The Peoples Daily vs. the New York Times
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 1, 2014
Summary: Human society should not be limited to only one way of doing things.
Single, stagnant models are unsustainable. Advocates of the Chinese
Model and the American Model should reflect upon each other's strength
and weaknesses. They should attempt to integrate the two, and adopt what
is right while rejecting whatever is wrong. They should consider local
conditions. It may be that human society should seek a balance between
democracy and authoritarianism, freedom and discipline, and openness and
control.
Full Text Below:
The People's Daily recently mocked the U.S. railway system in a long article entitled, "The United States' Dream of a High-Speed Rail System Has Become the World's Joke." The New York Times promptly lashed back, criticizing the Mainland HSR for waste and corruption.
The People's Daily article provided examples. A scheduled six or seven hour trip from Washington to Boston, took 13 hours merely because it rained. Obama's dream of a high-speed rail system remains stalled, and has made absolutely no progress. The article concluded that the American system has problems. Divided government and partisan bickering have made the high-speed rail project a victim. Both Xinhua and Huanqiu have reprinted the article in its entirety.
The New York Times responded promptly to the People's Daily with an article entitled, "China Touts Itself as Winner in High-Speed Rail Stakes." The article claimed that low capital cost was the reason for the success of the Mainland's high-speed rail system. It ridiculed the Mainland, saying, "... the rapid development of high-speed rail in China, often with lax oversight, has not been without problems, including corruption, cost overruns and deadly accidents." The article also pointed out that former Minister of Railways Liu Zhijun was removed from office and sentenced to death for corruption, and only received a reprieve in 2011.
These two diametrically opposed articles reflect the rise of China in the 21st century, and the resurgence of a battle over political and economic models. This battle over models has been a major topic in contemporary social theory. During the industrial revolution and the advent of industrial capitalism, the British Model was considered the only way for a modern society to develop. The market economy and free trade were regarded as the proper economic model, and Great Britain's system of democracy and constitutionalism were regarded as the proper political model.
Prussia chose to use the power of the state to promote economic development, to create a unified country, and to promote a nationalist ideology. This has been referred to as the Prussian Model. Britain and Germany represented two models of Western capitalism. These came to be known as the Anglo-Saxon Model or Anglo-American Model, and the Rhineland Model. The core of the Anglo-American Model was the free market and free trade. The core of the Rhineland Model was state intervention and social welfare. What the Anglo-American Model and the Rhineland Model have in common is capitalism.
Capitalism led to strong competition. Communism constituted a major threat, Among these the most representative was the Soviet Model. The core of the Soviet Model is the planned economy and one-party dictatorship. The planned economy concentrated political power and economic resources. This enabled the Soviet economy to grow rapidly during its early stages of development. The swift revival of the Soviet Union after World War II relative to the slow growth of capitalism, led people to consider the Soviet Model as an alternative for human society. But the drawbacks of the Stalinist regime and the Soviet model gradually became apparent. Totalitarianism was brutal. The Soviet economy experienced problems with bureaucracy and inefficiency. By the Brezhnev era, the Soviet Union's technology and economy were stagnant. Social and cultural despotism resulted in a loss of vitality. The Soviet Model lacked the capacity for self-adjustment and self-renewal, and eventually collapsed.
The Chinese Model is the product of Communist camp self-introspection regarding the Soviet Model. Mao Zedong mobilized the masses and fought the bureaucracy. He proved that his approach was infeasible. Deng Xiaoping and his successors embraced economic liberalization to avoid stagnation and any loss of vitality. They embraced personal freedom, enabling people to pursue successs, money, and consumer goods. They adopted political centralization and social control to maintain overall stability while suppressing potential dissent.
The Deng Xiaoping path led to 30 years of rapid development. Growth was sometimes poor and social chaos often prevailed. During the Xi Jinping era, the Communist Party made earth-shaking changes. It promulgated the Chinese Dream and resolutely fought corruption. It alleviated grievances, greatly enhancing the legitimacy of Communist Party rule. The Chinese Communist Party often claims that it is a political party capable of endless self-renewal. Xi Jinping's reforms suggest this may be true.
Indian-born Singaporean Foreign Minister Kishore Mahbubani wrote a book entitled "The New Asian Hemisphere." Mahbubani's primary driver in the Asian hemisphere is China. In recent years US power has been on the wane. China has rapidly risen. Mahbubani's prophecy was clearly accurate. In recent years, a debate over the Chinese Model vs. the American Model has emerged. The main reason is that the American Model has sustained grievous injuries. Financial turmoil on Wall Street resulting from the greed of capitalism, led to global doubts. The War on Terror launched after 9/11 revealed the recrudescence of imperialism. It undermined the fundamental values of openness and human rights in the United States. The rays of light of the "American Dream" that reigned from the end of World War II to the Reagan and Clinton era, have dimmed.
The American Model is fading, highlighting the rise of the Chinese Model.
In fact, human society should not be limited to only one way of doing things. Single, stagnant models are unsustainable. Advocates of the Chinese Model and the American Model should reflect upon each other's strength and weaknesses. They should attempt to integrate the two, and adopt what is right while rejecting whatever is wrong. They should consider local conditions. It may be that human society should seek a balance between democracy and authoritarianism, freedom and discipline, and openness and control.
社論－評人民日報與紐時的針鋒相對
2014年09月01日 04:10
本報訊
人民日報日前以「美國高鐵夢成了世界笑話」為題，發表了一篇長文，嘲笑美國鐵路運輸系統，紐約時報立即針鋒相對，批評大陸高鐵的浪費與貪腐。
人民日報的文章舉例，從華府到波士頓原定6、7個小時的行程，卻因為一場雨用掉了13個小時，歐巴馬的高鐵夢卻動彈不得，毫無進展。文章總結是，美國體制出了問題，分裂的政府和政黨紛爭使高鐵計畫成為犧牲品。新華網和環球網都全文轉載了這篇文章。
紐約時報隨即發表「中國自稱是高鐵贏家，美國是笑話」，回應了人民日報。這篇文章認為，成本低廉是大陸高鐵建設成功的原因，並嘲諷「由於疏於監管，中國高鐵的飛速發展也出現了一些問題，包括腐敗、成本超限和死亡事故」。文章中並指出，前鐵道部長劉志軍就是因為貪腐問題，在2011年被免職並判死緩。
這兩篇針鋒相對的文章，反應了21世紀中國崛起後，「模式之爭」再度激化。模式之爭一直是現當代人類社會發展的一大課題，當人類社會進入產業革命、工業資本主義的時代，「英國模式」曾被認為是現代化必經之路，於是市場經濟、自由貿易被奉為圭臬，英國的民主制度、立憲政治也被視為政治的典範。
英國之後，普魯士選擇用國家的強大力量來帶動經濟發展，打造統一與完整的國家和民族主義的意識形態，這樣的道路曾被稱為「普魯士模式」。英國和德國各自代表了西方資本主義的兩種模式，後來被稱為「盎格魯撒克遜模式」或「英美模式」與「萊因模式」之爭。「英美模式」的核心是自由市場、自由貿易，「萊因模式」的核心則是國家干預、社會福利，「英美模式」與「萊因模式」的共同點是資本主義。
曾對資本主義展開強大競爭，造成重大威脅的是共產主義體制，其中的典型之一就是「蘇聯模式」。「蘇聯模式」的核心是計畫經濟與一黨專政。由於計畫經濟集中權力、集中資源，使得蘇聯經濟在發展初期，成長非常快速。戰後蘇聯迅速復興相對於資本主義成長緩慢，蘇聯模式一時之間被認為是人類社會的出路。但是，史達林體制或蘇聯模式的弊端也逐漸顯現，除了極權殘酷外，蘇聯經濟也出現效率問題、官僚問題，到了布里茲涅夫時代，蘇聯的科技與經濟都陷入停滯，社會文化也因為專制而失去活力，蘇聯模式並不具有自我調整、自我更新的能力，最後終於崩壞。
「中國模式」是共產主義陣營對蘇聯模式反省的產物，毛澤東是用動員群眾、鬥爭官僚的方式，已證明毫無可行之處。鄧小平及其後繼者，採「經濟開放」讓經濟避免陷入停滯和喪失活力、「生活自由」讓老百姓得以追逐成功、金錢與消費，「政治集權」及「社會管控」則維持了大局的穩定，也壓制了潛在的異議力量。
鄧小平道路經過30年的快速發展，成長動力有時而窮，社會亂象頻生。進入習近平時代，共產黨做了天翻地覆的改變，透過中國夢的宣揚和反腐敗的雷厲風行，紓解了民怨，大大提高了共產黨統治的合法性。中國共產黨人常說中共是一個有不斷自我更新能力的政黨，習近平進行的改革，或許可以成為例證。
新加坡印度裔的外交部長馬凱碩曾經撰寫了《亞半球崛起》一書，他所謂的亞半球其中主要的力量是指中國。這些年美國國勢衰退，中國迅速崛起，他的預示顯然有其精準之處。近年來，中美模式之爭已浮上檯面，主要原因是美國模式出現致命傷，一是華爾街金融風暴代表的貪婪資本主義，受到舉世質疑。二是911事件後展開的反恐戰爭，顯露了帝國主義的復辟，也斲傷了美國開放與人權的基本價值觀，從二次世界大戰後延續到雷根及柯林頓時代的「美國夢」光環，已經褪色。
「美國模式」的褪色，也正凸顯了「中國模式」的崛起。
其實，人類社會不可能只有一條出路，僵滯不變的單一模式也無法永續發展，中國的模式與美國的模式應該相互反省、融合，截長補短，因地制宜，人類社會或許能夠在民主與集權、自由與紀律、開放與管制之間找到最佳的均衡點。
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Bolster the Fundamentals of Cross-Strait Relations
Bolster the Fundamentals of Cross-Strait Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2014
Summary: Chang Hsien-yao's forced resignation has worsened cross-Strait relations. Many cross-Strait negotiations have been severely impacted. In fact, if one were to apply stock market terminology, cross-Strait relations could be described as "lots of noise, but sound fundamentals." The 9th MTA negotiations have been finalized. Talks will resume. They will be held between September 10 and 12. That is the most powerful evidence. As long as the two sides bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations, peaceful development will not be disrupted.
Full Text Below:
Chang Hsien-yao's forced resignation has worsened cross-Strait relations. Many cross-Strait negotiations have been severely impacted. In fact, if one were to apply stock market terminology, cross-Strait relations could be described as "lots of noise, but sound fundamentals." The 9th MTA negotiations have been finalized. Talks will resume. They will be held between September 10 and 12. That is the most powerful evidence. As long as the two sides bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations, peaceful development will not be disrupted.
In recent years, cross-Strait relations have been been good overall. The relationship however, is subject to fluctuations. It is often interspersed with shocks, just like stock market movements. Every so often cross-Strait relations will be subjected to a barrage of noise that upsets the trend. Fortunately, cross-Strait relations have an excellent self-governing mechanism. Each eruption of bad news is invariably followed by a strong consolidation that absorbs the shock and gets it back on track. Despite Chang Hsien-yao's resignation, cross-Strait relations will probably proceed unabated.
The vitality of cross-Strait relations depends primarily on sound fundamentals. The chief support for these fundamentals is private sector cross-Strait mutual dependence. This includes complementary and mutually beneficial cross-Strait industrial cooperation. That is why the Chang Hsien-yao incident will not hamper either official negotiations or cross-Strait private sector exchanges and communication.
This is particularly evident in the increasing number of Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan. The number of Taiwan cities that Mainland tourists can travel about in freely has also been increased. Mainland residents enjoy visiting Taiwan. Taiwan businesses need Mainland tourists. This is mutual dependence. In addition, cross-Strait industrial cooperation has not ceased. The Chang Hsien-yao incident has become a media circus. But the cross-Strait information industry and technical standards fora continue unabated. In one fell swoop, agreements have been reached on 30 different cooperative R&D and industry standards, including 5G, ultra-high-definition television, cloud computing, Smart City, and other advanced category items.
Because these fundamentals remain strong, despite ups and down in cross-Strait relations over the years, the overall trend has remained onward and upward. When the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, cross-Strait political relations were poor. Nevertheless the two sides struggled to meet the needs of the private sector. This led to many new forms of exchange and cooperation. Direct charter flights were perhaps the most representative.
By comparison, the Chang Hsien-yao incident has merely led cross-Strait political relations into a fog. It has not seriously undermined them. Authorities on both sides must bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. They must ensure a willingness to continue private sector exchanges and cooperation. They must avoid political entanglements, and avoid artificially suppressing private sector activity. As long as the fundamentals remain sound, the bad news will pass, enabling cross-Strait relations to make a firm market recovery.
When private sector activities are freed from interference, official cross-Strait consultations can remain on schedule. The MTA negotiations scheduled for next month will affect Taiwan's economic development and integration into the international realm. The SEF and ARATS have decided to complete negotiations before the legislature reconvenes. This represents a high degree of tacit cooperation. It shows that cross-Strait officials remain unaffected by the Chang Hsien-yao incident. It also shows that follow-up negotiations on ECFA continued unabated. They have not been disrupted by the Sunflower Student Movement.
Taiwan's top priority is to complete MTA negotiations by the end of the year. The ECFA related dispute settlement mechanism should be approved simultaneously. Once these two agreements have been signed, the ECFA framework will be ready to go. It will become a powerful engine for promoting healthy cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It will be the greatest guarantor of peaceful cross-Strait relations.
But more homework is needed. Last year we signed the STA. The legislature is about to vote. The Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations Bill should help STA passage. But the legislative process remains hobbled. In this regard, the government must display courage. It must seek results that are workable and attainable in the short term, as soon as possible.
Cross-Strait negotiations are underway. They are not confined to ECFA related agreements. Others are less visible. One is the establishment of representative offices. Another is Mainland support enabling Taiwan to join international and regional economic organizations. Negotiation over these two topics and future ECFA related agreements should proceed hand in hand.
Among these, Taiwan's membership in international and regional economic organizations will further strengthen the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. They will revitalize Taiwan's economy. They will influence cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation. This will extend to the global economic system. They will add value to cross-Strait economic and trade relations, and expand the two sides' area of common interest. We hope these consultations will lead to a breakthrough in the near future.
Noise is interfering with cross-Strait relations. But the fundamentals remain strong, We must clearly understand the impact of the Chang Hsien-yao incident. The two sides must co-manage the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. Only then can we ensure continued peaceful development.
社論－共同鞏固兩岸關係基本盤
2014年08月29日 04:10
本報訊
張顯耀「被辭職」事件發生至今，兩岸關係雪上加霜，雙方諸多協商談判似乎受到嚴重衝擊。其實，這種情況，若用股票市場術語來解讀，可說當前兩岸關係是「消息面」不好，但「基本面」仍然堅實。兩岸第9次貨貿談判已敲定於9月10日至12日復談，就是最有力的明證。兩岸只要共同照顧好兩岸關係的基本面，和平發展的格局就不會受到干擾。
近年來的兩岸關係，大局是好的，但發展過程卻是波動的，其間常穿插震盪情況，彷如股價指數變動慣有的表現。也就是說，兩岸關係每好一陣子，就會突然生出若干壞消息，擾亂它的發展走勢。幸好，兩岸關係具有良好的自我調適功能，每次被壞消息衝擊時，總能強勢盤整、消化衝擊波，重新回到發展的軌道上。這一次碰上張顯耀被辭職事件，兩岸關係的表現應該也是一樣。
兩岸關係的生命力，主要是靠它所具有的堅實基本面。而這種基本面，最大的支撐，是「兩岸民間互相需要」的基本格局，包括兩岸產業的互補互利。所以，張顯耀事件發生後，不論是官方的協商談判，還是兩岸民間的交往和交流，都沒有受到衝擊。
其中特別明顯的是陸客來台觀光人數持續擴大，且大陸開放赴台自由行的城市，剛又增加了一批。大陸民眾喜愛來台旅遊，而台灣市面商家則需要陸客捧場，這就是互相需要。另外，兩岸產業合作，近來也沒有停頓。譬如，日前在張顯耀事件快速發酵聲中，兩岸仍照常舉行了信息產業和技術標準論壇，一口氣達成30項合作研發及制定標準之共識，內容涵蓋5G、超高清電視、雲端運算、智慧城市等先進類項。
由於有這種「基本面」因素的強力支撐，兩岸關係多年來雖走過很多坎坷的路段，但總的走勢仍是往前與往上，而沒有掉下過山谷。即使是民進黨執政時期，兩岸政治關係很差，但雙方仍勉力順應民間需求，促成了諸多新的交流合作成果，其中，「包機直航」的實現，堪稱為代表作。
相較之下，張顯耀事件只是使兩岸政治關係「陷入迷霧」，並沒有讓它「變得很差」。只是，當前雙方政府，仍應全力顧好兩岸關係的「基本面」，也就是細心呵護雙方民間交流合作的意願和成果，切莫因政治糾葛，而人為抑制民間相關活動。只要這個基本面保持堅實狀態，相信消息面的利空很快就會「鈍化」，而使兩岸關係「行情」恢復堅挺。
在民間活動沒有受到任何干擾的情況下，我們又喜見兩岸官方的協商進程如期進行。關係台灣經濟發展以及進軍國際區域整合的貨貿協議談判預定在下月展開，海基海協兩會決定趕在立法院開議之前完成協商，就是一項高度默契的合作。一方面說明兩岸官方不受張顯耀事件的干擾，一方面持續兩岸ECFA後續談判的進度，不受太陽花學運以來的紛擾所影響。
台灣的當務之急是爭取在今年底前完成兩岸貨品貿易協議、兩岸ECFA相關爭端解決機制協議之洽簽工作，同時進行簽署。該兩協議簽署後，兩岸ECFA架構體系將燦然大備，成為推動兩岸經貿穩健發展的強力引擎，也是兩岸關係和平發展的最大保證。
不過，當前我方要做的功課比較多，因為《兩岸服務貿易協議》去年年中簽署後，即在立法院卡關迄今，而本有助於《服貿協議》解套的兩岸協議監督條例，立法工作至目前仍無法順利進行。對此，我方政府應展現魄力，盡速採取有效舉措來強力推動，務期在短期內獲致具體成果。
兩岸當前已進行協商談判的議題，並不只ECFA相關協議，其他比較有眉目的，是兩岸互設辦事處及大陸支持台灣加入國際區域經濟整合；這兩大議題之協商工作，未來應和ECFA相關協議之洽簽齊頭並進。
其中，台灣加入國際區域經濟整合有助於進一步強化兩岸關係的基本面，因其不但能為台灣帶來新的經濟增長活力，也可把兩岸經貿合作的影響力「輻射」到全球經濟體系，而為兩岸經貿加值，並擴大雙方的共同利益。盼望這項協商，也能在近期內出現突破性的進展。
雖然兩岸之間有不少的消息面干擾，但基本盤大致穩固，張顯耀事件的衝擊讓我們更清楚的認知到，兩岸關係的基本面需要兩岸共同管理、共同照顧，和平發展的大局才不致生變。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 29, 2014
Summary: Chang Hsien-yao's forced resignation has worsened cross-Strait relations. Many cross-Strait negotiations have been severely impacted. In fact, if one were to apply stock market terminology, cross-Strait relations could be described as "lots of noise, but sound fundamentals." The 9th MTA negotiations have been finalized. Talks will resume. They will be held between September 10 and 12. That is the most powerful evidence. As long as the two sides bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations, peaceful development will not be disrupted.
Full Text Below:
Chang Hsien-yao's forced resignation has worsened cross-Strait relations. Many cross-Strait negotiations have been severely impacted. In fact, if one were to apply stock market terminology, cross-Strait relations could be described as "lots of noise, but sound fundamentals." The 9th MTA negotiations have been finalized. Talks will resume. They will be held between September 10 and 12. That is the most powerful evidence. As long as the two sides bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations, peaceful development will not be disrupted.
In recent years, cross-Strait relations have been been good overall. The relationship however, is subject to fluctuations. It is often interspersed with shocks, just like stock market movements. Every so often cross-Strait relations will be subjected to a barrage of noise that upsets the trend. Fortunately, cross-Strait relations have an excellent self-governing mechanism. Each eruption of bad news is invariably followed by a strong consolidation that absorbs the shock and gets it back on track. Despite Chang Hsien-yao's resignation, cross-Strait relations will probably proceed unabated.
The vitality of cross-Strait relations depends primarily on sound fundamentals. The chief support for these fundamentals is private sector cross-Strait mutual dependence. This includes complementary and mutually beneficial cross-Strait industrial cooperation. That is why the Chang Hsien-yao incident will not hamper either official negotiations or cross-Strait private sector exchanges and communication.
This is particularly evident in the increasing number of Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan. The number of Taiwan cities that Mainland tourists can travel about in freely has also been increased. Mainland residents enjoy visiting Taiwan. Taiwan businesses need Mainland tourists. This is mutual dependence. In addition, cross-Strait industrial cooperation has not ceased. The Chang Hsien-yao incident has become a media circus. But the cross-Strait information industry and technical standards fora continue unabated. In one fell swoop, agreements have been reached on 30 different cooperative R&D and industry standards, including 5G, ultra-high-definition television, cloud computing, Smart City, and other advanced category items.
Because these fundamentals remain strong, despite ups and down in cross-Strait relations over the years, the overall trend has remained onward and upward. When the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, cross-Strait political relations were poor. Nevertheless the two sides struggled to meet the needs of the private sector. This led to many new forms of exchange and cooperation. Direct charter flights were perhaps the most representative.
By comparison, the Chang Hsien-yao incident has merely led cross-Strait political relations into a fog. It has not seriously undermined them. Authorities on both sides must bolster the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. They must ensure a willingness to continue private sector exchanges and cooperation. They must avoid political entanglements, and avoid artificially suppressing private sector activity. As long as the fundamentals remain sound, the bad news will pass, enabling cross-Strait relations to make a firm market recovery.
When private sector activities are freed from interference, official cross-Strait consultations can remain on schedule. The MTA negotiations scheduled for next month will affect Taiwan's economic development and integration into the international realm. The SEF and ARATS have decided to complete negotiations before the legislature reconvenes. This represents a high degree of tacit cooperation. It shows that cross-Strait officials remain unaffected by the Chang Hsien-yao incident. It also shows that follow-up negotiations on ECFA continued unabated. They have not been disrupted by the Sunflower Student Movement.
Taiwan's top priority is to complete MTA negotiations by the end of the year. The ECFA related dispute settlement mechanism should be approved simultaneously. Once these two agreements have been signed, the ECFA framework will be ready to go. It will become a powerful engine for promoting healthy cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It will be the greatest guarantor of peaceful cross-Strait relations.
But more homework is needed. Last year we signed the STA. The legislature is about to vote. The Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations Bill should help STA passage. But the legislative process remains hobbled. In this regard, the government must display courage. It must seek results that are workable and attainable in the short term, as soon as possible.
Cross-Strait negotiations are underway. They are not confined to ECFA related agreements. Others are less visible. One is the establishment of representative offices. Another is Mainland support enabling Taiwan to join international and regional economic organizations. Negotiation over these two topics and future ECFA related agreements should proceed hand in hand.
Among these, Taiwan's membership in international and regional economic organizations will further strengthen the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. They will revitalize Taiwan's economy. They will influence cross-Strait economic and trade cooperation. This will extend to the global economic system. They will add value to cross-Strait economic and trade relations, and expand the two sides' area of common interest. We hope these consultations will lead to a breakthrough in the near future.
Noise is interfering with cross-Strait relations. But the fundamentals remain strong, We must clearly understand the impact of the Chang Hsien-yao incident. The two sides must co-manage the fundamentals of cross-Strait relations. Only then can we ensure continued peaceful development.
社論－共同鞏固兩岸關係基本盤
2014年08月29日 04:10
本報訊
張顯耀「被辭職」事件發生至今，兩岸關係雪上加霜，雙方諸多協商談判似乎受到嚴重衝擊。其實，這種情況，若用股票市場術語來解讀，可說當前兩岸關係是「消息面」不好，但「基本面」仍然堅實。兩岸第9次貨貿談判已敲定於9月10日至12日復談，就是最有力的明證。兩岸只要共同照顧好兩岸關係的基本面，和平發展的格局就不會受到干擾。
近年來的兩岸關係，大局是好的，但發展過程卻是波動的，其間常穿插震盪情況，彷如股價指數變動慣有的表現。也就是說，兩岸關係每好一陣子，就會突然生出若干壞消息，擾亂它的發展走勢。幸好，兩岸關係具有良好的自我調適功能，每次被壞消息衝擊時，總能強勢盤整、消化衝擊波，重新回到發展的軌道上。這一次碰上張顯耀被辭職事件，兩岸關係的表現應該也是一樣。
兩岸關係的生命力，主要是靠它所具有的堅實基本面。而這種基本面，最大的支撐，是「兩岸民間互相需要」的基本格局，包括兩岸產業的互補互利。所以，張顯耀事件發生後，不論是官方的協商談判，還是兩岸民間的交往和交流，都沒有受到衝擊。
其中特別明顯的是陸客來台觀光人數持續擴大，且大陸開放赴台自由行的城市，剛又增加了一批。大陸民眾喜愛來台旅遊，而台灣市面商家則需要陸客捧場，這就是互相需要。另外，兩岸產業合作，近來也沒有停頓。譬如，日前在張顯耀事件快速發酵聲中，兩岸仍照常舉行了信息產業和技術標準論壇，一口氣達成30項合作研發及制定標準之共識，內容涵蓋5G、超高清電視、雲端運算、智慧城市等先進類項。
由於有這種「基本面」因素的強力支撐，兩岸關係多年來雖走過很多坎坷的路段，但總的走勢仍是往前與往上，而沒有掉下過山谷。即使是民進黨執政時期，兩岸政治關係很差，但雙方仍勉力順應民間需求，促成了諸多新的交流合作成果，其中，「包機直航」的實現，堪稱為代表作。
相較之下，張顯耀事件只是使兩岸政治關係「陷入迷霧」，並沒有讓它「變得很差」。只是，當前雙方政府，仍應全力顧好兩岸關係的「基本面」，也就是細心呵護雙方民間交流合作的意願和成果，切莫因政治糾葛，而人為抑制民間相關活動。只要這個基本面保持堅實狀態，相信消息面的利空很快就會「鈍化」，而使兩岸關係「行情」恢復堅挺。
在民間活動沒有受到任何干擾的情況下，我們又喜見兩岸官方的協商進程如期進行。關係台灣經濟發展以及進軍國際區域整合的貨貿協議談判預定在下月展開，海基海協兩會決定趕在立法院開議之前完成協商，就是一項高度默契的合作。一方面說明兩岸官方不受張顯耀事件的干擾，一方面持續兩岸ECFA後續談判的進度，不受太陽花學運以來的紛擾所影響。
台灣的當務之急是爭取在今年底前完成兩岸貨品貿易協議、兩岸ECFA相關爭端解決機制協議之洽簽工作，同時進行簽署。該兩協議簽署後，兩岸ECFA架構體系將燦然大備，成為推動兩岸經貿穩健發展的強力引擎，也是兩岸關係和平發展的最大保證。
不過，當前我方要做的功課比較多，因為《兩岸服務貿易協議》去年年中簽署後，即在立法院卡關迄今，而本有助於《服貿協議》解套的兩岸協議監督條例，立法工作至目前仍無法順利進行。對此，我方政府應展現魄力，盡速採取有效舉措來強力推動，務期在短期內獲致具體成果。
兩岸當前已進行協商談判的議題，並不只ECFA相關協議，其他比較有眉目的，是兩岸互設辦事處及大陸支持台灣加入國際區域經濟整合；這兩大議題之協商工作，未來應和ECFA相關協議之洽簽齊頭並進。
其中，台灣加入國際區域經濟整合有助於進一步強化兩岸關係的基本面，因其不但能為台灣帶來新的經濟增長活力，也可把兩岸經貿合作的影響力「輻射」到全球經濟體系，而為兩岸經貿加值，並擴大雙方的共同利益。盼望這項協商，也能在近期內出現突破性的進展。
雖然兩岸之間有不少的消息面干擾，但基本盤大致穩固，張顯耀事件的衝擊讓我們更清楚的認知到，兩岸關係的基本面需要兩岸共同管理、共同照顧，和平發展的大局才不致生變。
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
A Party's Decline becomes Taiwan's Concern
A Party's Decline becomes Taiwan's Concern
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2014
Summary: Only 90 days remain until the year end elections. These elections are known as the "nine in one elections." But the elections that concern us the most are the county and municipal elections, particularly five municipal elections. These will surely be given political interpretations. It is too early to predict what the results will be. What one ought to focus on, is the impact that news events will have on voter support for the various political parties.
