Chairman Su's Anxieties About Losing Power Will Harm DPP
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 28, 2012
Summary: Few political parties in democratic nations are like DPP. The DPP may be the ruling party or in the opposition. But it never seems to be able to rid itself of its bad habits. It takes to the streets at the drop of a hat. It apparently needs protests to remind itself that it still exists. It's virtually a case of "I protest, therefore I am." Most Democratic Progressive Party leaders reflexively resort to mass movements whenever they find themselves facing a crisis of confidence. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has organized a "Raging Citizens Protest March." But frankly, the only reason for the protest march is to firm up Su's hold on power.
Full Text below:
Few political parties in democratic nations are like DPP. The DPP may be the ruling party or in the opposition. But it never seems to be able to rid itself of its bad habits. It takes to the streets at the drop of a hat. It apparently needs protests to remind itself that it still exists. It's virtually a case of "I protest, therefore I am." Most Democratic Progressive Party leaders reflexively resort to mass movements whenever they find themselves facing a crisis of confidence. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has organized a "Raging Citizens Protest March." But frankly, the only reason for the protest march is to firm up Su's hold on power.
The DPP party princes know the score. They know that the best defense is a good offense. Toward the end of Chen Shui-bian's presidency, the First Family corruption scandals came to light. Outside the DPP, the anti-corruption movement demanded that the president step down. Inside the DPP, party leaders demanded house-cleaning. Chen Shui-bian used an old trick to defuse the crisis. He mobilized the masses to consolidate the leadership. Similarly, during the Taipei mayoral election, he deliberately downplayed the political colorations of the contending parties. Su Tseng-chang constantly shouts "Transcend!" But now he is eager to return to the streets. Like Chen Shui-bian, he is attempting to use internal pressure to effect external change.
Earlier this year the DPP lost the presidential election, despite considerable political momentum. Calls are being heard from inside the party, demanding a pragmatic cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang is the most popular of the party princes. He took over as party chairman in May. Most DPP supporters are pinning their hopes on him. The Ma administration raised both gasoline prices and electricity rates. It imposed a capital gains tax. These provoked intense controversy. President Ma's leadership is in question. Public support is plummeting. This is the ideal time for the opposition DPP to strut its stuff. It is also the time for Su Tseng-chang to demonstrate his leadership.
Su Tseng-chang convened several "open forums." He allowed everyone to speak his peace. But he failed to offer any proposals or policies of his own. Middle-aged party leaders have become frustrated. Julian J. Kuo criticized him. He said, "Leaders must offer solutions to problems. They have to do more than just organize book club meetings." He put it even more bluntly. He said Su Tseng-chang was "afraid of losing power." That is why Su is afraid to implement Taiwan's most desperately needed reforms.
Put simply, Julian J. Kuo said the emperor was naked. During the DPP party chairmanship election, Su's rivals challenged him. They said Su Tseng-chang has his eye on the presidency. But as party chairman, Su cannot afford to be wishy-washy. He must have the courage to push for radical reform. Unfortunately for Su, their criticisms were dead on.
The DPP established a China Affairs Committee. The public hoped Frank Hsieh would be made Committee Convener. Frank Hsieh is the only DPP leader offering a way for the DPP to communicate with the CCP. He has been walking the walk. In October, his "breaking the ice journey" paved the way for the highest level talks ever held between the DPP and the CCP. If DPP leaders had any vision, they would have made Frank Hsieh the leader of the DPP's cross-Strait policy reform effort. The DPP has nothing to show for a decade of cross-Strait policy reform. If Su Tseng-chang made peace with Frank Hsieh, it would help his own bid for higher office.
Such cooperation would be both a public and private benefit. Yet Su Tseng-chang shunned it. He publicly declared that Frank Hsieh's "different constitutions, different interpretations" was not a DPP position. Su eventually established a China Affairs Committee. But the committee merely studies the Mainland. It does not communicate with it. To establish such a hollow entity so late in the game, is to turn the clock back. Sure enough, Frank Hsieh realized what was going on, and resigned. Other DPP elders were not interested either. The committee was established three months ago. The DPP still cannot find enough people willing to become committee members. The so-called China Affairs Committee is an empty shell that merely goes through the motions.
The DPP missed an opportunity to transform the party. This was the result of Su Tseng-chang's myopia. Why was he afraid to adopt a pragmatic cross-Strait policy? The only motive that can explain his behavior is fear of losing power. Su was preoccupied with appeasing the Deep Greens. He was determined to defeat Tsai Ing-wen, his biggest rival in the DPP. He wanted an admission ticket to the presidential race. Su Tseng-chang was eager to pander to the Deep Greens. Cross-strait policy continues to stagnate. The January 13 "Raging Citizen Protest March" reflects Su Tseng-chang's anxieties about his hold on power. Nothing more
Su Tseng-chang is taking the DPP back onto the streets. This may enable him to consolidate his Green Camp leadership. But it also constitutes to a setback for the DPP. The DPP's "Raging Citizens Protest March" plagiarizes the name of the labor based "Raging Citizens Act Now" coalition, and twists the meaning of the coalition's protests. The ROC's largest opposition party is making fraudulent use of the name of an NGO dedicated to protecting the disadvantaged. This shows that the DPP has not grown since it was founded over 20 years ago. A trade unionist in the Raging Citizens Act Now coalition blasted the DPP. He asked, is the DPP so intellectually bankrupt that it must pirate the strategies of a tiny labor organization?
Su Tseng-chang is busy pandering to the Deep Greens. He knows only how to take to the streets. But even the Green Camp knows these tricks are outdated. DPP heavyweight Su Huan-chih was blunt. He said offering policy proposals is more important than organizing a "Raging Citizens Protest March." This criticism was leveled at the DPP by one of its own. Su Huan-chi said Su Tseng-chang's political calculations were made purely for the sake of personal power. Unfortunately the party lacks the ability to offer sound policies. It lacks the ability to reacquire power. A leader who fails to understand policy, can never become president.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.28
社論-蘇主席的權力焦慮症 將害了民進黨
本報訊
全世界民主國家的政黨,很少有像民進黨一樣,不論執政或在野時期,都無法擺脫上街頭的慣性,簡直到了「我遊行故我在」的地步;事實上,多數民進黨領導人只要面對權力危機,就會本能的訴諸群眾運動,民進黨黨主席蘇貞昌日前發起「火大遊行」,說穿了,就是為了要抓回已經搖搖欲墜的領導權。
民進黨天王們深知,攻擊就是最好的防禦。陳水扁擔任總統末期,第一家庭的貪腐案逐漸現形,外有要求總統下台的反貪腐運動,內有民進黨菁英要求自清的聲浪,陳水扁當時化解危機的伎倆,就是動員群眾來鞏固領導中心。同樣的,在台北市長選舉時刻意淡化政黨色彩、不斷喊「超越」的蘇貞昌,近來卻急於重返街頭路線,和當年的陳水扁異曲同工,就是為了要將內部壓力外部化。
今年初,民進黨以極高的聲勢輸掉總統大選,黨內出現反省聲浪,要求提出務實的兩岸路線,因此,該黨最具人氣的天王蘇貞昌五月接任黨主席,各界寄以厚望;尤其,馬政府深陷油電雙漲、課徵證所稅風暴,馬總統領導風格備受質疑,民意支持度直線下墜,理論上,這正是在野黨大顯身手的好時機,也是蘇貞昌展現領導能力的時刻。
但是,蘇貞昌除了召開幾次「Open講論壇」、讓大家各言所志之外,卻毫無能力提出主張、政策,黨內中生代紛感不耐,郭正亮批評,「領導人要針對問題拿出答案,不能一直開讀書會」!他更直言,蘇貞昌正是因為「害怕失去權力」,不敢面對台灣最需要的改革。
事實上,郭正亮正是點出國王沒有穿新衣的那個人,民進黨黨主席選舉時,對手就曾質疑,志在總統大位的蘇貞昌,擔任黨主席可能會畏首畏尾、無法大刀闊斧的改革,此一批評果然不幸而言中。
就以民進黨成立中國事務委員會為例,各界都看好由黨內大老謝長廷出任召集人,因為,謝長廷不但是目前民進黨內唯一有能力提出民共交流模式的人,他更身體力行,在十月進行了民進黨最高職務人士的兩岸破冰之旅。如果是大有為的民進黨領導人,必然會委請謝長廷主導民進黨兩岸政策改革,一來,可藉此讓民進黨耗費十年卻一無所成的兩岸轉型工作,畢其功於一役;二來,蘇貞昌若能趁機和謝長廷和解,對於自己登上大位,將是莫大的助力。
這是於公於私都有利的合作,蘇貞昌卻捨此不由,他公開表示,謝長廷的「憲法各表」,並非民進黨主張。蘇最後雖然成立了中國事務委員會,但委員會只有研究而沒有交流功能。這樣一套走回頭路的組織,果然讓謝長廷知難而退,其他的民進黨大老也沒興趣,因此成立至今已三個月,連委員都找不齊,所謂的中國事務委員會,完全是虛應故事的官樣文章。
錯失民進黨轉型良機,這是蘇貞昌的短視,但他為何不敢走向務實的兩岸政策,一心只想安撫深綠,那就只有權力動機可以解釋了。為了要打敗民進黨內的強勁對手蔡英文,取得總統大選門票,蘇貞昌急於拉攏深綠陣營,從兩岸政策渟滯不前,到一月十三日的火大遊行,反映的無非就是蘇貞昌的權力焦慮症。
只是,蘇貞昌這次把民進黨帶回街頭,也許能讓他取得綠營的領導權,但卻也是民進黨的倒退。事實上,民進黨的「火大遊行」,冒用了工運團體「火大行動聯盟」的名稱,不但扭曲了弱勢團體當年的抗爭精神,更嚴重的是,堂堂最大在野黨還要冒用弱勢團體的名號,完全凸顯出,創黨二十幾年來,民進黨實在沒有太大的長進,套一句火盟工運人士的批評,民進黨難道是沒招了,竟然自願成為工運團體的山寨版。
雖然蘇貞昌一心要討好深綠,但只會上街頭,連綠營都認為這是過時的招數,民進黨大將蘇煥智就直言,提出對策主張,比搞火大遊行重要。這是自己人的批評,所言甚是;蘇貞昌機關算盡,全是為了權力,但是一個沒有能力提出政策的政黨,是無法重新贏回執政權的,而一位不懂政策的領導人,更是永遠不可能登上總統大位。
從臺北看天下 . chinese language newspaper editorials . translated by bevin chu . no endorsement of the editorials should be inferred
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary: A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people mired in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw the families' bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the possible abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
There are judges who have a whole range of considerations about sentencing someone to life or death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, repeats the offense today, how should we judge it? If we don't sentenced him to death during the trial of the first instance, under what circumstances do we change the sentence during the second and third instances? How should we judge the defendant's family background, society's responsibility human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, or a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die demonstrate respect for the families, or would it amount to gambling? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one distinguish between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. It all depended upon the will of a judge. Now this is all turned upside down. It must all be reexamined.
Of course, such a reexamination demonstrates our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death sentence is to prevent people from taking "an eye for an eye." It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge, The judge naturally may not flip flop randomly, and render judgments according to his whims. He must abide by some objective standard.
These standards, represent society's appraisal of various factors regarding the value of life. The appraisal of these factors must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally as much as possible. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the Death Penalty has changed. Once death sentences were rendered without hesitation, and carried out. The move to abolish the death penalty has sprouted and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The Death Penalty is not an easy issue to contemplate. We should begin by ensuring careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day, the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision, can avoid flip flopping resulting from special circumstances.
死刑的思辯:若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」,攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄,六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除,還有相當的距離,遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁,死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下,最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論,五名法官要判一個人死刑,不可再只審閱文書、關門決定,還須打開大門,聽取各方的意見,始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難,很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年,最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯,而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動,是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案,湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯,稍稍探出了頭,質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體,從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡,接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序,執行時日於是逐漸推遲;前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑,及歐盟廢死的聲勢,隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任,持續不執行死刑;直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑,死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們,廢死的動力,是由上而下成形,進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容,很容易鬆動。廢死的主張,強調重視罪犯的生命權,相對的,便難以兼顧被害者的生命權,與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展,我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府,政府投機迎合,卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行;廢死與否,就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是,我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑;故而,廢死與否,我們需要更多理性的思辯,深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人,各種事,各種價值,反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中,我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚,乃至家族的辛酸、變故;看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎,對是否求處死刑的徬徨;看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外,人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人,如今再犯,如何評價;一審不判死,二、三審什麼情形下可以改判?應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任,人性尊嚴?怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉?
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死,是尊重家屬,還是賭運氣;政府不求死刑的政策,可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎?死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔,以何區分?過去要奪人一條命,全在法官心裡的一本帳,爾今全要翻出來,一條一條計較。
當然,如此計較,正是尊重生命的表現。如果說,死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約,契約約定將決定權交給法官,法官當然不能隨機搖擺,憑著感覺下判決,而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準,代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重,經過辯論淬鍊,不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線,也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議,從毫不遲疑地判決、執行,到廢死的萌芽、壯大,如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻;既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題,何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天,死刑判決會消失,但那必須是社會共同的選擇,這種選擇,才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people caught in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw their bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
Some judges have a multitude of reservations about sentencing someone to death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, and repeats his offense today, how should he be judged? If we did not sentence him to death during the first trial, under what conditions do we change the sentence during the subsequent appeals? Should we take into account the defendant's family background, society's responsibility, and human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, and a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die show respect for the families? Or would it amount to a game of Russian Roulette? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. Everything depended on the discretion of a judge. This has now been turned on its head. Everything must be reexamined.
Of course such a reexamination shows our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death penalty is to prevent people from taking an eye for an eye. It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge. Of course the judge must not flip-flop randomly. He must not hand down judgments based on his whims. He must abide by objective standards.
These standards represent society's conclusions about the value of life. These conclusions must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the death penalty has evolved. Once death sentences were rendered and carried out without hesitation. The movement to abolish the death penalty has taken root and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The death penalty is not an easy issue to deal with. We should begin by making careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision can avoid the flip flopping that results from ad hoc decision making.
死刑的思辯:若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」,攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄,六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除,還有相當的距離,遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁,死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下,最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論,五名法官要判一個人死刑,不可再只審閱文書、關門決定,還須打開大門,聽取各方的意見,始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難,很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年,最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯,而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動,是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案,湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯,稍稍探出了頭,質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體,從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡,接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序,執行時日於是逐漸推遲;前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑,及歐盟廢死的聲勢,隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任,持續不執行死刑;直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑,死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們,廢死的動力,是由上而下成形,進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容,很容易鬆動。廢死的主張,強調重視罪犯的生命權,相對的,便難以兼顧被害者的生命權,與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展,我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府,政府投機迎合,卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行;廢死與否,就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是,我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑;故而,廢死與否,我們需要更多理性的思辯,深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人,各種事,各種價值,反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中,我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚,乃至家族的辛酸、變故;看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎,對是否求處死刑的徬徨;看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外,人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人,如今再犯,如何評價;一審不判死,二、三審什麼情形下可以改判?應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任,人性尊嚴?怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉?
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死,是尊重家屬,還是賭運氣;政府不求死刑的政策,可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎?死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔,以何區分?過去要奪人一條命,全在法官心裡的一本帳,爾今全要翻出來,一條一條計較。
當然,如此計較,正是尊重生命的表現。如果說,死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約,契約約定將決定權交給法官,法官當然不能隨機搖擺,憑著感覺下判決,而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準,代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重,經過辯論淬鍊,不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線,也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議,從毫不遲疑地判決、執行,到廢死的萌芽、壯大,如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻;既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題,何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天,死刑判決會消失,但那必須是社會共同的選擇,這種選擇,才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary: A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people mired in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw the families' bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the possible abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
There are judges who have a whole range of considerations about sentencing someone to life or death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, repeats the offense today, how should we judge it? If we don't sentenced him to death during the trial of the first instance, under what circumstances do we change the sentence during the second and third instances? How should we judge the defendant's family background, society's responsibility human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, or a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die demonstrate respect for the families, or would it amount to gambling? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one distinguish between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. It all depended upon the will of a judge. Now this is all turned upside down. It must all be reexamined.
Of course, such a reexamination demonstrates our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death sentence is to prevent people from taking "an eye for an eye." It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge, The judge naturally may not flip flop randomly, and render judgments according to his whims. He must abide by some objective standard.
These standards, represent society's appraisal of various factors regarding the value of life. The appraisal of these factors must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally as much as possible. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the Death Penalty has changed. Once death sentences were rendered without hesitation, and carried out. The move to abolish the death penalty has sprouted and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The Death Penalty is not an easy issue to contemplate. We should begin by ensuring careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day, the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision, can avoid flip flopping resulting from special circumstances.
死刑的思辯:若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」,攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄,六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除,還有相當的距離,遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁,死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下,最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論,五名法官要判一個人死刑,不可再只審閱文書、關門決定,還須打開大門,聽取各方的意見,始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難,很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年,最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯,而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動,是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案,湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯,稍稍探出了頭,質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體,從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡,接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序,執行時日於是逐漸推遲;前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑,及歐盟廢死的聲勢,隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任,持續不執行死刑;直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑,死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們,廢死的動力,是由上而下成形,進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容,很容易鬆動。廢死的主張,強調重視罪犯的生命權,相對的,便難以兼顧被害者的生命權,與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展,我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府,政府投機迎合,卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行;廢死與否,就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是,我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑;故而,廢死與否,我們需要更多理性的思辯,深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人,各種事,各種價值,反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中,我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚,乃至家族的辛酸、變故;看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎,對是否求處死刑的徬徨;看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外,人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人,如今再犯,如何評價;一審不判死,二、三審什麼情形下可以改判?應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任,人性尊嚴?怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉?
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死,是尊重家屬,還是賭運氣;政府不求死刑的政策,可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎?死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔,以何區分?過去要奪人一條命,全在法官心裡的一本帳,爾今全要翻出來,一條一條計較。
當然,如此計較,正是尊重生命的表現。如果說,死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約,契約約定將決定權交給法官,法官當然不能隨機搖擺,憑著感覺下判決,而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準,代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重,經過辯論淬鍊,不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線,也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議,從毫不遲疑地判決、執行,到廢死的萌芽、壯大,如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻;既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題,何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天,死刑判決會消失,但那必須是社會共同的選擇,這種選擇,才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people caught in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw their bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
Some judges have a multitude of reservations about sentencing someone to death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, and repeats his offense today, how should he be judged? If we did not sentence him to death during the first trial, under what conditions do we change the sentence during the subsequent appeals? Should we take into account the defendant's family background, society's responsibility, and human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, and a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die show respect for the families? Or would it amount to a game of Russian Roulette? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. Everything depended on the discretion of a judge. This has now been turned on its head. Everything must be reexamined.
Of course such a reexamination shows our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death penalty is to prevent people from taking an eye for an eye. It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge. Of course the judge must not flip-flop randomly. He must not hand down judgments based on his whims. He must abide by objective standards.
These standards represent society's conclusions about the value of life. These conclusions must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the death penalty has evolved. Once death sentences were rendered and carried out without hesitation. The movement to abolish the death penalty has taken root and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The death penalty is not an easy issue to deal with. We should begin by making careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision can avoid the flip flopping that results from ad hoc decision making.
死刑的思辯:若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」,攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄,六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除,還有相當的距離,遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁,死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下,最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論,五名法官要判一個人死刑,不可再只審閱文書、關門決定,還須打開大門,聽取各方的意見,始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難,很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年,最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯,而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動,是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案,湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯,稍稍探出了頭,質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體,從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡,接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序,執行時日於是逐漸推遲;前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑,及歐盟廢死的聲勢,隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任,持續不執行死刑;直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑,死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們,廢死的動力,是由上而下成形,進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容,很容易鬆動。廢死的主張,強調重視罪犯的生命權,相對的,便難以兼顧被害者的生命權,與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展,我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府,政府投機迎合,卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行;廢死與否,就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是,我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑;故而,廢死與否,我們需要更多理性的思辯,深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人,各種事,各種價值,反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中,我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚,乃至家族的辛酸、變故;看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎,對是否求處死刑的徬徨;看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外,人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人,如今再犯,如何評價;一審不判死,二、三審什麼情形下可以改判?應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任,人性尊嚴?怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉?
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死,是尊重家屬,還是賭運氣;政府不求死刑的政策,可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎?死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔,以何區分?過去要奪人一條命,全在法官心裡的一本帳,爾今全要翻出來,一條一條計較。
當然,如此計較,正是尊重生命的表現。如果說,死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約,契約約定將決定權交給法官,法官當然不能隨機搖擺,憑著感覺下判決,而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準,代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重,經過辯論淬鍊,不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線,也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議,從毫不遲疑地判決、執行,到廢死的萌芽、壯大,如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻;既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題,何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天,死刑判決會消失,但那必須是社會共同的選擇,這種選擇,才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Take Action, Overcome Depression
Take Action, Overcome Depression
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2012
Summary: The worse the depression, the greater the need for initiative. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin held a year-end press conference. He is in the second year of his second term. He proposed "Ten New Major Construction Projects for Taipei City." The city is in a slump. It is drowning in negative sentiment. Hau hopes that amidst the tumult of political pluralism, people can set aside their differences and work together toward a common goal. Hau Lung-bin's gesture will naturally lead to speculation about his motives. But set aside ruling vs opposition party political considerations for the moment. Taiwan must continue to develop. This cannot be ignored. It is a universal aspiration.
Full Text below:
The worse the depression, the greater the need for initiative. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin held a year-end press conference. He is in the second year of his second term. He proposed "Ten New Major Construction Projects for Taipei City." The city is in a slump. It is drowning in negative sentiment. Hau hopes that amidst the tumult of political pluralism, people can set aside their differences and work together toward a common goal. Hau Lung-bin's gesture will naturally lead to speculation about his motives. But set aside ruling vs opposition party political considerations for the moment. Taiwan must continue to develop. This cannot be ignored. It is a universal aspiration.
Forty years ago, the Republic of China found itself in precarious circumstances. An international financial crisis loomed. The first global oil crisis erupted as well. The Republic of China was forced to withdraw from the United Nations. In addition to an economic crisis, the Republic of China faced a national security crisis, and a crisis of confidence. No one who lived through that era will forget the slogan,「莊敬自強,處變不驚」meaning "In prosperity caution, in adversity patience." Of course, besides to offering slogans, the government must also offer solutions. When public confidence was shaken, the government launched the "Ten Major Construction Projects." This fundamentally transformed Taiwan's infrastructure and industry. It offered a concrete vision. It unified the nation and dispelled panic. Within five short years, the Republic of China was number one among the Four Asian Tigers. It created an economic miracle that won universal praise.
The crisis became an opportunity. The precedent entered textbooks as a case study in national development. Chiang Ching-kuo, Sun Yun-suan, Lee Kuo-ting and other determined elders put the public interest ahead of their personal ambition. Their fearlessness inspires nostalgia. In the four decades since, the ROC has undergone a "quiet revolution." What international tourists who visit Taiwan notice is the deep-rooted cultural heritage. Everyone is confident. Everyone is himself. On the other hand, political liberalization has also exacted a price. That price is democratic dsyfunction. That dysfunction has plunged society into collective anxiety. The public worries that ruling vs opposition party checks and balances, and even constitutional constraints, may make economic revival impossible. The public worries that they may lead to generational conflict, labor vs. capital confrontation, a lack of compromise between infrastructure development and environmental protection, and a deadlock between the ruling and opposition parties. But is this really the case? Must it be?
