Transform the KMT, Broaden the Blue Camp Path
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2014
Executive Summary: The nine in one elections inflicted the worst defeat on the KMT since it relocated to Taiwan in 1949. but the KMT need not be too discouraged. Falling into the valley of the shadow of death is an opportunity to finally see its own blind spots. The KMT should consider expanding the concept of a blue camp. The KMT path should become a blue camp path. This would regain it the support of mainstream public opinion, and once again make it the leader of the “peoples path.”
Full Text Below:
The nine in one elections inflicted the worst defeat on the KMT since it relocated to Taiwan in 1949. Sean Lien lost to Wen-Je Ko by 240,000 votes in the capital city of Taipei, a blue camp stronghold. Island wide, the number of counties and municipalities headed by the KMT plummeted from four cities and 11 counties to one city and five counties. The blame has fallen on Ma Ying-jeou. Political reality will probably force him to resign as party chairman during the Wednesday Central Standing Committee meeting. A new election will probably be held within three months.
Support for the Kuomintang collapsed for many reasons. It did not occur overnight. Put simply, the KMT failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. Ma failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. The party’s nominees failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. The party’s political path failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. The situation was irremediable.
President Ma must begin by acknowledging his failings. Specifically, he must bear responsibility for the defeat. The public has spoken. President Ma failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. That was the main reason for the KMT’s debacle. Before the election Eric Chu estimated that he would receive 300,000 votes. When it was all over, he squeaked by with a 20,000 vote margin. Wu Chi-yang’s defeat was even more unexpected. Neither candidate had a poor record or lacked charisma. Many voters considered voting for Chu or Wu. But they chose to punish the Kuomintang instead. They punished KMT candidates not just in New Taipei City and Taoyuan, but in every voting district across the island.
Ma Ying-jeou has decided to resign the party chairmanship. But that is hardly enough to atone for his failings. He let the KMT down. He must now reinvigorate the party. The party must now hold a party chairmanship election and nominate a presidential candidate. Ma should use the vestiges of his political influence to help KMT party leaders resolve the problems in its nomination process. KMT support for peaceful development in cross-Strait relations will win the most public support.
The second reason for the KMT’s defeat, was that its nominees failed to win peoples’ hearts and minds. This was evident from the resistance Sean Lien encountered in Taipei. In recent years, young people have become increasingly unhappy with political dynasties. This has led to intense resentment against “political elites.” Nevertheless the KMT nominated Sean Lien as its candidate for capital city mayorship. The KMT was oblivious to public sentiment. The KMT's nomination process was also dysfunctional. Wen-Je Ko’s wave of populist approval was due in part to his personal charm. But the main reason for his popularity was the contrast between him and his opponent Sean Lien. During the nomination process, when Sean Lien and Ting Shou-chung were rivals, Wen-Je Ko publicly acknowledged that Sean Lien would be easier to defeat. Yet the KMT nomination process, either by intent or by default, set Sean Lien up for defeat.
The situation was similar in Keelung. Keelung is a diehard blue camp stronghold. But every KMT nominee for Keelung mayor over the past 20 years has been worse than the last one. Yet the KMT nominated yet another dubious city council speaker. The KMT treated loyal supporters in Keelung with contempt. The eventual result was an unprecedented KMT defeat in Keelung.
The nomination process must be reformed. KMT party primaries should be conducted by registered party members. Anyone who professes to be member of the Kuomintang or agrees with KMT ideology, should be allowed to become a registered KMT member and participate in the nomination and election of the party’s chairman and presidential candidate.
The KMT changed from an authoritarian style political party. It underwent democratization. Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, and Ma Ying-jeou were all political “stars." The 2014 election defeat has significantly shrunk the territory headed up by the KMT. It also marks the beginning of a new era, during which the KMT is no longer blessed with political stars. The KMT must expand its base and seek new supporters. Members of the KMT, the New Party, the People First Party, and independents who identify with Kuomintang premises should be allowed to register as candidates for KMT party chairman or KMT presidential nominee. Upon registration, aspiring candidates should be allowed to participate in debates about the party’s political direction. This would make the KMT more inclusive and appealing. Only the deconstruction to the KMT will allow it to appeal to more people. The KMT’s political path can be divided along two lines. Left vs. right, and reunification vs. independence. These two lines are not parallel. They are wavy lines that often intersect. A major debate over the KMT’s political path would be more than merely an internal Kuomintang party line debate. It would be a debate over the KMT’s leadership and survival as a political party. Such a debate over reunification vs. independence could take many forms. It would enrich the KMT. It would guide collective thinking on Taiwan.
For example, should the KMT take a right wing path and promote economic growth, or take a left wing path and promote economic redistribution? The nine in one elections were local elections. But KMT strategy was to underscore FTAs. The KMT was defeated in the nine in one elections. Does that mean that it must now oppose free trade, and instead stress domestic markets? Must it cease fighting for FTAs and instead stress “the little things that make us happy?” The KMT championed "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force." and the "1992 consensus, one China, two interpretations." It vigorously promoted peaceful development. During this election the KMT was defeated by the Democratic Progressive Party, which demands Taiwan independence. What does that mean? Can the KMT transcend the "three noes" and the "1992 consensus?" Can it establish a mutually unsatisfactory but mutually acceptable cross-Strait framework? Can it redraw its road map for cross-Strait peace? These issues must be debated by blue camp voters.
The KMT need not be too discouraged. Falling into the valley of the shadow of death is an opportunity to finally see its own blind spots. The KMT should consider expanding the concept of a blue camp. The KMT path should become a blue camp path. This would regain it the support of mainstream public opinion, and once again make it the leader of the “peoples path.”
時論－改造國民黨 擴大藍營路線
2014年12月01日 04:10
本報訊
九合一大選，國民黨遭遇了1949年遷台以來最慘痛的敗局。連勝文在鐵票首都大輸柯文哲24萬票，全國執政版圖從4都11縣市，掉到只剩1都5縣。究責的聲浪湧向馬英九，讓他在政治現實的壓力下，可能於周三中常會宣布辭去黨主席，並於3個月內完成改選。
國民黨崩盤的原因很多，並非一夕造成，簡單而言就是不得人心，馬不得人心、黨的提名不能反映人心向背、黨的路線與論述不得人心，現況非大破已不能大立。
馬主席要從罪己出發，更明確承擔敗選責任。眾議咸同，馬總統不得人心，是國民黨全面慘敗的最主要原因，朱立倫選前民調評估可贏30萬票，最後卻以2萬票險勝，吳志揚更意外落選，這不是他們政績不好或魅力不夠，而是許多選民在考慮應肯定朱、吳兩人或教訓國民黨時，選擇了後者。這種懲罰效應，不只在新北市與桃園發生，在全國各選區都普遍發生。
馬英九決定辭去黨主席，仍遠遠不足以向國民黨的歷史贖罪，他還必須在強化黨的生命力方面有更多作為。接下來就要舉行黨主席選舉與國民黨總統候選人提名，他應該利用政治生命的餘暉，領導國民黨解決黨的提名機制失靈問題，讓國民黨支持兩岸和平發展的理念能取得最大程度的民意支持。
國民黨提名候選人不得人心，是此次敗選的第二大原因，這從連勝文在台北的苦戰可見一斑。近年來，年輕人對家族政治的不滿愈益高漲，轉化為對「權貴」的強烈怨念，國民黨卻仍提名了連勝文做為首都候選人，意謂著國民黨與社會氛圍完全脫節，也顯示了國民黨提名制度的失效。柯文哲捲起的素人旋風，固然有其個人魅力因素，但這氣旋的快速膨脹，最大的加持者不是別人，正是與素人恰成對照組的連勝文。在連勝文與丁守中角逐提名時，口無遮攔的柯文哲都說連勝文比較好打，但國民黨還是放任失靈的提名制度，讓連勝文出線挨打。
基隆市情況類似，仗著基隆被雨淋也不生鏽的藍軍鐵票，國民黨近20年來提名的基隆市長候選人一個比一個糟糕，由議長轉市長的地方政治人物屢屢出包，國民黨卻依然麻木地提名了一個在初選前即知爭議非常大的議長。這種吃定基隆鐵票的心態，終於讓國民黨在基隆面對前所未有的慘敗。
要矯治提名機制的失靈，國民黨應將黨內選舉改造為黨員登記制，只要自認是國民黨員或認同國民黨理念者，都可以登記為選民，參與黨主席選舉與總統候選人的提名初選投票。
國民黨是從威權型政黨逐漸走上民主化的，從蔣經國到李登輝、連戰、馬英九，都是政治明星。2014選舉初敗，國民黨不但版圖大幅縮小，更進入一個未曾經歷過、沒有政治明星加持的新階段。國民黨必須盡量擴大認同，爭取支持者。不管是國民黨、新黨、親民黨、無黨籍，只要認同國民黨理念，都可以登記為參選人，角逐黨主席或總統提名，登記後，有志參選者要進行路線大辯論，把國民黨的概念擴大化、全民化後，才能透過解構國民黨、重新組構成可以爭取最大化認同的國民黨。
路線大辯論可以劃分為兩個思維線：左右與統獨，這兩個思維線不是平行線，而是呈波浪交集的狀態。這時候，國民黨的路線大辯論將不只是國民黨一黨的路線辯論，也是國民黨領導台灣生存發展大戰略的辯論。這種絞揉左右與統獨的辯論，可以以許多不同的議題形式呈現，將豐富國民黨的論述，也將引導台灣社會的集體思考。
例如，國民黨未來要走的是促進發展的右翼路線？或是強調分配的左翼路線？這次九合一大選雖是地方選舉，但國民黨將之上綱為FTA戰略大會戰，九合一大敗，是否意謂反自由貿易、重內需市場的小確幸，擊敗了向外拚搏FTA？過去國民黨靠「不統不獨不武」與「九二共識，一中各表」，大力推動的和平發展論述，在這次選舉被堅持台獨黨綱的民進黨擊潰，又意謂著什麼？國民黨應該如何突破守勢的「三不」與「九二共識」，重新建構一種雙重「不滿意但接受」的兩岸大論述，取回兩岸和平發展路線的正當性呢？這些議題都需要經過辯論凝聚藍營選民的共識。
國民黨不必太過灰心喪志，掉進死亡蔭谷正是從絕處檢視盲點的契機。不妨讓國民黨概念擴大為藍營概念，將國民黨路線擴大為藍營路線，重新贏得主流民意的支持，再度成為領導台灣的「全民路線」。
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Riding the Whirlwind of New Democracy
Riding the Whirlwind of New Democracy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2014
Executive Summary: The outcome of the election remains uncertain. Politicians may still be obsessed with consolidating their blue or green support base, and with Taiwan's northern, central, or southern turf wars. But the common people are now the heart of the new democratic society. The promise that "Tomorrow will be better" will no longer be the monopoly wielded by traditional political authorities. Visionary leaders had better pay attention to this trend. They are riding the whirlwind of the new democracy. They have been given a chance to help Taiwan stand up.
Full Text Below:
Tomorrow is election day. The candidates’ campaigns have reached their last leg. This year’s nine in one elections involved broad segments of society. Local neighborhoods mobilized and participated. The election was characterized as a "skirmish before the 2016 presidential election." The appearance of all sorts of phenomenon during the election hinted at the bigger picture. A “new democracy” with the common man as its center debuted. Younger voices made themselves heard. Internet commentary and information played a new role.
Some people are skeptical about these developments. They may think "water can float a boat, but it can also sink it." In fact, this is one side of a two-sided coin. On the one hand, the convenience and openness of the Internet has given birth to a new democratic movement, one that has become a global trend. Politicians and decision-makers have not overlooked the phenomenon. On the other hand, cyberspace ethics remains primitive and undeveloped. Commentary on persons and issues is often distorted or exaggerated. Netizens have yet to exercise moderation or ensure balance.
We have all gotten an earful about "democracy" in recent years. Taiwan has undergone many ordeals. Democratization is perhaps a sign of progress. Universal suffrage is at its core. Today people regard "one man, one vote" as right and proper. In theory this means equal rights. But the degree to which it has been implement remains in dispute. For example, certain demographics are politically apathetic. Certain underprivileged groups may lack access to information due to their economic circumstances. These silent constituents must not be taken for granted. The feasibility and necessity of absentee balloting remains a bone of contention. The same holds true for voting age restrictions on young people. All affect the right to political participation. During the recent campaign, President Ma said a majority of the public does not support the right of 18 year olds to vote. But even KMT Legislator Ting Shou-chung petitioned for the right of 18 year olds to vote. Clearly democratization has shifted the boundaries of political participation and political constituencies. Younger voters are merely a tiny part of the equation.
Democratization in politics has been going on for some time. Technological revolution has imperceptibly brought about “economic democratization," as well as the democratization of everyday life. It has been quietly influencing and changing the conduct of ordinary people. Much attention has been devoted to the problem of Internet speech during this election. The chaos generated warrants concern. Electoral or judicial authorities should clarify the rules. On the other hand, Internet speech has challenged the mainstream media. This is increasingly apparent. Everyone with a PC or a cellphone can now address the public. Recognized print or TV pundits no longer enjoy a media monopoly.
Take the recent "imperial subjects" controversy for example. Hau Pe-tsun later explained that the content of his talk was taken from Wikipedia. If it was in error, he was willing to apologize. Wen-Je Ko then quipped, "Congratulations. Uncle Hao has become a netizen." Set aside ideological differences for the moment. This incident shows the importance of orderly management of the Internet. This is an issue that we must continue to focus on in the future.
The global economy has been weak in recent years. Many regimes have been expressing concern for the "economics of the common man." In fact, technological and market forces popularized and democratized the economy long ago. For example Mainland China has its "Taobao." Who knew when it was established only eleven years ago, how many households it would influence, including those on Taiwan? It did more than turn Alibaba into a massive conglomerate. It is now known as "the world's greatest bazaar." Its business model connects self-employed sellers to distant buyers. People separated by physical distance and social differences can meet in cyberspace and complete their transactions. This interactive model includes the trendy concept of social networking. All these center on links between ordinary people. Naturally the effect will be to spread democratization. How can a traditional politician or authority possibly intervene?
Other examples of the democratization of economic life, They include Sweden’s IKEA, the world’s leading retail furniture manufacturer. Its founder began selling matches in the village when he was only five. He founded the company when he was only 17. The brand is rooted in the Swedish concept of a "People's House." It stresses "democratic design" principles. Another example harks from Japan. In recent years, Softbank president Sun Cheng-yi and clothing company UNIQLO founder Tadashi Yanai have taken turns as Japan’s wealthiest man. This demonstrates the power of today's technology and the popularization of the economics of the common man.
The outcome of the election remains uncertain. Politicians may still be obsessed with consolidating their blue or green support base, and with Taiwan's northern, central, or southern turf wars. But the common people are now the heart of the new democratic society. The promise that "Tomorrow will be better" will no longer be the monopoly wielded by traditional political authorities. Visionary leaders had better pay attention to this trend. They are riding the whirlwind of the new democracy. They have been given a chance to help Taiwan stand up.
乘著新民主的氣旋讓台灣向上提升
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.28 02:13 am
明天就是投票日，競選活動已進入最後衝刺階段。今年的九合一選舉，牽涉層面廣闊，下至地方鄰里的動員和投入，上則被形容為「二○一六總統大選前哨戰」。值得注意的是，選舉期間種種現象反映出某種大氛圍，一言以蔽之，一種以庶民為中心的「新民主」氣象隱然成為大勢所趨，包括年輕族群心聲受到重視，網路言論與訊息發揮了新的影響力……等等。
對這種現象，也有人抱持疑問，認為「水能載舟亦能覆舟」。事實上，這是一體之兩面：在一方面，因網路的便捷與開放帶來的新民主化運動，已成為全球趨勢，政治人物和決策者皆不可輕忽此一現象；在另一方面，網路世界的倫理架構尚未成熟，衡人論事不無失真失度、畸重畸輕，這有待所有使用者共同砥礪、彼此鞭策。
「民主」二字，大家聽得爛熟，尤其台灣近年的發展經驗，政治民主化可謂台灣的進步標記，普選為其核心手段。現今民眾視為天經地義的「一人一票」，理論上彰顯人權平等，但在執行層面還是有些落差和爭議點。例如，社會上不免存在著政治冷漠族群，或生活環境中資訊未能充分流通的弱勢團體，這些沉默者不能只被當成空氣看待。又如常受爭論的海外通訊投票的必要性和可行性爭議，以及年輕人的投票年齡限制等等，都屬政治參與權的議題。選舉期間，馬總統曾表示多數民意仍不支持十八歲即擁有投票權，但連國民黨立委丁守中都連署推動十八歲民眾應享有投票權的釋憲案，可見「民主化」力量讓民眾政治參與的板塊界線也在移動中，選民年輕化只是其中一環而已。
政治上的民主化早在實踐中，而不知不覺，科技革命帶來的「經濟民主化」，乃至日常生活的民主化，也已悄悄影響並改變了一般人的行為準則。像這次選舉中令人注意的網路言論問題，其亂象的確值得重視，選務或司法部門應該整理出若干規範。但另一方面，網路言論挑戰主流媒體的現象越來越普遍，可見社會發言的麥克風已瀰散至每一部電腦和每一支手機，不再是有知名度搏版面者或電視名嘴可獨享。
以最近的「皇民」風波為例，郝柏村後來說明其資訊來自維基百科，若有誤願致歉；柯文哲則打趣：「恭喜郝伯伯加入網路族」。若放下雙方的意識形態差異，光就從網路族群的「話題性」來看，這一事件足以成為社會趨勢觀察的一個註記。在此一背景下，網路秩序管理之重要，更是未來必須持續關注討論的議題。
近年因全球景氣疲弱，很多國家的執政者言之鑿鑿要關照「庶民經濟」，但經濟的平民化、民主化，其實早已隨科技和市場力量而野火燎原。例如中國大陸的「淘寶網」，誰能想像設立距今僅十一年，其影響力深入包括台灣在內的多少家戶，不只是造就阿里巴巴變成巨人企業集團而已。此一被譽為「世界上最偉大的集市」，其經營模式連結了本來獨立無依的個體戶賣家和遙遠的消費者買家，實體距離和社會位階可能成天南地北的雙方，在網路的虛擬空間產生交集，而完成交易。這種互動形式，包括近年來火紅的所謂「社會企業」概念，都是以庶民之間的連結為中心，當然會擴散出民主化效果，又怎會是傳統政治人物或權威領導者所能插手干預？
其他經濟生活民主化的例子，像是全球家具零售業龍頭的瑞典ＩＫＥＡ家具，其創辦人五歲時就在村子裡賣火柴，成立公司時年僅十七歲，品牌精神源自於瑞典「人民之家」的概念，至今強調「民主化設計」原則。又例如日本首富的排行，近年來在軟體銀行總裁的孫正義和平民服飾「優衣庫」（UNIQLO）創辦人的柳井正之間輪流擺動，都可見出當今科技力量和平民經濟的普及。
這次選舉不管結果如何，政治人物心裡可能還縈繞著藍綠鞏固地盤的念頭，或是台灣地理位置的北中南東的權力分界；但真正以庶民為中心的新民主氣氛已籠罩全社會，所謂的「明天會更好」不再會是由傳統的政治權力當局一手掌控。有遠見的領導者應留意這樣的大勢所趨，乘著新民主的氣旋，讓台灣掌握向上提升的機會。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2014
Executive Summary: The outcome of the election remains uncertain. Politicians may still be obsessed with consolidating their blue or green support base, and with Taiwan's northern, central, or southern turf wars. But the common people are now the heart of the new democratic society. The promise that "Tomorrow will be better" will no longer be the monopoly wielded by traditional political authorities. Visionary leaders had better pay attention to this trend. They are riding the whirlwind of the new democracy. They have been given a chance to help Taiwan stand up.
Full Text Below:
Tomorrow is election day. The candidates’ campaigns have reached their last leg. This year’s nine in one elections involved broad segments of society. Local neighborhoods mobilized and participated. The election was characterized as a "skirmish before the 2016 presidential election." The appearance of all sorts of phenomenon during the election hinted at the bigger picture. A “new democracy” with the common man as its center debuted. Younger voices made themselves heard. Internet commentary and information played a new role.
Some people are skeptical about these developments. They may think "water can float a boat, but it can also sink it." In fact, this is one side of a two-sided coin. On the one hand, the convenience and openness of the Internet has given birth to a new democratic movement, one that has become a global trend. Politicians and decision-makers have not overlooked the phenomenon. On the other hand, cyberspace ethics remains primitive and undeveloped. Commentary on persons and issues is often distorted or exaggerated. Netizens have yet to exercise moderation or ensure balance.
We have all gotten an earful about "democracy" in recent years. Taiwan has undergone many ordeals. Democratization is perhaps a sign of progress. Universal suffrage is at its core. Today people regard "one man, one vote" as right and proper. In theory this means equal rights. But the degree to which it has been implement remains in dispute. For example, certain demographics are politically apathetic. Certain underprivileged groups may lack access to information due to their economic circumstances. These silent constituents must not be taken for granted. The feasibility and necessity of absentee balloting remains a bone of contention. The same holds true for voting age restrictions on young people. All affect the right to political participation. During the recent campaign, President Ma said a majority of the public does not support the right of 18 year olds to vote. But even KMT Legislator Ting Shou-chung petitioned for the right of 18 year olds to vote. Clearly democratization has shifted the boundaries of political participation and political constituencies. Younger voters are merely a tiny part of the equation.
Democratization in politics has been going on for some time. Technological revolution has imperceptibly brought about “economic democratization," as well as the democratization of everyday life. It has been quietly influencing and changing the conduct of ordinary people. Much attention has been devoted to the problem of Internet speech during this election. The chaos generated warrants concern. Electoral or judicial authorities should clarify the rules. On the other hand, Internet speech has challenged the mainstream media. This is increasingly apparent. Everyone with a PC or a cellphone can now address the public. Recognized print or TV pundits no longer enjoy a media monopoly.
Take the recent "imperial subjects" controversy for example. Hau Pe-tsun later explained that the content of his talk was taken from Wikipedia. If it was in error, he was willing to apologize. Wen-Je Ko then quipped, "Congratulations. Uncle Hao has become a netizen." Set aside ideological differences for the moment. This incident shows the importance of orderly management of the Internet. This is an issue that we must continue to focus on in the future.
The global economy has been weak in recent years. Many regimes have been expressing concern for the "economics of the common man." In fact, technological and market forces popularized and democratized the economy long ago. For example Mainland China has its "Taobao." Who knew when it was established only eleven years ago, how many households it would influence, including those on Taiwan? It did more than turn Alibaba into a massive conglomerate. It is now known as "the world's greatest bazaar." Its business model connects self-employed sellers to distant buyers. People separated by physical distance and social differences can meet in cyberspace and complete their transactions. This interactive model includes the trendy concept of social networking. All these center on links between ordinary people. Naturally the effect will be to spread democratization. How can a traditional politician or authority possibly intervene?
Other examples of the democratization of economic life, They include Sweden’s IKEA, the world’s leading retail furniture manufacturer. Its founder began selling matches in the village when he was only five. He founded the company when he was only 17. The brand is rooted in the Swedish concept of a "People's House." It stresses "democratic design" principles. Another example harks from Japan. In recent years, Softbank president Sun Cheng-yi and clothing company UNIQLO founder Tadashi Yanai have taken turns as Japan’s wealthiest man. This demonstrates the power of today's technology and the popularization of the economics of the common man.
The outcome of the election remains uncertain. Politicians may still be obsessed with consolidating their blue or green support base, and with Taiwan's northern, central, or southern turf wars. But the common people are now the heart of the new democratic society. The promise that "Tomorrow will be better" will no longer be the monopoly wielded by traditional political authorities. Visionary leaders had better pay attention to this trend. They are riding the whirlwind of the new democracy. They have been given a chance to help Taiwan stand up.
乘著新民主的氣旋讓台灣向上提升
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.28 02:13 am
明天就是投票日，競選活動已進入最後衝刺階段。今年的九合一選舉，牽涉層面廣闊，下至地方鄰里的動員和投入，上則被形容為「二○一六總統大選前哨戰」。值得注意的是，選舉期間種種現象反映出某種大氛圍，一言以蔽之，一種以庶民為中心的「新民主」氣象隱然成為大勢所趨，包括年輕族群心聲受到重視，網路言論與訊息發揮了新的影響力……等等。
對這種現象，也有人抱持疑問，認為「水能載舟亦能覆舟」。事實上，這是一體之兩面：在一方面，因網路的便捷與開放帶來的新民主化運動，已成為全球趨勢，政治人物和決策者皆不可輕忽此一現象；在另一方面，網路世界的倫理架構尚未成熟，衡人論事不無失真失度、畸重畸輕，這有待所有使用者共同砥礪、彼此鞭策。
「民主」二字，大家聽得爛熟，尤其台灣近年的發展經驗，政治民主化可謂台灣的進步標記，普選為其核心手段。現今民眾視為天經地義的「一人一票」，理論上彰顯人權平等，但在執行層面還是有些落差和爭議點。例如，社會上不免存在著政治冷漠族群，或生活環境中資訊未能充分流通的弱勢團體，這些沉默者不能只被當成空氣看待。又如常受爭論的海外通訊投票的必要性和可行性爭議，以及年輕人的投票年齡限制等等，都屬政治參與權的議題。選舉期間，馬總統曾表示多數民意仍不支持十八歲即擁有投票權，但連國民黨立委丁守中都連署推動十八歲民眾應享有投票權的釋憲案，可見「民主化」力量讓民眾政治參與的板塊界線也在移動中，選民年輕化只是其中一環而已。
政治上的民主化早在實踐中，而不知不覺，科技革命帶來的「經濟民主化」，乃至日常生活的民主化，也已悄悄影響並改變了一般人的行為準則。像這次選舉中令人注意的網路言論問題，其亂象的確值得重視，選務或司法部門應該整理出若干規範。但另一方面，網路言論挑戰主流媒體的現象越來越普遍，可見社會發言的麥克風已瀰散至每一部電腦和每一支手機，不再是有知名度搏版面者或電視名嘴可獨享。
以最近的「皇民」風波為例，郝柏村後來說明其資訊來自維基百科，若有誤願致歉；柯文哲則打趣：「恭喜郝伯伯加入網路族」。若放下雙方的意識形態差異，光就從網路族群的「話題性」來看，這一事件足以成為社會趨勢觀察的一個註記。在此一背景下，網路秩序管理之重要，更是未來必須持續關注討論的議題。
近年因全球景氣疲弱，很多國家的執政者言之鑿鑿要關照「庶民經濟」，但經濟的平民化、民主化，其實早已隨科技和市場力量而野火燎原。例如中國大陸的「淘寶網」，誰能想像設立距今僅十一年，其影響力深入包括台灣在內的多少家戶，不只是造就阿里巴巴變成巨人企業集團而已。此一被譽為「世界上最偉大的集市」，其經營模式連結了本來獨立無依的個體戶賣家和遙遠的消費者買家，實體距離和社會位階可能成天南地北的雙方，在網路的虛擬空間產生交集，而完成交易。這種互動形式，包括近年來火紅的所謂「社會企業」概念，都是以庶民之間的連結為中心，當然會擴散出民主化效果，又怎會是傳統政治人物或權威領導者所能插手干預？
其他經濟生活民主化的例子，像是全球家具零售業龍頭的瑞典ＩＫＥＡ家具，其創辦人五歲時就在村子裡賣火柴，成立公司時年僅十七歲，品牌精神源自於瑞典「人民之家」的概念，至今強調「民主化設計」原則。又例如日本首富的排行，近年來在軟體銀行總裁的孫正義和平民服飾「優衣庫」（UNIQLO）創辦人的柳井正之間輪流擺動，都可見出當今科技力量和平民經濟的普及。
這次選舉不管結果如何，政治人物心裡可能還縈繞著藍綠鞏固地盤的念頭，或是台灣地理位置的北中南東的權力分界；但真正以庶民為中心的新民主氣氛已籠罩全社會，所謂的「明天會更好」不再會是由傳統的政治權力當局一手掌控。有遠見的領導者應留意這樣的大勢所趨，乘著新民主的氣旋，讓台灣掌握向上提升的機會。
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Whence the Term "Economic Voters?"
