Annihilate Wei Chuan Movement Successful:
Food Safety Still Needs Work
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 31, 2014
Executive Summary: With everyone calling for blood, the Ting Hsin Group finally bowed
before the wrath of public opinion. It announced its withdrawal from
Taipei 101. At the same time, former Ting Hsin chairman Wei Ying-chong
was indicted by the Changhua District Prosecutors Office, who demanded a
30 year prison sentence. The "Annihilate Wei Chuan movement” has
reached a critical stage. But the government apparently considers this
insufficient. Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ho wants to the Wei family to
divest itself of its holdings in Taipei 101. There is even talk about
forcing it to "leave Taiwan." Such ruthlessness is uncalled for. Such
matters should be handled according to the rule of law.
Full Text Below:
With everyone calling for blood, the Ting Hsin Group finally bowed before the wrath of public opinion. It announced its withdrawal from Taipei 101. At the same time, former Ting Hsin chairman Wei Ying-chong was indicted by the Changhua District Prosecutors Office, who demanded a 30 year prison sentence. The "Annihilate Wei Chuan movement” has reached a critical stage. But the government apparently considers this insufficient. Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ho wants to the Wei family to divest itself of its holdings in Taipei 101. There is even talk about forcing it to "leave Taiwan." Such ruthlessness is uncalled for. Such matters should be handled according to the rule of law.
Ting Hsin finds itself in its current “Annihilate Wei Chuan” predicament because it neglected corporate ethics and social responsibility. It has only itself to blame. As a "prodigal son," Taiwan's Ting Hsin Group once sported a halo. It was treated with deference wherever it went. But it failed to cherish this special honor. It engaged in conspicuous consumption. Eventually even the company slogan, "The food industry is one of conscience," was totally discredited. It introduced rancid oil into Taiwan, contaminating the entire market. The current crisis has rung down calamity upon the food industry and the general public. No one has escaped unscathed. The image of Taiwan's food brands has been devastated. Forcing Ting Hsin to relinquish control of Taipei 101 hardly makes up for the damage it has done.
As Central Bank President Perng Huai-nan said, Ting Hsin "returned to Taiwan empty-handed." It has yet to bring back any funds. It raised 17 billion NTD against the issue of Taiwan Depositary Receipts (TDR). It re-used this "first pot of gold" as equity for Taipei 101 shares. It repeatedly leveraged itself to the hilt. The most distressing aspect is that the Wei family purchased ten units in the Depo complex using only 1% of its own money. It used bank loans to indulge in real estate speculation all across the island. According to statistics, the Wei family owns 25 units of luxury housing on Taiwan. In the name of investments, it borrowed huge sums to purchase land zoned for industrial use, then had them rezoned for commercial use and raked in huge profits. As a result, adding up the bill for this predatory "prodigal son" is an unending task.
The government is attempting to determine just how much Ting Hsin owes. But the government must remember what the food safety crisis is all about. Ting Hsing deserves to be punished for its crimes. But opportunistic downstream industries, underground factories, and rancid oil recycling plants are flourishing. Ting Hsin is hardly the only company that must be punished and stopped. The loopholes in the government's food safety management program must be plugged. Consumer confidence must be restored. Corporate social responsibility must be reestablished. Informed consumer defenses must be constructed. These are more important than "annihilating Ting Hsin."
Take Japan, for example. In 2000 and 2002, the Snow Brand Company experienced two contaminated dairy product crises. Japanese television channels refused to advertise Snow Brand products for two years. The government forced Snow Brand to divest itself of its subsidiaries. They were taken over by the Japan Dairy Association and the National Agricultural and Forestry Central Bank. Once ownership changed hands, new operators rehabilitated the Snow Brand image. The New Snow Brand publishes all its food manufacturing processes onlne. It allows people to visit its plant, on guided tours conducted by the director himself, to restore public trust in Snow Brand. In other words, the operators can be replaced, but the brands do not have to be destroyed. This helps ensure the employee's right to work.
In 2009, the Japanese government improved consumer protection by establishing a cabinet level Consumer Affairs Office. This provided consumers with comprehensive food safety regulation. The Consumer Affairs Agency's responsibilty includes the collection and analysis of consumer opinion surveys, and the timely publication of food safety information to alert the public. It includes a Consumer Safety Commission of Inquiry to review public complaints on a regular basis. If it perceives a problem, it investigates the cause. It adopts a preventive spirit. It establishes a consumer oriented food safety system.
The Ma government has announced the establishment of an inter-ministerial Food Safety Office under the Executive Yuan. The NSB Integrated Bureau of Investigation, the NPA, the Coast Guard, the Immigration Agency, and the Military Police Headquarters will establish a "warning report" to expand intelligence gathering on food safety. But its members will be drawn from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Justice and the Council of Agriculture, Fair and objective experts, academics, and private citizens will not participate. Therefore the "warning report" will merely be a task force without institutional planning. The Jiang cabinet must offer a more efficient approach. It must enable the Food Safety Office to become truly active. It must establish regulations. It must manage import sources. as well as upstream and downstream food industry causes and effects. It must tighten inspections, encourage whistleblowers, and listen to public complaints. This will make the food safety net even tighter, leaving unscrupulous manufacturers little opportunity to take advantage of the public.
The entire affair is heartbreaking. A contaminated cooking oil crisis led to a collective Taiwanese food industry attempt to "annihilate Ting Hsin." it revealed how the banking sector fought to offer the Wei family huge sums of money, resulting in a huge loan scandal. Given today's situation, do bankers feel no shame?
「滅頂」行動有成，食安重建仍需努力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.31 01:32 am
在人人喊打的氣氛下，頂新集團終於向憤怒的民意屈服，宣布退出台北一○一的經營權；與此同時，頂新製油前董事長魏應充也遭彰化地檢署起訴，具體求刑卅年。至此，「滅頂行動」可謂達到了關鍵的進展。但政府似乎不以此為足，財長張盛和更進一步要求魏家出清一○一持股，甚至有「退出台灣」之說；有沒有必要做到「趕盡殺絕」，似仍應依法治原則處理為宜。
頂新之所以會落至今天「滅頂」的局面，主要是漠視企業倫理及社會責任所致，可謂咎由自取。作為一個「鮭魚返鄉」的代表企業，頂新集團當年在台灣可謂頭頂光環，處處受到禮遇。然而，它卻未珍惜這分特殊榮耀，不斷高調炫富，終而連自己口中所謂「食品是良心事業」的家訓都踐踏殆盡，將讓人反胃的劣質油品帶進台灣，並汙染了整個市場。這次風暴，不僅食品業界一片哀鴻，全體國民幾乎難逃其殃，台灣食品形象更遭受重創。頂新放棄一○一經營權，猶不足彌補它對台灣造成的傷害。
更有甚者，如央行總裁彭淮南所言，頂新當年其實是「空手回台」，並未帶回任何資金。它是靠著發行台灣存託憑證（ＴＤＲ）募得的一百七十億元資金，再利用這「第一桶金」及質押一○一股權之資金，反覆進行高槓桿操作，擴張財勢。最令人扼腕的是，魏家除了購置十餘戶帝寶僅出了一％自備款，更在全台各地利用銀行貸款大肆炒房炒地。根據統計，魏家在全台已曝光豪宅達廿五戶，更以投資名義利用超額貸款購置工業用地，然後變更為住商用地，以炒作地價為能事。因此，今天算一算頂新這筆「鮭魚變沙魚」的返鄉之帳，可謂罄竹難書。
然而，在全力清算頂新這筆爛帳之際，我們也要提醒政府，別忘了這波食安風暴的主題和焦點。頂新固然罪有應得，但在其間苟且鑽營投機的上下游業者、地下工廠、乃至餿水回收業者何其多，該罰、該防的又何止頂新一家？因此，政府的食品安全管理破洞要如何補漏，消費者的信心要如何挽回，企業的社會責任要如何重建，民眾「聰明消費」的防線要如何建構，恐怕是比「滅頂行動」更重要的事。
以日本為例，雪印公司在二○○○年及二○○二年接連發生兩次乳品汙染危機，日本電視台便有志一同地封殺雪印公司的廣告長達兩年；政府並迫使雪印將旗下所有子公司分別出售，如乳業部分則由日本全國農協及農林中央金庫接手。在所有權易手之後，由新的經營者重新洗刷雪印的品牌：新的雪印公司在網上公布所有食品的製程，除開放廠區讓民眾參觀，並由廠長親自導覽解說，以挽回民眾對於雪印的信任。亦即，經營者可以換人，但品牌不必非要毀於一旦，員工的工作權也得以保住。
此外，日本政府為了加強對消費者的保障，二○○九年在內閣府之下成立「消費者廳」，從消費者角度對食品安全進行全面監管。消費者廳主要的工作，包括對消費者意見進行蒐集和調查分析，定期公布食安及時訊息以提醒民眾注意，並設有「消費者安全調查委員會」，定期對民眾的申訴進行審議，若認定有問題，就對事故原因展開調查。如此，以防微杜漸的精神，建構一個以消費者為主體的食品安全制度。
馬政府日前宣布在行政院下成立一個跨部會的「食品安全辦公室」，由國安局統合調查局、警政署、海巡署、移民署、憲兵指揮部成立「預警會報」，以擴大蒐集食安情資；但其成員皆從經濟部、衛福部、法務部及農委會等部會借將，而缺乏公正客觀的專家學者乃至民間的參與，「預警會報」也只是任務編組，欠缺制度性的規劃。江內閣必須拿出更有效的作法，讓食安辦公室真正動起來，從法規的建立、源頭的進口管理、食品業者的上下游勾稽，乃至加強檢驗、鼓勵內部「吹哨者」及民眾檢舉，才能將食品安全網建構得更為周密，使不肖廠商沒有投機苟且的空間。
說來讓人心痛，一場劣油風暴竟幾導致台灣食品業的集體「滅頂」，從而發展成一次對頂新的「滅頂」行動，其間，並揭出銀行界競相向魏家諂媚輸送鉅額貸款的醜行。銀行業者面對今天的局面，能無愧乎？
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Cross-Strait New Normal: Competition or Cooperation?
Cross-Strait New Normal: Competition or Cooperation?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 30, 2014
Executive Summary: Recently, cross-Strait relations entered a consolidation phase. Politically, the hoped for Ma Xi meeting turned out to be a bust. Xi Jinping has reverted to "one country, two systems." Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement and Taiwan spies turning Mainland students have been making waves. Economically, the situation is equally worrisome. The economic slowdown on the Mainland is here to stay. Xi and Li continue to push for reform. They hope to upgrade the mainland economy. This is leading to a qualitative change in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. As a result, cross-Strait competition is gradually overriding the former "win-win" relationship. This is apparently becoming the norm.
Full Text Below:
Recently, cross-Strait relations entered a consolidation phase. Politically, the hoped for Ma Xi meeting turned out to be a bust. Xi Jinping has reverted to "one country, two systems." Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement and Taiwan spies turning Mainland students have been making waves. Economically, the situation is equally worrisome. The economic slowdown on the Mainland is here to stay. Xi and Li continue to push for reform. They hope to upgrade the mainland economy. This is leading to a qualitative change in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. As a result, cross-Strait competition is gradually overriding the former "win-win" relationship. This is apparently becoming the norm.
In mid-September, this newspaper published a report on cross-Strait relations. The report revealed that people are concerned about cross-Strait economic and trade relations. They think it is changing from a mutually beneficial relationship, to a more competitive relationship. Cross-Strait trade and the peace dividend consitute the cornerstone of cross-Strait relations. We must respond to this new cross-Strait economic norm, by establishing a new framework for long term economic cooperation.
Since the second half of 2011, Mainland economic growth slowed from over 9% to under 8%. Growth went from high speed to medium speed. According to a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences forecast, this year the Mainland's economic growth rate fell to about 7.3%. Next year it will fall to around 7%. The Mainland economy continues to slow. This will probably lead to internal controversy over "steady growth." But Xi and Li are determined to promote reform. They are not looking back. In May of this year Xi Jinping repeatedly mentioned the "new normal." He was reminding people on the Mainland that they must take the economic downturn in stride. They are committed to changing their economic model. They are pursuing economic growth rooted in quality and innovation. In other words, for the next several years, Beijing will be using the time to make changes. It will temporarily sacrifice economic growth in order to upgrade the Mainland economy. This "new normal" will be a key factor in cross-Strait economic development.
An upgraded version of the Mainland economy provides Taiwan with an opportunity, but also a challenge. In recent years, the Mainland's rapid industrial transformation has increased competitive pressures on Taiwan. The Mainland has a vast market of 1.3 billion people. Economic restructuring and market reforms have a powerful magnetic effect on capital, technology, and talent. They provide investment opportunities for Taiwan. Considerable core technology and professional personnel and managers is flowing to the Mainland. This will seriously undermine Taiwan's own economic transformation and upgrade momentum.
The Mainland's industrial sector receives strong support from Beijing. It competes with Taiwan businesses for personnel, technology, and market share. Taiwan's two major export industries, the ICT industry and the petrochemical industry, are feeling the heat. Over the past two years, the Mainland's ICT industry grew at an alarming rate. In particular, Mainland brand smart phones and tablet PCs swept the low-end market. They pose a serious threat to the survival and development of Taiwan businesses. The State Council recently moved to support the Mainland's semiconductor industry. It intends to spend at least 600 billion RMB building foundries. The goal of the Mainland's semiconductor design industry is clearly to challenge Taiwan leaders TSMC and MediaTek. If Taiwan's ICT industry fails to transform and upgrade itself, experts estimate both its brands and OEM industry will lose out within five years.
The Mainland's petrochemical industry is also gaining on Taiwan's. The Mainland's Coal Chemical Technology and petrochemical industry production capacity continue to expand. Taiwan's industry is finding it harder to breath. Taiwan's most important raw material export is a chemical fiber known as purified terephthalic acid (PTA). According to news reports, exports fell precipitously between 2011 and 2013, from 108.1 billion NTD to 15.9 billion NTD, as much as 80%. Taiwan-based investors have abandoned Taiwan and fled to the Mainland. The China Petroleum System industry has invested in the Mainland's Fujian Ligure naphtha cracking plant. That should be seen as a warning sign. Taiwan and Mainland industries are in increasing international competition with each other. Some magazines have called it "A Mainland threat, hitting us full force." Such characterizations are not alarmist.
Cross-Strait economic competition has become the new normal. This underscores the urgent necessity of institutionalized cross-Strait cooperation. So-called institutionalized cooperation should not be limited to ECFA, the STA, and other market-opening mechanisms. The two sides' market systems and governments are different. They need a coordination mechanism that avoids vicious competition, avoids excessive government intervention, and market distortions. This will enable cross-Strait cooperation to truly benefit both sides.
In terms of overall resources and personnel movement, the two sides should establish an overarching "big roof one China framework" with two distinct regions. Coordination of policies and regulations would promote balanced two-way flow, reducing the negative impact of the Manland's economic magnet effect on Taiwan.
More importantly, the Mainland economy is being upgraded, and Taiwan's economy is undergoing transition. They can benefit each other by cooperating. They can engage in both bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation. A collective effort by industry, government, and academia, can develop specific objectives, projects, and roadmaps, to ensure orderly long-term cooperation. If the two sides adopt this path, they can turn competition into cooperation, Let the "Taiwan Dream" and "China Dream" coexist. The current stalemate in cross-Strait agreements can be broken. Cross-Strait relations can acquire new momentum, enabling it to advance.
兩岸新常態：競爭或合作？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.30 02:47 am
兩岸關係近來已進入盤整階段。除了政治面因馬習會破局、習近平重提「一國兩制」、香港占中事件、台諜吸收陸生事件等因素而產生波折外，在經濟面也出現令人擔憂的狀況。尤其是中國大陸經濟增長減速已成常態，習李堅定推動深化改革路線，全力追求升級版的大陸經濟，從而導致兩岸經貿關係的質變。於是，雙方「競爭態勢」已逐漸凌駕「互利雙贏」關係，並有常態化趨勢。
今年九月中旬本報發布兩岸關係定期調查報告，亦顯示愈來愈多民眾對兩岸經貿由「互利」轉趨「競爭」的憂慮。鑑於兩岸經貿及和平紅利是兩岸關係的基石，面對兩岸經濟新常態，如何因應此一變化，建立可長可久的新經濟合作架構，可說是當前最迫切的兩岸課題。
自二○一一年下半年開始，大陸經濟從逾九％的高速增長轉為低於八％的中速增長。據中國社科院預測，今年大陸經濟增長率降為七‧三％左右，明年將再降至七％左右。大陸經濟持續減速，在內部引發應否「穩增長」的爭議，但習李表現出推動改革不回頭的意志力，今年五月後習近平幾次談話皆提及「新常態」，意在提醒內部須以平常心面對經濟下調，致力改變經濟模式，追求講質量及創新的經濟增長。換句話說，未來幾年北京將以時間換取空間，犧牲經濟增長，來打造大陸經濟「升級版」。此一「新常態」，可說是未來兩岸經貿走向的關鍵影響因素。
升級版的大陸經濟，對台灣一方面是機會，但挑戰也紛至沓來。事實上，近幾年大陸產業的快速轉型，對台灣已構成與日俱增的競爭壓力。大陸逾十三億人口的龐大市場，推動經濟轉型及深化市場改革，其衍生對資金、技術及人才的強大磁吸效應，導致台灣投資機會、核心技術及專業和經理人才大量流向大陸，從而嚴重削弱台灣本身經濟轉型升級的動能。
大陸產業部門在北京的強力支持下，和台商搶錢、搶人、搶技術、搶市場。台灣兩大出口產業資通訊（ＩＣＴ）及石化業已感受到大陸業者的強大威脅。這兩年大陸ＩＣＴ業增長速度驚人，尤其大陸品牌智慧手機和平板電腦席捲中低價位市場，已嚴重威脅台商的生存發展。最近大陸國務院更傾國家之力支持半導體產業，至少將砸下六千億元人民幣扶植晶圓代工、半導體設計等產業，目標顯然針對台灣兩大龍頭台積電及聯發科而來。如果台灣ＩＣＴ業不能奮起轉型升級，專家估計，五年內將出現品牌及代工「雙輸危機」。
大陸石化業對台灣亦節節進逼，大陸煤化工技術進展及石化業產能不斷擴充，嚴重壓縮台灣業者生存空間。據媒體報導，自二○一一到二○一三年，台灣最重要出口化纖原料純對苯二甲酸（ＰＴＡ）出口額從新台幣一○八一億元劇降至一五九億元，減幅高達八成。國內業者投資亦棄台灣而就大陸，如泛中油體系業者投資大陸福建古雷輕油裂解廠，就是警訊。台灣各行各業和大陸業者在兩岸和國際市場競爭有增無減，有雜誌以「大陸威脅，全面來襲」形容，並非危言聳聽。
面對兩岸經濟由互利轉趨競爭的新常態，更加凸顯兩岸制度化合作的必要性和急迫性。所謂制度化合作，不應僅限於ＥＣＦＡ、兩岸服貿及貨貿等以市場開放為主的合作架構，而且應積極針對兩岸市場體制及政府角色的差異性，建構出一套避免惡性競爭及因政府過度介入致造成市場扭曲的協調機制，讓兩岸合作能夠真正體現互利雙贏。
在總體資源及人員移動方面，雙方亦應立基於「一中屋頂」下兩個不同地區的觀念和架構，透過政策和法規的協調，促進雙向平衡流動，降低大陸經濟磁吸效應對台灣的負面影響。
更重要的是，在大陸經濟升級版和台灣經濟轉骨藍圖之間，兩者須找到可以互利雙贏的合作空間，包括在兩岸及區域間的合作，透過雙方產官學集體努力，擬定具體合作目標、項目及路線圖，讓長期合作能夠有序開展。如果能朝此一大方向全力以赴，兩岸必能化競爭為合作，讓「台灣夢」和「中國夢」可以相容而不互斥，則目前陷於僵局的兩岸協議或可迎刃而解，兩岸關係亦得以有繼續推進的新動能。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 30, 2014
Executive Summary: Recently, cross-Strait relations entered a consolidation phase. Politically, the hoped for Ma Xi meeting turned out to be a bust. Xi Jinping has reverted to "one country, two systems." Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement and Taiwan spies turning Mainland students have been making waves. Economically, the situation is equally worrisome. The economic slowdown on the Mainland is here to stay. Xi and Li continue to push for reform. They hope to upgrade the mainland economy. This is leading to a qualitative change in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. As a result, cross-Strait competition is gradually overriding the former "win-win" relationship. This is apparently becoming the norm.
Full Text Below:
Recently, cross-Strait relations entered a consolidation phase. Politically, the hoped for Ma Xi meeting turned out to be a bust. Xi Jinping has reverted to "one country, two systems." Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement and Taiwan spies turning Mainland students have been making waves. Economically, the situation is equally worrisome. The economic slowdown on the Mainland is here to stay. Xi and Li continue to push for reform. They hope to upgrade the mainland economy. This is leading to a qualitative change in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. As a result, cross-Strait competition is gradually overriding the former "win-win" relationship. This is apparently becoming the norm.
In mid-September, this newspaper published a report on cross-Strait relations. The report revealed that people are concerned about cross-Strait economic and trade relations. They think it is changing from a mutually beneficial relationship, to a more competitive relationship. Cross-Strait trade and the peace dividend consitute the cornerstone of cross-Strait relations. We must respond to this new cross-Strait economic norm, by establishing a new framework for long term economic cooperation.
Since the second half of 2011, Mainland economic growth slowed from over 9% to under 8%. Growth went from high speed to medium speed. According to a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences forecast, this year the Mainland's economic growth rate fell to about 7.3%. Next year it will fall to around 7%. The Mainland economy continues to slow. This will probably lead to internal controversy over "steady growth." But Xi and Li are determined to promote reform. They are not looking back. In May of this year Xi Jinping repeatedly mentioned the "new normal." He was reminding people on the Mainland that they must take the economic downturn in stride. They are committed to changing their economic model. They are pursuing economic growth rooted in quality and innovation. In other words, for the next several years, Beijing will be using the time to make changes. It will temporarily sacrifice economic growth in order to upgrade the Mainland economy. This "new normal" will be a key factor in cross-Strait economic development.
An upgraded version of the Mainland economy provides Taiwan with an opportunity, but also a challenge. In recent years, the Mainland's rapid industrial transformation has increased competitive pressures on Taiwan. The Mainland has a vast market of 1.3 billion people. Economic restructuring and market reforms have a powerful magnetic effect on capital, technology, and talent. They provide investment opportunities for Taiwan. Considerable core technology and professional personnel and managers is flowing to the Mainland. This will seriously undermine Taiwan's own economic transformation and upgrade momentum.
The Mainland's industrial sector receives strong support from Beijing. It competes with Taiwan businesses for personnel, technology, and market share. Taiwan's two major export industries, the ICT industry and the petrochemical industry, are feeling the heat. Over the past two years, the Mainland's ICT industry grew at an alarming rate. In particular, Mainland brand smart phones and tablet PCs swept the low-end market. They pose a serious threat to the survival and development of Taiwan businesses. The State Council recently moved to support the Mainland's semiconductor industry. It intends to spend at least 600 billion RMB building foundries. The goal of the Mainland's semiconductor design industry is clearly to challenge Taiwan leaders TSMC and MediaTek. If Taiwan's ICT industry fails to transform and upgrade itself, experts estimate both its brands and OEM industry will lose out within five years.
The Mainland's petrochemical industry is also gaining on Taiwan's. The Mainland's Coal Chemical Technology and petrochemical industry production capacity continue to expand. Taiwan's industry is finding it harder to breath. Taiwan's most important raw material export is a chemical fiber known as purified terephthalic acid (PTA). According to news reports, exports fell precipitously between 2011 and 2013, from 108.1 billion NTD to 15.9 billion NTD, as much as 80%. Taiwan-based investors have abandoned Taiwan and fled to the Mainland. The China Petroleum System industry has invested in the Mainland's Fujian Ligure naphtha cracking plant. That should be seen as a warning sign. Taiwan and Mainland industries are in increasing international competition with each other. Some magazines have called it "A Mainland threat, hitting us full force." Such characterizations are not alarmist.
Cross-Strait economic competition has become the new normal. This underscores the urgent necessity of institutionalized cross-Strait cooperation. So-called institutionalized cooperation should not be limited to ECFA, the STA, and other market-opening mechanisms. The two sides' market systems and governments are different. They need a coordination mechanism that avoids vicious competition, avoids excessive government intervention, and market distortions. This will enable cross-Strait cooperation to truly benefit both sides.
In terms of overall resources and personnel movement, the two sides should establish an overarching "big roof one China framework" with two distinct regions. Coordination of policies and regulations would promote balanced two-way flow, reducing the negative impact of the Manland's economic magnet effect on Taiwan.
More importantly, the Mainland economy is being upgraded, and Taiwan's economy is undergoing transition. They can benefit each other by cooperating. They can engage in both bilateral cooperation and regional cooperation. A collective effort by industry, government, and academia, can develop specific objectives, projects, and roadmaps, to ensure orderly long-term cooperation. If the two sides adopt this path, they can turn competition into cooperation, Let the "Taiwan Dream" and "China Dream" coexist. The current stalemate in cross-Strait agreements can be broken. Cross-Strait relations can acquire new momentum, enabling it to advance.
兩岸新常態：競爭或合作？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.30 02:47 am
兩岸關係近來已進入盤整階段。除了政治面因馬習會破局、習近平重提「一國兩制」、香港占中事件、台諜吸收陸生事件等因素而產生波折外，在經濟面也出現令人擔憂的狀況。尤其是中國大陸經濟增長減速已成常態，習李堅定推動深化改革路線，全力追求升級版的大陸經濟，從而導致兩岸經貿關係的質變。於是，雙方「競爭態勢」已逐漸凌駕「互利雙贏」關係，並有常態化趨勢。
今年九月中旬本報發布兩岸關係定期調查報告，亦顯示愈來愈多民眾對兩岸經貿由「互利」轉趨「競爭」的憂慮。鑑於兩岸經貿及和平紅利是兩岸關係的基石，面對兩岸經濟新常態，如何因應此一變化，建立可長可久的新經濟合作架構，可說是當前最迫切的兩岸課題。
自二○一一年下半年開始，大陸經濟從逾九％的高速增長轉為低於八％的中速增長。據中國社科院預測，今年大陸經濟增長率降為七‧三％左右，明年將再降至七％左右。大陸經濟持續減速，在內部引發應否「穩增長」的爭議，但習李表現出推動改革不回頭的意志力，今年五月後習近平幾次談話皆提及「新常態」，意在提醒內部須以平常心面對經濟下調，致力改變經濟模式，追求講質量及創新的經濟增長。換句話說，未來幾年北京將以時間換取空間，犧牲經濟增長，來打造大陸經濟「升級版」。此一「新常態」，可說是未來兩岸經貿走向的關鍵影響因素。
升級版的大陸經濟，對台灣一方面是機會，但挑戰也紛至沓來。事實上，近幾年大陸產業的快速轉型，對台灣已構成與日俱增的競爭壓力。大陸逾十三億人口的龐大市場，推動經濟轉型及深化市場改革，其衍生對資金、技術及人才的強大磁吸效應，導致台灣投資機會、核心技術及專業和經理人才大量流向大陸，從而嚴重削弱台灣本身經濟轉型升級的動能。
大陸產業部門在北京的強力支持下，和台商搶錢、搶人、搶技術、搶市場。台灣兩大出口產業資通訊（ＩＣＴ）及石化業已感受到大陸業者的強大威脅。這兩年大陸ＩＣＴ業增長速度驚人，尤其大陸品牌智慧手機和平板電腦席捲中低價位市場，已嚴重威脅台商的生存發展。最近大陸國務院更傾國家之力支持半導體產業，至少將砸下六千億元人民幣扶植晶圓代工、半導體設計等產業，目標顯然針對台灣兩大龍頭台積電及聯發科而來。如果台灣ＩＣＴ業不能奮起轉型升級，專家估計，五年內將出現品牌及代工「雙輸危機」。
大陸石化業對台灣亦節節進逼，大陸煤化工技術進展及石化業產能不斷擴充，嚴重壓縮台灣業者生存空間。據媒體報導，自二○一一到二○一三年，台灣最重要出口化纖原料純對苯二甲酸（ＰＴＡ）出口額從新台幣一○八一億元劇降至一五九億元，減幅高達八成。國內業者投資亦棄台灣而就大陸，如泛中油體系業者投資大陸福建古雷輕油裂解廠，就是警訊。台灣各行各業和大陸業者在兩岸和國際市場競爭有增無減，有雜誌以「大陸威脅，全面來襲」形容，並非危言聳聽。
面對兩岸經濟由互利轉趨競爭的新常態，更加凸顯兩岸制度化合作的必要性和急迫性。所謂制度化合作，不應僅限於ＥＣＦＡ、兩岸服貿及貨貿等以市場開放為主的合作架構，而且應積極針對兩岸市場體制及政府角色的差異性，建構出一套避免惡性競爭及因政府過度介入致造成市場扭曲的協調機制，讓兩岸合作能夠真正體現互利雙贏。
在總體資源及人員移動方面，雙方亦應立基於「一中屋頂」下兩個不同地區的觀念和架構，透過政策和法規的協調，促進雙向平衡流動，降低大陸經濟磁吸效應對台灣的負面影響。
更重要的是，在大陸經濟升級版和台灣經濟轉骨藍圖之間，兩者須找到可以互利雙贏的合作空間，包括在兩岸及區域間的合作，透過雙方產官學集體努力，擬定具體合作目標、項目及路線圖，讓長期合作能夠有序開展。如果能朝此一大方向全力以赴，兩岸必能化競爭為合作，讓「台灣夢」和「中國夢」可以相容而不互斥，則目前陷於僵局的兩岸協議或可迎刃而解，兩岸關係亦得以有繼續推進的新動能。
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Food Safety Act Amendment Process Reveals Defects in Taiwan Style Democracy
Food Safety Act Amendment Process Reveals Defects in Taiwan Style Democracy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 29, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.
