Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing Golden Triangle: Vincent Siew's Mission Impossible
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 31, 2012
Summary: Former Vice President Siew has long devoted himself to economic diplomacy. He is well versed in the nuts and bolts of international economic cooperation. Promoting industrial cooperation between Taipei, Tokyo, and Beijing is a difficult and thorny task. It could be a case of "Mission Impossible." Nevertheless the public hopes it will succeed.
Full Text below:
Former Vice President Vincent Siew is President Ma's highest ranking policy advisor. Last week he led a delegation from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to Japan. His goal? To promote Taipei/Tokyo industrial cooperation. He floated the concept of a Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing "Golden Triangle" to politicians and businessmen. Diplomatic fires continue to burn over the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. They underscore the purpose of this veteran official's visit.
Taipei/Tokyo industrial cooperation has a long history. It began in the 1960s. Three way Tokyo/Taipei/Washington trade became the so-called "flying geese formation." It became Japan's model for the vertical division of East Asian industry. During the 1980s the Japanese Yen appreciated sharply. Taiwan became the stronghold for Japanese industrial outsourcing. Beneficial cooperation increased. During the 1990s Mainland China's economy began to rise. Taipei/Tokyo industrial cooperation underwent a substantial change. Four way Tokyo/Taipei/Beijing/Washington trade gradually replaced three way Tokyo/Taipei/Washington trade. Nevertheless, private sector Taipei/Tokyo cooperation never ceased. Bilateral economic and trade relations remain close.
The global economic situation is changing rapidly. Taipei and Tokyo must establish a new mode for industrial cooperation. One. South Korea's industrial competitiveness has improved rapidly. Samsung has surpassed Japan and is catching up with the US. It is a powerful threat to Taiwan and Japan in the global market. Taiwan's industrial strengths are in manufacturing and in midstream and downstream marketing. It is relatively lacking in brand building and upstream technology and innovation. Japan has international brands and leading-edge technology. But its markets are conservative and relatively closed. Therefore, each side can make up for the other's shortcomings. This will significantly enhance their international competitiveness, and enable them to resist the "Korean wave."
Two. The Yen has sharply appreciated in recent years. The financial tsunami erupted in 2008. The Yen appreciated nearly 40% against the U.S. dollar., This greatly reduced the competitiveness of Japanese exports. Japanese businesses were put to the test. Last year's March 11 earthquake interrupted industrial production and disrupted the supply chain. This taught everyone a lesson. It strengthened international cooperation and the outsourcing of production. Now take Taiwan. Taiwan businessmen had an OEM export model that relied on the Mainland for production. The financial tsunami made this model obsolete. Industrial transformation and upgrading became imperative. Industry on Taiwan and Japan are strengthening cooperation and investment. This is mutually beneficial and absolutely essential.
Three. The Chinese Mainland has risen economically. The Asian and global economies are growing. Taipei and Beijing have signed ECFA. They have enlarged the cross-Strait economic and trade development niche. But Taipei must also synchronize and increase industrial cooperation with its major trading partners. It must avoid over-reliance on a single market. Tokyo may clash with Beijing over who will dominate Asian economic development. But it cannot ignore the vast business opportunities in the Mainland market. Therefore if industry on Taiwan and Japan can work together to develop the Mainland market, they can complement each other. Each can get what it needs.
These are all important considerations. Before former Vice President Vincent Siew stepped down, he called for the establishment of a "Taipei/Tokyo Industrial and Economic Platform" to accelerate industry consolidation between Taiwan and Japan. This would create a win-win situation. ECFA would add to this advantage. The formation of a Golden Triangle consolidating industry between Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing would create a win-win-win situation. In late June the United Daily News Group sponsored a summit, "Two Critical Years -- Blazing a Trail for Taiwan's Economy." Former Vice President Siew served as chief moderator. During his closing remarks Siew reached some specific conclusions. He called on the government to create a new cooperation platform between Taipei and Tokyo -- within three months. The government is now echoing the United Daily News Group's recommendations. It is taking a clear course of action. Vincent Siew is walking the walk. This is a laudable achievement.
Industrial cooperation between Taipei and Tokyo requires translating the Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing "Golden Triangle" concept into action. Three major difficulties must be overcome.
The first difficulty is economic. Past industry cooperation between Taipei and Tokyo or between Taipei and Beijing, basically amounted to a vertical division of labor. But the future will involve a horizontal division of labor and mutual investments. Therefore industry competition will increase as well. Tokyo and Beijing are competing to be the head of the Asian economy. Establishing win-win and win-win-win modes of cooperation will require considerable wisdom
The second difficulty is cultural. Japan is conservative and cautious. This is true of its government, its business practices, and its national character. Everything is done by the book. This is at odds with Taiwan and the Mainland, with their emphasis on decisiveness and speed. This inevitably affects the effectiveness of cooperation. The listing of Hon Hai shares in Japan encountered numerous obstacles. This reflects the vast differences in corporate culture.
The third difficulty is political. Strengthening economic cooperation requires good diplomatic relations and a favorable political atmosphere. The diplomatic fires set by the Diaoyutai Islands conflict have undermined trust between Tokyo and Taipei, and Tokyo and Beijing. They reflect deep-rooted historical grievances and strategic conflicts between Beijing and Tokyo and Washington and Bejing over interests in Asia. They hamper efforts to promote cooperation by non-governmental organizations and industry. They prevent the Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing "Golden Triangle" from getting off the drawing board.
Former Vice President Siew has long devoted himself to economic diplomacy. He is well versed in the nuts and bolts of international economic cooperation. Promoting industrial cooperation between Taipei, Tokyo, and Beijing is a difficult and thorny task. It could be a case of "Mission Impossible." Nevertheless the public hopes it will succeed.
台日中黃金三角：蕭萬長的不可能任務
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.31
前副總統蕭萬長本周以最高顧問身分率領經濟部訪問團赴日本推動台日產業合作，並向日本政商界宣揚組成台灣、日本、中國大陸「黃金三角」的理念。在近來釣魚台外交烽火持續延燒下，更加凸顯老臣謀國的深刻用心。
台日產業合作源遠流長，從一九六○年代開始，日台美三角貿易即成為由日本主導東亞產業垂直分工的所謂「雁行模式」之典範。在一九八○年代日圓大幅升值後，台灣更成為日本產業外移的重要據點，合作益見深化。直到一九九○年代中國大陸經濟崛起後，台日產業分工形態大幅改變，日台美三角貿易也逐漸被日台中美四角貿易所取代。儘管如此，台日民間合作從未間斷，雙方經貿關係仍然緊密。
然而，全球經濟情勢快速轉變，台日間有迫切需要建立新的產業合作模式。首先，韓國產業競爭力快速提升，尤其三星超日趕美，在全球市場上對台日皆構成強大威脅。台灣產業強項在中下游的製造及行銷，但品牌及上游技術及創新能力相對欠缺；日本則有國際品牌及技術領先優勢，但在市場開發上相對封閉保守。因此，雙方若能截長補短，必能大幅提升國際競爭力，共同抵擋「韓流」。
其次，近年日圓大幅升值，自二○○八年金融海嘯爆發迄今，日圓對美元升值逾四成，日本產品出口競爭力大幅削弱，企業經營備受考驗，再加上去年三一一大地震產業斷鏈的教訓，因而加強國際合作並將部分生產基地外移，乃勢所必然。反觀台灣，在金融海嘯後，台商「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口模式亦日薄西山，產業轉型升級勢在必行。是以，現在台日產業加強合作及相互投資，不僅互利互惠，而且絕對必要。
再者，中國大陸經濟崛起對亞洲乃至全球經濟影響愈來愈大，台灣已和大陸簽署ＥＣＦＡ，擴大兩岸經貿發展利基，但台灣也須同步和主要貿易國家深化產業合作關係，避免對單一市場過度依賴。相對上，日本雖在亞洲發展主導權上和大陸有所衝突，但亦無法忽視大陸市場的龐大商機。因此，台日產業若能共同合作開發大陸市場，既可互補不足，亦能各取所需。
基於上述考量，蕭萬長在卸任副總統前即大力呼籲，要建立「台日產經總平台」，加速台日產業整合，創造雙贏局面，進而利用ＥＣＦＡ優勢，形成台、日、中「黃金三角」產業整合關係，創造三贏。聯合報系六月下旬舉辦「關鍵兩年─ ─為台灣經濟開路高峰會」，由蕭前副總統擔任總主持人，並在總結時作成具體結論，其中一項即要求政府在三個月內建立台灣和日本新合作平台。現在政府呼應聯合報系主張，採取明確行動，蕭萬長更身體力行，誠屬難能可貴。
然而，台日產業合作要作出局面，台日中「黃金三角」要化為行動，仍存在必須克服的三大難關：
第一個是經濟難關。過去不論台日或兩岸產業合作，基本上是建立在垂直分工需要上，但未來勢必轉向水平分工及相互投資，因此，產業相互競爭也必然同步升高，加以日中間更有競爭亞洲經濟龍頭的難題，要建立雙贏甚至三贏合作模式，須有很高的智慧。
第二個是文化難關。日本不論政府、企業或人民性格皆較保守謹慎，凡事按部就班，和台灣及大陸講求決斷及速成的特性，格格不入，故不免影響合作格局及成效。最近鴻海入股日本夏普一波三折，反映的正是雙方企業文化的巨大差異。
第三個是政治難關。加強經濟合作須有良好的外交關係及政治氛圍，釣魚台外交烽火不僅影響日台、日中的互信，而且反映出彼此間根深柢固的政治情結，以及日中乃至美中在亞洲戰略利益的根本衝突。這也勢必侷限民間經濟及產業合作的種種努力，並讓台、日、中「黃金三角」止於紙上談兵。
蕭前副總統長期獻身經濟外交工作，深諳國際經濟合作的三昧，今又努力為高難度的台、日、中產業合作披荊斬棘，即使是不可能的任務，國人亦共同祝願其終必有成。
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Green Silicon Island: Return Lustre to Its Halo
Green Silicon Island: Return Lustre to Its Halo
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2012
Summary: This newspaper has launched an editorial series entitled, "The Dust-covered Silicon Island." It investigates the diminishing competitiveness of Taiwan's technology industry. Taiwan's high-tech industries are ill. The illness appears serious. The good news is Taiwan's high-tech industries have a solid foundation. It still has assets. It still has advantages in technology and management. It can still make a comeback.
Full Text below:
This newspaper has launched an editorial series entitled, "The Dust-covered Silicon Island." It investigates the diminishing competitiveness of Taiwan's technology industry. Taiwan's high-tech industries are ill. The illness appears serious. The good news is Taiwan's high-tech industries have a solid foundation. It still has assets. It still has advantages in technology and management. It can still make a comeback.
Consider the overall figures. Prior to July, exports from Taiwan declined 5.8%. Taiwan's main export technology products come from the ICT industry, which declined as much as 23.3%. During the same period, exports from neighboring countries remained positive. This was especially true of our competitor South Korea, whose export products largely overlap those from Taiwan. Consider individual industries. These once played an important role in Taiwan's PC industry chain. The DRAM industry was once dominated by South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. It is now dominated exclusively by South Korea. Others have closed their doors. They are receiving government subsidies and bleeding red ink. Their technology lags behind South Korea by more than two generations. Their prospects for survival are slim. In the manufacture of LCD panels, other economies have fallen behind South Korea. They are steadily losing money. Chimei and AU Optronics lost nearly 500 billion dollars during the first half of this year. Their prospects are grim. Other industries, such as the PC, LED, and solar energy industries, all face crises and challenges. Semiconductor are the sole exception, Taiwan's high-tech industries are in trouble. That is no exaggeration.
Leave aside short term factors for the moment, such as the global economic downturn. Manufacturers on Taiwan face three challenges. One. Industry trends have changed dramatically. Manufacturers have not been able to respond in a timely manner. Over the past three decades, high-tech industries on Taiwan have developed within the WINTEL (Microsoft plus Intel) framework. But in 2010, the Apple iPad made its US debut. This shook the industry. The PC industry entered the Post-PC Era. The technology industry on Taiwan depends primarily on PCs. It is at a complete loss what to do. It has plummeted to new lows.
Two. South Korean companies learned a hard lesson over the past decade. Past investments, technological advances, and brand building have finally paid off. They are finally reaping what they sowed. Taiwan meanwhile, has been routed. In fact, it lost to a single company -- South Korea's Samsung. Taiwan's DRAM industry has been trounced. Taiwan's share of the DRAM market is in the single digit range. Samsung alone has nearly half the world market. Taiwan's LCD industry is in crisis. In the high tech, high profits AMOLED industry, Samsung has a 97% market share. In the smart phone industry, Samsung has surpassed Apple in market share. The market share of Taiwan's HTC continues to drop. The latest figures show that even on Taiwan Samsung cell phones outsell HTC.
Three. Others are gaining. Mainland manufacturers are catching up. Their technology still lags behind Taiwan's. But the threat increases by the day. Flat panels from Taiwan account for half of the Mainland market. The Mainland is Taiwan's most important market. But Mainland flat panel manufacturers have begun operation. Taiwan manufacturers will inevitably be subject to heavy pressure. Mainland smartphone manufacturers such as Huawei, ZTE, Coolpad have debuted. HTC and other Taiwan-based companies face increased competition. Never mind the PC industry. Lenovo has already surpassed Taiwan's Acer and Asus.
Can the technology industry be rebooted? The government must dramatically liberalize its rules and regulations. It must reduce its myriad controls. We can cite many examples of crippling government controls. For example, the flat panel industry was subject to undue government restrictions. As a result it lost the lead on the Mainland. Mainland companies were able to rise. Even South Korean companies obtained approval for the construction of two flat panel factories. As a result Taiwan plants found themselves facing greater competitive pressure. Had the government allowed mergers and acquisitions, and granted greater latitude and encouragement, Taiwan's DRAM manufacturers could have merged long ago. Their situation today would be very different.
Research and development on Taiwan require more farsighted planning and more ambitious targets. South Korea's Samsung invested 250 billion NT on R&D in one year alone. Taiwan companies cannot compare. The National Science Council invests no more than 90 billion on R&D per year. Its subsidies are too egalitarian. This all needs to be improved. The government should also provide a variety of business opportunities in medical cloud computing, educational cloud computing, and 4G.
Brand building is not the only way. But as MIT scholar Lester Thurow said when he visited Taiwan several years ago, the key to Taiwan's competitiveness is innovation. There is no other way. Domestic businesses are good at being followers. They are unwilling to make long-term investments. They are unwilling to create their own core technology and core competitiveness. As a result they eventually find themselves in a sea of red ink. Businesses must consider this.
The Green Silicon Island is covered with a layer of dust. Taiwan's high-tech industries have deep roots. Hundreds of thousands of energetic small and medium enterprises have cooperated with medium and large enterprises to establish a competitive supply chain. As long they have a direction, as long as the government and enterprises cooperate, they will once again see the light of day. As National Science Council Chairman Chu Ching-yi said, we may be in the midst of a crisis, but we need not despair. Let the government and business join forces and restore lustre to the Silicon Island halo.
重新擦亮綠色矽島的光環
2012-08-26 中國時報
本報日前推出「蒙塵的矽島」系列專題，探討台灣科技產業競爭力衰退問題，台灣科技產業真的病了，而且似乎病得不輕；但值得慶幸的是：台灣科技產業底子厚、家當還在，同時也還保有技術與管理的優勢，未來仍有重振機會。
從總體數字看，台灣前七月的出口衰退了五．八％，但台灣出口主力的科技產品─資通訊產業，衰退幅度卻高達二三．三％；同期鄰近國家─尤其是出口產品與台灣高度重疊、競爭的韓國，其出口仍維持正成長。再從個別產業面看，曾在 台灣ＰＣ產業鏈中占有重要地位、與韓、美、日共分天下的ＤＲＡＭ產業，算是被韓國徹底打垮，倒閉、紓困、繼續承受嚴重虧損者都有，在技術已落後韓國二個世代以上後，未來生機渺茫。此外，ＬＣＤ面板在技術落後韓廠、廠商虧損累累下，奇美加上友達，今年上半年就虧損了近五百億元，前景亦讓人憂心。其它如ＰＣ、ＬＥＤ、太陽能…等，幾乎都面臨程度不等的危機與挑戰。除了半導體外，說台灣科技產業全面陷入困境，應不是過份的形容。
撇開全球經濟低迷的短期因素不談，今日台灣廠商面臨的壓力與挑戰來自三方面，第一是產業趨勢丕變，廠商應變不及。過去三十年，台灣科技產業在「WINTEL」（英特爾加上微軟）的架構下發展；但二○一○年，美國蘋果的iPad橫空出世，撼動業界，ＰＣ產業推入「後ＰＣ時代」，台灣以ＰＣ為主軸的科技產業完全亂了手腳，陷入空前的低潮。
第二則是韓國企業經過十年的生聚教訓，過去累積的投資、技術的進步、品牌的營造，在這幾年開花結果，進入收割期，台灣幾乎全面潰敗，而且，某個觀點而言，竟敗在韓國三星一家廠商手上。ＤＲＡＭ已敗，台灣的ＤＲＡＭ市佔率剩下個位數，三星一家就席捲近半數江山；ＬＣＤ陷入危機，技術先進、利潤高的AMOLED技術，三星市占率九七％。智慧型手機方面，三星超越蘋果的市占率，但台灣的ＨＴＣ市占率則腰斬下滑，最新的數字是連在台灣，ＨＴＣ手機都賣輸三星。
第三是後有追兵，大陸的廠商已迎頭趕上，雖然技術仍落後台廠，但威脅日重。台灣面板在大陸占有一半的市場，大陸是台廠最重要的市場，但大陸本土的面板廠商已開始投產，未來台廠的壓力必然沈重。大陸本土的智慧型手機廠如華為、中興、酷派等也興起，ＨＴＣ等台灣業者面對的競爭壓力會逐漸增加，更不用提在ＰＣ領域，聯想已經超越台灣的雙Ａ。
重振科技產業，就政府而言，首先就該在法令與制度上持續作更大幅度的開放、減少現有的許多管制。我們可以舉出許多政府不當管制，甚至因此延誤企業發展與商機的例子。例如，面板因政府不當限制，失去在大陸搶先機的機會，讓大陸本土企業興起，連韓國廠商也拿下兩張面板廠的核准，台廠因而面對更大的競爭壓力。政府如能對企業併購更友善、給予更多空間與鼓勵，ＤＲＡＭ廠可能早就自己合併，不會走到今日田地。
台灣對研發的投入，也該有計劃、有目標的拉高。韓國三星一家廠商一年的研發經費就超過二千五百億台幣，台灣企業無人能及；連我們政府國科會每年編列補助的研發經費，也不過九百多億，而且分配又太過於「齊頭平等主義」，這些都有必要改進。此外，政府也該主導釋出各種商機，如醫療雲、教育雲、４Ｇ等。
品牌固然不是唯一的路，但正如ＭＩＴ學者梭羅幾年前訪台說的：「台灣競爭力的關鍵還是要靠創新，沒有他途」國內企業善於當追隨者、不願長期投資、經營自己的核心技術與競爭力，最後都落入紅海中；企業對此應有所省思。
綠色矽島蒙塵，台灣科技產業根基深厚，數十萬拚勁十足的中小企業，配合中大型企業，架構出完整而有競爭力的供應鏈，只要有方向、政府與企業齊心努力，必然有重現光芒之日；正如國科會主委朱敬一說的：雖有危機，但不悲觀。讓政府與企業齊心再擦亮矽島的光環吧！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2012
Summary: This newspaper has launched an editorial series entitled, "The Dust-covered Silicon Island." It investigates the diminishing competitiveness of Taiwan's technology industry. Taiwan's high-tech industries are ill. The illness appears serious. The good news is Taiwan's high-tech industries have a solid foundation. It still has assets. It still has advantages in technology and management. It can still make a comeback.
Full Text below:
This newspaper has launched an editorial series entitled, "The Dust-covered Silicon Island." It investigates the diminishing competitiveness of Taiwan's technology industry. Taiwan's high-tech industries are ill. The illness appears serious. The good news is Taiwan's high-tech industries have a solid foundation. It still has assets. It still has advantages in technology and management. It can still make a comeback.
Consider the overall figures. Prior to July, exports from Taiwan declined 5.8%. Taiwan's main export technology products come from the ICT industry, which declined as much as 23.3%. During the same period, exports from neighboring countries remained positive. This was especially true of our competitor South Korea, whose export products largely overlap those from Taiwan. Consider individual industries. These once played an important role in Taiwan's PC industry chain. The DRAM industry was once dominated by South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. It is now dominated exclusively by South Korea. Others have closed their doors. They are receiving government subsidies and bleeding red ink. Their technology lags behind South Korea by more than two generations. Their prospects for survival are slim. In the manufacture of LCD panels, other economies have fallen behind South Korea. They are steadily losing money. Chimei and AU Optronics lost nearly 500 billion dollars during the first half of this year. Their prospects are grim. Other industries, such as the PC, LED, and solar energy industries, all face crises and challenges. Semiconductor are the sole exception, Taiwan's high-tech industries are in trouble. That is no exaggeration.
Leave aside short term factors for the moment, such as the global economic downturn. Manufacturers on Taiwan face three challenges. One. Industry trends have changed dramatically. Manufacturers have not been able to respond in a timely manner. Over the past three decades, high-tech industries on Taiwan have developed within the WINTEL (Microsoft plus Intel) framework. But in 2010, the Apple iPad made its US debut. This shook the industry. The PC industry entered the Post-PC Era. The technology industry on Taiwan depends primarily on PCs. It is at a complete loss what to do. It has plummeted to new lows.
Two. South Korean companies learned a hard lesson over the past decade. Past investments, technological advances, and brand building have finally paid off. They are finally reaping what they sowed. Taiwan meanwhile, has been routed. In fact, it lost to a single company -- South Korea's Samsung. Taiwan's DRAM industry has been trounced. Taiwan's share of the DRAM market is in the single digit range. Samsung alone has nearly half the world market. Taiwan's LCD industry is in crisis. In the high tech, high profits AMOLED industry, Samsung has a 97% market share. In the smart phone industry, Samsung has surpassed Apple in market share. The market share of Taiwan's HTC continues to drop. The latest figures show that even on Taiwan Samsung cell phones outsell HTC.
Three. Others are gaining. Mainland manufacturers are catching up. Their technology still lags behind Taiwan's. But the threat increases by the day. Flat panels from Taiwan account for half of the Mainland market. The Mainland is Taiwan's most important market. But Mainland flat panel manufacturers have begun operation. Taiwan manufacturers will inevitably be subject to heavy pressure. Mainland smartphone manufacturers such as Huawei, ZTE, Coolpad have debuted. HTC and other Taiwan-based companies face increased competition. Never mind the PC industry. Lenovo has already surpassed Taiwan's Acer and Asus.
Can the technology industry be rebooted? The government must dramatically liberalize its rules and regulations. It must reduce its myriad controls. We can cite many examples of crippling government controls. For example, the flat panel industry was subject to undue government restrictions. As a result it lost the lead on the Mainland. Mainland companies were able to rise. Even South Korean companies obtained approval for the construction of two flat panel factories. As a result Taiwan plants found themselves facing greater competitive pressure. Had the government allowed mergers and acquisitions, and granted greater latitude and encouragement, Taiwan's DRAM manufacturers could have merged long ago. Their situation today would be very different.
Research and development on Taiwan require more farsighted planning and more ambitious targets. South Korea's Samsung invested 250 billion NT on R&D in one year alone. Taiwan companies cannot compare. The National Science Council invests no more than 90 billion on R&D per year. Its subsidies are too egalitarian. This all needs to be improved. The government should also provide a variety of business opportunities in medical cloud computing, educational cloud computing, and 4G.
Brand building is not the only way. But as MIT scholar Lester Thurow said when he visited Taiwan several years ago, the key to Taiwan's competitiveness is innovation. There is no other way. Domestic businesses are good at being followers. They are unwilling to make long-term investments. They are unwilling to create their own core technology and core competitiveness. As a result they eventually find themselves in a sea of red ink. Businesses must consider this.
The Green Silicon Island is covered with a layer of dust. Taiwan's high-tech industries have deep roots. Hundreds of thousands of energetic small and medium enterprises have cooperated with medium and large enterprises to establish a competitive supply chain. As long they have a direction, as long as the government and enterprises cooperate, they will once again see the light of day. As National Science Council Chairman Chu Ching-yi said, we may be in the midst of a crisis, but we need not despair. Let the government and business join forces and restore lustre to the Silicon Island halo.
重新擦亮綠色矽島的光環
2012-08-26 中國時報
本報日前推出「蒙塵的矽島」系列專題，探討台灣科技產業競爭力衰退問題，台灣科技產業真的病了，而且似乎病得不輕；但值得慶幸的是：台灣科技產業底子厚、家當還在，同時也還保有技術與管理的優勢，未來仍有重振機會。
從總體數字看，台灣前七月的出口衰退了五．八％，但台灣出口主力的科技產品─資通訊產業，衰退幅度卻高達二三．三％；同期鄰近國家─尤其是出口產品與台灣高度重疊、競爭的韓國，其出口仍維持正成長。再從個別產業面看，曾在 台灣ＰＣ產業鏈中占有重要地位、與韓、美、日共分天下的ＤＲＡＭ產業，算是被韓國徹底打垮，倒閉、紓困、繼續承受嚴重虧損者都有，在技術已落後韓國二個世代以上後，未來生機渺茫。此外，ＬＣＤ面板在技術落後韓廠、廠商虧損累累下，奇美加上友達，今年上半年就虧損了近五百億元，前景亦讓人憂心。其它如ＰＣ、ＬＥＤ、太陽能…等，幾乎都面臨程度不等的危機與挑戰。除了半導體外，說台灣科技產業全面陷入困境，應不是過份的形容。
撇開全球經濟低迷的短期因素不談，今日台灣廠商面臨的壓力與挑戰來自三方面，第一是產業趨勢丕變，廠商應變不及。過去三十年，台灣科技產業在「WINTEL」（英特爾加上微軟）的架構下發展；但二○一○年，美國蘋果的iPad橫空出世，撼動業界，ＰＣ產業推入「後ＰＣ時代」，台灣以ＰＣ為主軸的科技產業完全亂了手腳，陷入空前的低潮。
第二則是韓國企業經過十年的生聚教訓，過去累積的投資、技術的進步、品牌的營造，在這幾年開花結果，進入收割期，台灣幾乎全面潰敗，而且，某個觀點而言，竟敗在韓國三星一家廠商手上。ＤＲＡＭ已敗，台灣的ＤＲＡＭ市佔率剩下個位數，三星一家就席捲近半數江山；ＬＣＤ陷入危機，技術先進、利潤高的AMOLED技術，三星市占率九七％。智慧型手機方面，三星超越蘋果的市占率，但台灣的ＨＴＣ市占率則腰斬下滑，最新的數字是連在台灣，ＨＴＣ手機都賣輸三星。
第三是後有追兵，大陸的廠商已迎頭趕上，雖然技術仍落後台廠，但威脅日重。台灣面板在大陸占有一半的市場，大陸是台廠最重要的市場，但大陸本土的面板廠商已開始投產，未來台廠的壓力必然沈重。大陸本土的智慧型手機廠如華為、中興、酷派等也興起，ＨＴＣ等台灣業者面對的競爭壓力會逐漸增加，更不用提在ＰＣ領域，聯想已經超越台灣的雙Ａ。
重振科技產業，就政府而言，首先就該在法令與制度上持續作更大幅度的開放、減少現有的許多管制。我們可以舉出許多政府不當管制，甚至因此延誤企業發展與商機的例子。例如，面板因政府不當限制，失去在大陸搶先機的機會，讓大陸本土企業興起，連韓國廠商也拿下兩張面板廠的核准，台廠因而面對更大的競爭壓力。政府如能對企業併購更友善、給予更多空間與鼓勵，ＤＲＡＭ廠可能早就自己合併，不會走到今日田地。
台灣對研發的投入，也該有計劃、有目標的拉高。韓國三星一家廠商一年的研發經費就超過二千五百億台幣，台灣企業無人能及；連我們政府國科會每年編列補助的研發經費，也不過九百多億，而且分配又太過於「齊頭平等主義」，這些都有必要改進。此外，政府也該主導釋出各種商機，如醫療雲、教育雲、４Ｇ等。
品牌固然不是唯一的路，但正如ＭＩＴ學者梭羅幾年前訪台說的：「台灣競爭力的關鍵還是要靠創新，沒有他途」國內企業善於當追隨者、不願長期投資、經營自己的核心技術與競爭力，最後都落入紅海中；企業對此應有所省思。
綠色矽島蒙塵，台灣科技產業根基深厚，數十萬拚勁十足的中小企業，配合中大型企業，架構出完整而有競爭力的供應鏈，只要有方向、政府與企業齊心努力，必然有重現光芒之日；正如國科會主委朱敬一說的：雖有危機，但不悲觀。讓政府與企業齊心再擦亮矽島的光環吧！
Hao, Chu, and Hu: Jockeying for Position?
