Today's Hong Kong Will Not Be Tomorrow's Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 30, 2014
Summary: Hong Kong was ceded and loaned out as a colony. Its sovereignty was
determined by international negotiations. The British retroceded it to
the Chinese mainland. Taiwan's sovereignty, by contrast, cannot be
transferred to anyone else. . Those who have been wringing their hands
about "Taiwan becoming Hong Kong-ized" over the past decade, have never
given a damn about Hong Kong. They have never studied Hong Kong's
political system. Yet they prattle on about how "Taiwan is becoming Hong
Kong-ized." This is nothing more than unwarranted blue vs. green
political infighting. It is non-conducive to Taiwan's well-being, and to
the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, The less we have of
such rhetoric, the better.
Full Text Below:
When the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan, he brought with him an olive branch. Some special interest groups however, stalked him. This led to several unfortunate clashes, and even forced Zhang to cancel part of his trip. Cross-Strait peaceful development is becoming mainstream. Its benefits are being felt. Some segments of society however, remain dogged in their opposition. They have become a wild card in cross-Strait relations.
Hong Kongers are holding a "622 Referendum." They are also expected to stage an "Occupy Central" demonstration. Hong Kong was politically unstable to begin with. Now it is being buffeted by new turbulence. Some have linked relations between Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Mainland. They are attempting to join two anti-Mainland forces into one. In terms of values and lifestyles, Taiwan and Hong Kong are indeed related. But at the constitutional level, Taiwan and Hong Kong are totally different. This is a point we must make crystal clear.
Hong Kong has its own history. Hong Kong's political system has its own characteristics. Hong Kong has long been a victim of colonialism and imperialism. It lacks deep democratic roots. But the people long to be their own masters. Hong Kong is a financial center and a free port with a thriving business community. The people are highly pragmatic, realistic, and conservative. But that does not mean they lack ideals. At key moments in history, its people will flock to the streets and make themselves heard. Hong Kong is an immigrant society. Generation after generation of immigrants have shaped this society. The interests of old and new immigrants may not always coincide. But Hong Kong has its own consciousness and its own form of cohesion.
Hong Kong's cuisine combines Chinese cuisine and Western cuisine. It also boasts a local flavor of its own. Hong Konger political consciousness is the same way. It is neither totally Westernized, nor totally Chinese. Hong Kongers are taking their own political path, and choosing their own political system. They have gone from a colony to "one country, two systems." Hong Kong's political system, however, has long been "rule by the executive." The Chief Executive's ability to govern, and democracy's ability to provide oversight are critical. So are the Legislative Council's ability to function and provide representation. Should universal suffrage be implemented? If so, how? These and other issues are extremely important.
Since Hong Kong's retrocession to the Mainland, the "one country, two systems" concept has proved far-sighted. Over the past ten years, Hong Kong has remained a free port. Hong Kong and the Mainland have very different political, legal, monetary, and social welfare systems. The "one country" premise has been ensured. The "two systems" premise has been ensured as well. This is why democratic movements can thrive in Hong Kong. This is why they can fight for democracy and engage in "sensitive" activities. This is why "sensitive" groups can organize freely and survive. In recent years however, "deep-seated contradictions" have surfaced. The Hong Kong government's ability to govern has been questioned. Ethnic and class conflicts have worsened. Environmental, educational, employment, and community problems all require solution. They are problems intertwined with democracy and public welfare. Hong Kongers are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo. The ruling administration's credibility has diminished. Demands for universal suffrage reflect this dissatisfaction and constitute an attempt to resolve these "deep-seated contradictions."
We on Taiwan have already made the transition to democracy. Naturally were are concerned about political progress and the development of democracy in Hong Kong. We affirm Hong Kong's efforts to implement universal suffrage. We do more than affirm it. We support it. But we must be clear. Hong Kong has its own problems. We respect the people of Hong Kong's freedom to choose. Hong Kong's situation is different from Taiwan's. Comparing Taiwan and Hong Kong may lead to confusion and error. It may blur one's vision. It may blind one to the unique issues facing Taiwan.
Hong Kong is a city in Mainland China. It is a "Special Administrative Region." It clearly belongs to Mainland China. Theoretically "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong." Dual Universal Suffrage is intended to ensure that "Hong Kong people truly rule Hong Kong."
Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China. The civil war separated the two sides. Since then we have claimed that Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China. The Mainland has a different view. Before the two sides of China reached an agreement, they refused to recognize each other. Jurisdiction over Taiwan belonged to Taiwan's 23 million people. After democratization, legal and political activities such as regular elections and ruling party changes, legitimized this jurisdiction. Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China, No power can transfer sovereignty over Taiwan without the consent of Taiwan's 23 million people.
In recent years, the two sides have agreed to engage in peaceful development. But this has no impact on Taiwan's sovereignty, which is rooted in the ROC Constitution, or its jurisdiction, which is rooted in regular elections and changes in ruling parties. The issue now is how to consolidate that jurisdiction. The green camp likes to carry on about how "Taiwan is becoming Hong Kong-ized." This obscures the difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong. It departs from cross-Strait reality. It is unfounded alarmism.
Hong Kong was ceded and loaned out as a colony. Its sovereignty was determined by international negotiations. The British retroceded it to the Chinese mainland. Taiwan's sovereignty, by contrast, cannot be transferred to anyone else. . Those who have been wringing their hands about "Taiwan becoming Hong Kong-ized" over the past decade, have never given a damn about Hong Kong. They have never studied Hong Kong's political system. Yet they prattle on about how "Taiwan is becoming Hong Kong-ized." This is nothing more than unwarranted blue vs. green political infighting. It is non-conducive to Taiwan's well-being, and to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, The less we have of such rhetoric, the better.
社論－今日香港不會是明天的台灣
2014年06月30日 04:10
本報訊
大陸國台辦主任張志軍銜著橄欖枝來訪，部分若干公民團體如影相隨，造成一些令人遺憾的零星衝突，來客甚至被迫取消部分行程。兩岸和平發展在主流層面進展順利，而且成效豐碩，但在社會某些層面，卻累積了若干反對的能量，成為兩岸關係的不確定因素。
隨著香港民間「622公投」開展，以及預期中可能進行的「佔中」運動，原本就已不穩定的香港政治進入了震盪期。一些人把台灣、香港與大陸的關係相提並論，有意讓兩岸反中力量合流，固然台港的未來，從維護價值觀與生活方式層面而言，確實脣齒相依，但就憲政層面而言，台港地位卻完全不同，我們必須分辨清楚。
香港的歷史發展，有自己的軌跡，香港的政治體制，有自己的特點。香港曾是長期被帝國主義統治的殖民地，民主根基不深，人民當家作主的意志卻也不弱。香港是金融中心，是自由港，是繁榮的商業社會，人們的心態，重功利，重現實，重安定，但這不代表民眾沒有理想性，在關鍵的、重要的、歷史性的時刻，民眾還是會蜂擁上街，表達自己的聲音。香港是道地的移民社會，幾代幾波的移民潮形塑了香港社會，新老移民的利益未必相同，但港人的本土意識正以其特有的方式凝聚、昂揚著。
香港的飲食，中西合璧，又有在地特色，港人的意識，也是如此，既非全盤西化也不是全盤內地化，港人要摸索自己的道路、自己的政制。從殖民地到「一國兩制」，香港的政制始終是「行政主導」，行政長官的管治能力與民主監督，立法會的功能與民意代表性，都是非常核心的課題，「普選」與否，怎麼「普選」，當然就變得極其重要。
香港回歸大陸以來，「一國兩制」的設想，證明是極有遠見，十多年來，香港自由港的「自由」沒有被剝奪，香港與內地在政制、法律、貨幣、社福、教育等制度上有相當差異與區隔，「一國」前提得到確保，「兩制」更有認真實踐，也因為如此，確保了香港社會能夠存在民主運動、爭取民主的空間，「敏感」的活動、「敏感」的團體都能夠自在地舉辦、生存。另一方面，近幾年，香港存在的「深層次矛盾」有複雜化的趨勢，政府的管治能力受到質疑，族群、階級的矛盾深化，生態、教育、就業、社區等各領域累積待解決的問題層出不窮，民主與民生議題的相互纏繞，讓港人對現況的不滿有所提升，當局的威信有所下降，這都讓普選運動成了反映、承接這「深層次矛盾」的突破口。
我們在台灣，以「民主轉型過來人」身分，自然對香港民主的發展、政治的進步，抱持高度的關注，對於港人爭取普選的努力，不但肯定，也願意支持。只不過，我們要清醒的看到，香港有香港自己的難題，我們尊重港人的自由意志與自由選擇，另一方面，香港有香港特殊的局勢，把台灣和香港類比，容易產生落差與偏差，也會模糊了自己的視線，看不清台灣面臨的獨特課題。
香港是中國的一個城市，一個「特別行政區」，他的主權明確屬於中國大陸，香港的治權，理論上是要「港人治港」的，「雙普選」的問題就是要完善「港人治港」，是真正、全面落實「港人治港」的核心課題。
台灣主權屬於「中華民國」，由於內戰造成的兩岸分隔，我們宣稱台灣主權屬於中華民國，大陸卻有不同的主張。在兩岸中國達成政治談判協議前，處於「互不承認」狀態。治權則屬於台灣2300萬人民，歷經民主化浪潮，已在法理上與政治運作（定期選舉、政黨輪替）上，完成「治權」的合法性。台灣的主權屬於中華民國，沒有任何強權能將台灣的主權讓渡出去，除非經過台灣2300萬人的同意。
近年兩岸已建立和平發展的共識，但無論如何都不影響台灣的主權（中華民國憲法）與治權（定期選舉、政黨輪替）的存在，現在的課題，其實是「治權」如何不斷鞏固的問題。綠營人士喜歡談台灣「香港化」，這就大大混淆了台灣和香港的巨大差別，也背離了海峽兩岸的現實局勢，更是缺乏事實佐證的危言聳聽。
香港原是割讓、租借出去的殖民地，主權是透過國際談判，由英國移交給中國大陸，台灣的主權沒有任何強權能夠讓渡出去。那些高談「台灣香港化」的人士，其實在好幾十年的時間內，從來沒有真正關心過香港、研究過香港的政制與歷史，如今卻杜撰出了「台灣香港化」這個渲染性過強詞彙，說穿了，只是為了進行內部鬥爭、藍綠對抗。這是不足取的，更無助於台灣確保自己的福祉，和繼續促進兩岸關係的和平發展，這樣的言論，實在寧肯少些！
Monday, June 30, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Use Cross-Strait Consenus: Connect to World from Mainland
Use Cross-Strait Consenus: Connect to World from Mainland
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 27, 2014
Summary: In the civilized world, people do not resort to brute force and authority to allocate resources. People can work together to create more resources. Over the past decade the United States has been mired in the Middle East, Now it is eager to return to Asia. It finds itself in need of a friend. The Mainland's "shi er wu" plan is critical to its goal of establishing a prosperous society. It calls for further reform and liberalization, for accelerating economc transformation during this crucial period. International politics is ruthless. Taiwan has special qualities that both sides need, including "integration" and "connection." We need not sell ourselves short. But we must choose the right path. Only then can we avoid falling and shattering ourselves into a million pieces.
Full Text Below:
Zhang Zhijun, director of the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office, has led a delegation to Taiwan. During the Wang Zhang Meeting, a number of cross-Strait deadlocks were resolved. Humanitarian access has been included among the functions of the newly established cross-Strait offices. The Mainland has agreed to allow business communications regarding Mainland tourist transit and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and RCEP, as well as Taiwan's participation in regional economic integration. The Mainland's once evasive stance has changed. It responded positively during the meeting. The two sides agreed to begin joint research as soon as possible. They will hold pragmatic discussions about cross-Strait economic development. They will seek feasible and appropriate means to further regional economic cooperation and convergence.
Taiwan has a "shallow dish economy." Economic development is dependent upon international trade. If Taiwan is unable to join the TPP, RCEP, other regional economic organizations, as soon as possible, it will become isolated and experience a trade crisis. It will lose the international trade it is dependent upon. South Korea, our chief trade competitor, is signing FTAs with everyone and joining trade organizations everywhere. South Korea will acquire tariff and import advantages over Taiwan in the global market. Our markets will soon become theirs. Add competition from Vietnam, Malaysia, and Mexico. These TPP or RCEP countries are allied with each other. International trade no longer requires Taiwan. The result will be inevitable. Taiwan will be doomed. The Mainland has not fully committed to helping Taiwan join the TPP and RCEP. But Zhang Zhijun's commitment to Taiwan is a positive sign.
On the 24th of this month, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a Washingto think tank. Lee noted that whether Taiwan can join the TPP depends on Mainland China and other TPP members. Joining the TPP is not merely an economic matter. It is also a political matter. He thinks that Singapore and many other countries share an interest in a stable cross-Strait relations. They can help, But they are not mediators, Singapore has no desire to play the role that the United States plays between Israel and the Arab countries.
Therefore we must connect with the Mainland. Only then can we connect with the rest of the world. Upon becoming DPP Chairperson, Tsai Ing-wen argued that "The DPP wants to connect with the rest of the world first. Only then is it willing to connect with [Mainland] China." As we have pointed out, the KMT and DPP take very different paths toward globalization. The DPP would leapfrog over Mainland China. The KMT prefers to connect with Mainland China first. Connecting directly with the rest of the world would be fine if it were feasible. No one would oppose it. But the DPP strategy of bypassing the Mainland is clearly infeasible. Lee Hsien Loong said it very clearly. Unless Taiwan improves cross-Strait relations, it cannot increase its international breathing room. This is a clearly understood political reality.
Therefore, Taiwan must take advantage of the consensus reached during this meeting. It must use the TPP to connect with the rest of world -- through the Mainland. The trail has been blazed. KMT Honorary Chairperson Lien Chan and CCP Chairperson Hu Jintao reached the "Lien Hu Five Points of Agreement" in 2005. This will be the most important windfall from that meeting.
As everyone knows, mankind's chief conflicts during the 21st century are between Islam and Christianity, and between Chinese civilization and American civilization. The major world conflict is between Mainland China and the U.S. Taiwan seeks to survive in the space in between. Recently, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to Business Week. She warned that Taiwan is now at a turning point. Taiwan must decide how much it wishes to open up to the Chinese mainland. Once it loses its economic independence, it will lose its political independence and autonomy as well. She believes that If Taiwan becomes too dependent on Mainland China, it will become fragile. Therefore she called on Taiwan to decide how economically dependent wanted to be on Mainland China, to learn how to manage its relationship with Mainland China, and to find the line it must not cross. Hillary Clinton said that when it came to Washington-Taipei relations, the United States gave priority to Taiwan. Hillary Clinton said the key to the U.S. government's "one China policy" was peaceful coexistence between Taiwan and the Mainland. Her agenda is obvious. America believes in pragmatic diplomacy. Taiwan is located on the first island chain. It is the U.S. government's most important outpost in her containment policy against the Mainland. The United States seeks strategic benefits from its relationship with Taiwan.
Hillary's rhetoric should make Taiwan think. When Taiwan connects with the Mainland in order to connect with the rest of the world, how can it make the United States feel at ease? What can Taiwan give the United States? In 2002 Joe Studwell published "The China Dream: The Elusive Quest for the Greatest Untapped Market on Earth." Studwell put it bluntly. "China for us (Americans), is a cemetery. Everyone is bound to screw up in China." The Western world does not understand China. This lack of understanding is leading to greater and greater unease.
Taiwan shares the same culture as the Mainland. But it shares the same values as the United States. It has implemented a similar system as the United States. Taiwan is a fusion of Eastern and Western cultures. It is on the border between Chinese and Western systems.
The design of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone established a negative example. Xi and Li have been fighting corruption. They hope to shatter the unspoken rules of the past. Taiwan underwent a similar process. It can help the Mainland upgrade and transform, and become a truly civilized nation.
In the civilized world, people do not resort to brute force and authority to allocate resources. People can work together to create more resources. Over the past decade the United States has been mired in the Middle East, Now it is eager to return to Asia. It finds itself in need of a friend. The Mainland's "shi er wu" plan is critical to its goal of establishing a prosperous society. It calls for further reform and liberalization, for accelerating economc transformation during this crucial period. International politics is ruthless. Taiwan has special qualities that both sides need, including "integration" and "connection." We need not sell ourselves short. But we must choose the right path. Only then can we avoid falling and shattering ourselves into a million pieces.
社論－善用兩岸共識 從大陸走向國際
2014年06月27日 04:10
編輯部
大陸國台辦的張志軍主任率團來台，「王張二會」中，多項兩岸談判中的膠著議題獲得突破。「人道探視」確定納入兩岸互設辦事處功能；陸客中轉，陸方鬆口同意進行業務溝通。台灣加入TPP、RCEP等區域經濟整合問題，陸方一改過往迴避態度，會議上給予正面回應。雙方同意盡快啟動共同研究工作，務實探討兩岸經濟共同發展，與區域經濟合作進程相銜接的適當方式與可行途徑。
台灣是淺碟經濟體，經濟發展全靠國際經貿。如不盡快加入TPP、RCEP等區域經濟組織，台灣將陷入被孤立的經貿危機，國際貿易失去依託。我們的經貿對手南韓到處簽FTA與參與經貿組織，在全球市場關稅暨進口便利性上都將優於台灣，經貿市場拱手讓人。再加上越南、馬來西亞與墨西哥等TPP或 RCEP國家互相的結盟，國際經貿就不再需要台灣，這是必然的結果，屆時台灣將陷入萬劫不復之地。儘管大陸方面尚未全面承諾助台加入TPP、RCEP，但張志軍的承諾對台無疑是重要的正面訊息。
新加坡總理李顯龍24日在華府美國智庫「外交關係協會」（CFR）明白表示，台灣能否加入TPP要取決於中國和其他TPP成員是否同意，因為加入TPP不僅是經濟問題，也是政治問題。他也認為，新加坡與世界上的許多國家一樣，在穩定的兩岸關係中有利益。他們能幫忙，但不是一個調停者，新加坡沒有位置扮演美國在以色列和阿拉伯國家之間的角色。
因此我們要再度強調：必須連結大陸，才能走向世界。蔡英文就任民進黨主席後，又強調「民進黨要走向世界，再跟著世界走向中國」。我們曾指出，國民黨與民進黨全球化布局的路徑有很大的差異，民進黨採「跳陸邏輯」，跳過中國大陸；國民黨是「連陸邏輯」，連結中國大陸。能直接走向世界當然很好，如果做得到，誰都不會反對。但民進黨想繞過中國大陸的策略卻是清清楚楚行不通的。李顯龍說得很清楚，兩岸關係不改善，台灣的國際空間就很難拓展，這是政治上明白的現實。
因此我們認為未來台灣應善用這次會議共識，藉TPP從大陸走向國際。這一條路已經開啟。這將會是堆積木完成2005年國共兩黨領導人連戰與胡錦濤建立「連胡五大共識」最重要的關鍵。
眾所周知，21世紀人類主要的衝突，在伊斯蘭教與基督教，及中國文明與美國文明間的文化衝突，世界版圖大國的衝突也在中美之間，台灣正在夾縫中求生存。日前美國前國務卿希拉蕊接受《商業周刊》專訪時警告台灣「正面臨轉捩點」，台灣必須權衡對中國開放到什麼程度，一旦失去經濟獨立，將影響政治獨立的自主性。她認為，台灣若依賴中國太深，會變得脆弱，因而呼籲台灣「必須決定經濟對中國依賴的程度，學到處理這段關係的能力，找出不能越界的底線」。希拉蕊並說美台關係「美國把台灣放在優先順位」。縱然希拉蕊也強調美國「一個中國政策」的核心是希望中國大陸與台灣能和平相處。但是司馬昭之心，路人皆知：美國信奉務實主義外交路線，台灣在島鏈前緣，是美國圍堵政策對抗中國最重要的先鋒，美國是要從台灣得到戰略利益。
聽過希拉蕊的論述，台灣要慎思，透過大陸走向國際時，要如何讓美國安心？台灣能給美國什麼利益？喬‧史塔威爾在2002年出版的《中國熱》（The China Dream）直言「中國對我們（美國人）來說就是墳場，大家在中國都註定會搞砸。」西方世界對中國不了解與不了解造成的不安，愈來愈強烈。
台灣與大陸有相同的文化，卻與美國分享相同的價值觀，實行類似的制度。台灣是東西文化融合之處，是中西制度接壤之土。大陸最近在上海自貿區負面表列的設計及習李體制的革新打貪腐，希望打破過去的潛規則。台灣已經走過類似的路，可以幫助大陸整體升級轉型，成為真正的文明國家。
在文明世界裡，人們不用拳力、權力來分配既有的資源，人們可以藉由合作來創造更多資源。美國過去十年在中東深陷泥淖，現在急於重返亞洲，正需要朋友。大陸的十二五規畫是「大陸全面建設小康社會的關鍵時期，是深化改革開放、加快轉變經濟發展方式的攻堅時期。」國際政治無情，台灣特殊的「融合」與「接壤」特質是雙方都需要的價值。我們不必妄自菲薄，但是要選對道路，才不會跌跌撞撞，甚至粉身碎骨。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 27, 2014
Summary: In the civilized world, people do not resort to brute force and authority to allocate resources. People can work together to create more resources. Over the past decade the United States has been mired in the Middle East, Now it is eager to return to Asia. It finds itself in need of a friend. The Mainland's "shi er wu" plan is critical to its goal of establishing a prosperous society. It calls for further reform and liberalization, for accelerating economc transformation during this crucial period. International politics is ruthless. Taiwan has special qualities that both sides need, including "integration" and "connection." We need not sell ourselves short. But we must choose the right path. Only then can we avoid falling and shattering ourselves into a million pieces.
Full Text Below:
Zhang Zhijun, director of the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office, has led a delegation to Taiwan. During the Wang Zhang Meeting, a number of cross-Strait deadlocks were resolved. Humanitarian access has been included among the functions of the newly established cross-Strait offices. The Mainland has agreed to allow business communications regarding Mainland tourist transit and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and RCEP, as well as Taiwan's participation in regional economic integration. The Mainland's once evasive stance has changed. It responded positively during the meeting. The two sides agreed to begin joint research as soon as possible. They will hold pragmatic discussions about cross-Strait economic development. They will seek feasible and appropriate means to further regional economic cooperation and convergence.
Taiwan has a "shallow dish economy." Economic development is dependent upon international trade. If Taiwan is unable to join the TPP, RCEP, other regional economic organizations, as soon as possible, it will become isolated and experience a trade crisis. It will lose the international trade it is dependent upon. South Korea, our chief trade competitor, is signing FTAs with everyone and joining trade organizations everywhere. South Korea will acquire tariff and import advantages over Taiwan in the global market. Our markets will soon become theirs. Add competition from Vietnam, Malaysia, and Mexico. These TPP or RCEP countries are allied with each other. International trade no longer requires Taiwan. The result will be inevitable. Taiwan will be doomed. The Mainland has not fully committed to helping Taiwan join the TPP and RCEP. But Zhang Zhijun's commitment to Taiwan is a positive sign.
On the 24th of this month, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a Washingto think tank. Lee noted that whether Taiwan can join the TPP depends on Mainland China and other TPP members. Joining the TPP is not merely an economic matter. It is also a political matter. He thinks that Singapore and many other countries share an interest in a stable cross-Strait relations. They can help, But they are not mediators, Singapore has no desire to play the role that the United States plays between Israel and the Arab countries.
Therefore we must connect with the Mainland. Only then can we connect with the rest of the world. Upon becoming DPP Chairperson, Tsai Ing-wen argued that "The DPP wants to connect with the rest of the world first. Only then is it willing to connect with [Mainland] China." As we have pointed out, the KMT and DPP take very different paths toward globalization. The DPP would leapfrog over Mainland China. The KMT prefers to connect with Mainland China first. Connecting directly with the rest of the world would be fine if it were feasible. No one would oppose it. But the DPP strategy of bypassing the Mainland is clearly infeasible. Lee Hsien Loong said it very clearly. Unless Taiwan improves cross-Strait relations, it cannot increase its international breathing room. This is a clearly understood political reality.
Therefore, Taiwan must take advantage of the consensus reached during this meeting. It must use the TPP to connect with the rest of world -- through the Mainland. The trail has been blazed. KMT Honorary Chairperson Lien Chan and CCP Chairperson Hu Jintao reached the "Lien Hu Five Points of Agreement" in 2005. This will be the most important windfall from that meeting.
As everyone knows, mankind's chief conflicts during the 21st century are between Islam and Christianity, and between Chinese civilization and American civilization. The major world conflict is between Mainland China and the U.S. Taiwan seeks to survive in the space in between. Recently, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke to Business Week. She warned that Taiwan is now at a turning point. Taiwan must decide how much it wishes to open up to the Chinese mainland. Once it loses its economic independence, it will lose its political independence and autonomy as well. She believes that If Taiwan becomes too dependent on Mainland China, it will become fragile. Therefore she called on Taiwan to decide how economically dependent wanted to be on Mainland China, to learn how to manage its relationship with Mainland China, and to find the line it must not cross. Hillary Clinton said that when it came to Washington-Taipei relations, the United States gave priority to Taiwan. Hillary Clinton said the key to the U.S. government's "one China policy" was peaceful coexistence between Taiwan and the Mainland. Her agenda is obvious. America believes in pragmatic diplomacy. Taiwan is located on the first island chain. It is the U.S. government's most important outpost in her containment policy against the Mainland. The United States seeks strategic benefits from its relationship with Taiwan.
Hillary's rhetoric should make Taiwan think. When Taiwan connects with the Mainland in order to connect with the rest of the world, how can it make the United States feel at ease? What can Taiwan give the United States? In 2002 Joe Studwell published "The China Dream: The Elusive Quest for the Greatest Untapped Market on Earth." Studwell put it bluntly. "China for us (Americans), is a cemetery. Everyone is bound to screw up in China." The Western world does not understand China. This lack of understanding is leading to greater and greater unease.
Taiwan shares the same culture as the Mainland. But it shares the same values as the United States. It has implemented a similar system as the United States. Taiwan is a fusion of Eastern and Western cultures. It is on the border between Chinese and Western systems.
The design of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone established a negative example. Xi and Li have been fighting corruption. They hope to shatter the unspoken rules of the past. Taiwan underwent a similar process. It can help the Mainland upgrade and transform, and become a truly civilized nation.
In the civilized world, people do not resort to brute force and authority to allocate resources. People can work together to create more resources. Over the past decade the United States has been mired in the Middle East, Now it is eager to return to Asia. It finds itself in need of a friend. The Mainland's "shi er wu" plan is critical to its goal of establishing a prosperous society. It calls for further reform and liberalization, for accelerating economc transformation during this crucial period. International politics is ruthless. Taiwan has special qualities that both sides need, including "integration" and "connection." We need not sell ourselves short. But we must choose the right path. Only then can we avoid falling and shattering ourselves into a million pieces.
