The DPP's Twin Crises: Ideological and Moral
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 30, 2013
Summary: The DPP does not think about how to serve the nation and the people. It does not think about how to reform the party constitution to enhance its competitiveness. It does not think about how to improve its performance in the legislature. Instead its leaders rack their brains thinking up ways to do in their rivals, how to use underworld forces to expand their own power base. The party's ideological and moral values have declined. Now all that's left is for the tail to wag the dog.
Full Text below:
Rumors that "Triad members are joining the DPP" have created a uproar. Younger generation party members have issued frequent warnings. Tsai Ing-wen has sternly called for party disciplinary action. Su Tseng-chang has belatedly announced that those applying for party membership will be subject to "substantive examinations" and not merely "written reviews." He hopes the "triad taint" tempest will quickly blow over.
In 2008, the DPP lost power. Chen Shui-bian and his family were indicted for corruption. The party's image suffered a major blow. For years the party was unable to recruit new members. Between January and April of this year however, nearly 31,000 new people applied for party membership. This amounts to 13% of the existing membership. Such a large fluctuation extremely unusual. Rumor has it the real rush to join the party took place in May. Many are triad members. Many others are shady individuals involved in the "ba da hang ye" (Eight Big Businesses). These include nightclubs, massage parlors, saunas, dance halls, and bars). One Taiwanese businessman in Taichung personally introduced more than 3,000 people to the party. DPP legislative caucus chief Ker Chien-ming personally introduced 2,000. As we can see, this wave of party applications was hardly spontaneous.
Leave aside the problem of shady characters and machine voters for the moment. Three political factors account for the current wave of membership applications. One. The party chairmanship election is scheduled for May of next year. Candidates are deploying their troops in advance. Two. Newer party officials are running for office in the five cities elections and local county and municipal council elections. They are engaged in major mobilization at the grassroots level. Three. In preparation for the 2016 presidential election party primaries, candidates are making preparations for cut-throat competition. Consider the practical implementation. Many in the DPP think Ker Chien-ming's troops are helping Su Tseng-chang squeeze out Tsai YIng-wen. As a result, the Tsai Ing-wen camp is particularly indignant about this development.
Put simply, Green Camp faction leaders are eager to increase the number of their supporters. The main motivation is the demands of internecine struggle. Under the circumstances, Su Tseng-chang was forced to change direction. He even muttered, "The KMT must not be allowed to corrupt the DPP." He tried to blame the Blue Camp for the DPP's own problems. This came across as less than honorable. As party chairman, he must preside impartially over the party. If all he thinks about is personal power, how can he lead the party down the correct path?
It has been over twenty years since Taiwan democratized. The early patriarchs who founded the DPP have died or retired. The DPP has become a worldly and cynical political party. During its early years, the party opposed authoritarianism and championed reform. But it marched down the blind alley of Taiwan independence. It occupied the Presidential Office for eight years, butting its head against the wall. The DPP has constantly changed direction. Can it attract a different class of people? Will different sectors of society consider joining the party? If the answer to these questions is yes, the DPP may attract wider support. The party may be able to revise its constitution and direction. It may become a more broad-minded political party. It all depends on the Green Camp leaders. Are they merely engaging in self-aggrandizement? Are they artificially introducing large numbers of people of questionable backgrounds? If the answer to these questions is yes, they will merely alienate decent people. The public will not approve.
The DPP has long been wracked by factional rivalry. But at least in the past the competition was over poltical paths and moral values. Today's scenario is reminiscent of a cattle auction. It is both cheap and crude. In a few short months the party has gained tens of thousands of new members, all at the beck and call of specific individuals. If the sole purpose is to enable certain individuals to consolidate their power, fine. But the phenomenon affects the entire Democratic Progressive Party. It endangers the prospects of the party's future presidential candidates. Is the prospect not chilling? Assume for a moment the rumors are true. Large numbers of people have applied for party membership. These are not the usual machine voters who vote as they are told. These are shady underworld and "ba da hang ye" characters. Is the DPP determined to invite this trouble into their own home? Is it determined to welcome black gold into the party's body politic?
Recently several Green Camp academics issued a proclamation. They said the public no longer supports the DPP's Taiwan independence ideology, therefore it must seek breakthroughs. Taiwan independence no longer has a market. But the Democratic Progressive Party's plight goes beyond that. Politically Taiwan independence is box office poison. Its proponents lack expert knowledge on public issues. They are incapable of taking advantage of the Ma administration's low poll numbers. They are incapable of overcoming peoples' reservations about supporting the DPP. Worst of all, this cynical political party is now taking in underworld party members -- even as it postures as a holier-than-thou reform party. As everyone knows, the outside of the DPP bears no resemblance whatsoever to its inside. One wonders where it will all end.
This "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon is a vivid example. The DPP does not think about how to serve the nation and the people. It does not think about how to reform the party constitution to enhance its competitiveness. It does not think about how to improve its performance in the legislature. Instead its leaders rack their brains thinking up ways to do in their rivals, how to use underworld forces to expand their own power base. The party's ideological and moral values have declined. Now all that's left is for the tail to wag the dog.
民進黨面臨意識形態與道德雙失危境
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.30 02:02 am
民進黨「黑道入黨」之傳聞沸沸揚揚，在黨內青壯派頻頻公開示警下，加上蔡英文嚴詞要求黨中央專案處理，蘇貞昌終於宣布入黨申請將由「書面審查」改為「實質審查」，期為「染黑」風暴止血。
二○○八年民進黨失去政權加上扁家涉貪，道德形象大傷，吸收黨員的能力陷入多年的低潮。然而，今年一至四月，新申請入黨者高達三萬一千人，占民進黨現有黨員數的一成三，不能不說是極異常的波動。據稱，真正的入黨高峰將在五月湧現，其中除夾雜不少具黑幫或八大行業背景的分子，台中某台商即隻手介紹了三千多人入黨，立院總召柯建銘擔任介紹人的也有兩千多件。可見，這波入黨潮充滿人為的操作。
先撇開「黑影幢幢」和「人頭黨員」的問題不談，從政治面看，這波詭異洶湧的入黨潮背後主要原因有三：第一，是黨內派系為了明年五月的黨主席選舉，預為部署卡位籌碼；第二，是黨內新人為求角逐五都及地方議員以晉身政壇，在基層大肆翻土動員；第三，是為二○一六總統大選的黨內初選，各自預備割喉糧草。從實際運作觀察，民進黨內多認為這是柯建銘人馬在幫蘇貞昌「卡蔡」；也因此，蔡英文陣營對此格外顯得義憤難填。
簡單說，綠營派系實力人物爭相擴大招攬人馬，主要動機其實是為了「內部鬥爭」的需要。在這種情況下，蘇貞昌在迫於形勢不得不轉彎之際，還撂下一句「國民黨肖想染黑民進黨」，意圖將自己的問題嫁禍於藍營，也就顯得太不磊落。身為主席，若無法秉公主持黨務，一心盤算個人權位，如何帶領黨走向正確的發展道路？
在台灣民主化廿多年後，當早年的創黨元老或是凋零或是退出，民進黨其實也在不知不覺間變成了一個很世俗化的政黨。從早年的反威權與訴求改革，到走進台獨的窄巷，到八年執政的受挫，民進黨的發展方向都在不斷調整。今天，若是能夠吸引不同階層、不同行業的民眾入黨，也許有助於民進黨更廣泛吸納多元民意，從而調整黨的體質和走向，成為一個思維基礎更寬闊的政黨。然而，若只是綠營特定人物為了壯大自己勢力，以高度人工操縱的手法引進大批非出自正當行業的人物；這不僅黨內正派人士覺得偏離正道，社會各界也感到難以苟同。
民進黨派系之爭存在已久，但過去至少是在路線或價值上彼此競逐高下；今天的景象，卻是像賣豬仔一樣的整批人頭呼來喝去，不僅廉價，而且粗暴。試想，短短數月即湧入數萬新黨員，供特定人士指揮調度，若為的只是若干野心人士對議員寶座的企圖倒也罷了，事實上卻影響整個民進黨的體質，危及未來總統候選人的產生，怎不令人不寒而慄？更何況，若傳言屬實，新近大批申請入黨的，並非只是傳統所謂甘於聽命投票的「人頭黨員」，而是牽涉地方各種不法利益的黑道及八大行業經營者；那麼，難道民進黨要公開引狼入室，將黑金迎入黨的體制嗎？
最近一批傾綠學者發表宣言，認為民進黨主張台獨的意識形態路線已失去主流市場，必須尋求新的突破。事實上，民進黨的困境不只是台獨失去了市場，它在政治作為上的消極，在公共議題上的專業見識不足，都是它無法趁馬政府的低民調重新攫取人心的重要障礙。最糟的是，這個世俗政黨一邊濫收黑道黨員，一邊還擺出一副革命政黨的神聖姿態，殊不知，其表裡已經完全無法如一，簡直不知伊於胡底。
所謂「尾巴搖狗」，這就是一個活生生的例子。民進黨不思考如何福國利民之計，不思考如何改善政黨體質和戰鬥力，不思考調整問政大戰略，卻在那裡挖空心思想著如何對付自家人、如何利用黑道勢力來壯大自己。一旦意識形態和道德價值雙雙淪落，那就等著被尾巴帶著走吧！
Monday, April 29, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Declaration of Freedom or Tao Te Ching?
Declaration of Freedom or Tao Te Ching?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2013
Summary: The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?
Full Text below:
A group called "Taiwan Democracy Watch" has issued a "Free Person's Declaration." It is proposing a "Charter of Human Rights" to reframe Taiwan's relations with Mainland China. During a seminar, watch member Professor Yao Renduo said the DPP is caught in a dilemma. It is unable to offer an alternative regarding cross-Strait relations comparable to the 1992 Consensus.
He was blunt. He said the Taiwan independence movement has lost the support of mainstream society. Most people feel the era of Taiwan independence is over.
Taiwan Democracy Watch is comprised mainly of younger generation Green Camp academics. Among them are some thoughtful individuals. The Free Person's Declaration attempts to establish a "new link between Taiwan and [Mainland] China." But Yao Renduo said the Declaration contains loopholes and blind spots. Its authors should engage in self-examination and clear up the confusion as soon as possible.
Yao said the DPP is unable to offer an alternative on cross-Strait relations that can compete head to head with the 1992 Consensus. He hit the nail on the head. But why? The "One China, different Interpretations" aspect of the 1992 Consensus includes the genus "one China," as well as the differentia, "different interpretations." The DPP's Taiwan independence rhetoric repudiates the genus "one China." It even refuses to recognize the Republic of China. It refuses to recognize anything Chinese. It refuses to recognize "different interpretations." Yao said a declaration of Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan cannot replace "one China, different interpretations." This is the root of the DPP's cross-Strait dilemma.
The Free Person's Declaration attempts to resolve this dilemma. It moves away from a declaration of Taiwan independence, the founding of a nation of Taiwan, and a clash over national sovereignty. It moves towards a civil society-based cross-Strait "Charter of Human Rights." Its main thrust is that genuine sovereignty should be rooted in human rights, in the "sovereignty of people." Therefore the People's Republic of China cannot be regarded as a truly sovereign nation. According to watch members, the Republic of China contains discrepancies regarding Taiwan's sovereignty and the political framework of the ROC. The Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored through the democratic process by the people on Taiwan. Therefore neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China meet the conditions for sovereignty. The two countries' constitutions lack legitimacy. Watch members argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China is a truly sovereign state.
This repudiates "one China, different interpretations," by arguing that neither side is a sovereign state. It repudiates the Republic of China, by drawing distinctions between "Taiwan's sovereignty" and the political framwork of the Republic of China. It argues that the Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored by the people of Taiwan in accordance with democratic procedures. It argues that the relationship between people on the two sides cannot be summed up as "the Chinese people." To watch members, the relationship is more akin to concern for the suffering of people in Southeast Asia. Watch members wonder how much of the Republic of China is left in the Republic of China. Can it still be regarded as the Republic of China?
The "Free Person's Declaration" is perhaps a surreal "Tao Te Ching" that transcends politics. It invokes "human rights" in order to deny both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China the status of sovereign nations. It invokes "civil society, freedom, human rights, democracy, social equality, and justice" and its "Charter of Human Rights." It cites them to justify the the establishment of a cross-Strait community by peaceful means. But ECFA was not signed by civil society in accordance with the watch members' "Charter of Human Rights." It was the result of across the board cross-Strait interaction. How could it have been implemented without sovereignty, without countries, and without governments?
Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan no longer have any takers. The authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" have apparently concluded that the Taiwan independence movement will not be able to found a "nation of Taiwan." They argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China are true sovereign states. They argue that cross-Strait relations can be reduced to people to people relations. They want to use their "Charter of Human Rights" to establish cross-Strait links. The two sides should of course share a common strategy in upholding human rights. But this cannot be done by repudiating national sovereignty. Instead one must begin by improving the quality of national sovereignty, and by reducing confrontation over cross-Strait sovereignty.
Why is the DPP unable to find a substitute for the 1992 Consensus? The most important reason is that it repudiates the Republic of China. Do the authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" really believe that the Republic of China is not a sovereign state? Do they recognize only "Taiwan's sovereignty?" They are unable to found a "nation of Taiwan." Taiwan independence no longer has any takers. They refuse to accept the Republic of China. They insist it is not a sovereign state. Therefore when they interactd with the other side, they are essentially saying that they are nothing, that they are non-entities. How can they possibly resolve the DPP's cross-strait dilemma?
The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?
是「自由宣言」或「道德經」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.29 02:55 am
「台灣守護民主平台」發表《自由人宣言──以「人權憲章」重構台灣與中國的關係》；研討會上，平台成員姚人多教授指出：民進黨的兩岸困境就是提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」。
他並直言：台獨建國已經失去主流市場，說服大多數人民相信可以獨立的時代已經過去了。
「台灣守護民主平台」主要是由青壯傾綠學者組成，其中頗有幾位好學深思的菁英。此次《自由人宣言》似在為「台灣與中國的關係」建構新的「連結」，但從姚人多的幾段敘述，已可見到宣言的缺口與盲點，應在迷途未遠之際重新自我審視或導正。
姚說，民進黨的兩岸困境就在提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」；這是一針見血之論。但何以致此？「九二共識」為「一中各表」，有「一中」的連結，亦有「各表」的區隔；但民進黨的傳統台獨理論則是欲否定一切的「中國連結」（否定「一中」），甚至亦拒絕承認「中華民國」的任何「中國因素」（否定「各表」）。然而，姚又認為「台獨建國」不能成為「一中各表」的「替代物」，於是就出現了「民進黨的兩岸困境」。
《自由人宣言》似在嘗試化解此一困境，於是從「台獨建國」的「國家主權對抗」，轉移至兩岸「公民社會」的「人權憲章連結」。其大意是：真正的「主權」應是奠基於人權的「人民主權」，因此「中華人民共和國」不能視為真正的「主權國家」；而「台灣／中華民國」，又因「台灣的主權與『中華民國』體制在客觀上存在著分歧」，且「《中華民國憲法》並非由台灣人民在民主的程序下所制定」；因此，「（中華民國和中華人民共和國）兩個國家的『人民主權』，都還沒有完全實踐；而兩個國家的憲法，正當性都不足」。這樣的推理是在論證：中華民國與中華人民共和國皆不是「真正的主權國家」。
此處顯示的是：一方面這是對於「一中各表」的進一步否定與滅絕（因為兩岸皆非主權國家）；另一方面亦是對中華民國的進一步否定與滅絕，例如，凸顯「台灣主權」與「中華民國體制」的「分歧」，又稱「中華民國憲法並非台灣人民在民主程序下所制定」，再稱兩岸人民之間的關係「無法用中華民族一語概括」，而只是如同對於「東南亞苦難人民」的關懷。演繹至此，這個「中華民國」，究竟還剩多少「中華民國」？或難道還能算是「中華民國」？
《自由人宣言》可以視為一部超現實、超政治的「道德經」，以「人權」觀點來否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「主權國家」；然後，欲以「自由、人權、民主、社會公平正義」的「公民社會」與《人權憲章》做為兩岸「經由和平手段建立共同體的可能性」。然而，即使是兩岸的ＥＣＦＡ，亦非「公民社會」及《人權憲章》所簽，則兩岸互動的全盤實際運作，更如何經由「無主權／無國家／無政府」的途徑進行？
台獨建國已無「市場」，而《自由人宣言》似認為，台獨既建不成「國家」，即逕以否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「真正的主權國家」，就可將兩岸關係拉低到「人民對人民」的層次，藉《人權憲章》即可建立兩岸連結。實情卻是：兩岸當然理應共策提升人權的水準與品質，但這絕無可能從否定「國家主權」去做到，反而應從改善國家主權的內涵與品質，及改善兩岸的主權對立來著手。
民進黨為何找不到「九二共識」的「替代物」？最主要是因否定及變造「中華民國」；如果《自由人宣言》仍然認為「中華民國」不是一個「真正的主權國家」，而只承認「台灣主權」；則在既不能以「台灣國」（台獨已無市場），又不願以「中華民國」（不是真正主權國家）與對岸互動之下，形同自貶為「本來無一物」，請問將如何化解「民進黨的兩岸困境」？
《自由人宣言》可能被視為「台獨變異病毒」（有無市場？），不知平台諸君是知道，或不知道，抑佯裝不知。這條路線若要成功，必須否定「台灣國／中華民國／中華人民共和國」三個「國家」，難道這會是民進黨的出路？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2013
Summary: The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?
Full Text below:
A group called "Taiwan Democracy Watch" has issued a "Free Person's Declaration." It is proposing a "Charter of Human Rights" to reframe Taiwan's relations with Mainland China. During a seminar, watch member Professor Yao Renduo said the DPP is caught in a dilemma. It is unable to offer an alternative regarding cross-Strait relations comparable to the 1992 Consensus.
He was blunt. He said the Taiwan independence movement has lost the support of mainstream society. Most people feel the era of Taiwan independence is over.
Taiwan Democracy Watch is comprised mainly of younger generation Green Camp academics. Among them are some thoughtful individuals. The Free Person's Declaration attempts to establish a "new link between Taiwan and [Mainland] China." But Yao Renduo said the Declaration contains loopholes and blind spots. Its authors should engage in self-examination and clear up the confusion as soon as possible.
Yao said the DPP is unable to offer an alternative on cross-Strait relations that can compete head to head with the 1992 Consensus. He hit the nail on the head. But why? The "One China, different Interpretations" aspect of the 1992 Consensus includes the genus "one China," as well as the differentia, "different interpretations." The DPP's Taiwan independence rhetoric repudiates the genus "one China." It even refuses to recognize the Republic of China. It refuses to recognize anything Chinese. It refuses to recognize "different interpretations." Yao said a declaration of Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan cannot replace "one China, different interpretations." This is the root of the DPP's cross-Strait dilemma.
The Free Person's Declaration attempts to resolve this dilemma. It moves away from a declaration of Taiwan independence, the founding of a nation of Taiwan, and a clash over national sovereignty. It moves towards a civil society-based cross-Strait "Charter of Human Rights." Its main thrust is that genuine sovereignty should be rooted in human rights, in the "sovereignty of people." Therefore the People's Republic of China cannot be regarded as a truly sovereign nation. According to watch members, the Republic of China contains discrepancies regarding Taiwan's sovereignty and the political framework of the ROC. The Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored through the democratic process by the people on Taiwan. Therefore neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China meet the conditions for sovereignty. The two countries' constitutions lack legitimacy. Watch members argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China is a truly sovereign state.
This repudiates "one China, different interpretations," by arguing that neither side is a sovereign state. It repudiates the Republic of China, by drawing distinctions between "Taiwan's sovereignty" and the political framwork of the Republic of China. It argues that the Constitution of the Republic of China was not authored by the people of Taiwan in accordance with democratic procedures. It argues that the relationship between people on the two sides cannot be summed up as "the Chinese people." To watch members, the relationship is more akin to concern for the suffering of people in Southeast Asia. Watch members wonder how much of the Republic of China is left in the Republic of China. Can it still be regarded as the Republic of China?
The "Free Person's Declaration" is perhaps a surreal "Tao Te Ching" that transcends politics. It invokes "human rights" in order to deny both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China the status of sovereign nations. It invokes "civil society, freedom, human rights, democracy, social equality, and justice" and its "Charter of Human Rights." It cites them to justify the the establishment of a cross-Strait community by peaceful means. But ECFA was not signed by civil society in accordance with the watch members' "Charter of Human Rights." It was the result of across the board cross-Strait interaction. How could it have been implemented without sovereignty, without countries, and without governments?
Taiwan independence and the founding of a nation of Taiwan no longer have any takers. The authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" have apparently concluded that the Taiwan independence movement will not be able to found a "nation of Taiwan." They argue that neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China are true sovereign states. They argue that cross-Strait relations can be reduced to people to people relations. They want to use their "Charter of Human Rights" to establish cross-Strait links. The two sides should of course share a common strategy in upholding human rights. But this cannot be done by repudiating national sovereignty. Instead one must begin by improving the quality of national sovereignty, and by reducing confrontation over cross-Strait sovereignty.
Why is the DPP unable to find a substitute for the 1992 Consensus? The most important reason is that it repudiates the Republic of China. Do the authors of the "Free Person's Declaration" really believe that the Republic of China is not a sovereign state? Do they recognize only "Taiwan's sovereignty?" They are unable to found a "nation of Taiwan." Taiwan independence no longer has any takers. They refuse to accept the Republic of China. They insist it is not a sovereign state. Therefore when they interactd with the other side, they are essentially saying that they are nothing, that they are non-entities. How can they possibly resolve the DPP's cross-strait dilemma?
The "Free Person's Declaration" is a mutation of the Taiwan independence virus. Is there a market for it? Do the leaders of the watch really not know? Or are they merely pretending not to know? To take this path, they must repudiate three things: the "nation of Taiwan," the Republic of China, and the People 's Republic of China. Is this really the way out for the DPP?
是「自由宣言」或「道德經」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.29 02:55 am
「台灣守護民主平台」發表《自由人宣言──以「人權憲章」重構台灣與中國的關係》；研討會上，平台成員姚人多教授指出：民進黨的兩岸困境就是提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」。
他並直言：台獨建國已經失去主流市場，說服大多數人民相信可以獨立的時代已經過去了。
「台灣守護民主平台」主要是由青壯傾綠學者組成，其中頗有幾位好學深思的菁英。此次《自由人宣言》似在為「台灣與中國的關係」建構新的「連結」，但從姚人多的幾段敘述，已可見到宣言的缺口與盲點，應在迷途未遠之際重新自我審視或導正。
姚說，民進黨的兩岸困境就在提不出能與「九二共識」等量齊觀的「替代物」；這是一針見血之論。但何以致此？「九二共識」為「一中各表」，有「一中」的連結，亦有「各表」的區隔；但民進黨的傳統台獨理論則是欲否定一切的「中國連結」（否定「一中」），甚至亦拒絕承認「中華民國」的任何「中國因素」（否定「各表」）。然而，姚又認為「台獨建國」不能成為「一中各表」的「替代物」，於是就出現了「民進黨的兩岸困境」。
《自由人宣言》似在嘗試化解此一困境，於是從「台獨建國」的「國家主權對抗」，轉移至兩岸「公民社會」的「人權憲章連結」。其大意是：真正的「主權」應是奠基於人權的「人民主權」，因此「中華人民共和國」不能視為真正的「主權國家」；而「台灣／中華民國」，又因「台灣的主權與『中華民國』體制在客觀上存在著分歧」，且「《中華民國憲法》並非由台灣人民在民主的程序下所制定」；因此，「（中華民國和中華人民共和國）兩個國家的『人民主權』，都還沒有完全實踐；而兩個國家的憲法，正當性都不足」。這樣的推理是在論證：中華民國與中華人民共和國皆不是「真正的主權國家」。
此處顯示的是：一方面這是對於「一中各表」的進一步否定與滅絕（因為兩岸皆非主權國家）；另一方面亦是對中華民國的進一步否定與滅絕，例如，凸顯「台灣主權」與「中華民國體制」的「分歧」，又稱「中華民國憲法並非台灣人民在民主程序下所制定」，再稱兩岸人民之間的關係「無法用中華民族一語概括」，而只是如同對於「東南亞苦難人民」的關懷。演繹至此，這個「中華民國」，究竟還剩多少「中華民國」？或難道還能算是「中華民國」？
《自由人宣言》可以視為一部超現實、超政治的「道德經」，以「人權」觀點來否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「主權國家」；然後，欲以「自由、人權、民主、社會公平正義」的「公民社會」與《人權憲章》做為兩岸「經由和平手段建立共同體的可能性」。然而，即使是兩岸的ＥＣＦＡ，亦非「公民社會」及《人權憲章》所簽，則兩岸互動的全盤實際運作，更如何經由「無主權／無國家／無政府」的途徑進行？
台獨建國已無「市場」，而《自由人宣言》似認為，台獨既建不成「國家」，即逕以否定中華民國與中華人民共和國為「真正的主權國家」，就可將兩岸關係拉低到「人民對人民」的層次，藉《人權憲章》即可建立兩岸連結。實情卻是：兩岸當然理應共策提升人權的水準與品質，但這絕無可能從否定「國家主權」去做到，反而應從改善國家主權的內涵與品質，及改善兩岸的主權對立來著手。
民進黨為何找不到「九二共識」的「替代物」？最主要是因否定及變造「中華民國」；如果《自由人宣言》仍然認為「中華民國」不是一個「真正的主權國家」，而只承認「台灣主權」；則在既不能以「台灣國」（台獨已無市場），又不願以「中華民國」（不是真正主權國家）與對岸互動之下，形同自貶為「本來無一物」，請問將如何化解「民進黨的兩岸困境」？
《自由人宣言》可能被視為「台獨變異病毒」（有無市場？），不知平台諸君是知道，或不知道，抑佯裝不知。這條路線若要成功，必須否定「台灣國／中華民國／中華人民共和國」三個「國家」，難道這會是民進黨的出路？
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Economic Revitalization: The Old Tricks are Outdated
Economic Revitalization: The Old Tricks are Outdated
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 26, 2013
Summary: Liberalization and internationalization is a three decades-old policy. This old policy has fulfilled its interim goal. Its mission has been accomplished. This old trick is no longer useful. Taiwan's economy should be booming, like that of Silicon Valley's. It should be nearly immune to downturns in the global economy. The old tricks are outdated. That is why were are in today's fix. The public feels stifled. Officials issue laments. With this in mind, what should the focus of future policy be? Our general direction should be abundantly clear.
Full Text below:
Recently Premier Chiang attended a breakfast meeting with industry and business leaders. He used the word "stifling" to characterize Taiwan's economic climate in recent years. Reactions to his remarks varied. On the one hand, the term "stifling" truly does sum up the current economic stagnation. On the other hand, hearing Premier utter these words of despair, made many feel even more helpless.
Between 2000 and 2008, Taiwan's economy was shackled by the Chen regime's Sinophobic "closed door" policy. For eight long years, economic growth stagnated, for no good reason. The industrial structure underwent no evolution. After much suffering, the ROC finally experienced a ruling party change in 2008. But five years after Ma took office, a sluggish global economy or inept government policies have left the situation unchanged. People may not understand their current predicament. But the Executive Yuan must assume responsibility. It must provide the public with a clear explanation. It must tell us how we got here, and how we should get out.
Last week Premier Chiang noted that the Executive Yuan sees a free economy and an innovation economy as the twin-tracks that will enable Taiwan to undergo economic transformation. On Taiwan, "innovation economy" is probably a new term. Two years ago Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisor Dr. Curtis R. Carlson spoke on Taiwan. Carlson urged the Ma administration to quickly transition from an "efficient economy" to an "innovation economy." But two years have gone by. Most of the ministries charged with fiscal and economic policy have failed to change their ways. They continue to promote the old policies. The innovation economy probably strikes them as too strange. By contrast, they are accustomed to the rhetoric of economic liberalization and internationalization. They are unable to wrap their heads around the new concepts.
