Denigrating Direct Links while Celebrating Three Mini-links: Tsai Ing-wen's Fundamental Contradiction
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2011
Summary: The two sides have now achieved comprehensive peace. They look forward to more win/win exchanges in the future. Even a minor setback could lead to significant losses. Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to overcome her biggest Achilles Heel during the last moments of her campaign. She is desperately attempting to prove that cross-Strait relations will remain peaceful even if she is elected. Ironically, her attempts to bind the Three Mini-links hand and foot failed. They could not prevent vitally important cross-strait exchanges.
Full Text Below:
History often surprises us, DPP leaders assumed the TaiMed corruption scandal was water under the bridge. Yet it became an albatross around their presidential candidate's neck. By contrast, when legislators from Kinmen and Matsu energetically promoted the Three Mini-links, the DPP want along reluctantly. Today however, Tsai Ing-wen is trumpeting it as one of her vanishingly few cross-Strait achievements. The DPP is now singing praises to the Three Mini-links. The DPP has consciously blanked out its former vilification of Direct Links. But the voters have not. From beginning to end, the DPP has flip-flopped on cross-Strait policy. It has been unable to unburden itself of its ideological baggage.
Twenty days before the election, Tsai Ing-wen made a special trip to Kinmen and issued a proclamation. She boasted that when she was Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, she overcame countless obstacles promoting the Three Mini-links. She lamented how she had to endure sexual innuendos such as "xiao san tong, tong xiao san." The reality is Blue Camp legislators from Kinmen and Matsu had to fight DPP legislators tooth and nail to pass the Three Mini-links. Now the DPP is actually trying to steal credit for their achievement. They cannot be happy about that.
Promoting the Three Mini-links required the "Offshore Development Regulations" as a legal basis. In March 2000, just before the DPP assumed power, legislators from Kinmen and Matsu joined forces and passed the Three Mini-links. The DPP regime may have promoted the Three Mini-links after it came to power, but only after binding it hand and foot. People from Taiwan could only invest in Mainland China with prior approval. Only veterans from Fujian could qualify for travel to and from the Mainland Region. Only in June 2008, after the Ma administration took office, did the program include both the Three Mini-links and "Three Mega-links" (i.e., Direct Links). Only then were the restrictions removed. Only then was everyone from the Taiwan Region permitted to travel to and from the Mainland Region. Only then could expanded cross-Strait exchanges take place.
The only reason the DPP was willing to promote the Three Mini-links, was that it was unwilling to promote cross-Strait Direct Flights. Under pressure from public opinion, it grudgingly consented to the Three Mini-links as an alternative. Some observers noted that the DPP was using the Three Mini-links to block Direct Links. Tsai Ing-wen now boasts that she championed the Three Mini-links. But when the DPP was in power, it imposed severe limitations on them. The DPP's underlying motive was to minimize contacts between people on the two sides, not to maximize their convenience.
This is how the DPP dealt with the Three Mini-links. Needless to say, the DPP's attitude toward Direct Links was far more hostile. During the 2008 presidential election, the DPP openly denounced cross-Strait Direct Flights, blaming them for hollowing out Taiwan's industry. According to WikiLeaks, on December 17, 2008, after the Ma administration officially inaugurated Direct Links, Tsai Ing-wen complained to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). She said "Direct Links will harm businesses and consumers on Taiwan. The huge influx of [Mainland] Chinese goods may cause many businesses on Taiwan to fail."
Now, three years after Direct Links were inaugurated, Tsai Ing-wen's predictions have been proven totally wrong. Businesses have not closed down as a result of Direct Links. Consumers have not been harmed by Mainland Chinese consumer goods. Just the opposite. Cross-strait Direct Flights have have saved people an inestimable amount of time and energy. They have reduced the cost of doing business. They have become an essential right.
Only in April of this year did Tsai Ing-wen belatedly repudiate her previously held opposition. Only then, during the DPP's presidential primary debate, did she proclaim that if the Democratic Progressive Party returned to power in 2008, it would continue to allow Direct Flights and continue to allow Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. The DPP violently opposed Direct Flights. Yet today Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to steal credit for them. In effect, she is rewriting the history of how Direct Flights came into existence.
How does Tsai Ing-wen compare to other DPP leaders? Frankly Tsai Ing-wen is so conservative in her outlook, she reeks of Cold War era "no contact, no negotiations, no compromise" sentiment. During her recent Kinmen proclamation, she went through the motions. She replicated Chen Shui-bian's "bold remarks" in Kinmen of 2002. But compare the substance. Chen Shui-bian actually proposed cross-Strait exchanges. He invited then Beijing leader Jiang Zemin to tea. Tsai Ing-wen by contrast, reluctantly agreed to severely hobbled Three Mini-links. Chen Shui-bian was actually more open-minded than Tsai Ing-wen.
Chen Shui-bian set forth his "Five Noes" and made his "bold remarks." He actually intended to promote cross-Strait reconciliation and a new cross-Strait scenario, But he was hijacked by Taiwan independence fundamentalists. He was unable to deliver. Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policies are actually more rigid than Chen's. When she was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, she prevented Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. When she became DPP chairman, she expelled DPP members who took part in exchanges between the KMT and the CCP. In 2009, she launched a public referendum opposing ECFA. She alleged that ECFA would force Taiwan to pay a painful economic and political price.
This is the real Tsai Ing-wen, a person sure to frighten away moderate and rational voters. Even Washington is concerned that if Tsai Ing-wen takes office, cross-Strait relations will become tense. This is why Tsai Ing-wen has been repeatedly fine-tuning her campaign message. For example, she has vowed to honor ECFA, even as she repudiates the 1992 Consensus. This is why during her trip to Kinmen the day before yesterday, she tried to pad her cross-Strait policy resume. She is desperate to prove that if she is elected, cross-Strait relations will not disintegrate.
The two sides have now achieved comprehensive peace. They look forward to more win/win exchanges in the future. Even a minor setback could lead to significant losses. Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to overcome her biggest Achilles Heel during the last moments of her campaign. She is desperately attempting to prove that cross-Strait relations will remain peaceful even if she is elected. Ironically, her attempts to bind the Three Mini-links hand and foot failed. They could not prevent vitally important cross-strait exchanges.
詆毀大三通 頌揚小三通 根本矛盾
2011-12-30中國時報
歷史的進展常常出人意料，當年讓民進黨人士看好的宇昌案，成為這次總統大選的包袱；相對的，當年因為金馬立委積極鼓吹，民進黨才勉強推動的小三通，竟成了蔡英文寥寥可數的兩岸政績；在頌揚小三通的同時，民進黨也許刻意遺忘他們當初如何詆毀大三通的，但選民卻不可能忘記，民進黨一路走來，在兩岸政策上左支右絀、無法擺脫意識形態包袱的窘境。
在大選前二十天，蔡英文專程跑到金門發表談話，自述當年擔任陸委會主委時、推動小三通過程的艱辛，還不惜講上「小三通，通三小」這樣的粗話，此言聽在當年和民進黨討價還價的金馬立委耳裡，即使不算是搶功，心中可能很不是滋味。
推動小三通所需要的法源依據《離島建設條例》，在民進黨上台前的二○○○年三月，由金馬立委及國民黨立委聯手表決通過；民進黨政府後來即使推動小三通，卻還是有諸多限制，只有經核准赴大陸投資台商、或福建籍榮民等，才能夠經「小三通」赴大陸地區；一直到馬政府上台的二○○○八年六月，推動擴大小三通方案，全面放寬台灣地區人民經「小三通」中轉大陸，進一步的兩岸交流才得以實現。
事實上，民進黨當初之所以願意推動小三通，正是因為不願推動兩岸直航，在民意的壓力下，不得不推出小三通作為替代品，有人形容這是用小三通杯葛大三通；因此，即使蔡英文自吹自擂的小三通，在民進黨執政時，還是劃地自限、以限制為出發點，而不是從人民的便利出發。
小三通如此，更別說民進黨對大三通的態度了。民進黨在二○○八年總統大選時，還直言兩岸直航會讓台灣產業空洞化，根據維基解密，馬政府正式開放三通直航後，蔡英文卻仍在二○○八年十二月十七日向美國在台協會（ＡＩＴ）抱怨說，「直航將傷害台灣的企業與消費者，大量中國物品湧入，可能讓台灣許多企業倒閉。」
開放三通已達三年的今天回顧，蔡英文當年的預判完全錯誤，不但沒有企業因為直航而倒閉，消費者沒有受中國物品之害，相反的，兩岸直航為人民省下舟車勞頓的辛勞、節省了經商往來的成本，直航儼然已成為人民的基本權益。
事實上，今年四月時蔡英文已經完全否定自己過去的主張，她在民進黨總統初選辯論時說，如果民進黨二○○八年贏得政權，也會開放兩岸直航及開放觀光客來台；觀諸民進黨過去歷歷在目的反直航主張，蔡英文的說法，幾乎等同於篡改一頁正在發生的歷史！
坦白說，即使和民進黨歷來領導人的表現比較，蔡英文都是保守到近乎冷戰時期「不接觸、不談判、不妥協」的三不心態，例如，她這次的「金門談話」，形式上要效法的正是二○○二年的陳水扁金門「大膽」談話；但是，就內容來看，當時的陳水扁拋出的是兩岸互訪、邀請當時的中共領導人江澤民喝茶、談天；蔡英文卻只是對民進黨時代綁手綁腳的小三通表功，相比起來，陳水扁的格局還比蔡英文大得多！
從四不一沒有到「大膽談話」，陳水扁當年確實有意推動兩岸和解新局，但後來卻受到綠營基本教義派綁架、無以為繼；蔡英文的兩岸意識形態，則一開始就比陳水扁還僵化，她在扁朝擔任陸委會主委時，曾經阻擋扁接受九二共識；擔任民進黨黨主席時，更將參加國共交流的民進黨員開除黨籍；到了二○○九年，她都還要發動公投反ＥＣＦＡ，並認為ＥＣＦＡ會讓台灣付出慘痛的經濟及政治代價。
這樣「原汁原味」的蔡英文，勢必會將中間或理性選民嚇得退避三舍，甚至連美國都擔心蔡英文上台後，兩岸關係可能再度緊張；也因此，在選舉過程中，蔡英文不斷的進行微調，例如，要持續ＥＣＦＡ、但不願接受九二共識；前天的金門之行，更是試圖以薄弱的兩岸政績，來證明她當選後，兩岸關係不會倒退。
但是，兩岸已經走到全面和平交流的今天，將來更期待能進一步互利互惠，退一步都可能造成重大損失；蔡英文要在選戰最後關頭，克服民進黨選舉的最大罩門、證明她上台後兩岸仍然能夠和平發展，很顯然，她當年綁手綁腳的小三通，是無法撐起這樣舉足輕重的兩岸關係的！
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Repudiating 1992 Consensus: Tsai Ing-wen Must Pull Back From the Abyss
Repudiating 1992 Consensus: Tsai Ing-wen Must Pull Back From the Abyss
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 28, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She even insists that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is apparently afraid that Beijing might recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is unwilling to see it happen. Therefore if she is elected president, she will not only undermine the 1992 Consensus as a basis for dialogue, she will make it difficult to reaffirm "one China, different interpretations." This is the folly of ramming one's head against a brick wall. She should realize she is hurtling toward an abyss and pull back on the reins.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She even insists that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is apparently afraid that Beijing might recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is unwilling to see it happen. Therefore if she is elected president, she will not only undermine the 1992 Consensus as a basis for dialogue, she will make it difficult to reaffirm "one China, different interpretations." This is the folly of ramming one's head against a brick wall. She should realize she is hurtling toward an abyss and pull back on the reins.
Actually, in recent months, Tsai Ing-wen has been stealthily leaning toward "one China, different interpretations." For example, she said "one China, different interpretations" could be included in any discussion of a "Taiwan consensus." She said that "The 1992 Consensus does not equal one China, different interpretations. If it did, why not simply refer to it as "one China, different interpretations." Why refer to it as the 1992 Consensus? These remarks suggest that if elected, she might attempt to return to "one China, different interpretations."
If Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she will still attempt to use her "cross-Strait dialogue working group" to remedy her rift with Beijing, She will also attempt to use to use her "stable economic dialogue group" to remedy the economic crisis, Therefore she must return to the source. the Constitution of the Republic of China, She must persuade Beijing to recognize "one China, different interpretations" in accordance with the one China Constitution. Otherwise Tsai Ing-wen will have no way out on the issue of cross-Strait relations.
The 1992 Consensus is important because it facilitates Taipei's advocacy and Beijing's acceptance of "one China, different interpretations." In recent years, the Ma administration has treated the 1992 Consensus and "one China, different interpretations" as a package deal. Its relentless efforts have convinced Beijing to "seek common ground while setting aside differences," and to adopt a posture of "mutual non-denial." Ma Ying-jeou has not been 100% successful in convincing Beijing to recognize "one China, different interpretations." Nevertheless he has made substantial progress.
One reason Tsai Ing-wen cites for refusing to recognize "one China, different interpretations," is that Beijing has yet to publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." Beijing's "seeking common ground while setting aside differences" may not equal "one China, different interpretations," at least not word for word. But it is extremely close to "one China, different interpretations." Besides, Tsai Ing-wen said only that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." More importantly, Beijing has never criticized or repudiated the Ma administration's repeated advocacy of "one China, different interpretations," and its assertion that "the term one China refers to the Republic of China." After all, so-called "different interpretations" could be considered either "mutual recognition" or "mutual non-denial."
Besides, Beijing has publicly acknowledged "one China, different interpretations." It did so on two important occasions. The first was during the March 2008 hotline exchange, when Hu Jintao told President Bush, "The Chinese Mainland and Taiwan will resume negotiations on the basis of the 1992 Consensus, This means that both sides recognize that there is only one China, but agree to interpret its meaning differently." The other was in May of this year, when Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi said, "Although the two sides have different understandings of the meaning of one China, we can nevertheless seek common ground, This is the essence of the 1992 Consensus."
Should Tsai Ing-wen advocate "one China, different interpretations?" Whether she should, and whether Beijing has publicly recognized "one China, different interpretations" are entirely different matters. Whether Beijing ought to recognize the Republic of China is one thing, Whether Tsai Ing-wen ought to recognize the Republic of China is another thing altogether. After all, if Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the Republic of China, how can she run for president of the Republic of China?
As we pointed out earlier, the Ma administration has repeatedly advocated "one China, different interpretations," and insisted that "the term one China refers to the Republic of China." Yet Beijing has neither criticized nor repudiated Ma's statements. Ma has gradually convinced Beijing to "seek common ground while setting aside differences," and to address the issue rationally. If Tsai Ing-wen is elected and refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, she will have to reaffirm the "one China Constitution" and "one China, different interpretations." Unless of course, she is deliberately using "one nation on each side" and "Taiwan independence" to provoke a showdown with Beijing. But will Beijing lightly permit Tsai Ing-wen to retreat to "one China, different interpretations" or the "one China Constitution?" Or will Beijing take advantage of the situation to pressure Tsai Ing-wen into accepting "one China" or the "one China principle?" Will it refuse to let her to cling to "one China, different interpretations?"
Tsai Ing-wen herself said that "Beijing does not recognize one China, different interpretations." If Beijing refuses to allow Tsai Ing-wen to retreat to "one China, different interpretations," would that be Tsai Ing-wen's intention?
Consider Tsai Ing-wen's plight. Beijing could refuse to let her adopt a "one China, different interpretations" stance. If she recognizes the 1992 Consensus before the election, she can avoid that risk. But if she repudiates the 1992 Consensus before the election, she will have no room to retreat after the election. Bejing could pressure her to accept the "one China principle." Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT have achieved a measure of trust with Beijing. They have convinced Beijing to accept "one China, different interpretations," "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, no use of force," and even the assertion that "one China refers to the Republic of China," But Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have not achieved the same measure of trust. They might not be able to do what Ma and the KMT have been able to do. In fact, we can say with absolute assurance that they will not be able to what Ma and the KMT have been able to do.
If Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she might destroy the 1992 Consensus as a means of "seeking common ground while setting aside differences." She must do everything possible to stabilize cross-Strait relations, Taiwan independence forces however, will not grant her much latitude. Beijing meanwhile, will adopt a two-pronged, carrot and stick, "listen to her words and look at her actions," strategy. It will be ready to touch Taipei's political and economic nerves. A newly elected President Tsai would be in a terrible dilemma. She would be beseiged from without and within. She would be unable to advance or retreat.
If Tsai Ing-wen is sufficiently deluded to lead the nation in the wrong direction, she will be beyond redemption. Does she truly not know she is hurtling toward an abyss? Does she truly not know she must pull back on the reins?
否定九二共識 蔡英文應懸崖勒馬
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.28 02:07 am
蔡英文非但否定「九二共識」，甚至屢指北京不承認「一中各表」，狀似深恐或不樂見北京承認「一中各表」；因而，她若當選總統，非但將失去「九二共識」的對話基礎，甚至也將很難回到「一中各表」的操作空間。這是推車撞壁的愚妄行徑，應當懸崖勒馬。
近月以來，蔡英文其實有偷偷向「一中各表」靠攏的跡象；包括她說「一中各表可以納入台灣共識的討論」，又說「九二共識不等於一中各表，如果是，那就叫一中各表好了，何必說是九二共識」。這些，皆是她在若當選後可能嘗試回到「一中各表」的伏筆。
蔡英文若當選，她倘欲以「兩岸工作對話小組」補救她與北京的裂痕，又欲以「安定經濟對話小組」挽救經濟危機，她就絕對必須回到原原本本、原汁原味的中華民國憲法，並根據「憲法一中」向北京爭取「一中各表」，捨此蔡英文在兩岸問題上絕無活路。
「九二共識」之所以非常重要，在於它能便利載送及發展「一中各表」。這幾年來，馬政府以「九二共識」挾帶「一中各表」，與北京纏、鬥、魯、拗，終於使北京走向「求同存異」，其實也就是將北京帶入了「互不否認」的架構；馬英九雖未使「一中各表」完全成功，但已見極其重大的成就。
蔡英文否定「一中各表」，理由之一是，中國未公開承認過「一中各表」。但北京的「求同存異」，即使不是與「一中各表」字字相同，卻已十分接近「一中各表」。何況，蔡英文只說，北京未承認「一中各表」，但更重要的，卻是北京迄今從未批駁或否認過馬政府反覆主張的「一中各表」，及「一個中國就是中華民國」。豈不知，所謂的「各表」，可以是「相互承認」，也可以是「互不否認」。
何況，北京並非沒有公開承認過「一中各表」。最重要的有兩次：一次在二○○八年三月的熱線電話中，胡錦濤向小布希說：「中國大陸和台灣將在九二共識的基礎上恢復談判，意即雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意其涵意各自表述。」另一次在今年五月，國台辦主任王毅說：「儘管對於一個中國的涵義，雙方認知不同，但我們可以求同存異，這是九二共識的精髓所在。」
尤其，蔡英文應否主張「一中各表」，其實與北京是否公開承認「一中各表」根本是兩回事。因為，北京未承認「中華民國」是一回事，蔡英文應承認「中華民國」卻是另一回事。否則，蔡英文若不承認「中華民國」，又怎能選中華民國總統？
前文指出，馬政府反覆主張「一中各表」及「一個中國就是中華民國」，非但未見北京批駁否認，且已漸將中共帶向「求同存異」；衡情論理，蔡英文若當選，又否定九二共識，除非她欲以「一邊一國」或「台獨」與北京攤牌對撞，不然，她也必須回到「憲法一中」及「一中各表」。但是，屆時北京會不會輕易讓蔡英文回到「一中各表」或「憲法一中」？會不會趁勢迫使蔡英文直接接受「一個中國」或「一個中國原則」，連「一中各表」的餘地都不給她？
因為，蔡英文自己說的，「北京不承認一中各表」；而北京屆時若不給蔡英文「一中各表」的空間，豈不亦正合蔡英文之本意？
就蔡英文的處境而言，她倘接受「九二共識」，在若當選後或可避免「求一中各表而不可得」的危境；但如今她刻意自毀「九二共識」的操作空間，卻必將毫無緩衝地面臨「一中原則」的直接壓力。以民進黨及蔡英文的兩岸信任度言，馬英九及國民黨如今做得到的，如「一中各表」、「不統／不獨／不武」、「一個中國就是中華民國」，未來民進黨及蔡英文未必能做得到，甚至可斷言絕對做不到。
可以想像，蔡英文若當選，又自毀了「九二共識」這個「求同存異」的操作利器，她一方面必須千方百計去穩定兩岸關係，另一方面台獨勢力又不容她讓步太大，而再一方面北京則發動「聽其言／觀其行」的軟硬兩手策略，隨時可以扯動台灣的政經神經；那將是怎樣一個焦頭爛額的「蔡總統」？那又將是如何一個內憂外患、進退失據的台灣？
若是自誤誤國至此地步，蔡英文恐是九死莫贖，豈能不懸崖勒馬？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 28, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She even insists that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is apparently afraid that Beijing might recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is unwilling to see it happen. Therefore if she is elected president, she will not only undermine the 1992 Consensus as a basis for dialogue, she will make it difficult to reaffirm "one China, different interpretations." This is the folly of ramming one's head against a brick wall. She should realize she is hurtling toward an abyss and pull back on the reins.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She even insists that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is apparently afraid that Beijing might recognize "one China, different interpretations." She is unwilling to see it happen. Therefore if she is elected president, she will not only undermine the 1992 Consensus as a basis for dialogue, she will make it difficult to reaffirm "one China, different interpretations." This is the folly of ramming one's head against a brick wall. She should realize she is hurtling toward an abyss and pull back on the reins.
Actually, in recent months, Tsai Ing-wen has been stealthily leaning toward "one China, different interpretations." For example, she said "one China, different interpretations" could be included in any discussion of a "Taiwan consensus." She said that "The 1992 Consensus does not equal one China, different interpretations. If it did, why not simply refer to it as "one China, different interpretations." Why refer to it as the 1992 Consensus? These remarks suggest that if elected, she might attempt to return to "one China, different interpretations."
If Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she will still attempt to use her "cross-Strait dialogue working group" to remedy her rift with Beijing, She will also attempt to use to use her "stable economic dialogue group" to remedy the economic crisis, Therefore she must return to the source. the Constitution of the Republic of China, She must persuade Beijing to recognize "one China, different interpretations" in accordance with the one China Constitution. Otherwise Tsai Ing-wen will have no way out on the issue of cross-Strait relations.
The 1992 Consensus is important because it facilitates Taipei's advocacy and Beijing's acceptance of "one China, different interpretations." In recent years, the Ma administration has treated the 1992 Consensus and "one China, different interpretations" as a package deal. Its relentless efforts have convinced Beijing to "seek common ground while setting aside differences," and to adopt a posture of "mutual non-denial." Ma Ying-jeou has not been 100% successful in convincing Beijing to recognize "one China, different interpretations." Nevertheless he has made substantial progress.
One reason Tsai Ing-wen cites for refusing to recognize "one China, different interpretations," is that Beijing has yet to publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." Beijing's "seeking common ground while setting aside differences" may not equal "one China, different interpretations," at least not word for word. But it is extremely close to "one China, different interpretations." Besides, Tsai Ing-wen said only that Beijing does not recognize "one China, different interpretations." More importantly, Beijing has never criticized or repudiated the Ma administration's repeated advocacy of "one China, different interpretations," and its assertion that "the term one China refers to the Republic of China." After all, so-called "different interpretations" could be considered either "mutual recognition" or "mutual non-denial."
Besides, Beijing has publicly acknowledged "one China, different interpretations." It did so on two important occasions. The first was during the March 2008 hotline exchange, when Hu Jintao told President Bush, "The Chinese Mainland and Taiwan will resume negotiations on the basis of the 1992 Consensus, This means that both sides recognize that there is only one China, but agree to interpret its meaning differently." The other was in May of this year, when Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi said, "Although the two sides have different understandings of the meaning of one China, we can nevertheless seek common ground, This is the essence of the 1992 Consensus."
Should Tsai Ing-wen advocate "one China, different interpretations?" Whether she should, and whether Beijing has publicly recognized "one China, different interpretations" are entirely different matters. Whether Beijing ought to recognize the Republic of China is one thing, Whether Tsai Ing-wen ought to recognize the Republic of China is another thing altogether. After all, if Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the Republic of China, how can she run for president of the Republic of China?
As we pointed out earlier, the Ma administration has repeatedly advocated "one China, different interpretations," and insisted that "the term one China refers to the Republic of China." Yet Beijing has neither criticized nor repudiated Ma's statements. Ma has gradually convinced Beijing to "seek common ground while setting aside differences," and to address the issue rationally. If Tsai Ing-wen is elected and refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, she will have to reaffirm the "one China Constitution" and "one China, different interpretations." Unless of course, she is deliberately using "one nation on each side" and "Taiwan independence" to provoke a showdown with Beijing. But will Beijing lightly permit Tsai Ing-wen to retreat to "one China, different interpretations" or the "one China Constitution?" Or will Beijing take advantage of the situation to pressure Tsai Ing-wen into accepting "one China" or the "one China principle?" Will it refuse to let her to cling to "one China, different interpretations?"
Tsai Ing-wen herself said that "Beijing does not recognize one China, different interpretations." If Beijing refuses to allow Tsai Ing-wen to retreat to "one China, different interpretations," would that be Tsai Ing-wen's intention?
Consider Tsai Ing-wen's plight. Beijing could refuse to let her adopt a "one China, different interpretations" stance. If she recognizes the 1992 Consensus before the election, she can avoid that risk. But if she repudiates the 1992 Consensus before the election, she will have no room to retreat after the election. Bejing could pressure her to accept the "one China principle." Ma Ying-jeou and the KMT have achieved a measure of trust with Beijing. They have convinced Beijing to accept "one China, different interpretations," "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, no use of force," and even the assertion that "one China refers to the Republic of China," But Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have not achieved the same measure of trust. They might not be able to do what Ma and the KMT have been able to do. In fact, we can say with absolute assurance that they will not be able to what Ma and the KMT have been able to do.
If Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she might destroy the 1992 Consensus as a means of "seeking common ground while setting aside differences." She must do everything possible to stabilize cross-Strait relations, Taiwan independence forces however, will not grant her much latitude. Beijing meanwhile, will adopt a two-pronged, carrot and stick, "listen to her words and look at her actions," strategy. It will be ready to touch Taipei's political and economic nerves. A newly elected President Tsai would be in a terrible dilemma. She would be beseiged from without and within. She would be unable to advance or retreat.
If Tsai Ing-wen is sufficiently deluded to lead the nation in the wrong direction, she will be beyond redemption. Does she truly not know she is hurtling toward an abyss? Does she truly not know she must pull back on the reins?
否定九二共識 蔡英文應懸崖勒馬
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.28 02:07 am
蔡英文非但否定「九二共識」，甚至屢指北京不承認「一中各表」，狀似深恐或不樂見北京承認「一中各表」；因而，她若當選總統，非但將失去「九二共識」的對話基礎，甚至也將很難回到「一中各表」的操作空間。這是推車撞壁的愚妄行徑，應當懸崖勒馬。
近月以來，蔡英文其實有偷偷向「一中各表」靠攏的跡象；包括她說「一中各表可以納入台灣共識的討論」，又說「九二共識不等於一中各表，如果是，那就叫一中各表好了，何必說是九二共識」。這些，皆是她在若當選後可能嘗試回到「一中各表」的伏筆。
蔡英文若當選，她倘欲以「兩岸工作對話小組」補救她與北京的裂痕，又欲以「安定經濟對話小組」挽救經濟危機，她就絕對必須回到原原本本、原汁原味的中華民國憲法，並根據「憲法一中」向北京爭取「一中各表」，捨此蔡英文在兩岸問題上絕無活路。
「九二共識」之所以非常重要，在於它能便利載送及發展「一中各表」。這幾年來，馬政府以「九二共識」挾帶「一中各表」，與北京纏、鬥、魯、拗，終於使北京走向「求同存異」，其實也就是將北京帶入了「互不否認」的架構；馬英九雖未使「一中各表」完全成功，但已見極其重大的成就。
蔡英文否定「一中各表」，理由之一是，中國未公開承認過「一中各表」。但北京的「求同存異」，即使不是與「一中各表」字字相同，卻已十分接近「一中各表」。何況，蔡英文只說，北京未承認「一中各表」，但更重要的，卻是北京迄今從未批駁或否認過馬政府反覆主張的「一中各表」，及「一個中國就是中華民國」。豈不知，所謂的「各表」，可以是「相互承認」，也可以是「互不否認」。
何況，北京並非沒有公開承認過「一中各表」。最重要的有兩次：一次在二○○八年三月的熱線電話中，胡錦濤向小布希說：「中國大陸和台灣將在九二共識的基礎上恢復談判，意即雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意其涵意各自表述。」另一次在今年五月，國台辦主任王毅說：「儘管對於一個中國的涵義，雙方認知不同，但我們可以求同存異，這是九二共識的精髓所在。」
尤其，蔡英文應否主張「一中各表」，其實與北京是否公開承認「一中各表」根本是兩回事。因為，北京未承認「中華民國」是一回事，蔡英文應承認「中華民國」卻是另一回事。否則，蔡英文若不承認「中華民國」，又怎能選中華民國總統？
前文指出，馬政府反覆主張「一中各表」及「一個中國就是中華民國」，非但未見北京批駁否認，且已漸將中共帶向「求同存異」；衡情論理，蔡英文若當選，又否定九二共識，除非她欲以「一邊一國」或「台獨」與北京攤牌對撞，不然，她也必須回到「憲法一中」及「一中各表」。但是，屆時北京會不會輕易讓蔡英文回到「一中各表」或「憲法一中」？會不會趁勢迫使蔡英文直接接受「一個中國」或「一個中國原則」，連「一中各表」的餘地都不給她？
因為，蔡英文自己說的，「北京不承認一中各表」；而北京屆時若不給蔡英文「一中各表」的空間，豈不亦正合蔡英文之本意？
就蔡英文的處境而言，她倘接受「九二共識」，在若當選後或可避免「求一中各表而不可得」的危境；但如今她刻意自毀「九二共識」的操作空間，卻必將毫無緩衝地面臨「一中原則」的直接壓力。以民進黨及蔡英文的兩岸信任度言，馬英九及國民黨如今做得到的，如「一中各表」、「不統／不獨／不武」、「一個中國就是中華民國」，未來民進黨及蔡英文未必能做得到，甚至可斷言絕對做不到。
可以想像，蔡英文若當選，又自毀了「九二共識」這個「求同存異」的操作利器，她一方面必須千方百計去穩定兩岸關係，另一方面台獨勢力又不容她讓步太大，而再一方面北京則發動「聽其言／觀其行」的軟硬兩手策略，隨時可以扯動台灣的政經神經；那將是怎樣一個焦頭爛額的「蔡總統」？那又將是如何一個內憂外患、進退失據的台灣？
若是自誤誤國至此地步，蔡英文恐是九死莫贖，豈能不懸崖勒馬？
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Blue and Green Camps Should Talk Vision
The Blue and Green Camps Should Talk Vision
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2011
Summary: Polling day is approaching. Blue vs. Green electioneering has turned to street fighting and hand to hand combat. The Two Yings can no longer maintain their former decorum. The debate now calls for relentlessly hitting the enemy where it hurts. The two camps are constantly testing out new election ploys. Attacks are being directed at the heart of the enemy camp with unprecedented frequency. The election campaign has everyone's nerves on edge.
Full Text Below:
Polling day is approaching. Blue vs. Green electioneering has turned to street fighting and hand to hand combat. The Two Yings can no longer maintain their former decorum. The debate now calls for relentlessly hitting the enemy where it hurts. The two camps are constantly testing out new election ploys. Attacks are being directed at the heart of the enemy camp with unprecedented frequency. The election campaign has everyone's nerves on edge.
Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong have participated in two presidential debates, one policy presentation, and one cultural issues Q&A. Wu Den-yih, Su Jia-chyuan, and Lin Ruey-shiung, the three vice presidential candidates, have participated in one vice presidential debate. Two more presidential policy presentations are planned. One more vice presidential policy presentation is planned.
The Taiwan Region of the Republic of China is geographically limited. The three campaigns have had plenty of opportunities to work the streets and the countryside, to hold rallies, and to speak their peace to voters. The president and vice president do not have much more to say. As a result, they merely present the same material, over and over again. It sometimes looks as if TaiMed and Fubon were running for Republic of China president. Voters want neither TaiMed nor Fubon. Nor do they want fortune tellers predicting the outcome of the election. They are deeply frustrated.
The Blue and Green camps are expending much effort gaining or maintaining the support of local bosses. Whenever they can, they pay visits to various and sundry elders, big shots, and professional organizations, beseeching them to step forward and support them. But really, what is the point? The Republic of China has undergone countless elections. The central government has undergone two ruling party changes. Local governments have gone from Blue to Green and back again. Voters are shrewder than ever. They are clearer than ever about what they want. Just how much influence do these "elders" still have? Just how much difference will gaining or maintaining their support make? What do voters really want? Isn't what they really want a ruling administration able to take care of them? Isn't what they really want a political leader who actually cares about them? What they don't want is politicians and political parties who work the crowds and spread money around only at election time.
Who are the politicians' most dependable, most powerful "local bosses?" Not the ward heelers who wine and dine them for a quid pro quo, but the people, ordinary men in the street. These are the politicians' real "local bosses." Politicians and political parties able to provide people with a better life will be the ones who win new voter support. Politicians and political parties able to bring peace and prosperity will be the ones who consolidate existing voter support.
The three presidential and vice presidential candidates have had many opportunities to address the public. Unfortunately, they used up most of that time denouncing each other, smearing each other. For supporters with firm convictions, "believers remain believers, unbelievers remain unbelievers." It is difficult to convert them to a different perspective.
Therefore searching for evidence and buying advertising is a waste of resources. During an election too many complex emotions are involved. Why not wait until the election is over, then allow the justice system to sort out the merits of their arguments? After all, it is less than 20 days before the election, No matter what conclusions one might reach, they are unlikely to quell the feelings of the masses.
Society on Taiwan is ruled by law. Why not allow scandals to be investigated by the justice system? Why must we fight over them tooth and nail, just before the general election? Who in the Blue and Green camps is willing to make the first concession, for the sake of the people? Who is willing to shelve past grievances, for the sake of the future? Only through sacrifices can one make gains.
Tsai Ing-wen once cast herself in the role of the real mother in the parable of King Solomon and the infant child. This provoked a wave of Blue Camp disdain. For both the KMT and the DPP, the real mother must be the hearts and minds of the people. They must care about social harmony and peace. They must be willing to allow controversial issues to die down. They must be willing to take a step back for the greater good.
The office of the president is responsible for the nation's economic development. Yet presidential candidates run around all day, wasting their time and energy. Their words and deeds should set an example for society. Yet all they do is denounce each other. Where leaders go, the public follows. No wonder society is increasingly cynical and violent. If the presidential and vice presidential candidates were more constructive in their choice of language, if they avoided naked intimidation and wild accusations, they might promote greater harmony within society.
If the candidates would sling a little less mud over the next ten days, if they would eschew empty rhetoric and ignorant rants, they might be able to enhance everyone's well-being. If so, would they still need to seek wisdom from sacred texts in Bhutan?
The election countdown has begun. Politicians are preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve. But have they thought about what kind of future we face?
If the Blue and Green camp presidential candidates are truly ready to fulfill the role of national leader, they should contemplate the challenge the future poses. They should already be in a compassionate state. Mere discretion is not enough. Where do they get the time and energy to make irresponsible remarks all day long?
Neither the TaiMed nor Fubon cases are Taiwan's most serious problem. There is no need to engage in shouting and name calling over them. Only 18 days remain til election day. Let the Blue and Green camps put the past behind them. Make room for the future. Get past petty grievances. Make room for greater possibilities.
別再罵了 藍綠應多談願景
2011-12-27中國時報
隨著投票日的接近，藍綠相關競選活動也進入了巷戰和肉搏戰，不但雙英都已經忍不住卸下一直以來勉力維持的溫和與禮儀，言談間直搗黃龍，辛辣、挑釁頻頻出招；兩個陣營也不斷嘗試「開發新市場」，深入敵營的行動之激烈、頻繁，前所未見，選情已陷入膠著、緊繃狀態。
馬英九、蔡英文與宋楚瑜三位總統候選人已經歷了兩次辯論會與一次公辦政見發表會，一次文化界提問會，吳敦義、蘇嘉全和林瑞雄三位副總統選人也已進行過一次辯論會，預計未來總統候選人還有兩次政見發表會，副總統候選人有一場政見發表會。
台灣幅員不算太大，三組人馬不停蹄地掃街、下鄉、造勢，直接面對選民發表政見、政策的機會實在太多了，總統和副總統似乎也沒有那麼多話可以說，結果，一百句不過就是五十雙，翻來覆去總是那些話題，看來好像這次是「宇昌」跟「富邦」在選中華民國總統；就算不想選「宇昌」也不想選「富邦」，但是，難道人民會想選「推背圖」嗎？真教人為難啊。
藍綠陣營花那麼多功夫拔樁、固樁，一有空就去拜訪這大老、那個重量級大人物，要各式各樣的專業團體出面相挺，到底意義何在？台灣已經歷了許多次選舉，中央都已政黨輪替過兩次，地方藍天綠地也翻過盤，人民愈來愈精明、愈來愈清楚自己要的是什麼，這些所謂的大老還有多少影響力？拔椿、固椿到底有多少的功效？到底人民要的是什麼？是能照顧民生的執政者，要的是真正在乎人民的政治領導人，不是那些到了選舉才去走透透、撒錢的政黨和政治人物。
所以，政治人物最紮實有力的「樁腳」是誰？不是那些藉著選舉吃香的、喝辣的、「待價而沽」的「選棍們」，而是人民，一個一個真實平凡的小市民，才是政治人物的樁腳，能提供人民更好生活的政黨、政治人物就可以拔樁，能夠帶來國泰民安的政黨與政治人物就能夠固樁。
這段時間以來，三組總統和副總統候選人有很多公開發言的機會，可惜的是，他們卻花了大部分的時間彼此指責、互相抹黑，這些議題對心中早有定見的支持者來說，的確是「信者恆信、不信者恆不信」，怎麼樣都很難被說服去相信「另一套版本」。
因此，政黨花再多力氣去找證據、登廣告，都是浪費資源；選舉摻雜了太多複雜的情緒，是非曲直何不在選後交由司法單位處理，畢竟，選前這一、二十天，不論得出個什麼結論來，都難以平息群眾的情緒。
台灣是個法治社會，有弊案疑慮，交由司法處理有何不可，何必一定要趕在大選時刻爭個你死我活？藍綠陣營，誰願意為台灣人民先放下心中委屈、誰願意為了台灣的未來暫時擱置過去的恩怨？要有捨才有得。
之前蔡英文曾以「所羅門王前真正的母親」自居，引起藍營一陣不屑。不論國民黨還是民進黨，真正的母親是以百姓的心為心，顧念的是社會和諧與安寧，因此會願意在這麼有爭議的議題上暫時偃旗息鼓，為百姓的福祉先退一步。
身為國家經濟建設最高首長，終日奔波翻查資料，人才浪費莫此為甚；總統級候選人一言一行本該為社會表率，卻總是互相指責，風行草偃，難怪社會風氣日益乖戾暴力；如果總統、副總統候選人在選舉用語和議題選擇上能更正面、積極，而不是尖酸刻薄、臆測恐嚇、信口開河，當可為社會增加不少溫暖的力量。
如果候選人在接下來的十幾天裡能少噴一點口水和墨汁，少講一點沒有營養、沒有知識又兼不衛生的話，台灣的幸福指數應該就可以增加不少了，又何須千里迢迢去不丹取經？
選舉已進入倒數計時，政治人物在熱鬧準備跨年活動的同時，是否認真想過我們將要面對的是一個什麼樣的未來？
如果藍綠總統候選人真的是準備好要做一個國家領導人，那麼，想到未來的挑戰，心情應該早已如同臨淵履薄，戰戰兢兢都不夠，怎麼還有那麼多工夫和心情整天說三道四？
宇昌也好、富邦也罷，這些都不是台灣的「國仇家恨」，沒必要讓人民因此整天對峙、叫囂、對罵。還有十八天，藍綠請快跟往事告別，留點時間給未來；擺脫怨懟，留點空間給願景。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2011
Summary: Polling day is approaching. Blue vs. Green electioneering has turned to street fighting and hand to hand combat. The Two Yings can no longer maintain their former decorum. The debate now calls for relentlessly hitting the enemy where it hurts. The two camps are constantly testing out new election ploys. Attacks are being directed at the heart of the enemy camp with unprecedented frequency. The election campaign has everyone's nerves on edge.
Full Text Below:
Polling day is approaching. Blue vs. Green electioneering has turned to street fighting and hand to hand combat. The Two Yings can no longer maintain their former decorum. The debate now calls for relentlessly hitting the enemy where it hurts. The two camps are constantly testing out new election ploys. Attacks are being directed at the heart of the enemy camp with unprecedented frequency. The election campaign has everyone's nerves on edge.
Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen, and James Soong have participated in two presidential debates, one policy presentation, and one cultural issues Q&A. Wu Den-yih, Su Jia-chyuan, and Lin Ruey-shiung, the three vice presidential candidates, have participated in one vice presidential debate. Two more presidential policy presentations are planned. One more vice presidential policy presentation is planned.
The Taiwan Region of the Republic of China is geographically limited. The three campaigns have had plenty of opportunities to work the streets and the countryside, to hold rallies, and to speak their peace to voters. The president and vice president do not have much more to say. As a result, they merely present the same material, over and over again. It sometimes looks as if TaiMed and Fubon were running for Republic of China president. Voters want neither TaiMed nor Fubon. Nor do they want fortune tellers predicting the outcome of the election. They are deeply frustrated.
The Blue and Green camps are expending much effort gaining or maintaining the support of local bosses. Whenever they can, they pay visits to various and sundry elders, big shots, and professional organizations, beseeching them to step forward and support them. But really, what is the point? The Republic of China has undergone countless elections. The central government has undergone two ruling party changes. Local governments have gone from Blue to Green and back again. Voters are shrewder than ever. They are clearer than ever about what they want. Just how much influence do these "elders" still have? Just how much difference will gaining or maintaining their support make? What do voters really want? Isn't what they really want a ruling administration able to take care of them? Isn't what they really want a political leader who actually cares about them? What they don't want is politicians and political parties who work the crowds and spread money around only at election time.
Who are the politicians' most dependable, most powerful "local bosses?" Not the ward heelers who wine and dine them for a quid pro quo, but the people, ordinary men in the street. These are the politicians' real "local bosses." Politicians and political parties able to provide people with a better life will be the ones who win new voter support. Politicians and political parties able to bring peace and prosperity will be the ones who consolidate existing voter support.
The three presidential and vice presidential candidates have had many opportunities to address the public. Unfortunately, they used up most of that time denouncing each other, smearing each other. For supporters with firm convictions, "believers remain believers, unbelievers remain unbelievers." It is difficult to convert them to a different perspective.
Therefore searching for evidence and buying advertising is a waste of resources. During an election too many complex emotions are involved. Why not wait until the election is over, then allow the justice system to sort out the merits of their arguments? After all, it is less than 20 days before the election, No matter what conclusions one might reach, they are unlikely to quell the feelings of the masses.
Society on Taiwan is ruled by law. Why not allow scandals to be investigated by the justice system? Why must we fight over them tooth and nail, just before the general election? Who in the Blue and Green camps is willing to make the first concession, for the sake of the people? Who is willing to shelve past grievances, for the sake of the future? Only through sacrifices can one make gains.
Tsai Ing-wen once cast herself in the role of the real mother in the parable of King Solomon and the infant child. This provoked a wave of Blue Camp disdain. For both the KMT and the DPP, the real mother must be the hearts and minds of the people. They must care about social harmony and peace. They must be willing to allow controversial issues to die down. They must be willing to take a step back for the greater good.
The office of the president is responsible for the nation's economic development. Yet presidential candidates run around all day, wasting their time and energy. Their words and deeds should set an example for society. Yet all they do is denounce each other. Where leaders go, the public follows. No wonder society is increasingly cynical and violent. If the presidential and vice presidential candidates were more constructive in their choice of language, if they avoided naked intimidation and wild accusations, they might promote greater harmony within society.
If the candidates would sling a little less mud over the next ten days, if they would eschew empty rhetoric and ignorant rants, they might be able to enhance everyone's well-being. If so, would they still need to seek wisdom from sacred texts in Bhutan?
The election countdown has begun. Politicians are preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve. But have they thought about what kind of future we face?
If the Blue and Green camp presidential candidates are truly ready to fulfill the role of national leader, they should contemplate the challenge the future poses. They should already be in a compassionate state. Mere discretion is not enough. Where do they get the time and energy to make irresponsible remarks all day long?
Neither the TaiMed nor Fubon cases are Taiwan's most serious problem. There is no need to engage in shouting and name calling over them. Only 18 days remain til election day. Let the Blue and Green camps put the past behind them. Make room for the future. Get past petty grievances. Make room for greater possibilities.
別再罵了 藍綠應多談願景
2011-12-27中國時報
隨著投票日的接近，藍綠相關競選活動也進入了巷戰和肉搏戰，不但雙英都已經忍不住卸下一直以來勉力維持的溫和與禮儀，言談間直搗黃龍，辛辣、挑釁頻頻出招；兩個陣營也不斷嘗試「開發新市場」，深入敵營的行動之激烈、頻繁，前所未見，選情已陷入膠著、緊繃狀態。
馬英九、蔡英文與宋楚瑜三位總統候選人已經歷了兩次辯論會與一次公辦政見發表會，一次文化界提問會，吳敦義、蘇嘉全和林瑞雄三位副總統選人也已進行過一次辯論會，預計未來總統候選人還有兩次政見發表會，副總統候選人有一場政見發表會。
台灣幅員不算太大，三組人馬不停蹄地掃街、下鄉、造勢，直接面對選民發表政見、政策的機會實在太多了，總統和副總統似乎也沒有那麼多話可以說，結果，一百句不過就是五十雙，翻來覆去總是那些話題，看來好像這次是「宇昌」跟「富邦」在選中華民國總統；就算不想選「宇昌」也不想選「富邦」，但是，難道人民會想選「推背圖」嗎？真教人為難啊。
藍綠陣營花那麼多功夫拔樁、固樁，一有空就去拜訪這大老、那個重量級大人物，要各式各樣的專業團體出面相挺，到底意義何在？台灣已經歷了許多次選舉，中央都已政黨輪替過兩次，地方藍天綠地也翻過盤，人民愈來愈精明、愈來愈清楚自己要的是什麼，這些所謂的大老還有多少影響力？拔椿、固椿到底有多少的功效？到底人民要的是什麼？是能照顧民生的執政者，要的是真正在乎人民的政治領導人，不是那些到了選舉才去走透透、撒錢的政黨和政治人物。
所以，政治人物最紮實有力的「樁腳」是誰？不是那些藉著選舉吃香的、喝辣的、「待價而沽」的「選棍們」，而是人民，一個一個真實平凡的小市民，才是政治人物的樁腳，能提供人民更好生活的政黨、政治人物就可以拔樁，能夠帶來國泰民安的政黨與政治人物就能夠固樁。
這段時間以來，三組總統和副總統候選人有很多公開發言的機會，可惜的是，他們卻花了大部分的時間彼此指責、互相抹黑，這些議題對心中早有定見的支持者來說，的確是「信者恆信、不信者恆不信」，怎麼樣都很難被說服去相信「另一套版本」。
因此，政黨花再多力氣去找證據、登廣告，都是浪費資源；選舉摻雜了太多複雜的情緒，是非曲直何不在選後交由司法單位處理，畢竟，選前這一、二十天，不論得出個什麼結論來，都難以平息群眾的情緒。
台灣是個法治社會，有弊案疑慮，交由司法處理有何不可，何必一定要趕在大選時刻爭個你死我活？藍綠陣營，誰願意為台灣人民先放下心中委屈、誰願意為了台灣的未來暫時擱置過去的恩怨？要有捨才有得。
之前蔡英文曾以「所羅門王前真正的母親」自居，引起藍營一陣不屑。不論國民黨還是民進黨，真正的母親是以百姓的心為心，顧念的是社會和諧與安寧，因此會願意在這麼有爭議的議題上暫時偃旗息鼓，為百姓的福祉先退一步。
身為國家經濟建設最高首長，終日奔波翻查資料，人才浪費莫此為甚；總統級候選人一言一行本該為社會表率，卻總是互相指責，風行草偃，難怪社會風氣日益乖戾暴力；如果總統、副總統候選人在選舉用語和議題選擇上能更正面、積極，而不是尖酸刻薄、臆測恐嚇、信口開河，當可為社會增加不少溫暖的力量。
如果候選人在接下來的十幾天裡能少噴一點口水和墨汁，少講一點沒有營養、沒有知識又兼不衛生的話，台灣的幸福指數應該就可以增加不少了，又何須千里迢迢去不丹取經？
選舉已進入倒數計時，政治人物在熱鬧準備跨年活動的同時，是否認真想過我們將要面對的是一個什麼樣的未來？
如果藍綠總統候選人真的是準備好要做一個國家領導人，那麼，想到未來的挑戰，心情應該早已如同臨淵履薄，戰戰兢兢都不夠，怎麼還有那麼多工夫和心情整天說三道四？
宇昌也好、富邦也罷，這些都不是台灣的「國仇家恨」，沒必要讓人民因此整天對峙、叫囂、對罵。還有十八天，藍綠請快跟往事告別，留點時間給未來；擺脫怨懟，留點空間給願景。
Monday, December 26, 2011
People with Money vs. the People of Taiwan: Orwellian Newspeak
People with Money vs. the People of Taiwan: Orwellian Newspeak
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2011
Summary: A number of entrepreneurs have publicly expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. Since then Tsai Ing-wen has added a new slogan to her campaign. She now says that "Ma Ying-jeou is surrounded people with money. Tsai Ing-wen is surrounded by the people of Taiwan." Such sophistry is highly inappropriate. Such a linguistic formulation amounts to Orwellian Newspeak.
Full Text Below:
A number of entrepreneurs have publicly expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. Since then Tsai Ing-wen has added a new slogan to her campaign. She now says that "Ma Ying-jeou is surrounded people with money. Tsai Ing-wen is surrounded by the people of Taiwan." Such sophistry is highly inappropriate. Such a linguistic formulation amounts to Orwellian Newspeak.
Tsai Ing-wen is deliberately characterizing the entrepreneurs who support Ma Ying-jeou negatively, as "people with money," rather than affirmatively, as "entrepreneurs." She hopes to create an artificial dichotomy by characterizing those who support her as the "people of Taiwan." She is clearly using "people with money" as a term of opprobium. She is clearly attempting to incite class antagonisms between the bourgeoisie ("people with money") and the proletariat ("the common people"). She even added the phrase, "the people of Taiwan," in an attempt to incite antagonism between "people with money" (who "invest in the Mainland") and "people who lay down roots on Taiwan." She disguises her incitement of "ethnic" (social) antagonism by characterizing "people with money" as people who engage in land speculation, political cronyism, and who enjoy economic privilege.
But are Tsai Ing-wen's characterizations accurate? Are they fair?
Before Tsai Ing-wen made her remarks, a number of entrepreneurs spoke out, publicly expressing support for Ma Ying-jeou. They include Hong Hai's Terry Gou, Delta's Bruce Cheng, and Yulong's Kenneth K.T. Yen. These men do fit the definition of "people with money" completely, But they are obviously not the same "people with money" that Tsai Ing-wen referred to. Terry Gou pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He single-handedly built the largest manufacturing company on Taiwan. His foundries are among the best in the global electronics industry. He provides jobs for 800,000 employees the world over. Britain's Economist magazine lists him as one of the world's top ten employers. Terry Gou runs a tight ship. Some have called him "tyrannical." But he is totally dedicated. He is a rare kind of workaholic. He built a vast business empire. As a result Forbes magazine has listed him repeatedly as the richest man on Taiwan. But he has never engaged in real estate or land speculation. Still less has he ever played the stock market. In 2007 he donated 15 billion dollars to the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. He set a record for the largest corporate donation to the hospital in history. In 2008, he announced that he would donate 90% of his wealth to charitable causes. At the time he was worth an estimated 30 billion dollars. Today he is worth over 100 billion dollars.
