Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Swift Justice for Unscrupulous Plasticizer Users

Swift Justice for Unscrupulous Plasticizer Users
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 31, 2011

Apparently the degree to which toxic plasticizers have harmed the public is greater than previously imagined. They have been found not just in food, but in cosmetics. Food and cosmetics are commercial products. Unscrupulous businesses knowingly violated the law. Innocent people spent good money only to buy poison and damage their health. The government must severely punish those companies that engaged in such malicious behavior.

Health officials and prosecutors have investigated for days. The story behind the world's first case of plasticizer food contamination is becoming increasingly clear. The two main upstream "drug connections" were the Yu Shen Chemical Company and the Pin Han Perfumery Company. Yu Shen has been in business over 30 years. It is the largest supplier of toxic emulsifiers. The number of midstream and downstream industries affected is difficult to determine. Almost all domestic food industries, large and small, have been affected. Like the public, they too have become victims.

An inter-ministerial team is currently investigating. It has already discovered over 500 types of contaminated products. These 500 plus products, in turn, have affected other food companies. If hundreds, perhaps even thousands of food companies intentionally added plasticizers, then the safety of domestic food products is in serious question. But based on food industry reactions, the volume and cost of plasticizers used in the food manufacturing process is minimal, It is unlikely that the food industry intentionally added poisons and harmed people. Many of the food companies named are listed or highly reputable companies that have been in business for years. Amidst this turmoil, the government must quickly identify the flow of raw materials and assign blame. Some food manufacturers are innocent. The public must not be forced to constantly wonder what it can eat.

Yu Shen and Pin Han's evil deeds deserve universal condemnation. Five major product categories have been affected, including sports drinks and fruit juices. Even baby foods and health foods have fallen victim. Many purchasers of health food already have weak constitutions. Infants and young children are even more vulnerable. Those who sold raw materials containing plasticizers to these segments of the food industry deserve the harshest condemnation. How can these suppliers sleep at night?

There are 16 kinds of plasticizers. According to prosecutors, Yu Shen began using DEHP plasticizer a few years ago. This kind of plasticizing agent is metabolized by the body within a day or two. As soon as one ceases eating the problem food, one will be just fine. But Yu Shen over a period of at least 25 years prior to that, it used DOP, a more toxic plasticizer. This plasticizer cannot be metabolized and excreted. It accumulates in the body. These deadly toxins were actually added to legal emulsifiers that people put into their bodies. Companies violated the law. Their actions may not amount to murder. But they could be seen as attempted murder.

The plasticizer tempest has provoked panic among the public. The food industry is losing money. The storm has raged for several days. We now see which government agencies made mistakes and must be forced to improve.

First, the Health Department imposed stringent standards for many toxic substances. It stipulated that they "may not be added," and "must not be detectable." But the government cannot merely lay down the law. A law written on a piece of paper will keep the public safe. Otherwise, plasticizers would not have been found in thousands of food products.

First, plasticizing agents, environmental hormones, antibiotics, and chemical additives, must be prohibited by law. Then the government must conduct spot checks. It must engage in an ongoing battle of wits with opportunistic businessmen who deliberately seek out loopholes. It must do everything in its power to eliminate harmful substances from peoples' lives.

The EPD is responsible for poison control. Plasticizers are currently classified as class four poisons. Many experts and groups are hoping to reclassify them as class two poisons. Reclassification would enhance control efforts. Once the illegal industries have been uncovered, the punishments can be increased. The EPA has never had a positive attitude. Given its negative attitude, how can it respond appropriately to public demands for increased food safety?

According to a recent EPA investigation, among the 300 domestic sellers of plasticizer ingredients, 20 have not filed import and export product transaction reports. These 20 companies constitute less than 1/10th of the industry as a whole. But as long as a few kilograms of illegal plasticizer find their way into the food industry, the harm will remain unimaginable. If not for the current turmoil, these 20 raw material suppliers would have slipped through the net. The EPA must establish more rigorous inspection methods.

During the current turmoil, food companies and [channel operators?] have complained that the government lacks standard operating procedures. First it demanded that food companies submit reports proving their products were free of DEHP, Later it demanded that they be free of six kinds of plasticizers, But domestic testing capacity was inadequate. Food companies found themselves in a giant traffic jam. In the future the public will demand even stricter food safety and supervision. The government agencies' inadequate testing capacity must be addressed, as soon as possible.

The Mainland authorities are closely following the progress of the plasticizer turmoil on Taiwan. Mainland China's Supreme People's Court and the courts at all levels, punish criminals who endanger food safety harshly, in accordance with the law. The plasticizer incident has undermined the health of the nation, and the livelihood of food companies. Swift justice is one of the principles the government must ensure.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2011.05.31
社論-從重、從速處理塑化劑不肖業者
本報訊

 塑化劑毒害民眾的範圍似有擴大蔓延趨勢,如今不只食品,連化妝品也有!「食品」和「化妝品」都是商品,也就是說,在不肖業者有意違法之下,無辜的民眾等於花錢買毒,健康受損。業者這麼惡質的行為,政府一定要從重處罰!

 經過衛生單位和檢調連日追查,這起全球首見的食品被塑化劑汙染事件的眉目逐漸清晰,主要「毒頭」來自昱伸香料和賓漢兩家上游原料業者。而昱伸已經營卅年以上,成為國內最大含毒起雲劑供應商,中下游供貨對象難以計數,以致國內大大小小食品業者幾乎都中毒,和民眾一樣,成為這起事件的受害者。

 目前經過政府跨部會小組的稽查,已經發現五百種以上的商品淪陷;而五百種以上商品,又涉及更多的食品製造業者,若說成百上千的食品業者都是故意添加塑化劑,那麼,國內食品安全問題就非同小可。但根據食品界反應,塑化劑在食品製造過程中,所占份量與成本微乎其微,業者不太可能有意添加毒物害人。而許多中鏢的食品業者是股票上市櫃公司,或經營多年的老字號,在這一波風暴中,政府有必要迅速查清毒原料流向與責任,還食品製造業者清白,也能讓民眾不再遑遑終日,不知道吃什麼才好。

 昱伸與賓漢的惡行,可以用「天地不容」來形容!不止運動飲料、果汁等五大產品遭毒害,連嬰幼兒食品與健康食品都難逃毒網;會吃健康食品的人,也許本身就體質孱弱、嬰幼兒就更不用說了,把含塑化劑的原料賣給兩種食品業者,其心可誅,原料業者夜裡怎麼能睡得著!

 塑化劑有十六種,根據檢方調查,昱伸使用DEHP塑化劑是近幾年的事,這種塑化劑一、二天就能被人體代謝,民眾停止吃問題食品就好了。但昱伸承認,之前至少廿五年的時間中,是使用更毒的DOP塑化劑,這種塑化劑不能被代謝排出,而是一直累積在人體內。這麼毒的東西,竟然被加進合法的食品添加物起雲劑當中,以致被民眾吃進體內,業者觸犯的法律,即使構不成殺人罪,也可以殺人未遂視之。

 塑化劑風暴掀起民眾恐慌、食品業者經營損失,但連吹幾天之後,我們也看到政府單位的疏失,必須一併檢討改善。

 首先,衛生署對很多毒性物質以最嚴格的標準「不得添加」、「不得檢出」來規範。但政府施政不是定了規定,以為薄薄一紙法律、公文,就能保障民眾安全了。否則,現在怎麼會在成千上萬的食品中檢出塑化劑?

 對於塑化劑等環境荷爾蒙、抗生素、化學添加物,有了不准添加的法律後,政府還要不定期抽查,和存心鑽漏洞、取巧投機的不肖商人鬥法,儘可能的杜絕有害物質進入民眾生活中。

 對於負責毒物管制的環保署,目前很多專家和團體都希望能將塑化劑由第四類毒物管制,提昇到第二類,如此可以加強管制力度;查獲業者違法後,懲處也更重。但環保署一直沒有正面表態,這種消極態度,如何能回應要求食品安全的強烈民意?

 根據環保署最近的稽查,全國三百家販售塑化劑的原料業者中,仍有廿家沒有依法申報產品進出口與交易紀錄。雖然廿家還不到整體業者的十分之一,但只要有幾公斤的塑化劑違法流向食品界,危害就難以想像。如果不是這一波風暴,這廿家原料業者就一直是防毒大網中的漏網之魚,環保署也必須建立更嚴密的稽查方式。

 在這一波風暴中,食品與通路業者也抱怨,政府沒有標準作業流程,一開始是要求業者提出不含DEHP的報告,後來又追加到要不含六種塑化劑,而國內檢驗能量又不足,業者送驗大塞車。今後民眾對食品安全的要求與監督將更趨嚴格,政府有關單位對於檢驗能量的問題,必須極早規畫因應。

 台灣發生塑化劑風暴後,大陸也密切觀察事件發展,中國最高人民法院並要求各級法院,依法從重、從速嚴懲危害食品安全的罪犯。塑化劑事件關係全國民眾健康與大批食品業者生計,「從重、從速」的確是政府可借鏡的處理原則。

Monday, May 30, 2011

Yesterday Chuang Kuo-jung, Today Chiang Wei-wen

Yesterday Chuang Kuo-jung, Today Chiang Wei-wen
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 30, 2011

During the 2008 general election, the Chen regime touted "de-Sinicization" and the "elimination of Chiang influences." Then Ministry of Education Secretary General Chuang Kuo-jung made himself the focus of public attention. He publicly shouted, "F**k Chiang Ching-kuo." Now, as we approach the 2012 general election, Chiang Wei-wen, an associate professor of Taiwanese literature at Cheng Kung University, is in the news. Chiang distributed posters blasting author Huang Chun-ming as a "Taiwanese author who does not write in Taiwanese, but instead in Chinese. He is a disgrace! "

Chuang and Chiang have something in common. Both promoted "de-Sinicization" and the "elimination of the legacy of the Republic of China." Both were young or middle-aged professors at national universities. The only difference was that Chuang Kuo-jung promoted "de-Sinicization" and the "elimination of the legacy of the Republic of China" as a mouthpiece of the Chen regime. Chiang Wei-wen promoted the same ideas under the guise of an opposition scholar. He and current Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen both argued that "the Republic of China is a government in exile."

This is a living portrait of the Green Camp political culture. Chiang Wei-wen and his followers are pillars of the Green Camp. Therefore, when the Green Camp is in power, Chuang Kuo-jung and his followers can lead the ruling administration around by the nose. The ruling administration has no choice but to daqnce to the tune of Chuang Kuo-jung and his followers. Otherwise it will be unable to answer to them. If it loses the support of Chiang Wei-wen and his followers, it will lose the Chuang Kuo-jung seal of approval. Therefore is is hardly surprising that Tsai and Chiang both argue that "the Republic of China is a government in exile." Tsai Ing-wen gains the support of Chiang Wei-wen and his camp followers. Chiang Wei-wen and his camp followers, meanwhile, pin their hope of "de-Sinicizing" Taiwan on Tsai Ing-wen. To Chiang Wei-wen and his camp followers, Tsai Ing-wen is the next Chuang Kuo-jung or Chen Shui-bian.

The Chiang Wei-wen incident is not about academics. It is about politics. At its core, is the notion that "the Republic of China is a colonial government in exile." According to Chiang Wei-wen, the "Taiwanese language" includes the Hakka dialect, the Taiwanese aboriginal languages, and so-called "Taiwanese," i.e., the Minan dialect, but not the "Chinese Language." Why? Because the "Chinese Language" is purportedly "the language of the colonizers." Therefore it must be lumped in the same category as Japanese, English, and "other foreign languages."

According to their logic, the public on Taiwan is under ruled by "the Republic of China colonial government in exile." Its official language, Chinese, is a "foreign language," and yet it is deemed the "National Language." Chiang Wei-wen proposes to repeal the "Republic of China" national title. He says that to retain this national title is to retain the colonial government in exile. He proposes to abolish the "Chinese Language" and by means of "education," and change it to the "Taiwanese language."

Chiang Wei-wen's language proposal is merely an instrument of his political proposals. In fact, so-called "Taiwanese" is one of the basic "Han languages." Chiang Wei-wen and his followers want to rewrite "You and I" as "You kap me." But all they have done is take a regional dialect and call it a "language." All they have done doing is carry out an experiment. They have not departed one iota from the main body of the Chinese language. Besides, even the "Taiwan Independence Party Platform" is written using Chinese characters. Is that too "a disgrace?" Now consider their political concepts. So-called "Taiwanese," in its written form, is obviously Chinese. Suppose they completely jettison the traditional written form and write it using Roman letters? Chen Shui-bian advocated something similar when he claimed that Taiwan was actually under the jurisdiction of a U.S. military government. That claim amounted to the unconditional surrender of the Green Camp's hallowed notion of "Taiwan's primacy."

In 2008, Chuang Kuo-jung ranted and raved. Shih Ming-teh was the leader of the Red Shirt Army. The Green Camp accused Shih of "selling out Taiwan," It denounced Shih as a "traitor to Taiwan." Today, Chiang Wei-wen is ranting and raving. He has denounced Huang Chun-min, saying that Huang is a "Taiwanese author who does not write in Taiwanese, but in Chinese. He is a disgrace!" As the Green Camp sees it, when Shih Ming-teh championed "opposition to corruption," he betrayed "Taiwanese values." Huang Chun-min is a prolific author whose works are rich in local content. But as Chiang Wei-wen and his camp followers see it, none of that matters compared to a single "you kap me" phoneticization. The Green Camp's central article of faith remains the notion that "the Republic of China is a colonial government in exile."

Chiang Wei-wen is a Deep Green icon. His views are typical of Deep Greens. Most Green Camp figures are not quite so ridiculous. But all share the same central article of faith: "the Republic of China is a colonial government in exile." This is true of Lee Teng-hui. This is true of Chen Shui-bian. This is true of Koo Kuan-min. And this is true of Tsai Ing-wen.

Therefore if Tsai Ing-wen is elected president, she will be Chen Shui-bian redux. How can she possibly step up and assume the duties of "Republic of China President?" Chuang Kuo-jung, Chiang Wei-wen, and their followers, insist that "the Republic of China is a colonial government in exile." How can Tsai Ing-wen possibly assume the reins of such a government? For example, Chuang Kuo-jung, Chiang Wei-wen, and their followers oppose the 1992 Consensus. How can Tsai Ing-wen possibly free herself from this Green Camp/Taiwan independence movement straitjacket?