Thirty years ago, when Chiang Ching-kuo was president, the policy was "liberalization, internationalization, and institutionalization." It was promoted by then Premier Yu Kuo-hwa. Back then Taiwan was gradually establishing its own industrial base. It wanted to liberate itself from bondage to tariff protection, trade barriers, and exchange controls. In Britain, Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher had come to power. She promoted large-scale privatization of state-owned enterprises. In the United States, President Reagan echoed her sentiments. He vigorously promoted tax cuts and deregulation. In academia, the Chicago School was ascendant. These voices championing the free economy resounded not only domestically, but also abroad. The advocacy of free trade crossed international borders. Under just such pressure Taiwan began its policy of liberalization and internationalization. As Mr. Wang Chuo-jung sniffed, liberalization and internationalization are not really that wonderful. They are merely normal responses to pressure from Uncle Sam and other nations.
Economic liberalization and internationalization forced Taiwan to face real international challenges. It could no longer remain complacent. It could no longer rely on government subsidies to survive. This increased our economic competitiveness. But as Taiwan gradually moved towards economic openness, the economic environment underwent a major change. Competition between efficient economies gradually morphed into competition between innovation economies. Examples of this abound. They include Silicon Valley, Israel, Switzerland, and other success stories. Silicon Valley, Israel, Switzerland sorely lack natural resources. Their only strength is their large pools of human talent. The innovation economy does not depend on reductions in tax rates, land costs, and labor costs. It depends on an environment conducive to innovation. It connects with the middle and lower reaches of the value chain. It tolerates failure. It requires an atmosphere that can accomodate wave upon wave of technological change. Taiwan has undergone liberalization and internationalization. But that has little to do with the innovation economy. The two are unrelated. The administration has limited resources. It must prioritize and make trade-offs.
Economic liberalization is something we must work towards. But no country's economy is completely uncontrolled. The ROC has promoted economic liberalization for 30 years, Cross-Strait exchanges are a sensitive issue still difficult to broach. Otherwise, Taiwan's economy is largely free. Therefore what is the point of trumpeting Free Trade Zone Pilot Programs at this time? Does Taiwan want to promote fitness and health to Mainland tourists, makikng them its main customer base? Does it want to eliminate regulatory restrictions, and set up pilot operations? If so, why not simply set up an International Medical Zone? If Taiwan wants to develop a Nike style logistics business, it can seek business investment within the Aviation City. The government must make clear what is to done. Its planning must conform to regulations. It must choose a proper location. It must "seek truth from facts" and "Just do it!" It does not need silly names such as "Free Trade Zone Pilot Program." This will enable people to experience the benefits of government policies. The atmosphere will no longer remain stifling.
In short, liberalization and internationalization is a three decades-old policy. This old policy has fulfilled its interim goal. Its mission has been accomplished. This old trick is no longer useful. Taiwan's economy should be booming, like that of Silicon Valley's. It should be nearly immune to downturns in the global economy. The old tricks are outdated. That is why were are in today's fix. The public feels stifled. Officials issue laments. With this in mind, what should the focus of future policy be? Our general direction should be abundantly clear.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.26
社論－經濟去憂解悶 不能再用老招
本報訊
行政院江院長日前在工商早餐會上，用「悶」這個字概括描述過去幾年台灣經濟的情況，許多人聽了都有複雜的心情感受。一方面，這個「悶」字確實刻畫出當前經濟死氣沉沉的膠著，另一方面，由行政院長嘴裡講出這麼無奈的話，人民心裡當然更感無力。
從二○○○年到二○○八年，台灣經歷了扁政府鎖國恐共錯誤政策的束縛，平白無故糟蹋了八年時間，在產業布局上一籌莫展。好不容易挨到二○○八年政黨再輪替，但是馬政府執政五年，不知是受到世界經濟大環境不振之波及、抑或是政府政策失能之影響，迄今還闖不出新局面。人民對當下困局或許不能釐清判斷，但是行政院恐怕就必須要負起責任，向大家解釋清楚「今日之困局何以致之，如何解決」。
江院長在上周一次公開活動中指出，行政院將自由經濟與創新經濟列為台灣經濟轉型的雙軌政策。創新經濟在國內大概是個新名詞，是前年行政院科技顧問卡森博士來台演講時提出；卡森建議馬政府要迅速從效率經濟模式轉型到創新經濟模式。但是兩年過去了，財經部會多數都還是依然故我，用舊思維推動舊政策。究其原因，恐怕是因為大家對創新經濟都太陌生了，而對效率經濟「自由化、國際化」的政策論述太習慣了，一時間還轉不過彎來。
三十年前蔣經國當總統時，「自由化、國際化、制度化」的三化政策，是由當時的行政院長俞國華所提出。那個年代的台灣正逐步在建立自己的產業基礎，想要從關稅保護、貿易壁壘、匯率控制的管制經濟束縛中脫身。在國際大環境面，英國有保守黨柴契爾夫人執政，推動大規模的國營事業私有化。在美國，則有雷根總統呼應，大力推動減稅與減少管制。在學術界，則是芝加哥學派如日中天之時。這些自由經濟呼聲不但在各國國內響徹雲霄，也跨國鼓吹自由貿易。台灣就是在這樣的壓力環境下，開始了自由化與國際化的政策。誠如王作榮先生所說，與其說自由化國際化是什麼了不起的政策，不如說那是對老美等國際壓力下的正常回應。
經濟自由化與國際化的功效，就是讓台灣面對真實的國際挑戰，不再坐井觀天、也不再靠政府奶水補助存活，增加了我們經濟競爭的實力。但是就在台灣逐漸走向開放之際，經濟大環境又產生了重大的改變，由「拚效率競爭」逐漸轉變為「拚創新競爭」。這種競爭典範移轉的實例，就是矽谷、以色列、瑞士等成功經濟模式的興起。矽谷、以色列、瑞士等地都是天然資源極度貧乏，其唯一的強項就是人才薈萃。創新經濟所倚賴的不是稅率土地勞工等投入成本的降低，而是型塑一個有利創新、媒合上中下游價值鏈、包容失敗、一波接一波技術變革的氛圍。雖然自由化、國際化與創新經濟並無杆格，但是這兩類政策畢竟是不同的。行政當局若是資源精力有限，那麼重點與取捨就值得斟酌了。
經濟自由化當然是要努力的方向，但是全世界並沒有哪個國家的經濟是全無管制的。台灣推經濟自由化已三十年，除了「兩岸」這個敏感罩門解不開、放不下之外，其他也沒什麼不自由了。準此，我們真的不很清楚，在今天這個時候再推自由經濟示範特區，究竟是要做什麼？如果台灣是要推以大陸遊客為主要客群的健美醫療，因此想排除法規限制，進行試點營運，那何不乾脆設置國際醫療專區。如果是要發展類似Nike品牌的運籌接單業務，那就在航空城裡針對此業務招商。政府要想清楚要做的事、規畫好要配合的法規、選擇好要設置的地點，就實事求是地去做，不需冠上自由經濟示範這種無聊名號；這樣，人民才會有感、才不會持續有悶氣的低潮。
總之，自由化、國際化已經是有三十年歷史的老政策了。這些老政策業已經完成了它們的階段性任務，是該功成身退了。老招老式如果真的有用，台灣經濟今天就該像矽谷一樣蓬勃，幾乎不受世界景氣影響。正因為老招已如弩末，才有今日之困局、人民之氣悶、官員之嗟歎。明乎此，未來施政重點該放在哪裡，當已思過半矣。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 26, 2013
Summary: Liberalization and internationalization is a three decades-old policy. This old policy has fulfilled its interim goal. Its mission has been accomplished. This old trick is no longer useful. Taiwan's economy should be booming, like that of Silicon Valley's. It should be nearly immune to downturns in the global economy. The old tricks are outdated. That is why were are in today's fix. The public feels stifled. Officials issue laments. With this in mind, what should the focus of future policy be? Our general direction should be abundantly clear.
Full Text below:
Recently Premier Chiang attended a breakfast meeting with industry and business leaders. He used the word "stifling" to characterize Taiwan's economic climate in recent years. Reactions to his remarks varied. On the one hand, the term "stifling" truly does sum up the current economic stagnation. On the other hand, hearing Premier utter these words of despair, made many feel even more helpless.
Between 2000 and 2008, Taiwan's economy was shackled by the Chen regime's Sinophobic "closed door" policy. For eight long years, economic growth stagnated, for no good reason. The industrial structure underwent no evolution. After much suffering, the ROC finally experienced a ruling party change in 2008. But five years after Ma took office, a sluggish global economy or inept government policies have left the situation unchanged. People may not understand their current predicament. But the Executive Yuan must assume responsibility. It must provide the public with a clear explanation. It must tell us how we got here, and how we should get out.
Last week Premier Chiang noted that the Executive Yuan sees a free economy and an innovation economy as the twin-tracks that will enable Taiwan to undergo economic transformation. On Taiwan, "innovation economy" is probably a new term. Two years ago Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisor Dr. Curtis R. Carlson spoke on Taiwan. Carlson urged the Ma administration to quickly transition from an "efficient economy" to an "innovation economy." But two years have gone by. Most of the ministries charged with fiscal and economic policy have failed to change their ways. They continue to promote the old policies. The innovation economy probably strikes them as too strange. By contrast, they are accustomed to the rhetoric of economic liberalization and internationalization. They are unable to wrap their heads around the new concepts.
Thirty years ago, when Chiang Ching-kuo was president, the policy was "liberalization, internationalization, and institutionalization." It was promoted by then Premier Yu Kuo-hwa. Back then Taiwan was gradually establishing its own industrial base. It wanted to liberate itself from bondage to tariff protection, trade barriers, and exchange controls. In Britain, Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher had come to power. She promoted large-scale privatization of state-owned enterprises. In the United States, President Reagan echoed her sentiments. He vigorously promoted tax cuts and deregulation. In academia, the Chicago School was ascendant. These voices championing the free economy resounded not only domestically, but also abroad. The advocacy of free trade crossed international borders. Under just such pressure Taiwan began its policy of liberalization and internationalization. As Mr. Wang Chuo-jung sniffed, liberalization and internationalization are not really that wonderful. They are merely normal responses to pressure from Uncle Sam and other nations.
Economic liberalization and internationalization forced Taiwan to face real international challenges. It could no longer remain complacent. It could no longer rely on government subsidies to survive. This increased our economic competitiveness. But as Taiwan gradually moved towards economic openness, the economic environment underwent a major change. Competition between efficient economies gradually morphed into competition between innovation economies. Examples of this abound. They include Silicon Valley, Israel, Switzerland, and other success stories. Silicon Valley, Israel, Switzerland sorely lack natural resources. Their only strength is their large pools of human talent. The innovation economy does not depend on reductions in tax rates, land costs, and labor costs. It depends on an environment conducive to innovation. It connects with the middle and lower reaches of the value chain. It tolerates failure. It requires an atmosphere that can accomodate wave upon wave of technological change. Taiwan has undergone liberalization and internationalization. But that has little to do with the innovation economy. The two are unrelated. The administration has limited resources. It must prioritize and make trade-offs.
Economic liberalization is something we must work towards. But no country's economy is completely uncontrolled. The ROC has promoted economic liberalization for 30 years, Cross-Strait exchanges are a sensitive issue still difficult to broach. Otherwise, Taiwan's economy is largely free. Therefore what is the point of trumpeting Free Trade Zone Pilot Programs at this time? Does Taiwan want to promote fitness and health to Mainland tourists, makikng them its main customer base? Does it want to eliminate regulatory restrictions, and set up pilot operations? If so, why not simply set up an International Medical Zone? If Taiwan wants to develop a Nike style logistics business, it can seek business investment within the Aviation City. The government must make clear what is to done. Its planning must conform to regulations. It must choose a proper location. It must "seek truth from facts" and "Just do it!" It does not need silly names such as "Free Trade Zone Pilot Program." This will enable people to experience the benefits of government policies. The atmosphere will no longer remain stifling.
In short, liberalization and internationalization is a three decades-old policy. This old policy has fulfilled its interim goal. Its mission has been accomplished. This old trick is no longer useful. Taiwan's economy should be booming, like that of Silicon Valley's. It should be nearly immune to downturns in the global economy. The old tricks are outdated. That is why were are in today's fix. The public feels stifled. Officials issue laments. With this in mind, what should the focus of future policy be? Our general direction should be abundantly clear.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.26
社論－經濟去憂解悶 不能再用老招
本報訊
行政院江院長日前在工商早餐會上，用「悶」這個字概括描述過去幾年台灣經濟的情況，許多人聽了都有複雜的心情感受。一方面，這個「悶」字確實刻畫出當前經濟死氣沉沉的膠著，另一方面，由行政院長嘴裡講出這麼無奈的話，人民心裡當然更感無力。
從二○○○年到二○○八年，台灣經歷了扁政府鎖國恐共錯誤政策的束縛，平白無故糟蹋了八年時間，在產業布局上一籌莫展。好不容易挨到二○○八年政黨再輪替，但是馬政府執政五年，不知是受到世界經濟大環境不振之波及、抑或是政府政策失能之影響，迄今還闖不出新局面。人民對當下困局或許不能釐清判斷，但是行政院恐怕就必須要負起責任，向大家解釋清楚「今日之困局何以致之，如何解決」。
江院長在上周一次公開活動中指出，行政院將自由經濟與創新經濟列為台灣經濟轉型的雙軌政策。創新經濟在國內大概是個新名詞，是前年行政院科技顧問卡森博士來台演講時提出；卡森建議馬政府要迅速從效率經濟模式轉型到創新經濟模式。但是兩年過去了，財經部會多數都還是依然故我，用舊思維推動舊政策。究其原因，恐怕是因為大家對創新經濟都太陌生了，而對效率經濟「自由化、國際化」的政策論述太習慣了，一時間還轉不過彎來。
三十年前蔣經國當總統時，「自由化、國際化、制度化」的三化政策，是由當時的行政院長俞國華所提出。那個年代的台灣正逐步在建立自己的產業基礎，想要從關稅保護、貿易壁壘、匯率控制的管制經濟束縛中脫身。在國際大環境面，英國有保守黨柴契爾夫人執政，推動大規模的國營事業私有化。在美國，則有雷根總統呼應，大力推動減稅與減少管制。在學術界，則是芝加哥學派如日中天之時。這些自由經濟呼聲不但在各國國內響徹雲霄，也跨國鼓吹自由貿易。台灣就是在這樣的壓力環境下，開始了自由化與國際化的政策。誠如王作榮先生所說，與其說自由化國際化是什麼了不起的政策，不如說那是對老美等國際壓力下的正常回應。
經濟自由化與國際化的功效，就是讓台灣面對真實的國際挑戰，不再坐井觀天、也不再靠政府奶水補助存活，增加了我們經濟競爭的實力。但是就在台灣逐漸走向開放之際，經濟大環境又產生了重大的改變，由「拚效率競爭」逐漸轉變為「拚創新競爭」。這種競爭典範移轉的實例，就是矽谷、以色列、瑞士等成功經濟模式的興起。矽谷、以色列、瑞士等地都是天然資源極度貧乏，其唯一的強項就是人才薈萃。創新經濟所倚賴的不是稅率土地勞工等投入成本的降低，而是型塑一個有利創新、媒合上中下游價值鏈、包容失敗、一波接一波技術變革的氛圍。雖然自由化、國際化與創新經濟並無杆格，但是這兩類政策畢竟是不同的。行政當局若是資源精力有限，那麼重點與取捨就值得斟酌了。
經濟自由化當然是要努力的方向，但是全世界並沒有哪個國家的經濟是全無管制的。台灣推經濟自由化已三十年，除了「兩岸」這個敏感罩門解不開、放不下之外，其他也沒什麼不自由了。準此，我們真的不很清楚，在今天這個時候再推自由經濟示範特區，究竟是要做什麼？如果台灣是要推以大陸遊客為主要客群的健美醫療，因此想排除法規限制，進行試點營運，那何不乾脆設置國際醫療專區。如果是要發展類似Nike品牌的運籌接單業務，那就在航空城裡針對此業務招商。政府要想清楚要做的事、規畫好要配合的法規、選擇好要設置的地點，就實事求是地去做，不需冠上自由經濟示範這種無聊名號；這樣，人民才會有感、才不會持續有悶氣的低潮。
總之，自由化、國際化已經是有三十年歷史的老政策了。這些老政策業已經完成了它們的階段性任務，是該功成身退了。老招老式如果真的有用，台灣經濟今天就該像矽谷一樣蓬勃，幾乎不受世界景氣影響。正因為老招已如弩末，才有今日之困局、人民之氣悶、官員之嗟歎。明乎此，未來施政重點該放在哪裡，當已思過半矣。
Calculated Leaks by Prosecutors and Police Require State Compensation
Calculated Leaks by Prosecutors and Police Require State Compensation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 25, 2013
Summary: Ongoing investigations are confidential. This principle is clearly stated in the Code of Criminal Procedures. It imposes restrictions on how prosecutors and police handle ongoing criminal investigations. We hope the victims in the Mamma's Lips Coffee House case demand state compensation. Doing so could be a key step in the investigation of prosecutors and police authorities who violate case confidentiality. It could bring an end to this state of "law without order."
Full Text below:
Ongoing investigations are confidential. This principle is clearly stated in the Code of Criminal Procedures. It imposes restrictions on how prosecutors and police handle ongoing criminal investigations. In an ongoing investigation the truth remains unclear. Conclusions are premature. The facts of the case and the progress of the investigation must not be lightly disclosed. These restrictions have three purposes. One. To protect the reputations of alleged offenders. Two. To avoid misleading the public and affecting future trials. Three. To avoid leaking the facts of the case and creating obstacles to its prosecution.
But over the years, prosecutors and police on Taiwan have become increasingly cavalier about violating case confidentiality. Recently in a number of major cases, violations of case confidentiality have become commonplace. Some time ago the Mama's Lips Coffee House double murder case made the headlines. Prosecutors and police lept to the conclusion that more than one perpetrator was involved. They then leaked information to the press. Mamma's Lips Coffee House owner Lu, a consultant named Eu, and a friend named Chung were depicted as co-conspirators. Talking heads indulged in wild speculation. They painted a lurid picture. One month later, the case ran up against a brick wall. Prosecutors and police performed a swift about face. They indicted a single female defendant. Neither Lu, Eu, or Chung were indicted. But they had already been tried in the court of public opinion, and condemned as major felons guilty of murder. Business at the coffee house they operated plummeted. The losses they suffered can be imagined. Media coverage was of course a factor. But the ultimate victimizers were prosecutors and police who violated case confidentiality. This is one recent example.
Bombs were planted on Taiwan High Speed Rail trains and in legislators' offices. Police used cross-Strait legal assistance mechanisms. They swiftly zeroed in on two suspects, Hu and Chu, and repatriated them to Taiwan. But the investigators repeatedly leaked information. Clearly they did not give a damn about keeping the investigation under wraps. In fact, based on what they leaked and the rules of evidence, what they did was highly unprofessional. Calculated leaks are likely to mislead the public and even affect the administration of justice.
Around the same time, the Boston Marathon bombers struck. In order to track down the suspects, the city was sealed off. Paranoia prevailed. During this process, CNN demonstrated admirable professionalism. It delayed its live broadcasts to avoid bloody or gruesome images. It broadcast only live images. It refrained from conducting its own investigative report, to avoid interfering with the manhunt. It eschewed rumor-mongering. It even glossed over the fact that the wounded suspects and victims ended up in the same hospital. It refrained from unnecessary in-depth investigations. Police exercised discretion before making information public. They refrained from leaking the names of suspects questioned. The suspect was arrested the very next day. The hot topic for the media was whether the suspects had been Mirandized before they were arrested. Compare the two cases, including the conduct of the prosecutors, the police, and the media. The difference in their levels of professionalism is obvious.
Prosecutors, police, and the media should review their performance and seek improvement. The crux of the problem however is the source of the leaks. Public prosecutors and police authorities were the ones responsible for piecemeal leaks in violation of case confidentiality. Any information made public by the government is newsworthy. Can the media justify not reporting it? Expecting the media to refrain from reporting news released by the government is unrealistic. One must demand that the government refrain from its illegal dissemination. Is the media concerned more about reporting the news than media professionalism? If so, then it is unlikely to accuse the government of violating case confidentiality. They may even be thrilled to get an exclusive.
It is not hard to see why prosecutors and police invariably violate case confidentiality, why they never tire of it, even though it is illegal. Calculated leaks to the media are a good way for the government to pander to the media, to control the spin on news stories, and to control, manipulate, or even punish the media at its discretion. Journalists who cooperate with police and prosecutors are provided with information. Those who refuse to play ball are punished by being denied information. Over time, the media becomes conditioned to reporting whatever it is fed. It loses its ability to evaluate the news critically. This allows the government to orchestrate public opinion, creating preconceived impressions that give the government an edge. Then when the government announces that the case has been solved, it can take a bow. Needless to say the officials involved receive incentives and bonuses. As for breaching the confidentiality of investigations, the media, fearing collateral damage, is not about to point fingers at the government. How often does one hear of internal discipline? Who gives a damn about the law? The process is a vicious cycle. Case confidentiality is violated on a daily basis. What we have is not "law and order," but "law without order." Who knows when we can get to the bottom of this mess?
How can we bring order out of chaos? It will not be easy. The upper ranks of prosecutors and police must demand strict adherence to the law. The media must exercise restraint, and not report information that should not be reported. It must demand that the government obey the law. The victims must demand that prosecutors and police not violate case confidentiality, and demand state compensation. Otherwise, expecting prosecutors and police to change their ways and respect case confidentiality, is wishful thinking. Three solutions suggest themselves. The most effective of these is for victims to demand state compensation and an investigation into the conduct of prosecutors and police authorities. We hope the victims in the Mamma's Lips Coffee House case demand state compensation. Doing so could be a key step in the investigation of prosecutors and police authorities who violate case confidentiality. It could bring an end to this state of "law without order."
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.25
社論－檢警亂放話害到人 就應國家賠償
本報訊
「偵查，不公開之。」是《刑事訴訟法》明文規定的辦案原則。此一原則主要是在限制辦理刑事偵查案件的檢警人員，在偵查期間，因為案件處於偵查進行之中，狀況尚不明朗，也未臻成熟，不能任意對外透露案情與偵辦進度，規定的主要用意至少有三：一是保護涉案者的名譽，二是避免誤導公眾、影響日後的審判，三是避免洩露案情，形成辦案障礙。
然而多年以來，台灣檢警辦案，偵查不公開的規範愈見鬆弛。最近大案頻傳，違反偵查不公開原則的案例，更是司空見慣，形成有法無天的現象。前陣子喧騰一時的媽媽嘴雙屍命案，檢警開始時朝凶手不只一人方向辦案，對外釋放消息，媽媽嘴呂老闆、歐顧問與鍾姓友人被說成有共犯嫌疑，媒體名嘴大肆炒作，繪聲繪影；一個月後案件偵結，方向扭轉，只起訴一位女性被告，呂、歐、鍾三人均受不起訴處分。然則他們業已飽受社會異樣眼光、以殺人重犯相責之苦，所經營的咖啡館也因而一度營業中斷，損失之大可知。此當然與媒體報導有關，但受害的源頭，卻與檢警不顧偵查不公開原則釋放辦案消息方向息息相關。此為近例之一。
高鐵及立委服務處遭放置炸彈案，警方迅速透過兩岸司法協助機制，將鎖定的胡姓與朱姓嫌犯兩人解返台灣，然而偵訊期間辦案人員又不斷對外釋放消息。偵查中隨時放話，顯然不把偵查不公開放在心上；其實，觀察其放話內容，按照證據法則來說，也極不專業，但任意對外放話，將誤導視聽，甚至影響日後的司法審判。
於此同時，美國波士頓地區也發生馬拉松賽跑炸彈客恐怖主義案件，為追捕嫌犯而封鎖全城，風聲鶴唳；在此過程中，ＣＮＮ發揮了高度的專業精神，現場轉播的資訊延時播送，以免出現血腥或不雅的畫面，並且也只傳送就地目視影像，不另做調查報導，以免妨礙追緝行動安全，全無口水八卦，連受傷的嫌犯與受傷民眾住在相同的醫院，也只輕輕帶過，不做無謂的深入追蹤。警調發布資訊亦高度審慎，不輕易片段透露嫌犯受偵訊的內容。而嫌犯就擒的次日，媒體熱烈討論的話題竟是嫌犯被捕前未受例行權利保障告知是否合憲合法。兩相比較，從檢警到媒體，專業表現的差距極其明顯。
檢警與媒體也許都應該檢討改進，但是問題的癥結毋寧在消息的源頭，也就是在偵訊犯罪的過程中不斷片面、片段發布消息而違反偵查不公開的檢警機關。只要是政府發布消息，但有新聞價值，媒體豈有不報導之理？與其期待媒體不去合法報導政府發布的消息，不如要求政府不違法發布消息。然而如果不是純從專業精神出發，只是有消息，媒體大概不會經常指責政府違反偵查不公開，甚至可能因為獲得了獨家消息而沾沾自喜。
於是人們不難發現檢警為何總是違反偵查不公開，而且樂此不疲的原因了。雖然違法，但是洩露偵查資訊給媒體恰是討好、導引、牽制、操弄，甚或是選擇性制裁媒體的好方法，與檢警配合的記者或媒體就多給資訊，不配合的就少給資訊以為制裁。久而久之，就讓媒體養成了給什麼就報什麼，失去批判的能力；於是就可以主導輿情發展方向，造成既成印象掌握日後在審判中成功定罪的優勢；宣布破案時獲得掌聲，得到內部獎勵獎金，自是不在話下。至於違反偵查不公開，媒體投鼠忌器當然不會認真責備，幾曾聽說會在機關內部發動嚴格制裁？又有誰會把法律放在心上呢？惡性循環之下，違反偵查不公開原則的現象遂不知會伊於胡底。這就是為什麼「有法無天」的情景會天天上演了！
要如何撥亂反正呢？恐怕不容易，除非檢警機關高層能夠形成嚴格自我要求守法的政策，除非媒體能夠寧可忍住不報不該報導的資訊，也會要求政府守法，除非受害的當事人要求檢警機關因為違反偵查不公開造成損失而請求國家賠償，否則，期待檢警人員會改變惡習，恪遵偵察不公開，只怕是緣木求魚。看起來，上面三個「除非」中，最可能發生效用的，就是受害人訴請偵查中發布消息的檢警機關國家賠償了！我們希望，媽媽嘴案中打算請求國家賠償的受害人，會是偵查不公開原則遭到檢警機關踐踏、有法無天惡劣景觀的終結者。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 25, 2013
Summary: Ongoing investigations are confidential. This principle is clearly stated in the Code of Criminal Procedures. It imposes restrictions on how prosecutors and police handle ongoing criminal investigations. We hope the victims in the Mamma's Lips Coffee House case demand state compensation. Doing so could be a key step in the investigation of prosecutors and police authorities who violate case confidentiality. It could bring an end to this state of "law without order."
Full Text below:
Ongoing investigations are confidential. This principle is clearly stated in the Code of Criminal Procedures. It imposes restrictions on how prosecutors and police handle ongoing criminal investigations. In an ongoing investigation the truth remains unclear. Conclusions are premature. The facts of the case and the progress of the investigation must not be lightly disclosed. These restrictions have three purposes. One. To protect the reputations of alleged offenders. Two. To avoid misleading the public and affecting future trials. Three. To avoid leaking the facts of the case and creating obstacles to its prosecution.
