it followed the recommendations of its district party headquarters and suspended Lei Luo-shu's rights as a party member. Later it followed the recommendations of its Public Relations Committee Chairman Su Chun-ping, who urged the party to respect the results of the poll. Was the change in the party's position truly the result of "respect for the democratic process?" Was it truly the result of adherence to the scientific method, and the belief that "numbers don't lie?" Or was it the result of other considerations that cannot be stated openly? Outsiders will always find it difficult to see the whole truth. But skepticism is understandable. They may well be exploiting the polls.
Now consider the even uglier rumors, and attempts to influence voter psychology. They may be conspiracies, or they may be acts of desperation. Either way, they are old electioneering tricks. They are undeniably attempts to ensure that one's opponent loses. Such is the nature of politics. But voters on Taiwan are seasoned veterans. They long ago developed countermeasures. The atmosphere of intrigue has deepened. For example, voters have a tacit understanding that they will "allocate votes on their own initiative." When interviewed by poll takers over the phone, they deliberately engage in disinformation in order to undermine rival parties. Anyone attempting to conduct a scientific survey will find himself lost in a fog. Therefore the DPP's "Mother Tsai" rumors and preemptive publicizing of poll results merely highlight the degree to which polls are subject to exploitation.
Polls have their uses. But they can also be abused. Using opinion polls to deceive voters is tantamount to election fraud. It seriously undermines the credibility of the polling process. The myth that the findings of social science are scientifically true has already been shattered. For anyone exploring social phenomena, polls have their limitations. This is even truer if people are deliberately manipulating the polls. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Using opinion polls to determine party primary nominations, is better than having them determined by the KMT Central Committee. But people may come to feel that "so many crimes and deceptions are perpetrated in thy name." If so, then those who play with fire may find themselvess burned.
民調本無罪 何辜惹塵埃
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.27
兩大黨都在進行提名民調。結果民進黨的總統民調不但出現了「蔡馬馬」的耳語流傳，且有人搶先公布民調監聽結果，引發大反彈，被指誤導仍在進行中的民調。國民黨的立委初選民調，則在羅淑蕾和蔣孝嚴之間發生了是否「贏○‧○○一也是贏」的爭議，台北市黨部已決定不變提名考量。
民調本無罪，卻狀況這麼多，不免有評論者質疑，是否有人在「玩民調」。難道果真是，「民調民調，多少罪惡假汝之名而行之」？
民調就是蒐集民意的工具而已，主要目的是「讓民意呈現」、「讓數字說話」。現在兩大黨的提名機制既然多以民調為主要依據，黨內有意參選者也同意行禮如儀，本來可以好好讓此機制發揮展現民意的功能。但結果，每次民調上場，總不可能風平浪靜，甚至有人藉民調而興風作浪。這次的「蔡馬馬」耳語和國民黨的蔣、羅之爭，不過冰山一角而已。亦可見，民調本無罪，何辜惹塵埃！
到底何以致此？民調在理論上是中性的工具，施行上亦有科學準則可依循；如果說民調可以「玩」，未免損傷其公信力。然而，民調本是中性的工具，選擇和運用民調的人卻未必站在「中性」的立場。口中稱「尊重民主機制」的政治人物，在有權力可能影響決策時，莫不用盡政治算計，尋求能為自己贏得最大利益的途徑。例如，民進黨內為使用「排藍民調」、「黨員民調」、或「全民調」，角力不只一回，最終決定的關鍵，難道真如表面理由那般冠冕堂皇？目前正進行中的「全民調」方法，從定案前就傳出，對「全選民」之間形象較佳的蔡英文可能較有利，也因此在決議定案後，還傳出了黨員出走風波。換言之，從選擇民調方法的那一刻開始，即可能有政治考量的手已經伸進來「玩」了，此其一。
如果排除掉數據作假、抽樣偏頗等極端情形，並且相信民調機構進行民調時確保盡可能的中立性與科學性，但即使如此，所謂的「數字會說話」，卻還是需要正確的解讀方法，並非「贏○‧○○一也是贏」那麼單純。直接民主當中，選民親自投票，結果贏一票就贏，是沒錯。但民意調查是抽樣調查，在全體選民的「母體」當中選擇受訪者的「樣本」，用以推論出結果。這次蔣孝嚴和羅淑蕾之爭，兩人差距不到一個百分點，這種差異是否真的顯著，於統計上的意義恐須謹慎判讀。
但國民黨對這次爭議的處理態度，從最初的區黨部建議對羅淑蕾作停權處分，到其後由文傳會主委蘇俊賓表示原則上尊重民調結果，其間的轉折對照，真的百分百是「尊重程序」的民主考量？是相信「數字說話」的科學考量？還是未便明言的其他因素考量？局外人永遠難以窺見全部的真相。這種合理的懷疑，可能正是「玩民調」之立論其二。
至於其他更不堪的耳語流傳，以及種種試圖影響選民心理的手段，不管是陰謀論或告急牌，都是選舉的老招數，也都不必諱言具有「企圖使對手不當選」的意味。政治的本質如此，台灣選民身經百戰，早已自行開發出反制之道，加深了爾虞我詐的氣氛，例如投票時向來有「自動配票」的默契，電話民調時則有「故意擾亂敵情」的自覺，令任何科學調查都可能陷入迷霧。所以，這次民進黨的「蔡馬馬」耳語及搶先公布民調之舉，亦不過再度凸顯了民調的一種「可玩性」而已。
「民調堪用直須用」，但用得過度，或藉民調的「詐術」操弄形同「作票」的不當影響力，則是嚴重毀損了民調的公信機制。社會科學裡本已顛覆了「科學調查結果必然為真」的神話，任何人為進行對社會現象的探查，都有其局限；更不用說如果有人存心「玩」民調。本來民主比獨裁好，以民調為提名依據，總比以黨中央的一言堂為依據要好。但如果走到讓民眾覺得「多少罪惡假民調之名而行之」這一步，恐怕玩火的人要先被火傷。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2011
The two major parties are conducting polls to determine who will represent the party in the upcoming legislative elections. The Democratic Progressive Party's presidential poll has led to rumors of "Mother Tsai." Some have preemptively made public the results of opinion polls, provoking a backlash, and accusations that they were trying to mislead respondents in the ongoing polls. In the KMT legislative primary polls, Luo Shu-lei and John Chiang have been embroiled in a controversy over whether "a 0.00 percentage victory is still a victory." The KMT Taipei City Party Headquarters has already decided against changing the party's nomination criteria.
Opinion polls are not inherently evil. But so many irregularities have occurred critics cannot help wondering whether candidates are abusing the polls. Is it really true that "so many crimes and deceptions are perpetrated in thy name."
Polls are merely instruments to measure public sentiment. Their primary function is to "allow public sentiment to reveal itself," to "let the numbers speak." Now however, the two major parties have adopted opinion polls as the main basis for party primary nominations. Prospective candidates have agreed to abide by the poll results. This mechanism should function as a gauge of public opinion. Instead, each time a poll is held, a storm brews. Some people are even using the polls to make trouble. The "Mother Tsai" rumors and the Chiang vs. Luo struggle within the KMT are merely the tip of the iceberg. As we can see, polls may are not inherently evil, but behold the dust that they have stirred up!
How did this all come about? Polls are in theory merely neutral tools, They must be conducted in accordance with scientific guidelines. If polls are be exploited, their credibility will be undermined. But polls are essentially neutral tools. People who make use of opinion polls do not always hold neutral positions. Politicians pay lip service to "respect for democratic institutions." But once they acquire the power to influence the decision-making process, they resort to every means at their disposal. They look for the best way to promote their own interests. For example, the DPP has engaged in an internal tug of war over the use of "Blue excluded polls," "party member polls," and "all people polls." Was the final decision on which of these polls to use really made on the basis of the high-sounding reasons offered? The party is currently conducting an "all peoples poll." Even before the decision was made, rumors emerged. Given her public image, the rumors said, the "all peoples poll" might favor Tsai Ing-wen. Therefore once the resolution was passed, rumors emerged that some members might abandon the party. In other words, the very moment the polling method was chosen, political considerations already began playing a role.
Leave aside falsified data, sampling biases, and other extreme cases. Assume that when polling organizations conduct their polls, they attempt to remain neutral and adhere to the scientific method. Assume that "numbers don't lie." One must still interpret the numbers correctly. It is not as simple as "a 0,00 percent victory is still a victory." Under direct democracy voters personally cast their ballots. During an election, a one vote victory is still a victory. But polls are based on sampling. Out of the main body of the population, only a sample is polled. This sample is used to infer the results. John Chiang and Luo Shu-lei are embroiled in a dispute. A gap of less than one percentage point separates the two. This difference is extremely significant. One must be cautious when making any statistical interpretations.
But how did the KMT deal with this controversy? First it followed the recommendations of its district party headquarters and suspended Lei Luo-shu's rights as a party member. Later it followed the recommendations of its Public Relations Committee Chairman Su Chun-ping, who urged the party to respect the results of the poll. Was the change in the party's position truly the result of "respect for the democratic process?" Was it truly the result of adherence to the scientific method, and the belief that "numbers don't lie?" Or was it the result of other considerations that cannot be stated openly? Outsiders will always find it difficult to see the whole truth. But skepticism is understandable. They may well be exploiting the polls.
Now consider the even uglier rumors, and attempts to influence voter psychology. They may be conspiracies, or they may be acts of desperation. Either way, they are old electioneering tricks. They are undeniably attempts to ensure that one's opponent loses. Such is the nature of politics. But voters on Taiwan are seasoned veterans. They long ago developed countermeasures. The atmosphere of intrigue has deepened. For example, voters have a tacit understanding that they will "allocate votes on their own initiative." When interviewed by poll takers over the phone, they deliberately engage in disinformation in order to undermine rival parties. Anyone attempting to conduct a scientific survey will find himself lost in a fog. Therefore the DPP's "Mother Tsai" rumors and preemptive publicizing of poll results merely highlight the degree to which polls are subject to exploitation.
Polls have their uses. But they can also be abused. Using opinion polls to deceive voters is tantamount to election fraud. It seriously undermines the credibility of the polling process. The myth that the findings of social science are scientifically true has already been shattered. For anyone exploring social phenomena, polls have their limitations. This is even truer if people are deliberately manipulating the polls. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Using opinion polls to determine party primary nominations, is better than having them determined by the KMT Central Committee. But people may come to feel that "so many crimes and deceptions are perpetrated in thy name." If so, then those who play with fire may find themselvess burned.
民調本無罪 何辜惹塵埃
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.27
兩大黨都在進行提名民調。結果民進黨的總統民調不但出現了「蔡馬馬」的耳語流傳，且有人搶先公布民調監聽結果，引發大反彈，被指誤導仍在進行中的民調。國民黨的立委初選民調，則在羅淑蕾和蔣孝嚴之間發生了是否「贏○‧○○一也是贏」的爭議，台北市黨部已決定不變提名考量。
民調本無罪，卻狀況這麼多，不免有評論者質疑，是否有人在「玩民調」。難道果真是，「民調民調，多少罪惡假汝之名而行之」？
民調就是蒐集民意的工具而已，主要目的是「讓民意呈現」、「讓數字說話」。現在兩大黨的提名機制既然多以民調為主要依據，黨內有意參選者也同意行禮如儀，本來可以好好讓此機制發揮展現民意的功能。但結果，每次民調上場，總不可能風平浪靜，甚至有人藉民調而興風作浪。這次的「蔡馬馬」耳語和國民黨的蔣、羅之爭，不過冰山一角而已。亦可見，民調本無罪，何辜惹塵埃！
到底何以致此？民調在理論上是中性的工具，施行上亦有科學準則可依循；如果說民調可以「玩」，未免損傷其公信力。然而，民調本是中性的工具，選擇和運用民調的人卻未必站在「中性」的立場。口中稱「尊重民主機制」的政治人物，在有權力可能影響決策時，莫不用盡政治算計，尋求能為自己贏得最大利益的途徑。例如，民進黨內為使用「排藍民調」、「黨員民調」、或「全民調」，角力不只一回，最終決定的關鍵，難道真如表面理由那般冠冕堂皇？目前正進行中的「全民調」方法，從定案前就傳出，對「全選民」之間形象較佳的蔡英文可能較有利，也因此在決議定案後，還傳出了黨員出走風波。換言之，從選擇民調方法的那一刻開始，即可能有政治考量的手已經伸進來「玩」了，此其一。
如果排除掉數據作假、抽樣偏頗等極端情形，並且相信民調機構進行民調時確保盡可能的中立性與科學性，但即使如此，所謂的「數字會說話」，卻還是需要正確的解讀方法，並非「贏○‧○○一也是贏」那麼單純。直接民主當中，選民親自投票，結果贏一票就贏，是沒錯。但民意調查是抽樣調查，在全體選民的「母體」當中選擇受訪者的「樣本」，用以推論出結果。這次蔣孝嚴和羅淑蕾之爭，兩人差距不到一個百分點，這種差異是否真的顯著，於統計上的意義恐須謹慎判讀。
但國民黨對這次爭議的處理態度，從最初的區黨部建議對羅淑蕾作停權處分，到其後由文傳會主委蘇俊賓表示原則上尊重民調結果，其間的轉折對照，真的百分百是「尊重程序」的民主考量？是相信「數字說話」的科學考量？還是未便明言的其他因素考量？局外人永遠難以窺見全部的真相。這種合理的懷疑，可能正是「玩民調」之立論其二。
至於其他更不堪的耳語流傳，以及種種試圖影響選民心理的手段，不管是陰謀論或告急牌，都是選舉的老招數，也都不必諱言具有「企圖使對手不當選」的意味。政治的本質如此，台灣選民身經百戰，早已自行開發出反制之道，加深了爾虞我詐的氣氛，例如投票時向來有「自動配票」的默契，電話民調時則有「故意擾亂敵情」的自覺，令任何科學調查都可能陷入迷霧。所以，這次民進黨的「蔡馬馬」耳語及搶先公布民調之舉，亦不過再度凸顯了民調的一種「可玩性」而已。
「民調堪用直須用」，但用得過度，或藉民調的「詐術」操弄形同「作票」的不當影響力，則是嚴重毀損了民調的公信機制。社會科學裡本已顛覆了「科學調查結果必然為真」的神話，任何人為進行對社會現象的探查，都有其局限；更不用說如果有人存心「玩」民調。本來民主比獨裁好，以民調為提名依據，總比以黨中央的一言堂為依據要好。但如果走到讓民眾覺得「多少罪惡假民調之名而行之」這一步，恐怕玩火的人要先被火傷。
Monday, April 25, 2011
Flora Expo Has Ended, but the Dream Has Not
Flora Expo Has Ended, but the Dream Has Not
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 26, 2011
The Flora Expo has ended, but the dream has not. Yesterday the half-year long 2010 Taipei International Flower Exposition ended with fireworks and a parade. The public joined in with gusto. The expo concluded, a roaring success. During the closing ceremony, President Faber of the International Association of Horticultural Producers (AIPH), once again called the Taipei Flower Exposition the most successful flower exposition ever held. Recalling the chaos of opening day makes the hard-won fruits of success all the more sweet.
As the chief executive of the host city, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin was presented with an AIPH gold medal. Hau is usually stolid of manner. But on this occasion, he revealed his inner thoughts and feelings, referring to the Qing poet Gong Zizhen, who wrote, "Fallen flowers are not heartless things. Transformed into spring earth, they nuture new blossoms." In the course of organizing the expo, Hau Lung-bin experienced many ups and downs, many mixed feelings. He is surely grateful to the citizens of Taipei for their political maturity. They enabled him to pass the stringent test imposed by the ongoing elections. He was affirmed in the eyes of the public as a city mayor genuinely eager and able to get things done.
Hau Lung-bin credited the flower growers, volunteers, and performing artists for their joint effort and for the successful outcome. He stressed that all of the exhibits were "Made In Taiwan," therefore even more a cause for pride.
The Flora Expo truly is a cause for public pride. It was the first international exposition held by the Republic of China, and all the elements were MIT (made in Taiwan). Everything including the design, planning, operations, and live performances, were the results of a joint effort on Taiwan. It showed off Taiwan's vitality and creativity. More specifically, the expo represented Taiwan's soft power.
The most popular features of the expo were the Pavilion of Dreams, the Pavilion of Angels, and the Pavilion of the Future. These will remain in operation until next year. The popular Taiwan Pavilion 3D theater and Theater of the Future at the Shanghai World Expo will also resume operation. People unable to visit the expo will have the opportunity to experience its combination of cultural creativity and high technology. In 1985, Japan's World Science and Technology Fair introduced advanced display systems and helped universalize digital technology. The 2005 Aichi Expo introduced a new concept of symbiosis for the earth and the environment. The 2019 Pavilion of Dreams at the Taipei Flora Expo was a memorable milestone that displayed the creative energy of Taiwan's art on the international stage.
Twenty-two cities and 28 organizations participated in the Flora Expo garden competition. Over a period of six months, the Taiwan Association of Flower Development received the most critical praise. It won both the top prize and the AIPH Award. The "Knowing Contentment Taiwan Bamboo Garden" showed off the unique character of Taiwan's tea plants and hydroponic flowers. Even the tea served at the entrance conveyed Taiwan's human touch. For many visitors, the greatest attraction was the sound of "Contentment," which expressed the view of life and the toughness of people on Taiwan.
In planning the closing ceremony, Taipei City encouraged public participation. A parade was held in the afternoon. A concert was held in the Da Jia Park Area. Fireworks as well as the night market carnival were the most beloved by the international community. One hundred fifty-two name brand vendors of street food gathered in a large park. Looed pork rice, oyster omelets, bean curd, pork ribs stewed in Chinese herbs, and deep fried chicken breasts were all readily available. The atmosphere in Taipei was joyous. A record nine million people visited. A new record was established that final day. Over 150,000 people attended in a single day. Everyone was excited to be part of the historic moment.
The curtain has rung down on a successful Flora Expo. At the same time, it is hard not to recall the ups and downs during the Expo opening. Society on Taiwan is pluralistic and open. The colorful Flora Expo was the victim of a very embarrassing situation. Prize-winning hydroponic flower growers were the target of smear campaigns by a handful of politicians, who accused them of squandering public money. During the past six months, everyone who has visited the expo has seen the care taken with the expo, how flowers are constantly replaced, rain or shine. They have all been able to see beautiful flowers in full bloom, vibrant green grass and trees. The fruits, vegetables, and flowers may have come with price tags. But creativity is priceless. Happiness is priceless. As people walk through the Flora Expo, they have only one feeling -- that 50 or 100 NT is a pittance for all the enjoyment they have experienced.
If the flowers and trees could talk they would tell people to please listen to their silent song, and not to the politicians' cacaphony. The noise emanating from politicians on Taiwan is too loud. It makes people forget the happiness and joy that surround them. Politics may paint everything either blue or green. But must we forget the other colors pleasing to the eye? The Flora Expo exhibits have put art and beauty well within our reach. This is something politicians who see only blue and green cannot see. Never mind noisy politicians. They are the biggest losers. They have lost the tranquility within their hearts.
The Flora Expo has ended. But the dream has not. Remember the pride of the moment. It was the pride of all Taiwan. Please remember how your heart was filled with of happiness. Taiwan is a treasure island that can make people happy. Cherish it, love it, No amount of political noise can stand in your way.