Delta is a world-class component supplier. The components it produces are widely used in a variety of industries. Bruce Cheng is a veteran domestic entrepreneur. Within the domestic business world, he is its most environmentally conscious member. He has endowed schools and universities. He has provided aid to students. Delta has received numerous awards for corporate responsibility. During its early years, Kenneth K.T. Yen's Yulon Group was a state owned enterprise. Back then the government's policy was to protect national industries. But the automotive market was eventually decontrolled. The company soon reached its nadir. Kenneth Yen was not yet 30 when the company fell into his lap. He dived in. He restructured and expanded the company. Eventually Yulon returned to life. This bit of history is known among business leaders, as the "young master's revitalization." The Yulon Group has long-term commitments to support domestic basketball, child care for Aboriginal children, and other public welfare activities. The Yulon Group's "Wu Shun-wen News Award" is the ROC's counterpart to America's Pulitzer Prize.
The success that these entrepreneurs enjoy today, their accumulated wealth, is not the result of government/business collusion or economic privilege. Instead it is the result of their own efforts In a highly competitive domestic and international marketplace. After achieving success in business, they devoted themselves to contributing to society. These publicly respected entrepreneurs have declared their support for Ma Ying-jeou. What is shameful about that? What is wrong with that? Yet Tsai Ing-wen, through a single devious insinuation about "people with money," has tarred these entrepreneurs as robber barons. She has demonized these entrepreneurs, merely because they expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. She has successfully manipulated the language. But she has done so in a highly unethical fashion.
What's even more absurd, is the fact that Tsai Ing-wen is also seeking support from "people with money." She is also seeking to convey the impression that industry leaders support Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen has set off on a five-day tour of various industries. She has received support from several technology companies and traditional companies. They have also come forward to offer their support. Are these company chairmen, general managers, and board directors paupers? Are they not "people with money?" Are entrepreneurs who support Ma the only ones who must fear being portrayed negatively as "people with money?" Are entrepreneurs who support Tsai the only "bona fide entrepreneurs?" Such definitions and distinctions are based purely on who supports whom. Is this right? Is this justified?
At least the entrepreneurs who support Ma have never had any private business dealings with the Ma family, At least the Ma family has never profited from these "people with money." That is hardly the case with Tsai Ing-wen in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Conclusive evidence has surfaced proving that the Tsai family profited through its connections with "people with money." They include Ying Yan-liang of the Ruentex Group, through whom Tsai Ing-wen pocketed over one billion dollars. Are there really no "people with money" on Tsai's side?
The entrepreneurs mentioned support Ma and not Tsai because the DPP's policies are far from reassuring, The DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Therefore a DPP victory would lead once again to cross-Strait deadlock, The benefits derived from three years of consultations would be greatly diminished or disappear altogether. Based on today's economic situation, next year's global trends, this means heavy losses for Taiwan's economy. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen should think about these problems, instead of about how to manipulate the language.
有錢人vs.台灣人民 是惡質語言操弄
2011-12-26中國時報
自幾位企業家公開表態支持馬英九後，蔡英文的競選詞語多了一項：「站在馬英九身邊的盡是有錢人，站在蔡英文身邊的則是台灣人民。」，對於這種說法，我們認為是一種極不恰當的語言操弄。
蔡英文刻意把支持馬英九的企業家，捨棄較正面的「企業家」一詞，而以「有錢人」三個字形容，來相對於她形容支持她的「台灣人民」對立起來，顯然把「有錢人」作為負面字眼形容；明著的意思當然是一種階級對立─資產階級（有錢人）與無產階級（一般庶民）的對立；而特別加上「台灣人民」，又把「到大陸投資」的「有錢人」與生根台灣的人民對立起來，它也同時隱含著族群的對立。其中更隱藏讓民眾聯想到過去那些藉著炒作地皮、官商勾結、經濟特權，而攢下一桶桶黃金的「有錢人」。
蔡英文的這種語言文字的隱喻，正確嗎？公平嗎？
在蔡英文講出這番話前公開表態支持馬英九的企業家，包括鴻海郭台銘、台達電鄭崇華、裕隆嚴凱泰等，百分之百合於「有錢人」的定義，但顯然不是蔡英文要隱喻暗示的「那種有錢人」。郭台銘白手起家，一手打造出台灣最大的製造業企業，在全球電子產業代工廠中也名列前茅；其在全球所雇用的員工數有八十萬人，被英國經學人雜誌列為全球前十大雇主。郭台銘治軍嚴謹，被評為「霸道」，但他全力投入工作，堪稱少見的工作狂。他打造的龐大事業，讓他多次成為富比世雜誌評選的台灣首富。但他從來不碰房地產與土地、更不炒作股票玩金錢遊戲。二○○七年，他捐出一五○億元給台大醫學院，創下全球企業對醫院最大的一筆捐贈；二○○八年，他宣布要捐出九成的財產（當年價值估計約三百億，今日估則超過千億元）從事公益。
台達電是世界級零組件產品供應商，所生產之零組件產品廣泛應用於各產業。鄭崇華則是國內元老級企業家，也是國內企業界中，最重視環保的企業家；他持續對各教育單位與大學捐贈，嘉惠學子，台達電更曾因善盡企業的社會責任而多次得獎。嚴凱泰的裕隆汽車集團，雖然早年曾在政府扶植民族工業政策下得到保護，但在汽車市場開放後即失去保護傘，使企業一度陷入低潮。嚴凱泰不到三十歲接班，全力投入整頓企業與發展，最後終於讓裕隆重振雄風，這段過程被企業界稱為「少主中興」。裕隆集團也長期投入支持國內籃球運動、關懷原住民孩童等公益活動；其集團的「吳舜文新聞獎」更是國內新聞界的標竿。
這些企業家成就今日的事業、累積了財富，靠的不是搞官商勾結、特權經濟，而是靠著自身努力，在競爭激烈的國內外市場中脫穎而出；他們事業成功後也不忘回饋社會。馬英九得到這些社會形象正面的企業家表態支持，不知那裡丟臉、又何錯之有？但蔡英文巧妙的一句「有錢人」的隱喻，把這些企業家都打成奸商、連帶讓得到其表態支持的馬英九變成失分─這是成功的語言文字操控，但卻極不道德。
更可笑的是蔡英文也同樣在爭取「有錢人」的支持。為營造產業界也挺蔡的形象，蔡英文展開一連五天的產業之旅，也得到一些科技、傳統產業企業的支持，出面表態支持者同樣有企業的董事長、總經理。難道，這些董、總座「很窮」、不是「有錢人」？或是，企業家挺馬後就變成是充滿負面隱喻的「有錢人」，挺蔡的才是純正的「企業家」？這個定義與分野，純然以挺誰為分類標準，這樣對嗎？說不過去吧？
甚至，我們可以說，那些挺馬的企業家，可沒誰與馬家有私人生意交易，馬家可沒由這些「有錢人」身上獲取家族利益；但蔡在宇昌案中，可是與「有錢人」潤泰集團尹衍樑有證據確鑿的「家族生意交易」，而且獲利一千多萬元。蔡的身邊沒有「有錢人」嗎？
其實，這些企業家挺馬不挺蔡，最重要的原因是對民進黨的兩岸政策不放心，因為民進黨不承認九二共識，將讓兩岸再陷僵局，過去三年的協商成果即使不化為烏有，也會大打折扣；以兩岸目前經濟格局與明年全球經濟大勢看，這將會對台灣經濟造成重創。或許，這才是蔡英文該好好思考的地方，而不是耍弄語言文字。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2011
Summary: A number of entrepreneurs have publicly expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. Since then Tsai Ing-wen has added a new slogan to her campaign. She now says that "Ma Ying-jeou is surrounded people with money. Tsai Ing-wen is surrounded by the people of Taiwan." Such sophistry is highly inappropriate. Such a linguistic formulation amounts to Orwellian Newspeak.
Full Text Below:
A number of entrepreneurs have publicly expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. Since then Tsai Ing-wen has added a new slogan to her campaign. She now says that "Ma Ying-jeou is surrounded people with money. Tsai Ing-wen is surrounded by the people of Taiwan." Such sophistry is highly inappropriate. Such a linguistic formulation amounts to Orwellian Newspeak.
Tsai Ing-wen is deliberately characterizing the entrepreneurs who support Ma Ying-jeou negatively, as "people with money," rather than affirmatively, as "entrepreneurs." She hopes to create an artificial dichotomy by characterizing those who support her as the "people of Taiwan." She is clearly using "people with money" as a term of opprobium. She is clearly attempting to incite class antagonisms between the bourgeoisie ("people with money") and the proletariat ("the common people"). She even added the phrase, "the people of Taiwan," in an attempt to incite antagonism between "people with money" (who "invest in the Mainland") and "people who lay down roots on Taiwan." She disguises her incitement of "ethnic" (social) antagonism by characterizing "people with money" as people who engage in land speculation, political cronyism, and who enjoy economic privilege.
But are Tsai Ing-wen's characterizations accurate? Are they fair?
Before Tsai Ing-wen made her remarks, a number of entrepreneurs spoke out, publicly expressing support for Ma Ying-jeou. They include Hong Hai's Terry Gou, Delta's Bruce Cheng, and Yulong's Kenneth K.T. Yen. These men do fit the definition of "people with money" completely, But they are obviously not the same "people with money" that Tsai Ing-wen referred to. Terry Gou pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He single-handedly built the largest manufacturing company on Taiwan. His foundries are among the best in the global electronics industry. He provides jobs for 800,000 employees the world over. Britain's Economist magazine lists him as one of the world's top ten employers. Terry Gou runs a tight ship. Some have called him "tyrannical." But he is totally dedicated. He is a rare kind of workaholic. He built a vast business empire. As a result Forbes magazine has listed him repeatedly as the richest man on Taiwan. But he has never engaged in real estate or land speculation. Still less has he ever played the stock market. In 2007 he donated 15 billion dollars to the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. He set a record for the largest corporate donation to the hospital in history. In 2008, he announced that he would donate 90% of his wealth to charitable causes. At the time he was worth an estimated 30 billion dollars. Today he is worth over 100 billion dollars.
Delta is a world-class component supplier. The components it produces are widely used in a variety of industries. Bruce Cheng is a veteran domestic entrepreneur. Within the domestic business world, he is its most environmentally conscious member. He has endowed schools and universities. He has provided aid to students. Delta has received numerous awards for corporate responsibility. During its early years, Kenneth K.T. Yen's Yulon Group was a state owned enterprise. Back then the government's policy was to protect national industries. But the automotive market was eventually decontrolled. The company soon reached its nadir. Kenneth Yen was not yet 30 when the company fell into his lap. He dived in. He restructured and expanded the company. Eventually Yulon returned to life. This bit of history is known among business leaders, as the "young master's revitalization." The Yulon Group has long-term commitments to support domestic basketball, child care for Aboriginal children, and other public welfare activities. The Yulon Group's "Wu Shun-wen News Award" is the ROC's counterpart to America's Pulitzer Prize.
The success that these entrepreneurs enjoy today, their accumulated wealth, is not the result of government/business collusion or economic privilege. Instead it is the result of their own efforts In a highly competitive domestic and international marketplace. After achieving success in business, they devoted themselves to contributing to society. These publicly respected entrepreneurs have declared their support for Ma Ying-jeou. What is shameful about that? What is wrong with that? Yet Tsai Ing-wen, through a single devious insinuation about "people with money," has tarred these entrepreneurs as robber barons. She has demonized these entrepreneurs, merely because they expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. She has successfully manipulated the language. But she has done so in a highly unethical fashion.
What's even more absurd, is the fact that Tsai Ing-wen is also seeking support from "people with money." She is also seeking to convey the impression that industry leaders support Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai Ing-wen has set off on a five-day tour of various industries. She has received support from several technology companies and traditional companies. They have also come forward to offer their support. Are these company chairmen, general managers, and board directors paupers? Are they not "people with money?" Are entrepreneurs who support Ma the only ones who must fear being portrayed negatively as "people with money?" Are entrepreneurs who support Tsai the only "bona fide entrepreneurs?" Such definitions and distinctions are based purely on who supports whom. Is this right? Is this justified?
At least the entrepreneurs who support Ma have never had any private business dealings with the Ma family, At least the Ma family has never profited from these "people with money." That is hardly the case with Tsai Ing-wen in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Conclusive evidence has surfaced proving that the Tsai family profited through its connections with "people with money." They include Ying Yan-liang of the Ruentex Group, through whom Tsai Ing-wen pocketed over one billion dollars. Are there really no "people with money" on Tsai's side?
The entrepreneurs mentioned support Ma and not Tsai because the DPP's policies are far from reassuring, The DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Therefore a DPP victory would lead once again to cross-Strait deadlock, The benefits derived from three years of consultations would be greatly diminished or disappear altogether. Based on today's economic situation, next year's global trends, this means heavy losses for Taiwan's economy. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen should think about these problems, instead of about how to manipulate the language.
有錢人vs.台灣人民 是惡質語言操弄
2011-12-26中國時報
自幾位企業家公開表態支持馬英九後，蔡英文的競選詞語多了一項：「站在馬英九身邊的盡是有錢人，站在蔡英文身邊的則是台灣人民。」，對於這種說法，我們認為是一種極不恰當的語言操弄。
蔡英文刻意把支持馬英九的企業家，捨棄較正面的「企業家」一詞，而以「有錢人」三個字形容，來相對於她形容支持她的「台灣人民」對立起來，顯然把「有錢人」作為負面字眼形容；明著的意思當然是一種階級對立─資產階級（有錢人）與無產階級（一般庶民）的對立；而特別加上「台灣人民」，又把「到大陸投資」的「有錢人」與生根台灣的人民對立起來，它也同時隱含著族群的對立。其中更隱藏讓民眾聯想到過去那些藉著炒作地皮、官商勾結、經濟特權，而攢下一桶桶黃金的「有錢人」。
蔡英文的這種語言文字的隱喻，正確嗎？公平嗎？
在蔡英文講出這番話前公開表態支持馬英九的企業家，包括鴻海郭台銘、台達電鄭崇華、裕隆嚴凱泰等，百分之百合於「有錢人」的定義，但顯然不是蔡英文要隱喻暗示的「那種有錢人」。郭台銘白手起家，一手打造出台灣最大的製造業企業，在全球電子產業代工廠中也名列前茅；其在全球所雇用的員工數有八十萬人，被英國經學人雜誌列為全球前十大雇主。郭台銘治軍嚴謹，被評為「霸道」，但他全力投入工作，堪稱少見的工作狂。他打造的龐大事業，讓他多次成為富比世雜誌評選的台灣首富。但他從來不碰房地產與土地、更不炒作股票玩金錢遊戲。二○○七年，他捐出一五○億元給台大醫學院，創下全球企業對醫院最大的一筆捐贈；二○○八年，他宣布要捐出九成的財產（當年價值估計約三百億，今日估則超過千億元）從事公益。
台達電是世界級零組件產品供應商，所生產之零組件產品廣泛應用於各產業。鄭崇華則是國內元老級企業家，也是國內企業界中，最重視環保的企業家；他持續對各教育單位與大學捐贈，嘉惠學子，台達電更曾因善盡企業的社會責任而多次得獎。嚴凱泰的裕隆汽車集團，雖然早年曾在政府扶植民族工業政策下得到保護，但在汽車市場開放後即失去保護傘，使企業一度陷入低潮。嚴凱泰不到三十歲接班，全力投入整頓企業與發展，最後終於讓裕隆重振雄風，這段過程被企業界稱為「少主中興」。裕隆集團也長期投入支持國內籃球運動、關懷原住民孩童等公益活動；其集團的「吳舜文新聞獎」更是國內新聞界的標竿。
這些企業家成就今日的事業、累積了財富，靠的不是搞官商勾結、特權經濟，而是靠著自身努力，在競爭激烈的國內外市場中脫穎而出；他們事業成功後也不忘回饋社會。馬英九得到這些社會形象正面的企業家表態支持，不知那裡丟臉、又何錯之有？但蔡英文巧妙的一句「有錢人」的隱喻，把這些企業家都打成奸商、連帶讓得到其表態支持的馬英九變成失分─這是成功的語言文字操控，但卻極不道德。
更可笑的是蔡英文也同樣在爭取「有錢人」的支持。為營造產業界也挺蔡的形象，蔡英文展開一連五天的產業之旅，也得到一些科技、傳統產業企業的支持，出面表態支持者同樣有企業的董事長、總經理。難道，這些董、總座「很窮」、不是「有錢人」？或是，企業家挺馬後就變成是充滿負面隱喻的「有錢人」，挺蔡的才是純正的「企業家」？這個定義與分野，純然以挺誰為分類標準，這樣對嗎？說不過去吧？
甚至，我們可以說，那些挺馬的企業家，可沒誰與馬家有私人生意交易，馬家可沒由這些「有錢人」身上獲取家族利益；但蔡在宇昌案中，可是與「有錢人」潤泰集團尹衍樑有證據確鑿的「家族生意交易」，而且獲利一千多萬元。蔡的身邊沒有「有錢人」嗎？
其實，這些企業家挺馬不挺蔡，最重要的原因是對民進黨的兩岸政策不放心，因為民進黨不承認九二共識，將讓兩岸再陷僵局，過去三年的協商成果即使不化為烏有，也會大打折扣；以兩岸目前經濟格局與明年全球經濟大勢看，這將會對台灣經濟造成重創。或許，這才是蔡英文該好好思考的地方，而不是耍弄語言文字。
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Republic of China Passports Now Visa-Free: Taipei Washington Relations Improve Yet Again
Republic of China Passports Now Visa-Free: Taipei Washington Relations Improve Yet Again
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 23, 2011
Summary: Citizens must be fair in their evaluation of political leaders. The facts show Ma Ying-jeou has improved, not worsened cross-strait relations. He has created opportunities, not erected obstacles. President Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policies have improved the status quo. They have enhanced cross-Strait interaction. They have enabled the two sides to work together to create a better future with richer possibilities.
Full Text Below:
Yesterday American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Acting Director Eric H. Madison announced that the Republic of China is officially a candidate for the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. He said the Republic of China has made great social and political progress in recent years, as indicated by its economic progress. The rejection rate for Republic of China passport holders applying for visas to the United States fell to only 1.9% last year. The proportion of overstayers in the United States was even lower. Foreign Minister Yang Jin-tian responded. He said this shows that Republic of China passport security, visa rejection rates, border controls, and information sharing, all meet the requirements for visa-free treatment. He said Taipei/Washington relations will take another step forward as a result of this. This is just a major milestone for Taipei/Washington relations. It is also a major breakthrough with epoch-making significance for the Republic of China's international status and foreign relations.
Over the past few years, Republic of China citizens traveling abroad have been the recipients of much good news. In the past, Republic of China passport holders often endured discrimination. Foreign governments made things difficult for them. Now they enjoy visa-free treatment from over a hundred countries, Including the EU, Great Britain, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and now, the United States, Republic of China citizens are now free to visit every major country they wish. Republic of China citizens can visit most countries on the world map, without first applying for a visa. .
This is a consequence of the Republic of China's economic strength. Our passport security technology is good, Our citizens are civilized. This makes other countries welcome them. But there is another important reason that cannot be denied. In the eyes of the international community, improved cross-Strait relations have reduced tensions between Taipei and Beijing. This has enabled other countries to develop relations with Taipei. They need no longer fear a backlash from Beijing. Over the past four years, President Ma Ying-jeou has successfully promoted cross-Strait reconciliation and implemented a diplomatic truce. For the Republic of China, this has opened the gates to the international community, These changes are obvious and far-reaching, They will be part of Ma's historical legacy.
Republic of China citizens have received much good news regarding visas. There have also been many breakthroughs for the Republic of China's participation in the international community. We can now participate in the WHA as an observer. Former Vice President Lien Chan was able to attend the APEC Leaders Summit Meeting, We were able to make contact with Singapore and New Zealand, and sign the Economic Partnership Agreement. We were able to sign investment agreements and aviation agreements with Japan. What does it mean to "defend our sovereignty," to "maintain our dignity," and to "promote our national interest?" If we break it down it, means enabling Republic of China citizens to be respected when they go out into the world. It means enabling the Republic of China to be seen and heard, Isn't that what it means to "defend our sovereignty," "maintain our dignity," and "promote our national interest?"
The Republic of China's diplomatic situation and cross-Strait relations are two sides of the same coin. When cross-strait relations are tense, diplomatic confrontation often consumes large amounts of our national resources, But this kind of desperate zero sum game is increasingly difficult to play. It cannot be sustained. Mainland China's strategic advantage is growing. Republic of China citizens on Taiwan are proud. No matter how tough the going gets, we will not bow down. But bowing down is unnecessary. With wisdom and skill, we can ensure smooth cross-Strait relations while opening our doors to foreign relations. Actually, doing so will better safeguard our interests than remaining trapped in an endless cross-Strait wrestling match.
Green Camp spin doctors love to accuse Ma Ying-jeou of "selling out Taiwan's sovereignty." DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen denounced Ma Ying-jeou during the TV debate. She accused him of "halving the strength of the nation." But does her charge contain any truth whatsoever? Let's conduct a quick reality check. When the DPP was in power, it adopted a strategy of reckless provocation and blind confrontation. This led to a freeze in cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, This turned the island of Taiwan into a hermit kingdom. This led to our marginalization in the global community. The DPP's "scorched earth diplomacy" left the diplomatic battlefield a smoking ruins. Other countries refused to be dragged into the conflict. But once President Ma Ying-jeou took office, cross-Strait reconciliation brought about economic exchanges and cooperation. It gave people on both sides a chance to freely exchange ideas and improve mutual understanding. It made possible exchanges between the Republic of China and the international community by removing a major obstacle. This gave us more breathing space. Make any "before and after comparison" you wish. We all remember how it was before, and how it is today. Does anyone really not see the immense changes that have taken place over the past three or four years?
Clearly Ma Ying-jeou has changed our cross-Strait policy. He found a way out of our past dilemma. He has a clear direction for the nation's future. He is implementing it, step by step, This is rare in a leader. Do our leaders have the ability to handle cross-Strait relations? Do they have the ability to ensure our economic development? These questions are of paramount importance.
Citizens must be fair in their evaluation of political leaders. The facts show Ma Ying-jeou has improved, not worsened cross-strait relations. He has created opportunities, not erected obstacles. President Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policies have improved the status quo. They have enhanced cross-Strait interaction. They have enabled the two sides to work together to create a better future with richer possibilities.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.12.23
社論－列入免簽候選 台美關係再躍進
本報訊
美國在台協會（ＡＩＴ）代理處長馬怡瑞（Eric H. Madison）昨天正式宣布，台灣正式納入美國免簽證計畫候選國。他表示台灣獲致的成就，展現了這些年來台灣在經濟、社會和政治各方面的進步；台灣民眾申請美簽的拒簽率在過去一年來降到僅一．九％，在美逾期居留的比例則更低。外交部長楊進添則回應表示，這項訊息的宣布顯示台灣在護照安全、簽證拒簽率、國境管控與各項資訊分享等皆符合加入免簽證的技術要件。他也指出台美關係進展將因這項舉動邁向更進一步。我們以為這不只是台美關係的一大里程碑，對台灣的國際地位與對外關係而言，更是一大突破，具有劃時代的重大意義。
這些年來，台灣民眾出國免簽證的好消息接連傳來，過去出門常受刁難歧視的中華民國護照，如今可以享受上百個國家免簽證入境的禮遇，其中包括了歐盟申根聯盟國家、英國、愛爾蘭、日本、澳洲、紐西蘭，如今加上美國，無異是國人最常去的主要國家都可以自由走透透。在世界地圖上，台灣人可以想去就去不必先申請簽證的區塊，已經佔了相當一大塊區域。
這固然是因為有台灣經濟實力作後盾，加上我國護照防偽技術好、國民素質高，讓對方國家樂意接納。但還有一個不容否認的重要原因，是兩岸關係改善降低了雙方在國際社會的對抗態勢，讓其他國家與台灣發展關係時，不必再處處忌憚北京的反彈。馬英九總統推動兩岸和解與外交休兵的政策，在近四年的落實下，已經為台灣打開了通往國際社會的門戶，這樣的轉變既明顯又影響深遠，將在歷史上留下他個人的遺產。
除了頻傳免簽的好消息之外，台灣參與國際社會還有許多突破，包括能夠以觀察員身分參與世衛大會、前副總統連戰出席亞太經合會議領袖峰會、與新加坡和紐西蘭洽簽經濟夥伴協議、與日本簽署投資協定及航空協定等等。什麼叫做維護主權尊嚴、促進國家利益？細數這些成果，都是讓台灣走出去並受到尊重，讓台灣被看見、聲音被聽到，不就是既維護了台灣的主權尊嚴，又促進了國家利益？
台灣的外交處境與兩岸關係一體兩面，兩岸關係緊張時，外交戰火常常消耗大量國家資源，但這樣的零和殊死戰，在中國日漸增長的政經戰略地位下，已經令台灣的戰況日趨艱困，甚至難以為繼。勇敢的台灣人是有骨氣的，再苦也不會屈膝低頭；但如果能以智慧與手腕，一方面讓兩岸關係得以順暢運作，一方面為對外關係打開門窗，其實比陷在角力戰中更能維護台灣利益。
綠營人士常愛指控馬英九出賣台灣主權，民進黨總統候選人蔡英文也在電視辯論中說馬英九害得國家「去一半」。但到底是不是如此，我們可以拿事實來檢驗。過去民進黨執政時，採取躁進挑釁、盲目對抗的策略，以致兩岸交流合作停頓，台灣陷於鎖國狀態，在全球發展中流於邊緣化地位，「烽火外交」也搞得外交戰場遍起狼煙，其他國家不太願意被波及。但馬英九總統上台後，兩岸關係和解帶來更蓬勃的經貿交流合作，雙方人民有機會更自在地交往並增進了解。台灣與國際社會的交往，也因為降低了一大障礙，而得到更多空間。前後任比一比，不過短短三、四年的時間，大家對過去記憶猶新，其間的差距誰看不出來？
很明顯的，馬英九為台灣換了個兩岸政策，也因此開創了新的活路。他對國家方向與基本政策有很清楚的中心思維，並且一步一步據以落實，就一個領導人來說，這是非常難得的。而對台灣來說，我們的領袖有沒有能力處理兩岸關係，有效維護台灣發展契機，也是非常重要的。
對政治領袖的評價必須公允，事實證明，馬英九讓兩岸關係成為台灣的正數，而非負數；是機會，而不再是障礙。馬英九總統的兩岸政策不只改變了現狀，也在更多的兩岸互動中，為兩岸共同開創一個更好的未來，留下了發展的契機。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 23, 2011
Summary: Citizens must be fair in their evaluation of political leaders. The facts show Ma Ying-jeou has improved, not worsened cross-strait relations. He has created opportunities, not erected obstacles. President Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policies have improved the status quo. They have enhanced cross-Strait interaction. They have enabled the two sides to work together to create a better future with richer possibilities.