社論－善用兩岸共識 從大陸走向國際
2014年06月27日 04:10
編輯部
大陸國台辦的張志軍主任率團來台，「王張二會」中，多項兩岸談判中的膠著議題獲得突破。「人道探視」確定納入兩岸互設辦事處功能；陸客中轉，陸方鬆口同意進行業務溝通。台灣加入TPP、RCEP等區域經濟整合問題，陸方一改過往迴避態度，會議上給予正面回應。雙方同意盡快啟動共同研究工作，務實探討兩岸經濟共同發展，與區域經濟合作進程相銜接的適當方式與可行途徑。
台灣是淺碟經濟體，經濟發展全靠國際經貿。如不盡快加入TPP、RCEP等區域經濟組織，台灣將陷入被孤立的經貿危機，國際貿易失去依託。我們的經貿對手南韓到處簽FTA與參與經貿組織，在全球市場關稅暨進口便利性上都將優於台灣，經貿市場拱手讓人。再加上越南、馬來西亞與墨西哥等TPP或 RCEP國家互相的結盟，國際經貿就不再需要台灣，這是必然的結果，屆時台灣將陷入萬劫不復之地。儘管大陸方面尚未全面承諾助台加入TPP、RCEP，但張志軍的承諾對台無疑是重要的正面訊息。
新加坡總理李顯龍24日在華府美國智庫「外交關係協會」（CFR）明白表示，台灣能否加入TPP要取決於中國和其他TPP成員是否同意，因為加入TPP不僅是經濟問題，也是政治問題。他也認為，新加坡與世界上的許多國家一樣，在穩定的兩岸關係中有利益。他們能幫忙，但不是一個調停者，新加坡沒有位置扮演美國在以色列和阿拉伯國家之間的角色。
因此我們要再度強調：必須連結大陸，才能走向世界。蔡英文就任民進黨主席後，又強調「民進黨要走向世界，再跟著世界走向中國」。我們曾指出，國民黨與民進黨全球化布局的路徑有很大的差異，民進黨採「跳陸邏輯」，跳過中國大陸；國民黨是「連陸邏輯」，連結中國大陸。能直接走向世界當然很好，如果做得到，誰都不會反對。但民進黨想繞過中國大陸的策略卻是清清楚楚行不通的。李顯龍說得很清楚，兩岸關係不改善，台灣的國際空間就很難拓展，這是政治上明白的現實。
因此我們認為未來台灣應善用這次會議共識，藉TPP從大陸走向國際。這一條路已經開啟。這將會是堆積木完成2005年國共兩黨領導人連戰與胡錦濤建立「連胡五大共識」最重要的關鍵。
眾所周知，21世紀人類主要的衝突，在伊斯蘭教與基督教，及中國文明與美國文明間的文化衝突，世界版圖大國的衝突也在中美之間，台灣正在夾縫中求生存。日前美國前國務卿希拉蕊接受《商業周刊》專訪時警告台灣「正面臨轉捩點」，台灣必須權衡對中國開放到什麼程度，一旦失去經濟獨立，將影響政治獨立的自主性。她認為，台灣若依賴中國太深，會變得脆弱，因而呼籲台灣「必須決定經濟對中國依賴的程度，學到處理這段關係的能力，找出不能越界的底線」。希拉蕊並說美台關係「美國把台灣放在優先順位」。縱然希拉蕊也強調美國「一個中國政策」的核心是希望中國大陸與台灣能和平相處。但是司馬昭之心，路人皆知：美國信奉務實主義外交路線，台灣在島鏈前緣，是美國圍堵政策對抗中國最重要的先鋒，美國是要從台灣得到戰略利益。
聽過希拉蕊的論述，台灣要慎思，透過大陸走向國際時，要如何讓美國安心？台灣能給美國什麼利益？喬‧史塔威爾在2002年出版的《中國熱》（The China Dream）直言「中國對我們（美國人）來說就是墳場，大家在中國都註定會搞砸。」西方世界對中國不了解與不了解造成的不安，愈來愈強烈。
台灣與大陸有相同的文化，卻與美國分享相同的價值觀，實行類似的制度。台灣是東西文化融合之處，是中西制度接壤之土。大陸最近在上海自貿區負面表列的設計及習李體制的革新打貪腐，希望打破過去的潛規則。台灣已經走過類似的路，可以幫助大陸整體升級轉型，成為真正的文明國家。
在文明世界裡，人們不用拳力、權力來分配既有的資源，人們可以藉由合作來創造更多資源。美國過去十年在中東深陷泥淖，現在急於重返亞洲，正需要朋友。大陸的十二五規畫是「大陸全面建設小康社會的關鍵時期，是深化改革開放、加快轉變經濟發展方式的攻堅時期。」國際政治無情，台灣特殊的「融合」與「接壤」特質是雙方都需要的價值。我們不必妄自菲薄，但是要選對道路，才不會跌跌撞撞，甚至粉身碎骨。
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Lien Sheng-wen's Campaign Crisis
Lien Sheng-wen's Campaign Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 26, 2014
Summary: Election day is still some time off. Extrapolating from the present in an attempt to predict the future, will only lead to baseless conclusions. Lien Sheng-wen must not become overly-reliant on traditional blue vs. green voter thinking. He must not conclude that being overly cautious and avoiding mistakes will ensure his election. His campaign committee must not adhere to the superstitious belief that history must repeat itself. He must assess his situation, and find a way to win back public support.
Full Text Below:
The ruling and opposition parties have completed their nomination processes for the capital city mayoral election. Public support for Wen-Je Ko and Lien Sheng-wen has quickly reversed, and the gap has significantly widened. More and more, Wen-Je Ko is expected to win. By contrast, support for Lien Sheng-wen continues to decline. This is merely late June. Election day is still some time away. Many uncertainties still remain. But past election experience suggests that Lien Sheng-wen, who has just begun his race, is already looking bad. This is indeed puzzling, and deserves further exploration.
Early last year Lien Sheng-wen enjoyed more support than all the other Taipei Mayoral candidates. It was precisely this high degree of support that made Lien Sheng-wen consider entering the race. It was also the reason he defeated veteran Ting Shou-chung during the party primaries. A majority of blue camp voters abandoned veteran blue camp politician Ting Shou-chung. They opted instead for political novice Lien Sheng-wen. Lien Sheng-wen is young. He has the blessing of Lien Chan. But there must be other reasons why so many voters had such high expectations of him. These expectations were highly subjective, During his past appearances in campaign activities, Lien Sheng-wen conveyed a certain image. This image was appealing precisely because it was so unorthodox.
Why characterize Lien Sheng-wen as unorthodox? Because although he comes from a political family, he has remained in private business. He may have paid attention to politics. But he has never held any executive or legislative branch office. This shortcoming has deprived Lien Sheng-wen of needed political experience. But it also made him stand out from traditional lukewarm, overly cautious, and conservative blue camp politicians. Since Ma's advent, all areas of the political arena have become filled with Ma faction elites. The vast majority are academics and technocrats who exhibit this very trait. That is not necessarily bad. But when it comes to checking and balancing the green camp, these people are often helpless and indecisive. This behavior is precisely what has crippled the Ma administration in spite of its vigorous efforts. Even blue camp supporters are deeply disappointed. The Ma administration is dogged by this image of weakness. Recently a Tokyo Museum poster omitted the word "national," when referring to the Ma sponsored exhibit at the National Palace Museum. Ma took an unusually tough stance on the matter, which took many people by surprise. Hardline Taiwan independence advocates and hardline Chinese reunificationists alike proposed all sorts of conspiracy theories.
Lien Sheng-wen debuted as an unorthodox KMT candidate. But after his nomination, under pressure to reconcile with party elders, his unorthodox image quickly evaporated. Since his nomination, Lien Sheng-wen has appeared before TV cameras on a daily basis. He has become the living embodiment of the lukewarm, overly cautious, and conservative Kuomintang politician. The once young, forthright, and outspoken Lien Sheng-wen, the one who criticized Ma Ying-jeou for exhibiting the traits of the Ming Dynasty, has vanished. He has not regained party elder support. But he has lost those traits that first won him public favor.
Even assuming Lien Sheng-wen still has these qualities, those personality traits alone will not get him elected. After all, he is running for mayor of Taipei. As everyone knows, voters in nation's capitals the world over are picky. Voters in Taipei are no exception. Lien Sheng-wen must prove that he has the leadership to serve as mayor. He must prove that he has the necessary vision and policy blueprint. He must organize a policy implementation team. Unfortunately following Lien Sheng-wen's nomination, this was precisely why people begin to doubt him. As one can probably imagine, Lien Sheng-wen's campaign headquarters is filled with Ma camp people, young, middle-aged, and elderly. Many elders will be eager to help. Mollifying these different groups will be difficult. Acknowleding their seniority and adhering to protocol alone will be a daunting task. Many people are elbowing each other aside in a rush to offer suggestions to Lien Sheng-wen. Lien Sheng-wen has undergone trials and tribulations. His appeal has faded. His charisma has been eroded.
Worse still, he hastily offered a number of policy proposals. He failed to think them through. He underscored his own weaknesses. Take for example his recently launched "New Vision Plan." He proposed that the Civic Center be moved from the Xinyi District to the west end of the Taipei Train Station, as a solution to underdevelopment. Never mind whose idea this was. Anyone familiar with urban planning knows that regional development has nothing to do with where municipal centers are located. Harlem and the rest of Manhattan are regions of New York City. They are poles apart in their degree of development. But no Mayor of New York City is about to move New York City Hall to Harlem. Moving it there would not bring Harlem up to the leve of other parts of Manhattan. The western region of Taipei is underdeveloped. Ma Ying-jeou proposed a solution early during his mayoral campaign. After two-terms as mayor and nearly 18 years time, some of these programs have failed and some have succeeded. But none led to any fundamental change in policy. Lien Sheng-wen needs to do his homework. He must not be in a hurry to offer empty slogans. Doing so will merely underscore his weakness.
Election day is still some time off. Extrapolating from the present in an attempt to predict the future, will only lead to baseless conclusions. Lien Sheng-wen must not become overly-reliant on traditional blue vs. green voter thinking. He must not conclude that being overly cautious and avoiding mistakes will ensure his election. His campaign committee must not adhere to the superstitious belief that history must repeat itself. He must assess his situation, and find a way to win back public support.
社論－透視連勝文的競選危機
2014年06月26日 04:10
本報訊
朝野陸續完成首都市長提名程序後，連勝文與柯文哲兩人聲勢，很快出現逆轉並顯著拉開，柯文哲看好度與支持度不斷上揚，相對連勝文氣勢卻一路下挫。雖說現在才6月下旬，距離實際投票日還有一段不短的時間，許多不確定的變數都可能發生，但相較於過往的選情走勢經驗，連勝文才剛起跑就出現氣勢不足現象，確實耐人尋味，值得深入探討。
要知道，早從去年到現在，連勝文一直都是台北市長各種模擬民調中聲望最高人選，也是這股超高人氣，讓連勝文開始認真考慮參選，並在最終的黨內初選中打敗了經營許久的丁守中。如果說多數藍軍選民寧可捨棄從政經驗豐富的丁守中，轉而選擇宛如政壇菜鳥的連勝文，除了年輕活力，有連戰勢力加持外，一定還有其它的理由，讓許多選民對他產生某種期待。所謂期待，很大部分是主觀的，因而我們有理由相信，應該是連勝文過往助選或在各種公開活動中，所表現出來的某種人格形象。這種人格形象會受到欣賞，其實是因為帶有濃厚非典型特質。
何以說連勝文帶有非典型特質？他本人雖然出身政治世家，卻一直留在民間經商，除了關注政治外，並未在行政或立法部門擔任過任何職務，這種缺憾雖然讓連勝文少了從政所需要的閱歷，卻也不見傳統藍軍政客所習見的溫吞、謹慎與保守等特質，當前政壇，從馬英九以降，充斥於各個部門，馬團隊的精英，絕大多數來自學界與技術官僚，形象表現上最突出的正是這種特質。這種特質不一定不好，但碰到綠軍以戰鬥的姿態進行制衡時，就往往表現出瞻前顧後、無計可施甚至進退維谷的境地，正是這種表現，讓馬政府即便很用力的推動施政，卻表現得極為弱勢，弄到連藍軍支持者都失望。在弱勢形象籠罩下，馬政府這次在故宮文物東瀛展出前夕，為了東博海報上少了「國立」兩字，異常強硬的姿態，竟然讓不少人感到意外，甚至形形色色，由極獨到極統立場的陰謀論紛紛出爐。
連勝文初生之犢的國民黨非典型特質，卻在提名後必須與深藍和解的壓力下，迅速消失無影，自從提名後，連勝文每天跑行程的電視機鏡頭前，面孔滿是「溫吞、謹慎、保守」的傳統國民黨特質，原來年輕氣盛、直率敢言、批評馬英九「大明王朝」的氣勢全然消失，他可能還沒有爭取到深藍回流，卻先失去欣賞他原先人格特質者的歡心。
重點是，就算連勝文仍然具備這些特質，也並不意味僅靠這些人格形象就能順利當選，畢竟他要選的是台北市長，誰都知道全世界的首都選民都很挑剔，台北選民何嘗例外？換言之，連勝文必須展現他有擔任市長的領導氣魄，還必須證明他有夠水準的施政藍圖與願景，以及有執行力的施政團隊。偏偏就在這一部分上，連勝文獲得提名後，開始讓人對他產生疑慮。可想而知，連的競選總部目前一定是各路人馬進駐，世代包括老中青，特別是一些公公老老都會加入熱心幫忙，光論資排輩擺平這群不同系統的人馬，就得花不少工夫，搶著要向連勝文提供各種建議的人更是不少，連勝文給大家這麼一折騰，不僅他先前的特質逐漸消失，甚至連原有的初生之犢氣勢都給磨掉了！
更糟糕的是，他過於急切推出的若干施政構想，可能因為思慮不夠周密，反而突出了他的短處。例如日前推出的「新視野計畫」中，主張將市政中心從信義區遷移到台北車站西邊，作為解決西區的發展落後的方案，不論這是誰出的點子，相信稍具都市規畫概念的人都清楚，都市內各個不同區域的發展，與市政中心設在哪裡根本是兩回事。這就好像曼哈頓與哈林區都在紐約，發展程度卻天差地遠，但永遠不會有一位紐約市長為了解決哈林區的發落展後，乾脆將市政中心移到哈林，因為就算真移過去了，也不會讓哈林變成曼哈頓。台北西區發展落後的問題，早在馬英九競選市長時即提過方案，經過兩任市長快18年，期間有些方案失敗了，也有若干方案成功了，但並不能產生軸線翻轉之效。連勝文應先在這裡做功課，而不是急著推出空洞的口號，被人看破手腳。
距離實際投票日還早，拿現在的局面去推估最終的結果，只會得到武斷的結論。但連勝文不能過度依賴傳統台北市選民藍綠版圖舊思維，認為謹慎小心不犯錯，就可以低空掠過當選。他的團隊不能迷信歷史可以永遠複製，必須審時度勢，找出支持度翻轉向上的策略。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 26, 2014
Summary: Election day is still some time off. Extrapolating from the present in an attempt to predict the future, will only lead to baseless conclusions. Lien Sheng-wen must not become overly-reliant on traditional blue vs. green voter thinking. He must not conclude that being overly cautious and avoiding mistakes will ensure his election. His campaign committee must not adhere to the superstitious belief that history must repeat itself. He must assess his situation, and find a way to win back public support.
Full Text Below:
The ruling and opposition parties have completed their nomination processes for the capital city mayoral election. Public support for Wen-Je Ko and Lien Sheng-wen has quickly reversed, and the gap has significantly widened. More and more, Wen-Je Ko is expected to win. By contrast, support for Lien Sheng-wen continues to decline. This is merely late June. Election day is still some time away. Many uncertainties still remain. But past election experience suggests that Lien Sheng-wen, who has just begun his race, is already looking bad. This is indeed puzzling, and deserves further exploration.
Early last year Lien Sheng-wen enjoyed more support than all the other Taipei Mayoral candidates. It was precisely this high degree of support that made Lien Sheng-wen consider entering the race. It was also the reason he defeated veteran Ting Shou-chung during the party primaries. A majority of blue camp voters abandoned veteran blue camp politician Ting Shou-chung. They opted instead for political novice Lien Sheng-wen. Lien Sheng-wen is young. He has the blessing of Lien Chan. But there must be other reasons why so many voters had such high expectations of him. These expectations were highly subjective, During his past appearances in campaign activities, Lien Sheng-wen conveyed a certain image. This image was appealing precisely because it was so unorthodox.
Why characterize Lien Sheng-wen as unorthodox? Because although he comes from a political family, he has remained in private business. He may have paid attention to politics. But he has never held any executive or legislative branch office. This shortcoming has deprived Lien Sheng-wen of needed political experience. But it also made him stand out from traditional lukewarm, overly cautious, and conservative blue camp politicians. Since Ma's advent, all areas of the political arena have become filled with Ma faction elites. The vast majority are academics and technocrats who exhibit this very trait. That is not necessarily bad. But when it comes to checking and balancing the green camp, these people are often helpless and indecisive. This behavior is precisely what has crippled the Ma administration in spite of its vigorous efforts. Even blue camp supporters are deeply disappointed. The Ma administration is dogged by this image of weakness. Recently a Tokyo Museum poster omitted the word "national," when referring to the Ma sponsored exhibit at the National Palace Museum. Ma took an unusually tough stance on the matter, which took many people by surprise. Hardline Taiwan independence advocates and hardline Chinese reunificationists alike proposed all sorts of conspiracy theories.
Lien Sheng-wen debuted as an unorthodox KMT candidate. But after his nomination, under pressure to reconcile with party elders, his unorthodox image quickly evaporated. Since his nomination, Lien Sheng-wen has appeared before TV cameras on a daily basis. He has become the living embodiment of the lukewarm, overly cautious, and conservative Kuomintang politician. The once young, forthright, and outspoken Lien Sheng-wen, the one who criticized Ma Ying-jeou for exhibiting the traits of the Ming Dynasty, has vanished. He has not regained party elder support. But he has lost those traits that first won him public favor.
Even assuming Lien Sheng-wen still has these qualities, those personality traits alone will not get him elected. After all, he is running for mayor of Taipei. As everyone knows, voters in nation's capitals the world over are picky. Voters in Taipei are no exception. Lien Sheng-wen must prove that he has the leadership to serve as mayor. He must prove that he has the necessary vision and policy blueprint. He must organize a policy implementation team. Unfortunately following Lien Sheng-wen's nomination, this was precisely why people begin to doubt him. As one can probably imagine, Lien Sheng-wen's campaign headquarters is filled with Ma camp people, young, middle-aged, and elderly. Many elders will be eager to help. Mollifying these different groups will be difficult. Acknowleding their seniority and adhering to protocol alone will be a daunting task. Many people are elbowing each other aside in a rush to offer suggestions to Lien Sheng-wen. Lien Sheng-wen has undergone trials and tribulations. His appeal has faded. His charisma has been eroded.
Worse still, he hastily offered a number of policy proposals. He failed to think them through. He underscored his own weaknesses. Take for example his recently launched "New Vision Plan." He proposed that the Civic Center be moved from the Xinyi District to the west end of the Taipei Train Station, as a solution to underdevelopment. Never mind whose idea this was. Anyone familiar with urban planning knows that regional development has nothing to do with where municipal centers are located. Harlem and the rest of Manhattan are regions of New York City. They are poles apart in their degree of development. But no Mayor of New York City is about to move New York City Hall to Harlem. Moving it there would not bring Harlem up to the leve of other parts of Manhattan. The western region of Taipei is underdeveloped. Ma Ying-jeou proposed a solution early during his mayoral campaign. After two-terms as mayor and nearly 18 years time, some of these programs have failed and some have succeeded. But none led to any fundamental change in policy. Lien Sheng-wen needs to do his homework. He must not be in a hurry to offer empty slogans. Doing so will merely underscore his weakness.
Election day is still some time off. Extrapolating from the present in an attempt to predict the future, will only lead to baseless conclusions. Lien Sheng-wen must not become overly-reliant on traditional blue vs. green voter thinking. He must not conclude that being overly cautious and avoiding mistakes will ensure his election. His campaign committee must not adhere to the superstitious belief that history must repeat itself. He must assess his situation, and find a way to win back public support.
社論－透視連勝文的競選危機
2014年06月26日 04:10
本報訊
朝野陸續完成首都市長提名程序後，連勝文與柯文哲兩人聲勢，很快出現逆轉並顯著拉開，柯文哲看好度與支持度不斷上揚，相對連勝文氣勢卻一路下挫。雖說現在才6月下旬，距離實際投票日還有一段不短的時間，許多不確定的變數都可能發生，但相較於過往的選情走勢經驗，連勝文才剛起跑就出現氣勢不足現象，確實耐人尋味，值得深入探討。
要知道，早從去年到現在，連勝文一直都是台北市長各種模擬民調中聲望最高人選，也是這股超高人氣，讓連勝文開始認真考慮參選，並在最終的黨內初選中打敗了經營許久的丁守中。如果說多數藍軍選民寧可捨棄從政經驗豐富的丁守中，轉而選擇宛如政壇菜鳥的連勝文，除了年輕活力，有連戰勢力加持外，一定還有其它的理由，讓許多選民對他產生某種期待。所謂期待，很大部分是主觀的，因而我們有理由相信，應該是連勝文過往助選或在各種公開活動中，所表現出來的某種人格形象。這種人格形象會受到欣賞，其實是因為帶有濃厚非典型特質。
何以說連勝文帶有非典型特質？他本人雖然出身政治世家，卻一直留在民間經商，除了關注政治外，並未在行政或立法部門擔任過任何職務，這種缺憾雖然讓連勝文少了從政所需要的閱歷，卻也不見傳統藍軍政客所習見的溫吞、謹慎與保守等特質，當前政壇，從馬英九以降，充斥於各個部門，馬團隊的精英，絕大多數來自學界與技術官僚，形象表現上最突出的正是這種特質。這種特質不一定不好，但碰到綠軍以戰鬥的姿態進行制衡時，就往往表現出瞻前顧後、無計可施甚至進退維谷的境地，正是這種表現，讓馬政府即便很用力的推動施政，卻表現得極為弱勢，弄到連藍軍支持者都失望。在弱勢形象籠罩下，馬政府這次在故宮文物東瀛展出前夕，為了東博海報上少了「國立」兩字，異常強硬的姿態，竟然讓不少人感到意外，甚至形形色色，由極獨到極統立場的陰謀論紛紛出爐。
連勝文初生之犢的國民黨非典型特質，卻在提名後必須與深藍和解的壓力下，迅速消失無影，自從提名後，連勝文每天跑行程的電視機鏡頭前，面孔滿是「溫吞、謹慎、保守」的傳統國民黨特質，原來年輕氣盛、直率敢言、批評馬英九「大明王朝」的氣勢全然消失，他可能還沒有爭取到深藍回流，卻先失去欣賞他原先人格特質者的歡心。
重點是，就算連勝文仍然具備這些特質，也並不意味僅靠這些人格形象就能順利當選，畢竟他要選的是台北市長，誰都知道全世界的首都選民都很挑剔，台北選民何嘗例外？換言之，連勝文必須展現他有擔任市長的領導氣魄，還必須證明他有夠水準的施政藍圖與願景，以及有執行力的施政團隊。偏偏就在這一部分上，連勝文獲得提名後，開始讓人對他產生疑慮。可想而知，連的競選總部目前一定是各路人馬進駐，世代包括老中青，特別是一些公公老老都會加入熱心幫忙，光論資排輩擺平這群不同系統的人馬，就得花不少工夫，搶著要向連勝文提供各種建議的人更是不少，連勝文給大家這麼一折騰，不僅他先前的特質逐漸消失，甚至連原有的初生之犢氣勢都給磨掉了！
更糟糕的是，他過於急切推出的若干施政構想，可能因為思慮不夠周密，反而突出了他的短處。例如日前推出的「新視野計畫」中，主張將市政中心從信義區遷移到台北車站西邊，作為解決西區的發展落後的方案，不論這是誰出的點子，相信稍具都市規畫概念的人都清楚，都市內各個不同區域的發展，與市政中心設在哪裡根本是兩回事。這就好像曼哈頓與哈林區都在紐約，發展程度卻天差地遠，但永遠不會有一位紐約市長為了解決哈林區的發落展後，乾脆將市政中心移到哈林，因為就算真移過去了，也不會讓哈林變成曼哈頓。台北西區發展落後的問題，早在馬英九競選市長時即提過方案，經過兩任市長快18年，期間有些方案失敗了，也有若干方案成功了，但並不能產生軸線翻轉之效。連勝文應先在這裡做功課，而不是急著推出空洞的口號，被人看破手腳。
距離實際投票日還早，拿現在的局面去推估最終的結果，只會得到武斷的結論。但連勝文不能過度依賴傳統台北市選民藍綠版圖舊思維，認為謹慎小心不犯錯，就可以低空掠過當選。他的團隊不能迷信歷史可以永遠複製，必須審時度勢，找出支持度翻轉向上的策略。
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Eric Chu's Decision: Constraints from Comrades more Binding than from Opponents
Eric Chu's Decision: Constraints from Comrades more Binding than from Opponents
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2014
Summary: Eric Chu has belatedly announced his candidacy, He has left the impression that he "thinks too much" and "took too long." But the difficulty he encountered in deciding was not the result of timidity. It was the result of too many factors binding him from within the party. His dilemma reflects the differences between the blue and green political parties. For example, Tsai Ing-wen bided her time for over two years before declaring her candidacy for 2016. Yet no one in the DPP has any intention of challenging her. By contrast, members of the KMT have bound their most promising candidate hand and foot. Eric Chu's decision may be belated. But he most assuredly did not arrive at it easily.
Full Text Below:
Eric Chu has wavered for some time between seeking the ROC presidency in 2016 and seeking reelection as New Taipei mayor. He has finally announced his decision. He will remain in New Taipei and run for reelection. He announced his decision yesterday in a low-keyed manner, on facebook. He deliberately avoid election rallies. This shows how difficult his decision was. Under current circumstances, his primary responsibility is to stabilize the situation in the seven in one elections. As the ruling party's political star, he must put his ambitions for 2016 in second place.
The reaction to yesterday's announcement was varied, and illustrated how difficult the decision must have been. DPP spokesman Lin Chun-hsien said that seeking reelection for New Taipei mayor was a "shrewd calculation" on Chu's part. Lin mocked Chu's drawn out decision process as "a flop that continues to play." TSU Secretary-General Lin Chi-chia, who is seeking to integrate the pan green opposition, said that Chu's decision showed his "lack of confidence." Even more interesting was the reaction from the Kuomintang. KMT spokesperson Chen Yi-hsing said the KMT Central Committee will "fully support his campaign." This statement had a very different impact.
The pan green opposition's mockery cannot hide its fear of Eric Chu. The ruling party's statement also leaves one speechless. Chu is the KMT's best candidate for 2016. Yet he took so long deciding whether to seek reelection as New Taipei mayor, observers nearly lost all patience. The media examined all possible scenarios. The reason Chu took so long to decide was obvious. Too many factors remained outside his control. In the end, Chu announced that he would seek re-election. He even added that "If re-elected, I will serve out the entire four years of my term." As we can see, he was forced to consider complex factors inside and outside the party.
Eric Chu has decided not to go straight for the presidency in 2016, but to seek reelection in New Taipei. The key reason was the constraints placed upon him by his own party. These exceeded any challenges posed by forces from the outside. First, there was the year end seven in one elections. The ruling party could lose power in numerous counties and cities all across Taiwan. The situation in central Taiwan is precarious. Recent scandals in Taoyuan and Keelung threaten the party's prospects in northern Taiwan. Under the circumstances, New Taipei must not fall. Eric Chu's re-election would help the blue camp stabilize the situaiton in northern Taiwan. It would also test his skill in transregional campaigning.
Second, Lien Sheng-wen looked like a shoo-in for Taipei mayor. But the successful integration of the opposition geen camp, and Shen Fu-hsiung entering the fray, have left the election up for grabs. Lien Sheng-wen's advantage has faded. Yesterday, Eric Chu announced that he and Lien Sheng-wen will form a "Sheng Li Alliance." He is clearly attempting to give Lien a boost. He is adopting a "Twin Taipei Cities" strategy to help the blue camp rally support in the nation's capital.