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！
2011-04-26 中國時報
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！展期長達半年的二○一○台北國際花卉博覽會昨日在煙花、歡樂 遊行、民眾踴躍參與的熱情中，圓滿閉幕。閉幕典禮上，ＡＩＰＨ國際園藝者協會主席法柏（Dr. Faber）再次盛讚台北花博是有史以來辦得最成功的一次花卉博覽會。回顧開幕時的紛紛擾擾，得來不易的果實更顯甜美。
身為花博主辦城市的大家長，台北市長郝龍斌獲ＡＩＰＨ頒贈榮譽金牌，平日嚴肅的他，難得引用清季詩人龔自珍的詩句：「落紅不是無情物，化作春泥更護花」，表達內心的感觸。走過花博籌辦歷程中的風風雨雨，郝龍斌百感交集之餘，必然更感謝台北市民的成熟，讓他順利通過選舉嚴苛的考驗，成為市民心目中，真正肯做事、能做事的市長。
郝龍斌把他的驕傲獻給所有花農、志工、文化表演者共同努力的所打造的成果，他更強調，所有展覽規畫全都是Made In Taiwan台灣製造，更值得台灣驕傲。
是的，花博確實值得全民驕傲！它不僅是中華民國第一次舉辦的國際展覽會，所有的元素都是ＭＩＴ（台灣製造），從設計、規畫、營運、布展、表演全部是台灣共同努的成果。這就是台灣的生命力、台灣的創造力，花博更具體呈現了台灣的軟實力。
花博最受歡迎的夢想館，還有生活天使館、未來館，都將繼續延長營運到明年，包括上海世博中頗受稱譽的台灣館的３Ｄ劇院和未來劇場，也都將在未來館重現，讓所有展期中未及參觀的民眾，還有機會親身體驗高科技與文創結合的美。一九八五年，日本世界科技博覽會率先展出的先進映象，帶動數位普及；二○○五年日本愛知博覽會，提出地球與環境共生的新概念；二○一○年台北花博夢想館，為台灣參與國際舞台、展現台灣藝術創作能量跨出值得記憶的里程碑。
花博寰宇庭園的花卉競賽，由廿二個國家、廿六個城市、廿八家機構參與，經過六個月，最受評審青睞的最大首獎及ＡＩＰＨ大獎，雙雙由台灣花卉發展協會奪得。「知『竹』常樂─台灣園」，展現了台灣特色的茶樹、水耕花卉，連入口處的奉茶，也充分傳達台灣的人情味，對許多參觀的民眾而言，更貼心的是「知足常樂」的諧音，充分表現台灣人的人生觀和韌性。
台北市以全民參與的方式，設計閉幕，從下午開始的遊行、大佳園區的演唱會、煙火，還有國際人士最喜愛的台灣夜市嘉年華，一百五十二家知名小吃齊聚大佳園區，魯肉飯、蚵仔煎、豆花、藥燉排骨、雞排一應俱全，幸福充滿台北的天空。九百萬人次的破紀錄參觀人數，在最後一天達到最高點，單日就突破十五萬人，所有的人都為自己能參與這個歷史性的時刻而亢奮。
花博光彩落幕的同時，很難不讓人想起花博開幕時的風風雨雨。台灣是一個多元開放的社會，彩色的花博，在開幕前後，卻遭遇極難堪的處境，得大獎的水耕花卉甚至曾被少數政客操作成為花博浪費公帑的箭靶，這半年之中，每一位前往參觀的民眾，親眼看到花農的用心，隨時替換新鮮花卉，不論晴雨，他們都能看到美麗飽滿的花朵綻放，生氣蓬勃的草地樹木，綠意盎然，草樹花卉蔬果有價，創意無價，幸福無價，民眾走在讓自己幸福滿溢的花博場區，只會有一種感覺，五十元、一百元對這些花草樹木都是貶抑。
如果花草樹木會說話，他們或許會向人們娓娓道來：請靜靜聆聽我無聲的歡唱，不要去聽政客的喧囂。是的，台灣政治噪音太大，往往使人們疏忽就在每個人身邊的幸福和快樂，何需因為政治上的藍或綠，忘記入眼即可得的彩色呢？花博展場的設計布展，讓藝術、美學觸手可得，這些哪裡是眼中只有藍綠之爭的政客看得到的呢？不必介意政客們的吵吵鬧鬧，因為損失最大的是他們，他們失去的是心中的平靜和安樂。
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！請記得此刻的驕傲，是全台灣人的驕傲；請記得心中滿滿的幸福感，台灣，是一個可以給人幸福快樂的寶地，珍惜它，愛護它，再多的政治喧囂，都不會再構成干擾。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 26, 2011
The Flora Expo has ended, but the dream has not. Yesterday the half-year long 2010 Taipei International Flower Exposition ended with fireworks and a parade. The public joined in with gusto. The expo concluded, a roaring success. During the closing ceremony, President Faber of the International Association of Horticultural Producers (AIPH), once again called the Taipei Flower Exposition the most successful flower exposition ever held. Recalling the chaos of opening day makes the hard-won fruits of success all the more sweet.
As the chief executive of the host city, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin was presented with an AIPH gold medal. Hau is usually stolid of manner. But on this occasion, he revealed his inner thoughts and feelings, referring to the Qing poet Gong Zizhen, who wrote, "Fallen flowers are not heartless things. Transformed into spring earth, they nuture new blossoms." In the course of organizing the expo, Hau Lung-bin experienced many ups and downs, many mixed feelings. He is surely grateful to the citizens of Taipei for their political maturity. They enabled him to pass the stringent test imposed by the ongoing elections. He was affirmed in the eyes of the public as a city mayor genuinely eager and able to get things done.
Hau Lung-bin credited the flower growers, volunteers, and performing artists for their joint effort and for the successful outcome. He stressed that all of the exhibits were "Made In Taiwan," therefore even more a cause for pride.
The Flora Expo truly is a cause for public pride. It was the first international exposition held by the Republic of China, and all the elements were MIT (made in Taiwan). Everything including the design, planning, operations, and live performances, were the results of a joint effort on Taiwan. It showed off Taiwan's vitality and creativity. More specifically, the expo represented Taiwan's soft power.
The most popular features of the expo were the Pavilion of Dreams, the Pavilion of Angels, and the Pavilion of the Future. These will remain in operation until next year. The popular Taiwan Pavilion 3D theater and Theater of the Future at the Shanghai World Expo will also resume operation. People unable to visit the expo will have the opportunity to experience its combination of cultural creativity and high technology. In 1985, Japan's World Science and Technology Fair introduced advanced display systems and helped universalize digital technology. The 2005 Aichi Expo introduced a new concept of symbiosis for the earth and the environment. The 2019 Pavilion of Dreams at the Taipei Flora Expo was a memorable milestone that displayed the creative energy of Taiwan's art on the international stage.
Twenty-two cities and 28 organizations participated in the Flora Expo garden competition. Over a period of six months, the Taiwan Association of Flower Development received the most critical praise. It won both the top prize and the AIPH Award. The "Knowing Contentment Taiwan Bamboo Garden" showed off the unique character of Taiwan's tea plants and hydroponic flowers. Even the tea served at the entrance conveyed Taiwan's human touch. For many visitors, the greatest attraction was the sound of "Contentment," which expressed the view of life and the toughness of people on Taiwan.
In planning the closing ceremony, Taipei City encouraged public participation. A parade was held in the afternoon. A concert was held in the Da Jia Park Area. Fireworks as well as the night market carnival were the most beloved by the international community. One hundred fifty-two name brand vendors of street food gathered in a large park. Looed pork rice, oyster omelets, bean curd, pork ribs stewed in Chinese herbs, and deep fried chicken breasts were all readily available. The atmosphere in Taipei was joyous. A record nine million people visited. A new record was established that final day. Over 150,000 people attended in a single day. Everyone was excited to be part of the historic moment.
The curtain has rung down on a successful Flora Expo. At the same time, it is hard not to recall the ups and downs during the Expo opening. Society on Taiwan is pluralistic and open. The colorful Flora Expo was the victim of a very embarrassing situation. Prize-winning hydroponic flower growers were the target of smear campaigns by a handful of politicians, who accused them of squandering public money. During the past six months, everyone who has visited the expo has seen the care taken with the expo, how flowers are constantly replaced, rain or shine. They have all been able to see beautiful flowers in full bloom, vibrant green grass and trees. The fruits, vegetables, and flowers may have come with price tags. But creativity is priceless. Happiness is priceless. As people walk through the Flora Expo, they have only one feeling -- that 50 or 100 NT is a pittance for all the enjoyment they have experienced.
If the flowers and trees could talk they would tell people to please listen to their silent song, and not to the politicians' cacaphony. The noise emanating from politicians on Taiwan is too loud. It makes people forget the happiness and joy that surround them. Politics may paint everything either blue or green. But must we forget the other colors pleasing to the eye? The Flora Expo exhibits have put art and beauty well within our reach. This is something politicians who see only blue and green cannot see. Never mind noisy politicians. They are the biggest losers. They have lost the tranquility within their hearts.
The Flora Expo has ended. But the dream has not. Remember the pride of the moment. It was the pride of all Taiwan. Please remember how your heart was filled with of happiness. Taiwan is a treasure island that can make people happy. Cherish it, love it, No amount of political noise can stand in your way.
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！
2011-04-26 中國時報
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！展期長達半年的二○一○台北國際花卉博覽會昨日在煙花、歡樂 遊行、民眾踴躍參與的熱情中，圓滿閉幕。閉幕典禮上，ＡＩＰＨ國際園藝者協會主席法柏（Dr. Faber）再次盛讚台北花博是有史以來辦得最成功的一次花卉博覽會。回顧開幕時的紛紛擾擾，得來不易的果實更顯甜美。
身為花博主辦城市的大家長，台北市長郝龍斌獲ＡＩＰＨ頒贈榮譽金牌，平日嚴肅的他，難得引用清季詩人龔自珍的詩句：「落紅不是無情物，化作春泥更護花」，表達內心的感觸。走過花博籌辦歷程中的風風雨雨，郝龍斌百感交集之餘，必然更感謝台北市民的成熟，讓他順利通過選舉嚴苛的考驗，成為市民心目中，真正肯做事、能做事的市長。
郝龍斌把他的驕傲獻給所有花農、志工、文化表演者共同努力的所打造的成果，他更強調，所有展覽規畫全都是Made In Taiwan台灣製造，更值得台灣驕傲。
是的，花博確實值得全民驕傲！它不僅是中華民國第一次舉辦的國際展覽會，所有的元素都是ＭＩＴ（台灣製造），從設計、規畫、營運、布展、表演全部是台灣共同努的成果。這就是台灣的生命力、台灣的創造力，花博更具體呈現了台灣的軟實力。
花博最受歡迎的夢想館，還有生活天使館、未來館，都將繼續延長營運到明年，包括上海世博中頗受稱譽的台灣館的３Ｄ劇院和未來劇場，也都將在未來館重現，讓所有展期中未及參觀的民眾，還有機會親身體驗高科技與文創結合的美。一九八五年，日本世界科技博覽會率先展出的先進映象，帶動數位普及；二○○五年日本愛知博覽會，提出地球與環境共生的新概念；二○一○年台北花博夢想館，為台灣參與國際舞台、展現台灣藝術創作能量跨出值得記憶的里程碑。
花博寰宇庭園的花卉競賽，由廿二個國家、廿六個城市、廿八家機構參與，經過六個月，最受評審青睞的最大首獎及ＡＩＰＨ大獎，雙雙由台灣花卉發展協會奪得。「知『竹』常樂─台灣園」，展現了台灣特色的茶樹、水耕花卉，連入口處的奉茶，也充分傳達台灣的人情味，對許多參觀的民眾而言，更貼心的是「知足常樂」的諧音，充分表現台灣人的人生觀和韌性。
台北市以全民參與的方式，設計閉幕，從下午開始的遊行、大佳園區的演唱會、煙火，還有國際人士最喜愛的台灣夜市嘉年華，一百五十二家知名小吃齊聚大佳園區，魯肉飯、蚵仔煎、豆花、藥燉排骨、雞排一應俱全，幸福充滿台北的天空。九百萬人次的破紀錄參觀人數，在最後一天達到最高點，單日就突破十五萬人，所有的人都為自己能參與這個歷史性的時刻而亢奮。
花博光彩落幕的同時，很難不讓人想起花博開幕時的風風雨雨。台灣是一個多元開放的社會，彩色的花博，在開幕前後，卻遭遇極難堪的處境，得大獎的水耕花卉甚至曾被少數政客操作成為花博浪費公帑的箭靶，這半年之中，每一位前往參觀的民眾，親眼看到花農的用心，隨時替換新鮮花卉，不論晴雨，他們都能看到美麗飽滿的花朵綻放，生氣蓬勃的草地樹木，綠意盎然，草樹花卉蔬果有價，創意無價，幸福無價，民眾走在讓自己幸福滿溢的花博場區，只會有一種感覺，五十元、一百元對這些花草樹木都是貶抑。
如果花草樹木會說話，他們或許會向人們娓娓道來：請靜靜聆聽我無聲的歡唱，不要去聽政客的喧囂。是的，台灣政治噪音太大，往往使人們疏忽就在每個人身邊的幸福和快樂，何需因為政治上的藍或綠，忘記入眼即可得的彩色呢？花博展場的設計布展，讓藝術、美學觸手可得，這些哪裡是眼中只有藍綠之爭的政客看得到的呢？不必介意政客們的吵吵鬧鬧，因為損失最大的是他們，他們失去的是心中的平靜和安樂。
花博落幕，夢想不落幕！請記得此刻的驕傲，是全台灣人的驕傲；請記得心中滿滿的幸福感，台灣，是一個可以給人幸福快樂的寶地，珍惜它，愛護它，再多的政治喧囂，都不會再構成干擾。
Friday, April 22, 2011
Significance of Construction Halt On Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant
Significance of Construction Halt On Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2011
For the first time in decades, the central government has ordered construction halted on an investment project worth hundreds of billions of NT dollars, based on environmental protection, community aspirations, and other considerations. As important economic interests conflict with sustainable development, the government has forsaken short term advantage, in favor of sustainable development. We support and applaud President Ma's decisiveness. This decision may well mark a turning point in Taiwan's long-term development, from "development above all" to environmental protection and sustainable development. It represents the rise of a grass-roots movement on Taiwan, and a fresh beginning for social movements. After this, the government must be more careful about the negative impact on Taiwan's economy, industry, and business investment. It must attempt to turn deficits into assets.
Let us recall the decades long tug of war between economics and the environment. Without exception, both KMT and DPP administrations have backed the "development above all" policy one hundred percent. So-called environmental protection and sustainable development have long been mere window-dressing. Environmental groups ridiculed them as "mere lip service." Residents opposed to the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant in Ilan, Guanyin, and other locales, forced its relocation. But the central government never wavered. Eventually Yunlin was chosen. The DuPont, Bayer, and other investment projects died stillborn. The reason the central government withdrew its support was not environmental protection considerations. The reason was overwhelming public opposition. Manufacturers changed or canceled their plans. As for the Seventh Naphtha Cracking Plant, the company that developed it found itself in financial distress.
Both DPP and KMT administrations originally supported the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was a 600 billion NT investment. It would have created economic benefits, and led to direct and indirect job creation. But deficits invariably go hand in hand with assets. No matter how much technology may progress, the petrochemical industry remains a highly polluting, energy-hungry industry. Take the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant. The amount of water it consumes, and the amount of greenhouse gases it emits, make it the island's single largest source of pollution.
Kuo Kuang Petrochemical itself estimates the cost to society at around 219 billion NT. Other scholars estimate the cost at one trillion NT or more. Never mind which figure is closer to the facts. A trip to the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant in Yunlin will show how difficult it is for a large petrochemical plant to coexist with Mother Nature. For tiny Taiwan, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is an intolerable burden. Moreover, Taiwan has certain unique resources and assets. Taiwan ought to abandon its smokestack industry mentality, and move towards more refined, higher value-added, higher density knowledge industries. This is the best way out for Taiwan's economy and industries.
The government understands the economic and Industrial trends, as well as public sentiment. At this crucial moment, it has seized the initiative and decided to withdraw its support for the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant projet. For this it deserves credit. President Ma has announced that Changhua City, where the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was to be built, will become instead a wetlands park. This decision should be swiftly implemented.
We must also confront and accept the consequences of terminating the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, and the potential impact on Taiwan's industry and economic system. This involves two aspects. The first is the future of the petrochemical industry. Once the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is terminated, the possibility of another another naphtha cracking plant or large-scale petrochemical zone on Taiwan near zilch. The future of the petrochemical industry, of upstream, midstream, and downstream companies, all require proper government planning. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is relocated to the Mainland or Southeast Asia, the government must provide assistance. It must obtain the best investment conditions. It must draw up regulations that enable it to connect and interact with industries on Taiwan. It should, as much as possible, minimize the negative impact of relocation.
The second aspect is the overall state of the economy and industry. This is a six to seven billion NT investment. The medium and long term impact on the economy and industry will surely be negative. But from another perspective, the land, capital, and human resources not invested in the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, may be transferred to other industries. The government's plans for the six emerging industries, or local industries developing on their own initiative, and eco-tourism, can all take advantage of the opportunity. How will these industries develop and fill the gap left by the departure of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant? That will require government planning and support.
Note also the growing power of long silent grass roots social groups. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant controversy allowed them to regroup. They now show signs of reawakening. The DPP once supported these social groups. During the era of Democratic Progressive Party rule however, they fell silent and scattered with the winds. They collapsed and lost power. But the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant controversy has given them a new lease on life. They no longer march in lockstep with political parties. They go their own way. Political parties may crowd each other out. But they will no longer be able to view these groups as their auxiliaries. Instead, they will have to cope with these new and independent power centers. The ruling and opposition parties must realize this, and how they must interact with them.
國光石化停建的意義與影響
2011-04-23 中國時報
數十年來，這是第一次，面對一個數千億元的大型投資案，中央政府基於環保、社會民情等因素，主動終止喊停；也是第一次，當面臨重大經濟利益與永續發展有衝突時，政府毅然的捨眼前利益、就永續發展。對馬總統的決斷，我們深表支持與肯定；這個決策，更可能是台灣長期「唯發展派」勢力壓倒環保、永續發展派的轉折點，同時也是台灣草根力量、社運團體再出發的契機。而在此之後，對台灣經濟、產業、企業投資的負面影響，政府也必須更加用心擘畫，化此負面影響為正面回饋的結果。
回顧數十年經濟與環保「拔河史」，重大且具指標意義的經濟投資案，政府一直是百分之百「唯發展派」─不論是國民黨或民進黨執政，都毫無例外。所謂環保、永續發展，幾乎只是作為妝點門面用，甚至被環保團體譏為「背書」之用。六輕計畫雖遭宜蘭、觀音等地民眾反對而不斷變換地點，但中央的支持從來未動搖，最後也落腳雲林。杜邦、拜耳等投資案的夭折，原因也不在中央基於環保考量撤回對其支持，而是民間反對力量日盛，廠商決定改變或取消原計畫所致。至於七輕，更是開發廠商發生財務危機以致無疾而終。
這次的國光石化投資案，從民進黨執政到今天國民黨政府，原本也都站在支持立場；其著眼點，當然是一個六千億投資案，可帶動經濟效益，直接與間接創造的就業機會。但有效益就有成本，不論技術進步多少，石化產業終究是一個汙染較高、耗能也高的產業。從六輕例子看，其耗費的用水量、溫室氣體排放量，都是國內少有、單一最大的排放源。
國光石化本身估計其產業的社會成本大約是二一九億元，但其它學者估算則達千億元以上。不論那個數據較接近事實，到雲林六輕走一趟，大概就知道好山好水好空氣，終究是難與大型石化廠共存。國光石化，對地小人稠台灣而言，的確是難以承受的重擔。更何況，以台灣的資源條件與產業結構而言，台灣是該揚棄那種「廠廠相連到天邊、煙囪併肩與天齊」的產業思維，而走向更精緻、附加價值更高、知識密度更高的產業，這才是台灣經濟與產業最佳出路。
因此，對這次政府體察經濟、產業趨勢，及社會民情反應，在關鍵時刻，毅然主動宣布放棄對國光石化的支持，值得肯定；馬總統宣布原規畫國光石化落腳的彰化大城，將朝向溼地公園方向發展，值得加速推動。
不過，我們也必須面對並承受國光案終止後，對台灣產業與經濟可能的負面影響。這可分兩個層面來看。第一是石化產業的未來；國光終止後，代表台灣未來接受另外一個輕油裂解廠、大型石化專區設立的可能性己接近零，石化產業的未來走向、上中下游的關聯廠商之出路，都需要政府妥善規畫因應。國光石化民股如果決定走「異地投資」，不論是前往大陸、或東南亞國家，政府都該給予支持，協助其爭取好的投資條件，並規畫出其與台灣本地產業的聯結互動，儘可能降低其負面影響。
第二個層面是整體的經濟與產業。不能否認的是少了一個六、七千億元的重大投資案，對中長期經濟與產業必然有負面影響；但換個角度看，國內的土地、資金、人力等生產資源，並未投入國光石化案，正可轉作其它產業上。不論是政府規畫中的六大新興產業，或地方自行發展的地方特色、觀光生態產業，都可趁勢而起。但如何引領這些產業發展，填補國光石化不蓋的空缺，就需要政府的規畫與支持。
另外值得觀察的面向是：沈寂已久的地方草根力量與社運團體，在國光石化事件中，讓人看到重新集結、風雲再起的跡象。過去長期與民進黨互為支援的社運團體，在民進黨執政八年中，沈寂風散，力量潰失。但透過這次國光石化案，我們看到其再出發的新生命，而且不再與政黨結合，走出自己的路。未來不論政黨如何輪替，政黨再也不能視這些團體為自己的「外圍團體」般的利用，而須正視與面對這股新生而獨立的力量。朝野政黨皆該知之且知曉如何與其互動。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2011
For the first time in decades, the central government has ordered construction halted on an investment project worth hundreds of billions of NT dollars, based on environmental protection, community aspirations, and other considerations. As important economic interests conflict with sustainable development, the government has forsaken short term advantage, in favor of sustainable development. We support and applaud President Ma's decisiveness. This decision may well mark a turning point in Taiwan's long-term development, from "development above all" to environmental protection and sustainable development. It represents the rise of a grass-roots movement on Taiwan, and a fresh beginning for social movements. After this, the government must be more careful about the negative impact on Taiwan's economy, industry, and business investment. It must attempt to turn deficits into assets.
Let us recall the decades long tug of war between economics and the environment. Without exception, both KMT and DPP administrations have backed the "development above all" policy one hundred percent. So-called environmental protection and sustainable development have long been mere window-dressing. Environmental groups ridiculed them as "mere lip service." Residents opposed to the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant in Ilan, Guanyin, and other locales, forced its relocation. But the central government never wavered. Eventually Yunlin was chosen. The DuPont, Bayer, and other investment projects died stillborn. The reason the central government withdrew its support was not environmental protection considerations. The reason was overwhelming public opposition. Manufacturers changed or canceled their plans. As for the Seventh Naphtha Cracking Plant, the company that developed it found itself in financial distress.
Both DPP and KMT administrations originally supported the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was a 600 billion NT investment. It would have created economic benefits, and led to direct and indirect job creation. But deficits invariably go hand in hand with assets. No matter how much technology may progress, the petrochemical industry remains a highly polluting, energy-hungry industry. Take the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant. The amount of water it consumes, and the amount of greenhouse gases it emits, make it the island's single largest source of pollution.
Kuo Kuang Petrochemical itself estimates the cost to society at around 219 billion NT. Other scholars estimate the cost at one trillion NT or more. Never mind which figure is closer to the facts. A trip to the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant in Yunlin will show how difficult it is for a large petrochemical plant to coexist with Mother Nature. For tiny Taiwan, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is an intolerable burden. Moreover, Taiwan has certain unique resources and assets. Taiwan ought to abandon its smokestack industry mentality, and move towards more refined, higher value-added, higher density knowledge industries. This is the best way out for Taiwan's economy and industries.