昔有莊國榮 今有蔣為文
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.05.30

二○○八年大選前,扁政府大搞「去中國化」、「去蔣化」,當年的教育部主任秘書莊國榮大出鋒頭,甚至公開罵蔣經國「他媽的」;現在,到了二○一二大選前,成功大學冒出了台文系副教授蔣為文,公開舉海報抗議作家黃春明「台灣作家不用台語,卻用中國語創作,可恥!」

莊蔣二人的共同處,皆在操作「去中國化」及「去中華民國化」,且兩人皆是出身國立大學的青壯教師;不同處,則在莊國榮當時是代表扁政府執政團隊操作「去中國化」及「去中華民國化」,而蔣為文則是以在野學者身分推動,他與民進黨總統參選人蔡英文同樣主張「中華民國是流亡政府」。

這正是綠營政治生態的鮮活寫照。由於綠營在社會中的支持者是以「蔣為文們」為主力;因此,當綠營執政時,朝中自以「莊國榮們」為班底。執政不走「莊國榮們」的風格,如何向「蔣為文們」交代?若失去「蔣為文們」的支持,「莊國榮們」即失去社會憑藉。因此,今日在蔡英文與蔣為文之間,存有「中華民國是流亡政府」這個交集,亦是理所當然。蔡英文以此取得「蔣為文們」的支持,而「蔣為文們」則將「去中國化」與「去中華民國化」寄託於蔡英文,蔡英文就是「蔣為文們」心中的下一個「莊國榮」或「陳水扁」。

蔣為文事件不是一個學術事件,而是一個政治事件。其理論體系的核心概念即是:「中華民國是外來殖民流亡政府」。因此,蔣為文主張,「台灣語言」包括了客家語、原住民語及台語(由閩南語易稱),卻不可包括「中國語」;因為,「中國語」是「殖民者的語言」,應與日語、英語等外國語歸為一類,不可列為「台灣語言」。

在此一邏輯下,如今的全體台灣人民非但皆在「中華民國外來殖民流亡政府」的統治之下,而且是以「外國語」(中國語)為「國語」。蔣為文的主張是:必須廢除「中華民國」的國號(他說,留住這個國號,就是外來殖民流亡政府),然後再廢止「中國語」,用「教育」改行「台語文」。

蔣為文的語文主張,只是他政治主張的工具。其實,「台語」本有一個「漢文」的基底,如今蔣為文等將「你和我」,改寫成「你kap我」,只能說是方言「文字化」的試驗,並未脫離「中國語文」的本體。何況,連「台獨黨綱」都是用「中國文字」寫的,難道亦是「可恥」?至於其政治主張,若將「台語」的漢字基底完全拋棄,全部羅馬拼音化,正如陳水扁主張將台灣交給美國軍政府一樣,那只是台灣主體性的更徹底淪喪。

二○○八年莊國榮發飆的時代,綠營將紅衫軍總指揮施明德指為「賣台集團」、「台奸」;如今蔣為文發飆,居然又指黃春明「台灣作家不用台語文創作」,斥為「可恥」。施明德反貪反腐的主張,在綠營看來,那是對「台灣價值」的背叛;黃春明著作等身所滿溢的對鄉土的濃重關懷,在「蔣為文們」看來,其實不如「你kap我」中間的那一個拼音字。這一切的一切,皆緣於綠營核心地帶的中心信仰:中華民國是外來殖民流亡政府!

蔣為文是深綠極獨的標竿與典型,但一般綠營人物的表現未必如此滑稽;然而,在他們之間,「中華民國是外來殖民流亡政府」的中心思想卻無二致,李登輝如此,陳水扁如此,辜寬敏如此,蔡英文亦如此。

因而,蔡英文如果當選總統,一如陳水扁,將如何以「中華民國總統」的身分,去接掌這個「莊國榮們/蔣為文們」所認定的「中華民國外來殖民流亡政府」?例如,「莊國榮們/蔣為文們」既反對「九二共識」,蔡英文又豈有可能跳出這個綠營及獨派的政治共軛?

Friday, May 27, 2011

Black-Hearted Businessmen Fined a Mere 30 Million NT

Black-Hearted Businessmen Fined a Mere 30 Million NT
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 27, 2011

A well-known energy drink, advertised as a health food, has been found to contain industrial plasticizers as an additive. Many young people drink it every day. Yet it may damage a person's reproductive system. The main culprit is the Yu Shen Company. It has sold its "black-hearted merchandise" on both sides of the Strait as well as overseas. Yet the government will only be fining it 30 million NT. The public is incredulous.

This toxic beverage incident originated with upstream suppliers, who adulterated the products with additives. The toxins flowed down the supply chain, spreading everywhere. Ordinary people everywhere have been poisoned. The extent of the damage is difficult to estimate. It has affected not merely beverage manufacturers on Taiwan. It has harmed the image of products from Taiwan in general. It is a serious threat to the health of consumers. Supermarkets, superstores, and big box stores have taken them off the shelves. But this addresses only certain brands. We must get to the bottom of the problem, Some eating establishments add illegal plastizers to their drinks. Local health departments have a great deal of hard work ahead of them.

Prosecutors estimate that the Yu Sheng Company has been adding the illegal plastizer DEHP to their emulsifiers for five years, This is when the "sports drinks" and "health foods" era began. Motivated by greed, many beverage manufacturers hoped to reduce costs. They manufactured toxic beverages and are now paying the price. Not only have their reputations been destroyed, consumers have been harmed. These businessmen committed these horrible crimes. This is not something disclaimers that "We were victims too" can gloss over. Too many businessmen were irresponsible. Consumers should also consider getting back to nature and eating plainly. They should stop believing the myth of commercially packaged health.

One thing is puzzling. The Department of Health has ruled that foods may not contain additives such as phthalates. Then why are there so many known manufacturers of this illegal raw material? Why didn't the Department of Health discover this problem five years ago? Is testing by health officials nothing more than a formality? Is it nothing more than an obstacle to get out of the way?

This is a difficult question. But a heroine has already provided us with the answer. A Department of Health inspector named Yang has been relentless in her pursuit of the truth. When she tested an unrelated weight loss beverage, she discovered chemicals that should not have been there, After repeated analysis, she traced the problem to the suppliers of the emulsifiers. She turned the evidence over to prosecutors. Only then did they discover that even more beverages were affected. This bold and painstaking heroine deserves public plaudits. But she was a lone individual, surrounded by a callous bureaucracy that routinely engages in pro forma ritual, and by civil servants with no sense of responsibility. Food and Drug Administration Chief Secretary Luo Chi-fang technician praised this woman, who is also a mother, saying that "She could have pretended not to see. But she was unafraid to make waves." The words "pretended not to see" sums up why a toxic beverage could remain undiscovered for five years before being exposed.

This heroine did not expose only "black-hearted" business tycoons. She also exposed a motley crew of business opportunists. She made it impossible for indolent officials to run for cover. How many questionable products were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for inspection over the past five years? Just one aggressive and responsible inspector would have been enough to identify the problems in advance, and reduce the number of people harmed. Given such omissions, the Department of Health and the Executive Yuan cannot "pretend not to see."

Due to indolence, food inspections have not improved. Food regulations have lagged behind, also to the point of absurdity. Recently CAS approved meat products that were part of school lunches, were found to contain banned substances. The Department of Health merely fined the culprits six to 30 million NT. The current toxic beverage incident has impacted a wide range of food products. Its impact is far-reaching. Yet according to the Food Sanitation Law, the government can only impose a maximum fine of 30 million NT. The law is a dinosaur. It is totally inadequate to deter "black-hearted" businessmen. Still less it is able to act as an effective sanction. How can it possibly safeguard public health?

The current toxic beverage incident is no less harmful than the Mainland contaminated milk powder incident from three years ago. In the tainted milk incident, the two people who manufactured the melamine contaminated milk powder were sentenced to death. Executives who manufactured the Sanlu milk powder were also given heavy sentences. By contrast, the government on Taiwan, which boasts of its democracy and rule of law, is imposing administrative penalties of 30 million NT on those who endangered public health. Is human life on Taiwan that cheap? Or are food laws on Taiwan still in the Stone Age, unable to catch up with social change? The situation is truly serious. If government agencies fail to act, who will assume responsibility for government compensation in the aftermath?

The devil in the details. The current toxic beverage incident tells the story. So many beverages advertised as healthy and natural, in fact contain toxic chemical substances. Consumers are tricked into putting these substances into their bodies. The heroine who exposed the evil-doers has earned our admiration. But the government's negligence has earned our contempt.

這種黑心商人,只能罰卅萬?
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.05.27


標榜健康、活力的知名運動飲料和養生食品,被查出添加了工業用塑化劑來調味;許多青少年天天飲用的,竟是可能損及終身生殖能力的「毒飲料」。禍首的昱伸公司,將黑心商品賣遍兩岸甚至遠及海外,卻傳出政府只能依法處以卅萬罰款,讓人簡直不能置信。

這次毒飲料事件,源頭出在上游起雲劑供應商摻假,毒源順著各種問題產品的供銷鏈網絡四下擴散,汙染範圍遍及各地市井小民,損害至今難以估計。它影響的不只是台灣飲料廠商的營運,還衝擊台灣整體商品的形象,尤其是嚴重威脅消費者的健康。目前超市、超商、賣場都採取了大規模下架措施,但這只能針對品牌廠商;若要深究夜市、一般餐飲店自行以違法塑化劑調製的飲品,地方衛生單位恐怕還有更艱鉅的工作要面對和執行。

檢調估計,昱伸公司在起雲劑中添加非法的塑化劑DEHP已長達五年,那正是所謂運動飲料、健康食品開始大行其道的年代。許多飲料廠商為了貪求降低成本,掉入了這個自食惡果的毒飲料陷阱,不僅聲譽受創,也危害了消費者。業者犯下這麼可怕的錯誤,絕不是一句「我們也是受害者」即可輕鬆帶過。而面對這麼多不負責任的業者,消費者也該省思回歸自然、單純的養生之道,不要再迷信商業包裝的健康幻覺。

令人疑惑的是,既然衛生署規定食品中不得添加這種名為「鄰苯二甲酸酯」的物質,為何有那麼多知名廠商使用了此一不合法原料,而衛生署在長達五年之中卻從未發現問題?難道衛生部門的抽驗都只是官樣文章,應付了事?

這個大哉問,那位女英雄其實已經給了我們答案。鍥而不捨追出這樁大案的衛生署楊姓檢驗員,是在檢驗一件與飲料無關的減肥產品時,發現了不該出現在食品中的化學物質,經反覆分析,查出問題出在起雲劑供應商;交由檢察官追查,才發現飲料商品是受害更大的一群。這位膽大心細的女英雄,值得國人為她喝采;但這麼一個令人敬仰的身影,卻也映襯出行政體系中存在更多行禮如儀、毫無責任感的公務員。食品藥物局主祕羅吉方在稱許這位媽媽技正時說,「她可以裝作沒看到,但她不嫌麻煩」;這句「裝作沒看到」,正是毒飲料可以潛伏五年才被揭發的祕密所在。

這位女英雄,揭發的不只是一個大黑心商人,也暴露了一群企業貪小便宜的嘴臉,更讓行政怠惰的問題無所遁形。試想,過去五年送給食藥局檢驗的問題產品不知凡幾,只要有一位檢驗員夠積極負責,就可以提前發現問題,減少許多民眾受害。對於這樣的疏漏,行政院和衛生署不應該「裝作沒看到」。

除了食品檢驗因循泄沓,我們的食品立法嚴重落後,也到了荒謬可笑的地步。日前供應學童營養午餐的CAS肉品被查出含有禁藥,衛生局依法只能處以六到卅萬的罰款;這次毒飲料事件危害範圍如此之廣、影響如此深遠,依「食品衛生管理法」,政府依舊只能處以最高卅萬元的罰款。如此笨拙的恐龍法令,根本不足以嚇阻非法投機的黑心廠商,遑論作出有效且相稱的制裁,又如何能維護民眾健康?

這次毒飲料事件,危害程度不下於三年前的大陸毒奶粉事件。在毒奶事件中,源頭用三聚氰胺製造毒奶粉的兩人被判處死刑,製造三鹿奶粉的高層也被判重刑。相形之下,號稱民主法治的台灣,對危害公眾健康的人只能處以卅萬行政罰,是台灣的人命太廉價?還是台灣的食品法令還停留在石器時代,根本追不上現實社會變化?事態嚴重至此,如果行政部門不積極因應,一旦日後要負擔國賠責任,誰來善後?

魔鬼藏在細節裡,從這次毒飲料事件觀察,真是所言不虛。那麼多標榜健康、天然的飲料,卻夾帶著有毒化學物質,瞞天過海地進入消費者的體內。那位揪出魔鬼的女英雄誠然可敬,但政府把關不力的疏懈,卻教人三嘆!

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Exceeding the Statute of Limitations: Do Prosecutors Have Consciences?

Exceeding the Statute of Limitations:
Do Prosecutors Have Consciences?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 26, 2011

In 1996, a young girl named Hsieh was raped and murdered inside the Air Force Air Combat Command. The Special Investigation Unit, the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office, and the High Military Court Prosecutor's Office, formed an ad hoc group to begin a new investigation. Yesterday the group determined that Chiang Kuo-ching, who was executed by firing squad, was not the actual perpetrator. Instead, a former soldier named Hsu Jung-chou committed the crimes. The group called for a prison sentence of 20 years. It found that Air Force counter-intelligence team officers Ke Chung-ching, Teng Cheng-huan, Li Chi-ren, Ho Chu-yao, Li Shu-chiang, and others, used torture to extract a confession from Chiang Kuo-ching. They abandoned the military prosecutor-led investigations headed by counter-intelligence unit commander Chen Chao-min. Because the suspects "were not prosecuted within the 10 year statute of limitations," they would be punished but not prosecuted. When this news broke, people were astounded.

This was a real world example of "officials covering for each other." These officials condoned the abuse of power and used torture to extract confessions. They conspired to minimize, cover up, and eradicate the commission of a crime. Special Investigation Unit investigators spent a full year on a major case. Yet this is all they have to show for their effort. Serious consideration should be given to prosecuting them for criminal abuse of power. How does the Commander in Chief feel as he watches military prosecutors applying this sort of media spin to the administration of justice? What does he have to say for himself? Does he bear any responsibility?

Consider one suspicion. They knew he was guilty. So why didn't they indict him before the statute of limitations expired? The Control Yuan should investigate. Who delayed prosecution? The prosecution must tell us whether those who delayed prosecution bear criminal liability. Even more puzzling, why is the statute of limitations merely 10 years? It turns out the ad hoc group began by prosecuting the suspect for a misdemeanor that carried a maximum sentence of three years. That was why the statute of limitations ran out. A group of officers was assigned to investigate. It tortured prisoners to extract confessions. It convened a courts martial, convicted, and summarily executed the wrong suspect. It abused governmental authority, and murdered him. Yet all its efforts yielded nothing more than a three year sentence for a misdemeanor? Why shouldn't the Special Investigation Unit and the prosecutor be tried for murder? Why not prosecute them for abuse of power, in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code? Why not prosecute them for torture, in accordance with Article 126 of the Criminal Code? These are all felonies that carry a minimum sentence of seven years. The statute of limitations on them is 20 years. Why not make use of them?