Full Text Below:
Only 90 days remain until the year end elections. These elections are known as the "nine in one elections." But the elections that concern us the most are the county and municipal elections, particularly five municipal elections. These will surely be given political interpretations. It is too early to predict what the results will be. What one ought to focus on, is the impact that news events will have on voter support for the various political parties.
This relationship is of course not the daily focus of the news media. Nor are the instant polls conducted following unexpected events. Some commentators have deliberately exaggerated the impact of the Kaohsiung gas explosion on the Kaohsiung election. Others have gotten considerable mileage out of Chang Hsien-yao's resignation, on the assumption that it will influence voting trends in economics-minded voters in the northern and central regions. In fact, Instant polls and unexpected Incidents have only short-term effects. Their impact on long-term public opinion is not great.
We are more concerned about recent poll data, including those published by this newspaper. A trend has developed that affects the image of political parties. Split tickets have appeared in party nominations for certain counties and municipalities. Take the blue camp. Six counties will apparently have split tickets. The green camp also has two counties and municipalities with split tickets. Comrades are engaging in internecine warfare. This, combined with the aforementioned impact that unexpected incidents are having the images of political parties, are the most noteworthy indicators so far during this election.
First, consider the public image of the various political parties. A number of specialized organizations have gradually released their poll data. An interesting phenomenon has occurred. Blue camp support has hit bottom and remained there. No significant recovery is apparent. Also interesting is that although blue camp support may have bottomed out, no significant rise in support for the green camp has been detected. Both the blue and green camps often end up in the doldrums. The same phenomenon holds true for ruling and opposition party leaders. President Ma's support rate has not improved. Chairman Tsai's shows no signs of improvement either.
The message of this trend, as revealed by the poll numbers, is that mainstream public opinion is not favorably disposed towards either the ruling or opposition parties. This has been the case all year for incidents major and minor. The Taipei City election will ultimately be about two politicians facing off. This will be the result of the atmosphere currently generated.
Voters have rejected both the blue and green camps out of sheer frustration. Members of the public on Taiwan share certain things in common. They must endure a ruling party paralyzed and unable to act, and an opposition party indifferent to right and wrong and determined to bring down the government. The ruling party is autistic. The opposition party is hyperactive. The nation naturally ends up marking time. Most countries the world over, especially in the Asian-Pacific region, are busy enhancing their competitiveness. The ROC, by contrast, is still hobbled by old ideological baggage. Why shouldn't voters be angry?
Worse still, President Ma should have fulfilled his role as helmsman. Instead, he has lost all confidence. He has been browbeaten to the point where he is now afraid to do anything. His administration is plagued with a high turnover. People are more confident after stepping down than they were when they stepped up. Crisis management consumes more time than policy advancement. Opposition DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen confines herself to poor-mouthing anything and everything. She never offers a convincing vision worthy of public trust. Her only point, reiterated endlessly, is that as long as the DPP is allowed to govern. the Mainland will adjust its policies to suit Taiwan. Naturally the Mainland lashed back and denied any such possibility. As a result she was left with nothing to offer whatsoever. All she could do was obstruct any and all bills crucial to our nation's competitiveness, and humiliate any and all public officials, and prevent the ruling party from getting anything done. Her premise has been that if the ruling KMT lost, then the opposition DPP won. As a result the biggest loser has been the ROC. When a nation finds itself mired in such circumstances long term, what alternatives do voters have?
The public images of the ruling and opposition parties have been undermined. Naturally this will lead to a failure of internal control mechanisms. When the ruling and opposition parties concluded their nomination process, comrades continued their bickering. They were even willing to divide their parties. Six counties and municipalities in the blue camp are split. This is an historic first. Obviously tensions in these blue camp constituencies are running high. Victory is not assured even in a one on one campaign, let alone with a split ticket. One may as well concede defeat in advance. This is a simple truth, as anyone with political sense knows. Yet some candidates insist on playing this game out. The only possible explanation is that the party leadership no longer commands any authority. Put more bluntly, it is not that the adults are away. It is that there are no adults watching over the family.
Nor does the green camp have anything to bet excited about. The record shows that the ruling party's failures do not translate into the opposition party's gains. The mayoral election for the nation's capital does not have a single A List candidate. A gas explosion in Kaohsiung led to flagrant buck-passing. The Kaoshiung City Government excels at blaming central government officials. But it has shown no indication of readiness to govern, The DPP has apparently never been able to find its way out of this dilemma.
社論－政黨衰敗 台灣之憂
2014年08月28日 04:10
本報訊
距離年底選舉投票日，只剩下90幾天了！這場選舉雖號稱為「九合一」，事實上大家最關注的還是縣市長部分，特別是其中五都的選舉，勢必會被擴大做政治解讀。現在預測選舉結果還嫌太早，真正該重視的，反倒是選戰起跑到今天，在諸多新聞事件與政黨聲勢起伏上所透露的若干徵候。
這 些徵候，當然不是每天出現在不同新聞媒體上，那些被炮製的即時民調，也不是突發事件所衍生出的效應。例如就有部分論者刻意放大高雄氣爆事件，對大高雄選情 的衝擊；也有人會拿張顯耀去職事件大文章，認為其勢必會大幅影響北中選區經濟選民的投票動向。事實上，即時民調也好，突發事件也罷，都可能只有短期效應， 對長期民意走向趨勢的影響並不大。
我們比較關注的是，是最近包括本報在內相關機構所發布的民調數據，在政黨總體形象 上所出現的走勢；以及相關縣市政黨提名所出現的分裂現象。例如目前藍軍部分，有6個縣市出現分裂，綠軍陣營也有兩個縣市出現分裂現象，這些在政黨內部所出 現的同志相爭現象，結合前述政黨形象走向所透露的徵候，恐怕才是現階段最值得觀察這場選舉的參考指標。
先談政黨總體 形象部分，從若干較為專業的機構所陸續發布的民調數據，不難發現其中頗為耐人尋味的現象，即是藍營的支持度雖已破底止跌，但也沒有出現顯著回升的情況。同 樣有趣的是，在藍營支持率一路低迷景況下，並未同步讓綠營出現顯著攀升的情況，經常是藍綠陣營像難兄難弟一樣伴隨共同低迷。這種現象也一樣出現在朝野領導 人身上，亦即縱然馬總統的支持率未見好轉，蔡主席亦未顯現出明顯的明日之星態勢。
這種民調趨向所透露的訊息是，主流民意對朝野兩黨其實都沒有好感，這種情況從今年以來不論發生任何大小事件，都沒有改變過。台北市選戰最終會出現由兩位政壇素人參選對決的局面，若要深究背後的原因，正就是這種民意氛圍所產生的結果。
這 種同步厭棄藍綠的背後，透露的其實是更多的無奈！畢竟當前所有台灣人所共同面對的，是一個舉步維艱、寸步難行的執政黨，以及一個不問是非、只圖拖垮施政的 在野黨。一個遲緩兒執政黨，一個過動兒在野黨，這個國家當然只有原地踏步的份，當全球多數國家，特別是亞太諸國都在拚競爭力的時候，台灣還在為一些陳舊的 意識型態包袱互扯後腿，試問選民有什麼理由不憤怒？
更糟糕的是，原本該是扮演舵手角色的馬總統，彷彿已全然喪失了自 信，被罵到現階段啥事都不敢做，行政團隊更是頻頻出包，甚至下台的比上台還理直氣壯，結果就是危機處理多過政策推進。而在野黨這邊的蔡主席，除了一路唱 衰，從未提出過任何值得台灣人信服的願景，唯一反覆強調只有一點，就是只要讓他們執政，大陸就一定會調整政策，結果第一時間就被對岸回嗆，其他則是什麼像 樣的論述都未提出，有的只是矢力擋下所有攸關國家競爭力的法案，羞辱所有他們能羞辱的官員，讓執政黨無所做為，彷彿凡是執政黨輸的，就是在野黨贏的，結果 一路最大的輸家就是台灣，試問當一個國家長期處在這樣的局面中，選民還能有什麼更佳的選項？
朝野政黨在形象上的衰 敗，當然也會出現在內控機制的失靈上。這次朝野政黨在提名結束後，都陸續出現同志相爭，甚至不惜分裂到底之勢，藍營甚且有6個縣市出現分裂局面，堪稱選舉 史上的空前！試想藍營相關選區無不選情緊繃，連一對一都不一定贏的情況，還要搞分裂，還不如提前宣布落選算了！這個簡單的道理，任何有起碼政治常識的人都 知道，卻依舊堅持上演，唯一能解釋的就是黨中央的權威已經不再，講得再直白一些，不是大人不在家，而是沒人將大人當家長！
綠營也沒啥好興奮的，事實已經證明，執政黨的災難，並沒有換算成在野黨的收獲，一個被視為晉升大位跳板的首都選舉，竟沒有任何一軍人選敢於挑戰，一場高雄氣爆事件，除了顯現推諉，精於羞辱官員外，並未表現任何準備好執政的格局，這種困局，民進黨好像一直走不出來！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2014
Summary: Only 90 days remain until the year end elections. These elections are known as the "nine in one elections." But the elections that concern us the most are the county and municipal elections, particularly five municipal elections. These will surely be given political interpretations. It is too early to predict what the results will be. What one ought to focus on, is the impact that news events will have on voter support for the various political parties.
Full Text Below:
Only 90 days remain until the year end elections. These elections are known as the "nine in one elections." But the elections that concern us the most are the county and municipal elections, particularly five municipal elections. These will surely be given political interpretations. It is too early to predict what the results will be. What one ought to focus on, is the impact that news events will have on voter support for the various political parties.
This relationship is of course not the daily focus of the news media. Nor are the instant polls conducted following unexpected events. Some commentators have deliberately exaggerated the impact of the Kaohsiung gas explosion on the Kaohsiung election. Others have gotten considerable mileage out of Chang Hsien-yao's resignation, on the assumption that it will influence voting trends in economics-minded voters in the northern and central regions. In fact, Instant polls and unexpected Incidents have only short-term effects. Their impact on long-term public opinion is not great.
We are more concerned about recent poll data, including those published by this newspaper. A trend has developed that affects the image of political parties. Split tickets have appeared in party nominations for certain counties and municipalities. Take the blue camp. Six counties will apparently have split tickets. The green camp also has two counties and municipalities with split tickets. Comrades are engaging in internecine warfare. This, combined with the aforementioned impact that unexpected incidents are having the images of political parties, are the most noteworthy indicators so far during this election.
First, consider the public image of the various political parties. A number of specialized organizations have gradually released their poll data. An interesting phenomenon has occurred. Blue camp support has hit bottom and remained there. No significant recovery is apparent. Also interesting is that although blue camp support may have bottomed out, no significant rise in support for the green camp has been detected. Both the blue and green camps often end up in the doldrums. The same phenomenon holds true for ruling and opposition party leaders. President Ma's support rate has not improved. Chairman Tsai's shows no signs of improvement either.
The message of this trend, as revealed by the poll numbers, is that mainstream public opinion is not favorably disposed towards either the ruling or opposition parties. This has been the case all year for incidents major and minor. The Taipei City election will ultimately be about two politicians facing off. This will be the result of the atmosphere currently generated.
Voters have rejected both the blue and green camps out of sheer frustration. Members of the public on Taiwan share certain things in common. They must endure a ruling party paralyzed and unable to act, and an opposition party indifferent to right and wrong and determined to bring down the government. The ruling party is autistic. The opposition party is hyperactive. The nation naturally ends up marking time. Most countries the world over, especially in the Asian-Pacific region, are busy enhancing their competitiveness. The ROC, by contrast, is still hobbled by old ideological baggage. Why shouldn't voters be angry?
Worse still, President Ma should have fulfilled his role as helmsman. Instead, he has lost all confidence. He has been browbeaten to the point where he is now afraid to do anything. His administration is plagued with a high turnover. People are more confident after stepping down than they were when they stepped up. Crisis management consumes more time than policy advancement. Opposition DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen confines herself to poor-mouthing anything and everything. She never offers a convincing vision worthy of public trust. Her only point, reiterated endlessly, is that as long as the DPP is allowed to govern. the Mainland will adjust its policies to suit Taiwan. Naturally the Mainland lashed back and denied any such possibility. As a result she was left with nothing to offer whatsoever. All she could do was obstruct any and all bills crucial to our nation's competitiveness, and humiliate any and all public officials, and prevent the ruling party from getting anything done. Her premise has been that if the ruling KMT lost, then the opposition DPP won. As a result the biggest loser has been the ROC. When a nation finds itself mired in such circumstances long term, what alternatives do voters have?
The public images of the ruling and opposition parties have been undermined. Naturally this will lead to a failure of internal control mechanisms. When the ruling and opposition parties concluded their nomination process, comrades continued their bickering. They were even willing to divide their parties. Six counties and municipalities in the blue camp are split. This is an historic first. Obviously tensions in these blue camp constituencies are running high. Victory is not assured even in a one on one campaign, let alone with a split ticket. One may as well concede defeat in advance. This is a simple truth, as anyone with political sense knows. Yet some candidates insist on playing this game out. The only possible explanation is that the party leadership no longer commands any authority. Put more bluntly, it is not that the adults are away. It is that there are no adults watching over the family.
Nor does the green camp have anything to bet excited about. The record shows that the ruling party's failures do not translate into the opposition party's gains. The mayoral election for the nation's capital does not have a single A List candidate. A gas explosion in Kaohsiung led to flagrant buck-passing. The Kaoshiung City Government excels at blaming central government officials. But it has shown no indication of readiness to govern, The DPP has apparently never been able to find its way out of this dilemma.
社論－政黨衰敗 台灣之憂
2014年08月28日 04:10
本報訊
距離年底選舉投票日，只剩下90幾天了！這場選舉雖號稱為「九合一」，事實上大家最關注的還是縣市長部分，特別是其中五都的選舉，勢必會被擴大做政治解讀。現在預測選舉結果還嫌太早，真正該重視的，反倒是選戰起跑到今天，在諸多新聞事件與政黨聲勢起伏上所透露的若干徵候。
這 些徵候，當然不是每天出現在不同新聞媒體上，那些被炮製的即時民調，也不是突發事件所衍生出的效應。例如就有部分論者刻意放大高雄氣爆事件，對大高雄選情 的衝擊；也有人會拿張顯耀去職事件大文章，認為其勢必會大幅影響北中選區經濟選民的投票動向。事實上，即時民調也好，突發事件也罷，都可能只有短期效應， 對長期民意走向趨勢的影響並不大。
我們比較關注的是，是最近包括本報在內相關機構所發布的民調數據，在政黨總體形象 上所出現的走勢；以及相關縣市政黨提名所出現的分裂現象。例如目前藍軍部分，有6個縣市出現分裂，綠軍陣營也有兩個縣市出現分裂現象，這些在政黨內部所出 現的同志相爭現象，結合前述政黨形象走向所透露的徵候，恐怕才是現階段最值得觀察這場選舉的參考指標。
先談政黨總體 形象部分，從若干較為專業的機構所陸續發布的民調數據，不難發現其中頗為耐人尋味的現象，即是藍營的支持度雖已破底止跌，但也沒有出現顯著回升的情況。同 樣有趣的是，在藍營支持率一路低迷景況下，並未同步讓綠營出現顯著攀升的情況，經常是藍綠陣營像難兄難弟一樣伴隨共同低迷。這種現象也一樣出現在朝野領導 人身上，亦即縱然馬總統的支持率未見好轉，蔡主席亦未顯現出明顯的明日之星態勢。
這種民調趨向所透露的訊息是，主流民意對朝野兩黨其實都沒有好感，這種情況從今年以來不論發生任何大小事件，都沒有改變過。台北市選戰最終會出現由兩位政壇素人參選對決的局面，若要深究背後的原因，正就是這種民意氛圍所產生的結果。
這 種同步厭棄藍綠的背後，透露的其實是更多的無奈！畢竟當前所有台灣人所共同面對的，是一個舉步維艱、寸步難行的執政黨，以及一個不問是非、只圖拖垮施政的 在野黨。一個遲緩兒執政黨，一個過動兒在野黨，這個國家當然只有原地踏步的份，當全球多數國家，特別是亞太諸國都在拚競爭力的時候，台灣還在為一些陳舊的 意識型態包袱互扯後腿，試問選民有什麼理由不憤怒？
更糟糕的是，原本該是扮演舵手角色的馬總統，彷彿已全然喪失了自 信，被罵到現階段啥事都不敢做，行政團隊更是頻頻出包，甚至下台的比上台還理直氣壯，結果就是危機處理多過政策推進。而在野黨這邊的蔡主席，除了一路唱 衰，從未提出過任何值得台灣人信服的願景，唯一反覆強調只有一點，就是只要讓他們執政，大陸就一定會調整政策，結果第一時間就被對岸回嗆，其他則是什麼像 樣的論述都未提出，有的只是矢力擋下所有攸關國家競爭力的法案，羞辱所有他們能羞辱的官員，讓執政黨無所做為，彷彿凡是執政黨輸的，就是在野黨贏的，結果 一路最大的輸家就是台灣，試問當一個國家長期處在這樣的局面中，選民還能有什麼更佳的選項？
朝野政黨在形象上的衰 敗，當然也會出現在內控機制的失靈上。這次朝野政黨在提名結束後，都陸續出現同志相爭，甚至不惜分裂到底之勢，藍營甚且有6個縣市出現分裂局面，堪稱選舉 史上的空前！試想藍營相關選區無不選情緊繃，連一對一都不一定贏的情況，還要搞分裂，還不如提前宣布落選算了！這個簡單的道理，任何有起碼政治常識的人都 知道，卻依舊堅持上演，唯一能解釋的就是黨中央的權威已經不再，講得再直白一些，不是大人不在家，而是沒人將大人當家長！
綠營也沒啥好興奮的，事實已經證明，執政黨的災難，並沒有換算成在野黨的收獲，一個被視為晉升大位跳板的首都選舉，竟沒有任何一軍人選敢於挑戰，一場高雄氣爆事件，除了顯現推諉，精於羞辱官員外，並未表現任何準備好執政的格局，這種困局，民進黨好像一直走不出來！
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Chang Hsien-yao Incident Must Not Become a Drowning Incident
Chang Hsien-yao Incident Must Not Become a Drowning Incident
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2014
Summary: The political fallout from the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case continues. Some pundits would repudiate the past six years of improved cross-Strait relations. This sort of cheap political calculus must be thoroughly discredited. Did Chang Hsien-yao leak secrets? He is a key government negotiator. If he betrayed his duties as a civil servant, he must be severely punished. The public is advised to remain calm. The facts will eventually emerge and a reasonable judgment will be made. The ruling KMT must reflect on its lack of crisis management skills. It must learn from its mistakes and avoid such pitfalls in the future.
Full Text Below:
The political fallout from the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case continues. Some pundits would repudiate the past six years of improved cross-Strait relations. This sort of cheap political calculus must be thoroughly discredited. Did Chang Hsien-yao leak secrets? He is a key government negotiator. If he betrayed his duties as a civil servant, he must be severely punished.
The Ma administration has been in office for six years. Cross-Strait relations are the best they have been in 60 years. The administration's achievements include direct flights, Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan, cooperation in combating crime, and 21 signed agreements. These are all objective achievements that stand up to scrutiny in the harsh light of day. How can suspected leaks by a solitary individual negate these accomplishments in cross-Strait relations? How can they invalidate past agreements signed by both sides? We must reaffirm out fundamental direction, then return to the specifics of the event. We must reflect on the government's crisis management skills, and consider improvements.
The more open and transparent a society is, the more important government and corporate crisis management becomes. In particular, those agencies responsible for national security crisis prevention and management must be watertight. There is no room for error. Consider the current case. When Chang Hsien-yao's superiors learned of the leaks, what did they do? According to the ABCs of crisis management, they must ask three questions. How strong is the evidence? How much damage will the leaks do? How should the leaks be explained to the public? Consider the Ma administration's perspective. Any evidence presented suggesting that Chang Hsien-yao leaked secrets must be concrete and specific. If they are, then Chang must be removed from office. That is as it should be. But the executive branch is not the criminal justice system. All it can do is impose administrative sanctions and cope with the political repercussions. Whether the evidence warrants criminal prosecution is not within the purvue of the Ma administration. The administration is obligated to presume innocence and await the verdict of the criminal justice system.
Alas, public opinion is unwilling to allow the government to wait and see. When Chang Hsien-yao was about to be fired, the reason became clear. We must then confront the second question. How much damage will the leaks do? The damage is threefold. One. Damage to Chang Hsien-yao's reputation. Two. Damage to the government's credibility. Three. Damage to the future of cross-Strait relations. This is going to be a real shocker. Another question is when were the leaks uncovered? If the leak was uncovered before the facts were ascertained, the shock effect will be multiplied. Therefore it is easy to understand why Wang Yu-chi would consult with Chang Hsien-yao as chairman, and cite family considerations as his reason for leaving. One. This would buy time to investigate. Two. It would be consistent with the presumption of innocence. It would protect Chang's reputation and interests during the investigation. Three. It would minimize the damage to the credibility of the Ma administration and to cross-Strait relations.
Once this understanding with Chang was reached, the issue entered the third stage. How should the leaks be explained to the public? The Ma administration underestimated Chang Hsien-yao's reaction. It did not expect Chang to violate the understanding, then bring down the Ma adminstration along with himself.
Some say that Chang Hsien-yao, as chairman of the board, wanted the leak case settled privately. This allegation is questionable. President Ma never compromises with illegal conduct. Others say that given the sequence of events, a private settlement would not have required Wang Yu-chi to mention leaks to Chang. The Ma administration clearly had no intention of settling the matter privately. Chang Hsien-yao knew his situation was perilous. That is why he made a huge splash and presented his case to the public. But the Ma administration is in the habit of backing down. This led to one-sided public criticism. It lost control of the incident. The government should learn a lesson from the crisis.
One. When dealing with a crisis, the number one concern must be public perception. Wang Yu-chi was chairman. Settling the matter privately would have been inappropriate. Doing so would have left a bad impression on the public. Ignoring public perception undermines the legitimacy of one's other, legitimate actions. One forces those who might have spoken up for the government to remain silent. During crisis management, the first question to ask oneself is whether the public will buy it?
Two. Human nature is difficult to fathom. One must be accurate in one's perceptions. Were Chang Hsien-yao's leaks serious? Chang himself knows best. He appears confident of his innocence. It's possible he lashed back merely because he feared being defamed. On the other hand, if he knew he was guilty, he might fight back even more desperately. Chang's office would have been provided him with s ammunition. The key to crisis management is understanding human nature. This is a lesson that the Ma government must learn.
Three. Assuming both sides are prepared, an organized team will prevail over a lone individual. Chang Hsien-yao fell out with the Ma administration. He refused to follow the Ma administration's script. This made the situation even more chaotic. The Bureau of Investigation later denied that it had accused him of being a "Communist agent" or of committing "treason." But the media had already published these reports in black and white. This left the waters seriously muddied. The government team fragmented into ten one man operations, confusing the message even further. Conspiracy theories proliferated, making the crisis still worse. First it showed that the government's crisis management was inadequate. Then it showed that the government's lateral communications in normal times was equally weak.
Four. Damage control must prevent someone choking on water from drowning in water. The opposition DPP is sharpening its knives. Chang Hsien-yao has counterattacked. The two sides of the Strait remain shrouded in fog. The crisis continues. The Ma administration must tread lightly. It cannot afford mistakes. It must redirect attention to the bigger picture and stop the hemorraging as soon as possible. The government's credibility has take a huge hit. It must not allow cross-Strait relations to go from choking on water to drowning in it. That would be a disaster.
Five. The Ma administration must stop being so cowardly. Allowing Wang to resign will destroy the Ma administration's credibility. Some are demanding that Wang Yu-chi step down. Ma government should not dance to their tune. The focus should be on the justice system. It must uncover the facts behind the leak. If the Ma administration repeatedly retreats in a cowardly fashion and forces Wang to step down, even before the justice system has released its findings, then it is effectively admitting that this is a political struggle and not a leak. This would wipe out any remaining shred of the Ma administration's credibility.
We would call also on the Mainland authorities to exercise restraint. It must avoid any miscalculation that would unwittingly help those attempting to undermine cross-Strait relations. The opposition DPP is wallowing in Schadenfreude. Its opportunistic political rhetoric can be laid to rest. The public is advised to remain calm. The facts will eventually emerge and a reasonable judgment will be made. The ruling KMT must reflect on its lack of crisis management skills. It must learn from its mistakes and avoid such pitfalls in the future.
莫讓張顯耀事件嗆水變溺水
2014年08月27日 中國時報
張顯耀涉洩密案政治餘波不斷。若干論者想藉此一竿子打翻過去6年兩岸關係的成果，這種廉價的政治算術，必須先予駁斥。如果張顯耀洩密屬實，他身為政府談判大將，竟然違背公務員忠誠義務，必須從嚴究責。
但馬政府執政6年，兩岸關係進入60年以來最佳的狀態，直航、陸客來台觀光、合作打擊犯罪、簽署21項協議等種種成果，都是可以攤在陽光下客觀檢驗的，豈能以一人可能洩密，就全盤否定兩岸關係成績，甚至質疑過去兩岸協議簽署的有效性？這個大方向必須準確拿捏，接下來才能回到事件的脈絡，反省政府的危機處理，並檢討改進。
愈公開透明的社會，政府與企業的危機管理工作愈重要，尤其國家安全相關部門的危機預防與管理，更必須滴水不漏，不容任何閃失。就本案而言，張顯耀的長官在知悉發生洩密事件時，依據危機處理ABC，先要問三個問題，證據強度如何？事件揭露的傷害？如何因應與對外說明？從馬政府方面的說法來看，在張顯耀洩密證據面上，應掌握一定具體性，必須將張調離職務，這一點並無不當。但行政部門不是司法機關，能做的只有行政處分與政治處斷，但證據的具體性能否轉換為刑事論罪的有效性，卻不是馬政府所能置喙，仍需持「無罪推定」，待司法處斷。
可是社會輿論不會給政府「等待」的時間，在張顯耀離職的當下，就會挖掘背後緣由。這時就要面對第二個問題：事件揭露的傷害？傷害有三方面，一是張顯耀名譽；二是政府威信；三是兩岸關係發展，這將是個超級震撼彈。伴隨的問題是，何時揭露？倘調查事實出爐前事件被揭露，震撼彈的傷殺力將倍增。準此，就不難理解，王郁琦為何要以董事長職和張顯耀協商，以及約定以家庭因素為離職說法。一是爭取調查時間；二是基於無罪推定，想保護張在調查期間的名譽與權益；三是減少馬政府威信與兩岸關係的傷害。
與張達成「共識」後，問題進入第三層次：如何因應說明。馬政府低估了張顯耀反應，沒料到張會推翻共識、不惜玉石俱焚。
或有批評，對張顯耀約以董事長職務，是想要將洩密案「私了」，此一說法頗值商榷。依馬總統行為慣性，他從來不會向不法妥協；另從事件脈絡言，若要私了，王郁琦不需要對張提及其涉洩密。馬政府顯然無意私了，張顯耀也深知處境危險，才會以大動作企圖藉輿論力量尋求自保。但馬政府一貫的退縮態度，已造成輿論一面倒的批判。對此一失控情勢，政府在此次危機事件中，應習得幾點教訓。
第一，處理危機，社會觀感為首要。王郁琦約以董事長職，縱不宜以「私了」論斷，也確實給外界極為不佳的觀感。一旦站在社會觀感的對立面，就會讓其他正確作法的正當性削弱，讓為政府說話的聲音退卻。危機處理時，首要自問，民眾會認同嗎？
第二，人性幽微，思慮掌握要準確。張顯耀涉洩密的情節輕重，張本人最清楚。其自信清白，也有可能因擔心受誣而反撲，若其自知有罪，更會孤注一擲全力反擊。以職務為約，就有可能成為張顯耀據以反擊的彈藥。危機處理的核心是面對人性，這一課，馬政府要學學。
第三，備妥備案，團隊整合勝單兵。張顯耀翻臉，不照著馬政府沙推的腳本走，事態更進入一團亂局。「共諜說」、「外患罪」雖然調查局事後否認提出，媒體報導卻白紙黑字，讓已渾的一池春水被攪得更濁。政府本是一個團隊，卻好像變成10個各自為政的單兵。導致訊息混亂、陰謀論滿天飛，讓事件的危機處理雪上加霜。一方面顯示對危機的應變備案不足，二方面也顯示政府平時水平連繫機制的脆弱。
第四，損害控管，勿讓嗆水變溺水。在野黨磨刀霍霍、張顯耀持續反撲、兩岸上空霧霾盈蓄，危機仍在持續中，馬政府要步步為營，不能再失算犯錯，應將重心拉回大局，盡速停損，政府的威信在此事件大傷，萬不能讓兩岸關係因此從嗆水變成溺水，演變成大倒退災難。
第五、勿再庸懦，讓王辭職，馬政府公信力將崩盤。部分人士炒作王郁琦下台，馬政府不宜隨之起舞，現在重點是由司法釐清洩密案真相，馬政府若再次庸懦退縮，讓王在司法調查結果出爐前下台，等於心虛，自己承認是政治鬥爭而非洩密。這將燒盡馬政府無多的公信。
我們也呼籲大陸當局應克制，避免錯誤判斷反而幫意圖破壞兩岸關係的人添柴火；在野黨勿見獵心喜，種種見縫插針的政治口水可以休矣；社會輿論則宜保持冷靜，本諸既有的事實合理評斷；執政黨則更應深切反省其危機處理能力，從錯誤中學習，避免重蹈覆轍。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 27, 2014
Summary: The political fallout from the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case continues. Some pundits would repudiate the past six years of improved cross-Strait relations. This sort of cheap political calculus must be thoroughly discredited. Did Chang Hsien-yao leak secrets? He is a key government negotiator. If he betrayed his duties as a civil servant, he must be severely punished. The public is advised to remain calm. The facts will eventually emerge and a reasonable judgment will be made. The ruling KMT must reflect on its lack of crisis management skills. It must learn from its mistakes and avoid such pitfalls in the future.