According to the latest polls, 83% of Taipei residents like Taipei. A similar poll about Taiwan would probably yield similar results. Peoples' reasons may not be the same. But the vast majority on Taiwan love it. They like its livability, its safety, and its diversity. They consider it a place where they can fulfill their dreams. Can a "New Ten Major Construction Projects" ease public anxieties? Can it enable people to work together? The times are different. The political and economic circumstances are different. Just how effective would a "New Ten Major Construction Projects" for Taipei be? That remains to be seen. But Taipei is the capital. Suppose it could create a more comprehensive industrial development environment? Suppose companies could become more competitive? It would at least have a "locomotive" effect. It would enable the public to feel more ambitious and act more boldly.
Needless to say, Hau Lung-bin's declaration led to political speculation. According to the election laws, when local leaders vacate their offices after the midpoint of their terms, their positions may be filled by the central government. No by-elections are necessary. Does Hau Lung-bin want to join the central government? Is he laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential bid? Political pundits may wonder. Such speculations are reasonable, but not necessarily factual. First, as elected officials, they are accountable to the voters. They must not do little and say little, or even do nothing and say nothing, for fear of ridicule. Secondly, as political leaders, they must consider their reputations, if not their legacies. High office is no guarantee of public adulation. The public's estimation of past presidents is well known. Politicians will not always choose "higher office." Thirdly, career politicians should serve the public, and show the public what they have to offer. If they perform well, the public will acknowledge them. The opportunities are endless. Otherwise it is empty talk. No matter how early one makes preparations, not matter how much effort one invests, it may all be for naught.
Hau Lung-bin quoted former Premier Sun Yun-suan. "The government must do what it must. Even more importantly, the government must communicate with the public. It must let the public know where it is headed." Society on Taiwan is mature and pluralistic. It allows people who want to work the opportunity to work. It allows people to respond to each other in good faith. The public on Taiwan has no shortage of political rhetoric, no shortage of political calculation, and no shortage of political grievances. What they have a shortage of, is tolerance, non-partisanship, cooperation in search of solutions, and opportunities for entrepreneurship. The mayors of the five cities and the leaders of the municipalities and counties complain. They say the central government has not devolved sufficient resources and authority to the local level. More should be done within their own purview. This will enable them to lead the people in their struggle. Taiwan belongs to everyone. If everyone has the will, then together we can find a way. Together we can find our way to the next stage of development. The possibilities for Taiwan's future are infinite.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.26
社論-擺脫苦悶年代 需要更多行動力
本報訊
愈是苦悶的年代,愈需要有積極的進取心。台北市長郝龍斌日前在連任第二年舉行年終記者會,提出「台北新十大建設」,要在經濟低迷不振的市景中,逆勢突圍,並希望在政治多元喧囂的年代裡,找出一個大家可以放下歧見,共同努力的方向。郝龍斌此舉自然引發政治臆測,但不論朝野以何種政治角度詮釋,不能忽視的是,「台灣要繼續發展」確實是全民心中最大的想望與共識。
四十年前,台灣處於內外交相迫的危急處境,除了國際金融衝擊,全球爆發第一次石油危機,中華民國又被迫退出聯合國,當時的台灣不但有經濟危機,還有國家安全的信心危機;走過那個年代,沒有人會忘記「莊敬自強,處變不驚」這句話。當然,除了提出口號,政府也得拿出辦法。就在民心動搖之際,政府推出「十大建設」,從根本改造台灣的基礎建設和產業,創造具體可行的願景,讓全民團結擺脫恐慌情緒。短短五年之內,台灣即成為亞洲四小龍之首,台灣因此創造的「經濟奇蹟」更為舉世稱許。
危機成了轉機,當年的典範,迄今仍是國家發展的經典教材,蔣經國、孫運璿、李國鼎…,許多堅毅的前輩們,為公不為私、無懼橫逆的身影令人懷念;四十年來,除了經濟表現,台灣還創造了「寧靜革命」,國際觀光客到台灣感受最強烈的就是台灣深層的人文底蘊,每個人都可以理直氣壯的做自己。但相對的,政治的開放某種程度也付出了民主效能降低的代價,社會陷入了集體焦慮:擔心朝野相互制衡、乃至掣肘,可能導致台灣難以重振發展榮景,致使世代衝突、勞資對立、建設與環保沒有交集、朝野難對話…,但實情真是如此、也只能如此嗎?
根據最新民調,百分之八十三的台北市民喜歡台北,相信類似民調放諸台灣亦皆準;儘管各地人們所持理由不見得一樣,但台灣人絕大多數都愛台灣,我們享受台灣的宜居、安全、多元,台灣是一個可以讓人實現理想和目標的地方。當年的「十大建設」緩解了全民的恐慌,讓人們找到可以一起努力的方向,時空改變、政經主客觀情勢不同於以往,集中於發展台北市的「新十大」能夠創造出多大的能量,自然有待觀察;但作為首都的台北市若能因此建構更完善周全的產業發展環境,為企業創造更高的競爭力,則至少可以發揮「火車頭」效應,帶動台灣更多人有積極發展的企圖心與行動力。
無庸諱言,郝龍斌的宣示,必然引來若干政治揣測,因為根據選罷法,地方首長任期過半後出缺,可由中央派代,無須改選,政壇中人或會猜想郝龍斌是否想進入中央?或者布局二○一六?這樣的揣測合理,但也不全然必要:第一,身為民選政治人物,必須對選民負責,不能憂讒畏譏少說少做,甚至不說不做,以避免出錯或引起話題;第二,身為政治領袖,即使不考慮大格局的歷史地位,至少要留下好名聲,然大位並不能保證人民愛戴,觀諸歷任總統在民眾心中的評價即可知一、二,因此「更上一層樓」未必是政治人物必然的抉擇;第三,以政治為志業者,所應為者是取得「能繼續為民服務、施展能力」的門票,做得好,民眾認可,機會無限,否則,只會空口說白話,再早布局、再多心機亦無用。
郝龍斌引了一段前行政院長孫運璿的話,「政府,就是要做應該去做的事;政府,更要做好對民眾的溝通,讓民眾知道未來要怎麼走。」台灣是一個成熟的多元社會,應該會給想做事的人足夠的空間,也應有能力給予彼此善意的回應。台灣不缺政治語言,不缺政治算計,不缺彼此怨懟;缺的是放下對立,不問己身政治得失,一起想辦法解決問題、創造機會的幹勁和拚勁。五都和各縣市首長在抱怨中央權與錢下放不夠的同時,更應該做的是在自己的權責範圍內,找出可以帶領民眾拚搏的奮鬥目標。台灣是大家的,若是人人皆有心,願意一同尋找下一個階段的動力與方向,台灣的未來就有無限可能!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2012
Summary: The worse the depression, the greater the need for initiative. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin held a year-end press conference. He is in the second year of his second term. He proposed "Ten New Major Construction Projects for Taipei City." The city is in a slump. It is drowning in negative sentiment. Hau hopes that amidst the tumult of political pluralism, people can set aside their differences and work together toward a common goal. Hau Lung-bin's gesture will naturally lead to speculation about his motives. But set aside ruling vs opposition party political considerations for the moment. Taiwan must continue to develop. This cannot be ignored. It is a universal aspiration.
Full Text below:
The worse the depression, the greater the need for initiative. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin held a year-end press conference. He is in the second year of his second term. He proposed "Ten New Major Construction Projects for Taipei City." The city is in a slump. It is drowning in negative sentiment. Hau hopes that amidst the tumult of political pluralism, people can set aside their differences and work together toward a common goal. Hau Lung-bin's gesture will naturally lead to speculation about his motives. But set aside ruling vs opposition party political considerations for the moment. Taiwan must continue to develop. This cannot be ignored. It is a universal aspiration.
Forty years ago, the Republic of China found itself in precarious circumstances. An international financial crisis loomed. The first global oil crisis erupted as well. The Republic of China was forced to withdraw from the United Nations. In addition to an economic crisis, the Republic of China faced a national security crisis, and a crisis of confidence. No one who lived through that era will forget the slogan,「莊敬自強,處變不驚」meaning "In prosperity caution, in adversity patience." Of course, besides to offering slogans, the government must also offer solutions. When public confidence was shaken, the government launched the "Ten Major Construction Projects." This fundamentally transformed Taiwan's infrastructure and industry. It offered a concrete vision. It unified the nation and dispelled panic. Within five short years, the Republic of China was number one among the Four Asian Tigers. It created an economic miracle that won universal praise.
The crisis became an opportunity. The precedent entered textbooks as a case study in national development. Chiang Ching-kuo, Sun Yun-suan, Lee Kuo-ting and other determined elders put the public interest ahead of their personal ambition. Their fearlessness inspires nostalgia. In the four decades since, the ROC has undergone a "quiet revolution." What international tourists who visit Taiwan notice is the deep-rooted cultural heritage. Everyone is confident. Everyone is himself. On the other hand, political liberalization has also exacted a price. That price is democratic dsyfunction. That dysfunction has plunged society into collective anxiety. The public worries that ruling vs opposition party checks and balances, and even constitutional constraints, may make economic revival impossible. The public worries that they may lead to generational conflict, labor vs. capital confrontation, a lack of compromise between infrastructure development and environmental protection, and a deadlock between the ruling and opposition parties. But is this really the case? Must it be?
According to the latest polls, 83% of Taipei residents like Taipei. A similar poll about Taiwan would probably yield similar results. Peoples' reasons may not be the same. But the vast majority on Taiwan love it. They like its livability, its safety, and its diversity. They consider it a place where they can fulfill their dreams. Can a "New Ten Major Construction Projects" ease public anxieties? Can it enable people to work together? The times are different. The political and economic circumstances are different. Just how effective would a "New Ten Major Construction Projects" for Taipei be? That remains to be seen. But Taipei is the capital. Suppose it could create a more comprehensive industrial development environment? Suppose companies could become more competitive? It would at least have a "locomotive" effect. It would enable the public to feel more ambitious and act more boldly.
Needless to say, Hau Lung-bin's declaration led to political speculation. According to the election laws, when local leaders vacate their offices after the midpoint of their terms, their positions may be filled by the central government. No by-elections are necessary. Does Hau Lung-bin want to join the central government? Is he laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential bid? Political pundits may wonder. Such speculations are reasonable, but not necessarily factual. First, as elected officials, they are accountable to the voters. They must not do little and say little, or even do nothing and say nothing, for fear of ridicule. Secondly, as political leaders, they must consider their reputations, if not their legacies. High office is no guarantee of public adulation. The public's estimation of past presidents is well known. Politicians will not always choose "higher office." Thirdly, career politicians should serve the public, and show the public what they have to offer. If they perform well, the public will acknowledge them. The opportunities are endless. Otherwise it is empty talk. No matter how early one makes preparations, not matter how much effort one invests, it may all be for naught.
Hau Lung-bin quoted former Premier Sun Yun-suan. "The government must do what it must. Even more importantly, the government must communicate with the public. It must let the public know where it is headed." Society on Taiwan is mature and pluralistic. It allows people who want to work the opportunity to work. It allows people to respond to each other in good faith. The public on Taiwan has no shortage of political rhetoric, no shortage of political calculation, and no shortage of political grievances. What they have a shortage of, is tolerance, non-partisanship, cooperation in search of solutions, and opportunities for entrepreneurship. The mayors of the five cities and the leaders of the municipalities and counties complain. They say the central government has not devolved sufficient resources and authority to the local level. More should be done within their own purview. This will enable them to lead the people in their struggle. Taiwan belongs to everyone. If everyone has the will, then together we can find a way. Together we can find our way to the next stage of development. The possibilities for Taiwan's future are infinite.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.26
社論-擺脫苦悶年代 需要更多行動力
本報訊
愈是苦悶的年代,愈需要有積極的進取心。台北市長郝龍斌日前在連任第二年舉行年終記者會,提出「台北新十大建設」,要在經濟低迷不振的市景中,逆勢突圍,並希望在政治多元喧囂的年代裡,找出一個大家可以放下歧見,共同努力的方向。郝龍斌此舉自然引發政治臆測,但不論朝野以何種政治角度詮釋,不能忽視的是,「台灣要繼續發展」確實是全民心中最大的想望與共識。
四十年前,台灣處於內外交相迫的危急處境,除了國際金融衝擊,全球爆發第一次石油危機,中華民國又被迫退出聯合國,當時的台灣不但有經濟危機,還有國家安全的信心危機;走過那個年代,沒有人會忘記「莊敬自強,處變不驚」這句話。當然,除了提出口號,政府也得拿出辦法。就在民心動搖之際,政府推出「十大建設」,從根本改造台灣的基礎建設和產業,創造具體可行的願景,讓全民團結擺脫恐慌情緒。短短五年之內,台灣即成為亞洲四小龍之首,台灣因此創造的「經濟奇蹟」更為舉世稱許。
危機成了轉機,當年的典範,迄今仍是國家發展的經典教材,蔣經國、孫運璿、李國鼎…,許多堅毅的前輩們,為公不為私、無懼橫逆的身影令人懷念;四十年來,除了經濟表現,台灣還創造了「寧靜革命」,國際觀光客到台灣感受最強烈的就是台灣深層的人文底蘊,每個人都可以理直氣壯的做自己。但相對的,政治的開放某種程度也付出了民主效能降低的代價,社會陷入了集體焦慮:擔心朝野相互制衡、乃至掣肘,可能導致台灣難以重振發展榮景,致使世代衝突、勞資對立、建設與環保沒有交集、朝野難對話…,但實情真是如此、也只能如此嗎?
根據最新民調,百分之八十三的台北市民喜歡台北,相信類似民調放諸台灣亦皆準;儘管各地人們所持理由不見得一樣,但台灣人絕大多數都愛台灣,我們享受台灣的宜居、安全、多元,台灣是一個可以讓人實現理想和目標的地方。當年的「十大建設」緩解了全民的恐慌,讓人們找到可以一起努力的方向,時空改變、政經主客觀情勢不同於以往,集中於發展台北市的「新十大」能夠創造出多大的能量,自然有待觀察;但作為首都的台北市若能因此建構更完善周全的產業發展環境,為企業創造更高的競爭力,則至少可以發揮「火車頭」效應,帶動台灣更多人有積極發展的企圖心與行動力。
無庸諱言,郝龍斌的宣示,必然引來若干政治揣測,因為根據選罷法,地方首長任期過半後出缺,可由中央派代,無須改選,政壇中人或會猜想郝龍斌是否想進入中央?或者布局二○一六?這樣的揣測合理,但也不全然必要:第一,身為民選政治人物,必須對選民負責,不能憂讒畏譏少說少做,甚至不說不做,以避免出錯或引起話題;第二,身為政治領袖,即使不考慮大格局的歷史地位,至少要留下好名聲,然大位並不能保證人民愛戴,觀諸歷任總統在民眾心中的評價即可知一、二,因此「更上一層樓」未必是政治人物必然的抉擇;第三,以政治為志業者,所應為者是取得「能繼續為民服務、施展能力」的門票,做得好,民眾認可,機會無限,否則,只會空口說白話,再早布局、再多心機亦無用。
郝龍斌引了一段前行政院長孫運璿的話,「政府,就是要做應該去做的事;政府,更要做好對民眾的溝通,讓民眾知道未來要怎麼走。」台灣是一個成熟的多元社會,應該會給想做事的人足夠的空間,也應有能力給予彼此善意的回應。台灣不缺政治語言,不缺政治算計,不缺彼此怨懟;缺的是放下對立,不問己身政治得失,一起想辦法解決問題、創造機會的幹勁和拚勁。五都和各縣市首長在抱怨中央權與錢下放不夠的同時,更應該做的是在自己的權責範圍內,找出可以帶領民眾拚搏的奮鬥目標。台灣是大家的,若是人人皆有心,願意一同尋找下一個階段的動力與方向,台灣的未來就有無限可能!
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Commemorate the Constitution. Close Constitutional Loopholes
Commemorate the Constitution. Close Constitutional Loopholes
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2012
Summary: People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. But people also know that our system of constitutional rule has yet to get on track. Legislation to block constitutional loopholes must be passed. We make this solemn appeal to the Legislative Yuan on Constitution Day.
Full Text below:
People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. But people also know that our system of constitutional rule has yet to get on track. Legislation to block constitutional loopholes must be passed. We make this solemn appeal to the Legislative Yuan on Constitution Day.
The 1946 Constitution of the Republic of China included a commitment by the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party to create a new draft of the constitution. Chang Chun-mai, an opposition constitutionalist faction leader, authored the new draft. The draft was approved by the Chinese Communist Party's "Draft Constitution Review Committee." It was then referred to the National Constituent Assembly, including representatives from Taiwan, at which point it became the official Constitution. Chang was cautious. The Constitution retained the five branch framework of the "five-power constitution." The cabinet system specified the relationship between the President, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan. These have uniquely Chinese characteristics. They are also consistent with constitutional standards. Unfortunately successive administrations have never treated the Constitution as a paradigm. As a result constitutional practice does not accord with constitutional norms. The Constitution has never been accorded the dignity and authority it deserves.
When the Constitution was first put into practice, Chiang Kai-shek cited the Communist Rebellion as a reason for the National Assembly to amend the Constitution and grant him expanded powers under the Temporary Provisions. This undermined the cabinet system. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian advocated Taiwan independence. They disagreed with the Constitution. When they ascended to power they forced through seven pro-Taiwan independence amendments. Constitutional rule went out the window. The president acquired unchecked power. Pro-Taiwan independence elements relentlessly defamed and twisted the meaning of the Constitution. They turned it into an object of derision.
A Constitution is fundamental to a nation. A nation's constitution must retain its moral authority. Otherwise the government will have no basis for the exercise of its authority. The ruling and opposition parties will have no standard by which to determine who is right and who is wrong. The freedom and welfare of the people will be jeopardized. If the constitution loses its moral authority, political chaos will ensue. Therefore if we wish to uphold the constitution, enhance its authority, and avoid political chaos. we must first refute several fallacies.
One. When the Constitution of the Republic of China was drafted, 18 National Assembly Members from Taiwan went to Nanjing to attend the National Constituent Assembly. This event was clearly recorded in newspapers and in the minutes of meeting. The allegation that "Taiwanese never participated in the drafting of the Constitution" is an outright lie. Others say "The National Constituent Assembly lacked a popular mandate." We invite them to consider the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, who were not authorized by the public to draft a constitution. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted at General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters and delivered to the Japanese, who approved it. Why have advocates of Taiwan independence not challenged their legitimacy?
Two. The drafting of a Constitution requires compromises. But as long as the basic framework accords with constitutional doctrine, then it is a good constitution. The Constitution of the Republic of China is the result of partisan negotiations. It too contains compromises. The cabinet system accords with democratic constitutional standards. Two traditional Chinese powers of government, (examination and control) were combined with three Western powers of government (executive, legislative and judicial). This has genuine meaning. From a theoretical perspective, this is a perfectly workable constitution. It should be able to thrive, based on constitutional precedents and constitutional interpretations. It can hardly be dismissed as a "patchwork quilt," merely because its drafting included a few technical compromises. When Chen Shui-bian was president, he denounced the Constitution as "Urumqi," i.e., as oppressive to Taiwanese. This was an even more flagrant violation of his oath of office. If truth be told, he should have been prosecuted for these violations long ago.
Now that we have affirmed that the Constitution is valid, let us address the invalid and the unconstitutional. The current threshold for constitutional amendments is unsurmountable. Future constitutional amendments are certain to be package deals. This will only lead to greater chaos. We must seek solutions other than constitutional amendments. We must return to constitutional rule.
Seven constitutional amendments later, Article 53 of the Constitution still states that "The Executive Yuan is the nation's highest administrative organ." Article 57 still states that the "Executive Yuan must answer to the Legislative Yuan." These provisions have not changed. The president does not answer to the "highest administrative authority," i.e., the Executive Yuan. Therefore he should not wield executive power. The system should remain a cabinet system. Presidents Lee and Chen wielded unchecked power. They did so by exploiting loopholes in the Constitution, not by wielding constitutional mandates. Therefore we solemnly urge the passage of a "Presidential Powers Law" to plug the loopholes in the Constitution. This will put constitutional rule back on track.
The first thing this law would do, is limit the president's right of nomination. For example, the head of the cabinet should be a candidate acceptible to a majority in the Legislative Yuan. He or she should report to the legislature. The legislature must give him or her a vote of confidence before appointment. The qualification and nomination procedures for members of the Control Yuan, for members of the Examination Yuan, for the Grand Justices, and for the Prosecutor General should be spelled out. They should not be subject to interpretation by political parties. The President should not delay the exercise of his right of nomination. Doing so will only obstruct the constitutional process. Next, the law should spell out the conditions required to impeach the president. If the President violates the constitution and precipitates political chaos, he or she should be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted upon his departure. This would implement what the Constitution refers to as "severe punishment."
Finally, the National Security Council and the National Security Bureau are remnants of the "Temporary Provisions." They became weapons by which the President meddled in the government. The Additional Articles established these two entities. Therefore the Legislative Yuan can rescind its authorization. It can repeal its Organic Law. It can return the power to the Executive Yuan. This may be difficult to do at the moment. But we must abide by the Constitution and the spirit of the cabinet system. We must change its organization. The Premier must exercise his right to countersign. Only then can he become the real leader of the two entities. In the future aspiring leaders, will enter the Legislative Yuan, and seek the premiership. The Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan should be the nation's decision-making center.
Chen Shui-bian held power for eight years. He showed that ambitious politicians can abuse constitutional loopholes and run amok. We must review the constitution. Promoting a constitutional amendment was a Ma administration campaign promise. Amending the constitution is currently infeasible. Ma should seize the moment. He should promote relevant legislation and plug constitutional loopholes. Otherwise, we could experience a repetition of what happened when Chen was elected president. Constitution Day would sooner or later become the Constitution Day of the Dead.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.25
社論-紀念行憲,請速立法堵住憲政漏洞
本報訊
當前民眾多自豪於台灣的自由民主,殊不知我們的憲政仍未納上正軌。立法堵住憲政漏洞,是我們在行憲紀念日最沉重、最莊嚴的呼籲。
一九四六年制訂的《中華民國憲法》,實現了當時執政黨中國國民黨的制憲承諾,但卻由在野的立憲派傳人張君勱起草,由含有中共代表的「憲草審議委員會」通過草案,再交由含台灣代表在內的制憲國民大會通過,成為正式憲法。張氏的精心設計,使憲法保留「五權憲法」的五院架構,但依內閣制原理安排總統、政院及立院關係,成為既有中國特色、又合憲政標準的憲法。可惜執政者從未奉憲法為圭臬,以致憲政運作仍不合憲法規範,憲法尊嚴和權威也始終難立。
行憲伊始,蔣中正便以動員戡亂為由,由國民大會藉修憲程序通過《臨時條款》擴張總統權力,破壞憲法規定的內閣制體制。李、扁主政時,又因不認同憲法的台獨立場推動了七次修憲,把憲法規定的問責機制修到難以運作,總統卻獨攬大權不受監督。同時,獨派人物更不斷汙衊、扭曲憲法,使其幾成告朔餼羊。
憲法是國家的根本。如果憲法失去規範效力,則政府公權力運作和朝野政治衝突皆失去判斷是非標準,人民的自由和福祉終將難保。眼前政治亂象,皆因憲法失其權威所致。我們若想保住憲政生機、培養憲法權威,掃除亂政,首需駁斥幾種流行謬論。
首先,中華民國憲法制訂之時,台灣十八名國大代表皆赴南京出席制憲國大。此事載諸當時報紙及會議紀錄,所謂「台灣人沒參與制憲」純屬謊言。還有人說「制憲國大代表缺乏民意基礎」,請看美國一七八七年「制憲會議」的代表亦未獲授權,日本戰後憲法甚至是由麥帥總部起草交付通過,何以都能有效?