The government understands the economic and Industrial trends, as well as public sentiment. At this crucial moment, it has seized the initiative and decided to withdraw its support for the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant projet. For this it deserves credit. President Ma has announced that Changhua City, where the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was to be built, will become instead a wetlands park. This decision should be swiftly implemented.
We must also confront and accept the consequences of terminating the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, and the potential impact on Taiwan's industry and economic system. This involves two aspects. The first is the future of the petrochemical industry. Once the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is terminated, the possibility of another another naphtha cracking plant or large-scale petrochemical zone on Taiwan near zilch. The future of the petrochemical industry, of upstream, midstream, and downstream companies, all require proper government planning. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is relocated to the Mainland or Southeast Asia, the government must provide assistance. It must obtain the best investment conditions. It must draw up regulations that enable it to connect and interact with industries on Taiwan. It should, as much as possible, minimize the negative impact of relocation.
The second aspect is the overall state of the economy and industry. This is a six to seven billion NT investment. The medium and long term impact on the economy and industry will surely be negative. But from another perspective, the land, capital, and human resources not invested in the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, may be transferred to other industries. The government's plans for the six emerging industries, or local industries developing on their own initiative, and eco-tourism, can all take advantage of the opportunity. How will these industries develop and fill the gap left by the departure of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant? That will require government planning and support.
Note also the growing power of long silent grass roots social groups. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant controversy allowed them to regroup. They now show signs of reawakening. The DPP once supported these social groups. During the era of Democratic Progressive Party rule however, they fell silent and scattered with the winds. They collapsed and lost power. But the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant controversy has given them a new lease on life. They no longer march in lockstep with political parties. They go their own way. Political parties may crowd each other out. But they will no longer be able to view these groups as their auxiliaries. Instead, they will have to cope with these new and independent power centers. The ruling and opposition parties must realize this, and how they must interact with them.
國光石化停建的意義與影響
2011-04-23 中國時報
數十年來，這是第一次，面對一個數千億元的大型投資案，中央政府基於環保、社會民情等因素，主動終止喊停；也是第一次，當面臨重大經濟利益與永續發展有衝突時，政府毅然的捨眼前利益、就永續發展。對馬總統的決斷，我們深表支持與肯定；這個決策，更可能是台灣長期「唯發展派」勢力壓倒環保、永續發展派的轉折點，同時也是台灣草根力量、社運團體再出發的契機。而在此之後，對台灣經濟、產業、企業投資的負面影響，政府也必須更加用心擘畫，化此負面影響為正面回饋的結果。
回顧數十年經濟與環保「拔河史」，重大且具指標意義的經濟投資案，政府一直是百分之百「唯發展派」─不論是國民黨或民進黨執政，都毫無例外。所謂環保、永續發展，幾乎只是作為妝點門面用，甚至被環保團體譏為「背書」之用。六輕計畫雖遭宜蘭、觀音等地民眾反對而不斷變換地點，但中央的支持從來未動搖，最後也落腳雲林。杜邦、拜耳等投資案的夭折，原因也不在中央基於環保考量撤回對其支持，而是民間反對力量日盛，廠商決定改變或取消原計畫所致。至於七輕，更是開發廠商發生財務危機以致無疾而終。
這次的國光石化投資案，從民進黨執政到今天國民黨政府，原本也都站在支持立場；其著眼點，當然是一個六千億投資案，可帶動經濟效益，直接與間接創造的就業機會。但有效益就有成本，不論技術進步多少，石化產業終究是一個汙染較高、耗能也高的產業。從六輕例子看，其耗費的用水量、溫室氣體排放量，都是國內少有、單一最大的排放源。
國光石化本身估計其產業的社會成本大約是二一九億元，但其它學者估算則達千億元以上。不論那個數據較接近事實，到雲林六輕走一趟，大概就知道好山好水好空氣，終究是難與大型石化廠共存。國光石化，對地小人稠台灣而言，的確是難以承受的重擔。更何況，以台灣的資源條件與產業結構而言，台灣是該揚棄那種「廠廠相連到天邊、煙囪併肩與天齊」的產業思維，而走向更精緻、附加價值更高、知識密度更高的產業，這才是台灣經濟與產業最佳出路。
因此，對這次政府體察經濟、產業趨勢，及社會民情反應，在關鍵時刻，毅然主動宣布放棄對國光石化的支持，值得肯定；馬總統宣布原規畫國光石化落腳的彰化大城，將朝向溼地公園方向發展，值得加速推動。
不過，我們也必須面對並承受國光案終止後，對台灣產業與經濟可能的負面影響。這可分兩個層面來看。第一是石化產業的未來；國光終止後，代表台灣未來接受另外一個輕油裂解廠、大型石化專區設立的可能性己接近零，石化產業的未來走向、上中下游的關聯廠商之出路，都需要政府妥善規畫因應。國光石化民股如果決定走「異地投資」，不論是前往大陸、或東南亞國家，政府都該給予支持，協助其爭取好的投資條件，並規畫出其與台灣本地產業的聯結互動，儘可能降低其負面影響。
第二個層面是整體的經濟與產業。不能否認的是少了一個六、七千億元的重大投資案，對中長期經濟與產業必然有負面影響；但換個角度看，國內的土地、資金、人力等生產資源，並未投入國光石化案，正可轉作其它產業上。不論是政府規畫中的六大新興產業，或地方自行發展的地方特色、觀光生態產業，都可趁勢而起。但如何引領這些產業發展，填補國光石化不蓋的空缺，就需要政府的規畫與支持。
另外值得觀察的面向是：沈寂已久的地方草根力量與社運團體，在國光石化事件中，讓人看到重新集結、風雲再起的跡象。過去長期與民進黨互為支援的社運團體，在民進黨執政八年中，沈寂風散，力量潰失。但透過這次國光石化案，我們看到其再出發的新生命，而且不再與政黨結合，走出自己的路。未來不論政黨如何輪替，政黨再也不能視這些團體為自己的「外圍團體」般的利用，而須正視與面對這股新生而獨立的力量。朝野政黨皆該知之且知曉如何與其互動。
Thursday, April 21, 2011
ECFA and East Asian Economic Integration
ECFA and East Asian Economic Integration
Opening Remarks by Tsai Hsun-hsiung,
Chairman of Sinotech Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Technology Economics Group
Translated by Bevin Chu
April 22, 2011
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Vice President Siew, foreign guests, ladies and gentlemen, how do you do!
One. The purpose of the seminar.
I am honored to be here as the opening speaker for the International Conference on ECFA and East Asian Economic Integration. The presence of so many important people, confirms that this is an important issue. In recent years, bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) between nations, or free trade zones formed by several nations, has become an unmistakable trend. In June 2010, Taipei and Beijing signed an historic cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement, or ECFA. These two developments have had a significant impact on cross-Strait economic exchanges and trade. But more than that, they have had a huge impact on East Asian trade. Therefore, inviting scholars from nations throughout East Asia and convening such a meeting at this time is particularly meaningful.
This symposium is the result of a research project, "The Republic of China's Strategy for Economic and Industrial Technology Cooperation with the Major Nations of East Asia," which was commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and carried out by the National Policy Foundation.
This research project addresses the era introduced by the signing of ECFA. It asks how the Republic of China can strengthen economic and industrial and technical cooperation with the major nations of East Asia. It explores the possibility of free trade agreements. This project was divided into three parts: Regional integration in the East Asian region and its impact on Taiwan's economic, industrial, and technological development. Economic, industrial, and technological cooperation strategy between the Republic of China and the major East Asian nations. Cross-Strait economic, industrial, and technological cooperation strategies under East Asian regional integration. We hope the completion of the project will help the Republic of China increase cooperation with East Asian nations. We hope the signing of the cross-Strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) will create new opportunities for economic cooperation with East Asian nations.
The research team has held three seminars on Taiwan. It has also visited think tanks and industrial research organizations in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. It has conducted highly fruitful, in-depth interviews. Today, scholars from many East Asian nations have been invited to Taiwan, to participate in an International Seminar on ECFA and Economic Integration in East Asia. We hope that domestic and foreign experts, including Ken Waller, Director of the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT University; Robert Scollay, Director of the New Zealand APEC Study Centre; Tong Yueting, Assistant Professor at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore; Somkiat Tangkitvanich, Vice President of the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation; Saowaruj Rattanakhamfu, Research Fellow with the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation; and Eiji Ogawa, Vice President of Hitotsubashi University; and others, will offer wide-ranging suggestions in response to the preliminary research results of our project.
Two. Taiwan has an excellent investment environment and provides a springboard by which to enter the Mainland market.
Taiwan is a tiny island, lacking in natural resources. Yet it is a leader in information technology. It is among the highest volume manufacturers of high quality industrial products in the world. It boasts geographical advantages, high-tech production capabilities, the ability to innovate, a friendly investment and business environment. It has abundant human resources, a solid industrial base, and the public infrastructure and tax structure of an advanced industrial nation. According to "2010 World Competitiveness," a report issued by the Lausanne International Institute for Management Development, the Republic of China ranked 8th in the world. It was the nation showing the greatest improvement. If other nations invest in Taiwan, or strengthen cooperation with the Republic of China, the rewards will be enormous.
Also, with the rise of Mainland China, other nations see valuable opportunities in the Mainland market. Taiwan and Mainland China provide an advantage, because they have the same language and culture. Taiwan has considerable experience investing in Mainland China. Therefore Taiwan is the best partner for foreign investors when entering the Mainland market. Foreign investors can benefit from this. They can strengthen cooperation with Taiwan, and form partnerships prior to entering the Mainland market. This enables them to benefit from a multiplier effect.
Taiwan offers tremendous advantages. It is well suited to becoming an international R & D center, a producer of high value added products, as well as a springboard for foreign investors entering the Mainland market. We hope that when our guests return home, they can speak on behalf of economic, industrial, and technical cooperation between the Republic of China and their own nations. We hope they will invest in Taiwan, and sign free trade agreements with the Republic of China.
Three. Conclusions
First, scholars from Australia, Singapore, Thailand, and Japan will issue a special report. Then research experts from the Republic of China will offer their own comments. The invited scholars from home and abroad, are all leaders in their own field. On behalf of this research project, they will provide solid logic and comprehensive analysis. The results will be well worth the wait.
Vice President Vincent Siew will deliver the keynote speech. Vice President Siew is my old boss. He has a wealth of experience. He was once Republic of China premier, a member of the Republic of China Legislature, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Minister of Economic Affairs, and Vice Chairman of the KMT. He is a veteran of the legislature and the diplomatic service. He is an expert in economics and trade, with extensive experience in political affairs, Mainland relations. and trade negotiations. He is eminently familiar with the theme of this conference. His presentation is certain to be fascinating.
Now let us give a hearty welcome to Vice President Siew, who will deliver the keynote speech!
蔡董事長勳雄出席「ECFA與東亞經濟整合」國際學術研討會開幕致詞參考稿
（Opening Ceremony, Tsai, Hsung-Hsiung
Chairman, Sinotech Engineering Concultants, INC）
科技經濟組
蕭副總統、遠道而來的各位國外貴賓、各位女士、各位先生，大家好！
一、舉辦此次研討會的目的
今天本人很榮幸能受邀擔任ECFA與東亞經濟整合國際學術研討會的開幕致詞貴賓。看到在場這麼有多人參與盛會，就知道這個議題的重要了。近年來，兩國間簽訂自由貿易協定（FTA），或是於區域間成立自由貿易區已經蔚為潮流，台灣與中國大陸也於去（2010）年六月簽署具有歷史意義的兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA），這二件大事不但對兩岸經貿發展有重大影響，亦對東亞經貿產生很大的影響，因此，在此時邀請東亞各國學者，召開此一會議，特別具有意義。
這次研討會的召開，主要是經濟部技術處委託財團法人國家政策研究基金會所進行的「我國與東亞主要國家經濟與產業技術合作策略」研究計畫，該項研究計畫主要係探討後ECFA時代，台灣如何與東亞主要國家進一步加強經濟與產業技術合作，甚至探討與其簽訂自由貿易協定的可能性。計畫分為三個子計畫，分別為：東亞區域整合趨勢下對於台灣經濟與產業技術發展影響之探討、台灣與東亞主要國家之經濟及產業技術合作策略，以及東亞區域整合下兩岸經濟及產業技術合作策略等。計畫完成後，預期將有助於我國推動與東亞各國深入合作，並透過兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA）簽署的機會，尋求台灣在東亞地區的經濟合作新契機。
研究團隊已經在國內舉行三場座談會，並分赴日本、南韓、新加坡、泰國、紐西蘭、澳洲、菲律賓與馬來西亞等國的智庫與產業研究單位，進行深入的訪談，成果相當豐碩。今天更邀請東亞各國的學者來台灣，舉行ECFA與東亞經濟整合國際研討會，希望透過國內外專家包括澳洲RMIT 大學APEC研究中心執行長Ken Waller（Director, the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT University）；紐西蘭APEC研究中心執行長Robert Scollay（Director, New Zealand APEC Study Centre）；新加坡國立大學東亞研究中心童月婷助理教授（Tong Yueting：Assistant Professor, East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore）；泰國發展研究院的Somkiat Tangkitvanich副院長（Vice President, Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation）與Saowaruj Rattanakhamfu研究員（Research Fellow, Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation）；及日本一橋大學Eiji Ogawa副校長（Vice President, Hitotsubashi University）等人的討論，對於我們這次計畫的初步研究成果，提供廣泛的建議。
二、台灣擁有優異的投資環境並為進軍大陸市場跳板
台灣縱然僅是蕞爾小島，缺乏天然資源，卻是全球知名的資訊科技大國，諸多產品產量高居世界第一，具有優越的區位優勢、高科技產業生產與創新能力、友善的投資與經營環境，並在人力資源、產業基礎、公共基礎建設及租稅等層面，皆具有先進國家的條件與水準。根據瑞士洛桑管理學院公布的「2010年世界競爭力」排名，台灣排名世界第8名，是進步最大的國家。各國若能來台投資或與台灣在個領域加強合作，效益將十分可期。
此外，面對中國大陸的崛起，各國均覬覦大陸上場的龐大商機。而台灣與中國大陸具有同文同種的優勢，台灣在大陸投資經驗相當豐富。因此台商可謂是外商進軍中國大陸的最佳伙伴，外商若能善加利用此一特性，加強與台商合作，並肩合作進軍大陸市場，必能達到事半功倍的效果。
由於台灣優異的條件與背景，相當適合成為國際研發與設計中心，與生產高附加價值產品，並為外商進軍大陸市場的跳板。希望各位外賓回國後，能代為宣傳，以促進台灣與各國的經濟與產業技術合作、來台灣投資，並與台灣簽訂自由貿易協定。
三、結語
今日研討會的進行，將先由澳洲、澳洲、新加坡、泰國及日本等國的學者發表專題報告，再由我國研究該區域的專家提出評論。此次邀請的國內外的學者，均是該領域研究的翹楚，為了這個研究案，他們又進行了扎實而完整的思考及探索，內容頗值得期待。
今日的會議，首先，請蕭萬長副總統為大家進行一場專題演講，蕭副總統是我的老長官，閱歷相當豐富，曾任中華民國行政院院長、立法委員、大陸委員會主任委員、經濟部部長與中國國民黨副主席，兼具國會、外交、經貿、大陸事務與政黨事務經歷，而在經貿談判的事務上，更有豐富的經歷，對於本次學術研討會的主題相當熟悉，演講內容勢必相當精采。
以下就讓我們以最熱烈的掌聲歡迎蕭副總統為我們所進行專題演講！
Opening Remarks by Tsai Hsun-hsiung,
Chairman of Sinotech Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Technology Economics Group
Translated by Bevin Chu
April 22, 2011
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
Vice President Siew, foreign guests, ladies and gentlemen, how do you do!
One. The purpose of the seminar.
I am honored to be here as the opening speaker for the International Conference on ECFA and East Asian Economic Integration. The presence of so many important people, confirms that this is an important issue. In recent years, bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) between nations, or free trade zones formed by several nations, has become an unmistakable trend. In June 2010, Taipei and Beijing signed an historic cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement, or ECFA. These two developments have had a significant impact on cross-Strait economic exchanges and trade. But more than that, they have had a huge impact on East Asian trade. Therefore, inviting scholars from nations throughout East Asia and convening such a meeting at this time is particularly meaningful.
This symposium is the result of a research project, "The Republic of China's Strategy for Economic and Industrial Technology Cooperation with the Major Nations of East Asia," which was commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and carried out by the National Policy Foundation.
This research project addresses the era introduced by the signing of ECFA. It asks how the Republic of China can strengthen economic and industrial and technical cooperation with the major nations of East Asia. It explores the possibility of free trade agreements. This project was divided into three parts: Regional integration in the East Asian region and its impact on Taiwan's economic, industrial, and technological development. Economic, industrial, and technological cooperation strategy between the Republic of China and the major East Asian nations. Cross-Strait economic, industrial, and technological cooperation strategies under East Asian regional integration. We hope the completion of the project will help the Republic of China increase cooperation with East Asian nations. We hope the signing of the cross-Strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) will create new opportunities for economic cooperation with East Asian nations.
The research team has held three seminars on Taiwan. It has also visited think tanks and industrial research organizations in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. It has conducted highly fruitful, in-depth interviews. Today, scholars from many East Asian nations have been invited to Taiwan, to participate in an International Seminar on ECFA and Economic Integration in East Asia. We hope that domestic and foreign experts, including Ken Waller, Director of the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT University; Robert Scollay, Director of the New Zealand APEC Study Centre; Tong Yueting, Assistant Professor at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore; Somkiat Tangkitvanich, Vice President of the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation; Saowaruj Rattanakhamfu, Research Fellow with the Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation; and Eiji Ogawa, Vice President of Hitotsubashi University; and others, will offer wide-ranging suggestions in response to the preliminary research results of our project.
Two. Taiwan has an excellent investment environment and provides a springboard by which to enter the Mainland market.
Taiwan is a tiny island, lacking in natural resources. Yet it is a leader in information technology. It is among the highest volume manufacturers of high quality industrial products in the world. It boasts geographical advantages, high-tech production capabilities, the ability to innovate, a friendly investment and business environment. It has abundant human resources, a solid industrial base, and the public infrastructure and tax structure of an advanced industrial nation. According to "2010 World Competitiveness," a report issued by the Lausanne International Institute for Management Development, the Republic of China ranked 8th in the world. It was the nation showing the greatest improvement. If other nations invest in Taiwan, or strengthen cooperation with the Republic of China, the rewards will be enormous.
Also, with the rise of Mainland China, other nations see valuable opportunities in the Mainland market. Taiwan and Mainland China provide an advantage, because they have the same language and culture. Taiwan has considerable experience investing in Mainland China. Therefore Taiwan is the best partner for foreign investors when entering the Mainland market. Foreign investors can benefit from this. They can strengthen cooperation with Taiwan, and form partnerships prior to entering the Mainland market. This enables them to benefit from a multiplier effect.
Taiwan offers tremendous advantages. It is well suited to becoming an international R & D center, a producer of high value added products, as well as a springboard for foreign investors entering the Mainland market. We hope that when our guests return home, they can speak on behalf of economic, industrial, and technical cooperation between the Republic of China and their own nations. We hope they will invest in Taiwan, and sign free trade agreements with the Republic of China.
Three. Conclusions
First, scholars from Australia, Singapore, Thailand, and Japan will issue a special report. Then research experts from the Republic of China will offer their own comments. The invited scholars from home and abroad, are all leaders in their own field. On behalf of this research project, they will provide solid logic and comprehensive analysis. The results will be well worth the wait.
Vice President Vincent Siew will deliver the keynote speech. Vice President Siew is my old boss. He has a wealth of experience. He was once Republic of China premier, a member of the Republic of China Legislature, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Minister of Economic Affairs, and Vice Chairman of the KMT. He is a veteran of the legislature and the diplomatic service. He is an expert in economics and trade, with extensive experience in political affairs, Mainland relations. and trade negotiations. He is eminently familiar with the theme of this conference. His presentation is certain to be fascinating.
Now let us give a hearty welcome to Vice President Siew, who will deliver the keynote speech!
