Admit Mistakes of 2014, Create Opportunities for 2015
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 31, 2014
Executive Summary: Tonight we bid farewell to 2014, and welcome 2015. We reminisce over the
shocks and controversies of the past year. We look ahead to the
unprecedented challenges facing us in 2015. Taiwan must either clear the
air or fall into decline. Can we rebuild a consensus about the
direction of the nation and move ahead? That is the question.
Full Text Below:
Tonight we bid farewell to 2014, and welcome 2015. We reminisce over the shocks and controversies of the past year. We look ahead to the unprecedented challenges facing us in 2015. Taiwan must either clear the air or fall into decline. Can we rebuild a consensus about the direction of the nation and move ahead? That is the question.
For the ruling Ma government and the KMT, 2014 was prolonged torture. President Ma Ying-jeou regarded the STA as a shining achievement. Yet the public viewed it with suspicion. The Sunflower Student Movement occupied the Legislature for over a month. The STA and Cross-Strait Oversight Regulations remained stalled in the legislature. They probably will not move ahead before the next presidential election.
Last year was marked by the “black-hearted merchants” adulterated oil scandals. This year was marked by still more food safety scandals, including the rancid oil scandal and feed oil scandal. The public was alarmed. Housewives did not know what they should buy. Stores lost business. Society was in turmoil. The government's ineptitude became common knowledge. The rush to implement 12 year compulsory education also sparked intense controversy.
The heaviest blow last year was the nine in one county and municipal elections in late November. The KMT suffered an unprecedented defeat, the worst in history. The KMT political realm shrank from four cities and 11 counties before the election, to two cities and nine counties after the election. The DPP on the other hand, grew from two cities and four counties to four cities and nine counties. To cap it all off, pro-green Wen-Je Ko was elected Mayor of Taipei.
The defeat has left the KMT in its death throes. It now lacks the political endorsement and public support necessary to promote major reform. The president is a lame duck. Any attempts to improve cross-Strait relations will face greater obstacles than in the past. In fact, the defeat of the Kuomintang is more directly linked to the long-term economic downturn, widening wealth gap, and rising housing prices. But his slump in popularity may have a very negative impact on cross-Strait relations.
The world was not at peace during 2014. The biggest disturbance occurred in Ukraine. Pro-European and pro-Russian factions clashed over the future of the nation. Russia supported Eastern Ukrainian rebels and was accused of annexing Crimea by the US and Europe, who then imposed sanctions. The deterioration of relations between the two sides, has even been described as a "new Cold War."
The United States sought to suppress Russia. But on the global field of battle, a new trend appeared. The US finally withdrew its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. America's troops were exhausted. America's citizens were powerless. America's economy was stalled. The public opposed another war, whether a civil war in the Ukraine, or a war with the emerging Islamic State terrorist organization. The US was willing only to take indirect measures, such as imposing sanctions, conducting air strikes, or providing military aid.
By contrast, the Chinese mainland's rapidly expanding political and economic strength enabled it to play an increasingly important role in the international arena. It could patrol the waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands. It could increase the area it laid claim to in the South China Sea. It could even promote a "one zone, one road" maritime and overland New Silk Road Development Plan. It could actively promote cooperation with the countries in the region, based on a comprehensive set of policies and strategies for the nation. Step by step, it expanded its power and affirmed its territorial sovereignty.
America's decline, coupled with the rise of mainland China
and increasing tensions between Russia and the West, impacted both global and East Asian geopolitics. They also foreshadow the new order. The global situation is changing. Taiwan cannot continue playing the role of the United States' “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in East Asia, in the deluded belief that this will enable Taiwan to protect itself. We must take into account the domestic political environment, geopolitical environment, and be willing to see the two sides of the Strait as part of one family. We must make dynamic adjustment to national strategy. Only then can we respond wisely to the rivalry between the US and the Mainland, and ensure that Taiwan benefits.
Clearly Mainland China will be an important locomotive for global economic growth. Economic development is the lifeblood of Taiwan. International competition is fierce. We cannot afford to bind ourselves hand and foot.
In fact, when it comes to cross-Strait economics, Taiwan's role has shrunk while those of others have expanded. Taiwan went from being first among the Asian Tigers to last by a large margin. Worse, growth momentum and market size cannot compare with the Chinese mainland. But we must not be discouraged. We must not close ourselves off, refuse to confront the competition, and oppose open communications. Doing so would only accelerate our decline. By looking to the Mainland, Taiwan can create new growth momentum. If we waste precious opportunities for national growth, that would be the greatest betrayal of ourselves as well as the next generation.
In 2015 Taiwan must make the right choice about cross-Strait relations
The situation may be dangerous, but we must not sell ourselves short. Taiwan has been poor before. It endured prolonged diplomatic ostracism. Yet it created a "Taiwan Miracle" and underwent a "quiet revolution." Taiwan style democracy may have defects. But we believe in time they can be remedied. We lack international political status. But we continue to tirelessly promote democracy. We continue to promote a free, open, and vibrant multi-cultural society. The human being is Taiwan's most valuable yet intangible asset.
The Mainland has implemented a different system. It will need to undergo long-term liberalization. Taiwan has the same language and culture as the Mainland. It can hold up a valuable mirror to the Mainland. Under a "two sides belong to one family" relationship, it can become an opposition party to the CCP. As long as Taiwan retains its sense of self-worth, it can contribute to the liberalization of the Mainland. The result will be beneficial not only to Taiwan's survival and development, it will also enhance the well-being of Chinese people on both sides of the Strait.
The year 2014 was indeed a tempest tossed year. But having experienced defeat, we must muster our wisdom and courage. We must recognize our own value amidst the wind and the rain. We must make the right choices, and create new opportunities for ourselves.
社論－承認2014的挫敗 創造2015的機會
2014年12月31日 04:10
本報訊
今晚就要送別2014，迎接2015年了。回顧過去這一年，實可謂危疑震撼、風波不斷，展望2015，面臨的是前所未有的考驗，台灣要擺脫陰霾，還是陷入衰微，端視我們能否重建國家方向的共識，然後團結向前。
2014對執政的馬政府與國民黨而言，毋寧是一場慘烈而痛苦的漫長折磨。原本被馬英九總統視為政績的服貿協議，居然引發強大民意疑慮，太陽花學運占據立法院月餘，以致於服貿及兩岸協議監督條例至今都卡在立法院動彈不得，可能到下次總統大選前都不會有進展。
接著，繼去年爆發黑心混合油事件後，今年更接連爆發了餿水油及飼料油的重大食安事件，民眾下箸不安，主婦採買茫然，店家損失慘重，社會怨聲載道，政府管理不彰自然成為眾矢之的。此外，倉促上路的12年國教，也引發了社會強烈爭議。
今年的最後一記重擊，則是11月底的九合一縣市長選舉，國民黨遭到自治史以來前所未有的慘敗，政治版圖從選前的4都11縣市萎縮到1都5縣，民進黨則由選前的2都4縣擴張為4都9縣市，外加台北市由親綠的柯文哲當選市長。
經此一敗，國民黨可謂奄奄一息，已缺乏足夠的政治背書與民意支持推動重大改革；而馬總統也陷入跛腳狀態，想要推動兩岸關係，將遭遇比過去更大的阻礙。國民黨敗選其實與經濟長期低迷、貧富差距擴大、房物價高漲有更直接的關連，但人氣暴跌卻很可能會對兩岸關係的推動造成負面影響。
環顧全球，2014年實在也不平靜。最大的一場風暴發生在烏克蘭，由於親歐親俄兩派爆發國家路線之爭，俄羅斯併吞克里米亞及支持烏東反叛，引發歐美制裁，雙方關係之惡化，甚至被形容為「新冷戰」。
美國雖力圖壓制俄羅斯，但在全球權力場域，卻出現明顯的消長現象。好不容易從伊拉克與阿富汗撤軍的美國，早已兵疲民困，在經濟不振、民意反感下，並不願意再捲入另一場戰爭，因此無論是對烏克蘭內戰，還是新興恐怖組織「伊斯蘭國」的肆虐，美國都只願採取制裁、空襲或軍援等間接手段。
相對的，中國大陸挾迅速擴張的政經實力，進一步在國際舞台取得更重要的角色。無論是在釣魚台周邊巡航的動作，抑或是在南海填海造地擴大島嶼面積，乃至於提出「一帶一路」海陸兩道新絲路發展計畫，積極推動與相關國家的合作關係，都是依據一套完整的國家政策與策略，按部就班地擴張勢力版圖並強化海洋主權地位。
美國的衰落，加上中國的崛起，以及俄羅斯與西方關係的尖銳化，在在衝擊著既有的全球及東亞地緣政治，也隱隱然為將來的新秩序埋下伏筆。而對於未來世局可能的變化，台灣不能幻想繼續扮演美國東亞不沉航母的角色自保，要兼顧國內政治生態、地緣政治客觀環境及兩岸一家親願念的實現，動態調整國家戰略，在美中兩強間作出巧因應，才能求取最大的國家利益。
很明顯的，未來全球經濟成長，中國大陸將是重要的火車頭，而經濟發展是台灣的生存命脈，在激烈的國際競爭中，我們沒有自我捆綁坐失生機的本錢。
事實上，這些年來，兩岸在經濟上我消彼長。台灣從過去的亞洲四小龍之首，到如今不但落後一大截，成長動能與市場規模更遠不及中國大陸。不過，我們不能灰心喪志，甚至畏縮自閉，拒絕面對競爭、反對開放交流，只會加速衰退。迎向大陸，台灣就能創造新的成長動能，如果我們虛耗了國家發展的寶貴生機，才是對我們自己、以及下一代最大的背叛。
2015年台灣在兩岸關係上必須做出正確的選擇。
局勢雖險惡，但不必妄自菲薄。台灣曾經貧窮，長期處於外交劣勢，卻打造了「台灣奇蹟」與「寧靜革命」，台式民主雖存在缺失，深信假以時日必可改善。我們在國際政治地位上有所不足，但持續不輟推動民主，建立自由開放的社會與蓬勃多元的文化，「人」已是台灣龐大豐富的無形資產。
大陸實行不同的制度，未來需要長期的開放過程，同文同種的台灣正是大陸所需要借鏡，在「兩岸一家親」的關係下，甚至可以是中共的反對黨。只要台灣能不斷淬煉自我價值，台灣就可以逐漸促成大陸的開放，其結果不僅有利於台灣生存發展，更將為兩岸全體中國人帶來更大的福祉。
2014確實是風雨不斷的一年，但歷經挫敗後，若能發揮智慧與勇氣，在風雨危疑中，認清自己的價值，做出正確的選擇，我們可以為自己開創全新的機會。
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Monday, December 29, 2014
Ballot Flashing: An Angel's Cry for Help, or the Devil's Trill?
Ballot Flashing: An Angel's Cry for Help, or the Devil's Trill?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2014
Executive Summary: We would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.
Full Text Below:
The DPP election victory in the nine in one elections was too great a surprise. The DPP soon snatched defeat from the jaws of victory during the county council and city council speaker elections. Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly issued orders requiring ballot flashing. Yet party members defected nonetheless. She blasted them, saying "Selling your votes is a blot on democracy." The DPP responded by demanding the expulsion of party members who defected. Tsai Ing-wen also harangued Eric Chu, demanding that he co-sponsor an amendment making local speaker and deputy speaker elections “open ballot” systems “just like the Legislative Yuan elections.”
Tsai Ing-wen's diatribe betrayed her confusion and panic. Legislative Yuan elections have always used “secret ballots” rather than "open ballots". Tsai Ing-wen demanded reform, then unwitting demanded the opposite of what she said she wanted. So just exactly what reform did she want? Blue camp legislators fired back. They said she served as a legislator yet was ignorant of these simple facts. Her term as a legislator was clearly a farce.
Several issues must be clarified. One. Vote buying is a fact of life in local county and city council elections. It undermines local democracy and good government. But is "ballot flashing" really the solution? Two. The DPP has long opposed KMT ballot flashing during elections. But when their own ox is being gored, they do not hesitate to invoke party disciplinary measures to ensure that DPP members flash their ballots. Are they not contradicting themselves? Three. The DPP says it wants speaker elections to use "secret ballots." But why stop there? Why change only the local council elections? Why not change the Legislative Yuan elections as well? Should this be applied to Examination Yuan and Control Yuan monitoring authority as well? Four. When confronted with the "will of the party," do party members really have no right to exercise independent judgement?
The DPP has long opposed ballot flashing. Yet It now vehemently and uncharacteristically demands ballot flashing. It even demands that party members sign "ballot flashing pledges!" No matter what the rationale, the DPP is going to find it hard to justify its flip-flop. True. Local council elections have the taint of vote buying, which undermines the DPP's dream of “total governance” in many counties and municipalities. But resorting to illegal ballot flashing to rein in their own party members merely proves green camp talk of party discipline is empty rhetoric. When the DPP opposed ballot flashing it denounced it as “selling one's soul to the devil.” Now that the DPP supports ballot flashing, it lauds ballot flashing as an "angel of mercy" in its fight against “black gold.” In fact, ballot flashing is neither an "angel's cry for help" or the "Devil's Trill". It is merely the sound of the DPP flapping its lips.
For the DPP, ballot flashing went from being "intolerable" to being the DPP's "party ethic". Why? Because the motivation for ballot flashing changed. In the past, technical ballot flashing was proof that “See, I voted the way you bribed me to” or “See, I voted the party line, as ordered.” The DPP's demand for ballot flashing is a way to force party members to toe the party line, to make them prove that "See, I voted as the party ordered me to.” Take this a step further. Weigh the rule of law against the will of the party. The bottom line is the party must amend the law. It cannot blindly praise "ballot flashing" as necessary. After all, defecting during a vote is merely a violation of party discipline. But ballot flashing is a violation of the law.
Ballot flashing and vote buying are intertwined. In fact, there is no simple solution. Any solution must be three-pronged. Consider the legislative aspect. One can amend the law to require "secret ballots". One can maintain the status quo, but add penalties to punish ballot flashing. Consider the judicial aspect. Prosecutors must heed the unified opinion of the Supreme Court or ask the Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation. There cannot be different standards for different parties. Consider the political aspect. The ruling and opposition parties must maintain consistent discipline. They must not flip-flop based on perceived short-term advantage.
