Disinformation, Defamation, and Stonewalling: Stepping over the Corpses of Farmers
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 30, 2011
Summary: Agricultural issues have long been considered the DPP's strong suit. But the DPP committed a major blunder with its "persimmons for only two dollars a catty" propaganda campaign. Flagrantly false allegations that persimmons were being sold at fire sale prices seriously hurt fruit growers. But everyone in the DPP from Chairman Tsai Ing-wen on down continues stonewalling. The DPP has yet to issue a single word of apology. Is this the behavior of a party that trumpets its solidarity with farmers?
Full Text Below:
Agricultural issues have long been considered the DPP's strong suit. But the DPP committed a major blunder with its "persimmons for only two dollars a catty" propaganda campaign. Flagrantly false allegations that persimmons were being sold at fire sale prices seriously hurt fruit growers. But everyone in the DPP from Chairman Tsai Ing-wen on down continues stonewalling. The DPP has yet to issue a single word of apology. Is this the behavior of a party that trumpets its solidarity with farmers?
The DPP has long played the agricultural card. The subsidies for elderly farmers controversy left the KMT battered and bruised, and forced to play catch up. The Mainland recently signed contracts with fish farmers in Tainan's Xuejia District for farm raised milkfish. Some fishermen said that even though they had accepted purchase orders from the Mainland, they would still vote for the DPP. The DPP has probably concluded that it has a lock on the traditional farming and fishing industry vote. Therefore it can ignore the plight of these grass roots voters. It has probably concluded that in order to undermine the ruling party, it can get away with distorting the facts, falsely claiming that persimmons are being sold at fire sale prices, and inflicting serious harm on farmers.
In order to depict the KMT as inept, the DPP is willing to undermine fruit prices again and again, forcing fruit growers to endure massive losses. The DPP launched a "Wasted Labor" fruit calendar propaganda campaign. Each month the calendar features a fruit whose price has plummeted. The DPP's intention was to make the KMT look bad, The fruits featured include oranges at 4.8 dollars per catty, oranges at 6 dollars, bananas at 2 dollars, papayas at 3 dollars, longans at 4 dollars, lychees at 10 dollars, guavas at 5 dollars, top-grafted pears at record lows, grapefruit at 4 dollars, persimmons at 2 dollars, and apple pears at prices that have fallen precipitously. Finally, the month of December features a giant question mark, rhetorically demanding, "who's next?"
Prices for agricultural products are unsatisfactory. This may be due to problems with production and marketing, resulting in harm to farmers. The government should be concerned and should seek solutions. But the DPP's propaganda campaign contains considerable misinformation or disinformation. It has raised considerable controversy. For example, the month of May features longans. But longans are not in season until July and August. Another example is persimmons in October, at 2 dollars per catty. This is not the actual market price, and has provoked anxiety and anger among persimmon growers. Once this DPP propaganda was released, fruit wholesalers and consumers demanded that persimmon growers sell them persimmons at these artificially concocted prices. Wholesalers were forced to return 60% of their consignments. Even consumers concluded that persimmon prices were too high and refused to buy.
The DPP's propaganda campaign destroyed the persimmon market, It caused innocent persimmon growers untold harm. Not a single person up or down the ranks of the DPP has expressed regret, Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen took the lead. She said the two dollars a catty price referred to the price at the first point of sale, the orchards. President Ma said the price referred to was the wholesale price. Tsai Ing-wen called Ma Ying-jeou ignorant. But as soon as Tsai Ing-wen's remark got out fruit growers confirmed that the price at the first point of sale was the wholesale price. Tsai Ing-wen was the one who revealed her ignorance while feigning expertise. Tsai Huang-lang then chimed in. He said the persimmons referred to in the DPP's propaganda campaign were not upscale persimmons, but beefheart persimmons from Taitung. But this attempt at damage control was immediately refuted by Taitung farmers. Fruit growers said that beefheart persimmons were low volume products. Even beef heart persimmons were 20 to 30 dollars per catty. They could hardly be the persimmons selling for two dollars per catty shown in the DPP's fruit calendar campaign. Besides, the persimmons illustrated in the DPP's propaganda campaign were clearly sweet persimmons.
The DPP then made a third attempt at damage control. Spokesman Chen Chi-mai said the DPP got its information from a local paper, the China Times. Chen said that according to the China Time, Taitung beefheart persimmon prices had plunged. The wholesale price was only one or two dollars per catty. He said the DPP campaign cited this data. But the reporter responsible for the article explained that the price was only for seconds. it was only for defective produce. It was not the price for normal produce. It was not the price for the high grade persimmons illustrated in the DPP's propaganda campaign. Furthermore, as the China Times reporter explained, the news report said the price was "two dollars each." This was a far cry from the "two dollars per catty" for high quality fruit cited in the DPP's propaganda campaign, It was the price for seconds. It was clearly a unit price. Yet the DPP claimed it was a per catty price. The DPP misled consumers and wholesalers, It hurt farmers. It even undermined fruit vendors.
Seeing no way to escape the persimmons fiasco, Tsai Ing-wen passed the buck onto DPP propaganda personnel, saying they may have used the wrong photograph. She said they "regretted" what they did. But what exactly did Tsai Ing-wen regret? Did she regret the fact that the DPP's carelessness and sloppiness caused farmers unnecessary losses? Or did she regret the fact that DPP "mishaps" angered farmers, the flames scorched the DPP, and undermined its election campaign?
This is hardly the first time the DPP has spread disinformation and undermined the price of agricultural products. Persimmons are hardly the sole example. The DPP has repeatedly poor mouthed guava and banana prices, forcing wholesalers to sell their inventory at fire sale prices, and allowing consumers to snap them up on the cheap. Su Jia-chyuan was once Chairman of the Council of Agriculture. He ought to understand the farmers' plight, The DPP has long maintained that farmers are a key source of its political support, It has been only too ready to demagogue farm issues. Yet the DPP is apparently indifferent to farmers, In order to lash out against the KMT, it has no qualms about shooting off its mouth and incurring losses among farmers. The DPP has probably concluded that farmers are "yellow dog" DPP supporters. They will continue to support the party no matter how shabbily it treats them. What can one do but sigh? Do these politicians even have consciences?
誤導+汙衊+硬拗 踩著農民打選戰
2011-11-30 00:58 中國時報
農業議題一向被認為是民進黨的「主場」，但「兩塊錢一斤的柿子」卻讓民進黨栽了一個大跟斗，明顯不合事實的低價柿子已對農民造成傷害。但民進黨從蔡英文主席以降，至今仍在拗，一句道歉認錯都沒有，這是口口聲聲要跟農民站在一起的政黨應該有的表現嗎？
民進黨向來愛打農業牌，前段時間，老農津貼逼得國民黨灰頭土臉，不得不跟進。日前，大陸對台南學甲契作養殖虱目魚，一些漁民還表示，就算拿了大陸的訂單，票還是會投民進黨。或許民進黨就是認定傳統農漁村的選票，怎麼樣都是其囊中物，所以才會輕忽基層選民的艱困處境，為了打擊執政黨，不惜歪曲事實，低報柿子的價格，嚴重損及果農的利益也在所不惜。
為了凸顯國民黨執政不力，造成水果價格一再探底，讓果農承受巨大的損失，民進黨製作了一分「攏總無採工」 的水果月曆文宣，每個月列出一種價格慘跌的水果，意在給國民黨難看，包括：柳橙一台斤四．八元、橘子六元、香蕉二元、木瓜三元、龍眼四元、荔枝十元、芭樂五元、高接梨創歷史新低、柚子四元、柿子兩元、水梨價格直落，而「十二月」的水果則打上了「換誰滯銷」的問號。
農產品價格不理想，或者產銷制度有問題，致使農民受損，政府的確應該關注並提出解決之道。不過，這份文宣有不少錯誤的資訊，引發外界高度爭議，如月曆上標示五月分的水果是龍眼，但龍眼是七、八月的水果；又如十月份的水果柿子，標明一斤兩塊錢，不符行情，造成各地柿農的焦急與憤怒，因為民進黨的這份文宣一出，水果中盤商和消費者都要求用低價跟柿農買柿子，盤商退貨六成，甚至有消費者認為柿農的價格太貴，不買了。
此份文宣打壞柿子行情，連累無辜柿農受損，民進黨上上下下竟沒有一個人為此感到抱歉，黨主席蔡英文帶頭拗說一斤兩塊錢是指產地收購價，馬總統提到的比較高的價格則是指批發價，蔡英文批評馬英九沒有常識。但蔡英文此言一出，立刻有農友反駁指出，產地收購價就是批發價，不懂還裝懂的人是蔡英文。蔡煌瑯則接著說，文宣上所說的「柿子」並非較為高檔的甜柿，而是台東的牛心柿。但這種說講法又立刻被台東果農駁斥，果農說，牛心柿產量很少，但即使是牛心柿一台斤都還有廿到卅元，哪來水果文宣上說的一斤兩塊錢；更何況，水果文宣上的圖片明明就是甜柿。
民進黨再出第三招，發言人陳其邁說，民進黨是看到《中國時報》地方新聞得知，台東牛心柿價格慘跌，產地收購價一顆只有一、兩塊錢，所以才有文宣上的資訊。然而，記者報導的是次級品、不良品的價格，並不是一般正常銷售品，更不是民進黨文宣上的高檔柿子；更何況，報導說的是「一顆」兩塊錢，這跟「一斤」兩塊錢差很大──文宣品上用的是高品質的水果圖案，但卻標示次級品的價格，明明是單顆的價格卻說成是一斤的價格，誤導消費者與盤商，傷害了果農，也對攤商的生意造成了影響。
眼見柿子圖檔的問題無可逃避，蔡英文只好說民進黨的文宣人員可能有誤植照片的情形，非常「遺憾」──蔡英文是遺憾因為民進黨的粗心、草率，讓農民承受了不必要的損失，還是遺憾文宣人員「太不小心」，引發農民怒火，且火勢向民進黨延燒不止，對選情造成影響？
其實民進黨散布不實消息，影響農產品的價格，柿子並不是唯一的例子；芭樂、香蕉也都是因為民進黨一再唱衰，造成盤商殺價、消費者觀望的現象。蘇嘉全曾任農委會主委，理當了解農民的艱苦，更何況民進黨一向認為農民是其重要的票倉，操作農業相關議題，樂此不疲；然而，民進黨似乎也並不真的把農民權益放在心上，為了打擊國民黨，信口開河造成農民的損失也無所謂。如此吃定向來相挺的農民，實在讓人喟嘆，政治人物的良心何在啊。
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Do Not Allow Spin Doctors to Steal Your Vote
Do Not Allow Spin Doctors to Steal Your Vote
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2011
Summary: Voters initially assumed that Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen had the same political manner and the same concern for professionalism. They initially assumed that the current presidential election would be different from past presidential elections. They initially assumed that the current presidential election could leave behind the demonization, smears, and attempts to incite "ethnic" hatred, Unfortunately as election day approaches, the presidential election has been tainted by smears and defamation. Worse still, the DPP's negative campaign is merely a smoke screen hiding its cross-Strait and industrial policy vacuum.
Full Text Below:
Voters initially assumed that Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen had the same political manner and the same concern for professionalism. They initially assumed that the current presidential election would be different from past presidential elections. They initially assumed that the current presidential election could leave behind the demonization, smears, and attempts to incite "ethnic" hatred, Unfortunately as election day approaches, the presidential election has been tainted by smears and defamation. Worse still, the DPP's negative campaign is merely a smoke screen hiding its cross-Strait and industrial policy vacuum.
Phony issues dominate the campaign. Negative campaigning monopolizes the front pages. The problem is not that one candidate is the winner or the loser. The problem is the voters are the biggest losers of all. Elections are supposed to be opportunities for intensive debates about national policy. They are not supposed to be about irrelevancies such as Chen Ying-chu. President Ma Ying-jeou did not meet with Chen in September. Yet the ruling and opposition parties are arguing about whether Chen is good or evil. This is a meaningless debate that has squandered nearly three weeks of valuable time. For voters, it was a lost opportunity.
Every presidential election is in some way, a key battle. The current election is no exception. The global recession has cast a pall over the globe. The Euro may disintegrate at any moment. The U.S. economy cannot pull itself out of the doldrums. Leading economists predict a second economic downturn even more serious than the first, The world may experience a lost decade. Businesses on Taiwan are issuing unpaid leave notices. In January of next year, the president elect will face an even worse situation. He or she will first face an external crisis. Debts have come due for the EU countries, including Italy. Every one of these EU debts is a potential landmine. Handled improperly, they could send the global economy into recession.
In this crisis-ridden environment, how can people on Taiwan protect themselves? This was supposed to be the key issue in the presidential election. The U.S. and Europe are in recession. Cross-Strait relations have improved. Therefore Taiwan still enjoys an advantage. What are the prospects for improved cross-Strait relations? These are the issues we should be paying attention to. But they have been sidelined. Election rhetoric on Taiwan now revolves around Chen Ying-chu.
All this time, the DPP has been demagoguing non-issues such as the "Three Little Pigs," Chen Ying-chu, and the "Wasted Labor Calendar." These issues may help the DPP. They may hinder the rival KMT. But they are all phony. Past experience has shown us that the DPP is unqualified to govern the nation. But every election season shows us that the DPP is a world class illusionist. The DPP is an expert at playing the voters for fools, at pulling the wool over the voters' eyes, at sidelining the key issues.
Phony issues replace genuine issues. The DPP's Achilles Heel is cross-Strait policy. But these issues have vanished from the debate. The DPP has the KMT at a disadvantage in two ways. First, the DPP is adept at constantly raising phony issues and forcing the KMT to play catch up. It is adept at forcing the KMT to forget that a party seeking re-election must offer a positive program. Secondly, Taipei and Beijing have already signed 15 agreements. Cross-Strait exchanges are already routine. Yet the DPP is still able to lead the KMT around by the nose, merely by accusing it of "pandering to Beijing and selling out Taiwan." The KMT remains too afraid to defend its cross-Strait policy. This disadvantage is even more serious than the first.
The DPP uses these opportunities to escape blame for its mistakes or pretend nothing happened. Without a shred of evidence, it alleges that "[Mainland] China has eight different plans for intervening in the elections on Taiwan." Beginning with its victory in the 2004 presidential election, the DPP attempted to win over Taiwan businessmen based on the Mainland. Now however, the DPP has abruptly reclassified them as members of the "five black categories." It has suddenly reclassified them as fifth columnists for the CCP. The DPP knows the KMT lacks the courage to defy its negative campaign.
The DPP's cross-Strait policy contradictions do not end here. Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP presidential candidate, has long condemned ECFA as worthless. She says it failed to help farmers, that it decreased rather than increased their income, that fruit sales to the Mainland were "Wasted Labor," and that ECFA was responsible for the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Yet she recently told the British Broadcasting Corporation that if elected, she would not nullify ECFA. This was a policy that the DPP depicted as unmitigated evil during the election. Now however, it vows to perpetuate this policy in the event it wins the election. Presidential candidates in advanced democracies cannot get away with such flagrant self-contradictions. But on Taiwan, they can. On Taiwan, negative campaigns are ideal smoke screens. On Taiwan, they allow the DPP to easily gather the votes they need.
Cross-Strait issues are not the only issues being sidelined during the current election. Taiwan's agricultural future is another issue that has been sidelined. The DPP spread disinformation about the price of fruit. It falsely claimed that persimmons command only two dollars a kilo. It successfully shifted attention away from real issues. Have the voters forgotten that Tsai Ing-wen promised to become the voice of a new generation. The DPP is triumphant. It forced the KMT to jump on the DPP bandwagon, and increase the subsidy for elderly farmers to 1000 dollars. Tsai Ing-wen has forgotten that debts incurred by this generation must not be foisted on the next generation.
The Republic of China is a democratic nation. Voters are the final arbiter. Voters must not allow themselves to be dazzled by election gimmicks. Voters must remember that illusionists may have any number of tricks up their sleeves, but ultimately they cannot change reality. The election is less than two months away. Voters must confront the candidates. They must demand to know, "Where's the beef?"
別讓大選魔術師騙走你的票
2011-11-29 中國時報
以雙英的風格及專業形象，選民原本預期，這次的總統大選應該是一場不一樣的選舉。過去醜化、抹黑、分化族群的選風能夠有所改善，可嘆的是，到總統大選末期，我們看到的還是一連串的做假抹黑；更嚴重的是，負面選舉策略其實只是煙幕彈，背後真正要掩蓋的真相是，民進黨提不出一套完整的兩岸、產業政策方案。
當假議題當道、負面選舉新聞充斥媒體版面時，這不只是關乎候選人的輸贏而已，選民的權益也受到傷害，因為競選原該是一次密集辯論國政的最好機會；但是陳盈助何許人也？總統馬英九今年九月沒有見他，但朝野政黨竟然為了爭執陳盈助究竟是好人還是壞人，一個毫無意義的議題就這樣虛擲了將近三個禮拜的時光，對選民來說，這都是損失慘重的機會成本。
每一次總統大選，都是某一種形式的關鍵戰役，這次也不例外；就短期而言，不景氣陰影籠罩在全球上空，歐元隨時會有解體危機，美國經濟一直拉不起來，國際著名的經濟學家預判，二次經濟衰退遠比第一次嚴重，全球可能進入失落的十年。國內現在已陸續出現無薪假狀況，明年一月選出的新總統，面對的情勢只會更糟，他首先要面對的外在危機，包括義大利在內的歐盟國家債務到期，每一個都是地雷，處理不好都會讓全球經濟進入衰退。
在這樣危機重重的大環境，台灣如何自保，本來應該是這次總統大選的主軸。尤其是，當歐美都陷入衰退，台灣卻因兩岸關係改善、仍然握有優勢時，台灣的兩岸關係前景如何，當然都應該是選舉的重要議題，但現在這些議題都出不來，台灣的選舉話題全都圍繞在不相干的陳盈助身上。
這段時間以來，民進黨不斷丟出三隻小豬、陳盈助、農民「嘸採工月曆」等議題，這些話題不論正面（對民進黨自己）還是負面（對對手國民黨），重點是，這些全是假議題；從過去的經驗來看，民進黨治國也許不怎麼樣，但在大選時，他們可是第一流的魔術師，耍得選民如癡如醉，然後趁機偷天換日，將最重要的議題給置換掉了。
這些假議題取代了真正的議題，也就是民進黨的大選罩門─兩岸政策，完全從選舉中消失。民進黨可以說是雙重吃定國民黨，一方面用假議題讓國民黨疲於奔命，渾然忘記尋求連任的政黨必須提出正面訴求；第二重也是最致命的，即使兩岸之間已簽訂十五項協議，雙方互動已經常態化的今天，國民黨仍然被民進黨「傾中賣台」的血滴子緊緊箍住，幾乎不敢為自己的兩岸政策利多辯護。
民進黨不但是趁機金蟬脫殼，甚至還「回到從前」，毫無證據、想當然爾的提出「中國介入台灣選舉八套劇本」，在這些劇本中，民進黨從二○○四年大選就開始拉攏的台商，瞬間又被打成黑五類，被貶為中共在台的第五縱隊。這同樣也是吃定國民黨不敢反擊的負面選舉操作。
民進黨兩岸政策矛盾不只於此，該黨總統候選人蔡英文向來將ＥＣＦＡ說得一文不值，不但沒幫到農民、他們收入不增反減、種水果都是「嘸採工」，而且還惡化台灣的貧富差距；但她日前接受英國廣播公司訪問時，卻又公開表示，當選後不會廢除ＥＣＦＡ；一個在大選時被民進黨無情抹黑醜化的政策，當選後卻要繼續施行，任何民主國家的總統候選人，都不能出現這樣的矛盾，但台灣卻可以，因為負面選舉招數，已成最佳煙幕彈，讓民進黨可以輕騎過關。
在這場大選中，被置換掉的不只是兩岸議題。再如台灣農業未來如何轉型，民進黨則以水果一斤只值兩元這樣的假消息，轉移了真正該深入討論的焦點；如果選民不健忘，蔡英文之前一直矢言為年輕世代發聲，但是現在的民進黨卻得意洋洋、能夠逼使國民黨拿香跟拜、讓老農津貼加碼一千元，蔡英文大概也忘記不該將債務留給下一代這樣的原則了吧！
台灣已是民主國家，選民才是最後決定的人，當選民被各種選舉招數眩惑時，他們還是該記住：魔術師手法雖然千變萬化，但是最終不可能變出真正的東西；離選舉投票只有不到兩個月時間，還是請候選人拿出真正的牛肉吧！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2011
Summary: Voters initially assumed that Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen had the same political manner and the same concern for professionalism. They initially assumed that the current presidential election would be different from past presidential elections. They initially assumed that the current presidential election could leave behind the demonization, smears, and attempts to incite "ethnic" hatred, Unfortunately as election day approaches, the presidential election has been tainted by smears and defamation. Worse still, the DPP's negative campaign is merely a smoke screen hiding its cross-Strait and industrial policy vacuum.
Full Text Below:
Voters initially assumed that Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen had the same political manner and the same concern for professionalism. They initially assumed that the current presidential election would be different from past presidential elections. They initially assumed that the current presidential election could leave behind the demonization, smears, and attempts to incite "ethnic" hatred, Unfortunately as election day approaches, the presidential election has been tainted by smears and defamation. Worse still, the DPP's negative campaign is merely a smoke screen hiding its cross-Strait and industrial policy vacuum.
Phony issues dominate the campaign. Negative campaigning monopolizes the front pages. The problem is not that one candidate is the winner or the loser. The problem is the voters are the biggest losers of all. Elections are supposed to be opportunities for intensive debates about national policy. They are not supposed to be about irrelevancies such as Chen Ying-chu. President Ma Ying-jeou did not meet with Chen in September. Yet the ruling and opposition parties are arguing about whether Chen is good or evil. This is a meaningless debate that has squandered nearly three weeks of valuable time. For voters, it was a lost opportunity.
Every presidential election is in some way, a key battle. The current election is no exception. The global recession has cast a pall over the globe. The Euro may disintegrate at any moment. The U.S. economy cannot pull itself out of the doldrums. Leading economists predict a second economic downturn even more serious than the first, The world may experience a lost decade. Businesses on Taiwan are issuing unpaid leave notices. In January of next year, the president elect will face an even worse situation. He or she will first face an external crisis. Debts have come due for the EU countries, including Italy. Every one of these EU debts is a potential landmine. Handled improperly, they could send the global economy into recession.
In this crisis-ridden environment, how can people on Taiwan protect themselves? This was supposed to be the key issue in the presidential election. The U.S. and Europe are in recession. Cross-Strait relations have improved. Therefore Taiwan still enjoys an advantage. What are the prospects for improved cross-Strait relations? These are the issues we should be paying attention to. But they have been sidelined. Election rhetoric on Taiwan now revolves around Chen Ying-chu.
All this time, the DPP has been demagoguing non-issues such as the "Three Little Pigs," Chen Ying-chu, and the "Wasted Labor Calendar." These issues may help the DPP. They may hinder the rival KMT. But they are all phony. Past experience has shown us that the DPP is unqualified to govern the nation. But every election season shows us that the DPP is a world class illusionist. The DPP is an expert at playing the voters for fools, at pulling the wool over the voters' eyes, at sidelining the key issues.
Phony issues replace genuine issues. The DPP's Achilles Heel is cross-Strait policy. But these issues have vanished from the debate. The DPP has the KMT at a disadvantage in two ways. First, the DPP is adept at constantly raising phony issues and forcing the KMT to play catch up. It is adept at forcing the KMT to forget that a party seeking re-election must offer a positive program. Secondly, Taipei and Beijing have already signed 15 agreements. Cross-Strait exchanges are already routine. Yet the DPP is still able to lead the KMT around by the nose, merely by accusing it of "pandering to Beijing and selling out Taiwan." The KMT remains too afraid to defend its cross-Strait policy. This disadvantage is even more serious than the first.
The DPP uses these opportunities to escape blame for its mistakes or pretend nothing happened. Without a shred of evidence, it alleges that "[Mainland] China has eight different plans for intervening in the elections on Taiwan." Beginning with its victory in the 2004 presidential election, the DPP attempted to win over Taiwan businessmen based on the Mainland. Now however, the DPP has abruptly reclassified them as members of the "five black categories." It has suddenly reclassified them as fifth columnists for the CCP. The DPP knows the KMT lacks the courage to defy its negative campaign.
The DPP's cross-Strait policy contradictions do not end here. Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP presidential candidate, has long condemned ECFA as worthless. She says it failed to help farmers, that it decreased rather than increased their income, that fruit sales to the Mainland were "Wasted Labor," and that ECFA was responsible for the widening of the gap between rich and poor. Yet she recently told the British Broadcasting Corporation that if elected, she would not nullify ECFA. This was a policy that the DPP depicted as unmitigated evil during the election. Now however, it vows to perpetuate this policy in the event it wins the election. Presidential candidates in advanced democracies cannot get away with such flagrant self-contradictions. But on Taiwan, they can. On Taiwan, negative campaigns are ideal smoke screens. On Taiwan, they allow the DPP to easily gather the votes they need.
Cross-Strait issues are not the only issues being sidelined during the current election. Taiwan's agricultural future is another issue that has been sidelined. The DPP spread disinformation about the price of fruit. It falsely claimed that persimmons command only two dollars a kilo. It successfully shifted attention away from real issues. Have the voters forgotten that Tsai Ing-wen promised to become the voice of a new generation. The DPP is triumphant. It forced the KMT to jump on the DPP bandwagon, and increase the subsidy for elderly farmers to 1000 dollars. Tsai Ing-wen has forgotten that debts incurred by this generation must not be foisted on the next generation.
The Republic of China is a democratic nation. Voters are the final arbiter. Voters must not allow themselves to be dazzled by election gimmicks. Voters must remember that illusionists may have any number of tricks up their sleeves, but ultimately they cannot change reality. The election is less than two months away. Voters must confront the candidates. They must demand to know, "Where's the beef?"