Full Text Below:
The political fallout from the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case continues. Some pundits would repudiate the past six years of improved cross-Strait relations. This sort of cheap political calculus must be thoroughly discredited. Did Chang Hsien-yao leak secrets? He is a key government negotiator. If he betrayed his duties as a civil servant, he must be severely punished.
The Ma administration has been in office for six years. Cross-Strait relations are the best they have been in 60 years. The administration's achievements include direct flights, Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan, cooperation in combating crime, and 21 signed agreements. These are all objective achievements that stand up to scrutiny in the harsh light of day. How can suspected leaks by a solitary individual negate these accomplishments in cross-Strait relations? How can they invalidate past agreements signed by both sides? We must reaffirm out fundamental direction, then return to the specifics of the event. We must reflect on the government's crisis management skills, and consider improvements.
The more open and transparent a society is, the more important government and corporate crisis management becomes. In particular, those agencies responsible for national security crisis prevention and management must be watertight. There is no room for error. Consider the current case. When Chang Hsien-yao's superiors learned of the leaks, what did they do? According to the ABCs of crisis management, they must ask three questions. How strong is the evidence? How much damage will the leaks do? How should the leaks be explained to the public? Consider the Ma administration's perspective. Any evidence presented suggesting that Chang Hsien-yao leaked secrets must be concrete and specific. If they are, then Chang must be removed from office. That is as it should be. But the executive branch is not the criminal justice system. All it can do is impose administrative sanctions and cope with the political repercussions. Whether the evidence warrants criminal prosecution is not within the purvue of the Ma administration. The administration is obligated to presume innocence and await the verdict of the criminal justice system.
Alas, public opinion is unwilling to allow the government to wait and see. When Chang Hsien-yao was about to be fired, the reason became clear. We must then confront the second question. How much damage will the leaks do? The damage is threefold. One. Damage to Chang Hsien-yao's reputation. Two. Damage to the government's credibility. Three. Damage to the future of cross-Strait relations. This is going to be a real shocker. Another question is when were the leaks uncovered? If the leak was uncovered before the facts were ascertained, the shock effect will be multiplied. Therefore it is easy to understand why Wang Yu-chi would consult with Chang Hsien-yao as chairman, and cite family considerations as his reason for leaving. One. This would buy time to investigate. Two. It would be consistent with the presumption of innocence. It would protect Chang's reputation and interests during the investigation. Three. It would minimize the damage to the credibility of the Ma administration and to cross-Strait relations.
Once this understanding with Chang was reached, the issue entered the third stage. How should the leaks be explained to the public? The Ma administration underestimated Chang Hsien-yao's reaction. It did not expect Chang to violate the understanding, then bring down the Ma adminstration along with himself.
Some say that Chang Hsien-yao, as chairman of the board, wanted the leak case settled privately. This allegation is questionable. President Ma never compromises with illegal conduct. Others say that given the sequence of events, a private settlement would not have required Wang Yu-chi to mention leaks to Chang. The Ma administration clearly had no intention of settling the matter privately. Chang Hsien-yao knew his situation was perilous. That is why he made a huge splash and presented his case to the public. But the Ma administration is in the habit of backing down. This led to one-sided public criticism. It lost control of the incident. The government should learn a lesson from the crisis.
One. When dealing with a crisis, the number one concern must be public perception. Wang Yu-chi was chairman. Settling the matter privately would have been inappropriate. Doing so would have left a bad impression on the public. Ignoring public perception undermines the legitimacy of one's other, legitimate actions. One forces those who might have spoken up for the government to remain silent. During crisis management, the first question to ask oneself is whether the public will buy it?
Two. Human nature is difficult to fathom. One must be accurate in one's perceptions. Were Chang Hsien-yao's leaks serious? Chang himself knows best. He appears confident of his innocence. It's possible he lashed back merely because he feared being defamed. On the other hand, if he knew he was guilty, he might fight back even more desperately. Chang's office would have been provided him with s ammunition. The key to crisis management is understanding human nature. This is a lesson that the Ma government must learn.
Three. Assuming both sides are prepared, an organized team will prevail over a lone individual. Chang Hsien-yao fell out with the Ma administration. He refused to follow the Ma administration's script. This made the situation even more chaotic. The Bureau of Investigation later denied that it had accused him of being a "Communist agent" or of committing "treason." But the media had already published these reports in black and white. This left the waters seriously muddied. The government team fragmented into ten one man operations, confusing the message even further. Conspiracy theories proliferated, making the crisis still worse. First it showed that the government's crisis management was inadequate. Then it showed that the government's lateral communications in normal times was equally weak.
Four. Damage control must prevent someone choking on water from drowning in water. The opposition DPP is sharpening its knives. Chang Hsien-yao has counterattacked. The two sides of the Strait remain shrouded in fog. The crisis continues. The Ma administration must tread lightly. It cannot afford mistakes. It must redirect attention to the bigger picture and stop the hemorraging as soon as possible. The government's credibility has take a huge hit. It must not allow cross-Strait relations to go from choking on water to drowning in it. That would be a disaster.
Five. The Ma administration must stop being so cowardly. Allowing Wang to resign will destroy the Ma administration's credibility. Some are demanding that Wang Yu-chi step down. Ma government should not dance to their tune. The focus should be on the justice system. It must uncover the facts behind the leak. If the Ma administration repeatedly retreats in a cowardly fashion and forces Wang to step down, even before the justice system has released its findings, then it is effectively admitting that this is a political struggle and not a leak. This would wipe out any remaining shred of the Ma administration's credibility.
We would call also on the Mainland authorities to exercise restraint. It must avoid any miscalculation that would unwittingly help those attempting to undermine cross-Strait relations. The opposition DPP is wallowing in Schadenfreude. Its opportunistic political rhetoric can be laid to rest. The public is advised to remain calm. The facts will eventually emerge and a reasonable judgment will be made. The ruling KMT must reflect on its lack of crisis management skills. It must learn from its mistakes and avoid such pitfalls in the future.
莫讓張顯耀事件嗆水變溺水
2014年08月27日 中國時報
張顯耀涉洩密案政治餘波不斷。若干論者想藉此一竿子打翻過去6年兩岸關係的成果，這種廉價的政治算術，必須先予駁斥。如果張顯耀洩密屬實，他身為政府談判大將，竟然違背公務員忠誠義務，必須從嚴究責。
但馬政府執政6年，兩岸關係進入60年以來最佳的狀態，直航、陸客來台觀光、合作打擊犯罪、簽署21項協議等種種成果，都是可以攤在陽光下客觀檢驗的，豈能以一人可能洩密，就全盤否定兩岸關係成績，甚至質疑過去兩岸協議簽署的有效性？這個大方向必須準確拿捏，接下來才能回到事件的脈絡，反省政府的危機處理，並檢討改進。
愈公開透明的社會，政府與企業的危機管理工作愈重要，尤其國家安全相關部門的危機預防與管理，更必須滴水不漏，不容任何閃失。就本案而言，張顯耀的長官在知悉發生洩密事件時，依據危機處理ABC，先要問三個問題，證據強度如何？事件揭露的傷害？如何因應與對外說明？從馬政府方面的說法來看，在張顯耀洩密證據面上，應掌握一定具體性，必須將張調離職務，這一點並無不當。但行政部門不是司法機關，能做的只有行政處分與政治處斷，但證據的具體性能否轉換為刑事論罪的有效性，卻不是馬政府所能置喙，仍需持「無罪推定」，待司法處斷。
可是社會輿論不會給政府「等待」的時間，在張顯耀離職的當下，就會挖掘背後緣由。這時就要面對第二個問題：事件揭露的傷害？傷害有三方面，一是張顯耀名譽；二是政府威信；三是兩岸關係發展，這將是個超級震撼彈。伴隨的問題是，何時揭露？倘調查事實出爐前事件被揭露，震撼彈的傷殺力將倍增。準此，就不難理解，王郁琦為何要以董事長職和張顯耀協商，以及約定以家庭因素為離職說法。一是爭取調查時間；二是基於無罪推定，想保護張在調查期間的名譽與權益；三是減少馬政府威信與兩岸關係的傷害。
與張達成「共識」後，問題進入第三層次：如何因應說明。馬政府低估了張顯耀反應，沒料到張會推翻共識、不惜玉石俱焚。
或有批評，對張顯耀約以董事長職務，是想要將洩密案「私了」，此一說法頗值商榷。依馬總統行為慣性，他從來不會向不法妥協；另從事件脈絡言，若要私了，王郁琦不需要對張提及其涉洩密。馬政府顯然無意私了，張顯耀也深知處境危險，才會以大動作企圖藉輿論力量尋求自保。但馬政府一貫的退縮態度，已造成輿論一面倒的批判。對此一失控情勢，政府在此次危機事件中，應習得幾點教訓。
第一，處理危機，社會觀感為首要。王郁琦約以董事長職，縱不宜以「私了」論斷，也確實給外界極為不佳的觀感。一旦站在社會觀感的對立面，就會讓其他正確作法的正當性削弱，讓為政府說話的聲音退卻。危機處理時，首要自問，民眾會認同嗎？
第二，人性幽微，思慮掌握要準確。張顯耀涉洩密的情節輕重，張本人最清楚。其自信清白，也有可能因擔心受誣而反撲，若其自知有罪，更會孤注一擲全力反擊。以職務為約，就有可能成為張顯耀據以反擊的彈藥。危機處理的核心是面對人性，這一課，馬政府要學學。
第三，備妥備案，團隊整合勝單兵。張顯耀翻臉，不照著馬政府沙推的腳本走，事態更進入一團亂局。「共諜說」、「外患罪」雖然調查局事後否認提出，媒體報導卻白紙黑字，讓已渾的一池春水被攪得更濁。政府本是一個團隊，卻好像變成10個各自為政的單兵。導致訊息混亂、陰謀論滿天飛，讓事件的危機處理雪上加霜。一方面顯示對危機的應變備案不足，二方面也顯示政府平時水平連繫機制的脆弱。
第四，損害控管，勿讓嗆水變溺水。在野黨磨刀霍霍、張顯耀持續反撲、兩岸上空霧霾盈蓄，危機仍在持續中，馬政府要步步為營，不能再失算犯錯，應將重心拉回大局，盡速停損，政府的威信在此事件大傷，萬不能讓兩岸關係因此從嗆水變成溺水，演變成大倒退災難。
第五、勿再庸懦，讓王辭職，馬政府公信力將崩盤。部分人士炒作王郁琦下台，馬政府不宜隨之起舞，現在重點是由司法釐清洩密案真相，馬政府若再次庸懦退縮，讓王在司法調查結果出爐前下台，等於心虛，自己承認是政治鬥爭而非洩密。這將燒盡馬政府無多的公信。
我們也呼籲大陸當局應克制，避免錯誤判斷反而幫意圖破壞兩岸關係的人添柴火；在野黨勿見獵心喜，種種見縫插針的政治口水可以休矣；社會輿論則宜保持冷靜，本諸既有的事實合理評斷；執政黨則更應深切反省其危機處理能力，從錯誤中學習，避免重蹈覆轍。
Monday, August 25, 2014
Explain Your Cross-Strait Policy to the Common Man
Explain Your Cross-Strait Policy to the Common Man
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2014
Summary: Relations between the two sides have become increasingly close. Taiwan politics cannot exclude the "Mainland Factor." The DPP and the CCP have yet to conduct formal exchanges. But the blue, green, and red parties already form an equilateral triangle that affects Taiwan's politics. The 2016 election will have an enormous impact on Taiwan's future. The three parties have a responsibility to make their post-election policies and attitudes clear. They must make themselves understood, so that the people can make an informed decision.
Full Text Below:
Recent developments have undermined Kuomintang rule. The Sunflower Student Movement and the Chang Hsien-yao case have endangered cross-Strait relations. The year end nine in one elections are fast approaching. Public anxiety is palpable. The nine in one elections will impact the 2016 presidential election. Will yet another change in ruling parties harm Taiwan's future and the peoples' well-being? With the general election looming, the cross-Strait outlook remains daunting. The two parties' cross-Strait policies remain vague and chaotic, deepening public concerns.
During past elections, political parties and candidates on Taiwan engaged in "spittle exchanges." Important policy discussions remained fuzzy. Voters discovered that what the candidate said before the election, and what he did after the election were two different things. External factors, including the Mainland and the United States, began to exert an increasing influence on Taiwan elections. The Mainland of course, is always concerned about election results on Taiwan. The public on Taiwan is also concerned about cross-Strait relations in the wake of elections. Therefore it high time the blue, green and red parties all made their positions crystal clear.
The Ma administration won a second term in 2008. It promoted large scale cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. It enabled Taiwan's economy to maintain a 2 to 3 percent growth rate. It facilitated peaceful development between the two sides. But the KMT's "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy failed to offer people a long term vision for their nation. Lack of idealism led to loss of consensus. Some think the KMT's cross-Strait policy is too conservative. They think we must establish military confidence building measures and cross-Strait political negotiations, as soon as possible. Others think the KMT has been too hasty. They think it has made Taiwan too economically dependent upon the Mainland. They think the Mainland will use business as stalking horse for politics, bringing us to the negotiating table.
The "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy, is a policy without a principle, one that myopically seeks temporary safety. It has lost its appeal for young people. At best, it is consistent with the status quo and with mainstream public opinion. But the fact remains it lacks direction, it lacks vision, and it lacks idealism. The sands of time march on. The tides of fortune ebb and flow. There is no such thing as an unchanging status quo. The KMT has successfully promoted the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. But it has now come to the hard part. It now faces challenges both from within and without. Within, it must unite in order to win the nine in one elections. Without, it must pass the STA, must negotate the MTA, and advance cross-Strait development, enabling Taiwan to connect with the international economy. The "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy is unworkable. The KMT must make clear what its next step will be.
When Chen Shui-bian was in power he made a shamble of cross-Strait relations. Taiwan's economy nearly stalled. Diplomatic relations turned into a war zone. Even the US, which has always been friendly to Taiwan, lost all patience. The DPP, which waves the holy sacred banner of Taiwan independence, may make a comeback in 2016. Taiwan's economic prosperity, cross-Strait relations, and even diplomatic relations may deteriorate. Faced with this situation, Will the DPP cling for dear life to Taiwan independence? The DPP must make its position clear to the Taiwan public.
Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has been evasive about her response to the proposed freeze to the Taiwan independence party platform. She submitted the proposal to the Central Executive Committee, hoping to see which way the electoral winds blow before proceeding further. She even said that if the green camp wins the election, the Mainland will modify its policy to accomodate the DPP. The DPP is a past master at campaign strategy. It knows the best way to scare up votes. In 2000 Chen Shui-bian's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" duped swing voters. Following the election it reverted to Taiwan independence ideology and de-Sinicization. Will Tsai Ing-wen do the same thing? What kind of relations will she maintain with the Mainland after the election? Will Mainland China be an enemy, a partner, a neighbor, or a member of our own family? The DPP must explain.
Cross-Strait relations have led to the formation of an equilateral triangle, with the red, blue, and green parties at each corner. Every time an election is held on Taiwan, the Mainland reiterates its cross-Strait policy. This undoubtedly affects voter behavior. In 2000, Mainland Premier Zhu Rongji's anti-independence declaration played an important part in Taiwan's election. The key to the 2012 presidential election was the debate over the 1992 consensus. During the 2016 election, the Mainland's attitude will inevitably play a decisive role.
If the Kuomintang retains power in 2016, cross-Strait relations will enjoy continuity. They will continue along the path of peaceful development. But if the DPP takes over, what attitude will the Mainland adopt? Will cross-Strait relations regress or stagnate? KMT morale is low. Its public approval ratings have hit bottom. The year end nine in one elections have upset the traditional blue north/south green power distribution. Green power is gradually expanding northwards. The DPP has been deliberately fuzzy about its cross-Strait policy. Once it seizes power however, it is likely to adopt the same de-Sinicization and soft Taiwan independence strategies as when Chen Shui-bian was in office. How will the Mainland respond? Will cross-Strait relations be frozen, yet again? Could this detonate another Taiwan Strait military crisis? The Mainland must make its position clear.
Relations between the two sides have become increasingly close. Taiwan politics cannot exclude the "Mainland Factor." The DPP and the CCP have yet to conduct formal exchanges. But the blue, green, and red parties already form an equilateral triangle that affects Taiwan's politics. The 2016 election will have an enormous impact on Taiwan's future. The three parties have a responsibility to make their post-election policies and attitudes clear. They must make themselves understood, so that the people can make an informed decision.
社論－為蒼生計 兩岸政策要說清楚
2014年08月26日 04:10
本報訊
國民黨執政不利，兩岸關係在太陽花運動及張顯耀案衝擊下陷入倒退危機，年底九合一選舉將屆，可以感受到民眾處在極度不安的焦慮。九合一牽動2016總統大選，會不會再次政黨輪替，關係著台灣的前途和民眾的生計，但是在大選前，兩岸前景充滿挑戰，兩黨兩岸政策更是模糊、渾沌，加深了民眾的疑慮。
台灣過去的選舉，政黨和候選人擅打口水戰，重要的政策論述都被模糊化，選後才知道，原來選前說的和選後做的是兩回事。外部因素，包括大陸和美國在內，對台灣選舉的影響比重也逐年增高，大陸更是關心台灣選舉結果，台灣民眾也關心選後的兩岸關係。因此，藍綠紅三黨必須在此刻把話說清楚。
儘管馬政府在2008年重新掌政之後，推動兩岸經貿大步發展，使得台灣的經濟還能夠維持2～3％的成長，兩岸之間也呈現了和平發展的局面。然而，國民黨也因為採取「不統、不獨、不武」的政策，讓民眾對國家前途失去遠景、理想，因而失去共識。一部分人認為國民黨的兩岸政策太保守，必須盡快進入兩岸軍事互信機制和政治協商的進程，一部分人卻認為國民黨太躁進，會使得台灣的經濟過度依賴大陸，導致最後被大陸「以商逼政」坐上談判桌。
「不統、不獨、不武」政策只是沒有立場的偏安之計，對於時下青年已經喪失號召力，說好聽是符合維持現狀的主流民意，但它確實是沒有方向、沒有前瞻、沒有理想的政策。事實上，時代巨輪在運轉，世界的潮流在推進，沒有永遠的現狀。國民黨已經把兩岸關係帶向和平發展的深水區，現在遭遇到內外的雙重挑戰，對內必須凝聚力量迎戰九合一，對外必須通過服貿、貨貿後續談判，推前兩岸發展進程讓台灣與國際經濟接軌。「不統、不獨、不武」的號召已行不通，國民黨下一步要怎麼走，請說清楚。
民進黨在陳水扁執政時期因為兩岸關係處理不當，使得台灣的經濟幾近停擺，外交搞得烽火連天，一向對台灣友好的美國也備感不耐。以拿著台獨神主牌執政的民進黨很可能在2016捲土重來，台灣的經濟和兩岸關係、甚至外交關係都有可能大倒退，面對這樣的情境，民進黨是不是還要死抱著台獨神主牌，應該先向台灣人民說清楚。
但是黨主席蔡英文至今仍然抱持模糊以對的態度。針對黨內提出的「凍結台獨黨綱」提議，蔡英文採取軟處理，提交中執會後先擺著，觀望一下選舉風向再說；她甚至表示綠營只要選贏，大陸會朝民進黨的方向調整。民進黨始終是打選戰的高手，他們知道如何運用最適當的策略騙取選票，2000年陳水扁就是以《台灣前途決議文》騙取中間選民，選後以台獨意識形態去中國化。蔡英文如今是否如法炮製，選後將與大陸維持怎樣的關係？中國大陸是敵人、夥伴、鄰居還是一家人？請說清楚。
兩岸關係發展，很明顯已經形成紅藍綠三角的等距關係，台灣的選舉，大陸所宣示的兩岸政策，無疑會影響台灣民眾投票行為。2000年大陸總理朱鎔基的選前反台獨談話顯然對台灣的選情起了很大作用，2012年大選的勝負關鍵就圍繞在九二共識的論辯，我們深信，2016的大選，大陸的態度必然也會起決定性的作用。
如果2016國民黨繼續執政，兩岸關係可以在既有的基礎上延續，繼續開展和平發展的大道。但是如果民進黨取得政權之後，大陸會對台灣採取什麼樣的態度？兩岸關係會不會倒退或停滯？畢竟，國民黨目前的士氣低迷，施政滿意度也盪到谷底，年底九合一選情似乎已從北藍南綠的傳統板塊，綠色版圖逐漸向北浸漫。民進黨目前對兩岸政策採取模糊態度，很可能在取得政權後繼續走扁政時期的「去中國化」和「軟性台獨」策略，屆時大陸會採取什麼樣的手段回應？會不會冰封兩岸關係？是不是有可能再度引爆台海軍事危機？大陸必須說清楚。
兩岸之間的關係已經越來越緊密，台灣的政局不可能排除「中國因素」，即使民共之間尚未正式交流，但藍綠紅三黨對台灣政局幾已形成等距的三角關係。2016大選對台灣前途的影響既深且巨，三黨都有責任把選後的政策和態度說清楚、講明白，讓民眾有個抉擇的依據。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2014
Summary: Relations between the two sides have become increasingly close. Taiwan politics cannot exclude the "Mainland Factor." The DPP and the CCP have yet to conduct formal exchanges. But the blue, green, and red parties already form an equilateral triangle that affects Taiwan's politics. The 2016 election will have an enormous impact on Taiwan's future. The three parties have a responsibility to make their post-election policies and attitudes clear. They must make themselves understood, so that the people can make an informed decision.
Full Text Below:
Recent developments have undermined Kuomintang rule. The Sunflower Student Movement and the Chang Hsien-yao case have endangered cross-Strait relations. The year end nine in one elections are fast approaching. Public anxiety is palpable. The nine in one elections will impact the 2016 presidential election. Will yet another change in ruling parties harm Taiwan's future and the peoples' well-being? With the general election looming, the cross-Strait outlook remains daunting. The two parties' cross-Strait policies remain vague and chaotic, deepening public concerns.
During past elections, political parties and candidates on Taiwan engaged in "spittle exchanges." Important policy discussions remained fuzzy. Voters discovered that what the candidate said before the election, and what he did after the election were two different things. External factors, including the Mainland and the United States, began to exert an increasing influence on Taiwan elections. The Mainland of course, is always concerned about election results on Taiwan. The public on Taiwan is also concerned about cross-Strait relations in the wake of elections. Therefore it high time the blue, green and red parties all made their positions crystal clear.
The Ma administration won a second term in 2008. It promoted large scale cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. It enabled Taiwan's economy to maintain a 2 to 3 percent growth rate. It facilitated peaceful development between the two sides. But the KMT's "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy failed to offer people a long term vision for their nation. Lack of idealism led to loss of consensus. Some think the KMT's cross-Strait policy is too conservative. They think we must establish military confidence building measures and cross-Strait political negotiations, as soon as possible. Others think the KMT has been too hasty. They think it has made Taiwan too economically dependent upon the Mainland. They think the Mainland will use business as stalking horse for politics, bringing us to the negotiating table.
The "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy, is a policy without a principle, one that myopically seeks temporary safety. It has lost its appeal for young people. At best, it is consistent with the status quo and with mainstream public opinion. But the fact remains it lacks direction, it lacks vision, and it lacks idealism. The sands of time march on. The tides of fortune ebb and flow. There is no such thing as an unchanging status quo. The KMT has successfully promoted the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. But it has now come to the hard part. It now faces challenges both from within and without. Within, it must unite in order to win the nine in one elections. Without, it must pass the STA, must negotate the MTA, and advance cross-Strait development, enabling Taiwan to connect with the international economy. The "no reunification, no independence, no use of force" policy is unworkable. The KMT must make clear what its next step will be.
When Chen Shui-bian was in power he made a shamble of cross-Strait relations. Taiwan's economy nearly stalled. Diplomatic relations turned into a war zone. Even the US, which has always been friendly to Taiwan, lost all patience. The DPP, which waves the holy sacred banner of Taiwan independence, may make a comeback in 2016. Taiwan's economic prosperity, cross-Strait relations, and even diplomatic relations may deteriorate. Faced with this situation, Will the DPP cling for dear life to Taiwan independence? The DPP must make its position clear to the Taiwan public.
Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has been evasive about her response to the proposed freeze to the Taiwan independence party platform. She submitted the proposal to the Central Executive Committee, hoping to see which way the electoral winds blow before proceeding further. She even said that if the green camp wins the election, the Mainland will modify its policy to accomodate the DPP. The DPP is a past master at campaign strategy. It knows the best way to scare up votes. In 2000 Chen Shui-bian's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" duped swing voters. Following the election it reverted to Taiwan independence ideology and de-Sinicization. Will Tsai Ing-wen do the same thing? What kind of relations will she maintain with the Mainland after the election? Will Mainland China be an enemy, a partner, a neighbor, or a member of our own family? The DPP must explain.
Cross-Strait relations have led to the formation of an equilateral triangle, with the red, blue, and green parties at each corner. Every time an election is held on Taiwan, the Mainland reiterates its cross-Strait policy. This undoubtedly affects voter behavior. In 2000, Mainland Premier Zhu Rongji's anti-independence declaration played an important part in Taiwan's election. The key to the 2012 presidential election was the debate over the 1992 consensus. During the 2016 election, the Mainland's attitude will inevitably play a decisive role.
If the Kuomintang retains power in 2016, cross-Strait relations will enjoy continuity. They will continue along the path of peaceful development. But if the DPP takes over, what attitude will the Mainland adopt? Will cross-Strait relations regress or stagnate? KMT morale is low. Its public approval ratings have hit bottom. The year end nine in one elections have upset the traditional blue north/south green power distribution. Green power is gradually expanding northwards. The DPP has been deliberately fuzzy about its cross-Strait policy. Once it seizes power however, it is likely to adopt the same de-Sinicization and soft Taiwan independence strategies as when Chen Shui-bian was in office. How will the Mainland respond? Will cross-Strait relations be frozen, yet again? Could this detonate another Taiwan Strait military crisis? The Mainland must make its position clear.
Relations between the two sides have become increasingly close. Taiwan politics cannot exclude the "Mainland Factor." The DPP and the CCP have yet to conduct formal exchanges. But the blue, green, and red parties already form an equilateral triangle that affects Taiwan's politics. The 2016 election will have an enormous impact on Taiwan's future. The three parties have a responsibility to make their post-election policies and attitudes clear. They must make themselves understood, so that the people can make an informed decision.
