Modest but Real Wealth vs. Vast and Grand Ambitions
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 1, 2014
Summary: The unshirkable responsibility of the the ruling KMT is to make people
understand that cross-strait policy is the key to Taiwan's economy. The KMT must turn
public opinion around. It must adopt proper procedures when it deals
with cross-strait matters. It must communicate with the 30 something
percent of the public who support the DPP. It must reduce support for a
Closed Door Policy. Only then can Taiwan's economy entertain grand
ambitions. If the KMT fails at this, it will not matter how much "modest
but real wealth" it bestows upon the public.
Full text below:
Last month, the Ministry of Internal Affairs decided to increase the number of legal holidays next year by six. Many people praised the move. They said it would add to the peoples' "modest but real wealth." Predictably, students soon launched large-scale "anti-Cross-Strait Service in Trade Agreement" demonstrations and occupied the legislature. The peoples' newfound joy over "modest but real wealth" swiftly turned to anxiety.
The Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) is not only an economic issue. It is not only about an isolated agreement. It is not only about the legislative process. It is about Taiwan's larger survival strategy. After the CSSTA, a number of other agreements must also be signed. They include the Cross-Strait Goods Trade Agreement (CSGTA), dispute settlement agreements, and investment protection agreements. These also require legislative review. But given current opposition to the CSSTA, cross-strait trade faces numerous obstacles. The trouble is, after the student protests, public suspicions about the CSSTA have multiplied. Without a cross-strait economic opening in the foreseeable future, how much "real wealth" will six more legal holidays really offer?
The public is filled with doubts about the CSSTA. It is uneasy about an "economic invasion" by the Chinese mainland. But the main reason is that many on Taiwan still do not realize that cross-strait relations is the key to Taiwan's economic development. Even the DPP's own polls show that the public on Taiwan is more likely to trust the KMT on cross-strait economic and trade policy. But on individual issues, public support for the KMT vs. the DPP runs 40 something percent vs. 30 something percent. The gap is significant but not enough to make those who demand a Sinophobic, Closed Door Policy change course.
Political party support derives from the public. That is why it is difficult to link DPP politicians' ideological perspective to their bull-headed cross-strait economic and trade policies. The DPP's cross-strait policy is obdurate, yet 30 something percent of the public on Taiwan still support it. It is necessary to undestand why. Why have the student protests increased public suspicions about the CSSTA? We think the DPP's Closed Door Policy still has public support because the public on Taiwan still does not realize trade and economic globalization is something Taiwan cannot avoid.
Hundreds of governments across the globe are signing FTAS. Taiwan faces two kinds of pressure. One. Taiwan must aggressively join regional alliances. Otherwise its trade in goods will be squeezed out by high tariffs imposed by non-allied governments. Also, allied economies want to manufacture their own products. International and domestic manufacturers form alliances and set up factories in allied economies. This weakens Taiwan's investments, and hollows out Taiwan's industry. That is why Taiwan must become a part of international economic and trade alliances.
Two. The Chinese mainland is a major force in the international economy. Taiwan must reach an implicit understanding with the Chinese mainland. Otherwise it will find it almost impossible to sign free trade agreements with important trading partners. Therefore cross-strait relations are an unavoidable hurdle for Taiwan's economic development. If Taiwan cannot normalize cross-strait relations, then Taiwan's economy will not survive.
Take the first kind of pressure. The DPP apparently fully understands it. But it has yet to undestand the second kind of pressure. It is still grappling with it. It is still resisting it, all the way. During the last presidential election, Tsai Ing-wen set forth her "Entering [Mainland] China through the World" argument, as an alternative to the KMT's "Entering the world through Mainland China" argument. But her argument was wishful thinking. It failed to inspire public trust in the DPP. Its implementation involved all manner of obstructionism in cross-strait affairs. It constituted a major obstacle to globalization. This "autistic" Closed Door Policy harms Taiwan. But the effect has been gradual, like boiling a frog. People have not noticed it. That is why the DPP's cross-strait policy continues to receive 30 something percent public support.
The unshirkable responsibility of the the ruling KMT is to make people understand that cross-strait policy is the key to Taiwan's economy. KMT cabinet members rightly criticize the DPP for blind opposition of anything to do with Mainland China, and of ignoring the big picture. But they have yet to fully discredit the DPP's cross-strait policy rhetoric. This is probably the result of excess complacency. Taiwan's economic outlook is something we must face together. The KMT must turn public opinion around. It must adopt proper procedures when it deals with cross-strait matters. It must communicate with the 30 something percent of the public who support the DPP. It must reduce support for a Closed Door Policy. Only then can Taiwan's economy entertain grand ambitions. If the KMT fails at this, it will not matter how much "modest but real wealth" it bestows upon the public.
鎖國小確幸 何如開放大宏圖
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.01 01:46 am
內政部上月決定明年增加六天假日，許多民眾讚揚此舉有助提高人民的「小確幸」。孰料，短短時間的變化，學生發起大規模「反服貿」示威，並持續占領國會，民眾的「小確幸」歡愉轉眼就只剩下焦慮。
服貿不是一個單純的經濟問題，也不是一個單一協議的問題，或僅是立法程序的爭議，而是一個關涉台灣整體生存戰略的大題目。服貿之後，還有兩岸貨品貿易、爭端解決、投資保障等多項協議要簽，這些也都需要立法院審議通過；以目前服貿受杯葛的程度來看，兩岸經貿未來還有重重險阻要過。更麻煩的是，歷經此次學運，社會上對服貿心存懷疑的人恐怕只會更多。如果兩岸經貿開放遙遙無期，那麼增加六天假究竟能創造多少「確幸」，恐怕就只剩下一個大問號了。
民眾之所以對服貿協議充滿疑慮，除了是對中國大陸的「經濟入侵」感到不安之外，主要是不少台灣民眾迄未體認「兩岸關係是台灣經濟發展的關鍵」。即使民進黨自己做的民調，也顯示台灣人民比較信任國民黨處理兩岸經貿的政策基調，但在各項問題的答案上，國民黨與民進黨所受到的民意支持大概都是四十幾趴對卅幾趴，雖然差距顯著但卻難謂懸殊，這也使得主張「反中鎖國」者缺乏改弦更張的意願。
政黨的民意基礎在人民，因此，外界不宜只從民進黨政治人物意識形態的角度，去談論其兩岸經貿政策的畏縮與僵化；而需要理解：為什麼民進黨如此僵化的兩岸政策，竟然還有卅幾趴台灣民意的支持？為什麼學生運動之後，社會上對服貿協定的疑慮只會增加？我們認為，近乎鎖國的兩岸政策之所以在台灣還有票房，就是因為民眾還沒有真正認清台灣在全球化下所須面對的經貿形勢。
在全球百餘國縱橫交錯互簽ＦＴＡ結盟的架構下，台灣面對的是兩重壓力。其一，台灣若不積極加入區域結盟，不但商品貿易將因為非結盟國關稅特高而受到擠壓，更會因為結盟國間商品自製率的要求，而使得國際與本國廠商紛紛去結盟國設廠投資，進而造成台灣投資衰退、產業空洞化。準此，台灣絕對有必須加入國際經貿結盟的壓力。
其二，由於中國大陸在國際經濟上的強勢，台灣若未取得對岸的默契，國際重要貿易夥伴幾乎不可能與我國簽署任何自由貿易協定。因此，兩岸關係幾乎是台灣經濟發展無可迴避的關卡。可以肯定地說，如果不能平順地處理兩岸關係，那麼未來台灣經濟就注定是坎坷險阻的。
對於上述第一重壓力，民進黨顯然也深有體會；但是，他們對於第二重壓力的認知與處理，則仍未能理出頭緒，而有相當的掙扎和抗拒。蔡英文上次總統大選時提出「通過世界走進中國」的論述，以與國民黨「經過中國走進世界」區隔。但這種一廂情願的觀點，不但不利於民進黨獲得人民信任，其在操作面所呈現的種種杯葛兩岸事務的舉措，更是拖累台灣邁向全球化的重大障礙。但是，這種鎖國自閉對台灣經濟的危害有如溫水煮青蛙，不容易一時之間即讓人民了然於胸。這就是民進黨的兩岸政策至今還能有三成多民意支持的原因。
我們認為，讓人民了解「兩岸政策是台灣經濟的關鍵」，其實是執政黨無可迴避的責任。國民黨閣員光是指責民進黨逢中必反、不識大體，卻不能積極提出破解民進黨兩岸政策的一套論述，恐怕也是心態上過於安逸所致。台灣的經濟前景是大家要共同面對的，國民黨必須要有扭轉民意的完整論述，必須在處理兩岸事務時力求程序之正當，並及早向那卅幾趴的民眾進行充分的溝通，把反中鎖國的支持度大幅降低，台灣的經濟才可能有所宏圖。若是不此之圖，釋出再多小確幸，恐怕都於事無補。
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Student Movement: Time for an Exit Strategy
Student Movement: Time for an Exit Strategy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 31, 2014
Summary: Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Full text below:
Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. The large numbers resulted in a few minor incidents. But the student organizations lived up to their commitment. They concluded their activities at 7pm. They returned to the Legislative Yuan sit in site. This can be considered a rational and peaceful conclusion. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Organizing a protest march and rally involving hundreds of thousands of people is no simple matter. The organizers and mobilizers of this large scale political event were novices -- young students. Many police officers have never encountered such a large-scale event. What's more, the event took place on Ketegelan Plaza, close to the Presidential Palace, a location even more sensitive than the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The potential risks can only be imagined.
Fortunately, neither side wanted the event to degenerate and lead to conflict. As a result, they demonstraed considerable maturity and self-restraint. Student groups were loath to be branded a "mob." Therefore they swore nonviolence beforehand. Police did not want to be branded perpetrators of "state violence" merely for maintaining order. Therefore they declared in advance that they would use "kid gloves." As a result, the march ended peacefully. The efforts by both sides merit recognition.
The protest march has ended, but the deadlock persists. The student groups are loath to end their occupation of the Legislative Yuan. The DPP advocated withdrawing the agreement on trade in services, and reviewing it in committee. Faced with demands by the student movement, President Ma agreed to a dialogue mechanism. He agreed to support cross-strait legislative oversight mechanisms. He agreed to consider convening a citizens' constitutional conference. He has made so many concessions, he can retreat no further. Yet the student leaders are utterly unmoved. They apparently think they are in an excellent bargaining position. As a result, they are demanding even more than the DPP. They have declared that unless the cross strait agreement on trade in services is withdrawn, everything is off the table.
How did matters come to this? Now the dispute may be even more difficult to resolve. President Ma's popularity may be low. But he remains the legitimate head of state, elected by a democratic majority. Policies must be implemented. He is responsible to the electorate who voted for him, not to the students who occuped the legislature. Student groups may accuse President Ma of ignoring public criticism. They may express strong objections through marches and rallies. But in the end they must fall back on the system. The students may think of themselves as smart. They may think they understand the cross-strait agreement on trade in services. But in the end, they cannot bypass the system. They must operate in accordance with the legislative process. If the student movement insists on having its way, Taiwan will confront its most serious crisis ever.
This is most worrisome . The student movement gained the upper hand in the rhetorical battle from day one. But their demands became increasing absolutist. Their definition of "democracy" is their one-sided definition of democracy. Their definition of "dialogue" is their one-sided definition of dialogue. It is only dialogue if it results in what they demand. They occupied the halls of the legislature. They occupied the Executive Yuan. They destroyed public property, yet consider this reasonable behavior. Police evictions are invariably denounced as "state violence." They totally refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Any expression of dissent on the Internet, is besieged or humiliated. The protest has reached a point where it may proceed down a path it once opposed.
Let us be blunt. The student movement leaders may have been wildly successful in achieving their demands. They may be highly effective in their mobilization skills. But sooner or later they must have an exit strategy. Suppose President Ma refuses to withdraw the cross strait agreement in trade in services? Do the students really intend to occupy the legislative yuan forever? True, they could launch a student strike, worker strike, or protest march once every week. Let the stock market plummet. Let political risk on Taiwan skyrocket. After all, if it all goes wrong, you can blame it on President Ma, right? Why didn't he listen to the student movement? But if you actually go down this path, you will drag down more than just the Ma government. You will drag down all of Taiwan.
A note to the student leaders. The excitement is over. Time to establish a stop-loss point. In 13 short days, you achieved what the DPP failed to achieve over eight or nine months. You successfully captured national media attention, even global media attention. You forced the ruling party to retreat, step by step. You forced President Ma to lower himself and seek dialogue. You even mobilized a successful rally. Your achievements rank up there alongside the Wild Lily and Wild Strawberry student movements. Whatever happens to the cross-strait agreement in trade in services, you have earned the respect of the public. The Sunflower student movement will go down in history.
Your next step must be to allow the legislature to do its job. You have unfinished studies that must be completed. One day your time will come.
社論－激情過後 學運該想如何退場
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月31日 04:10
在學運團體的號召下，數十萬的民眾（警方數字最多時近12萬人）昨日參與了上凱道反服貿的大遊行。這也是台灣近幾年罕見規模最大的群眾運動，儘管因為人數過多導致過程中出現若干零星的小擦撞，但學運團體最終也依先前承諾，在晚上七時左右結束了全部活動，回到被占領的立院，堪稱是理性平和的落幕。而無論各界事後將如何評價這場遊行，它終究是會在台灣的政治史上，記上重要的一筆！
操作一場數十萬人的集會與遊行，本來就不是樁容易的事，更何況這次籌畫與動員的主角，都是初次舉辦大型政治活動的年輕學生，而警方這邊也同樣是許久沒有遭遇過這般大規模運動，更何況這次活動的空間是比政院與立院還要敏感的總統府前凱道廣場，其間所蘊藏的不確定風險可想而知。
好在任何一方都不希望這場運動的訴求會因為衝突而變質，因而都表現了相當的成熟與自制。學生團體不願被冠上「暴民」，所以事前就揭示了非暴力行動守則，維持秩序的警方也不願再被冠上什麼「國家暴力」，早在事前就強調一切都要「軟處理」，因而這場遊行能夠平和的落幕，雙方的努力都值得肯定。
只不過，遊行落幕了，僵局卻依舊無解。學生團體仍然占領著立院不願撤出。對執政當局而言，除了先前接受民進黨所主張的將服貿法案退回委員會審查外，面對學運團體的訴求，馬總統不僅願意建立對話機制，更表達願意支持兩岸監督機制立法，也願意評估召開公民憲政會議的可能，可以說讓步到這樣，已經是退無可退了！然而面對馬總統的善意回應與呼籲，學運領袖們全不領情，似乎認為當下他們的形勢已一片大好，因而他們的要價甚至比民進黨還高，表態除了立即「退回服貿協議」外，其他都免談的地步。
形勢走到這一步，怕是會陷入更難解套的地步。要知道，就算馬總統的聲望再低落，他畢竟是合法多數選出的國家元首，政務還是要持續推動下去，他負責的對象是投票選他的選民，不是霸占國會議場的學生。學生團體可以批判馬總統不傾聽民意，可以透過集會遊行表達強烈訴求，但最終還得是要回歸到體制內去解決，學生們就算智慧再高，再懂服貿法案，終究還是不能越俎代庖、非得要立法機構依他們所訂定的標準答案去做為吧！真要這樣，那才是台灣最大的危機。
目前最令人擔憂的正是在這裡，儘管學運團體在話語權爭奪上一路取得了上風，但在訴求上卻也有愈來愈絕對化的傾向。他們所認為的「民主」，是依他們片面定義的才算民主，他們所認可的「對話」，是照他們所提示的答案做才叫對話，他們對占領議場、攻占政院、毀損公物等都自認是合理的行為，對警方的驅離則一律標示為「國家暴力」，他們根本不願傾聽不同的意見，任何在網路上表達不同意見者，不是被圍剿，就是被羞辱！當抗爭走到這一步，他們很可能會走向他們自己所反對的道途上。
講得再直白一些，不論學運團體的訴求多成功，集體動員的成效多卓著，最終總是得選個時機退場吧！難不成如果馬總統持續拒絕「退回服貿協議」，學生們就長期霸著立院抵死不退嗎？是的，確實還可以再發動罷課、罷工，每周遊行一次都可以，何不乾脆讓股匯市下跌，讓台灣政治風險升高，反正都可以歸罪給馬總統，不是嗎？誰叫他不聽我們學運團體的話呢？真要走到這一步，被拖跨的絕不只是馬政府，而是整個台灣！
寄語學運領袖們，激情過後，此時此刻是可以開始思考怎麼設停損點了！你們已經在短短的13天內，達成了民進黨8、9個月來都達不到的成就；你們已成功的贏得了全國輿論的關注，甚至是全球輿論的矚目；你們也已成功的讓執政黨一步步退讓，更讓馬總統低姿態的向你們尋求對話；你們甚而更成功的動員了一場成功的群眾集會。面對野百合乃至野草莓的學運前輩，你們的表現是毫不遜色的，未來不論服貿協議的前景會如何發展，你們已經贏得了許多人的尊敬，太陽花學運日後也是一定會載入史冊的。
接下來的工作，就交給國會去折衝吧，你們還有未竟的學業應完成，終有一天，你們的時代會登場的！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 31, 2014
Summary: Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Full text below:
Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. The large numbers resulted in a few minor incidents. But the student organizations lived up to their commitment. They concluded their activities at 7pm. They returned to the Legislative Yuan sit in site. This can be considered a rational and peaceful conclusion. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Organizing a protest march and rally involving hundreds of thousands of people is no simple matter. The organizers and mobilizers of this large scale political event were novices -- young students. Many police officers have never encountered such a large-scale event. What's more, the event took place on Ketegelan Plaza, close to the Presidential Palace, a location even more sensitive than the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The potential risks can only be imagined.
Fortunately, neither side wanted the event to degenerate and lead to conflict. As a result, they demonstraed considerable maturity and self-restraint. Student groups were loath to be branded a "mob." Therefore they swore nonviolence beforehand. Police did not want to be branded perpetrators of "state violence" merely for maintaining order. Therefore they declared in advance that they would use "kid gloves." As a result, the march ended peacefully. The efforts by both sides merit recognition.
The protest march has ended, but the deadlock persists. The student groups are loath to end their occupation of the Legislative Yuan. The DPP advocated withdrawing the agreement on trade in services, and reviewing it in committee. Faced with demands by the student movement, President Ma agreed to a dialogue mechanism. He agreed to support cross-strait legislative oversight mechanisms. He agreed to consider convening a citizens' constitutional conference. He has made so many concessions, he can retreat no further. Yet the student leaders are utterly unmoved. They apparently think they are in an excellent bargaining position. As a result, they are demanding even more than the DPP. They have declared that unless the cross strait agreement on trade in services is withdrawn, everything is off the table.
How did matters come to this? Now the dispute may be even more difficult to resolve. President Ma's popularity may be low. But he remains the legitimate head of state, elected by a democratic majority. Policies must be implemented. He is responsible to the electorate who voted for him, not to the students who occuped the legislature. Student groups may accuse President Ma of ignoring public criticism. They may express strong objections through marches and rallies. But in the end they must fall back on the system. The students may think of themselves as smart. They may think they understand the cross-strait agreement on trade in services. But in the end, they cannot bypass the system. They must operate in accordance with the legislative process. If the student movement insists on having its way, Taiwan will confront its most serious crisis ever.
This is most worrisome . The student movement gained the upper hand in the rhetorical battle from day one. But their demands became increasing absolutist. Their definition of "democracy" is their one-sided definition of democracy. Their definition of "dialogue" is their one-sided definition of dialogue. It is only dialogue if it results in what they demand. They occupied the halls of the legislature. They occupied the Executive Yuan. They destroyed public property, yet consider this reasonable behavior. Police evictions are invariably denounced as "state violence." They totally refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Any expression of dissent on the Internet, is besieged or humiliated. The protest has reached a point where it may proceed down a path it once opposed.
Let us be blunt. The student movement leaders may have been wildly successful in achieving their demands. They may be highly effective in their mobilization skills. But sooner or later they must have an exit strategy. Suppose President Ma refuses to withdraw the cross strait agreement in trade in services? Do the students really intend to occupy the legislative yuan forever? True, they could launch a student strike, worker strike, or protest march once every week. Let the stock market plummet. Let political risk on Taiwan skyrocket. After all, if it all goes wrong, you can blame it on President Ma, right? Why didn't he listen to the student movement? But if you actually go down this path, you will drag down more than just the Ma government. You will drag down all of Taiwan.
A note to the student leaders. The excitement is over. Time to establish a stop-loss point. In 13 short days, you achieved what the DPP failed to achieve over eight or nine months. You successfully captured national media attention, even global media attention. You forced the ruling party to retreat, step by step. You forced President Ma to lower himself and seek dialogue. You even mobilized a successful rally. Your achievements rank up there alongside the Wild Lily and Wild Strawberry student movements. Whatever happens to the cross-strait agreement in trade in services, you have earned the respect of the public. The Sunflower student movement will go down in history.
Your next step must be to allow the legislature to do its job. You have unfinished studies that must be completed. One day your time will come.
社論－激情過後 學運該想如何退場
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月31日 04:10
在學運團體的號召下，數十萬的民眾（警方數字最多時近12萬人）昨日參與了上凱道反服貿的大遊行。這也是台灣近幾年罕見規模最大的群眾運動，儘管因為人數過多導致過程中出現若干零星的小擦撞，但學運團體最終也依先前承諾，在晚上七時左右結束了全部活動，回到被占領的立院，堪稱是理性平和的落幕。而無論各界事後將如何評價這場遊行，它終究是會在台灣的政治史上，記上重要的一筆！
操作一場數十萬人的集會與遊行，本來就不是樁容易的事，更何況這次籌畫與動員的主角，都是初次舉辦大型政治活動的年輕學生，而警方這邊也同樣是許久沒有遭遇過這般大規模運動，更何況這次活動的空間是比政院與立院還要敏感的總統府前凱道廣場，其間所蘊藏的不確定風險可想而知。
好在任何一方都不希望這場運動的訴求會因為衝突而變質，因而都表現了相當的成熟與自制。學生團體不願被冠上「暴民」，所以事前就揭示了非暴力行動守則，維持秩序的警方也不願再被冠上什麼「國家暴力」，早在事前就強調一切都要「軟處理」，因而這場遊行能夠平和的落幕，雙方的努力都值得肯定。
只不過，遊行落幕了，僵局卻依舊無解。學生團體仍然占領著立院不願撤出。對執政當局而言，除了先前接受民進黨所主張的將服貿法案退回委員會審查外，面對學運團體的訴求，馬總統不僅願意建立對話機制，更表達願意支持兩岸監督機制立法，也願意評估召開公民憲政會議的可能，可以說讓步到這樣，已經是退無可退了！然而面對馬總統的善意回應與呼籲，學運領袖們全不領情，似乎認為當下他們的形勢已一片大好，因而他們的要價甚至比民進黨還高，表態除了立即「退回服貿協議」外，其他都免談的地步。
形勢走到這一步，怕是會陷入更難解套的地步。要知道，就算馬總統的聲望再低落，他畢竟是合法多數選出的國家元首，政務還是要持續推動下去，他負責的對象是投票選他的選民，不是霸占國會議場的學生。學生團體可以批判馬總統不傾聽民意，可以透過集會遊行表達強烈訴求，但最終還得是要回歸到體制內去解決，學生們就算智慧再高，再懂服貿法案，終究還是不能越俎代庖、非得要立法機構依他們所訂定的標準答案去做為吧！真要這樣，那才是台灣最大的危機。
目前最令人擔憂的正是在這裡，儘管學運團體在話語權爭奪上一路取得了上風，但在訴求上卻也有愈來愈絕對化的傾向。他們所認為的「民主」，是依他們片面定義的才算民主，他們所認可的「對話」，是照他們所提示的答案做才叫對話，他們對占領議場、攻占政院、毀損公物等都自認是合理的行為，對警方的驅離則一律標示為「國家暴力」，他們根本不願傾聽不同的意見，任何在網路上表達不同意見者，不是被圍剿，就是被羞辱！當抗爭走到這一步，他們很可能會走向他們自己所反對的道途上。
講得再直白一些，不論學運團體的訴求多成功，集體動員的成效多卓著，最終總是得選個時機退場吧！難不成如果馬總統持續拒絕「退回服貿協議」，學生們就長期霸著立院抵死不退嗎？是的，確實還可以再發動罷課、罷工，每周遊行一次都可以，何不乾脆讓股匯市下跌，讓台灣政治風險升高，反正都可以歸罪給馬總統，不是嗎？誰叫他不聽我們學運團體的話呢？真要走到這一步，被拖跨的絕不只是馬政府，而是整個台灣！
寄語學運領袖們，激情過後，此時此刻是可以開始思考怎麼設停損點了！你們已經在短短的13天內，達成了民進黨8、9個月來都達不到的成就；你們已成功的贏得了全國輿論的關注，甚至是全球輿論的矚目；你們也已成功的讓執政黨一步步退讓，更讓馬總統低姿態的向你們尋求對話；你們甚而更成功的動員了一場成功的群眾集會。面對野百合乃至野草莓的學運前輩，你們的表現是毫不遜色的，未來不論服貿協議的前景會如何發展，你們已經贏得了許多人的尊敬，太陽花學運日後也是一定會載入史冊的。
接下來的工作，就交給國會去折衝吧，你們還有未竟的學業應完成，終有一天，你們的時代會登場的！
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Trust in Taiwan's Stability
Trust in Taiwan's Stability
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 28, 2014
Summary: The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
Full text below:
The Sunflower student movement continues its protest. The Legislative Yuan grounds remain occupied. Legislative Yuan operations remain paralyzed. The President and Speaker of the Legislature remain at arms length and in opposition. Their moves remain out of sync. They have left the public the impression that they are both passing the buck. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads. They lack mutual trust. In particular, the students covertly support the opposition DPP. Therefore it has nothing to fear. The ruling and opposition parties have consulted three times but to no avail. No solution to the impasse has been found.