Hao, Chu, and Hu: Jockeying for Position?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2012
Summary: Society on Taiwan is highly politicized. Everyone has his own agenda. Everyone sings his own tune. No issue escapes being politically pigeonholed. This political curse keeps Taiwan trapped in a Blue vs. Green political quagmire. Reconciliation has become a castle in the air, a mirage, a charade. There are 23 million people on Taiwan besides Ah-Bian. There are things more important than politics. If we cannot get beyond even this, then Taiwan has no future.
Full Text below:
Society on Taiwan is highly politicized. Everyone has his own agenda. Everyone sings his own tune. No issue escapes being politically pigeonholed. This political curse keeps Taiwan trapped in a Blue vs. Green political quagmire. Reconciliation has become a castle in the air, a mirage, a charade.
Recently Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin suggested that former President Chen Shui-bian, who is currently in prison, be released on medical parole. People immediately assumed he was laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. Supporters of Jason Hu announced their support for Jason Hu as party chairman. Not to be outdone, Supporters of Eric Chu proposed that Eric Chu run for president and that Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan run for mayor of Xinbei City. These are matters that should be dealt with two to four years from now. Was it really necessary to lay the groundwork and even jockey for position so early?
Hao, Chu, and Hu are KMT mayors of directly administered municipalities. They are not part of the central government. They are three party princes who have helped the KMT consolidate its power. These three men have minds of their own. They take no pleasure in attacking the central government. The public on Taiwan knows this. Less a month ago, the Ma administration's reputation probed new lows following Lin Yi-shi's indictment for extortion. When rumors emerged that party members wanted President Ma to resign as party chairman, these three men simultaneously expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. They said they wanted him to stay on as party chairman. They are not jockeying for position. They know Taiwan faces a tough test as the global economy reaches new lows. They know there are more important things than changes in the ruling party. They know there are more important things than competing for power within the party. They know that if the ruling party invests its energy in jockeying for position, its economic initiatives will fail, and it will lose its hold on political power. Therefore scrambling for power within the party is pointless.
The slogan "Hao, Chu, and Hu" rings in our ears. Many people are urging them to run for party chairman or president. These people may be current or former staffers or aides. But they all confirm one thing: "You always hurt the one you love." One. All three of them still have two years left in their term. Hao is not eligible for another term. Hu and Chu are. But the KMT primary system has a timetable. The earliest it can go into operation is the end of next year or the beginning of the year after that. The political situation on Taiwan changes quickly. The variables are too many to be predictable. Who knows how matters will stand two years from now? Two. Cabinet heads cannot nominate whomever they wish for president. Even less can aides. Sean Chen's cabinet is only six months old. It is too early to start proposing new candidates for premier. It is also disrespectful to the current premier. Three. Hao, Chu, and Hu are currently serving mayors. Their top priority is governing their cities. If they do a good job, their futures are assured. If they do a poor job, declaring their candidacies early will do them no good.
When Hau Lung-bin inaugurated "Freedom Lane," he suggested that the Ministry of Justice form a team of medical professionals to determine whether Chen Shui-bian should be granted medical parole. This led to middle-aged candidates jockeying for position. It was probably not what he expected. But it shows that Blue vs. Green opposition on Taiwan remains a Gordian Knot. The Chen family corruption scandal erupted. Chen has already gone to prison. But some Chen supporters still refuse to believe Chen engaged in corruption. They still claim that a former head of state being imprisoned amounts to political persecution. They wonder how long Chen should remain in prison, when he should be granted a pardon, and whether he should be granted medical parole? Society on Taiwan is polarized. This problem has legal, political, and human rights implications. But it has little to do with jockeying for position among middle-aged political candidates. Hau Lung-bin's proposal was applauded by the Green camp. But many more Blue camp members looked askance at Hau's proposal. Clearly Hau was not motivated by a desire to jockey for position.
Hau Lung-bin majored in the hard sciences. His thinking differs from politicians who majored in the social sciences. He seldom makes any rash moves. He consistently tries to do the right thing, and say what's on his mind. He seldom makes political calculations. Hau is the son of military veteran and former premier Hau Pei-tsun, who vigorously opposed Taiwan independence. After Hau entered politics, he had no problem cooperating with the DPP on public policy. He incurred the wrath of the Blue camp. He served as head of the Chen regime Environmental Protection Department. He accomplished much in the gap between the Blue and Green camps. Ruling vs. opposition party relations prevents Taiwan from moving forward. Hau's personal and political experiences are inspiring. But is Hau Lung-bin the only one who feels this way? Blue vs. Green battles persist. They prevent the Ma administration from implementing its policies. Is the ruling KMT truly indifferent to this?
Everyone wants Blue Green reconciliation. Hau Lung-bin's proposal may not be feasible. But can ruling and opposition political leaders ignore Hau's aspirations? Must frigid relations between the ruling and opposition parties lead to Taiwan's collapse? Should Chen be granted medical parole? That question requires a professional medical opinion. Leave aside whether Ah-Bian should be granted medical parole. Is it really not possible to organize a team of medical experts able to offer a credible opinion? Conversely, how long does the Green Camp intend to remain stuck to the Ah-Bian tar baby? Must Blue/Green reconciliation be linked to Ah-Bien? Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. He controlled vast resources. He wielded immense power. No one owes him anything. There are 23 million people on Taiwan besides Ah-Bian. There are things more important than politics. If we cannot get beyond even this, then Taiwan has no future.
真的只能用「卡位戰」看郝立強嗎
2012-08-29 01:16
中國時報
台灣果然是高度政治化的社會，人人一把號，各吹政治的調，任何議題都逃脫不出政治考量的框限，這個政治魔咒幾成詛咒，讓台灣陷入藍綠壁壘不可自拔，和解之議從空中樓閣漸漸演變成海市蜃樓，全然只是虛幻一場。
近日，台北市長郝龍斌拋出應讓在監服刑的前總統陳水扁保外就醫的議題，立刻遭人聯想他準備走自己的路；接著，挺胡人士放出支持胡志強競選黨主席之議；挺朱人士一不做二不休，直接倡議朱立倫選總統、內政部長李鴻源競選新北市長，這些二年、四年後的事，有必要這麼早舖陳布局、甚至卡位嗎？
無可諱言，「郝立強」都是國民黨內直轄市長，中央執政之外，就是三大諸侯為國民黨鞏固政權；然這三人都不是沒有自己意見的人，也不是以炮打中央為樂之人，台灣民眾不可能這麼健忘，才在一個多月前，當馬政府為林益世涉嫌索賄案聲望一路下滑到新低，黨內傳出建議馬英九總統辭兼黨主席之聲的時候，就是他們同步公開表達支持馬英九續任黨主席。他們為的不是卡位，而是深刻理解台灣面臨全球經濟低盪的嚴苛考驗，有比更換執政黨主席、競逐黨內權力更重要的事，執政黨若把心力都擺在權力布局，執政政府任何拚經濟的舉措都將落空，執政權若因此不保，爭逐黨內權力還有何意義？
「郝立強」言猶在耳，所有倡議他們競選黨主席和總統之人，不論是現幕僚或者前幕僚，都坐實一句話：愛之適足以害之。第一，他們三人的任期還有兩年，郝不能連任，胡朱可連任，但不論如何，國民黨有初選機制產生候選人，根據這個機制的時程，最快也得明年底後年初才開始作業，以台灣政治節奏之快，變數橫陳之不可測，誰能預估兩年後的事？第二，閣揆提名權在總統，非其個人意願可以主導，遑論幕僚之見，陳?組閣才半年，此刻建議閣揆人選，言之過早也是對現任閣揆不尊重；第三，他們都是現任市長，當然清楚做好市政才是他們的當務之急，做得好就有未來，做不好藍圖設計得再早都無用！
郝龍斌在「自由巷」揭牌活動中，拋出應由法務部組成專業醫療團隊評估陳水扁保外就醫的必要，無端燒起一把「中生代卡位」之火，容或出乎其意料之外，但也由此看出台灣藍綠對立這個難解的死結。扁家弊案爆發迄今，即使扁已入監，但是對扁究竟是否貪汙、卸任元首應否在入監之外還有其他懲治形式、以至於扁到底還要服刑多久、何時特赦乃至能否保外就醫？俱有不同見解，台灣社會還是處於兩極狀態，這個問題有法律面、有政治面、也有人權面向可以討論，但不論如何討論，與所謂的中生代卡位距離遠矣；郝龍斌的主張，即使能得到泛綠叫好，泛藍陣營的負面評價肯定超過正面意見，哪裡有機會因此卡位？
郝龍斌是自然學科出身的人，與法政社會科系出身的政治人物思維有異，他甚少做突如其來的即興之舉，做對的事，說自己相信的話，是他一貫主張，政治算計的利害得失，很少在他的盤算之中，就是因為這樣，做為民進黨與獨派人士曾經全力抗衡的軍人院長郝柏村之子，他在進入政治場域後，與民進黨在公共政策上的合作卻從來不是問題，甘冒泛藍陣營之大不韙，出任扁政府的環保署長，在藍綠夾縫中還是做了不少事，以他的個人經驗和政治歷練，面對如此朝野關係無法改善因而耗蝕台灣前進的動力，很難心無所感。問題是：這個感慨難道只是郝龍斌個人之嘆嗎？藍綠無止盡的惡鬥，讓馬政府的政策舉步維艱，執政黨能無所感嗎？
藍綠和解是全民期望，郝龍斌一句話，或許跨不出這一步，但朝野政治領袖豈能無視全民心聲，放任冰凝的朝野關係永遠成為拖垮台灣的主要因素？扁能否保外就醫需要各種專業評估，先不論能否讓扁保外就醫，組成具有社會公信力的醫療評估團隊再一次檢驗真的不可行嗎？同樣的，綠營難道不能想想還要陷在「阿扁困局」中多久？藍綠和解非扁不可嗎？陳水扁執政八年，擁有過最多資源、最大權力，沒有人虧欠他一絲一毫，台灣除了扁還有二千三百萬人民，除了政治還有更重要的事，這一步跨不出去，台灣不會有未來。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2012
Summary: Society on Taiwan is highly politicized. Everyone has his own agenda. Everyone sings his own tune. No issue escapes being politically pigeonholed. This political curse keeps Taiwan trapped in a Blue vs. Green political quagmire. Reconciliation has become a castle in the air, a mirage, a charade. There are 23 million people on Taiwan besides Ah-Bian. There are things more important than politics. If we cannot get beyond even this, then Taiwan has no future.
Full Text below:
Society on Taiwan is highly politicized. Everyone has his own agenda. Everyone sings his own tune. No issue escapes being politically pigeonholed. This political curse keeps Taiwan trapped in a Blue vs. Green political quagmire. Reconciliation has become a castle in the air, a mirage, a charade.
Recently Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin suggested that former President Chen Shui-bian, who is currently in prison, be released on medical parole. People immediately assumed he was laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. Supporters of Jason Hu announced their support for Jason Hu as party chairman. Not to be outdone, Supporters of Eric Chu proposed that Eric Chu run for president and that Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan run for mayor of Xinbei City. These are matters that should be dealt with two to four years from now. Was it really necessary to lay the groundwork and even jockey for position so early?
Hao, Chu, and Hu are KMT mayors of directly administered municipalities. They are not part of the central government. They are three party princes who have helped the KMT consolidate its power. These three men have minds of their own. They take no pleasure in attacking the central government. The public on Taiwan knows this. Less a month ago, the Ma administration's reputation probed new lows following Lin Yi-shi's indictment for extortion. When rumors emerged that party members wanted President Ma to resign as party chairman, these three men simultaneously expressed support for Ma Ying-jeou. They said they wanted him to stay on as party chairman. They are not jockeying for position. They know Taiwan faces a tough test as the global economy reaches new lows. They know there are more important things than changes in the ruling party. They know there are more important things than competing for power within the party. They know that if the ruling party invests its energy in jockeying for position, its economic initiatives will fail, and it will lose its hold on political power. Therefore scrambling for power within the party is pointless.
The slogan "Hao, Chu, and Hu" rings in our ears. Many people are urging them to run for party chairman or president. These people may be current or former staffers or aides. But they all confirm one thing: "You always hurt the one you love." One. All three of them still have two years left in their term. Hao is not eligible for another term. Hu and Chu are. But the KMT primary system has a timetable. The earliest it can go into operation is the end of next year or the beginning of the year after that. The political situation on Taiwan changes quickly. The variables are too many to be predictable. Who knows how matters will stand two years from now? Two. Cabinet heads cannot nominate whomever they wish for president. Even less can aides. Sean Chen's cabinet is only six months old. It is too early to start proposing new candidates for premier. It is also disrespectful to the current premier. Three. Hao, Chu, and Hu are currently serving mayors. Their top priority is governing their cities. If they do a good job, their futures are assured. If they do a poor job, declaring their candidacies early will do them no good.
When Hau Lung-bin inaugurated "Freedom Lane," he suggested that the Ministry of Justice form a team of medical professionals to determine whether Chen Shui-bian should be granted medical parole. This led to middle-aged candidates jockeying for position. It was probably not what he expected. But it shows that Blue vs. Green opposition on Taiwan remains a Gordian Knot. The Chen family corruption scandal erupted. Chen has already gone to prison. But some Chen supporters still refuse to believe Chen engaged in corruption. They still claim that a former head of state being imprisoned amounts to political persecution. They wonder how long Chen should remain in prison, when he should be granted a pardon, and whether he should be granted medical parole? Society on Taiwan is polarized. This problem has legal, political, and human rights implications. But it has little to do with jockeying for position among middle-aged political candidates. Hau Lung-bin's proposal was applauded by the Green camp. But many more Blue camp members looked askance at Hau's proposal. Clearly Hau was not motivated by a desire to jockey for position.
Hau Lung-bin majored in the hard sciences. His thinking differs from politicians who majored in the social sciences. He seldom makes any rash moves. He consistently tries to do the right thing, and say what's on his mind. He seldom makes political calculations. Hau is the son of military veteran and former premier Hau Pei-tsun, who vigorously opposed Taiwan independence. After Hau entered politics, he had no problem cooperating with the DPP on public policy. He incurred the wrath of the Blue camp. He served as head of the Chen regime Environmental Protection Department. He accomplished much in the gap between the Blue and Green camps. Ruling vs. opposition party relations prevents Taiwan from moving forward. Hau's personal and political experiences are inspiring. But is Hau Lung-bin the only one who feels this way? Blue vs. Green battles persist. They prevent the Ma administration from implementing its policies. Is the ruling KMT truly indifferent to this?
Everyone wants Blue Green reconciliation. Hau Lung-bin's proposal may not be feasible. But can ruling and opposition political leaders ignore Hau's aspirations? Must frigid relations between the ruling and opposition parties lead to Taiwan's collapse? Should Chen be granted medical parole? That question requires a professional medical opinion. Leave aside whether Ah-Bian should be granted medical parole. Is it really not possible to organize a team of medical experts able to offer a credible opinion? Conversely, how long does the Green Camp intend to remain stuck to the Ah-Bian tar baby? Must Blue/Green reconciliation be linked to Ah-Bien? Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. He controlled vast resources. He wielded immense power. No one owes him anything. There are 23 million people on Taiwan besides Ah-Bian. There are things more important than politics. If we cannot get beyond even this, then Taiwan has no future.
真的只能用「卡位戰」看郝立強嗎
2012-08-29 01:16
中國時報
台灣果然是高度政治化的社會，人人一把號，各吹政治的調，任何議題都逃脫不出政治考量的框限，這個政治魔咒幾成詛咒，讓台灣陷入藍綠壁壘不可自拔，和解之議從空中樓閣漸漸演變成海市蜃樓，全然只是虛幻一場。
近日，台北市長郝龍斌拋出應讓在監服刑的前總統陳水扁保外就醫的議題，立刻遭人聯想他準備走自己的路；接著，挺胡人士放出支持胡志強競選黨主席之議；挺朱人士一不做二不休，直接倡議朱立倫選總統、內政部長李鴻源競選新北市長，這些二年、四年後的事，有必要這麼早舖陳布局、甚至卡位嗎？
無可諱言，「郝立強」都是國民黨內直轄市長，中央執政之外，就是三大諸侯為國民黨鞏固政權；然這三人都不是沒有自己意見的人，也不是以炮打中央為樂之人，台灣民眾不可能這麼健忘，才在一個多月前，當馬政府為林益世涉嫌索賄案聲望一路下滑到新低，黨內傳出建議馬英九總統辭兼黨主席之聲的時候，就是他們同步公開表達支持馬英九續任黨主席。他們為的不是卡位，而是深刻理解台灣面臨全球經濟低盪的嚴苛考驗，有比更換執政黨主席、競逐黨內權力更重要的事，執政黨若把心力都擺在權力布局，執政政府任何拚經濟的舉措都將落空，執政權若因此不保，爭逐黨內權力還有何意義？
「郝立強」言猶在耳，所有倡議他們競選黨主席和總統之人，不論是現幕僚或者前幕僚，都坐實一句話：愛之適足以害之。第一，他們三人的任期還有兩年，郝不能連任，胡朱可連任，但不論如何，國民黨有初選機制產生候選人，根據這個機制的時程，最快也得明年底後年初才開始作業，以台灣政治節奏之快，變數橫陳之不可測，誰能預估兩年後的事？第二，閣揆提名權在總統，非其個人意願可以主導，遑論幕僚之見，陳?組閣才半年，此刻建議閣揆人選，言之過早也是對現任閣揆不尊重；第三，他們都是現任市長，當然清楚做好市政才是他們的當務之急，做得好就有未來，做不好藍圖設計得再早都無用！
郝龍斌在「自由巷」揭牌活動中，拋出應由法務部組成專業醫療團隊評估陳水扁保外就醫的必要，無端燒起一把「中生代卡位」之火，容或出乎其意料之外，但也由此看出台灣藍綠對立這個難解的死結。扁家弊案爆發迄今，即使扁已入監，但是對扁究竟是否貪汙、卸任元首應否在入監之外還有其他懲治形式、以至於扁到底還要服刑多久、何時特赦乃至能否保外就醫？俱有不同見解，台灣社會還是處於兩極狀態，這個問題有法律面、有政治面、也有人權面向可以討論，但不論如何討論，與所謂的中生代卡位距離遠矣；郝龍斌的主張，即使能得到泛綠叫好，泛藍陣營的負面評價肯定超過正面意見，哪裡有機會因此卡位？
郝龍斌是自然學科出身的人，與法政社會科系出身的政治人物思維有異，他甚少做突如其來的即興之舉，做對的事，說自己相信的話，是他一貫主張，政治算計的利害得失，很少在他的盤算之中，就是因為這樣，做為民進黨與獨派人士曾經全力抗衡的軍人院長郝柏村之子，他在進入政治場域後，與民進黨在公共政策上的合作卻從來不是問題，甘冒泛藍陣營之大不韙，出任扁政府的環保署長，在藍綠夾縫中還是做了不少事，以他的個人經驗和政治歷練，面對如此朝野關係無法改善因而耗蝕台灣前進的動力，很難心無所感。問題是：這個感慨難道只是郝龍斌個人之嘆嗎？藍綠無止盡的惡鬥，讓馬政府的政策舉步維艱，執政黨能無所感嗎？
藍綠和解是全民期望，郝龍斌一句話，或許跨不出這一步，但朝野政治領袖豈能無視全民心聲，放任冰凝的朝野關係永遠成為拖垮台灣的主要因素？扁能否保外就醫需要各種專業評估，先不論能否讓扁保外就醫，組成具有社會公信力的醫療評估團隊再一次檢驗真的不可行嗎？同樣的，綠營難道不能想想還要陷在「阿扁困局」中多久？藍綠和解非扁不可嗎？陳水扁執政八年，擁有過最多資源、最大權力，沒有人虧欠他一絲一毫，台灣除了扁還有二千三百萬人民，除了政治還有更重要的事，這一步跨不出去，台灣不會有未來。
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Pastry Chef with a Ph.D: Occupations and Knowledge
Pastry Chef with a Ph.D: Occupations and Knowledge
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2012
Summary: A better society is one in which a baker seeks knowledge because he is motivated to. A doctoral candidate may become an expert in his field. A taxi driver also love literature or art. A plumber or electrician can also write poetry or join a band. A university professor can fix cars or do carpentry. In a society without stereotypes about which careers are higher or lower in social status, people will not feel that abandoning one's quest for a doctorate to make pastries is "beneath one."
Full Text below:
The daughter of National Science Council Chairman Chu Ching-yi has abandoned her quest for a doctorate at an elite US university. She has returned home to do something she truly loves, operate a pastry shop and bakery. The daughter of Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey has dropped out of the Harvard University School of Architecture. She is pursuing her ambition to be a painter. The daughter of Council for Economic Planning and Development Chairman Yin Chi-ming has abandoned her studies in accounting and is majoring in music in Japan. Before she left she said, "I have fulfilled your demands, now I must do what interests me."
Do these three stories mean modern parents are more enlightened? Not necessarily. The sampling is too small. ; But they do provide powerful evidence that society on Taiwan has reached a turning point. What do these three examples have in common? They have a high-ranking father able to support his children in careers without a stable incomes. More importantly, the father is able to set aside his traditional views about professional status. He is able to respect his childrens' quest for their own dreams.
Society on Taiwan has changed with political democratization and liberalization. It has become more pluralistic. Famed chef Ah-Chi knows how to cook and knows how to teach others to cook. The public has far more faith in him than in President Ma. Green grocer Chen Shu-chu went from operator of a tiny vegetable stand to famed philanthropist. Young pastry chef Wu Pao-chun found the secret of his success in a yeast formula. Major League baseball player Chen Wei-yin has demonstrated his extraordinary skill on the pitcher's mound. In a pluralistic society. every occupation produces people of greatness. But the fact is not every needs to be great. As long one is able to live one's life and pursue one's dreams, one's life has value.
Technical and vocational education on Taiwan has deteriorated. Large numbers of university graduates cannot find jobs. The above mentioned pastry chef with a Ph.D and other examples have provided us with a fresh perspective. Chu Ching-yi's daughter discovered her love of baking at an early age. Had she enjoyed greater freedom, has she had devoted herself to it, she might already have her own little empire. She might have developed unique pastries. But society on Taiwan has its own peculiar values. A girl with scholastic aptitude is destined for higher education. She may even have to study abroad. She must obtain a doctorate. Only then will she be "enough." If she merely wants to wear the white hat of a pastry chef, if she merely wants to smell the aroma of pastries, if she merely wants to get married and live happily ever after, she will encounter much resistance. She must expend enormous energy overcoming traditional values.
Society was traditionally divided into four classes: officials, peasants, laborers, and merchants. These class divisions long ago lost any meaning. Nevertheless the notion that earning diplomas and acquiring a higher education are essential for success persist. Therefore the government is doing all it can to meet the demands of those who wish to get into college. The college enrollment rate is nearly 100%. The unemployment rate for young people has soared to 13%. Meanwhile the technical and vocational manpower requirements for many industries cannot be met. This is a clear case of educational malinvestment. Chu Ching-yi said his daughter selling cakes was not a good return on his investment, nevertheless he willingly supported her decision. Consider the big picture. When it comes to higher education, the returns do not match the investment. This is no laughing matter. If younger generations do not wish to find themselves unemployed, the government must change its educational policy. Parents must also change their notions about education and employment.
Education and employment is a process of trial and error. It is not necessarily a straight line. There are often forks in the road. There are often twists and turns in the road. The value of a profession, is not determined by whether one uses one's mind or one's muscles, or whether one's income is large or small. One must also consider one's aptitude and one's interests. This generation of parents has greater respect for the child's interests. If they are willing to give them greater latitude, their sons and daughters may well succeed in unexpected ways. After all, Internet and optoelectronic era technologies offer the next generation many marketing, invention, and integration opportunities. The previous generation no longer has any say in the matter.
A pastry chef with a Ph.D has gone back to doing what she loves most -- baking. This is an inspiring story. This newspaper ran a series of reports on the "Return of the Prodigal." One young policeman finally won recognition after joining a theater group. It was as if he had finally won the support of his own mother. Social values on Taiwan are changing, bit by bit. This offers individuals greater opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
A better society is one in which a baker seeks knowledge because he is motivated to. A doctoral candidate may become an expert in his field. A taxi driver also love literature or art. A plumber or electrician can also write poetry or join a band. A university professor can fix cars or do carpentry. In a society without stereotypes about which careers are higher or lower in social status, people will not feel that abandoning one's quest for a doctorate to make pastries is "beneath one."