社論－為蒼生計 兩岸政策要說清楚
2014年08月26日 04:10
本報訊
國民黨執政不利，兩岸關係在太陽花運動及張顯耀案衝擊下陷入倒退危機，年底九合一選舉將屆，可以感受到民眾處在極度不安的焦慮。九合一牽動2016總統大選，會不會再次政黨輪替，關係著台灣的前途和民眾的生計，但是在大選前，兩岸前景充滿挑戰，兩黨兩岸政策更是模糊、渾沌，加深了民眾的疑慮。
台灣過去的選舉，政黨和候選人擅打口水戰，重要的政策論述都被模糊化，選後才知道，原來選前說的和選後做的是兩回事。外部因素，包括大陸和美國在內，對台灣選舉的影響比重也逐年增高，大陸更是關心台灣選舉結果，台灣民眾也關心選後的兩岸關係。因此，藍綠紅三黨必須在此刻把話說清楚。
儘管馬政府在2008年重新掌政之後，推動兩岸經貿大步發展，使得台灣的經濟還能夠維持2～3％的成長，兩岸之間也呈現了和平發展的局面。然而，國民黨也因為採取「不統、不獨、不武」的政策，讓民眾對國家前途失去遠景、理想，因而失去共識。一部分人認為國民黨的兩岸政策太保守，必須盡快進入兩岸軍事互信機制和政治協商的進程，一部分人卻認為國民黨太躁進，會使得台灣的經濟過度依賴大陸，導致最後被大陸「以商逼政」坐上談判桌。
「不統、不獨、不武」政策只是沒有立場的偏安之計，對於時下青年已經喪失號召力，說好聽是符合維持現狀的主流民意，但它確實是沒有方向、沒有前瞻、沒有理想的政策。事實上，時代巨輪在運轉，世界的潮流在推進，沒有永遠的現狀。國民黨已經把兩岸關係帶向和平發展的深水區，現在遭遇到內外的雙重挑戰，對內必須凝聚力量迎戰九合一，對外必須通過服貿、貨貿後續談判，推前兩岸發展進程讓台灣與國際經濟接軌。「不統、不獨、不武」的號召已行不通，國民黨下一步要怎麼走，請說清楚。
民進黨在陳水扁執政時期因為兩岸關係處理不當，使得台灣的經濟幾近停擺，外交搞得烽火連天，一向對台灣友好的美國也備感不耐。以拿著台獨神主牌執政的民進黨很可能在2016捲土重來，台灣的經濟和兩岸關係、甚至外交關係都有可能大倒退，面對這樣的情境，民進黨是不是還要死抱著台獨神主牌，應該先向台灣人民說清楚。
但是黨主席蔡英文至今仍然抱持模糊以對的態度。針對黨內提出的「凍結台獨黨綱」提議，蔡英文採取軟處理，提交中執會後先擺著，觀望一下選舉風向再說；她甚至表示綠營只要選贏，大陸會朝民進黨的方向調整。民進黨始終是打選戰的高手，他們知道如何運用最適當的策略騙取選票，2000年陳水扁就是以《台灣前途決議文》騙取中間選民，選後以台獨意識形態去中國化。蔡英文如今是否如法炮製，選後將與大陸維持怎樣的關係？中國大陸是敵人、夥伴、鄰居還是一家人？請說清楚。
兩岸關係發展，很明顯已經形成紅藍綠三角的等距關係，台灣的選舉，大陸所宣示的兩岸政策，無疑會影響台灣民眾投票行為。2000年大陸總理朱鎔基的選前反台獨談話顯然對台灣的選情起了很大作用，2012年大選的勝負關鍵就圍繞在九二共識的論辯，我們深信，2016的大選，大陸的態度必然也會起決定性的作用。
如果2016國民黨繼續執政，兩岸關係可以在既有的基礎上延續，繼續開展和平發展的大道。但是如果民進黨取得政權之後，大陸會對台灣採取什麼樣的態度？兩岸關係會不會倒退或停滯？畢竟，國民黨目前的士氣低迷，施政滿意度也盪到谷底，年底九合一選情似乎已從北藍南綠的傳統板塊，綠色版圖逐漸向北浸漫。民進黨目前對兩岸政策採取模糊態度，很可能在取得政權後繼續走扁政時期的「去中國化」和「軟性台獨」策略，屆時大陸會採取什麼樣的手段回應？會不會冰封兩岸關係？是不是有可能再度引爆台海軍事危機？大陸必須說清楚。
兩岸之間的關係已經越來越緊密，台灣的政局不可能排除「中國因素」，即使民共之間尚未正式交流，但藍綠紅三黨對台灣政局幾已形成等距的三角關係。2016大選對台灣前途的影響既深且巨，三黨都有責任把選後的政策和態度說清楚、講明白，讓民眾有個抉擇的依據。
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Hong Kong Dream, Taiwan Dream, Chinese Dream
Hong Kong Dream, Taiwan Dream, Chinese Dream
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2014
Summary: We are convinced that Hong Kong's increasing freedom, openness, and democracy will benefit the whole of China and ethnic Chinese the world over. We hope that Beijing and the pan-democrats will safeguard Hong Kong's stability, promote democracy in Hong Kong, demonstrate mutual tolerance, dissolve their differences, and broaden their consensus. Allow the people of Hong Kong to fully express themselves, arrive at a reasonable reform package, expand the Hong Kong Government's support base, and stabilize society, enabling Hong Kong's democracy to move forward step by step. Allow Hong Kong to continue serving as Mainland China's free port for reform and liberalization. Allow it to become a model for Taiwan and Mainland reintegration. The Hong Kong Dream, and the Taiwan Dream must become key links in the the China Dream.
Full Text Below:
Hong Kong encompasses a mere 1104 square kilometers. It is a small place. But it has played a special role in modern and contemporary Chinese history. Ethnically, emotionally, culturally, and even in terms of sovereignty, Hong Kong is definitely a part of China.
But Hong Kong is also one of China's "special regions." It has played a special role in modern and contemporary Chinese history. In 1842, The Qing Court was defeated in the Opium War. It was forced to cede and lease Hong Kong to Great Britain. Hong Kong became a British colony. The reality of colonialism shattered the link between Hong Kong and Mainland China. But it also linked them. Hong Kong's political system, lifestyle, social attitudes, and cultural trappings, all took a unique path, and led to the development of a uniquely Hong Kong model. On the other hand, Chinese culture remains the bedrock of Hong Kong culture. Residents of Mainland China Hong have swarmed into Hong Kong repeatedly during its history, leading to the formation of a diverse and complex immigrant society.
On the one hand, Hong Kong's colonial status amounted to a century of humiliation for modern China. On the other hand, Hong Kong became the trigger for political and social change in China. The film "Bodyguards and Assassins" tells the role of Hong Kong in Sun Yat-sen's democratic revolution. The film exaggerated of course. But Hong Kong has undeniably been a window of enlightenment for Mainland China. It has been a hotbed of revolution, a channel for patriots and overseas capital, and a base for exiles and refugees. In fact, the success of the Xinhai Revolution is intimately linked to Hong Kong. The KMT and CCP cooperated during the Northern Expedition. Hong Kong was a Mecca for the labor movement. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the lonely island of Hong Kong remained a stronghold of Chinese thought, literature, and resistance.
Following 1949, the CCP refrained from taking advantage of its victory to occupy Hong Kong. Instead it gradually established a "long-term use, comprehensive planning" approach. Hong Kong became a window through which Mainland China could break through embargos, transport supplies, export goods, obtain foreign exchange, collect funds, and gather intelligence. During this period, Hong Kong evolved from an entrepot into and industrial city and a trade port. It underwent rapid economic development. It benefitted from its special political status, geographical location, and liberal politico-economic system. Hong Kong is a free port, financial center, a maritime and air RTS, one of the four Asian Tigers, and the Pearl of the Orient.
Hong Kong's special status led to the development of a unique lifestyle. A Hong Kong Dim Sum restaurant has recently become all the rage on Taiwan. It was originally a Western-style icehouse selling cheap snacks. Its menu gradually expanded. It combined a Western restaurant and dining model, then evolved into one of today's most popular cafes. Hong Kong is a paradise of freedom. Its cultural roots are traditional Chinese, but it also integrates East and West. That is why it has become the movie capital and Chinese pop cultural capital for ethnic Chinese the world over. It is known as the "Hollywood of the East," the "Chinese language dream factory," and "Chinese Amusement Park." Chinese movies and pop culture with Hong Kong characteristics have spread throughout the world. It is universally believed that Hong Kong culture has benefitted from the confluence of Chinese and Western culture. Hong Kong has become a cultural and creative industry enjoying unfettered creative freedom.
This brief review enables us to sum up Hong Kong's history. Hong Kong, with its special political status, its colonial and immigrant social composition, and its free and open society, has given it a special role in the Mainland's development, in cross-Strait relations, and in East Asian regional development. This role has contributed to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. More importantly, it has made it a tangible and intangible asset to the Mainland, and a driver that has catalyzed Mainland China's progress.
Recently, political reform in Hong Kong reached a critical juncture. In July, Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying submitted a report to the Mainland government's Standing Committee, concerning the selection process for Chief Executive in 2017, and the Legislative Council in 2016. This is known as "dual universal suffrage." At the end of the month, the Mainland Standing Committee will consider the issue. Currently the chief controversy between the Beijing authorities and the so-called pan-democrats pertains to the selection process for chief executive. Both sides agree to universal suffrage when electing the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. But Beijing wants patriots who love Hong Kong as candidates for Chief Executive. It insists on universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law. The Chief Executive Nomination Committee shall nominate candidates. The pan-democrats emphasize democratic ideals. They question the "Love Hong Kong, love the country" definition. They fear the NC will become Beijing's tool for screening candidates.
According to the relevant laws and regulations, Mainland China's Peoples Congress may render a decision on Hong Kong reform. But it needs the Hong Kong government to author a draft, then submit it to the Legislative Council. If the Bill is defeated in the Legislative Council, the controversy will continue. The next chief executive election will follow the existing model. The problem of "universal suffrage" will always dog Hong Kong politics.
In other words, Hong Kong politics finds itself at a fork in the road. In recent years, Hong Kong's economic, political, and social culture has encountered many complex problems. Former Premier Wen Jiabao used "deep-seated contradictions" to characterized these challenges. Hong Kong needs a soft landing for its political and constitutional controversy. Otherwise Hong Kong society will experience a widening wealth gap, conflicts between old residents and new immigrants, economic bottlenecks, and other issues that will confuse the situation even further.
We are convinced that Hong Kong's increasing freedom, openness, and democracy will benefit the whole of China and ethnic Chinese the world over. We hope that Beijing and the pan-democrats will safeguard Hong Kong's stability, promote democracy in Hong Kong, demonstrate mutual tolerance, dissolve their differences, and broaden their consensus. Allow the people of Hong Kong to fully express themselves, arrive at a reasonable reform package, expand the Hong Kong Government's support base, and stabilize society, enabling Hong Kong's democracy to move forward step by step. Allow Hong Kong to continue serving as Mainland China's free port for reform and liberalization. Allow it to become a model for Taiwan and Mainland reintegration. The Hong Kong Dream, and the Taiwan Dream must become key links in the the China Dream.
社論－香港夢 台灣夢 中國夢
2014年08月25日 04:10
本報訊
香港，土地面積僅約1104平方公里，只是彈丸之地，但是在中國近現代及當代史上，卻始終扮演著極其特殊的角色。從血脈淵源、歷史情感、文化傳承，以至於主權歸屬上，香港，絕對是中國的一部分。
另外一方面，香港又實實在在是中國的一個「特別的區域」，在近當代中國的歷史發展道路上，起著特殊的作用。1842年，清廷在鴉片戰爭中戰敗，隨後分階段割讓和租借香港土地予英國，香港自此成為了英國的殖民地。成為殖民地的事實，讓香港和中國大陸既斷裂又連結，在政治體制、生活方式、社會人心、文化樣貌上，都走上了自己的獨特道路，發展出獨特的香港模式。另一方面，中華文化仍是香港文化的底蘊，中國大陸的居民在不同歷史時期湧進香港，形成了多元複雜的移民社會。
香港的殖民地地位，一方面是百餘年來中國近代史的恥辱與苦痛，另一方面，香港也成為觸發、參與中國政治社會變革的門戶。電影《十月圍城》訴說了香港在孫中山領導的民主革命運動上的角色，雖嫌誇飾，但不容否認，香港確實是是中國思想啟蒙的窗口，是革命的策源地，是海外志士與資金的通道，也是流亡者的避難基地。其實，不只辛亥革命的成功和香港有莫大關聯，北伐時期國共合作下，香港是工人運動的重鎮，抗戰時期「孤島」香港也是思想、文學和抵抗行動的據點之一。
1949年以後，中共並未乘勝追擊、占領香港，反而逐步確立「長期利用、充分打算」的方針，香港成為中國大陸突破禁運，轉運物資，出口貨物，取得外匯，徵集資金和收集情報的窗口。在這段時期，香港從轉口港逐漸發展為工業城市、經貿大港，經濟迅速發展，在特殊的政治地理位置和寬鬆的經濟管制體制下，香港是自由港，是金融中心，是海空轉運站，是亞洲崛起的四小龍，是東方之珠。
由香港的特殊地位，還發展出獨特的生活文化，以台灣最近流行的香港茶餐廳而言，它原本是出售廉價西式小吃的冰室，後來餐點種類逐漸增加，又與西菜館、餐室的模式相結合，演變成為今日廣受大眾歡迎的茶餐廳。香港是自由的樂土，他的文化植根中國傳統文化，卻又融匯中西，所以成為全球華人社會中最為矚目的電影天堂和「華人流行文化之都」，被譽為「東方好萊塢」、「華語夢工場」和「華人娛樂碼頭」，有香港特色的華人電影和流行文化向全球輻射。人們普遍認為，香港文化的魅力就是受益於華洋合璧、自由創作、無拘無束」的創意產業體制。
簡短回顧這段過去，可以進行歷史的總結，香港以其特殊的政治地位，和殖民與移民社會性質，自由開放的社會文化，長期保持了在大陸發展、兩岸關係、東亞區域上的特殊作用，這個作用既促成了香港的繁榮穩定發展，更是大陸有形無形的重要資產，驅動催化了中國的進步。
最近，香港政改方案的討論到了關鍵時刻。香港行政長官梁振英7月向人大常委會提交報告，內容涉及應否修改2017年香港特首及2016年立法會的產生辦法，亦即所謂的「雙普選」，這個月月底，大陸人大常委會預定審議這個議題。當前，北京當局和所謂的泛民主派之間最大的爭議在於特首的產生辦法。也就是雙方都同意特首和立法會「雙普選」的願景，但是北京方面希望由愛港愛國人士出任普選後特首，堅持依照基本法落實特首普選，特首參選人須由提名委員會提名，泛民主派強調民主理念，質疑「愛港愛國」定義，憂慮提委會成為北京「篩選」參選人的工具。
按照相關法律規定的程序，如果大陸人大常委會針對香港政改問題作出了決定，也需要先由港府訂定草案，並提交立法會審議通過，如果草案在立法會到遭否決，爭議還會持續，而未來特首選舉將會沿用現有模式，「普選」問題將始終成為香港政治的大難題。
也就是說，香港政治正在一個叉路口，不可能否認的，這幾年來，香港經濟政治社會文化各方面都有許多複雜難題待解，溫家寶前總理曾用「深層次矛盾」來概括這些難題，政治與政制的爭議如果沒有「軟著陸」，勢必和香港社會貧富差距擴大、新舊居民移民衝突、經濟發展瓶頸等問題纏繞在一起，使得局面更為治絲益棼。
我們深信，香港的自由開放以及民主深化，對於全中國、對於華人社會都有著重要意義，我們期待北京方面和泛民主派方面能夠從維護香港穩定，促進香港民主的大視野出發，互存包容之心，縮小差距、擴大共識，讓香港的民意能充分表達，最終達成一個最合理的政改方案，港府的社會支持基礎能夠擴大，社會能夠穩定，香港的民主能夠一步一步向前推進。讓香港繼續成為中國的改革特區和自由開放港，成為台灣與大陸融一過程的典範，香港夢、台灣夢共同成為中國夢重要一環。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 25, 2014
Summary: We are convinced that Hong Kong's increasing freedom, openness, and democracy will benefit the whole of China and ethnic Chinese the world over. We hope that Beijing and the pan-democrats will safeguard Hong Kong's stability, promote democracy in Hong Kong, demonstrate mutual tolerance, dissolve their differences, and broaden their consensus. Allow the people of Hong Kong to fully express themselves, arrive at a reasonable reform package, expand the Hong Kong Government's support base, and stabilize society, enabling Hong Kong's democracy to move forward step by step. Allow Hong Kong to continue serving as Mainland China's free port for reform and liberalization. Allow it to become a model for Taiwan and Mainland reintegration. The Hong Kong Dream, and the Taiwan Dream must become key links in the the China Dream.
Full Text Below:
Hong Kong encompasses a mere 1104 square kilometers. It is a small place. But it has played a special role in modern and contemporary Chinese history. Ethnically, emotionally, culturally, and even in terms of sovereignty, Hong Kong is definitely a part of China.
But Hong Kong is also one of China's "special regions." It has played a special role in modern and contemporary Chinese history. In 1842, The Qing Court was defeated in the Opium War. It was forced to cede and lease Hong Kong to Great Britain. Hong Kong became a British colony. The reality of colonialism shattered the link between Hong Kong and Mainland China. But it also linked them. Hong Kong's political system, lifestyle, social attitudes, and cultural trappings, all took a unique path, and led to the development of a uniquely Hong Kong model. On the other hand, Chinese culture remains the bedrock of Hong Kong culture. Residents of Mainland China Hong have swarmed into Hong Kong repeatedly during its history, leading to the formation of a diverse and complex immigrant society.
On the one hand, Hong Kong's colonial status amounted to a century of humiliation for modern China. On the other hand, Hong Kong became the trigger for political and social change in China. The film "Bodyguards and Assassins" tells the role of Hong Kong in Sun Yat-sen's democratic revolution. The film exaggerated of course. But Hong Kong has undeniably been a window of enlightenment for Mainland China. It has been a hotbed of revolution, a channel for patriots and overseas capital, and a base for exiles and refugees. In fact, the success of the Xinhai Revolution is intimately linked to Hong Kong. The KMT and CCP cooperated during the Northern Expedition. Hong Kong was a Mecca for the labor movement. During the Second Sino-Japanese War, the lonely island of Hong Kong remained a stronghold of Chinese thought, literature, and resistance.
Following 1949, the CCP refrained from taking advantage of its victory to occupy Hong Kong. Instead it gradually established a "long-term use, comprehensive planning" approach. Hong Kong became a window through which Mainland China could break through embargos, transport supplies, export goods, obtain foreign exchange, collect funds, and gather intelligence. During this period, Hong Kong evolved from an entrepot into and industrial city and a trade port. It underwent rapid economic development. It benefitted from its special political status, geographical location, and liberal politico-economic system. Hong Kong is a free port, financial center, a maritime and air RTS, one of the four Asian Tigers, and the Pearl of the Orient.
Hong Kong's special status led to the development of a unique lifestyle. A Hong Kong Dim Sum restaurant has recently become all the rage on Taiwan. It was originally a Western-style icehouse selling cheap snacks. Its menu gradually expanded. It combined a Western restaurant and dining model, then evolved into one of today's most popular cafes. Hong Kong is a paradise of freedom. Its cultural roots are traditional Chinese, but it also integrates East and West. That is why it has become the movie capital and Chinese pop cultural capital for ethnic Chinese the world over. It is known as the "Hollywood of the East," the "Chinese language dream factory," and "Chinese Amusement Park." Chinese movies and pop culture with Hong Kong characteristics have spread throughout the world. It is universally believed that Hong Kong culture has benefitted from the confluence of Chinese and Western culture. Hong Kong has become a cultural and creative industry enjoying unfettered creative freedom.
This brief review enables us to sum up Hong Kong's history. Hong Kong, with its special political status, its colonial and immigrant social composition, and its free and open society, has given it a special role in the Mainland's development, in cross-Strait relations, and in East Asian regional development. This role has contributed to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. More importantly, it has made it a tangible and intangible asset to the Mainland, and a driver that has catalyzed Mainland China's progress.
Recently, political reform in Hong Kong reached a critical juncture. In July, Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying submitted a report to the Mainland government's Standing Committee, concerning the selection process for Chief Executive in 2017, and the Legislative Council in 2016. This is known as "dual universal suffrage." At the end of the month, the Mainland Standing Committee will consider the issue. Currently the chief controversy between the Beijing authorities and the so-called pan-democrats pertains to the selection process for chief executive. Both sides agree to universal suffrage when electing the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. But Beijing wants patriots who love Hong Kong as candidates for Chief Executive. It insists on universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law. The Chief Executive Nomination Committee shall nominate candidates. The pan-democrats emphasize democratic ideals. They question the "Love Hong Kong, love the country" definition. They fear the NC will become Beijing's tool for screening candidates.
According to the relevant laws and regulations, Mainland China's Peoples Congress may render a decision on Hong Kong reform. But it needs the Hong Kong government to author a draft, then submit it to the Legislative Council. If the Bill is defeated in the Legislative Council, the controversy will continue. The next chief executive election will follow the existing model. The problem of "universal suffrage" will always dog Hong Kong politics.
In other words, Hong Kong politics finds itself at a fork in the road. In recent years, Hong Kong's economic, political, and social culture has encountered many complex problems. Former Premier Wen Jiabao used "deep-seated contradictions" to characterized these challenges. Hong Kong needs a soft landing for its political and constitutional controversy. Otherwise Hong Kong society will experience a widening wealth gap, conflicts between old residents and new immigrants, economic bottlenecks, and other issues that will confuse the situation even further.
We are convinced that Hong Kong's increasing freedom, openness, and democracy will benefit the whole of China and ethnic Chinese the world over. We hope that Beijing and the pan-democrats will safeguard Hong Kong's stability, promote democracy in Hong Kong, demonstrate mutual tolerance, dissolve their differences, and broaden their consensus. Allow the people of Hong Kong to fully express themselves, arrive at a reasonable reform package, expand the Hong Kong Government's support base, and stabilize society, enabling Hong Kong's democracy to move forward step by step. Allow Hong Kong to continue serving as Mainland China's free port for reform and liberalization. Allow it to become a model for Taiwan and Mainland reintegration. The Hong Kong Dream, and the Taiwan Dream must become key links in the the China Dream.
社論－香港夢 台灣夢 中國夢
2014年08月25日 04:10
本報訊
香港，土地面積僅約1104平方公里，只是彈丸之地，但是在中國近現代及當代史上，卻始終扮演著極其特殊的角色。從血脈淵源、歷史情感、文化傳承，以至於主權歸屬上，香港，絕對是中國的一部分。
另外一方面，香港又實實在在是中國的一個「特別的區域」，在近當代中國的歷史發展道路上，起著特殊的作用。1842年，清廷在鴉片戰爭中戰敗，隨後分階段割讓和租借香港土地予英國，香港自此成為了英國的殖民地。成為殖民地的事實，讓香港和中國大陸既斷裂又連結，在政治體制、生活方式、社會人心、文化樣貌上，都走上了自己的獨特道路，發展出獨特的香港模式。另一方面，中華文化仍是香港文化的底蘊，中國大陸的居民在不同歷史時期湧進香港，形成了多元複雜的移民社會。
香港的殖民地地位，一方面是百餘年來中國近代史的恥辱與苦痛，另一方面，香港也成為觸發、參與中國政治社會變革的門戶。電影《十月圍城》訴說了香港在孫中山領導的民主革命運動上的角色，雖嫌誇飾，但不容否認，香港確實是是中國思想啟蒙的窗口，是革命的策源地，是海外志士與資金的通道，也是流亡者的避難基地。其實，不只辛亥革命的成功和香港有莫大關聯，北伐時期國共合作下，香港是工人運動的重鎮，抗戰時期「孤島」香港也是思想、文學和抵抗行動的據點之一。
1949年以後，中共並未乘勝追擊、占領香港，反而逐步確立「長期利用、充分打算」的方針，香港成為中國大陸突破禁運，轉運物資，出口貨物，取得外匯，徵集資金和收集情報的窗口。在這段時期，香港從轉口港逐漸發展為工業城市、經貿大港，經濟迅速發展，在特殊的政治地理位置和寬鬆的經濟管制體制下，香港是自由港，是金融中心，是海空轉運站，是亞洲崛起的四小龍，是東方之珠。
由香港的特殊地位，還發展出獨特的生活文化，以台灣最近流行的香港茶餐廳而言，它原本是出售廉價西式小吃的冰室，後來餐點種類逐漸增加，又與西菜館、餐室的模式相結合，演變成為今日廣受大眾歡迎的茶餐廳。香港是自由的樂土，他的文化植根中國傳統文化，卻又融匯中西，所以成為全球華人社會中最為矚目的電影天堂和「華人流行文化之都」，被譽為「東方好萊塢」、「華語夢工場」和「華人娛樂碼頭」，有香港特色的華人電影和流行文化向全球輻射。人們普遍認為，香港文化的魅力就是受益於華洋合璧、自由創作、無拘無束」的創意產業體制。
簡短回顧這段過去，可以進行歷史的總結，香港以其特殊的政治地位，和殖民與移民社會性質，自由開放的社會文化，長期保持了在大陸發展、兩岸關係、東亞區域上的特殊作用，這個作用既促成了香港的繁榮穩定發展，更是大陸有形無形的重要資產，驅動催化了中國的進步。
最近，香港政改方案的討論到了關鍵時刻。香港行政長官梁振英7月向人大常委會提交報告，內容涉及應否修改2017年香港特首及2016年立法會的產生辦法，亦即所謂的「雙普選」，這個月月底，大陸人大常委會預定審議這個議題。當前，北京當局和所謂的泛民主派之間最大的爭議在於特首的產生辦法。也就是雙方都同意特首和立法會「雙普選」的願景，但是北京方面希望由愛港愛國人士出任普選後特首，堅持依照基本法落實特首普選，特首參選人須由提名委員會提名，泛民主派強調民主理念，質疑「愛港愛國」定義，憂慮提委會成為北京「篩選」參選人的工具。
按照相關法律規定的程序，如果大陸人大常委會針對香港政改問題作出了決定，也需要先由港府訂定草案，並提交立法會審議通過，如果草案在立法會到遭否決，爭議還會持續，而未來特首選舉將會沿用現有模式，「普選」問題將始終成為香港政治的大難題。
也就是說，香港政治正在一個叉路口，不可能否認的，這幾年來，香港經濟政治社會文化各方面都有許多複雜難題待解，溫家寶前總理曾用「深層次矛盾」來概括這些難題，政治與政制的爭議如果沒有「軟著陸」，勢必和香港社會貧富差距擴大、新舊居民移民衝突、經濟發展瓶頸等問題纏繞在一起，使得局面更為治絲益棼。
我們深信，香港的自由開放以及民主深化，對於全中國、對於華人社會都有著重要意義，我們期待北京方面和泛民主派方面能夠從維護香港穩定，促進香港民主的大視野出發，互存包容之心，縮小差距、擴大共識，讓香港的民意能充分表達，最終達成一個最合理的政改方案，港府的社會支持基礎能夠擴大，社會能夠穩定，香港的民主能夠一步一步向前推進。讓香港繼續成為中國的改革特區和自由開放港，成為台灣與大陸融一過程的典範，香港夢、台灣夢共同成為中國夢重要一環。
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Is Our Chief Cross-Strait Negotiator Really a "Communist Agent?"
Is Our Chief Cross-Strait Negotiator Really a "Communist Agent?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2014
Summary: Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.
Full Text Below:
Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.
Chang Hsien-yao is the chief cross-Strait negotiator. He is Special Deputy Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, as well as Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of the Straits Exchange Foundation. He is an extraordinarily important official. He bears primary responsibility as a buffer, and is trusted by his superiors. If such a person turns out to be a two-faced Janus who has betrayed his country and sold state secrets, then the ROC's interests have been seriously damaged. The consequences will be unimaginable.
By now everyone if full of questions. One. Suppose the allegations are true? How many state secrets passed through his hands to the other side? Two. What "poisoned fruit" might be hidden amidst the achievements and progress made by means of cross-Strait negotiations? Three. According to "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, should all negotiations be nullified and begun all over again? Four. In the wake of this incident, how long will it be before the two sides can return to the negotiating table? Five. Who entrusted him with so much responsibility for negotiations? Do the high ranking officials who appointed him bear responsibility?
News of Chang Hsien-yao's resignation provoked all manner of speculation. Past incidents suggest he lacked discretion. For example, when the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan, Chang Hsien-yao persuaded blue camp legislator Lai Shyh-bao to hand Zhang Zhijun a petition from a domestic religious group. Wang Yu-chi later concluded that this was "inappropriate." Chang Hsien-yao made arrangements for Zhang Zhijun to visit a pineapple cake factory. This smacked of "Mainland capital" involvement, and was also deemed inappropriate. The hoped for "Ma Xi meeting" at APEC was stillborn. It was later discovered that Chang Hsien-yao's loose lips were responsible. The meeting between James Soong and Xi Jinping was allegedly brokered by Chang Hsien-yao. These are probably the reasons he was forced to step down. But they are a long way from being a "Communist agent."
Was Chang Hsien-yao merely sloppy? Or did his sloppiness conceal ulterior motives? Observers have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. Wang Yu-chi tactfully asked Chang Hsien-yao to "resign and await an investigation." Instead, Chang lashed back. He said he was "sold out by his superiors." This provoked a Bureau of Investigation intervention, and accusations of treason. As one can see, he has long maintained a high-profile, and failed to exercise restraint. As a result he found himself in deep water.
