From ECFA to TPP: Taiwan's Way Out
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 28, 2012
Summary: Taiwan faces two main challenges and opportunities. One. Can Taiwan maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait coopetition? Two. Can Taiwan cope with globalization and participate in regional economic integration? Taiwan's economic way out and Taiwan's political way out are one and the same. Politics and economics must travel down the same road. There must be no contradiction between the two. They must live in harmony. They need not clash. Only this will enable us to go from ECFA to TPP.
Full Text below:
The recent economic summit was all about finding a way out for Taiwan. Taiwan faces two main challenges and opportunities. One. Can Taiwan maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait coopetition? Two. Can Taiwan cope with globalization and participate in regional economic integration? The answer: Taiwan's way out is to go from ECFA to TPP.
Cross-Strait coopetition is inseparable from globalization, regionalization, and liberalization. Taiwan cannot globalize, regionalize, and liberalize without the Chinese Mainland. Taiwan's coopetition with the Mainland requires cross-Strait peace. Taiwan must participate in regional economic integration. It must also participate in the "Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement" (TPP) as a counterweight to the interdependence concomitant with its cross-Strait relationship.
The recent summit reached a consensus: Without cross-Strait peace, without the "cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement" (ECFA), Taiwan cannot promote regional economic integration with other economies. Taiwan's failure to participate in regional economic integration could undermine cross-Strait coopetition and cross-Strait peace. Even summit panelists from the United States, Europe, and Japan agree.
Cross-Strait coopetition and regional economic integration co-exist and compete. Taiwan requires peaceful coexistence in cross-Strait political and economic relations. Taiwan also needs to participate in regional economic integration. Taiwan must turn around and use regional economic integration to stabilize cross-Strait political and economic relations. Without peaceful and stable cross-Strait political relations, Taiwan's economy has no way out. Taiwan's economy needs a way out, one compatible with cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's international relations. If Taiwan has no economic way out, then it has no political way out. Conversely, if it has no political way out, then it has no economic way out.
Cross-Strait coopetition and regional economic integration co-exist and compete. This is not something Taiwan can choose to accept or reject. Taiwan has no choice in the matter. We must face challenges and opportunities. Cross-Strait coopetition has persisted for over 20 years. Even during Lee Teng-hui's "avoid haste, be patient" era, Taiwan was never free of the Mainland's gravitational field. This is a truth that Taiwan must face. In regional economic integration, Taiwan's competitors, including South Korea, are signing free trade agreements (FTAs). The fear is that Taiwan will not be able to sign them. Not signing is not an option. Not signing equals marginalization.
Taiwan has signed ECFA with the Chinese Mainland. It is attempting to sign FTAs with other economies. Taiwan has economic considerations. Taiwan also has political considerations. Economic and trade exchanges with the Mainland improve cross-Strait political relations. This is essential if we want to sign FTAs, establish an international platform, or take advantage of international trade and economic ties to enhance Taiwan's political security.
The Ma administration has laid out its "Taiwan's Political and Economic Roadmap." It starts with ECFA, and moves from ECFA to FTAs, to a Kaohsiung Free Trade Zone, to TPP, and eventually a Taiwan Free Trade Island. It is a way out that serious leaders in the ruling and opposition parties should consider. We must avoid economic marginalization. We must also avoid political isolation and ostracism. If TPP is established but with Taiwan outside its political and economic realm, the consequences will become clear soon enough.
Economic opening and political liberalization are strange bedfellows. Refusing economic openness makes it impossible to enhance competitiveness. But implementing economic openness could make economic survival difficult. The economic competition could be overwhelming. For Taiwan, a political and economic way out means that political liberalization must succeed. It is a path of no return. Failure is not an option.
Taiwan has no choice. It must take this route. Will this route enable us to reach our destination? That depends upon the ruling and opposition parties. They share responsibility. If the Ma administration cannot do it, then the Democratic Progressive Party must. Alas, the DPP insists that the Kaohsiung Free Trade Zone "sells out Taiwan." How can it be expected to support TPP? How can it be expected to support a Taiwan Free Trade Island?
The road from ECFA to TPP is strewn with severe external obstacles. The journey will be impossibly arduous. Blue vs. Green bickering on Taiwan has no end in sight. If anything, it is intensifying. If so, we can forget our dreams. We reiterate our plea. If Taiwan wishes to take this route, bipartisanship is essential. Summit panelists were unanimous. End vicious infighting. End internal bickering. Morris Chang called for ruling and opposition party consensus on foreign policy. Former Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hong Chi-chang called on opposition parties to be rational, responsible, and loyal.
Taiwan's economic way out and Taiwan's political way out are one and the same. Politics and economics must travel down the same road. There must be no contradiction between the two. They must live in harmony. They need not clash. Only this will enable us to go from ECFA to TPP.
台灣的出路：從ECFA到TPP
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.28
歸納這場高峰會的論辯，為台灣找出路，主要的挑戰與機遇有二：一、能否維持和平穩定的兩岸競合關係；二、能否因應全球化，及參與其他區域經濟整合。具體而言，台灣的出路就是：從ＥＣＦＡ走到ＴＰＰ。
兩岸競合關係本身，其實就是台灣全球化、區域化、自由化的重要課題，畢竟，台灣不可能出現「沒有中國大陸的全球化、區域化或自由化」；但另一方面，台灣在增進兩岸競合之際，亦須藉由兩岸的和平架構，推進參與其他區域經濟整合，如「跨太平洋經濟夥伴協議」（ＴＰＰ），以平衡兩岸的互賴關係。
此次高峰會有一主流共識：沒有兩岸的和平架構，或失去了「兩岸經濟合作架構協議」（ＥＣＦＡ）的支撐，台灣就很難再推進參與其他區域經濟整合；而不設法擴大參與其他區域經濟整合，則兩岸競合的平衡與和平亦可能傾斜或扭曲。連參加高峰會的美、歐、日代表亦有此類見解。
在「兩岸競合」與「參與區域經濟整合」相生又相剋的架構下，台灣必須以和平共生的兩岸政經關係為基礎，進而設法參與其他區域經濟整合，再回過頭藉區域經濟整合來改善及穩定兩岸政經關係。因此，沒有和平穩定的兩岸政治關係，無從談台灣經濟的出路；而台灣經濟的出路，也必須與台灣在兩岸及國際間的政治出路兼籌並顧。亦即，經濟沒出路，政治也不會有出路；反之，政治沒出路，經濟也沒出路。
再者，「兩岸競合」與「參與區域經濟整合」這個相生相剋的架構，已非台灣可作「接受或不接受」的選項，而是台灣別無選擇、必須面對的挑戰或機遇。因為，就「兩岸競合」言，二十餘年來，即使在「戒急用忍」年代，台灣也從未跳脫大陸的經濟磁吸作用，這是台灣必須誠實面對的課題。至於「參與區域經濟整合」，則在台灣的競爭對手如韓國等紛紛議簽「自由貿易協議」（ＦＴＡ）時，台灣只有恐怕簽不成的憂慮，而似乎沒有「不參加」的思考空間。因為，不參加，就必是邊緣化。
其實，不論是台灣與大陸的ＥＣＦＡ，或與其他國家議簽ＦＴＡ，除了經濟思維，亦是一種政治思考。與大陸進行經貿交流，當然有助於改善兩岸政治關係；想要議簽其他ＦＴＡ或建立國際平台，亦是欲藉國際的經貿紐帶來提升台灣的政治安全。
因此，馬政府如今攤開的「台灣政經路徑圖」：ＥＣＦＡ→ＦＴＡ→高雄自由經濟示範區→ＴＰＰ→台灣自由經貿島，確是朝野應當嚴肅思慮的台灣的出路。這不只是在經濟上不欲被邊緣化，也是在政治上不欲被孤立；只要想一想若在ＴＰＰ成立後，台灣倘仍置身其外的政經處境如何，即知其中道理。
眾所周知，開放及自由化其實是一個天生的悖論：不開放，不可能提升競爭力；若開放，卻不一定能禁得起、贏得了競爭。於是，對台灣來說，為了開闢政經出路，自由化即成了只許成功、不容失敗的不歸路。
台灣要不要走這條路，看來是別無選擇；至於這條路走不走得成，則是朝野共同的責任。今日若馬政府走不成，另日民進黨執政也必定走不成。然而，民進黨如果連高雄自由經濟示範區亦視為「賣台」，則更如何奢言ＴＰＰ，及台灣自由經貿島？
其實，由ＥＣＦＡ至ＴＰＰ這條路徑，所將面臨的外部挑戰之嚴峻，已幾乎是一個不可能的任務；何況，倘若台灣內部藍綠撕裂的衝突依然如故，甚至變本加厲，那也就根本不必有此夢想了。因此，我們一再呼籲，台灣若要穿越這條路徑，唯一的可通行車輛就是「兩黨一致」（Bipartisanship）；而在這場高峰會中，結束惡鬥、終止內耗，也是異口同聲的關注，如張忠謀主張朝野兩黨對外政策應當一致，而民進黨前立委洪奇昌也主張，反對黨應是理性負責的忠誠反對黨。
台灣的經濟出路與政治出路，其實是同一條路。必須政經同軌，不宜政經矛盾；應使相生，勿令相剋。如此，始有可能從ＥＣＦＡ走到ＴＰＰ。
Thursday, June 28, 2012
End Internal Bickering: Taiwan Must Go Forward
End Internal Bickering: Taiwan Must Go Forward
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 28, 2012
Summary: On economic issues, there is no such thing as Blue or Green. On economic issues, whichever party destroys the economy, must bear total sesponsibility. Internal bickering is not merely inflicting pain upon the ruling party. It is inflicting pain upon everyone. Taiwan needs a way out of its dilemma, First, it must end internal bickering, The first step must be ruling and opposition party dialogue. This is the will of the people. This is their hope for the ruling and opposition parties.
Full Text below:
Former Vice President Vincent Siew recently spoke at an economic summit. He said Taiwan is caught in a vicious cycle. It is spinning its wheels. Industrialists, government officials, and scholars expressed strong agreement. Vincent Siew was hardly being prophetic. The term "internal friction," which usually means "internal bickering," has long been a buzzword on Taiwan. Taiwan's competitiveness has been spiraling downward for some time. Unfortunately ruling and opposition political leaders, who are the ones with the power and resources, persist in endless internal bickering. They long for the chance to rule after the next election. What really concerns us is that by the time the winner of this internal bickering has been decided, Taiwan will be the biggest loser.
Taiwan provides a benchmark for the development of democracy in Chinese society. The essence of democracy is constraints and limitations on power. Inefficiency is the price of democracy. But checks and balances must not run amok. Obstructionism must not prevent consultation and dialogue. Work must get done. Otherwise checks and balances will undermine economic development and destroy public trust in democratic institutions. The political atmosphere would be permeated with anxiety and dissatisfaction. Ultimately Taiwan would decline even further.
"Absent internal unity, Taiwan cannot enjoy stability.The ruling and opposition parties must act rationally and work cooperatively. They must end their confrontation. They must allow Taiwan to recover." So said former DPP party chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen, when she kicked off her presidential campaign. But even though she was DPP chairman for four years, she consistently rejected ruling and opposition party dialogue. She never understood the true meaning of democracy. Protest and opposition may be necessary within a democracy, but they are not its real purpose. The election is over. The DPP has a new chairman. Unfortunately new chairman Su Tseng-chang shows no signs of opening a window for dialogue. The Legislative Yuan spun its wheels. It adjourned with 385 bills on the agenda. Yet Su Tseng-chang had the cheek to hold a "victory banquet." Ironically the Democratic Progressive Party festivities highlighted the suffering of the public on Taiwan. This pain will continue. Will anyone be able to endure it?
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng expressed regret that politics has undermined the biotechnology industry. As Speaker of the Legislature he spearheaded the biotechnology venture capital bill. But Wang must see beyond the biotech industry. Legislative inefficiency has left Taiwan industry stagnant for quite some time. Wang Jin-pyng is the leader of the legislature. Shouldn't he ask himself why the legislature has become the locus of internal friction on Taiwan?
Taiwan has a society imbued with limitless energy. Taiwan was once responsible for an economic miracle and a quiet revolution. Both were the envy of the world. Now it is attempting to catch up to its global competitors. Last year it landed in sixth place. The joy lasted one year, This year we dropped one place. Taiwan may be democratic and wealthy. But the public's crisis consciousness persists. This is especially true for the private sector. The public has constantly urged the government to accelerate its transformation. But some time ago such calls became cries in the wilderness that went unheard.
Compare the development of neighboring economies. Hong Kong ranks first in global competitiveness . Singapore ranks fourth. South Korea may rank behind Taiwan in competitiveness. But South Kora is already a member of the "20/50 Club." It is one of only seven developed nations in the world with an annual per capita income exceeding 20,000 USD, and a population exceeding 50 million. Taiwan was once number one among the Four Asian Tigers. Now it is number four. Can Taiwan blind itself to reality and persist in internal bickering? Can Taiwan ignore its increasingly vibrant competitors?
Ironically the conviction that "internal friction is harmful" is the one thing everyone on Taiwan agrees on. Internal friction comes in two forms. One. Internal bickering, Two. Running about blindly. Internal bickering refers to Infighting between the ruling and opposition parties. The infighting is laughable. The ruling and opposition parties are bickering over the seven in one elections two years from now. Both parties seek victory. Members of both parties also seek victory against fellow party members, over who will be the party's nominees. They are all attempting to preempt each other or elbow each other aside. They are all worrying about matters of no urgency. They are "running about blindly." The public on Taiwan is not thinking about the seven in one elections two years from now. To them which party wins is beside the point. The point is whether the winner will be pragmatic and capable, and serve the people. The same is true of the presidential election four years from now. People with merit will be selected. People without merit will be eliminated. Unfortunately the ruling and opposition parties are blind. For them winning elections is everything. The national interest and the greater good are nothing.
The fate of the nation hinges upon the thoughts and actions of ruling and opposition party leaders. Former SEF chairman and former Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hong Chi-chang recalled the time he and Vincent Siew attended the WTO Ministerial Conference. The two men sat at the same table and talked through the night. Seventeen years later, the Republic of China must reevaluate its national strength, its economic competitiveness, and its strategic status. Is it stronger? Or is it weaker? Hong felt compelled to speak out. "Taiwan needs a rational, responsible, and loyal opposition party. It also needs a ruling party with vision, the capacity to govern, and the ability to create wealth for the people. Only this will enable Taiwan to move forward." Political parties may compete. But Taiwan's future requires the two parties to join hands and solve problems.
Ruling vs opposition party rivalry led to the comprehensive re-election of the legislature and to direct presidential elections. It led to a change in ruling parties -- a high point. Dialogue between the leaders of rival political parties is not that difficult. This is especially true on economic issues. On economic issues, there is no such thing as Blue or Green. On economic issues, whichever party destroys the economy, must bear total sesponsibility. Internal bickering is not merely inflicting pain upon the ruling party. It is inflicting pain upon everyone. Taiwan needs a way out of its dilemma, First, it must end internal bickering, The first step must be ruling and opposition party dialogue. This is the will of the people. This is their hope for the ruling and opposition parties.
停止內耗 台灣加油
中國時報
2012.06.28
前副總統蕭萬長日前在一場論壇演講中，直指台灣正陷入內耗空轉的惡性循環，激起產官學界的強烈共鳴。事實上，蕭萬長並非發人先聲，「內耗」早就是台灣政壇的流行語，遺憾的是，儘管眼見台灣競爭力一路在螺旋下滑，手握權力與資源的朝野政治領袖，卻依舊無休止地讓內耗惡化，以期搏取下一次的執政機會，我們真的擔憂，在這場內耗的贏家還未判定之前，台灣已先淪為最大的輸家。
台灣是華人社會民主發展的標竿，民主最重要的內涵就是對權力的約束和限制，效率是民主必須付出的基本成本。但如果監督制衡被無限上綱，抵制癱瘓凌駕協商對話，導致國政治理一事無成，其惡果不僅是戕害經濟發展的動能，摧毀民眾對民主體制的信賴，更嚴重的會讓整體社會氛圍普遍瀰漫焦慮與不滿，最終就是驅使台灣進一步向下沉淪。
「沒有內部團結，台灣不會安定，朝野政黨應理性合作，停止對抗，恢復台灣元氣。」這段話是民進黨前主席、總統參選人蔡英文在年初總統大選時講的話，儘管她在四年黨主席任期，始終拒絕朝野對話，畢竟了解民主政治的真諦。抗爭容或是民主的必要手段，卻不是目的。選舉結束，民進黨主席更迭，新任主席蘇貞昌迄無打開對話之窗的跡象，立法院以空轉卡住三百八十五項法案結束會期，蘇貞昌竟舉行「慶功宴」，民進黨的歡慶其實正凸顯台灣人民的真實痛苦，而這個痛苦似乎還要繼續，誰還能忍受！
立法院長王金平感慨政治力介入讓生技業者卻步，做為曾經破天荒領銜提案通過生技創投條例的國會議長，其眼界應該更高於生技業，台灣產業經濟已經在無效率的國會議事文化下停滯久矣，王金平必須思考為什麼他領導的國會竟成為台灣內耗的指標？
台灣是一個民間活力無限的社會，台灣曾經創造舉世稱羨的經濟奇蹟與寧靜革命，全球競爭力一路追趕，去年曾經創下第六名的成績，高興不過一年，今年立刻下滑一名。民主富裕後的台灣其實整體而言危機感依舊深重，特別是來自民間的警醒與呼籲，不斷成為催促政府加速轉型腳步的動力；然而，曾幾何時，這樣的呼籲愈來愈像投入深井的石子，波瀾不興。
看看週邊國家的發展，香港全球競爭力蟬連第一，新加坡全球第四，南韓即使競爭力仍在台灣之後卻已躋身「二○｜五○俱樂部」的全球七個已開發國家之列，當年台灣曾經是「亞洲四小龍」之首，如今卻敬陪末座，台灣還能悶著頭搞內耗，無視競爭對手的拚鬥精神愈趨高昂嗎？
反諷的是：「內耗」竟成為全民形容台灣社會現狀的最大共識。內耗的表現主要有二：一是內鬥，二是瞎忙。內鬥既是朝野惡鬥，可笑的是還有朝野兩黨內部的權力鬥爭，想的是兩年後的七合一選舉，兩黨爭勝之外，還要費盡力氣思索黨內誰該參選，以便防堵或卡位，忙的都是不急之務，謂之「瞎忙」。對台灣人民而言，不要說兩年後的七合一選舉，不論哪一個政黨勝選，重點是當選者務實能幹，真心為民服務，即使四年後的總統大選，同樣擇優汰劣，遺憾的是，朝野政黨目光俱如豆，以當選為唯一勝利，卻無視國家利益與全民福祉。
國運強弱繫於朝野政治領袖的轉念與行動，前海基會董事長、民進黨前立委洪奇昌回溯當年他和蕭萬長一起出席世貿組織部長會議時，兩人一席徹夜長談。十七年過去了，台灣必須思索我們的綜合國力、競爭力和國際戰略位置到底是進步、還是退步？他有感而發直言，「台灣需要一個理性負責的忠誠反對黨，更需要有規畫、治理能力、為人民創造福祉的執政黨，才能帶領台灣往前走。」政黨有競爭，然而，台灣的前途卻需要兩黨攜手籌謀。
回首前塵，朝野兩黨在競爭對抗中完成國會全面改選，推動總統直選，把台灣民主推向政黨輪替的高峰。政黨領袖的對話沒有這麼困難，特別在經濟大問題上，沒有藍綠之分，拖垮執政黨的惡果得全民承擔，內耗的痛苦已經不是執政黨的痛苦，而是全民的痛苦。打開台灣的出路，要從停止內耗做起，停止內耗第一步要從朝野對話始，這是全民的心聲，也是對朝野兩黨最深切的期盼和呼籲。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 28, 2012
Summary: On economic issues, there is no such thing as Blue or Green. On economic issues, whichever party destroys the economy, must bear total sesponsibility. Internal bickering is not merely inflicting pain upon the ruling party. It is inflicting pain upon everyone. Taiwan needs a way out of its dilemma, First, it must end internal bickering, The first step must be ruling and opposition party dialogue. This is the will of the people. This is their hope for the ruling and opposition parties.
Full Text below:
Former Vice President Vincent Siew recently spoke at an economic summit. He said Taiwan is caught in a vicious cycle. It is spinning its wheels. Industrialists, government officials, and scholars expressed strong agreement. Vincent Siew was hardly being prophetic. The term "internal friction," which usually means "internal bickering," has long been a buzzword on Taiwan. Taiwan's competitiveness has been spiraling downward for some time. Unfortunately ruling and opposition political leaders, who are the ones with the power and resources, persist in endless internal bickering. They long for the chance to rule after the next election. What really concerns us is that by the time the winner of this internal bickering has been decided, Taiwan will be the biggest loser.
Taiwan provides a benchmark for the development of democracy in Chinese society. The essence of democracy is constraints and limitations on power. Inefficiency is the price of democracy. But checks and balances must not run amok. Obstructionism must not prevent consultation and dialogue. Work must get done. Otherwise checks and balances will undermine economic development and destroy public trust in democratic institutions. The political atmosphere would be permeated with anxiety and dissatisfaction. Ultimately Taiwan would decline even further.
"Absent internal unity, Taiwan cannot enjoy stability.The ruling and opposition parties must act rationally and work cooperatively. They must end their confrontation. They must allow Taiwan to recover." So said former DPP party chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen, when she kicked off her presidential campaign. But even though she was DPP chairman for four years, she consistently rejected ruling and opposition party dialogue. She never understood the true meaning of democracy. Protest and opposition may be necessary within a democracy, but they are not its real purpose. The election is over. The DPP has a new chairman. Unfortunately new chairman Su Tseng-chang shows no signs of opening a window for dialogue. The Legislative Yuan spun its wheels. It adjourned with 385 bills on the agenda. Yet Su Tseng-chang had the cheek to hold a "victory banquet." Ironically the Democratic Progressive Party festivities highlighted the suffering of the public on Taiwan. This pain will continue. Will anyone be able to endure it?
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng expressed regret that politics has undermined the biotechnology industry. As Speaker of the Legislature he spearheaded the biotechnology venture capital bill. But Wang must see beyond the biotech industry. Legislative inefficiency has left Taiwan industry stagnant for quite some time. Wang Jin-pyng is the leader of the legislature. Shouldn't he ask himself why the legislature has become the locus of internal friction on Taiwan?
Taiwan has a society imbued with limitless energy. Taiwan was once responsible for an economic miracle and a quiet revolution. Both were the envy of the world. Now it is attempting to catch up to its global competitors. Last year it landed in sixth place. The joy lasted one year, This year we dropped one place. Taiwan may be democratic and wealthy. But the public's crisis consciousness persists. This is especially true for the private sector. The public has constantly urged the government to accelerate its transformation. But some time ago such calls became cries in the wilderness that went unheard.
Compare the development of neighboring economies. Hong Kong ranks first in global competitiveness . Singapore ranks fourth. South Korea may rank behind Taiwan in competitiveness. But South Kora is already a member of the "20/50 Club." It is one of only seven developed nations in the world with an annual per capita income exceeding 20,000 USD, and a population exceeding 50 million. Taiwan was once number one among the Four Asian Tigers. Now it is number four. Can Taiwan blind itself to reality and persist in internal bickering? Can Taiwan ignore its increasingly vibrant competitors?
Ironically the conviction that "internal friction is harmful" is the one thing everyone on Taiwan agrees on. Internal friction comes in two forms. One. Internal bickering, Two. Running about blindly. Internal bickering refers to Infighting between the ruling and opposition parties. The infighting is laughable. The ruling and opposition parties are bickering over the seven in one elections two years from now. Both parties seek victory. Members of both parties also seek victory against fellow party members, over who will be the party's nominees. They are all attempting to preempt each other or elbow each other aside. They are all worrying about matters of no urgency. They are "running about blindly." The public on Taiwan is not thinking about the seven in one elections two years from now. To them which party wins is beside the point. The point is whether the winner will be pragmatic and capable, and serve the people. The same is true of the presidential election four years from now. People with merit will be selected. People without merit will be eliminated. Unfortunately the ruling and opposition parties are blind. For them winning elections is everything. The national interest and the greater good are nothing.
The fate of the nation hinges upon the thoughts and actions of ruling and opposition party leaders. Former SEF chairman and former Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hong Chi-chang recalled the time he and Vincent Siew attended the WTO Ministerial Conference. The two men sat at the same table and talked through the night. Seventeen years later, the Republic of China must reevaluate its national strength, its economic competitiveness, and its strategic status. Is it stronger? Or is it weaker? Hong felt compelled to speak out. "Taiwan needs a rational, responsible, and loyal opposition party. It also needs a ruling party with vision, the capacity to govern, and the ability to create wealth for the people. Only this will enable Taiwan to move forward." Political parties may compete. But Taiwan's future requires the two parties to join hands and solve problems.
Ruling vs opposition party rivalry led to the comprehensive re-election of the legislature and to direct presidential elections. It led to a change in ruling parties -- a high point. Dialogue between the leaders of rival political parties is not that difficult. This is especially true on economic issues. On economic issues, there is no such thing as Blue or Green. On economic issues, whichever party destroys the economy, must bear total sesponsibility. Internal bickering is not merely inflicting pain upon the ruling party. It is inflicting pain upon everyone. Taiwan needs a way out of its dilemma, First, it must end internal bickering, The first step must be ruling and opposition party dialogue. This is the will of the people. This is their hope for the ruling and opposition parties.