Whence the Term "Economic Voters?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2014
Executive Summary: The current election has caught the eye of many Mainland tourists on Taiwan. Many of them feel the attraction of Taiwan’s democracy. What they don’t realize is that Taiwan's democracy is incapable of solving economic problems. It even hinders long-term economic development. On this point, the public on Taiwan should be worried indeed.
Full Text Below:
The nine in one elections are merely local elections. The hour of reckoning is near. Yet an endless procession of government officials and private entrepreneurs have appealed to voters concerned about the economy, so-called "economic voters.” They have asked them to help pass the STA, MTA, and other free trade agreements. They fear Taiwan's economy will lose its competitive advantage. Will playing the "economic card" work? That remains to be seen. But the unique appeal to "economic voters” is itself an intriguing phenomenon.
"Economic voters” is an invention unique to Taiwan's democracy. It is a peculiar product of Taiwan’s political divide, identity differences, and developmental disorders. Man is an economic animal. People participate in politics primarily to make their own lives better through democratic means. In Western democracies, political parties are classified as left, center and right. They attempt to help the underprivileged, increase equality, and increase prosperity, respectively. Changing economic circumstances in other countries lead to changes in the ruling party. But on Taiwan, differences between the blue and green parties are not based on ideological differences. They are not based on right vs. left political differences. They are based on strategic differences between the ruling and opposition parties vis a vis the Chinese mainland. Over the years, these entangled political and economic considerations have created additional obstacles to Taiwan’s pursuit of common prosperity.
Left vs. right divisions have long confused the public on Taiwan. They have never been clearly defined. Politically the KMT has long been regarded as pro-capitalist, while the DPP has been regarded as populist. But this impression is a consequence of early period KMT one-party dominance. Democratization led to dramatic changes. During the DPP's eight years in power, capitalists competed to pay tribute to the DPP. They bestowed gifts of jewels and cash. As we can see, capitalists cozy up to those in power no matter what the era. Nor do those in power also bother with distinctions about the capitalists’ political coloration.
The TSU is located on the “deep green” end of the political spectrum. It trumpets its opposition to Mainland China. In fact, it seldom proposes any economic policies to take care of the poor and underprivileged. Conversely, the New Party, which is located on the “deep blue” end of the political spectrum, urges cross-Strait exchanges, but has has no specific policy on the economy. As we can see, left vs. right political labels on Taiwan have long been idiosyncratic and inaccurate. They cannot be equated with left vs. right political labels in the West. The problem is that Taiwan has paid a terrible price for this political and economic confusion.
Taiwan was once bore the title "economic miracle." It also boasted a relatively balanced distribution of income. But over the last decade, the domestic wealth gap has continued to widen. The reasons are not difficult to imagine. One. The rise of emerging economies. Taiwan has been complacent and closed off. It has lost its dynamism and vision. Two. All countries face global competition. The Chinese mainland has become the world's factory. Yet Taiwan remains mired in cross-Strait political opposition, binding itself hand and foot. Three. During democratization Taiwan accumulated many insoluble problems. These led to vicious ruling vs. opposition party struggles and vendettas that hijacked the public interest. The economy became the victim. Four. When the economy slows, calls for a more equal distribution of wealth are silenced. Government officials and private entrepreneurs have appealed to "economic voters.” Essentially they hope to catch the attention of more rational voters. They hope that people will not to allow Taiwan's economy to further deteriorate. But their appeal may fail. Politics on Taiwan has long been mired in blue vs. green confrontation. Politics is perceived as opposition on economic issues. As a result, the green camp opposes Mainland China, environmentalists oppose industry, homeowners oppose rezoning, student oppose the STA, and mothers oppose the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Everyone opposes something or another. Their goal is not to seek solutions, but to leave everyone paralyzed. This can only be construed as political failure.
The PRC-ROK FTA has been signed. Taiwan's economy will be hard hit. The ruling and opposition parties differ dramatically. But the most affected are small and medium enterprises in central and southern Taiwan. That is beyond dispute. Unemployment in the depressed center and south are much higher than in the north. But economic issues cannot impress voters in the center and the south. Those regions lack so-called "economic voters." Political demagoguery has also stigmatized the term "economic voters" as supporters of exploitation and injustice, and equated them with capitalist lackeys. This is the result of long-term ruling vs. opposition party confrontation and political demagoguery. It has led many to express indifference to economic considerations, to vilify economic growth, and express contempt for entrepreneurs, even as they complain about low wages and grim futures.
People on Taiwan have coined the term "economic voters." But economic voters are merely rational voters. The term “swing voters” was worked to death. Out of desperation people were forced to invent a new term, "economic voters." This was clearly a response to such terms as "political voters" or "anti-economic voters.” Ironically, "economic voters" has become a rallying cry in the campaign. Taiwan's economy is in decline. The scene provokes melancholy.
The current election has caught the eye of many Mainland tourists on Taiwan. Many of them feel the attraction of Taiwan’s democracy. What they don’t realize is that Taiwan's democracy is incapable of solving economic problems. It even hinders long-term economic development. On this point, the public on Taiwan should be worried indeed.
為什麼有「經濟選民」這種分類？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.27 02:21 am
儘管九合一只是地方選舉，選戰進入決戰時刻，仍不斷有官員和企業家跳出來向「經濟選民」喊話，呼籲他們支持政府通過服貨貿等協議，以免台灣經濟喪失競爭優勢。這樣的「經濟牌」能否奏效，仍有待觀察；但特別針對「經濟選民」訴求，卻是一個耐人尋味的現象。
「經濟選民」一詞，是台灣民主政治的獨特發明，也是台灣在政治分裂、認同歧異、發展失調下的一種奇特產物。人是經濟的動物，人民參政，無非是要透過民主手段追求自己更好的生活。在西方的民主國家，政黨有左、中、右之分，分別以扶弱、求均、求富的政策訴求號召選民支持；同時，也因各國經濟情勢之遞變而產生政黨輪替。但在台灣，藍綠兩黨的理念差異，並不是根據左右的路線而分，而是沿著朝野對中國大陸的戰略差異而區隔。多年來，在這種政經夾纏的情況下，也就增加了台灣在追求均富之路上的顛簸。
路線左右的問題，在台灣一向頗為混淆，未曾被認真釐清。在政治上，國民黨長期被視為親資本家，民進黨則被視為親基層民眾；此一印象，其實是早年國民黨長期一黨獨大使然，但在民主化之後已有了相當大的變化。事實上，在民進黨執政的八年，資本家競相入府「進貢」，送上珠寶獻金；可見，資本家對於權勢的靠攏是不分時代的，而權力對資本家的親近也是無分色彩的。
進一步看，在政治光譜上位於「深綠」一端的台聯，除了標榜「反中」，其實甚少提出什麼照顧貧弱的經濟主張；而位於光譜「深藍」那端的新黨，除了力促兩岸交流，也未見經濟上有什麼具體政策。由此可見，台灣長期以來劃分政黨色彩左右的標準，其實是相當特殊而不準確的，與西方談論左右的路線完全不能畫上等號。問題是，在這樣政治與經濟夾纏下，台灣經濟發展卻付出極大的代價。
早年台灣挾著「經濟奇蹟」的光熱，同步創造了相對均衡的所得分配；但近十幾年，國內貧富差距卻不斷惡化。其中原因，其實不難想像：第一，許多新興國家崛起，而台灣卻因自滿自閉，而失去了向外的動力和視野；第二，當各國都在面對全球格局的競爭，中國大陸成為世界工廠，台灣卻拘泥於兩岸的政治關係，反而自我設限與羈絆；第三，台灣在民主化過程中積累的硬塊無法消化，導致朝野陷入惡鬥、報復、綁架共業的泥淖，經濟這一區塊即成為犧牲。第四，當經濟發展減速，追求均富即更失著力點。
官員及企業界訴求「經濟選民」投票，主要是希望拉回比較理性選民的目光，呼籲人們不要讓台灣經濟日漸萎弱的現象惡化；但這樣的籲求，未必有效。原因是，長期以來台灣的政治不僅在現實上演成藍綠對峙，在思維上更儼然被操作成政治就是與經濟對立的東西。於是，綠營反中國、環保反工業、釘子戶反都更、學生反服貿、媽媽反核四；形形色色的「反」，並不是為了在異議中尋求出路，而是要讓大家都動彈不得，這其實是政治的大失敗。
中韓自由貿易協定實施後，台灣經濟會不會受到重創，朝野說法大異其趣；但不可否認的一點是，受影響最大的是中南部的中小企業。儘管中南部的失業及蕭條遠高於北部，但經濟議題打動不了中南部選民，因為那裡缺乏所謂的「經濟選民」；或者說，在政治操作下，「經濟選民」一詞已被汙名化，和支持剝削、不公不義、資本家的走狗等畫上等號。這就是台灣朝野長期對峙及政治操弄的結果，許多人貶抑經濟、醜化成長、蔑視企業家，回過頭來又卻怨嘆低薪、沒頭路。
台灣之所以有「經濟選民」這樣的名詞，無非是理性選民、中間選民等分類法皆被耗光之後，在民主的窮途中一種無可奈何的發明。名之為「經濟選民」，顯然是相對於「政治選民」或「反經濟選民」而言。諷刺的是，「經濟選民」在選戰中受到召喚之日，其實也是台灣經濟江河日下之時，這是令人惆悵的一幕。
這次選舉，受到不少來台觀光陸客的矚目，許多人在台親身感受了民主的魅力。但他們不知道的是，台灣的民主政治沒有解決經濟問題的能力，甚至長期妨礙經濟的發展；這點，台灣人民還在發愁呢！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2014
Executive Summary: The current election has caught the eye of many Mainland tourists on Taiwan. Many of them feel the attraction of Taiwan’s democracy. What they don’t realize is that Taiwan's democracy is incapable of solving economic problems. It even hinders long-term economic development. On this point, the public on Taiwan should be worried indeed.
Full Text Below:
The nine in one elections are merely local elections. The hour of reckoning is near. Yet an endless procession of government officials and private entrepreneurs have appealed to voters concerned about the economy, so-called "economic voters.” They have asked them to help pass the STA, MTA, and other free trade agreements. They fear Taiwan's economy will lose its competitive advantage. Will playing the "economic card" work? That remains to be seen. But the unique appeal to "economic voters” is itself an intriguing phenomenon.
"Economic voters” is an invention unique to Taiwan's democracy. It is a peculiar product of Taiwan’s political divide, identity differences, and developmental disorders. Man is an economic animal. People participate in politics primarily to make their own lives better through democratic means. In Western democracies, political parties are classified as left, center and right. They attempt to help the underprivileged, increase equality, and increase prosperity, respectively. Changing economic circumstances in other countries lead to changes in the ruling party. But on Taiwan, differences between the blue and green parties are not based on ideological differences. They are not based on right vs. left political differences. They are based on strategic differences between the ruling and opposition parties vis a vis the Chinese mainland. Over the years, these entangled political and economic considerations have created additional obstacles to Taiwan’s pursuit of common prosperity.
Left vs. right divisions have long confused the public on Taiwan. They have never been clearly defined. Politically the KMT has long been regarded as pro-capitalist, while the DPP has been regarded as populist. But this impression is a consequence of early period KMT one-party dominance. Democratization led to dramatic changes. During the DPP's eight years in power, capitalists competed to pay tribute to the DPP. They bestowed gifts of jewels and cash. As we can see, capitalists cozy up to those in power no matter what the era. Nor do those in power also bother with distinctions about the capitalists’ political coloration.
The TSU is located on the “deep green” end of the political spectrum. It trumpets its opposition to Mainland China. In fact, it seldom proposes any economic policies to take care of the poor and underprivileged. Conversely, the New Party, which is located on the “deep blue” end of the political spectrum, urges cross-Strait exchanges, but has has no specific policy on the economy. As we can see, left vs. right political labels on Taiwan have long been idiosyncratic and inaccurate. They cannot be equated with left vs. right political labels in the West. The problem is that Taiwan has paid a terrible price for this political and economic confusion.
Taiwan was once bore the title "economic miracle." It also boasted a relatively balanced distribution of income. But over the last decade, the domestic wealth gap has continued to widen. The reasons are not difficult to imagine. One. The rise of emerging economies. Taiwan has been complacent and closed off. It has lost its dynamism and vision. Two. All countries face global competition. The Chinese mainland has become the world's factory. Yet Taiwan remains mired in cross-Strait political opposition, binding itself hand and foot. Three. During democratization Taiwan accumulated many insoluble problems. These led to vicious ruling vs. opposition party struggles and vendettas that hijacked the public interest. The economy became the victim. Four. When the economy slows, calls for a more equal distribution of wealth are silenced. Government officials and private entrepreneurs have appealed to "economic voters.” Essentially they hope to catch the attention of more rational voters. They hope that people will not to allow Taiwan's economy to further deteriorate. But their appeal may fail. Politics on Taiwan has long been mired in blue vs. green confrontation. Politics is perceived as opposition on economic issues. As a result, the green camp opposes Mainland China, environmentalists oppose industry, homeowners oppose rezoning, student oppose the STA, and mothers oppose the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Everyone opposes something or another. Their goal is not to seek solutions, but to leave everyone paralyzed. This can only be construed as political failure.
The PRC-ROK FTA has been signed. Taiwan's economy will be hard hit. The ruling and opposition parties differ dramatically. But the most affected are small and medium enterprises in central and southern Taiwan. That is beyond dispute. Unemployment in the depressed center and south are much higher than in the north. But economic issues cannot impress voters in the center and the south. Those regions lack so-called "economic voters." Political demagoguery has also stigmatized the term "economic voters" as supporters of exploitation and injustice, and equated them with capitalist lackeys. This is the result of long-term ruling vs. opposition party confrontation and political demagoguery. It has led many to express indifference to economic considerations, to vilify economic growth, and express contempt for entrepreneurs, even as they complain about low wages and grim futures.
People on Taiwan have coined the term "economic voters." But economic voters are merely rational voters. The term “swing voters” was worked to death. Out of desperation people were forced to invent a new term, "economic voters." This was clearly a response to such terms as "political voters" or "anti-economic voters.” Ironically, "economic voters" has become a rallying cry in the campaign. Taiwan's economy is in decline. The scene provokes melancholy.
The current election has caught the eye of many Mainland tourists on Taiwan. Many of them feel the attraction of Taiwan’s democracy. What they don’t realize is that Taiwan's democracy is incapable of solving economic problems. It even hinders long-term economic development. On this point, the public on Taiwan should be worried indeed.
為什麼有「經濟選民」這種分類？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.27 02:21 am
儘管九合一只是地方選舉，選戰進入決戰時刻，仍不斷有官員和企業家跳出來向「經濟選民」喊話，呼籲他們支持政府通過服貨貿等協議，以免台灣經濟喪失競爭優勢。這樣的「經濟牌」能否奏效，仍有待觀察；但特別針對「經濟選民」訴求，卻是一個耐人尋味的現象。
「經濟選民」一詞，是台灣民主政治的獨特發明，也是台灣在政治分裂、認同歧異、發展失調下的一種奇特產物。人是經濟的動物，人民參政，無非是要透過民主手段追求自己更好的生活。在西方的民主國家，政黨有左、中、右之分，分別以扶弱、求均、求富的政策訴求號召選民支持；同時，也因各國經濟情勢之遞變而產生政黨輪替。但在台灣，藍綠兩黨的理念差異，並不是根據左右的路線而分，而是沿著朝野對中國大陸的戰略差異而區隔。多年來，在這種政經夾纏的情況下，也就增加了台灣在追求均富之路上的顛簸。
路線左右的問題，在台灣一向頗為混淆，未曾被認真釐清。在政治上，國民黨長期被視為親資本家，民進黨則被視為親基層民眾；此一印象，其實是早年國民黨長期一黨獨大使然，但在民主化之後已有了相當大的變化。事實上，在民進黨執政的八年，資本家競相入府「進貢」，送上珠寶獻金；可見，資本家對於權勢的靠攏是不分時代的，而權力對資本家的親近也是無分色彩的。
進一步看，在政治光譜上位於「深綠」一端的台聯，除了標榜「反中」，其實甚少提出什麼照顧貧弱的經濟主張；而位於光譜「深藍」那端的新黨，除了力促兩岸交流，也未見經濟上有什麼具體政策。由此可見，台灣長期以來劃分政黨色彩左右的標準，其實是相當特殊而不準確的，與西方談論左右的路線完全不能畫上等號。問題是，在這樣政治與經濟夾纏下，台灣經濟發展卻付出極大的代價。
早年台灣挾著「經濟奇蹟」的光熱，同步創造了相對均衡的所得分配；但近十幾年，國內貧富差距卻不斷惡化。其中原因，其實不難想像：第一，許多新興國家崛起，而台灣卻因自滿自閉，而失去了向外的動力和視野；第二，當各國都在面對全球格局的競爭，中國大陸成為世界工廠，台灣卻拘泥於兩岸的政治關係，反而自我設限與羈絆；第三，台灣在民主化過程中積累的硬塊無法消化，導致朝野陷入惡鬥、報復、綁架共業的泥淖，經濟這一區塊即成為犧牲。第四，當經濟發展減速，追求均富即更失著力點。
官員及企業界訴求「經濟選民」投票，主要是希望拉回比較理性選民的目光，呼籲人們不要讓台灣經濟日漸萎弱的現象惡化；但這樣的籲求，未必有效。原因是，長期以來台灣的政治不僅在現實上演成藍綠對峙，在思維上更儼然被操作成政治就是與經濟對立的東西。於是，綠營反中國、環保反工業、釘子戶反都更、學生反服貿、媽媽反核四；形形色色的「反」，並不是為了在異議中尋求出路，而是要讓大家都動彈不得，這其實是政治的大失敗。
中韓自由貿易協定實施後，台灣經濟會不會受到重創，朝野說法大異其趣；但不可否認的一點是，受影響最大的是中南部的中小企業。儘管中南部的失業及蕭條遠高於北部，但經濟議題打動不了中南部選民，因為那裡缺乏所謂的「經濟選民」；或者說，在政治操作下，「經濟選民」一詞已被汙名化，和支持剝削、不公不義、資本家的走狗等畫上等號。這就是台灣朝野長期對峙及政治操弄的結果，許多人貶抑經濟、醜化成長、蔑視企業家，回過頭來又卻怨嘆低薪、沒頭路。
台灣之所以有「經濟選民」這樣的名詞，無非是理性選民、中間選民等分類法皆被耗光之後，在民主的窮途中一種無可奈何的發明。名之為「經濟選民」，顯然是相對於「政治選民」或「反經濟選民」而言。諷刺的是，「經濟選民」在選戰中受到召喚之日，其實也是台灣經濟江河日下之時，這是令人惆悵的一幕。
這次選舉，受到不少來台觀光陸客的矚目，許多人在台親身感受了民主的魅力。但他們不知道的是，台灣的民主政治沒有解決經濟問題的能力，甚至長期妨礙經濟的發展；這點，台灣人民還在發愁呢！
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Cross-Strait Relations: Advancement or Stagnation?
Cross-Strait Relations: Advancement or Stagnation?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2014
Executive Summary: Voters must ask themselves a tough question. They may be dissatisfied with the status quo. They may be dissatisfied with the KMT. But will the KMT's defeat punish the KMT? Or will it punish themselves? Whether a particular party wins or loses is not worth that much ink. But this election will determine whether Taipei and Beijing sail into an open sea. or wind up trapped in a blind alley.
Full Text Below:
Attorney Chen Chang-wen recently published an article predicting that if the KMT loses the nine in one elections, the results will be seen as a rejection of President Ma and the KMT's cross-Strait economic policy. The STA is already stalled. The MTA and FEPZ special regulations remain hopelessly deadlocked. Chen raised a key question. This election is characterized as a local election. But its impact is definitely more than local. This election may determine whether cross-Strait relations continues down Ma’s path of peaceful development, or reverts to Chen Shui-bian's path of endless confrontation.
Voters may not realize that this election will have a major impact on the path of national development. But if the KMT is defeated in the nine in one elections, it is almost certain that the cross-Strait reconciliation and improved relations that Ma championed for the last six and a half years will be weakened or even reversed. The ruling party’s election prospects are not good. Is the public psychologically prepared to accept a reversal of cross-Strait policy?
The impact of such a major reversal is likely to be more significant than who becomes the mayor or county chief of various cities. Therefore when voters cast their ballots for their preferred candidates, how can they refuse to consider the impact on the nation as a whole? The PRC-ROK FTA is about to go into effect. Taiwan's economy may not have sounded its death knell. But is surely has sounded its economic tsunami alarm.
We face a difficult situation, yet we are regaled with irresponsible comments. Huang Kuo-chang argues that cross-Strait agreements are not ordinary FTAs. He says their political purpose is all too clear. He says the people must be on guard. He says the Ma government wants to use the PRC-ROK FTA to blackmail the people into signing the STA and MTA, as soon as possible. Wang Tu-fat argues that Korean products surpassed Taiwan products in Mainland market share long ago. He said that even if flat panels and plastics tax rates are impacted, the real key is industry research and development, innovation, and product differentiation. He says people should not be intimidated by the FTA.
Huang and Wang should not be so cavalier. They should not dismiss or even vilify the government's response. If they wish to oppose the STA and MTA, they are free to do so. But they should at least be responsible enough to warn people about the consequences. They should inform the Sunflower Student Movement youth who took to the streets because they believed what they said. Taiwan faces increasing marginalization on the world economic stage. If we reject Ma Ying-jeou’s peaceful development roadmap, and revert to Chen Shui-bian’s path of confrontation and evasion, will that help Taiwan survive? These two men are encouraging the destruction of current policy. But can they offer any constructive alternative that will help Taiwan out of its dilemma?
Please do not recite the same old mantra, "Innovation and differentiation are the real key." People on Taiwan are working hard to innovate and differentiate. Do they really think other countries are oblivious to the need for innovation and differentiation? Before businesses can innovate and differentiate, they must have capital. Korea and Taiwan are in a race. Taiwan is burdened with tariffs. Korea is not. Taiwan companies will not simply lose sales to Korea. Taiwan companies will also see smaller corporate profits. Smaller profits will hamper their ability to innovate.
Huang Kuo-chang Wang Tu-fat can pretend not to understand any of this. Pretending will not affect their salaries. Pretending will not affect their standing in society. The two may even be crowned with garlands and be cheered by Sunflower Student Movement youth. But the public on Taiwan, especially the younger generation, cannot pretend not to understand.
As soon as agreement on the PRC-ROK FTA was reached, the DPP’s attitude toward the STA changed completely. The DPP went all out to block the STA in the legislature. Now however, it stopped claiming credit for blocking the STA. Now it blamed President Ma for a “failure to communicate.” The DPP made a 180 degree about face. What we would like to know is, where are all those who insisted that "opposition to the STA is the will of the majority” currently hiding?
President Ma’s momentum may be in the doldrums. But his cross-Strait policy, including the diplomatic truce and the 1992 consensus were affirmed in two presidential elections. Lest we forget, on the eve of the 3/18 student movement, a poll commissioned by the DPP revealed that the KMT's cross-Strait policy was more popular than the DPP’s. The poll revealed that the most unpopular aspect of the DPP’s cross-Strait policy was its blanket rejection of anything to do with Mainland China.
That was why following the DPP’s defeat in 2008, it conducted a cross-Strait policy review. That was why in 2012, it released a rare poll that showed the public disapproved of its cross-Strait policy. Clearly the pressure of public opinion forced the DPP to change its cross-Strait policy, making it more similar to the Kuomintang’s. It was already becoming almost indistinguishable.
If however the DPP makes a comeback during this election, green camp fundamentalists will inevitably rise to prominence. The Ma government will no longer have the political prestige necessary to promote cross-Strait exchanges. That is certain. The warm spring the two sides have enjoyed the past six and a half years will turn to a bitter winter.
Voters must ask themselves a tough question. They may be dissatisfied with the status quo. They may be dissatisfied with the KMT. But will the KMT's defeat punish the KMT? Or will it punish themselves?
Whether a particular party wins or loses is not worth that much ink. But this election will determine whether Taipei and Beijing sail into an open sea. or wind up trapped in a blind alley.