蔡董事長勳雄出席「ECFA與東亞經濟整合」國際學術研討會開幕致詞參考稿
（Opening Ceremony, Tsai, Hsung-Hsiung
Chairman, Sinotech Engineering Concultants, INC）
科技經濟組
蕭副總統、遠道而來的各位國外貴賓、各位女士、各位先生，大家好！
一、舉辦此次研討會的目的
今天本人很榮幸能受邀擔任ECFA與東亞經濟整合國際學術研討會的開幕致詞貴賓。看到在場這麼有多人參與盛會，就知道這個議題的重要了。近年來，兩國間簽訂自由貿易協定（FTA），或是於區域間成立自由貿易區已經蔚為潮流，台灣與中國大陸也於去（2010）年六月簽署具有歷史意義的兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA），這二件大事不但對兩岸經貿發展有重大影響，亦對東亞經貿產生很大的影響，因此，在此時邀請東亞各國學者，召開此一會議，特別具有意義。
這次研討會的召開，主要是經濟部技術處委託財團法人國家政策研究基金會所進行的「我國與東亞主要國家經濟與產業技術合作策略」研究計畫，該項研究計畫主要係探討後ECFA時代，台灣如何與東亞主要國家進一步加強經濟與產業技術合作，甚至探討與其簽訂自由貿易協定的可能性。計畫分為三個子計畫，分別為：東亞區域整合趨勢下對於台灣經濟與產業技術發展影響之探討、台灣與東亞主要國家之經濟及產業技術合作策略，以及東亞區域整合下兩岸經濟及產業技術合作策略等。計畫完成後，預期將有助於我國推動與東亞各國深入合作，並透過兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA）簽署的機會，尋求台灣在東亞地區的經濟合作新契機。
研究團隊已經在國內舉行三場座談會，並分赴日本、南韓、新加坡、泰國、紐西蘭、澳洲、菲律賓與馬來西亞等國的智庫與產業研究單位，進行深入的訪談，成果相當豐碩。今天更邀請東亞各國的學者來台灣，舉行ECFA與東亞經濟整合國際研討會，希望透過國內外專家包括澳洲RMIT 大學APEC研究中心執行長Ken Waller（Director, the Australian APEC Study Centre at RMIT University）；紐西蘭APEC研究中心執行長Robert Scollay（Director, New Zealand APEC Study Centre）；新加坡國立大學東亞研究中心童月婷助理教授（Tong Yueting：Assistant Professor, East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore）；泰國發展研究院的Somkiat Tangkitvanich副院長（Vice President, Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation）與Saowaruj Rattanakhamfu研究員（Research Fellow, Thailand Development Research Institute Foundation）；及日本一橋大學Eiji Ogawa副校長（Vice President, Hitotsubashi University）等人的討論，對於我們這次計畫的初步研究成果，提供廣泛的建議。
二、台灣擁有優異的投資環境並為進軍大陸市場跳板
台灣縱然僅是蕞爾小島，缺乏天然資源，卻是全球知名的資訊科技大國，諸多產品產量高居世界第一，具有優越的區位優勢、高科技產業生產與創新能力、友善的投資與經營環境，並在人力資源、產業基礎、公共基礎建設及租稅等層面，皆具有先進國家的條件與水準。根據瑞士洛桑管理學院公布的「2010年世界競爭力」排名，台灣排名世界第8名，是進步最大的國家。各國若能來台投資或與台灣在個領域加強合作，效益將十分可期。
此外，面對中國大陸的崛起，各國均覬覦大陸上場的龐大商機。而台灣與中國大陸具有同文同種的優勢，台灣在大陸投資經驗相當豐富。因此台商可謂是外商進軍中國大陸的最佳伙伴，外商若能善加利用此一特性，加強與台商合作，並肩合作進軍大陸市場，必能達到事半功倍的效果。
由於台灣優異的條件與背景，相當適合成為國際研發與設計中心，與生產高附加價值產品，並為外商進軍大陸市場的跳板。希望各位外賓回國後，能代為宣傳，以促進台灣與各國的經濟與產業技術合作、來台灣投資，並與台灣簽訂自由貿易協定。
三、結語
今日研討會的進行，將先由澳洲、澳洲、新加坡、泰國及日本等國的學者發表專題報告，再由我國研究該區域的專家提出評論。此次邀請的國內外的學者，均是該領域研究的翹楚，為了這個研究案，他們又進行了扎實而完整的思考及探索，內容頗值得期待。
今日的會議，首先，請蕭萬長副總統為大家進行一場專題演講，蕭副總統是我的老長官，閱歷相當豐富，曾任中華民國行政院院長、立法委員、大陸委員會主任委員、經濟部部長與中國國民黨副主席，兼具國會、外交、經貿、大陸事務與政黨事務經歷，而在經貿談判的事務上，更有豐富的經歷，對於本次學術研討會的主題相當熟悉，演講內容勢必相當精采。
以下就讓我們以最熱烈的掌聲歡迎蕭副總統為我們所進行專題演講！
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Severe Test of Constitutionality of Combined Elections
Severe Test of Constitutionality of Combined Elections
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2011
As expected, the Central Election Commission has reached a decision. It has confirmed that the 2012 presidential and legislative elections will be combined. The DPP is making a great show of denouncing the decision. In fact it is only too happy with the result. For the first time in the Republic of China's history, the presidential and legislative elections will be combined. This will affect how the ruling and opposition parties mobilize. This may lead to constitutional crisis next year.
The Central Election Commission has decided to combine the elections, mainly because combined elections save money. Voters will no longer need to trudge down to the polls twice in two months. This will reduce the need for political mobilization, and avoid unnecessary friction. These are real advantages that can be gained by combining elections. According to a poll commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior, 60% of the public favors combining elections.
Elections are held on Taiwan every year. They upset the public. Political insiders are concerned as well. Short-term electoral pressures encourage populism, and make it impossible for the administration and legislature to engage in rational policy making and debate. Take tax policy for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers. The policy underwent years of planning. But each time election season came around, the process came to a screeching halt. It was only finalized last year. Former Director of Health Insurance Yang Chi-liang's attempts to implement second generation health care were repeatedly frustrated, He was so angry he declared that the biggest problem on Taiwan was annual elections.
The Central Election Commission has decided to combine elections. The Ma administration says it will promote additional reforms simplifying and combining elections. In principle, elections will take place once every two years. The first will be a central government election. The second will be a local level election. Seven elections were scheduled for 2014. They will be reduced to two. There is nothing wrong with this general direction. But lest we forget, four years ago the Chen administration made the same proposal. It failed to pass. The reason was that the DPP presidential candidate wanted to form alliances with local KMT factions. As a result, they finally decided to hold separate elections. Currently the ruling party is pushing for combined elections. It may have far-sighted ideals. But it is rushing the measure through the system. The necessary ancillary measures have not been considered. This is probably the result of election considerations.
The real reason however, is that the KMT was too successful during the previous legislative elections. It won over two thirds of the seats. By contrast, during the municipal elections and legislative by-elections two years ago, the KMT lost repeatedly. Disaffected Blue Camp voters stayed away from the polls in droves. Combined elections may increase voter turnout. They may prevent the KMT's presidential candidate from being dragged down, in the event KMT legislators suffer a defeat just before the presidential election. The KMT has been careful in its calculations. The DPP has feigned outrage at the KMT. In fact the DPP is highly adept at coordinated electioneering. The presidential election may help DPP legislative candidates increase their visibility. It may help the DPP win an absolute majority in the legislature.
The two parties conspired with each other. They deliberately ignored important institutional considerations. First, four months separate the presidential election and the inauguration. Central Election Commission Chairman Chang Po-ya said that the constitution and the law are clear on how the government must operate. Even a change in ruling parties is not going to lead to a constitutional crisis, to a lame duck in the presidential palace. Can a caretaker government that respects the Constitution respond to a sudden crisis that might occur at any moment under globalization? These include new strains of influenza, inflation, and financial crises. People are extremely skeptical. Never mind that two ruling party changes led to caretaker governments meddling in personnel appointments, and the destruction of official documents. If a government that does not respect the constitution, is permitted to act as a caretaker for up to four months, the risks to the nation will be inestimable.
In fact, this four month lame duck period is more than a crisis management problem. It also affects the constitutional process. According to the constitution, the cabinet must resign before the opening session of the new legislature on February 1. The president must re-nominate the premier. If President Ma successfully wins reelection, and the KMT maintains an absolute majority in the legislature, the problem will be relatively simple. But suppose President Ma fails to win reelection? Even if the KMT maintains an absolute majority in the legislature, the cabinet would have to resign, in accordance with established precedent. Would the outgoing president still have the authority to nominate a new cabinet?
Suppose the outgoing president wants to leave the decision to the incoming president. He might refer to another constitutional precedent. In January 2008, the DPP was routed in the legislative election. In accordance with constitutional precedent, Chang Chun-hsiung's cabinet resigned. But then president Chen Shui-bian refused to accept their resignations. He offered five reason why he was not constitutionally obligated to accept their resignations. He attempted to establish a new constitutional precedent. But at the time a new president had yet to be elected. The president still had the right to turn down cabinet resignations. By contrast, when the new legislature takes office in 2012, a new president will already have been elected. Wil the defeated outgoing president still have the authority to turn down cabinet resignations? These are slippery constitutional questions. Never mind what would happen if the KMT lost both the presidential and legislative elections. The government might well find itself idled for four months.
Consider current developments. We lack a complete set of ancillary measures. The presidential and legislative elections must be combined. But the ruling and opposition parties are locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. They have aggressively promoted the "Bill for the Transfer of Presidential and Vice Presidential Authority" in the legislature. Its provisions cover currently serving presidents who failed to win reelection, and cabinet officials who have not been reappointed. These lame ducks may not make civil service appointments. They must freeze all major policies. But this is not the root of the problem. The ruling and opposition parties must communicate and consult with each other. They must seek consensus. They must deliberate on whether to amend the constitution. They must resolve the problems created by the combined elections and the lame duck period.
合併選舉嚴重考驗憲政運作
2011-04-21 中國時報
一如預期，中選會最後拍板定案，確定二○一二年總統、立委選舉將合併舉行，民進黨表面痛批，其實是樂觀其成。可以說，中華民國史上首次的總統、立委合併選舉已經箭在弦上，這不但衝擊朝野動員的選舉型態，也對明年的憲政運作造成很大的考驗。
這次中選會決定合併的最主要根據是，合併選舉可以節省經費，選民不用在短短兩個月之內兩次奔波投票所，更可減少政治動員，避免無謂內耗；確實，這些都是合併選舉的優點，依照內政部民調，高達六成一的民眾贊成合併選舉。
台灣年年選舉，不只民眾深受其擾，有識之士也擔憂，短期的選舉壓力讓政治更民粹化，讓政府、國會無法理性的規畫、討論政策；如過去的軍公教課稅，規畫多年，但一碰到選舉就緊急煞車，一直到去年才定案；前衛生署長楊志良屢推二代健保都受挫，他氣得宣稱，台灣最大的問題，就是年年選舉。
因此，除了中選會決定合併選舉，馬政府強調將進一步改革簡併選舉，原則上未來選舉將兩年一次，一次選中央公職，一次選地方公職，將二○一四年前原定的七次選舉，簡化為二次選舉，此一大方向無可厚非，但大家如果不健忘，回顧四年前，當時的扁政府亦曾提出同樣主張，之所以未能落實，則是因為民進黨總統候選人希望能與國民黨地方派系合縱連橫，因此最後還是決定分開選舉；同樣的，這次執政黨力推合併選舉，雖然有宏遠的理想，但之所以倉卒成軍，未能籌畫配套措施，其實難脫選舉考量。
最直接的因素是，國民黨在上次立委選舉選得太好，超過三分之二席次，相對的，從前年的縣市長選舉、立委補選，國民黨卻是連選連敗，關鍵因素是藍營選民冷淡失望不願投票，若能合併選舉，一來可拉高投票率，二來則可避免立委先選先敗，西瓜效應波及總統大選。國民黨精打細算，民進黨則是批得言不由衷，因為民進黨最擅長聯合造勢，合併選舉可說是正中下懷，藉總統大選拉抬立委聲勢，正好可以衝刺國會過半的戰略目標。
可嘆的是，在兩黨的共謀中，制度性的因素完全被刻意忽視。首先，針對總統選舉與就職之間，長達四個月，即使如中選會主委張博雅所說，憲法與法律對政府運作有明確規範，即使政黨輪替也不會有憲政空窗期問題，但一個遵憲的看守政府，能不能因應全球化隨時出現、快速蔓延的危機，如新流感、通貨膨脹、金融風暴等，都令人相當懷疑；更別說，過去兩次政黨輪替都曾出現看守政府安插人事、銷毀資料等作為，如果一個不遵憲的政府，可以看守長達四個月，對國家體制的風險將難以估計。
其實，這四個月之所以稱為「憲政空窗期」，還不只是危機處理的能力而已，而是牽動更重要的憲政時程。因為，依憲政慣例，內閣必須在二月一日新國會開議前提出總辭，總統必須重新提名閣揆，如果馬總統順利連任，國民黨也能維持國會過半多數，狀況相對單純；但假如馬總統並未順利連任，即使國會過半，屆時，內閣依慣例總辭，「舊」總統是否具有提名的正當性？
總統若想要將這個決定留給新總統，可以參考另一個憲政慣例，二○○八年一月民進黨立委大敗，張俊雄率內閣依憲政慣例提出總辭，當時的總統陳水扁退回總辭，並以「非憲政義務」等五點理由，重建憲政慣例。只是，當時新總統尚未選出，總統尚有退回總辭的正當性；相對的，二○一二年新國會就職的同時，也已選出新總統，敗選的現任總統是否有足夠的權威可以退回內閣總辭，都是相當棘手的憲政問題；更別說，如果是國民黨同時輸掉總統與立委大選，政府可能真的要空轉四個月。
依照目前情勢發展，即使沒有完整的配套措施，總統、立委合併選舉已經勢在必行，朝野政黨的亡羊補牢之計，則是積極展開《總統副總統職務交接條例草案》的立法程序，規定未連任的總統及內閣，不得任用調遷公務員、並凍結重大政策變更；只是，這仍非治本之道，朝野未來仍須溝通協商、尋求共識，研議是否透過修憲手段，來化解合併選舉造成的憲政扞格及空窗期等問題。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2011
As expected, the Central Election Commission has reached a decision. It has confirmed that the 2012 presidential and legislative elections will be combined. The DPP is making a great show of denouncing the decision. In fact it is only too happy with the result. For the first time in the Republic of China's history, the presidential and legislative elections will be combined. This will affect how the ruling and opposition parties mobilize. This may lead to constitutional crisis next year.
The Central Election Commission has decided to combine the elections, mainly because combined elections save money. Voters will no longer need to trudge down to the polls twice in two months. This will reduce the need for political mobilization, and avoid unnecessary friction. These are real advantages that can be gained by combining elections. According to a poll commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior, 60% of the public favors combining elections.
Elections are held on Taiwan every year. They upset the public. Political insiders are concerned as well. Short-term electoral pressures encourage populism, and make it impossible for the administration and legislature to engage in rational policy making and debate. Take tax policy for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers. The policy underwent years of planning. But each time election season came around, the process came to a screeching halt. It was only finalized last year. Former Director of Health Insurance Yang Chi-liang's attempts to implement second generation health care were repeatedly frustrated, He was so angry he declared that the biggest problem on Taiwan was annual elections.
The Central Election Commission has decided to combine elections. The Ma administration says it will promote additional reforms simplifying and combining elections. In principle, elections will take place once every two years. The first will be a central government election. The second will be a local level election. Seven elections were scheduled for 2014. They will be reduced to two. There is nothing wrong with this general direction. But lest we forget, four years ago the Chen administration made the same proposal. It failed to pass. The reason was that the DPP presidential candidate wanted to form alliances with local KMT factions. As a result, they finally decided to hold separate elections. Currently the ruling party is pushing for combined elections. It may have far-sighted ideals. But it is rushing the measure through the system. The necessary ancillary measures have not been considered. This is probably the result of election considerations.
The real reason however, is that the KMT was too successful during the previous legislative elections. It won over two thirds of the seats. By contrast, during the municipal elections and legislative by-elections two years ago, the KMT lost repeatedly. Disaffected Blue Camp voters stayed away from the polls in droves. Combined elections may increase voter turnout. They may prevent the KMT's presidential candidate from being dragged down, in the event KMT legislators suffer a defeat just before the presidential election. The KMT has been careful in its calculations. The DPP has feigned outrage at the KMT. In fact the DPP is highly adept at coordinated electioneering. The presidential election may help DPP legislative candidates increase their visibility. It may help the DPP win an absolute majority in the legislature.
The two parties conspired with each other. They deliberately ignored important institutional considerations. First, four months separate the presidential election and the inauguration. Central Election Commission Chairman Chang Po-ya said that the constitution and the law are clear on how the government must operate. Even a change in ruling parties is not going to lead to a constitutional crisis, to a lame duck in the presidential palace. Can a caretaker government that respects the Constitution respond to a sudden crisis that might occur at any moment under globalization? These include new strains of influenza, inflation, and financial crises. People are extremely skeptical. Never mind that two ruling party changes led to caretaker governments meddling in personnel appointments, and the destruction of official documents. If a government that does not respect the constitution, is permitted to act as a caretaker for up to four months, the risks to the nation will be inestimable.
In fact, this four month lame duck period is more than a crisis management problem. It also affects the constitutional process. According to the constitution, the cabinet must resign before the opening session of the new legislature on February 1. The president must re-nominate the premier. If President Ma successfully wins reelection, and the KMT maintains an absolute majority in the legislature, the problem will be relatively simple. But suppose President Ma fails to win reelection? Even if the KMT maintains an absolute majority in the legislature, the cabinet would have to resign, in accordance with established precedent. Would the outgoing president still have the authority to nominate a new cabinet?
Suppose the outgoing president wants to leave the decision to the incoming president. He might refer to another constitutional precedent. In January 2008, the DPP was routed in the legislative election. In accordance with constitutional precedent, Chang Chun-hsiung's cabinet resigned. But then president Chen Shui-bian refused to accept their resignations. He offered five reason why he was not constitutionally obligated to accept their resignations. He attempted to establish a new constitutional precedent. But at the time a new president had yet to be elected. The president still had the right to turn down cabinet resignations. By contrast, when the new legislature takes office in 2012, a new president will already have been elected. Wil the defeated outgoing president still have the authority to turn down cabinet resignations? These are slippery constitutional questions. Never mind what would happen if the KMT lost both the presidential and legislative elections. The government might well find itself idled for four months.
Consider current developments. We lack a complete set of ancillary measures. The presidential and legislative elections must be combined. But the ruling and opposition parties are locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. They have aggressively promoted the "Bill for the Transfer of Presidential and Vice Presidential Authority" in the legislature. Its provisions cover currently serving presidents who failed to win reelection, and cabinet officials who have not been reappointed. These lame ducks may not make civil service appointments. They must freeze all major policies. But this is not the root of the problem. The ruling and opposition parties must communicate and consult with each other. They must seek consensus. They must deliberate on whether to amend the constitution. They must resolve the problems created by the combined elections and the lame duck period.
合併選舉嚴重考驗憲政運作
2011-04-21 中國時報
一如預期，中選會最後拍板定案，確定二○一二年總統、立委選舉將合併舉行，民進黨表面痛批，其實是樂觀其成。可以說，中華民國史上首次的總統、立委合併選舉已經箭在弦上，這不但衝擊朝野動員的選舉型態，也對明年的憲政運作造成很大的考驗。
這次中選會決定合併的最主要根據是，合併選舉可以節省經費，選民不用在短短兩個月之內兩次奔波投票所，更可減少政治動員，避免無謂內耗；確實，這些都是合併選舉的優點，依照內政部民調，高達六成一的民眾贊成合併選舉。
台灣年年選舉，不只民眾深受其擾，有識之士也擔憂，短期的選舉壓力讓政治更民粹化，讓政府、國會無法理性的規畫、討論政策；如過去的軍公教課稅，規畫多年，但一碰到選舉就緊急煞車，一直到去年才定案；前衛生署長楊志良屢推二代健保都受挫，他氣得宣稱，台灣最大的問題，就是年年選舉。
因此，除了中選會決定合併選舉，馬政府強調將進一步改革簡併選舉，原則上未來選舉將兩年一次，一次選中央公職，一次選地方公職，將二○一四年前原定的七次選舉，簡化為二次選舉，此一大方向無可厚非，但大家如果不健忘，回顧四年前，當時的扁政府亦曾提出同樣主張，之所以未能落實，則是因為民進黨總統候選人希望能與國民黨地方派系合縱連橫，因此最後還是決定分開選舉；同樣的，這次執政黨力推合併選舉，雖然有宏遠的理想，但之所以倉卒成軍，未能籌畫配套措施，其實難脫選舉考量。
最直接的因素是，國民黨在上次立委選舉選得太好，超過三分之二席次，相對的，從前年的縣市長選舉、立委補選，國民黨卻是連選連敗，關鍵因素是藍營選民冷淡失望不願投票，若能合併選舉，一來可拉高投票率，二來則可避免立委先選先敗，西瓜效應波及總統大選。國民黨精打細算，民進黨則是批得言不由衷，因為民進黨最擅長聯合造勢，合併選舉可說是正中下懷，藉總統大選拉抬立委聲勢，正好可以衝刺國會過半的戰略目標。
可嘆的是，在兩黨的共謀中，制度性的因素完全被刻意忽視。首先，針對總統選舉與就職之間，長達四個月，即使如中選會主委張博雅所說，憲法與法律對政府運作有明確規範，即使政黨輪替也不會有憲政空窗期問題，但一個遵憲的看守政府，能不能因應全球化隨時出現、快速蔓延的危機，如新流感、通貨膨脹、金融風暴等，都令人相當懷疑；更別說，過去兩次政黨輪替都曾出現看守政府安插人事、銷毀資料等作為，如果一個不遵憲的政府，可以看守長達四個月，對國家體制的風險將難以估計。
其實，這四個月之所以稱為「憲政空窗期」，還不只是危機處理的能力而已，而是牽動更重要的憲政時程。因為，依憲政慣例，內閣必須在二月一日新國會開議前提出總辭，總統必須重新提名閣揆，如果馬總統順利連任，國民黨也能維持國會過半多數，狀況相對單純；但假如馬總統並未順利連任，即使國會過半，屆時，內閣依慣例總辭，「舊」總統是否具有提名的正當性？
總統若想要將這個決定留給新總統，可以參考另一個憲政慣例，二○○八年一月民進黨立委大敗，張俊雄率內閣依憲政慣例提出總辭，當時的總統陳水扁退回總辭，並以「非憲政義務」等五點理由，重建憲政慣例。只是，當時新總統尚未選出，總統尚有退回總辭的正當性；相對的，二○一二年新國會就職的同時，也已選出新總統，敗選的現任總統是否有足夠的權威可以退回內閣總辭，都是相當棘手的憲政問題；更別說，如果是國民黨同時輸掉總統與立委大選，政府可能真的要空轉四個月。
依照目前情勢發展，即使沒有完整的配套措施，總統、立委合併選舉已經勢在必行，朝野政黨的亡羊補牢之計，則是積極展開《總統副總統職務交接條例草案》的立法程序，規定未連任的總統及內閣，不得任用調遷公務員、並凍結重大政策變更；只是，這仍非治本之道，朝野未來仍須溝通協商、尋求共識，研議是否透過修憲手段，來化解合併選舉造成的憲政扞格及空窗期等問題。
The DPP Should Encourage Beijing to Adopt One China, Different Interpretations
The DPP Should Encourage Beijing to Adopt One China, Different Interpretations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2011
Yesterday, during the last party primary debate, Tsai Ing-wen finally unveiled her Mainland policy. The result was disappointing. As usual, she resorted to her strong suit -- flowery but empty emotional rhetoric. But when she addressed policy, her rhetoric was either hollow or self-contradictory. This was especially true of her Mainland policy.