First of all, changing the "Local System Act" for speaker and deputy speaker elections to enble "open ballots" is a drastic move. Council protocol for personnel elections usually adopt " secret ballots" for good reasons. It is true that open ballots help ensure political responsibility. But they are not a panacea. They cannot prevent intervention by monied interests and criminal elements. They cannot compensate for half-hearted party discipline or a criminal justice system that is all thunder but no rain. These will all allow the drama to repeat itself. This amounts to de facto legalization of ballot flashing. It merely affords monied interests and criminal elements stronger assurances. Lest we forget, the constitution specifies secret ballots for the Legislative Yuan elections. The purpose was to ensure legislators' freedom of conscience. This transcends any “will of the party.”
Secondly, amending the Criminal Law to provide punishments for ballot flashing is more in line with the constitution and the laws and regulations pertaining to "secret ballots". If a party has trouble convincing its members to support its nominees, why must party members fall in line? Of course, if the criminal penalties for ballot flashing are too light, council members will simply ignore it, Sophisticated ballot flashing techniques make the law a dead letter, especially in the absence of independent judicial opinions. All this gets lost amidst ruling vs. opposition party squabbling. The parties merely want to have it both ways, or deliberately pull their punches. Repeated flip-flopping undermines any semblance of justice and turns the law into mere window dressing.
Lastly, we would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.
亮票：天使的呼救，或魔鬼的顫音？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.30 02:13 am
民進黨在九合一選舉勝得大出意料，卻旋即在縣市議長爭奪戰敗得張皇失措。蔡英文三令五申要求亮票，黨籍議員還是相繼跑票，她只能痛批「出賣選票，是民主之恥」。為此，民進黨除要求對跑票議員祭出「開除黨籍」之重懲，蔡英文也向朱立倫喊話，要求共同推動修法，將地方正副議長選舉「比照立法院長選舉」改為「記名投票」。
這段喊話，卻暴露了蔡英文的認知錯誤與急功近利。原因是，立法院長選舉一直是採取「不記名」的祕密投票，而非「記名投票」；蔡英文要求改革，卻提出了相反的範本，那麼她心裡想的是什麼改革？藍軍立委因此反脣相譏，說她當過立委卻不知其詳，根本是當假的。
於是，也就產生了幾個必須釐清的問題：一，地方議會選舉的賄選是事實，也傷害了地方民主和廉政，但「亮票」是不是正當的解決之道？二，民進黨長期在許多投票中反對國民黨亮票，到了自己利益攸關時刻卻動用黨紀要求黨員亮票，這沒有自相矛盾嗎？三，如果認為議長選舉應改為「記名投票」，那可以只改地方議會，卻不管立法院嗎？考試及監察院長的同意權行使是否也要比照辦理？四，在「黨意」面前，黨員果真沒有任何自由意志可言嗎？
民進黨從過去長期反對亮票，到如今一反常態強力要求亮票，甚至要求黨員簽下「亮票承諾書」，無論如何振振有詞，都很難自圓其說。不可否認，地方議會賄聲賄影，確實破壞了民進黨在許多縣市「完全執政」的大夢；但是，要用違法亮票的手段來約束黨籍議員的行為，只證明綠營談什麼黨紀威嚴、政治風格都是假的。在反對亮票時，把亮票說成是出賣靈魂的「魔鬼交易」；在要求亮票時，又把亮票形容為反制黑金的「天使救贖」。事實上，在「天使的呼救」與「魔鬼的顫音」之間，恐怕只有一片民進黨的如簧之舌在左右震動。
亮票之所以從「不可容忍」，到今天變成民進黨口中的「黨德」，主要原因在亮票的動機發生了變化。過去許多時候，技術性亮票是為了做給賄選或政治結盟的一方看，示意說「看，我投了你一票」；但在民進黨的規範下，亮票則是要做給同志看，說明自己「我遵照黨的指示投票」。然而，若要進一步辯證法制及黨意的高下，根本之道，恐怕還是得動手修法，而不能在那裡一味歌頌「亮票」之必要。畢竟，跑票只是違反黨紀，而亮票卻是觸法行為。
亮票及買票的糾纏，其實沒有簡單的解決之道，必須三管齊下。在立法部分，或者要修法改為「記名投票」，或者維持現狀但增訂罰則懲罰亮票行為；在司法部分，檢方非常上訴由最高法院統一見解，或者聲請大法官會議釋憲，不能標準不一各判各的；在政治部分，朝野維護黨紀要有一貫的價值，不可忽高忽低，只問如何有利於己。
首先，將《地方制度法》中有關正副議長選舉改成「記名投票」，不失為釜底抽薪的解決辦法；但必須提醒的是，議事學原理對「人事表決」通常採取「祕密投票」，並非無故。原因是，記名投票可以明政治責任，卻非解決金錢與暴力介入的萬靈丹，有心無力的黨紀，雷大雨小的司法，都會讓跑票與買票的戲碼不斷重演；形同「亮票合法化」的記名投票，更會是金錢與暴力遂行的保證。更別忘了，憲法規定立法院長選舉採「無記名投票」，是為了保障立委的自由意志，使其超乎黨意。
其次，修改刑法和地制法明訂處罰亮票行為，其實較符合憲法及相關法律規定「無記名投票」的原旨。試問，若黨提名的人選難以服人，黨員非要屈從嗎？當然，若法律對亮票的懲罰刑度不大，議員不以為意，精進的亮票技術很容易讓法律形同具文。尤其，司法部門若缺乏自主見解，卻迷失在朝野的政治口號之中，只想左右逢源或刻意放水，自我反覆的結果將無法彰顯任何正義或價值，只是讓法律成為裝飾。
最後，提醒朝野政黨要在政治過程中建立普遍、而有意義的價值，不能只憑自己的利益計算在那裡翻雲覆雨。若為了貪圖一點私利，便不惜與魔鬼共舞；而在需要正義時，卻又把自己說成天使，其誰能信？要解決亮票爭議，藍綠得拋開各自的算計，這是朝野必須共同承擔的責任。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2014
Executive Summary: We would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.
Full Text Below:
The DPP election victory in the nine in one elections was too great a surprise. The DPP soon snatched defeat from the jaws of victory during the county council and city council speaker elections. Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly issued orders requiring ballot flashing. Yet party members defected nonetheless. She blasted them, saying "Selling your votes is a blot on democracy." The DPP responded by demanding the expulsion of party members who defected. Tsai Ing-wen also harangued Eric Chu, demanding that he co-sponsor an amendment making local speaker and deputy speaker elections “open ballot” systems “just like the Legislative Yuan elections.”
Tsai Ing-wen's diatribe betrayed her confusion and panic. Legislative Yuan elections have always used “secret ballots” rather than "open ballots". Tsai Ing-wen demanded reform, then unwitting demanded the opposite of what she said she wanted. So just exactly what reform did she want? Blue camp legislators fired back. They said she served as a legislator yet was ignorant of these simple facts. Her term as a legislator was clearly a farce.
Several issues must be clarified. One. Vote buying is a fact of life in local county and city council elections. It undermines local democracy and good government. But is "ballot flashing" really the solution? Two. The DPP has long opposed KMT ballot flashing during elections. But when their own ox is being gored, they do not hesitate to invoke party disciplinary measures to ensure that DPP members flash their ballots. Are they not contradicting themselves? Three. The DPP says it wants speaker elections to use "secret ballots." But why stop there? Why change only the local council elections? Why not change the Legislative Yuan elections as well? Should this be applied to Examination Yuan and Control Yuan monitoring authority as well? Four. When confronted with the "will of the party," do party members really have no right to exercise independent judgement?
The DPP has long opposed ballot flashing. Yet It now vehemently and uncharacteristically demands ballot flashing. It even demands that party members sign "ballot flashing pledges!" No matter what the rationale, the DPP is going to find it hard to justify its flip-flop. True. Local council elections have the taint of vote buying, which undermines the DPP's dream of “total governance” in many counties and municipalities. But resorting to illegal ballot flashing to rein in their own party members merely proves green camp talk of party discipline is empty rhetoric. When the DPP opposed ballot flashing it denounced it as “selling one's soul to the devil.” Now that the DPP supports ballot flashing, it lauds ballot flashing as an "angel of mercy" in its fight against “black gold.” In fact, ballot flashing is neither an "angel's cry for help" or the "Devil's Trill". It is merely the sound of the DPP flapping its lips.
For the DPP, ballot flashing went from being "intolerable" to being the DPP's "party ethic". Why? Because the motivation for ballot flashing changed. In the past, technical ballot flashing was proof that “See, I voted the way you bribed me to” or “See, I voted the party line, as ordered.” The DPP's demand for ballot flashing is a way to force party members to toe the party line, to make them prove that "See, I voted as the party ordered me to.” Take this a step further. Weigh the rule of law against the will of the party. The bottom line is the party must amend the law. It cannot blindly praise "ballot flashing" as necessary. After all, defecting during a vote is merely a violation of party discipline. But ballot flashing is a violation of the law.
Ballot flashing and vote buying are intertwined. In fact, there is no simple solution. Any solution must be three-pronged. Consider the legislative aspect. One can amend the law to require "secret ballots". One can maintain the status quo, but add penalties to punish ballot flashing. Consider the judicial aspect. Prosecutors must heed the unified opinion of the Supreme Court or ask the Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation. There cannot be different standards for different parties. Consider the political aspect. The ruling and opposition parties must maintain consistent discipline. They must not flip-flop based on perceived short-term advantage.
First of all, changing the "Local System Act" for speaker and deputy speaker elections to enble "open ballots" is a drastic move. Council protocol for personnel elections usually adopt " secret ballots" for good reasons. It is true that open ballots help ensure political responsibility. But they are not a panacea. They cannot prevent intervention by monied interests and criminal elements. They cannot compensate for half-hearted party discipline or a criminal justice system that is all thunder but no rain. These will all allow the drama to repeat itself. This amounts to de facto legalization of ballot flashing. It merely affords monied interests and criminal elements stronger assurances. Lest we forget, the constitution specifies secret ballots for the Legislative Yuan elections. The purpose was to ensure legislators' freedom of conscience. This transcends any “will of the party.”
Secondly, amending the Criminal Law to provide punishments for ballot flashing is more in line with the constitution and the laws and regulations pertaining to "secret ballots". If a party has trouble convincing its members to support its nominees, why must party members fall in line? Of course, if the criminal penalties for ballot flashing are too light, council members will simply ignore it, Sophisticated ballot flashing techniques make the law a dead letter, especially in the absence of independent judicial opinions. All this gets lost amidst ruling vs. opposition party squabbling. The parties merely want to have it both ways, or deliberately pull their punches. Repeated flip-flopping undermines any semblance of justice and turns the law into mere window dressing.
Lastly, we would like to offer a reminder to the ruling and opposition parties. To be meaningful the political process must be universal in its nature. They cannot cater only to their own partisan interests. They cannot blow hot or cold based on short-sighted political calculations. They cannot dance with the devil out of self-interest. They cannot portray themselves as angels only when they are the ones seeking justice. Who will believe them? To solve the ballot flashing dispute the blue and green camps must set aside their political calculations, and share responsibility for the nation's governance.
亮票：天使的呼救，或魔鬼的顫音？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.30 02:13 am
民進黨在九合一選舉勝得大出意料，卻旋即在縣市議長爭奪戰敗得張皇失措。蔡英文三令五申要求亮票，黨籍議員還是相繼跑票，她只能痛批「出賣選票，是民主之恥」。為此，民進黨除要求對跑票議員祭出「開除黨籍」之重懲，蔡英文也向朱立倫喊話，要求共同推動修法，將地方正副議長選舉「比照立法院長選舉」改為「記名投票」。
這段喊話，卻暴露了蔡英文的認知錯誤與急功近利。原因是，立法院長選舉一直是採取「不記名」的祕密投票，而非「記名投票」；蔡英文要求改革，卻提出了相反的範本，那麼她心裡想的是什麼改革？藍軍立委因此反脣相譏，說她當過立委卻不知其詳，根本是當假的。
於是，也就產生了幾個必須釐清的問題：一，地方議會選舉的賄選是事實，也傷害了地方民主和廉政，但「亮票」是不是正當的解決之道？二，民進黨長期在許多投票中反對國民黨亮票，到了自己利益攸關時刻卻動用黨紀要求黨員亮票，這沒有自相矛盾嗎？三，如果認為議長選舉應改為「記名投票」，那可以只改地方議會，卻不管立法院嗎？考試及監察院長的同意權行使是否也要比照辦理？四，在「黨意」面前，黨員果真沒有任何自由意志可言嗎？
民進黨從過去長期反對亮票，到如今一反常態強力要求亮票，甚至要求黨員簽下「亮票承諾書」，無論如何振振有詞，都很難自圓其說。不可否認，地方議會賄聲賄影，確實破壞了民進黨在許多縣市「完全執政」的大夢；但是，要用違法亮票的手段來約束黨籍議員的行為，只證明綠營談什麼黨紀威嚴、政治風格都是假的。在反對亮票時，把亮票說成是出賣靈魂的「魔鬼交易」；在要求亮票時，又把亮票形容為反制黑金的「天使救贖」。事實上，在「天使的呼救」與「魔鬼的顫音」之間，恐怕只有一片民進黨的如簧之舌在左右震動。
亮票之所以從「不可容忍」，到今天變成民進黨口中的「黨德」，主要原因在亮票的動機發生了變化。過去許多時候，技術性亮票是為了做給賄選或政治結盟的一方看，示意說「看，我投了你一票」；但在民進黨的規範下，亮票則是要做給同志看，說明自己「我遵照黨的指示投票」。然而，若要進一步辯證法制及黨意的高下，根本之道，恐怕還是得動手修法，而不能在那裡一味歌頌「亮票」之必要。畢竟，跑票只是違反黨紀，而亮票卻是觸法行為。
亮票及買票的糾纏，其實沒有簡單的解決之道，必須三管齊下。在立法部分，或者要修法改為「記名投票」，或者維持現狀但增訂罰則懲罰亮票行為；在司法部分，檢方非常上訴由最高法院統一見解，或者聲請大法官會議釋憲，不能標準不一各判各的；在政治部分，朝野維護黨紀要有一貫的價值，不可忽高忽低，只問如何有利於己。
首先，將《地方制度法》中有關正副議長選舉改成「記名投票」，不失為釜底抽薪的解決辦法；但必須提醒的是，議事學原理對「人事表決」通常採取「祕密投票」，並非無故。原因是，記名投票可以明政治責任，卻非解決金錢與暴力介入的萬靈丹，有心無力的黨紀，雷大雨小的司法，都會讓跑票與買票的戲碼不斷重演；形同「亮票合法化」的記名投票，更會是金錢與暴力遂行的保證。更別忘了，憲法規定立法院長選舉採「無記名投票」，是為了保障立委的自由意志，使其超乎黨意。
其次，修改刑法和地制法明訂處罰亮票行為，其實較符合憲法及相關法律規定「無記名投票」的原旨。試問，若黨提名的人選難以服人，黨員非要屈從嗎？當然，若法律對亮票的懲罰刑度不大，議員不以為意，精進的亮票技術很容易讓法律形同具文。尤其，司法部門若缺乏自主見解，卻迷失在朝野的政治口號之中，只想左右逢源或刻意放水，自我反覆的結果將無法彰顯任何正義或價值，只是讓法律成為裝飾。
最後，提醒朝野政黨要在政治過程中建立普遍、而有意義的價值，不能只憑自己的利益計算在那裡翻雲覆雨。若為了貪圖一點私利，便不惜與魔鬼共舞；而在需要正義時，卻又把自己說成天使，其誰能信？要解決亮票爭議，藍綠得拋開各自的算計，這是朝野必須共同承擔的責任。
Sunday, December 28, 2014
US-Cuban Warming Foretells Cross-Strait Reconciliation
US-Cuban Warming Foretells Cross-Strait Reconciliation
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 29, 2014
Executive Summary: US policy towards Cuba has been frozen for half a century. The US has finally realized this was a blind alley. What it gained was far outweighed by what it lost -- the opportunity for reconciliation. By the same token, blind hostility and confrontation between the two sides of the Strait, will neither resolve differences nor facilitate communications. America and Cuba have put the past behind them. They can now work together to seek a mutually beneficial future. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be able to do the same. They should be able to exercise wisdom, see the Big Picture, and create new opportunities for peace and prosperity.