其次,憲法制訂必有折衷妥協之處。只要基本架構合乎憲政學理,就是好憲法。中華民國憲法既是黨派協商結果,自亦有妥協痕跡。但其內閣制架構合乎民主憲政標準;將中國傳統針對「人」的兩權(考試、監察)與西方傳入針對「事」的三權(行政、立法、司法)結合,自有其深意。依據學理,此憲法絕非不可行,它應可藉憲政慣例和憲法解釋而成長,豈可僅因制憲時某些技術性妥協便汙衊它為拼湊而成?至於扁以現任總統身分詆毀憲法為「烏魯木齊」,更是公然違反其「遵守憲法」之就職宣誓,早應「受國家嚴厲之制裁」。
肯定憲法效力後,我們還要糾正目前違憲亂象。由於現行修憲門檻高不可攀,未來修憲提案勢必是龐雜的包裹修憲,只會治絲益棼。我們必須尋求修憲以外途徑,使政治回歸憲政常軌。
歷經七次修憲,憲法第五十三條「行政院為國家最高行政機關」及第五十七條「行政院…對立法院負責」之規定並未修改。總統既然不在「最高行政機關」(行政院)之下,自不應擁行政實權,現行體制應仍是內閣制。李、扁兩總統所以大權在握,是利用憲法漏洞所致,並非憲法授權。本此,我們鄭重建議制定《總統職權行使法》,用以堵住憲法漏洞,使憲政運作步上正軌。
該法首應對總統行使提名權加以規範。例如:閣揆應是立院多數可接受之人選,並應向立院報告政見,經立院信任投票通過後始得任命;監察委員、考試委員、大法官、檢察總長之資格及提名程序亦應明訂,且不應有政黨考慮;總統更不應怠於行使提名權,導致憲政機關無法運作。其次,該法亦可規定彈劾總統之發起要件,及總統若違憲亂政,經彈劾去職或任滿後之刑罰,以落實憲法所謂「國家嚴厲之制裁」。
最後,國安會和國安局為《臨時條款》殘留物,卻成總統干政「利器」。既然《增修條文》對此二機關之規定是「得設」,則立院自可收回授權,廢除其組織法,使該權力回歸行政院。若一時難行,亦應遵守憲法內閣制精神,修改其組織,使閣揆藉副署權之行使成為兩機關實質領導者。往後有志領導國家者,應投身立院,爭取閣揆,使行政、立法兩院成為國事決策中心。
陳水扁執政八年,證明野心家大可利用憲法漏洞胡作非為。檢討憲政、推動修憲原是馬總統競選政見,現修憲既不可行,馬應抓緊時間,推動相關立法,堵住憲法漏洞。否則若再有類似扁者當選總統,行憲紀念日遲早將成行憲悼念日。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2012
Summary: People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. But people also know that our system of constitutional rule has yet to get on track. Legislation to block constitutional loopholes must be passed. We make this solemn appeal to the Legislative Yuan on Constitution Day.
Full Text below:
People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. But people also know that our system of constitutional rule has yet to get on track. Legislation to block constitutional loopholes must be passed. We make this solemn appeal to the Legislative Yuan on Constitution Day.
The 1946 Constitution of the Republic of China included a commitment by the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party to create a new draft of the constitution. Chang Chun-mai, an opposition constitutionalist faction leader, authored the new draft. The draft was approved by the Chinese Communist Party's "Draft Constitution Review Committee." It was then referred to the National Constituent Assembly, including representatives from Taiwan, at which point it became the official Constitution. Chang was cautious. The Constitution retained the five branch framework of the "five-power constitution." The cabinet system specified the relationship between the President, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan. These have uniquely Chinese characteristics. They are also consistent with constitutional standards. Unfortunately successive administrations have never treated the Constitution as a paradigm. As a result constitutional practice does not accord with constitutional norms. The Constitution has never been accorded the dignity and authority it deserves.
When the Constitution was first put into practice, Chiang Kai-shek cited the Communist Rebellion as a reason for the National Assembly to amend the Constitution and grant him expanded powers under the Temporary Provisions. This undermined the cabinet system. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian advocated Taiwan independence. They disagreed with the Constitution. When they ascended to power they forced through seven pro-Taiwan independence amendments. Constitutional rule went out the window. The president acquired unchecked power. Pro-Taiwan independence elements relentlessly defamed and twisted the meaning of the Constitution. They turned it into an object of derision.
A Constitution is fundamental to a nation. A nation's constitution must retain its moral authority. Otherwise the government will have no basis for the exercise of its authority. The ruling and opposition parties will have no standard by which to determine who is right and who is wrong. The freedom and welfare of the people will be jeopardized. If the constitution loses its moral authority, political chaos will ensue. Therefore if we wish to uphold the constitution, enhance its authority, and avoid political chaos. we must first refute several fallacies.
One. When the Constitution of the Republic of China was drafted, 18 National Assembly Members from Taiwan went to Nanjing to attend the National Constituent Assembly. This event was clearly recorded in newspapers and in the minutes of meeting. The allegation that "Taiwanese never participated in the drafting of the Constitution" is an outright lie. Others say "The National Constituent Assembly lacked a popular mandate." We invite them to consider the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, who were not authorized by the public to draft a constitution. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted at General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters and delivered to the Japanese, who approved it. Why have advocates of Taiwan independence not challenged their legitimacy?
Two. The drafting of a Constitution requires compromises. But as long as the basic framework accords with constitutional doctrine, then it is a good constitution. The Constitution of the Republic of China is the result of partisan negotiations. It too contains compromises. The cabinet system accords with democratic constitutional standards. Two traditional Chinese powers of government, (examination and control) were combined with three Western powers of government (executive, legislative and judicial). This has genuine meaning. From a theoretical perspective, this is a perfectly workable constitution. It should be able to thrive, based on constitutional precedents and constitutional interpretations. It can hardly be dismissed as a "patchwork quilt," merely because its drafting included a few technical compromises. When Chen Shui-bian was president, he denounced the Constitution as "Urumqi," i.e., as oppressive to Taiwanese. This was an even more flagrant violation of his oath of office. If truth be told, he should have been prosecuted for these violations long ago.
Now that we have affirmed that the Constitution is valid, let us address the invalid and the unconstitutional. The current threshold for constitutional amendments is unsurmountable. Future constitutional amendments are certain to be package deals. This will only lead to greater chaos. We must seek solutions other than constitutional amendments. We must return to constitutional rule.
Seven constitutional amendments later, Article 53 of the Constitution still states that "The Executive Yuan is the nation's highest administrative organ." Article 57 still states that the "Executive Yuan must answer to the Legislative Yuan." These provisions have not changed. The president does not answer to the "highest administrative authority," i.e., the Executive Yuan. Therefore he should not wield executive power. The system should remain a cabinet system. Presidents Lee and Chen wielded unchecked power. They did so by exploiting loopholes in the Constitution, not by wielding constitutional mandates. Therefore we solemnly urge the passage of a "Presidential Powers Law" to plug the loopholes in the Constitution. This will put constitutional rule back on track.
The first thing this law would do, is limit the president's right of nomination. For example, the head of the cabinet should be a candidate acceptible to a majority in the Legislative Yuan. He or she should report to the legislature. The legislature must give him or her a vote of confidence before appointment. The qualification and nomination procedures for members of the Control Yuan, for members of the Examination Yuan, for the Grand Justices, and for the Prosecutor General should be spelled out. They should not be subject to interpretation by political parties. The President should not delay the exercise of his right of nomination. Doing so will only obstruct the constitutional process. Next, the law should spell out the conditions required to impeach the president. If the President violates the constitution and precipitates political chaos, he or she should be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted upon his departure. This would implement what the Constitution refers to as "severe punishment."
Finally, the National Security Council and the National Security Bureau are remnants of the "Temporary Provisions." They became weapons by which the President meddled in the government. The Additional Articles established these two entities. Therefore the Legislative Yuan can rescind its authorization. It can repeal its Organic Law. It can return the power to the Executive Yuan. This may be difficult to do at the moment. But we must abide by the Constitution and the spirit of the cabinet system. We must change its organization. The Premier must exercise his right to countersign. Only then can he become the real leader of the two entities. In the future aspiring leaders, will enter the Legislative Yuan, and seek the premiership. The Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan should be the nation's decision-making center.
Chen Shui-bian held power for eight years. He showed that ambitious politicians can abuse constitutional loopholes and run amok. We must review the constitution. Promoting a constitutional amendment was a Ma administration campaign promise. Amending the constitution is currently infeasible. Ma should seize the moment. He should promote relevant legislation and plug constitutional loopholes. Otherwise, we could experience a repetition of what happened when Chen was elected president. Constitution Day would sooner or later become the Constitution Day of the Dead.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.25
社論-紀念行憲,請速立法堵住憲政漏洞
本報訊
當前民眾多自豪於台灣的自由民主,殊不知我們的憲政仍未納上正軌。立法堵住憲政漏洞,是我們在行憲紀念日最沉重、最莊嚴的呼籲。
一九四六年制訂的《中華民國憲法》,實現了當時執政黨中國國民黨的制憲承諾,但卻由在野的立憲派傳人張君勱起草,由含有中共代表的「憲草審議委員會」通過草案,再交由含台灣代表在內的制憲國民大會通過,成為正式憲法。張氏的精心設計,使憲法保留「五權憲法」的五院架構,但依內閣制原理安排總統、政院及立院關係,成為既有中國特色、又合憲政標準的憲法。可惜執政者從未奉憲法為圭臬,以致憲政運作仍不合憲法規範,憲法尊嚴和權威也始終難立。
行憲伊始,蔣中正便以動員戡亂為由,由國民大會藉修憲程序通過《臨時條款》擴張總統權力,破壞憲法規定的內閣制體制。李、扁主政時,又因不認同憲法的台獨立場推動了七次修憲,把憲法規定的問責機制修到難以運作,總統卻獨攬大權不受監督。同時,獨派人物更不斷汙衊、扭曲憲法,使其幾成告朔餼羊。
憲法是國家的根本。如果憲法失去規範效力,則政府公權力運作和朝野政治衝突皆失去判斷是非標準,人民的自由和福祉終將難保。眼前政治亂象,皆因憲法失其權威所致。我們若想保住憲政生機、培養憲法權威,掃除亂政,首需駁斥幾種流行謬論。
首先,中華民國憲法制訂之時,台灣十八名國大代表皆赴南京出席制憲國大。此事載諸當時報紙及會議紀錄,所謂「台灣人沒參與制憲」純屬謊言。還有人說「制憲國大代表缺乏民意基礎」,請看美國一七八七年「制憲會議」的代表亦未獲授權,日本戰後憲法甚至是由麥帥總部起草交付通過,何以都能有效?
其次,憲法制訂必有折衷妥協之處。只要基本架構合乎憲政學理,就是好憲法。中華民國憲法既是黨派協商結果,自亦有妥協痕跡。但其內閣制架構合乎民主憲政標準;將中國傳統針對「人」的兩權(考試、監察)與西方傳入針對「事」的三權(行政、立法、司法)結合,自有其深意。依據學理,此憲法絕非不可行,它應可藉憲政慣例和憲法解釋而成長,豈可僅因制憲時某些技術性妥協便汙衊它為拼湊而成?至於扁以現任總統身分詆毀憲法為「烏魯木齊」,更是公然違反其「遵守憲法」之就職宣誓,早應「受國家嚴厲之制裁」。
肯定憲法效力後,我們還要糾正目前違憲亂象。由於現行修憲門檻高不可攀,未來修憲提案勢必是龐雜的包裹修憲,只會治絲益棼。我們必須尋求修憲以外途徑,使政治回歸憲政常軌。
歷經七次修憲,憲法第五十三條「行政院為國家最高行政機關」及第五十七條「行政院…對立法院負責」之規定並未修改。總統既然不在「最高行政機關」(行政院)之下,自不應擁行政實權,現行體制應仍是內閣制。李、扁兩總統所以大權在握,是利用憲法漏洞所致,並非憲法授權。本此,我們鄭重建議制定《總統職權行使法》,用以堵住憲法漏洞,使憲政運作步上正軌。
該法首應對總統行使提名權加以規範。例如:閣揆應是立院多數可接受之人選,並應向立院報告政見,經立院信任投票通過後始得任命;監察委員、考試委員、大法官、檢察總長之資格及提名程序亦應明訂,且不應有政黨考慮;總統更不應怠於行使提名權,導致憲政機關無法運作。其次,該法亦可規定彈劾總統之發起要件,及總統若違憲亂政,經彈劾去職或任滿後之刑罰,以落實憲法所謂「國家嚴厲之制裁」。
最後,國安會和國安局為《臨時條款》殘留物,卻成總統干政「利器」。既然《增修條文》對此二機關之規定是「得設」,則立院自可收回授權,廢除其組織法,使該權力回歸行政院。若一時難行,亦應遵守憲法內閣制精神,修改其組織,使閣揆藉副署權之行使成為兩機關實質領導者。往後有志領導國家者,應投身立院,爭取閣揆,使行政、立法兩院成為國事決策中心。
陳水扁執政八年,證明野心家大可利用憲法漏洞胡作非為。檢討憲政、推動修憲原是馬總統競選政見,現修憲既不可行,馬應抓緊時間,推動相關立法,堵住憲法漏洞。否則若再有類似扁者當選總統,行憲紀念日遲早將成行憲悼念日。
Monday, December 24, 2012
Commemorate the Constitution. Close Constitutional Loopholes
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy.
But at the same time, everyone knows that our system of constitutional rule is still not on the right track.
Pass legislation to block constitutional loopholes.
We make this solemn appeal to the legislature on Constitution Day.
The Constitution of the Republic of China as of 1946,
included a commitment by the then ruling Chinese Nationalist Party to author a constitution.
Chang Chun-mai, an opposition constitutionalist faction leader drafted the document.
It includes a draft approved by the Chinese Communist Party's "Draft Constitution Review Committee."
It was then referred to
the Constituent National Assembly, including representatives of Taiwan, at which point it officially became the Constitution.
Chang was carefule.
The Constitution retained the five branch framework of the "five-power constitution."
The cabinet system specifies the relationship between the President, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan.
These have uniquely Chinese characteristics.
They are also consistent with constitutional standards.
Unfortunately ruling administrations never treated the Constitution as a standard.
As a result constitutional practice still does not accord with constitutional norms.
The Constitution has never been accorded the dignity and authority it deserves.
When the Constitution was first put into practice,
Chiang Kai-shek invoked the Communist Rebellion.
He cited it as reason to have the National Assembly amend the Constitution, granting him expanded presidential powers under the Temporary Provisions.
This undermined the cabinet system.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian advocated Taiwan independence. They disagreed with the Constitution.
When they rose to power they forced through seven pro-Taiwan independence amendments.
The system of constitutional rule went out the window.
The president acquired unchecked power.
Pro-Taiwan independence elements relentlessly defamed and distorted the Constitution, virtually turning it into a sacrificial lamb.
A Constitution is fundamental to a nation.
If its constitution loses ot normative force,
the exercise of governmental authority and political conflict between the ruling and opposition political parties are deprived of all standards for right and wrong.
The freedom and well-being of the people will eventually be jeopardized.
Political chaos will follow.
As a result the constitution has lost its authority.
If we wish to preserve the constitution,
enhance the authority of the Constitution,
sweep away political chaos.
we first need to refute several popular fallacies.
First, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was authored,
18 National Assembly Members went to Nanjing to attend the Constituent National Assembly.
This event was clearly recorded in various newspapers and minutes of meetings of the time.
The allegation that "Taiwanese never participated in the authoriing of the Constitution" is a bald-faced lie.
Others say the "Constituent National Assembly lacked a popular mandate."
We invite them to consider the representatives of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, who were not authorized by the public to author a constitution.
Japan's postwar constitution was drafted by General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters and delivered to the Japanese, who approved it.
Why are they considered authoritative?
Secondly, the drafting of a Constitution requires compromises.
As long as the basic framework accords with constitutional doctrine,
then it is a good constitution.
The Constitution of the Republic of China is the result of party negotiations.
It too contains compromises.
The cabinet system accords with democratic constitutional standards.
Two traditional Chinese powers (examination and control)
were combined with three Western powers (executive, legislative and judicial).
This has real meaning.
From a theoretical perspective,
this is a perfectly workable constitution.
It should be able to grow based on constitutional precedents and constitutional interpretations.
It can hardly be dismissed as a "patchwork quilt" merely because of some technical compromises during its drafting.
When Chen Shui-bian was president, he denounced the Constitution as "Urumqi," as oppressive to Taiwanese.
This was an even more flagrant violation of his oath of office to abide by the Constitution.
If truth be told, he should have been subjected to severe punishment long ago.
Certainly after the constitutional validity
We would also like to correct the the current unconstitutional chaos.
The current constitutional amendment threshold unattainable
Future constitutional amendment proposal is bound to be numerous parcels constitutional amendment
Only Zhisiyifen.
We must seek ways constitutional amendment outside
Political return to the constitutional on track.
After seven constitutional amendments
Article 53 of the Constitution, "the Executive Yuan for the country's highest administrative organ
And Article 57 of the "Executive Yuan ... is responsible to the Legislative Yuan" has not been modified.
Since the president is not under the "highest administrative authority" (Executive Yuan)
Self should not be owned by the executive powers,
The current system should remain a cabinet system.
Lee, flat two presidential so powerful,
Is the due Constitution vulnerability,
Not a constitutional mandate.
This, we solemnly recommended the development of the exercise of the powers of the presidency Law
Used to block the constitution vulnerability
Constitutional operation on track.
The law is the first response to the president to regulate the exercise of the right to nominate.
For example: the head of the cabinet should be the most acceptable candidate for the Legislative Yuan,
And shall legislative report on political views,
Legislative trust vote by appointment before they may;
Monitors
Examiner
Justice, the Attorney-General of the qualifications and nomination procedures should express
Without due political party to consider;
The President more should not be delayed in exercising the right to nominate,
The constitutional organs do not work.
Second, the law may also require the elements of the impeachment of the president of the initiated,
And the President unconstitutional political chaos,
Left office by impeachment or any penalty after full
To the implementation of the Constitution, the so-called "national severe punishment.
Finally, the National Security Council and the National Security Bureau, the residue of the "Temporary Provisions
But as President Intervention "weapon".
Since the Additional Articles of this two organs of the provisions of "may establish"
The Legislative Yuan since recoverable authorized
Repeal its Organic Law,
The power to go back to the Executive Yuan.
If the moment difficult,
Should also abide by the Constitution to the spirit of the cabinet system,
Alter its
Premier borrow countersign the exercise of the right to become the real leader of the two organs.
Back aspiring to lead the country,
Should join the Legislative Yuan,
Fight for premier
The administration, both houses of the legislature to become affairs of state decision-making center.
Chen Shui-bian in power for eight years
Prove careerist can make use of a constitutional loophole to misbehave.
Review of constitutional
Promote a constitutional amendment was originally a horse presidential campaign platform,
Currently revising the constitution is neither feasible
Ma should seize the time,
Promotion of relevant legislation,
Blocked constitutional vulnerability.
Otherwise, further similar flat was elected president.
Constitution Day is Constitution Day of the Dead, sooner or later will become.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.25
社論-紀念行憲,請速立法堵住憲政漏洞
本報訊
當前民眾多自豪於台灣的自由民主,殊不知我們的憲政仍未納上正軌。立法堵住憲政漏洞,是我們在行憲紀念日最沉重、最莊嚴的呼籲。
一九四六年制訂的《中華民國憲法》,實現了當時執政黨中國國民黨的制憲承諾,但卻由在野的立憲派傳人張君勱起草,由含有中共代表的「憲草審議委員會」通過草案,再交由含台灣代表在內的制憲國民大會通過,成為正式憲法。張氏的精心設計,使憲法保留「五權憲法」的五院架構,但依內閣制原理安排總統、政院及立院關係,成為既有中國特色、又合憲政標準的憲法。可惜執政者從未奉憲法為圭臬,以致憲政運作仍不合憲法規範,憲法尊嚴和權威也始終難立。
行憲伊始,蔣中正便以動員戡亂為由,由國民大會藉修憲程序通過《臨時條款》擴張總統權力,破壞憲法規定的內閣制體制。李、扁主政時,又因不認同憲法的台獨立場推動了七次修憲,把憲法規定的問責機制修到難以運作,總統卻獨攬大權不受監督。同時,獨派人物更不斷汙衊、扭曲憲法,使其幾成告朔餼羊。
憲法是國家的根本。如果憲法失去規範效力,則政府公權力運作和朝野政治衝突皆失去判斷是非標準,人民的自由和福祉終將難保。眼前政治亂象,皆因憲法失其權威所致。我們若想保住憲政生機、培養憲法權威,掃除亂政,首需駁斥幾種流行謬論。
首先,中華民國憲法制訂之時,台灣十八名國大代表皆赴南京出席制憲國大。此事載諸當時報紙及會議紀錄,所謂「台灣人沒參與制憲」純屬謊言。還有人說「制憲國大代表缺乏民意基礎」,請看美國一七八七年「制憲會議」的代表亦未獲授權,日本戰後憲法甚至是由麥帥總部起草交付通過,何以都能有效?
其次,憲法制訂必有折衷妥協之處。只要基本架構合乎憲政學理,就是好憲法。中華民國憲法既是黨派協商結果,自亦有妥協痕跡。但其內閣制架構合乎民主憲政標準;將中國傳統針對「人」的兩權(考試、監察)與西方傳入針對「事」的三權(行政、立法、司法)結合,自有其深意。依據學理,此憲法絕非不可行,它應可藉憲政慣例和憲法解釋而成長,豈可僅因制憲時某些技術性妥協便汙衊它為拼湊而成?至於扁以現任總統身分詆毀憲法為「烏魯木齊」,更是公然違反其「遵守憲法」之就職宣誓,早應「受國家嚴厲之制裁」。
肯定憲法效力後,我們還要糾正目前違憲亂象。由於現行修憲門檻高不可攀,未來修憲提案勢必是龐雜的包裹修憲,只會治絲益棼。我們必須尋求修憲以外途徑,使政治回歸憲政常軌。
歷經七次修憲,憲法第五十三條「行政院為國家最高行政機關」及第五十七條「行政院…對立法院負責」之規定並未修改。總統既然不在「最高行政機關」(行政院)之下,自不應擁行政實權,現行體制應仍是內閣制。李、扁兩總統所以大權在握,是利用憲法漏洞所致,並非憲法授權。本此,我們鄭重建議制定《總統職權行使法》,用以堵住憲法漏洞,使憲政運作步上正軌。
該法首應對總統行使提名權加以規範。例如:閣揆應是立院多數可接受之人選,並應向立院報告政見,經立院信任投票通過後始得任命;監察委員、考試委員、大法官、檢察總長之資格及提名程序亦應明訂,且不應有政黨考慮;總統更不應怠於行使提名權,導致憲政機關無法運作。其次,該法亦可規定彈劾總統之發起要件,及總統若違憲亂政,經彈劾去職或任滿後之刑罰,以落實憲法所謂「國家嚴厲之制裁」。
最後,國安會和國安局為《臨時條款》殘留物,卻成總統干政「利器」。既然《增修條文》對此二機關之規定是「得設」,則立院自可收回授權,廢除其組織法,使該權力回歸行政院。若一時難行,亦應遵守憲法內閣制精神,修改其組織,使閣揆藉副署權之行使成為兩機關實質領導者。往後有志領導國家者,應投身立院,爭取閣揆,使行政、立法兩院成為國事決策中心。
陳水扁執政八年,證明野心家大可利用憲法漏洞胡作非為。檢討憲政、推動修憲原是馬總統競選政見,現修憲既不可行,馬應抓緊時間,推動相關立法,堵住憲法漏洞。否則若再有類似扁者當選總統,行憲紀念日遲早將成行憲悼念日。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
People are proud of the Republic of China's freedom and democracy.