別讓大選魔術師騙走你的票
2011-11-29 中國時報
以雙英的風格及專業形象，選民原本預期，這次的總統大選應該是一場不一樣的選舉。過去醜化、抹黑、分化族群的選風能夠有所改善，可嘆的是，到總統大選末期，我們看到的還是一連串的做假抹黑；更嚴重的是，負面選舉策略其實只是煙幕彈，背後真正要掩蓋的真相是，民進黨提不出一套完整的兩岸、產業政策方案。
當假議題當道、負面選舉新聞充斥媒體版面時，這不只是關乎候選人的輸贏而已，選民的權益也受到傷害，因為競選原該是一次密集辯論國政的最好機會；但是陳盈助何許人也？總統馬英九今年九月沒有見他，但朝野政黨竟然為了爭執陳盈助究竟是好人還是壞人，一個毫無意義的議題就這樣虛擲了將近三個禮拜的時光，對選民來說，這都是損失慘重的機會成本。
每一次總統大選，都是某一種形式的關鍵戰役，這次也不例外；就短期而言，不景氣陰影籠罩在全球上空，歐元隨時會有解體危機，美國經濟一直拉不起來，國際著名的經濟學家預判，二次經濟衰退遠比第一次嚴重，全球可能進入失落的十年。國內現在已陸續出現無薪假狀況，明年一月選出的新總統，面對的情勢只會更糟，他首先要面對的外在危機，包括義大利在內的歐盟國家債務到期，每一個都是地雷，處理不好都會讓全球經濟進入衰退。
在這樣危機重重的大環境，台灣如何自保，本來應該是這次總統大選的主軸。尤其是，當歐美都陷入衰退，台灣卻因兩岸關係改善、仍然握有優勢時，台灣的兩岸關係前景如何，當然都應該是選舉的重要議題，但現在這些議題都出不來，台灣的選舉話題全都圍繞在不相干的陳盈助身上。
這段時間以來，民進黨不斷丟出三隻小豬、陳盈助、農民「嘸採工月曆」等議題，這些話題不論正面（對民進黨自己）還是負面（對對手國民黨），重點是，這些全是假議題；從過去的經驗來看，民進黨治國也許不怎麼樣，但在大選時，他們可是第一流的魔術師，耍得選民如癡如醉，然後趁機偷天換日，將最重要的議題給置換掉了。
這些假議題取代了真正的議題，也就是民進黨的大選罩門─兩岸政策，完全從選舉中消失。民進黨可以說是雙重吃定國民黨，一方面用假議題讓國民黨疲於奔命，渾然忘記尋求連任的政黨必須提出正面訴求；第二重也是最致命的，即使兩岸之間已簽訂十五項協議，雙方互動已經常態化的今天，國民黨仍然被民進黨「傾中賣台」的血滴子緊緊箍住，幾乎不敢為自己的兩岸政策利多辯護。
民進黨不但是趁機金蟬脫殼，甚至還「回到從前」，毫無證據、想當然爾的提出「中國介入台灣選舉八套劇本」，在這些劇本中，民進黨從二○○四年大選就開始拉攏的台商，瞬間又被打成黑五類，被貶為中共在台的第五縱隊。這同樣也是吃定國民黨不敢反擊的負面選舉操作。
民進黨兩岸政策矛盾不只於此，該黨總統候選人蔡英文向來將ＥＣＦＡ說得一文不值，不但沒幫到農民、他們收入不增反減、種水果都是「嘸採工」，而且還惡化台灣的貧富差距；但她日前接受英國廣播公司訪問時，卻又公開表示，當選後不會廢除ＥＣＦＡ；一個在大選時被民進黨無情抹黑醜化的政策，當選後卻要繼續施行，任何民主國家的總統候選人，都不能出現這樣的矛盾，但台灣卻可以，因為負面選舉招數，已成最佳煙幕彈，讓民進黨可以輕騎過關。
在這場大選中，被置換掉的不只是兩岸議題。再如台灣農業未來如何轉型，民進黨則以水果一斤只值兩元這樣的假消息，轉移了真正該深入討論的焦點；如果選民不健忘，蔡英文之前一直矢言為年輕世代發聲，但是現在的民進黨卻得意洋洋、能夠逼使國民黨拿香跟拜、讓老農津貼加碼一千元，蔡英文大概也忘記不該將債務留給下一代這樣的原則了吧！
台灣已是民主國家，選民才是最後決定的人，當選民被各種選舉招數眩惑時，他們還是該記住：魔術師手法雖然千變萬化，但是最終不可能變出真正的東西；離選舉投票只有不到兩個月時間，還是請候選人拿出真正的牛肉吧！
Monday, November 28, 2011
Persimmons for only Two Dollars a Kilo. The DPP Puts a Jinx on Farmers
Persimmons for only Two Dollars a Kilo. The DPP Puts a Jinx on Farmers
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2011
Summary: The DPP has launched a "Wasted Labor Calendar" ad campaign, directed at seasonal fruits on Taiwan, Different fruits represent each month the stock market plunged. It is now autumn, and persimmons are in season, According to the calendar, they are currently marked down to only 2 dollars per kg. The production cost is 40 dollars per kg. The discrepancy is obvious. Many farmers are hopping mad, They think this approach is harmful to the market, and is hurting fruit sales.
Full Text Below:
The DPP has launched a "Wasted Labor Calendar" ad campaign, directed at seasonal fruits on Taiwan, Different fruits represent each month the stock market plunged. It is now autumn, and persimmons are in season, According to the calendar, they are currently marked down to only 2 dollars per kg. The production cost is 40 dollars per kg. The discrepancy is obvious. Many farmers are hopping mad, They think this approach is harmful to the market, and is hurting fruit sales.
The purpose of the DPP ad campaign is to lash out at the KMT, The Ma administration is depicted as incompetent, as incapable of solving the problem of agricultural production and marketing. The ad also took a swipe at ECFA. It attempted to discredit Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policy achievements, It alleged that farm income on Taiwan has fallen, and that farmers have not benefitted from cross-Strait exchanges. The DPP's campaign smears reek of desperation, It cites facts and figures out of context, It even fabricates them, It artificially fabricated prices in the creation of its calendar, by means of smoke and mirrors. But gross exaggerations merely diminish the credibility of the DPP's propaganda, They unwittingly impugn the hard work of farmers throughout the year. This was something the DPP failed to anticipate.
The DPP is adept at cut-throat election tactics. Using such tactics to demagogue farm issues, it was certain it had a winning strategy, one that would enable the DPP to "consume a single fish three ways." One. It would lash out at Ma. Two. It would unite farmers behind the DPP, Three. It would attract sympathy votes from moderates within the farming community. Predictably, the first to complain about tghe ad campaign was fruit growers. The prices on the calendar seriously mislead consumers. They depicted the commercial fruit market as in full "fire sale" mode. Some fruit buyers even cited the prices marked in the photos when bargaining with fruit vendors. One has to wonder, how could such a farcical scenario come to pass? No wonder farmers were furious and demanded that fruit not become part of the election campaign.
The DPP made three errors when it produced this smear campaign. First, it was dishonest. It made up fruit prices. Secondly, it knew it could count on the farm vote, but showed farmers little real concern. Thirdly, it made sweeping allegations at odds with the facts. It cited a few exceptions, then depicted them as the rule. Ultimately, these three errors reflect the DPP's "instrumentalism." Farmers are merely election tools. The farm too, is nothing more than an election tool, For the sake of victory, anything may be exploited. If necessary, even morality, integrity, and the interests of the farmers can be sacrificed.
The DPP was determined to lash out at the KMT. But instead it merely hurt farmers. The backlash even hurt the DPP. The "Wasted Labor Calendar" was a total failure. Compared with the "Three Little Pigs" publicity campaign, the fruit calendar's problems were plain to see. The little pigs ad campaign was playful and rich in human interest. It was quite different from the DPP's habitual murderous rage. The fruit calendar engaged in demonization. It was malicious. It was self-pitying. It was ineffective. It failed to win public sympathy. It merely angered farmers, who complained they were being treated like election pawns, It merely reminded people how the DPP manipulates elections. Was this not self-defeating?
The DPP commands most of the farm vote in central and southern Taiwan counties. They are familiar with the language and the local context. But if the DPP is genuinely concerned about farmers, how can it wage such a malicious, ridiculous, and crude election campaign? Fruit prices rise and fall along with changes in the weather, the quantity of the harvest, and the soundness of the distribution system. If the DPP is genuinely concerned about farm income, why not offer a more visionary policy than the KMT? Why not include specific methods for the marketing, freezing, storage, processing of fruits, and the development of the fruit market? Why not win them over by demonstrating the Green Camp's determination and creativity? But the DPP chose not to do this. Instead, it chose to bad-mouth others. It used a calendar to claim that Taiwan fruits are being sold at fire sale prices all year around. This not only infuriated farmers, it showed the public that the DPP is heartless and treats farmers as "straw dogs."
Two ruling party changes have taken place on Taiwan, Blue vs. Green confrontation cannot be eliminated any time soon, But at least people can look forward to more honorable methods of campaigning, Ones that will enable a healthy democracy to flourish on Taiwan. Unfortunately, the DPP's unfounded allegations of "secret meetings with a triad boss" eventually led to a farce. They eventually led to a man of black gold being transformed into a man of virtue. The fruit calendar was an attempt to win the farm vote. The result was bewildered farmers protesting the DPP's lack of character and integrity. Has the DPP learned a lesson from these events?
The DPP hurt farmers. It engaged in Schadenfreude. It kicked farmers when they were down. How much in subsidies to elderly farmers will the DPP need to offer to make up the difference? The DPP's "Wasted Labor Calendar" put a deadly curse on others. It angered everyone who saw it. If anything was "wasted labor," that was it. Tsai Ing-wen had better hand down orders to have the campaign canceled.
甜柿一斤兩元，在詛咒誰？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.11.28
民進黨近日推出「嘸採工月曆」的選戰文宣，針對台灣四季水果，逐一羅列各月慘跌的行情。其中當季正在熱賣的甜柿，標示著「一斤兩元」的賤價，和產地價每斤四十餘元相較，顯是天壤之別。許多果農為此氣得跳腳，認為這種作法是在「敗市」，影響水果銷售。
民進黨這套文宣的設計，主要用意是在打擊國民黨，把馬政府形容成無能解決農業產銷問題的團隊；同時趁機倒打ＥＣＦＡ一耙，抹黑馬英九的兩岸政績，說台灣農民收益不增反減，根本未受惠於兩岸交流。也正因汙蔑對手的用心太過急切，民進黨的文宣操盤手必須在事實上移花接木、偷斤減兩，甚至必須捏造、偽造價格，才能拼湊出一張超完美的烏賊月曆。然而，過度誇大的結果，不僅降低了文宣的真實感和可信度，更意外打擊到終年辛勞的果農，這恐怕是民進黨始料未及。
以民進黨之善於割喉，用這種手法來打農業議題，想必自以為是「一魚三吃」的必勝戰略：一則損馬，二則鞏固農民票，三則吸引同情農民的中間選票。孰料，率先對這項文宣表示不滿的，就是果農。問題就在，這張編得像價格表一樣的月曆，不僅嚴重誤導消費者的認知，也形同對市售水果下了一道「全面賤售」的咒語，甚至有人以圖上標示的行情向果販詢價。試問，坊面哪來這種天方夜譚的行情？也難怪農民大罵：「選舉別牽拖水果！」
民進黨製作這張抹黑文宣，犯了三大錯誤：一是不誠實，製造不實價格行情；二是自恃擁有基層農民鐵票，其實卻對他們缺乏真誠關懷；三是以偏概全，故意把少許例外狀況說成普遍現象。歸結到底，這三項錯失反映的其實就是民進黨的「工具化主義」：農民只是選舉工具，農業議題也是選舉工具，為了勝選，全都可以拿來消費；必要時，連道德誠信及農民利益都可以犧牲。
想要打擊國民黨，結果卻先傷了農民，自己也因回力反彈而受創，這個「嘸採工月曆」可以說是一個徹底失敗的文宣。與「三隻小豬」的系列宣傳作一對照，水果月曆的病兆即一目了然。小豬文宣訴求的是童趣與人情味，這和民進黨一向的殺氣騰騰截然不同。相形之下，水果月曆訴求的是醜化、惡意、悲情，但事實基礎薄弱，無法將民眾帶入情境，反喚起農民「只是選舉棋子」的感嘆，更讓民眾憶起民進黨操弄選舉的種種惡形惡狀。這豈非弄巧成拙？
民進黨在中南部縣市有廣大農民選票，這與語言和鄉土的親近性等背景有密切關係。但民進黨若真心關切農民權益，怎會用如此惡意、荒謬且粗糙的手法來打這場仗？水果價格的起落，和天候變化、收成數量及產銷體系是否健全均有莫大的關係。民進黨若真的心繫農民收益，何妨提出比國民黨更具遠見的政策主張，包括運銷、冷凍、儲藏、加工、乃至市場開拓的具體辦法，讓民眾了解綠營的用心與創意。民進黨捨此而不為，卻用唱衰的方式，以一紙月曆詛咒台灣四季水果都賤價滯銷；這何止惹農民憤怒，一般民眾都會覺得民進黨不仁，以農民為芻狗！
台灣歷經兩次政黨輪替，就算藍綠對峙一時仍無法消弭，民眾至少期待雙方的角力手段能夠更臻光明磊落，使台灣能逐漸從有機的政治土壤中長出健康的民主果實。遺憾的是，民進黨近日的「密會組頭」事件，最後演成「黑金變好人」的鬧劇收場；這回水果月曆企圖搶攻農民選票，結果反弄得果農怨聲載道，格調、誠信盡失。對民進黨來說，這兩個事件難道沒有值得汲取的教訓嗎？
這種詛咒農民、幸災樂禍、落井下石的政黨，要用多少老農津貼去補洞？這種「詛咒給別人死」的「嘸採工月曆」，人見人厭，恐怕才真的是「嘸採工」。蔡英文還不趕緊下令全面回收？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2011
Summary: The DPP has launched a "Wasted Labor Calendar" ad campaign, directed at seasonal fruits on Taiwan, Different fruits represent each month the stock market plunged. It is now autumn, and persimmons are in season, According to the calendar, they are currently marked down to only 2 dollars per kg. The production cost is 40 dollars per kg. The discrepancy is obvious. Many farmers are hopping mad, They think this approach is harmful to the market, and is hurting fruit sales.
Full Text Below:
The DPP has launched a "Wasted Labor Calendar" ad campaign, directed at seasonal fruits on Taiwan, Different fruits represent each month the stock market plunged. It is now autumn, and persimmons are in season, According to the calendar, they are currently marked down to only 2 dollars per kg. The production cost is 40 dollars per kg. The discrepancy is obvious. Many farmers are hopping mad, They think this approach is harmful to the market, and is hurting fruit sales.
The purpose of the DPP ad campaign is to lash out at the KMT, The Ma administration is depicted as incompetent, as incapable of solving the problem of agricultural production and marketing. The ad also took a swipe at ECFA. It attempted to discredit Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policy achievements, It alleged that farm income on Taiwan has fallen, and that farmers have not benefitted from cross-Strait exchanges. The DPP's campaign smears reek of desperation, It cites facts and figures out of context, It even fabricates them, It artificially fabricated prices in the creation of its calendar, by means of smoke and mirrors. But gross exaggerations merely diminish the credibility of the DPP's propaganda, They unwittingly impugn the hard work of farmers throughout the year. This was something the DPP failed to anticipate.
The DPP is adept at cut-throat election tactics. Using such tactics to demagogue farm issues, it was certain it had a winning strategy, one that would enable the DPP to "consume a single fish three ways." One. It would lash out at Ma. Two. It would unite farmers behind the DPP, Three. It would attract sympathy votes from moderates within the farming community. Predictably, the first to complain about tghe ad campaign was fruit growers. The prices on the calendar seriously mislead consumers. They depicted the commercial fruit market as in full "fire sale" mode. Some fruit buyers even cited the prices marked in the photos when bargaining with fruit vendors. One has to wonder, how could such a farcical scenario come to pass? No wonder farmers were furious and demanded that fruit not become part of the election campaign.
The DPP made three errors when it produced this smear campaign. First, it was dishonest. It made up fruit prices. Secondly, it knew it could count on the farm vote, but showed farmers little real concern. Thirdly, it made sweeping allegations at odds with the facts. It cited a few exceptions, then depicted them as the rule. Ultimately, these three errors reflect the DPP's "instrumentalism." Farmers are merely election tools. The farm too, is nothing more than an election tool, For the sake of victory, anything may be exploited. If necessary, even morality, integrity, and the interests of the farmers can be sacrificed.
The DPP was determined to lash out at the KMT. But instead it merely hurt farmers. The backlash even hurt the DPP. The "Wasted Labor Calendar" was a total failure. Compared with the "Three Little Pigs" publicity campaign, the fruit calendar's problems were plain to see. The little pigs ad campaign was playful and rich in human interest. It was quite different from the DPP's habitual murderous rage. The fruit calendar engaged in demonization. It was malicious. It was self-pitying. It was ineffective. It failed to win public sympathy. It merely angered farmers, who complained they were being treated like election pawns, It merely reminded people how the DPP manipulates elections. Was this not self-defeating?
The DPP commands most of the farm vote in central and southern Taiwan counties. They are familiar with the language and the local context. But if the DPP is genuinely concerned about farmers, how can it wage such a malicious, ridiculous, and crude election campaign? Fruit prices rise and fall along with changes in the weather, the quantity of the harvest, and the soundness of the distribution system. If the DPP is genuinely concerned about farm income, why not offer a more visionary policy than the KMT? Why not include specific methods for the marketing, freezing, storage, processing of fruits, and the development of the fruit market? Why not win them over by demonstrating the Green Camp's determination and creativity? But the DPP chose not to do this. Instead, it chose to bad-mouth others. It used a calendar to claim that Taiwan fruits are being sold at fire sale prices all year around. This not only infuriated farmers, it showed the public that the DPP is heartless and treats farmers as "straw dogs."
Two ruling party changes have taken place on Taiwan, Blue vs. Green confrontation cannot be eliminated any time soon, But at least people can look forward to more honorable methods of campaigning, Ones that will enable a healthy democracy to flourish on Taiwan. Unfortunately, the DPP's unfounded allegations of "secret meetings with a triad boss" eventually led to a farce. They eventually led to a man of black gold being transformed into a man of virtue. The fruit calendar was an attempt to win the farm vote. The result was bewildered farmers protesting the DPP's lack of character and integrity. Has the DPP learned a lesson from these events?
The DPP hurt farmers. It engaged in Schadenfreude. It kicked farmers when they were down. How much in subsidies to elderly farmers will the DPP need to offer to make up the difference? The DPP's "Wasted Labor Calendar" put a deadly curse on others. It angered everyone who saw it. If anything was "wasted labor," that was it. Tsai Ing-wen had better hand down orders to have the campaign canceled.
甜柿一斤兩元，在詛咒誰？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.11.28
民進黨近日推出「嘸採工月曆」的選戰文宣，針對台灣四季水果，逐一羅列各月慘跌的行情。其中當季正在熱賣的甜柿，標示著「一斤兩元」的賤價，和產地價每斤四十餘元相較，顯是天壤之別。許多果農為此氣得跳腳，認為這種作法是在「敗市」，影響水果銷售。
民進黨這套文宣的設計，主要用意是在打擊國民黨，把馬政府形容成無能解決農業產銷問題的團隊；同時趁機倒打ＥＣＦＡ一耙，抹黑馬英九的兩岸政績，說台灣農民收益不增反減，根本未受惠於兩岸交流。也正因汙蔑對手的用心太過急切，民進黨的文宣操盤手必須在事實上移花接木、偷斤減兩，甚至必須捏造、偽造價格，才能拼湊出一張超完美的烏賊月曆。然而，過度誇大的結果，不僅降低了文宣的真實感和可信度，更意外打擊到終年辛勞的果農，這恐怕是民進黨始料未及。
以民進黨之善於割喉，用這種手法來打農業議題，想必自以為是「一魚三吃」的必勝戰略：一則損馬，二則鞏固農民票，三則吸引同情農民的中間選票。孰料，率先對這項文宣表示不滿的，就是果農。問題就在，這張編得像價格表一樣的月曆，不僅嚴重誤導消費者的認知，也形同對市售水果下了一道「全面賤售」的咒語，甚至有人以圖上標示的行情向果販詢價。試問，坊面哪來這種天方夜譚的行情？也難怪農民大罵：「選舉別牽拖水果！」
民進黨製作這張抹黑文宣，犯了三大錯誤：一是不誠實，製造不實價格行情；二是自恃擁有基層農民鐵票，其實卻對他們缺乏真誠關懷；三是以偏概全，故意把少許例外狀況說成普遍現象。歸結到底，這三項錯失反映的其實就是民進黨的「工具化主義」：農民只是選舉工具，農業議題也是選舉工具，為了勝選，全都可以拿來消費；必要時，連道德誠信及農民利益都可以犧牲。
想要打擊國民黨，結果卻先傷了農民，自己也因回力反彈而受創，這個「嘸採工月曆」可以說是一個徹底失敗的文宣。與「三隻小豬」的系列宣傳作一對照，水果月曆的病兆即一目了然。小豬文宣訴求的是童趣與人情味，這和民進黨一向的殺氣騰騰截然不同。相形之下，水果月曆訴求的是醜化、惡意、悲情，但事實基礎薄弱，無法將民眾帶入情境，反喚起農民「只是選舉棋子」的感嘆，更讓民眾憶起民進黨操弄選舉的種種惡形惡狀。這豈非弄巧成拙？
民進黨在中南部縣市有廣大農民選票，這與語言和鄉土的親近性等背景有密切關係。但民進黨若真心關切農民權益，怎會用如此惡意、荒謬且粗糙的手法來打這場仗？水果價格的起落，和天候變化、收成數量及產銷體系是否健全均有莫大的關係。民進黨若真的心繫農民收益，何妨提出比國民黨更具遠見的政策主張，包括運銷、冷凍、儲藏、加工、乃至市場開拓的具體辦法，讓民眾了解綠營的用心與創意。民進黨捨此而不為，卻用唱衰的方式，以一紙月曆詛咒台灣四季水果都賤價滯銷；這何止惹農民憤怒，一般民眾都會覺得民進黨不仁，以農民為芻狗！
台灣歷經兩次政黨輪替，就算藍綠對峙一時仍無法消弭，民眾至少期待雙方的角力手段能夠更臻光明磊落，使台灣能逐漸從有機的政治土壤中長出健康的民主果實。遺憾的是，民進黨近日的「密會組頭」事件，最後演成「黑金變好人」的鬧劇收場；這回水果月曆企圖搶攻農民選票，結果反弄得果農怨聲載道，格調、誠信盡失。對民進黨來說，這兩個事件難道沒有值得汲取的教訓嗎？
這種詛咒農民、幸災樂禍、落井下石的政黨，要用多少老農津貼去補洞？這種「詛咒給別人死」的「嘸採工月曆」，人見人厭，恐怕才真的是「嘸採工」。蔡英文還不趕緊下令全面回收？
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Chen Shui-bian Hopes James Soong will Restore DPP to Power
Chen Shui-bian Hopes James Soong will Restore DPP to Power
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2011
Summary: James Soong has compared himself to Chinese patriots Liu Ming-chuan and Wen Tian-hsiang. But people are already referring to him as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, Green Camp Wu San-kui." Is this a case of the present overshadowing the past? Or that was then, this is now?
Full Text Below:
Two months ago this newspaper's Black and White Collection published an editorial entitled "James Soong's Two Certainties."
We said that James Soong can be certain about two things, and reasonably expect about one thing. First, he can be certain that his petition will garner over 258000 signatures, and enable him to run for president. Secondly, he can be certain that if he runs for president, he will be defeated. Thirdly, he can reasonably expect that he will undermine Ma and help Tsai, ensuring Tsai Ing-wen's victory.
For James Soong, the first certainty has already been realized. His petition has succeeded. Yesterday he and Lin Jui-hsiung completed the registration process. James Soong is now on his way to realizing his second certainty -- certain defeat.
James Soong is certain to be defeated. He says "As long as 30% of the voters who support Ma Ying-jeou switch their support to me, I can win." This of course is nonsense. But given the election climate, if Soong wins 4% of the vote, or 300,000 votes, he will ensure Ma Ying-jeou's defeat. A Tsai Ing-wen victory is something James Soong can reasonably expect, It is the real purpose behind James Soong's candidacy.
James Soong wants Ma Ying-jeou defeated. This could be considered a settling of personal scores. But if James Soong's real purpose is to help Tsai Ing-wen get elected, could this be considered a patriotic gesture?
Wherever James Soong makes an appearance, national flags flutter, and red, white, and blue buntings proliferate. He casts himself as the champion of the Republic of China. He depicts himself as the successor to Chiang Ching-kuo. But cross-Strait relations and affairs on Taiwan are in turmoil. This election is critical. James Soong knows perfectly well that Ma Ying-jeou is a defender of the Republic of China, and that Tsai Ing-wen is running on behalf of Taiwan independence. Yet he is determined to topple Ma Ying-jeou and help elect Tsai Ing-wen, This is what baffles so many people.
Toppling Ma Ying-jeou is not why James Soong insists on running. Helping Tsai Ing-wen get elected, that is Soong's real goal. Even more appalling is how Soong is exploiting the "patriotic masses" sporting national flag shirts on their backs while waving national flags in their hands. He is using them as flesh and bone stepping stones, to ensure that Tsai Ing-wen is elected President of the Republic of China. But do these people really support his goal? Soong insists that his goal is to topple Ma Ying-jeou, Do these people really not understand that Soong's real goal is to deliver the presidency of the ROC into the hands of Tsai Ing-wen? Do these people really not know that Chen Shui-bian has publicly declared that James Soong is helping the Democratic Progressive Party return to power?
Politics is a dirty business. Deception is commonplace. But to make superficial appeals to the masses to defend the Republic of China, while actually using them to divide the Republic of China, is too cynical and manipulative to stomach. Has James Soong ever told the masses who support him that his real goal is to get revenge against Ma Ying-jeou? Even if it means subverting the Republic of China?
If Tsai Ing-wen is victorious, James Soong can attempt to benefit from this setback for the nation. James Soong can choose to take Ma Ying-jeou down with him. James Soong can publicly proclaim his willingness to rip the Republic of China apart. But James Soong cannot claim he is being loyal to the Republic of China, while actually wreaking havoc upon the Republic of China. James Soong is setting fires in order to loot the ruins. He is exploiting the "patriotic masses" sporting national flag shirts on their backs while waving national flags in their hands.
James Soong is greeted with applause from the Green Camp wherever he goes. He is "waving the national flag to oppose the national flag," His ability to manipulate people is amazing, But it is not fit for polite company. This has nothing to do with Blue vs. Green ideology. Politics may be dirty. But ultimately one must have a bottom line, an inviolable final vestige of humanity and civilization. If one willingly betrays one's own humanity and civilization, the inevitable result will only be personal ruination.
When the election is over, James Soong will have thoroughly destroyed any remaining vestige of his own humanity. He may help Tsai Ing-wen get elected. But the DPP will probably be afraid to invite public condemnation by offering him any significant reward. When a person has debased himself to this degree, he can hardly call himself a man. How can he possibly play a role on Taiwan's political stage or in cross-Strait affairs?
Public officlals must not cultivate private relations or nurse private grudges. James Soong hates Ma Ying-jeou. That is public knowledge. But James Soong's real purpose is to precipitate an upset in the Republic of China presidential election and benefit from the resulting chaos, This is something the public does not know. We predict that even if Ma Ying-jeou is toppled as a result of James Soong's chicanery, he will receive nothing in return. The question is whether the "patriotic masses" following James Song really want an election upset. What will they get from any such upset.
James Soong has compared himself to Chinese patriots Liu Ming-chuan and Wen Tian-hsiang. But people are already referring to him as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, Green Camp Wu San-kui." Is this a case of the present overshadowing the past? Or that was then, this is now?