Full Text Below:
Yesterday American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Acting Director Eric H. Madison announced that the Republic of China is officially a candidate for the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. He said the Republic of China has made great social and political progress in recent years, as indicated by its economic progress. The rejection rate for Republic of China passport holders applying for visas to the United States fell to only 1.9% last year. The proportion of overstayers in the United States was even lower. Foreign Minister Yang Jin-tian responded. He said this shows that Republic of China passport security, visa rejection rates, border controls, and information sharing, all meet the requirements for visa-free treatment. He said Taipei/Washington relations will take another step forward as a result of this. This is just a major milestone for Taipei/Washington relations. It is also a major breakthrough with epoch-making significance for the Republic of China's international status and foreign relations.
Over the past few years, Republic of China citizens traveling abroad have been the recipients of much good news. In the past, Republic of China passport holders often endured discrimination. Foreign governments made things difficult for them. Now they enjoy visa-free treatment from over a hundred countries, Including the EU, Great Britain, Ireland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and now, the United States, Republic of China citizens are now free to visit every major country they wish. Republic of China citizens can visit most countries on the world map, without first applying for a visa. .
This is a consequence of the Republic of China's economic strength. Our passport security technology is good, Our citizens are civilized. This makes other countries welcome them. But there is another important reason that cannot be denied. In the eyes of the international community, improved cross-Strait relations have reduced tensions between Taipei and Beijing. This has enabled other countries to develop relations with Taipei. They need no longer fear a backlash from Beijing. Over the past four years, President Ma Ying-jeou has successfully promoted cross-Strait reconciliation and implemented a diplomatic truce. For the Republic of China, this has opened the gates to the international community, These changes are obvious and far-reaching, They will be part of Ma's historical legacy.
Republic of China citizens have received much good news regarding visas. There have also been many breakthroughs for the Republic of China's participation in the international community. We can now participate in the WHA as an observer. Former Vice President Lien Chan was able to attend the APEC Leaders Summit Meeting, We were able to make contact with Singapore and New Zealand, and sign the Economic Partnership Agreement. We were able to sign investment agreements and aviation agreements with Japan. What does it mean to "defend our sovereignty," to "maintain our dignity," and to "promote our national interest?" If we break it down it, means enabling Republic of China citizens to be respected when they go out into the world. It means enabling the Republic of China to be seen and heard, Isn't that what it means to "defend our sovereignty," "maintain our dignity," and "promote our national interest?"
The Republic of China's diplomatic situation and cross-Strait relations are two sides of the same coin. When cross-strait relations are tense, diplomatic confrontation often consumes large amounts of our national resources, But this kind of desperate zero sum game is increasingly difficult to play. It cannot be sustained. Mainland China's strategic advantage is growing. Republic of China citizens on Taiwan are proud. No matter how tough the going gets, we will not bow down. But bowing down is unnecessary. With wisdom and skill, we can ensure smooth cross-Strait relations while opening our doors to foreign relations. Actually, doing so will better safeguard our interests than remaining trapped in an endless cross-Strait wrestling match.
Green Camp spin doctors love to accuse Ma Ying-jeou of "selling out Taiwan's sovereignty." DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen denounced Ma Ying-jeou during the TV debate. She accused him of "halving the strength of the nation." But does her charge contain any truth whatsoever? Let's conduct a quick reality check. When the DPP was in power, it adopted a strategy of reckless provocation and blind confrontation. This led to a freeze in cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, This turned the island of Taiwan into a hermit kingdom. This led to our marginalization in the global community. The DPP's "scorched earth diplomacy" left the diplomatic battlefield a smoking ruins. Other countries refused to be dragged into the conflict. But once President Ma Ying-jeou took office, cross-Strait reconciliation brought about economic exchanges and cooperation. It gave people on both sides a chance to freely exchange ideas and improve mutual understanding. It made possible exchanges between the Republic of China and the international community by removing a major obstacle. This gave us more breathing space. Make any "before and after comparison" you wish. We all remember how it was before, and how it is today. Does anyone really not see the immense changes that have taken place over the past three or four years?
Clearly Ma Ying-jeou has changed our cross-Strait policy. He found a way out of our past dilemma. He has a clear direction for the nation's future. He is implementing it, step by step, This is rare in a leader. Do our leaders have the ability to handle cross-Strait relations? Do they have the ability to ensure our economic development? These questions are of paramount importance.
Citizens must be fair in their evaluation of political leaders. The facts show Ma Ying-jeou has improved, not worsened cross-strait relations. He has created opportunities, not erected obstacles. President Ma Ying-jeou's cross-Strait policies have improved the status quo. They have enhanced cross-Strait interaction. They have enabled the two sides to work together to create a better future with richer possibilities.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.12.23
社論－列入免簽候選 台美關係再躍進
本報訊
美國在台協會（ＡＩＴ）代理處長馬怡瑞（Eric H. Madison）昨天正式宣布，台灣正式納入美國免簽證計畫候選國。他表示台灣獲致的成就，展現了這些年來台灣在經濟、社會和政治各方面的進步；台灣民眾申請美簽的拒簽率在過去一年來降到僅一．九％，在美逾期居留的比例則更低。外交部長楊進添則回應表示，這項訊息的宣布顯示台灣在護照安全、簽證拒簽率、國境管控與各項資訊分享等皆符合加入免簽證的技術要件。他也指出台美關係進展將因這項舉動邁向更進一步。我們以為這不只是台美關係的一大里程碑，對台灣的國際地位與對外關係而言，更是一大突破，具有劃時代的重大意義。
這些年來，台灣民眾出國免簽證的好消息接連傳來，過去出門常受刁難歧視的中華民國護照，如今可以享受上百個國家免簽證入境的禮遇，其中包括了歐盟申根聯盟國家、英國、愛爾蘭、日本、澳洲、紐西蘭，如今加上美國，無異是國人最常去的主要國家都可以自由走透透。在世界地圖上，台灣人可以想去就去不必先申請簽證的區塊，已經佔了相當一大塊區域。
這固然是因為有台灣經濟實力作後盾，加上我國護照防偽技術好、國民素質高，讓對方國家樂意接納。但還有一個不容否認的重要原因，是兩岸關係改善降低了雙方在國際社會的對抗態勢，讓其他國家與台灣發展關係時，不必再處處忌憚北京的反彈。馬英九總統推動兩岸和解與外交休兵的政策，在近四年的落實下，已經為台灣打開了通往國際社會的門戶，這樣的轉變既明顯又影響深遠，將在歷史上留下他個人的遺產。
除了頻傳免簽的好消息之外，台灣參與國際社會還有許多突破，包括能夠以觀察員身分參與世衛大會、前副總統連戰出席亞太經合會議領袖峰會、與新加坡和紐西蘭洽簽經濟夥伴協議、與日本簽署投資協定及航空協定等等。什麼叫做維護主權尊嚴、促進國家利益？細數這些成果，都是讓台灣走出去並受到尊重，讓台灣被看見、聲音被聽到，不就是既維護了台灣的主權尊嚴，又促進了國家利益？
台灣的外交處境與兩岸關係一體兩面，兩岸關係緊張時，外交戰火常常消耗大量國家資源，但這樣的零和殊死戰，在中國日漸增長的政經戰略地位下，已經令台灣的戰況日趨艱困，甚至難以為繼。勇敢的台灣人是有骨氣的，再苦也不會屈膝低頭；但如果能以智慧與手腕，一方面讓兩岸關係得以順暢運作，一方面為對外關係打開門窗，其實比陷在角力戰中更能維護台灣利益。
綠營人士常愛指控馬英九出賣台灣主權，民進黨總統候選人蔡英文也在電視辯論中說馬英九害得國家「去一半」。但到底是不是如此，我們可以拿事實來檢驗。過去民進黨執政時，採取躁進挑釁、盲目對抗的策略，以致兩岸交流合作停頓，台灣陷於鎖國狀態，在全球發展中流於邊緣化地位，「烽火外交」也搞得外交戰場遍起狼煙，其他國家不太願意被波及。但馬英九總統上台後，兩岸關係和解帶來更蓬勃的經貿交流合作，雙方人民有機會更自在地交往並增進了解。台灣與國際社會的交往，也因為降低了一大障礙，而得到更多空間。前後任比一比，不過短短三、四年的時間，大家對過去記憶猶新，其間的差距誰看不出來？
很明顯的，馬英九為台灣換了個兩岸政策，也因此開創了新的活路。他對國家方向與基本政策有很清楚的中心思維，並且一步一步據以落實，就一個領導人來說，這是非常難得的。而對台灣來說，我們的領袖有沒有能力處理兩岸關係，有效維護台灣發展契機，也是非常重要的。
對政治領袖的評價必須公允，事實證明，馬英九讓兩岸關係成為台灣的正數，而非負數；是機會，而不再是障礙。馬英九總統的兩岸政策不只改變了現狀，也在更多的兩岸互動中，為兩岸共同開創一個更好的未來，留下了發展的契機。
Fubon vs. TaiMed: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing
Fubon vs. TaiMed: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2011
Summary: Comparing Fubon and TaiMed is like comparing apples and oranges. Fubon is a cold dish warmed over, The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, is something completely new. It is hot off the grill, Its full nature has yet to be discovered. The DPP persists in equating the two. But its efforts to conflate the two have been in vain. The DPP has succeeded only in turning itself into a sheep in wolf's clothing. The DPP's smokescreen will only obscure the DPP's escape route. The spectacle of the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen destroying their own political party and their own reputations, is truly staggering.
Full Text Below:
Comparing Fubon and TaiMed is like comparing apples and oranges. Fubon is a cold dish warmed over, The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, is something completely new. It is hot off the grill, Its full nature has yet to be discovered. The DPP persists in equating the two. But its efforts to conflate the two have been in vain. The DPP has succeeded only in turning itself into a sheep in wolf's clothing.
The DPP has been trying to make something of the Fubon controversy. It is aggressively playing the "shark fin soup" card. Its goal is to draw attention away from the TaiMed corruption scandal. Its goal is to blacken Ma Ying-jeou's clean image, and to provide a safety hatch through which Tsai Ing-wen can escape the fire caused by her corruption.
But voters want the truth. The Green Camp's smokescreen is a means of sowing confusion. The Green Camp wants to create the impression that "They're both equally corrupt." The DPP's tactics are an admission of guilt. The methods they have adopted are an admission that they are attempting to dupe the voters. But the only result has been the destruction of social justice.
The merger between the Fubon Bank and the Bank of Taipei took place in 2002, during the Chen administration. The machinery of state, including the Executive Yuan, prosecutors, the Control Yuan, all went over the case with a fine tooth comb. They examined the case from the inside out, from top to bottom. They found nothing at all improper. Chen administration Minister of Finance Lin Chuan even heaped praise on it. He said the merger of the Fubon Bank with the Bank of Taipei was a successful example of "one plus one is greater than two."
So why is the Fubon case being dished up again, nearly a decade later, and being characterized as a huge scandal? Mainly because the DPP is finding it impossible to keep a lid on the TaiMed corruption scandal. The DPP has been caught off guard, and in desperation it is using the Fubon case as a smokescreen.
During last Saturday's election debate, Tsai Ing-wen personally accused Ma Ying-jeou of accepting 15 million dollars in campaign contributions from Fubon Bank in 2008. This touched off a firestorm of controversy. The very next day however, her accusations were proven to be completely mistaken. Fubon wanted to make a contribution. But Ma Ying-jeou turned it down, saying he was obligated to avoid conflicts of interest. Contrast this with Tsai Ing-wen's conduct in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Tsai personally approved the TaiMed project. She personally penned the relevant regulations, She personally made herself TaiMed board chairman. She personally established several family enterprises to invest in biotechnology, The Fubon and TaiMed cases are worlds apart. Tsai Ing-wen pointed the finger at the Fubon case. Instead she merely drew attention to her own wrongdoing in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Her handling of the matter was inept. She lost more than she gained.
The DPP's information was false, yet DPP spokesperons were overly eager to claim credit. They made the mistake of leveling slanderous accusations. They should have cut their losses. Instead, their feelings of humiliation made them apoplectic. So they dusted off a discredited old allegation regarding the Fubon case, and tried to ram it down the public's throat. Their methods merely revealed their impotence and lack of scruples.
The Green Camp demagogued non-issues such as Fubon Bank "campaign contributions," the shark fin soup banquet, and confidential documents. These were no different from the non-existent Chen Ying-chu "triad boss" incident. One. First, they attempted to smear Ma Ying-jeou by accusing him of accepting 300 million dollars in campaign contributions, including 15 million from Fubon Bank. This charge proved groundless. Two. They then accused Ma Ying-jeou of meeting with Chen Ying-chu, twice. How many times was he supposed to have met with Fubon? How many meals was he supposed to have eaten? They hurled all sorts of wild charges. Three. Eventually they learned that Chen Ying-chu was in fact a Green Camp sugar daddy. He was similar to Fubon Bank's Daniel Tsai. Wu Shu-cheng accepted at least 30 million dollars from him. She even praised him as the best candidate for finance minister, Now however, to attack Ma Ying-jeou, they are using him as a target.
If we compare and contrast Fubon case and the TaiMed case, we find the two are very different. One. The Fubon case has been subjected to repeated scrutiny. The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, remains shrouded in mystery. It has never seen the light of day. Two. The merger between the Taipei Bank and the Fubon Bank underwent a public bid. The process was totally transparent, from start to finish. The purpose of the "highly confidential" documents was to prevent insider trading. Ma Ying-jeou had no family interests in the merger. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen's "highly confidential" personal support for TaiMed enabled her to increase the value of Tsai family shares and make herself company chairman. Three. The benefits of the merger between the Fubon Bank and the Taipei Bank benefits are obvious, Every year it earns billons in revenue for the Taipei City Government. TaiMed by contrast, continues to bleed red ink. The government is stuck with the bill. Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, personally benefits, to the tune of $20 million dollars.
TaiMed and Fubon reflect the difference in the Blue Camp and the Green Camp's way of handling things. One. The DPP relentlessly questions and denounces its opponents. It ignores questions it ought to answer. It never explains itself. It never offers any apologies. It even threatens critics, telling them "enough is enough." Two. The DPP takes cases it thoroughly investigated when it was in power, and rehashes and exploits them when it is in the opposition. Its smokescreen tactics demonstrate its contempt for voters. Does Tsai Ing-wen really think the public is incapable of discriminating between right and wrong? Three. The general election is only 20 days away. If Tsai Ing-wen were to offer a sincere apology, she might be able to clear up suspicions about the TaiMed corruption scandal. But the DPP insists on using the threadbare Fubon case to shift the focus of attention. Alas, it is merely confirming public suspicions regarding its guilt.
It matter not how adept the DPP might be at strategy. Democracy requires distinguishing between right and wrong. It requires calling a spade a spade, It requires honestly facing the public. The Green Camp alleges that the Blue Camp "planted misleading information" and "altered documents," Christina Liu did make honest mistakes for which she must assume political and legal responsibility. But the TaiMed corruption scandal involves dozens of cases of illegal conduct and malfeasance. Don't the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen owe citizens of the nation an honest accounting?
The DPP's smokescreen will only obscure the DPP's escape route. The spectacle of the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen destroying their own political party and their own reputations, is truly staggering.
富邦比宇昌：一隻色厲內荏的烏賊
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.22
富邦案和宇昌案是完全無法相提並論的事。富邦案是早已搾乾的菜又被搬出來擠汁，宇昌案則是一坨油滋滋形貌不詳的東西，仍有待剖析和檢驗。民進黨非要把兩者放到同一天平上去品頭論足，結果徒然顯示：自己頓時成了一隻色厲內荏的烏賊。
民進黨近日窮追富邦案，又狂打「魚翅宴」文宣，目的除在轉移宇昌案的焦點，也在抹黑馬英九的清廉形象，為身陷自肥火場的蔡英文衝開一扇逃生門。
但是，站在選民的角度，人們要的是「真相」；綠營的烏賊戰術卻是在混淆事實，想要製造「天下烏鴉一般黑」的假象。從動機看，民進黨的戰術反映的是它自己的心虛；從手段看，這是在欺矇選民；從結果看，這是在破壞社會正義。
其實，發生在二○○二年的富邦併北銀案，在扁政府時代，即歷經行政、檢調、監察等國家機器裡裡外外、四面八方的翻攪與調查，並未發現弊情。扁朝財政部長林全甚至曾誇讚，富邦併北銀是「一加一大於二」的成功典範。
但是，事隔近十年，富邦為何又變成民進黨口中的大弊案，被拿出來再炒一次？主要是因民進黨招架不住宇昌案，慌不擇路地要用富邦的陳年墨汁打煙幕戰。
上周六的大選辯論，由蔡英文親自拋出馬英九二○○八年收了富邦一千五百萬獻金的引爆火線，次日就被證實是個徹底的「烏龍」。事實是，富邦有意捐款，但遭馬英九以「利益迴避」為由，拒絕了那筆捐款。這比起蔡英文自己親批宇昌公文、親寫法案、親自當上宇昌董事長，還成立多個家族企業來投資生技，豈非天壤之別？蔡英文親自披掛掀開富邦之役，卻更反襯出自己缺乏分際、操守可議，真是偷雞不著蝕把米。
民進黨資訊不實卻貪功躁進，犯下這個含血噴人的烏龍，照理說應該「見壞就收」才是；但它竟然惱羞成怒，反將富邦的陳年舊案一古腦重新端出，硬要逼國人吃下這一桌餿飯殘羹。這種做法，只是愈發暴露其虛弱和失德。
綠營從富邦獻金案打到魚翅宴和機密公文，其實和先前的陳盈助「組頭事件」如出一轍：一、先抹黑馬英九收陳盈助三億獻金（收富邦一千五百萬），被證明是空穴來風。二、再咬馬英九為何兩年前與陳盈助見過兩次面（與富邦見過幾面？吃過幾次飯？胡攪一通）。三、最後，卻發現陳盈助是綠營金主的底蘊；這和富邦的蔡明忠一樣，當年吳淑珍至少收了他三千萬，還誇獎他是最佳財長人選，如今為了「打馬」卻把他當成箭靶。
若把富邦案和宇昌案拿來比一比，兩者其實大不相同：一，富邦已經過反覆檢驗；但宇昌卻疑雲重重，未見天日。二，北銀和富邦的合併，經過公開招標，程序一路透明，最後一份「極機密」的公文是為了防止內線交易，更未有馬英九家族私利牽涉其中；但蔡英文以「極機密」隻手扶植TaiMed，自己家族入股，自任董事長。三，富邦併北銀的效益明顯，每年為北市府帶入數十億收益；而宇昌連年虧損，政府被套牢，唯獨蔡英文一人獲利近二千萬元。
宇昌和富邦兩案的比較，正是藍綠兩營處事風格的對照。其一，民進黨不斷地質問、告發對手，對於自己應該答覆的疑問卻置之不理，不說明、也不道歉，還威嚇外界必須「適可而止」。其二，民進黨執政時徹查過的案子，在野時還要拿出來剝削一回，這種烏賊戰術是對選民的藐視，蔡英文真以為台灣人民那麼沒有分斷是非的能力嗎？其三，距離大選還有廿多日，蔡英文若誠懇說明並道歉，足夠她澄清宇昌案疑雲；但民進黨卻用富邦的舊案來轉移焦點，恐怕只是坐實了自己的心虛。
民進黨再長於策略，但民主終需回到政治是非的本質；就事論事，坦誠面對人民。綠營現在緊咬「誤植」與「變造」公文，此事劉憶如確實有錯，其政治及法律責任皆不能逃避；但除此以外，面對宇昌案的至少幾十個涉及違法或失德的疑竇重重，民進黨及蔡英文難道不應向國人坦誠作個交代嗎？
烏賊噴煙，最後恐怕會遮住了自己的出路；民進黨與蔡英文如此自毀黨格和人格，確實令人瞠目結舌。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2011
Summary: Comparing Fubon and TaiMed is like comparing apples and oranges. Fubon is a cold dish warmed over, The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, is something completely new. It is hot off the grill, Its full nature has yet to be discovered. The DPP persists in equating the two. But its efforts to conflate the two have been in vain. The DPP has succeeded only in turning itself into a sheep in wolf's clothing. The DPP's smokescreen will only obscure the DPP's escape route. The spectacle of the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen destroying their own political party and their own reputations, is truly staggering.
Full Text Below:
Comparing Fubon and TaiMed is like comparing apples and oranges. Fubon is a cold dish warmed over, The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, is something completely new. It is hot off the grill, Its full nature has yet to be discovered. The DPP persists in equating the two. But its efforts to conflate the two have been in vain. The DPP has succeeded only in turning itself into a sheep in wolf's clothing.
The DPP has been trying to make something of the Fubon controversy. It is aggressively playing the "shark fin soup" card. Its goal is to draw attention away from the TaiMed corruption scandal. Its goal is to blacken Ma Ying-jeou's clean image, and to provide a safety hatch through which Tsai Ing-wen can escape the fire caused by her corruption.
But voters want the truth. The Green Camp's smokescreen is a means of sowing confusion. The Green Camp wants to create the impression that "They're both equally corrupt." The DPP's tactics are an admission of guilt. The methods they have adopted are an admission that they are attempting to dupe the voters. But the only result has been the destruction of social justice.
The merger between the Fubon Bank and the Bank of Taipei took place in 2002, during the Chen administration. The machinery of state, including the Executive Yuan, prosecutors, the Control Yuan, all went over the case with a fine tooth comb. They examined the case from the inside out, from top to bottom. They found nothing at all improper. Chen administration Minister of Finance Lin Chuan even heaped praise on it. He said the merger of the Fubon Bank with the Bank of Taipei was a successful example of "one plus one is greater than two."
So why is the Fubon case being dished up again, nearly a decade later, and being characterized as a huge scandal? Mainly because the DPP is finding it impossible to keep a lid on the TaiMed corruption scandal. The DPP has been caught off guard, and in desperation it is using the Fubon case as a smokescreen.
During last Saturday's election debate, Tsai Ing-wen personally accused Ma Ying-jeou of accepting 15 million dollars in campaign contributions from Fubon Bank in 2008. This touched off a firestorm of controversy. The very next day however, her accusations were proven to be completely mistaken. Fubon wanted to make a contribution. But Ma Ying-jeou turned it down, saying he was obligated to avoid conflicts of interest. Contrast this with Tsai Ing-wen's conduct in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Tsai personally approved the TaiMed project. She personally penned the relevant regulations, She personally made herself TaiMed board chairman. She personally established several family enterprises to invest in biotechnology, The Fubon and TaiMed cases are worlds apart. Tsai Ing-wen pointed the finger at the Fubon case. Instead she merely drew attention to her own wrongdoing in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Her handling of the matter was inept. She lost more than she gained.
The DPP's information was false, yet DPP spokesperons were overly eager to claim credit. They made the mistake of leveling slanderous accusations. They should have cut their losses. Instead, their feelings of humiliation made them apoplectic. So they dusted off a discredited old allegation regarding the Fubon case, and tried to ram it down the public's throat. Their methods merely revealed their impotence and lack of scruples.
The Green Camp demagogued non-issues such as Fubon Bank "campaign contributions," the shark fin soup banquet, and confidential documents. These were no different from the non-existent Chen Ying-chu "triad boss" incident. One. First, they attempted to smear Ma Ying-jeou by accusing him of accepting 300 million dollars in campaign contributions, including 15 million from Fubon Bank. This charge proved groundless. Two. They then accused Ma Ying-jeou of meeting with Chen Ying-chu, twice. How many times was he supposed to have met with Fubon? How many meals was he supposed to have eaten? They hurled all sorts of wild charges. Three. Eventually they learned that Chen Ying-chu was in fact a Green Camp sugar daddy. He was similar to Fubon Bank's Daniel Tsai. Wu Shu-cheng accepted at least 30 million dollars from him. She even praised him as the best candidate for finance minister, Now however, to attack Ma Ying-jeou, they are using him as a target.
If we compare and contrast Fubon case and the TaiMed case, we find the two are very different. One. The Fubon case has been subjected to repeated scrutiny. The TaiMed corruption scandal on the other hand, remains shrouded in mystery. It has never seen the light of day. Two. The merger between the Taipei Bank and the Fubon Bank underwent a public bid. The process was totally transparent, from start to finish. The purpose of the "highly confidential" documents was to prevent insider trading. Ma Ying-jeou had no family interests in the merger. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen's "highly confidential" personal support for TaiMed enabled her to increase the value of Tsai family shares and make herself company chairman. Three. The benefits of the merger between the Fubon Bank and the Taipei Bank benefits are obvious, Every year it earns billons in revenue for the Taipei City Government. TaiMed by contrast, continues to bleed red ink. The government is stuck with the bill. Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, personally benefits, to the tune of $20 million dollars.
TaiMed and Fubon reflect the difference in the Blue Camp and the Green Camp's way of handling things. One. The DPP relentlessly questions and denounces its opponents. It ignores questions it ought to answer. It never explains itself. It never offers any apologies. It even threatens critics, telling them "enough is enough." Two. The DPP takes cases it thoroughly investigated when it was in power, and rehashes and exploits them when it is in the opposition. Its smokescreen tactics demonstrate its contempt for voters. Does Tsai Ing-wen really think the public is incapable of discriminating between right and wrong? Three. The general election is only 20 days away. If Tsai Ing-wen were to offer a sincere apology, she might be able to clear up suspicions about the TaiMed corruption scandal. But the DPP insists on using the threadbare Fubon case to shift the focus of attention. Alas, it is merely confirming public suspicions regarding its guilt.