從博士糕餅師反思職業與知識
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.28
國科會主委朱敬一的女兒捨棄攻讀美國名校博士學位，回家做起自己喜愛的糕餅烘焙事業；中研院長翁啟惠的女兒放棄哈佛建築系學業，選擇依志趣當一名畫家；經建會主委尹啟銘的女兒則放棄會計主修赴日改學音樂，臨走拋下一句：「我已完成你的要求，現在我要做自己感興趣的。」
這三個故事，若要解讀為現代的父母如何開明，未必有足夠的代表性；但用來解釋台灣社會發展的多元化已到了一個轉捩點，卻不失為有力的佐證。上述三個例子的共同點，是父親都居高位，足以支撐子女未必有穩定收入的職業志趣；但更關鍵的是，父親都能拋開傳統職業尊卑的眼光，尊重子女自我追求，這才是重點。
台灣社會的發展，伴隨著政治的民主化與思想的自由化，不斷展現更多元的價值。會做菜、又教做人的名廚阿基師，在民眾信賴度排行榜上遙遙領先馬總統；菜販陳樹菊從小菜攤上湧現的不平凡慷慨，讓人敬佩。此外，年輕麵包師吳寶春從酵母菌中尋獲成功的密碼，陳偉殷在美國職棒大聯盟投手丘展現的不凡身手，在在說明了社會的多元。俗話說「行行出狀元」，但進一步看，不必每個人都追求做狀元，只要能努力豐實自己的生命和夢想，即是人生價值的體現。
正當台灣技職教育陷於萎縮，而大量大學畢業生卻找不到工作，上述博士糕餅師等例子，正好提供了大家鮮活的反思線索。如果朱敬一的女兒在青少年時期就發現自己對烘焙的熱愛，並有足夠的空間投入實作，也許她早已開創出一番天下，研發出獨特的糕點。但依照台灣社會的價值邏輯，一個「會讀書」的女孩子注定要循著教育體系一路升學，乃至出國深造；直到她取得博士的入場券，她才有資格說「夠了」，她想戴的是烘焙師的白帽子、想聞的是糕點的芳香。這樁美事雖然喜劇收場，但設想其中有過的掙扎，要抵抗傳統社會職業價值觀念恐怕也是費了很多力氣。
士農工商的階級劃分，在台灣社會早就不適用，但文憑與「讀書出頭天」的觀念，依舊牢不可破；也因此，政府極盡所能滿足人們想要擠進大學的欲望。如今大學入學率幾近百分之百，青年失業率則飆升到百分之十三，而許多產業需要的技職人力卻無處可覓，這不能不說是台灣教育投資的系統性誤導。朱敬一形容，博士女兒去賣蛋糕不符「投資效益」，但他心甘情願支持。若放大來看，台灣高等教育制度性的不符投資效益，又豈是能一笑置之的事？如果不想讓年輕世代坐困失業，政府的教育政策必須改弦更張，家長對求學與就業的觀念也必須重新調整。
從求學到就業，是個不斷試探與追尋的過程。這不一定是一條直線道路，它可以轉進岔路，也容許迂迴曲折。而一個職業的價值，也不該僅以勞心、勞力或收入多寡來衡量，而必須考慮性向和志趣的貼合。這一代的父母，通常更能尊重孩子的志趣；如果他們願意放更多的手，也許能看到兒女在意想不到的領域綻放出意想不到的精采。畢竟，網路及光電世代的許多行銷、創造和整合，都還有極大的發展空間等著靠下一代去摸索和發展，這已不是上一代父母所能過問的事。
一個博士班女生能回頭去做自己喜愛的烘焙，是令人愉悅及鼓舞的故事。正如日前本報「還鄉幸福」系列報導中，一名當警察的年輕人，終因自己參加的劇團受到社會肯定，也使他終於獲得母親的支持一樣。台灣社會點點滴滴的價值改變，讓個人的理想與志趣有更多實現的機會。
一個更理想的社會是：一個麵包師能因志趣與樂於求知，而修習得博士學位或成為領域中的達人；一個計程車司機也能熱愛文學或藝術，一個水電匠也會寫詩或參加樂隊，一個大學教授也會修車和做木工。在那樣沒有刻板職業貴賤的社會，我們就不會覺得放棄博士學位去做糕點是「大才小用」了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2012
Summary: A better society is one in which a baker seeks knowledge because he is motivated to. A doctoral candidate may become an expert in his field. A taxi driver also love literature or art. A plumber or electrician can also write poetry or join a band. A university professor can fix cars or do carpentry. In a society without stereotypes about which careers are higher or lower in social status, people will not feel that abandoning one's quest for a doctorate to make pastries is "beneath one."
Full Text below:
The daughter of National Science Council Chairman Chu Ching-yi has abandoned her quest for a doctorate at an elite US university. She has returned home to do something she truly loves, operate a pastry shop and bakery. The daughter of Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey has dropped out of the Harvard University School of Architecture. She is pursuing her ambition to be a painter. The daughter of Council for Economic Planning and Development Chairman Yin Chi-ming has abandoned her studies in accounting and is majoring in music in Japan. Before she left she said, "I have fulfilled your demands, now I must do what interests me."
Do these three stories mean modern parents are more enlightened? Not necessarily. The sampling is too small. ; But they do provide powerful evidence that society on Taiwan has reached a turning point. What do these three examples have in common? They have a high-ranking father able to support his children in careers without a stable incomes. More importantly, the father is able to set aside his traditional views about professional status. He is able to respect his childrens' quest for their own dreams.
Society on Taiwan has changed with political democratization and liberalization. It has become more pluralistic. Famed chef Ah-Chi knows how to cook and knows how to teach others to cook. The public has far more faith in him than in President Ma. Green grocer Chen Shu-chu went from operator of a tiny vegetable stand to famed philanthropist. Young pastry chef Wu Pao-chun found the secret of his success in a yeast formula. Major League baseball player Chen Wei-yin has demonstrated his extraordinary skill on the pitcher's mound. In a pluralistic society. every occupation produces people of greatness. But the fact is not every needs to be great. As long one is able to live one's life and pursue one's dreams, one's life has value.
Technical and vocational education on Taiwan has deteriorated. Large numbers of university graduates cannot find jobs. The above mentioned pastry chef with a Ph.D and other examples have provided us with a fresh perspective. Chu Ching-yi's daughter discovered her love of baking at an early age. Had she enjoyed greater freedom, has she had devoted herself to it, she might already have her own little empire. She might have developed unique pastries. But society on Taiwan has its own peculiar values. A girl with scholastic aptitude is destined for higher education. She may even have to study abroad. She must obtain a doctorate. Only then will she be "enough." If she merely wants to wear the white hat of a pastry chef, if she merely wants to smell the aroma of pastries, if she merely wants to get married and live happily ever after, she will encounter much resistance. She must expend enormous energy overcoming traditional values.
Society was traditionally divided into four classes: officials, peasants, laborers, and merchants. These class divisions long ago lost any meaning. Nevertheless the notion that earning diplomas and acquiring a higher education are essential for success persist. Therefore the government is doing all it can to meet the demands of those who wish to get into college. The college enrollment rate is nearly 100%. The unemployment rate for young people has soared to 13%. Meanwhile the technical and vocational manpower requirements for many industries cannot be met. This is a clear case of educational malinvestment. Chu Ching-yi said his daughter selling cakes was not a good return on his investment, nevertheless he willingly supported her decision. Consider the big picture. When it comes to higher education, the returns do not match the investment. This is no laughing matter. If younger generations do not wish to find themselves unemployed, the government must change its educational policy. Parents must also change their notions about education and employment.
Education and employment is a process of trial and error. It is not necessarily a straight line. There are often forks in the road. There are often twists and turns in the road. The value of a profession, is not determined by whether one uses one's mind or one's muscles, or whether one's income is large or small. One must also consider one's aptitude and one's interests. This generation of parents has greater respect for the child's interests. If they are willing to give them greater latitude, their sons and daughters may well succeed in unexpected ways. After all, Internet and optoelectronic era technologies offer the next generation many marketing, invention, and integration opportunities. The previous generation no longer has any say in the matter.
A pastry chef with a Ph.D has gone back to doing what she loves most -- baking. This is an inspiring story. This newspaper ran a series of reports on the "Return of the Prodigal." One young policeman finally won recognition after joining a theater group. It was as if he had finally won the support of his own mother. Social values on Taiwan are changing, bit by bit. This offers individuals greater opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
A better society is one in which a baker seeks knowledge because he is motivated to. A doctoral candidate may become an expert in his field. A taxi driver also love literature or art. A plumber or electrician can also write poetry or join a band. A university professor can fix cars or do carpentry. In a society without stereotypes about which careers are higher or lower in social status, people will not feel that abandoning one's quest for a doctorate to make pastries is "beneath one."
從博士糕餅師反思職業與知識
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.28
國科會主委朱敬一的女兒捨棄攻讀美國名校博士學位，回家做起自己喜愛的糕餅烘焙事業；中研院長翁啟惠的女兒放棄哈佛建築系學業，選擇依志趣當一名畫家；經建會主委尹啟銘的女兒則放棄會計主修赴日改學音樂，臨走拋下一句：「我已完成你的要求，現在我要做自己感興趣的。」
這三個故事，若要解讀為現代的父母如何開明，未必有足夠的代表性；但用來解釋台灣社會發展的多元化已到了一個轉捩點，卻不失為有力的佐證。上述三個例子的共同點，是父親都居高位，足以支撐子女未必有穩定收入的職業志趣；但更關鍵的是，父親都能拋開傳統職業尊卑的眼光，尊重子女自我追求，這才是重點。
台灣社會的發展，伴隨著政治的民主化與思想的自由化，不斷展現更多元的價值。會做菜、又教做人的名廚阿基師，在民眾信賴度排行榜上遙遙領先馬總統；菜販陳樹菊從小菜攤上湧現的不平凡慷慨，讓人敬佩。此外，年輕麵包師吳寶春從酵母菌中尋獲成功的密碼，陳偉殷在美國職棒大聯盟投手丘展現的不凡身手，在在說明了社會的多元。俗話說「行行出狀元」，但進一步看，不必每個人都追求做狀元，只要能努力豐實自己的生命和夢想，即是人生價值的體現。
正當台灣技職教育陷於萎縮，而大量大學畢業生卻找不到工作，上述博士糕餅師等例子，正好提供了大家鮮活的反思線索。如果朱敬一的女兒在青少年時期就發現自己對烘焙的熱愛，並有足夠的空間投入實作，也許她早已開創出一番天下，研發出獨特的糕點。但依照台灣社會的價值邏輯，一個「會讀書」的女孩子注定要循著教育體系一路升學，乃至出國深造；直到她取得博士的入場券，她才有資格說「夠了」，她想戴的是烘焙師的白帽子、想聞的是糕點的芳香。這樁美事雖然喜劇收場，但設想其中有過的掙扎，要抵抗傳統社會職業價值觀念恐怕也是費了很多力氣。
士農工商的階級劃分，在台灣社會早就不適用，但文憑與「讀書出頭天」的觀念，依舊牢不可破；也因此，政府極盡所能滿足人們想要擠進大學的欲望。如今大學入學率幾近百分之百，青年失業率則飆升到百分之十三，而許多產業需要的技職人力卻無處可覓，這不能不說是台灣教育投資的系統性誤導。朱敬一形容，博士女兒去賣蛋糕不符「投資效益」，但他心甘情願支持。若放大來看，台灣高等教育制度性的不符投資效益，又豈是能一笑置之的事？如果不想讓年輕世代坐困失業，政府的教育政策必須改弦更張，家長對求學與就業的觀念也必須重新調整。
從求學到就業，是個不斷試探與追尋的過程。這不一定是一條直線道路，它可以轉進岔路，也容許迂迴曲折。而一個職業的價值，也不該僅以勞心、勞力或收入多寡來衡量，而必須考慮性向和志趣的貼合。這一代的父母，通常更能尊重孩子的志趣；如果他們願意放更多的手，也許能看到兒女在意想不到的領域綻放出意想不到的精采。畢竟，網路及光電世代的許多行銷、創造和整合，都還有極大的發展空間等著靠下一代去摸索和發展，這已不是上一代父母所能過問的事。
一個博士班女生能回頭去做自己喜愛的烘焙，是令人愉悅及鼓舞的故事。正如日前本報「還鄉幸福」系列報導中，一名當警察的年輕人，終因自己參加的劇團受到社會肯定，也使他終於獲得母親的支持一樣。台灣社會點點滴滴的價值改變，讓個人的理想與志趣有更多實現的機會。
一個更理想的社會是：一個麵包師能因志趣與樂於求知，而修習得博士學位或成為領域中的達人；一個計程車司機也能熱愛文學或藝術，一個水電匠也會寫詩或參加樂隊，一個大學教授也會修車和做木工。在那樣沒有刻板職業貴賤的社會，我們就不會覺得放棄博士學位去做糕點是「大才小用」了。
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Jia Qinglin: A Slip of the Tongue?
Jia Qinglin: A Slip of the Tongue?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2012
Summary: During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention. Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention.
Beijing's cross-Strait framework is changing. Beijing used to speak of the "one-China principle." Over the past few years however, cross-Strait relations have warmed. Beijing now says that it "opposes Taiwan independence, and adheres to the 1992 Consensus." In March of this year, following the Wu Hu Meeting, it suggested that "The two sides both belong to one China." Subtle changes have taken place. Beijing's cross-strait framework has become "opposition to Taiwan independence, adherence to the 1992 Consensus, and consolidation of the one China framework." This is how Jia Qinglin's wording has evolved.
The Ma administration noticed the changes and felt the pressure following the Wu Hu Meeting. But it feels the situation remains contained within the framework of "one China, different interpretations." The "two sides may belong to one China." The goal may be the "consolidation of the one China framework." But the framework remains "one China, different interpretations." The situation remains contained within the framework of the 1992 Consensus. It has also remained within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China.
Beijing may not emphasize "one China, different interpetations." But four years of cross-Strait policy have clearly been built on the tacit agreement of "one China, different interpretations, and seeking common ground while shelving differences." During a March 26, 2008 hotline conversation, Hu Jintao told George W. Bush that "the two parties (Taipei and Beijing) acknowledge that there is only one China, but acknowledge that they have different interpretations of that one China." This is "one China, different interpretations." It has also been the basis for "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." This is the principle that has guided the two sides over the past four years.
Now however, Beijing says the two sides belong to one China. It has narrowed the scope for "different interpretations." It has touched upon the problem of how to define "one China." Jia Qinglin said "the two sides belong to one country." People have to wonder, what does he mean by "one country?"
Was Jia Qinglin implying that "one China means the People's Republic of China?" Or that "one country means the People's Republic of China?" We do not think so. We do not believe so. If that is what Jia meant, why did he not say so? Why did he not speak plainly? Did he have a reason not to do so? Suppose Beijing told the public on Taiwan, "one China is the People's Republic of China?" One. This would be incorrect. Two. This would be pointless. Three. This would be objectionable.
Jia Qinglin said, "the two sides belong to one country." Did he mean that "the two sides belong to the People's Republic of China?" The Hu Jintao government has invested four years of painstaking effort "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." If Jia Qinglin were to make such a statement, he would undoubtedly have take a destructive step backward. He would have undermined the Hu government's cross-Strait policy. Therefore, we do not think that is what Jia Qinglin meant to say. We do not believe he would make such a statement. Still less would we agree with such a statement. Perhaps Jia Qinglin made a slip of the tongue. Wang Yi, director of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, spoke yesterday. He has already cleared this up.
We believe cross-Strait peace must be predicated upon the "1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations" for some time to come. It must remain predicated upon the 2008 Bush/Hu hotline conversation. In fact, this is the Hu's government most significant contribution to cross-Strait relations. It has been consistent about this. It must not end on the wrong note. it must not give its successor an erroroneous starting point.
Does Beijing want to skip the "one China, different interpretations" stage, and go directly to the "one China framework?" If so, then it must go from "non-repudiation of sovereignty and mutual recognition of jurisdiction," to "China as a Big Roof." It must find a way to combine sovereignty on both sides of the Strait into one China. The two sides must be combined into this one China. This is the "new three part formula" proposed by this newspaper. One. There is only one China in the world. Two. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of that one China. Three. China's sovereignty and territory must not be divided.
The reaction of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to Jia Qinglin's remark revealed how delicate the political situation is on Taiwan. DPP has long denied that there ever was a "1992 consensus." It opposes "one China." It has never affirmed or repudiated "one China, different interpretations." It merely says that "Even Beijing does not recognize one China, different interpretations." This amounts to an indirect admission that if Beijing accepts "one China, different interpretations," then DPP has no excuse to oppose it. When Jia Qinglin said the "two sides belong to one country," the DPP immediately lashed out, saying this confirmed that "one China, different interpretations" was false. The DPP knows that most people on Taiwan can accept "one China, different interpretations," but they cannot accept the idea that "both sides belong to the People's Republic of China."
Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. Taiwan must abide by the Constitution of the Republic of China. It must adhere to the bottom line of "one China, different interpretations." The KMT must do so. The DPP in particular must do so. Taiwan must not repudiate "one China, different interpretations." It must not relinquish the "one China, different interpretations" line of defense. If it does, it will no longer have a place to stand, either in cross-Straits relations, or in the global stage. It must defend "one China, different interpretations." Most political leaders and members of the public on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence. They support the 1992 Consensus. They support the Republic of China. They support the Constitution of the Republic of China.
The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.
賈慶林是否口誤？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.27
大陸政協主席賈慶林在「兩岸經貿文化論壇」說，「一個中國框架的核心是大陸和台灣同屬一個國家」；這是前所未見的修辭，引人注意。
北京的兩岸論述正在變化之中。原本言必稱「一個中國原則」，但在這幾年兩岸關係鬆緩後，改口強調「反對台獨／堅持九二共識」；又在今年三月吳胡會後，提出「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題。經由這個微妙變化的過程，北京現今的兩岸論述已經成為：「反對台獨／堅持九二共識／鞏固一中框架」。這是指賈慶林談話以前的發展。
對於馬政府而言，雖然在吳胡會後感受到此種變化與壓力；但是認為，情勢仍然控制在「一中各表」的範圍內。因為，即使進入「兩岸同屬一個中國」及「鞏固一中框架」的命題，仍然屬於「一中各表」的範圍，也未溢出「九二共識」的範圍，亦未脫離中華民國憲法的範圍。
北京雖不強調「一中各表」，但四年來的兩岸政策無疑是建立在「一中各表，求同存異」的默契上。正如胡錦濤於二○○八年三月二十六日在熱線電話對小布希所說：「（兩岸）雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義各自表述。」這就是「一中各表」，也正是兩岸四年來「求同存異／和平發展」的主要支柱。
然而，當北京端出了「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題，就縮小了「各表」的空間，觸及了「一個中國」如何定義的問題；而若賈慶林又說成了「兩岸同屬一個國家」，更教人不得不問這「一個國家」是什麼意思？
賈慶林是不是要說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」？或說「一個國家就是中華人民共和國」？我們不認為是如此，也不相信是如此。倘係如此，何不直說；不能直說，是否有顧慮？因為，在當下及相當期間的未來中，北京若想對台灣人民說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，這種說法，第一是說了不正確，第二是說了沒有用，第三是說了徒增反感。
倘若賈慶林「兩岸同屬一國」的說法，即是指「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」；此一說法對胡錦濤政府四年來苦心經營的「求同存異／和平發展」無疑是倒退與傷害，也將為胡錦濤政府的兩岸政策留下一個殘缺的句點。因此，我們不認為賈慶林該如此說，不相信他會如此說，更不認同他如此說。恐怕賈慶林只是一時口誤？國台辦主任王毅日前的發言，已見轉圜之意。
我們認為，兩岸的和平發展，在相當期間內仍宜以「九二共識／一中各表」為緩衝，亦即以二○○八年的布胡熱線為支撐；這其實是胡錦濤政府對兩岸關係的最重大貢獻，允宜一以貫之，不要畫錯了自己的句點，也不要給後繼者一個錯誤的起點。
倘若欲躍過「一中各表」的階段，進入「一中框架」的探討，亦應思考以「主權互不否認／治權相互承認」的「大屋頂中國」為解決或過渡，亦即以「兩岸主權相互含蘊及共同合成的一個中國」為解決或過渡，而「兩岸」應可「同屬」此一「中國」。這也就是本報倡議的「新新三句」：世界上只有一個中國，中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，中國的主權和領土不容分割。
從民進黨對賈慶林談話的反應，可以看出台灣內部政局的微妙肌理。民進黨從來否認有「九二共識」這四個字，也反對「一個中國」；卻一向未曾正面否定或反對「一中各表」，只說「連北京也不承認一中各表」。其潛台詞是，北京如果接受了「一中各表」，民進黨即幾無反對的空間。但是，賈慶林的「兩岸同屬一國」一出，民進黨立即加以回擊，並稱果然證實「一中各表」是假的。這是因為，民進黨深知：台灣多數民意可以接受「一中各表」，但不會接受「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」。
賈慶林的談話，也給台灣的藍綠惡鬥帶來重要啟示。台灣必須根據中華民國憲法，固守「一中各表」的底線；國民黨必須如此，民進黨尤須如此。如果台灣自己否定「一中各表」，或放棄「一中各表」的防線，則根本無以在兩岸及世界立足。而要持守「一中各表」，台灣的主政者及主流民意就須反台獨，維持九二共識，支持中華民國，維護中華民國的憲法。
尤其是民進黨，快回頭護守「九二共識／一中各表」的憲法防線吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2012
Summary: During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention. Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
During the Cross-Strait Trade and Cultural Forum, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin said, "The core concept of the one China framework is that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to the same country." This wording is unprecedented, and has attracted considerable attention.
Beijing's cross-Strait framework is changing. Beijing used to speak of the "one-China principle." Over the past few years however, cross-Strait relations have warmed. Beijing now says that it "opposes Taiwan independence, and adheres to the 1992 Consensus." In March of this year, following the Wu Hu Meeting, it suggested that "The two sides both belong to one China." Subtle changes have taken place. Beijing's cross-strait framework has become "opposition to Taiwan independence, adherence to the 1992 Consensus, and consolidation of the one China framework." This is how Jia Qinglin's wording has evolved.
The Ma administration noticed the changes and felt the pressure following the Wu Hu Meeting. But it feels the situation remains contained within the framework of "one China, different interpretations." The "two sides may belong to one China." The goal may be the "consolidation of the one China framework." But the framework remains "one China, different interpretations." The situation remains contained within the framework of the 1992 Consensus. It has also remained within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China.
Beijing may not emphasize "one China, different interpetations." But four years of cross-Strait policy have clearly been built on the tacit agreement of "one China, different interpretations, and seeking common ground while shelving differences." During a March 26, 2008 hotline conversation, Hu Jintao told George W. Bush that "the two parties (Taipei and Beijing) acknowledge that there is only one China, but acknowledge that they have different interpretations of that one China." This is "one China, different interpretations." It has also been the basis for "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." This is the principle that has guided the two sides over the past four years.
Now however, Beijing says the two sides belong to one China. It has narrowed the scope for "different interpretations." It has touched upon the problem of how to define "one China." Jia Qinglin said "the two sides belong to one country." People have to wonder, what does he mean by "one country?"
Was Jia Qinglin implying that "one China means the People's Republic of China?" Or that "one country means the People's Republic of China?" We do not think so. We do not believe so. If that is what Jia meant, why did he not say so? Why did he not speak plainly? Did he have a reason not to do so? Suppose Beijing told the public on Taiwan, "one China is the People's Republic of China?" One. This would be incorrect. Two. This would be pointless. Three. This would be objectionable.
Jia Qinglin said, "the two sides belong to one country." Did he mean that "the two sides belong to the People's Republic of China?" The Hu Jintao government has invested four years of painstaking effort "seeking common ground while shelving differences, and ensuring peaceful development." If Jia Qinglin were to make such a statement, he would undoubtedly have take a destructive step backward. He would have undermined the Hu government's cross-Strait policy. Therefore, we do not think that is what Jia Qinglin meant to say. We do not believe he would make such a statement. Still less would we agree with such a statement. Perhaps Jia Qinglin made a slip of the tongue. Wang Yi, director of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, spoke yesterday. He has already cleared this up.
We believe cross-Strait peace must be predicated upon the "1992 consensus and one China, different interpretations" for some time to come. It must remain predicated upon the 2008 Bush/Hu hotline conversation. In fact, this is the Hu's government most significant contribution to cross-Strait relations. It has been consistent about this. It must not end on the wrong note. it must not give its successor an erroroneous starting point.
Does Beijing want to skip the "one China, different interpretations" stage, and go directly to the "one China framework?" If so, then it must go from "non-repudiation of sovereignty and mutual recognition of jurisdiction," to "China as a Big Roof." It must find a way to combine sovereignty on both sides of the Strait into one China. The two sides must be combined into this one China. This is the "new three part formula" proposed by this newspaper. One. There is only one China in the world. Two. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both part of that one China. Three. China's sovereignty and territory must not be divided.
The reaction of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to Jia Qinglin's remark revealed how delicate the political situation is on Taiwan. DPP has long denied that there ever was a "1992 consensus." It opposes "one China." It has never affirmed or repudiated "one China, different interpretations." It merely says that "Even Beijing does not recognize one China, different interpretations." This amounts to an indirect admission that if Beijing accepts "one China, different interpretations," then DPP has no excuse to oppose it. When Jia Qinglin said the "two sides belong to one country," the DPP immediately lashed out, saying this confirmed that "one China, different interpretations" was false. The DPP knows that most people on Taiwan can accept "one China, different interpretations," but they cannot accept the idea that "both sides belong to the People's Republic of China."
Jia Qinglin's remarks provide an important lesson for the bickering Blue and Green camps. Taiwan must abide by the Constitution of the Republic of China. It must adhere to the bottom line of "one China, different interpretations." The KMT must do so. The DPP in particular must do so. Taiwan must not repudiate "one China, different interpretations." It must not relinquish the "one China, different interpretations" line of defense. If it does, it will no longer have a place to stand, either in cross-Straits relations, or in the global stage. It must defend "one China, different interpretations." Most political leaders and members of the public on Taiwan oppose Taiwan independence. They support the 1992 Consensus. They support the Republic of China. They support the Constitution of the Republic of China.
The Democratic Progressive Party in particular must see the light and defend the "1992 Consensus, one China, different interpretations" and the Constitution of the Republic of China.
賈慶林是否口誤？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.27
大陸政協主席賈慶林在「兩岸經貿文化論壇」說，「一個中國框架的核心是大陸和台灣同屬一個國家」；這是前所未見的修辭，引人注意。
北京的兩岸論述正在變化之中。原本言必稱「一個中國原則」，但在這幾年兩岸關係鬆緩後，改口強調「反對台獨／堅持九二共識」；又在今年三月吳胡會後，提出「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題。經由這個微妙變化的過程，北京現今的兩岸論述已經成為：「反對台獨／堅持九二共識／鞏固一中框架」。這是指賈慶林談話以前的發展。
對於馬政府而言，雖然在吳胡會後感受到此種變化與壓力；但是認為，情勢仍然控制在「一中各表」的範圍內。因為，即使進入「兩岸同屬一個中國」及「鞏固一中框架」的命題，仍然屬於「一中各表」的範圍，也未溢出「九二共識」的範圍，亦未脫離中華民國憲法的範圍。
北京雖不強調「一中各表」，但四年來的兩岸政策無疑是建立在「一中各表，求同存異」的默契上。正如胡錦濤於二○○八年三月二十六日在熱線電話對小布希所說：「（兩岸）雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義各自表述。」這就是「一中各表」，也正是兩岸四年來「求同存異／和平發展」的主要支柱。
然而，當北京端出了「兩岸同屬一個中國」的命題，就縮小了「各表」的空間，觸及了「一個中國」如何定義的問題；而若賈慶林又說成了「兩岸同屬一個國家」，更教人不得不問這「一個國家」是什麼意思？
賈慶林是不是要說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」？或說「一個國家就是中華人民共和國」？我們不認為是如此，也不相信是如此。倘係如此，何不直說；不能直說，是否有顧慮？因為，在當下及相當期間的未來中，北京若想對台灣人民說「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，這種說法，第一是說了不正確，第二是說了沒有用，第三是說了徒增反感。
倘若賈慶林「兩岸同屬一國」的說法，即是指「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」；此一說法對胡錦濤政府四年來苦心經營的「求同存異／和平發展」無疑是倒退與傷害，也將為胡錦濤政府的兩岸政策留下一個殘缺的句點。因此，我們不認為賈慶林該如此說，不相信他會如此說，更不認同他如此說。恐怕賈慶林只是一時口誤？國台辦主任王毅日前的發言，已見轉圜之意。
我們認為，兩岸的和平發展，在相當期間內仍宜以「九二共識／一中各表」為緩衝，亦即以二○○八年的布胡熱線為支撐；這其實是胡錦濤政府對兩岸關係的最重大貢獻，允宜一以貫之，不要畫錯了自己的句點，也不要給後繼者一個錯誤的起點。
倘若欲躍過「一中各表」的階段，進入「一中框架」的探討，亦應思考以「主權互不否認／治權相互承認」的「大屋頂中國」為解決或過渡，亦即以「兩岸主權相互含蘊及共同合成的一個中國」為解決或過渡，而「兩岸」應可「同屬」此一「中國」。這也就是本報倡議的「新新三句」：世界上只有一個中國，中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，中國的主權和領土不容分割。
從民進黨對賈慶林談話的反應，可以看出台灣內部政局的微妙肌理。民進黨從來否認有「九二共識」這四個字，也反對「一個中國」；卻一向未曾正面否定或反對「一中各表」，只說「連北京也不承認一中各表」。其潛台詞是，北京如果接受了「一中各表」，民進黨即幾無反對的空間。但是，賈慶林的「兩岸同屬一國」一出，民進黨立即加以回擊，並稱果然證實「一中各表」是假的。這是因為，民進黨深知：台灣多數民意可以接受「一中各表」，但不會接受「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」。
賈慶林的談話，也給台灣的藍綠惡鬥帶來重要啟示。台灣必須根據中華民國憲法，固守「一中各表」的底線；國民黨必須如此，民進黨尤須如此。如果台灣自己否定「一中各表」，或放棄「一中各表」的防線，則根本無以在兩岸及世界立足。而要持守「一中各表」，台灣的主政者及主流民意就須反台獨，維持九二共識，支持中華民國，維護中華民國的憲法。
尤其是民進黨，快回頭護守「九二共識／一中各表」的憲法防線吧！
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Diaoyutai: A US Blessing for Japan? Or a Curse?