Full Text Below:
Food safety crises erupt endlessly. They have seriously impacted Taiwan society. Now people hear the term "food safety," and immediately become anxious. They have no idea how many ticking time bombs are about to go off. They cannot tell how many toxins they and their families have have been exposed to. They are even less sure about the impact of these toxins on their physical health.
Western scholars speak of the impact of globalization on contemporary society. They speak of an "age of anxiety." Workers approaching retirement age worry about pensions. Young people entering the marketplace cannot find jobs. Even those with jobs may only be temp workers with no job security. Parents worry about their childrens' safety. They worry about toxic foods, toxic toys, and toxic household items. Certain issues are seen as remote. In fact they extremely vital and affect their daily lives. These issues include international oil prices, global warming, GMFs, and free trade agreements.
The "age of anxiety" has arrived. At a deeper level, it means that people have lost faith in their political and economic systems. They hold diminishing expectations, and increasing suspicions. Take food safety. Many years ago, people on Taiwan watched as merchants on the Mainland foisted toxic foodstuffs and dangerous products on the public. They blasted the Mainland for its lack of moral character and its political and social system. They assumed that toxic foodstuffs was a direct consequence of undemocratic politics, lack of information transparency, and collusion between power and money. They patted themselves on the back, glad that Taiwan enjoyed democracy and better way of life. Even if they were unable to become an economically wealthy and militarily powerful nation, the could at least take comfort in being "small but beautiful." Who knew the day would come when the people on Taiwan, so proud of their small but beautiful lifestyle, would repeatedly find themselves the victims of food safety crises.
When the rancid cooking oil crisis erupted, the ruling and opposition parties began to talk about amending the "food safety and health management law." On October 24, the Legislative Yuan decided it would address this bill, which had attracted so much attention. The KMT legislative caucus put the food safety law first on the agenda. The KMT and DPP legislative caucuses each issued Class A caucus mobilization orders. One might say that the two parties put on an elaborate show for the voters.
However when DPP legislative whip Ker Chien-ming was interviewed outside the legislature, he said "The probability that the legislature will pass the bill today is zero." The excuse Ker Chien-ming gave was that "the KMT did not even bother to convene ruling and opposition party consultations." He accused the KMT of "fundamental disregard for the food safety law." The ruling and opposition parties pay lip service to "the people's livelihood before politics," but in fact put politics first. They link the food safety law with other issues such as legislative consent. They each have their own calculations. The result is the amending of the law gets repeatedly postponed. Will the Food Safety Act be successfully amended by the end of October? That is still a huge question mark. This is an illustration of how under Taiwan style democracy partisan interests override the interests of general public.
That said, the Food Safety Act draft law has many controversial provisions. The Legislative Yuan social welfare, health, and environment committee convened five meetings, and examined 37 provisions. It eventually adopted eight amendments, rejected another eight, and shelved another 21 for caucus consideration. The ratio was as high as 56%. These provisions contained many controversial elements. For example, the burden of proof, how to establish food security police, as well as double-indemnity and decriminalization of disputes. Many citizens' groups have been accused ruling and opposition party caucus negotiations is "under the table negotiations." The negotiation process is completely hidden from the outside world. No one knows whether legislators are covering for manufacturers. In the event of disputes, it becomes difficult to establish accountability. In the end, the result is likely to be mutual recriminations, shirking of responsibility, and the truth being kept from the public. These criticisms by citizen groups are not without foundation. Taiwan style democracy is "phony transparency, genuine secrecy." The food safety act amendment process has revealed the incestuous relationship between money and power.
As we all know, whenever a food safety crises erupts the public will demand that the food safety act be amended. In six years it has been amended six times. Yet food safety crises continue to erupt. Merely authoring or amending food safety laws demonstrates a lack of long-term vision. It fails to address the actual situation. Hence the farce of repeatedly amending the law. This underscores the futility of past amendments to the law, when the legislature failed to achieve its purported goals. It also reflects the undue haste with which the ruling and opposition parties amended the law. They failed to conduct thorough investigations or study the actual problems. They failed to solicit expert opinions or heed public concerns. They failed to develop long term policies. They lacked efficiency. They lacked circumspectiion. They lacked the capacity for pactical decision-making. This sort of "bidding war, sloganeering" behavior is another defect in Taiwan style democracy.
Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.
社論－食安修法看盡台式民主弊病
2014年10月29日 04:10
本報訊
食安議題層出不窮，已經嚴重衝擊台灣社會人心，人人聞食安問題而自危，不知還有多少未爆彈，無法追溯自己和家人親友已經承受多少毒害，更無法確知對自己身體健康安全的影響。
西方學者形容當代社會在全球化衝擊下，是一個「不安全的時代」，逼近退休年齡的勞工，擔心退休金沒著落。剛進入社會的年輕人，可能找不到工作，找到工作也可能是不穩定的派遣勞動。對家長而言，時常擔心子女出外時的安全，擔心是否會買到有毒食品、含毒玩具和生活用品。大多數的民眾，還被看似遙遠卻非常切身的課題影響，例如國際油價、全球暖化、基因改造食品、自由貿易協定等等。
所謂「不安全時代」的降臨，一個更深層次的意義，就是人們對既有政治經濟體制的信心與期待日漸降低，懷疑日漸增加。以食安問題來說，多年以前，台灣民眾目睹大陸黑心食品、黑心商品氾濫，曾一方面嚴詞批判大陸的道德人心與政治社會體制，認為黑心食品氾濫和政治不民主、資訊不公開，以及權與錢的勾結有密不可分的關係，另一方面也慶幸台灣的民主體制和生活方式，縱使無法「富國強兵」，至少能確保我們的「小確幸」。沒想到，曾幾何時，台灣民眾引以為傲的生活方式和珍惜的小確幸，竟然一再受到食安風暴衝擊。
食油風暴發生後，朝野政黨又開始大談《食品安全衛生管理法》的修法，10月24日，立法院院會預定處理這項大家矚目的法案，國民黨立院黨團將食安法排在院會討論事項的第一案，國、民兩黨團更分別發出甲級動員令，兩黨黨團可以說是在選民面前做足了姿態。
然而，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘在院會前受訪時就表明，「今天院會通過的機會是零」，柯建銘的理由是「國民黨根本不召集朝野協商」，「對食安法根本漠視」。朝野口說「先民生後政治」，卻把政治擺在前面，把食安法修法和監委同意權等問題捆綁在一起，各懷盤算，結果就是修法日期一再延宕，食安法能否在10月底前順利修正通過，變數還是很大。這是台式民主「黨派私利壓過全民利益」的一大例證。
另一方面，食安法此次修法草案中有不少爭議性條文，立法院社福衛環委員會一共召開5次會議，審查了37條條文，最後有8條修正通過，8條不予修正，另有21條保留黨團協商，比例高達56％。這些保留條文中包含不少爭議性內容，例如舉證責任問題、食安警察如何增設，以及「一罪不兩罰」和「法人除罪化」的糾葛等等。不少公民團體就批評，朝野黨團協商是「密室協商」，協商過程外界完全無從得知，無法得知是否有立委為廠商護航，事後若有爭議也難以追究責任，最後很有可能淪為各黨互相指責、推卸責任，民眾卻無法知道真相。公民團體的批評並非無的放矢，台式民主的「假開放、真封閉」，以及金權政治疑慮在食安法修法過程中也有所暴露。
眾所周知，每當食安問題爆發，輿論就會要求修改食安法，6年來已修正了6次，最後卻還是一再爆發食安問題，顯示食安法的制定與修改完全沒有長遠眼光，也不符合實際狀況，才會有這種需要一再修法的荒謬戲碼上演。這不但凸顯過去修法過程中，國會根本沒有發揮功能，也反映朝野政黨倉促立法、修法，未能針對實際問題進行深入的調查研究，廣納專家意見與民間心聲，一步到位，制定可長可久的法案政策。缺乏效率，不夠周延，決策和實際脫節，這也是台灣「喊價式、口號式」民主的一大流弊。
台灣急需建立可長可久的食品安全管理體制，這需要參考其他國家的經驗，需要實際掌握食品產業鏈的生態，更需要朝野政黨和公民團體的通力合作。從整頓食安問題治絲益棼現象，我們看到台式民主的弊端：有黨派鬥爭卻少有黨派合作，有形式民主，卻不能落實陽光透明，有投票表決，卻少有決策的長遠規畫與周詳考慮，台式民主的確需要大檢討、大翻修。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 29, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.
Full Text Below:
Food safety crises erupt endlessly. They have seriously impacted Taiwan society. Now people hear the term "food safety," and immediately become anxious. They have no idea how many ticking time bombs are about to go off. They cannot tell how many toxins they and their families have have been exposed to. They are even less sure about the impact of these toxins on their physical health.
Western scholars speak of the impact of globalization on contemporary society. They speak of an "age of anxiety." Workers approaching retirement age worry about pensions. Young people entering the marketplace cannot find jobs. Even those with jobs may only be temp workers with no job security. Parents worry about their childrens' safety. They worry about toxic foods, toxic toys, and toxic household items. Certain issues are seen as remote. In fact they extremely vital and affect their daily lives. These issues include international oil prices, global warming, GMFs, and free trade agreements.
The "age of anxiety" has arrived. At a deeper level, it means that people have lost faith in their political and economic systems. They hold diminishing expectations, and increasing suspicions. Take food safety. Many years ago, people on Taiwan watched as merchants on the Mainland foisted toxic foodstuffs and dangerous products on the public. They blasted the Mainland for its lack of moral character and its political and social system. They assumed that toxic foodstuffs was a direct consequence of undemocratic politics, lack of information transparency, and collusion between power and money. They patted themselves on the back, glad that Taiwan enjoyed democracy and better way of life. Even if they were unable to become an economically wealthy and militarily powerful nation, the could at least take comfort in being "small but beautiful." Who knew the day would come when the people on Taiwan, so proud of their small but beautiful lifestyle, would repeatedly find themselves the victims of food safety crises.
When the rancid cooking oil crisis erupted, the ruling and opposition parties began to talk about amending the "food safety and health management law." On October 24, the Legislative Yuan decided it would address this bill, which had attracted so much attention. The KMT legislative caucus put the food safety law first on the agenda. The KMT and DPP legislative caucuses each issued Class A caucus mobilization orders. One might say that the two parties put on an elaborate show for the voters.
However when DPP legislative whip Ker Chien-ming was interviewed outside the legislature, he said "The probability that the legislature will pass the bill today is zero." The excuse Ker Chien-ming gave was that "the KMT did not even bother to convene ruling and opposition party consultations." He accused the KMT of "fundamental disregard for the food safety law." The ruling and opposition parties pay lip service to "the people's livelihood before politics," but in fact put politics first. They link the food safety law with other issues such as legislative consent. They each have their own calculations. The result is the amending of the law gets repeatedly postponed. Will the Food Safety Act be successfully amended by the end of October? That is still a huge question mark. This is an illustration of how under Taiwan style democracy partisan interests override the interests of general public.
That said, the Food Safety Act draft law has many controversial provisions. The Legislative Yuan social welfare, health, and environment committee convened five meetings, and examined 37 provisions. It eventually adopted eight amendments, rejected another eight, and shelved another 21 for caucus consideration. The ratio was as high as 56%. These provisions contained many controversial elements. For example, the burden of proof, how to establish food security police, as well as double-indemnity and decriminalization of disputes. Many citizens' groups have been accused ruling and opposition party caucus negotiations is "under the table negotiations." The negotiation process is completely hidden from the outside world. No one knows whether legislators are covering for manufacturers. In the event of disputes, it becomes difficult to establish accountability. In the end, the result is likely to be mutual recriminations, shirking of responsibility, and the truth being kept from the public. These criticisms by citizen groups are not without foundation. Taiwan style democracy is "phony transparency, genuine secrecy." The food safety act amendment process has revealed the incestuous relationship between money and power.
As we all know, whenever a food safety crises erupts the public will demand that the food safety act be amended. In six years it has been amended six times. Yet food safety crises continue to erupt. Merely authoring or amending food safety laws demonstrates a lack of long-term vision. It fails to address the actual situation. Hence the farce of repeatedly amending the law. This underscores the futility of past amendments to the law, when the legislature failed to achieve its purported goals. It also reflects the undue haste with which the ruling and opposition parties amended the law. They failed to conduct thorough investigations or study the actual problems. They failed to solicit expert opinions or heed public concerns. They failed to develop long term policies. They lacked efficiency. They lacked circumspectiion. They lacked the capacity for pactical decision-making. This sort of "bidding war, sloganeering" behavior is another defect in Taiwan style democracy.
Taiwan urgently needs to establish a long term food safety management system. This requires examining the experience of other countries. It requires understanding the food production chain. It requires cooperation between the ruling and opposition parties, as well as civic groups to rectify the problem of food safety. , We have seen the defects in Taiwan style democracy. It has plenty of partisan power struggles, but little partisan cooperation. It has the outward appearance of democracy, but it lacks its transparency. It has free elections, but little long-term planning or careful decision-making. Taiwan style democracy truly needs to undergo major review, and major renovation.
社論－食安修法看盡台式民主弊病
2014年10月29日 04:10
本報訊
食安議題層出不窮，已經嚴重衝擊台灣社會人心，人人聞食安問題而自危，不知還有多少未爆彈，無法追溯自己和家人親友已經承受多少毒害，更無法確知對自己身體健康安全的影響。
西方學者形容當代社會在全球化衝擊下，是一個「不安全的時代」，逼近退休年齡的勞工，擔心退休金沒著落。剛進入社會的年輕人，可能找不到工作，找到工作也可能是不穩定的派遣勞動。對家長而言，時常擔心子女出外時的安全，擔心是否會買到有毒食品、含毒玩具和生活用品。大多數的民眾，還被看似遙遠卻非常切身的課題影響，例如國際油價、全球暖化、基因改造食品、自由貿易協定等等。
所謂「不安全時代」的降臨，一個更深層次的意義，就是人們對既有政治經濟體制的信心與期待日漸降低，懷疑日漸增加。以食安問題來說，多年以前，台灣民眾目睹大陸黑心食品、黑心商品氾濫，曾一方面嚴詞批判大陸的道德人心與政治社會體制，認為黑心食品氾濫和政治不民主、資訊不公開，以及權與錢的勾結有密不可分的關係，另一方面也慶幸台灣的民主體制和生活方式，縱使無法「富國強兵」，至少能確保我們的「小確幸」。沒想到，曾幾何時，台灣民眾引以為傲的生活方式和珍惜的小確幸，竟然一再受到食安風暴衝擊。
食油風暴發生後，朝野政黨又開始大談《食品安全衛生管理法》的修法，10月24日，立法院院會預定處理這項大家矚目的法案，國民黨立院黨團將食安法排在院會討論事項的第一案，國、民兩黨團更分別發出甲級動員令，兩黨黨團可以說是在選民面前做足了姿態。
然而，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘在院會前受訪時就表明，「今天院會通過的機會是零」，柯建銘的理由是「國民黨根本不召集朝野協商」，「對食安法根本漠視」。朝野口說「先民生後政治」，卻把政治擺在前面，把食安法修法和監委同意權等問題捆綁在一起，各懷盤算，結果就是修法日期一再延宕，食安法能否在10月底前順利修正通過，變數還是很大。這是台式民主「黨派私利壓過全民利益」的一大例證。
另一方面，食安法此次修法草案中有不少爭議性條文，立法院社福衛環委員會一共召開5次會議，審查了37條條文，最後有8條修正通過，8條不予修正，另有21條保留黨團協商，比例高達56％。這些保留條文中包含不少爭議性內容，例如舉證責任問題、食安警察如何增設，以及「一罪不兩罰」和「法人除罪化」的糾葛等等。不少公民團體就批評，朝野黨團協商是「密室協商」，協商過程外界完全無從得知，無法得知是否有立委為廠商護航，事後若有爭議也難以追究責任，最後很有可能淪為各黨互相指責、推卸責任，民眾卻無法知道真相。公民團體的批評並非無的放矢，台式民主的「假開放、真封閉」，以及金權政治疑慮在食安法修法過程中也有所暴露。
眾所周知，每當食安問題爆發，輿論就會要求修改食安法，6年來已修正了6次，最後卻還是一再爆發食安問題，顯示食安法的制定與修改完全沒有長遠眼光，也不符合實際狀況，才會有這種需要一再修法的荒謬戲碼上演。這不但凸顯過去修法過程中，國會根本沒有發揮功能，也反映朝野政黨倉促立法、修法，未能針對實際問題進行深入的調查研究，廣納專家意見與民間心聲，一步到位，制定可長可久的法案政策。缺乏效率，不夠周延，決策和實際脫節，這也是台灣「喊價式、口號式」民主的一大流弊。
台灣急需建立可長可久的食品安全管理體制，這需要參考其他國家的經驗，需要實際掌握食品產業鏈的生態，更需要朝野政黨和公民團體的通力合作。從整頓食安問題治絲益棼現象，我們看到台式民主的弊端：有黨派鬥爭卻少有黨派合作，有形式民主，卻不能落實陽光透明，有投票表決，卻少有決策的長遠規畫與周詳考慮，台式民主的確需要大檢討、大翻修。
Monday, October 27, 2014
Will the DPP Win Back Taiwan from the Local Level, or Lose It?
Will the DPP Win Back Taiwan from the Local Level, or Lose It?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 28, 2014
Executive Summary: The DPP must beware. It must not forget the strategic picture while campaigning in local elections. It must not assume that local elections are some sort of stepping stone to central government power. That day could well be the day the DPP "loses Taiwan." After all, the Democratic Progressive Party ruled Taiwan for eight long years, yet it almost "lost Taiwan."
Full Text Below:
The DPP's campaign slogan for the nine in one elections is "Win Back Taiwan from the Local Level." Based on election trends, the DPP appears likely to win these local elections. But then what? Will the DPP win back Taiwan, or lose it? That remains to be seen.
The DPP speaks of "winning back Taiwan." It means that if it wins the nine in one elections, the pan green vote nationwide will increase, and lay the foundation for victory in the 2016 presidential election, and a return to power. But even supposing the DPP wins the 2016 presidential election, is that really the same as "winning back Taiwan?" More importantly, is that really the same as Taiwan winning?
The notion of "winning back Taiwan from the local level" is nothing new. During the 1990s, the DPP's formula was "beseige the central government from the local level." Later, Chen Shui-bian won the 2000 presidential election because the KMT vote was divided, But it did not "win back Taiwan." If anything, it nearly "lost Taiwan." Clearly it can win elections at the local level. It can even win them at the central government level. But seizing central governing power does not necessarily equate with "winning back Taiwan."
When Chen Shui-bian took office, he announced his "five noes" policy. He paid his respects to his ancient Chinese forebears. He even declared his acceptance of the 1992 Consensus in the presence of foreign guests. Alas, the very next day Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Tsai Ing-wen vetoed his declaration. The Beijing government then announced it would be "listening to what he said, and watching what he did." Eventually Chen reverted to the controversial path of "rectification of names," the "authoring of a new constitution," and "demanding a referendum on UN membership." Cross-Strait and Taipei-Washington relations endured turbulence and tension. Clearly, winning at the local level was not enough to "win back Taiwan." If one's international and cross-Strait policies are losing propositions, one cannot "win back Taiwan." One may even "lose Taiwan."
Voters are indifferent to the current nine in one elections. Twelve year compulsory education, food safety, and Sunflower Student Movement generational deprivation are the major issues. Trivial quarrels over "one hole" and "a single sweet potato" are minor issues. Almost completely forgotten are strategic issues and sensitive cross-Strait issues. Given the current atmosphere, the DPP might well win the nine in one elections. But if it stumbles on strategic and cross-Strait issues, it is likely to "lose Taiwan."
The current nine in one elections show that Taiwan faces two crises. One. Political leaders have failed to pass the baton to the next generation. Two. Strategic issues are being ignored. First take the failure of political leaders to pass the baton. The political atmosphere is harsh. Political appointees are unqualified. Political candidates have gone from bad to worse. For example, Taipei mayors have traditionally been considered presidential timber. But the Lien vs. Ko dispute has already degenerated into a farce. The public is disappointed with both the blue and green parties. Both parties lack talented successors. How else can one account for the appearance of Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko? In New Taipei City and Taoyuan City the Kuomintang prevails. In Kaohsiung and Tainan the DPP can probably win lying down. The two parties' political stars are weary. Their successors are non-existent. A few political superstars are shoo-ins. Newcomers are inferior to their predecessors. Men of superior abilty consider elective office beneath them. Taiwan's political scene has lost its ability to attract men of talent. Electoral politics has no room for them. Therefore mediocre people must stand in for them in a variant of Gresham's Law.
Strategic issues are ignored. Men of talent flee. Elections are trivialized. Taiwan today face two major strategic challenges. One. The process of globalization. Two. Sensitive cross-Strait issues. These two are intertwined. As a result of the nine in one local elections, the DPP refuses to budge on the STA and FEPZ regulations. This has delayed the MTA and the establishment of cross-Strait representative offices. In which case, how can one join the TPP and RCEP, and "win back Taiwan?" Is this not a contradiction? The general public has completely forgotten about globalization and sensitive cross-Strait issues. Given such an atmosphere, what are the DPP's boasts that it intends to "win back Taiwan from the local level?" other than pure balderdash?
Taiwan's strategic plight and its future have been totally forgotten during the current election, The aforementioned two issues continue to deteriorate. As previously noted, they are intertwined. We now face sensitive cross-Strait issues. These make it difficult for Taiwan to face the challenges of globalization. Even the Ma administration's "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations" may be unsustainable. Recently, the Mainland accused the Ma administration of "misjudging the situation," of butting heads with the Mainland, of "resisting Mainland China" to the bitter end, of cozying up to the green camp, and even of "merging the blue camp with the green camp." The CCP blasted the Ma government. One can only imagine how it would deal with the DPP in the event it returned to power. After all, the DPP opposes the 1992 consensus. It clings to the Taiwan independence party platform. It persists in undermining cross-Strait agreements. The CCP is twisting the arm of the Ma administration. If the DPP returns to power, the CCP would surely redouble its efforts. How then would the DPP "win back Taiwan from the local level?"
The DPP must beware. It must not forget the strategic picture while campaigning in local elections. It must not assume that local elections are some sort of stepping stone to central government power. That day could well be the day the DPP "loses Taiwan." After all, the Democratic Progressive Party ruled Taiwan for eight long years, yet it almost "lost Taiwan."
民進黨將從地方贏回或輸掉台灣？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.28 02:08 am
民進黨九合一選舉的口號是：「從地方贏回台灣。」就選情走勢看，民進黨有可能贏得這次「地方」選舉，但接下來民進黨究竟將「贏回」台灣，或「輸掉」台灣，卻尚待下回分解。
民進黨所謂「贏回台灣」，是指若贏得此次九合一選舉，泛綠陣營在全國總得票數可能上升，即可為二○一六總統大選奠定勝選的條件，重返執政。不過，民進黨就算「贏回」二○一六總統大選，就等同於「贏回台灣」嗎？或就等同於「台灣贏了」嗎？
「從地方贏回台灣」，其實不是一個新說法。廿世紀九○年代，民進黨即有「地方包圍中央」的提法。後來，陳水扁因國民黨分裂而贏得了兩千年總統大選，但事後發展卻未「贏回台灣」，而是幾乎「輸掉」了台灣。可見，即使未贏得「地方」，也可能贏得中央執政權；但贏得中央執政權，卻未必能「贏回台灣」。
陳水扁上任就宣示「四不一沒有」，遙祭黃陵，甚至在外賓面前宣示接受「九二共識」，但次日卻被時任陸委會主委的蔡英文所否決。此後，扁政府即面臨北京「聽其言／觀其行」的對待，最後陳水扁又折返了「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」的爭議路線，而使兩岸關係及台美關係均陷於嚴重紛擾與緊張。可見，若要「贏回台灣」，只是贏得「地方」是不夠的；若在國際及兩岸路線上失敗，那就無可能「贏回台灣」，而可能「輸掉台灣」。
此次九合一選舉的選情極冷，大氣候陷於十二年國教、食安問題、太陽花世代剝奪等議題中，小氣候則陷於「一個洞」及「一顆番薯」等瑣碎口角中，而幾乎完全不見全球化運籌及兩岸深水區等全局議題。這樣的氛圍，或許有利民進黨贏得九合一選舉；但若贏了九合一，竟在全局因應失敗，極可能「輸掉台灣」。
此次九合一選舉顯現的台灣危機有二：一、政治領袖人才的斷層；二、全局議題的消失。先言領袖人才的斷層：政壇的惡劣風氣，非但使政務官覓才不易，在選舉體制中的人物也一蟹不如一蟹。例如，台北市長原是總統候選人的先修班，但台北市的連柯之爭卻已形同鬧劇。若非人民對藍綠兩黨皆感失望，而兩黨的後繼人才枯竭，則豈會出現連勝文與柯文哲？而新北市及桃園市國民黨占上風，高雄市及台南市民進黨躺著選，也顯示兩黨的人才競爭已現疲態，後繼乏人。就全局看，此次選舉除了幾位優勢一面倒的明星級連任者外，新人的水準幾皆不如前輩，看不出具未來領袖氣質的人物。這顯示台灣的政壇已經失去領袖人才的造血機能，優秀菁英不屑選舉，選舉氛圍亦不容優秀菁英存活，遂成觸目皆見廖化作先鋒，已是劣幣逐良幣之局。
至於全局議題的消失：人才凋零，亦使選舉議題瑣碎化。當今台灣面對兩大全局難題：一是全球化進程，二是兩岸深水區；而這兩個難題如麻花般地相互纏繞。民進黨因九合一地方選舉而卡住了服貿協議及自由經濟示範區條例，並已影響貨貿協議及兩岸互設辦事處等之推進；如此，卻謂將加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，且要「贏回台灣」，豈非自相矛盾？此時，全民幾已陷入遺忘「全球化／兩岸深水區」兩大全局議題之境地，在此種氛圍下，民進黨卻揚言「從地方贏回台灣」，豈非形同夢囈？
在這場選舉中，台灣的全局及未來已遭遺忘，而前述的兩大議題卻仍繼續在惡化之中。如前舉麻花之喻，兩岸深水區的徵候已現，因此亦難支撐台灣面對全球化的挑戰；即使馬政府的「九二共識／一中各表」，也出現了難以為繼的態勢。最近，大陸方面出現「馬政府誤判形勢，以硬碰硬、『抗中』到底、向綠靠攏，乃至藍綠合流」之類的評論。倘若中共如此評價馬政府，則將如何對待「反九二共識／維持台獨黨綱／破壞兩岸協議」的民進黨若重返執政？此時中共對馬政府加碼施壓，未來勢將加倍用以挾持可能重返執政的民進黨，則民進黨將如何「從地方贏回台灣」？
民進黨必須戒慎恐懼，勿在此次「遺忘全局的地方選舉」以為可奠基重返中央執政之時，竟然成為民進黨「輸掉台灣」之日。畢竟，民進黨曾在中央執政八年，卻險些「輸掉台灣」。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 28, 2014
Executive Summary: The DPP must beware. It must not forget the strategic picture while campaigning in local elections. It must not assume that local elections are some sort of stepping stone to central government power. That day could well be the day the DPP "loses Taiwan." After all, the Democratic Progressive Party ruled Taiwan for eight long years, yet it almost "lost Taiwan."