The deadlock could have been easily resolved. President Ma declared that the government was willing to dialogue with the students. But the two sides did not trust each other enough. Contacts and dialogue between the two sides yielded no concrete progress. Yesterday, student leaders publicly announced the cessation of all dialogue. They even organized a protest march on Ketegelan Boulevard to escalate the confrontation.
Within the legislature, the KMT legislative caucus made an apparently genuine goodwill gesture. But the DPP was in no mood to compromise. Eventually the KMT caucus' goodwill gesture was rescinded by KMT Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang, who said, "I urge the ruling and opposition parties to propose a solution consistent with legislative procedure as soon as possible. I will then convene ruling and opposition party consultations as soon as possible."
The number of students at the protest sie has diminished. Student stamina and willpower are approaching a breaking point. But student movement leaders have neither seized upon nor proposed a dignified exit strategy. All manner of violence occurs daily at the legislature among legislators, police, students, and reporters. The atmosphere is volatile. Violence may erupte at any moment. The situation can easily get out of hand.
No progress has been made regarding dialogue and consultation. Everything has apparently returned to square one. Square one is the source of political opposition, the source of social division, and the source of public insecurity on Taiwan. It is the source of uncertainty in cross-strait relations. Political leaders must cease being selfish, and confront the current crisis.
The student movement originally targeted the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. In fact, the outbreak was the result of years of accumulated pressure. First, there is pro-Mainland vs. anti-Mainland sentiment. This is a critical factor in Taiwan's development. Between 2008 and now, cross-strait relations have been on a path of peaceful development. But solutions have not been found for Taiwan's internal divisions.
Secondly, there is a society-wide fear of the Mainland. Expanded cross-strait exchanges have been an enormous benefit to both sides of the Strait. But increase contacts between the two sides has also increased distrust toward the Mainland. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services means the two sides will be in closer touch with each other. The economic, social, and cultural exchanges may provoke emotional apprehension toward the Mainland, and concerns about Mainland influence.
Thirdly, the Ma administration's image of ineptitude may not be justified, but it reflects what many people believe. Many people believe the Ma administration is incompetent and unable to defend the interests of ordinary people on Taiwan.
Fourthly, the constitutional framework of the ROC contains shortcomings. Presidential power is monopolized by a single individual. The Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan never read from the same page. The political parties who come to power have never worked out the proper power relationship between the party and the administration, or between the presidential office, the executive yuan, and the legislative party caucus. The current dispute has shone a light on many of these problems.
The ruling authorities face a critical choice. Based on the current situation, they face a triple crisis. First, there is the immediate crisis of confidence in the regime. The student movement is showing signs of decline. But if the government fails to demonstrate sincerity, if it fails to promote dialogue, confrontation could flareup yet again .
Secondly, there is the end of the year election crisis. Absent any surprises, the KMT will be negatively impacted by the student movement. It is likely to suffer an end of the year election defeat. This constitutes a serious threat to the Ma administration during his last year and a half in office.
Thirdly, there is a crisis of social division and social confrontation in Taiwan society. The student movement precipitated unprecedented social divisions and and confrontation. New forms of Internet media provided new tools for the spread of these divisions and confrontation. Everyone is anxious. Everyone is emotional about his plight. The student movement may be ebbing. But the roots of social conflict and instability remain.
How can we solve the current crisis? How can we resolve the impasse? That depends on the political vision of those in office and the political maturity of the general public. Those in office must not seek to resolve the immediate crisis by suddenly surrendering or bulling their way through. Both options are dangerous. No matter which path they take, the KMT is likely to suffer an end of year election defeat. The divisions in Taiwan's society will remain unresolved. Cross-strait relations might regress. The Taiwan Strait crisis might recur. If so, this would be a tragedy not merely for the Kuomintang, but for all of Taiwan.
The background of the student movement may be complex . The DPP has its own political calculations. But the students' four demands can be reduced to two. One. Legislative oversight regulations for Cross-strait agreements. Two. The convening of a citizens' constitutional conference. Regarding the former, in the late 1990s then Premier Vincent Siew twice proposed a similar bill. Regarding the latter, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said he is willing to discuss a constitutional convention. Can two apparently opposed parties not find a basis for a dialogue?
The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
社論－相信台灣的穩定力量
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月28日 04:10
太陽花學運持續進行，立法院議場繼續被占領，國會運作處於半癱瘓狀態。總統和國會議長隔空對立，步調既不一致，也給社會大眾互推皮球的感覺。朝野嚴重對峙，沒有互信，尤其在野黨在學生奧援下有恃無恐，朝野協商三度無功而返，僵局無解。
本來，僵局不是沒有解決的機會，馬總統已經表示願意邀請學生入府對話，但是在互信不足的情況下，雙方的接觸與對話，可以說毫無具體進展。昨日，學運領導人又公開表示要終止一切對話，甚至決定發動凱道大遊行，擴大對立。
在立法院，原本看似國民黨黨團釋出善意，但民進黨不願意就此妥協。最後，國民黨團的善意，被國民黨籍的立法院長駁回，王院長表示「請朝野各黨團盡速提出符合議事程序及規範之方案之後，會以最快速度再度召開朝野協商」。
在抗爭現場，學生人數有所流失，抗爭學生的體力與意志力都快逼近臨界點，但學運領導人看不到、找不到，也提不出下台階。每天在立法院都出現各種各樣的零星暴力衝突，立委與警察、學生與記者等等，氣氛躁動不安，隨時仍有擦槍走火、局面失控的危險。
對話協商沒有進展，一切似乎回到原點。但這個原點是政治對立的原點，是社會撕裂的原點，是台灣人心浮動不安的原點，更可能是兩岸關係回到不確定前景的原點。我們不得不說，這是政治領袖們必須拋棄一己私心，嚴肅面對的關鍵時刻。
此次學運雖然是《服貿協議》的爭議而起，其實是台灣這幾年積壓的所有病症的總爆發。首先，是親中仇中的糾葛，是對台灣發展方向的歧異。必須承認，從2008年到現在，兩岸關係雖然走上和平發展的道路，但台灣內部的分歧並沒有更好的解決。
其次，是社會疑中、懼中的情緒，兩岸擴大交流帶給兩岸很多向上的力量，但另一方面由於兩岸更頻繁接觸，對相當一部分人來說，反而擴大了對大陸的不信任與不安感。《服貿協議》的簽定，代表兩岸在經濟社會文化上將進入更深層次的交流與密合，也挑動了對大陸疑懼的情緒，擔心大陸的影響力長驅直入。
第三，馬政府無能的形象或許不盡公允，卻已深植人心，許多民眾大有理由認為，無能的馬政府無法捍衛台灣與基層百姓的利益。
第四，台灣憲政體制本來的缺憾，包括總統一人權力獨大，行政、立法兩院扞格，掌握政權的政黨始終無法理順黨政之間、府院黨團之間的權力運作機制，諸多問題也都在這次爭議中暴露。
如今，執政當局正面臨關鍵性的選擇。從目前局面來看，執政者正面臨三重危機，一是眼前的政權穩定危機，雖然學運有開始退潮的跡象，但是府方如果展現不出促進對話的誠意與手腕，局勢隨時有重新升高對立緊張的可能。
二是年底的選舉危機，如果沒有意外，面臨學運大衝擊的國民黨，大有可能在年底選舉中大敗，進而嚴重威脅馬總統在最後一年半的執政基礎。
第三，則是台灣社會大撕裂、大對立的危機，這次學運爆發以後，台灣社會出現空前嚴重的對立撕裂，在網路新媒體新工具的推波助瀾下，人人焦躁、人人各持己見的狀況更為激化，即使學運退潮，社會衝突的不穩定因素也不會消弭。
當前的危機如何解決，僵局如何化解，端視執政者的遠見、格局及全民的民主素養。當權者如果只求解決眼前危機，首鼠兩端突然退讓，或一味堅持強硬，恐怕都是危險的選擇。無論走上哪一條路，年底選舉國民黨固然大敗，台灣社會的撕裂對立也將無法化解，甚至兩岸關係可能倒退，台海危機再現，這不但是國民黨的悲劇，更是台灣的悲劇。
學生運動背景可能非常複雜，民進黨也有政治算計，但學生的四大訴求，其實可以歸結為兩點：兩岸協議監督條例的立法，以及召開公民憲政會議。前者，在1990年代後期，蕭萬長擔任行院長時代曾兩度提出類似法案，後者，江宜樺院長也曾表示可以討論，看似對立的兩方，難道找不到對話的基礎與可能性嗎？
這場風暴是社會長期分裂的總發作，像出疹子般需要一點時間排毒，台灣是一個穩定的社會，各方無須過度憂慮。但風暴本身解鈴還須繫鈴人，馬政府應做出智慧的抉擇，社會也需要發揮穩定的力量，促成這場風暴盡速解決。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 28, 2014
Summary: The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
Full text below:
The Sunflower student movement continues its protest. The Legislative Yuan grounds remain occupied. Legislative Yuan operations remain paralyzed. The President and Speaker of the Legislature remain at arms length and in opposition. Their moves remain out of sync. They have left the public the impression that they are both passing the buck. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads. They lack mutual trust. In particular, the students covertly support the opposition DPP. Therefore it has nothing to fear. The ruling and opposition parties have consulted three times but to no avail. No solution to the impasse has been found.
The deadlock could have been easily resolved. President Ma declared that the government was willing to dialogue with the students. But the two sides did not trust each other enough. Contacts and dialogue between the two sides yielded no concrete progress. Yesterday, student leaders publicly announced the cessation of all dialogue. They even organized a protest march on Ketegelan Boulevard to escalate the confrontation.
Within the legislature, the KMT legislative caucus made an apparently genuine goodwill gesture. But the DPP was in no mood to compromise. Eventually the KMT caucus' goodwill gesture was rescinded by KMT Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang, who said, "I urge the ruling and opposition parties to propose a solution consistent with legislative procedure as soon as possible. I will then convene ruling and opposition party consultations as soon as possible."
The number of students at the protest sie has diminished. Student stamina and willpower are approaching a breaking point. But student movement leaders have neither seized upon nor proposed a dignified exit strategy. All manner of violence occurs daily at the legislature among legislators, police, students, and reporters. The atmosphere is volatile. Violence may erupte at any moment. The situation can easily get out of hand.
No progress has been made regarding dialogue and consultation. Everything has apparently returned to square one. Square one is the source of political opposition, the source of social division, and the source of public insecurity on Taiwan. It is the source of uncertainty in cross-strait relations. Political leaders must cease being selfish, and confront the current crisis.
The student movement originally targeted the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. In fact, the outbreak was the result of years of accumulated pressure. First, there is pro-Mainland vs. anti-Mainland sentiment. This is a critical factor in Taiwan's development. Between 2008 and now, cross-strait relations have been on a path of peaceful development. But solutions have not been found for Taiwan's internal divisions.
Secondly, there is a society-wide fear of the Mainland. Expanded cross-strait exchanges have been an enormous benefit to both sides of the Strait. But increase contacts between the two sides has also increased distrust toward the Mainland. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services means the two sides will be in closer touch with each other. The economic, social, and cultural exchanges may provoke emotional apprehension toward the Mainland, and concerns about Mainland influence.
Thirdly, the Ma administration's image of ineptitude may not be justified, but it reflects what many people believe. Many people believe the Ma administration is incompetent and unable to defend the interests of ordinary people on Taiwan.
Fourthly, the constitutional framework of the ROC contains shortcomings. Presidential power is monopolized by a single individual. The Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan never read from the same page. The political parties who come to power have never worked out the proper power relationship between the party and the administration, or between the presidential office, the executive yuan, and the legislative party caucus. The current dispute has shone a light on many of these problems.
The ruling authorities face a critical choice. Based on the current situation, they face a triple crisis. First, there is the immediate crisis of confidence in the regime. The student movement is showing signs of decline. But if the government fails to demonstrate sincerity, if it fails to promote dialogue, confrontation could flareup yet again .
Secondly, there is the end of the year election crisis. Absent any surprises, the KMT will be negatively impacted by the student movement. It is likely to suffer an end of the year election defeat. This constitutes a serious threat to the Ma administration during his last year and a half in office.
Thirdly, there is a crisis of social division and social confrontation in Taiwan society. The student movement precipitated unprecedented social divisions and and confrontation. New forms of Internet media provided new tools for the spread of these divisions and confrontation. Everyone is anxious. Everyone is emotional about his plight. The student movement may be ebbing. But the roots of social conflict and instability remain.
How can we solve the current crisis? How can we resolve the impasse? That depends on the political vision of those in office and the political maturity of the general public. Those in office must not seek to resolve the immediate crisis by suddenly surrendering or bulling their way through. Both options are dangerous. No matter which path they take, the KMT is likely to suffer an end of year election defeat. The divisions in Taiwan's society will remain unresolved. Cross-strait relations might regress. The Taiwan Strait crisis might recur. If so, this would be a tragedy not merely for the Kuomintang, but for all of Taiwan.
The background of the student movement may be complex . The DPP has its own political calculations. But the students' four demands can be reduced to two. One. Legislative oversight regulations for Cross-strait agreements. Two. The convening of a citizens' constitutional conference. Regarding the former, in the late 1990s then Premier Vincent Siew twice proposed a similar bill. Regarding the latter, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said he is willing to discuss a constitutional convention. Can two apparently opposed parties not find a basis for a dialogue?
The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
社論－相信台灣的穩定力量
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月28日 04:10
太陽花學運持續進行，立法院議場繼續被占領，國會運作處於半癱瘓狀態。總統和國會議長隔空對立，步調既不一致，也給社會大眾互推皮球的感覺。朝野嚴重對峙，沒有互信，尤其在野黨在學生奧援下有恃無恐，朝野協商三度無功而返，僵局無解。
本來，僵局不是沒有解決的機會，馬總統已經表示願意邀請學生入府對話，但是在互信不足的情況下，雙方的接觸與對話，可以說毫無具體進展。昨日，學運領導人又公開表示要終止一切對話，甚至決定發動凱道大遊行，擴大對立。
在立法院，原本看似國民黨黨團釋出善意，但民進黨不願意就此妥協。最後，國民黨團的善意，被國民黨籍的立法院長駁回，王院長表示「請朝野各黨團盡速提出符合議事程序及規範之方案之後，會以最快速度再度召開朝野協商」。
在抗爭現場，學生人數有所流失，抗爭學生的體力與意志力都快逼近臨界點，但學運領導人看不到、找不到，也提不出下台階。每天在立法院都出現各種各樣的零星暴力衝突，立委與警察、學生與記者等等，氣氛躁動不安，隨時仍有擦槍走火、局面失控的危險。
對話協商沒有進展，一切似乎回到原點。但這個原點是政治對立的原點，是社會撕裂的原點，是台灣人心浮動不安的原點，更可能是兩岸關係回到不確定前景的原點。我們不得不說，這是政治領袖們必須拋棄一己私心，嚴肅面對的關鍵時刻。
此次學運雖然是《服貿協議》的爭議而起，其實是台灣這幾年積壓的所有病症的總爆發。首先，是親中仇中的糾葛，是對台灣發展方向的歧異。必須承認，從2008年到現在，兩岸關係雖然走上和平發展的道路，但台灣內部的分歧並沒有更好的解決。
其次，是社會疑中、懼中的情緒，兩岸擴大交流帶給兩岸很多向上的力量，但另一方面由於兩岸更頻繁接觸，對相當一部分人來說，反而擴大了對大陸的不信任與不安感。《服貿協議》的簽定，代表兩岸在經濟社會文化上將進入更深層次的交流與密合，也挑動了對大陸疑懼的情緒，擔心大陸的影響力長驅直入。
第三，馬政府無能的形象或許不盡公允，卻已深植人心，許多民眾大有理由認為，無能的馬政府無法捍衛台灣與基層百姓的利益。
第四，台灣憲政體制本來的缺憾，包括總統一人權力獨大，行政、立法兩院扞格，掌握政權的政黨始終無法理順黨政之間、府院黨團之間的權力運作機制，諸多問題也都在這次爭議中暴露。
如今，執政當局正面臨關鍵性的選擇。從目前局面來看，執政者正面臨三重危機，一是眼前的政權穩定危機，雖然學運有開始退潮的跡象，但是府方如果展現不出促進對話的誠意與手腕，局勢隨時有重新升高對立緊張的可能。
二是年底的選舉危機，如果沒有意外，面臨學運大衝擊的國民黨，大有可能在年底選舉中大敗，進而嚴重威脅馬總統在最後一年半的執政基礎。
第三，則是台灣社會大撕裂、大對立的危機，這次學運爆發以後，台灣社會出現空前嚴重的對立撕裂，在網路新媒體新工具的推波助瀾下，人人焦躁、人人各持己見的狀況更為激化，即使學運退潮，社會衝突的不穩定因素也不會消弭。
當前的危機如何解決，僵局如何化解，端視執政者的遠見、格局及全民的民主素養。當權者如果只求解決眼前危機，首鼠兩端突然退讓，或一味堅持強硬，恐怕都是危險的選擇。無論走上哪一條路，年底選舉國民黨固然大敗，台灣社會的撕裂對立也將無法化解，甚至兩岸關係可能倒退，台海危機再現，這不但是國民黨的悲劇，更是台灣的悲劇。
學生運動背景可能非常複雜，民進黨也有政治算計，但學生的四大訴求，其實可以歸結為兩點：兩岸協議監督條例的立法，以及召開公民憲政會議。前者，在1990年代後期，蕭萬長擔任行院長時代曾兩度提出類似法案，後者，江宜樺院長也曾表示可以討論，看似對立的兩方，難道找不到對話的基礎與可能性嗎？
這場風暴是社會長期分裂的總發作，像出疹子般需要一點時間排毒，台灣是一個穩定的社會，各方無須過度憂慮。但風暴本身解鈴還須繫鈴人，馬政府應做出智慧的抉擇，社會也需要發揮穩定的力量，促成這場風暴盡速解決。
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services: Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services:
Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 27, 2014
Summary: The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
Full text below:
Protesters opposed to the Cross-Strait Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services waved the banner of opposition to [Mainland] China. But their actions may well harm Taiwan.
Actually, Taiwan must deal with more than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Taiwan hopes that the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services will improve the ECFA system, increase cross-strait trust and goodwill, and facilitate membership in the TPP and RCEP. If Taiwan cannot join the TPP and RCEP, it will be increasingly marginalized in both the regional and international economy. This marginalization will make Taiwan even more economically dependent upon the Mainland, and more suseptible to Mainland China political pressure. Therefore the agreement involves a paradox. In the name of opposition to Mainland China, the protests are bringing disaster upon Taiwan.
This is common knowledge for people on both sides of the issue. The stars of the current political storm are college students. They should have some modicum of common sense and reasoning ability. If they are free from political prejudices, they can read the pros and cons on the Internet. Surely they realize this protest opposing Mainland China has harmed Taiwan instead. Even assuming the college students are unaware of this, can the DPP be equally unaware? After all, it has been dealing with this issue for the past several decades. Therefore the current situation is not the result of protestors ignorance, but something else.
After Jesus was crucified the Apostle Peter said, "Brothers, I know you acted out of ignorance. Your leader did so as well. " The student leaders occupying the legislature grounds did not act out of ignorance. DPP party princes Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang, who fanned the flames, did not act out of ignorance. They knew their actions would precipitate disaster upon Taiwan. They knew their opposition to Mainland China was a dead end path that would in fact harm Taiwan. Yet for partisan advantage, they were perfectly willing bury Taiwan.
How should we characterize this storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to black box operations? Opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to Mainland China? Or harmful to Taiwan? First take opposition to black box operations. Sixteen public hearings and up to one hundred briefings were held. Government officials and the opposition parties addressed the issue almost daily. The Internet featured millions of pro and con opinions regarding everything, from the impact of globalization, to the details of the trade provisions. The common people can complain about a "lack of communication." But student leaders are supposed to be intellectuals seeking rational dialogue. Otherwise why would they seek a meeting with the president? Others may be able to talk about "black box operations." But the DPP legislative caucus can hardly talk about "black box operations." After all, Su Tseng-chang turned down Ma Ying-jeou's invitation to debate the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, did he not? Democracies the world over follow the same procedure. The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed by the legislature. It is voted up or down as a complete package. The provisions of the agreement will be made public during Legislative Yuan review. The pros and cons will all be presented to society. There simply will be no "black box" to speak of.
Wang Jin-pyng refused to participate in the inter-yuan coordination meeting. Leave aside his political calculations. He correctly defined the matter as the internal affairs of the legislature. This is a serious procedural conflict. It is a controversial matter of procedural justice. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must resume operations. It must return to a line item review and line item vote. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is a matter of Legislative Yuan political consultation. It is a political process. It completely eliminates the problem of "black box operations."
So are the protests opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? The students occupying the legislature and the DPP are not advocating totally severing cross-strait trade. Nor do they oppose those parts of the agreement that are beneficial to Taiwan. They merely mutter about "harm to SMEs." But all FTAs are instances of "give a little to get a little." The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a unilaterally favorable trade agreement, highly favorable to our side. Or do the students and the DPP want Beijing to become Taiwan's "sugar daddy?" If not, how can Taiwan demand a treaty that only takes but does not give? And what if the agreement were to become a "sugar daddy treaty?" Would this not be a benefit to Taiwan? Besides, Taiwan wants to join the TPP and RCEP. Isn't this another case of only taking without giving?
Therefore opposition to black box operations, and opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, are mere pretexts. In fact, the true nature of the current storm has to do with Sinophobia. Otherwise, why was legislative review of the agreements with Singapore and New Zealand conducted in accordance with legislative convention? The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed. It is voted up or down as a total package. Only the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has been subjected to political negotiations and a line item review. Some protestors have even advocated a separate "Articles on Cross Strait Negotiation Oversight." Do they want a separate "Articles on TPP Negotiation Oversight" as well? Do they advocate prior review? Besides, the administration has promised a line item review and line item vote. Why not leave well enough alone? Why continue to incite Sinophobia? Therefore as noted above, this is a political storm rooted in Sinophobia. It may cause irreversible harm to Taiwan.
The political storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has had at least three effects. First, the DPP's policy of reconciliation with Beijing has been exposed as phony. This means that if Democratic Progressive Party ever regains power, Beijing will subject it to extreme pressure. Secondly, international and domestic respect for Taiwan's democracy has been badly undermined. Abroad, trust in any future contracts Taiwan might sign has been undermined. At home, society has been torn asunder. Public confidence in the future of the nation has take a serious hit. Thirdly, a dark shadow has been cast over cross-strait relations. Taiwan's chances of joining the TPP and RCEP may have been undermined. Cross-strait relations without an international network makes Taiwan more dependent on Mainland China. The consequences are hard to imagine.