Third, there is the internal situation in New Taipei City. Blue camp city councilors are highly dependent on a coattails effect. If Eric Chu passes the torch to Hou Yu-yi, that may not work. After all, a veteran leading the way is more certain. The blue camp is worried that if Chu withdraws from the New Taipei mayoral race, the green camp might offer up former County Chief Su Tseng-chang as their candidate. That might lead to an upset in once solid New Taipei. That eventually had to be forestalled.
Consider Eric Chu's perspective. He could go straight to a bid for the presidency in 2016 if he wanted to. Given his high standing in the polls and Tsai Ing-wen as his opponent, he stands a good chance of winning. But suppose he throws his hat the New Taipei mayoral election? If re-elected he would have to declare his candidacy for the presidential race within six months. If he did that, New Taipei voters might be less than forgiving. That is why he specifically stated yesterday, "I would serve out my full term." The purpose of that was to allay voter concerns. Will this force him to miss out on the 2016 election? That is hard to say. Is Eric Chu really the kind of person the DPP painted him? Is he really someone "adept at political calculation?" Would such a person have mired himself in such a situation, where he can neither advance nor retreat?
Nor can one ignore the attitude of the ruling party leadership and President Ma's succession plans for 2016. Relations between Ma and Chu are rumored to be "complicated." President Ma prefers another candidate. Ma Ying-jeou forced Eric Chu to run in New Taipei. The two have ostensibly resolved their differences. But communications remain iffy. In any case, one can be sure that at this moment President Ma does want Chu to help him stabilize the political situation. Chu could boldly step outside the lines laid out for him. He could achieve glowing results. But when 2016 rolls around, he might not become President Ma's successor.
Eric Chu has belatedly announced his candidacy, He has left the impression that he "thinks too much" and "took too long." But the difficulty he encountered in deciding was not the result of timidity. It was the result of too many factors binding him from within the party. His dilemma reflects the differences between the blue and green political parties. For example, Tsai Ing-wen bided her time for over two years before declaring her candidacy for 2016. Yet no one in the DPP has any intention of challenging her. By contrast, members of the KMT have bound their most promising candidate hand and foot. Eric Chu's decision may be belated. But he most assuredly did not arrive at it easily.
朱立倫的抉擇：同志的羈絆大於對手
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.06.25 01:35 am
在「直取二○一六」與「爭取連任」之間游移多時，朱立倫終於宣布決定留在新北市參選。朱立倫昨天選擇在臉書上低調公開他的決定，刻意避開造勢，其實已充分說明他的抉擇之難：以目前的政治形勢，他背負著七合一選舉「鞏固政局」為先的責任，作為執政黨僅有的政治明星，只能把二○一六的想望放在其次。
昨天消息公布後，各方的反應七零八落，也恰恰反映出此事之不易咀嚼。民進黨發言人林俊憲說，參選新北是朱立倫「精明的算計」，又譏他「歹戲拖棚」；正在爭取在野整合的台聯祕書長林志嘉則說，朱立倫的選擇，顯示他「缺乏自信」。更有趣的是國民黨的反應，發言人陳以信稱黨中央將「全力輔選」，也創造了另類的效果。
在野陣營的譏嘲，無法掩飾他們對朱立倫的忌憚；而執政黨的聲明，則暴露出一種令人無語的八股。作為國民黨二○一六年呼聲最高的明星，朱立倫在是否角逐新北市長一事猶豫了那麼久，讓外界揣摩到快要失去耐性，讓媒體把所有可能情節全都編完，原因沒有別的：無法操之於他的因素太多。到最後，朱立倫宣布爭取連任，還要加一句「若連任會做滿四年」；可見，黨內黨外的複雜因素，他皆需面面俱到地考量。
朱立倫不直取二○一六而選擇先在新北參選，主要關鍵是，黨內對他的羈絆要遠大於黨外的挑戰形勢。第一，年底的七合一選舉，執政黨在全台不少縣市面臨失守危機，中台灣情勢岌岌可危，而新近發生的桃園、基隆等地的弊案更威脅北台灣選情。在這種情況下，新北市有絕對必須守住的需求，朱立倫競選連任，除可幫藍軍穩住北台灣的陣腳，同時也可測試他跨地域的輔選功力。
第二，連勝文在台北市的情勢原本看好，但在野陣營整合成功後，沈富雄又加入戰局，使選情變得混沌，連勝文的優勢似有消褪的跡象。昨天，朱立倫宣布將和連勝文合組「勝立聯盟」，顯然是肩負著「拉抬」的任務，將運用「雙北」共同建設的戰略，幫助藍軍在首都造勢搶票。
第三，就新北市內部的情勢而言，藍軍地方議員的選舉一直相當倚賴「母雞帶小雞」的造勢模式；如果朱立倫交棒給侯友宜，未必不能勝任此一任務，但畢竟不如「老將帶路」來得穩妥。尤其，藍營一直擔心朱立倫退選新北後，綠營可能改由蘇貞昌以老縣長之姿突襲，屆時，可能造成新北市十拿九穩的局面一夕風雲變色；這項變數，亦是不能不防。
就朱立倫個人而言，如果能夠直接參加二○一六總統大選，以目前的民調看，和蔡英文的對決，他有不小的勝算。然而，一旦他參加新北市長選舉，若當選連任後不到半年，就要宣布參選總統；果真如此，未必能獲新北市民的諒解。也因此，他昨天特別聲明「會做滿任期」，目的即在化解選民疑慮。如此一來，是不是會迫使他錯過二○一六的大選，則是目前難以解答之謎。就這點看，若朱立倫真是如民進黨形容的「精於算計」之人，他會把自己放到這樣不易進退的處境上嗎？
不能忽略的，還有執政黨高層對朱立倫的態度，以及馬總統對二○一六大選接班的規劃。政壇對馬朱關係傳說紛紜，從馬總統「另有屬意人選」，到馬英九「強壓朱立倫」在新北，乃至兩人已「化解心結」云云，顯示溝通並非全然順暢。無論如何，可以確定的是，馬總統此刻確實迫切需要朱立倫披掛上陣幫他穩住政局；而朱立倫若能在此役大步跨出地方格局，取得彪炳戰功，屆時二○一六馬總統的接班之戰，恐怕也就非他莫屬了。
朱立倫遲遲才宣布參選，確實留給外界「想太多」、也「想太久」的印象。但他如此取捨難決，並非出於對挑戰大位的畏怯，而是黨內牽絆的因素太多。這種情況，其實反映了藍綠政黨的不同文化與性格。且看，蔡英文兩年多來一直好整以暇地在那裡準備再戰二○一六，民進黨內無人意圖與她爭鋒；反觀國民黨，一個最有希望的人選浮現，卻是上上下下皆想把他卡在原地。朱立倫的抉擇是來遲了，但確也來得很不容易。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2014
Summary: Eric Chu has belatedly announced his candidacy, He has left the impression that he "thinks too much" and "took too long." But the difficulty he encountered in deciding was not the result of timidity. It was the result of too many factors binding him from within the party. His dilemma reflects the differences between the blue and green political parties. For example, Tsai Ing-wen bided her time for over two years before declaring her candidacy for 2016. Yet no one in the DPP has any intention of challenging her. By contrast, members of the KMT have bound their most promising candidate hand and foot. Eric Chu's decision may be belated. But he most assuredly did not arrive at it easily.
Full Text Below:
Eric Chu has wavered for some time between seeking the ROC presidency in 2016 and seeking reelection as New Taipei mayor. He has finally announced his decision. He will remain in New Taipei and run for reelection. He announced his decision yesterday in a low-keyed manner, on facebook. He deliberately avoid election rallies. This shows how difficult his decision was. Under current circumstances, his primary responsibility is to stabilize the situation in the seven in one elections. As the ruling party's political star, he must put his ambitions for 2016 in second place.
The reaction to yesterday's announcement was varied, and illustrated how difficult the decision must have been. DPP spokesman Lin Chun-hsien said that seeking reelection for New Taipei mayor was a "shrewd calculation" on Chu's part. Lin mocked Chu's drawn out decision process as "a flop that continues to play." TSU Secretary-General Lin Chi-chia, who is seeking to integrate the pan green opposition, said that Chu's decision showed his "lack of confidence." Even more interesting was the reaction from the Kuomintang. KMT spokesperson Chen Yi-hsing said the KMT Central Committee will "fully support his campaign." This statement had a very different impact.
The pan green opposition's mockery cannot hide its fear of Eric Chu. The ruling party's statement also leaves one speechless. Chu is the KMT's best candidate for 2016. Yet he took so long deciding whether to seek reelection as New Taipei mayor, observers nearly lost all patience. The media examined all possible scenarios. The reason Chu took so long to decide was obvious. Too many factors remained outside his control. In the end, Chu announced that he would seek re-election. He even added that "If re-elected, I will serve out the entire four years of my term." As we can see, he was forced to consider complex factors inside and outside the party.
Eric Chu has decided not to go straight for the presidency in 2016, but to seek reelection in New Taipei. The key reason was the constraints placed upon him by his own party. These exceeded any challenges posed by forces from the outside. First, there was the year end seven in one elections. The ruling party could lose power in numerous counties and cities all across Taiwan. The situation in central Taiwan is precarious. Recent scandals in Taoyuan and Keelung threaten the party's prospects in northern Taiwan. Under the circumstances, New Taipei must not fall. Eric Chu's re-election would help the blue camp stabilize the situaiton in northern Taiwan. It would also test his skill in transregional campaigning.
Second, Lien Sheng-wen looked like a shoo-in for Taipei mayor. But the successful integration of the opposition geen camp, and Shen Fu-hsiung entering the fray, have left the election up for grabs. Lien Sheng-wen's advantage has faded. Yesterday, Eric Chu announced that he and Lien Sheng-wen will form a "Sheng Li Alliance." He is clearly attempting to give Lien a boost. He is adopting a "Twin Taipei Cities" strategy to help the blue camp rally support in the nation's capital.
Third, there is the internal situation in New Taipei City. Blue camp city councilors are highly dependent on a coattails effect. If Eric Chu passes the torch to Hou Yu-yi, that may not work. After all, a veteran leading the way is more certain. The blue camp is worried that if Chu withdraws from the New Taipei mayoral race, the green camp might offer up former County Chief Su Tseng-chang as their candidate. That might lead to an upset in once solid New Taipei. That eventually had to be forestalled.
Consider Eric Chu's perspective. He could go straight to a bid for the presidency in 2016 if he wanted to. Given his high standing in the polls and Tsai Ing-wen as his opponent, he stands a good chance of winning. But suppose he throws his hat the New Taipei mayoral election? If re-elected he would have to declare his candidacy for the presidential race within six months. If he did that, New Taipei voters might be less than forgiving. That is why he specifically stated yesterday, "I would serve out my full term." The purpose of that was to allay voter concerns. Will this force him to miss out on the 2016 election? That is hard to say. Is Eric Chu really the kind of person the DPP painted him? Is he really someone "adept at political calculation?" Would such a person have mired himself in such a situation, where he can neither advance nor retreat?
Nor can one ignore the attitude of the ruling party leadership and President Ma's succession plans for 2016. Relations between Ma and Chu are rumored to be "complicated." President Ma prefers another candidate. Ma Ying-jeou forced Eric Chu to run in New Taipei. The two have ostensibly resolved their differences. But communications remain iffy. In any case, one can be sure that at this moment President Ma does want Chu to help him stabilize the political situation. Chu could boldly step outside the lines laid out for him. He could achieve glowing results. But when 2016 rolls around, he might not become President Ma's successor.
Eric Chu has belatedly announced his candidacy, He has left the impression that he "thinks too much" and "took too long." But the difficulty he encountered in deciding was not the result of timidity. It was the result of too many factors binding him from within the party. His dilemma reflects the differences between the blue and green political parties. For example, Tsai Ing-wen bided her time for over two years before declaring her candidacy for 2016. Yet no one in the DPP has any intention of challenging her. By contrast, members of the KMT have bound their most promising candidate hand and foot. Eric Chu's decision may be belated. But he most assuredly did not arrive at it easily.
朱立倫的抉擇：同志的羈絆大於對手
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.06.25 01:35 am
在「直取二○一六」與「爭取連任」之間游移多時，朱立倫終於宣布決定留在新北市參選。朱立倫昨天選擇在臉書上低調公開他的決定，刻意避開造勢，其實已充分說明他的抉擇之難：以目前的政治形勢，他背負著七合一選舉「鞏固政局」為先的責任，作為執政黨僅有的政治明星，只能把二○一六的想望放在其次。
昨天消息公布後，各方的反應七零八落，也恰恰反映出此事之不易咀嚼。民進黨發言人林俊憲說，參選新北是朱立倫「精明的算計」，又譏他「歹戲拖棚」；正在爭取在野整合的台聯祕書長林志嘉則說，朱立倫的選擇，顯示他「缺乏自信」。更有趣的是國民黨的反應，發言人陳以信稱黨中央將「全力輔選」，也創造了另類的效果。
在野陣營的譏嘲，無法掩飾他們對朱立倫的忌憚；而執政黨的聲明，則暴露出一種令人無語的八股。作為國民黨二○一六年呼聲最高的明星，朱立倫在是否角逐新北市長一事猶豫了那麼久，讓外界揣摩到快要失去耐性，讓媒體把所有可能情節全都編完，原因沒有別的：無法操之於他的因素太多。到最後，朱立倫宣布爭取連任，還要加一句「若連任會做滿四年」；可見，黨內黨外的複雜因素，他皆需面面俱到地考量。
朱立倫不直取二○一六而選擇先在新北參選，主要關鍵是，黨內對他的羈絆要遠大於黨外的挑戰形勢。第一，年底的七合一選舉，執政黨在全台不少縣市面臨失守危機，中台灣情勢岌岌可危，而新近發生的桃園、基隆等地的弊案更威脅北台灣選情。在這種情況下，新北市有絕對必須守住的需求，朱立倫競選連任，除可幫藍軍穩住北台灣的陣腳，同時也可測試他跨地域的輔選功力。
第二，連勝文在台北市的情勢原本看好，但在野陣營整合成功後，沈富雄又加入戰局，使選情變得混沌，連勝文的優勢似有消褪的跡象。昨天，朱立倫宣布將和連勝文合組「勝立聯盟」，顯然是肩負著「拉抬」的任務，將運用「雙北」共同建設的戰略，幫助藍軍在首都造勢搶票。
第三，就新北市內部的情勢而言，藍軍地方議員的選舉一直相當倚賴「母雞帶小雞」的造勢模式；如果朱立倫交棒給侯友宜，未必不能勝任此一任務，但畢竟不如「老將帶路」來得穩妥。尤其，藍營一直擔心朱立倫退選新北後，綠營可能改由蘇貞昌以老縣長之姿突襲，屆時，可能造成新北市十拿九穩的局面一夕風雲變色；這項變數，亦是不能不防。
就朱立倫個人而言，如果能夠直接參加二○一六總統大選，以目前的民調看，和蔡英文的對決，他有不小的勝算。然而，一旦他參加新北市長選舉，若當選連任後不到半年，就要宣布參選總統；果真如此，未必能獲新北市民的諒解。也因此，他昨天特別聲明「會做滿任期」，目的即在化解選民疑慮。如此一來，是不是會迫使他錯過二○一六的大選，則是目前難以解答之謎。就這點看，若朱立倫真是如民進黨形容的「精於算計」之人，他會把自己放到這樣不易進退的處境上嗎？
不能忽略的，還有執政黨高層對朱立倫的態度，以及馬總統對二○一六大選接班的規劃。政壇對馬朱關係傳說紛紜，從馬總統「另有屬意人選」，到馬英九「強壓朱立倫」在新北，乃至兩人已「化解心結」云云，顯示溝通並非全然順暢。無論如何，可以確定的是，馬總統此刻確實迫切需要朱立倫披掛上陣幫他穩住政局；而朱立倫若能在此役大步跨出地方格局，取得彪炳戰功，屆時二○一六馬總統的接班之戰，恐怕也就非他莫屬了。
朱立倫遲遲才宣布參選，確實留給外界「想太多」、也「想太久」的印象。但他如此取捨難決，並非出於對挑戰大位的畏怯，而是黨內牽絆的因素太多。這種情況，其實反映了藍綠政黨的不同文化與性格。且看，蔡英文兩年多來一直好整以暇地在那裡準備再戰二○一六，民進黨內無人意圖與她爭鋒；反觀國民黨，一個最有希望的人選浮現，卻是上上下下皆想把他卡在原地。朱立倫的抉擇是來遲了，但確也來得很不容易。
Monday, June 23, 2014
Let Zhang Zhijun see Taiwan's Most Beautiful Scenery
Let Zhang Zhijun see Taiwan's Most Beautiful Scenery
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2014
Summary: Both sides of the Strait see Zhang Zhijun's trip as a "journey of connection." This should be enough. The man is a guest. Zhang's visit is an expression of goodwill and sincerity, of rationality and pragmatism. Both sides have room to grow and learn. But certain DPP fringe elements, including student movement and social action groups, political parties, and politicians, have already vowed to make trouble. The ROC Constitution protects people's right to protest. But can they exercise their rights in an orderly manner? Can they express their ideas in a rational fashion? Can they prevent things from getting out of control? Or worse, will they deliberately emphasize their irrational and violent side, and put all of Taiwan to shame? It all hinges on a momentary whim. The government must proved that it is determined to ensure the safety and dignity of visitors.
Full Text Below:
Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan tomorrow. This is an important event in cross-Strait history. If all goes well, government offices facilitating contacts between the two sides will be formalized. This has important implications for peaceful cross-Strait relations. This is a healthy development for both Taiwan, the Mainland, and the international community. It should be encouraged. Cross-Strait relations will experience ups and downs. There could be another change in ruling parties. But unless someone deliberately sabotages cross-Strait relations, they are unlikely to suffer a major setback. No wonder the visit has attracted attention both at home and abroad.
A successful visit to Taiwan by Zhang Zhijun would be a great achievement for authorities on both sides of the Strait, as well as the public on Taiwan. Therefore it must be given a chance to succeed. The time, the place, the participants, and the agenda of the visit will required careful planning. Many factors, substantive and symbolic, must be taken into account. Observers should not read too much into the visit. They should keep things as simple as possible. Nevertheless the visit will be an important moment in the history of cross-Strait relations, rife special political significance. The two sides will not sign any agreements. That has been confirmed. But will Zhang Zhijun come bearing gifts? Will Beijing offer unilateral concessions that benefit both sides? That remains to be seen.
Zhang Zhijun will deliberately avoid Taipei City, known as "the nation's capital." He will not meet with any senior central government officials other than Wang Yu-chi. He has yet to acknowledge the olive branch extended by DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen, who advocates Taiwan independence. Instead, he is preparing to meet with city mayors Eric Chu, Jason Hu, and Chen Chu. These three are blue and green camp leaders. Their numbers reflect the strength of the two political parties. This arrangement was the result of careful calculation, and conveys an important message. Beijing is clearly handling the matters with some delicacy. This inevitably reminds us of what the CCP leadership once said. It said that foreign affairs and Taiwan affairs are no small matter. Everything must be viewed from a strategic perspective in order to promote the national interest. It was not lying. It has done what it said it would.
The STA controversy that erupted on Taiwan has been a blow to cross-Strait relations. The CCP has reached its own internal conclusions. But externally, it has reacted with exceptional calm and rationality. It uttered no denunciations. It even expressed a willingness to listen to people from different walks of life on Taiwan. Zhang Zhijun is deliberately avoiding Taipei. He is deliberately not meeting with high officials and business tycoons. Instead he is comporting himself with modesty. He is visiting southern Taiwan in order to get close to the people. He is meeting with people from all strata of society. Clearly the Mainland considers the feelings of the "san zhong yi qing," or "three middles and one young" important. It is reaching out to southern Taiwan and to the middle and lower classes. It is walking the walk, not merely talking the talk. The CCP is behaving rationally and pragmatically vis a vis Taiwan. Its critics should acknowledge what it is doing.
Zhang Zhijun will visit Hsiaoling Village and Fo Guang Shan. The Mainland clearly understands Taiwan. The former was the hardest hit area when Typhoon Morakot struck Taiwan. The latter is the center of Buddhism in southern Taiwan. Zhang Zhijun is demonstrating the CCP's concern for the disadvantaged on Taiwan. He is affirming the socialization of religion on Taiwan. The power of public opinion and the socialization of religion on Taiwan, its concern for the public, has positively impacted the climate of violence, the future of the Mainland, and the role of NGOs in civil society. Taiwan's experience may provide the Mainland with a mirror.
Finally, consider the DPP's dilemma. The DPP seeks to undergo transformation. It seeks to change its image of kneejerk hatred for Mainland China. It has announced that it will not incite mob violence against Zhang Zhijun during his visit. Recently rumors have emerged that the DPP intends to freeze the "Taiwan independence party platform." If these become reality, that is a good thing. They are at least a step in the right direction. But Pollyanna-ish expectations would be premature.
The DPP and its supporters have never cared for anything other than political power. As long as the DPP refuses to forsake its commitment to separatism. its "reforms" will remain lip service and election rhetoric. Observers will continue to "listen to what it says, and look at what it does."
Both sides of the Strait see Zhang Zhijun's trip as a "journey of connection." This should be enough. The man is a guest. Zhang's visit is an expression of goodwill and sincerity, of rationality and pragmatism. Both sides have room to grow and learn. But certain DPP fringe elements, including student movement and social action groups, political parties, and politicians, have already vowed to make trouble. The ROC Constitution protects people's right to protest. But can they exercise their rights in an orderly manner? Can they express their ideas in a rational fashion? Can they prevent things from getting out of control? Or worse, will they deliberately emphasize their irrational and violent side, and put all of Taiwan to shame? It all hinges on a momentary whim. The government must proved that it is determined to ensure the safety and dignity of visitors.
社論－讓張志軍看到「台灣最美風景」
2014年06月24日 04:10
本報訊
大 陸國台辦主任張志軍明天將來台訪問，這是兩岸之間的重要大事，如果一切發展順利，應意味著兩岸主管官署之間的往來走向機制化，這對兩岸關係的和平發展具有 重要的指標性意義，對台灣、對兩岸、對大陸、對國際都屬正面、健康的發展方向，值得鼓勵，即或將來兩岸關係再有起伏動盪，台灣再度出現政黨輪替，除非有人 蓄意火中取栗，企圖全面破壞兩岸關係，否則兩岸關係逆轉的可能性恐怕很小，難怪引起國內外各界的關切與重視。
張志軍主任成功訪台的本身， 對兩岸當局及台灣民眾來說，應當就是一大成就，因此只能、只准成功。訪台的時機、參訪的地點、會晤的對象、談話的內容必然要經過精心的規畫，有各種考量， 兼具實質與象徵雙重意義，雖說外界不宜賦與太多的政治性解讀，讓事情越單純越好，但這畢竟是兩岸關係發展史上重要的一頁，當然還是有其特殊的政治意涵。目 前已經確定雙方並不會簽署任何協議，但張志軍是否會帶伴手禮前來，代表北京發布一些單方面的互惠措施，則還有待觀察。
張志軍此行刻意避開 號稱首都的台北市，不與王郁琦以外的中央政府高層官員會晤，也不回應依然主張台獨的民進黨黨魁蔡英文遞出橄欖枝，反而準備與朱立倫、胡志強與陳菊三位市長 見面，三位百里侯分屬藍、綠陣營，人數按照政黨實力妥善安排，不但有其巧思，而且傳達出一些重要訊息，由此我們可以看出北京處理事務細膩的程度，難免也讓 人想到當年中共高層所說，涉外、涉台事務無小事，一切要從具有戰略高度大局出發，要以國家利益為依歸，誠然不虛，說到做到。
這次台灣發生 的服貿爭議對兩岸造成極大的衝擊，中共當局自有其內部評估，但表現在外的反應確實相當的理性與自抑，非但沒有口出惡言，還不斷表達願意傾聽台灣各界不同的 民意，張志軍此行刻意避開台北，不與任何達官顯要、工商巨子會面，反而是以謙虛、親民的姿態南下，會晤各階層人士，顯見大陸對「三中一青」的重視，要向 南、向下沉的作法，並非嘴上說說，還付諸實踐。外界對於中共理性、務實的作法，或許應當給予適度的肯定。
張志軍還將前往小林村與佛光山訪 問，外界也可看出大陸對於台灣現況掌握的獨到一面。前者是台灣八八水災受創最重地區，後者則是南台灣地區的佛教重鎮，張志軍既展現了中共對台灣弱勢民眾的 關懷，似乎也對台灣宗教社會化的肯定。台灣民間力量及宗教對教化民心、關懷社會、改善暴戾之氣發生了重大正面作用，未來大陸在發展公民社會與非政府組織參 與方面，台灣的經驗或有可以借鏡之處。
最後，再談到民進黨的尷尬立場。民進黨想要轉型，袪除外界對其逢中必反的刻板印象，目前已經表明不 會號召群眾對來訪的張志軍採取抗議行動，最近還數度傳出民進黨有意凍結《台獨黨綱》，這些事情如能成為事實，當然不能說是壞事，至少是往正確方向邁出了一 小步，但對此暫時還不宜有童騃性的樂觀、不切實際的期望。
畢竟民進黨及其支持者從過去到現在，從來只有政治和權力邏輯，只要民進黨沒有徹底放棄分離主義的價值觀、行動與主張，一切所謂調整是否只是口頭論述及選舉的策略考量，外界還是要聽其言、觀其行。
兩 岸都將張志軍此行定位為溝通之旅，應是相當允當，來者是客，既然張主任此行是要表達善意與誠意，理性又務實，雙方都有成長與學習的空間，但民進黨的外圍組 織、某些所謂的學運及社運團體、特定的政黨和政治人物已經表明要如影隨形的進行抗議，雖說中華民國憲法保障人民合法的集會抗議、示威遊行權利，但如何有序 的行使權利，理性表達自己的主張，而不會失控，或凸顯自己不理性及暴力的一面，甚至讓整個台灣蒙羞，全在一念之間。政府也應該有依法保障來客安全與尊嚴的 決心與準備。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2014
Summary: Both sides of the Strait see Zhang Zhijun's trip as a "journey of connection." This should be enough. The man is a guest. Zhang's visit is an expression of goodwill and sincerity, of rationality and pragmatism. Both sides have room to grow and learn. But certain DPP fringe elements, including student movement and social action groups, political parties, and politicians, have already vowed to make trouble. The ROC Constitution protects people's right to protest. But can they exercise their rights in an orderly manner? Can they express their ideas in a rational fashion? Can they prevent things from getting out of control? Or worse, will they deliberately emphasize their irrational and violent side, and put all of Taiwan to shame? It all hinges on a momentary whim. The government must proved that it is determined to ensure the safety and dignity of visitors.
Full Text Below:
Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun will visit Taiwan tomorrow. This is an important event in cross-Strait history. If all goes well, government offices facilitating contacts between the two sides will be formalized. This has important implications for peaceful cross-Strait relations. This is a healthy development for both Taiwan, the Mainland, and the international community. It should be encouraged. Cross-Strait relations will experience ups and downs. There could be another change in ruling parties. But unless someone deliberately sabotages cross-Strait relations, they are unlikely to suffer a major setback. No wonder the visit has attracted attention both at home and abroad.