But at the same time, everyone knows that our system of constitutional rule is still not on the right track.
Pass legislation to block constitutional loopholes.
We make this solemn appeal to the legislature on Constitution Day.
The Constitution of the Republic of China as of 1946,
included a commitment by the then ruling Chinese Nationalist Party to author a constitution.
Chang Chun-mai, an opposition constitutionalist faction leader drafted the document.
It includes a draft approved by the Chinese Communist Party's "Draft Constitution Review Committee."
It was then referred to
the Constituent National Assembly, including representatives of Taiwan, at which point it officially became the Constitution.
Chang was carefule.
The Constitution retained the five branch framework of the "five-power constitution."
The cabinet system specifies the relationship between the President, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan.
These have uniquely Chinese characteristics.
They are also consistent with constitutional standards.
Unfortunately ruling administrations never treated the Constitution as a standard.
As a result constitutional practice still does not accord with constitutional norms.
The Constitution has never been accorded the dignity and authority it deserves.
When the Constitution was first put into practice,
Chiang Kai-shek invoked the Communist Rebellion.
He cited it as reason to have the National Assembly amend the Constitution, granting him expanded presidential powers under the Temporary Provisions.
This undermined the cabinet system.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian advocated Taiwan independence. They disagreed with the Constitution.
When they rose to power they forced through seven pro-Taiwan independence amendments.
The system of constitutional rule went out the window.
The president acquired unchecked power.
Pro-Taiwan independence elements relentlessly defamed and distorted the Constitution, virtually turning it into a sacrificial lamb.
A Constitution is fundamental to a nation.
If its constitution loses ot normative force,
the exercise of governmental authority and political conflict between the ruling and opposition political parties are deprived of all standards for right and wrong.
The freedom and well-being of the people will eventually be jeopardized.
Political chaos will follow.
As a result the constitution has lost its authority.
If we wish to preserve the constitution,
enhance the authority of the Constitution,
sweep away political chaos.
we first need to refute several popular fallacies.
First, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was authored,
18 National Assembly Members went to Nanjing to attend the Constituent National Assembly.
This event was clearly recorded in various newspapers and minutes of meetings of the time.
The allegation that "Taiwanese never participated in the authoriing of the Constitution" is a bald-faced lie.
Others say the "Constituent National Assembly lacked a popular mandate."
We invite them to consider the representatives of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, who were not authorized by the public to author a constitution.
Japan's postwar constitution was drafted by General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters and delivered to the Japanese, who approved it.
Why are they considered authoritative?
Secondly, the drafting of a Constitution requires compromises.
As long as the basic framework accords with constitutional doctrine,
then it is a good constitution.
The Constitution of the Republic of China is the result of party negotiations.
It too contains compromises.
The cabinet system accords with democratic constitutional standards.
Two traditional Chinese powers (examination and control)
were combined with three Western powers (executive, legislative and judicial).
This has real meaning.
From a theoretical perspective,
this is a perfectly workable constitution.
It should be able to grow based on constitutional precedents and constitutional interpretations.
It can hardly be dismissed as a "patchwork quilt" merely because of some technical compromises during its drafting.
When Chen Shui-bian was president, he denounced the Constitution as "Urumqi," as oppressive to Taiwanese.
This was an even more flagrant violation of his oath of office to abide by the Constitution.
If truth be told, he should have been subjected to severe punishment long ago.
Certainly after the constitutional validity
We would also like to correct the the current unconstitutional chaos.
The current constitutional amendment threshold unattainable
Future constitutional amendment proposal is bound to be numerous parcels constitutional amendment
Only Zhisiyifen.
We must seek ways constitutional amendment outside
Political return to the constitutional on track.
After seven constitutional amendments
Article 53 of the Constitution, "the Executive Yuan for the country's highest administrative organ
And Article 57 of the "Executive Yuan ... is responsible to the Legislative Yuan" has not been modified.
Since the president is not under the "highest administrative authority" (Executive Yuan)
Self should not be owned by the executive powers,
The current system should remain a cabinet system.
Lee, flat two presidential so powerful,
Is the due Constitution vulnerability,
Not a constitutional mandate.
This, we solemnly recommended the development of the exercise of the powers of the presidency Law
Used to block the constitution vulnerability
Constitutional operation on track.
The law is the first response to the president to regulate the exercise of the right to nominate.
For example: the head of the cabinet should be the most acceptable candidate for the Legislative Yuan,
And shall legislative report on political views,
Legislative trust vote by appointment before they may;
Monitors
Examiner
Justice, the Attorney-General of the qualifications and nomination procedures should express
Without due political party to consider;
The President more should not be delayed in exercising the right to nominate,
The constitutional organs do not work.
Second, the law may also require the elements of the impeachment of the president of the initiated,
And the President unconstitutional political chaos,
Left office by impeachment or any penalty after full
To the implementation of the Constitution, the so-called "national severe punishment.
Finally, the National Security Council and the National Security Bureau, the residue of the "Temporary Provisions
But as President Intervention "weapon".
Since the Additional Articles of this two organs of the provisions of "may establish"
The Legislative Yuan since recoverable authorized
Repeal its Organic Law,
The power to go back to the Executive Yuan.
If the moment difficult,
Should also abide by the Constitution to the spirit of the cabinet system,
Alter its
Premier borrow countersign the exercise of the right to become the real leader of the two organs.
Back aspiring to lead the country,
Should join the Legislative Yuan,
Fight for premier
The administration, both houses of the legislature to become affairs of state decision-making center.
Chen Shui-bian in power for eight years
Prove careerist can make use of a constitutional loophole to misbehave.
Review of constitutional
Promote a constitutional amendment was originally a horse presidential campaign platform,
Currently revising the constitution is neither feasible
Ma should seize the time,
Promotion of relevant legislation,
Blocked constitutional vulnerability.
Otherwise, further similar flat was elected president.
Constitution Day is Constitution Day of the Dead, sooner or later will become.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.25
社論-紀念行憲,請速立法堵住憲政漏洞
本報訊
當前民眾多自豪於台灣的自由民主,殊不知我們的憲政仍未納上正軌。立法堵住憲政漏洞,是我們在行憲紀念日最沉重、最莊嚴的呼籲。
一九四六年制訂的《中華民國憲法》,實現了當時執政黨中國國民黨的制憲承諾,但卻由在野的立憲派傳人張君勱起草,由含有中共代表的「憲草審議委員會」通過草案,再交由含台灣代表在內的制憲國民大會通過,成為正式憲法。張氏的精心設計,使憲法保留「五權憲法」的五院架構,但依內閣制原理安排總統、政院及立院關係,成為既有中國特色、又合憲政標準的憲法。可惜執政者從未奉憲法為圭臬,以致憲政運作仍不合憲法規範,憲法尊嚴和權威也始終難立。
行憲伊始,蔣中正便以動員戡亂為由,由國民大會藉修憲程序通過《臨時條款》擴張總統權力,破壞憲法規定的內閣制體制。李、扁主政時,又因不認同憲法的台獨立場推動了七次修憲,把憲法規定的問責機制修到難以運作,總統卻獨攬大權不受監督。同時,獨派人物更不斷汙衊、扭曲憲法,使其幾成告朔餼羊。
憲法是國家的根本。如果憲法失去規範效力,則政府公權力運作和朝野政治衝突皆失去判斷是非標準,人民的自由和福祉終將難保。眼前政治亂象,皆因憲法失其權威所致。我們若想保住憲政生機、培養憲法權威,掃除亂政,首需駁斥幾種流行謬論。
首先,中華民國憲法制訂之時,台灣十八名國大代表皆赴南京出席制憲國大。此事載諸當時報紙及會議紀錄,所謂「台灣人沒參與制憲」純屬謊言。還有人說「制憲國大代表缺乏民意基礎」,請看美國一七八七年「制憲會議」的代表亦未獲授權,日本戰後憲法甚至是由麥帥總部起草交付通過,何以都能有效?
其次,憲法制訂必有折衷妥協之處。只要基本架構合乎憲政學理,就是好憲法。中華民國憲法既是黨派協商結果,自亦有妥協痕跡。但其內閣制架構合乎民主憲政標準;將中國傳統針對「人」的兩權(考試、監察)與西方傳入針對「事」的三權(行政、立法、司法)結合,自有其深意。依據學理,此憲法絕非不可行,它應可藉憲政慣例和憲法解釋而成長,豈可僅因制憲時某些技術性妥協便汙衊它為拼湊而成?至於扁以現任總統身分詆毀憲法為「烏魯木齊」,更是公然違反其「遵守憲法」之就職宣誓,早應「受國家嚴厲之制裁」。
肯定憲法效力後,我們還要糾正目前違憲亂象。由於現行修憲門檻高不可攀,未來修憲提案勢必是龐雜的包裹修憲,只會治絲益棼。我們必須尋求修憲以外途徑,使政治回歸憲政常軌。
歷經七次修憲,憲法第五十三條「行政院為國家最高行政機關」及第五十七條「行政院…對立法院負責」之規定並未修改。總統既然不在「最高行政機關」(行政院)之下,自不應擁行政實權,現行體制應仍是內閣制。李、扁兩總統所以大權在握,是利用憲法漏洞所致,並非憲法授權。本此,我們鄭重建議制定《總統職權行使法》,用以堵住憲法漏洞,使憲政運作步上正軌。
該法首應對總統行使提名權加以規範。例如:閣揆應是立院多數可接受之人選,並應向立院報告政見,經立院信任投票通過後始得任命;監察委員、考試委員、大法官、檢察總長之資格及提名程序亦應明訂,且不應有政黨考慮;總統更不應怠於行使提名權,導致憲政機關無法運作。其次,該法亦可規定彈劾總統之發起要件,及總統若違憲亂政,經彈劾去職或任滿後之刑罰,以落實憲法所謂「國家嚴厲之制裁」。
最後,國安會和國安局為《臨時條款》殘留物,卻成總統干政「利器」。既然《增修條文》對此二機關之規定是「得設」,則立院自可收回授權,廢除其組織法,使該權力回歸行政院。若一時難行,亦應遵守憲法內閣制精神,修改其組織,使閣揆藉副署權之行使成為兩機關實質領導者。往後有志領導國家者,應投身立院,爭取閣揆,使行政、立法兩院成為國事決策中心。
陳水扁執政八年,證明野心家大可利用憲法漏洞胡作非為。檢討憲政、推動修憲原是馬總統競選政見,現修憲既不可行,馬應抓緊時間,推動相關立法,堵住憲法漏洞。否則若再有類似扁者當選總統,行憲紀念日遲早將成行憲悼念日。
Free Trade Zones: Regional and Local
Free Trade Zones: Regional and Local
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2012
Summary: Free Trade Zone plans will soon be finalized. The government is participating in the Pan-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). This is an important step in Taiwan's transformation into a Free Trade Island. But economic liberalization is a difficult and complex task. It must proceed step by step. It must be effectively promoted and carefully planned.
Full Text below:
Free Trade Zone plans will soon be finalized. The government is participating in the Pan-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). This is an important step in Taiwan's transformation into a Free Trade Island. But economic liberalization is a difficult and complex task. It must proceed step by step. It must be effectively promoted and carefully planned.
Taiwan's economic development is a tale of economic liberalization. During the 1960s, it negotiated an economic bottleneck. The economy underwent its first large-scale liberalization. Taiwan took a giant step toward a market economy. During the 1980s, a massive trade surplus built up between Taiwan and the United States. This led to economic liberalization, open markets, and a significant reduction in tariffs. During the mid-1990s, we aspired to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to become an Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. We liberalized our economy, including financial services, and adopted international standards.
Back then, we liberalized three times. Today the Ma administration confronts a grim economic future. Its plight is similar to what it was back then. In 1993 the government countered an economic slump by promoting a private sector stimulus package. The six-year National Development Plan created a serious fiscal deficit. The global economic center of gravity quickly shifted to Asia, including ASEAN and Mainland China. This liberalization gave Taiwan's economy a shot in the arm. The program loosened constraints. It prescribed an Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. This would serve as a pilot program for a Free Trade Zone -- one which would include the entire Taiwan region. The Ma administration is thinking along the same lines with its Free Trade Zone.
Unfortunately the program establishes a Special Administrative Region. From a planning perspective, incremental regional liberalization and limited local liberalization are very different matters. In practice, implementing tariff exemptions on imported goods within an SAR is difficult. Unless one applies Export Processing Zone bonding, it fails to provide a test case. The service sector requires market access. A market that is open only inside an SAR holds no attraction for industry. Some service industries serve global or regional markets. These include finance, shipping, and professional services. These service industries cannot be limited to any particular geographical region. Feasibility studies have been conducted. The Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center was eventually revised in accordance with industry requirements. It was replaced by an incrementally liberalized Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center.
The Free Trade Zone is a TPP pilot program. It faces the same problems as the Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. The TPP is incompatible with a geographically delimited and incrementally liberalized SAR. It is incompatible with zero tariffs in import goods or a comprehensive liberalization of the service industries. Should the Free Trade Zone be changed into a virtual SAR? Should it be changed into an incrementally liberalized Free Trade Zone? Or should it remain a geographically delimited SAR? Should the government choose another, more viable project to demonstrate incremental liberalization?
In order to join TPP as soon as possible, the government must promote the Free Trade Zone. It must adopt a two-pronged approach. It must simultaneously promote the Taiwan Regional Free Trade Zone and the Designated SAR Local Free Trade Zone. It should draw from international free trade agreements (FTAs). Some goods and services are global in nature. They cannot be confined to certain geographical regions. They must be granted incremental tariff cuts and market openings. The government should adopt a Regional Free Trade Zone approach. It should allow vulnerable industries to gradually adapt. The rules for personnel transfers, the introduction of foreign professionals, technicians, and senior managers, should must be Taiwan wide. This is essential for industrial restructuring and upgrading.
The government can establish SARs for industries with development potential. It can provide support and new administrative models. These would serve as local pilot programs to promote future comprehensive opening. . Cross-Strait relations are unique. The gap between the sizes of the two sides' economies is great. Large numbers of Mainland-funded enterprises and Mainland professionals could arrove on Taiwan. To alleviate such concerns, the government can implement cross-Strait economic cooperation in the SAR pilot program zones first. It can substantially relax restrictions on investments by inland enterprises and the entry of Mainland professionals. It can establish a favorable balance in capital and talent flows. This would benefit both sides by establishing a win-win cooperative model, one that would incrementally applied to Taiwan as a whole.
The purpose of the Free Trade Zone is to prepare ourselves for TPP membership. Therefore it must not include non-standard, non-universal, preferential treatment. It must not include tax relief, cheap land, and foreign labor employment privileges. Relying on incentives to attract corporate investment, in preparation for economic liberalization, amounts to a contradiction in terms, and has no value as a pilot program.
In sum, the Free Trade Zone must integrate past experience with future ambition. It must begin with a regional pilot program and expand outward. It must begin with a local pilot program while striving for a breakthrough. It must enable us to join the TPP and become a Free Trade Island.
自由經濟:全區示範或局部示範
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.24 02:48 am
「自由經濟示範區」規劃案將於近期內定案,這是政府為參加「泛太平洋夥伴關係協定」(TPP)、進而建設台灣成為「自由貿易島」所跨出的重要一步。惟經濟全面自由化是一艱鉅複雜的工程,如何按部就班、有效推動,須有周密思考。
台灣經濟發展可說是一部經濟自由化歷史:一九六○年代為突破管制經濟的瓶頸,推動第一次大規模經濟自由化,大步邁向市場經濟;一九八○年代因應台美巨額貿易順差,推動第二次經濟自由化,大幅降低關稅及開放市場;一九九○年代中期為加入世界貿易組織(WTO)及發展「亞太營運中心」,推動第三次經濟自由化,大幅開放金融及服務業巿場,積極和國際接軌。
回顧當年推動笫三次自由化經驗,和今天馬政府面對的嚴峻情勢,有很多雷同之處。一九九三年政府為因應景氣持續低迷而推出以促進民間投資為宗旨的「振興經濟方案」,當時考量六年國建計畫導致嚴重財政赤字問題,又鑑於全球經濟重心正快速轉移到包括東協及中國大陸的亞洲地區,因此特從自由化切入,為台灣經濟尋找新的動能。該方案除著重在制度面鬆綁外,也提出規劃「亞太區域營運特區」的政策方向,作為自由貿易區的試點,再擴大實施到整個台灣地區。此一構想和當前馬政府「自由經濟示範區」思考方向幾如出一轍。
問題在於劃設特區的構想,在規劃過程中即有漸進式的「全區自由化」和限於特區的「局部自由化」兩種不同的政策思辨。在實務上,貨品進口關稅減免除非是類似加工出口區的保稅概念,在特區單獨實施既難管理,亦無示範效果。服務業講求的是市場可及性,在範圍有限的特區內開放市場,對業者不具吸引力;以全球或區域市場為目標的服務業如金融、航運等專業服務業,更無法以地理區域作為分隔。經過可行性評估,「亞太區域營運特區」最後被依產業特性規劃、漸進式自由化的「亞太營運中心」所取代。
現在作為TPP試點的「自由經濟示範區」,和當年「亞太區域營運特區」面臨類似問題,因為TPP重心正是實務上不適合在地理特區進行局部試驗的進口貨品全面零關稅和服務業大幅開放。那麼,究竟「自由經濟示範區」應否改為虛擬特區,作漸進式自由化的「全區示範」?或仍維持地理特區,另行擇取可行項目作自由化的「局部示範」?
我們認為,為及早達成加入TPP目標,推動「自由經濟示範區」應從台灣全島的「全區示範」和劃設特區的「局部示範」雙管齊下。參考國際間廣義自由貿易協定(FTA)涵蓋的範圍,針對須面向全球、不適合在特定區域實施的貨品及服務業貿易自由化,宜採漸近調降關稅及市場開放方式,進行「全區示範」,讓弱勢產業能夠逐步調適。在人員移動方面,對外國專業技術人才及高階經理人的引進,亦應盡可能全台灣適用,才有利於產業轉型升級。
另一方面,政府可劃設特區發展具潛力的未來性產業,提供配套協助及全新的行政管理模式,作為將來全面推廣的「局部示範」。另因兩岸關係特殊且經濟規模差距極大,為降低陸資企業及大陸專業人才大量來台的可能顧慮,亦可在特區內進行兩岸經濟合作先期示範,大幅放寬區內陸企投資及引進大陸專業人才限制,建立有利資金、人才雙向平衡、互利雙贏的新合作模式,再逐步推廣至全台灣。
必須注意的是,自由經濟的示範特區既是為加入TPP作準備,就不應給予各種非常態、無法全面適用的優惠待遇,包括減免租稅、廉價土地、外勞雇用特權等,因為:若靠各種獎勵措施吸引企業投資,和為經濟自由化調適作準備,完全背道而馳,毫無示範意義的存在。
總而言之,「自由經濟示範區」須有總結過去經驗、開創未來願景的企圖心,從「全區示範」逐步擴大基礎;從「局部示範」力爭重點突破,以為加入TPP及建設「自由貿易島」設定完善、可行的路徑圖。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2012
Summary: Free Trade Zone plans will soon be finalized. The government is participating in the Pan-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). This is an important step in Taiwan's transformation into a Free Trade Island. But economic liberalization is a difficult and complex task. It must proceed step by step. It must be effectively promoted and carefully planned.
Full Text below:
Free Trade Zone plans will soon be finalized. The government is participating in the Pan-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). This is an important step in Taiwan's transformation into a Free Trade Island. But economic liberalization is a difficult and complex task. It must proceed step by step. It must be effectively promoted and carefully planned.
Taiwan's economic development is a tale of economic liberalization. During the 1960s, it negotiated an economic bottleneck. The economy underwent its first large-scale liberalization. Taiwan took a giant step toward a market economy. During the 1980s, a massive trade surplus built up between Taiwan and the United States. This led to economic liberalization, open markets, and a significant reduction in tariffs. During the mid-1990s, we aspired to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to become an Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. We liberalized our economy, including financial services, and adopted international standards.
Back then, we liberalized three times. Today the Ma administration confronts a grim economic future. Its plight is similar to what it was back then. In 1993 the government countered an economic slump by promoting a private sector stimulus package. The six-year National Development Plan created a serious fiscal deficit. The global economic center of gravity quickly shifted to Asia, including ASEAN and Mainland China. This liberalization gave Taiwan's economy a shot in the arm. The program loosened constraints. It prescribed an Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. This would serve as a pilot program for a Free Trade Zone -- one which would include the entire Taiwan region. The Ma administration is thinking along the same lines with its Free Trade Zone.
Unfortunately the program establishes a Special Administrative Region. From a planning perspective, incremental regional liberalization and limited local liberalization are very different matters. In practice, implementing tariff exemptions on imported goods within an SAR is difficult. Unless one applies Export Processing Zone bonding, it fails to provide a test case. The service sector requires market access. A market that is open only inside an SAR holds no attraction for industry. Some service industries serve global or regional markets. These include finance, shipping, and professional services. These service industries cannot be limited to any particular geographical region. Feasibility studies have been conducted. The Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center was eventually revised in accordance with industry requirements. It was replaced by an incrementally liberalized Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center.
The Free Trade Zone is a TPP pilot program. It faces the same problems as the Asian-Pacific Regional Operations Center. The TPP is incompatible with a geographically delimited and incrementally liberalized SAR. It is incompatible with zero tariffs in import goods or a comprehensive liberalization of the service industries. Should the Free Trade Zone be changed into a virtual SAR? Should it be changed into an incrementally liberalized Free Trade Zone? Or should it remain a geographically delimited SAR? Should the government choose another, more viable project to demonstrate incremental liberalization?
In order to join TPP as soon as possible, the government must promote the Free Trade Zone. It must adopt a two-pronged approach. It must simultaneously promote the Taiwan Regional Free Trade Zone and the Designated SAR Local Free Trade Zone. It should draw from international free trade agreements (FTAs). Some goods and services are global in nature. They cannot be confined to certain geographical regions. They must be granted incremental tariff cuts and market openings. The government should adopt a Regional Free Trade Zone approach. It should allow vulnerable industries to gradually adapt. The rules for personnel transfers, the introduction of foreign professionals, technicians, and senior managers, should must be Taiwan wide. This is essential for industrial restructuring and upgrading.
The government can establish SARs for industries with development potential. It can provide support and new administrative models. These would serve as local pilot programs to promote future comprehensive opening. . Cross-Strait relations are unique. The gap between the sizes of the two sides' economies is great. Large numbers of Mainland-funded enterprises and Mainland professionals could arrove on Taiwan. To alleviate such concerns, the government can implement cross-Strait economic cooperation in the SAR pilot program zones first. It can substantially relax restrictions on investments by inland enterprises and the entry of Mainland professionals. It can establish a favorable balance in capital and talent flows. This would benefit both sides by establishing a win-win cooperative model, one that would incrementally applied to Taiwan as a whole.
The purpose of the Free Trade Zone is to prepare ourselves for TPP membership. Therefore it must not include non-standard, non-universal, preferential treatment. It must not include tax relief, cheap land, and foreign labor employment privileges. Relying on incentives to attract corporate investment, in preparation for economic liberalization, amounts to a contradiction in terms, and has no value as a pilot program.