陳水扁譽宋楚瑜是民進黨執政推手
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.25 02:58 am
兩個月前的一篇《黑白集》，標題是〈宋楚瑜的兩個「一定」〉。
該文的導言說：宋楚瑜走到今天，有兩個「一定」，及一個「極可能」：一、連署「一定」可逾二十五萬八千份，跨越門檻。二、他若參選總統，「一定」不會當選。三、他若參選，則「極可能」倒馬扶蔡，由蔡英文當選。
現在，宋楚瑜已實現了第一個「一定」，連署過關；昨天，他與林瑞雄已完成登記競選，向他的第二個「一定」邁進：一定落選！
宋楚瑜一定落選。他說，「只要投給馬英九的有三十％轉給我宋楚瑜，就能當選」，這當然是癡人說夢；但是，以目前氛圍來看，宋只要能拿到四％左右的選票（約五十餘萬票），就可能使馬英九落選、蔡英文當選，這卻是他「極可能」做到之事，這也正是宋楚瑜參選的真正目的。
宋楚瑜欲使馬英九落選，或許可以解釋為「報私仇」；但宋楚瑜真正的目的其實是要助蔡英文當選，難道可以解釋成「報國恩」？
宋楚瑜現身的場面，充滿國旗與國旗裝；他以中華民國的衛士自居，又以蔣經國的傳人自詡。但是，如今正值世局、兩岸及國事如此危疑動盪之際，在這場關鍵選戰中，宋明知馬英九較傾向捍衛「中華民國」，而蔡英文則是代表台獨參選，他卻偏偏要拉下馬英九、扶上蔡英文，這正是許多人看不懂的地方。
「拉馬英九下台」，不能解釋宋楚瑜為何執意參選；「助蔡英文當選」，才是宋的真正目的。更令人駭異的是，宋楚瑜正在運用那些穿著國旗裝、手搖國旗的「愛國群眾」，要他們成為扶助蔡英文當選中華民國總統的人肉樓梯；但這究竟是否這些群眾衷心追求的目標？或者，他們並不明白宋楚瑜雖在口頭上說是要扳倒馬英九，而其實則是要將中華民國總統的職位送給蔡英文。豈不見，陳水扁公開稱譽宋楚瑜是促成民進黨再執政的推手。
當然，政治本來就可能十分汙穢；所以，欺騙蠱惑也是司空見慣之事。可是，倘若在表面上是以「捍衛中華民國」來號召群眾，但在實質上卻是要將群眾利用為「撕裂中華民國」的工具，這就未免太過愚弄群眾了。宋楚瑜曾否告訴他的群眾，他的真實主張是：為了報復馬英九，不惜以把中華民國攪得天翻地覆為代價。
宋楚瑜當然可以企圖在蔡英文的勝選中找尋他刀口舔血的縫隙，宋楚瑜也大可不惜「吾與馬英九偕亡」，宋楚瑜甚至也儘可以公開表示「不惜把中華民國搞個四分五裂」。但是，宋楚瑜不應打著「效忠中華民國」的旗號，實際上卻是欲在他一手造成的「中華民國亂局」中，意圖火中取栗，且利用那些穿著國旗裝、手搖國旗的「愛國群眾」作他探火取栗的貓腳爪。
宋楚瑜在綠營的喝采及支持中竄出，又操弄「打著國旗反國旗」的愚民路線；出神入化的手法令人驚嘆，但這畢竟難登大雅。這樣的評價無關藍綠，只因政治縱使也有汙穢卑鄙，但終究須有一個人性及文化可以勉強容忍的底線；若恣意踐踏人性及文化的底線，終不免落得身敗名裂。
宋楚瑜經過這次選舉，恐是人格掃地；即使他助蔡英文當選，民進黨也恐怕不敢冒大不韙賞他一杯羹。這樣扭曲可怕的人格，恐連做人都難有餘地，遑論在政壇及兩岸立足？
「大夫無私交／國士無私仇」。宋楚瑜仇馬，這是眾人皆知；但宋的真正目的是想掀翻中華民國的桌子而趁亂在桌底下撿菜吃，這卻是不可告人。我們可以預言，即使馬英九被宋拉垮，宋也一定撿不到剩菜可吃；問題是：追隨宋的那些「愛國群眾」，是真的想掀桌子嗎？而又能在掀翻的桌下得到什麼？
宋楚瑜曾自比為「劉銘傳」與「文天祥」，如今卻有人稱他「藍營汪精衛／綠營吳三桂」；這究竟是今非昔比，或是昨是今非？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2011
Summary: James Soong has compared himself to Chinese patriots Liu Ming-chuan and Wen Tian-hsiang. But people are already referring to him as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, Green Camp Wu San-kui." Is this a case of the present overshadowing the past? Or that was then, this is now?
Full Text Below:
Two months ago this newspaper's Black and White Collection published an editorial entitled "James Soong's Two Certainties."
We said that James Soong can be certain about two things, and reasonably expect about one thing. First, he can be certain that his petition will garner over 258000 signatures, and enable him to run for president. Secondly, he can be certain that if he runs for president, he will be defeated. Thirdly, he can reasonably expect that he will undermine Ma and help Tsai, ensuring Tsai Ing-wen's victory.
For James Soong, the first certainty has already been realized. His petition has succeeded. Yesterday he and Lin Jui-hsiung completed the registration process. James Soong is now on his way to realizing his second certainty -- certain defeat.
James Soong is certain to be defeated. He says "As long as 30% of the voters who support Ma Ying-jeou switch their support to me, I can win." This of course is nonsense. But given the election climate, if Soong wins 4% of the vote, or 300,000 votes, he will ensure Ma Ying-jeou's defeat. A Tsai Ing-wen victory is something James Soong can reasonably expect, It is the real purpose behind James Soong's candidacy.
James Soong wants Ma Ying-jeou defeated. This could be considered a settling of personal scores. But if James Soong's real purpose is to help Tsai Ing-wen get elected, could this be considered a patriotic gesture?
Wherever James Soong makes an appearance, national flags flutter, and red, white, and blue buntings proliferate. He casts himself as the champion of the Republic of China. He depicts himself as the successor to Chiang Ching-kuo. But cross-Strait relations and affairs on Taiwan are in turmoil. This election is critical. James Soong knows perfectly well that Ma Ying-jeou is a defender of the Republic of China, and that Tsai Ing-wen is running on behalf of Taiwan independence. Yet he is determined to topple Ma Ying-jeou and help elect Tsai Ing-wen, This is what baffles so many people.
Toppling Ma Ying-jeou is not why James Soong insists on running. Helping Tsai Ing-wen get elected, that is Soong's real goal. Even more appalling is how Soong is exploiting the "patriotic masses" sporting national flag shirts on their backs while waving national flags in their hands. He is using them as flesh and bone stepping stones, to ensure that Tsai Ing-wen is elected President of the Republic of China. But do these people really support his goal? Soong insists that his goal is to topple Ma Ying-jeou, Do these people really not understand that Soong's real goal is to deliver the presidency of the ROC into the hands of Tsai Ing-wen? Do these people really not know that Chen Shui-bian has publicly declared that James Soong is helping the Democratic Progressive Party return to power?
Politics is a dirty business. Deception is commonplace. But to make superficial appeals to the masses to defend the Republic of China, while actually using them to divide the Republic of China, is too cynical and manipulative to stomach. Has James Soong ever told the masses who support him that his real goal is to get revenge against Ma Ying-jeou? Even if it means subverting the Republic of China?
If Tsai Ing-wen is victorious, James Soong can attempt to benefit from this setback for the nation. James Soong can choose to take Ma Ying-jeou down with him. James Soong can publicly proclaim his willingness to rip the Republic of China apart. But James Soong cannot claim he is being loyal to the Republic of China, while actually wreaking havoc upon the Republic of China. James Soong is setting fires in order to loot the ruins. He is exploiting the "patriotic masses" sporting national flag shirts on their backs while waving national flags in their hands.
James Soong is greeted with applause from the Green Camp wherever he goes. He is "waving the national flag to oppose the national flag," His ability to manipulate people is amazing, But it is not fit for polite company. This has nothing to do with Blue vs. Green ideology. Politics may be dirty. But ultimately one must have a bottom line, an inviolable final vestige of humanity and civilization. If one willingly betrays one's own humanity and civilization, the inevitable result will only be personal ruination.
When the election is over, James Soong will have thoroughly destroyed any remaining vestige of his own humanity. He may help Tsai Ing-wen get elected. But the DPP will probably be afraid to invite public condemnation by offering him any significant reward. When a person has debased himself to this degree, he can hardly call himself a man. How can he possibly play a role on Taiwan's political stage or in cross-Strait affairs?
Public officlals must not cultivate private relations or nurse private grudges. James Soong hates Ma Ying-jeou. That is public knowledge. But James Soong's real purpose is to precipitate an upset in the Republic of China presidential election and benefit from the resulting chaos, This is something the public does not know. We predict that even if Ma Ying-jeou is toppled as a result of James Soong's chicanery, he will receive nothing in return. The question is whether the "patriotic masses" following James Song really want an election upset. What will they get from any such upset.
James Soong has compared himself to Chinese patriots Liu Ming-chuan and Wen Tian-hsiang. But people are already referring to him as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, Green Camp Wu San-kui." Is this a case of the present overshadowing the past? Or that was then, this is now?
陳水扁譽宋楚瑜是民進黨執政推手
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.25 02:58 am
兩個月前的一篇《黑白集》，標題是〈宋楚瑜的兩個「一定」〉。
該文的導言說：宋楚瑜走到今天，有兩個「一定」，及一個「極可能」：一、連署「一定」可逾二十五萬八千份，跨越門檻。二、他若參選總統，「一定」不會當選。三、他若參選，則「極可能」倒馬扶蔡，由蔡英文當選。
現在，宋楚瑜已實現了第一個「一定」，連署過關；昨天，他與林瑞雄已完成登記競選，向他的第二個「一定」邁進：一定落選！
宋楚瑜一定落選。他說，「只要投給馬英九的有三十％轉給我宋楚瑜，就能當選」，這當然是癡人說夢；但是，以目前氛圍來看，宋只要能拿到四％左右的選票（約五十餘萬票），就可能使馬英九落選、蔡英文當選，這卻是他「極可能」做到之事，這也正是宋楚瑜參選的真正目的。
宋楚瑜欲使馬英九落選，或許可以解釋為「報私仇」；但宋楚瑜真正的目的其實是要助蔡英文當選，難道可以解釋成「報國恩」？
宋楚瑜現身的場面，充滿國旗與國旗裝；他以中華民國的衛士自居，又以蔣經國的傳人自詡。但是，如今正值世局、兩岸及國事如此危疑動盪之際，在這場關鍵選戰中，宋明知馬英九較傾向捍衛「中華民國」，而蔡英文則是代表台獨參選，他卻偏偏要拉下馬英九、扶上蔡英文，這正是許多人看不懂的地方。
「拉馬英九下台」，不能解釋宋楚瑜為何執意參選；「助蔡英文當選」，才是宋的真正目的。更令人駭異的是，宋楚瑜正在運用那些穿著國旗裝、手搖國旗的「愛國群眾」，要他們成為扶助蔡英文當選中華民國總統的人肉樓梯；但這究竟是否這些群眾衷心追求的目標？或者，他們並不明白宋楚瑜雖在口頭上說是要扳倒馬英九，而其實則是要將中華民國總統的職位送給蔡英文。豈不見，陳水扁公開稱譽宋楚瑜是促成民進黨再執政的推手。
當然，政治本來就可能十分汙穢；所以，欺騙蠱惑也是司空見慣之事。可是，倘若在表面上是以「捍衛中華民國」來號召群眾，但在實質上卻是要將群眾利用為「撕裂中華民國」的工具，這就未免太過愚弄群眾了。宋楚瑜曾否告訴他的群眾，他的真實主張是：為了報復馬英九，不惜以把中華民國攪得天翻地覆為代價。
宋楚瑜當然可以企圖在蔡英文的勝選中找尋他刀口舔血的縫隙，宋楚瑜也大可不惜「吾與馬英九偕亡」，宋楚瑜甚至也儘可以公開表示「不惜把中華民國搞個四分五裂」。但是，宋楚瑜不應打著「效忠中華民國」的旗號，實際上卻是欲在他一手造成的「中華民國亂局」中，意圖火中取栗，且利用那些穿著國旗裝、手搖國旗的「愛國群眾」作他探火取栗的貓腳爪。
宋楚瑜在綠營的喝采及支持中竄出，又操弄「打著國旗反國旗」的愚民路線；出神入化的手法令人驚嘆，但這畢竟難登大雅。這樣的評價無關藍綠，只因政治縱使也有汙穢卑鄙，但終究須有一個人性及文化可以勉強容忍的底線；若恣意踐踏人性及文化的底線，終不免落得身敗名裂。
宋楚瑜經過這次選舉，恐是人格掃地；即使他助蔡英文當選，民進黨也恐怕不敢冒大不韙賞他一杯羹。這樣扭曲可怕的人格，恐連做人都難有餘地，遑論在政壇及兩岸立足？
「大夫無私交／國士無私仇」。宋楚瑜仇馬，這是眾人皆知；但宋的真正目的是想掀翻中華民國的桌子而趁亂在桌底下撿菜吃，這卻是不可告人。我們可以預言，即使馬英九被宋拉垮，宋也一定撿不到剩菜可吃；問題是：追隨宋的那些「愛國群眾」，是真的想掀桌子嗎？而又能在掀翻的桌下得到什麼？
宋楚瑜曾自比為「劉銘傳」與「文天祥」，如今卻有人稱他「藍營汪精衛／綠營吳三桂」；這究竟是今非昔比，或是昨是今非？
Refusal to Recognize the 1992 Consensus Means No Dialogue with Mainland
Refusal to Recognize the 1992 Consensus Means No Dialogue with Mainland
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2011
Summary: The American Chamber of Commerce has just held its Annual Meeting. It extended special invitations to the ruling and opposition party presidential candidates, and gave them each the opportunity to speak. President Ma Ying-jeou and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen restated their hopes vis a vis Taipei/Washington relations. Cross-Strait relations has long been one of Washington's foremost concerns. It received the most attention.
Full Text Below:
The American Chamber of Commerce has just held its Annual Meeting. It extended special invitations to the ruling and opposition party presidential candidates, and gave them each the opportunity to speak. President Ma Ying-jeou and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen restated their hopes vis a vis Taipei/Washington relations. Cross-Strait relations has long been one of Washington's foremost concerns. It received the most attention.
During its eight years in office, the DPP government raised tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The Ma administration has been in office just over three years. It has eased cross-Strait tensions and significantly improved cross-Strait relations. Once again, the Republic of China is holding a presidential election. Once again, cross-Strait relations are in jeopardy. Four years ago, Ma won the 2008 presidential election. Taipei held a series of talks with Washington. Washington then gave Ma Ying-jeou its seal of approval. It concluded Ma Ying-jeou would not be a trouble maker. It concluded he would not spring any unwelcome surprises. Cross-Strait relations under the Ma administration have improved dramatically. Washington has offered its encouragement. This is why when Ma Ying-jeou gave his speech, he stressed that upon reelection he would promote cross-Strait trade liberalization. He listened to Washington's friendly advice. That is why he was able to make everyone happy.
By contrast, Washington is deeply concerned about the Democratic Progressive Party returning to power. Would it once again provoke cross-Strait tensions? Tsai Ing-wen is no stranger to our friends in Washington. According to WikiLeaks, the AIT has long been aware of Tsai Ing-wen's rise to power. Tsai Ing-wen took over the party chairmanship when the DPP lost power and was at its nadir. At first Washington doubted her ability to lead the DPP. Later Washington acknowledged it. But when it comes to cross-Strait policy, Washington has long been concerned about Tsai Ing-wen. It wonders. Can she can be trusted? More importantly, it wonders whether the DPP, under Tsai Ing-wen's leadership, can change its behavior? Can Tsai really do what she claims? Bring stability to cross-Strait relations?
When Tsai Ing-wen gave her speech, she argued that since the 2008 second change in ruling parties, relations between Taipei and Beijing have improved faster than relations between Taipei and Washington. She argued that this discrepancy must be addressed. This said this would be her first foreign relations objective in the event she was elected. The Ma administration has improved cross-Strait relations. But it has also reminded Washington that it must strengthen relations with Taipei. Only then can Washington exert leverage in cross-Strait relations. Washington understands this. That is why the AIT sent a message to the State Department, detailing the many ways Taipei can work with Washington to avoid the gradual marginalization of its influence in the Taiwan Strait.
Put bluntly, cross-Strait relations and the Taiwan Strait situation have changed. Washington cannot go back to doing what it did during Ah-Bian's eight years in power. Washington was repeatedly forced to reign Ah-Bian in. The ruling DPP became a constant headache. Tsai Ing-wen needs to understand that improved cross-Strait relations are essential to improved Taipei/Washington relations. Tsai Ing-wen says Taipei seeks a role in the "new strategic partnership." If so, she must not undermine cross-Strait relations.
When Tsai Ing-wen gave her speech, she said if the DPP returns to power, it would strive to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. She said the DPP would make every effort to reduce conflict. It would establish post-election dialogue and interaction. for the sake of Taiwan's long-term interests. She said her cross-Strait policy would be to build consensus, rather than increase partisanship. She would never use cross-Strait issues as an election tool. Upon winning, she would do everything in her power to reduce conflict. She would actively seek dialogue, beginning with the transfer of power, in order to maintain stable cross-Strait relations.
This all sounds wonderful. But hollow rhetoric will never improve cross-Strait relations. Neither will seeking dialogue only after an election victory. The KMT was out of power for eight years. At no time did it cease cross-Strait dialogue. Honorary KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited the Mainland in 2005. The Lien/Hu Summit reached the 1992 Consensus. It shelved disputes and offered five prospects for the future. In March 2008, following the KMT's election victory, Ma Ying-jeou dispatched Vice President-elect Vincent Siew to the Boao Forum for Asia on Hainan Island. This move was a gesture of goodwill that ensured cross-Strait trust and established a basis for cross-Strait dialogue. All these measures enabled the Ma administration to resume consultations a mere six months after taking office.
Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director recently mentioned cross-Strait relations. He said the 1992 Consensus must not be denied, Cross-Strait relations must not be turned back. Peace in the Taiwan Strait must not be lost. The welfare of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait must not be destroyed. The DPP has long denied the 1992 Consensus. It has long cast a jaundiced eye on improved cross-Strait relations. How can the DPP possibly establish dialogue and build trust? The Ma administration has been in office for just over three years. The two sides have signed 16 cross-Strait agreements based on the 1992 Consensus. Do the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen really intend to abrogate them?
The two sides were cut off from each other for half a century. Liberalization was followed by many twists and turns. The peace and stability we enjoy today was hard won. Those in power must care enough to consolidate and expand them these gains, Only then can they further the interests of both sides of the Strait. Only then can they further the long-term interests of everyone on Taiwan. If Tsai Ing-wen wants the DPP to return to power, she will have to do more than offer empty promises. She will have to offer the people concrete policies.
社論－不承認「九二共識」 如何與大陸有效對話
2011-11-24
中國時報
【本報訊】
美國商會年度會員大會，特別邀請朝野總統候選人發表演說。馬英九總統與民進黨主席蔡英文除了重申他們對台美關係的努力與期待，著墨最多的就是兩岸關係，這也是美方長久以來最關切的議題之一。
特別在民進黨扁政府執政八年造成台海情勢緊張，而馬政府就任三年多，兩岸關係有效和緩並顯著進展後，台灣再一次總統大選，兩岸關係無可避免將再一次面對挑戰。四年前馬英九參選二○○八年總統大選前後，台美多次溝通，美方對馬英九寄予正面肯定，相信馬英九不但不會是「麻煩製造者」，甚至不會是「驚奇製造者」，兩岸關係在馬政府主導下，持續積極正面發展，美方對此也持鼓勵的態度。這也是為什麼當馬英九在演講中強調，他上任後推動兩岸貿易及台灣對外開放，正是聽取美方友人建言，能博得滿堂采的原因。
相對的，美方更高度關切民進黨若重返執政，是否將再造成兩岸動盪。對美國友人而言，蔡英文並不陌生；根據維基解密，ＡＩＴ從很早就開始注意蔡英文的崛起，對於蔡英文能在民進黨失去政權最低迷的時刻接任黨主席，從懷疑她的信心與能力到肯定她已經可以從容領導民進黨。然而，在兩岸政策上，美方顧慮的不只是蔡英文是否值得信賴；更重要的，蔡英文領導的民進黨是否能改變過去的作風，確實做到她口中聲言的穩定兩岸關係。
蔡英文演講中強調，自二○○八年第二次政黨輪替迄今，台灣和中國關係的發展速度超過台美關係，她認為這種不平衡的發展必須有力及有效的調整，這是她當選總統後首要的對外工作目標。事實上，馬政府在改善兩岸關係的同時，同樣反覆提醒美方：必須強化對台關係，才能在兩岸關係中扮演重要的槓桿角色。而美方對此也有相當深刻的體認，ＡＩＴ才會在回報國務院的電文中，條列多項台美關係可發展的具體工作，以避免美國在台海區域的影響力逐漸消褪。
說穿了，美國在兩岸關係與台海形勢變化發展的過程中，維護的還是美國利益，不可能如扁執政八年，一而再、再而三的拉警報，讓美方頭痛不堪。蔡英文必須了解，改善兩岸關係其實正是強化台美關係不可或缺的面向之一。台灣既要扮演蔡英文口中的「新策略夥伴關係」，就不可能在兩岸關係上找麻煩。
蔡英文在演講中特別強調，民進黨重返執政後，將致力維持台海和平及兩岸關係的穩定，民進黨會盡全力降低衝突，營造選後對話與互動的可能。為了台灣的長遠利益，她對兩岸政策的做法，就是建立共識，而非以黨派之見分化台灣，絕不會把兩岸議題當成選戰工具；勝選之後，她將竭盡所能降低衝突，從政權轉移期間開始，即會積極尋求對話，以維持兩岸關係穩定。
這段話講得非常漂亮；但是，兩岸關係的改善和發展，絕對不是空口說白話、甚至勝選後才積極尋求對話，可以達到的。國民黨在野八年期間，無一刻放鬆兩岸對話的管道。國民黨榮譽主席連戰在二○○五年訪問大陸，「連胡會」達成以「九二共識」擱置爭議等五項願景；二○○八年三月勝選後，馬英九旋即拍板由副總統當選人蕭萬長親赴海南參與博鰲亞洲論壇，確保兩岸善意與信賴的對話基礎。凡此種種，才能讓馬政府就任後半年內就促成兩岸兩會重啟協商。
國台辦主任日前提到兩岸關係時，特別提到：「九二共識」不容否認、兩岸關係不容倒退、台海和平不容得而復失、兩岸同胞福祉不容遭到破壞。民進黨卻始終否認九二共識，對兩岸關係的發展總是採取強烈懷疑和批評的態度，如何能建立有效的對話互信基礎？馬政府執政三年多，兩岸兩會簽署的十六項協議都是以「九二共識」為基礎，難道民進黨和蔡英文要全面否定嗎？
兩岸關係長期隔絕半世紀，開放交流後仍波折不斷，好不容易走到和平穩定發展的今日，執政者必須心心念念予以鞏固並進一步拓展，這才合乎兩岸的共同利益、台灣的長遠利益。既要重返執政，蔡英文就得拿出具體做法和行動。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2011
Summary: The American Chamber of Commerce has just held its Annual Meeting. It extended special invitations to the ruling and opposition party presidential candidates, and gave them each the opportunity to speak. President Ma Ying-jeou and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen restated their hopes vis a vis Taipei/Washington relations. Cross-Strait relations has long been one of Washington's foremost concerns. It received the most attention.
Full Text Below:
The American Chamber of Commerce has just held its Annual Meeting. It extended special invitations to the ruling and opposition party presidential candidates, and gave them each the opportunity to speak. President Ma Ying-jeou and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen restated their hopes vis a vis Taipei/Washington relations. Cross-Strait relations has long been one of Washington's foremost concerns. It received the most attention.
During its eight years in office, the DPP government raised tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The Ma administration has been in office just over three years. It has eased cross-Strait tensions and significantly improved cross-Strait relations. Once again, the Republic of China is holding a presidential election. Once again, cross-Strait relations are in jeopardy. Four years ago, Ma won the 2008 presidential election. Taipei held a series of talks with Washington. Washington then gave Ma Ying-jeou its seal of approval. It concluded Ma Ying-jeou would not be a trouble maker. It concluded he would not spring any unwelcome surprises. Cross-Strait relations under the Ma administration have improved dramatically. Washington has offered its encouragement. This is why when Ma Ying-jeou gave his speech, he stressed that upon reelection he would promote cross-Strait trade liberalization. He listened to Washington's friendly advice. That is why he was able to make everyone happy.
By contrast, Washington is deeply concerned about the Democratic Progressive Party returning to power. Would it once again provoke cross-Strait tensions? Tsai Ing-wen is no stranger to our friends in Washington. According to WikiLeaks, the AIT has long been aware of Tsai Ing-wen's rise to power. Tsai Ing-wen took over the party chairmanship when the DPP lost power and was at its nadir. At first Washington doubted her ability to lead the DPP. Later Washington acknowledged it. But when it comes to cross-Strait policy, Washington has long been concerned about Tsai Ing-wen. It wonders. Can she can be trusted? More importantly, it wonders whether the DPP, under Tsai Ing-wen's leadership, can change its behavior? Can Tsai really do what she claims? Bring stability to cross-Strait relations?
When Tsai Ing-wen gave her speech, she argued that since the 2008 second change in ruling parties, relations between Taipei and Beijing have improved faster than relations between Taipei and Washington. She argued that this discrepancy must be addressed. This said this would be her first foreign relations objective in the event she was elected. The Ma administration has improved cross-Strait relations. But it has also reminded Washington that it must strengthen relations with Taipei. Only then can Washington exert leverage in cross-Strait relations. Washington understands this. That is why the AIT sent a message to the State Department, detailing the many ways Taipei can work with Washington to avoid the gradual marginalization of its influence in the Taiwan Strait.
Put bluntly, cross-Strait relations and the Taiwan Strait situation have changed. Washington cannot go back to doing what it did during Ah-Bian's eight years in power. Washington was repeatedly forced to reign Ah-Bian in. The ruling DPP became a constant headache. Tsai Ing-wen needs to understand that improved cross-Strait relations are essential to improved Taipei/Washington relations. Tsai Ing-wen says Taipei seeks a role in the "new strategic partnership." If so, she must not undermine cross-Strait relations.
When Tsai Ing-wen gave her speech, she said if the DPP returns to power, it would strive to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. She said the DPP would make every effort to reduce conflict. It would establish post-election dialogue and interaction. for the sake of Taiwan's long-term interests. She said her cross-Strait policy would be to build consensus, rather than increase partisanship. She would never use cross-Strait issues as an election tool. Upon winning, she would do everything in her power to reduce conflict. She would actively seek dialogue, beginning with the transfer of power, in order to maintain stable cross-Strait relations.
This all sounds wonderful. But hollow rhetoric will never improve cross-Strait relations. Neither will seeking dialogue only after an election victory. The KMT was out of power for eight years. At no time did it cease cross-Strait dialogue. Honorary KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited the Mainland in 2005. The Lien/Hu Summit reached the 1992 Consensus. It shelved disputes and offered five prospects for the future. In March 2008, following the KMT's election victory, Ma Ying-jeou dispatched Vice President-elect Vincent Siew to the Boao Forum for Asia on Hainan Island. This move was a gesture of goodwill that ensured cross-Strait trust and established a basis for cross-Strait dialogue. All these measures enabled the Ma administration to resume consultations a mere six months after taking office.
Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director recently mentioned cross-Strait relations. He said the 1992 Consensus must not be denied, Cross-Strait relations must not be turned back. Peace in the Taiwan Strait must not be lost. The welfare of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait must not be destroyed. The DPP has long denied the 1992 Consensus. It has long cast a jaundiced eye on improved cross-Strait relations. How can the DPP possibly establish dialogue and build trust? The Ma administration has been in office for just over three years. The two sides have signed 16 cross-Strait agreements based on the 1992 Consensus. Do the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen really intend to abrogate them?
The two sides were cut off from each other for half a century. Liberalization was followed by many twists and turns. The peace and stability we enjoy today was hard won. Those in power must care enough to consolidate and expand them these gains, Only then can they further the interests of both sides of the Strait. Only then can they further the long-term interests of everyone on Taiwan. If Tsai Ing-wen wants the DPP to return to power, she will have to do more than offer empty promises. She will have to offer the people concrete policies.