Full Text Below:
The DPP's campaign slogan for the nine in one elections is "Win Back Taiwan from the Local Level." Based on election trends, the DPP appears likely to win these local elections. But then what? Will the DPP win back Taiwan, or lose it? That remains to be seen.
The DPP speaks of "winning back Taiwan." It means that if it wins the nine in one elections, the pan green vote nationwide will increase, and lay the foundation for victory in the 2016 presidential election, and a return to power. But even supposing the DPP wins the 2016 presidential election, is that really the same as "winning back Taiwan?" More importantly, is that really the same as Taiwan winning?
The notion of "winning back Taiwan from the local level" is nothing new. During the 1990s, the DPP's formula was "beseige the central government from the local level." Later, Chen Shui-bian won the 2000 presidential election because the KMT vote was divided, But it did not "win back Taiwan." If anything, it nearly "lost Taiwan." Clearly it can win elections at the local level. It can even win them at the central government level. But seizing central governing power does not necessarily equate with "winning back Taiwan."
When Chen Shui-bian took office, he announced his "five noes" policy. He paid his respects to his ancient Chinese forebears. He even declared his acceptance of the 1992 Consensus in the presence of foreign guests. Alas, the very next day Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Tsai Ing-wen vetoed his declaration. The Beijing government then announced it would be "listening to what he said, and watching what he did." Eventually Chen reverted to the controversial path of "rectification of names," the "authoring of a new constitution," and "demanding a referendum on UN membership." Cross-Strait and Taipei-Washington relations endured turbulence and tension. Clearly, winning at the local level was not enough to "win back Taiwan." If one's international and cross-Strait policies are losing propositions, one cannot "win back Taiwan." One may even "lose Taiwan."
Voters are indifferent to the current nine in one elections. Twelve year compulsory education, food safety, and Sunflower Student Movement generational deprivation are the major issues. Trivial quarrels over "one hole" and "a single sweet potato" are minor issues. Almost completely forgotten are strategic issues and sensitive cross-Strait issues. Given the current atmosphere, the DPP might well win the nine in one elections. But if it stumbles on strategic and cross-Strait issues, it is likely to "lose Taiwan."
The current nine in one elections show that Taiwan faces two crises. One. Political leaders have failed to pass the baton to the next generation. Two. Strategic issues are being ignored. First take the failure of political leaders to pass the baton. The political atmosphere is harsh. Political appointees are unqualified. Political candidates have gone from bad to worse. For example, Taipei mayors have traditionally been considered presidential timber. But the Lien vs. Ko dispute has already degenerated into a farce. The public is disappointed with both the blue and green parties. Both parties lack talented successors. How else can one account for the appearance of Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko? In New Taipei City and Taoyuan City the Kuomintang prevails. In Kaohsiung and Tainan the DPP can probably win lying down. The two parties' political stars are weary. Their successors are non-existent. A few political superstars are shoo-ins. Newcomers are inferior to their predecessors. Men of superior abilty consider elective office beneath them. Taiwan's political scene has lost its ability to attract men of talent. Electoral politics has no room for them. Therefore mediocre people must stand in for them in a variant of Gresham's Law.
Strategic issues are ignored. Men of talent flee. Elections are trivialized. Taiwan today face two major strategic challenges. One. The process of globalization. Two. Sensitive cross-Strait issues. These two are intertwined. As a result of the nine in one local elections, the DPP refuses to budge on the STA and FEPZ regulations. This has delayed the MTA and the establishment of cross-Strait representative offices. In which case, how can one join the TPP and RCEP, and "win back Taiwan?" Is this not a contradiction? The general public has completely forgotten about globalization and sensitive cross-Strait issues. Given such an atmosphere, what are the DPP's boasts that it intends to "win back Taiwan from the local level?" other than pure balderdash?
Taiwan's strategic plight and its future have been totally forgotten during the current election, The aforementioned two issues continue to deteriorate. As previously noted, they are intertwined. We now face sensitive cross-Strait issues. These make it difficult for Taiwan to face the challenges of globalization. Even the Ma administration's "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations" may be unsustainable. Recently, the Mainland accused the Ma administration of "misjudging the situation," of butting heads with the Mainland, of "resisting Mainland China" to the bitter end, of cozying up to the green camp, and even of "merging the blue camp with the green camp." The CCP blasted the Ma government. One can only imagine how it would deal with the DPP in the event it returned to power. After all, the DPP opposes the 1992 consensus. It clings to the Taiwan independence party platform. It persists in undermining cross-Strait agreements. The CCP is twisting the arm of the Ma administration. If the DPP returns to power, the CCP would surely redouble its efforts. How then would the DPP "win back Taiwan from the local level?"
The DPP must beware. It must not forget the strategic picture while campaigning in local elections. It must not assume that local elections are some sort of stepping stone to central government power. That day could well be the day the DPP "loses Taiwan." After all, the Democratic Progressive Party ruled Taiwan for eight long years, yet it almost "lost Taiwan."
民進黨將從地方贏回或輸掉台灣？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.28 02:08 am
民進黨九合一選舉的口號是：「從地方贏回台灣。」就選情走勢看，民進黨有可能贏得這次「地方」選舉，但接下來民進黨究竟將「贏回」台灣，或「輸掉」台灣，卻尚待下回分解。
民進黨所謂「贏回台灣」，是指若贏得此次九合一選舉，泛綠陣營在全國總得票數可能上升，即可為二○一六總統大選奠定勝選的條件，重返執政。不過，民進黨就算「贏回」二○一六總統大選，就等同於「贏回台灣」嗎？或就等同於「台灣贏了」嗎？
「從地方贏回台灣」，其實不是一個新說法。廿世紀九○年代，民進黨即有「地方包圍中央」的提法。後來，陳水扁因國民黨分裂而贏得了兩千年總統大選，但事後發展卻未「贏回台灣」，而是幾乎「輸掉」了台灣。可見，即使未贏得「地方」，也可能贏得中央執政權；但贏得中央執政權，卻未必能「贏回台灣」。
陳水扁上任就宣示「四不一沒有」，遙祭黃陵，甚至在外賓面前宣示接受「九二共識」，但次日卻被時任陸委會主委的蔡英文所否決。此後，扁政府即面臨北京「聽其言／觀其行」的對待，最後陳水扁又折返了「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」的爭議路線，而使兩岸關係及台美關係均陷於嚴重紛擾與緊張。可見，若要「贏回台灣」，只是贏得「地方」是不夠的；若在國際及兩岸路線上失敗，那就無可能「贏回台灣」，而可能「輸掉台灣」。
此次九合一選舉的選情極冷，大氣候陷於十二年國教、食安問題、太陽花世代剝奪等議題中，小氣候則陷於「一個洞」及「一顆番薯」等瑣碎口角中，而幾乎完全不見全球化運籌及兩岸深水區等全局議題。這樣的氛圍，或許有利民進黨贏得九合一選舉；但若贏了九合一，竟在全局因應失敗，極可能「輸掉台灣」。
此次九合一選舉顯現的台灣危機有二：一、政治領袖人才的斷層；二、全局議題的消失。先言領袖人才的斷層：政壇的惡劣風氣，非但使政務官覓才不易，在選舉體制中的人物也一蟹不如一蟹。例如，台北市長原是總統候選人的先修班，但台北市的連柯之爭卻已形同鬧劇。若非人民對藍綠兩黨皆感失望，而兩黨的後繼人才枯竭，則豈會出現連勝文與柯文哲？而新北市及桃園市國民黨占上風，高雄市及台南市民進黨躺著選，也顯示兩黨的人才競爭已現疲態，後繼乏人。就全局看，此次選舉除了幾位優勢一面倒的明星級連任者外，新人的水準幾皆不如前輩，看不出具未來領袖氣質的人物。這顯示台灣的政壇已經失去領袖人才的造血機能，優秀菁英不屑選舉，選舉氛圍亦不容優秀菁英存活，遂成觸目皆見廖化作先鋒，已是劣幣逐良幣之局。
至於全局議題的消失：人才凋零，亦使選舉議題瑣碎化。當今台灣面對兩大全局難題：一是全球化進程，二是兩岸深水區；而這兩個難題如麻花般地相互纏繞。民進黨因九合一地方選舉而卡住了服貿協議及自由經濟示範區條例，並已影響貨貿協議及兩岸互設辦事處等之推進；如此，卻謂將加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，且要「贏回台灣」，豈非自相矛盾？此時，全民幾已陷入遺忘「全球化／兩岸深水區」兩大全局議題之境地，在此種氛圍下，民進黨卻揚言「從地方贏回台灣」，豈非形同夢囈？
在這場選舉中，台灣的全局及未來已遭遺忘，而前述的兩大議題卻仍繼續在惡化之中。如前舉麻花之喻，兩岸深水區的徵候已現，因此亦難支撐台灣面對全球化的挑戰；即使馬政府的「九二共識／一中各表」，也出現了難以為繼的態勢。最近，大陸方面出現「馬政府誤判形勢，以硬碰硬、『抗中』到底、向綠靠攏，乃至藍綠合流」之類的評論。倘若中共如此評價馬政府，則將如何對待「反九二共識／維持台獨黨綱／破壞兩岸協議」的民進黨若重返執政？此時中共對馬政府加碼施壓，未來勢將加倍用以挾持可能重返執政的民進黨，則民進黨將如何「從地方贏回台灣」？
民進黨必須戒慎恐懼，勿在此次「遺忘全局的地方選舉」以為可奠基重返中央執政之時，竟然成為民進黨「輸掉台灣」之日。畢竟，民進黨曾在中央執政八年，卻險些「輸掉台灣」。
Has Ma deviated from the Path of Peaceful Cross-Strait Development?
Has Ma deviated from the Path of Peaceful Cross-Strait Development?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 27, 2014
Executive Summary: Objectively speaking, the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations is a process that is irreversible. But cross-Strait relations cannot be expected to move forward at high-speed all the way. We are currently in a consolidation phase. As long as the direction does not change, it an begin anew following a smooth adjustment. If cross-Strait relations stagnate or retreat,then problems will emerge one by one. President Ma Ying-jeou has many things he must do. This will not change. He must stay on track. He must lay the foundations for the next leader and overcome all difficulties. He must advance cross-Strait relations on the existing foundation. Then when the time comes, the two sides can begin political dialogue, negotiations, and even discuss a peace agreement, This is President Ma Ying-jeou's true place in history.
Full Text Below:
Xi Jinping spoke to visiting pro-unification groups from Taiwan about "peaceful reunification" and "one country, two systems." Observers at home and abroad offered different interpretations of Xi's remarks. Officials in Taipei have their own preconceptions. They made clear they can never accept such conditions. In President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten National Day speech, he spoke of his understanding and support of the Hong Kong people's aspirations for democracy He looked forward to the implementation of democratic constitutionalism on the Mainland, and the chance for some of the Chinese people to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Mainland officials reacted to President Ma's remarks swiftlly and decisively. They said the Taiwan authorities should not make irresponsible remarks. Cross-Strait relations appear to be undergoing subtle changes.
From Taipei's perspective, Ma Ying-jeou was merely stating the obvious. The government on Taiwan certainly has no desire to increase tensions and expand conflicts. But neither does it fear CCP disapproval. Somethings cannot be said. Expressing hope that the Mainland will adopt democracy is not necessarily an accusation that the Mainland is undemocratic. But from Beijing's perspective, the remarks amounted to deliberate provocation and irresponsible meddling. The Ma government later realized that Beijing may have misunderstood his intent, and that they might lead to unnecessary complications. The KMT's Mainland Affairs Director came forward to explain. He reminded the Mainland that Ma Ying-jeou also said the two sides were descendants of China's legendary founders. They are both part of the Chinese people, and should cooperate and seek agreement on their terminology.
In fact, after Xi Jinping met with visitors from Taiwan, Beijing coordinated with important scholars and the Xinhua News Agency. Guo Taiwen of the Taiwan Affairs Office published an article to ensure that everyone understood Xi Jinping's remarks. Beijing stressed that peaceful development is still the guiding policy, along with the pursuit of national unity, opposition to Taiwan separatism, and the realization of the Chinese national unity along with the Chinese Dream. Beijing seeks to bolster pro-reunification sentiment on Taiwan. Such positions are understandable. Simply put, the focus of Xi's remarks was not "one country, two systems," but three considerations, peaceful development, support for reunification, a meeting of the minds, and oppositon to Taiwan independence.
Later, people on the Mainland concluded Ma Ying-jeou was frustrated because the the hoped for Ma Xi meetng in Beijing at this year's APEC conference came to naught. They concluded that Ma was responding to Xi's remarks on September 26. Mainland editorials accused Ma of emotionalism. We do not believe the Ma administration would handle national affairs in such a frivolous manner. We do not believe it would be affected by personal emotions. But only senior government officials can know for sure. What matters is the future of cross-Strait relations, at least for the year and a half remaining in President Ma's second and final term. Where does he intend to go from here? Do the two sides really intend to change their policy and adopt a confrontational approach to their problems?
Consider the matter fron the Mainalnd perspective. President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten remarks contained obvious contradictions. He was critical of Taiwan's 3/18 Sunflower Student Movement, yet expressed understanding and support for the protests in Hong Kong. That said, some scholars in Beijing thought that the Mainland authorities' charge that Ma was making irresponsible remarks may have been a tad heavy-handed, After all, if both sides of the Strait are part of one country, then it is entirely reasonable for people on Taiwan to express their views on Hong Kong affairs. These words issued directly from the lips of President Ma. Had they issued from the MAC, the Mainland might not have responded so vehemently. The Mainland side is quite accomodating towards the Ma Ying-jeou government.
Beijing is concerned that in response to the abortive Ma Xi meeting, the Ma Ying-jeou government might turn to the international community, the United States, and Japan. Beijing is concerned that Ma might express a willingness to cooperate with them In the East China Sea and South China Sea. Taipei wants greater participation in regional economic organizations such as the RCEP and TPP. It hopes to increase the Taiwan's international space. Recent rumors about the Dalai Lama visiting Taiwan will only increase Beijing's suspicions. Regarding Taiwan's international space, Beijing has consistently adopted a reactive posture. Peaceful development and Taiwan's international space tend to move in step with each other. Cross-Strait relations are not a panacea. But absent stable cross-Strait relations, nothing is possible. A confrontational approach will only leave Taiwan at a disadvantage. Taiwan cannot afford to be reckless.
If our understanding is correct, Beijing's Taiwan policy can be summarized as follows: Consolidate existing achievements. Improve bilateral relations. Take the initiative. Seize every opportunity. Control the rhythm. Wait for breakthroughs. The Wang Zhang meeting was the first official contact between the two sides. It was of historic importance. The Wang Zhang meeting allowed the CCP to reclaim the strategic initiative, making cross-Strait relations sustainable. Now consider the issues to be discussed at the third Wang Zhang meeting, at APEC in November. Consider the year and a half remaining in Ma's term. The two sides must get things done. Only that has any meaning. The Taipei side in particular, must make careful plans. If the meeting is reduced to pro forma ritual, it won't mean a thing.
Objectively speaking, the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations is a process that is irreversible. But cross-Strait relations cannot be expected to move forward at high-speed all the way. We are currently in a consolidation phase. As long as the direction does not change, it an begin anew following a smooth adjustment. If cross-Strait relations stagnate or retreat,then problems will emerge one by one. President Ma Ying-jeou has many things he must do. This will not change. He must stay on track. He must lay the foundations for the next leader and overcome all difficulties. He must advance cross-Strait relations on the existing foundation. Then when the time comes, the two sides can begin political dialogue, negotiations, and even discuss a peace agreement, This is President Ma Ying-jeou's true place in history.
社論－馬偏離兩岸和平發展路線嗎？
2014年10月27日 04:09
本報訊
習近平對台灣統派團體發表「和平統一、一國兩制」談話後，海內外各有解讀，台北官方似乎也有定見，表明絕不接受的立場，接著馬英九總統在雙十國慶講話中，提到對香港民眾爭取民主的理解與支持，並表示期待中國大陸實施民主憲政，讓一部分中國人先民主起來。中共官方對馬總統的談話作出迅速、明快的批判，強調台灣不該對此隨便說三道四。兩岸關係看來似乎正在發生微妙的變化。
從台灣的角度來看，馬英九是為所當為、言所當言，台灣政府固然不想增加緊張、擴大矛盾，但也不必因為擔心中共的不滿，而有話不敢說或不能說，期許大陸民主並不等於批評大陸不民主。但從北京角度來看，恐怕是蓄意挑釁，說三道四，指手畫腳。後來馬政府或許警覺到，北京如果做出錯誤解讀，會產生不必要的後遺症，由國民黨大陸事務部主任出面撰文，強調大陸應該多加體會馬英九談話中有關炎黃子孫、中華民族、攜手合作、共同探索的用語等等。
其實，在習總書記會見台灣訪賓之後，北京也曾經透過部分重要學者及新華社發表署名評論文章，郭台文署名乃國台辦文章的諧音，希望全面解釋習近平相關談話的旨意。北京強調和平發展仍是政策主軸，追求國家統一，反對台灣分離主義，要將國家統一與中國夢的實現結合起來，北京想要採取有效方式，壯大台灣主張統一的聲音與力量，這些都是可以理解的基本立場。簡單的說，習的談話重點不在一國兩制，而在三個照顧，和平發展，支持統派，心靈契合及反對台獨。
事後，大陸內部一般認為，或許因為台北力推在今年北京亞太經合會上馬、習二人會面的計畫受挫，所以馬英九的講話有點情緒性的宣泄，是對習近平926談話的間接回應，也有陸媒撰文批評馬流於情緒。我們雖認為政府當局對國家大事不會如此兒戲，不會因為個人的情緒而受影響，但對與不對只有政府高層心中有數，如今問題的重點在於兩岸關係將來，或至少在未來一年半馬總統的剩餘任期裡，究竟要何去何從，雙方難道真是要改採針鋒相對的對抗方式來處理問題嗎？
若從中國大陸的角度來看，馬英九總統雙十談話中的某些立場有明顯的矛盾，他一方面反對、批判台灣的318太陽花運動，但為何卻又表示理解、支持香港的抗爭活動。不過即或如此，北京仍有學者認為，大陸指斥台北不宜說三道四的談話太過直接，而且太重了一些，因為兩岸既是一國，台灣發表一些對香港事務的看法也還在情理之中。但如果不是由馬總統親自說出這些話，而僅由陸委會講講，大陸方面應不會如此強烈反彈。大陸各方對馬英九政府還是存有相當的包容。
如今，北京擔心馬、習會受挫之後，馬英九政府有轉向國際的可能，主動對美國、日本示好，在東海、南海，台灣參與區域經濟組織（RCEP及TPP）等問題上更加積極，試圖自行推動擴大台灣國際空間，而最近有關達賴訪台的傳聞更會增加北京的猜忌。對台灣的國際空間問題來說，北京還是一貫採取被動原則及個案處理方式，而和平發展與台灣的國際空間是連動的，兩岸關係不是萬能，但沒有兩岸關係則萬萬不能。如果採取對抗的方式，台灣絕對處於劣勢，不可不慎。
如果我們的理解正確，北京當前的對台政策應可歸納為，不斷鞏固現有成果，持續深化雙邊關係，掌握主動，把握機遇，控制節奏，俟機突破。據此，如果說王、張一會是兩岸主管官署的首度接觸，具有歷史意義；王、張二會則是讓中共取回了戰略主動，使兩岸關係能夠持續下去；如今則應好好想想今年11月APEC王、張三會的相關議題，看看未來一年半馬的剩餘任期中，雙方還能把那些事情做好，這才有意義，台北方面尤其不妨仔細思考規畫，如果只是一個過場的儀式性見面就沒啥意思了。
客觀來看，兩岸和平發展態勢不可逆轉，但兩岸關係終究不可能一路高速前進發展，目前應該是進入了盤整時期，只要方向不變，平穩調整之後再行出發並無不可。兩岸關係如果停滯不進將有倒退之虞，問題會逐一浮現出來，而馬英九總統今日應作應為之事不是改弦易轍，而是在既定的軌道上，努力為下一位領導人打下基礎，排除困難，讓其能夠在已有的基礎上，更進一步發展兩岸關係，屆時雙方將可以逐步進入政治對話、談判，甚至討論和平協議，而這才是馬英九總統真正的歷史定位之所在。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 27, 2014
Executive Summary: Objectively speaking, the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations is a process that is irreversible. But cross-Strait relations cannot be expected to move forward at high-speed all the way. We are currently in a consolidation phase. As long as the direction does not change, it an begin anew following a smooth adjustment. If cross-Strait relations stagnate or retreat,then problems will emerge one by one. President Ma Ying-jeou has many things he must do. This will not change. He must stay on track. He must lay the foundations for the next leader and overcome all difficulties. He must advance cross-Strait relations on the existing foundation. Then when the time comes, the two sides can begin political dialogue, negotiations, and even discuss a peace agreement, This is President Ma Ying-jeou's true place in history.
Full Text Below:
Xi Jinping spoke to visiting pro-unification groups from Taiwan about "peaceful reunification" and "one country, two systems." Observers at home and abroad offered different interpretations of Xi's remarks. Officials in Taipei have their own preconceptions. They made clear they can never accept such conditions. In President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten National Day speech, he spoke of his understanding and support of the Hong Kong people's aspirations for democracy He looked forward to the implementation of democratic constitutionalism on the Mainland, and the chance for some of the Chinese people to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Mainland officials reacted to President Ma's remarks swiftlly and decisively. They said the Taiwan authorities should not make irresponsible remarks. Cross-Strait relations appear to be undergoing subtle changes.
From Taipei's perspective, Ma Ying-jeou was merely stating the obvious. The government on Taiwan certainly has no desire to increase tensions and expand conflicts. But neither does it fear CCP disapproval. Somethings cannot be said. Expressing hope that the Mainland will adopt democracy is not necessarily an accusation that the Mainland is undemocratic. But from Beijing's perspective, the remarks amounted to deliberate provocation and irresponsible meddling. The Ma government later realized that Beijing may have misunderstood his intent, and that they might lead to unnecessary complications. The KMT's Mainland Affairs Director came forward to explain. He reminded the Mainland that Ma Ying-jeou also said the two sides were descendants of China's legendary founders. They are both part of the Chinese people, and should cooperate and seek agreement on their terminology.
In fact, after Xi Jinping met with visitors from Taiwan, Beijing coordinated with important scholars and the Xinhua News Agency. Guo Taiwen of the Taiwan Affairs Office published an article to ensure that everyone understood Xi Jinping's remarks. Beijing stressed that peaceful development is still the guiding policy, along with the pursuit of national unity, opposition to Taiwan separatism, and the realization of the Chinese national unity along with the Chinese Dream. Beijing seeks to bolster pro-reunification sentiment on Taiwan. Such positions are understandable. Simply put, the focus of Xi's remarks was not "one country, two systems," but three considerations, peaceful development, support for reunification, a meeting of the minds, and oppositon to Taiwan independence.
Later, people on the Mainland concluded Ma Ying-jeou was frustrated because the the hoped for Ma Xi meetng in Beijing at this year's APEC conference came to naught. They concluded that Ma was responding to Xi's remarks on September 26. Mainland editorials accused Ma of emotionalism. We do not believe the Ma administration would handle national affairs in such a frivolous manner. We do not believe it would be affected by personal emotions. But only senior government officials can know for sure. What matters is the future of cross-Strait relations, at least for the year and a half remaining in President Ma's second and final term. Where does he intend to go from here? Do the two sides really intend to change their policy and adopt a confrontational approach to their problems?
Consider the matter fron the Mainalnd perspective. President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten remarks contained obvious contradictions. He was critical of Taiwan's 3/18 Sunflower Student Movement, yet expressed understanding and support for the protests in Hong Kong. That said, some scholars in Beijing thought that the Mainland authorities' charge that Ma was making irresponsible remarks may have been a tad heavy-handed, After all, if both sides of the Strait are part of one country, then it is entirely reasonable for people on Taiwan to express their views on Hong Kong affairs. These words issued directly from the lips of President Ma. Had they issued from the MAC, the Mainland might not have responded so vehemently. The Mainland side is quite accomodating towards the Ma Ying-jeou government.
Beijing is concerned that in response to the abortive Ma Xi meeting, the Ma Ying-jeou government might turn to the international community, the United States, and Japan. Beijing is concerned that Ma might express a willingness to cooperate with them In the East China Sea and South China Sea. Taipei wants greater participation in regional economic organizations such as the RCEP and TPP. It hopes to increase the Taiwan's international space. Recent rumors about the Dalai Lama visiting Taiwan will only increase Beijing's suspicions. Regarding Taiwan's international space, Beijing has consistently adopted a reactive posture. Peaceful development and Taiwan's international space tend to move in step with each other. Cross-Strait relations are not a panacea. But absent stable cross-Strait relations, nothing is possible. A confrontational approach will only leave Taiwan at a disadvantage. Taiwan cannot afford to be reckless.
If our understanding is correct, Beijing's Taiwan policy can be summarized as follows: Consolidate existing achievements. Improve bilateral relations. Take the initiative. Seize every opportunity. Control the rhythm. Wait for breakthroughs. The Wang Zhang meeting was the first official contact between the two sides. It was of historic importance. The Wang Zhang meeting allowed the CCP to reclaim the strategic initiative, making cross-Strait relations sustainable. Now consider the issues to be discussed at the third Wang Zhang meeting, at APEC in November. Consider the year and a half remaining in Ma's term. The two sides must get things done. Only that has any meaning. The Taipei side in particular, must make careful plans. If the meeting is reduced to pro forma ritual, it won't mean a thing.