Full Text Below:
Following his mid-term election defeat, many assumed that US President Barack Obama had become a lame duck. Who knew that Obama would unexpectedly display a diplomatic style all his own and announce the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba? With powerful determination, he shattered a 53 year old diplomatic impasse. He helped establish a new relationship between the US and Cuba. His vision and boldness is something both sides of the Taiwan Strait should learn from.
When Obama made the announcement on December 17, he shocked the international community. He did more than restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. He also reached other agreements, such as intelligence personnel prisoner exchanges. Obama declared that "After all, these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked. It’s time for a new approach." The Commerce Department also issued a statement, saying that the US will engage in additional economic and commercial exchanges, in an effort to encourage Cuban reform.
Former US President Jimmy Carter tried to improve relations with Cuba. But his efforts fell through. Obama eased travel restrictions during his first term. His recent announcement shocked the world. But in fact, the two sides were in secret negotiations over the past 18 months. The outside world simply hadn't gotten wind of them. US and Cuban leaders both want the restoration of diplomatic relations. Canada and the Franciscans also contributed. During memorial services for former South African President Nelson Mandela late last year, Obama met with Cuban leader Raul Castro. The two men shook hands. This was seen as an ice-breaking gesture. But what people did not realize was that the two sides were already secretly negotiating restored relations.
The confrontation between the US and Cuba was the last stalemate of the Cold War. On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista, and became the leader of Cuba. The United States intitially intended to grant diplomatic recognition. But cooperation between Castro and the Soviet Union motivated the US break off diplomatic relations with Cuba. On January 3, 1961, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited 1400 Cuban exiles. On April 17, 1961 it staged an amphibious landing in the Bay of Pigs. The exiles were either captured or killed. The operation was a debacle. The United States then imposed a series of embargoes and trade sanctions against Cuba. By means overt and covert, it attempted to weaken and overthrow the Castro regime. In October 1962, Castro agreed to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The "Cuban Missile Crisis" nearly led to nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.
Cuba championed socialism and was friendly with the Soviet Union. For the United States, this was a thorn in its side. Tensions remained high throughout the Cold War. The US saw Cuba, located a mere 90 nautical miles off its border, as threat to national security. Its worries extended to other socialist Latin American countries. As a result, it resorted to every means at its disposal to blockade Cuba. For half a century, bilateral relations remained at rock bottom. The Cuban embargo left its people destitute. Economically it became utterly dependent upon the Soviet Union and Venezuela. Following the Soviet collapse, Cuba's economy lost its sponsor. Its socialist economy did not work. That much was obvious. Castro's health deteriorated. In 2006 he handed over power to his brother Raul. In 2008, Raul became President of the Council of Ministers and began to change course. He implemented a series of economic reforms and created an atmosphere of openness.
The United States established diplomatic relations with long hostile China and even Vietnam, with which it fought a war. Yet it continued to see Cuba as its sworn enemy. Clearly its policy warranted rethinking. Cuba paid a heavy price because of the embargo and blockade, in the economic livelihood of its people. But America, despite 53 years of effort, failed to score a victory. The victims of persistent US enmity, were the most vulnerable elements in the weaker countries. Had the United States broken the ice earlier, instead of clinging to its blockade, commercial exchanges could have benefited these people, and eased hostilities between the United States and Cuba.
Relations between friends are simple. Relations between enemies are equally simple. But to change an enemy into a friend requires strategy, intent, and finesse. Often politicians persist in hostility because they fear domestic pressure and challenges to their loyalty. It is easier to cling to one's existing position than to call for blood. It is much easier than championing peace and persuading one's opponents. Seeking peace requires greater courage than demanding war. But blindly adopting a hostile posture seldom narrows differences. It seldom facilitates long-term peace, and the nation eventually pays a price.
US policy towards Cuba has been frozen for half a century. The US has finally realized this was a blind alley. What it gained was far outweighed by what it lost -- the opportunity for reconciliation. By the same token, blind hostility and confrontation between the two sides of the Strait, will neither resolve differences nor facilitate communications. America and Cuba have put the past behind them. They can now work together to seek a mutually beneficial future. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be able to do the same. They should be able to exercise wisdom, see the Big Picture, and create new opportunities for peace and prosperity.
社論－美古破冰啟示兩岸和解
2014年12月29日 04:10
本報訊
期中選舉大敗後，有些人認為美國總統歐巴馬已成為跛鴨，不料歐巴馬在外交上突出奇招，宣布將和古巴恢復外交關係，以強而有力的決斷力，為長達53年的一場外交僵局打開枷鎖，也為美古關係開展出全新的天地。這樣的視野和氣魄，值得兩岸借鏡。
歐巴馬在12月17日作出這項宣布，震撼國際社會；除了和古巴恢復外交關係外，雙方也達成交換被俘情報員等協議。歐巴馬明白表示「50年的孤立方法無效，該是採取新策略的時候了」，美國商務部也聲明說，美國將以更多的經濟與商業往來，展現對古巴各項改革的影響力。
前美國總統卡特曾經嘗試改善與古巴的關係，但後來努力告吹。歐巴馬在第1任期內，陸續放寬了旅遊等限制措施，而在這次震驚全球的美古破冰宣布前，雙方其實已經祕密談判了18個月之久，但外界一點風聲也不曾聽聞。除了美古兩國領導人都有積極意願外，其間加拿大與方濟各教宗也出力襄助。去年底在南非前總統曼德拉的追思會上，歐巴馬主動與古巴領導人勞爾．卡斯楚（Raul Castro）握手致意，被視為破冰之握，世人皆不知的是，當時雙方已經在私下進行恢復關係談判了。
美古對立可謂冷戰的最後一塊僵持。1959年1月1日，費德爾．卡斯楚（Fidel Castro）推翻巴蒂斯塔（Fulgencio Batista）政權成為古巴領導人時，美國原本給予外交承認，但之後因為卡斯楚和蘇聯合作，美國在1961年1月3日悍然與古巴斷交，中情局（CIA）還策動1400名古巴流亡人士，於1961年4月17日在豬灣發動登陸侵略行動，結果不是被俘就是遭殲滅，難堪失敗收場。接著美國對古巴採取一連串禁運及貿易制裁，以或明或暗各種手段企圖弱化並推翻卡斯楚政權。1962年10月卡斯楚同意蘇聯在古巴境內部署飛彈，更釀成差點引發美俄核戰的「古巴飛彈危機」。
奉行社會主義並且與蘇聯友好的古巴，對美國來說，有如自家後院一根頑固的芒刺。在美俄冷戰劍拔弩張的時代，美國既擔心距離僅90浬之外的古巴對國家安全造成威脅，復憂慮社會主義擴散到拉丁美洲其他國家，因此以各種手段封鎖嚴懲古巴。半個世紀以來，兩國關係始終在谷底跌宕。古巴受禁運之桎梏，民生凋敝落後，經濟上仰賴蘇聯及委內瑞拉甚深。蘇聯瓦解後，古巴經濟頓失依靠，而社會主義經濟行不通，則已是明顯的事實。卡斯楚因為健康惡化，2006年起陸續交權給弟弟勞爾，勞爾從2008年接任國務委員主席後，開始改弦易轍，推行一連串經濟改革政策，也為打開冰封營造了氣氛。
當美國早已與曾經敵對的中國建交、與兵戎相見的越南恢復關係時，唯獨仍視小小古巴如不共戴天之寇讎，在政策上確實值得重新商榷。古巴固然因為禁運與封鎖，在經濟民生上付出慘重代價，但以美國之大，窮53年之力，卻也沒有贏得什麼勝利；而政權的執著對立，受害最深的是弱勢國的人民。美國如果能更早尋求與古巴破冰，而不是堅持封鎖打壓，或許能藉由交流帶動商機嘉惠民眾，更早緩解美古之間的敵意。
在國與國之間，和朋友交往容易，和敵人對幹也很簡單，但若要化敵為友，對策略、意志和手腕可就是一大考驗了。很多時候，政治人物之所以堅持敵對姿態，是因為在面對內部壓力與質疑聲浪時，因循既有立場跟著喊殺喊打，比提出和平理想並說服反對者容易得多。求和比求戰更需要勇氣，但一味採取對立敵視，往往無助於拉近歧見，也難以為長遠和平開創契機，終究會讓國家的發展付出代價。
對古巴採取高壓封鎖政策半世紀後，美國終於認清此路不通，所得到的收穫遠遠無法彌補因此而坐失的和解機會。同樣的，兩岸之間一味的敵視對立，既無助於化解歧見，更阻礙了彼此的溝通理解。美古都能放下過去，攜手尋找一個對雙方都有利的共同未來，以兩岸之智慧，應該也能以大視野、大格局，為彼此共創和平發展的全新機遇。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 29, 2014
Executive Summary: US policy towards Cuba has been frozen for half a century. The US has finally realized this was a blind alley. What it gained was far outweighed by what it lost -- the opportunity for reconciliation. By the same token, blind hostility and confrontation between the two sides of the Strait, will neither resolve differences nor facilitate communications. America and Cuba have put the past behind them. They can now work together to seek a mutually beneficial future. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be able to do the same. They should be able to exercise wisdom, see the Big Picture, and create new opportunities for peace and prosperity.
Full Text Below:
Following his mid-term election defeat, many assumed that US President Barack Obama had become a lame duck. Who knew that Obama would unexpectedly display a diplomatic style all his own and announce the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba? With powerful determination, he shattered a 53 year old diplomatic impasse. He helped establish a new relationship between the US and Cuba. His vision and boldness is something both sides of the Taiwan Strait should learn from.
When Obama made the announcement on December 17, he shocked the international community. He did more than restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. He also reached other agreements, such as intelligence personnel prisoner exchanges. Obama declared that "After all, these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked. It’s time for a new approach." The Commerce Department also issued a statement, saying that the US will engage in additional economic and commercial exchanges, in an effort to encourage Cuban reform.
Former US President Jimmy Carter tried to improve relations with Cuba. But his efforts fell through. Obama eased travel restrictions during his first term. His recent announcement shocked the world. But in fact, the two sides were in secret negotiations over the past 18 months. The outside world simply hadn't gotten wind of them. US and Cuban leaders both want the restoration of diplomatic relations. Canada and the Franciscans also contributed. During memorial services for former South African President Nelson Mandela late last year, Obama met with Cuban leader Raul Castro. The two men shook hands. This was seen as an ice-breaking gesture. But what people did not realize was that the two sides were already secretly negotiating restored relations.
The confrontation between the US and Cuba was the last stalemate of the Cold War. On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro overthrew Fulgencio Batista, and became the leader of Cuba. The United States intitially intended to grant diplomatic recognition. But cooperation between Castro and the Soviet Union motivated the US break off diplomatic relations with Cuba. On January 3, 1961, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited 1400 Cuban exiles. On April 17, 1961 it staged an amphibious landing in the Bay of Pigs. The exiles were either captured or killed. The operation was a debacle. The United States then imposed a series of embargoes and trade sanctions against Cuba. By means overt and covert, it attempted to weaken and overthrow the Castro regime. In October 1962, Castro agreed to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The "Cuban Missile Crisis" nearly led to nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.
Cuba championed socialism and was friendly with the Soviet Union. For the United States, this was a thorn in its side. Tensions remained high throughout the Cold War. The US saw Cuba, located a mere 90 nautical miles off its border, as threat to national security. Its worries extended to other socialist Latin American countries. As a result, it resorted to every means at its disposal to blockade Cuba. For half a century, bilateral relations remained at rock bottom. The Cuban embargo left its people destitute. Economically it became utterly dependent upon the Soviet Union and Venezuela. Following the Soviet collapse, Cuba's economy lost its sponsor. Its socialist economy did not work. That much was obvious. Castro's health deteriorated. In 2006 he handed over power to his brother Raul. In 2008, Raul became President of the Council of Ministers and began to change course. He implemented a series of economic reforms and created an atmosphere of openness.
The United States established diplomatic relations with long hostile China and even Vietnam, with which it fought a war. Yet it continued to see Cuba as its sworn enemy. Clearly its policy warranted rethinking. Cuba paid a heavy price because of the embargo and blockade, in the economic livelihood of its people. But America, despite 53 years of effort, failed to score a victory. The victims of persistent US enmity, were the most vulnerable elements in the weaker countries. Had the United States broken the ice earlier, instead of clinging to its blockade, commercial exchanges could have benefited these people, and eased hostilities between the United States and Cuba.
Relations between friends are simple. Relations between enemies are equally simple. But to change an enemy into a friend requires strategy, intent, and finesse. Often politicians persist in hostility because they fear domestic pressure and challenges to their loyalty. It is easier to cling to one's existing position than to call for blood. It is much easier than championing peace and persuading one's opponents. Seeking peace requires greater courage than demanding war. But blindly adopting a hostile posture seldom narrows differences. It seldom facilitates long-term peace, and the nation eventually pays a price.