社論－不承認「九二共識」 如何與大陸有效對話
2011-11-24
中國時報
【本報訊】
美國商會年度會員大會，特別邀請朝野總統候選人發表演說。馬英九總統與民進黨主席蔡英文除了重申他們對台美關係的努力與期待，著墨最多的就是兩岸關係，這也是美方長久以來最關切的議題之一。
特別在民進黨扁政府執政八年造成台海情勢緊張，而馬政府就任三年多，兩岸關係有效和緩並顯著進展後，台灣再一次總統大選，兩岸關係無可避免將再一次面對挑戰。四年前馬英九參選二○○八年總統大選前後，台美多次溝通，美方對馬英九寄予正面肯定，相信馬英九不但不會是「麻煩製造者」，甚至不會是「驚奇製造者」，兩岸關係在馬政府主導下，持續積極正面發展，美方對此也持鼓勵的態度。這也是為什麼當馬英九在演講中強調，他上任後推動兩岸貿易及台灣對外開放，正是聽取美方友人建言，能博得滿堂采的原因。
相對的，美方更高度關切民進黨若重返執政，是否將再造成兩岸動盪。對美國友人而言，蔡英文並不陌生；根據維基解密，ＡＩＴ從很早就開始注意蔡英文的崛起，對於蔡英文能在民進黨失去政權最低迷的時刻接任黨主席，從懷疑她的信心與能力到肯定她已經可以從容領導民進黨。然而，在兩岸政策上，美方顧慮的不只是蔡英文是否值得信賴；更重要的，蔡英文領導的民進黨是否能改變過去的作風，確實做到她口中聲言的穩定兩岸關係。
蔡英文演講中強調，自二○○八年第二次政黨輪替迄今，台灣和中國關係的發展速度超過台美關係，她認為這種不平衡的發展必須有力及有效的調整，這是她當選總統後首要的對外工作目標。事實上，馬政府在改善兩岸關係的同時，同樣反覆提醒美方：必須強化對台關係，才能在兩岸關係中扮演重要的槓桿角色。而美方對此也有相當深刻的體認，ＡＩＴ才會在回報國務院的電文中，條列多項台美關係可發展的具體工作，以避免美國在台海區域的影響力逐漸消褪。
說穿了，美國在兩岸關係與台海形勢變化發展的過程中，維護的還是美國利益，不可能如扁執政八年，一而再、再而三的拉警報，讓美方頭痛不堪。蔡英文必須了解，改善兩岸關係其實正是強化台美關係不可或缺的面向之一。台灣既要扮演蔡英文口中的「新策略夥伴關係」，就不可能在兩岸關係上找麻煩。
蔡英文在演講中特別強調，民進黨重返執政後，將致力維持台海和平及兩岸關係的穩定，民進黨會盡全力降低衝突，營造選後對話與互動的可能。為了台灣的長遠利益，她對兩岸政策的做法，就是建立共識，而非以黨派之見分化台灣，絕不會把兩岸議題當成選戰工具；勝選之後，她將竭盡所能降低衝突，從政權轉移期間開始，即會積極尋求對話，以維持兩岸關係穩定。
這段話講得非常漂亮；但是，兩岸關係的改善和發展，絕對不是空口說白話、甚至勝選後才積極尋求對話，可以達到的。國民黨在野八年期間，無一刻放鬆兩岸對話的管道。國民黨榮譽主席連戰在二○○五年訪問大陸，「連胡會」達成以「九二共識」擱置爭議等五項願景；二○○八年三月勝選後，馬英九旋即拍板由副總統當選人蕭萬長親赴海南參與博鰲亞洲論壇，確保兩岸善意與信賴的對話基礎。凡此種種，才能讓馬政府就任後半年內就促成兩岸兩會重啟協商。
國台辦主任日前提到兩岸關係時，特別提到：「九二共識」不容否認、兩岸關係不容倒退、台海和平不容得而復失、兩岸同胞福祉不容遭到破壞。民進黨卻始終否認九二共識，對兩岸關係的發展總是採取強烈懷疑和批評的態度，如何能建立有效的對話互信基礎？馬政府執政三年多，兩岸兩會簽署的十六項協議都是以「九二共識」為基礎，難道民進黨和蔡英文要全面否定嗎？
兩岸關係長期隔絕半世紀，開放交流後仍波折不斷，好不容易走到和平穩定發展的今日，執政者必須心心念念予以鞏固並進一步拓展，這才合乎兩岸的共同利益、台灣的長遠利益。既要重返執政，蔡英文就得拿出具體做法和行動。
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Allegations of Secret Meetings with Triad Boss are Defamatory
Allegations of Secret Meetings with Triad Boss are Defamatory
China Post editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 23, 2011
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou has officially filed a defamation suit against the DPP, for alleging that he "secretly met with a triad boss." DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen is a co-defendant. Therefore this is the first time in our nation's history that a sitting president and incumbent has ever sued his challenger. This is unprecedented. A court battle will become part of the presidential race.
Full Text Below:
President Ma Ying-jeou has officially filed a defamation suit against the DPP, for alleging that he "secretly met with a triad boss." DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen is a co-defendant. Therefore this is the first time in our nation's history that a sitting president and incumbent has ever sued his challenger. This is unprecedented. A court battle will become part of the presidential race.
A few days ago one particular news organization alleged that President Ma Ying-jeou secretly met with "underworld gambling boss Chen Ying-chu on September 10 of this year. Ma was allegedly introduced to Chen by Chiayi Mayor Huang Ming-hui, and sought Chen's financial and organizational support. Chen allegedly helped Ma during the previous presidential election, by contributing over 100 million dollars to his campaign. In 2008, the first time Ma ran for president, he allegedly met with Chen three times to seek his support. President Ma's close friend King Pu-tsung allegedly met with Chen during the 2009 County Chiefs and City Mayors Elections.
Ever since President Ma took up politics, he has been known for his integrity. Many of his policies have been targets of criticism. But at least the public acknowledges his integrity and believes in his honesty. Ma's predecessor Chen Shui-bian was corrupt through and through. By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou's integrity is his most important political asset. It is also something voters consider when chosing whom to support. That is the reason these allegations have so much shock value. If true, they would destroy Ma Ying-jeou's long-standing reputation for honest. They would dethrone the Blue Camp. They would dramatically affect the outcome of the election.
This report has of course become ammunition in the Green Camp's barrages against Ma. One Green Camp legislator after another has blasted Ma Ying-jeou for allegedly meeting with a triad boss just prior to the election. They have accused him of attempting to affect the outcome of the election by manipulating the betting odds. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen demanded that Ma come forward and clear up the situation. DPP spokesman Liang Wen-chieh claimed that reliable sources say Ma met Chen in Chiayi this September, and accepted 300 million dollars in campaign contributions.
Presidential spokesman Fan Chiang-tai promptly denied the allegations. He produced Ma's itineary for September 10, showing every place Ma visited. He made it abundantly clear that Ma did not meet with Chen that day. He made it clear that President Ma did indeed meet Chen twice in the past. The first time was in January 2008. The second time was in August 2009, just before the County Chiefs and City Mayors Elections. Both times the president met with local campaign contributors. All of President Ma's campaign contributions were handled strictly according to the law.
The DPP then accused President Ma of meeting Chen in September 2009. On the day that Ma allegedly met Chen, Ma went south to help with the 8/8 Typhoon. President Ma allegedly visited the disaster site and secretly met with a triad boss. The point is that President Ma did not meet with Chen on September 10 this year. He did not seek campaign funds or organizational support from Chen. The Presidential Office said that the two men did not meet on September 10 this year. If true, the allegations are totally baseless. The DPP also accused King Pu-tsung of meeting with Chen Ying-chu. But King was visiting the United States at the time. Neither the media nor politicians may make false accusations. They must be able to present conclusive evidence.
To rebut allegations that he secretly met with a triad boss, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou filed the lawsuit in his own name. He filed a civil suit against the DPP, and DPP spokesman Liang Wen-chieh. As the legal representative of the Democratic Progressive Party, Chairman Tsai Ing-wen was named co-defendant. Others mentioned by the news organization include Huang Ming-hui and Chen Ying-chu. Each has filed his own lawsuit.
Frankly, Ma Ying-jeou is the president of our nation. If he sues a presidential challenger and party chairman during an election, his opponents are likely to accuse him of "political persecution." They are likely to dredge up historical grievances to unite their supporters and mobilize voters. The legal process may be subject to lengthy delays. The lawsuit could become a major factor that affects public sentiment and determines the election outcome. In an atmosphere of intense confrontation. the final verdict is unlikely to convince non-believers. A trial is unlikely to uncover the truth.
On the other hand, President Ma clearly has the legal right to defend his reputation. He was willing to file the lawsuit in his own name. This suggests that he sincerely believes his good name will be cleared. In a war of words, a good offense is often the best defense. Even though the final verdict may not be rendered in time to clear the air, the grand gesture represents a solemn declaration of innocence.
The election campaign has heated up. The poll numbers are close. Neither side can afford to slip up. James Soong has entered the race. Ma Ying-jeou now has an enemy at his back as well. His situation is even more dangerous. That is why he cannot permit allegations about "a secret meeting with a triad boss" to run amok.
Ma is also party chairman. He must campaign at the grass-roots, on behalf of the party's candidates. Paying visits to local leaders is something presidents Blue and Green have always done. It was true for Lee Teng-hui. It was true for Chen Shui-bian. The Democratic Progressive Party must first explain what it did for eight years. It can begin with President Chen Shui-bian and two term Premir Yu Shyi-kun. Why did Frank Hsieh secretly meet with Chen Ying-chu, the very same "black gold triad boss" the DPP accused Ma Ying-jeou of meeting?
Election season is a time of dog eat dog. One cannot expect the legal system to clear up a political dispute. It is usually impossible. But a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Failure to sue could be construed as an admission of guilt. Taiwan's political climate allows demagogues to get away with baseless smears. That is one reason the political climate on Taiwan has progressed so little.
The DPP has resorted to lies and deception. Therefore filing a lawsuit against the DPP is the KMT's last means of defense. The allegation that "The president secretly met with a triad boss, and took part in black gold dealings" has impugned not just Ma Ying-jeou as an individual, but the morality, ethics, integrity, and good name of the leader of our nation. Can we allow demagogues to sling muck, without saying anything? The campaign will surely heat up. Candidates will be subject to close scrutiny. That does not mean we can fabricate lies to discredit our political opponents. Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are seeking high office. A word to the wise. Voters will not tolerate a political party that fabricates lies to reacquire power.
社論－炒作密會組頭是惡意抹黑
本報訊
針對最近炒得沸沸湯湯的「密會組頭」新聞，馬英九總統正式對民進黨提告，因為身為民進黨主席的蔡英文亦列共同被告，而首度寫下現任總統暨總統候選人控告另一位總統候選人的紀錄。在我國憲政史上，這個前所未見的先例，將讓總統候選人之間的司法攻防進入總統大選中。
某媒體日前爆料說，馬英九總統在今年九月十日，透過嘉義市長黃敏惠安排，密會「地下賭盤大亨」陳盈助，尋求資金與組織動員支持。該媒體並稱陳盈助在上屆總統大選，就曾以上億元政治獻金力挺馬英九。二○○八年馬首度參選總統時，為尋求支持，三度與陳碰面；馬總統密友金溥聰也曾在二○○九年縣市長選舉前與陳盈助會面。
馬總統從政以來一直以清廉形象著稱，即使若干施政受到批評，但至少他在個人操守的部分，已經贏得了國人的肯定與信任。相較於前任陳水扁的貪腐弊案，清廉已經成為馬英九最重要的政治資產，也是選民在作抉擇時的考量依據。正是因為如此，這則新聞宛如一枚震撼彈，顛覆了馬英九長期以來的正面形象，把藍營震得人仰馬翻，選情更是受到強烈衝擊。
這篇報導當然成為綠營重砲攻擊的素材，立委連番痛批馬英九在選前會見組頭，有操縱賭盤影響大選之嫌。民進黨主席蔡英文表示馬英九應該出面澄清並釋疑，民進黨發言人梁文傑則聲稱，據可靠消息指出，馬英九確曾於九月南下嘉義和陳盈助見面並募款三億。
總統府發言人范姜泰基立即否認報導，並亮出今年九月十日的所有行程，澄清當天沒有和陳盈助見面。而馬總統過去確曾兩度見過陳盈助，時間分別是二○○八年一月和二○○九年九月縣市長選舉之前，都是總統一般性地跟地方人士的懇談，而馬總統所有的政治獻金也都是依據法令處理。
但接著民進黨又指責馬總統於二○○九年九月與陳盈助碰面當天是到南部勘查八八風災，指責馬總統一面勘災、一面會組頭。其實最重要的，就是馬總統有沒有在今年九月十日和陳盈助見面，並尋求資金與組織動員的支持。如果今年九月十日確如總統府所言雙方沒有見面，那麼新聞最根本的立足基礎便已經不存在了。何況金溥聰被指與陳盈助見面的時間，他根本是在美國做訪問學者。以此項指控情節之重大，無論媒體或政客，都不能空口白話，必須拿得出更確鑿的證據才行。
為了反擊密會組頭說，國民黨主席馬英九決定以個人名義提告，對民進黨、民進黨發言人梁文傑提起民事訴訟。由於民進黨主席為法定代理人，因此蔡英文並列共同被告。被新聞點到名的黃敏惠、陳盈助，也分別對媒體提告。
坦白說，馬英九以總統之尊，在大選期間狀告對手政黨及其同為總統參選人的黨主席，有可能被對手進一步炒作成「司法迫害」，以被害意識喚起歷史創傷，凝聚團結並動員選票。司法程序亦有可能拖延甚久，在選戰過程中成為一大影響社會情緒的變數，而在激烈的對立氣氛下，最後的判決是不是能得到信服，真相是否能夠水落石出，也還在未定之天。
然而，很顯然的，馬總統認為有權透過法律捍衛自己的聲譽，而且以其身分敢直接訴諸司法，顯現對勝算有相當信心。與其一直打口水戰，索性拉高態勢反守為攻；即使司法判決來不及廓清是非，也要以自己的大動作來鄭重宣示清白。
選戰廝殺已經白熱化，差距如此接近，雙方都不能有分毫閃失。在宋楚瑜的參選下，腹背受敵的馬英九，面臨了更險峻的情勢，也因此不能容忍「密會組頭」傳聞繼續發酵。
其實，身兼黨主席，為了基層輔選，走訪地方樁腳，這是歷任總統都做過的事，藍綠皆然，李登輝如此，陳水扁亦復如是。民進黨倒該先交代民進黨執政八年，從陳水扁到兩任行政院長游錫?、謝長廷到底為何私會或拜訪他們口中的「黑金組頭」陳盈助？
在選戰殺紅了眼的時刻，要靠司法來釐清政治糾纏很難，也往往緩不濟急；但因為眾口鑠金，不提告彷彿默認，放任缺乏實據的無端抹黑，台灣的政治文化也將難以進步。
民進黨既要用烏賊戰術，打官司就是不得不為的最後防衛手段，畢竟「總統私會組頭，踩黑金地雷」，已經不只是馬英九個人聲譽，相關內容攸關國家元首的道德、操守、誠信和清白，豈容隨便一把糞潑頭而默不吭聲？選舉必然激烈，參選者都要受到檢驗，但是，不能用莫須有的情境硬扣抹黑。爭取大位的民進黨和蔡英文都得警覺，選民不會容忍栽贓的政黨重返執政。
China Post editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 23, 2011
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou has officially filed a defamation suit against the DPP, for alleging that he "secretly met with a triad boss." DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen is a co-defendant. Therefore this is the first time in our nation's history that a sitting president and incumbent has ever sued his challenger. This is unprecedented. A court battle will become part of the presidential race.
Full Text Below:
President Ma Ying-jeou has officially filed a defamation suit against the DPP, for alleging that he "secretly met with a triad boss." DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen is a co-defendant. Therefore this is the first time in our nation's history that a sitting president and incumbent has ever sued his challenger. This is unprecedented. A court battle will become part of the presidential race.
A few days ago one particular news organization alleged that President Ma Ying-jeou secretly met with "underworld gambling boss Chen Ying-chu on September 10 of this year. Ma was allegedly introduced to Chen by Chiayi Mayor Huang Ming-hui, and sought Chen's financial and organizational support. Chen allegedly helped Ma during the previous presidential election, by contributing over 100 million dollars to his campaign. In 2008, the first time Ma ran for president, he allegedly met with Chen three times to seek his support. President Ma's close friend King Pu-tsung allegedly met with Chen during the 2009 County Chiefs and City Mayors Elections.
Ever since President Ma took up politics, he has been known for his integrity. Many of his policies have been targets of criticism. But at least the public acknowledges his integrity and believes in his honesty. Ma's predecessor Chen Shui-bian was corrupt through and through. By contrast, Ma Ying-jeou's integrity is his most important political asset. It is also something voters consider when chosing whom to support. That is the reason these allegations have so much shock value. If true, they would destroy Ma Ying-jeou's long-standing reputation for honest. They would dethrone the Blue Camp. They would dramatically affect the outcome of the election.
This report has of course become ammunition in the Green Camp's barrages against Ma. One Green Camp legislator after another has blasted Ma Ying-jeou for allegedly meeting with a triad boss just prior to the election. They have accused him of attempting to affect the outcome of the election by manipulating the betting odds. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen demanded that Ma come forward and clear up the situation. DPP spokesman Liang Wen-chieh claimed that reliable sources say Ma met Chen in Chiayi this September, and accepted 300 million dollars in campaign contributions.
Presidential spokesman Fan Chiang-tai promptly denied the allegations. He produced Ma's itineary for September 10, showing every place Ma visited. He made it abundantly clear that Ma did not meet with Chen that day. He made it clear that President Ma did indeed meet Chen twice in the past. The first time was in January 2008. The second time was in August 2009, just before the County Chiefs and City Mayors Elections. Both times the president met with local campaign contributors. All of President Ma's campaign contributions were handled strictly according to the law.
The DPP then accused President Ma of meeting Chen in September 2009. On the day that Ma allegedly met Chen, Ma went south to help with the 8/8 Typhoon. President Ma allegedly visited the disaster site and secretly met with a triad boss. The point is that President Ma did not meet with Chen on September 10 this year. He did not seek campaign funds or organizational support from Chen. The Presidential Office said that the two men did not meet on September 10 this year. If true, the allegations are totally baseless. The DPP also accused King Pu-tsung of meeting with Chen Ying-chu. But King was visiting the United States at the time. Neither the media nor politicians may make false accusations. They must be able to present conclusive evidence.
To rebut allegations that he secretly met with a triad boss, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou filed the lawsuit in his own name. He filed a civil suit against the DPP, and DPP spokesman Liang Wen-chieh. As the legal representative of the Democratic Progressive Party, Chairman Tsai Ing-wen was named co-defendant. Others mentioned by the news organization include Huang Ming-hui and Chen Ying-chu. Each has filed his own lawsuit.
Frankly, Ma Ying-jeou is the president of our nation. If he sues a presidential challenger and party chairman during an election, his opponents are likely to accuse him of "political persecution." They are likely to dredge up historical grievances to unite their supporters and mobilize voters. The legal process may be subject to lengthy delays. The lawsuit could become a major factor that affects public sentiment and determines the election outcome. In an atmosphere of intense confrontation. the final verdict is unlikely to convince non-believers. A trial is unlikely to uncover the truth.
On the other hand, President Ma clearly has the legal right to defend his reputation. He was willing to file the lawsuit in his own name. This suggests that he sincerely believes his good name will be cleared. In a war of words, a good offense is often the best defense. Even though the final verdict may not be rendered in time to clear the air, the grand gesture represents a solemn declaration of innocence.
The election campaign has heated up. The poll numbers are close. Neither side can afford to slip up. James Soong has entered the race. Ma Ying-jeou now has an enemy at his back as well. His situation is even more dangerous. That is why he cannot permit allegations about "a secret meeting with a triad boss" to run amok.
Ma is also party chairman. He must campaign at the grass-roots, on behalf of the party's candidates. Paying visits to local leaders is something presidents Blue and Green have always done. It was true for Lee Teng-hui. It was true for Chen Shui-bian. The Democratic Progressive Party must first explain what it did for eight years. It can begin with President Chen Shui-bian and two term Premir Yu Shyi-kun. Why did Frank Hsieh secretly meet with Chen Ying-chu, the very same "black gold triad boss" the DPP accused Ma Ying-jeou of meeting?
Election season is a time of dog eat dog. One cannot expect the legal system to clear up a political dispute. It is usually impossible. But a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Failure to sue could be construed as an admission of guilt. Taiwan's political climate allows demagogues to get away with baseless smears. That is one reason the political climate on Taiwan has progressed so little.
The DPP has resorted to lies and deception. Therefore filing a lawsuit against the DPP is the KMT's last means of defense. The allegation that "The president secretly met with a triad boss, and took part in black gold dealings" has impugned not just Ma Ying-jeou as an individual, but the morality, ethics, integrity, and good name of the leader of our nation. Can we allow demagogues to sling muck, without saying anything? The campaign will surely heat up. Candidates will be subject to close scrutiny. That does not mean we can fabricate lies to discredit our political opponents. Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are seeking high office. A word to the wise. Voters will not tolerate a political party that fabricates lies to reacquire power.
社論－炒作密會組頭是惡意抹黑
本報訊
針對最近炒得沸沸湯湯的「密會組頭」新聞，馬英九總統正式對民進黨提告，因為身為民進黨主席的蔡英文亦列共同被告，而首度寫下現任總統暨總統候選人控告另一位總統候選人的紀錄。在我國憲政史上，這個前所未見的先例，將讓總統候選人之間的司法攻防進入總統大選中。
某媒體日前爆料說，馬英九總統在今年九月十日，透過嘉義市長黃敏惠安排，密會「地下賭盤大亨」陳盈助，尋求資金與組織動員支持。該媒體並稱陳盈助在上屆總統大選，就曾以上億元政治獻金力挺馬英九。二○○八年馬首度參選總統時，為尋求支持，三度與陳碰面；馬總統密友金溥聰也曾在二○○九年縣市長選舉前與陳盈助會面。
馬總統從政以來一直以清廉形象著稱，即使若干施政受到批評，但至少他在個人操守的部分，已經贏得了國人的肯定與信任。相較於前任陳水扁的貪腐弊案，清廉已經成為馬英九最重要的政治資產，也是選民在作抉擇時的考量依據。正是因為如此，這則新聞宛如一枚震撼彈，顛覆了馬英九長期以來的正面形象，把藍營震得人仰馬翻，選情更是受到強烈衝擊。
這篇報導當然成為綠營重砲攻擊的素材，立委連番痛批馬英九在選前會見組頭，有操縱賭盤影響大選之嫌。民進黨主席蔡英文表示馬英九應該出面澄清並釋疑，民進黨發言人梁文傑則聲稱，據可靠消息指出，馬英九確曾於九月南下嘉義和陳盈助見面並募款三億。
總統府發言人范姜泰基立即否認報導，並亮出今年九月十日的所有行程，澄清當天沒有和陳盈助見面。而馬總統過去確曾兩度見過陳盈助，時間分別是二○○八年一月和二○○九年九月縣市長選舉之前，都是總統一般性地跟地方人士的懇談，而馬總統所有的政治獻金也都是依據法令處理。
但接著民進黨又指責馬總統於二○○九年九月與陳盈助碰面當天是到南部勘查八八風災，指責馬總統一面勘災、一面會組頭。其實最重要的，就是馬總統有沒有在今年九月十日和陳盈助見面，並尋求資金與組織動員的支持。如果今年九月十日確如總統府所言雙方沒有見面，那麼新聞最根本的立足基礎便已經不存在了。何況金溥聰被指與陳盈助見面的時間，他根本是在美國做訪問學者。以此項指控情節之重大，無論媒體或政客，都不能空口白話，必須拿得出更確鑿的證據才行。
為了反擊密會組頭說，國民黨主席馬英九決定以個人名義提告，對民進黨、民進黨發言人梁文傑提起民事訴訟。由於民進黨主席為法定代理人，因此蔡英文並列共同被告。被新聞點到名的黃敏惠、陳盈助，也分別對媒體提告。
坦白說，馬英九以總統之尊，在大選期間狀告對手政黨及其同為總統參選人的黨主席，有可能被對手進一步炒作成「司法迫害」，以被害意識喚起歷史創傷，凝聚團結並動員選票。司法程序亦有可能拖延甚久，在選戰過程中成為一大影響社會情緒的變數，而在激烈的對立氣氛下，最後的判決是不是能得到信服，真相是否能夠水落石出，也還在未定之天。
然而，很顯然的，馬總統認為有權透過法律捍衛自己的聲譽，而且以其身分敢直接訴諸司法，顯現對勝算有相當信心。與其一直打口水戰，索性拉高態勢反守為攻；即使司法判決來不及廓清是非，也要以自己的大動作來鄭重宣示清白。
選戰廝殺已經白熱化，差距如此接近，雙方都不能有分毫閃失。在宋楚瑜的參選下，腹背受敵的馬英九，面臨了更險峻的情勢，也因此不能容忍「密會組頭」傳聞繼續發酵。
其實，身兼黨主席，為了基層輔選，走訪地方樁腳，這是歷任總統都做過的事，藍綠皆然，李登輝如此，陳水扁亦復如是。民進黨倒該先交代民進黨執政八年，從陳水扁到兩任行政院長游錫?、謝長廷到底為何私會或拜訪他們口中的「黑金組頭」陳盈助？
在選戰殺紅了眼的時刻，要靠司法來釐清政治糾纏很難，也往往緩不濟急；但因為眾口鑠金，不提告彷彿默認，放任缺乏實據的無端抹黑，台灣的政治文化也將難以進步。
民進黨既要用烏賊戰術，打官司就是不得不為的最後防衛手段，畢竟「總統私會組頭，踩黑金地雷」，已經不只是馬英九個人聲譽，相關內容攸關國家元首的道德、操守、誠信和清白，豈容隨便一把糞潑頭而默不吭聲？選舉必然激烈，參選者都要受到檢驗，但是，不能用莫須有的情境硬扣抹黑。爭取大位的民進黨和蔡英文都得警覺，選民不會容忍栽贓的政黨重返執政。
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A Single Wheelchair Empowers the Disenfranchised
A Single Wheelchair Empowers the Disenfranchised
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2011
Summary: The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio has been well received. Members of the public are impressed with the candidates' qualifications and appreciate the KMT's willingness to share power. They feel the KMT's move will have a positive impact on the Blue Camp's election prospects. Quantitative change can indeed bring qualitative change. The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio enhanced the Blue Camp's image. More importantly, by drawing upon the talents of respected experts from all walks of society, it may broaden the government's policy-making horizons.
Full Text Below:
The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio has been well received. Members of the public are impressed with the candidates' qualifications and appreciate the KMT's willingness to share power. They feel the KMT's move will have a positive impact on the Blue Camp's election prospects. Quantitative change can indeed bring qualitative change. The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio enhanced the Blue Camp's image. More importantly, by drawing upon the talents of respected experts from all walks of society, it may broaden the government's policy-making horizons. Evidence of this can be seen in increased subsidies for elderly farmers and eight major social welfare programs.
Yang Yu-hsin is number four on the Blue Camp's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, Yang Yu-hsin, known as the "Angel of Patients with Rare Diseases," has urged the KMT to perform an about face. She wants to increase subsidies for elderly farmers. She also wants to increase subsidies for eight major social welfare programs. The Ma administration has gone along with her, partly to extricate itself from a political jam. The Democratic Progressive Party is ridiculing the KMT's about face as "me too policy." But actually the KMT's willingness to increase subsidies for eight major social welfare programs merely underscores how hypocritical and opportunistic the Green Camp has been pandering to the farm vote. It merely underscores the extent to which the Green Camp has neglected other disadvantaged segments of society. Subsidies for the physically and mentally handicapped have not been increased in seven years. Subsidies for low and middle-income seniors and children have not been increased in 15 years. Why did it never occur to the DPP to fight for their rights all that time? And why did the DPP single out elderly farmers?
The subsidies for elderly farmers controversy is a tangled mess. But Yang Yu-hsin viewed the issue from her wheelchair and saw it with perfect clarity. When people are old and sick, the only thing they can count on is a helping hand from the government. Subsidies for elderly farmers have been increased a mere 316 dollars. This increase may be inadequate. But elderly farmers are hardly alone. Every segment of society has handicapped patients and poor families. They too need government assistance. Yang Yu-hsin spoke from her wheelchair. She forced the ruling and opposition parties to shift the focus of their debate from 700,000 elderly farmers to 2.18 million disadvantaged members of society. She untangled the issue and showed the ruling party how to respond.