But over the years, prosecutors and police on Taiwan have become increasingly cavalier about violating case confidentiality. Recently in a number of major cases, violations of case confidentiality have become commonplace. Some time ago the Mama's Lips Coffee House double murder case made the headlines. Prosecutors and police lept to the conclusion that more than one perpetrator was involved. They then leaked information to the press. Mamma's Lips Coffee House owner Lu, a consultant named Eu, and a friend named Chung were depicted as co-conspirators. Talking heads indulged in wild speculation. They painted a lurid picture. One month later, the case ran up against a brick wall. Prosecutors and police performed a swift about face. They indicted a single female defendant. Neither Lu, Eu, or Chung were indicted. But they had already been tried in the court of public opinion, and condemned as major felons guilty of murder. Business at the coffee house they operated plummeted. The losses they suffered can be imagined. Media coverage was of course a factor. But the ultimate victimizers were prosecutors and police who violated case confidentiality. This is one recent example.
Bombs were planted on Taiwan High Speed Rail trains and in legislators' offices. Police used cross-Strait legal assistance mechanisms. They swiftly zeroed in on two suspects, Hu and Chu, and repatriated them to Taiwan. But the investigators repeatedly leaked information. Clearly they did not give a damn about keeping the investigation under wraps. In fact, based on what they leaked and the rules of evidence, what they did was highly unprofessional. Calculated leaks are likely to mislead the public and even affect the administration of justice.
Around the same time, the Boston Marathon bombers struck. In order to track down the suspects, the city was sealed off. Paranoia prevailed. During this process, CNN demonstrated admirable professionalism. It delayed its live broadcasts to avoid bloody or gruesome images. It broadcast only live images. It refrained from conducting its own investigative report, to avoid interfering with the manhunt. It eschewed rumor-mongering. It even glossed over the fact that the wounded suspects and victims ended up in the same hospital. It refrained from unnecessary in-depth investigations. Police exercised discretion before making information public. They refrained from leaking the names of suspects questioned. The suspect was arrested the very next day. The hot topic for the media was whether the suspects had been Mirandized before they were arrested. Compare the two cases, including the conduct of the prosecutors, the police, and the media. The difference in their levels of professionalism is obvious.
Prosecutors, police, and the media should review their performance and seek improvement. The crux of the problem however is the source of the leaks. Public prosecutors and police authorities were the ones responsible for piecemeal leaks in violation of case confidentiality. Any information made public by the government is newsworthy. Can the media justify not reporting it? Expecting the media to refrain from reporting news released by the government is unrealistic. One must demand that the government refrain from its illegal dissemination. Is the media concerned more about reporting the news than media professionalism? If so, then it is unlikely to accuse the government of violating case confidentiality. They may even be thrilled to get an exclusive.
It is not hard to see why prosecutors and police invariably violate case confidentiality, why they never tire of it, even though it is illegal. Calculated leaks to the media are a good way for the government to pander to the media, to control the spin on news stories, and to control, manipulate, or even punish the media at its discretion. Journalists who cooperate with police and prosecutors are provided with information. Those who refuse to play ball are punished by being denied information. Over time, the media becomes conditioned to reporting whatever it is fed. It loses its ability to evaluate the news critically. This allows the government to orchestrate public opinion, creating preconceived impressions that give the government an edge. Then when the government announces that the case has been solved, it can take a bow. Needless to say the officials involved receive incentives and bonuses. As for breaching the confidentiality of investigations, the media, fearing collateral damage, is not about to point fingers at the government. How often does one hear of internal discipline? Who gives a damn about the law? The process is a vicious cycle. Case confidentiality is violated on a daily basis. What we have is not "law and order," but "law without order." Who knows when we can get to the bottom of this mess?
How can we bring order out of chaos? It will not be easy. The upper ranks of prosecutors and police must demand strict adherence to the law. The media must exercise restraint, and not report information that should not be reported. It must demand that the government obey the law. The victims must demand that prosecutors and police not violate case confidentiality, and demand state compensation. Otherwise, expecting prosecutors and police to change their ways and respect case confidentiality, is wishful thinking. Three solutions suggest themselves. The most effective of these is for victims to demand state compensation and an investigation into the conduct of prosecutors and police authorities. We hope the victims in the Mamma's Lips Coffee House case demand state compensation. Doing so could be a key step in the investigation of prosecutors and police authorities who violate case confidentiality. It could bring an end to this state of "law without order."
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.25
社論－檢警亂放話害到人 就應國家賠償
本報訊
「偵查，不公開之。」是《刑事訴訟法》明文規定的辦案原則。此一原則主要是在限制辦理刑事偵查案件的檢警人員，在偵查期間，因為案件處於偵查進行之中，狀況尚不明朗，也未臻成熟，不能任意對外透露案情與偵辦進度，規定的主要用意至少有三：一是保護涉案者的名譽，二是避免誤導公眾、影響日後的審判，三是避免洩露案情，形成辦案障礙。
然而多年以來，台灣檢警辦案，偵查不公開的規範愈見鬆弛。最近大案頻傳，違反偵查不公開原則的案例，更是司空見慣，形成有法無天的現象。前陣子喧騰一時的媽媽嘴雙屍命案，檢警開始時朝凶手不只一人方向辦案，對外釋放消息，媽媽嘴呂老闆、歐顧問與鍾姓友人被說成有共犯嫌疑，媒體名嘴大肆炒作，繪聲繪影；一個月後案件偵結，方向扭轉，只起訴一位女性被告，呂、歐、鍾三人均受不起訴處分。然則他們業已飽受社會異樣眼光、以殺人重犯相責之苦，所經營的咖啡館也因而一度營業中斷，損失之大可知。此當然與媒體報導有關，但受害的源頭，卻與檢警不顧偵查不公開原則釋放辦案消息方向息息相關。此為近例之一。
高鐵及立委服務處遭放置炸彈案，警方迅速透過兩岸司法協助機制，將鎖定的胡姓與朱姓嫌犯兩人解返台灣，然而偵訊期間辦案人員又不斷對外釋放消息。偵查中隨時放話，顯然不把偵查不公開放在心上；其實，觀察其放話內容，按照證據法則來說，也極不專業，但任意對外放話，將誤導視聽，甚至影響日後的司法審判。
於此同時，美國波士頓地區也發生馬拉松賽跑炸彈客恐怖主義案件，為追捕嫌犯而封鎖全城，風聲鶴唳；在此過程中，ＣＮＮ發揮了高度的專業精神，現場轉播的資訊延時播送，以免出現血腥或不雅的畫面，並且也只傳送就地目視影像，不另做調查報導，以免妨礙追緝行動安全，全無口水八卦，連受傷的嫌犯與受傷民眾住在相同的醫院，也只輕輕帶過，不做無謂的深入追蹤。警調發布資訊亦高度審慎，不輕易片段透露嫌犯受偵訊的內容。而嫌犯就擒的次日，媒體熱烈討論的話題竟是嫌犯被捕前未受例行權利保障告知是否合憲合法。兩相比較，從檢警到媒體，專業表現的差距極其明顯。
檢警與媒體也許都應該檢討改進，但是問題的癥結毋寧在消息的源頭，也就是在偵訊犯罪的過程中不斷片面、片段發布消息而違反偵查不公開的檢警機關。只要是政府發布消息，但有新聞價值，媒體豈有不報導之理？與其期待媒體不去合法報導政府發布的消息，不如要求政府不違法發布消息。然而如果不是純從專業精神出發，只是有消息，媒體大概不會經常指責政府違反偵查不公開，甚至可能因為獲得了獨家消息而沾沾自喜。
於是人們不難發現檢警為何總是違反偵查不公開，而且樂此不疲的原因了。雖然違法，但是洩露偵查資訊給媒體恰是討好、導引、牽制、操弄，甚或是選擇性制裁媒體的好方法，與檢警配合的記者或媒體就多給資訊，不配合的就少給資訊以為制裁。久而久之，就讓媒體養成了給什麼就報什麼，失去批判的能力；於是就可以主導輿情發展方向，造成既成印象掌握日後在審判中成功定罪的優勢；宣布破案時獲得掌聲，得到內部獎勵獎金，自是不在話下。至於違反偵查不公開，媒體投鼠忌器當然不會認真責備，幾曾聽說會在機關內部發動嚴格制裁？又有誰會把法律放在心上呢？惡性循環之下，違反偵查不公開原則的現象遂不知會伊於胡底。這就是為什麼「有法無天」的情景會天天上演了！
要如何撥亂反正呢？恐怕不容易，除非檢警機關高層能夠形成嚴格自我要求守法的政策，除非媒體能夠寧可忍住不報不該報導的資訊，也會要求政府守法，除非受害的當事人要求檢警機關因為違反偵查不公開造成損失而請求國家賠償，否則，期待檢警人員會改變惡習，恪遵偵察不公開，只怕是緣木求魚。看起來，上面三個「除非」中，最可能發生效用的，就是受害人訴請偵查中發布消息的檢警機關國家賠償了！我們希望，媽媽嘴案中打算請求國家賠償的受害人，會是偵查不公開原則遭到檢警機關踐踏、有法無天惡劣景觀的終結者。
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Chen Shui-bian: Two Solutions, Before and After 2016
Chen Shui-bian: Two Solutions, Before and After 2016
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2013
Summary: The cases against Chen Shui-bian must be resolved before 2016 by means of medical parole. Otherwise the DPP will continue raising a stink. Will this lead to "medical parole" becoming an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck in 2016? Will this become a hurdle the DPP cannot overcome?
Full Text below:
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP need to think clearly. The issue of Chen Shui-bian's treatment has two solutions, each at different points in time. One. Medical parole before the 2016 presidential election. Two. A presidential pardon after the 2016 presidential election.
So far Chen Shui-bian and the DPP appear to be seeking medical parole or home recuperation before the 2016 presidential election. But the likelihood of this is low. The DPP constantly engages in stunts such as kicking down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. What sort of impression does this leave on the public? Positive or negative? Besides, if the situation drags on until the 2016 presidential election, Chen Shui-bian's case is likely to become box office poison and hurt the DPP's election prospects. When the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party's presidential candidate kick down the door to Tseng Yung-fu's office?
Rumor has it that Chen Shui-bian's lawyers are seeking to halt all further prosecutions, on grounds of insanity. But this approach will also make him ineligible for a pardon. Never mind that Ma Ying-jeou has yet to decide whether to grant Chen a presidential pardon. Suppose the DPP wins the 2016 presidential election? Chen Shui-bian would be totally unrepentant. He would face further prosecution. Unless the DPP is willing to tear the nation apart, will it dare grant Chen Shui-bian a pardon?
The DPP needs to think clearly. What impact will the Chen Shui-bian factor have on 2016? Today the DPP is milking the Chen Shui-bian "medical parole" issue for all it is worth. During the 2016 presidential election will the greedy, extremist, and shameless Chen Shui-bian become an albatross around the DPP's neck? How will that presidential election campaign play out? Can the DPP really predict?
Chen Shui-bian has painted himself into a corner. The more shrilly he demands "medical parole," the more outrageous his antics, the less legitimate his prospects of receiving a presidential pardon. The DPP also finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. The more it demands "medical parole," the more likely its 2016 presidential election campaign will be inextricably linked to Chen Shui-bian.
Consider the likelihood of "medical parole" before 2016. Every time the Green Camp precipitates a confrontation over "medical parole," the Ministry of Justice reaffirms that Chen "may not receive medical parole." It reaffirms the jurisprudence. Chiu Yi-ying kicked down the door to the MInister of Justice's office. She undermined public sympathy and support yet again. The Ministry of Justice has arranged for a private 243 Ping "five-star house arrest ward" in the Pei-de Hospital. It has published videos of Chen Shui-bian relaxing in the garden. His hands were rock steady. They were not shaking. The Ministry of Justice has addressed all four aspects of the issue, including compassion, logic, law, and medical treatment. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP will not find an attack on this front easy. The Ministry of Justice has already decided to "go strictly by the book." The DPP is attempting to exploit this issue by applying pressure on President Ma. But the more the DPP politicizes the case, the more Ma Ying-jeou back away from it, and the more the possibility of a political solution tends toward zero.
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP hope to resolve the matter before 2016, by resort to "medical parole." But their efforts will be in vain. Consider the possibility of a change in ruling parties and a DPP presidential pardon after 2016. Perhaps one can make a stronger case for this. But it would have preconditions. The cases pending against Chen would have to be swiftly resolved. Chen Shui-bian would also have to admit guilt and express remorse, Only then can whoever is president after 2016 pardon Chen Shui-bian. Only then can Chen Shui-bian be granted parole for his current convictions (2018 or 2009), one to three years in advance. Other cases involve specific sentences. Chen can be pardoned for them all collectively. Therefore Chen should not demand that prosecutions against him be halted. Instead he should demand speedy trials.
If the Kuomintang candidate is elected president in 2016, Chen must admit guilt and express remorse. The new president may wish to improve the political climate. He could seize the opportunity to pardon Chen Shui-bian. If the Democratic Progressive Party candidate is elected, if the cases against Chen are resolved, and if Chen admits guilt and expresses remorse, a pardon is even more likely. As Shih Ming-teh noted, "The key to Chen Shui-bian's parole, is not in the hands of Ma Ying-jeou. It is not in the mouth of Chen fanatics, (It is also not in the feet of Chiu Yi-ying) but in the heart of Chen Shui-bian."
For the DPP, Chen Shui-bian is a "chronic depression patient" whose hand shakes uncontrollably in public but remains rock steady when he thinks he is alone. He is also a symbol of insatiable greed and Taiwan independence extremism. Those who kick down doors to support him, know all about Chen Shui-bian's "hand tremors." They are merely attempting to win votes from fundamentalists who uncritically abet Chen Shui's unbridled greed and political extremism. Such tactics, in such an atmosphere, may help the Democratic Progressive Party in elections at various levels prior to 2016. But they could become a drag on the DPP's prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
The cases against Chen Shui-bian must be resolved before 2016 by means of medical parole. Otherwise the DPP will continue raising a stink. Will this lead to "medical parole" becoming an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck in 2016? Will this become a hurdle the DPP cannot overcome?
陳水扁的兩個解答：在2016之前或之後
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.24 03:03 am
陳水扁和民進黨現在都要想清楚，陳水扁的處遇問題，有兩個解決的假想時間點：一、在二○一六總統大選前，以「保外就醫」解決；二、在二○一六總統大選後，以「總統特赦」解決。
陳水扁及民進黨如今之計，似乎是想在二○一六總統大選前，以「保外就醫」或「居家療養」解決，但此計成功的可能性極低。現在民進黨必須顧慮的是：此計既然幾無成功的可能性，民進黨卻三不五時要用踹破法務部長大門之類的方法來反覆表演，究竟對社會觀感是個正數或負數？何況，此一情勢若拖到二○一六總統大選，則陳水扁的處遇問題必像毒蛇一般纏住了民進黨的選情，到時候難道民進黨的總統候選人還要再去踹曾勇夫的大門？
據說，陳水扁的律師團正在研究，以陳水扁心神喪失為理由，要求扁案停止一切審判。但此計的直接效果，就是不啻封殺了特赦之路。莫說馬英九因仍有未定讞的案子不能對扁特赦，即使民進黨人贏得了二○一六總統職位，面對完全不知懺悔且又諸案尚未定讞的陳水扁，除非不惜撕裂國家，誰敢給陳水扁特赦？
民進黨要想清楚，陳水扁因素會在二○一六發生什麼影響？現今將陳水扁「保外就醫」炒得紅紅火火的民進黨，若在二○一六總統大選被極貪、極獨與極不知恥的陳水扁纏住了，那場總統大選將是何等不可預測的場景？
陳水扁已陷入困局，「保外就醫」鬧得愈凶、愈離譜，對陳水扁「特赦」的正當性就愈低；民進黨也已陷入困境，愈要炒作「保外就醫」，二○一六總統大選就愈可能被陳水扁纏住。
回頭來看在二○一六年以前「保外就醫」的可能性。綠營每次發動「保外就醫」的衝突，就使法務部所堅持的「不可保外就醫」的法理更清楚地呈現一次，而如邱議瑩踹門事件則使「保外就醫」的社會同情又消損一次。此次法務部一方面在培德病監安排了二四三坪獨門獨院的「五星級軟禁病房」，另一方面又公布了陳水扁未抖手的「遊園」畫面，藉此充分展現了法務部在情、理、法、醫四方面的完整立場。陳水扁及民進黨倘欲攻陷這條防線，恐非易事；因為，法務部已經決定「依法行政」。至於民進黨欲以此事對馬總統施壓，但民進黨愈將此案政治化，將愈使馬英九對此避忌，因而只有愈使此案走向政治解決的可能性趨於零。
所以，陳水扁及民進黨欲在二○一六年前以「保外就醫」解決此事，即形同徒勞；因而，改朝「二○一六後以特赦解決」的方向思考，或許始為正辦。唯前提是，早日完成諸案訴訟定讞，且陳水扁須讓國人感知其有認罪悛悔之意，則在二○一六年後，無論誰任總統，皆有特赦陳水扁的可能。如此，陳水扁即有可能較現在定讞諸案的假釋期（二○一八年或二○一九年）早一至三年釋放；且其他諸案若另有定讞刑罰，皆可一併赦免。倘作此想，扁方即非但不應主張停止審判，反而應要求加速審判。
國民黨人若在二○一六年當選總統，只要扁諸案定讞且表達悛悔，新總統為改善政治氣象，當有特赦陳水扁的可能性；而若是民進黨人當選，也只要諸案定讞、扁認錯悔悟，自更有特赦的可能性。但是，關鍵在於施明德所說：「釋放陳水扁的鑰匙，不在馬英九手中，不在扁迷口中，（按，此處可加『也不在邱議瑩腳下』），而是在陳水扁心中。」
對於民進黨來說，陳水扁不但是一個「人前手抖／人後手不抖」的憂鬱病患，他也是惡貪與極獨的象徵人物。那些踹門挺扁者，其實對陳水扁的「選擇性手抖」亦是心知肚明，他（她）們只是欲借挺扁來籠絡那些挺貪挺獨的基本教義派；這樣的手法與氛圍，或許有利於民進黨二○一六年以前的各級選舉，卻可能拖累了民進黨二○一六年總統大選的選情。
依目前情勢看，陳水扁案若不可能在二○一六年前以「保外就醫」解決，而民進黨仍要這樣無理取鬧下去，會不會反而把「保外就醫」留成了民進黨在二○一六的禍根，使民進黨終究跨不過二○一六年這個重大關卡？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2013
Summary: The cases against Chen Shui-bian must be resolved before 2016 by means of medical parole. Otherwise the DPP will continue raising a stink. Will this lead to "medical parole" becoming an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck in 2016? Will this become a hurdle the DPP cannot overcome?
Full Text below:
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP need to think clearly. The issue of Chen Shui-bian's treatment has two solutions, each at different points in time. One. Medical parole before the 2016 presidential election. Two. A presidential pardon after the 2016 presidential election.
So far Chen Shui-bian and the DPP appear to be seeking medical parole or home recuperation before the 2016 presidential election. But the likelihood of this is low. The DPP constantly engages in stunts such as kicking down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. What sort of impression does this leave on the public? Positive or negative? Besides, if the situation drags on until the 2016 presidential election, Chen Shui-bian's case is likely to become box office poison and hurt the DPP's election prospects. When the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party's presidential candidate kick down the door to Tseng Yung-fu's office?
Rumor has it that Chen Shui-bian's lawyers are seeking to halt all further prosecutions, on grounds of insanity. But this approach will also make him ineligible for a pardon. Never mind that Ma Ying-jeou has yet to decide whether to grant Chen a presidential pardon. Suppose the DPP wins the 2016 presidential election? Chen Shui-bian would be totally unrepentant. He would face further prosecution. Unless the DPP is willing to tear the nation apart, will it dare grant Chen Shui-bian a pardon?
The DPP needs to think clearly. What impact will the Chen Shui-bian factor have on 2016? Today the DPP is milking the Chen Shui-bian "medical parole" issue for all it is worth. During the 2016 presidential election will the greedy, extremist, and shameless Chen Shui-bian become an albatross around the DPP's neck? How will that presidential election campaign play out? Can the DPP really predict?
Chen Shui-bian has painted himself into a corner. The more shrilly he demands "medical parole," the more outrageous his antics, the less legitimate his prospects of receiving a presidential pardon. The DPP also finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. The more it demands "medical parole," the more likely its 2016 presidential election campaign will be inextricably linked to Chen Shui-bian.
Consider the likelihood of "medical parole" before 2016. Every time the Green Camp precipitates a confrontation over "medical parole," the Ministry of Justice reaffirms that Chen "may not receive medical parole." It reaffirms the jurisprudence. Chiu Yi-ying kicked down the door to the MInister of Justice's office. She undermined public sympathy and support yet again. The Ministry of Justice has arranged for a private 243 Ping "five-star house arrest ward" in the Pei-de Hospital. It has published videos of Chen Shui-bian relaxing in the garden. His hands were rock steady. They were not shaking. The Ministry of Justice has addressed all four aspects of the issue, including compassion, logic, law, and medical treatment. Chen Shui-bian and the DPP will not find an attack on this front easy. The Ministry of Justice has already decided to "go strictly by the book." The DPP is attempting to exploit this issue by applying pressure on President Ma. But the more the DPP politicizes the case, the more Ma Ying-jeou back away from it, and the more the possibility of a political solution tends toward zero.
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP hope to resolve the matter before 2016, by resort to "medical parole." But their efforts will be in vain. Consider the possibility of a change in ruling parties and a DPP presidential pardon after 2016. Perhaps one can make a stronger case for this. But it would have preconditions. The cases pending against Chen would have to be swiftly resolved. Chen Shui-bian would also have to admit guilt and express remorse, Only then can whoever is president after 2016 pardon Chen Shui-bian. Only then can Chen Shui-bian be granted parole for his current convictions (2018 or 2009), one to three years in advance. Other cases involve specific sentences. Chen can be pardoned for them all collectively. Therefore Chen should not demand that prosecutions against him be halted. Instead he should demand speedy trials.
If the Kuomintang candidate is elected president in 2016, Chen must admit guilt and express remorse. The new president may wish to improve the political climate. He could seize the opportunity to pardon Chen Shui-bian. If the Democratic Progressive Party candidate is elected, if the cases against Chen are resolved, and if Chen admits guilt and expresses remorse, a pardon is even more likely. As Shih Ming-teh noted, "The key to Chen Shui-bian's parole, is not in the hands of Ma Ying-jeou. It is not in the mouth of Chen fanatics, (It is also not in the feet of Chiu Yi-ying) but in the heart of Chen Shui-bian."
For the DPP, Chen Shui-bian is a "chronic depression patient" whose hand shakes uncontrollably in public but remains rock steady when he thinks he is alone. He is also a symbol of insatiable greed and Taiwan independence extremism. Those who kick down doors to support him, know all about Chen Shui-bian's "hand tremors." They are merely attempting to win votes from fundamentalists who uncritically abet Chen Shui's unbridled greed and political extremism. Such tactics, in such an atmosphere, may help the Democratic Progressive Party in elections at various levels prior to 2016. But they could become a drag on the DPP's prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
The cases against Chen Shui-bian must be resolved before 2016 by means of medical parole. Otherwise the DPP will continue raising a stink. Will this lead to "medical parole" becoming an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck in 2016? Will this become a hurdle the DPP cannot overcome?
陳水扁的兩個解答：在2016之前或之後
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.24 03:03 am
陳水扁和民進黨現在都要想清楚，陳水扁的處遇問題，有兩個解決的假想時間點：一、在二○一六總統大選前，以「保外就醫」解決；二、在二○一六總統大選後，以「總統特赦」解決。
陳水扁及民進黨如今之計，似乎是想在二○一六總統大選前，以「保外就醫」或「居家療養」解決，但此計成功的可能性極低。現在民進黨必須顧慮的是：此計既然幾無成功的可能性，民進黨卻三不五時要用踹破法務部長大門之類的方法來反覆表演，究竟對社會觀感是個正數或負數？何況，此一情勢若拖到二○一六總統大選，則陳水扁的處遇問題必像毒蛇一般纏住了民進黨的選情，到時候難道民進黨的總統候選人還要再去踹曾勇夫的大門？
據說，陳水扁的律師團正在研究，以陳水扁心神喪失為理由，要求扁案停止一切審判。但此計的直接效果，就是不啻封殺了特赦之路。莫說馬英九因仍有未定讞的案子不能對扁特赦，即使民進黨人贏得了二○一六總統職位，面對完全不知懺悔且又諸案尚未定讞的陳水扁，除非不惜撕裂國家，誰敢給陳水扁特赦？
民進黨要想清楚，陳水扁因素會在二○一六發生什麼影響？現今將陳水扁「保外就醫」炒得紅紅火火的民進黨，若在二○一六總統大選被極貪、極獨與極不知恥的陳水扁纏住了，那場總統大選將是何等不可預測的場景？
陳水扁已陷入困局，「保外就醫」鬧得愈凶、愈離譜，對陳水扁「特赦」的正當性就愈低；民進黨也已陷入困境，愈要炒作「保外就醫」，二○一六總統大選就愈可能被陳水扁纏住。
回頭來看在二○一六年以前「保外就醫」的可能性。綠營每次發動「保外就醫」的衝突，就使法務部所堅持的「不可保外就醫」的法理更清楚地呈現一次，而如邱議瑩踹門事件則使「保外就醫」的社會同情又消損一次。此次法務部一方面在培德病監安排了二四三坪獨門獨院的「五星級軟禁病房」，另一方面又公布了陳水扁未抖手的「遊園」畫面，藉此充分展現了法務部在情、理、法、醫四方面的完整立場。陳水扁及民進黨倘欲攻陷這條防線，恐非易事；因為，法務部已經決定「依法行政」。至於民進黨欲以此事對馬總統施壓，但民進黨愈將此案政治化，將愈使馬英九對此避忌，因而只有愈使此案走向政治解決的可能性趨於零。
所以，陳水扁及民進黨欲在二○一六年前以「保外就醫」解決此事，即形同徒勞；因而，改朝「二○一六後以特赦解決」的方向思考，或許始為正辦。唯前提是，早日完成諸案訴訟定讞，且陳水扁須讓國人感知其有認罪悛悔之意，則在二○一六年後，無論誰任總統，皆有特赦陳水扁的可能。如此，陳水扁即有可能較現在定讞諸案的假釋期（二○一八年或二○一九年）早一至三年釋放；且其他諸案若另有定讞刑罰，皆可一併赦免。倘作此想，扁方即非但不應主張停止審判，反而應要求加速審判。
國民黨人若在二○一六年當選總統，只要扁諸案定讞且表達悛悔，新總統為改善政治氣象，當有特赦陳水扁的可能性；而若是民進黨人當選，也只要諸案定讞、扁認錯悔悟，自更有特赦的可能性。但是，關鍵在於施明德所說：「釋放陳水扁的鑰匙，不在馬英九手中，不在扁迷口中，（按，此處可加『也不在邱議瑩腳下』），而是在陳水扁心中。」
對於民進黨來說，陳水扁不但是一個「人前手抖／人後手不抖」的憂鬱病患，他也是惡貪與極獨的象徵人物。那些踹門挺扁者，其實對陳水扁的「選擇性手抖」亦是心知肚明，他（她）們只是欲借挺扁來籠絡那些挺貪挺獨的基本教義派；這樣的手法與氛圍，或許有利於民進黨二○一六年以前的各級選舉，卻可能拖累了民進黨二○一六年總統大選的選情。
依目前情勢看，陳水扁案若不可能在二○一六年前以「保外就醫」解決，而民進黨仍要這樣無理取鬧下去，會不會反而把「保外就醫」留成了民進黨在二○一六的禍根，使民進黨終究跨不過二○一六年這個重大關卡？
DPP, Leave Taiwan's Democracy Some Shred of Dignity
DPP, Leave Taiwan's Democracy Some Shred of Dignity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2013
Summary: Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.