The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
服貿風暴弔詭：抗中或害台？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.27 04:12 am
這場服貿風暴，打的是「反中抗中」的旗幟，卻不無可能造成「害台禍台」的後果。
其實，台灣現在面對的並不只是「服貿協議」，而是希望以服貿協議來完善ＥＣＦＡ體系，進而在兩岸的互信及善意下，試圖加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ。台灣若不能加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，無論在區域經濟或國際政治上將更趨邊緣化；而邊緣化的結果，即必使台灣在經濟上更依賴大陸，亦在政治上更受中國的挾制。因而，這場服貿風暴的弔詭是：打著反中抗中的旗幟，卻將造成害台禍台的後果。
這樣的推理，可謂已是在兩岸議題上的常識。這場風暴的主角是大學生，應有基本的求知及論理能力，倘若不持政治成見，只要在網路上參閱正反意見，即不會不知這種「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的弔詭；即使大學生不知，但已在兩岸議題中翻滾了幾十年的民進黨豈可能不知？因此，今日的局面難謂是與事者出於無知，而是另有原因。
使徒彼得在耶穌被釘十字架後說：「兄弟們，我知道你們所行的是出於無知，你們的首領也如此。」但是，今日占領立院議場的學生領袖卻未必是出於無知，煽風點火的民進黨蘇蔡謝等天王們更絕非出於無知，彼等皆明明知道這是將台灣帶上「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的絕路。但只是為了黨爭，竟不惜葬送台灣。
這場服貿風暴應如何定性？是反黑箱？反服貿？反中？或禍台？先談反黑箱。十六場公聽會、上百場說明會，政府官員及反對黨幾乎每日都有針對性發言，網路上更有千萬則大自全球化、小至服貿條文的正反意見；一般庶民容或可說仍是「溝通不夠」，但學生領袖若能善盡知識分子的「自我理智對話」，則何須慕求「總統接見」？何況，大家都說「黑箱」，唯民進黨立院黨團不能說「黑箱」；至少應還記得蘇貞昌拒絕了馬英九服貿專題辯論的邀請吧？其實，「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」是世界民主國家簽訂條約的通例，當服貿協議的全部條文在立院公開審議，一切利弊盡已公諸社會，即無「黑箱」可言。
因此，王金平拒絕出席院際協調，不論其政治算計為何；但他將此事界定為「立法院內部事務」則屬正確。此事誠是一件嚴重的議事衝突，在程序正義上引起爭議；因此，若能讓立院恢復運作，回復「逐條審查／逐條表決」（這不是法定程序，而是立院「政黨協商」的政治程序），更可完全消除「黑箱」的問題，是為正辦。
再言是否反服貿？占院學生及民進黨並未主張全面停斷兩岸經貿，亦未反對服貿協議對台灣有利部分，而只是空泛地說「傷害中小企業」。但一切的ＦＴＡ皆是「有給有取」，而此一服貿協議則是一高度片面讓利的條約；除非學生及民進黨主張台灣應由北京全面「包養」，否則台灣豈有可能訂出一紙「只取不給」的條約？且倘若真有那種「包養條約」，又豈對台灣有利？再者，台灣能想像入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ也是「只取不給」嗎？
因此，反黑箱、反服貿只是藉口，這場風暴的真正性質其實是「反中」。否則，為何立院審議新加坡協議及紐西蘭協議皆遵照「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」的立法規範，唯獨服貿協議卻要「政黨協商／逐條審查」，甚至尚主張另訂《兩岸協議監督條例》（難道也要訂《ＴＰＰ監督條例》，主張事前審查？）；何況，如今既已應允「逐條審查／逐條表決」，卻何以仍不善罷干休，繼續煽動「反中抗中」的情緒。於是，如前所述，這一場「反中抗中」的風暴，即不無可能出現無以逆轉的「害台禍台」的後果。
這場服貿風暴至少已產生三種效應：一、民進黨對北京當局的和解政策崩盤，這使得民進黨若再執政必遭北京嚴酷挾制。二、國際及國內對台灣民主政治的評價動搖，對外傷害台灣未來的締約信任，對內使社會撕裂更形嚴重，全民對國家前途的信心受到嚴重打擊。三、兩岸關係蒙上陰影，倘致影響了台灣參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，兩岸關係失去國際節制的網絡，將使台灣更加依賴中國，後果不堪想像。
這場反服貿大火愈燒愈烈並走上歧路，帶頭的幾個學生當非出於無知；民進黨的火上加油更非出於無知。但請問：為何明明知道，卻仍要將台灣帶上絕路？
Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 27, 2014
Summary: The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
Full text below:
Protesters opposed to the Cross-Strait Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services waved the banner of opposition to [Mainland] China. But their actions may well harm Taiwan.
Actually, Taiwan must deal with more than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Taiwan hopes that the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services will improve the ECFA system, increase cross-strait trust and goodwill, and facilitate membership in the TPP and RCEP. If Taiwan cannot join the TPP and RCEP, it will be increasingly marginalized in both the regional and international economy. This marginalization will make Taiwan even more economically dependent upon the Mainland, and more suseptible to Mainland China political pressure. Therefore the agreement involves a paradox. In the name of opposition to Mainland China, the protests are bringing disaster upon Taiwan.
This is common knowledge for people on both sides of the issue. The stars of the current political storm are college students. They should have some modicum of common sense and reasoning ability. If they are free from political prejudices, they can read the pros and cons on the Internet. Surely they realize this protest opposing Mainland China has harmed Taiwan instead. Even assuming the college students are unaware of this, can the DPP be equally unaware? After all, it has been dealing with this issue for the past several decades. Therefore the current situation is not the result of protestors ignorance, but something else.
After Jesus was crucified the Apostle Peter said, "Brothers, I know you acted out of ignorance. Your leader did so as well. " The student leaders occupying the legislature grounds did not act out of ignorance. DPP party princes Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang, who fanned the flames, did not act out of ignorance. They knew their actions would precipitate disaster upon Taiwan. They knew their opposition to Mainland China was a dead end path that would in fact harm Taiwan. Yet for partisan advantage, they were perfectly willing bury Taiwan.
How should we characterize this storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to black box operations? Opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to Mainland China? Or harmful to Taiwan? First take opposition to black box operations. Sixteen public hearings and up to one hundred briefings were held. Government officials and the opposition parties addressed the issue almost daily. The Internet featured millions of pro and con opinions regarding everything, from the impact of globalization, to the details of the trade provisions. The common people can complain about a "lack of communication." But student leaders are supposed to be intellectuals seeking rational dialogue. Otherwise why would they seek a meeting with the president? Others may be able to talk about "black box operations." But the DPP legislative caucus can hardly talk about "black box operations." After all, Su Tseng-chang turned down Ma Ying-jeou's invitation to debate the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, did he not? Democracies the world over follow the same procedure. The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed by the legislature. It is voted up or down as a complete package. The provisions of the agreement will be made public during Legislative Yuan review. The pros and cons will all be presented to society. There simply will be no "black box" to speak of.
Wang Jin-pyng refused to participate in the inter-yuan coordination meeting. Leave aside his political calculations. He correctly defined the matter as the internal affairs of the legislature. This is a serious procedural conflict. It is a controversial matter of procedural justice. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must resume operations. It must return to a line item review and line item vote. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is a matter of Legislative Yuan political consultation. It is a political process. It completely eliminates the problem of "black box operations."
So are the protests opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? The students occupying the legislature and the DPP are not advocating totally severing cross-strait trade. Nor do they oppose those parts of the agreement that are beneficial to Taiwan. They merely mutter about "harm to SMEs." But all FTAs are instances of "give a little to get a little." The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a unilaterally favorable trade agreement, highly favorable to our side. Or do the students and the DPP want Beijing to become Taiwan's "sugar daddy?" If not, how can Taiwan demand a treaty that only takes but does not give? And what if the agreement were to become a "sugar daddy treaty?" Would this not be a benefit to Taiwan? Besides, Taiwan wants to join the TPP and RCEP. Isn't this another case of only taking without giving?
Therefore opposition to black box operations, and opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, are mere pretexts. In fact, the true nature of the current storm has to do with Sinophobia. Otherwise, why was legislative review of the agreements with Singapore and New Zealand conducted in accordance with legislative convention? The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed. It is voted up or down as a total package. Only the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has been subjected to political negotiations and a line item review. Some protestors have even advocated a separate "Articles on Cross Strait Negotiation Oversight." Do they want a separate "Articles on TPP Negotiation Oversight" as well? Do they advocate prior review? Besides, the administration has promised a line item review and line item vote. Why not leave well enough alone? Why continue to incite Sinophobia? Therefore as noted above, this is a political storm rooted in Sinophobia. It may cause irreversible harm to Taiwan.
The political storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has had at least three effects. First, the DPP's policy of reconciliation with Beijing has been exposed as phony. This means that if Democratic Progressive Party ever regains power, Beijing will subject it to extreme pressure. Secondly, international and domestic respect for Taiwan's democracy has been badly undermined. Abroad, trust in any future contracts Taiwan might sign has been undermined. At home, society has been torn asunder. Public confidence in the future of the nation has take a serious hit. Thirdly, a dark shadow has been cast over cross-strait relations. Taiwan's chances of joining the TPP and RCEP may have been undermined. Cross-strait relations without an international network makes Taiwan more dependent on Mainland China. The consequences are hard to imagine.
The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
服貿風暴弔詭：抗中或害台？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.27 04:12 am
這場服貿風暴，打的是「反中抗中」的旗幟，卻不無可能造成「害台禍台」的後果。
其實，台灣現在面對的並不只是「服貿協議」，而是希望以服貿協議來完善ＥＣＦＡ體系，進而在兩岸的互信及善意下，試圖加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ。台灣若不能加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，無論在區域經濟或國際政治上將更趨邊緣化；而邊緣化的結果，即必使台灣在經濟上更依賴大陸，亦在政治上更受中國的挾制。因而，這場服貿風暴的弔詭是：打著反中抗中的旗幟，卻將造成害台禍台的後果。
這樣的推理，可謂已是在兩岸議題上的常識。這場風暴的主角是大學生，應有基本的求知及論理能力，倘若不持政治成見，只要在網路上參閱正反意見，即不會不知這種「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的弔詭；即使大學生不知，但已在兩岸議題中翻滾了幾十年的民進黨豈可能不知？因此，今日的局面難謂是與事者出於無知，而是另有原因。
使徒彼得在耶穌被釘十字架後說：「兄弟們，我知道你們所行的是出於無知，你們的首領也如此。」但是，今日占領立院議場的學生領袖卻未必是出於無知，煽風點火的民進黨蘇蔡謝等天王們更絕非出於無知，彼等皆明明知道這是將台灣帶上「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的絕路。但只是為了黨爭，竟不惜葬送台灣。
這場服貿風暴應如何定性？是反黑箱？反服貿？反中？或禍台？先談反黑箱。十六場公聽會、上百場說明會，政府官員及反對黨幾乎每日都有針對性發言，網路上更有千萬則大自全球化、小至服貿條文的正反意見；一般庶民容或可說仍是「溝通不夠」，但學生領袖若能善盡知識分子的「自我理智對話」，則何須慕求「總統接見」？何況，大家都說「黑箱」，唯民進黨立院黨團不能說「黑箱」；至少應還記得蘇貞昌拒絕了馬英九服貿專題辯論的邀請吧？其實，「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」是世界民主國家簽訂條約的通例，當服貿協議的全部條文在立院公開審議，一切利弊盡已公諸社會，即無「黑箱」可言。
因此，王金平拒絕出席院際協調，不論其政治算計為何；但他將此事界定為「立法院內部事務」則屬正確。此事誠是一件嚴重的議事衝突，在程序正義上引起爭議；因此，若能讓立院恢復運作，回復「逐條審查／逐條表決」（這不是法定程序，而是立院「政黨協商」的政治程序），更可完全消除「黑箱」的問題，是為正辦。
再言是否反服貿？占院學生及民進黨並未主張全面停斷兩岸經貿，亦未反對服貿協議對台灣有利部分，而只是空泛地說「傷害中小企業」。但一切的ＦＴＡ皆是「有給有取」，而此一服貿協議則是一高度片面讓利的條約；除非學生及民進黨主張台灣應由北京全面「包養」，否則台灣豈有可能訂出一紙「只取不給」的條約？且倘若真有那種「包養條約」，又豈對台灣有利？再者，台灣能想像入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ也是「只取不給」嗎？
因此，反黑箱、反服貿只是藉口，這場風暴的真正性質其實是「反中」。否則，為何立院審議新加坡協議及紐西蘭協議皆遵照「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」的立法規範，唯獨服貿協議卻要「政黨協商／逐條審查」，甚至尚主張另訂《兩岸協議監督條例》（難道也要訂《ＴＰＰ監督條例》，主張事前審查？）；何況，如今既已應允「逐條審查／逐條表決」，卻何以仍不善罷干休，繼續煽動「反中抗中」的情緒。於是，如前所述，這一場「反中抗中」的風暴，即不無可能出現無以逆轉的「害台禍台」的後果。
這場服貿風暴至少已產生三種效應：一、民進黨對北京當局的和解政策崩盤，這使得民進黨若再執政必遭北京嚴酷挾制。二、國際及國內對台灣民主政治的評價動搖，對外傷害台灣未來的締約信任，對內使社會撕裂更形嚴重，全民對國家前途的信心受到嚴重打擊。三、兩岸關係蒙上陰影，倘致影響了台灣參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，兩岸關係失去國際節制的網絡，將使台灣更加依賴中國，後果不堪想像。
這場反服貿大火愈燒愈烈並走上歧路，帶頭的幾個學生當非出於無知；民進黨的火上加油更非出於無知。但請問：為何明明知道，卻仍要將台灣帶上絕路？
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students
President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 26, 2014
Summary: Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition
Full text below:
The student occupation of the Legislature has intensified yet again. It led to an unprecedented "occupation" of the Executive Yuan, and a bloody eviction by the police. The image of the government has been battered. The day before yesterday, Christine Chow, the president's wife, responded on Chen Yu-hui's FaceBook page. She said "The government has explained its position repeatedly. But since the people still have doubts, it has a responsibility to say it a few more times." Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services.
To being with, public opinion is as mercurial as flowing water. Changes in the political situation are constant. The moment the students succeeded in occupying the grounds of the legislature, the solution ceased being the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan Speaker. Nor was it the responsibility of the students. It became the responsibility of the Ma administration. The police stormed the Executive Yuan and expelled the students. From that moment on, any "violence" was the result of the government, not the students, and definitely not the opposition.
Those opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services accused the government of "black box operations." As we know perfectly well, such accusations are false. Take a step back. Before and during negotiations, government agencies held a total of 110 small-scale seminars with industry representatives from domestic finance, video games, exhibition, shipping, printing, cosmetics , food, travel, advertising, and logistics. According to the Legislative Yuan, the Legislative Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services in 2013. One on April 20, one on May 2, and one on May 30. Government officials reported in detail the negotiation process. The second session was a secret meeting. It concerned the content of the agreement we were preparing to sign with the other side.
During these three briefing sessions, DPP legislators were present along with KMT legislators. They included Chen Chi-mai, Li Chun-yi, Tuan Yi-kang, Lin Chia-lung, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Pi-ling, Yeh Yi-Ching, Yao Wen-chih, Chen Ou-po, Hsu Tain-Tsair, Chiu Chih-wei, Hsueh Ling, Tsai Chi-Chang, Yu Mei-nu, Lee Kun-tse, Wu Ping-jui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lin Shu-Fen, Tien Chiu-chin, Huang Wei-cher, Wei Ming Ku, and other committee members. Also in attendance were the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party and independents.
Large numbers of ruling and opposition party legislators took part in the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services hearings. No one can say the administration ignored the legislature. No one can say the administration operated inside a black box. Furthermore, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in July 2013. Between then and March 10 of this year, the legislature held 20 public hearings. According to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the executive is required only to inform the Legislative Yuan of what it intends to do. Yet KMT legislators consented to a line item review and line item vote. This was a public hearing, public review, and public vote, conducted entirely within the glare of the public spotlight. How can anyone accuse the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services of being a black box operation?
We know the students are opposed to more than black box operations. We know they are opposed to matters other than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. They are more concerned that the Ma administration's cross-strait policy is leaning too far toward the Mainland. They accuse the government's negotiating team of failing to obtain the best terms, and of allowing Taiwan to get a raw deal. Others of course, are indeed motivated by deep-seated Sinophobia.
Former National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi best summed up the problem. He says the struggle over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a continuation of an ongoing internal struggle inside Taiwan, over three issues: policy, reunification vs.independence, and the system. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services by itself has no bearing on reunification vs. independence. That is why President Ma repeatedly emphasized that the legislature must pass the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services "solely for the sake of of Taiwan's economy." Taiwan's trade liberalization and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and the RCEP, are merely "policy" issues. But for the DPP and the protesting students, they are reunification vs. independence issues. Some students even argue that the trade dispute proves that the legislative process no longer works, and that therefore the "system" of political representation needs reconsideration. Enormous cognitive differences exist regarding all three issues. This is why after President Ma held his March 23 press conference, the protesting students accused President Ma of being "a broken record."
We hope President Ma and the student representatives can meet and talk without preconditions. We hope they can break the current political impasse. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The dialogue must be open and transparent. The Presidential Office may wish to televise the process in toto. This would prevent students from accusing him of merely giving them a "pat on the head." The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition. They must not issue all sorts of demands about the venue and the program.
The president must consider the fact that the students have already made various demands. Student representatives proposed "convening a citizens' constitutional convention." In terms of political reality, this was a jarring suggestion. But six large business groups have also suggested convening a similar "national conference." This suggests a social consensus. Presidential staffers must respond to society's expectations. They must make comprehensive plans and preparations. They must ensure that the students and the community feel the president's sincerity. He must not sound like a broken record.
We would like to caution the DPP. You know and we know that the negotiations over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services were not black box operations. Yet you deliberately created a false public perception. DPP political leaders, including Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang should issue public vows regarding the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. This is the only attitude proper for any politican answerable to history.
社論－與學生對話 總統須展現誠意
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月26日 04:10
學生占領立法院行動一再激化，造成行政院大樓前所未見的「淪陷」，及警察驅離過程的血腥，重創政府形象。繼前天總統夫人周美青在作家陳玉慧臉書回文，同意「政府覺得已經說過許多次了，但是人民既然有疑慮，就有責任再多說幾次」，總統府昨天終於願意在不預設任何前提下，邀請學生代表來總統府會談。學生代表林飛帆立即回應，願意在公開的平台跟總統對話，服貿僵局呈現突破的一線曙光。
首先，民意如流水，政治情勢變動不居，從學生成功占領立法院議場那一刻開始，「解套」就不是立法院長，更不是學生的責任，而是馬政府的責任，從警察被迫衝進行政院辦公大樓驅離學生開始，「暴力」的印記就要由政府承擔，而非學生，更不是反對黨。
當然，我們非常清楚，反對《服貿協議》人士訴求的「反對黑箱作業」並非事實。回溯相關資料可以發現，在談判前及談判期間，政府相關部門曾與國內金融、遊戲、會展、海運、印刷、美容、餐飲、旅遊、廣告、物流等產業代表，總共舉行110次小型座談會。依據立法院議事資料，在《兩岸服貿協議》談判過程中，立法院內政委員會曾於102年4月20日、5月2日及5月30日舉行3場會議，政府官員詳細報告了談判進程，其中第二場會議為祕密會議，實質說明了我方準備與對岸簽訂的內容。
在這3場行簡報會議中，除國民黨立委外，民進黨的陳其邁、李俊俋、段宜康、林佳龍、陳亭妃、管碧玲、葉宜津、姚文智、陳歐珀、許添財、邱志偉、薛凌、蔡其昌、尤美女、李昆澤、吳秉叡、蕭美琴、林淑芬、田秋堇、黃偉哲、魏明谷等委員，都在出列席名單中，台聯、親民黨及無黨籍立委也曾出列席。
這麼多朝野立委都聽過《服貿協議》簡報，不能說是不尊重國會，更不應該是黑箱作業，何況《服貿協議》在進入立法院後，從102年7月到今年的3月10日，立法院已舉行過20場公聽會，依《兩岸人民關係條例》第五條，原本只需立法院備查，在國民黨立委同意下，已決定要進行逐條逐項審查及表決，這種公開聽證、公開審查的做法，又怎能說《服貿協議》是黑箱作業呢？
我們也理解，學生並非單純「反對黑箱作業」，更不只是「反服貿」，更多的是憂心馬政府兩岸政策傾中，認定政府談判團隊並未爭取到最好條件，讓台灣吃虧。其中當然也有些人，是根深柢固的「反中」心態。
其實，前國安會祕書長蘇起的分析最能捕捉到核心，他認為服貿爭議是台灣內部在「政策」、「統獨」和「制度」3個層次上爭論不休的延續。《服貿協議》本身與統一、獨立無涉，所以馬總統反覆強調，立法院一定要通過《服貿協議》「完全是為了台灣經濟的未來」，是台灣貿易自由化、加入TPP與RCEP的一環，是單純的「政策」議題。但對民進黨與抗議學生而言，卻是一個與「統獨」有關的議題，部分學生更認為，服貿爭議顯示國會運作已經失靈，所以還是一個必須重新檢討代議政治的「制度」議題。三方認知差異極大，這也是馬總統3月23日記者會後，抗爭學生認為「馬總統只是一再跳針」的原因。
我們期待馬總統與學生代表，都能不預設立場促成對話實現，共同尋找突破當前政治僵局之道。首先，總統應該展現最大誠意，務期對話環境公開透明，總統府可考慮全程開放電視轉播，避免學生產生「被摸頭」的疑慮，學生亦不能心存「公審總統」的企圖，提出場域與程序的條件。
總統也要全盤思考學生已經提出與可能提出的各項訴求，包括學生代表倡議的「召開公民憲政會議」，雖然從政治現實面而言顯得突兀，但六大工商團體也提出意義接近的召開「國是會議」建言，顯示社會的部分共識。總統幕僚應對如何回應社會的期待，有完整的思考與準備，要讓學生及全社會體會到總統溝通的誠意，絕不能再讓人感覺「又是跳針」。
我們還要敬告民進黨，你知我知，服貿談判絕非黑箱，卻在有心人刻意操作下造成社會錯誤認知，民進黨政治領袖，包括蔡英文、蘇貞昌，應對是否贊成簽署《兩岸服貿協議》立下「軍令狀」，表示為人民立誓、對歷史負責的政治家應有態度。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 26, 2014
Summary: Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition
Full text below:
The student occupation of the Legislature has intensified yet again. It led to an unprecedented "occupation" of the Executive Yuan, and a bloody eviction by the police. The image of the government has been battered. The day before yesterday, Christine Chow, the president's wife, responded on Chen Yu-hui's FaceBook page. She said "The government has explained its position repeatedly. But since the people still have doubts, it has a responsibility to say it a few more times." Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services.
To being with, public opinion is as mercurial as flowing water. Changes in the political situation are constant. The moment the students succeeded in occupying the grounds of the legislature, the solution ceased being the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan Speaker. Nor was it the responsibility of the students. It became the responsibility of the Ma administration. The police stormed the Executive Yuan and expelled the students. From that moment on, any "violence" was the result of the government, not the students, and definitely not the opposition.
Those opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services accused the government of "black box operations." As we know perfectly well, such accusations are false. Take a step back. Before and during negotiations, government agencies held a total of 110 small-scale seminars with industry representatives from domestic finance, video games, exhibition, shipping, printing, cosmetics , food, travel, advertising, and logistics. According to the Legislative Yuan, the Legislative Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services in 2013. One on April 20, one on May 2, and one on May 30. Government officials reported in detail the negotiation process. The second session was a secret meeting. It concerned the content of the agreement we were preparing to sign with the other side.
During these three briefing sessions, DPP legislators were present along with KMT legislators. They included Chen Chi-mai, Li Chun-yi, Tuan Yi-kang, Lin Chia-lung, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Pi-ling, Yeh Yi-Ching, Yao Wen-chih, Chen Ou-po, Hsu Tain-Tsair, Chiu Chih-wei, Hsueh Ling, Tsai Chi-Chang, Yu Mei-nu, Lee Kun-tse, Wu Ping-jui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lin Shu-Fen, Tien Chiu-chin, Huang Wei-cher, Wei Ming Ku, and other committee members. Also in attendance were the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party and independents.
Large numbers of ruling and opposition party legislators took part in the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services hearings. No one can say the administration ignored the legislature. No one can say the administration operated inside a black box. Furthermore, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in July 2013. Between then and March 10 of this year, the legislature held 20 public hearings. According to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the executive is required only to inform the Legislative Yuan of what it intends to do. Yet KMT legislators consented to a line item review and line item vote. This was a public hearing, public review, and public vote, conducted entirely within the glare of the public spotlight. How can anyone accuse the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services of being a black box operation?
We know the students are opposed to more than black box operations. We know they are opposed to matters other than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. They are more concerned that the Ma administration's cross-strait policy is leaning too far toward the Mainland. They accuse the government's negotiating team of failing to obtain the best terms, and of allowing Taiwan to get a raw deal. Others of course, are indeed motivated by deep-seated Sinophobia.
Former National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi best summed up the problem. He says the struggle over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a continuation of an ongoing internal struggle inside Taiwan, over three issues: policy, reunification vs.independence, and the system. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services by itself has no bearing on reunification vs. independence. That is why President Ma repeatedly emphasized that the legislature must pass the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services "solely for the sake of of Taiwan's economy." Taiwan's trade liberalization and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and the RCEP, are merely "policy" issues. But for the DPP and the protesting students, they are reunification vs. independence issues. Some students even argue that the trade dispute proves that the legislative process no longer works, and that therefore the "system" of political representation needs reconsideration. Enormous cognitive differences exist regarding all three issues. This is why after President Ma held his March 23 press conference, the protesting students accused President Ma of being "a broken record."
We hope President Ma and the student representatives can meet and talk without preconditions. We hope they can break the current political impasse. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The dialogue must be open and transparent. The Presidential Office may wish to televise the process in toto. This would prevent students from accusing him of merely giving them a "pat on the head." The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition. They must not issue all sorts of demands about the venue and the program.
The president must consider the fact that the students have already made various demands. Student representatives proposed "convening a citizens' constitutional convention." In terms of political reality, this was a jarring suggestion. But six large business groups have also suggested convening a similar "national conference." This suggests a social consensus. Presidential staffers must respond to society's expectations. They must make comprehensive plans and preparations. They must ensure that the students and the community feel the president's sincerity. He must not sound like a broken record.
We would like to caution the DPP. You know and we know that the negotiations over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services were not black box operations. Yet you deliberately created a false public perception. DPP political leaders, including Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang should issue public vows regarding the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. This is the only attitude proper for any politican answerable to history.