Tsai Ing-wen longer says that she does not recognize the 1992 Consensus. She says only that she will not allow herself to be trapped within its "historical framework." She said that both sides have previously repudiated the 1992 Consensus. She also said she did not know what the 1992 Consensus meant. The fact is authorities on both sides have no choice but to endorse the 1992 Consensus. The 1992 Consensus is the underlying basis for cross-Strait peace. In other words, authorities on the two sides have already escaped their "historical framework." Only Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped in an "historical framework." She remains trapped because in 2000 she prevented Chen Shui-bian from accepting the 1992 Consensus.
In fact, the "historical framework" no longer exists. Tsai Ing-wen is merely trapped within her own "Tsai Ing-wen framework." She is also trapped within the "two states theory" and "opposition to ECFA." These are all part of Tsai Ing-wen's own idiosyncratic framework. No one else is trapped within it.
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to win the 2012 presidential election. It hopes to pacify the nation following the election. If so, it must establish a cross-Strait framework that transcends the DPP's past cross-Strait framework, and the KMT's current cross-Strait framework. In order to transcend the DPP's past cross-Strait framework, the DPP must reaffirm the Republic of China and renounce Taiwan independence. In order to transcend the KMT's current cross-Strait framework, the DPP must uphold the 1992 Consensus. It must do even more. It must encourage Beijing to publicly and actively implement "One China, Different Interpretations." This is how the DPP can liberate itself from its "historical framework."
The DPP repudiated the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. Its main reason for doing so, was that it refuses to recognize the Republic of China and its One China Constitution. The reason it refuses to recognize the Republic of China and its One China Constitution, is that it is attempting to engage in "backdoor listing." Basically it remains a prisoner of Taiwan independence.
But the DPP has another reason for refusing to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Beijing has yet to openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. Conversely, it is precisely because Beijing has yet to openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position, that enables the DPP to continue repudiating the 1992 Consensus.
Suppose the DPP openly renounces Taiwan independence? Suppose it sincerely reaffirms support for the Republic of China, and ceases engaging in deceitful "backdoor listing?" It could then justifiably demand that Beijing openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. Doing so would allow the DPP to transcend its past framework. It would allow the DPP to transcend even the KMT's current framework, It would exert pressure on Beijing, and receive support from a majority of the public.
The 1992 Consensus is the premise and foundation for improving cross-Strait relations. If the DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, it cannot maintain peaceful cross-Strait relations. Therefore the DPP should take advantage of the leverage it offers. It should proclaim that it recognizes the 1992 Consensus. It should demand that One China, Different Interpretations be made part of the 1992 Consensus. If the 1992 Consensus includes One China, Different Interpreations, the Democratic Progressive Party should express its support. If the 1992 Consensus does not include One China, Different Interpretations, then the DPP can refuse to offer its support. This would be a legitimate political position. Beijing would probably respond reasonably. If so, most people would back the Democratic Progressive Party on this matter.
The 1992 Consensus is the premise and foundation for improving cross-Strait relations. But it has fallen into the gap between Taipei's One China, Different Interpretations position, and Beijing's Different Interpretations of One China position. The Ma administration has persuaded Beijing to refrain from openly repudiating One China, Different Interpretations. This is where the DPP can transcend the KMT. It can encourage Beijing to openly adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. This would enable the DPP to gain the upper in its struggle with the KMT. It would enable the DPP to seize the initiative when dealing with Beijing.
On March 22, 2008, Ma Ying-jeou was elected president. Four days later, on March 26, Chairman Hu Jintao spoke to President George W. Bush on the Bush/Hu hotline. He said "[The two sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but have different definitions of what that One China is." This has been interpreted as One China, Different Interpretations. But in the Chinese language version of the Xinhua News Agency transcript, no such language appears. And Beijing has never mentioned it since. Three years later, on March 26 this year, Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi said: "Currently relations between the two sides are good. They embody the One China principle and the 1992 Consensus. The two sides have different interpretations of the meaning of One China, Nevertheless we are able to seek common ground, This is the essence of the 1992 Consensus." On its third anniversary, Wang Yi appears to have reintroduced the One China, Different Interpretations position on the Bush/Hu Hotline. Apparently Beijing knows that the 1992 Consensus must include One China, Different Interpretations. That is the only form of 1992 Consensus acceptable to the public on Taiwan.
Unless the DPP wants to precipitate another cross-Strait political conflagration, it cannot repudiate the 1992 Consensus. In the Democratic Progressive Party's struggle to avoid coercion, it has passively accepted the 1992 Consensus. It has also struggled to avoid the Ma adminstration or the Beijing authorities from making further progress with One China, Different Interpretations. To wit, Wang Yi's talk in March. The DPP cannot repudiate and reject the 1992 Consensus. But it can use it to gain leverage. It can raise the ante and improve its bargaining position by transcending One China, Different Interpretations.
民進黨應促北京正面採行「一中各表」
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.21
蔡英文承諾在昨日終場政見會中闡釋她的中國政策，結果依然令人失望。以華麗但空泛的詞藻訴諸感性仍是她的強項，但在論述政策時卻不是流於空洞，就是自相矛盾，其中國政策尤然。
蔡英文不再說不承認「九二共識」，只說她不會陷入「歷史框架」。她說兩岸當權者皆曾否認「九二共識」，且也不知「九二共識」的內容是什麼？但實情則是，如今的兩岸主政者非但皆支持「九二共識」，且以「九二共識」為兩岸和平發展的基礎及前提。也就是說：兩岸當局已經走出「歷史框架」，唯蔡英文卻仍陷「歷史框架」中，因為她在二○○○年曾阻擋陳水扁接受「九二共識」。
其實「歷史框架」已不存在，蔡英文只是陷於「蔡英文框架」。除了「九二共識」，還有「兩國論」及「反對ＥＣＦＡ」，這些皆是別人沒有而唯蔡英文獨有的「框架」。
民進黨若欲贏得二○一二總統大選，並想在當選後能平順治國，就須建立一套超越民進黨過去，及超越國民黨現在的兩岸論述。所謂「超越民進黨過去」，就是回歸中華民國，揚棄台獨；所謂「超越國民黨現在」，就是維持「九二共識」，且進一步促使北京公開正面地採行「一中各表」的政策。這也就是民進黨應當走出的「歷史框架」。
民進黨否認「九二共識／一中各表」，主要原因是不承認一中憲法的中華民國；而不承認一中憲法的中華民國，主要是因想「借殼上市」，本質上仍是台獨。
不過，民進黨不承認「九二共識」的另一原因，是認為北京並未公開正面地採行「一中各表」；從另一角度來看，也正因北京未能公開正面地採行「一中各表」，使民進黨仍有否認「九二共識」的空間。
因而，若是民進黨公開揚棄台獨路線，真實回歸中華民國（不是借殼上市）；即可理直氣壯地要求北京公開正面採行「一中各表」的政策。如此既可超越民進黨的過去，又可超越國民黨的現在，應當會對北京形成壓力，亦會受到多數國人支持。
「九二共識」是兩岸改善關係的前提與基礎，民進黨若不接受「九二共識」，絕無可能維持和平互動的兩岸關係。因而，民進黨應可借力使力，一方面宣示接受「九二共識」，但另一方面強調「一中各表」必須包含在「九二共識」之中；若「九二共識」包含「一中各表」，民進黨即表支持；若「九二共識」否定「一中各表」，則民進黨即不能接受。這是一個合情合理的政治折衝，相信北京亦應對民進黨有合情合理的回應；若能如此，台灣多數民眾亦願為民進黨的後盾。
「九二共識」是兩岸改善關係的前提與基礎，但迄今仍在我方主張「一中各表」、對方主張「各表一中」的拉鋸之中。馬政府現在已經做到的，是北京方面「不公開正面否認一中各表」；民進黨在這方面能夠超越國民黨的空間，即在設法促使北京「公開正面採納一中各表」。這非但可使民進黨將與國民黨競爭的劣勢地位翻轉，也能在與北京折衝的互動關係中取得主動地位。
二○○八年三月二十二日，馬英九當選總統，四天後，三月二十六日，胡錦濤主席在布胡熱線中主動向小布希總統說：「（兩岸）雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義不同。」這被解讀為同意「一中各表」；但在中文版的新華社稿中無此節，且此後北京即不再有此類言論。三年後，今年三月二十六日，國台辦主任王毅說：「兩岸目前的良好關係，是體現了一個中國的九二共識；儘管對於一個中國的涵義，雙方認知不同，但我們可以求同存異，這是九二共識的精髓所在。」王毅的談話，在「布胡熱線」三周年發表，似是再一次且是布胡熱線後第一次又聽到北京發出類似「一中各表」的論述。可見，北京亦知，包含「一中各表」的「九二共識」，是台灣人民唯一可以接受的「九二共識」。
除非民進黨想將兩岸關係再次推進政治煉獄，它絕無否定「九二共識」的空間。民進黨為了避免在受裹脅的情勢下，被動接受「九二共識」，亦為了避免馬政府或北京政府率先在「一中各表」上更有進展（如王毅三月談話）；故而民進黨根本沒有否定及拒絕「九二共識」的本錢，卻有借力使力，用加碼來改善及鞏固「一中各表」的超越空間。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2011
Yesterday, during the last party primary debate, Tsai Ing-wen finally unveiled her Mainland policy. The result was disappointing. As usual, she resorted to her strong suit -- flowery but empty emotional rhetoric. But when she addressed policy, her rhetoric was either hollow or self-contradictory. This was especially true of her Mainland policy.
Tsai Ing-wen longer says that she does not recognize the 1992 Consensus. She says only that she will not allow herself to be trapped within its "historical framework." She said that both sides have previously repudiated the 1992 Consensus. She also said she did not know what the 1992 Consensus meant. The fact is authorities on both sides have no choice but to endorse the 1992 Consensus. The 1992 Consensus is the underlying basis for cross-Strait peace. In other words, authorities on the two sides have already escaped their "historical framework." Only Tsai Ing-wen remains trapped in an "historical framework." She remains trapped because in 2000 she prevented Chen Shui-bian from accepting the 1992 Consensus.
In fact, the "historical framework" no longer exists. Tsai Ing-wen is merely trapped within her own "Tsai Ing-wen framework." She is also trapped within the "two states theory" and "opposition to ECFA." These are all part of Tsai Ing-wen's own idiosyncratic framework. No one else is trapped within it.
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to win the 2012 presidential election. It hopes to pacify the nation following the election. If so, it must establish a cross-Strait framework that transcends the DPP's past cross-Strait framework, and the KMT's current cross-Strait framework. In order to transcend the DPP's past cross-Strait framework, the DPP must reaffirm the Republic of China and renounce Taiwan independence. In order to transcend the KMT's current cross-Strait framework, the DPP must uphold the 1992 Consensus. It must do even more. It must encourage Beijing to publicly and actively implement "One China, Different Interpretations." This is how the DPP can liberate itself from its "historical framework."
The DPP repudiated the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. Its main reason for doing so, was that it refuses to recognize the Republic of China and its One China Constitution. The reason it refuses to recognize the Republic of China and its One China Constitution, is that it is attempting to engage in "backdoor listing." Basically it remains a prisoner of Taiwan independence.
But the DPP has another reason for refusing to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Beijing has yet to openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. Conversely, it is precisely because Beijing has yet to openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position, that enables the DPP to continue repudiating the 1992 Consensus.
Suppose the DPP openly renounces Taiwan independence? Suppose it sincerely reaffirms support for the Republic of China, and ceases engaging in deceitful "backdoor listing?" It could then justifiably demand that Beijing openly and actively adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. Doing so would allow the DPP to transcend its past framework. It would allow the DPP to transcend even the KMT's current framework, It would exert pressure on Beijing, and receive support from a majority of the public.
The 1992 Consensus is the premise and foundation for improving cross-Strait relations. If the DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, it cannot maintain peaceful cross-Strait relations. Therefore the DPP should take advantage of the leverage it offers. It should proclaim that it recognizes the 1992 Consensus. It should demand that One China, Different Interpretations be made part of the 1992 Consensus. If the 1992 Consensus includes One China, Different Interpreations, the Democratic Progressive Party should express its support. If the 1992 Consensus does not include One China, Different Interpretations, then the DPP can refuse to offer its support. This would be a legitimate political position. Beijing would probably respond reasonably. If so, most people would back the Democratic Progressive Party on this matter.
The 1992 Consensus is the premise and foundation for improving cross-Strait relations. But it has fallen into the gap between Taipei's One China, Different Interpretations position, and Beijing's Different Interpretations of One China position. The Ma administration has persuaded Beijing to refrain from openly repudiating One China, Different Interpretations. This is where the DPP can transcend the KMT. It can encourage Beijing to openly adopt the One China, Different Interpretations position. This would enable the DPP to gain the upper in its struggle with the KMT. It would enable the DPP to seize the initiative when dealing with Beijing.
On March 22, 2008, Ma Ying-jeou was elected president. Four days later, on March 26, Chairman Hu Jintao spoke to President George W. Bush on the Bush/Hu hotline. He said "[The two sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but have different definitions of what that One China is." This has been interpreted as One China, Different Interpretations. But in the Chinese language version of the Xinhua News Agency transcript, no such language appears. And Beijing has never mentioned it since. Three years later, on March 26 this year, Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi said: "Currently relations between the two sides are good. They embody the One China principle and the 1992 Consensus. The two sides have different interpretations of the meaning of One China, Nevertheless we are able to seek common ground, This is the essence of the 1992 Consensus." On its third anniversary, Wang Yi appears to have reintroduced the One China, Different Interpretations position on the Bush/Hu Hotline. Apparently Beijing knows that the 1992 Consensus must include One China, Different Interpretations. That is the only form of 1992 Consensus acceptable to the public on Taiwan.
Unless the DPP wants to precipitate another cross-Strait political conflagration, it cannot repudiate the 1992 Consensus. In the Democratic Progressive Party's struggle to avoid coercion, it has passively accepted the 1992 Consensus. It has also struggled to avoid the Ma adminstration or the Beijing authorities from making further progress with One China, Different Interpretations. To wit, Wang Yi's talk in March. The DPP cannot repudiate and reject the 1992 Consensus. But it can use it to gain leverage. It can raise the ante and improve its bargaining position by transcending One China, Different Interpretations.
民進黨應促北京正面採行「一中各表」
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.21
蔡英文承諾在昨日終場政見會中闡釋她的中國政策，結果依然令人失望。以華麗但空泛的詞藻訴諸感性仍是她的強項，但在論述政策時卻不是流於空洞，就是自相矛盾，其中國政策尤然。
蔡英文不再說不承認「九二共識」，只說她不會陷入「歷史框架」。她說兩岸當權者皆曾否認「九二共識」，且也不知「九二共識」的內容是什麼？但實情則是，如今的兩岸主政者非但皆支持「九二共識」，且以「九二共識」為兩岸和平發展的基礎及前提。也就是說：兩岸當局已經走出「歷史框架」，唯蔡英文卻仍陷「歷史框架」中，因為她在二○○○年曾阻擋陳水扁接受「九二共識」。
其實「歷史框架」已不存在，蔡英文只是陷於「蔡英文框架」。除了「九二共識」，還有「兩國論」及「反對ＥＣＦＡ」，這些皆是別人沒有而唯蔡英文獨有的「框架」。
民進黨若欲贏得二○一二總統大選，並想在當選後能平順治國，就須建立一套超越民進黨過去，及超越國民黨現在的兩岸論述。所謂「超越民進黨過去」，就是回歸中華民國，揚棄台獨；所謂「超越國民黨現在」，就是維持「九二共識」，且進一步促使北京公開正面地採行「一中各表」的政策。這也就是民進黨應當走出的「歷史框架」。
民進黨否認「九二共識／一中各表」，主要原因是不承認一中憲法的中華民國；而不承認一中憲法的中華民國，主要是因想「借殼上市」，本質上仍是台獨。
不過，民進黨不承認「九二共識」的另一原因，是認為北京並未公開正面地採行「一中各表」；從另一角度來看，也正因北京未能公開正面地採行「一中各表」，使民進黨仍有否認「九二共識」的空間。
因而，若是民進黨公開揚棄台獨路線，真實回歸中華民國（不是借殼上市）；即可理直氣壯地要求北京公開正面採行「一中各表」的政策。如此既可超越民進黨的過去，又可超越國民黨的現在，應當會對北京形成壓力，亦會受到多數國人支持。
「九二共識」是兩岸改善關係的前提與基礎，民進黨若不接受「九二共識」，絕無可能維持和平互動的兩岸關係。因而，民進黨應可借力使力，一方面宣示接受「九二共識」，但另一方面強調「一中各表」必須包含在「九二共識」之中；若「九二共識」包含「一中各表」，民進黨即表支持；若「九二共識」否定「一中各表」，則民進黨即不能接受。這是一個合情合理的政治折衝，相信北京亦應對民進黨有合情合理的回應；若能如此，台灣多數民眾亦願為民進黨的後盾。
「九二共識」是兩岸改善關係的前提與基礎，但迄今仍在我方主張「一中各表」、對方主張「各表一中」的拉鋸之中。馬政府現在已經做到的，是北京方面「不公開正面否認一中各表」；民進黨在這方面能夠超越國民黨的空間，即在設法促使北京「公開正面採納一中各表」。這非但可使民進黨將與國民黨競爭的劣勢地位翻轉，也能在與北京折衝的互動關係中取得主動地位。
二○○八年三月二十二日，馬英九當選總統，四天後，三月二十六日，胡錦濤主席在布胡熱線中主動向小布希總統說：「（兩岸）雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義不同。」這被解讀為同意「一中各表」；但在中文版的新華社稿中無此節，且此後北京即不再有此類言論。三年後，今年三月二十六日，國台辦主任王毅說：「兩岸目前的良好關係，是體現了一個中國的九二共識；儘管對於一個中國的涵義，雙方認知不同，但我們可以求同存異，這是九二共識的精髓所在。」王毅的談話，在「布胡熱線」三周年發表，似是再一次且是布胡熱線後第一次又聽到北京發出類似「一中各表」的論述。可見，北京亦知，包含「一中各表」的「九二共識」，是台灣人民唯一可以接受的「九二共識」。
除非民進黨想將兩岸關係再次推進政治煉獄，它絕無否定「九二共識」的空間。民進黨為了避免在受裹脅的情勢下，被動接受「九二共識」，亦為了避免馬政府或北京政府率先在「一中各表」上更有進展（如王毅三月談話）；故而民進黨根本沒有否定及拒絕「九二共識」的本錢，卻有借力使力，用加碼來改善及鞏固「一中各表」的超越空間。
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant Relocation Should be Swift
Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant Relocation Should be Swift
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 20, 2011
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is about to undergo its fifth EIA review. Environmental groups have announced anti-Kuo Kuang protest marches all over the island. Environmental groups are making a great show of opposing the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. This is reminiscent of similar scenes during the Chen administration. This time however, it is the Ma administration that must deal with the problem. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant reflects problems with Taiwan's industrial rise and transformation. These problems require solutions. Taiwan has limited land and limited resources. It is caught between demands for environmental protection and economic development. The questions it must answer are multiple choice questions, not yes or no questions. Assuming it still has a choice, the Ma administration must be decisive. It must seek the best solution. If it must relocate then it must act boldly. It should not allow the matter to drag on, and degenerate into a insoluble political controversy.
The petrochemical industry is a key industry. Many developing economies depend upon their governments to vigorously promote the petrochemical industry. And so it is on Taiwan, The petrochemical industry has brought a great deal of foreign exchange into Taiwan's economy. It has made a substantial contribution to economic growth. But environmental consciousness has increased. The petrochemical industry is water hungry, highly polluting, and socially divisive. According to EPA statistics, during the two decades between 1981 and 2002, 60 percent of the major environmental protests on Taiwan involved the petrochemical industry. Environmental disputes have continued. Most people acknowledge the petrochemical industry's role in economic development. But they do not want petrochemical plants in their own backyard. The Formosa Plastics Group's Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant project in Ilan met with resistance. At one time it was to be relocated to Mainland China. Under intense pressure from then President Lee Teng-hui, it was relocated to Yunlin. Since then, further development of the petrochemical industry on Taiwan has been difficult.
The petrochemical industry has made enormous contributions to the national economy. But as early as 1978, Premier Sun Yun-suan adopted World Bank economist Bela Balassa's recommendation that "non-oil producing countries develop technology-intensive industries, and not the petrochemical industry." As a result, plans for the Petrochemical Plant Number Five were shelved. A decision was made to transition gradually to lower energy consumption and technology-intensive industries. This led to the development of the Hsinchu Science Park.
In 1981, the global oil crisis ended. The CEPD reconsidered its plan for the petrochemical industry. It decided to resume development of the petrochemical industry. During the 1990s, the government continued its political liberalization. Environmental protests made development of the petrochemical industry difficult. The government was unwilling to give up. But Mainland China and the Southeast Asian countries long ago replaced Taiwan as a source of cheap labor. Profits from petrochemical exports fell. The unavoidable question was did we really need to pay such a high political, social, and environmental price for the petrochemical industry?