But consider another perspective. This sort of high-profile, assertive style is markedly different from that of spies who betray their country and leak state secrets. According to the Bureau of Investigation, Chang Hsien-yao leaked at least five secrets to Mainland officials, and did so "over an extended period, in calculated fashion." They were "premeditated." The Bureau of Investigation is quite insistent. Presumably is has concrete evidence.
But even assuming Chang Hsien-yao leaked confidential material pertaining to cross-Strait talks, does that mean he "was turned and became a Communist agent?" That hardly follows. One must at least examine the content and the manner in which he allegedly passed on the information, including whether he received money or some other form of remuneration. In any case, the charge of "Communist agent" is far too serious and far too much of an exaggeration. The opposition DPP stands ready to accuse the Ma administration of being Communists at the drop of a hat. The KMT feels Chang's pain. It must tread carefully when responding to allegations that its own chief negotiator is a "Communist agent." It must let the evidence do the talking. It must not tolerate exaggeration.
Chang Hsien-yao became a member of the Sean Chen cabinet on February 2, 2002. He succeed Chao Chien-min as MAC Vice Chairman. At that time the chairman was Lai Shin-yuan. Six months later, Wang Yu-chi replaced Lai Chen-wei as chairman. Chang Hsien-yao became SEF Secretary-General in early February, when Kao Koong-lian resigned. He was ordered to serve as SEF Vice Chairman and Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General. The appointment combined the two cross-Strait organizations' "official" and "buffer" status into one. It showed that the government intended to phase out the buffer. It reflected the Ma administration and the Executive Yuan's faith in Chang Hsien-yao's abilities. Who knew that just six months later, he would go from "master" of cross-Strait negotiations to a unspeakably evil "Communist agent?"
On the surface, the appointment of the SEF Vice Chairman as Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General enabled the two organizations to work as one. In fact, having "one man wear two hats," suddenly transitioning from being an official, then back to civilian, led to role confusion. It became a vulnerabilty in the system. Did Chang Hsien-yao actually leak national security secrets? Assume that he did, and that he passed them on to others. If so, the vulnerability might be in the gray area where Chang Hsien-yao served simultaneously as SEF and MAC officials. This mater must be scrutinized to prevent future occurences.
The old anti-Communist, anti-Soviet slogan was "Communist agents are right beside you." Who knew that half a century later, in the wake of cross-Strait exchanges and direct links, Taiwan would be informed that its own master negotiator was a "Communist agent?" This is a scenario straight out of a spy movie. In any event, the Bureau of Investigation has boldly declared that Chang Hsien-yao was "turned" and became a Communist agent. Therefore one must ascertain the truth. Who if anyone "turned" him? What, if any, motive did he have? How did he operate, if he actually did? If one wishes to accuse the chief negotiator in cross-Strait talks of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, one must reveal his true colors for people to examine.
兩岸首席談判代表竟是「共諜」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.08.22 02:17 am
張顯耀去職案，一夕之間，竟升高為洩漏國家機密的「外患罪」。調查人員更大膽直言，張顯耀已疑遭對岸「吸收為共諜」，至少洩漏五件「密」與「機密」資料給大陸官員；張顯耀則喊冤，說這是廿一世紀的「新白色恐怖」。情勢的發展，令人瞠目結舌。
張 顯耀是兩岸首席談判代表，他身兼「陸委會特任副主委」及「海基會副董事長兼秘書長」的雙重身分。如此一位重要特任官，同時肩負官方主談及白手套的角色，顯 示他深受高層重用及信賴；而此人若竟是個吃裡扒外、出賣國家機密的雙面人，那麼，台灣利益因此將遭受多大的損害，不堪設想。
此際，相信每 個民眾都會有滿腹疑問：一，倘若指控為真，則國家有多少機密經過他的手中流到對方手裡？二，兩岸既有的談判成果和進展，有哪些是暗藏了其心機的「毒果」？ 三，根據毒樹毒果理論，這些談判要不要全部撕毀重來？四，經此事件，兩岸需要多長的時間才有可能重回談判桌？五，誰把這麼大的談判責任交付到他手裡？任命 的首長不須負識人不明之責嗎？
在張顯耀傳出去職後，外界第一時間提出種種揣測，從種種事例看，可看出他是個行事缺乏嚴謹規範的人。例如， 在大陸國台辦主任張志軍來台訪問時，張顯耀逕自代藍委賴士葆轉交了一分國內宗教團體的陳情案給張志軍，事後被王郁琦認為其作法「不恰當」；包括張顯耀安排 張志軍參觀具「中資」色彩的鳳梨酥工廠，也被認為不妥。此外，「馬習會」在ＡＰＥＣ的會面破局，有人指是張顯耀過早透露底線；包括五月間宋楚瑜與習近平的 「宋習會」，也有人說是張顯耀居間安排。這些，或許都構成他下台的原因，但與「共諜」的大帽子仍有很大距離。
這些作風，究竟是張顯耀個人不拘小節、或包藏禍心所致，外界目前尚無從判斷。但張顯耀在被王郁琦委婉要求「去職／靜候調查」後，卻大動作反擊，聲稱被「長官出賣」，導致後來調查局介入，反而「外患罪」加身；可見，其性格一貫高調張揚，不耐節制，殆是他惹禍上身之因。
但換一個角度看，這種高調、張揚的作風，又與一般間諜出賣國家機密的人格模式截然不同。根據調查局的說法，張顯耀曾至少「洩漏」五件以上的機密給大陸官員，而且是「長時間、有計畫性的洩密」，屬「故意犯」；調查局如此言之鑿鑿，想必握有具體證據。
然 而，縱令張顯耀曾經洩漏兩岸談判機密，是否即能斷言他「已被吸收為共諜」，恐仍不宜驟然畫上等號；至少，這須視他交付資料的內容與方式，包括他是否收受對 方的金錢對價或其他物質回饋而定。無論如何，「共諜」的帽子太大、太沉重，在野黨動不動為馬政府官員扣上紅帽子，國民黨深知其苦；如今，要指控自己任命的 首席談判代表為「共諜」，必須絕對審慎，有幾分證據說幾分話，不容渲染。
張顯耀是二○○二年二月陳冲組閣時入閣，接替趙建民出任陸委會副 主委；當時的主委仍是賴幸媛，半年後，王郁琦才接替賴成為主委。至於張顯耀兼任海基會秘書長，則是今年二月初高孔廉請辭，他受命以陸委會副主委身分兼任海 基會秘書長。這項任命，使海陸兩會的「官方之手」與「白手套」合一，顯示政府有意逐漸脫掉「白手套」的想法，也反映了府院對張顯耀能力的信任。誰料，不過 短短半年，他就從兩岸談判場上的第一「高手」被打成了邪惡的「共諜」？
值得注意的是，陸委會副主委兼海基會秘書長的任命，表面上似讓兩個 單位在運作上有了「如臂使指」的便利；實際上，卻因「一人雙角」忽官、忽民的變化，易致角色扮演上的混淆，成為國家體制上一個不易設防的漏洞。張顯耀洩漏 國安機密若屬實，又如檢舉人所稱的「在境外交付」，那麼，主要漏洞便可能發生在張顯耀「海陸雙駕」的灰色地帶。這點，勢須重新檢討防堵。
當 年反共抗俄的口號是「匪諜就在你身邊」，沒想到，半世紀後兩岸熱絡三通交流，台灣新發現的「共諜」竟然是自己談判桌上的主將；這簡直是間諜電影般不可思議 的劇情。無論如何，調查局既敢大膽說張顯耀「被吸收」當共諜，就得把關鍵的「吸收者」、「動機」及「作業模式」找出來。如果要指控兩岸談判主將是披著羊皮 的狼，那麼，總得要把他的真面目讓民眾看一下吧！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2014
Summary: Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.
Full Text Below:
Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.
Chang Hsien-yao is the chief cross-Strait negotiator. He is Special Deputy Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, as well as Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of the Straits Exchange Foundation. He is an extraordinarily important official. He bears primary responsibility as a buffer, and is trusted by his superiors. If such a person turns out to be a two-faced Janus who has betrayed his country and sold state secrets, then the ROC's interests have been seriously damaged. The consequences will be unimaginable.
By now everyone if full of questions. One. Suppose the allegations are true? How many state secrets passed through his hands to the other side? Two. What "poisoned fruit" might be hidden amidst the achievements and progress made by means of cross-Strait negotiations? Three. According to "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, should all negotiations be nullified and begun all over again? Four. In the wake of this incident, how long will it be before the two sides can return to the negotiating table? Five. Who entrusted him with so much responsibility for negotiations? Do the high ranking officials who appointed him bear responsibility?
News of Chang Hsien-yao's resignation provoked all manner of speculation. Past incidents suggest he lacked discretion. For example, when the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan, Chang Hsien-yao persuaded blue camp legislator Lai Shyh-bao to hand Zhang Zhijun a petition from a domestic religious group. Wang Yu-chi later concluded that this was "inappropriate." Chang Hsien-yao made arrangements for Zhang Zhijun to visit a pineapple cake factory. This smacked of "Mainland capital" involvement, and was also deemed inappropriate. The hoped for "Ma Xi meeting" at APEC was stillborn. It was later discovered that Chang Hsien-yao's loose lips were responsible. The meeting between James Soong and Xi Jinping was allegedly brokered by Chang Hsien-yao. These are probably the reasons he was forced to step down. But they are a long way from being a "Communist agent."
Was Chang Hsien-yao merely sloppy? Or did his sloppiness conceal ulterior motives? Observers have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. Wang Yu-chi tactfully asked Chang Hsien-yao to "resign and await an investigation." Instead, Chang lashed back. He said he was "sold out by his superiors." This provoked a Bureau of Investigation intervention, and accusations of treason. As one can see, he has long maintained a high-profile, and failed to exercise restraint. As a result he found himself in deep water.
But consider another perspective. This sort of high-profile, assertive style is markedly different from that of spies who betray their country and leak state secrets. According to the Bureau of Investigation, Chang Hsien-yao leaked at least five secrets to Mainland officials, and did so "over an extended period, in calculated fashion." They were "premeditated." The Bureau of Investigation is quite insistent. Presumably is has concrete evidence.
But even assuming Chang Hsien-yao leaked confidential material pertaining to cross-Strait talks, does that mean he "was turned and became a Communist agent?" That hardly follows. One must at least examine the content and the manner in which he allegedly passed on the information, including whether he received money or some other form of remuneration. In any case, the charge of "Communist agent" is far too serious and far too much of an exaggeration. The opposition DPP stands ready to accuse the Ma administration of being Communists at the drop of a hat. The KMT feels Chang's pain. It must tread carefully when responding to allegations that its own chief negotiator is a "Communist agent." It must let the evidence do the talking. It must not tolerate exaggeration.
Chang Hsien-yao became a member of the Sean Chen cabinet on February 2, 2002. He succeed Chao Chien-min as MAC Vice Chairman. At that time the chairman was Lai Shin-yuan. Six months later, Wang Yu-chi replaced Lai Chen-wei as chairman. Chang Hsien-yao became SEF Secretary-General in early February, when Kao Koong-lian resigned. He was ordered to serve as SEF Vice Chairman and Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General. The appointment combined the two cross-Strait organizations' "official" and "buffer" status into one. It showed that the government intended to phase out the buffer. It reflected the Ma administration and the Executive Yuan's faith in Chang Hsien-yao's abilities. Who knew that just six months later, he would go from "master" of cross-Strait negotiations to a unspeakably evil "Communist agent?"
On the surface, the appointment of the SEF Vice Chairman as Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General enabled the two organizations to work as one. In fact, having "one man wear two hats," suddenly transitioning from being an official, then back to civilian, led to role confusion. It became a vulnerabilty in the system. Did Chang Hsien-yao actually leak national security secrets? Assume that he did, and that he passed them on to others. If so, the vulnerability might be in the gray area where Chang Hsien-yao served simultaneously as SEF and MAC officials. This mater must be scrutinized to prevent future occurences.
The old anti-Communist, anti-Soviet slogan was "Communist agents are right beside you." Who knew that half a century later, in the wake of cross-Strait exchanges and direct links, Taiwan would be informed that its own master negotiator was a "Communist agent?" This is a scenario straight out of a spy movie. In any event, the Bureau of Investigation has boldly declared that Chang Hsien-yao was "turned" and became a Communist agent. Therefore one must ascertain the truth. Who if anyone "turned" him? What, if any, motive did he have? How did he operate, if he actually did? If one wishes to accuse the chief negotiator in cross-Strait talks of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, one must reveal his true colors for people to examine.
兩岸首席談判代表竟是「共諜」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.08.22 02:17 am
張顯耀去職案，一夕之間，竟升高為洩漏國家機密的「外患罪」。調查人員更大膽直言，張顯耀已疑遭對岸「吸收為共諜」，至少洩漏五件「密」與「機密」資料給大陸官員；張顯耀則喊冤，說這是廿一世紀的「新白色恐怖」。情勢的發展，令人瞠目結舌。
張 顯耀是兩岸首席談判代表，他身兼「陸委會特任副主委」及「海基會副董事長兼秘書長」的雙重身分。如此一位重要特任官，同時肩負官方主談及白手套的角色，顯 示他深受高層重用及信賴；而此人若竟是個吃裡扒外、出賣國家機密的雙面人，那麼，台灣利益因此將遭受多大的損害，不堪設想。
此際，相信每 個民眾都會有滿腹疑問：一，倘若指控為真，則國家有多少機密經過他的手中流到對方手裡？二，兩岸既有的談判成果和進展，有哪些是暗藏了其心機的「毒果」？ 三，根據毒樹毒果理論，這些談判要不要全部撕毀重來？四，經此事件，兩岸需要多長的時間才有可能重回談判桌？五，誰把這麼大的談判責任交付到他手裡？任命 的首長不須負識人不明之責嗎？
在張顯耀傳出去職後，外界第一時間提出種種揣測，從種種事例看，可看出他是個行事缺乏嚴謹規範的人。例如， 在大陸國台辦主任張志軍來台訪問時，張顯耀逕自代藍委賴士葆轉交了一分國內宗教團體的陳情案給張志軍，事後被王郁琦認為其作法「不恰當」；包括張顯耀安排 張志軍參觀具「中資」色彩的鳳梨酥工廠，也被認為不妥。此外，「馬習會」在ＡＰＥＣ的會面破局，有人指是張顯耀過早透露底線；包括五月間宋楚瑜與習近平的 「宋習會」，也有人說是張顯耀居間安排。這些，或許都構成他下台的原因，但與「共諜」的大帽子仍有很大距離。
這些作風，究竟是張顯耀個人不拘小節、或包藏禍心所致，外界目前尚無從判斷。但張顯耀在被王郁琦委婉要求「去職／靜候調查」後，卻大動作反擊，聲稱被「長官出賣」，導致後來調查局介入，反而「外患罪」加身；可見，其性格一貫高調張揚，不耐節制，殆是他惹禍上身之因。
但換一個角度看，這種高調、張揚的作風，又與一般間諜出賣國家機密的人格模式截然不同。根據調查局的說法，張顯耀曾至少「洩漏」五件以上的機密給大陸官員，而且是「長時間、有計畫性的洩密」，屬「故意犯」；調查局如此言之鑿鑿，想必握有具體證據。
然 而，縱令張顯耀曾經洩漏兩岸談判機密，是否即能斷言他「已被吸收為共諜」，恐仍不宜驟然畫上等號；至少，這須視他交付資料的內容與方式，包括他是否收受對 方的金錢對價或其他物質回饋而定。無論如何，「共諜」的帽子太大、太沉重，在野黨動不動為馬政府官員扣上紅帽子，國民黨深知其苦；如今，要指控自己任命的 首席談判代表為「共諜」，必須絕對審慎，有幾分證據說幾分話，不容渲染。
張顯耀是二○○二年二月陳冲組閣時入閣，接替趙建民出任陸委會副 主委；當時的主委仍是賴幸媛，半年後，王郁琦才接替賴成為主委。至於張顯耀兼任海基會秘書長，則是今年二月初高孔廉請辭，他受命以陸委會副主委身分兼任海 基會秘書長。這項任命，使海陸兩會的「官方之手」與「白手套」合一，顯示政府有意逐漸脫掉「白手套」的想法，也反映了府院對張顯耀能力的信任。誰料，不過 短短半年，他就從兩岸談判場上的第一「高手」被打成了邪惡的「共諜」？
值得注意的是，陸委會副主委兼海基會秘書長的任命，表面上似讓兩個 單位在運作上有了「如臂使指」的便利；實際上，卻因「一人雙角」忽官、忽民的變化，易致角色扮演上的混淆，成為國家體制上一個不易設防的漏洞。張顯耀洩漏 國安機密若屬實，又如檢舉人所稱的「在境外交付」，那麼，主要漏洞便可能發生在張顯耀「海陸雙駕」的灰色地帶。這點，勢須重新檢討防堵。
當 年反共抗俄的口號是「匪諜就在你身邊」，沒想到，半世紀後兩岸熱絡三通交流，台灣新發現的「共諜」竟然是自己談判桌上的主將；這簡直是間諜電影般不可思議 的劇情。無論如何，調查局既敢大膽說張顯耀「被吸收」當共諜，就得把關鍵的「吸收者」、「動機」及「作業模式」找出來。如果要指控兩岸談判主將是披著羊皮 的狼，那麼，總得要把他的真面目讓民眾看一下吧！
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
To Increase Average Wages, Raise the Minimum Wage
To Increase Average Wages, Raise the Minimum Wage
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2014
Summary: Only good wages can retain talent, can make young people feel there is hope. Our society needs a sense of crisis. If we do not raise wages, our employment environment will fall behind the other three Asian tigers. The Mainland and Southeast Asian countries may even catch up. Large numbers of young people will become rootless "Tai lao." How will we feel then? The government and the public must pay attention to this issue.
Full Text Below:
Premier Jiang Yi-hua and representatives from business groups such as the Chinese National Federation of Industries recently met. Outside, labor groups protested low wages, rising prices, and difficulty getting by. Premier Jiang immediately arranged to meet with them, and promised to change the minimum wage policy decision-making process.
Premier Jiang's swift response to peoples' hardship was commendable. Economic growth is stable this year. Tax revenues are more than adequate. The government can afford a general pay raise.
During the second quarter of this year, foreign demand for electronic products, machinery, base metals, and other exports led growth and triangular trade. Domestic demand rose with stock market prices and volume. The income effect and wealth effect increased consumption. Tourism grew. Transportation equipment, construction investment, and manufacturing equipment purchases increased private fixed investment. The employment situation continued to improve. Second quarter unemployment fell to 3.89%, economic growth rose to 3.74%, and the annual growth forecast rose to 3.41%. National Tax Administration statistics indicate tax revenues from January to July approached 1.19 trillion NT, a record high. The Treasury is optimistic. If the last five months of this year match performance over the same period last year, the estimated annual revenue may increase by 30.3 billion NT.
Wages are a topic of concern for all. ROC minimum wages are established by the Basic Wage Committee, which meets and makes recommendations. The Executive Yuan approves Ministry of Labor reports. During the third quarter of last year, committee adjusted the minimum wage and made certain proposals. The consumer price index (CPI) annual growth rate must reach 3%. Only then will the committee consider adjusting wages. This resolution was agreed to by employees, employers, the government, and academia.
Prices in the ROC have been relatively stable. CPI annual growth rate in recent years has been between 1.8 to 2.5%. It rarely exceeds 3%. This year there was a slight increase in the CPI, but still within the stable range. But food prices rose 3.84% between January and July, and as much as 4.27% in July. Food price increases hit ordinary people the hardest. Last year, during the third quarter meeting, GDP growth rate was stuck at 2%. It is currently well over that. Therefore we urge the minimum wage council to reconvene as soon as possible and rethink the minimum wage.
The minimum wage and overall average wage increases may not appear related. The minimum wage was increased in one fell swoop from 15,480 NT to 17,280 NT in 2007. But between 2007 and 2010, in response to the financial tsunami, average wages fell 573 NT. Between 2010 and 2013 the minimum wage was increased 567 NT, or 6.5%. But the average wage over the same period increased only 1305 NT, or 2.9%.
Basic economics states that increases in the minimum wage will make employers vote with their feet, close their plants, and move elsewhere, or else limit total expenditures by cutting staff, pushing out the disadvantaged. But based on two theses by Princeton University professors David Card and Alan Krueger, published in 1994 and 2000, modest minimum wage increases will not result in companies cutting unskilled workers. The claim that minimum wage increases will lead to unemployment do not apply in general. It does not take into account the complexity and diversity of economic problems.
Local research indicates that in 2013 the percentage of workers earning the minimum wage, compared to those earning the average wage, was 43.97%. Among service and sales staff, entry level skilled labor and labor, the percentage was as high as 72%. By contrast, in the United States, Japan and other countries the percentage was 35% or less.
CLA data also shows that at the beginning of the year, nearly 30% of all workers receiving labor insurance, earned 20,100 NT or less. Only 27.6% of workers receiving labor insurance earned over 40,000 NT. In other words, 30% of those receiving labor insurance were earning close to the minimum wage. Nearly 75% of those receiving labor insurance were earning less than the average wage. The positive correlation between the minimum wage and the average wage is quite strong, Raising the minimum wage will increase the average wage.
Increasing the minimum wage will also have other positive effects. In recent years, taxes on business income have been cut from 25% to 17%. This means a significant increase in corporate profits. But there has been no increase in employee bonuses, and wage increase have been limited. The government should find ways to make businesses raise wages. For example, it should offer tax incentives to encourage businesses to raise wages. It should increase the amount paid for commissions, require contracting firms to raise wages, or organize activities providing information, giving outstanding employees the opportunity to change jobs, enabling them to compare wages, thereby enabling overall wage levels to increase.
Only good wages can retain talent, can make young people feel there is hope. Our society needs a sense of crisis. If we do not raise wages, our employment environment will fall behind the other three Asian tigers. The Mainland and Southeast Asian countries may even catch up. Large numbers of young people will become rootless "Tai lao." How will we feel then? The government and the public must pay attention to this issue.
社論－提高基本工資帶動薪資上漲
2014年08月21日 04:10
本報訊
行政院長江宜樺與全國工總等商業團體代表座談，有勞團在場外抗議基本工資偏低，物價上漲，生活難過。江揆立即安排接見，並做出修正基本工資決策模式的政策宣示。
江揆反應迅速，苦民所苦，值得嘉許。今年以來經濟成長穩定，稅賦超收，對於整體薪資的調升，政府是可以有更大的格局。
今年第2季外需因電子產品、機械及基本金屬等出口成長及三角貿易的帶動，內需則因股市價量齊揚，在所得效果及財富效果帶動下，民間消費有不錯表現；又因為觀光旅遊持續增長，運輸工具、營建投資，及生產廠商的設備購買讓民間固定投資亦有增長，就業情勢持續改善。第2季失業率降至3.89%，經濟成長率3.74%，預測全年經濟可成長3.41%。政府全國賦稅統計，累積1到7月稅收高達1.19兆元，創下歷史紀錄。財政部樂觀認為，今年後5個月表現若可維持在去年同期之上，預估全年可望超徵303億元。
工資問題是全體國民最為關切的議題之一，我國基本工資是透過「基本工資審議委員會」開會提出建議案，由勞動部呈報行政院核定。去年第3季開會時，除提出基本工資調整方案外，同時提出附帶決議，必須消費者物價指數（CPI）年增率達3%，審議會才會討論是否調整工資，此一決議是當時勞、資、政、學的共識。
但我國物價一向相對穩定，近年CPI年增率都在1.8到2.5%之間，很少破3%。今年以來，CPI雖然略有增加，但仍算穩定，可是若把食物類單獨抽出，今年1到7月漲幅達到3.84%，7月更高達4.27%。民以食為天，食物類漲價讓基層民眾感受最深。去年第3季審議會時，GDP增幅還停留在2%左右，目前已遠遠超過，因此我們贊成盡快召集基本工資審議會，重新思考適時調整基本工資。
雖然基本工資與整體平均薪資上揚好像並沒有必然的關連性。2007年基本工資一口氣由15480元調升至17280元，但受金融海嘯影響，2007至2010年平均工資下滑573元。2010年至2013年間基本工資調升567元，成長6.5%，但同期平均薪資只漲1305元（2.9%）。
基礎經濟學推理也認為，基本工資調高，老闆可能用腳投票，關廠另移他方，或是以總支出固定，減少工人雇用，會產生排擠弱勢的問題。不過，依據1994年和2000年普林斯頓大學教授卡德和克魯格的兩篇論文，適度的基本工資上調並不會導致企業減少非熟練工人的雇傭，所謂上調基本工資一定會導致失業的說法，不僅沒有普遍適用性，也沒有考慮經濟問題的複雜多樣性。
我們看到有本土研究指出，2013年台灣基本工資占平均工資比重高達43.97%，其中服務及銷售人員、基層技術工及勞力工的比重更高達72%以上，對比美日韓等國都在35%以下，我國領取基本工資人數偏高。
勞委會資料亦顯示，今年年初勞保投保薪資中，投保薪資在20100元以下者逾30%，僅有27.6%員工投保薪資在40000元以上，也就是說有3成的投保薪資十分接近基本工資，將近75%投保薪資在平均薪資以下。基本工資與平均薪資的正向關係相當強烈，調升基本工資將有利平均工資的提升。
在提高基本工資之餘，還可以有更積極作為。近年營利事業所得稅從25%調降到17%，企業儲蓄大量增加，但員工分紅不增，薪水提高有限，政府應該運用辦法讓企業加薪。例如，以稅賦優惠鼓勵企業加薪，提高委託案件金額，要求承包廠商提高薪資，或是舉辦活動，提供訊息，讓優秀員工有跳槽的機會，形成比價效應，讓整體薪資水準提升。
有好的薪資，才能夠留住人才，才能夠讓年輕人覺得有希望。我們社會要有危機意識，再不提高薪資，就業環境就會被其他三小龍狠狠比下去，甚至被大陸及東南亞國家追上，大量年輕人成為流浪台勞，情何以堪？政府及社會要重視這個問題。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 21, 2014
Summary: Only good wages can retain talent, can make young people feel there is hope. Our society needs a sense of crisis. If we do not raise wages, our employment environment will fall behind the other three Asian tigers. The Mainland and Southeast Asian countries may even catch up. Large numbers of young people will become rootless "Tai lao." How will we feel then? The government and the public must pay attention to this issue.
Full Text Below:
Premier Jiang Yi-hua and representatives from business groups such as the Chinese National Federation of Industries recently met. Outside, labor groups protested low wages, rising prices, and difficulty getting by. Premier Jiang immediately arranged to meet with them, and promised to change the minimum wage policy decision-making process.
Premier Jiang's swift response to peoples' hardship was commendable. Economic growth is stable this year. Tax revenues are more than adequate. The government can afford a general pay raise.
During the second quarter of this year, foreign demand for electronic products, machinery, base metals, and other exports led growth and triangular trade. Domestic demand rose with stock market prices and volume. The income effect and wealth effect increased consumption. Tourism grew. Transportation equipment, construction investment, and manufacturing equipment purchases increased private fixed investment. The employment situation continued to improve. Second quarter unemployment fell to 3.89%, economic growth rose to 3.74%, and the annual growth forecast rose to 3.41%. National Tax Administration statistics indicate tax revenues from January to July approached 1.19 trillion NT, a record high. The Treasury is optimistic. If the last five months of this year match performance over the same period last year, the estimated annual revenue may increase by 30.3 billion NT.
Wages are a topic of concern for all. ROC minimum wages are established by the Basic Wage Committee, which meets and makes recommendations. The Executive Yuan approves Ministry of Labor reports. During the third quarter of last year, committee adjusted the minimum wage and made certain proposals. The consumer price index (CPI) annual growth rate must reach 3%. Only then will the committee consider adjusting wages. This resolution was agreed to by employees, employers, the government, and academia.
Prices in the ROC have been relatively stable. CPI annual growth rate in recent years has been between 1.8 to 2.5%. It rarely exceeds 3%. This year there was a slight increase in the CPI, but still within the stable range. But food prices rose 3.84% between January and July, and as much as 4.27% in July. Food price increases hit ordinary people the hardest. Last year, during the third quarter meeting, GDP growth rate was stuck at 2%. It is currently well over that. Therefore we urge the minimum wage council to reconvene as soon as possible and rethink the minimum wage.
The minimum wage and overall average wage increases may not appear related. The minimum wage was increased in one fell swoop from 15,480 NT to 17,280 NT in 2007. But between 2007 and 2010, in response to the financial tsunami, average wages fell 573 NT. Between 2010 and 2013 the minimum wage was increased 567 NT, or 6.5%. But the average wage over the same period increased only 1305 NT, or 2.9%.