The prosecution's legal rhetoric is esoteric. As a result, most people do not understand it, In any event, those who were tortured were not prosecutors or judges. They lacked special status, According to a 1941 Supreme Court case, these articles do not apply to case officers. Put simply, judges who wrongfully hand down death sentences bear no criminal liability. Prosecutors who wrongfully issue indictments bear no criminal responsibility. Military officers who resort to torture bear no criminal responsibility. No one committed a felony. No one will be prosecuted.

Prosecutors, please use your customary logic when responding to the national outcry. Chiang Kuo-ching was innocent. The government took an innocent man, convicted him, and executed him. Do not talk about how one must pay for murder with one's life. Chiang was not even guilty of a felony. Don't you feel ashamed? Over the years, how often have such legal abuses dogged criminal cases? How often were indictments rooted in pure conjecture? What was this, if not the result of long years of officials covering for each other? Years ago these remarkably efficient conspirators, falsely convicted Chiang Kuo-ching and took his life. Today, these skilled conspirators have successfully evaded responsibility, and enabled major and minor criminals within the military hierarchy to get off scot-free. Does the prosecution have any conscience left to speak of?

Consider a second suspicion. Why wait until Hsu Jung-chou was indicted before admitting that Chiang Kuo-ching was wrongfully executed, and that the military used torture to extract a confession? One man was wrongfully executed. Do they really need to wait until another patsy is paraded before the public before admitting that fact? Did they intentionally delay their prosecution? Could the suspect currently under indictment be yet another patsy? Are they merely using him to avoid conducting a genuine investigation? Couldn't they have indicted Hsu Jung-chou long ago, given the evidence in his case file? Is what was false yesterday true today? Is what was true yesterday false today?

Consider a third suspicion. The last time the case was "solved," the crime was depicted as an outrage to heaven and earth. They sought the death penalty. This time however, they are not demanding the death penalty. Do they have a hidden agenda? Is it because Hsu deserves sympathy? Or is it because the evidence against him is weak? If the evidence is weak, they should not have indicted him in the first place. Random prosecution constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Are they concerned that seeking the death penalty might highlight the military's wrongful execution of Chiang Kuo-ching? Are they aware that their current indictment may be perceived as absurd and ironic. Is that why they are demanding only a light sentence?

In short, the military personnel in this case may be charged only with misdemeanors. Prosecutors and police investigators may also be charged only with misdemeanors. The public sees that indictments for abuse of authority are merely for show. The only thing for real, is conspirators evading punishment. Ordinary citizens who commit crimes are presumed guilty. They are tortured to extract confessions. Military officials, prosecutors, and police who commit crimes, get off scot-free. Can the rule of law and justice still be found on Taiwan?

Now we understand. The Special Investigation Unit and the prosecutors will never be convicted for abuse of authority. But they know in their heart of hearts, that in many people's minds, they have already been found guilty of two crimes. One, they abused their authority by failing to indict. Two, they abused their authority by torturing Hsu Jung-chou. The logic is simple. Military officers who commit murder are not prosecuted. So why should Hsu Jung-chou be prosecuted?

超過追訴期?檢方刑事正義良心何在
2011-05-26 中國時報

空軍作戰司令部八十五年間發生謝姓女童遭姦殺案,由特偵組、台北地檢署、高等軍事法院檢察署組成的專案小組重啟調查昨日偵結,認定已遭槍決的江國慶並非真凶,而是另一前士兵許榮洲涉性侵殺人,對許具體求刑廿年;同時查出當年空軍反情報隊軍官柯仲慶、鄧震環、李植仁、何祖耀、李書強等人,凌虐江國慶逼供,連同棄軍事檢察官主導偵查於不顧而指揮反情報部隊偵辦的司令陳肇敏,因所犯罪嫌「超過十年追訴期」,均處分不起訴。消息傳出令人驚駭!

這真是一幕活生生的官官相護,縱容公權力濫權刑求殺人,再聯手找理由大事化小、小事化無,脫罪至零的官場現形記。特偵組耗時一年的重大案件辦案績效僅止於此,有無濫權不追訴的刑責,真值得追究;三軍統帥看到軍方檢方如此詮釋正義不知做何感想?有無話語可說?有無責任要負?

疑點之一,為何明知有罪,卻說罪嫌已逾追訴期而不起訴?監察院應該追問,是誰耽誤了追訴期?檢方應該回答:耽誤了追訴期,有無刑責?更令人費解的是,為何追訴期只有十年?原來專案小組追究的罪名都是最重本刑三年未滿的輕罪,所以十年就到期了!一群軍官,奉命偵查犯罪,凌虐人犯刑求逼供,然後軍事審判草率判罪,迅予槍決,手握公權力接力聯手殺人,卻只是三年以下的輕罪?特偵組以降的檢方,為什麼不試著追究殺人罪?為什麼不追究濫權追訴處罰罪(刑法一二五條)?為什麼不追究凌虐人犯罪(刑法一二六條),這些可都是至少七年的重罪,追訴權時效是廿年,為什麼不用?

檢方的法律說詞深奧,讓一般人聽不懂,總之就是刑求者不是檢察官或法官,他們不具有身分關係,根據民國三十年代的最高法院判例,這些條文都不適用於本案人員。簡單地說,亂判死罪的法官不會有刑責,濫為起訴的檢察官不會有刑責,刑求凌虐的軍官不會有刑責,沒有一個人犯下重罪,也沒有一個人被起訴。

檢方人員,請用你們一貫的刑事正義邏輯回答國人,無辜的江國慶被公權力從無罪判有罪活活弄死了,不要說殺人償命了,連重罪都算不上,你們不會感到汗顏嗎?多年以來,刑法中的濫權訴追罪曾經用過幾次?成了純粹的擺設,不就是司法機關多年構築的堅強官官相護防禦工事所造成的現象?當年效率驚人的共犯結構,用假定有罪枉送了江國慶的無辜性命,今日熟練無比的共犯卸責結構又成功地讓軍方一干大小罪犯悉數逍遙法外,檢方還有刑事正義良心可言嗎?

疑點之二,為何要等到起訴許榮洲時才承認江國慶是冤死,軍方有刑求呢?冤死了一個,一定要等另一個可被指為真凶的替死鬼出場,才能承認前案是刑求起訴、錯判錯殺嗎?此中沒有故意耽誤追訴期的用心在內嗎?被起訴的會不會又是一個墊背的倒楣鬼,用以迴避辦案不力?許榮洲案卷中的證據不早就可以起訴了嗎?是昨非今是,還是昨是今非呢?

疑點之三,是前次破案時,將犯罪情節說得人神共憤,以死刑作收,這次卻未求處死刑,有無隱情?真是許某其情可憫,還是因為罪證薄弱?罪證薄弱就不該起訴,隨便起訴求刑不是濫權追訴嗎?還是擔心求處死刑適足以突顯軍方一干罪犯害死了江國慶卻連起訴也不必的荒謬與諷刺,所以就輕輕求刑了?

總之,以本案軍方人員的罪狀而言,尚只算是輕罪,爾後檢警辦案如法炮製,不也同是輕罪?國人可以看清楚了,濫權追訴罪是假的立法,共犯卸責結構才是真的!庶民犯罪,假設有罪,刑求伺候;檢警軍方犯罪,必然卸責有方。台灣,還有可恃的法治正義嗎?

特偵組啊,我們懂了,濫權追訴其實是永遠不會被起訴定罪的!你們可懂,於此同時,在許多人心中,你們已有兩罪被起訴了:濫權不追訴刑求罪與濫權追訴許榮洲!道理很簡單,殺人的軍方罪犯可以不受追訴,許榮洲為什麼要被追訴呢?

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

What Do First Time Voters Really Want?

What Do First Time Voters Really Want?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 25, 2011

The ruling and opposition presidential candidates are Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. Both consider winning over first time voters essential to their election strategy. First time voters, as the name implies, are citizens who have just acquired the right to vote. This group of voters ranges from 20 to 24 in age, and comprise approximately 1.23 million people. It is large enough to decide the outcome of the election. More importantly, this group of young people, who will be going to the polls for the first time, have no strong political preferences or ideology. They are not burdened by historical grievances. In other words, they are true centrist voters. But do the two major parties really know what these young people want?

The two major political parties attach great importance to first time voters. They did not begin doing so this year. They began doing so when former president Chen Shui-bian was running for Mayor of Taipei. His campaign slogan, "dreams are beautiful, walk hand in hand with hope," was a classic case of youth oriented propaganda. Middle aged and older voters have experienced too many national and family tragedies. They have strong feelings about their experiences. In both the Blue and Green camps, they have fixed attitudes. The KMT has been in power a long time. It has gained the support of a large group of people who do not want too many political changes, They view changes in a nation's ruling party with concern, even anxiety. Enthusiastic young people who are relatively apathetic about politics running for elective office could change the political status quo.

Beginning with Chen Shui-bian, the DPP became more attractive to young people than the KMT. The DPP began making heavy use of young people. In both party positions and elective office, they gave young people more opportunities to advance themselves than the "old fogey" dominated KMT, The DPP subculture allows these young people to challenge the old fogies without guilt.

Chen Shui-bian's corruption dealt a major blow to the DPP. But for young people, the DPP's political rhetoric is still more appealing than the KMT's. Su Tseng-chang's party primary campaign literature quoted a first time voter in his own family, who said: I want a good job. I want to get married and have children. I want to be able to support my children. I do not want Taiwan to lose face.

Simply put, young people have a dream. But they are not overly ambitious. They know the pressures of real life. They do not want this pressure to crush their dreams. Su Tseng-chang cleverly invoked the language of these young people: I do not want Taiwan to lose face. But he avoided invoking the Democratic Progressive Party's long-held fears about sovereignty.

Most young people do not bother to distinguish between the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan." Taiwan is part of a sovereign and independent nation called the Republic of China. Young people do not want Taiwan to lose face. But they feel no particular attachment to Taiwan independence ideology. They cannot tolerate ruling and opposition party political leaders constantly treating national sovereignty as a political football. When the Democratic Progressive Party criticized the Ma administration for "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," their reaction was: Boring! But although they might respond in this manner, it does not mean they are more inclined to vote for the KMT. Just as when they express hope that Taiwan will not lose face, it does not mean they will vote for the DPP.

Young people are more inclined to vote for the man himself than the party. What they value is a leader's approachability and ability to govern. When a current leader comes and goes, he needs hordes of bodyguards. This means he has limits to how approachable he can be with his constituents. He is even more hobbled when it comes to resolute governance. Taiwan's competitiveness jumped in the Lausanne International Institute for Management's latest report. But the government's efficiency rating fell. Even though this included the Legislative Yuan, and even though partisan politics exacts a cost, it is easy to oversimplify and say that the leader is not bold enough.

The incumbent must bear all sorts of burdens. He is subject to constant scrutiny. But when a challenger paints a picture of a better future, he must confront an important question. Can that better future he painted be achieved by means of his political platform? Many younger people have no party affiliation. They have no ideology. All they want is a genuine opportunity. All they want is a fighting chance. All they want is a more livable environment. They do not want Taiwan to become uninhabitable for their children. These are not problems to which debates over sovereignty or Closed Door cross-Strait policies can provide solutions.

Ma Ying-jeou has packaged his appeal to first time voters in the trappings of "generational justice." He says that sustainable development has three requirements: national rights (sovereignty), human rights, and environmental rights. He says this generation must consider the well-being of the next. Ma Ying-jeou has offered a blueprint for the future. But this world is not a utopia. One can reduce the gap between rich and poor, but one cannot make it disappear. One can establish a social safety net for widows and the orphans. But someone will always slip through the holes. One can reduce the unemployment rate. But one cannot reduce it to zero. One can ensure fair access to education. But one cannot change the fact that under a capitalist society some will inevitably be more competitive than others. One can provide everyone with a home. But one cannot ensure that everyone lives in luxury. One can be environmentally friendly. But one must also find alternative employment through industrial restructuring. Otherwise, sustainable development will become empty talk.

One never stops pursuing dreams. Younger people are never content with the status quo. This means they have more room to grow. This provides the impetus for national progress. This is the vision upon which ruling and opposition political leaders must draw. They must accept the criticism leveled against them by young people. More importantly, they must reclaim the passion that once led them to pursue their ideals.

首投族真正要的是什麼?
2011-05-25 中國時報

朝野總統參選人馬英九、蔡英文不約而同,把爭取首投族列為競選重要策略。首投族顧名思義是首次成為具有選舉權的公民,這群廿到廿四歲的族群估計有一百廿、卅萬人,足可影響選局;更重要的,這群首次進入選舉市場的年輕人,沒有強烈的政黨好惡和意識形態,也沒有歷史恩怨的包袱,換言之,他們是真正的中間選民。但是,兩黨真的知道年輕人要什麼嗎?