Objectively speaking, the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations is a process that is irreversible. But cross-Strait relations cannot be expected to move forward at high-speed all the way. We are currently in a consolidation phase. As long as the direction does not change, it an begin anew following a smooth adjustment. If cross-Strait relations stagnate or retreat,then problems will emerge one by one. President Ma Ying-jeou has many things he must do. This will not change. He must stay on track. He must lay the foundations for the next leader and overcome all difficulties. He must advance cross-Strait relations on the existing foundation. Then when the time comes, the two sides can begin political dialogue, negotiations, and even discuss a peace agreement, This is President Ma Ying-jeou's true place in history.
社論－馬偏離兩岸和平發展路線嗎？
2014年10月27日 04:09
本報訊
習近平對台灣統派團體發表「和平統一、一國兩制」談話後，海內外各有解讀，台北官方似乎也有定見，表明絕不接受的立場，接著馬英九總統在雙十國慶講話中，提到對香港民眾爭取民主的理解與支持，並表示期待中國大陸實施民主憲政，讓一部分中國人先民主起來。中共官方對馬總統的談話作出迅速、明快的批判，強調台灣不該對此隨便說三道四。兩岸關係看來似乎正在發生微妙的變化。
從台灣的角度來看，馬英九是為所當為、言所當言，台灣政府固然不想增加緊張、擴大矛盾，但也不必因為擔心中共的不滿，而有話不敢說或不能說，期許大陸民主並不等於批評大陸不民主。但從北京角度來看，恐怕是蓄意挑釁，說三道四，指手畫腳。後來馬政府或許警覺到，北京如果做出錯誤解讀，會產生不必要的後遺症，由國民黨大陸事務部主任出面撰文，強調大陸應該多加體會馬英九談話中有關炎黃子孫、中華民族、攜手合作、共同探索的用語等等。
其實，在習總書記會見台灣訪賓之後，北京也曾經透過部分重要學者及新華社發表署名評論文章，郭台文署名乃國台辦文章的諧音，希望全面解釋習近平相關談話的旨意。北京強調和平發展仍是政策主軸，追求國家統一，反對台灣分離主義，要將國家統一與中國夢的實現結合起來，北京想要採取有效方式，壯大台灣主張統一的聲音與力量，這些都是可以理解的基本立場。簡單的說，習的談話重點不在一國兩制，而在三個照顧，和平發展，支持統派，心靈契合及反對台獨。
事後，大陸內部一般認為，或許因為台北力推在今年北京亞太經合會上馬、習二人會面的計畫受挫，所以馬英九的講話有點情緒性的宣泄，是對習近平926談話的間接回應，也有陸媒撰文批評馬流於情緒。我們雖認為政府當局對國家大事不會如此兒戲，不會因為個人的情緒而受影響，但對與不對只有政府高層心中有數，如今問題的重點在於兩岸關係將來，或至少在未來一年半馬總統的剩餘任期裡，究竟要何去何從，雙方難道真是要改採針鋒相對的對抗方式來處理問題嗎？
若從中國大陸的角度來看，馬英九總統雙十談話中的某些立場有明顯的矛盾，他一方面反對、批判台灣的318太陽花運動，但為何卻又表示理解、支持香港的抗爭活動。不過即或如此，北京仍有學者認為，大陸指斥台北不宜說三道四的談話太過直接，而且太重了一些，因為兩岸既是一國，台灣發表一些對香港事務的看法也還在情理之中。但如果不是由馬總統親自說出這些話，而僅由陸委會講講，大陸方面應不會如此強烈反彈。大陸各方對馬英九政府還是存有相當的包容。
如今，北京擔心馬、習會受挫之後，馬英九政府有轉向國際的可能，主動對美國、日本示好，在東海、南海，台灣參與區域經濟組織（RCEP及TPP）等問題上更加積極，試圖自行推動擴大台灣國際空間，而最近有關達賴訪台的傳聞更會增加北京的猜忌。對台灣的國際空間問題來說，北京還是一貫採取被動原則及個案處理方式，而和平發展與台灣的國際空間是連動的，兩岸關係不是萬能，但沒有兩岸關係則萬萬不能。如果採取對抗的方式，台灣絕對處於劣勢，不可不慎。
如果我們的理解正確，北京當前的對台政策應可歸納為，不斷鞏固現有成果，持續深化雙邊關係，掌握主動，把握機遇，控制節奏，俟機突破。據此，如果說王、張一會是兩岸主管官署的首度接觸，具有歷史意義；王、張二會則是讓中共取回了戰略主動，使兩岸關係能夠持續下去；如今則應好好想想今年11月APEC王、張三會的相關議題，看看未來一年半馬的剩餘任期中，雙方還能把那些事情做好，這才有意義，台北方面尤其不妨仔細思考規畫，如果只是一個過場的儀式性見面就沒啥意思了。
客觀來看，兩岸和平發展態勢不可逆轉，但兩岸關係終究不可能一路高速前進發展，目前應該是進入了盤整時期，只要方向不變，平穩調整之後再行出發並無不可。兩岸關係如果停滯不進將有倒退之虞，問題會逐一浮現出來，而馬英九總統今日應作應為之事不是改弦易轍，而是在既定的軌道上，努力為下一位領導人打下基礎，排除困難，讓其能夠在已有的基礎上，更進一步發展兩岸關係，屆時雙方將可以逐步進入政治對話、談判，甚至討論和平協議，而這才是馬英九總統真正的歷史定位之所在。
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Japan's Political Fastitiousness and Taiwan's Moral Indifference
Japan's Political Fastidiousness and Taiwan's Moral Indifference
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2014
Executive Summary: Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.
Full Text Below:
Two female political superstars in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's cabinet have been implicated in a political scandal. Both have resigned. These two scandals have shattered Abe's two year record of no scandals and no resignations. Abe's approval ratings have again fallen below five percent, a new low since taking office.
This event has two implications. One is the political impact of the event itself. Public support for Japanese cabinet ministers has long risen and fallen in step with their verbal gaffes and involvement in scandals. Officials often find themselves in over their heads. Last September Abe's "Special Secrets Protection Law" ended his honeymoon with the public. Abe is still attempting to stimulate the economy to stop the slide in his support. But with this scandal, Abe's popularity may be a fading memory.
The second is the significance of the event itself. It offers an object lesson in ethics for Taiwan politicians. Two "golden flower ministers" have resigned. Minister of Trade Yuko Obuchi stands accused of misusing campaign contributions. She used political contributions to purchase cosmetics, leather accessories, and other items unrelated to politics. This is considered improper. Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima violated the provisions of the "Japanese Public Official Election Law," which forbids the giving of gifts. She handed out paper fans worth 65 Yen (22 NTD) to voters during political rallies. That is considered bribery" As we can see, the Obuchi and Matsushima scandals were somewhat different. But the two women were forced to step down just the same.
Had these two incidents occurred on Taiwan, would they have led to the same outcome? Probably not. The ruling and opposition parties have created a huge moral "gray area" that enables Taiwan politicians to weasel their way out of any punishment. Voters are easily swayed by histrionics and blind to reason. The media is indifferent to right and wrong. Politicians often misuse small sums, or use campaign contributions for unclear purposes. When indicted, they find it easy to spin their criminal prosecution as "political persecution," or as a "skeleton in the closet" and gloss them over. They refuse to admit wrongdoing, let alone resign. However, In politically fastidious Japan, even if such acts are not illegal, they are considered serious enough to require a resignation. Such acts violate the high ethical standards set by politicians and voters. Politicians are expected to practice "self-punishment" in order to maintain Japan's national image and honor. Clearly a huge chasm separates Taiwan and Japan when it comes to political ethics.
Japanese politicians are scrutinized under a magnifying glass, or even a microscope. In Japan, there is a strong sense of boundaries. What is one's own and what belongs to someone else, is sharply defined. If someone gives you a gift, you must give one in return. As a result the Japanese generally do not give gifts that are too valuable. Otherwise the other party bears too heavy a burden when he reciprocates. In such a culture politicians are terrified of committing even minor infractions. The Japanese emphasize a "sense of shame." For them such acts are considered heinous.
This is why the the Japanese Government established a "Political Contribution Rules Law" to limit politicians' use of funds during election campaigns. The specificity of the law is amazing. The Japanese government has also established a "State Civil Service Law," a "State Officials Disciplinary Law," and a "Public Service Ethics Law," to ensure oversight. During 2008, over 1,400 civil servants worked overtime, late into the night. When commuting by taxi, they accepted beer and snacks from taxi drivers. This led to a massive anti-corruption campaign. Eventually one person was suspended, another eleven received pay cuts, and 21 were forced to make public apologies. The Minister of Finance at the time was also forced to take a two percent pay cut, as an gesture of contrition.
As a result, Japanese officials guilty of even petty offenses have resigned in droves. For example, in 2001 former Democratic Party political superstar Seiji Maehara, accepted 50,000 Yen in foreign political contributions (about 16,000 NTD). He was forced to resign as Prime Minister and apologize. Former Minister of Agriculture Toshikatsu Matsuoka overstated his office expenses in 2007. He eventually committed suicide.
Now compare Taiwan to Japan. Wen-Je Ko set up the MG one hundred forty-nine accounts. Inadequate monitoring enabled a handful of people to control political contributions. Even if the National Audit Office finds no illegal activity, Wen-Je Ko made private use of public funds and is morally culpable. Attempts to investigate tax evasion however, are spun as "political persecution." The Chung Hsing Bills scandal, the Yu Chang scandal, and the Watergate scandal, are spoken of in the same breath. Yet they are cavalierly dismissed as "skeletons in the closet" by the medical community. If the people are willing to accept such low ethical standards, how can democracy and the rule of law progress?
Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.
從日本的政治潔癖 看台灣的道德麻痺
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.24 02:53 am
安倍內閣的兩位女性明星部長最近捲入政治獻金醜聞，雙雙宣告辭職。這兩樁政治醜聞，打破安倍上台兩年多來零事故、零下台的紀錄，也讓安倍的民意支持度再度跌破五成，跌至就任以來的新低點。
這個事件有兩個層面的意義。首先，是事件本身的政治影響：一直以來，日本內閣的民意支持常隨著閣員失言及涉入弊案等而下滑，甚至跌入下台的深水區。而安倍在去年九月通過《特定秘密保護法》後，其高民意蜜月期便已結束，只是安倍還在強推刺激經濟對策，企圖止住自己支持度的滑勢。而歷經這次醜聞的重創後，安倍的高人氣，恐怕已成明日黃花。
其次，從事件本身的意涵看，這足供台灣政治人物上一堂道德教育課。引咎辭職的兩位「金花部長」，經濟產業大臣小淵優子是被指控「濫用」政治獻金，因為她把政治獻金使用在購買化妝品及皮件飾品等無關政治的事務上，被認為用途不正當；另一位則是法務大臣松島綠，則是違反《日本公職選舉法》不能免費送東西的規定，因為她在造勢場合上發送價值六十五日圓（台幣廿二元）的圓扇給選民，被認為有「賄選」之嫌。可見，小淵及松島的弊案性質雖略有不同，但兩人被迫下台的命運卻沒有兩樣。
值得玩味的是，如果這兩起事件發生在台灣，會不會發展成相同的結局？答案恐怕是否定的。理由是，因朝野長期對峙所形成的巨大「道德灰色地帶」，使台灣政治人物硬拗成習，加上選民的濫情理盲和媒體的麻痺，這類微小金額或用途不清的問題，很容易被政治人物轉化為「政治追殺」或「歷史共業」而輕輕帶過，不僅不會承認錯誤，更遑論辭職下台。然而，對於有政治潔癖的日本來說，不管違法金額大小，這都是一項非下台不可的「重罪」，因為它逾越選民期許政治家高標準的道德紅線，政治家必須要以「自我懲罰」來維護日本國家的形象與榮譽。台灣與日本對於政治人物要求標準的差距之大，可見一斑。
日本會對政治人物以放大鏡，甚至是顯微鏡來檢視，主要源於日本傳統是有極強的「界限」感，什麼是屬於自己的，什麼是屬於別人的，都要劃分得一清二楚。如果別人贈送禮物給自己，事後一定要等價奉還；所以日本人一般送禮都不會送太貴重的東西，以免讓對方承受太重的「回禮」壓力。在這種文化思維下，政治人物哪怕只是半絲一毫的違規，對於強調「恥感」的日本人來說，都是屬於罪大惡極的敗德之舉。
也如此，日本政府制訂「政治獻金規正法」來約束政治人物在選舉資金使用的遊戲規則，其內容規範之細令人嘆為觀止。日本政府也訂定《國家公務員法》、《國家公務人員懲戒法》和《公務人員倫理法》等，作為監督之搭配。在二○○八年，有一千四百多名公務員因夜間加班，在下班搭乘計程車時，接受司機攬客用的啤酒及小吃招待，結果演變成一場大規模反貪腐風暴。最後，有一人遭停職處分，另有十一人減薪，二十一人公開道歉，當時的財務大臣還主動減薪兩成以示負責。
也因此，日本的達官顯要因涉及小額政治獻金之「微罪」而辭職下台者，有如過江之鯽。例如前民主黨政治明星前原誠司，二○一一年便因為收受外國人政治獻金五萬日圓（約台幣一萬六千元），而宣布辭職謝罪，與首相寶座失之交臂。日本前農林水產大臣松岡利勝，二○○七年因浮報辦公室事務費用，最終以自殺謝罪。
從日本回看台灣，柯文哲的ＭＧ一四九帳戶，在欠缺相關監督機制下，讓外界捐款任由少數人掌控，最後即使審計部認定核銷單據未違法，柯文哲仍難脫「公器私用」的道德質疑。但在政治操作下，外界對其涉逃漏稅務與監督的質疑，卻被導引成執政黨的「政治追殺」，甚至和「興票案」、「宇昌案」乃至「水門案」相提並論，說成是醫界的「歷史共業」。人民如果願意接受這樣的和稀泥，民主和法治怎麼可能進步？
台灣要不要把法令制定得像日本那麼嚴苛，有待討論。但真正的問題在，我們在政治上莫大的灰色地帶，正是留給投機者苟且優遊的空間；這個模糊地帶不消除，民主和法治永遠有兩套標準。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2014
Executive Summary: Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.
Full Text Below:
Two female political superstars in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's cabinet have been implicated in a political scandal. Both have resigned. These two scandals have shattered Abe's two year record of no scandals and no resignations. Abe's approval ratings have again fallen below five percent, a new low since taking office.
This event has two implications. One is the political impact of the event itself. Public support for Japanese cabinet ministers has long risen and fallen in step with their verbal gaffes and involvement in scandals. Officials often find themselves in over their heads. Last September Abe's "Special Secrets Protection Law" ended his honeymoon with the public. Abe is still attempting to stimulate the economy to stop the slide in his support. But with this scandal, Abe's popularity may be a fading memory.
The second is the significance of the event itself. It offers an object lesson in ethics for Taiwan politicians. Two "golden flower ministers" have resigned. Minister of Trade Yuko Obuchi stands accused of misusing campaign contributions. She used political contributions to purchase cosmetics, leather accessories, and other items unrelated to politics. This is considered improper. Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima violated the provisions of the "Japanese Public Official Election Law," which forbids the giving of gifts. She handed out paper fans worth 65 Yen (22 NTD) to voters during political rallies. That is considered bribery" As we can see, the Obuchi and Matsushima scandals were somewhat different. But the two women were forced to step down just the same.
Had these two incidents occurred on Taiwan, would they have led to the same outcome? Probably not. The ruling and opposition parties have created a huge moral "gray area" that enables Taiwan politicians to weasel their way out of any punishment. Voters are easily swayed by histrionics and blind to reason. The media is indifferent to right and wrong. Politicians often misuse small sums, or use campaign contributions for unclear purposes. When indicted, they find it easy to spin their criminal prosecution as "political persecution," or as a "skeleton in the closet" and gloss them over. They refuse to admit wrongdoing, let alone resign. However, In politically fastidious Japan, even if such acts are not illegal, they are considered serious enough to require a resignation. Such acts violate the high ethical standards set by politicians and voters. Politicians are expected to practice "self-punishment" in order to maintain Japan's national image and honor. Clearly a huge chasm separates Taiwan and Japan when it comes to political ethics.
Japanese politicians are scrutinized under a magnifying glass, or even a microscope. In Japan, there is a strong sense of boundaries. What is one's own and what belongs to someone else, is sharply defined. If someone gives you a gift, you must give one in return. As a result the Japanese generally do not give gifts that are too valuable. Otherwise the other party bears too heavy a burden when he reciprocates. In such a culture politicians are terrified of committing even minor infractions. The Japanese emphasize a "sense of shame." For them such acts are considered heinous.
This is why the the Japanese Government established a "Political Contribution Rules Law" to limit politicians' use of funds during election campaigns. The specificity of the law is amazing. The Japanese government has also established a "State Civil Service Law," a "State Officials Disciplinary Law," and a "Public Service Ethics Law," to ensure oversight. During 2008, over 1,400 civil servants worked overtime, late into the night. When commuting by taxi, they accepted beer and snacks from taxi drivers. This led to a massive anti-corruption campaign. Eventually one person was suspended, another eleven received pay cuts, and 21 were forced to make public apologies. The Minister of Finance at the time was also forced to take a two percent pay cut, as an gesture of contrition.
As a result, Japanese officials guilty of even petty offenses have resigned in droves. For example, in 2001 former Democratic Party political superstar Seiji Maehara, accepted 50,000 Yen in foreign political contributions (about 16,000 NTD). He was forced to resign as Prime Minister and apologize. Former Minister of Agriculture Toshikatsu Matsuoka overstated his office expenses in 2007. He eventually committed suicide.
Now compare Taiwan to Japan. Wen-Je Ko set up the MG one hundred forty-nine accounts. Inadequate monitoring enabled a handful of people to control political contributions. Even if the National Audit Office finds no illegal activity, Wen-Je Ko made private use of public funds and is morally culpable. Attempts to investigate tax evasion however, are spun as "political persecution." The Chung Hsing Bills scandal, the Yu Chang scandal, and the Watergate scandal, are spoken of in the same breath. Yet they are cavalierly dismissed as "skeletons in the closet" by the medical community. If the people are willing to accept such low ethical standards, how can democracy and the rule of law progress?
Should Taiwan adopt laws as harsh as Japan's? That is debatable. The real problem is our vast political gray area. It enables opportunists to run amok. Unless this gray area is eliminated, democracy and the rule of law will always be subject to two sets of standards.
從日本的政治潔癖 看台灣的道德麻痺
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.24 02:53 am
安倍內閣的兩位女性明星部長最近捲入政治獻金醜聞，雙雙宣告辭職。這兩樁政治醜聞，打破安倍上台兩年多來零事故、零下台的紀錄，也讓安倍的民意支持度再度跌破五成，跌至就任以來的新低點。
這個事件有兩個層面的意義。首先，是事件本身的政治影響：一直以來，日本內閣的民意支持常隨著閣員失言及涉入弊案等而下滑，甚至跌入下台的深水區。而安倍在去年九月通過《特定秘密保護法》後，其高民意蜜月期便已結束，只是安倍還在強推刺激經濟對策，企圖止住自己支持度的滑勢。而歷經這次醜聞的重創後，安倍的高人氣，恐怕已成明日黃花。
其次，從事件本身的意涵看，這足供台灣政治人物上一堂道德教育課。引咎辭職的兩位「金花部長」，經濟產業大臣小淵優子是被指控「濫用」政治獻金，因為她把政治獻金使用在購買化妝品及皮件飾品等無關政治的事務上，被認為用途不正當；另一位則是法務大臣松島綠，則是違反《日本公職選舉法》不能免費送東西的規定，因為她在造勢場合上發送價值六十五日圓（台幣廿二元）的圓扇給選民，被認為有「賄選」之嫌。可見，小淵及松島的弊案性質雖略有不同，但兩人被迫下台的命運卻沒有兩樣。
值得玩味的是，如果這兩起事件發生在台灣，會不會發展成相同的結局？答案恐怕是否定的。理由是，因朝野長期對峙所形成的巨大「道德灰色地帶」，使台灣政治人物硬拗成習，加上選民的濫情理盲和媒體的麻痺，這類微小金額或用途不清的問題，很容易被政治人物轉化為「政治追殺」或「歷史共業」而輕輕帶過，不僅不會承認錯誤，更遑論辭職下台。然而，對於有政治潔癖的日本來說，不管違法金額大小，這都是一項非下台不可的「重罪」，因為它逾越選民期許政治家高標準的道德紅線，政治家必須要以「自我懲罰」來維護日本國家的形象與榮譽。台灣與日本對於政治人物要求標準的差距之大，可見一斑。
日本會對政治人物以放大鏡，甚至是顯微鏡來檢視，主要源於日本傳統是有極強的「界限」感，什麼是屬於自己的，什麼是屬於別人的，都要劃分得一清二楚。如果別人贈送禮物給自己，事後一定要等價奉還；所以日本人一般送禮都不會送太貴重的東西，以免讓對方承受太重的「回禮」壓力。在這種文化思維下，政治人物哪怕只是半絲一毫的違規，對於強調「恥感」的日本人來說，都是屬於罪大惡極的敗德之舉。
也如此，日本政府制訂「政治獻金規正法」來約束政治人物在選舉資金使用的遊戲規則，其內容規範之細令人嘆為觀止。日本政府也訂定《國家公務員法》、《國家公務人員懲戒法》和《公務人員倫理法》等，作為監督之搭配。在二○○八年，有一千四百多名公務員因夜間加班，在下班搭乘計程車時，接受司機攬客用的啤酒及小吃招待，結果演變成一場大規模反貪腐風暴。最後，有一人遭停職處分，另有十一人減薪，二十一人公開道歉，當時的財務大臣還主動減薪兩成以示負責。
也因此，日本的達官顯要因涉及小額政治獻金之「微罪」而辭職下台者，有如過江之鯽。例如前民主黨政治明星前原誠司，二○一一年便因為收受外國人政治獻金五萬日圓（約台幣一萬六千元），而宣布辭職謝罪，與首相寶座失之交臂。日本前農林水產大臣松岡利勝，二○○七年因浮報辦公室事務費用，最終以自殺謝罪。
從日本回看台灣，柯文哲的ＭＧ一四九帳戶，在欠缺相關監督機制下，讓外界捐款任由少數人掌控，最後即使審計部認定核銷單據未違法，柯文哲仍難脫「公器私用」的道德質疑。但在政治操作下，外界對其涉逃漏稅務與監督的質疑，卻被導引成執政黨的「政治追殺」，甚至和「興票案」、「宇昌案」乃至「水門案」相提並論，說成是醫界的「歷史共業」。人民如果願意接受這樣的和稀泥，民主和法治怎麼可能進步？
台灣要不要把法令制定得像日本那麼嚴苛，有待討論。但真正的問題在，我們在政治上莫大的灰色地帶，正是留給投機者苟且優遊的空間；這個模糊地帶不消除，民主和法治永遠有兩套標準。
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
One Country, Two Systems: From Compartmentalization to Coopetition
One Country, Two Systems: From Compartmentalization to Coopetition
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 23, 2014
Executive Summary: Hong Kong rule is a headache for Beijing. But Beijing faces an even greater challenge, namely Mainland rule and how to alter it. Beijing's tough stance on Hong Kong and Taiwan is actually a retreart. If Beijing fails to alter its thinking and practices, Deng Xiaoping's one country two systems could be discredited in Hong Kong. The rigor mortis of the Mainland regime could lead to its doom. Is this not a "bad ending" that warrants concern?
Full Text Below:
Hong Kong Newsflash: Hong Kong Federation of Students representatives and government officials are engaged in a tug of war at the negotiating table. Demonstrators and police are engaged in a tug of war on the streets.
The Mainland's official news outlets say the protesters are tired. They say the movement has been "hollowed out," that it "must come to an end, and is on the verge of collapse," and that "Democracy cannot avoid a bad ending." If Beijing and the Hong Kong Government adopt this attitude when talking to pro-democracy activists, no solution is likely. Internally, the tug of war on the streets of Hong Kong may be coming to an end. But they are not necessarily "on the verge of collapse," Externally, outside observers are hoping that Hong Kong can become an object lesson in the pursuit of peace. They object to bad-mouthing and references to "bad endings." They have no desire to see Hong Kong become a source of regret.
Regardless of the outcome of the Occupy Central movement, democracy in Hong Kong has gained momentum. It will find its place amidst political ups and downs. Even when the "no change for 50 years" deadline arrives, Hong Kong will not backslide. The world turns. "One Country, Two Systems" is a dynamic process. In the long term, today's "compartmentalized two systems" may become tomorrow's "coopetitive two systems." That will be the real day of reckoning. Therefore Beijing faces a more serious problem. In another fifty years, will the Mainland's political system still be what it is today? Will it still be an immutable communist dictatorship?
How should Beijing respond to Hong Kong's political reform as it moves toward democracy? That is a tough question. But an even tougher question is whether Beijing's one-party dictatorship should also undergo political reform? In other words, one country, two systems could go from compartmentalization to coopetition.
In 1997 Beijing adopted "one country, two systems" in response to the problem of Hong Kong. Beijing knew that Mainland rule over Hong Kong would be inferior to Hong Kong rule over Hong Kong. This was common sense. But an even better question is whether Mainland rule is better for the Mainland, in the long run. If the CCP leadership did not have doubts, it would not mention the "end of the party and the end of the nation" so frequently.
Mainland rule has four cardinal principles. But they boil down to one. Principle One. The socialist road, but with "Chinese characteristics." This of course, is a self-contradiction. Principle Two. The dictatorship of the proletariat. But the CCP regime has already become a dictatorship of second generation officials, second-generation plutocrats, with workers and peasants pushed to the margins. Principle Three. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Reall? Principle Four. The leadership of the Communist Party. The CCP demands the "leadership of the Communist Party" even though it is no longer socialist, no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, and no longer has any relationship with Marx, Lenin, and Mao. All that remains is the leadership of the CCP. But this is the 21st century. Can the party continue making such demands for another 50 years?
In fact, since reforms begain in 1978, the Communist regime has made significant achievements in political reform. For example, in TV dramas Deng Xiaoping is portrayed as critical of the Cultural Revolution. He blasts it as "Inexplicable and outrageous." For example, Mao Zedong "criticized Confucius and praised the Qin Emperor." But Xi Jinping frequently praises Confucius and expresses respect for Confucianism. For example, one seldom hears "class struggle" cited as the key to ruling the nation. The old socialist path permitted socialism but not capitalism. That path no longer exists. The dictatorship of the proletariat no longer exists. It is no longer something the party demands. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism exists in name only. Three of the four cardinal principles have already been forsaken. The only remaining principle is the leadership of the Communist Party. Communist party rule need not be ruled out. But it should be achieved through democratic competition.
The Chinese Communist Party's 36 years of achievements in reform and opening deserve affirmation. But recent tightening of communist regime control puts its legitimacy at risk. The situation on Mainland China is complex. At times calls for "Communist Party leadership" are understandable. They provide the CCP the time needed to slough off other three principles. But the CCP should use this political tutelage period to improve political and economic conditions. It should transition from demanding "the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party," to demanding Chinese Communist Party "participation in democratic competition." This is a daunting task, But seven years of disease require three years of healing. If the crops and livestock are inadequate, the people cannot survive.
The situation in Hong Kong is a microcosm of the Mainland. Sham universal suffrage shows that Beijing fears its man might lose under genuine universal suffrage. Therefore it demands screening. By the same token, Beijing fears that a more democratic form of government on the Mainland might threaten the Communist Party's power. Therefore it demands Communist Party leadership. But without popular support, the CCP must get tough and apply more pressure. In the long term, this will make the regime less inclusive. less appealing, and less legitimate. It will greatly increase the risks of governance.