US policy towards Cuba has been frozen for half a century. The US has finally realized this was a blind alley. What it gained was far outweighed by what it lost -- the opportunity for reconciliation. By the same token, blind hostility and confrontation between the two sides of the Strait, will neither resolve differences nor facilitate communications. America and Cuba have put the past behind them. They can now work together to seek a mutually beneficial future. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be able to do the same. They should be able to exercise wisdom, see the Big Picture, and create new opportunities for peace and prosperity.
社論－美古破冰啟示兩岸和解
2014年12月29日 04:10
本報訊
期中選舉大敗後，有些人認為美國總統歐巴馬已成為跛鴨，不料歐巴馬在外交上突出奇招，宣布將和古巴恢復外交關係，以強而有力的決斷力，為長達53年的一場外交僵局打開枷鎖，也為美古關係開展出全新的天地。這樣的視野和氣魄，值得兩岸借鏡。
歐巴馬在12月17日作出這項宣布，震撼國際社會；除了和古巴恢復外交關係外，雙方也達成交換被俘情報員等協議。歐巴馬明白表示「50年的孤立方法無效，該是採取新策略的時候了」，美國商務部也聲明說，美國將以更多的經濟與商業往來，展現對古巴各項改革的影響力。
前美國總統卡特曾經嘗試改善與古巴的關係，但後來努力告吹。歐巴馬在第1任期內，陸續放寬了旅遊等限制措施，而在這次震驚全球的美古破冰宣布前，雙方其實已經祕密談判了18個月之久，但外界一點風聲也不曾聽聞。除了美古兩國領導人都有積極意願外，其間加拿大與方濟各教宗也出力襄助。去年底在南非前總統曼德拉的追思會上，歐巴馬主動與古巴領導人勞爾．卡斯楚（Raul Castro）握手致意，被視為破冰之握，世人皆不知的是，當時雙方已經在私下進行恢復關係談判了。
美古對立可謂冷戰的最後一塊僵持。1959年1月1日，費德爾．卡斯楚（Fidel Castro）推翻巴蒂斯塔（Fulgencio Batista）政權成為古巴領導人時，美國原本給予外交承認，但之後因為卡斯楚和蘇聯合作，美國在1961年1月3日悍然與古巴斷交，中情局（CIA）還策動1400名古巴流亡人士，於1961年4月17日在豬灣發動登陸侵略行動，結果不是被俘就是遭殲滅，難堪失敗收場。接著美國對古巴採取一連串禁運及貿易制裁，以或明或暗各種手段企圖弱化並推翻卡斯楚政權。1962年10月卡斯楚同意蘇聯在古巴境內部署飛彈，更釀成差點引發美俄核戰的「古巴飛彈危機」。
奉行社會主義並且與蘇聯友好的古巴，對美國來說，有如自家後院一根頑固的芒刺。在美俄冷戰劍拔弩張的時代，美國既擔心距離僅90浬之外的古巴對國家安全造成威脅，復憂慮社會主義擴散到拉丁美洲其他國家，因此以各種手段封鎖嚴懲古巴。半個世紀以來，兩國關係始終在谷底跌宕。古巴受禁運之桎梏，民生凋敝落後，經濟上仰賴蘇聯及委內瑞拉甚深。蘇聯瓦解後，古巴經濟頓失依靠，而社會主義經濟行不通，則已是明顯的事實。卡斯楚因為健康惡化，2006年起陸續交權給弟弟勞爾，勞爾從2008年接任國務委員主席後，開始改弦易轍，推行一連串經濟改革政策，也為打開冰封營造了氣氛。
當美國早已與曾經敵對的中國建交、與兵戎相見的越南恢復關係時，唯獨仍視小小古巴如不共戴天之寇讎，在政策上確實值得重新商榷。古巴固然因為禁運與封鎖，在經濟民生上付出慘重代價，但以美國之大，窮53年之力，卻也沒有贏得什麼勝利；而政權的執著對立，受害最深的是弱勢國的人民。美國如果能更早尋求與古巴破冰，而不是堅持封鎖打壓，或許能藉由交流帶動商機嘉惠民眾，更早緩解美古之間的敵意。
在國與國之間，和朋友交往容易，和敵人對幹也很簡單，但若要化敵為友，對策略、意志和手腕可就是一大考驗了。很多時候，政治人物之所以堅持敵對姿態，是因為在面對內部壓力與質疑聲浪時，因循既有立場跟著喊殺喊打，比提出和平理想並說服反對者容易得多。求和比求戰更需要勇氣，但一味採取對立敵視，往往無助於拉近歧見，也難以為長遠和平開創契機，終究會讓國家的發展付出代價。
對古巴採取高壓封鎖政策半世紀後，美國終於認清此路不通，所得到的收穫遠遠無法彌補因此而坐失的和解機會。同樣的，兩岸之間一味的敵視對立，既無助於化解歧見，更阻礙了彼此的溝通理解。美古都能放下過去，攜手尋找一個對雙方都有利的共同未來，以兩岸之智慧，應該也能以大視野、大格局，為彼此共創和平發展的全新機遇。
Friday, December 26, 2014
Debunk the Myth of the Sunflower Student Movement: Allow the New Generation to Be Heard
Debunk the Myth of the Sunflower Student Movement: Allow the New Generation to Be Heard
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2014
Executive Summary: Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.
Full Text Below:
Once his record of sexual molestation surfaced, Chen Wei-ting announced his withdrawal from the Miaoli legislative election. This was lamentable not because it shattered Chen Wei-ting's image. It was lamentable because it tarnished the halo of the Sunflower Student Movement. It may even weaken the enthusiasm young people have shown for politics. The public must use this opportunity to re-examine the spirit of the Sunflower Student Movement. Perhaps it is not too late.
Chen Wei-ting's record as a serial sex offender will tarnish the image of the Sunflower Student Movement. Why? Because his halo shone too brightly before. He became an icon of the student movement. During social movements, the media often focuses on a small number of leaders. This makes it easier for them to frame the issues. But it also sidetracks the issues. Have Chen Wei-ting's sexual offenses tarnished the Sunflower Student Movement's halo? If they have, were we right to equate Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting with the student movement as a whole?
We must first dissociate student movement leaders from the student movement itself. We must clear away the smoke. Only then will we be able to see the true nature of the Sunflower Student Movement. Put simply, the Sunflower Student Movement actually consisted of three different layers. At the very core was the group that occupied the legislative chambers itself. Basically they were pro-green, anti-Ma students. Their political coloration however was overshadowed by their status as students. The second layer was those who waited outside the Legislative Yuan. They were youth who responded to the "anti-STA" and "anti-China" clarion calls. The third and outermost layer consisted of those who responded to the call for a public demonstration on Ketegelan Road on March 30. Their participation reflected dissatisfaction with the status quo. They were a new generation that demanded sound reforms. Each of these three layers was different. But they were incorrectly equate with one another.
In other words, the Sunflower Student Movement as a whole is anxious about the future of the younger generation. It is worried about Taiwan's stagnation. It is worried about a powerful Mainland China. It is angry because its generation has been deprived of its birthright. It doubts the Ma government's ability to protect Taiwan's interests. Amidst the chaos, calls for generational justice issued by the outermost layer of the student movement were lost. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were the only ones on stage and enjoying the spotlight. When time came to reap real world political benefits, the green camp was only too happy to partake. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant was sealed. The STA was frozen. The nine in one elections were manna from heaven. Wave upon wave of benefits fell into the green camp's lap.
The Sunflower Student Movement was too hastily deified. As a result its downfall was a case of “easy come, easy go.” In fact, another group organized a "da cang hua” (large intestine) forum. Their motive was to break the Sunflower Student Movement's monopoly on the movement agenda, and the deification of Lin Fei-fan (sail god) and Chen Yen-ting (yen god). But they were ants attacking an elephant. Furthermore, female protestors at the sit-in even gave Lin Fei-fan massages. This revealed the classism, sexism, and male Chauvinism in the student movement. All of these call for serious soul-searching. This was why when the Chen Wei-ting sexual molestation scandal came to light, he showed scant remorse. It is likely that he felt his unique status warranted even more special privileges.
Suppose Chen Wei-ting had been able to participate in the election? Suppose he was even elected to the legislature? Suppose he had used the opportunity to move off the streets and become part of the system? For the Sunflower Student Movement and other social movements, a successful candidacy could have provided powerful inspiration. It could have shown them they can reform the system from within. Alas, Chen Wei-ting's egregious record of sex offenses could not be ignored. He showed little if any remorse. For one, he waited until two days before the DPP nomination before copping to to sex offenses. He knew the truth had to come out, so he "vaccinated" himself against it in advance. Such devious behavior shows that he is hardly the naive idealist he is imagined to be. For another, even his admission was selective in nature. Earlier sex offenses soon came to light, revealing his deceit.
Chen Wei-ting's declaration of withdrawal was long-winded and full of hot air. One could see how he was struggling to cover all bases. He used a lot of pretty words. But he had already lost all credibility. His words had already lost their power to impress. Step back and think about it. A young student shouted slogans, threw shoes, and delivered speeches. He swiftly became a celebrity and a political star. But the flame that burns twice as bright, lasts half as long. He turned out to be a flash in the pan. His rise to fame was swift. His fall from grace was even swifter. The standards one applies to others, are also the standards that others will apply to oneself. This was Chen Wei-ting's inescapable fate.
Once Chen Wei-ting withdrew from the election, rumors emerged that the Miaoli DPP candidate wuold be DPP Youth Director Fu Wei-tse. Fu Wei-tse was Chen Wei-ting's predecessor at National Tsing Hua University Community Center. He too was one a key figure in the Sunflower Student Movement. He joined the DPP earlier. He also joined Tsai Ing-wen's Party Central Committee in mid-year. Therefore, he probably has more experience and maturity than Chen Wei-ting. Unfortunately, the "ting god" is dead. The DPP's self-interested attempt to bask in the glow of "civic groups" has been frustrated. Does the DPP really think it use the same strategy again?
Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.
去神化的太陽花 才能重現新世代原音
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.27 02:16 am
在連爆襲胸事件後，陳為廷宣布退出苗栗立委補選。此一事件令人惋惜的，其實不是陳為廷的形象，而是太陽花的光環因學運領袖個人的墜落而失色，乃至可能打擊方興未艾的青年問政熱情。但趁著這樣的機會，重新檢視一下太陽花的精神，或許時猶未晚。
陳為廷的性騷擾慣犯紀錄，當然會損及太陽花學運的風光，因為他在那段時間被添加了太多光環，乃至成為學運的代表人物。在一場社會運動中，媒體焦點往往容易集中在少數領袖身上，這是為了取景方便，但有時難免偏失主題。也因此，如果覺得今天陳為廷的性騷擾行為破壞了太陽花的光環，那麼我們就必須問：當初大家認定林飛帆和陳為廷代表了整個學運是不是正確？
只有在解構「學運領袖等於學運」的等式後，大家才能撥開空氣中的浪漫風花，直視太陽花學運的本質。簡單地說，太陽花學運其實包含了三個不同的層次：在最核心的部分，也就是當初占據國會議場內部的一群，基本上是以「親綠」、「反馬」的學生為主，但他們的政治立場被學生身分所掩蓋；再往外一層，守在立法院外面的一群，則是呼應「反服貿」號召而來的「反中」青年；最外面一層，則是其間來來去去響應並參與三三○凱道示威的群眾，這反映的是對現狀不滿並要求改革的新世代聲音。這三層不同訴求，最後被混為一談了。
亦即，整個太陽花學運反映的是年輕世代對未來的焦慮，其中包括了對台灣停滯的不安，對中國強大的恐懼，對世代剝奪的憤怒，和對馬政府無力維護台灣利益的疑慮。然而，濃縮在學運的光影中，最外面這一層要求世代正義的呼聲卻模糊了，舞台上只剩下林飛帆和陳為廷兩個清晰身影；而落實在現實政治的場域裡，則演變成綠營的快樂收割，從核四封存、服貿卡關、到九合一選舉大勝，一波接一波。
當初太陽花的「造神」來得太容易，它的破滅也因此不顯得費力。事實上，當時有一批人另組「大腸花」論壇，目的就是要打破太陽花的「一言堂」現象以及「帆神」和「廷神」的雙人神話，結果卻如螞蟻撼象。此外，諸如女性成員在占領現場為林飛帆按摩服務等，也暴露出學運的「階級化」及「男性中心主義」等問題，卻未獲認真檢討。也因此，陳為廷性騷擾事件曝光，其態度卻不見太多悔意，恐怕也是認為自己的特殊光環值得享有更多特權吧！
持平而論，這次陳為廷若能參加補選並當選立委，其實是他從街頭抗議走向體制的一個轉進機會；對太陽花或其他社運人士而言，都是一種躍進式的啟發，可在體制內找到新的改革位置。遺憾的是，陳為廷的性騷擾紀錄畢竟多到不可忽略，而且他的態度亦不真誠：其一，他選在民進黨即將禮讓他參選的前兩天自曝「襲胸」，主要是自知將遭爆料而先「打預防針」，這樣精明老練的操作手法，證明他不似想像中清純；其二，他選擇性的自曝，馬上就被揭發出更早的性騷擾紀錄，說明他不誠實。
從陳為廷發表退選聲明時的長篇大論，可以看出他面面俱到，把話說得很漂亮；但既已失去誠信，其言詞也就失去打動人的力量。退一步想，我們也看到一個青年學生如何靠著嗆聲、叫罵、丟鞋和演說，急速成為新的社會英雄及政治明星；但新星的驟逝，也不過是幾日夜的事。造神的速度有多快，毀神的速度就有多快；用什麼樣的標準檢驗別人，也要受到同樣標準的檢驗。這是陳為廷無法遁逃的命運。
陳為廷退選後，民進黨的苗栗補選傳出要由民進黨青年部主任傅偉哲擔任備胎。傅偉哲是陳為廷的清大社會所學長，也是太陽花學運要角之一，他不僅早一步加入民進黨，更在年中加入了蔡英文的中央黨部團隊，因此政治歷練上應較陳為廷更成熟些。問題是，在「廷神」殞落後，民進黨企圖藉「公民團體」的光環自利的戰略，還能同樣得心應手嗎？
陳為廷若能沉潛一段時日，對他未必不是好事。對社會而言，能藉此重新思考「去神化」的太陽花，也許更能還原新世代的真實聲音。至於誰在剝削太陽花學運的果實，也就一目了然了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2014
Executive Summary: Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.