Diaoyutai: A US Blessing for Japan? Or a Curse?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2012
Summary: In 1972, when the United States transferred sovereignty over the Ryukyus to Japan, it also transferred "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. At the time, this was seen as a blessing conferred upon Japan by the United States. Now it seems like a nightmare, like a curse.
Full Text below:
In 1972, when the United States transferred sovereignty over the Ryukyus to Japan, it also transferred "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. At the time, this was seen as a blessing conferred upon Japan by the United States. Now it seems like a nightmare, like a curse.
This action by the United States was questionable in at least two respects. One. The United States was merely the custodian of the Diaoyutai Islands, not their owner. It obviously had no sovereignty over the islands. So why did it not return the Diaoyutai Islands to its original and rightful owner? Why did it instead turn it over to Japan? The US transferred "administrative jurisdiction" to Japan. This means that neither the United States nor Japan had sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Two. Geopolitically and geographically, the Diaoyutai Islands are "outlying islands of Taiwan." There was no reason to treat them and the Ryukyus as some sort of "package deal." The United States dealt with the matter carelessly. It overestimated Japan. It underestimated Mainland China. It ignored the Republic of China.
Consider the historical backdrop. One. Oil reserves were discovered in waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. Two. Mainland China and Taiwan were politically divided. Both Mainland China and Taiwan were militarily weak. The United States and Japan saw this as an opportunity. But the Diaoyutai Islands have been China's territory since antiquity. This is an irrefutable fact. Japan long ago acknowledged that the island chain was under "Qing dynasty China's jurisdiction" and that it was an "outlying island of Taiwan." The US illegally transferred the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan, purely on the basis of a piece of paper. This was a high-handed act of imperialism. It is not how history will play out. The Diaoyutai Islands are "hot merchandise" that the United States stole from China and gave to Japan.
The first curse left by the U.S. was to rip open the long festering wounds between China and Japan. These wounds will not heal any time soon.
Between the late nineteenth century and the mid twentieth century, Japan's actions turned Japan into China's most hated enemy. The most egregious of these actions was Japan's inhumane war of aggression against China launched during the 1930s. Japan inflicted upon the Chinese people eight years of untold blood and tears. These wounds can be healed only gradually, through sincere efforts by the ruling and opposition parties on both sides. The United States transferred "administrative jurisdiction" of the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. Conflict over the island chain created a time warp. It revived old hatreds. Mere mention of the Diaoyutai Islands and a century of hatred between the two countries rushes back into the hearts of the two peoples. All attempts to heal the wounds between China and Japan can be undone instantly by the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. What is this, if not a curse left behind by the United States?
The US left behind a second curse. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict makes it difficult to sever the political connection between Taipei and Beijing. What is this for the US, but a curse? Whenever the Diaoyutai Islands conflict erupts, it touches a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing.
The Republic of China must reaffirm its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. One. The Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory since antiquity. Two. The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. They are traditional Taiwan fishing grounds. Three. If the Republic of China were to surrender the Diaoyutai Islands, the public on both sides of the Strait could not allow such an act to stand. During the 1970s Chen Ruoxi and others "reidentified with their native lands." The People's Republic of China also finds it impossible to relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Beijing also affirms that the Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory since antiquity. Beijing affirms that they are outlying islands of Taiwan. If Beijing were to relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, that would be tantamount to relinquishing sovereignty over Taiwan. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict has become a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. What is this, if not a consequence of the United States' own short-sightedness?
Because the U.S. was short-sighted, the Diaoyutai Islands conflict has become a festering wound between China and Japan. It has also become a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. The US should have taken into account history, geopolitical reality, geography, and a whole range of facts in evidence. It should have acknowledged that the Diaoyutai Islands were outlying islands of Taiwan. It should not have used the Ryukyus as a pretext to deal with the Diaoyutai Islands as it did. Had the US done so, none of this would have happened. Unfortunately everything has happened. The United States now feels compelled to argue that it "transferred" the islands. Japan has bitten into the Diaoyutai Islands. It cannot neither spit it out nor swallow it. Beijing is using the Diaoyutai Islands conflict to bolster its position vis a vis Taiwan. This has affected the ROC's political status and public sentiment on Taiwan. The ROC is operating in the margins. It must cope with the United States, Japan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and public sentiment on Taiwan.
The current Diaoyutai Islands conflict has rubbed salt into the wounds between China and Japan. It has touched a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. Japan does not dare stop Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists from landing on the islands. Nor is Japan able to prevent Japanese right-wingers from landing on the islands. Mass protests have erupted in cities and towns all over Mainland China. The United States and Japan held military exercises on how to defend the islands. The conflict is intensifying. How will it end?
This year happens to be the 40th anniversary of the United States transfer of "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. The currents of history first flow in one direction, then in another. Forty years of vicissitudes have revealed just how outrageous and shortsighted the U.S. decision was. The world has witnesed it all. Did the United States give Japan a blessing, or a curse?
釣魚台是美國給日本的恩典或詛咒
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.24 01:55 am
一九七二年，美國將琉球主權移交日本之時，又同時將釣魚台列嶼的「行政管轄權」也交給日本。在當年看來，這是美國給日本的莫大恩典；如今卻儼然成了夢魘般的詛咒。
美國的這個動作，至少有兩大疑問。一、美國身為受託管之國家，當然對釣島不具「主權」；則為何不將釣島歸還其原具主權之國家，卻交給日本？而既謂只是將「行政權」交給日本，則美國自亦未主張日本對釣島具有「主權」。二、釣魚台在地緣及地理上無疑是「台灣之附屬島嶼」，沒有理由與琉球移交併案處理。美國當年的魯莽處置，儼然是高估了日本，低估了中國大陸，且沒把中華民國放在眼裡。
美國當年處置此案的歷史背景是：一、釣魚台附近海域據謂發現石油蘊藏；二、兩岸分裂，「中國」積弱，構成美日可乘之機。但是，釣魚台自古即為中國領土乃顛撲不破的事實，日本早年亦認定列嶼為「清國領轄」、「台灣之附屬島嶼」；爾今僅憑美日間一紙文書就欲將釣島私相授受，這是帝國主義的不義手法，卻不會是歷史公道的終極歸趨。畢竟，釣魚台等於是美國盜取給日本的贓物。
美國此案所下的第一道詛咒是：使得中日之間的仇恨存在著一個不斷會被撕開的傷口，而難期癒合之日。
十九世紀末葉至二十世紀前段，中日可謂世仇；尤其三○年代起日本發動毫無天理人性的侵華戰爭，致使中國人民受盡八年血淚凌辱。這道傷口的癒合，有待雙方朝野天長地久地慢慢以善心誠意加以化解；但是，美國把釣魚台的「行政管轄權」交給日本，竟使列嶼成了中日世仇的時空「穿越」隧道，只要提起釣魚台，百年來的兩國怨仇即再次回到兩國人民心中；中日和好的一切努力，隨時可因釣島而撕裂。這難道不是美國下的詛咒所致？
美國此案所下的第二道詛咒是：使得釣魚台問題成為台灣與中國大陸之間難以切斷的政治神經；只要扯一下釣魚台問題，就必然會牽動台灣與中國大陸之間的那一條政治神經。
中華民國應當且必須堅守釣島主權：一、釣魚台自古即中國領土；二、釣島為台灣的附屬島嶼，亦台灣漁民之傳統漁場；三、中華民國若棄守釣島，在兩岸人心上即難立足，例如上世紀七○年代陳若曦等的「回歸認同」即是可能出現的併發症。再者，中華人民共和國亦不可能在釣島的主權立場上退讓；北京也主張釣魚台自古即中國之領土，亦為台灣之附屬島嶼。北京若在釣島主權上退讓，不啻即是從台灣問題上退讓。釣島今日成為牽動台灣與中國大陸之間的政治神經，這豈非也是美國當年的短視所致？
由於美國當年的短視，使得釣魚台成為中日間永難癒合的傷口，又成為台灣與中國大陸間傳導牽動的政治神經。如果當年美國依歷史、地緣、地理的各種憑據，尊重釣魚台為台灣附屬島嶼之原貌，不藉琉球問題來作釣魚台的文章，這一切也許就不會發生。然而，不幸的是，一切畢竟皆已發生了；如今，美國必須維持其「移交」的顏面，日本對釣島則是吐不出來，又實在吞不下去；北京則藉釣島問題，一方面作台灣問題之主張，又牽動台灣的政局與民情；而台灣處在夾縫間，必須找到美、日、大陸港澳及台灣內部的四方面平衡。
這一波釣島風潮演變至今日，中日傷口又撒上一層鹽，台灣與大陸的政治神經又被牽動。日本不但不敢強硬阻擋香港保釣人士登島，也沒有能力維持其阻擋日本右派人士登島的官方立場；中國大陸則在各地城鎮發生群眾示威事件；美日且正上演防衛島嶼演習。愈演愈烈，如何收拾？
今年正巧是美國將釣島「行政權」移交日本四十周年。十年河東，十年河西；四十年的滄桑，將美國當年決策的蠻橫與短視暴露無遺。世人眼前所見的這一切，是美國對日本的恩典，還是詛咒？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2012
Summary: In 1972, when the United States transferred sovereignty over the Ryukyus to Japan, it also transferred "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. At the time, this was seen as a blessing conferred upon Japan by the United States. Now it seems like a nightmare, like a curse.
Full Text below:
In 1972, when the United States transferred sovereignty over the Ryukyus to Japan, it also transferred "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. At the time, this was seen as a blessing conferred upon Japan by the United States. Now it seems like a nightmare, like a curse.
This action by the United States was questionable in at least two respects. One. The United States was merely the custodian of the Diaoyutai Islands, not their owner. It obviously had no sovereignty over the islands. So why did it not return the Diaoyutai Islands to its original and rightful owner? Why did it instead turn it over to Japan? The US transferred "administrative jurisdiction" to Japan. This means that neither the United States nor Japan had sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Two. Geopolitically and geographically, the Diaoyutai Islands are "outlying islands of Taiwan." There was no reason to treat them and the Ryukyus as some sort of "package deal." The United States dealt with the matter carelessly. It overestimated Japan. It underestimated Mainland China. It ignored the Republic of China.
Consider the historical backdrop. One. Oil reserves were discovered in waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. Two. Mainland China and Taiwan were politically divided. Both Mainland China and Taiwan were militarily weak. The United States and Japan saw this as an opportunity. But the Diaoyutai Islands have been China's territory since antiquity. This is an irrefutable fact. Japan long ago acknowledged that the island chain was under "Qing dynasty China's jurisdiction" and that it was an "outlying island of Taiwan." The US illegally transferred the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan, purely on the basis of a piece of paper. This was a high-handed act of imperialism. It is not how history will play out. The Diaoyutai Islands are "hot merchandise" that the United States stole from China and gave to Japan.
The first curse left by the U.S. was to rip open the long festering wounds between China and Japan. These wounds will not heal any time soon.
Between the late nineteenth century and the mid twentieth century, Japan's actions turned Japan into China's most hated enemy. The most egregious of these actions was Japan's inhumane war of aggression against China launched during the 1930s. Japan inflicted upon the Chinese people eight years of untold blood and tears. These wounds can be healed only gradually, through sincere efforts by the ruling and opposition parties on both sides. The United States transferred "administrative jurisdiction" of the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. Conflict over the island chain created a time warp. It revived old hatreds. Mere mention of the Diaoyutai Islands and a century of hatred between the two countries rushes back into the hearts of the two peoples. All attempts to heal the wounds between China and Japan can be undone instantly by the Diaoyutai Islands conflict. What is this, if not a curse left behind by the United States?
The US left behind a second curse. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict makes it difficult to sever the political connection between Taipei and Beijing. What is this for the US, but a curse? Whenever the Diaoyutai Islands conflict erupts, it touches a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing.
The Republic of China must reaffirm its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. One. The Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory since antiquity. Two. The Diaoyutai Islands are outlying islands of Taiwan. They are traditional Taiwan fishing grounds. Three. If the Republic of China were to surrender the Diaoyutai Islands, the public on both sides of the Strait could not allow such an act to stand. During the 1970s Chen Ruoxi and others "reidentified with their native lands." The People's Republic of China also finds it impossible to relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Beijing also affirms that the Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory since antiquity. Beijing affirms that they are outlying islands of Taiwan. If Beijing were to relinquish sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, that would be tantamount to relinquishing sovereignty over Taiwan. The Diaoyutai Islands conflict has become a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. What is this, if not a consequence of the United States' own short-sightedness?
Because the U.S. was short-sighted, the Diaoyutai Islands conflict has become a festering wound between China and Japan. It has also become a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. The US should have taken into account history, geopolitical reality, geography, and a whole range of facts in evidence. It should have acknowledged that the Diaoyutai Islands were outlying islands of Taiwan. It should not have used the Ryukyus as a pretext to deal with the Diaoyutai Islands as it did. Had the US done so, none of this would have happened. Unfortunately everything has happened. The United States now feels compelled to argue that it "transferred" the islands. Japan has bitten into the Diaoyutai Islands. It cannot neither spit it out nor swallow it. Beijing is using the Diaoyutai Islands conflict to bolster its position vis a vis Taiwan. This has affected the ROC's political status and public sentiment on Taiwan. The ROC is operating in the margins. It must cope with the United States, Japan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and public sentiment on Taiwan.
The current Diaoyutai Islands conflict has rubbed salt into the wounds between China and Japan. It has touched a raw nerve that links Taipei and Beijing. Japan does not dare stop Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists from landing on the islands. Nor is Japan able to prevent Japanese right-wingers from landing on the islands. Mass protests have erupted in cities and towns all over Mainland China. The United States and Japan held military exercises on how to defend the islands. The conflict is intensifying. How will it end?
This year happens to be the 40th anniversary of the United States transfer of "administrative jurisdiction" over the Diaoyutai Islands to Japan. The currents of history first flow in one direction, then in another. Forty years of vicissitudes have revealed just how outrageous and shortsighted the U.S. decision was. The world has witnesed it all. Did the United States give Japan a blessing, or a curse?
釣魚台是美國給日本的恩典或詛咒
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.24 01:55 am
一九七二年，美國將琉球主權移交日本之時，又同時將釣魚台列嶼的「行政管轄權」也交給日本。在當年看來，這是美國給日本的莫大恩典；如今卻儼然成了夢魘般的詛咒。
美國的這個動作，至少有兩大疑問。一、美國身為受託管之國家，當然對釣島不具「主權」；則為何不將釣島歸還其原具主權之國家，卻交給日本？而既謂只是將「行政權」交給日本，則美國自亦未主張日本對釣島具有「主權」。二、釣魚台在地緣及地理上無疑是「台灣之附屬島嶼」，沒有理由與琉球移交併案處理。美國當年的魯莽處置，儼然是高估了日本，低估了中國大陸，且沒把中華民國放在眼裡。
美國當年處置此案的歷史背景是：一、釣魚台附近海域據謂發現石油蘊藏；二、兩岸分裂，「中國」積弱，構成美日可乘之機。但是，釣魚台自古即為中國領土乃顛撲不破的事實，日本早年亦認定列嶼為「清國領轄」、「台灣之附屬島嶼」；爾今僅憑美日間一紙文書就欲將釣島私相授受，這是帝國主義的不義手法，卻不會是歷史公道的終極歸趨。畢竟，釣魚台等於是美國盜取給日本的贓物。
美國此案所下的第一道詛咒是：使得中日之間的仇恨存在著一個不斷會被撕開的傷口，而難期癒合之日。
十九世紀末葉至二十世紀前段，中日可謂世仇；尤其三○年代起日本發動毫無天理人性的侵華戰爭，致使中國人民受盡八年血淚凌辱。這道傷口的癒合，有待雙方朝野天長地久地慢慢以善心誠意加以化解；但是，美國把釣魚台的「行政管轄權」交給日本，竟使列嶼成了中日世仇的時空「穿越」隧道，只要提起釣魚台，百年來的兩國怨仇即再次回到兩國人民心中；中日和好的一切努力，隨時可因釣島而撕裂。這難道不是美國下的詛咒所致？
美國此案所下的第二道詛咒是：使得釣魚台問題成為台灣與中國大陸之間難以切斷的政治神經；只要扯一下釣魚台問題，就必然會牽動台灣與中國大陸之間的那一條政治神經。
中華民國應當且必須堅守釣島主權：一、釣魚台自古即中國領土；二、釣島為台灣的附屬島嶼，亦台灣漁民之傳統漁場；三、中華民國若棄守釣島，在兩岸人心上即難立足，例如上世紀七○年代陳若曦等的「回歸認同」即是可能出現的併發症。再者，中華人民共和國亦不可能在釣島的主權立場上退讓；北京也主張釣魚台自古即中國之領土，亦為台灣之附屬島嶼。北京若在釣島主權上退讓，不啻即是從台灣問題上退讓。釣島今日成為牽動台灣與中國大陸之間的政治神經，這豈非也是美國當年的短視所致？
由於美國當年的短視，使得釣魚台成為中日間永難癒合的傷口，又成為台灣與中國大陸間傳導牽動的政治神經。如果當年美國依歷史、地緣、地理的各種憑據，尊重釣魚台為台灣附屬島嶼之原貌，不藉琉球問題來作釣魚台的文章，這一切也許就不會發生。然而，不幸的是，一切畢竟皆已發生了；如今，美國必須維持其「移交」的顏面，日本對釣島則是吐不出來，又實在吞不下去；北京則藉釣島問題，一方面作台灣問題之主張，又牽動台灣的政局與民情；而台灣處在夾縫間，必須找到美、日、大陸港澳及台灣內部的四方面平衡。
這一波釣島風潮演變至今日，中日傷口又撒上一層鹽，台灣與大陸的政治神經又被牽動。日本不但不敢強硬阻擋香港保釣人士登島，也沒有能力維持其阻擋日本右派人士登島的官方立場；中國大陸則在各地城鎮發生群眾示威事件；美日且正上演防衛島嶼演習。愈演愈烈，如何收拾？
今年正巧是美國將釣島「行政權」移交日本四十周年。十年河東，十年河西；四十年的滄桑，將美國當年決策的蠻橫與短視暴露無遺。世人眼前所見的這一切，是美國對日本的恩典，還是詛咒？
Hau Lung-bin's Goodwill Gesture: Ruling and Opposition Party Harmony?
Hau Lung-bin's Goodwill Gesture: Ruling and Opposition Party Harmony?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2012
Summary: Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.
Full Text below:
Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin yesterday attended the opening ceremony for "Freedom Lane." He suggested that the government deal with the issue of medical parole for former President Chen. He said doing so might heal social divisions. Hau Lung-bin's suggestion was unexpected. Sure enough, it has provoked questions about his motivation. The Green Camp expressed approval. But the Blue Camp was reserved. Some suggested that Hau Lung-bin was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.
The Blue and Green camps have long been at loggerheads. Expressions of support for Chen Shui-bian's medical parole are unlikely to meet with Blue Camp approval. They are unlikely to receive support even from moderates. Hau Lung-bin is not that naive. If he is seeking higher office, he knows that offending Pan Blue voters is not a smart strategy.
Therefore we should not question Hau Lung-bin's motivation. We should instead ask ourselves whether Mayor Hao's suggestion is reasonable. The suggestion that Chen Shui-bian should be granted medical parole, or even a presidential pardon, was originally confined to Green Camp supporters. Now a Blue Camp heavyweight has echoed their calls. Chen Shui-bian supporters were on the margins. This gave them a tremendous boost. Do Hao's arguments for medical parole or a presidential pardon have any merit? Hau Lung-bin's arguments are similar to those advanced by Ah-Bian supporters. The arguments advanced by Ah-Bian supporters are dubious. Just because Hau Lung-bin is currently advancing the same arguments does not make the arguments any the less dubious. Their arguments for granting Chen Shui-bian medical parole or a presidential pardon have not suddenly been imbued with legitimacy.
Consider what Hau Lung-bin said and wrote. Hau made three points. One. He praised Cheng Nan-jung, who immolated himself in the cause of freedom of speech. Cheng's act indirectly contributed to the amending of "Article One Hundred of the Criminal Code." Democracy on Taiwan entered a new phase. That is why the Taipei City Government established a "Freedom Lane." It was to commemorate Cheng Nan-jung. Two. Over the past few years political conflicts have persisted. Society on Taiwan has remained mired in internecine warfare. The impact of the global recession has been menacing and severe. Hau called on politicians to cease their infighting and concentrate on improving the economy.
Three. Hau Lung-bin noted the lack of trust between the ruling and opposition parties. Calls to cease infighting have never gone beyond lip service. He suggested that Chen Shui-bian's medical condition and strong cries from his supporters for medical parole, made dealing with former President Chen's medical parole urgent. He also suggested that they might help heal society's wounds.
Hau Lung-bin's concerns about ruling vs. opposition party infighting are justified. But he suggested that medical parole for Chen Shui-bian was a remedy. Leave aside whether his reasoning is sound. Ask yourself instead whether it is fair or just. It could lead to ruling and opposition party conflict. After all, the ruling and opposition parties hold diametrically opposed notions of justice. Can a compromise be reached between the two? That is a giant question mark.
The Green Camp has changed its strategy. It went from demanding a presidential pardon for Ah-Bian, to demanding medical parole. The main reason was that according to the Constitution of the Republic of China, a pardon may be granted only after a verdict has been reached. Only then can the president exercise his power of pardon. Chen Shui-bian has yet to be tried in court for several criminal offenses. Ah-Bian must first enter a guilty plea. That would speed up the trial process. That is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is that so far Chen Shui-bian has pleaded not guilty. The claims to be the victim of political and judicial persecution. He has refused to apologize for his corruption. The President has no basis on which to grant a pardon. Ah-Bian has refused to admit wrongdoing. If he is pardoned, that would imply he was the victim of judicial persecution.
Hao Lung-ping equates Cheng Nan-jung's act of self-immolation with the Chen corruption case. That is absurd. Cheng Nan-jung fiercely defended freedom of speech. He was a victim of a bad law. Chen Shui-bian is behind bars because he engaged in rampant corruption. His imprisonment has nothing to do with politics. The two issues are totally unrelated. They simply cannot be compared.
It is premature to talk of pardoning Chen Shui-bian. But recently Chen Shui-bian's family members and the Green Camp have constantly floated rumors about Chen Shui-bian's physical and mental condition. This should not be overlooked. Hao Lung-bin suggests that the relevant agencies immediately organize a team of medical experts to assess Chen Shui-bian's health. This is indeed necessary. But those demanding medical parole for Ah-Bian must abide by any conclusions reached by the physicians who conduct the examination. Ah-Bian must not be granted medical parole for political reasons. That would amount to granting him a presidential pardon under the guise of medical parole. Given the current political climate and Ah-Bian's behavior, that would hardly be appropriate.
Chen Shui-bian has yet to admit guilt. The trial process has yet to be concluded. The government may grant a former head of state certain courtesies while he serves his sentence. The Taipei Detention Center upgraded Chen Shui-bian's accomodations. That is indeed necessary.
Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.
郝龍斌的善意 真能帶來朝野和諧？
2012-08-23 01:18
中國時報
台北市長郝龍斌日昨出席「自由巷」掛牌儀式並公開建議，政府應該以正面、積極態度處理陳前總統保外就醫案，因為該案對撫平社會傷痕有指標意義；郝龍斌出人意表的發言，果然引來動機論的質疑，綠營雖然肯定，但藍營態度保留，馬上有人斷言，郝龍斌是在為總統大選鋪路。
持平而言，以台灣藍綠對立的現況，此時任何支持陳水扁保外就醫的言行，不但無法得到藍營支持，甚至可能無法得到中間選民的認同，郝龍斌再天真也會了解，他如果有更上一層樓的企圖心，現在得罪藍營選民，絕對不是一個聰明的策略。
所以，與其從動機論的角度來看待郝龍斌的發言，還不如就事論事、檢視郝市長的建議是否合情合理；畢竟，有關陳水扁保外就醫甚或特赦的議題，原來只局限於綠營支持者，現在卻是藍營大將出面喊話，對原來侷於一隅的挺扁陣營，是一大助力，但是，郝龍斌的支持，是否會讓保外就醫或特赦的是非、道理有所不同？尤其，郝龍斌和挺扁人士的立論，其實相去不遠，如果挺扁人士的立論有問題，現在就不可能因為郝龍斌的顏色或立場，而讓陳水扁保外就醫一事，忽然有了正當性。
檢視郝龍斌的談話及文章，他有三個重點，第一，他肯定當年為了追求百分之百言論自由而自焚的鄭南榕，間接促成刑法一百條的修正，台灣的民主政治從此進入新的境界，北市府因此設立「自由巷」來紀念鄭南榕。其次，過去幾年來政治上的對立衝突不斷上演，但台灣社會陷入內鬥惡耗之際，全球不景氣的嚴重衝擊卻來勢洶洶，他呼籲政治人物停止內鬥，集中心力拚經濟。
郝龍斌也正確的指出，朝野政黨缺乏互信，停止內鬥始終停留在口號層次，他因此建議，「以目前陳水扁的健康狀況，以及他的支持者對他保外就醫的強烈呼求來看，正面處理陳前總統保外就醫問題，不但有其急迫性，而且對於撫平社會傷痕將有指標性的作用。」
郝龍斌對朝野惡鬥的擔憂，確實言之成理，但是他祭出陳水扁保外就醫這帖猛藥，先不論是否有效，單就是否合乎公平正義而論，即可能先引發朝野對立。畢竟，朝野和諧與司法正義若是天平的兩端，這兩個價值之間，是否可以以輕易妥協交換，的確大有商榷空間。
綠營之所以調整策略，從挺扁特赦，轉為要求保外就醫，主要原因在於，依照中華民國憲法，必須司法定讞後，總統才能行使特赦權，但目前陳水扁仍有多項案件尚未完成司法流程，除非扁及早認罪，才可能加速司法流程，這是第一個關卡；第二個關卡，到目前為止，陳水扁堅不認罪，揚言自己受到政治及司法迫害，他既不為過去的貪腐案認錯道歉，總統也就缺乏特赦的正當性，因為，當扁不願認錯卻被特赦，豈非坐實他是遭到到司法迫害的指控。
此外，郝龍斌將扁案等同於鄭南榕的自焚，是一個大謬誤。鄭南榕是為了言論自由進行激烈抗爭，是過去惡法亦法的受害者；相反的，陳水扁今日身陷囹圄，卻是因為貪腐，和政治完全無涉，兩者不能相提並論。
當然，即使目前仍然不到特赦陳水扁的時機，但是近來陳水扁家屬及綠營人士不斷傳話，指陳水扁身體精神有狀況，則不宜輕忽；所以，郝龍斌建議，相關單位立即組成醫療小組，針對陳水扁的健康狀況進行專業評估，確實有其必要；但結果如何，則必須尊重醫師專業判斷；否則，若只從政治角度考量，讓扁保外就醫，這形同以保外就醫之名，行特赦之實，就目前的民意氣候以及扁的表現而言，恐怕還不適宜。
也許，在陳水扁認錯或是司法程序完結前，政府能做的就是，基於對卸任元首的尊重，讓他在服刑時可享有一定的禮遇，北監日前也改善了陳水扁的待遇，這確實是必要的作為。
可以說，即使和挺扁人士立論相同，但是郝龍斌多了一點誠意，他真心相信朝野應該和解，而不是以此做為挺扁的幌子；然而，動機良善，卻不保證言之成理，扁保外就醫的問題，如果不謹慎處理，後果可能是更大的朝野對立，那就和郝龍斌的原意背道而馳了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2012
Summary: Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.