The one remaining cardinal principle shows that the CCP lacks tolerance and self-confidence. Hong Kong rule is a headache for Beijing. But Beijing faces an even greater challenge, namely Mainland rule and how to alter it. Beijing's tough stance on Hong Kong and Taiwan is actually a retreart. If Beijing fails to alter its thinking and practices, Deng Xiaoping's one country two systems could be discredited in Hong Kong. The rigor mortis of the Mainland regime could lead to its doom. Is this not a "bad ending" that warrants concern?
一國兩制：由區隔性轉為競爭性
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.23 02:05 am
快門下的香港：學聯代表與港府官員在談判桌上進行拉鋸戰，示威者與警察在街頭進行拉鋸戰。
近日，大陸官媒見示威者已現疲態，指占中運動「空洞無物」、「已經到了曲終人散、土崩瓦解的地步」、「民主秀難逃爛尾結局」。北京與港府若以此心態與民運人士對談，只怕不易得到解決方案。事實上，從內部看，香港街頭的拉鋸戰雖難罷干休，但所謂「曲終人散、土崩瓦解」之說未必盡然；從外部看，外界皆期待香港問題能以追求和平收場為旨，不要刻意唱衰或真弄到「爛尾結局」，以免使港中關係留下不可彌補的遺憾。
不論此次占中運動的成果如何，但香港的民主動能應已建立，自會在張弛起落中找到歸宿，即使過了「五十年不變」的大限也不可能走回頭路。其實，地球在轉動，「一國兩制」是一個動態過程，從長期看，如今是「區隔的兩制」，未來可能轉為「競爭的兩制」，屆時才是評價「結局」之日。於是，另一個更嚴肅的問題是：再隔五十年，大陸的政治體制仍將是今天的面貌嗎？仍將是一成不變的共黨專政嗎？
因此，就北京的立場言，如何因應「港制」民主走向的「政改」固然棘手，更嚴肅的議題則在「陸制」的一黨專政應不應當也考慮「政改」？亦即，兩制有無可能在一國之中從區隔性轉為競爭性。
北京在一九九七年採「一國兩制」處理香港問題，主要是自知若要治港，則「陸制」不如「港制」。但「陸制」不能用於香港原是政治常識，更嚴肅的問題在「陸制」能否永遠用於大陸也是一個疑問，否則中共領導階層不會常把「亡黨亡國」掛在嘴邊。
「陸制」的天條是「四個堅持」，但實際上已變質為「一個堅持」。一、堅持社會主義道路（加上「中國特色」，已是白馬非馬）；二、堅持無產階級專政（目前已幾成官二代、富二代主政，工農階級又退至邊緣）；三、堅持馬列主義、毛澤東思想（是嗎？）；四、堅持共產黨的領導，即使已非社會主義、已非無產階級專政、已甩掉了馬列毛，但仍要「堅持共產黨的領導」，也就只剩這「一個堅持」。在二十一世紀的今天，這樣的「一個堅持」，在主觀上要不要再維持五十年？在客觀上能不能再維持五十年？
其實，一九七八年改革開放以來，中共政權在廣義的「政改」上已有顯著的努力與成就。例如，電視劇中的鄧小平，以「莫名其妙、豈有此理」批評文革諸事。又如，毛澤東「批孔揚秦」，但習近平頻密表達揚孔尊儒。再如，已罕聞「抓綱治國」（以階級鬥爭為綱）。這些皆可印證，只准姓社不准姓資的「社會主義道路」基本上已不存在；無產階級專政在現實上亦不存在，不再是「綱」；馬列毛也名存實亡。如此，「四個堅持」已去其三，最後的課題是在要不要「堅持共產黨的領導」；且並非排除中共統治，而是應當在民主競爭制衡中贏得政權。
中共在三十六年來改革開放的成就應予肯定，但隨著中共政權近期在控制上的大幅緊縮，政權的合理性及風險性皆在增加。以中國大陸情勢之複雜，在一定時段中「堅持共產黨領導」或許亦能理解，以利用此一時段蛻去「三個堅持」；但亦應當利用此一「訓政」時段努力累積政經條件，使「堅持共產黨專政」的中共，轉型為「在民主運作中競爭參政」的中共。這當然是一艱鉅工程，但七年之病，求三年之艾，苟為不畜，終身不得。
香港此際的政情可以視為大陸政局的縮影。「假普選」顯示北京擔心自己的人透過「真普選」會選不上，因此主張「篩選」。同理，北京擔心在大陸若採行較具民主競爭的政體，會威脅共產黨主政，因此堅持共產黨領導。但是，若缺乏普遍的民主檢驗和支撐，此一路線將使中共愈來愈走向強硬與高壓，從長期看，這在道德上將使政權愈來愈失去包容性、親和力甚至正當性，在現實上亦大大增加治理的風險。
「一個堅持」顯示中共缺乏氣度與自信，北京正為「港制」頭痛，但北京更大的挑戰則在「陸制」的前景如何調整。從最近的跡象看來，北京團隊所表現的「強硬」，例如在香港及台灣問題上，其實是在退縮。若不改變思維與作法，鄧小平「一國兩制」在香港的發展性恐遭摧折，大陸政體的僵固化則難以挽救，這難道不是值得擔憂的「爛尾結局」？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 23, 2014
Executive Summary: Hong Kong rule is a headache for Beijing. But Beijing faces an even greater challenge, namely Mainland rule and how to alter it. Beijing's tough stance on Hong Kong and Taiwan is actually a retreart. If Beijing fails to alter its thinking and practices, Deng Xiaoping's one country two systems could be discredited in Hong Kong. The rigor mortis of the Mainland regime could lead to its doom. Is this not a "bad ending" that warrants concern?
Full Text Below:
Hong Kong Newsflash: Hong Kong Federation of Students representatives and government officials are engaged in a tug of war at the negotiating table. Demonstrators and police are engaged in a tug of war on the streets.
The Mainland's official news outlets say the protesters are tired. They say the movement has been "hollowed out," that it "must come to an end, and is on the verge of collapse," and that "Democracy cannot avoid a bad ending." If Beijing and the Hong Kong Government adopt this attitude when talking to pro-democracy activists, no solution is likely. Internally, the tug of war on the streets of Hong Kong may be coming to an end. But they are not necessarily "on the verge of collapse," Externally, outside observers are hoping that Hong Kong can become an object lesson in the pursuit of peace. They object to bad-mouthing and references to "bad endings." They have no desire to see Hong Kong become a source of regret.
Regardless of the outcome of the Occupy Central movement, democracy in Hong Kong has gained momentum. It will find its place amidst political ups and downs. Even when the "no change for 50 years" deadline arrives, Hong Kong will not backslide. The world turns. "One Country, Two Systems" is a dynamic process. In the long term, today's "compartmentalized two systems" may become tomorrow's "coopetitive two systems." That will be the real day of reckoning. Therefore Beijing faces a more serious problem. In another fifty years, will the Mainland's political system still be what it is today? Will it still be an immutable communist dictatorship?
How should Beijing respond to Hong Kong's political reform as it moves toward democracy? That is a tough question. But an even tougher question is whether Beijing's one-party dictatorship should also undergo political reform? In other words, one country, two systems could go from compartmentalization to coopetition.
In 1997 Beijing adopted "one country, two systems" in response to the problem of Hong Kong. Beijing knew that Mainland rule over Hong Kong would be inferior to Hong Kong rule over Hong Kong. This was common sense. But an even better question is whether Mainland rule is better for the Mainland, in the long run. If the CCP leadership did not have doubts, it would not mention the "end of the party and the end of the nation" so frequently.
Mainland rule has four cardinal principles. But they boil down to one. Principle One. The socialist road, but with "Chinese characteristics." This of course, is a self-contradiction. Principle Two. The dictatorship of the proletariat. But the CCP regime has already become a dictatorship of second generation officials, second-generation plutocrats, with workers and peasants pushed to the margins. Principle Three. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Reall? Principle Four. The leadership of the Communist Party. The CCP demands the "leadership of the Communist Party" even though it is no longer socialist, no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, and no longer has any relationship with Marx, Lenin, and Mao. All that remains is the leadership of the CCP. But this is the 21st century. Can the party continue making such demands for another 50 years?
In fact, since reforms begain in 1978, the Communist regime has made significant achievements in political reform. For example, in TV dramas Deng Xiaoping is portrayed as critical of the Cultural Revolution. He blasts it as "Inexplicable and outrageous." For example, Mao Zedong "criticized Confucius and praised the Qin Emperor." But Xi Jinping frequently praises Confucius and expresses respect for Confucianism. For example, one seldom hears "class struggle" cited as the key to ruling the nation. The old socialist path permitted socialism but not capitalism. That path no longer exists. The dictatorship of the proletariat no longer exists. It is no longer something the party demands. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism exists in name only. Three of the four cardinal principles have already been forsaken. The only remaining principle is the leadership of the Communist Party. Communist party rule need not be ruled out. But it should be achieved through democratic competition.
The Chinese Communist Party's 36 years of achievements in reform and opening deserve affirmation. But recent tightening of communist regime control puts its legitimacy at risk. The situation on Mainland China is complex. At times calls for "Communist Party leadership" are understandable. They provide the CCP the time needed to slough off other three principles. But the CCP should use this political tutelage period to improve political and economic conditions. It should transition from demanding "the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party," to demanding Chinese Communist Party "participation in democratic competition." This is a daunting task, But seven years of disease require three years of healing. If the crops and livestock are inadequate, the people cannot survive.
The situation in Hong Kong is a microcosm of the Mainland. Sham universal suffrage shows that Beijing fears its man might lose under genuine universal suffrage. Therefore it demands screening. By the same token, Beijing fears that a more democratic form of government on the Mainland might threaten the Communist Party's power. Therefore it demands Communist Party leadership. But without popular support, the CCP must get tough and apply more pressure. In the long term, this will make the regime less inclusive. less appealing, and less legitimate. It will greatly increase the risks of governance.
The one remaining cardinal principle shows that the CCP lacks tolerance and self-confidence. Hong Kong rule is a headache for Beijing. But Beijing faces an even greater challenge, namely Mainland rule and how to alter it. Beijing's tough stance on Hong Kong and Taiwan is actually a retreart. If Beijing fails to alter its thinking and practices, Deng Xiaoping's one country two systems could be discredited in Hong Kong. The rigor mortis of the Mainland regime could lead to its doom. Is this not a "bad ending" that warrants concern?
一國兩制：由區隔性轉為競爭性
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.23 02:05 am
快門下的香港：學聯代表與港府官員在談判桌上進行拉鋸戰，示威者與警察在街頭進行拉鋸戰。
近日，大陸官媒見示威者已現疲態，指占中運動「空洞無物」、「已經到了曲終人散、土崩瓦解的地步」、「民主秀難逃爛尾結局」。北京與港府若以此心態與民運人士對談，只怕不易得到解決方案。事實上，從內部看，香港街頭的拉鋸戰雖難罷干休，但所謂「曲終人散、土崩瓦解」之說未必盡然；從外部看，外界皆期待香港問題能以追求和平收場為旨，不要刻意唱衰或真弄到「爛尾結局」，以免使港中關係留下不可彌補的遺憾。
不論此次占中運動的成果如何，但香港的民主動能應已建立，自會在張弛起落中找到歸宿，即使過了「五十年不變」的大限也不可能走回頭路。其實，地球在轉動，「一國兩制」是一個動態過程，從長期看，如今是「區隔的兩制」，未來可能轉為「競爭的兩制」，屆時才是評價「結局」之日。於是，另一個更嚴肅的問題是：再隔五十年，大陸的政治體制仍將是今天的面貌嗎？仍將是一成不變的共黨專政嗎？
因此，就北京的立場言，如何因應「港制」民主走向的「政改」固然棘手，更嚴肅的議題則在「陸制」的一黨專政應不應當也考慮「政改」？亦即，兩制有無可能在一國之中從區隔性轉為競爭性。
北京在一九九七年採「一國兩制」處理香港問題，主要是自知若要治港，則「陸制」不如「港制」。但「陸制」不能用於香港原是政治常識，更嚴肅的問題在「陸制」能否永遠用於大陸也是一個疑問，否則中共領導階層不會常把「亡黨亡國」掛在嘴邊。
「陸制」的天條是「四個堅持」，但實際上已變質為「一個堅持」。一、堅持社會主義道路（加上「中國特色」，已是白馬非馬）；二、堅持無產階級專政（目前已幾成官二代、富二代主政，工農階級又退至邊緣）；三、堅持馬列主義、毛澤東思想（是嗎？）；四、堅持共產黨的領導，即使已非社會主義、已非無產階級專政、已甩掉了馬列毛，但仍要「堅持共產黨的領導」，也就只剩這「一個堅持」。在二十一世紀的今天，這樣的「一個堅持」，在主觀上要不要再維持五十年？在客觀上能不能再維持五十年？
其實，一九七八年改革開放以來，中共政權在廣義的「政改」上已有顯著的努力與成就。例如，電視劇中的鄧小平，以「莫名其妙、豈有此理」批評文革諸事。又如，毛澤東「批孔揚秦」，但習近平頻密表達揚孔尊儒。再如，已罕聞「抓綱治國」（以階級鬥爭為綱）。這些皆可印證，只准姓社不准姓資的「社會主義道路」基本上已不存在；無產階級專政在現實上亦不存在，不再是「綱」；馬列毛也名存實亡。如此，「四個堅持」已去其三，最後的課題是在要不要「堅持共產黨的領導」；且並非排除中共統治，而是應當在民主競爭制衡中贏得政權。
中共在三十六年來改革開放的成就應予肯定，但隨著中共政權近期在控制上的大幅緊縮，政權的合理性及風險性皆在增加。以中國大陸情勢之複雜，在一定時段中「堅持共產黨領導」或許亦能理解，以利用此一時段蛻去「三個堅持」；但亦應當利用此一「訓政」時段努力累積政經條件，使「堅持共產黨專政」的中共，轉型為「在民主運作中競爭參政」的中共。這當然是一艱鉅工程，但七年之病，求三年之艾，苟為不畜，終身不得。
香港此際的政情可以視為大陸政局的縮影。「假普選」顯示北京擔心自己的人透過「真普選」會選不上，因此主張「篩選」。同理，北京擔心在大陸若採行較具民主競爭的政體，會威脅共產黨主政，因此堅持共產黨領導。但是，若缺乏普遍的民主檢驗和支撐，此一路線將使中共愈來愈走向強硬與高壓，從長期看，這在道德上將使政權愈來愈失去包容性、親和力甚至正當性，在現實上亦大大增加治理的風險。
「一個堅持」顯示中共缺乏氣度與自信，北京正為「港制」頭痛，但北京更大的挑戰則在「陸制」的前景如何調整。從最近的跡象看來，北京團隊所表現的「強硬」，例如在香港及台灣問題上，其實是在退縮。若不改變思維與作法，鄧小平「一國兩制」在香港的發展性恐遭摧折，大陸政體的僵固化則難以挽救，這難道不是值得擔憂的「爛尾結局」？
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Underestimate Undeclared Voters at Your Own Peril
Underestimate Undeclared Voters at Your Own Peril
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2014
Executive Summary: The nine in one elections are less than 40 days away. The most widely anticipated political debate of the elections should already have taKon place. But the word is Taipei City mayoral candidates Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko could not reach an agreement on the debate format, therefore it has been cancelled. Taipei citizens will probably not be able to evaluate the two political camps' campaign platforms until November. Taipei citizens may have to wait to see the two candidates engage in open political dialogue. If so, it would be a first in Taipei's mayoral election history.
Full Text below:
The nine in one elections are less than 40 days away. The most widely anticipated political debate of the elections should already have taKon place. But the word is Taipei City mayoral candidates Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko could not reach an agreement on the debate format, therefore it has been cancelled. Taipei citizens will probably not be able to evaluate the two political camps' campaign platforms until November. Taipei citizens may have to wait to see the two candidates engage in open political dialogue. If so, it would be a first in Taipei's mayoral election history.
We are deeply disappointed with this development. After all, the capital city election is the highlight of the nine in one elections. It has the highest priority. Most significantly of all, both the ruling and opposition camp candidates are "virgins." Neither has any political record that voters can refer to. What's worse, both candidates have waged negative campaigns since the campaign began. Spittle wars to the other candidate have overshadowed positive agendas. Just what kind of government can these two candidates offer citizens of Taipei? That has never been clearly explained, A political debate is just such an opportunity. Unfortunately the two candidates have made such a debate impossible.
One thing is particularly unacceptable. According to news reports, the main reason the debate is not going ahead is technical. Apparently the two sides' schedules conflict. The Ko camp demands a town hall forum style debate. Sean Lien demands a one on one policy debate, an interactive policy debate with cross-examinations. As a result, the two sides have failed to reach an agreement. Both camps have dug in their heels. Onlookers are confused. What possible advantages or disadvantages can there be for the two candidates? They cannot tell.
For example, Wen-Je Ko has a modicum of eloquence. Why is he so afraid of a cross-examination? If the two cross-examine each other, Sean Lien would not necessarily get the better of him. By the same token, why should Sean Lien be afraid to field questions from the public during a comprehensive town hall forum style debate over municipal planning? Would Wen-Je Ko necessarily hold sway? That is hard to say. The two sides' demands regarding format and technical details led to its cancellation. Frankly this is laughable.
Could it be that neither the Lien nor Ko camp actually wants a debate? If they really wanted a debate. they would not quibble over such petty details. To meet the demands of both camps, why not hold one interactive, cross-examination style debate, then follow it up by holding one town hall forum style debate? What would be wrong with that? In fact the Taipei mayoral elections adopted these two forms of debate long ago. During past election seasons, the candidates were willing to accept the challenges posed by the two formats. It was doable then, why why not today?
The debate between the Lien and Ko camps has been cancelled. One can be sure there were political calculations behind the cancellation. Just exactly what calculations? No one knows. According to current polls, Wen-Je Ko is leading Sean Lien. Theoretically Wen-Je Ko would want a debate, in order to widen the gap between him and Lien. Since Sean Lien is lagging behind, he should want a debate in order to reverse his fortunes. How have the two tacitly ensured that the debates would be cancelled? Where is the clever political calculus amidst all this? One really has to wonder.
Do the Lien and Ko camps really have no reason to look forward to a debate? Do they really have no desire to use this opportunity to present their municipal government policy programs to the public? Do they really not want the public to have an opportunity to compare their campaign platforms? Do they really want to keep talking past each other? Do they really want to continue the current spittle war? Do they really want to conduct negative campaigns? If so, then they are both irresponsible, and owe the citizens of Taipei an apology.
Taipei is the nation's capital. Its voters have undergone countless electoral "baptisms by fire." Two Taipei mayoral candidates later became President of the Republic of China. Two served as Premier, then ran unsuccessful mayoral campaigns. Taipei citizens know all about shrewd, even cunning candidates. Attempting to deceive Taipei voters is a stupid idea. Few Taipei voters will cast their votes for Lien or Ko merely because they dug in their heels over the format of the debate.
We appeal to two candidates. Open the door and walk through it. Do not fear any debate format. Seize every opportunity to express your policy prescriptions to Taipei citizens. That is what a candidate truly qualified to serve as mayor would do. Taipei voters will never support a candidate who uses petty pretexts to avoid debate. The percentage of Taipei City voters unwilling to share which candidate they will vote for remains high. Neither the Lien nor Ko camp should overlook the power of these undeclared voters. Letting them understand you through debate is the key to campaign success.
社論－莫低估不表態選民的最後決定
2014年10月22日 04:09
本報訊
距離九合一選舉投票日已經不到40天，照說最受矚目的政見辯論會早就該登場了，卻傳出台北市選區的連勝文、柯文哲陣營因為在辯論形式與細節的協商上未達共識，導致破局。台北市民若要看到兩陣營的政見陳述，最快恐怕也要到11月才登場。如果屆時台市民是要等到公辦政見會時才能看到兩人公開對話，那也真是創了台北市長選舉史上的先例。
不諱言說，對這樣的結果，我們是感到滿失望的。畢竟首都選舉是此次九合一選舉中的主要焦點，說它是重中之重也不為過。最主要是由於這次代表朝野陣營參選的候選人都是政治素人，都沒有重要的政治經歷可供選民參考，再加上選戰開打以來，兩位候選人都主打負面議題，彼此抹黑的口水遠遠多過正面的議題，因而這兩位候選人究竟要給市民一個怎樣的台北市？從來都沒清楚說明過，而政見辯論正是一個重要的機會，很可惜兩位參選人卻一起放棄了這個機會。
最讓我們不能接受的是，根據媒體報導，導致這場辯論破局的主因，居然是因為技術理由。據說是雙方在交互詰問次數與日期上沒有交集，柯陣營要求採公民提問辯論形式，如果沒有就不參與辯論，連陣營則堅持要一對一辯論政策，且要有交互詰問，結果雙方並未達成共識。這兩個陣營的堅持，在外界看來，都讓人費解，因為它對兩位候選人利弊得失究竟在哪？完全看不出來。
譬如說，以柯文哲的辯才，他為什麼這麼害怕交互詰問？真正要交互詰問起來，連勝文恐怕還不一定能討得到便宜；同樣的，如果有一個完整說明市政規畫，並與市民直接對話的機會，連勝文又何必害怕公民提問的辯論形式？柯文哲在這種辯論形式下就一定會占優勢嗎？恐怕真的很難說。直白一些講，雙方在形式與技術上的堅持，甚至還搞到破局收場，有點讓人啼笑皆非！
所以，重點或許在於：連柯兩個陣營究竟是不是真的想辦這場辯論？如果真是要辯論，那就不可能在辯論形式上這麼鑽牛角尖。試想，要滿足雙方陣營的需求，何妨一場採取有交互詰問的形式，再一場採取公民提問的辯論形式，這樣不是挺好？以往的台北市長選舉，其實早就採取過這種兩樣形式都辦的模式，那時節每位參選人都樂於接受不同模式的挑戰，那時可以，何以今天就做不到呢？
連柯兩陣營讓辯論破局，一定有背後的政治算計，只是究竟在算計什麼，讓人猜不透。依目前的民調顯示，柯文哲暫時領先連勝文，照說柯文哲應期待藉辯論效應，一舉擴大領先差距；連勝文既然是暫時落後，應該會期待藉著辯論的舉行，全面翻轉局面，怎麼會最後弄到兩人不約而同的一起讓辯論破局？這中間的高明算計在哪裡，真讓人猜疑！
難道是說，連柯兩陣營都對辦辯論沒啥期待，兩人都完全不想藉這個難得的機會，向市民完整的交代他們的市政理念，也都不想讓市民有一個公開比較他們兩人政見的機會，寧可維持目前這種各說各話、隔空交火的局面，甚至是維持目前這種吐口水、挖瘡疤的負面選戰局面？如果真是這樣，那麼必須說，他們兩人都有些不負責任，甚至是欠台北市民一個道歉！
台北首都的選民早就經歷過無數選戰的洗禮，這中間有兩位參選人後來成為中華民國的總統，也有兩位擔任過閣揆的人選出馬參選市長並落選，可以說，就算是再精明、再狡猾的候選人，台北市民都經歷過，想要玩機巧去誆台北市聰明的選民，恐怕是很蠢的想法，沒幾位台北選民，會因為連柯兩人在辯論形式上的堅持，而據此做出他們關鍵選擇。
最後，我們誠懇呼籲兩位候選人，開大門走大路吧！不畏任何辯論形式，爭取每一個向台北市民表達理念的機會，才是真正有條件擔任市長的人選，小鼻小眼拘泥形式而躲避辯論的人，永遠不會是市民期待的人選！台北市選民不表態（拒訪及未決定）比例仍高，連柯陣營不要輕忽這些選民的力量。讓他們透過辯論會了解你，才是致勝的關鍵點！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2014
Executive Summary: The nine in one elections are less than 40 days away. The most widely anticipated political debate of the elections should already have taKon place. But the word is Taipei City mayoral candidates Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko could not reach an agreement on the debate format, therefore it has been cancelled. Taipei citizens will probably not be able to evaluate the two political camps' campaign platforms until November. Taipei citizens may have to wait to see the two candidates engage in open political dialogue. If so, it would be a first in Taipei's mayoral election history.
Full Text below:
The nine in one elections are less than 40 days away. The most widely anticipated political debate of the elections should already have taKon place. But the word is Taipei City mayoral candidates Sean Lien and Wen-Je Ko could not reach an agreement on the debate format, therefore it has been cancelled. Taipei citizens will probably not be able to evaluate the two political camps' campaign platforms until November. Taipei citizens may have to wait to see the two candidates engage in open political dialogue. If so, it would be a first in Taipei's mayoral election history.
We are deeply disappointed with this development. After all, the capital city election is the highlight of the nine in one elections. It has the highest priority. Most significantly of all, both the ruling and opposition camp candidates are "virgins." Neither has any political record that voters can refer to. What's worse, both candidates have waged negative campaigns since the campaign began. Spittle wars to the other candidate have overshadowed positive agendas. Just what kind of government can these two candidates offer citizens of Taipei? That has never been clearly explained, A political debate is just such an opportunity. Unfortunately the two candidates have made such a debate impossible.
One thing is particularly unacceptable. According to news reports, the main reason the debate is not going ahead is technical. Apparently the two sides' schedules conflict. The Ko camp demands a town hall forum style debate. Sean Lien demands a one on one policy debate, an interactive policy debate with cross-examinations. As a result, the two sides have failed to reach an agreement. Both camps have dug in their heels. Onlookers are confused. What possible advantages or disadvantages can there be for the two candidates? They cannot tell.
For example, Wen-Je Ko has a modicum of eloquence. Why is he so afraid of a cross-examination? If the two cross-examine each other, Sean Lien would not necessarily get the better of him. By the same token, why should Sean Lien be afraid to field questions from the public during a comprehensive town hall forum style debate over municipal planning? Would Wen-Je Ko necessarily hold sway? That is hard to say. The two sides' demands regarding format and technical details led to its cancellation. Frankly this is laughable.
Could it be that neither the Lien nor Ko camp actually wants a debate? If they really wanted a debate. they would not quibble over such petty details. To meet the demands of both camps, why not hold one interactive, cross-examination style debate, then follow it up by holding one town hall forum style debate? What would be wrong with that? In fact the Taipei mayoral elections adopted these two forms of debate long ago. During past election seasons, the candidates were willing to accept the challenges posed by the two formats. It was doable then, why why not today?
The debate between the Lien and Ko camps has been cancelled. One can be sure there were political calculations behind the cancellation. Just exactly what calculations? No one knows. According to current polls, Wen-Je Ko is leading Sean Lien. Theoretically Wen-Je Ko would want a debate, in order to widen the gap between him and Lien. Since Sean Lien is lagging behind, he should want a debate in order to reverse his fortunes. How have the two tacitly ensured that the debates would be cancelled? Where is the clever political calculus amidst all this? One really has to wonder.
Do the Lien and Ko camps really have no reason to look forward to a debate? Do they really have no desire to use this opportunity to present their municipal government policy programs to the public? Do they really not want the public to have an opportunity to compare their campaign platforms? Do they really want to keep talking past each other? Do they really want to continue the current spittle war? Do they really want to conduct negative campaigns? If so, then they are both irresponsible, and owe the citizens of Taipei an apology.
Taipei is the nation's capital. Its voters have undergone countless electoral "baptisms by fire." Two Taipei mayoral candidates later became President of the Republic of China. Two served as Premier, then ran unsuccessful mayoral campaigns. Taipei citizens know all about shrewd, even cunning candidates. Attempting to deceive Taipei voters is a stupid idea. Few Taipei voters will cast their votes for Lien or Ko merely because they dug in their heels over the format of the debate.