社論－與學生對話 總統須展現誠意
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月26日 04:10
學生占領立法院行動一再激化，造成行政院大樓前所未見的「淪陷」，及警察驅離過程的血腥，重創政府形象。繼前天總統夫人周美青在作家陳玉慧臉書回文，同意「政府覺得已經說過許多次了，但是人民既然有疑慮，就有責任再多說幾次」，總統府昨天終於願意在不預設任何前提下，邀請學生代表來總統府會談。學生代表林飛帆立即回應，願意在公開的平台跟總統對話，服貿僵局呈現突破的一線曙光。
首先，民意如流水，政治情勢變動不居，從學生成功占領立法院議場那一刻開始，「解套」就不是立法院長，更不是學生的責任，而是馬政府的責任，從警察被迫衝進行政院辦公大樓驅離學生開始，「暴力」的印記就要由政府承擔，而非學生，更不是反對黨。
當然，我們非常清楚，反對《服貿協議》人士訴求的「反對黑箱作業」並非事實。回溯相關資料可以發現，在談判前及談判期間，政府相關部門曾與國內金融、遊戲、會展、海運、印刷、美容、餐飲、旅遊、廣告、物流等產業代表，總共舉行110次小型座談會。依據立法院議事資料，在《兩岸服貿協議》談判過程中，立法院內政委員會曾於102年4月20日、5月2日及5月30日舉行3場會議，政府官員詳細報告了談判進程，其中第二場會議為祕密會議，實質說明了我方準備與對岸簽訂的內容。
在這3場行簡報會議中，除國民黨立委外，民進黨的陳其邁、李俊俋、段宜康、林佳龍、陳亭妃、管碧玲、葉宜津、姚文智、陳歐珀、許添財、邱志偉、薛凌、蔡其昌、尤美女、李昆澤、吳秉叡、蕭美琴、林淑芬、田秋堇、黃偉哲、魏明谷等委員，都在出列席名單中，台聯、親民黨及無黨籍立委也曾出列席。
這麼多朝野立委都聽過《服貿協議》簡報，不能說是不尊重國會，更不應該是黑箱作業，何況《服貿協議》在進入立法院後，從102年7月到今年的3月10日，立法院已舉行過20場公聽會，依《兩岸人民關係條例》第五條，原本只需立法院備查，在國民黨立委同意下，已決定要進行逐條逐項審查及表決，這種公開聽證、公開審查的做法，又怎能說《服貿協議》是黑箱作業呢？
我們也理解，學生並非單純「反對黑箱作業」，更不只是「反服貿」，更多的是憂心馬政府兩岸政策傾中，認定政府談判團隊並未爭取到最好條件，讓台灣吃虧。其中當然也有些人，是根深柢固的「反中」心態。
其實，前國安會祕書長蘇起的分析最能捕捉到核心，他認為服貿爭議是台灣內部在「政策」、「統獨」和「制度」3個層次上爭論不休的延續。《服貿協議》本身與統一、獨立無涉，所以馬總統反覆強調，立法院一定要通過《服貿協議》「完全是為了台灣經濟的未來」，是台灣貿易自由化、加入TPP與RCEP的一環，是單純的「政策」議題。但對民進黨與抗議學生而言，卻是一個與「統獨」有關的議題，部分學生更認為，服貿爭議顯示國會運作已經失靈，所以還是一個必須重新檢討代議政治的「制度」議題。三方認知差異極大，這也是馬總統3月23日記者會後，抗爭學生認為「馬總統只是一再跳針」的原因。
我們期待馬總統與學生代表，都能不預設立場促成對話實現，共同尋找突破當前政治僵局之道。首先，總統應該展現最大誠意，務期對話環境公開透明，總統府可考慮全程開放電視轉播，避免學生產生「被摸頭」的疑慮，學生亦不能心存「公審總統」的企圖，提出場域與程序的條件。
總統也要全盤思考學生已經提出與可能提出的各項訴求，包括學生代表倡議的「召開公民憲政會議」，雖然從政治現實面而言顯得突兀，但六大工商團體也提出意義接近的召開「國是會議」建言，顯示社會的部分共識。總統幕僚應對如何回應社會的期待，有完整的思考與準備，要讓學生及全社會體會到總統溝通的誠意，絕不能再讓人感覺「又是跳針」。
我們還要敬告民進黨，你知我知，服貿談判絕非黑箱，卻在有心人刻意操作下造成社會錯誤認知，民進黨政治領袖，包括蔡英文、蘇貞昌，應對是否贊成簽署《兩岸服貿協議》立下「軍令狀」，表示為人民立誓、對歷史負責的政治家應有態度。
Monday, March 24, 2014
Pay Attention to the Middle Class
Pay Attention to the Middle Class
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 25, 2014
Summary: Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
Full text below:
The night of March 23 may have been the longest and most worrisome night for Taiwan's democracy in nearly 30 years. The "Sunflower" student movement, begun on March 18, is opposed to the Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement. It has begun drawing to a close. But student movement hawks suddenly expanded the battlefield from the Legislative Yuan to the Executive Yuan. Fortunately Premier Chiang Yi-hua moved decisively. He ordered police to expel the protestors. After several clashes, the area in front of the Executive Yuan was cleared at 4:00 on the morning of the 24th. Alas, some of the students and crowd broke into the Executive Yuan. They smashed, looted, or tossed the contents, leaving behind them a trail of destruction. This deliberate act of vandalism in the name of a student movement, left many deeply fearful and concerned.
How did Taiwan wind up in this mess? Political schemers with ulterior motives draped themselves in the clothing of the student movement. This rendered them invulnerable. It made them exempt from outside criticism. The government wanted to respond, but was deterred by the possible repercussions. It feared charges of "adults bullying children," and of "police beating students."
The students who occupied the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan included naive, romantic, idealistic young students. But the leaders at center stage were all well-versed in manipulation. They used hand signals to order the crowds to link arms and lie down, to increase the difficulty of police eviction. They carried wire cutters to destroy barricades. If anyone even brushed against them, they screamed bloody murder. After breaking into the Executive Yuan, they went straight to the electrical closet, the premier's office, and the offices of key officials. One cannot help wondering. Would amateur activists really be so sophisticated? Were they really ordinary students?
The movement opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services was swift to take shape. Currently it includes student groups from the National Taipei University Department of Sociology and the Tsinghua University Institute for Social Research. It includes student groups from National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, National Chengchi University, National Taiwan Normal University, Donghua University, and Soochow University. They coordinated and urged students all across Taiwan to skip classes. Five major school association chairmen, including National Association of Colleges Chairman Yang Hung-dun, Private Universities and Colleges Association Chairman Lai Ting-min, National University of Science and Technology Association Chairman Yao Li-teh, Private Colleges Technology Association Chairman Ke Chi-hsiang, and Vocational Institute Association Chairman Chen Wen-kui issued a joint statement. They urged students to remain rational in their means of expression. They said schools respect the students' freedom to participate in anti-trade in service agreement protests. But they said that occupying the Executive Yuan was obviously disorderly, illegal, and bore no relation to free speech.
The student movement is degenerating into student protests. What kind of unrest and anxiety will these student protests bring society? Are the students, and the politicians and teachers who urged the students to take to the streets, willing to bear responsibility? Different segments of society may have different views about the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. But are they willing to see Taiwan society divided in this manner, to the point where they hate each other?
Besides, President Ma Ying-jeou, who is KMT party chairman, and Premier Chiang Yi-hua, are willing to review the trade in services agreement on a line item basis. On the 24th, the Legislative Yuan passed the proposal in a Joint Committee, then asked the Executive Yuan to immediately withdraw all cross-strait trade agreements and restart negotiations. As one can imagine, the process is rife with challenges and difficulties. But the ROC is a free and democratic nation. The people use their votes to decide their own future. Where is the need to resort to the means adopted by the student movement?
The student movement issued an endless string of accusations. It accused the administration of being a dictatorship. There was no shortage of university and graduate school students among those who participated in the student movement. Do higher echelon intellectuals on Taiwan really care about global political change? Do they even know what a dictator looks like? The police used batons to evict those occupying the Executive Yuan. They were assaulted by the mob. The KMT is the majority party in the Legislative Yuan. When KMT legislators serve as co-chairman, they are physically prevented from even mounting the podium. They are denied the opportunity to speak. They must stand in the corner using their personal megaphones to be heard. When the premier attempted to speak to the students, he was booed off the stage within 10 minutes. After the president held a press conference with the foreign press, he was blasted from all sides. Will everyone please look into your heart? Can such a free, open, diverse, and precious society really be termed a dictatorship? Do we really intend to denounce it, trample over it, and finally destroy it and lose it?
Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Will the occupation of the Legislative Yuan, the occupation of the Executive Yuan, or even the occupation of the Presidential Palace, result in jobs descending from heaven? The future is now. It is hurtling straight toward us. How much time can Taiwan afford to waste? Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
社論－中產階級的心聲需要被關照
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月25日 04:10
3月23日的黃昏到凌晨，可能是台灣近30年來，民主發展的歷程中，最漫長又最讓人揪心的一夜。從318開始的「反服貿太陽花學運」，本來已經逐漸接近尾聲，但學運中的鷹派卻突如其來的將戰場從立法院擴大至行政院，幸而行政長院江宜樺當機立斷，決定加派員警驅離群眾；經過多次攻堅，總算在24日清晨4點多讓行政院附近淨空。然而，進入行政院的部分學生和群眾，在各辦公處所任意打、砸、搶、丟，留下滿目瘡痍，這場刻意包裝成學生運動的惡意破壞行動，更在許多人民的心中，留下了無限的憂慮與擔心。
台灣怎麼會走到如今的這步田地？當別有盤算的政治謀略披掛上學生運動的包裝後，立刻就如同有了「金剛護體」、有了外界不能評論的正當性。政府投鼠忌器，生怕一個不小心就惹來「大人欺負小孩」、「警察打學生」的負面批評。
然而，從占領立法院到占領行政院，天真浪漫、滿懷理想性的青年學子或許有之，但檯面上的領導人物，個個訓練有素，在現場指揮群眾手絆手躺下，以增加警察驅離的困難度；手持利剪破壞拒馬；稍一被觸及就瘋狂大喊；進入行政院之後，直奔供電室、院長室與重要員官員辦公室…凡此種種，不得不讓人聯想，素人街頭運動者怎麼可能如此老練？他們真的都只是單純的學生嗎？
這一場反服貿的社運快速發酵，目前已有台北大學社會系、清華大學社會研究所，以及台大、清大、政大、台師大、東華、東吳等多所大學的學生團體經過串聯後，發起全台大罷課，並呼籲學生「自主罷課」。對此，已有5大學校協進會，包括國立大學校院協會理事長（中山大學校長楊弘敦），私立大學校院協進會理事長（世新大學校長賴鼎銘），國立科技大學協會理事長（台北科技大學校長姚立德）、私立科技大學校院協進會理事長（龍華科技大學校長葛自祥）和專科學校協會理事長（國立台南專科護理學校校長陳文貴）等5人發表共同聲明，呼籲學生應秉持理性表達意見；學校尊重同學有參與反服貿行動的自由，但攻占行政院的行為，已明顯脫序、違法，脫離了言論表達的自由。
如今，學運已經快要變質為學潮了，而學潮會給社會帶來怎樣的動盪、不安，主事者，包括參與的學生以及鼓吹學生走上街頭的政治人物和老師們能夠承擔嗎？社會各界對《兩岸服務貿易協議》容或有不同的見解和意見，但大多數民眾會願意見到台灣社會因此分裂、因此對立，甚至因此彼此仇恨嗎？
再說，馬英九總統（國民黨黨主席）和江宜樺院長都已明確表示，同意讓《服貿協議》進入「逐條討論、逐條審議」，立院24日也已在聯席會中通過提案，要求行政院立即撤回兩岸服貿協議，並重啟談判。儘管可以想像這個過程將會充滿各種挑戰與困難，但台灣已經是個民主自由的國家，人民手中有選票可以決定自己的未來，何須再訴諸學運這樣的手段？
這次學運中，不斷有人指控執政者為獨裁者，說實在的，如果台灣的高級知識份子（參加學運者不乏大學生與研究生）的確關心這個世界的政局變化，當知道所謂的「獨裁者」是何等模樣！在台灣，面對強行攻占行政院的群眾，警察使用警棍驅離會被海K；在立法院占多數的國民黨立委擔任聯席會主席時，連主席台都上不了、找不到任何發言的機會，還得用自備的小蜜蜂躲在一個角落裡說話；行政院長跟學生講話、講不到10分鐘就被轟走；總統舉行中外記者會後，還得遭受來自四面八方的狂罵狠批…請大家摸摸良心，這樣的台灣能叫獨裁社會嗎？如此自由、如此開放、如此多元的台灣，是何等珍貴！難道我們要不斷否定、踐踏，終至毀滅而失去嗎？
此外，正是因為許多年輕人擔心低薪、爆肝的生活無止無盡，台灣才更需要走出去，以世界為舞台，創造更多、更好、附加價值更高的工作機會，這是台灣一定要審慎考慮簽訂各項經濟協定、包括《兩岸服貿協議》的理由。難道占領立法院、占領行政院，甚至占領總統府好了，工作機會就會從天上掉下來嗎？未來正不停地一直來、一直來，台灣還有多少時間可以浪費？連簽一個ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》都可以搞得如此天翻地覆，台灣在全球化浪潮下的嚴酷考驗中，還能有什麼作為？真的讓人無比憂心。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 25, 2014
Summary: Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
Full text below:
The night of March 23 may have been the longest and most worrisome night for Taiwan's democracy in nearly 30 years. The "Sunflower" student movement, begun on March 18, is opposed to the Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement. It has begun drawing to a close. But student movement hawks suddenly expanded the battlefield from the Legislative Yuan to the Executive Yuan. Fortunately Premier Chiang Yi-hua moved decisively. He ordered police to expel the protestors. After several clashes, the area in front of the Executive Yuan was cleared at 4:00 on the morning of the 24th. Alas, some of the students and crowd broke into the Executive Yuan. They smashed, looted, or tossed the contents, leaving behind them a trail of destruction. This deliberate act of vandalism in the name of a student movement, left many deeply fearful and concerned.
How did Taiwan wind up in this mess? Political schemers with ulterior motives draped themselves in the clothing of the student movement. This rendered them invulnerable. It made them exempt from outside criticism. The government wanted to respond, but was deterred by the possible repercussions. It feared charges of "adults bullying children," and of "police beating students."
The students who occupied the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan included naive, romantic, idealistic young students. But the leaders at center stage were all well-versed in manipulation. They used hand signals to order the crowds to link arms and lie down, to increase the difficulty of police eviction. They carried wire cutters to destroy barricades. If anyone even brushed against them, they screamed bloody murder. After breaking into the Executive Yuan, they went straight to the electrical closet, the premier's office, and the offices of key officials. One cannot help wondering. Would amateur activists really be so sophisticated? Were they really ordinary students?
The movement opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services was swift to take shape. Currently it includes student groups from the National Taipei University Department of Sociology and the Tsinghua University Institute for Social Research. It includes student groups from National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, National Chengchi University, National Taiwan Normal University, Donghua University, and Soochow University. They coordinated and urged students all across Taiwan to skip classes. Five major school association chairmen, including National Association of Colleges Chairman Yang Hung-dun, Private Universities and Colleges Association Chairman Lai Ting-min, National University of Science and Technology Association Chairman Yao Li-teh, Private Colleges Technology Association Chairman Ke Chi-hsiang, and Vocational Institute Association Chairman Chen Wen-kui issued a joint statement. They urged students to remain rational in their means of expression. They said schools respect the students' freedom to participate in anti-trade in service agreement protests. But they said that occupying the Executive Yuan was obviously disorderly, illegal, and bore no relation to free speech.
The student movement is degenerating into student protests. What kind of unrest and anxiety will these student protests bring society? Are the students, and the politicians and teachers who urged the students to take to the streets, willing to bear responsibility? Different segments of society may have different views about the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. But are they willing to see Taiwan society divided in this manner, to the point where they hate each other?
Besides, President Ma Ying-jeou, who is KMT party chairman, and Premier Chiang Yi-hua, are willing to review the trade in services agreement on a line item basis. On the 24th, the Legislative Yuan passed the proposal in a Joint Committee, then asked the Executive Yuan to immediately withdraw all cross-strait trade agreements and restart negotiations. As one can imagine, the process is rife with challenges and difficulties. But the ROC is a free and democratic nation. The people use their votes to decide their own future. Where is the need to resort to the means adopted by the student movement?
The student movement issued an endless string of accusations. It accused the administration of being a dictatorship. There was no shortage of university and graduate school students among those who participated in the student movement. Do higher echelon intellectuals on Taiwan really care about global political change? Do they even know what a dictator looks like? The police used batons to evict those occupying the Executive Yuan. They were assaulted by the mob. The KMT is the majority party in the Legislative Yuan. When KMT legislators serve as co-chairman, they are physically prevented from even mounting the podium. They are denied the opportunity to speak. They must stand in the corner using their personal megaphones to be heard. When the premier attempted to speak to the students, he was booed off the stage within 10 minutes. After the president held a press conference with the foreign press, he was blasted from all sides. Will everyone please look into your heart? Can such a free, open, diverse, and precious society really be termed a dictatorship? Do we really intend to denounce it, trample over it, and finally destroy it and lose it?
Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Will the occupation of the Legislative Yuan, the occupation of the Executive Yuan, or even the occupation of the Presidential Palace, result in jobs descending from heaven? The future is now. It is hurtling straight toward us. How much time can Taiwan afford to waste? Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
社論－中產階級的心聲需要被關照
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月25日 04:10
3月23日的黃昏到凌晨，可能是台灣近30年來，民主發展的歷程中，最漫長又最讓人揪心的一夜。從318開始的「反服貿太陽花學運」，本來已經逐漸接近尾聲，但學運中的鷹派卻突如其來的將戰場從立法院擴大至行政院，幸而行政長院江宜樺當機立斷，決定加派員警驅離群眾；經過多次攻堅，總算在24日清晨4點多讓行政院附近淨空。然而，進入行政院的部分學生和群眾，在各辦公處所任意打、砸、搶、丟，留下滿目瘡痍，這場刻意包裝成學生運動的惡意破壞行動，更在許多人民的心中，留下了無限的憂慮與擔心。
台灣怎麼會走到如今的這步田地？當別有盤算的政治謀略披掛上學生運動的包裝後，立刻就如同有了「金剛護體」、有了外界不能評論的正當性。政府投鼠忌器，生怕一個不小心就惹來「大人欺負小孩」、「警察打學生」的負面批評。
然而，從占領立法院到占領行政院，天真浪漫、滿懷理想性的青年學子或許有之，但檯面上的領導人物，個個訓練有素，在現場指揮群眾手絆手躺下，以增加警察驅離的困難度；手持利剪破壞拒馬；稍一被觸及就瘋狂大喊；進入行政院之後，直奔供電室、院長室與重要員官員辦公室…凡此種種，不得不讓人聯想，素人街頭運動者怎麼可能如此老練？他們真的都只是單純的學生嗎？
這一場反服貿的社運快速發酵，目前已有台北大學社會系、清華大學社會研究所，以及台大、清大、政大、台師大、東華、東吳等多所大學的學生團體經過串聯後，發起全台大罷課，並呼籲學生「自主罷課」。對此，已有5大學校協進會，包括國立大學校院協會理事長（中山大學校長楊弘敦），私立大學校院協進會理事長（世新大學校長賴鼎銘），國立科技大學協會理事長（台北科技大學校長姚立德）、私立科技大學校院協進會理事長（龍華科技大學校長葛自祥）和專科學校協會理事長（國立台南專科護理學校校長陳文貴）等5人發表共同聲明，呼籲學生應秉持理性表達意見；學校尊重同學有參與反服貿行動的自由，但攻占行政院的行為，已明顯脫序、違法，脫離了言論表達的自由。
如今，學運已經快要變質為學潮了，而學潮會給社會帶來怎樣的動盪、不安，主事者，包括參與的學生以及鼓吹學生走上街頭的政治人物和老師們能夠承擔嗎？社會各界對《兩岸服務貿易協議》容或有不同的見解和意見，但大多數民眾會願意見到台灣社會因此分裂、因此對立，甚至因此彼此仇恨嗎？
再說，馬英九總統（國民黨黨主席）和江宜樺院長都已明確表示，同意讓《服貿協議》進入「逐條討論、逐條審議」，立院24日也已在聯席會中通過提案，要求行政院立即撤回兩岸服貿協議，並重啟談判。儘管可以想像這個過程將會充滿各種挑戰與困難，但台灣已經是個民主自由的國家，人民手中有選票可以決定自己的未來，何須再訴諸學運這樣的手段？
這次學運中，不斷有人指控執政者為獨裁者，說實在的，如果台灣的高級知識份子（參加學運者不乏大學生與研究生）的確關心這個世界的政局變化，當知道所謂的「獨裁者」是何等模樣！在台灣，面對強行攻占行政院的群眾，警察使用警棍驅離會被海K；在立法院占多數的國民黨立委擔任聯席會主席時，連主席台都上不了、找不到任何發言的機會，還得用自備的小蜜蜂躲在一個角落裡說話；行政院長跟學生講話、講不到10分鐘就被轟走；總統舉行中外記者會後，還得遭受來自四面八方的狂罵狠批…請大家摸摸良心，這樣的台灣能叫獨裁社會嗎？如此自由、如此開放、如此多元的台灣，是何等珍貴！難道我們要不斷否定、踐踏，終至毀滅而失去嗎？
此外，正是因為許多年輕人擔心低薪、爆肝的生活無止無盡，台灣才更需要走出去，以世界為舞台，創造更多、更好、附加價值更高的工作機會，這是台灣一定要審慎考慮簽訂各項經濟協定、包括《兩岸服貿協議》的理由。難道占領立法院、占領行政院，甚至占領總統府好了，工作機會就會從天上掉下來嗎？未來正不停地一直來、一直來，台灣還有多少時間可以浪費？連簽一個ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》都可以搞得如此天翻地覆，台灣在全球化浪潮下的嚴酷考驗中，還能有什麼作為？真的讓人無比憂心。
Let Students Besieging the Legislature Speak Before Resuming Review
Let Students Besieging the Legislature Speak Before Resuming Review
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth.
Full text below:
The day before yesterday, Premier Chiang went to the Legislative Yuan to speak with the students gathered outside. Instead, he was heckled. President Ma also went to the firing line, where he held a press conference with the foreign media. He stressed the importance and necessity of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. He responded to questions from reporters. President Ma has already presented a comprehensive case for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. But the response of the student leaders occupying the grounds of the legislature was swift. It made clear that the president and the protesting students are not even on the same page. The president considers the protesting students' demands utterly unacceptable. Conversely, most students are not the least bit interested in listening to the president's argument for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. As a result, situation remains deadlocked.
In fact this was predictable. The protesting students initially demanded that the premier step down and that the president issue an apology. Later, they demanded that the president "take back the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" and "establish rules for oversight of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services." This alone made it a non-starter. This alone precluded the possibility of any dialogue. Premier Chiang visited the protest site outside the Legislative Yuan. He even asked for the chance to say a few words. His request was rejected outright. President Ma is not about to visit the site and be subjected to even worse humiliations. The ruling authorities have labored for eight to nine months on the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Will their efforts be for naught, merely because the legislature grounds are occupied? If they are, then maybe we should demand that the premier step down, and that the president apologize. Frankly, no elected government would dare submit to such demands.
So what next? The halls of the legislature belong to the people as a whole. It has been reduced to the protesting students' sit in site. They have made it clear that unless the government acquiesces to their demands, they will continue to occupy the site and refuse to leave. They will soon test the patience of the community. The legislature is authorized by the taxpayers to legislate. Legislation has always required negotiations. It has always required the minority to obey the majority. A minority party forcibly occupies the podium because it is unable to prevent the passage of a bill. It even helps students occupy the entire legislature. It spins this as "citizen participation." In any dialogue with them, the only acceptable answers are their answers. All other answers are brushed aside. One has to wonder. What do those citizens who must pay taxes think of this?
President Ma convened a press conference. He patiently described the role of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The circumstances may have influenced the manner of his presentation and its audience. He was clearly not addressing the protesting students besieging the legislature. He was clearly addressing the people of the nation as a whole. He was speaking to those individual taxpayers whose careers and futures would be affect by the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Most of them are working hard to increase Taiwan's competitiveness. They have no time to kill surfing Internet comments sections. They have no time to engage in online debate. They are more concerned that their children might skip class and catch a cold while laying siege to the legislature overnight. Naturally these people have no time to express solidarity with President Ma. They have no time to sound off in the media. President Ma probably realizes praising the students' patriotism and humiliated himself before them would have done little to resolve the impasse.
What will the protesting students' next move be? Will they declare victory and go home? Will they struggle to the bitter end? The latter seems more likely. Unfortunately the decision to wage long-term war may be simple. But discovering an honorable way to step down may be hard. Executive branch agencies have made it clear they will not forcibly evict the students. They probably will not talk to them either. This is the middle of the university semester. If the students decide to sacrifice their studies, and stand their ground to the bitter end, they will eventually find that their aspirations are unachievable. All they might be able to do is cultivate a few new generation candidates for future DPP election campaigns. Besides Wang Jin-pyng, they are the biggest beneficiaries of the struggle.