社論－兩岸關係前進或停滯的選擇
2014年11月26日 04:10
本報訊
陳長文律師日前發表文章表示，九合一選舉，若國民黨失敗，將被解讀為馬總統與國民黨的兩岸路線與經濟政策的否決，已經卡關的服貿、貨貿與自由經濟示範區條例更無望過關。他提出了一個核心問題：這一場名為「地方」的選舉，其結果與影響，絕對不只是「地方的」。換言之，這場選舉在某種程度上，將具有決定兩岸關係要繼續馬英九的和平發展路線抑或回到陳水扁的對抗逃避路線的指標意義。
也就是說，不管選民有沒有意識到這場選舉對國家發展路線的重大影響，一旦國民黨在九合一大敗，幾乎可以斷言，這將是過去6年半馬英九堅持的兩岸和解、深化交流的大挫敗，甚至可能引發兩岸政策的逆轉效應，在執政黨選情陷入低迷的此時，要問的是，國人做好心理準備，接受兩岸發展的大逆轉了嗎？
這個大逆轉帶給台灣的衝擊，甚至比個別城市由誰當首長還重大，由此反推，選民在投票「選人」的時候，豈能不去思考國家大局可能連動的影響？特別是，在中韓FTA即將生效的此時，台灣的經濟就算不必視為「喪鐘」，也必須視為經濟海嘯來襲的「警鐘」！
面對這即將到來的困難局面，我們仍看到許多不負責任的意見。黃國昌說，兩岸協議非單純的FTA，其背後政治目的昭然若揭，須提防馬政府以中、韓FTA進度，要脅國人盡速與對岸簽訂服貿與貨貿協議。王塗發則表示，在大陸市場裡韓國產品市占率早就超過台灣，即使面板、塑化有稅率影響，業者研發創新力與產品差異化才是關鍵，不應拿FTA恐嚇人民。
黃、王不應該用這種輕描淡寫的口吻，去淡化甚至醜化政府提出的應對作為，反對服貿與貨貿沒關係，但至少應該負責任的告訴人民、告訴那些因為相信二人理論而走上街頭的太陽花青年，面對台灣在世界經濟舞台愈來愈邊緣化的險境，否決了馬英九的和平發展路線後，難道回到陳水扁的對抗逃避路線，台灣會更有生機嗎？二人在鼓勵破壞衝撞現有政策後，二人有什麼建設性的辦法，助台灣走出困境？
別再說什麼「創新與差異化才是關鍵」的敷衍話。台灣努力想創新與差異化，難道別的國家不懂創新與差異化？問題是，企業要創新與差異化也必須有資本，免揹關稅沙包的韓國和揹著關稅沙包的台灣在賽跑，台灣不只會因為揹沙包而賣產品賣不過別人，賣東西賣不過別人也將影響企業獲利，而減少其投入創新的能力，這意謂台灣企業在創新上也比對手多揹了一袋沙包在拚搏。
這些道理，黃國昌與王塗發可以假裝不懂，這既不影響他們的收入，也不影響二人的社會地位，甚至還因此可以戴上英雄的冠冕，接受太陽花青年的歡呼。但台灣人民，特別是年輕一代的朋友不可以不懂。
另一個值得注意的現象是，自中韓FTA傳出達成共識之後，民進黨對於服貿的態度完全轉變。卯足全力在立法院封殺服貿的民進黨，現在不再把封殺服貿攬為民進黨的「功勞」，大手一推，變成是馬總統「溝通不足」的責任，這種一百八十度的轉變，要問的是，之前說「反服貿是多數民意」的人躲到哪裡去了呢？
即便馬總統現在聲勢低迷，但是他所推動的兩岸政策，包括外交休兵、九二共識，的的確確得到了兩次總統大選的肯定。別忘了，就在318學運前夕，民進黨發布的民調還表示國民黨的兩岸政策認同度超過民進黨，而民進黨兩岸政策最不被接受之處，就是「逢中必反」。
也因此，民進黨在2008年敗選之後，已對兩岸政策做了檢討，2012年後更罕見的釋放出自己兩岸政策不得人民認同的民調，可見在民意的壓力之下，民進黨的兩岸政策向國民黨靠攏，本已差臨門一腳。
但如果這次選舉的結果翻盤，則綠營的基本教義派必然抬頭，馬政府也再無政治威信推動任何兩岸交流，可預期的，兩岸也將從過去6年半的暖春走入不知邊界的寒冬。
此時此刻，選民必須自問的是，或許，大家對現狀有不滿、對國民黨有不滿，但國民黨的敗選，是在懲罰國民黨，還是懲罰自己？
一黨之勝負或無足論，但這一場選舉，我們也將同時決定，兩岸未來是要繼續向藍海展航還是封進布滿冰棘的死胡同？
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2014
Executive Summary: Voters must ask themselves a tough question. They may be dissatisfied with the status quo. They may be dissatisfied with the KMT. But will the KMT's defeat punish the KMT? Or will it punish themselves? Whether a particular party wins or loses is not worth that much ink. But this election will determine whether Taipei and Beijing sail into an open sea. or wind up trapped in a blind alley.
Full Text Below:
Attorney Chen Chang-wen recently published an article predicting that if the KMT loses the nine in one elections, the results will be seen as a rejection of President Ma and the KMT's cross-Strait economic policy. The STA is already stalled. The MTA and FEPZ special regulations remain hopelessly deadlocked. Chen raised a key question. This election is characterized as a local election. But its impact is definitely more than local. This election may determine whether cross-Strait relations continues down Ma’s path of peaceful development, or reverts to Chen Shui-bian's path of endless confrontation.
Voters may not realize that this election will have a major impact on the path of national development. But if the KMT is defeated in the nine in one elections, it is almost certain that the cross-Strait reconciliation and improved relations that Ma championed for the last six and a half years will be weakened or even reversed. The ruling party’s election prospects are not good. Is the public psychologically prepared to accept a reversal of cross-Strait policy?
The impact of such a major reversal is likely to be more significant than who becomes the mayor or county chief of various cities. Therefore when voters cast their ballots for their preferred candidates, how can they refuse to consider the impact on the nation as a whole? The PRC-ROK FTA is about to go into effect. Taiwan's economy may not have sounded its death knell. But is surely has sounded its economic tsunami alarm.
We face a difficult situation, yet we are regaled with irresponsible comments. Huang Kuo-chang argues that cross-Strait agreements are not ordinary FTAs. He says their political purpose is all too clear. He says the people must be on guard. He says the Ma government wants to use the PRC-ROK FTA to blackmail the people into signing the STA and MTA, as soon as possible. Wang Tu-fat argues that Korean products surpassed Taiwan products in Mainland market share long ago. He said that even if flat panels and plastics tax rates are impacted, the real key is industry research and development, innovation, and product differentiation. He says people should not be intimidated by the FTA.
Huang and Wang should not be so cavalier. They should not dismiss or even vilify the government's response. If they wish to oppose the STA and MTA, they are free to do so. But they should at least be responsible enough to warn people about the consequences. They should inform the Sunflower Student Movement youth who took to the streets because they believed what they said. Taiwan faces increasing marginalization on the world economic stage. If we reject Ma Ying-jeou’s peaceful development roadmap, and revert to Chen Shui-bian’s path of confrontation and evasion, will that help Taiwan survive? These two men are encouraging the destruction of current policy. But can they offer any constructive alternative that will help Taiwan out of its dilemma?
Please do not recite the same old mantra, "Innovation and differentiation are the real key." People on Taiwan are working hard to innovate and differentiate. Do they really think other countries are oblivious to the need for innovation and differentiation? Before businesses can innovate and differentiate, they must have capital. Korea and Taiwan are in a race. Taiwan is burdened with tariffs. Korea is not. Taiwan companies will not simply lose sales to Korea. Taiwan companies will also see smaller corporate profits. Smaller profits will hamper their ability to innovate.
Huang Kuo-chang Wang Tu-fat can pretend not to understand any of this. Pretending will not affect their salaries. Pretending will not affect their standing in society. The two may even be crowned with garlands and be cheered by Sunflower Student Movement youth. But the public on Taiwan, especially the younger generation, cannot pretend not to understand.
As soon as agreement on the PRC-ROK FTA was reached, the DPP’s attitude toward the STA changed completely. The DPP went all out to block the STA in the legislature. Now however, it stopped claiming credit for blocking the STA. Now it blamed President Ma for a “failure to communicate.” The DPP made a 180 degree about face. What we would like to know is, where are all those who insisted that "opposition to the STA is the will of the majority” currently hiding?
President Ma’s momentum may be in the doldrums. But his cross-Strait policy, including the diplomatic truce and the 1992 consensus were affirmed in two presidential elections. Lest we forget, on the eve of the 3/18 student movement, a poll commissioned by the DPP revealed that the KMT's cross-Strait policy was more popular than the DPP’s. The poll revealed that the most unpopular aspect of the DPP’s cross-Strait policy was its blanket rejection of anything to do with Mainland China.
That was why following the DPP’s defeat in 2008, it conducted a cross-Strait policy review. That was why in 2012, it released a rare poll that showed the public disapproved of its cross-Strait policy. Clearly the pressure of public opinion forced the DPP to change its cross-Strait policy, making it more similar to the Kuomintang’s. It was already becoming almost indistinguishable.
If however the DPP makes a comeback during this election, green camp fundamentalists will inevitably rise to prominence. The Ma government will no longer have the political prestige necessary to promote cross-Strait exchanges. That is certain. The warm spring the two sides have enjoyed the past six and a half years will turn to a bitter winter.
Voters must ask themselves a tough question. They may be dissatisfied with the status quo. They may be dissatisfied with the KMT. But will the KMT's defeat punish the KMT? Or will it punish themselves?
Whether a particular party wins or loses is not worth that much ink. But this election will determine whether Taipei and Beijing sail into an open sea. or wind up trapped in a blind alley.
社論－兩岸關係前進或停滯的選擇
2014年11月26日 04:10
本報訊
陳長文律師日前發表文章表示，九合一選舉，若國民黨失敗，將被解讀為馬總統與國民黨的兩岸路線與經濟政策的否決，已經卡關的服貿、貨貿與自由經濟示範區條例更無望過關。他提出了一個核心問題：這一場名為「地方」的選舉，其結果與影響，絕對不只是「地方的」。換言之，這場選舉在某種程度上，將具有決定兩岸關係要繼續馬英九的和平發展路線抑或回到陳水扁的對抗逃避路線的指標意義。
也就是說，不管選民有沒有意識到這場選舉對國家發展路線的重大影響，一旦國民黨在九合一大敗，幾乎可以斷言，這將是過去6年半馬英九堅持的兩岸和解、深化交流的大挫敗，甚至可能引發兩岸政策的逆轉效應，在執政黨選情陷入低迷的此時，要問的是，國人做好心理準備，接受兩岸發展的大逆轉了嗎？
這個大逆轉帶給台灣的衝擊，甚至比個別城市由誰當首長還重大，由此反推，選民在投票「選人」的時候，豈能不去思考國家大局可能連動的影響？特別是，在中韓FTA即將生效的此時，台灣的經濟就算不必視為「喪鐘」，也必須視為經濟海嘯來襲的「警鐘」！
面對這即將到來的困難局面，我們仍看到許多不負責任的意見。黃國昌說，兩岸協議非單純的FTA，其背後政治目的昭然若揭，須提防馬政府以中、韓FTA進度，要脅國人盡速與對岸簽訂服貿與貨貿協議。王塗發則表示，在大陸市場裡韓國產品市占率早就超過台灣，即使面板、塑化有稅率影響，業者研發創新力與產品差異化才是關鍵，不應拿FTA恐嚇人民。
黃、王不應該用這種輕描淡寫的口吻，去淡化甚至醜化政府提出的應對作為，反對服貿與貨貿沒關係，但至少應該負責任的告訴人民、告訴那些因為相信二人理論而走上街頭的太陽花青年，面對台灣在世界經濟舞台愈來愈邊緣化的險境，否決了馬英九的和平發展路線後，難道回到陳水扁的對抗逃避路線，台灣會更有生機嗎？二人在鼓勵破壞衝撞現有政策後，二人有什麼建設性的辦法，助台灣走出困境？
別再說什麼「創新與差異化才是關鍵」的敷衍話。台灣努力想創新與差異化，難道別的國家不懂創新與差異化？問題是，企業要創新與差異化也必須有資本，免揹關稅沙包的韓國和揹著關稅沙包的台灣在賽跑，台灣不只會因為揹沙包而賣產品賣不過別人，賣東西賣不過別人也將影響企業獲利，而減少其投入創新的能力，這意謂台灣企業在創新上也比對手多揹了一袋沙包在拚搏。
這些道理，黃國昌與王塗發可以假裝不懂，這既不影響他們的收入，也不影響二人的社會地位，甚至還因此可以戴上英雄的冠冕，接受太陽花青年的歡呼。但台灣人民，特別是年輕一代的朋友不可以不懂。
另一個值得注意的現象是，自中韓FTA傳出達成共識之後，民進黨對於服貿的態度完全轉變。卯足全力在立法院封殺服貿的民進黨，現在不再把封殺服貿攬為民進黨的「功勞」，大手一推，變成是馬總統「溝通不足」的責任，這種一百八十度的轉變，要問的是，之前說「反服貿是多數民意」的人躲到哪裡去了呢？
即便馬總統現在聲勢低迷，但是他所推動的兩岸政策，包括外交休兵、九二共識，的的確確得到了兩次總統大選的肯定。別忘了，就在318學運前夕，民進黨發布的民調還表示國民黨的兩岸政策認同度超過民進黨，而民進黨兩岸政策最不被接受之處，就是「逢中必反」。
也因此，民進黨在2008年敗選之後，已對兩岸政策做了檢討，2012年後更罕見的釋放出自己兩岸政策不得人民認同的民調，可見在民意的壓力之下，民進黨的兩岸政策向國民黨靠攏，本已差臨門一腳。
但如果這次選舉的結果翻盤，則綠營的基本教義派必然抬頭，馬政府也再無政治威信推動任何兩岸交流，可預期的，兩岸也將從過去6年半的暖春走入不知邊界的寒冬。
此時此刻，選民必須自問的是，或許，大家對現狀有不滿、對國民黨有不滿，但國民黨的敗選，是在懲罰國民黨，還是懲罰自己？
一黨之勝負或無足論，但這一場選舉，我們也將同時決定，兩岸未來是要繼續向藍海展航還是封進布滿冰棘的死胡同？
Monday, November 24, 2014
Free Trade? Or Evasion and Retreat?
Free Trade? Or Evasion and Retreat?
China Times Editiorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2014
Executive Summary: Voters motivated by economic considerations must seize the opportunity. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an island-based economy. It must confront economic and financial globalization and the rise of the Mainland. Taiwan has few options. It must connect with the Mainland, then the rest of the world. It must face challenges with an open mind, rather than attempt to escape and retreat from them. Your votes will determine the nation’s future. Consider the issues calmly. Then use your ballots to demonstrate responsible citizenship.
Full Text Below:
Terry Guo urged voters motivated by economic factors to stand up and be counted, and not allow political ideology to permit Taiwan to be drowned by the tidal wave of economic globalization. Guo’s emotion-laden appeal carried profound economic implications. Taiwan's economic miracle was once universally praised. It was one of the four Asian tigers, a title not easily earned. One of the reasons was a pragmatic openness that integrated Taiwan into the global trading system.
During the 1960s, the rise of free trade forced the nations of the world to take part in the globalization game. Comparative advantage became the engine of economic prosperity. In this game, Taiwan was hardly absent. It seized the opportunity to become a major player. Taiwan succeeded because it took part in international trade. Former Administrative Yuan political appointee Hsueh Chi once joked that the WTO's full name should be Watch Taiwan Open. He nailed it. Global economics and finance today are even more integrated. Taiwan faces even more daunting challenges. It has even less latitude for carelessness.
The WTO Doha Round of negotiations has long been stalemated. As a result, governments the world over began competing to see who could sign the most bilateral and regional economic cooperation agreements. Non-membership meant marginalization. On the other hand, timing is everything. Whoever seizes the initiative, will get the biggest piece of the international trade pie. According to WTO figures, governments the world over have implemented a total of 379 regional trade agreements (RTAs), including FTAs. Of these, more than 250 were signed during the past decade. In this regard, Taiwan has lagged behind.
In order to catch up, Taiwan recently signed bilateral economic cooperation agreements with its major trading partners. To achieve a breakthrough in international trade, Taiwan is developing and promoting FEPZs, accelerating the opening of its markets for goods and financial products. It is creating a genuinely liberalized trade environment. Alas, these have come to naught, because the STA and FEPZ bills have remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan.
The PRC-ROK FTA struck like a blow out of nowhere and took Taiwan down. Internal political troubles and competition from trading rivals intensified Taiwan’s economic plight.
The 2008 financial tsunami led to a substantial reorganization of the international trade environment. Emerging Markets, especially in Asia, are growing in importance. South Korea has just signed an FTA with a major trading partner. It is rapidly expanding its territory. It is gaining a foothold in the international trade sector. Taiwan cannot afford to delay. The current administration has finally passed ECFA. It has broken the shackles of international political reality. New Zealand and the ROC have successfully signed an economic cooperation agreement. This will become a springboard facilitating integration into the Asian-Pacific regional economy. In particular, it will enable us to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), two Mega FTAs. Will this golden opportunity slip away because the STA and FPEZ remain stalled?
More challenges await Taiwan. The PRC-ROK FTA is merely an appetizer. The PRC-Japan-ROK FTA is the main dish. Over the past 20 years, Asian exports to Europe have decreased. Intra-region trade meanwhile has dramatically increased. Mainland China, Japan, and South Korea's share of intra-regional trade increased from 12.3% in 1990 to 20.2% in 2012. This means that once the PRC-Japan-ROK FTA takes effect, the intra-regional trade advantage will further impact ROC trade relations with these three economies. Needless to say, the PRC-Japan-ROK FTA is the heart of the RCEP. The RCEP will probably be signed in late 2015. Its impact on Taiwan will be comparable to that of PRC-Japan-ROK FTA.
How should we on Taiwan respond to these economic and trade difficulties? We must pass the STA, complete negotiations over the MTA, sign economic cooperation agreements with major trading partners, and join the TPP or RCEP. We must do all of these. But these differ from our short-term goals. Our primary objective in the short-term must be to sign the STA and MTA, as soon as possible, and sign FTAs with other countries and join the TPP or RCEP. Successful trade liberalization and internationalization are our mid and long-term goals.
To achieve our long-term goals, our first task must be to pass the FEPZ special regulations. The FEPZs symbolize liberalization, internationalization, a forward-looking attitude, a significant loosening of restrictions over company employees, the movement of goods and capital, and conformance with international legal and regulatory standards. We must reduce barriers to investment, helping domestic and foreign enterprises attract foreign investment. We must upgrade and transform Taiwan’s industries, improving Taiwan's international status. This will help Taiwan participate in regional economic integration as soon as possible.
Voters motivated by economic considerations must seize the opportunity. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an island-based economy. It must confront economic and financial globalization and the rise of the Mainland. Taiwan has few options. It must connect with the Mainland, then the rest of the world. It must face challenges with an open mind, rather than attempt to escape and retreat from them. Your votes will determine the nation’s future. Consider the issues calmly. Then use your ballots to demonstrate responsible citizenship.
社論－自由貿易或逃避退縮的選擇
2014年11月25日 04:10
本報訊
郭台銘呼籲經濟選民站出來，不要因為政治意識型態，讓台灣淹沒在經濟全球化的潮流。這樣的呼籲，感性中帶有深厚的經濟意涵。過往，台灣的經濟奇蹟，舉世稱道。亞洲四小龍的稱號，更是得來不易。箇中原因就是採取務實開放的精神，徹底融入全球經貿體系。
1960年代自由貿易興起，讓世界各國瘋狂加入全球化的遊戲，透過比較利益，帶動經濟的繁榮。在這場遊戲中，台灣不但沒有缺席，更順勢成為主角之一，成功奠定台灣在國際經貿的地位。前行政院政務委員薛琦就曾戲稱，WTO的全名應是Watch Taiwan Open，真是一語中的。如今，在全球經濟及金融更加整合的趨勢下，台灣的挑戰更大，也更加沒有缺席的本錢。
WTO杜哈回合談判陷入長期的僵局，促使世界各國進入雙邊或區域經濟合作的軍備競賽，不加入就等著被邊緣化。另一方面，時機的掌握也特別重要，誰先取得先機，誰就能分得更多國際經貿的大餅。根據WTO統計，截至目前為止，全球已生效實施的區域貿易協定（RTAs，包括FTA）總共有379個，其中有超過250個是近10年簽訂的。台灣，在這方面是明顯落後。
為了迎頭趕上，台灣近來除與主要貿易夥伴洽簽雙邊經濟合作協議、尋求國際經貿的突破外，更擬定並推動自由經濟示範區，加速開放商品及金融市場，營造真正經貿自由化的環境。然而，這些成果卻因為兩岸服貿協議及自由經濟示範區特別條例草案在立法院的擱置，逐漸化為烏有。而中韓FTA的簽署，更像是突如其來的一記重拳，將台灣直接擊倒。內部政治的紛擾與外在貿易對手國的競爭，無異加劇台灣的經貿困境。
2008年金融海嘯的發生，造成國際經貿版圖大幅重整，新興市場（尤其是亞洲地區）的重要性日益突顯。如今韓國藉由與主要貿易夥伴簽署FTA，快速地攻城掠地，在國際經貿板塊取得一席之地。台灣，實在沒有蹉跎的空間了。現在的主政者好不容易透過ECFA，突破國際政治現實的枷鎖，成功簽署台紐及台星經濟合作協議。未來，更有機會將此作為踏板，融入亞太區域經濟整合，特別是加入跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）及區域全面經濟夥伴協定（RCEP）這兩個巨型化的自由貿易協定（Mega FTA）。難道又要因為服貿及示範區的卡關，白白看著這個大好機會溜走嗎？
平心而論，台灣接下來面臨的考驗，中韓FTA或許只是前菜，中日韓FTA可能才是主菜。過去20年間，亞洲出口至歐美的比重明顯下降，但區內貿易比重卻反向大幅提升。其中，中日韓的區內貿易比重從1990年的12.3%，大幅成長至2012年的20.2%。此意味著一旦未來中日韓FTA成形，區內貿易的優勢，將會進一步衝擊台灣與這3國的貿易關係。更不用說，中日韓FTA是RCEP的核心，RCEP預計2015年底完成簽署，到時對台灣的影響鐵定不亞於中日韓FTA的衝擊。
面對當前經貿困境，台灣如何因應？通過服貿協議、完成貨貿協議的談判、與主要貿易夥伴簽署經濟合作協議、加入TPP或RCEP，都是解答，但短中長期目標有異。換言之，短期首要目標是盡速通過服貿及貨貿協議，而與他國洽簽FTA及加入TPP或RCEP，成功實現台灣經貿自由化及國際化則為中長期目標。
要達成中長期目標，首要之務是通過自由經濟示範區特別條例。因為示範區標榜自由化、國際化與前瞻性的精神，大幅鬆綁人員、貨品及資金的移動，並讓相關法規及行政措施與國際接軌。這除有利降低投資障礙並吸引國內外企業前來投資外，也有助台灣產業升級及轉型，更能提升台灣國際格局，讓台灣及早做好加入區域經濟整合準備。
經濟選民該好好思考一下，作為海島型的經濟體，面對經濟、金融全球化及中國崛起的大趨勢，台灣其實沒有太多選擇的機會。應取道大陸，走向世界，以開放的心態迎向挑戰，而不是逃避退縮，你的選票將對國家方向產生重大影響，想清楚後，就用你的選票呈現沉默卻真實的公民意識吧！
China Times Editiorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2014
Executive Summary: Voters motivated by economic considerations must seize the opportunity. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an island-based economy. It must confront economic and financial globalization and the rise of the Mainland. Taiwan has few options. It must connect with the Mainland, then the rest of the world. It must face challenges with an open mind, rather than attempt to escape and retreat from them. Your votes will determine the nation’s future. Consider the issues calmly. Then use your ballots to demonstrate responsible citizenship.
Full Text Below:
Terry Guo urged voters motivated by economic factors to stand up and be counted, and not allow political ideology to permit Taiwan to be drowned by the tidal wave of economic globalization. Guo’s emotion-laden appeal carried profound economic implications. Taiwan's economic miracle was once universally praised. It was one of the four Asian tigers, a title not easily earned. One of the reasons was a pragmatic openness that integrated Taiwan into the global trading system.
During the 1960s, the rise of free trade forced the nations of the world to take part in the globalization game. Comparative advantage became the engine of economic prosperity. In this game, Taiwan was hardly absent. It seized the opportunity to become a major player. Taiwan succeeded because it took part in international trade. Former Administrative Yuan political appointee Hsueh Chi once joked that the WTO's full name should be Watch Taiwan Open. He nailed it. Global economics and finance today are even more integrated. Taiwan faces even more daunting challenges. It has even less latitude for carelessness.
The WTO Doha Round of negotiations has long been stalemated. As a result, governments the world over began competing to see who could sign the most bilateral and regional economic cooperation agreements. Non-membership meant marginalization. On the other hand, timing is everything. Whoever seizes the initiative, will get the biggest piece of the international trade pie. According to WTO figures, governments the world over have implemented a total of 379 regional trade agreements (RTAs), including FTAs. Of these, more than 250 were signed during the past decade. In this regard, Taiwan has lagged behind.
In order to catch up, Taiwan recently signed bilateral economic cooperation agreements with its major trading partners. To achieve a breakthrough in international trade, Taiwan is developing and promoting FEPZs, accelerating the opening of its markets for goods and financial products. It is creating a genuinely liberalized trade environment. Alas, these have come to naught, because the STA and FEPZ bills have remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan.
The PRC-ROK FTA struck like a blow out of nowhere and took Taiwan down. Internal political troubles and competition from trading rivals intensified Taiwan’s economic plight.
The 2008 financial tsunami led to a substantial reorganization of the international trade environment. Emerging Markets, especially in Asia, are growing in importance. South Korea has just signed an FTA with a major trading partner. It is rapidly expanding its territory. It is gaining a foothold in the international trade sector. Taiwan cannot afford to delay. The current administration has finally passed ECFA. It has broken the shackles of international political reality. New Zealand and the ROC have successfully signed an economic cooperation agreement. This will become a springboard facilitating integration into the Asian-Pacific regional economy. In particular, it will enable us to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP), two Mega FTAs. Will this golden opportunity slip away because the STA and FPEZ remain stalled?
More challenges await Taiwan. The PRC-ROK FTA is merely an appetizer. The PRC-Japan-ROK FTA is the main dish. Over the past 20 years, Asian exports to Europe have decreased. Intra-region trade meanwhile has dramatically increased. Mainland China, Japan, and South Korea's share of intra-regional trade increased from 12.3% in 1990 to 20.2% in 2012. This means that once the PRC-Japan-ROK FTA takes effect, the intra-regional trade advantage will further impact ROC trade relations with these three economies. Needless to say, the PRC-Japan-ROK FTA is the heart of the RCEP. The RCEP will probably be signed in late 2015. Its impact on Taiwan will be comparable to that of PRC-Japan-ROK FTA.
How should we on Taiwan respond to these economic and trade difficulties? We must pass the STA, complete negotiations over the MTA, sign economic cooperation agreements with major trading partners, and join the TPP or RCEP. We must do all of these. But these differ from our short-term goals. Our primary objective in the short-term must be to sign the STA and MTA, as soon as possible, and sign FTAs with other countries and join the TPP or RCEP. Successful trade liberalization and internationalization are our mid and long-term goals.
To achieve our long-term goals, our first task must be to pass the FEPZ special regulations. The FEPZs symbolize liberalization, internationalization, a forward-looking attitude, a significant loosening of restrictions over company employees, the movement of goods and capital, and conformance with international legal and regulatory standards. We must reduce barriers to investment, helping domestic and foreign enterprises attract foreign investment. We must upgrade and transform Taiwan’s industries, improving Taiwan's international status. This will help Taiwan participate in regional economic integration as soon as possible.
Voters motivated by economic considerations must seize the opportunity. The Taiwan Region of the ROC has an island-based economy. It must confront economic and financial globalization and the rise of the Mainland. Taiwan has few options. It must connect with the Mainland, then the rest of the world. It must face challenges with an open mind, rather than attempt to escape and retreat from them. Your votes will determine the nation’s future. Consider the issues calmly. Then use your ballots to demonstrate responsible citizenship.