We appeal to two candidates. Open the door and walk through it. Do not fear any debate format. Seize every opportunity to express your policy prescriptions to Taipei citizens. That is what a candidate truly qualified to serve as mayor would do. Taipei voters will never support a candidate who uses petty pretexts to avoid debate. The percentage of Taipei City voters unwilling to share which candidate they will vote for remains high. Neither the Lien nor Ko camp should overlook the power of these undeclared voters. Letting them understand you through debate is the key to campaign success.
社論－莫低估不表態選民的最後決定
2014年10月22日 04:09
本報訊
距離九合一選舉投票日已經不到40天，照說最受矚目的政見辯論會早就該登場了，卻傳出台北市選區的連勝文、柯文哲陣營因為在辯論形式與細節的協商上未達共識，導致破局。台北市民若要看到兩陣營的政見陳述，最快恐怕也要到11月才登場。如果屆時台市民是要等到公辦政見會時才能看到兩人公開對話，那也真是創了台北市長選舉史上的先例。
不諱言說，對這樣的結果，我們是感到滿失望的。畢竟首都選舉是此次九合一選舉中的主要焦點，說它是重中之重也不為過。最主要是由於這次代表朝野陣營參選的候選人都是政治素人，都沒有重要的政治經歷可供選民參考，再加上選戰開打以來，兩位候選人都主打負面議題，彼此抹黑的口水遠遠多過正面的議題，因而這兩位候選人究竟要給市民一個怎樣的台北市？從來都沒清楚說明過，而政見辯論正是一個重要的機會，很可惜兩位參選人卻一起放棄了這個機會。
最讓我們不能接受的是，根據媒體報導，導致這場辯論破局的主因，居然是因為技術理由。據說是雙方在交互詰問次數與日期上沒有交集，柯陣營要求採公民提問辯論形式，如果沒有就不參與辯論，連陣營則堅持要一對一辯論政策，且要有交互詰問，結果雙方並未達成共識。這兩個陣營的堅持，在外界看來，都讓人費解，因為它對兩位候選人利弊得失究竟在哪？完全看不出來。
譬如說，以柯文哲的辯才，他為什麼這麼害怕交互詰問？真正要交互詰問起來，連勝文恐怕還不一定能討得到便宜；同樣的，如果有一個完整說明市政規畫，並與市民直接對話的機會，連勝文又何必害怕公民提問的辯論形式？柯文哲在這種辯論形式下就一定會占優勢嗎？恐怕真的很難說。直白一些講，雙方在形式與技術上的堅持，甚至還搞到破局收場，有點讓人啼笑皆非！
所以，重點或許在於：連柯兩個陣營究竟是不是真的想辦這場辯論？如果真是要辯論，那就不可能在辯論形式上這麼鑽牛角尖。試想，要滿足雙方陣營的需求，何妨一場採取有交互詰問的形式，再一場採取公民提問的辯論形式，這樣不是挺好？以往的台北市長選舉，其實早就採取過這種兩樣形式都辦的模式，那時節每位參選人都樂於接受不同模式的挑戰，那時可以，何以今天就做不到呢？
連柯兩陣營讓辯論破局，一定有背後的政治算計，只是究竟在算計什麼，讓人猜不透。依目前的民調顯示，柯文哲暫時領先連勝文，照說柯文哲應期待藉辯論效應，一舉擴大領先差距；連勝文既然是暫時落後，應該會期待藉著辯論的舉行，全面翻轉局面，怎麼會最後弄到兩人不約而同的一起讓辯論破局？這中間的高明算計在哪裡，真讓人猜疑！
難道是說，連柯兩陣營都對辦辯論沒啥期待，兩人都完全不想藉這個難得的機會，向市民完整的交代他們的市政理念，也都不想讓市民有一個公開比較他們兩人政見的機會，寧可維持目前這種各說各話、隔空交火的局面，甚至是維持目前這種吐口水、挖瘡疤的負面選戰局面？如果真是這樣，那麼必須說，他們兩人都有些不負責任，甚至是欠台北市民一個道歉！
台北首都的選民早就經歷過無數選戰的洗禮，這中間有兩位參選人後來成為中華民國的總統，也有兩位擔任過閣揆的人選出馬參選市長並落選，可以說，就算是再精明、再狡猾的候選人，台北市民都經歷過，想要玩機巧去誆台北市聰明的選民，恐怕是很蠢的想法，沒幾位台北選民，會因為連柯兩人在辯論形式上的堅持，而據此做出他們關鍵選擇。
最後，我們誠懇呼籲兩位候選人，開大門走大路吧！不畏任何辯論形式，爭取每一個向台北市民表達理念的機會，才是真正有條件擔任市長的人選，小鼻小眼拘泥形式而躲避辯論的人，永遠不會是市民期待的人選！台北市選民不表態（拒訪及未決定）比例仍高，連柯陣營不要輕忽這些選民的力量。讓他們透過辯論會了解你，才是致勝的關鍵點！
Monday, October 20, 2014
Amidst Election Fever Remember Economic Revitalization
Amidst Election Fever Remember Economic Revitalization
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 21, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan has not enjoyed any rest from the beginning of this year. In March the student movement erupted. It was followed by the rancid oil crisis, the nine in one election nominations, and the current food safety crisis. Confronted with all manner of unexpected political and social crises, politicians, high-ranking officials, and opinion leaders are exhausted. Nevertheless our current difficulties must be confronted. The economy must continue to grow, unemployment must be reduced, wages must be increased. Only then can long-term stability be assured.
Full Text Below:
Taiwan has not enjoyed any rest from the beginning of this year. In March the student movement erupted. It was followed by the rancid oil crisis, the nine in one election nominations, and the current food safety crisis. Confronted with all manner of unexpected political and social crises, politicians, high-ranking officials, and opinion leaders are exhausted. Nevertheless our current difficulties must be confronted. The economy must continue to grow, unemployment must be reduced, wages must be increased. Only then can long-term stability be assured.
Ideological disputes are Taiwan's biggest problem. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads, swords drawn. Supporters of different camps refuse to tolerate each other's beliefs. Anyone concerned about the future of Taiwan, who sees what is happening, can only feel a sense of sadness. We must snap out of our political spell and focus on the revitalization of Taiwan’s economy.
The FSC has done much in this regard. Chairman Tseng has taken three measures to rescue the stock market. Recently he took one more. Each of these measures will not be equally effective, and their overall impact remains to be seen. But we applaud his good intentions. The government is not limited to the FSC. It has many other agencies. We urge responsible agencies to work together and adopt three more measures.
The first measure is to increase the supply of housing for young people. Housing is a major problem for young people. In fact, it is a major problem for everyone on the island. The government has introduced many policies. But so far none of them have worked. They include the luxury tax, taxing the rich, and increased taxes on anyone with three or more housing units. These alas, are all temporary solutions. The government plans to implement a combined real estate tax/land tax. But which bill will be adopted remains unclear. Whether the legislature can pass the bill remains in question. Even if it is passed, the immediate effects following implementation are still unclear.
We believe the best way is to emulate Singapore and Hong Kong. Public housing needs to be delinked from the market economy. In this respect, it is similar to the minimum wage and subsidies for low-income families. It corrects the deficiencies in the labor market. Under the market economy, housing is unlikely to be affordable to the economically disadvantaged any time in the foreseeable future. Singapore and Hong Kong once had the same problem. In response, they built large numbers of public housing units. In essence this created a "non-market economy" in housing. Housing is then provided on the basis of “from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs.”
We recommend a three-pronged approach to the problem. One. In some cities housing prices and salaries are higher. In some districts floor areas grossly exceed the maximum allowable floor area. Raising the maximum allowable floor area could be used as an incentive. It could persuade construction company to become involved in equity investment. The government would not need the financial resources to build large quantities of public housing. Also, much public land has remained idle for decades. This includes military land and living quarters for employees of public agencies. These can be put to good use. One need not worry about the impact of the bid price on market prices. One can use these lands as equity and arrange joint ventures with construction companies, The government could thereby acquire large quantities of public housing and financial resources.
Furthermore, public housing need not be constructed in the city center. It can be constructed on the outskirts of the metropolitan area. MRT connections however, are essential. For example, between Keelung and Taipei, land prices are quite low. The straight-line distance from Keelung to Taipei is quite short. If the MRT can be extended, large quantities of public housing could be provided. Public housing should also emulate the private sector. Marketing firms should plan the architectural styles and floor areas, and ensure quality control. Lastly, new primary and secondary schools should be established in the district to ensure the availability of schooling.
The second measure is the Free Enterprise Pilot Zones (FEPZs). There is no reason this bill should remained stalled. We call on the opposition parties to cease opposition for the sake of opposition. The restrictions on Mainland capital can be the same as those outside the FEPZ. Other laws can be relaxed to improve efficiency, These include land use, single window service, specialized courts, and so on. The legislature should adopt these proposals post haste. Let the FEPZs begin operation early, attract domestic and foreign investments to Taiwan, and create jobs.
The third measure is strengthening university-industry collaboration. Let academia take part in the energy industry. Academics currently face a major problem. Even in the applied sciences, most professors' studies are totally unrelated to Taiwan's industries. [???? ] just published an article its journal. When students they trained students enter industry, the must starte from scratch. This is a waste of talent and resources. We urge the government to immediately adopt measures to provide applied sciences research grants. Industry should be willing to adopt the recommendations in Masters and PhD theses or professors plans, and provide partial funding.
When authors of research projects apply for government grants, they should be sent to the relevant technology companies for review. In the case of duplications, the government should promote their integration, Smaller plans that are similar should be merged into larger research projects. They can also suggest new topics Taiwan's industrial development is at stake. This will avoid overspending. Research funding for 100 researchers can subsidize 150 or even 200 people, More can be done with less.
This three measures have no relation to ideology, The DPP has no reason to oppose them. Related bills in the legislature have remained stalled. The opposition should show people it is a responsible party ready to govern, not merely one concerned about electoral advantage, or that engages in opposition merely for the sake of opposition. Only when opposition parties are responsible, can democracy function, and continue to move forward.
社論－選戰再熱 也不能忘了拚經濟
2014年10月21日 04:09
本報訊
從年初到現在，台灣一直處在紛爭中：從3月的學運，到餿水油風波，到九合一選舉的提名，一直到最近的食安風暴。面臨各種突發的政治與社會事件，政治人物、高層文官與社會意見領袖莫不疲於奔命。不過，解決當前難關固然重要，如何讓經濟和就業持續成長、失業率下降、薪資上升，才是長治久安之計。
意識型態的紛爭，是台灣最大的困境。朝野兩黨劍拔弩張、刀光劍影；不同陣營的支持者，無法容忍對方的理念。任何關心台灣前途的人看到這種情況，應該都非常痛心。我們希望大家能夠重新從政治熱鬥中覺醒，把注意力放到振興台灣經濟上。
金管會在這方面做了很多事，曾主委對股市發出三支箭，最近又增加一支。當然每一支箭的效力未必相同，整體效果還有待觀察，但是我們肯定他的用心。要之，政府不是只有金管會，還有其他部門，我們建議相關部門同心協力，發出三支更大的箭。
第一支箭是青年住宅的大量供給。住宅問題是青年人之痛，也是全民之痛，政府推出一大堆政策，到目前為止沒有一個能有效解決問題。諸如奢侈稅、富人稅、調高3屋以上房屋稅等，都只能治標。號稱未來要推行的房地稅合一，未來哪個版本出線不清楚，立法院能不能通過也是問題；就算通過，實施後是否有立竿見影的效應也不明確。
我們認為根本之道要學新加坡和香港，把國民基本住宅需求從市場經濟中抽離。這就和最低工資以及低收入家庭補助一樣，是要矯正勞動市場之不足。市場經濟之下的住宅，在可預見的將來都不可能讓無殼族有能力負擔。新、港有同樣的問題，所以他們大量興建公宅，其本質就是「非市場經濟」，依承購者的需要和能力，決定配售的類型和價格。
我們建議三管齊下解決問題，一是在房價所得比偏高的都市，對於現存樓地板面積離法定最高容積有很大距離的地區，提高容積率獎勵，並用以作為參與建商投資的股本，如此政府不用編列預算即可取得大量屋源或財源。另一方面，很多公有地閒置數十年，例如軍方土地、公家機關宿舍，都可以活化利用。如果擔心土地的招標影響市價，可以拿這些土地當股本和建商合建，如此政府又有大量屋源、財源。
再者，社會住宅不一定要蓋在市中心，可以選址市郊，但必須有捷運。例如基隆台北之間，地價非常便宜，離台北的直線距離又近，捷運如能延長，即可大量興建社會住宅。此外，社會住宅要仿效民間，請代銷公司規畫建築樣式與坪數，並確保品質。最後，一定要在當地設立新的國民中小學校，以便利就學。
第二支箭就是自由經濟示範區，這個案子沒有道理在原地踏步，我們呼籲反對黨千萬不要為反對而反對。示範區對陸資的限制可以和區外一樣，但其本身應仍有其他法規可以鬆綁和提高效率，例如土地使用、行政單一窗口、專業法庭等。立法院應該趕快將提案通過，讓自由經濟示範區早日開張，吸引本國及外國人來台灣投資，創造就業。
第三支箭是加強產學合作，讓學界的能量注入產業。學界現在有一個非常大的問題，即使在應用科學領域，多數教授的研究都和台灣產業完全無關，只求在歐美期刊發表文章。他們訓練出來的學生進入業界，要從頭學起，浪費人才和資源。我們在此呼籲政府立刻採行措施，讓拿到政府補助的應用科學類研究，無論碩博士論文、教授申請計畫，應以有產業認養，且願負擔部分經費者為優先。
另外，研究計畫申請政府補助時，其題目應送到各相關產業技術單位審核。有題目重複者，政府應促其整合，將類似的小型計畫合併成大型研究計畫，也可以建議新的、攸關台灣產業發展的題目。如此不會多花錢，還將本來補助100個教授的研究經費，變成可以補助150人或者200人，事半功倍。
這三支箭都和意識型態沒什麼關係，民進黨應該沒有理由反對，相關法案在立法院卻寸步難行。反對黨應讓人民覺得它是一個準備執政的負責任政黨，而不是心中只有選舉利益，為反對而存在的政黨。一個國家只有在反對黨是負責任的情況下，才可能在民主的運作下，繼續不斷往前走。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 21, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan has not enjoyed any rest from the beginning of this year. In March the student movement erupted. It was followed by the rancid oil crisis, the nine in one election nominations, and the current food safety crisis. Confronted with all manner of unexpected political and social crises, politicians, high-ranking officials, and opinion leaders are exhausted. Nevertheless our current difficulties must be confronted. The economy must continue to grow, unemployment must be reduced, wages must be increased. Only then can long-term stability be assured.
Full Text Below:
Taiwan has not enjoyed any rest from the beginning of this year. In March the student movement erupted. It was followed by the rancid oil crisis, the nine in one election nominations, and the current food safety crisis. Confronted with all manner of unexpected political and social crises, politicians, high-ranking officials, and opinion leaders are exhausted. Nevertheless our current difficulties must be confronted. The economy must continue to grow, unemployment must be reduced, wages must be increased. Only then can long-term stability be assured.
Ideological disputes are Taiwan's biggest problem. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads, swords drawn. Supporters of different camps refuse to tolerate each other's beliefs. Anyone concerned about the future of Taiwan, who sees what is happening, can only feel a sense of sadness. We must snap out of our political spell and focus on the revitalization of Taiwan’s economy.
The FSC has done much in this regard. Chairman Tseng has taken three measures to rescue the stock market. Recently he took one more. Each of these measures will not be equally effective, and their overall impact remains to be seen. But we applaud his good intentions. The government is not limited to the FSC. It has many other agencies. We urge responsible agencies to work together and adopt three more measures.
The first measure is to increase the supply of housing for young people. Housing is a major problem for young people. In fact, it is a major problem for everyone on the island. The government has introduced many policies. But so far none of them have worked. They include the luxury tax, taxing the rich, and increased taxes on anyone with three or more housing units. These alas, are all temporary solutions. The government plans to implement a combined real estate tax/land tax. But which bill will be adopted remains unclear. Whether the legislature can pass the bill remains in question. Even if it is passed, the immediate effects following implementation are still unclear.
We believe the best way is to emulate Singapore and Hong Kong. Public housing needs to be delinked from the market economy. In this respect, it is similar to the minimum wage and subsidies for low-income families. It corrects the deficiencies in the labor market. Under the market economy, housing is unlikely to be affordable to the economically disadvantaged any time in the foreseeable future. Singapore and Hong Kong once had the same problem. In response, they built large numbers of public housing units. In essence this created a "non-market economy" in housing. Housing is then provided on the basis of “from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs.”
We recommend a three-pronged approach to the problem. One. In some cities housing prices and salaries are higher. In some districts floor areas grossly exceed the maximum allowable floor area. Raising the maximum allowable floor area could be used as an incentive. It could persuade construction company to become involved in equity investment. The government would not need the financial resources to build large quantities of public housing. Also, much public land has remained idle for decades. This includes military land and living quarters for employees of public agencies. These can be put to good use. One need not worry about the impact of the bid price on market prices. One can use these lands as equity and arrange joint ventures with construction companies, The government could thereby acquire large quantities of public housing and financial resources.
Furthermore, public housing need not be constructed in the city center. It can be constructed on the outskirts of the metropolitan area. MRT connections however, are essential. For example, between Keelung and Taipei, land prices are quite low. The straight-line distance from Keelung to Taipei is quite short. If the MRT can be extended, large quantities of public housing could be provided. Public housing should also emulate the private sector. Marketing firms should plan the architectural styles and floor areas, and ensure quality control. Lastly, new primary and secondary schools should be established in the district to ensure the availability of schooling.
The second measure is the Free Enterprise Pilot Zones (FEPZs). There is no reason this bill should remained stalled. We call on the opposition parties to cease opposition for the sake of opposition. The restrictions on Mainland capital can be the same as those outside the FEPZ. Other laws can be relaxed to improve efficiency, These include land use, single window service, specialized courts, and so on. The legislature should adopt these proposals post haste. Let the FEPZs begin operation early, attract domestic and foreign investments to Taiwan, and create jobs.
The third measure is strengthening university-industry collaboration. Let academia take part in the energy industry. Academics currently face a major problem. Even in the applied sciences, most professors' studies are totally unrelated to Taiwan's industries. [???? ] just published an article its journal. When students they trained students enter industry, the must starte from scratch. This is a waste of talent and resources. We urge the government to immediately adopt measures to provide applied sciences research grants. Industry should be willing to adopt the recommendations in Masters and PhD theses or professors plans, and provide partial funding.
When authors of research projects apply for government grants, they should be sent to the relevant technology companies for review. In the case of duplications, the government should promote their integration, Smaller plans that are similar should be merged into larger research projects. They can also suggest new topics Taiwan's industrial development is at stake. This will avoid overspending. Research funding for 100 researchers can subsidize 150 or even 200 people, More can be done with less.
This three measures have no relation to ideology, The DPP has no reason to oppose them. Related bills in the legislature have remained stalled. The opposition should show people it is a responsible party ready to govern, not merely one concerned about electoral advantage, or that engages in opposition merely for the sake of opposition. Only when opposition parties are responsible, can democracy function, and continue to move forward.
社論－選戰再熱 也不能忘了拚經濟
2014年10月21日 04:09
本報訊
從年初到現在，台灣一直處在紛爭中：從3月的學運，到餿水油風波，到九合一選舉的提名，一直到最近的食安風暴。面臨各種突發的政治與社會事件，政治人物、高層文官與社會意見領袖莫不疲於奔命。不過，解決當前難關固然重要，如何讓經濟和就業持續成長、失業率下降、薪資上升，才是長治久安之計。
意識型態的紛爭，是台灣最大的困境。朝野兩黨劍拔弩張、刀光劍影；不同陣營的支持者，無法容忍對方的理念。任何關心台灣前途的人看到這種情況，應該都非常痛心。我們希望大家能夠重新從政治熱鬥中覺醒，把注意力放到振興台灣經濟上。
金管會在這方面做了很多事，曾主委對股市發出三支箭，最近又增加一支。當然每一支箭的效力未必相同，整體效果還有待觀察，但是我們肯定他的用心。要之，政府不是只有金管會，還有其他部門，我們建議相關部門同心協力，發出三支更大的箭。
第一支箭是青年住宅的大量供給。住宅問題是青年人之痛，也是全民之痛，政府推出一大堆政策，到目前為止沒有一個能有效解決問題。諸如奢侈稅、富人稅、調高3屋以上房屋稅等，都只能治標。號稱未來要推行的房地稅合一，未來哪個版本出線不清楚，立法院能不能通過也是問題；就算通過，實施後是否有立竿見影的效應也不明確。
我們認為根本之道要學新加坡和香港，把國民基本住宅需求從市場經濟中抽離。這就和最低工資以及低收入家庭補助一樣，是要矯正勞動市場之不足。市場經濟之下的住宅，在可預見的將來都不可能讓無殼族有能力負擔。新、港有同樣的問題，所以他們大量興建公宅，其本質就是「非市場經濟」，依承購者的需要和能力，決定配售的類型和價格。
我們建議三管齊下解決問題，一是在房價所得比偏高的都市，對於現存樓地板面積離法定最高容積有很大距離的地區，提高容積率獎勵，並用以作為參與建商投資的股本，如此政府不用編列預算即可取得大量屋源或財源。另一方面，很多公有地閒置數十年，例如軍方土地、公家機關宿舍，都可以活化利用。如果擔心土地的招標影響市價，可以拿這些土地當股本和建商合建，如此政府又有大量屋源、財源。
再者，社會住宅不一定要蓋在市中心，可以選址市郊，但必須有捷運。例如基隆台北之間，地價非常便宜，離台北的直線距離又近，捷運如能延長，即可大量興建社會住宅。此外，社會住宅要仿效民間，請代銷公司規畫建築樣式與坪數，並確保品質。最後，一定要在當地設立新的國民中小學校，以便利就學。
第二支箭就是自由經濟示範區，這個案子沒有道理在原地踏步，我們呼籲反對黨千萬不要為反對而反對。示範區對陸資的限制可以和區外一樣，但其本身應仍有其他法規可以鬆綁和提高效率，例如土地使用、行政單一窗口、專業法庭等。立法院應該趕快將提案通過，讓自由經濟示範區早日開張，吸引本國及外國人來台灣投資，創造就業。
第三支箭是加強產學合作，讓學界的能量注入產業。學界現在有一個非常大的問題，即使在應用科學領域，多數教授的研究都和台灣產業完全無關，只求在歐美期刊發表文章。他們訓練出來的學生進入業界，要從頭學起，浪費人才和資源。我們在此呼籲政府立刻採行措施，讓拿到政府補助的應用科學類研究，無論碩博士論文、教授申請計畫，應以有產業認養，且願負擔部分經費者為優先。
另外，研究計畫申請政府補助時，其題目應送到各相關產業技術單位審核。有題目重複者，政府應促其整合，將類似的小型計畫合併成大型研究計畫，也可以建議新的、攸關台灣產業發展的題目。如此不會多花錢，還將本來補助100個教授的研究經費，變成可以補助150人或者200人，事半功倍。
這三支箭都和意識型態沒什麼關係，民進黨應該沒有理由反對，相關法案在立法院卻寸步難行。反對黨應讓人民覺得它是一個準備執政的負責任政黨，而不是心中只有選舉利益，為反對而存在的政黨。一個國家只有在反對黨是負責任的情況下，才可能在民主的運作下，繼續不斷往前走。
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Industry Crisis Pressing: Partisan Struggles Must End
Industry Crisis Pressing: Partisan Struggles Must End
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 20, 2014
Executive Summary: Elections are just around the corner. The Legislative Yuan remains mired in partisan bickering. Reversing the industry crisis is the shared responsibility of boththe ruling and opposition parties. This concerns the next 5-10 years of economic development. It does not involve ideology, Yet the necessary legislation remains stalled in the legislature. These bills are not necessarily related to highly sensitive cross-Strait legislation. But they are crucial to Taiwan's survival and development. The people have placed their trust in the two major parties, Can they set aside their prejudices and cooperate, in order to reverse Taiwan's industrial crisis? How will those in charge of the two major parties respond? The peoples' eyes are wide open and watching.
Full Text Below;
The Wei Chuan rancid cooking oil scandal rages on. National attention is now focused on food safety, on how to deal with the aftermath of the crisis. Meanwhile, new economic problems have caught up with us, Global economic concerns have caused European and American stock markets to tumble. The TAIEX has stumbled repeatedly, Add to this the impact of the food safety crisis on consumer confidence. All these factors have undermined an already weak economic recovery. Taiwan's industrial transformation and upgrading has slowed. Its competitiveness is gradually diminishing, Global economic and financial volatility have impacted Taiwan more than South Korea, Japan, Singapore, the ASEAN countries, and other trade rivals, A string of global business cycles have eroded Taiwan's industrial competitiveness. A crisis now looms, The ruling and opposition parties must address this problem. They must work together to end the vicious cycle of declining industrial competitiveness, Otherwise Taiwan faces an increasingly bleak economic future.
Taiwan's industrial crisis involves deep-seated structural problems. Taiwan's main export industries are information and communications technology (ICT). The core problem is the over-emphasis on hardware manufacturing, and the high degree of dependence upon "Taiwan orders, overseas production," and a "Mainland manufacturing" OEM export model. The global ICT industry currently faces large-scale supply chain reshuffling. That and the rapid rise of Mainland industry over the past two years have made Taiwan's ICT industry crisis more serious every day.
This year the domestic ICT industry looked as if it was in recovery. Increased orders and exports led to long unseen prosperity. But we must look more closely. The introduction of Apple's iPhone 6 and the rise of Mainland brand smart phones and tablet PCs, led to a significant increase in orders for Taiwan's foundries. But once the iPhone 6 boom subsides next year, Mainland brand industry orders may be replaced by more Mainland OEM orders. Taiwan's ICT industry crisis would once again rear its head.
Even more worrisome is intense competition from Mainland industries. They pose a macro level threat to many Taiwan companies. TSMC and MediaTek head up Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Their competitiveness puts them head and shoulders above their peers. In the ICT industry, they "hold up half the sky." Now however, they too face growing threats. In June of this year, the Mainland State Council announced a "Development Plan for the Promotion of the Nation's Integrated Circuit Industry." It resolved to establish a 600 billion RMB fund to support the Mainland's semiconductor industry. According to recent news reports, America's largest mobile phone chip maker Qualcomm and the Mainland's largest foundry SMIC, are jointly developing a 20-nanometer manufacturing process. Semiconductor leader Intel has a $1.5 billion USD stake in Unis, the Mainland semiconductor design company. This and other advances in Mainland semiconductor design have seriously impacted Taiwan's semiconductor industry. They could even destroy Taiwan's two leading ICT manufacturers. Can the ruling and opposition parties sit by and do nothing?
Taiwan's second largest export industry is the petrochemical industry. It too is in dire straits. In recent years the petrochemical industry has been buffeted by environmental impact assessments, land acquisition difficulties, public opposition, and other domestic factors. The government decided to halt constrution of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. The petrochemical industry is making fewer new investments and equipment upgrades. This leads to decreased competitiveness. Add to this the Kaohsiung gas explosion incident, the closing of the Number Five Naptha Cracking Plant and the Dashe petrochemical industrial zone, and disaster is a foregone conclusion. Whither Taiwan's petrochemical industry? That has become a common question.