兩黨重視首投族,並不是今年特有的現象;事實上,早在前總統陳水扁競選台北市長的時候,他的「有夢最美,希望相隨」,就是號召新世代的典型文宣。中壯代或老年人經歷過太多國仇家恨,不論偏藍偏綠,多有其既定的主見。國民黨長期執政,養成很大一群不希望在政治上有太多改變的人,他們對換黨執政這件事,有著不確定感,甚至不安全感。讓有熱情卻對政治相對冷漠的年輕人,投入選舉市場,確實可以是改變政治現狀的動力之一。

從陳水扁開始,民進黨向例比國民黨更吸引年輕人;他們大量進用年輕人,不論黨職或選舉,他們比已經老大的國民黨,給年輕人更多竄出頭面的機會。民進黨的文化讓他們更習於挑戰大老,而不必心懷歉疚。

即使陳水扁的貪汙舞弊對民進黨造成重大打擊,但民進黨的政治語言,對年輕人而言,依舊比國民黨更具吸引力。總統初選落敗的蘇貞昌在他的參選聲明中就用了一位首投族的心聲:我要找得到好工作,要結了婚還敢生小孩,生了小孩還要養得起,還有我不要台灣丟臉。

簡單講,年輕人有夢想,卻並不好高騖遠,他們知道現實生活的壓力,不希望這層壓力壓垮他們追求夢想的心。蘇貞昌很聰明的運用年輕人的語言:不要台灣丟臉,而未使用民進黨長期訴求的主權恐懼。

對多數年輕人而言,他們看待中華民國與台灣並無二致;台灣是一個主權獨立的國家,名字就叫中華民國,他們不要台灣丟臉,卻沒有獨派的意識形態,甚至無法容忍朝野政治領袖三天兩頭拿國家主權做為批判彼此的議題。當民進黨批評馬政府傾中賣台的時候,他們的反應可能只有兩個字:無聊。但即使有這樣的反應,都不表示他們的投票傾向更有利於國民黨;就像他們希望台灣不要丟臉的時候,不表示他們就一定投票給民進黨。

年輕人的投票行為更傾向於選人不選黨,領袖的親和力和執行力,才是他們看重的。出入隨扈必須成群的現任者,在展現親和力上有其限制,在執行魄力上更受到層層框架。當洛桑評比台灣競爭力大躍昇的同時,政府效能卻大退步,儘管這中間有立法院、有兩黨政治必然付出的成本,但很容易被簡化為領導者魄力不足。

不過,現任者雖有各種包袱、各種被檢驗的空間,但是,當挑戰者敘述一個美好未來的可能時,還是得面對最重要問題:那個理應更好的未來,是不是你的政見可達到的?沒有政黨立場、沒有意識形態的年輕人,要求的是一個開放空間,給他們公平競爭的機會;他們要求的是一個更優質的環境,不要擔心等他結婚生子後,台灣可能成為不適合居住的地方;這些都不是執著於主權爭議、甚至相對封閉的兩岸政策能提供答案的。

馬英九用「世代正義」包裝他的首投族策略,談他對國家永續發展的三個責任:主權、人權、環境權,為這一代努力,也要為下一代的幸福著想。馬英九簡筆畫出他的國家藍圖。但是,這個世界沒有烏托邦,貧富差距只能縮短,無法消弭;安全的社會網可以建立,鰥寡孤獨有所養,卻總會有漏網之魚;失業率只能降低卻不可能降為零;可以有公平的教育機會,卻無法改變資本主義社會必然有的競爭本質;盡量讓住者有其屋,卻不可能人人住豪宅;對環境友善卻也得另謀產業轉型的契機,否則永續也將成空談…。

夢想,沒有停止追求的一天,年輕人不滿足現狀的特質,讓他們有更大的成長空間,這就是國家進步的動力。朝野政治領袖必須畫出願景,接受年輕人的不滿與批評;更重要的是,讓自己重回那個曾經不斷追求理想、熱情的本心。

Sunday, May 22, 2011

What Is the International Institute for Management Telling Us?

What Is the International Institute for Management Telling Us?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 22, 2011

The Swiss International Institute for Management (IMD) has published its 2011 World Competitiveness Report. The ROC's ranking increased from 8th place last year to 6th place this year. This is the highest ranking the ROC has ever achieved. The report does not necessarily reflect a nation's ultimate economic competitiveness. Nevertheless the report enables us to see the ROC's problems. For example, the United States was ranked number one. But its economic recovery is still in the doldrums. Its unemployment rate is still over 9%. The PRC ranked 19th. But its economic growth remains strong.

The competitiveness report is divided into four major categories, using four indices. Each index is subdivided into even finer indices. The first index is economic performance. In this, the ROC rose from 16th place to 8th place. The second is governmental effectiveness. In this, the ROC fell from 6th place to 10th place. The third index is business performance. In this, the ROC remained in 3rd place. Finally, there is infrastructure. In this, the ROC rose slightly, from 17th place to 16th place. Based on these numbers, Overall, the ROC rose from 8th place to 6th place, mainly because its eye-catching economic performance. Had the government not imposed a drag on its performance, it would have improved even more.

The IMD uses different methods of scoring. These include so-called "hard targets" (statistics). Much of the score is derived from questionnaires filled out by high-level corporate managers. Most are from large companies engaged in international trade. These include foreign multinationals. Some of the questionnaires may be somewhat subjective. But they also provide concrete data that cannot be obtained any other way. Consider the part relating to government efficiency, The scores on the questionnaires were higher than the numerical scores. They were just the opposite of the "economic performance" scores.

Taiwan has long scored poorly on governmental efficiency, usually below the top 20. In 2004 and 2005, it ranked 18th. In 2006 it fell to 23rd place. In 2008, it ranked 16th. In 2009, it fell to 18th place. Strangely enough, in 2010 it lept to 6th place. This year it it fell from 6th place to 10th place, the second highest ranking of all time. The media and the opposition DPP have made a great deal of this. The DPP has lambasted the ruling KMT as the embodiment of both incompetence and of evil. But it has scant justification for doing so. After all, when the DPP was in power, the government also ranked below the top 20 in efficiency. What right does it have to make such irresponsible remarks now?

Nevertheless a decline is a decline. If one's ranking falls, one must undergo a review process. Officials who imposed controls on oil prices complain that they were penalized for siding with the common man. This is not necessarily the case. Consider the many secondary indicators of governmental efficiency. The government has long underperformed fiscally. This time, its performance was even worse. This may have been due in part to the financial tsunami and tax cuts to enhance competitiveness. But the biggest factor was the impact of public shares on business activity. Here, the ROC fell from 12th place to 35th place. Consider bureaucratic meddling in business activities. Here, the ROC fell from 8th place to 20th place. These indicate a real pattern.

Many government agencies have gradually withdrawn from quasi-public enterprises. But some legislators and journalists have made populist demands, encouraging the government to "get tough." Government agencies responded by once again asserting themselves through publicly owned shares. The governments has increased its ownership in these businesses through state-owned enterprises and government funds. It has meddled in the affairs of company boards. It has even engaged in struggles for control, as if it was merely another competitor in the free market. It has violated the clear promises it made concerning public offerings. This is how the government influences business activities through public shares.

The FSC and the National Communications Commission (NCC) are charged with overseeing certain industries. Typically these agencies care nothing about ensuring profitability. They care only about fighting corruption. While overseeing these industries, these agencies have meddled inappropriately. They have gone overboard in meting out punishment. They have dragged their feet when reviewing corporate mergers and acquisitions. First instance reviews take almost a year. That means lost opportunities. While overseeing investments on the Mainland, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has been too slow to liberalize. Its review process is even slower. It is virtually strangling businesses. To characterize it as as "hobbling businesses bureaucratically" is no exaggeration.

Regarding environmental protection projects, such as renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions, increasing energy density, and addressing climate change, the government's response has been inadequate. The government should practice greater fiscal discipline. It should reduce bureaucratic meddling in business activities. It should liberalize the laws. It should avoid the path of "anti-privatization" and "officials enter, citizens exit." On environmental protection, it should implement energy conservation and carbon reduction, as soon as possible, It should not substitute sloganeering for reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases.

The ROC ranked third in industry performance, and third in manufacturing unit labor costs. On the plus side of the ledger, it has high labor productivity. On the minus side of the ledger, lower wage costs mean workers on Taiwan are "cheap" and offer "high value for money." The ROC's s overall economic picture is first rate. But the public does not feel it. That is why it does not feel the recovery.

We need not treat this report on competitiveness as if it were the Holy Bible. But the two sides have benefited from the cross-Strait thaw and ECFA. These have enabled the ROC to make the greatest improvements in its ranking ever. We still have reason to rejoice. The public and government both deserve praise. The report includes negative assessments. But it also provides us with important information. Does the government have the eyes to see? Does it have the courage to respond?

IMD告訴了我們什麼?
2011-05-22 中國時報

瑞士國際管理學院(IMD)公布二○一一年世界競爭力報告,台灣總排名由去年的第八名進步到第六名,是歷年最佳名次。雖然這份競爭力報告並不是完全反應出各國最終的經濟表現,例如美國位居第一,但經濟復甦仍遲緩、失業率仍超過九%;大陸名次十九名,但經濟成長快速強勁。不過,從報告中,我們還是可以看出台灣的問題。

這份競爭力報告中,共分四大類指標,指標下再細分許多細項。第一是經濟表現,我國由十六名升到八名;第二是政府效能,我國由第六名退到十名;再來是企業效能,維持同樣第三名;最後是基礎建設,由十七名小升到十六名。由這個數字來看,台灣的總排名可以由第八進步到第六,主要是「經濟表現」項目搶眼之故;而無法更進一步,則是因政府效能之拖累。

IMD的評分方式,除了所謂「硬性指標」(各項統計數據)外,其餘很大部分是來自對企業高階經理人的問卷調查;接受問卷者多是國際貿易比重高的大型企業、外資跨國企業。雖然問卷部分有時可能失之主觀,但卻也可能更具體呈現數據無法道出的面向。政府效能部分,來自問卷的評分,則是高於數據。這點正好與「經濟表現」項目相反。

我們觀察台灣在政府效能項目的表現,一向就「表現欠佳」,大部分都在廿名上下。例如二○○四、二○○五年是十八名,二○○六退到廿三名,二○○八年十六名,二○○九年是十八名。奇特者倒是二○一○年一口氣進步到第六名,今年則再由第六名退步到第十名。這個名次,嚴格來講,還算是歷年次佳水準。對部分媒體與在野黨藉機拿此大作文章,似乎執政黨如何無能又大惡不赦,倒是大可不必。畢竟,民進黨執政時期,政府效能排名還只能在廿名上下,現在也不該有臉來說三道四吧?

不過,退步就是退步,退步就該檢討。官員辯稱是因政府為庶民著想、干預油價所以在此項目上被扣分,實情恐怕未必如此。觀察政府效能中的各細項指標,財政情況一直表現不佳,這次再惡化,或可推託是因應金融海嘯與提升競爭力的減稅措施所致;但實際上退步最多的項目是「公股影響企業的活動」,由十二名退到三十五名;再來是「官僚行政影響企業活動」,由八名退到廿名。而這兩項,確實是有跡可循。

例如,許多原本政府勢力逐漸淡出的半公營企業,在立委與部分媒體民粹式的要政府「硬起來」的鼓吹下,政府公股勢力又再抬頭;政府透過國營事業、政府基金,增加對這些企業的持股。政府不只是介入與民股協調董監事,甚至還形同市場派般的要爭奪經營權;對股權釋出時白紙黑字的承諾也可違背。這就是「公股影響企業的活動」。

而去年一年,包括金管會、國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)這兩個主管特許產業的機關,是標準的不見興利但見防弊,對其管理的產業與企業,做了許多不當的干預、過了頭的處罰。審查企業併購案也是拖拖拉拉、一審就是快一年,延誤企業商機。經濟部在管理企業赴大陸投資上,也是開放慢、審查效率更差,讓企業商機窒息近死。稱這些行為是「官僚行政影響企業活動」,應不為過吧?

此外,與環保相關的項目如再生能源、二氧化碳排放、能源使用密度、因應氣候變遷政策等,台灣的表現也不佳。整體而言,未來政府該強化財政紀律、減少官僚單位對企業活動的干預、制度法令上應更開放;同時,更該避免走上「反民營化」、「官進民退」之路。對環保相關議題,則該盡快落實在制度與政策上,而非在節能減碳、因應溫室氣體等議題上流於口號。

特別值得注意的是台灣排名高居第三的企業效能項目中,製造業單位勞動成本居第三名,正面看是國內勞動力生產力高,好事一樁;反面看,是台灣薪資成本低、勞工都是「價廉物美」、「物超所值」,而這正是台灣整體經濟表現一流,但社會大眾感受淺,有如無感復甦的原因。

雖然我們不必把這份競爭力報告當聖經看,但受惠於兩岸和緩、開放及ECFA簽訂等因素,讓台灣的排名進步創歷年最佳名次,仍值得高興,台灣社會與政府的努力也值得肯定。但,報告中對台灣負面評價項目中,其實還是告訴了我們不少事。政府,看到了嗎?有能力、有魄力改善嗎?

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Nominations Should Stress Professionalism, Not Political Rewards

Nominations Should Stress Professionalism, Not Political Rewards
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 21, 2011

Election season is upon us. The ruling and opposition parties are each holding their legislative primaries. Several veteran legislators have lost their bid for re-election. This has been the case for both major parties. Changes to the electoral system may have affected the election results. Public sentiments may also have changed. A new generation of voters is replacing the old. The two major parties are about to announce their nominees for the upcoming legislative election. It is time to consider what is missing in the ROC Legislative Yuan. It is time to consider how the mechanism by which political parties nominate legislators without portfolio can be changed and improved.

The Legislative Yuan is the primary battlefield for to partisan political struggles. It is a political body whose primary concern is political maneuveuring. But the main function of the Legislative Yuan, as its name implies, should be to legislate. The authoring of laws is not merely a political activity. It is also a professional activity. In the past, fisticuffs often broke out in the legislature. It was not a place where one could engage in rational political discourse. The impression it left on the public was negative. In recent years, there have been fewer fisticufss. But has political discourse become more professional as a consequence? Not really.

The Legislative Yuan deals with two kinds of legislation. The first is legislation which closely affects a party's political fortunes. Such legislation is highly political in nature. Absent negotiations, they are likely to meet resistance. If they are passed without negotiations, they are likely to lead to major mobilization and conflict. It is a case of politics above all else. The second type is legislation not political in nature, but whose authorship requires a high degree of professionalism. Such legislation requires professionalism far more than political correctness. Such legislation vastly outnumbers highly political legislation. If such legislation receives inadequate attention from legislators, the laws will be poorly written.

Some people think that if legislation requires professional authorship, it can be written by the executive branch. They say legislators have too many other matters to attend to. They may actually detract from the process. This argument does not hold water. But it does highlight the problem. Some people think too much participation by legislators undermines the quality of legislation. They question the professionalism of legislators. They feel that the executive branch ought to determine the content of bills to be passed by the legislature. This affirms the professionalism of the executive branch. But it ignores the importance of legislative checks and balances on the executive branch. The Legislative Yuan is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. If lawmakers lack legislative expertise, this is a problem that must be addressed, and not bypassed.

A while back, a referee caused an uproar by sexually molesting several young children. Many blamed the justice system. In fact, when the criminal codes were amended, the sexual molestation of young children was divided into two categories: forcible, and non-forcible. This forced the courts to determine whether young children were subject to force during sexual molestation. This reflected a defect in the law. This was a law that was non-political in nature. A lack of professionalism within the Legislative Yuan led to a defective law and serious consequences.