In sum, the Free Trade Zone must integrate past experience with future ambition. It must begin with a regional pilot program and expand outward. It must begin with a local pilot program while striving for a breakthrough. It must enable us to join the TPP and become a Free Trade Island.
自由經濟:全區示範或局部示範
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.24 02:48 am
「自由經濟示範區」規劃案將於近期內定案,這是政府為參加「泛太平洋夥伴關係協定」(TPP)、進而建設台灣成為「自由貿易島」所跨出的重要一步。惟經濟全面自由化是一艱鉅複雜的工程,如何按部就班、有效推動,須有周密思考。
台灣經濟發展可說是一部經濟自由化歷史:一九六○年代為突破管制經濟的瓶頸,推動第一次大規模經濟自由化,大步邁向市場經濟;一九八○年代因應台美巨額貿易順差,推動第二次經濟自由化,大幅降低關稅及開放市場;一九九○年代中期為加入世界貿易組織(WTO)及發展「亞太營運中心」,推動第三次經濟自由化,大幅開放金融及服務業巿場,積極和國際接軌。
回顧當年推動笫三次自由化經驗,和今天馬政府面對的嚴峻情勢,有很多雷同之處。一九九三年政府為因應景氣持續低迷而推出以促進民間投資為宗旨的「振興經濟方案」,當時考量六年國建計畫導致嚴重財政赤字問題,又鑑於全球經濟重心正快速轉移到包括東協及中國大陸的亞洲地區,因此特從自由化切入,為台灣經濟尋找新的動能。該方案除著重在制度面鬆綁外,也提出規劃「亞太區域營運特區」的政策方向,作為自由貿易區的試點,再擴大實施到整個台灣地區。此一構想和當前馬政府「自由經濟示範區」思考方向幾如出一轍。
問題在於劃設特區的構想,在規劃過程中即有漸進式的「全區自由化」和限於特區的「局部自由化」兩種不同的政策思辨。在實務上,貨品進口關稅減免除非是類似加工出口區的保稅概念,在特區單獨實施既難管理,亦無示範效果。服務業講求的是市場可及性,在範圍有限的特區內開放市場,對業者不具吸引力;以全球或區域市場為目標的服務業如金融、航運等專業服務業,更無法以地理區域作為分隔。經過可行性評估,「亞太區域營運特區」最後被依產業特性規劃、漸進式自由化的「亞太營運中心」所取代。
現在作為TPP試點的「自由經濟示範區」,和當年「亞太區域營運特區」面臨類似問題,因為TPP重心正是實務上不適合在地理特區進行局部試驗的進口貨品全面零關稅和服務業大幅開放。那麼,究竟「自由經濟示範區」應否改為虛擬特區,作漸進式自由化的「全區示範」?或仍維持地理特區,另行擇取可行項目作自由化的「局部示範」?
我們認為,為及早達成加入TPP目標,推動「自由經濟示範區」應從台灣全島的「全區示範」和劃設特區的「局部示範」雙管齊下。參考國際間廣義自由貿易協定(FTA)涵蓋的範圍,針對須面向全球、不適合在特定區域實施的貨品及服務業貿易自由化,宜採漸近調降關稅及市場開放方式,進行「全區示範」,讓弱勢產業能夠逐步調適。在人員移動方面,對外國專業技術人才及高階經理人的引進,亦應盡可能全台灣適用,才有利於產業轉型升級。
另一方面,政府可劃設特區發展具潛力的未來性產業,提供配套協助及全新的行政管理模式,作為將來全面推廣的「局部示範」。另因兩岸關係特殊且經濟規模差距極大,為降低陸資企業及大陸專業人才大量來台的可能顧慮,亦可在特區內進行兩岸經濟合作先期示範,大幅放寬區內陸企投資及引進大陸專業人才限制,建立有利資金、人才雙向平衡、互利雙贏的新合作模式,再逐步推廣至全台灣。
必須注意的是,自由經濟的示範特區既是為加入TPP作準備,就不應給予各種非常態、無法全面適用的優惠待遇,包括減免租稅、廉價土地、外勞雇用特權等,因為:若靠各種獎勵措施吸引企業投資,和為經濟自由化調適作準備,完全背道而馳,毫無示範意義的存在。
總而言之,「自由經濟示範區」須有總結過去經驗、開創未來願景的企圖心,從「全區示範」逐步擴大基礎;從「局部示範」力爭重點突破,以為加入TPP及建設「自由貿易島」設定完善、可行的路徑圖。
Friday, December 21, 2012
Will Mainland Investments in Kaohsiung Harbor Really Endanger Taiwan?
Will Mainland Investments in Kaohsiung Harbor Really Endanger Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2012
Summary: The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.
Full Text below:
The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.
Green Camp opposition was predictable. The dogmatic justifications they would offer for their opposition were also predictable, and revealed their ignorance of the facts. In 1999, Kaohsiung Harbor was in its heyday. It was the number three ranked container port in the world. But eight long years of Closed Door Policy under the Democratic Progressive Party dropped its ranking to number ten. Its status as an entrepot was gradually replaced by Mainland ports that were serving the factory of the world. Think for a minute. Was domestic capital really lining up all these years to invest in Kaohsiung? Had there been a surfeit of containers transiting the port, would Kaohsiung Harbor have been reduced to its current condition? The Green Camp legislators' hysteria about a "crowding out" effect is empty rhetoric. If anything, it turns the truth on its head.
Allegations about "endangering national security" are worse than alarmist. They expose how ignorant and out of touch the Green Camp legislators are about trade in the modern age. Three Mainland enterprises investing a total of four billion dollars is a pittance. It accounts for a mere 30% of the equity in Yangming Marine's Kao Ming Container Terminal Corp. (KMCT). Yangming retains overwhelming control. Moreover, KMCT has another shareholder, the U.S. Container Terminal Corporation. The project is a "Taiwan/Mainland/US joint venture." Where exactly is the "national security threat?" Over the past thirty years, Taiwan businesses have invested nearly nine trillion NT dollars in the Mainland. They have contributed to the Mainland's rapid economic rise. Today, a mere 4.5 billion in Mainland capital is coming to Taiwan. Isn't it the height of absurdity to insist that this would endanger the security of Taiwan?
The significance of the Mainland's 30% share does not actually lie in the four billion capital investment. Its significance lies in cooperation established between the two sides. Originally three Mainland enterprises wanted a 60% share in the company. But the government was cautious. It only allowed Yangming to sell a 30% share. The main reason was that many people still harbor deep-seated fears of Communism. In fact, modern multinational shipping companies use cross-shareholdings to share in each other's strongholds, or to enhance mutual cooperation. This is a common strategy when forming alliances. This was one reason Yangming first allowed U.S. terminal companies to buy in. After the three Mainland enterprises invested in the KMCT project, its vessels were granted preferential treament when transiting the Port of Kaohsiung. This enhances throughput for Kaohsiung Harbor. Conversely, Yang Ming Marine Transport's vessels enjoy preferential treatment when transiting Mainland ports. From a business perspective, this a clear case of win/win. But if one dwells on political confrontation, then the problem is insoluble.
DPP legislators voiced concerns about the inflow of Mainland capital. Ironically the Green Camp ruled Kaohsiung City Government was welcoming the investments with open arms. It was convinced that the investments would boost Kaohsiung's economy. Contrast the two mindsets. This is the difference between theory and practice. This is the difference between groundless paranoia and substantive interests. The distinction could not be clearer.
Kaohsiung is a Green Camp stronghold. The Kaohsiung City Government is fully aware that the DPP leadership has long been "anti-China." The Kaohsiung City Government also prefers to sing a different tune than the ruling Kuomintang government. But years of recession has left Kaohsiung Harbor in serious decline. It must abandon its complacent and reactionary ideology. It must seize all opportunities for development. Kaohsiung Harbor has become increasingly marginalized. Restoring its former status will not be easy. As the city government sees it, Mainland enterprises want to invest in its harbors. How can it refuse? How can Kaohsiung Harbor become competitive again? How can become an international port again? Besides, the Ma administration is working to turn Kaohsiung into a "showcase for free trade." Will Kaohsiung cling to its fears of Communism? Will it cling to rigid "anti-China' thinking? Will it veto Mainland capital investments? If so, then will not pass muster as a "free economy." It will never become a showcase for free trade.
As we can see, the Kaohsiung City Government is concerned about economic development. It is under pressure from hard economic reality. It welcomes Mainland capital. The DPP leadership talks about reforming its Mainland policy. But it simultaneously says no to anything and everything connected to Mainland China. By contrast, the Kaohsiung City Government's pragmatism deserves applause. At least it is concerned about the local economy and the people's livelihood. The DPP leadership on the other hand, cannot get past political sloganeering. This is truly sad.
Nine trillon dollars in capital from Taiwan has flowed onto the Mainland. Today, a mere four billion from the Mainland is being invested in public construction on Taiwan. Such a turning point is hardly worth celebrating. But neither do we need to become alarmed. We need to reflect. Taiwan has been undergong globalization for decades. Why is this final step taking so long? Why are opponents still so self-righteous?
陸資投資高雄港會否危及台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.22 03:13 am
投審會近日審核通過中遠太平洋、中海碼頭和中國招商局等三家陸資企業投資四十億,參與台灣陽明海運在高雄港的第六貨櫃碼頭開發計畫。民進黨立委隨即表示反對,認為開放陸資不僅排擠國內投資,更將危及國家安全,並要求經濟部應即刻否決此案。
綠營的反對不難想見,但其所持理由不僅僵固依舊,且昧於事實。高雄港在全盛的一九九九年,是世界運轉排名第三的貨櫃港;在民進黨執政的八年鎖國期間,卻一蹶不振跌到十名之外,轉口地位漸被成為世界工廠的大陸港口取代。試想,這些年若有國內資金願意投資擴建,若有充裕的貨櫃前來彎靠,高雄港何致淪落至此?因此,綠委所謂「排擠效應」,完全是「買空賣空」的唱腔,甚至是顛倒是非。
至於「危及國家安全」的說法,則不僅危言聳聽,也暴露了對現代貿易知識的欠缺與落伍。三家陸企合計出資四十億元,金額其實不多,僅占陽明海運旗下「高明貨櫃碼頭公司」股分的三成,陽明對該公司仍擁有絕對的主導權。更何況,高明碼頭公司有另一成股分由美國貨櫃碼頭公司持有;這是一家「台/陸/美」合資的企業,所謂「國安威脅」從何而來?過去卅年,台商在大陸各行各業投入了將近九兆台幣的資金,幫助了中國經濟的快速成長;而如今不過是四十五億陸資來台,就說會危及台灣安全,豈不荒謬?
事實上,這三成的陸資入股,主要意義不在其四十億資金的投入,而在雙方合作關係的建立。最初三家陸企希望擁有六成的股權,但政府基於審慎原則,僅核准陽明轉讓三成股權;主要原因,就是鑑於許多國人「恐共情結」依舊很深。事實上,現代跨國航運公司透過交叉持股的方式,來分享彼此的據點,或提高彼此的互補合作,是常見的聯盟策略;先前陽明對美國碼頭公司出釋股權,目的也在於此。而三家陸企投資「高明碼頭」後,其旗下船隻可優先彎靠高雄港,有助提高高雄港的吞吐量;相對的,陽明海運旗下船隻利用陸企在大陸的碼頭也更加便利。就商業而言,這是兩相互利之事;但如果要以政治相對論思考,只能無解。
值得玩味的是,就在民進黨立委對陸資大表疑慮的同時,綠營執政的高雄市政府卻對這項投資案表示歡迎與支持,認為有助於提升高雄的經濟動能與效能。兩相對照,理論與實際之差、務虛與務實之別,立刻清濁分明。
作為綠營基本盤的重鎮所在,高雄市政府當然不可能不知道民進黨中央一向的政策是「反中」,同時也要和國民黨政府唱反調。然而,在歷經那麼多年的衰退之後,高雄港風華凋萎,如果再不拋棄故步自封的意識形態,把握發展契機,高雄港日漸邊緣化的命運即再難挽回。從高雄市府的立場看,若連陸企投資碼頭都不能接受,高雄港要如何成為一個有競爭力、有企圖心的國際港灣?更何況,馬政府正在努力規劃高雄成為一個「自由經濟示範區」,高雄市若還抱持「恐共」、「反中」的僵固思維否決陸資投入,這「自由經濟」的第一關就過不了,又如何能成為什麼「示範」?
從此看,高雄市府因經濟發展的現實壓力,而對陸資表示歡迎;相形之下,民進黨中央一方面不斷聲稱大陸政策需要調整,一方面卻又拆不掉其「逢中必反」的裹腳布。兩相比較,高雄市府的務實選擇毋寧更值得讚揚,因為這至少包含了以「在地經濟民生為先」的用心;而民進黨中央卻仍跳不出自己的政治口號,才是可悲。
在九兆台資流向大陸之後,今天才有四十億陸資投入台灣的公共建設,這個轉捩點,其實不值得歡慶,也不必大驚失色。值得大家反思的是,台灣全球化的腳步已經走了幾十年,為什麼最後這一步的開放卻遲疑了那麼久?而這些反對雜音至今仍那麼自以為是的理直氣壯?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2012
Summary: The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.
Full Text below:
The Investment Commission recently audited COSCO Pacific, the China Shipping Terminal Development Company, and the China Merchants Group. These Mainland enterprises, together with Taiwan's Yang Ming Marine Transport, are investing four billion dollars in the Kaohsiung Harbor Container Terminal Number Six Development Project. DPP legislators immediately voiced opposition. They claimed that allowing Mainland capital in would crowd out domestic investment, and even endanger national security. They demanded that the Ministry of Economic Affairs veto the project, immediately.
Green Camp opposition was predictable. The dogmatic justifications they would offer for their opposition were also predictable, and revealed their ignorance of the facts. In 1999, Kaohsiung Harbor was in its heyday. It was the number three ranked container port in the world. But eight long years of Closed Door Policy under the Democratic Progressive Party dropped its ranking to number ten. Its status as an entrepot was gradually replaced by Mainland ports that were serving the factory of the world. Think for a minute. Was domestic capital really lining up all these years to invest in Kaohsiung? Had there been a surfeit of containers transiting the port, would Kaohsiung Harbor have been reduced to its current condition? The Green Camp legislators' hysteria about a "crowding out" effect is empty rhetoric. If anything, it turns the truth on its head.
Allegations about "endangering national security" are worse than alarmist. They expose how ignorant and out of touch the Green Camp legislators are about trade in the modern age. Three Mainland enterprises investing a total of four billion dollars is a pittance. It accounts for a mere 30% of the equity in Yangming Marine's Kao Ming Container Terminal Corp. (KMCT). Yangming retains overwhelming control. Moreover, KMCT has another shareholder, the U.S. Container Terminal Corporation. The project is a "Taiwan/Mainland/US joint venture." Where exactly is the "national security threat?" Over the past thirty years, Taiwan businesses have invested nearly nine trillion NT dollars in the Mainland. They have contributed to the Mainland's rapid economic rise. Today, a mere 4.5 billion in Mainland capital is coming to Taiwan. Isn't it the height of absurdity to insist that this would endanger the security of Taiwan?
The significance of the Mainland's 30% share does not actually lie in the four billion capital investment. Its significance lies in cooperation established between the two sides. Originally three Mainland enterprises wanted a 60% share in the company. But the government was cautious. It only allowed Yangming to sell a 30% share. The main reason was that many people still harbor deep-seated fears of Communism. In fact, modern multinational shipping companies use cross-shareholdings to share in each other's strongholds, or to enhance mutual cooperation. This is a common strategy when forming alliances. This was one reason Yangming first allowed U.S. terminal companies to buy in. After the three Mainland enterprises invested in the KMCT project, its vessels were granted preferential treament when transiting the Port of Kaohsiung. This enhances throughput for Kaohsiung Harbor. Conversely, Yang Ming Marine Transport's vessels enjoy preferential treatment when transiting Mainland ports. From a business perspective, this a clear case of win/win. But if one dwells on political confrontation, then the problem is insoluble.
DPP legislators voiced concerns about the inflow of Mainland capital. Ironically the Green Camp ruled Kaohsiung City Government was welcoming the investments with open arms. It was convinced that the investments would boost Kaohsiung's economy. Contrast the two mindsets. This is the difference between theory and practice. This is the difference between groundless paranoia and substantive interests. The distinction could not be clearer.
Kaohsiung is a Green Camp stronghold. The Kaohsiung City Government is fully aware that the DPP leadership has long been "anti-China." The Kaohsiung City Government also prefers to sing a different tune than the ruling Kuomintang government. But years of recession has left Kaohsiung Harbor in serious decline. It must abandon its complacent and reactionary ideology. It must seize all opportunities for development. Kaohsiung Harbor has become increasingly marginalized. Restoring its former status will not be easy. As the city government sees it, Mainland enterprises want to invest in its harbors. How can it refuse? How can Kaohsiung Harbor become competitive again? How can become an international port again? Besides, the Ma administration is working to turn Kaohsiung into a "showcase for free trade." Will Kaohsiung cling to its fears of Communism? Will it cling to rigid "anti-China' thinking? Will it veto Mainland capital investments? If so, then will not pass muster as a "free economy." It will never become a showcase for free trade.
As we can see, the Kaohsiung City Government is concerned about economic development. It is under pressure from hard economic reality. It welcomes Mainland capital. The DPP leadership talks about reforming its Mainland policy. But it simultaneously says no to anything and everything connected to Mainland China. By contrast, the Kaohsiung City Government's pragmatism deserves applause. At least it is concerned about the local economy and the people's livelihood. The DPP leadership on the other hand, cannot get past political sloganeering. This is truly sad.
Nine trillon dollars in capital from Taiwan has flowed onto the Mainland. Today, a mere four billion from the Mainland is being invested in public construction on Taiwan. Such a turning point is hardly worth celebrating. But neither do we need to become alarmed. We need to reflect. Taiwan has been undergong globalization for decades. Why is this final step taking so long? Why are opponents still so self-righteous?
陸資投資高雄港會否危及台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.22 03:13 am
投審會近日審核通過中遠太平洋、中海碼頭和中國招商局等三家陸資企業投資四十億,參與台灣陽明海運在高雄港的第六貨櫃碼頭開發計畫。民進黨立委隨即表示反對,認為開放陸資不僅排擠國內投資,更將危及國家安全,並要求經濟部應即刻否決此案。
綠營的反對不難想見,但其所持理由不僅僵固依舊,且昧於事實。高雄港在全盛的一九九九年,是世界運轉排名第三的貨櫃港;在民進黨執政的八年鎖國期間,卻一蹶不振跌到十名之外,轉口地位漸被成為世界工廠的大陸港口取代。試想,這些年若有國內資金願意投資擴建,若有充裕的貨櫃前來彎靠,高雄港何致淪落至此?因此,綠委所謂「排擠效應」,完全是「買空賣空」的唱腔,甚至是顛倒是非。
至於「危及國家安全」的說法,則不僅危言聳聽,也暴露了對現代貿易知識的欠缺與落伍。三家陸企合計出資四十億元,金額其實不多,僅占陽明海運旗下「高明貨櫃碼頭公司」股分的三成,陽明對該公司仍擁有絕對的主導權。更何況,高明碼頭公司有另一成股分由美國貨櫃碼頭公司持有;這是一家「台/陸/美」合資的企業,所謂「國安威脅」從何而來?過去卅年,台商在大陸各行各業投入了將近九兆台幣的資金,幫助了中國經濟的快速成長;而如今不過是四十五億陸資來台,就說會危及台灣安全,豈不荒謬?
事實上,這三成的陸資入股,主要意義不在其四十億資金的投入,而在雙方合作關係的建立。最初三家陸企希望擁有六成的股權,但政府基於審慎原則,僅核准陽明轉讓三成股權;主要原因,就是鑑於許多國人「恐共情結」依舊很深。事實上,現代跨國航運公司透過交叉持股的方式,來分享彼此的據點,或提高彼此的互補合作,是常見的聯盟策略;先前陽明對美國碼頭公司出釋股權,目的也在於此。而三家陸企投資「高明碼頭」後,其旗下船隻可優先彎靠高雄港,有助提高高雄港的吞吐量;相對的,陽明海運旗下船隻利用陸企在大陸的碼頭也更加便利。就商業而言,這是兩相互利之事;但如果要以政治相對論思考,只能無解。
值得玩味的是,就在民進黨立委對陸資大表疑慮的同時,綠營執政的高雄市政府卻對這項投資案表示歡迎與支持,認為有助於提升高雄的經濟動能與效能。兩相對照,理論與實際之差、務虛與務實之別,立刻清濁分明。
作為綠營基本盤的重鎮所在,高雄市政府當然不可能不知道民進黨中央一向的政策是「反中」,同時也要和國民黨政府唱反調。然而,在歷經那麼多年的衰退之後,高雄港風華凋萎,如果再不拋棄故步自封的意識形態,把握發展契機,高雄港日漸邊緣化的命運即再難挽回。從高雄市府的立場看,若連陸企投資碼頭都不能接受,高雄港要如何成為一個有競爭力、有企圖心的國際港灣?更何況,馬政府正在努力規劃高雄成為一個「自由經濟示範區」,高雄市若還抱持「恐共」、「反中」的僵固思維否決陸資投入,這「自由經濟」的第一關就過不了,又如何能成為什麼「示範」?
從此看,高雄市府因經濟發展的現實壓力,而對陸資表示歡迎;相形之下,民進黨中央一方面不斷聲稱大陸政策需要調整,一方面卻又拆不掉其「逢中必反」的裹腳布。兩相比較,高雄市府的務實選擇毋寧更值得讚揚,因為這至少包含了以「在地經濟民生為先」的用心;而民進黨中央卻仍跳不出自己的政治口號,才是可悲。
在九兆台資流向大陸之後,今天才有四十億陸資投入台灣的公共建設,這個轉捩點,其實不值得歡慶,也不必大驚失色。值得大家反思的是,台灣全球化的腳步已經走了幾十年,為什麼最後這一步的開放卻遲疑了那麼久?而這些反對雜音至今仍那麼自以為是的理直氣壯?
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Taiwan Businesses Create a Second Spring: Winchance and Cloud Take the Lead
Taiwan Businesses Create a Second Spring:
Winchance and Cloud Take the Lead
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2012
Summary: Anecdotal evidence suggests that Taiwan businesses do only OEM contract work. They do not build brands with high-value-added content. It suggests that Taiwan's competitiveness is far inferior to South Korea's R&D in science and technology, and its soft power in its cultural and creative industries. It has even led Stan Shih to express regrets that he once advocated the concept of a "technology island."
Full Text below:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Taiwan businesses do only OEM contract work. They do not build brands with high-value-added content. It suggests that Taiwan's competitiveness is far inferior to South Korea's R&D in science and technology, and its soft power in its cultural and creative industries. It has even led Stan Shih to express regrets that he once advocated the concept of a "technology island." These problems are rooted in transformation strategy. Do Taiwan businesses have the proper transformation strategy? When one examines the role of Taiwan businesses in Taiwan's economic development, we should not point fingers. We should not simply conclude that "Every generation is worse than the last." We should realize that "Every generation is different from the last," and interpret developments in that light.
Taiwan businesses have undeniably been labor-intensive, export oriented, and ODM oriented. But half a century has come and gone. These three business models have been under simultaneous attack -- from Mainland enterprises and the Four Asian Tigers, especially Korean enterprises. Add to this the market downturn in Europe, the United States, and Japan, as well as challenges from leading innovators such as Samsung and Apple. The result has been a steady decline. The pressure to transform and upgrade has may breaking out in a cold sweat. The transformation of Taiwan businesses can no longer be delayed. It has a direct impact on Taiwan's economic strength.