Full Text Below:
Once his record of sexual molestation surfaced, Chen Wei-ting announced his withdrawal from the Miaoli legislative election. This was lamentable not because it shattered Chen Wei-ting's image. It was lamentable because it tarnished the halo of the Sunflower Student Movement. It may even weaken the enthusiasm young people have shown for politics. The public must use this opportunity to re-examine the spirit of the Sunflower Student Movement. Perhaps it is not too late.
Chen Wei-ting's record as a serial sex offender will tarnish the image of the Sunflower Student Movement. Why? Because his halo shone too brightly before. He became an icon of the student movement. During social movements, the media often focuses on a small number of leaders. This makes it easier for them to frame the issues. But it also sidetracks the issues. Have Chen Wei-ting's sexual offenses tarnished the Sunflower Student Movement's halo? If they have, were we right to equate Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting with the student movement as a whole?
We must first dissociate student movement leaders from the student movement itself. We must clear away the smoke. Only then will we be able to see the true nature of the Sunflower Student Movement. Put simply, the Sunflower Student Movement actually consisted of three different layers. At the very core was the group that occupied the legislative chambers itself. Basically they were pro-green, anti-Ma students. Their political coloration however was overshadowed by their status as students. The second layer was those who waited outside the Legislative Yuan. They were youth who responded to the "anti-STA" and "anti-China" clarion calls. The third and outermost layer consisted of those who responded to the call for a public demonstration on Ketegelan Road on March 30. Their participation reflected dissatisfaction with the status quo. They were a new generation that demanded sound reforms. Each of these three layers was different. But they were incorrectly equate with one another.
In other words, the Sunflower Student Movement as a whole is anxious about the future of the younger generation. It is worried about Taiwan's stagnation. It is worried about a powerful Mainland China. It is angry because its generation has been deprived of its birthright. It doubts the Ma government's ability to protect Taiwan's interests. Amidst the chaos, calls for generational justice issued by the outermost layer of the student movement were lost. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were the only ones on stage and enjoying the spotlight. When time came to reap real world political benefits, the green camp was only too happy to partake. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant was sealed. The STA was frozen. The nine in one elections were manna from heaven. Wave upon wave of benefits fell into the green camp's lap.
The Sunflower Student Movement was too hastily deified. As a result its downfall was a case of “easy come, easy go.” In fact, another group organized a "da cang hua” (large intestine) forum. Their motive was to break the Sunflower Student Movement's monopoly on the movement agenda, and the deification of Lin Fei-fan (sail god) and Chen Yen-ting (yen god). But they were ants attacking an elephant. Furthermore, female protestors at the sit-in even gave Lin Fei-fan massages. This revealed the classism, sexism, and male Chauvinism in the student movement. All of these call for serious soul-searching. This was why when the Chen Wei-ting sexual molestation scandal came to light, he showed scant remorse. It is likely that he felt his unique status warranted even more special privileges.
Suppose Chen Wei-ting had been able to participate in the election? Suppose he was even elected to the legislature? Suppose he had used the opportunity to move off the streets and become part of the system? For the Sunflower Student Movement and other social movements, a successful candidacy could have provided powerful inspiration. It could have shown them they can reform the system from within. Alas, Chen Wei-ting's egregious record of sex offenses could not be ignored. He showed little if any remorse. For one, he waited until two days before the DPP nomination before copping to to sex offenses. He knew the truth had to come out, so he "vaccinated" himself against it in advance. Such devious behavior shows that he is hardly the naive idealist he is imagined to be. For another, even his admission was selective in nature. Earlier sex offenses soon came to light, revealing his deceit.
Chen Wei-ting's declaration of withdrawal was long-winded and full of hot air. One could see how he was struggling to cover all bases. He used a lot of pretty words. But he had already lost all credibility. His words had already lost their power to impress. Step back and think about it. A young student shouted slogans, threw shoes, and delivered speeches. He swiftly became a celebrity and a political star. But the flame that burns twice as bright, lasts half as long. He turned out to be a flash in the pan. His rise to fame was swift. His fall from grace was even swifter. The standards one applies to others, are also the standards that others will apply to oneself. This was Chen Wei-ting's inescapable fate.
Once Chen Wei-ting withdrew from the election, rumors emerged that the Miaoli DPP candidate wuold be DPP Youth Director Fu Wei-tse. Fu Wei-tse was Chen Wei-ting's predecessor at National Tsing Hua University Community Center. He too was one a key figure in the Sunflower Student Movement. He joined the DPP earlier. He also joined Tsai Ing-wen's Party Central Committee in mid-year. Therefore, he probably has more experience and maturity than Chen Wei-ting. Unfortunately, the "ting god" is dead. The DPP's self-interested attempt to bask in the glow of "civic groups" has been frustrated. Does the DPP really think it use the same strategy again?
Chen Wei-ting should calm his mind. That would do him good. Society meanwhile, should take the time to rethink its deification of the Sunflower Student Movement. That may allow the true voices of the new generation to have their say. Who reaped the fruits of the Sunflower Student Movement? That too should be abundantly clear.
去神化的太陽花 才能重現新世代原音
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.27 02:16 am
在連爆襲胸事件後，陳為廷宣布退出苗栗立委補選。此一事件令人惋惜的，其實不是陳為廷的形象，而是太陽花的光環因學運領袖個人的墜落而失色，乃至可能打擊方興未艾的青年問政熱情。但趁著這樣的機會，重新檢視一下太陽花的精神，或許時猶未晚。
陳為廷的性騷擾慣犯紀錄，當然會損及太陽花學運的風光，因為他在那段時間被添加了太多光環，乃至成為學運的代表人物。在一場社會運動中，媒體焦點往往容易集中在少數領袖身上，這是為了取景方便，但有時難免偏失主題。也因此，如果覺得今天陳為廷的性騷擾行為破壞了太陽花的光環，那麼我們就必須問：當初大家認定林飛帆和陳為廷代表了整個學運是不是正確？
只有在解構「學運領袖等於學運」的等式後，大家才能撥開空氣中的浪漫風花，直視太陽花學運的本質。簡單地說，太陽花學運其實包含了三個不同的層次：在最核心的部分，也就是當初占據國會議場內部的一群，基本上是以「親綠」、「反馬」的學生為主，但他們的政治立場被學生身分所掩蓋；再往外一層，守在立法院外面的一群，則是呼應「反服貿」號召而來的「反中」青年；最外面一層，則是其間來來去去響應並參與三三○凱道示威的群眾，這反映的是對現狀不滿並要求改革的新世代聲音。這三層不同訴求，最後被混為一談了。
亦即，整個太陽花學運反映的是年輕世代對未來的焦慮，其中包括了對台灣停滯的不安，對中國強大的恐懼，對世代剝奪的憤怒，和對馬政府無力維護台灣利益的疑慮。然而，濃縮在學運的光影中，最外面這一層要求世代正義的呼聲卻模糊了，舞台上只剩下林飛帆和陳為廷兩個清晰身影；而落實在現實政治的場域裡，則演變成綠營的快樂收割，從核四封存、服貿卡關、到九合一選舉大勝，一波接一波。
當初太陽花的「造神」來得太容易，它的破滅也因此不顯得費力。事實上，當時有一批人另組「大腸花」論壇，目的就是要打破太陽花的「一言堂」現象以及「帆神」和「廷神」的雙人神話，結果卻如螞蟻撼象。此外，諸如女性成員在占領現場為林飛帆按摩服務等，也暴露出學運的「階級化」及「男性中心主義」等問題，卻未獲認真檢討。也因此，陳為廷性騷擾事件曝光，其態度卻不見太多悔意，恐怕也是認為自己的特殊光環值得享有更多特權吧！
持平而論，這次陳為廷若能參加補選並當選立委，其實是他從街頭抗議走向體制的一個轉進機會；對太陽花或其他社運人士而言，都是一種躍進式的啟發，可在體制內找到新的改革位置。遺憾的是，陳為廷的性騷擾紀錄畢竟多到不可忽略，而且他的態度亦不真誠：其一，他選在民進黨即將禮讓他參選的前兩天自曝「襲胸」，主要是自知將遭爆料而先「打預防針」，這樣精明老練的操作手法，證明他不似想像中清純；其二，他選擇性的自曝，馬上就被揭發出更早的性騷擾紀錄，說明他不誠實。
從陳為廷發表退選聲明時的長篇大論，可以看出他面面俱到，把話說得很漂亮；但既已失去誠信，其言詞也就失去打動人的力量。退一步想，我們也看到一個青年學生如何靠著嗆聲、叫罵、丟鞋和演說，急速成為新的社會英雄及政治明星；但新星的驟逝，也不過是幾日夜的事。造神的速度有多快，毀神的速度就有多快；用什麼樣的標準檢驗別人，也要受到同樣標準的檢驗。這是陳為廷無法遁逃的命運。
陳為廷退選後，民進黨的苗栗補選傳出要由民進黨青年部主任傅偉哲擔任備胎。傅偉哲是陳為廷的清大社會所學長，也是太陽花學運要角之一，他不僅早一步加入民進黨，更在年中加入了蔡英文的中央黨部團隊，因此政治歷練上應較陳為廷更成熟些。問題是，在「廷神」殞落後，民進黨企圖藉「公民團體」的光環自利的戰略，還能同樣得心應手嗎？
陳為廷若能沉潛一段時日，對他未必不是好事。對社會而言，能藉此重新思考「去神化」的太陽花，也許更能還原新世代的真實聲音。至於誰在剝削太陽花學運的果實，也就一目了然了。
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Ruling and Opposition Party Selfishness and Blindness
Ruling and Opposition Party Selfishness and Blindness
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2014
Executive Summary: The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?
Full Text Below:
The recent elections have changed the political landscape. Central and local governments are reshuffling their personnel. The reshuffling in the Executive Yuan has been ridiculed as "old wine in new bottles." The premier has been replaced, but the heads of other agencies remain the same. Nothing has changed. Meanwhile, at the local level, county chiefs and city mayors took office yesterday, accompanied by their inner cabinets. Strictly speaking, these personnel appointments were based more on political coloration than on job fitness. Both the grooming and appointment of blue and green camp political appointees have been major disappointments.
First take the KMT. President Ma Ying-jeou has been in office six and a half years. He has long been criticized for recruiting exclusively from his inner circle. The officials who come and go are all drawn from the same coterie of academics or technocrats. They are rarely exceptional. By contrast, in the wake of elections, party representatives or local leaders seldom receive much attention from the party's highest levels. Even highly qualified and experienced officials such as Hau Lung-ping and Jason Hu are given the cold shoulder. Was this a consequence of the Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru scandals? If so, that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The party suffered a major setback. The Mao cabinet can be likened to a "great wind." The same group of people was kicked upstairs, but kept in office. People wanted change. The government should have thrown open the door and created an new political climate. Yet President Ma once again fell back on his "second tier" troop replacement policy in a move to ensure stability. He apparently has yet to grok the reason for his defeat.
Such overly conservative cabinet appointments will of course make innovative government and party personnel appointments difficult. An ideal government personnel appointment plan would balance political elites with administrative elites. It would include professional elites from academia, and even working people from private companies or social groups. Such a diversified cabinet would create synergy between theory and practice. Decision-making and operations would complement each other. For one, it would prevent an administration's thinking from becoming too divorced from reality. For another, it would ensure communications with the legislature, the public, and even the political opposition. It would prevent policy proposals from being blocked on every front. Unfortunately, the Ma government's repeated cabinet reshuffles, have always fallen into the same monotonous trap, again and again.
Recent ruling and opposition party discussions about constitutional issues have revealed support for the cabinet system. This is the result of a negative reaction to a "cabinet manned by academics." Do we really want to adopt the cabinet system? If so, current ruling and opposition lawmakers have questionable ability. They are unlikely to inspire public trust. They are likely to be either derelict in their duty or busy themselves making sweetheart deals. The current cabinet consists of academics and technocrats. They are often guilty of ivory tower policy-making. They lack political sensitivity. They cannot communicate with the legislature and the public. This leads to policy proposals that are politically impracticable. With every cabinet reshuffle, political appointees from academia return to academia to teach. With every election or policy debate, cabinet members shirk and refuse to do battle. They are no help to the ruling administration whatsoever.
Take Jason Hu, for example. He was a former foreign minister and ROC representative to the US. Despite his qualifications, he was willing "go down to the countryside," and run for local office. Who knew that once he went down the countryside, he could no longer return to the ranks of central government? His talents were wasted at the local level, until he was finally forced to step down. Another example is officials sent to hostile territories to "break new ground." Most have no desire to remain and lay down roots. They are afraid that if they fail they will be abandoned. Those in power are unwilling to nurture local talent and open up channels of communication between political appointees and administrative officials. They are unwilling to it dispatch troops where they are needed. This means improvements to government efficiency will reamain impossible, and the sustainable nurturing of talent will remain empty rhetoric.
The KMT has adopted a "big wind" model. The green camp has adopted a "prizes for all" model, which has little to小 recommend it. The "prizes for all" model is nothing more than "If they have the right political colors, then prizes for all!” Take the recent green camp county and city level reshuffling for example. Logically speaking, the main consideration for local governments should be administrative ability rather than political affiliation. That would ensure a functional and capable administration. But the county and city reshufflings betray a preponderance of official appointments that merely reward political cronies. Lin Chia-lung has replaced every member of the Taichung City Government. He has "Chopped heads and started over." Therefore any talk of continuity in municipal government is utterly pointless.
Consider the officials recruited by the green camp. There is no shortage of controversial figures. For example, former Transportion Minister Lin Ling-san was implicated in the ETC scandal. He is now Deputy Mayor of Taichung City. Chou Li-liang was implicated in the foreign workers scandal. He is now Kaohsiung MRT Bureau Chief. Former Water Conservancy Director Lee Hsien-yi was forced to step down over the gas explosion disaster. He is now Taichung Deputy Secretary-General. In addition, the DPP "party worker gang" and the "Kaohsiung gang" have made major inroads in the cities and counties. Even Cheng Wen-chan is again provoking controversy by using the "Kainan gang". The only explanation is recruitment based on political coloration instead of ability and integrity. As long as one is loyal to the green camp, then it's "Prizes for all!"
The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?