停止內耗 台灣加油
中國時報
2012.06.28
前副總統蕭萬長日前在一場論壇演講中，直指台灣正陷入內耗空轉的惡性循環，激起產官學界的強烈共鳴。事實上，蕭萬長並非發人先聲，「內耗」早就是台灣政壇的流行語，遺憾的是，儘管眼見台灣競爭力一路在螺旋下滑，手握權力與資源的朝野政治領袖，卻依舊無休止地讓內耗惡化，以期搏取下一次的執政機會，我們真的擔憂，在這場內耗的贏家還未判定之前，台灣已先淪為最大的輸家。
台灣是華人社會民主發展的標竿，民主最重要的內涵就是對權力的約束和限制，效率是民主必須付出的基本成本。但如果監督制衡被無限上綱，抵制癱瘓凌駕協商對話，導致國政治理一事無成，其惡果不僅是戕害經濟發展的動能，摧毀民眾對民主體制的信賴，更嚴重的會讓整體社會氛圍普遍瀰漫焦慮與不滿，最終就是驅使台灣進一步向下沉淪。
「沒有內部團結，台灣不會安定，朝野政黨應理性合作，停止對抗，恢復台灣元氣。」這段話是民進黨前主席、總統參選人蔡英文在年初總統大選時講的話，儘管她在四年黨主席任期，始終拒絕朝野對話，畢竟了解民主政治的真諦。抗爭容或是民主的必要手段，卻不是目的。選舉結束，民進黨主席更迭，新任主席蘇貞昌迄無打開對話之窗的跡象，立法院以空轉卡住三百八十五項法案結束會期，蘇貞昌竟舉行「慶功宴」，民進黨的歡慶其實正凸顯台灣人民的真實痛苦，而這個痛苦似乎還要繼續，誰還能忍受！
立法院長王金平感慨政治力介入讓生技業者卻步，做為曾經破天荒領銜提案通過生技創投條例的國會議長，其眼界應該更高於生技業，台灣產業經濟已經在無效率的國會議事文化下停滯久矣，王金平必須思考為什麼他領導的國會竟成為台灣內耗的指標？
台灣是一個民間活力無限的社會，台灣曾經創造舉世稱羨的經濟奇蹟與寧靜革命，全球競爭力一路追趕，去年曾經創下第六名的成績，高興不過一年，今年立刻下滑一名。民主富裕後的台灣其實整體而言危機感依舊深重，特別是來自民間的警醒與呼籲，不斷成為催促政府加速轉型腳步的動力；然而，曾幾何時，這樣的呼籲愈來愈像投入深井的石子，波瀾不興。
看看週邊國家的發展，香港全球競爭力蟬連第一，新加坡全球第四，南韓即使競爭力仍在台灣之後卻已躋身「二○｜五○俱樂部」的全球七個已開發國家之列，當年台灣曾經是「亞洲四小龍」之首，如今卻敬陪末座，台灣還能悶著頭搞內耗，無視競爭對手的拚鬥精神愈趨高昂嗎？
反諷的是：「內耗」竟成為全民形容台灣社會現狀的最大共識。內耗的表現主要有二：一是內鬥，二是瞎忙。內鬥既是朝野惡鬥，可笑的是還有朝野兩黨內部的權力鬥爭，想的是兩年後的七合一選舉，兩黨爭勝之外，還要費盡力氣思索黨內誰該參選，以便防堵或卡位，忙的都是不急之務，謂之「瞎忙」。對台灣人民而言，不要說兩年後的七合一選舉，不論哪一個政黨勝選，重點是當選者務實能幹，真心為民服務，即使四年後的總統大選，同樣擇優汰劣，遺憾的是，朝野政黨目光俱如豆，以當選為唯一勝利，卻無視國家利益與全民福祉。
國運強弱繫於朝野政治領袖的轉念與行動，前海基會董事長、民進黨前立委洪奇昌回溯當年他和蕭萬長一起出席世貿組織部長會議時，兩人一席徹夜長談。十七年過去了，台灣必須思索我們的綜合國力、競爭力和國際戰略位置到底是進步、還是退步？他有感而發直言，「台灣需要一個理性負責的忠誠反對黨，更需要有規畫、治理能力、為人民創造福祉的執政黨，才能帶領台灣往前走。」政黨有競爭，然而，台灣的前途卻需要兩黨攜手籌謀。
回首前塵，朝野兩黨在競爭對抗中完成國會全面改選，推動總統直選，把台灣民主推向政黨輪替的高峰。政黨領袖的對話沒有這麼困難，特別在經濟大問題上，沒有藍綠之分，拖垮執政黨的惡果得全民承擔，內耗的痛苦已經不是執政黨的痛苦，而是全民的痛苦。打開台灣的出路，要從停止內耗做起，停止內耗第一步要從朝野對話始，這是全民的心聲，也是對朝野兩黨最深切的期盼和呼籲。
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Extricate the Nation from its Political Quagmire: Introduce an Economic Stimulus Plan
Extricate the Nation from its Political Quagmire:
Introduce an Economic Stimulus Plan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 27, 2012
Summary: Taiwan cannot afford to wait. The government must clarify its priorities. It must understand the people's expectations. It must seize the opportunity to grow the economy. Only this will enable Taiwan to begin anew. Taiwan truly cannot afford to stand still.
Full Text below:
Former Vice President Vincent Siew has been in government for decades. He is an economic and trade policy veteran, and also skilled at national policy. He is a statesman who understands international relations. He is deeply concerned that internal friction has left Taiwan in a state of crisis. Everything he said during the recent summit inspired reflection. Siew's remarks were dead on. Opportunities for national growth are fleeting. The Ma administration must extricate itself from its political quagmire. It must seize the initiative, and set the agenda. It must demonstrate vision, foresight, and determination. It must offer an inspiring economic stimulus plan.
Former Vice President Siew said that Taiwan faces three major hurdles. The first hurdle is the sustained and powerful economic waves currently buffeting Taiwan. Changes in the Mainland's economy have impacted Taiwan's future. South Korean competition leaves Taiwan with little breathing room. The second hurdle is unnecessary internal friction. Internal friction has made government agencies oblivious to the looming crisis. It has made them delay decision-making. Unfairness and injustice have undermined government business trust. The ruling and opposition parties continue to spin their wheel, trapped in a vicious circle. The third hurdle is an upcoming test of Taiwan's economic resilience. This test will determine whether Taiwan rises or falls. If Taiwan fails this test, its future will be dim. Taiwan's only choice is to transform a crisis into an opportunity. We must realize the folly of internal bickering and desist. We must find a new strategy to ensure Taiwan's continued survival.
Many people feel this way. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng echoed these sentiments. He said the ruling and opposition parties must realize the impact internal bickering has on the nation's prosperity. He said Taiwan must attempt to catch up with the Mainland and with South Korea. To do this it must eliminate unnecessary internal friction.
Taiwan has been spinning its wheels. The ruling and opposition parties persist in vicious partisan infighting. Policy cannot move forward. Condemnation has been universal. We all know international competition is fierce. If one is not moving forward, then one is falling behind. The Mainland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other economies are racing full speed ahead. Mainland China is a major player. Even the United States seeks its cooperation. Even the EU seeks its financial aid. South Korea's rise has lent it charisma and given it influence. Korean culture, including "K-Pop," have won fans the world over. Samsung has thrashed Apple. The global ranking of Hong Kong universities has risen steadily. They have snatched many outstanding students away from Taiwan.
Taiwan meanwhile, has tripped over two large stumbling blocks. The country is stuck. Policy makers have their priorities wrong. The European debt crisis has struck. Weakness in the U.S. and European markets has hurt Taiwan's exports. Policy makers failed to focus on revitalizing the economy. They failed to create wealth for the people. They failed to help them cope with the recession. Instead, they focused on the capital gains tax, on gasoline and electricity rates, and on the perpetually muddled issue of U.S. beef imports. It did all this in the name of fairness and justice. Salary increases have not kept up with consumer prices. Therefore the public is hopping mad. Policies ostensibly motivated by fairness and justice have not fattened anyone's wallet. They have merely bled people dry and incited public discontent.
Policy makers tripped over a second stumbling block. The opposition DPP and TSU engaged in wholesale obstructionism. They forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan, bringing it to a standstill. They prevented any bills whatsoever from being passed. The government was virtually shut down. The ruling and opposition parties found themselves trapped in a life or death struggle. The country felt itself drowning. President Ma's approval ratings plummeted. His reputation was tarnished. His every word and every deed provoked public criticism. Even KMT legislators refused to rally when he called.
The economy is in a downturn. Exports are shrinking. We face a "perfect storm." We must strengthen the economy. We must ensure public prosperity. We can talk about fairness and justice later. By then tax revenues will have increased. Everyone's wallet will be fatter. If we call for tax increases now, when people are in dire economic straits, it will surely provoke a public backlash.
The Ma administration has its ideals. But it must prioritize. It must not squander its resources on issues not of the highest priority. That would be unprofitable. The government's policy proposals are stuck. They are going nowhere. If the government performs a cost benefit analysis, it will discover that the benefits are not worth the cost. To allow the standoff to drag on is extremely unwise.
The clock is ticking. Time waits for no man. It will not wait for Taiwan. If we waste time today, we will regret it tomorrow. The public worries the most about Taiwan losing its industrial advantage and its economic vitality. Taiwan lags behind its competitors. Taiwan has been increasingly marginalized by them. What the public looks for the most is the Ma administration's vision for the future. It wants a comprehensive economic stimulus plan. It wants a solid foundation for Taiwan's long-term economic development. It does not want piecemeal policies that try to please everyone but end up pleasing no one.
Taiwan cannot afford to wait. The government must clarify its priorities. It must understand the people's expectations. It must seize the opportunity to grow the economy. Only this will enable Taiwan to begin anew. Taiwan truly cannot afford to stand still.
別陷政治泥淖 快端出振興經濟方案
2012-06-27
中國時報
前副總統蕭萬長在政府服務數十載，不但是經貿老兵，更是嫻熟國政、具國際觀的資深政治家，他痛陳台灣陷於內耗之危殆，句句發人省思。老蕭之言切中時弊，國家成長的時機稍縱即逝，馬政府不應該再繼續糾纏在無謂的政治泥淖中，應該另闢戰場引領議題，以宏觀、前瞻與魄力，端出能令人眼睛一亮的振興經濟方案來。
蕭前副總統指出，台灣當前面臨了三大關卡，第一道是最持久的經濟強浪正襲向台灣，大陸經濟變化增加台灣未來變數，韓國的競爭也正壓縮台灣空間。第二道關卡是「最無謂的內耗卻正在台灣內部上演，致使台灣無法全力因應」。而內耗最顯著的在於政府各部門危機意識不足，延誤決策及因應；公平正義迷思重創政府與企業信賴關係；朝野惡鬥讓台灣陷於空轉的惡性循環。第三道關卡，則是當前台灣經濟面臨嚴酷考驗，也正是台灣興衰的關鍵機會，一旦錯失，就很難有令人期待的願景。因此化危機為轉機是台灣唯一的選擇，必須正確認知並停止內耗，尋找新戰略為台灣經濟開路。
其實這也是很多人的共同感受，對此立法院長王金平也呼應指出，朝野應該共同省思嚴重對立、內耗空轉的情況，避免無謂的內耗而影響到國家發展。相較於中國大陸和南韓，台灣應該努力急起直追，盡量避免不必要的內耗。
其實，近期以來台灣陷於虛耗空轉，朝野酣於惡鬥導致施政動彈不得，早已為各界所詬病。大家都知道，在激烈的國際競爭中，不進則退，但眼前卻看到中國大陸、南韓、香港、新加坡等國家集全國之力快速向前奔跑，中國在國際社會上已是連美國都必須拉攏、歐盟想爭取金援的重要大國，南韓的崛起更是銳氣風發勢不可擋，韓流「K-Pop」攻下全球粉絲，三星強踢蘋果。香港的大學全球排名一路竄升，讓台灣許多優秀學生被搶走。
反觀台灣，卻接連絆到兩塊大石頭，整個國家都被卡住了。施政先是搞錯了優先順序，在歐債風暴山雨欲來、歐美市場疲軟重創台灣出口前景之際，沒有先把施政重點放在振興經濟、為民眾創富，以對抗嚴峻的不景氣風暴，反而先把重點放在號稱追求公平正義的證所稅、油電漲價以及始終說不清楚的美牛案。由於薪資成長追不上物價高漲，民眾氣得跳腳，所謂的公平正義政策並沒有讓荷包空空的人受惠，反而讓要失血的人群起反彈。
然後，接著又絆到了第二塊大石頭。在野黨逮到機會強力杯葛，封鎖議場讓立法院陷入癱瘓，焦土戰爭讓什麼法案都審不了，政府政策幾乎停擺。朝野陷入你死我活的惡鬥，結果是國家無量沉溺。馬總統人氣直跌，聲望重挫，一言一行動輒得咎，連黨籍立委都叫不動。
在經濟不景氣、出口倒退、未來更可能面臨嚴峻風暴的時候，應該先努力把經濟拉抬起來，讓更多民眾的口袋受惠之後，再來談公平正義也不遲。因為那個時候稅收會增加，大家的荷包也比較有餘裕。如果在大部分人都覺得手頭愈來愈緊的時候喊要增加收費，當然會激發民怨。
馬政府固然有其理念與理想，問題是事有輕重緩急，為不是最優先急迫的事耗盡精力資源，是不划算的。政府先後推動的幾個政策都已經陷在政治泥淖裡進退不得，算算可能的獲益與付出的精力時間，簡直不成比例，再繼續被拖住，更是極度不智的。
時間正一分一秒流逝，機會不會等待台灣，今天的虛耗空轉，將成為未來的後悔莫及。現在民眾最擔心的，是台灣產業優勢流失、生機凋萎，在國際競爭中日趨落後且邊緣化。而大家最期待於馬政府的，是政府能夠以前瞻的視野，端出一套完整的振興經濟方案，為台灣長遠發展打造堅實的基礎，而不是搖擺飄移試圖討好每一個人的零碎政策。
台灣沒有本錢等待，弄清楚施政的輕重緩急，了解民眾最迫切的期待，掌握國家發展的最大契機，才能讓台灣重新啟動。台灣，真的不能再卡卡了。
Introduce an Economic Stimulus Plan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 27, 2012
Summary: Taiwan cannot afford to wait. The government must clarify its priorities. It must understand the people's expectations. It must seize the opportunity to grow the economy. Only this will enable Taiwan to begin anew. Taiwan truly cannot afford to stand still.
Full Text below:
Former Vice President Vincent Siew has been in government for decades. He is an economic and trade policy veteran, and also skilled at national policy. He is a statesman who understands international relations. He is deeply concerned that internal friction has left Taiwan in a state of crisis. Everything he said during the recent summit inspired reflection. Siew's remarks were dead on. Opportunities for national growth are fleeting. The Ma administration must extricate itself from its political quagmire. It must seize the initiative, and set the agenda. It must demonstrate vision, foresight, and determination. It must offer an inspiring economic stimulus plan.
Former Vice President Siew said that Taiwan faces three major hurdles. The first hurdle is the sustained and powerful economic waves currently buffeting Taiwan. Changes in the Mainland's economy have impacted Taiwan's future. South Korean competition leaves Taiwan with little breathing room. The second hurdle is unnecessary internal friction. Internal friction has made government agencies oblivious to the looming crisis. It has made them delay decision-making. Unfairness and injustice have undermined government business trust. The ruling and opposition parties continue to spin their wheel, trapped in a vicious circle. The third hurdle is an upcoming test of Taiwan's economic resilience. This test will determine whether Taiwan rises or falls. If Taiwan fails this test, its future will be dim. Taiwan's only choice is to transform a crisis into an opportunity. We must realize the folly of internal bickering and desist. We must find a new strategy to ensure Taiwan's continued survival.
Many people feel this way. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng echoed these sentiments. He said the ruling and opposition parties must realize the impact internal bickering has on the nation's prosperity. He said Taiwan must attempt to catch up with the Mainland and with South Korea. To do this it must eliminate unnecessary internal friction.
Taiwan has been spinning its wheels. The ruling and opposition parties persist in vicious partisan infighting. Policy cannot move forward. Condemnation has been universal. We all know international competition is fierce. If one is not moving forward, then one is falling behind. The Mainland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other economies are racing full speed ahead. Mainland China is a major player. Even the United States seeks its cooperation. Even the EU seeks its financial aid. South Korea's rise has lent it charisma and given it influence. Korean culture, including "K-Pop," have won fans the world over. Samsung has thrashed Apple. The global ranking of Hong Kong universities has risen steadily. They have snatched many outstanding students away from Taiwan.
Taiwan meanwhile, has tripped over two large stumbling blocks. The country is stuck. Policy makers have their priorities wrong. The European debt crisis has struck. Weakness in the U.S. and European markets has hurt Taiwan's exports. Policy makers failed to focus on revitalizing the economy. They failed to create wealth for the people. They failed to help them cope with the recession. Instead, they focused on the capital gains tax, on gasoline and electricity rates, and on the perpetually muddled issue of U.S. beef imports. It did all this in the name of fairness and justice. Salary increases have not kept up with consumer prices. Therefore the public is hopping mad. Policies ostensibly motivated by fairness and justice have not fattened anyone's wallet. They have merely bled people dry and incited public discontent.
Policy makers tripped over a second stumbling block. The opposition DPP and TSU engaged in wholesale obstructionism. They forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan, bringing it to a standstill. They prevented any bills whatsoever from being passed. The government was virtually shut down. The ruling and opposition parties found themselves trapped in a life or death struggle. The country felt itself drowning. President Ma's approval ratings plummeted. His reputation was tarnished. His every word and every deed provoked public criticism. Even KMT legislators refused to rally when he called.
The economy is in a downturn. Exports are shrinking. We face a "perfect storm." We must strengthen the economy. We must ensure public prosperity. We can talk about fairness and justice later. By then tax revenues will have increased. Everyone's wallet will be fatter. If we call for tax increases now, when people are in dire economic straits, it will surely provoke a public backlash.
The Ma administration has its ideals. But it must prioritize. It must not squander its resources on issues not of the highest priority. That would be unprofitable. The government's policy proposals are stuck. They are going nowhere. If the government performs a cost benefit analysis, it will discover that the benefits are not worth the cost. To allow the standoff to drag on is extremely unwise.
The clock is ticking. Time waits for no man. It will not wait for Taiwan. If we waste time today, we will regret it tomorrow. The public worries the most about Taiwan losing its industrial advantage and its economic vitality. Taiwan lags behind its competitors. Taiwan has been increasingly marginalized by them. What the public looks for the most is the Ma administration's vision for the future. It wants a comprehensive economic stimulus plan. It wants a solid foundation for Taiwan's long-term economic development. It does not want piecemeal policies that try to please everyone but end up pleasing no one.
Taiwan cannot afford to wait. The government must clarify its priorities. It must understand the people's expectations. It must seize the opportunity to grow the economy. Only this will enable Taiwan to begin anew. Taiwan truly cannot afford to stand still.
別陷政治泥淖 快端出振興經濟方案
2012-06-27
中國時報
前副總統蕭萬長在政府服務數十載，不但是經貿老兵，更是嫻熟國政、具國際觀的資深政治家，他痛陳台灣陷於內耗之危殆，句句發人省思。老蕭之言切中時弊，國家成長的時機稍縱即逝，馬政府不應該再繼續糾纏在無謂的政治泥淖中，應該另闢戰場引領議題，以宏觀、前瞻與魄力，端出能令人眼睛一亮的振興經濟方案來。
蕭前副總統指出，台灣當前面臨了三大關卡，第一道是最持久的經濟強浪正襲向台灣，大陸經濟變化增加台灣未來變數，韓國的競爭也正壓縮台灣空間。第二道關卡是「最無謂的內耗卻正在台灣內部上演，致使台灣無法全力因應」。而內耗最顯著的在於政府各部門危機意識不足，延誤決策及因應；公平正義迷思重創政府與企業信賴關係；朝野惡鬥讓台灣陷於空轉的惡性循環。第三道關卡，則是當前台灣經濟面臨嚴酷考驗，也正是台灣興衰的關鍵機會，一旦錯失，就很難有令人期待的願景。因此化危機為轉機是台灣唯一的選擇，必須正確認知並停止內耗，尋找新戰略為台灣經濟開路。
其實這也是很多人的共同感受，對此立法院長王金平也呼應指出，朝野應該共同省思嚴重對立、內耗空轉的情況，避免無謂的內耗而影響到國家發展。相較於中國大陸和南韓，台灣應該努力急起直追，盡量避免不必要的內耗。
其實，近期以來台灣陷於虛耗空轉，朝野酣於惡鬥導致施政動彈不得，早已為各界所詬病。大家都知道，在激烈的國際競爭中，不進則退，但眼前卻看到中國大陸、南韓、香港、新加坡等國家集全國之力快速向前奔跑，中國在國際社會上已是連美國都必須拉攏、歐盟想爭取金援的重要大國，南韓的崛起更是銳氣風發勢不可擋，韓流「K-Pop」攻下全球粉絲，三星強踢蘋果。香港的大學全球排名一路竄升，讓台灣許多優秀學生被搶走。
反觀台灣，卻接連絆到兩塊大石頭，整個國家都被卡住了。施政先是搞錯了優先順序，在歐債風暴山雨欲來、歐美市場疲軟重創台灣出口前景之際，沒有先把施政重點放在振興經濟、為民眾創富，以對抗嚴峻的不景氣風暴，反而先把重點放在號稱追求公平正義的證所稅、油電漲價以及始終說不清楚的美牛案。由於薪資成長追不上物價高漲，民眾氣得跳腳，所謂的公平正義政策並沒有讓荷包空空的人受惠，反而讓要失血的人群起反彈。
然後，接著又絆到了第二塊大石頭。在野黨逮到機會強力杯葛，封鎖議場讓立法院陷入癱瘓，焦土戰爭讓什麼法案都審不了，政府政策幾乎停擺。朝野陷入你死我活的惡鬥，結果是國家無量沉溺。馬總統人氣直跌，聲望重挫，一言一行動輒得咎，連黨籍立委都叫不動。
在經濟不景氣、出口倒退、未來更可能面臨嚴峻風暴的時候，應該先努力把經濟拉抬起來，讓更多民眾的口袋受惠之後，再來談公平正義也不遲。因為那個時候稅收會增加，大家的荷包也比較有餘裕。如果在大部分人都覺得手頭愈來愈緊的時候喊要增加收費，當然會激發民怨。
馬政府固然有其理念與理想，問題是事有輕重緩急，為不是最優先急迫的事耗盡精力資源，是不划算的。政府先後推動的幾個政策都已經陷在政治泥淖裡進退不得，算算可能的獲益與付出的精力時間，簡直不成比例，再繼續被拖住，更是極度不智的。
時間正一分一秒流逝，機會不會等待台灣，今天的虛耗空轉，將成為未來的後悔莫及。現在民眾最擔心的，是台灣產業優勢流失、生機凋萎，在國際競爭中日趨落後且邊緣化。而大家最期待於馬政府的，是政府能夠以前瞻的視野，端出一套完整的振興經濟方案，為台灣長遠發展打造堅實的基礎，而不是搖擺飄移試圖討好每一個人的零碎政策。
台灣沒有本錢等待，弄清楚施政的輕重緩急，了解民眾最迫切的期待，掌握國家發展的最大契機，才能讓台灣重新啟動。台灣，真的不能再卡卡了。
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Vision Can Overcome the Three Great Obstacles
Vision Can Overcome the Three Great Obstacles
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 26, 2012
Summary: Former Vice President Siew said Taiwan's economy faces "Three Major Obstacles." He told summit panelists we must overcome these three obstacles. The summit arrived at three main insights. One. We must confront the powerful waves battering us. We must have crisis consciousness. Two. We must end the internal friction between the ruling and opposition parties. Three. We must seize the opportunity, and take "sword and sandal" type action!
Full Text below:
Yesterday the "Two Critical Years: Blazing a Trail for Taiwan's Economy" economic summit convened. Former Vice President Vincent Siew, the summit moderator, spoke and exchanged views with the panelists. He expressed anxiety over Taiwan's lack of economic growth. He revealed a feeling of urgency over the lack of innovation and change. He said he shared the same crisis consciousness as the other panelists, and the same desire to turn the tide.
Former Vice President Siew spoke of the "Three Mosts." He said Taiwan's economy faces "Three Major Obstacles." He offered a heartfelt reminder to summit panelists regarding Taiwan's political and economic future. He said powerful waves were buffeting Taiwan. He feared we were distracted by unnecessary internal friction, and might miss a crucial opportunity.
The "First Most" was the powerful waves that were buffeting Taiwan head on. Even President Ma did not mince words. He spoke of Taiwan's free trade agreements (FTAs) lagging behind South Korea's. He said we were not merely behind, but far behind. Taiwan faces serious economic difficulties. This was the independent conclusion reached by every panelist who spoke yesterday. Former Vice President Siew used a relatively mild term, "powerful waves." The summit used the term, "challenges." But to be perfectly blunt, the correct term is "crisis."
Panelists spoke of their shared crisis consciousness. They spoke of university graduates making less than they did thirteen years ago. They spoke of uncertain industrial policy, an aging population, a shortage of skilled labor, an out of balance educational policy, and Taiwan's potential marginalization. This is clearly a "perfect storm" in the making. How can people not be worried?
The "Second Most" is unnecessary internal friction. Yesterday summit panelists spoke, almost to a man, about "internal friction" and "wheel-spinning." Former Vice President Siew pointed to significant friction in three areas. One. Many government agencies lack crisis consciousness. This leads to procrastination in decision-making and coping. Two. Unfairness and injustice have undermined trust between the government and business. Three. Ruling vs. opposition party battles have mired Taiwan in a vicious cycle. This may be the most pertinent and exhaustive understanding of "internal friction." The first two are the government's responsibility. The third is the responsibility of the ruling and opposition parties. This should give those in office pause. Clearly decision-making delays and blocked communications between government and business are sources of "unnecessary friction." Ruling government ineptitude has led to unnecessary wear and tear.
For several panelists, internal frictions were their prime concern. They pointed mainly to political rivalry between the ruling Blue and opposition Green parties. Former Vice President Siew pointed to this as well. Morris Chang feels that the Blue and Green parties must at least reach a consensus on cross-Strait policy and Taipei/Washington policy. He pointed out that in the United States, the two major parties generally agree on foreign policy.
Vicious infighting between Blue vs. Green permeates Taiwan. It extends from national and constitutional allegiance to U.S. beef imports. Its battelfield is the Legislative Yuan. It divides society. It paralyzes national policymaking. As a result many directly identified the Legislative Yuan as the source of "internal friction." Clearly internal friction has become a serious burden on the nation and society.