As we all know, Taiwan businesses have long been nomads searching for markets. As Wang Yung-ching noted, wherever growth opportunities appear, that is where we invest. This approach led Taiwan businesses out of Taiwan and into Southeast Asia and the Mainland three times. They established businesses and created the Southeast Asian and cross-Strait economic miracles. Taiwan businesses shared the fruits of economic growth with these regions.
But the BRIC economies have since made their meteoric rise. Emerging countries have begun competing for export markets. Taiwan businesses were resolute and willing to endure hardship. But the Mainland has increased salary levels 15 to 20% each year for the past five years. It has widened its economic transformation policy. Taiwan businesses no longer hold a competitive advantage. Their former specialization in OEM and ODM manufacturing has been rapidly eclipsed by local Mainland businesses and by pirates.
The media has reported that half of all Taiwan businesses will close down over the next five years. These reports may be exaggerated and sensationalistic. But they confirm that Taiwan businesses are in crisis. The ancient sages said that crises are also opportunities. Therefore, the worst of times is also the best of times. For example, Korean companies emerged unscathed from the 1997 economic crisis. Among them, Samsung and LG underwent transformation. Taiwan must learn from them.
Therefore, we suggest the following as points of reference.
First of all, people should encourage Taiwan businesses instead of reprimanding them. All businesses are having a hard time. Taiwan businesses are fighting for their lives. The government should offer words of encouragement. It should take concrete steps. It should ask ITRI to upgrade technology. It should ask TAITRA to expand markets. It should ask banks to provide financing. It should offer Taiwan businesses comprehensive services. It should ask NGOs to issue more awards. It should ask the media to report successful transformations of Taiwan businesses in order to encourage them and to affirm their efforts.
Secondly, the government should provide different forms of guidance and assistance to different types of Taiwan businesses. For example, the MOEA and the FSC should establish a task force. It should actively seek out businesses likely to return to Taiwan and encourage them to do so. The SEF and the Chinese National Federation of Industries (CNFI) can actively seek out core industries likely to return to Taiwan and advise them. The Productivity Center and the consultancy industry can strengthen franchises seeking to expand into the Mainland market. Some sunset industries cannot be transformed. A professional services group should be established to help these industries close down while conserving their resources. They can then return to Taiwan and continue to contribute their skills and experience.
Thirdly, Taiwan businesses should expand their strategic alliances. They should share their body heat in order to survive the economic winter. This is especially true for leading industries. They have satellite systems and midstream and downstream supply chains. They can share capital, production, marketing, R&D, and human resources. They can break down barriers, reach out, and support each other until the economy recovers. They can use existing alliances to invest in each other. They can make their businesses more competitive. Active assistance from the government, financial institutions, and technical guidance units, would make them even more effective.
In addition to the above, Taiwan businesses are fully capable of making innovative breakthroughs. This is especially true for the service sector. Taiwan businesses are accustomed to manufacturing. They must learn how to operate franchises, service industries, manufacturing services, pre-sales, after-sales, logistics, and design services. All of these have greater potential than traditional expenditures and budget cuts. Taiwan businesses must undestand the soft power of the cultural and creative industries, as well as cloud computing services. This will enable Taiwan businesses to experience a second spring.
Finally, Taiwan businesses should cultivate professional management teams, as soon as possible. After all, Taiwan businesses have ventured overseas three times. It is time to pass the baton. Taiwan businesses should cultivate successors. They must help successors establish innovative and professional management teams. This is essential to successful succession. Close cooperation between founders, successors, and management teams, will ensure sustainable development and a brighter future for Taiwan businesses.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.21
社論-台商再創第二春 文創和雲端雙領軍
本報訊
最近坊間針對台商只做代工、不做高附加價值的品牌課題一再討論,又論及台灣的競爭力遠不如韓國的科技研發與文創軟實力,甚至引起施振榮後悔當年提出「科技島」的概念。這些問題的根源其實在於台商的轉型作為與策略走向是否得宜。針對其在台灣經濟發展所扮演的角色,我們不應指責其「一代不如一代」,而應以「一代不同一代」的態度重新闡釋。
無可否認,台商過去一向以勞力密集、外銷及貼牌代工為其營運模式,但半世紀走來,這三大主體模式遭到後進的中資企業與同為四小龍之韓企的夾攻,加上歐美日市場不景氣的衝擊,以及三星與蘋果創新領先的挑戰,因而節節失利敗退;而快速轉型升級的時間壓力,讓國人捏一把冷汗,為之擔心不已。此刻,台商的轉型不僅刻不容緩,且與台灣經濟實力的提升也息息相關。
眾所皆知,台商一向是逐市場水草而居的族群,秉持王永慶所說:哪邊有成長機會就往哪裡投資。這種信念讓台商走出了台灣,經由東南亞到大陸三次創業,且創造了東南亞與兩岸的經濟奇蹟,台商也曾風光地分享三地經濟成長的果實。
但曾幾何時,「四大金磚」異軍突起,新興國家參與角逐外銷市場,台商雖有堅苦卓絕的硬頸精神,但在中國大陸近五年來,年年調漲十五~二十%的薪資水準,以及擴大實施「騰籠換鳥」等政策的催逼之下,台商已經不再具有往昔的競爭優勢;而原有專長的「貼牌代工」(OEM)與深層專業的「設計代工」(ODM)模式也被大陸本土企業以大膽快速的山寨仿冒作法所超越。
媒體一再報導,未來五年將有一半台商要倒閉關門的原因正是在此。雖然這些報導可能有過度誇大的聳動,但也道出了台商當前正面臨的危機。先賢常說:危機就是轉機,因此最壞的時代也可能正是最好的時代。韓國企業走出「九七風暴」的陰霾就是例子,其中,三星與LG的轉型做法更足為台商借鏡。
為此,提出以下作法供參考:
首先,國人宜以鼓勵代替指責的角度來看待台商。當前是無商不「艱」的時代,當台商正為企業的生存發展奮鬥之際,政府宜多發表肯定台商的談話,並以實際行動邀請工研院在技術升級、貿協在市場拓展、銀行在融資等方面,共同提出對台商具體可行的聯合服務,並央請民間社團多舉辦頒獎活動,媒體也宜正面報導台商的成功轉型作為來鼓勵、肯定台商,為其加持。
其次,政府宜針對不同類型的台商給予不同的輔導協助,如經濟部、金管會與海基會等應成立「專責小組」,主動尋找可能回台上市業者加以輔導;也可透過海基會、工總及同業公會等主動尋覓準備回台投資的「中堅」企業;而對於欲拓展大陸市場的連鎖業者則透過生產力中心與顧問業的協助,加強其擴展實力;針對無法轉型的老化台商,宜設立專業服務團,協助業者收攤,保留其資源實力,俾回台繼續貢獻其所長與經驗。
第三,台商宜擴大策略聯盟,以相互取暖方式度過經濟寒冬。尤其是龍頭企業可透過中衛體系及中下游的供應鏈體系,相互在資金、產銷、研發及人力應用上,打破門面,伸手相互支援。等到景氣恢復後,可藉現有的聯盟體系的相互投資,壯大企業競爭的基礎。這些作為若有政府與金融機構及技術指導單位等在背後積極協助,成效將更大。
此外,創新突破仍是台商安身立命之所在,尤其在服務創新上,更有寬闊的空間。習於製造業的台商,宜向連鎖業與服務業學習。因為在製造服務與售前、售後、物流及設計服務上,皆比傳統的開源節流有更大的發展空間,而文創軟實力以及雲端網路服務,更是台商要學習的重點。如此,台商才有再創第二春的本事。
最後,台商宜盡速培養「專業」的接班經營團隊。畢竟台商在海內外創業三次,已屆臨接棒時刻,台商要努力的不只是培養接班人,更要協助接班人建立既創新又專業的「經營團隊」,才是接班成功關鍵之所在。創辦人、接班人及經營團隊的三方密切配合,才能讓台商有永續發展的美好未來。
Winchance and Cloud Take the Lead
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2012
Summary: Anecdotal evidence suggests that Taiwan businesses do only OEM contract work. They do not build brands with high-value-added content. It suggests that Taiwan's competitiveness is far inferior to South Korea's R&D in science and technology, and its soft power in its cultural and creative industries. It has even led Stan Shih to express regrets that he once advocated the concept of a "technology island."
Full Text below:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Taiwan businesses do only OEM contract work. They do not build brands with high-value-added content. It suggests that Taiwan's competitiveness is far inferior to South Korea's R&D in science and technology, and its soft power in its cultural and creative industries. It has even led Stan Shih to express regrets that he once advocated the concept of a "technology island." These problems are rooted in transformation strategy. Do Taiwan businesses have the proper transformation strategy? When one examines the role of Taiwan businesses in Taiwan's economic development, we should not point fingers. We should not simply conclude that "Every generation is worse than the last." We should realize that "Every generation is different from the last," and interpret developments in that light.
Taiwan businesses have undeniably been labor-intensive, export oriented, and ODM oriented. But half a century has come and gone. These three business models have been under simultaneous attack -- from Mainland enterprises and the Four Asian Tigers, especially Korean enterprises. Add to this the market downturn in Europe, the United States, and Japan, as well as challenges from leading innovators such as Samsung and Apple. The result has been a steady decline. The pressure to transform and upgrade has may breaking out in a cold sweat. The transformation of Taiwan businesses can no longer be delayed. It has a direct impact on Taiwan's economic strength.
As we all know, Taiwan businesses have long been nomads searching for markets. As Wang Yung-ching noted, wherever growth opportunities appear, that is where we invest. This approach led Taiwan businesses out of Taiwan and into Southeast Asia and the Mainland three times. They established businesses and created the Southeast Asian and cross-Strait economic miracles. Taiwan businesses shared the fruits of economic growth with these regions.
But the BRIC economies have since made their meteoric rise. Emerging countries have begun competing for export markets. Taiwan businesses were resolute and willing to endure hardship. But the Mainland has increased salary levels 15 to 20% each year for the past five years. It has widened its economic transformation policy. Taiwan businesses no longer hold a competitive advantage. Their former specialization in OEM and ODM manufacturing has been rapidly eclipsed by local Mainland businesses and by pirates.
The media has reported that half of all Taiwan businesses will close down over the next five years. These reports may be exaggerated and sensationalistic. But they confirm that Taiwan businesses are in crisis. The ancient sages said that crises are also opportunities. Therefore, the worst of times is also the best of times. For example, Korean companies emerged unscathed from the 1997 economic crisis. Among them, Samsung and LG underwent transformation. Taiwan must learn from them.
Therefore, we suggest the following as points of reference.
First of all, people should encourage Taiwan businesses instead of reprimanding them. All businesses are having a hard time. Taiwan businesses are fighting for their lives. The government should offer words of encouragement. It should take concrete steps. It should ask ITRI to upgrade technology. It should ask TAITRA to expand markets. It should ask banks to provide financing. It should offer Taiwan businesses comprehensive services. It should ask NGOs to issue more awards. It should ask the media to report successful transformations of Taiwan businesses in order to encourage them and to affirm their efforts.
Secondly, the government should provide different forms of guidance and assistance to different types of Taiwan businesses. For example, the MOEA and the FSC should establish a task force. It should actively seek out businesses likely to return to Taiwan and encourage them to do so. The SEF and the Chinese National Federation of Industries (CNFI) can actively seek out core industries likely to return to Taiwan and advise them. The Productivity Center and the consultancy industry can strengthen franchises seeking to expand into the Mainland market. Some sunset industries cannot be transformed. A professional services group should be established to help these industries close down while conserving their resources. They can then return to Taiwan and continue to contribute their skills and experience.
Thirdly, Taiwan businesses should expand their strategic alliances. They should share their body heat in order to survive the economic winter. This is especially true for leading industries. They have satellite systems and midstream and downstream supply chains. They can share capital, production, marketing, R&D, and human resources. They can break down barriers, reach out, and support each other until the economy recovers. They can use existing alliances to invest in each other. They can make their businesses more competitive. Active assistance from the government, financial institutions, and technical guidance units, would make them even more effective.
In addition to the above, Taiwan businesses are fully capable of making innovative breakthroughs. This is especially true for the service sector. Taiwan businesses are accustomed to manufacturing. They must learn how to operate franchises, service industries, manufacturing services, pre-sales, after-sales, logistics, and design services. All of these have greater potential than traditional expenditures and budget cuts. Taiwan businesses must undestand the soft power of the cultural and creative industries, as well as cloud computing services. This will enable Taiwan businesses to experience a second spring.
Finally, Taiwan businesses should cultivate professional management teams, as soon as possible. After all, Taiwan businesses have ventured overseas three times. It is time to pass the baton. Taiwan businesses should cultivate successors. They must help successors establish innovative and professional management teams. This is essential to successful succession. Close cooperation between founders, successors, and management teams, will ensure sustainable development and a brighter future for Taiwan businesses.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.21
社論-台商再創第二春 文創和雲端雙領軍
本報訊
最近坊間針對台商只做代工、不做高附加價值的品牌課題一再討論,又論及台灣的競爭力遠不如韓國的科技研發與文創軟實力,甚至引起施振榮後悔當年提出「科技島」的概念。這些問題的根源其實在於台商的轉型作為與策略走向是否得宜。針對其在台灣經濟發展所扮演的角色,我們不應指責其「一代不如一代」,而應以「一代不同一代」的態度重新闡釋。
無可否認,台商過去一向以勞力密集、外銷及貼牌代工為其營運模式,但半世紀走來,這三大主體模式遭到後進的中資企業與同為四小龍之韓企的夾攻,加上歐美日市場不景氣的衝擊,以及三星與蘋果創新領先的挑戰,因而節節失利敗退;而快速轉型升級的時間壓力,讓國人捏一把冷汗,為之擔心不已。此刻,台商的轉型不僅刻不容緩,且與台灣經濟實力的提升也息息相關。
眾所皆知,台商一向是逐市場水草而居的族群,秉持王永慶所說:哪邊有成長機會就往哪裡投資。這種信念讓台商走出了台灣,經由東南亞到大陸三次創業,且創造了東南亞與兩岸的經濟奇蹟,台商也曾風光地分享三地經濟成長的果實。
但曾幾何時,「四大金磚」異軍突起,新興國家參與角逐外銷市場,台商雖有堅苦卓絕的硬頸精神,但在中國大陸近五年來,年年調漲十五~二十%的薪資水準,以及擴大實施「騰籠換鳥」等政策的催逼之下,台商已經不再具有往昔的競爭優勢;而原有專長的「貼牌代工」(OEM)與深層專業的「設計代工」(ODM)模式也被大陸本土企業以大膽快速的山寨仿冒作法所超越。
媒體一再報導,未來五年將有一半台商要倒閉關門的原因正是在此。雖然這些報導可能有過度誇大的聳動,但也道出了台商當前正面臨的危機。先賢常說:危機就是轉機,因此最壞的時代也可能正是最好的時代。韓國企業走出「九七風暴」的陰霾就是例子,其中,三星與LG的轉型做法更足為台商借鏡。
為此,提出以下作法供參考:
首先,國人宜以鼓勵代替指責的角度來看待台商。當前是無商不「艱」的時代,當台商正為企業的生存發展奮鬥之際,政府宜多發表肯定台商的談話,並以實際行動邀請工研院在技術升級、貿協在市場拓展、銀行在融資等方面,共同提出對台商具體可行的聯合服務,並央請民間社團多舉辦頒獎活動,媒體也宜正面報導台商的成功轉型作為來鼓勵、肯定台商,為其加持。
其次,政府宜針對不同類型的台商給予不同的輔導協助,如經濟部、金管會與海基會等應成立「專責小組」,主動尋找可能回台上市業者加以輔導;也可透過海基會、工總及同業公會等主動尋覓準備回台投資的「中堅」企業;而對於欲拓展大陸市場的連鎖業者則透過生產力中心與顧問業的協助,加強其擴展實力;針對無法轉型的老化台商,宜設立專業服務團,協助業者收攤,保留其資源實力,俾回台繼續貢獻其所長與經驗。
第三,台商宜擴大策略聯盟,以相互取暖方式度過經濟寒冬。尤其是龍頭企業可透過中衛體系及中下游的供應鏈體系,相互在資金、產銷、研發及人力應用上,打破門面,伸手相互支援。等到景氣恢復後,可藉現有的聯盟體系的相互投資,壯大企業競爭的基礎。這些作為若有政府與金融機構及技術指導單位等在背後積極協助,成效將更大。
此外,創新突破仍是台商安身立命之所在,尤其在服務創新上,更有寬闊的空間。習於製造業的台商,宜向連鎖業與服務業學習。因為在製造服務與售前、售後、物流及設計服務上,皆比傳統的開源節流有更大的發展空間,而文創軟實力以及雲端網路服務,更是台商要學習的重點。如此,台商才有再創第二春的本事。
最後,台商宜盡速培養「專業」的接班經營團隊。畢竟台商在海內外創業三次,已屆臨接棒時刻,台商要努力的不只是培養接班人,更要協助接班人建立既創新又專業的「經營團隊」,才是接班成功關鍵之所在。創辦人、接班人及經營團隊的三方密切配合,才能讓台商有永續發展的美好未來。
Park Geun-hye Victorious Amidst Generational Deprivation
Park Geun-hye Victorious Amidst Generational Deprivation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2012
Summary: Such is history. Yesterday South Korea held its 18th presidential election. New Frontier Party candidate Park Geun-hye won. She become the first female president in the history of South Korean constitutional rule. When it comes to women's rights, South Korea has long given the outside world a negative impression. Now however, at the start of the 21st century, it has a woman president. This certainly is a fascinating historical development.
Full Text below:
Such is history. Yesterday South Korea held its 18th presidential election. New Frontier Party candidate Park Geun-hye won. She become the first female president in the history of South Korean constitutional rule. When it comes to women's rights, South Korea has long given the outside world a negative impression. Now however, at the start of the 21st century, it has a woman president. This certainly is a fascinating historical development.
Park Geun-hye has been elected president. She has set several precedents. In addition to being the first woman president, she is the first president to receive over half the votes since the 1987 presidential election. She also received the largest number of votes ever in Korean history. Furthermore, this election is the first time under constitutional rule that conservative over 50 voters outnumbered progressive under 30 voters. The election results show that voter composition has changed completely. The low birth rate and an aging population has reversed the voter composition compared to ten years ago.
Park set another precedent. This is the second time in the past decade that a presidential election has pitted conservatives against progressives, in two camps, in a one-on-one show down. The election involved a record 75% turnout, the largest since 2000.
The most unique precedent is also the the one with the greatest impact. That is the reversal in the composition of voters by age. The reversal was apparent in regional voting patterns during South Korea's last election. It is still a factor. But generational differences and contradictions were increasingly apparent during this election. The turnout was considered high. This favored opposition candidate Moon Jae-in. But the composition of voters was reversed during this election. The turnout rate was affected by an aging population and the declining birthrate. Generational and age differences outweighed regionalism. This election underscored the vertical division of society.
The voter composition reversed itself. Park Geun-hye won the presidency. But she faces issues of generational justice and generational conflict. This was predictable. Park Geun-hye has assumed power in South Korea. She faces a more difficult situation than current president Lee Myung-bak.
According to South Korea's Samsung Institute, South Korea faces external problems. These include the European debt crisis, the U.S. fiscal cliff, and the slowdown in Mainland Chinese growth. More importantly, it faces domesic problems. These include a too high household debt burden, and young people with too low incomes. These problems affect various domestic sectors. Different generations experience different degrees of hardship.
Given the economic situation at home and abroad, South Korea cannot maintain its past growth rate. Given the low growth, the various domestic classes can expect to become equally poor instead of equally rich. Over time, class and generational conflicts will intensify.
Yet Park Geun-hye does not appear to have any concrete policy remedies. That is what is so strange about this particular South Korean presidential election. The candidates failed to offer any concrete political proposals during the election. Only during the last few televised debates did they offer an occasional policy prescription. Park Geun-hye proposed rescuing the middle class, which accounts for 70% of society. She also wants powerful restraints imposed upon the Chaebols, which abuse their power.
But suppose the fiscal picture fails to improve? Large South Korean enterprises such as Samsung remain the main pillar of national strength. How will Park Geun-hye rescue the middle class? If Park Geun-hye hopes to fulfill her promises, she must adopt extraordinary measures. But that could trigger generational and class conflicts. The slightest mistake could have the opposite effect. Park Geun-hye's greatest challenge upon taking office will be to sort out and solve these problems.
Generational and class conflicts have erupted on Taiwan over annuities and other issues. These are the same problems that arose during the South Korean presidential election. Taiwan does not have a major election coming up. But generational and class conflict is becoming increasingly apparent. Taiwan's low birth rate and aging population has been classified as a national security issue. But it will remain difficult to deal with. Suppose the economic situation remains weak? Suppose a solution to this problem is not forthcoming? Sharper confrontation and conflict will be in the offing.
The economy is in a downturn. Yesterday South Korea held its presidential election. This was the last major election of 2012. Review the results of these presidential elections. The conclusion will be obvious. This is an era of uncertainty. Most conservative camps won. Most opposition parties lost. The ruling administrations' biggest challenges are economic. How will they be addressed? How will social harmony be preserved? How will generational conflicts be resolved? These demand thorough examination and appropriate countermeasures.
朴槿惠在世代剝奪中勝出
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.20 02:17 am
歷史總是這樣的!南韓昨日舉行第十八屆總統選舉,結果新世界黨候選人朴槿惠勝出,成為南韓憲政史上第一位女性總統。南韓過去總是給外界女權低落的印象,如今在二十一世紀之初,竟產生了女總統,可說充溢著歷史發展的趣味。
朴槿惠當選總統,創下多項紀綠。除了第一位女總統之外,她也是一九八七年直選總統以來,得票首次過半的總統,更是史上得票數最多的總統。再者,這次選舉也是憲政史上,以保守為主的五十歲以上的選民人數首次超過代表進步意向的三十歲以下的選民人數,此種選舉人數及其占比所呈現的,是選民結構的徹底改變。在少子化及老年化的影響下,選民結構與十年前相較,出現大翻轉的情況。
其他的紀錄是,這是近十年來總統選舉再次形成保守和進步兩大陣營的一對一對決情勢。同時這次的投票率也創下二千年以來選舉最高的投票率達七成五以上。
這些紀錄中,最特別也是影響甚大的,就是投票人口年齡層結構的翻轉。這個翻轉,讓南韓過去選舉中非常鮮明的地域性投票行為,雖然仍有一定的影響力,但世代的矛盾、差異和對決氣氛,在這次選舉中也愈來愈顯明。雖然一般認為投票率高,對在野黨候選人文在寅有利,但是在這個選民結構的大翻轉下,投票率高恐怕也很難不受整個人口老化及少子化趨勢的影響。世代別、年齡別已經超過了地域主義,形成社會垂直分裂的結構,在這次選舉中被凸顯出來。
這種投票人口結構的翻轉,雖然讓朴槿惠拿下總統寶座,但未來她要面對的問題,也將會圍繞在世代正義和衝突的議題上。可以預見,朴槿惠接手的南韓局勢,是一個比現任總統李明博更艱困的局面。
根據南韓三星研究所的評估,南韓未來所面臨的外部問題,包括歐債危機、美國財政懸崖、中國成長放緩等。但更重要的是內部問題,包括家庭債務負擔過高、青年人收入過低等。這些問題都相當影響到國家內部各種階層、不同世代的相對剝奪感。
衡諸未來的國內外經濟局勢,南韓不容易再維持過去的成長情勢。在這種情況下,國內各種階層就只能在低成長下分配,而變成一種均貧,而非均富的局面。長此以往,階層和世代的矛盾、衝突將會更加劇烈。
但在這些方面,目前尚看不出朴槿惠有何具體政策。這也是這次南韓總統大選,非常奇特之處。在選舉過程中,並未聽到候選人提出具體的政見,只有從最後幾場的電視辯論中,聽到零星的主張。朴槿惠主張,要恢復占社會比重百分之七十的中產階級,也要強力管束財閥大企業集團的濫用特權等。
不過,如果財經情勢不能好轉,南韓如三星等大企業仍是國力的主要支柱,朴槿惠如何能恢復中產階級的占比?朴槿惠如要兌現主張,勢必要用一些非常手段,如此就可能牽動更多階層及世代的衝突,甚至分裂,稍一不慎,就可能得到反效果。也就是說,朴槿惠未來如何整合、解決這些難題,成為她就任後最重要的課題。
其實台灣最近因年金等問題所出現的世代、階層衝突,也正是南韓總統大選結果所呈現的問題面向。台灣雖然沒有馬上面臨大型選舉,但世代和階層之間的衝突,在可以預見的未來,也一定是愈來愈明顯。台灣人口的少子化和老年化,雖已被列為是國安議題,但難以抵擋。一旦經濟情勢仍不振,這個問題如果不能得到適當的解決和處理,未來將會走向更尖銳的對立和衝突。
在經濟低迷的年代,昨日南韓的總統選舉,為二○一二年的全球大選年畫下句點。檢視今年的各國大選結果,不難發現,在這個不確定的年代,保守陣營多半拿下了政權,反對黨多敗北。而執政者所面臨最大的仍是經濟議題,如何解決,讓其不至於影響社會的和諧、世代的矛盾,似乎都必須徹底思考、拿出對策。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2012
Summary: Such is history. Yesterday South Korea held its 18th presidential election. New Frontier Party candidate Park Geun-hye won. She become the first female president in the history of South Korean constitutional rule. When it comes to women's rights, South Korea has long given the outside world a negative impression. Now however, at the start of the 21st century, it has a woman president. This certainly is a fascinating historical development.