Basic economics states that increases in the minimum wage will make employers vote with their feet, close their plants, and move elsewhere, or else limit total expenditures by cutting staff, pushing out the disadvantaged. But based on two theses by Princeton University professors David Card and Alan Krueger, published in 1994 and 2000, modest minimum wage increases will not result in companies cutting unskilled workers. The claim that minimum wage increases will lead to unemployment do not apply in general. It does not take into account the complexity and diversity of economic problems.
Local research indicates that in 2013 the percentage of workers earning the minimum wage, compared to those earning the average wage, was 43.97%. Among service and sales staff, entry level skilled labor and labor, the percentage was as high as 72%. By contrast, in the United States, Japan and other countries the percentage was 35% or less.
CLA data also shows that at the beginning of the year, nearly 30% of all workers receiving labor insurance, earned 20,100 NT or less. Only 27.6% of workers receiving labor insurance earned over 40,000 NT. In other words, 30% of those receiving labor insurance were earning close to the minimum wage. Nearly 75% of those receiving labor insurance were earning less than the average wage. The positive correlation between the minimum wage and the average wage is quite strong, Raising the minimum wage will increase the average wage.
Increasing the minimum wage will also have other positive effects. In recent years, taxes on business income have been cut from 25% to 17%. This means a significant increase in corporate profits. But there has been no increase in employee bonuses, and wage increase have been limited. The government should find ways to make businesses raise wages. For example, it should offer tax incentives to encourage businesses to raise wages. It should increase the amount paid for commissions, require contracting firms to raise wages, or organize activities providing information, giving outstanding employees the opportunity to change jobs, enabling them to compare wages, thereby enabling overall wage levels to increase.
Only good wages can retain talent, can make young people feel there is hope. Our society needs a sense of crisis. If we do not raise wages, our employment environment will fall behind the other three Asian tigers. The Mainland and Southeast Asian countries may even catch up. Large numbers of young people will become rootless "Tai lao." How will we feel then? The government and the public must pay attention to this issue.
社論－提高基本工資帶動薪資上漲
2014年08月21日 04:10
本報訊
行政院長江宜樺與全國工總等商業團體代表座談，有勞團在場外抗議基本工資偏低，物價上漲，生活難過。江揆立即安排接見，並做出修正基本工資決策模式的政策宣示。
江揆反應迅速，苦民所苦，值得嘉許。今年以來經濟成長穩定，稅賦超收，對於整體薪資的調升，政府是可以有更大的格局。
今年第2季外需因電子產品、機械及基本金屬等出口成長及三角貿易的帶動，內需則因股市價量齊揚，在所得效果及財富效果帶動下，民間消費有不錯表現；又因為觀光旅遊持續增長，運輸工具、營建投資，及生產廠商的設備購買讓民間固定投資亦有增長，就業情勢持續改善。第2季失業率降至3.89%，經濟成長率3.74%，預測全年經濟可成長3.41%。政府全國賦稅統計，累積1到7月稅收高達1.19兆元，創下歷史紀錄。財政部樂觀認為，今年後5個月表現若可維持在去年同期之上，預估全年可望超徵303億元。
工資問題是全體國民最為關切的議題之一，我國基本工資是透過「基本工資審議委員會」開會提出建議案，由勞動部呈報行政院核定。去年第3季開會時，除提出基本工資調整方案外，同時提出附帶決議，必須消費者物價指數（CPI）年增率達3%，審議會才會討論是否調整工資，此一決議是當時勞、資、政、學的共識。
但我國物價一向相對穩定，近年CPI年增率都在1.8到2.5%之間，很少破3%。今年以來，CPI雖然略有增加，但仍算穩定，可是若把食物類單獨抽出，今年1到7月漲幅達到3.84%，7月更高達4.27%。民以食為天，食物類漲價讓基層民眾感受最深。去年第3季審議會時，GDP增幅還停留在2%左右，目前已遠遠超過，因此我們贊成盡快召集基本工資審議會，重新思考適時調整基本工資。
雖然基本工資與整體平均薪資上揚好像並沒有必然的關連性。2007年基本工資一口氣由15480元調升至17280元，但受金融海嘯影響，2007至2010年平均工資下滑573元。2010年至2013年間基本工資調升567元，成長6.5%，但同期平均薪資只漲1305元（2.9%）。
基礎經濟學推理也認為，基本工資調高，老闆可能用腳投票，關廠另移他方，或是以總支出固定，減少工人雇用，會產生排擠弱勢的問題。不過，依據1994年和2000年普林斯頓大學教授卡德和克魯格的兩篇論文，適度的基本工資上調並不會導致企業減少非熟練工人的雇傭，所謂上調基本工資一定會導致失業的說法，不僅沒有普遍適用性，也沒有考慮經濟問題的複雜多樣性。
我們看到有本土研究指出，2013年台灣基本工資占平均工資比重高達43.97%，其中服務及銷售人員、基層技術工及勞力工的比重更高達72%以上，對比美日韓等國都在35%以下，我國領取基本工資人數偏高。
勞委會資料亦顯示，今年年初勞保投保薪資中，投保薪資在20100元以下者逾30%，僅有27.6%員工投保薪資在40000元以上，也就是說有3成的投保薪資十分接近基本工資，將近75%投保薪資在平均薪資以下。基本工資與平均薪資的正向關係相當強烈，調升基本工資將有利平均工資的提升。
在提高基本工資之餘，還可以有更積極作為。近年營利事業所得稅從25%調降到17%，企業儲蓄大量增加，但員工分紅不增，薪水提高有限，政府應該運用辦法讓企業加薪。例如，以稅賦優惠鼓勵企業加薪，提高委託案件金額，要求承包廠商提高薪資，或是舉辦活動，提供訊息，讓優秀員工有跳槽的機會，形成比價效應，讓整體薪資水準提升。
有好的薪資，才能夠留住人才，才能夠讓年輕人覺得有希望。我們社會要有危機意識，再不提高薪資，就業環境就會被其他三小龍狠狠比下去，甚至被大陸及東南亞國家追上，大量年輕人成為流浪台勞，情何以堪？政府及社會要重視這個問題。
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
IS Global Threat Requires Forceful International Response
IS Global Threat Requires Forceful International Response
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 20, 2014
Summary: The failure to resolve standoffs, historical grievances, and the peristence of extreme hostility, created a hotbed of radicalism. IS is a reminder to the world. Narrow-minded confrontation and persistent hatred will not solve problems. They will only bring on greater disaster. We must persevere in our reconciliation efforts. We must reduce conflicts and eliminate resentments. Opposition to terrorist organizations such as IS requires perseverance and willpower. It requires greater attention from the international community. Middle Eastern historical grievances offer East Asian nations a lesson they can learn from.
Full Text Below:
The US has escalated its attacks against Islamic State (IS) rebels in northern Iraq. In addition to launching air strikes and supplying weapons to the Kurds, the CIA has dispatched spec ops groups to hunt down IS leaders. The brutality of this heinous terrorist organization has jeopardized collective security and humanitarian values. The international community must join hands against it. This, one fears, will be a long battle.
In recent years, terrorist organizations have become an increasing threat to global security and order. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States exterminated the Al Qaeda organization, waged war against Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein, and assassinated Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda began to decline.
But who knew an even more terrible terrorist organization would appear? Saddam Hussein's authoritarian rule effectively suppressed sectarian disputes. But with Hussein's fall from power, successive Iraqi governments were unable to suppress Shia vs. Sunni conflict. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to consider the differences between various factions. He even attacked the majority Sunni faction, provoking intense antagonism. As a result, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an offshoot of Al Qaeda, grew rapidly.
ISIL is even more frightening than Al Qaeda. The enemy of Al Qaeda is Europe and America. ISIL, a Sunni Islam organization, regards all non-Sunnis as the enemy. The organization was founded in April 2013. Its goal is to establish a theocracy in Iraq and the Levant. It currently controls large parts of northeastern Syria and large parts of northern and western Iraq. It is among the rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Hafez al-Assad.
ISIL has been the recipient of secret assistence from Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni faction, and Qatar. It robbed local banks of large sums of money. It captured oil fields and sold crude oil on the black market. As a result, ISIL is financially quite flush. But its ideology is too extreme, and its methods ae too savage. When it captured the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, it massacred 1700 POWs and posted photos of the executions online. It also kidnapped women as sex slaves, brainwashed children and turned them into terrorists. Even Al Qaeda could not stomach these atrocities, and announced that it was severing relations with ISIL.
In June 2014 ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed himself "Caliph." He announced the establishment of the Islamic State (IS), and proclaimed himself the highest authority in the entire Muslim world. Recently the organization went even further. It attacked the minority Yezidis in Northern Iraq. It forced them to renounce their beliefs or be executed. It abducted 1500 women as sex slaves, saying it was purifying their blood. These besieged people are on the verge of starvation and death. Refugees have been displaced, resulting in the loss of life and a humanitarian tragedy. The world could no longer bear watching the Yezidi tragedy. It was the last straw. Eventually the United States and the international community decided they could no longer sit back and do nothing. U.S. President Barack Obama announced air strikes on a northern Iraq IS stronghold. He provided weapons to the Kurds to help them fight the IS rebels. France and Australia also pledged military aid. In a full force counterattack, Iraq recaptured the Mosul reservoir, enabling people to survive.
For Obama, the decision to act was a painful one. The United States has been mired in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years. It is already worn out. So are the people. Obama is now forced to return to the battlefield in Iraq. He is truly reluctant. So far he has limited his attacks to unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopter bombing, and weapons supplies. But according to media reports, elite teams of CIA agents and Special Forces have been ordered to hunt down IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Obviously for the United States, the IS organization is a national security threat, one serious enough that it must be wiped out as soon as possible.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama for passivity on the political situation in Iraq, and for enabling the IS organization to rise and expand. But in fact, Shiite minority rule under Hussein's authoritarian rule planted the seeds of hatred between the two sects. Improper governance by his successor failed to defuse the sectarian rift. Nouri al-Maliki's personal style and wrangling with local leaders was also a factor. Now Nouri al-Maliki has been driven back. Haider Al-Abadi has formed a cabinet. If he can make a fresh start and reduce sectarian tensions, he can reduce popular support for the IS organization. Add to this continued military attacks, and they should be able to effectively suppress the IS forces.
The failure to resolve standoffs, historical grievances, and the peristence of extreme hostility, created a hotbed of radicalism. IS is a reminder to the world. Narrow-minded confrontation and persistent hatred will not solve problems. They will only bring on greater disaster. We must persevere in our reconciliation efforts. We must reduce conflicts and eliminate resentments. Opposition to terrorist organizations such as IS requires perseverance and willpower. It requires greater attention from the international community. Middle Eastern historical grievances offer East Asian nations a lesson they can learn from.
社論－IS威脅全球 國際社會須強力因應
2014年08月20日 04:10
本報訊
美國打擊伊拉克北部叛軍伊斯蘭國（IS）的行動全面升高，除了發動空襲、提供武器給庫德族外，更派出中情局與特種部隊獵殺其首領。這個恐怖組織之殘暴令人髮指，已經危及全球的集體安全與人道價值，國際社會必須聯手予以壓制。而這，恐怕將是一場長期的戰爭。
恐怖組織近年來對全球安全秩序造成極大威脅，美國在911恐怖攻擊後全力剿滅「基地」組織，對伊拉克發動戰爭，拔除哈珊政權，最後更狙殺「基地」領袖賓拉登，終於讓「基地」勢力日走下坡。
沒想到又出現了一個更可怕的恐怖組織。哈珊的集權統治原本有效鎮壓了教派之爭，但哈珊垮台後，接續成立的伊拉克政府既無力壓制什葉與遜尼派的對抗，擔任總理的馬里奇也沒有兼顧不同教派的雅量與手腕，甚至打擊居人口多數的遜尼派，引發強烈不滿，以致於原本是「基地」分支的「伊拉克與大敘利亞伊斯蘭國」（ISIL）迅速壯大。
ISIL比「基地」更可怕的是，「基地」組織的敵人是歐美國家，屬於伊斯蘭教遜尼派的ISIL卻視所有非遜尼派為敵人。該組織於2013年4月成立，目標是在伊拉克及黎凡特地區建立政教合一的伊斯蘭宗教國，目前控制敘利亞東北部大部分地區、伊拉克北部與西部大片領域，也是對抗敘利亞總統阿塞德的反抗軍之一。
由於得到遜尼派老大哥沙烏地阿拉伯、卡達的暗助，並搶取當地銀行巨款，攻占油田後在黑市出售原油，ISIL的財力相當豐厚。但他們的意識型態過於極端，手段凶狠殘暴，大舉攻占伊拉克北部庫德族自治區，曾經一次屠殺1700名政府軍俘虜，並將處決照片上網；還強擄婦女充作性奴，將兒童洗腦為恐怖攻擊戰士。種種殘忍暴行，連「基地」組織也看不下去，而宣布切斷與ISIL的關係。
2014年6月ISIL領袖巴格達迪自稱為哈里發，宣布建立伊斯蘭國（IS），宣稱對整個穆斯林世界擁有最高權威地位。最近該組織更變本加厲，攻擊伊北少數族群雅茲迪人，強迫改變信仰，否則予以處決，還擄走1500名婦女為性奴，聲稱要清洗其血統。被圍困的民眾瀕臨飢渴而死，難民流離失所，造成一場生靈塗炭的人道悲劇。雅茲迪人的悲慘遭遇令全球不忍卒睹，宛如最後的一根稻草，終於讓美國及國際社會決定不再消極坐視。美國總統歐巴馬宣布對伊拉克北部IS據點發動空襲，並直接提供武器給該區的庫德族，以助對抗IS叛軍，法、澳也表示要提供軍援。在全力反擊下，伊拉克已經奪回摩蘇爾水庫，大大解除了民生危機。
對於歐巴馬來說，這是一個痛苦的抉擇。美國陷入伊拉克與阿富汗戰爭泥淖長達10年，早已心竭力乏，百姓也極度厭戰。歐巴馬現在又被迫重回伊拉克戰場，著實十分無奈。因此至今他仍把工具限定在無人機、直升機轟炸、供應武器等隔空手段上。但據媒體報導，一批中情局特工與特種部隊組成的精銳隊伍，已受命對外號「鬼魅」的IS領袖巴格達迪展開獵殺行動，顯見對美國而言，IS組織對國家安全造成的威脅，已經嚴重到必須盡快殲滅。
雖然希拉蕊批判歐巴馬對伊拉克政局的消極作為，才導致IS組織崛起坐大，但事實上，伊拉克在哈珊時期的少數什葉派集權統治，已經埋下教派之間的仇恨種子；繼任政府治理不當，未能化解教派嫌隙，與馬里奇個人風格與當地政治角力也有關係。現在馬里奇已被逼退，由阿巴迪籌組內閣，如果能改弦更張降低教派緊張，會有助於減少IS組織的支持基礎。再輔以持續的軍事攻擊，應該可以有效壓制其勢力。
無法化解的對立、糾纏不去的歷史恩怨、極端的敵意憤怒，都是促成激進路線的溫床。IS組織的例子提醒世人，狹隘對立與執著仇恨解決不了問題，只會帶來更大的災難，必須仰賴鍥而不捨的和解努力，才能降低衝突消弭怨恨。對抗IS這樣的極端恐怖組織需要長期的意志力，以及國際社會更強的關注。中東地區歷史恩怨糾纏不去的教訓，東亞國家應引以為鑑。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 20, 2014
Summary: The failure to resolve standoffs, historical grievances, and the peristence of extreme hostility, created a hotbed of radicalism. IS is a reminder to the world. Narrow-minded confrontation and persistent hatred will not solve problems. They will only bring on greater disaster. We must persevere in our reconciliation efforts. We must reduce conflicts and eliminate resentments. Opposition to terrorist organizations such as IS requires perseverance and willpower. It requires greater attention from the international community. Middle Eastern historical grievances offer East Asian nations a lesson they can learn from.
Full Text Below:
The US has escalated its attacks against Islamic State (IS) rebels in northern Iraq. In addition to launching air strikes and supplying weapons to the Kurds, the CIA has dispatched spec ops groups to hunt down IS leaders. The brutality of this heinous terrorist organization has jeopardized collective security and humanitarian values. The international community must join hands against it. This, one fears, will be a long battle.
In recent years, terrorist organizations have become an increasing threat to global security and order. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States exterminated the Al Qaeda organization, waged war against Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein, and assassinated Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda began to decline.
But who knew an even more terrible terrorist organization would appear? Saddam Hussein's authoritarian rule effectively suppressed sectarian disputes. But with Hussein's fall from power, successive Iraqi governments were unable to suppress Shia vs. Sunni conflict. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki failed to consider the differences between various factions. He even attacked the majority Sunni faction, provoking intense antagonism. As a result, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an offshoot of Al Qaeda, grew rapidly.
ISIL is even more frightening than Al Qaeda. The enemy of Al Qaeda is Europe and America. ISIL, a Sunni Islam organization, regards all non-Sunnis as the enemy. The organization was founded in April 2013. Its goal is to establish a theocracy in Iraq and the Levant. It currently controls large parts of northeastern Syria and large parts of northern and western Iraq. It is among the rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Hafez al-Assad.
ISIL has been the recipient of secret assistence from Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni faction, and Qatar. It robbed local banks of large sums of money. It captured oil fields and sold crude oil on the black market. As a result, ISIL is financially quite flush. But its ideology is too extreme, and its methods ae too savage. When it captured the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq, it massacred 1700 POWs and posted photos of the executions online. It also kidnapped women as sex slaves, brainwashed children and turned them into terrorists. Even Al Qaeda could not stomach these atrocities, and announced that it was severing relations with ISIL.
In June 2014 ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed himself "Caliph." He announced the establishment of the Islamic State (IS), and proclaimed himself the highest authority in the entire Muslim world. Recently the organization went even further. It attacked the minority Yezidis in Northern Iraq. It forced them to renounce their beliefs or be executed. It abducted 1500 women as sex slaves, saying it was purifying their blood. These besieged people are on the verge of starvation and death. Refugees have been displaced, resulting in the loss of life and a humanitarian tragedy. The world could no longer bear watching the Yezidi tragedy. It was the last straw. Eventually the United States and the international community decided they could no longer sit back and do nothing. U.S. President Barack Obama announced air strikes on a northern Iraq IS stronghold. He provided weapons to the Kurds to help them fight the IS rebels. France and Australia also pledged military aid. In a full force counterattack, Iraq recaptured the Mosul reservoir, enabling people to survive.
For Obama, the decision to act was a painful one. The United States has been mired in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years. It is already worn out. So are the people. Obama is now forced to return to the battlefield in Iraq. He is truly reluctant. So far he has limited his attacks to unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopter bombing, and weapons supplies. But according to media reports, elite teams of CIA agents and Special Forces have been ordered to hunt down IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Obviously for the United States, the IS organization is a national security threat, one serious enough that it must be wiped out as soon as possible.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama for passivity on the political situation in Iraq, and for enabling the IS organization to rise and expand. But in fact, Shiite minority rule under Hussein's authoritarian rule planted the seeds of hatred between the two sects. Improper governance by his successor failed to defuse the sectarian rift. Nouri al-Maliki's personal style and wrangling with local leaders was also a factor. Now Nouri al-Maliki has been driven back. Haider Al-Abadi has formed a cabinet. If he can make a fresh start and reduce sectarian tensions, he can reduce popular support for the IS organization. Add to this continued military attacks, and they should be able to effectively suppress the IS forces.
The failure to resolve standoffs, historical grievances, and the peristence of extreme hostility, created a hotbed of radicalism. IS is a reminder to the world. Narrow-minded confrontation and persistent hatred will not solve problems. They will only bring on greater disaster. We must persevere in our reconciliation efforts. We must reduce conflicts and eliminate resentments. Opposition to terrorist organizations such as IS requires perseverance and willpower. It requires greater attention from the international community. Middle Eastern historical grievances offer East Asian nations a lesson they can learn from.
社論－IS威脅全球 國際社會須強力因應
2014年08月20日 04:10
本報訊
美國打擊伊拉克北部叛軍伊斯蘭國（IS）的行動全面升高，除了發動空襲、提供武器給庫德族外，更派出中情局與特種部隊獵殺其首領。這個恐怖組織之殘暴令人髮指，已經危及全球的集體安全與人道價值，國際社會必須聯手予以壓制。而這，恐怕將是一場長期的戰爭。
恐怖組織近年來對全球安全秩序造成極大威脅，美國在911恐怖攻擊後全力剿滅「基地」組織，對伊拉克發動戰爭，拔除哈珊政權，最後更狙殺「基地」領袖賓拉登，終於讓「基地」勢力日走下坡。
沒想到又出現了一個更可怕的恐怖組織。哈珊的集權統治原本有效鎮壓了教派之爭，但哈珊垮台後，接續成立的伊拉克政府既無力壓制什葉與遜尼派的對抗，擔任總理的馬里奇也沒有兼顧不同教派的雅量與手腕，甚至打擊居人口多數的遜尼派，引發強烈不滿，以致於原本是「基地」分支的「伊拉克與大敘利亞伊斯蘭國」（ISIL）迅速壯大。
ISIL比「基地」更可怕的是，「基地」組織的敵人是歐美國家，屬於伊斯蘭教遜尼派的ISIL卻視所有非遜尼派為敵人。該組織於2013年4月成立，目標是在伊拉克及黎凡特地區建立政教合一的伊斯蘭宗教國，目前控制敘利亞東北部大部分地區、伊拉克北部與西部大片領域，也是對抗敘利亞總統阿塞德的反抗軍之一。
由於得到遜尼派老大哥沙烏地阿拉伯、卡達的暗助，並搶取當地銀行巨款，攻占油田後在黑市出售原油，ISIL的財力相當豐厚。但他們的意識型態過於極端，手段凶狠殘暴，大舉攻占伊拉克北部庫德族自治區，曾經一次屠殺1700名政府軍俘虜，並將處決照片上網；還強擄婦女充作性奴，將兒童洗腦為恐怖攻擊戰士。種種殘忍暴行，連「基地」組織也看不下去，而宣布切斷與ISIL的關係。
2014年6月ISIL領袖巴格達迪自稱為哈里發，宣布建立伊斯蘭國（IS），宣稱對整個穆斯林世界擁有最高權威地位。最近該組織更變本加厲，攻擊伊北少數族群雅茲迪人，強迫改變信仰，否則予以處決，還擄走1500名婦女為性奴，聲稱要清洗其血統。被圍困的民眾瀕臨飢渴而死，難民流離失所，造成一場生靈塗炭的人道悲劇。雅茲迪人的悲慘遭遇令全球不忍卒睹，宛如最後的一根稻草，終於讓美國及國際社會決定不再消極坐視。美國總統歐巴馬宣布對伊拉克北部IS據點發動空襲，並直接提供武器給該區的庫德族，以助對抗IS叛軍，法、澳也表示要提供軍援。在全力反擊下，伊拉克已經奪回摩蘇爾水庫，大大解除了民生危機。
對於歐巴馬來說，這是一個痛苦的抉擇。美國陷入伊拉克與阿富汗戰爭泥淖長達10年，早已心竭力乏，百姓也極度厭戰。歐巴馬現在又被迫重回伊拉克戰場，著實十分無奈。因此至今他仍把工具限定在無人機、直升機轟炸、供應武器等隔空手段上。但據媒體報導，一批中情局特工與特種部隊組成的精銳隊伍，已受命對外號「鬼魅」的IS領袖巴格達迪展開獵殺行動，顯見對美國而言，IS組織對國家安全造成的威脅，已經嚴重到必須盡快殲滅。
雖然希拉蕊批判歐巴馬對伊拉克政局的消極作為，才導致IS組織崛起坐大，但事實上，伊拉克在哈珊時期的少數什葉派集權統治，已經埋下教派之間的仇恨種子；繼任政府治理不當，未能化解教派嫌隙，與馬里奇個人風格與當地政治角力也有關係。現在馬里奇已被逼退，由阿巴迪籌組內閣，如果能改弦更張降低教派緊張，會有助於減少IS組織的支持基礎。再輔以持續的軍事攻擊，應該可以有效壓制其勢力。
無法化解的對立、糾纏不去的歷史恩怨、極端的敵意憤怒，都是促成激進路線的溫床。IS組織的例子提醒世人，狹隘對立與執著仇恨解決不了問題，只會帶來更大的災難，必須仰賴鍥而不捨的和解努力，才能降低衝突消弭怨恨。對抗IS這樣的極端恐怖組織需要長期的意志力，以及國際社會更強的關注。中東地區歷史恩怨糾纏不去的教訓，東亞國家應引以為鑑。
President Constitutionally Obligated to Make New Nominations
President Constitutionally Obligated to Make New Nominations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2014
Summary: The president must abide by the original intent of the constitution when nominating Control Yuan members. He must strengthen, not weaken its monitoring function. He must draw up a list of nominees satisfactory to all, and revive morale at the Control Yuan. The DPP must control its lust for power, and be willing to allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty.
Full Text Below:
The Legislative Oversight Committee has exercised its right of approval. In an unprecedented move, it rejected 11 nominees. So what next? President Ma must give this some serious thought. More importantly, the DPP must rein in its lust for power.
First we must confirm that the legislature's approval vote was conducted in strict accordance to the law. Legislators are not permitted to reveal how they voted. Lawmakers crossing party lines to reject candidates they consider unqualified is consistent with the spirit of the constitution. If a nominee is unsatisfactory, a legislator must not ignore the facts and blindly vote to approve merely because he is a ruling party member. Conversely, if the nominee is qualified, opposition party legislators must not oppose the nominee merely for the sake of opposition. If legislators think only about their party and not the constitution, if they consider only partisan advantage and partisan political struggle, if they refuse to abide by the constitution, then what constitutional democracy will there be left to speak of?
When a ruling party behaves unconstitutionally, opposition parties must demand that it abide by the constitution. It should not urge the ruling party to turn its back on the constitution. The legislature is currently exercising its seldom invoked right of approval. Eleven blue camp seats still need filling. The opposition is saying that the president should not even bother with new nominations. They are saying that he should leave the nominations to the next president, two years from now. This is truly absurd. It ignores the constitution, It represents naked power lust that cannot go any lower than it already has.
Here we must ask a constitutional question. Is the president not obligated to make new nominations? Answering in the negative would be much too hasty. Suppose the legislature does not approve of the president's nominees? Can the president really refuse to make new nominations, and force the Control Yuan to grind to a halt? The President is not merely responsible for Control Yuan nominations. He is also responsible for grand justice nominations. If his nominees for grand justice are rejected, can he simply refuse to make new nominations? Are we to understand that presidential nominations are entirely a matter of presidential discretion? If so, then as long as the president refuses to make any nominations, are we to understand that the Control Yuan, the Examination Yuan, and the Judicial Yuan must grind to a halt? Are we really ready to make such an outrageous claim?
The opposition is not merely saying that the president may choose not to make any new nominations. It is saying that he "should not" make any new nominations. Is this not outrageous? Can the opposition force the president to lie or even violate the constitution? Could it be that a certain presidential candidate hopes to neuter the other three branches of government once she is elected, so that she may exercise dictatorial powers?
We say the president must fulfill his constitutional duty to make new nominations. He should nominate candidates who will increase the monitoring authority of the Control Yuan. Only then will he be honoring the original intent of the constitution. Current political sentiment would do away with the Control Yuan. This sentiment derives from three main sources.
The first source of opposition comes from opposition to the five-power constitution, hence opposition to the Control Yuan. These opponents see the Three Peoples Principles as more important than the constitution. They find it difficult to extricate themselves from their ideology. It is not necessary to devote too much ink to them.
The second source of opposition comes from the executive branch. The executive branch perceives close monitoring by the Control Yuan as a thorn in its side. It alleges that close monitoring by the Control Yuan makes civil servants shirk responsibility, leading to administrative inefficiency. The buck is passed on to the Control Yuan. Some say the Control Yuan persecutes the loyal and virtuous. They share this view. If the nomination process is shot through with such thinking, executive branch bureaucrats will circle the wagons, or even intentionally abet executive branch law-breaking. They will attempt to weaken the Control Yuan's monitoring function and interfere with the nomination process. Actually, the Control Yuan does not have the authority to pursue criminal complaints. Impeachment is the responsibility of the Judicial Yuan Correctional Court. How can the Control Yuan persecute the loyal and virtuous? Many outstanding Control Yuan members were not renominated this term. Did executive branch agencies hope to be rid of them? Was that truly not a factor? If nominees accomodate executive branch attempts to weaken Control Yuan monitoring authority, that is at odds with the original intent of the constitution. The head of state is supposed to have an overarching authority to nominate candidates.