Former Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hong Chi-chang zeroed in on "internal friction." His remarks echoed those of most panelists. He said Taiwan cannot afford internal friction. The two parties must end their confrontation and conflict, and replace it with dialogue. The ruling party must be a competent ruling party. The opposition party must be a loyal, rational, and responsible opposition party. Hong Chi-chang's remarks were greeted with unanimous applause.
The "Third Most" is the crucial opportunity that must not be missed. Democratization has many side effects. One is that differences of opinion make consensus difficult. Economic and industrial decision-making is often difficult. It often leads to waffling. We must not allow important opportunities to slip through our fingers. We must not allow each stage of economic development to go from bad to worse. Tomorrow must not be worse than today.
Yesterday when President Ma addressed the summit he stressed his "Golden Decade." But industry elder Morris Chang changed it to "Bronze Decade." Golden and Bronze clearly do not have the same value. Morris Chang's remarks were not intended to undermine self-confidence on Taiwan. They were his attempt to set forth a more realistic and reasonable goal. To posit an ideal they can realistically achieve. Indeed, after the "lost decade" the notion of a "golden decade" seems a tad like wishful thinking. But even a "bronze decade" can shine with a little joint effort. Therefore a less flashy "bronze decade" with its own unique charm is well worth pursuing.
Globalization has led to a dramatic shortening in the life cycle of industry. We must seize the opportunity to make the right choices. This will be the acid test for both government and business. The government may deviate slightly from its target or adopt improper methods. Such mistakes could result in massive waste or industrial stagnation. The Chen regime's "Two Trillion Dollars, Twin Star" policy was one example. In ten short years, a shining dream became the death knell of the DRAM and TFT/LCD industries. Two hundred billion dollars were lost each year, and no one knew how to respond. By contrast, the Ma administration's "golden decade," three industries/four modernizations, and free market island initiatives may sound impressive. But the lack of specifics or a program of action renders them hollow in people's eyes. The Chen regime's reckless overspending and the Ma administration's heavy-handedness are both perceived as reasons for our lost opportunities. It is time to batten down the hatches.
During yesterday's summit, the government and academia expressed anxiety over the pace of economic development. But no one was pessimistic about industry competitiveness, Everyone was confident that Taiwan enterprises were tough and resilient, that they had the ability to compete in world market. The vast majority believe Taiwan must remain economically open, that it must confront global competition. But they also think we must make shrewder use of economic opening as a policy tool. We should comply with the principles of free trade and reciprocity. But we must not impose excessive shocks on domestic industry. We must also stimulate domestic industry to ensure its competitiveness. This knowledge will help the executive and legislative branches in their decision-making and legislation.
We must overcome these "three obstacles." We must begin the "vision project." The summit arrived at three main insights. One. We must confront the powerful waves battering us. We must have crisis consciousness. Two. We must end the internal friction between the ruling and opposition parties. Three. We must seize the opportunity, and take "sword and sandal" type action!
克服「三大關卡」 啟動「願景工程」
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.26 03:13 am
昨日《關鍵兩年‧為台灣經濟開路》高峰會，在會場的發言及互動，充溢著大會總主持人前副總統蕭萬長先生所說的，對台灣經濟發展憂心忡忡的焦慮感，及求新求變的急迫感之外，還有一種氛圍，那就是與會者皆展現了同赴艱危、共挽狂瀾的使命感。
蕭前副總統的「三個最」，指出了台灣經濟面對的「三大關卡」，成為這場高峰會對台灣政經出路繞樑不去的殷切叮嚀，那就是：最持久的強浪迎面襲來，最無謂的內耗正在發生，最關鍵的機會不容錯失！
第一最，最持久的強浪迎面襲來。台灣當前正面臨「強浪」來襲，連馬總統也不諱言；比如，當他談到台灣在「自由貿易協議」（FTA）方面落後韓國，差人家不是「普通的遠」，而是「很遠」。而台灣正面臨嚴重的經濟困局，儼然是所有與談者昨日在走進會場前不約而同已形成的第一個「共識」；蕭前副總統選用了「強浪」這個含蓄的詞彙，大會的用語則是「挑戰」，直白地說，其實就是「危機」。
與會者的危機感其實有明顯的交集，從大學畢業生較十三年前薪水不升反降，至產業政策不確定、人口老化、人才質量不足、教育政策失衡，到台灣會不會邊緣化；這儼然是一波「複合式的危機」，能不教人憂心忡忡？
第二最，最無謂的內耗正在發生。昨日在與談者的口中，經常聽到「內耗」「空轉」這兩個詞，幾乎是異口同聲。蕭前副總統指出，最顯著的「內耗」有三方面，包括：一、各部門危機意識不足，延誤決策及因應；二、公平正義迷思重創政府與企業信賴關係；三、朝野惡鬥讓台灣陷於空轉惡性循環。這應是對「內耗」最中肯且周延的詮釋，前兩項指向政府的責任，第三項則指朝野惡鬥。此一詮釋，應可促使主政者深思，可見決策的遲誤及政府與企業之間溝通的阻塞，皆是形成「無謂內耗」的原因；社會因主政者的失能，而付出無謂的損耗。
然而，「內耗」之所以成為多位與談者關注的焦點，主要是指朝野藍綠政黨的惡鬥，蕭前副總統也指出了此點。例如，張忠謀先生認為，今日藍綠兩黨，至少應在兩岸政策及台美政策上尋求共識；他指出，美國的兩黨即在外交政策上大多採同一立場，一致對外。
台灣的「藍綠惡鬥」，可自國憲認同鬥到美國牛肉，且以立法院為惡鬥的場域，非但撕裂社會，有時簡直使國政癱瘓。因而，多位與談者直接將立法院指為「內耗」的根源，儼然已成國家社會難以承負之重。
在「內耗」的話題下，民進黨前立委洪奇昌成為焦點；他的一番話，似乎表達了多數與會者的心聲。他說：台灣沒有內耗的本錢，兩黨應結束對立、對抗，改為對話；執政黨應是有主政能力的執政黨，反對黨則應是理性負責的忠誠反對黨。洪奇昌語畢，響起滿堂掌聲。
第三最，台灣最關鍵的機會不容錯失。民主化帶來的副作用之一，是意見分歧而共識凝聚不易，經濟及產業發展決策往往取捨難決或搖擺不定，就在拉鋸之間，台灣便一再坐失大好機會，而在每個階段所面對的經濟機遇，遂有每下愈況、一蟹不如一蟹的趨勢。
也因此，昨天馬總統在峰會上致詞強調「黃金十年」的施政主軸，企業界大老張忠謀卻以「黃銅十年」一詞為他作了修整。「黃金」與「黃銅」，兩者價值自有差距。但張忠謀的談話，並非要挫折台灣人的自信，而是試圖提出一個比較務實、合理的目標，讓人們覺得這是可以追逐及實現的理想。確實，在經歷「失落的十年」後，「黃金十年」的提法恐怕稍嫌浮誇；但即便是「黃銅」，若能共同努力擦拭拋光，也能透出沉厚的光澤；那麼，一個不華麗、卻結構與風韻別具的「黃銅十年」，又何嘗不值得追逐？
在全球化變動劇烈而產業生命周期日漸縮短的情況下，如何把握有效時機做出正確的選擇，對於政府及企業都是嚴苛的考驗。尤其政府，目標稍一偏差或手段選取不當，就會導致可怕的浪費或使產業集體陷入泥沼。以扁政府的「兩兆雙星」政策為例，不過短短十年，一場華麗的大夢卻變成了雙Ｄ產業的幻滅，年虧兩千億元還不知如何收場。反觀馬政府推出的黃金十年、三業四化、自由經濟島等口號，表面看似架構宏偉，卻缺乏具體的內容和行動方案；在民眾眼裡，不免顯得空泛。扁政府的魯莽揮霍，與馬政府的行動力不足，都是失機僨事的原因，這是該上緊發條的時候了。
昨天的高峰會上，雖然產官學界均對台灣經濟發展腳步凌亂感到焦慮，但大家對產業界的競爭實力卻不悲觀，都深信以台灣企業長期打下的體質和韌性，有雄厚的本錢在世界一搏。絕大多數人也都主張台灣應該持續保持開放，以迎戰全球化的競爭；但開放作為一種政策工具，應該作更聰明的運用，一方面要符合貿易自由及互惠原則，一方面不造成過度衝擊，另一方面又可刺激國內產業提升體質。這樣的認知，可供行政及立法部門在決策及立法時的重要指標。
如何克服這「三大關卡」，以啟動「願景工程」，歸納高峰會的主體見解：一、迎對強浪，要有危機感；二、結束內耗，應停止朝野惡鬥；三、把握關鍵機會，要有劍及履及的行動！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 26, 2012
Summary: Former Vice President Siew said Taiwan's economy faces "Three Major Obstacles." He told summit panelists we must overcome these three obstacles. The summit arrived at three main insights. One. We must confront the powerful waves battering us. We must have crisis consciousness. Two. We must end the internal friction between the ruling and opposition parties. Three. We must seize the opportunity, and take "sword and sandal" type action!
Full Text below:
Yesterday the "Two Critical Years: Blazing a Trail for Taiwan's Economy" economic summit convened. Former Vice President Vincent Siew, the summit moderator, spoke and exchanged views with the panelists. He expressed anxiety over Taiwan's lack of economic growth. He revealed a feeling of urgency over the lack of innovation and change. He said he shared the same crisis consciousness as the other panelists, and the same desire to turn the tide.
Former Vice President Siew spoke of the "Three Mosts." He said Taiwan's economy faces "Three Major Obstacles." He offered a heartfelt reminder to summit panelists regarding Taiwan's political and economic future. He said powerful waves were buffeting Taiwan. He feared we were distracted by unnecessary internal friction, and might miss a crucial opportunity.
The "First Most" was the powerful waves that were buffeting Taiwan head on. Even President Ma did not mince words. He spoke of Taiwan's free trade agreements (FTAs) lagging behind South Korea's. He said we were not merely behind, but far behind. Taiwan faces serious economic difficulties. This was the independent conclusion reached by every panelist who spoke yesterday. Former Vice President Siew used a relatively mild term, "powerful waves." The summit used the term, "challenges." But to be perfectly blunt, the correct term is "crisis."
Panelists spoke of their shared crisis consciousness. They spoke of university graduates making less than they did thirteen years ago. They spoke of uncertain industrial policy, an aging population, a shortage of skilled labor, an out of balance educational policy, and Taiwan's potential marginalization. This is clearly a "perfect storm" in the making. How can people not be worried?
The "Second Most" is unnecessary internal friction. Yesterday summit panelists spoke, almost to a man, about "internal friction" and "wheel-spinning." Former Vice President Siew pointed to significant friction in three areas. One. Many government agencies lack crisis consciousness. This leads to procrastination in decision-making and coping. Two. Unfairness and injustice have undermined trust between the government and business. Three. Ruling vs. opposition party battles have mired Taiwan in a vicious cycle. This may be the most pertinent and exhaustive understanding of "internal friction." The first two are the government's responsibility. The third is the responsibility of the ruling and opposition parties. This should give those in office pause. Clearly decision-making delays and blocked communications between government and business are sources of "unnecessary friction." Ruling government ineptitude has led to unnecessary wear and tear.
For several panelists, internal frictions were their prime concern. They pointed mainly to political rivalry between the ruling Blue and opposition Green parties. Former Vice President Siew pointed to this as well. Morris Chang feels that the Blue and Green parties must at least reach a consensus on cross-Strait policy and Taipei/Washington policy. He pointed out that in the United States, the two major parties generally agree on foreign policy.
Vicious infighting between Blue vs. Green permeates Taiwan. It extends from national and constitutional allegiance to U.S. beef imports. Its battelfield is the Legislative Yuan. It divides society. It paralyzes national policymaking. As a result many directly identified the Legislative Yuan as the source of "internal friction." Clearly internal friction has become a serious burden on the nation and society.
Former Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Hong Chi-chang zeroed in on "internal friction." His remarks echoed those of most panelists. He said Taiwan cannot afford internal friction. The two parties must end their confrontation and conflict, and replace it with dialogue. The ruling party must be a competent ruling party. The opposition party must be a loyal, rational, and responsible opposition party. Hong Chi-chang's remarks were greeted with unanimous applause.
The "Third Most" is the crucial opportunity that must not be missed. Democratization has many side effects. One is that differences of opinion make consensus difficult. Economic and industrial decision-making is often difficult. It often leads to waffling. We must not allow important opportunities to slip through our fingers. We must not allow each stage of economic development to go from bad to worse. Tomorrow must not be worse than today.
Yesterday when President Ma addressed the summit he stressed his "Golden Decade." But industry elder Morris Chang changed it to "Bronze Decade." Golden and Bronze clearly do not have the same value. Morris Chang's remarks were not intended to undermine self-confidence on Taiwan. They were his attempt to set forth a more realistic and reasonable goal. To posit an ideal they can realistically achieve. Indeed, after the "lost decade" the notion of a "golden decade" seems a tad like wishful thinking. But even a "bronze decade" can shine with a little joint effort. Therefore a less flashy "bronze decade" with its own unique charm is well worth pursuing.
Globalization has led to a dramatic shortening in the life cycle of industry. We must seize the opportunity to make the right choices. This will be the acid test for both government and business. The government may deviate slightly from its target or adopt improper methods. Such mistakes could result in massive waste or industrial stagnation. The Chen regime's "Two Trillion Dollars, Twin Star" policy was one example. In ten short years, a shining dream became the death knell of the DRAM and TFT/LCD industries. Two hundred billion dollars were lost each year, and no one knew how to respond. By contrast, the Ma administration's "golden decade," three industries/four modernizations, and free market island initiatives may sound impressive. But the lack of specifics or a program of action renders them hollow in people's eyes. The Chen regime's reckless overspending and the Ma administration's heavy-handedness are both perceived as reasons for our lost opportunities. It is time to batten down the hatches.
During yesterday's summit, the government and academia expressed anxiety over the pace of economic development. But no one was pessimistic about industry competitiveness, Everyone was confident that Taiwan enterprises were tough and resilient, that they had the ability to compete in world market. The vast majority believe Taiwan must remain economically open, that it must confront global competition. But they also think we must make shrewder use of economic opening as a policy tool. We should comply with the principles of free trade and reciprocity. But we must not impose excessive shocks on domestic industry. We must also stimulate domestic industry to ensure its competitiveness. This knowledge will help the executive and legislative branches in their decision-making and legislation.
We must overcome these "three obstacles." We must begin the "vision project." The summit arrived at three main insights. One. We must confront the powerful waves battering us. We must have crisis consciousness. Two. We must end the internal friction between the ruling and opposition parties. Three. We must seize the opportunity, and take "sword and sandal" type action!
克服「三大關卡」 啟動「願景工程」
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.26 03:13 am
昨日《關鍵兩年‧為台灣經濟開路》高峰會，在會場的發言及互動，充溢著大會總主持人前副總統蕭萬長先生所說的，對台灣經濟發展憂心忡忡的焦慮感，及求新求變的急迫感之外，還有一種氛圍，那就是與會者皆展現了同赴艱危、共挽狂瀾的使命感。
蕭前副總統的「三個最」，指出了台灣經濟面對的「三大關卡」，成為這場高峰會對台灣政經出路繞樑不去的殷切叮嚀，那就是：最持久的強浪迎面襲來，最無謂的內耗正在發生，最關鍵的機會不容錯失！
第一最，最持久的強浪迎面襲來。台灣當前正面臨「強浪」來襲，連馬總統也不諱言；比如，當他談到台灣在「自由貿易協議」（FTA）方面落後韓國，差人家不是「普通的遠」，而是「很遠」。而台灣正面臨嚴重的經濟困局，儼然是所有與談者昨日在走進會場前不約而同已形成的第一個「共識」；蕭前副總統選用了「強浪」這個含蓄的詞彙，大會的用語則是「挑戰」，直白地說，其實就是「危機」。
與會者的危機感其實有明顯的交集，從大學畢業生較十三年前薪水不升反降，至產業政策不確定、人口老化、人才質量不足、教育政策失衡，到台灣會不會邊緣化；這儼然是一波「複合式的危機」，能不教人憂心忡忡？
第二最，最無謂的內耗正在發生。昨日在與談者的口中，經常聽到「內耗」「空轉」這兩個詞，幾乎是異口同聲。蕭前副總統指出，最顯著的「內耗」有三方面，包括：一、各部門危機意識不足，延誤決策及因應；二、公平正義迷思重創政府與企業信賴關係；三、朝野惡鬥讓台灣陷於空轉惡性循環。這應是對「內耗」最中肯且周延的詮釋，前兩項指向政府的責任，第三項則指朝野惡鬥。此一詮釋，應可促使主政者深思，可見決策的遲誤及政府與企業之間溝通的阻塞，皆是形成「無謂內耗」的原因；社會因主政者的失能，而付出無謂的損耗。
然而，「內耗」之所以成為多位與談者關注的焦點，主要是指朝野藍綠政黨的惡鬥，蕭前副總統也指出了此點。例如，張忠謀先生認為，今日藍綠兩黨，至少應在兩岸政策及台美政策上尋求共識；他指出，美國的兩黨即在外交政策上大多採同一立場，一致對外。
台灣的「藍綠惡鬥」，可自國憲認同鬥到美國牛肉，且以立法院為惡鬥的場域，非但撕裂社會，有時簡直使國政癱瘓。因而，多位與談者直接將立法院指為「內耗」的根源，儼然已成國家社會難以承負之重。
在「內耗」的話題下，民進黨前立委洪奇昌成為焦點；他的一番話，似乎表達了多數與會者的心聲。他說：台灣沒有內耗的本錢，兩黨應結束對立、對抗，改為對話；執政黨應是有主政能力的執政黨，反對黨則應是理性負責的忠誠反對黨。洪奇昌語畢，響起滿堂掌聲。
第三最，台灣最關鍵的機會不容錯失。民主化帶來的副作用之一，是意見分歧而共識凝聚不易，經濟及產業發展決策往往取捨難決或搖擺不定，就在拉鋸之間，台灣便一再坐失大好機會，而在每個階段所面對的經濟機遇，遂有每下愈況、一蟹不如一蟹的趨勢。
也因此，昨天馬總統在峰會上致詞強調「黃金十年」的施政主軸，企業界大老張忠謀卻以「黃銅十年」一詞為他作了修整。「黃金」與「黃銅」，兩者價值自有差距。但張忠謀的談話，並非要挫折台灣人的自信，而是試圖提出一個比較務實、合理的目標，讓人們覺得這是可以追逐及實現的理想。確實，在經歷「失落的十年」後，「黃金十年」的提法恐怕稍嫌浮誇；但即便是「黃銅」，若能共同努力擦拭拋光，也能透出沉厚的光澤；那麼，一個不華麗、卻結構與風韻別具的「黃銅十年」，又何嘗不值得追逐？
在全球化變動劇烈而產業生命周期日漸縮短的情況下，如何把握有效時機做出正確的選擇，對於政府及企業都是嚴苛的考驗。尤其政府，目標稍一偏差或手段選取不當，就會導致可怕的浪費或使產業集體陷入泥沼。以扁政府的「兩兆雙星」政策為例，不過短短十年，一場華麗的大夢卻變成了雙Ｄ產業的幻滅，年虧兩千億元還不知如何收場。反觀馬政府推出的黃金十年、三業四化、自由經濟島等口號，表面看似架構宏偉，卻缺乏具體的內容和行動方案；在民眾眼裡，不免顯得空泛。扁政府的魯莽揮霍，與馬政府的行動力不足，都是失機僨事的原因，這是該上緊發條的時候了。
昨天的高峰會上，雖然產官學界均對台灣經濟發展腳步凌亂感到焦慮，但大家對產業界的競爭實力卻不悲觀，都深信以台灣企業長期打下的體質和韌性，有雄厚的本錢在世界一搏。絕大多數人也都主張台灣應該持續保持開放，以迎戰全球化的競爭；但開放作為一種政策工具，應該作更聰明的運用，一方面要符合貿易自由及互惠原則，一方面不造成過度衝擊，另一方面又可刺激國內產業提升體質。這樣的認知，可供行政及立法部門在決策及立法時的重要指標。
如何克服這「三大關卡」，以啟動「願景工程」，歸納高峰會的主體見解：一、迎對強浪，要有危機感；二、結束內耗，應停止朝野惡鬥；三、把握關鍵機會，要有劍及履及的行動！
Monday, June 25, 2012
Restoring Taiwan's Economic Preeminence
Restoring Taiwan's Economic Preeminence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 25, 2012
Summary: The nation is beset by problems from within and without. This summit may be able to exert some influence. We hope the summit will inspire enthusiasm, thought, and team work. We hope it will inspire change and move Taiwan in the right direction.
Full Text below:
The "Two Critical Years: Blazing the Trail for Taiwan's Economy" summit convened today. It is Part Two of the "Two Critical Years, Taiwan's Preeminence" editorial series created by the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
The editorial series asks questions. The summit attempts to arrive at an agreement on how to transform the economy and restore Taiwan's preeminence.
Last week we published five daily editorials on "Two Critical Years, Taiwan's Rapid Transformation." We compared Taiwan to other small and medium East Asia economies such as South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. We pointed out four facts. One. Taiwan's economy is rapidly falling behind. It is now bringing up the rear among the four Asian Tigers. Two. Taiwan's industrial upgrading and transformation have reached a bottleneck. We have been relegated to OEM status. We are on the verge of losing our industrial advantages. Three. The cross-strait economic agreement (ECFA), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and "free economic zone" may be breakthrough policies. But they have bogged down and are now at a stand still. Four. Economic development requires people of ability. But we now face a brain drain. These four factors interact with each other. They have become part of a negative feedback loop that must be interrupted.
Since the publication of our special reports, the public has responded enthusiastically. Readers have phoned in and encouraged the UDN's efforts. Internet page hits have reached new highs. These reflect public concern over Taiwan's economic plight. Experts from industry, government, academia, and research institutes have made policy recommendations. They have directly echoed the aspirations of the "Two Critical Years for Rapid Transformation." They have weighed in on the debate, and strongly criticized TV talk shows for not doing their duty.
This is what the Vision Workshop hoped to accomplish with its "exert influence" initiative. Today's summit will become a platform by which to "effect change." We hope the participating leaders can formulate an economic strategy for the next two years, and contribute to Taiwan's progress.
The "Two Critical Years, Blazing a Trail for Taiwan's Economic Future" summit has other implications. One. This is not a top-down government project. It was organized by the private sector United Daily News Vision Workshop. It makes recommendations to the government and the opposition. Two. As soon as the United Daily News began promoting this project, experts from government, industry, academia, and research institutes generously offered suggestions and assistance. These experts include former Vice President Vincent Siew, former Premier Liu Chao-hsuan, TSMC Chairman Morris Chang, Acer founder Stan Shih, and other respected leaders. All were willing to participate. Clearly people from all walks of life are concerned about the nation's political and economic plight. They feel a sense of mission. Three. Taiwan's economy is beset by problems, from within and without. From without, the European debt crisis remains unsolved, and the global economy remains in turmoil. From within, the government and opposition remain deadlocked. The nation is spinning its wheels and falling to pieces. Rapid changes to the international picture have brought opportunities and challenges that our ruling and opposition parties have yet to face. The summit could not be more timely.
Participants in today's summit include experts from government, industry, foreign companies, and cross-strait organizations. They will examine Taiwan's opportunities and challenges. They will formulate practical responses. They will examine the issues from a strategic perspective. They will establish priorities for the nation's development. They will focus on what is most urgent and what is most doable. The talks will provide insights and provoke passions. They will help the nation and society find its way.
Many things must be accomplished in order to transform Taiwan's economy. Time is limited. Real results will require a concerted effort from all sectors of society. It will require an attitude adjustment from the entire system of government. After all, the summit is a private sector initiative. The real challenge is to inspire changes in the thinking of government policymakers. This change must begin from the heart. Only that can provide a basis for policy recommendations. Only that can become the most important force for change.
The public has voiced its objections and made its demands. The government must respond in earnest. One. It must not be overly suspicious. Governments often assume entrepreneurs only seek government benefits. This generates layer upon layer of bureaucratic hurdles. These bureaucratic hurdles waste time, manpower, and materiel. They also limit possibilities. The government bears responsibility for the prudent use of national resources. More importantly it bears responsibility for national prosperity. Therefore besides preventing corruption, it must rejuvenate the nation's economy. Only then will we have a future.
Two. Do not think too much in terms of personal advantage. The recent brain drain has government and academia deeply concerned. The Council of Labor Affairs may even be renamed the "Ministry of Human Resources." We should look at the issue from the perspective of talent development rather than working conditions. Business people are also worried about industrial development. Ministries and departments should have an Industry Development Division. They should give greater consideration to industrial development and not just industrial regulation. Before the capital gains tax was proposed some people suggested that the Ministry of Finance be put in charge of the capital market. But capital markets are not its metier. The suggestion may have be motivated by self-centered thinking within government ministries. Such attitudes have become barriers to national progress.
Three. Do not harbor a "shirker" mentality. Do not automatically say no to complex and difficult tasks. As Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou said, if one cares, then any task, big or small will be difficult. Because if one insists on doing a good job, the task becomes difficult. But conversely, if one cares, then any task, big or small, will get done. Because if one insists on doing a good job, the task becomes doable. Taiwan is in dire economic straits. But recall the history of Taiwan's development. When has Taiwan ever not been in dire economic straits? The question is not whether we are in dire economic straits. The question is how much we care. If we care , the task will be difficult. But if we care, the task will be doable. The government has no right to complain about the diffculty.
The nation is beset by problems from within and without. This summit may be able to exert some influence. We hope the summit will inspire enthusiasm, thought, and team work. We hope it will inspire change and move Taiwan in the right direction.