The student occupation of the legislature has taught everyone a lesson. Today's Taiwan remains dogged by divisions. In addition to reunification vs. Taiwan independence divisions, Blue Camp vs. Green Camp divisions, Northern Region vs. Southern Region divisions, and class divisions, there are generation vs. generation divisions. The young students gathered around the legislature are a preview of coming attractions. The 90s generation on Taiwan has officially debuted and spoken up. This is the "PC mouse generation," whose hands are never far from their cell phones. During all these years the economy has been poor. Youth employment has been difficult. Starting salaries have been low. Consumer prices have risen. Housing prices have been even more terrifying. This generation has become a stifled, lost, and anxious generation. Their understanding of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services derives mostly from Internet "Books for Dummies." They gathered at the Legislative Yuan mostly through social media mobilization. If one attempts to dialogue with them while ignoring these facts, one will naturally talk past them. Unfortunately, few in the ruling administration are willing to make an effort in this regard. They persist in using older generation language and communication techniques. Is it any wonder they have wound up with egg on their faces from beginning to end?
As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth. Before entering a mature civil society, cultivate your own reason and judgment. Let this experience become the key to your becoming an adult.
社論－給立法院現場學生的幾句話
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月24日 04:10
江揆前日赴立院外與學生溝通被嗆後，馬總統昨也親上火線，召開中外記者會，向全民說明《服貿協議》的重要性與必要性，並回應記者提問。儘管馬總統已經就何以必須簽訂《服貿協議》做了很完整的論述，但從占領立院議場學生領袖的即時回應看來，很明顯，總統與抗議學生之間根本沒有對上焦。抗議學生的訴求總統不可能接受，總統對《服貿協議》的說明，多數學生也沒有興趣理解，所以結論是：僵局依舊！
其實這個結論在事前就可以預期，抗議學生先是要求閣揆下台、總統道歉，後來又提出「退回服貿協議」、「建立兩岸協議監督條例」兩大訴求，而且還設定其為對話的前提，這其實已經封阻了任何對話的可能，江揆親赴在立院外抗議現場，連要求講幾分鐘話的機會都不給，馬總統去現場豈不是遭受到更大的羞辱！同樣的，執政當局如果因為議場被占據，就將已經努力8、9個月的《服貿協議》立法進程一切歸零，那麼恐怕我們會也要求閣揆下台、總統道歉了，講得再直白一些，沒有任何民選政府，敢於在這樣的要脅下屈服的。
重點是，接下來怎麼辦？一座全民擁有的國會殿堂，如今淪為抗議學生的休憩場所，而且擺明了就是除非依他們意，否則就是霸占不走了，那麼接下來考驗的，恐怕是社會的耐心了。立院可是被納稅人授權來立法的，立法本來就是要協商的，也本來就是該服從多數的，如果少數黨抵制不成就霸占主席台，甚至放任學生霸占整個國會議場，還宣稱這叫做「公民參與」，與他們對話只准接受他們的答案，別的選項一概不談，試問對那些真正在納稅的公民，能怎麼想呢？
所以，馬總統召開記者會，不厭其煩的針對《服貿協議》的定位、來龍去脈乃至可能的影響做仔細說明，所設定的聽眾，很明顯根本不是議場內外的抗議學生，而是全國的民眾，那些會受到《服貿協議》通過與否而影響個人生計與發展的納稅人，其中絕大多數都在為台灣的競爭力打拚，既沒時間在網路討論區上消磨，也沒時間去任何現場抗爭，更擔心自己孩子不去上課卻圍在立法院過夜，會不會著涼！當然，這些人沒時間聲援馬總統，也不會有機會在媒體上發聲，所以，馬總統或許會發現，即便他已經肯定了學生的愛國心，也放低了身段，但對抗爭僵局的化解，好像幫助不大。
抗爭學生接下來的處境也將面臨考驗，是見好就收呢，還是抗爭到底呢？看樣子選擇後者的可能性比較多，問題是選擇長期抗戰的決定很簡單，但要再找光榮退場的時機可就難了，行政部門已經擺明了不會強制驅離，大概也不會再跟他們對話，現在才是大學的學期中，他們如果決定犧牲課業，死守議場抗爭的結果，恐怕終將會發現，他們的訴求根本不可能獲得實現，唯一的成就恐怕只剩下替民進黨未來的選舉，培養幾位新生代的候選人而已！畢竟，除了王金平之外，他們才是這場抗爭中最大的獲利者。
當然，我們還是不得不說，經歷過這場學生占據國會議場的風暴，我們其實都上了一課，現今的台灣，除了統獨、藍綠、南北與階級的矛盾衝突外，還存在著世代的問題，這次群聚在國會議場的年輕學子，預示了台灣九○後的世代，已經正式登場發聲，他們是手不離手機「滑世代」，而這些年景氣不好，年輕人就業難、起薪低、民生物價高漲，房價更是可怕，更成為茫然焦慮的「悶世代」，他們對《服貿協議》的理解，絕大部分來自網路上的懶人包，他們聚集在立院，絕大部分來自社群媒體的動員。與他們對話，忽略了這些層面，當然不可能對上焦。很遺憾的是，目前的執政團隊很少願意在這方面投注心力，甚至還在拿舊世代的語言與溝通模式在應付，這也就難怪會一路弄得這般灰頭土臉。
對於堅守在立院現場的學子們，在享受完占國會、嗆閣揆乃至罵總統的快意後，也不妨沉澱下來，冷靜的研究一下《服貿協議》到底是怎麼回事，別再把懶人包中的論述當真理，在邁入社會轉化為成熟公民之前，淬鍊自己的理性與判斷能力，才是讓這段經歷有助自己成長轉大人的關鍵。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth.
Full text below:
The day before yesterday, Premier Chiang went to the Legislative Yuan to speak with the students gathered outside. Instead, he was heckled. President Ma also went to the firing line, where he held a press conference with the foreign media. He stressed the importance and necessity of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. He responded to questions from reporters. President Ma has already presented a comprehensive case for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. But the response of the student leaders occupying the grounds of the legislature was swift. It made clear that the president and the protesting students are not even on the same page. The president considers the protesting students' demands utterly unacceptable. Conversely, most students are not the least bit interested in listening to the president's argument for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. As a result, situation remains deadlocked.
In fact this was predictable. The protesting students initially demanded that the premier step down and that the president issue an apology. Later, they demanded that the president "take back the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" and "establish rules for oversight of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services." This alone made it a non-starter. This alone precluded the possibility of any dialogue. Premier Chiang visited the protest site outside the Legislative Yuan. He even asked for the chance to say a few words. His request was rejected outright. President Ma is not about to visit the site and be subjected to even worse humiliations. The ruling authorities have labored for eight to nine months on the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Will their efforts be for naught, merely because the legislature grounds are occupied? If they are, then maybe we should demand that the premier step down, and that the president apologize. Frankly, no elected government would dare submit to such demands.
So what next? The halls of the legislature belong to the people as a whole. It has been reduced to the protesting students' sit in site. They have made it clear that unless the government acquiesces to their demands, they will continue to occupy the site and refuse to leave. They will soon test the patience of the community. The legislature is authorized by the taxpayers to legislate. Legislation has always required negotiations. It has always required the minority to obey the majority. A minority party forcibly occupies the podium because it is unable to prevent the passage of a bill. It even helps students occupy the entire legislature. It spins this as "citizen participation." In any dialogue with them, the only acceptable answers are their answers. All other answers are brushed aside. One has to wonder. What do those citizens who must pay taxes think of this?
President Ma convened a press conference. He patiently described the role of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The circumstances may have influenced the manner of his presentation and its audience. He was clearly not addressing the protesting students besieging the legislature. He was clearly addressing the people of the nation as a whole. He was speaking to those individual taxpayers whose careers and futures would be affect by the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Most of them are working hard to increase Taiwan's competitiveness. They have no time to kill surfing Internet comments sections. They have no time to engage in online debate. They are more concerned that their children might skip class and catch a cold while laying siege to the legislature overnight. Naturally these people have no time to express solidarity with President Ma. They have no time to sound off in the media. President Ma probably realizes praising the students' patriotism and humiliated himself before them would have done little to resolve the impasse.
What will the protesting students' next move be? Will they declare victory and go home? Will they struggle to the bitter end? The latter seems more likely. Unfortunately the decision to wage long-term war may be simple. But discovering an honorable way to step down may be hard. Executive branch agencies have made it clear they will not forcibly evict the students. They probably will not talk to them either. This is the middle of the university semester. If the students decide to sacrifice their studies, and stand their ground to the bitter end, they will eventually find that their aspirations are unachievable. All they might be able to do is cultivate a few new generation candidates for future DPP election campaigns. Besides Wang Jin-pyng, they are the biggest beneficiaries of the struggle.
The student occupation of the legislature has taught everyone a lesson. Today's Taiwan remains dogged by divisions. In addition to reunification vs. Taiwan independence divisions, Blue Camp vs. Green Camp divisions, Northern Region vs. Southern Region divisions, and class divisions, there are generation vs. generation divisions. The young students gathered around the legislature are a preview of coming attractions. The 90s generation on Taiwan has officially debuted and spoken up. This is the "PC mouse generation," whose hands are never far from their cell phones. During all these years the economy has been poor. Youth employment has been difficult. Starting salaries have been low. Consumer prices have risen. Housing prices have been even more terrifying. This generation has become a stifled, lost, and anxious generation. Their understanding of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services derives mostly from Internet "Books for Dummies." They gathered at the Legislative Yuan mostly through social media mobilization. If one attempts to dialogue with them while ignoring these facts, one will naturally talk past them. Unfortunately, few in the ruling administration are willing to make an effort in this regard. They persist in using older generation language and communication techniques. Is it any wonder they have wound up with egg on their faces from beginning to end?
As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth. Before entering a mature civil society, cultivate your own reason and judgment. Let this experience become the key to your becoming an adult.
社論－給立法院現場學生的幾句話
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月24日 04:10
江揆前日赴立院外與學生溝通被嗆後，馬總統昨也親上火線，召開中外記者會，向全民說明《服貿協議》的重要性與必要性，並回應記者提問。儘管馬總統已經就何以必須簽訂《服貿協議》做了很完整的論述，但從占領立院議場學生領袖的即時回應看來，很明顯，總統與抗議學生之間根本沒有對上焦。抗議學生的訴求總統不可能接受，總統對《服貿協議》的說明，多數學生也沒有興趣理解，所以結論是：僵局依舊！
其實這個結論在事前就可以預期，抗議學生先是要求閣揆下台、總統道歉，後來又提出「退回服貿協議」、「建立兩岸協議監督條例」兩大訴求，而且還設定其為對話的前提，這其實已經封阻了任何對話的可能，江揆親赴在立院外抗議現場，連要求講幾分鐘話的機會都不給，馬總統去現場豈不是遭受到更大的羞辱！同樣的，執政當局如果因為議場被占據，就將已經努力8、9個月的《服貿協議》立法進程一切歸零，那麼恐怕我們會也要求閣揆下台、總統道歉了，講得再直白一些，沒有任何民選政府，敢於在這樣的要脅下屈服的。
重點是，接下來怎麼辦？一座全民擁有的國會殿堂，如今淪為抗議學生的休憩場所，而且擺明了就是除非依他們意，否則就是霸占不走了，那麼接下來考驗的，恐怕是社會的耐心了。立院可是被納稅人授權來立法的，立法本來就是要協商的，也本來就是該服從多數的，如果少數黨抵制不成就霸占主席台，甚至放任學生霸占整個國會議場，還宣稱這叫做「公民參與」，與他們對話只准接受他們的答案，別的選項一概不談，試問對那些真正在納稅的公民，能怎麼想呢？
所以，馬總統召開記者會，不厭其煩的針對《服貿協議》的定位、來龍去脈乃至可能的影響做仔細說明，所設定的聽眾，很明顯根本不是議場內外的抗議學生，而是全國的民眾，那些會受到《服貿協議》通過與否而影響個人生計與發展的納稅人，其中絕大多數都在為台灣的競爭力打拚，既沒時間在網路討論區上消磨，也沒時間去任何現場抗爭，更擔心自己孩子不去上課卻圍在立法院過夜，會不會著涼！當然，這些人沒時間聲援馬總統，也不會有機會在媒體上發聲，所以，馬總統或許會發現，即便他已經肯定了學生的愛國心，也放低了身段，但對抗爭僵局的化解，好像幫助不大。
抗爭學生接下來的處境也將面臨考驗，是見好就收呢，還是抗爭到底呢？看樣子選擇後者的可能性比較多，問題是選擇長期抗戰的決定很簡單，但要再找光榮退場的時機可就難了，行政部門已經擺明了不會強制驅離，大概也不會再跟他們對話，現在才是大學的學期中，他們如果決定犧牲課業，死守議場抗爭的結果，恐怕終將會發現，他們的訴求根本不可能獲得實現，唯一的成就恐怕只剩下替民進黨未來的選舉，培養幾位新生代的候選人而已！畢竟，除了王金平之外，他們才是這場抗爭中最大的獲利者。
當然，我們還是不得不說，經歷過這場學生占據國會議場的風暴，我們其實都上了一課，現今的台灣，除了統獨、藍綠、南北與階級的矛盾衝突外，還存在著世代的問題，這次群聚在國會議場的年輕學子，預示了台灣九○後的世代，已經正式登場發聲，他們是手不離手機「滑世代」，而這些年景氣不好，年輕人就業難、起薪低、民生物價高漲，房價更是可怕，更成為茫然焦慮的「悶世代」，他們對《服貿協議》的理解，絕大部分來自網路上的懶人包，他們聚集在立院，絕大部分來自社群媒體的動員。與他們對話，忽略了這些層面，當然不可能對上焦。很遺憾的是，目前的執政團隊很少願意在這方面投注心力，甚至還在拿舊世代的語言與溝通模式在應付，這也就難怪會一路弄得這般灰頭土臉。
對於堅守在立院現場的學子們，在享受完占國會、嗆閣揆乃至罵總統的快意後，也不妨沉澱下來，冷靜的研究一下《服貿協議》到底是怎麼回事，別再把懶人包中的論述當真理，在邁入社會轉化為成熟公民之前，淬鍊自己的理性與判斷能力，才是讓這段經歷有助自己成長轉大人的關鍵。
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Legislature Under Occupation: Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
Legislature Under Occupation:
Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
Full text below:
Students opposed to the "Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" continue to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Outside, expressions of support are growing louder. Viewed from without, the fear is not that the situation will get out of control. The fear is that no peaceful resolution will be found. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying and ruling and opposition party legislators are sitting on the walls outside the legislature. They must resume negotiations. They must regain control of the legislature from the students.
The students have been protesting for two days. For the most part, they have been orderly. This is the biggest difference between them and most political party and social movement protests. The problem with the student movement is that it is easy to start but difficult to stop. Especially since the 500 or so students currently occupying the legislature belong to different schools and come from different regions. Several leaders are on the scene. But it is difficult to say whether these hundreds of demonstrators share the same goals. Over the past two days they issued three demands, which abruptly turned into four demands. As we can see, the participants are indecisive.
The incident has attracted international notice. There are two reasons for this. One. The halls that the students have occupied represent the sovereign authority of a democratic legislature. This is a first for the ROC. It is also rare in other nations. A recent example is the occupation of the Ukrainian Parliament in February by protesting militants. But Ukranian society and democracy are not as mature and stable as the ROC's.
Two. The proximate cause was last year's decision by the ruling and opposition parties to conduct a line item review and line item vote on the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. During the process, the DPP deliberate dragged its feet. During the Joint Legislative Committee Meeting, the KMT sent the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services to committee. This provoked public anti-agreement sentiment. This must be properly resolved. Otherwise future agreements with other nations or regional economic organizations will be affected by this incident and progress will be difficult.
The student occupation of the legislature held up a mirror. One side reflected government dereliction. The other side reflected democratic loss of control. The Legislative Yuan is the symbol of the nation's sovereignty. It is the highest representative of the public will. But in recent years, it has often solved problems through backroom deals. Legislative review is invariably plagued by obstructionism, foot-dragging, and deal-making. Majority rule and public consultation under democracy are no more. Bills that reach the Legislative Yuan fall into an black hole, never to see the light of day. The executive branch is afraid of offending the Legislative Yuan. Most of the time it stews in its own juices. This truly is government dereliction.
Consider the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. It was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in June last year. There it sat for a full nine months before being submitted for committee review. One may support the bill or oppose it. But is this any way to treat such a serious matter? In fact, the ruling and opposition parties had no interest whatsoever in substantive review. The DPP scheduled the review only so that it could filibuster it. The KMT scheduled the review only so it could get it out of the way. The two parties turned the legislature into the colosseum or circus. Under the circumstances, the consequences of submitting the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services for committee review were totally forseeable.
That of course does not mean the students had a right to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Democracies generate legislators through periodic elections. The legislature is inviolable. Not because individual legislators are inviolable, but because the legislature is a body that exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people. The legislature symbolizes the will of the people. Unless the legislature uses democracy to destroy democracy, and illegally alters its democratic institutions, then forcing one's way into the legislature and occupying it shames the nation and shames democracy. Are 5.86 million votes that elected over 60 KMT legislators unrepresentative? If they are not, then how representative are 500 students?
Not everyone agrees with the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The review process may have been flawed. But opposition to the agreement is merely one of many dissenting views, with no greater validity than any other. Furthermore, the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services has only been submitted for committee review. It has yet to be finalized. It has yet to get on track. Allegations of "anti-democratic" and "black box operations" are clearly exaggerations. The student occupation of the Legislative Yuan was clearly an overreaction. Is this not a case of democratic loss of control?
The students are not the ones who must be condemned. Those who must be condemned are the ruling and opposition party politicians sitting on the wall outside. They used the students as pawns. Consider the ruling and opposition party attitudes. President Ma said he "respected the autonomy of the legislature," then passed the buck to the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng pontificated about "protecting the students " and "public safety," then passed the buck back to the executive. DPP legislators furnished the students with weapons and provisions. They helped them prepare for a protracted battle. The Green Camp princes chuckled as they used these students as cannon fodder. They were only too happy to reap the windfall. Are any of these people treating student discontent seriously?
The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
國會失守，議長和朝野立委不可袖手旁觀
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.21 03:49 am
「反服貿」學生「占領立法院」行動持續進行，院外和各地的聲援也在擴大。在外界看來，值得擔心的倒不是此一行動會演成失控，而是有沒有辦法找到讓此事和平落幕的途徑。就這點而言，目前在場外作壁上觀的王金平院長和朝野立委，有必要重新進行協商，把國會議事權從學生手中討回來。
觀察這兩天學生的抗爭，多半能維持基本的秩序，這和一般政黨動員的社會群眾大不相同。但學生運動的問題，往往在容易發動而難以收場；尤其，目前的占領議場的五百多名學生分別來自不同學校及不同社團，儘管現場有數名領導者，但很難說這數百人對示威目標都具有共識；這兩天他們忽而提出三訴求，忽而又改成四訴求，可以看出參與者的舉棋不定。
此事引起國際矚目，主因有二：其一，是學生們攻占的是代表民主國家「國會主權」的議事殿堂，這不僅是台灣首見，在其他國家也極少見。最近一次例子，是今年二月烏克蘭國會在示威中遭到武裝分子占領；但烏克蘭無論社會的穩定度或民主的成熟度，都難與台灣相提並論。
其二，事件的導火線是朝野去年協商時決定「逐條審查、逐條表決兩岸服貿協議」，民進黨在過程中不斷刻意拖延，國民黨則在全院聯席會發動突襲將服貿送出委員會，引爆「反服貿」民眾的怒火。若此事無法妥善解決，未來台灣與任何其他國家洽簽協議或加入區域經濟組織，都將受到此一事件的影響而難有進展。
毫無疑問，學生占領立法院就像一面鏡子，一面反映的是「政府的失能」，另一面反射的則是「民主的失控」。立法院是「國家主權」象徵，代表最高民意，但台灣近年來頻頻透過「密室協商」解決問題，法案審理始終充滿杯葛、拖延和交易，民主政治應有的多數統治、大眾諮商功能則蕩然無存。許多法案到了立法院，就如同進入無底洞，從此不見天日；而行政部門唯恐得罪立院，多半敢怒不敢言。這確實是政府的失能。
以服貿協議為例，早在去年六月即已送進立院，拖了整整九個月，才排進委員會審查；不管是支持或反對，這真的有把服貿當回事嗎？事實上，朝野對「實質審查」根本毫無興趣，民進黨排案只為了杯葛，國民黨排案只為了早日交差了事，兩黨把議場當成鬥獸場、馬戲團。在這種情況下，服貿案趁亂送出委員會，是可以預期的結果。
儘管如此，這也不表示學生占領立院是理直氣壯。民主國家經由定期選舉產生立委，國會凜然不可侵犯，不是因個別立委如何了得，而是因為這個機構代表人民行使主權，國會象徵的就是民意。除非國會「以民主埋葬民主」，做出違法修改民主體制的決定，否則群眾強行進入國會占領議場，就是羞辱國家、羞辱民主的失格舉動。試問：如果五百八十六萬張選票選出的六十多席國民黨立委沒有代表性，那麼，區區五百名學生的代表性又在哪裡？
此次服貿協議的內容或許無法讓所有人感到認同，案件審議的程序也有瑕疵，但「反服貿」畢竟只是各種不同主張中的一種，並非超乎其他主張。更何況，服貿協議只是「送出委員會」，尚未定案，也並未上路，要指誰「反民主」、「黑箱」，顯然言過其實。反對學生透過「占領立法院」來宣揚自己的主張，違反了比例原則，這難道不是民主的失控？
但應該譴責的不是學生，而是在那裡作壁上觀的朝野政治人物，因為他們把學生當成棋子。且看朝野各方的姿態，馬總統聲稱「尊重國會自主」，把問題推給國會；王金平高談「保護學生」、「社會治安問題」，再把問題丟回行政部門。而民進黨立委則全力為學生提供軍火和糧草，幫他們作長期抗戰之準備，天王們則輕鬆笑看學生充當綠軍的馬前卒，樂得坐收漁利。這些人有認真看待學生的不滿嗎？
如果朝野立委還有一點責任意識，他們應該為國會的淪陷感到羞愧；如果王金平覺得議長職務還有一點尊嚴可期，他應該立即召集朝野立委重新協商，讓服貿重新回到審議的軌道。丟掉立法院的不是警察，而是這些失職立委，他們有責任把議場從學生手中要回來。
Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
Full text below:
Students opposed to the "Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" continue to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Outside, expressions of support are growing louder. Viewed from without, the fear is not that the situation will get out of control. The fear is that no peaceful resolution will be found. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying and ruling and opposition party legislators are sitting on the walls outside the legislature. They must resume negotiations. They must regain control of the legislature from the students.
The students have been protesting for two days. For the most part, they have been orderly. This is the biggest difference between them and most political party and social movement protests. The problem with the student movement is that it is easy to start but difficult to stop. Especially since the 500 or so students currently occupying the legislature belong to different schools and come from different regions. Several leaders are on the scene. But it is difficult to say whether these hundreds of demonstrators share the same goals. Over the past two days they issued three demands, which abruptly turned into four demands. As we can see, the participants are indecisive.
The incident has attracted international notice. There are two reasons for this. One. The halls that the students have occupied represent the sovereign authority of a democratic legislature. This is a first for the ROC. It is also rare in other nations. A recent example is the occupation of the Ukrainian Parliament in February by protesting militants. But Ukranian society and democracy are not as mature and stable as the ROC's.
Two. The proximate cause was last year's decision by the ruling and opposition parties to conduct a line item review and line item vote on the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. During the process, the DPP deliberate dragged its feet. During the Joint Legislative Committee Meeting, the KMT sent the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services to committee. This provoked public anti-agreement sentiment. This must be properly resolved. Otherwise future agreements with other nations or regional economic organizations will be affected by this incident and progress will be difficult.
The student occupation of the legislature held up a mirror. One side reflected government dereliction. The other side reflected democratic loss of control. The Legislative Yuan is the symbol of the nation's sovereignty. It is the highest representative of the public will. But in recent years, it has often solved problems through backroom deals. Legislative review is invariably plagued by obstructionism, foot-dragging, and deal-making. Majority rule and public consultation under democracy are no more. Bills that reach the Legislative Yuan fall into an black hole, never to see the light of day. The executive branch is afraid of offending the Legislative Yuan. Most of the time it stews in its own juices. This truly is government dereliction.
Consider the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. It was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in June last year. There it sat for a full nine months before being submitted for committee review. One may support the bill or oppose it. But is this any way to treat such a serious matter? In fact, the ruling and opposition parties had no interest whatsoever in substantive review. The DPP scheduled the review only so that it could filibuster it. The KMT scheduled the review only so it could get it out of the way. The two parties turned the legislature into the colosseum or circus. Under the circumstances, the consequences of submitting the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services for committee review were totally forseeable.
That of course does not mean the students had a right to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Democracies generate legislators through periodic elections. The legislature is inviolable. Not because individual legislators are inviolable, but because the legislature is a body that exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people. The legislature symbolizes the will of the people. Unless the legislature uses democracy to destroy democracy, and illegally alters its democratic institutions, then forcing one's way into the legislature and occupying it shames the nation and shames democracy. Are 5.86 million votes that elected over 60 KMT legislators unrepresentative? If they are not, then how representative are 500 students?
Not everyone agrees with the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The review process may have been flawed. But opposition to the agreement is merely one of many dissenting views, with no greater validity than any other. Furthermore, the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services has only been submitted for committee review. It has yet to be finalized. It has yet to get on track. Allegations of "anti-democratic" and "black box operations" are clearly exaggerations. The student occupation of the Legislative Yuan was clearly an overreaction. Is this not a case of democratic loss of control?