After taking office, President Ma promoted two domestic laws patterned after the UN Human Rights Convention. The plan to adopt two provisions of the convention and make them domestic law was well-intentioned. But the law includes at least three defects. These defects reveal the lack of professionalism within the legislative process. First, the two provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights, involve certain objective preconditions. The authors of the laws lept before they looked. They failed to discriminate. Their rush to transform the two conventions into domestic law was clearly premature. Secondly, they passed the laws, but they failed to include the two conventions as an attachment. They passed the wrong portion of the Chinese language edition of the two conventions. Transposing them and reusing them led to confusion. Such a mistake was unprecedented. Thirdly, two years after their passage, they will be in contravention of domestic law, and will have to be totally amended. The laws will expire in December of this year. The Legislative elections are just around the corner. Hundreds of laws must be amended within by then. [ 縱不跳票? ] Rash package votes are clearly at odds with proper procedure. These laws were legal landmarks. If even they were handled so shoddily, one can imagine how poorly written other laws must be.

The laws passed by the Legislative Yuan cannot withstand close scrutiny. This was the direct result of a lack of legal professionals. This is not a matter legal aides from the Legislative Yuan Legal Bureau can handle. The Legislative Yuan has over one hundred legislators. Only a handful know the law. In Western countries, legislators hark from the legal profession. They account for a majority of the members of their parliaments. In earlier days, DPP legislators were mostly lawyers. Today they have no knowledge of the law, but fill the legislature. The number of KMT legislators who have no knowledge of the law is even more appalling. The Legislative Yuan passes criminal and civil laws that affect people's lives. This requires a high degree of professionalism. But legislators lack talent they can rely on. This is deeply worrisome. The legislator without portfolio seats within the Legislative Yuan are supposed to be for professionals of special ability. But the ruling and opposition parties have chosen to use these seats as rewards for political cronies. The Legislative Yuan is now filled with partisan pit bulls, but few professional legislators. If the quality of the legislation falls short, who is to blame?

The time to nominate legislators has come. Can the two parties nominate candidates with an eye on improving the quality of legislation?

不分區提名 重法律專業勿政治分贓
2011-05-21 中國時報

隨著選舉季節到來,朝野兩黨正在各地進行黨內立委初選,好幾位連任多屆的資深立委在初選中失利,是兩黨同有的現象,一方面顯示出選舉制度的調整可能影響選舉的結果,另一方面也可看出社會變遷,新舊世代交替的趨勢。在兩黨即將推出立委候選人名單的過程中,似乎有必要思考一下台灣立法院中欠缺了什麼,可以如何改善,特別是藉著政黨提出不分區立委名單的機制有所調整補充。

不可諱言,立法院是政黨政策角力折衝的關鍵所在,是個高度講究政治運作的機關。不過,立法院的主要功能,從其名稱可知道,是立法。法律的制訂,不僅僅是政治性活動,同時也是專業性活動。過去立法院經常打架,不是個理性問政的地方,予人的印象極差,最近數年,打架少了,但是理性問政的專業程度有增加嗎 ?恐怕不會得到太高的評價。

立法院的立法有兩類,一類是高度涉及到政黨政策進退的法案,政治性極強,不經協調取得協議,不可能順利通過,否則即要進行甲級動員的戰鬥衝突,當然是政治決定一切;另一類的法案,則是不涉及政黨政策的衝突,卻具有高度的法律專業性,也就是專業性的要求遠高於政治性要求的法案。此類法案,數量上也許遠較政治性質強烈的法案為多,得到的關注,特別是立法委員的關注如果不夠,立法品質就不會令人滿意。

有人以為,專業性的法案,仰賴行政部門的提案即可,立法委員的關切或參與過多,反而可能壞事。這樣的說法,不能成立,卻凸顯了問題所在。認為立法委員參與過多可能壞了立法的品質,是對立法委員立法的專業能力高度質疑;認為行政部門的提案不妨直接成為立法的內容,是在肯定行政部門的專業能力,卻忽略了立法院制衡作用的重要性。立法院不是行政院的橡皮圖章,但立法委員立法專業能力不足,確是不容忽視的問題。

前陣子引起軒然大波關於幼童性侵害案的恐龍裁判問題,許多責備都指向司法,其實刑法修法時將幼童性侵罪區分為強制罪與非強制兩類,促使法院進一步追問是否違反受害幼童的意願,也是問題發生的癥結之一,這就是一項非政治性法律修正時,因立法專業不足形成立法瑕疵而貽害不淺的具體實例。

再以馬總統就任後推動兩項聯合國人權公約國內法化的立法品質為例,立法院兩項人權公約的施行法,將公約條文整批轉化為國內法,是用意甚佳的創舉。但是至少有三處瑕疵顯示立法過程有欠專業嚴謹。一是兩項人權公約內容規定,也有實體規定,施行法囫圇吞棗,不加區別,一概轉換為國內法,顯是急就文章;二是施行法並未將兩公約條文納為附件,通過兩公約條文的中文版本錯件,付諸適用,極易發生混淆混亂,也是向所未見的立法失誤;三是施行法規定兩年內應將牴觸的國內立法一概完成修正,此一時限將於今年十二月屆滿,立委改選在即,數以百計的法律要在時限內完成修廢,縱不跳票,粗糙輕率的包裹表決,也可想見其不符程序正當性的程度。如此具有指標性的政策性立法,尚且粗製濫造,其餘法律的品質,不問可知。

立法院立法品質不堪細究,與立委中法律專業人士欠缺,有直接關係,這絕非立法院法制局的幕僚作業所能濟事者。現任百餘位立法委員中,以法律見長的立委屈指可數。西方國家習法出身的議員,每每占國會成員的重要比例。民進黨早年的律師立委比比皆是,現在似已無以法律知識在立法院中效力者。國民黨則更不堪數了。立法院常年通過許多攸關社會民生的民、刑以及其他專業度要求甚高的法律,立委卻無可以倚賴的人才,令人汗顏。立法院的結構,全國不分區立委原是要為專業立法人才預留席次,偏偏朝野政黨都已慣將不分區名額移作政治酬庸,立法院中盡是政治法案的政黨鬥士,卻缺乏專業立法的能人,立法品質不彰,怨誰?

提名立委的季節到了,兩黨能夠從提昇立法品質的角度覓選人才嗎?

Friday, May 20, 2011

Love For Taiwan is not the Exclusive Franchise of Any Minority or Any Political Party

Love For Taiwan is not the Exclusive Franchise of Any Minority or Any Political Party
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 20, 2011

Three years ago, President Ma Ying-jeou delivered his inaugural address. People across the nation witnessed a second change in ruling parties in the Republic of China. Three years later, President Ma Ying-jeou walked out onto Ketegelan Boulevard and met with the press. Ma Ying-jeou's action underscored how much importance he attached to his words. Needless to say, it also underscored how much he wants to be re-elected six months from now.

During the press conference, President Ma proposed that Tainan Airport become the ninth airport to offer cross-strait direct flights. He underscored the need for "generational justice," Young people, he said, are the future of Taiwan. He stressed that "Love for Taiwan" was not the exclusive franchise of any minority or any particular political party. Experience has shown that a Closed Door Policy leads to national decline. Only opening a nation up can bring prosperity, can lay a foundation for the next generation. Only that exemplifies genuine "love for Taiwan."

This is what we have long maintained. We call on ruling and opposition politicians to refrain from divisive political language. We ask them not to hurt the feelings of the majority on Taiwan, merely for electoral advantage. Everyone on Taiwan loves Taiwan. Taiwan is our home. It is where we have chosen to settle. Our achievements and the welfare of the next generation, all depend upon prosperity and growth on Taiwan.

Recall the situation before the second change in ruling parties. The Republic of China had fallen victim to wholesale corruption, perpetrated by its own head of state, Eight years of scorched earth diplomacy had reduced diplomatic support for the ROC to a new low. The economy was in stagnation. Ma Ying-jeou was elected by a landslide. This reflected public demand for clean politics, economic liberalization, social harmony, and cross-Strait peace.

Over the past three years, the Ma administration has been buffeted by one wave after another. The global financial tsunami, the recession, and Typhoon Morakot severely traumatized the Liu cabinet. This was followed in quick succession by the H1N1 Influenza epidemic, which left the administration gasping for air. Amidst these difficulties, the Ma administration promoted cross-Strait direct links full force. It opened Taiwan to tourists from the Mainland. It brought the two sides closer to each other than they have ever been. It eased the harm done by the financial tsunami. It signed the cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), writing a new page in cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation. It gained the ROC increased international space. The Ma administration gained the ROC observer status at the WHO, under the name "Chinese Taipei." It succeeded magnificently in gaining visa-free status for ROC passport holders, with 114 countries. These achievements are not something the DPP can dismiss merely by accusing the Ma administration of "pandering to [Mainland] China,"

In March, the Executive Yuan Research, Development and Evaluation Commission conducted a study. President Ma had over 400 planks in his election platform. They included "completed" and "under implementation with phased results." Ma fulfilled 90% of his election promises. These promises include National Pensions, Labor Pensions, the five cities restructuring, government reorganization, taxes for civil service employees and teachers, and the luxury tax. Every one of these was discussed endlessly by previous administrations, but all to no effect.

Yet all these achievements have failed to ensure President Ma Ying-jeou's popularity, which has fallen precipitously since he was first elected. A string of large and small by-elections have been held over the past three years, in which the ruling KMT endured repeated defeats. Taiwan emerged from the financial tsunami. According to the Lausanne Institute of Management, Taiwan's global competitiveness rating lept to number six. Yet most members of the public insist they have experienced no recovery. Why not?

Consider cross-Strait diplomacy. The ROC is in a difficult situation internationally. The Ma administration has made the best of a bad situation. It should not worry about the opposition party criticizing it for "surrending its sovereignty to Mainland China." On the contrary, the Ma administration should ask itself whether it is too tentative in its promotion of cross-Strait exchanges. Is it more concerned with formal agreements than with substantive progress? For example, Mainland investments on Taiwan are subject to strict controls. Mainland students studying on Taiwan are subject to all sorts of limitations. Even students from Taiwan studying on Mainland China, cannot obtain military service deferments.

Consider domestic policy. To the opposition party, the five cities restructuring, may have seemed like a farce. The five cities are still in the middle of break in period. The Executive Yuan will be reorganized early next year. How will the various ministries be reorganized? Everyone is worried. Second-generation health insurance has finally passed. But a high price was paid. The Director of Health was forced to resign. Ma ended the controversy over the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical controversy. But no one praised the president for his resolve. Even President Ma's nomination of important officials aroused major storms.

All sorts of major policies were pushed through. Yet criticisms outnumber praise. The reason why is not complicated. First, the government agencies concerned failed to make comprehensive plans. Second, even when they made comprehensive plans, they lacked confidence. They did not persevere, They compromised, and debased their accomplishments. Third, government officials lacked the ability and courage to defend their policies. Fourth, the President is still accustomed to inner circle decision-making. Before launching policy, he failed to solicit the views of the public. Only when disputes arose, did he rush to put out the fires.

President Ma is a rare bird -- an honest political leader. He is decent. He is not weak. Still less is he incompetent. He has a clear vision of the direction the nation ought to take. He must not be afraid to implement that vision. He must not allow himself to become mired in details and lose his focus. The ROC is a democratic society. For 35% of the public to oppose you is normal. Solicit a wide range of opinions before making a decision, But in the end, arrive at your own decision. Make your administration work as a team. This is the least we can expect from a leader. President Ma: Have confidence. Be a leader.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2011.05.20
社論-愛台灣非少數人或特定政黨專利
本報訊

三年前,馬英九總統發表就職演說,全國民眾見證中華民國二次政黨輪替的民主成就;三年後,馬英九總統走出凱達格蘭大道南下舉行中外記者會。馬英九的行動,顯示出他對這次講話的重視,當然,也顯示他對自己未來半年競選連任的強烈企圖心。

馬總統在記者會中,除了提出將台南機場列為第九個兩岸直航機場,並特別提出「世代正義」,年輕人未來就是台灣的未來,他並強調,愛台灣不是少數人或特定政黨的專利,從過去經驗看,鎖國造成衰敗,開放才能帶來興旺,只有為下一代累積更好的基礎,才是真正愛台灣。

這正是我們一貫主張,並呼籲朝野政治人物不要為了選舉利害,以割裂式的政治語言,傷害多數台灣人民的感情。因為,每一個在這塊土地上的台灣人,沒有不愛台灣的,台灣是我們安身立命的原鄉,我們的成就、下一代的茁壯,都得依附於台灣的繁榮發展。

回憶二次政黨輪替前的場景,台灣陷入國家元首貪腐的沉痛,國際支持因為八年烽火外交而空前低迷,整體經濟形勢停滯,馬英九以超高選票當選,完全反應民眾期待一個政治清廉、經濟開放、族群和諧、兩岸和平的前景。

三年來,馬政府波折起伏不斷,從全球金融海嘯、經濟衰退到莫拉克風災,重創劉內閣,緊接著還有H1N1新流感的衝擊,幾無一絲喘息空間。在艱難的處境中,馬政府全面推動兩岸三通直航,開放陸客來台觀光,兩岸和平讓兩岸交流空前密切,某種程度緩和了金融海嘯的傷害,兩岸並簽署經濟合作框架協議(ECFA),為兩岸經貿合作寫下新頁;在爭取國際空間上,馬政府成功地讓台灣以「中華台北」的名稱,成為世衛組織觀察員的身分,更創下一百一十四國免簽證的亮麗成績。凡此種種,都不是民進黨一句「馬政府傾中」的扣帽子言論所能抹殺。

另根據研考會三月分的追蹤,馬總統四百多項政見,預估包括「已完成」和「執行中具階段性成果」者,其落實率可達百分之九十。不論是國民年金、勞保年金、五都改制、政府組織再造乃至公教課稅、開徵奢侈稅等,無一不是過去討論多年毫無進展的大工程。

然而,這些成績卻沒辦法讓馬英九總統維持當選時的超高人氣,甚至在三年內大大小小的補選中,重新執政的國民黨屢嘗敗績。即使走過金融風暴,台灣的全球競爭力在洛桑管理學院的評比中,躍進到第六名,「無感復甦」卻仍是多數民眾朗朗上口的用詞,何以至此?