實踐願景：共赴台灣經濟卓越之路
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.25 02:54 am
《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會今日登場，是聯合報系願景工作室繼上周《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》跨國系列報導之後，為此一願景工程砌起的第二塊磚。
系列報導是在呈現問題，高峰會則期望凝聚社會共識、擇定策略，以共同創建「經濟轉骨，台灣卓越」的願景。
上周連刊五天的《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》，經由與韓國、新加坡及香港等同是東亞中小型經濟體的比較，清楚勾勒出台灣經濟的四大事實：一、經濟發展深度、廣度、速度落後，在亞洲四小龍殿後；二、產業升級轉型陷入瓶頸，走不出代工宿命，產業優勢面臨威脅；三、兩岸經濟協議（ＥＣＦＡ）、自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）及「自由經濟示範區」等三大突圍政策，仍深陷圍城而停步不前；四、發展經濟所需的人才，亦正面臨流失危機。更值得注意的是，這四大事實之間互為因果，彼此影響，儼然已成必須打破、扭轉、導正的惡性循環。
專題報導見刊以來，我們收到了廣泛而且強烈的迴響。讀者主動來電鼓勵、打氣，肯定聯合報系的努力與用心；網路上的高點閱率及傳閱率，直接反映了社會大眾對台灣經濟現況的高關注度；產官學研各界精英亦以專業觀點提供政策建言，直接呼應《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》的訴求；向以重口味批評時政的電視政論性節目亦拋開媒體競爭的本位，以此為題，參與議論。
這一切正是願景工作室在「形塑影響」時的預期過程，由此而進，今天舉行的高峰會即成為「策動轉變」的平台；期望經由與會賢達的智慧參與，共議未來兩年的優先經濟策略，進而促成台灣社會的正向改變。
《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會於此時此刻舉行，別具意義。第一，此項工程不是政府由上而下所推動，而是由民間媒體聯合報系願景工作室籌劃組織而成，向朝野提出建言；第二，聯合報系推動此項工程，立即獲得了產官學研各界熱烈及踴躍的指導與參與，如前副總統蕭萬長、前行政院長劉兆玄、台積電董事長張忠謀、宏碁創辦人施振榮等各界素負重望的領袖，皆願加入這個平台，可見各界對於國家當前政經情勢的關切，皆有當仁不讓的熱誠與使命感；第三，當前台灣經濟正處於外患內憂的夾擊之中，外有歐債危機未解、世界經濟動盪的不安，內有朝野對峙、國家虛耗的凌遲，而急劇變遷的國際局勢帶來的機遇與挑戰，更有待台灣朝野共同面對，此時登場的高峰會可謂正當其時。
今日高峰會的與會者將分別從政府、產業、外商及兩岸關係的觀點，檢視當前台灣面臨的機會與挑戰，以及相應的可行作為，並將從策略思考的角度，訂出國家發展的優先方向，著重於急迫性及可實現性；我們相信，會談的智慧與熱情的火花頗值期待，也必能裨益國家社會大未來的尋路問津。
台灣經濟轉骨工程要做的事是如此之多，但能夠掌握的時間已是相對如此之少；若要做出成果，既需社會各界的同心協力，更需整個政府體系的心態調整。畢竟，高峰會是民間的建言，它真正要挑戰並激發的其實是政府施政心態的改變，這種由「心」出發的改變，才是各種政策建議得以實踐的基礎，也將是驅動台灣正向改變的最重要的力量。
面對民間的諍諫與期待，希望政府能以三種心態真誠回應：第一，不要有過度「防弊」的心態。企業界面對政府時，常被誤為只想貪取政府的好處，導致行政流程上層層查核、交叉會審的關關卡卡又多又長，消耗了時間、人力、物力不說，也限制了很多的發展可能性。政府負有審慎運用國家資源之責，但更有國家發展之責；因此，防弊之外，更要興利，國家方有生機。
第二，不要有過度「本位」的心態。近來產官學界高度憂慮人才流失危機，甚而認為勞委會如果改名「人力資源部」，或許就能從人才發展而非勞動條件的角度看問題；對產業發展憂心忡忡的企業人士亦有謂，如果各部會都設有「產業發展司」，或能增加產業發展的思維，而非僅是監管；之前證所稅開徵案提出時也有一種說法，認為資本市場若仍是財政部主管，方案內容或有不同。這樣的說法不一而足，也不一定完全正確，卻一定程度地反映了部會間過於本位的思維，已成遲滯國家前進的阻障。
第三，不要有過度「拒難」的心態。亦即，面對複雜、困難的事，不要消極應對。這讓人想起鴻海董事長郭台銘的一句話，他說，只要在乎，不論事大、事小，任何事都是困難的；但那是因為在乎，想要做好，它就變得困難了。相對的，只要在乎，也就沒有做不到的事，因為在乎，想要去做好，無論成果是大是小，都已經往前走了。現在台灣經濟的處境當然是困難的，但回顧台灣發展史，那個時候不困難呢？因此，重點不是它有多困難，而是我們有多在乎。在乎它，它就難；也正因在乎它，就會排除萬難，政府沒有喊難的權利。
值此內憂外患之際，這場高峰會召開的本身，應當已有「形塑影響」之功；我們希望，高峰會引發的群策群力的熱情與思考，亦有「策動轉變」之效，將台灣帶向正向改變。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 25, 2012
Summary: The nation is beset by problems from within and without. This summit may be able to exert some influence. We hope the summit will inspire enthusiasm, thought, and team work. We hope it will inspire change and move Taiwan in the right direction.
Full Text below:
The "Two Critical Years: Blazing the Trail for Taiwan's Economy" summit convened today. It is Part Two of the "Two Critical Years, Taiwan's Preeminence" editorial series created by the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
The editorial series asks questions. The summit attempts to arrive at an agreement on how to transform the economy and restore Taiwan's preeminence.
Last week we published five daily editorials on "Two Critical Years, Taiwan's Rapid Transformation." We compared Taiwan to other small and medium East Asia economies such as South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. We pointed out four facts. One. Taiwan's economy is rapidly falling behind. It is now bringing up the rear among the four Asian Tigers. Two. Taiwan's industrial upgrading and transformation have reached a bottleneck. We have been relegated to OEM status. We are on the verge of losing our industrial advantages. Three. The cross-strait economic agreement (ECFA), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and "free economic zone" may be breakthrough policies. But they have bogged down and are now at a stand still. Four. Economic development requires people of ability. But we now face a brain drain. These four factors interact with each other. They have become part of a negative feedback loop that must be interrupted.
Since the publication of our special reports, the public has responded enthusiastically. Readers have phoned in and encouraged the UDN's efforts. Internet page hits have reached new highs. These reflect public concern over Taiwan's economic plight. Experts from industry, government, academia, and research institutes have made policy recommendations. They have directly echoed the aspirations of the "Two Critical Years for Rapid Transformation." They have weighed in on the debate, and strongly criticized TV talk shows for not doing their duty.
This is what the Vision Workshop hoped to accomplish with its "exert influence" initiative. Today's summit will become a platform by which to "effect change." We hope the participating leaders can formulate an economic strategy for the next two years, and contribute to Taiwan's progress.
The "Two Critical Years, Blazing a Trail for Taiwan's Economic Future" summit has other implications. One. This is not a top-down government project. It was organized by the private sector United Daily News Vision Workshop. It makes recommendations to the government and the opposition. Two. As soon as the United Daily News began promoting this project, experts from government, industry, academia, and research institutes generously offered suggestions and assistance. These experts include former Vice President Vincent Siew, former Premier Liu Chao-hsuan, TSMC Chairman Morris Chang, Acer founder Stan Shih, and other respected leaders. All were willing to participate. Clearly people from all walks of life are concerned about the nation's political and economic plight. They feel a sense of mission. Three. Taiwan's economy is beset by problems, from within and without. From without, the European debt crisis remains unsolved, and the global economy remains in turmoil. From within, the government and opposition remain deadlocked. The nation is spinning its wheels and falling to pieces. Rapid changes to the international picture have brought opportunities and challenges that our ruling and opposition parties have yet to face. The summit could not be more timely.
Participants in today's summit include experts from government, industry, foreign companies, and cross-strait organizations. They will examine Taiwan's opportunities and challenges. They will formulate practical responses. They will examine the issues from a strategic perspective. They will establish priorities for the nation's development. They will focus on what is most urgent and what is most doable. The talks will provide insights and provoke passions. They will help the nation and society find its way.
Many things must be accomplished in order to transform Taiwan's economy. Time is limited. Real results will require a concerted effort from all sectors of society. It will require an attitude adjustment from the entire system of government. After all, the summit is a private sector initiative. The real challenge is to inspire changes in the thinking of government policymakers. This change must begin from the heart. Only that can provide a basis for policy recommendations. Only that can become the most important force for change.
The public has voiced its objections and made its demands. The government must respond in earnest. One. It must not be overly suspicious. Governments often assume entrepreneurs only seek government benefits. This generates layer upon layer of bureaucratic hurdles. These bureaucratic hurdles waste time, manpower, and materiel. They also limit possibilities. The government bears responsibility for the prudent use of national resources. More importantly it bears responsibility for national prosperity. Therefore besides preventing corruption, it must rejuvenate the nation's economy. Only then will we have a future.
Two. Do not think too much in terms of personal advantage. The recent brain drain has government and academia deeply concerned. The Council of Labor Affairs may even be renamed the "Ministry of Human Resources." We should look at the issue from the perspective of talent development rather than working conditions. Business people are also worried about industrial development. Ministries and departments should have an Industry Development Division. They should give greater consideration to industrial development and not just industrial regulation. Before the capital gains tax was proposed some people suggested that the Ministry of Finance be put in charge of the capital market. But capital markets are not its metier. The suggestion may have be motivated by self-centered thinking within government ministries. Such attitudes have become barriers to national progress.
Three. Do not harbor a "shirker" mentality. Do not automatically say no to complex and difficult tasks. As Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou said, if one cares, then any task, big or small will be difficult. Because if one insists on doing a good job, the task becomes difficult. But conversely, if one cares, then any task, big or small, will get done. Because if one insists on doing a good job, the task becomes doable. Taiwan is in dire economic straits. But recall the history of Taiwan's development. When has Taiwan ever not been in dire economic straits? The question is not whether we are in dire economic straits. The question is how much we care. If we care , the task will be difficult. But if we care, the task will be doable. The government has no right to complain about the diffculty.
The nation is beset by problems from within and without. This summit may be able to exert some influence. We hope the summit will inspire enthusiasm, thought, and team work. We hope it will inspire change and move Taiwan in the right direction.
實踐願景：共赴台灣經濟卓越之路
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.25 02:54 am
《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會今日登場，是聯合報系願景工作室繼上周《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》跨國系列報導之後，為此一願景工程砌起的第二塊磚。
系列報導是在呈現問題，高峰會則期望凝聚社會共識、擇定策略，以共同創建「經濟轉骨，台灣卓越」的願景。
上周連刊五天的《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》，經由與韓國、新加坡及香港等同是東亞中小型經濟體的比較，清楚勾勒出台灣經濟的四大事實：一、經濟發展深度、廣度、速度落後，在亞洲四小龍殿後；二、產業升級轉型陷入瓶頸，走不出代工宿命，產業優勢面臨威脅；三、兩岸經濟協議（ＥＣＦＡ）、自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）及「自由經濟示範區」等三大突圍政策，仍深陷圍城而停步不前；四、發展經濟所需的人才，亦正面臨流失危機。更值得注意的是，這四大事實之間互為因果，彼此影響，儼然已成必須打破、扭轉、導正的惡性循環。
專題報導見刊以來，我們收到了廣泛而且強烈的迴響。讀者主動來電鼓勵、打氣，肯定聯合報系的努力與用心；網路上的高點閱率及傳閱率，直接反映了社會大眾對台灣經濟現況的高關注度；產官學研各界精英亦以專業觀點提供政策建言，直接呼應《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》的訴求；向以重口味批評時政的電視政論性節目亦拋開媒體競爭的本位，以此為題，參與議論。
這一切正是願景工作室在「形塑影響」時的預期過程，由此而進，今天舉行的高峰會即成為「策動轉變」的平台；期望經由與會賢達的智慧參與，共議未來兩年的優先經濟策略，進而促成台灣社會的正向改變。
《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會於此時此刻舉行，別具意義。第一，此項工程不是政府由上而下所推動，而是由民間媒體聯合報系願景工作室籌劃組織而成，向朝野提出建言；第二，聯合報系推動此項工程，立即獲得了產官學研各界熱烈及踴躍的指導與參與，如前副總統蕭萬長、前行政院長劉兆玄、台積電董事長張忠謀、宏碁創辦人施振榮等各界素負重望的領袖，皆願加入這個平台，可見各界對於國家當前政經情勢的關切，皆有當仁不讓的熱誠與使命感；第三，當前台灣經濟正處於外患內憂的夾擊之中，外有歐債危機未解、世界經濟動盪的不安，內有朝野對峙、國家虛耗的凌遲，而急劇變遷的國際局勢帶來的機遇與挑戰，更有待台灣朝野共同面對，此時登場的高峰會可謂正當其時。
今日高峰會的與會者將分別從政府、產業、外商及兩岸關係的觀點，檢視當前台灣面臨的機會與挑戰，以及相應的可行作為，並將從策略思考的角度，訂出國家發展的優先方向，著重於急迫性及可實現性；我們相信，會談的智慧與熱情的火花頗值期待，也必能裨益國家社會大未來的尋路問津。
台灣經濟轉骨工程要做的事是如此之多，但能夠掌握的時間已是相對如此之少；若要做出成果，既需社會各界的同心協力，更需整個政府體系的心態調整。畢竟，高峰會是民間的建言，它真正要挑戰並激發的其實是政府施政心態的改變，這種由「心」出發的改變，才是各種政策建議得以實踐的基礎，也將是驅動台灣正向改變的最重要的力量。
面對民間的諍諫與期待，希望政府能以三種心態真誠回應：第一，不要有過度「防弊」的心態。企業界面對政府時，常被誤為只想貪取政府的好處，導致行政流程上層層查核、交叉會審的關關卡卡又多又長，消耗了時間、人力、物力不說，也限制了很多的發展可能性。政府負有審慎運用國家資源之責，但更有國家發展之責；因此，防弊之外，更要興利，國家方有生機。
第二，不要有過度「本位」的心態。近來產官學界高度憂慮人才流失危機，甚而認為勞委會如果改名「人力資源部」，或許就能從人才發展而非勞動條件的角度看問題；對產業發展憂心忡忡的企業人士亦有謂，如果各部會都設有「產業發展司」，或能增加產業發展的思維，而非僅是監管；之前證所稅開徵案提出時也有一種說法，認為資本市場若仍是財政部主管，方案內容或有不同。這樣的說法不一而足，也不一定完全正確，卻一定程度地反映了部會間過於本位的思維，已成遲滯國家前進的阻障。
第三，不要有過度「拒難」的心態。亦即，面對複雜、困難的事，不要消極應對。這讓人想起鴻海董事長郭台銘的一句話，他說，只要在乎，不論事大、事小，任何事都是困難的；但那是因為在乎，想要做好，它就變得困難了。相對的，只要在乎，也就沒有做不到的事，因為在乎，想要去做好，無論成果是大是小，都已經往前走了。現在台灣經濟的處境當然是困難的，但回顧台灣發展史，那個時候不困難呢？因此，重點不是它有多困難，而是我們有多在乎。在乎它，它就難；也正因在乎它，就會排除萬難，政府沒有喊難的權利。
值此內憂外患之際，這場高峰會召開的本身，應當已有「形塑影響」之功；我們希望，高峰會引發的群策群力的熱情與思考，亦有「策動轉變」之效，將台灣帶向正向改變。
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Do KMT Legislators Still Expect to Govern?
Do KMT Legislators Still Expect to Govern?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 22, 2012
Summary: The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?
Full Text below:
The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?
The Republic of China is a democracy. Legislative Yuan protests are the norm. But it has never witnessed a legislative session end without the passage of a single bill. The ruling and opposition parties bicker then make up. This has long been their tacit agreement. Less controversial bills are dealt with first. More controversial bills are dealt with last. Legislators negotiate even as they posture. They inevitably pass the bills before the Speaker brings down the gavel. They vote. Either that, or the minority party withdraws in protest and the majority party passes the bill in its absence. This time however, the situation was entirely different, from the very outset. The most controversial U.S. beef imports bill was placed at the very top of the agenda. The DPP decided from the outset not to let the U.S. beef imports bill pass. Sure enough, the day before the five day recess, the DPP forcibly occupied the podium yet again. The opposition DPP deployed its forces. The ruling KMT must respond with equal resolve. Otherwise the public will only be able to look upon the legislature and sigh.
Over 380 bills. Perhaps not all 380 could be placed on the agenda. But surely 38 could have? No matter how incompetent the legislators might be, surely eight bills could have been given priority and passed? Would the DPP have forcibly occupied the legislature in advance? The Legislative Yuan could have dealt with economic issues first. This would have preempted the Democratic Progressive Party's mobilization. But the KMT passed up this opportunity and did nothing. The U.S. beef imports bill failed to pass. Even the typhoon related labor rights paid leave bill failed to pass. Can the majority KMT, the ruling party, completely disown responsibility?
Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng, a KMT legislator without portfolio, said he disapproved of the use of police power. This is his standard disclaimer, and no surprise. Wang refuses to order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to restore order. But why were DPP legislators able to enter the legislature in advance and occupy the podium? Why didn't Wang order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to guard the podium in advance? Was Wang concerned that a phalanx of of Sargeants at Arms arrayed before the podium might hurt our image as a democracy? If so, why didn't Wang allow KMT legislators to enter the legislature in advance? The DPP has 40 legislators. Half of them were able to occupy the podium. Couldn't the KMT with 64 legislators find 20 legislators to enter the legislature in advance to prevent the podium from being occupied? Suppose the situation were reversed? Suppose KMT legislators were lined up on the podium to prevent it from being occupied? Would the DPP dare resort to violence? Would it dare drag them off the podium or [punch them with their fists?
Put bluntly, KMT legislator never had any intention of mobilizing. Their response was half-hearted. Their "Grade A Mobilization Order" just before the recess was nothing more than a "Grade P (for Phony) Mobilization Order." Even DPP legislator Chiu Yee Ying, who was undergoing chemotherapy, traveled north to Taipei to take part. The KMT could not mobilize even 40 legislators. The failed to match the DPP even in numbers. Their majority is nothing more than "a plate of loose sand." How can they possibly govern? The public blasted the DPP, saying it "collected its pay but refused to meet, ate its fill then returned to sleep." But at least they all showed up. Where was the KMT? Some say Blue Camp legislators were under pressure from their local constituent. They were afraid the DPP would demand their recall. They had no choice but to adopt a passive stance on U.S. beef imports. But U.S. beef imports was hardly the only issue. The real issue is whether KMT legislators are good for anything whatsoever? If over half the KMT legislators are useless, then a DPP recall motion is unnecessary. Blue Camp supporters will be angry enough to demand their recall. Their election victories were utterly meaningless. They might as well be recalled and replaced.
The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the KMT originally intended to convene an emergency meeting over the US beef imports issue. The typhoon led to a postponement until July. The KMT legislative caucus has been mocked as "unable to keep it up for even ten minutes." If it persists in doing nothing when the legislature reconvenes, the majority party will become a laughing stock. Whether the U.S. beef imports bill will pass remains unknown. The Minister of Finance has stepped down. The capital gains tax will come to nothing. The terms for NCC commissioners will expire at the end of July. The president's NCC commissioner nominations are on hold. The new commissioners are unavailable. The old commissioners have already returned to academia. Visualize the following scenario. The Ma administration's NCC nominees are unable to review cases, perhaps because they lack a quorum, The legislators nominated by the KMT are unable to review bills. The re-elected Ma administration has been idle for four months. Does it intend to remain idle for four years? When their leadership has come to this, what is there left for the public to say?
Many years ago violent physical clashed in the legislature led to comprehensive re-elections. The ROC transitioned to true democracy. Over 20 years have passed since comprehensive Legislative Yuan re-elections were held. The nation has undergone not one, but two changes in ruling parties. Do the ruling and opposition parties intend to continue playing this childish "King of the Hill" game? At home DPP legislators gobble down U.S. beef. Inside the legislature they oppose US beef imports. Inside the legislature they oppose nuclear power generation. Inside the legislature and at home they turn their air conditioners on full blast. They say one thing while doing another. The KMT must find the resolve to expose the DPP's lies, and the hypocrisy of its "occupy" theatrics. If the KMT cannot pass even this hurdle, then the Ma administration will not be able to get anything passed over the next four years. The Ma administration will find the going rough. But four years later, it will be replaced by someone else. Unfortunately over the next four years, the public on Taiwan will need to live. The public on Taiwan likes efficiency and order. It will not tolerate ineffective rule. KMT legislators must think clearly. You are each members of the ruling party caucus, Can you really sit idly by and shirk responsibility?
中國時報 2012.06.22
社論－再擺爛，國民黨立委還想執政？
本報訊
剛結束的立法院會期，可謂一事無成！三百八十五個法案全部擺爛，包括爭議數月的美牛案，民進黨以超乎比例原則的抗爭方式，從夜宿議場到五花大綁議長席，各界批評多矣！然而，做為過半數的執政黨，國民黨的議事策略更值得檢討，如果少數黨抗爭都能鬧到法案全數卡住，此例一開形同「少數執政」，將使馬政府寸步難行，令不出府院，台灣還有何前景可言？
台灣是民主社會，立法院議事抗爭更是常態，但從來沒有會期結束前一案都未過的例子。朝野在打打和和中，早就建立一定的默契，爭議少的議案排前面，爭議大的案子擺後面，邊談邊表決，實在沒辦法還是能在議長敲槌散會前打一架通過、表決通過、或少數退席抗議聲中通過。這一次，從沙盤推演起就和過往完全不同，爭議最大的美牛案擺第一，民進黨從一開始就鎖定不能讓美牛案過關，果然在五天延會期前一天就進場綁架議長席，在野陣仗既已擺開，多數執政的國民黨若不強力排除，就只能望議場而興嘆。
三百八十多項法案，不要說全部排進院會，總找得到卅八個法案吧，再不濟，找出八個法案列為優先法案，民進黨還會提前封鎖議場嗎？院會議事進度民生為先，至少破解民進黨動員先機，國民黨捨此不為，結果，不但美牛案過不了，連與勞工權益息息相關的颱風有薪假的修法案都過不了，過半數執政的國民黨又豈能完全卸責？
身為國民黨不分區立委的立法院長王金平不認同動用警察權，這是他一貫的理念，不足為怪，但是，駐衛警可以不動手，為什麼民進黨立委可以提早進場綁住議長席，立法院駐衛警不能提前進場護衛議長席呢？如果擔心議長席前一字排開都是警察，於民主形象有損，那麼國民黨立委總可以提前進場吧？民進黨四十位立委，半數就能綁架議場，難道六十四席立委的國民黨就找不到廿位立委進場護衛議長席嗎？情境轉換，如果今天是國民黨立委一字排開站在主席台前護駕，民進黨膽敢再冒暴力政黨的風險上前拉人或打人嗎？
說穿了，國民黨立委從一開始就動員無心，反抗爭無力，延會結束前的「甲級動員令」，不折不扣成了「假級動員令」！民進黨團連化療中的立委邱議瑩都北上，國民黨卻四十席立委都動員不到，連數人頭都敗陣，多數竟成為一盤散沙，談何執政？民進黨被輿論批評為「領錢不開會，吃飽繼續睡」，好歹全員進場，國民黨立委人都在哪裡？有人說藍委選區壓力大，擔心民進黨發動罷免，只能對美牛案消極以對，但這已經不只是美牛案的問題，還是國民黨立委到底有沒有作用的問題，如果過半數都無用，不必民進黨發動罷免，藍營支持者也會氣到呼應罷免，與其選出來毫無作用，不如罷免換人算了！
為了美牛案，府院黨原本有意加開一天臨時會，剛巧碰到颱風順延到七月，如果國民黨立院黨團屆時依舊意興闌珊，甚至被譏嘲「撐不了十分鐘」，這樣的多數黨就等著被人看笑話了。美牛案能否過關猶在未定之天，鬧到財政部長下台的證所稅案肯定不了了之，還有七月底任期即將屆滿的ＮＣＣ人事案，全部都擺著，新人不來舊人泰半歸建回學校，想想看這個場景，馬政府任命的ＮＣＣ委員不審案或者未過半數不能審案，國民黨提名的立法委員也不能審案，馬政府連任當選已經空轉四個月，難不成還要空轉四年？領導統御至此，台灣人民夫復何言！
當年，國會肢體衝突抗爭為的是全面改選，為的是台灣真正民主轉型，國會全面改選已經廿年過去，政黨輪替都已經兩次了，朝野還要玩焦土抗爭這種幼稚的遊戲嗎？民進黨立委場外吃美牛，場內反美牛，議場內外喊反核，議場家裡都大開冷氣，軟弱不能求和，要戳破民進黨建構在謊言上的抗爭，國民黨得拿出實力和本事，這一關都過不了，未來四年馬政府什麼都甭過了。馬政府不好過，頂多四年後再次政黨輪替，問題是，未來四年台灣人民還有生活要過，習慣效率與節奏的台灣人，不會長期忍受無效能的執政，國民黨立委可得想清楚，自己也是執政團隊的一員，豈能放手無視肩頭上的責任！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 22, 2012
Summary: The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?
Full Text below:
The legislature which just adjourned accomplished absolutely nothing. Over 385 bills went nowhere, including the US beef imports bill, an object of controversy for months. The DPP resorted to totally unjustified means of protest. They forcibly occupied the legislative hall and podium, provoking widespread criticism. But as the majority party, as the ruling party, the KMT's response was also questionable. If brute force by a minority party can prevent a bill from being passed, this is nothing less than minority rule. The Ma administration is paralyzed. It cannot control either the Presidential Office or the Executive Yuan. In which case, does Taiwan still have any future to speak of?
The Republic of China is a democracy. Legislative Yuan protests are the norm. But it has never witnessed a legislative session end without the passage of a single bill. The ruling and opposition parties bicker then make up. This has long been their tacit agreement. Less controversial bills are dealt with first. More controversial bills are dealt with last. Legislators negotiate even as they posture. They inevitably pass the bills before the Speaker brings down the gavel. They vote. Either that, or the minority party withdraws in protest and the majority party passes the bill in its absence. This time however, the situation was entirely different, from the very outset. The most controversial U.S. beef imports bill was placed at the very top of the agenda. The DPP decided from the outset not to let the U.S. beef imports bill pass. Sure enough, the day before the five day recess, the DPP forcibly occupied the podium yet again. The opposition DPP deployed its forces. The ruling KMT must respond with equal resolve. Otherwise the public will only be able to look upon the legislature and sigh.