The third source of opposition comes from those with high expectations. They feel the Control Yuan has performed poorly. Therefore it may as well be abolished. This is undoubtedly an argument rooted in emotion. According to this logic, if the legislature performs poorly, it too should be abolished. The real message behind the emotions is that the Control Yuan must perform better, and the nomination process must be effective. That will ensure the effectiveness of the Control Yuan, and win public support.
If the Control Yuan is to investigate violations of the law, it will need sufficient manpower. In particular, the Control Yuan is rather similar to national human rights institutions championed by the United Nations. This is especially true when the justice system fails to do its job. The Contro Yuan provides a valuable backup. This is what was missing in the first round nominations. Now that the president is making new nominations, that should be strengthened. He might wish to consider prosecutors with human rights backgrounds. He might wish to consider legal experts familiar with the functioning of the justice system. Previous term Control Yuan members had a wealth of such experience, but regrettably they were not renominated. They are worth re-considering.
The president must abide by the original intent of the constitution when nominating Control Yuan members. He must strengthen, not weaken its monitoring function. He must draw up a list of nominees satisfactory to all, and revive morale at the Control Yuan. The DPP must control its lust for power, and be willing to allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty.
社論－總統有補提名監委的憲法義務
2014年08月19日 04:10
本報訊
立法院行使監委同意權，破天荒刷下了11位提名人選。接下來將如何進行？不但馬總統應該認真思考，民進黨更應該節制權力慾望。
首先應該確認，立法院同意權投票，採取嚴謹守法態度不許委員亮票，立法委員跨越黨派嚴格把關，刷下被認為不適任的人選，都是符合憲政精神的正確做法。還應該說清楚的是，提名人選如果不能盡如人意，執政黨立委不該只是因為身為執政黨員，就不問青紅皂白，一味投票表示同意；相對而言，被提名的也非完全不適任，在野黨立委同樣不該只是黨同伐異，為了反對而反對。如果政黨心目中都是有黨無憲，只圖政黨利益，只管政黨鬥爭，不依憲法行事，那還有什麼民主憲政可言？
執政黨行事不合憲法的時候，在野黨最應該做的，是根據憲法要求執政黨依憲行事，而不是主張執政黨背離憲法。現在立法院難得地發揮了同意權的制衡功能，篩選之餘，監委尚有11個席位待補，在野黨竟然主張總統不該補提名，將機會留給下一任的總統兩年之後再為提名。這話真是荒唐，可謂是目無憲法，赤裸裸地覬覦權力，已達無以復加的程度！
我們必須問一個憲法問題，此時總統難道沒有補提人選的憲法義務？如說沒有，未免過於輕率。要是立法院不同意所有的提名人選，總統也可以不補提名，讓監察院停擺嗎？由總統負責提名的不只有監察院，如果大法官多人提名人選不通過，也可以不補提名嗎？難道是認為提不提名全屬總統的裁量？那豈非只要總統不為提名，從監察院到考試院到司法院，都有被總統任意不為提名而停擺的風險？能夠如此信口開河嗎？
在野黨現在不但是說總統可以不提名，甚至說成「不應該」提名，難道不是信口開河？哪有在野黨教唆甚或強迫總統違憲的道理？該不會是想選總統的人，企圖在當選之後不依憲法提名，以實質廢除其他三院，享有獨裁大權吧？
我們主張，總統不但應該履行憲法義務補行提名，而且應該朝強化監察權功能的方向選擇提名人選，才能符合憲法的真意旨。不可諱言，現在政壇上瀰漫著一種對於監察院的存在不以為然的氣氛，主要是由三方面的心態所共同形成的。
第一種心態是因為反對五權憲法而反對監察權，這種將三民主義看得比憲法更大，以致難以自拔的意識型態反應，其實不必多費筆墨論其非了。
第二種心態，則是基於行政權本位，將監察院有效行使糾彈視為芒刺在背，而把公務員們遇事推諉、不敢負責以致行政效能不彰的原因，一籃子推到監察院身上。有人好說監察院殘害忠良，就與此種心態不無關係；如果提名的過程中具有這種心態，就會出現一些行政官僚體系本位立場濃厚，或有意包庇行政違法、弱化監察功能的人干擾提名。其實監察院並不行使刑事訴追的權力，行彈劾又還有司法院的公懲會把關，何足以殘害忠良？前一屆監委表現卓越者未獲提名連任者不乏其人，難道就沒有行政部門欲除之而後快的因素存在？提名者若只遷就於行政部門削弱監察權的心思行事，並不符合憲法看重元首的超然而賦予提名權的原旨。
第三種心態則是恨鐵不成鋼，以為監察院的表現不足，還不如廢除。這無疑是鬥氣的說法；依此邏輯，立法院功能不彰就要廢掉立法院嗎？鬥氣說背後所傳達的真正訊息，其實是期待監察院高度發揮功能。提名得力，就是監察院發揮功能的保障，就會得到社會支持。
監察院職司糾彈違法，應有數量充足的法律人才，尤其監察院與聯合國提倡的國家人權機關，性質上有極其相近之處，對於保障人權的不足，特別是司法功能在這方面的不到之處，值得特加重視其間的補佚作用。這正是第一份提名名單欠缺的地方。現在總統將要補行提名，應該於此有所加強，可以考慮具有保障人權觀念的檢察官，也可以考慮熟悉司法運作實務乃至缺失的法界人士，前屆表現出色富有經驗但成為前次提名的遺珠之憾者，亦值得重新列入考慮。
總統應該依照憲法的意旨補為監察委員提名，而且應該朝向切實發揮而非削弱監察糾彈不法的功能為主要著眼，拿出一張普遍令人滿意的名單，切實重振監察院低迷的士氣才是。民進黨則應該節制權力慾望，對總統履行憲法義務樂觀其成。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2014
Summary: The president must abide by the original intent of the constitution when nominating Control Yuan members. He must strengthen, not weaken its monitoring function. He must draw up a list of nominees satisfactory to all, and revive morale at the Control Yuan. The DPP must control its lust for power, and be willing to allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty.
Full Text Below:
The Legislative Oversight Committee has exercised its right of approval. In an unprecedented move, it rejected 11 nominees. So what next? President Ma must give this some serious thought. More importantly, the DPP must rein in its lust for power.
First we must confirm that the legislature's approval vote was conducted in strict accordance to the law. Legislators are not permitted to reveal how they voted. Lawmakers crossing party lines to reject candidates they consider unqualified is consistent with the spirit of the constitution. If a nominee is unsatisfactory, a legislator must not ignore the facts and blindly vote to approve merely because he is a ruling party member. Conversely, if the nominee is qualified, opposition party legislators must not oppose the nominee merely for the sake of opposition. If legislators think only about their party and not the constitution, if they consider only partisan advantage and partisan political struggle, if they refuse to abide by the constitution, then what constitutional democracy will there be left to speak of?
When a ruling party behaves unconstitutionally, opposition parties must demand that it abide by the constitution. It should not urge the ruling party to turn its back on the constitution. The legislature is currently exercising its seldom invoked right of approval. Eleven blue camp seats still need filling. The opposition is saying that the president should not even bother with new nominations. They are saying that he should leave the nominations to the next president, two years from now. This is truly absurd. It ignores the constitution, It represents naked power lust that cannot go any lower than it already has.
Here we must ask a constitutional question. Is the president not obligated to make new nominations? Answering in the negative would be much too hasty. Suppose the legislature does not approve of the president's nominees? Can the president really refuse to make new nominations, and force the Control Yuan to grind to a halt? The President is not merely responsible for Control Yuan nominations. He is also responsible for grand justice nominations. If his nominees for grand justice are rejected, can he simply refuse to make new nominations? Are we to understand that presidential nominations are entirely a matter of presidential discretion? If so, then as long as the president refuses to make any nominations, are we to understand that the Control Yuan, the Examination Yuan, and the Judicial Yuan must grind to a halt? Are we really ready to make such an outrageous claim?
The opposition is not merely saying that the president may choose not to make any new nominations. It is saying that he "should not" make any new nominations. Is this not outrageous? Can the opposition force the president to lie or even violate the constitution? Could it be that a certain presidential candidate hopes to neuter the other three branches of government once she is elected, so that she may exercise dictatorial powers?
We say the president must fulfill his constitutional duty to make new nominations. He should nominate candidates who will increase the monitoring authority of the Control Yuan. Only then will he be honoring the original intent of the constitution. Current political sentiment would do away with the Control Yuan. This sentiment derives from three main sources.
The first source of opposition comes from opposition to the five-power constitution, hence opposition to the Control Yuan. These opponents see the Three Peoples Principles as more important than the constitution. They find it difficult to extricate themselves from their ideology. It is not necessary to devote too much ink to them.
The second source of opposition comes from the executive branch. The executive branch perceives close monitoring by the Control Yuan as a thorn in its side. It alleges that close monitoring by the Control Yuan makes civil servants shirk responsibility, leading to administrative inefficiency. The buck is passed on to the Control Yuan. Some say the Control Yuan persecutes the loyal and virtuous. They share this view. If the nomination process is shot through with such thinking, executive branch bureaucrats will circle the wagons, or even intentionally abet executive branch law-breaking. They will attempt to weaken the Control Yuan's monitoring function and interfere with the nomination process. Actually, the Control Yuan does not have the authority to pursue criminal complaints. Impeachment is the responsibility of the Judicial Yuan Correctional Court. How can the Control Yuan persecute the loyal and virtuous? Many outstanding Control Yuan members were not renominated this term. Did executive branch agencies hope to be rid of them? Was that truly not a factor? If nominees accomodate executive branch attempts to weaken Control Yuan monitoring authority, that is at odds with the original intent of the constitution. The head of state is supposed to have an overarching authority to nominate candidates.
The third source of opposition comes from those with high expectations. They feel the Control Yuan has performed poorly. Therefore it may as well be abolished. This is undoubtedly an argument rooted in emotion. According to this logic, if the legislature performs poorly, it too should be abolished. The real message behind the emotions is that the Control Yuan must perform better, and the nomination process must be effective. That will ensure the effectiveness of the Control Yuan, and win public support.
If the Control Yuan is to investigate violations of the law, it will need sufficient manpower. In particular, the Control Yuan is rather similar to national human rights institutions championed by the United Nations. This is especially true when the justice system fails to do its job. The Contro Yuan provides a valuable backup. This is what was missing in the first round nominations. Now that the president is making new nominations, that should be strengthened. He might wish to consider prosecutors with human rights backgrounds. He might wish to consider legal experts familiar with the functioning of the justice system. Previous term Control Yuan members had a wealth of such experience, but regrettably they were not renominated. They are worth re-considering.
The president must abide by the original intent of the constitution when nominating Control Yuan members. He must strengthen, not weaken its monitoring function. He must draw up a list of nominees satisfactory to all, and revive morale at the Control Yuan. The DPP must control its lust for power, and be willing to allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty.
社論－總統有補提名監委的憲法義務
2014年08月19日 04:10
本報訊
立法院行使監委同意權，破天荒刷下了11位提名人選。接下來將如何進行？不但馬總統應該認真思考，民進黨更應該節制權力慾望。
首先應該確認，立法院同意權投票，採取嚴謹守法態度不許委員亮票，立法委員跨越黨派嚴格把關，刷下被認為不適任的人選，都是符合憲政精神的正確做法。還應該說清楚的是，提名人選如果不能盡如人意，執政黨立委不該只是因為身為執政黨員，就不問青紅皂白，一味投票表示同意；相對而言，被提名的也非完全不適任，在野黨立委同樣不該只是黨同伐異，為了反對而反對。如果政黨心目中都是有黨無憲，只圖政黨利益，只管政黨鬥爭，不依憲法行事，那還有什麼民主憲政可言？
執政黨行事不合憲法的時候，在野黨最應該做的，是根據憲法要求執政黨依憲行事，而不是主張執政黨背離憲法。現在立法院難得地發揮了同意權的制衡功能，篩選之餘，監委尚有11個席位待補，在野黨竟然主張總統不該補提名，將機會留給下一任的總統兩年之後再為提名。這話真是荒唐，可謂是目無憲法，赤裸裸地覬覦權力，已達無以復加的程度！
我們必須問一個憲法問題，此時總統難道沒有補提人選的憲法義務？如說沒有，未免過於輕率。要是立法院不同意所有的提名人選，總統也可以不補提名，讓監察院停擺嗎？由總統負責提名的不只有監察院，如果大法官多人提名人選不通過，也可以不補提名嗎？難道是認為提不提名全屬總統的裁量？那豈非只要總統不為提名，從監察院到考試院到司法院，都有被總統任意不為提名而停擺的風險？能夠如此信口開河嗎？
在野黨現在不但是說總統可以不提名，甚至說成「不應該」提名，難道不是信口開河？哪有在野黨教唆甚或強迫總統違憲的道理？該不會是想選總統的人，企圖在當選之後不依憲法提名，以實質廢除其他三院，享有獨裁大權吧？
我們主張，總統不但應該履行憲法義務補行提名，而且應該朝強化監察權功能的方向選擇提名人選，才能符合憲法的真意旨。不可諱言，現在政壇上瀰漫著一種對於監察院的存在不以為然的氣氛，主要是由三方面的心態所共同形成的。
第一種心態是因為反對五權憲法而反對監察權，這種將三民主義看得比憲法更大，以致難以自拔的意識型態反應，其實不必多費筆墨論其非了。
第二種心態，則是基於行政權本位，將監察院有效行使糾彈視為芒刺在背，而把公務員們遇事推諉、不敢負責以致行政效能不彰的原因，一籃子推到監察院身上。有人好說監察院殘害忠良，就與此種心態不無關係；如果提名的過程中具有這種心態，就會出現一些行政官僚體系本位立場濃厚，或有意包庇行政違法、弱化監察功能的人干擾提名。其實監察院並不行使刑事訴追的權力，行彈劾又還有司法院的公懲會把關，何足以殘害忠良？前一屆監委表現卓越者未獲提名連任者不乏其人，難道就沒有行政部門欲除之而後快的因素存在？提名者若只遷就於行政部門削弱監察權的心思行事，並不符合憲法看重元首的超然而賦予提名權的原旨。
第三種心態則是恨鐵不成鋼，以為監察院的表現不足，還不如廢除。這無疑是鬥氣的說法；依此邏輯，立法院功能不彰就要廢掉立法院嗎？鬥氣說背後所傳達的真正訊息，其實是期待監察院高度發揮功能。提名得力，就是監察院發揮功能的保障，就會得到社會支持。
監察院職司糾彈違法，應有數量充足的法律人才，尤其監察院與聯合國提倡的國家人權機關，性質上有極其相近之處，對於保障人權的不足，特別是司法功能在這方面的不到之處，值得特加重視其間的補佚作用。這正是第一份提名名單欠缺的地方。現在總統將要補行提名，應該於此有所加強，可以考慮具有保障人權觀念的檢察官，也可以考慮熟悉司法運作實務乃至缺失的法界人士，前屆表現出色富有經驗但成為前次提名的遺珠之憾者，亦值得重新列入考慮。
總統應該依照憲法的意旨補為監察委員提名，而且應該朝向切實發揮而非削弱監察糾彈不法的功能為主要著眼，拿出一張普遍令人滿意的名單，切實重振監察院低迷的士氣才是。民進黨則應該節制權力慾望，對總統履行憲法義務樂觀其成。
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Re-assessing the March Sunflower Student Movement
Re-assessing the March Sunflower Student Movement
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2014
Summary: Taiwan is rapidly slouching toward closed door status, and losing its competitiveness. The foreign media has concluded that Taiwan has left itself behind. People on Taiwan desperately need to reevaluate the meaning and impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, and correct its grievous errors.
Full Text Below:
Years from now, when historians recall Taiwan in 2014, they will probably arrive at a number of realizations. A local election will be held at the end of the year. The March Sunflower Student Movement combined a student movement with a social movement. Disasters large and small followed one after the other. More than a few officials were forced to step down for varying reasons. The prestige of both the ruling and opposition parties plumbed new lows. During the remaining quarter of the year, most would agree that there was little joy or glory in Taiwan during 2014.
Some have deliberately inflated the historical significance of the Sunflower Student Movement. They would have us believe it occupies a place of honor among Taiwan's student movements, social movements, and democratic evolution. The movement illegally obstructed the operations of a democratically elected legislature for over a month, yet received considerable public recognition and support. It eventually achieved its goal. It enabled the opposition to block the legislative process. If we are determined to assign it any additional significance, the movement may have enabled the green camp to stage two political shows.
When historians evaluate the significance of events on Taiwan in 2014, they are sure to mention the March Sunflower Student Movement and the signing of the PRC-ROK FTA. Most historians will arrive at such a conclusion. For Taiwan and South Korea, 2014 has been a critical year. It has widened the competitive gap between the two economies. South Korea continued its advance in the direction of major powers undergoing globalization. Taiwan on the other hand, clung to its closed door policy and spun its wheels.
In other words, student and opposition party leaders are patting themselves on the back over the "success" of the Sunflower Student Movement, even as South Koreans triumphantly patted themselves on the back for elbowing aside their Taiwan-based competitors and leaving them in the dust.
This is why in early August, a Wall Street Journal editorial took aim at Taiwan with an editoral entitled "Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind." The editorial was blunt. If the government on Taiwan maintains its cross-Strait trade barriers, it will only hurt itself. The reason is simple. Taiwan and South Korea are the Mainland's biggest trading partners. Taiwan's export commodities are petrochemicals, iron, steel, textiles, and machinery. These overlap South Korea's exports anywhere from 50% to 80%. If Mainland China and South Korea sign an FTA this year, most South Korean products will enjoy zero-tariff access to the Mainland. Taiwan will then be in serious trouble.
Few people recall the situation when the two sides signed ECFA in 2012. The South Korean media was wracked with anxiety and uncertainty. They feared cross-Strait industrial cooperation and a complementary production chain which would probably exclude South Korean industry. That was the reason they coined the term "Chiwan." They were vigilant. A mere two years later however, their worries failed to materialize. Instead South Korea picked up the pace. It concluded the Korea-US and Korea-Europe Free Trade Agreements. It then looked to a Korea-PRC Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, Taiwan sat on its hands.
Of course Korea is not the only economy that grew in 2014. In June and July of this year alone, when Taiwan was still experiencing ongoing catastrophes and mired in internal bickering, German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Mainland China. The US and the Mainland accelerated dialogue on an investment agreement. Premier Li Keqiang visited Britain to negotiate direct RMB-pound exchanges. Germany, the United States, Britain and other major powers frequently interact with the Mainland. All of this affects Taiwan's trade competitiveness in services as well as goods. Meanwhile, the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations bill remains stalled in the Legislative Yuan. Taiwan businesses must watch from the sidelines as other countries aggressively carve up the Mainland market. Taiwan has benefitted from the ECFA early harvest list. But follow-up consultations have stagnated. Others come and go. Meanwhile, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind."
Unfortunately, despite the obvious signs, many are still wandering through the fog of the March Sunflower Student Movement. Yes, they succeeded in occupying the temple of democracy. Yes, they successfully humiliated the head of state and the premier. Yes, they successfully seized the bully pulpit. Yes, they successfully obstructed the STA, essential to Taiwan's competitiveness. On the surface, they won. But in fact they merely relegated themselves to the role of political tools on the fringes of the DPP. Was there a loser? Yes there was. The real loser was Taiwan's competitiveness.
SEF Vice Chairman Kao Koong-lian recently noted that the Mainland is not about to halt its progress merely because Taiwan has adopted a closed door policy. Taiwan must increase its competitiveness. Only then can it turn a threat into an opportunity. Kao Koong-lian's assessment is an appropriate footnote to Taiwan's global dilemma. Put more plainly, closing Taiwan's doors will not make the world stop spinning. Taiwan's market is too small. It can never do more than go with the flow. It can never expect the world to revolve around it. Unfortunately many on Taiwan are still patting themselves on the back for successfully closing Taiwan's doors.
The March Sunflower Student Movement involved a complex confluence of forces. It included students and non-students, opponents of capitalism, opponents of concentrated wealth, opponents of financial consortia, opponents of growth, opponents of nuclear power, opponents of the KMT, opponents of Ma Ying-jeou, opponents of imbalanced cross-Strait economic and political relations, extremist opponents of Mainland China, i.e., supporters of Taiwan independence, and even some inveterate street protesters.
Taiwan is rapidly slouching toward closed door status, and losing its competitiveness. The foreign media has concluded that Taiwan has left itself behind. People on Taiwan desperately need to reevaluate the meaning and impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, and correct its grievous errors.
社論－再評價三月太陽花運動
2014年08月18日 04:10
本報訊
設 想許多年後，當史家回顧台灣2014年，應該會有些許感觸。這一年年底有一場地方選舉，之前的3月時發生了一場學運結合社運的太陽花運動，先後發生了許多 大小不一的災難，不少官員因不同理由下台，朝野政黨聲望都創新低。儘管這一年還剩下四分之一，但絕大多數人應該都會同意，2014年對台灣而言，並沒有太 多的喜悅與榮耀。
可能有人會刻意放大太陽花運動的意義，認為它在台灣學生或社會運動史或民主史上享有崇高的意義。這場透過非法手段霸占民 選產生的國會議場長達1個多月的行動，激起社會一定程度的認同與支持，終於達成配合在野黨阻斷一樁重要法案立法進程的目標。如果一定還要找出其它意義，或 許就是這場運動，順勢造就了兩位未來綠營的政治新秀吧！
更多史家在評價2014年的台灣時，無法避免要將3月的太陽花運動，與年底中韓完 成自由貿易協定談判放在一起論定。多數史家會下這樣的論斷，台灣與南韓在2014這關鍵的一年，更進一步拉大了彼此競爭力的差距，南韓持續在邁向全球化的 大國挺進，台灣呢？卻是倒回鎖國內耗的深淵。
換言之，當學運領袖與在野黨還在為太陽花運動自我感覺良好之際，南韓卻在為他們搶下台灣更多訂單，將台灣狠狠甩在後頭而洋洋得意呢！
這 亦是為何在8月初，美國《華爾街日報》會在社論上，直接挑明「台灣自甘落後」（Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind）的原因。這篇社論明白點出，若台灣繼續施行兩岸貿易壁壘，只會傷到自己！原因很簡單，由於台灣與南韓都將大陸視為最大貿易夥伴，且台灣出口 商品從石化、鋼鐵、紡織到機具，5成至8成與南韓出口商品重疊，如果大陸與南韓今年完成FTA的洽簽，將使得大多數南韓產品能以零關稅進入大陸，會給台灣 帶來嚴重的問題。
如今，恐怕很少人還記得，當2012年兩岸洽簽兩岸經貿協議（ECFA）之際，南韓輿論普遍瀰漫著焦慮與不安，他們最擔 心兩岸產業若形成合作與互補的生態鏈，恐怕會將南韓產業排除在外，為此他們當時還自創了一個英文單字「Chinwan」，做為自我警惕。只不過才兩年過 去，他們所擔憂的情況不僅沒有發生，南韓還加快步伐，在陸續完成韓美、韓歐自由貿易協定（FTA）之後，更進一步推向韓中自由貿易協定的洽簽，在此同時， 台灣則是完全交了白卷。
當然，2014年並非只有韓國在向上提升，僅僅就在今年6、7月之交，當台灣還在為持續不斷的災變陷入循環內耗之 際，德國總理梅克爾訪中國大陸、美中兩國加速投資協定對話、大陸李克強總理訪問英國啟動人民幣與英鎊直接交易及人民幣清算業務。德、美、英等大國與中國大 陸經貿互動頻頻，攸關台灣競爭力的服務貿易和貨品貿易，及兩岸協議監督條例，卻依舊卡在立法院，眼睜睜看著他國積極搶占中國大陸市場，台灣卻除了ECFA 早收清單，後續協商卻是全面停滯。一來一往之間，正是應了《華爾街日報》的那句重話：台灣自甘落後！
遺憾的是，儘管跡象如此明顯，許多人 至今卻依舊停格在三月太陽花運動的勝利迷霧裡。是的，他們成功占領了民主殿堂，也成功羞辱了國家元首與閣揆，他們更成功搶奪了絕大部分的話語權，進一步成 功擋下了攸關台灣競爭力的服貿法案，表面上，他們好像全部都贏了，但實際上，他們真正的成就，其實只是成功履行了民進黨外圍的鬥爭工具，相對的另一方面真 正輸掉的，卻是台灣的競爭力。
海基會前副董事長高孔廉日前在一場研討會中表示，大陸不會因台灣鎖國，就停止進步的步伐，台灣惟有強化競爭 力，才能變威脅為機會。高孔廉這句評斷，對台灣目前全球化競爭上的處境，或許是個很適切的註腳。講白一點，鎖住台灣並不會讓地球停止運轉，以台灣的市場規 模，永遠只能順著大趨勢尋找自我定位，而非期待世界圍繞著台灣運轉。不幸的是，直到現在，當下台灣還有許多人仍然在為成功促成了鎖國而沾沾自喜！
三月太陽花運動是複雜的群眾組合，包含了學生與非學生，及反資本主義、反財富集中、反財團、反開發主義、反核電、反國民黨、反馬英九，及憂心兩岸經濟與政治關係失衡，或更極端的反中、支持台獨勢力，甚至還包括一些浪漫的街頭抗爭者。
台灣正在急速滑向鎖國，失去競爭力，面對「自甘落後」的國際評價，台灣人應該全面重新思考太陽花運動的意義與影響，並且設法糾正。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2014
Summary: Taiwan is rapidly slouching toward closed door status, and losing its competitiveness. The foreign media has concluded that Taiwan has left itself behind. People on Taiwan desperately need to reevaluate the meaning and impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, and correct its grievous errors.
Full Text Below:
Years from now, when historians recall Taiwan in 2014, they will probably arrive at a number of realizations. A local election will be held at the end of the year. The March Sunflower Student Movement combined a student movement with a social movement. Disasters large and small followed one after the other. More than a few officials were forced to step down for varying reasons. The prestige of both the ruling and opposition parties plumbed new lows. During the remaining quarter of the year, most would agree that there was little joy or glory in Taiwan during 2014.
Some have deliberately inflated the historical significance of the Sunflower Student Movement. They would have us believe it occupies a place of honor among Taiwan's student movements, social movements, and democratic evolution. The movement illegally obstructed the operations of a democratically elected legislature for over a month, yet received considerable public recognition and support. It eventually achieved its goal. It enabled the opposition to block the legislative process. If we are determined to assign it any additional significance, the movement may have enabled the green camp to stage two political shows.
When historians evaluate the significance of events on Taiwan in 2014, they are sure to mention the March Sunflower Student Movement and the signing of the PRC-ROK FTA. Most historians will arrive at such a conclusion. For Taiwan and South Korea, 2014 has been a critical year. It has widened the competitive gap between the two economies. South Korea continued its advance in the direction of major powers undergoing globalization. Taiwan on the other hand, clung to its closed door policy and spun its wheels.
In other words, student and opposition party leaders are patting themselves on the back over the "success" of the Sunflower Student Movement, even as South Koreans triumphantly patted themselves on the back for elbowing aside their Taiwan-based competitors and leaving them in the dust.
This is why in early August, a Wall Street Journal editorial took aim at Taiwan with an editoral entitled "Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind." The editorial was blunt. If the government on Taiwan maintains its cross-Strait trade barriers, it will only hurt itself. The reason is simple. Taiwan and South Korea are the Mainland's biggest trading partners. Taiwan's export commodities are petrochemicals, iron, steel, textiles, and machinery. These overlap South Korea's exports anywhere from 50% to 80%. If Mainland China and South Korea sign an FTA this year, most South Korean products will enjoy zero-tariff access to the Mainland. Taiwan will then be in serious trouble.
Few people recall the situation when the two sides signed ECFA in 2012. The South Korean media was wracked with anxiety and uncertainty. They feared cross-Strait industrial cooperation and a complementary production chain which would probably exclude South Korean industry. That was the reason they coined the term "Chiwan." They were vigilant. A mere two years later however, their worries failed to materialize. Instead South Korea picked up the pace. It concluded the Korea-US and Korea-Europe Free Trade Agreements. It then looked to a Korea-PRC Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, Taiwan sat on its hands.
Of course Korea is not the only economy that grew in 2014. In June and July of this year alone, when Taiwan was still experiencing ongoing catastrophes and mired in internal bickering, German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Mainland China. The US and the Mainland accelerated dialogue on an investment agreement. Premier Li Keqiang visited Britain to negotiate direct RMB-pound exchanges. Germany, the United States, Britain and other major powers frequently interact with the Mainland. All of this affects Taiwan's trade competitiveness in services as well as goods. Meanwhile, the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations bill remains stalled in the Legislative Yuan. Taiwan businesses must watch from the sidelines as other countries aggressively carve up the Mainland market. Taiwan has benefitted from the ECFA early harvest list. But follow-up consultations have stagnated. Others come and go. Meanwhile, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind."