大風吹與發福袋：談朝野用人的私和盲
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.26 02:21 am
因應選後新政局，中央到地方都進行了人事改組。不過，行政院改組被譏為「換湯不換藥」，除了閣揆換人，其餘部會首長幾乎原班人馬留任，毫無新意可言。在地方，各縣市長昨天也都帶著自己新組的「小內閣」上任，嚴格說來，這些人事卻是政治顏色考量大於適才適所的布局。藍綠在政務官的養成與任用上都讓人失望。
先談國民黨。馬英九總統執政六年半，始終被外界評為「小圈圈用人」，官員來來去去皆不脫同一體系的學者或技術官僚，絕少驚豔之作。相形之下，經過選舉洗禮的黨內民意代表或地方首長，則甚少得到層峰垂青，連資歷豐厚的郝龍斌、胡志強等也遭冷遇；若說這是林益世、賴素如後遺症之一，則恐已到了因噎廢食的地步。歷經一場重大挫敗，毛內閣的組成卻如「大風吹」，同一批人移了移位置，居然也就重新上陣。正當人心思變，政府必須大開大闔創造氣象之際，馬總統反而採取「次軍布局」圖求穩定，彷彿不知自己敗在哪裡。
如此守舊、呆滯的人才布局，當然影響政府及黨內人才的流動，執政作為難有創新。理想的政府人事布局，應該是若干比例的政治菁英搭配行政菁英，再加上學術界的專業菁英，乃至加入若干民間企業或社會團體的實務工作者共同組成。這樣的多元組合，有助於理論與實務的互相切磋與激發，在決策與操作上的彼此互補相成，一則行政思考不致太過脫離現實，二則與國會、民間乃至反對陣營的溝通不會窒礙難通，才不致使行政推動處處碰壁。遺憾的是，馬政府多次內閣改組，始終陷入單調的布局路線，一次次掉進同一陷阱。
最近朝野談及修憲議題，都提到希望改為「內閣制」，此議，正是對「學者內閣」不滿的反撲。當然，如果真要改成內閣制，以目前朝野國會議員素質之參差，只怕難以取信於民，更可能衍生嚴重的利益輸送問題。但是，目前學者和技術官僚當道的行政團隊，常常抱著象牙塔裡的學問當成政策，既缺乏政治敏感度，又無法與立法院和社會大眾溝通，導致決策無法推動或令出而不行。尤其，學界出身的政務官每逢改組去職即返校重拾教鞭，每逢選舉或政策辯論又怯於上陣，這對執政黨厚植人才毫無助益。
以胡志強為例，曾任外交部長與駐美代表，這種條件卻願意「下鄉」參選的政務官幾稀。誰料，一下到地方，就回不了中央，他只能耗損到交出地盤。再如許多被派往艱困選區「開疆闢土」的戰將，也多半不願久待扎根，就是唯恐來不及建立戰功就先被遺棄。執政者如果不能將培育人才的眼光放至地方，並打通民意代表與行政官員換軌的管道，使其截長補短，則政府效能恐怕無以提升，人才的永續經營也將淪為空話。
若說國民黨用人是「大風吹」模式，綠營的「發福袋」模式，也沒有太多值得誇口。所謂「發福袋」，就是「只看顏色，人人有獎」。以這次各綠營縣市的改組為例，照理地方政府組成應以事務而非政治為主要考量，以維持行政上的穩健和熟練。但從各縣市的用人看，卻幾乎都以分配官位為重，獎賞朋黨。林佳龍將台中市府一級首長全部換人，「砍掉重練」；如此一來，要談市政延續當然是緣木求魚。
再看那些受到綠營百里侯重用的官員，不乏爭議人物。例如，曾在ＥＴＣ弊案遭訴的前交通部長林陵三，出任台中市副市長；曾涉高捷外勞弊案的周禮良，出任台北市捷運局長；因氣爆案下台的高雄市前水利局長李賢義，出任台中市副秘書長。此外，如民進黨的「黨工幫」及「高雄幫」大舉進入各縣市，乃至鄭文燦重用「開南幫」，都引起議論。這種情況，唯一的解釋就是，用人考量只論「顏色」而非「能力操守」，只要是綠營，便「人人有獎」。
藍綠的用人取材手法不同，但兩黨似乎越來越陷入自己的思維窠臼，而有走火入魔之勢。國民黨執政越久，人才庫越顯單薄；而民進黨無論在哪裡執政，卻都被質疑「意識形態治國」，這正是主要原因。環境在變，人心在變，而且變得很快，但如果兩黨的用人政策不變，台灣如何進步？
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2014
Executive Summary: The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?
Full Text Below:
The recent elections have changed the political landscape. Central and local governments are reshuffling their personnel. The reshuffling in the Executive Yuan has been ridiculed as "old wine in new bottles." The premier has been replaced, but the heads of other agencies remain the same. Nothing has changed. Meanwhile, at the local level, county chiefs and city mayors took office yesterday, accompanied by their inner cabinets. Strictly speaking, these personnel appointments were based more on political coloration than on job fitness. Both the grooming and appointment of blue and green camp political appointees have been major disappointments.
First take the KMT. President Ma Ying-jeou has been in office six and a half years. He has long been criticized for recruiting exclusively from his inner circle. The officials who come and go are all drawn from the same coterie of academics or technocrats. They are rarely exceptional. By contrast, in the wake of elections, party representatives or local leaders seldom receive much attention from the party's highest levels. Even highly qualified and experienced officials such as Hau Lung-ping and Jason Hu are given the cold shoulder. Was this a consequence of the Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru scandals? If so, that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The party suffered a major setback. The Mao cabinet can be likened to a "great wind." The same group of people was kicked upstairs, but kept in office. People wanted change. The government should have thrown open the door and created an new political climate. Yet President Ma once again fell back on his "second tier" troop replacement policy in a move to ensure stability. He apparently has yet to grok the reason for his defeat.
Such overly conservative cabinet appointments will of course make innovative government and party personnel appointments difficult. An ideal government personnel appointment plan would balance political elites with administrative elites. It would include professional elites from academia, and even working people from private companies or social groups. Such a diversified cabinet would create synergy between theory and practice. Decision-making and operations would complement each other. For one, it would prevent an administration's thinking from becoming too divorced from reality. For another, it would ensure communications with the legislature, the public, and even the political opposition. It would prevent policy proposals from being blocked on every front. Unfortunately, the Ma government's repeated cabinet reshuffles, have always fallen into the same monotonous trap, again and again.
Recent ruling and opposition party discussions about constitutional issues have revealed support for the cabinet system. This is the result of a negative reaction to a "cabinet manned by academics." Do we really want to adopt the cabinet system? If so, current ruling and opposition lawmakers have questionable ability. They are unlikely to inspire public trust. They are likely to be either derelict in their duty or busy themselves making sweetheart deals. The current cabinet consists of academics and technocrats. They are often guilty of ivory tower policy-making. They lack political sensitivity. They cannot communicate with the legislature and the public. This leads to policy proposals that are politically impracticable. With every cabinet reshuffle, political appointees from academia return to academia to teach. With every election or policy debate, cabinet members shirk and refuse to do battle. They are no help to the ruling administration whatsoever.
Take Jason Hu, for example. He was a former foreign minister and ROC representative to the US. Despite his qualifications, he was willing "go down to the countryside," and run for local office. Who knew that once he went down the countryside, he could no longer return to the ranks of central government? His talents were wasted at the local level, until he was finally forced to step down. Another example is officials sent to hostile territories to "break new ground." Most have no desire to remain and lay down roots. They are afraid that if they fail they will be abandoned. Those in power are unwilling to nurture local talent and open up channels of communication between political appointees and administrative officials. They are unwilling to it dispatch troops where they are needed. This means improvements to government efficiency will reamain impossible, and the sustainable nurturing of talent will remain empty rhetoric.
The KMT has adopted a "big wind" model. The green camp has adopted a "prizes for all" model, which has little to小 recommend it. The "prizes for all" model is nothing more than "If they have the right political colors, then prizes for all!” Take the recent green camp county and city level reshuffling for example. Logically speaking, the main consideration for local governments should be administrative ability rather than political affiliation. That would ensure a functional and capable administration. But the county and city reshufflings betray a preponderance of official appointments that merely reward political cronies. Lin Chia-lung has replaced every member of the Taichung City Government. He has "Chopped heads and started over." Therefore any talk of continuity in municipal government is utterly pointless.
Consider the officials recruited by the green camp. There is no shortage of controversial figures. For example, former Transportion Minister Lin Ling-san was implicated in the ETC scandal. He is now Deputy Mayor of Taichung City. Chou Li-liang was implicated in the foreign workers scandal. He is now Kaohsiung MRT Bureau Chief. Former Water Conservancy Director Lee Hsien-yi was forced to step down over the gas explosion disaster. He is now Taichung Deputy Secretary-General. In addition, the DPP "party worker gang" and the "Kaohsiung gang" have made major inroads in the cities and counties. Even Cheng Wen-chan is again provoking controversy by using the "Kainan gang". The only explanation is recruitment based on political coloration instead of ability and integrity. As long as one is loyal to the green camp, then it's "Prizes for all!"
The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?
大風吹與發福袋：談朝野用人的私和盲
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.26 02:21 am
因應選後新政局，中央到地方都進行了人事改組。不過，行政院改組被譏為「換湯不換藥」，除了閣揆換人，其餘部會首長幾乎原班人馬留任，毫無新意可言。在地方，各縣市長昨天也都帶著自己新組的「小內閣」上任，嚴格說來，這些人事卻是政治顏色考量大於適才適所的布局。藍綠在政務官的養成與任用上都讓人失望。
先談國民黨。馬英九總統執政六年半，始終被外界評為「小圈圈用人」，官員來來去去皆不脫同一體系的學者或技術官僚，絕少驚豔之作。相形之下，經過選舉洗禮的黨內民意代表或地方首長，則甚少得到層峰垂青，連資歷豐厚的郝龍斌、胡志強等也遭冷遇；若說這是林益世、賴素如後遺症之一，則恐已到了因噎廢食的地步。歷經一場重大挫敗，毛內閣的組成卻如「大風吹」，同一批人移了移位置，居然也就重新上陣。正當人心思變，政府必須大開大闔創造氣象之際，馬總統反而採取「次軍布局」圖求穩定，彷彿不知自己敗在哪裡。
如此守舊、呆滯的人才布局，當然影響政府及黨內人才的流動，執政作為難有創新。理想的政府人事布局，應該是若干比例的政治菁英搭配行政菁英，再加上學術界的專業菁英，乃至加入若干民間企業或社會團體的實務工作者共同組成。這樣的多元組合，有助於理論與實務的互相切磋與激發，在決策與操作上的彼此互補相成，一則行政思考不致太過脫離現實，二則與國會、民間乃至反對陣營的溝通不會窒礙難通，才不致使行政推動處處碰壁。遺憾的是，馬政府多次內閣改組，始終陷入單調的布局路線，一次次掉進同一陷阱。
最近朝野談及修憲議題，都提到希望改為「內閣制」，此議，正是對「學者內閣」不滿的反撲。當然，如果真要改成內閣制，以目前朝野國會議員素質之參差，只怕難以取信於民，更可能衍生嚴重的利益輸送問題。但是，目前學者和技術官僚當道的行政團隊，常常抱著象牙塔裡的學問當成政策，既缺乏政治敏感度，又無法與立法院和社會大眾溝通，導致決策無法推動或令出而不行。尤其，學界出身的政務官每逢改組去職即返校重拾教鞭，每逢選舉或政策辯論又怯於上陣，這對執政黨厚植人才毫無助益。
以胡志強為例，曾任外交部長與駐美代表，這種條件卻願意「下鄉」參選的政務官幾稀。誰料，一下到地方，就回不了中央，他只能耗損到交出地盤。再如許多被派往艱困選區「開疆闢土」的戰將，也多半不願久待扎根，就是唯恐來不及建立戰功就先被遺棄。執政者如果不能將培育人才的眼光放至地方，並打通民意代表與行政官員換軌的管道，使其截長補短，則政府效能恐怕無以提升，人才的永續經營也將淪為空話。
若說國民黨用人是「大風吹」模式，綠營的「發福袋」模式，也沒有太多值得誇口。所謂「發福袋」，就是「只看顏色，人人有獎」。以這次各綠營縣市的改組為例，照理地方政府組成應以事務而非政治為主要考量，以維持行政上的穩健和熟練。但從各縣市的用人看，卻幾乎都以分配官位為重，獎賞朋黨。林佳龍將台中市府一級首長全部換人，「砍掉重練」；如此一來，要談市政延續當然是緣木求魚。
再看那些受到綠營百里侯重用的官員，不乏爭議人物。例如，曾在ＥＴＣ弊案遭訴的前交通部長林陵三，出任台中市副市長；曾涉高捷外勞弊案的周禮良，出任台北市捷運局長；因氣爆案下台的高雄市前水利局長李賢義，出任台中市副秘書長。此外，如民進黨的「黨工幫」及「高雄幫」大舉進入各縣市，乃至鄭文燦重用「開南幫」，都引起議論。這種情況，唯一的解釋就是，用人考量只論「顏色」而非「能力操守」，只要是綠營，便「人人有獎」。
藍綠的用人取材手法不同，但兩黨似乎越來越陷入自己的思維窠臼，而有走火入魔之勢。國民黨執政越久，人才庫越顯單薄；而民進黨無論在哪裡執政，卻都被質疑「意識形態治國」，這正是主要原因。環境在變，人心在變，而且變得很快，但如果兩黨的用人政策不變，台灣如何進步？
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Reform Motivated by Political Calculation is Merely Running in Place
Reform Motivated by Political Calculation is Merely Running in Place
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25th, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people. Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.
Full Text Below:
"Which system is best?" That is the question American political philosopher John Rawls and John Harsanyi asked in 1994. Harsayi won the Nobel Prize in economics for his studies in game theory. He and Rawls co-sponsored the concept of the "veil of ignorance". According to this concept, which political system people prefer is based on vested interests and potential benefits. We must assume that everyone in the community has the same chance as everyone else, then ask ourselves, "Do I want such a system?" Unfortunately, the "veil of ignorance" seldom manifests itself on Taiwan's political stage. Over the years, reforms have invariably been based on political calculation. Three recent incidents confirm this.
One. Take the county chiefs and city mayors election “ballot flashing” question. Should council members flash their ballots? Should they be permitted to flash their ballots? This brings us back to the "veil of ignorance" question we discussed earlier. The answer should be clear. But politicians persist in making political calculations. During the nine in one county chiefs and city mayors elections, the DPP said it instructed council members to flash their ballots to prevent the speaker from engaging in vote buying. This is upside down logic. In the past, the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots. Did they do this to prevent vote buying? The most absurd rationalization was offered by DPP legislator Tuan Yi-kang, in a FaceBook comment, "The DPP has been totally consistent. Current advocacy of ballot flashing and past opposition to ballot flashing, are responses to society's demands for social justice."