就兩岸外交面看,馬政府已經在台灣處境維艱的國際現實下,開啟一個最好的局面,不必擔心反對黨所批評的「主權向中國大陸傾斜」,相反的,馬政府還要深刻思考,是否在推動兩岸政策時太過左支右絀,以至形式協議遠勝過實質進展?隨便舉例,諸如開放陸資來台要嚴管,開放陸生來台三限六不,甚至連台生赴大陸就讀,都不能比照國外求學予以兵役緩徵。

從內政上看,五都改制連在反對黨眼裡,都彷彿是鬧劇一場,迄今五都都還在磨合適應中;明年初即將實施的行政院組織再造,各部會如何重新拼裝,無人不憂心忡忡;二代健保終於通過,卻付出犧牲了一位署長的代價;國光石化爭議喊停,卻沒人稱許總統的魄力;甚至馬總統個人提名的重大人事案無一不引起爭議和風波。

種種類別不同的重大政策,都推動了,得到的批評卻都比肯定要多,原因一點都不複雜:第一,政府相關部門沒有規畫完全的配套;第二,有配套者卻無信心,不敢全力施為,以至妥協折中而變了貌;第三,政府首長缺乏政策辯護的能力和勇氣;第四,總統仍習於內圍決策,未能在政策推出前廣徵意見,以至總是爭議發生才急於滅火。

馬總統是難得正派的政治領袖,正派不是軟弱,更非無能。既對國家方向和發展有明確抱負,就應該勇於實現,而非拘泥於框框條條讓國家藍圖因此模糊;台灣是一個民主社會,至少三成五的人屬必然反對係正常現象,決策前廣為徵詢意見,最後形成主見,要求政府團隊齊心齊力,是領導者的基本條件,期許馬總統:堅定信心,落實領導。

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Will President Ma Be Re-Elected?

Will President Ma Be Re-Elected?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 19, 2011

Tomorrow is May 20, the third anniversary of Ma Ying-jeou's inauguration. On January 14 of next year, we will hold the next presidential election. Almost all the polls show President Ma having a difficult time getting reelected. Will this be his last year in office?

In 2008, Ma Ying-jeou won the presidential election, He won mainly because voters gave him two mandates. One, to clean up political corruption, and two, to change cross-Strait policy. Over the past three years, President Ma has fulfilled both these mandates. He has fulfilled the voters' demands. And yet his bid for re-election remains troubled.

Consider political corruption. Chen era scandals such as the high-speed railway scandal, the Longtan Land Acquistion scandal, thje Nangang Exhibition Hall scandal, the justice system collusion scandals, the PNG scandal, the Taiwan Goals scandal, and other bizarre scandals are all things of the past. The Ma administration's troubles are confined to legislative election vote-buying, and few central or local government officials implicated in corruption cases. Over the past three years, President Ma's own conduct has been exemplary. The most earth-shaking "scandal," within the KMT was the Flora Expo "water spinach scandal." This shows how dramatically different the current administration is from the Chen administration.

Consider cross-Strait policy. Twenty years of folly under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian left cross-Strait relations in shambles. For the past three years, the Ma administration has moved cross-Strait relations toward peaceful development and win/win coopetition. It has been a daunting taks, akin to turning the world on its axis, or akin to reviving the dead. The Chen regime's moves toward Taiwan independence brought the two sides to the brink of war. They turned Taipei and Washington into enemies. They turned Taipei into an international "troublemaker." Moves toward Taiwan independence created social divisions and widespread suffering. The Ma administration seized this historical opportunity. It upheld the principles such as the 1992 Consensus, "One China, Different Interpretations," "No Unification, No Independence, No Use of Force," "no recognition of each other's sovereignty, no repudiation of each other's authority," and "putting Taiwan first, benefitting the people." It allowed direct cross-Strait flights, and Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. It promoted a diplomatic truce, signed 15 bilateral agreements, including ECFA. Cross-strait relations moved from hatred to peaceful development and win/win symbiosis. William Stanton, Director of the Taipei Office of the American Institute in Taiwan, described cross-Strait relations today as a "Godsend," as a "success story."

President Ma has these two major achievements to his credit. So why is his bid for re-election still in so much trouble? There are two reasons. One, over the past three years, he has been unable to win the hearts and minds of Green Camp voters. Two, he has lost the once passionate support of Blue Camp voters.

Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen promised to "lead the DPP into the post-Chen Shui-bian era." Her promise won her the DPP chairmanship. Today however, she is working hand in glove with Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, Frank Hsieh, Koo Kuan-min, and other Taiwan independence elements. She refuses to apologize for DPP corruption. She refuses to promise not to pardon Chen Shui-bian. She refuses to retreat on Taiwan independence. Yet her momentum far exceeds Ma Ying-jeou's. In 2004, 50.11% of the voters supported the DPP and Chen Shui-bian. In 2008, 42% of the voters supported the DPP and Frank Hsieh. Today, they apparently have even more reason to support the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen. Ma Ying-jeou cleaned up corruption, and turned cross-Strait relations around. But this means nothing to the 42% of the voters in the Green Camp. They will never vote for Ma Ying-jeou. They need no reason. Nor can they offer one.

Over the past three years, President Ma has lost his once enthusiastic supporters. This is another crisis in the way of his re-election. Three years ago, 58% of the voters threw their support behind a law-abiding, honest, self-disciplined presidential candidate who disdained populist demagoguery and Machievellian trickery. But once Ma Ying-jeou became president, those same personality traits took on the opposite meaning. He was perceived as dull, conservative, hidebound, indecisive, even weak and incompetent. What accounts for this discrepancy? Some blame President Ma's poor judgment, for example, during the recent Grand Justices nomination. Some blame the public for harboring unrealistic expectations, blaming him for the long delays in the Chen corruption trials. But one point is a constant. The public apparently prefers politicians with flash, even ones who flip-flop endlessly. They tire easily with those who are straight-laced and who lack charisma. They may feel alienated from them, even contemptuous of them. Ma Ying-jeou is unable to hold on to his supporters, for whatever the reasons may be. Hardliners dislike Ma Ying-jeou because he is wishy-washy. First time voters consider him less "fresh" than Tsai Ing-wen. No matter how solid Ma Ying-jeou might be, he cannot withstand this steady erosion. His supporters have lost their enthusiasm, and Ma Ying-jeou's re-election campaign lacks momentum.

President Ma is the incumbent. But he enjoys an advantage only because he is honest and trustworthy, and because his cross-Strait policy has provided everyone, at home and abroad, with a peace dividend. The Green Camp advocates Taiwan independence and refuses to recognize the Republic of China. It sees the peace dividend as a quid pro quo for "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." President Ma's cross-Strait policy has not changed Green Camp political allegiances. Meanwhile, President Ma's honesty and trustworthiness have been devalued by negative impressions of Ma as a "teflon" politician, as someone who shrinks from the front lines, as an irresolute panderer, who is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, as someone who is always "a day late and a dollar short," and even "incompetent." These negative impressions have alienated former supporters. In other words, the Green Camp remains hostile to Ma Ying-jeou. The Blue Camp is disappointed with Ma Ying-jeou because he comes across as sluggish to the point of obtuseness. This is why Ma Ying-jeou's re-election bid is in trouble.

But President Ma's accomplishments over the past three years, go far beyond the presidential election. He has taken cross-Strait relations past the point of no return. Even if he fails to win re-election, his successor will have to follow in Ma's footsteps. The more his successor refuses to follow in Ma's footsteps, the more disastrous the consequences will be. President Ma is relatively bland, in both style and substance. He is not the kind to provoke an internal crisis by demanding the "rectification of names," or proclaiming that the "Pacific Ocean has no lid." He is not the kind to provoke an international crisis that tars Taipei as a "trouble maker," or to embark on a "lost voyage." His personal style is one of self-restraint. He is not one to stir up trouble. He is not one to use people as political tools. He may come across as dull. But he is a national leader who has avoided tearing his nation apart, who has maintained cross-Strait and international peace. If President Ma fails to win re-election, his successor must win the trust of the public, of Beijing, and of the international community. Otherwise the Big Picture will not remain secure.

Over the past three years, President Ma has completed what President Chiang Ching-kuo set out to do 23 years ago, when he lifted martial law and liberalized the political system. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian linked our democratic institutions to Taiwan independence. They made them part of a hostile cross-Strait power struggle. Ma linked our democratic institutions to cross-Strait peace. He liberated us from Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian's negative legacy.

As matters stand, President Ma might not win re-election. But if Ma's successor departs from his cross-strait policy, and fails to inspire the same trust at home, across the Strait, and around the world, it will be impossible to promote the security of the nation.

In conclusion, President Ma's leadership over the past three years may be riddled with controversy. It may contain defects. It may have failed to fulfill its potential. But its overall political direction is correct, and it is morally unassailable. Even if Ma fails to win a second term, its achievements have already transcended the presidential elections. Any future president will find them difficult to surpass.

明年此時馬總統能否連任
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.05.19

明天五二○是馬英九總統就職三周年。明年一月十四日就要舉行下屆總統大選,幾乎所有的民調皆顯示,馬總統的連任之路十分艱難,這會不會是他的最後一個就職周年紀念日?

馬英九在二○○八年總統選舉大勝,主要是得自選民的兩大令狀(mandates):一、清洗政治貪腐;二、調整兩岸政策。就這兩點而言,馬總統三年來已經做到,可謂不負選民的託付;然而,即使如此,他仍陷於可能競選連任失敗的危機之中。

就清洗政治貪腐言,今日像扁政府時代高捷案、龍潭購地案、南港展覽館案、司法黃牛案、巴紐案、鐽震案那類匪夷所思的大案已不復見,馬團隊的困擾在立委選舉賄選,而鮮有中央政務官或地方行政首長涉及貪腐案件。三年來,馬總統自身操守清正,而國民黨團隊「最轟動」的「案子」,竟儼然是花博的「空心菜案」,由此可徵政風較扁政府清廉。

再就調整兩岸政策言,馬政府三年來將李扁二任近二十年的兩岸亂局,導入「和平發展」的競合關係,可謂是旋乾轉坤、起死回生的功業。扁政府的台獨操作,非但使兩岸瀕於戰爭邊緣,台美關係亦反目成仇,國際也以「麻煩製造者」看台灣,至於因台獨操作引致的社會撕裂及痛苦更不必贅言。馬政府掌握了歷史機遇,以「九二共識/一中各表」、「不統/不獨/不武」、「主權互不承認/治權互不否認」、「以台灣為主/對人民有利」等政策原則,開放直航、開放陸客來台、外交休兵、簽署ECFA等十五項雙邊協議,將兩岸關係從仇恨、破裂導向和平發展、雙贏共生。美國在台協會台北辦事處處長司徒文說,現今的兩岸關係是「上帝的恩賜」(godsend),是「一個成功的故事」。

然而,即使馬總統有這兩大事功,為何仍陷於可能競選連任失敗的危機?主要原因,一方面三年來他幾乎未能轉化吸收任何綠營的選票,另一方面藍營支持者對他的熱情亦告流失。

三年前,蔡英文打著「帶領民進黨進入沒有陳水扁的時代」之口號出任民進黨主席,如今則與「扁李謝辜獨」等原班人馬並肩合體,且在貪腐問題上不道歉,在特赦扁上不否認,在台獨議題上不退卻,而儼然已有超越馬英九的聲勢;想像中,二○○四年那百分之五十點一一的選票可以支持當時的民進黨及陳水扁,二○○八年那百分之四十二的選票可以支持當時的民進黨與謝長廷,如今似乎更有理由支持今日的民進黨與蔡英文。馬英九在清洗貪腐上與扭轉兩岸上的表現,對這百分之四十二起跳的綠營支持者並無意義。他們不會投票給馬英九,其實不必任何理由,也不怕找不到理由。

馬總統三年來使他原本的支持者失去了光榮感與失去了熱情,則是他連任之路的另一危機。三年前,百分之五十八的選票,應是在支持一位守法、清正、自我節制,不屑民粹權謀操作的總統候選人馬英九;但馬英九成為總統後,其實是出自同一人格特質的表現,在支持者眼中,卻成了呆板、保守、綁手綁腳、瞻前顧後,甚至懦弱無能。這樣的落差,有些是出自馬總統的錯咎(像此次大法官提名),有些則出自民眾扭曲的期望(為何扁案審判拖那麼久?);但總歸一句,人民似乎還是欣賞手法靈活俗麗甚至反覆自如的政治人物,對拘謹又淡如白開水的風格沒有興趣,甚至疏離或鄙視。馬英九拉不住因這樣或那樣的原因流失掉的支持者,激進者不喜歡馬英九的溫吞,首投族覺得他不如蔡英文有新鮮感;此時的馬英九,猶如再大的山體也禁不起東一片西一片落石的消損。支持者失去了熱情與光榮感,馬英九的選情也就欠缺動能。

總之,馬總統競選連任的優勢,是在他相對比較清正而可堪信任的人格特質,及他的兩岸政策所產生的內外和平紅利。但是,一方面綠營的台獨訴求根本否定了中華民國體制,視和平紅利為「傾中賣台」之所得,而馬總統的兩岸政策始終未能改變綠營的國家認同;另一方面,馬總統相對清正及可堪信任的人格特質,則因「不沾鍋」、「第二線」、「父子騎驢」、「慢半拍」、「無能」等批評,而使原來的支持者與他疏離。也就是說,綠營無論如何皆敵視馬英九,藍營則對馬英九因素樸以致顯得遲緩笨拙的政治手法感到失望,這正是馬英九連任之路的危機。

然而,馬總統三年來的政績,已經超越了換屆選舉;他已將兩岸關係帶過了不可折返點,即使他不能連任,接手者也無可能另闢蹊徑,且若愈抵拒,災禍愈大。至於馬總統相對素樸的人格特質與操作手法,對內不致引發「正名制憲」或「太平洋沒加蓋」的痛苦撕裂,對外不致引發「麻煩製造者」或「迷航」的動盪;這樣的風格,自我節制,不興風作浪,不以人民為政治工具,即使有時顯得呆板,卻是國家領導者不撕裂國家及維持兩岸與國際和平的應有修為。馬總統若未連任,接手者亦須獲得國人、兩岸及國際之信任,非此不能保全大局。

三年來,馬總統已將蔣經國總統在二十三年前的「解嚴/開放」政策完整體現,他將兩岸和平與台灣的民主機制作了正面結合,跳脫了李扁二任將台灣民主的另一面(台獨)與兩岸敵對鬥爭作了負面結合的覆轍。

就當下選情看,馬總統未必能贏得連任,但繼任者若脫離了馬英九所定下的兩岸政策,又在國內、兩岸及國際不具馬英九一樣的人格信任度,即絕無可能安邦定國。

我們的結語是:馬總統三年來的領導表現,雖爭議不斷、缺陷不鮮,令人恨鐵不成鋼,但大政無虧、大德無虧,即使不能連任,其成就已超越了再一次的總統選舉,而可能是未來多任總統所難以違離及超越的。

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Diplomacy Should Not Distinguish Between Blue and Green

Diplomacy Should Not Distinguish Between Blue and Green
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 18, 2011

During the DPP presidential primaries, former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang reiterated that "[The ROC government on] Taiwan is in no danger of losing its sovereignty. Taiwan is in no danger of being reunified." Hsu raised 5 million NT so that he could enter the presidential primaries and speak his mind. Unfortunately, the primaries were soon over, and the 5 million NT fee was all for naught. No one within the party paid any attention to him. Even Tsai Ing-wen, who prides herself on being moderate and rational, has persisted in scare-mongering over the issue of sovereignty, as her primary strategy in her quest for the presidency. The DPP has lambasted the Ma administration. It has accused it of "forfeiting its sovereignty and humiliating the nation." But the DPP could hardly evade the embarrassing reality. During its eight years in power, the DPP attended WHO meetings no less than 18 times under the name "Taiwan, China."