Meanwhile, international energy technology breakthroughs also pose a severe competitive challenge for Taiwan's petrochemical industry. U.S. shale oil and gas exploitation and possible future exports, Mainland coal processing technology breakthroughs, international energy prices, and the global development of the petrochemical industry, are having an unprecedented impact. Taiwan companies will be forced to seek survival elsewhere. Formosa Plastics Group gave up on the construction of the Sixth Naptha Cracking Plant. It turned to investments in the US. It is currently involved in a joint venture with the Mainland petrochemical industry to build the Guluei Cracking Plant. This is another sign of Taiwan's petrochemical industry decline. Mainland petrochemical industry production is expanding. It is replacing much of Taiwan's petrochemical exports and petrochemical feedstock for manufacturers and downstream industries. This constitutes a major crisis.
In addition to these two major export industries Taiwan's food industry has been threatened by a string of food safety crises involving plasticizing agents, toxic starches, adulterated rice, Clenbuterol, and rancid oils. The food, catering, and other domestic industries have been seriously impacted. Taiwan's reputation as a Mecca for gourmets and food exports has been undermined. The "Free Enterprise Pilot Zones" (FEPZs) are promoting value-added agriculture centers. These would import agricultural raw materials from the Mainland and elsewhere. After processing on Taiwan, they would be labeled "Made in Taiwan," and sold to the Mainland or abroad. But this has become an impractical dream. Responses to the food industry crises are urgently needed.
Taiwan's service industry also faces transitional challenges, especially education and medical treatment. They face systemic crises. If they are not completely overhauled, they are in danger of disintegration.
Industrial development is threatened from all sides. Taiwan's economic competitiveness and ability to respond have been weakened by crises. The economic growth rate in recent years has often been below two or three percent. Lack of employment opportunities, diminishing real wages, and income inequality remain intractable problems. Popular discontent has surged. The public does not support either of the two major parties. Approval ratings for both are falling in synch.
Elections are just around the corner. The Legislative Yuan remains mired in partisan bickering. Reversing the industry crisis is the shared responsibility of boththe ruling and opposition parties. This concerns the next 5-10 years of economic development. It does not involve ideology, Yet the necessary legislation remains stalled in the legislature. These bills are not necessarily related to highly sensitive cross-Strait legislation. But they are crucial to Taiwan's survival and development. The people have placed their trust in the two major parties, Can they set aside their prejudices and cooperate, in order to reverse Taiwan's industrial crisis? How will those in charge of the two major parties respond? The peoples' eyes are wide open and watching.
社論－產業危機緊迫 政黨停止惡鬥
2014年10月20日 04:09
本報訊
頂新黑心食油事件鬧得沸沸揚揚，全國注意力都集中食安風暴如何善後之問題，但於此同時，新的經濟問題又悄然掩至，受到全球經濟隱憂再現及歐美股市重挫影響，台股近來跌跌不休，再加上食安風暴對消費信心衝擊，已重創才稍稍回溫的成長動能及景氣復甦。台灣產業轉型升級遲緩，競爭力持續衰退，每遇全球經濟及金融波動，受到的衝擊往往比南韓、日本、新加坡、東協國家等貿易競爭對手更深更廣，經過幾波全球景氣循環後，產業競爭力節節衰退，危機日益逼近，朝野若不正視問題的嚴重性，通力合作終結產業競爭力衰退的惡性循環，台灣經濟前景勢必益趨黯淡。
台灣產業危機係深層結構性問題，就台灣主力出口產業資通訊（ICT）業來看，其核心問題在於偏重硬體製造，又高度依賴「台灣接單、海外生產」、「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口模式，面臨近年全球ICT業供應鏈的大規模洗牌，以及最近兩年大陸業者的快速崛起，台灣ICT業危機日深一日。
今年以來，國內ICT業似見到春天，接單及出口皆出現近年罕見榮景，但細究原因，是來自美國蘋果公司iPhone 6面巿及大陸品牌智慧手機和平板電腦崛起，大量增加對台商的代工訂單，一旦明年iPhone 6熱潮減退，大陸品牌業者訂單也可能遭到更多大陸代工業者的取代，台灣ICT業危機勢將再次浮現。
更令人擔憂的是，大陸業者的強力競爭對眾多台灣者業已造成全面威脅。以台積電、聯發科為首的台灣半導體業競爭力傲視同業，為ICT業撐起半邊天，但近來也面臨與日俱增的威脅。今年6月大陸國務院發布《國家集成電路產業發展推進綱要》，並決定砸下人民幣6000億元成立基金，傾國家力量扶植半導體產業。最近媒體報導，美國最大手機晶片業者高通和大陸最大晶圓廠中芯攜手開發20奈米製程；半導體龍頭英特爾以15億美元入股大陸半導體設計業清華紫光，這等發展讓台灣業者強烈感受到大陸半導體大軍壓境的危機。面對大陸業者節節進逼，甚至直搗台灣ICT業兩大龍頭，朝野豈可袖手旁觀？
台灣第二大出口產業石化業亦是危機重重。近年石化業受制於環評、土地取得困難、地方民意反對等國內因素，不僅政府決定停建國光石化，而且石化業新投資及設備更新愈來愈少，導致競爭力持續衰退，再加上高雄氣爆事件發生後，五輕關廠及大社石化工業區解編已成定局，台灣石化業將何去何從？已是大家共同的疑問。
另一方面，國際能源技術突破亦對台灣石化業競爭力構成嚴酷挑戰。美國頁岩油氣大量開採及未來可能出口，大陸煤化工技術突破，對國際能源價格及全球石化業發展皆帶來前所未有的衝擊，並迫使台灣業者紛紛向外尋求出路，台塑集團放棄六輕五期，轉進美國投資；泛中油體系業者和大陸石化同業共同投資大陸古雷輕油裂解廠，是台灣石化業走向萎縮沒落的徵兆。而大陸石化業者產能不斷擴增，大量取代台灣石化產品出口，對眾多石化原料廠商及中下游業者，更是迫切的危機。
除了兩大出口產業外，台灣食品產業近年發生塑化劑、毒澱粉、混充米、瘦肉精、黑心油等一連串食品安全事件，不僅對食品、餐飲等內需產業打擊深重，而且對台灣美食王國聲譽及食品出口皆構成極負面的影響。「自由經濟示範區計畫」推動加值農業中心，擬進口大陸及其他地區農業原料，在台灣加工後，打著「台灣製造」（made in Taiwan）名號回銷大陸或出口其他國家的願景，也變得虛幻、不切實際。如何因應食品產業危機，亦刻不容緩。
台灣服務業同樣面臨轉型挑戰，尤其教育、醫療等更面臨體系性的危機，再不全面整頓，將有崩解之虞。
產業發展危機四伏，讓台灣經濟競爭力及因應危機能力持續減弱，因而近年經濟成長率經常在「保2」、「保3」邊緣掙扎，就業機會不足、實質薪資倒退及所得分配不均等問題更是難解，民怨激升也反映在對沒有作為的朝野兩大黨民意支持度的同步沉淪。
選舉在即，立法院陷政黨惡鬥深淵已久。扭轉產業發展危機，是朝野共同的責任，攸關下一個5至10年經濟盛衰，它不涉及意識形態，和目前躺在立法院、高敏感的兩岸法案並非必然有關，卻是台灣生存發展的關鍵任務。兩大黨受人民託付，能不捐棄成見、攜手合作全力扭轉台灣產業危機嗎？兩黨主事者將如何去做，全民睜大眼睛在看！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 20, 2014
Executive Summary: Elections are just around the corner. The Legislative Yuan remains mired in partisan bickering. Reversing the industry crisis is the shared responsibility of boththe ruling and opposition parties. This concerns the next 5-10 years of economic development. It does not involve ideology, Yet the necessary legislation remains stalled in the legislature. These bills are not necessarily related to highly sensitive cross-Strait legislation. But they are crucial to Taiwan's survival and development. The people have placed their trust in the two major parties, Can they set aside their prejudices and cooperate, in order to reverse Taiwan's industrial crisis? How will those in charge of the two major parties respond? The peoples' eyes are wide open and watching.
Full Text Below;
The Wei Chuan rancid cooking oil scandal rages on. National attention is now focused on food safety, on how to deal with the aftermath of the crisis. Meanwhile, new economic problems have caught up with us, Global economic concerns have caused European and American stock markets to tumble. The TAIEX has stumbled repeatedly, Add to this the impact of the food safety crisis on consumer confidence. All these factors have undermined an already weak economic recovery. Taiwan's industrial transformation and upgrading has slowed. Its competitiveness is gradually diminishing, Global economic and financial volatility have impacted Taiwan more than South Korea, Japan, Singapore, the ASEAN countries, and other trade rivals, A string of global business cycles have eroded Taiwan's industrial competitiveness. A crisis now looms, The ruling and opposition parties must address this problem. They must work together to end the vicious cycle of declining industrial competitiveness, Otherwise Taiwan faces an increasingly bleak economic future.
Taiwan's industrial crisis involves deep-seated structural problems. Taiwan's main export industries are information and communications technology (ICT). The core problem is the over-emphasis on hardware manufacturing, and the high degree of dependence upon "Taiwan orders, overseas production," and a "Mainland manufacturing" OEM export model. The global ICT industry currently faces large-scale supply chain reshuffling. That and the rapid rise of Mainland industry over the past two years have made Taiwan's ICT industry crisis more serious every day.
This year the domestic ICT industry looked as if it was in recovery. Increased orders and exports led to long unseen prosperity. But we must look more closely. The introduction of Apple's iPhone 6 and the rise of Mainland brand smart phones and tablet PCs, led to a significant increase in orders for Taiwan's foundries. But once the iPhone 6 boom subsides next year, Mainland brand industry orders may be replaced by more Mainland OEM orders. Taiwan's ICT industry crisis would once again rear its head.
Even more worrisome is intense competition from Mainland industries. They pose a macro level threat to many Taiwan companies. TSMC and MediaTek head up Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Their competitiveness puts them head and shoulders above their peers. In the ICT industry, they "hold up half the sky." Now however, they too face growing threats. In June of this year, the Mainland State Council announced a "Development Plan for the Promotion of the Nation's Integrated Circuit Industry." It resolved to establish a 600 billion RMB fund to support the Mainland's semiconductor industry. According to recent news reports, America's largest mobile phone chip maker Qualcomm and the Mainland's largest foundry SMIC, are jointly developing a 20-nanometer manufacturing process. Semiconductor leader Intel has a $1.5 billion USD stake in Unis, the Mainland semiconductor design company. This and other advances in Mainland semiconductor design have seriously impacted Taiwan's semiconductor industry. They could even destroy Taiwan's two leading ICT manufacturers. Can the ruling and opposition parties sit by and do nothing?
Taiwan's second largest export industry is the petrochemical industry. It too is in dire straits. In recent years the petrochemical industry has been buffeted by environmental impact assessments, land acquisition difficulties, public opposition, and other domestic factors. The government decided to halt constrution of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. The petrochemical industry is making fewer new investments and equipment upgrades. This leads to decreased competitiveness. Add to this the Kaohsiung gas explosion incident, the closing of the Number Five Naptha Cracking Plant and the Dashe petrochemical industrial zone, and disaster is a foregone conclusion. Whither Taiwan's petrochemical industry? That has become a common question.
Meanwhile, international energy technology breakthroughs also pose a severe competitive challenge for Taiwan's petrochemical industry. U.S. shale oil and gas exploitation and possible future exports, Mainland coal processing technology breakthroughs, international energy prices, and the global development of the petrochemical industry, are having an unprecedented impact. Taiwan companies will be forced to seek survival elsewhere. Formosa Plastics Group gave up on the construction of the Sixth Naptha Cracking Plant. It turned to investments in the US. It is currently involved in a joint venture with the Mainland petrochemical industry to build the Guluei Cracking Plant. This is another sign of Taiwan's petrochemical industry decline. Mainland petrochemical industry production is expanding. It is replacing much of Taiwan's petrochemical exports and petrochemical feedstock for manufacturers and downstream industries. This constitutes a major crisis.
In addition to these two major export industries Taiwan's food industry has been threatened by a string of food safety crises involving plasticizing agents, toxic starches, adulterated rice, Clenbuterol, and rancid oils. The food, catering, and other domestic industries have been seriously impacted. Taiwan's reputation as a Mecca for gourmets and food exports has been undermined. The "Free Enterprise Pilot Zones" (FEPZs) are promoting value-added agriculture centers. These would import agricultural raw materials from the Mainland and elsewhere. After processing on Taiwan, they would be labeled "Made in Taiwan," and sold to the Mainland or abroad. But this has become an impractical dream. Responses to the food industry crises are urgently needed.
Taiwan's service industry also faces transitional challenges, especially education and medical treatment. They face systemic crises. If they are not completely overhauled, they are in danger of disintegration.
Industrial development is threatened from all sides. Taiwan's economic competitiveness and ability to respond have been weakened by crises. The economic growth rate in recent years has often been below two or three percent. Lack of employment opportunities, diminishing real wages, and income inequality remain intractable problems. Popular discontent has surged. The public does not support either of the two major parties. Approval ratings for both are falling in synch.
Elections are just around the corner. The Legislative Yuan remains mired in partisan bickering. Reversing the industry crisis is the shared responsibility of boththe ruling and opposition parties. This concerns the next 5-10 years of economic development. It does not involve ideology, Yet the necessary legislation remains stalled in the legislature. These bills are not necessarily related to highly sensitive cross-Strait legislation. But they are crucial to Taiwan's survival and development. The people have placed their trust in the two major parties, Can they set aside their prejudices and cooperate, in order to reverse Taiwan's industrial crisis? How will those in charge of the two major parties respond? The peoples' eyes are wide open and watching.
社論－產業危機緊迫 政黨停止惡鬥
2014年10月20日 04:09
本報訊
頂新黑心食油事件鬧得沸沸揚揚，全國注意力都集中食安風暴如何善後之問題，但於此同時，新的經濟問題又悄然掩至，受到全球經濟隱憂再現及歐美股市重挫影響，台股近來跌跌不休，再加上食安風暴對消費信心衝擊，已重創才稍稍回溫的成長動能及景氣復甦。台灣產業轉型升級遲緩，競爭力持續衰退，每遇全球經濟及金融波動，受到的衝擊往往比南韓、日本、新加坡、東協國家等貿易競爭對手更深更廣，經過幾波全球景氣循環後，產業競爭力節節衰退，危機日益逼近，朝野若不正視問題的嚴重性，通力合作終結產業競爭力衰退的惡性循環，台灣經濟前景勢必益趨黯淡。
台灣產業危機係深層結構性問題，就台灣主力出口產業資通訊（ICT）業來看，其核心問題在於偏重硬體製造，又高度依賴「台灣接單、海外生產」、「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口模式，面臨近年全球ICT業供應鏈的大規模洗牌，以及最近兩年大陸業者的快速崛起，台灣ICT業危機日深一日。
今年以來，國內ICT業似見到春天，接單及出口皆出現近年罕見榮景，但細究原因，是來自美國蘋果公司iPhone 6面巿及大陸品牌智慧手機和平板電腦崛起，大量增加對台商的代工訂單，一旦明年iPhone 6熱潮減退，大陸品牌業者訂單也可能遭到更多大陸代工業者的取代，台灣ICT業危機勢將再次浮現。
更令人擔憂的是，大陸業者的強力競爭對眾多台灣者業已造成全面威脅。以台積電、聯發科為首的台灣半導體業競爭力傲視同業，為ICT業撐起半邊天，但近來也面臨與日俱增的威脅。今年6月大陸國務院發布《國家集成電路產業發展推進綱要》，並決定砸下人民幣6000億元成立基金，傾國家力量扶植半導體產業。最近媒體報導，美國最大手機晶片業者高通和大陸最大晶圓廠中芯攜手開發20奈米製程；半導體龍頭英特爾以15億美元入股大陸半導體設計業清華紫光，這等發展讓台灣業者強烈感受到大陸半導體大軍壓境的危機。面對大陸業者節節進逼，甚至直搗台灣ICT業兩大龍頭，朝野豈可袖手旁觀？
台灣第二大出口產業石化業亦是危機重重。近年石化業受制於環評、土地取得困難、地方民意反對等國內因素，不僅政府決定停建國光石化，而且石化業新投資及設備更新愈來愈少，導致競爭力持續衰退，再加上高雄氣爆事件發生後，五輕關廠及大社石化工業區解編已成定局，台灣石化業將何去何從？已是大家共同的疑問。
另一方面，國際能源技術突破亦對台灣石化業競爭力構成嚴酷挑戰。美國頁岩油氣大量開採及未來可能出口，大陸煤化工技術突破，對國際能源價格及全球石化業發展皆帶來前所未有的衝擊，並迫使台灣業者紛紛向外尋求出路，台塑集團放棄六輕五期，轉進美國投資；泛中油體系業者和大陸石化同業共同投資大陸古雷輕油裂解廠，是台灣石化業走向萎縮沒落的徵兆。而大陸石化業者產能不斷擴增，大量取代台灣石化產品出口，對眾多石化原料廠商及中下游業者，更是迫切的危機。
除了兩大出口產業外，台灣食品產業近年發生塑化劑、毒澱粉、混充米、瘦肉精、黑心油等一連串食品安全事件，不僅對食品、餐飲等內需產業打擊深重，而且對台灣美食王國聲譽及食品出口皆構成極負面的影響。「自由經濟示範區計畫」推動加值農業中心，擬進口大陸及其他地區農業原料，在台灣加工後，打著「台灣製造」（made in Taiwan）名號回銷大陸或出口其他國家的願景，也變得虛幻、不切實際。如何因應食品產業危機，亦刻不容緩。
台灣服務業同樣面臨轉型挑戰，尤其教育、醫療等更面臨體系性的危機，再不全面整頓，將有崩解之虞。
產業發展危機四伏，讓台灣經濟競爭力及因應危機能力持續減弱，因而近年經濟成長率經常在「保2」、「保3」邊緣掙扎，就業機會不足、實質薪資倒退及所得分配不均等問題更是難解，民怨激升也反映在對沒有作為的朝野兩大黨民意支持度的同步沉淪。
選舉在即，立法院陷政黨惡鬥深淵已久。扭轉產業發展危機，是朝野共同的責任，攸關下一個5至10年經濟盛衰，它不涉及意識形態，和目前躺在立法院、高敏感的兩岸法案並非必然有關，卻是台灣生存發展的關鍵任務。兩大黨受人民託付，能不捐棄成見、攜手合作全力扭轉台灣產業危機嗎？兩黨主事者將如何去做，全民睜大眼睛在看！
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Cross-Strait Political Systems Can Merge
Cross-Strait Political Systems Can Merge
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2014
Executive Summary: Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.
Full Text Below:
The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Fan Liqing has commented once again on President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten speech. Fan Liqing told reporters that the Mainland authorities resolutely oppose his comments about the Mainland's political system and Hong Kong's political reform. Fan Liqing stressed that "The two sides of the Strait have chosen different paths for their political development. We respect our Taiwan compatriots' social system and lifestyle choices." Fan Liqing said: "As for Taiwan's political path and social and political stability, and its impact on economic development, we have no comment. But we hope that the Taiwan side respects the choices and goals of the Mainland's 1.3 billion people."
Fan Liqing was quite blunt. In particular, her "no comment" response regarding the influence of Taiwan's political development, was obviously no affirmation. She implied that it was "not appreciated." Apparently Ma's evaluation of the value of Hong Kong's political reform, the Occupy Central movement, and the political differences between the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, has morphed into criticism of Taiwan style democracy.
Democracy means rule by the people. This contrasts with handing power over to a single individual. Democracy means handing the power to rule over to a majority of the people. Ancient Chinese tribal communities often featured collective decision-making. They had ancient city-state political participation by citizens in addition to traditional aristocratic republics. During the Sui and Tang Dynasties, during the Middle Ages, and even during the Qing dynasty, the nobility governed collectively. Limits on absolute monarchy were an important part of the Chinese political system. All these were forms of democracy or seeds of democracy.
The KMT era Nationalist Government and the revolutionary era, founding era, or ruling era Communist Party, are all believers in, and practioners of, democracy. They merely had their own interpretation of what democracy meant. They may not be the same as Western liberal democracy. In fact, many Western champions of liberal democracy agree that "Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best of all known systems. "
The success or failure of Western liberal democracy was a major point of debate, especially during the Cold War. It was one of the core issues of East-West ideological confrontation. Following the implosion of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, renowned Western scholar Frances Fukuyama advanced his "End of History" thesis. He declared that the birth of liberal democracy marked the end of history. There would never be any better solution than democracy.
But the failure of traditional Soviet totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe does no imply the success of Western liberal democracy. From 1989 to the present, the United States and Great Britain have waged numerous wars. The impact of the financial crisis, the increasing wealth disparity, the untoward influence and relentless expansion of multinational corporations and financial conglomerates, along with political unrest in many countries, have made more and more people question the superiority of Western liberal democracy.
Fukuyama himself has apparently modified his position. Three years ago he published a book entitled "Political Order and Political Decline: From the Industrial Revolution to Democratic Globalization." He stressed that democracy is only one part of political stability. If one errs, democracy can also be a factor leading to instability. His core argument was that a sound social order requires three conditions: Strong government, the Rule of Law, and democratic accountability. Fukuyama stressed that all three are indispensable.
Fukuyama offered a standard by which to evaluate political system success or failure. He pointed out that colonial rule in India had the rule of law and democratic accountability. Of course, the rule of law in India was often rendered ineffective by the shortcomings of bureaucracy. Democracy, meanwhile, is often confusing and tedious. On the other hand, India's central government is relatively weak. Fukuyama believes that India meets two of his three conditions. He thinks it is not that bad, but also not quite a success.
Let us evaluate Taiwan using Fukuyama's three conditions. Taiwan boasts the rule of law and democratic accountability. But it has much room for improvement. On the other hand, we lack a strong government. This has seriously undermined political and social stability and economic development. This is the biggest problem with Taiwan style democracy. Meanwhile, as Fukuyama points out, the Mainland has a strong central government -- a legacy of its imperial history. But it definitely needs to improve its rule of law and democratic accountability.
Comparing the two sides of the Strait provides us with food for thought regarding out political direction. One. We have often said that the economic division between the two sides is complementary and mutually beneficial. According to Fukuyama's three conditions, the two sides' political systems and political modernization complement each other. They facilitate learning from each other. Two. Many people ignore the role of strong government as a positive factor in Taiwan's economic development. Many hold different views on the matter. Taiwan's successful economic development was not the result of neoliberal economics' free economy and private property. Rather, it was the result of economic planning, state-owned enterprises, foreign exchange controls, and other policies. Three. The Mainland has a strong government. The Mainland is actually promoting democratic accountability and the rule of law from a relatively solid foundation, enabling it to remain stable while gradually moving forward.
Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.
社論－兩岸政治制度可以互補融一
2014年10月17日 04:10
本報訊
大陸國台辦發言人范麗青再度針對馬英九總統的雙十講話若干內容「再次做出評價」。范麗青在接受記者提問時「對（雙十）講話中有關大陸政治體制和香港政改的言論，表明了我們（大陸方面）堅決反對的態度」。范麗青強調，「兩岸選擇了不同的政治發展道路。台灣同胞對於社會制度和生活方式的選擇，我們予以尊重。」但另一方面，范麗青也說：「對於台灣政治發展道路對其自身社會政治穩定、經濟發展帶來什麼影響，我們無意評論。」，「但希望台灣方面尊重大陸13億人民的選擇和追求」。
范麗青的話說得比較重，尤其她說，她對台灣政治發展道路的影響「無意評論」，這個「無意評論」很明顯帶有「不肯定」、「不欣賞」的意味。看來，從香港政改爭議、占中運動評價，兩岸三地之間的政治歧見，已經演變成對台式民主的評價問題。
如果「民主」意味著「由人民統治」，或者相對於「將權力交給單一個人」，是「將統治權力交給多數人」，中國古代也有部落共同體的集體決策，有上古城邦時代的「國人」參政議政，以及貴族共和的傳統。到了中古隋唐時代，甚至清朝初年，貴族共同議政、限制君主專制仍然是中國政治制度與運作中的重要組成部分，這些都屬於「民主」的範疇，或者說是民主的萌芽。
不管是國民政府時期的國民黨，或是從革命到建國、執政的共產黨，都自居是民主的信奉者、實踐者，只不過對民主有各自的詮釋，也未必能等同於西方自由民主制。事實上，很多西方自由民主制的支持者，也都認同一句老話：「民主並非盡善盡美，但卻是所有已知制度中最好的。」
西方自由民主制的優劣成敗，曾經是爭論的大焦點，尤其在冷戰時代，是東西方意識形態對立的核心課題之一。「蘇東波」之後，知名的西方學者法蘭西斯．福山在1989年曾提出「歷史終結論」的說法，宣稱自由民主制的誕生代表歷史的終結，沒有比民主更好的方案。
然而，傳統蘇聯東歐集權社會主義的失敗，無法直接等同於西方自由民主制度的成功，從1989年到現在，由於美英集團發動的幾次戰爭，金融危機的衝擊，社會貧富差距的不斷拉大，跨國公司和金融財團的支配力量膨脹，以及許多國家的政治騷亂，越來越多人質疑西方自由民主制的優越性。
如今，福山本人也出現了論點的調整，3年前他出版的《政治秩序和政治衰落：從工業革命到民主全球化》一書，強調「民主制度始終只不過是政治穩定的一個組成部分。在錯誤的情況下，民主制度也可能成為引發不穩定的因素。」核心論點是：一個秩序良好的社會需要三個構成要素：「強有力的政府」、「法治」和「民主問責」，同樣重要的是，福山強調「三者缺一不可」。
福山提供了一個標準讓我們來檢視政治制度的良窳，他自己就曾指出印度因殖民統治的歷史而擁有了「法治」和「民主問責」（當然印度的法治往往有官僚主義和效率低下的缺點，而民主常常是「混亂和繁瑣的」），另一方面，印度中央政府的權威卻相對較弱。福山認為印度在他提的三條件中滿足了兩個，「算不上很差，但也遠未大功告成。」
由「福山三條件」看台灣，我們可以說台灣的「法治」和「民主問責」初步建立了起來，當然有很多需要改進調整的空間，但另一方面，我們卻缺乏一個「強政府」，嚴重影響了政治社會的穩定和經濟發展的方向與速度。這是「台式民主」的大問題、大難題。另一方面，如同福山指出的，大陸「因其帝國歷史而擁有強大的中央政府」，但不可否認的是，在「法治」和「民主問責」方面確實是有更多改進空間。
從兩岸的對比來看，其實提供了我們進一步思考的方向。首先，過去我們常說兩岸的經濟分工是互補互利，如今從「福山三條件」來檢視，兩岸的政治制度與政治現代化的優劣在某種程度上也是可以互補、相互學習的。其次，很多人忽略了，「強政府」也曾是台灣經濟發展過程中的正面因素，和很多人認識的不同，台灣經濟發展的成功並非是基於新自由經濟學的「自由經濟」、「私有產權」，反而應該看到經濟計畫、國營事業、外匯管制等要素與政策的作用。最後，在大陸擁有「強政府」的情況下，大陸在推動「民主問責」和「法治」方面的改革其實有比較深厚的基礎與後盾，可以循序漸進、穩步向前。
政治體制是動態的、發展的，「台式民主」、「大陸式民主」沒有絕對的好或絕對的壞，需要的是交流與互補，包容與學習，共同走向未來的融一。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2014
Executive Summary: Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.
Full Text Below:
The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Fan Liqing has commented once again on President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten speech. Fan Liqing told reporters that the Mainland authorities resolutely oppose his comments about the Mainland's political system and Hong Kong's political reform. Fan Liqing stressed that "The two sides of the Strait have chosen different paths for their political development. We respect our Taiwan compatriots' social system and lifestyle choices." Fan Liqing said: "As for Taiwan's political path and social and political stability, and its impact on economic development, we have no comment. But we hope that the Taiwan side respects the choices and goals of the Mainland's 1.3 billion people."