Consider the change. The KMT is willing to empower disenfranchised segments of society. It is recruiting respected experts and making them candidates for legislator without portfolio. On the one hand, it is improving its image within society. On the other hand, by empowering these experts, it is seeking improved solutions to the problems plaguing society. It is making subsidies for disenfranchised members of society more equitable. It is caring for previously neglected segments of society. What can the opposition DPP do but agree? How can it possibly object? Such an aggressive and novel policy development is rare on Taiwan, and suggests a new, virtuous circle on Taiwan's political stage.
Yang Yu-hsin described what it was like to sit in a wheelchair. She described how she constantly had to look up to dialogue with normal people. The day she was nominated, President Ma met with her and other social welfare groups. He made a point of bending down while talking to her. Yang Yu-hsin was deeply moved. To her way of thinking, the President was willing to lower himself to her level in order to hear what a spokesperson for disenfranchised members of society had to say. This was far from typical. From another perspective, Yang Yu-hsin made her debut as the first handicapped nominee for legislator without portfolio. She succeeded in changing social welfare policy. She benefitted over 2 million disadvantaged members of society. She elevated the debate about how these disadvantaged members of society are treated to a higher plane. The important point was not that the President lowered himself to her level. The important point was that society lowered itself to her level. Suddenly we viewed the world from the perspective of someone in a wheelchair. We adopted an all too rare attitude of humility towards the more vulnerable members of society.
One point in particular deserves mention. The champions of the disadvantaged nominated by the KMT are not your usual political activist types. They are salt of the earth workers from the grass roots. The KMT's "low political coloration" approach should have a positive effect on policy-making and legislation on Taiwan. Take Yang Yu-hsin for example. She may be the Secretary General for the Taiwan Association for Disadvantaged Patients. But her compassion is not confined to those afflicted with rare diseases. She has spoken out for elderly farmers, middle and low income individuals, in addition to the handicapped. In other words, she may be a spokesperson for certain disadvantaged social groups, but she shows no bias toward any particular organization or any particular party, merely because they nominated her. Given Yang Yu-hsin's ranking among the nominees, she is certain to become one of the new legislators without portfolio. She is someone who can transcend Blue vs. Green political struggle. The legislature needs new exemplars. She can help rid Taiwan of vicious political struggles between the ruling and opposition parties.
People who have been in politics most of their lives unwittingly fall victim to behavioral inertia. Even members of the general public are vulnerable. They find it impossible to escape their mental ruts. Subsidies for elderly farmers and subsidies for eight major social welfare programs have been increased. Yang Yu-hsin has helped the Ma administration cut this Gordian Knot. One could say that a single wheelchair has changed the way people view the problem. Lowering oneself to another person's level can help eliminate blind spots, and enable one to see better. If a legislator without portfolio can create a "win/win/win" situation for Taiwan, that will be something we can truly look forward to.
一張輪椅 改變弱勢對話的高度
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.22 02:40 am
國民黨的不分區立委提名受到好評，一般人肯定其廣納各界賢德、分享權力，認為對藍營選情有加分作用。事實是，量變可以帶來質變，不分區提名的「公共化」非但幫助藍營提升形象，更重要的是透過各界專業人士的參與，可以擴大政府的決策視野。此一效果，從老農及八大社福津貼的調整，已見到了端倪。
由於列名藍營不分區第四的「罕病天使」楊玉欣的建言，國民黨政策大轉彎，調高了老農津貼加碼，也同步調整了八大社福津貼。馬政府此舉，固有為選情解套的用意，民進黨且譏之為「拿香跟拜」；事實上，八大社福津貼同步擴大調整，恰恰反證了綠營操作農民選票之矯情與投機，對其他弱勢卻缺乏關注。試想，身心障礙者生活津貼七年未曾調整，中低收入老人及兒少津貼則十五年以上未調，民進黨為何從不曾想過為他們爭取權益，卻獨沽老農一味？
老農津貼這項糾纏，從楊玉欣坐在輪椅上的高度，卻看得更為真切。人在老弱病殘的脆弱時刻，只能仰賴國家的手，老農津貼僅調高三一六元或許太少；然而，不只老農，社會各角落都有殘障病友和貧困家庭，他們也一樣需要政府照護。楊玉欣的一席發言，將朝野原本爭執的焦點，從七十萬老農導向更廣泛的兩百十八萬弱勢，執政黨的決策糾結也因此豁然開朗。
我們看這一連串變化：國民黨願意把權力向社會開放，引進形象良好的專業人士進入不分區，一則改善了自己的形象，也透過這些專業者的眼睛找到了解決問題的更佳方式。如此一來，不僅使弱勢津貼的發放更臻公平，也顧及了許多平日受到疏忽的層面；而反對黨對此也只能表示贊同，無話可說。這樣的決策演變，是近年台灣政治上少見的積極、有新意的良性循環。
楊玉欣形容一個自己坐在輪椅中的感覺，是必須時時伸頸仰望，才能和一般人正常交談對話。獲得提名那天，馬總統約見她和其他社福團體，特別蹲下來和她交談，讓楊玉欣覺得深受感動。在她的想法，總統願意放低姿態傾聽弱勢者，是不平常的事；但換個角度看，楊玉欣以一個首度登板的不分區弱勢代表初試啼聲，不僅成功改變了一項社福決策，造福兩百多萬弱勢，也改變了弱勢與社會對話的高度。重要的不是總統蹲下傾聽，而是整個社會學到了放低身姿，從一張輪椅的高度來調整自己的視界，謙卑對待我們鮮少注視的弱者。
值得一提的是，這次國民黨提名的弱勢代表，並非平素在政治上活躍的社運人士，而是勤耕基層型的社服工作者。這種「低政治性」的取向，對台灣日後的決策及立法工作，也應可以產生更多正向的融合作用。以楊玉欣為例，她雖身為弱勢病患權益促進會秘書長，但她的關注對象卻不僅限於罕病問題；她不僅主動挺身為老農發聲，甚至積極為中低所得、身心障礙者請命。亦即，她對自己為弱勢代言的角色掌握得體，完全不因自己隸屬團體或政黨提名而摻雜特定偏向。以楊玉欣的排名，她必然會成為下屆新科立委，而這類能超越藍綠的人物，不僅是我們國會需要的新典型，也是台灣政治擺脫朝野惡鬥走向共同價值的重要動力。
長期從政的人，往往累積許多行為慣性而不自覺；即連一般社會大眾，也常受制於既有經驗，而跳不出思維的窠臼。這次老農和八大社福津貼的轉彎，與其說是楊玉欣為馬政府「解套」，不如說是一張輪椅改變了人們看待問題的態度：放低姿態，反而能消除盲點，看得更高。如果一個弱勢不分區代表能為台灣帶來如此「三贏」的改變，我們應該還有更多可以期待。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2011
Summary: The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio has been well received. Members of the public are impressed with the candidates' qualifications and appreciate the KMT's willingness to share power. They feel the KMT's move will have a positive impact on the Blue Camp's election prospects. Quantitative change can indeed bring qualitative change. The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio enhanced the Blue Camp's image. More importantly, by drawing upon the talents of respected experts from all walks of society, it may broaden the government's policy-making horizons.
Full Text Below:
The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio has been well received. Members of the public are impressed with the candidates' qualifications and appreciate the KMT's willingness to share power. They feel the KMT's move will have a positive impact on the Blue Camp's election prospects. Quantitative change can indeed bring qualitative change. The KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio enhanced the Blue Camp's image. More importantly, by drawing upon the talents of respected experts from all walks of society, it may broaden the government's policy-making horizons. Evidence of this can be seen in increased subsidies for elderly farmers and eight major social welfare programs.
Yang Yu-hsin is number four on the Blue Camp's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, Yang Yu-hsin, known as the "Angel of Patients with Rare Diseases," has urged the KMT to perform an about face. She wants to increase subsidies for elderly farmers. She also wants to increase subsidies for eight major social welfare programs. The Ma administration has gone along with her, partly to extricate itself from a political jam. The Democratic Progressive Party is ridiculing the KMT's about face as "me too policy." But actually the KMT's willingness to increase subsidies for eight major social welfare programs merely underscores how hypocritical and opportunistic the Green Camp has been pandering to the farm vote. It merely underscores the extent to which the Green Camp has neglected other disadvantaged segments of society. Subsidies for the physically and mentally handicapped have not been increased in seven years. Subsidies for low and middle-income seniors and children have not been increased in 15 years. Why did it never occur to the DPP to fight for their rights all that time? And why did the DPP single out elderly farmers?
The subsidies for elderly farmers controversy is a tangled mess. But Yang Yu-hsin viewed the issue from her wheelchair and saw it with perfect clarity. When people are old and sick, the only thing they can count on is a helping hand from the government. Subsidies for elderly farmers have been increased a mere 316 dollars. This increase may be inadequate. But elderly farmers are hardly alone. Every segment of society has handicapped patients and poor families. They too need government assistance. Yang Yu-hsin spoke from her wheelchair. She forced the ruling and opposition parties to shift the focus of their debate from 700,000 elderly farmers to 2.18 million disadvantaged members of society. She untangled the issue and showed the ruling party how to respond.
Consider the change. The KMT is willing to empower disenfranchised segments of society. It is recruiting respected experts and making them candidates for legislator without portfolio. On the one hand, it is improving its image within society. On the other hand, by empowering these experts, it is seeking improved solutions to the problems plaguing society. It is making subsidies for disenfranchised members of society more equitable. It is caring for previously neglected segments of society. What can the opposition DPP do but agree? How can it possibly object? Such an aggressive and novel policy development is rare on Taiwan, and suggests a new, virtuous circle on Taiwan's political stage.
Yang Yu-hsin described what it was like to sit in a wheelchair. She described how she constantly had to look up to dialogue with normal people. The day she was nominated, President Ma met with her and other social welfare groups. He made a point of bending down while talking to her. Yang Yu-hsin was deeply moved. To her way of thinking, the President was willing to lower himself to her level in order to hear what a spokesperson for disenfranchised members of society had to say. This was far from typical. From another perspective, Yang Yu-hsin made her debut as the first handicapped nominee for legislator without portfolio. She succeeded in changing social welfare policy. She benefitted over 2 million disadvantaged members of society. She elevated the debate about how these disadvantaged members of society are treated to a higher plane. The important point was not that the President lowered himself to her level. The important point was that society lowered itself to her level. Suddenly we viewed the world from the perspective of someone in a wheelchair. We adopted an all too rare attitude of humility towards the more vulnerable members of society.
One point in particular deserves mention. The champions of the disadvantaged nominated by the KMT are not your usual political activist types. They are salt of the earth workers from the grass roots. The KMT's "low political coloration" approach should have a positive effect on policy-making and legislation on Taiwan. Take Yang Yu-hsin for example. She may be the Secretary General for the Taiwan Association for Disadvantaged Patients. But her compassion is not confined to those afflicted with rare diseases. She has spoken out for elderly farmers, middle and low income individuals, in addition to the handicapped. In other words, she may be a spokesperson for certain disadvantaged social groups, but she shows no bias toward any particular organization or any particular party, merely because they nominated her. Given Yang Yu-hsin's ranking among the nominees, she is certain to become one of the new legislators without portfolio. She is someone who can transcend Blue vs. Green political struggle. The legislature needs new exemplars. She can help rid Taiwan of vicious political struggles between the ruling and opposition parties.
People who have been in politics most of their lives unwittingly fall victim to behavioral inertia. Even members of the general public are vulnerable. They find it impossible to escape their mental ruts. Subsidies for elderly farmers and subsidies for eight major social welfare programs have been increased. Yang Yu-hsin has helped the Ma administration cut this Gordian Knot. One could say that a single wheelchair has changed the way people view the problem. Lowering oneself to another person's level can help eliminate blind spots, and enable one to see better. If a legislator without portfolio can create a "win/win/win" situation for Taiwan, that will be something we can truly look forward to.
一張輪椅 改變弱勢對話的高度
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.22 02:40 am
國民黨的不分區立委提名受到好評，一般人肯定其廣納各界賢德、分享權力，認為對藍營選情有加分作用。事實是，量變可以帶來質變，不分區提名的「公共化」非但幫助藍營提升形象，更重要的是透過各界專業人士的參與，可以擴大政府的決策視野。此一效果，從老農及八大社福津貼的調整，已見到了端倪。
由於列名藍營不分區第四的「罕病天使」楊玉欣的建言，國民黨政策大轉彎，調高了老農津貼加碼，也同步調整了八大社福津貼。馬政府此舉，固有為選情解套的用意，民進黨且譏之為「拿香跟拜」；事實上，八大社福津貼同步擴大調整，恰恰反證了綠營操作農民選票之矯情與投機，對其他弱勢卻缺乏關注。試想，身心障礙者生活津貼七年未曾調整，中低收入老人及兒少津貼則十五年以上未調，民進黨為何從不曾想過為他們爭取權益，卻獨沽老農一味？
老農津貼這項糾纏，從楊玉欣坐在輪椅上的高度，卻看得更為真切。人在老弱病殘的脆弱時刻，只能仰賴國家的手，老農津貼僅調高三一六元或許太少；然而，不只老農，社會各角落都有殘障病友和貧困家庭，他們也一樣需要政府照護。楊玉欣的一席發言，將朝野原本爭執的焦點，從七十萬老農導向更廣泛的兩百十八萬弱勢，執政黨的決策糾結也因此豁然開朗。
我們看這一連串變化：國民黨願意把權力向社會開放，引進形象良好的專業人士進入不分區，一則改善了自己的形象，也透過這些專業者的眼睛找到了解決問題的更佳方式。如此一來，不僅使弱勢津貼的發放更臻公平，也顧及了許多平日受到疏忽的層面；而反對黨對此也只能表示贊同，無話可說。這樣的決策演變，是近年台灣政治上少見的積極、有新意的良性循環。
楊玉欣形容一個自己坐在輪椅中的感覺，是必須時時伸頸仰望，才能和一般人正常交談對話。獲得提名那天，馬總統約見她和其他社福團體，特別蹲下來和她交談，讓楊玉欣覺得深受感動。在她的想法，總統願意放低姿態傾聽弱勢者，是不平常的事；但換個角度看，楊玉欣以一個首度登板的不分區弱勢代表初試啼聲，不僅成功改變了一項社福決策，造福兩百多萬弱勢，也改變了弱勢與社會對話的高度。重要的不是總統蹲下傾聽，而是整個社會學到了放低身姿，從一張輪椅的高度來調整自己的視界，謙卑對待我們鮮少注視的弱者。
值得一提的是，這次國民黨提名的弱勢代表，並非平素在政治上活躍的社運人士，而是勤耕基層型的社服工作者。這種「低政治性」的取向，對台灣日後的決策及立法工作，也應可以產生更多正向的融合作用。以楊玉欣為例，她雖身為弱勢病患權益促進會秘書長，但她的關注對象卻不僅限於罕病問題；她不僅主動挺身為老農發聲，甚至積極為中低所得、身心障礙者請命。亦即，她對自己為弱勢代言的角色掌握得體，完全不因自己隸屬團體或政黨提名而摻雜特定偏向。以楊玉欣的排名，她必然會成為下屆新科立委，而這類能超越藍綠的人物，不僅是我們國會需要的新典型，也是台灣政治擺脫朝野惡鬥走向共同價值的重要動力。
長期從政的人，往往累積許多行為慣性而不自覺；即連一般社會大眾，也常受制於既有經驗，而跳不出思維的窠臼。這次老農和八大社福津貼的轉彎，與其說是楊玉欣為馬政府「解套」，不如說是一張輪椅改變了人們看待問題的態度：放低姿態，反而能消除盲點，看得更高。如果一個弱勢不分區代表能為台灣帶來如此「三贏」的改變，我們應該還有更多可以期待。
Monday, November 21, 2011
Aspirants to High Office Must Submit to Close Scrutiny
Aspirants to High Office Must Submit to Close Scrutiny
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2011
Summary: Soong has decided to run for president. Therefore he must be subject to close scrutiny. James Soong's words and deeds must be examined. Not just during his term as governor, but also during the martial law era. His controversial role in the Chung Hsing Bills case, his shuttling back and forth across the Straits, his flip-flopping between the Blue and Green camps, . his intemperate criticisms of media ethics, and lest we forget, his own character issues, are all being scrutinized closely.
Full Text Below:
People First Party Chairman James Soong now has enough signatures on his petition to qualify as an independent presidential candidate. But his poll numbers remain stuck below 10%. Hoping to boost his numbers, James Soong has held yet another television interview. Oddly enough, he is now directing his anger at the media, which has never been optimistic about his election prospects. He apparently believes his presidential bid is in the doldrums because certain elements within the media have deliberately undermined his campaign.
Politicians, especially politicians who have wielded significant political power, are often egotistical, even arrogant. Their absolute belief in themselves enables them to step over others in their endless quest for power, to sacrifice others in their ascend to the summit of power. The media, on the other hand, is perpetually outside the circle of power, It records their words and deeds, their successes and failures, with a cold eye. Politicians may forget what they said or did yesterday, Unfortunately for them, the media does not.
James Soong cannot blame the media for not being optimistic about his prospects. Polling organizations may disagree. Their sampling may be imprecise. Nevertheless from the moment polling on the upcoming general election began, Soong has ranked third behind Ma and Tsai. A distant third, at that. The People First Party is akin to the restorationist Mu Rongfu gang in Jin Yong's wuxia novels. It is akin to ignorant children. They shout "Long live Mu Rongfu. The restoration must succeed." But the media's mission is to tell the truth. Can it ignore political reality and mislead voters, merely to please politicians?
James Soong has been a player for many decades. James Soong was once a bright light. But no matter how bright one might shine, power always comes to an end. Fail to realize this, and one will will fall into the trap of wanting everything but obtaining nothing.
In 2000, the Lien-Soong ticket failed to topple Chen Shui-bian. James Soong wanted to be both Vice President and Premier. But no one would agree to shis condition, The reason was simple. The President-Elect might be willing to appoint the Vice President-Elect Premier. But years ago the Grand Justices handed down a constitutional interpretation ruling that "inappropriate." Attempts to make Lien Chan simultaneously Vice President and Premier, threw the nation into political chaos for half a year. James Soong may have laid down these unreasonable conditions. He may have done so knowing that Lien Chan and the KMT could not possibly bow to them. In which case, how do we explain 2004?
In 2004, following the Lien-Soong ticket's defeat, the Kuomintang Party (KMT) wanted to unite the KMT and the PFP. Lien Chan even promised to make James Soong Vice Chairman and Secretary-General, He agreed to turn all authority for party affairs over to James Soong. But Lien Chan lacked final authority on one issue. Soong demanded the Party Chairmanship once Lien Chan's term expired. Lien Chan could not promise this because according to the party constitution, the chairman must be directly elected by the party members, How can the former chairman appoint his successor?
The attempt to reunite the KMT and the PFP failed. James Soong had more tricks up his sleeve. In 2005, he pulled another stunt. He took part in a "Chen/Soong secret meeting." He refused to allow Lien Chan to outshine him during his visit to the Mainland. He met with Chen and had himself annointed "special envoy." But Chen Shui-bian took advantage of him for an entire year. The "Song/Chen (Yunlin) secret meeting" controversy raged for an entire year. It was even dragged into court. Only then did Soong break with Chen and become radicalized. In 2006, he called for the president's impeachment. The attempt failed. Soong then called for a vote of non-confidence. According to WikiLeaks, he simultaneously demanded that the KMT force Hau Lung-bin to back down, and seek election as Taipei mayor instead. James Soong told AIT Director Stephen M. Young that his move meant he would not run for president in 2008, nor would he serve as premier under Chen Shui-bian. Shouldn't a politician like this, who changes his political colors from Blue to Green and back at the drop of a hat, who holds secret meetings and makes backroom deals, be subjected to public scrutiny?
Power tends to blind people. People with power invariably develop blind spots. Soong's biggest blind spot is his assumption that he can ignore what he said and did. He thinks the public must play along with him. and the media must not contradict him or challenge him. But we believe that anyone aspiring to high office must be subject to close scrutiny. A responsible media must subject power seekers to the harshest scrutiny and public criticism. This is true of the Two Yings. It is equally true of James Soong. How can the media forget what James Soong said in 2006, after losing the election for Taipei mayor? He said he was "retiring from Taiwan's political scene." How can the media forget what James Soong said when he ran for president? He said he would remain in the race only if one million people signed his petition. A politician may aspire to high office. But if he refuses even to stand by his campaign promises, never mind the judgment rendered by historians. What about the judgment rendered by the media?
Those who wield power, are blinded by power. The DPP and Chen Shui-bian were able to lead James Soong around by the nose. This year the DPP and the "San Min Chi media" (SET TV, Formosa TV, and the Liberty Times) have played him for a fool once again. Has James Soong forgotten his meeting with Henan Provincial Governor Guo Gengmao in June of this year? Soong declared that "I am from Henan Province. I was born in Hunan. I am merely working on Taiwan." In the eyes of the DPP, someone who says he is "merely working on Taiwan," is either a "traitor to Taiwan" or a "reunificationist." How can it possibly co-operate with him? When someone suggested that James Soong serve as Governor of Hainan Island or Hunan Province, and renewing experience as governor, Soong was foolish enough to be flattered.
Soong has decided to run for president. Therefore he must be subject to close scrutiny. James Soong's words and deeds must be examined. Not just during his term as governor, but also during the martial law era. His controversial role in the Chung Hsing Bills case, his shuttling back and forth across the Straits, his flip-flopping between the Blue and Green camps, . his intemperate criticisms of media ethics, and lest we forget, his own character issues, are all being scrutinized closely.
社論－要競逐大位 就該嚴格接受檢驗
2011-11-21
中國時報
【本報訊】
儘管已跨過獨立參選的連署門檻，但親民黨主席宋楚瑜的民調支持度顯然已陷入瓶頸，始終在百分之十以下擺盪。為此，宋楚瑜再次親上火線接受電視專訪，奇特的是，這回卻把矛頭指向不看好他當選的媒體，認為他的選情低迷，是部分媒體的刻意打壓或操作所致。
政治人物、尤其是曾經握有大權的政治人物，多少都有一定程度的自我中心，甚至狂妄，他們唯有透過絕對相信自己，才能在不斷的權力鬥爭中，踩著別人的犧牲前進並攀上高峰。媒體則永遠在權力圈外，冷眼紀錄政客們的言行與成敗，政客們可能轉頭就忘記自己昨天說過的話或做過的事，媒體不巧全都留下記錄。
宋楚瑜不能怪媒體不看好他，因為民調縱使有各種機構效應或抽樣不夠精準的因素，唯獨從大選民調開始，他始終居於馬、蔡之後，位列第三，而且是遙遙落後的第三。親民黨人可以像金庸小說中一心復國的慕容復黨羽、或無知無識的井邊小兒，高呼慕容復萬歲、復國必成，但媒體的任務就是揭露最逼近事實的真相，豈能無視政治現實，取悅政客而欺騙選民？
翻手雲覆手雨，打滾政壇數十年，宋楚瑜曾經紅極一時，然而，再紅，權力都有走到盡頭的時候，勘不透這點，就會讓自己陷入什麼都想要卻什麼都要不到的窘境。
二千年「連宋配」不成，因為宋楚瑜要求副總統兼行政院長，沒人能答應這個條件，原因很簡單，即使總統當選人願意任命副總統當選人為閣揆，當年的大法官釋憲已經說過「不宜」，那時節為了連戰副總統兼行政院長，政局還紛亂半年之久。當然，宋楚瑜會提出這個不可思議的條件，可能也是基於讓連戰和國民黨無法點頭，那麼，二○○四年又該做何解？
二○○四年「連宋配」敗選之後，國民黨人穿梭希望促成國親兩黨真正合，連戰甚至允諾讓宋楚瑜以黨的副主席兼秘書長，將黨務全權交由宋楚瑜負責，唯一連戰做不了主的事，宋要求連戰黨主席任期屆滿後由他接任，連戰不能點頭的原因是依黨章，主席得由黨員直選，豈是前任主席可以指定？
國親合失敗，宋楚瑜的花招還沒結束。二○○五年他又來一個「扁宋會」，只是不肯讓連戰訪問大陸拔得頭籌，所以要與扁會討一個「特使」身分，結果吃了大虧，整整一年被陳水扁吃豆腐吃到夠，「宋陳」雲林「密會」足足吵了一年還上了法庭，宋楚瑜才徹底與扁決裂，成了激進派。二○○六年先是在立法院推動罷免總統案，罷免案過不了關又推倒閣案，根據維基解密，幾乎在同時間他還要求國民黨勸退郝龍斌，讓他選台北市長，宋楚瑜對ＡＩＴ台北處長楊甦棣說，此舉表示他既不會選二○○八年的總統，也不會出任扁的行政院長。這般遊走藍綠、勤於密室交易的政治人物，不該接受公開檢驗嗎？
權力使人盲目，權力人物總有其盲點。宋楚瑜最大的盲點就是：總以為自己說過的話，做過的事，只要自己選擇忽略，人民就該選擇自動忘記，媒體也不該提出質疑或檢驗。恰恰相反，我們認為對任何有意競逐大位的政治人物，負責任的媒體都該對其進行最嚴酷的檢視與公評，對雙英如此，對宋楚瑜也一樣。這就好像，媒體怎可能忘記宋楚瑜在二○○六年競選台北市長失利後宣布「退出台灣政治」的承諾？又怎麼可能忘記宋楚瑜今年曾以「百萬連署」做為他參選前提的承諾？一個有意競逐大位的政治人物，卻連自己所許過的重大承諾都不願信守，甭提歷史審判了，當下的媒體難道不該質疑嗎？
也因為權力的盲點，民進黨和陳水扁總能耍得宋楚瑜團團轉，耍到今年年民進黨和「三民自媒體」還能再耍他一次。宋楚瑜完全忘記自己就在今年六月間會見河南省長郭庚茂時說「我是河南人，生在湖南，在台灣打工。」一個自比在台灣打工的人，在民進黨眼中不是台奸就是統派，怎麼合作？更甭提還有人出餿主意讓宋楚瑜到海南島或湖南出任省長，重現「省長經驗」，他也能沾沾自喜。
既然要參選總統，就必須接受檢驗。宋楚瑜必須被檢驗的言行，不只有省長政績，還有他在戒嚴年代的言行、他在興票案爭議上的真相交待、他歷年來進出兩岸、遊走藍綠的種種作為等。在信口批評媒體「報格」時，別忘了自己的「人格」，也正在接受檢驗。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2011
Summary: Soong has decided to run for president. Therefore he must be subject to close scrutiny. James Soong's words and deeds must be examined. Not just during his term as governor, but also during the martial law era. His controversial role in the Chung Hsing Bills case, his shuttling back and forth across the Straits, his flip-flopping between the Blue and Green camps, . his intemperate criticisms of media ethics, and lest we forget, his own character issues, are all being scrutinized closely.
Full Text Below:
People First Party Chairman James Soong now has enough signatures on his petition to qualify as an independent presidential candidate. But his poll numbers remain stuck below 10%. Hoping to boost his numbers, James Soong has held yet another television interview. Oddly enough, he is now directing his anger at the media, which has never been optimistic about his election prospects. He apparently believes his presidential bid is in the doldrums because certain elements within the media have deliberately undermined his campaign.
Politicians, especially politicians who have wielded significant political power, are often egotistical, even arrogant. Their absolute belief in themselves enables them to step over others in their endless quest for power, to sacrifice others in their ascend to the summit of power. The media, on the other hand, is perpetually outside the circle of power, It records their words and deeds, their successes and failures, with a cold eye. Politicians may forget what they said or did yesterday, Unfortunately for them, the media does not.