It matter not how adept the DPP might be at strategy. Democracy requires distinguishing between right and wrong. It requires calling a spade a spade, It requires honestly facing the public. The Green Camp alleges that the Blue Camp "planted misleading information" and "altered documents," Christina Liu did make honest mistakes for which she must assume political and legal responsibility. But the TaiMed corruption scandal involves dozens of cases of illegal conduct and malfeasance. Don't the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen owe citizens of the nation an honest accounting?
The DPP's smokescreen will only obscure the DPP's escape route. The spectacle of the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen destroying their own political party and their own reputations, is truly staggering.
富邦比宇昌：一隻色厲內荏的烏賊
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.22
富邦案和宇昌案是完全無法相提並論的事。富邦案是早已搾乾的菜又被搬出來擠汁，宇昌案則是一坨油滋滋形貌不詳的東西，仍有待剖析和檢驗。民進黨非要把兩者放到同一天平上去品頭論足，結果徒然顯示：自己頓時成了一隻色厲內荏的烏賊。
民進黨近日窮追富邦案，又狂打「魚翅宴」文宣，目的除在轉移宇昌案的焦點，也在抹黑馬英九的清廉形象，為身陷自肥火場的蔡英文衝開一扇逃生門。
但是，站在選民的角度，人們要的是「真相」；綠營的烏賊戰術卻是在混淆事實，想要製造「天下烏鴉一般黑」的假象。從動機看，民進黨的戰術反映的是它自己的心虛；從手段看，這是在欺矇選民；從結果看，這是在破壞社會正義。
其實，發生在二○○二年的富邦併北銀案，在扁政府時代，即歷經行政、檢調、監察等國家機器裡裡外外、四面八方的翻攪與調查，並未發現弊情。扁朝財政部長林全甚至曾誇讚，富邦併北銀是「一加一大於二」的成功典範。
但是，事隔近十年，富邦為何又變成民進黨口中的大弊案，被拿出來再炒一次？主要是因民進黨招架不住宇昌案，慌不擇路地要用富邦的陳年墨汁打煙幕戰。
上周六的大選辯論，由蔡英文親自拋出馬英九二○○八年收了富邦一千五百萬獻金的引爆火線，次日就被證實是個徹底的「烏龍」。事實是，富邦有意捐款，但遭馬英九以「利益迴避」為由，拒絕了那筆捐款。這比起蔡英文自己親批宇昌公文、親寫法案、親自當上宇昌董事長，還成立多個家族企業來投資生技，豈非天壤之別？蔡英文親自披掛掀開富邦之役，卻更反襯出自己缺乏分際、操守可議，真是偷雞不著蝕把米。
民進黨資訊不實卻貪功躁進，犯下這個含血噴人的烏龍，照理說應該「見壞就收」才是；但它竟然惱羞成怒，反將富邦的陳年舊案一古腦重新端出，硬要逼國人吃下這一桌餿飯殘羹。這種做法，只是愈發暴露其虛弱和失德。
綠營從富邦獻金案打到魚翅宴和機密公文，其實和先前的陳盈助「組頭事件」如出一轍：一、先抹黑馬英九收陳盈助三億獻金（收富邦一千五百萬），被證明是空穴來風。二、再咬馬英九為何兩年前與陳盈助見過兩次面（與富邦見過幾面？吃過幾次飯？胡攪一通）。三、最後，卻發現陳盈助是綠營金主的底蘊；這和富邦的蔡明忠一樣，當年吳淑珍至少收了他三千萬，還誇獎他是最佳財長人選，如今為了「打馬」卻把他當成箭靶。
若把富邦案和宇昌案拿來比一比，兩者其實大不相同：一，富邦已經過反覆檢驗；但宇昌卻疑雲重重，未見天日。二，北銀和富邦的合併，經過公開招標，程序一路透明，最後一份「極機密」的公文是為了防止內線交易，更未有馬英九家族私利牽涉其中；但蔡英文以「極機密」隻手扶植TaiMed，自己家族入股，自任董事長。三，富邦併北銀的效益明顯，每年為北市府帶入數十億收益；而宇昌連年虧損，政府被套牢，唯獨蔡英文一人獲利近二千萬元。
宇昌和富邦兩案的比較，正是藍綠兩營處事風格的對照。其一，民進黨不斷地質問、告發對手，對於自己應該答覆的疑問卻置之不理，不說明、也不道歉，還威嚇外界必須「適可而止」。其二，民進黨執政時徹查過的案子，在野時還要拿出來剝削一回，這種烏賊戰術是對選民的藐視，蔡英文真以為台灣人民那麼沒有分斷是非的能力嗎？其三，距離大選還有廿多日，蔡英文若誠懇說明並道歉，足夠她澄清宇昌案疑雲；但民進黨卻用富邦的舊案來轉移焦點，恐怕只是坐實了自己的心虛。
民進黨再長於策略，但民主終需回到政治是非的本質；就事論事，坦誠面對人民。綠營現在緊咬「誤植」與「變造」公文，此事劉憶如確實有錯，其政治及法律責任皆不能逃避；但除此以外，面對宇昌案的至少幾十個涉及違法或失德的疑竇重重，民進黨及蔡英文難道不應向國人坦誠作個交代嗎？
烏賊噴煙，最後恐怕會遮住了自己的出路；民進黨與蔡英文如此自毀黨格和人格，確實令人瞠目結舌。
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen Cannot Evade Questions About TaiMed
Tsai Ing-wen Cannot Evade Questions About TaiMed
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2011
Summary: The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.
Full Text Below:
A politician's most stringent test takes place during an election. That is when he or she is examined under a microscope by the entire nation. No candidate can avoid this close scrutiny of his or her conduct. This is true for the TaiMed corruption scandal. This is true for the Fubon shark fin soup banquet as well. Ruling and opposition party leaders competing for high office adopt certain attitudes during such scrutiny, Voters take into account these attitudes when casting their votes. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou and DDP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen have revealed their respective strengths and weakness by the attitudes they adopted during such scrutiny.
Faced with fierce questioning over the TaiMed corruption scandal, the DPP responded by dredging up the shark fin soup banquet issue, an old issue that was resolved long ago. The DPP had nothing new to offer. Ma Ying-jeou responded calmly. He held a press conference. He sat patiently and allowed the media to question him, over and over again. Consider his attitude from the perspective of campaign strategy. Contrast this with Tsai Ing-wen's response to the TaiMed corruption scandal. Tsai's sole response was a statement saying she and her family did not profit illegally from TaiMed. As soon as she finished her statement, she turned and walked away. She refused to answer reporters' questions. Ma Ying-jeou's implicit message to the voters was: If Tsai Ing-wen has nothing to hide, why not clear the air?
Tsai Ing-wen angrily accused the Ma administration of using the machinery of government to harass her legally, and ruin her politically. But apply the same standards to both candidates. Surely no one has forgotten the recently concluded centennial celebrations? The show cost over 200 million dollars. CCA Chairman Emile Sheng stepped forward and responded to questioning by DPP, day after day. He voluntarily submitted himself to prosecutors for investigation. The prosecutors moved even more quickly in his case than they did in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Once prosecutors began questioning people and conducting searches, Emile Sheng voluntarily resigned. Throughout the process, he never uttered a single word accusing the DPP of electioneering, or the prosecutors of having ulterior motives for their investigation.
TaiMed was the Chen administration's major biotech project. Tsai Ing-wen went from being vice premier to board chairman of a biotech company. Since the vice premier was not the competent authority, she was not necessarily in violation of the articles prohibiting revolving door employment. But Tsai was up to her neck in the case. She participated fully in the authoring of the relevant legislation. She invested her family's money in the company. She definitely has a problem in terms of ethics and social perception. Government support for industry did not begin today. But public officials providing grants to private companies never became chairmen of the companies to which they provided grants. Public officials never owned a single share of stock in companies to which they provided grants. Still less did they invest their own family's funds.
The Tsai family sought funding from the National Development Fund. The change in ruling parties prevented the funds from actually being disbursed. After Tsai Ing-wen was elected DPP Chairman, she sold off her holdings. Clearly she understood that politics and business don't mix. But the Tsai family soon formed another company, also named TaiMed. Once again the family sought funding from the National Development Fund. This time the funding was approved and received. Even after Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier, she ordered National Development Fund officials to come to her residence and report on TaiMed matters, This, for the National Development Fund, was unprecedented, and of course, highly controversial.
Tsai Ing-wen insists that she did not violate civil service prohibitions against revolving door employment, because she sold her shares to private enterprise. She argues that the government did not actually disburse the funds, and that she did not actually profit from the transaction. But she could not explain her suddenly failure to avoid conflicts of interest. Perhaps she had no intention of remaining in politics. But if one returns to the political path, one can hardly excuse oneself by saying it was never a problem before. Now it has become a major problem. Why? Because now she is running for president.
If Tsai Ing-wen was not seeking high office. TaiMed would probably have remained unnoticed. But because she is running for president, she must subject herself to closer scrutiny than the average person. When Ma Ying-jeou ran for president in 2008, he had to endure the discretionary fund storm. He had to do ths same with the shark fin soup banquet. Ma Ying-jeou is merely seeking re-election. The DPP has been unable to dig up any dirt on him. So they dusted off an old issue and served it up again. Nevertheless Ma must patiently endure the ordeal, just as if he were starting from nothing.
DPP spin doctors have taken old news and maliciously presented it out of context. They have accused Ma Ying-jeou of twice attending banquets where shark fin soup was served. Was this merely an honest foul up, or a malicious attempt to frame Ma and discredit him? Ma Ying-jeou turned down Fubon's campaign contributions. Fubon's two company heads, one young and one old, made this clear, both inside and outside the courtroom. The only time Fubon ever made a campaign contribution to the KMT was in 2004. The receipt has been turned over to the court, Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng, who accepted the contribution, also stepped forward and explained. Yet the DPP's TV spots persist in rehashing this dead issue. Is this what Tsai Ing-wen meant by "negative campaigning?"
The DPP's negative campaigning is not confined to this. More recently DPP elder Frank Hsieh trotted out the old "Wu Den-yih scandal" tapes. Prominent TV spots cited it in an attempt to discredit the KMT. As far as the courts are concerned, the case is closed. Put simply, the tapes were faked, but they were not given to Chen Chun-sheng by Frank Hsieh. Hsieh claims the fake tapes led to his defeat in Taipei Mayoral Election. But Hsieh overlooks the fact that the gap between the winner and loser was too great. His defeat was not a result of the fraudulent tapes. The DPP's ads were of absolutely no benefit to Hsieh's campaign. Kaohsiung Mayor Wu Den-yih lost his bid for reelection that year as a result of the fake tapes. That was a real instance in which fake tapes determined the outcome of an election.
The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.
面對宇昌案疑點 蔡英文不能迴避
2011-12-21中國時報
選舉是對政治人物最嚴格的考驗，在全民監督下，沒有人能得逃得過相同的道德標準檢驗。宇昌案如此、富邦魚翅宴案亦復如此，競逐大位的朝野政治領袖們面對檢驗的態度，也是選民列為投票參考的因素。就此而言，國、民兩黨總統候選人馬英九與蔡英文的表現，高下立判。
面對宇昌案的凌厲質疑，民進黨拋出法院已經結案的魚翅宴老案。因為毫無新材料，馬英九自可從容以對；不但舉行記者會，還好整以暇地讓媒體一再提問；從選戰策略的角度，這當然是要對比上周蔡英文為宇昌案出面說明的態度。當時，蔡僅簡單強調自己和家族沒有不法圖利，話說完不容媒體發問逕自轉頭就走。馬英九意在言外想提醒選民的是：如果沒有爭議，為什麼不敢好好的把疑點說清楚？
蔡英文痛批馬政府運用國家機器對她進行政治和司法追殺。如果從同樣的標準檢驗，大家不會忘記，百年國慶才結束，為了晚會耗資二億多，文建會主委盛治仁每天對民進黨的疑問出面說明，更主動將自己移送檢調。檢調的動作遠比宇昌案更快，接案後即已展開約談和搜索；盛治仁更主動請辭下台，但沒有一句話批評民進黨將此案炒成選舉議題或檢調的司法偵查。
宇昌案是扁政府執政時期的生技大案，蔡英文從行政院副院長卸任轉職為生技公司董事長，因為副院長不是主管機關，確實未必有違反公務員旋轉門條款；但是蔡在此案中，從主導立法、全面參與、到投入家族資金，的確有政治道德和社會觀感的問題。雖然政府扶植政策性產業非始於今日，但過去從無扶植者搖身成為董事長的案例，甚至主事者一張股票都沒有，遑論投入家族資金。
此案因為政黨輪替，蔡氏家族向國發基金申請並核准的資金並未實際撥下；蔡英文在當選民進黨主席後，也全面出脫持股，顯然她也知道政治與經營企業勢難兩全的道理。但是，宇昌向國發基金申請資金核准並撥款後，另以蔡氏家族名義成立的台懋公司確實也又向國發基金請款。蔡英文副院長卸任後，甚至要求國發基金官員赴她的宅邸報告相關事宜，就程序上也算創下國發基金的先例，當然有爭議之處。
蔡英文能解釋她未違反公務員旋轉門，由於她的持股是賣給民間企業，政府資金並未實際核撥，也無圖利；但卻無法解釋為什麼她一念之間，竟疏忽了在此案上理應利益迴避的關節。或許當時她無意繼續從政，但踏上政治之途，她就不能責怪為什麼當時沒問題，此時卻成為大問題，原因很簡單：因為她此刻競選總統。
如果蔡英文並未競逐大位，宇昌案很可能就無人再提；但她既要競選總統，當然就得接受較諸常人更嚴格的檢驗。就像馬英九於二○○八年競選總統，要接受特別費案、魚翅宴案的檢驗一樣；即使馬英九競選連任，民進黨找不出新題材批評他，挖出舊案，他還是得耐著性子話說從頭一般。
民進黨人把舊日新聞稿惡意掐頭去尾，指涉馬英九魚翅宴不只吃了兩次，這算是烏龍爆料還是惡意栽贓抹黑？馬英九拒絕了富邦的政治獻金，富邦老少兩位企業主都在法庭內外說明，富邦只在二○○四年給國民黨政治獻金，收據已呈法院，經手的立法院長王金平也出面說明，民進黨依舊質疑還大刊廣告，這算不算是蔡英文口中的「負面選舉」？
民進黨「負面選舉」手法不只一端。最近，民進黨大老謝長廷同樣拿出過去所謂「吳敦義緋聞錄音帶」的舊案，大刊廣告以此案做為國民黨抹黑的例證。此案就司法已經結案的情況，簡單講就是緋聞錄音帶確為造假，但非謝長廷交付陳春生，謝認為此案造成他台北市長落選，謝忽略了他在台北市長選舉得票落差太大，豈是一案能構成的？民進黨刊登此一廣告，對選戰其實完全沒有正面效益，徒然讓人回想當年吳敦義高雄市長落選，還真是因為這捲假的錄音帶。
選戰最後廿多天，藍綠無可避免的進入文宣肉搏戰，就算搞不到兩敗俱傷，也得搞到讓選民兩相厭惡。但不論如何，最終當選者將是未來四年國家領導人，一個不被人民信賴的人如何帶領國家？朝野兩黨都得正視選民對國家領袖人格特質的嚴格要求。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2011
Summary: The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.
Full Text Below:
A politician's most stringent test takes place during an election. That is when he or she is examined under a microscope by the entire nation. No candidate can avoid this close scrutiny of his or her conduct. This is true for the TaiMed corruption scandal. This is true for the Fubon shark fin soup banquet as well. Ruling and opposition party leaders competing for high office adopt certain attitudes during such scrutiny, Voters take into account these attitudes when casting their votes. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou and DDP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen have revealed their respective strengths and weakness by the attitudes they adopted during such scrutiny.
Faced with fierce questioning over the TaiMed corruption scandal, the DPP responded by dredging up the shark fin soup banquet issue, an old issue that was resolved long ago. The DPP had nothing new to offer. Ma Ying-jeou responded calmly. He held a press conference. He sat patiently and allowed the media to question him, over and over again. Consider his attitude from the perspective of campaign strategy. Contrast this with Tsai Ing-wen's response to the TaiMed corruption scandal. Tsai's sole response was a statement saying she and her family did not profit illegally from TaiMed. As soon as she finished her statement, she turned and walked away. She refused to answer reporters' questions. Ma Ying-jeou's implicit message to the voters was: If Tsai Ing-wen has nothing to hide, why not clear the air?
Tsai Ing-wen angrily accused the Ma administration of using the machinery of government to harass her legally, and ruin her politically. But apply the same standards to both candidates. Surely no one has forgotten the recently concluded centennial celebrations? The show cost over 200 million dollars. CCA Chairman Emile Sheng stepped forward and responded to questioning by DPP, day after day. He voluntarily submitted himself to prosecutors for investigation. The prosecutors moved even more quickly in his case than they did in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Once prosecutors began questioning people and conducting searches, Emile Sheng voluntarily resigned. Throughout the process, he never uttered a single word accusing the DPP of electioneering, or the prosecutors of having ulterior motives for their investigation.
TaiMed was the Chen administration's major biotech project. Tsai Ing-wen went from being vice premier to board chairman of a biotech company. Since the vice premier was not the competent authority, she was not necessarily in violation of the articles prohibiting revolving door employment. But Tsai was up to her neck in the case. She participated fully in the authoring of the relevant legislation. She invested her family's money in the company. She definitely has a problem in terms of ethics and social perception. Government support for industry did not begin today. But public officials providing grants to private companies never became chairmen of the companies to which they provided grants. Public officials never owned a single share of stock in companies to which they provided grants. Still less did they invest their own family's funds.
The Tsai family sought funding from the National Development Fund. The change in ruling parties prevented the funds from actually being disbursed. After Tsai Ing-wen was elected DPP Chairman, she sold off her holdings. Clearly she understood that politics and business don't mix. But the Tsai family soon formed another company, also named TaiMed. Once again the family sought funding from the National Development Fund. This time the funding was approved and received. Even after Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier, she ordered National Development Fund officials to come to her residence and report on TaiMed matters, This, for the National Development Fund, was unprecedented, and of course, highly controversial.
Tsai Ing-wen insists that she did not violate civil service prohibitions against revolving door employment, because she sold her shares to private enterprise. She argues that the government did not actually disburse the funds, and that she did not actually profit from the transaction. But she could not explain her suddenly failure to avoid conflicts of interest. Perhaps she had no intention of remaining in politics. But if one returns to the political path, one can hardly excuse oneself by saying it was never a problem before. Now it has become a major problem. Why? Because now she is running for president.
If Tsai Ing-wen was not seeking high office. TaiMed would probably have remained unnoticed. But because she is running for president, she must subject herself to closer scrutiny than the average person. When Ma Ying-jeou ran for president in 2008, he had to endure the discretionary fund storm. He had to do ths same with the shark fin soup banquet. Ma Ying-jeou is merely seeking re-election. The DPP has been unable to dig up any dirt on him. So they dusted off an old issue and served it up again. Nevertheless Ma must patiently endure the ordeal, just as if he were starting from nothing.
DPP spin doctors have taken old news and maliciously presented it out of context. They have accused Ma Ying-jeou of twice attending banquets where shark fin soup was served. Was this merely an honest foul up, or a malicious attempt to frame Ma and discredit him? Ma Ying-jeou turned down Fubon's campaign contributions. Fubon's two company heads, one young and one old, made this clear, both inside and outside the courtroom. The only time Fubon ever made a campaign contribution to the KMT was in 2004. The receipt has been turned over to the court, Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng, who accepted the contribution, also stepped forward and explained. Yet the DPP's TV spots persist in rehashing this dead issue. Is this what Tsai Ing-wen meant by "negative campaigning?"
The DPP's negative campaigning is not confined to this. More recently DPP elder Frank Hsieh trotted out the old "Wu Den-yih scandal" tapes. Prominent TV spots cited it in an attempt to discredit the KMT. As far as the courts are concerned, the case is closed. Put simply, the tapes were faked, but they were not given to Chen Chun-sheng by Frank Hsieh. Hsieh claims the fake tapes led to his defeat in Taipei Mayoral Election. But Hsieh overlooks the fact that the gap between the winner and loser was too great. His defeat was not a result of the fraudulent tapes. The DPP's ads were of absolutely no benefit to Hsieh's campaign. Kaohsiung Mayor Wu Den-yih lost his bid for reelection that year as a result of the fake tapes. That was a real instance in which fake tapes determined the outcome of an election.
The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.
面對宇昌案疑點 蔡英文不能迴避
2011-12-21中國時報
選舉是對政治人物最嚴格的考驗，在全民監督下，沒有人能得逃得過相同的道德標準檢驗。宇昌案如此、富邦魚翅宴案亦復如此，競逐大位的朝野政治領袖們面對檢驗的態度，也是選民列為投票參考的因素。就此而言，國、民兩黨總統候選人馬英九與蔡英文的表現，高下立判。
面對宇昌案的凌厲質疑，民進黨拋出法院已經結案的魚翅宴老案。因為毫無新材料，馬英九自可從容以對；不但舉行記者會，還好整以暇地讓媒體一再提問；從選戰策略的角度，這當然是要對比上周蔡英文為宇昌案出面說明的態度。當時，蔡僅簡單強調自己和家族沒有不法圖利，話說完不容媒體發問逕自轉頭就走。馬英九意在言外想提醒選民的是：如果沒有爭議，為什麼不敢好好的把疑點說清楚？
蔡英文痛批馬政府運用國家機器對她進行政治和司法追殺。如果從同樣的標準檢驗，大家不會忘記，百年國慶才結束，為了晚會耗資二億多，文建會主委盛治仁每天對民進黨的疑問出面說明，更主動將自己移送檢調。檢調的動作遠比宇昌案更快，接案後即已展開約談和搜索；盛治仁更主動請辭下台，但沒有一句話批評民進黨將此案炒成選舉議題或檢調的司法偵查。
宇昌案是扁政府執政時期的生技大案，蔡英文從行政院副院長卸任轉職為生技公司董事長，因為副院長不是主管機關，確實未必有違反公務員旋轉門條款；但是蔡在此案中，從主導立法、全面參與、到投入家族資金，的確有政治道德和社會觀感的問題。雖然政府扶植政策性產業非始於今日，但過去從無扶植者搖身成為董事長的案例，甚至主事者一張股票都沒有，遑論投入家族資金。
此案因為政黨輪替，蔡氏家族向國發基金申請並核准的資金並未實際撥下；蔡英文在當選民進黨主席後，也全面出脫持股，顯然她也知道政治與經營企業勢難兩全的道理。但是，宇昌向國發基金申請資金核准並撥款後，另以蔡氏家族名義成立的台懋公司確實也又向國發基金請款。蔡英文副院長卸任後，甚至要求國發基金官員赴她的宅邸報告相關事宜，就程序上也算創下國發基金的先例，當然有爭議之處。
蔡英文能解釋她未違反公務員旋轉門，由於她的持股是賣給民間企業，政府資金並未實際核撥，也無圖利；但卻無法解釋為什麼她一念之間，竟疏忽了在此案上理應利益迴避的關節。或許當時她無意繼續從政，但踏上政治之途，她就不能責怪為什麼當時沒問題，此時卻成為大問題，原因很簡單：因為她此刻競選總統。
如果蔡英文並未競逐大位，宇昌案很可能就無人再提；但她既要競選總統，當然就得接受較諸常人更嚴格的檢驗。就像馬英九於二○○八年競選總統，要接受特別費案、魚翅宴案的檢驗一樣；即使馬英九競選連任，民進黨找不出新題材批評他，挖出舊案，他還是得耐著性子話說從頭一般。
民進黨人把舊日新聞稿惡意掐頭去尾，指涉馬英九魚翅宴不只吃了兩次，這算是烏龍爆料還是惡意栽贓抹黑？馬英九拒絕了富邦的政治獻金，富邦老少兩位企業主都在法庭內外說明，富邦只在二○○四年給國民黨政治獻金，收據已呈法院，經手的立法院長王金平也出面說明，民進黨依舊質疑還大刊廣告，這算不算是蔡英文口中的「負面選舉」？
民進黨「負面選舉」手法不只一端。最近，民進黨大老謝長廷同樣拿出過去所謂「吳敦義緋聞錄音帶」的舊案，大刊廣告以此案做為國民黨抹黑的例證。此案就司法已經結案的情況，簡單講就是緋聞錄音帶確為造假，但非謝長廷交付陳春生，謝認為此案造成他台北市長落選，謝忽略了他在台北市長選舉得票落差太大，豈是一案能構成的？民進黨刊登此一廣告，對選戰其實完全沒有正面效益，徒然讓人回想當年吳敦義高雄市長落選，還真是因為這捲假的錄音帶。
選戰最後廿多天，藍綠無可避免的進入文宣肉搏戰，就算搞不到兩敗俱傷，也得搞到讓選民兩相厭惡。但不論如何，最終當選者將是未來四年國家領導人，一個不被人民信賴的人如何帶領國家？朝野兩黨都得正視選民對國家領袖人格特質的嚴格要求。
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Is TaiMed Really Not a Corruption Scandal?
Is TaiMed Really Not a Corruption Scandal?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself.
If the TaiMed corruption scandal involved violations of the law, it will become a criminal case. But even if it did not involve illegal acts, it could still be a scandal. According to the Ministry of Education Mandarin Dictionary, a scandal is an incident involving malfeasance or impropriety. Therefore the TaiMed corruption scandal is unquestionably scandalous. Whether it is an actionable criminal case remains to be seen, since it is still pending investigation.
Let us examine the facts of the TaiMed corruption scandal. When Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, she personally authored the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. Then, taking advantage of this ordinance, she personally issued a grant to TaiMed, aka Yu Chang, through the National Development Fund. Later, she invested Tsai family money in TaiMed, and served as its board chairman. Then, exploiting these same regulations, she founded the TaiMao Biotech Venture Capital Company. She sought one billion dollars from the National Development Fund, of which 875 million dollars was granted. The question we must now ask ourselves is whether this is merely a corruption scandal, or a criminal case?