Over 380 bills. Perhaps not all 380 could be placed on the agenda. But surely 38 could have? No matter how incompetent the legislators might be, surely eight bills could have been given priority and passed? Would the DPP have forcibly occupied the legislature in advance? The Legislative Yuan could have dealt with economic issues first. This would have preempted the Democratic Progressive Party's mobilization. But the KMT passed up this opportunity and did nothing. The U.S. beef imports bill failed to pass. Even the typhoon related labor rights paid leave bill failed to pass. Can the majority KMT, the ruling party, completely disown responsibility?
Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng, a KMT legislator without portfolio, said he disapproved of the use of police power. This is his standard disclaimer, and no surprise. Wang refuses to order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to restore order. But why were DPP legislators able to enter the legislature in advance and occupy the podium? Why didn't Wang order the Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms to guard the podium in advance? Was Wang concerned that a phalanx of of Sargeants at Arms arrayed before the podium might hurt our image as a democracy? If so, why didn't Wang allow KMT legislators to enter the legislature in advance? The DPP has 40 legislators. Half of them were able to occupy the podium. Couldn't the KMT with 64 legislators find 20 legislators to enter the legislature in advance to prevent the podium from being occupied? Suppose the situation were reversed? Suppose KMT legislators were lined up on the podium to prevent it from being occupied? Would the DPP dare resort to violence? Would it dare drag them off the podium or [punch them with their fists?
Put bluntly, KMT legislator never had any intention of mobilizing. Their response was half-hearted. Their "Grade A Mobilization Order" just before the recess was nothing more than a "Grade P (for Phony) Mobilization Order." Even DPP legislator Chiu Yee Ying, who was undergoing chemotherapy, traveled north to Taipei to take part. The KMT could not mobilize even 40 legislators. The failed to match the DPP even in numbers. Their majority is nothing more than "a plate of loose sand." How can they possibly govern? The public blasted the DPP, saying it "collected its pay but refused to meet, ate its fill then returned to sleep." But at least they all showed up. Where was the KMT? Some say Blue Camp legislators were under pressure from their local constituent. They were afraid the DPP would demand their recall. They had no choice but to adopt a passive stance on U.S. beef imports. But U.S. beef imports was hardly the only issue. The real issue is whether KMT legislators are good for anything whatsoever? If over half the KMT legislators are useless, then a DPP recall motion is unnecessary. Blue Camp supporters will be angry enough to demand their recall. Their election victories were utterly meaningless. They might as well be recalled and replaced.
The Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the KMT originally intended to convene an emergency meeting over the US beef imports issue. The typhoon led to a postponement until July. The KMT legislative caucus has been mocked as "unable to keep it up for even ten minutes." If it persists in doing nothing when the legislature reconvenes, the majority party will become a laughing stock. Whether the U.S. beef imports bill will pass remains unknown. The Minister of Finance has stepped down. The capital gains tax will come to nothing. The terms for NCC commissioners will expire at the end of July. The president's NCC commissioner nominations are on hold. The new commissioners are unavailable. The old commissioners have already returned to academia. Visualize the following scenario. The Ma administration's NCC nominees are unable to review cases, perhaps because they lack a quorum, The legislators nominated by the KMT are unable to review bills. The re-elected Ma administration has been idle for four months. Does it intend to remain idle for four years? When their leadership has come to this, what is there left for the public to say?
Many years ago violent physical clashed in the legislature led to comprehensive re-elections. The ROC transitioned to true democracy. Over 20 years have passed since comprehensive Legislative Yuan re-elections were held. The nation has undergone not one, but two changes in ruling parties. Do the ruling and opposition parties intend to continue playing this childish "King of the Hill" game? At home DPP legislators gobble down U.S. beef. Inside the legislature they oppose US beef imports. Inside the legislature they oppose nuclear power generation. Inside the legislature and at home they turn their air conditioners on full blast. They say one thing while doing another. The KMT must find the resolve to expose the DPP's lies, and the hypocrisy of its "occupy" theatrics. If the KMT cannot pass even this hurdle, then the Ma administration will not be able to get anything passed over the next four years. The Ma administration will find the going rough. But four years later, it will be replaced by someone else. Unfortunately over the next four years, the public on Taiwan will need to live. The public on Taiwan likes efficiency and order. It will not tolerate ineffective rule. KMT legislators must think clearly. You are each members of the ruling party caucus, Can you really sit idly by and shirk responsibility?
中國時報 2012.06.22
社論－再擺爛，國民黨立委還想執政？
本報訊
剛結束的立法院會期，可謂一事無成！三百八十五個法案全部擺爛，包括爭議數月的美牛案，民進黨以超乎比例原則的抗爭方式，從夜宿議場到五花大綁議長席，各界批評多矣！然而，做為過半數的執政黨，國民黨的議事策略更值得檢討，如果少數黨抗爭都能鬧到法案全數卡住，此例一開形同「少數執政」，將使馬政府寸步難行，令不出府院，台灣還有何前景可言？
台灣是民主社會，立法院議事抗爭更是常態，但從來沒有會期結束前一案都未過的例子。朝野在打打和和中，早就建立一定的默契，爭議少的議案排前面，爭議大的案子擺後面，邊談邊表決，實在沒辦法還是能在議長敲槌散會前打一架通過、表決通過、或少數退席抗議聲中通過。這一次，從沙盤推演起就和過往完全不同，爭議最大的美牛案擺第一，民進黨從一開始就鎖定不能讓美牛案過關，果然在五天延會期前一天就進場綁架議長席，在野陣仗既已擺開，多數執政的國民黨若不強力排除，就只能望議場而興嘆。
三百八十多項法案，不要說全部排進院會，總找得到卅八個法案吧，再不濟，找出八個法案列為優先法案，民進黨還會提前封鎖議場嗎？院會議事進度民生為先，至少破解民進黨動員先機，國民黨捨此不為，結果，不但美牛案過不了，連與勞工權益息息相關的颱風有薪假的修法案都過不了，過半數執政的國民黨又豈能完全卸責？
身為國民黨不分區立委的立法院長王金平不認同動用警察權，這是他一貫的理念，不足為怪，但是，駐衛警可以不動手，為什麼民進黨立委可以提早進場綁住議長席，立法院駐衛警不能提前進場護衛議長席呢？如果擔心議長席前一字排開都是警察，於民主形象有損，那麼國民黨立委總可以提前進場吧？民進黨四十位立委，半數就能綁架議場，難道六十四席立委的國民黨就找不到廿位立委進場護衛議長席嗎？情境轉換，如果今天是國民黨立委一字排開站在主席台前護駕，民進黨膽敢再冒暴力政黨的風險上前拉人或打人嗎？
說穿了，國民黨立委從一開始就動員無心，反抗爭無力，延會結束前的「甲級動員令」，不折不扣成了「假級動員令」！民進黨團連化療中的立委邱議瑩都北上，國民黨卻四十席立委都動員不到，連數人頭都敗陣，多數竟成為一盤散沙，談何執政？民進黨被輿論批評為「領錢不開會，吃飽繼續睡」，好歹全員進場，國民黨立委人都在哪裡？有人說藍委選區壓力大，擔心民進黨發動罷免，只能對美牛案消極以對，但這已經不只是美牛案的問題，還是國民黨立委到底有沒有作用的問題，如果過半數都無用，不必民進黨發動罷免，藍營支持者也會氣到呼應罷免，與其選出來毫無作用，不如罷免換人算了！
為了美牛案，府院黨原本有意加開一天臨時會，剛巧碰到颱風順延到七月，如果國民黨立院黨團屆時依舊意興闌珊，甚至被譏嘲「撐不了十分鐘」，這樣的多數黨就等著被人看笑話了。美牛案能否過關猶在未定之天，鬧到財政部長下台的證所稅案肯定不了了之，還有七月底任期即將屆滿的ＮＣＣ人事案，全部都擺著，新人不來舊人泰半歸建回學校，想想看這個場景，馬政府任命的ＮＣＣ委員不審案或者未過半數不能審案，國民黨提名的立法委員也不能審案，馬政府連任當選已經空轉四個月，難不成還要空轉四年？領導統御至此，台灣人民夫復何言！
當年，國會肢體衝突抗爭為的是全面改選，為的是台灣真正民主轉型，國會全面改選已經廿年過去，政黨輪替都已經兩次了，朝野還要玩焦土抗爭這種幼稚的遊戲嗎？民進黨立委場外吃美牛，場內反美牛，議場內外喊反核，議場家裡都大開冷氣，軟弱不能求和，要戳破民進黨建構在謊言上的抗爭，國民黨得拿出實力和本事，這一關都過不了，未來四年馬政府什麼都甭過了。馬政府不好過，頂多四年後再次政黨輪替，問題是，未來四年台灣人民還有生活要過，習慣效率與節奏的台灣人，不會長期忍受無效能的執政，國民黨立委可得想清楚，自己也是執政團隊的一員，豈能放手無視肩頭上的責任！
Will Pummeling the Ma Administration Move Taiwan Forward?
Will Pummeling the Ma Administration Move Taiwan Forward?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 21, 2012
Summary: DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price.
Full Text below:
Ma Ying-jeou's second term has just begun. But he is already on the ground, having been beaten black and blue. The opposition DPP and TSU say no to every proposal the administration puts forth. They have sunk their teeth into the U.S. beef imports issue and refuse to let go. Nor is public opinion on Ma Ying-jeou's side. The Ma administration wants to debate the issues but lacks the energy. KMT legislators want to duke it out but lack the strength. Other economies are racing ahead. Taiwan continues to stand still. How is this good for the people?
DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. The emergency session of the legislature meanwhile, has been postponed to mid-July due to typhoons. The Food Sanitation Management Act, the capital gains tax, NCC personnel appointments, and other bills have all been delayed. When can they be reviewed? No one knows. The last time DPP legislators occupied the legislature, they won. Naturally they want to consolidate their victory. President Ma has told KMT legislators that no matter how fearful they might be, they must act. Fortunately, the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) meeting in early July will arrive at a decision regarding Ractopamine. Taiwan will then have a more objective basis for dealing with the issue. Currently there is no room for rational debate. Can chaos in the legislature be avoided? No one knows.
The Republic of China, obviously, is already a democracy. Our vote determines who will be president and which party will be in power. If candidates are willing to play, they must be willing to lose. If candidates participate in elections, they must be willing to accept the judgment of the voters. The most basic principle of democracy is that the minority must defer to the majority, the majority must respect the minority. The key to political representation is for voters to elect their representatives. The political parties will then determine whether a bill will pass by voting according to the number of seats they occupy in the legislature.
Voters elect the legislators. This determines which party will be the majority party in the Legislative Yuan and which party will be the minority party. When the ruling and opposition parties express their positions on an issue, the voters are expressing their positions. Why then, during the U.S. beef imports controversy did DPP legislators imagine they had a right to occupy the podium, seal off the hall, and ignore the voice of the people, as expressed in the number of ruling and opposition party seats in the legislature?
Votes taken by the so-called "ten thousand year parliament" lacked a public mandate. Physical conflict against the "old brigands" was to some degree understandable. But the Legislative Yuan today is popularly elected. Every legislator has a public mandate. None of them is special. None of them has the right to ignore democratic majority rule. If a political party is unable to win a vote in the legislature because it holds fewer seats, what right does it have to use brute force to prevent a vote? What right does it have to its violent behavior? Do the ballots voters cast mean nothing? Is the only thing that matters a political party's fists?
Currently the Ma administration is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. It has failed at communicating its decision-making. It has failed at explaining its policy implementation. It too needs self-examination. It cannot lay all the blame on a public backlash. Many Democratic Progressive Party officials think as long as they can bring Ma down, the DPP will benefit. In any event, they reason, it costs nothing to snipe at Ma. No matter what, they will come out ahead. As long as they can trip up Ma, that is a DPP victory. Seeing the Ma administration pummeled by the public is an opportunity too good to pass up. So why pass it up? This is why DPP legislators are taking such a tough stance. This is why they are unwilling to allow the KMT to take the next step.
But such strategies of confrontation are destructive. They are contrary to the principle of democratic elections. They are just plain irresponsible. Ractopamine has never been proven to harm human health. Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have ingested it for decades without incident. The DPP opposes Ractopamine to the bitter end. But why is it silent on the known harm from tobacco, alcohol, and betel nuts? The DPP frequently blasts the Ma administration for "leaning too far toward [Mainland] China." It claims that the Ma administration's record for signing free trade agreements (FTAs) is weak. It knows perfectly well that without U.S. beef imports the Taipei-Washington TIFA talks cannot resume. An FTA or TPP between Taipei and Washington is even more unthinkable. Yet it persists in standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. What kind of mentality is this?
In fact DPP legislators are not really standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. U.S. beef imports are merely a tool to mobilize fundamentalist supporters. The DPP's real goal is to stand in the way of Ma Ying-jeou, to bring his administration to a grinding halt. Even if it means sacrificing Taiwan's trade opportunities and economic future.
Is this a responsible attitude? Opposition parties have no ruling authority. But they have a responsibility to promote national prosperity. They may not gloat over developments that will harm the nation's future. They may not ignore Taiwan's survival merely to ensure their own political party's survival.
The people must learn to recognize responsible and irresponsible behavior. They must understand that political tactics must comport with the principles of democracy. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price. Irresponsible words and deeds, by either the ruling or opposition parties, cannot be condoned.
打趴馬政府 台灣就能前進？
2012-06-21 01:34
中國時報
馬英九的第二任期才開始，就已經幾乎被打到趴，在野黨無事不反，逮到了個美牛議題更是卯足全力大反特反，民氣也全不在馬英九身邊，政府欲辯乏力，國民黨立委欲戰無力。其他國家都在拚命往前跑，台灣卻始終原地空轉，這豈是全民之福？
立法院在民進黨立委封鎖議場五天後休會，臨時會又因颱風而延期到七月中旬，食品衛生管理法、證所稅、ＮＣＣ人事案等法案繼續耽擱下去。什麼時候能審查通過，沒人敢樂觀。民進黨立委挾上次占領議場的勝績，當然要鞏固戰果；國民黨立委奉馬主席強力指示，再腳軟也不能沒有動作。所幸的是，聯合國食品法典委員會（Codex）七月上旬的會議如果對萊克多巴胺有個結論，台灣在處理時就有個較為客觀的依據，也許不致像現在幾無理性討論的空間。但即使如此，屆時是不是能避免議事衝突混亂，猶未可知。
其實，台灣明明已經是個民主國家，由選民一票一票決定誰當總統、哪個政黨執政。願賭服輸，既從政參選，就要接受選民的裁判。而民主的最基本原則，就是少數服從多數，多數尊重少數。代議政治的重點，就是由選民選出民意代表，然後各政黨依其席次在國會透過表決來可否法案。
選民投票選出了立委，也因此決定了立法院裡的多數黨與少數黨，這種朝野態勢，其實也就是人民的意志產品，那麼，為什麼之前為了阻擋美牛案，民進黨立委認為自己有權以占領主席台、封鎖議場等極端手段，推翻基於人民意志而形成的朝野席次差距？
昔日萬年國會時立法院缺乏民意基礎，以肢體衝突對抗老賊多數暴力還說得過去，但現在立法院是民選的，每個委員都一樣有民意授權，沒有誰特別崇高到可以不遵守民主多數決原則。如果因為席次居少數，表決贏不了，就強行阻撓議事，這種行為有什麼正當性？又有什麼值得洋洋得意的？難道人民投票是投假的，只有拳頭才算數？
馬政府現在動輒得咎，似乎做什麼都會被罵，但決策溝通不力在先，政策說明無方在後，自己實在也有許多需要檢討反省的地方，不能怪民怨起反彈。而許多民進黨人士認為，把馬打下去，民進黨就會得利，反正打馬不花本錢，也不會有損失，罵到賺到，絆住馬的施政腳步，就是民進黨的勝利，眼看著馬政府被民怨叮得滿頭包，不趁這個良機窮追猛打，豈不虧到了。所以民進黨立委擺出強硬姿態，不願意給台階讓國民黨好好下。
但這種毀滅性的對抗策略，不但違背民主票決原則，也是不負責任的。萊克多巴胺從未有案例證明會影響人體健康，美國數億人口吃了幾十年也都沒出事，民進黨如果對萊克多巴胺如此抵死反對，那麼對明確為害更甚的菸、酒、檳榔，為何又默不作聲？民進黨經常批評馬政府過度傾中，指責馬政府簽署自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）的成績乏善可陳，卻又在明知美牛案不過台美ＴＩＦＡ便無法重啟、台美ＦＴＡ或ＴＰＰ更是想都別想時，仍然一味阻擋美牛案，這又是什麼心理？
其實，民進黨立委哪裡是在卡美牛，美牛只是個很好動員基本群眾的工具，真正的目的，無非是要卡馬英九，要把馬政府打到動彈不得。即使是以攸關台灣生存的經貿機會為代價，也在所不惜。
這是負責任的態度嗎？在野黨雖然沒有執政權，但對國家發展一樣應該有責任感，對於會嚴重戕害國家生機的事，絕對不該幸災樂禍，尤其不能為了自己的政治生命而不管台灣死活。
民眾必須學習認識什麼是負責任、什麼是不負責任的行為，並且了解政治運作應該遵守民主基本原則，在野黨並沒有無限制抗爭杯葛的權利，一味反對以致把執政當局綑綁得動彈不得，讓國家虛耗空轉，終將令全民付出沉重代價。不負責任的言行，無論朝野，都不應該被縱容。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 21, 2012
Summary: DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price.
Full Text below:
Ma Ying-jeou's second term has just begun. But he is already on the ground, having been beaten black and blue. The opposition DPP and TSU say no to every proposal the administration puts forth. They have sunk their teeth into the U.S. beef imports issue and refuse to let go. Nor is public opinion on Ma Ying-jeou's side. The Ma administration wants to debate the issues but lacks the energy. KMT legislators want to duke it out but lack the strength. Other economies are racing ahead. Taiwan continues to stand still. How is this good for the people?
DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting its business. The emergency session of the legislature meanwhile, has been postponed to mid-July due to typhoons. The Food Sanitation Management Act, the capital gains tax, NCC personnel appointments, and other bills have all been delayed. When can they be reviewed? No one knows. The last time DPP legislators occupied the legislature, they won. Naturally they want to consolidate their victory. President Ma has told KMT legislators that no matter how fearful they might be, they must act. Fortunately, the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) meeting in early July will arrive at a decision regarding Ractopamine. Taiwan will then have a more objective basis for dealing with the issue. Currently there is no room for rational debate. Can chaos in the legislature be avoided? No one knows.
The Republic of China, obviously, is already a democracy. Our vote determines who will be president and which party will be in power. If candidates are willing to play, they must be willing to lose. If candidates participate in elections, they must be willing to accept the judgment of the voters. The most basic principle of democracy is that the minority must defer to the majority, the majority must respect the minority. The key to political representation is for voters to elect their representatives. The political parties will then determine whether a bill will pass by voting according to the number of seats they occupy in the legislature.
Voters elect the legislators. This determines which party will be the majority party in the Legislative Yuan and which party will be the minority party. When the ruling and opposition parties express their positions on an issue, the voters are expressing their positions. Why then, during the U.S. beef imports controversy did DPP legislators imagine they had a right to occupy the podium, seal off the hall, and ignore the voice of the people, as expressed in the number of ruling and opposition party seats in the legislature?
Votes taken by the so-called "ten thousand year parliament" lacked a public mandate. Physical conflict against the "old brigands" was to some degree understandable. But the Legislative Yuan today is popularly elected. Every legislator has a public mandate. None of them is special. None of them has the right to ignore democratic majority rule. If a political party is unable to win a vote in the legislature because it holds fewer seats, what right does it have to use brute force to prevent a vote? What right does it have to its violent behavior? Do the ballots voters cast mean nothing? Is the only thing that matters a political party's fists?
Currently the Ma administration is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. It has failed at communicating its decision-making. It has failed at explaining its policy implementation. It too needs self-examination. It cannot lay all the blame on a public backlash. Many Democratic Progressive Party officials think as long as they can bring Ma down, the DPP will benefit. In any event, they reason, it costs nothing to snipe at Ma. No matter what, they will come out ahead. As long as they can trip up Ma, that is a DPP victory. Seeing the Ma administration pummeled by the public is an opportunity too good to pass up. So why pass it up? This is why DPP legislators are taking such a tough stance. This is why they are unwilling to allow the KMT to take the next step.
But such strategies of confrontation are destructive. They are contrary to the principle of democratic elections. They are just plain irresponsible. Ractopamine has never been proven to harm human health. Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have ingested it for decades without incident. The DPP opposes Ractopamine to the bitter end. But why is it silent on the known harm from tobacco, alcohol, and betel nuts? The DPP frequently blasts the Ma administration for "leaning too far toward [Mainland] China." It claims that the Ma administration's record for signing free trade agreements (FTAs) is weak. It knows perfectly well that without U.S. beef imports the Taipei-Washington TIFA talks cannot resume. An FTA or TPP between Taipei and Washington is even more unthinkable. Yet it persists in standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. What kind of mentality is this?
In fact DPP legislators are not really standing in the way of U.S. beef imports. U.S. beef imports are merely a tool to mobilize fundamentalist supporters. The DPP's real goal is to stand in the way of Ma Ying-jeou, to bring his administration to a grinding halt. Even if it means sacrificing Taiwan's trade opportunities and economic future.
Is this a responsible attitude? Opposition parties have no ruling authority. But they have a responsibility to promote national prosperity. They may not gloat over developments that will harm the nation's future. They may not ignore Taiwan's survival merely to ensure their own political party's survival.
The people must learn to recognize responsible and irresponsible behavior. They must understand that political tactics must comport with the principles of democracy. Opposition parties have no right to use violence to prevent the conduct of legislature business. They have no right to bring the ruling government to a standstill. If they force the government to spin its wheels, they will force the people as a whole to pay a heavy price. Irresponsible words and deeds, by either the ruling or opposition parties, cannot be condoned.
打趴馬政府 台灣就能前進？
2012-06-21 01:34
中國時報
馬英九的第二任期才開始，就已經幾乎被打到趴，在野黨無事不反，逮到了個美牛議題更是卯足全力大反特反，民氣也全不在馬英九身邊，政府欲辯乏力，國民黨立委欲戰無力。其他國家都在拚命往前跑，台灣卻始終原地空轉，這豈是全民之福？
立法院在民進黨立委封鎖議場五天後休會，臨時會又因颱風而延期到七月中旬，食品衛生管理法、證所稅、ＮＣＣ人事案等法案繼續耽擱下去。什麼時候能審查通過，沒人敢樂觀。民進黨立委挾上次占領議場的勝績，當然要鞏固戰果；國民黨立委奉馬主席強力指示，再腳軟也不能沒有動作。所幸的是，聯合國食品法典委員會（Codex）七月上旬的會議如果對萊克多巴胺有個結論，台灣在處理時就有個較為客觀的依據，也許不致像現在幾無理性討論的空間。但即使如此，屆時是不是能避免議事衝突混亂，猶未可知。
其實，台灣明明已經是個民主國家，由選民一票一票決定誰當總統、哪個政黨執政。願賭服輸，既從政參選，就要接受選民的裁判。而民主的最基本原則，就是少數服從多數，多數尊重少數。代議政治的重點，就是由選民選出民意代表，然後各政黨依其席次在國會透過表決來可否法案。
選民投票選出了立委，也因此決定了立法院裡的多數黨與少數黨，這種朝野態勢，其實也就是人民的意志產品，那麼，為什麼之前為了阻擋美牛案，民進黨立委認為自己有權以占領主席台、封鎖議場等極端手段，推翻基於人民意志而形成的朝野席次差距？
昔日萬年國會時立法院缺乏民意基礎，以肢體衝突對抗老賊多數暴力還說得過去，但現在立法院是民選的，每個委員都一樣有民意授權，沒有誰特別崇高到可以不遵守民主多數決原則。如果因為席次居少數，表決贏不了，就強行阻撓議事，這種行為有什麼正當性？又有什麼值得洋洋得意的？難道人民投票是投假的，只有拳頭才算數？
馬政府現在動輒得咎，似乎做什麼都會被罵，但決策溝通不力在先，政策說明無方在後，自己實在也有許多需要檢討反省的地方，不能怪民怨起反彈。而許多民進黨人士認為，把馬打下去，民進黨就會得利，反正打馬不花本錢，也不會有損失，罵到賺到，絆住馬的施政腳步，就是民進黨的勝利，眼看著馬政府被民怨叮得滿頭包，不趁這個良機窮追猛打，豈不虧到了。所以民進黨立委擺出強硬姿態，不願意給台階讓國民黨好好下。
但這種毀滅性的對抗策略，不但違背民主票決原則，也是不負責任的。萊克多巴胺從未有案例證明會影響人體健康，美國數億人口吃了幾十年也都沒出事，民進黨如果對萊克多巴胺如此抵死反對，那麼對明確為害更甚的菸、酒、檳榔，為何又默不作聲？民進黨經常批評馬政府過度傾中，指責馬政府簽署自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）的成績乏善可陳，卻又在明知美牛案不過台美ＴＩＦＡ便無法重啟、台美ＦＴＡ或ＴＰＰ更是想都別想時，仍然一味阻擋美牛案，這又是什麼心理？
其實，民進黨立委哪裡是在卡美牛，美牛只是個很好動員基本群眾的工具，真正的目的，無非是要卡馬英九，要把馬政府打到動彈不得。即使是以攸關台灣生存的經貿機會為代價，也在所不惜。
這是負責任的態度嗎？在野黨雖然沒有執政權，但對國家發展一樣應該有責任感，對於會嚴重戕害國家生機的事，絕對不該幸災樂禍，尤其不能為了自己的政治生命而不管台灣死活。
民眾必須學習認識什麼是負責任、什麼是不負責任的行為，並且了解政治運作應該遵守民主基本原則，在野黨並沒有無限制抗爭杯葛的權利，一味反對以致把執政當局綑綁得動彈不得，讓國家虛耗空轉，終將令全民付出沉重代價。不負責任的言行，無論朝野，都不應該被縱容。
Will Pummeling the Ma Administration Move Taiwan Forward?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 21, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
Ma Ying-jeou's second term has only just begun.