The students are not the ones who must be condemned. Those who must be condemned are the ruling and opposition party politicians sitting on the wall outside. They used the students as pawns. Consider the ruling and opposition party attitudes. President Ma said he "respected the autonomy of the legislature," then passed the buck to the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng pontificated about "protecting the students " and "public safety," then passed the buck back to the executive. DPP legislators furnished the students with weapons and provisions. They helped them prepare for a protracted battle. The Green Camp princes chuckled as they used these students as cannon fodder. They were only too happy to reap the windfall. Are any of these people treating student discontent seriously?
The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
國會失守，議長和朝野立委不可袖手旁觀
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.21 03:49 am
「反服貿」學生「占領立法院」行動持續進行，院外和各地的聲援也在擴大。在外界看來，值得擔心的倒不是此一行動會演成失控，而是有沒有辦法找到讓此事和平落幕的途徑。就這點而言，目前在場外作壁上觀的王金平院長和朝野立委，有必要重新進行協商，把國會議事權從學生手中討回來。
觀察這兩天學生的抗爭，多半能維持基本的秩序，這和一般政黨動員的社會群眾大不相同。但學生運動的問題，往往在容易發動而難以收場；尤其，目前的占領議場的五百多名學生分別來自不同學校及不同社團，儘管現場有數名領導者，但很難說這數百人對示威目標都具有共識；這兩天他們忽而提出三訴求，忽而又改成四訴求，可以看出參與者的舉棋不定。
此事引起國際矚目，主因有二：其一，是學生們攻占的是代表民主國家「國會主權」的議事殿堂，這不僅是台灣首見，在其他國家也極少見。最近一次例子，是今年二月烏克蘭國會在示威中遭到武裝分子占領；但烏克蘭無論社會的穩定度或民主的成熟度，都難與台灣相提並論。
其二，事件的導火線是朝野去年協商時決定「逐條審查、逐條表決兩岸服貿協議」，民進黨在過程中不斷刻意拖延，國民黨則在全院聯席會發動突襲將服貿送出委員會，引爆「反服貿」民眾的怒火。若此事無法妥善解決，未來台灣與任何其他國家洽簽協議或加入區域經濟組織，都將受到此一事件的影響而難有進展。
毫無疑問，學生占領立法院就像一面鏡子，一面反映的是「政府的失能」，另一面反射的則是「民主的失控」。立法院是「國家主權」象徵，代表最高民意，但台灣近年來頻頻透過「密室協商」解決問題，法案審理始終充滿杯葛、拖延和交易，民主政治應有的多數統治、大眾諮商功能則蕩然無存。許多法案到了立法院，就如同進入無底洞，從此不見天日；而行政部門唯恐得罪立院，多半敢怒不敢言。這確實是政府的失能。
以服貿協議為例，早在去年六月即已送進立院，拖了整整九個月，才排進委員會審查；不管是支持或反對，這真的有把服貿當回事嗎？事實上，朝野對「實質審查」根本毫無興趣，民進黨排案只為了杯葛，國民黨排案只為了早日交差了事，兩黨把議場當成鬥獸場、馬戲團。在這種情況下，服貿案趁亂送出委員會，是可以預期的結果。
儘管如此，這也不表示學生占領立院是理直氣壯。民主國家經由定期選舉產生立委，國會凜然不可侵犯，不是因個別立委如何了得，而是因為這個機構代表人民行使主權，國會象徵的就是民意。除非國會「以民主埋葬民主」，做出違法修改民主體制的決定，否則群眾強行進入國會占領議場，就是羞辱國家、羞辱民主的失格舉動。試問：如果五百八十六萬張選票選出的六十多席國民黨立委沒有代表性，那麼，區區五百名學生的代表性又在哪裡？
此次服貿協議的內容或許無法讓所有人感到認同，案件審議的程序也有瑕疵，但「反服貿」畢竟只是各種不同主張中的一種，並非超乎其他主張。更何況，服貿協議只是「送出委員會」，尚未定案，也並未上路，要指誰「反民主」、「黑箱」，顯然言過其實。反對學生透過「占領立法院」來宣揚自己的主張，違反了比例原則，這難道不是民主的失控？
但應該譴責的不是學生，而是在那裡作壁上觀的朝野政治人物，因為他們把學生當成棋子。且看朝野各方的姿態，馬總統聲稱「尊重國會自主」，把問題推給國會；王金平高談「保護學生」、「社會治安問題」，再把問題丟回行政部門。而民進黨立委則全力為學生提供軍火和糧草，幫他們作長期抗戰之準備，天王們則輕鬆笑看學生充當綠軍的馬前卒，樂得坐收漁利。這些人有認真看待學生的不滿嗎？
如果朝野立委還有一點責任意識，他們應該為國會的淪陷感到羞愧；如果王金平覺得議長職務還有一點尊嚴可期，他應該立即召集朝野立委重新協商，讓服貿重新回到審議的軌道。丟掉立法院的不是警察，而是這些失職立委，他們有責任把議場從學生手中要回來。
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Democracy's Shame
Democracy's Shame
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 20, 2014
Summary: The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy.
Full text below:
The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups gathered outside the Legislative Yuan last night. They objected to the submission of the "Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services" to the Legislative Yuan for review. The protestors consisted mainly of students. They stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. They held a press conference and made three demands. They demanded that police immediately withdraw from the legislature, that President Ma Ying-jeou apologize, and that Premier Chiang Yi-hua step down and reject the cross-strait agreement in trade in services. Let us be blunt. If the administration bends to their will, the ROC government may as well close shop.
We are deeply disappointed. Political competition on Taiwan may be fierce. But we do have a clear consensus. We are a democracy under the rule of law, When we hold any election, pass any bill, we must follow proper procedure. We have a democratically elected government. This government has a mandate from a majority of the voters. It is responsible to the overwhelming majority of the people and their interests, as expressed in the proposed bill. The bill was passed by a democratically-elected legislature, in accordance with due process. We are proud of our democracy. it operates according to these rules. We do not believe there is an alternative.
Unfortunately, the laws of democracy were violated late at night, on the day before yesterday. A mob established a "front." Its members gathered before the legislature. They injured policemen attempting to maintain order. They occupied the legislative hall. They forced the legislature to change its schedule. They demanded that the premier step down. They demanded that the president apologize. If the premier and president failed to comply, they threatened to continue their occupation until their demands were met.
Who are these people? Who gave them the power to tell an elected legislature how to legislate? Who gave them the power to flagrantly occupy the hallowed halls of the legislature, and order the police out? The premier is answerable only to the democratically elected legislature. Who gave them the power to demand that he step down? Who gave them the power to demand that an elected president apologize? Today's Taiwan is proud of its democracy. If the mob is permitted to get away with this behavior, why bother to hold elections? Why should we respect the democratic legislative process? After all, if one can muster a hundred or so people, one can occupy the halls of the legislature, and demand to be heard. Others will have no choice but to listen. Simple, right? But the democracy we strived for so many years to achieve will be destroyed in such a manner.
The cross strait agreement in trade and services can be debated. It has already undergone lengthy debate. The pros and cons and relevant factors have all been discussed. Everything that can be discussed, has been discussed, Everything that can be evaluated, has been evaluated. How can industries that benefit increase their competitiveness? How can industries that might be harmed minimize the harm? Everything that can be thought of, has been thought of. Furthermore, opinion polls show that most people support the cross strait agreement in trade in services. President Ma was democratically elected by a majority of voters. So was the ruling party in the legislature. They reflect majority opinion on Taiwan. They support the cross strait agreement on trade in services bill. The bill reflects the will of the majority. If opposition parties have different views, they may express them, then seek to rule after the next election. But they may not engage in irrational obstructionism. They may not incite students to occupy the halls of the legislature. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened on Taiwan.
We sternly condemn the DPP. You are heading step by step in the direction you once opposed. You want to steer the ship of nation. You are welcome to do so. But you must first win majority support. If some day win a majority, then of course you may review the merits of the cross strait agreement in trade in services. But today you are in the opposition. Please respect the rules of the game. Is all you know how to occupy the podium? Is all you know how to engage in technical obstructionism? Are you afraid to state aloud your objections? Your approach demeans democratic values. It is populist demagoguery. Suppose one day you become the ruling party? Surely you don't expect the KMT to pay you back in kind, by engaging in obstructionism to the bitter end?
Your behavior behind the scenes is even more immoral. You encourage students to stand on the front lines. You encourgage them to engage in anti-democratic behavior, to irrationally trample on the dignity of the legislature, to assault law enforcement officers, and to humiliate heads of state and the premier. Worse still, you let the entire world to watch as young students on Taiwan failed the literacy test on democracy, and undermined democracy. You harmed these young students. You urged these youth to engage in violence and subvert the democratic process, This crime is one for which you cannot escape responsibility .
We appeal to the students occupying the halls of the legislature. Your behavior is not an expression of democracy, but the undermining of democracy. The bill is a solemn legal matter. It is not something you can get your way on by occupying the halls of the legislature and demanding whatever you want. Rethink your behavior. Do you wish to oppose the cross strait agreement on trade in services? Then please study the cross strait agreement on trade in services first. Study it carefully. Do not alllow yourself to be manipulated by politicians. Is your purpose merely to pad your resume, to ensure your future in politics? Or are you indifferent to the humiliation of the legislature, the trampling of the legislative process , and the sacrifce of democracy and the rule of law? If you are, we have nothing more to say.
Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy. Speaker of the Legislature Wang must restore the dignity of the legislature. Otherwise democracy will perish. How then can we restore public trust in our democratic ideals?
社論－民主之恥
2014-03-20 01:41
中國時報
本報訊
反黑箱服貿民主陣線等民間團體在立法院外舉辦晚會，抗議《服務貿易協議》送立法院院會存查，以學生為主的抗議民眾在晚間衝進立法院占據議場。昨天更召開記者會提出3訴求，要求警察立即退出國會、總統馬英九道歉，行政院長江宜樺下台及退回《服貿協議》。我們很直接的說，若政府果真接受他們的訴求，那中華民國政府乾脆關門算了！
我們如此沉重，是因為台灣政治競爭雖然激烈，卻有一個明確的共識：我們是一個民主法治的國家，舉辦任何一次選舉、通過任何一項法案，都要依循正當的程序。我們有一個民選政府，這個民選政府受多數選民付託，有責任提出符合最大多數人民利益的法案，再由一個民選的國會依正當程序通過，我們大家所自豪的民主，就是依此規律運作的。相信沒有人會認為，除這之外，我們還可以、或應該依循其它任何模式運作。
很遺憾，民主的規律就在前天深夜被打破了！一群人成立一個所謂的「陣線」，聚眾在國會議場外集會，打傷維持秩序的警察，占領國會議場，強迫國會變動議程，要求閣揆下台，要求總統道歉，若不從，他們將持續抗爭下去，直到依他們的訴求為止！
他們是誰？是誰賦與他們這麼大的權力？可以指揮一個民選的國會如何立法，可以公然占據神聖的國會議場還要喝令警察退出，可以直接要求一位只向民選國會負責的閣揆下台，可以要求一位民選的總統道歉？如果在今天的台灣，這個對民主成就還頗為自豪的國家，可以被允許這樣做，那我們必須要說，咱們還要選舉幹嘛！何必還要尊重民主的立法程序！只要有本事糾集百來個人，直接把議場給占領了，就可以非要你聽我的，不聽都不行，那不是非常簡單嗎？問題是，我們努力了那麼多年所打造的民主工程，可以就這樣毀於一旦嗎！
《服貿協議》不是不能討論，但它早已經歷過非常冗長的討論了，所有的利弊相關因素，能討論的也都討論過了，能評估的也早做評估了，怎麼讓受益的產業進一步擴大競爭力，怎麼讓可能受到影響的產業盡量減少衝擊，能想到的都想到了，更何況若干民調也顯示，多數民意是支持簽訂《服貿協議》。在今天，民選出來的馬總統，是多數選民選出來的，國會的執政黨黨團，所反映的也是台灣的多數民意，它們推動《服貿協議》立法，正是向多數民意負責的表現，在野黨若是有意見，在充分表達不同意見後，爭取下一次選舉獲得執政即可，絕不是非理性的抵制，更不能操縱學生占據議場，很不幸，這一切竟然都在台灣發生了！
我們必須嚴肅的譴責民進黨，你們正在一步步朝向你們曾經反對的方向走！你們想要掌握國家發展的方向盤，誰都歡迎，但請先贏得民意多數，有一天你們若真的贏得了選舉多數，當然可以檢討《服貿協議》的功過，但今天你既然是在野，就請尊重遊戲規則，如果只知占據主席台，只會抵制到底，甚至只敢技術性杯葛《服貿協議》的生效，卻不敢大聲說出反對的理由，這種做法，絕不是對民主價值理念的信守，而是民粹的利用。相信有一天你成了執政黨，總不會期待國民黨一報還一報，凡事都抵制到底吧！
你們更不道德的是，居然自己躲在幕後，鼓動學生去站在第一線，讓他們以非民主、非理性的方式去踐踏國會尊嚴，去傷害執法人員，去羞辱國家的元首與閣揆，更不堪的是還讓全世界目睹台灣青年學子如何以不及格的民主素養，去傷害民主，你們是在殘害青年學生！竟然讓他們在還是青春歲月的年代，以暴力的手段去摧毀民主程序，這個罪行，你們是無從迴避的。
我們也想誠摯的奉勸占據議場的學子們，你們的行為不是在踐履民主，而是在傷害民主，一個嚴肅的法案是有法定程序的，不是聽任你們占據議場後就可以予取予求的，重新省思自己的行為吧！要反對《服貿協議》，請先好好研究《服貿協議》，別再被政客操縱了！但如果你們的目的，只是在累積個人政治資歷，作為未來從政的資本，卻無視於國會被羞辱、立法權被踐踏、民主法治被犧牲，那我們就無言了。
王金平院長堅持議長中立，拒絕動用警察權排除議事障礙，長期縱容民進黨以少數凌駕多數，終於釀成議場淪陷的民主悲劇，王院長必須設法重建立法院的尊嚴，否則民主自己淪喪，民眾對民主理念的信賴又如何維繫呢！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 20, 2014
Summary: The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy.
Full text below:
The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups gathered outside the Legislative Yuan last night. They objected to the submission of the "Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services" to the Legislative Yuan for review. The protestors consisted mainly of students. They stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. They held a press conference and made three demands. They demanded that police immediately withdraw from the legislature, that President Ma Ying-jeou apologize, and that Premier Chiang Yi-hua step down and reject the cross-strait agreement in trade in services. Let us be blunt. If the administration bends to their will, the ROC government may as well close shop.
We are deeply disappointed. Political competition on Taiwan may be fierce. But we do have a clear consensus. We are a democracy under the rule of law, When we hold any election, pass any bill, we must follow proper procedure. We have a democratically elected government. This government has a mandate from a majority of the voters. It is responsible to the overwhelming majority of the people and their interests, as expressed in the proposed bill. The bill was passed by a democratically-elected legislature, in accordance with due process. We are proud of our democracy. it operates according to these rules. We do not believe there is an alternative.
Unfortunately, the laws of democracy were violated late at night, on the day before yesterday. A mob established a "front." Its members gathered before the legislature. They injured policemen attempting to maintain order. They occupied the legislative hall. They forced the legislature to change its schedule. They demanded that the premier step down. They demanded that the president apologize. If the premier and president failed to comply, they threatened to continue their occupation until their demands were met.
Who are these people? Who gave them the power to tell an elected legislature how to legislate? Who gave them the power to flagrantly occupy the hallowed halls of the legislature, and order the police out? The premier is answerable only to the democratically elected legislature. Who gave them the power to demand that he step down? Who gave them the power to demand that an elected president apologize? Today's Taiwan is proud of its democracy. If the mob is permitted to get away with this behavior, why bother to hold elections? Why should we respect the democratic legislative process? After all, if one can muster a hundred or so people, one can occupy the halls of the legislature, and demand to be heard. Others will have no choice but to listen. Simple, right? But the democracy we strived for so many years to achieve will be destroyed in such a manner.
The cross strait agreement in trade and services can be debated. It has already undergone lengthy debate. The pros and cons and relevant factors have all been discussed. Everything that can be discussed, has been discussed, Everything that can be evaluated, has been evaluated. How can industries that benefit increase their competitiveness? How can industries that might be harmed minimize the harm? Everything that can be thought of, has been thought of. Furthermore, opinion polls show that most people support the cross strait agreement in trade in services. President Ma was democratically elected by a majority of voters. So was the ruling party in the legislature. They reflect majority opinion on Taiwan. They support the cross strait agreement on trade in services bill. The bill reflects the will of the majority. If opposition parties have different views, they may express them, then seek to rule after the next election. But they may not engage in irrational obstructionism. They may not incite students to occupy the halls of the legislature. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened on Taiwan.
We sternly condemn the DPP. You are heading step by step in the direction you once opposed. You want to steer the ship of nation. You are welcome to do so. But you must first win majority support. If some day win a majority, then of course you may review the merits of the cross strait agreement in trade in services. But today you are in the opposition. Please respect the rules of the game. Is all you know how to occupy the podium? Is all you know how to engage in technical obstructionism? Are you afraid to state aloud your objections? Your approach demeans democratic values. It is populist demagoguery. Suppose one day you become the ruling party? Surely you don't expect the KMT to pay you back in kind, by engaging in obstructionism to the bitter end?
Your behavior behind the scenes is even more immoral. You encourage students to stand on the front lines. You encourgage them to engage in anti-democratic behavior, to irrationally trample on the dignity of the legislature, to assault law enforcement officers, and to humiliate heads of state and the premier. Worse still, you let the entire world to watch as young students on Taiwan failed the literacy test on democracy, and undermined democracy. You harmed these young students. You urged these youth to engage in violence and subvert the democratic process, This crime is one for which you cannot escape responsibility .
We appeal to the students occupying the halls of the legislature. Your behavior is not an expression of democracy, but the undermining of democracy. The bill is a solemn legal matter. It is not something you can get your way on by occupying the halls of the legislature and demanding whatever you want. Rethink your behavior. Do you wish to oppose the cross strait agreement on trade in services? Then please study the cross strait agreement on trade in services first. Study it carefully. Do not alllow yourself to be manipulated by politicians. Is your purpose merely to pad your resume, to ensure your future in politics? Or are you indifferent to the humiliation of the legislature, the trampling of the legislative process , and the sacrifce of democracy and the rule of law? If you are, we have nothing more to say.
Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy. Speaker of the Legislature Wang must restore the dignity of the legislature. Otherwise democracy will perish. How then can we restore public trust in our democratic ideals?
社論－民主之恥
2014-03-20 01:41
中國時報
本報訊
反黑箱服貿民主陣線等民間團體在立法院外舉辦晚會，抗議《服務貿易協議》送立法院院會存查，以學生為主的抗議民眾在晚間衝進立法院占據議場。昨天更召開記者會提出3訴求，要求警察立即退出國會、總統馬英九道歉，行政院長江宜樺下台及退回《服貿協議》。我們很直接的說，若政府果真接受他們的訴求，那中華民國政府乾脆關門算了！
我們如此沉重，是因為台灣政治競爭雖然激烈，卻有一個明確的共識：我們是一個民主法治的國家，舉辦任何一次選舉、通過任何一項法案，都要依循正當的程序。我們有一個民選政府，這個民選政府受多數選民付託，有責任提出符合最大多數人民利益的法案，再由一個民選的國會依正當程序通過，我們大家所自豪的民主，就是依此規律運作的。相信沒有人會認為，除這之外，我們還可以、或應該依循其它任何模式運作。
很遺憾，民主的規律就在前天深夜被打破了！一群人成立一個所謂的「陣線」，聚眾在國會議場外集會，打傷維持秩序的警察，占領國會議場，強迫國會變動議程，要求閣揆下台，要求總統道歉，若不從，他們將持續抗爭下去，直到依他們的訴求為止！
他們是誰？是誰賦與他們這麼大的權力？可以指揮一個民選的國會如何立法，可以公然占據神聖的國會議場還要喝令警察退出，可以直接要求一位只向民選國會負責的閣揆下台，可以要求一位民選的總統道歉？如果在今天的台灣，這個對民主成就還頗為自豪的國家，可以被允許這樣做，那我們必須要說，咱們還要選舉幹嘛！何必還要尊重民主的立法程序！只要有本事糾集百來個人，直接把議場給占領了，就可以非要你聽我的，不聽都不行，那不是非常簡單嗎？問題是，我們努力了那麼多年所打造的民主工程，可以就這樣毀於一旦嗎！
《服貿協議》不是不能討論，但它早已經歷過非常冗長的討論了，所有的利弊相關因素，能討論的也都討論過了，能評估的也早做評估了，怎麼讓受益的產業進一步擴大競爭力，怎麼讓可能受到影響的產業盡量減少衝擊，能想到的都想到了，更何況若干民調也顯示，多數民意是支持簽訂《服貿協議》。在今天，民選出來的馬總統，是多數選民選出來的，國會的執政黨黨團，所反映的也是台灣的多數民意，它們推動《服貿協議》立法，正是向多數民意負責的表現，在野黨若是有意見，在充分表達不同意見後，爭取下一次選舉獲得執政即可，絕不是非理性的抵制，更不能操縱學生占據議場，很不幸，這一切竟然都在台灣發生了！
我們必須嚴肅的譴責民進黨，你們正在一步步朝向你們曾經反對的方向走！你們想要掌握國家發展的方向盤，誰都歡迎，但請先贏得民意多數，有一天你們若真的贏得了選舉多數，當然可以檢討《服貿協議》的功過，但今天你既然是在野，就請尊重遊戲規則，如果只知占據主席台，只會抵制到底，甚至只敢技術性杯葛《服貿協議》的生效，卻不敢大聲說出反對的理由，這種做法，絕不是對民主價值理念的信守，而是民粹的利用。相信有一天你成了執政黨，總不會期待國民黨一報還一報，凡事都抵制到底吧！
你們更不道德的是，居然自己躲在幕後，鼓動學生去站在第一線，讓他們以非民主、非理性的方式去踐踏國會尊嚴，去傷害執法人員，去羞辱國家的元首與閣揆，更不堪的是還讓全世界目睹台灣青年學子如何以不及格的民主素養，去傷害民主，你們是在殘害青年學生！竟然讓他們在還是青春歲月的年代，以暴力的手段去摧毀民主程序，這個罪行，你們是無從迴避的。
我們也想誠摯的奉勸占據議場的學子們，你們的行為不是在踐履民主，而是在傷害民主，一個嚴肅的法案是有法定程序的，不是聽任你們占據議場後就可以予取予求的，重新省思自己的行為吧！要反對《服貿協議》，請先好好研究《服貿協議》，別再被政客操縱了！但如果你們的目的，只是在累積個人政治資歷，作為未來從政的資本，卻無視於國會被羞辱、立法權被踐踏、民主法治被犧牲，那我們就無言了。
王金平院長堅持議長中立，拒絕動用警察權排除議事障礙，長期縱容民進黨以少數凌駕多數，終於釀成議場淪陷的民主悲劇，王院長必須設法重建立法院的尊嚴，否則民主自己淪喪，民眾對民主理念的信賴又如何維繫呢！
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Campaign Promises: Vote Buying, or Public Welfare?
Campaign Promises: Vote Buying, or Public Welfare?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 19, 2014
Summary: The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
Full text below:
The Ministry of the Interior invited the business community and local governments to discuss legal holidays. They decided that when a national holiday lands on a two day weekend, employees will receive compensatory leave. Next year will have 115 non-working days. This was in response to an earlier declaration by Premier Chiang Yi-hua, who wanted to increase the number of holidays so that people could enjoy a "small but real benefit."
In fact, everyone knows this is a charade. It is simply a Blue Camp post-Chinese New Year election ploy in the upcoming local election campaigns. Take for example, the Chinese New Year. New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu said people want pay raises, but giving them pay raises is hard. Instead, if the government allows people to have more days off, it will stimulate consumption and make people felt better. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu then announced that the Taichung City Council proposed making the traditional Hakka Festival a legal holiday. If the bill is passed, it will be submitted to the Executive Yuan. Taipei mayoral candidate Lien Sheng-wen let it be known that if elected he would restore Constitution Day, making December 25 a holiday. This would increase tourism and create economic value. Faced with such artificial presssures, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said the government must view these "small hut real benefits" through the peoples' eyes. He wanted to study the possiblity of changing the legal holidays next year.
A gaggle of politicians have spoken up just in order to have more days off, Premier Chiang Yi-hua in particular. He even adopted the younger generation's vernacular, and used the expression "small but real benefits." As we can see, the political elites are eager to pander to the public. Eric Chu was the most direct. Since they cannot get raises, they may as well get more holidays. After all, when it comes to holidays, who besides the business owner or employer is going to disagree? Administratively speaking approving extra days off is not that complicated. The ruling and opposition parties are accustomed to competing to see who can legislate the most holidays. This would never lead to all out war, such as that over the trade in services agreement. As anyone can see, most of the politicians who have spoken out in favor of more holidays are candidates in county chief and city mayor elections. Their mouths are full of talk about holidays. But their heads are full of thoughts of votes.