First, assume for the sake of argument, that the TaiMed corruption scandal is not a criminal case. A vice premier wrote, directed, and acted in her own one woman self-enrichment show. She even involved David Ho and Ho Mei-yueh, and got them to use the machinery of state to bury the Nan Hua project. Does this not constitute a case of "malfeasance or impropriety?" Would this not be considered a "corruption scandal?"
Such appalling "malfeasance and improprieties" could take place within this "honorable" cabinet, Yet Tsai Ing-wen had the temerity to insist that the TaiMed corruption scandal was not scandalous. If she can get away with this, then from this day forward, any poliitical appointee can propose a Bill, then use the National Development Fund to set up a company, He or she can bypass audit procedures. His or her family members can invest their money. He or she can appoint himself company chairman. He or she can create a "venture capital company" and apply for a one billion dollar subsidy. As long as he or she frames her actions in euphemistic terms, then anything is legal. The entire nation's civil service can do the same. Can we really say the TaiMed corruption scandal is not scandalous?
Now let us ask whether the TaiMed corruption scandal should also be considered a criminal case. In other words, did it also involve illegal actitivity? The law most relevant to the TaiMed corruption scandal is the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. But this "special law" is something Tsai Ing-wen pubicly acknowledges "personally authoring." She was personally responsible for the lack of revolving door restrictions, of restrictions against conflicts of interest, for its tax-free status, and for setting up a one billion dollar "biotech venture capital" clause. She complied with every one of these "special law" requirements. Under the circumstances, what good would it do to talk about legal violations? What would be the point? Clearly this was a law custom designed according to Tsai Ing-wen's specifications. Everything that would normally be considered illegal was predefined as "legal."
Many say Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier on May 21, 2007. They insist this dividing line absolves her of political and legal responsibility. This is indeed the "legal date." This is the date that would make her actions legal. Unfortunately it is not the "actual date." It is not the date that applies to her case in the real world. Tsai Ing-wen played a leading role in TaiMed, from beginning to end. On this point, no one has any doubts. The Nan Hua project was already two years old. It was on the verge of being approved. It was at this moment that Tsai Ing-wen suddenly and single-handedly promoted her Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. It was at this moment that she single-handedly established TaiMed, Does anyone actually believe that Tsai Ing-wen did not know that TaiMed would swallow up Nan Hua? That it would "hijack" it? Tsai retired on May 21. On July 6, Tsai met with Stephen Young. She publicly acknowledged that she had personally become involved the biotech drug industry, In August she sent a letter to the National Development Fund, seeking forty million dollars in start-up capital. How many days of gestation and run-in were required before the date shown on the documents? That is the gap between the "legal date" and "actual date." Tsai Ing-wen may not have imagined that she would step down on May 21, 2007. But she was making post-retirement arrangements for herself even when she was still in office. Could it be the retirement date was the date of her premiere? Could it be the script was already written? Otherwise how could events have worked out so well, without a single hitch?
At the heart of the dispute is Tsai Ing-wen's personal approval of TaiMed, TaiMed received 40 milion dollars in start-up capital from the National Development Fund, only three months after stepping down. Tsai Ing-wen was chairman of Yu Chang. Did she really not know that the "Yu Chang" company she headed was the very same company she personally approved -- TaiMed?
Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal becomes a criminal case depends on the legal evidence. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is considered a scandal will depend on whether one has a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Is it a criminal case? Or is it "merely" a scandal? Tsai Ing-wen has failed to provide a satisfactory response to either possibility. Instead, she has the temerity to claim that all the attention is "killing the biotechnology industry," that the current administration is engaging in "political assassination." She is calling the pending investigation of her "a blight on democracy," She and her accomplices even hope to incite "Taiwanese outrage" and precipate an "ethnic" struggle over reunification vs. independence. The sole purpose of their insane demagoguery is merely to shift public attention awat from the facts around her legal gullt or innocence.
Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.
宇昌案是不是弊案？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.20
蔡英文說，宇昌案不是弊案，亦未違法。這兩種說法，皆多可待商榷之處，亦均非蔡英文自己說了就算。
宇昌案若涉違法，那就成了「刑案」；但縱未涉違法，也可能是「弊案」。據教育部的國語辭典說，弊案是發生缺失或不正當的案件。準此，宇昌案當然是「弊案」；至於是否「刑案」，仍待偵辦，迄今尚無答案。
不妨再看一看宇昌案的主體架構：蔡英文任行政院副院長期間，親自撰寫主導《生技新藥產業條例》，再依據此一條例，親批以國發基金開設TaiMed（即宇昌），後來又以蔡家資金入股宇昌（即TaiMed），並任董事長；再依據同一條例，自設「台懋生技創投公司」，又向國發基金請款十億元，核准了八點七五億。現在要討論的是：這樣的案子是否「弊案」？是否「刑案」？
先假設不是刑案。請問：一位副閣揆，自導、自演、自肥到如此地步，何況其間還涉及何大一與何美玥等「運用國家機器」封殺南華案等行徑，這算不算是一件「發生缺失或不正當的案件」？算不算是一件「弊案」？
堂皇內閣之中，居然出現了如此駭人聽聞的「發生缺失或不正當的案件」；但蔡英文說，宇昌案不是「弊案」。此說若欲成立，除非蔡英文敢說，今後任何政務官均可自擬一個《條例》，再用國發基金設置一家公司，並排除一切審核程序，以自家資金入股，自任董事長，又再創「創投公司」請款十億；只要她敢說凡此皆屬正當，全國公務員皆可如此，那麼，宇昌案就不能說是「弊案」！
再論是否「刑案」，亦即是否違法？本案主要的法律準據即是《生技新藥產業條例》，但這部「特別法」卻是蔡英文承認係其「親手撰寫的」；其中包括排除旋轉門、利益迴避、免稅，及設立「生技創投」請款十億等，均是依據這個「特別法」的規定。在這樣的情境下，談「有無違法」，有何意義？因為，從現今的事實來看，這儼然是一部依照蔡英文的身形「量身裁製」的法律，一切「不合法的」均已被剪裁成「合法」。
再者，一般均將蔡英文於二○○七年五月二十一日卸副院長職，視為其政治及法律責任的分界點。這也許是事後從「法律日期」來看的景況，卻絕非案件發展的「事實日期」。蔡英文在全案中始終居於強勢主導角色，此點無人懷疑；而南華案在進行已有兩年之久，於幾乎已經批准之際，蔡英文竟同步一手親推《生技條例》，一手親批設置TaiMed，若謂蔡英文不知道「宇昌吃掉南華」的「劫鑣事件」，恐怕無人相信。再者，蔡在五月二十一日卸任，於七月六日見楊甦隸時已言明將親自投入新藥生技產業，八月即去函國發基金要求撥款四千萬元開辦費。在這些公文書上註明的日期之前，需有多少日子的醞釀期及磨合期，這才是「法律日期」與「事實日期」之間存有的落差與疑竇。蔡英文也許沒想到她會在二○○七年五月二十一日卸職，但這卻完全不能排除一切均是早已對準了她卸任後的安排。莫非卸任只是上演日期，但劇本早已寫好；否則豈可能如此環環相扣，一氣呵成？
最核心的爭議是：蔡英文親手批定了TaiMed，而居然在卸任三個月後就代表宇昌（即TaiMed）向國發基金請撥四千萬元開辦費。蔡英文難道不知，她任董事長的「宇昌」，正是她親批的TaiMed？
是否「刑案」，要看「法律證據」；但是否「弊案」，則只須自問良知與廉恥。現在，蔡英文無論對「刑案」或「弊案」的質疑，均未充分答辯；卻竟然將此案導向「扼殺生技產業」、「政治追殺」及「民主之恥」，其同案夥伴甚至欲將之推向「台灣人的憤怒」的族群統獨鬥爭；但如此瘋狂操弄，恐怕仍是「轉移焦點不能改變涉案或涉弊的事實」。
此案究竟是否「弊案」，容或見仁見智；是否「刑案」，亦仍待特偵組給答案。但毫無疑問的是，政治人物以如此離譜及傲慢的態度面對並操作自己所涉的如此嚴肅的民主法治巨案，可真是「民主之恥」！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself.
If the TaiMed corruption scandal involved violations of the law, it will become a criminal case. But even if it did not involve illegal acts, it could still be a scandal. According to the Ministry of Education Mandarin Dictionary, a scandal is an incident involving malfeasance or impropriety. Therefore the TaiMed corruption scandal is unquestionably scandalous. Whether it is an actionable criminal case remains to be seen, since it is still pending investigation.
Let us examine the facts of the TaiMed corruption scandal. When Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, she personally authored the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. Then, taking advantage of this ordinance, she personally issued a grant to TaiMed, aka Yu Chang, through the National Development Fund. Later, she invested Tsai family money in TaiMed, and served as its board chairman. Then, exploiting these same regulations, she founded the TaiMao Biotech Venture Capital Company. She sought one billion dollars from the National Development Fund, of which 875 million dollars was granted. The question we must now ask ourselves is whether this is merely a corruption scandal, or a criminal case?
First, assume for the sake of argument, that the TaiMed corruption scandal is not a criminal case. A vice premier wrote, directed, and acted in her own one woman self-enrichment show. She even involved David Ho and Ho Mei-yueh, and got them to use the machinery of state to bury the Nan Hua project. Does this not constitute a case of "malfeasance or impropriety?" Would this not be considered a "corruption scandal?"
Such appalling "malfeasance and improprieties" could take place within this "honorable" cabinet, Yet Tsai Ing-wen had the temerity to insist that the TaiMed corruption scandal was not scandalous. If she can get away with this, then from this day forward, any poliitical appointee can propose a Bill, then use the National Development Fund to set up a company, He or she can bypass audit procedures. His or her family members can invest their money. He or she can appoint himself company chairman. He or she can create a "venture capital company" and apply for a one billion dollar subsidy. As long as he or she frames her actions in euphemistic terms, then anything is legal. The entire nation's civil service can do the same. Can we really say the TaiMed corruption scandal is not scandalous?
Now let us ask whether the TaiMed corruption scandal should also be considered a criminal case. In other words, did it also involve illegal actitivity? The law most relevant to the TaiMed corruption scandal is the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. But this "special law" is something Tsai Ing-wen pubicly acknowledges "personally authoring." She was personally responsible for the lack of revolving door restrictions, of restrictions against conflicts of interest, for its tax-free status, and for setting up a one billion dollar "biotech venture capital" clause. She complied with every one of these "special law" requirements. Under the circumstances, what good would it do to talk about legal violations? What would be the point? Clearly this was a law custom designed according to Tsai Ing-wen's specifications. Everything that would normally be considered illegal was predefined as "legal."
Many say Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier on May 21, 2007. They insist this dividing line absolves her of political and legal responsibility. This is indeed the "legal date." This is the date that would make her actions legal. Unfortunately it is not the "actual date." It is not the date that applies to her case in the real world. Tsai Ing-wen played a leading role in TaiMed, from beginning to end. On this point, no one has any doubts. The Nan Hua project was already two years old. It was on the verge of being approved. It was at this moment that Tsai Ing-wen suddenly and single-handedly promoted her Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. It was at this moment that she single-handedly established TaiMed, Does anyone actually believe that Tsai Ing-wen did not know that TaiMed would swallow up Nan Hua? That it would "hijack" it? Tsai retired on May 21. On July 6, Tsai met with Stephen Young. She publicly acknowledged that she had personally become involved the biotech drug industry, In August she sent a letter to the National Development Fund, seeking forty million dollars in start-up capital. How many days of gestation and run-in were required before the date shown on the documents? That is the gap between the "legal date" and "actual date." Tsai Ing-wen may not have imagined that she would step down on May 21, 2007. But she was making post-retirement arrangements for herself even when she was still in office. Could it be the retirement date was the date of her premiere? Could it be the script was already written? Otherwise how could events have worked out so well, without a single hitch?
At the heart of the dispute is Tsai Ing-wen's personal approval of TaiMed, TaiMed received 40 milion dollars in start-up capital from the National Development Fund, only three months after stepping down. Tsai Ing-wen was chairman of Yu Chang. Did she really not know that the "Yu Chang" company she headed was the very same company she personally approved -- TaiMed?
Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal becomes a criminal case depends on the legal evidence. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is considered a scandal will depend on whether one has a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Is it a criminal case? Or is it "merely" a scandal? Tsai Ing-wen has failed to provide a satisfactory response to either possibility. Instead, she has the temerity to claim that all the attention is "killing the biotechnology industry," that the current administration is engaging in "political assassination." She is calling the pending investigation of her "a blight on democracy," She and her accomplices even hope to incite "Taiwanese outrage" and precipate an "ethnic" struggle over reunification vs. independence. The sole purpose of their insane demagoguery is merely to shift public attention awat from the facts around her legal gullt or innocence.
Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.
宇昌案是不是弊案？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.20
蔡英文說，宇昌案不是弊案，亦未違法。這兩種說法，皆多可待商榷之處，亦均非蔡英文自己說了就算。
宇昌案若涉違法，那就成了「刑案」；但縱未涉違法，也可能是「弊案」。據教育部的國語辭典說，弊案是發生缺失或不正當的案件。準此，宇昌案當然是「弊案」；至於是否「刑案」，仍待偵辦，迄今尚無答案。
不妨再看一看宇昌案的主體架構：蔡英文任行政院副院長期間，親自撰寫主導《生技新藥產業條例》，再依據此一條例，親批以國發基金開設TaiMed（即宇昌），後來又以蔡家資金入股宇昌（即TaiMed），並任董事長；再依據同一條例，自設「台懋生技創投公司」，又向國發基金請款十億元，核准了八點七五億。現在要討論的是：這樣的案子是否「弊案」？是否「刑案」？
先假設不是刑案。請問：一位副閣揆，自導、自演、自肥到如此地步，何況其間還涉及何大一與何美玥等「運用國家機器」封殺南華案等行徑，這算不算是一件「發生缺失或不正當的案件」？算不算是一件「弊案」？
堂皇內閣之中，居然出現了如此駭人聽聞的「發生缺失或不正當的案件」；但蔡英文說，宇昌案不是「弊案」。此說若欲成立，除非蔡英文敢說，今後任何政務官均可自擬一個《條例》，再用國發基金設置一家公司，並排除一切審核程序，以自家資金入股，自任董事長，又再創「創投公司」請款十億；只要她敢說凡此皆屬正當，全國公務員皆可如此，那麼，宇昌案就不能說是「弊案」！
再論是否「刑案」，亦即是否違法？本案主要的法律準據即是《生技新藥產業條例》，但這部「特別法」卻是蔡英文承認係其「親手撰寫的」；其中包括排除旋轉門、利益迴避、免稅，及設立「生技創投」請款十億等，均是依據這個「特別法」的規定。在這樣的情境下，談「有無違法」，有何意義？因為，從現今的事實來看，這儼然是一部依照蔡英文的身形「量身裁製」的法律，一切「不合法的」均已被剪裁成「合法」。
再者，一般均將蔡英文於二○○七年五月二十一日卸副院長職，視為其政治及法律責任的分界點。這也許是事後從「法律日期」來看的景況，卻絕非案件發展的「事實日期」。蔡英文在全案中始終居於強勢主導角色，此點無人懷疑；而南華案在進行已有兩年之久，於幾乎已經批准之際，蔡英文竟同步一手親推《生技條例》，一手親批設置TaiMed，若謂蔡英文不知道「宇昌吃掉南華」的「劫鑣事件」，恐怕無人相信。再者，蔡在五月二十一日卸任，於七月六日見楊甦隸時已言明將親自投入新藥生技產業，八月即去函國發基金要求撥款四千萬元開辦費。在這些公文書上註明的日期之前，需有多少日子的醞釀期及磨合期，這才是「法律日期」與「事實日期」之間存有的落差與疑竇。蔡英文也許沒想到她會在二○○七年五月二十一日卸職，但這卻完全不能排除一切均是早已對準了她卸任後的安排。莫非卸任只是上演日期，但劇本早已寫好；否則豈可能如此環環相扣，一氣呵成？
最核心的爭議是：蔡英文親手批定了TaiMed，而居然在卸任三個月後就代表宇昌（即TaiMed）向國發基金請撥四千萬元開辦費。蔡英文難道不知，她任董事長的「宇昌」，正是她親批的TaiMed？
是否「刑案」，要看「法律證據」；但是否「弊案」，則只須自問良知與廉恥。現在，蔡英文無論對「刑案」或「弊案」的質疑，均未充分答辯；卻竟然將此案導向「扼殺生技產業」、「政治追殺」及「民主之恥」，其同案夥伴甚至欲將之推向「台灣人的憤怒」的族群統獨鬥爭；但如此瘋狂操弄，恐怕仍是「轉移焦點不能改變涉案或涉弊的事實」。
此案究竟是否「弊案」，容或見仁見智；是否「刑案」，亦仍待特偵組給答案。但毫無疑問的是，政治人物以如此離譜及傲慢的態度面對並操作自己所涉的如此嚴肅的民主法治巨案，可真是「民主之恥」！
Monday, December 19, 2011
Do Not Underestimate Importance of 1992 Consensus to Cross-Strait Relations
Do Not Underestimate Importance of 1992 Consensus to Cross-Strait Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2011
Summary: National leaders represent the national will. They carry the nation's aspirations on their shoulders. They must be able to gain the people's trust. They must not provoke uncertainty. They must offer people a sense of security. We hope the presidential candidates will act responsibly and make a solemn promise to the people. If you win office, you will continue to honor the 1992 Consensus. If you win office, you will expand the scope of cross-Strait exchanges made possible by the 1992 Consensus.
Full Text Below:
Beijing's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) commemorated its 20th anniversary. Beijing's CPPCC Chairman Jia Qinglin issued a statement. He reminded everyone that the 1992 Consensus exists. It is a hard fact. Denying its existence will make cross-Strait negotiations impossible, It will make agreements reached during past consultations difficult to implement. It will lead to the recurrence of past cross-Strait tensions. Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi stressed that "The 1992 Consensus must not be denied. Cross-Strait relations must not regress." This was followed by explicit expressions about the future of cross-Strait relations by even higher-level leaders in Beijing.
The presidential election is less than a month off. At this crucial moment, ruling and opposition party candidates must realize that the 1992 Consensus is the basis of mutual trust, and the path that will benefit Taiwan the most. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen in particular must think twice. She must recognize and reaffirm that the interests of the public on Taiwan transcends political ideology. She must make the pragmatic choices.
Several points in Jia Qinglin's remarks warrant attention. First, he reaffirmed the reality of the 1992 Consensus. He pointed out that in 1992, ARATS and the SEF reached an oral agreement on the One China Principle. This is what people today commonly refer to as the 1992 Consensus. This laid the political foundation for cross-Strait negotiations, This contributed to the Wang-Koo talks held the following year. This constituted an important step in cross-Strait relations. Secondly, he reiterated that cross-Strait negotiations are a priority. They are vital to the interests of compatriots on both sides of the Strait, Negotiations should actively consider the needs of most ordinary citizens, SMEs, and young people, Negotiations should expand cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, and expand the benefits to the public on both sides of the Strait. Thirdly, he explicitly said the two sides should avoid unnecessary friction in foreign affairs. He said he understood the concerns of Taiwan compatriots, including their desire to participate in international activities. He said Beijing was willing to make reasonable arrangements for cross-Strait consultations.
Jia Qinglin's remarks made no mention of the upcoming presidential election, But his remarks brimmed over with implied concern that cross-Strait relations might regress. Beijing apparently considers the 1992 Consensus its bottom line for further cross-Strait developments.
The global economy has yet to fully recover from the financial tsunami. The impact on the ROC over the past three years has been milder compared to other countries. That is because the government implemented various measures. Other factors also had a major role. These factors include stable cross-Strait relations, direct links, Mainland tourists visiting Taiwan, and the sale of Taiwan's agricultural products, fish, and electrical appliances to the Mainland. The signing of ECFA has enabled Taiwan to attract more international funds. Looking to the future, we expect continued peaceful cross-Strait relations. This includes the ECFA early harvest list. Ninety-four percent of the items on the list will be tariff free in January, one month from now. The public on Taiwan will find it easier to enter and exit the Mainland. The Mainland is even considering importing rice from Taiwan. It is considering normalizing market-based procurement mechanisms for the purchase of a variety of products. These products are relevant to the pragmatic interests of the public on Taiwan. National leaders cannot afford to ignore them. Tsai Ing-wen stands a good chance of being elected. She too needs to think about what is more important. Is it realizing the DPP's goal of Taiwan independence? Or is it fulfiling the needs of the Taiwan public? Two weeks ago, on the eve of the televised presidential debate, Tsai Ing-wen held a press conference. She vowed that following the election she would form a "cross-Strait policy dialogue group." She would make the 1992 Consensus part of the discussions. These vows were part of an attempt to gain the confidence of swing voters. Unfortunately during the debate, Tsai Ing-wen completely reneged on her promises. She reverted to repudiating the 1992 Consensus, pouring cold water on centrist voters.
Without the 1992 Consensus, can the 17 agreements already signed remain in force? Over the past three years regular meetings and consultations between the ARATS and the SEF have been restored, How can they proceed? In the presence of ARATS Vice Chairman Jia Qinglin, SEF Chairman Li Ya-fei assured the Taiwan media that without the 1992 Consensus, regular meetings and consultations between the ARATS and the SEF "would definitely come to an end." The point is not that talks between the leaders of the two associations would come to end. The point is that the benefits conferred upon the public on both sides of the Strait would be lost, All sorts of of jobs beneficial to people on both sides of the Strait would vanish, Most importantly, the losses would affect not just cross-Strait relations, but Taiwan's economic situation.
As we all know, the debt crisis in Europe means the world faces another wave of financial crises, even more serious than the one precipitated by the Lehman Brothers scandal, Taiwan has limited resources. Loss of the Mainland market would sever one of its most important economic arteries. This is why academics and business experts are worried. Some of them are saying that "If Ma is reelected, the economic situation on Taiwan will be bad. But if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, the economic situation on Taiwan will be even worse." Recently Taiwan stocks fell more world stocks, This reflects the uncertainty Taiwan investors feel about the larger situation.
National leaders represent the national will. They carry the nation's aspirations on their shoulders. They must be able to gain the people's trust. They must not provoke uncertainty. They must offer people a sense of security. We hope the presidential candidates will act responsibly and make a solemn promise to the people. If you win office, you will continue to honor the 1992 Consensus. If you win office, you will expand the scope of cross-Strait exchanges made possible by the 1992 Consensus.
別低估九二共識維繫兩岸關係的重要性
2011-12-17中國時報
大陸海協會舉行廿週年紀念大會，大陸全國政協主席賈慶林發表談話，強調「九二共識」是一個客觀事實，否定「九二共識」，兩岸協商就難以為繼，已有的協商成果也將難以落實，兩岸關係勢將重現以往曾有過的動蕩不安。這是繼大陸國台辦主任王毅強調「九二共識不容否認，兩岸關係不容倒退」後，大陸更高層的領導人對兩岸走向再一次明確表態。
值此總統大選不到一個月的關鍵時刻，朝野候選人都不能不正視唯有維護「九二共識」這個兩岸互信基礎，才是最符合台灣利益的做法。特別是民進黨主席蔡英文更須慎重思考，台灣人民的利益理應超越政黨的意識形態，做出務實的抉擇。
賈慶林談話，幾點應特別注意。首先是他確認了「九二共識」存在的事實。他指出一九九二年海協會與台灣海基會經兩岸雙方分別授權，達成各自以口頭方式表述堅持一個中國原則的共識，也就是今天人們稱之的「九二共識」，由此奠定了兩岸協商的政治基礎，促成了次年汪辜會談的舉行，邁出了兩岸關係重要一步。其次他重申兩岸協商應當優先解決事關兩岸同胞切身利益的重要問題，積極考慮廣大基層民眾、中小企業和青年人的需求，使協商成果更加有利於擴大兩岸交流合作，更加廣泛地惠及兩岸民眾。再其次，他也明確主張兩岸在涉外事務中應避免不必要的內耗，同時也理解和重視台灣同胞關心參與國際活動的問題，願意通過兩岸協商作出合情合理的安排。
賈慶林上述談話雖未提及選舉，但憂心兩岸關係有可能倒退的寓意，卻瀰漫通篇談話中，可以這麼說，北京似乎已經將「九二共識」視為兩岸發展後續關係的最後底線了。
這三年多來，全球經濟局勢在金融海嘯重創後，始終復原無力，相對於其他國家，台灣受創有限，除了政府各種措施之外，很大部分得歸功於兩岸關係的穩定發展。直航三通、陸客來台、台灣農漁家電產品輸陸…，兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ後，讓台灣更具備吸引國際資金的條件，展望未來，如果兩岸關係持續和平穩健發展，可預期的，包括ＥＣＦＡ早收清單百分之九十四的項目在一個月後的明年元旦即可實施零關稅，未來台灣民眾出入境大陸更便捷，大陸甚至開始思考進口台灣稻米，並建立常態化、市場化的對台採購機制。凡此種種，無一不攸關台灣人民的實際利益。身為國家領導人，不能不以人民的利益為念，對於當選機會極大的蔡英文而言，同樣要思考當選總統究竟是為了實踐民進黨的台獨理念重要？還是維護台灣人民的利益重要？兩週前的總統大選電視辯論會前夕，蔡英文一度出面舉行記者會，表明當選後要組成「兩岸對話小組」，不排除把「九二共識」納入台灣共識的討論，這番這句話某種程度鼓舞中間選民的信心；遺憾的是，蔡英文在辯論會中又全盤推翻，依舊強硬地否認「九二共識」，彷彿當頭澆下一盆冷水。
沒有「九二共識」，已簽署的十七項協議還能繼續執行嗎？更不要提已經恢復三年多、成果豐碩的兩岸兩會領導人定期會談與協商，還能如何進行下去？海協會副會長李亞飛在賈慶林談話前與台灣媒體會面，感慨直言，「那肯定是要停了！」重點不是在兩岸兩會領導人的會談終止，重點在於這意味著兩岸關係勢將重挫，與兩岸人民利益相關的各種工作都將面臨停擺，這個重大變數，不只攸關兩岸關係，更攸關台灣經濟形勢。
眾所周知，在歐債風暴下，全球經濟局勢又將面臨一波較諸雷曼兄弟引爆的金融海嘯更嚴峻的挑戰，台灣資源有限，失去大陸市場就是切斷一條最重要的經濟血脈，這也是為什麼包括學者專家和企業界都極為憂心，甚至有「馬英九連任，經濟形勢與台灣處境壞；蔡英文當選，經濟形勢與台灣處境更壞」的感嘆。最近台股較諸世界各國呈現超跌情況，正是台灣投資人對整體情勢不確定感的投射。
國家領導人是國家意志的表徵，肩上扛的是全國人民的負託，必須能給予人民信賴感，而非不確定感。重要的是：請給人民安全感。請有志於大位總統候選人負責任的給予人民承諾：如果執政可以延續「九二共識」，並擴大「九二共識」所創造的兩岸交流成果。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2011
Summary: National leaders represent the national will. They carry the nation's aspirations on their shoulders. They must be able to gain the people's trust. They must not provoke uncertainty. They must offer people a sense of security. We hope the presidential candidates will act responsibly and make a solemn promise to the people. If you win office, you will continue to honor the 1992 Consensus. If you win office, you will expand the scope of cross-Strait exchanges made possible by the 1992 Consensus.