Full Text below:
Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin yesterday attended the opening ceremony for "Freedom Lane." He suggested that the government deal with the issue of medical parole for former President Chen. He said doing so might heal social divisions. Hau Lung-bin's suggestion was unexpected. Sure enough, it has provoked questions about his motivation. The Green Camp expressed approval. But the Blue Camp was reserved. Some suggested that Hau Lung-bin was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.
The Blue and Green camps have long been at loggerheads. Expressions of support for Chen Shui-bian's medical parole are unlikely to meet with Blue Camp approval. They are unlikely to receive support even from moderates. Hau Lung-bin is not that naive. If he is seeking higher office, he knows that offending Pan Blue voters is not a smart strategy.
Therefore we should not question Hau Lung-bin's motivation. We should instead ask ourselves whether Mayor Hao's suggestion is reasonable. The suggestion that Chen Shui-bian should be granted medical parole, or even a presidential pardon, was originally confined to Green Camp supporters. Now a Blue Camp heavyweight has echoed their calls. Chen Shui-bian supporters were on the margins. This gave them a tremendous boost. Do Hao's arguments for medical parole or a presidential pardon have any merit? Hau Lung-bin's arguments are similar to those advanced by Ah-Bian supporters. The arguments advanced by Ah-Bian supporters are dubious. Just because Hau Lung-bin is currently advancing the same arguments does not make the arguments any the less dubious. Their arguments for granting Chen Shui-bian medical parole or a presidential pardon have not suddenly been imbued with legitimacy.
Consider what Hau Lung-bin said and wrote. Hau made three points. One. He praised Cheng Nan-jung, who immolated himself in the cause of freedom of speech. Cheng's act indirectly contributed to the amending of "Article One Hundred of the Criminal Code." Democracy on Taiwan entered a new phase. That is why the Taipei City Government established a "Freedom Lane." It was to commemorate Cheng Nan-jung. Two. Over the past few years political conflicts have persisted. Society on Taiwan has remained mired in internecine warfare. The impact of the global recession has been menacing and severe. Hau called on politicians to cease their infighting and concentrate on improving the economy.
Three. Hau Lung-bin noted the lack of trust between the ruling and opposition parties. Calls to cease infighting have never gone beyond lip service. He suggested that Chen Shui-bian's medical condition and strong cries from his supporters for medical parole, made dealing with former President Chen's medical parole urgent. He also suggested that they might help heal society's wounds.
Hau Lung-bin's concerns about ruling vs. opposition party infighting are justified. But he suggested that medical parole for Chen Shui-bian was a remedy. Leave aside whether his reasoning is sound. Ask yourself instead whether it is fair or just. It could lead to ruling and opposition party conflict. After all, the ruling and opposition parties hold diametrically opposed notions of justice. Can a compromise be reached between the two? That is a giant question mark.
The Green Camp has changed its strategy. It went from demanding a presidential pardon for Ah-Bian, to demanding medical parole. The main reason was that according to the Constitution of the Republic of China, a pardon may be granted only after a verdict has been reached. Only then can the president exercise his power of pardon. Chen Shui-bian has yet to be tried in court for several criminal offenses. Ah-Bian must first enter a guilty plea. That would speed up the trial process. That is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is that so far Chen Shui-bian has pleaded not guilty. The claims to be the victim of political and judicial persecution. He has refused to apologize for his corruption. The President has no basis on which to grant a pardon. Ah-Bian has refused to admit wrongdoing. If he is pardoned, that would imply he was the victim of judicial persecution.
Hao Lung-ping equates Cheng Nan-jung's act of self-immolation with the Chen corruption case. That is absurd. Cheng Nan-jung fiercely defended freedom of speech. He was a victim of a bad law. Chen Shui-bian is behind bars because he engaged in rampant corruption. His imprisonment has nothing to do with politics. The two issues are totally unrelated. They simply cannot be compared.
It is premature to talk of pardoning Chen Shui-bian. But recently Chen Shui-bian's family members and the Green Camp have constantly floated rumors about Chen Shui-bian's physical and mental condition. This should not be overlooked. Hao Lung-bin suggests that the relevant agencies immediately organize a team of medical experts to assess Chen Shui-bian's health. This is indeed necessary. But those demanding medical parole for Ah-Bian must abide by any conclusions reached by the physicians who conduct the examination. Ah-Bian must not be granted medical parole for political reasons. That would amount to granting him a presidential pardon under the guise of medical parole. Given the current political climate and Ah-Bian's behavior, that would hardly be appropriate.
Chen Shui-bian has yet to admit guilt. The trial process has yet to be concluded. The government may grant a former head of state certain courtesies while he serves his sentence. The Taipei Detention Center upgraded Chen Shui-bian's accomodations. That is indeed necessary.
Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.
郝龍斌的善意 真能帶來朝野和諧？
2012-08-23 01:18
中國時報
台北市長郝龍斌日昨出席「自由巷」掛牌儀式並公開建議，政府應該以正面、積極態度處理陳前總統保外就醫案，因為該案對撫平社會傷痕有指標意義；郝龍斌出人意表的發言，果然引來動機論的質疑，綠營雖然肯定，但藍營態度保留，馬上有人斷言，郝龍斌是在為總統大選鋪路。
持平而言，以台灣藍綠對立的現況，此時任何支持陳水扁保外就醫的言行，不但無法得到藍營支持，甚至可能無法得到中間選民的認同，郝龍斌再天真也會了解，他如果有更上一層樓的企圖心，現在得罪藍營選民，絕對不是一個聰明的策略。
所以，與其從動機論的角度來看待郝龍斌的發言，還不如就事論事、檢視郝市長的建議是否合情合理；畢竟，有關陳水扁保外就醫甚或特赦的議題，原來只局限於綠營支持者，現在卻是藍營大將出面喊話，對原來侷於一隅的挺扁陣營，是一大助力，但是，郝龍斌的支持，是否會讓保外就醫或特赦的是非、道理有所不同？尤其，郝龍斌和挺扁人士的立論，其實相去不遠，如果挺扁人士的立論有問題，現在就不可能因為郝龍斌的顏色或立場，而讓陳水扁保外就醫一事，忽然有了正當性。
檢視郝龍斌的談話及文章，他有三個重點，第一，他肯定當年為了追求百分之百言論自由而自焚的鄭南榕，間接促成刑法一百條的修正，台灣的民主政治從此進入新的境界，北市府因此設立「自由巷」來紀念鄭南榕。其次，過去幾年來政治上的對立衝突不斷上演，但台灣社會陷入內鬥惡耗之際，全球不景氣的嚴重衝擊卻來勢洶洶，他呼籲政治人物停止內鬥，集中心力拚經濟。
郝龍斌也正確的指出，朝野政黨缺乏互信，停止內鬥始終停留在口號層次，他因此建議，「以目前陳水扁的健康狀況，以及他的支持者對他保外就醫的強烈呼求來看，正面處理陳前總統保外就醫問題，不但有其急迫性，而且對於撫平社會傷痕將有指標性的作用。」
郝龍斌對朝野惡鬥的擔憂，確實言之成理，但是他祭出陳水扁保外就醫這帖猛藥，先不論是否有效，單就是否合乎公平正義而論，即可能先引發朝野對立。畢竟，朝野和諧與司法正義若是天平的兩端，這兩個價值之間，是否可以以輕易妥協交換，的確大有商榷空間。
綠營之所以調整策略，從挺扁特赦，轉為要求保外就醫，主要原因在於，依照中華民國憲法，必須司法定讞後，總統才能行使特赦權，但目前陳水扁仍有多項案件尚未完成司法流程，除非扁及早認罪，才可能加速司法流程，這是第一個關卡；第二個關卡，到目前為止，陳水扁堅不認罪，揚言自己受到政治及司法迫害，他既不為過去的貪腐案認錯道歉，總統也就缺乏特赦的正當性，因為，當扁不願認錯卻被特赦，豈非坐實他是遭到到司法迫害的指控。
此外，郝龍斌將扁案等同於鄭南榕的自焚，是一個大謬誤。鄭南榕是為了言論自由進行激烈抗爭，是過去惡法亦法的受害者；相反的，陳水扁今日身陷囹圄，卻是因為貪腐，和政治完全無涉，兩者不能相提並論。
當然，即使目前仍然不到特赦陳水扁的時機，但是近來陳水扁家屬及綠營人士不斷傳話，指陳水扁身體精神有狀況，則不宜輕忽；所以，郝龍斌建議，相關單位立即組成醫療小組，針對陳水扁的健康狀況進行專業評估，確實有其必要；但結果如何，則必須尊重醫師專業判斷；否則，若只從政治角度考量，讓扁保外就醫，這形同以保外就醫之名，行特赦之實，就目前的民意氣候以及扁的表現而言，恐怕還不適宜。
也許，在陳水扁認錯或是司法程序完結前，政府能做的就是，基於對卸任元首的尊重，讓他在服刑時可享有一定的禮遇，北監日前也改善了陳水扁的待遇，這確實是必要的作為。
可以說，即使和挺扁人士立論相同，但是郝龍斌多了一點誠意，他真心相信朝野應該和解，而不是以此做為挺扁的幌子；然而，動機良善，卻不保證言之成理，扁保外就醫的問題，如果不謹慎處理，後果可能是更大的朝野對立，那就和郝龍斌的原意背道而馳了。
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Strangling Public Television Took Only Three Hands
Strangling Public Television Took Only Three Hands
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2012
Summary: Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.
Full Text below:
Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.
Everyone applauded the dream team. Alas, Lung's nominees fell victim to the review board. Why? One. The review board cares nothing about public perception. Either that, or it is out of touch with public opinion. Two. The three-fourths supermajority required for review board approval is an unreasonably high threshold. Three. The ruling and opposition parties were engaged in a battle of wills. The review board was subjected to excessive political pressure. Lung Ying-tai was also too naive in her political calculations.
A high three-quarters supermajority threshold was adopted for PTS director and supervisor nominations. The argument was that PTS was a "public media" belonging everyone. Therefore it required "high standards." But these provisions were all flash and no substance. For years they prevented the PTS board of directors from functioning properly. They made it impossible to form a board at all. In June, Lung Ying-tai proposed a list of over 20 nominees. By July, 10 candidates had already withdrawn their candidacies. Mainly they felt the review process was unreasonable. They had no desire to butt their heads against a wall. Who knew that even the brave souls who stayed on would also be rejected.
Leave aside the question of how high a threshold is reasonable for the moment. The existing threshold is like a slaughterhouse. It was the product of a candidate review process based on proportional representation. The review board currently has 15 members. Its membership is based on the proportion of seats each party holds in the legislature. The KMT has eight members. The DPP has five. The TSU and PFP each have one. A three-quarters supermajority requires at least 12 votes. Conversely, the slightest pressure can lead to two nay votes and one abstention. This is enough to decimate an entire dream team.
Put simply, the current review board for PTS directors and supervisors reflects the proportion of each party's seats in the legislature. The ratio between Blue and Green is 9:6. In this case, the majority is too small to ensure the outcome. But the minority is large enough to be a spoiler. On the surface these members have academic or professional backgrounds. But they differ sharply in political coloration. They may make decisions based on political considerations. Three members are enough to bring the process to a grinding halt. Tsai Shih-ping angrily resigned from the review board. He could not countenance a minority doing whatever it wanted in the system.
Let us look further ahead. The high threshold enables a minority on the board to sabotage the nomination process. The review board reflects each party's share of seats in the legislature. The result, inexplicably, has been to transform it into a system for spoils sharing. Taiwan is currently backwards. The area in which it is the most lacking, is politics. Proportional representation reflecting political party affiliation merely replicates the same politicized guidance and review process that exists in other government agencies. It merely stifles their vitality. The makeup of the National Communications Commission (NCC) originally reflected proportional representation according to political party affiliaiton. But the approach was found to be unworkable. Several years ago the law was amended and the system discarded. PTS operations have been bogged down for years. Must bad laws prevent needed reforms?
Three hands are enough to strangle PTS. The PTS directors and supervisors review process has underscored the grievous defects in the system. It must be reformed. The arrogance of some review board members who passed judgment on the character of the nominees was something to behold. They showed no respect whatsoever to these valuable members of society. Have these review board members ever considered why they occupy their positions? Do they have any respect for PTS or the public? Did anyone consent to their abuse of power?
Such wonderful nominees. Such an awful review process outcome. This was a huge setback for Lung Ying-tai. It was also a huge setback for the Green Camp, with whom Lung made a secret quid pro quo arrangement. Lung agreed to allow Chen Yu-hsiu to become chairman of the board. This led to tension, concern, and resistance within the ruling KMT. She soon found herself alone in her struggle. In the end, she could only beat an ignominious retreat. She was subjected to a crash course in realpolitik. The candidates were rejected for reasons unrelated to merit. They were rejected because the review process was irrational, and because party thugs were looking after their own interests. The candidates rejected are not the ones who should feel ashamed. Those indifferent to the truth are the ones who should feel ashamed. Those who care only about Blue or Green party affiliation are the ones who should feel ashamed.
The nomination process for the fifth PTS Board of Directors has dragged on for over 600 days. The problem will not be remedied overnight. The high threshold for PTS directors and supervisors nominations must be changed. The seats must no longer be allocated according to the proportion of seats held by each political party in the legislature. The review board must no longer consist of political yes-men. The people are indifferent to Blue or Green. They merely want PTS to work. They merely want well made shows. What happened was no the work of the devil. Three hands were all it took to destroy our common dream.
三隻手，就足以掐死整個公視
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.22 01:47 am
龍應台的公視董監事「夢幻名單」，在審查會慘遭屠殺，兩輪投票僅三名董事、兩名監事過關，不少社會形象良好的文化人均中箭落馬。但龍應台不必扼腕，這個挫折其實是屬於大家的；難產的也不只是公視董事會，而是台灣追求提升的民主精神。
各界叫好的名單卻在審查會遭到毒手，原因包括：第一，審查委員不在乎民眾觀感，或根本與民意脫節；第二，要獲四分之三同意票才能過關的高門檻，顯不合理；第三，朝野政黨的角力與拔河，使審查會摻入太多政治考量。當然，這也包括了龍應台對政治估計的太過天真。
當初規定公視董監事要採四分之三的高門檻，是以公視為全民所有的「公共媒體」為由，因此需要採取「高標準」。然而，這項華而不實的規定，卻也造成了公視董事會長年無法正常運作、甚至根本無法組成的問題。龍應台六月提出廿多人的名單後，到七月就有十名候選人主動退出，主要就是認為審查機制不合理，不願去碰壁。沒想到，英勇留下來的人，最後還是紛紛在此墜馬。
門檻要多高才算合理，暫且不談；但讓這個門檻變得像集體屠宰場的，卻是依政黨比例提名產生的「審查委員」。目前十五名審查委員，依各政黨在國會的席次比例，國民黨推薦者有八人，民進黨推薦五人，台聯一人，親民黨一人；要過四分之三的門檻，至少需獲十二張贊成票。反過來看，只要稍加運作，二張反對票加一張空白票，即可以讓一組「夢幻人馬」全軍覆沒。
簡單地說，目前公視董監事審查委員的結構，是複製了國會的席次比例，藍和綠是九與六之比；在此情況下，多數的一方不足操控局面，反而少數的一方更便於使力。儘管這些委員表面上都具有學術或其他專業背景，但個人政治色彩差異極大，只要陷入政治思考，三人即可左右大局達成杯葛的目的。當天，蔡詩萍憤而退出審查會，就是不滿少數人可以在這個機制中予取予求。
進一步看，荒謬的，不只是高門檻保障了「少數暴力」，審查委員由各黨依席次比例推派，同樣是個莫名所以的分贓制度。試想，目前台灣最落後、最缺乏效能的，就是政治部門；而「政黨比例推薦制」就形同在不同機構上層複製政治指導和審查機構，豈非在扼殺這些機構的生命力？當初國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）委員的產生也是採取政黨比例推薦制，但發現根本行不通之後，數年前即已修法改掉；而公視的運作深陷泥沼多年，難道還要被惡法莠制箝制到不得翻身？
三隻手，即足以掐死整個公視，從這次公視董監事的審查會上已一目了然。這是制度的可怕缺陷，非改不可。且看一些審查委員在會中對被提名人品頭論足的神氣，再看他們對社會人才整批否決的毫不珍惜，這些人有沒有想過自己為什麼坐在那裡？心中有沒有公視或公眾？他們又經過誰的同意可以這樣濫用手中的權力？
漂亮的名單得到這樣難看的審查結果，對龍應台而言，當然是一次大挫敗。包括其間傳出她與綠營暗中交換條件，同意讓陳郁秀出任董事長，引起了執政黨方面的緊張、關切、甚至阻撓，導致她的漂亮出擊變成孤軍奮戰，終以淒然收兵收場，這是她的一堂政治震撼教育。至於那些中箭落馬的候選人，其實是敗在「非戰之罪」，輸給不合理的制度和師心自用的政黨打手；該覺得丟臉不是落選人，可恥的是那些不問青紅皂白、只問藍綠的審查委員。
難產超過六百天的第五屆公視董事會，一時三刻內不可能奢望它霍然痊癒。如果董監事的高門檻不改，如果繼續依政黨比例制分配審查委員，如果審查委員執意要當政治的應聲蟲，全體民眾不分藍綠都別想看到一個健全的公視，更別奢望看到精采的節目。別以為那裡藏著什麼大惡魔，三隻手就足以摧毀大家的夢想，就如我們日昨所見。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2012
Summary: Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.
Full Text below:
Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.
Everyone applauded the dream team. Alas, Lung's nominees fell victim to the review board. Why? One. The review board cares nothing about public perception. Either that, or it is out of touch with public opinion. Two. The three-fourths supermajority required for review board approval is an unreasonably high threshold. Three. The ruling and opposition parties were engaged in a battle of wills. The review board was subjected to excessive political pressure. Lung Ying-tai was also too naive in her political calculations.
A high three-quarters supermajority threshold was adopted for PTS director and supervisor nominations. The argument was that PTS was a "public media" belonging everyone. Therefore it required "high standards." But these provisions were all flash and no substance. For years they prevented the PTS board of directors from functioning properly. They made it impossible to form a board at all. In June, Lung Ying-tai proposed a list of over 20 nominees. By July, 10 candidates had already withdrawn their candidacies. Mainly they felt the review process was unreasonable. They had no desire to butt their heads against a wall. Who knew that even the brave souls who stayed on would also be rejected.
Leave aside the question of how high a threshold is reasonable for the moment. The existing threshold is like a slaughterhouse. It was the product of a candidate review process based on proportional representation. The review board currently has 15 members. Its membership is based on the proportion of seats each party holds in the legislature. The KMT has eight members. The DPP has five. The TSU and PFP each have one. A three-quarters supermajority requires at least 12 votes. Conversely, the slightest pressure can lead to two nay votes and one abstention. This is enough to decimate an entire dream team.
Put simply, the current review board for PTS directors and supervisors reflects the proportion of each party's seats in the legislature. The ratio between Blue and Green is 9:6. In this case, the majority is too small to ensure the outcome. But the minority is large enough to be a spoiler. On the surface these members have academic or professional backgrounds. But they differ sharply in political coloration. They may make decisions based on political considerations. Three members are enough to bring the process to a grinding halt. Tsai Shih-ping angrily resigned from the review board. He could not countenance a minority doing whatever it wanted in the system.
Let us look further ahead. The high threshold enables a minority on the board to sabotage the nomination process. The review board reflects each party's share of seats in the legislature. The result, inexplicably, has been to transform it into a system for spoils sharing. Taiwan is currently backwards. The area in which it is the most lacking, is politics. Proportional representation reflecting political party affiliation merely replicates the same politicized guidance and review process that exists in other government agencies. It merely stifles their vitality. The makeup of the National Communications Commission (NCC) originally reflected proportional representation according to political party affiliaiton. But the approach was found to be unworkable. Several years ago the law was amended and the system discarded. PTS operations have been bogged down for years. Must bad laws prevent needed reforms?
Three hands are enough to strangle PTS. The PTS directors and supervisors review process has underscored the grievous defects in the system. It must be reformed. The arrogance of some review board members who passed judgment on the character of the nominees was something to behold. They showed no respect whatsoever to these valuable members of society. Have these review board members ever considered why they occupy their positions? Do they have any respect for PTS or the public? Did anyone consent to their abuse of power?
Such wonderful nominees. Such an awful review process outcome. This was a huge setback for Lung Ying-tai. It was also a huge setback for the Green Camp, with whom Lung made a secret quid pro quo arrangement. Lung agreed to allow Chen Yu-hsiu to become chairman of the board. This led to tension, concern, and resistance within the ruling KMT. She soon found herself alone in her struggle. In the end, she could only beat an ignominious retreat. She was subjected to a crash course in realpolitik. The candidates were rejected for reasons unrelated to merit. They were rejected because the review process was irrational, and because party thugs were looking after their own interests. The candidates rejected are not the ones who should feel ashamed. Those indifferent to the truth are the ones who should feel ashamed. Those who care only about Blue or Green party affiliation are the ones who should feel ashamed.
The nomination process for the fifth PTS Board of Directors has dragged on for over 600 days. The problem will not be remedied overnight. The high threshold for PTS directors and supervisors nominations must be changed. The seats must no longer be allocated according to the proportion of seats held by each political party in the legislature. The review board must no longer consist of political yes-men. The people are indifferent to Blue or Green. They merely want PTS to work. They merely want well made shows. What happened was no the work of the devil. Three hands were all it took to destroy our common dream.
三隻手，就足以掐死整個公視
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.22 01:47 am
龍應台的公視董監事「夢幻名單」，在審查會慘遭屠殺，兩輪投票僅三名董事、兩名監事過關，不少社會形象良好的文化人均中箭落馬。但龍應台不必扼腕，這個挫折其實是屬於大家的；難產的也不只是公視董事會，而是台灣追求提升的民主精神。
各界叫好的名單卻在審查會遭到毒手，原因包括：第一，審查委員不在乎民眾觀感，或根本與民意脫節；第二，要獲四分之三同意票才能過關的高門檻，顯不合理；第三，朝野政黨的角力與拔河，使審查會摻入太多政治考量。當然，這也包括了龍應台對政治估計的太過天真。
當初規定公視董監事要採四分之三的高門檻，是以公視為全民所有的「公共媒體」為由，因此需要採取「高標準」。然而，這項華而不實的規定，卻也造成了公視董事會長年無法正常運作、甚至根本無法組成的問題。龍應台六月提出廿多人的名單後，到七月就有十名候選人主動退出，主要就是認為審查機制不合理，不願去碰壁。沒想到，英勇留下來的人，最後還是紛紛在此墜馬。
門檻要多高才算合理，暫且不談；但讓這個門檻變得像集體屠宰場的，卻是依政黨比例提名產生的「審查委員」。目前十五名審查委員，依各政黨在國會的席次比例，國民黨推薦者有八人，民進黨推薦五人，台聯一人，親民黨一人；要過四分之三的門檻，至少需獲十二張贊成票。反過來看，只要稍加運作，二張反對票加一張空白票，即可以讓一組「夢幻人馬」全軍覆沒。
簡單地說，目前公視董監事審查委員的結構，是複製了國會的席次比例，藍和綠是九與六之比；在此情況下，多數的一方不足操控局面，反而少數的一方更便於使力。儘管這些委員表面上都具有學術或其他專業背景，但個人政治色彩差異極大，只要陷入政治思考，三人即可左右大局達成杯葛的目的。當天，蔡詩萍憤而退出審查會，就是不滿少數人可以在這個機制中予取予求。
進一步看，荒謬的，不只是高門檻保障了「少數暴力」，審查委員由各黨依席次比例推派，同樣是個莫名所以的分贓制度。試想，目前台灣最落後、最缺乏效能的，就是政治部門；而「政黨比例推薦制」就形同在不同機構上層複製政治指導和審查機構，豈非在扼殺這些機構的生命力？當初國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）委員的產生也是採取政黨比例推薦制，但發現根本行不通之後，數年前即已修法改掉；而公視的運作深陷泥沼多年，難道還要被惡法莠制箝制到不得翻身？
三隻手，即足以掐死整個公視，從這次公視董監事的審查會上已一目了然。這是制度的可怕缺陷，非改不可。且看一些審查委員在會中對被提名人品頭論足的神氣，再看他們對社會人才整批否決的毫不珍惜，這些人有沒有想過自己為什麼坐在那裡？心中有沒有公視或公眾？他們又經過誰的同意可以這樣濫用手中的權力？
漂亮的名單得到這樣難看的審查結果，對龍應台而言，當然是一次大挫敗。包括其間傳出她與綠營暗中交換條件，同意讓陳郁秀出任董事長，引起了執政黨方面的緊張、關切、甚至阻撓，導致她的漂亮出擊變成孤軍奮戰，終以淒然收兵收場，這是她的一堂政治震撼教育。至於那些中箭落馬的候選人，其實是敗在「非戰之罪」，輸給不合理的制度和師心自用的政黨打手；該覺得丟臉不是落選人，可恥的是那些不問青紅皂白、只問藍綠的審查委員。
難產超過六百天的第五屆公視董事會，一時三刻內不可能奢望它霍然痊癒。如果董監事的高門檻不改，如果繼續依政黨比例制分配審查委員，如果審查委員執意要當政治的應聲蟲，全體民眾不分藍綠都別想看到一個健全的公視，更別奢望看到精采的節目。別以為那裡藏著什麼大惡魔，三隻手就足以摧毀大家的夢想，就如我們日昨所見。
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Gu Kailai Case Verdict: A Lose/Lose Proposition for the CCP
Gu Kailai Case Verdict: A Lose/Lose Proposition for the CCP
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2012
Summary: The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened. In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.