社論－自由貿易或逃避退縮的選擇
2014年11月25日 04:10
本報訊
郭台銘呼籲經濟選民站出來，不要因為政治意識型態，讓台灣淹沒在經濟全球化的潮流。這樣的呼籲，感性中帶有深厚的經濟意涵。過往，台灣的經濟奇蹟，舉世稱道。亞洲四小龍的稱號，更是得來不易。箇中原因就是採取務實開放的精神，徹底融入全球經貿體系。
1960年代自由貿易興起，讓世界各國瘋狂加入全球化的遊戲，透過比較利益，帶動經濟的繁榮。在這場遊戲中，台灣不但沒有缺席，更順勢成為主角之一，成功奠定台灣在國際經貿的地位。前行政院政務委員薛琦就曾戲稱，WTO的全名應是Watch Taiwan Open，真是一語中的。如今，在全球經濟及金融更加整合的趨勢下，台灣的挑戰更大，也更加沒有缺席的本錢。
WTO杜哈回合談判陷入長期的僵局，促使世界各國進入雙邊或區域經濟合作的軍備競賽，不加入就等著被邊緣化。另一方面，時機的掌握也特別重要，誰先取得先機，誰就能分得更多國際經貿的大餅。根據WTO統計，截至目前為止，全球已生效實施的區域貿易協定（RTAs，包括FTA）總共有379個，其中有超過250個是近10年簽訂的。台灣，在這方面是明顯落後。
為了迎頭趕上，台灣近來除與主要貿易夥伴洽簽雙邊經濟合作協議、尋求國際經貿的突破外，更擬定並推動自由經濟示範區，加速開放商品及金融市場，營造真正經貿自由化的環境。然而，這些成果卻因為兩岸服貿協議及自由經濟示範區特別條例草案在立法院的擱置，逐漸化為烏有。而中韓FTA的簽署，更像是突如其來的一記重拳，將台灣直接擊倒。內部政治的紛擾與外在貿易對手國的競爭，無異加劇台灣的經貿困境。
2008年金融海嘯的發生，造成國際經貿版圖大幅重整，新興市場（尤其是亞洲地區）的重要性日益突顯。如今韓國藉由與主要貿易夥伴簽署FTA，快速地攻城掠地，在國際經貿板塊取得一席之地。台灣，實在沒有蹉跎的空間了。現在的主政者好不容易透過ECFA，突破國際政治現實的枷鎖，成功簽署台紐及台星經濟合作協議。未來，更有機會將此作為踏板，融入亞太區域經濟整合，特別是加入跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）及區域全面經濟夥伴協定（RCEP）這兩個巨型化的自由貿易協定（Mega FTA）。難道又要因為服貿及示範區的卡關，白白看著這個大好機會溜走嗎？
平心而論，台灣接下來面臨的考驗，中韓FTA或許只是前菜，中日韓FTA可能才是主菜。過去20年間，亞洲出口至歐美的比重明顯下降，但區內貿易比重卻反向大幅提升。其中，中日韓的區內貿易比重從1990年的12.3%，大幅成長至2012年的20.2%。此意味著一旦未來中日韓FTA成形，區內貿易的優勢，將會進一步衝擊台灣與這3國的貿易關係。更不用說，中日韓FTA是RCEP的核心，RCEP預計2015年底完成簽署，到時對台灣的影響鐵定不亞於中日韓FTA的衝擊。
面對當前經貿困境，台灣如何因應？通過服貿協議、完成貨貿協議的談判、與主要貿易夥伴簽署經濟合作協議、加入TPP或RCEP，都是解答，但短中長期目標有異。換言之，短期首要目標是盡速通過服貿及貨貿協議，而與他國洽簽FTA及加入TPP或RCEP，成功實現台灣經貿自由化及國際化則為中長期目標。
要達成中長期目標，首要之務是通過自由經濟示範區特別條例。因為示範區標榜自由化、國際化與前瞻性的精神，大幅鬆綁人員、貨品及資金的移動，並讓相關法規及行政措施與國際接軌。這除有利降低投資障礙並吸引國內外企業前來投資外，也有助台灣產業升級及轉型，更能提升台灣國際格局，讓台灣及早做好加入區域經濟整合準備。
經濟選民該好好思考一下，作為海島型的經濟體，面對經濟、金融全球化及中國崛起的大趨勢，台灣其實沒有太多選擇的機會。應取道大陸，走向世界，以開放的心態迎向挑戰，而不是逃避退縮，你的選票將對國家方向產生重大影響，想清楚後，就用你的選票呈現沉默卻真實的公民意識吧！
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Loving Taiwan and the Asian-Pacific Division of Labor Chain
Loving Taiwan and the Asian-Pacific Division of Labor Chain
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2014
Executive Summary: The main reason Taiwan has been an economic success for the past 50 years, is that our strategic partners became international brand names. They played a key role in the Asian-Pacific region division of labor. The PRC-ROK FTA will be a major blow to our role in the region. Voters motivated primarily by economic considerations must understand this. They must then walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
Full Text Below:
The main reason Taiwan has been an economic success for the past 50 years, is that our strategic partners became international brand names. They played a key role in the Asian-Pacific region division of labor. The PRC-ROK FTA will be a major blow to our role in the region. Voters motivated primarily by economic considerations must understand this. They must then walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
Cross-Strait economic and trade relations may seem like nothing more than bilateral relations between Taiwan and the Mainland. In fact, they are not. They are the result of the evolution in the East Asian region division of labor. They are the result of the production process for international brands. This process can be traced back to the US-Japan bilateral trade arrangement of the 1950s. Back then Japan directly exported textiles to the United States. It quickly dominated the US domestic market. Japan's exports led to a multitude of American textile import quotas. It also led to rising domestic wages.
From 1960 onwards, Japan began making foreign investments. For its major OEM base, it chose Taiwan and South Korea. Japan-US bilateral trade became trilateral trade. Japan exported raw materials and components to Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan and South Korea processed them into consumer goods, then exported them to the United States and Europe. During that period, the United States was Taiwan and South Korea’s largest exporter. In other words, Japan's trade surplus to the US became Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus to the US.
By the 1980s, Taiwan and South Korea were facing rising wages, exchange rate appreciation, US dissatisfaction with the trade surplus, and other factors. Those of us on Taiwan were forced to make outward investments. We continued to produce semi-finished products. But we transferred the final, labor-intensive stages to Mainland China and the ASEAN countries with cheaper wages. Triangular trade then became quadrilateral trade. Japan continued to export advanced core components and high-tech materials to Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan and Korea turned them in semi-finished products, which were then exported to Mainland China. The Chinese mainland performed the final processing and assembly of these consumer goods, then exported them to Europe and other world markets.
When triangular trade became quadrilateral trade, the Chinese mainland naturally become Taiwan and South Korea's largest export market. The United States and Europe became Mainland China's largest export markets. Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus with the United States was in large part turned into Mainland China's trade surplus with the United States. Japan’s trade surplus with the United States was turned into Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus with the US, in the exact same way. This was how the East Asian division of labor evolved over the past half century.
Quadrilateral trade was not the result of political or partisan forces. It was the result of market mechanisms. Japanese scholars referred to it as the "East Asia Flying Geese Paradigm." Investments will always shift from exporting countries with high wages, to latecomers with low wages. Higher salary exporting countries must endlessly progress. They must upgrade their technical standards, and continue to move upstream in order to maintain their position on the division of labor chain. Taiwan and South Korea were able to maintain their position on the chain in East Asia purely by accident, by joint efforts on the part of owners and workers.
Is anyone to blame for this quadrilateral trade relationship? Who turned the Mainland into Taiwan and South Korea's largest export market? Who made the Taiwan and South Korean economies "over-reliant" on the Mainland? Of this there can be no doubt. Those who must be roundly condemned are the final decision-makers who placed the orders, the Western and Japanese manufacturers and brand owners, including Apple, HP, Dell, Levis, Uniqlo, Zara, Adidas, and Nike.
No one the least bit familiar with the dynamics of the global economy would issue such a condemnation. These international brands consider Taiwan an important strategic partner. They include Taiwan in the quadrilateral division of labor chain. If they didn’t, Taiwan would not receive any orders. Taiwan's investments would plummet. Taiwan employees would be unemployed or receive wage cuts.
We need do the exact opposite. We must cherish our relationship with these brands. We must retain them as Taiwan's strategic partners. Taiwan can develop its own brands, and its own services of course. But to be fair, doing so would take time. It would take considerable investments. It would involve a number of risks. Current orders from international brand manufacturers are the backbone of our employment. They provide us with our income. One can see them, touch them, earn them. In order to oppose Mainland China. some political parties and politicians may attempt to forsake these orders. They may attempt to prevent cross-Strait trade. The only word for this is “madness.” This is not “loving Taiwan.” This is harming Taiwan.
South Korea is about to sign an FTA. For Taiwan manufacturers who must pay duties on exports to the Mainland, this is a nightmare. This will jeopardize their position in the quadrilateral division of labor chain. If Taiwan and the Mainland cannot sign the MTA and complete FTA negotiations, these manufacturers could well perish. More importantly, while bosses can invest elsewhere. The poor employees cannot. According to current statistics, those most likely to be affected are hundreds of thousands of families, the vast majority of which live in southern and central Taiwan.
The quadrilateral division of labor chain is Taiwan's lifeline. Once again we urge voters motivated primarily by economic considerations to decide carefully. Consider the workers who fought so many years to secure Taiwan’s status in the division of labor chain. They are innocent. Unlike business owners, they cannot relocate. Their lives, their families, their children, are all on Taiwan. Please care for them. Give them a chance. Give Taiwan a chance.
社論－愛台灣 不能從亞太分工鏈掉隊
2014年11月24日 04:10
本報訊
台灣過去50年以來，經濟能夠成功發展，最重要因素就是我們的廠商成為國際品牌大廠的戰略夥伴，在亞太的生產分工上扮演關鍵角色。中韓FTA的簽訂，將對這個地位的繼續維持，形成重大衝擊。經濟選民不可不知，不可不起而行。
兩岸的經貿關係看似為台灣與大陸的雙邊關係，實則不然，它根本是東亞分工體系演化的結果，是國際品牌大廠生產安排的表現。這個過程可溯至自1950年代美日雙邊貿易：當時日本直接外銷紡織品到美國，快速占領了美國國內市場；出口數量龐大導致日本廠商面臨美國紡織品進口配額限制，以及其國內工資上漲的雙重壓力。
於是從1960年代起，日本開始對外投資，選定的主要代工基地就是台灣和南韓。從此日美「雙邊貿易」轉變成「三角貿易」，也就是日本出口原料及零組件到台灣及南韓，經台韓加工製成消費品，再外銷到美國及歐洲。在那個時代，美國是台灣也是南韓的最大出口國，換言之，原本從日本出口到美國的貿易順差，大部分移轉到台韓對美國的順差。
到了1980年代，台灣和南韓面臨薪資上升、匯率升值、美國對順差不滿等因素，而必須向外投資，保留自己生產半成品的能力，轉移最後階段的勞力密集加工到薪資較便宜的中國大陸和東協國家。從此，「三角貿易」轉變為「四角貿易」：日本仍然出口最先進的核心零組件和高技術的原料到台灣和南韓，由台、韓製成半成品出口到中國大陸，再由中國大陸進行最後加工和組裝製成消費品，然後出口到歐美等世界市場。
當「三角貿易」轉成「四角貿易」的時候，中國大陸自然變成台灣也是南韓的最大出口市場，而美國和歐洲則變成中國大陸最大的出口市場。原本台灣及南韓對美國的貿易順差，很大一部分也就轉變為中國大陸對美國的貿易順差，一如過去日本將其對美貿易順差轉到台韓對美順差一樣；這就是過去半世紀以來東亞分工演化的實際狀況。
四角貿易的形成不是任何政治或黨派的力量所造成，而是市場機制運作的結果。日本學者將其視為「東亞雁行理論」的一個實現，也就是投資會繼續不斷的從先開始出口但薪資變高的國家，移動到薪資仍低的後進者。薪資變高的出口國家則必須不斷進步，提升技術水準，繼續往上游發展，才能維持在分工鏈上的地位。是以台灣和南韓能保持在東亞分工鏈上的地位絕非偶然，是業主和員工共同奮鬥的結果。
如果一定要指摘有「個人」主導了這種四角貿易的型態，讓大陸成為台灣和南韓最大的出口市場，讓台灣和南韓的經濟「過度依賴」大陸，那麼毫無疑問的，最應當「被譴責」的是分工訂單的最後決策者，也就是歐美日品牌大廠的老闆，包括Apple、HP、Dell、Levis、Uniqlo、Zara、Adidas、Nike等等。
對全球的經濟動態稍有一點認識的人，都不會這麼做，因為這些國際品牌大廠如果沒有把台灣當作重要的戰略夥伴，讓台灣留在四角貿易的分工鏈上，台灣的訂單就會流失，台灣的投資會因而減少，員工更會因而失業或減薪。
我們要做的事應該正好相反，一定要抓牢和這些品牌大廠的關係，保持台灣作為他們戰略夥伴的地位。台灣可以自己發展品牌，可以發展服務業等，但平心而論，這些都需要時間，需要大量的投資，也有一定的風險。目前國際品牌大廠的訂單，則是我們就業和所得所依賴的實際支柱，看得到、抓得到、賺得到。如果某些黨派或政治人物為了反中，為了阻斷兩岸貿易，要放棄這些訂單，那就只能用「瘋狂」兩個字來形容。這不是愛台灣，是害台灣。
中韓即將簽訂FTA，對輸往大陸要付關稅的台灣廠商而言，這是一個夢魘，將危及他們在四角貿易分工鏈的地位。如果台灣和大陸不能簽訂貨品貿易協定，完成FTA談判，這些廠商將面臨生死存活的難關。更重要的是，老闆可以將投資外移，悽慘的是無法輕易外移的員工。依照目前資料顯示，最可能受影響產業的員工代表了數十萬個家庭，絕大多數在中南部。
四角分工鏈是台灣的生命線，我們再次呼籲，請經濟選民要審慎地做出決定。更要顧念已經在台灣奮鬥多年，好不容易把台灣分工地位穩住的員工。他們是無辜的，他們不像企業主一樣，有外移的能力，他們的生活、家庭、子女都在台灣。請顧念他們，給他們一個機會，給台灣一個機會。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2014
Executive Summary: The main reason Taiwan has been an economic success for the past 50 years, is that our strategic partners became international brand names. They played a key role in the Asian-Pacific region division of labor. The PRC-ROK FTA will be a major blow to our role in the region. Voters motivated primarily by economic considerations must understand this. They must then walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
Full Text Below:
The main reason Taiwan has been an economic success for the past 50 years, is that our strategic partners became international brand names. They played a key role in the Asian-Pacific region division of labor. The PRC-ROK FTA will be a major blow to our role in the region. Voters motivated primarily by economic considerations must understand this. They must then walk the walk, and not just talk the talk.
Cross-Strait economic and trade relations may seem like nothing more than bilateral relations between Taiwan and the Mainland. In fact, they are not. They are the result of the evolution in the East Asian region division of labor. They are the result of the production process for international brands. This process can be traced back to the US-Japan bilateral trade arrangement of the 1950s. Back then Japan directly exported textiles to the United States. It quickly dominated the US domestic market. Japan's exports led to a multitude of American textile import quotas. It also led to rising domestic wages.
From 1960 onwards, Japan began making foreign investments. For its major OEM base, it chose Taiwan and South Korea. Japan-US bilateral trade became trilateral trade. Japan exported raw materials and components to Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan and South Korea processed them into consumer goods, then exported them to the United States and Europe. During that period, the United States was Taiwan and South Korea’s largest exporter. In other words, Japan's trade surplus to the US became Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus to the US.
By the 1980s, Taiwan and South Korea were facing rising wages, exchange rate appreciation, US dissatisfaction with the trade surplus, and other factors. Those of us on Taiwan were forced to make outward investments. We continued to produce semi-finished products. But we transferred the final, labor-intensive stages to Mainland China and the ASEAN countries with cheaper wages. Triangular trade then became quadrilateral trade. Japan continued to export advanced core components and high-tech materials to Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan and Korea turned them in semi-finished products, which were then exported to Mainland China. The Chinese mainland performed the final processing and assembly of these consumer goods, then exported them to Europe and other world markets.
When triangular trade became quadrilateral trade, the Chinese mainland naturally become Taiwan and South Korea's largest export market. The United States and Europe became Mainland China's largest export markets. Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus with the United States was in large part turned into Mainland China's trade surplus with the United States. Japan’s trade surplus with the United States was turned into Taiwan and South Korea's trade surplus with the US, in the exact same way. This was how the East Asian division of labor evolved over the past half century.
Quadrilateral trade was not the result of political or partisan forces. It was the result of market mechanisms. Japanese scholars referred to it as the "East Asia Flying Geese Paradigm." Investments will always shift from exporting countries with high wages, to latecomers with low wages. Higher salary exporting countries must endlessly progress. They must upgrade their technical standards, and continue to move upstream in order to maintain their position on the division of labor chain. Taiwan and South Korea were able to maintain their position on the chain in East Asia purely by accident, by joint efforts on the part of owners and workers.
Is anyone to blame for this quadrilateral trade relationship? Who turned the Mainland into Taiwan and South Korea's largest export market? Who made the Taiwan and South Korean economies "over-reliant" on the Mainland? Of this there can be no doubt. Those who must be roundly condemned are the final decision-makers who placed the orders, the Western and Japanese manufacturers and brand owners, including Apple, HP, Dell, Levis, Uniqlo, Zara, Adidas, and Nike.
No one the least bit familiar with the dynamics of the global economy would issue such a condemnation. These international brands consider Taiwan an important strategic partner. They include Taiwan in the quadrilateral division of labor chain. If they didn’t, Taiwan would not receive any orders. Taiwan's investments would plummet. Taiwan employees would be unemployed or receive wage cuts.
We need do the exact opposite. We must cherish our relationship with these brands. We must retain them as Taiwan's strategic partners. Taiwan can develop its own brands, and its own services of course. But to be fair, doing so would take time. It would take considerable investments. It would involve a number of risks. Current orders from international brand manufacturers are the backbone of our employment. They provide us with our income. One can see them, touch them, earn them. In order to oppose Mainland China. some political parties and politicians may attempt to forsake these orders. They may attempt to prevent cross-Strait trade. The only word for this is “madness.” This is not “loving Taiwan.” This is harming Taiwan.
South Korea is about to sign an FTA. For Taiwan manufacturers who must pay duties on exports to the Mainland, this is a nightmare. This will jeopardize their position in the quadrilateral division of labor chain. If Taiwan and the Mainland cannot sign the MTA and complete FTA negotiations, these manufacturers could well perish. More importantly, while bosses can invest elsewhere. The poor employees cannot. According to current statistics, those most likely to be affected are hundreds of thousands of families, the vast majority of which live in southern and central Taiwan.
The quadrilateral division of labor chain is Taiwan's lifeline. Once again we urge voters motivated primarily by economic considerations to decide carefully. Consider the workers who fought so many years to secure Taiwan’s status in the division of labor chain. They are innocent. Unlike business owners, they cannot relocate. Their lives, their families, their children, are all on Taiwan. Please care for them. Give them a chance. Give Taiwan a chance.
社論－愛台灣 不能從亞太分工鏈掉隊
2014年11月24日 04:10
本報訊
台灣過去50年以來，經濟能夠成功發展，最重要因素就是我們的廠商成為國際品牌大廠的戰略夥伴，在亞太的生產分工上扮演關鍵角色。中韓FTA的簽訂，將對這個地位的繼續維持，形成重大衝擊。經濟選民不可不知，不可不起而行。
兩岸的經貿關係看似為台灣與大陸的雙邊關係，實則不然，它根本是東亞分工體系演化的結果，是國際品牌大廠生產安排的表現。這個過程可溯至自1950年代美日雙邊貿易：當時日本直接外銷紡織品到美國，快速占領了美國國內市場；出口數量龐大導致日本廠商面臨美國紡織品進口配額限制，以及其國內工資上漲的雙重壓力。
於是從1960年代起，日本開始對外投資，選定的主要代工基地就是台灣和南韓。從此日美「雙邊貿易」轉變成「三角貿易」，也就是日本出口原料及零組件到台灣及南韓，經台韓加工製成消費品，再外銷到美國及歐洲。在那個時代，美國是台灣也是南韓的最大出口國，換言之，原本從日本出口到美國的貿易順差，大部分移轉到台韓對美國的順差。
到了1980年代，台灣和南韓面臨薪資上升、匯率升值、美國對順差不滿等因素，而必須向外投資，保留自己生產半成品的能力，轉移最後階段的勞力密集加工到薪資較便宜的中國大陸和東協國家。從此，「三角貿易」轉變為「四角貿易」：日本仍然出口最先進的核心零組件和高技術的原料到台灣和南韓，由台、韓製成半成品出口到中國大陸，再由中國大陸進行最後加工和組裝製成消費品，然後出口到歐美等世界市場。
當「三角貿易」轉成「四角貿易」的時候，中國大陸自然變成台灣也是南韓的最大出口市場，而美國和歐洲則變成中國大陸最大的出口市場。原本台灣及南韓對美國的貿易順差，很大一部分也就轉變為中國大陸對美國的貿易順差，一如過去日本將其對美貿易順差轉到台韓對美順差一樣；這就是過去半世紀以來東亞分工演化的實際狀況。
四角貿易的形成不是任何政治或黨派的力量所造成，而是市場機制運作的結果。日本學者將其視為「東亞雁行理論」的一個實現，也就是投資會繼續不斷的從先開始出口但薪資變高的國家，移動到薪資仍低的後進者。薪資變高的出口國家則必須不斷進步，提升技術水準，繼續往上游發展，才能維持在分工鏈上的地位。是以台灣和南韓能保持在東亞分工鏈上的地位絕非偶然，是業主和員工共同奮鬥的結果。
如果一定要指摘有「個人」主導了這種四角貿易的型態，讓大陸成為台灣和南韓最大的出口市場，讓台灣和南韓的經濟「過度依賴」大陸，那麼毫無疑問的，最應當「被譴責」的是分工訂單的最後決策者，也就是歐美日品牌大廠的老闆，包括Apple、HP、Dell、Levis、Uniqlo、Zara、Adidas、Nike等等。
對全球的經濟動態稍有一點認識的人，都不會這麼做，因為這些國際品牌大廠如果沒有把台灣當作重要的戰略夥伴，讓台灣留在四角貿易的分工鏈上，台灣的訂單就會流失，台灣的投資會因而減少，員工更會因而失業或減薪。
我們要做的事應該正好相反，一定要抓牢和這些品牌大廠的關係，保持台灣作為他們戰略夥伴的地位。台灣可以自己發展品牌，可以發展服務業等，但平心而論，這些都需要時間，需要大量的投資，也有一定的風險。目前國際品牌大廠的訂單，則是我們就業和所得所依賴的實際支柱，看得到、抓得到、賺得到。如果某些黨派或政治人物為了反中，為了阻斷兩岸貿易，要放棄這些訂單，那就只能用「瘋狂」兩個字來形容。這不是愛台灣，是害台灣。
中韓即將簽訂FTA，對輸往大陸要付關稅的台灣廠商而言，這是一個夢魘，將危及他們在四角貿易分工鏈的地位。如果台灣和大陸不能簽訂貨品貿易協定，完成FTA談判，這些廠商將面臨生死存活的難關。更重要的是，老闆可以將投資外移，悽慘的是無法輕易外移的員工。依照目前資料顯示，最可能受影響產業的員工代表了數十萬個家庭，絕大多數在中南部。
四角分工鏈是台灣的生命線，我們再次呼籲，請經濟選民要審慎地做出決定。更要顧念已經在台灣奮鬥多年，好不容易把台灣分工地位穩住的員工。他們是無辜的，他們不像企業主一樣，有外移的能力，他們的生活、家庭、子女都在台灣。請顧念他們，給他們一個機會，給台灣一個機會。
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Yanqi Lake Tempest: Economic Coopetition vs. Political Confrontation
Yanqi Lake Tempest: Economic Coopetition vs. Political Confrontation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2014
Executive Summary: Taipei must improve economic coopetition with Mainland China. Taipei must "connect with the rest of the world through Mainland China." It must join the TPP, RCEP, FTAAP and other regional economic organizations, in order to soften and limit cross-Strait political confrontation. This is the only viable strategy for Taiwan’s survival. Otherwise, once economic coopetition between Taiwan and Mainland China changes, political confrontation will increase. This will make it even less possible for Taiwan to participate and respond to globalization. If Taiwan is marginalized in the international market place, it will have even more to lose in the international political arena.
Full Text Below:
Two developments unfolded at this years Yanqi Lake APEC meeting. One was political confrontation. The other was economic coopetition. When the meeting adjourned and the curtain rang down, economic coopetition overshadowed political confrontation.
During the Cold War, economic sanctions and military containment were two sides of the same coin. The two camps lacked any framework for mutually beneficial coopetition. This intensified military confrontation. Whoever wielded more nuclear warheads had the upper hand. This became the Conventional Wisdom. But the drama that unfolded at Yanqi main showed that under globalization, regional dominance requires more than warships, armaments, nuclear warheads, or collective self-defense. It requires participation in the regional economy. Whoever dominates economic coopetition, will also dominate political confrontation. “It’s the economy, stupid!” This was APEC’s answer to questions about political confrontation in the Asia-Pacific region.
The annual Yanqi meeting is usually characterized by behind the scenes political confrontation. Japan and South Korea nurse historical grudges. The Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands is particularly bitter. Add to this the United States' saber-rattling “return to Asia and " rebalancing" strategy, which makes the Asia-Pacific situation even more upsetting. Nevertheless the Abe government and Beijing reached "different interpretations" of the "four-point consensus." Abe has at least acknowledged that recent tensions in Diaoyutai Island waters are the result of different ideas about its sovereignty. The main reason was the Japanese economy cannot do without China. Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye also announced the imminent signing of the PRC-ROK FTA. This helped the Mainland and South Korea consolidate their opposition to Japan. This showed that economic coopetition trumps even political confrontation.
The primary focus of the Yanqi Lake meeting was the new Beijing-Washington “Great Game.” Beijing’s home court strategy was to use economic coopetition to trump political confrontation. Xi Jinping held all the trump cards. He laid they all out at the APEC annual meeting. He established his "one zone, one road." He established his 40 billion US "Silk Road Fund," also known as the "Chinese version of the Marshall Plan." He promoted the FTAAP, and announced a "Beijing road map." The name of course has a double meaning. It means a "road map drawn up in Beijing." But it also means a "road map drawn up by Beijing.” It advocates Asian integration as opposed to fragmentation. He announced the signing of PRC-ROK FTA. He announced the Hong Kong-Shanghai Stock Exchange Link. He reached an ITA (Information Technology Agreement) tax cut agreement with the United States. He donated another 10 million US to ECFA. Beijing's ambition appears to be to go from being the world's factory, to being the world’s market, to being the world’s engine. Today it is nothing less than the world’s money-lender. In fact, Beijing has long dominated the 100 billion US Asian Investment Bank. Such is the Mainland China the US must face. When the US considers the situation in the East China Sea and returning to East Asia, the first thing it must face is economic coopetition, how to avoid losing its bargaining chips during political confrontation.
The US-led TPP is an attempt to manipulate economic coopetition and political confrontation. But Mainland China expressed willingness to join the TPP and RCEP. It is using “one zone, one road, the FTAAP, and other FTAs to break America's "TPP containment." Mainland China's one-party dictatorship enjoys an authoritarian advantage not shared by democratic governments when competing for FTAs. Industrial transformation requires nothing more than an order from the CCP, and the bird in the cage gets replaced Mainland China's handling of "vulnerable industries" does not lead to democratic street protests during FTA negotiations. The Mainland China-led Asian Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund are unlike Cold War radar stations and missile bases in other countries. Mainland China refers to them as "excess capacity." This results in the construction of roads, power plants, and other kinds of infrastructure. According to Li Keqiang, for Mainland China economic development and political security are two wheels that turn in unison during international political and economic jockeying. No wonder when Obama was in Beijing, he said that the United States has no intention of containing the rise of China, because that is not in the US interest. What he really meant was that economic coopetition is even more difficult than political confrontation.