Everyone is of course happy to take more holidays. But anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no such thing as "more holidays for economic revitalization." Otherwise, why not simply implement a three day weekend? Then Taiwan's economy would really take-off, right? A few years ago the IT industry was hit by the global financial crisis. This brought upon economic winter and severe recession. Technology and electronics manufacturers resorted to "unpaid leave." No employees rejoiced at the extra days off. They worried that their jobs were no longer secure. They were less likely to take advantage of the opportunity to go shopping. Their income was no longer assured, so why would they want to spend? What's more, the productivity loss must be borne by the employer. Manufacturers may suffer lowered productivity and refuse to increase pay. The price of the vicious cycle will ultimately be borne by the public.
This wave of controversy, motivated by year end campaign considerations, is nothing new. During the previous five cities elections, Taichung mayoral candidate Su Chia-chuan declared that, if elected, he would increase welfare payments to the elderly, from 1,600 NT to 2,000 NT. Other welfare benefits for the elderly would also be provided. They would be comparable to with those provided by Taipei and Kaohsiung. Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang was even more magnanimous. He proposed distributing prepaid garbage bags to the public, for free.
Political candidates compete in using public funds to engage in vote buying. Some scholars are disgusted. They have cited Bureau of Audit statistics. They have cited the outstanding balances in central government public debt for the past year, This increased from 2.6490 trillion NT in late 2001 to 4.2962 trillion NT. Fortunately the candidates who promised the stars were not elected. That spared the treasury from accelerated bankruptcy. But bipartisan vote buying is long-term policy. The government's fiscal balance has deteriorated, By the late January, outstanding balances on central government debt were 5.4618 trillion NT. Next year we are is likely to hit the government debt ceiling.
Every election year, all manner of improvised, short-sighted electioneering tricks emerge. In the past, it was common to use welfare checks as bait. Most common were a variety of annuities. After all, the local governments can make these promises ahead of time, and later blackmail the central government into footing the bill. If they don't succeed, they can provoke other disputes. Election promises have recently created in a new precedent. Council members in six Changhua townships fulfilled campaign promises by privately connecting street lamps without paying for the electricity. Taipower sought payment from the Township Office. But the township administration refused to pay. Taipower sued and won. But the Township Office insists it has no money to pay its electricity bills. The result is six townships will now have a bunch of unlit street lights.
Several major bills are pending in the Legislative Yuan. Most commentators are pessimistic about them passing because this is an election year. Each time an election rolls around, everyones' thinking becomes distorted. The ruling and opposition parties compete in short-sighted pandering to the public. For example, they compete in issuing a variety of annuities. Which beneficiary is going to object? A few extra days off? Who doesn't love that? Will it undermine the government's finances? Will it affect national productivity? Who cares?
The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
社論－選舉支票競相加碼非全民之福
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月19日 04:10
內政部邀集工商界及縣市政府討論放假方式，決定未來國定假日碰到周休2日一律補假，明年全年放假天數將達到115天。這是為回應行政院長江宜樺早先的宣示，要增加放假天數讓民眾感受「小確幸」。
其實誰都清楚，這齣加假戲碼，根本是為春節以來藍營民選首長的政治加碼秀解套。先是在農曆年前，新北市長朱立倫表示，民眾想加薪比較難，政府應讓大家多放點假，以刺激消費，也讓民眾心裡好過些；接著台中市長胡志強指台中議會正爭取在客家傳統節日「天穿日」放假一天，若通過便向行政院申請。然後台北市市長參選人連勝文也放話，若當選會恢復12月25日的「行憲紀念日」放假，以創造觀光與經濟價值。面對這股加假壓力，行政院長江宜樺才表示，應站在民眾角度創造「小確幸」，要求針對明年休假方案加以研擬修正。
不過就是為了多放幾天假，竟惹得一堆政治人物搶著表態，尤其閣揆江宜樺，連新世代的流行語言「小確幸」都搬出來了！可見得為了討好民意，政治精英們可是卯足了勁。特別是朱立倫的說法最直接，既然加不了薪，就加假嘛！畢竟談到放假，除了企業主或雇主之外，有誰會反對？ 在行政作業上，核定多放幾天假一點都不複雜，朝野政黨習慣競相加碼，不可能鬧到像審議《服貿》般全面開戰。任誰都看得出來，這一波衝著放假表態的政治人物，絕大多數都是現任民選縣市長或是爭取提名的候選人，他們口中講要多放假，心中想的，不折不扣是選票！
多放假大家當然都高興，但大概任何懂點經濟學的人都清楚，根本沒有所謂「放假拚經濟」這回事，否則乾脆推行周休3日，台灣經濟不就騰飛了？前幾年科技業遭逢全球性金融海嘯帶來的景氣寒冬，業績成長出現嚴重衰退，科技電子大廠紛紛祭出「無薪假」，那時可沒有任何員工喜形於色，為多放幾天假歡欣鼓舞，反而擔心飯碗可能不保，更不可能還有人利用放假機會出門消費，收入都不保了，誰還想消費呢？更何況，多放假所造成的生產力損失，全要由雇主承擔，還可能導致廠商以生產力降低為由拒絕加薪，惡性循環最終還是要全民承擔！
這一波為年底選票考量所惹出的話題，並不陌生。上一次五都選舉，競逐大台中市長的蘇嘉全宣布如果他當選，將把重陽敬老金從1600元提高至2000元，其他老人福利也比照北、高發放。當時參選台北市長的蘇貞昌手筆更大，主張垃圾袋免費發放市民。
候選人競相推出「公款買票」政見，有些學者看不下去，搬出審計部統計數據，指中央政府一年以上公共債務未償餘額，從民國90年底的2兆6409億元逐年增加，已達4兆2962億元。所幸濫開選舉支票的候選人均未當選，才避免了國庫加速破產的命運。但在兩黨長期政策買票趨勢下，政府財政收支惡化問題愈演愈烈，今年一月底，中央政府債務未償餘額計5兆4618億元，明年很可能就觸及政府舉債上限。
每逢選舉年，所有即興式、短線式的政見就會跑出來！過去多半以福利支票做誘餌，最常見的就是加發各種年金，反正地方政府先開支票，屆時再強要中央埋單，若是埋單不成還會引發其它爭議。選舉支票引發的最新惡劣案例，就是彰化6鄉鎮部分議員，為履行選舉政見而私接許多的路燈，卻不繳電費，台電追繳電費，要鄉公所負責，但鄉公所不埋單，台電提告雖然贏了一審官司，鄉公所卻堅持沒有錢繳電費，結果就是6個鄉鎮多了一堆不會亮的幽靈路燈。
目前有一些重大法案正在立法院候審，多數評論者對能否順利通過持悲觀態度，因為今年是選舉年，只要逢到了選舉，所有的思考都會受到扭曲。反而能在短時間內討好民眾的政策會被提出來，朝野還競相加碼，譬如加發各種年金。能得到政策好處的人，誰會反對？多放幾天假，誰不喜歡？至於是否會破壞政府財政，是否影響國家生產力，誰會在乎？
距離年底選舉還有大半年，我們擔心增加放假的話題，還只是熱身，接下來還會有更驚人的選舉支票出現，朝野再度競相加碼賄賂選民。但台灣的整體競爭力、國家的財政負擔，經不經得起折騰，我們真的不樂觀。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 19, 2014
Summary: The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
Full text below:
The Ministry of the Interior invited the business community and local governments to discuss legal holidays. They decided that when a national holiday lands on a two day weekend, employees will receive compensatory leave. Next year will have 115 non-working days. This was in response to an earlier declaration by Premier Chiang Yi-hua, who wanted to increase the number of holidays so that people could enjoy a "small but real benefit."
In fact, everyone knows this is a charade. It is simply a Blue Camp post-Chinese New Year election ploy in the upcoming local election campaigns. Take for example, the Chinese New Year. New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu said people want pay raises, but giving them pay raises is hard. Instead, if the government allows people to have more days off, it will stimulate consumption and make people felt better. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu then announced that the Taichung City Council proposed making the traditional Hakka Festival a legal holiday. If the bill is passed, it will be submitted to the Executive Yuan. Taipei mayoral candidate Lien Sheng-wen let it be known that if elected he would restore Constitution Day, making December 25 a holiday. This would increase tourism and create economic value. Faced with such artificial presssures, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said the government must view these "small hut real benefits" through the peoples' eyes. He wanted to study the possiblity of changing the legal holidays next year.
A gaggle of politicians have spoken up just in order to have more days off, Premier Chiang Yi-hua in particular. He even adopted the younger generation's vernacular, and used the expression "small but real benefits." As we can see, the political elites are eager to pander to the public. Eric Chu was the most direct. Since they cannot get raises, they may as well get more holidays. After all, when it comes to holidays, who besides the business owner or employer is going to disagree? Administratively speaking approving extra days off is not that complicated. The ruling and opposition parties are accustomed to competing to see who can legislate the most holidays. This would never lead to all out war, such as that over the trade in services agreement. As anyone can see, most of the politicians who have spoken out in favor of more holidays are candidates in county chief and city mayor elections. Their mouths are full of talk about holidays. But their heads are full of thoughts of votes.
Everyone is of course happy to take more holidays. But anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no such thing as "more holidays for economic revitalization." Otherwise, why not simply implement a three day weekend? Then Taiwan's economy would really take-off, right? A few years ago the IT industry was hit by the global financial crisis. This brought upon economic winter and severe recession. Technology and electronics manufacturers resorted to "unpaid leave." No employees rejoiced at the extra days off. They worried that their jobs were no longer secure. They were less likely to take advantage of the opportunity to go shopping. Their income was no longer assured, so why would they want to spend? What's more, the productivity loss must be borne by the employer. Manufacturers may suffer lowered productivity and refuse to increase pay. The price of the vicious cycle will ultimately be borne by the public.
This wave of controversy, motivated by year end campaign considerations, is nothing new. During the previous five cities elections, Taichung mayoral candidate Su Chia-chuan declared that, if elected, he would increase welfare payments to the elderly, from 1,600 NT to 2,000 NT. Other welfare benefits for the elderly would also be provided. They would be comparable to with those provided by Taipei and Kaohsiung. Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang was even more magnanimous. He proposed distributing prepaid garbage bags to the public, for free.
Political candidates compete in using public funds to engage in vote buying. Some scholars are disgusted. They have cited Bureau of Audit statistics. They have cited the outstanding balances in central government public debt for the past year, This increased from 2.6490 trillion NT in late 2001 to 4.2962 trillion NT. Fortunately the candidates who promised the stars were not elected. That spared the treasury from accelerated bankruptcy. But bipartisan vote buying is long-term policy. The government's fiscal balance has deteriorated, By the late January, outstanding balances on central government debt were 5.4618 trillion NT. Next year we are is likely to hit the government debt ceiling.
Every election year, all manner of improvised, short-sighted electioneering tricks emerge. In the past, it was common to use welfare checks as bait. Most common were a variety of annuities. After all, the local governments can make these promises ahead of time, and later blackmail the central government into footing the bill. If they don't succeed, they can provoke other disputes. Election promises have recently created in a new precedent. Council members in six Changhua townships fulfilled campaign promises by privately connecting street lamps without paying for the electricity. Taipower sought payment from the Township Office. But the township administration refused to pay. Taipower sued and won. But the Township Office insists it has no money to pay its electricity bills. The result is six townships will now have a bunch of unlit street lights.
Several major bills are pending in the Legislative Yuan. Most commentators are pessimistic about them passing because this is an election year. Each time an election rolls around, everyones' thinking becomes distorted. The ruling and opposition parties compete in short-sighted pandering to the public. For example, they compete in issuing a variety of annuities. Which beneficiary is going to object? A few extra days off? Who doesn't love that? Will it undermine the government's finances? Will it affect national productivity? Who cares?
The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
社論－選舉支票競相加碼非全民之福
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月19日 04:10
內政部邀集工商界及縣市政府討論放假方式，決定未來國定假日碰到周休2日一律補假，明年全年放假天數將達到115天。這是為回應行政院長江宜樺早先的宣示，要增加放假天數讓民眾感受「小確幸」。
其實誰都清楚，這齣加假戲碼，根本是為春節以來藍營民選首長的政治加碼秀解套。先是在農曆年前，新北市長朱立倫表示，民眾想加薪比較難，政府應讓大家多放點假，以刺激消費，也讓民眾心裡好過些；接著台中市長胡志強指台中議會正爭取在客家傳統節日「天穿日」放假一天，若通過便向行政院申請。然後台北市市長參選人連勝文也放話，若當選會恢復12月25日的「行憲紀念日」放假，以創造觀光與經濟價值。面對這股加假壓力，行政院長江宜樺才表示，應站在民眾角度創造「小確幸」，要求針對明年休假方案加以研擬修正。
不過就是為了多放幾天假，竟惹得一堆政治人物搶著表態，尤其閣揆江宜樺，連新世代的流行語言「小確幸」都搬出來了！可見得為了討好民意，政治精英們可是卯足了勁。特別是朱立倫的說法最直接，既然加不了薪，就加假嘛！畢竟談到放假，除了企業主或雇主之外，有誰會反對？ 在行政作業上，核定多放幾天假一點都不複雜，朝野政黨習慣競相加碼，不可能鬧到像審議《服貿》般全面開戰。任誰都看得出來，這一波衝著放假表態的政治人物，絕大多數都是現任民選縣市長或是爭取提名的候選人，他們口中講要多放假，心中想的，不折不扣是選票！
多放假大家當然都高興，但大概任何懂點經濟學的人都清楚，根本沒有所謂「放假拚經濟」這回事，否則乾脆推行周休3日，台灣經濟不就騰飛了？前幾年科技業遭逢全球性金融海嘯帶來的景氣寒冬，業績成長出現嚴重衰退，科技電子大廠紛紛祭出「無薪假」，那時可沒有任何員工喜形於色，為多放幾天假歡欣鼓舞，反而擔心飯碗可能不保，更不可能還有人利用放假機會出門消費，收入都不保了，誰還想消費呢？更何況，多放假所造成的生產力損失，全要由雇主承擔，還可能導致廠商以生產力降低為由拒絕加薪，惡性循環最終還是要全民承擔！
這一波為年底選票考量所惹出的話題，並不陌生。上一次五都選舉，競逐大台中市長的蘇嘉全宣布如果他當選，將把重陽敬老金從1600元提高至2000元，其他老人福利也比照北、高發放。當時參選台北市長的蘇貞昌手筆更大，主張垃圾袋免費發放市民。
候選人競相推出「公款買票」政見，有些學者看不下去，搬出審計部統計數據，指中央政府一年以上公共債務未償餘額，從民國90年底的2兆6409億元逐年增加，已達4兆2962億元。所幸濫開選舉支票的候選人均未當選，才避免了國庫加速破產的命運。但在兩黨長期政策買票趨勢下，政府財政收支惡化問題愈演愈烈，今年一月底，中央政府債務未償餘額計5兆4618億元，明年很可能就觸及政府舉債上限。
每逢選舉年，所有即興式、短線式的政見就會跑出來！過去多半以福利支票做誘餌，最常見的就是加發各種年金，反正地方政府先開支票，屆時再強要中央埋單，若是埋單不成還會引發其它爭議。選舉支票引發的最新惡劣案例，就是彰化6鄉鎮部分議員，為履行選舉政見而私接許多的路燈，卻不繳電費，台電追繳電費，要鄉公所負責，但鄉公所不埋單，台電提告雖然贏了一審官司，鄉公所卻堅持沒有錢繳電費，結果就是6個鄉鎮多了一堆不會亮的幽靈路燈。
目前有一些重大法案正在立法院候審，多數評論者對能否順利通過持悲觀態度，因為今年是選舉年，只要逢到了選舉，所有的思考都會受到扭曲。反而能在短時間內討好民眾的政策會被提出來，朝野還競相加碼，譬如加發各種年金。能得到政策好處的人，誰會反對？多放幾天假，誰不喜歡？至於是否會破壞政府財政，是否影響國家生產力，誰會在乎？
距離年底選舉還有大半年，我們擔心增加放假的話題，還只是熱身，接下來還會有更驚人的選舉支票出現，朝野再度競相加碼賄賂選民。但台灣的整體競爭力、國家的財政負擔，經不經得起折騰，我們真的不樂觀。
Expedite Trade in Services Agreement, Postpone Cultural and Creative Industries Negotiations
Expedite Trade in Services Agreement, Postpone Cultural and Creative Industries Negotiations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 18, 2014
Summary: The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
Full text below:
Beginning on the 11th, this newspaper published a series of six consecutive articles entitled, "China Times Recommendations on the Trade in Services Agreement." These articles addressed six areas, including finance, commerce, transportation, health, tourism, and the cultural and creative industries. They discussed the pros and cons of the trade in services agreement. Clearly the Mainland was opening up in the trade in services industry to Taiwan before it opened it up to the rest of the world. It was permitting Taiwan to get a jump on its competitors. It was a gesture of goodwill. The Mainland also made more concessions to Taiwan than Taiwan made to the Mainland.
Consider the six service industries evaluated in these articles. Almost all participants look forward to early passage of the trade in services agreement. This would enable them to immediately gain a foothold on the Mainland, and to grab the biggest piece of the pie. Some industries being allowed to operate, such as the finance industry, will increase the amount of RMB-denominated financial instruments. This will be highly beneficial to the investing public. Only the cultural and creative industries are ambivalent about the trade in services agreement. They are simultaneously filled with hope and disappointment. The trade in services agreement is one small step. But we lost an opportunity to take one giant leap. They worry that upon entry into the Chinese language market, Taiwan's cultural and creative industries will be an industry in name only, one without any market. But blocking the trade in services agreement will not help. They won't have the game. They won't even have the name. Hence their internal dilemma. This has led part of the cultural sector to reject the trade in services agreement in toto.
The cross-strait trade in services agreement cultural and creative industries law covers 15 industries. Only two are on the liberalization list. The Mainland has obtained the right to invest in the existing printing industry on Taiwan. But it may not own over half the shares. Taiwan on the other hand, has secured the right to supply the videogame industry. A two month long time limit has been put on approval for Super WTO treatment. Taiwan's content industry faces barrers to access in the Mainland market. This situation has not improved. The wall remains impregnable.
The trade in services agreement was signed last year. Culturally oriented publications on Taiwan expressed disappointment and regret. The ostensible reason was the one-sided market opening. Taiwan was required to unilaterally allow Mainland investment in Taiwan's existing printing industry. It was not allowed to become a majority shareholder. But the Mainland refused to make any concessions. The DPP, which opposes the trade in services agreement, reveled in Schadenfreude. It turned the matter into a political storm. In fact, Taiwan has never restricted Japanese, European, and American investment in the printing industry. So how can Mainland capital become a threat? The real reason people in the cultural and creative industries are complaining, is that government negotiators failed to deal with a single link in the publishing industry chain. The publishing industry on the Mainland is highly regulated. Opening up our side did not create any upstream or downstream market opportunities for our side.
Ever since the two sides began cross-strait exchanges, we have been regaled with talk of concessions. But the cultural and creative industries, including film and television, publishing, digital content, and the videogame industry cannot wait for concessions. The two sides have different economic systems. This has resulted in unfair trade barriers. Taiwan complains of restrictions. But market opening has created difficulties for management. As a result, the restrictions are mere formalities. Take the videogame industry for example. Taiwan has banned the videogame industry on Taiwan. But Mainland companies are going ahead. The already account for almost half of the market on Taiwan. But the Mainland is being ultra cautious. As long as Taiwan share holders are involved, progress is nearly impossible. The Taiwan videogame industry controls under 1% of the Mainland market. The system has led to unfair competition. It has forced the industry to rethink whether Taiwan and the Mainland are really friends, or whether it should formulate a business strategy that excludes the Mainland.
Mainland authorities should address this matter. In the cultural and creative industries Taiwan entrepreneurs have run into a brick wall. Young people love videogames. Taiwan-based companies are forced to give up markets in the Chinese hinterland. Why? Even Hollywood embraces the Chinese Dream. They welcome Mainland investments. They cast many Chinese stars in their films. Must people on Taiwan formulate a cultural and creative industry strategy that excludes the Mainland market?
During the KMT era the government banned puppet theater broadcasts. Today, the Mainland authorities impose content restrictions. Anyone who lived through those times understands this mentality. Back then puppet theater was banned. Today it has become the vanguard of Taiwan's cultural and creative industry. Some want puppet theater to be broadcast on national satellite television channels on the Mainland. But this is still a fantasy. Mainland authorities should change their thinking. Teresa Teng's banned songs are among the sweetest memories shared by both sides. The two sides should create new memories together.
We issue this earnest appeal. The trade in services agreement is currently being reviewed in the legislature. The Taipei Computer Association will run an industry-sponsored advertisement entitled, "Taiwan Can Be Better." It will support the trade in services agreement. There is no reason why young people on the two sides must drift farther and farther apart. Young people from Taiwan should not ecounter only frustration on the Mainland.
The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. But what it has given, should take effect as soon as possible. The issue of access for Taiwan's cultural entrepreneurs can be discussed under the WTO cross-strait trade in services market and trade agreements, or under a cross-strait cultural agreement.
Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
社論－服貿應早日生效 文創須另啟協商
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月18日 04:10
本報自11日起連續發表6篇「中時對服貿協議的主張」，就金融、電子商務、交通運輸、醫療、觀光旅遊、文化創意等6領域，分別探討了服貿協議的利弊得失。很顯然的，這是大陸在對世界開放服務業市場前，先對台灣開放，讓台灣搶得先機的善意體現，而且大陸對台開放大於台灣對陸開放。
就本報探討的6服務產業，幾乎所有業者都期盼服貿協議早日生效，可以立刻逐鹿中原，搶食市場大餅，有的開放項目，譬如金融開放，將增加人民幣計價金融商品額度，對投資大眾非常有利。唯獨文創產業，卻對服貿協議的簽訂抱持既期待又難掩失望的矛盾心理，因為服貿協議只跨了開放的一小步，卻失去邁開大步的契機，憂慮服貿協議生效後，台灣文創在華文市場仍然徒有影響力空名，而無市場實益，但阻擋服貿生效卻連空名也不可得，因而內心糾結，也造成部分文化界人士棄雞肋、反服貿的選擇。
兩岸服貿協議中，文創法所定義的15項產業，僅兩項納入開放清單。陸方取得投資台灣現有印刷業的機會，但持股不得過半，台灣則為遊戲業者爭取到在材料齊備前提下，限時兩個月審批完成的超WTO待遇。除此之外，台灣內容產業在大陸所面臨的市場准入障礙，完全未獲得改善，仍如銅牆鐵壁般嚴密。
回顧去年服貿協議簽署後，台灣文化出版界的失望與悲鳴，表面理由是台灣單向開放陸資投資現有印刷廠業，持股不得過半，大陸卻寸土未讓，反服貿的民進黨見獵心喜，擴大成為政治風暴。事實上，台灣印刷業未曾限制歐美日資，又豈會把陸資視為威脅？文化界悲鳴的真正理由，在於政府談判代表未正視印刷為整體出版產業鏈之一環，我方的開放，並未換得高度管制的大陸出版行業上下游任何市場參與的機會。
兩岸交流以來，讓利之聲不絕於耳，但文創產業從影視、出版、數位內容到遊戲等行業，非但等不到讓利，甚且因兩岸經濟體制的差異性，形成了不公平貿易障礙的壁壘。台灣雖聲稱限制，卻因開放的體制造成管理困難，因而形同具文。僅以遊戲業為例，台灣禁止大陸遊戲業者在台營運，但大陸業者迂迴前行，已在台取得幾乎過半市占。但大陸查核嚴密，只要最終持股有任一自然人為台灣人，即難逾雷池一步，致台灣遊戲業者在大陸市占率不及1％。體制造成的不公平競爭，迫使台灣業者必須重新思考自己和中國大陸究竟應該為友，或者應該制訂排除大陸思考的經營策略。
大陸當局應該深思，在文創領域對台灣業者設下銅牆鐵壁，連在年輕人深愛的遊戲產業上，都迫使台灣業者不得不放棄華文市場腹地，其深層目的究係為何？連好萊塢都懷著中國夢，歡迎陸資合拍，並大量選角中國明星，難道台灣人在文創內容領域必須全面思考一個沒有中國大陸市場的戰略？
曾經走過國民黨禁止布袋戲播出年代的人，對大陸當局設下的內容准入限制，應當有理解之心。但當年被禁的布袋戲，如今已蛻化成為台灣文創類股的下一支霹靂尖兵。霹靂布袋戲想在大陸衛星電視頻道全國落地，卻仍然是奢侈的想像。大陸當局理應轉念，鄧麗君當年被禁的歌聲已是兩岸最甜美的共同回憶，兩岸應當藉諸文化力量發展共同記憶。
我們必須嚴肅回應，日前服貿協議在立院開始審查時，台灣遊戲產業振興會業者聯名刊登「台灣可以更好」的支持服貿生效說帖廣告。兩岸年輕人沒有理由愈走愈遠，台灣年輕人不該在大陸滿是挫折。
我們知道服貿對台灣文創業爭取得不夠多、不夠好，但已經爭取到的，理應早日生效。尚待努力的台灣文創業者准入議題，可放在世界貿易體系下的兩岸服貿協議市場准入議題中討論，或另以兩岸文化協議處理。
台灣文創業者在深厚的中華文化底蘊中，涵養出獨特的文化美學，應該有進入大陸尋找知音的機會，這是兩岸政府的責任。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 18, 2014
Summary: The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
Full text below:
Beginning on the 11th, this newspaper published a series of six consecutive articles entitled, "China Times Recommendations on the Trade in Services Agreement." These articles addressed six areas, including finance, commerce, transportation, health, tourism, and the cultural and creative industries. They discussed the pros and cons of the trade in services agreement. Clearly the Mainland was opening up in the trade in services industry to Taiwan before it opened it up to the rest of the world. It was permitting Taiwan to get a jump on its competitors. It was a gesture of goodwill. The Mainland also made more concessions to Taiwan than Taiwan made to the Mainland.