The ROC government is in a difficult situation internationally. At home and abroad, the election has precipitated intense Blue vs. Green conflict. But diplomacy ought to be above Blue and Green. The ROC government fought many years to obtain WHO observer status. This status ought to be cherished. It makes no sense to sacrifice the national interest for the sake of the presidential election.

The simple fact is that ever since United Nations Resolution 275 expelled the Republic of China from the UN, 40 years ago, all United Nations organizations have viewed us as a province of [the Peoples Republic of] China. This is the international reality everyone on Taiwan must face. It is the reason we were unable to participate in WHO activities for so many years. Only when the Ma administration adopted the "Zhong Hua Tai Bei" (Chinese Taipei) nomenclature that we were granted observer status. Only then could the ROC government communicate with other nations regarding outbreaks under International Health Regulations (IHR). Also, our representatives to APEC have been accorded the highest status ever in recent years. ROC citizens have now been accorded visa free treatment by 113 nations. These diplomatic breakthroughs and this progress cannot be denied.

The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. During that time, its scorched earth diplomacy led to a conflagration. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was rendered impotent. Allies defected. The number of nations befriending us dropped from 29 to 23. Repeated protests lodged with the WHO failed to gain us admission. Between 2004 and 2007, the ruling DPP knew it lacked the required votes. Yet it insisted on forcing a vote in the WHO. In the end, the votes were not there. The public was let down. Something the DPP could not achieve, the Ma administration succeed in achieving. We have a question for the DPP. If you return to power, do you intend to relinquish our "Chinese Taipei" observer status at the WHO?

In 2005, the WHO agreed to allow the ROC government to participate in the activities of peripheral WHO organizations. That year, the WHO and the PRC authorities signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They defined Taiwan as a province of [the Peoples Republic of] China. The ruling DPP lodged a verbal protest. But nothing changed. In the end, who was humiliated? Others may not understand the situation. But Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier. She knew what happened.

When Lee Teng-hui was in office, Tsai Ing-wen requisitioned 2.62 million NT from the National Security Council, for the "816 Project Study." The study concluded that if the Republic of China government hoped to reconnect with the international community, it would have to admit that "Zhong Hua Tai Bei (Chinese Taipei) was an international reality, and the best way [for the ROC government to participate in international activities.]" The Ma administration has merely implemented the recommendations of the study commissioned by Tsai Ing-wen. How exactly has it "forfeited its sovereignty and humiliated the nation?"

The DPP argued that when participating in international activities, it is best to use the term "Taiwan." If that is impossible, "Chinese Taipei" is an acceptable compromise. The DPP accused the Ma administration of accepting the term, "Taiwan, Province of China," The DPP claimed it would never do that. But we have to ask the DPP, when did the Ma administration ever accept the term, "Taiwan, Province of China?" Didn't the Ma administration attend the WHO under the name "Chinese Taipei?" Didn't the Ma administration lodge a stern protest with the WHO? The DPP has it backwards. When the DPP was in power, it attended 18 meetings under the name "China, Taiwan." Did the DPP government accept the idea that Taiwan is a province of [the Peoples Republic of] China?

The Democratic Progressive Party argues that our name is not the problem, that what's important is our identity. Under the Olympic model, it argues, we have full membership. Under the WHO General Assembly however, we do not. The DPP argues that "This is quite different from our so-called diplomatic breakthrough," True. Everyone in the country wants full formal membership. But the DPP was in office for eight years. It was unable to win observer status for us. What right does it have to make such irresponsible accusations today?

The Ma administration has been in office three years. People may hold different views about its performance. But it has made important diplomatic breakthroughs, and outstanding progress in cross-Strait relations. The DPP is challenging the Ma administration's diplomatic achievements. But in doing so, it has merely reminded the public about the DPP's scorched earth diplomacy, and the painful memories of its eight year reign.

Tsai Ing-wen is Chairman of the DPP. She was once Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice Premier of the Executive Yuan. Tsai Ing-wen prides herself on being a representative of moderation and rationality. If so, then her deeds must match her words. She may not contradict herself. Tsai Ing-wen is a presidential candidate whom many have pinned their hopes on. We must remind Tsai Ing-wen that she may not repeatedly say one thing while doing another. Tsai Ing-wen blasted the 18% preferential interest rate for civil service employees. But all the while, she herself was benefitting from it. When this was made public, she said she was renouncing it. But soon afterwards she made the baffling declaration that she would no longer turn her 18% over to charity. The most recent reports say that she is continuing to receive the 18% interest payments. Tsai Ing-wen recently expressed opposition to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. But she once phoned members of the environmental impact assessment committee, demanding that phase three of the Taichung Science Park be swiftly approved. Does anyone dare entrust the affairs of state to a political leader whose words so flagrantly contradict her deeds?

拚外交 不應該分藍綠
2011-05-18 中國時報

前民進黨主席許信良在黨內總統提名初選時,一再強調:「台灣沒有主權流失的危機,台灣沒有被統一的威脅。」很遺憾,許信良自籌五百萬爭來的發言,初選一過,即付諸流水;不但黨內沒人理會,自詡溫和理性的蔡英文,依舊以主權恐懼做為競逐總統大位的主策略。然而,當民進黨痛批馬政府喪權辱國的同時,卻無可迴避民進黨執政八年,曾經十八次以「Taiwan,China」的名稱,出席世衛組織的周邊會議。

台灣國際處境維艱,不論國內為了選舉而有多嚴重的藍綠衝突,外交應該不分藍綠,對於奮鬥多年掙來的世衛組織觀察員身份,理應珍惜,沒有道理為了總統大選,犧牲國家利益。

事實上,自從聯合國二七五八號決議文,將中華民國排出聯合國後,四十年來聯合國組織就認為我為中國的一省。這是台灣不能不面對的國際現實,也因此導致我國長期無法參與世衛組織。直到馬政府才得以「中華台北(Chinese Taipei)」名稱,以國家級觀察員身分與會,台灣並已能與國際衛生條例(IHR)相關國家進行疫情聯繫;此外,參與APEC的代表層級也是歷年來最高,還有一百一十三國免簽證。這些外交突破和進展,不是任何人能予以否定。

民進黨執政八年,烽火外交搞得風風火火,外交卻依舊一籌莫展;邦交國流失,從廿九國降為廿三國。即令世衛組織次次抗議,依舊無法取得門票;二○○四年和二○○七年,明知票數不足,還在世衛組織強推提案投票,最終以票數懸殊收場,讓國人沮喪不已。民進黨做不到的事,馬政府做到了。試問:如果民進黨再執政,會放棄以「中華台北」成為世衛組織觀察員的身分嗎?

二○○五年,WHO同意台灣參與周邊會議。當年,世衛組織與中國大陸即簽訂備忘錄,將台灣定位為中國的一省,民進黨政府除了口頭抗議,沒有任何具體作為改變這個現實,到底是誰喪權辱國?別人不了解這個情況,蔡英文曾任行政院副院長,應該非常清楚。

更何況,早在李登輝執政時期,蔡英文就向國安會請款二百六十二萬元,進行「八一六專案」研究,其研究報告的結論直指,中華民國要走出國際,「中華台北(Chinese Taipei)是國際現實下,台灣最好的途徑與方法。」馬政府落實執行她曾經研究的結論,有何喪權辱國可言?

民進黨聲稱,參與國際社會,能用「台灣」最好,如果不行,使用「中華台北」也是一種委曲求全的辦法,但民進黨不會像馬政府一樣接受中國台灣省。請問:馬政府什麼時候接受中國台灣省了?馬政府出席世衛組織不就是用「中華台北」嗎?馬政府也嚴正抗議;反倒是民進黨政府在「中國台灣」的名稱下出席十八次會議,難不成民進黨政府其實是接受中國台灣省?

民進黨又說,名稱不是問題,身分才是重點,在奧會模式中,我們有完整的會員資格,但在世衛大會,我們並非正式會員,「與所謂的外交突破,不可同日而語」。沒有錯,全國民眾都希望我們能夠擁有完整正式的會員資格,但是,民進黨政府執政八年,甚至連觀察員身分都爭取不到,還有什麼臉面說三道四?

馬政府執政三年,或許很多人對其政績有仁智之見,但外交上的突破與兩岸關係上的進展,的確表現亮眼。民進黨以外交成績質疑政府,只喚醒了民眾對民進黨執政八年烽火外交,草木皆兵的慘痛記憶。

身為民進黨主席、曾任行政院陸委會主委和副院長,蔡英文又自詡是溫和理性的代表,就得言行合一,不能後語推翻前言。因為蔡英文是許多民眾寄予厚望的總統參選人,我們必須提醒蔡英文:言行不一之事不能一而再、再而三。隨便舉例,蔡英文痛批十八%,但她領了十八%,宣布放棄之後,還莫名其妙的說未來就不能捐助公益了,現在甚至鬧出她還繼續在領十八%的羅生門;再如蔡英文反對國光石化,但是,她卻是當年打電話關切環評委員,要求中科三期環評過關的關鍵人士。做為政治領袖,言行矛盾至此,誰還敢把國家大政交到她手上?

Monday, May 16, 2011

The Perng Phenomenon and DPP Political Calculations

The Perng Phenomenon and DPP Political Calculations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 16, 2011

Like his counterparts in most other democratic nations, the Republic of China Central Bank President enjoys considerable autonomy. Perng Fai-nan has fulfilled his role especially well. He is well thought of, both at home and abroad. He has successfully risen above partisanship. This is not an easy feat on Taiwan. As a result, Perng Fai-nan's late night meeting with Tsai Ing-wen provoked an uproar. It reflects the tensions behind the 2012 presidential election. It also reflects Blue vs. Green opposition on Taiwan. Public figures who can be classified as neutral, are few and far between.

Tsai Ing-wen deliberately downplayed the significance of the secret Tsai/Perng meeting. She stressed that Perng Fai-nan was a respected financial expert. He is "public property." Anyone, from either the ruling or opposition parties, has the right and even duty to seek help from him in solving Taiwan's fiscal woes. What she said is true. But the timing was just too sensitive. The ruling and opposition parties have just confirmed their presidential nominees. The candidates are about to choose their running mates. A late night meeting between Tsai and Perng at this moment will naturally arouse suspicions. In fact, Perng Fai-nan knew the timing was sensitive. He knew the location was sensitive. That is why he initially issued a denial to curious reporters.

The "Tsai/Perng Meeting" is being seen as evidence of a "Tsai/Perng ticket," primarily because of the DPP. Is the DPP seeking a running mate from outside the party?

First of all, the party does need internal restructuring. In theory, if Tsai Ing-wen chooses a running mate about as popular as her, such as rival Su Tseng-chang, that would make for the strongest possible ticket. But relations between Tsai and Su are chilly. Worse, the DPP presidential primary was virtually a showdown between pro-Su and anti-Su elements. Tsai Ing-wen might be willing to set aside her personal feelings and designate Su her running mate, But such a decision would lead to dissatisfaction among party members opposed to Su. On the other hand, if she chose election expert Frank Hsieh, she would provoke a backlash among pro-Su forces. No matter which force prevails, the result would be detrimental to the DPP's election prospects.

Su and Hsieh are party elders. Neither Su nor Hsieh as running mate would preserve the balance of power. Tsai Ing-wen cannot find a middle-aged running mate within the party. Because this person would be perceived as Tsai's successor. This would upset the balance of power among DPP factions. It would provoke a backlash. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to fully consolidate her power within the party. The choice of a middle-aged running mate would run the risk of provoking a power struggle.

In order to preserve the balance of power within the party, Tsai Ing-wen's best option is a running mate from outside the party. In fact, as soon as the DPP made her the party nominee, party leaders immediately began setting conditions. They insisted that Tsai Ing-wen choose a running mate from outside the party, from the financial sector. Another important factor of course, is the DPP's desire to expand its voter base.

Over the past two years, the DPP has gained the upper hand. It won the three in one county and municipal elections, the legislative by-elections, and the five cities elections. But the main reason it won, was that Pan Blue voters stayed home in droves. Green Camp voters remained solid. They participated enthusiastically. During last year's five cities elections, the turnout was as high as 70%. But the DPP, which attempted to appeal to swing voters, still fell short in Greater Taipei. The turnout rate during the presidential election could be as high as 80%. Hsu Hsin-liang referred to these voters, comprising 10% of the total, as "economic voters." They are centrist oriented, and are the key to the presidential election.

How can the DPP attract these swing or independent voters? Political parties do not provide policy. They provide human capital. Fiscal policy was never one of the the DPP's strong suits. In recent years, ideology has led to even greater rigidity. This has created the perception that the DPP "cares only about ideology, not about economics." The DPP has long been proficient in law and politics. It has long been lacking in financial experise. That is why the first time the DPP assumed power, it was forced to retain the services of KMT financial experts. Either that, or look to the business community. The DPP's current situation is not much better than it was back then.

Under the circumstances, Perng is indeed the best vice presidential candidate for the DPP. This is not the first time Perng's name has been mentioned. During the DPP era, Lee Teng-hui wanted Perng as his premier. When Frank Hsieh was running for president, he wanted Perng as his running mate. The Green Camp was not alone. When Ma Ying-jeou was casting about for a running mate, Perng's name came up. Perng Fai-nan has also been considered as a potential Blue Camp candidate.

How can one explain this "Perng Phenomenon?" When he was central bank president, he was professional, honest, and reliable. He enabled Taiwan to survive the financial crisis, and several exchange rate fluctuations. The public trusts him implicitly. No wonder his approval rating has remained the highest in the Ma administration.

More importantly, the Republic of China is a nation of political extremes, with a giant hole at the center. Any centrist force hoping to become involved in politics may mean well. It may start off with enthusiasm, but will inevitably resign in defeat. The best example of course is Lee Yuan-tse. Once he got caught up in the political maelstrom, even his halo as a Nobel laureate and president of the Academia Sinica could not save him from being perceived as a member of the Green Camp. Lee began to lose his appeal to other parties, his authority, and his credibility.

People with a sense of mission cannot of course worry constantly about being slandered or ridiculed. They must not be afraid to take a stand or to enter politics. The important thing is whether they consider it worthwhile. The answer is clear, the DPP needs Perng far more than Perng needs the DPP. After all, the vice president is merely a potential successor to the president. He is of far less importance than the central bank president. If Perng eventually retires and leaves his post as central bank president, he must ask himself whether as DPP vice presidential candidate he would really be able to change the Democratic Progressive Party's fundamental character?