Economic coopetition and political confrontation between Taiwan and Mainland China is even more difficult. Therefore globalization and cross-Strait relations must be viewed even more seriously. Mainland China has declared its intention to dominate the regional economy. It may already have sufficient strength. In other words, if Taipei wants to connect with the rest of the world, it cannot bypass Beijing. Washington can’t. Tokyo can’t. Seoul can’t. Does Taipei really think it can achieve "globalization without Mainland China?"
Taipei must improve economic coopetition with Mainland China. Taipei must "connect with the rest of the world through Mainland China." It must join the TPP, RCEP, FTAAP and other regional economic organizations, in order to soften and limit cross-Strait political confrontation. This is the only viable strategy for Taiwan’s survival. Otherwise, once economic coopetition between Taiwan and Mainland China changes, political confrontation will increase. This will make it even less possible for Taiwan to participate and respond to globalization. If Taiwan is marginalized in the international market place, it will have even more to lose in the international political arena.
雁棲湖風雲：經濟競合與政治交鋒
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.21 02:13 am
此次雁棲湖ＡＰＥＣ年會，有兩條發展軸線。一條是政治交鋒，一條是經濟競合。年會閉幕，大體呈現了經濟競合超越了政治交鋒的態勢。
冷戰時代，經濟封鎖與軍事圍堵是一體兩面。由於相對陣營沒有在經濟競合上互利共贏的體制，因而軍事對峙愈演愈烈，認為誰掌握了較多的核子彈頭就能掌握較大的優勢，此亦成為當年世界思潮的顯學。然而，雁棲湖的主戲卻顯示，在全球化下，欲爭奪區域情勢的主導權，絕不僅在船堅砲利或擁有多少核子彈頭或解禁集體自衛權，而在爭取區域經濟競合的參與權與主導權。誰能掌握經濟競合的主導地位，也就能擁有了較多的政治交鋒破解能力。笨蛋，問題在經濟！這是雁棲湖年會給陷於政治交鋒中的亞太地區的答案。
政治交鋒原是雁棲湖年會的顯著背景。主軸是中日與日韓的新仇舊怨，尤其是中日間的釣魚島爭議，再加上美國「重返亞洲」的「再平衡」戰略行動，均有劍拔弩張之勢，甚至使亞太情勢陷於嚴重不安。但是，安倍政府與北京達成了「各自表述」的「四點共識」，至少承認了「對釣島海域近年出現的緊張局勢存在不同主張」，主因即在日本經濟不能沒有中國元素的給養；而習近平與朴槿惠又共同宣布中韓ＦＴＡ簽約在即，藉以鞏固中韓共同對日之立場，此均顯示經濟競合影響了甚至凌越了政治交鋒。
雁棲湖更大的焦點是在中美兩「新型大國」的對手戲。北京的主場戰略，正是以經濟競合影響並凌越政治交鋒。習近平把手中積存的所有響亮鞭炮，在此次ＡＰＥＣ年會一次燃放：打造「一帶一路」，成立四百億美元「絲路基金」，又稱「中國版馬歇爾計劃」；再推倡亞太自貿區（ＦＴＡＡＰ），宣示「北京路線圖」，此中含有「在北京達成的路線圖」與「北京主導的路線圖」的雙義，主張亞太應當「一體化」，勿「碎片化」；並宣布簽訂中韓ＦＴＡ、宣布滬港通、又與美國達成ＩＴＡ（資訊科技協定）減稅等共識、再捐款一千萬美元給ＥＣＦＡ……。北京的姿態儼然是：從世界工廠，轉至世界市場、世界引擎，如今不啻又以世界金主的地位現身，事實上，北京稍早已主導成立一千億美元的亞洲基礎建設投資銀行（亞投行）。美國面對這樣的中國，在考慮東海情勢及重返亞洲時，首先必須面對的是在經濟競合上如何避免自己被削弱了在政治交鋒上的籌碼。
美國主導的ＴＰＰ，即是欲以經濟競合來操作政治交鋒。但中國則回應願意參加ＴＰＰ，並用ＲＣＥＰ、一帶一路、ＦＴＡＡＰ及其他ＦＴＡ來突破美國的「ＴＰＰ圍堵」。亦可注意的是，中國的一黨專政，在參與ＦＴＡ競合上，具有民主國家所缺少的「專制紅利」。因為，只要中共一句「騰籠換鳥」，產業轉型即可發動，而中國的「弱勢產業」在ＦＴＡ談判中也不會成為街頭的民主議題。再者，中國主導的亞投行及絲路基金，不像冷戰時代將雷達站及飛彈基地搬到他國，而是以中國自稱的「過剩產能」在他國從事道路、電廠等基礎建設。面對中國此種「使經濟發展與政治安全兩個輪子一起轉」（李克強語）的國際政經操作，難怪歐巴馬會在北京說：「美方沒有圍堵中國崛起的意圖，因為不符合美方的利益。」此話的真意，應是指經濟競合比政治交鋒更難纏。
台灣與中國大陸的「經濟競合／政治交鋒」糾纏更甚，因此必須更認真看待所面對的全球化議題與兩岸關係。中國大陸已經宣示其主導區域經濟競合的意圖，並可能已經具備操作的實力。也就是說，台灣若要「走進世界」，絕無可能繞過北京。美國繞不過，日本繞不過，韓國繞不過，難道唯有台灣能實現「沒有中國的全球化」？
因而，與中國大陸改善「經濟競合」關係，並進而「由中國走向世界」，加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ、ＦＴＡＡＰ等區域經濟組織，以軟化、節制兩岸的「政治交鋒」，實為台灣唯一可行的生存戰略選擇。否則，一旦台灣與中國大陸的「經濟競合」生變，而「政治交鋒」惡化，必將使台灣更無可能參與並因應全球化的博弈。萬一台灣在國際經濟上邊緣化至此，則在國際政治上也就會更加失去憑靠。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2014
Executive Summary: Taipei must improve economic coopetition with Mainland China. Taipei must "connect with the rest of the world through Mainland China." It must join the TPP, RCEP, FTAAP and other regional economic organizations, in order to soften and limit cross-Strait political confrontation. This is the only viable strategy for Taiwan’s survival. Otherwise, once economic coopetition between Taiwan and Mainland China changes, political confrontation will increase. This will make it even less possible for Taiwan to participate and respond to globalization. If Taiwan is marginalized in the international market place, it will have even more to lose in the international political arena.
Full Text Below:
Two developments unfolded at this years Yanqi Lake APEC meeting. One was political confrontation. The other was economic coopetition. When the meeting adjourned and the curtain rang down, economic coopetition overshadowed political confrontation.
During the Cold War, economic sanctions and military containment were two sides of the same coin. The two camps lacked any framework for mutually beneficial coopetition. This intensified military confrontation. Whoever wielded more nuclear warheads had the upper hand. This became the Conventional Wisdom. But the drama that unfolded at Yanqi main showed that under globalization, regional dominance requires more than warships, armaments, nuclear warheads, or collective self-defense. It requires participation in the regional economy. Whoever dominates economic coopetition, will also dominate political confrontation. “It’s the economy, stupid!” This was APEC’s answer to questions about political confrontation in the Asia-Pacific region.
The annual Yanqi meeting is usually characterized by behind the scenes political confrontation. Japan and South Korea nurse historical grudges. The Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyutai Islands is particularly bitter. Add to this the United States' saber-rattling “return to Asia and " rebalancing" strategy, which makes the Asia-Pacific situation even more upsetting. Nevertheless the Abe government and Beijing reached "different interpretations" of the "four-point consensus." Abe has at least acknowledged that recent tensions in Diaoyutai Island waters are the result of different ideas about its sovereignty. The main reason was the Japanese economy cannot do without China. Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye also announced the imminent signing of the PRC-ROK FTA. This helped the Mainland and South Korea consolidate their opposition to Japan. This showed that economic coopetition trumps even political confrontation.
The primary focus of the Yanqi Lake meeting was the new Beijing-Washington “Great Game.” Beijing’s home court strategy was to use economic coopetition to trump political confrontation. Xi Jinping held all the trump cards. He laid they all out at the APEC annual meeting. He established his "one zone, one road." He established his 40 billion US "Silk Road Fund," also known as the "Chinese version of the Marshall Plan." He promoted the FTAAP, and announced a "Beijing road map." The name of course has a double meaning. It means a "road map drawn up in Beijing." But it also means a "road map drawn up by Beijing.” It advocates Asian integration as opposed to fragmentation. He announced the signing of PRC-ROK FTA. He announced the Hong Kong-Shanghai Stock Exchange Link. He reached an ITA (Information Technology Agreement) tax cut agreement with the United States. He donated another 10 million US to ECFA. Beijing's ambition appears to be to go from being the world's factory, to being the world’s market, to being the world’s engine. Today it is nothing less than the world’s money-lender. In fact, Beijing has long dominated the 100 billion US Asian Investment Bank. Such is the Mainland China the US must face. When the US considers the situation in the East China Sea and returning to East Asia, the first thing it must face is economic coopetition, how to avoid losing its bargaining chips during political confrontation.
The US-led TPP is an attempt to manipulate economic coopetition and political confrontation. But Mainland China expressed willingness to join the TPP and RCEP. It is using “one zone, one road, the FTAAP, and other FTAs to break America's "TPP containment." Mainland China's one-party dictatorship enjoys an authoritarian advantage not shared by democratic governments when competing for FTAs. Industrial transformation requires nothing more than an order from the CCP, and the bird in the cage gets replaced Mainland China's handling of "vulnerable industries" does not lead to democratic street protests during FTA negotiations. The Mainland China-led Asian Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund are unlike Cold War radar stations and missile bases in other countries. Mainland China refers to them as "excess capacity." This results in the construction of roads, power plants, and other kinds of infrastructure. According to Li Keqiang, for Mainland China economic development and political security are two wheels that turn in unison during international political and economic jockeying. No wonder when Obama was in Beijing, he said that the United States has no intention of containing the rise of China, because that is not in the US interest. What he really meant was that economic coopetition is even more difficult than political confrontation.
Economic coopetition and political confrontation between Taiwan and Mainland China is even more difficult. Therefore globalization and cross-Strait relations must be viewed even more seriously. Mainland China has declared its intention to dominate the regional economy. It may already have sufficient strength. In other words, if Taipei wants to connect with the rest of the world, it cannot bypass Beijing. Washington can’t. Tokyo can’t. Seoul can’t. Does Taipei really think it can achieve "globalization without Mainland China?"
Taipei must improve economic coopetition with Mainland China. Taipei must "connect with the rest of the world through Mainland China." It must join the TPP, RCEP, FTAAP and other regional economic organizations, in order to soften and limit cross-Strait political confrontation. This is the only viable strategy for Taiwan’s survival. Otherwise, once economic coopetition between Taiwan and Mainland China changes, political confrontation will increase. This will make it even less possible for Taiwan to participate and respond to globalization. If Taiwan is marginalized in the international market place, it will have even more to lose in the international political arena.
雁棲湖風雲：經濟競合與政治交鋒
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.21 02:13 am
此次雁棲湖ＡＰＥＣ年會，有兩條發展軸線。一條是政治交鋒，一條是經濟競合。年會閉幕，大體呈現了經濟競合超越了政治交鋒的態勢。
冷戰時代，經濟封鎖與軍事圍堵是一體兩面。由於相對陣營沒有在經濟競合上互利共贏的體制，因而軍事對峙愈演愈烈，認為誰掌握了較多的核子彈頭就能掌握較大的優勢，此亦成為當年世界思潮的顯學。然而，雁棲湖的主戲卻顯示，在全球化下，欲爭奪區域情勢的主導權，絕不僅在船堅砲利或擁有多少核子彈頭或解禁集體自衛權，而在爭取區域經濟競合的參與權與主導權。誰能掌握經濟競合的主導地位，也就能擁有了較多的政治交鋒破解能力。笨蛋，問題在經濟！這是雁棲湖年會給陷於政治交鋒中的亞太地區的答案。
政治交鋒原是雁棲湖年會的顯著背景。主軸是中日與日韓的新仇舊怨，尤其是中日間的釣魚島爭議，再加上美國「重返亞洲」的「再平衡」戰略行動，均有劍拔弩張之勢，甚至使亞太情勢陷於嚴重不安。但是，安倍政府與北京達成了「各自表述」的「四點共識」，至少承認了「對釣島海域近年出現的緊張局勢存在不同主張」，主因即在日本經濟不能沒有中國元素的給養；而習近平與朴槿惠又共同宣布中韓ＦＴＡ簽約在即，藉以鞏固中韓共同對日之立場，此均顯示經濟競合影響了甚至凌越了政治交鋒。
雁棲湖更大的焦點是在中美兩「新型大國」的對手戲。北京的主場戰略，正是以經濟競合影響並凌越政治交鋒。習近平把手中積存的所有響亮鞭炮，在此次ＡＰＥＣ年會一次燃放：打造「一帶一路」，成立四百億美元「絲路基金」，又稱「中國版馬歇爾計劃」；再推倡亞太自貿區（ＦＴＡＡＰ），宣示「北京路線圖」，此中含有「在北京達成的路線圖」與「北京主導的路線圖」的雙義，主張亞太應當「一體化」，勿「碎片化」；並宣布簽訂中韓ＦＴＡ、宣布滬港通、又與美國達成ＩＴＡ（資訊科技協定）減稅等共識、再捐款一千萬美元給ＥＣＦＡ……。北京的姿態儼然是：從世界工廠，轉至世界市場、世界引擎，如今不啻又以世界金主的地位現身，事實上，北京稍早已主導成立一千億美元的亞洲基礎建設投資銀行（亞投行）。美國面對這樣的中國，在考慮東海情勢及重返亞洲時，首先必須面對的是在經濟競合上如何避免自己被削弱了在政治交鋒上的籌碼。
美國主導的ＴＰＰ，即是欲以經濟競合來操作政治交鋒。但中國則回應願意參加ＴＰＰ，並用ＲＣＥＰ、一帶一路、ＦＴＡＡＰ及其他ＦＴＡ來突破美國的「ＴＰＰ圍堵」。亦可注意的是，中國的一黨專政，在參與ＦＴＡ競合上，具有民主國家所缺少的「專制紅利」。因為，只要中共一句「騰籠換鳥」，產業轉型即可發動，而中國的「弱勢產業」在ＦＴＡ談判中也不會成為街頭的民主議題。再者，中國主導的亞投行及絲路基金，不像冷戰時代將雷達站及飛彈基地搬到他國，而是以中國自稱的「過剩產能」在他國從事道路、電廠等基礎建設。面對中國此種「使經濟發展與政治安全兩個輪子一起轉」（李克強語）的國際政經操作，難怪歐巴馬會在北京說：「美方沒有圍堵中國崛起的意圖，因為不符合美方的利益。」此話的真意，應是指經濟競合比政治交鋒更難纏。
台灣與中國大陸的「經濟競合／政治交鋒」糾纏更甚，因此必須更認真看待所面對的全球化議題與兩岸關係。中國大陸已經宣示其主導區域經濟競合的意圖，並可能已經具備操作的實力。也就是說，台灣若要「走進世界」，絕無可能繞過北京。美國繞不過，日本繞不過，韓國繞不過，難道唯有台灣能實現「沒有中國的全球化」？
因而，與中國大陸改善「經濟競合」關係，並進而「由中國走向世界」，加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ、ＦＴＡＡＰ等區域經濟組織，以軟化、節制兩岸的「政治交鋒」，實為台灣唯一可行的生存戰略選擇。否則，一旦台灣與中國大陸的「經濟競合」生變，而「政治交鋒」惡化，必將使台灣更無可能參與並因應全球化的博弈。萬一台灣在國際經濟上邊緣化至此，則在國際政治上也就會更加失去憑靠。
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Nine in One Elections are not just Local Elections
The Nine in One Elections are not just Local Elections
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2014
Executive Summary: The nine in one elections are not just local elections. They are a choice between two paths. Voters motivated primarily by economic factors must set the agenda, and help everyone make the right choice during the elections.
Full Text Below:
In the wake of the Sunflower Student Movement, the green camp embraced a clearly anti-economic integration, anti-free trade, and anti-business policy path. It clearly distinguished its path from that of the KMT. One might say that the nine in one elections is a choice between two paths that will determine Taiwan's economic future. Taiwan has enjoyed a glorious economic past but faces a grim economic present. Given Mainland China's economic rise and the pressure of regional integration, voters motivated by rational economic considerations must make themselves heard.
Taiwan has a small scale free economy. A mere 36,000 square kilometers of land area must support 23 million inhabitants. Two-thirds of the land area is mountainous. Only one-third is flatland suitable for agriculture or urban habitation. Natural resources are scarce. Following World War II, poor farming communities created an economic miracle. During the 1980s, Taiwan became a model for economic development. The main factors were an industrious people and liberal government economic policies.
Liberal economic policies are the opposite of closed door "self-sufficiency” policies adopted by nations such as the Philippines. President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines considered the Philippines economy “big enough.” He imagined that with proper development, self-sufficiency would not be a problem. Therefore he implemented protectionism, fostered domestic industries, forbade the entrance of foreign companies, and refused to develop export industries. By contrast, those of us on Taiwan seized the opportunity to participate in the international market. Our exports earned foreign exchange in the international arena. This led to economic development. Taiwan's industries thrived and our economy grew. Protected industries in the Philippines on the other hand, became perennial losers. By the year 2000, Taiwan was well ahead of the Philippines.
The problems encountered in the past few years on Taiwan, are of course not the same as those encountered by the Philippines back then. But the results have been the same. Beginning in 2000, Taiwan fell victim to internal friction.
Governments the world over valued the Mainland market. Taiwan was closest to it. But heavy government restrictions neutered our industries by prohibiting normal dealings with the Mainland. The government at that time opposed direct links, opposed Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan, opposed Taiwan banks opening branches on the Mainland, opposed raising the ceiling on Mainland investments any highter than 40%. This prevented cross-Strait exchanges. Only the electronics industry survived. Almost all other sectors were devastated. Only when Ma Ying-jeou took office was Taiwan's cross-Strait policy finally turned around. Only then was a financial cooperation memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed with the Mainland authorities. Only then was the cross-Strait economic cooperation agreement (ECFA) signed. Only then was the early harvest list advanced. But opposition green camp obstruction mired the subsequent STA in the legislature and prevented passage. Substantial agreement on the MTA had already been reached, but nonetheless it could not be introduced.
PRC-ROK FTA negotiations have been completed. South Korea FTAs now cover 62.66% of the globe. Exports from Taiwan and South Korea overlap by nearly 70%. Substitute products are easy to find. Once the PRC-ROK FTA goes into force, Korean exports to the Mainland will enjoy large tariff cuts and sharply enhanced competitiveness. By then our exports to the Mainland will be severely affected. The PRC-ROK FTA was a one step process. In addition to trade in merchandise, it also includes trade in services. These services include finance, computers, and communications. Domestic demand on the Mainland is growing rapidly, driving service sector growth. The STA was a golden opportunity for Taiwan. Now that opportunity may be ceded to Korea. The impact of the PRC-ROK FTA will not be limited to the short term. It will disrupt Taiwan companies’ strategic plans. Customs duties and lost opportunities will force Taiwan companies to set up factories on Mainland China or elsewhere. The effects of industry uprooting will be long-term.
The world marches on. The Mainland authorities will not wait for Taiwan to come around. On the 17th, the Mainland authorities announced the completion of substantive negotiations over an FTA with Australian authorities. Once the PRC-Australia FTA goes into force, all Mainland products will be tariff free, and 95% of Australian products will be tariff free. Australia can then use the STA portion of the bilateral FTA to gain access to Mainland service sector opportunities. Australian universities can recruit students on Mainland China. More Australian hotels can enter the Mainland market. Australian health and aged care providers can enter the Mainland market. The PRC-Australia FTA will have an impact on our service sector. Taiwan companies on Mainland China will face increased competition. Taiwan's economic problems are interlinked. Income distribution, wage stagnation, high prices, an aging population, an unclear industrial policy, all need to be resolved. We on Taiwan can no longer afford to delay. We must reverse the status quo. We must break through these transitional difficulties. The key is voters motivated primarily by economic considerations.
Late last month, global competitiveness guru Michael Porter came to Taiwan to take its competitiveness pulse. He noted our salary stagnation, an indicator of stalled industrial competitiveness. He suggested that Taiwan and the Mainland form a joint industrial settlement to spur growth and international competitiveness in specific areas. More importantly, he urged us not to allow political troubles to retard economic growth on Taiwan.
The nine in one elections are not just local elections. They are a choice between two paths. Voters motivated primarily by economic factors must set the agenda, and help everyone make the right choice during the elections.
社論－九合一不只是地方首長選舉
2014年11月20日 04:10
本報訊
太陽花運動後，綠營清楚走向反兩岸經濟整合、反自由貿易、反商路線，已與國民黨形成涇渭分明的兩條路線競爭，可以說，九合一選舉是台灣兩條路線的一次選擇的選舉，攸關台灣未來的經濟發展。思考台灣經濟輝煌的過去與現今的困頓，面對中國經濟崛起及區域整合的壓力，理性的經濟選民應該有所作為。
台灣是小型開放經濟體。只有36000平方公里，要養活2300萬居民。土地三分之二是山地，只有三分之一是可以耕作的平原，或作為居住的都市，沒有太多的天然資源。過去從二次世界大戰之後，貧困的農業社會，能夠有成長奇蹟，成為1980年代經濟發展的模範生，主要憑藉的是台灣人民的努力與政府採用自由開放經濟政策。
自由開放的經濟政策，對比是自給自足的封閉政策，當時採用的對比國家是菲律賓。因為當時菲律賓總統馬可仕認為菲律賓是夠大的經濟體，可以有好的發展，自給自足沒有問題。因此採用保護主義，扶植自己國內幼稚工業，不允許外國的競爭廠商進入，也不發展出口產業。相對的，台灣抓住國際市場的機會，出口產品在國際舞台賺取外匯，發展經濟。結果台灣的產業成長茁壯，經濟走出去，菲律賓的產業在保護主義下成了扶不起的阿斗。2000年前台灣遙遙領先菲律賓。
這幾年台灣遇到的問題，比起當年的菲律賓，當然不一樣，但效果卻差不多。從2000年後，台灣就一直在內耗。世界各國紛紛看重大陸市場，台灣離她最近，卻在重重的限制下，自廢武功，不與大陸正常的往來。當時台灣的政府反對三通直航、反對陸客來台、反對銀行登陸、反對提高投資大陸淨值40%上限等，造成兩岸不通，只能靠迂迴轉進的電子業撐場面，幾乎百市蕭條，直到馬英九上台才扭轉台灣的兩岸政策，才與大陸簽訂金融合作的備忘錄（MOU），兩岸才簽訂經濟合作協議（ECFA），進行早收清單的推動。但是因為在野黨的杯葛，後續的《服貿協議》，簽訂了也卡在立法院，遲遲不能通過；貨貿協議談得差不多，也不能端上檯面。
中韓已完成FTA談判，南韓FTA全球的覆蓋率將達到62.66%。台、韓的出口商品，有7成以上是相同的，商品的替代性極高。一旦中韓FTA生效，韓國輸中商品將因關稅調降而大幅提升競爭力，屆時我國部分輸銷中國產品恐將受到嚴重衝擊。另外由於中韓FTA是一步到位，除貨品貿易，還包括服務業，例如金融、電腦、通信等。當前大陸內需快速增長，同時帶動服務業成長，兩岸的《服貿協議》，本來給台灣帶來巨大的機會，現在可能拱手讓給韓國人。而且中韓FTA不只是短期間的影響，還有打亂台商布局，及台商因為關稅及機會流失而到大陸或其他地方設廠，產業被連根拔起的長期性影響。
世界在進步，大陸不會等台灣。大陸17日宣布與澳洲完成FTA實質談判。中澳FTA生效後，最終大陸所有輸澳產品都可降到零關稅，澳洲也將有95%產品降至零關稅。而澳洲可利用雙方FTA服貿部分獲得進入大陸服務業市場的先機，包括澳洲的大學可以直接在大陸開拓生源，更多澳洲酒店可以進入大陸，並進入大陸醫療衛生與老年人護理行業。中澳FTA將會對我服務業產生衝擊，讓台灣業者在大陸將面臨更大競爭。台灣經濟問題環環相扣。所得分配、薪資停滯、高房價、人口老化、產業政策不明，都急需解決。台灣已經沒有時間再等了。要反轉台灣現狀，要突破現階段困境，經濟選民是關鍵。
上個月底，全球競爭力大師麥可．波特來台為台灣競爭力把脈，除了點出薪資停滯，代表產業競爭力沒有提升的關鍵，亦建議台灣應透過與大陸共同形成一個產業聚落，壯大特定領域的產業國際競爭力，更重要的是，不要讓政治紛擾，延緩台灣經濟成長。
九合一選舉，不只是地方選舉，而是兩條路線選擇的一次選舉。經濟選民應該引領風潮，引領大家在選舉中做出最好的選擇。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2014
Executive Summary: The nine in one elections are not just local elections. They are a choice between two paths. Voters motivated primarily by economic factors must set the agenda, and help everyone make the right choice during the elections.
Full Text Below:
In the wake of the Sunflower Student Movement, the green camp embraced a clearly anti-economic integration, anti-free trade, and anti-business policy path. It clearly distinguished its path from that of the KMT. One might say that the nine in one elections is a choice between two paths that will determine Taiwan's economic future. Taiwan has enjoyed a glorious economic past but faces a grim economic present. Given Mainland China's economic rise and the pressure of regional integration, voters motivated by rational economic considerations must make themselves heard.
Taiwan has a small scale free economy. A mere 36,000 square kilometers of land area must support 23 million inhabitants. Two-thirds of the land area is mountainous. Only one-third is flatland suitable for agriculture or urban habitation. Natural resources are scarce. Following World War II, poor farming communities created an economic miracle. During the 1980s, Taiwan became a model for economic development. The main factors were an industrious people and liberal government economic policies.
Liberal economic policies are the opposite of closed door "self-sufficiency” policies adopted by nations such as the Philippines. President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines considered the Philippines economy “big enough.” He imagined that with proper development, self-sufficiency would not be a problem. Therefore he implemented protectionism, fostered domestic industries, forbade the entrance of foreign companies, and refused to develop export industries. By contrast, those of us on Taiwan seized the opportunity to participate in the international market. Our exports earned foreign exchange in the international arena. This led to economic development. Taiwan's industries thrived and our economy grew. Protected industries in the Philippines on the other hand, became perennial losers. By the year 2000, Taiwan was well ahead of the Philippines.
The problems encountered in the past few years on Taiwan, are of course not the same as those encountered by the Philippines back then. But the results have been the same. Beginning in 2000, Taiwan fell victim to internal friction.