During the Chen administration, the government accepted the argument that we still need a petrochemical industry. It finalized plans for the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Environmental groups resisted full force. EIA members attempted to block the project, but to no avail. Then Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen personally championed the project, making telephone calls "expressing concern." For these policy decisions, then Premier and DPP presidential primary candidate Su Tseng-chang was forced to issue a public apology. But when Su and Tsai simultaneously signed the anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant petition, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project inevitably became a political football.
Based on the need for industry clusters, Yunlin was the first choice. The public in Yunlin had already accepted the Sixth Naptha Cracking Plant. But they did not want the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant in addition. Changhua, adjacent to Yunlin, vigorously fought for the plant. When the decision was made to build the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant in Changhua, the government hardly expected so much pressure from environmental groups. Last year, the Changhua County Environmental Protection Union won the Executive Yuan Sustainable Development Award. This group is explicitly opposed to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. But environmental groups are not the only ones opposed. Even Public Works Commissioner Lee Hong-yuan, a new member of Premier Wu's cabinet, signed the anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant petition. His reasoning was simple. Changhua and Yunlin both have serious problems with ground subsidence. They are not suitable for further petrochemical industry development.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs attempted to resolve the environmental disputes. It stressed that the strictest environmental standards had been met. The survival of dolphins was not threatened, because a migratory corridor had been provided. But the fact that the dolphins must use the migratory corridor means they have already been affected. The Ministry of Economic Affairs stressed also that old petrochemical plants must be phased out. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is not constructed, then the old plants cannot be decommissioned. The old plants would have an even greater impact on the environment. But the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will also become old some day. Ten years down the road, will Taiwan face another Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant style controversy?
Thirty years ago, Sun Yun-suan saw the need for industrial transformation. Thirty years later, we once again face a difficult choice. Do we have a premier with Sun's boldness and vision, able to make critical decisions about Taiwan's industrial development? President Ma Ying-jeou personally stood on the front lines when he attended an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet. The event was subject to political manipulation, making deeper understanding of grassroots environmental concerns impossible. But President Ma personally visited the Ta-Chen wetlands and sampled the oysters. Surely he realizes that ordinary citizens at the grassroots level depend on nature for their livelihood. The Chen administration considered relocating the plant when it was in office. The Ma administration should consider relocating the petrochemical industry. Do not destroy the beautiful environment that Mother Nature has bestowed upon Taiwan.
國光石化若須外移 即應當機立斷
2011-04-20 中國時報
國光石化案即將舉行第五次專案小組環評審查，環保團體也預告將發動全台反國光遊行。環保團體大動作反國光石化，讓人想起扁政府執政時期的場景，只是，這一回應付難題的是馬政府。國光石化案反應了台灣產業升級與轉型的困境，但是，碰到問題只能解決問題，台灣土地有限、資源有限，在環保與經濟發展之間，只能是選擇題而非是非題。如果還有選擇，馬政府應當斷則斷，找出最適當方案，如果外移是必要的選項，那就大膽施為，不要讓爭議拖延成無解的政治紛爭。
石化產業具有高度產業關連性，許多發展中國家都透過政府政策主導，大力推動石化業，台灣亦復如是，石化業也為台灣經濟帶來大量外匯，對經濟成長有實質貢獻。但是，環保意識抬頭之後，此一高耗水、高汙染產業，也成為社會之痛，根據環保署的統計，從一九八一年到二○○二年的廿多年之間，台灣重大環保抗爭中，與石化業相關者就佔了將近六成，公害糾紛也不斷，多數民眾認可石化業對經濟發展的必要，卻不認同石化廠在我家後院。當初，台塑六輕在宜蘭建廠不順，一度要移轉大陸海滄，前總統李登輝大力施壓之下，改在雲林。自此之後，台灣再要發展石化業即困難重重。
即使石化業對國家經濟產值貢獻巨大，但早在一九七八年，故行政院長孫運璿任內，即接受世界銀行經濟學家巴拉薩（Balassa）的建議，認為「非產油國家應發展技術密集工業，不宜發展石化業」，一度擱置五輕廠的計畫。這項政策的決定使得台灣工業逐漸轉向能源消耗較低與技術密集的工業，並促成了新竹科學園區的開發。
一九八○年代，全球石油危機解除，經建會才重新評估石化工業的發展，讓石化工業再次成為發展目標。直到一九九○年代政治開放後，環保抗爭運動又讓石化業發展異常艱辛，更重要的，政府一方面既不宜輕言放棄，但是廉價勞工的優勢早被中國大陸和東南亞國家取代，石化業的出口利益降低，讓人不能不思考：我們還需要付出這麼大的政治、社會及環境成本，推動石化業嗎？
扁政府時代，接受了石化業仍需發展的論點，拍板定案國光石化案，當時環保團體同樣全力抗爭，環評委員阻卻無效，還爆出時任行政院副院長的蔡英文直接去電關切。為了這個政策決定，時任行政院長的民進黨總統初選候選人蘇貞昌公開道歉。但蘇、蔡同時簽署反國光石化連署的同時，某種程度已經讓國光石化案成為總統大選不可逃避的議題。
基於產業群聚的必要，雲林仍是首選，但已經接受台塑六輕的雲林人，卻再不願意多一個國光石化；與雲林相鄰的彰化大力爭取，國光石化決定落腳彰化時，政府絕對沒想到來自環保團體的壓力會這麼大。去年，行政院永續發展獎得獎者之一就是彰化環境保護聯盟，這個社團就是反對國光石化。然而，反對國光石化的不只環團而已；吳內閣新進閣員之一的公共工程委員會主委李鴻源就簽署反國光石化。他的理由非常簡單：彰化和雲林同屬台灣地層下陷最嚴重的區域，不適合再發展石化產業。
經濟部在化解環保爭議時的說法，一概強調所有的環保需求都訂定最高規格，不必擔心中華白海豚的生存，因為有迴游的廊帶。問題是：要迴游就是有影響。經濟部也強調，老舊石化廠必需淘汰，國光石化不建老舊廠區就不能除役，對環境影響更大。問題是：國光石化也會老，十年之後，台灣是否還要面臨一次要不要另一個國光石化的爭議和討論？
卅多年前，孫運璿就有眼光看到台灣產業轉型的必要；卅多年後，台灣再一次面臨產業抉擇，我們還有沒有這樣有魄力、有遠見的行政院長，能為台灣產業發展做出關鍵性的決策？親上火線出席反國光石化餐會的馬英九總統，無法在被政治操作的場合，深刻了解基層民眾對環保的憂慮；但是，走上大城溼地親嘗鮮蚵的馬總統，總該體會大自然就是基層民眾的生計。扁政府時代既已考慮外移方案，馬政府確實應該審慎檢視石化業外移的可能性，不要率爾耗蝕老天賞給台灣的美好環境。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 20, 2011
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is about to undergo its fifth EIA review. Environmental groups have announced anti-Kuo Kuang protest marches all over the island. Environmental groups are making a great show of opposing the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. This is reminiscent of similar scenes during the Chen administration. This time however, it is the Ma administration that must deal with the problem. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant reflects problems with Taiwan's industrial rise and transformation. These problems require solutions. Taiwan has limited land and limited resources. It is caught between demands for environmental protection and economic development. The questions it must answer are multiple choice questions, not yes or no questions. Assuming it still has a choice, the Ma administration must be decisive. It must seek the best solution. If it must relocate then it must act boldly. It should not allow the matter to drag on, and degenerate into a insoluble political controversy.
The petrochemical industry is a key industry. Many developing economies depend upon their governments to vigorously promote the petrochemical industry. And so it is on Taiwan, The petrochemical industry has brought a great deal of foreign exchange into Taiwan's economy. It has made a substantial contribution to economic growth. But environmental consciousness has increased. The petrochemical industry is water hungry, highly polluting, and socially divisive. According to EPA statistics, during the two decades between 1981 and 2002, 60 percent of the major environmental protests on Taiwan involved the petrochemical industry. Environmental disputes have continued. Most people acknowledge the petrochemical industry's role in economic development. But they do not want petrochemical plants in their own backyard. The Formosa Plastics Group's Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant project in Ilan met with resistance. At one time it was to be relocated to Mainland China. Under intense pressure from then President Lee Teng-hui, it was relocated to Yunlin. Since then, further development of the petrochemical industry on Taiwan has been difficult.
The petrochemical industry has made enormous contributions to the national economy. But as early as 1978, Premier Sun Yun-suan adopted World Bank economist Bela Balassa's recommendation that "non-oil producing countries develop technology-intensive industries, and not the petrochemical industry." As a result, plans for the Petrochemical Plant Number Five were shelved. A decision was made to transition gradually to lower energy consumption and technology-intensive industries. This led to the development of the Hsinchu Science Park.
In 1981, the global oil crisis ended. The CEPD reconsidered its plan for the petrochemical industry. It decided to resume development of the petrochemical industry. During the 1990s, the government continued its political liberalization. Environmental protests made development of the petrochemical industry difficult. The government was unwilling to give up. But Mainland China and the Southeast Asian countries long ago replaced Taiwan as a source of cheap labor. Profits from petrochemical exports fell. The unavoidable question was did we really need to pay such a high political, social, and environmental price for the petrochemical industry?
During the Chen administration, the government accepted the argument that we still need a petrochemical industry. It finalized plans for the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Environmental groups resisted full force. EIA members attempted to block the project, but to no avail. Then Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen personally championed the project, making telephone calls "expressing concern." For these policy decisions, then Premier and DPP presidential primary candidate Su Tseng-chang was forced to issue a public apology. But when Su and Tsai simultaneously signed the anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant petition, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project inevitably became a political football.
Based on the need for industry clusters, Yunlin was the first choice. The public in Yunlin had already accepted the Sixth Naptha Cracking Plant. But they did not want the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant in addition. Changhua, adjacent to Yunlin, vigorously fought for the plant. When the decision was made to build the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant in Changhua, the government hardly expected so much pressure from environmental groups. Last year, the Changhua County Environmental Protection Union won the Executive Yuan Sustainable Development Award. This group is explicitly opposed to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. But environmental groups are not the only ones opposed. Even Public Works Commissioner Lee Hong-yuan, a new member of Premier Wu's cabinet, signed the anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant petition. His reasoning was simple. Changhua and Yunlin both have serious problems with ground subsidence. They are not suitable for further petrochemical industry development.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs attempted to resolve the environmental disputes. It stressed that the strictest environmental standards had been met. The survival of dolphins was not threatened, because a migratory corridor had been provided. But the fact that the dolphins must use the migratory corridor means they have already been affected. The Ministry of Economic Affairs stressed also that old petrochemical plants must be phased out. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is not constructed, then the old plants cannot be decommissioned. The old plants would have an even greater impact on the environment. But the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will also become old some day. Ten years down the road, will Taiwan face another Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant style controversy?
Thirty years ago, Sun Yun-suan saw the need for industrial transformation. Thirty years later, we once again face a difficult choice. Do we have a premier with Sun's boldness and vision, able to make critical decisions about Taiwan's industrial development? President Ma Ying-jeou personally stood on the front lines when he attended an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet. The event was subject to political manipulation, making deeper understanding of grassroots environmental concerns impossible. But President Ma personally visited the Ta-Chen wetlands and sampled the oysters. Surely he realizes that ordinary citizens at the grassroots level depend on nature for their livelihood. The Chen administration considered relocating the plant when it was in office. The Ma administration should consider relocating the petrochemical industry. Do not destroy the beautiful environment that Mother Nature has bestowed upon Taiwan.
國光石化若須外移 即應當機立斷
2011-04-20 中國時報
國光石化案即將舉行第五次專案小組環評審查，環保團體也預告將發動全台反國光遊行。環保團體大動作反國光石化，讓人想起扁政府執政時期的場景，只是，這一回應付難題的是馬政府。國光石化案反應了台灣產業升級與轉型的困境，但是，碰到問題只能解決問題，台灣土地有限、資源有限，在環保與經濟發展之間，只能是選擇題而非是非題。如果還有選擇，馬政府應當斷則斷，找出最適當方案，如果外移是必要的選項，那就大膽施為，不要讓爭議拖延成無解的政治紛爭。
石化產業具有高度產業關連性，許多發展中國家都透過政府政策主導，大力推動石化業，台灣亦復如是，石化業也為台灣經濟帶來大量外匯，對經濟成長有實質貢獻。但是，環保意識抬頭之後，此一高耗水、高汙染產業，也成為社會之痛，根據環保署的統計，從一九八一年到二○○二年的廿多年之間，台灣重大環保抗爭中，與石化業相關者就佔了將近六成，公害糾紛也不斷，多數民眾認可石化業對經濟發展的必要，卻不認同石化廠在我家後院。當初，台塑六輕在宜蘭建廠不順，一度要移轉大陸海滄，前總統李登輝大力施壓之下，改在雲林。自此之後，台灣再要發展石化業即困難重重。
即使石化業對國家經濟產值貢獻巨大，但早在一九七八年，故行政院長孫運璿任內，即接受世界銀行經濟學家巴拉薩（Balassa）的建議，認為「非產油國家應發展技術密集工業，不宜發展石化業」，一度擱置五輕廠的計畫。這項政策的決定使得台灣工業逐漸轉向能源消耗較低與技術密集的工業，並促成了新竹科學園區的開發。
一九八○年代，全球石油危機解除，經建會才重新評估石化工業的發展，讓石化工業再次成為發展目標。直到一九九○年代政治開放後，環保抗爭運動又讓石化業發展異常艱辛，更重要的，政府一方面既不宜輕言放棄，但是廉價勞工的優勢早被中國大陸和東南亞國家取代，石化業的出口利益降低，讓人不能不思考：我們還需要付出這麼大的政治、社會及環境成本，推動石化業嗎？
扁政府時代，接受了石化業仍需發展的論點，拍板定案國光石化案，當時環保團體同樣全力抗爭，環評委員阻卻無效，還爆出時任行政院副院長的蔡英文直接去電關切。為了這個政策決定，時任行政院長的民進黨總統初選候選人蘇貞昌公開道歉。但蘇、蔡同時簽署反國光石化連署的同時，某種程度已經讓國光石化案成為總統大選不可逃避的議題。
基於產業群聚的必要，雲林仍是首選，但已經接受台塑六輕的雲林人，卻再不願意多一個國光石化；與雲林相鄰的彰化大力爭取，國光石化決定落腳彰化時，政府絕對沒想到來自環保團體的壓力會這麼大。去年，行政院永續發展獎得獎者之一就是彰化環境保護聯盟，這個社團就是反對國光石化。然而，反對國光石化的不只環團而已；吳內閣新進閣員之一的公共工程委員會主委李鴻源就簽署反國光石化。他的理由非常簡單：彰化和雲林同屬台灣地層下陷最嚴重的區域，不適合再發展石化產業。
經濟部在化解環保爭議時的說法，一概強調所有的環保需求都訂定最高規格，不必擔心中華白海豚的生存，因為有迴游的廊帶。問題是：要迴游就是有影響。經濟部也強調，老舊石化廠必需淘汰，國光石化不建老舊廠區就不能除役，對環境影響更大。問題是：國光石化也會老，十年之後，台灣是否還要面臨一次要不要另一個國光石化的爭議和討論？
卅多年前，孫運璿就有眼光看到台灣產業轉型的必要；卅多年後，台灣再一次面臨產業抉擇，我們還有沒有這樣有魄力、有遠見的行政院長，能為台灣產業發展做出關鍵性的決策？親上火線出席反國光石化餐會的馬英九總統，無法在被政治操作的場合，深刻了解基層民眾對環保的憂慮；但是，走上大城溼地親嘗鮮蚵的馬總統，總該體會大自然就是基層民眾的生計。扁政府時代既已考慮外移方案，馬政府確實應該審慎檢視石化業外移的可能性，不要率爾耗蝕老天賞給台灣的美好環境。
Monday, April 18, 2011
From Opportunism and Bigotry to Housing Justice
From Opportunism and Bigotry to Housing Justice
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2011
The legislature swiftly passed the luxury tax. The Executive Yuan may begin levying the tax in advance, on June 1. What is the significance of the luxury tax? It may help prevent soaring housing prices. It also represents an important event in our political evolution. The government must assist the underprivileged and the middle class. Only then can we promote social equality and social justice.
In the past, when government authorities dealt with housing prices, they used the free market as an excuse. They said they could not interfere. They used the free market as an excuse for inaction. But limited land and housing have been the monopoly of a handful of consortiums. They, along with capitalists and opportunists have kited housing prices. Housing has become a luxury that salaried workers cannot afford. It has became a hurdle younger people struggle against but cannot overcome. Such abuses in the housing market are intolerable. And that is why President Ma promised to promote "housing justice."
Consider the recent legislative process. Everyone expected powerful interference from vested interests. But it never happened. Both ruling and opposition legislators knew that sky high housing prices were a problem. They knew that the public shared a deep distaste for housing speculators. Interestingly enough, the luxury tax was merely an anti-speculation trial balloon. Yet it significantly inhibited housing market transactions. That shows just how rampant speculation in the housing market was. To achieve housing justice, the authorities have numerous policy instruments at their disposal. Reforms must be implemented. Trading prices must be determined by the tax system and by transaction prices. Real estate prices must be rationalized.
For example, the luxury tax does not apply to pre-sold housing units. That constitutes a giant loophole. Government financial agencies can expand their inventory of transaction records. They can target the proceeds from such transactions. But if the results are ineffective, speculators will continue to exploit such loopholes to turn a profit. Legislators should amend the law to include pre-sold housing units. Also, the land price quotation system is extremely unreasonable. Prices quoted are far below the actual market price. This leads to serious inaccuracies in the calculation of land values. In particular, land speculation allows consortiums to enjoy windfall profits. They are not required to give anything back to the community. The system must be changed. We must revive the spirit of Sun Yat-sen, who insisted that "profits must acrue to the public."
So-called housing justice is easier said than done, This is not the job of the government alone. Social consensus and community participation are required as well. For example Taipei City is promoting "social housing." Plans for both luxury condos in the city center and residential units in the suburbs of Mucha have met with strong opposition from local residents. They oppose construction in their neighborhoods. This may be the result of inappropriate choices in building location. They may be the result of the city government's inability to communicate and coordinate. But it also reflects public rejection and public mistrust of social housing. People feel that social housing will reduce market values and living standards in their community.
This "not in my backyard" mentality has a long history. But solutions are possible. More importantly, the government must come up with a persuasive scheme for the construction and management of social housing. It must win community support. Members of the public must also open their hearts. They must set aside class prejudices. They must not discriminate between the rich and the poor. They must welcome neighbors living under different housing regimes. Only a non-discriminatory atmosphere can establish community spirit and achieve the ultimate goal of housing justice.
Frequent fliers who shuttle back and forth between Taiwan, the Mainland, and Hong Kong, and those with cosmopolitan backgrounds, know that class divisions are less clearcut on Taiwan, and that Taiwan society is comparatively egalitarian. This is an achievement we should be proud of. But in recent years, imbalances in industrial development, the existence of a mercantilistic tax system, and runaway housing speculation have gradually undermined this hard won equality. That is deeply worrisome. The government has now introduced a luxury tax. The luxury tax will help crack down on speculation and stabilize prices. It also amounts to a declaration that the government intends to "care for the underprivileged." This trend, from "wealthy," to "egalitarian," should continue.
The luxury tax is merely one small step in the direction of housing justice. But it is one giant leap for social justice. Its passage shows that the government has a positive role to play in policy formulation. The luxury tax is not enough. Speculators should forget about short-term speculation. They will need to find other investments. Building contractors will need to create more appropriate housing for people to live in. They must not be wildly extravagant and expensive. The public must understand what it means not to have a home of one's own, and to commute long distances each and every day. Please give social housing a chance. Do not look down your noses at your new neighbors.