James Soong cannot blame the media for not being optimistic about his prospects. Polling organizations may disagree. Their sampling may be imprecise. Nevertheless from the moment polling on the upcoming general election began, Soong has ranked third behind Ma and Tsai. A distant third, at that. The People First Party is akin to the restorationist Mu Rongfu gang in Jin Yong's wuxia novels. It is akin to ignorant children. They shout "Long live Mu Rongfu. The restoration must succeed." But the media's mission is to tell the truth. Can it ignore political reality and mislead voters, merely to please politicians?
James Soong has been a player for many decades. James Soong was once a bright light. But no matter how bright one might shine, power always comes to an end. Fail to realize this, and one will will fall into the trap of wanting everything but obtaining nothing.
In 2000, the Lien-Soong ticket failed to topple Chen Shui-bian. James Soong wanted to be both Vice President and Premier. But no one would agree to shis condition, The reason was simple. The President-Elect might be willing to appoint the Vice President-Elect Premier. But years ago the Grand Justices handed down a constitutional interpretation ruling that "inappropriate." Attempts to make Lien Chan simultaneously Vice President and Premier, threw the nation into political chaos for half a year. James Soong may have laid down these unreasonable conditions. He may have done so knowing that Lien Chan and the KMT could not possibly bow to them. In which case, how do we explain 2004?
In 2004, following the Lien-Soong ticket's defeat, the Kuomintang Party (KMT) wanted to unite the KMT and the PFP. Lien Chan even promised to make James Soong Vice Chairman and Secretary-General, He agreed to turn all authority for party affairs over to James Soong. But Lien Chan lacked final authority on one issue. Soong demanded the Party Chairmanship once Lien Chan's term expired. Lien Chan could not promise this because according to the party constitution, the chairman must be directly elected by the party members, How can the former chairman appoint his successor?
The attempt to reunite the KMT and the PFP failed. James Soong had more tricks up his sleeve. In 2005, he pulled another stunt. He took part in a "Chen/Soong secret meeting." He refused to allow Lien Chan to outshine him during his visit to the Mainland. He met with Chen and had himself annointed "special envoy." But Chen Shui-bian took advantage of him for an entire year. The "Song/Chen (Yunlin) secret meeting" controversy raged for an entire year. It was even dragged into court. Only then did Soong break with Chen and become radicalized. In 2006, he called for the president's impeachment. The attempt failed. Soong then called for a vote of non-confidence. According to WikiLeaks, he simultaneously demanded that the KMT force Hau Lung-bin to back down, and seek election as Taipei mayor instead. James Soong told AIT Director Stephen M. Young that his move meant he would not run for president in 2008, nor would he serve as premier under Chen Shui-bian. Shouldn't a politician like this, who changes his political colors from Blue to Green and back at the drop of a hat, who holds secret meetings and makes backroom deals, be subjected to public scrutiny?
Power tends to blind people. People with power invariably develop blind spots. Soong's biggest blind spot is his assumption that he can ignore what he said and did. He thinks the public must play along with him. and the media must not contradict him or challenge him. But we believe that anyone aspiring to high office must be subject to close scrutiny. A responsible media must subject power seekers to the harshest scrutiny and public criticism. This is true of the Two Yings. It is equally true of James Soong. How can the media forget what James Soong said in 2006, after losing the election for Taipei mayor? He said he was "retiring from Taiwan's political scene." How can the media forget what James Soong said when he ran for president? He said he would remain in the race only if one million people signed his petition. A politician may aspire to high office. But if he refuses even to stand by his campaign promises, never mind the judgment rendered by historians. What about the judgment rendered by the media?
Those who wield power, are blinded by power. The DPP and Chen Shui-bian were able to lead James Soong around by the nose. This year the DPP and the "San Min Chi media" (SET TV, Formosa TV, and the Liberty Times) have played him for a fool once again. Has James Soong forgotten his meeting with Henan Provincial Governor Guo Gengmao in June of this year? Soong declared that "I am from Henan Province. I was born in Hunan. I am merely working on Taiwan." In the eyes of the DPP, someone who says he is "merely working on Taiwan," is either a "traitor to Taiwan" or a "reunificationist." How can it possibly co-operate with him? When someone suggested that James Soong serve as Governor of Hainan Island or Hunan Province, and renewing experience as governor, Soong was foolish enough to be flattered.
Soong has decided to run for president. Therefore he must be subject to close scrutiny. James Soong's words and deeds must be examined. Not just during his term as governor, but also during the martial law era. His controversial role in the Chung Hsing Bills case, his shuttling back and forth across the Straits, his flip-flopping between the Blue and Green camps, . his intemperate criticisms of media ethics, and lest we forget, his own character issues, are all being scrutinized closely.
社論－要競逐大位 就該嚴格接受檢驗
2011-11-21
中國時報
【本報訊】
儘管已跨過獨立參選的連署門檻，但親民黨主席宋楚瑜的民調支持度顯然已陷入瓶頸，始終在百分之十以下擺盪。為此，宋楚瑜再次親上火線接受電視專訪，奇特的是，這回卻把矛頭指向不看好他當選的媒體，認為他的選情低迷，是部分媒體的刻意打壓或操作所致。
政治人物、尤其是曾經握有大權的政治人物，多少都有一定程度的自我中心，甚至狂妄，他們唯有透過絕對相信自己，才能在不斷的權力鬥爭中，踩著別人的犧牲前進並攀上高峰。媒體則永遠在權力圈外，冷眼紀錄政客們的言行與成敗，政客們可能轉頭就忘記自己昨天說過的話或做過的事，媒體不巧全都留下記錄。
宋楚瑜不能怪媒體不看好他，因為民調縱使有各種機構效應或抽樣不夠精準的因素，唯獨從大選民調開始，他始終居於馬、蔡之後，位列第三，而且是遙遙落後的第三。親民黨人可以像金庸小說中一心復國的慕容復黨羽、或無知無識的井邊小兒，高呼慕容復萬歲、復國必成，但媒體的任務就是揭露最逼近事實的真相，豈能無視政治現實，取悅政客而欺騙選民？
翻手雲覆手雨，打滾政壇數十年，宋楚瑜曾經紅極一時，然而，再紅，權力都有走到盡頭的時候，勘不透這點，就會讓自己陷入什麼都想要卻什麼都要不到的窘境。
二千年「連宋配」不成，因為宋楚瑜要求副總統兼行政院長，沒人能答應這個條件，原因很簡單，即使總統當選人願意任命副總統當選人為閣揆，當年的大法官釋憲已經說過「不宜」，那時節為了連戰副總統兼行政院長，政局還紛亂半年之久。當然，宋楚瑜會提出這個不可思議的條件，可能也是基於讓連戰和國民黨無法點頭，那麼，二○○四年又該做何解？
二○○四年「連宋配」敗選之後，國民黨人穿梭希望促成國親兩黨真正合，連戰甚至允諾讓宋楚瑜以黨的副主席兼秘書長，將黨務全權交由宋楚瑜負責，唯一連戰做不了主的事，宋要求連戰黨主席任期屆滿後由他接任，連戰不能點頭的原因是依黨章，主席得由黨員直選，豈是前任主席可以指定？
國親合失敗，宋楚瑜的花招還沒結束。二○○五年他又來一個「扁宋會」，只是不肯讓連戰訪問大陸拔得頭籌，所以要與扁會討一個「特使」身分，結果吃了大虧，整整一年被陳水扁吃豆腐吃到夠，「宋陳」雲林「密會」足足吵了一年還上了法庭，宋楚瑜才徹底與扁決裂，成了激進派。二○○六年先是在立法院推動罷免總統案，罷免案過不了關又推倒閣案，根據維基解密，幾乎在同時間他還要求國民黨勸退郝龍斌，讓他選台北市長，宋楚瑜對ＡＩＴ台北處長楊甦棣說，此舉表示他既不會選二○○八年的總統，也不會出任扁的行政院長。這般遊走藍綠、勤於密室交易的政治人物，不該接受公開檢驗嗎？
權力使人盲目，權力人物總有其盲點。宋楚瑜最大的盲點就是：總以為自己說過的話，做過的事，只要自己選擇忽略，人民就該選擇自動忘記，媒體也不該提出質疑或檢驗。恰恰相反，我們認為對任何有意競逐大位的政治人物，負責任的媒體都該對其進行最嚴酷的檢視與公評，對雙英如此，對宋楚瑜也一樣。這就好像，媒體怎可能忘記宋楚瑜在二○○六年競選台北市長失利後宣布「退出台灣政治」的承諾？又怎麼可能忘記宋楚瑜今年曾以「百萬連署」做為他參選前提的承諾？一個有意競逐大位的政治人物，卻連自己所許過的重大承諾都不願信守，甭提歷史審判了，當下的媒體難道不該質疑嗎？
也因為權力的盲點，民進黨和陳水扁總能耍得宋楚瑜團團轉，耍到今年年民進黨和「三民自媒體」還能再耍他一次。宋楚瑜完全忘記自己就在今年六月間會見河南省長郭庚茂時說「我是河南人，生在湖南，在台灣打工。」一個自比在台灣打工的人，在民進黨眼中不是台奸就是統派，怎麼合作？更甭提還有人出餿主意讓宋楚瑜到海南島或湖南出任省長，重現「省長經驗」，他也能沾沾自喜。
既然要參選總統，就必須接受檢驗。宋楚瑜必須被檢驗的言行，不只有省長政績，還有他在戒嚴年代的言行、他在興票案爭議上的真相交待、他歷年來進出兩岸、遊走藍綠的種種作為等。在信口批評媒體「報格」時，別忘了自己的「人格」，也正在接受檢驗。
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The New Three Little Pigs: Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, Chao Li-yun
The New Three Little Pigs: Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, Chao Li-yun
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2011
Summary: The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd. The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.
Full Text Below:
The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd.
The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.
Many pundits consider the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy highly successful. Presumably they mean at the technical level. The DPP is using the Three Little Pigs to hypnotize the public. It has completely evaded questions about public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. It has dodged the issues. It has made people miss the forest because they were staring at the trees. In a sane election, which appeal would prevail? A list of nominees for legislator without portfolio that offers hope for the nation's future? Or irrelevant distractions such as the Three Little Pigs?
Elections on Taiwan have a reputation for being superficial contests of electioneering skill. Elections on Taiwan often ignore matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. This must change. The public must turn its attention away from plastic pigs, to matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles.
Tsai Ing-wen has been mired in controvery over her "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. Her "Three Little Pigs" ploy is like a smoke bomb in a wuxia novel, touched off by one of the characters when he or she desperately needs to make a getaway. This smoke bomb temporarily obscured her "best nominees List" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. But once the KMT announced its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, it forced the DPP's "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals back into the public consciousness. As a result, the more the DPP demagogues the Three Little Pigs non-issue, the more devoid of content its campaign will appear.
The DPP has turned the Three Little Pigs into a political allegory. But apparently it forgot the moral of this timeless fairy tale. The first little pig built his house out of straw. The second little pig built his house out of sticks. The third little pig built his house out of bricks. The unintended moral of the DPP's political allegory is that Su Jia-chyuan's house was built out of straw, Ker Chien-ming's house was built out of sticks, while Chao Li-yun's house was built out of bricks.
Chao Li-yun could have been elected to a second term as KMT legislator without portfolio. But her "farmhouse" drew political fire. She tearfully announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing her candidacy. She said she "did not want to become the rat dropping that spoils the entire pot of porridge." But if Chao Li-yun is a "rat dropping" in the KMT's pot of porridge, then Ker Chien-ming is a "diseased rat" in the DPP's pot of porridge. Su Jia-chyuan is a "rat corpse" in the DPP's pot of porridge. In this "New Edition Three Little Pigs" political allegory, Chao Li-yun has pulled out of the race, Ker Chien-ming and Su Chia-chyuan persist in running. The "rat dropping" has left. But the "diseased rat" and the "rat corpse" hang on. So which little pig is more likely to weather the political storm? Which little pig has displayed greater moral fiber? Which little pig is more likely to win public approval?
Actually any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. The upcoming two in one election involves more than just a choice betweeen Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, and Chao Li-yun. It involves a choice between Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong. It involves a choice between a house of straw, a house of sticks, and a house of brick. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are not the plastic pigs found at Green camp election rallies. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are different public policies, different candidate qualifications, and different moral principles. They include the lists of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They include judgments rendered upon the "rat droppings" and the "rat corpses."
Tsai Ing-wen said that the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio was "the best list of nominees possible given existing limitations." But Ma Ying-jeou showed that Tsai Ing-wen's "existing limitations" could be overcome. Tsai Ing-wen's "best list of nominees" has become a punch line. The public looks at Chao Li-yun, who knew enough to withdraw, at Su Jia-chyuan, who insists on hanging on, and renders its judgment. The public looks at Ma Ying-jeou's 1992 Consensus, at Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus," and renders its judgment. Just whose house is made of straw? Just whose house is made of sticks? Just whose house is made of bricks?
When the Su Jia-chyuan scandal came to a head, some said Su ought to have a "rat droppings consciousness," and withdraw voluntarily. They said Tsai Ing-wen ought to realize that she was occupying a house made of straw, and replace her running mate. Compare the KMT and DPP's list of nominees for legislator without porffolio. Others others said the DPP Central Standing Committee should convene an emergency session and revise its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They said the "rat droppings" and "rat corpses" should be removed from the list. People will of course ask, if Chao Li-yun can withdraw, why shouldn't Ker Chien-ming nd Su Jia-chyuan?
To repeat, any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. Consider the matter of character, Chao Li-yun was adjudged a "rat dropping," yet she knew enough to withdraw. Su Jia-chyuan and Ker Chien-ming were "rat corpses," yet they obstinately chose to hang on. Whom will voters support? Yaung Chih-liang is 19th on the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Frank Hsieh is 20th on the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Whom will voters support? Now consider the matter of policy, Which policies will voters support? Will they support the 1992 consensus, one China, different interpretations, and peaceful development? Or will they reject the 1992 consensus, undermine the foundation for cross-Strait peace, and allow the superstructure to collapse on top of their heads? In other words, will they choose the house of straw, the house of sticks, or the house of brick?
The plastic pigs are making their exit. Let the "New Three Little Pigs" make their entrance!
新三隻小豬：蘇嘉全、柯建銘、趙麗雲
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.18 02:39 am
在國民黨不分區立委名單的對照之下，愈發顯得民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作，民粹、虛無、膚淺與荒謬。
現在，民眾的目光，已從一隻一隻塑膠豬的身上，轉移至國民黨不分區名單中一個一個有血有肉的真人實事上。兩相對比，民進黨若愈操弄「三隻小豬」，將愈發顯得只是一顆「空心菜」。
眾曰民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作十分成功，這應是指其技術層次的表現；然而，民進黨卻是利用這一陣子的氛圍，操弄一種近似催眠及蠱魅的手法，幾乎完全迴避及掩蓋了關於政策、團隊及道德風格的探討辯論，這畢竟是避重就輕、捨本逐末。試問：在一場健康正常的大選中，不分區立委名單及三隻小豬，誰主沉浮？
台灣的選舉，一向稱譽技術層次的膚淺操作，卻輕視政策、團隊及道德風格上的本質追求。現在，國人應將目光從塑膠豬的身上，轉移到政策、團隊及道德風格的競賽上。
有一陣子，蔡英文久陷她的那一份「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」的困境中；「三隻小豬」就像是武俠小說人物落荒而逃時擲出的煙幕彈，立時將「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」均予遮蔽。但是，國民黨的不分區名單發布，將民進黨的「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」又逼回輿論焦點；在這種對比下，民進黨若繼續操弄「三隻小豬」，豈不是愈發顯得主帥只是一顆「空心菜」？
民進黨將「三隻小豬」操弄成充滿童趣的政治風潮，卻顯然忘了《三隻小豬》這則雋永童話的原始啟示。這則童話的本事是：一隻小豬蓋茅草屋，一隻小豬蓋木板屋，一隻小豬蓋磚屋；對比之下，令人發現，在面對政治颶風時，蘇嘉全蓋的是茅草屋，柯建銘蓋的是木板屋，趙麗雲蓋的則是磚屋。
趙麗雲原本可能連任國民黨不分區立委，但因其「農舍」引發議論，含淚宣布自動退出提名評選；她說，「不希望變成團隊的老鼠屎」。相對於趙麗雲的「老鼠屎」，柯建銘的程度堪謂是民進黨這鍋粥裡的一隻「病老鼠」，而蘇嘉全的程度則不啻已是一隻「死老鼠」。如今，在這一則《新三隻小豬》的政治寓言中，趙麗雲退，柯建銘、蘇嘉全留；「老鼠屎」退，「病老鼠」、「死老鼠」留。試問：哪一隻小豬的抉擇在政治颶風中較能控制損害？哪一隻小豬的風品較應獲得社會的認同？
其實，任何一場民主選舉，皆是對「三隻小豬」的選擇。這場二合一選舉，非但是對蘇嘉全、柯建銘及趙麗雲這「三隻小豬」的選擇；也將是對馬英九、蔡英文、宋楚瑜這「三隻小豬」的選擇，也就是要對「茅草屋」、「木板屋」及「磚屋」作出選擇。此處所說的三隻小豬，當然已非綠營造勢場合的塑膠豬，而是指不同的政策、團隊及道德水準，當然也包括不分區名單及競選團隊中「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」的含量比較。
蔡英文說，民進黨的不分區立委名單是「局限範圍內的最佳名單」；如今馬英九的表現則證實，蔡英文所稱的「局限」不是不能突破，而蔡英文所謂的「最佳名單」更已成為笑柄。此時，國人不但比較趙麗雲的「老鼠屎退」與蘇嘉全的「死老鼠留」；也同時在評量，馬英九的「九二共識」與蔡英文的「台灣共識」，究竟誰蓋的是茅草屋、木板屋？誰蓋的是磚屋？
當蘇嘉全的醜聞鬧得正兇時，有人建議他應有「老鼠屎意識」，引咎請退，而蔡英文也應有「茅草屋危機」而更換副手。如今，以國民黨不分區名單與民進黨的相比，又有人建議民進黨應考慮召開臨時中常會，更換不分區名單，將其中的「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」剔去。人們自會詰問：趙麗雲可以退，何以柯建銘、蘇嘉全不能退？不應退？
重申前論，任何民主選舉皆是對「三隻小豬」的抉擇。就人品風格言，是選趙麗雲「老鼠屎」退，或選蘇嘉全、柯建銘「死老鼠」留？是選楊志良的不分區十九名，或選謝長廷的不分區二十名？就政策主軸言，則是要選「九二共識／一中各表／和平發展」，或是選「否定九二共識／基礎不保／大廈將傾」？亦即，究竟要選「茅草屋」、「木板屋」或「磚屋」？
塑膠豬該退場了，讓《新三隻小豬》登場吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2011
Summary: The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd. The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.
Full Text Below:
The more one compares the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio against the DPP's, the more the DPP's "Three Little Pigs" election ploy comes across as demagogic, hollow, superficial, and absurd.
The people have eyes. When they look at the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy, they see row upon row of cheap plastic pigs. When they look at the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, they see living, breathing human beings. They have enough intelligence to compare the two parties' campaign appeals. The more the DPP demagogues a non-issue like the Three Little Pigs, the more obvious it is that the DPP has nothing to offer.
Many pundits consider the DPP's Three Little Pigs election ploy highly successful. Presumably they mean at the technical level. The DPP is using the Three Little Pigs to hypnotize the public. It has completely evaded questions about public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. It has dodged the issues. It has made people miss the forest because they were staring at the trees. In a sane election, which appeal would prevail? A list of nominees for legislator without portfolio that offers hope for the nation's future? Or irrelevant distractions such as the Three Little Pigs?
Elections on Taiwan have a reputation for being superficial contests of electioneering skill. Elections on Taiwan often ignore matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles. This must change. The public must turn its attention away from plastic pigs, to matters of public policy, candidate qualifications, and moral principles.
Tsai Ing-wen has been mired in controvery over her "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. Her "Three Little Pigs" ploy is like a smoke bomb in a wuxia novel, touched off by one of the characters when he or she desperately needs to make a getaway. This smoke bomb temporarily obscured her "best nominees List" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals. But once the KMT announced its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio, it forced the DPP's "best nominees list" and Su Jia-chyuan's corruption scandals back into the public consciousness. As a result, the more the DPP demagogues the Three Little Pigs non-issue, the more devoid of content its campaign will appear.
The DPP has turned the Three Little Pigs into a political allegory. But apparently it forgot the moral of this timeless fairy tale. The first little pig built his house out of straw. The second little pig built his house out of sticks. The third little pig built his house out of bricks. The unintended moral of the DPP's political allegory is that Su Jia-chyuan's house was built out of straw, Ker Chien-ming's house was built out of sticks, while Chao Li-yun's house was built out of bricks.
Chao Li-yun could have been elected to a second term as KMT legislator without portfolio. But her "farmhouse" drew political fire. She tearfully announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing her candidacy. She said she "did not want to become the rat dropping that spoils the entire pot of porridge." But if Chao Li-yun is a "rat dropping" in the KMT's pot of porridge, then Ker Chien-ming is a "diseased rat" in the DPP's pot of porridge. Su Jia-chyuan is a "rat corpse" in the DPP's pot of porridge. In this "New Edition Three Little Pigs" political allegory, Chao Li-yun has pulled out of the race, Ker Chien-ming and Su Chia-chyuan persist in running. The "rat dropping" has left. But the "diseased rat" and the "rat corpse" hang on. So which little pig is more likely to weather the political storm? Which little pig has displayed greater moral fiber? Which little pig is more likely to win public approval?
Actually any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. The upcoming two in one election involves more than just a choice betweeen Su Jia-chyuan, Ker Chien-ming, and Chao Li-yun. It involves a choice between Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong. It involves a choice between a house of straw, a house of sticks, and a house of brick. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are not the plastic pigs found at Green camp election rallies. The Three Little Pigs referred to here are different public policies, different candidate qualifications, and different moral principles. They include the lists of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They include judgments rendered upon the "rat droppings" and the "rat corpses."
Tsai Ing-wen said that the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio was "the best list of nominees possible given existing limitations." But Ma Ying-jeou showed that Tsai Ing-wen's "existing limitations" could be overcome. Tsai Ing-wen's "best list of nominees" has become a punch line. The public looks at Chao Li-yun, who knew enough to withdraw, at Su Jia-chyuan, who insists on hanging on, and renders its judgment. The public looks at Ma Ying-jeou's 1992 Consensus, at Tsai Ing-wen's "Taiwan consensus," and renders its judgment. Just whose house is made of straw? Just whose house is made of sticks? Just whose house is made of bricks?
When the Su Jia-chyuan scandal came to a head, some said Su ought to have a "rat droppings consciousness," and withdraw voluntarily. They said Tsai Ing-wen ought to realize that she was occupying a house made of straw, and replace her running mate. Compare the KMT and DPP's list of nominees for legislator without porffolio. Others others said the DPP Central Standing Committee should convene an emergency session and revise its list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. They said the "rat droppings" and "rat corpses" should be removed from the list. People will of course ask, if Chao Li-yun can withdraw, why shouldn't Ker Chien-ming nd Su Jia-chyuan?
To repeat, any democratic election involves a choice between Three Little Pigs. Consider the matter of character, Chao Li-yun was adjudged a "rat dropping," yet she knew enough to withdraw. Su Jia-chyuan and Ker Chien-ming were "rat corpses," yet they obstinately chose to hang on. Whom will voters support? Yaung Chih-liang is 19th on the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Frank Hsieh is 20th on the DPP's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio. Whom will voters support? Now consider the matter of policy, Which policies will voters support? Will they support the 1992 consensus, one China, different interpretations, and peaceful development? Or will they reject the 1992 consensus, undermine the foundation for cross-Strait peace, and allow the superstructure to collapse on top of their heads? In other words, will they choose the house of straw, the house of sticks, or the house of brick?
The plastic pigs are making their exit. Let the "New Three Little Pigs" make their entrance!
新三隻小豬：蘇嘉全、柯建銘、趙麗雲
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.18 02:39 am
在國民黨不分區立委名單的對照之下，愈發顯得民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作，民粹、虛無、膚淺與荒謬。
現在，民眾的目光，已從一隻一隻塑膠豬的身上，轉移至國民黨不分區名單中一個一個有血有肉的真人實事上。兩相對比，民進黨若愈操弄「三隻小豬」，將愈發顯得只是一顆「空心菜」。
眾曰民進黨「三隻小豬」的操作十分成功，這應是指其技術層次的表現；然而，民進黨卻是利用這一陣子的氛圍，操弄一種近似催眠及蠱魅的手法，幾乎完全迴避及掩蓋了關於政策、團隊及道德風格的探討辯論，這畢竟是避重就輕、捨本逐末。試問：在一場健康正常的大選中，不分區立委名單及三隻小豬，誰主沉浮？
台灣的選舉，一向稱譽技術層次的膚淺操作，卻輕視政策、團隊及道德風格上的本質追求。現在，國人應將目光從塑膠豬的身上，轉移到政策、團隊及道德風格的競賽上。
有一陣子，蔡英文久陷她的那一份「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」的困境中；「三隻小豬」就像是武俠小說人物落荒而逃時擲出的煙幕彈，立時將「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」均予遮蔽。但是，國民黨的不分區名單發布，將民進黨的「最佳名單」及「蘇嘉全醜聞」又逼回輿論焦點；在這種對比下，民進黨若繼續操弄「三隻小豬」，豈不是愈發顯得主帥只是一顆「空心菜」？
民進黨將「三隻小豬」操弄成充滿童趣的政治風潮，卻顯然忘了《三隻小豬》這則雋永童話的原始啟示。這則童話的本事是：一隻小豬蓋茅草屋，一隻小豬蓋木板屋，一隻小豬蓋磚屋；對比之下，令人發現，在面對政治颶風時，蘇嘉全蓋的是茅草屋，柯建銘蓋的是木板屋，趙麗雲蓋的則是磚屋。
趙麗雲原本可能連任國民黨不分區立委，但因其「農舍」引發議論，含淚宣布自動退出提名評選；她說，「不希望變成團隊的老鼠屎」。相對於趙麗雲的「老鼠屎」，柯建銘的程度堪謂是民進黨這鍋粥裡的一隻「病老鼠」，而蘇嘉全的程度則不啻已是一隻「死老鼠」。如今，在這一則《新三隻小豬》的政治寓言中，趙麗雲退，柯建銘、蘇嘉全留；「老鼠屎」退，「病老鼠」、「死老鼠」留。試問：哪一隻小豬的抉擇在政治颶風中較能控制損害？哪一隻小豬的風品較應獲得社會的認同？
其實，任何一場民主選舉，皆是對「三隻小豬」的選擇。這場二合一選舉，非但是對蘇嘉全、柯建銘及趙麗雲這「三隻小豬」的選擇；也將是對馬英九、蔡英文、宋楚瑜這「三隻小豬」的選擇，也就是要對「茅草屋」、「木板屋」及「磚屋」作出選擇。此處所說的三隻小豬，當然已非綠營造勢場合的塑膠豬，而是指不同的政策、團隊及道德水準，當然也包括不分區名單及競選團隊中「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」的含量比較。
蔡英文說，民進黨的不分區立委名單是「局限範圍內的最佳名單」；如今馬英九的表現則證實，蔡英文所稱的「局限」不是不能突破，而蔡英文所謂的「最佳名單」更已成為笑柄。此時，國人不但比較趙麗雲的「老鼠屎退」與蘇嘉全的「死老鼠留」；也同時在評量，馬英九的「九二共識」與蔡英文的「台灣共識」，究竟誰蓋的是茅草屋、木板屋？誰蓋的是磚屋？
當蘇嘉全的醜聞鬧得正兇時，有人建議他應有「老鼠屎意識」，引咎請退，而蔡英文也應有「茅草屋危機」而更換副手。如今，以國民黨不分區名單與民進黨的相比，又有人建議民進黨應考慮召開臨時中常會，更換不分區名單，將其中的「老鼠屎」及「死老鼠」剔去。人們自會詰問：趙麗雲可以退，何以柯建銘、蘇嘉全不能退？不應退？
重申前論，任何民主選舉皆是對「三隻小豬」的抉擇。就人品風格言，是選趙麗雲「老鼠屎」退，或選蘇嘉全、柯建銘「死老鼠」留？是選楊志良的不分區十九名，或選謝長廷的不分區二十名？就政策主軸言，則是要選「九二共識／一中各表／和平發展」，或是選「否定九二共識／基礎不保／大廈將傾」？亦即，究竟要選「茅草屋」、「木板屋」或「磚屋」？
塑膠豬該退場了，讓《新三隻小豬》登場吧！
An Unexpectedly Hopeful Nominees List
An Unexpectedly Hopeful Nominees List
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2011
Summary: Yesterday the KMT made public its list of nominees for legislators without portfolio, four and a half months later than the DPP. Even Tsai Ing-wen gave the list of nominees her tentative seal of approval. The nominees were young, uncorrupt champions of underprivileged social groups. These outspoken intellectuals were moved to the head of the line. This list of nominees for legislators without portfolio had nothing to do with political patronage. In one fell swoop, it rehabilitated the KMT's old image. It demonstrated the KMT's resolved to reinvent itself.