Full Text below:
The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened.
When the court convened on the 9th, the proceedings were billed as a "public trial." But only politically vetted members of the public and the media were allowed into the courtroom. Therefore it was nothing more than a scripted show. Its writers, directors, and actors were jokes. The Xinhua News Agency reported on the proceedings. Only four or five hundred words had any relevance to the case. The report said Gu Kailai and Neil Haywood had "conflicting economic interests." The report implied that Haywood threatened Bo Guagua with physical harm. This amounted to an advanced "stay of execution." The report mentioned bodyguard Zhang Xiaojun. It explained that "Gu was the chief culprit, Zhang was an accomplice." Since Gu would be spared the death sentence, this amounted to advance notice that Zhang would as well. Zhang Xiaojun has been sentenced to nine years. This too was expected.
This was the trial of the century. The CCP should have ensured a proper trial to showcase the rule of law. Instead the CPP merely showed that it has achieved nothing in the way of judicial reform. Mainland netizens said the trial differed little from the Gang of Four trial 30 years ago. The courtroom was better designed than before. The public was a little better dressed than before. But substantively speaking the proceedings were nearly identical. All that was missing was Jiang Qing bellowing, "Down with Revisionism!" Instead we were regaled with a tacit plea bargain passed off as a "just judgment, showing respect for life, and offering no appeal." It left us with the impression that today's courts are even less honest than they were 30 years ago.
For example, during the proceedings, the court failed to subpoena either Bo Xilai or Wang Lijun. The entire world was witness to this. As we now know, Wang Lijun said he informed Bo Xilai of the facts only after he committed the murder. But why didn't the court ask whether Bo knowingly concealed or covered up the crime? Wang Lijun knew what happened. It is rumored that he kept a sample of Haywood's tissue as "evidence." Why didn't the court ask Wang Lijun why he abused his power and perverted the law? The four police officers who confessed to covering up the crime were sentenced to 5 to 11 years. Whether Bo and Wang will be charged for their crimes remains to be seen. But even if they are, the "Bo case" has been treated as if it were separate from the "Gu case." Worse, the "Bo case" has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case." This is a serious blow to justice. This has made the prosecution of the case a worldwide joke.
Politically speaking, the biggest failure of the CCP was in reducing the "Bo case" to the "Gu case." The relationship between Bo, Gu, and Wang led to Neil Haywood's murder. Wang Lijun's defection to the United States Consulate General did not happen out of the blue. The case has turned the CCP's political baptism into a disaster. It inspired Wen Jiabao to say that "We are still not free from the errors of the Cultural Revolution and feudalism" and that "The historical tragedy of the Cultural Revolution could repeat itself." Wen Jiabao's comments about the "Bo case" were dead on. But the case has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case," to the level of a single case of homicide. This is not merely evasive. It is a travesty of justice. It is widely rumored that Bo and Wang "listened in" on party officials and government officials. Could this be a cover-up?
The Beijing authorities went from aggressively prosecuting the "Bo case," to pulling their punches on the "Gu case." The twists and turns the case took, and the political allowances that were made during the prosecution of the case, are clear to see. The CCP imposes Draconian punishments on ordinary citizens. But it let Bo Xilai off with a slap on the wrist. As an old Chinese expression has it, "Crows everywhere under heaven are just as black." The CPP had to let Bo Xilai off lightly because of his poltiical status. It also went easy on Wang Lijun. This shows that seeking asylum at the U.S. Consulate General works. For 30 years the CCP has been pushing judicial and political reform. This case shows that its reforms were a lie. Both reforms have come to naught. The key is not the severity of the punishments. The key is that politics undermined the search for truth.
In a perverse sense, it is "fortunate" that Gu Kailai murdered someone. Otherwise Bo and Gu would have gotten away with their wrongdoing. Their crimes would have been passed off as "legal." So far Gu has yet to be charged with "economic conflicts of interest." The courts have yet to take responsibility for this. One has to wonder. How many cases under CCP official jurisdiction involve accomplices like Bo, Gu, and Wang murdering someone like Haywood? It is "fortunate" that Wang Lijun sought asylum at the US Consulate General. Otherwise, the Gu Kailai homicide case would have been swept under the rug. Whether Wang Lijun would have been murdered to shut him up is uncertain. The case is remarkable nonetheless. Under the watchful eyes of the world, this case was still handled in this manner. This shows just how bankrupt the CCP is.
This case contains a chilling paradox. The Bo Gu case was possible precisely because the CCP is an authoritarian regime. Suppose Bo Xilai was a democratically elected head of government? Suppose he alleged "judicial persecution?" Would he win or lose in court? It would be hard to say. So far the Bo case has shown that the CCP authorities are afraid to prosecute crimes. The Bo Xilai case shows that their judicial and political reforms are a wash. The case has been a shock to the system. CCP political and judicial reform require harsh review. Reforms cannot wait another 30 years. The clock cannot be turned back 30 years.
In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.
谷案宣判暴露中共在司法與政治的雙輸
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.21
谷開來案的宣判，真是用膝蓋想也知道；這個判決主文，與九日開庭當日全球媒體的預測完全一樣。
九日開庭，號稱「公開審判」，但自聽眾至媒體全係透過政治安排；即使只是一齣戲，其編、導、演也不堪入目。當天，新華社報導庭訊內容，涉及案情部分大約僅有四、五百字。提及谷開來，謂與海伍德有「經濟利益矛盾」，又疑海伍德威脅薄瓜瓜的人身安全；這不啻是提前宣判了谷開來必為「死緩」；另在提及隨扈張曉軍時，特別說明「谷是主犯，張是從犯」，則是在提前宣告，谷免一死，張就沒有死的道理；如今張曉軍判九年徒刑，亦是不出所料。
這是一件世紀大案，中共原應努力在審判程序上力求表現，以展示「以法治國」的成就；但這場審判卻簡直顯示中共在司法改革上繳了白卷。大陸網民說，與三十年前審判四人幫比較，只是法庭比以前漂亮了，聽眾的服飾比以前光鮮了；但就司法的程序及實質言，只差未聞江青在法庭咆哮「打倒修正主義」，而僅見谷開來表達「判決公正，尊重生命，放棄上訴」的審囚默契，反而令人覺得今日的法庭還不如三十年前真實。
例如，在審判程序中，未見同庭傳審薄熙來及王立軍，正是舉世共見的敗筆。如今已知，王立軍已經供認事後將命案告知薄熙來，則法院何以不問薄是否知情掩飾或包庇？而王立軍既知此案，且傳曾切下海伍德一片組織留為「證據」，則更何以不問王立軍濫權枉法之罪？何況，涉及「包庇」谷開來的四名員警昨日分別被判刑五至十一年。未來是否將另案追究薄與王在這一方面的刑責尚未可知，但即使如此，其實已將「薄案」與「谷案」切割，更將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」，這不啻是司法正義的重傷，更是貽笑世界的司法醜聞。
其實，就政治面看，中共面對此案的最大失敗，亦在將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」。薄谷王的三人關係，演化到毒殺海伍德、王立軍投奔美國總領事館的地步，冰凍三尺、非一日之寒，這是中共政治體制日浸月滲所造成的慘重結果；這也才促成了溫家寶痛言「迄今文革的錯誤和封建的影響並未清除」、「文化大革命這樣的歷史悲劇還有可能重新發生」。溫家寶所言，才是「薄案」的層次，但如今將全案化約到只是一件殺人案的「谷案」，這不但是避重就輕，亦且簡直是不問是非黑白了。比如，盛傳薄王「監聽」黨政首長等情節，難道就此「吃案」？
北京當局從大辦「薄案」，搞到今日輕辦「谷案」；其間的支絀轉折與政治考量，已是有目共睹。以中共對一般百姓的嚴刑峻罰言，倘若此案放過了薄熙來（因為天下烏鴉一般黑），輕判了谷開來（因為必須放過薄熙來），又輕判了王立軍（表示投奔美國領事館是有用的）；則中共三十年來的司法改革與政治改革皆將因本案而成為謊言，雙雙皆告失敗。關鍵不在刑度輕重，而在用政治手段裁減了真相。
本案「幸好」因谷開來殺了人，否則薄谷二人在殺人以前的一切為非作歹儼然皆是「合法」的，且迄今亦未見對谷所涉「經濟利益矛盾」的情節有所交代；試問，中共官場現在存有多少「雖未毒殺海伍德」的「薄谷王共犯結構」？本案亦「幸好」因王立軍投奔總領事館，否則谷開來殺人案是否會揭鍋，王立軍是否仍留活口，皆是未定之數。但即使如此，在舉世矚目下，本案卻仍以這般荒唐的司法程序過場，可見中共體制之積重難返已至何等嚴峻的地步。
不過，本案亦存有一令人不寒而慄的吊詭。中共正因採行專制體制，始有可能至少在形式上將薄谷制伏；倘若薄熙來是一個民選首長，一旦喊出「司法迫害」，則恐怕難料勝敗如何？何況，薄案的司法程序進行至今，已證明中共當局之投鼠忌器，因而無論在司法上及政治上，不啻皆已敗給了薄熙來。有鑒於本案的震撼，中共的政治改革與司法改革，實須痛加針砭，不能等到再過三十年，又回到三十年前。
對照中共近年再三強調「以法治國」，谷案應使中南海諸人自慚形穢；尤其，對照溫家寶批評「重慶小文革」的一針見血之論，如今要他吞回那些話，恐怕更要令他百感交集了吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2012
Summary: The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened. In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.
Full Text below:
The verdict in the Gu Kailai case was a forgone conclusion. The wording of the court's decision was exactly what the global media predicted it would be on the 9th, when the court first convened.
When the court convened on the 9th, the proceedings were billed as a "public trial." But only politically vetted members of the public and the media were allowed into the courtroom. Therefore it was nothing more than a scripted show. Its writers, directors, and actors were jokes. The Xinhua News Agency reported on the proceedings. Only four or five hundred words had any relevance to the case. The report said Gu Kailai and Neil Haywood had "conflicting economic interests." The report implied that Haywood threatened Bo Guagua with physical harm. This amounted to an advanced "stay of execution." The report mentioned bodyguard Zhang Xiaojun. It explained that "Gu was the chief culprit, Zhang was an accomplice." Since Gu would be spared the death sentence, this amounted to advance notice that Zhang would as well. Zhang Xiaojun has been sentenced to nine years. This too was expected.
This was the trial of the century. The CCP should have ensured a proper trial to showcase the rule of law. Instead the CPP merely showed that it has achieved nothing in the way of judicial reform. Mainland netizens said the trial differed little from the Gang of Four trial 30 years ago. The courtroom was better designed than before. The public was a little better dressed than before. But substantively speaking the proceedings were nearly identical. All that was missing was Jiang Qing bellowing, "Down with Revisionism!" Instead we were regaled with a tacit plea bargain passed off as a "just judgment, showing respect for life, and offering no appeal." It left us with the impression that today's courts are even less honest than they were 30 years ago.
For example, during the proceedings, the court failed to subpoena either Bo Xilai or Wang Lijun. The entire world was witness to this. As we now know, Wang Lijun said he informed Bo Xilai of the facts only after he committed the murder. But why didn't the court ask whether Bo knowingly concealed or covered up the crime? Wang Lijun knew what happened. It is rumored that he kept a sample of Haywood's tissue as "evidence." Why didn't the court ask Wang Lijun why he abused his power and perverted the law? The four police officers who confessed to covering up the crime were sentenced to 5 to 11 years. Whether Bo and Wang will be charged for their crimes remains to be seen. But even if they are, the "Bo case" has been treated as if it were separate from the "Gu case." Worse, the "Bo case" has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case." This is a serious blow to justice. This has made the prosecution of the case a worldwide joke.
Politically speaking, the biggest failure of the CCP was in reducing the "Bo case" to the "Gu case." The relationship between Bo, Gu, and Wang led to Neil Haywood's murder. Wang Lijun's defection to the United States Consulate General did not happen out of the blue. The case has turned the CCP's political baptism into a disaster. It inspired Wen Jiabao to say that "We are still not free from the errors of the Cultural Revolution and feudalism" and that "The historical tragedy of the Cultural Revolution could repeat itself." Wen Jiabao's comments about the "Bo case" were dead on. But the case has been reduced to the level of the "Gu case," to the level of a single case of homicide. This is not merely evasive. It is a travesty of justice. It is widely rumored that Bo and Wang "listened in" on party officials and government officials. Could this be a cover-up?
The Beijing authorities went from aggressively prosecuting the "Bo case," to pulling their punches on the "Gu case." The twists and turns the case took, and the political allowances that were made during the prosecution of the case, are clear to see. The CCP imposes Draconian punishments on ordinary citizens. But it let Bo Xilai off with a slap on the wrist. As an old Chinese expression has it, "Crows everywhere under heaven are just as black." The CPP had to let Bo Xilai off lightly because of his poltiical status. It also went easy on Wang Lijun. This shows that seeking asylum at the U.S. Consulate General works. For 30 years the CCP has been pushing judicial and political reform. This case shows that its reforms were a lie. Both reforms have come to naught. The key is not the severity of the punishments. The key is that politics undermined the search for truth.
In a perverse sense, it is "fortunate" that Gu Kailai murdered someone. Otherwise Bo and Gu would have gotten away with their wrongdoing. Their crimes would have been passed off as "legal." So far Gu has yet to be charged with "economic conflicts of interest." The courts have yet to take responsibility for this. One has to wonder. How many cases under CCP official jurisdiction involve accomplices like Bo, Gu, and Wang murdering someone like Haywood? It is "fortunate" that Wang Lijun sought asylum at the US Consulate General. Otherwise, the Gu Kailai homicide case would have been swept under the rug. Whether Wang Lijun would have been murdered to shut him up is uncertain. The case is remarkable nonetheless. Under the watchful eyes of the world, this case was still handled in this manner. This shows just how bankrupt the CCP is.
This case contains a chilling paradox. The Bo Gu case was possible precisely because the CCP is an authoritarian regime. Suppose Bo Xilai was a democratically elected head of government? Suppose he alleged "judicial persecution?" Would he win or lose in court? It would be hard to say. So far the Bo case has shown that the CCP authorities are afraid to prosecute crimes. The Bo Xilai case shows that their judicial and political reforms are a wash. The case has been a shock to the system. CCP political and judicial reform require harsh review. Reforms cannot wait another 30 years. The clock cannot be turned back 30 years.
In recent years the Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly stressed the rule of law. The Gu case should make everyone at Zhongnanhai ashamed. Contrast this with Wen Jiabao's sharp criticism of the "Chongqing Mini Cultural Revolution." If he is forced to swallow his words, it could shorten his life.
谷案宣判暴露中共在司法與政治的雙輸
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.21
谷開來案的宣判，真是用膝蓋想也知道；這個判決主文，與九日開庭當日全球媒體的預測完全一樣。
九日開庭，號稱「公開審判」，但自聽眾至媒體全係透過政治安排；即使只是一齣戲，其編、導、演也不堪入目。當天，新華社報導庭訊內容，涉及案情部分大約僅有四、五百字。提及谷開來，謂與海伍德有「經濟利益矛盾」，又疑海伍德威脅薄瓜瓜的人身安全；這不啻是提前宣判了谷開來必為「死緩」；另在提及隨扈張曉軍時，特別說明「谷是主犯，張是從犯」，則是在提前宣告，谷免一死，張就沒有死的道理；如今張曉軍判九年徒刑，亦是不出所料。
這是一件世紀大案，中共原應努力在審判程序上力求表現，以展示「以法治國」的成就；但這場審判卻簡直顯示中共在司法改革上繳了白卷。大陸網民說，與三十年前審判四人幫比較，只是法庭比以前漂亮了，聽眾的服飾比以前光鮮了；但就司法的程序及實質言，只差未聞江青在法庭咆哮「打倒修正主義」，而僅見谷開來表達「判決公正，尊重生命，放棄上訴」的審囚默契，反而令人覺得今日的法庭還不如三十年前真實。
例如，在審判程序中，未見同庭傳審薄熙來及王立軍，正是舉世共見的敗筆。如今已知，王立軍已經供認事後將命案告知薄熙來，則法院何以不問薄是否知情掩飾或包庇？而王立軍既知此案，且傳曾切下海伍德一片組織留為「證據」，則更何以不問王立軍濫權枉法之罪？何況，涉及「包庇」谷開來的四名員警昨日分別被判刑五至十一年。未來是否將另案追究薄與王在這一方面的刑責尚未可知，但即使如此，其實已將「薄案」與「谷案」切割，更將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」，這不啻是司法正義的重傷，更是貽笑世界的司法醜聞。
其實，就政治面看，中共面對此案的最大失敗，亦在將「薄案」矮化為「谷案」。薄谷王的三人關係，演化到毒殺海伍德、王立軍投奔美國總領事館的地步，冰凍三尺、非一日之寒，這是中共政治體制日浸月滲所造成的慘重結果；這也才促成了溫家寶痛言「迄今文革的錯誤和封建的影響並未清除」、「文化大革命這樣的歷史悲劇還有可能重新發生」。溫家寶所言，才是「薄案」的層次，但如今將全案化約到只是一件殺人案的「谷案」，這不但是避重就輕，亦且簡直是不問是非黑白了。比如，盛傳薄王「監聽」黨政首長等情節，難道就此「吃案」？
北京當局從大辦「薄案」，搞到今日輕辦「谷案」；其間的支絀轉折與政治考量，已是有目共睹。以中共對一般百姓的嚴刑峻罰言，倘若此案放過了薄熙來（因為天下烏鴉一般黑），輕判了谷開來（因為必須放過薄熙來），又輕判了王立軍（表示投奔美國領事館是有用的）；則中共三十年來的司法改革與政治改革皆將因本案而成為謊言，雙雙皆告失敗。關鍵不在刑度輕重，而在用政治手段裁減了真相。
本案「幸好」因谷開來殺了人，否則薄谷二人在殺人以前的一切為非作歹儼然皆是「合法」的，且迄今亦未見對谷所涉「經濟利益矛盾」的情節有所交代；試問，中共官場現在存有多少「雖未毒殺海伍德」的「薄谷王共犯結構」？本案亦「幸好」因王立軍投奔總領事館，否則谷開來殺人案是否會揭鍋，王立軍是否仍留活口，皆是未定之數。但即使如此，在舉世矚目下，本案卻仍以這般荒唐的司法程序過場，可見中共體制之積重難返已至何等嚴峻的地步。
不過，本案亦存有一令人不寒而慄的吊詭。中共正因採行專制體制，始有可能至少在形式上將薄谷制伏；倘若薄熙來是一個民選首長，一旦喊出「司法迫害」，則恐怕難料勝敗如何？何況，薄案的司法程序進行至今，已證明中共當局之投鼠忌器，因而無論在司法上及政治上，不啻皆已敗給了薄熙來。有鑒於本案的震撼，中共的政治改革與司法改革，實須痛加針砭，不能等到再過三十年，又回到三十年前。
對照中共近年再三強調「以法治國」，谷案應使中南海諸人自慚形穢；尤其，對照溫家寶批評「重慶小文革」的一針見血之論，如今要他吞回那些話，恐怕更要令他百感交集了吧！
Monday, August 20, 2012
Address Poverty Before Addressing Emergencies
Address Poverty Before Addressing Emergencies
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 20, 2012
Summary: We warn the business community and the public. We must liberalize. If we do not, we will commit economic suicide. We are currently in a recession. We cannot sit and wait for the dawn. We cannot hope that the economy will improve and that our problems will disappear. We must recognize the warning signs for Taiwan's competitiveness. Otherwise, when the global economy picks up again, others will be eating steak, and Taiwan will be eating table scraps.
Full Text below:
Last week the Executive Yuan Budget and Accounting Office issued its latest economic report. The economic growth rate this year has been revised downward to 1.66%. This figure is likely to put us in last place among the Four Asian Tigers. The Executive Yuan implemented emergency mobilization countermeasures long ago. We hope Taiwan can safely negotiate the economic downturn. We hope the government will forsake its outmode ways of thinking. An old expression says "one must address emergencies before addressing poverty." But the economic downturn suggests just the opposite. It suggests that the government should "address poverty before addressing emergencies."
This year's economic growth rate was set optimistically at over 4%. This quarter it has been downgraded to 1.66%. The main reason for this is the swiftly declining global economic environment. The European debt crisis persists. The EU economy has gone into recession. It economic growth rate this year is -0.3%. The U.S. market remains weak. Its economic growth rate has been revised downward to 2.1%. Even the Mainland's sustained double-digit growth has slowed. Its economic growth rate has fallen below 8%. Projections for this year have been lowered to a mere 7.7%. Economic growth for the rest of the Four Asian Tigers has been lowered to about 2%. Taiwan's exports accounted for 70% of its GDP. The international economy is slowing. Taiwan cannot remain unaffected.
Consider the economic data. Taiwan was originally first among the Four Asian Tigers. Today it is last. This is not due entirely to international factors. An important factor is Taiwan's declining competitiveness. Between January and July, Taiwan's exports shrank by 5.8%. This was the largest drop experienced by any of the Four Asian Tigers. The three other Asian Tigers are still experienceing positive growth. Exports of Taiwan's ICT products, so-called technology products, have abruptly fallen over 20%. One need not look at the data. One need only look at the domestic technology industry. Taiwan's DRAM industry has already been sidelined globally. Industries on their last gasp still don't know what to do. In flat panel displays we still retain our global market share. But our technology lags behind. Financial losses have occurred. How can we bounce back and keep fighting? The LED and solar energy panel industries are in trouble. The PC and smart phone industries have also hit bottom.
When the economy was booming, it made no difference whether we were competitive or not. Businesses still made money. But when the economy and market conditions deteriorate, the first to fall are the less competitive businesses. This is typical capitalist elimination of the unfit. Unfortunately during the current global recession Taiwan's economic and industrial competitiveness has clearly declined.
During the Asian financial crisis, a domestic financial crisis, or the financial tsunami, the economy declined. But now no matter how competitive a business might be, it can still fail. At times like these, all that a government can do is address the emergency. It tries to save every industry, sound or unsound, in order to avoid affecting the situation overall. This includes industries having difficulty adapting, or facing a loss of capital, or whose markets have contracted.
At least this downturn does not mean across the board austerity and recession. Its causes are clearly related to industry and business competitiveness. The government must not rush to rescue troubled businesses. It should not adopt emergency measures and rush to inject capital. Instead it should allow businesses without a future to fail. It should allow sunset industries to fade away. The government's focus should be on how to strengthen the constitution of the economy and industry as a whole.
The government has stressed policies that facilitate FTAs and economic and trade liberalization. President Ma said "History teaches us that liberalization brings hope, but that protectionism brings atrophy." We agree. But we must also warn the government. So-called "liberalization" is not the low level "liberalization of goods and trade" of 20 years ago. It is the comprehensive liberalization of laws, capital, skilled labor, and government regulations. The fact is, society has consistently resisted such liberalization. The government often says one thing while doing another. Take overt and covert restrictions on the importation of foreign and Mainland labor. Take controls over corporate equity transactions and the buying and selling of "official discretion." Take restrictions on domestic business investments on the Mainland -- the way they are approved or rejected. These policies and practices stand in the way of liberalization. They persist in many industries. The government must review these first. It must liberalize far more than it has. Taiwan's economy and industry must be subjected to greater market discipline.
We warn the business community and the public. The government may sign an infinite number of FTAs. But they are not a panacea that will ensure exports. They invariably involve other costs. We must liberalize. If we do not, we will commit economic suicide. Businesses and the public must accept the challenges. They must increase their own competitiveness. We are currently in a recession. We cannot sit and wait for the dawn. We cannot hope that the economy will improve and that our problems will disappear. We must recognize the warning signs for Taiwan's competitiveness. Otherwise, when the global economy picks up again, others will be eating steak, and Taiwan will be eating table scraps.
因應當前經濟情勢 救窮優於救急
2012-08-20 01:03
中國時報
行政院主計總處上周公布最新經濟情勢，今年經濟成長率下修到一．六六％，此數字很可能在四小龍中敬陪末座；行政院也早已緊急動員，提出各項因應對策，希望讓台灣安度這次的景氣谷底。對這次的景氣低潮，期望政府能跳出過去的思維；雖然俗語是說「救急不救窮」，但對這次景氣低潮的成因，政府對策應該是「救窮優於救急」。
今年的經濟成長率，由最初樂觀的四％以上，逐季下修到今天的一．六六％，其最大因素當然是國際經濟急凍的大環境因素。歐債危機不止，讓歐盟經濟陷入衰退，今年經濟成長率為負成長○．三％。美國市場持續疲弱，經濟成長下修為二．一％。甚至持續二位數高成長的大陸，也減速慢行，經濟成長率跌破八％，預估今年只有七．七％。其餘四小龍的經濟成長也正修到二％上下。台灣的出口占ＧＤＰ的七成，國際景氣走緩，台灣也不可能一枝獨秀。
但如仔細看看各項經濟數據，台灣從原本期望的四小龍之首，變成今日的四小龍之尾，並不全然只有國際因素，台灣的競爭力下滑也是重要因素。台灣一到七月的出口衰退了五．八％，在四小龍中高居首位，其餘三小龍都還是正成長。其中台灣的資通訊產品─即一般所謂科技產品，更一口氣衰退了二成以上。即使不看數據，看看國內主要的科技產業，ＤＲＡＭ產業已在全球淘汰賽中出局，僅存一息的企業還不知如何善後；面板雖仍保有一定的全球市占率，但技術已落後，財務也虧損，如何再起仍在奮戰。ＬＥＤ與太陽能落入困境，ＰＣ與智慧型手機也陷入低潮。
如果以一般商家作比喻，景氣強強滾時，本來就是不論競爭力好壞高低，企業大都能賺錢，但景氣下滑、市況變差，首先倒下去的一定是競爭力較差的企業。這是典型資本主義淘汰賽。遺憾的是這波全球不景氣中，看得出台灣經濟、產業的整體競爭力，的確遜人一籌。
過去，在亞洲金融風暴、本土金融風暴或金融海嘯時，整體景氣急凍，這時不論競爭力好壞高低的企業，都有可能倒下。這種節骨眼，政府多半只能把全部心力放在救急上，對運轉有問題、面臨抽銀根、業務緊縮的企業，不分好壞的盡量拯救，以免牽一髮而動全身。
但這次的不景氣，至少不是全面性的緊縮與低潮，且其成因已明顯與產業、企業的競爭力有關，這時，政府對陷入困境的企業，不該急著又是紓困、又是挹注資金的救急措施，反而該考慮放手讓已無希望的企業倒閉、讓窮途末路的產業淡出，政府該著重者是如何調整經濟與產業的體質。
在各種總體政策中，政府不斷強調者是加速ＦＴＡ、強化經貿自由化；馬總統甚至說「自歷史經驗可知，開放帶來希望，閉鎖帶來萎縮」，我們非常同意這番話；但我們也要告訴政府，以台灣目前經貿的開放與自由化程度，所謂的「開放與自由化」，已不是廿年前的「貨品、貿易的開放與自由化」這麼「低階」的開放而已了，而是包括法令、資金、人才、政府管制等各方面的進一步開放。這方面，事實上社會一直有抗拒之心，政府也時常「說一套、作一套」。例如對外籍人才（包括大陸人士）來台的有形無形之限制；對企業股權交易、買賣的「自由心證式」的管制核准制；對國內企業赴大陸投資的限制審核，這些「反開放、反自由化」的行為與政策，事實上仍普遍存在各產業中，政府是該優先檢討這些領域，作更大幅度的開放，讓台灣經濟與產業接受更強的淬鍊。
此外，我們也要告訴企業界與社會大眾，政府即使能成就再多的ＦＴＡ，這也絕對不是出口的萬靈丹，更是要付出其他代價；只是，不走這條路更是死路一條。民間企業與民眾，都要有接受挑戰、提升自己競爭力的決心與作為。如果這次不景氣，大家還存著「等待黎明」、景氣好了就沒問題，未體認到台灣的競爭力警訊，未來當全球景氣回升時，可能是別人吃牛排，台灣也只能吃肉屑！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 20, 2012
Summary: We warn the business community and the public. We must liberalize. If we do not, we will commit economic suicide. We are currently in a recession. We cannot sit and wait for the dawn. We cannot hope that the economy will improve and that our problems will disappear. We must recognize the warning signs for Taiwan's competitiveness. Otherwise, when the global economy picks up again, others will be eating steak, and Taiwan will be eating table scraps.