從反投機到無歧視的居住正義
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.19
立法院迅速通過奢侈稅法，行政院可能提前至六月一日開徵。實施奢侈稅制的意義，其實不只在為飆漲的房價「退燒」，更代表了台灣政治思維進行了一次重要的修正：施政必須更向中間及弱勢調整，才能維持社會公平與正義於不墜。
以往談房價，執政者都以自由市場為藉口，諉稱沒有干預空間，而無所作為。事實卻是，有限的土地及房屋供給遭到少數財團的壟斷，再加上資本家、投機客的哄抬炒作，房屋市場變成薪資階級可望而不可即的豪奢品，甚至成為打擊年輕族群奮鬥意志的社會障礙；如此扭曲變形的房市，絕不容再坐視不管。馬總統宣示要捍衛「居住正義」，原因應也在此。
從這次立法過程看，外界原預期利益團體會有強烈的干擾，結果並未出現。這顯示，朝野立委都認知高房價已成為社會隱憂，也對民眾厭憎房價炒作的心情有深刻共識。值得玩味的是，政府不過藉奢侈稅對房地投機小試身手，即對房市交易產生了可觀的抑制作用，可見市場中以屋養屋的投機客多麼猖獗。要實現居住正義，執政者可以運用的政策工具還很多，未來必須透過稅制及交易價格認定制度的改革，繼續推動房地價格結構的合理化。
例如，這次奢侈稅未將預售屋納入，無異留下一大漏洞。財政部門可擴大清查交易紀錄，來補課這類炒手的交易所得；但如果成效不彰，投機客繼續利用此一漏洞賺取暴利，立法委員仍應修法將預售屋納入。再如，現行公告地價制度極不合理，遠遠低於實際市價，造成土地增值的計算嚴重失實，尤其是圈地養地的財團享受巨額暴利，卻不必將之回饋給社會。這項制度有必要逐步調整，把國父提倡的「漲價歸公」精神找回來。
所謂「居住正義」，說易行難，這其實也不只是政府的工作，而需要社會大眾共同的理解與投入。以台北市正在推動的「社會住宅」為例，不論是在市中心規劃的「小帝寶」，或預定在木柵郊區興建的住宅，都遭到當地居民的強烈抗議，反對設在當地。這或許是區位選擇不當，或者是市府未做好溝通協調；但從另一個角度看，這也反映了市民對於社會住宅的排斥與不信任，認為社會住宅將影響整個社區的房價市值及居住品質。
這種「別在我家後院」的心理，其來有自，但並非無法化解。重要的是，政府要拿出有說服力的社會住宅興建及管理計劃，來爭取社區居民的認同支持。同樣重要的是，民眾要放寬自己的心胸，放下階級高低乃至貧富差異的差別心，來迎接不同住房政策下的鄰居。只有在無歧視的氛圍下，才是建立社區共同體、實現居住正義的終極樂園。
經常往來兩岸三地，或有跨國生活經驗的人都會注意到，台灣是一個階級較不分明、社會相對公平的國家，這是值得我們驕傲的成就。但近年產業發展的失衡，加上稅制的重商、房價的過度炒作，正逐步將原有的公平帶向失衡，才如此讓人憂心。政府此時推出奢侈稅，除了打擊投機、穩定房價，更宣示了政策上轉向「照顧弱勢」的意涵，這個從「富」到「均」的變化，值得繼續推升。
奢侈稅的推動，只是實現「居住正義」的一小步，對台灣整體社會正義觀念的改變，卻是一個大啟發。對政府而言，這顯示執政者在政策上有很多積極角色可以扮演，不能以奢侈稅為已足；對投機客而言，這意味短期炒作可以休矣，請尋找別的標的去投資；對建商而言，要打造更合理、人性而合宜居住的房屋，不要再一味誇耀豪奢及高價；對一般民眾而言，要理解無殼蝸牛及通勤族的痛苦，請給社會住宅一個機會，不要用異樣眼光看待其間居民。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2011
The legislature swiftly passed the luxury tax. The Executive Yuan may begin levying the tax in advance, on June 1. What is the significance of the luxury tax? It may help prevent soaring housing prices. It also represents an important event in our political evolution. The government must assist the underprivileged and the middle class. Only then can we promote social equality and social justice.
In the past, when government authorities dealt with housing prices, they used the free market as an excuse. They said they could not interfere. They used the free market as an excuse for inaction. But limited land and housing have been the monopoly of a handful of consortiums. They, along with capitalists and opportunists have kited housing prices. Housing has become a luxury that salaried workers cannot afford. It has became a hurdle younger people struggle against but cannot overcome. Such abuses in the housing market are intolerable. And that is why President Ma promised to promote "housing justice."
Consider the recent legislative process. Everyone expected powerful interference from vested interests. But it never happened. Both ruling and opposition legislators knew that sky high housing prices were a problem. They knew that the public shared a deep distaste for housing speculators. Interestingly enough, the luxury tax was merely an anti-speculation trial balloon. Yet it significantly inhibited housing market transactions. That shows just how rampant speculation in the housing market was. To achieve housing justice, the authorities have numerous policy instruments at their disposal. Reforms must be implemented. Trading prices must be determined by the tax system and by transaction prices. Real estate prices must be rationalized.
For example, the luxury tax does not apply to pre-sold housing units. That constitutes a giant loophole. Government financial agencies can expand their inventory of transaction records. They can target the proceeds from such transactions. But if the results are ineffective, speculators will continue to exploit such loopholes to turn a profit. Legislators should amend the law to include pre-sold housing units. Also, the land price quotation system is extremely unreasonable. Prices quoted are far below the actual market price. This leads to serious inaccuracies in the calculation of land values. In particular, land speculation allows consortiums to enjoy windfall profits. They are not required to give anything back to the community. The system must be changed. We must revive the spirit of Sun Yat-sen, who insisted that "profits must acrue to the public."
So-called housing justice is easier said than done, This is not the job of the government alone. Social consensus and community participation are required as well. For example Taipei City is promoting "social housing." Plans for both luxury condos in the city center and residential units in the suburbs of Mucha have met with strong opposition from local residents. They oppose construction in their neighborhoods. This may be the result of inappropriate choices in building location. They may be the result of the city government's inability to communicate and coordinate. But it also reflects public rejection and public mistrust of social housing. People feel that social housing will reduce market values and living standards in their community.
This "not in my backyard" mentality has a long history. But solutions are possible. More importantly, the government must come up with a persuasive scheme for the construction and management of social housing. It must win community support. Members of the public must also open their hearts. They must set aside class prejudices. They must not discriminate between the rich and the poor. They must welcome neighbors living under different housing regimes. Only a non-discriminatory atmosphere can establish community spirit and achieve the ultimate goal of housing justice.
Frequent fliers who shuttle back and forth between Taiwan, the Mainland, and Hong Kong, and those with cosmopolitan backgrounds, know that class divisions are less clearcut on Taiwan, and that Taiwan society is comparatively egalitarian. This is an achievement we should be proud of. But in recent years, imbalances in industrial development, the existence of a mercantilistic tax system, and runaway housing speculation have gradually undermined this hard won equality. That is deeply worrisome. The government has now introduced a luxury tax. The luxury tax will help crack down on speculation and stabilize prices. It also amounts to a declaration that the government intends to "care for the underprivileged." This trend, from "wealthy," to "egalitarian," should continue.
The luxury tax is merely one small step in the direction of housing justice. But it is one giant leap for social justice. Its passage shows that the government has a positive role to play in policy formulation. The luxury tax is not enough. Speculators should forget about short-term speculation. They will need to find other investments. Building contractors will need to create more appropriate housing for people to live in. They must not be wildly extravagant and expensive. The public must understand what it means not to have a home of one's own, and to commute long distances each and every day. Please give social housing a chance. Do not look down your noses at your new neighbors.
從反投機到無歧視的居住正義
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.19
立法院迅速通過奢侈稅法，行政院可能提前至六月一日開徵。實施奢侈稅制的意義，其實不只在為飆漲的房價「退燒」，更代表了台灣政治思維進行了一次重要的修正：施政必須更向中間及弱勢調整，才能維持社會公平與正義於不墜。
以往談房價，執政者都以自由市場為藉口，諉稱沒有干預空間，而無所作為。事實卻是，有限的土地及房屋供給遭到少數財團的壟斷，再加上資本家、投機客的哄抬炒作，房屋市場變成薪資階級可望而不可即的豪奢品，甚至成為打擊年輕族群奮鬥意志的社會障礙；如此扭曲變形的房市，絕不容再坐視不管。馬總統宣示要捍衛「居住正義」，原因應也在此。
從這次立法過程看，外界原預期利益團體會有強烈的干擾，結果並未出現。這顯示，朝野立委都認知高房價已成為社會隱憂，也對民眾厭憎房價炒作的心情有深刻共識。值得玩味的是，政府不過藉奢侈稅對房地投機小試身手，即對房市交易產生了可觀的抑制作用，可見市場中以屋養屋的投機客多麼猖獗。要實現居住正義，執政者可以運用的政策工具還很多，未來必須透過稅制及交易價格認定制度的改革，繼續推動房地價格結構的合理化。
例如，這次奢侈稅未將預售屋納入，無異留下一大漏洞。財政部門可擴大清查交易紀錄，來補課這類炒手的交易所得；但如果成效不彰，投機客繼續利用此一漏洞賺取暴利，立法委員仍應修法將預售屋納入。再如，現行公告地價制度極不合理，遠遠低於實際市價，造成土地增值的計算嚴重失實，尤其是圈地養地的財團享受巨額暴利，卻不必將之回饋給社會。這項制度有必要逐步調整，把國父提倡的「漲價歸公」精神找回來。
所謂「居住正義」，說易行難，這其實也不只是政府的工作，而需要社會大眾共同的理解與投入。以台北市正在推動的「社會住宅」為例，不論是在市中心規劃的「小帝寶」，或預定在木柵郊區興建的住宅，都遭到當地居民的強烈抗議，反對設在當地。這或許是區位選擇不當，或者是市府未做好溝通協調；但從另一個角度看，這也反映了市民對於社會住宅的排斥與不信任，認為社會住宅將影響整個社區的房價市值及居住品質。
這種「別在我家後院」的心理，其來有自，但並非無法化解。重要的是，政府要拿出有說服力的社會住宅興建及管理計劃，來爭取社區居民的認同支持。同樣重要的是，民眾要放寬自己的心胸，放下階級高低乃至貧富差異的差別心，來迎接不同住房政策下的鄰居。只有在無歧視的氛圍下，才是建立社區共同體、實現居住正義的終極樂園。
經常往來兩岸三地，或有跨國生活經驗的人都會注意到，台灣是一個階級較不分明、社會相對公平的國家，這是值得我們驕傲的成就。但近年產業發展的失衡，加上稅制的重商、房價的過度炒作，正逐步將原有的公平帶向失衡，才如此讓人憂心。政府此時推出奢侈稅，除了打擊投機、穩定房價，更宣示了政策上轉向「照顧弱勢」的意涵，這個從「富」到「均」的變化，值得繼續推升。
奢侈稅的推動，只是實現「居住正義」的一小步，對台灣整體社會正義觀念的改變，卻是一個大啟發。對政府而言，這顯示執政者在政策上有很多積極角色可以扮演，不能以奢侈稅為已足；對投機客而言，這意味短期炒作可以休矣，請尋找別的標的去投資；對建商而言，要打造更合理、人性而合宜居住的房屋，不要再一味誇耀豪奢及高價；對一般民眾而言，要理解無殼蝸牛及通勤族的痛苦，請給社會住宅一個機會，不要用異樣眼光看待其間居民。
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Pay Raises for Military and Teachers Highlight Government Red Ink
Pay Raises for Military and Teachers Highlight Government Red Ink
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 18, 2011
The proposed pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers was stalled for eight months. The matter will probably be settled this week. But the budget process that follows will shine a light on the nation's deteriorating fiscal circumstances, This is something the current administration will soon have to face.
Last August, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin pleaded on behalf of the nation's civil servants. He raised the issue of a pay raise. Since then, various parties have debated the issue. They have tackled the issue from the perspective of electoral politics, consumer inflation, stimulation of consumption, and competition over human resources. Each approach has its own advocates. In his capacity as a policy maker, last year Premier Wu spoke of five criterion for a pay raise: exports, economic growth, taxation, prices, and corporate year-end bonuses. These were later reduced to two: taxes and economic outlook. Finally, last week, he said "we have an excellent opportunity" to increase salaries for military personnel and teachers by approximately 3%. He will report to President Ma this week. If the Legislature agrees, then 800,000 military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers can expect a pay raise by July 1. But as Premier Wu himself said, the case has been under discussion for almost a year. He was embarrassed about the fact. But whose fault is that?
Consider the policy alternatives. Should military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers receive a pay raise? One should consider recent price increases, private sector pay raises, and economic growth forecasts, before arriving at a decision. But such indicators are merely for reference. They are not rigid salary thresholds. Therefore the pay raise issue is fundamentally a political issue. Government policy makers make decisions based on their own subjective priorities. This is true for salary increases. The current salary increase will require an additional 21 billion NT per year. It accounts for only 1.2% of the central government's total budget. But it nearly equals the annual operating budget for the Judicial Yuan and the Examination Yuan. It could underwrite the Ministry of Economic Affairs' development projects for an entire year. It could underwrite the operating expenses for the International Airport Park for an entire year. It could underwrite road construction and improvement plans. As we can see, many other major projects would have to be shelved due to a lack of funds. The government has decided to use the 21 billion NT for a pay raise and not something else. Naturally it was a political decision made in response to current circumsances.
But any political decision that calls for the use of resources, must withstand the test of fiscal soundness. This may be the most painful aspect of Premier Wu's decision. The Ma administation took office in 2008. Since then, the government has run a deficit for three years in a row. The national debt reached a new high each year. This year is it close to 5 trillion NT. That is roughly 37% of the gross domestic product. This was unavoidable. The financial tsunami forced the government to maintain growth by increasing public infrastructure construction. But year upon year of fiscal deficits suggest that when the government issues a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers, it is living beyond its means. If the government enjoys a budget surplus, like Hong Kong, then a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable. The government would not need to hem and haw about conditions and circumstances.
Premier Wu has made clear that this year's pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers will come out of a supplementary budget. The funding may dervive from the issuance of public shares. It may exceed tax revenues and income derived from the activation of idle military land. The government has declared that it will not underwrite the pay raise by increasing debt. But this argument has two problems. The first is the legality of the supplementary budget, Article 79 of the Budget Act prescribes four preconditions for a supplementary budget. Essentially it requires a new law. Its agencies require new authority, and some sort of major incident. The Executive Yuan will of course have to present a legal case. Precedents may exist, but the circumstances are now very different. Therefore controversy is inevitable.
Secondly, once military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers have been given pay raises, this recurring expense must be sustainable. It can be made part of this year's supplementary budget and underwritten by specific revenue sources. But next year it will require regular budgets at all levels of government. If governments at all levels cannot balance their budgets next year, the government will have to increase its debt. If the pay raise indirectly increases the budget deficit, it is the same as increasing the debt. The only real solution is to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt, The government cannot underwrite a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers through a Ponzi scheme.
As we can see, a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers is a political decision. It must be accompanied by a clear plan for deficit reduction and debt reduction. The government's fiscal affairs must be credible and sustainable. The financial crisis has passed. But the European debt crisis remains. The key is long-term deficit and unresolved debt problems. The government need not pay off all its debts before implementing a pay raise. But it must at least initiate deficit reduction and debt relief.
軍教加薪凸顯政府減赤減債的壓力
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.18 02:59 am
懸著八個月的軍公教加薪案，可望在本周塵埃落定；但接下來的預算程序，也將同步把國家財政惡化的問題推上桌面，終是政府當局必須面對的課題。
從去年八月台北市長郝龍斌為全國公務員請命，拋出加薪議題以來，各方討論不斷，選票操作說、追趕物價說、刺激消費說、競爭人才說等眾「說」紛紜，各有立論，也各有擁護者；做為決策者的吳揆，則從去年底的五狀況說（出口、經濟成長、稅收、物價及企業年終獎金）調整為兩條件說（稅收、經濟展望），並終於在上周明確表示，軍公教調薪「有滿好的機會」，可能調幅是百分之三，本周向馬總統報告，若立法院也同意，最快七月一日時全國八十多萬軍公教人員就可以加薪。然而，就像吳揆自己說的，這個案子討論已快一年，講到他都不好意思；但是，敦令致之？
從政策的選擇而言，軍公教調薪與否，可以參考近年物價漲幅、民間薪資漲幅，再佐以經濟成長的預估，做出綜合的判斷；不過，這些具體的指標也僅止於參考之用，並非軍公教調薪政策的剛性門檻。因此，調薪案的本質仍是個政治決定，政府決策者據其主觀來決定施政的優先順序，調薪幅度自也在排比之列。即以這次加薪案需新增的一年支出二百一十億元來看，雖僅占中央政府總預算的百分之一點二，但它約當司法院、考試院一個年度的運作預算，可支應經濟部一年的科技發展專案計畫，並可做為國際機場園區公司一年的經營費用，更是公路建設改善計畫所需，可見其要；相對的，還有更多的重大計畫因政府財源不足而遭擱置或暫緩。政府決定將這二百一十億元的有限資源用於加薪，而非用於其他，自然是審酌當前情勢下的政治決定。
可是，任何的政治決定一旦涉及資源的使用，終究還是要回歸到財政面的實質檢驗，這或許才是吳揆此一重要政治決定的最大的痛。畢竟，從馬政府二○○八年上任之後，其所提出的中央政府總預算案已連續三年都是入不敷出的赤字預算，國家債務未償餘額更連年創新高，今年度已逼近五兆元，占國內生產毛額比率也衝向百分之卅七，這雖是金融海嘯爆發、政府須擴大公共建設以維持成長動力的不得不然，但連年的財政赤字讓政府在為軍公教加薪時，總顯得有些心有餘而力不足；試想，如果政府能像香港一樣享有財政盈餘，要為軍公教加薪自然是理既直、氣更壯了，又何需狀況說、條件說來轉移社會焦點呢？
此外，吳院長已表明，今年的軍公教加薪案將以追加預算辦理，經費來源可能包括公股事業額外增加的繳庫盈餘、高於預期的稅收及軍方閒置土地活化後的收入等，以宣示不是舉債加薪。這樣的說法將面臨兩大嚴峻考驗；第一是追加預算的適法性，預算法第七十九條明白揭示的四個追加預算情況，大底需以法律新設、機關新增所需、重大事故等方可辦理，行政院定然須找出加薪案的適法性，儘管曾有前例，但時空環境大不同，爭論難免。
第二是軍公教薪資一旦調整，就是持續性的經常支出，即使今年可以追加預算、特定財源補足，但明年度就須編列常規的各級政府預算，只要明年各級政府仍是收支有短絀的赤字預算，就代表政府仍需要舉債籌措財源。因此，加薪若間接造成預算規模的擴大、舉債規模的擴大，那跟舉債加薪沒什麼不同；唯有縮小赤字、減少舉債，方足以說服社會，軍公教加薪不能是政府打腫臉充胖子。
準此以觀，軍公教調薪的政治決定，須伴隨政府明確的國家財政減赤、減債規劃，讓民眾了解國家財政的未來具有可信度及可持續性；不要忘了，即使金融海嘯已過，歐債危機卻依然未平，關鍵即在其長期的赤字、債務問題未解。因此，加薪固然不必等政府還清債務才做，但減赤、減債一定要開始了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 18, 2011
The proposed pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers was stalled for eight months. The matter will probably be settled this week. But the budget process that follows will shine a light on the nation's deteriorating fiscal circumstances, This is something the current administration will soon have to face.
Last August, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin pleaded on behalf of the nation's civil servants. He raised the issue of a pay raise. Since then, various parties have debated the issue. They have tackled the issue from the perspective of electoral politics, consumer inflation, stimulation of consumption, and competition over human resources. Each approach has its own advocates. In his capacity as a policy maker, last year Premier Wu spoke of five criterion for a pay raise: exports, economic growth, taxation, prices, and corporate year-end bonuses. These were later reduced to two: taxes and economic outlook. Finally, last week, he said "we have an excellent opportunity" to increase salaries for military personnel and teachers by approximately 3%. He will report to President Ma this week. If the Legislature agrees, then 800,000 military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers can expect a pay raise by July 1. But as Premier Wu himself said, the case has been under discussion for almost a year. He was embarrassed about the fact. But whose fault is that?
Consider the policy alternatives. Should military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers receive a pay raise? One should consider recent price increases, private sector pay raises, and economic growth forecasts, before arriving at a decision. But such indicators are merely for reference. They are not rigid salary thresholds. Therefore the pay raise issue is fundamentally a political issue. Government policy makers make decisions based on their own subjective priorities. This is true for salary increases. The current salary increase will require an additional 21 billion NT per year. It accounts for only 1.2% of the central government's total budget. But it nearly equals the annual operating budget for the Judicial Yuan and the Examination Yuan. It could underwrite the Ministry of Economic Affairs' development projects for an entire year. It could underwrite the operating expenses for the International Airport Park for an entire year. It could underwrite road construction and improvement plans. As we can see, many other major projects would have to be shelved due to a lack of funds. The government has decided to use the 21 billion NT for a pay raise and not something else. Naturally it was a political decision made in response to current circumsances.
But any political decision that calls for the use of resources, must withstand the test of fiscal soundness. This may be the most painful aspect of Premier Wu's decision. The Ma administation took office in 2008. Since then, the government has run a deficit for three years in a row. The national debt reached a new high each year. This year is it close to 5 trillion NT. That is roughly 37% of the gross domestic product. This was unavoidable. The financial tsunami forced the government to maintain growth by increasing public infrastructure construction. But year upon year of fiscal deficits suggest that when the government issues a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers, it is living beyond its means. If the government enjoys a budget surplus, like Hong Kong, then a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable. The government would not need to hem and haw about conditions and circumstances.
Premier Wu has made clear that this year's pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers will come out of a supplementary budget. The funding may dervive from the issuance of public shares. It may exceed tax revenues and income derived from the activation of idle military land. The government has declared that it will not underwrite the pay raise by increasing debt. But this argument has two problems. The first is the legality of the supplementary budget, Article 79 of the Budget Act prescribes four preconditions for a supplementary budget. Essentially it requires a new law. Its agencies require new authority, and some sort of major incident. The Executive Yuan will of course have to present a legal case. Precedents may exist, but the circumstances are now very different. Therefore controversy is inevitable.
Secondly, once military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers have been given pay raises, this recurring expense must be sustainable. It can be made part of this year's supplementary budget and underwritten by specific revenue sources. But next year it will require regular budgets at all levels of government. If governments at all levels cannot balance their budgets next year, the government will have to increase its debt. If the pay raise indirectly increases the budget deficit, it is the same as increasing the debt. The only real solution is to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt, The government cannot underwrite a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers through a Ponzi scheme.
As we can see, a pay raise for military personnel, civil servants, and public sector school teachers is a political decision. It must be accompanied by a clear plan for deficit reduction and debt reduction. The government's fiscal affairs must be credible and sustainable. The financial crisis has passed. But the European debt crisis remains. The key is long-term deficit and unresolved debt problems. The government need not pay off all its debts before implementing a pay raise. But it must at least initiate deficit reduction and debt relief.