Full text below:
Former President Chen Shui-bian has been transferred to the Taichung Prison's Pei-de Hospital. Lo and behold, this has provided Chen supporters with yet another pretext for shrill protests. DPP legislator Chiu Yi-ying, a Chen Shui-bian supporter, even kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. As a result, she has been summoned before the court. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang criticized the Ministry of Justice's action. He said it was an unwise move toward direct conflict. Chiu herself argues that she was merely exercising her authority as a legislator.
Chen Shui-bian is a former head of state. Just how should the government deal with his crime? The dispute has dragged on for years without end. But the duties of a legislator do not include the destruction of public property. Of this there can be no doubt. Both Chiu and the DPP must understand this. Otherwise, support for Chen Shui-bian will merely harm their own party. The price will be too high.
Chen Shui-bian has been serving time. His sentence has become a topic of conversation. He was being diagnosed and treated at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The slightest physical discomfort, was given a definite political spin. Chen's physical and mental condition is not good. But it does not call for medical parole. As for justice and humanity, there are clear boundaries. One. The president cannot intervene in the case. Everything must be conducted in accordance with the law. Two. Chen has been indicted in 10 cases. Judgements have been rendered in only six of them. Three are still being prosecuted. The prosecutors have yet to complete their investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the judicial process, it is too soon to talk of pardon or parole. Three. Chen Shui-bian is currently a serving out a sentence. He is not merely being detained while under investigation. This is not a "human rights" issue. Four. Chen is a former head of state. His incarceration is unprecedented. The law makes no special provisions for this. But many see a need to provide him with some degree of special treatment. Taipei Prison gave him separate quarters, and security arrangements during his medical treatment. The Taipei Prison did everything in its power to accomodate him. Chen does not qualify for medical parole. He has been transferred to Pei-de Hospital where he luxuriates in 30 square meters of private quarters, and 330 square meters of garden. This sort of VIP treatment is not accorded any other inmate.
Former Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Shih Ming-teh served 25 years as a political prisoner. He said it best. One. Everyone in prison feels pain. Take any one hundred inmates. One can be sure that every last one of them suffers from chronic depression. What must be improved is the medical care accorded prisoners. Years ago Huang Jen-chung was imprisoned because he was in behind in his tax payments. Even though Huang was afflicted with chronic illnesses, he was not allowed to bring any medicine into prison. As a result he died a premature death. Who protests the injustice visited upon Huang Jen-chung? Two. When Chen was inaugurated president, he swore an oath. "I will abide by the Constitution, fulfill the duties of my office, enhance the public welfare, defend the nation. and live up to my oath of office. If I violate my oath, I am willing to accept severe punishment by the state." Chen embezzled money from the nation's coffers. How dare he demand special privileges? Never mind that he does not feel the slightest remorse.
Three. Most importantly, Chen Shui-bian faces a sort of prisoner's dilemma. As Shih Ming-teh noted, "The key to Chen Shui-bian' release is not in the hands of Ma Ying-jeou, or in the mouth of Chen fanatics, but in the heart of Chen Shui-bian." Chen Shui-bian must awaken, repent, acknowledge the error of his ways, and return his ill-gotten gains to the people of the nation. Only then can the doors to his prison, real and spiritual, be thrown open and Chen freed. Unfortunately Chen Shui-bian, who once served eight years as the symbol of the nation, completely fails to understand this. He obstinately refuses to admit that he did anything wrong.
Chen Shui-bian refuses to admit guilt. So be it. But the Democratic Progressive Party lost power as a result of Chen's crimes. Yet most party members ignore this. Shih Ming-teh sigh called on Chen Shui-bian to do the right thing. "As a former president, please try to retain some shred of dignity." This was also a plea to the DPP members and officials who still support Ah-Bian. Since Chen entered prison, he has staged one farce after another. Most of them were his own productions, under his own direction. They include disinformation campaigns about him being at death's door, and disinformation campaigns about him being suicidal. They forget that Chen's spin-doctoring, which showed himself stammering, exhibiting signs of dementia, and undergoing degeneration, undermines the dignity of this former head of state. The Democratic Progressive Party has been out of power for over five years. It remains under the "Curse of Chen Shui-bian." How can an opposition party unable to rid itself of the taint of corruption, ever return to power?
Many have expressed solidarity with Ah-Bian. Most agree that a former head of state should be accorded some degree of respect. They may be offended, but they remain tolerant. But their tolerance has limits. Chiu Yi-ying kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Meanwhile, the DPP maintains a facade of rationality and moderation. Legislators must provide oversight of the government. But that oversight is exercised through the legislative process. Since Chen's detention and imprisonment, DPP officials have not let a day go by without challenges in the legislature. They have obstructed legislature business. They have issued statements both rational and irrational. Chen supporters have protested endlessly outside Taipei Prison, Veterans General Hospital, and Pei-de Hospital. This are all actions that members of a democratic society may not approve of, but must tolerate. Green Camp legislators may gather around the Ministry of Justice. Let them. But they may not kick down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Shih Ming-teh set the proper example. When he led the Red Shirts onto Ketegelan Boulevard to protest a corrupt president, many encouraged him to burst into the Office of the President. He held back. Chiu Yi-ying may feel aggrieved. But another former legislator, Chou Yi, crashed the gate to the Kaohsiung Court House. He was later prosecuted and served time.
Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.23
社論－給台灣民主留份尊嚴，民進黨別再鬧了
本報訊
前總統陳水扁移監台中監獄附設培德醫院，毫無意外，再度引發支持者的強烈抗爭，聲援陳水扁的民進黨立委邱議瑩甚至一腳踹破了法務部長室的門，因而遭到函送；民進黨主席蘇貞昌批評法務部此舉是「往衝突方向走」的不智之舉，邱本人則自認是行使立委職權。
台灣為了陳水扁這位卸任元首犯法，到底該有如何的處遇，爭議經年不休，但立委行使職權不包括毀損公物，應無疑義；不論對邱或對民進黨，都應該有清楚的認知，否則，挺扁不成反傷黨，代價未免太大了。
陳水扁服刑迄今，話題不斷，他的身體不適，經台北榮總診斷治療也有定論：扁身心狀況確實不好，但未達保外就醫的程度。至於司法與人道之間，也有很清楚的界限：第一，總統不能介入個案，一切要由法律判準；第二，扁涉入十個案件中，只有六件定讞，還有三件未完成司法程序，一件甚至檢察官都尚未偵結，在司法程序未完成前，談不上特赦或假釋；第三，陳水扁目前屬司法定讞的服刑，而非偵查中的在押，與人權無涉；第四，做為卸任元首，儘管過去無前例，法律亦無明定，但多數民眾也能認可必須給他一定的待遇。因此北監為他整理單獨的房舍，戒護就醫期間，北榮盡心盡力，未達保外就醫程度，移監到培德享受九坪房舍，一百多坪庭園，這個待遇是所有在監服刑者都無法企及的禮遇。
曾經坐過廿五年政治牢的民進黨前主席施明德說得最好，他的意見很簡單：第一，坐牢沒有不痛苦的，一百個囚人，一百個患有憂鬱症，該改善的是囚犯醫療，他以當年黃任中因為欠稅遭「管收」，患有慢性病的黃任中甚至不得帶藥進監所，因而提早病故，沒有人為黃任中喊一句冤；第二，扁任總統就職時曾宣誓，「余必遵守憲法，盡忠職務，增進人民福利，保衛國家，無負國民付託。如違誓言，願受國家嚴厲之制裁。」貪汙之扁何敢要求特殊禮遇，何況扁連愧疚之心都無。
第三，也是最重要的，面對陳水扁的「囚犯困境」，施明德說：「釋放陳水扁的鑰匙，不在馬英九手中，不在扁迷口中，而是在陳水扁心中。」只有陳水扁覺悟、懺悔、認錯並把不當利益還給國家人民，有形的監所、無形心牢大門都會為扁打開。很遺憾，曾經八年身為國家象徵的陳水扁，迄今完全不理解、不承認他到底犯了什麼錯。
陳水扁不認錯也罷，但離譜的是，因為扁的犯行而失去政權的民進黨，多數黨人甚至也恍若未覺，施明德感嘆呼籲陳水扁，「請留給我們一點前總統的尊嚴。」某種程度也是呼籲挺扁的民進黨支持者和黨人，因為扁入監服刑以來連番上演的鬧劇，很大部分都是他們製作、導演的，從誤傳扁病情到誤傳扁輕生，他們都忘記了，塑造扁口吃、失智、退化的形象，就是打趴卸任元首尊嚴的關鍵；民進黨失去政權五年多了，還是不能走出「陳水扁魔咒」，一個永遠無法擺脫貪汙犯法形象的在野黨，要如何重返執政？
對各種聲援阿扁的動作，一般民眾基於對卸任元首的基本尊重，保持雖嘆息但容忍的態度，但容忍也是有底線的；邱議瑩一腳踹破的不只是法務部長室的門，還有民進黨理性中道的門面。立委職司監督政府，然其職權行使在於國會問政，事實上，從扁在押到服刑，民進黨公職無一日不在議會殿堂質詢、杯葛，不論其發言基於理性或非理性；扁支持者在北監、在北榮、在培德門外抗議不斷；這都屬民主社會許多人不同意但必須忍受的範圍，即使綠委們群集法務部也罷，就是不能有破壞部長室門板此類的舉止。還是以施明德為例，當年他領導紅衫軍集結凱道抗議貪汙總統，多少人鼓動他衝進總統府，他節制了；如果邱議瑩不服，還有一位前立委同事邱毅為例，邱毅闖入高雄法院，毀其大門也遭函送法辦。
此外，蘇貞昌身為最大在野黨且曾經執政的民進黨黨主席，對台灣的民主發展是有責任的；法律面前應不分藍綠、只問是非對錯，衝突從民進黨無節制的挺扁時就已經開始，台灣社會對民進黨的容忍也有其底線。給陳水扁、卸任元首留點尊嚴，也為民進黨和台灣的民主留份尊嚴，這場鬧劇該停止了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2013
Summary: Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.
Full text below:
Former President Chen Shui-bian has been transferred to the Taichung Prison's Pei-de Hospital. Lo and behold, this has provided Chen supporters with yet another pretext for shrill protests. DPP legislator Chiu Yi-ying, a Chen Shui-bian supporter, even kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. As a result, she has been summoned before the court. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang criticized the Ministry of Justice's action. He said it was an unwise move toward direct conflict. Chiu herself argues that she was merely exercising her authority as a legislator.
Chen Shui-bian is a former head of state. Just how should the government deal with his crime? The dispute has dragged on for years without end. But the duties of a legislator do not include the destruction of public property. Of this there can be no doubt. Both Chiu and the DPP must understand this. Otherwise, support for Chen Shui-bian will merely harm their own party. The price will be too high.
Chen Shui-bian has been serving time. His sentence has become a topic of conversation. He was being diagnosed and treated at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. The slightest physical discomfort, was given a definite political spin. Chen's physical and mental condition is not good. But it does not call for medical parole. As for justice and humanity, there are clear boundaries. One. The president cannot intervene in the case. Everything must be conducted in accordance with the law. Two. Chen has been indicted in 10 cases. Judgements have been rendered in only six of them. Three are still being prosecuted. The prosecutors have yet to complete their investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the judicial process, it is too soon to talk of pardon or parole. Three. Chen Shui-bian is currently a serving out a sentence. He is not merely being detained while under investigation. This is not a "human rights" issue. Four. Chen is a former head of state. His incarceration is unprecedented. The law makes no special provisions for this. But many see a need to provide him with some degree of special treatment. Taipei Prison gave him separate quarters, and security arrangements during his medical treatment. The Taipei Prison did everything in its power to accomodate him. Chen does not qualify for medical parole. He has been transferred to Pei-de Hospital where he luxuriates in 30 square meters of private quarters, and 330 square meters of garden. This sort of VIP treatment is not accorded any other inmate.
Former Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Shih Ming-teh served 25 years as a political prisoner. He said it best. One. Everyone in prison feels pain. Take any one hundred inmates. One can be sure that every last one of them suffers from chronic depression. What must be improved is the medical care accorded prisoners. Years ago Huang Jen-chung was imprisoned because he was in behind in his tax payments. Even though Huang was afflicted with chronic illnesses, he was not allowed to bring any medicine into prison. As a result he died a premature death. Who protests the injustice visited upon Huang Jen-chung? Two. When Chen was inaugurated president, he swore an oath. "I will abide by the Constitution, fulfill the duties of my office, enhance the public welfare, defend the nation. and live up to my oath of office. If I violate my oath, I am willing to accept severe punishment by the state." Chen embezzled money from the nation's coffers. How dare he demand special privileges? Never mind that he does not feel the slightest remorse.
Three. Most importantly, Chen Shui-bian faces a sort of prisoner's dilemma. As Shih Ming-teh noted, "The key to Chen Shui-bian' release is not in the hands of Ma Ying-jeou, or in the mouth of Chen fanatics, but in the heart of Chen Shui-bian." Chen Shui-bian must awaken, repent, acknowledge the error of his ways, and return his ill-gotten gains to the people of the nation. Only then can the doors to his prison, real and spiritual, be thrown open and Chen freed. Unfortunately Chen Shui-bian, who once served eight years as the symbol of the nation, completely fails to understand this. He obstinately refuses to admit that he did anything wrong.
Chen Shui-bian refuses to admit guilt. So be it. But the Democratic Progressive Party lost power as a result of Chen's crimes. Yet most party members ignore this. Shih Ming-teh sigh called on Chen Shui-bian to do the right thing. "As a former president, please try to retain some shred of dignity." This was also a plea to the DPP members and officials who still support Ah-Bian. Since Chen entered prison, he has staged one farce after another. Most of them were his own productions, under his own direction. They include disinformation campaigns about him being at death's door, and disinformation campaigns about him being suicidal. They forget that Chen's spin-doctoring, which showed himself stammering, exhibiting signs of dementia, and undergoing degeneration, undermines the dignity of this former head of state. The Democratic Progressive Party has been out of power for over five years. It remains under the "Curse of Chen Shui-bian." How can an opposition party unable to rid itself of the taint of corruption, ever return to power?
Many have expressed solidarity with Ah-Bian. Most agree that a former head of state should be accorded some degree of respect. They may be offended, but they remain tolerant. But their tolerance has limits. Chiu Yi-ying kicked down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Meanwhile, the DPP maintains a facade of rationality and moderation. Legislators must provide oversight of the government. But that oversight is exercised through the legislative process. Since Chen's detention and imprisonment, DPP officials have not let a day go by without challenges in the legislature. They have obstructed legislature business. They have issued statements both rational and irrational. Chen supporters have protested endlessly outside Taipei Prison, Veterans General Hospital, and Pei-de Hospital. This are all actions that members of a democratic society may not approve of, but must tolerate. Green Camp legislators may gather around the Ministry of Justice. Let them. But they may not kick down the door to the Minister of Justice's office. Shih Ming-teh set the proper example. When he led the Red Shirts onto Ketegelan Boulevard to protest a corrupt president, many encouraged him to burst into the Office of the President. He held back. Chiu Yi-ying may feel aggrieved. But another former legislator, Chou Yi, crashed the gate to the Kaohsiung Court House. He was later prosecuted and served time.
Su Tseng-chang is Party Chairman to the largest opposition party, at one time the ruling party. Democracy demands responsibility. All are equal before the law, Blue and Green alike. All that matters is right and wrong. The conflict began when the DPP unconditionally threw its support behind Ah-Bian. The public's tolerance of Democratic Progressive Party shennanigans has limits. Chen Shui-bian as a former head of state, should cling to some shred of dignity. For the sake of the Democratic Progressive Party and the ROC's democracy, it is time to ring the curtain down on this farce.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.23
社論－給台灣民主留份尊嚴，民進黨別再鬧了
本報訊
前總統陳水扁移監台中監獄附設培德醫院，毫無意外，再度引發支持者的強烈抗爭，聲援陳水扁的民進黨立委邱議瑩甚至一腳踹破了法務部長室的門，因而遭到函送；民進黨主席蘇貞昌批評法務部此舉是「往衝突方向走」的不智之舉，邱本人則自認是行使立委職權。
台灣為了陳水扁這位卸任元首犯法，到底該有如何的處遇，爭議經年不休，但立委行使職權不包括毀損公物，應無疑義；不論對邱或對民進黨，都應該有清楚的認知，否則，挺扁不成反傷黨，代價未免太大了。
陳水扁服刑迄今，話題不斷，他的身體不適，經台北榮總診斷治療也有定論：扁身心狀況確實不好，但未達保外就醫的程度。至於司法與人道之間，也有很清楚的界限：第一，總統不能介入個案，一切要由法律判準；第二，扁涉入十個案件中，只有六件定讞，還有三件未完成司法程序，一件甚至檢察官都尚未偵結，在司法程序未完成前，談不上特赦或假釋；第三，陳水扁目前屬司法定讞的服刑，而非偵查中的在押，與人權無涉；第四，做為卸任元首，儘管過去無前例，法律亦無明定，但多數民眾也能認可必須給他一定的待遇。因此北監為他整理單獨的房舍，戒護就醫期間，北榮盡心盡力，未達保外就醫程度，移監到培德享受九坪房舍，一百多坪庭園，這個待遇是所有在監服刑者都無法企及的禮遇。
曾經坐過廿五年政治牢的民進黨前主席施明德說得最好，他的意見很簡單：第一，坐牢沒有不痛苦的，一百個囚人，一百個患有憂鬱症，該改善的是囚犯醫療，他以當年黃任中因為欠稅遭「管收」，患有慢性病的黃任中甚至不得帶藥進監所，因而提早病故，沒有人為黃任中喊一句冤；第二，扁任總統就職時曾宣誓，「余必遵守憲法，盡忠職務，增進人民福利，保衛國家，無負國民付託。如違誓言，願受國家嚴厲之制裁。」貪汙之扁何敢要求特殊禮遇，何況扁連愧疚之心都無。
第三，也是最重要的，面對陳水扁的「囚犯困境」，施明德說：「釋放陳水扁的鑰匙，不在馬英九手中，不在扁迷口中，而是在陳水扁心中。」只有陳水扁覺悟、懺悔、認錯並把不當利益還給國家人民，有形的監所、無形心牢大門都會為扁打開。很遺憾，曾經八年身為國家象徵的陳水扁，迄今完全不理解、不承認他到底犯了什麼錯。
陳水扁不認錯也罷，但離譜的是，因為扁的犯行而失去政權的民進黨，多數黨人甚至也恍若未覺，施明德感嘆呼籲陳水扁，「請留給我們一點前總統的尊嚴。」某種程度也是呼籲挺扁的民進黨支持者和黨人，因為扁入監服刑以來連番上演的鬧劇，很大部分都是他們製作、導演的，從誤傳扁病情到誤傳扁輕生，他們都忘記了，塑造扁口吃、失智、退化的形象，就是打趴卸任元首尊嚴的關鍵；民進黨失去政權五年多了，還是不能走出「陳水扁魔咒」，一個永遠無法擺脫貪汙犯法形象的在野黨，要如何重返執政？
對各種聲援阿扁的動作，一般民眾基於對卸任元首的基本尊重，保持雖嘆息但容忍的態度，但容忍也是有底線的；邱議瑩一腳踹破的不只是法務部長室的門，還有民進黨理性中道的門面。立委職司監督政府，然其職權行使在於國會問政，事實上，從扁在押到服刑，民進黨公職無一日不在議會殿堂質詢、杯葛，不論其發言基於理性或非理性；扁支持者在北監、在北榮、在培德門外抗議不斷；這都屬民主社會許多人不同意但必須忍受的範圍，即使綠委們群集法務部也罷，就是不能有破壞部長室門板此類的舉止。還是以施明德為例，當年他領導紅衫軍集結凱道抗議貪汙總統，多少人鼓動他衝進總統府，他節制了；如果邱議瑩不服，還有一位前立委同事邱毅為例，邱毅闖入高雄法院，毀其大門也遭函送法辦。
此外，蘇貞昌身為最大在野黨且曾經執政的民進黨黨主席，對台灣的民主發展是有責任的；法律面前應不分藍綠、只問是非對錯，衝突從民進黨無節制的挺扁時就已經開始，台灣社會對民進黨的容忍也有其底線。給陳水扁、卸任元首留點尊嚴，也為民進黨和台灣的民主留份尊嚴，這場鬧劇該停止了。
Monday, April 22, 2013
How Long Must Taiwan Endure the Curse of Chen Shui-bian?
How Long Must Taiwan Endure the Curse of Chen Shui-bian?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2013
Summary: Chen Shui-bian is billed as the "Son of Taiwan." In fact, Chen led Taiwan's democracy down the path of social divisiveness. Is the DPP, a self-styled "nativist political party," determined to chain Taiwan to Chen Shui-bian?
Full text below:
Chen Shui-bian has been transferred from the Taipei Prison to the Taichung Prison Pei-de Hospital for treatment. The DPP reacted by obstructing legislative business, idling the Legislative Yuan for an entire day. A contingent of Green Camp legislators arrived at the Ministry of Justice, determined to punish evil-doers. In a fit of apoplexy, they kicked down the door to the office of the Minister of Justice. Chen Chih-chung, as usual, mobilized protests. He accused the Ministry of Justice of lacking humanity.
This was a stormy day. For the public on Taiwan though, it was utterly meaningless. Chen Shui-bian was indicted for corruption five years ago. Since then the slightest sign of trouble would provoke the DPP, the Chen family, and Chen fanatics into public displays of hysteria. This has been the case with court appearances, judgments, medical treatment, and hospital transfers alike. The Green Camp is still milking Chen Shui-bian for all he is worth. Chen is a lever by which the DPP can apply pressure on the ruling KMT. He is also a means by which the DPP can emotionally blackmail the Taiwan public. He is a means by which the DPP can hijack Taiwan's democracy and rule of law. Chen Shui-bian has been in prison for five years. The DPP persists in chaining Taiwan to Chen forever. But just exactly what is its destination?
Chen Shui-bian's right to medical treatment cannot be ignored. That goes without saying. But he was transferred to Special Quarters in the Pei-de Hospital Central Taiwan Medical Treatment Center. He luxuriates in a private 800 square meter large recovery room and green space. His family members are allowed unlimited visits. He is diagnosed, treated, and cared for by an expert medical team. Only former presidents receive this five-star treatment. Buddhist Master Hsing Yun once suggested that President Ma put Chen Shui-bian under house arrest. In fact the conditions of the Pei-de Hospital are comparable to those of house arrest. Besides, Chen Chih-chung is currently unemployed. He is there all the time. Chen is probably even better off than he would be recuperating at home. Yet the DPP is determined to demagogue the issue. Why?
Veterans General Hospital is a conventional general hospital. If it continues treating Chen Shui-bian in the future, it is sure to undermine the rights of other patients, and squander precious medical resources. Chen Shui-bian must eventually be discharged. But the Ministry of Justice need not return him to the Taipei Prison. It can transfer him to the spacious and tranquil Pei-de Hospital. Here he will enjoy luxurious treatment, consistent with the law. If Chen Shui-bian is actually suffering from depression and other disorders, he will receive immediate attention from the medical staff. This is probably as far as humanitarian considerations can be taken.
Currently 2091 convicts on Taiwan are afflicted with mental illnesses. Among them 445 suffer from depression. Pei-de Hospital has admitted 150 of them. Which of these patient/inmates is eligible for "medical parole?" Which of them is eligible for "home recuperation?" Which of them luxuriates in his own private, 800 square meter "five-star house arrest ward?" The DPP's abetting of Chen Shui-bian is shameless. Does it really not know when to leave well enough alone?
Chen Chih-chung is leading Chen fanatics in hysterical protests. As Chen's son, his destiny is tied to his father's. He has personal motives. But what about the DPP? Chen family corruption has been exposed for all to see. Public attitudes are changing. But the DPP dithers. It dare not cut its ties to Chen Shui-bian. The prosecution of the Chen family has yet to be concluded. Yet the DPP has apparently forgotten the disaster Chen visited upon the Green Camp. It persists in clinging to him, as if he were a political asset. Is the DPP not a wee bit confused?
If the DPP persists in putting Chen Shui-bian on a pedestal to worship, that is its choice. But in order to abet Chen Shui-bian, the DPP mobilized its legislators. They paralyzed the legislature, at the expense of the nation and society, dragging them through the muck. Its behavior was both selfish and obtuse. Out of political calculations, the DPP played up Chen's incarceration for all it was worth. This may reveal the Ma administration's impotence. But it also reveals Green Camp legislators' brutality and arrogance, for a single political party and a single politician. Its move probably cost the DPP more points than it gained.
The Democratic Progressive Party is a political party seeking to regain political power. It is not a splinter party whose role is merely devil's advocate. It cannot afford to be too cavalier about obstructing legislature business. If we were living under authoritarian rule, and Chen Shui-bian a persecuted martyr, the DPP would be fully justified in throwing its support behind him. It would receive support from the people as well. But this is not authoritarian rule. Chen Shui-bian is not a persecuted martyr. He is corrupt kleptocrat who betrayed the public and stole from them the fruits of democracy. The DPP's behavior reveals its political favoritism and indifference to justice.
The Legislative Yuan has been idled for an entire day. The public is not witnessing a DPP victory. It is witnessing a political party that has acquired political tricks, but lost its moral compass. Today Green Camp legislators flew into a rage and kicked down the door to the office of the Minister of Justice. The public watched as the DPP engaged in crude violence. It watched as the DPP attempted to score political points. Twenty years later, the DPP is still chasing its own tail. Even more frightening, the DPP has chained Chen Shui-bian to Taiwan's leg, as if it were an iron ball.
Chen Shui-bian is billed as the "Son of Taiwan." In fact, Chen led Taiwan's democracy down the path of social divisiveness. Is the DPP, a self-styled "nativist political party," determined to chain Taiwan to Chen Shui-bian?