Full Text below:
Last week the Executive Yuan Budget and Accounting Office issued its latest economic report. The economic growth rate this year has been revised downward to 1.66%. This figure is likely to put us in last place among the Four Asian Tigers. The Executive Yuan implemented emergency mobilization countermeasures long ago. We hope Taiwan can safely negotiate the economic downturn. We hope the government will forsake its outmode ways of thinking. An old expression says "one must address emergencies before addressing poverty." But the economic downturn suggests just the opposite. It suggests that the government should "address poverty before addressing emergencies."
This year's economic growth rate was set optimistically at over 4%. This quarter it has been downgraded to 1.66%. The main reason for this is the swiftly declining global economic environment. The European debt crisis persists. The EU economy has gone into recession. It economic growth rate this year is -0.3%. The U.S. market remains weak. Its economic growth rate has been revised downward to 2.1%. Even the Mainland's sustained double-digit growth has slowed. Its economic growth rate has fallen below 8%. Projections for this year have been lowered to a mere 7.7%. Economic growth for the rest of the Four Asian Tigers has been lowered to about 2%. Taiwan's exports accounted for 70% of its GDP. The international economy is slowing. Taiwan cannot remain unaffected.
Consider the economic data. Taiwan was originally first among the Four Asian Tigers. Today it is last. This is not due entirely to international factors. An important factor is Taiwan's declining competitiveness. Between January and July, Taiwan's exports shrank by 5.8%. This was the largest drop experienced by any of the Four Asian Tigers. The three other Asian Tigers are still experienceing positive growth. Exports of Taiwan's ICT products, so-called technology products, have abruptly fallen over 20%. One need not look at the data. One need only look at the domestic technology industry. Taiwan's DRAM industry has already been sidelined globally. Industries on their last gasp still don't know what to do. In flat panel displays we still retain our global market share. But our technology lags behind. Financial losses have occurred. How can we bounce back and keep fighting? The LED and solar energy panel industries are in trouble. The PC and smart phone industries have also hit bottom.
When the economy was booming, it made no difference whether we were competitive or not. Businesses still made money. But when the economy and market conditions deteriorate, the first to fall are the less competitive businesses. This is typical capitalist elimination of the unfit. Unfortunately during the current global recession Taiwan's economic and industrial competitiveness has clearly declined.
During the Asian financial crisis, a domestic financial crisis, or the financial tsunami, the economy declined. But now no matter how competitive a business might be, it can still fail. At times like these, all that a government can do is address the emergency. It tries to save every industry, sound or unsound, in order to avoid affecting the situation overall. This includes industries having difficulty adapting, or facing a loss of capital, or whose markets have contracted.
At least this downturn does not mean across the board austerity and recession. Its causes are clearly related to industry and business competitiveness. The government must not rush to rescue troubled businesses. It should not adopt emergency measures and rush to inject capital. Instead it should allow businesses without a future to fail. It should allow sunset industries to fade away. The government's focus should be on how to strengthen the constitution of the economy and industry as a whole.
The government has stressed policies that facilitate FTAs and economic and trade liberalization. President Ma said "History teaches us that liberalization brings hope, but that protectionism brings atrophy." We agree. But we must also warn the government. So-called "liberalization" is not the low level "liberalization of goods and trade" of 20 years ago. It is the comprehensive liberalization of laws, capital, skilled labor, and government regulations. The fact is, society has consistently resisted such liberalization. The government often says one thing while doing another. Take overt and covert restrictions on the importation of foreign and Mainland labor. Take controls over corporate equity transactions and the buying and selling of "official discretion." Take restrictions on domestic business investments on the Mainland -- the way they are approved or rejected. These policies and practices stand in the way of liberalization. They persist in many industries. The government must review these first. It must liberalize far more than it has. Taiwan's economy and industry must be subjected to greater market discipline.
We warn the business community and the public. The government may sign an infinite number of FTAs. But they are not a panacea that will ensure exports. They invariably involve other costs. We must liberalize. If we do not, we will commit economic suicide. Businesses and the public must accept the challenges. They must increase their own competitiveness. We are currently in a recession. We cannot sit and wait for the dawn. We cannot hope that the economy will improve and that our problems will disappear. We must recognize the warning signs for Taiwan's competitiveness. Otherwise, when the global economy picks up again, others will be eating steak, and Taiwan will be eating table scraps.
因應當前經濟情勢 救窮優於救急
2012-08-20 01:03
中國時報
行政院主計總處上周公布最新經濟情勢，今年經濟成長率下修到一．六六％，此數字很可能在四小龍中敬陪末座；行政院也早已緊急動員，提出各項因應對策，希望讓台灣安度這次的景氣谷底。對這次的景氣低潮，期望政府能跳出過去的思維；雖然俗語是說「救急不救窮」，但對這次景氣低潮的成因，政府對策應該是「救窮優於救急」。
今年的經濟成長率，由最初樂觀的四％以上，逐季下修到今天的一．六六％，其最大因素當然是國際經濟急凍的大環境因素。歐債危機不止，讓歐盟經濟陷入衰退，今年經濟成長率為負成長○．三％。美國市場持續疲弱，經濟成長下修為二．一％。甚至持續二位數高成長的大陸，也減速慢行，經濟成長率跌破八％，預估今年只有七．七％。其餘四小龍的經濟成長也正修到二％上下。台灣的出口占ＧＤＰ的七成，國際景氣走緩，台灣也不可能一枝獨秀。
但如仔細看看各項經濟數據，台灣從原本期望的四小龍之首，變成今日的四小龍之尾，並不全然只有國際因素，台灣的競爭力下滑也是重要因素。台灣一到七月的出口衰退了五．八％，在四小龍中高居首位，其餘三小龍都還是正成長。其中台灣的資通訊產品─即一般所謂科技產品，更一口氣衰退了二成以上。即使不看數據，看看國內主要的科技產業，ＤＲＡＭ產業已在全球淘汰賽中出局，僅存一息的企業還不知如何善後；面板雖仍保有一定的全球市占率，但技術已落後，財務也虧損，如何再起仍在奮戰。ＬＥＤ與太陽能落入困境，ＰＣ與智慧型手機也陷入低潮。
如果以一般商家作比喻，景氣強強滾時，本來就是不論競爭力好壞高低，企業大都能賺錢，但景氣下滑、市況變差，首先倒下去的一定是競爭力較差的企業。這是典型資本主義淘汰賽。遺憾的是這波全球不景氣中，看得出台灣經濟、產業的整體競爭力，的確遜人一籌。
過去，在亞洲金融風暴、本土金融風暴或金融海嘯時，整體景氣急凍，這時不論競爭力好壞高低的企業，都有可能倒下。這種節骨眼，政府多半只能把全部心力放在救急上，對運轉有問題、面臨抽銀根、業務緊縮的企業，不分好壞的盡量拯救，以免牽一髮而動全身。
但這次的不景氣，至少不是全面性的緊縮與低潮，且其成因已明顯與產業、企業的競爭力有關，這時，政府對陷入困境的企業，不該急著又是紓困、又是挹注資金的救急措施，反而該考慮放手讓已無希望的企業倒閉、讓窮途末路的產業淡出，政府該著重者是如何調整經濟與產業的體質。
在各種總體政策中，政府不斷強調者是加速ＦＴＡ、強化經貿自由化；馬總統甚至說「自歷史經驗可知，開放帶來希望，閉鎖帶來萎縮」，我們非常同意這番話；但我們也要告訴政府，以台灣目前經貿的開放與自由化程度，所謂的「開放與自由化」，已不是廿年前的「貨品、貿易的開放與自由化」這麼「低階」的開放而已了，而是包括法令、資金、人才、政府管制等各方面的進一步開放。這方面，事實上社會一直有抗拒之心，政府也時常「說一套、作一套」。例如對外籍人才（包括大陸人士）來台的有形無形之限制；對企業股權交易、買賣的「自由心證式」的管制核准制；對國內企業赴大陸投資的限制審核，這些「反開放、反自由化」的行為與政策，事實上仍普遍存在各產業中，政府是該優先檢討這些領域，作更大幅度的開放，讓台灣經濟與產業接受更強的淬鍊。
此外，我們也要告訴企業界與社會大眾，政府即使能成就再多的ＦＴＡ，這也絕對不是出口的萬靈丹，更是要付出其他代價；只是，不走這條路更是死路一條。民間企業與民眾，都要有接受挑戰、提升自己競爭力的決心與作為。如果這次不景氣，大家還存著「等待黎明」、景氣好了就沒問題，未體認到台灣的競爭力警訊，未來當全球景氣回升時，可能是別人吃牛排，台灣也只能吃肉屑！
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Imperial Rescript on Surrender Echoes in Our Ears, August 18th Rolls Around Every Year
The Imperial Rescript on Surrender Echoes in Our Ears, August 18th Rolls Around Every Year
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2012
Summary: Recently Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists based in Hong Kong boarded the Kai Feng II. They successfully landed on the Diaoyutai Islands on August 15 at 4 pm. This action was of critical significance. It ensured that the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands would remain contested. Japan's ruling and opposition parties have incited populist sentiment in an effort to assert sovereignty over the islands. This action ensures that their efforts will not succeed.
Full Text below:
Recently Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists based in Hong Kong boarded the Kai Feng II. They successfully landed on the Diaoyutai Islands on August 15 at 4 pm. This action was of critical significance. It ensured that the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands would remain contested. Japan's ruling and opposition parties have incited populist sentiment in an effort to assert sovereignty over the islands. This action ensures that their efforts will not succeed.
This is the first successful landing on the Diaoyutai Islands since 2004. This landing has six symbolic and substantive implications.
One. The August 15th landing was made on the 67th anniversary of Japan's defeat in WWII. Two. This particular landing was directed primarily by private sector groups from Hong Kong. Three. The flags of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China were simultaneously carried onto the Diaoyutai Islands. Four. This represents the greatest consensus the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan have ever achieved regarding the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. Five. Japan "allowed" the Kai Feng II crew to land on the islands. It was assumed that Japan would dispatch Self-Defense Forces to stop them. But Japan held back and refrained from doing so. Six. This particular Diaoyutai Islands incident took place not long after Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev set foot on Kunashir Island and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak set foot on Dokdo, and Japan found itself beseiged on all sides.
First consider the actions of the Hong Kong Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement. Taipei and Beijing both prevented local citizens from taking part in the landing. Their shared attitude was that "creating disturbances and defending a nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty are two different things." But private groups from Hong Kong gave provided both the Mainland and Taiwan with leverage. Beijing sternly warned Japan not to endanger the lives and property of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists. Taipei supplied the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement boat with humanitarian supplies. As a result, the private sector Hong Kong group acted as a spokesman for the ruling and opposition parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Taipei and Beijing used "protecting the lives and property of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists" as a pretext to reaffirm sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands.
The Kai Feng II carried both the red, white, and blue flag of the ROC and the five-star flag of the PRC onto the Diaoyutai Islands. The two sides' flags landed on the Diaoyutai Islands simultaneously. This offered the public a startling image. The Diaoyutai Islands territorial dispute is certain to bring the two sides closer together, both psychologically and substantively. The United States and Japan are not happy to see this. The Ma administration tried to distance itself from the action. Taiwan independence elements were especially opposed to the joint affirmation of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Nevertheless the Hong Kong Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement carried the two sides' flags onto the island. This shows that Taiwan and the Mainland remain inextricably linked by the Diaoyutai Islands issue. This shows that in certain contexts, such as in Hong Kong, the ROC and PRC flags can coexist, side by side, in the hearts of the Chinese people. That is why during certain domestic Hong Kong political demonstrations, one often sees the red, white, and blue ROC flag. The two flags simultaneously landing on the Diaoyutai Islands made for a startling image. It reflected the feelings of the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. These feelings are not confined to the Diaoyutai Islands dispute.
This is the greatest consensus the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan have ever achieved regarding the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. In reference to the Diaoyutai Islands issue, the Ma administration said "we cannot yield even an inch of territory." This is a matter of course. Lee Teng-hui and his ilk have frequently asserted that "The Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan." This time they were silent. DPP Ilan County Magistrate Lin Kung-hsien said, "Since time immemorial the Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory." He did not say that, "Since time immemorial, the Diaoyutai Islands have been the territory of the Nation of Taiwan." He personally boarded a boat and took to the sea to issue a "declaration of sovereignty." DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang loudly proclaimed that, "The Diaoyutai Islands belong to us, we will never give them up." Several days earlier he mocked the Ma administration for "using government ships to protect the five-star flag." In effect, Su Tseng-chang implied that the DPP supported the use of government ships to escort the ROC national flag to the Diaoyutai Islands. Political leaders on Taiwan have expressed sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands in one of two ways. They have either said that the islands belong to the "Nation of Taiwan," or that they belong to the Republic of China. The current Diaoyutai Islands incident has clearly led to a tectonic shift in Taiwan's political plates.
The Kai Feng II crew encountered little resistance to its landing. Past attempts often resulted in ship collisions and physical injuries. This time the Japanese were clearly pulling their punches. If Japan wants to prevent people from landing on the island, it must precipitate ship collisions and cause physical injuries. If Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists want to land on the islands, their boats must be damaged and their people must be injuried. This time the Japanese allowed the landing, then arrested the activists. The Japanese clearly felt compelled to exercise political restraint. Beijing repeatedly issued advance warnings. If the Japanese dispatched Self-Defense Forces, i.e., troops, it would inevitably lead to "warship vs. warship" confrontations. As a result the Japanese heeded this "sound advice." The Japanese Coast Guard handled the matter in a low-keyed manner. This was a case of not pushing one's luck.
As this newspaper's editorial on the 14th pointed out, Japan is simultaneously in conflict with three of its neighbors. On July 3, Dimitry Medvedev set foot on Kunashir Island. On August 10, Lee Myung-bak set foot on Dokdo. On August 15, Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists set foot on the Diaoyutai Islands. Russia, South Korea, and China have all suffered grievously at the hands of Japan. During the Russo-Japanese War, Russia and Japan clashed over interests in China. Korea suffered under Japanese colonialism. China, in particular, has deep and long lasting grievances. The disputes over the sovereignty of these three islands represent a long history of grievances. This is why the parties involved must proceed cautiously. In particular, Japan should "know when to hold, and know when to fold." It should not allow itself to be beseiged on all sides and become the object of universal scorn.
The day the Kai Feng II landed on the Diaoyutai Islands was the 67th anniversary of Japan's defeat in WWII. At 12:00 on August 15th, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito read out loud his Imperial Rescript on Surrender. He offered his unconditional surrender and ended the war. He said, "it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandisement." He said, "Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion which may endanger needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife which may create confusion, lead ye astray and cause ye to lose the confidence of the world." This was 67 years ago. Japan was in the grip of Japanese militarism. Ironically, this remains the state of populist politics in Japan 67 years later.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda spoke at the August 18th service commemorating the end of WWII. He said, "Japan will adhere to its oath not to wage war. It will continue to pursue world peace " But if Japan wants to assert sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands and continue its occupation, how can it do so without waging war? Noda spoke of his opposition to war. But the world is not just listening to what he says. It is also watching what he does.
The Diaoyutai Islands dispute has no short term solution. For the time being, one can only maintain the status quo, under which its sovereignty remains contested. One can only await a future solution. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao have already exercised a high degree of restraint. They have already made many concessions. Japan must not be insatiable. It must not leave Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao no alternative. Japan's extreme right-wingers, such as Shintaro Ishihara, may want the Diaoyutai Islands to become part of the Yasukuni Shrine. But the Japanese government as a whole must not allow itself to be led around by the nose. Emperor Hirohito's Imperial Rescript on Surrender still echoes in our ears. August 15th still rolls around once each year.
天皇玉音繞樑未去，年年都有八月十五日
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.17 02:24 am
香港保釣船「啟豐二號」船員，於八月十五日下午四時許，成功登上釣魚台列嶼；此一關鍵性的行動，使釣魚台問題得以再次穩固維持其「爭議的現狀」，亦即使日本朝野這一波炒作釣島主權的民粹動作不能得逞。
這是二○○四年以後，保釣人士首次登島成功，可以歸納出具有象徵或實質意義的六大特色：
一、當天八月十五日為日本戰敗六十七周年紀念日；二、此次登島行動以香港的民間團隊為主體；三、中華民國國旗與中華人民共和國國旗同時登上釣魚台；四、這也是台灣內部藍綠陣營立場最一致的一次保釣事件；五、日本方面「縱放」啟豐二號人員登島，且未如原傳將出動自衛隊，已見克制；六、這次保釣事件的國際大背景是，俄國總理麥維德夫登國後島，及韓國總統李明博登獨島，日本實陷四面楚歌之境。
先談香港保釣人士主導此次行動。此次保釣行動，台北及北京雙方皆阻禁其本土人民參與，共同的態度是「製造事端和堅持領土主權是兩回事」；但是，香港民間團隊在大陸與台灣之間覓得了槓桿角色，北京方面厲聲警告日本不得危害保釣人士生命財產，台北則為保釣船提供人道補給。如此一來，形同香港民間代表兩岸朝野表達了立場，而台北及北京則藉「維護保釣人士生命財產」來操作釣島的主權爭議。
啟豐二號將青天白日滿地紅旗及五星旗攜上釣島，「兩面國旗／同登釣島」，這是一個震撼的畫面。面對釣魚台領土爭議，必定會使兩岸出現心理及實際的聯結；只是美、日不願見此，馬政府也在口頭上作出切割，獨派尤其反對兩岸主權概念因釣島而趨近。但是，香港保釣人士攜著「兩面國旗」登島，這不僅表示兩岸皆不可能從釣島問題相互脫勾，更顯示在「中國的」某一領域中，如香港，「兩面國旗」在人民心中是可以共存並立的，因而在香港的內政遊行中亦常見青天白日滿地紅旗。「兩面國旗／同登釣島」的震撼場景，其實反映了比釣魚台更高更大的兩岸思維與民間情懷。
這也是台灣內部藍綠立場最一致的一次保釣事件。馬政府說，釣島領土「一寸也不能讓」，這是理所當然。此時，李登輝之流所謂「釣魚台是日本的」之言論已不復聞，而民進黨籍的宜蘭縣長林聰賢則說，「自古釣魚台就是中國的領土」，卻未說「自古釣魚台就是台灣國的領土」，並親自乘船出海「宣示主權」。民進黨主席蘇貞昌更大聲說出，「釣魚台是我們的，我們從不放棄」，並譏諷馬政府於日前「用公務船去保護一支五星旗」；蘇貞昌的意思好像是在說，民進黨會支持用公務船去保護在釣島出現的青天白日滿地紅國旗。其實，釣魚台的主權立場，一直是「台灣國」與「中華民國」的重大分野；而此次釣島事件顯然已牽動了台灣內部的政治板塊移動。
尤其令人玩味的是，啟豐二號人員居然能夠「順利」登島；相較於過去屢見撞船傷人的慘烈場景，顯然這次日方是在操作技術性的「放水」。事實是，如果日方堅決不容登島，必須撞船傷人；而保釣人士必欲登島，就一定要付出船毀人傷的代價。但日本縱放登島後再予逮捕，其間的政治克制已是有目共睹。尤其，北京事前一再警告，若日方動用自衛隊（軍隊），必將引發「以艦對艦」的後果；因而，日本也「從善如流」，仍以海上保安廳「柔性」處置，這也是「適可而止」。
如本報十四日社論指出，日本此時，密集面對七月三日麥維德夫登國後島，八月十日李明博登獨島，及八月十五日香港保釣人士登釣島；而俄、韓、中三國皆在歷史上吃過日本的大苦頭，日俄是在爭奪中國權益，韓國則受盡殖民污辱，中國尤是血海深仇。因此，如今這三個島嶼主權的爭議，其實皆牽著一條苦大仇深的歷史臍帶；這是相關各方皆須謹慎處理的理由，尤其日本要知所進退，勿在四面楚歌中成為眾矢之的。
尤其，啟豐二號登上釣島之日，正是日本戰敗六十七周年紀念日。一九四五年，八月十五日中午十二時，日本裕仁天皇以「玉音放送」宣讀無條件投降的「終戰詔書」，略謂：「毀別國之宗社，奪他國之領土，悉非朕之本意。」又稱：「若夫為情所激、妄滋事端，或同胞相煎、擾亂時局，因而迷誤於大道、失信義於天下，此朕所深戒。」這是六十七年前的軍國主義日本，但豈不也是六十七年後的民粹政治日本？
野田佳彥首相在八一五終戰紀念追悼會上說，「日本將堅守不發動戰爭的誓言，不斷追求實現世界和平」；但是，關於釣島主權，日本若不面對戰爭，豈有可能據為己有？對於野田的非戰論，世人皆在聽其言，觀其行。
釣魚台問題暫無終極解決之方，目前能做的是繼續維持其「爭議的現狀」，徐圖未來。其實，這對中台港澳而言，已是高度的克制與退讓；日本不可得寸進尺，逼使中台港澳無可選擇。日本極右派如石原慎太郎，或許想為釣魚台入祀靖國神社，但整個日本朝野不可受其玩弄。天皇玉音繞樑未去，年年都有八月十五日。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2012
Summary: Recently Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists based in Hong Kong boarded the Kai Feng II. They successfully landed on the Diaoyutai Islands on August 15 at 4 pm. This action was of critical significance. It ensured that the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands would remain contested. Japan's ruling and opposition parties have incited populist sentiment in an effort to assert sovereignty over the islands. This action ensures that their efforts will not succeed.
Full Text below:
Recently Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists based in Hong Kong boarded the Kai Feng II. They successfully landed on the Diaoyutai Islands on August 15 at 4 pm. This action was of critical significance. It ensured that the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands would remain contested. Japan's ruling and opposition parties have incited populist sentiment in an effort to assert sovereignty over the islands. This action ensures that their efforts will not succeed.
This is the first successful landing on the Diaoyutai Islands since 2004. This landing has six symbolic and substantive implications.
One. The August 15th landing was made on the 67th anniversary of Japan's defeat in WWII. Two. This particular landing was directed primarily by private sector groups from Hong Kong. Three. The flags of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China were simultaneously carried onto the Diaoyutai Islands. Four. This represents the greatest consensus the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan have ever achieved regarding the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. Five. Japan "allowed" the Kai Feng II crew to land on the islands. It was assumed that Japan would dispatch Self-Defense Forces to stop them. But Japan held back and refrained from doing so. Six. This particular Diaoyutai Islands incident took place not long after Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev set foot on Kunashir Island and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak set foot on Dokdo, and Japan found itself beseiged on all sides.
First consider the actions of the Hong Kong Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement. Taipei and Beijing both prevented local citizens from taking part in the landing. Their shared attitude was that "creating disturbances and defending a nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty are two different things." But private groups from Hong Kong gave provided both the Mainland and Taiwan with leverage. Beijing sternly warned Japan not to endanger the lives and property of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists. Taipei supplied the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement boat with humanitarian supplies. As a result, the private sector Hong Kong group acted as a spokesman for the ruling and opposition parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Taipei and Beijing used "protecting the lives and property of the Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists" as a pretext to reaffirm sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands.
The Kai Feng II carried both the red, white, and blue flag of the ROC and the five-star flag of the PRC onto the Diaoyutai Islands. The two sides' flags landed on the Diaoyutai Islands simultaneously. This offered the public a startling image. The Diaoyutai Islands territorial dispute is certain to bring the two sides closer together, both psychologically and substantively. The United States and Japan are not happy to see this. The Ma administration tried to distance itself from the action. Taiwan independence elements were especially opposed to the joint affirmation of sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Nevertheless the Hong Kong Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement carried the two sides' flags onto the island. This shows that Taiwan and the Mainland remain inextricably linked by the Diaoyutai Islands issue. This shows that in certain contexts, such as in Hong Kong, the ROC and PRC flags can coexist, side by side, in the hearts of the Chinese people. That is why during certain domestic Hong Kong political demonstrations, one often sees the red, white, and blue ROC flag. The two flags simultaneously landing on the Diaoyutai Islands made for a startling image. It reflected the feelings of the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. These feelings are not confined to the Diaoyutai Islands dispute.
This is the greatest consensus the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan have ever achieved regarding the defense of the Diaoyutai Islands. In reference to the Diaoyutai Islands issue, the Ma administration said "we cannot yield even an inch of territory." This is a matter of course. Lee Teng-hui and his ilk have frequently asserted that "The Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan." This time they were silent. DPP Ilan County Magistrate Lin Kung-hsien said, "Since time immemorial the Diaoyutai Islands have been Chinese territory." He did not say that, "Since time immemorial, the Diaoyutai Islands have been the territory of the Nation of Taiwan." He personally boarded a boat and took to the sea to issue a "declaration of sovereignty." DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang loudly proclaimed that, "The Diaoyutai Islands belong to us, we will never give them up." Several days earlier he mocked the Ma administration for "using government ships to protect the five-star flag." In effect, Su Tseng-chang implied that the DPP supported the use of government ships to escort the ROC national flag to the Diaoyutai Islands. Political leaders on Taiwan have expressed sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands in one of two ways. They have either said that the islands belong to the "Nation of Taiwan," or that they belong to the Republic of China. The current Diaoyutai Islands incident has clearly led to a tectonic shift in Taiwan's political plates.
The Kai Feng II crew encountered little resistance to its landing. Past attempts often resulted in ship collisions and physical injuries. This time the Japanese were clearly pulling their punches. If Japan wants to prevent people from landing on the island, it must precipitate ship collisions and cause physical injuries. If Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists want to land on the islands, their boats must be damaged and their people must be injuried. This time the Japanese allowed the landing, then arrested the activists. The Japanese clearly felt compelled to exercise political restraint. Beijing repeatedly issued advance warnings. If the Japanese dispatched Self-Defense Forces, i.e., troops, it would inevitably lead to "warship vs. warship" confrontations. As a result the Japanese heeded this "sound advice." The Japanese Coast Guard handled the matter in a low-keyed manner. This was a case of not pushing one's luck.