Full Text Below:
Beijing's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) commemorated its 20th anniversary. Beijing's CPPCC Chairman Jia Qinglin issued a statement. He reminded everyone that the 1992 Consensus exists. It is a hard fact. Denying its existence will make cross-Strait negotiations impossible, It will make agreements reached during past consultations difficult to implement. It will lead to the recurrence of past cross-Strait tensions. Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi stressed that "The 1992 Consensus must not be denied. Cross-Strait relations must not regress." This was followed by explicit expressions about the future of cross-Strait relations by even higher-level leaders in Beijing.
The presidential election is less than a month off. At this crucial moment, ruling and opposition party candidates must realize that the 1992 Consensus is the basis of mutual trust, and the path that will benefit Taiwan the most. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen in particular must think twice. She must recognize and reaffirm that the interests of the public on Taiwan transcends political ideology. She must make the pragmatic choices.
Several points in Jia Qinglin's remarks warrant attention. First, he reaffirmed the reality of the 1992 Consensus. He pointed out that in 1992, ARATS and the SEF reached an oral agreement on the One China Principle. This is what people today commonly refer to as the 1992 Consensus. This laid the political foundation for cross-Strait negotiations, This contributed to the Wang-Koo talks held the following year. This constituted an important step in cross-Strait relations. Secondly, he reiterated that cross-Strait negotiations are a priority. They are vital to the interests of compatriots on both sides of the Strait, Negotiations should actively consider the needs of most ordinary citizens, SMEs, and young people, Negotiations should expand cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation, and expand the benefits to the public on both sides of the Strait. Thirdly, he explicitly said the two sides should avoid unnecessary friction in foreign affairs. He said he understood the concerns of Taiwan compatriots, including their desire to participate in international activities. He said Beijing was willing to make reasonable arrangements for cross-Strait consultations.
Jia Qinglin's remarks made no mention of the upcoming presidential election, But his remarks brimmed over with implied concern that cross-Strait relations might regress. Beijing apparently considers the 1992 Consensus its bottom line for further cross-Strait developments.
The global economy has yet to fully recover from the financial tsunami. The impact on the ROC over the past three years has been milder compared to other countries. That is because the government implemented various measures. Other factors also had a major role. These factors include stable cross-Strait relations, direct links, Mainland tourists visiting Taiwan, and the sale of Taiwan's agricultural products, fish, and electrical appliances to the Mainland. The signing of ECFA has enabled Taiwan to attract more international funds. Looking to the future, we expect continued peaceful cross-Strait relations. This includes the ECFA early harvest list. Ninety-four percent of the items on the list will be tariff free in January, one month from now. The public on Taiwan will find it easier to enter and exit the Mainland. The Mainland is even considering importing rice from Taiwan. It is considering normalizing market-based procurement mechanisms for the purchase of a variety of products. These products are relevant to the pragmatic interests of the public on Taiwan. National leaders cannot afford to ignore them. Tsai Ing-wen stands a good chance of being elected. She too needs to think about what is more important. Is it realizing the DPP's goal of Taiwan independence? Or is it fulfiling the needs of the Taiwan public? Two weeks ago, on the eve of the televised presidential debate, Tsai Ing-wen held a press conference. She vowed that following the election she would form a "cross-Strait policy dialogue group." She would make the 1992 Consensus part of the discussions. These vows were part of an attempt to gain the confidence of swing voters. Unfortunately during the debate, Tsai Ing-wen completely reneged on her promises. She reverted to repudiating the 1992 Consensus, pouring cold water on centrist voters.
Without the 1992 Consensus, can the 17 agreements already signed remain in force? Over the past three years regular meetings and consultations between the ARATS and the SEF have been restored, How can they proceed? In the presence of ARATS Vice Chairman Jia Qinglin, SEF Chairman Li Ya-fei assured the Taiwan media that without the 1992 Consensus, regular meetings and consultations between the ARATS and the SEF "would definitely come to an end." The point is not that talks between the leaders of the two associations would come to end. The point is that the benefits conferred upon the public on both sides of the Strait would be lost, All sorts of of jobs beneficial to people on both sides of the Strait would vanish, Most importantly, the losses would affect not just cross-Strait relations, but Taiwan's economic situation.
As we all know, the debt crisis in Europe means the world faces another wave of financial crises, even more serious than the one precipitated by the Lehman Brothers scandal, Taiwan has limited resources. Loss of the Mainland market would sever one of its most important economic arteries. This is why academics and business experts are worried. Some of them are saying that "If Ma is reelected, the economic situation on Taiwan will be bad. But if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, the economic situation on Taiwan will be even worse." Recently Taiwan stocks fell more world stocks, This reflects the uncertainty Taiwan investors feel about the larger situation.
National leaders represent the national will. They carry the nation's aspirations on their shoulders. They must be able to gain the people's trust. They must not provoke uncertainty. They must offer people a sense of security. We hope the presidential candidates will act responsibly and make a solemn promise to the people. If you win office, you will continue to honor the 1992 Consensus. If you win office, you will expand the scope of cross-Strait exchanges made possible by the 1992 Consensus.
別低估九二共識維繫兩岸關係的重要性
2011-12-17中國時報
大陸海協會舉行廿週年紀念大會，大陸全國政協主席賈慶林發表談話，強調「九二共識」是一個客觀事實，否定「九二共識」，兩岸協商就難以為繼，已有的協商成果也將難以落實，兩岸關係勢將重現以往曾有過的動蕩不安。這是繼大陸國台辦主任王毅強調「九二共識不容否認，兩岸關係不容倒退」後，大陸更高層的領導人對兩岸走向再一次明確表態。
值此總統大選不到一個月的關鍵時刻，朝野候選人都不能不正視唯有維護「九二共識」這個兩岸互信基礎，才是最符合台灣利益的做法。特別是民進黨主席蔡英文更須慎重思考，台灣人民的利益理應超越政黨的意識形態，做出務實的抉擇。
賈慶林談話，幾點應特別注意。首先是他確認了「九二共識」存在的事實。他指出一九九二年海協會與台灣海基會經兩岸雙方分別授權，達成各自以口頭方式表述堅持一個中國原則的共識，也就是今天人們稱之的「九二共識」，由此奠定了兩岸協商的政治基礎，促成了次年汪辜會談的舉行，邁出了兩岸關係重要一步。其次他重申兩岸協商應當優先解決事關兩岸同胞切身利益的重要問題，積極考慮廣大基層民眾、中小企業和青年人的需求，使協商成果更加有利於擴大兩岸交流合作，更加廣泛地惠及兩岸民眾。再其次，他也明確主張兩岸在涉外事務中應避免不必要的內耗，同時也理解和重視台灣同胞關心參與國際活動的問題，願意通過兩岸協商作出合情合理的安排。
賈慶林上述談話雖未提及選舉，但憂心兩岸關係有可能倒退的寓意，卻瀰漫通篇談話中，可以這麼說，北京似乎已經將「九二共識」視為兩岸發展後續關係的最後底線了。
這三年多來，全球經濟局勢在金融海嘯重創後，始終復原無力，相對於其他國家，台灣受創有限，除了政府各種措施之外，很大部分得歸功於兩岸關係的穩定發展。直航三通、陸客來台、台灣農漁家電產品輸陸…，兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ後，讓台灣更具備吸引國際資金的條件，展望未來，如果兩岸關係持續和平穩健發展，可預期的，包括ＥＣＦＡ早收清單百分之九十四的項目在一個月後的明年元旦即可實施零關稅，未來台灣民眾出入境大陸更便捷，大陸甚至開始思考進口台灣稻米，並建立常態化、市場化的對台採購機制。凡此種種，無一不攸關台灣人民的實際利益。身為國家領導人，不能不以人民的利益為念，對於當選機會極大的蔡英文而言，同樣要思考當選總統究竟是為了實踐民進黨的台獨理念重要？還是維護台灣人民的利益重要？兩週前的總統大選電視辯論會前夕，蔡英文一度出面舉行記者會，表明當選後要組成「兩岸對話小組」，不排除把「九二共識」納入台灣共識的討論，這番這句話某種程度鼓舞中間選民的信心；遺憾的是，蔡英文在辯論會中又全盤推翻，依舊強硬地否認「九二共識」，彷彿當頭澆下一盆冷水。
沒有「九二共識」，已簽署的十七項協議還能繼續執行嗎？更不要提已經恢復三年多、成果豐碩的兩岸兩會領導人定期會談與協商，還能如何進行下去？海協會副會長李亞飛在賈慶林談話前與台灣媒體會面，感慨直言，「那肯定是要停了！」重點不是在兩岸兩會領導人的會談終止，重點在於這意味著兩岸關係勢將重挫，與兩岸人民利益相關的各種工作都將面臨停擺，這個重大變數，不只攸關兩岸關係，更攸關台灣經濟形勢。
眾所周知，在歐債風暴下，全球經濟局勢又將面臨一波較諸雷曼兄弟引爆的金融海嘯更嚴峻的挑戰，台灣資源有限，失去大陸市場就是切斷一條最重要的經濟血脈，這也是為什麼包括學者專家和企業界都極為憂心，甚至有「馬英九連任，經濟形勢與台灣處境壞；蔡英文當選，經濟形勢與台灣處境更壞」的感嘆。最近台股較諸世界各國呈現超跌情況，正是台灣投資人對整體情勢不確定感的投射。
國家領導人是國家意志的表徵，肩上扛的是全國人民的負託，必須能給予人民信賴感，而非不確定感。重要的是：請給人民安全感。請有志於大位總統候選人負責任的給予人民承諾：如果執政可以延續「九二共識」，並擴大「九二共識」所創造的兩岸交流成果。
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The White Rose Becomes Tsai Yu Chang
The White Rose Becomes Tsai Yu Chang
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 16, 2011
Summary: Tsai is now a presidential candidate. She was once the "White Rose," the "little dragon maid." She is now "Tsai 18", "Kong Xin Cai" (water spinach, a vegetable with hollow stems, suggesting a lack of substance) and "Tsai Yu Chang." Her personal image has been shattered. But if she is elected president, she may well shatter the Republic of China's image along with her own. The public is disillusioned. Three years ago everyone hoped that Tsai Ing-wen would reform the DPP. Today however, we know that the DPP has corrupted Tsai Ing-wen.
Full Text Below:
Our editorial on the 10th spoke of "Tsai Ing-wen's Three Illusions." Today's editorial speaks of "Tsai Ing-wen's Three Shattered Illusions."
During the December 3 presidential debate, Tsai Ing-wen expended the most energy defending herself on three issues. One. Cross-Strait relations. The evening before she proposed a "cross-Strait dialogue working group." The day of the debate, she talked up a storm, struggling mightily to explain her "Taiwan consensus." Two. Her image as a champion of justice. At least twice she reiterated that "My campaign committee is not the same as my cabinet." She even assured President Ma that "The person standing before you is Tsai Ing-wen, not Chen Shui-bian." Three. Her view of national governance. She said "The international community seldom recognizes our national flag and our national title. We have been able to do little about it. There is only one solution to these problems. A new political party must take office, A new president must lead Taiwan."
Tsai Ing-wen knows that these three issues are her three greatest weaknesses and three greatest embarrassments. She struggles to justify herself, but has trouble convincing listeners. This reflects her "three shattered illusions."
Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen took on the role of DPP Chairman. This may have been her wish, or the wish of the public. Either way, the wish was that she would transform the DPP. The most important transformations the DPP needed to undergo concerned its views on cross-Strait relations, its image as a champion of justice, and its views on national governance. But during the debate President Ma zinged Tsai Ing-wen when he said "I, Ma Ying-jeou, reformed the Kuomintang, The DPP on the other hand, corrupted Tsai Ing-wen." Ma hit the nail on the head when he addressed these shattered illusions.
One. Cross-Strait relations. On the one hand, Tsai Ing-wen promises to maintain peaceful cross-Strait exchanges. On the other hand, she insists on repudiating the 1992 Consensus and reneging on her own commitments. Tsai Ing-wen categorically refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She stubbornly digs in her heels, no matter what the cost, She refuses to compromise with Beijing even as she promises to "actively seek opportunities for dialogue with the other side, and create possibilities for interaction with [Mainland] China," and set up a "working group on cross-Strait dialogue." Tsai Ing-wen knows that in the event she is elected president, she cannot afford a falling out with Beijing. Nevertheless she refuses to change her tune before the election. She would rather permit herself to be blackmailed by Beijing after the election. Anyone still hoping Tsai Ing-wen can smooth over relations with Beijing can forget about it.
Two. Tsai Ing-wen's image as a champion of justice. In early 2000, Chen Shui-bian's slogan was "We must rise to a higher level, not sink to a lower level." Now look at Tsai Ing-wen. She chose Su Jia-chyuan as her vice presidential running mate. She drew up a dubious list of nominees for legislator without porfolio. She adopted Chen Ying-chu's "two dollar yuan persimmons" election ploy. She is a suspect in the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal. Bullets are still flying. The public wonders whether she will pardon Chen Shui-bian. These are problems she has evaded and afraid to face. When Tsai Ing-wen reiterated that "My campaign committee is not the same as my cabinet," she was admitting that she was surrounded by shady characters and was unable to extricate herself. When Tsai Ing-wen insisted that "The person standing before you is Tsai Ing-wen, not Chen Shui-bian," what people saw standing behind her was "Chen Shui-bian and Company." Three years ago Tsai Ing-wen was known as the "White Rose." But over the past three years this image of her as a champion of justice has been shattered.
Three. Her vision for national governance. Tsai Ing-wen says if the DPP returns to power and she becomes president, the international community will recognize our national title and our national flag. She made these monumental, deceitful, and hollow boasts in broad daylight. How can anyone continue to believe that Tsai Ing-wen will govern on the basis of reason? Tsai Ing-wen cannot even bring herself to place a national flag on her own podium during DPP campaign rallies. Yet she makes these empty boasts. Just look at any DPP rally. One will not see a single ROC national flag present, Any expectations that Tsai Ing-wen will govern on the basis of reason have long been shattered.
Turn a cold eye on Tsai Ing-wen. She had a cleaner image than most other presidential candidates in recent memory. But her image was still muddy. Compare Tsai Ing-wen to Chen Shui-bian. On cross-strait relations, Chen Shui-bian proposed a "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus. This makes her the first presidential candidate to propose clashing head on with Beijing during an election campaign. How strange is that? Compare their images as champions of justice, When Chen Shui-bian was rising to power, he was perceived as the embodiment of 'honesty, dillgence, and patriotism." Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, is associated with Su Jia-chyuan's corruption, with questionable nominations for legislator without portfolio, for an economically destructive persimmons campaign, and for involvement in the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal. How unexpected. Consider their views on national governance. Chen Shui-bian's campaign theme was "Hold on to your dreams, join hands with hope." Tsai Ing-wen's campaign theme is "Next stop, a showndown with Beijing!"
Tsai is now a presidential candidate. She was once the "White Rose," the "little dragon maid." She is now "Tsai 18", "Kong Xin Cai" (water spinach, a vegetable with hollow stems, suggesting a lack of substance) and "Tsai Yu Chang." Her personal image has been shattered. But if she is elected president, she may well shatter the Republic of China's image along with her own.
The public is disillusioned. Three years ago everyone hoped that Tsai Ing-wen would reform the DPP. Today however, we know that the DPP has corrupted Tsai Ing-wen.
當「白玫瑰」變成「蔡宇昌」
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.16
十日社論談「蔡英文的三個幻想」，今天談「蔡英文的三個幻滅」。
十 二月三日的辯論會中，蔡英文對三個問題的辯護最力。一、兩岸關係：她前一晚拋出了「兩岸對話工作小組」，辯論當天又費了很多唇舌解釋「台灣共識」。二、公 義形象：她至少說了兩次「我的競選團隊不等於治國團隊」，甚至告訴馬總統，「站在你面前的是蔡英文，不是陳水扁」。三、治理憧憬：她說：「我們的國旗和國 號經常走不出去、也拿不出去；這些問題要解決，只有一個辦法，那就是換一個政黨來執政、換一個總統來領導台灣。」
蔡英文其實知道，這三大問題正是她所面臨的三大質疑，也是她的三大困窘；而從她力圖辯解卻又難以自圓其說的情狀來看，這也恰恰反映了她的「三大幻滅」。
三 年多前，蔡英文就任民進黨主席，無論是她自己對自己的期許，或國人對她的寄望，都是盼能見到她帶領民進黨轉型，最重要的項目即是「兩岸關係／公義形象／治 理憧憬」；但是，在辯論會中馬總統的一句話，「我馬英九改變了國民黨，而民進黨卻改變了蔡英文」，正是直接道出了這個「幻滅」。
一、 兩岸關係：蔡英文一方面承諾一定會維持兩岸的和平交流，但另一方面她又以堅持否定「九二共識」來摧毀自己的承諾。蔡英文斬釘截鐵否定「九二共識」，這表示 她不惜一切地固執己見，不與北京妥協；但她又宣稱「將積極尋求與對岸對話的機會／營造與中國互動的可能」，且稱將成立「兩岸對話工作小組」。這樣的矛盾， 顯示蔡英文亦明知，她若當選也絕不能與北京鬧翻；但是，蔡英文卻仍選擇不在選前調整論述，而寧可到了若當選後讓自己受到北京的挾制。事態至此，若有人仍寄 望蔡英文能夠平順處理兩岸關係的可能性，可謂已告全盤幻滅。
二、公義形象：陳水扁在二○○○年出頭時，打的是「要 向上提升／不要向下沉淪」的口號；但看一看蔡英文，她卻有蘇嘉全這樣的副總統候選人搭檔，又有那一張充滿爭議的不分區立委名單，再有「陳盈助」、「兩元 柿」那樣的選舉操作。何況，她自己又沾上「宇昌生技」的「量身自肥」議論，至今子彈仍在飛行之中；再加上是否特赦陳水扁這個「嚴肅的問題」，也讓她一直迴 避而不敢面對。當蔡英文說「我的競選團隊不等於治國團隊」之時，她其實是在揭示她已陷於那些牛鬼蛇神的包圍挾持之中，不能自拔。聽蔡英文說「站在你面前的 是蔡英文，不是陳水扁」，人們卻看到了站在她背後的「陳水扁們」；此對三年多前以「白玫瑰」之姿登場的蔡英文而言，不啻是公義形象的幻滅。
三、 治理憧憬：蔡英文竟然說，換民進黨執政，換她當總統，她就能讓國號與國旗走出去，拿出去。光天化日下竟能說出這樣的假、大、空話，還能相信蔡英文宣示的任 何治理憧憬嗎？因為，事實是，蔡英文連插一支大幅國旗在她的競選講台上都辦不到，卻怎麼會如此吹牛不打草稿？只要看民進黨造勢場合見不到一面國旗，即知蔡 英文所宣稱的任何治理憧憬必告幻滅。
冷靜觀察蔡英文，即可發現，她是歷來較具實力的總統候選人中，形象顯得較「清 新」，卻亦是形象相當「渾濁」的一位。若以陳水扁與蔡英文相比，在兩岸關係上，陳水扁冒出頭時，主張的是「新中間路線」、「四不一沒有」；蔡英文卻是「否 定九二共識」，這使她儼然成為歷來第一位在競選時即主張與北京攤牌對撞的總統候選人，豈不古怪？在公義形象上，陳水扁崛起時楬櫫的是「清廉／勤政／愛鄉 土」；蔡英文則是「蘇嘉全／不分區／牛心柿／宇昌案」，大異其趣！再就政治憧憬言，陳水扁發跡的主調是「有夢最美／希望相隨」；蔡英文的號召則不啻是： 「下一站，與北京掀桌對幹！」
蔡英文現在是總統候選人，此時，她從「白玫瑰」、「小龍女」，到「蔡十八」、「空心蔡」、「蔡宇昌」的變化，只是她個人形象的幻滅；倘若她當選總統，這個幻滅即可能成為整個台灣的幻滅。
幻滅的整體流程是：三年前大家以為「蔡英文會改變民進黨」，如今卻證實「民進黨改變了蔡英文」。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 16, 2011
Summary: Tsai is now a presidential candidate. She was once the "White Rose," the "little dragon maid." She is now "Tsai 18", "Kong Xin Cai" (water spinach, a vegetable with hollow stems, suggesting a lack of substance) and "Tsai Yu Chang." Her personal image has been shattered. But if she is elected president, she may well shatter the Republic of China's image along with her own. The public is disillusioned. Three years ago everyone hoped that Tsai Ing-wen would reform the DPP. Today however, we know that the DPP has corrupted Tsai Ing-wen.
Full Text Below:
Our editorial on the 10th spoke of "Tsai Ing-wen's Three Illusions." Today's editorial speaks of "Tsai Ing-wen's Three Shattered Illusions."
During the December 3 presidential debate, Tsai Ing-wen expended the most energy defending herself on three issues. One. Cross-Strait relations. The evening before she proposed a "cross-Strait dialogue working group." The day of the debate, she talked up a storm, struggling mightily to explain her "Taiwan consensus." Two. Her image as a champion of justice. At least twice she reiterated that "My campaign committee is not the same as my cabinet." She even assured President Ma that "The person standing before you is Tsai Ing-wen, not Chen Shui-bian." Three. Her view of national governance. She said "The international community seldom recognizes our national flag and our national title. We have been able to do little about it. There is only one solution to these problems. A new political party must take office, A new president must lead Taiwan."
Tsai Ing-wen knows that these three issues are her three greatest weaknesses and three greatest embarrassments. She struggles to justify herself, but has trouble convincing listeners. This reflects her "three shattered illusions."
Three years ago, Tsai Ing-wen took on the role of DPP Chairman. This may have been her wish, or the wish of the public. Either way, the wish was that she would transform the DPP. The most important transformations the DPP needed to undergo concerned its views on cross-Strait relations, its image as a champion of justice, and its views on national governance. But during the debate President Ma zinged Tsai Ing-wen when he said "I, Ma Ying-jeou, reformed the Kuomintang, The DPP on the other hand, corrupted Tsai Ing-wen." Ma hit the nail on the head when he addressed these shattered illusions.
One. Cross-Strait relations. On the one hand, Tsai Ing-wen promises to maintain peaceful cross-Strait exchanges. On the other hand, she insists on repudiating the 1992 Consensus and reneging on her own commitments. Tsai Ing-wen categorically refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She stubbornly digs in her heels, no matter what the cost, She refuses to compromise with Beijing even as she promises to "actively seek opportunities for dialogue with the other side, and create possibilities for interaction with [Mainland] China," and set up a "working group on cross-Strait dialogue." Tsai Ing-wen knows that in the event she is elected president, she cannot afford a falling out with Beijing. Nevertheless she refuses to change her tune before the election. She would rather permit herself to be blackmailed by Beijing after the election. Anyone still hoping Tsai Ing-wen can smooth over relations with Beijing can forget about it.
Two. Tsai Ing-wen's image as a champion of justice. In early 2000, Chen Shui-bian's slogan was "We must rise to a higher level, not sink to a lower level." Now look at Tsai Ing-wen. She chose Su Jia-chyuan as her vice presidential running mate. She drew up a dubious list of nominees for legislator without porfolio. She adopted Chen Ying-chu's "two dollar yuan persimmons" election ploy. She is a suspect in the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal. Bullets are still flying. The public wonders whether she will pardon Chen Shui-bian. These are problems she has evaded and afraid to face. When Tsai Ing-wen reiterated that "My campaign committee is not the same as my cabinet," she was admitting that she was surrounded by shady characters and was unable to extricate herself. When Tsai Ing-wen insisted that "The person standing before you is Tsai Ing-wen, not Chen Shui-bian," what people saw standing behind her was "Chen Shui-bian and Company." Three years ago Tsai Ing-wen was known as the "White Rose." But over the past three years this image of her as a champion of justice has been shattered.
Three. Her vision for national governance. Tsai Ing-wen says if the DPP returns to power and she becomes president, the international community will recognize our national title and our national flag. She made these monumental, deceitful, and hollow boasts in broad daylight. How can anyone continue to believe that Tsai Ing-wen will govern on the basis of reason? Tsai Ing-wen cannot even bring herself to place a national flag on her own podium during DPP campaign rallies. Yet she makes these empty boasts. Just look at any DPP rally. One will not see a single ROC national flag present, Any expectations that Tsai Ing-wen will govern on the basis of reason have long been shattered.
Turn a cold eye on Tsai Ing-wen. She had a cleaner image than most other presidential candidates in recent memory. But her image was still muddy. Compare Tsai Ing-wen to Chen Shui-bian. On cross-strait relations, Chen Shui-bian proposed a "New Centrist Path" and "Five Noes." Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus. This makes her the first presidential candidate to propose clashing head on with Beijing during an election campaign. How strange is that? Compare their images as champions of justice, When Chen Shui-bian was rising to power, he was perceived as the embodiment of 'honesty, dillgence, and patriotism." Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, is associated with Su Jia-chyuan's corruption, with questionable nominations for legislator without portfolio, for an economically destructive persimmons campaign, and for involvement in the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal. How unexpected. Consider their views on national governance. Chen Shui-bian's campaign theme was "Hold on to your dreams, join hands with hope." Tsai Ing-wen's campaign theme is "Next stop, a showndown with Beijing!"