台灣還要被陳水扁魔咒糾纏多久
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.21 03:37 am
陳水扁從北榮轉送台中監獄培德醫院治療。為此，民進黨杯葛國會議事，讓立法院空轉一天；一群綠委到法務部興師問罪，甚至發飆踢破法務部長辦公室大門。陳致中則照例率眾抗議，痛批法務部沒有人性。
這是很不平靜的一天，對台灣而言，其實也是毫無營養的一天。陳水扁涉貪五年來，他的任何風吹草動，都會引發民進黨、扁家和扁迷們類似的激情演出；出庭、判決、移監、送醫、轉院，無不如此。綠營還在榨取陳水扁最後的利用價值，因為這是可以向執政黨施壓的槓桿；但這也是在勒索人民的感情，綁架台灣的民主法治。陳水扁繫獄五年，如果民進黨還要把台灣和他緊緊綁在一起，請問你們的終點站在哪裡？
陳水扁的受刑處遇和醫療人權，當然不可忽視。但他被送進培德醫院醫療專區，享有兩百多坪的休養和綠地空間，家屬可不限次數探視，有專業醫療團隊的診治和看護，這恐怕也只有總統級受刑人才享有的五星待遇。星雲法師曾建議馬總統，以「軟禁」的方式寬待陳水扁；而培德醫院的休養環境和條件，其實已形同給了他「軟禁」待遇。何況，只要目前無業的陳致中勤於探訪，其實幾與「居家療養」無異，且優於「居家療養」。而民進黨卻仍要大肆藉題發揮，道理何在？
榮總是一般性綜合醫院，若無限期收治陳水扁，勢必影響其他病患權益，也浪費醫療資源。在陳水扁必須出院的前提下，法務部未將他送回北監，而選擇送到寬敞、寧靜的培德，這已是受刑人所能享受的最優厚的待遇，也是法律考量的極限。在此，陳水扁罹患的憂鬱症及其他疾患，都可獲得醫療人員的即時照護，這應已是人道考量的極限。
試問：全國有二○九一名精神病患受刑人，其中四四五人患憂鬱症，在培德病監即有一五○人；這些病患受刑人，誰能「保外就醫」？誰能「居家療養」？誰有二四三坪獨門獨院的「五星級軟禁病房」？民進黨挺扁若不知恥，難道也不知足？
陳致中率扁迷激動抗議，那是因為他和陳水扁是命運共同體，身為人子，有其個人不得不然的動機。但民進黨呢？在扁家貪瀆曝光、社會輿意滔滔之際，民進黨始終囁嚅，不知如何和陳水扁切割。而今扁案審判尚未全然終結，民進黨卻似又已忘卻阿扁帶給綠營的災難及恥辱，把他當成政治資產緊緊擁抱，這難道不嫌錯亂？
事實上，民進黨要把陳水扁放在神桌上供奉到幾時，那是黨自己的選擇。但民進黨動員黨籍立委為扁撐腰，乃至不惜癱瘓立法議事來為扁造勢，把國家和社會前進的腳步拴住、甚至拖入泥沼，那就太過自私，也太過愚昧。從政治的算計看，藉阿扁的題目大肆發揮，或許能凸顯馬政府的瞻顧失據；但從民眾的角度，卻只看到綠委為了一黨一人之私的粗暴囂張及無理取鬧，這對民進黨恐怕只會減分而不是加分。
區別就在，民進黨畢竟是一個以奪回執政權為目標的政黨，而不是只想做一個以唱反派角色為己足的小反對黨；那麼，它在杯葛議題的選擇上，就不能太過輕重顛倒。如果今天是威權統治，而陳水扁是個受迫害的烈士，民進黨盡可傾力相挺，也會獲得人民支持；但他是一個欺騙了台灣人民感情、盜取了民主果實的政客，民進黨的大動作，不僅只是暴露自己徇私護短，更扭曲了司法的公義天平。
這一天，立法院鎮日空轉，人們看到的不是民進黨杯葛的勝利，而是它的問政手段已經走到失去目標的地步。這一天，綠委怒踢法務部長大門，人們除了看到粗野暴力，也看到一味追求「技術性」勝利的民進黨還在繞著自己廿年前的尾巴打轉。更可怕的是，它已把陳水扁魔咒的鐵球，鏈鎖在台灣的腳上。
號稱「台灣之子」的陳水扁，把台灣民主帶向了分裂的深谷。而自封「本土政黨」的民進黨，真的要繼續利用阿扁來困住台灣嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2013
Summary: Chen Shui-bian is billed as the "Son of Taiwan." In fact, Chen led Taiwan's democracy down the path of social divisiveness. Is the DPP, a self-styled "nativist political party," determined to chain Taiwan to Chen Shui-bian?
Full text below:
Chen Shui-bian has been transferred from the Taipei Prison to the Taichung Prison Pei-de Hospital for treatment. The DPP reacted by obstructing legislative business, idling the Legislative Yuan for an entire day. A contingent of Green Camp legislators arrived at the Ministry of Justice, determined to punish evil-doers. In a fit of apoplexy, they kicked down the door to the office of the Minister of Justice. Chen Chih-chung, as usual, mobilized protests. He accused the Ministry of Justice of lacking humanity.
This was a stormy day. For the public on Taiwan though, it was utterly meaningless. Chen Shui-bian was indicted for corruption five years ago. Since then the slightest sign of trouble would provoke the DPP, the Chen family, and Chen fanatics into public displays of hysteria. This has been the case with court appearances, judgments, medical treatment, and hospital transfers alike. The Green Camp is still milking Chen Shui-bian for all he is worth. Chen is a lever by which the DPP can apply pressure on the ruling KMT. He is also a means by which the DPP can emotionally blackmail the Taiwan public. He is a means by which the DPP can hijack Taiwan's democracy and rule of law. Chen Shui-bian has been in prison for five years. The DPP persists in chaining Taiwan to Chen forever. But just exactly what is its destination?
Chen Shui-bian's right to medical treatment cannot be ignored. That goes without saying. But he was transferred to Special Quarters in the Pei-de Hospital Central Taiwan Medical Treatment Center. He luxuriates in a private 800 square meter large recovery room and green space. His family members are allowed unlimited visits. He is diagnosed, treated, and cared for by an expert medical team. Only former presidents receive this five-star treatment. Buddhist Master Hsing Yun once suggested that President Ma put Chen Shui-bian under house arrest. In fact the conditions of the Pei-de Hospital are comparable to those of house arrest. Besides, Chen Chih-chung is currently unemployed. He is there all the time. Chen is probably even better off than he would be recuperating at home. Yet the DPP is determined to demagogue the issue. Why?
Veterans General Hospital is a conventional general hospital. If it continues treating Chen Shui-bian in the future, it is sure to undermine the rights of other patients, and squander precious medical resources. Chen Shui-bian must eventually be discharged. But the Ministry of Justice need not return him to the Taipei Prison. It can transfer him to the spacious and tranquil Pei-de Hospital. Here he will enjoy luxurious treatment, consistent with the law. If Chen Shui-bian is actually suffering from depression and other disorders, he will receive immediate attention from the medical staff. This is probably as far as humanitarian considerations can be taken.
Currently 2091 convicts on Taiwan are afflicted with mental illnesses. Among them 445 suffer from depression. Pei-de Hospital has admitted 150 of them. Which of these patient/inmates is eligible for "medical parole?" Which of them is eligible for "home recuperation?" Which of them luxuriates in his own private, 800 square meter "five-star house arrest ward?" The DPP's abetting of Chen Shui-bian is shameless. Does it really not know when to leave well enough alone?
Chen Chih-chung is leading Chen fanatics in hysterical protests. As Chen's son, his destiny is tied to his father's. He has personal motives. But what about the DPP? Chen family corruption has been exposed for all to see. Public attitudes are changing. But the DPP dithers. It dare not cut its ties to Chen Shui-bian. The prosecution of the Chen family has yet to be concluded. Yet the DPP has apparently forgotten the disaster Chen visited upon the Green Camp. It persists in clinging to him, as if he were a political asset. Is the DPP not a wee bit confused?
If the DPP persists in putting Chen Shui-bian on a pedestal to worship, that is its choice. But in order to abet Chen Shui-bian, the DPP mobilized its legislators. They paralyzed the legislature, at the expense of the nation and society, dragging them through the muck. Its behavior was both selfish and obtuse. Out of political calculations, the DPP played up Chen's incarceration for all it was worth. This may reveal the Ma administration's impotence. But it also reveals Green Camp legislators' brutality and arrogance, for a single political party and a single politician. Its move probably cost the DPP more points than it gained.
The Democratic Progressive Party is a political party seeking to regain political power. It is not a splinter party whose role is merely devil's advocate. It cannot afford to be too cavalier about obstructing legislature business. If we were living under authoritarian rule, and Chen Shui-bian a persecuted martyr, the DPP would be fully justified in throwing its support behind him. It would receive support from the people as well. But this is not authoritarian rule. Chen Shui-bian is not a persecuted martyr. He is corrupt kleptocrat who betrayed the public and stole from them the fruits of democracy. The DPP's behavior reveals its political favoritism and indifference to justice.
The Legislative Yuan has been idled for an entire day. The public is not witnessing a DPP victory. It is witnessing a political party that has acquired political tricks, but lost its moral compass. Today Green Camp legislators flew into a rage and kicked down the door to the office of the Minister of Justice. The public watched as the DPP engaged in crude violence. It watched as the DPP attempted to score political points. Twenty years later, the DPP is still chasing its own tail. Even more frightening, the DPP has chained Chen Shui-bian to Taiwan's leg, as if it were an iron ball.
Chen Shui-bian is billed as the "Son of Taiwan." In fact, Chen led Taiwan's democracy down the path of social divisiveness. Is the DPP, a self-styled "nativist political party," determined to chain Taiwan to Chen Shui-bian?
台灣還要被陳水扁魔咒糾纏多久
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.21 03:37 am
陳水扁從北榮轉送台中監獄培德醫院治療。為此，民進黨杯葛國會議事，讓立法院空轉一天；一群綠委到法務部興師問罪，甚至發飆踢破法務部長辦公室大門。陳致中則照例率眾抗議，痛批法務部沒有人性。
這是很不平靜的一天，對台灣而言，其實也是毫無營養的一天。陳水扁涉貪五年來，他的任何風吹草動，都會引發民進黨、扁家和扁迷們類似的激情演出；出庭、判決、移監、送醫、轉院，無不如此。綠營還在榨取陳水扁最後的利用價值，因為這是可以向執政黨施壓的槓桿；但這也是在勒索人民的感情，綁架台灣的民主法治。陳水扁繫獄五年，如果民進黨還要把台灣和他緊緊綁在一起，請問你們的終點站在哪裡？
陳水扁的受刑處遇和醫療人權，當然不可忽視。但他被送進培德醫院醫療專區，享有兩百多坪的休養和綠地空間，家屬可不限次數探視，有專業醫療團隊的診治和看護，這恐怕也只有總統級受刑人才享有的五星待遇。星雲法師曾建議馬總統，以「軟禁」的方式寬待陳水扁；而培德醫院的休養環境和條件，其實已形同給了他「軟禁」待遇。何況，只要目前無業的陳致中勤於探訪，其實幾與「居家療養」無異，且優於「居家療養」。而民進黨卻仍要大肆藉題發揮，道理何在？
榮總是一般性綜合醫院，若無限期收治陳水扁，勢必影響其他病患權益，也浪費醫療資源。在陳水扁必須出院的前提下，法務部未將他送回北監，而選擇送到寬敞、寧靜的培德，這已是受刑人所能享受的最優厚的待遇，也是法律考量的極限。在此，陳水扁罹患的憂鬱症及其他疾患，都可獲得醫療人員的即時照護，這應已是人道考量的極限。
試問：全國有二○九一名精神病患受刑人，其中四四五人患憂鬱症，在培德病監即有一五○人；這些病患受刑人，誰能「保外就醫」？誰能「居家療養」？誰有二四三坪獨門獨院的「五星級軟禁病房」？民進黨挺扁若不知恥，難道也不知足？
陳致中率扁迷激動抗議，那是因為他和陳水扁是命運共同體，身為人子，有其個人不得不然的動機。但民進黨呢？在扁家貪瀆曝光、社會輿意滔滔之際，民進黨始終囁嚅，不知如何和陳水扁切割。而今扁案審判尚未全然終結，民進黨卻似又已忘卻阿扁帶給綠營的災難及恥辱，把他當成政治資產緊緊擁抱，這難道不嫌錯亂？
事實上，民進黨要把陳水扁放在神桌上供奉到幾時，那是黨自己的選擇。但民進黨動員黨籍立委為扁撐腰，乃至不惜癱瘓立法議事來為扁造勢，把國家和社會前進的腳步拴住、甚至拖入泥沼，那就太過自私，也太過愚昧。從政治的算計看，藉阿扁的題目大肆發揮，或許能凸顯馬政府的瞻顧失據；但從民眾的角度，卻只看到綠委為了一黨一人之私的粗暴囂張及無理取鬧，這對民進黨恐怕只會減分而不是加分。
區別就在，民進黨畢竟是一個以奪回執政權為目標的政黨，而不是只想做一個以唱反派角色為己足的小反對黨；那麼，它在杯葛議題的選擇上，就不能太過輕重顛倒。如果今天是威權統治，而陳水扁是個受迫害的烈士，民進黨盡可傾力相挺，也會獲得人民支持；但他是一個欺騙了台灣人民感情、盜取了民主果實的政客，民進黨的大動作，不僅只是暴露自己徇私護短，更扭曲了司法的公義天平。
這一天，立法院鎮日空轉，人們看到的不是民進黨杯葛的勝利，而是它的問政手段已經走到失去目標的地步。這一天，綠委怒踢法務部長大門，人們除了看到粗野暴力，也看到一味追求「技術性」勝利的民進黨還在繞著自己廿年前的尾巴打轉。更可怕的是，它已把陳水扁魔咒的鐵球，鏈鎖在台灣的腳上。
號稱「台灣之子」的陳水扁，把台灣民主帶向了分裂的深谷。而自封「本土政黨」的民進黨，真的要繼續利用阿扁來困住台灣嗎？
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Taiwan Independence and Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Deactivation: Neither is Justified
Taiwan Independence and Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Deactivation: Neither is Justified
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2013
Summary: Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
Full text below:
Lee Teng-hui ruled for 12 years. During and after his reign, he adopted a Taiwan independence path even more extreme than the DPP's. The DPP now aggressively champions halting and abolishing nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui, on the other hand, has yet to change his support for nuclear power generation. This difference has interesting implications.
Lee follows the same Taiwan independence path as the DPP. Lee differs however, on nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui has cast doubt on Tsai Ing-wen's "nuclear-free homeland" initiative more than once. He wondered, "Is it possible to go non-nuclear?" He wondered, "Without nuclear power, what will Taiwan's future be?"
Taiwan independence, basically, is nothing more than demagoguery. It is a tool for power struggles within the Green Camp, between the TSU and the DPP, and betweeen Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh. It is a tool for power struggles between the Green Camp and the Blue Camp, between the DPP and the KMT. In fact, all of the parties involved know that Taiwan independence is impossible. Therefore Lee Teng-hui has used the pro-Taiwan independence Taiwan Solidarity Union to hijack the DPP, and support Tsai Ing-wen's bid for president. This was nothing more than a power struggle. Also, Taiwan independence advocates openly demand "guarantees of Taiwan's primacy." Lee Teng-hui and the DPP are Taiwan independence fellow travelers.
Taiwan independence today is a phony issue. Its sole purpose is to divide Taiwan to win votes. It cannot possibly succeed. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, one relevant to the ROC's economic development and national security. It differs from Taiwan independence, which is all talk and no substance. Halting and abolishing nuclear power generation is a path of no return. If we go down that path, we will find ourselves trapped in a nightmare, wondering "How in the world will we get the electricity we need?" We will be wondering, as Lee Teng-hui has, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
Lee Teng-hui knows perfectly well that Taiwan independence is a phony issue that can temporarily divide society. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, for which there are no easy answers. If implemented, we will find ourselves on a downward path. No one knows where that path will end. Also, without nuclear power, Taiwan will be even less capable of achieving any sort of "independence."
Why do Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen, and the DPP hold such different positions on nuclear power generation? Because Lee Teng-hui is not running for office. For him, nuclear power generation is not part of his power struggle. For him the critical issue is Taiwan's survival and security. Lee Teng-hui wants Taiwan to survive. Therefore he wants a pragmatic and sound energy policy. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen and key DPP leaders advocate an immediate halt to construction on the 4NPP and the eventual abolition of nuclear power generation altogether. Why? Because they are concerned primarily with public opinion, which currently opposes nuclear power generation. They see the issue primarily as part of a power struggle. They willfully disregard its impact on national survival and national security. According to their calculations, if they can gain office by riding the anti-nuclear wave, so be it. Will the halting or abolishing of nuclear power generation lead to Taiwan's eventual decline? They cannot be bothered to think about such things for now.
Taiwan independence and the abolition of the 4NPP are intensely populist issues. A simple proclamation that "I love Taiwan" can enable Taiwan independence to flex its political muscles. The implication of course is that anyone who does not support Taiwan independence "does not love Taiwan." The anti-nuke slogan, "I am human, I am anti-nuclear" is equally simplistic -- and equally powerful. But suppose one supports safe nuclear power generation? Does that mean one is "not human," or "sub-human?" The United States, Russia, and Japan all suffered major nuclear disasters. Yet all three continue using nuclear power generation. Were those not "choices made by humans?" Lee Teng-hui differs from Tsai Ing-wen on nuclear power generation. They are different humans making different choices. One cannot say that one or the other is "not human" or "sub-human." Tsai Ing-wen merely wishes to ride the wave of anti-nuclear sentiment into political office, without concern for the eventual cost. Lee Teng-hui conversely is thinking about the consequences for Taiwan once nuclear power generation is halted and abolished.
Current controversy over nuclear power generation has resulted in another political spectacle. The 4NPP has landed Ma Ying-jeou in a dilemma, one reminscent of Lee Teng-hui's interaction with the Taiwan independence movement. When Lee Teng-hui first became president, he kept Taiwan independence advocates at arm's length. Hence the "National Unification Guidelines." Later however, his attitude changed. His "sorrow endured by the Taiwanese" morphed into "The Republic of China no longer exists." He moved further and further toward Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui was clearly caught in the traditional dilemma faced by the Kuomintang. He did not know how to defend the Republic of China. Nor did he know how to refute the rhetoric of Taiwan independence. As a result, he unconsciously gravitated toward Taiwan independence. He pandered to populism in order to consolidate political power. In the end, Lee Teng-hui fell into the Taiwan independence abyss. This plight of the Kuomintang was reflected in the DPP's "Referendum on UN membership." The KMT supported the "Referendum on UN membership" because the KMT could not justify the existence of the Republic of China or refute the rhetoric supporting Taiwan independence.
Today the Ma administration finds itself in a similar situation regarding nuclear power generation. It does not know how to justify the continued use of nuclear power generation, or how to refute those who demand the abolition of nuclear power generation. As a result, it caved in to Tsai Ing-wen's call for a "nuclear-free homeland," the same way it caved into demands to "join the UN," with calls to "return to the UN." It offered to hold a public referendum on the 4NPP. It revealed its inability to make the case for nuclear power generation. As a result, the referendum is now seen as a sign that the Ma administration is about to throw in the towel.
To this day, the Kuomintang has lacked the ability to defend the Republic of China or refute Taiwan independence. Its sole response to the February 28 incident is to apologize, rather than demand an airing of the facts. Taiwan independence today is on the wane, primarily because the public is sick and tired of the damage inflicted upon them by Taiwan independence political wrangling. For over a decade, Taiwan independence was holy writ. But people are gradually waking from the nightmare.
Nuclear power generation is different. Suppose that a few years from now, nuclear power generation is actually abolished, and Taiwan's fate is up in the air? The public may eventually wake up, but the nightmare will not end. Taiwan will continue hurtling downhill towards disaster. The DPP's promotion of Taiwan independence did not destroy Taiwan. But its abolition of nuclear power generation could.
Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
台獨與核四：兩個說不清楚的議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.19 03:14 am
李登輝曾主政十二年，在下台前後，走向比民進黨還要台獨的台獨路線；但是，民進黨如今全力倡議停廢核電，李登輝卻迄今未改其支持核電的立場。此中差異，耐人尋味。
李的台獨路線與民進黨同，但李的核電思維卻與民進黨異。李登輝幾度質疑蔡英文的「非核家園」，他說「非核要怎麼非？」，又問「不能維持核電，台灣未來要何去何從？」
何以如此？因為，台獨路線基本上僅是意識形態的操作，亦即只是用來作為綠營內部「權力鬥爭」（台聯及民進黨，蘇貞昌及謝長廷），與藍綠「政權鬥爭」（民進黨與國民黨）的說辭而已，但其實各方皆知不可能在現實世界中實現台獨。所以，李登輝以更台獨的台聯來挾持民進黨，及支持民進黨的蔡英文競選總統，皆無非為一種「權力鬥爭」的操作而已；何況，台獨以冠冕堂皇的「建立台灣主體性」為號召，所以李登輝與民進黨在台獨路線上是同路人。
不過，台獨到了今天畢竟已是一個買空賣空的「假議題」；只是用以在政治上撕裂台灣，爭取選票，卻無可能真正實施；但是，核電存廢卻是一個攸關台灣經濟發展及國安前景的「真議題」，而不像「台獨」那類「空口嚼舌」的「假議題」；一旦真正停廢核電，走上不可回逆的道路，而墜入「電不知從哪裡來」的噩夢，即如李登輝所質疑「台灣的未來將何去何從」？
李登輝心中十分明白，台獨的「假議題」只是一時撕裂社會；但廢核的「真議題」倘若沒有足可補救的能源政策，則將使台灣走上衰竭耗弱不知伊於胡底的下坡路。何況，如果沒有了核電，台灣會不會更加沒有「獨立」的條件？
為什麼李登輝與蔡英文及民進黨?面人物對核電有如此不同的立場？因為，李登輝不參加選舉了，核電對他而言，不是一個「權力鬥爭」議題，而是一個攸關台灣「生存及國安」的問題，李登輝仍希望台灣在務實而正確的能源政策下好好活下去。相對而言，蔡英文等民進黨要角何以主張立即停建核四、走向廢核？因為，他們見到當前的反核民意可供操作，遂將核電也看成了「權力鬥爭」的議題，而故意無視其應為「生存及國安」問題；在他們的算計中，倘能藉反核浪潮贏得選舉即可，至於台灣是否會因停廢核電而走上衰敗，絕非他們此時此刻想要面對的問題。
台獨議題與核四議題皆有極濃的民粹色彩。一句「愛台灣」，就把「台獨」操作得張力十足；言下之意，不主張台獨者就是「不愛台灣」。同樣，一句「我是人，我反核」，也簡單有力；但是，支持使用「安全的核電」者，就「不是人」嗎？能不能問：何以美、俄、日三個曾經發生重大核災的國家如今仍然維持核電政策，難道那不是「人的抉擇」？因此，如今在核電政策上李登輝與蔡英文的立場不同，應當視為「不同人」的差異，而不應說何者「不是人」。蔡英文想的只是要藉反核浪潮而不計後果地攫奪政權，李登輝想的卻是停廢核電後「台灣何去何從」？
在這一波核電爭議中的另一政治奇觀，是馬英九今日面對核四的困境，居然與李登輝當年與台獨的互動有幾分神似。李登輝就任總統之初，與台獨保持距離，因而有《國家統一綱領》；後來，漸漸從「台灣人的悲哀」，滑向了「中華民國已經不存在了」，愈走愈獨。當時的李登輝，顯然陷於國民黨的傳統困境之中，他不知道該如何建立「中華民國」的論述，也不知道該如何駁正「台獨」的論述，以至於不自覺地漸漸滑向台獨的領域，試圖藉此迎合民粹、鞏固政權，最後李登輝自己終於墜入了台獨的淵谷。國民黨的這種論述困境，後來亦反映在民進黨倡議「入聯公投」，國民黨則倡議「返聯公投」之時；皆因國民黨沒有能力說清「中華民國」，也沒有能力駁正「台獨」所致。
如今，馬政府在核電政策上的困境亦甚相似；主要也是因沒有能力說清楚「維持核電」的政策，也沒有能力駁正「廢核非核」所致。因此，首先即贊同蔡英文的「非核家園」（正如以「返聯」回應「入聯」），接著拋出「核四公投」，顯示其已無為核電政策辯證的能力，因此「公投」被視為馬政府準備下車的跡象。
其實，到今天為止，國民黨也未見其為「中華民國」辯護的能力，亦未見其駁正「台獨」的能力（例如，二二八只知道歉，不見真相）；今日，台獨狂浪之所以退潮，主要是因國人受盡台獨操作的傷害所形成的民意醒覺所致；至此，十餘年的台獨作祟，始如一場噩夢般地漸漸醒來。
但是，當前的核電議題卻不一樣；如果要到了幾年後真正走向廢核而至「不知何去何從」之時，民意始知覺醒，那就不只是一場噩夢而已，而是一場不斷下坡的大災難。民進黨尚未能以台獨毀台，卻可能以廢核毀台。
台獨與核四最大的不同在於：台獨不會公投也不敢公投，所以台獨雖撕裂台灣，卻尚不會使台灣致命；但是「停建核四／立即廢核」卻即將訴諸公投，連李登輝都要問：「台灣的未來何去何從」？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2013
Summary: Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
Full text below:
Lee Teng-hui ruled for 12 years. During and after his reign, he adopted a Taiwan independence path even more extreme than the DPP's. The DPP now aggressively champions halting and abolishing nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui, on the other hand, has yet to change his support for nuclear power generation. This difference has interesting implications.
Lee follows the same Taiwan independence path as the DPP. Lee differs however, on nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui has cast doubt on Tsai Ing-wen's "nuclear-free homeland" initiative more than once. He wondered, "Is it possible to go non-nuclear?" He wondered, "Without nuclear power, what will Taiwan's future be?"
Taiwan independence, basically, is nothing more than demagoguery. It is a tool for power struggles within the Green Camp, between the TSU and the DPP, and betweeen Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh. It is a tool for power struggles between the Green Camp and the Blue Camp, between the DPP and the KMT. In fact, all of the parties involved know that Taiwan independence is impossible. Therefore Lee Teng-hui has used the pro-Taiwan independence Taiwan Solidarity Union to hijack the DPP, and support Tsai Ing-wen's bid for president. This was nothing more than a power struggle. Also, Taiwan independence advocates openly demand "guarantees of Taiwan's primacy." Lee Teng-hui and the DPP are Taiwan independence fellow travelers.
Taiwan independence today is a phony issue. Its sole purpose is to divide Taiwan to win votes. It cannot possibly succeed. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, one relevant to the ROC's economic development and national security. It differs from Taiwan independence, which is all talk and no substance. Halting and abolishing nuclear power generation is a path of no return. If we go down that path, we will find ourselves trapped in a nightmare, wondering "How in the world will we get the electricity we need?" We will be wondering, as Lee Teng-hui has, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
Lee Teng-hui knows perfectly well that Taiwan independence is a phony issue that can temporarily divide society. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, for which there are no easy answers. If implemented, we will find ourselves on a downward path. No one knows where that path will end. Also, without nuclear power, Taiwan will be even less capable of achieving any sort of "independence."
Why do Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen, and the DPP hold such different positions on nuclear power generation? Because Lee Teng-hui is not running for office. For him, nuclear power generation is not part of his power struggle. For him the critical issue is Taiwan's survival and security. Lee Teng-hui wants Taiwan to survive. Therefore he wants a pragmatic and sound energy policy. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen and key DPP leaders advocate an immediate halt to construction on the 4NPP and the eventual abolition of nuclear power generation altogether. Why? Because they are concerned primarily with public opinion, which currently opposes nuclear power generation. They see the issue primarily as part of a power struggle. They willfully disregard its impact on national survival and national security. According to their calculations, if they can gain office by riding the anti-nuclear wave, so be it. Will the halting or abolishing of nuclear power generation lead to Taiwan's eventual decline? They cannot be bothered to think about such things for now.
Taiwan independence and the abolition of the 4NPP are intensely populist issues. A simple proclamation that "I love Taiwan" can enable Taiwan independence to flex its political muscles. The implication of course is that anyone who does not support Taiwan independence "does not love Taiwan." The anti-nuke slogan, "I am human, I am anti-nuclear" is equally simplistic -- and equally powerful. But suppose one supports safe nuclear power generation? Does that mean one is "not human," or "sub-human?" The United States, Russia, and Japan all suffered major nuclear disasters. Yet all three continue using nuclear power generation. Were those not "choices made by humans?" Lee Teng-hui differs from Tsai Ing-wen on nuclear power generation. They are different humans making different choices. One cannot say that one or the other is "not human" or "sub-human." Tsai Ing-wen merely wishes to ride the wave of anti-nuclear sentiment into political office, without concern for the eventual cost. Lee Teng-hui conversely is thinking about the consequences for Taiwan once nuclear power generation is halted and abolished.