Governments the world over valued the Mainland market. Taiwan was closest to it. But heavy government restrictions neutered our industries by prohibiting normal dealings with the Mainland. The government at that time opposed direct links, opposed Mainland tourists coming to Taiwan, opposed Taiwan banks opening branches on the Mainland, opposed raising the ceiling on Mainland investments any highter than 40%. This prevented cross-Strait exchanges. Only the electronics industry survived. Almost all other sectors were devastated. Only when Ma Ying-jeou took office was Taiwan's cross-Strait policy finally turned around. Only then was a financial cooperation memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed with the Mainland authorities. Only then was the cross-Strait economic cooperation agreement (ECFA) signed. Only then was the early harvest list advanced. But opposition green camp obstruction mired the subsequent STA in the legislature and prevented passage. Substantial agreement on the MTA had already been reached, but nonetheless it could not be introduced.
PRC-ROK FTA negotiations have been completed. South Korea FTAs now cover 62.66% of the globe. Exports from Taiwan and South Korea overlap by nearly 70%. Substitute products are easy to find. Once the PRC-ROK FTA goes into force, Korean exports to the Mainland will enjoy large tariff cuts and sharply enhanced competitiveness. By then our exports to the Mainland will be severely affected. The PRC-ROK FTA was a one step process. In addition to trade in merchandise, it also includes trade in services. These services include finance, computers, and communications. Domestic demand on the Mainland is growing rapidly, driving service sector growth. The STA was a golden opportunity for Taiwan. Now that opportunity may be ceded to Korea. The impact of the PRC-ROK FTA will not be limited to the short term. It will disrupt Taiwan companies’ strategic plans. Customs duties and lost opportunities will force Taiwan companies to set up factories on Mainland China or elsewhere. The effects of industry uprooting will be long-term.
The world marches on. The Mainland authorities will not wait for Taiwan to come around. On the 17th, the Mainland authorities announced the completion of substantive negotiations over an FTA with Australian authorities. Once the PRC-Australia FTA goes into force, all Mainland products will be tariff free, and 95% of Australian products will be tariff free. Australia can then use the STA portion of the bilateral FTA to gain access to Mainland service sector opportunities. Australian universities can recruit students on Mainland China. More Australian hotels can enter the Mainland market. Australian health and aged care providers can enter the Mainland market. The PRC-Australia FTA will have an impact on our service sector. Taiwan companies on Mainland China will face increased competition. Taiwan's economic problems are interlinked. Income distribution, wage stagnation, high prices, an aging population, an unclear industrial policy, all need to be resolved. We on Taiwan can no longer afford to delay. We must reverse the status quo. We must break through these transitional difficulties. The key is voters motivated primarily by economic considerations.
Late last month, global competitiveness guru Michael Porter came to Taiwan to take its competitiveness pulse. He noted our salary stagnation, an indicator of stalled industrial competitiveness. He suggested that Taiwan and the Mainland form a joint industrial settlement to spur growth and international competitiveness in specific areas. More importantly, he urged us not to allow political troubles to retard economic growth on Taiwan.
The nine in one elections are not just local elections. They are a choice between two paths. Voters motivated primarily by economic factors must set the agenda, and help everyone make the right choice during the elections.
社論－九合一不只是地方首長選舉
2014年11月20日 04:10
本報訊
太陽花運動後，綠營清楚走向反兩岸經濟整合、反自由貿易、反商路線，已與國民黨形成涇渭分明的兩條路線競爭，可以說，九合一選舉是台灣兩條路線的一次選擇的選舉，攸關台灣未來的經濟發展。思考台灣經濟輝煌的過去與現今的困頓，面對中國經濟崛起及區域整合的壓力，理性的經濟選民應該有所作為。
台灣是小型開放經濟體。只有36000平方公里，要養活2300萬居民。土地三分之二是山地，只有三分之一是可以耕作的平原，或作為居住的都市，沒有太多的天然資源。過去從二次世界大戰之後，貧困的農業社會，能夠有成長奇蹟，成為1980年代經濟發展的模範生，主要憑藉的是台灣人民的努力與政府採用自由開放經濟政策。
自由開放的經濟政策，對比是自給自足的封閉政策，當時採用的對比國家是菲律賓。因為當時菲律賓總統馬可仕認為菲律賓是夠大的經濟體，可以有好的發展，自給自足沒有問題。因此採用保護主義，扶植自己國內幼稚工業，不允許外國的競爭廠商進入，也不發展出口產業。相對的，台灣抓住國際市場的機會，出口產品在國際舞台賺取外匯，發展經濟。結果台灣的產業成長茁壯，經濟走出去，菲律賓的產業在保護主義下成了扶不起的阿斗。2000年前台灣遙遙領先菲律賓。
這幾年台灣遇到的問題，比起當年的菲律賓，當然不一樣，但效果卻差不多。從2000年後，台灣就一直在內耗。世界各國紛紛看重大陸市場，台灣離她最近，卻在重重的限制下，自廢武功，不與大陸正常的往來。當時台灣的政府反對三通直航、反對陸客來台、反對銀行登陸、反對提高投資大陸淨值40%上限等，造成兩岸不通，只能靠迂迴轉進的電子業撐場面，幾乎百市蕭條，直到馬英九上台才扭轉台灣的兩岸政策，才與大陸簽訂金融合作的備忘錄（MOU），兩岸才簽訂經濟合作協議（ECFA），進行早收清單的推動。但是因為在野黨的杯葛，後續的《服貿協議》，簽訂了也卡在立法院，遲遲不能通過；貨貿協議談得差不多，也不能端上檯面。
中韓已完成FTA談判，南韓FTA全球的覆蓋率將達到62.66%。台、韓的出口商品，有7成以上是相同的，商品的替代性極高。一旦中韓FTA生效，韓國輸中商品將因關稅調降而大幅提升競爭力，屆時我國部分輸銷中國產品恐將受到嚴重衝擊。另外由於中韓FTA是一步到位，除貨品貿易，還包括服務業，例如金融、電腦、通信等。當前大陸內需快速增長，同時帶動服務業成長，兩岸的《服貿協議》，本來給台灣帶來巨大的機會，現在可能拱手讓給韓國人。而且中韓FTA不只是短期間的影響，還有打亂台商布局，及台商因為關稅及機會流失而到大陸或其他地方設廠，產業被連根拔起的長期性影響。
世界在進步，大陸不會等台灣。大陸17日宣布與澳洲完成FTA實質談判。中澳FTA生效後，最終大陸所有輸澳產品都可降到零關稅，澳洲也將有95%產品降至零關稅。而澳洲可利用雙方FTA服貿部分獲得進入大陸服務業市場的先機，包括澳洲的大學可以直接在大陸開拓生源，更多澳洲酒店可以進入大陸，並進入大陸醫療衛生與老年人護理行業。中澳FTA將會對我服務業產生衝擊，讓台灣業者在大陸將面臨更大競爭。台灣經濟問題環環相扣。所得分配、薪資停滯、高房價、人口老化、產業政策不明，都急需解決。台灣已經沒有時間再等了。要反轉台灣現狀，要突破現階段困境，經濟選民是關鍵。
上個月底，全球競爭力大師麥可．波特來台為台灣競爭力把脈，除了點出薪資停滯，代表產業競爭力沒有提升的關鍵，亦建議台灣應透過與大陸共同形成一個產業聚落，壯大特定領域的產業國際競爭力，更重要的是，不要讓政治紛擾，延緩台灣經濟成長。
九合一選舉，不只是地方選舉，而是兩條路線選擇的一次選舉。經濟選民應該引領風潮，引領大家在選舉中做出最好的選擇。
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Democracy vs. Economics: Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko Speak Different Languages
Democracy vs. Economics: Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko Speak Different Languages
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?
Full Text Below:
Concerned about the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA on Taiwan, Hon Hai Chairman Terry Gou publicly urged voters motivated primarily by economic considerations to clear their heads and join him in saving Taiwan. "Do not force me to leave Taiwan," Guo said. Wen-Je Ko lashed back. Ko said Gou's goal was correct, but his methods are wrong. Taiwan must become a "good democracy," and not emulate the Hitlerite or Soviet model of development.
The two men spoke entirely different languages. Part of the problem is that the two men are using arcane language and logic. But part of the problem is they reflect Taiwan's long-standing political and economic polarization. And so far, no solution is in sight.
As an industrial tycoon, Terry Gou is concerned that Taiwan’s economy will be undermined because the STA and MTA remain stalled. The concern was written on his face. That was of course understandable. With elections approaching he added, "If I was a foreigner, I would not invest in Taiwan. If I were Taiwanese, I would reduce the scale of my operations on Taiwan." He said what many entrepreneurs were thinking. Some will inevitably interpret his remarks as "intimidation." Meanwhile, Wen-Je Ko, a candidate for the mayor of Taipei, the capital city, lept up to respond. Ko however, responded in a bizarre manner. He said Taiwan should learn from "American democracy." Ko did not respond to Chairman Guo’s call for "economics first." Instead he abruptly invoked Hitler and the Soviet model. One has to wonder what era Wen-Je Ko thinks he is living in.
The KMT has long played the "economics card" during election campaigns. During this election however, even the blue camp has given up. Clearly it too doubts its utility. Terry Gou came forward and appealed to economically motivated voters 56 times. This revealed the depth of his concern. His remarks however, are unlikely to arouse voter vigilance, never mind turn the tide. The economy remains hostage to politics. The general public, meanwhile, remains numb and past caring. Consider the exchange between Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko. Peoples’ real concern is whether certain companies intend to flee. The economy has long been hostage to politics. The problem is insoluble. If anything, it has worsened. Taiwan's economy has long been hijacked by politics. It has been bound and bent. So what is the solution? Democratic elections ought to be an opportunity to evaluate the political parties’ and candidates’ economic policy platforms. They should not be stages on which to mouth irresponsible rhetoric. The DPP has dodged the issue. Clearly it realizes the best response is no response. Wen-Je Ko ranted and raved. He merely proved he does not know what he is talking about.
Politics and economics do not run in parallel. The purpose of democracy is to solve peoples’ problems lives through political means. Therefore "min sheng" (peoples livelihood) issues are where politics and economics intersect. The definition of “min sheng” is of course very broad. It includes food, transportation, social welfare. It also includes medical care and employee wages. Finally, it includes industrial development and national policy. During elections, vital issues concerning the peoples livelihood are the ones most easily demagogued by political candidates. That is why there is invariably a run on "policy vote-buying." Under such conditions, cunning politicians pander to voters’ myopic demands, then leave the mess for the next generation or others to clean up.
Over the past 20 years of democratization, we have seen this scenario enacted too many times. During every election the candidates invariably raise the ante. The most popular policy on Taiwan this year, is free or subsidized dentures for the elderly, and the restoration of year end bonuses for military and other government personnel. No matter what the side effects, there are always candidates eager to play along. Higher level economic issues include the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA, the STA, and the MTA, and whether they can be fast-tracked. They include incentives for businesses to increase employee salaries. But in the current political atmosphere, such issues are taboo, and cannot be discussed. This is true even of local government job creation. Whose economic policy platform is more conducive to local economic prosperity? Such questions are beyond the pale. The candidates’ economic policy platforms cannot be evaluated. Candidates merely claw at each others’ scabs. Candidates merely demonize each other. How can such a democracy possibly serve the people?
Looking forward, Taiwan's economic problems are not about whether any particular company increases its investments or flees from the island. Nor are they about whether the Mainland increases economic and trade exchanges. Nor are they about whether A-list companies are able to upgrade. Taiwan's biggest economic problem, is that politicians simply do not care what happens to Taiwan’s economy over the next five to ten years. Will industry on Taiwan become the Mainland’s OEM industry? Will the next generation on Taiwan become low wage labor in foreign lands? The only thing ruling and opposition party politicians care about currently is how to pass the buck for the recession on to their opponents. When their terms of office expire, they will congratulate themselves, and leave behind them a ruined landscape, one that the people will regret and have to bear, no?
Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?
民主與經濟：郭台銘和柯文哲的雞同鴨講
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.19 02:12 am
憂心《中韓自貿協定》對台灣的衝擊，鴻海董事長郭台銘公開喊話，希望「經濟選民」理性思考，共同拯救台灣的未來，「別逼我離開台灣」。對此，柯文哲回嗆說，郭台銘的目標正確、方法錯誤，台灣應向「好的民主」學習，而不要像希特勒或蘇聯的發展模式。
這段「雞同鴨講」的對話，除反映了兩人迷宮似的語言和思考邏輯，也相當程度描繪了台灣政治和經濟長期以來兩相分離的困境，且至今似仍無解。
作為大企業家，郭台銘擔心台灣經濟受兩岸服貿、貨貿停滯不前之牽累，因而憂形於色，當然是可以理解的事。但他在選舉逼近前說出「如果我是外國人，我不會投資台灣；如果我是台灣人，我會縮減在台灣的營運規模」，這些話或許說出了很多企業家的心聲，但難免被某些人解讀為「恐嚇牌」。相對的，柯文哲作為首都市長候選人主動跳出來接招，卻回應得相當離奇：說台灣要學習「美式民主」，並不算答覆了郭董「經濟優先」的呼籲；然後他突然跳接到希特勒及蘇聯模式，這不免令人好奇柯文哲的思維究竟停頓在什麼年代的時空背景？
在選舉中打「經濟牌」，是國民黨一向慣用的手法；但這次選舉，似乎連藍軍都放棄了此一招數，顯然已經不知道這是否還有利用價值。此時，郭台銘主動跳出來，向「經濟選民」連續喊話五十六次，可見其憂慮之深。然而，要說這番講話能激起選民的警覺，乃至產生什麼力挽狂瀾的作用，只怕難以樂觀，因為一般民眾對經濟受政治牽制的困境似乎已經感到麻痺。
事實上，看郭台銘與柯文哲的對話，真正令人關注之處，其實不在個別企業是否「出走」的問題，而在政治與經濟長期懸而未解的背道而馳；或者更準確地說，是台灣政治長期對經濟的凌壓、箝制和扭曲，應該如何解決。至少，民主選舉應對政黨或候選人的經濟訴求進行相當程度的檢驗，而不是可以任人信口雌黃。從民進黨對此事的閃躲看，它知道避免回應是上策；而大剌剌搶答的柯文哲，則顯示他不知所云。
政治和經濟，絕對不是兩條平行線。民主的目的，是在透過政治的手段，解決人民生活的各種問題；亦即，「民生」就是政治與經濟的交集。當然，民生的定義很廣，近者如食物交通、社會福利，中者如醫療照護、勞動薪資，遠者則如產業發展、國家願景等。選舉時，候選人最容易操弄的就是那些民眾切身的民生議題，因而不斷有所謂的「利多大放送」；在這種情況下，狡猾的政客掠奪了當下的選舉利益，卻把政策的後遺症留給下一代或其他人去承受。
過去廿多年的民主化，人們見識過太多這種景象。例如，每次選舉必定祭出各種津貼加碼，今年全台流行的，則是老人假牙免費或補助；包括軍公教年終慰問金是否恢復，不論是否奏效或有多少副作用，都有人喊價。至於更高層次的經濟議題，諸如中韓ＦＴＡ的衝擊、服貿及貨貿協議能否加快腳步、如何促使企業為員工加薪，在當前政治氛圍下則宛如一灘死水，無法討論；甚至連地方如何創造就業機會，誰的經濟主張更有助於地方繁榮，一概闕如。如果候選人創造經濟機會的政見不能拿來評比，選舉只是一味互挖瘡疤、彼此醜化，這樣的民主政治如何服務人民？
往前看，台灣經濟的難題，其實不是哪一家企業要不要擴大投資、會不會出走的問題而已，也不是要不要和大陸擴大經貿交流，或者明星產業能不能轉型升級的問題而已。台灣經濟最大的困境，是政治人物完全不關心下一個五年或十年台灣的經濟將變成什麼面貌：台灣的資通產業會不會淪為大陸產業的代工者？台灣的下一代會不會變成抬不起頭的異鄉打工仔？目前，朝野政客關心的，只是如何把經濟衰退的責任推給對手；但是，當他們任期屆滿拍拍屁股走人之後，留下的破敗景象，卻是老百姓在唏噓、在承受，不是嗎？
台灣的經濟，當然不是明天就會倒地不起的問題；但這和人生病一樣，如果它不斷咳嗽，昨天發燒、今天嘔吐，人們仍置之不理，這樣的經濟體如何保持健康？而如果遇上柯文哲這樣的名醫，他卻拿聲名狼藉的希特勒和蘇聯之歷史作為診斷，我們還有活路嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?
Full Text Below:
Concerned about the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA on Taiwan, Hon Hai Chairman Terry Gou publicly urged voters motivated primarily by economic considerations to clear their heads and join him in saving Taiwan. "Do not force me to leave Taiwan," Guo said. Wen-Je Ko lashed back. Ko said Gou's goal was correct, but his methods are wrong. Taiwan must become a "good democracy," and not emulate the Hitlerite or Soviet model of development.
The two men spoke entirely different languages. Part of the problem is that the two men are using arcane language and logic. But part of the problem is they reflect Taiwan's long-standing political and economic polarization. And so far, no solution is in sight.
As an industrial tycoon, Terry Gou is concerned that Taiwan’s economy will be undermined because the STA and MTA remain stalled. The concern was written on his face. That was of course understandable. With elections approaching he added, "If I was a foreigner, I would not invest in Taiwan. If I were Taiwanese, I would reduce the scale of my operations on Taiwan." He said what many entrepreneurs were thinking. Some will inevitably interpret his remarks as "intimidation." Meanwhile, Wen-Je Ko, a candidate for the mayor of Taipei, the capital city, lept up to respond. Ko however, responded in a bizarre manner. He said Taiwan should learn from "American democracy." Ko did not respond to Chairman Guo’s call for "economics first." Instead he abruptly invoked Hitler and the Soviet model. One has to wonder what era Wen-Je Ko thinks he is living in.
The KMT has long played the "economics card" during election campaigns. During this election however, even the blue camp has given up. Clearly it too doubts its utility. Terry Gou came forward and appealed to economically motivated voters 56 times. This revealed the depth of his concern. His remarks however, are unlikely to arouse voter vigilance, never mind turn the tide. The economy remains hostage to politics. The general public, meanwhile, remains numb and past caring. Consider the exchange between Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko. Peoples’ real concern is whether certain companies intend to flee. The economy has long been hostage to politics. The problem is insoluble. If anything, it has worsened. Taiwan's economy has long been hijacked by politics. It has been bound and bent. So what is the solution? Democratic elections ought to be an opportunity to evaluate the political parties’ and candidates’ economic policy platforms. They should not be stages on which to mouth irresponsible rhetoric. The DPP has dodged the issue. Clearly it realizes the best response is no response. Wen-Je Ko ranted and raved. He merely proved he does not know what he is talking about.
Politics and economics do not run in parallel. The purpose of democracy is to solve peoples’ problems lives through political means. Therefore "min sheng" (peoples livelihood) issues are where politics and economics intersect. The definition of “min sheng” is of course very broad. It includes food, transportation, social welfare. It also includes medical care and employee wages. Finally, it includes industrial development and national policy. During elections, vital issues concerning the peoples livelihood are the ones most easily demagogued by political candidates. That is why there is invariably a run on "policy vote-buying." Under such conditions, cunning politicians pander to voters’ myopic demands, then leave the mess for the next generation or others to clean up.
Over the past 20 years of democratization, we have seen this scenario enacted too many times. During every election the candidates invariably raise the ante. The most popular policy on Taiwan this year, is free or subsidized dentures for the elderly, and the restoration of year end bonuses for military and other government personnel. No matter what the side effects, there are always candidates eager to play along. Higher level economic issues include the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA, the STA, and the MTA, and whether they can be fast-tracked. They include incentives for businesses to increase employee salaries. But in the current political atmosphere, such issues are taboo, and cannot be discussed. This is true even of local government job creation. Whose economic policy platform is more conducive to local economic prosperity? Such questions are beyond the pale. The candidates’ economic policy platforms cannot be evaluated. Candidates merely claw at each others’ scabs. Candidates merely demonize each other. How can such a democracy possibly serve the people?
Looking forward, Taiwan's economic problems are not about whether any particular company increases its investments or flees from the island. Nor are they about whether the Mainland increases economic and trade exchanges. Nor are they about whether A-list companies are able to upgrade. Taiwan's biggest economic problem, is that politicians simply do not care what happens to Taiwan’s economy over the next five to ten years. Will industry on Taiwan become the Mainland’s OEM industry? Will the next generation on Taiwan become low wage labor in foreign lands? The only thing ruling and opposition party politicians care about currently is how to pass the buck for the recession on to their opponents. When their terms of office expire, they will congratulate themselves, and leave behind them a ruined landscape, one that the people will regret and have to bear, no?
Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?
民主與經濟：郭台銘和柯文哲的雞同鴨講
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.19 02:12 am
憂心《中韓自貿協定》對台灣的衝擊，鴻海董事長郭台銘公開喊話，希望「經濟選民」理性思考，共同拯救台灣的未來，「別逼我離開台灣」。對此，柯文哲回嗆說，郭台銘的目標正確、方法錯誤，台灣應向「好的民主」學習，而不要像希特勒或蘇聯的發展模式。
這段「雞同鴨講」的對話，除反映了兩人迷宮似的語言和思考邏輯，也相當程度描繪了台灣政治和經濟長期以來兩相分離的困境，且至今似仍無解。
作為大企業家，郭台銘擔心台灣經濟受兩岸服貿、貨貿停滯不前之牽累，因而憂形於色，當然是可以理解的事。但他在選舉逼近前說出「如果我是外國人，我不會投資台灣；如果我是台灣人，我會縮減在台灣的營運規模」，這些話或許說出了很多企業家的心聲，但難免被某些人解讀為「恐嚇牌」。相對的，柯文哲作為首都市長候選人主動跳出來接招，卻回應得相當離奇：說台灣要學習「美式民主」，並不算答覆了郭董「經濟優先」的呼籲；然後他突然跳接到希特勒及蘇聯模式，這不免令人好奇柯文哲的思維究竟停頓在什麼年代的時空背景？
在選舉中打「經濟牌」，是國民黨一向慣用的手法；但這次選舉，似乎連藍軍都放棄了此一招數，顯然已經不知道這是否還有利用價值。此時，郭台銘主動跳出來，向「經濟選民」連續喊話五十六次，可見其憂慮之深。然而，要說這番講話能激起選民的警覺，乃至產生什麼力挽狂瀾的作用，只怕難以樂觀，因為一般民眾對經濟受政治牽制的困境似乎已經感到麻痺。
事實上，看郭台銘與柯文哲的對話，真正令人關注之處，其實不在個別企業是否「出走」的問題，而在政治與經濟長期懸而未解的背道而馳；或者更準確地說，是台灣政治長期對經濟的凌壓、箝制和扭曲，應該如何解決。至少，民主選舉應對政黨或候選人的經濟訴求進行相當程度的檢驗，而不是可以任人信口雌黃。從民進黨對此事的閃躲看，它知道避免回應是上策；而大剌剌搶答的柯文哲，則顯示他不知所云。
政治和經濟，絕對不是兩條平行線。民主的目的，是在透過政治的手段，解決人民生活的各種問題；亦即，「民生」就是政治與經濟的交集。當然，民生的定義很廣，近者如食物交通、社會福利，中者如醫療照護、勞動薪資，遠者則如產業發展、國家願景等。選舉時，候選人最容易操弄的就是那些民眾切身的民生議題，因而不斷有所謂的「利多大放送」；在這種情況下，狡猾的政客掠奪了當下的選舉利益，卻把政策的後遺症留給下一代或其他人去承受。
過去廿多年的民主化，人們見識過太多這種景象。例如，每次選舉必定祭出各種津貼加碼，今年全台流行的，則是老人假牙免費或補助；包括軍公教年終慰問金是否恢復，不論是否奏效或有多少副作用，都有人喊價。至於更高層次的經濟議題，諸如中韓ＦＴＡ的衝擊、服貿及貨貿協議能否加快腳步、如何促使企業為員工加薪，在當前政治氛圍下則宛如一灘死水，無法討論；甚至連地方如何創造就業機會，誰的經濟主張更有助於地方繁榮，一概闕如。如果候選人創造經濟機會的政見不能拿來評比，選舉只是一味互挖瘡疤、彼此醜化，這樣的民主政治如何服務人民？
往前看，台灣經濟的難題，其實不是哪一家企業要不要擴大投資、會不會出走的問題而已，也不是要不要和大陸擴大經貿交流，或者明星產業能不能轉型升級的問題而已。台灣經濟最大的困境，是政治人物完全不關心下一個五年或十年台灣的經濟將變成什麼面貌：台灣的資通產業會不會淪為大陸產業的代工者？台灣的下一代會不會變成抬不起頭的異鄉打工仔？目前，朝野政客關心的，只是如何把經濟衰退的責任推給對手；但是，當他們任期屆滿拍拍屁股走人之後，留下的破敗景象，卻是老百姓在唏噓、在承受，不是嗎？
台灣的經濟，當然不是明天就會倒地不起的問題；但這和人生病一樣，如果它不斷咳嗽，昨天發燒、今天嘔吐，人們仍置之不理，這樣的經濟體如何保持健康？而如果遇上柯文哲這樣的名醫，他卻拿聲名狼藉的希特勒和蘇聯之歷史作為診斷，我們還有活路嗎？
Monday, November 17, 2014
Taipei and Beijing Must Walk a Mile in Each Other’s Shoes
Taipei and Beijing Must Walk a Mile in Each Other’s Shoes
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2014
Executive Summary: Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.
Full Text Below:
The 3/18 Sunflower Student Movement was followed by the Chang Hsien-yao incident, which was in turn followed by the abortive Ma Xi meeting. Xi Jinping’s reference to “one country, two systems” led to Ma Ying-jeou’s National Day speech, in which he hoped that the Mainland authorities would “allow some people to enjoy democracy first." Storm clouds have darkened the skies over the Taiwan Strait for some time now. Fortunately Siew and Xi and Wang and Zhang were able to meet during the APEC conference. Deep-rooted cross-Strait structural problems remain. Fortunately authorities on both sides are willing to see the Big Picture, and rebuild political trust on the basis of the 1992 consensus. We believe the course of cross-Strait relations remains unchanged. The momentum remains unchanged, the goodwill remains unchanged, and the determination remains unchanged. We must continue to broaden and deepen interaction between the two.
The authorities on both sides have been reasonable, pragmatic, and level-headed. They should be applauded for doing everything in a timely and clear-cut manner.
Their handling of the situation will help avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. Misunderstandings and miscalculations are the most important cause of international and cross-Strait conflicts. The two sides must maintain this attitude from this day on. They must continue to see the Big Picture. They must convey accurate messages in a timely manner through existing mechanisms and appropriate communication channels. Cross-Strait relations will remain subject to fluctuations. But these fluctuations can be confined within a certain range. This is good for the two sides, and good for regional security. It should be welcomed by everyone.
The two sides share the same cultural origin. But they have been separated by decades of divided rule. Different political and economic systems have led to differences in thinking and behavior. These have led to differences over the 1992 consensus, over one China, shared interpretation or one China, different interpretations, over Chinese Taipei or China Taipei. These have led to differences over terms such as domestic, international, or cross-strait, to the 2005 "Anti-Secession Law," and to pro-war or pro-peace. Cross-Strait relations are a dilemma. Do not pass the buck onto future generations. Statements may be interpreted as pressuring Taiwan or simply expressing a hope. But political one-upsmanship is transparently obvious. Do not claim that foreigners or the two sides’ authorities do not understand.