Consider the six service industries evaluated in these articles. Almost all participants look forward to early passage of the trade in services agreement. This would enable them to immediately gain a foothold on the Mainland, and to grab the biggest piece of the pie. Some industries being allowed to operate, such as the finance industry, will increase the amount of RMB-denominated financial instruments. This will be highly beneficial to the investing public. Only the cultural and creative industries are ambivalent about the trade in services agreement. They are simultaneously filled with hope and disappointment. The trade in services agreement is one small step. But we lost an opportunity to take one giant leap. They worry that upon entry into the Chinese language market, Taiwan's cultural and creative industries will be an industry in name only, one without any market. But blocking the trade in services agreement will not help. They won't have the game. They won't even have the name. Hence their internal dilemma. This has led part of the cultural sector to reject the trade in services agreement in toto.
The cross-strait trade in services agreement cultural and creative industries law covers 15 industries. Only two are on the liberalization list. The Mainland has obtained the right to invest in the existing printing industry on Taiwan. But it may not own over half the shares. Taiwan on the other hand, has secured the right to supply the videogame industry. A two month long time limit has been put on approval for Super WTO treatment. Taiwan's content industry faces barrers to access in the Mainland market. This situation has not improved. The wall remains impregnable.
The trade in services agreement was signed last year. Culturally oriented publications on Taiwan expressed disappointment and regret. The ostensible reason was the one-sided market opening. Taiwan was required to unilaterally allow Mainland investment in Taiwan's existing printing industry. It was not allowed to become a majority shareholder. But the Mainland refused to make any concessions. The DPP, which opposes the trade in services agreement, reveled in Schadenfreude. It turned the matter into a political storm. In fact, Taiwan has never restricted Japanese, European, and American investment in the printing industry. So how can Mainland capital become a threat? The real reason people in the cultural and creative industries are complaining, is that government negotiators failed to deal with a single link in the publishing industry chain. The publishing industry on the Mainland is highly regulated. Opening up our side did not create any upstream or downstream market opportunities for our side.
Ever since the two sides began cross-strait exchanges, we have been regaled with talk of concessions. But the cultural and creative industries, including film and television, publishing, digital content, and the videogame industry cannot wait for concessions. The two sides have different economic systems. This has resulted in unfair trade barriers. Taiwan complains of restrictions. But market opening has created difficulties for management. As a result, the restrictions are mere formalities. Take the videogame industry for example. Taiwan has banned the videogame industry on Taiwan. But Mainland companies are going ahead. The already account for almost half of the market on Taiwan. But the Mainland is being ultra cautious. As long as Taiwan share holders are involved, progress is nearly impossible. The Taiwan videogame industry controls under 1% of the Mainland market. The system has led to unfair competition. It has forced the industry to rethink whether Taiwan and the Mainland are really friends, or whether it should formulate a business strategy that excludes the Mainland.
Mainland authorities should address this matter. In the cultural and creative industries Taiwan entrepreneurs have run into a brick wall. Young people love videogames. Taiwan-based companies are forced to give up markets in the Chinese hinterland. Why? Even Hollywood embraces the Chinese Dream. They welcome Mainland investments. They cast many Chinese stars in their films. Must people on Taiwan formulate a cultural and creative industry strategy that excludes the Mainland market?
During the KMT era the government banned puppet theater broadcasts. Today, the Mainland authorities impose content restrictions. Anyone who lived through those times understands this mentality. Back then puppet theater was banned. Today it has become the vanguard of Taiwan's cultural and creative industry. Some want puppet theater to be broadcast on national satellite television channels on the Mainland. But this is still a fantasy. Mainland authorities should change their thinking. Teresa Teng's banned songs are among the sweetest memories shared by both sides. The two sides should create new memories together.
We issue this earnest appeal. The trade in services agreement is currently being reviewed in the legislature. The Taipei Computer Association will run an industry-sponsored advertisement entitled, "Taiwan Can Be Better." It will support the trade in services agreement. There is no reason why young people on the two sides must drift farther and farther apart. Young people from Taiwan should not ecounter only frustration on the Mainland.
The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. But what it has given, should take effect as soon as possible. The issue of access for Taiwan's cultural entrepreneurs can be discussed under the WTO cross-strait trade in services market and trade agreements, or under a cross-strait cultural agreement.
Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
社論－服貿應早日生效 文創須另啟協商
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月18日 04:10
本報自11日起連續發表6篇「中時對服貿協議的主張」，就金融、電子商務、交通運輸、醫療、觀光旅遊、文化創意等6領域，分別探討了服貿協議的利弊得失。很顯然的，這是大陸在對世界開放服務業市場前，先對台灣開放，讓台灣搶得先機的善意體現，而且大陸對台開放大於台灣對陸開放。
就本報探討的6服務產業，幾乎所有業者都期盼服貿協議早日生效，可以立刻逐鹿中原，搶食市場大餅，有的開放項目，譬如金融開放，將增加人民幣計價金融商品額度，對投資大眾非常有利。唯獨文創產業，卻對服貿協議的簽訂抱持既期待又難掩失望的矛盾心理，因為服貿協議只跨了開放的一小步，卻失去邁開大步的契機，憂慮服貿協議生效後，台灣文創在華文市場仍然徒有影響力空名，而無市場實益，但阻擋服貿生效卻連空名也不可得，因而內心糾結，也造成部分文化界人士棄雞肋、反服貿的選擇。
兩岸服貿協議中，文創法所定義的15項產業，僅兩項納入開放清單。陸方取得投資台灣現有印刷業的機會，但持股不得過半，台灣則為遊戲業者爭取到在材料齊備前提下，限時兩個月審批完成的超WTO待遇。除此之外，台灣內容產業在大陸所面臨的市場准入障礙，完全未獲得改善，仍如銅牆鐵壁般嚴密。
回顧去年服貿協議簽署後，台灣文化出版界的失望與悲鳴，表面理由是台灣單向開放陸資投資現有印刷廠業，持股不得過半，大陸卻寸土未讓，反服貿的民進黨見獵心喜，擴大成為政治風暴。事實上，台灣印刷業未曾限制歐美日資，又豈會把陸資視為威脅？文化界悲鳴的真正理由，在於政府談判代表未正視印刷為整體出版產業鏈之一環，我方的開放，並未換得高度管制的大陸出版行業上下游任何市場參與的機會。
兩岸交流以來，讓利之聲不絕於耳，但文創產業從影視、出版、數位內容到遊戲等行業，非但等不到讓利，甚且因兩岸經濟體制的差異性，形成了不公平貿易障礙的壁壘。台灣雖聲稱限制，卻因開放的體制造成管理困難，因而形同具文。僅以遊戲業為例，台灣禁止大陸遊戲業者在台營運，但大陸業者迂迴前行，已在台取得幾乎過半市占。但大陸查核嚴密，只要最終持股有任一自然人為台灣人，即難逾雷池一步，致台灣遊戲業者在大陸市占率不及1％。體制造成的不公平競爭，迫使台灣業者必須重新思考自己和中國大陸究竟應該為友，或者應該制訂排除大陸思考的經營策略。
大陸當局應該深思，在文創領域對台灣業者設下銅牆鐵壁，連在年輕人深愛的遊戲產業上，都迫使台灣業者不得不放棄華文市場腹地，其深層目的究係為何？連好萊塢都懷著中國夢，歡迎陸資合拍，並大量選角中國明星，難道台灣人在文創內容領域必須全面思考一個沒有中國大陸市場的戰略？
曾經走過國民黨禁止布袋戲播出年代的人，對大陸當局設下的內容准入限制，應當有理解之心。但當年被禁的布袋戲，如今已蛻化成為台灣文創類股的下一支霹靂尖兵。霹靂布袋戲想在大陸衛星電視頻道全國落地，卻仍然是奢侈的想像。大陸當局理應轉念，鄧麗君當年被禁的歌聲已是兩岸最甜美的共同回憶，兩岸應當藉諸文化力量發展共同記憶。
我們必須嚴肅回應，日前服貿協議在立院開始審查時，台灣遊戲產業振興會業者聯名刊登「台灣可以更好」的支持服貿生效說帖廣告。兩岸年輕人沒有理由愈走愈遠，台灣年輕人不該在大陸滿是挫折。
我們知道服貿對台灣文創業爭取得不夠多、不夠好，但已經爭取到的，理應早日生效。尚待努力的台灣文創業者准入議題，可放在世界貿易體系下的兩岸服貿協議市場准入議題中討論，或另以兩岸文化協議處理。
台灣文創業者在深厚的中華文化底蘊中，涵養出獨特的文化美學，應該有進入大陸尋找知音的機會，這是兩岸政府的責任。
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Address Exports Decline, Remedy Structural Causes
Address Exports Decline, Remedy Structural Causes
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 17, 2014
Summary: The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
Full text below:
The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. These include machining centers, which declined 22%, and petrochemical industry raw materials such as terephthalic acid, which declined 74%. Others, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), chips, wafers, blank optical media, set-top boxes, and built-in or external Internet modems, declined 12% to 32%. LCD panels and parts declined approximately 6%. Most other basic industries, base metals and products, machinery, transportation equipment, and textiles declined. For example, bicycle exports declined nearly 5%.
Take imports. Import substitution industrialization is increasingly difficult. Japan has traditionally been a major exporter to Taiwan. In 2013 overall imports from Japan fell 9%. But some imports rose. Most were products we cannot currently produce ourselves, and are unlikely to produce in the future. They include automobiles and machinery and equipment for the manufacture of semiconductor integrated circuits. Meanwhile, imports from South Korea rose 4% last year. It has clearly replaced Japan in the manufacture of many other electronics products, optical equipment. integrated circuits, polarizers and polarizer panels, and processed glass panels. South Korea does not consider Taiwan its match. It is now gunning for Japan.
There are three structural causes for poor export performance. The first is Taiwan's unsuccessful economic integration. Other countries have kept pace. The current tension in the East China Sea will probably accelerate Free Trade Agreement negotiations between the Mainland and the Republic of Korea. It could be signed this year. South Korean and Taiwan exports overlap by 63%. They include petrochemical, rubber and rubber products, textiles and textile products, steel, machinery, semiconductor devices, flat panel display equipment, and integrated circuit components. The two have a highly competitive relationship. Current FTAs cover 6.4% of all exports from Taiwan. They cover 36.5% of all exports from South Korea. If South Korea and Mainland China sign an FTA, that percentage will become 62.6%. On Taiwan, the trade in services agreement remains blocked by the Legislative Yuan. That is the most serious crisis.
Seeking to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are steps in the right direction. But "distant waters cannot put out nearby fires." The biggest obstacle to Taiwan signing the TPP is political resistance to agricultural imports, including chicken, organ meats, and rice. Joining the RCEP is not easy. It requires support from Mainland China and the ASEAN countries. Only then can one even begin negotiations. Meanwhile, the trade in services agreements remains stalled. Such delays may be interpreted as passivity or even hostility toward international and regional integration. This will discourage other nations from supporting our bid to join the TPP and RCEP.
Secondly, the Intel and Microsoft based computer market has changed. Our domestic industry failed to change accordingly. Taiwan's manufacturing industry boom of the 1980s has slowed. The industry boomed once again during the 1990s. But the main reason was it became the world's supply center for personal computers. This was later extended to include other PC components, including monitors, power supplies, chassis, and peripherals. But this structure has undergone revolutionary changes over the past five years. Handheld devices have replaced the PC. They have gradually become the mainstream consumer electronics product. This has had a significant impact on the industry chain on Taiwan. Handheld devices are flourishing in many foundries on Taiwan. They have earned considerable profits, but nothing compared with the past. HTC is a domestic brand. It has had a difficult time competing with Apple and Samsung.
Finally, our industries have not done enough R&D. As a result we are being squeezed from front and rear. The "flying geese theory" states that if one fails to advance, backward countries will soon catch up. During the Ten Great Construction Projects era, Taiwan made huge investments in intermediate materials production. These replaced imports. The Mainland and ASEAN are now taking the same path. Taiwan has only one option. It must increase R&D. It must continue to move forward. Only then can it avoid being caught from both front and rear. It must breakout. But the situation is not optimistic.
As matters stand, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Education, are the three ministries most closely related to research and development. They should cooperate to integrate research and development potential currently dispersed among various universities. These three ministries should identify which technologies will be the first to breakthrough. They should then work on them together. They should create an incentive mechanism. Researchers should be encouraged to engage in research and development that will directly benefit individual industries or an industry as a whole. Take applied sciences. Current journal articles in the West are heavy in reference data, such as educational evaluation modes. These do not meet the needs of industry. As a result, professors or researchers have become blind followers of Western studies. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
解決結構性出口衰退之道
中國時報
2014年03月17日
台灣近年經濟表現不佳，去年全年出口前100大產品中，幾個重要的傳統主力出口品都大幅衰退，包含綜合加工機衰退22％，石化原料像對苯二甲酸衰退74％；其他像發光二極體（LED）晶粒及晶圓、空白光學媒體、具有通訊功能之機上盒、內建或外接網際網路之數據機，衰退12％到32％不等，而液晶面板及其零件各衰退約6％。其他基礎工業方面，基本金屬及其製品、機械、交通運輸設備、紡織品等亦多呈衰退，如腳踏車出口就衰退了近5％。
在進口方面，進口替代愈來愈難走下去。2013年自傳統入超大國日本進口總共減少9％，但單項自該國進口成長的，多為目前未能自行生產且未來也很難看到可以自行發展成功的產品，如汽車成車和製造半導體或積體電路之機器及器具等。另一方面，去年對南韓進口增加4％，其在電子產品、光學器材等項目中已經明顯出現大幅替代日本產品的態勢，包含積體電路、偏光片或偏光版、經過加工的玻璃面板等。韓國沒有把台灣當對手，它現在正在緊迫追趕日本。
出口表現不佳的結構性原因有三，首先是台灣加入經濟整合之路不順，其他國家卻未曾放慢腳步。值得注意的是，當前東海情勢緊張，恐將加快大陸與韓國間自由貿易協議（FTA）談判的進度，快則今年內即可簽署。韓國與台灣出口產品63％重疊，包括石化、橡塑膠製品、紡織原料及紡織品、鋼材、機具、半導體設備、平板顯示器設備、積體電路零組件等產品，雙方具有高度的競爭關係。目前台灣出口的FTA覆蓋率為6.4％，南韓已達36.5％。如果南韓和大陸簽訂FTA，將達62.6％。對於服貿協議還在立法院打轉的台灣而言，是最大危機。
尋求洽簽跨太平洋夥伴協議（TPP）與區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）方向正確，但遠水救不了近火。台灣簽署TPP最大的困難在於政治上很難大幅開放農產品進口，包含雞肉、內臟、稻米等。加入RCEP亦不容易，必須得到中國大陸和東協的諸國支持，才得以進行談判。但現在連服貿協議都還沒過，這樣的拖延恐被國際解釋為台灣對區域整合抱持消極、甚至敵視的負面訊號，對未來尋求各國支持加入RCEP或TPP至為不利。
其次，以英代爾和微軟架構為首的電腦市場已經改變，我國產業界還沒有做出相應的調整。1980年代台灣製造業的發展曾經趨緩，但90年代再度蓬勃發展，其主因是製造業開始成為世界個人電腦的供應重鎮，後來延伸到所有其他供應個人電腦的元件，包括監視器、電源、機殼、周邊設備等。但這樣的架構在過去5年間已經出現革命性的轉變，手持裝置取代了個人電腦，逐漸成為主流電子消費產品，讓台灣的產業鏈面臨重大衝擊。雖然手持裝置的勃興也為台灣許多代工廠賺進相當的利潤，但是完全無法和早期相比；經營本土品牌的HTC則近年受蘋果和三星兩面夾擊，極為艱辛。
最後，我國產業研發能量不夠，已出現被夾殺危機。在雁行理論下，如果不持續進步，隨時都會被後進國迎頭趕上。台灣當年在十大建設時代，大量投資中間原料的生產，以取代進口，現在大陸和東協正重複同樣的途徑。台灣唯有擴增研發能量，繼續快速前進，才能避免夾殺，衝出重圍，但目前情況並不樂觀。
當今之計，經濟部、科技部和教育部3個與研發高度相關的部會，應該趕快攜手合作，積極整合分散在各大學、研究單位的研發能量。這3個部會應先就我國有待突破的產業技術領域，做好認定，然後通力合作，訂出誘因機制，鼓勵研究人員從事台灣個別或全體業界可以直接受益的題目。對於應用科學而言，當前以西方期刊論文數、引用數據等為重的教育評鑑模式，並不符合產業的需求，結果是教授或研究人員各行其是，成為西方研究的盲目跟隨者。韓國單靠一家三星就可以整合韓國相當的研究能量，我們沒有三星，必須靠政府的積極作為始可以為功。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 17, 2014
Summary: The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
Full text below:
The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. These include machining centers, which declined 22%, and petrochemical industry raw materials such as terephthalic acid, which declined 74%. Others, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), chips, wafers, blank optical media, set-top boxes, and built-in or external Internet modems, declined 12% to 32%. LCD panels and parts declined approximately 6%. Most other basic industries, base metals and products, machinery, transportation equipment, and textiles declined. For example, bicycle exports declined nearly 5%.
Take imports. Import substitution industrialization is increasingly difficult. Japan has traditionally been a major exporter to Taiwan. In 2013 overall imports from Japan fell 9%. But some imports rose. Most were products we cannot currently produce ourselves, and are unlikely to produce in the future. They include automobiles and machinery and equipment for the manufacture of semiconductor integrated circuits. Meanwhile, imports from South Korea rose 4% last year. It has clearly replaced Japan in the manufacture of many other electronics products, optical equipment. integrated circuits, polarizers and polarizer panels, and processed glass panels. South Korea does not consider Taiwan its match. It is now gunning for Japan.
There are three structural causes for poor export performance. The first is Taiwan's unsuccessful economic integration. Other countries have kept pace. The current tension in the East China Sea will probably accelerate Free Trade Agreement negotiations between the Mainland and the Republic of Korea. It could be signed this year. South Korean and Taiwan exports overlap by 63%. They include petrochemical, rubber and rubber products, textiles and textile products, steel, machinery, semiconductor devices, flat panel display equipment, and integrated circuit components. The two have a highly competitive relationship. Current FTAs cover 6.4% of all exports from Taiwan. They cover 36.5% of all exports from South Korea. If South Korea and Mainland China sign an FTA, that percentage will become 62.6%. On Taiwan, the trade in services agreement remains blocked by the Legislative Yuan. That is the most serious crisis.
Seeking to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are steps in the right direction. But "distant waters cannot put out nearby fires." The biggest obstacle to Taiwan signing the TPP is political resistance to agricultural imports, including chicken, organ meats, and rice. Joining the RCEP is not easy. It requires support from Mainland China and the ASEAN countries. Only then can one even begin negotiations. Meanwhile, the trade in services agreements remains stalled. Such delays may be interpreted as passivity or even hostility toward international and regional integration. This will discourage other nations from supporting our bid to join the TPP and RCEP.
Secondly, the Intel and Microsoft based computer market has changed. Our domestic industry failed to change accordingly. Taiwan's manufacturing industry boom of the 1980s has slowed. The industry boomed once again during the 1990s. But the main reason was it became the world's supply center for personal computers. This was later extended to include other PC components, including monitors, power supplies, chassis, and peripherals. But this structure has undergone revolutionary changes over the past five years. Handheld devices have replaced the PC. They have gradually become the mainstream consumer electronics product. This has had a significant impact on the industry chain on Taiwan. Handheld devices are flourishing in many foundries on Taiwan. They have earned considerable profits, but nothing compared with the past. HTC is a domestic brand. It has had a difficult time competing with Apple and Samsung.
Finally, our industries have not done enough R&D. As a result we are being squeezed from front and rear. The "flying geese theory" states that if one fails to advance, backward countries will soon catch up. During the Ten Great Construction Projects era, Taiwan made huge investments in intermediate materials production. These replaced imports. The Mainland and ASEAN are now taking the same path. Taiwan has only one option. It must increase R&D. It must continue to move forward. Only then can it avoid being caught from both front and rear. It must breakout. But the situation is not optimistic.
As matters stand, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Education, are the three ministries most closely related to research and development. They should cooperate to integrate research and development potential currently dispersed among various universities. These three ministries should identify which technologies will be the first to breakthrough. They should then work on them together. They should create an incentive mechanism. Researchers should be encouraged to engage in research and development that will directly benefit individual industries or an industry as a whole. Take applied sciences. Current journal articles in the West are heavy in reference data, such as educational evaluation modes. These do not meet the needs of industry. As a result, professors or researchers have become blind followers of Western studies. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
解決結構性出口衰退之道
中國時報
2014年03月17日
台灣近年經濟表現不佳，去年全年出口前100大產品中，幾個重要的傳統主力出口品都大幅衰退，包含綜合加工機衰退22％，石化原料像對苯二甲酸衰退74％；其他像發光二極體（LED）晶粒及晶圓、空白光學媒體、具有通訊功能之機上盒、內建或外接網際網路之數據機，衰退12％到32％不等，而液晶面板及其零件各衰退約6％。其他基礎工業方面，基本金屬及其製品、機械、交通運輸設備、紡織品等亦多呈衰退，如腳踏車出口就衰退了近5％。
在進口方面，進口替代愈來愈難走下去。2013年自傳統入超大國日本進口總共減少9％，但單項自該國進口成長的，多為目前未能自行生產且未來也很難看到可以自行發展成功的產品，如汽車成車和製造半導體或積體電路之機器及器具等。另一方面，去年對南韓進口增加4％，其在電子產品、光學器材等項目中已經明顯出現大幅替代日本產品的態勢，包含積體電路、偏光片或偏光版、經過加工的玻璃面板等。韓國沒有把台灣當對手，它現在正在緊迫追趕日本。
出口表現不佳的結構性原因有三，首先是台灣加入經濟整合之路不順，其他國家卻未曾放慢腳步。值得注意的是，當前東海情勢緊張，恐將加快大陸與韓國間自由貿易協議（FTA）談判的進度，快則今年內即可簽署。韓國與台灣出口產品63％重疊，包括石化、橡塑膠製品、紡織原料及紡織品、鋼材、機具、半導體設備、平板顯示器設備、積體電路零組件等產品，雙方具有高度的競爭關係。目前台灣出口的FTA覆蓋率為6.4％，南韓已達36.5％。如果南韓和大陸簽訂FTA，將達62.6％。對於服貿協議還在立法院打轉的台灣而言，是最大危機。
尋求洽簽跨太平洋夥伴協議（TPP）與區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）方向正確，但遠水救不了近火。台灣簽署TPP最大的困難在於政治上很難大幅開放農產品進口，包含雞肉、內臟、稻米等。加入RCEP亦不容易，必須得到中國大陸和東協的諸國支持，才得以進行談判。但現在連服貿協議都還沒過，這樣的拖延恐被國際解釋為台灣對區域整合抱持消極、甚至敵視的負面訊號，對未來尋求各國支持加入RCEP或TPP至為不利。
其次，以英代爾和微軟架構為首的電腦市場已經改變，我國產業界還沒有做出相應的調整。1980年代台灣製造業的發展曾經趨緩，但90年代再度蓬勃發展，其主因是製造業開始成為世界個人電腦的供應重鎮，後來延伸到所有其他供應個人電腦的元件，包括監視器、電源、機殼、周邊設備等。但這樣的架構在過去5年間已經出現革命性的轉變，手持裝置取代了個人電腦，逐漸成為主流電子消費產品，讓台灣的產業鏈面臨重大衝擊。雖然手持裝置的勃興也為台灣許多代工廠賺進相當的利潤，但是完全無法和早期相比；經營本土品牌的HTC則近年受蘋果和三星兩面夾擊，極為艱辛。
最後，我國產業研發能量不夠，已出現被夾殺危機。在雁行理論下，如果不持續進步，隨時都會被後進國迎頭趕上。台灣當年在十大建設時代，大量投資中間原料的生產，以取代進口，現在大陸和東協正重複同樣的途徑。台灣唯有擴增研發能量，繼續快速前進，才能避免夾殺，衝出重圍，但目前情況並不樂觀。
當今之計，經濟部、科技部和教育部3個與研發高度相關的部會，應該趕快攜手合作，積極整合分散在各大學、研究單位的研發能量。這3個部會應先就我國有待突破的產業技術領域，做好認定，然後通力合作，訂出誘因機制，鼓勵研究人員從事台灣個別或全體業界可以直接受益的題目。對於應用科學而言，當前以西方期刊論文數、引用數據等為重的教育評鑑模式，並不符合產業的需求，結果是教授或研究人員各行其是，成為西方研究的盲目跟隨者。韓國單靠一家三星就可以整合韓國相當的研究能量，我們沒有三星，必須靠政府的積極作為始可以為功。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)