A successful visit to Taiwan by Zhang Zhijun would be a great achievement for authorities on both sides of the Strait, as well as the public on Taiwan. Therefore it must be given a chance to succeed. The time, the place, the participants, and the agenda of the visit will required careful planning. Many factors, substantive and symbolic, must be taken into account. Observers should not read too much into the visit. They should keep things as simple as possible. Nevertheless the visit will be an important moment in the history of cross-Strait relations, rife special political significance. The two sides will not sign any agreements. That has been confirmed. But will Zhang Zhijun come bearing gifts? Will Beijing offer unilateral concessions that benefit both sides? That remains to be seen.
Zhang Zhijun will deliberately avoid Taipei City, known as "the nation's capital." He will not meet with any senior central government officials other than Wang Yu-chi. He has yet to acknowledge the olive branch extended by DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen, who advocates Taiwan independence. Instead, he is preparing to meet with city mayors Eric Chu, Jason Hu, and Chen Chu. These three are blue and green camp leaders. Their numbers reflect the strength of the two political parties. This arrangement was the result of careful calculation, and conveys an important message. Beijing is clearly handling the matters with some delicacy. This inevitably reminds us of what the CCP leadership once said. It said that foreign affairs and Taiwan affairs are no small matter. Everything must be viewed from a strategic perspective in order to promote the national interest. It was not lying. It has done what it said it would.
The STA controversy that erupted on Taiwan has been a blow to cross-Strait relations. The CCP has reached its own internal conclusions. But externally, it has reacted with exceptional calm and rationality. It uttered no denunciations. It even expressed a willingness to listen to people from different walks of life on Taiwan. Zhang Zhijun is deliberately avoiding Taipei. He is deliberately not meeting with high officials and business tycoons. Instead he is comporting himself with modesty. He is visiting southern Taiwan in order to get close to the people. He is meeting with people from all strata of society. Clearly the Mainland considers the feelings of the "san zhong yi qing," or "three middles and one young" important. It is reaching out to southern Taiwan and to the middle and lower classes. It is walking the walk, not merely talking the talk. The CCP is behaving rationally and pragmatically vis a vis Taiwan. Its critics should acknowledge what it is doing.
Zhang Zhijun will visit Hsiaoling Village and Fo Guang Shan. The Mainland clearly understands Taiwan. The former was the hardest hit area when Typhoon Morakot struck Taiwan. The latter is the center of Buddhism in southern Taiwan. Zhang Zhijun is demonstrating the CCP's concern for the disadvantaged on Taiwan. He is affirming the socialization of religion on Taiwan. The power of public opinion and the socialization of religion on Taiwan, its concern for the public, has positively impacted the climate of violence, the future of the Mainland, and the role of NGOs in civil society. Taiwan's experience may provide the Mainland with a mirror.
Finally, consider the DPP's dilemma. The DPP seeks to undergo transformation. It seeks to change its image of kneejerk hatred for Mainland China. It has announced that it will not incite mob violence against Zhang Zhijun during his visit. Recently rumors have emerged that the DPP intends to freeze the "Taiwan independence party platform." If these become reality, that is a good thing. They are at least a step in the right direction. But Pollyanna-ish expectations would be premature.
The DPP and its supporters have never cared for anything other than political power. As long as the DPP refuses to forsake its commitment to separatism. its "reforms" will remain lip service and election rhetoric. Observers will continue to "listen to what it says, and look at what it does."
Both sides of the Strait see Zhang Zhijun's trip as a "journey of connection." This should be enough. The man is a guest. Zhang's visit is an expression of goodwill and sincerity, of rationality and pragmatism. Both sides have room to grow and learn. But certain DPP fringe elements, including student movement and social action groups, political parties, and politicians, have already vowed to make trouble. The ROC Constitution protects people's right to protest. But can they exercise their rights in an orderly manner? Can they express their ideas in a rational fashion? Can they prevent things from getting out of control? Or worse, will they deliberately emphasize their irrational and violent side, and put all of Taiwan to shame? It all hinges on a momentary whim. The government must proved that it is determined to ensure the safety and dignity of visitors.
社論－讓張志軍看到「台灣最美風景」
2014年06月24日 04:10
本報訊
大 陸國台辦主任張志軍明天將來台訪問，這是兩岸之間的重要大事，如果一切發展順利，應意味著兩岸主管官署之間的往來走向機制化，這對兩岸關係的和平發展具有 重要的指標性意義，對台灣、對兩岸、對大陸、對國際都屬正面、健康的發展方向，值得鼓勵，即或將來兩岸關係再有起伏動盪，台灣再度出現政黨輪替，除非有人 蓄意火中取栗，企圖全面破壞兩岸關係，否則兩岸關係逆轉的可能性恐怕很小，難怪引起國內外各界的關切與重視。
張志軍主任成功訪台的本身， 對兩岸當局及台灣民眾來說，應當就是一大成就，因此只能、只准成功。訪台的時機、參訪的地點、會晤的對象、談話的內容必然要經過精心的規畫，有各種考量， 兼具實質與象徵雙重意義，雖說外界不宜賦與太多的政治性解讀，讓事情越單純越好，但這畢竟是兩岸關係發展史上重要的一頁，當然還是有其特殊的政治意涵。目 前已經確定雙方並不會簽署任何協議，但張志軍是否會帶伴手禮前來，代表北京發布一些單方面的互惠措施，則還有待觀察。
張志軍此行刻意避開 號稱首都的台北市，不與王郁琦以外的中央政府高層官員會晤，也不回應依然主張台獨的民進黨黨魁蔡英文遞出橄欖枝，反而準備與朱立倫、胡志強與陳菊三位市長 見面，三位百里侯分屬藍、綠陣營，人數按照政黨實力妥善安排，不但有其巧思，而且傳達出一些重要訊息，由此我們可以看出北京處理事務細膩的程度，難免也讓 人想到當年中共高層所說，涉外、涉台事務無小事，一切要從具有戰略高度大局出發，要以國家利益為依歸，誠然不虛，說到做到。
這次台灣發生 的服貿爭議對兩岸造成極大的衝擊，中共當局自有其內部評估，但表現在外的反應確實相當的理性與自抑，非但沒有口出惡言，還不斷表達願意傾聽台灣各界不同的 民意，張志軍此行刻意避開台北，不與任何達官顯要、工商巨子會面，反而是以謙虛、親民的姿態南下，會晤各階層人士，顯見大陸對「三中一青」的重視，要向 南、向下沉的作法，並非嘴上說說，還付諸實踐。外界對於中共理性、務實的作法，或許應當給予適度的肯定。
張志軍還將前往小林村與佛光山訪 問，外界也可看出大陸對於台灣現況掌握的獨到一面。前者是台灣八八水災受創最重地區，後者則是南台灣地區的佛教重鎮，張志軍既展現了中共對台灣弱勢民眾的 關懷，似乎也對台灣宗教社會化的肯定。台灣民間力量及宗教對教化民心、關懷社會、改善暴戾之氣發生了重大正面作用，未來大陸在發展公民社會與非政府組織參 與方面，台灣的經驗或有可以借鏡之處。
最後，再談到民進黨的尷尬立場。民進黨想要轉型，袪除外界對其逢中必反的刻板印象，目前已經表明不 會號召群眾對來訪的張志軍採取抗議行動，最近還數度傳出民進黨有意凍結《台獨黨綱》，這些事情如能成為事實，當然不能說是壞事，至少是往正確方向邁出了一 小步，但對此暫時還不宜有童騃性的樂觀、不切實際的期望。
畢竟民進黨及其支持者從過去到現在，從來只有政治和權力邏輯，只要民進黨沒有徹底放棄分離主義的價值觀、行動與主張，一切所謂調整是否只是口頭論述及選舉的策略考量，外界還是要聽其言、觀其行。
兩 岸都將張志軍此行定位為溝通之旅，應是相當允當，來者是客，既然張主任此行是要表達善意與誠意，理性又務實，雙方都有成長與學習的空間，但民進黨的外圍組 織、某些所謂的學運及社運團體、特定的政黨和政治人物已經表明要如影隨形的進行抗議，雖說中華民國憲法保障人民合法的集會抗議、示威遊行權利，但如何有序 的行使權利，理性表達自己的主張，而不會失控，或凸顯自己不理性及暴力的一面，甚至讓整個台灣蒙羞，全在一念之間。政府也應該有依法保障來客安全與尊嚴的 決心與準備。
Prevent National Highway System Toll Collectors from Copying the Sunflower Student
Prevent National Highway System Toll Collectors from Copying the Sunflower Student Movement
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 23, 2014
Summary: Government resources must be used on the majority. Giving toll collectors government jobs is infeasible. The only solution is to pressure Far Eastern to demonstrate greater sincerity, offer a better solutions, and fulfill its promise to find jobs. Far Eastern created a problem. It has no right to expect the public to bear its burden.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement joined with other social movements and left a significant impact on Taiwan society. Now National Highway System toll collectors are copying their tactics. Premier Jiang Yi-hua must treat this matter seriously. Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co. (FETC) failed to reassign employees according to the terms of its contract. Jiang is demanding that the company fulfill its commitments by June 30. Otherwise the Ministry of Transportation will impose harsh penalties. Strict adherence to the law is of course necessary. But it will not solve the problem. The prospects are not bright.
The National Highway System toll collectors' struggle poses a problem, for a number of reasons. The year 2005 was key. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications signed a contract with Far Eastern which included five guarantees. These guarantees included job guarantees, salary guarantees, social benefits, workplace protection, and compensation in the event of reassignment. Problems have arisen with the first guarantee, which promised toll collectors five years of job security beginning with the date of their transfer. Alas, the guarantee was not worded clearly enough. It left too much room for interpretation. As a result, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Far Eastern, and toll collectors are now talking past each other.
What did the job guarantee guarantee? Two interpretations are possible, One. The "job/no job" dichotomy favored employers. Suppose "job" is defined as giving toll collectors any old job? Suppose it is interpreted as fullfilment of the terms of the contract? Second, what sort of job was provided? The job might be good or bad. It is not enough to provide the toll collectors with any old job. They must be provided with jobs that are satisfactory.
These two conflicting interpretations have led to endless bickering.
From the perspective of the toll collectors, a government job is the ideal. But from a legal and logical perspective, such expectations are unrealistic. Toll collectors are hired by the government for one year terms on a one time basis. The employment contract clearly terminates their employment once ETC has calculated the milage and collected the tolls. Upon termination toll collectors must seek employment on their own. The government made this clear way back in 2006. Therefore, the government has no obligation to reassign them The toll collectors' demand that the government provide them with government jobs has no basis.
The ROC trumpets itself a democracy with the rule of law. But emotions invariably trump reason and the law. The primary appeal of the recent protests has been emotional. The toll collectors have made two appeals to emotion. One involves the social climate. The other involves subjective interpretations by individuals.
People on Taiwan are extremely sympathic toward the disadvantaged. This is why some say "The most beautiful scenery on Taiwan is its people." Toll collector unemployment can easily inspire compassion and concern for the disadvantaged. It can lend the protests "emotional legitimacy." Job guarantees are abstract. Guarantees must take into account the quality of the jobs offered, not merely whether a job was offered. This is also the source of individual "emotional legitimacy." If the job provided was unsatisfactory, the job guarantees have not been fulfilled. Far Eastern broke its promises regarding job guarantees. That and "emotional legitimacy" give toll collectors leverage. Guarantees of government jobs were neither reasonable nor legal. When sympathy for the protests increase, toll collectors who accepted severance payments will regret their action. They will join the struggle, increasing its momentum.
Job guarantees must include job quality. The issue of quality can be blown out of proportion, This is why we believe Premier Jiang's declaration might be the sole solution. It may not meet the expectations of toll collectors. But toll collectors must not be blamed. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications foolishly to accepted an infinitely elastic guarantee. In 2006 government heads and officials left behind a mess. It is hard to defend the government's position. Government jobs are not consistent with reason or the law. It is tantamount to a government declaration regarding temporary staff in similar circumstances. It is tantamount to providing long-term job security. It would not only undermine the government's employment system, it would also jeopardize the government's fiscal situation.
Far Eastern's troubles are evident from its response to outsiders. "Fifty-four reassigned toll collectors have been totally non-responsive. Sixty-seven toll collectors have submitted written requests for government jobs. Far Eastern has asked toll collectors to actively participate in the search for acceptable jobs. By late June, Far Eastern will clarify the job reassignments with the Highway Bureau." In other words, some toll collectors have never even contacted Far Eastern regarding job reassignments. How, therefore can this be considered Far Eastern's responsibility? But Far Eastern hardly merits pity. Its interpretations were too ambiguous and too elastic. Far Eastern was responsible for creating the problems related to job security, no one else. .
Toll collectors are petitioning and protesting. They spent the night camped out in front of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They occuped the intersection. The public is not surprised by these esclating actions. Not long ago, factory worker protests ended. They too escalated, step by step. The intense struggle lasted 18 years. The government, unemployed factory workers, and the community as a whole have paid a terrible price. The government cannot allow the toll collectors protests to become a factory workers style prairie fire. It must approach the problem with greater sincerity, wisdom, and empathy.
Government resources must be used on the majority. Giving toll collectors government jobs is infeasible. The only solution is to pressure Far Eastern to demonstrate greater sincerity, offer a better solutions, and fulfill its promise to find jobs. Far Eastern created a problem. It has no right to expect the public to bear its burden.
社論－別讓國道收費員複製太陽花模式
2014年06月23日 04:10
本報訊
太 陽花學運與社運合流，曾經造成台灣社會重大衝擊，又見國道收費員依社運模式逐漸升高抗爭，行政院長江宜樺不敢掉以輕心，以遠通公司未依約完成安置為理由， 要求該公司必須在6月30日前完成應有的承諾，否則交通部應按約從嚴裁罰。依法嚴罰可能是的唯一解方，但能不能解決問題，卻不容樂觀。
國 道收費員抗爭之結難解，有很多原因，重要的因素是2005年，與交通部簽署合約的遠通公司，提出的5個保證。包括工作權保障、薪資保障、福利保障、工作地 點保障及轉職補償。問題出在第一項保證：保障收費員轉職之日起5年內的工作權。這項保證不夠明確，解釋彈性過大，留下交通部、遠通公司與收費員三方各說各 話的空間。
什麼叫保障工作權？有兩個層面的解讀可能，一是工作「有無」的二分觀，這是資方比較傾向的解讀方向，只要「有」提供給收費員工作，就算實現承諾；二是，工作「好壞」的品質觀，不只要提供工作，還必須提供收費員滿意的工作。
這兩種解讀的落差，埋下了今日收費員抗爭不休的禍因。
從 收費員角度，「國家安置」是收費員最希望達成的目標。但從法從理來看，這項訴求很難成立，因為，收費員是屬政府一年一僱之僱用人員，僱用契約中並已明訂 ETC計程收費後即終止僱用，其終止僱用即應自行覓職，這一訊息，早在2006年政府即已告知，因此，政府並無安置義務，收費員要求國家安置在法與理層面 欠缺正當性。
台灣雖號稱民主法治國家，但情永遠放在理和法的前面，這一連串的抗爭最大的正當性來源是「情」。收費員有兩個訴之以情的主張脈絡。一是社會的總體氛圍，一是個人對遠通保證的主觀解讀。
台 灣對弱勢高度同情，這也是台灣被形容為「最美風景是人」的原因，收費員失業無依的處境，很容易引發社會對弱勢者的同情與關注，也就能號召出抗爭的「情感正 當性」。再則，「保障工作權」的抽象性，讓收費員們從工作品質，而非工作有無的角度解讀「保障」之意，也可以由此找到個人感受的「情感正當性」：我只要不 滿意遠通提供的工作，安置無法完成，遠通就等於違背保障的承諾。這兩個「情感正當性」的基礎，形成一個槓桿，去支撐原本於法於理都不具正當性的「國家安 置」訴求。當抗爭受到的同情增加，更讓原本已領取「離職補償金」的收費員反悔，加入抗爭行伍，增加了抗爭的能量。
若進入「好壞」的品質論 去看保障工作權的定義，品質是可以無限上綱的，這是為什麼，我們認為江揆的宣示可能是唯一解方，但恐怕還是不能滿足收費員們的期待。但這不能怨怪收費員， 誰叫當時的交通部，會愚蠢的接受遠通這種充滿「解讀彈性」的保證。2006年負責業務的首長、官員，才是留下這個爛攤子的源頭。站在政府立場也有難處，國 家安置不僅於法於理不合，此例一開，不啻宣示以後國家對類似的政府臨時人員，也要負擔長期的工作保障，這不僅破壞政府用人體制，也將危及國家的財政。
至 於遠通的煩惱，由遠通對外的回應即可看出端倪：「有54名收費員轉置作業以來完全沒有回應，67人書面表達希望國家安置，呼籲收費員主動參與工作媒合，6 月底將與高公局釐清轉置責任認定。」意思是，有些收費員從頭到尾不和遠通溝通轉置，這責任能算給遠通嗎？然而，遠通公司是最不值得同情的。因為，當出做出 這種曖昧、解讀彈性過大，致令今天問題叢生的保障，不是別人，就是遠通自己。
收費員陳情抗議、夜宿交通部、占據交流道，這些不斷升高行 動，社會並不陌生，不久前才落幕的關廠工人抗爭，也是這麼一步步升高行動強度，激烈抗爭了18年，讓政府、關廠工人與整體社會都付出極大的代價。政府不能 讓收費員抗議之火，成為關廠工人燎原式抗爭的歷史複製，必須以更大的誠意、智慧與同理心來處理。
政府資源應用在最多數民眾，國家安置萬不可行，唯今之計，必須強力督促遠通，提出更大的誠意、更好的方法，落實保障工作權的保證。遠通捅出來的漏子，沒理由要全民承擔苦果。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 23, 2014
Summary: Government resources must be used on the majority. Giving toll collectors government jobs is infeasible. The only solution is to pressure Far Eastern to demonstrate greater sincerity, offer a better solutions, and fulfill its promise to find jobs. Far Eastern created a problem. It has no right to expect the public to bear its burden.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement joined with other social movements and left a significant impact on Taiwan society. Now National Highway System toll collectors are copying their tactics. Premier Jiang Yi-hua must treat this matter seriously. Far Eastern Electronic Toll Collection Co. (FETC) failed to reassign employees according to the terms of its contract. Jiang is demanding that the company fulfill its commitments by June 30. Otherwise the Ministry of Transportation will impose harsh penalties. Strict adherence to the law is of course necessary. But it will not solve the problem. The prospects are not bright.
The National Highway System toll collectors' struggle poses a problem, for a number of reasons. The year 2005 was key. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications signed a contract with Far Eastern which included five guarantees. These guarantees included job guarantees, salary guarantees, social benefits, workplace protection, and compensation in the event of reassignment. Problems have arisen with the first guarantee, which promised toll collectors five years of job security beginning with the date of their transfer. Alas, the guarantee was not worded clearly enough. It left too much room for interpretation. As a result, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Far Eastern, and toll collectors are now talking past each other.
What did the job guarantee guarantee? Two interpretations are possible, One. The "job/no job" dichotomy favored employers. Suppose "job" is defined as giving toll collectors any old job? Suppose it is interpreted as fullfilment of the terms of the contract? Second, what sort of job was provided? The job might be good or bad. It is not enough to provide the toll collectors with any old job. They must be provided with jobs that are satisfactory.
These two conflicting interpretations have led to endless bickering.
From the perspective of the toll collectors, a government job is the ideal. But from a legal and logical perspective, such expectations are unrealistic. Toll collectors are hired by the government for one year terms on a one time basis. The employment contract clearly terminates their employment once ETC has calculated the milage and collected the tolls. Upon termination toll collectors must seek employment on their own. The government made this clear way back in 2006. Therefore, the government has no obligation to reassign them The toll collectors' demand that the government provide them with government jobs has no basis.
The ROC trumpets itself a democracy with the rule of law. But emotions invariably trump reason and the law. The primary appeal of the recent protests has been emotional. The toll collectors have made two appeals to emotion. One involves the social climate. The other involves subjective interpretations by individuals.
People on Taiwan are extremely sympathic toward the disadvantaged. This is why some say "The most beautiful scenery on Taiwan is its people." Toll collector unemployment can easily inspire compassion and concern for the disadvantaged. It can lend the protests "emotional legitimacy." Job guarantees are abstract. Guarantees must take into account the quality of the jobs offered, not merely whether a job was offered. This is also the source of individual "emotional legitimacy." If the job provided was unsatisfactory, the job guarantees have not been fulfilled. Far Eastern broke its promises regarding job guarantees. That and "emotional legitimacy" give toll collectors leverage. Guarantees of government jobs were neither reasonable nor legal. When sympathy for the protests increase, toll collectors who accepted severance payments will regret their action. They will join the struggle, increasing its momentum.
Job guarantees must include job quality. The issue of quality can be blown out of proportion, This is why we believe Premier Jiang's declaration might be the sole solution. It may not meet the expectations of toll collectors. But toll collectors must not be blamed. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications foolishly to accepted an infinitely elastic guarantee. In 2006 government heads and officials left behind a mess. It is hard to defend the government's position. Government jobs are not consistent with reason or the law. It is tantamount to a government declaration regarding temporary staff in similar circumstances. It is tantamount to providing long-term job security. It would not only undermine the government's employment system, it would also jeopardize the government's fiscal situation.
Far Eastern's troubles are evident from its response to outsiders. "Fifty-four reassigned toll collectors have been totally non-responsive. Sixty-seven toll collectors have submitted written requests for government jobs. Far Eastern has asked toll collectors to actively participate in the search for acceptable jobs. By late June, Far Eastern will clarify the job reassignments with the Highway Bureau." In other words, some toll collectors have never even contacted Far Eastern regarding job reassignments. How, therefore can this be considered Far Eastern's responsibility? But Far Eastern hardly merits pity. Its interpretations were too ambiguous and too elastic. Far Eastern was responsible for creating the problems related to job security, no one else. .
Toll collectors are petitioning and protesting. They spent the night camped out in front of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They occuped the intersection. The public is not surprised by these esclating actions. Not long ago, factory worker protests ended. They too escalated, step by step. The intense struggle lasted 18 years. The government, unemployed factory workers, and the community as a whole have paid a terrible price. The government cannot allow the toll collectors protests to become a factory workers style prairie fire. It must approach the problem with greater sincerity, wisdom, and empathy.
Government resources must be used on the majority. Giving toll collectors government jobs is infeasible. The only solution is to pressure Far Eastern to demonstrate greater sincerity, offer a better solutions, and fulfill its promise to find jobs. Far Eastern created a problem. It has no right to expect the public to bear its burden.
社論－別讓國道收費員複製太陽花模式
2014年06月23日 04:10
本報訊
太 陽花學運與社運合流，曾經造成台灣社會重大衝擊，又見國道收費員依社運模式逐漸升高抗爭，行政院長江宜樺不敢掉以輕心，以遠通公司未依約完成安置為理由， 要求該公司必須在6月30日前完成應有的承諾，否則交通部應按約從嚴裁罰。依法嚴罰可能是的唯一解方，但能不能解決問題，卻不容樂觀。
國 道收費員抗爭之結難解，有很多原因，重要的因素是2005年，與交通部簽署合約的遠通公司，提出的5個保證。包括工作權保障、薪資保障、福利保障、工作地 點保障及轉職補償。問題出在第一項保證：保障收費員轉職之日起5年內的工作權。這項保證不夠明確，解釋彈性過大，留下交通部、遠通公司與收費員三方各說各 話的空間。
什麼叫保障工作權？有兩個層面的解讀可能，一是工作「有無」的二分觀，這是資方比較傾向的解讀方向，只要「有」提供給收費員工作，就算實現承諾；二是，工作「好壞」的品質觀，不只要提供工作，還必須提供收費員滿意的工作。
這兩種解讀的落差，埋下了今日收費員抗爭不休的禍因。
從 收費員角度，「國家安置」是收費員最希望達成的目標。但從法從理來看，這項訴求很難成立，因為，收費員是屬政府一年一僱之僱用人員，僱用契約中並已明訂 ETC計程收費後即終止僱用，其終止僱用即應自行覓職，這一訊息，早在2006年政府即已告知，因此，政府並無安置義務，收費員要求國家安置在法與理層面 欠缺正當性。
台灣雖號稱民主法治國家，但情永遠放在理和法的前面，這一連串的抗爭最大的正當性來源是「情」。收費員有兩個訴之以情的主張脈絡。一是社會的總體氛圍，一是個人對遠通保證的主觀解讀。
台 灣對弱勢高度同情，這也是台灣被形容為「最美風景是人」的原因，收費員失業無依的處境，很容易引發社會對弱勢者的同情與關注，也就能號召出抗爭的「情感正 當性」。再則，「保障工作權」的抽象性，讓收費員們從工作品質，而非工作有無的角度解讀「保障」之意，也可以由此找到個人感受的「情感正當性」：我只要不 滿意遠通提供的工作，安置無法完成，遠通就等於違背保障的承諾。這兩個「情感正當性」的基礎，形成一個槓桿，去支撐原本於法於理都不具正當性的「國家安 置」訴求。當抗爭受到的同情增加，更讓原本已領取「離職補償金」的收費員反悔，加入抗爭行伍，增加了抗爭的能量。
若進入「好壞」的品質論 去看保障工作權的定義，品質是可以無限上綱的，這是為什麼，我們認為江揆的宣示可能是唯一解方，但恐怕還是不能滿足收費員們的期待。但這不能怨怪收費員， 誰叫當時的交通部，會愚蠢的接受遠通這種充滿「解讀彈性」的保證。2006年負責業務的首長、官員，才是留下這個爛攤子的源頭。站在政府立場也有難處，國 家安置不僅於法於理不合，此例一開，不啻宣示以後國家對類似的政府臨時人員，也要負擔長期的工作保障，這不僅破壞政府用人體制，也將危及國家的財政。
至 於遠通的煩惱，由遠通對外的回應即可看出端倪：「有54名收費員轉置作業以來完全沒有回應，67人書面表達希望國家安置，呼籲收費員主動參與工作媒合，6 月底將與高公局釐清轉置責任認定。」意思是，有些收費員從頭到尾不和遠通溝通轉置，這責任能算給遠通嗎？然而，遠通公司是最不值得同情的。因為，當出做出 這種曖昧、解讀彈性過大，致令今天問題叢生的保障，不是別人，就是遠通自己。
收費員陳情抗議、夜宿交通部、占據交流道，這些不斷升高行 動，社會並不陌生，不久前才落幕的關廠工人抗爭，也是這麼一步步升高行動強度，激烈抗爭了18年，讓政府、關廠工人與整體社會都付出極大的代價。政府不能 讓收費員抗議之火，成為關廠工人燎原式抗爭的歷史複製，必須以更大的誠意、智慧與同理心來處理。
政府資源應用在最多數民眾，國家安置萬不可行，唯今之計，必須強力督促遠通，提出更大的誠意、更好的方法，落實保障工作權的保證。遠通捅出來的漏子，沒理由要全民承擔苦果。
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Economic Upturn Calls for Wage Increases
Economic Upturn Calls for Wage Increases
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 20, 2014
Summary: The Executive Yuan recently convened a "National Economics and Trade Conference." The government promoted economic growth. It used the Mainland's inclusive economic development model to promote labor market reforms, It improved the employer/employee relationship. . Only then was it able to prevent the worsening of wealth inequality. and realize the ideal of social justice. Now that the fiscal situation has improved and tax revenues are sufficient, the government should ensure that the fruits of economic growth are shared by all the people.