「彭淮南現象」背後的民進黨算計
2011-05-16 中國時報

就像多數民主國家一樣,中華民國的央行總裁享有相當的獨立性,彭淮南的角色扮演尤其是恰如其分,不但在國內外有頗高的聲望,在台灣更能成功的超乎黨派之上。因此,彭淮南夜訪蔡英文引發軒然大波,反映的不只是二○一二總統大選選情緊繃,也凸顯出藍綠對立的台灣,可當之為中道立場的公眾人物,真是寥寥可數。

蔡英文刻意淡化蔡彭密會,強調彭淮南是她敬重的財經前輩,是台灣的公共財,不論執政或在野,都有權利或義務向他請教台灣整體財經情勢。所言甚是,只是時機太敏感;在這個時刻,朝野兩大政黨都已確定總統提名人,正進入決定副手的關鍵時刻,此時蔡彭夜會,自然難以避免外界的聯想;事實上,彭淮南要不是深知自己是在「敏感」的時機、出現在「敏感」的地方,他又何必在第一時間向查證的記者否認此事。

「蔡彭會」如果被想像成「蔡彭配」,最重要因素還是在民進黨,民進黨是否有必要向外尋找副手?

首先,就對內整合的角度來說,確實有必要。理論上,蔡英文如果找人氣差距不大的競爭對手蘇貞昌搭檔,應該是戰力最強的組合,但除了蔡蘇兩人關係冷淡外,更大的阻力在於,這次民進黨總統黨內初選形同一場「親蘇與反蘇」的大對決,因此,即使蔡英文個人願意放下一切恩怨,找蘇當副手,卻必然引發黨內反蘇人士的不滿;反之亦然,若找了選舉功臣謝長廷,只怕引發親蘇勢力反彈;不管最後是何方勢力出線,都不利大選整合。

蘇謝兩位大老都不利權力鋪排,蔡英文卻同樣不能找黨內中生代,因為,此人若被視為有接班人的態勢,同樣會打破民進黨派系均勢,引發反彈,蔡英文在黨內羽翼未豐,找中生代搭檔同樣有擺不平的風險。

可以說,就黨內權力結構考量,蔡英文最佳副手人選不在黨內而在黨外;事實上,她一從民進黨黨內初選出線,黨內立即傳出條件說,蔡英文副手人選可能是黨外財經界人士,另一個重要關鍵因素,當然就是關乎民進黨對外開拓選票的戰略。

過去兩年來,從三合一縣市長選舉、立委補選到五都選舉,民進黨雖然都占上風,但多數是勝在藍營選民不投票,綠營選民卻鐵板一塊、熱情參與,去年的五都選舉投票率雖然高達七成,但是訴求中間選民的民進黨,在大台北仍有不少的差距,尤其,總統大選投票率可能高達八成,許信良稱這多出來的一成選民為「經濟選民」,立場偏向中間,他們就是總統大選決勝負的關鍵。

如何吸引這些中間、或獨立選民?政黨能提供的不是政策,就是人才。就政策而言,財經政策向來不是民進黨的強項,這幾年來更因僵固的意識形態,而予人「寧要政治不要經濟」的觀感;就黨內人才來說,民進黨更是向來法政強、缺財經人才。因此,第一次民進黨執政時,必須留用國民黨財經人才,不然就是向商界尋覓,現在也沒有比那時候好太多。

在這些大背景下,彭淮南確實是民進黨副手的最佳人選。這不是彭淮南第一次被點名,民進黨政府時代,李登輝就曾點名找彭擔任行政院長,謝長廷選總統時積極尋求彭淮南搭檔,不只綠營如此,之前總統馬英九副手人選討論尚未浮出檯面時,彭淮南同樣是藍營點名人選。

如何解釋這樣的「彭淮南現象」?他在央行總裁任內的專業、操守及穩健作風,讓台灣安然度過金融風暴、及數次匯率市場波動,深受民眾肯定,難怪他的民意支持度一直是馬政府中最高的。

更重要的是,台灣是個政治上兩極對立、中間空虛的國家,任何中道力量想要介入政治,即使動機良善,卻總是以熱情始、以挫敗終。最典型的例子當然是李遠哲,當他捲入政治漩渦,即使諾貝爾獎得主、中研院院長的光環,都不能挽救他被貼上綠營標籤的命運,李遠哲也從此失去號召不同黨派、一言九鼎的發言分量。

當然,具有使命感的人,不能總是因為憂讒畏譏,而不敢表態或投入政治,重要是值不值得。答案很清楚,民進黨需要彭淮南遠甚於彭淮南需要民進黨!畢竟,副總統僅是備位元首而已,遠遜於央行總裁的重要性;即使彭淮南終將退休、離開央行總裁一職,他當然也必須要思考,擔任民進黨副總統候選人,真的能改變民進黨的體質嗎?

Friday, May 13, 2011

Can Tsai Ing-wen Free Herself from the Macao Model?

Can Tsai Ing-wen Free Herself from the Macao Model?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 13, 2011

Over the past two years, the DPP has failed to offer any new cross-Strait arguments. The DPP has been willing to say only that it does not recognize the 1992 Consensus. Former DPP Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu recently visited the United States. During his visit, he suggested the "Macao model" as a substitute for the 1992 Consensus. By doing so, Wu unwittingly showed the Democratic Progressive Party's hand. He unwittingly showed that if the DPP returns to power, cross-Strait relations may well suffer an across the board setback. He showed that the DPP was desperate, and had nothing to offer.

Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has repeatedly lambasted the Ma administration for "pandering to [Mainland] China," and "failure to assert sovereignty." But what has the DPP done? What is its position on the status of Taipei and Beijing? Under Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP leadership has done everything possible to dodge the issue. Shortly after Tsai Ing-wen declared her candidacy, she trotted out her mantra, "peace but with differences, peace and the search for common ground." This mantra is extremely vague. It bears no resemblance to practical policy. It also leaves far too much room for interpretation by the two sides.

It was not until the DPP presidential primary, when Hsu Hsing-liang forked out 5 million NT to enter the presidential race and participate in the presidential debates, that the DPP was free to openly discuss cross-Strait policy. Hsu challenged Tsai Ing-wen. He said that ECFA was a bilateral agreement whose tariff conditions benefitted Taiwan one-sidedly. Yet Tsai Ing-wen wanted to appeal ECFA to the WTO. This might invalidate ECFA. More importantly, Hsu Hsin-liang challenged Tsai Ing-wen over bilateral direct links and trade agreements. These were possible only because the Ma administration recognized the 1992 Consensus. If the DPP returns to power and refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges could be completely disrupted. What contingency plans does the DPP have, in the event this happens?

During the primary debates, Tsai Ing-wen never gave Hsu Hsin-liang a direct answer. Instead she waited until the DPP presidential nomination was announced. She then told the media that cross-Strait relations should look to the future. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power in 2012, she promised, it would maintain an open and pragmatic approach to cross-Strait exchanges. Cross-Strait exchanges would be based on a "shared and sustainable basis. "

Her statement was extremely vague. The DPP candidate has already been announced. Yet Tsai Ing-wen remains reluctant to discuss cross-Strait policy. That is why Joseph Wu's mention of the Macau model aroused so much public concern. Joseph Wu said that if the DPP returned to power, ECFA and other cross-Strait agreements would not be overturned, but that the DPP would not accept the 1992 Consensus. Wu said that if Beijing broke off talks between the SEF and ARATS, the two sides would fall back on the Macau model of "industry to industry" and "organization to organization" communications during the Chen era.

The Macao model had its origins in the DPP era. Cross-Strait communications had been disrupted. Therefore in 2005, Spring Festival charter flights for Taiwan businessmen were negotiated by means of private sector consultations. DPP officials were overjoyed with this model. But the Macao model is hardly ideal for cross-Strait exchanges. Negotiations for the Spring Festival charter flights for Taiwan businessmen were conducted on the Mainland side by Civil Aviation Administration officials, and on our side by a representative of the Taipei Airlines Association. Our side was deprived of governmental status. Worse, the relationship between the negotiators became one of "officials addressing citizens." Paradoxically, this demeaned Taipei's status.

An even more serious objection was that the government ostensibly commissioned a non-governmental organization to conduct cross-Strait talks. This blurred the lines between public authority and civil society. As a result, Beijing could readily leapfrog the ROC government, and talk directly to private sector groups. It could grant favors to private sector groups on Taiwan. Lured by profits, these groups fell over each other and made a beeline to Beijing. The government no longer figured in their calculations. Has the DPP forgotten how harshly they criticized Beijing for "using businesses to beseige and isolate the government?" This is the side effect of the Macao model.

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP insist on repudiating the 1992 Consensus. But direct links and ECFA are not the only victories scored by the Ma administration on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. Victories include cross-Strait "government to government" negotiations on other issues. The DPP insists that the 1992 Consensus stresses the One China Principle, and therefore demeans Taiwan's [sic] sovereignty. (Translator's Note: Taiwan has no sovereignty. Taiwan is an administative region of the Republic of China. The Republic of China has sovereignty, not Taiwan.) But real world practice shows that the Macao model is more likely to demean the Republic of Chna's sovereignty. The Macau model eliminates the role of the government. In the long run, it works to the Republic of China's disadvantage.

Tsai Ing-wen has publicly declared that Joseph Wu never participated in DPP policy discussions regarding Mainland China. She said his statements cannot be regarded as representative of the Democratic Progressive Party. But Tsai Ing-wen has repudiated the Macao model, while faiing to offer any alternatives. In fact, the Macao model is the only alternative left to the Democratic Progressive Party. The DPP has no other alternative. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, cross-Strait exchanges will again be disrupted, When that happens, the DPP will be impotent, unable to do anything. Does the DPP really intend to fall back on the Macau model to deal with complex cross-Strait relations?

One cannot prove that one "Loves Taiwan" merely by foaming at the mouth. Cross-Strait relations require more than rigid ideology. The DPP has dismissed Joseph Wu's remarks about the Macao model. They say he mispoke. But Joseph Wu's remarks were highly significant. Joseph Wu tried to offer an alternative to the 1992 Consensus. His alternative proved detrimental to the Republic of China. This is something the DPP must contemplate.

蔡英文能擺脫澳門模式的困境嗎?
2011-05-13 中國時報

這兩年來,民進黨並沒有提出新的兩岸論述,該黨唯一定調的就是:民進黨不承認九二共識。因此,當民進黨前陸委會主委吳釗燮日前訪美,提出將以「澳門模式」取代九二共識時,不啻是洩露民進黨的底線,也凸顯出民進黨對於執政後兩岸全面關係倒退的可能性、無計可施的困境。

民進黨黨主席蔡英文屢屢批評馬政府「傾中」、「對主權不敢堅持」,但是對於民進黨的兩岸定位,在蔡英文主導下的民進黨中央,則是盡可能的迴避討論。蔡英文個人則在宣布參選總統後,提出「和而不同、和而求同」八字箴言;這八個字高度抽象,不但不具政策的操作性,也留下各說各話的解讀空間。

一直到民進黨總統初選政見發表會時,許信良花了五百萬參賽,才取得在民進黨內公開討論兩岸政策的權利;他詰問蔡英文,兩岸簽訂ECFA,這是在關稅上獨惠台灣,蔡英文卻主張要向WTO通報,可能會讓ECFA失效;更重要的是,許信良也直接問蔡英文,兩岸能夠談成三通直航、經貿協定,都是因為馬政府承認九二共識,民進黨上台後如果不接受九二共識,兩岸經貿交流可能全面中斷,民進黨是否已有備案?

在政見發表會中,蔡英文從未正面回應許信良,而在確定獲民進黨總統提名後,日前蔡英文回應媒體時首度強調,兩岸關係應該往前看,若民進黨在二○一二年取得政權,將保持開放、務實的態度進行兩岸交流,會就兩岸交流尋找一個「共同的、可長可久的基礎」。

這個表述還是相當抽象。可以說,即使確定代表民進黨參選,蔡英文對兩岸論述仍然諱莫如深,也因此,吳釗燮的「澳門模式」說,才會引起各界關注。吳釗燮的說法是,民進黨若再執政,不會推翻ECFA等兩岸協議,但也不會接受九二共識,屆時北京若中斷海基會、海協會兩會互動,兩岸溝通可採取扁政府時代的「行業對行業/團體對團體」的「澳門模式」。

「澳門模式」的由來是:民進黨執政期間,兩會交流中斷,因此於二○○五年由兩岸民間行業協商台商春節包機,民進黨官員曾對此一模式津津樂道,但所謂的「澳門模式」,卻不是兩岸交流的最適方式,因為,在當年的台商春節包機會談中,對岸主談人是民航總局官員,我方主談人卻是台北市航空公會派出的代表,不但造成我方「去政府化」,更營造出「以官對民」的高姿態,台灣反而有被矮化的風險。

更嚴重的是,政府表面上以「複委託」的方式,委託民間團體進行兩岸談判,但卻因此也造成公權力與民間團體混淆不清,因為如此一來,北京可以理所當然的跳過中華民國政府、與我方各種民間團體洽談,並且直接對台灣的各種團體施放利多,利字當頭,各團體趨之若鶩,逕自到北京朝聖,眼中那裡還有政府存在,民進黨難道不記得,他們當年如何痛批北京「以商圍政、孤立政府」,這就是「澳門模式」的後遺症。

蔡英文及民進黨堅持不接受九二共識,但是馬政府靠著九二共識達成的,不只是三通直航及ECFA協定而已,還有兩岸「政府對政府」的對等談判模式。民進黨咬定九二共識強調一中原則,矮化台灣主權,但從實際運作的結果檢證,「澳門模式」卻更有矮化台灣的可能,因為,此一模式會讓政府的角色消失不見,長期而言,當然更不利台灣的主體性。

蔡英文雖已公開表示,吳釗燮並未參與民進黨中國政策的討論,他的說法不能代表民進黨,只是,蔡英文否認了「澳門模式」,卻仍然提不出其他方案。事實上,所謂的「澳門模式」,其實就是民進黨執政時期無計可施下的替代方案,如果民進黨再度執政,兩岸交流再度中斷,屆時無計可施的民進黨,難道還要靠「澳門模式」來處理繁複的兩岸關係。

愛台灣不是靠嘴巴喊的,處理兩岸關係更不能只靠僵化的意識形態;民進黨將吳釗燮此次的「澳門模式」說界定為發言失誤,但這是一次很有意義的失誤,因為吳釗燮試圖在九二共識之外提出另一種模式,但這種模式相較之下、反而不利台灣,這值得民進黨深思。