軍教加薪凸顯政府減赤減債的壓力
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.18 02:59 am
懸著八個月的軍公教加薪案，可望在本周塵埃落定；但接下來的預算程序，也將同步把國家財政惡化的問題推上桌面，終是政府當局必須面對的課題。
從去年八月台北市長郝龍斌為全國公務員請命，拋出加薪議題以來，各方討論不斷，選票操作說、追趕物價說、刺激消費說、競爭人才說等眾「說」紛紜，各有立論，也各有擁護者；做為決策者的吳揆，則從去年底的五狀況說（出口、經濟成長、稅收、物價及企業年終獎金）調整為兩條件說（稅收、經濟展望），並終於在上周明確表示，軍公教調薪「有滿好的機會」，可能調幅是百分之三，本周向馬總統報告，若立法院也同意，最快七月一日時全國八十多萬軍公教人員就可以加薪。然而，就像吳揆自己說的，這個案子討論已快一年，講到他都不好意思；但是，敦令致之？
從政策的選擇而言，軍公教調薪與否，可以參考近年物價漲幅、民間薪資漲幅，再佐以經濟成長的預估，做出綜合的判斷；不過，這些具體的指標也僅止於參考之用，並非軍公教調薪政策的剛性門檻。因此，調薪案的本質仍是個政治決定，政府決策者據其主觀來決定施政的優先順序，調薪幅度自也在排比之列。即以這次加薪案需新增的一年支出二百一十億元來看，雖僅占中央政府總預算的百分之一點二，但它約當司法院、考試院一個年度的運作預算，可支應經濟部一年的科技發展專案計畫，並可做為國際機場園區公司一年的經營費用，更是公路建設改善計畫所需，可見其要；相對的，還有更多的重大計畫因政府財源不足而遭擱置或暫緩。政府決定將這二百一十億元的有限資源用於加薪，而非用於其他，自然是審酌當前情勢下的政治決定。
可是，任何的政治決定一旦涉及資源的使用，終究還是要回歸到財政面的實質檢驗，這或許才是吳揆此一重要政治決定的最大的痛。畢竟，從馬政府二○○八年上任之後，其所提出的中央政府總預算案已連續三年都是入不敷出的赤字預算，國家債務未償餘額更連年創新高，今年度已逼近五兆元，占國內生產毛額比率也衝向百分之卅七，這雖是金融海嘯爆發、政府須擴大公共建設以維持成長動力的不得不然，但連年的財政赤字讓政府在為軍公教加薪時，總顯得有些心有餘而力不足；試想，如果政府能像香港一樣享有財政盈餘，要為軍公教加薪自然是理既直、氣更壯了，又何需狀況說、條件說來轉移社會焦點呢？
此外，吳院長已表明，今年的軍公教加薪案將以追加預算辦理，經費來源可能包括公股事業額外增加的繳庫盈餘、高於預期的稅收及軍方閒置土地活化後的收入等，以宣示不是舉債加薪。這樣的說法將面臨兩大嚴峻考驗；第一是追加預算的適法性，預算法第七十九條明白揭示的四個追加預算情況，大底需以法律新設、機關新增所需、重大事故等方可辦理，行政院定然須找出加薪案的適法性，儘管曾有前例，但時空環境大不同，爭論難免。
第二是軍公教薪資一旦調整，就是持續性的經常支出，即使今年可以追加預算、特定財源補足，但明年度就須編列常規的各級政府預算，只要明年各級政府仍是收支有短絀的赤字預算，就代表政府仍需要舉債籌措財源。因此，加薪若間接造成預算規模的擴大、舉債規模的擴大，那跟舉債加薪沒什麼不同；唯有縮小赤字、減少舉債，方足以說服社會，軍公教加薪不能是政府打腫臉充胖子。
準此以觀，軍公教調薪的政治決定，須伴隨政府明確的國家財政減赤、減債規劃，讓民眾了解國家財政的未來具有可信度及可持續性；不要忘了，即使金融海嘯已過，歐債危機卻依然未平，關鍵即在其長期的赤字、債務問題未解。因此，加薪固然不必等政府還清債務才做，但減赤、減債一定要開始了。
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Su and Tsai's Worrisome Insular Economic Perspective
Su and Tsai's Worrisome Insular Economic Perspective
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2011
The DPP has just held its second presidential primary debate. But the party's candidates have yet to offer the far-sighted national policies the public expects. The public has however, seen Su and Tsai Ing-wen waffle and flip-flop on economic policy. Tsai Ing-wen's "local economy," and Su Tseng-chang's "fortunate nation" are shot through with introversion and reaction. Do they really not know they are leading Taiwan down the garden path?
During the previous primary debate, Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly touted her international vision, During the latest primary debate however, she suddenly reverted to "local economy" thinking. She declared that Taiwan must head down an entirely different developmental path. It must adopt a nativist orientation. This was truly surprising. Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy, calls for the development of industries with local characteristics. It calls for young people to turn their creative energies to rural towns and villages, and increasing job opportunities. In fact, this idea is not new. Tsai Ing-wen lacks an adequate understanding of Taiwan's local economy. Otherwise she would have known that many regions have begun doing just this, and that the results have been exemplary. Young people have been returning home in a steady stream for years.
In recent years, Taiwan's economy has reached a bottleneck, mainly due to flip-flopping over government policies and government controls. This is not a problem that can be solved by chanting political mantras such as "local economy." Besides, problems with the local economy are rightly the responsibility of county chiefs, city mayors, and village chiefs. They are more able to respond to local conditions. They are closer to local needs. A national leader needs a broader and more far-sighted perspective. Tsai Ing-wen alas, cannot see the forest for the trees. She imagines she has offered us a grand vision of how to rule a nation. In reality, she has put the cart before the horse. Tsai Ing-wen is either unfamilar with Taiwan's local economy, or she simply cannot see beyond the island of Taiwan. Either is cause for concern.
Imagine applying Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy model to Seattle, Seattle is an aerospace, information technology, and biotechnology center. Many world-renowned multinational companies have set up factories there. In short, Seattle is an international city. It simply does not fit into Tsai Ing-wen's "nativist" framework. It does not have an economy rooted in the sale of agricultural products or on local tourism. People from many nations work there. Together they have achieved prosperity and excellence. Seattle may be Tsai Ing-wen's image of paradise. But if her head is filled exclusively with thoughts of "localization" and "nativism," how can she possibly set foot within such a realm?
Su Tseng-chang's economic perspective is not quite as narrow and constipated. He supports deregulation. He supports incentives for investment. But alas, he also demands all sorts of measures to "redistribute the wealth." He commits a string of logical contradictions impossible to justify. He resembles Tsai Ing-wen in certain respects. During the two primary debates he mentioned industrial policy. Both times the examples he cited concerned local agriculture and local fisheries. The first concerned angelfish. The other concerned mushrooms. Angelfish and mushrooms are indeed examples of "native" Taiwan industries. But Su has to incorporate a much broader range of technologies and industries into his economic framework. Does he really believe that reverting to "nativism," to farming and fishing, can bolster Taiwan's economy and ensure its future development?
Six decades ago, our forebears created Taiwan's economic miracle. Taiwan lacked resources. Only by aggressively developing trade and import substitution industrialization, were they able to ensure Taiwan's economic survival. Six decades later, Taiwan has become an economic giant. DPP leaders not only do not understand how to help this giant grow, they actually want to shrink its domain, and reduce the amount of room it has for growth. Is forcing Taiwan to revert to farming and fishing the only way to ensure a better tomorrow?
Hsu Hsin-liang has reiterated the need to "go west." He may have oversimplifed the problem. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are ahead in the polls. All they can think about is "nativism." All they can think about is farming and fishing. They dare not take a long hard look at their surroundings, at the world outside. Their attitude is a far more serious problem. When Chen Shui-bian was in office, he knew enough to champion such projects as "Two Trillion, Twin Stars," and "Big Investment, Great Warmth." Many of these projects were empty boasts. But at least he knew the government had to take the lead. Su and Tsai have eight years of experience in office. Yet overnight, they would overturn and discard their own important economic achievements. They would force Taiwan to revert to what it was six decades ago. That would be a giant step backwards. Su Tseng-chang has promised rosy elderly long term care and child care policies. But given his feeble economic program, who is going to pay for all his welfare programs?
Youth unemployment and industrial restructuring are problems the ruling and opposition parties must solve together. But problems cannot be solved by burying one's head in the sand. Nor should policy makers prescribe voodoo economic cures. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen may defy the wisdom of the people. But they must not be allowed to trample over six decades of hard-won economic prosperity. Tsai Ing-wen. Su Tseng-chang. Do your homework. Then come back.
蘇蔡的島國經濟觀令人憂心
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.15
民進黨總統初選第二場政見會，人們期待聽到的宏觀國政藍圖依舊闕如，卻更看出蘇貞昌和蔡英文在經濟論述上的左支右絀。蔡英文的「在地經濟」，蘇貞昌的「幸福國家」，均充滿內向、退縮的心態，他們知道自己要把台灣帶到何方嗎？
上次政見會蔡英文一再誇稱自己如何具有國際視野，這次政見會她卻突然一躍退回「在地經濟」的格局，宣稱台灣發展軸線應該全面「翻轉」，朝向地方催化，令人訝異。蔡英文所謂的在地經濟，是指要發展地方特色產業，結合年輕人的創意，把活力導回農村鄉鎮，並增加就業。這種想法其實一點也不新奇，蔡英文若對台灣在地經濟有足夠的了解，她應知許多地方早已在著手這樣的工作，且卓然有成，多年來返鄉青年也絡繹於途。
事實上，台灣近年經濟發展遇上的瓶頸，主要在政策的反覆與管制，那絕非「在地經濟」這樣的政治符咒所能打通。再說，在地經濟的問題其實更適合交給縣市長，或鄉鎮村長層級去推動，較能因地制宜，並貼近地方需求。一個國家領導人要思考的，應該是更宏觀、更具未來瞻矚的大前景；而蔡英文卻把她的眼光放在如此枝微末節之處，還當成其治國大政宣揚，委實是本末倒置。這不論是反映了蔡英文對台灣本土經濟的陌生，或者她的眼光超越不了台灣的島國格局，都讓人憂慮。
以蔡英文所稱的在地經濟典範西雅圖市為例，該市是航太、資訊及生化等高科技產業的重鎮，全球許多知名跨國公司在此設廠。簡單地說，西雅圖市是一個極開放的國際化城市，絕非如蔡英文所勾勒的「本土樣板」，也不是一個販售農特產或標榜在地觀光的在地經濟；不同國家的人在此工作，共同成就它的繁榮富庶和高水準。如果蔡英文心中的桃花源藍圖是西雅圖，但她的眼光卻只圍繞著「在地」打轉，腳下如何到達得了那個境界？
相形之下，蘇貞昌的經濟觀點雖不像蔡英文那麼狹窄與扁平，他贊成政策鬆綁、鼓勵投資，但隨即卻又主張用各種行政干預來達成公平分配，其間邏輯不時出現斷裂和矛盾，難以自圓其說。與蔡英文相似的是，他在兩次政見會中提到產業政策時，所舉的事例都是本土的農漁業，一是神仙魚，一是金針菇。這一魚一菇，確實是台灣本土企業現代化的典範；但如果蘇貞昌不能把更高、更廣泛的科技和產業融入他的經濟發展架構，他真認為光靠著回歸本土、回歸農漁，台灣經濟就能找到安身立命、發展成長之所嗎？
一甲子之前，締造台灣經濟起飛奇蹟的前輩們都知道：台灣資源缺乏，只有全力發展貿易，創造進口替代，才能掌握自己生存的命脈。一甲子之後，台灣已成為一個經濟小巨人，而民進黨的領導人不知如何讓小巨人長得更大，卻竟然想要自我限縮台灣的伸展空間；難道台灣要重回農漁業時代，才會有美好的明天？
許信良一味反覆強調「大膽西進」，未免過於簡化問題。但蘇貞昌和蔡英文這兩位民調遙遙領先者，目光只盯著本土、盯著農漁業，卻不敢抬起頭來觀察四鄰、瞭望國際，恐怕才是更嚴重的問題。試想，陳水扁執政時，尚且知道要提出「兩兆雙星」、「大投資、大溫暖」等訴求，雖然其間不少項目灌水，但至少它清楚政府該扮演火車頭角色；孰料蘇蔡兩人積八年執政之經驗，一夕推翻毀棄了自己推動的種種重大經建計畫不說，竟還想將台灣帶回一甲子之前，這恐怕才是大倒退。且看蘇貞昌提出洋洋灑灑的老人長照及幼兒全面托育政策，相對於他薄弱的經濟論述，誰來支付這些社福開銷，不都成了無解之謎。
台灣的青年失業和產業轉型，是朝野必須共同面對的問題，但解決之道絕不是把頭埋進沙堆裡，更不需要決策者亂開巫毒經濟藥方。蘇貞昌和蔡英文可以藐視民眾的智慧，卻絕不能踐踏台灣一甲子的經濟根基，請多下點功夫再來吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2011
The DPP has just held its second presidential primary debate. But the party's candidates have yet to offer the far-sighted national policies the public expects. The public has however, seen Su and Tsai Ing-wen waffle and flip-flop on economic policy. Tsai Ing-wen's "local economy," and Su Tseng-chang's "fortunate nation" are shot through with introversion and reaction. Do they really not know they are leading Taiwan down the garden path?
During the previous primary debate, Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly touted her international vision, During the latest primary debate however, she suddenly reverted to "local economy" thinking. She declared that Taiwan must head down an entirely different developmental path. It must adopt a nativist orientation. This was truly surprising. Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy, calls for the development of industries with local characteristics. It calls for young people to turn their creative energies to rural towns and villages, and increasing job opportunities. In fact, this idea is not new. Tsai Ing-wen lacks an adequate understanding of Taiwan's local economy. Otherwise she would have known that many regions have begun doing just this, and that the results have been exemplary. Young people have been returning home in a steady stream for years.
In recent years, Taiwan's economy has reached a bottleneck, mainly due to flip-flopping over government policies and government controls. This is not a problem that can be solved by chanting political mantras such as "local economy." Besides, problems with the local economy are rightly the responsibility of county chiefs, city mayors, and village chiefs. They are more able to respond to local conditions. They are closer to local needs. A national leader needs a broader and more far-sighted perspective. Tsai Ing-wen alas, cannot see the forest for the trees. She imagines she has offered us a grand vision of how to rule a nation. In reality, she has put the cart before the horse. Tsai Ing-wen is either unfamilar with Taiwan's local economy, or she simply cannot see beyond the island of Taiwan. Either is cause for concern.
Imagine applying Tsai Ing-wen's so-called local economy model to Seattle, Seattle is an aerospace, information technology, and biotechnology center. Many world-renowned multinational companies have set up factories there. In short, Seattle is an international city. It simply does not fit into Tsai Ing-wen's "nativist" framework. It does not have an economy rooted in the sale of agricultural products or on local tourism. People from many nations work there. Together they have achieved prosperity and excellence. Seattle may be Tsai Ing-wen's image of paradise. But if her head is filled exclusively with thoughts of "localization" and "nativism," how can she possibly set foot within such a realm?
Su Tseng-chang's economic perspective is not quite as narrow and constipated. He supports deregulation. He supports incentives for investment. But alas, he also demands all sorts of measures to "redistribute the wealth." He commits a string of logical contradictions impossible to justify. He resembles Tsai Ing-wen in certain respects. During the two primary debates he mentioned industrial policy. Both times the examples he cited concerned local agriculture and local fisheries. The first concerned angelfish. The other concerned mushrooms. Angelfish and mushrooms are indeed examples of "native" Taiwan industries. But Su has to incorporate a much broader range of technologies and industries into his economic framework. Does he really believe that reverting to "nativism," to farming and fishing, can bolster Taiwan's economy and ensure its future development?
Six decades ago, our forebears created Taiwan's economic miracle. Taiwan lacked resources. Only by aggressively developing trade and import substitution industrialization, were they able to ensure Taiwan's economic survival. Six decades later, Taiwan has become an economic giant. DPP leaders not only do not understand how to help this giant grow, they actually want to shrink its domain, and reduce the amount of room it has for growth. Is forcing Taiwan to revert to farming and fishing the only way to ensure a better tomorrow?
Hsu Hsin-liang has reiterated the need to "go west." He may have oversimplifed the problem. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are ahead in the polls. All they can think about is "nativism." All they can think about is farming and fishing. They dare not take a long hard look at their surroundings, at the world outside. Their attitude is a far more serious problem. When Chen Shui-bian was in office, he knew enough to champion such projects as "Two Trillion, Twin Stars," and "Big Investment, Great Warmth." Many of these projects were empty boasts. But at least he knew the government had to take the lead. Su and Tsai have eight years of experience in office. Yet overnight, they would overturn and discard their own important economic achievements. They would force Taiwan to revert to what it was six decades ago. That would be a giant step backwards. Su Tseng-chang has promised rosy elderly long term care and child care policies. But given his feeble economic program, who is going to pay for all his welfare programs?
Youth unemployment and industrial restructuring are problems the ruling and opposition parties must solve together. But problems cannot be solved by burying one's head in the sand. Nor should policy makers prescribe voodoo economic cures. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen may defy the wisdom of the people. But they must not be allowed to trample over six decades of hard-won economic prosperity. Tsai Ing-wen. Su Tseng-chang. Do your homework. Then come back.
蘇蔡的島國經濟觀令人憂心
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.15
民進黨總統初選第二場政見會，人們期待聽到的宏觀國政藍圖依舊闕如，卻更看出蘇貞昌和蔡英文在經濟論述上的左支右絀。蔡英文的「在地經濟」，蘇貞昌的「幸福國家」，均充滿內向、退縮的心態，他們知道自己要把台灣帶到何方嗎？
上次政見會蔡英文一再誇稱自己如何具有國際視野，這次政見會她卻突然一躍退回「在地經濟」的格局，宣稱台灣發展軸線應該全面「翻轉」，朝向地方催化，令人訝異。蔡英文所謂的在地經濟，是指要發展地方特色產業，結合年輕人的創意，把活力導回農村鄉鎮，並增加就業。這種想法其實一點也不新奇，蔡英文若對台灣在地經濟有足夠的了解，她應知許多地方早已在著手這樣的工作，且卓然有成，多年來返鄉青年也絡繹於途。
事實上，台灣近年經濟發展遇上的瓶頸，主要在政策的反覆與管制，那絕非「在地經濟」這樣的政治符咒所能打通。再說，在地經濟的問題其實更適合交給縣市長，或鄉鎮村長層級去推動，較能因地制宜，並貼近地方需求。一個國家領導人要思考的，應該是更宏觀、更具未來瞻矚的大前景；而蔡英文卻把她的眼光放在如此枝微末節之處，還當成其治國大政宣揚，委實是本末倒置。這不論是反映了蔡英文對台灣本土經濟的陌生，或者她的眼光超越不了台灣的島國格局，都讓人憂慮。
以蔡英文所稱的在地經濟典範西雅圖市為例，該市是航太、資訊及生化等高科技產業的重鎮，全球許多知名跨國公司在此設廠。簡單地說，西雅圖市是一個極開放的國際化城市，絕非如蔡英文所勾勒的「本土樣板」，也不是一個販售農特產或標榜在地觀光的在地經濟；不同國家的人在此工作，共同成就它的繁榮富庶和高水準。如果蔡英文心中的桃花源藍圖是西雅圖，但她的眼光卻只圍繞著「在地」打轉，腳下如何到達得了那個境界？
相形之下，蘇貞昌的經濟觀點雖不像蔡英文那麼狹窄與扁平，他贊成政策鬆綁、鼓勵投資，但隨即卻又主張用各種行政干預來達成公平分配，其間邏輯不時出現斷裂和矛盾，難以自圓其說。與蔡英文相似的是，他在兩次政見會中提到產業政策時，所舉的事例都是本土的農漁業，一是神仙魚，一是金針菇。這一魚一菇，確實是台灣本土企業現代化的典範；但如果蘇貞昌不能把更高、更廣泛的科技和產業融入他的經濟發展架構，他真認為光靠著回歸本土、回歸農漁，台灣經濟就能找到安身立命、發展成長之所嗎？
一甲子之前，締造台灣經濟起飛奇蹟的前輩們都知道：台灣資源缺乏，只有全力發展貿易，創造進口替代，才能掌握自己生存的命脈。一甲子之後，台灣已成為一個經濟小巨人，而民進黨的領導人不知如何讓小巨人長得更大，卻竟然想要自我限縮台灣的伸展空間；難道台灣要重回農漁業時代，才會有美好的明天？
許信良一味反覆強調「大膽西進」，未免過於簡化問題。但蘇貞昌和蔡英文這兩位民調遙遙領先者，目光只盯著本土、盯著農漁業，卻不敢抬起頭來觀察四鄰、瞭望國際，恐怕才是更嚴重的問題。試想，陳水扁執政時，尚且知道要提出「兩兆雙星」、「大投資、大溫暖」等訴求，雖然其間不少項目灌水，但至少它清楚政府該扮演火車頭角色；孰料蘇蔡兩人積八年執政之經驗，一夕推翻毀棄了自己推動的種種重大經建計畫不說，竟還想將台灣帶回一甲子之前，這恐怕才是大倒退。且看蘇貞昌提出洋洋灑灑的老人長照及幼兒全面托育政策，相對於他薄弱的經濟論述，誰來支付這些社福開銷，不都成了無解之謎。
台灣的青年失業和產業轉型，是朝野必須共同面對的問題，但解決之道絕不是把頭埋進沙堆裡，更不需要決策者亂開巫毒經濟藥方。蘇貞昌和蔡英文可以藐視民眾的智慧，卻絕不能踐踏台灣一甲子的經濟根基，請多下點功夫再來吧！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)