But it is already lying on the ground, beaten black and blue.
The opposition DPP and TSU say no to anything and everything the administration puts forth.
They have sunk their teeth into the U.S. beef imports issue and refuse to let go.
Nor is public opinion on Ma Ying-jeou's side.
The government wants to debate the issues but it lacks the energy.
KMT legislators want to fight but they lack the strength.
Other economies are racing ahead.
Taiwan continues to stand still.
How is this good for the people?
DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting business.
The emergency session of the legislature meanwhild, has been postponed to mid-July due to the typhoons.
The Food Sanitation Management Act, the capital gains tax,
NCC personnel appointments and other bills have all been delayed.
When can they be reviewed?
No one knows.
The last time DPP legislators occupied the legislature, they prevailed.
Of course they want to consolidate their victory.
President Ma has told KMT legislators that no matter how fearful they may be, the must take action.
Fortunately, the
United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex)
meeting in early July may reach a conclusion regarding Ractopamine.
Taiwan will then have a more objective basis for dealing with the issue.
Currently there is no room for rational discussion.
Even so,
whether chaos in the legislatur can be avoided remains unknown.
The Republic of China is obviously already a democracy.
We vote to decide who will be president and which party will be in power.
If one is willing to bet, one must be willing to lose.
If one participates in an election,
one must be willing to accept the judgment of the voters.
The most basic principle of democracy
is that the minority must defer to the majority,
the majority must respect the minority.
The key to political representation
is for voters to elect their representatives.
The political parties determine whether a bill will pass by voting according to the number of seats the occupy in the legislature.
Voters elected the legislators.
This determines which party will be the majority party in the Legislative Yuan, and which party will be the minority party.
When the ruling and opposition parties express their positions,
the voters are expressing their positions.
Why, then, during the U.S. beef imports controversy,
did DPP legislators imagine they had a right to occupy the podium,
seal off the legislative hall,
and overturn the voice of the people, as expressed in the number of ruling and opposition party seats in the legislature?
Votes taken in the so-called "ten thousand year parliament" lacked a public mandate.
Physical conflict against the "old brigands" was to some degree, understandable.
But the Legislative Yuan today was popularly elected.
Every legislator has a public mandate.
None of them is special. None of them has the right not to abide by democratic majority rule.
If you are unable to win a vote in the legislature becasue you occupy fewer seats,
what right to you have to resort to brute force to prevent the taking of a vote?
What right do you have to flaunt your violent behavior?
Does the peoples vote count for nothing?
Is the only thing that counts your fist?
Currently the Ma administration is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.
It has failed at communicating its decision-making before the fact.
It has failed at explaining its policy implementation after the fact.
It too needs to engage in self-examination.
It cannot blame the public backlash.
Many Democratic Progressive Party officials think that
as long as they can bring Ma down,
the DPP will benefit.
In any event, they reason, it costs nothing to lash out at Ma.
No matter what, they're going to be ahead.
As long as they can trip Ma up,
that counts as a DPP victory.
Seeing the Ma administration pummeled by the public is an opportunity too good to pass up.
So why pass it up?
This is why DPP legislators are taking such a tough stance.
This is why they are unwilling to allow the KMT to take the next step.
However, this destructive confrontation strategies,
Not only contrary to the principle of democratic voting,
And irresponsible.
The ractopamine never case that will affect human health,
Hundreds of millions of people in the United States to eat for decades is also no accident
DPP oppose ractopamine so it serves him right.
Then clear the damage even more tobacco, alcohol, betel nut,
Why the silence?
DPP is frequently criticized the Ma administration to excessive tilting in
Accused the Ma administration signed a free trade agreement (FTA) results is weak,
But knowing that the U.S. beef case, however, the Taiwan-US TIFA will not be able to restart
Taiwan-US FTA or TPP is not even think
Still blind to block U.S. beef case
This is psychological?
In fact, the DPP legislators Where is the card of U.S. beef.
U.S. beef is a good tool to mobilize the basic masses.
The real purpose of
Is nothing more than card Ma Ying-jeou
The horse must have a government hit could not move.
Even at the expense of the economic and trade opportunities for Taiwan in survival,
The expense.
This is a responsible attitude?
Opposition parties, although there is no power to rule,
The same for national development should be responsible
For things that will seriously harm the national vitality,
Should never gloat,
Especially not for their own political life regardless life and death.
The people must learn to recognize what is responsible,
What is irresponsible behavior.
And understand the political operations should comply with the fundamental principle of democracy,
The opposition parties do not have the right to unlimited struggle boycott,
Not stand in the bundle leading to the ruling authorities could not move,
State wasted idling,
Will eventually make the whole people to pay a heavy price.
Irresponsible words and deeds,
Whether the ruling and opposition parties,
Should not be condoned.
打趴馬政府 台灣就能前進？
2012-06-21 01:34
中國時報
馬英九的第二任期才開始，就已經幾乎被打到趴，在野黨無事不反，逮到了個美牛議題更是卯足全力大反特反，民氣也全不在馬英九身邊，政府欲辯乏力，國民黨立委欲戰無力。其他國家都在拚命往前跑，台灣卻始終原地空轉，這豈是全民之福？
立法院在民進黨立委封鎖議場五天後休會，臨時會又因颱風而延期到七月中旬，食品衛生管理法、證所稅、ＮＣＣ人事案等法案繼續耽擱下去。什麼時候能審查通過，沒人敢樂觀。民進黨立委挾上次占領議場的勝績，當然要鞏固戰果；國民黨立委奉馬主席強力指示，再腳軟也不能沒有動作。所幸的是，聯合國食品法典委員會（Codex）七月上旬的會議如果對萊克多巴胺有個結論，台灣在處理時就有個較為客觀的依據，也許不致像現在幾無理性討論的空間。但即使如此，屆時是不是能避免議事衝突混亂，猶未可知。
其實，台灣明明已經是個民主國家，由選民一票一票決定誰當總統、哪個政黨執政。願賭服輸，既從政參選，就要接受選民的裁判。而民主的最基本原則，就是少數服從多數，多數尊重少數。代議政治的重點，就是由選民選出民意代表，然後各政黨依其席次在國會透過表決來可否法案。
選民投票選出了立委，也因此決定了立法院裡的多數黨與少數黨，這種朝野態勢，其實也就是人民的意志產品，那麼，為什麼之前為了阻擋美牛案，民進黨立委認為自己有權以占領主席台、封鎖議場等極端手段，推翻基於人民意志而形成的朝野席次差距？
昔日萬年國會時立法院缺乏民意基礎，以肢體衝突對抗老賊多數暴力還說得過去，但現在立法院是民選的，每個委員都一樣有民意授權，沒有誰特別崇高到可以不遵守民主多數決原則。如果因為席次居少數，表決贏不了，就強行阻撓議事，這種行為有什麼正當性？又有什麼值得洋洋得意的？難道人民投票是投假的，只有拳頭才算數？
馬政府現在動輒得咎，似乎做什麼都會被罵，但決策溝通不力在先，政策說明無方在後，自己實在也有許多需要檢討反省的地方，不能怪民怨起反彈。而許多民進黨人士認為，把馬打下去，民進黨就會得利，反正打馬不花本錢，也不會有損失，罵到賺到，絆住馬的施政腳步，就是民進黨的勝利，眼看著馬政府被民怨叮得滿頭包，不趁這個良機窮追猛打，豈不虧到了。所以民進黨立委擺出強硬姿態，不願意給台階讓國民黨好好下。
但這種毀滅性的對抗策略，不但違背民主票決原則，也是不負責任的。萊克多巴胺從未有案例證明會影響人體健康，美國數億人口吃了幾十年也都沒出事，民進黨如果對萊克多巴胺如此抵死反對，那麼對明確為害更甚的菸、酒、檳榔，為何又默不作聲？民進黨經常批評馬政府過度傾中，指責馬政府簽署自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）的成績乏善可陳，卻又在明知美牛案不過台美ＴＩＦＡ便無法重啟、台美ＦＴＡ或ＴＰＰ更是想都別想時，仍然一味阻擋美牛案，這又是什麼心理？
其實，民進黨立委哪裡是在卡美牛，美牛只是個很好動員基本群眾的工具，真正的目的，無非是要卡馬英九，要把馬政府打到動彈不得。即使是以攸關台灣生存的經貿機會為代價，也在所不惜。
這是負責任的態度嗎？在野黨雖然沒有執政權，但對國家發展一樣應該有責任感，對於會嚴重戕害國家生機的事，絕對不該幸災樂禍，尤其不能為了自己的政治生命而不管台灣死活。
民眾必須學習認識什麼是負責任、什麼是不負責任的行為，並且了解政治運作應該遵守民主基本原則，在野黨並沒有無限制抗爭杯葛的權利，一味反對以致把執政當局綑綁得動彈不得，讓國家虛耗空轉，終將令全民付出沉重代價。不負責任的言行，無論朝野，都不應該被縱容。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 21, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
Ma Ying-jeou's second term has only just begun.
But it is already lying on the ground, beaten black and blue.
The opposition DPP and TSU say no to anything and everything the administration puts forth.
They have sunk their teeth into the U.S. beef imports issue and refuse to let go.
Nor is public opinion on Ma Ying-jeou's side.
The government wants to debate the issues but it lacks the energy.
KMT legislators want to fight but they lack the strength.
Other economies are racing ahead.
Taiwan continues to stand still.
How is this good for the people?
DPP legislators occupied the Legislative Yuan for five days, preventing the legislature from conducting business.
The emergency session of the legislature meanwhild, has been postponed to mid-July due to the typhoons.
The Food Sanitation Management Act, the capital gains tax,
NCC personnel appointments and other bills have all been delayed.
When can they be reviewed?
No one knows.
The last time DPP legislators occupied the legislature, they prevailed.
Of course they want to consolidate their victory.
President Ma has told KMT legislators that no matter how fearful they may be, the must take action.
Fortunately, the
United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex)
meeting in early July may reach a conclusion regarding Ractopamine.
Taiwan will then have a more objective basis for dealing with the issue.
Currently there is no room for rational discussion.
Even so,
whether chaos in the legislatur can be avoided remains unknown.
The Republic of China is obviously already a democracy.
We vote to decide who will be president and which party will be in power.
If one is willing to bet, one must be willing to lose.
If one participates in an election,
one must be willing to accept the judgment of the voters.
The most basic principle of democracy
is that the minority must defer to the majority,
the majority must respect the minority.
The key to political representation
is for voters to elect their representatives.
The political parties determine whether a bill will pass by voting according to the number of seats the occupy in the legislature.
Voters elected the legislators.
This determines which party will be the majority party in the Legislative Yuan, and which party will be the minority party.
When the ruling and opposition parties express their positions,
the voters are expressing their positions.
Why, then, during the U.S. beef imports controversy,
did DPP legislators imagine they had a right to occupy the podium,
seal off the legislative hall,
and overturn the voice of the people, as expressed in the number of ruling and opposition party seats in the legislature?
Votes taken in the so-called "ten thousand year parliament" lacked a public mandate.
Physical conflict against the "old brigands" was to some degree, understandable.
But the Legislative Yuan today was popularly elected.
Every legislator has a public mandate.
None of them is special. None of them has the right not to abide by democratic majority rule.
If you are unable to win a vote in the legislature becasue you occupy fewer seats,
what right to you have to resort to brute force to prevent the taking of a vote?
What right do you have to flaunt your violent behavior?
Does the peoples vote count for nothing?
Is the only thing that counts your fist?
Currently the Ma administration is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.
It has failed at communicating its decision-making before the fact.
It has failed at explaining its policy implementation after the fact.
It too needs to engage in self-examination.
It cannot blame the public backlash.
Many Democratic Progressive Party officials think that
as long as they can bring Ma down,
the DPP will benefit.
In any event, they reason, it costs nothing to lash out at Ma.
No matter what, they're going to be ahead.
As long as they can trip Ma up,
that counts as a DPP victory.
Seeing the Ma administration pummeled by the public is an opportunity too good to pass up.
So why pass it up?
This is why DPP legislators are taking such a tough stance.
This is why they are unwilling to allow the KMT to take the next step.
However, this destructive confrontation strategies,
Not only contrary to the principle of democratic voting,
And irresponsible.
The ractopamine never case that will affect human health,
Hundreds of millions of people in the United States to eat for decades is also no accident
DPP oppose ractopamine so it serves him right.
Then clear the damage even more tobacco, alcohol, betel nut,
Why the silence?
DPP is frequently criticized the Ma administration to excessive tilting in
Accused the Ma administration signed a free trade agreement (FTA) results is weak,
But knowing that the U.S. beef case, however, the Taiwan-US TIFA will not be able to restart
Taiwan-US FTA or TPP is not even think
Still blind to block U.S. beef case
This is psychological?
In fact, the DPP legislators Where is the card of U.S. beef.
U.S. beef is a good tool to mobilize the basic masses.
The real purpose of
Is nothing more than card Ma Ying-jeou
The horse must have a government hit could not move.
Even at the expense of the economic and trade opportunities for Taiwan in survival,
The expense.
This is a responsible attitude?
Opposition parties, although there is no power to rule,
The same for national development should be responsible
For things that will seriously harm the national vitality,
Should never gloat,
Especially not for their own political life regardless life and death.
The people must learn to recognize what is responsible,
What is irresponsible behavior.
And understand the political operations should comply with the fundamental principle of democracy,
The opposition parties do not have the right to unlimited struggle boycott,
Not stand in the bundle leading to the ruling authorities could not move,
State wasted idling,
Will eventually make the whole people to pay a heavy price.
Irresponsible words and deeds,
Whether the ruling and opposition parties,
Should not be condoned.
打趴馬政府 台灣就能前進？
2012-06-21 01:34
中國時報
馬英九的第二任期才開始，就已經幾乎被打到趴，在野黨無事不反，逮到了個美牛議題更是卯足全力大反特反，民氣也全不在馬英九身邊，政府欲辯乏力，國民黨立委欲戰無力。其他國家都在拚命往前跑，台灣卻始終原地空轉，這豈是全民之福？
立法院在民進黨立委封鎖議場五天後休會，臨時會又因颱風而延期到七月中旬，食品衛生管理法、證所稅、ＮＣＣ人事案等法案繼續耽擱下去。什麼時候能審查通過，沒人敢樂觀。民進黨立委挾上次占領議場的勝績，當然要鞏固戰果；國民黨立委奉馬主席強力指示，再腳軟也不能沒有動作。所幸的是，聯合國食品法典委員會（Codex）七月上旬的會議如果對萊克多巴胺有個結論，台灣在處理時就有個較為客觀的依據，也許不致像現在幾無理性討論的空間。但即使如此，屆時是不是能避免議事衝突混亂，猶未可知。
其實，台灣明明已經是個民主國家，由選民一票一票決定誰當總統、哪個政黨執政。願賭服輸，既從政參選，就要接受選民的裁判。而民主的最基本原則，就是少數服從多數，多數尊重少數。代議政治的重點，就是由選民選出民意代表，然後各政黨依其席次在國會透過表決來可否法案。
選民投票選出了立委，也因此決定了立法院裡的多數黨與少數黨，這種朝野態勢，其實也就是人民的意志產品，那麼，為什麼之前為了阻擋美牛案，民進黨立委認為自己有權以占領主席台、封鎖議場等極端手段，推翻基於人民意志而形成的朝野席次差距？
昔日萬年國會時立法院缺乏民意基礎，以肢體衝突對抗老賊多數暴力還說得過去，但現在立法院是民選的，每個委員都一樣有民意授權，沒有誰特別崇高到可以不遵守民主多數決原則。如果因為席次居少數，表決贏不了，就強行阻撓議事，這種行為有什麼正當性？又有什麼值得洋洋得意的？難道人民投票是投假的，只有拳頭才算數？
馬政府現在動輒得咎，似乎做什麼都會被罵，但決策溝通不力在先，政策說明無方在後，自己實在也有許多需要檢討反省的地方，不能怪民怨起反彈。而許多民進黨人士認為，把馬打下去，民進黨就會得利，反正打馬不花本錢，也不會有損失，罵到賺到，絆住馬的施政腳步，就是民進黨的勝利，眼看著馬政府被民怨叮得滿頭包，不趁這個良機窮追猛打，豈不虧到了。所以民進黨立委擺出強硬姿態，不願意給台階讓國民黨好好下。
但這種毀滅性的對抗策略，不但違背民主票決原則，也是不負責任的。萊克多巴胺從未有案例證明會影響人體健康，美國數億人口吃了幾十年也都沒出事，民進黨如果對萊克多巴胺如此抵死反對，那麼對明確為害更甚的菸、酒、檳榔，為何又默不作聲？民進黨經常批評馬政府過度傾中，指責馬政府簽署自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）的成績乏善可陳，卻又在明知美牛案不過台美ＴＩＦＡ便無法重啟、台美ＦＴＡ或ＴＰＰ更是想都別想時，仍然一味阻擋美牛案，這又是什麼心理？
其實，民進黨立委哪裡是在卡美牛，美牛只是個很好動員基本群眾的工具，真正的目的，無非是要卡馬英九，要把馬政府打到動彈不得。即使是以攸關台灣生存的經貿機會為代價，也在所不惜。
這是負責任的態度嗎？在野黨雖然沒有執政權，但對國家發展一樣應該有責任感，對於會嚴重戕害國家生機的事，絕對不該幸災樂禍，尤其不能為了自己的政治生命而不管台灣死活。
民眾必須學習認識什麼是負責任、什麼是不負責任的行為，並且了解政治運作應該遵守民主基本原則，在野黨並沒有無限制抗爭杯葛的權利，一味反對以致把執政當局綑綁得動彈不得，讓國家虛耗空轉，終將令全民付出沉重代價。不負責任的言行，無論朝野，都不應該被縱容。
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Where is the Legislative Yuan's Inside Force?
Where is the Legislative Yuan's Inside Force?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19, 2012
Summary: Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.
Full Text below:
Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.
Wang's response was mind-boggling. Party A resorts to brute force to occupy the podium, making it impossible for the legislature to conduct business. Yet Wang expects Party B to assume responsibility for clearing the podium? Wang is essentially saying that whether the Legislative Yuan can convene depends on who is able to occupy and hold the podium using brute force, even if it means drawing blood. .
The discussion has now turned to whether the Speaker of the Legislature should invoke his police powers. Speaker Wang as it turned out, had nothing new to add. He said: The legislature is independent. It must not be subject to intervention by outside forces. I am the Speaker of the Legislature. I will not invoke my police powers.
Wang's answer has two problems. One. The Speaker of the Legislature may have his own political style. The approach he adopts may be hard or soft, flexible or rigid, depending upon the situation. But the Speaker of the Legislature must remain fair and neutral. He must maintain order. He must take care of business. President Wang insisted he would not invoke his police powers. That is his prerogative. But he must ensure that the legislature is able to get its work done. After all the Speaker of the Legislature has a constitutional duty to "maintain order and tend to the business of the legislature." This is not a matter of discretion. The Speaker may remain above the fray. But he may not forsake his duties.
No one is forcing the Speaker of the Legislature to invoke his police powers. But the Speaker must ensure that the legislature can take care of business. This is the least he can do. Otherwise any Speaker of the Legislature can cite discretion as an excuse for dereliction of duty. That is hypocrisy.
Two. Wang refers to the invoking of police powers as "intervention by outside forces." His spin bears scant resemblance to reality. The Sargeants at Arms of the Legislative Yuan are not "outside forces." They are "inside forces." They answer to Legislative Yuan officials. They are not part of the National Police Administration. Speaker Wang Jin-pyng personally approved the implementation of the Legislative Yuan Security Guard Duty Regulation. Article 5 stipulates that "In order to maintain order, prevent harm, and protect members of the legislature, security personnel should enter the premises and fulfill their guard duties at the behest of legislators or the Chairman." The Legislative Yuan's police powers have nothing to do with the Executive Yuan National Police. Administration. It is not an "outside force." It is an "inside force," answerable to the Speaker or the Chairman.
Most legislatures in democratic nations the world over, including the US and the UK have "inside forces" such as Sargeants at Arms. In the past European parliaments have ejected legislators because they were too disruptive. It has been some time since the Speaker of the Legislature has invoked these police powers.
The Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms are an "inside force." Referring to any action on their part as "intervention by outside forces" is grossly misleading. The legislature has been paralyzed. It can no longer conduct business. The Speaker of the Legislature is well within his rights to call in the Sargeants at Arms. After all, they are an "inside force." But he must first seek other "inside forces" to break the deadlock. He cannot wait until legislators spill blood before clearing opposition party legislators from the poidium. Outside forces may not intervene in the Legislative Yuan. But the Speaker of the Legislature must tell the public what the Legislative Yuan's "inside forces" are doing about the occupation?
The violent protests in the Legislative Yuan have an historical context. During the transition from the authoritarian era to the democratic era, many injustices occurred. These injustices provided a veneer of legitimacy for violent protests, and helped them win public sympathy. Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chang Chun-hsiung once slapped Speaker of the Legislature Liang Su-yung in the face. But martial law was lifted over 20 years ago. The political system is increasingly fair. The workings of the legislature are increasingly transparent. Most people will not tolerate protests that are excessively violent. Suppose the Speaker of the Legislature insisted on walking up to the podium? Would any legislator dare slap him in the face? We have gone from cracking skulls to counting heads. Both the ruling and opposition parties should make an effort. But the Speaker of the Legislature bears the greatest responsibility in getting the Legislative Yuan to change its habits.
Take the U.S. beef imports controversy. The two parties clashed. The two sides adopted such rigid postures they had trouble backing down. The Speaker of the Legislature should impose order and discipline. Paradoxically he may provide both parties with a face saving measure. If the Speaker can set two successful examples, the Legislative Yuan wrestling match may end without bloodshed. In Europe and the United States one no longer sees sargeants at arms ejecting people. This is because many legislators were ejected in the past.
Speaker Wang Jin-pyng is a political player, adept at smoothing things over. His political savvy is hard to match. This is why Speaker Wang is perceived as "fair and neutral." This is also why he has the influence required to restore order. Speaker Wang can of course choose not to invoke his police powers. We affirm his decision to exercise restraint. But he must use "inside force" to restore the dignity of the the Speaker of the Legislature. He must not wait for any "outside force" to clear the podium on his behalf.
立法院的「內力」在哪裡？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.19
上周，民進黨霸占立院主席台五天四夜期間，議事不能進行，記者問立法院長王金平何時能開會？王院長的答覆是：要看國民黨何時能把主席台清出來而定。他說：只要國民黨黨團把主席台清出來，我半夜三更都可回去開會。
這是國人難以理解的答案。甲黨占據了主席台，議事能否繼續進行，竟然全視乙黨能否自力「排除」而定；這樣的見解，不啻就是說，立院能不能開會，全視誰有本事用暴力宰制主席台而定，亦即必須用流血來決定。
議論又指向了立法院長應否行使警察權，這一次，王院長也沒有新的答案，他說：國會自主，不容外力介入，我擔任國會議長，不會動用警察權。
這個答案有兩個盲點。一、立法院長可以選擇自己的風格，剛、柔、寬、猛，皆可隨情適性；但是，立法院長卻沒有任何理由違背「應本公平中立原則，維持立法院秩序，處理議事」的法定職責。例如，王院長自可堅持不動用警察權，這是一種風格的選擇；但他也必須在堅持此種風格之下，同時能夠保證立院議事之完整進行。畢竟，立法院長的基本憲政職守，是在「維持秩序，處理議事」，而不只是表現風格而已；院長可以珍惜羽毛，但不能廢弛職責。
其實，沒有人強迫立法院長動用警察權，但不動用警察權的院長亦必須能使議事得以進行，這是他應當具備的最底線的自我要求；否則，任何院長皆可用風格作為失職失能的藉口，那是鄉愿。
二、謂動用警察權是「外力介入」，這種說法似不夠精準。立法院的駐院警衛其實是立法院的「內力」，指揮權屬立院當局，而不屬警政署；此論的根據是，由王金平院長親自核定實施的《立法院警衛勤務規則》第五條規定：「為維護會場秩序，防止危害及保護委員，警衛人員得應委員或主席之召喚，進入會場，執行警衛勤務。」由此可見，倘若立院動用警察權，並非由警政署或行政院的「外力」下令，而其實是院長或主席動用了「內力」。
舉世憲政民主國家的國會，如美、英諸國，大多配備了類如「糾儀長」（sergeant-at-arms）的「內力」；早年也屢見歐美議會把議員揪出場的鏡頭，而正由於胡鬧過頭者真的會被架出去，所以如今久已不聞議長動用警察權。
由於議場警衛是「內力」，若被指為「外力介入」，其實是根本的偏差。當國會出現議事癱瘓的局面，立法院長自可不使用警衛此一「內力」，但他即必須找到其他的「內力」來化解僵局，不能坐等立法委員用流血手段「把主席台清出來」。正因「外力不可介入立法院」，立法院長必須告訴國人：立法院的「內力」在哪裡？
立法院的暴力抗爭，有其歷史脈絡。早年在威權政治向民主政治過渡期間，政治上諸多不公不義，因此激越的暴力抗爭往往得以合理化，亦受民意同情，所以甚至曾發生民進黨立委張俊雄甩立法院長梁肅戎耳光之類的事；但是，解嚴二十餘年來，政治體制的公正性漸趨建立，議事的辯論也漸呈透明，倘若再出現過度、過當的暴力抗爭，恐怕未必能見容於多數國人。試想，如果今日立法院長堅持要走到議場的主席寶座上主持議事，難道還有立委敢甩立法院長一巴掌？因而，在「打破人頭」轉向「數人頭」的進化過程中，朝野各方皆應作出共同努力，而立法院長當然亦有為立法院「移風易俗」的重大責任。
以此次美牛案的衝突而言，兩黨對峙，其實相當程度地是因為姿態作足以致各自都下不了台所致。在此際，立法院長若能對議場秩序及議事紀律稍示堅持，也許反而能成為兩黨的下台階；只要院長作出了一次兩次成功的示範，立院的政黨角力就不至於動輒都要喊「戰到最後一滴血為止」。正如歐美今日議場不復見警衛抬人，本因過去架出了許多議員使然。
王金平院長是圓融通透的政治瑰寶，其政治之練達難有匹比；而正緣於王院長素有「公平中立」的形象，他就更有在立院撥亂反正的實力。王院長當然可以不動用警察權，我們亦頗肯定他的此種矜持，但他必須憑藉「內力」回到立法院長象徵憲法尊嚴的金色絲絨寶座上去，不能等待任何「外力」為他清出通道！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19, 2012
Summary: Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.