Current controversy over nuclear power generation has resulted in another political spectacle. The 4NPP has landed Ma Ying-jeou in a dilemma, one reminscent of Lee Teng-hui's interaction with the Taiwan independence movement. When Lee Teng-hui first became president, he kept Taiwan independence advocates at arm's length. Hence the "National Unification Guidelines." Later however, his attitude changed. His "sorrow endured by the Taiwanese" morphed into "The Republic of China no longer exists." He moved further and further toward Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui was clearly caught in the traditional dilemma faced by the Kuomintang. He did not know how to defend the Republic of China. Nor did he know how to refute the rhetoric of Taiwan independence. As a result, he unconsciously gravitated toward Taiwan independence. He pandered to populism in order to consolidate political power. In the end, Lee Teng-hui fell into the Taiwan independence abyss. This plight of the Kuomintang was reflected in the DPP's "Referendum on UN membership." The KMT supported the "Referendum on UN membership" because the KMT could not justify the existence of the Republic of China or refute the rhetoric supporting Taiwan independence.
Today the Ma administration finds itself in a similar situation regarding nuclear power generation. It does not know how to justify the continued use of nuclear power generation, or how to refute those who demand the abolition of nuclear power generation. As a result, it caved in to Tsai Ing-wen's call for a "nuclear-free homeland," the same way it caved into demands to "join the UN," with calls to "return to the UN." It offered to hold a public referendum on the 4NPP. It revealed its inability to make the case for nuclear power generation. As a result, the referendum is now seen as a sign that the Ma administration is about to throw in the towel.
To this day, the Kuomintang has lacked the ability to defend the Republic of China or refute Taiwan independence. Its sole response to the February 28 incident is to apologize, rather than demand an airing of the facts. Taiwan independence today is on the wane, primarily because the public is sick and tired of the damage inflicted upon them by Taiwan independence political wrangling. For over a decade, Taiwan independence was holy writ. But people are gradually waking from the nightmare.
Nuclear power generation is different. Suppose that a few years from now, nuclear power generation is actually abolished, and Taiwan's fate is up in the air? The public may eventually wake up, but the nightmare will not end. Taiwan will continue hurtling downhill towards disaster. The DPP's promotion of Taiwan independence did not destroy Taiwan. But its abolition of nuclear power generation could.
Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
台獨與核四：兩個說不清楚的議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.19 03:14 am
李登輝曾主政十二年，在下台前後，走向比民進黨還要台獨的台獨路線；但是，民進黨如今全力倡議停廢核電，李登輝卻迄今未改其支持核電的立場。此中差異，耐人尋味。
李的台獨路線與民進黨同，但李的核電思維卻與民進黨異。李登輝幾度質疑蔡英文的「非核家園」，他說「非核要怎麼非？」，又問「不能維持核電，台灣未來要何去何從？」
何以如此？因為，台獨路線基本上僅是意識形態的操作，亦即只是用來作為綠營內部「權力鬥爭」（台聯及民進黨，蘇貞昌及謝長廷），與藍綠「政權鬥爭」（民進黨與國民黨）的說辭而已，但其實各方皆知不可能在現實世界中實現台獨。所以，李登輝以更台獨的台聯來挾持民進黨，及支持民進黨的蔡英文競選總統，皆無非為一種「權力鬥爭」的操作而已；何況，台獨以冠冕堂皇的「建立台灣主體性」為號召，所以李登輝與民進黨在台獨路線上是同路人。
不過，台獨到了今天畢竟已是一個買空賣空的「假議題」；只是用以在政治上撕裂台灣，爭取選票，卻無可能真正實施；但是，核電存廢卻是一個攸關台灣經濟發展及國安前景的「真議題」，而不像「台獨」那類「空口嚼舌」的「假議題」；一旦真正停廢核電，走上不可回逆的道路，而墜入「電不知從哪裡來」的噩夢，即如李登輝所質疑「台灣的未來將何去何從」？
李登輝心中十分明白，台獨的「假議題」只是一時撕裂社會；但廢核的「真議題」倘若沒有足可補救的能源政策，則將使台灣走上衰竭耗弱不知伊於胡底的下坡路。何況，如果沒有了核電，台灣會不會更加沒有「獨立」的條件？
為什麼李登輝與蔡英文及民進黨?面人物對核電有如此不同的立場？因為，李登輝不參加選舉了，核電對他而言，不是一個「權力鬥爭」議題，而是一個攸關台灣「生存及國安」的問題，李登輝仍希望台灣在務實而正確的能源政策下好好活下去。相對而言，蔡英文等民進黨要角何以主張立即停建核四、走向廢核？因為，他們見到當前的反核民意可供操作，遂將核電也看成了「權力鬥爭」的議題，而故意無視其應為「生存及國安」問題；在他們的算計中，倘能藉反核浪潮贏得選舉即可，至於台灣是否會因停廢核電而走上衰敗，絕非他們此時此刻想要面對的問題。
台獨議題與核四議題皆有極濃的民粹色彩。一句「愛台灣」，就把「台獨」操作得張力十足；言下之意，不主張台獨者就是「不愛台灣」。同樣，一句「我是人，我反核」，也簡單有力；但是，支持使用「安全的核電」者，就「不是人」嗎？能不能問：何以美、俄、日三個曾經發生重大核災的國家如今仍然維持核電政策，難道那不是「人的抉擇」？因此，如今在核電政策上李登輝與蔡英文的立場不同，應當視為「不同人」的差異，而不應說何者「不是人」。蔡英文想的只是要藉反核浪潮而不計後果地攫奪政權，李登輝想的卻是停廢核電後「台灣何去何從」？
在這一波核電爭議中的另一政治奇觀，是馬英九今日面對核四的困境，居然與李登輝當年與台獨的互動有幾分神似。李登輝就任總統之初，與台獨保持距離，因而有《國家統一綱領》；後來，漸漸從「台灣人的悲哀」，滑向了「中華民國已經不存在了」，愈走愈獨。當時的李登輝，顯然陷於國民黨的傳統困境之中，他不知道該如何建立「中華民國」的論述，也不知道該如何駁正「台獨」的論述，以至於不自覺地漸漸滑向台獨的領域，試圖藉此迎合民粹、鞏固政權，最後李登輝自己終於墜入了台獨的淵谷。國民黨的這種論述困境，後來亦反映在民進黨倡議「入聯公投」，國民黨則倡議「返聯公投」之時；皆因國民黨沒有能力說清「中華民國」，也沒有能力駁正「台獨」所致。
如今，馬政府在核電政策上的困境亦甚相似；主要也是因沒有能力說清楚「維持核電」的政策，也沒有能力駁正「廢核非核」所致。因此，首先即贊同蔡英文的「非核家園」（正如以「返聯」回應「入聯」），接著拋出「核四公投」，顯示其已無為核電政策辯證的能力，因此「公投」被視為馬政府準備下車的跡象。
其實，到今天為止，國民黨也未見其為「中華民國」辯護的能力，亦未見其駁正「台獨」的能力（例如，二二八只知道歉，不見真相）；今日，台獨狂浪之所以退潮，主要是因國人受盡台獨操作的傷害所形成的民意醒覺所致；至此，十餘年的台獨作祟，始如一場噩夢般地漸漸醒來。
但是，當前的核電議題卻不一樣；如果要到了幾年後真正走向廢核而至「不知何去何從」之時，民意始知覺醒，那就不只是一場噩夢而已，而是一場不斷下坡的大災難。民進黨尚未能以台獨毀台，卻可能以廢核毀台。
台獨與核四最大的不同在於：台獨不會公投也不敢公投，所以台獨雖撕裂台灣，卻尚不會使台灣致命；但是「停建核四／立即廢核」卻即將訴諸公投，連李登輝都要問：「台灣的未來何去何從」？
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Su Tseng-chang Reaches a Dead End, Frank Hsieh Adrift at Sea
Su Tseng-chang Reaches a Dead End, Frank Hsieh Adrift at Sea
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 18, 2013
Summary: Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.
Full text below:
Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.
Su Tseng-chang established new bodies that he labeled the "China Affairs Division" and "China Affairs Committee." He sees the Chinese mainland not as "The Mainland," but as "China," as "The Other." In other words, he advocates "one country on each side." So far, the "China Affairs Committee" has remained stranded. On the surface, this is due to a power struggle within the party. But underneath, it is because the DPP cannot agree on a "China policy." Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang was supposed to lead DPP cross-Strait policy reform. Instead, he has become its biggest stumbling block.
Su Tseng-chang's reaction to the "I am a Singer" TV show left people incredulous. Anyone could see that the popularity of the show reflected a change in the two sides' perception of pop culture. Yet Su Tseng-chang simplistically characterized the show as part of a "war of reunification." He said it "used business to beseige the government." He accused the media of "flattering [Mainland] China while poor-mouthing Taiwan." His rant left people dumbfounded. Is this how an important party leader should express himself? No wonder this newspaper's editorial column "Black and White" wondered, "Su Tseng-chang, what were you thinking?"
Su Tseng-chang's mind is still in "ECFA mode." The two sides must engage in cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Therefore they need ECFA. But the DPP is terrified of "business beseiging the government." It insists that the Mainland will "deceive, feed, capture, then kill" Taiwan. As a result it characterizes exchanges as part of a "war of reunification," and as a "Trojan horse." It insists that if Taiwan accepts concessions from the Mainland, it will be "drinking poison to quench its thirst." Therefore its organizes protests and dismisses ECFA as a "forfeiture of sovereignty and a humiliation of the nation," and as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." DPP concerns over ECFA are not entirely unfounded. But DPP defeatism, fear, and opposition to ECFA swims against the tide and defies common sense.
Su Tseng-chang is applying the same logic to "I am a Singer" as it did to ECFA. Su Tseng-chang is right to be wary regarding cross-Strait relations. But does he really want to accuse singers who appeared on "I am a Singer" of "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?" Does he really want to accuse singers from Taiwan of "drinking poison to quench their thirst?" Does he really want to oppose "I am a Singer" the way he opposed ECFA? Does he really want to prohibit TV channels on Taiwan from broadcasting "I am a Singer?" Su Tseng-chang may be voicing concerns shared by many on Taiwan. But he failed to demonstrate the wisdom expected of an important party leader. He treated I am a Singer" as if it were ECFA, as another straw man to attack.
Su Tseng-chang finds himself at a dead end. Does that mean Frank Hsieh is home free? Not really. Frank Hsieh said, "The DPP's old cross-Strait policy was a failure." He said, "The DPP will not be an obstacle to world peace." To this extent, he differs from Su Tseng-chang. But Frank Hsieh's solutions are no better. Frank Hsieh advocated a "Constitutional One China." He argued that Kaohsuing and Xiamen are "two cities in the same nation." But party comrades have rejected these positions. He has been forced to change his position from a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi zhong)"to a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi hua)." But the KMT's "Republic of China" includes the Mainland. The DPP's "Republic of China" refers only to Taiwan, and does not include the Mainland. Since "China is legally divided," the DPP has in effect reverted to "backdoor listing." Will the Mainland really accept this? If Frank Hsieh fails to revert to a "Constitutional Republic of China," then what good is his "One Constitution, Different Interpretations?" To the DPP, Frank Hsieh's path is riskier than Su Tseng-chang's. Su Tseng-chang has remained frozen in place. Frank Hsieh wants to advance, but is afraid to. If he moves in the wrong direction, he can easily be taken advantage of. One false step could lead to his fall.
Even more interesting is Hsu Hsin-liang. His "10,000 Word Proclamation" stated that, "Taiwan cannot avoid political contacts, political dialogue, and even some sort of political understanding with the other side." Hsu reproached the Ma administration. He criticized Ma Ying-jeou for failure to act. But one must ask Hsu, this is not the policy advocated or implemented by the DPP. Therefore what right do you have to criticize the KMT? Are you not a DPP member?
The DPP has reached a dead end. The signs are everywhere: Su Tseng-chang visited Japan. He advocated a "democratic alliance." Tsai Ing-wen visited Indonesia. She initiated a "New Southern Strategy." Su's "democratic alliance" proposal was blasted all around. Tsai's "New Southern Strategy" became the butt of jokes. Both were lip service passing for national policy. Both were empty rhetoric passing for political achievements. Their advocates were either madmen, or con men. When did the DPP begin making such empty promises?
Su Tseng-chang has reached a dead end. Frank Hsieh is adrift at sea. Tsai Ing-wen has her head in the clouds. If this trio cannot save the DPP, who can? And if this trio cannot save the DPP, how can they save Taiwan?
蘇貞昌走投無路 謝長廷苦海迷津
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.18 03:56 am
蘇貞昌不啻成了民進黨兩岸政策拒絕轉型的擋路石，謝長廷則彷彿成了推動轉型的旗手；但是，從他們二人的言論主張中，皆同樣看不到民進黨的出路，民進黨在兩岸政策上儼然已是走投無路。
蘇貞昌將他設置的新機構命名「中國事務部」及「中國事務委員會」，這是將「中國」視為「他者」，也就是主張「一邊一國」；迄今，「中國事務委員會」仍告擱淺，表面上是因黨內權力鬥爭所致，實質上卻是因無法整合出一個「中國政策」。原被期望能帶領民進黨兩岸政策轉型的黨主席蘇貞昌，如今卻成了最大的擋路石。
蘇貞昌對《我是歌手》的反應，令人覺得匪夷所思。其實，任何人皆可看到此一事件反映出兩岸在流行文化領域的此消彼長；但是，蘇貞昌將此簡化為「統戰」，又比擬為「以商圍政」，更稱媒體「過分褒揚中國、唱衰台灣」，簡直令人瞠目結舌。這豈是一個重要政黨領袖所應表達的器識與語言？難怪〈黑白集〉要問：「蘇貞昌，你腦子裡在想什麼啊？」
蘇貞昌的腦筋仍是「ＥＣＦＡ模式」。兩岸不得不進行經貿交流，因此亦不得不有ＥＣＦＡ；但民進黨因恐懼「以商圍政」，被大陸「騙、養、套、殺」，於是將交流逕指為「統戰」、「木馬屠城」，又將台灣接受「讓利」指為「飲鴆止渴」，於是就將ＥＣＦＡ斥為「喪權辱國」、「傾中賣台」，發動示威抗議。其實，不能說民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的顧慮是錯的；但民進黨訴諸失敗主義及恐懼心理而欲抵拒ＥＣＦＡ，卻是逆勢而為、逆理而行。
現在，蘇貞昌也用與對付ＥＣＦＡ一模一樣的邏輯來對付《我是歌手》。蘇貞昌對兩岸消長情勢的警覺是對的，但是他難道要將去參賽的歌手斥為「傾中賣台」嗎？難道也要把台灣歌手說成「飲鴆止渴」嗎？還是，也要像反對ＥＣＦＡ一樣反對《我是歌手》嗎？或者，要下令台灣電視禁播《我是歌手》嗎？蘇貞昌也許說出了許多台灣人心裡的一股淡淡的憂慮，卻未展現出一個重要政黨領袖應有的器識，他只是把《我是歌手》又看成了ＥＣＦＡ來展開對稻草人的攻擊而已。
蘇貞昌走投無路，但謝長廷就另闢蹊徑了嗎？其實未必。謝長廷說「民進黨過去兩岸政策失敗」，又稱「民進黨不要作世界和平的障礙與變數」；這些見解皆與蘇貞昌不同，但謝長廷提出的解決方案卻也無甚高論。謝長廷在民進黨中，連自己過去主張的「憲法一中」、「一中兩市」的立場都站不住腳；如今改稱「憲法一華」，而謂國民黨的中華民國及於大陸，但民進黨的中華民國只及於台灣，不及於大陸；如此，即是在法理上「分裂中國」，更豈不是又退回「借殼上市」的老路，如何叫「中國忍受」？但謝長廷如果不能回到原汁原味的「中華民國憲法」，其「憲法各表」何所憑藉？更如何取代「一中各表」？甚至可以這麼說，對於民進黨而言，謝長廷的路數可能較蘇貞昌更有風險；因為，蘇貞昌原地不動，謝長廷則是想動卻不敢一步到位，以致動錯了方向，更易為人所乘，馬步不穩，就會摔跤。
更麻辣的是許信良，他的「萬言書」稱：「台灣不可能不和對岸作政治接觸、進行政治對話，甚至達成某種政治諒解」，於是就對馬政府大加撻伐，指責馬英九何以沒有作為？但是，請問老許，如果這不是民進黨贊成及執行的政策，你有何資格以此責成國民黨？難道你迄今仍是一個「黨外人士」？
民進黨走投無路的徵象，可謂觸目皆是：蘇貞昌走一趟日本，即倡「民主同盟」；蔡英文走一趟印尼，就冒出一個「新南向政策」。「民主同盟」被叮得滿頭包，「新南向政策」則成笑柄。這儼然是用信口開河來作為國策，亦不啻是將口水痰沫化作政績。若非瘋子，即是騙子。民進黨何時能走出這種信口雌黃的層次？
蘇貞昌走投無路，謝長廷苦海迷津，蔡英文雲山霧罩；如果三人連自己都救不回來，又如何救民進黨？更如何救台灣？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 18, 2013
Summary: Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.
Full text below:
Su Tseng-chang has become a stumbling block in the way of the Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait policy reform. Frank Hsieh appears to be the standard bearer promoting reform. But based on their remarks, neither offers a way out for the DPP. On the matter of cross-strait policy, the DPP appears to have arrived at a dead end.
Su Tseng-chang established new bodies that he labeled the "China Affairs Division" and "China Affairs Committee." He sees the Chinese mainland not as "The Mainland," but as "China," as "The Other." In other words, he advocates "one country on each side." So far, the "China Affairs Committee" has remained stranded. On the surface, this is due to a power struggle within the party. But underneath, it is because the DPP cannot agree on a "China policy." Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang was supposed to lead DPP cross-Strait policy reform. Instead, he has become its biggest stumbling block.
Su Tseng-chang's reaction to the "I am a Singer" TV show left people incredulous. Anyone could see that the popularity of the show reflected a change in the two sides' perception of pop culture. Yet Su Tseng-chang simplistically characterized the show as part of a "war of reunification." He said it "used business to beseige the government." He accused the media of "flattering [Mainland] China while poor-mouthing Taiwan." His rant left people dumbfounded. Is this how an important party leader should express himself? No wonder this newspaper's editorial column "Black and White" wondered, "Su Tseng-chang, what were you thinking?"
Su Tseng-chang's mind is still in "ECFA mode." The two sides must engage in cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Therefore they need ECFA. But the DPP is terrified of "business beseiging the government." It insists that the Mainland will "deceive, feed, capture, then kill" Taiwan. As a result it characterizes exchanges as part of a "war of reunification," and as a "Trojan horse." It insists that if Taiwan accepts concessions from the Mainland, it will be "drinking poison to quench its thirst." Therefore its organizes protests and dismisses ECFA as a "forfeiture of sovereignty and a humiliation of the nation," and as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." DPP concerns over ECFA are not entirely unfounded. But DPP defeatism, fear, and opposition to ECFA swims against the tide and defies common sense.
Su Tseng-chang is applying the same logic to "I am a Singer" as it did to ECFA. Su Tseng-chang is right to be wary regarding cross-Strait relations. But does he really want to accuse singers who appeared on "I am a Singer" of "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?" Does he really want to accuse singers from Taiwan of "drinking poison to quench their thirst?" Does he really want to oppose "I am a Singer" the way he opposed ECFA? Does he really want to prohibit TV channels on Taiwan from broadcasting "I am a Singer?" Su Tseng-chang may be voicing concerns shared by many on Taiwan. But he failed to demonstrate the wisdom expected of an important party leader. He treated I am a Singer" as if it were ECFA, as another straw man to attack.
Su Tseng-chang finds himself at a dead end. Does that mean Frank Hsieh is home free? Not really. Frank Hsieh said, "The DPP's old cross-Strait policy was a failure." He said, "The DPP will not be an obstacle to world peace." To this extent, he differs from Su Tseng-chang. But Frank Hsieh's solutions are no better. Frank Hsieh advocated a "Constitutional One China." He argued that Kaohsuing and Xiamen are "two cities in the same nation." But party comrades have rejected these positions. He has been forced to change his position from a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi zhong)"to a "Constitutional One China (xian fa yi hua)." But the KMT's "Republic of China" includes the Mainland. The DPP's "Republic of China" refers only to Taiwan, and does not include the Mainland. Since "China is legally divided," the DPP has in effect reverted to "backdoor listing." Will the Mainland really accept this? If Frank Hsieh fails to revert to a "Constitutional Republic of China," then what good is his "One Constitution, Different Interpretations?" To the DPP, Frank Hsieh's path is riskier than Su Tseng-chang's. Su Tseng-chang has remained frozen in place. Frank Hsieh wants to advance, but is afraid to. If he moves in the wrong direction, he can easily be taken advantage of. One false step could lead to his fall.
Even more interesting is Hsu Hsin-liang. His "10,000 Word Proclamation" stated that, "Taiwan cannot avoid political contacts, political dialogue, and even some sort of political understanding with the other side." Hsu reproached the Ma administration. He criticized Ma Ying-jeou for failure to act. But one must ask Hsu, this is not the policy advocated or implemented by the DPP. Therefore what right do you have to criticize the KMT? Are you not a DPP member?
The DPP has reached a dead end. The signs are everywhere: Su Tseng-chang visited Japan. He advocated a "democratic alliance." Tsai Ing-wen visited Indonesia. She initiated a "New Southern Strategy." Su's "democratic alliance" proposal was blasted all around. Tsai's "New Southern Strategy" became the butt of jokes. Both were lip service passing for national policy. Both were empty rhetoric passing for political achievements. Their advocates were either madmen, or con men. When did the DPP begin making such empty promises?
Su Tseng-chang has reached a dead end. Frank Hsieh is adrift at sea. Tsai Ing-wen has her head in the clouds. If this trio cannot save the DPP, who can? And if this trio cannot save the DPP, how can they save Taiwan?
蘇貞昌走投無路 謝長廷苦海迷津
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.18 03:56 am
蘇貞昌不啻成了民進黨兩岸政策拒絕轉型的擋路石，謝長廷則彷彿成了推動轉型的旗手；但是，從他們二人的言論主張中，皆同樣看不到民進黨的出路，民進黨在兩岸政策上儼然已是走投無路。
蘇貞昌將他設置的新機構命名「中國事務部」及「中國事務委員會」，這是將「中國」視為「他者」，也就是主張「一邊一國」；迄今，「中國事務委員會」仍告擱淺，表面上是因黨內權力鬥爭所致，實質上卻是因無法整合出一個「中國政策」。原被期望能帶領民進黨兩岸政策轉型的黨主席蘇貞昌，如今卻成了最大的擋路石。
蘇貞昌對《我是歌手》的反應，令人覺得匪夷所思。其實，任何人皆可看到此一事件反映出兩岸在流行文化領域的此消彼長；但是，蘇貞昌將此簡化為「統戰」，又比擬為「以商圍政」，更稱媒體「過分褒揚中國、唱衰台灣」，簡直令人瞠目結舌。這豈是一個重要政黨領袖所應表達的器識與語言？難怪〈黑白集〉要問：「蘇貞昌，你腦子裡在想什麼啊？」
蘇貞昌的腦筋仍是「ＥＣＦＡ模式」。兩岸不得不進行經貿交流，因此亦不得不有ＥＣＦＡ；但民進黨因恐懼「以商圍政」，被大陸「騙、養、套、殺」，於是將交流逕指為「統戰」、「木馬屠城」，又將台灣接受「讓利」指為「飲鴆止渴」，於是就將ＥＣＦＡ斥為「喪權辱國」、「傾中賣台」，發動示威抗議。其實，不能說民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ的顧慮是錯的；但民進黨訴諸失敗主義及恐懼心理而欲抵拒ＥＣＦＡ，卻是逆勢而為、逆理而行。
現在，蘇貞昌也用與對付ＥＣＦＡ一模一樣的邏輯來對付《我是歌手》。蘇貞昌對兩岸消長情勢的警覺是對的，但是他難道要將去參賽的歌手斥為「傾中賣台」嗎？難道也要把台灣歌手說成「飲鴆止渴」嗎？還是，也要像反對ＥＣＦＡ一樣反對《我是歌手》嗎？或者，要下令台灣電視禁播《我是歌手》嗎？蘇貞昌也許說出了許多台灣人心裡的一股淡淡的憂慮，卻未展現出一個重要政黨領袖應有的器識，他只是把《我是歌手》又看成了ＥＣＦＡ來展開對稻草人的攻擊而已。
蘇貞昌走投無路，但謝長廷就另闢蹊徑了嗎？其實未必。謝長廷說「民進黨過去兩岸政策失敗」，又稱「民進黨不要作世界和平的障礙與變數」；這些見解皆與蘇貞昌不同，但謝長廷提出的解決方案卻也無甚高論。謝長廷在民進黨中，連自己過去主張的「憲法一中」、「一中兩市」的立場都站不住腳；如今改稱「憲法一華」，而謂國民黨的中華民國及於大陸，但民進黨的中華民國只及於台灣，不及於大陸；如此，即是在法理上「分裂中國」，更豈不是又退回「借殼上市」的老路，如何叫「中國忍受」？但謝長廷如果不能回到原汁原味的「中華民國憲法」，其「憲法各表」何所憑藉？更如何取代「一中各表」？甚至可以這麼說，對於民進黨而言，謝長廷的路數可能較蘇貞昌更有風險；因為，蘇貞昌原地不動，謝長廷則是想動卻不敢一步到位，以致動錯了方向，更易為人所乘，馬步不穩，就會摔跤。
更麻辣的是許信良，他的「萬言書」稱：「台灣不可能不和對岸作政治接觸、進行政治對話，甚至達成某種政治諒解」，於是就對馬政府大加撻伐，指責馬英九何以沒有作為？但是，請問老許，如果這不是民進黨贊成及執行的政策，你有何資格以此責成國民黨？難道你迄今仍是一個「黨外人士」？
民進黨走投無路的徵象，可謂觸目皆是：蘇貞昌走一趟日本，即倡「民主同盟」；蔡英文走一趟印尼，就冒出一個「新南向政策」。「民主同盟」被叮得滿頭包，「新南向政策」則成笑柄。這儼然是用信口開河來作為國策，亦不啻是將口水痰沫化作政績。若非瘋子，即是騙子。民進黨何時能走出這種信口雌黃的層次？
蘇貞昌走投無路，謝長廷苦海迷津，蔡英文雲山霧罩；如果三人連自己都救不回來，又如何救民進黨？更如何救台灣？
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Ten Trillion in Imports over Five Years: A New Sheriff in Town?
Ten Trillion in Imports over Five Years:
A New Sheriff in Town?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2013
Summary: When Xi Jinping spoke of "Ten trillion US in imports over five years," he was telling the world that Mainland China's economic pie is huge, and that he hoped other countries would fight over it. The Mainland has undergone a transformation, from global factory to global marketplace. The import pie is seductive. That is a fact. Have no doubt. Have we on Taiwan thought about how to get a bigger piece of this pie?
Full text below:
At the Boao Forum Mainland President Xi Jinping said, "Over the next five years, [Mainland] China will import about ten trillion US Dollars in goods. Foreign investment will reach 500 billion US. The number of tourists going overseas is likely to exceed 400 million people." This was a concrete description of just how much the Mainland economy has grown. It was also a declaration to the world: It is time the global economy had a new leader.
If a nation has strong exports, and enjoys a huge trade surplus, it means it is able to sell a lot of goods and earn a lot of money from other countries. It should of course be happy, feel proud, and look forward to maintaining this state of affairs. But such countries often attract criticism. Other countries invariably complain that it is making too much money, that it is "stealing their jobs." This was true for West Germany, Japan, and even the Taiwan Region. Today, it is true of the Mainland Region as well. When one enjoys a huge trade surplus, one invariably becomes the target of criticism.