Tuan Yi-kang's implication was that the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots because the KMT nominee was not a worthy candidate. Conversely, when the DPP demanded ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election, it was because the DPP nominee was a worthy candidate. Are we to understand that democracy means the DPP must win, and that only a DPP candidate can be a worthy candidate? What is this, if not George Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad" from "Animal Farm?" Why not repeal every law on Taiwan, leaving only the one proviso, "DPP good, KMT bad”?
The KMT is not that much better. In respons to legislative consent, it did everything possible to flash ballots. Now it acts aggrieved and calls ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election a case of "double standards." But how much sympathy can such a complaint garner? Is the DPP the only party that practiced double standards? Is the answer really so difficult? Article 44 of the "Local System Act" clearly states in black and white that local village, township, and municipal elections shall "employ secret ballot to elect or impeach." The answer is simple. The ruling and opposition parties simply ignore it based on their own political calculations.
Take another example. Should the 2016 presidential and legislative elections be merged into one single election? DPP Secretary-General Wong Chin-chu studied the 2012 elections before arriving at a decision. He then held a press conference and declared that merging the two elections could lead to an “untended window,” a gap when no one is in charge. He said "The ruling party is pushing hard for a merger only because it wants to strike while the iron is hot." But following the DPP's victory in the nine in one elections, DPP momentum was at a peak. DPP spokesman Hsu Chia-ching said, "In order to conserve the nation's resources, merging the two elections is makes more sense, and would avoid wasting public funds."
What system is best has a simple answer. Is the motive to save public funds? Is it to avoid an untended window? In the eyes of both political parties, it all boils down to whether the coat tails effect is beneficial or detrimental to its partisan interests. If the coat tails effect is beneficial to a party, it will favor a merger. If the coat tails effect is detrimental, it will oppose any such merger. Once again, political calculations override the rule of law. Political parties opt for merged or separate elections based solely on which enhances its election prospects, rather than the long-term stability of the system.
A third example concerns constitutional issues. During the Ma administration, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly demanded constitutional changes, including voting age changes, increased legislative seats, mixed-member proportional representation for the legislature, and lowered thresholds to achieve official political party status. But upon winning the nine in one elections, the chances of the Democratic Progressive Party winning the 2016 president election dramatically increased. The DPP's constitutional reform posture suddenly turned conservative. The KMT, which dragged its feet and evaded constitutional issues, suddenly turned reformist. Eric Chu announced that as party chairman his starting position would be to favor constitutional reform. He advocated adopting a cabinet system. This flip-flopping farce has been enacted on a variety of issues. If every reform attempt degenerates into a political power struggle, how can Taiwan's political system possibly evolve?
We hope that Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties will value sustainable development, keep the people's long-term interests in mind, and discuss systemic reform. They must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people.
Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.
社論－政治算計的改革只是籠中鼠跑步
2014年12月25日 04:09
本報訊
「什麼樣的制度是最好的制度？」是美國政治哲學家羅爾斯與1994年因博弈理論獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎的約翰海薩尼，共同提出「無知之幕」中的概念。每一個人對制度的偏好，都依據自己的既得利益及潛在利益考量，因此，我們應該假設自己有平等的機率成為社會上的每一個人，然後問自己：「我想要什麼樣的制度？」很可惜的，這個「無知之幕」在台灣的政治世界似乎鮮少存在。多年來，制度改革始終被扭曲成一場又一場「有知算計」的政治角力。我們從最近的3件事就可以看出。
第一件是在縣市議長選舉可不可以亮票的問題。該不該亮票、可不可以亮票？本應回歸「無知之幕」的制度討論，是與非的答案應該很清楚，卻仍演變政治人物「有知算計」的互鬥。九合一後登場的縣市議長選舉，民進黨說，要求議員亮票，是為了避免議長買票，這個邏輯反面過來，豈不意謂民進黨過去阻止立法院行使監委同意權投票時國民黨立委亮票，就是要助長買票？最最荒謬的詮釋首推民進黨立委段宜康的臉書的發言：「民進黨前後標準一致：現在的強制亮票和此前的拒絕亮票，都是為了符合社會期待的公義。」
段宜康的意思似乎是，民進黨阻止國民黨立委在監委同意權中亮票，是因為國民黨提名的監委人選是不公義的；民進黨議員必須在議長選舉中亮票，是因為民進黨提名的議長人選是公義的。難道民主的意思是民進黨作主才算數嗎？如果只有民進黨的作為才是公義的，那是不是仿效歐威爾筆下的《動物農莊》的第一律：「四足為善，二足為惡」，把台灣的法律都廢除，只留下「民進黨為善，國民黨為惡」一條規定即可？
國民黨也不遑多讓，在監委同意權行使時千方百計的想亮票，現在則滿腹冤屈的回頭罵民進黨在議長選舉亮票是「雙重標準」，這樣的冤屈，能博得多少同情？雙重標準的豈只有民進黨？制度的答案有這麼難嗎？《地方制度法》第44條白紙黑字規定的清清楚楚，地方議長、鄉鎮市代主席的選舉，「以無記名投票分別互選或罷免之」。只是這簡單至極的答案，在朝野政黨政治算計的眼中看不到。
另一個例子，是2016年的總統與立委選舉要不要合併投票的問題。在研究2012年選舉應否併選時，當時的民進黨書記長翁金珠曾召開記者會表示，併選可能會有憲政空窗期，「執政黨硬推合併選舉根本是『橫柴入灶』。」然而，九合一大勝後，民進黨挾著勝選氣勢，民進黨發言人徐佳青說：「基於國家資源的利用，合併選舉應是較合理的作法，以免浪費國家公帑。」
制度問題的本質本來應該很單純，究竟該節省國家公帑，還是避免過長的空窗？但在政黨眼中，由於併選會有母雞帶小雞或者反過來說母雞害小雞的效應。對於母雞較強的一方，會比較期待併選，相反的母雞弱的一方則比較不傾向併選。於是政治算計又再度凌駕制度討論，政黨看的是併選或不併選，哪一個選項對自己政黨的勝選有幫助，而不是長治久安的制度。
第三個例子發生在修憲議題上。馬總統執政期間，民進黨主席蔡英文屢屢拋出修憲主張，包括投票年齡下修、增加立委席次、立委選制改成聯立制、政黨門檻下修。但當九合一勝選後，外界評估民進黨2016年總統的勝選機率增加，民進黨對修憲態度轉趨保守，反倒是過去對修憲議題一直拖延閃躲的國民黨，朱立倫宣布參選黨主席的起手式卻是修憲，主張應改採內閣制。這種立場不斷互換的荒謬劇，在各種制度改革議題上跳躍上演，如果每個制度改革議題，都變成政黨爭權的角力場，台灣的制度還有進步的可能嗎？
我們希望朝野政黨應以台灣永續發展、人民長期利益為念，討論制度的革新，不能也不應用短線政治算計圖謀一黨之權與一黨之私。我們深知，這樣的呼籲對政治人物不一定管用，只有人民的選票才能約束政黨不可只看黨私，不問公益，只有人民的選票才有機會打破政治人物的「有知算計」，然後，制度議題才有可能在「無知之幕」下，中立公正的進行以國家長治、人民福祉為唯一目的的真正改革。
政治算計的改革不是改革，只是老鼠在籠子裡跑步。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25th, 2014
Executive Summary: Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people. Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.
Full Text Below:
"Which system is best?" That is the question American political philosopher John Rawls and John Harsanyi asked in 1994. Harsayi won the Nobel Prize in economics for his studies in game theory. He and Rawls co-sponsored the concept of the "veil of ignorance". According to this concept, which political system people prefer is based on vested interests and potential benefits. We must assume that everyone in the community has the same chance as everyone else, then ask ourselves, "Do I want such a system?" Unfortunately, the "veil of ignorance" seldom manifests itself on Taiwan's political stage. Over the years, reforms have invariably been based on political calculation. Three recent incidents confirm this.
One. Take the county chiefs and city mayors election “ballot flashing” question. Should council members flash their ballots? Should they be permitted to flash their ballots? This brings us back to the "veil of ignorance" question we discussed earlier. The answer should be clear. But politicians persist in making political calculations. During the nine in one county chiefs and city mayors elections, the DPP said it instructed council members to flash their ballots to prevent the speaker from engaging in vote buying. This is upside down logic. In the past, the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots. Did they do this to prevent vote buying? The most absurd rationalization was offered by DPP legislator Tuan Yi-kang, in a FaceBook comment, "The DPP has been totally consistent. Current advocacy of ballot flashing and past opposition to ballot flashing, are responses to society's demands for social justice."
Tuan Yi-kang's implication was that the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots because the KMT nominee was not a worthy candidate. Conversely, when the DPP demanded ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election, it was because the DPP nominee was a worthy candidate. Are we to understand that democracy means the DPP must win, and that only a DPP candidate can be a worthy candidate? What is this, if not George Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad" from "Animal Farm?" Why not repeal every law on Taiwan, leaving only the one proviso, "DPP good, KMT bad”?
The KMT is not that much better. In respons to legislative consent, it did everything possible to flash ballots. Now it acts aggrieved and calls ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election a case of "double standards." But how much sympathy can such a complaint garner? Is the DPP the only party that practiced double standards? Is the answer really so difficult? Article 44 of the "Local System Act" clearly states in black and white that local village, township, and municipal elections shall "employ secret ballot to elect or impeach." The answer is simple. The ruling and opposition parties simply ignore it based on their own political calculations.
Take another example. Should the 2016 presidential and legislative elections be merged into one single election? DPP Secretary-General Wong Chin-chu studied the 2012 elections before arriving at a decision. He then held a press conference and declared that merging the two elections could lead to an “untended window,” a gap when no one is in charge. He said "The ruling party is pushing hard for a merger only because it wants to strike while the iron is hot." But following the DPP's victory in the nine in one elections, DPP momentum was at a peak. DPP spokesman Hsu Chia-ching said, "In order to conserve the nation's resources, merging the two elections is makes more sense, and would avoid wasting public funds."
What system is best has a simple answer. Is the motive to save public funds? Is it to avoid an untended window? In the eyes of both political parties, it all boils down to whether the coat tails effect is beneficial or detrimental to its partisan interests. If the coat tails effect is beneficial to a party, it will favor a merger. If the coat tails effect is detrimental, it will oppose any such merger. Once again, political calculations override the rule of law. Political parties opt for merged or separate elections based solely on which enhances its election prospects, rather than the long-term stability of the system.
A third example concerns constitutional issues. During the Ma administration, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly demanded constitutional changes, including voting age changes, increased legislative seats, mixed-member proportional representation for the legislature, and lowered thresholds to achieve official political party status. But upon winning the nine in one elections, the chances of the Democratic Progressive Party winning the 2016 president election dramatically increased. The DPP's constitutional reform posture suddenly turned conservative. The KMT, which dragged its feet and evaded constitutional issues, suddenly turned reformist. Eric Chu announced that as party chairman his starting position would be to favor constitutional reform. He advocated adopting a cabinet system. This flip-flopping farce has been enacted on a variety of issues. If every reform attempt degenerates into a political power struggle, how can Taiwan's political system possibly evolve?
We hope that Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties will value sustainable development, keep the people's long-term interests in mind, and discuss systemic reform. They must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people.
Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.
社論－政治算計的改革只是籠中鼠跑步
2014年12月25日 04:09
本報訊
「什麼樣的制度是最好的制度？」是美國政治哲學家羅爾斯與1994年因博弈理論獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎的約翰海薩尼，共同提出「無知之幕」中的概念。每一個人對制度的偏好，都依據自己的既得利益及潛在利益考量，因此，我們應該假設自己有平等的機率成為社會上的每一個人，然後問自己：「我想要什麼樣的制度？」很可惜的，這個「無知之幕」在台灣的政治世界似乎鮮少存在。多年來，制度改革始終被扭曲成一場又一場「有知算計」的政治角力。我們從最近的3件事就可以看出。
第一件是在縣市議長選舉可不可以亮票的問題。該不該亮票、可不可以亮票？本應回歸「無知之幕」的制度討論，是與非的答案應該很清楚，卻仍演變政治人物「有知算計」的互鬥。九合一後登場的縣市議長選舉，民進黨說，要求議員亮票，是為了避免議長買票，這個邏輯反面過來，豈不意謂民進黨過去阻止立法院行使監委同意權投票時國民黨立委亮票，就是要助長買票？最最荒謬的詮釋首推民進黨立委段宜康的臉書的發言：「民進黨前後標準一致：現在的強制亮票和此前的拒絕亮票，都是為了符合社會期待的公義。」
段宜康的意思似乎是，民進黨阻止國民黨立委在監委同意權中亮票，是因為國民黨提名的監委人選是不公義的；民進黨議員必須在議長選舉中亮票，是因為民進黨提名的議長人選是公義的。難道民主的意思是民進黨作主才算數嗎？如果只有民進黨的作為才是公義的，那是不是仿效歐威爾筆下的《動物農莊》的第一律：「四足為善，二足為惡」，把台灣的法律都廢除，只留下「民進黨為善，國民黨為惡」一條規定即可？
國民黨也不遑多讓，在監委同意權行使時千方百計的想亮票，現在則滿腹冤屈的回頭罵民進黨在議長選舉亮票是「雙重標準」，這樣的冤屈，能博得多少同情？雙重標準的豈只有民進黨？制度的答案有這麼難嗎？《地方制度法》第44條白紙黑字規定的清清楚楚，地方議長、鄉鎮市代主席的選舉，「以無記名投票分別互選或罷免之」。只是這簡單至極的答案，在朝野政黨政治算計的眼中看不到。
另一個例子，是2016年的總統與立委選舉要不要合併投票的問題。在研究2012年選舉應否併選時，當時的民進黨書記長翁金珠曾召開記者會表示，併選可能會有憲政空窗期，「執政黨硬推合併選舉根本是『橫柴入灶』。」然而，九合一大勝後，民進黨挾著勝選氣勢，民進黨發言人徐佳青說：「基於國家資源的利用，合併選舉應是較合理的作法，以免浪費國家公帑。」
制度問題的本質本來應該很單純，究竟該節省國家公帑，還是避免過長的空窗？但在政黨眼中，由於併選會有母雞帶小雞或者反過來說母雞害小雞的效應。對於母雞較強的一方，會比較期待併選，相反的母雞弱的一方則比較不傾向併選。於是政治算計又再度凌駕制度討論，政黨看的是併選或不併選，哪一個選項對自己政黨的勝選有幫助，而不是長治久安的制度。
第三個例子發生在修憲議題上。馬總統執政期間，民進黨主席蔡英文屢屢拋出修憲主張，包括投票年齡下修、增加立委席次、立委選制改成聯立制、政黨門檻下修。但當九合一勝選後，外界評估民進黨2016年總統的勝選機率增加，民進黨對修憲態度轉趨保守，反倒是過去對修憲議題一直拖延閃躲的國民黨，朱立倫宣布參選黨主席的起手式卻是修憲，主張應改採內閣制。這種立場不斷互換的荒謬劇，在各種制度改革議題上跳躍上演，如果每個制度改革議題，都變成政黨爭權的角力場，台灣的制度還有進步的可能嗎？
我們希望朝野政黨應以台灣永續發展、人民長期利益為念，討論制度的革新，不能也不應用短線政治算計圖謀一黨之權與一黨之私。我們深知，這樣的呼籲對政治人物不一定管用，只有人民的選票才能約束政黨不可只看黨私，不問公益，只有人民的選票才有機會打破政治人物的「有知算計」，然後，制度議題才有可能在「無知之幕」下，中立公正的進行以國家長治、人民福祉為唯一目的的真正改革。
政治算計的改革不是改革，只是老鼠在籠子裡跑步。
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
All Eyes are on the Legislative Yuan
All Eyes are on the Legislative Yuan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2014
Executive Summary: Today, DPP Legislators Wu Ping-rui and Hsueh Ling will hold a public hearing in the Legislative Yuan. They will discuss the sixth of 66 articles of the Income Tax Act. This part of the tax law concerns the “unified tax". The third reading was held in May of this year. It is expected to go into effect in January of next year, In recent years, certain provisions have helped reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. But legislators are now trying to overturn them. The "halving of the deductible dividend rate" requirement was changed to next year's new surplus. This is no trivial matter. If it passes, it will mean a 14 year moratorium.