Full Text Below:
Yesterday the KMT made public its list of nominees for legislators without portfolio, four and a half months later than the DPP. Even Tsai Ing-wen gave the list of nominees her tentative seal of approval. The nominees were young, uncorrupt champions of underprivileged social groups. These outspoken intellectuals were moved to the head of the line. This list of nominees for legislators without portfolio had nothing to do with political patronage. In one fell swoop, it rehabilitated the KMT's old image. It demonstrated the KMT's resolved to reinvent itself.
The upcoming legislative elections are receiving less attention than normal because they are taking place at the same time as the presidential election. But the race is a close one. Therefore the KMT came up with this list of nominess. It should increase voter excitement during the election campaign. Blue Camp elected representatives have a long habit of "looking out for their own." To convince them to yield seats to professionals without ties to the party required considerable arm-twisting by the KMT central leadership. No matter. The DPP nominee list for legislators without portfolio is of dubious quality. It smacks of party factions divvying up the spoils, By contrast, the KMT nominee list for legislators without portfolio is a moral declaration. It outshines the DPP nominee list in many ways, not limited to future-looking policies.
Yaung Chih-liang fired the opening shot by revealing the list of nominees. The public now has very different expectations from the list of KMT nominees for legislator without portfolio. Yuang Chih-liang had no intention of becoming a legislator. But he was unhappy seeing "the lesser of two evils" nominated. Therefore he decided to stay at the head of the line, and keep his hat in the ring. Yaung Chih-liang's outspoken style endeared the KMT to the public. It attracted badly needed attention. Chao Li-yun tearfully withdrew her candidacy in response to the "farmhouse" controversy. Her willingness to sacrifice herself for the larger cause deeply impressed the public. Contrast this with Su Jia-chyuan's weasely stonewalling and Ker Chien-ming's pretense that nothing was amiss.
Even more importantly, the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio includes new faces from many backgrounds. This wide spectrum of nominees offers new hope. It is not just a bunch of fresh faces intended for politcial show. The first ten nominees include newcomers with professional qualifications. They include leaders of social movements, champions of the underprivileged, financial leaders, labor leaders, and others, This is unprecedented for either the Blue or Green camp. Nominees include Chief Executive Officer of the Child Welfare League Wang Yumin, financial expert Tseng Cheng-wei, and Chief Executive Officer of the Association for the Rights of Disadvantaged Patients Yang Yu-hsin. None of these nominees lead organizations with large memberships. None of them command powerful voting blocs. Yet they have been moved to the front of the line, to second, third, and fourth place. This arrangement is likely to impress the general public, especially voters, precisely because electoral considerations have been set aside.
On the other hand, consider the DPP. Not only did it not recruit from outside the party, its list of nominees all came from pressure groups in bed with DPP party factions. So-called "labor representative" Tseng Shu-hua is suspected of paying bribe money to Luo Wen-jia. That is why a controversy erupted and Tseng withdrew her candidacy despite being nominated. These people are nominally professionals. But they cannot be regarded as independent, objective, or impartial. The DPP nominees for legislator without portfolio have invited ridicule. They are examples of party factions divvying up the spoils. Wang Hsing-nan mocked the number two nominee on the list, Ker Chien-ming, as "an abscess." Even their own comrades consider these candidates "abscesses." How can they win over outsiders? By contrast, John Chiang was defeated in the KMT primaries. Chu Feng-chih and others knew enough to withdraw on their own, They were willing to do the right thing.
Compare the Blue and Green camp nominee lists, They show the difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. The DPP nominee list was drawn up single-handedly by Tsai Ing-wen, Superficially it represents the passing of the torch to a younger generation of leaders. Substantively, the cynical compromises and quid pro quo deals was clear to see. The nomination of "Tsai Ing-wen minions" was clear to see. Tsai Ing-wen's appealing image is largely the result of voter ignorance and wishful thinking. One glance at her nominee list for legislators without portfolio proves that she is merely another cynical practitioner of realpolitik without any trace of idealism. Compare Tsai Ing-wen's ostensible "best list" against the Blue camp nominee list. How can the DPP not feel ashamed? Ma Ying-jeou is often ridiculed as an unimaginative stuffed shirt. Yet he used his leverage to respond to society's expectations. His nominees list took everyone by surprise.
The KMT nominees list is imperfect. In fact, newcomers familiar with legislative affairs are few and far betweeen. Their lack of experience may soon be evident. Unrealistic expectations could lead to disappointments. But compare it to past nominee lists, even the DPP's lists. The KMT nominees list is refreshing and innovative. It is the least cynical, most idealistic list of nominees ever drawn up, Blue or Green, since legislators without portfolio were instituted. It is a major inspiration, one that offers hope for the future of the country.
It has elevated the election to a higher level. Such a nominees list is beneficial not merely to the image of the Blue Camp. It will enhance the quality of future legislation and increase the efficiency of the legislative process. It may help eliminate Blue vs. Green stalemates, At the very least, the public has raised expectations of the next legislature.
一份跌破眼鏡帶來期待的名單
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.17 01:56 am
比民進黨足足晚了四個半月，國民黨昨天提出的不分區立委名單，連蔡英文都給予「一定程度」的肯定。年輕清新的弱勢團體代表、一向敢言的知識分子均名列前茅，不再將不分區當成政治酬庸，一舉翻新了國民黨的刻板和老舊形象，展現了它改頭換面的企圖。
這次立委選舉雖因合併總統大選而降低了能見度，但在選情膠著之際，國民黨端出這份名單，應對低迷的選情有提振作用。以藍營民代一向擁兵自重的作風，要勸說他們把不分區席次讓位給素無政黨淵源的專業人士，黨中央必然經過一番溝通勸服。無論如何，比起民進黨不分區名單充滿爭議和派系分贓色彩，國民黨這份名單在道德宣示、政策指向和憧憬勾勒上，都不僅更勝一籌而已。
從楊志良自爆名列第二十拉開序幕，國民黨這場不分區提名即令人懷有不同往昔的期待。楊志良無意出任立委，但他自稱不樂見一個「比較不爛的蘋果」被輪替掉，因此選擇待在安全名單外，披掛上陣；以楊志良歐吉桑式的作風，不僅提升了國民黨欠缺的親切感，也大大增加了話題性。其後，趙麗雲為「農舍」爭議含淚宣布退出，「大局為重」的作風，對比蘇嘉全的狡賴到底和柯建銘的唾面自乾，都留給外界深刻的印象。
更重要的是，國民黨不分區名單廣納各路新面孔，拉出了一個令人可以期待的光譜，而不只是用這些新面孔來作政治點綴。在前十幾名中，具專業代表性的新人比重不少，遍及社運、弱勢、財經、勞工等領域，這在藍綠皆是前所未見的陣式。尤其，兒福聯盟執行長王育敏、財經學者曾巨威、弱勢病患權益促進會執行長楊玉欣，均非票房廣大的團體代表，卻分列最前的二、三、四名。正因為拋開選票著眼，這些安排更有可能打動一般社會大眾，尤其是中間選民。
反觀民進黨，不僅未見其對外廣泛延攬，連列名不分區的社會人士都出自和該黨關係密切的團體，也因此才會有涉及羅文嘉走路工事件的「勞工代表」鄭素華入圍復又退出的爭議演出。這少數人或有專業之名，卻無法視之為獨立、客觀、公正的人士。尤其，民進黨不分區提名不僅引起「派系分贓」之譏，王幸男還演出挑籮諷刺名列第二的柯建銘惡名昭彰的戲碼；試想，若連黨內都視之為「膿瘡」，對外更如何使民眾信服？對照之下，國民黨初選落敗的蔣孝嚴、朱鳳芝等人均知所進退，表現了有為有守的氣度。
比對藍綠兩份不分區名單，其實更能看出馬英九和蔡英文的差異和底蘊。民進黨的名單是蔡英文一手主導，表面上看雖體現了中生代接班形式，但權力分贓、現實妥協意味明顯，而「蔡英文班底」的布局更是躍然紙上；蔡英文的政治魅力，有很大部份是來自選民對她的陌生與想像，但從她的不分區構圖，卻可看出她其實只是政治現實的囚徒，看不出理想色彩。蔡英文以她自詡的「最佳名單」與藍軍的這張名單相較，能不汗顏？相對而言，馬英九常被對手譏為生硬、保守，但他借力使力，回應了社會的期待，這份名單跌破了眾人的眼鏡。
國民黨這份名單很難說是完美，事實上，不熟悉立法事務的新人太多，也可能有新手上路、眼高手低的問題。然而，相對於其過去的提名思維，乃至相對於民進黨的名單，它都表現了可喜的開創性與開放性。這可謂是不分區制實施以來，不論藍綠，最能擺脫現實挾持及較具理想色彩的一份名單，對國家整體未來的政治境界及政治風氣，應當皆有重大啟示。
拉高格局來看，這樣的名單其實不僅有利藍營形象，對於未來新國會要提升立法品質、議事效率，乃至消弭藍綠對峙，應當皆有助益。至少，民眾對下屆國會能有多一層期待。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2011
Summary: Yesterday the KMT made public its list of nominees for legislators without portfolio, four and a half months later than the DPP. Even Tsai Ing-wen gave the list of nominees her tentative seal of approval. The nominees were young, uncorrupt champions of underprivileged social groups. These outspoken intellectuals were moved to the head of the line. This list of nominees for legislators without portfolio had nothing to do with political patronage. In one fell swoop, it rehabilitated the KMT's old image. It demonstrated the KMT's resolved to reinvent itself.
Full Text Below:
Yesterday the KMT made public its list of nominees for legislators without portfolio, four and a half months later than the DPP. Even Tsai Ing-wen gave the list of nominees her tentative seal of approval. The nominees were young, uncorrupt champions of underprivileged social groups. These outspoken intellectuals were moved to the head of the line. This list of nominees for legislators without portfolio had nothing to do with political patronage. In one fell swoop, it rehabilitated the KMT's old image. It demonstrated the KMT's resolved to reinvent itself.
The upcoming legislative elections are receiving less attention than normal because they are taking place at the same time as the presidential election. But the race is a close one. Therefore the KMT came up with this list of nominess. It should increase voter excitement during the election campaign. Blue Camp elected representatives have a long habit of "looking out for their own." To convince them to yield seats to professionals without ties to the party required considerable arm-twisting by the KMT central leadership. No matter. The DPP nominee list for legislators without portfolio is of dubious quality. It smacks of party factions divvying up the spoils, By contrast, the KMT nominee list for legislators without portfolio is a moral declaration. It outshines the DPP nominee list in many ways, not limited to future-looking policies.
Yaung Chih-liang fired the opening shot by revealing the list of nominees. The public now has very different expectations from the list of KMT nominees for legislator without portfolio. Yuang Chih-liang had no intention of becoming a legislator. But he was unhappy seeing "the lesser of two evils" nominated. Therefore he decided to stay at the head of the line, and keep his hat in the ring. Yaung Chih-liang's outspoken style endeared the KMT to the public. It attracted badly needed attention. Chao Li-yun tearfully withdrew her candidacy in response to the "farmhouse" controversy. Her willingness to sacrifice herself for the larger cause deeply impressed the public. Contrast this with Su Jia-chyuan's weasely stonewalling and Ker Chien-ming's pretense that nothing was amiss.
Even more importantly, the KMT's list of nominees for legislator without portfolio includes new faces from many backgrounds. This wide spectrum of nominees offers new hope. It is not just a bunch of fresh faces intended for politcial show. The first ten nominees include newcomers with professional qualifications. They include leaders of social movements, champions of the underprivileged, financial leaders, labor leaders, and others, This is unprecedented for either the Blue or Green camp. Nominees include Chief Executive Officer of the Child Welfare League Wang Yumin, financial expert Tseng Cheng-wei, and Chief Executive Officer of the Association for the Rights of Disadvantaged Patients Yang Yu-hsin. None of these nominees lead organizations with large memberships. None of them command powerful voting blocs. Yet they have been moved to the front of the line, to second, third, and fourth place. This arrangement is likely to impress the general public, especially voters, precisely because electoral considerations have been set aside.
On the other hand, consider the DPP. Not only did it not recruit from outside the party, its list of nominees all came from pressure groups in bed with DPP party factions. So-called "labor representative" Tseng Shu-hua is suspected of paying bribe money to Luo Wen-jia. That is why a controversy erupted and Tseng withdrew her candidacy despite being nominated. These people are nominally professionals. But they cannot be regarded as independent, objective, or impartial. The DPP nominees for legislator without portfolio have invited ridicule. They are examples of party factions divvying up the spoils. Wang Hsing-nan mocked the number two nominee on the list, Ker Chien-ming, as "an abscess." Even their own comrades consider these candidates "abscesses." How can they win over outsiders? By contrast, John Chiang was defeated in the KMT primaries. Chu Feng-chih and others knew enough to withdraw on their own, They were willing to do the right thing.
Compare the Blue and Green camp nominee lists, They show the difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. The DPP nominee list was drawn up single-handedly by Tsai Ing-wen, Superficially it represents the passing of the torch to a younger generation of leaders. Substantively, the cynical compromises and quid pro quo deals was clear to see. The nomination of "Tsai Ing-wen minions" was clear to see. Tsai Ing-wen's appealing image is largely the result of voter ignorance and wishful thinking. One glance at her nominee list for legislators without portfolio proves that she is merely another cynical practitioner of realpolitik without any trace of idealism. Compare Tsai Ing-wen's ostensible "best list" against the Blue camp nominee list. How can the DPP not feel ashamed? Ma Ying-jeou is often ridiculed as an unimaginative stuffed shirt. Yet he used his leverage to respond to society's expectations. His nominees list took everyone by surprise.
The KMT nominees list is imperfect. In fact, newcomers familiar with legislative affairs are few and far betweeen. Their lack of experience may soon be evident. Unrealistic expectations could lead to disappointments. But compare it to past nominee lists, even the DPP's lists. The KMT nominees list is refreshing and innovative. It is the least cynical, most idealistic list of nominees ever drawn up, Blue or Green, since legislators without portfolio were instituted. It is a major inspiration, one that offers hope for the future of the country.
It has elevated the election to a higher level. Such a nominees list is beneficial not merely to the image of the Blue Camp. It will enhance the quality of future legislation and increase the efficiency of the legislative process. It may help eliminate Blue vs. Green stalemates, At the very least, the public has raised expectations of the next legislature.
一份跌破眼鏡帶來期待的名單
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.17 01:56 am
比民進黨足足晚了四個半月，國民黨昨天提出的不分區立委名單，連蔡英文都給予「一定程度」的肯定。年輕清新的弱勢團體代表、一向敢言的知識分子均名列前茅，不再將不分區當成政治酬庸，一舉翻新了國民黨的刻板和老舊形象，展現了它改頭換面的企圖。
這次立委選舉雖因合併總統大選而降低了能見度，但在選情膠著之際，國民黨端出這份名單，應對低迷的選情有提振作用。以藍營民代一向擁兵自重的作風，要勸說他們把不分區席次讓位給素無政黨淵源的專業人士，黨中央必然經過一番溝通勸服。無論如何，比起民進黨不分區名單充滿爭議和派系分贓色彩，國民黨這份名單在道德宣示、政策指向和憧憬勾勒上，都不僅更勝一籌而已。
從楊志良自爆名列第二十拉開序幕，國民黨這場不分區提名即令人懷有不同往昔的期待。楊志良無意出任立委，但他自稱不樂見一個「比較不爛的蘋果」被輪替掉，因此選擇待在安全名單外，披掛上陣；以楊志良歐吉桑式的作風，不僅提升了國民黨欠缺的親切感，也大大增加了話題性。其後，趙麗雲為「農舍」爭議含淚宣布退出，「大局為重」的作風，對比蘇嘉全的狡賴到底和柯建銘的唾面自乾，都留給外界深刻的印象。
更重要的是，國民黨不分區名單廣納各路新面孔，拉出了一個令人可以期待的光譜，而不只是用這些新面孔來作政治點綴。在前十幾名中，具專業代表性的新人比重不少，遍及社運、弱勢、財經、勞工等領域，這在藍綠皆是前所未見的陣式。尤其，兒福聯盟執行長王育敏、財經學者曾巨威、弱勢病患權益促進會執行長楊玉欣，均非票房廣大的團體代表，卻分列最前的二、三、四名。正因為拋開選票著眼，這些安排更有可能打動一般社會大眾，尤其是中間選民。
反觀民進黨，不僅未見其對外廣泛延攬，連列名不分區的社會人士都出自和該黨關係密切的團體，也因此才會有涉及羅文嘉走路工事件的「勞工代表」鄭素華入圍復又退出的爭議演出。這少數人或有專業之名，卻無法視之為獨立、客觀、公正的人士。尤其，民進黨不分區提名不僅引起「派系分贓」之譏，王幸男還演出挑籮諷刺名列第二的柯建銘惡名昭彰的戲碼；試想，若連黨內都視之為「膿瘡」，對外更如何使民眾信服？對照之下，國民黨初選落敗的蔣孝嚴、朱鳳芝等人均知所進退，表現了有為有守的氣度。
比對藍綠兩份不分區名單，其實更能看出馬英九和蔡英文的差異和底蘊。民進黨的名單是蔡英文一手主導，表面上看雖體現了中生代接班形式，但權力分贓、現實妥協意味明顯，而「蔡英文班底」的布局更是躍然紙上；蔡英文的政治魅力，有很大部份是來自選民對她的陌生與想像，但從她的不分區構圖，卻可看出她其實只是政治現實的囚徒，看不出理想色彩。蔡英文以她自詡的「最佳名單」與藍軍的這張名單相較，能不汗顏？相對而言，馬英九常被對手譏為生硬、保守，但他借力使力，回應了社會的期待，這份名單跌破了眾人的眼鏡。
國民黨這份名單很難說是完美，事實上，不熟悉立法事務的新人太多，也可能有新手上路、眼高手低的問題。然而，相對於其過去的提名思維，乃至相對於民進黨的名單，它都表現了可喜的開創性與開放性。這可謂是不分區制實施以來，不論藍綠，最能擺脫現實挾持及較具理想色彩的一份名單，對國家整體未來的政治境界及政治風氣，應當皆有重大啟示。
拉高格局來看，這樣的名單其實不僅有利藍營形象，對於未來新國會要提升立法品質、議事效率，乃至消弭藍綠對峙，應當皆有助益。至少，民眾對下屆國會能有多一層期待。
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Will Joining the TPP Take 10 Months, or 10 Years?
Will Joining the TPP Take 10 Months, or 10 Years?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2011
Summary: The "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPP) is the focus of world attention. Ten APEC members have already announced their intention to join. They hope to conclude negotiations next year. Meanwhile, our own government has declared that it will do its utmost to make significant progress over the next five or six years, in the hope that it can join the TPP in 10 years. But can we really afford to wait 10 years?
Full Text below:
The "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPP) is the focus of world attention. Ten APEC members have already announced their intention to join. They hope to conclude negotiations next year. Meanwhile, our own government has declared that it will do its utmost to make significant progress over the next five or six years, in the hope that it can join the TPP in 10 years. But can we really afford to wait 10 years?
The TPP is a large scale FTA. Japan recently announced its intention to join. Canada and Mexico have also expressed a desire to join. Twelve of the 21 APEC member nations have expressed a desire to join. They include the United States, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Canada. Once they have joined, the TPP will exceed the European Union in economic magnitude. It will become the world's largest free trade zone. Taipei and Beijing have promoted ECFA and FTAs. Therefore this is a wonderful opportunity for Taipei to avoid marginalization. South Korea, the United States, and the EU have signed FTAs, giving them an advantage. This TPP provides Taipei with an opportunity to neutralize that advantage. TPP membership is supposed to be open to all APEC economies. This enables us to avoid the political repercussions of bilateral FTAs.
The TPP is manna from heaven. Yet we treat it like a hot potato, We insist that we need 10 years of preparation before we can sign. According to this timetable, we would join the TPP in 2021. It is not easy to predict what the global economy will be like 10 years from now, But according to WTO Secretariat statistics, an average of 23 FTAs have been signed each year over the past 10 years. Prior to 1995, the annual average was three per year. Therefore we can reasonable infer that by 2021 South Korea will have signed FTAs with Mainland China and Japan. It may even have joined the TPP. ASEAN has already completed its ASEAN plus Six economic integration plan with Mainland China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and India. Asian-Pacific regional economic integration should be complete by the end of the coming decade. Taipei has two cross-Strait trade agreements. How many FTAs will it have signed by then? That is hard to say. Especially since the TPP already includes most of the partners we hope to sign FTAs with. How will our government explain why it is unwilling or unable to join the TPP, even as it attempts to sign individual FTAs? By 2021, we may have already fallen by the wayside.
Why must we wait ten years? The government says the TPP is a "high quality and comprehensive" liberalization agreement. It includes many provisions for zero tariffs. Therefore, for the time being, we cannot sign. But with the exception of the ASEAN countries, our government intends to sign FTAs with many other countries. Over 90% of these FTAs involve "high-quality and comprehensive" agreements and many provisions for zero tariffs. South Korea has offered the United States zero tariffs on 99% of its industrial products. Therefore if we cannot sign the TPP, neither can we sign FTAs. Neither can the Taipei/Singapore FTA go forward. This is the best example.
Secondly, some argue that parts of our agricultural sector need tariff protection. FTAs allow tariffs on some sensitive products. The FTA between South Korea and the EU allows tariffs on rice, hot peppers, and garlic. How many of these tariffs are allowed depends on other quid pro quo exchanges. Alas, our government has given up without a fight.
More importantly, such problems are not unique to Taiwan. Don't Vietnam and Malaysia's manufacturing sectors need help while they attempt to upgrade? Why are they able to sign high-quality and comprehensive FTAs and not demand 10 year buffers? The public on Taiwan has been worried about South Korea. It has been able to do things we could not. But even Vietnam and Malaysia have demonstrated determination and ambition lacking on Taiwan. How can we explain away Vietnam and Malaysia? South Korea and Japan's agricultural sectors are similar to ours. Yet they have already signed FTAs with the United States and the EU. They have already decided to join the TPP. What reason do we have not to keep pace? If we persist in this behavior, we will be perceived as a footdragger -- as someone fearful of being marginalized, but simultaneously unwilling to liberalize.
Elections are approaching. The KMT and DPP both have reservations about the TPP. They are both afraid to confront agriculture and non-competitive industries. Which party and which candidate is in power will make make no difference. No one will be able to evade responsibility. The decisions we evade today, we will regret tomorrow. Other countries are moving ahead at light speed, We cannot wait 10 years. Joining the TPP is something we should do within 10 months.
用十個月或十年加入TPP？
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.16 01:54 am
「跨太平洋夥伴協議」（TPP）成為舉世焦點，已有十個APEC經濟體宣布加入，欲在明年完成談判；於此同時，我政府卻宣稱，將儘量努力在五、六年取得重大進展，預計在十年內加入TPP。但是，我們真的還有十年可等嗎？
TPP是一個大型的FTA。加上近日宣布加入的日本，以及表達意願的加拿大、墨西哥，已經囊括二十一個APEC國家中的十二個（美、日、星、馬、汶萊、越南、紐、澳、智利、秘魯、墨西哥及加拿大）；其完成後的經濟規模將超越歐盟，成為全球最大的自由貿易區。按照過去政府推動兩岸ECFA及FTA的說法，這正是讓台灣迅速脫離邊緣化陰影的大好機會，更可一舉化解韓國因與美國、歐盟簽成FTA所享有的優勢。況且，TPP原本應當開放給所有APEC經濟體加入，因此無須擔心如洽簽雙邊FTA所涉及的政治問題。
但是這個天上掉下來的大好機會，我們卻似當成燙手山芋，宣稱尚須十年的調適準備，才能放心加入。按照這個規劃，台灣也許將在2021年加入TPP。要精準預測十年後的全球經貿模樣不容易，但依據WTO秘書處的統計，過去十年中，全球每年平均完成二十三個FTA（1995年之前每年平均三個），因此可以合理推斷的是，屆時如韓國已經完成與中國大陸及日本的FTA（甚至加入了TPP），而東協也已經完成與中、日、韓、紐、澳、印度等所謂東協加六經濟整合佈局。未來十年，亞太區域經濟整合應已完成；但台灣除兩岸經貿協議外，有幾個重要的FTA產生，卻很難評估。特別是由於屆時TPP應當已經涵蓋大部分我們有意洽簽FTA的對象，我國將如何解釋不願、無法加入TPP，卻要推動個別FTA的原因。所以，等到2021年，我們可能真的已經落在邊緣。
要等十年的原因為何？政府說因為TPP是「高品質，全面性」的自由化協定，零關稅比例極高，所以目前尚無加入的條件。但是除東協國家外，其他我國有意洽簽FTA的國家，他們過去完成的FTA也都是「高品質，全面性」協定，零關稅的比例一般都超過九成（韓國給予美國工業產品零關稅的比例，便高達99％）；因此若無法加入TPP，也等於不可能洽簽FTA。台星FTA沒有進展，就是最好的例證。
其次，亦有論點認為目前我國部分的農業部門，仍需要關稅保護。但任何FTA皆或有給予部分敏感產品不降稅的空間；韓國在韓歐盟FTA中便成功將稻米、辣椒及大蒜列為排除或不降稅的例外。當然這個空間的大小，將取決於其他交換條件優惠程度的高低，但現在政府的心態，似乎是未戰先怯，遑論正面爭取這個空間。
更重要的是，這些都不是台灣特有的問題。越南及馬來西亞的製造業，難道沒有輔導升級的需要？但為何他們可以迎向高品質FTA，不需要十年緩衝？過去大家都很關切為何韓國能，我們不能；但當越南、馬來西亞的決心與野心都已經超越台灣時，我們又該如何自處面對？再者，韓、日的農業結構與我國接近，但前者已經完成美、歐FTA，而後者也決定加入TPP。又是什麼理由，讓我們不能同步前進？如此發展下去，在FTA賽局中，台灣恐將被視為一個「不願邊緣化卻又不願自由化」的「奧客」。
大選在即，國、民兩黨似皆對TPP的表態有所保留，唯恐對手挾農業及弱勢產業相對抗。但是，未來不論是哪一黨、什麼人主政，都逃避不了這個「今天不決定，明天就會後悔」的抉擇；其他國家都在用光速前進，我們已經沒有十年可以等待，加入TPP應該是十個月就要完成評估之事。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2011
Summary: The "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPP) is the focus of world attention. Ten APEC members have already announced their intention to join. They hope to conclude negotiations next year. Meanwhile, our own government has declared that it will do its utmost to make significant progress over the next five or six years, in the hope that it can join the TPP in 10 years. But can we really afford to wait 10 years?