Those who are truly welcomed, are those who fling open their doors, and buy large quantities of products from other countries. One example is the United States. Following World War II, the United States became the leader of the capitalist countries. The US boasted unparalleled political, military, and economic might. Another important factor also came into play. The United States opened its domestic markets. It allowed its allies to sell goods to the United States, to earn foreign exchange, and to boost their economies. Western Europe, Japan, and the Asian tigers all followed the same growth pattern and shared the same interests. All of them recognized the U.S. as the leader. Scholars who have studied post-war international political and economic relations, have described this relationship as "hegemonic economic privilege and tolerance." This enabled the US to establish hegemonic leadership.
The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year was 15.8 trillion US. It is still the largest economy in the world. Its annual imports are around 2.2 trillion US. The Mainland's GDP was 8.3 trillion, the second largest in the world, just over half that of the U.S. The Mainland's imports last year amounted to 1.8 trillion US, also close to the United States. Germany, which ranks just behind the Mainland, imports about 1.3 trillion US a year, Japan is the world's third-largest economy. It imports only about 800 billion U.S. a year, far less than other advanced industrial countries. Imports amount to only about five or six hundred billion U.S. Obviously, for now and the foreseeable future, only Mainland China rivals the U.S. in import markets. The rest are not worth mentioning.
In fact, the Mainland import market has experienced nearly a decade of rapid growth. This has long been a key factor affecting the economies of many countries. The Mainland Region accounts for approximately 40% of the Taiwan Region's exports. It has long exceeded the United States' 10% or so. If the Mainland economy slumps, the impact on Taiwan will be greater than that of the U.S. This change affects more than Taiwan. In recent years Asian regional trade has greatly increased, from 800 billion U.S. to three trillion US. For neighboring Asian countries, Mainland China has replaced Japan as their primary export market. This has increased the Mainland's political and economic power in the region significantly. Their situation is similar to Taiwan's.
One of the most obvious areas is undoubtedly the raw materials market. The Mainland has become the largest importer of raw materials in the world. The world's leading raw materials exporting countries include Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and India. Their economies are no longer affected primarily by the U.S. economy, whether for good or ill. Instead, they are affected primarily by the Mainland. In 1992, Brazilian exports to the Mainland were a neglibile 0.4% of total exports. Today that percentage has risen to 15%. For India that number has risen from 0.4% to 10%. Traders in raw materials futures say the Mainland is the "2,000-pound gorilla" in the room. Its appetite for raw materials is insatiable. Last year, the Mainland experienced an economic slowdown. Demand fell. The result was a sharp fall in raw materials prices. Australian, Brazilian, and Indonesian exports were immediately affected. This led to the devaluation of their currencies, and slowed economic growth.
The same is true for tourism. The United Nations World Tourism Organization recently released its latest statistics. Mainland Chinese tourists spent up to $ 10.2 billion on overseas travel last year. Mainland China has surpassed the United States and Germany, and currently ranks number one. It is the first country to exceed 10 billion dollars in overseas tourism expenditures. Overseas tourism amounted to 83 million person visits. The report said Mainland tourists were "the international tourists most willing to spend money." Mainland tourist consumption boosts the economies of the countries visited. The Taiwan Region is not alone in seeking Mainland tourism. Everyone seeks Mainland Chinese tourism. Mainland tourists accounted for nearly half of all luxury items sold by British department stores last year. Britain and the United States have expedited the visa application process for Mainland tourists.
Mao's verse "Qing Yuan Chun" said "This land is so fertile, it has persuaded countless heroes to fight over it." When Xi Jinping spoke of "Ten trillion US in imports over five years," he was telling the world that Mainland China's economic pie is huge, and that he hoped other countries would fight over it. The Mainland has undergone a transformation, from global factory to global marketplace. The import pie is seductive. That is a fact. Have no doubt. Have we on Taiwan thought about how to get a bigger piece of this pie?
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.17
社論－5年進口10兆美元 全球大哥換人作看看
本報訊
大陸國家主席習近平最近在博鰲論壇上說，「今後五年，中國將進口十兆美元左右的商品，對外投資規模將達到五千億美元，出境旅客有可能超過四億人次。」這番話，不但具體描述了中國經濟的的崛起與份量，更是向全世界喊話：全球經濟龍頭大哥，該換人作看看了！
一個國家出口強勁，享有龐大的順差，代表有能力賣出許多商品，賺取其它國家的錢，當然是值得高興、自豪，而且希望能繼續維持。但，這種國家往往是「顧人怨」，別的國家總是埋怨它賺太多錢、搶了自己國人的工作；當年的西德、日本─甚至台灣，今天的大陸，在享有龐大的貿易順差的同時，總是成為被指責的對象。
真正最受歡迎者，是那種敞開大門，拚命買他國東西的國家─例如美國。美國在二戰後能成為資本主義體系國家的龍頭大哥，除了其政治、軍事、經濟上無與倫比的綜合國力外，很重要的一個因素，就是美國敞開國內市場，讓盟邦把商品賣到美國、賺取外匯、提振經濟；西歐、日本及隨後的亞洲四小龍，幾乎都是循著同一模式成長。有這個實際利益，大家就認了老美這個大哥。研究戰後國際政治經濟關係的學者，就形容這種關係是「霸權給予的經濟特權與寬容」，藉此也更確立霸權的領導地位。
去年美國的國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）是十五．八兆美元，仍是全球經濟規模最大的經濟體，其一年進口量大概是二．二兆美元左右；大陸ＧＤＰ八．三兆美元，是全球第二大經濟體，雖然其規模約是美國的一半多點，但大陸去年進口金額是一．八兆美元，已非常接近美國了。排名在大陸之後的德國一年進口大概一．三兆美元，日本雖然是全球第三大經濟體，但每年進口金額只有八千億美元左右，其它先進工業國差更多，進口金額更是只在五、六千億美元之譜。顯然，在現在與可見的未來，以進口市場之龐大，只有大陸足以與美國匹敵，餘子俱不值一述。
事實上，大陸進口市場近十年的快速增長，早已成為影響許多國家經濟的關鍵因素。台灣的主要出口地，大陸占了四成左右，已遠超過美國的一成上下；大陸經濟走低對台灣的影響，已超過美國的影響。有此轉變者不止台灣，近十年亞洲除了區內貿易額由八千億美元大增為三兆美元，亞洲鄰近國家都以大陸取代日本作為主要出口市場，讓大陸在區域內的政治、經濟力大幅提升，其情況就如台灣一樣。
另外一個最明顯的領域當屬大宗原物料市場，大陸成為全球胃納量最大的國家，全球主要的原物料出口國─如澳洲、巴西、印尼，甚至印度，其經濟主要不再是受美國經濟好壞的牽引，取而代之的是大陸。一九九二年時，巴西出口到大陸商品占其總出口的比重，只有微不足道的○．四％，今日已達十五％；同一數據，印度也從○．四％上升到十％左右。原物料期貨商形容，大陸就像是房間裡「二千磅的大猩猩」，對原物料永遠不滿足。去年大陸經濟放緩、需求降低，結果是全球原物料價格暴跌，澳洲、巴西、印尼的出口立刻受影響，導致貨幣貶值、經濟成長走低。
觀光旅遊的意義亦相同，聯合國世界旅遊組織日前發布的統計數字，去年大陸觀光客在海外旅遊消費金額高達一○二○億美元，不但超越美、德躍居首位，更是第一個突破千億美元的國家；出國旅客人次達八千三百萬人次。報告中指大陸人是「最會花錢的國際觀光客」─這代表的是大陸觀光客為旅遊國帶來的消費與經濟助力。因此，不是只有台灣在爭取陸客觀光，而是各國都在爭取；英國百貨公司的奢侈品消費，陸客占去近一半，英、美因此紛紛簡化大陸的旅遊簽證。
毛澤東的《沁園春》說：「江山如此多嬌，引無數英雄競折腰」；習近平的「五年進口十兆美元」話，也是告訴全世界，中國經濟大餅如此多嬌，希望各國為之折腰。中國經濟的崛起、從世界工廠轉為全球市場的進程、進口大餅的誘人，已是事實，不必懷疑；台灣是否已經想好，該如何加入、並爭取到更多的中國大餅？
A New Sheriff in Town?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2013
Summary: When Xi Jinping spoke of "Ten trillion US in imports over five years," he was telling the world that Mainland China's economic pie is huge, and that he hoped other countries would fight over it. The Mainland has undergone a transformation, from global factory to global marketplace. The import pie is seductive. That is a fact. Have no doubt. Have we on Taiwan thought about how to get a bigger piece of this pie?
Full text below:
At the Boao Forum Mainland President Xi Jinping said, "Over the next five years, [Mainland] China will import about ten trillion US Dollars in goods. Foreign investment will reach 500 billion US. The number of tourists going overseas is likely to exceed 400 million people." This was a concrete description of just how much the Mainland economy has grown. It was also a declaration to the world: It is time the global economy had a new leader.
If a nation has strong exports, and enjoys a huge trade surplus, it means it is able to sell a lot of goods and earn a lot of money from other countries. It should of course be happy, feel proud, and look forward to maintaining this state of affairs. But such countries often attract criticism. Other countries invariably complain that it is making too much money, that it is "stealing their jobs." This was true for West Germany, Japan, and even the Taiwan Region. Today, it is true of the Mainland Region as well. When one enjoys a huge trade surplus, one invariably becomes the target of criticism.
Those who are truly welcomed, are those who fling open their doors, and buy large quantities of products from other countries. One example is the United States. Following World War II, the United States became the leader of the capitalist countries. The US boasted unparalleled political, military, and economic might. Another important factor also came into play. The United States opened its domestic markets. It allowed its allies to sell goods to the United States, to earn foreign exchange, and to boost their economies. Western Europe, Japan, and the Asian tigers all followed the same growth pattern and shared the same interests. All of them recognized the U.S. as the leader. Scholars who have studied post-war international political and economic relations, have described this relationship as "hegemonic economic privilege and tolerance." This enabled the US to establish hegemonic leadership.
The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year was 15.8 trillion US. It is still the largest economy in the world. Its annual imports are around 2.2 trillion US. The Mainland's GDP was 8.3 trillion, the second largest in the world, just over half that of the U.S. The Mainland's imports last year amounted to 1.8 trillion US, also close to the United States. Germany, which ranks just behind the Mainland, imports about 1.3 trillion US a year, Japan is the world's third-largest economy. It imports only about 800 billion U.S. a year, far less than other advanced industrial countries. Imports amount to only about five or six hundred billion U.S. Obviously, for now and the foreseeable future, only Mainland China rivals the U.S. in import markets. The rest are not worth mentioning.
In fact, the Mainland import market has experienced nearly a decade of rapid growth. This has long been a key factor affecting the economies of many countries. The Mainland Region accounts for approximately 40% of the Taiwan Region's exports. It has long exceeded the United States' 10% or so. If the Mainland economy slumps, the impact on Taiwan will be greater than that of the U.S. This change affects more than Taiwan. In recent years Asian regional trade has greatly increased, from 800 billion U.S. to three trillion US. For neighboring Asian countries, Mainland China has replaced Japan as their primary export market. This has increased the Mainland's political and economic power in the region significantly. Their situation is similar to Taiwan's.
One of the most obvious areas is undoubtedly the raw materials market. The Mainland has become the largest importer of raw materials in the world. The world's leading raw materials exporting countries include Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and India. Their economies are no longer affected primarily by the U.S. economy, whether for good or ill. Instead, they are affected primarily by the Mainland. In 1992, Brazilian exports to the Mainland were a neglibile 0.4% of total exports. Today that percentage has risen to 15%. For India that number has risen from 0.4% to 10%. Traders in raw materials futures say the Mainland is the "2,000-pound gorilla" in the room. Its appetite for raw materials is insatiable. Last year, the Mainland experienced an economic slowdown. Demand fell. The result was a sharp fall in raw materials prices. Australian, Brazilian, and Indonesian exports were immediately affected. This led to the devaluation of their currencies, and slowed economic growth.
The same is true for tourism. The United Nations World Tourism Organization recently released its latest statistics. Mainland Chinese tourists spent up to $ 10.2 billion on overseas travel last year. Mainland China has surpassed the United States and Germany, and currently ranks number one. It is the first country to exceed 10 billion dollars in overseas tourism expenditures. Overseas tourism amounted to 83 million person visits. The report said Mainland tourists were "the international tourists most willing to spend money." Mainland tourist consumption boosts the economies of the countries visited. The Taiwan Region is not alone in seeking Mainland tourism. Everyone seeks Mainland Chinese tourism. Mainland tourists accounted for nearly half of all luxury items sold by British department stores last year. Britain and the United States have expedited the visa application process for Mainland tourists.
Mao's verse "Qing Yuan Chun" said "This land is so fertile, it has persuaded countless heroes to fight over it." When Xi Jinping spoke of "Ten trillion US in imports over five years," he was telling the world that Mainland China's economic pie is huge, and that he hoped other countries would fight over it. The Mainland has undergone a transformation, from global factory to global marketplace. The import pie is seductive. That is a fact. Have no doubt. Have we on Taiwan thought about how to get a bigger piece of this pie?
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.17
社論－5年進口10兆美元 全球大哥換人作看看
本報訊
大陸國家主席習近平最近在博鰲論壇上說，「今後五年，中國將進口十兆美元左右的商品，對外投資規模將達到五千億美元，出境旅客有可能超過四億人次。」這番話，不但具體描述了中國經濟的的崛起與份量，更是向全世界喊話：全球經濟龍頭大哥，該換人作看看了！
一個國家出口強勁，享有龐大的順差，代表有能力賣出許多商品，賺取其它國家的錢，當然是值得高興、自豪，而且希望能繼續維持。但，這種國家往往是「顧人怨」，別的國家總是埋怨它賺太多錢、搶了自己國人的工作；當年的西德、日本─甚至台灣，今天的大陸，在享有龐大的貿易順差的同時，總是成為被指責的對象。
真正最受歡迎者，是那種敞開大門，拚命買他國東西的國家─例如美國。美國在二戰後能成為資本主義體系國家的龍頭大哥，除了其政治、軍事、經濟上無與倫比的綜合國力外，很重要的一個因素，就是美國敞開國內市場，讓盟邦把商品賣到美國、賺取外匯、提振經濟；西歐、日本及隨後的亞洲四小龍，幾乎都是循著同一模式成長。有這個實際利益，大家就認了老美這個大哥。研究戰後國際政治經濟關係的學者，就形容這種關係是「霸權給予的經濟特權與寬容」，藉此也更確立霸權的領導地位。
去年美國的國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）是十五．八兆美元，仍是全球經濟規模最大的經濟體，其一年進口量大概是二．二兆美元左右；大陸ＧＤＰ八．三兆美元，是全球第二大經濟體，雖然其規模約是美國的一半多點，但大陸去年進口金額是一．八兆美元，已非常接近美國了。排名在大陸之後的德國一年進口大概一．三兆美元，日本雖然是全球第三大經濟體，但每年進口金額只有八千億美元左右，其它先進工業國差更多，進口金額更是只在五、六千億美元之譜。顯然，在現在與可見的未來，以進口市場之龐大，只有大陸足以與美國匹敵，餘子俱不值一述。
事實上，大陸進口市場近十年的快速增長，早已成為影響許多國家經濟的關鍵因素。台灣的主要出口地，大陸占了四成左右，已遠超過美國的一成上下；大陸經濟走低對台灣的影響，已超過美國的影響。有此轉變者不止台灣，近十年亞洲除了區內貿易額由八千億美元大增為三兆美元，亞洲鄰近國家都以大陸取代日本作為主要出口市場，讓大陸在區域內的政治、經濟力大幅提升，其情況就如台灣一樣。
另外一個最明顯的領域當屬大宗原物料市場，大陸成為全球胃納量最大的國家，全球主要的原物料出口國─如澳洲、巴西、印尼，甚至印度，其經濟主要不再是受美國經濟好壞的牽引，取而代之的是大陸。一九九二年時，巴西出口到大陸商品占其總出口的比重，只有微不足道的○．四％，今日已達十五％；同一數據，印度也從○．四％上升到十％左右。原物料期貨商形容，大陸就像是房間裡「二千磅的大猩猩」，對原物料永遠不滿足。去年大陸經濟放緩、需求降低，結果是全球原物料價格暴跌，澳洲、巴西、印尼的出口立刻受影響，導致貨幣貶值、經濟成長走低。
觀光旅遊的意義亦相同，聯合國世界旅遊組織日前發布的統計數字，去年大陸觀光客在海外旅遊消費金額高達一○二○億美元，不但超越美、德躍居首位，更是第一個突破千億美元的國家；出國旅客人次達八千三百萬人次。報告中指大陸人是「最會花錢的國際觀光客」─這代表的是大陸觀光客為旅遊國帶來的消費與經濟助力。因此，不是只有台灣在爭取陸客觀光，而是各國都在爭取；英國百貨公司的奢侈品消費，陸客占去近一半，英、美因此紛紛簡化大陸的旅遊簽證。
毛澤東的《沁園春》說：「江山如此多嬌，引無數英雄競折腰」；習近平的「五年進口十兆美元」話，也是告訴全世界，中國經濟大餅如此多嬌，希望各國為之折腰。中國經濟的崛起、從世界工廠轉為全球市場的進程、進口大餅的誘人，已是事實，不必懷疑；台灣是否已經想好，該如何加入、並爭取到更多的中國大餅？
Monday, April 15, 2013
Su Tseng-chang: Terrified even of "I am a Singer"
Su Tseng-chang: Terrified even of "I am a Singer"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2013
Summary: The Hunan Satellite TV show, "I am a Singer" is a sensation on both sides of the Strait. Both the contests and the winners have become hot topics. Cross-Strait exchanges are clearly intensifying. If a political party hopes to survive, it must live in the present. It must offer people a future. The DPP cannot understand why "I am a Singer" is so popular. The problem clearly, is not with other people.
Full text below:
The Hunan Satellite TV show, "I am a Singer" is a sensation on both sides of the Strait. Both the contests and the winners have become hot topics. Cross-Strait exchanges are clearly intensifying. The DPP, from top to bottom, should set aside hatred and fear, and address the cross-Strait reality that this program represents.
DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang accused the CCP of "waging a war of reunification," of "entering the island, entering our homes, entering our brains." His charges were truly dismaying. They were also at odds with the facts. "I am a Singer" was not produced by the CPP, in order to wage a "war of reunification" on Taiwan. Nor did it gain currency as a result of Taiwan media hype. It is a program that the public on Taiwan went online to watch on their own initiative. It soon became a sensation. Only then did the media begin reporting it. No political conspiracy was involved, anywhere in the entire process.
The program attracted the attention of people on Taiwan mainly because four of the seven finalists were from Taiwan. A Mainland singer won. But the singers from Taiwan became famous on the Mainland. During the competition, the competitors often sang Taiwanese songs. The show even included a special tribute to Taiwanese singer Chyi Chin. This program, which became a cross-Strait phenomenon, exuded a strong Taiwanese flavor.
Nor was this an isolated phenomenon. Over the years, pop music from Taiwan has dominated the Mainland. The Mainland market has fattened the wallets of Taiwan television networks. Performing artists and singers from Taiwan often go to the Mainland to make career comebacks. The once famous "Little Tigers" are now primarily based on the Mainland. In 2012 the trio sang golden oldies on the CCTV Spring Festival Show. Mainland fans were moved to tears. They grew up with those songs.
For many middle-aged Mainland fans, many songs we are familiar with, are their shared memories. These songs speak of the love, heartbreak, and sweetness of youth. They are songs that people on both sides sung in unison, and that evoke common memories. Cross-Strait exchanges are increasing. Personal interactions are expanding.
This is especially true for popular music, for the performing arts, and for drama. Taiwan leads in creativity due to its greater freedom and openness. This creativity is valued on the Mainland. The variety show "Kangxi Has Arrived" is widely watched on the Mainland. Young people on the Mainland all know "Xiao S," the host of the show, by sight.
Conversely, young people on Taiwan are entirely accustomed to watching Mainland produced films and music online. The shows use simplified characters, but they watch them anyway. They watch the Mainland's most popular programs in real-time. The popular "Hou Gong Zhen Huan Tales" have also swept Taiwan. Campuses on Taiwan have many young students from the Mainland. Many Mainland tourists stand on Taiwan street corners, holding maps, looking for places to eat. Many young people from Taiwan look for work on the Mainland. Young people on both sides consider it perfectly natural to establish links with the other side. They are beginning to share many life experiences.
This represents the cross-Strait present. It also represents the cross-Strait future. If the trend continues, the two sides can soon put past hostilities behind them. They can inhabit a totally different world. But many Green Camp people insist on in living in the past. The insist on clinging to hatred and fear of the Mainland. They insist on perceiving even the people and the culture of the Mainland as Evil Incarnate. They refuse to acknowledge that cross-Strait exchanges are booming, and have become a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Long years of confrontation, different forms of government and thought, differences in freedom, clashes over sovereignty and military threats, all constitute a chasm that must be spanned. Green Camp wariness about the Mainland has an historical basis. Security considerations are real. But cross-Strait exchanges are so very close. This cannot be denied. Nor can it be undone. Therefore any policy path must be rooted in reality. It cannot ignore or deny reality. Otherwise it will be utterly unrealistic, It will run counter to the currents of history.
The Democratic Progressive Party, under the leadership of Su Tseng-chang, persists in living in the past. It persists in demonizing the Mainland. It persists in opposing closer cross-Strait relations. It attempts to isolate Taiwan from Mainland influence, in order to ensure Taiwan's autonomy. But history has moved on. Gone are the days when the two sides were totally isolated. Any attempt to maintain Taiwan's autonomy and values, must be accomplished amidst ongoing cross-Strait exhanges. Autonomy can no longer be maintained by preventing the two sides from having contacts.
Su Tseng-chang's declaration is seriously at odds with cross-Strait reality, The DPP has obstinately clung to an impracticable cross-Strait policy. Even when it established a "China Affairs Committee," it merely went through the motions. To the public, the Green Camp's rhetoric is tired cliches. All the Green Camp does is rant about Commie conspiracies. Ask it to elaborate, and it is at a complete loss. Young people have no desire to listen to their boring rants.
If a political party hopes to survive, it must live in the present. It must offer people a future. The DPP cannot understand why "I am a Singer" is so popular. The problem clearly, is not with other people.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.16
社論－連《我是歌手》都怕 蘇貞昌還活在過去
本報訊
大陸湖南衛視的《我是歌手》轟動兩岸，無論是過程還是結果，都成為熱議的話題。而這個現象也清楚呈現了兩岸交流的深化，民進黨上下都應該放下仇恨與恐懼，好好正視這個節目所呈現的兩岸現況。
民進黨主席蘇貞昌指責中共統戰「入島、入戶、入腦」的說法，實在令人失望，也與事實有明顯差距。《我是歌手》並不是中共為了統戰台灣而製作的節目，這個熱門話題也不是被台灣媒體炒作或引導出來的，而是因為台灣民眾自行透過網路觀看，引起轟動後，媒體才跟進報導。整個過程，無涉任何政治陰謀。
這個節目之所以受到台灣民眾矚目，主要是總決賽的七強裡有四位台灣歌手，雖然最後由大陸歌手拿到冠軍，但參賽的台灣歌手都已在大陸聲勢暴紅。而在比賽過程中，不但歌手經常唱台灣歌，還有一集是向台灣歌手齊秦致敬的專場。在兩岸掀起熱潮的這個節目，飄著濃濃的台灣味。
而這不是單一現象，這些年來，台灣流行音樂在大陸一直有領先的地位，由於大陸市場大，電視台財力雄厚，台灣藝人與歌手轉進對岸再造第二春者所在多有。昔日的「小虎隊」現在全部以大陸為工作重心，而三人在二○一二年央視春晚合體演唱當年名曲時，許多大陸歌迷還感動落淚，因為那是他們自己「成長的記憶」。
是的，我們熟悉的台灣歌曲，其實也是大陸許多中年以下者的共同成長記憶。那些愛情、悲傷、甜美與青春，都在兩岸集體吟唱、觸發並且記憶著。兩岸交流愈來愈綿密，民間的互動也愈來愈深化廣化。
尤其在流行音樂、綜藝與戲劇方面，台灣在自由開放以及創意上較為領先，就相當受到歡迎。《康熙來了》等節目在大陸廣為流傳，年輕人熟知小Ｓ即是一例。
相對的，台灣年輕人現在也很習慣上大陸網站看影片、抓歌，簡體字囫圇吞棗也看得下去，大陸的熱門節目，一樣即時觀賞，暴紅的《後宮甄嬛傳》，台灣同樣風靡。台灣校園裡出現了年輕的大陸學生，街頭有拿著地圖找美食的自由行旅客，不少台灣年輕人想到大陸工作。兩岸的年輕世代，正以他們輕盈自然的方式，與對岸建立連結，也開始一起寫下一些共同的生命體驗。
這，不但是兩岸的現狀，也是兩岸的未來。這個趨勢如果持續下去，兩岸可以走到和過去劍拔弩張完全不同的世界。但是，綠營很多人卻堅持活在過去，緊抱著對中國的仇視與恐懼，連帶把大陸的人民與文化也視為洪水猛獸，而不願面對兩岸交流已經蓬勃延伸得愈來愈自然的現狀。
當然，長年的對峙、不同的政體與思維、自由的落差、主權的衝突以及軍事威脅，都是橫亙兩岸之間的鴻溝，綠營對中國大陸的戒心既有歷史背景，也有現實安全的考量。問題是，兩岸交流已經如此密切，這是既不能否認、也不可能倒流的事實，因此任何政策思維與執行路線，都應該根據這樣的事實來建構，不能無視或否定現實，或者提出完全不切實際、也與時代發展背道而馳的主張。
民進黨在蘇貞昌的領導下，其中國政策仍然活在過去的時空裡，把中國的一切妖魔化，反對兩岸接近、交流，想用隔絕中國影響力來保持台灣的主體性。但歷史在往前走，兩岸完全隔絕的時代已經一去不返，要維持台灣的主體性與自我價值，也必須是在兩岸持續交流的狀況下實現，而不再可能藉由阻擋雙方接觸的方式達成。
蘇貞昌的說法和兩岸現實嚴重脫節，民進黨也一直提不出務實可行的兩岸政策，連成立一個中國事務部，看來只是在虛應故事。綠營的兩岸論述更被一般民眾視為是老掉牙的陳腔濫調，除了喊殺喊打狂罵老共陰謀之外，講不出什麼所以然來，年輕人根本聽之生厭。
政黨要有政治生命，必須看得見現在，也能給人民一個未來。當民進黨看不懂整個《我是歌手》熱潮是怎麼回事時，問題，顯然不在別人。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2013
Summary: The Hunan Satellite TV show, "I am a Singer" is a sensation on both sides of the Strait. Both the contests and the winners have become hot topics. Cross-Strait exchanges are clearly intensifying. If a political party hopes to survive, it must live in the present. It must offer people a future. The DPP cannot understand why "I am a Singer" is so popular. The problem clearly, is not with other people.
Full text below:
The Hunan Satellite TV show, "I am a Singer" is a sensation on both sides of the Strait. Both the contests and the winners have become hot topics. Cross-Strait exchanges are clearly intensifying. The DPP, from top to bottom, should set aside hatred and fear, and address the cross-Strait reality that this program represents.
DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang accused the CCP of "waging a war of reunification," of "entering the island, entering our homes, entering our brains." His charges were truly dismaying. They were also at odds with the facts. "I am a Singer" was not produced by the CPP, in order to wage a "war of reunification" on Taiwan. Nor did it gain currency as a result of Taiwan media hype. It is a program that the public on Taiwan went online to watch on their own initiative. It soon became a sensation. Only then did the media begin reporting it. No political conspiracy was involved, anywhere in the entire process.