Full Text below:
Last week the DPP occupied the Legislative Yuan podium for five days and four nights, and prevented the legislature from conducting business. When reporters asked Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng when the legislature would convene, Wang replied: It depends on when the KMT can clear the podium. Wang said: Once the KMT caucus clears the podium, I can return and preside over the legislature, even if it's in the middle of the night.
Wang's response was mind-boggling. Party A resorts to brute force to occupy the podium, making it impossible for the legislature to conduct business. Yet Wang expects Party B to assume responsibility for clearing the podium? Wang is essentially saying that whether the Legislative Yuan can convene depends on who is able to occupy and hold the podium using brute force, even if it means drawing blood. .
The discussion has now turned to whether the Speaker of the Legislature should invoke his police powers. Speaker Wang as it turned out, had nothing new to add. He said: The legislature is independent. It must not be subject to intervention by outside forces. I am the Speaker of the Legislature. I will not invoke my police powers.
Wang's answer has two problems. One. The Speaker of the Legislature may have his own political style. The approach he adopts may be hard or soft, flexible or rigid, depending upon the situation. But the Speaker of the Legislature must remain fair and neutral. He must maintain order. He must take care of business. President Wang insisted he would not invoke his police powers. That is his prerogative. But he must ensure that the legislature is able to get its work done. After all the Speaker of the Legislature has a constitutional duty to "maintain order and tend to the business of the legislature." This is not a matter of discretion. The Speaker may remain above the fray. But he may not forsake his duties.
No one is forcing the Speaker of the Legislature to invoke his police powers. But the Speaker must ensure that the legislature can take care of business. This is the least he can do. Otherwise any Speaker of the Legislature can cite discretion as an excuse for dereliction of duty. That is hypocrisy.
Two. Wang refers to the invoking of police powers as "intervention by outside forces." His spin bears scant resemblance to reality. The Sargeants at Arms of the Legislative Yuan are not "outside forces." They are "inside forces." They answer to Legislative Yuan officials. They are not part of the National Police Administration. Speaker Wang Jin-pyng personally approved the implementation of the Legislative Yuan Security Guard Duty Regulation. Article 5 stipulates that "In order to maintain order, prevent harm, and protect members of the legislature, security personnel should enter the premises and fulfill their guard duties at the behest of legislators or the Chairman." The Legislative Yuan's police powers have nothing to do with the Executive Yuan National Police. Administration. It is not an "outside force." It is an "inside force," answerable to the Speaker or the Chairman.
Most legislatures in democratic nations the world over, including the US and the UK have "inside forces" such as Sargeants at Arms. In the past European parliaments have ejected legislators because they were too disruptive. It has been some time since the Speaker of the Legislature has invoked these police powers.
The Legislative Yuan Sargeants at Arms are an "inside force." Referring to any action on their part as "intervention by outside forces" is grossly misleading. The legislature has been paralyzed. It can no longer conduct business. The Speaker of the Legislature is well within his rights to call in the Sargeants at Arms. After all, they are an "inside force." But he must first seek other "inside forces" to break the deadlock. He cannot wait until legislators spill blood before clearing opposition party legislators from the poidium. Outside forces may not intervene in the Legislative Yuan. But the Speaker of the Legislature must tell the public what the Legislative Yuan's "inside forces" are doing about the occupation?
The violent protests in the Legislative Yuan have an historical context. During the transition from the authoritarian era to the democratic era, many injustices occurred. These injustices provided a veneer of legitimacy for violent protests, and helped them win public sympathy. Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chang Chun-hsiung once slapped Speaker of the Legislature Liang Su-yung in the face. But martial law was lifted over 20 years ago. The political system is increasingly fair. The workings of the legislature are increasingly transparent. Most people will not tolerate protests that are excessively violent. Suppose the Speaker of the Legislature insisted on walking up to the podium? Would any legislator dare slap him in the face? We have gone from cracking skulls to counting heads. Both the ruling and opposition parties should make an effort. But the Speaker of the Legislature bears the greatest responsibility in getting the Legislative Yuan to change its habits.
Take the U.S. beef imports controversy. The two parties clashed. The two sides adopted such rigid postures they had trouble backing down. The Speaker of the Legislature should impose order and discipline. Paradoxically he may provide both parties with a face saving measure. If the Speaker can set two successful examples, the Legislative Yuan wrestling match may end without bloodshed. In Europe and the United States one no longer sees sargeants at arms ejecting people. This is because many legislators were ejected in the past.
Speaker Wang Jin-pyng is a political player, adept at smoothing things over. His political savvy is hard to match. This is why Speaker Wang is perceived as "fair and neutral." This is also why he has the influence required to restore order. Speaker Wang can of course choose not to invoke his police powers. We affirm his decision to exercise restraint. But he must use "inside force" to restore the dignity of the the Speaker of the Legislature. He must not wait for any "outside force" to clear the podium on his behalf.
立法院的「內力」在哪裡？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.19
上周，民進黨霸占立院主席台五天四夜期間，議事不能進行，記者問立法院長王金平何時能開會？王院長的答覆是：要看國民黨何時能把主席台清出來而定。他說：只要國民黨黨團把主席台清出來，我半夜三更都可回去開會。
這是國人難以理解的答案。甲黨占據了主席台，議事能否繼續進行，竟然全視乙黨能否自力「排除」而定；這樣的見解，不啻就是說，立院能不能開會，全視誰有本事用暴力宰制主席台而定，亦即必須用流血來決定。
議論又指向了立法院長應否行使警察權，這一次，王院長也沒有新的答案，他說：國會自主，不容外力介入，我擔任國會議長，不會動用警察權。
這個答案有兩個盲點。一、立法院長可以選擇自己的風格，剛、柔、寬、猛，皆可隨情適性；但是，立法院長卻沒有任何理由違背「應本公平中立原則，維持立法院秩序，處理議事」的法定職責。例如，王院長自可堅持不動用警察權，這是一種風格的選擇；但他也必須在堅持此種風格之下，同時能夠保證立院議事之完整進行。畢竟，立法院長的基本憲政職守，是在「維持秩序，處理議事」，而不只是表現風格而已；院長可以珍惜羽毛，但不能廢弛職責。
其實，沒有人強迫立法院長動用警察權，但不動用警察權的院長亦必須能使議事得以進行，這是他應當具備的最底線的自我要求；否則，任何院長皆可用風格作為失職失能的藉口，那是鄉愿。
二、謂動用警察權是「外力介入」，這種說法似不夠精準。立法院的駐院警衛其實是立法院的「內力」，指揮權屬立院當局，而不屬警政署；此論的根據是，由王金平院長親自核定實施的《立法院警衛勤務規則》第五條規定：「為維護會場秩序，防止危害及保護委員，警衛人員得應委員或主席之召喚，進入會場，執行警衛勤務。」由此可見，倘若立院動用警察權，並非由警政署或行政院的「外力」下令，而其實是院長或主席動用了「內力」。
舉世憲政民主國家的國會，如美、英諸國，大多配備了類如「糾儀長」（sergeant-at-arms）的「內力」；早年也屢見歐美議會把議員揪出場的鏡頭，而正由於胡鬧過頭者真的會被架出去，所以如今久已不聞議長動用警察權。
由於議場警衛是「內力」，若被指為「外力介入」，其實是根本的偏差。當國會出現議事癱瘓的局面，立法院長自可不使用警衛此一「內力」，但他即必須找到其他的「內力」來化解僵局，不能坐等立法委員用流血手段「把主席台清出來」。正因「外力不可介入立法院」，立法院長必須告訴國人：立法院的「內力」在哪裡？
立法院的暴力抗爭，有其歷史脈絡。早年在威權政治向民主政治過渡期間，政治上諸多不公不義，因此激越的暴力抗爭往往得以合理化，亦受民意同情，所以甚至曾發生民進黨立委張俊雄甩立法院長梁肅戎耳光之類的事；但是，解嚴二十餘年來，政治體制的公正性漸趨建立，議事的辯論也漸呈透明，倘若再出現過度、過當的暴力抗爭，恐怕未必能見容於多數國人。試想，如果今日立法院長堅持要走到議場的主席寶座上主持議事，難道還有立委敢甩立法院長一巴掌？因而，在「打破人頭」轉向「數人頭」的進化過程中，朝野各方皆應作出共同努力，而立法院長當然亦有為立法院「移風易俗」的重大責任。
以此次美牛案的衝突而言，兩黨對峙，其實相當程度地是因為姿態作足以致各自都下不了台所致。在此際，立法院長若能對議場秩序及議事紀律稍示堅持，也許反而能成為兩黨的下台階；只要院長作出了一次兩次成功的示範，立院的政黨角力就不至於動輒都要喊「戰到最後一滴血為止」。正如歐美今日議場不復見警衛抬人，本因過去架出了許多議員使然。
王金平院長是圓融通透的政治瑰寶，其政治之練達難有匹比；而正緣於王院長素有「公平中立」的形象，他就更有在立院撥亂反正的實力。王院長當然可以不動用警察權，我們亦頗肯定他的此種矜持，但他必須憑藉「內力」回到立法院長象徵憲法尊嚴的金色絲絨寶座上去，不能等待任何「外力」為他清出通道！
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Economic Transformation and Taiwan's Preeminence
Economic Transformation and Taiwan's Preeminence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2012
Summary: Today the United Daily News Vision Workshop is introducing its "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series. We hope this in-depth, cross-border exploration of Taiwan's economy will lay the cornerstone for the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
Full Text below:
Today the United Daily News Vision Workshop is introducing its "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series. We hope this in-depth, cross-border exploration of Taiwan's economy will lay the cornerstone for the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
Last year, when the United Daily News celebrated its 60th anniversary, it established its Vision Workshop. The purpose of the Vision Workshop is to suggest visions for the nation's future. Key among its purposes, is to choose from the many problems bedeviling Taiwan society, to conduct in-depth investigations into these problems, and to propose solutions to them.
We hope as a member of the Fourth Estate to promote a paradigm shift. We hope as social reformers to join with society to suggest visions for the nation's future. Towards this goal, the media and society should exert influence and instigate change.
Today the Vision Workshop launched its first project: "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation." This transnational project attempts to alert people to the seriousness of Taiwan's economic plight. We hope to join the public in fundamentally transforming Taiwan's economy, and enabling it to be reborn.
The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" compares the economic development of the four Asian Tigers: South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Viewed from eye level, it is difficult to grasp the worsening condition of Taiwan's economy. South Korea's free trade agreements (FTA) are coming to fruition. Its economic reach is increasing. Its international competitiveness is improving. Hong Kong is close to Mainland China. It enjoys extra leverage. The Pearl of the Orient attracts the attention of the entire world. Singapore is an Asian hub for goods, capital, and human talent. The international environment is highly competitive. Taiwan trails the other Asian Tigers in container handling capacity, total trade, and per capita GNP. They are growing. We are shrinking. Taiwan faces an rapid brain drain. Industry faces serious bottlenecks and other developmental crises.
Now consider the historical context. The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series underscores some hard facts we must face. Taiwan's "economic miracle" was once the object of international praise. It was imitated by less developed countries. But those days are long gone. They have been replaced by instance after instance of failed economic policies. Today, in the international imagination, we are a cautionary tale. The most vivid example in recent memory occurred in Singapore. Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam noted that if Singapore prevented foreign talent from entering the country, it would reenact "The Taiwan Story," and lose its global competitiveness. The problems caused by Taiwan's Closed Door Policy did not begin today. They have merely become more serious as a result of increasingly intense global competition. The adverse effects did not emerge in the past. Now that they are emerging, they are increasingly heartbreaking. Our policy on imported labor is complacent. Examples of inaction abound. This is why Taiwan's economy is stagnating, and why it is so far behind the international competition.
Recently the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research celebrated Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It held a series of tenth anniversary of seminars. It proclaimed the necessity of economic and trade liberalization. Ironically, Taiwan's economic and trade liberalization stopped when it was admitted to the WTO a decade ago. During this period, some small measure of deregulation took place. But nothing remotely like the across the board liberalization 25 years ago. Nothing like the grand vision of an Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center 15 years ago. Nothing like the highly praised economic liberalization policies 10 years ago. Except for ECFA, signed two years ago, the record is virtually blank.
During the past decade, Taiwan underwent its second change in ruling parties. It confronted the SARS epidemic. It endured a series of blows from the global financial tsunami. Economic policy makers were forced to fight fires instead of making long term plans. But were the challenges faced by South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore over the past ten years any less daunting? They did not slow their development. They bravely confronted their economic growing pains. They took into account their national interests. They did what they had to do. This is where South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore differ from Taiwan. Today, Taiwan's economy faces an array of difficulties. This is the inevitable result of over ten years of stagnation. If we cling to our ostrich with its head in the sand attitude, if we continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to our problems, if we persist in doing nothing, our predicament will become irremediable. If this generation forfeits its vision, will the next generation even have a future?
When making this series we conducted many interviews. We discovered widespread anxiety in the private sector. We perceived a sense of urgency, a conviction that Taiwan must advance rapidly. Many respondents volunteered that Taiwan must take advantage of the next two years. No major elections are scheduled. This offers us an opportunity to do what is necessary to bring order out of chaos, and to undergo a rebirth. This is where the title "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" comes from. We have two years in which to make up for over ten years of neglect. This is akin to having three years to cure a seven year old disease. The difficulty of the task cannot be understated. But we must have stout hearts and firm wills. We must transform Taiwan's economy. We must guide the nation down the right path. We must restore Taiwan's preeminence. Otherwise our economy will remain as it has over the past decade. It will grind to a halt due to sorts of obstacles.
One thing is worth celebrating. Taiwan still has a number of specific economic advantages. The opportunities for development brought about by ECFA still await. This is the capital that will enable Taiwan's economy to experience a rebirth. What's frustrating is that the problem is so obvious. But conflict between the ruling and opposition parties make it impossible to address the problem rationally. Therefore, the "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series is not merely an appeal to the government. It is also an appeal to the opposition parties. We hope the ruling and opposition parties will work together to promote Taiwan's rapid progress, and move towards positive change.
The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series is the Vision Workshop's first contribution. Next Monday we will hold the "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Economic Future" Summit. We will invite representatives from various fields. They will discuss priorities for the two critical years. Here, we want to thank former Vice President Vincent Siew for serving as summit host. He helped formulate the theme and structure of the summit. We also want to thank the domestic companies, the government officials, and the foreign experts who assisted in the creation of the series. This "creation of a vision" was a transnational exploration. We are convinced that "economic transformation and Taiwan's preeminence" is the key to exerting influence and instigating change. It is what Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must work hand in hand to achieve.
啟動願景：經濟轉骨 台灣卓越
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.18
聯合報系願景工作室企劃製作的《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》系列專題今起刊出；期望藉由這個深入探討台灣經濟轉骨工程的跨國報導，為聯合報系的「願景工程」砌起第一塊磚。
聯合報系去年六十周年時宣示，將成立願景工作室，推動願景工程；核心工作在選擇台灣社會的重要議題，不只進行深度報導，且嘗試提出解決方案，以促成台灣發生「正向改變」。
我們的心志是：一方面進行媒體功能的「典範移轉」，另一方面也參與社會改革的「願景創造」。在此一思考下，我們對媒體與社會互動關係的新定義是：形塑影響、策動轉變。
願景工作室今天啟動了第一項願景工程：《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》。這項跨國製作的系列專題，其所寄望形塑的影響是喚起國人對台灣嚴峻經濟情勢的關注，所追求的正向改變則是希望與國人共策台灣經濟的轉骨與新生。
《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》這個系列專題，是以亞洲四小龍──韓國、新加坡、香港及台灣的經濟發展大勢做為比較研究的報導主體。從地球空間的水平切面上看，不難發現當前台灣經濟日趨嚴峻的困境：韓國自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）開花結果，經濟領土如蜘蛛網般經緯縱橫，國際市場競爭力大增；香港背靠中國大陸，借力使力，東方明珠再次吸聚全球目光；新加坡成為亞洲轉運中心，貨物、資金、人才蓬勃蒸騰；在這樣的國際競爭態勢下，台灣的貨櫃裝卸量、貿易總額、平均每人國民生產毛額（人均ＧＤＰ）全已落居四小龍之末，彼長我消下，台灣面臨人才快速流失、產業升級陷入瓶頸等重重發展危機。
再拉到歷史時間的垂直切面觀察，《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》專題揭露了一個必須正視的事實，昔日受到國際稱頌、更是後進國家爭相模仿、複製的台灣「經濟奇蹟」，早已乏人聞問，取而代之的竟是一次又一次被當做足昭炯戒的失敗案例在國際流傳。近期最鮮明的例子是新加坡副總理尚達曼直指，若新加坡阻止外國人才進入，將重演「台灣故事」，喪失在全球的競爭力；但是，台灣的封閉政策並非始於現在，只是在全球化愈演愈烈的國際競爭下，過去並未浮現的不利影響，現在已顯得愈來愈錐心刺骨。然而，類如人才政策故步自封、無所作為的例子不知凡幾，也正是這樣的停滯不前，讓台灣在國際競爭中被遠遠拋在後頭。
最近中華經濟研究院舉行了慶祝台灣加入世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）十周年的一系列座談活動，宣示經貿自由化的必要性；諷刺的是，台灣如今的經貿自由化程度，其實也就停止在十年前加入ＷＴＯ時的階段，其間或有些許個別的鬆綁措施，卻俱已不見廿五年前全面推動自由化、十五年前發展亞太營運中心的宏大念想，十年來獲得認同的重大經濟自由化政策，除了兩年前簽訂的兩岸經濟合作協議（ＥＣＦＡ），幾近是空白。
這十年間，台灣二度政黨輪替，又面臨ＳＡＲＳ疫情、全球金融海嘯等連串衝擊，使得經濟施政的短期救火甚於長期奠基；可是，十年來韓港星面臨的挑戰不小於台灣，卻並未因此停下發展的腳步，而皆能勇敢地面對經濟發展最深刻的痛、最難熬的苦，從國家社會利益出發，做該做的事，這正是韓港星與台灣最大的差異所在。現今台灣經濟面臨的種種困境，其實是十餘年停滯的必然；如果，我們再繼續當鴕鳥，視而不見、聽而不聞、聞而不為，那麼，困境就可能成為絕境。如果這一代失去願景，下一代焉有未來？
在製作此一專題的採訪過程中，我們發現了廣泛存在於民間的焦慮感，也感知了台灣必須快步向前的急迫感；許多受訪者不約而同地表示，台灣必須把握未來兩年國內沒有重大選舉的政治空間，迅速採取必要的行動，撥亂反正，脫胎換骨。這就是專題的名稱《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》的由來。以兩年之力補十餘年之缺，猶如七年之疾求三年之艾，其艱辛困難不言可喻，但我們必須要有強烈的企圖心及堅定的意志力，始有可能啟動台灣經濟轉骨工程，將國家導引至向前向上的道路上，重新找回卓越的台灣；否則就會像過去十餘年一樣，總是因為種種阻礙而停下來。
值得慶幸的是，台灣經濟的若干特異優勢猶在，ＥＣＦＡ帶來的發展機遇亦待開展，這些都是台灣經濟轉骨的本錢；然而，令人無奈也無力的是，問題雖是如此顯而易見，但朝野之間的對峙矇蔽了解決問題的理智。因此，《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》不只是向政府呼籲，也是對在野黨諍勸，寄望朝野同心協力，推動台灣快步前行，邁向正向的改變。
《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》系列報導是願景工程的第一步，下周一我們將舉辦《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會，邀請各領域代表，共議關鍵兩年的優先選擇。在此，我們要特別感謝前副總統蕭萬長先生允任高峰會總主持人，他對本系列專題的製作及高峰會的建構，皆有密集與深刻的參與及指導；同時，我們也要向參加及指教協助本系列專題及高峰會的國內產官學精銳賢達，與跨國菁英表達最高謝忱。在這次「願景工程」的跨國探索中，我們益加確信，「經濟轉骨，台灣卓越」是台灣朝野必須共同「形塑影響、策動轉變」的關鍵課題。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2012
Summary: Today the United Daily News Vision Workshop is introducing its "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series. We hope this in-depth, cross-border exploration of Taiwan's economy will lay the cornerstone for the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
Full Text below:
Today the United Daily News Vision Workshop is introducing its "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series. We hope this in-depth, cross-border exploration of Taiwan's economy will lay the cornerstone for the United Daily News Vision Workshop.
Last year, when the United Daily News celebrated its 60th anniversary, it established its Vision Workshop. The purpose of the Vision Workshop is to suggest visions for the nation's future. Key among its purposes, is to choose from the many problems bedeviling Taiwan society, to conduct in-depth investigations into these problems, and to propose solutions to them.
We hope as a member of the Fourth Estate to promote a paradigm shift. We hope as social reformers to join with society to suggest visions for the nation's future. Towards this goal, the media and society should exert influence and instigate change.
Today the Vision Workshop launched its first project: "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation." This transnational project attempts to alert people to the seriousness of Taiwan's economic plight. We hope to join the public in fundamentally transforming Taiwan's economy, and enabling it to be reborn.
The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" compares the economic development of the four Asian Tigers: South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Viewed from eye level, it is difficult to grasp the worsening condition of Taiwan's economy. South Korea's free trade agreements (FTA) are coming to fruition. Its economic reach is increasing. Its international competitiveness is improving. Hong Kong is close to Mainland China. It enjoys extra leverage. The Pearl of the Orient attracts the attention of the entire world. Singapore is an Asian hub for goods, capital, and human talent. The international environment is highly competitive. Taiwan trails the other Asian Tigers in container handling capacity, total trade, and per capita GNP. They are growing. We are shrinking. Taiwan faces an rapid brain drain. Industry faces serious bottlenecks and other developmental crises.
Now consider the historical context. The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series underscores some hard facts we must face. Taiwan's "economic miracle" was once the object of international praise. It was imitated by less developed countries. But those days are long gone. They have been replaced by instance after instance of failed economic policies. Today, in the international imagination, we are a cautionary tale. The most vivid example in recent memory occurred in Singapore. Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam noted that if Singapore prevented foreign talent from entering the country, it would reenact "The Taiwan Story," and lose its global competitiveness. The problems caused by Taiwan's Closed Door Policy did not begin today. They have merely become more serious as a result of increasingly intense global competition. The adverse effects did not emerge in the past. Now that they are emerging, they are increasingly heartbreaking. Our policy on imported labor is complacent. Examples of inaction abound. This is why Taiwan's economy is stagnating, and why it is so far behind the international competition.
Recently the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research celebrated Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It held a series of tenth anniversary of seminars. It proclaimed the necessity of economic and trade liberalization. Ironically, Taiwan's economic and trade liberalization stopped when it was admitted to the WTO a decade ago. During this period, some small measure of deregulation took place. But nothing remotely like the across the board liberalization 25 years ago. Nothing like the grand vision of an Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center 15 years ago. Nothing like the highly praised economic liberalization policies 10 years ago. Except for ECFA, signed two years ago, the record is virtually blank.
During the past decade, Taiwan underwent its second change in ruling parties. It confronted the SARS epidemic. It endured a series of blows from the global financial tsunami. Economic policy makers were forced to fight fires instead of making long term plans. But were the challenges faced by South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore over the past ten years any less daunting? They did not slow their development. They bravely confronted their economic growing pains. They took into account their national interests. They did what they had to do. This is where South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore differ from Taiwan. Today, Taiwan's economy faces an array of difficulties. This is the inevitable result of over ten years of stagnation. If we cling to our ostrich with its head in the sand attitude, if we continue to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to our problems, if we persist in doing nothing, our predicament will become irremediable. If this generation forfeits its vision, will the next generation even have a future?
When making this series we conducted many interviews. We discovered widespread anxiety in the private sector. We perceived a sense of urgency, a conviction that Taiwan must advance rapidly. Many respondents volunteered that Taiwan must take advantage of the next two years. No major elections are scheduled. This offers us an opportunity to do what is necessary to bring order out of chaos, and to undergo a rebirth. This is where the title "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" comes from. We have two years in which to make up for over ten years of neglect. This is akin to having three years to cure a seven year old disease. The difficulty of the task cannot be understated. But we must have stout hearts and firm wills. We must transform Taiwan's economy. We must guide the nation down the right path. We must restore Taiwan's preeminence. Otherwise our economy will remain as it has over the past decade. It will grind to a halt due to sorts of obstacles.
One thing is worth celebrating. Taiwan still has a number of specific economic advantages. The opportunities for development brought about by ECFA still await. This is the capital that will enable Taiwan's economy to experience a rebirth. What's frustrating is that the problem is so obvious. But conflict between the ruling and opposition parties make it impossible to address the problem rationally. Therefore, the "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series is not merely an appeal to the government. It is also an appeal to the opposition parties. We hope the ruling and opposition parties will work together to promote Taiwan's rapid progress, and move towards positive change.
The "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Transformation" Editorial Series is the Vision Workshop's first contribution. Next Monday we will hold the "Two Critical Years for Taiwan's Economic Future" Summit. We will invite representatives from various fields. They will discuss priorities for the two critical years. Here, we want to thank former Vice President Vincent Siew for serving as summit host. He helped formulate the theme and structure of the summit. We also want to thank the domestic companies, the government officials, and the foreign experts who assisted in the creation of the series. This "creation of a vision" was a transnational exploration. We are convinced that "economic transformation and Taiwan's preeminence" is the key to exerting influence and instigating change. It is what Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must work hand in hand to achieve.