Full Text Below:
The global economic environment has improved. Taiwan's economy is also enjoying a new dawn. The Ministry of Finance announced the latest import and export trade statistics. May exports totaled $ 26.67 billion USD. This was the second highest month of the calendar year, the result of four consecutive months of growth. Electronics exports totaled $ 8.56 billion USD. The annual growth rate was 15.2%. This was a record single-month high. Among exporting countries and regions, the Chinese mainland accounted for 41.5%. Exports from Hong Kong increased 6.4%. This was the main reason exports increased in May. Between January and May exports from Mainland China, including Hong Kong, the ASEAN-6 countries, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., increased. European and American exports increased over 5%. Economic forecasters predict economic growth this year. They think a 3% increase is likely. Some forecasters even predict 3.6%. The NDC has shone green for three consecutive months. The Business Cycle Indicator rose 29 points. It hit a hundred year high in May. Indications are that Taiwan's economic growth this year will surpass the global average.
Government revenue has also increased noticeably. Between January and May of this year, tax revenues totalled 708.4 billion NTD. This represents an increase of 1.6 billion NTD. Growth went from negative to positive, enjoying a small increase of 0.2%. Total tax revenue reached a new high. Add to this improved stock market performance. Since June the average daily trading volume for listed and over the counter companies totalled 139.7 billion NTD. This exceeded the initially projected turnover of 116.6 billion NTD. Over the past five months capital gains taxes totalled 36.1 billion NTD, growing by more than 3%. The shortfall for the fiscal year has been alleviated.
The job market has continued to improve. In April 11.04 million people were employed, up 0.12%. The number of unemployed fell by 14,000. The unemployment rate was 3.91%, lower than the 4% low for the past 70 months. In April, the labor force participation rate was 58.39%. This was 0.03% lower than last month. Between January and April the average number of people "not in the labor force" totaled 8.171 million. This was a 22.000 person or 0.27% increase over the same period last year. The April unemployment rate for those with university or vocational school degrees was 4.21%. For those with university degrees and above the unemployment rate was 4.80%. For the 15 to 24 age group the unemployment rate was as high as 12.27%. Employment clearly remains a major problem for young people.
As everyone knows, salaries have remained frozen for the past 16 years. This has led to public discontent and complaints that "Low salaries are a national embarrassment." Demands for salary increases are heard everywhere. In early February, New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu proposed increasing the number of legal holidays in order to increase economic prosperity. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin gave employees a raise. He suggested that the central government consider raising the minimum wage. Premier Jiang Yi-hua proposed three ways to increase the number of vacation days. He asked the Ministry of Labor to investigate policy measures to encourage businesses to raise wages. Conditions have stabilized and the fiscal situation has improved. Therefore the government should consider raising wages across the board.
First of all, the relationship between employers and employees has reduced employer dependence on labor. Over the past 20 years Taiwan has imitated Japan's labor dispatch system. This has significantly reduced personnel costs for both government and industry. But the government's extensive use of dispatched labor may result in large scale private sector emulation. It may worsen labor conditions. This is an important contributor to the long-term freeze in real wages. Recently opposition to the personnel dispatch system has intensified. Labor Minister Pan Shi-wei thinks the public sector should prohibit the use of dispatched labor. County and city governments agree. But the central government currently imposes a 173,000 man limit. Many departments continued restructuring last year. They have added labor requirements. A total ban on dispatched labor will increase costs and create difficulties. How will dispatched labor be reduced? That is already a problem. The central government and its many agencies must swiftly draw up plans for manpower utilization and the attendant measures.
Base salaries were increased from 19,047 NTD on July 1 to 19,273 NTD a month. But compared to the other Asian tigers, this is not very high. The government should raise wages again as soon as possible. Increasing base wages will result in top down comparisons. All wage earners will eventually benefit from upward salary pressures. When 4 million wage earners can benefit, raising the base wage is a top priority.
The government should develop a ten year base wage adjustment program. It should establish a rational wage distribution system, in order to reduce the wealth gap, and adopt the correct path for economic and social development. Mainland Chinese authorities implemented the Ten One Five and Eleven One Five programs to promote inclusive economic development. They focused on environmental protection, social responsibility, as well as base wage adjustment. Salaries were doubled. Social security and other measures were expanded. This has allowed Mainland wages to soar in recent years, greatly narrowing the gap between the Mainland and Taiwan.
The Executive Yuan recently convened a "National Economics and Trade Conference." The government promoted economic growth. It used the Mainland's inclusive economic development model to promote labor market reforms, It improved the employer/employee relationship. . Only then was it able to prevent the worsening of wealth inequality. and realize the ideal of social justice.
Now that the fiscal situation has improved and tax revenues are sufficient, the government should ensure that the fruits of economic growth are shared by all the people.
社論－經濟好轉 政策導引全民加薪
2014年06月20日 04:09
編輯部
世 界經濟大環境逐漸改善，台灣經濟也同步出現曙光，財政部公布最新進出口貿易統計，5月出口額266.7億美元，為歷年同月第二高，是連續4個月正成長。其 中電子產品出口值85.6億美元，年增率達15.2%，續創歷年單月新高。就出口國家（地區）來看，占我國出口比重41.5%的中國大陸及香港增加 6.4%，是5月出口維持增長的主因。累計1-5月對中國大陸（含香港）、東協6國、日本、歐洲及美國出口均為成長，且對歐美出口增幅皆超過5%。經濟預 測機構預期今年經濟成長率登上「3%」並不困難，有的預測機構甚至上看3.6%。國發會景氣燈號已連續3個月呈現綠燈，景氣綜合判斷分數升至29分，創下 100年5月來新高，跡象顯示今年台灣經濟成長可望高於全球平均。
政府稅收亦明顯好轉，今年1至5月稅收7084億 元，較去年同期增加16億元，由負成長轉正，小增0.2%，總稅收創歷史同期新高。加上最近股市表現熱絡，6月以來每天上市加上櫃日均成交量1397億 元，高出當初設定的成交量1166億元，前5個月證交稅已收361億元，成長超過3成。今年財政短絀情形可以緩解。
就 業市場也持續改善，4月就業人數為1104萬人，較上月增加0.12%；失業人數較上月減少1萬4千人；失業率為3.91%，係70個月以來再度低於4% 水準。但4月勞動力參與率為58.39%，較上月下降0.03%。1至4月平均非勞動力人數為817萬1千人，較上年同期增加2萬2千人或0.27%。4 月分大專及以上程度者失業率4.21%，其中大學及以上程度者失業率4.80%。15至24歲年齡層失業率仍高達12.27%。顯示年輕人的就業仍有大問 題。
眾所周知，受薪階級平均薪資已停滯16年，引發「低薪是國恥」的民怨，要求調薪呼聲四起。2月上旬新北市長朱立 倫率先提出增加假期拚經濟主張後，台北市長郝龍斌帶頭為臨時雇員加薪，並希望中央重新檢討最低基本工資；行政院長江宜樺隨即以3種方案增加放假天數，要求 勞動部研究透過各種政策工具，鼓勵企業加薪。在大環境回穩及財政改善情況下，政府應全面思考改善勞動薪資結構問題。
首 先要檢討雇傭關係，減少對派遣人力的依賴。過去20年台灣效法日本的派遣制度，確實大幅減輕了政府及企業的人事成本，但大量使用派遣人力，尤其政府帶頭產 生示範作用，民間大量跟進，已拉低整體勞動條件，這是實質薪資長期凍漲的重要原因。最近反派遣聲浪高漲，勞動部長潘世偉也認為公部門應全面禁用派遣勞工； 各縣市政府也多所贊成。但中央政府目前限制員額在17.3萬，不少部會去年陸續改制，都有新增業務的人力需求。全面禁用人事費用會增加，有相當大的難度； 而且已有的派遣人力該如何退場，亦是問題。中央及各單位應趕快提出細緻的人力運用規畫，並研議提出配套措施。
基本工 資7月1日起將從原先每月19047元調整為19273元，但是比起亞洲四小龍其他小龍，我們的確不高。盡速再次提高基本工資也是政府應有的規畫。藉由基 本工資的提升，由下而上產生比價效應，可以逐漸為所有受薪階級產生螺旋向上的調薪壓力，當可造福400萬戶的受薪階級。提高基本工資絕對是重中之重。
政 府更應擬定10年期的基本工資調整計畫，建立合理的分配制度，才能有助於貧富差距的改善，並讓國家經濟與社會往正途發展。我們看到大陸當局在十一五、十二 五計畫中，推廣包容式經濟發展的觀念，除注重對環境的保護等社會責任外，也積極推動基本工資調整、薪資倍增、及社會保障擴大等措施外，已經讓大陸這幾年的 工資扶搖直上，大大拉近與台灣的距離。
行政院近期要召開「經貿國是會議」，政府推動經濟成長，應該採用大陸包容式經濟發展的理念，推動勞動市場改革，改善雇傭關係，才能抑制社會貧富不均惡化、落實社會均富的理想。
財政稅收既已改善，政府應該讓經濟成長果實，由全民分享。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 20, 2014
Summary: The Executive Yuan recently convened a "National Economics and Trade Conference." The government promoted economic growth. It used the Mainland's inclusive economic development model to promote labor market reforms, It improved the employer/employee relationship. . Only then was it able to prevent the worsening of wealth inequality. and realize the ideal of social justice. Now that the fiscal situation has improved and tax revenues are sufficient, the government should ensure that the fruits of economic growth are shared by all the people.
Full Text Below:
The global economic environment has improved. Taiwan's economy is also enjoying a new dawn. The Ministry of Finance announced the latest import and export trade statistics. May exports totaled $ 26.67 billion USD. This was the second highest month of the calendar year, the result of four consecutive months of growth. Electronics exports totaled $ 8.56 billion USD. The annual growth rate was 15.2%. This was a record single-month high. Among exporting countries and regions, the Chinese mainland accounted for 41.5%. Exports from Hong Kong increased 6.4%. This was the main reason exports increased in May. Between January and May exports from Mainland China, including Hong Kong, the ASEAN-6 countries, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., increased. European and American exports increased over 5%. Economic forecasters predict economic growth this year. They think a 3% increase is likely. Some forecasters even predict 3.6%. The NDC has shone green for three consecutive months. The Business Cycle Indicator rose 29 points. It hit a hundred year high in May. Indications are that Taiwan's economic growth this year will surpass the global average.
Government revenue has also increased noticeably. Between January and May of this year, tax revenues totalled 708.4 billion NTD. This represents an increase of 1.6 billion NTD. Growth went from negative to positive, enjoying a small increase of 0.2%. Total tax revenue reached a new high. Add to this improved stock market performance. Since June the average daily trading volume for listed and over the counter companies totalled 139.7 billion NTD. This exceeded the initially projected turnover of 116.6 billion NTD. Over the past five months capital gains taxes totalled 36.1 billion NTD, growing by more than 3%. The shortfall for the fiscal year has been alleviated.
The job market has continued to improve. In April 11.04 million people were employed, up 0.12%. The number of unemployed fell by 14,000. The unemployment rate was 3.91%, lower than the 4% low for the past 70 months. In April, the labor force participation rate was 58.39%. This was 0.03% lower than last month. Between January and April the average number of people "not in the labor force" totaled 8.171 million. This was a 22.000 person or 0.27% increase over the same period last year. The April unemployment rate for those with university or vocational school degrees was 4.21%. For those with university degrees and above the unemployment rate was 4.80%. For the 15 to 24 age group the unemployment rate was as high as 12.27%. Employment clearly remains a major problem for young people.
As everyone knows, salaries have remained frozen for the past 16 years. This has led to public discontent and complaints that "Low salaries are a national embarrassment." Demands for salary increases are heard everywhere. In early February, New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu proposed increasing the number of legal holidays in order to increase economic prosperity. Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin gave employees a raise. He suggested that the central government consider raising the minimum wage. Premier Jiang Yi-hua proposed three ways to increase the number of vacation days. He asked the Ministry of Labor to investigate policy measures to encourage businesses to raise wages. Conditions have stabilized and the fiscal situation has improved. Therefore the government should consider raising wages across the board.
First of all, the relationship between employers and employees has reduced employer dependence on labor. Over the past 20 years Taiwan has imitated Japan's labor dispatch system. This has significantly reduced personnel costs for both government and industry. But the government's extensive use of dispatched labor may result in large scale private sector emulation. It may worsen labor conditions. This is an important contributor to the long-term freeze in real wages. Recently opposition to the personnel dispatch system has intensified. Labor Minister Pan Shi-wei thinks the public sector should prohibit the use of dispatched labor. County and city governments agree. But the central government currently imposes a 173,000 man limit. Many departments continued restructuring last year. They have added labor requirements. A total ban on dispatched labor will increase costs and create difficulties. How will dispatched labor be reduced? That is already a problem. The central government and its many agencies must swiftly draw up plans for manpower utilization and the attendant measures.
Base salaries were increased from 19,047 NTD on July 1 to 19,273 NTD a month. But compared to the other Asian tigers, this is not very high. The government should raise wages again as soon as possible. Increasing base wages will result in top down comparisons. All wage earners will eventually benefit from upward salary pressures. When 4 million wage earners can benefit, raising the base wage is a top priority.
The government should develop a ten year base wage adjustment program. It should establish a rational wage distribution system, in order to reduce the wealth gap, and adopt the correct path for economic and social development. Mainland Chinese authorities implemented the Ten One Five and Eleven One Five programs to promote inclusive economic development. They focused on environmental protection, social responsibility, as well as base wage adjustment. Salaries were doubled. Social security and other measures were expanded. This has allowed Mainland wages to soar in recent years, greatly narrowing the gap between the Mainland and Taiwan.
The Executive Yuan recently convened a "National Economics and Trade Conference." The government promoted economic growth. It used the Mainland's inclusive economic development model to promote labor market reforms, It improved the employer/employee relationship. . Only then was it able to prevent the worsening of wealth inequality. and realize the ideal of social justice.
Now that the fiscal situation has improved and tax revenues are sufficient, the government should ensure that the fruits of economic growth are shared by all the people.
社論－經濟好轉 政策導引全民加薪
2014年06月20日 04:09
編輯部
世 界經濟大環境逐漸改善，台灣經濟也同步出現曙光，財政部公布最新進出口貿易統計，5月出口額266.7億美元，為歷年同月第二高，是連續4個月正成長。其 中電子產品出口值85.6億美元，年增率達15.2%，續創歷年單月新高。就出口國家（地區）來看，占我國出口比重41.5%的中國大陸及香港增加 6.4%，是5月出口維持增長的主因。累計1-5月對中國大陸（含香港）、東協6國、日本、歐洲及美國出口均為成長，且對歐美出口增幅皆超過5%。經濟預 測機構預期今年經濟成長率登上「3%」並不困難，有的預測機構甚至上看3.6%。國發會景氣燈號已連續3個月呈現綠燈，景氣綜合判斷分數升至29分，創下 100年5月來新高，跡象顯示今年台灣經濟成長可望高於全球平均。
政府稅收亦明顯好轉，今年1至5月稅收7084億 元，較去年同期增加16億元，由負成長轉正，小增0.2%，總稅收創歷史同期新高。加上最近股市表現熱絡，6月以來每天上市加上櫃日均成交量1397億 元，高出當初設定的成交量1166億元，前5個月證交稅已收361億元，成長超過3成。今年財政短絀情形可以緩解。
就 業市場也持續改善，4月就業人數為1104萬人，較上月增加0.12%；失業人數較上月減少1萬4千人；失業率為3.91%，係70個月以來再度低於4% 水準。但4月勞動力參與率為58.39%，較上月下降0.03%。1至4月平均非勞動力人數為817萬1千人，較上年同期增加2萬2千人或0.27%。4 月分大專及以上程度者失業率4.21%，其中大學及以上程度者失業率4.80%。15至24歲年齡層失業率仍高達12.27%。顯示年輕人的就業仍有大問 題。
眾所周知，受薪階級平均薪資已停滯16年，引發「低薪是國恥」的民怨，要求調薪呼聲四起。2月上旬新北市長朱立 倫率先提出增加假期拚經濟主張後，台北市長郝龍斌帶頭為臨時雇員加薪，並希望中央重新檢討最低基本工資；行政院長江宜樺隨即以3種方案增加放假天數，要求 勞動部研究透過各種政策工具，鼓勵企業加薪。在大環境回穩及財政改善情況下，政府應全面思考改善勞動薪資結構問題。
首 先要檢討雇傭關係，減少對派遣人力的依賴。過去20年台灣效法日本的派遣制度，確實大幅減輕了政府及企業的人事成本，但大量使用派遣人力，尤其政府帶頭產 生示範作用，民間大量跟進，已拉低整體勞動條件，這是實質薪資長期凍漲的重要原因。最近反派遣聲浪高漲，勞動部長潘世偉也認為公部門應全面禁用派遣勞工； 各縣市政府也多所贊成。但中央政府目前限制員額在17.3萬，不少部會去年陸續改制，都有新增業務的人力需求。全面禁用人事費用會增加，有相當大的難度； 而且已有的派遣人力該如何退場，亦是問題。中央及各單位應趕快提出細緻的人力運用規畫，並研議提出配套措施。
基本工 資7月1日起將從原先每月19047元調整為19273元，但是比起亞洲四小龍其他小龍，我們的確不高。盡速再次提高基本工資也是政府應有的規畫。藉由基 本工資的提升，由下而上產生比價效應，可以逐漸為所有受薪階級產生螺旋向上的調薪壓力，當可造福400萬戶的受薪階級。提高基本工資絕對是重中之重。
政 府更應擬定10年期的基本工資調整計畫，建立合理的分配制度，才能有助於貧富差距的改善，並讓國家經濟與社會往正途發展。我們看到大陸當局在十一五、十二 五計畫中，推廣包容式經濟發展的觀念，除注重對環境的保護等社會責任外，也積極推動基本工資調整、薪資倍增、及社會保障擴大等措施外，已經讓大陸這幾年的 工資扶搖直上，大大拉近與台灣的距離。
行政院近期要召開「經貿國是會議」，政府推動經濟成長，應該採用大陸包容式經濟發展的理念，推動勞動市場改革，改善雇傭關係，才能抑制社會貧富不均惡化、落實社會均富的理想。
財政稅收既已改善，政府應該讓經濟成長果實，由全民分享。
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Zain Dean Case Aftermath: Acid Test for Justice System
Zain Dean Case Aftermath: Acid Test for Justice System
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19 2014
Summary: We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.
Full Text Below:
British businessmen Zain Dean fled because he killed a man in a drunk driving accident. A court of the third instance sentenced him to four years imprisonment. But he fled the ROC before his sentence could be imposed. The ROC government requested extradition from the United Kingdom. A British court concluded that the ROC complied with international law. Its judicial system met international law standards and practices, and could provide the accused with a fair trial. Zain Dean's plea was rejected. The British court ruled that he should be extradited back to the ROC to serve out his sentence.
The case has attracted considerable media attention on Taiwan. One reason is that the court ruling touches on the issue of sovereignty. The ROC government is an political entity that has long been ignored by the international community. The attention paid to the British court ruling reflected, to a considerable degree, our anxieties concerning sovereignty.
Great Britain has made its international political stance clear. British courts acknowledge the reality of territorial jurisdiction. They accept the ROC government's jurisdiction over Taiwan. Pragmatism has long been a hallmark of the British character. The public on Taiwan has certain expectations regarding ROC sovereignty. The British court affirmed that the ROC justice system met EU requirements for fairness and justice. It affirmed in effect that the ROC has attempted to implement the rule of law and establish a free society. ROC justice has placed it among the rank of nations that follow the rule of law. The British court agreed to extradite one of its own citizens to the ROC to serve out a sentence and face further prosecution. The British were unwilling to shield someone merely because he was one of their citizens. Here is a nation whose view of justice is not predicated upon national or tribal identity. Here is a model of justice that we on Taiwan ought to emulate.
Once Zain Dean has been successfully returned to Taiwan. It will be the turn of the ROC courts to uphold justice without prejudice. From the limited information that has been made public, once Zain Dean returns to Taiwan, he faces more legal problems. He may need to do more than just serve time. Following his departure, prosecutors indicted two of Zain Dean's friends. The charges include forgery and aiding a fugitive. They are accused of helping Zain Dean escape by allowing him use their passport. Since Zain Dean is the chief culprit, prosecutors will inevitably prosecute him for these crimes.
Zain Dean has been convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter. In fact, this was not the first time he was involved in a criminal case on Taiwan. Records indicate that he was involved in other crimes on Taiwan under a different name. But because he fled, nothing came of them. If this is true, old cases could be reopened. That is entirely forseeable. In other words, Once Zain Dean is extradited and returned to Taiwan, he may do more than serve time. Additional criminal charges may await him. He may face a civil suit for drunk driving and manslaughter. That goes without saying.
Zain Dean's public image has probably made him infamous on Taiwan. This is one reason he told the British court he could not receive a fair trial on Taiwan. The British court did not agree with him. It concluded that the courts on Taiwan would not necessarily be led by public opinion.
In view of the British court's decision, we must remind everyone that in any criminal trial, especially press cases, the media must avoid improper interference. It must give the presiding judges enough room to adjudicate independently. When the media addresses public issues, it must be constrained by journalistic ethics. Reporters must exercise restraint. This is a matter of civic responsibility. We inhabit a new s media environment. The Internet has become the new media. When it comes to journalistic ethics, civil society must make no distinctions between professional and amateur reporters. Everyone must be held to the same high moral standards.
The British court concluded that the ROC justice system meets contemporary rule of law standards. Therefore we must abide by the principle of presumption of innocence in our criminal proceedings. The presumption of innocence may not actually reflect the prosecution's inner attitudes. But it must be the principle by which the trial court operates. Otherwise, trials will be mere pro forma rituals. There will be no justice to speak of.
Reporters concerned about civil society and the rule of law should want the court to try a defendant in accordance with the presumption of innocence. Guilt must be determined by evidence, not by stereotypes or prejudices about the defendant. Defendants must not be convicted before they are even tried.
Put bluntly, Zain Dean unrepentantly fled punishment. That was surely distasteful. But did he commit new crimes during his flight? That must be determined by holding another fair trial. We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.
After all, the courts are under overwhelming pressure. Suppose they render a guilty verdict based on pressure from public opinion. In the eyes of third parties or the international community, will the verdict reflect independent judgment or social pressure? Excessive media influence can only undermine the impartial image of the court.
Zain Dean has been successfully extradited. Civil society on Taiwan must safeguard the hard won reputation of our justice system.
社論－林克穎案後續 司法真正的考驗
2014年06月19日 04:09
本報訊
英商林克穎因酒駕撞死人逃逸，遭法院三審判決應處4年徒刑定讞，卻於發監執行前潛逃出境，經我國向英國請求引渡，英國法院基於台灣具有國際法之領域地位，且司法制度與實踐均符合國際法標準，足以給予被告公平審判，乃駁回林克穎的抗辯，判定應予引渡回台灣服刑。
此案引起台灣輿論高度重視，原因之一是判決涉及的主權議題。英國法院的裁判，相當程度上，回應了台灣因實體存在長期受到國際社會漠視，因而產生的主權情緒與焦慮。
本於英國既有的國際政治立場，英國法院以領域管轄之現實存在做為裁判基礎，接受了台灣領域管轄的正當性，符合英國向來服膺的實用主義性格，但是滿足了台灣社會最低度的主權意識；確認台灣司法合乎歐盟要求審判公平正義的規格，不啻驗證了台灣在追求法治開放社會中曾有的一些努力，已使台灣司法權的表現躋身法治國家之林。而英國法院同意將其國民遣付台灣服刑，甚至進一步接受司法審判，顯示英國法院不因林克穎是其國民而護短，這是一種不被國族本位思想矇住眼睛的司法態度，值得台灣司法效法。
林克穎成功引渡回台之後，就輪到台灣的法院展現什麼才是公正無成見而不偏頗的司法了。就已經公開的有限資料看起來，林克穎回到台灣所面臨的法律問題，可能還不只是服刑而已。在他離境之後，檢方已經著手追訴他的兩個朋友，罪名包括偽造文書與藏匿人犯等等，也就是指控他們有幫助林克穎使用他人護照出境的行為。林克穎既是正主，檢方不免也會繼續追究他在這一方面的法律責任。
其實林克穎酒駕傷人的案件，好像不是他第一次在台灣涉及刑事案件。資料顯示之前他似乎曾經以不同的姓名在台灣有過其他的刑事麻煩，但也因為離境而不了了之。如果此說屬實，前案重新開啟，也是可以預見。換句話說，林克穎引渡回台之後，不但要入監服刑，還可能會有更多新的刑事訴訟程序等著他。他同時還要面對酒駕肇事的民事求償，又不待言。
林克穎在台灣的公共形象，可能已經到了聲名狼藉、無以復加的程度，這正是他在英國法院主張台灣法院不可能公正審判的理由之一。雖然英國法院並未同意他的說法，而認定台灣的法院可以不受公共輿論的影響。
有鑑於英國法院的判決，我們必須提醒，在任何一場刑事審判中，尤其是公共矚目的刑事案件，媒體應避免基於新聞的需要而妄加干涉，讓出足夠的空間容許法官獨立審判，這原是媒體從事公共議題討論所應該把握的新聞倫理。基於這項原則，媒體工作者的自制，是具有公民社會意義的事。以今日的媒體環境，網路已有成為新型態媒體的趨勢，公民社會裡的新聞工作倫理，應該不分專業或是業餘媒體工作者，均一體適用。
如果我們對於英國法院認定台灣的司法合乎當代法治正義的要求，我們就必須落實並堅持刑事訴訟無罪推定原則。無罪推定原則，可能不是檢方追訴犯罪時真正的立場，但必須是職司審判的法院所必須遵循的原則。否則審判就不免只是一種過場，將無真正的公正可言。
而關心公民社會法治原則的媒體，也應該希望法院能夠依照無罪推定原則審判，只是根據證據定罪，而非帶著被告有罪的成見或偏見，未審而心中已然加以定罪。
說的更白些，林克穎逃避服刑不知悔改，固然令人不齒，但他究竟是否在逃避服刑過程中犯下新的罪行，就必須經過另一場公正的審判才能確定。我們既然自豪於台灣司法業已樹立了公正可信賴的國際形象，社會輿論就應該讓出足夠的空間，等待法院用裁判告訴社會被告有沒有犯罪，而不是妄自形成定見要求法院接受。
畢竟，法院在一面倒的壓力下，做成合乎輿情期待的有罪判決，在第三人或國際社會的眼裡，恐怕很難分辨那是獨立判決，還是曲從社會壓力的結果，過多的輿論指導棋，反而減損法院的公正形象。
林克穎的引渡可望成功，台灣的公民社會再進一步共同維護來之不易司法名譽的時候到了！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19 2014
Summary: We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.
Full Text Below:
British businessmen Zain Dean fled because he killed a man in a drunk driving accident. A court of the third instance sentenced him to four years imprisonment. But he fled the ROC before his sentence could be imposed. The ROC government requested extradition from the United Kingdom. A British court concluded that the ROC complied with international law. Its judicial system met international law standards and practices, and could provide the accused with a fair trial. Zain Dean's plea was rejected. The British court ruled that he should be extradited back to the ROC to serve out his sentence.
The case has attracted considerable media attention on Taiwan. One reason is that the court ruling touches on the issue of sovereignty. The ROC government is an political entity that has long been ignored by the international community. The attention paid to the British court ruling reflected, to a considerable degree, our anxieties concerning sovereignty.
Great Britain has made its international political stance clear. British courts acknowledge the reality of territorial jurisdiction. They accept the ROC government's jurisdiction over Taiwan. Pragmatism has long been a hallmark of the British character. The public on Taiwan has certain expectations regarding ROC sovereignty. The British court affirmed that the ROC justice system met EU requirements for fairness and justice. It affirmed in effect that the ROC has attempted to implement the rule of law and establish a free society. ROC justice has placed it among the rank of nations that follow the rule of law. The British court agreed to extradite one of its own citizens to the ROC to serve out a sentence and face further prosecution. The British were unwilling to shield someone merely because he was one of their citizens. Here is a nation whose view of justice is not predicated upon national or tribal identity. Here is a model of justice that we on Taiwan ought to emulate.