As this newspaper's editorial on the 14th pointed out, Japan is simultaneously in conflict with three of its neighbors. On July 3, Dimitry Medvedev set foot on Kunashir Island. On August 10, Lee Myung-bak set foot on Dokdo. On August 15, Diaoyutai Islands Defense Movement activists set foot on the Diaoyutai Islands. Russia, South Korea, and China have all suffered grievously at the hands of Japan. During the Russo-Japanese War, Russia and Japan clashed over interests in China. Korea suffered under Japanese colonialism. China, in particular, has deep and long lasting grievances. The disputes over the sovereignty of these three islands represent a long history of grievances. This is why the parties involved must proceed cautiously. In particular, Japan should "know when to hold, and know when to fold." It should not allow itself to be beseiged on all sides and become the object of universal scorn.
The day the Kai Feng II landed on the Diaoyutai Islands was the 67th anniversary of Japan's defeat in WWII. At 12:00 on August 15th, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito read out loud his Imperial Rescript on Surrender. He offered his unconditional surrender and ended the war. He said, "it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandisement." He said, "Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion which may endanger needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife which may create confusion, lead ye astray and cause ye to lose the confidence of the world." This was 67 years ago. Japan was in the grip of Japanese militarism. Ironically, this remains the state of populist politics in Japan 67 years later.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda spoke at the August 18th service commemorating the end of WWII. He said, "Japan will adhere to its oath not to wage war. It will continue to pursue world peace " But if Japan wants to assert sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands and continue its occupation, how can it do so without waging war? Noda spoke of his opposition to war. But the world is not just listening to what he says. It is also watching what he does.
The Diaoyutai Islands dispute has no short term solution. For the time being, one can only maintain the status quo, under which its sovereignty remains contested. One can only await a future solution. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao have already exercised a high degree of restraint. They have already made many concessions. Japan must not be insatiable. It must not leave Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao no alternative. Japan's extreme right-wingers, such as Shintaro Ishihara, may want the Diaoyutai Islands to become part of the Yasukuni Shrine. But the Japanese government as a whole must not allow itself to be led around by the nose. Emperor Hirohito's Imperial Rescript on Surrender still echoes in our ears. August 15th still rolls around once each year.
天皇玉音繞樑未去，年年都有八月十五日
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.17 02:24 am
香港保釣船「啟豐二號」船員，於八月十五日下午四時許，成功登上釣魚台列嶼；此一關鍵性的行動，使釣魚台問題得以再次穩固維持其「爭議的現狀」，亦即使日本朝野這一波炒作釣島主權的民粹動作不能得逞。
這是二○○四年以後，保釣人士首次登島成功，可以歸納出具有象徵或實質意義的六大特色：
一、當天八月十五日為日本戰敗六十七周年紀念日；二、此次登島行動以香港的民間團隊為主體；三、中華民國國旗與中華人民共和國國旗同時登上釣魚台；四、這也是台灣內部藍綠陣營立場最一致的一次保釣事件；五、日本方面「縱放」啟豐二號人員登島，且未如原傳將出動自衛隊，已見克制；六、這次保釣事件的國際大背景是，俄國總理麥維德夫登國後島，及韓國總統李明博登獨島，日本實陷四面楚歌之境。
先談香港保釣人士主導此次行動。此次保釣行動，台北及北京雙方皆阻禁其本土人民參與，共同的態度是「製造事端和堅持領土主權是兩回事」；但是，香港民間團隊在大陸與台灣之間覓得了槓桿角色，北京方面厲聲警告日本不得危害保釣人士生命財產，台北則為保釣船提供人道補給。如此一來，形同香港民間代表兩岸朝野表達了立場，而台北及北京則藉「維護保釣人士生命財產」來操作釣島的主權爭議。
啟豐二號將青天白日滿地紅旗及五星旗攜上釣島，「兩面國旗／同登釣島」，這是一個震撼的畫面。面對釣魚台領土爭議，必定會使兩岸出現心理及實際的聯結；只是美、日不願見此，馬政府也在口頭上作出切割，獨派尤其反對兩岸主權概念因釣島而趨近。但是，香港保釣人士攜著「兩面國旗」登島，這不僅表示兩岸皆不可能從釣島問題相互脫勾，更顯示在「中國的」某一領域中，如香港，「兩面國旗」在人民心中是可以共存並立的，因而在香港的內政遊行中亦常見青天白日滿地紅旗。「兩面國旗／同登釣島」的震撼場景，其實反映了比釣魚台更高更大的兩岸思維與民間情懷。
這也是台灣內部藍綠立場最一致的一次保釣事件。馬政府說，釣島領土「一寸也不能讓」，這是理所當然。此時，李登輝之流所謂「釣魚台是日本的」之言論已不復聞，而民進黨籍的宜蘭縣長林聰賢則說，「自古釣魚台就是中國的領土」，卻未說「自古釣魚台就是台灣國的領土」，並親自乘船出海「宣示主權」。民進黨主席蘇貞昌更大聲說出，「釣魚台是我們的，我們從不放棄」，並譏諷馬政府於日前「用公務船去保護一支五星旗」；蘇貞昌的意思好像是在說，民進黨會支持用公務船去保護在釣島出現的青天白日滿地紅國旗。其實，釣魚台的主權立場，一直是「台灣國」與「中華民國」的重大分野；而此次釣島事件顯然已牽動了台灣內部的政治板塊移動。
尤其令人玩味的是，啟豐二號人員居然能夠「順利」登島；相較於過去屢見撞船傷人的慘烈場景，顯然這次日方是在操作技術性的「放水」。事實是，如果日方堅決不容登島，必須撞船傷人；而保釣人士必欲登島，就一定要付出船毀人傷的代價。但日本縱放登島後再予逮捕，其間的政治克制已是有目共睹。尤其，北京事前一再警告，若日方動用自衛隊（軍隊），必將引發「以艦對艦」的後果；因而，日本也「從善如流」，仍以海上保安廳「柔性」處置，這也是「適可而止」。
如本報十四日社論指出，日本此時，密集面對七月三日麥維德夫登國後島，八月十日李明博登獨島，及八月十五日香港保釣人士登釣島；而俄、韓、中三國皆在歷史上吃過日本的大苦頭，日俄是在爭奪中國權益，韓國則受盡殖民污辱，中國尤是血海深仇。因此，如今這三個島嶼主權的爭議，其實皆牽著一條苦大仇深的歷史臍帶；這是相關各方皆須謹慎處理的理由，尤其日本要知所進退，勿在四面楚歌中成為眾矢之的。
尤其，啟豐二號登上釣島之日，正是日本戰敗六十七周年紀念日。一九四五年，八月十五日中午十二時，日本裕仁天皇以「玉音放送」宣讀無條件投降的「終戰詔書」，略謂：「毀別國之宗社，奪他國之領土，悉非朕之本意。」又稱：「若夫為情所激、妄滋事端，或同胞相煎、擾亂時局，因而迷誤於大道、失信義於天下，此朕所深戒。」這是六十七年前的軍國主義日本，但豈不也是六十七年後的民粹政治日本？
野田佳彥首相在八一五終戰紀念追悼會上說，「日本將堅守不發動戰爭的誓言，不斷追求實現世界和平」；但是，關於釣島主權，日本若不面對戰爭，豈有可能據為己有？對於野田的非戰論，世人皆在聽其言，觀其行。
釣魚台問題暫無終極解決之方，目前能做的是繼續維持其「爭議的現狀」，徐圖未來。其實，這對中台港澳而言，已是高度的克制與退讓；日本不可得寸進尺，逼使中台港澳無可選擇。日本極右派如石原慎太郎，或許想為釣魚台入祀靖國神社，但整個日本朝野不可受其玩弄。天皇玉音繞樑未去，年年都有八月十五日。
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
DPP Still Not Ready for Pragmatic Cross-Strait Exchanges
DPP Still Not Ready for Pragmatic Cross-Strait Exchanges
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 16, 2012
Summary: Democratic Progressive Party Su faction legislator Wu Ping-jui recently proposed an amendment making students from the Mainland eligible for National Health Insurance (NHI) coverage. Alas, this provoked a intense backlash within the DPP. Less than three days later, his proposal was withdrawn. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang came forward and called a halt to the proceedings. Wu Ping-jui was forced to offer a public apology for his "reckless behavior." The controversy over NHI coverage amounted to a trial balloon, in reverse. It enabled everyone to see that the DPP, for all its lip service, is simply not ready to adopt a pragmatic approach to cross-Strait policy.
Full Text below:
Democratic Progressive Party Su faction legislator Wu Ping-jui recently proposed an amendment making students from the Mainland eligible for National Health Insurance (NHI) coverage. Alas, this provoked a intense backlash within the DPP. Less than three days later, his proposal was withdrawn. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang came forward and called a halt to the proceedings. Wu Ping-jui was forced to offer a public apology for his "reckless behavior." The controversy over NHI coverage amounted to a trial balloon, in reverse. It enabled everyone to see that the DPP, for all its lip service, is simply not ready to adopt a pragmatic approach to cross-Strait policy.
Since DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang came to power, the DPP has shown signs of wanting better cross-Strait relations. First, Chairman Su Tseng-chang restored the China Affairs Office. Trusted Tsai Ing-wen aide Lo Chih-Cheng visited the Mainland early this year. Key DPP aide Hsiao Bi-khim visited Shanghai in her capacity as a Director of the Foundation for Democracy. She participated in a seminar organized by the Shanghai East Asian Institute.
Hsiao Bi-khim was called into service separately, first by Tsai Ing-wen, then by Su Tseng-chang. This indicates the direction the DPP is headed. Hsiao Bi-khim visited the Mainland. Nominally she was participating in a seminar. In fact she was engaging in exchanges. Hsiao Bi-khim said the CCP did not understand the DPP. Mainland scholars say the CCP must understand the DPP. The DPP and CCP lack trust and understanding. But the DPP does not reject efforts to promote mutual understanding.
To be sure, exchanges between the DPP and the Mainland are better than no exchanges. Strengthening communications is the first step toward defusing hostilities. But talking about exchanges without a pragmatic cross-Strait policy merely reveals the ugly truth. It merely highlights the DPP's close-minded attitude of hatred for Mainland China. The attempt to make students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage is a perfect example.
Wu Ping-jui's proposal provoked a strong backlash. DPP leaders objected to "taking taxes to protect the human rights of [Mainland] Chinese." They said "The health insurance program is already in debt, yet we are proposing to provide services to them?" NHI has long been a sensitive issue on Taiwan. Such reactions are not surprising. What is truly incredible is that in the face of such challenges, the DPP has no argument to offer. All it can do is change its tune.
In fact, students from foreign countries must pay to be included in the NHI program. Students from the Mainland would have to do the same. Also, the seriously ill and senior citizens account for the lion's share of health care expenditures. Students from the Mainland are mostly younger folk. Common sense tells us they would make little use of health insurance. Therefore merely in terms of who pays and who benefits, making students from the Mainland eligible would have little effect on the NHI system. This would be the real world result of making students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage.
Wu Ping-jui proposed making students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage out of concern for human rights. After all, students from foreign countries can pay for and receive NHI coverage. But students from the Mainland cannot. This is discrimination. This is a violation of human rights. When the DPP treats students from the Mainland worse than it treats students from foreign countries, how can it avoid the suspicion that it harbors a deep-seated hatred of everything Chinese?
Over the past two months, the DPP has been laying the groundwork for reconciliation with the Mainland. But the moment it encountered a substantive policy issue, its real feelings emerged. The DPP still does not understand. In the past, they could get away with pro forma lip service. The authorities on the Mainland and voters on Taiwan were still giving them the benefit of the doubt. But ten years have elapsed. The DPP's populist demagoguery has totally destroyed the last vestiges of trust people had in the party. After the Ma administration took office, the two sides engaged in substantive exchanges, including direct links, ECFA, and investment protection agreements. These were brass tacks policy negotiations. Every policy impacted real world interests. These developments leave the DPP no room for obfuscation. Health insurance coverage for students from the Mainland is a minor concession. The DPP cannot even tolerate that. So how can anyone trust them to deal with major cross-Strait issues?
In fact, everyone was looking forward to the DPP's newfound pragmatism. For the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan to converge on cross-Strait policy would defuse political opposition on Taiwan. It would reduce political friction. The people would benefit.
The DPP is actively attempting to establish a consensus with the Mainland. But a major obstacle remains, a lack of consensus within the DPP. Party leaders avoid cross-Strait policy discussions. As a result the Deep Green mentality of unrelenting hatred for Mainland China becomes the mainstream view within the party. Therefore, the DPP leadership is only willing to engage in ambiguous exchanges. The moment they encounter a Deep Green backlash, they immediately raise the white flag. This sort of flip-flopping merely underscores the discrepancy between DPP words and deeds. It is hardly enough to establish mutual trust with the Mainland.
The controversy over health insurance coverage for students from the Mainland may turn out to be a good thing for the DPP. Letting the cat out of the bag now is better than letting it out three years from now, after the presidential election. This at least allows DPP leaders to stop and ask themselves what they really want. Do you really want a pragmatic cross-Strait policy? If so, what's the problem? The pressure is on. The DPP must formulate a coherent cross-Strait policy. It must establish an intraparty consensus. Only then will it have a basis for communication with the Mainland. Otherwise no matter how many cross-Strait exchanges it engages in, they will all be for naught.
兩岸務實交流？民進黨還沒準備好
2012-08-16
中國時報
民進黨蘇系立委吳秉叡日前有意提案修法，讓陸生納入健保，卻引發民進黨強烈反彈，不到三天就破功，黨主席蘇貞昌出面喊卡，吳秉叡更為自己的魯莽公開道歉。這一次納保風波果然成了反向的風向球，讓大家看到，口口聲聲要在兩岸政策採取務實作法的民進黨，根本還沒準備好。
民進黨黨主席蘇貞昌上台以來，民進黨與對岸關係，有融冰跡象，先是黨主席蘇貞昌恢復中國事務部；另外，繼蔡英文親信幕僚羅致政年初赴陸交流之後，另一位民進黨核心幕僚蕭美琴，也以民主基金會董事身分赴上海，參加上海東亞研究所舉辦的研討會。
蕭美琴分別受到蔡英文、蘇貞昌重用，更能精確掌握民進黨走向，因此，蕭美琴赴陸，名為參加研討會，但實際上絕對有交流溝通的意涵。即使蕭美琴都不諱言，中共太不了解民進黨，對岸學者也認為有必要多了解民進黨，因此民共之間雖然缺乏互信及了解，但有相互了解的意願，民進黨不會排斥。
確實，以當前民進黨與對岸隔閡的情況，交流一定比不交流好，加強溝通是化解敵意的第一步，但是若只空談交流，背後卻沒有一套務實的兩岸政策支撐，就會馬上露餡，反而凸顯民進黨仇中的封閉心態，這次的陸生納入健保就是絕佳的例子。
吳秉叡的主張引發強烈反彈，有人說，「拿台灣稅收去保障中國人權」、「健保預算都負債了還去供應他們」；坦白說，健保在台灣本來就是敏感議題，這些反應並不令人意外，真正不可思議的是，面對質疑，民進黨居然毫無辯護能力，只能立即改弦更張。
事實上，外籍生目前必須繳費才能納保，陸生納保當然也該比照，其次，使用台灣健保支出比重最多者，都屬重大疾病或老年人口，陸生多屬年輕族群，依常理，使用健保的比例偏低；因此，就利害的角度而言，陸生納保，對健保財政影響不大，這是陸生納保的實質政策面向。
再則，吳秉叡之所以提議將陸生納入健保，完全是著眼於人權；畢竟，如果外籍生可以繳健保費納保，陸生卻不能比照，就有歧視、違反人權之虞；而當陸生的待遇甚至都不如外籍生時，民進黨又何能迴避「仇中」的質疑？
民進黨這兩個月來鋪陳與對岸和解的氛圍，但一遇到實質的政策就馬上破功；該黨沒有想清楚的是，過去，他們還可以靠著口頭的善意，讓對岸及選民保留「觀其言察其行」的空間，但這十年來，民進黨的民粹操作已將僅存的信任感破壞殆盡；而馬政府上台後兩岸進入實質交流階段，從直航、ＥＣＦＡ到日前簽訂投保協定，無一不是真槍實彈的政策談判，每一項政策都牽動實質的利害。這些趨勢的發展，都讓民進黨沒有模楜的空間，但民進黨現在連小小的陸生納保都搞不定，大家如何信任他們有能力處力複雜的兩岸議題？
其實，各界對於民進黨之前的務實調整，都是樂觀其成的，台灣朝野政黨如果能在兩岸政策趨同，有助於化解台灣政黨對立、政治虛耗，人民同獲其利。
但是，民進黨積極要與對岸建立共識時，最大的癓結卻在於民進黨內部毫無共識，該黨領導人迴避兩岸政策討論，結果是深綠的仇中心態成為黨的主流意見，因此，民進黨高層只敢曖昧交流，但一遇到深綠陣營反彈，就立刻豎白旗。這樣的反反覆覆，反而凸顯民進黨言行不一，別說與對岸建立互信。
這次的陸生納保風波，對民進黨而言未嘗不是一件好事，現在出包，總比三年後的總統大選時出包好，至少，這可讓民進黨停下來想一想，自己要什麼？如果真心要推動務實的兩岸政策，問題出在哪裡？當務之急，民進黨內必須先凝聚出一套完整的兩岸政策論述，一來建立黨內共識；二來，與對岸交流時也才有所依據。否則，再多的兩岸交流也只是虛耗！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 16, 2012
Summary: Democratic Progressive Party Su faction legislator Wu Ping-jui recently proposed an amendment making students from the Mainland eligible for National Health Insurance (NHI) coverage. Alas, this provoked a intense backlash within the DPP. Less than three days later, his proposal was withdrawn. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang came forward and called a halt to the proceedings. Wu Ping-jui was forced to offer a public apology for his "reckless behavior." The controversy over NHI coverage amounted to a trial balloon, in reverse. It enabled everyone to see that the DPP, for all its lip service, is simply not ready to adopt a pragmatic approach to cross-Strait policy.
Full Text below:
Democratic Progressive Party Su faction legislator Wu Ping-jui recently proposed an amendment making students from the Mainland eligible for National Health Insurance (NHI) coverage. Alas, this provoked a intense backlash within the DPP. Less than three days later, his proposal was withdrawn. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang came forward and called a halt to the proceedings. Wu Ping-jui was forced to offer a public apology for his "reckless behavior." The controversy over NHI coverage amounted to a trial balloon, in reverse. It enabled everyone to see that the DPP, for all its lip service, is simply not ready to adopt a pragmatic approach to cross-Strait policy.
Since DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang came to power, the DPP has shown signs of wanting better cross-Strait relations. First, Chairman Su Tseng-chang restored the China Affairs Office. Trusted Tsai Ing-wen aide Lo Chih-Cheng visited the Mainland early this year. Key DPP aide Hsiao Bi-khim visited Shanghai in her capacity as a Director of the Foundation for Democracy. She participated in a seminar organized by the Shanghai East Asian Institute.
Hsiao Bi-khim was called into service separately, first by Tsai Ing-wen, then by Su Tseng-chang. This indicates the direction the DPP is headed. Hsiao Bi-khim visited the Mainland. Nominally she was participating in a seminar. In fact she was engaging in exchanges. Hsiao Bi-khim said the CCP did not understand the DPP. Mainland scholars say the CCP must understand the DPP. The DPP and CCP lack trust and understanding. But the DPP does not reject efforts to promote mutual understanding.
To be sure, exchanges between the DPP and the Mainland are better than no exchanges. Strengthening communications is the first step toward defusing hostilities. But talking about exchanges without a pragmatic cross-Strait policy merely reveals the ugly truth. It merely highlights the DPP's close-minded attitude of hatred for Mainland China. The attempt to make students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage is a perfect example.
Wu Ping-jui's proposal provoked a strong backlash. DPP leaders objected to "taking taxes to protect the human rights of [Mainland] Chinese." They said "The health insurance program is already in debt, yet we are proposing to provide services to them?" NHI has long been a sensitive issue on Taiwan. Such reactions are not surprising. What is truly incredible is that in the face of such challenges, the DPP has no argument to offer. All it can do is change its tune.
In fact, students from foreign countries must pay to be included in the NHI program. Students from the Mainland would have to do the same. Also, the seriously ill and senior citizens account for the lion's share of health care expenditures. Students from the Mainland are mostly younger folk. Common sense tells us they would make little use of health insurance. Therefore merely in terms of who pays and who benefits, making students from the Mainland eligible would have little effect on the NHI system. This would be the real world result of making students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage.
Wu Ping-jui proposed making students from the Mainland eligible for NHI coverage out of concern for human rights. After all, students from foreign countries can pay for and receive NHI coverage. But students from the Mainland cannot. This is discrimination. This is a violation of human rights. When the DPP treats students from the Mainland worse than it treats students from foreign countries, how can it avoid the suspicion that it harbors a deep-seated hatred of everything Chinese?
Over the past two months, the DPP has been laying the groundwork for reconciliation with the Mainland. But the moment it encountered a substantive policy issue, its real feelings emerged. The DPP still does not understand. In the past, they could get away with pro forma lip service. The authorities on the Mainland and voters on Taiwan were still giving them the benefit of the doubt. But ten years have elapsed. The DPP's populist demagoguery has totally destroyed the last vestiges of trust people had in the party. After the Ma administration took office, the two sides engaged in substantive exchanges, including direct links, ECFA, and investment protection agreements. These were brass tacks policy negotiations. Every policy impacted real world interests. These developments leave the DPP no room for obfuscation. Health insurance coverage for students from the Mainland is a minor concession. The DPP cannot even tolerate that. So how can anyone trust them to deal with major cross-Strait issues?
In fact, everyone was looking forward to the DPP's newfound pragmatism. For the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan to converge on cross-Strait policy would defuse political opposition on Taiwan. It would reduce political friction. The people would benefit.
The DPP is actively attempting to establish a consensus with the Mainland. But a major obstacle remains, a lack of consensus within the DPP. Party leaders avoid cross-Strait policy discussions. As a result the Deep Green mentality of unrelenting hatred for Mainland China becomes the mainstream view within the party. Therefore, the DPP leadership is only willing to engage in ambiguous exchanges. The moment they encounter a Deep Green backlash, they immediately raise the white flag. This sort of flip-flopping merely underscores the discrepancy between DPP words and deeds. It is hardly enough to establish mutual trust with the Mainland.
The controversy over health insurance coverage for students from the Mainland may turn out to be a good thing for the DPP. Letting the cat out of the bag now is better than letting it out three years from now, after the presidential election. This at least allows DPP leaders to stop and ask themselves what they really want. Do you really want a pragmatic cross-Strait policy? If so, what's the problem? The pressure is on. The DPP must formulate a coherent cross-Strait policy. It must establish an intraparty consensus. Only then will it have a basis for communication with the Mainland. Otherwise no matter how many cross-Strait exchanges it engages in, they will all be for naught.
兩岸務實交流？民進黨還沒準備好
2012-08-16
中國時報
民進黨蘇系立委吳秉叡日前有意提案修法，讓陸生納入健保，卻引發民進黨強烈反彈，不到三天就破功，黨主席蘇貞昌出面喊卡，吳秉叡更為自己的魯莽公開道歉。這一次納保風波果然成了反向的風向球，讓大家看到，口口聲聲要在兩岸政策採取務實作法的民進黨，根本還沒準備好。
民進黨黨主席蘇貞昌上台以來，民進黨與對岸關係，有融冰跡象，先是黨主席蘇貞昌恢復中國事務部；另外，繼蔡英文親信幕僚羅致政年初赴陸交流之後，另一位民進黨核心幕僚蕭美琴，也以民主基金會董事身分赴上海，參加上海東亞研究所舉辦的研討會。
蕭美琴分別受到蔡英文、蘇貞昌重用，更能精確掌握民進黨走向，因此，蕭美琴赴陸，名為參加研討會，但實際上絕對有交流溝通的意涵。即使蕭美琴都不諱言，中共太不了解民進黨，對岸學者也認為有必要多了解民進黨，因此民共之間雖然缺乏互信及了解，但有相互了解的意願，民進黨不會排斥。
確實，以當前民進黨與對岸隔閡的情況，交流一定比不交流好，加強溝通是化解敵意的第一步，但是若只空談交流，背後卻沒有一套務實的兩岸政策支撐，就會馬上露餡，反而凸顯民進黨仇中的封閉心態，這次的陸生納入健保就是絕佳的例子。
吳秉叡的主張引發強烈反彈，有人說，「拿台灣稅收去保障中國人權」、「健保預算都負債了還去供應他們」；坦白說，健保在台灣本來就是敏感議題，這些反應並不令人意外，真正不可思議的是，面對質疑，民進黨居然毫無辯護能力，只能立即改弦更張。
事實上，外籍生目前必須繳費才能納保，陸生納保當然也該比照，其次，使用台灣健保支出比重最多者，都屬重大疾病或老年人口，陸生多屬年輕族群，依常理，使用健保的比例偏低；因此，就利害的角度而言，陸生納保，對健保財政影響不大，這是陸生納保的實質政策面向。
再則，吳秉叡之所以提議將陸生納入健保，完全是著眼於人權；畢竟，如果外籍生可以繳健保費納保，陸生卻不能比照，就有歧視、違反人權之虞；而當陸生的待遇甚至都不如外籍生時，民進黨又何能迴避「仇中」的質疑？
民進黨這兩個月來鋪陳與對岸和解的氛圍，但一遇到實質的政策就馬上破功；該黨沒有想清楚的是，過去，他們還可以靠著口頭的善意，讓對岸及選民保留「觀其言察其行」的空間，但這十年來，民進黨的民粹操作已將僅存的信任感破壞殆盡；而馬政府上台後兩岸進入實質交流階段，從直航、ＥＣＦＡ到日前簽訂投保協定，無一不是真槍實彈的政策談判，每一項政策都牽動實質的利害。這些趨勢的發展，都讓民進黨沒有模楜的空間，但民進黨現在連小小的陸生納保都搞不定，大家如何信任他們有能力處力複雜的兩岸議題？
其實，各界對於民進黨之前的務實調整，都是樂觀其成的，台灣朝野政黨如果能在兩岸政策趨同，有助於化解台灣政黨對立、政治虛耗，人民同獲其利。
但是，民進黨積極要與對岸建立共識時，最大的癓結卻在於民進黨內部毫無共識，該黨領導人迴避兩岸政策討論，結果是深綠的仇中心態成為黨的主流意見，因此，民進黨高層只敢曖昧交流，但一遇到深綠陣營反彈，就立刻豎白旗。這樣的反反覆覆，反而凸顯民進黨言行不一，別說與對岸建立互信。
這次的陸生納保風波，對民進黨而言未嘗不是一件好事，現在出包，總比三年後的總統大選時出包好，至少，這可讓民進黨停下來想一想，自己要什麼？如果真心要推動務實的兩岸政策，問題出在哪裡？當務之急，民進黨內必須先凝聚出一套完整的兩岸政策論述，一來建立黨內共識；二來，與對岸交流時也才有所依據。否則，再多的兩岸交流也只是虛耗！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)