Xi Jinping’s 9/26 statement about one country, two systems triggered criticisms. But Beijing was not issuing a political manifesto. It was merely proposing a new Taiwan policy of "peaceful development, opposition to Taiwan independence, and a meeting of the minds." We believe specific programs will soon be introduced. Beijing was surprised by Taipei’s anger. By the same token, Ma Ying-jeou double ten speech expressed hope that the Mainland would implement democratic constitutionalism. It expressed understanding and support for the Occupy Central demonstrations in Hong Kong. This provoked the Beijing authorities’ ire. They thought the Taipei authorities were mobilizing to support pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. But that is not how the authorities in Taipei operate. Absent specific instructions, President Ma's words were merely an expression of opinion. No concrete action was intended.
Another example of misunderstandings was the Ma-Xi meeting at APEC. Mainland authorities felt they had made their position clear long ago. One. They would follow precedents. Two. An international venue was inappropriate. They even said that holding the meeting in a third country was not an international alternative. The Beijing authorities tried to consider feelings in Taipei. They were reluctant to come straight out and say that Xi Jinping refused to meet, so they left matters fuzzy. As a result, the Taipei authorities misunderstood. They assumed that unless the highest authorities in Beijing directly and explicitly refused, a meeting was still possible. So they launched a last-ditch campaign. We can review the reasons behind national security agency miscalculations. But insiders know the misunderstanding was the result of President Ma's subjective expectations, rather than professional miscalculations.
Cross-Strait relations today are different. The power differential is obvious. Time is not on Taipei’s side. But the CCP also knows that reunification cannot be based entirely upon culture, ethnic origin, or national sentiment. The Mainland hopes to establish new conditions for reunification. It hopes to create a new theoretical framework, encourage mutual understanding and mutual respect, in order to ensure that the two sides are moving in the same direction. For people on Taiwan, Mainland China’s rise is simultaneously an opportunity, a challenge, and a threat. People on Taiwan should of course not put all their faith in the uncertain goodwill of the Mainland. But Beijing is doing its utmost to understand our plight on Taiwan. It is attempting to meet our needs. It is attempting to avoid angering the public on the many issues that still cannot be resolved.
Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.
社論－兩岸易位思考才能避免誤判
2014年11月18日 04:10
本報訊
從318太陽花運動、張顯耀事件到馬習會破局，由習近平一國兩制談話到馬英九國慶演說期望大陸「讓一部分人先民主起來」，不可否認，過去一段時間台海上空曾經陰霾密布。所幸經過亞太經合會的蕭習會和王張會後，兩岸深層的結構性問題雖仍存在，但兩岸當局都展現願以大局為重，願在九二共識基礎上，重建彼此的政治互信，相信兩岸關係可以在方向不變、勢頭不變、誠意不變、決心不變的前提之下，採取積極措施，繼續擴大、深化彼此之間的各種互動。
各界對於兩岸當局這種理性、務實、冷靜的處事風格，適時、明快澄清立場的作法都持肯定的態度，畢竟這將有助於避免誤解與誤判，而誤解、誤判和意外正是國際和兩岸發生衝突的最主要原因。今後，只要雙方都能夠維持這種心態和做法，凡事多由大局與戰略的高度出發，能夠透過既有的機制或適當的溝通管道，適時傳達正確的訊息，即或兩岸問題將來仍然會有波動，但其幅度終將侷限在可以控制的範圍之內，這對兩岸雙方、對區域安全都是好事，應為大家所樂見。
兩岸雖然文化淵源相同，但幾十年的分隔分治，不同的政經體制使得雙方在某些思維和行為上已經有了出入，從九二共識的一中共表或一中各表，由中華台北或中國台北，是國內、國際或兩岸航線，到2005年《反分裂國家法》到底是求戰或是求和，兩岸問題不要一代代傳下去，是對台施壓或只是單純的表達期望。這些高來高去的政治語言和行為，不要說外國人看不懂，即或兩岸當局有時都還不能精準掌握。
更具體的說，926習近平有關一國兩制的說法引發非議，但北京的重點不在政治宣示，而在提出「三個充分照顧，和平發展，反對台獨以及心靈契合」對台新政策，相信很快就還有具體方案和作為出檯，台北的憤怒完全出乎北京意料之外。同樣的，馬英九雙十談話中對大陸民主憲政的期許，和對香港占中行動的理解與支持讓北京非常憤怒，以為台灣政府部門將會全面動員，對香港民眾追求民主的活動展開實際的支援和協助，但了解台灣政府運作的人都應該知道，除非有更具體的指示，馬總統的談話不過是立場和態度的表達，不會有實際的動作出現。
再比如說，有關APEC會上馬、習二人會面的問題，大陸方面自覺早已透過工作階層把話說得再明白不過，一要遵循慣例，二是國際場合不宜，甚至提出第三國不等於國際的替代方案，北京顧及台北的感受，不願由習近平直接出面表達拒絕之意，讓雙方仍有一點模糊的空間。但台北方面的判斷卻是，只要沒有來自北京最高當局直接而且明確的拒絕就表示仍有可能，於是在APEC會前發動最後一回合宣傳攻勢，企圖奮力一搏。如今如要檢討國安單位判斷失誤固然並無不可，但圈內人應該知道，這多半是配合馬總統的主觀期望所做出的政治而非專業判斷。
兩岸關係今昔不同，強弱已然易勢，時間不在台灣的一邊，但中共也已體會，統一不能再以單純的文化、血源、民族情感做為號召，大陸希望建構新的統一條件，形塑新的理論架構，鼓勵雙方相互體諒，彼此尊重，相向而行。對台灣來說，中國大陸的成長與茁壯是機會、挑戰、威脅兼而有之，台灣固然不宜把自己的前途完全寄託在大陸不確定的善意上，但北京如今正在盡最大的可能，包容、體諒台灣某些的困境，配合台灣的需求，在許多目前仍然無法處理的事情上盡量不要激怒台灣民意。
面對新情勢，兩岸都需要學習換位思考，減少自我為中心的政治算計，不要一廂情願以自己的制度或行事方式來評斷對方，要透過現有機制，增加事前溝通，傳達正確訊息，讓決策當局、意見領袖能夠掌握正確意涵，適時發揮導正作用。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2014
Executive Summary: Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.
Full Text Below:
The 3/18 Sunflower Student Movement was followed by the Chang Hsien-yao incident, which was in turn followed by the abortive Ma Xi meeting. Xi Jinping’s reference to “one country, two systems” led to Ma Ying-jeou’s National Day speech, in which he hoped that the Mainland authorities would “allow some people to enjoy democracy first." Storm clouds have darkened the skies over the Taiwan Strait for some time now. Fortunately Siew and Xi and Wang and Zhang were able to meet during the APEC conference. Deep-rooted cross-Strait structural problems remain. Fortunately authorities on both sides are willing to see the Big Picture, and rebuild political trust on the basis of the 1992 consensus. We believe the course of cross-Strait relations remains unchanged. The momentum remains unchanged, the goodwill remains unchanged, and the determination remains unchanged. We must continue to broaden and deepen interaction between the two.
The authorities on both sides have been reasonable, pragmatic, and level-headed. They should be applauded for doing everything in a timely and clear-cut manner.
Their handling of the situation will help avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. Misunderstandings and miscalculations are the most important cause of international and cross-Strait conflicts. The two sides must maintain this attitude from this day on. They must continue to see the Big Picture. They must convey accurate messages in a timely manner through existing mechanisms and appropriate communication channels. Cross-Strait relations will remain subject to fluctuations. But these fluctuations can be confined within a certain range. This is good for the two sides, and good for regional security. It should be welcomed by everyone.
The two sides share the same cultural origin. But they have been separated by decades of divided rule. Different political and economic systems have led to differences in thinking and behavior. These have led to differences over the 1992 consensus, over one China, shared interpretation or one China, different interpretations, over Chinese Taipei or China Taipei. These have led to differences over terms such as domestic, international, or cross-strait, to the 2005 "Anti-Secession Law," and to pro-war or pro-peace. Cross-Strait relations are a dilemma. Do not pass the buck onto future generations. Statements may be interpreted as pressuring Taiwan or simply expressing a hope. But political one-upsmanship is transparently obvious. Do not claim that foreigners or the two sides’ authorities do not understand.
Xi Jinping’s 9/26 statement about one country, two systems triggered criticisms. But Beijing was not issuing a political manifesto. It was merely proposing a new Taiwan policy of "peaceful development, opposition to Taiwan independence, and a meeting of the minds." We believe specific programs will soon be introduced. Beijing was surprised by Taipei’s anger. By the same token, Ma Ying-jeou double ten speech expressed hope that the Mainland would implement democratic constitutionalism. It expressed understanding and support for the Occupy Central demonstrations in Hong Kong. This provoked the Beijing authorities’ ire. They thought the Taipei authorities were mobilizing to support pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. But that is not how the authorities in Taipei operate. Absent specific instructions, President Ma's words were merely an expression of opinion. No concrete action was intended.
Another example of misunderstandings was the Ma-Xi meeting at APEC. Mainland authorities felt they had made their position clear long ago. One. They would follow precedents. Two. An international venue was inappropriate. They even said that holding the meeting in a third country was not an international alternative. The Beijing authorities tried to consider feelings in Taipei. They were reluctant to come straight out and say that Xi Jinping refused to meet, so they left matters fuzzy. As a result, the Taipei authorities misunderstood. They assumed that unless the highest authorities in Beijing directly and explicitly refused, a meeting was still possible. So they launched a last-ditch campaign. We can review the reasons behind national security agency miscalculations. But insiders know the misunderstanding was the result of President Ma's subjective expectations, rather than professional miscalculations.
Cross-Strait relations today are different. The power differential is obvious. Time is not on Taipei’s side. But the CCP also knows that reunification cannot be based entirely upon culture, ethnic origin, or national sentiment. The Mainland hopes to establish new conditions for reunification. It hopes to create a new theoretical framework, encourage mutual understanding and mutual respect, in order to ensure that the two sides are moving in the same direction. For people on Taiwan, Mainland China’s rise is simultaneously an opportunity, a challenge, and a threat. People on Taiwan should of course not put all their faith in the uncertain goodwill of the Mainland. But Beijing is doing its utmost to understand our plight on Taiwan. It is attempting to meet our needs. It is attempting to avoid angering the public on the many issues that still cannot be resolved.
Both sides face a new situation. Both sides need to learn empathy and eschew self-centered political calculation. Neither side should indulge in wishful thinking or judge the other according to the rules of its own system. Both sides need to make use of existing mechanisms to provide advance notice and ensure clear communications. Only then can decision-makers and opinion leaders grasp each others’ meaning and point us in the right direction.
社論－兩岸易位思考才能避免誤判
2014年11月18日 04:10
本報訊
從318太陽花運動、張顯耀事件到馬習會破局，由習近平一國兩制談話到馬英九國慶演說期望大陸「讓一部分人先民主起來」，不可否認，過去一段時間台海上空曾經陰霾密布。所幸經過亞太經合會的蕭習會和王張會後，兩岸深層的結構性問題雖仍存在，但兩岸當局都展現願以大局為重，願在九二共識基礎上，重建彼此的政治互信，相信兩岸關係可以在方向不變、勢頭不變、誠意不變、決心不變的前提之下，採取積極措施，繼續擴大、深化彼此之間的各種互動。
各界對於兩岸當局這種理性、務實、冷靜的處事風格，適時、明快澄清立場的作法都持肯定的態度，畢竟這將有助於避免誤解與誤判，而誤解、誤判和意外正是國際和兩岸發生衝突的最主要原因。今後，只要雙方都能夠維持這種心態和做法，凡事多由大局與戰略的高度出發，能夠透過既有的機制或適當的溝通管道，適時傳達正確的訊息，即或兩岸問題將來仍然會有波動，但其幅度終將侷限在可以控制的範圍之內，這對兩岸雙方、對區域安全都是好事，應為大家所樂見。
兩岸雖然文化淵源相同，但幾十年的分隔分治，不同的政經體制使得雙方在某些思維和行為上已經有了出入，從九二共識的一中共表或一中各表，由中華台北或中國台北，是國內、國際或兩岸航線，到2005年《反分裂國家法》到底是求戰或是求和，兩岸問題不要一代代傳下去，是對台施壓或只是單純的表達期望。這些高來高去的政治語言和行為，不要說外國人看不懂，即或兩岸當局有時都還不能精準掌握。
更具體的說，926習近平有關一國兩制的說法引發非議，但北京的重點不在政治宣示，而在提出「三個充分照顧，和平發展，反對台獨以及心靈契合」對台新政策，相信很快就還有具體方案和作為出檯，台北的憤怒完全出乎北京意料之外。同樣的，馬英九雙十談話中對大陸民主憲政的期許，和對香港占中行動的理解與支持讓北京非常憤怒，以為台灣政府部門將會全面動員，對香港民眾追求民主的活動展開實際的支援和協助，但了解台灣政府運作的人都應該知道，除非有更具體的指示，馬總統的談話不過是立場和態度的表達，不會有實際的動作出現。
再比如說，有關APEC會上馬、習二人會面的問題，大陸方面自覺早已透過工作階層把話說得再明白不過，一要遵循慣例，二是國際場合不宜，甚至提出第三國不等於國際的替代方案，北京顧及台北的感受，不願由習近平直接出面表達拒絕之意，讓雙方仍有一點模糊的空間。但台北方面的判斷卻是，只要沒有來自北京最高當局直接而且明確的拒絕就表示仍有可能，於是在APEC會前發動最後一回合宣傳攻勢，企圖奮力一搏。如今如要檢討國安單位判斷失誤固然並無不可，但圈內人應該知道，這多半是配合馬總統的主觀期望所做出的政治而非專業判斷。
兩岸關係今昔不同，強弱已然易勢，時間不在台灣的一邊，但中共也已體會，統一不能再以單純的文化、血源、民族情感做為號召，大陸希望建構新的統一條件，形塑新的理論架構，鼓勵雙方相互體諒，彼此尊重，相向而行。對台灣來說，中國大陸的成長與茁壯是機會、挑戰、威脅兼而有之，台灣固然不宜把自己的前途完全寄託在大陸不確定的善意上，但北京如今正在盡最大的可能，包容、體諒台灣某些的困境，配合台灣的需求，在許多目前仍然無法處理的事情上盡量不要激怒台灣民意。
面對新情勢，兩岸都需要學習換位思考，減少自我為中心的政治算計，不要一廂情願以自己的制度或行事方式來評斷對方，要透過現有機制，增加事前溝通，傳達正確訊息，讓決策當局、意見領袖能夠掌握正確意涵，適時發揮導正作用。
Sunday, November 16, 2014
APEC’s Bright Spot, Taiwan's Blind Spot
APEC’s Bright Spot, Taiwan's Blind Spot
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2014
Executive Summary: Thirteen years ago, during the Shanghai APEC summit, the Mainland authorities spoke of Mainland China’s “peaceful rise.” Recently, during the Beijing summit, Mainland authorities spoke on an equal footing with the United States, of “shared rule by great nations.” The President of the Republic of the Philippines will be hosting APEC next year. Under the rippling waters and shade trees of Yanqi Lake, Aquino the Third could only joke that a small nation could not put on such a grand show.
Full Text Below:
Thirteen years ago, during the Shanghai APEC summit, the Mainland authorities spoke of Mainland China’s “peaceful rise.” Recently, during the Beijing summit, Mainland authorities spoke on an equal footing with the United States, of “shared rule by great nations.” The President of the Republic of the Philippines will be hosting APEC next year. Under the rippling waters and shade trees of Yanqi Lake, Aquino the Third could only joke that a small nation could not put on such a grand show.
The current APEC meeting has become the Mainland authorities’ stage for its dream of a Great Nation. Behind the scenes, other governments competed with each other in an attempt to strut their stuff. It is often said that "diplomacy is an extension of domestic politics." National rulers who encounter problems at home often try to reverse their fortunes or minimize their domestic losses through foreign relations.
Take the South Korean authorities for example. Their FTA with the Mainland Chinese authorities has attracted much attention. Upon taking office last year, President Park Geun-hye promoted her “economics of happiness" policy. Her goal was to change the ROK-US and ROK-EU FTAs signed by the Lee Myung-bak government. These widened the gap between rich and poor. She actively supported SMEs, and delayed the signing of FTAs with other countries. She hopes to change the chaebol-dominated economy. But large chaebols dominate the Korean economy. The impact of her "economics of happiness" has been limited.
In recent years South Korea has fallen victim to "Samsung's Disease." The main causes of this disease are the sharp depreciation of the Japanese Yen, pressure from Apple iPhones, and a rising tide of Mainland China mobile phones and other products. Samsung now faces an unprecedented dilemma. Samsung's contribution to South Korea’s GDP has slipped from 23% to 18%. This has had a severe impact on the economy. To overcome this economic hardship,
Park Geun-hye has chosen a "politics depends upon the United States, economics depends upon China" strategy. She has fast-tracked the FTA with Mainland China. She hopes to take a bite out of Mainland China’s domestic market, thereby addressing Korean companies’ financial difficulties. Park Geun-hye has adopted a "first make friends, then do business" approach, that is definitely Mainland China’s cup of tea.
Now take Japan. Mainland China’s Xi and Japan’s Abe held a Xi-Abe meeting. Xi Jinping received Abe with chilly formality. He never once cracked a smile. He fidgeted while listening to the translators. He looked away from Abe. How did Abe feel? Probably embarrassed. The atmosphere of this meeting with Japan may have been cool. But at least Xi Jinping and Abe shook hands. The discord between the two countries has not vanished. But at least the meeting signaled a reconciliation of sorts. The two governments’ administrative agencies and industrial firms can now resume normal exchanges. The impasse has been broken.
As soon as Abe assumed power, he attempted to restore Japan's great nation status through a two-pronged military and economic approach. He also butted heads with Beijing by claiming sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Abe’s hardline military and diplomatic posture caused difficulties for Japanese companies operating in Mainland China. The Abenomics "three arrows" failed to achieve the results expected. This led to a sharp drop in his support. Abe went to great lengths to arrange a meeting with Xi Jinping. He repeatedly dispatched negotiators. He agreed to make concessions on Diaoyutai sovereignty and Yasukuni Shrine visits. Abe was forced to bite the bullet in exchange for a brief 30 minute meeting with Xi, approved only at the last minute. He was forced to eat crow for his past insolence. Abe may have been embarrassed. but he had little choice.
Finally, take the United States. For President Obama the midterm elections were a debacle. He arrived in Beijing a lame duck. He summoned up all his courage for a showdown with Beijing at High Noon. Obama's stance was simultaneously humble and headstrong. He said that the United States needs its partnership with Mainland China. To win the goodwill of the Mainland authorities on Hong Kong, he expressed support for freedom of speech but added that the United States would not get involved. This was realistic and helped establish bilateral political trust.
On international anti-terrorism issues, Obama successfully obtained the Mainland authorities’ support. Beijing agreed to provide 10 million USD to help Afghanistan rebuild. It agreed to the establishment of a tripartite United States, Mainland China, Afghanistan dialogue mechanism. On bilateral issues, Beijing and Washington agreed to establish a military confidence building mechanism, to reduce the risk of accidents. They relaxed requirements on business visas. They made Sino-US "bilateral investment agreement" a priority issue. More importantly, Obama and Xi Jinping reached an agreement on climate and carbon reduction issues. The New York Times described this achievement as "extraordinary."
Consider the conduct of the governments of the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Each government has its difficulties. Those in power must assess their situation. They must attempt to break through. They must not squander any opportunities. Obama’s philosophy of peace, proceeds from the easy to the difficult, from differences to common ground. To reverse his decline in approval back home, Park Geun-hye changed course to restart her FTA strategy, and used APEC to highlight her desire to restore the glory of the Korean economy. Abe bit the bullet. He attempted to create an atmosphere in which Beijing and Tokyo could remove their armor and Japan’s domestic economy could bounce back.
As far as Taipei is concerned, we missed our flight. But we must try to catch the red eye. Elections are not everything. We face tough problems and difficult dilemmas. We must maintain long-term growth to ensure the nation’s survival. This is the goal toward which we must strive.
APEC亮點 台灣的盲點
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.15 02:23 am
比起十三年前的上海ＡＰＥＣ峰會中國大陸表現「和平崛起」之姿，這次的北京峰會，中國大陸展現的是要與美國平起平坐的「大國共治」企圖。在雁棲湖水波蕩漾、樹影婆娑的點綴下，明年ＡＰＥＣ主辦國菲律賓總統艾奎諾三世只能自嘆弗如，笑稱「小國」營造不出這種大排場。
這次ＡＰＥＣ會議，成為中國大陸展現大國夢的華麗舞台；在幕後，其他參與國家也都爭相奔走、斡旋，企圖在這個舞台上找到自己伸展身段的時光。所謂「外交是內政的延伸」，那些在國內遇到難題或困境的領導人，更是企圖藉此逆勢翻轉，藉外交運籌挽回或抵銷內政的不利情勢。
先看與中國敲定自貿協定而深受矚目的韓國。朴槿惠總統去年上台後提出了「幸福經濟學」政策，目的是為改變李明博政府簽署「韓美」及「韓歐」ＦＴＡ所引發的貧富差距加大；她除積極扶植中小企業，也放慢與他國簽署ＦＴＡ的進程，希望改變大財閥主導的經濟體制。但由於韓國經濟對大財閥倚賴甚深，「幸福經濟學」的效果並不顯著。
近兩年韓國出現了所謂的「三星病」，主要是在日圓大幅貶值、蘋果手機壓境下，再加上中國本土製造的手機等用品紛紛崛起，讓三星面臨了空前的困境。三星產值佔韓國ＧＤＰ從廿三％滑落到十八％，這對經濟造成嚴重衝擊。為了突破此一經濟困境，朴槿惠選擇「政治靠美國、經濟靠中國」的策略，選擇加速與大陸簽署ＦＴＡ，希望藉著搶攻中國內需市場，來突破韓國企業面臨的經營困境。朴槿惠這種「先交朋友、後做生意」的方式，確實很合乎中國大陸的口味。
再看日本的表現。這次，在中日兩國領導人的「習安會」上，習近平以冷漠的姿態接待安倍，嘴角不露一絲笑容，甚至不耐煩聽譯員翻譯，就別過臉去；在安倍心裡，大概只有難堪二字可言。然而，對日本而言，不管這場會面氣氛再怎麼冷淡，習近平與安倍兩人一握手，就算不代表兩國之間的一切齟齬煙消雲散，至少是一個「和解」的訊號，兩國的行政部門及工商業者都因此可以重新恢復正常交往，僵局就打開了。
安倍上台之後，透過軍事及經濟雙管齊下的方式，企圖恢復日本的大國榮光，卻也為釣魚台主權之爭與北京鬧得不可開交。安倍在軍事和外交上的強勢，造成日本企業在中國經營的困境，而安倍經濟學「三支箭」均已射出卻未收到預期效果，也讓他的支持度大幅跌落。這次安倍為了換取與習近平的一會，可謂煞費苦心，不斷派人疏通交涉，同意在釣魚台主權及參拜靖國神社爭議上表示退讓，直到最後一刻，才換得短短三十分鐘的「習安會」。如此「忍辱負重」，正是為了彌償先前的張狂，雖然難堪，安倍不得不為。
最後再看美國。歐巴馬總統方遭到期中選舉的慘敗，帶著跛腳的傷口來到北京，鼓勇與日正當中的習近平抗衡。歐巴馬的姿態卑亢有致，他說「美國需要中國大陸這個夥伴」，以博取中國的好感；在香港占中議題上，他表明支持言論自由卻澄清美國「未涉入」的立場，可謂實事求是，有助建立雙邊的政治信任。
在國際反恐議題上，歐巴馬成功獲得中國支持，北京不但同意提供一千萬美元來協助阿富汗重建，並同意成立美、中、阿三邊對話機制。在雙邊議題上，中美兩國建立軍事互信機制，以降低意外發生的風險，同時放寬商務簽證，並將中美「雙邊投資協議」列為優先議題。更重要的是，歐巴馬還與習近平在氣候及減碳議題上達成共識，這項成就，被紐約時報形容為「非比尋常」。
從美、日、韓三國的作為看，每個國家都有本難念的經，重要是主政者必須審時度勢，設法突破，不放過任何機會。歐巴馬抓住「以和為貴」的哲學，從易到難、異中求同，以扭轉他在國內受挫的頹勢。朴槿惠以「改弦易轍」重啟ＦＴＡ戰略，並利用ＡＰＥＣ展露她找回韓國經濟之榮光的企圖。安倍則「忍辱負重」，營造中日卸下甲冑的氛圍，冀讓國內經濟能觸底反彈。
對台灣而言，我們雖然沒搭上「早班車」，卻仍應努力趕上「晚集」。選舉不是一切，面對艱難、化解困境、保持國家的長期發展於不墜，才是我們要努力的目標。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2014
Executive Summary: Thirteen years ago, during the Shanghai APEC summit, the Mainland authorities spoke of Mainland China’s “peaceful rise.” Recently, during the Beijing summit, Mainland authorities spoke on an equal footing with the United States, of “shared rule by great nations.” The President of the Republic of the Philippines will be hosting APEC next year. Under the rippling waters and shade trees of Yanqi Lake, Aquino the Third could only joke that a small nation could not put on such a grand show.
Full Text Below:
Thirteen years ago, during the Shanghai APEC summit, the Mainland authorities spoke of Mainland China’s “peaceful rise.” Recently, during the Beijing summit, Mainland authorities spoke on an equal footing with the United States, of “shared rule by great nations.” The President of the Republic of the Philippines will be hosting APEC next year. Under the rippling waters and shade trees of Yanqi Lake, Aquino the Third could only joke that a small nation could not put on such a grand show.
The current APEC meeting has become the Mainland authorities’ stage for its dream of a Great Nation. Behind the scenes, other governments competed with each other in an attempt to strut their stuff. It is often said that "diplomacy is an extension of domestic politics." National rulers who encounter problems at home often try to reverse their fortunes or minimize their domestic losses through foreign relations.
Take the South Korean authorities for example. Their FTA with the Mainland Chinese authorities has attracted much attention. Upon taking office last year, President Park Geun-hye promoted her “economics of happiness" policy. Her goal was to change the ROK-US and ROK-EU FTAs signed by the Lee Myung-bak government. These widened the gap between rich and poor. She actively supported SMEs, and delayed the signing of FTAs with other countries. She hopes to change the chaebol-dominated economy. But large chaebols dominate the Korean economy. The impact of her "economics of happiness" has been limited.
In recent years South Korea has fallen victim to "Samsung's Disease." The main causes of this disease are the sharp depreciation of the Japanese Yen, pressure from Apple iPhones, and a rising tide of Mainland China mobile phones and other products. Samsung now faces an unprecedented dilemma. Samsung's contribution to South Korea’s GDP has slipped from 23% to 18%. This has had a severe impact on the economy. To overcome this economic hardship,
Park Geun-hye has chosen a "politics depends upon the United States, economics depends upon China" strategy. She has fast-tracked the FTA with Mainland China. She hopes to take a bite out of Mainland China’s domestic market, thereby addressing Korean companies’ financial difficulties. Park Geun-hye has adopted a "first make friends, then do business" approach, that is definitely Mainland China’s cup of tea.