Tsai is now a presidential candidate. She was once the "White Rose," the "little dragon maid." She is now "Tsai 18", "Kong Xin Cai" (water spinach, a vegetable with hollow stems, suggesting a lack of substance) and "Tsai Yu Chang." Her personal image has been shattered. But if she is elected president, she may well shatter the Republic of China's image along with her own.
The public is disillusioned. Three years ago everyone hoped that Tsai Ing-wen would reform the DPP. Today however, we know that the DPP has corrupted Tsai Ing-wen.
當「白玫瑰」變成「蔡宇昌」
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.16
十日社論談「蔡英文的三個幻想」，今天談「蔡英文的三個幻滅」。
十 二月三日的辯論會中，蔡英文對三個問題的辯護最力。一、兩岸關係：她前一晚拋出了「兩岸對話工作小組」，辯論當天又費了很多唇舌解釋「台灣共識」。二、公 義形象：她至少說了兩次「我的競選團隊不等於治國團隊」，甚至告訴馬總統，「站在你面前的是蔡英文，不是陳水扁」。三、治理憧憬：她說：「我們的國旗和國 號經常走不出去、也拿不出去；這些問題要解決，只有一個辦法，那就是換一個政黨來執政、換一個總統來領導台灣。」
蔡英文其實知道，這三大問題正是她所面臨的三大質疑，也是她的三大困窘；而從她力圖辯解卻又難以自圓其說的情狀來看，這也恰恰反映了她的「三大幻滅」。
三 年多前，蔡英文就任民進黨主席，無論是她自己對自己的期許，或國人對她的寄望，都是盼能見到她帶領民進黨轉型，最重要的項目即是「兩岸關係／公義形象／治 理憧憬」；但是，在辯論會中馬總統的一句話，「我馬英九改變了國民黨，而民進黨卻改變了蔡英文」，正是直接道出了這個「幻滅」。
一、 兩岸關係：蔡英文一方面承諾一定會維持兩岸的和平交流，但另一方面她又以堅持否定「九二共識」來摧毀自己的承諾。蔡英文斬釘截鐵否定「九二共識」，這表示 她不惜一切地固執己見，不與北京妥協；但她又宣稱「將積極尋求與對岸對話的機會／營造與中國互動的可能」，且稱將成立「兩岸對話工作小組」。這樣的矛盾， 顯示蔡英文亦明知，她若當選也絕不能與北京鬧翻；但是，蔡英文卻仍選擇不在選前調整論述，而寧可到了若當選後讓自己受到北京的挾制。事態至此，若有人仍寄 望蔡英文能夠平順處理兩岸關係的可能性，可謂已告全盤幻滅。
二、公義形象：陳水扁在二○○○年出頭時，打的是「要 向上提升／不要向下沉淪」的口號；但看一看蔡英文，她卻有蘇嘉全這樣的副總統候選人搭檔，又有那一張充滿爭議的不分區立委名單，再有「陳盈助」、「兩元 柿」那樣的選舉操作。何況，她自己又沾上「宇昌生技」的「量身自肥」議論，至今子彈仍在飛行之中；再加上是否特赦陳水扁這個「嚴肅的問題」，也讓她一直迴 避而不敢面對。當蔡英文說「我的競選團隊不等於治國團隊」之時，她其實是在揭示她已陷於那些牛鬼蛇神的包圍挾持之中，不能自拔。聽蔡英文說「站在你面前的 是蔡英文，不是陳水扁」，人們卻看到了站在她背後的「陳水扁們」；此對三年多前以「白玫瑰」之姿登場的蔡英文而言，不啻是公義形象的幻滅。
三、 治理憧憬：蔡英文竟然說，換民進黨執政，換她當總統，她就能讓國號與國旗走出去，拿出去。光天化日下竟能說出這樣的假、大、空話，還能相信蔡英文宣示的任 何治理憧憬嗎？因為，事實是，蔡英文連插一支大幅國旗在她的競選講台上都辦不到，卻怎麼會如此吹牛不打草稿？只要看民進黨造勢場合見不到一面國旗，即知蔡 英文所宣稱的任何治理憧憬必告幻滅。
冷靜觀察蔡英文，即可發現，她是歷來較具實力的總統候選人中，形象顯得較「清 新」，卻亦是形象相當「渾濁」的一位。若以陳水扁與蔡英文相比，在兩岸關係上，陳水扁冒出頭時，主張的是「新中間路線」、「四不一沒有」；蔡英文卻是「否 定九二共識」，這使她儼然成為歷來第一位在競選時即主張與北京攤牌對撞的總統候選人，豈不古怪？在公義形象上，陳水扁崛起時楬櫫的是「清廉／勤政／愛鄉 土」；蔡英文則是「蘇嘉全／不分區／牛心柿／宇昌案」，大異其趣！再就政治憧憬言，陳水扁發跡的主調是「有夢最美／希望相隨」；蔡英文的號召則不啻是： 「下一站，與北京掀桌對幹！」
蔡英文現在是總統候選人，此時，她從「白玫瑰」、「小龍女」，到「蔡十八」、「空心蔡」、「蔡宇昌」的變化，只是她個人形象的幻滅；倘若她當選總統，這個幻滅即可能成為整個台灣的幻滅。
幻滅的整體流程是：三年前大家以為「蔡英文會改變民進黨」，如今卻證實「民進黨改變了蔡英文」。
Blindness to One's Own Moral Defects is the Most Dangerous Blindness of All
Blindness to One's Own Moral Defects is the Most Dangerous Blindness of All
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 15, 2011
Summary: We lack awareness about many things in life. But politicians, especially those aspiring to high office, must be aware of them. DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen's life has undergone many changes in recent years. As vice premier, she never imagined Su Tseng-chang resigning as DPP Chairman after losing the 2008 presidential primary. She never imagined herself taking his place as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Upon resigning as vice premier, she never imagined herself entering the biotech industry. As the chairman of a biotech company, she never imagined herself becoming chairman of the DPP. Before the five cities mayoral elections she never imagined becoming the Democratic Progressive Party's 2012 presidential candidate. But is all this enough to excuse her glaring conflicts of interest?
Full Text Below:
We lack awareness about many things in life. But politicians, especially those aspiring to high office, must be aware of them. DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen's life has undergone many changes in recent years. As vice premier, she never imagined Su Tseng-chang resigning as DPP Chairman after losing the 2008 presidential primary. She never imagined herself taking his place as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Upon resigning as vice premier, she never imagined herself entering the biotech industry. As the chairman of a biotech company, she never imagined herself becoming chairman of the DPP. Before the five cities mayoral elections she never imagined becoming the Democratic Progressive Party's 2012 presidential candidate. But is all this enough to excuse her glaring conflicts of interest?
The Chen administration aggressively promoted the Chang Yu Technology Company toward the end of its reign. The goal of the project was laudible. After all, Taiwan's high-tech industry owed its success largely to a single bright spot -- semiconductors. According to a declassified document posted by WikiLeaks.Taiwan, in 2007 Tsai Ing-wen told the AIT that after she stepped down as vice premier she planned to aggressively promote biotechnology, She smugly claimed that she was the author of the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations which had just passed a third reading in the Legislative Yuan under Wang Jin-pyng.
Industrial development on Taiwan is indeed dependent upon government support. Sun Yun-suan and Li Kuo-ting did indeed ask Morris Chang to head TSMC, and to give UMC a helping hand. But neither assumed the role of chairman. Neither owned even a single share of stock. Chao Yao-tung promoted the steel industry and later served as chairman of the board of China Steel. But he too never owned a single share of company stock. .
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen has invited prosecution by her involvement in the biotech industry. She followed up by obtaining capital from the National Development Fund. She wsa closely involved from beginning to end. At times she was even in charge. Perhaps she never imagined that one day she would be running for president. She should never have invested her family's money in a government project. That amounts to a fundamental conflict of interest she should have avoided.
Tsai Ing-wen failed to avoid this conflict of interests. Worse, on March 18, 2008, three days before the presidential election, she arranged the transfer of one billion dollars from the National Development Fund to her family's TaiMao biotechnology venture capital firm. The Council for Economic Development and Planning eventually approved a transfer of 875 million NTD. The sum far exceeded the 20 million USD (approximately 600 million NTD) that the National Development Fund earmarked for the Yu Chang Technology Company. Alas, the sum was too large, and the timing too sensitive. As a result the civil servants in charge were reluctant to recklessly transfer the funds. Tsai Ing-wen ought to be grateful to these civil servants, Otherwise, she would be mired in an even more controversy today.
CEPD Chairman Ho Mei-yueh characterized the Tsai family investment as "angel capital." The sum was small, merely 20 million NTD. But investors in the Chang Yu Technology Company included large corporations such as Uni-President and Yuen Foong Yu. It is not hard to find a couple of companies at random wiling to invest 10 million NTD. So why go running to the Tsai family? When Tsai Ing-wen was elected DPP Chairman in 2009, all shares were distributed. Twenty million NTD invested for less than one year returned over 19 million NTD, a staggering profit. By contrast the government lost 4.5 billion NTD on the Chang Yu Technology Company. What can one say, except that Tsai Ing-wen seems to have a lock on both the government and the business world. She could even get the Ruentex Industries to acquire her shares, getting her out of trouble and enabling her to profit from the deal.
The extreme complexity of the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal left the current chairman of the Council for Economic Planning Christina Liu confused. For example, there are two TaiMao companies. The first, TaiMao Protein, changed its name to the Yu Chang Technology Company. Tsai Ing-wen's family also set up another company, named TaiMao Biotechnology. The two companies have the same personnel. Both are funded by the National Development Fund. The first sum transferred to the Yu Chang Technology Company was 20 million NTD. Later this was increased to 50 million NTD, then 100 million NTD. How much did the government eventually provide? Even Christina Liu has not had enough time to investigate thoroughly. The Yu Chang Technology Company and TaiMao were able to obtain funding, again and again. Again, what can one say, except that Tsai Ing-wen appears to have a lock on both the government and the business world. She could compelt the National Development Fund to approve funding. No wonder biotech tycoons all want Tsai Ing-wen as their chairman.
The Chen adminstration had two large investment projects toward the end of its regime. The first was the Taiwan Goals company, established when Chiou I-jen was vice premier. It was supposed to turn arms procurement over to the private sector. On Chiu I-jen's recommendation DPP elders took charge. Wu Nai-jen, chairman of the Stock Exchange was appointed Taiwan Goals chairman of the board. The story behind the scandal is incredible. The public has reacted violently and demanded its cancellation. Chang Ho Yu and Chi-Huey Wong fully endorsed and supported the Yu Chang Technology Company. It may be impossible to successfully prosecute this case. But it proves that the Chen administration behaved with unforgivable recklessness before and after the transfer of power.
The government wants to nurture a fledgling industry. No one objects. But the Ma administration is also vigorously promoting the biotechnology industry. Would any political appointee in the Ma administration dare invest family money in a newly established biotech company? Would they dare appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars from the National Development Fund? Would they dare have themselves appointed chairman of the board? Clean government is not a slogan to be parroted at election rallies. It requires conviction. Tsai Ing-wen complains she is the victim of political mud-slinging. This demonstrates that when it comes to political ethics and social perception, she is tone deaf. She blasts the 18% preferential interest rate for civil servants, even as she continues applying for it and depositing it in her personal account. Blindness to one's own weaknesses and moral defects, is the most dangerous blindess of all.
看不到自己的道德瑕疵，才最危險
2011-12-15中國時報
人生很多事情想不到，但從政的人、尤其是競逐大位的人，太多事不能想不到。民進黨主席、總統候選人蔡英文的人生之途在這幾年轉折太快，擔任副院長時，她沒想到她的院長蘇貞昌會在民進黨二○○八年總統初選落敗後請辭；卸任副院長前，她沒想到自己可能轉行到生技業；出任生技公司董事長之後，她又沒想到會出任民進黨主席；當然，至少在五都選舉前，她可能還是沒想到自己會代表民進黨競選二○一二年總統大位。但是，這能成為擺平一切爭議的理由嗎？
宇昌案是扁政府末期全力推動的大案，當時的立意不可謂不佳，畢竟台灣高科技業靠著半導體成為亮點，台灣需要新的產業亮點。根據《維基解密．台灣》解密電文，蔡英文早在二○○七年七月就告訴ＡＩＴ，卸任後她要全力推動新的生技產業，她沾沾自喜地表揚自己，由立法院長王金平領銜提案並完成三讀的《生技新藥產業發展條例》是她撰寫的。
台灣產業發展很大部分確實是靠政府鼎力支持，就像當年孫運璿、李國鼎請回張忠謀主持台積電，又扶植聯電一樣；但是，他們沒有自任董事長，甚至一張股票都沒有；即使像趙耀東推動中鋼，爾後並出任董事長，趙同樣一張中鋼股票都沒有。
對比之下，蔡英文從生技產業相關法律案，到接下來的國發基金投資案，一路密切參與，甚至主導，即使她未預期自己可能參選總統，在政治道德上也不該將自己家族的資金引入這個政府投資案，這是基本的利益迴避。
蔡英文不但不迴避，甚至在二○○八年三月十八日總統大選前三天，竟由家族向國發基金申請撥給由她家族資金成立的台懋生技創投公司十億資金，最後經建會核准的金額是八億七千五百萬元；這個金額甚至遠超過國發基金核撥給宇昌的二千萬美元（約六億台幣）。由於金額太大，時機敏感，承辦公務員不敢貿然撥款，蔡英文應該感謝這群謹慎行事的公務員，否則她今日的爭議必然不僅於此。
時任經建會主委的何美玥為蔡解釋說，蔡氏家族投入的是「天使資金」，數目不大只有二千萬台幣；但是，當年宇昌案投資者還包括統一、永豐餘在內的大企業，隨便找兩家企業各多出資一千萬，一點都不難，何須蔡氏家族挹注？蔡英文在當選民進黨主席後，於二○○九年處分掉全部股份，兩千萬投資一年不到就賺進一千九百多萬，獲利率驚人。對比宇昌案政府還虧了四．五億，只能說蔡英文果然政商都夠力，還能找到潤泰企業收購她的股份，讓她解套並獲利了結。
宇昌案的複雜，讓現任經建會主委劉憶如都一頭霧水，比方說，台懋有兩家，一家台懋蛋白公司後來更名為宇昌；蔡英文家族又成立一家台懋生技，兩家公司一套人馬，都向國發基金申請資金。第一筆撥了二千萬美元給宇昌，後來又提高到五千萬美元、一億美元，到底政府最後投入多少錢？連劉憶如都尚未徹查清楚。宇昌、台懋能重複申請資金，還是只能說蔡英文果然政商都夠力，讓國發基金逢蔡必核准撥款，難怪生技大老們個個都要蔡英文出任董事長。
扁政府末期有兩件大投資案，一件是邱義仁擔任副院長時主導成立的鐽震公司，要把軍火採購移轉為民間公司處理，甚至在邱義仁推荐下內定由民進黨新潮流大老，時任證交所董事長的吳乃仁出任董事長，此案過度匪夷所思，遭到輿論強烈質疑而撤銷。宇昌案因有何大一、翁啟惠等人的背書支持而一路通關。但是，不論成案與否，都反映扁政府在政權移交前後的看守期間，膽大妄為到了讓人無法忍受的地步。
政府重點扶植政策性產業，沒有人反對，但試想同樣全力推動生技產業的馬政府，有哪一位政務官敢在大選前後引進家族資金成立新公司，並向國發基金申請核撥數億資金，還自任董事長？清廉不是選舉造勢場上的口號，必須深入骨髓成為信仰，蔡英文忿忿不平認為遭到惡意抹黑，反映她對政治道德和社會觀感的無知無覺，就像她罵十八％又領十八％一樣，看不到自己的弱點和道德瑕疵，才是最危險的地方。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 15, 2011
Summary: We lack awareness about many things in life. But politicians, especially those aspiring to high office, must be aware of them. DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen's life has undergone many changes in recent years. As vice premier, she never imagined Su Tseng-chang resigning as DPP Chairman after losing the 2008 presidential primary. She never imagined herself taking his place as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Upon resigning as vice premier, she never imagined herself entering the biotech industry. As the chairman of a biotech company, she never imagined herself becoming chairman of the DPP. Before the five cities mayoral elections she never imagined becoming the Democratic Progressive Party's 2012 presidential candidate. But is all this enough to excuse her glaring conflicts of interest?
Full Text Below:
We lack awareness about many things in life. But politicians, especially those aspiring to high office, must be aware of them. DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen's life has undergone many changes in recent years. As vice premier, she never imagined Su Tseng-chang resigning as DPP Chairman after losing the 2008 presidential primary. She never imagined herself taking his place as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Upon resigning as vice premier, she never imagined herself entering the biotech industry. As the chairman of a biotech company, she never imagined herself becoming chairman of the DPP. Before the five cities mayoral elections she never imagined becoming the Democratic Progressive Party's 2012 presidential candidate. But is all this enough to excuse her glaring conflicts of interest?
The Chen administration aggressively promoted the Chang Yu Technology Company toward the end of its reign. The goal of the project was laudible. After all, Taiwan's high-tech industry owed its success largely to a single bright spot -- semiconductors. According to a declassified document posted by WikiLeaks.Taiwan, in 2007 Tsai Ing-wen told the AIT that after she stepped down as vice premier she planned to aggressively promote biotechnology, She smugly claimed that she was the author of the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations which had just passed a third reading in the Legislative Yuan under Wang Jin-pyng.
Industrial development on Taiwan is indeed dependent upon government support. Sun Yun-suan and Li Kuo-ting did indeed ask Morris Chang to head TSMC, and to give UMC a helping hand. But neither assumed the role of chairman. Neither owned even a single share of stock. Chao Yao-tung promoted the steel industry and later served as chairman of the board of China Steel. But he too never owned a single share of company stock. .
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen has invited prosecution by her involvement in the biotech industry. She followed up by obtaining capital from the National Development Fund. She wsa closely involved from beginning to end. At times she was even in charge. Perhaps she never imagined that one day she would be running for president. She should never have invested her family's money in a government project. That amounts to a fundamental conflict of interest she should have avoided.
Tsai Ing-wen failed to avoid this conflict of interests. Worse, on March 18, 2008, three days before the presidential election, she arranged the transfer of one billion dollars from the National Development Fund to her family's TaiMao biotechnology venture capital firm. The Council for Economic Development and Planning eventually approved a transfer of 875 million NTD. The sum far exceeded the 20 million USD (approximately 600 million NTD) that the National Development Fund earmarked for the Yu Chang Technology Company. Alas, the sum was too large, and the timing too sensitive. As a result the civil servants in charge were reluctant to recklessly transfer the funds. Tsai Ing-wen ought to be grateful to these civil servants, Otherwise, she would be mired in an even more controversy today.
CEPD Chairman Ho Mei-yueh characterized the Tsai family investment as "angel capital." The sum was small, merely 20 million NTD. But investors in the Chang Yu Technology Company included large corporations such as Uni-President and Yuen Foong Yu. It is not hard to find a couple of companies at random wiling to invest 10 million NTD. So why go running to the Tsai family? When Tsai Ing-wen was elected DPP Chairman in 2009, all shares were distributed. Twenty million NTD invested for less than one year returned over 19 million NTD, a staggering profit. By contrast the government lost 4.5 billion NTD on the Chang Yu Technology Company. What can one say, except that Tsai Ing-wen seems to have a lock on both the government and the business world. She could even get the Ruentex Industries to acquire her shares, getting her out of trouble and enabling her to profit from the deal.
The extreme complexity of the Yu Chang Technology Company scandal left the current chairman of the Council for Economic Planning Christina Liu confused. For example, there are two TaiMao companies. The first, TaiMao Protein, changed its name to the Yu Chang Technology Company. Tsai Ing-wen's family also set up another company, named TaiMao Biotechnology. The two companies have the same personnel. Both are funded by the National Development Fund. The first sum transferred to the Yu Chang Technology Company was 20 million NTD. Later this was increased to 50 million NTD, then 100 million NTD. How much did the government eventually provide? Even Christina Liu has not had enough time to investigate thoroughly. The Yu Chang Technology Company and TaiMao were able to obtain funding, again and again. Again, what can one say, except that Tsai Ing-wen appears to have a lock on both the government and the business world. She could compelt the National Development Fund to approve funding. No wonder biotech tycoons all want Tsai Ing-wen as their chairman.
The Chen adminstration had two large investment projects toward the end of its regime. The first was the Taiwan Goals company, established when Chiou I-jen was vice premier. It was supposed to turn arms procurement over to the private sector. On Chiu I-jen's recommendation DPP elders took charge. Wu Nai-jen, chairman of the Stock Exchange was appointed Taiwan Goals chairman of the board. The story behind the scandal is incredible. The public has reacted violently and demanded its cancellation. Chang Ho Yu and Chi-Huey Wong fully endorsed and supported the Yu Chang Technology Company. It may be impossible to successfully prosecute this case. But it proves that the Chen administration behaved with unforgivable recklessness before and after the transfer of power.
The government wants to nurture a fledgling industry. No one objects. But the Ma administration is also vigorously promoting the biotechnology industry. Would any political appointee in the Ma administration dare invest family money in a newly established biotech company? Would they dare appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars from the National Development Fund? Would they dare have themselves appointed chairman of the board? Clean government is not a slogan to be parroted at election rallies. It requires conviction. Tsai Ing-wen complains she is the victim of political mud-slinging. This demonstrates that when it comes to political ethics and social perception, she is tone deaf. She blasts the 18% preferential interest rate for civil servants, even as she continues applying for it and depositing it in her personal account. Blindness to one's own weaknesses and moral defects, is the most dangerous blindess of all.
看不到自己的道德瑕疵，才最危險
2011-12-15中國時報
人生很多事情想不到，但從政的人、尤其是競逐大位的人，太多事不能想不到。民進黨主席、總統候選人蔡英文的人生之途在這幾年轉折太快，擔任副院長時，她沒想到她的院長蘇貞昌會在民進黨二○○八年總統初選落敗後請辭；卸任副院長前，她沒想到自己可能轉行到生技業；出任生技公司董事長之後，她又沒想到會出任民進黨主席；當然，至少在五都選舉前，她可能還是沒想到自己會代表民進黨競選二○一二年總統大位。但是，這能成為擺平一切爭議的理由嗎？
宇昌案是扁政府末期全力推動的大案，當時的立意不可謂不佳，畢竟台灣高科技業靠著半導體成為亮點，台灣需要新的產業亮點。根據《維基解密．台灣》解密電文，蔡英文早在二○○七年七月就告訴ＡＩＴ，卸任後她要全力推動新的生技產業，她沾沾自喜地表揚自己，由立法院長王金平領銜提案並完成三讀的《生技新藥產業發展條例》是她撰寫的。
台灣產業發展很大部分確實是靠政府鼎力支持，就像當年孫運璿、李國鼎請回張忠謀主持台積電，又扶植聯電一樣；但是，他們沒有自任董事長，甚至一張股票都沒有；即使像趙耀東推動中鋼，爾後並出任董事長，趙同樣一張中鋼股票都沒有。
對比之下，蔡英文從生技產業相關法律案，到接下來的國發基金投資案，一路密切參與，甚至主導，即使她未預期自己可能參選總統，在政治道德上也不該將自己家族的資金引入這個政府投資案，這是基本的利益迴避。
蔡英文不但不迴避，甚至在二○○八年三月十八日總統大選前三天，竟由家族向國發基金申請撥給由她家族資金成立的台懋生技創投公司十億資金，最後經建會核准的金額是八億七千五百萬元；這個金額甚至遠超過國發基金核撥給宇昌的二千萬美元（約六億台幣）。由於金額太大，時機敏感，承辦公務員不敢貿然撥款，蔡英文應該感謝這群謹慎行事的公務員，否則她今日的爭議必然不僅於此。
時任經建會主委的何美玥為蔡解釋說，蔡氏家族投入的是「天使資金」，數目不大只有二千萬台幣；但是，當年宇昌案投資者還包括統一、永豐餘在內的大企業，隨便找兩家企業各多出資一千萬，一點都不難，何須蔡氏家族挹注？蔡英文在當選民進黨主席後，於二○○九年處分掉全部股份，兩千萬投資一年不到就賺進一千九百多萬，獲利率驚人。對比宇昌案政府還虧了四．五億，只能說蔡英文果然政商都夠力，還能找到潤泰企業收購她的股份，讓她解套並獲利了結。
宇昌案的複雜，讓現任經建會主委劉憶如都一頭霧水，比方說，台懋有兩家，一家台懋蛋白公司後來更名為宇昌；蔡英文家族又成立一家台懋生技，兩家公司一套人馬，都向國發基金申請資金。第一筆撥了二千萬美元給宇昌，後來又提高到五千萬美元、一億美元，到底政府最後投入多少錢？連劉憶如都尚未徹查清楚。宇昌、台懋能重複申請資金，還是只能說蔡英文果然政商都夠力，讓國發基金逢蔡必核准撥款，難怪生技大老們個個都要蔡英文出任董事長。
扁政府末期有兩件大投資案，一件是邱義仁擔任副院長時主導成立的鐽震公司，要把軍火採購移轉為民間公司處理，甚至在邱義仁推荐下內定由民進黨新潮流大老，時任證交所董事長的吳乃仁出任董事長，此案過度匪夷所思，遭到輿論強烈質疑而撤銷。宇昌案因有何大一、翁啟惠等人的背書支持而一路通關。但是，不論成案與否，都反映扁政府在政權移交前後的看守期間，膽大妄為到了讓人無法忍受的地步。
政府重點扶植政策性產業，沒有人反對，但試想同樣全力推動生技產業的馬政府，有哪一位政務官敢在大選前後引進家族資金成立新公司，並向國發基金申請核撥數億資金，還自任董事長？清廉不是選舉造勢場上的口號，必須深入骨髓成為信仰，蔡英文忿忿不平認為遭到惡意抹黑，反映她對政治道德和社會觀感的無知無覺，就像她罵十八％又領十八％一樣，看不到自己的弱點和道德瑕疵，才是最危險的地方。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)