Unfortunately, despite the obvious signs, many are still wandering through the fog of the March Sunflower Student Movement. Yes, they succeeded in occupying the temple of democracy. Yes, they successfully humiliated the head of state and the premier. Yes, they successfully seized the bully pulpit. Yes, they successfully obstructed the STA, essential to Taiwan's competitiveness. On the surface, they won. But in fact they merely relegated themselves to the role of political tools on the fringes of the DPP. Was there a loser? Yes there was. The real loser was Taiwan's competitiveness.
SEF Vice Chairman Kao Koong-lian recently noted that the Mainland is not about to halt its progress merely because Taiwan has adopted a closed door policy. Taiwan must increase its competitiveness. Only then can it turn a threat into an opportunity. Kao Koong-lian's assessment is an appropriate footnote to Taiwan's global dilemma. Put more plainly, closing Taiwan's doors will not make the world stop spinning. Taiwan's market is too small. It can never do more than go with the flow. It can never expect the world to revolve around it. Unfortunately many on Taiwan are still patting themselves on the back for successfully closing Taiwan's doors.
The March Sunflower Student Movement involved a complex confluence of forces. It included students and non-students, opponents of capitalism, opponents of concentrated wealth, opponents of financial consortia, opponents of growth, opponents of nuclear power, opponents of the KMT, opponents of Ma Ying-jeou, opponents of imbalanced cross-Strait economic and political relations, extremist opponents of Mainland China, i.e., supporters of Taiwan independence, and even some inveterate street protesters.
Taiwan is rapidly slouching toward closed door status, and losing its competitiveness. The foreign media has concluded that Taiwan has left itself behind. People on Taiwan desperately need to reevaluate the meaning and impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, and correct its grievous errors.
社論－再評價三月太陽花運動
2014年08月18日 04:10
本報訊
設 想許多年後，當史家回顧台灣2014年，應該會有些許感觸。這一年年底有一場地方選舉，之前的3月時發生了一場學運結合社運的太陽花運動，先後發生了許多 大小不一的災難，不少官員因不同理由下台，朝野政黨聲望都創新低。儘管這一年還剩下四分之一，但絕大多數人應該都會同意，2014年對台灣而言，並沒有太 多的喜悅與榮耀。
可能有人會刻意放大太陽花運動的意義，認為它在台灣學生或社會運動史或民主史上享有崇高的意義。這場透過非法手段霸占民 選產生的國會議場長達1個多月的行動，激起社會一定程度的認同與支持，終於達成配合在野黨阻斷一樁重要法案立法進程的目標。如果一定還要找出其它意義，或 許就是這場運動，順勢造就了兩位未來綠營的政治新秀吧！
更多史家在評價2014年的台灣時，無法避免要將3月的太陽花運動，與年底中韓完 成自由貿易協定談判放在一起論定。多數史家會下這樣的論斷，台灣與南韓在2014這關鍵的一年，更進一步拉大了彼此競爭力的差距，南韓持續在邁向全球化的 大國挺進，台灣呢？卻是倒回鎖國內耗的深淵。
換言之，當學運領袖與在野黨還在為太陽花運動自我感覺良好之際，南韓卻在為他們搶下台灣更多訂單，將台灣狠狠甩在後頭而洋洋得意呢！
這 亦是為何在8月初，美國《華爾街日報》會在社論上，直接挑明「台灣自甘落後」（Taiwan Leaves Itself Behind）的原因。這篇社論明白點出，若台灣繼續施行兩岸貿易壁壘，只會傷到自己！原因很簡單，由於台灣與南韓都將大陸視為最大貿易夥伴，且台灣出口 商品從石化、鋼鐵、紡織到機具，5成至8成與南韓出口商品重疊，如果大陸與南韓今年完成FTA的洽簽，將使得大多數南韓產品能以零關稅進入大陸，會給台灣 帶來嚴重的問題。
如今，恐怕很少人還記得，當2012年兩岸洽簽兩岸經貿協議（ECFA）之際，南韓輿論普遍瀰漫著焦慮與不安，他們最擔 心兩岸產業若形成合作與互補的生態鏈，恐怕會將南韓產業排除在外，為此他們當時還自創了一個英文單字「Chinwan」，做為自我警惕。只不過才兩年過 去，他們所擔憂的情況不僅沒有發生，南韓還加快步伐，在陸續完成韓美、韓歐自由貿易協定（FTA）之後，更進一步推向韓中自由貿易協定的洽簽，在此同時， 台灣則是完全交了白卷。
當然，2014年並非只有韓國在向上提升，僅僅就在今年6、7月之交，當台灣還在為持續不斷的災變陷入循環內耗之 際，德國總理梅克爾訪中國大陸、美中兩國加速投資協定對話、大陸李克強總理訪問英國啟動人民幣與英鎊直接交易及人民幣清算業務。德、美、英等大國與中國大 陸經貿互動頻頻，攸關台灣競爭力的服務貿易和貨品貿易，及兩岸協議監督條例，卻依舊卡在立法院，眼睜睜看著他國積極搶占中國大陸市場，台灣卻除了ECFA 早收清單，後續協商卻是全面停滯。一來一往之間，正是應了《華爾街日報》的那句重話：台灣自甘落後！
遺憾的是，儘管跡象如此明顯，許多人 至今卻依舊停格在三月太陽花運動的勝利迷霧裡。是的，他們成功占領了民主殿堂，也成功羞辱了國家元首與閣揆，他們更成功搶奪了絕大部分的話語權，進一步成 功擋下了攸關台灣競爭力的服貿法案，表面上，他們好像全部都贏了，但實際上，他們真正的成就，其實只是成功履行了民進黨外圍的鬥爭工具，相對的另一方面真 正輸掉的，卻是台灣的競爭力。
海基會前副董事長高孔廉日前在一場研討會中表示，大陸不會因台灣鎖國，就停止進步的步伐，台灣惟有強化競爭 力，才能變威脅為機會。高孔廉這句評斷，對台灣目前全球化競爭上的處境，或許是個很適切的註腳。講白一點，鎖住台灣並不會讓地球停止運轉，以台灣的市場規 模，永遠只能順著大趨勢尋找自我定位，而非期待世界圍繞著台灣運轉。不幸的是，直到現在，當下台灣還有許多人仍然在為成功促成了鎖國而沾沾自喜！
三月太陽花運動是複雜的群眾組合，包含了學生與非學生，及反資本主義、反財富集中、反財團、反開發主義、反核電、反國民黨、反馬英九，及憂心兩岸經濟與政治關係失衡，或更極端的反中、支持台獨勢力，甚至還包括一些浪漫的街頭抗爭者。
台灣正在急速滑向鎖國，失去競爭力，面對「自甘落後」的國際評價，台灣人應該全面重新思考太陽花運動的意義與影響，並且設法糾正。
Thursday, August 14, 2014
KMT Fear of Fighting Merely Encourages Vicious DPP Political Struggles
KMT Fear of Fighting Merely Encourages Vicious DPP Political Struggles
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 15, 2014
Summary: The KMT is retreating, from one city after another, from one region after another. The DPP has the Kuomintang's number. It knows the KMT is terrified of striking back. But KMT cowardice merely encourages the DPP to escalate the conflict. This is the very reason the KMT faces a debacle in the upcoming year end elections. This chain of events can still be reversed. But the KMT must stand up and fight. Such a fight would not be "vicious political struggle." Such a fight would be a righteous fight for the welfare of the people of Taiwan. It would be show of responsibility to the public. Fighting for one's convictions is not "vicious political struggle." Refusal to fight merely encourages vicious political struggle.
Full Text Below:
The Kaohsiung gas explosion was a major disaster. It yet again revealed the DPP's bellicose nature. It provided the public a closer look at this combative political party. When it encounters someone strong, it becomes stronger. When it encounters someone weak, it becomes stronger still. Whether it is right or wrong on any particular issue, the DPP invariably yells "Charge!" It never makes concessions. It never fears confrontations. Even if it knows that both sides will suffer, it still charges ahead. If one should choose to yield, it will be insatiable. Give it an inch, and it will take a mile. Even when one is backed into a corner, or out on a limb, it will continue to advance.
Is cruelty the DPP's defining trait? Unfortunately it is. Three hours before the Kaohsiung gas explosion, the Chen Chu administration was still dithering, and felt no sense of urgency. The moment the crisis erupted, it panicked, clueless about what to do next. Once the crisis was over, and site reconstruction was the order of the day, it revealed its utter incompetence. A box culvert and pipeline caused the explosion. The DPP repeatedly lied about who was in possession of information about the box culvert and pipeline, and who had management responsibility. Its only thought was how to shirk responsibility. Its behavior was criminal. Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu has cultivated an image of herself as a "five star political leader." But the moment she was put to the test, she turned out to be a sheet of toilet paper. Pull on it and it tears.
Helpless, incompetent, and criminal. If this incident had happened in Taipei, Hau Lung-pin could step down a hundred times and it would still not be enough. Ma Ying-jeou might not even be able to serve out his full term as president.
Yet all these outrages, all happening simultaneously, have had no apparent effect on the DPP, which has turned its guns on outsiders. Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen refused to engage in the slightest self-introspection. She covered for DPP county and municipal officials. Green camp legislators in the Legislative Yuan concentrated their fire on the central government. They assumed an air of righteous indignation. They sprayed saliva at all points of the compass. They expressed no remorse whatsoever towards Kaohsiung citizens for Chen Chu's dereliction of duty. Yet lo and behold, its political spin-control succeeded in eliminating a minister of economic affairs.
This of course is all very shocking. Here is our first question. We have in the DPP a political party that only knows how to blame others, that lacks all ability to engage in self-introspection. How can one expect such a party to govern Taiwan responsibly? How can such a party promote social harmony?
The Ma administration has endured years of scathing criticism. But at least it knows enough to engage in self-reflection, and apologize for its mistakes. It is a government that at least does not have the gall to lash out at others when it knows it is in the wrong.
Here is our second question. Is the KMT's behavior gentlemanly? Or is it merely weak? The KMT is a political party that always backs down. Does such a party make it more difficult for Taiwan to overcome adversity? Is it an unwitting accomplice? President Ma recently spoke on the gas explosion in Kaohsiung and Taiwan's economic outlook. Every point he made was right on the money. But add them all up, sign the President's name to them, and suddenly everything right becomes wrong. For example, he called for a "cessation of political struggle." The public on Taiwan abhors political struggles that threaten to bring Taiwan down. But political struggles are not going to stop merely because President Ma or the KMT say they should. Unless the DPP changes its bellicose nature, KMT concessions will merely allow the DPP to hijack bills in the legislature, leave the nation spinning its wheels, and undermine the KMT's hard won political achievements.
The KMT must open its eyes. The public has different expecations of the two political parties. What the public cannot tolerate about the DPP is its arrogance. What the public cannot tolerate about the KMT is its weakness, and how it makes promises it cannot fulfill. The public does not want to hear the KMT admonishing everyone to "cease political struggles." The public wants the the KMT to ringingly declare "No more Mister Nice Guy!" To show genuine determination and a genuine ability to defend the ruling party's ideas and policies. This is the least that can be expected of a ruling party.
This is not a call for the KMT to imitate the DPP's outrageously quarrelsome and criminal conduct. It is a call for the KMT to defend what it should defend. KMT party interests should not undermine the KMT's duties to the nation. The nation has interests. Major policy bill affect the nation's future. The KMT must consolidate its power as a party. It must devote its resources to the defense of the nation's future. On this point, the KMT should emulate the DPP. It should yell "Retreat? Hell!" and never give an inch.
Take the Kaohsiung City Government's dereliction in the gas explosion disaster. The KMT maintained a low profile. In the beginning, disaster relief had priority. The facts needed to be clarified. Caution was appropriate. But as the truth emerged, the KMT equated "ascertaining responsibility for the Kaohsiung gas explosion" with "partisan political struggle." It was afraid to assign responsibility. This is where the KMT leaves people dumbfounded. If the principal responsibilty did not belong to Kaohsiung, then unprovoked or disproportionate attacks by the KMT would rightly be condemned. But the assignment of criminal responsibility belongs to the justice system. The KMT has never fully understood its political and administrative responsibility, either as the central government or as a political party in competition with other parties. The KMT's refusal to assign responsibility does not mean that the ruling KMT is accommodating and generous. It does not mean that the KMT is setting a positive example by "ceasing political struggle." It means that the KMT has been derelict in its duty to assign responsibility where responsibility is due.
The KMT is retreating, from one city after another, from one region after another. The DPP has the Kuomintang's number. It knows the KMT is terrified of striking back. But KMT cowardice merely encourages the DPP to escalate the conflict. This is the very reason the KMT faces a debacle in the upcoming year end elections. This chain of events can still be reversed. But the KMT must stand up and fight. Such a fight would not be "vicious political struggle." Such a fight would be a righteous fight for the welfare of the people of Taiwan. It would be show of responsibility to the public.
Fighting for one's convictions is not "vicious political struggle." Refusal to fight merely encourages vicious political struggle.
社論－怯戰就是鼓勵民進黨惡鬥
2014年08月15日 04:10
本報訊
高雄氣爆這場危機災難，讓民進黨鬥爭的黨性再度顯露，讓各界更看清楚，這個鬥性十足的政黨，遇強則強，遇弱更強。任何政治議題，不管有理無理，民進黨是個永遠「前進」的政黨，你不讓步，他不惜衝撞，就算兩敗俱傷也要前進一步；但如果你選擇退讓，那他會得寸進尺，你退一步，他更要前進二步，就算你被逼到牆角，無路可退，他還是不斷前進。
很殘酷的黨性？很遺憾，事實恐怕就是如此。高雄氣爆事件裡，陳菊團隊在氣爆前3小時對於迫切危機的散漫無感、危機發生當下的慌亂無措、危機發生後對災難現場復原工作的無能顢頇，對肇事關鍵箱涵、管線資料的掌握與管理權責又不斷說謊，只想卸責，行為幾近無賴。長期包裝下的五星級首長形象，遇到真正的考驗，竟如茅紙一張，一戳即破。
無措、無能加無賴，這種情形如果發生在台北市，郝龍斌下台一百次也不夠，馬英九的總統任期能不能做完都有問題。
然而，種種荒唐離譜的行徑加在一起，竟然絲毫不妨礙民進黨將砲口轉外的戰鬥力，黨主席蔡英文全無自省，民進黨籍縣市首長護短，綠營立委則在立法院向中央全力掃射，在義正辭嚴、口水四射的亢奮中，沒有絲毫對高雄市民的歉疚，以及對陳菊失職的心虛。但這樣的政治操作，竟也成功打掉了一個經濟部長。
這當然令人怵目驚心，我們第一個疑問是：這個只會究別人的責，毫無反省能力的政黨如果執政，能期待他負責任的治理台灣嗎？台灣社會還有和諧可能嗎？
馬政府這些年遭受萬千批評，但至少遇事知反省、犯錯會道歉。這個政府沒有民進黨那種理虧反咬人的惡膽。
無奈的，這也是我們的第二個疑問：這是溫良？還是軟弱？一味隱忍退卻的執政黨，是不是也成為阻礙台灣逆境突圍的間接幫凶？以馬總統日前針對高雄氣爆與台灣經濟前景發表的談話為例。拆開來看每一句都對，但加起來再署上馬總統的名字，所有的正確就都變成了不正確，例如，呼籲「停止政治惡鬥」。台灣人民對政黨惡鬥拖垮台灣深惡痛絕，但政治惡鬥要不要停止，不是馬總統說了算、也不是國民黨做了算，民進黨的政治鬥性不改，國民黨一切的讓步，都將變成民進黨綁架法案、讓國家空轉以拖垮國民黨執政政績的政治籌碼。
國民黨必須認清楚，民眾對兩黨的期待是不同的。人民受不了的是民進黨的鴨霸，但不認同國民黨的則是軟弱。與其空言超越國民黨能力、並不單決於國民黨的「停止政治惡鬥」，民眾更希望國民黨可以宣示：「不再軟弱」。拿出真決心、真本事去捍衛執政黨的理念與政策，這才是最起碼的「執政道德」。
這不是要國民黨學民進黨的硬衝硬撞、無賴蠻橫，而是更要有為有守，國民黨的政黨利益要不要退讓是國民黨的家務事，但對於關乎台灣利益、台灣前途的重大政策法案，國民黨必須集全黨之力、傾全黨資源捍衛，在捍衛台灣未來的大方略上，這一點國民黨反而應該學民進黨，打死不退、一步不讓。
就以高雄市政府在此次氣爆事件中的種種失職言，國民黨一直保持低調，剛開始是救災第一，事實也待釐清，這樣的謹慎是對的。但隨著真相浮現，國民黨卻似乎認為「究高雄的責」就是「政治惡鬥」，仍怯於釐清責任歸屬。這就是國民黨讓人啞然的地方。如果主要責任不在高雄，國民黨無端攻訐，或以不合比例的方式扭曲放大，則應予譴責。但即便民刑責任應由司法機關釐清，在政治責任與行政責任部分，身為中央政府，身為政治場域裡相互競爭也相互監督的政黨，國民黨似乎沒有搞清楚，不盡責釐清責任歸屬，這不是國民黨身為執政黨的泱泱大度，也不是什麼「停止惡鬥」的和諧示範，而是當盡之責未盡的失職失能。
一城一城的讓、一地一地的退，民進黨吃定國民黨的怯戰心態，反而更肆無忌憚地升高惡鬥。這正是國民黨在年底選戰幾陷於兵敗山倒處境的連鎖前因。但這連鎖前因，仍有機會以連鎖行動扭轉，關鍵就在，國民黨必須奮起戰鬥，這不是惡鬥，而是為台灣人民福祉，堅持到底的責任表現。
為理念戰鬥不是惡鬥，怯戰適足以鼓勵惡鬥。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 15, 2014
Summary: The KMT is retreating, from one city after another, from one region after another. The DPP has the Kuomintang's number. It knows the KMT is terrified of striking back. But KMT cowardice merely encourages the DPP to escalate the conflict. This is the very reason the KMT faces a debacle in the upcoming year end elections. This chain of events can still be reversed. But the KMT must stand up and fight. Such a fight would not be "vicious political struggle." Such a fight would be a righteous fight for the welfare of the people of Taiwan. It would be show of responsibility to the public. Fighting for one's convictions is not "vicious political struggle." Refusal to fight merely encourages vicious political struggle.
Full Text Below:
The Kaohsiung gas explosion was a major disaster. It yet again revealed the DPP's bellicose nature. It provided the public a closer look at this combative political party. When it encounters someone strong, it becomes stronger. When it encounters someone weak, it becomes stronger still. Whether it is right or wrong on any particular issue, the DPP invariably yells "Charge!" It never makes concessions. It never fears confrontations. Even if it knows that both sides will suffer, it still charges ahead. If one should choose to yield, it will be insatiable. Give it an inch, and it will take a mile. Even when one is backed into a corner, or out on a limb, it will continue to advance.
Is cruelty the DPP's defining trait? Unfortunately it is. Three hours before the Kaohsiung gas explosion, the Chen Chu administration was still dithering, and felt no sense of urgency. The moment the crisis erupted, it panicked, clueless about what to do next. Once the crisis was over, and site reconstruction was the order of the day, it revealed its utter incompetence. A box culvert and pipeline caused the explosion. The DPP repeatedly lied about who was in possession of information about the box culvert and pipeline, and who had management responsibility. Its only thought was how to shirk responsibility. Its behavior was criminal. Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu has cultivated an image of herself as a "five star political leader." But the moment she was put to the test, she turned out to be a sheet of toilet paper. Pull on it and it tears.
Helpless, incompetent, and criminal. If this incident had happened in Taipei, Hau Lung-pin could step down a hundred times and it would still not be enough. Ma Ying-jeou might not even be able to serve out his full term as president.
Yet all these outrages, all happening simultaneously, have had no apparent effect on the DPP, which has turned its guns on outsiders. Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen refused to engage in the slightest self-introspection. She covered for DPP county and municipal officials. Green camp legislators in the Legislative Yuan concentrated their fire on the central government. They assumed an air of righteous indignation. They sprayed saliva at all points of the compass. They expressed no remorse whatsoever towards Kaohsiung citizens for Chen Chu's dereliction of duty. Yet lo and behold, its political spin-control succeeded in eliminating a minister of economic affairs.
This of course is all very shocking. Here is our first question. We have in the DPP a political party that only knows how to blame others, that lacks all ability to engage in self-introspection. How can one expect such a party to govern Taiwan responsibly? How can such a party promote social harmony?
The Ma administration has endured years of scathing criticism. But at least it knows enough to engage in self-reflection, and apologize for its mistakes. It is a government that at least does not have the gall to lash out at others when it knows it is in the wrong.
Here is our second question. Is the KMT's behavior gentlemanly? Or is it merely weak? The KMT is a political party that always backs down. Does such a party make it more difficult for Taiwan to overcome adversity? Is it an unwitting accomplice? President Ma recently spoke on the gas explosion in Kaohsiung and Taiwan's economic outlook. Every point he made was right on the money. But add them all up, sign the President's name to them, and suddenly everything right becomes wrong. For example, he called for a "cessation of political struggle." The public on Taiwan abhors political struggles that threaten to bring Taiwan down. But political struggles are not going to stop merely because President Ma or the KMT say they should. Unless the DPP changes its bellicose nature, KMT concessions will merely allow the DPP to hijack bills in the legislature, leave the nation spinning its wheels, and undermine the KMT's hard won political achievements.
The KMT must open its eyes. The public has different expecations of the two political parties. What the public cannot tolerate about the DPP is its arrogance. What the public cannot tolerate about the KMT is its weakness, and how it makes promises it cannot fulfill. The public does not want to hear the KMT admonishing everyone to "cease political struggles." The public wants the the KMT to ringingly declare "No more Mister Nice Guy!" To show genuine determination and a genuine ability to defend the ruling party's ideas and policies. This is the least that can be expected of a ruling party.
This is not a call for the KMT to imitate the DPP's outrageously quarrelsome and criminal conduct. It is a call for the KMT to defend what it should defend. KMT party interests should not undermine the KMT's duties to the nation. The nation has interests. Major policy bill affect the nation's future. The KMT must consolidate its power as a party. It must devote its resources to the defense of the nation's future. On this point, the KMT should emulate the DPP. It should yell "Retreat? Hell!" and never give an inch.
Take the Kaohsiung City Government's dereliction in the gas explosion disaster. The KMT maintained a low profile. In the beginning, disaster relief had priority. The facts needed to be clarified. Caution was appropriate. But as the truth emerged, the KMT equated "ascertaining responsibility for the Kaohsiung gas explosion" with "partisan political struggle." It was afraid to assign responsibility. This is where the KMT leaves people dumbfounded. If the principal responsibilty did not belong to Kaohsiung, then unprovoked or disproportionate attacks by the KMT would rightly be condemned. But the assignment of criminal responsibility belongs to the justice system. The KMT has never fully understood its political and administrative responsibility, either as the central government or as a political party in competition with other parties. The KMT's refusal to assign responsibility does not mean that the ruling KMT is accommodating and generous. It does not mean that the KMT is setting a positive example by "ceasing political struggle." It means that the KMT has been derelict in its duty to assign responsibility where responsibility is due.
The KMT is retreating, from one city after another, from one region after another. The DPP has the Kuomintang's number. It knows the KMT is terrified of striking back. But KMT cowardice merely encourages the DPP to escalate the conflict. This is the very reason the KMT faces a debacle in the upcoming year end elections. This chain of events can still be reversed. But the KMT must stand up and fight. Such a fight would not be "vicious political struggle." Such a fight would be a righteous fight for the welfare of the people of Taiwan. It would be show of responsibility to the public.
Fighting for one's convictions is not "vicious political struggle." Refusal to fight merely encourages vicious political struggle.
社論－怯戰就是鼓勵民進黨惡鬥
2014年08月15日 04:10
本報訊
高雄氣爆這場危機災難，讓民進黨鬥爭的黨性再度顯露，讓各界更看清楚，這個鬥性十足的政黨，遇強則強，遇弱更強。任何政治議題，不管有理無理，民進黨是個永遠「前進」的政黨，你不讓步，他不惜衝撞，就算兩敗俱傷也要前進一步；但如果你選擇退讓，那他會得寸進尺，你退一步，他更要前進二步，就算你被逼到牆角，無路可退，他還是不斷前進。
很殘酷的黨性？很遺憾，事實恐怕就是如此。高雄氣爆事件裡，陳菊團隊在氣爆前3小時對於迫切危機的散漫無感、危機發生當下的慌亂無措、危機發生後對災難現場復原工作的無能顢頇，對肇事關鍵箱涵、管線資料的掌握與管理權責又不斷說謊，只想卸責，行為幾近無賴。長期包裝下的五星級首長形象，遇到真正的考驗，竟如茅紙一張，一戳即破。
無措、無能加無賴，這種情形如果發生在台北市，郝龍斌下台一百次也不夠，馬英九的總統任期能不能做完都有問題。
然而，種種荒唐離譜的行徑加在一起，竟然絲毫不妨礙民進黨將砲口轉外的戰鬥力，黨主席蔡英文全無自省，民進黨籍縣市首長護短，綠營立委則在立法院向中央全力掃射，在義正辭嚴、口水四射的亢奮中，沒有絲毫對高雄市民的歉疚，以及對陳菊失職的心虛。但這樣的政治操作，竟也成功打掉了一個經濟部長。
這當然令人怵目驚心，我們第一個疑問是：這個只會究別人的責，毫無反省能力的政黨如果執政，能期待他負責任的治理台灣嗎？台灣社會還有和諧可能嗎？
馬政府這些年遭受萬千批評，但至少遇事知反省、犯錯會道歉。這個政府沒有民進黨那種理虧反咬人的惡膽。
無奈的，這也是我們的第二個疑問：這是溫良？還是軟弱？一味隱忍退卻的執政黨，是不是也成為阻礙台灣逆境突圍的間接幫凶？以馬總統日前針對高雄氣爆與台灣經濟前景發表的談話為例。拆開來看每一句都對，但加起來再署上馬總統的名字，所有的正確就都變成了不正確，例如，呼籲「停止政治惡鬥」。台灣人民對政黨惡鬥拖垮台灣深惡痛絕，但政治惡鬥要不要停止，不是馬總統說了算、也不是國民黨做了算，民進黨的政治鬥性不改，國民黨一切的讓步，都將變成民進黨綁架法案、讓國家空轉以拖垮國民黨執政政績的政治籌碼。
國民黨必須認清楚，民眾對兩黨的期待是不同的。人民受不了的是民進黨的鴨霸，但不認同國民黨的則是軟弱。與其空言超越國民黨能力、並不單決於國民黨的「停止政治惡鬥」，民眾更希望國民黨可以宣示：「不再軟弱」。拿出真決心、真本事去捍衛執政黨的理念與政策，這才是最起碼的「執政道德」。
這不是要國民黨學民進黨的硬衝硬撞、無賴蠻橫，而是更要有為有守，國民黨的政黨利益要不要退讓是國民黨的家務事，但對於關乎台灣利益、台灣前途的重大政策法案，國民黨必須集全黨之力、傾全黨資源捍衛，在捍衛台灣未來的大方略上，這一點國民黨反而應該學民進黨，打死不退、一步不讓。
就以高雄市政府在此次氣爆事件中的種種失職言，國民黨一直保持低調，剛開始是救災第一，事實也待釐清，這樣的謹慎是對的。但隨著真相浮現，國民黨卻似乎認為「究高雄的責」就是「政治惡鬥」，仍怯於釐清責任歸屬。這就是國民黨讓人啞然的地方。如果主要責任不在高雄，國民黨無端攻訐，或以不合比例的方式扭曲放大，則應予譴責。但即便民刑責任應由司法機關釐清，在政治責任與行政責任部分，身為中央政府，身為政治場域裡相互競爭也相互監督的政黨，國民黨似乎沒有搞清楚，不盡責釐清責任歸屬，這不是國民黨身為執政黨的泱泱大度，也不是什麼「停止惡鬥」的和諧示範，而是當盡之責未盡的失職失能。
一城一城的讓、一地一地的退，民進黨吃定國民黨的怯戰心態，反而更肆無忌憚地升高惡鬥。這正是國民黨在年底選戰幾陷於兵敗山倒處境的連鎖前因。但這連鎖前因，仍有機會以連鎖行動扭轉，關鍵就在，國民黨必須奮起戰鬥，這不是惡鬥，而是為台灣人民福祉，堅持到底的責任表現。
為理念戰鬥不是惡鬥，怯戰適足以鼓勵惡鬥。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)