Full Text below:
Such is history. Yesterday South Korea held its 18th presidential election. New Frontier Party candidate Park Geun-hye won. She become the first female president in the history of South Korean constitutional rule. When it comes to women's rights, South Korea has long given the outside world a negative impression. Now however, at the start of the 21st century, it has a woman president. This certainly is a fascinating historical development.
Park Geun-hye has been elected president. She has set several precedents. In addition to being the first woman president, she is the first president to receive over half the votes since the 1987 presidential election. She also received the largest number of votes ever in Korean history. Furthermore, this election is the first time under constitutional rule that conservative over 50 voters outnumbered progressive under 30 voters. The election results show that voter composition has changed completely. The low birth rate and an aging population has reversed the voter composition compared to ten years ago.
Park set another precedent. This is the second time in the past decade that a presidential election has pitted conservatives against progressives, in two camps, in a one-on-one show down. The election involved a record 75% turnout, the largest since 2000.
The most unique precedent is also the the one with the greatest impact. That is the reversal in the composition of voters by age. The reversal was apparent in regional voting patterns during South Korea's last election. It is still a factor. But generational differences and contradictions were increasingly apparent during this election. The turnout was considered high. This favored opposition candidate Moon Jae-in. But the composition of voters was reversed during this election. The turnout rate was affected by an aging population and the declining birthrate. Generational and age differences outweighed regionalism. This election underscored the vertical division of society.
The voter composition reversed itself. Park Geun-hye won the presidency. But she faces issues of generational justice and generational conflict. This was predictable. Park Geun-hye has assumed power in South Korea. She faces a more difficult situation than current president Lee Myung-bak.
According to South Korea's Samsung Institute, South Korea faces external problems. These include the European debt crisis, the U.S. fiscal cliff, and the slowdown in Mainland Chinese growth. More importantly, it faces domesic problems. These include a too high household debt burden, and young people with too low incomes. These problems affect various domestic sectors. Different generations experience different degrees of hardship.
Given the economic situation at home and abroad, South Korea cannot maintain its past growth rate. Given the low growth, the various domestic classes can expect to become equally poor instead of equally rich. Over time, class and generational conflicts will intensify.
Yet Park Geun-hye does not appear to have any concrete policy remedies. That is what is so strange about this particular South Korean presidential election. The candidates failed to offer any concrete political proposals during the election. Only during the last few televised debates did they offer an occasional policy prescription. Park Geun-hye proposed rescuing the middle class, which accounts for 70% of society. She also wants powerful restraints imposed upon the Chaebols, which abuse their power.
But suppose the fiscal picture fails to improve? Large South Korean enterprises such as Samsung remain the main pillar of national strength. How will Park Geun-hye rescue the middle class? If Park Geun-hye hopes to fulfill her promises, she must adopt extraordinary measures. But that could trigger generational and class conflicts. The slightest mistake could have the opposite effect. Park Geun-hye's greatest challenge upon taking office will be to sort out and solve these problems.
Generational and class conflicts have erupted on Taiwan over annuities and other issues. These are the same problems that arose during the South Korean presidential election. Taiwan does not have a major election coming up. But generational and class conflict is becoming increasingly apparent. Taiwan's low birth rate and aging population has been classified as a national security issue. But it will remain difficult to deal with. Suppose the economic situation remains weak? Suppose a solution to this problem is not forthcoming? Sharper confrontation and conflict will be in the offing.
The economy is in a downturn. Yesterday South Korea held its presidential election. This was the last major election of 2012. Review the results of these presidential elections. The conclusion will be obvious. This is an era of uncertainty. Most conservative camps won. Most opposition parties lost. The ruling administrations' biggest challenges are economic. How will they be addressed? How will social harmony be preserved? How will generational conflicts be resolved? These demand thorough examination and appropriate countermeasures.
朴槿惠在世代剝奪中勝出
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.20 02:17 am
歷史總是這樣的!南韓昨日舉行第十八屆總統選舉,結果新世界黨候選人朴槿惠勝出,成為南韓憲政史上第一位女性總統。南韓過去總是給外界女權低落的印象,如今在二十一世紀之初,竟產生了女總統,可說充溢著歷史發展的趣味。
朴槿惠當選總統,創下多項紀綠。除了第一位女總統之外,她也是一九八七年直選總統以來,得票首次過半的總統,更是史上得票數最多的總統。再者,這次選舉也是憲政史上,以保守為主的五十歲以上的選民人數首次超過代表進步意向的三十歲以下的選民人數,此種選舉人數及其占比所呈現的,是選民結構的徹底改變。在少子化及老年化的影響下,選民結構與十年前相較,出現大翻轉的情況。
其他的紀錄是,這是近十年來總統選舉再次形成保守和進步兩大陣營的一對一對決情勢。同時這次的投票率也創下二千年以來選舉最高的投票率達七成五以上。
這些紀錄中,最特別也是影響甚大的,就是投票人口年齡層結構的翻轉。這個翻轉,讓南韓過去選舉中非常鮮明的地域性投票行為,雖然仍有一定的影響力,但世代的矛盾、差異和對決氣氛,在這次選舉中也愈來愈顯明。雖然一般認為投票率高,對在野黨候選人文在寅有利,但是在這個選民結構的大翻轉下,投票率高恐怕也很難不受整個人口老化及少子化趨勢的影響。世代別、年齡別已經超過了地域主義,形成社會垂直分裂的結構,在這次選舉中被凸顯出來。
這種投票人口結構的翻轉,雖然讓朴槿惠拿下總統寶座,但未來她要面對的問題,也將會圍繞在世代正義和衝突的議題上。可以預見,朴槿惠接手的南韓局勢,是一個比現任總統李明博更艱困的局面。
根據南韓三星研究所的評估,南韓未來所面臨的外部問題,包括歐債危機、美國財政懸崖、中國成長放緩等。但更重要的是內部問題,包括家庭債務負擔過高、青年人收入過低等。這些問題都相當影響到國家內部各種階層、不同世代的相對剝奪感。
衡諸未來的國內外經濟局勢,南韓不容易再維持過去的成長情勢。在這種情況下,國內各種階層就只能在低成長下分配,而變成一種均貧,而非均富的局面。長此以往,階層和世代的矛盾、衝突將會更加劇烈。
但在這些方面,目前尚看不出朴槿惠有何具體政策。這也是這次南韓總統大選,非常奇特之處。在選舉過程中,並未聽到候選人提出具體的政見,只有從最後幾場的電視辯論中,聽到零星的主張。朴槿惠主張,要恢復占社會比重百分之七十的中產階級,也要強力管束財閥大企業集團的濫用特權等。
不過,如果財經情勢不能好轉,南韓如三星等大企業仍是國力的主要支柱,朴槿惠如何能恢復中產階級的占比?朴槿惠如要兌現主張,勢必要用一些非常手段,如此就可能牽動更多階層及世代的衝突,甚至分裂,稍一不慎,就可能得到反效果。也就是說,朴槿惠未來如何整合、解決這些難題,成為她就任後最重要的課題。
其實台灣最近因年金等問題所出現的世代、階層衝突,也正是南韓總統大選結果所呈現的問題面向。台灣雖然沒有馬上面臨大型選舉,但世代和階層之間的衝突,在可以預見的未來,也一定是愈來愈明顯。台灣人口的少子化和老年化,雖已被列為是國安議題,但難以抵擋。一旦經濟情勢仍不振,這個問題如果不能得到適當的解決和處理,未來將會走向更尖銳的對立和衝突。
在經濟低迷的年代,昨日南韓的總統選舉,為二○一二年的全球大選年畫下句點。檢視今年的各國大選結果,不難發現,在這個不確定的年代,保守陣營多半拿下了政權,反對黨多敗北。而執政者所面臨最大的仍是經濟議題,如何解決,讓其不至於影響社會的和諧、世代的矛盾,似乎都必須徹底思考、拿出對策。
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Only Change can Break the 22K Spell
Only Change can Break the 22K Spell
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2012
Summary: College graduates entering the workplace make a starting salary of only 22,000 NT per month. Former Vice President Vincent Siew complained. He said that it was unhealthy for industries to reduce salaries to that level. Last week one business representative attending the National Industrial Development Conference responded to critics. He said, "If they keep quarreling, even 15,000 NT will be impossible." This led some people to blast business owners as wealthy boors. This intensified the already antagonisic atmosphere. This phenomenon has people worried. A solution must be found.
Full Text below:
College graduates entering the workplace make a starting salary of only 22,000 NT per month. Former Vice President Vincent Siew complained. He said that it was unhealthy for industries to reduce salaries to that level. Last week one business representative attending the National Industrial Development Conference responded to critics. He said, "If they keep quarreling, even 15,000 NT will be impossible." This led some people to blast business owners as wealthy boors. This intensified the already antagonisic atmosphere. This phenomenon has people worried. A solution must be found.
As many as 63% of workers under 30 work temporary jobs. As many as 1.3 million people earn less than 30,000 NT a month. Twenty to twenty-four-year-olds earn an average of 22,000 NT a month. This is less than what they made 14 years ago. Many outstanding university graduates look at the 22,000 NT starting salary and seek jobs abroad. A survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicates that as many as 61.1% of those with higher educations have fled overseas. That number is the highest in the world. It is much higher than second place India at 50.9%. It confirms that low pay is a major reason for the high-level brain drain.
Salaries are essentially determined by the labor market. If the economy is bad, demand for labor is lower than the supply. Salaries will not increase. They may even fall. Young people now expect to be poorly paid or even unemployed. The average annual GDP growth rate for the past 14 years has been over 4%. Yet salaries have stagnated. University graduates making 22,000 NT a month is hardly an improvement. It is a decline. But why? The reasons are worth pondering.
Many say that higher education on Taiwan has taken a wrong turn. They say it neglects technical and vocational education. They say this has led to a surge in the number of university graduates. This has created a discrepancy between education and application. Therefore it is not easy to give them raises. But we must ask why. By itself, it fails to explain the low-wage phenomenon, which transcends the issue of academic major and employee qualifications. The real reason is Taiwan's economic development model, with its biases, business concepts, and mentality.
Over the past two decades, Taiwan's economic growth has been driven by exports. The ICT industry accounts for the lion's share. Mainland factories enabled Taiwan to operate OEM export industries. These OEM export industries emphasized low production costs and the cross-Strait division of labor. These high capital, technology-intensive, high-end production line industries employed few people on Taiwan. On the Mainland, these industries were low capital, low-tech, low-level production lines. They were labor-intensive, and made full use of cheap and abundant labor.
This mode of production created massive exports, export-based investments, and consumption. They accounted for nearly 70% of the nation's GDP growth. But they also created many conditions adverse to wage growth. One. Such industries required large amounts of domestic capital, but only small amounts of human labor. They created a small number of high-paying jobs that inflated domestic wages, but reduced the capital available for other jobs. This reduced salary levels. Two. Industries attached too much importance to cost reduction. When the Mainland offered a cheaper alternative, Taiwan production lines moved there. This led to a wave of unemployment and froze salaries. Three. Taiwan would fill orders. Production would move overseas. The ratio continued rising. Business owners made substantial profits. This made for attractive GDP growth figures. But salaries stagnated. During the 1990s salaries accounted for over 50% of GDP. By 2011 this fell to 45.7%. This is why the working class has not benefitted from long-term economic growth. This is why the 22,000 NT spell remains unbroken.
In recent years businesses have undergone a change in mindset. The domestic market is increasingly open. Businesses are increasingly competitive. In order to survive, many pinch pennies when hiring new personnel. They save wherever they can. The corporate culture once valued employees. This has changed. Many companies place too much emphasis on scale. They have replicated Taiwan's business model on the Mainland. But once they thrive in the Mainland market, they shift their emphasis accordingly. They cease investing and innovating on Taiwan. The cross-strait gap in the quality of goods and services is narrowing. This makes it harder to increase salary levels on Taiwan. The 22K figure is the distorted product of this mentality.
To break the 22 K spell, we must change Taiwan's economic growth model. Future economic growth must increase domestic demand and local content. It must reduce outsourcing and dependence on exports. It must pay more attention to the value of innovation and labor. It must reduce price competition. We must link industrial development with domestic employment. We must enhance industrial innovation and labor productivity. This will solve the predicament of low wages.
The environment is poor. Everyone must pay attention to the business community. But industries must become self-sufficient. We must transform the corporate culture. We must emphasize innovation and value employees. If we can do this, then we can boldly raise salaries or hire new, highly-paid workers. We will no longer spin our wheels at 22K. The government has a responsibility to allocate resources. It must encourage, accelerate, and drive this transformation, and break the 22 K spell.
改變才能破解二十二K魔咒
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.19 03:54 am
大學畢業生初入職場起薪每月只有二十二K,前副總統蕭萬長為之抱屈,指企業把薪水壓低是不健康的現象。上周全國產業發展會議一位企業界代表回應抗議者「再吵下去,連十五K都到不了」,更引發部分人士撻伐企業老闆財大氣粗,升高對立氛圍。這種現象讓人憂慮,須尋求化解之道。
台灣三十歲以下年輕打工族中高達六十三%、一百三十萬人月薪不到三萬元;二十到二十四歲平均僅二萬二千元,也就是二十二K,比十四年前還低。不少大學畢業高材生因為二十二K遠走國外找工作;經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)調查報告顯示,台灣外移人口高教育者比率達六一.一%,冠於全球,遠高於第二名印度的五○.九%,亦證實低薪是高階人力外流的重要原因。
薪資基本上是由勞動市場決定,經濟景氣不佳,勞力需求遠低於供給,薪資不但漲不起來,還可能下跌,年輕人低薪甚至失業並不意外。但是,過去十四年國內生產毛額(GDP)年平均成長率逾四%,但薪資卻停滯不前,大學畢業生平均月薪二十二K更是不進反退,其原因為何?值得深思。
很多人指出,台灣高等教育發展偏差,忽視技職教育,導致大學畢業生數量激增,學用落差太大,因而薪資難以提高。此一理由固須重視,但並不足以解釋低薪現象幾乎是不分畢業科系及就業者素質。追根究柢,更關鍵的原因應在台灣經濟發展模式偏差及企業經營的觀念和心態問題。
近二十年來,台灣經濟成長高度依賴出口,尤其是資通訊業占多數、「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口產業,其共通特性是重視生產成本及在兩岸分工:在台灣主要是僱用人員不多的高資本及技術密集的高階生產線;在大陸則是僱用大量廉價勞工的高勞力密集、資本及技術含量低的低階生產線。
此一生產模式為台灣創造大量出口及衍生的投資及消費,對GDP成長率貢獻高達六至七成,但也產生不利薪資成長的因素:第一,該等產業在國內佔用大量資本,卻僅使用少量人力,其創造少數高薪就業機會不足帶動國內薪資上漲,反而拉低其他勞動力資本使用量,抑低薪資水準;第二,業者太過重視成本降低,故當在大陸可覓得廉價高階替代人力時,即將部分台灣生產線轉移大陸,從而導致近年高級人力失業潮,進一步抑低薪資上漲空間;第三,「台灣接單,海外生產」比例愈來愈高,雖為企業老闆賺進可觀利潤,並美化GDP成長數字,但薪資卻相對停滯不前,一九九○年代薪資占GDP份額逾五○%,至二○一一年反降至四五.七%,這正是廣大「打工族」對經濟成長長期無感、也是二十二K魔咒揮之不去的原因。
另一個關鍵因素是近年企業經營觀念及心態的改變。由於國內市場日益開放,各行各業競爭日趨激烈,很多業者為求生存,對僱用人員成本錙銖必較,能省則省,過去重視員工價值的企業文化快速式微。再者,很多企業過於重視規模擴大,因而將台灣經營模式快速複製到大陸,在大陸市場茁壯後經營重心也隨之移轉,忽視在台灣持續投入與創新。在兩岸產品及服務差異性縮小情況下,台灣員工薪資水準自難提升;二十二K也是這種觀念及心態下的畸形產物。
所以,要破解二十二K魔咒,台灣經濟成長模式非改變不可,未來經濟成長要增加更多內需及「在地」成分,降低外移及對出口的依賴;要更加重視創新及勞動價值提升,減少低要素成本的競爭。若能有效連結產業發展和國內就業,提升產業創新能量和勞動生產力,低薪困境自可迎刃而解。
在大環境不佳的情況下,各界要重視企業界的心聲,但業者也須自立自強,徹底改變企業文化,重視創新與員工的價值,若能如此,就會大膽加薪或高薪聘僱新人,絕不致在二十二K打轉。至於政府的責任,就是要在制度面及資源分配上,鼓勵、加速並帶動這種改變,從根本上化解二十二K魔咒。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2012
Summary: College graduates entering the workplace make a starting salary of only 22,000 NT per month. Former Vice President Vincent Siew complained. He said that it was unhealthy for industries to reduce salaries to that level. Last week one business representative attending the National Industrial Development Conference responded to critics. He said, "If they keep quarreling, even 15,000 NT will be impossible." This led some people to blast business owners as wealthy boors. This intensified the already antagonisic atmosphere. This phenomenon has people worried. A solution must be found.
Full Text below:
College graduates entering the workplace make a starting salary of only 22,000 NT per month. Former Vice President Vincent Siew complained. He said that it was unhealthy for industries to reduce salaries to that level. Last week one business representative attending the National Industrial Development Conference responded to critics. He said, "If they keep quarreling, even 15,000 NT will be impossible." This led some people to blast business owners as wealthy boors. This intensified the already antagonisic atmosphere. This phenomenon has people worried. A solution must be found.
As many as 63% of workers under 30 work temporary jobs. As many as 1.3 million people earn less than 30,000 NT a month. Twenty to twenty-four-year-olds earn an average of 22,000 NT a month. This is less than what they made 14 years ago. Many outstanding university graduates look at the 22,000 NT starting salary and seek jobs abroad. A survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) indicates that as many as 61.1% of those with higher educations have fled overseas. That number is the highest in the world. It is much higher than second place India at 50.9%. It confirms that low pay is a major reason for the high-level brain drain.
Salaries are essentially determined by the labor market. If the economy is bad, demand for labor is lower than the supply. Salaries will not increase. They may even fall. Young people now expect to be poorly paid or even unemployed. The average annual GDP growth rate for the past 14 years has been over 4%. Yet salaries have stagnated. University graduates making 22,000 NT a month is hardly an improvement. It is a decline. But why? The reasons are worth pondering.
Many say that higher education on Taiwan has taken a wrong turn. They say it neglects technical and vocational education. They say this has led to a surge in the number of university graduates. This has created a discrepancy between education and application. Therefore it is not easy to give them raises. But we must ask why. By itself, it fails to explain the low-wage phenomenon, which transcends the issue of academic major and employee qualifications. The real reason is Taiwan's economic development model, with its biases, business concepts, and mentality.
Over the past two decades, Taiwan's economic growth has been driven by exports. The ICT industry accounts for the lion's share. Mainland factories enabled Taiwan to operate OEM export industries. These OEM export industries emphasized low production costs and the cross-Strait division of labor. These high capital, technology-intensive, high-end production line industries employed few people on Taiwan. On the Mainland, these industries were low capital, low-tech, low-level production lines. They were labor-intensive, and made full use of cheap and abundant labor.
This mode of production created massive exports, export-based investments, and consumption. They accounted for nearly 70% of the nation's GDP growth. But they also created many conditions adverse to wage growth. One. Such industries required large amounts of domestic capital, but only small amounts of human labor. They created a small number of high-paying jobs that inflated domestic wages, but reduced the capital available for other jobs. This reduced salary levels. Two. Industries attached too much importance to cost reduction. When the Mainland offered a cheaper alternative, Taiwan production lines moved there. This led to a wave of unemployment and froze salaries. Three. Taiwan would fill orders. Production would move overseas. The ratio continued rising. Business owners made substantial profits. This made for attractive GDP growth figures. But salaries stagnated. During the 1990s salaries accounted for over 50% of GDP. By 2011 this fell to 45.7%. This is why the working class has not benefitted from long-term economic growth. This is why the 22,000 NT spell remains unbroken.
In recent years businesses have undergone a change in mindset. The domestic market is increasingly open. Businesses are increasingly competitive. In order to survive, many pinch pennies when hiring new personnel. They save wherever they can. The corporate culture once valued employees. This has changed. Many companies place too much emphasis on scale. They have replicated Taiwan's business model on the Mainland. But once they thrive in the Mainland market, they shift their emphasis accordingly. They cease investing and innovating on Taiwan. The cross-strait gap in the quality of goods and services is narrowing. This makes it harder to increase salary levels on Taiwan. The 22K figure is the distorted product of this mentality.
To break the 22 K spell, we must change Taiwan's economic growth model. Future economic growth must increase domestic demand and local content. It must reduce outsourcing and dependence on exports. It must pay more attention to the value of innovation and labor. It must reduce price competition. We must link industrial development with domestic employment. We must enhance industrial innovation and labor productivity. This will solve the predicament of low wages.
The environment is poor. Everyone must pay attention to the business community. But industries must become self-sufficient. We must transform the corporate culture. We must emphasize innovation and value employees. If we can do this, then we can boldly raise salaries or hire new, highly-paid workers. We will no longer spin our wheels at 22K. The government has a responsibility to allocate resources. It must encourage, accelerate, and drive this transformation, and break the 22 K spell.