The program attracted the attention of people on Taiwan mainly because four of the seven finalists were from Taiwan. A Mainland singer won. But the singers from Taiwan became famous on the Mainland. During the competition, the competitors often sang Taiwanese songs. The show even included a special tribute to Taiwanese singer Chyi Chin. This program, which became a cross-Strait phenomenon, exuded a strong Taiwanese flavor.
Nor was this an isolated phenomenon. Over the years, pop music from Taiwan has dominated the Mainland. The Mainland market has fattened the wallets of Taiwan television networks. Performing artists and singers from Taiwan often go to the Mainland to make career comebacks. The once famous "Little Tigers" are now primarily based on the Mainland. In 2012 the trio sang golden oldies on the CCTV Spring Festival Show. Mainland fans were moved to tears. They grew up with those songs.
For many middle-aged Mainland fans, many songs we are familiar with, are their shared memories. These songs speak of the love, heartbreak, and sweetness of youth. They are songs that people on both sides sung in unison, and that evoke common memories. Cross-Strait exchanges are increasing. Personal interactions are expanding.
This is especially true for popular music, for the performing arts, and for drama. Taiwan leads in creativity due to its greater freedom and openness. This creativity is valued on the Mainland. The variety show "Kangxi Has Arrived" is widely watched on the Mainland. Young people on the Mainland all know "Xiao S," the host of the show, by sight.
Conversely, young people on Taiwan are entirely accustomed to watching Mainland produced films and music online. The shows use simplified characters, but they watch them anyway. They watch the Mainland's most popular programs in real-time. The popular "Hou Gong Zhen Huan Tales" have also swept Taiwan. Campuses on Taiwan have many young students from the Mainland. Many Mainland tourists stand on Taiwan street corners, holding maps, looking for places to eat. Many young people from Taiwan look for work on the Mainland. Young people on both sides consider it perfectly natural to establish links with the other side. They are beginning to share many life experiences.
This represents the cross-Strait present. It also represents the cross-Strait future. If the trend continues, the two sides can soon put past hostilities behind them. They can inhabit a totally different world. But many Green Camp people insist on in living in the past. The insist on clinging to hatred and fear of the Mainland. They insist on perceiving even the people and the culture of the Mainland as Evil Incarnate. They refuse to acknowledge that cross-Strait exchanges are booming, and have become a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Long years of confrontation, different forms of government and thought, differences in freedom, clashes over sovereignty and military threats, all constitute a chasm that must be spanned. Green Camp wariness about the Mainland has an historical basis. Security considerations are real. But cross-Strait exchanges are so very close. This cannot be denied. Nor can it be undone. Therefore any policy path must be rooted in reality. It cannot ignore or deny reality. Otherwise it will be utterly unrealistic, It will run counter to the currents of history.
The Democratic Progressive Party, under the leadership of Su Tseng-chang, persists in living in the past. It persists in demonizing the Mainland. It persists in opposing closer cross-Strait relations. It attempts to isolate Taiwan from Mainland influence, in order to ensure Taiwan's autonomy. But history has moved on. Gone are the days when the two sides were totally isolated. Any attempt to maintain Taiwan's autonomy and values, must be accomplished amidst ongoing cross-Strait exhanges. Autonomy can no longer be maintained by preventing the two sides from having contacts.
Su Tseng-chang's declaration is seriously at odds with cross-Strait reality, The DPP has obstinately clung to an impracticable cross-Strait policy. Even when it established a "China Affairs Committee," it merely went through the motions. To the public, the Green Camp's rhetoric is tired cliches. All the Green Camp does is rant about Commie conspiracies. Ask it to elaborate, and it is at a complete loss. Young people have no desire to listen to their boring rants.
If a political party hopes to survive, it must live in the present. It must offer people a future. The DPP cannot understand why "I am a Singer" is so popular. The problem clearly, is not with other people.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.04.16
社論－連《我是歌手》都怕 蘇貞昌還活在過去
本報訊
大陸湖南衛視的《我是歌手》轟動兩岸，無論是過程還是結果，都成為熱議的話題。而這個現象也清楚呈現了兩岸交流的深化，民進黨上下都應該放下仇恨與恐懼，好好正視這個節目所呈現的兩岸現況。
民進黨主席蘇貞昌指責中共統戰「入島、入戶、入腦」的說法，實在令人失望，也與事實有明顯差距。《我是歌手》並不是中共為了統戰台灣而製作的節目，這個熱門話題也不是被台灣媒體炒作或引導出來的，而是因為台灣民眾自行透過網路觀看，引起轟動後，媒體才跟進報導。整個過程，無涉任何政治陰謀。
這個節目之所以受到台灣民眾矚目，主要是總決賽的七強裡有四位台灣歌手，雖然最後由大陸歌手拿到冠軍，但參賽的台灣歌手都已在大陸聲勢暴紅。而在比賽過程中，不但歌手經常唱台灣歌，還有一集是向台灣歌手齊秦致敬的專場。在兩岸掀起熱潮的這個節目，飄著濃濃的台灣味。
而這不是單一現象，這些年來，台灣流行音樂在大陸一直有領先的地位，由於大陸市場大，電視台財力雄厚，台灣藝人與歌手轉進對岸再造第二春者所在多有。昔日的「小虎隊」現在全部以大陸為工作重心，而三人在二○一二年央視春晚合體演唱當年名曲時，許多大陸歌迷還感動落淚，因為那是他們自己「成長的記憶」。
是的，我們熟悉的台灣歌曲，其實也是大陸許多中年以下者的共同成長記憶。那些愛情、悲傷、甜美與青春，都在兩岸集體吟唱、觸發並且記憶著。兩岸交流愈來愈綿密，民間的互動也愈來愈深化廣化。
尤其在流行音樂、綜藝與戲劇方面，台灣在自由開放以及創意上較為領先，就相當受到歡迎。《康熙來了》等節目在大陸廣為流傳，年輕人熟知小Ｓ即是一例。
相對的，台灣年輕人現在也很習慣上大陸網站看影片、抓歌，簡體字囫圇吞棗也看得下去，大陸的熱門節目，一樣即時觀賞，暴紅的《後宮甄嬛傳》，台灣同樣風靡。台灣校園裡出現了年輕的大陸學生，街頭有拿著地圖找美食的自由行旅客，不少台灣年輕人想到大陸工作。兩岸的年輕世代，正以他們輕盈自然的方式，與對岸建立連結，也開始一起寫下一些共同的生命體驗。
這，不但是兩岸的現狀，也是兩岸的未來。這個趨勢如果持續下去，兩岸可以走到和過去劍拔弩張完全不同的世界。但是，綠營很多人卻堅持活在過去，緊抱著對中國的仇視與恐懼，連帶把大陸的人民與文化也視為洪水猛獸，而不願面對兩岸交流已經蓬勃延伸得愈來愈自然的現狀。
當然，長年的對峙、不同的政體與思維、自由的落差、主權的衝突以及軍事威脅，都是橫亙兩岸之間的鴻溝，綠營對中國大陸的戒心既有歷史背景，也有現實安全的考量。問題是，兩岸交流已經如此密切，這是既不能否認、也不可能倒流的事實，因此任何政策思維與執行路線，都應該根據這樣的事實來建構，不能無視或否定現實，或者提出完全不切實際、也與時代發展背道而馳的主張。
民進黨在蘇貞昌的領導下，其中國政策仍然活在過去的時空裡，把中國的一切妖魔化，反對兩岸接近、交流，想用隔絕中國影響力來保持台灣的主體性。但歷史在往前走，兩岸完全隔絕的時代已經一去不返，要維持台灣的主體性與自我價值，也必須是在兩岸持續交流的狀況下實現，而不再可能藉由阻擋雙方接觸的方式達成。
蘇貞昌的說法和兩岸現實嚴重脫節，民進黨也一直提不出務實可行的兩岸政策，連成立一個中國事務部，看來只是在虛應故事。綠營的兩岸論述更被一般民眾視為是老掉牙的陳腔濫調，除了喊殺喊打狂罵老共陰謀之外，講不出什麼所以然來，年輕人根本聽之生厭。
政黨要有政治生命，必須看得見現在，也能給人民一個未來。當民進黨看不懂整個《我是歌手》熱潮是怎麼回事時，問題，顯然不在別人。
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Lin Yang-kang's Restraint vs. Lee Teng-hui's Excess
Lin Yang-kang's Restraint vs. Lee Teng-hui's Excess
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2013
Summary: Lin Yang-kang's time has passed. Today, we lack models worthy of emulation. All we have is an obsession with power. Lin Yang-kang lost to Lee Teng-hui. He left behind the question, "If only Lin Yang-kang had been Chiang's successor, how would Taiwan have turned out?" But the path of democracy is a rocky one. We are haunted by these two mens' shadows. What's worse, we cannot neither go back nor forward.
Full text below:
Why did Chiang Ching-kuo choose Lee Teng-hui to be his vice president instead of Lin Yang-kang? This mystery remains unanswered. Lin Yang-kang and Lee Teng-hui had a major political impact. Twenty years later, the public has had time to reflect on the ups and downs of democracy, and the treacherous struggles over power. This is indeed a question worth asking.
Lin Yang-kang left politics many years before he died in Taichung. The public has to be reminded of his character and accomplishments. They include his amiability, his reforms, his ability to hold his liquor, even his heavily accented "Taiwanese Mandarin." These images all remain fresh. The most thrilling moment in Lin Yang-kang's political career, was his decade long power struggle with Lee Teng-hui. It touched off the "mainstream vs. non-mainstream" battle. It led to Lin Yang-kang's electoral defeat and retreat from the political stage. The victor, Lee Teng-hui, later engaged in unpredictable behavior. He planted the seeds of the KMT's loss of power. The irony of this page in history evokes mixed feelings.
Lin Yang-kang's charisma was the result of his amiable and natural manner. His political accomplishments at the local and central level, demonstrated empathy for the people. His pragmatic reforms were welcomed by the people. His manner was exuberant without becoming bombastic. When he drank with you, he matched your gusto. He held himself to high standards. He knew when to exercise restraint. He was easygoing yet resolute. He cracked wise, but remained dignified. He would go with the flow, but would not swim in the same waters. He was very different from Lee Teng-hui, who "only sat on one-third of the chair" when Vice President, then wreaked havoc upon seizing power.
The construction and planning of the Feitsui Reservoir, the Jianguo Highway Overpass, and the Xinyi District, all date back to Lin Yang-kang's time as Taipei Mayor. He drafted the blueprint for the capital city. During the construction of the Feitsui Reservoir, many party and government elders and "dang wai" figures expressed powerful objections. They said if the reservoir was bombed, the entire Taipei Basin would be inundated. Lin Yang-kang was branded a "Communist fellow traveler." But he stuck with his plan to provide millions of people in the greater Taipei area with water. He implemented conservation measures, and protected the watershed. Today many parts of Taiwan suffer from water shortages. The greater Taipei area is an exception. It can sit back and relax, thanks to his vision and persistence.
Consider their age. Lee Teng-hui was four years older. But in political experience, Lin Yang-kang, from Taipei City Mayor to Taiwan Provincial Governor, was a step ahead of Lee Teng-hui all the way. Lin Yang-kang was a witty and sophisticated conversationalist. He was undoubtedly stronger at this than Lee Teng-hui. But his strength may also have been his weakness. Lin Yang-kang's sophistication may have unintentionally planted seeds of doubt about his ambitions. Chiang Ching-kuo chose Lee Teng-hui to be his successor. Lin was involved in the Kuomintang's "February Uprising." This tarnished his image. In the end, all he could do was quietly retire. He no longer concerned himself with public affairs.
The currents of democracy are heartless. Lin Yang-kang apparently accepted his fate. At least he no longer commented on politics. He never said anything extraordinary. By contrast, for 12 years, Lee Teng-hui could do as he pleased. Yet over a decade after retiring, he persists in political finger-pointing. Lin Yang-kang made a clean break. Lee Teng-hui by contrast, dragged his feet. He went kicking and screaming. Clearly he has no confidence in his own legacy.
Some people think Lin Yang-kang lost his political struggle because he was not cunning or underhanded enough. Therefore he allowed Lee Teng-hui to bully him and smear him as a "traitor to Taiwan." This may be part of the reason. But it ignores public impatience for change and fear of unrest. In fact, given the atmosphere, Lee Teng-hui had a halo. He had been hand-picked by Chiang Ching-kuo. This was something no one could overcome. Who knew that this hand-picked "orthodox" choice would tear the nation apart, incite confusion over national identity, and inflict harm whose effects can be felt even today.
The main reason Chiang Ching-kuo chose Lee and rejected Lin, was that Lin was too charismatic. As a result, he chose Lee Teng-hui, who "sat on only one-third of the chair." Chiang Ching-kuo never imagined that because Lee Teng-hui lacked charisma, he would go overboard to compensate once he seized power.
Some say that had Lin Yang-kang been Chiang's successor, he would have been dominated by traditional KMT forces. He would have exercised restraint and not run amuck. He would not have been as ruthless as Lee Teng-hui. This is difficult to say. No one can truly know what would have happened. When Lin Yang-kang wielded little authority, he exercised restraint. But had he wielded far more authority, had he been the head of state, perhaps he might have exercised far less restraint.
Lin Yang-kang's time has passed. Today, we lack models worthy of emulation. All we have is an obsession with power. Lin Yang-kang lost to Lee Teng-hui. He left behind the question, "If only Lin Yang-kang had been Chiang's successor, how would Taiwan have turned out?" But the path of democracy is a rocky one. We are haunted by these two mens' shadows. What's worse, we cannot neither go back nor forward.
林洋港的表面張力與李登輝的氾濫成災
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.15 03:00 am
蔣經國當年為何挑選了李登輝擔任副總統，而不是林洋港？這個謎，如今恐怕已難全盤解開。無論如何，林洋港與李登輝留下的政治身影，經過廿多年時光的積澱與映照，對台灣民眾反思民主起伏與權力嬗遞的詭譎，倒提供了一個殊堪咀嚼的題材。
遠離政治多年的林洋港病逝台中，讓他當年的許多事蹟從歷史塵埃中被重新喚醒，包括他的親和力、他的興革、他的豪飲海量、乃至他的一口台灣國語，彷彿依然形象鮮活。林洋港從政生涯中最驚險的時刻，是他與李登輝之間長達十多年的權力競逐，不僅引爆了主流、非主流之爭，也導致林洋港的不敵敗退；而贏家李登輝後來的變幻莫測，則埋下國民黨失去政權的種子。這頁歷史的嘲諷，至今五味雜陳。
林洋港的魅力，在於他的親和自然。他的從政施為，不論在地方或在中央，頗能體察民意，務實興革，而受到民眾的歡迎；他為人處世「滿而不溢」的風格，和他飲酒時的「表面張力」相互輝映；居高而知行止，隨和不忘堅持，詼諧不失端莊，同流而不合汙。這和當副總統時椅子「只坐三分之一」，掌權後卻興風作浪的李登輝，是截然不同的典型。
翡翠水庫、建國高架橋和信義計畫區的興建和規劃，皆始自林洋港擔任台北市長任內，為首都發展繪出了新藍圖。其中，尤以翡翠水庫的興建，當時不少黨政大老及「黨外人士」咸表反對，認為萬一共軍轟炸水庫，整個台北盆地將被淹沒。當時林洋港背著「共匪同路人」的罵名，堅持為大台北地區數百萬人的用水預為籌謀，並著手維護上游水源區之環境保育。今天，台灣許多地區乾旱缺水時，唯獨大台北能高枕無憂，不能不歸功於他的遠見和堅持。
論年紀，李登輝長四歲；但論政治資歷，林洋港從台北市長到省主席，均早李登輝一步。論本土氣味的魅力，林洋港的詼諧談吐和練達人情，當年無疑也在李登輝之上。但成也魅力、敗也魅力，林洋港的高人氣或許不知不覺埋下「功高震主」的疑忌，使蔣經國選擇了李登輝；至李登輝接任總統，林又捲入國民黨「二月政爭」，其形象大受損傷，最後只能悄然引退，從此不再過問政事。
如果說這是民主洪流的無情沖刷，林洋港似乎也安然接受了退隱的命運。至少，人們不曾再看到他過問政治，或發表什麼分外的發言。相形之下，李登輝經過十二年權力高峰的呼風喚雨，至卸任十多年後，還不時對政治指指點點。兩相對照，林洋港是裸退，李登輝則退得拖泥帶水，顯示其沒有安全感。
有些人認為，林洋港在當年的政爭中敗下陣來，是輸在不夠狡詐、不夠陰狠，才會被「台奸」的攻訐及李登輝所欺。這種說法，或許道出了局部因素，卻忽略了當時台灣社會急於求變又恐懼動亂的大勢。事實上，在當時氣氛下，李登輝身披蔣經國欽點的光環，恐怕已不是任何人所能動搖；而誰又能料到，這位欽點的「正統」卻最後弄到國家撕裂、認同錯亂，以致貽禍至今。
蔣經國當年擇李捨林，主要或許是覺得，林洋港的「表面張力」顯得有些張揚，於是挑了「椅子只坐三分之一」的李登輝；但蔣經國絕對不會想到，後來的李登輝卻因沒有「表面張力」的智慧，竟然鬧到「氾濫成災」。
或許有人說，當年如果換成林洋港接班，他可能受到國民黨傳統勢力的包圍，自限於「滿而不溢」的「表面張力」，也許就不會像李登輝那樣大刀闊斧。這是個假問題，無人知道真答案。但是，仍可想像，當林洋港用小杯斟酒時，有小杯的「表面張力」；若讓他換成大杯斟酒，主政治國，他應當也會將大杯的「表面張力」發揮得淋漓盡致吧。
林洋港的時代已經遠去。在缺乏典範、只剩權力崇拜的今天，林洋港因當年輸給李登輝，反而留下了「如果是阿港伯，台灣會怎樣」的想像。畢竟，這條崎嶇民主路留下的，不僅是他們兩人交錯的身影，還有台灣無法回頭又無力推進的政治困境。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2013
Summary: Lin Yang-kang's time has passed. Today, we lack models worthy of emulation. All we have is an obsession with power. Lin Yang-kang lost to Lee Teng-hui. He left behind the question, "If only Lin Yang-kang had been Chiang's successor, how would Taiwan have turned out?" But the path of democracy is a rocky one. We are haunted by these two mens' shadows. What's worse, we cannot neither go back nor forward.
Full text below:
Why did Chiang Ching-kuo choose Lee Teng-hui to be his vice president instead of Lin Yang-kang? This mystery remains unanswered. Lin Yang-kang and Lee Teng-hui had a major political impact. Twenty years later, the public has had time to reflect on the ups and downs of democracy, and the treacherous struggles over power. This is indeed a question worth asking.
Lin Yang-kang left politics many years before he died in Taichung. The public has to be reminded of his character and accomplishments. They include his amiability, his reforms, his ability to hold his liquor, even his heavily accented "Taiwanese Mandarin." These images all remain fresh. The most thrilling moment in Lin Yang-kang's political career, was his decade long power struggle with Lee Teng-hui. It touched off the "mainstream vs. non-mainstream" battle. It led to Lin Yang-kang's electoral defeat and retreat from the political stage. The victor, Lee Teng-hui, later engaged in unpredictable behavior. He planted the seeds of the KMT's loss of power. The irony of this page in history evokes mixed feelings.
Lin Yang-kang's charisma was the result of his amiable and natural manner. His political accomplishments at the local and central level, demonstrated empathy for the people. His pragmatic reforms were welcomed by the people. His manner was exuberant without becoming bombastic. When he drank with you, he matched your gusto. He held himself to high standards. He knew when to exercise restraint. He was easygoing yet resolute. He cracked wise, but remained dignified. He would go with the flow, but would not swim in the same waters. He was very different from Lee Teng-hui, who "only sat on one-third of the chair" when Vice President, then wreaked havoc upon seizing power.
The construction and planning of the Feitsui Reservoir, the Jianguo Highway Overpass, and the Xinyi District, all date back to Lin Yang-kang's time as Taipei Mayor. He drafted the blueprint for the capital city. During the construction of the Feitsui Reservoir, many party and government elders and "dang wai" figures expressed powerful objections. They said if the reservoir was bombed, the entire Taipei Basin would be inundated. Lin Yang-kang was branded a "Communist fellow traveler." But he stuck with his plan to provide millions of people in the greater Taipei area with water. He implemented conservation measures, and protected the watershed. Today many parts of Taiwan suffer from water shortages. The greater Taipei area is an exception. It can sit back and relax, thanks to his vision and persistence.
Consider their age. Lee Teng-hui was four years older. But in political experience, Lin Yang-kang, from Taipei City Mayor to Taiwan Provincial Governor, was a step ahead of Lee Teng-hui all the way. Lin Yang-kang was a witty and sophisticated conversationalist. He was undoubtedly stronger at this than Lee Teng-hui. But his strength may also have been his weakness. Lin Yang-kang's sophistication may have unintentionally planted seeds of doubt about his ambitions. Chiang Ching-kuo chose Lee Teng-hui to be his successor. Lin was involved in the Kuomintang's "February Uprising." This tarnished his image. In the end, all he could do was quietly retire. He no longer concerned himself with public affairs.
The currents of democracy are heartless. Lin Yang-kang apparently accepted his fate. At least he no longer commented on politics. He never said anything extraordinary. By contrast, for 12 years, Lee Teng-hui could do as he pleased. Yet over a decade after retiring, he persists in political finger-pointing. Lin Yang-kang made a clean break. Lee Teng-hui by contrast, dragged his feet. He went kicking and screaming. Clearly he has no confidence in his own legacy.
Some people think Lin Yang-kang lost his political struggle because he was not cunning or underhanded enough. Therefore he allowed Lee Teng-hui to bully him and smear him as a "traitor to Taiwan." This may be part of the reason. But it ignores public impatience for change and fear of unrest. In fact, given the atmosphere, Lee Teng-hui had a halo. He had been hand-picked by Chiang Ching-kuo. This was something no one could overcome. Who knew that this hand-picked "orthodox" choice would tear the nation apart, incite confusion over national identity, and inflict harm whose effects can be felt even today.
The main reason Chiang Ching-kuo chose Lee and rejected Lin, was that Lin was too charismatic. As a result, he chose Lee Teng-hui, who "sat on only one-third of the chair." Chiang Ching-kuo never imagined that because Lee Teng-hui lacked charisma, he would go overboard to compensate once he seized power.
Some say that had Lin Yang-kang been Chiang's successor, he would have been dominated by traditional KMT forces. He would have exercised restraint and not run amuck. He would not have been as ruthless as Lee Teng-hui. This is difficult to say. No one can truly know what would have happened. When Lin Yang-kang wielded little authority, he exercised restraint. But had he wielded far more authority, had he been the head of state, perhaps he might have exercised far less restraint.
Lin Yang-kang's time has passed. Today, we lack models worthy of emulation. All we have is an obsession with power. Lin Yang-kang lost to Lee Teng-hui. He left behind the question, "If only Lin Yang-kang had been Chiang's successor, how would Taiwan have turned out?" But the path of democracy is a rocky one. We are haunted by these two mens' shadows. What's worse, we cannot neither go back nor forward.
林洋港的表面張力與李登輝的氾濫成災
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.15 03:00 am
蔣經國當年為何挑選了李登輝擔任副總統，而不是林洋港？這個謎，如今恐怕已難全盤解開。無論如何，林洋港與李登輝留下的政治身影，經過廿多年時光的積澱與映照，對台灣民眾反思民主起伏與權力嬗遞的詭譎，倒提供了一個殊堪咀嚼的題材。
遠離政治多年的林洋港病逝台中，讓他當年的許多事蹟從歷史塵埃中被重新喚醒，包括他的親和力、他的興革、他的豪飲海量、乃至他的一口台灣國語，彷彿依然形象鮮活。林洋港從政生涯中最驚險的時刻，是他與李登輝之間長達十多年的權力競逐，不僅引爆了主流、非主流之爭，也導致林洋港的不敵敗退；而贏家李登輝後來的變幻莫測，則埋下國民黨失去政權的種子。這頁歷史的嘲諷，至今五味雜陳。
林洋港的魅力，在於他的親和自然。他的從政施為，不論在地方或在中央，頗能體察民意，務實興革，而受到民眾的歡迎；他為人處世「滿而不溢」的風格，和他飲酒時的「表面張力」相互輝映；居高而知行止，隨和不忘堅持，詼諧不失端莊，同流而不合汙。這和當副總統時椅子「只坐三分之一」，掌權後卻興風作浪的李登輝，是截然不同的典型。
翡翠水庫、建國高架橋和信義計畫區的興建和規劃，皆始自林洋港擔任台北市長任內，為首都發展繪出了新藍圖。其中，尤以翡翠水庫的興建，當時不少黨政大老及「黨外人士」咸表反對，認為萬一共軍轟炸水庫，整個台北盆地將被淹沒。當時林洋港背著「共匪同路人」的罵名，堅持為大台北地區數百萬人的用水預為籌謀，並著手維護上游水源區之環境保育。今天，台灣許多地區乾旱缺水時，唯獨大台北能高枕無憂，不能不歸功於他的遠見和堅持。
論年紀，李登輝長四歲；但論政治資歷，林洋港從台北市長到省主席，均早李登輝一步。論本土氣味的魅力，林洋港的詼諧談吐和練達人情，當年無疑也在李登輝之上。但成也魅力、敗也魅力，林洋港的高人氣或許不知不覺埋下「功高震主」的疑忌，使蔣經國選擇了李登輝；至李登輝接任總統，林又捲入國民黨「二月政爭」，其形象大受損傷，最後只能悄然引退，從此不再過問政事。
如果說這是民主洪流的無情沖刷，林洋港似乎也安然接受了退隱的命運。至少，人們不曾再看到他過問政治，或發表什麼分外的發言。相形之下，李登輝經過十二年權力高峰的呼風喚雨，至卸任十多年後，還不時對政治指指點點。兩相對照，林洋港是裸退，李登輝則退得拖泥帶水，顯示其沒有安全感。
有些人認為，林洋港在當年的政爭中敗下陣來，是輸在不夠狡詐、不夠陰狠，才會被「台奸」的攻訐及李登輝所欺。這種說法，或許道出了局部因素，卻忽略了當時台灣社會急於求變又恐懼動亂的大勢。事實上，在當時氣氛下，李登輝身披蔣經國欽點的光環，恐怕已不是任何人所能動搖；而誰又能料到，這位欽點的「正統」卻最後弄到國家撕裂、認同錯亂，以致貽禍至今。
蔣經國當年擇李捨林，主要或許是覺得，林洋港的「表面張力」顯得有些張揚，於是挑了「椅子只坐三分之一」的李登輝；但蔣經國絕對不會想到，後來的李登輝卻因沒有「表面張力」的智慧，竟然鬧到「氾濫成災」。
或許有人說，當年如果換成林洋港接班，他可能受到國民黨傳統勢力的包圍，自限於「滿而不溢」的「表面張力」，也許就不會像李登輝那樣大刀闊斧。這是個假問題，無人知道真答案。但是，仍可想像，當林洋港用小杯斟酒時，有小杯的「表面張力」；若讓他換成大杯斟酒，主政治國，他應當也會將大杯的「表面張力」發揮得淋漓盡致吧。
林洋港的時代已經遠去。在缺乏典範、只剩權力崇拜的今天，林洋港因當年輸給李登輝，反而留下了「如果是阿港伯，台灣會怎樣」的想像。畢竟，這條崎嶇民主路留下的，不僅是他們兩人交錯的身影，還有台灣無法回頭又無力推進的政治困境。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)