Now take Japan. Mainland China’s Xi and Japan’s Abe held a Xi-Abe meeting. Xi Jinping received Abe with chilly formality. He never once cracked a smile. He fidgeted while listening to the translators. He looked away from Abe. How did Abe feel? Probably embarrassed. The atmosphere of this meeting with Japan may have been cool. But at least Xi Jinping and Abe shook hands. The discord between the two countries has not vanished. But at least the meeting signaled a reconciliation of sorts. The two governments’ administrative agencies and industrial firms can now resume normal exchanges. The impasse has been broken.
As soon as Abe assumed power, he attempted to restore Japan's great nation status through a two-pronged military and economic approach. He also butted heads with Beijing by claiming sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Abe’s hardline military and diplomatic posture caused difficulties for Japanese companies operating in Mainland China. The Abenomics "three arrows" failed to achieve the results expected. This led to a sharp drop in his support. Abe went to great lengths to arrange a meeting with Xi Jinping. He repeatedly dispatched negotiators. He agreed to make concessions on Diaoyutai sovereignty and Yasukuni Shrine visits. Abe was forced to bite the bullet in exchange for a brief 30 minute meeting with Xi, approved only at the last minute. He was forced to eat crow for his past insolence. Abe may have been embarrassed. but he had little choice.
Finally, take the United States. For President Obama the midterm elections were a debacle. He arrived in Beijing a lame duck. He summoned up all his courage for a showdown with Beijing at High Noon. Obama's stance was simultaneously humble and headstrong. He said that the United States needs its partnership with Mainland China. To win the goodwill of the Mainland authorities on Hong Kong, he expressed support for freedom of speech but added that the United States would not get involved. This was realistic and helped establish bilateral political trust.
On international anti-terrorism issues, Obama successfully obtained the Mainland authorities’ support. Beijing agreed to provide 10 million USD to help Afghanistan rebuild. It agreed to the establishment of a tripartite United States, Mainland China, Afghanistan dialogue mechanism. On bilateral issues, Beijing and Washington agreed to establish a military confidence building mechanism, to reduce the risk of accidents. They relaxed requirements on business visas. They made Sino-US "bilateral investment agreement" a priority issue. More importantly, Obama and Xi Jinping reached an agreement on climate and carbon reduction issues. The New York Times described this achievement as "extraordinary."
Consider the conduct of the governments of the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Each government has its difficulties. Those in power must assess their situation. They must attempt to break through. They must not squander any opportunities. Obama’s philosophy of peace, proceeds from the easy to the difficult, from differences to common ground. To reverse his decline in approval back home, Park Geun-hye changed course to restart her FTA strategy, and used APEC to highlight her desire to restore the glory of the Korean economy. Abe bit the bullet. He attempted to create an atmosphere in which Beijing and Tokyo could remove their armor and Japan’s domestic economy could bounce back.
As far as Taipei is concerned, we missed our flight. But we must try to catch the red eye. Elections are not everything. We face tough problems and difficult dilemmas. We must maintain long-term growth to ensure the nation’s survival. This is the goal toward which we must strive.
APEC亮點 台灣的盲點
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.15 02:23 am
比起十三年前的上海ＡＰＥＣ峰會中國大陸表現「和平崛起」之姿，這次的北京峰會，中國大陸展現的是要與美國平起平坐的「大國共治」企圖。在雁棲湖水波蕩漾、樹影婆娑的點綴下，明年ＡＰＥＣ主辦國菲律賓總統艾奎諾三世只能自嘆弗如，笑稱「小國」營造不出這種大排場。
這次ＡＰＥＣ會議，成為中國大陸展現大國夢的華麗舞台；在幕後，其他參與國家也都爭相奔走、斡旋，企圖在這個舞台上找到自己伸展身段的時光。所謂「外交是內政的延伸」，那些在國內遇到難題或困境的領導人，更是企圖藉此逆勢翻轉，藉外交運籌挽回或抵銷內政的不利情勢。
先看與中國敲定自貿協定而深受矚目的韓國。朴槿惠總統去年上台後提出了「幸福經濟學」政策，目的是為改變李明博政府簽署「韓美」及「韓歐」ＦＴＡ所引發的貧富差距加大；她除積極扶植中小企業，也放慢與他國簽署ＦＴＡ的進程，希望改變大財閥主導的經濟體制。但由於韓國經濟對大財閥倚賴甚深，「幸福經濟學」的效果並不顯著。
近兩年韓國出現了所謂的「三星病」，主要是在日圓大幅貶值、蘋果手機壓境下，再加上中國本土製造的手機等用品紛紛崛起，讓三星面臨了空前的困境。三星產值佔韓國ＧＤＰ從廿三％滑落到十八％，這對經濟造成嚴重衝擊。為了突破此一經濟困境，朴槿惠選擇「政治靠美國、經濟靠中國」的策略，選擇加速與大陸簽署ＦＴＡ，希望藉著搶攻中國內需市場，來突破韓國企業面臨的經營困境。朴槿惠這種「先交朋友、後做生意」的方式，確實很合乎中國大陸的口味。
再看日本的表現。這次，在中日兩國領導人的「習安會」上，習近平以冷漠的姿態接待安倍，嘴角不露一絲笑容，甚至不耐煩聽譯員翻譯，就別過臉去；在安倍心裡，大概只有難堪二字可言。然而，對日本而言，不管這場會面氣氛再怎麼冷淡，習近平與安倍兩人一握手，就算不代表兩國之間的一切齟齬煙消雲散，至少是一個「和解」的訊號，兩國的行政部門及工商業者都因此可以重新恢復正常交往，僵局就打開了。
安倍上台之後，透過軍事及經濟雙管齊下的方式，企圖恢復日本的大國榮光，卻也為釣魚台主權之爭與北京鬧得不可開交。安倍在軍事和外交上的強勢，造成日本企業在中國經營的困境，而安倍經濟學「三支箭」均已射出卻未收到預期效果，也讓他的支持度大幅跌落。這次安倍為了換取與習近平的一會，可謂煞費苦心，不斷派人疏通交涉，同意在釣魚台主權及參拜靖國神社爭議上表示退讓，直到最後一刻，才換得短短三十分鐘的「習安會」。如此「忍辱負重」，正是為了彌償先前的張狂，雖然難堪，安倍不得不為。
最後再看美國。歐巴馬總統方遭到期中選舉的慘敗，帶著跛腳的傷口來到北京，鼓勇與日正當中的習近平抗衡。歐巴馬的姿態卑亢有致，他說「美國需要中國大陸這個夥伴」，以博取中國的好感；在香港占中議題上，他表明支持言論自由卻澄清美國「未涉入」的立場，可謂實事求是，有助建立雙邊的政治信任。
在國際反恐議題上，歐巴馬成功獲得中國支持，北京不但同意提供一千萬美元來協助阿富汗重建，並同意成立美、中、阿三邊對話機制。在雙邊議題上，中美兩國建立軍事互信機制，以降低意外發生的風險，同時放寬商務簽證，並將中美「雙邊投資協議」列為優先議題。更重要的是，歐巴馬還與習近平在氣候及減碳議題上達成共識，這項成就，被紐約時報形容為「非比尋常」。
從美、日、韓三國的作為看，每個國家都有本難念的經，重要是主政者必須審時度勢，設法突破，不放過任何機會。歐巴馬抓住「以和為貴」的哲學，從易到難、異中求同，以扭轉他在國內受挫的頹勢。朴槿惠以「改弦易轍」重啟ＦＴＡ戰略，並利用ＡＰＥＣ展露她找回韓國經濟之榮光的企圖。安倍則「忍辱負重」，營造中日卸下甲冑的氛圍，冀讓國內經濟能觸底反彈。
對台灣而言，我們雖然沒搭上「早班車」，卻仍應努力趕上「晚集」。選舉不是一切，面對艱難、化解困境、保持國家的長期發展於不墜，才是我們要努力的目標。
Thursday, November 13, 2014
If the DPP Opposes ECFA, Why Not Invoke Article XVI?
If the DPP Opposes ECFA, Why Not Invoke Article XVI?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 14, 2014
Executive Summary: "Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously. The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!
Full Text Below:
"Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously.
The PRC-ROK FTA has been finalized. Our media describes it as "a nightmare come true." But listen to what some DPP spokespersons are saying. Some are saying that, "Certain industries on Taiwan will of course be adversely affected. But the degree of the impact, will to a considerable extent, depend on changes in objective conditions and the government's response." Some say, "The DPP is determined to sign all manner of FTAs. It is not putting all its eggs in one basket."
This rhetoric initially comes off as pretentious. But upon closer examination, it comes across as utterly incomprehensible. The DPP says the Ma administration is exaggerating the damage. It says Ma administration officials are competing with each other, seeing who can exaggerate the most in order to frighten the people. But one estimate issued by the Ma administration has remained consistent. If Taiwan fails to approve the STA and MTA, over the next three to five years it will suffer trade and economic losses ranging from 250 billion to 650 billion NTD. Once the damage has been done, Taiwan will find it difficult to recover. The DPP has conceded that "certain industries will be adversely affected." Yet it insists that "the extent of damage will be difficult to estimate." The DPP insists that "It is difficult to say whether there will be any real impact." Is the DPP saying that Perng Huai-nan and others in industry, government, and academia are deceiving the public and making much ado about nothing? If so, would the DPP please provide us with its own loss estimates? Would it please let us know what the impact will be to Taiwan's bottom line? Will it state plainly whether it thinks Taiwan ought to suffer such losses?
The DPP insists that “The (extent of the losses) will depend on changes in our objective circumstances and the government's response." Would the DPP be so kind as to share precisely what sort of "changes in our objective circumstances" will ameliorate such losses? The DPP refers to "the government's response." Does it mean that the government's response should be to abandon its advocacy of the STA and MTA? The DPP adopted a scorched earth policy when it obstructed passage of ECFA. Yet it yearns to take part in the TPP, RCEP, ant o sign FTAs with other governments. It insists that Taiwan should put its eggs in different baskets. Yet it obdurately refuses to put any of its eggs in the Mainland Chinese basket, which is the world's largest marketplace. Never mind that “distant water cannot fight a nearby fire.” The DPP's "Globalization without [Mainland] China” is unmitigated nonsense.
The DPP is deceiving the people. Politically it cannot bring itself to support the ECFA follow-up agreements. Pragmatically it lacks the courage to repudiate the ECFA follow-up agreements. The DPP opposes the STA and the MTA. It refuses to fight. It refuses to peace. It refuses to surrender. It refuses to walk. The only thing it can bring itself to do is procrastinate. The DPP insists on "strict review." If so, shouldn't the legislative process be open to review? The DPP demands "specifics." If so, would the DPP be so kind as to tell us what it wants, specifically? The reality is that for the DPP, "strict review" means "no review," and "specifics” means "nothing you specify will ever be specific enough." The DPP's bottom line is procrastination.
The PRC-ROK FTA is a fatal blow to Taiwan's economy and trade relations. The public must not allow the DPP to get away with its wishy-washy, tough on the outside, craven on the inside posturing. The DPP can demand "strict review." It can demand "specifics." But in the end it must defer to the democratic principle of majority rule and allow the majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duties. After all, this is a major event. Hundreds of billions in economic and trade interests are at stake. It affects Taiwan's economic future. If the DPP fights these measures in the Legislative Yuan and fails, it can openly declare that if it returns to power in 2016, it will abolish ECFA by invoking Article 16, the "Agreement Termination" provision. ECFA will then be abolished. The DPP can then implement its own policy proposals. Article XVI states that "If one party wishes to terminate an agreement it shall notify the other party in writing... If consultations fail to lead to an agreement, the party terminating the agreement shall give notice of termination 180 days before the date of termination."
Such a declaration would respect the Legislature's constitutional and democratic mechanisms. It would allow the DPP to honorably reveal its policy stance. The DPP persists in opposing the 1992 consensus and ECFA. If it returns to power it can nullify the ECFA agreements. So why not invoke Article XVI now? Why not allow the current majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duty to ECFA? If and when the DPP returns to power and terminates ECFA, that will be its responsibility. That is the essence of politics.
Actually, this is an escape clause the DPP has reserved for itself. If the DPP returns to power, and can bring itself to affirm the 1992 consensus accept ECFA “unconditionally,” it will honor the terms of the commitment it signed today. The DPP can then sit back and enjoy the show. The DPP can choose to uphold or to abolish ECFA. But it cannot indulge in its irrational “frightened to review, frightened to oppose, frightened to pass” act. If the DPP persists in making ECFA die a slow death, if it watches idly as Taiwan loses its economic lifeblood, the Democratic Progressive Party will become a traitor to Taiwan. Will the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen stop short of the precipice?
The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!
反ECFA 民進黨應宣示啟動第十六條
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.14 04:29 am
「不要做台灣的罪人！」這句話在過去不妨姑妄聽之，但如今民進黨與蔡英文皆必須認真面對這個警告。
中韓ＦＴＡ敲定，媒體謂為「噩夢成真」，且看民進黨發言人怎麼說。一種說法是：「台灣部分產業固然會受到不利影響，但影響程度大小及會否真的實現，在相當程度上，須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為。」另一種說法是：「民進黨堅持加入各種ＦＴＡ，不把雞蛋放在一個籃子裡。」
這樣的論調，乍看煞有介事，細讀不知所云。民進黨說，馬政府誇大損失，各種說法在比賽誇大，是在恐嚇人民。但馬政府發表的有一個估計數字卻始終如一，那就是：倘若台灣不能以兩岸服貿協議及貨貿協議因應，在未來三至五年內，經貿損失可自二千五百億至六千五百億；且此種損害一旦發生，即難以回復。其實，民進黨也畢竟承認「部分產業會受到不利影響」，但竟稱「影響程度大小難謂」，又稱「是否真有影響也難說」；這莫非是說，此刻包括彭淮南在內的產官學界之戒懼憂慮皆是自欺欺人、庸人自擾？那麼，就請民進黨公布一下該黨所估計的損失數字，並說清楚台灣可以擔當的損失底線何在，及民進黨是否主張台灣應當承當此種損失。
又謂：「（損失程度）須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為而定。」則民進黨何不說清楚，會有何種「客觀條件變化」得以消弭損失？至於又言「政府因應作為」，則是否意指政府應當以放棄兩岸服貿及貨貿協議的推進為「因應作為」？民進黨焦土杯葛兩岸ＥＣＦＡ，卻又主張要加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ，並廣泛議簽其他ＦＴＡ，亦即認為台灣應把雞蛋放在不同的籃子裡，唯獨不可將雞蛋放在中國大陸這個全球最大的市場中；莫說這豈止是遠水救不了近火，此種「沒有中國的全球化」，簡直是癡人說夢。
民進黨之誤國誤民，是在政治上不能支持ＥＣＦＡ後續協議，在現實上又不敢全盤否定ＥＣＦＡ後續協議。民進黨如今對服貿協議、貨貿協議的戰略，不啻是不戰、不和、不降、不走，只有一個「拖」字；若說要「嚴審」，那立法院就應開議審查；若謂要「配套」，民進黨就請說出高見！但是，「嚴審」卻成了「拒審」，「配套」卻成了「套住」，全部法寶只是一個拖字。
中韓ＦＴＡ對台灣經貿是一致命重擊，民眾不能聽任民進黨操作這種首鼠兩端、色厲內荏的拖刀計。民進黨可以進行「嚴審」，也可以主張「配套」，但最終仍應在民主政治「多數主治」的原則下，讓立院以多數決來履行其憲政職責，這畢竟是攸關數千億經貿利益乃至台灣未來經濟命脈的大事。民進黨如果在立法院力爭而表決失敗，則可公開宣示，民進黨若在二○一六年重返執政，將啟動ＥＣＦＡ協議第十六條的「終止協議」機制，將ＥＣＦＡ廢止，實現民進黨的政策主張。第十六條規定：「一方終止本協議應以書面通知另一方……如果協商未能達成一致，則本協議自通知一方發出終止通知之日起第一百八十日終止。」
這樣的宣示，既尊重立法院的憲政民主機制，又可光明磊落地標榜民進黨的政策主張。何況，民進黨堅持其「否定九二共識／否定ＥＣＦＡ」的立場，若未來重新執政，ＥＣＦＡ各項協議必陷癱瘓狀態，則何不直接啟動第十六條？因此，讓今日立法院的多數席位實現其支持ＥＣＦＡ的憲政職責，而民進黨則聲明保留其重返執政後終止ＥＣＦＡ的權力，這始是責任政治的真諦。
其實，這也是民進黨為自己預留餘地的作法。倘若民進黨重返執政，能夠回歸「九二共識」，並又想回頭對ＥＣＦＡ「概括承受」，則屆時亦可完全承接今日完成議簽的果實，民進黨即可坐享其成。因而，不論民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ操持或存或廢的戰略，均不可出以如今這種「不敢審／不敢反／不敢過」的無理行徑；倘若民進黨仍刻意將ＥＣＦＡ拖死，坐令台灣經濟大失血，民進黨必定成為台灣的罪人。民進黨及蔡英文豈能不懸崖勒馬？
總之，民進黨既能保留啟動ＥＣＦＡ第十六條終止條款的最後立場，即可向國人昭信其兩岸政策。那麼，此際民進黨即應「嚴審」「配套」ＥＣＦＡ後續法案，放台灣一條生路，饒了台灣吧！
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 14, 2014
Executive Summary: "Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously. The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!
Full Text Below:
"Do not betray Taiwan!" Now that is a phrase we have long listened to with a jaundiced ear. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen however, must now take this admonition seriously.
The PRC-ROK FTA has been finalized. Our media describes it as "a nightmare come true." But listen to what some DPP spokespersons are saying. Some are saying that, "Certain industries on Taiwan will of course be adversely affected. But the degree of the impact, will to a considerable extent, depend on changes in objective conditions and the government's response." Some say, "The DPP is determined to sign all manner of FTAs. It is not putting all its eggs in one basket."
This rhetoric initially comes off as pretentious. But upon closer examination, it comes across as utterly incomprehensible. The DPP says the Ma administration is exaggerating the damage. It says Ma administration officials are competing with each other, seeing who can exaggerate the most in order to frighten the people. But one estimate issued by the Ma administration has remained consistent. If Taiwan fails to approve the STA and MTA, over the next three to five years it will suffer trade and economic losses ranging from 250 billion to 650 billion NTD. Once the damage has been done, Taiwan will find it difficult to recover. The DPP has conceded that "certain industries will be adversely affected." Yet it insists that "the extent of damage will be difficult to estimate." The DPP insists that "It is difficult to say whether there will be any real impact." Is the DPP saying that Perng Huai-nan and others in industry, government, and academia are deceiving the public and making much ado about nothing? If so, would the DPP please provide us with its own loss estimates? Would it please let us know what the impact will be to Taiwan's bottom line? Will it state plainly whether it thinks Taiwan ought to suffer such losses?
The DPP insists that “The (extent of the losses) will depend on changes in our objective circumstances and the government's response." Would the DPP be so kind as to share precisely what sort of "changes in our objective circumstances" will ameliorate such losses? The DPP refers to "the government's response." Does it mean that the government's response should be to abandon its advocacy of the STA and MTA? The DPP adopted a scorched earth policy when it obstructed passage of ECFA. Yet it yearns to take part in the TPP, RCEP, ant o sign FTAs with other governments. It insists that Taiwan should put its eggs in different baskets. Yet it obdurately refuses to put any of its eggs in the Mainland Chinese basket, which is the world's largest marketplace. Never mind that “distant water cannot fight a nearby fire.” The DPP's "Globalization without [Mainland] China” is unmitigated nonsense.
The DPP is deceiving the people. Politically it cannot bring itself to support the ECFA follow-up agreements. Pragmatically it lacks the courage to repudiate the ECFA follow-up agreements. The DPP opposes the STA and the MTA. It refuses to fight. It refuses to peace. It refuses to surrender. It refuses to walk. The only thing it can bring itself to do is procrastinate. The DPP insists on "strict review." If so, shouldn't the legislative process be open to review? The DPP demands "specifics." If so, would the DPP be so kind as to tell us what it wants, specifically? The reality is that for the DPP, "strict review" means "no review," and "specifics” means "nothing you specify will ever be specific enough." The DPP's bottom line is procrastination.
The PRC-ROK FTA is a fatal blow to Taiwan's economy and trade relations. The public must not allow the DPP to get away with its wishy-washy, tough on the outside, craven on the inside posturing. The DPP can demand "strict review." It can demand "specifics." But in the end it must defer to the democratic principle of majority rule and allow the majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duties. After all, this is a major event. Hundreds of billions in economic and trade interests are at stake. It affects Taiwan's economic future. If the DPP fights these measures in the Legislative Yuan and fails, it can openly declare that if it returns to power in 2016, it will abolish ECFA by invoking Article 16, the "Agreement Termination" provision. ECFA will then be abolished. The DPP can then implement its own policy proposals. Article XVI states that "If one party wishes to terminate an agreement it shall notify the other party in writing... If consultations fail to lead to an agreement, the party terminating the agreement shall give notice of termination 180 days before the date of termination."
Such a declaration would respect the Legislature's constitutional and democratic mechanisms. It would allow the DPP to honorably reveal its policy stance. The DPP persists in opposing the 1992 consensus and ECFA. If it returns to power it can nullify the ECFA agreements. So why not invoke Article XVI now? Why not allow the current majority in the Legislative Yuan to fulfill its constitutional duty to ECFA? If and when the DPP returns to power and terminates ECFA, that will be its responsibility. That is the essence of politics.
Actually, this is an escape clause the DPP has reserved for itself. If the DPP returns to power, and can bring itself to affirm the 1992 consensus accept ECFA “unconditionally,” it will honor the terms of the commitment it signed today. The DPP can then sit back and enjoy the show. The DPP can choose to uphold or to abolish ECFA. But it cannot indulge in its irrational “frightened to review, frightened to oppose, frightened to pass” act. If the DPP persists in making ECFA die a slow death, if it watches idly as Taiwan loses its economic lifeblood, the Democratic Progressive Party will become a traitor to Taiwan. Will the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen stop short of the precipice?
The DPP is holding in reserve Article XVI, the ECFA termination clause. It can proclaim its cross-Strait policy before the people. It can then give "serious consideration to supporting" the ECFA follow-up bill. It can give Taiwan a way out. It can spare Taiwan. Please!
反ECFA 民進黨應宣示啟動第十六條
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.14 04:29 am
「不要做台灣的罪人！」這句話在過去不妨姑妄聽之，但如今民進黨與蔡英文皆必須認真面對這個警告。
中韓ＦＴＡ敲定，媒體謂為「噩夢成真」，且看民進黨發言人怎麼說。一種說法是：「台灣部分產業固然會受到不利影響，但影響程度大小及會否真的實現，在相當程度上，須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為。」另一種說法是：「民進黨堅持加入各種ＦＴＡ，不把雞蛋放在一個籃子裡。」
這樣的論調，乍看煞有介事，細讀不知所云。民進黨說，馬政府誇大損失，各種說法在比賽誇大，是在恐嚇人民。但馬政府發表的有一個估計數字卻始終如一，那就是：倘若台灣不能以兩岸服貿協議及貨貿協議因應，在未來三至五年內，經貿損失可自二千五百億至六千五百億；且此種損害一旦發生，即難以回復。其實，民進黨也畢竟承認「部分產業會受到不利影響」，但竟稱「影響程度大小難謂」，又稱「是否真有影響也難說」；這莫非是說，此刻包括彭淮南在內的產官學界之戒懼憂慮皆是自欺欺人、庸人自擾？那麼，就請民進黨公布一下該黨所估計的損失數字，並說清楚台灣可以擔當的損失底線何在，及民進黨是否主張台灣應當承當此種損失。
又謂：「（損失程度）須視各種客觀條件變化及政府因應作為而定。」則民進黨何不說清楚，會有何種「客觀條件變化」得以消弭損失？至於又言「政府因應作為」，則是否意指政府應當以放棄兩岸服貿及貨貿協議的推進為「因應作為」？民進黨焦土杯葛兩岸ＥＣＦＡ，卻又主張要加入ＴＰＰ、ＲＣＥＰ，並廣泛議簽其他ＦＴＡ，亦即認為台灣應把雞蛋放在不同的籃子裡，唯獨不可將雞蛋放在中國大陸這個全球最大的市場中；莫說這豈止是遠水救不了近火，此種「沒有中國的全球化」，簡直是癡人說夢。
民進黨之誤國誤民，是在政治上不能支持ＥＣＦＡ後續協議，在現實上又不敢全盤否定ＥＣＦＡ後續協議。民進黨如今對服貿協議、貨貿協議的戰略，不啻是不戰、不和、不降、不走，只有一個「拖」字；若說要「嚴審」，那立法院就應開議審查；若謂要「配套」，民進黨就請說出高見！但是，「嚴審」卻成了「拒審」，「配套」卻成了「套住」，全部法寶只是一個拖字。
中韓ＦＴＡ對台灣經貿是一致命重擊，民眾不能聽任民進黨操作這種首鼠兩端、色厲內荏的拖刀計。民進黨可以進行「嚴審」，也可以主張「配套」，但最終仍應在民主政治「多數主治」的原則下，讓立院以多數決來履行其憲政職責，這畢竟是攸關數千億經貿利益乃至台灣未來經濟命脈的大事。民進黨如果在立法院力爭而表決失敗，則可公開宣示，民進黨若在二○一六年重返執政，將啟動ＥＣＦＡ協議第十六條的「終止協議」機制，將ＥＣＦＡ廢止，實現民進黨的政策主張。第十六條規定：「一方終止本協議應以書面通知另一方……如果協商未能達成一致，則本協議自通知一方發出終止通知之日起第一百八十日終止。」
這樣的宣示，既尊重立法院的憲政民主機制，又可光明磊落地標榜民進黨的政策主張。何況，民進黨堅持其「否定九二共識／否定ＥＣＦＡ」的立場，若未來重新執政，ＥＣＦＡ各項協議必陷癱瘓狀態，則何不直接啟動第十六條？因此，讓今日立法院的多數席位實現其支持ＥＣＦＡ的憲政職責，而民進黨則聲明保留其重返執政後終止ＥＣＦＡ的權力，這始是責任政治的真諦。
其實，這也是民進黨為自己預留餘地的作法。倘若民進黨重返執政，能夠回歸「九二共識」，並又想回頭對ＥＣＦＡ「概括承受」，則屆時亦可完全承接今日完成議簽的果實，民進黨即可坐享其成。因而，不論民進黨對ＥＣＦＡ操持或存或廢的戰略，均不可出以如今這種「不敢審／不敢反／不敢過」的無理行徑；倘若民進黨仍刻意將ＥＣＦＡ拖死，坐令台灣經濟大失血，民進黨必定成為台灣的罪人。民進黨及蔡英文豈能不懸崖勒馬？
總之，民進黨既能保留啟動ＥＣＦＡ第十六條終止條款的最後立場，即可向國人昭信其兩岸政策。那麼，此際民進黨即應「嚴審」「配套」ＥＣＦＡ後續法案，放台灣一條生路，饒了台灣吧！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)