Once Zain Dean has been successfully returned to Taiwan. It will be the turn of the ROC courts to uphold justice without prejudice. From the limited information that has been made public, once Zain Dean returns to Taiwan, he faces more legal problems. He may need to do more than just serve time. Following his departure, prosecutors indicted two of Zain Dean's friends. The charges include forgery and aiding a fugitive. They are accused of helping Zain Dean escape by allowing him use their passport. Since Zain Dean is the chief culprit, prosecutors will inevitably prosecute him for these crimes.
Zain Dean has been convicted of drunk driving and manslaughter. In fact, this was not the first time he was involved in a criminal case on Taiwan. Records indicate that he was involved in other crimes on Taiwan under a different name. But because he fled, nothing came of them. If this is true, old cases could be reopened. That is entirely forseeable. In other words, Once Zain Dean is extradited and returned to Taiwan, he may do more than serve time. Additional criminal charges may await him. He may face a civil suit for drunk driving and manslaughter. That goes without saying.
Zain Dean's public image has probably made him infamous on Taiwan. This is one reason he told the British court he could not receive a fair trial on Taiwan. The British court did not agree with him. It concluded that the courts on Taiwan would not necessarily be led by public opinion.
In view of the British court's decision, we must remind everyone that in any criminal trial, especially press cases, the media must avoid improper interference. It must give the presiding judges enough room to adjudicate independently. When the media addresses public issues, it must be constrained by journalistic ethics. Reporters must exercise restraint. This is a matter of civic responsibility. We inhabit a new s media environment. The Internet has become the new media. When it comes to journalistic ethics, civil society must make no distinctions between professional and amateur reporters. Everyone must be held to the same high moral standards.
The British court concluded that the ROC justice system meets contemporary rule of law standards. Therefore we must abide by the principle of presumption of innocence in our criminal proceedings. The presumption of innocence may not actually reflect the prosecution's inner attitudes. But it must be the principle by which the trial court operates. Otherwise, trials will be mere pro forma rituals. There will be no justice to speak of.
Reporters concerned about civil society and the rule of law should want the court to try a defendant in accordance with the presumption of innocence. Guilt must be determined by evidence, not by stereotypes or prejudices about the defendant. Defendants must not be convicted before they are even tried.
Put bluntly, Zain Dean unrepentantly fled punishment. That was surely distasteful. But did he commit new crimes during his flight? That must be determined by holding another fair trial. We are proud that ROC justice has established an international reputation for impartiality. The public must give the courts room. It must wait for the courts to determine whether the defendant is guilty. It must not cling to stereotypes and demand that the court accept its prejudices.
After all, the courts are under overwhelming pressure. Suppose they render a guilty verdict based on pressure from public opinion. In the eyes of third parties or the international community, will the verdict reflect independent judgment or social pressure? Excessive media influence can only undermine the impartial image of the court.
Zain Dean has been successfully extradited. Civil society on Taiwan must safeguard the hard won reputation of our justice system.
社論－林克穎案後續 司法真正的考驗
2014年06月19日 04:09
本報訊
英商林克穎因酒駕撞死人逃逸，遭法院三審判決應處4年徒刑定讞，卻於發監執行前潛逃出境，經我國向英國請求引渡，英國法院基於台灣具有國際法之領域地位，且司法制度與實踐均符合國際法標準，足以給予被告公平審判，乃駁回林克穎的抗辯，判定應予引渡回台灣服刑。
此案引起台灣輿論高度重視，原因之一是判決涉及的主權議題。英國法院的裁判，相當程度上，回應了台灣因實體存在長期受到國際社會漠視，因而產生的主權情緒與焦慮。
本於英國既有的國際政治立場，英國法院以領域管轄之現實存在做為裁判基礎，接受了台灣領域管轄的正當性，符合英國向來服膺的實用主義性格，但是滿足了台灣社會最低度的主權意識；確認台灣司法合乎歐盟要求審判公平正義的規格，不啻驗證了台灣在追求法治開放社會中曾有的一些努力，已使台灣司法權的表現躋身法治國家之林。而英國法院同意將其國民遣付台灣服刑，甚至進一步接受司法審判，顯示英國法院不因林克穎是其國民而護短，這是一種不被國族本位思想矇住眼睛的司法態度，值得台灣司法效法。
林克穎成功引渡回台之後，就輪到台灣的法院展現什麼才是公正無成見而不偏頗的司法了。就已經公開的有限資料看起來，林克穎回到台灣所面臨的法律問題，可能還不只是服刑而已。在他離境之後，檢方已經著手追訴他的兩個朋友，罪名包括偽造文書與藏匿人犯等等，也就是指控他們有幫助林克穎使用他人護照出境的行為。林克穎既是正主，檢方不免也會繼續追究他在這一方面的法律責任。
其實林克穎酒駕傷人的案件，好像不是他第一次在台灣涉及刑事案件。資料顯示之前他似乎曾經以不同的姓名在台灣有過其他的刑事麻煩，但也因為離境而不了了之。如果此說屬實，前案重新開啟，也是可以預見。換句話說，林克穎引渡回台之後，不但要入監服刑，還可能會有更多新的刑事訴訟程序等著他。他同時還要面對酒駕肇事的民事求償，又不待言。
林克穎在台灣的公共形象，可能已經到了聲名狼藉、無以復加的程度，這正是他在英國法院主張台灣法院不可能公正審判的理由之一。雖然英國法院並未同意他的說法，而認定台灣的法院可以不受公共輿論的影響。
有鑑於英國法院的判決，我們必須提醒，在任何一場刑事審判中，尤其是公共矚目的刑事案件，媒體應避免基於新聞的需要而妄加干涉，讓出足夠的空間容許法官獨立審判，這原是媒體從事公共議題討論所應該把握的新聞倫理。基於這項原則，媒體工作者的自制，是具有公民社會意義的事。以今日的媒體環境，網路已有成為新型態媒體的趨勢，公民社會裡的新聞工作倫理，應該不分專業或是業餘媒體工作者，均一體適用。
如果我們對於英國法院認定台灣的司法合乎當代法治正義的要求，我們就必須落實並堅持刑事訴訟無罪推定原則。無罪推定原則，可能不是檢方追訴犯罪時真正的立場，但必須是職司審判的法院所必須遵循的原則。否則審判就不免只是一種過場，將無真正的公正可言。
而關心公民社會法治原則的媒體，也應該希望法院能夠依照無罪推定原則審判，只是根據證據定罪，而非帶著被告有罪的成見或偏見，未審而心中已然加以定罪。
說的更白些，林克穎逃避服刑不知悔改，固然令人不齒，但他究竟是否在逃避服刑過程中犯下新的罪行，就必須經過另一場公正的審判才能確定。我們既然自豪於台灣司法業已樹立了公正可信賴的國際形象，社會輿論就應該讓出足夠的空間，等待法院用裁判告訴社會被告有沒有犯罪，而不是妄自形成定見要求法院接受。
畢竟，法院在一面倒的壓力下，做成合乎輿情期待的有罪判決，在第三人或國際社會的眼裡，恐怕很難分辨那是獨立判決，還是曲從社會壓力的結果，過多的輿論指導棋，反而減損法院的公正形象。
林克穎的引渡可望成功，台灣的公民社會再進一步共同維護來之不易司法名譽的時候到了！
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The National Economics and Trade Conference Should Address Tax Reform
The National Economics and Trade Conference Should Address Tax Reform
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2014
Summary: The Academia Sinica recently published its "Tax Reform Policy Proposals." It addressed the problem of fiscal red ink and urged tax reform. Academia Sinica member Wang Ping, convenor of the team, spent nearly a year discussing, analyzing, and researching the problem. He concluded that the government has three major problems. He made six major recommendations. The government and the public should give his report the attention it deserves.
Full Text Below:
The Academia Sinica recently published its "Tax Reform Policy Proposals." It addressed the problem of fiscal red ink and urged tax reform. Academia Sinica member Wang Ping, convenor of the team, spent nearly a year discussing, analyzing, and researching the problem. He concluded that the government has three major problems. He made six major recommendations. The government and the public should give his report the attention it deserves.
We are pleased to see members of the Academia Sinica, the nation's foremost research institute, emerge from their ivory tower, develop a civic spirit, and attempt to help the public. The report offered six recommendations. It did not prioritize them or draw up a timetable. Nevertheless they can serve as a blueprint for future government policy.
The report mentioned three major issues. The 2012 tax rate of 12.8% was among the lowest in the world. Payroll tax proceeds accounted for the lion's share. Corporate and capital income taxes were on the low side. Too much income was non-taxable. There was no sign of improvement in the deficit, which has worsened. These are the most important reasons for our government's fiscal problems. These problems have been around for ages. They are community-wide structural problems. A seven year long illness cannot be cured by three years of treatment.
The government's tax rate is too low. The proportion of corporate taxation is too low. Wage earners bear the heaviest tax burden. Surveys of family income and expenditures clearly reveal the nature of the problem.
In 2005, there were 7.1 million households on Taiwan. That year about 5.5 million households filed consolidated tax returns. Therefore nearly 1.6 million households, legal and illegal, filed no returns. Approximately 5.5 million households reported inadequate family incomes under 50,000 NT per month. Nearly 4 million households reported annual household gross income under 595,000 NT. The remaining 1.5 million, or 20 percent of all households, were largely newly married couples with two incomes. They bear most of the government's tax burden. Taxes on Taiwan are levied in a highly inequitable manner.
Corporate and capital income is undertaxed. The report said "Our national tax base is basically an income tax on wages." A large proportion of non-wage related taxes are evaded, Most Taiwan businesses are SMEs. Even tax authorities in advanced countries have a hard time getting a handle on small business income." No country advanced as the ROC can become a tax paradise. SMEs almost never pay taxes. Their financial records are not subject to audits. Their records are kept by accountants. Tax returns are filed based on invoices. The expenses of business owners, family members, as well as others, are all covered by the company.
We cannot expect ivory tower academics to implement these reforms. We must depend on taxing agencies to redesign the system and remedy the problem.
Discussions and recommendations about the consumption tax are a top priority. The government's consumption tax, a 5% value-added tax, is among the lowest in the world. The government has long been afraid to raise it. Most scholars assumed it was a regressive tax. But the report states that "From a dynamic perspective, it should be considered a proportional tax, rather than a regressive tax." It concluded that "Savings will be different due to different types of consumption in the future. Raising the consumption tax rate, especially the luxury product consumption tax rate, is a fait accompli, given the imminent tax hike on wealth. It can improve tax efficiency. It can also reduce wealth inequality." Therefore the report recommended an appropriate increase in the consumption tax rate. Normal consumer goods can remain at the current rate of 5%. Taxes on luxury goods can be increased to 10%.
But part of the argument was flawed. As we all know, most income is used to consume. Most of the wealth of the rich is saved. They can even go abroad to shop. Raising the consumption tax merely takes more from the common folk. Therefore it is a regressive tax. That said, increasing the luxury tax is feasible, and will improve the government's fiscal situation.
We have a blueprint. Therefore we should act on it. We should don sword and sandal and solve the problem.
The national debt is a serious problem. Central government debt as a proportion of GDP is not high compared to other countries. But the hidden debt exceeds 24 trillion. The ROC government's debt level is as high as the PIIGS just before the European debt crisis struck, including the worst basket case -- Greece. The central bank contribues about 200 billion a year to the treasury. Without the central bank's contribution, the government's fiscal deficit would be serious. But allowing the central bank to contribute to the treasury is far from satisfactory. Central banks the world over do not bear such burdens. The Academia Sinica should propose a solution to this in the future.
The National Economics and Trade Conference will convene this weekend. We expect in depth discussions on these issues. The Ministry of Finance should consult these recommendations. It should offer specific responses and develop policy plans to implement the necessary reforms.
社論－經貿國是會議應討論稅改問題
2014年06月18日 04:09
本報訊
中央研究院日前發表《賦稅改革政策建議書》，提出財政收支赤字問題的分析，及稅制調整建言。召集人王平院士所領導的團隊經過將近一年的討論、分析及研究，提出我國賦稅3大問題、6大建議。這份報告，值得政府及社會各界重視。
我們欣然見到，國內最高研究機構中研院，不再不食人間煙火，能走入民間發揚淑世精神來經世濟民。文中提出6大建議雖未排出施政先後順序或提出具體時程，但可以做為未來政府施政的藍圖。
《建議書》中提到的3大問題：租稅負擔率12.8%（民國101年）為全球最低；薪資所得者稅負比重偏高，企業及資本所得稅負比重偏低，未稅所得過多；而且赤字沒有任何改善跡象，將愈形惡化，這些的確是當前我國財政問題最重要的病因。然而這些問題都行之有年，是整體社會長久以來結構性的問題。七年之病，求三年之艾，本不可得。
然而，我國租稅負擔率如此之低，企業課稅比重太低，而薪資所得者課稅比重偏高，交叉比對家庭收支調查報告，尤其清楚呈現問題的本質。
民國94年全國家戶數約710萬，同年的綜所稅申報戶數目約550萬，因此有近160萬戶，包括合法和非法，完全沒有報稅。550萬申報戶中每月家庭收入不足5萬元，家庭年總所得未達59.5萬元有將近400萬戶。剩下來150萬戶，約兩成的家戶，尤其屬於夫妻雙新的高薪家庭，負擔了絕大部分的國家稅收。台灣稅負不均問題真的非常嚴重。
針對企業及資本所得稅負比重偏低的問題，文中雖提到「我國所得稅基本上已經成為薪資稅的所得稅，相當高比例的非薪資所得被避掉或逃漏掉，因為台灣企業絕大半是中小企業，對於中小企業主的所得，即使是先進國家的稽徵機關也不容易掌握。」我們要指出，先進國家絕對沒有如台灣可以成為免稅樂園。中小企業幾乎都不繳稅，與所有的財務資料缺乏監督稽核，都是由記帳士，根據發票整理報稅，業主、所有家庭成員乃至他人消費全是由公司埋單。
這部分的改革，我們不能寄望象牙塔內的學者能有建樹，而是要靠稅務稽徵單位重新設計來亡羊補牢。
有關消費稅的討論及建議，是重中之重。我國的消費稅，加值型營業稅5%，在世界各國中是偏低的。過去一直不敢提高，因為學界普遍認為它是一累退稅。然而，文中指出「從終生動態觀點來看，它應是比例稅而不是累退稅。」認為「儲蓄會以不同型式的未來消費出現，提高消費稅的稅率、特別是高級品的消費稅稅率，就是對於既成事實的當下財富提高稅賦，它不僅可以增進租稅效率，也可以改善降低財富所得的不均度。」準此，文中建議適度提高消費稅之稅率，一般正常消費品可維持較低之現行5%稅率，廣義之高級消費品則課以較高如10%稅率。
然而這部分的論述是有瑕疵的。眾所周知，一般人所得多用來消費，富人所得大部分儲蓄起來，要消費還可以跑到國外。提高消費稅，從升斗小民挖去的更多，因此還是累退稅。不過提高廣義之高級消費品稅率還是可行的，有助財政改善。
既然有了藍圖，與其坐而言更應起而行。應劍及履及的開始解決問題。
國債問題已經相當嚴重，雖然中央政府債務未償餘額占GDP之比重，與其他國家比較還不算高，但如果加計隱藏性債務24兆，台灣的債務占比與歐債危機爆發前的歐豬五國，尤其最嚴重的希臘，並不遜色。而且央行一年繳庫約2000億，如果沒有央行的貢獻，我國財政短絀更是嚴重。但是，要讓央行負擔繳庫任務，實在不宜，全世界央行沒有負擔這樣的任務。如何解決，也有待中研院未來能提出對策。
本周末起，將召開經貿國是會議，我們期望會議可針對這些問題深度討論。而財政部應根據各項建議，具體的加以回應，並擬定施政的計畫，來改革相關的問題。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2014
Summary: The Academia Sinica recently published its "Tax Reform Policy Proposals." It addressed the problem of fiscal red ink and urged tax reform. Academia Sinica member Wang Ping, convenor of the team, spent nearly a year discussing, analyzing, and researching the problem. He concluded that the government has three major problems. He made six major recommendations. The government and the public should give his report the attention it deserves.
Full Text Below:
The Academia Sinica recently published its "Tax Reform Policy Proposals." It addressed the problem of fiscal red ink and urged tax reform. Academia Sinica member Wang Ping, convenor of the team, spent nearly a year discussing, analyzing, and researching the problem. He concluded that the government has three major problems. He made six major recommendations. The government and the public should give his report the attention it deserves.
We are pleased to see members of the Academia Sinica, the nation's foremost research institute, emerge from their ivory tower, develop a civic spirit, and attempt to help the public. The report offered six recommendations. It did not prioritize them or draw up a timetable. Nevertheless they can serve as a blueprint for future government policy.
The report mentioned three major issues. The 2012 tax rate of 12.8% was among the lowest in the world. Payroll tax proceeds accounted for the lion's share. Corporate and capital income taxes were on the low side. Too much income was non-taxable. There was no sign of improvement in the deficit, which has worsened. These are the most important reasons for our government's fiscal problems. These problems have been around for ages. They are community-wide structural problems. A seven year long illness cannot be cured by three years of treatment.
The government's tax rate is too low. The proportion of corporate taxation is too low. Wage earners bear the heaviest tax burden. Surveys of family income and expenditures clearly reveal the nature of the problem.
In 2005, there were 7.1 million households on Taiwan. That year about 5.5 million households filed consolidated tax returns. Therefore nearly 1.6 million households, legal and illegal, filed no returns. Approximately 5.5 million households reported inadequate family incomes under 50,000 NT per month. Nearly 4 million households reported annual household gross income under 595,000 NT. The remaining 1.5 million, or 20 percent of all households, were largely newly married couples with two incomes. They bear most of the government's tax burden. Taxes on Taiwan are levied in a highly inequitable manner.
Corporate and capital income is undertaxed. The report said "Our national tax base is basically an income tax on wages." A large proportion of non-wage related taxes are evaded, Most Taiwan businesses are SMEs. Even tax authorities in advanced countries have a hard time getting a handle on small business income." No country advanced as the ROC can become a tax paradise. SMEs almost never pay taxes. Their financial records are not subject to audits. Their records are kept by accountants. Tax returns are filed based on invoices. The expenses of business owners, family members, as well as others, are all covered by the company.
We cannot expect ivory tower academics to implement these reforms. We must depend on taxing agencies to redesign the system and remedy the problem.
Discussions and recommendations about the consumption tax are a top priority. The government's consumption tax, a 5% value-added tax, is among the lowest in the world. The government has long been afraid to raise it. Most scholars assumed it was a regressive tax. But the report states that "From a dynamic perspective, it should be considered a proportional tax, rather than a regressive tax." It concluded that "Savings will be different due to different types of consumption in the future. Raising the consumption tax rate, especially the luxury product consumption tax rate, is a fait accompli, given the imminent tax hike on wealth. It can improve tax efficiency. It can also reduce wealth inequality." Therefore the report recommended an appropriate increase in the consumption tax rate. Normal consumer goods can remain at the current rate of 5%. Taxes on luxury goods can be increased to 10%.
But part of the argument was flawed. As we all know, most income is used to consume. Most of the wealth of the rich is saved. They can even go abroad to shop. Raising the consumption tax merely takes more from the common folk. Therefore it is a regressive tax. That said, increasing the luxury tax is feasible, and will improve the government's fiscal situation.
We have a blueprint. Therefore we should act on it. We should don sword and sandal and solve the problem.
The national debt is a serious problem. Central government debt as a proportion of GDP is not high compared to other countries. But the hidden debt exceeds 24 trillion. The ROC government's debt level is as high as the PIIGS just before the European debt crisis struck, including the worst basket case -- Greece. The central bank contribues about 200 billion a year to the treasury. Without the central bank's contribution, the government's fiscal deficit would be serious. But allowing the central bank to contribute to the treasury is far from satisfactory. Central banks the world over do not bear such burdens. The Academia Sinica should propose a solution to this in the future.
The National Economics and Trade Conference will convene this weekend. We expect in depth discussions on these issues. The Ministry of Finance should consult these recommendations. It should offer specific responses and develop policy plans to implement the necessary reforms.
社論－經貿國是會議應討論稅改問題
2014年06月18日 04:09
本報訊
中央研究院日前發表《賦稅改革政策建議書》，提出財政收支赤字問題的分析，及稅制調整建言。召集人王平院士所領導的團隊經過將近一年的討論、分析及研究，提出我國賦稅3大問題、6大建議。這份報告，值得政府及社會各界重視。
我們欣然見到，國內最高研究機構中研院，不再不食人間煙火，能走入民間發揚淑世精神來經世濟民。文中提出6大建議雖未排出施政先後順序或提出具體時程，但可以做為未來政府施政的藍圖。
《建議書》中提到的3大問題：租稅負擔率12.8%（民國101年）為全球最低；薪資所得者稅負比重偏高，企業及資本所得稅負比重偏低，未稅所得過多；而且赤字沒有任何改善跡象，將愈形惡化，這些的確是當前我國財政問題最重要的病因。然而這些問題都行之有年，是整體社會長久以來結構性的問題。七年之病，求三年之艾，本不可得。
然而，我國租稅負擔率如此之低，企業課稅比重太低，而薪資所得者課稅比重偏高，交叉比對家庭收支調查報告，尤其清楚呈現問題的本質。
民國94年全國家戶數約710萬，同年的綜所稅申報戶數目約550萬，因此有近160萬戶，包括合法和非法，完全沒有報稅。550萬申報戶中每月家庭收入不足5萬元，家庭年總所得未達59.5萬元有將近400萬戶。剩下來150萬戶，約兩成的家戶，尤其屬於夫妻雙新的高薪家庭，負擔了絕大部分的國家稅收。台灣稅負不均問題真的非常嚴重。
針對企業及資本所得稅負比重偏低的問題，文中雖提到「我國所得稅基本上已經成為薪資稅的所得稅，相當高比例的非薪資所得被避掉或逃漏掉，因為台灣企業絕大半是中小企業，對於中小企業主的所得，即使是先進國家的稽徵機關也不容易掌握。」我們要指出，先進國家絕對沒有如台灣可以成為免稅樂園。中小企業幾乎都不繳稅，與所有的財務資料缺乏監督稽核，都是由記帳士，根據發票整理報稅，業主、所有家庭成員乃至他人消費全是由公司埋單。
這部分的改革，我們不能寄望象牙塔內的學者能有建樹，而是要靠稅務稽徵單位重新設計來亡羊補牢。
有關消費稅的討論及建議，是重中之重。我國的消費稅，加值型營業稅5%，在世界各國中是偏低的。過去一直不敢提高，因為學界普遍認為它是一累退稅。然而，文中指出「從終生動態觀點來看，它應是比例稅而不是累退稅。」認為「儲蓄會以不同型式的未來消費出現，提高消費稅的稅率、特別是高級品的消費稅稅率，就是對於既成事實的當下財富提高稅賦，它不僅可以增進租稅效率，也可以改善降低財富所得的不均度。」準此，文中建議適度提高消費稅之稅率，一般正常消費品可維持較低之現行5%稅率，廣義之高級消費品則課以較高如10%稅率。
然而這部分的論述是有瑕疵的。眾所周知，一般人所得多用來消費，富人所得大部分儲蓄起來，要消費還可以跑到國外。提高消費稅，從升斗小民挖去的更多，因此還是累退稅。不過提高廣義之高級消費品稅率還是可行的，有助財政改善。
既然有了藍圖，與其坐而言更應起而行。應劍及履及的開始解決問題。
國債問題已經相當嚴重，雖然中央政府債務未償餘額占GDP之比重，與其他國家比較還不算高，但如果加計隱藏性債務24兆，台灣的債務占比與歐債危機爆發前的歐豬五國，尤其最嚴重的希臘，並不遜色。而且央行一年繳庫約2000億，如果沒有央行的貢獻，我國財政短絀更是嚴重。但是，要讓央行負擔繳庫任務，實在不宜，全世界央行沒有負擔這樣的任務。如何解決，也有待中研院未來能提出對策。
本周末起，將召開經貿國是會議，我們期望會議可針對這些問題深度討論。而財政部應根據各項建議，具體的加以回應，並擬定施政的計畫，來改革相關的問題。
Monday, June 16, 2014
Connect with the Mainland: The Only Path to Globalization
Connect with the Mainland: The Only Path to Globalization
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 17, 2014
Summary: Connecting directly to the rest of world is of course desirable. If it could be done, why would anyone object? Alas, international political realities mean that the quickest way to connect with the rest of the world, is to connect with Mainland China first.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has become DPP party chairperson. She has argued yet again that "The DPP will first connect with the rest of the world. Only then will it follow the rest of world in connecting with [Mainland] China. Ma Ying-jeou is embracing [Mainland] China, and moving away from the rest of the world." President Ma Ying-jeou lashed back. He said the DPP's notion of globalization was "globalization without Mainland China." This exchange perfectly reflects the difference between KMT and DPP understanding of globalization. The DPP wants to bypass Mainland China. The KMT wants to connect with Mainland China.
In fact, this exchange took place on April 25, 2010, when Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou debated the cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). Four years later, the DPP has yet again trotted out this outdated theory. But Taiwan, Mainland China, and the rest of the world have undergone massive changes. Bypassing the Mainland is irrational and impracticable. Yet the DPP refuses to budge.
During the Cold War, Taiwan's economic policy could ignore the existence of Mainland China. Now however, the Mainland is the world's second largest economy. The two sides have close trade and investment ties.
The DPP's chosen path for the 21st century has two obvious problems. The first concerns quantity. Severing Taiwan's connections to the Mainland makes it more difficult for Taiwan to connect with the rest of the world. This is why in 2010 Ma said, "The DPP's globalization is globalization without Mainland China." What he meant was the KMT's way of connecting with the rest of the world was not subject to artificial restrictions. The KMT wants to create a two-way street, from the Mainland to the rest of the world, or from the rest of the world to the Mainland. Neither is excluded, The DPP by contrast, insists on a one-way street.
The second problem concerns quality. In 2013 total imports and exports from the Mainland totalled 4.16 trillion USD. This exceeded the 3.91 trillion USD in trade with the United States. The Mainland officially became the world's largest foreign trade entity. The Mainland is also the largest trading partner of over 120 countries and regions. In one year it exports over 2 trillion USD in goods. It is the most important factory in the world. In one year it imports nearly 2 trillion USD in goods. Countries are scrambling to compete in the world market. We would like to ask the DPP a question. The Mainland is a super economic entity. When it sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. How can Taiwan bypass it and still connect with the rest of the world?
One can evaluate the two parties' approach to connecting with the rest of the world from a logical perspective. One can also confirm through empirical means hypothetical historical scenarios. Suppose the winner of the 2008 presidential election had been the DPP's Frank Hsieh? Would the DPP's attempts to bypass the Mainland have led Taiwan closer to the rest of the world, or farther?
Ma Ying-jeou has governed for six years. During that time he "connected Taiwan with the rest of the world." This was an important achievement. One of the most representative was visa-free treatment. This enabled the public on Taiwan easy, visa-free access to the outside world. It was one of the most human mile markers. Before the ROC obtained visa-free treatment from foreign countries, applying for a visa in order to go abroad was an ordeal. Everyone knew what it was like. The procedures were complicated. The cost was high. People were often compelled to jump through hoops.