改變才能破解二十二K魔咒
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.19 03:54 am
大學畢業生初入職場起薪每月只有二十二K,前副總統蕭萬長為之抱屈,指企業把薪水壓低是不健康的現象。上周全國產業發展會議一位企業界代表回應抗議者「再吵下去,連十五K都到不了」,更引發部分人士撻伐企業老闆財大氣粗,升高對立氛圍。這種現象讓人憂慮,須尋求化解之道。
台灣三十歲以下年輕打工族中高達六十三%、一百三十萬人月薪不到三萬元;二十到二十四歲平均僅二萬二千元,也就是二十二K,比十四年前還低。不少大學畢業高材生因為二十二K遠走國外找工作;經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD)調查報告顯示,台灣外移人口高教育者比率達六一.一%,冠於全球,遠高於第二名印度的五○.九%,亦證實低薪是高階人力外流的重要原因。
薪資基本上是由勞動市場決定,經濟景氣不佳,勞力需求遠低於供給,薪資不但漲不起來,還可能下跌,年輕人低薪甚至失業並不意外。但是,過去十四年國內生產毛額(GDP)年平均成長率逾四%,但薪資卻停滯不前,大學畢業生平均月薪二十二K更是不進反退,其原因為何?值得深思。
很多人指出,台灣高等教育發展偏差,忽視技職教育,導致大學畢業生數量激增,學用落差太大,因而薪資難以提高。此一理由固須重視,但並不足以解釋低薪現象幾乎是不分畢業科系及就業者素質。追根究柢,更關鍵的原因應在台灣經濟發展模式偏差及企業經營的觀念和心態問題。
近二十年來,台灣經濟成長高度依賴出口,尤其是資通訊業占多數、「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口產業,其共通特性是重視生產成本及在兩岸分工:在台灣主要是僱用人員不多的高資本及技術密集的高階生產線;在大陸則是僱用大量廉價勞工的高勞力密集、資本及技術含量低的低階生產線。
此一生產模式為台灣創造大量出口及衍生的投資及消費,對GDP成長率貢獻高達六至七成,但也產生不利薪資成長的因素:第一,該等產業在國內佔用大量資本,卻僅使用少量人力,其創造少數高薪就業機會不足帶動國內薪資上漲,反而拉低其他勞動力資本使用量,抑低薪資水準;第二,業者太過重視成本降低,故當在大陸可覓得廉價高階替代人力時,即將部分台灣生產線轉移大陸,從而導致近年高級人力失業潮,進一步抑低薪資上漲空間;第三,「台灣接單,海外生產」比例愈來愈高,雖為企業老闆賺進可觀利潤,並美化GDP成長數字,但薪資卻相對停滯不前,一九九○年代薪資占GDP份額逾五○%,至二○一一年反降至四五.七%,這正是廣大「打工族」對經濟成長長期無感、也是二十二K魔咒揮之不去的原因。
另一個關鍵因素是近年企業經營觀念及心態的改變。由於國內市場日益開放,各行各業競爭日趨激烈,很多業者為求生存,對僱用人員成本錙銖必較,能省則省,過去重視員工價值的企業文化快速式微。再者,很多企業過於重視規模擴大,因而將台灣經營模式快速複製到大陸,在大陸市場茁壯後經營重心也隨之移轉,忽視在台灣持續投入與創新。在兩岸產品及服務差異性縮小情況下,台灣員工薪資水準自難提升;二十二K也是這種觀念及心態下的畸形產物。
所以,要破解二十二K魔咒,台灣經濟成長模式非改變不可,未來經濟成長要增加更多內需及「在地」成分,降低外移及對出口的依賴;要更加重視創新及勞動價值提升,減少低要素成本的競爭。若能有效連結產業發展和國內就業,提升產業創新能量和勞動生產力,低薪困境自可迎刃而解。
在大環境不佳的情況下,各界要重視企業界的心聲,但業者也須自立自強,徹底改變企業文化,重視創新與員工的價值,若能如此,就會大膽加薪或高薪聘僱新人,絕不致在二十二K打轉。至於政府的責任,就是要在制度面及資源分配上,鼓勵、加速並帶動這種改變,從根本上化解二十二K魔咒。
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Open Doors or Closed? Japanese Politicians Regroup
Open Doors or Closed? Japanese Politicians Regroup
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2012
Summary: Japan's 46th House of Representatives general election was a dramatic departure from 29 years of December House of Representatives elections. Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rule ended in 2012. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)returned to power. It formed a coalition with the New Komeito Party (NKP), and captured over two-thirds of the seats. It parted company with Ichiro Ozawa, whose DPJ was demoted to its former status. It did more than lose power. It was reduced to where it could not even compete with small and medium-sized political parties such as the LDP and NKP.
Full Text below:
Japan's 46th House of Representatives general election was a dramatic departure from 29 years of December House of Representatives elections. Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rule ended in 2012. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)returned to power. It formed a coalition with the New Komeito Party (NKP), and captured over two-thirds of the seats. It parted company with Ichiro Ozawa, whose DPJ was demoted to its former status. It did more than lose power. It was reduced to where it could not even compete with small and medium-sized political parties such as the LDP and NKP.
Shintaro Ishihara is the leader of the Japan Restoration Council. The "small constituency system" imposes constraints. The LDP and NKP joined hands to attack it. But it still did well during the election. Right-wing advocates benefitted to some degree from public discontent with the ruling DPJ. But support for this "third force" was too scattered. It has little room for growth. The election results were no surprise. But they also show that the two party system involving the LDP and DPJ is not yet mature.
Following the Cold War, the 55 year LDP political monopoly began to loosen. In 1993, Ichiro Ozawa left the party. This split the LDP. It led to a reshuffle of the Japanese political landscape. In 1994, the election system for the Japanese House of Representatives was revamped. A "parallel proportional representation constituency system" was introduced. The intent was to establish a two party political system. In the meantime, the House of Representatives held a fifth election in August 2009. The DPJ bet on the people's longing for change. It won 308 seats in the House of Representatives, scoring an overwhelming victory. In a single stroke, it shattered the 55 year old system. The LDP has long been the largest party in the House of Representatives. It seized political power.
The September 2009 scene in Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's residence in Nagatacho remains fresh in our memories. But in July 2010, the Democratic Party suffered a defeat in the House of Councilors election. Japan's politics became mired in vicious ruling vs. opposition party struggles that distorted the Diet. The Ozawa and anti-Ozawa factions within the DPJ continued to quarrel. Ichiro Ozawa severed all relations with the party. Prime Minister Noda was essentially reduced to minority rule. He could not address tax reform and social welfare reform. He could not solve the structural problems bedeviling the Japanese economy. The Japanese economy gradually lost its competitiveness. The Japanese people could do little besidses reelect Shinzo Abe three times. Therefore, the LDP regained power. It regained power not because it endured hardship when it was in the opposition and made plans to govern better upon its return to power. It regained power because the ruling DPJ failed.
The House of Representatives general election resulted in the parties swapping places. The LDP came on like gangbusters. It won over half the seats in the House of Representatives alone. Together with the NKP the two hold two-thirds of seats in the House of Representatives. This has reduced problems with a "distorted Congress." But it does not mean the LDP is welcomed by all. The number of candidates exploded. A new record was established for the number of candidates running since the post-war implementation of Japan's new constitution. The LDP benefitted from the small constituency system, which reduced the opportunity for the sudden emergence of a third force. The DPJ and the third force cannibalized each other's support. This enabled the LDP to benefit via small constituency seats. This is proven by the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party only won about 30 seats.
Following the election, the Abe Cabinet may temporarily clear away the fog of minority rule. It may enjoy a brief honeymoon. But "Abe Economics" must print more yen, stimulate inflation, in order to drive consumption. Japanese may not benefit from economic growth. They may first end up suffering from inflation. Add to this the consumption tax to be levied in 2014. The Japanese people may have to suffer for quite some time.
Worst of all, the small constituency system in the Japanese House of Representatives, resulted in too many "dead men voting." Swings caused by The recent third House of Representatives general election was plagued by excessive swings in the vote tallies. This problem may recur in the next House of Representatives election. Therefore, the Liberal Democratic Party's triumphant return does not mean that in the future there will be no strong opposition oversight. If the short run Can Abe produce results that the Japanese are happy with? If not, then next year's July House of Councilors elections could result in an Abe defeat. He would live his 2007 experience.
The House of Representatives election involved an unprecedented 12 political parties fighting each other tooth and nail. A grand total of 1504 candidates ran for office. Japanese voters remained calm and collected. Over 40% of the voters stayed home. This accurately reflects the Japanese public's mistrust of Japanese politicians. The young are politically apathetic. They have no desire to vote. The Democratic Party has rule for three years, three months. The Japanese have realized that changes in ruling parties is no magic wand. They will not make Japan undergo a magical transformation. In the future ruling party changes will not be enough to arouse voter enthusiasm and support. Ruling and opposition leaders' specific proposals to solve the nation's political problems will be the real key to voter motivation.
Therefore, changes in the Japanese political landscape will not end as a result of a resurrected LDP and NKP coalition cabinet. The small constituency system phenomenon is transitional. The small constituency system imposes constraints. Small parties are bound to merge with each other in their search for electoral victories. The LDP is neither monolithic nor shatterproof.
Globalization is the rule. Japan faces serious challenges. The political world must decide whether to adopt an Open or Closed Door policy. This will replace increasingly polarized left vs. right opposition. Japanese voters must choose between the two. They must implement a stable two-party political system. They must learn from others. We on Taiwan must reflect upon the sweeping changes Japan is undergoing.
開國或鎖國 日本政界重組啟示錄
2012-12-18
中國時報
日本第四十六屆眾議院大選為睽違二十九年的「師走(十二月)眾院選舉」,民主黨政權隨二○一二年的結束,畫下休止符,自民黨不僅重返執政,更與公明黨聯袂攻下逾三分之二的席次。與小澤一郎分道揚鑣的民主黨則被打回原形,非但失去政權,亦淪為無法抗衡自、公兩黨的中小型政黨。
此外,石原慎太郎領軍的「日本維新會」,儘管在「小選區制」制約下,遭遇自、公兩黨的聯手夾擊,但仍開出不錯的選情,右翼主張某種程度成為承繼對民主黨執政失望之民意出口,惟「第三極」太過分散,發展的空間仍受限。這樣的選舉結果雖不令人意外,但卻也透露「自民對民主的兩黨制」在日本仍未臻成熟的事實。
冷戰後,以自民黨壟斷政治的「五五年體制」開始鬆動。一九九三年,小澤一郎脫黨,裂解自民黨,揭開日本政界重組的序幕。此外,一九九四年,日本眾議院選制改弦更張,「小選區比例代表並立制」啟動,希望順勢建立兩大政黨制。其間,歷經五屆眾議院大選,直至二○○九年八月,日本民主黨挾思變之民心,以獲得眾議院三○八席的壓倒性勝利,一舉打破五五年體制、自民黨始終為眾議院最大黨的格局,奪下政權。
二○○九年九月,鳩山由紀夫榮進永田町首相官邸的光景仍令人記憶猶新。然而,二○一○年七月,民主黨參議院選舉大敗,日本政治再陷「扭曲的國會」下的朝野惡鬥,民主黨內「小澤派」與「反小澤派」齟齬不斷;小澤一郎割袍斷義後,野田首相實質淪為少數執政,針對各項稅制與社福制度的改革,無法從根本解決日本經濟的結構性問題,而日本的國家競爭力亦在此過程中漸趨流失,日本人民遂只能無奈地讓安倍晉三重作馮婦。因此,此番自民黨奪回政權,非賴該黨在野期間臥薪嘗膽、勵精圖治,而是全拜民主黨執政失敗之賜。
誠然,此次眾院大選情勢主客易位,自民黨勢如破竹,不僅眾議院單獨過半,自、公兩黨更斬獲三分之二的眾院席次,緩解「扭曲的國會」困境,但此不代表自民黨眾望所歸。在參選爆炸,創戰後日本新憲實施後最多候選人紀錄的情況下,自民黨占盡小選區選制的便宜,壓縮「第三極」異軍突起的空間,更在民主黨、「第三極」相互搶票下,讓自民黨在小選區的席次上漁翁得利,此更可藉自民黨在比例代表中僅獲三成左右席次得到明證。
選後,安倍內閣雖可暫時一掃少數執政的陰霾,享受短暫的民意蜜月期,然而,以擴大日幣發行、刺激通膨、帶動消費的「安倍經濟學」,可能令日本國民未蒙經濟成長之利,先受通貨膨脹之苦;再加上二○一四年的消費稅增稅,日本人的苦日子恐將持續一段日子。
尤有甚者,日本眾議院的小選區制,導致「死票率」過高,造成近三屆眾議院大選的勝負擺盪幅度過大的問題,在下屆眾院大選中仍可能重演。因此,自民黨此次班師回朝不表示今後無強有力的在野監督,若短期間內,安倍未能交出令日本人有感的政績,明年七月的參議院選舉,安倍難免再度挫敗,重蹈二○○七年下台的覆轍。
其實,相對眾院大選中,前所未見的十二政黨廝殺、共一五○四人參選的盛況,日本選民的表現十分淡定;超過四成的選民未投票的現象,正反映當前日本人對政治的無感與對政界人士的不信任,其中對未來茫然的年輕族群更是政治冷感,不願出門投票。顯然,歷經三年三個月民主黨的執政,日本人已意識到政黨輪替不是「仙女棒」,能瞬間讓日本亮起來。今後訴求政黨輪替將不足以激起選民的支持熱情,朝野領袖提出具體解決國政難題之良方,方為促動選民投票動機的關鍵。
因此,日本政界的重組不會因「自公聯合內閣」的復活運轉而停歇,小黨林立的現象應只是過渡現象。在小選舉區制的制約下,小黨勢必走向整合,尋求再戰的機會,而自民黨亦非鐵板一塊、牢不可破。
於全球化的今日,日本正面臨嚴峻的挑戰,政界未來的合縱連橫將以「開國」或「鎖國」之辯,取代「左」、「右」之爭的漸趨兩極化,如此日本選民始能在兩者間做出有意義的抉擇,實現穩態的兩黨政治。他山之石可以攻錯,台灣對日本變天應有所省思。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2012
Summary: Japan's 46th House of Representatives general election was a dramatic departure from 29 years of December House of Representatives elections. Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rule ended in 2012. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)returned to power. It formed a coalition with the New Komeito Party (NKP), and captured over two-thirds of the seats. It parted company with Ichiro Ozawa, whose DPJ was demoted to its former status. It did more than lose power. It was reduced to where it could not even compete with small and medium-sized political parties such as the LDP and NKP.
Full Text below:
Japan's 46th House of Representatives general election was a dramatic departure from 29 years of December House of Representatives elections. Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rule ended in 2012. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)returned to power. It formed a coalition with the New Komeito Party (NKP), and captured over two-thirds of the seats. It parted company with Ichiro Ozawa, whose DPJ was demoted to its former status. It did more than lose power. It was reduced to where it could not even compete with small and medium-sized political parties such as the LDP and NKP.
Shintaro Ishihara is the leader of the Japan Restoration Council. The "small constituency system" imposes constraints. The LDP and NKP joined hands to attack it. But it still did well during the election. Right-wing advocates benefitted to some degree from public discontent with the ruling DPJ. But support for this "third force" was too scattered. It has little room for growth. The election results were no surprise. But they also show that the two party system involving the LDP and DPJ is not yet mature.
Following the Cold War, the 55 year LDP political monopoly began to loosen. In 1993, Ichiro Ozawa left the party. This split the LDP. It led to a reshuffle of the Japanese political landscape. In 1994, the election system for the Japanese House of Representatives was revamped. A "parallel proportional representation constituency system" was introduced. The intent was to establish a two party political system. In the meantime, the House of Representatives held a fifth election in August 2009. The DPJ bet on the people's longing for change. It won 308 seats in the House of Representatives, scoring an overwhelming victory. In a single stroke, it shattered the 55 year old system. The LDP has long been the largest party in the House of Representatives. It seized political power.
The September 2009 scene in Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's residence in Nagatacho remains fresh in our memories. But in July 2010, the Democratic Party suffered a defeat in the House of Councilors election. Japan's politics became mired in vicious ruling vs. opposition party struggles that distorted the Diet. The Ozawa and anti-Ozawa factions within the DPJ continued to quarrel. Ichiro Ozawa severed all relations with the party. Prime Minister Noda was essentially reduced to minority rule. He could not address tax reform and social welfare reform. He could not solve the structural problems bedeviling the Japanese economy. The Japanese economy gradually lost its competitiveness. The Japanese people could do little besidses reelect Shinzo Abe three times. Therefore, the LDP regained power. It regained power not because it endured hardship when it was in the opposition and made plans to govern better upon its return to power. It regained power because the ruling DPJ failed.
The House of Representatives general election resulted in the parties swapping places. The LDP came on like gangbusters. It won over half the seats in the House of Representatives alone. Together with the NKP the two hold two-thirds of seats in the House of Representatives. This has reduced problems with a "distorted Congress." But it does not mean the LDP is welcomed by all. The number of candidates exploded. A new record was established for the number of candidates running since the post-war implementation of Japan's new constitution. The LDP benefitted from the small constituency system, which reduced the opportunity for the sudden emergence of a third force. The DPJ and the third force cannibalized each other's support. This enabled the LDP to benefit via small constituency seats. This is proven by the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party only won about 30 seats.
Following the election, the Abe Cabinet may temporarily clear away the fog of minority rule. It may enjoy a brief honeymoon. But "Abe Economics" must print more yen, stimulate inflation, in order to drive consumption. Japanese may not benefit from economic growth. They may first end up suffering from inflation. Add to this the consumption tax to be levied in 2014. The Japanese people may have to suffer for quite some time.
Worst of all, the small constituency system in the Japanese House of Representatives, resulted in too many "dead men voting." Swings caused by The recent third House of Representatives general election was plagued by excessive swings in the vote tallies. This problem may recur in the next House of Representatives election. Therefore, the Liberal Democratic Party's triumphant return does not mean that in the future there will be no strong opposition oversight. If the short run Can Abe produce results that the Japanese are happy with? If not, then next year's July House of Councilors elections could result in an Abe defeat. He would live his 2007 experience.
The House of Representatives election involved an unprecedented 12 political parties fighting each other tooth and nail. A grand total of 1504 candidates ran for office. Japanese voters remained calm and collected. Over 40% of the voters stayed home. This accurately reflects the Japanese public's mistrust of Japanese politicians. The young are politically apathetic. They have no desire to vote. The Democratic Party has rule for three years, three months. The Japanese have realized that changes in ruling parties is no magic wand. They will not make Japan undergo a magical transformation. In the future ruling party changes will not be enough to arouse voter enthusiasm and support. Ruling and opposition leaders' specific proposals to solve the nation's political problems will be the real key to voter motivation.
Therefore, changes in the Japanese political landscape will not end as a result of a resurrected LDP and NKP coalition cabinet. The small constituency system phenomenon is transitional. The small constituency system imposes constraints. Small parties are bound to merge with each other in their search for electoral victories. The LDP is neither monolithic nor shatterproof.
Globalization is the rule. Japan faces serious challenges. The political world must decide whether to adopt an Open or Closed Door policy. This will replace increasingly polarized left vs. right opposition. Japanese voters must choose between the two. They must implement a stable two-party political system. They must learn from others. We on Taiwan must reflect upon the sweeping changes Japan is undergoing.
開國或鎖國 日本政界重組啟示錄
2012-12-18
中國時報
日本第四十六屆眾議院大選為睽違二十九年的「師走(十二月)眾院選舉」,民主黨政權隨二○一二年的結束,畫下休止符,自民黨不僅重返執政,更與公明黨聯袂攻下逾三分之二的席次。與小澤一郎分道揚鑣的民主黨則被打回原形,非但失去政權,亦淪為無法抗衡自、公兩黨的中小型政黨。
此外,石原慎太郎領軍的「日本維新會」,儘管在「小選區制」制約下,遭遇自、公兩黨的聯手夾擊,但仍開出不錯的選情,右翼主張某種程度成為承繼對民主黨執政失望之民意出口,惟「第三極」太過分散,發展的空間仍受限。這樣的選舉結果雖不令人意外,但卻也透露「自民對民主的兩黨制」在日本仍未臻成熟的事實。
冷戰後,以自民黨壟斷政治的「五五年體制」開始鬆動。一九九三年,小澤一郎脫黨,裂解自民黨,揭開日本政界重組的序幕。此外,一九九四年,日本眾議院選制改弦更張,「小選區比例代表並立制」啟動,希望順勢建立兩大政黨制。其間,歷經五屆眾議院大選,直至二○○九年八月,日本民主黨挾思變之民心,以獲得眾議院三○八席的壓倒性勝利,一舉打破五五年體制、自民黨始終為眾議院最大黨的格局,奪下政權。
二○○九年九月,鳩山由紀夫榮進永田町首相官邸的光景仍令人記憶猶新。然而,二○一○年七月,民主黨參議院選舉大敗,日本政治再陷「扭曲的國會」下的朝野惡鬥,民主黨內「小澤派」與「反小澤派」齟齬不斷;小澤一郎割袍斷義後,野田首相實質淪為少數執政,針對各項稅制與社福制度的改革,無法從根本解決日本經濟的結構性問題,而日本的國家競爭力亦在此過程中漸趨流失,日本人民遂只能無奈地讓安倍晉三重作馮婦。因此,此番自民黨奪回政權,非賴該黨在野期間臥薪嘗膽、勵精圖治,而是全拜民主黨執政失敗之賜。
誠然,此次眾院大選情勢主客易位,自民黨勢如破竹,不僅眾議院單獨過半,自、公兩黨更斬獲三分之二的眾院席次,緩解「扭曲的國會」困境,但此不代表自民黨眾望所歸。在參選爆炸,創戰後日本新憲實施後最多候選人紀錄的情況下,自民黨占盡小選區選制的便宜,壓縮「第三極」異軍突起的空間,更在民主黨、「第三極」相互搶票下,讓自民黨在小選區的席次上漁翁得利,此更可藉自民黨在比例代表中僅獲三成左右席次得到明證。
選後,安倍內閣雖可暫時一掃少數執政的陰霾,享受短暫的民意蜜月期,然而,以擴大日幣發行、刺激通膨、帶動消費的「安倍經濟學」,可能令日本國民未蒙經濟成長之利,先受通貨膨脹之苦;再加上二○一四年的消費稅增稅,日本人的苦日子恐將持續一段日子。
尤有甚者,日本眾議院的小選區制,導致「死票率」過高,造成近三屆眾議院大選的勝負擺盪幅度過大的問題,在下屆眾院大選中仍可能重演。因此,自民黨此次班師回朝不表示今後無強有力的在野監督,若短期間內,安倍未能交出令日本人有感的政績,明年七月的參議院選舉,安倍難免再度挫敗,重蹈二○○七年下台的覆轍。
其實,相對眾院大選中,前所未見的十二政黨廝殺、共一五○四人參選的盛況,日本選民的表現十分淡定;超過四成的選民未投票的現象,正反映當前日本人對政治的無感與對政界人士的不信任,其中對未來茫然的年輕族群更是政治冷感,不願出門投票。顯然,歷經三年三個月民主黨的執政,日本人已意識到政黨輪替不是「仙女棒」,能瞬間讓日本亮起來。今後訴求政黨輪替將不足以激起選民的支持熱情,朝野領袖提出具體解決國政難題之良方,方為促動選民投票動機的關鍵。
因此,日本政界的重組不會因「自公聯合內閣」的復活運轉而停歇,小黨林立的現象應只是過渡現象。在小選舉區制的制約下,小黨勢必走向整合,尋求再戰的機會,而自民黨亦非鐵板一塊、牢不可破。
於全球化的今日,日本正面臨嚴峻的挑戰,政界未來的合縱連橫將以「開國」或「鎖國」之辯,取代「左」、「右」之爭的漸趨兩極化,如此日本選民始能在兩者間做出有意義的抉擇,實現穩態的兩黨政治。他山之石可以攻錯,台灣對日本變天應有所省思。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)