Full Text below:
The "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement" (TPP) is the focus of world attention. Ten APEC members have already announced their intention to join. They hope to conclude negotiations next year. Meanwhile, our own government has declared that it will do its utmost to make significant progress over the next five or six years, in the hope that it can join the TPP in 10 years. But can we really afford to wait 10 years?
The TPP is a large scale FTA. Japan recently announced its intention to join. Canada and Mexico have also expressed a desire to join. Twelve of the 21 APEC member nations have expressed a desire to join. They include the United States, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Canada. Once they have joined, the TPP will exceed the European Union in economic magnitude. It will become the world's largest free trade zone. Taipei and Beijing have promoted ECFA and FTAs. Therefore this is a wonderful opportunity for Taipei to avoid marginalization. South Korea, the United States, and the EU have signed FTAs, giving them an advantage. This TPP provides Taipei with an opportunity to neutralize that advantage. TPP membership is supposed to be open to all APEC economies. This enables us to avoid the political repercussions of bilateral FTAs.
The TPP is manna from heaven. Yet we treat it like a hot potato, We insist that we need 10 years of preparation before we can sign. According to this timetable, we would join the TPP in 2021. It is not easy to predict what the global economy will be like 10 years from now, But according to WTO Secretariat statistics, an average of 23 FTAs have been signed each year over the past 10 years. Prior to 1995, the annual average was three per year. Therefore we can reasonable infer that by 2021 South Korea will have signed FTAs with Mainland China and Japan. It may even have joined the TPP. ASEAN has already completed its ASEAN plus Six economic integration plan with Mainland China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and India. Asian-Pacific regional economic integration should be complete by the end of the coming decade. Taipei has two cross-Strait trade agreements. How many FTAs will it have signed by then? That is hard to say. Especially since the TPP already includes most of the partners we hope to sign FTAs with. How will our government explain why it is unwilling or unable to join the TPP, even as it attempts to sign individual FTAs? By 2021, we may have already fallen by the wayside.
Why must we wait ten years? The government says the TPP is a "high quality and comprehensive" liberalization agreement. It includes many provisions for zero tariffs. Therefore, for the time being, we cannot sign. But with the exception of the ASEAN countries, our government intends to sign FTAs with many other countries. Over 90% of these FTAs involve "high-quality and comprehensive" agreements and many provisions for zero tariffs. South Korea has offered the United States zero tariffs on 99% of its industrial products. Therefore if we cannot sign the TPP, neither can we sign FTAs. Neither can the Taipei/Singapore FTA go forward. This is the best example.
Secondly, some argue that parts of our agricultural sector need tariff protection. FTAs allow tariffs on some sensitive products. The FTA between South Korea and the EU allows tariffs on rice, hot peppers, and garlic. How many of these tariffs are allowed depends on other quid pro quo exchanges. Alas, our government has given up without a fight.
More importantly, such problems are not unique to Taiwan. Don't Vietnam and Malaysia's manufacturing sectors need help while they attempt to upgrade? Why are they able to sign high-quality and comprehensive FTAs and not demand 10 year buffers? The public on Taiwan has been worried about South Korea. It has been able to do things we could not. But even Vietnam and Malaysia have demonstrated determination and ambition lacking on Taiwan. How can we explain away Vietnam and Malaysia? South Korea and Japan's agricultural sectors are similar to ours. Yet they have already signed FTAs with the United States and the EU. They have already decided to join the TPP. What reason do we have not to keep pace? If we persist in this behavior, we will be perceived as a footdragger -- as someone fearful of being marginalized, but simultaneously unwilling to liberalize.
Elections are approaching. The KMT and DPP both have reservations about the TPP. They are both afraid to confront agriculture and non-competitive industries. Which party and which candidate is in power will make make no difference. No one will be able to evade responsibility. The decisions we evade today, we will regret tomorrow. Other countries are moving ahead at light speed, We cannot wait 10 years. Joining the TPP is something we should do within 10 months.
用十個月或十年加入TPP？
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.11.16 01:54 am
「跨太平洋夥伴協議」（TPP）成為舉世焦點，已有十個APEC經濟體宣布加入，欲在明年完成談判；於此同時，我政府卻宣稱，將儘量努力在五、六年取得重大進展，預計在十年內加入TPP。但是，我們真的還有十年可等嗎？
TPP是一個大型的FTA。加上近日宣布加入的日本，以及表達意願的加拿大、墨西哥，已經囊括二十一個APEC國家中的十二個（美、日、星、馬、汶萊、越南、紐、澳、智利、秘魯、墨西哥及加拿大）；其完成後的經濟規模將超越歐盟，成為全球最大的自由貿易區。按照過去政府推動兩岸ECFA及FTA的說法，這正是讓台灣迅速脫離邊緣化陰影的大好機會，更可一舉化解韓國因與美國、歐盟簽成FTA所享有的優勢。況且，TPP原本應當開放給所有APEC經濟體加入，因此無須擔心如洽簽雙邊FTA所涉及的政治問題。
但是這個天上掉下來的大好機會，我們卻似當成燙手山芋，宣稱尚須十年的調適準備，才能放心加入。按照這個規劃，台灣也許將在2021年加入TPP。要精準預測十年後的全球經貿模樣不容易，但依據WTO秘書處的統計，過去十年中，全球每年平均完成二十三個FTA（1995年之前每年平均三個），因此可以合理推斷的是，屆時如韓國已經完成與中國大陸及日本的FTA（甚至加入了TPP），而東協也已經完成與中、日、韓、紐、澳、印度等所謂東協加六經濟整合佈局。未來十年，亞太區域經濟整合應已完成；但台灣除兩岸經貿協議外，有幾個重要的FTA產生，卻很難評估。特別是由於屆時TPP應當已經涵蓋大部分我們有意洽簽FTA的對象，我國將如何解釋不願、無法加入TPP，卻要推動個別FTA的原因。所以，等到2021年，我們可能真的已經落在邊緣。
要等十年的原因為何？政府說因為TPP是「高品質，全面性」的自由化協定，零關稅比例極高，所以目前尚無加入的條件。但是除東協國家外，其他我國有意洽簽FTA的國家，他們過去完成的FTA也都是「高品質，全面性」協定，零關稅的比例一般都超過九成（韓國給予美國工業產品零關稅的比例，便高達99％）；因此若無法加入TPP，也等於不可能洽簽FTA。台星FTA沒有進展，就是最好的例證。
其次，亦有論點認為目前我國部分的農業部門，仍需要關稅保護。但任何FTA皆或有給予部分敏感產品不降稅的空間；韓國在韓歐盟FTA中便成功將稻米、辣椒及大蒜列為排除或不降稅的例外。當然這個空間的大小，將取決於其他交換條件優惠程度的高低，但現在政府的心態，似乎是未戰先怯，遑論正面爭取這個空間。
更重要的是，這些都不是台灣特有的問題。越南及馬來西亞的製造業，難道沒有輔導升級的需要？但為何他們可以迎向高品質FTA，不需要十年緩衝？過去大家都很關切為何韓國能，我們不能；但當越南、馬來西亞的決心與野心都已經超越台灣時，我們又該如何自處面對？再者，韓、日的農業結構與我國接近，但前者已經完成美、歐FTA，而後者也決定加入TPP。又是什麼理由，讓我們不能同步前進？如此發展下去，在FTA賽局中，台灣恐將被視為一個「不願邊緣化卻又不願自由化」的「奧客」。
大選在即，國、民兩黨似皆對TPP的表態有所保留，唯恐對手挾農業及弱勢產業相對抗。但是，未來不論是哪一黨、什麼人主政，都逃避不了這個「今天不決定，明天就會後悔」的抉擇；其他國家都在用光速前進，我們已經沒有十年可以等待，加入TPP應該是十個月就要完成評估之事。
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Reason vs. Emotion: The Two Yings
Reason vs. Emotion: The Two Yings
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2011
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou must feel deeply frustrated. He has an impressive list of political accomplishments. But it apparently has no effect on his poll numbers, He watches helplessly as the opposition DPP's "Three Little Pigs" campaign gains momentum. Blue Camp momentum always seems to lag. Ma has probably repeatedly asked himself, "Why?"
Full Text below:
President Ma Ying-jeou must feel deeply frustrated. He has an impressive list of political accomplishments. But it apparently has no effect on his poll numbers, He watches helplessly as the opposition DPP's "Three Little Pigs" campaign gains momentum. Blue Camp momentum always seems to lag. Ma has probably repeatedly asked himself, "Why?"
Economic issues and the international climate may be beyond his control. But at least they are part and parcel of his cross-Strait policy, Ma Ying-jeou has methodically fulfilled his campaign promises, He continues to produce wonderful results, Even the international community is uniformly singing his praises.
For example, cross-Strait reconciliation has led to a diplomatic truce and expanded Taipei's international breathing space. Former Vice President Lien Chan was able to attend the APEC leaders summit. The "Northeast Asian Golden Triangle," comprising Taipei's Sungshan Airport, Tokyo's Narita Airport, Seoul's Gimpo Airport, and Shanghai's Pudong Airport, has begun operations, We have been invited to the World Health Assembly. We hve even signed a free trade agreement with Singapore and New Zealand, We have signed an open skies agreement with Japan. ROC citizens now enjoy visa-free treatment with many more countries. ECFA, through cross-Strait exchanges, has presented us with all sorts of opportunities. Look at the profits Mainland tourists have brought the tourism industry. Ma Ying-jeou has racked up a fine political record. At the very least, he has succeeded in his cross-Strait policy. Recently, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended APEC, she praised the progress made in cross-Strait relations over the past three years.
So why have these achievements not translated into popular support? The milkfish industry has benefitted from Ma's policy. So why do most fishermen persist in voting for Tsai Ing-wen?
There are two reasons. One is that although these achievements may be solid, they appeal only to reason. Voters may consider over them one by one. They may ask themselves whether these policies are to their benefit. But beneath it all, their feelings may be in turmoil.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen is riding a wave of grass-roots sentiment over the Three Little Pigs. This has generated a wave of emotions. This has fostered a feeling of comradeship, of fighting shoulder to shoulder in the trenches. This feeling of solidarity among "Little Pigs resisting the Big Bad Wolf" has moved Tsai and others. This is why Tsai's political momentum is so palpable.
Green Camp supporters have traditionally been united by feelings rather than reason. They may share the same historical grievances and communal traumas. They may come from the same underprivileged social classes. They may feel that treated unjustly by the monied elites. They may feel let down by the Ma administration. They may feel mistrustful. Once every four years their election ballots give them the unprecedented opportunity to force their rulers to kowtow. An increasingly intense wave of mob sentiment is providing zealous supporters the opportunity to vent their spleen. Everywhere Tsai Ing-wen's rallies are intense beyond expectation. Everywhere the piggy bank souvenirs are sold out.
The second reason is that Ma Ying-jeou's star power, which swept Taiwan's four years ago, has evaporated. The Chen regime was cast aside for its corruption. Ma Ying-jeou, with his squeaky clean image, became a star. The public invested its hopes for the future on him. But after three years in office, he has lost his charisma. Everyone still believes he is a good man. But he no longer inspires much enthusiasm among the public.
During the last election, Ma Ying-jeou's personal charisma papered over many of the Kuomintang's shortcomings. Now however, the veneer has been stripped away, The KMT has never been particularly adept at propaganda or mass movements, Now that its old familiar face is again visible, it finds itself alienated from grass roots voters, particularly the underprivileged. Under the leadership of Ma Ying-jeou, who operates strictly by the book, Ma's reelection campaign has been predictably lackluster. Add to this blunders committed by various ministries, and the enemy camp has had no shortage of campaign issues.
Reason vs. emotion. One uses his head. The other uses her heart. The impact of the former has clearly been inferior to the latter. But each side has its strengths and weaknesses. The final outcome will not be decided by any single factor.
Ma Ying-jeou's political achievements inspire little excitement. But at the same time, the emotions Tsai Ing-wen has stirred up provide no answers for cross-Strait policy. Public enthusiasm for the Three Little Pigs is impressive. But examine Tsia Ing-wen's campaign platform with a cool head, especially her cross-Strait policy prescriptions. How will she deal with Mainland China? How will she proceed with cross-Strait talks? How will she avoid interrupting existing exchanges and cooperation? How will she deal with the one China issue? She lacks concrete answers. She even lacks a clear policy direction. She has painted a bright future, by indulging in wishful thinking. Everything is smoke and mirrors.
This election is a tug of war between reason and emotion, Many people think with their heads, or their wallets. Ma Ying-jeou's policy prescriptions ought to be continued. If cross-Strait exchanges are interrupted, it will be a shame. But the political momentum achieved by tens of thousands of pigs is now sky high. When crowds shout in unison, when their blood boils, rational calculation is cast aside.
Actually, when Ma Ying-jeou was elected during the previous election, it was also due to emotions. Many people were fed up with Chen Shui-bian's corruption. They projected their hopes and dreams onto Ma Ying-jeou. Doing so enabled Ma Ying-jeou, a member of a social minority, to be elected. But this mass enthusiasm has faded. Ma's political achievements may win people's minds, but they cannot win peoples hearts. As a result, Ma's political momentum is trailing. On the other hand, voters who vote their heads may be silent, but they are not necessarily less numerous than those who vote their hearts. In the end will feelings prevail over reason? Or vice versa? The people await the outcome with bated breath.
理性對決感性 左右雙英誰出線
2011-11-15 中國時報
馬英九總統一定覺得很嘔，做了這麼多政績，似乎完全無助於民調數字，眼看著三隻小豬捲起千堆雪，藍營氣勢卻始終拉抬無力，恐怕已經在心裡問了無數次的「為什麼？」
的確，經濟問題與國際大環境有關，未必完全操之在我，但至少在兩岸政策部分，馬英九已經按部就班實現其政見，並且連續交出了亮麗成績，連國際社會也齊聲說讚。
例如兩岸和解帶來外交休兵並打開台灣國際空間，前副總統連戰可以出席亞太經合會領袖峰會，「東北亞黃金三角」松山機場─東京成田─首爾金浦─上海航線也開了，台灣獲邀出席世衛大會，與新加坡、紐西蘭洽簽自由貿易協定，與日本的投資協定和開放天空協定也簽了，還增加了那麼多免簽證就可以去的國家，更別提ＥＣＦＡ和兩岸交流創造的商機，以及大陸觀光客為業者帶來的獲利，這麼多的業績，證明馬英九至少在兩岸政策上是成功了，美國國務卿希拉蕊日前就在ＡＰＥＣ贊揚兩岸關係三年來的進展。
但是，為什麼，這些政績不能轉化為支持的人氣？為什麼受惠的虱目魚業者，大部分還是要票投蔡英文呢？
有兩個原因，其一是，這些政績雖然十分確鑿，卻是訴諸於理性層面的認知，選民可以一項一項檢視，就利益面思考是不是希望繼續這種政策，但思考時心底激不起感情的迴盪。
相對的，蔡英文挾三隻小豬捲起的基層熱情，卻帶動了感情面的澎湃，凝聚了許多人的認同感，以及大家一起作夥打拚的同志感，這種團結一致小豬對抗大野狼的自我意識，既感動了自己也感動了他人，因此人氣熱度非常外顯。
其實傳統的綠營支持者，本來就比較是感情的結合，他們也許分享了同樣的歷史情結與族群創傷，也許都有社會弱勢者對權貴階級與既有體制的不平與積怨，也許對馬政府有共同的失望或不信任，四年裡唯有這一刻，選票給予他們前所未有能讓執政者俯首聽命的權力，而現在愈來愈熱烈的聲勢讓支持者的情緒更加興奮激昂，也讓蔡英文各地的場子熱到不行，小豬賣到缺貨。
第二個理由，很顯然的，馬英九四年前席捲全台的明星魅力已經消失。在扁政府貪腐令人唾棄後，形象清新的馬英九曾是眾望所寄的明星，但當家三年來，他的個人魅力幾乎消磨殆盡。大家仍然相信他是個好人，但他已不再能激起群眾的熱情了。
也因為如此，上次大選，馬英九的個人魅力掩蓋了國民黨的缺點，但現在由於這層粉飾不再，以至於那個一直和基層群眾─尤其是弱勢者─有距離、又不擅長文宣與群眾造勢的國民黨，隨之原形畢露，在講究制度循規蹈矩的馬英九帶領下，選戰當然激不起熱情。更別提各部會不時凸槌出狀況，提供敵營做文章的好題材。
理性與感性，一個用腦袋，一個用心動情，呈現出來的效果當然差很多。但雙方各有長短，不能僅以一面斷勝負。
馬英九的政績無法激起熱情，然而，同樣的，蔡英文掀起的熱潮，卻也不能解答其兩岸政策要如何面對現實環境。群眾在三隻小豬上展現的熱情固然令人感動，可是真正冷靜檢視蔡英文的政見，尤其在兩岸政策方面，到底如何面對中國大陸、如何繼續進行兩岸協商、如何不讓現有交流合作中斷、如何處理一中立場，不要說沒有具體答案，也沒有明確的政策路線，除了描繪一廂情願的美好願景之外，其餘彷彿霧裡看花。
這場大選，是一場理性與感性的拉鋸，不少人用腦袋（或口袋）務實思考時，會覺得馬英九的政績值得延續，兩岸交流如果中斷相當可惜；但看到萬千小豬聲勢沖天、在群眾齊聲高呼時，頓時又熱血沸騰起來，理智算計全被拋到一邊。
其實，馬英九上次當選，也是拜感性之賜，當時許多人受夠了陳水扁的操作，把感情與希望投射到馬英九身上，才會讓族群背景屬於少數的馬英九當選。現在群眾的熱情已退，而政績可以說服人卻無法感動人，所以人氣略遜一籌。不過理性的票雖然沉默，未必少於感性，最後到底是感性的聲音大，還是理性的選票多，讓人屏息以待。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2011
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou must feel deeply frustrated. He has an impressive list of political accomplishments. But it apparently has no effect on his poll numbers, He watches helplessly as the opposition DPP's "Three Little Pigs" campaign gains momentum. Blue Camp momentum always seems to lag. Ma has probably repeatedly asked himself, "Why?"
Full Text below:
President Ma Ying-jeou must feel deeply frustrated. He has an impressive list of political accomplishments. But it apparently has no effect on his poll numbers, He watches helplessly as the opposition DPP's "Three Little Pigs" campaign gains momentum. Blue Camp momentum always seems to lag. Ma has probably repeatedly asked himself, "Why?"
Economic issues and the international climate may be beyond his control. But at least they are part and parcel of his cross-Strait policy, Ma Ying-jeou has methodically fulfilled his campaign promises, He continues to produce wonderful results, Even the international community is uniformly singing his praises.
For example, cross-Strait reconciliation has led to a diplomatic truce and expanded Taipei's international breathing space. Former Vice President Lien Chan was able to attend the APEC leaders summit. The "Northeast Asian Golden Triangle," comprising Taipei's Sungshan Airport, Tokyo's Narita Airport, Seoul's Gimpo Airport, and Shanghai's Pudong Airport, has begun operations, We have been invited to the World Health Assembly. We hve even signed a free trade agreement with Singapore and New Zealand, We have signed an open skies agreement with Japan. ROC citizens now enjoy visa-free treatment with many more countries. ECFA, through cross-Strait exchanges, has presented us with all sorts of opportunities. Look at the profits Mainland tourists have brought the tourism industry. Ma Ying-jeou has racked up a fine political record. At the very least, he has succeeded in his cross-Strait policy. Recently, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended APEC, she praised the progress made in cross-Strait relations over the past three years.
So why have these achievements not translated into popular support? The milkfish industry has benefitted from Ma's policy. So why do most fishermen persist in voting for Tsai Ing-wen?
There are two reasons. One is that although these achievements may be solid, they appeal only to reason. Voters may consider over them one by one. They may ask themselves whether these policies are to their benefit. But beneath it all, their feelings may be in turmoil.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen is riding a wave of grass-roots sentiment over the Three Little Pigs. This has generated a wave of emotions. This has fostered a feeling of comradeship, of fighting shoulder to shoulder in the trenches. This feeling of solidarity among "Little Pigs resisting the Big Bad Wolf" has moved Tsai and others. This is why Tsai's political momentum is so palpable.
Green Camp supporters have traditionally been united by feelings rather than reason. They may share the same historical grievances and communal traumas. They may come from the same underprivileged social classes. They may feel that treated unjustly by the monied elites. They may feel let down by the Ma administration. They may feel mistrustful. Once every four years their election ballots give them the unprecedented opportunity to force their rulers to kowtow. An increasingly intense wave of mob sentiment is providing zealous supporters the opportunity to vent their spleen. Everywhere Tsai Ing-wen's rallies are intense beyond expectation. Everywhere the piggy bank souvenirs are sold out.
The second reason is that Ma Ying-jeou's star power, which swept Taiwan's four years ago, has evaporated. The Chen regime was cast aside for its corruption. Ma Ying-jeou, with his squeaky clean image, became a star. The public invested its hopes for the future on him. But after three years in office, he has lost his charisma. Everyone still believes he is a good man. But he no longer inspires much enthusiasm among the public.
During the last election, Ma Ying-jeou's personal charisma papered over many of the Kuomintang's shortcomings. Now however, the veneer has been stripped away, The KMT has never been particularly adept at propaganda or mass movements, Now that its old familiar face is again visible, it finds itself alienated from grass roots voters, particularly the underprivileged. Under the leadership of Ma Ying-jeou, who operates strictly by the book, Ma's reelection campaign has been predictably lackluster. Add to this blunders committed by various ministries, and the enemy camp has had no shortage of campaign issues.
Reason vs. emotion. One uses his head. The other uses her heart. The impact of the former has clearly been inferior to the latter. But each side has its strengths and weaknesses. The final outcome will not be decided by any single factor.
Ma Ying-jeou's political achievements inspire little excitement. But at the same time, the emotions Tsai Ing-wen has stirred up provide no answers for cross-Strait policy. Public enthusiasm for the Three Little Pigs is impressive. But examine Tsia Ing-wen's campaign platform with a cool head, especially her cross-Strait policy prescriptions. How will she deal with Mainland China? How will she proceed with cross-Strait talks? How will she avoid interrupting existing exchanges and cooperation? How will she deal with the one China issue? She lacks concrete answers. She even lacks a clear policy direction. She has painted a bright future, by indulging in wishful thinking. Everything is smoke and mirrors.
This election is a tug of war between reason and emotion, Many people think with their heads, or their wallets. Ma Ying-jeou's policy prescriptions ought to be continued. If cross-Strait exchanges are interrupted, it will be a shame. But the political momentum achieved by tens of thousands of pigs is now sky high. When crowds shout in unison, when their blood boils, rational calculation is cast aside.
Actually, when Ma Ying-jeou was elected during the previous election, it was also due to emotions. Many people were fed up with Chen Shui-bian's corruption. They projected their hopes and dreams onto Ma Ying-jeou. Doing so enabled Ma Ying-jeou, a member of a social minority, to be elected. But this mass enthusiasm has faded. Ma's political achievements may win people's minds, but they cannot win peoples hearts. As a result, Ma's political momentum is trailing. On the other hand, voters who vote their heads may be silent, but they are not necessarily less numerous than those who vote their hearts. In the end will feelings prevail over reason? Or vice versa? The people await the outcome with bated breath.
理性對決感性 左右雙英誰出線
2011-11-15 中國時報
馬英九總統一定覺得很嘔，做了這麼多政績，似乎完全無助於民調數字，眼看著三隻小豬捲起千堆雪，藍營氣勢卻始終拉抬無力，恐怕已經在心裡問了無數次的「為什麼？」
的確，經濟問題與國際大環境有關，未必完全操之在我，但至少在兩岸政策部分，馬英九已經按部就班實現其政見，並且連續交出了亮麗成績，連國際社會也齊聲說讚。
例如兩岸和解帶來外交休兵並打開台灣國際空間，前副總統連戰可以出席亞太經合會領袖峰會，「東北亞黃金三角」松山機場─東京成田─首爾金浦─上海航線也開了，台灣獲邀出席世衛大會，與新加坡、紐西蘭洽簽自由貿易協定，與日本的投資協定和開放天空協定也簽了，還增加了那麼多免簽證就可以去的國家，更別提ＥＣＦＡ和兩岸交流創造的商機，以及大陸觀光客為業者帶來的獲利，這麼多的業績，證明馬英九至少在兩岸政策上是成功了，美國國務卿希拉蕊日前就在ＡＰＥＣ贊揚兩岸關係三年來的進展。
但是，為什麼，這些政績不能轉化為支持的人氣？為什麼受惠的虱目魚業者，大部分還是要票投蔡英文呢？
有兩個原因，其一是，這些政績雖然十分確鑿，卻是訴諸於理性層面的認知，選民可以一項一項檢視，就利益面思考是不是希望繼續這種政策，但思考時心底激不起感情的迴盪。
相對的，蔡英文挾三隻小豬捲起的基層熱情，卻帶動了感情面的澎湃，凝聚了許多人的認同感，以及大家一起作夥打拚的同志感，這種團結一致小豬對抗大野狼的自我意識，既感動了自己也感動了他人，因此人氣熱度非常外顯。
其實傳統的綠營支持者，本來就比較是感情的結合，他們也許分享了同樣的歷史情結與族群創傷，也許都有社會弱勢者對權貴階級與既有體制的不平與積怨，也許對馬政府有共同的失望或不信任，四年裡唯有這一刻，選票給予他們前所未有能讓執政者俯首聽命的權力，而現在愈來愈熱烈的聲勢讓支持者的情緒更加興奮激昂，也讓蔡英文各地的場子熱到不行，小豬賣到缺貨。
第二個理由，很顯然的，馬英九四年前席捲全台的明星魅力已經消失。在扁政府貪腐令人唾棄後，形象清新的馬英九曾是眾望所寄的明星，但當家三年來，他的個人魅力幾乎消磨殆盡。大家仍然相信他是個好人，但他已不再能激起群眾的熱情了。
也因為如此，上次大選，馬英九的個人魅力掩蓋了國民黨的缺點，但現在由於這層粉飾不再，以至於那個一直和基層群眾─尤其是弱勢者─有距離、又不擅長文宣與群眾造勢的國民黨，隨之原形畢露，在講究制度循規蹈矩的馬英九帶領下，選戰當然激不起熱情。更別提各部會不時凸槌出狀況，提供敵營做文章的好題材。
理性與感性，一個用腦袋，一個用心動情，呈現出來的效果當然差很多。但雙方各有長短，不能僅以一面斷勝負。
馬英九的政績無法激起熱情，然而，同樣的，蔡英文掀起的熱潮，卻也不能解答其兩岸政策要如何面對現實環境。群眾在三隻小豬上展現的熱情固然令人感動，可是真正冷靜檢視蔡英文的政見，尤其在兩岸政策方面，到底如何面對中國大陸、如何繼續進行兩岸協商、如何不讓現有交流合作中斷、如何處理一中立場，不要說沒有具體答案，也沒有明確的政策路線，除了描繪一廂情願的美好願景之外，其餘彷彿霧裡看花。
這場大選，是一場理性與感性的拉鋸，不少人用腦袋（或口袋）務實思考時，會覺得馬英九的政績值得延續，兩岸交流如果中斷相當可惜；但看到萬千小豬聲勢沖天、在群眾齊聲高呼時，頓時又熱血沸騰起來，理智算計全被拋到一邊。
其實，馬英九上次當選，也是拜感性之賜，當時許多人受夠了陳水扁的操作，把感情與希望投射到馬英九身上，才會讓族群背景屬於少數的馬英九當選。現在群眾的熱情已退，而政績可以說服人卻無法感動人，所以人氣略遜一籌。不過理性的票雖然沉默，未必少於感性，最後到底是感性的聲音大，還是理性的選票多，讓人屏息以待。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)