Once Ma Ying-jeou took office, he made visa-free treatment a focus of his effort to connect with the rest of the world. During his six years in office, he obtained visa-free treatment and instant visa treatment from 86 countries. The number of countries offering ROC citizens visa-free treatment increased from 54 to 140. The United States in particular was an important mile marker. The United States grants visa-free treatment to only 38 countries. The ROC is one of them. It is the only country without diplomatic relations with the US to be granted visa-free treatment. If ROC citizens want to visit other countries, 96% of them offer visa-free or instant visa treatment.
Suppose the ruling Democratic Progressive Party had assumed office in 2008? Could the number of countries that grant ROC citizens visa-free treatment have increased to 140? The answer is: impossible! When the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power in 2000, 54 countries granted ROC citizens visa-free treatment. When it handed over power to the KMT in 2008, that number was still 54. The DPP achieved nothing. It is unlikely the DPP could have done anything to change its dismal performance.
During its eight years in power, the DPP held 10 inconclusive fishing rights negotiations with Japan. Once the KMT came to power, two talks later it signed the "Taiwan-Japan Fishing Rights Agreement." One year after the signing of the agreement, catches of bluefin tuna in waters covered by the Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement increased 3.6-fold. Had the Democratic Progressive Party ruled, it could have held 20 more talks yet have nothing to show for it.
Once Ma Ying-jeou took office, the ROC signed the "Taiwan New Zealand Economic Cooperation Agreement" (ANZTEC), and the "Taiwan Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement" (ASTEP). When the DPP was in office it tried to sign these agreements but failed. Before Ma Ying-jeou took office, the ROC signed four free trade agreements with five Central American countries. This accounted for less than 0.2% of our total trade volume. The second change in ruling parties restored the KMT to power. For every 100 USD in trade we received free trade agreement duty free treatment or preferential treatment. The amount increased from US$0.14 in 2008, to US$9.65 in 2013. It increased 69 fold. Suppose there had not been a change in ruling parties in 2008? Could the DPP have signed these economic cooperation agreements?
The DPP is trying. But the DPP strategy of bypassing the Mainland will not work. Unless it improves cross-Strait relations, the ROC cannot expand its international breathing space. These are clearly understood political realities. Over the past six years, little by little, the ROC has expanded its international breathing space, and made other diplomatic achievements. None of these could have been achieved through the DPP's policy of bypassing the Mainland.
Connecting directly to the rest of world is of course desirable. If it could be done, why would anyone object? Alas, international political realities mean that the quickest way to connect with the rest of the world, is to connect with Mainland China first.
社論－連結大陸 才能走向世界
2014年06月17日 04:09
本報訊
蔡 英文就任民進黨主席後，再度強調「民進黨要走向世界，再跟著世界走向中國，馬英九則是擁抱中國，離世界愈來愈遠」。馬英九總統回應，民進黨的全球化是「沒 有中國大陸的全球化」。這段隔空對話最能反映國民黨與民進黨全球化布局的路徑差異，民進黨採「跳陸邏輯」，跳過中國大陸；國民黨是「連陸邏輯」，連結中國 大陸。
這一段話其實在2010年4月25日，蔡英文與馬英九針對兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA）舉行辯論時已經提出過。經過4年時間，民進黨再度搬出舊理論，但台灣、大陸與世界都發生了很大的變化，「跳陸邏輯」的合理性與可行性更加薄弱，但民進黨仍然拒絕改變。
冷戰時代，台灣經濟政策可以完全漠視中國大陸的存在，現在大陸是全球第二大經濟體，兩岸經貿投資關係極為緊密。
21 世紀民進黨的路徑選擇，顯然有兩個問題，第一是數量問題，封閉了中國大陸路徑，等於減少台灣走向世界的可能性。這也是為什麼2010年馬英九回擊「民進黨 的全球化是沒有中國大陸的全球化」，意思是，國民黨走向世界的路徑選擇是不受限的，國民黨想要建構的是雙向道，從大陸到世界或從世界到大陸皆不排除，而民 進黨想要建構的卻是單行道。
第二是質量問題，2013年大陸貨物進出口貿易總額4.16兆美元，超過美國的3.91兆元，正式成為世界第 一大對外貿易體。大陸同時是全球120多個國家和地區最大的貿易夥伴，1年出口2兆多美元的商品，是最重要的世界工廠，1年進口近2兆美元的商品，更是各 國爭相競逐的世界市場。試問民進黨，跳過這個在世界貿易舞台上「喊水會結凍」的超級經濟體，台灣如何可能走向世界？
除了從邏輯論來看兩黨走向世界的路徑命運，也可以透過實證結果的歷史重塑的假想來印證。假設2008年的總統大選，是由民進黨的謝長廷勝選，那麼民進黨的「跳過大陸」邏輯會讓台灣走向世界還是離世界更遠？
這可以從馬英九執政6年「走向世界」的重要政績來回溯。其中最具代表性的，就是免簽證。要走向世界，讓台灣人方便進出國門的免簽證，是「最人性化」的指標。在台灣大幅爭取到各國免簽證之前，出國申請簽證，是國人的共同痛苦，手續繁、要花錢不說，還常常要受被刁難的冤枉氣。
馬 英九上任後，爭取免簽證成為「走向世界」的重點工作。6年時間，給予台灣免簽證及落地簽證的國家從54個變成140個，增加86個。其中美國尤其是重要指 標，美國只給38國免簽待遇，台灣是其中之一，而且是美國唯一非邦交國擁有免簽待遇的國家。而國人想去的國家，已有96％都是免簽證或落地簽證。
如果2008年是民進黨執政，給台灣免簽的國家可能會增加為140個嗎？答案是：不可能。民進黨2000年執政時，給台灣免簽的國家是54個，到2008年交出政權，還是54個。成績掛蛋，這個宿命很難改變。
又如，民進黨執政8年談了10次無結果的台日漁權談判，國民黨上台談了2次，就簽署了《台日漁權協定》，協定簽署後1年，漁民在台日漁業協議適用海域上的黑鮪魚捕獲量與前1年相比增加3.6倍。如果是民進黨執政，再談20次，也很難指望談出結果。
馬 英九上任後簽署的《台紐經濟合作協定》（ANZTEC）、《台星經濟夥伴協定》（ASTEP）也是民進黨執政時想簽而簽不成的經濟協議。在馬英九上任前， 我國與5個中美洲邦交國簽署了4個自由貿易協定，貿易額不到我國總貿易額的0.2％。二次政黨輪替後，我國每100美元貿易額中，可以獲得的自由貿易協定 免稅或優惠的金額，從2008年的0.14美元，到2013年增加為9.65美元，成長了約69倍。如果2008年政黨未輪替，民進黨有可能簽成這些經濟 合作協定嗎？
這不是民進黨不努力，而是民進黨想繞過中國大陸的策略行不通。兩岸關係不改善，台灣的國際空間就很難拓展，這是政治上明白的現實。6年來，台灣一點一點拓展的許多國際空間與外交成績，都不可能在民進黨的「跳陸邏輯」中實現。
直接走向世界當然很好，如果做得到，誰都不會反對。但從國際政治現實來看，連結中國大陸，恐怕才是走向世界最快的路徑。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 17, 2014
Summary: Connecting directly to the rest of world is of course desirable. If it could be done, why would anyone object? Alas, international political realities mean that the quickest way to connect with the rest of the world, is to connect with Mainland China first.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has become DPP party chairperson. She has argued yet again that "The DPP will first connect with the rest of the world. Only then will it follow the rest of world in connecting with [Mainland] China. Ma Ying-jeou is embracing [Mainland] China, and moving away from the rest of the world." President Ma Ying-jeou lashed back. He said the DPP's notion of globalization was "globalization without Mainland China." This exchange perfectly reflects the difference between KMT and DPP understanding of globalization. The DPP wants to bypass Mainland China. The KMT wants to connect with Mainland China.
In fact, this exchange took place on April 25, 2010, when Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou debated the cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). Four years later, the DPP has yet again trotted out this outdated theory. But Taiwan, Mainland China, and the rest of the world have undergone massive changes. Bypassing the Mainland is irrational and impracticable. Yet the DPP refuses to budge.
During the Cold War, Taiwan's economic policy could ignore the existence of Mainland China. Now however, the Mainland is the world's second largest economy. The two sides have close trade and investment ties.
The DPP's chosen path for the 21st century has two obvious problems. The first concerns quantity. Severing Taiwan's connections to the Mainland makes it more difficult for Taiwan to connect with the rest of the world. This is why in 2010 Ma said, "The DPP's globalization is globalization without Mainland China." What he meant was the KMT's way of connecting with the rest of the world was not subject to artificial restrictions. The KMT wants to create a two-way street, from the Mainland to the rest of the world, or from the rest of the world to the Mainland. Neither is excluded, The DPP by contrast, insists on a one-way street.
The second problem concerns quality. In 2013 total imports and exports from the Mainland totalled 4.16 trillion USD. This exceeded the 3.91 trillion USD in trade with the United States. The Mainland officially became the world's largest foreign trade entity. The Mainland is also the largest trading partner of over 120 countries and regions. In one year it exports over 2 trillion USD in goods. It is the most important factory in the world. In one year it imports nearly 2 trillion USD in goods. Countries are scrambling to compete in the world market. We would like to ask the DPP a question. The Mainland is a super economic entity. When it sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. How can Taiwan bypass it and still connect with the rest of the world?
One can evaluate the two parties' approach to connecting with the rest of the world from a logical perspective. One can also confirm through empirical means hypothetical historical scenarios. Suppose the winner of the 2008 presidential election had been the DPP's Frank Hsieh? Would the DPP's attempts to bypass the Mainland have led Taiwan closer to the rest of the world, or farther?
Ma Ying-jeou has governed for six years. During that time he "connected Taiwan with the rest of the world." This was an important achievement. One of the most representative was visa-free treatment. This enabled the public on Taiwan easy, visa-free access to the outside world. It was one of the most human mile markers. Before the ROC obtained visa-free treatment from foreign countries, applying for a visa in order to go abroad was an ordeal. Everyone knew what it was like. The procedures were complicated. The cost was high. People were often compelled to jump through hoops.
Once Ma Ying-jeou took office, he made visa-free treatment a focus of his effort to connect with the rest of the world. During his six years in office, he obtained visa-free treatment and instant visa treatment from 86 countries. The number of countries offering ROC citizens visa-free treatment increased from 54 to 140. The United States in particular was an important mile marker. The United States grants visa-free treatment to only 38 countries. The ROC is one of them. It is the only country without diplomatic relations with the US to be granted visa-free treatment. If ROC citizens want to visit other countries, 96% of them offer visa-free or instant visa treatment.
Suppose the ruling Democratic Progressive Party had assumed office in 2008? Could the number of countries that grant ROC citizens visa-free treatment have increased to 140? The answer is: impossible! When the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power in 2000, 54 countries granted ROC citizens visa-free treatment. When it handed over power to the KMT in 2008, that number was still 54. The DPP achieved nothing. It is unlikely the DPP could have done anything to change its dismal performance.
During its eight years in power, the DPP held 10 inconclusive fishing rights negotiations with Japan. Once the KMT came to power, two talks later it signed the "Taiwan-Japan Fishing Rights Agreement." One year after the signing of the agreement, catches of bluefin tuna in waters covered by the Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement increased 3.6-fold. Had the Democratic Progressive Party ruled, it could have held 20 more talks yet have nothing to show for it.
Once Ma Ying-jeou took office, the ROC signed the "Taiwan New Zealand Economic Cooperation Agreement" (ANZTEC), and the "Taiwan Singapore Economic Partnership Agreement" (ASTEP). When the DPP was in office it tried to sign these agreements but failed. Before Ma Ying-jeou took office, the ROC signed four free trade agreements with five Central American countries. This accounted for less than 0.2% of our total trade volume. The second change in ruling parties restored the KMT to power. For every 100 USD in trade we received free trade agreement duty free treatment or preferential treatment. The amount increased from US$0.14 in 2008, to US$9.65 in 2013. It increased 69 fold. Suppose there had not been a change in ruling parties in 2008? Could the DPP have signed these economic cooperation agreements?
The DPP is trying. But the DPP strategy of bypassing the Mainland will not work. Unless it improves cross-Strait relations, the ROC cannot expand its international breathing space. These are clearly understood political realities. Over the past six years, little by little, the ROC has expanded its international breathing space, and made other diplomatic achievements. None of these could have been achieved through the DPP's policy of bypassing the Mainland.
Connecting directly to the rest of world is of course desirable. If it could be done, why would anyone object? Alas, international political realities mean that the quickest way to connect with the rest of the world, is to connect with Mainland China first.
社論－連結大陸 才能走向世界
2014年06月17日 04:09
本報訊
蔡 英文就任民進黨主席後，再度強調「民進黨要走向世界，再跟著世界走向中國，馬英九則是擁抱中國，離世界愈來愈遠」。馬英九總統回應，民進黨的全球化是「沒 有中國大陸的全球化」。這段隔空對話最能反映國民黨與民進黨全球化布局的路徑差異，民進黨採「跳陸邏輯」，跳過中國大陸；國民黨是「連陸邏輯」，連結中國 大陸。
這一段話其實在2010年4月25日，蔡英文與馬英九針對兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ECFA）舉行辯論時已經提出過。經過4年時間，民進黨再度搬出舊理論，但台灣、大陸與世界都發生了很大的變化，「跳陸邏輯」的合理性與可行性更加薄弱，但民進黨仍然拒絕改變。
冷戰時代，台灣經濟政策可以完全漠視中國大陸的存在，現在大陸是全球第二大經濟體，兩岸經貿投資關係極為緊密。
21 世紀民進黨的路徑選擇，顯然有兩個問題，第一是數量問題，封閉了中國大陸路徑，等於減少台灣走向世界的可能性。這也是為什麼2010年馬英九回擊「民進黨 的全球化是沒有中國大陸的全球化」，意思是，國民黨走向世界的路徑選擇是不受限的，國民黨想要建構的是雙向道，從大陸到世界或從世界到大陸皆不排除，而民 進黨想要建構的卻是單行道。
第二是質量問題，2013年大陸貨物進出口貿易總額4.16兆美元，超過美國的3.91兆元，正式成為世界第 一大對外貿易體。大陸同時是全球120多個國家和地區最大的貿易夥伴，1年出口2兆多美元的商品，是最重要的世界工廠，1年進口近2兆美元的商品，更是各 國爭相競逐的世界市場。試問民進黨，跳過這個在世界貿易舞台上「喊水會結凍」的超級經濟體，台灣如何可能走向世界？
除了從邏輯論來看兩黨走向世界的路徑命運，也可以透過實證結果的歷史重塑的假想來印證。假設2008年的總統大選，是由民進黨的謝長廷勝選，那麼民進黨的「跳過大陸」邏輯會讓台灣走向世界還是離世界更遠？
這可以從馬英九執政6年「走向世界」的重要政績來回溯。其中最具代表性的，就是免簽證。要走向世界，讓台灣人方便進出國門的免簽證，是「最人性化」的指標。在台灣大幅爭取到各國免簽證之前，出國申請簽證，是國人的共同痛苦，手續繁、要花錢不說，還常常要受被刁難的冤枉氣。
馬 英九上任後，爭取免簽證成為「走向世界」的重點工作。6年時間，給予台灣免簽證及落地簽證的國家從54個變成140個，增加86個。其中美國尤其是重要指 標，美國只給38國免簽待遇，台灣是其中之一，而且是美國唯一非邦交國擁有免簽待遇的國家。而國人想去的國家，已有96％都是免簽證或落地簽證。
如果2008年是民進黨執政，給台灣免簽的國家可能會增加為140個嗎？答案是：不可能。民進黨2000年執政時，給台灣免簽的國家是54個，到2008年交出政權，還是54個。成績掛蛋，這個宿命很難改變。
又如，民進黨執政8年談了10次無結果的台日漁權談判，國民黨上台談了2次，就簽署了《台日漁權協定》，協定簽署後1年，漁民在台日漁業協議適用海域上的黑鮪魚捕獲量與前1年相比增加3.6倍。如果是民進黨執政，再談20次，也很難指望談出結果。
馬 英九上任後簽署的《台紐經濟合作協定》（ANZTEC）、《台星經濟夥伴協定》（ASTEP）也是民進黨執政時想簽而簽不成的經濟協議。在馬英九上任前， 我國與5個中美洲邦交國簽署了4個自由貿易協定，貿易額不到我國總貿易額的0.2％。二次政黨輪替後，我國每100美元貿易額中，可以獲得的自由貿易協定 免稅或優惠的金額，從2008年的0.14美元，到2013年增加為9.65美元，成長了約69倍。如果2008年政黨未輪替，民進黨有可能簽成這些經濟 合作協定嗎？
這不是民進黨不努力，而是民進黨想繞過中國大陸的策略行不通。兩岸關係不改善，台灣的國際空間就很難拓展，這是政治上明白的現實。6年來，台灣一點一點拓展的許多國際空間與外交成績，都不可能在民進黨的「跳陸邏輯」中實現。
直接走向世界當然很好，如果做得到，誰都不會反對。但從國際政治現實來看，連結中國大陸，恐怕才是走向世界最快的路徑。
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Taipei: Change in Blue vs. Green Voter Base?
Taipei: Change in Blue vs. Green Voter Base?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 16, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition camp candidates have positioned themselves for the Taipei mayoral campaign. Voter support appears to have shifted. But frankly any prediction is premature. How will Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko prove themselves to Taipei residents? How capable and how trustworthy are they? This is probably the only real factor capable of changing voter support.
Full Text Below:
NTU doctor Wen-Je Ko, MD, will represent the green camp in the Taipei mayoral race. We already know who the blue and green camp candidates will be in the mayoral election for the nation's capital. Some media polls show Wen-Je Ko and Lien Sheng-weng running neck and neck. Others show Ko slightly ahead of Lien by a few percentage points. Taipei voters have always been more blue than green. This shift in public support has political observers wondering. Has the political climate in Taipei undergone a tectonic shift?
Objectively speaking, the outcome of the year end Taipei election, is less predictable than in the past. The main reason is the ruling blue and opposition green camp candidates are highly atypical. The two candidates are not your run of the mill politicians. Neither has any experience as an elected representative. Neither has any experience as a chief executive. Apart from their concern for politics, neither has ever conducted a grassroots campaign or worked in municipal government. Regardless of who is ultimately elected, Taipei City's future will be uncertain, filled with hidden dangers. This may be why Taipei voters have become extremely cautious. We hope they will be discerning in their thinking.
This is why the outcome of this election can no longer be predicted based on traditional blue vs. green voter support. We cannot rely on previous elections to tell us the outcome of this election. The reason is simple. Many people have changed how they see Taipei. Attempting to predict the future based on the past is unrealistic. Consider this. Blue camp candidate Ting Shou-chung and green camp candidate Yao Wen-chi both had solid public images. They campaigned at the grass-roots level for years. They both had excellent political credentials. Yet they lost their party primaries. Blue and green camp voters independently arrived at similar decisions. This means that most voters in the nation's capital are weary of "either/or" blue vs. green politics. They prefer someone new. They do not want the same old faces. Voters are psychologically weary. Naturally they are voting differently.
This constitutes a threat to the blue and green camps, one they cannot dismiss. Truth be told, blue camp Mayor Hau's record in Taipei was not bad. But his record of achievements may not help Lien Sheng-wen. This probably means that voters in the nation's capital are disappointed with the central government.
Meanwhile, it is too early to assume that Wen-Je Ko's momentum will automatically translate into majority support for the green camp. Wen-Je Ko was reluctant to join the DPP, from start to finish. The winner of the DPP party primaries was essentially forced to run against Wen-Je Ko, a party outsider. One could praise the DPP for its pragmatism. But a candidate endorsed by a major political party was no match for a novice who was not even a DPP member. Is this really something the DPP cares to brag about?
Political brands have lost their lustre. That means the year end election will be a new beginning. It will not be a traditional blue vs. green duel. It will be a personal duel between Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko. To some extent, they can shed their blue or green political labels, But their personal character and political record will be magnified and put on display. This is what will determine the outcome of the election.
Consider Lien Sheng-wen's situation as a member of the blue camp. Wen-Je Ko expressed certain attitudes about his opponent. It is clear that the year end election campaign will be dominated by personal attacks against Lien Sheng-wen, They will attack Lien Sheng-wen's background, his experience, and his words and deeds. They are sure to be part of an unprecedented negative campaign. To use a current expression, Lien has already been subjected to a "ren rou shou suo" or "full body search." He has already been "fully exposed." Any informatiion that can blacken his reputation is sure to be paraded before the public over the next few months. Lien Sheng-wen must unify the blue camp, He must assemble a strong team. He must show voters a good report card. He must prove to the public in the nation's capital that he will be a superior "CEO" for the city. He is sure to be inundated by negative campaigning until he is black and blue.
The same is true for Wen-Je Ko. The party primaries must be regarded as a honeymoon period. His charisma and his image as a fighter make him unique in the green camp. He actually made it all the way without the support of any political party. He outshone all the green camp party princes. He even leads Lien Sheng-wen in the polls. But he will have a hard row to hoe in the future. He can no longer expect to become mayor of the nation's capital merely by shaming Lien Sheng-wen. He must show that he is a man of integrity. He must offer a blueprint for the city. He must assemble a team capable of governing. Victory in the Taipei mayoral election is possible. But if all he does is attack his opponent, he is likely to suffer a backlash.
The ruling and opposition camp candidates have positioned themselves for the Taipei mayoral campaign. Voter support appears to have shifted. But frankly any prediction is premature. How will Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko prove themselves to Taipei residents? How capable and how trustworthy are they? This is probably the only real factor capable of changing voter support.
社論－台北市藍綠基本盤改變了嗎
2014年06月16日 04:09
本報訊
台大醫師柯文哲將代表綠營出馬角逐台北市長選舉，首都市長選舉藍綠陣營人選已經確定，部分媒體在第一時間公布民調顯示，柯文哲與連勝文兩人支持度要不是在伯仲之間，就是柯微幅領先連幾個百分點。台北市選民基本盤歷來藍大於綠，這種民意支持比率的變化，不禁讓政情觀察家開始研究，台北是否出現變天的徵兆？
客觀的說，今年年底的台北市選情，比起往年任何一次選舉都難預估。最主要的緣由，是朝野藍綠陣營此番推出的候選人，都具有相當的異質性格。兩位參選人都不是傳統政客，既無議會民代的經歷，更沒有行政首長資歷，換言之，他們兩人除了關心政治外，沒有基層經營閱歷也沒有市政治理經驗，不論最終由誰當選，台北未來市政的前景，其實都充滿了諸多不確定性，甚至還隱藏了若干風險。可能就是這個原因，讓台北市民選前表態變得格外審慎，希望更慎思明辨些。
也因為這樣，我們或許已經不能再從傳統的基本盤觀念去預估這場選戰，甚至不該再拿歷屆選舉之得票數去推估這次大選的結果！理由很簡單，假如許多台北市民的想法已改變，那麼再企圖想從過去的盤勢推估未來的大勢，恐怕已經不切實際。試想，不論藍營的丁守中還是綠營的姚文智，不僅皆是形象牌，而且經營基層多年，都具有豐厚的政治資歷，卻都在各自政黨的初選民調中落敗。假如藍綠陣營選民不約而同都做了類似的選擇，這意味首都多數選民對非藍即綠的舊政治已經相當厭煩，他們寧可讓政治新鮮人試試看，也不願留戀任何政治舊面孔！選民厭煩心理影響之下，選舉基本盤結構當然隨之改變。
不諱言說，這對藍綠兩陣營都是不容低估的警訊！對藍營而言，郝市長兩任的市政治理的成績，坦言說並不差，但這些政績似乎並不能轉移到對連勝文的支持，這反映的更多恐怕是首都選民對中央執政的失望。
同樣的，柯文哲目前的民調聲勢，要武斷的換算成是多數選民對綠營的支持恐怕還言之過早，要知道，柯文哲可是從頭到尾都不願加入民進黨的，這等於說民進黨自己先大張旗鼓辦了一場黨內初選，獲勝者還要與黨外的柯文哲再拚搏一次，你可以評論說這是民進黨務實，但一個政黨背書的招牌，拚搏不過一個黨外的政治新鮮人，又有什麼值得慶幸的呢？
政黨招牌既已褪色，意味今年年底的首都選戰已全面歸零，不復再是傳統藍綠基本盤對決的局面，而將會是場純粹由連勝文與柯文哲個人對決的選戰，某種程度上說，他們都可以擺脫藍綠政黨的包袱，但另一方面他們個人的特質與表現，不僅將會被放大檢視，甚至將會大幅度的左右這場選舉的結果。
對藍營的連勝文而言，從柯文哲先前明言希望對手是他的表態看來，今年年底選戰已經可以預估將會是對連個人進行全面負面攻擊的一場選戰，連勝文的背景、經歷與言行勢將蒙受前所未見的負面包裝，用現在流行的話說，他不僅早就經歷過負面人肉搜索，甚至早已被充分「洗底」，一堆不利他的材料與抹黑，肯定將會在接下來幾個月陸續搬演，如果連勝文不能號召藍營大團結，不能擺出堅強的行政團隊，不能提出漂亮的政見，迅速的向首都市民證明他將會是一個出色的市政CEO，那麼他屆時勢必將會被淹沒負面攻擊中，被修理得遍體鱗傷！
同樣的，對柯文哲而言，先前的預賽都只能算是蜜月期，他的人格魅力與抗爭形象，讓他在綠營中獨樹一幟，竟在沒有任何政黨的支撐下一路過關斬將，不僅勝過所有綠營天王級候選人，還在民調聲望上暫時領先連勝文，但接下來可都是硬仗了，他不可能再依賴修理連勝文就可以當上首都市長，他同樣必須證明他的人格特質、他的市政藍圖，乃至他所籌組的市政團隊，是可以接下台北市政府這個棒子的，如果他只知攻擊對手，恐怕也會遭到反挫。
台北市朝野陣營候選人就定位後，出現選民基本盤鬆動跡象，但坦言說目前一切都言之過早，連勝文與柯文哲將怎麼向台北市民證明自己的能力與可信賴，可能才是基本盤會不會真改變的唯一因素。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 16, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition camp candidates have positioned themselves for the Taipei mayoral campaign. Voter support appears to have shifted. But frankly any prediction is premature. How will Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko prove themselves to Taipei residents? How capable and how trustworthy are they? This is probably the only real factor capable of changing voter support.
Full Text Below:
NTU doctor Wen-Je Ko, MD, will represent the green camp in the Taipei mayoral race. We already know who the blue and green camp candidates will be in the mayoral election for the nation's capital. Some media polls show Wen-Je Ko and Lien Sheng-weng running neck and neck. Others show Ko slightly ahead of Lien by a few percentage points. Taipei voters have always been more blue than green. This shift in public support has political observers wondering. Has the political climate in Taipei undergone a tectonic shift?
Objectively speaking, the outcome of the year end Taipei election, is less predictable than in the past. The main reason is the ruling blue and opposition green camp candidates are highly atypical. The two candidates are not your run of the mill politicians. Neither has any experience as an elected representative. Neither has any experience as a chief executive. Apart from their concern for politics, neither has ever conducted a grassroots campaign or worked in municipal government. Regardless of who is ultimately elected, Taipei City's future will be uncertain, filled with hidden dangers. This may be why Taipei voters have become extremely cautious. We hope they will be discerning in their thinking.