Fan Liqing was quite blunt. In particular, her "no comment" response regarding the influence of Taiwan's political development, was obviously no affirmation. She implied that it was "not appreciated." Apparently Ma's evaluation of the value of Hong Kong's political reform, the Occupy Central movement, and the political differences between the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, has morphed into criticism of Taiwan style democracy.
Democracy means rule by the people. This contrasts with handing power over to a single individual. Democracy means handing the power to rule over to a majority of the people. Ancient Chinese tribal communities often featured collective decision-making. They had ancient city-state political participation by citizens in addition to traditional aristocratic republics. During the Sui and Tang Dynasties, during the Middle Ages, and even during the Qing dynasty, the nobility governed collectively. Limits on absolute monarchy were an important part of the Chinese political system. All these were forms of democracy or seeds of democracy.
The KMT era Nationalist Government and the revolutionary era, founding era, or ruling era Communist Party, are all believers in, and practioners of, democracy. They merely had their own interpretation of what democracy meant. They may not be the same as Western liberal democracy. In fact, many Western champions of liberal democracy agree that "Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best of all known systems. "
The success or failure of Western liberal democracy was a major point of debate, especially during the Cold War. It was one of the core issues of East-West ideological confrontation. Following the implosion of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, renowned Western scholar Frances Fukuyama advanced his "End of History" thesis. He declared that the birth of liberal democracy marked the end of history. There would never be any better solution than democracy.
But the failure of traditional Soviet totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe does no imply the success of Western liberal democracy. From 1989 to the present, the United States and Great Britain have waged numerous wars. The impact of the financial crisis, the increasing wealth disparity, the untoward influence and relentless expansion of multinational corporations and financial conglomerates, along with political unrest in many countries, have made more and more people question the superiority of Western liberal democracy.
Fukuyama himself has apparently modified his position. Three years ago he published a book entitled "Political Order and Political Decline: From the Industrial Revolution to Democratic Globalization." He stressed that democracy is only one part of political stability. If one errs, democracy can also be a factor leading to instability. His core argument was that a sound social order requires three conditions: Strong government, the Rule of Law, and democratic accountability. Fukuyama stressed that all three are indispensable.
Fukuyama offered a standard by which to evaluate political system success or failure. He pointed out that colonial rule in India had the rule of law and democratic accountability. Of course, the rule of law in India was often rendered ineffective by the shortcomings of bureaucracy. Democracy, meanwhile, is often confusing and tedious. On the other hand, India's central government is relatively weak. Fukuyama believes that India meets two of his three conditions. He thinks it is not that bad, but also not quite a success.
Let us evaluate Taiwan using Fukuyama's three conditions. Taiwan boasts the rule of law and democratic accountability. But it has much room for improvement. On the other hand, we lack a strong government. This has seriously undermined political and social stability and economic development. This is the biggest problem with Taiwan style democracy. Meanwhile, as Fukuyama points out, the Mainland has a strong central government -- a legacy of its imperial history. But it definitely needs to improve its rule of law and democratic accountability.
Comparing the two sides of the Strait provides us with food for thought regarding out political direction. One. We have often said that the economic division between the two sides is complementary and mutually beneficial. According to Fukuyama's three conditions, the two sides' political systems and political modernization complement each other. They facilitate learning from each other. Two. Many people ignore the role of strong government as a positive factor in Taiwan's economic development. Many hold different views on the matter. Taiwan's successful economic development was not the result of neoliberal economics' free economy and private property. Rather, it was the result of economic planning, state-owned enterprises, foreign exchange controls, and other policies. Three. The Mainland has a strong government. The Mainland is actually promoting democratic accountability and the rule of law from a relatively solid foundation, enabling it to remain stable while gradually moving forward.
Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.
社論－兩岸政治制度可以互補融一
2014年10月17日 04:10
本報訊
大陸國台辦發言人范麗青再度針對馬英九總統的雙十講話若干內容「再次做出評價」。范麗青在接受記者提問時「對（雙十）講話中有關大陸政治體制和香港政改的言論，表明了我們（大陸方面）堅決反對的態度」。范麗青強調，「兩岸選擇了不同的政治發展道路。台灣同胞對於社會制度和生活方式的選擇，我們予以尊重。」但另一方面，范麗青也說：「對於台灣政治發展道路對其自身社會政治穩定、經濟發展帶來什麼影響，我們無意評論。」，「但希望台灣方面尊重大陸13億人民的選擇和追求」。
范麗青的話說得比較重，尤其她說，她對台灣政治發展道路的影響「無意評論」，這個「無意評論」很明顯帶有「不肯定」、「不欣賞」的意味。看來，從香港政改爭議、占中運動評價，兩岸三地之間的政治歧見，已經演變成對台式民主的評價問題。
如果「民主」意味著「由人民統治」，或者相對於「將權力交給單一個人」，是「將統治權力交給多數人」，中國古代也有部落共同體的集體決策，有上古城邦時代的「國人」參政議政，以及貴族共和的傳統。到了中古隋唐時代，甚至清朝初年，貴族共同議政、限制君主專制仍然是中國政治制度與運作中的重要組成部分，這些都屬於「民主」的範疇，或者說是民主的萌芽。
不管是國民政府時期的國民黨，或是從革命到建國、執政的共產黨，都自居是民主的信奉者、實踐者，只不過對民主有各自的詮釋，也未必能等同於西方自由民主制。事實上，很多西方自由民主制的支持者，也都認同一句老話：「民主並非盡善盡美，但卻是所有已知制度中最好的。」
西方自由民主制的優劣成敗，曾經是爭論的大焦點，尤其在冷戰時代，是東西方意識形態對立的核心課題之一。「蘇東波」之後，知名的西方學者法蘭西斯．福山在1989年曾提出「歷史終結論」的說法，宣稱自由民主制的誕生代表歷史的終結，沒有比民主更好的方案。
然而，傳統蘇聯東歐集權社會主義的失敗，無法直接等同於西方自由民主制度的成功，從1989年到現在，由於美英集團發動的幾次戰爭，金融危機的衝擊，社會貧富差距的不斷拉大，跨國公司和金融財團的支配力量膨脹，以及許多國家的政治騷亂，越來越多人質疑西方自由民主制的優越性。
如今，福山本人也出現了論點的調整，3年前他出版的《政治秩序和政治衰落：從工業革命到民主全球化》一書，強調「民主制度始終只不過是政治穩定的一個組成部分。在錯誤的情況下，民主制度也可能成為引發不穩定的因素。」核心論點是：一個秩序良好的社會需要三個構成要素：「強有力的政府」、「法治」和「民主問責」，同樣重要的是，福山強調「三者缺一不可」。
福山提供了一個標準讓我們來檢視政治制度的良窳，他自己就曾指出印度因殖民統治的歷史而擁有了「法治」和「民主問責」（當然印度的法治往往有官僚主義和效率低下的缺點，而民主常常是「混亂和繁瑣的」），另一方面，印度中央政府的權威卻相對較弱。福山認為印度在他提的三條件中滿足了兩個，「算不上很差，但也遠未大功告成。」
由「福山三條件」看台灣，我們可以說台灣的「法治」和「民主問責」初步建立了起來，當然有很多需要改進調整的空間，但另一方面，我們卻缺乏一個「強政府」，嚴重影響了政治社會的穩定和經濟發展的方向與速度。這是「台式民主」的大問題、大難題。另一方面，如同福山指出的，大陸「因其帝國歷史而擁有強大的中央政府」，但不可否認的是，在「法治」和「民主問責」方面確實是有更多改進空間。
從兩岸的對比來看，其實提供了我們進一步思考的方向。首先，過去我們常說兩岸的經濟分工是互補互利，如今從「福山三條件」來檢視，兩岸的政治制度與政治現代化的優劣在某種程度上也是可以互補、相互學習的。其次，很多人忽略了，「強政府」也曾是台灣經濟發展過程中的正面因素，和很多人認識的不同，台灣經濟發展的成功並非是基於新自由經濟學的「自由經濟」、「私有產權」，反而應該看到經濟計畫、國營事業、外匯管制等要素與政策的作用。最後，在大陸擁有「強政府」的情況下，大陸在推動「民主問責」和「法治」方面的改革其實有比較深厚的基礎與後盾，可以循序漸進、穩步向前。
政治體制是動態的、發展的，「台式民主」、「大陸式民主」沒有絕對的好或絕對的壞，需要的是交流與互補，包容與學習，共同走向未來的融一。
Power Without Performance is Shameful
Power Without Performance is Shameful
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 16, 2014
Executive Summary: The Executive Yuan is establishing a "Food Safety Office." That is essential. But the government must inspire people and ensure performance, If such an office is not ambushed by black-hearted merchants, it will be inundated by an avalanche of grievances. We want to remind the Jiang cabinet: A government that weilds great power but lacks the ability to help people Is shameful. It must make proper use of its public authority, It cannot sit back and do nothing. while plasticizing agents, toxic starches, rancid oil , and god knows what poisonous substances make their way our food, It must plan ahead!
Full Text Below:
President Ma convened a National Security Council meeting on food safety. He decided to establish up a "Food Safety Office" within the Executive Yuan, and called upon the public to boycott "blackhearted merchants." This was a declaration of intent. But it was a myopic response to the crisis. He failed to propose a comprehensive solution to the problem of inadequate food safety oversight. This sort of thinking cannot cope with emerging food safety issues.
The public boycott of Wei Chuan is the result of long accumulated anger and resentment. But the government cannot look only at the greed of unscrupulous vendors. It must also conduct a comprehensive review of its own administrative shortcomings and failures, in order to prevent any recurrences. The Food Sanitation Management Act was amended six times in seven years. Every time a food safety incident occurred, it was still found inadequate. Clearly the existing system and regulations cannot manage the food industry. Therefore it is imperative to reform the administrative structure, adopt new management tools, and encourage civil servants to act boldly.
In order to prevent greedy manufacturers from taking advantage of the public, heavy penalties are of course essential. But harsh punishments can only be applied after a crime has been committed, as a warning to others. An effective government must devote greater effort to crime prevention. It must apprehend evil-doers through administrative oversight, by means of interagency communications and scientific testing procedures. It must use the power of the executive branch to create a leakproof safety net. This way, when other manufacturers counterfeit foodstuffs they will swiftly be exposed. This will avoid a systemic crisis that affects thousands of vendors and harms society as a whole.
Recent food safety incidents show that a multitude of administrative omissions need addressing. One. The government knew full well that many restaurants and snack bars were generating massive amounts of waste oil. But it never did anything about it. The Wei Chuan Cheng Yi oil factory produced rancid oil. On their own, Tainan snack bars tracked down the "little bees" who sold unlicensed cooking oil. They discovered many levels of resellers. Kuo Lie-cheng's underground factories produced rancid oil that came from a similar channel. The rancid oil from these sources was readily dispersed. The government must establish a collection channel. It must keep track of the recycling industry product chain. This will help restaurant and shops solve their recovery problem. It will also prevent rancid oil from entering the market.
Two. Increase inspection of raw materials at their source, Compare the ratio of raw materials and goods entering and leaving the market. That is often where vendors engage in fraud. Chang Guann and Cheng Yi oil products were adulterated wtih feed oil imported from Hong Kong and Vietnam. Yesterday Namchow Food brand industrial butter was also seized. Whether they were declared at customs has yet to to be determined. As we can see, the best way to uncover food product adulteration is at the source. This is what Yi Mei Foods means when it talks about "traceability and distribution." Agencies charged with food safety, health, customs, finance, taxation, and the food industry should establish channels by which they can share information. They must forbid plants that produce fodder from also producing food for human consumption. This will prevent feed products from making their way into foodstuffs for people. This will increase the transparency of the production line, and reduce the opportunity for businesses to adulterate their products.
Three. The central government has treated inspections as pro forma ritual. Local governments have ignored private citizen's reports of wrongdoing. Together they created a hotbed for black-hearted businessmen. In recent years, numerous food safety incidents have come to light. In one story, an ordinary man became a hero. Plasticizing agents were in use for 30 years when Yang Chi-cheng discovered their misuse in the laboratory. The Datong brand adulterated oil case was broken by prosecutor Chen Chi-wen and Ye Chien-cheng, The Chang Guann case was uncovered after a farmer in Pingtung reported it five times. These heroes never gave up. Meanwhile scores of civil servants cling to their iron rice bowls. They wielded public authority, but were clearly derelict in their duty, They turned a blind eye to wrongdoing. They revealed indifference to the rights of the people. We must motivate public servants, arouse their sense of responsibility and sense of honor. That is the key to restoring community confidence in food safety.
People remember. In recent years, the Ma government vigorously promoted organizational transformation. It consolidated the ministries of the Executive Yuan. But so-called "organizational transformation" failed to promote integration or enhance performance. It merely broke up agency staff and reclassified them, This enormous undertaking failed to improve performance. It failed to improve the quality of public service. In fact, as the handling of recent food safety incidents shows, the effectiveness of the executive branch has not improved as a result of organizational transformation, Instead organization and coordination have become more chaotic and less responsive; In particular, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has been "heavy on medicine, light on food safety." Its ineptitude has become increasingly apparent and regrettable.
The Executive Yuan is establishing a "Food Safety Office." That is essential. But the government must inspire people and ensure performance, If such an office is not ambushed by black-hearted merchants, it will be inundated by an avalanche of grievances. We want to remind the Jiang cabinet: A government that weilds great power but lacks the ability to help people Is shameful. It must make proper use of its public authority, It cannot sit back and do nothing. while plasticizing agents, toxic starches, rancid oil , and god knows what poisonous substances make their way our food, It must plan ahead!
擁有權力卻無法興利除弊，是可恥的
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.16 02:13 am
馬總統召開國安層級的食安會議，決定在行政院設立「食品安全辦公室」，並呼籲全民共同抵制黑心企業。這樣的處理固具有宣示意味，但似乎只是著眼於眼前危機的因應，並未就整體食安管理提出完備的解決方案；這樣的思考方式，恐不足以應付層出不窮的食安問題。
民眾抵制頂新，是出於長期積累的憤怒和不滿；然而，政府看待接踵而至的食安危機，卻不能只看到廠商的無良貪婪，而必須對行政管理的缺漏與失效全盤檢討彌補，才能防止一發再發。《食品衛生管理法》七年內六次修法，每遇食安事件仍覺得不敷使用，即顯示現有制度規章無法有效管理當下的食品產業；因此，翻修行政架構、調整管理手段、激勵公務員勇於任事，皆勢在必行。
為了遏止廠商投機貪婪，祭出重刑重罰以懲其惡行，當然是必要手段。但無論如何，嚴刑峻罰只能用在「事後」的懲奸除惡、以儆效尤；而一個賢能有效的政府，則必須將更多力氣用在「事前」的防微杜漸、摘奸發伏，透過行政體系的管理偵察、部門間的通報勾稽、再加上科學檢驗的法眼，將行政部門的力量集合成一張疏而不漏的防禦網。如此，至少可在個別廠商摻偽造劣之時即將其破獲，避免衍生為牽連影響千百家廠商的「系統性危機」，危害整個社會。
觀察最近幾次食安事件，可以看到行政管理上確實存在許多疏漏的環節，亟待修補。第一，明知坊間餐廳及小吃店有大量廢油產生，卻從未加以管理。這次查獲頂新正義油廠的黑心油，就是台南小吃攤商自行追蹤「小蜜蜂」兜售的無牌炸油，而揭發其間多層次的轉銷；郭烈成地下工廠的餿水油，亦來自類似的管道。這些易於流散的廢油和餿水源頭，政府必須設法建立收集及列管制度，並對回收業者進行流向和流量追蹤，一則幫餐廳小店解決回收問題，二則避免餿水油流入食用市場。
第二，加強源頭檢驗，並溯源比對原料及貨品的進出，往往即是窺知廠商是否造假的源頭。稍早強冠和正義油品混用自香港、越南進口之飼料油，昨天南僑食品也被查獲進口工業牛油等，是否報關之誤有待查證。足見，源頭管道是發現食品廠生產機密的有效線索，這也就是義美建議的「溯源與分流」。食衛部門和海關、財稅、及工業部門應該建立資料分享管道，禁止生產飼料的工廠同時生產食品，使飼料原料不致流至食品；如此，生產資訊的透明度越高，業者藏汙納垢的空間就越小。
第三，中央對檢驗工作的行禮如儀，地方對民眾檢舉的冷漠消極，是培養黑心商人的溫床。近年食安事件的揭發，存在著一個個小人物變英雄的故事：塑化劑流用卅年才被楊技正在實驗室中發現，大統假油案是靠著檢察官鄭智文和葉建成求真的拚勁偵破，強冠案是由於屏東老農前後檢舉了五次。與這些不罷休的英雄相對照的，則是長年在其間捧鐵飯碗、握公權力的大批公務人員，他們是明明職責所在卻敷衍了事，對違法犯紀視若無睹，對人民權益遭侵害毫無感覺。如何振作公務人員的積極性，喚起他們的責任意識與光榮感，則是政府能否重建社會食安信心的關鍵所繫。
人們並未忘記，近幾年馬政府大力推動組織改造，整併行政院各部會的既有職能。然而，所謂「組織改造」，如果沒有促成功能上的整合與提升，而只是在形式上將機構人員打散然後重新歸類，那麼，此一浩大的工程未必能夠提升效能，遑論提高服務民眾的品質。事實上，看這幾次食安事件的處理，我們發現行政部門的效能非但未因組織改造而有所提升，反而因為組織整併而變得協調不良，反應遲鈍；尤其衛福部「重醫療、輕食安」的取向，職能缺失愈發明顯，令人遺憾。
行政院要設立「食品安全辦公室」，目前看來確有必要。但是，若不能展現政府解決問題的企圖，不能把管理機制和相關人員的效能召喚出來，這個辦公室就算不被黑心企業偷襲，也會遭排山倒海的民怨壓垮。我們要提醒江內閣：一個擁有莫大權力卻無法為民興利除弊的政府，是可恥的；請善用公權力，不要坐困愁城。在塑化劑、毒澱粉、黑心油之後，還有什麼食品未爆彈，不能不未雨綢繆！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 16, 2014
Executive Summary: The Executive Yuan is establishing a "Food Safety Office." That is essential. But the government must inspire people and ensure performance, If such an office is not ambushed by black-hearted merchants, it will be inundated by an avalanche of grievances. We want to remind the Jiang cabinet: A government that weilds great power but lacks the ability to help people Is shameful. It must make proper use of its public authority, It cannot sit back and do nothing. while plasticizing agents, toxic starches, rancid oil , and god knows what poisonous substances make their way our food, It must plan ahead!
Full Text Below:
President Ma convened a National Security Council meeting on food safety. He decided to establish up a "Food Safety Office" within the Executive Yuan, and called upon the public to boycott "blackhearted merchants." This was a declaration of intent. But it was a myopic response to the crisis. He failed to propose a comprehensive solution to the problem of inadequate food safety oversight. This sort of thinking cannot cope with emerging food safety issues.
The public boycott of Wei Chuan is the result of long accumulated anger and resentment. But the government cannot look only at the greed of unscrupulous vendors. It must also conduct a comprehensive review of its own administrative shortcomings and failures, in order to prevent any recurrences. The Food Sanitation Management Act was amended six times in seven years. Every time a food safety incident occurred, it was still found inadequate. Clearly the existing system and regulations cannot manage the food industry. Therefore it is imperative to reform the administrative structure, adopt new management tools, and encourage civil servants to act boldly.
In order to prevent greedy manufacturers from taking advantage of the public, heavy penalties are of course essential. But harsh punishments can only be applied after a crime has been committed, as a warning to others. An effective government must devote greater effort to crime prevention. It must apprehend evil-doers through administrative oversight, by means of interagency communications and scientific testing procedures. It must use the power of the executive branch to create a leakproof safety net. This way, when other manufacturers counterfeit foodstuffs they will swiftly be exposed. This will avoid a systemic crisis that affects thousands of vendors and harms society as a whole.
Recent food safety incidents show that a multitude of administrative omissions need addressing. One. The government knew full well that many restaurants and snack bars were generating massive amounts of waste oil. But it never did anything about it. The Wei Chuan Cheng Yi oil factory produced rancid oil. On their own, Tainan snack bars tracked down the "little bees" who sold unlicensed cooking oil. They discovered many levels of resellers. Kuo Lie-cheng's underground factories produced rancid oil that came from a similar channel. The rancid oil from these sources was readily dispersed. The government must establish a collection channel. It must keep track of the recycling industry product chain. This will help restaurant and shops solve their recovery problem. It will also prevent rancid oil from entering the market.
Two. Increase inspection of raw materials at their source, Compare the ratio of raw materials and goods entering and leaving the market. That is often where vendors engage in fraud. Chang Guann and Cheng Yi oil products were adulterated wtih feed oil imported from Hong Kong and Vietnam. Yesterday Namchow Food brand industrial butter was also seized. Whether they were declared at customs has yet to to be determined. As we can see, the best way to uncover food product adulteration is at the source. This is what Yi Mei Foods means when it talks about "traceability and distribution." Agencies charged with food safety, health, customs, finance, taxation, and the food industry should establish channels by which they can share information. They must forbid plants that produce fodder from also producing food for human consumption. This will prevent feed products from making their way into foodstuffs for people. This will increase the transparency of the production line, and reduce the opportunity for businesses to adulterate their products.
Three. The central government has treated inspections as pro forma ritual. Local governments have ignored private citizen's reports of wrongdoing. Together they created a hotbed for black-hearted businessmen. In recent years, numerous food safety incidents have come to light. In one story, an ordinary man became a hero. Plasticizing agents were in use for 30 years when Yang Chi-cheng discovered their misuse in the laboratory. The Datong brand adulterated oil case was broken by prosecutor Chen Chi-wen and Ye Chien-cheng, The Chang Guann case was uncovered after a farmer in Pingtung reported it five times. These heroes never gave up. Meanwhile scores of civil servants cling to their iron rice bowls. They wielded public authority, but were clearly derelict in their duty, They turned a blind eye to wrongdoing. They revealed indifference to the rights of the people. We must motivate public servants, arouse their sense of responsibility and sense of honor. That is the key to restoring community confidence in food safety.
People remember. In recent years, the Ma government vigorously promoted organizational transformation. It consolidated the ministries of the Executive Yuan. But so-called "organizational transformation" failed to promote integration or enhance performance. It merely broke up agency staff and reclassified them, This enormous undertaking failed to improve performance. It failed to improve the quality of public service. In fact, as the handling of recent food safety incidents shows, the effectiveness of the executive branch has not improved as a result of organizational transformation, Instead organization and coordination have become more chaotic and less responsive; In particular, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has been "heavy on medicine, light on food safety." Its ineptitude has become increasingly apparent and regrettable.
The Executive Yuan is establishing a "Food Safety Office." That is essential. But the government must inspire people and ensure performance, If such an office is not ambushed by black-hearted merchants, it will be inundated by an avalanche of grievances. We want to remind the Jiang cabinet: A government that weilds great power but lacks the ability to help people Is shameful. It must make proper use of its public authority, It cannot sit back and do nothing. while plasticizing agents, toxic starches, rancid oil , and god knows what poisonous substances make their way our food, It must plan ahead!
擁有權力卻無法興利除弊，是可恥的
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.16 02:13 am
馬總統召開國安層級的食安會議，決定在行政院設立「食品安全辦公室」，並呼籲全民共同抵制黑心企業。這樣的處理固具有宣示意味，但似乎只是著眼於眼前危機的因應，並未就整體食安管理提出完備的解決方案；這樣的思考方式，恐不足以應付層出不窮的食安問題。
民眾抵制頂新，是出於長期積累的憤怒和不滿；然而，政府看待接踵而至的食安危機，卻不能只看到廠商的無良貪婪，而必須對行政管理的缺漏與失效全盤檢討彌補，才能防止一發再發。《食品衛生管理法》七年內六次修法，每遇食安事件仍覺得不敷使用，即顯示現有制度規章無法有效管理當下的食品產業；因此，翻修行政架構、調整管理手段、激勵公務員勇於任事，皆勢在必行。
為了遏止廠商投機貪婪，祭出重刑重罰以懲其惡行，當然是必要手段。但無論如何，嚴刑峻罰只能用在「事後」的懲奸除惡、以儆效尤；而一個賢能有效的政府，則必須將更多力氣用在「事前」的防微杜漸、摘奸發伏，透過行政體系的管理偵察、部門間的通報勾稽、再加上科學檢驗的法眼，將行政部門的力量集合成一張疏而不漏的防禦網。如此，至少可在個別廠商摻偽造劣之時即將其破獲，避免衍生為牽連影響千百家廠商的「系統性危機」，危害整個社會。
觀察最近幾次食安事件，可以看到行政管理上確實存在許多疏漏的環節，亟待修補。第一，明知坊間餐廳及小吃店有大量廢油產生，卻從未加以管理。這次查獲頂新正義油廠的黑心油，就是台南小吃攤商自行追蹤「小蜜蜂」兜售的無牌炸油，而揭發其間多層次的轉銷；郭烈成地下工廠的餿水油，亦來自類似的管道。這些易於流散的廢油和餿水源頭，政府必須設法建立收集及列管制度，並對回收業者進行流向和流量追蹤，一則幫餐廳小店解決回收問題，二則避免餿水油流入食用市場。
第二，加強源頭檢驗，並溯源比對原料及貨品的進出，往往即是窺知廠商是否造假的源頭。稍早強冠和正義油品混用自香港、越南進口之飼料油，昨天南僑食品也被查獲進口工業牛油等，是否報關之誤有待查證。足見，源頭管道是發現食品廠生產機密的有效線索，這也就是義美建議的「溯源與分流」。食衛部門和海關、財稅、及工業部門應該建立資料分享管道，禁止生產飼料的工廠同時生產食品，使飼料原料不致流至食品；如此，生產資訊的透明度越高，業者藏汙納垢的空間就越小。
第三，中央對檢驗工作的行禮如儀，地方對民眾檢舉的冷漠消極，是培養黑心商人的溫床。近年食安事件的揭發，存在著一個個小人物變英雄的故事：塑化劑流用卅年才被楊技正在實驗室中發現，大統假油案是靠著檢察官鄭智文和葉建成求真的拚勁偵破，強冠案是由於屏東老農前後檢舉了五次。與這些不罷休的英雄相對照的，則是長年在其間捧鐵飯碗、握公權力的大批公務人員，他們是明明職責所在卻敷衍了事，對違法犯紀視若無睹，對人民權益遭侵害毫無感覺。如何振作公務人員的積極性，喚起他們的責任意識與光榮感，則是政府能否重建社會食安信心的關鍵所繫。
人們並未忘記，近幾年馬政府大力推動組織改造，整併行政院各部會的既有職能。然而，所謂「組織改造」，如果沒有促成功能上的整合與提升，而只是在形式上將機構人員打散然後重新歸類，那麼，此一浩大的工程未必能夠提升效能，遑論提高服務民眾的品質。事實上，看這幾次食安事件的處理，我們發現行政部門的效能非但未因組織改造而有所提升，反而因為組織整併而變得協調不良，反應遲鈍；尤其衛福部「重醫療、輕食安」的取向，職能缺失愈發明顯，令人遺憾。
行政院要設立「食品安全辦公室」，目前看來確有必要。但是，若不能展現政府解決問題的企圖，不能把管理機制和相關人員的效能召喚出來，這個辦公室就算不被黑心企業偷襲，也會遭排山倒海的民怨壓垮。我們要提醒江內閣：一個擁有莫大權力卻無法為民興利除弊的政府，是可恥的；請善用公權力，不要坐困愁城。在塑化劑、毒澱粉、黑心油之後，還有什麼食品未爆彈，不能不未雨綢繆！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)