啟動願景：經濟轉骨 台灣卓越
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.18
聯合報系願景工作室企劃製作的《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》系列專題今起刊出；期望藉由這個深入探討台灣經濟轉骨工程的跨國報導，為聯合報系的「願景工程」砌起第一塊磚。
聯合報系去年六十周年時宣示，將成立願景工作室，推動願景工程；核心工作在選擇台灣社會的重要議題，不只進行深度報導，且嘗試提出解決方案，以促成台灣發生「正向改變」。
我們的心志是：一方面進行媒體功能的「典範移轉」，另一方面也參與社會改革的「願景創造」。在此一思考下，我們對媒體與社會互動關係的新定義是：形塑影響、策動轉變。
願景工作室今天啟動了第一項願景工程：《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》。這項跨國製作的系列專題，其所寄望形塑的影響是喚起國人對台灣嚴峻經濟情勢的關注，所追求的正向改變則是希望與國人共策台灣經濟的轉骨與新生。
《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》這個系列專題，是以亞洲四小龍──韓國、新加坡、香港及台灣的經濟發展大勢做為比較研究的報導主體。從地球空間的水平切面上看，不難發現當前台灣經濟日趨嚴峻的困境：韓國自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）開花結果，經濟領土如蜘蛛網般經緯縱橫，國際市場競爭力大增；香港背靠中國大陸，借力使力，東方明珠再次吸聚全球目光；新加坡成為亞洲轉運中心，貨物、資金、人才蓬勃蒸騰；在這樣的國際競爭態勢下，台灣的貨櫃裝卸量、貿易總額、平均每人國民生產毛額（人均ＧＤＰ）全已落居四小龍之末，彼長我消下，台灣面臨人才快速流失、產業升級陷入瓶頸等重重發展危機。
再拉到歷史時間的垂直切面觀察，《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》專題揭露了一個必須正視的事實，昔日受到國際稱頌、更是後進國家爭相模仿、複製的台灣「經濟奇蹟」，早已乏人聞問，取而代之的竟是一次又一次被當做足昭炯戒的失敗案例在國際流傳。近期最鮮明的例子是新加坡副總理尚達曼直指，若新加坡阻止外國人才進入，將重演「台灣故事」，喪失在全球的競爭力；但是，台灣的封閉政策並非始於現在，只是在全球化愈演愈烈的國際競爭下，過去並未浮現的不利影響，現在已顯得愈來愈錐心刺骨。然而，類如人才政策故步自封、無所作為的例子不知凡幾，也正是這樣的停滯不前，讓台灣在國際競爭中被遠遠拋在後頭。
最近中華經濟研究院舉行了慶祝台灣加入世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）十周年的一系列座談活動，宣示經貿自由化的必要性；諷刺的是，台灣如今的經貿自由化程度，其實也就停止在十年前加入ＷＴＯ時的階段，其間或有些許個別的鬆綁措施，卻俱已不見廿五年前全面推動自由化、十五年前發展亞太營運中心的宏大念想，十年來獲得認同的重大經濟自由化政策，除了兩年前簽訂的兩岸經濟合作協議（ＥＣＦＡ），幾近是空白。
這十年間，台灣二度政黨輪替，又面臨ＳＡＲＳ疫情、全球金融海嘯等連串衝擊，使得經濟施政的短期救火甚於長期奠基；可是，十年來韓港星面臨的挑戰不小於台灣，卻並未因此停下發展的腳步，而皆能勇敢地面對經濟發展最深刻的痛、最難熬的苦，從國家社會利益出發，做該做的事，這正是韓港星與台灣最大的差異所在。現今台灣經濟面臨的種種困境，其實是十餘年停滯的必然；如果，我們再繼續當鴕鳥，視而不見、聽而不聞、聞而不為，那麼，困境就可能成為絕境。如果這一代失去願景，下一代焉有未來？
在製作此一專題的採訪過程中，我們發現了廣泛存在於民間的焦慮感，也感知了台灣必須快步向前的急迫感；許多受訪者不約而同地表示，台灣必須把握未來兩年國內沒有重大選舉的政治空間，迅速採取必要的行動，撥亂反正，脫胎換骨。這就是專題的名稱《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》的由來。以兩年之力補十餘年之缺，猶如七年之疾求三年之艾，其艱辛困難不言可喻，但我們必須要有強烈的企圖心及堅定的意志力，始有可能啟動台灣經濟轉骨工程，將國家導引至向前向上的道路上，重新找回卓越的台灣；否則就會像過去十餘年一樣，總是因為種種阻礙而停下來。
值得慶幸的是，台灣經濟的若干特異優勢猶在，ＥＣＦＡ帶來的發展機遇亦待開展，這些都是台灣經濟轉骨的本錢；然而，令人無奈也無力的是，問題雖是如此顯而易見，但朝野之間的對峙矇蔽了解決問題的理智。因此，《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》不只是向政府呼籲，也是對在野黨諍勸，寄望朝野同心協力，推動台灣快步前行，邁向正向的改變。
《關鍵兩年，台灣快轉》系列報導是願景工程的第一步，下周一我們將舉辦《關鍵兩年──為台灣經濟開路》高峰會，邀請各領域代表，共議關鍵兩年的優先選擇。在此，我們要特別感謝前副總統蕭萬長先生允任高峰會總主持人，他對本系列專題的製作及高峰會的建構，皆有密集與深刻的參與及指導；同時，我們也要向參加及指教協助本系列專題及高峰會的國內產官學精銳賢達，與跨國菁英表達最高謝忱。在這次「願景工程」的跨國探索中，我們益加確信，「經濟轉骨，台灣卓越」是台灣朝野必須共同「形塑影響、策動轉變」的關鍵課題。
Monday, June 18, 2012
Legislative Yuan Must Maintain Order and Uphold the Law
Legislative Yuan Must Maintain Order and Uphold the Law
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 17, 2012
Summary: On Friday the U.S. beef imports bill was stalled in the legislature. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng issued a reprimand to the DPP. But suppose the same farce is reenacted during the emergency session of the legislature? In that case, an ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure. Otherwise the public may conclude that the Speaker of the Legislature is responsibile for the paralysis of the legislature.
Full Text below:
The legislature is the place where political parties discuss official business. Two concepts are involved: "political parties" and "the discussion of official business."
The role of political parties is to advocate policies and transform them into law. The role of the legislature is to provide a forum for the discussion of official business. That means the Legislative Yuan must keep itself in running order. That means ultimate responsibility for keeping the Legislative Yuan in running order falls upon the shoulders of the Speaker of the Legislature.
Article III of the Legislative Yuan Organic Law states, "The Legislative Yuan must adhere to the principle of neutrality and fairness. It must maintain order within the Legislative Yuan and deal with the official business of the Legislative Yuan in accordance with the Legislative Yuan's rules of procedure." The law clearly states that order must be maintained within the Legislative Yuan, that the proceedings of the Legislative Yuan must be carried out in accordance with the rules of the Legislative Yuan, and that the responsibility for ensuring that the rules are followed falls upon the Legislative Yuan. The principle of neutrality and fairness means that the Legislative Yuan must adopt a neutral stance. It must allow all parties to express their viewpoints. Every party must be assured its legal rights. No party may be granted extralegal privileges. Once the various parties have had the opportunity to make their views known, the Legislative Yuan must ensure the completion of the voting process. This is the ultimate goal of the Legislative Yuan's principle of neutrality and fairness. This is the Legislative Yuan's legal duty: to maintain order and conduct official business.
Legislators often "occupy" the dais in the Legislative Yuan using brute force, so that voting cannot be carried out. This phenomenon is becoming more frequent and more violent. Some people are actually boasting that they "participated in the historic five day four night occupation of the Legislative Yuan." How did the situation degenerate to this level? It degenerated to this level because Legislative Yuan officials have never properly distinguished between partisan politics and official business. They treat official business like partisan politics. They treat parliamentary procedure like partisan politics. They forget that Legislative Yuan officials are responsible for maintaining order. They forget that maintaining order is the inescapable legal responsibility of the Speaker of the Legislature.
U.S. beef imports have been stalled because the DPP has occupied the dais. The public is waiting to see how the Special Session of the Legislative Yuan will play out. The legislature was paralyzed for five days and four nights. The media invoked the terminology of war to describe the Blue vs. Green confrontation. One side was "defending its position to the death." The other side was "trying to seize the high ground." Those "defending their position to the death" boasted that they "weren't afraid to shed blood." Those "trying to seize the high ground" were mocked as "cowards afraid to fight." The legislature may convene an emergency session. But will it reenact the same farce? Will the DPP re-occupy the dais, so that it may strut before the public? Will the KMT once again fear to attack, only to be mocked as weak and incompetent? Members of the public come across like cheerleaders. One side shouts "Hold that line! Even if you are bleeding you must hold your positions! The other side shouts "Charge! Even if they draw blood, you must take the high ground!"
Party A occupies the dais. Can the business of the legislature proceed? Astonishingly enough, many onlookers assume the answer depends on whether Party B can physically drag Party A off the dais! This farcical scene shows that the Legislative Yuan is no longer in working order. It shows that the Speaker of the Legislature is derelict in his duty. Legislative Yuan officials sit idly by as a minority violently disrupts the workings of the legislature, and denies majority legislators the right to express their views and cast their votes. This clearly favors a violent minority and hurts a peaceful majority. It clearly contravenes the principle of neutrality and fairness. It clearly constitutes a failure to maintain order. It clearly constitutes a dereliction of duty.
The Legislative Yuan is supposed to conducts its business in accordance with the law. Yet the Green Camp has occupied the dais and is preventing the Blue Camp from conducting official Legislative Yuan business. The public has been led to believe that the outcome depends upon which camp wins at "King of the Mountain." The public has been led to believe that this fight to the bitter end will decide winners and losers. The public has been led to believe that the Legislative Yuan is a battleground where criminal gangs wage turf wars. The public has been led to believe that only when blood has been drawn, can the gladiatorial combat end. This truly is outrageous beyond belief.
A political party may choose to follow proper protocol. It may choose to "occupy" the dais using brute force. But Legislative Yuan officials may not pass the buck on to political parties. They may not watch and see who fractures whose skull. They must ensure neutrality and fairness. They must maintain order. They must enable the conduct of official business. The Legislative Yuan must resume being a place where we count heads. In other words, the responsibility for maintaining order within the legislature falls upon the shoulders of the Speaker of the Legislature, not the political parties. The political parties have their own agendas. The Speaker of the Legislature must ensure fairness and neutrality. He must fulfill his duty to maintain order.
The Speaker of the Legislature may have his own approach to such matters. Moderates may want the Speaker to be tolerant and accommodating. Radicals may want the Speaker to "go by the book," i.e., abide by the Legislative Yuan Security Guard Duty Regulations. and invoke his police powers. The Speaker of the Legislature may choose his approach. He can use both the carrot and the stick. The one thing he may not do is shirk responsibility and permit the officia business of the legislature to be brought to a standstill. He must ensure that neutrality and fairness are not compromised. He must be diliegent in his duty. Anything else would amount to hypocrisy.
Consider the Speaker of the Legislature's police powers. The Speaker of the Legislature need not wait until someone has occupied the dais before ordering security guards into action. He can anticipate a major conflict. He can assign security guards to occupy the dais in advance. He can adopt a defensive posture. Then if some legislators commit assault and battery, they will clearly be the aggressors. They will be held accountable. That will avoid a conflict between legislators. The conflict may be ended without physical injury.
On Friday the U.S. beef imports bill was stalled in the legislature. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng issued a reprimand to the DPP. But suppose the same farce is reenacted during the emergency session of the legislature? In that case, an ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure. Otherwise the public may conclude that the Speaker of the Legislature is responsibile for the paralysis of the legislature.
立法院長有維護議事秩序的終極責任
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.17
國會是「政黨議事」的場域，因此可分「政黨」與「議事」兩塊。
「政黨」的工作在表達政策立場，及選擇議事策略；至於「議事」之能否充分折衝及完整進行，則有賴立院本身之機制來維繫，又以立法院長擔負最後的責任。
《立法院組織法》第三條：「立法院長應本公平中立原則，維持立法院秩序，處理議事。」此法明白指出，維持立法院秩序，使得議事程序能完整進行，是立法院長應當承當的責任。至於稱「應本公平中立原則」，係指立法院長應居「中立原則」之立場，讓各方意見充分折衝，沒有一方會少一點法定權益，亦沒有一方能多一點非法的特權；待各方充分折衝之後，立法院長即應保證完成表決投票，這始是立法院長「應本公平中立之原則」的終極實踐，這也才是立法院長完整履行了「維持秩序，處理議事」的法定職責。
立法院經常出現有人霸占主席台，以致不能進行表決投票的情勢；而且越演越烈，如今甚至有人標榜，完成了「霸占主席台五天四夜」的「歷史偉業」。揆其因果，主要的原由即在立法院當局始終未將「政黨」與「議事」兩個領域作合理的區分，以致將政見折衝交給了「政黨」，亦將維持「議事」的秩序也交給了「政黨」，忘掉了維持議事秩序應是立院當局的體制責任，也是立法院長無可旁貸的法定職責。
美牛案因民進黨霸占主席台而告擱淺，國人正等著看立法院在臨時會中將如何演出。五天四夜的僵持，媒體皆用戰鬥術語來形容藍綠對峙，一方是「死守」，另一方則是「仰攻」；「死守者」宣稱「不惜流血」，「仰攻者」則被譏為「孬種怯戰」。那麼，在接下來的臨時會中，難道仍要上演同樣的鬧劇？民進黨再度霸占主席台，以此驕傲地向國人炫耀；國民黨若「不敢進攻」，則被譏為懦弱無能！整個輿情彷彿瘋狂的啦啦隊，一方喊：要挺住，流血也要占住主席台！另一方則叫：衝啊，流血也要搶回主席台！
甲黨占據了主席台，議事能否繼續進行，竟然全視乙黨能否自力「排除」而定；在這個場景中，立法院的體制已告失能，立法院長則是失職。立法院坐視暴力的少數阻擋議事，而令多數的一方喪失藉投票來表達政見的法定權利；這在效應上是明顯地偏袒了暴力的少數，而傷害了多數的權益，已然違背「公平中立原則」，更未履行「維持秩序，處理議事」的基本職責，這難道不是失能失職？
立法院是依法議事之處，如今居然聽任藍綠各據主席台上下兩方；彷彿非要看究竟是一方守得住、還是他方攻得下，拚出個你死我活，以此判定輸贏勝負。這簡直是把立法院看成了黑幫械鬥的黑街，好像不流血，就不准收場；真是豈有此理到了極點。
如前所述，「政黨」可以選擇「議事」的策略，因此可以占據主席台；但立院當局卻不能把責任歸給「政黨」，等著看誰把誰的頭打破，而「應本公平中立原則」，「維持秩序，處理議事」，使立法院回歸「數人頭」的機制。也就是說，主持議事秩序的責任在院長，而不在政黨；因為，政黨各有策略的計算，唯院長必須「本公平中立原則」，履行其維持議事秩序的法定職責。
立法院長可以選擇他的風格。溫和者，希望院長展現寬宏與包容的胸襟；激進者，則認為可依《立法院警衛勤務規則》，動用議場警察權。在這兩種風格中，立法院長可以自作選擇，或寬猛並濟，唯不可故示開明，而使議事癱瘓，喪失了「公平中立原則」，失能失職，那就是鄉愿。
即以警察權而言，院長其實不必等有人占據主席台後，令警衛上攻解圍；而似可在預見重大衝突前，令警衛事先「占據」主席台，採守勢的防禦布置。如此，委員若要扮演攻擊者，作態交代即可；不致演成攻守皆是委員、不流血即不能收場的困局。
周五美牛案擱淺，王金平院長對民進黨發出譴責；但是，倘若臨時會仍將演出同樣戲碼，事前的處置，必定會好過事後的譴責。否則，國人恐怕會說：誰應負使國會癱瘓的責任，立法院長是其中之一。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 17, 2012
Summary: On Friday the U.S. beef imports bill was stalled in the legislature. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng issued a reprimand to the DPP. But suppose the same farce is reenacted during the emergency session of the legislature? In that case, an ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure. Otherwise the public may conclude that the Speaker of the Legislature is responsibile for the paralysis of the legislature.
Full Text below:
The legislature is the place where political parties discuss official business. Two concepts are involved: "political parties" and "the discussion of official business."
The role of political parties is to advocate policies and transform them into law. The role of the legislature is to provide a forum for the discussion of official business. That means the Legislative Yuan must keep itself in running order. That means ultimate responsibility for keeping the Legislative Yuan in running order falls upon the shoulders of the Speaker of the Legislature.
Article III of the Legislative Yuan Organic Law states, "The Legislative Yuan must adhere to the principle of neutrality and fairness. It must maintain order within the Legislative Yuan and deal with the official business of the Legislative Yuan in accordance with the Legislative Yuan's rules of procedure." The law clearly states that order must be maintained within the Legislative Yuan, that the proceedings of the Legislative Yuan must be carried out in accordance with the rules of the Legislative Yuan, and that the responsibility for ensuring that the rules are followed falls upon the Legislative Yuan. The principle of neutrality and fairness means that the Legislative Yuan must adopt a neutral stance. It must allow all parties to express their viewpoints. Every party must be assured its legal rights. No party may be granted extralegal privileges. Once the various parties have had the opportunity to make their views known, the Legislative Yuan must ensure the completion of the voting process. This is the ultimate goal of the Legislative Yuan's principle of neutrality and fairness. This is the Legislative Yuan's legal duty: to maintain order and conduct official business.
Legislators often "occupy" the dais in the Legislative Yuan using brute force, so that voting cannot be carried out. This phenomenon is becoming more frequent and more violent. Some people are actually boasting that they "participated in the historic five day four night occupation of the Legislative Yuan." How did the situation degenerate to this level? It degenerated to this level because Legislative Yuan officials have never properly distinguished between partisan politics and official business. They treat official business like partisan politics. They treat parliamentary procedure like partisan politics. They forget that Legislative Yuan officials are responsible for maintaining order. They forget that maintaining order is the inescapable legal responsibility of the Speaker of the Legislature.
U.S. beef imports have been stalled because the DPP has occupied the dais. The public is waiting to see how the Special Session of the Legislative Yuan will play out. The legislature was paralyzed for five days and four nights. The media invoked the terminology of war to describe the Blue vs. Green confrontation. One side was "defending its position to the death." The other side was "trying to seize the high ground." Those "defending their position to the death" boasted that they "weren't afraid to shed blood." Those "trying to seize the high ground" were mocked as "cowards afraid to fight." The legislature may convene an emergency session. But will it reenact the same farce? Will the DPP re-occupy the dais, so that it may strut before the public? Will the KMT once again fear to attack, only to be mocked as weak and incompetent? Members of the public come across like cheerleaders. One side shouts "Hold that line! Even if you are bleeding you must hold your positions! The other side shouts "Charge! Even if they draw blood, you must take the high ground!"
Party A occupies the dais. Can the business of the legislature proceed? Astonishingly enough, many onlookers assume the answer depends on whether Party B can physically drag Party A off the dais! This farcical scene shows that the Legislative Yuan is no longer in working order. It shows that the Speaker of the Legislature is derelict in his duty. Legislative Yuan officials sit idly by as a minority violently disrupts the workings of the legislature, and denies majority legislators the right to express their views and cast their votes. This clearly favors a violent minority and hurts a peaceful majority. It clearly contravenes the principle of neutrality and fairness. It clearly constitutes a failure to maintain order. It clearly constitutes a dereliction of duty.
The Legislative Yuan is supposed to conducts its business in accordance with the law. Yet the Green Camp has occupied the dais and is preventing the Blue Camp from conducting official Legislative Yuan business. The public has been led to believe that the outcome depends upon which camp wins at "King of the Mountain." The public has been led to believe that this fight to the bitter end will decide winners and losers. The public has been led to believe that the Legislative Yuan is a battleground where criminal gangs wage turf wars. The public has been led to believe that only when blood has been drawn, can the gladiatorial combat end. This truly is outrageous beyond belief.
A political party may choose to follow proper protocol. It may choose to "occupy" the dais using brute force. But Legislative Yuan officials may not pass the buck on to political parties. They may not watch and see who fractures whose skull. They must ensure neutrality and fairness. They must maintain order. They must enable the conduct of official business. The Legislative Yuan must resume being a place where we count heads. In other words, the responsibility for maintaining order within the legislature falls upon the shoulders of the Speaker of the Legislature, not the political parties. The political parties have their own agendas. The Speaker of the Legislature must ensure fairness and neutrality. He must fulfill his duty to maintain order.
The Speaker of the Legislature may have his own approach to such matters. Moderates may want the Speaker to be tolerant and accommodating. Radicals may want the Speaker to "go by the book," i.e., abide by the Legislative Yuan Security Guard Duty Regulations. and invoke his police powers. The Speaker of the Legislature may choose his approach. He can use both the carrot and the stick. The one thing he may not do is shirk responsibility and permit the officia business of the legislature to be brought to a standstill. He must ensure that neutrality and fairness are not compromised. He must be diliegent in his duty. Anything else would amount to hypocrisy.
Consider the Speaker of the Legislature's police powers. The Speaker of the Legislature need not wait until someone has occupied the dais before ordering security guards into action. He can anticipate a major conflict. He can assign security guards to occupy the dais in advance. He can adopt a defensive posture. Then if some legislators commit assault and battery, they will clearly be the aggressors. They will be held accountable. That will avoid a conflict between legislators. The conflict may be ended without physical injury.
On Friday the U.S. beef imports bill was stalled in the legislature. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pyng issued a reprimand to the DPP. But suppose the same farce is reenacted during the emergency session of the legislature? In that case, an ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure. Otherwise the public may conclude that the Speaker of the Legislature is responsibile for the paralysis of the legislature.
立法院長有維護議事秩序的終極責任
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.17
國會是「政黨議事」的場域，因此可分「政黨」與「議事」兩塊。
「政黨」的工作在表達政策立場，及選擇議事策略；至於「議事」之能否充分折衝及完整進行，則有賴立院本身之機制來維繫，又以立法院長擔負最後的責任。
《立法院組織法》第三條：「立法院長應本公平中立原則，維持立法院秩序，處理議事。」此法明白指出，維持立法院秩序，使得議事程序能完整進行，是立法院長應當承當的責任。至於稱「應本公平中立原則」，係指立法院長應居「中立原則」之立場，讓各方意見充分折衝，沒有一方會少一點法定權益，亦沒有一方能多一點非法的特權；待各方充分折衝之後，立法院長即應保證完成表決投票，這始是立法院長「應本公平中立之原則」的終極實踐，這也才是立法院長完整履行了「維持秩序，處理議事」的法定職責。
立法院經常出現有人霸占主席台，以致不能進行表決投票的情勢；而且越演越烈，如今甚至有人標榜，完成了「霸占主席台五天四夜」的「歷史偉業」。揆其因果，主要的原由即在立法院當局始終未將「政黨」與「議事」兩個領域作合理的區分，以致將政見折衝交給了「政黨」，亦將維持「議事」的秩序也交給了「政黨」，忘掉了維持議事秩序應是立院當局的體制責任，也是立法院長無可旁貸的法定職責。
美牛案因民進黨霸占主席台而告擱淺，國人正等著看立法院在臨時會中將如何演出。五天四夜的僵持，媒體皆用戰鬥術語來形容藍綠對峙，一方是「死守」，另一方則是「仰攻」；「死守者」宣稱「不惜流血」，「仰攻者」則被譏為「孬種怯戰」。那麼，在接下來的臨時會中，難道仍要上演同樣的鬧劇？民進黨再度霸占主席台，以此驕傲地向國人炫耀；國民黨若「不敢進攻」，則被譏為懦弱無能！整個輿情彷彿瘋狂的啦啦隊，一方喊：要挺住，流血也要占住主席台！另一方則叫：衝啊，流血也要搶回主席台！
甲黨占據了主席台，議事能否繼續進行，竟然全視乙黨能否自力「排除」而定；在這個場景中，立法院的體制已告失能，立法院長則是失職。立法院坐視暴力的少數阻擋議事，而令多數的一方喪失藉投票來表達政見的法定權利；這在效應上是明顯地偏袒了暴力的少數，而傷害了多數的權益，已然違背「公平中立原則」，更未履行「維持秩序，處理議事」的基本職責，這難道不是失能失職？
立法院是依法議事之處，如今居然聽任藍綠各據主席台上下兩方；彷彿非要看究竟是一方守得住、還是他方攻得下，拚出個你死我活，以此判定輸贏勝負。這簡直是把立法院看成了黑幫械鬥的黑街，好像不流血，就不准收場；真是豈有此理到了極點。
如前所述，「政黨」可以選擇「議事」的策略，因此可以占據主席台；但立院當局卻不能把責任歸給「政黨」，等著看誰把誰的頭打破，而「應本公平中立原則」，「維持秩序，處理議事」，使立法院回歸「數人頭」的機制。也就是說，主持議事秩序的責任在院長，而不在政黨；因為，政黨各有策略的計算，唯院長必須「本公平中立原則」，履行其維持議事秩序的法定職責。
立法院長可以選擇他的風格。溫和者，希望院長展現寬宏與包容的胸襟；激進者，則認為可依《立法院警衛勤務規則》，動用議場警察權。在這兩種風格中，立法院長可以自作選擇，或寬猛並濟，唯不可故示開明，而使議事癱瘓，喪失了「公平中立原則」，失能失職，那就是鄉愿。
即以警察權而言，院長其實不必等有人占據主席台後，令警衛上攻解圍；而似可在預見重大衝突前，令警衛事先「占據」主席台，採守勢的防禦布置。如此，委員若要扮演攻擊者，作態交代即可；不致演成攻守皆是委員、不流血即不能收場的困局。
周五美牛案擱淺，王金平院長對民進黨發出譴責；但是，倘若臨時會仍將演出同樣戲碼，事前的處置，必定會好過事後的譴責。否則，國人恐怕會說：誰應負使國會癱瘓的責任，立法院長是其中之一。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)