This is why the outcome of this election can no longer be predicted based on traditional blue vs. green voter support. We cannot rely on previous elections to tell us the outcome of this election. The reason is simple. Many people have changed how they see Taipei. Attempting to predict the future based on the past is unrealistic. Consider this. Blue camp candidate Ting Shou-chung and green camp candidate Yao Wen-chi both had solid public images. They campaigned at the grass-roots level for years. They both had excellent political credentials. Yet they lost their party primaries. Blue and green camp voters independently arrived at similar decisions. This means that most voters in the nation's capital are weary of "either/or" blue vs. green politics. They prefer someone new. They do not want the same old faces. Voters are psychologically weary. Naturally they are voting differently.
This constitutes a threat to the blue and green camps, one they cannot dismiss. Truth be told, blue camp Mayor Hau's record in Taipei was not bad. But his record of achievements may not help Lien Sheng-wen. This probably means that voters in the nation's capital are disappointed with the central government.
Meanwhile, it is too early to assume that Wen-Je Ko's momentum will automatically translate into majority support for the green camp. Wen-Je Ko was reluctant to join the DPP, from start to finish. The winner of the DPP party primaries was essentially forced to run against Wen-Je Ko, a party outsider. One could praise the DPP for its pragmatism. But a candidate endorsed by a major political party was no match for a novice who was not even a DPP member. Is this really something the DPP cares to brag about?
Political brands have lost their lustre. That means the year end election will be a new beginning. It will not be a traditional blue vs. green duel. It will be a personal duel between Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko. To some extent, they can shed their blue or green political labels, But their personal character and political record will be magnified and put on display. This is what will determine the outcome of the election.
Consider Lien Sheng-wen's situation as a member of the blue camp. Wen-Je Ko expressed certain attitudes about his opponent. It is clear that the year end election campaign will be dominated by personal attacks against Lien Sheng-wen, They will attack Lien Sheng-wen's background, his experience, and his words and deeds. They are sure to be part of an unprecedented negative campaign. To use a current expression, Lien has already been subjected to a "ren rou shou suo" or "full body search." He has already been "fully exposed." Any informatiion that can blacken his reputation is sure to be paraded before the public over the next few months. Lien Sheng-wen must unify the blue camp, He must assemble a strong team. He must show voters a good report card. He must prove to the public in the nation's capital that he will be a superior "CEO" for the city. He is sure to be inundated by negative campaigning until he is black and blue.
The same is true for Wen-Je Ko. The party primaries must be regarded as a honeymoon period. His charisma and his image as a fighter make him unique in the green camp. He actually made it all the way without the support of any political party. He outshone all the green camp party princes. He even leads Lien Sheng-wen in the polls. But he will have a hard row to hoe in the future. He can no longer expect to become mayor of the nation's capital merely by shaming Lien Sheng-wen. He must show that he is a man of integrity. He must offer a blueprint for the city. He must assemble a team capable of governing. Victory in the Taipei mayoral election is possible. But if all he does is attack his opponent, he is likely to suffer a backlash.
The ruling and opposition camp candidates have positioned themselves for the Taipei mayoral campaign. Voter support appears to have shifted. But frankly any prediction is premature. How will Lien Sheng-wen and Wen-Je Ko prove themselves to Taipei residents? How capable and how trustworthy are they? This is probably the only real factor capable of changing voter support.
社論－台北市藍綠基本盤改變了嗎
2014年06月16日 04:09
本報訊
台大醫師柯文哲將代表綠營出馬角逐台北市長選舉，首都市長選舉藍綠陣營人選已經確定，部分媒體在第一時間公布民調顯示，柯文哲與連勝文兩人支持度要不是在伯仲之間，就是柯微幅領先連幾個百分點。台北市選民基本盤歷來藍大於綠，這種民意支持比率的變化，不禁讓政情觀察家開始研究，台北是否出現變天的徵兆？
客觀的說，今年年底的台北市選情，比起往年任何一次選舉都難預估。最主要的緣由，是朝野藍綠陣營此番推出的候選人，都具有相當的異質性格。兩位參選人都不是傳統政客，既無議會民代的經歷，更沒有行政首長資歷，換言之，他們兩人除了關心政治外，沒有基層經營閱歷也沒有市政治理經驗，不論最終由誰當選，台北未來市政的前景，其實都充滿了諸多不確定性，甚至還隱藏了若干風險。可能就是這個原因，讓台北市民選前表態變得格外審慎，希望更慎思明辨些。
也因為這樣，我們或許已經不能再從傳統的基本盤觀念去預估這場選戰，甚至不該再拿歷屆選舉之得票數去推估這次大選的結果！理由很簡單，假如許多台北市民的想法已改變，那麼再企圖想從過去的盤勢推估未來的大勢，恐怕已經不切實際。試想，不論藍營的丁守中還是綠營的姚文智，不僅皆是形象牌，而且經營基層多年，都具有豐厚的政治資歷，卻都在各自政黨的初選民調中落敗。假如藍綠陣營選民不約而同都做了類似的選擇，這意味首都多數選民對非藍即綠的舊政治已經相當厭煩，他們寧可讓政治新鮮人試試看，也不願留戀任何政治舊面孔！選民厭煩心理影響之下，選舉基本盤結構當然隨之改變。
不諱言說，這對藍綠兩陣營都是不容低估的警訊！對藍營而言，郝市長兩任的市政治理的成績，坦言說並不差，但這些政績似乎並不能轉移到對連勝文的支持，這反映的更多恐怕是首都選民對中央執政的失望。
同樣的，柯文哲目前的民調聲勢，要武斷的換算成是多數選民對綠營的支持恐怕還言之過早，要知道，柯文哲可是從頭到尾都不願加入民進黨的，這等於說民進黨自己先大張旗鼓辦了一場黨內初選，獲勝者還要與黨外的柯文哲再拚搏一次，你可以評論說這是民進黨務實，但一個政黨背書的招牌，拚搏不過一個黨外的政治新鮮人，又有什麼值得慶幸的呢？
政黨招牌既已褪色，意味今年年底的首都選戰已全面歸零，不復再是傳統藍綠基本盤對決的局面，而將會是場純粹由連勝文與柯文哲個人對決的選戰，某種程度上說，他們都可以擺脫藍綠政黨的包袱，但另一方面他們個人的特質與表現，不僅將會被放大檢視，甚至將會大幅度的左右這場選舉的結果。
對藍營的連勝文而言，從柯文哲先前明言希望對手是他的表態看來，今年年底選戰已經可以預估將會是對連個人進行全面負面攻擊的一場選戰，連勝文的背景、經歷與言行勢將蒙受前所未見的負面包裝，用現在流行的話說，他不僅早就經歷過負面人肉搜索，甚至早已被充分「洗底」，一堆不利他的材料與抹黑，肯定將會在接下來幾個月陸續搬演，如果連勝文不能號召藍營大團結，不能擺出堅強的行政團隊，不能提出漂亮的政見，迅速的向首都市民證明他將會是一個出色的市政CEO，那麼他屆時勢必將會被淹沒負面攻擊中，被修理得遍體鱗傷！
同樣的，對柯文哲而言，先前的預賽都只能算是蜜月期，他的人格魅力與抗爭形象，讓他在綠營中獨樹一幟，竟在沒有任何政黨的支撐下一路過關斬將，不僅勝過所有綠營天王級候選人，還在民調聲望上暫時領先連勝文，但接下來可都是硬仗了，他不可能再依賴修理連勝文就可以當上首都市長，他同樣必須證明他的人格特質、他的市政藍圖，乃至他所籌組的市政團隊，是可以接下台北市政府這個棒子的，如果他只知攻擊對手，恐怕也會遭到反挫。
台北市朝野陣營候選人就定位後，出現選民基本盤鬆動跡象，但坦言說目前一切都言之過早，連勝文與柯文哲將怎麼向台北市民證明自己的能力與可信賴，可能才是基本盤會不會真改變的唯一因素。
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Did King Pu-tsung Really Violate the Constitution and Abuse his Authority?
Did King Pu-tsung Really Violate the Constitution and Abuse his Authority?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 13, 2014
Summary: The National Security Council Secretary-General is the President's most important advisor on national security matters. He must help the president collect accurate national security information, thereby enabling the president to form accurate judgments and arrive at the proper decisions. This is not for the president alone. This is also in the interest of national security as a whole. King Pu-tsung attended national security briefings. The DPP has launched a political offensive against King in response. The truth is this is all about the election. The Office of the President need not bend over backwards to respond. The public should trust its own judgment. It is not obligated to dance to the DPP's tune.
Full Text Below:
National Security Council Secretary-General King Pu-tsung received briefings from the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration Department and other agencies. The DPP and green media have blasted him for this, and accused him of unconstitutional abuse of power. King Pu-tsung is hardly the first National Security Council Secretary-General to inspect the National Police Agency and other government agencies. Before him, two National Security Council Secretary Generals, Hu Wei-chen and Yuan Chien-sheng, paid visits to these agencies, Hu Wei-cheng and Yuan Chien-sheng have remain unmolested. But King Pu-tsung, who merely followed their precedent, has been singled out for persecution. Why?
Of course there are political factors. One, King Pu-tsung is part of Ma Ying-jeou's braintrust. A blow against King Pu-tsung amounts to a blow against Ma Ying-jeou. Two, King Pu-tsung helped Ma Ying-jeou win four election campaigns. He defeated Chen Shui-bian, Lee Ying-yuan, Frank Hsieh, and Tsai Ing-wen. All four were key players. He was responsible for the DPP's loss of power. Of course the green camp has a grudge against King Pu-tsung.
Political motives are easy to understand. But what concerns us here is whether King Pu-tsung's briefings from these security and intelligence agencies should be considered an unconstitutional abuse of authority?
This question can be viewed from two perspectives: practice and jurisprudence. First take practice. On November 10, 2005, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen convened party and government leaders. He organized them into a campaign committee for DPP county chief and city mayor elections. He then presided over its first working session. On March 6, 2003 National Security Council Secretary-General Kang Ning-hsiang met with Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien, who briefed him on the progress of the Lafayette Frigate scandal investigation. That afternoon he visited the Ministry of Justice. On August 3, 2007, National Security Council Secretary-General Mark Chen investigated Kinmen's three mini links. He said national security considerations required him to assess whether the three mini links had any room for improvement.
The truth is clear to see. If King Pu-tsung was guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority, then so were King's three DPP era predecessors. If anything, it is far more likely that they were guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority.
In the first instance, National Security Council Secretary General Chiou I-jen presided over an election campaign. This was an astonishing abuse of authority. In the second and third instances, the issue was job responsibility. Kang Ning-hsiang visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Mark Chen visited Kinmen and investigaged the three mini links. Not one of these concerned national security. Not one of these were the responsibility of security and intelligence agencies. King Pu-tsung's investigation, by contrast, had a definite bearing on national security. It had far more to do with security and intelligence matters than the former two instances.
Now take jurisprudence. Legally speaking, there are three reasons why King Pu-tsung cannot be accused of abusing his authority. One. According to constitutional amendments and the National Security Council Organization Law, the National Security Council is the president's advisory body for matters pertaining to national security and the president's major policies. Two. According to Article Two part one of the Organic Law of the National Security Bureau, the NSA is part of the National Security Council. It is in charge of national security intelligence and is specially charged with planning and implementation. Three. According to Article Two part two of the Organic Law of the National Security Bureau, the Intelligence Bureau, the Coast Guard, the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation, and other intelligence agencies charged with national security, are responsible for providing integrated guidance, coordination, and support. Therefore the National Security Council Secretary-General, via the National Security Council under the National Security Bureau, has the authority to provide "integrated guidance" to the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation and other agencies.
What is the legal reasoning of those who accuse King Pu-tsung of abusing his authority? One. According to the provisions of the Organic Law of the National Security Council, the National Security Council is chaired by the President, not the National Security Council Secretary-General. The right to inspect security intelligence agencies belongs to the president, not the National Security Council Secretary-General. Two. According to Article VI of the Organic Law of the National Security Council, the National Security Council Secretary-General takes its orders from the President. It resolves its own affairs accordingly. It commands and supervises its own staff. King's accusers define "council affairs" narrowly. They argue that the National Security Council Secretary-General can only inspect the National Security Council. He may not visit other agencies to receive briefings, even under presidential orders.
But if one adopts such a narrow interpretation, then King Pu-tsung is hardly the only National Security Council Secretary-General guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority, Kang Ning-hsiang visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Mark Chen had no right to visit Kinmen and investigate the three mini links. Such a narrow interpretation radically diminishes the role of the , National Security Council Secretary-General. It hinders the head of state from gathering information necessary to form accurate judgments about national security matters. The president has a surfeit of national policy concerns. Must he personally oversee all national security matters? Must he listen to every presentation? That is hardly consistent with the role of the National Security Council as the president's chief advisory body for national security matters.
A far more reasonable interpetation is that King Pu-tsung answers to the president by attending security and intelligence agency briefings, thereby helping the president collect information. The National Security Council is merely an advisory body. King Pu-tsung merely gathered information and briefed the President. The final decision and the issuing of any directives must still be done by the president himself.
Major decisions pertaining to national security require adequate information. Otherwise one is crossing the river blindfolded. The National Security Council Secretary-General is the President's most important advisor on national security matters. He must help the president collect accurate national security information, thereby enabling the president to form accurate judgments and arrive at the proper decisions. This is not for the president alone. This is also in the interest of national security as a whole. King Pu-tsung attended national security briefings. The DPP has launchd a political offensive against King in response. The truth is this is all about the election. The Office of the President need not bend over backwards to respond. The public should trust its own judgment. It is not obligated to dance to the DPP's tune.
社論－金溥聰違憲濫權嗎？
2014年06月13日 04:10
編輯部
國安會祕書長金溥聰前往警政署、調查局、移民署等機關聽取簡報，引起民進黨及綠媒連番砲轟，指責違憲濫權。金溥聰並非第一個視察警政署等單位的國安會祕書長，他的前二任國安會祕書長胡為真、袁健生在上任時都曾視察這些單位，胡為真、袁健生沒事，循例辦理的金溥聰卻有事，為什麼？
這中間當然有政治因素，一則，金溥聰深受馬英九信任，打金溥聰等於打馬英九；二則，金溥聰曾幫馬英九打贏4場選戰，連敗陳水扁、李應元、謝長廷、蔡英文4位民進黨要角，讓民進黨丟失執政，綠營當然對金溥聰懷有戒心。
政治上的動機不難理解，但我們關切的是金溥聰到這些治安情報單位聽取簡報算違憲濫權嗎？
這可從慣例與法理兩個層面分析。先看幾個實例行程的慣例。2005年11月10日國安會祕書長邱義仁召集府院黨高層，組成縣市長輔選機制，召開首次輔選工作會議。2003年3月6日國安會祕書長康寧祥拜會外交部長簡又新，瞭解拉法葉案調查進度，下午又去了法務部。2007年8月3日，國家安全會議祕書長陳唐山視導金門小三通業務，他表示，要在國家安全最高考量下，評估小三通是否還有改善空間。
不難發現，如果金溥聰的做法是違憲濫權，那麼民進黨執政時的3個例子，恐怕也有疑慮，甚至可非難性更高。
第一例中國安會祕書長邱義仁主持輔選會議，其濫權失格匪夷所思，第二例與第三例中，從業務關聯度言，康寧祥拜會外交部或法務部、陳唐山到金門視導，其對象均非一般認定與國家安全直接相關的治安情報機關。金溥聰視察的範圍至少還在與國家安全業務相關的治安情報機關範圍，業務關聯度要高於前二例。
再論法理。認為金溥聰沒有濫權者，法理邏輯有3層次，一、依憲法增修條文與國安會組織法規定，國安會為總統決定國家安全有關之大政方針之諮詢機關。二、依國安局組織法第二條前段：國安局隸屬於國安會，綜理國家安全情報工作及特種勤務之策劃與執行；三、依國安局組織法第二條後段，對情報局、海巡署、警政署、調查局等機關所主管之有關國家安全情報事項，負統合指導、協調、支援之責。因此，國安會祕書長透過國安會轄下的國安局，擁有「統合指導」警政署、調查局等機關的權力。
認為濫權者其法理邏輯，一、依國安會組織法規定，國安會主席是總統，不是國安會祕書長，有權視察治安情報單位的是總統，不是國安會祕書長；二、依國安會組織法第六條：國安會祕書長承總統之命，依據國家安全會議之決議處理會務，並指揮、監督所屬職員。論者將「會務」限縮解釋，國安會祕書長只能視察國安會，不能拜會其他單位聽取報告，就算有總統之命也不行。
若採如此限縮解釋，不只金溥聰違憲濫權，康寧祥也不可拜會外交部與法務部，陳唐山也無權視導金門小三通。這種最限縮的解釋，國安會祕書長功能將大幅縮小，連帶妨礙國家元首蒐集資訊以精準做出國安大政判斷的空間，這不啻是要國政繁雜的總統，在國安事務上連聽取通案簡報、蒐集通案資訊都必須事事躬親，恐怕未必合於國安會做為總統決定國家安全有關大政方針諮詢機關的設計初衷。
比較合理的解釋是，若金溥聰受有總統之命，就應有聽取治安情報機關簡報以協助總統蒐集資訊的權力，但國安會僅是諮詢機關，所以金溥聰只能單純的「聽取簡報」以協助總統蒐集資訊，最後做出決策、下達指令仍必須是總統。
國家安全大政的決策，有賴充分的資訊掌握，否則就如矇眼過河。國安會祕書長做為總統決定國安大政最重要的幕僚長，必須精確協助總統蒐集國安資訊，讓總統在耳聰目明下精準判斷、正確決策。這不是為了總統一人，而是為了國家整體的安全利益。民進黨此時對金溥聰聽取國安單位簡報發動政治攻勢，說穿了就是選舉前夕的鬥爭戲碼，總統府不必過度回應，國人也應該自有理性判斷，無須隨之起舞。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 13, 2014
Summary: The National Security Council Secretary-General is the President's most important advisor on national security matters. He must help the president collect accurate national security information, thereby enabling the president to form accurate judgments and arrive at the proper decisions. This is not for the president alone. This is also in the interest of national security as a whole. King Pu-tsung attended national security briefings. The DPP has launched a political offensive against King in response. The truth is this is all about the election. The Office of the President need not bend over backwards to respond. The public should trust its own judgment. It is not obligated to dance to the DPP's tune.
Full Text Below:
National Security Council Secretary-General King Pu-tsung received briefings from the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration Department and other agencies. The DPP and green media have blasted him for this, and accused him of unconstitutional abuse of power. King Pu-tsung is hardly the first National Security Council Secretary-General to inspect the National Police Agency and other government agencies. Before him, two National Security Council Secretary Generals, Hu Wei-chen and Yuan Chien-sheng, paid visits to these agencies, Hu Wei-cheng and Yuan Chien-sheng have remain unmolested. But King Pu-tsung, who merely followed their precedent, has been singled out for persecution. Why?
Of course there are political factors. One, King Pu-tsung is part of Ma Ying-jeou's braintrust. A blow against King Pu-tsung amounts to a blow against Ma Ying-jeou. Two, King Pu-tsung helped Ma Ying-jeou win four election campaigns. He defeated Chen Shui-bian, Lee Ying-yuan, Frank Hsieh, and Tsai Ing-wen. All four were key players. He was responsible for the DPP's loss of power. Of course the green camp has a grudge against King Pu-tsung.
Political motives are easy to understand. But what concerns us here is whether King Pu-tsung's briefings from these security and intelligence agencies should be considered an unconstitutional abuse of authority?
This question can be viewed from two perspectives: practice and jurisprudence. First take practice. On November 10, 2005, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen convened party and government leaders. He organized them into a campaign committee for DPP county chief and city mayor elections. He then presided over its first working session. On March 6, 2003 National Security Council Secretary-General Kang Ning-hsiang met with Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien, who briefed him on the progress of the Lafayette Frigate scandal investigation. That afternoon he visited the Ministry of Justice. On August 3, 2007, National Security Council Secretary-General Mark Chen investigated Kinmen's three mini links. He said national security considerations required him to assess whether the three mini links had any room for improvement.
The truth is clear to see. If King Pu-tsung was guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority, then so were King's three DPP era predecessors. If anything, it is far more likely that they were guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority.
In the first instance, National Security Council Secretary General Chiou I-jen presided over an election campaign. This was an astonishing abuse of authority. In the second and third instances, the issue was job responsibility. Kang Ning-hsiang visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Mark Chen visited Kinmen and investigaged the three mini links. Not one of these concerned national security. Not one of these were the responsibility of security and intelligence agencies. King Pu-tsung's investigation, by contrast, had a definite bearing on national security. It had far more to do with security and intelligence matters than the former two instances.
Now take jurisprudence. Legally speaking, there are three reasons why King Pu-tsung cannot be accused of abusing his authority. One. According to constitutional amendments and the National Security Council Organization Law, the National Security Council is the president's advisory body for matters pertaining to national security and the president's major policies. Two. According to Article Two part one of the Organic Law of the National Security Bureau, the NSA is part of the National Security Council. It is in charge of national security intelligence and is specially charged with planning and implementation. Three. According to Article Two part two of the Organic Law of the National Security Bureau, the Intelligence Bureau, the Coast Guard, the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation, and other intelligence agencies charged with national security, are responsible for providing integrated guidance, coordination, and support. Therefore the National Security Council Secretary-General, via the National Security Council under the National Security Bureau, has the authority to provide "integrated guidance" to the National Police Agency, the Bureau of Investigation and other agencies.
What is the legal reasoning of those who accuse King Pu-tsung of abusing his authority? One. According to the provisions of the Organic Law of the National Security Council, the National Security Council is chaired by the President, not the National Security Council Secretary-General. The right to inspect security intelligence agencies belongs to the president, not the National Security Council Secretary-General. Two. According to Article VI of the Organic Law of the National Security Council, the National Security Council Secretary-General takes its orders from the President. It resolves its own affairs accordingly. It commands and supervises its own staff. King's accusers define "council affairs" narrowly. They argue that the National Security Council Secretary-General can only inspect the National Security Council. He may not visit other agencies to receive briefings, even under presidential orders.
But if one adopts such a narrow interpretation, then King Pu-tsung is hardly the only National Security Council Secretary-General guilty of unconstitutional abuse of authority, Kang Ning-hsiang visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. Mark Chen had no right to visit Kinmen and investigate the three mini links. Such a narrow interpretation radically diminishes the role of the , National Security Council Secretary-General. It hinders the head of state from gathering information necessary to form accurate judgments about national security matters. The president has a surfeit of national policy concerns. Must he personally oversee all national security matters? Must he listen to every presentation? That is hardly consistent with the role of the National Security Council as the president's chief advisory body for national security matters.
A far more reasonable interpetation is that King Pu-tsung answers to the president by attending security and intelligence agency briefings, thereby helping the president collect information. The National Security Council is merely an advisory body. King Pu-tsung merely gathered information and briefed the President. The final decision and the issuing of any directives must still be done by the president himself.
Major decisions pertaining to national security require adequate information. Otherwise one is crossing the river blindfolded. The National Security Council Secretary-General is the President's most important advisor on national security matters. He must help the president collect accurate national security information, thereby enabling the president to form accurate judgments and arrive at the proper decisions. This is not for the president alone. This is also in the interest of national security as a whole. King Pu-tsung attended national security briefings. The DPP has launchd a political offensive against King in response. The truth is this is all about the election. The Office of the President need not bend over backwards to respond. The public should trust its own judgment. It is not obligated to dance to the DPP's tune.
社論－金溥聰違憲濫權嗎？
2014年06月13日 04:10
編輯部
國安會祕書長金溥聰前往警政署、調查局、移民署等機關聽取簡報，引起民進黨及綠媒連番砲轟，指責違憲濫權。金溥聰並非第一個視察警政署等單位的國安會祕書長，他的前二任國安會祕書長胡為真、袁健生在上任時都曾視察這些單位，胡為真、袁健生沒事，循例辦理的金溥聰卻有事，為什麼？
這中間當然有政治因素，一則，金溥聰深受馬英九信任，打金溥聰等於打馬英九；二則，金溥聰曾幫馬英九打贏4場選戰，連敗陳水扁、李應元、謝長廷、蔡英文4位民進黨要角，讓民進黨丟失執政，綠營當然對金溥聰懷有戒心。
政治上的動機不難理解，但我們關切的是金溥聰到這些治安情報單位聽取簡報算違憲濫權嗎？
這可從慣例與法理兩個層面分析。先看幾個實例行程的慣例。2005年11月10日國安會祕書長邱義仁召集府院黨高層，組成縣市長輔選機制，召開首次輔選工作會議。2003年3月6日國安會祕書長康寧祥拜會外交部長簡又新，瞭解拉法葉案調查進度，下午又去了法務部。2007年8月3日，國家安全會議祕書長陳唐山視導金門小三通業務，他表示，要在國家安全最高考量下，評估小三通是否還有改善空間。
不難發現，如果金溥聰的做法是違憲濫權，那麼民進黨執政時的3個例子，恐怕也有疑慮，甚至可非難性更高。
第一例中國安會祕書長邱義仁主持輔選會議，其濫權失格匪夷所思，第二例與第三例中，從業務關聯度言，康寧祥拜會外交部或法務部、陳唐山到金門視導，其對象均非一般認定與國家安全直接相關的治安情報機關。金溥聰視察的範圍至少還在與國家安全業務相關的治安情報機關範圍，業務關聯度要高於前二例。
再論法理。認為金溥聰沒有濫權者，法理邏輯有3層次，一、依憲法增修條文與國安會組織法規定，國安會為總統決定國家安全有關之大政方針之諮詢機關。二、依國安局組織法第二條前段：國安局隸屬於國安會，綜理國家安全情報工作及特種勤務之策劃與執行；三、依國安局組織法第二條後段，對情報局、海巡署、警政署、調查局等機關所主管之有關國家安全情報事項，負統合指導、協調、支援之責。因此，國安會祕書長透過國安會轄下的國安局，擁有「統合指導」警政署、調查局等機關的權力。
認為濫權者其法理邏輯，一、依國安會組織法規定，國安會主席是總統，不是國安會祕書長，有權視察治安情報單位的是總統，不是國安會祕書長；二、依國安會組織法第六條：國安會祕書長承總統之命，依據國家安全會議之決議處理會務，並指揮、監督所屬職員。論者將「會務」限縮解釋，國安會祕書長只能視察國安會，不能拜會其他單位聽取報告，就算有總統之命也不行。
若採如此限縮解釋，不只金溥聰違憲濫權，康寧祥也不可拜會外交部與法務部，陳唐山也無權視導金門小三通。這種最限縮的解釋，國安會祕書長功能將大幅縮小，連帶妨礙國家元首蒐集資訊以精準做出國安大政判斷的空間，這不啻是要國政繁雜的總統，在國安事務上連聽取通案簡報、蒐集通案資訊都必須事事躬親，恐怕未必合於國安會做為總統決定國家安全有關大政方針諮詢機關的設計初衷。
比較合理的解釋是，若金溥聰受有總統之命，就應有聽取治安情報機關簡報以協助總統蒐集資訊的權力，但國安會僅是諮詢機關，所以金溥聰只能單純的「聽取簡報」以協助總統蒐集資訊，最後做出決策、下達指令仍必須是總統。
國家安全大政的決策，有賴充分的資訊掌握，否則就如矇眼過河。國安會祕書長做為總統決定國安大政最重要的幕僚長，必須精確協助總統蒐集國安資訊，讓總統在耳聰目明下精準判斷、正確決策。這不是為了總統一人，而是為了國家整體的安全利益。民進黨此時對金溥聰聽取國安單位簡報發動政治攻勢，說穿了就是選舉前夕的鬥爭戲碼，總統府不必過度回應，國人也應該自有理性判斷，無須隨之起舞。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)