Full Text Below:
Today, DPP Legislators Wu Ping-rui and Hsueh Ling will hold a public hearing in the Legislative Yuan. They will discuss the sixth of 66 articles of the Income Tax Act. This part of the tax law concerns the “unified tax". The third reading was held in May of this year. It is expected to go into effect in January of next year, In recent years, certain provisions have helped reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. But legislators are now trying to overturn them. The "halving of the deductible dividend rate" requirement was changed to next year's new surplus. This is no trivial matter. If it passes, it will mean a 14 year moratorium.
The nine in one elections have just ended. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen gave a victory speech. In it she promised "severe disciplinary measures for political corruption” and an “absolute determination to fulfilling public expectations.” Her words were still ringing in our ears when green camp legislators went on the offensive, and gave tax cuts to the rich. The DPP's practice of "saying one thing while doing another” should raise serious concerns among Taiwan public.
Allow us to help the reader in understanding the amendment to Income Tax Law 266. Originally taxes on for-profit enterprises and consolidated personal income were levied separately. In 1992, then Finance Minister Chiu Cheng-hsiung proposed a "unified tax." This amended tax law would allow "personal dividend income" to be included in the consolidated income declaration. One could then deduct the full amount of "for-profit enterprise income" paid by one's company, call it a combined "comprehensive personal income tax” and "company profits." This amendment reduced the government's annual tax revenue by nearly 100 billion NT.
This “two taxes in one” was indeed used by certain European and American countries. But a growing number of countries have dispensed with such a system. They no longer see business taxes and income taxes as “redundant". Also, many countries are experiencing increasing inequality. They are no longer willing to grant the wealthy tax credits on dividend income. As a result, they have modified the unified tax system. They have returned to the old "two tax system with no credits". In the first half of this year, the legislature discussed whether the unified tax regime should be abolished. Eventually it compromised, and allowed "half credits". This amendment has already been compromised by Taiwan's fiscal constraints and the need to raise taxes. Who knew that the consortia and the ultra wealthy are still dissatisfied. Shameless politicians still shield the rich. The new law has yet to go into effect, and it has already been subverted.
Who benefits from the subversion of the 66 article "Income Tax Act"? Why wealthy tycoons, of course. Statistics show that the vast majority of them, over 51.7%, qualify for this deduction. The lowest are in the 30% marginal tax rate bracket. Some are in the 40% marginal tax rate bracket. Their taxes run as high as 40 billion NT. Therefore when lobbyists attempt to overturn the law, we are not talking about middle class taxpayers who taxes run in the tens of dollars, or hundreds of dollars. But approximately 10,000 ultra wealthy individuals. Taiwan's increasingly unequal distribution of income is an indisputable fact. Domestic wages have remained frozen for the past ten years. Many middle class people cannot afford to buy a house. Young people cannot afford to have children, so they don't. This is one of the reasons for ruling party's recent defeat. Now these legislators are shieldig the ultra rich. These legislators dared to overturn a fair tax reform plan that took ten years to pass.
Rhetoric about legislators shielding the rich is not worth refuting. These legislators say they want to implement the tax law only after "company earnings have been issued." But this will probably lead to a 14 year delay. It is the same as no implementation whatsoever. Thes legislators say they initially intended full deductions for retained earnings, but the government would have to implement "trust protection". This is “Kingdom of Formosa” logic. Governments the world over raise or lower tax rates routinely. None of them ever talk about delays in order to implement "trust protection". Those who want tax cuts to enrich themselves always say, "We can expand the tax base with lower tax rates, and increase investments." But as everyone knows, that was the rationale 16 years ago for the "unified tax". In fact, tax cuts did not increase investment in Taiwan. Instead investments significantly declined. These self-enriching lies have been laid bare. Why should anyone still believe them?
Today is an important day. The people must look at the spectacle in the legislature and ask themselves which legislators are on the side of the 99%, and which are on the side of the 1%. The people must look at whether those spouting fairness and justice before the election are phonies. The same is true of the capital gains tax "large investors clause". After duping you into voting for them, will they revert to business as usual? The people will see whether Tsai Ing-wen's victory speech was straight from the heart, or mere feel good rhetoric. The people will see whether the Finance Directorate, and even Executive Yuan President Mao has a backbone. The people will see whether they repudiate the wealthy and humiliate the legislators, or whether they will say, "We respect the decision of the legislature."
The people are looking at what is going on in the Legislative Yuan, and they will not forget.
今天立法院如何發展，全民都在看
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.24 01:52 am
民進黨立委吳秉叡、薛凌今天將在立法院召開公聽會，討論《所得稅法》六十六條之六的再修正案。這項稅法是關於「兩稅合一」的部分扣抵，今年五月才三讀通過，預訂明年一月上路，是近年來國內稍有助於抑制貧富不均的條文。而立委企圖翻盤，將「股利扣抵率減半」的規定改為明年起的新增盈餘才適用；別看這麼一個小小動作，一旦得逞，將造成形同「緩課十四年」的結局。
九合一選舉剛結束，民進黨主席蔡英文的勝選感言「嚴厲管控政風紀律，絕不能辜負人民期待」言猶在耳，而綠營立委卻已忙不迭地在國會發動攻勢，要為有錢富人護航減稅。這種「明修棧道、暗渡陳倉」的作法，值得台灣人民嚴重關切。
先讓我們幫讀者了解一下所得稅法六十六條的修正情況。原本，我國稅法對於公司營利事業所得以及個人綜合所得是都要獨立課稅的。民國八十七年，當時的財政部長邱正雄提出「兩稅合一」方案，修改了該條稅法，容許「個人股利所得」於申報綜合所得稅時，得以全額扣抵公司已繳之「營利事業所得」，稱為「個人綜所稅」與「公司營所稅」之合一。這項修法，讓國家每年減少近一千億元稅收。
這類兩稅合一制度，當年確實有一些歐美國家採用；但發展至今，已經有越來越多的國家在租稅邏輯上做了修正，不再將營所稅與綜所稅視為「重複」課稅。此外，各國也因為貧富不均情況惡化，也不願意再為以股利為所得大宗的富人抵免稅負，於是紛紛又修改兩稅合一，重回「兩稅皆課、不得抵減」的舊制。今年上半年，我國立法院才就兩稅合一是否應廢除做過討論，最後決定採取折衷制，容許「半數抵減」。這項修正案，從台灣財政拮据、有必要加稅的情況看來，已經是妥協的最大底限；沒想到，財團富人仍然貪婪不滿，無恥政客還是要替富人護航，竟然敢在新法尚未上路就急急翻案。
《所得稅法》六十六條之一翻案，對誰有好處呢？當然是大富豪。統計資料顯示，絕大多數（超過五十一．七％）適用此扣抵的案件，都是邊際稅率超過卅％的人；而其中適用四十％邊際稅率的，稅額甚至高達四百億元。因此，遊說要翻案的，絕對不是那些只差幾十元、幾百元稅金的中產階級，而是為數約僅萬人的大富豪。台灣所得分配日益不均，已是不爭的事實。國內十幾年來薪資凍漲，許多中產階級買不起房子，年輕人養不起孩子、因此不敢生孩子等情況，更是這次執政黨敗選的原因之一。今天，我們就要看看是哪些立委在立法院為富豪護航，是哪些立委敢把一項十幾年來好不容易修正的公平稅改方案推翻。
為富人護航立委的說詞，其實不值一駁。他們說，要把稅法修正案「等公司保留盈餘發完」才實施；但這一拖，大概拖延十四年，講白了就跟「不再實施」沒什麼兩樣。他們說，保留盈餘原本有全額扣抵的期待，政府必須貫徹「信賴保護」；但這是天龍國的邏輯，全世界各國稅率調高調低年年發生，從來沒有聽說過要為「信賴保護」而延緩或不實施。降稅自肥的人總是說：「稅率低可以擴大稅基、增加投資」，殊不知，這已經是十六年前推「兩稅合一」時的老梗；事實上，減稅之後台灣的投資並未增加，反而大幅衰退到慘不忍睹。撒謊自肥而被戳穿已如前述，今天人民還要再相信他們的謊言嗎？
今天是一個重要的日子。人民一定要看看今天立法院這一幕，究竟是哪些立法委員站在九十九％這一邊、哪些人站在一％那一邊。人民必須看看，是不是選前所有關於公平正義的修法都是假的，就像證所稅的「大戶條款」一樣，騙完選票，就回復原狀。人民也會看看，蔡英文的勝選感言是不是肺腑之言，或者只是「一篇動人演說稿」。人民也會看看財經首長、甚至行政院毛院長的骨氣，看他們是否任憑富豪與立委羞辱，還能死皮賴臉地說「我們尊重大院的決定」。
今天立法院如何發展，全民都在看，也都會記住的。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25, 2014
Executive Summary: Today, DPP Legislators Wu Ping-rui and Hsueh Ling will hold a public hearing in the Legislative Yuan. They will discuss the sixth of 66 articles of the Income Tax Act. This part of the tax law concerns the “unified tax". The third reading was held in May of this year. It is expected to go into effect in January of next year, In recent years, certain provisions have helped reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. But legislators are now trying to overturn them. The "halving of the deductible dividend rate" requirement was changed to next year's new surplus. This is no trivial matter. If it passes, it will mean a 14 year moratorium.
Full Text Below:
Today, DPP Legislators Wu Ping-rui and Hsueh Ling will hold a public hearing in the Legislative Yuan. They will discuss the sixth of 66 articles of the Income Tax Act. This part of the tax law concerns the “unified tax". The third reading was held in May of this year. It is expected to go into effect in January of next year, In recent years, certain provisions have helped reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. But legislators are now trying to overturn them. The "halving of the deductible dividend rate" requirement was changed to next year's new surplus. This is no trivial matter. If it passes, it will mean a 14 year moratorium.
The nine in one elections have just ended. DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen gave a victory speech. In it she promised "severe disciplinary measures for political corruption” and an “absolute determination to fulfilling public expectations.” Her words were still ringing in our ears when green camp legislators went on the offensive, and gave tax cuts to the rich. The DPP's practice of "saying one thing while doing another” should raise serious concerns among Taiwan public.
Allow us to help the reader in understanding the amendment to Income Tax Law 266. Originally taxes on for-profit enterprises and consolidated personal income were levied separately. In 1992, then Finance Minister Chiu Cheng-hsiung proposed a "unified tax." This amended tax law would allow "personal dividend income" to be included in the consolidated income declaration. One could then deduct the full amount of "for-profit enterprise income" paid by one's company, call it a combined "comprehensive personal income tax” and "company profits." This amendment reduced the government's annual tax revenue by nearly 100 billion NT.
This “two taxes in one” was indeed used by certain European and American countries. But a growing number of countries have dispensed with such a system. They no longer see business taxes and income taxes as “redundant". Also, many countries are experiencing increasing inequality. They are no longer willing to grant the wealthy tax credits on dividend income. As a result, they have modified the unified tax system. They have returned to the old "two tax system with no credits". In the first half of this year, the legislature discussed whether the unified tax regime should be abolished. Eventually it compromised, and allowed "half credits". This amendment has already been compromised by Taiwan's fiscal constraints and the need to raise taxes. Who knew that the consortia and the ultra wealthy are still dissatisfied. Shameless politicians still shield the rich. The new law has yet to go into effect, and it has already been subverted.
Who benefits from the subversion of the 66 article "Income Tax Act"? Why wealthy tycoons, of course. Statistics show that the vast majority of them, over 51.7%, qualify for this deduction. The lowest are in the 30% marginal tax rate bracket. Some are in the 40% marginal tax rate bracket. Their taxes run as high as 40 billion NT. Therefore when lobbyists attempt to overturn the law, we are not talking about middle class taxpayers who taxes run in the tens of dollars, or hundreds of dollars. But approximately 10,000 ultra wealthy individuals. Taiwan's increasingly unequal distribution of income is an indisputable fact. Domestic wages have remained frozen for the past ten years. Many middle class people cannot afford to buy a house. Young people cannot afford to have children, so they don't. This is one of the reasons for ruling party's recent defeat. Now these legislators are shieldig the ultra rich. These legislators dared to overturn a fair tax reform plan that took ten years to pass.
Rhetoric about legislators shielding the rich is not worth refuting. These legislators say they want to implement the tax law only after "company earnings have been issued." But this will probably lead to a 14 year delay. It is the same as no implementation whatsoever. Thes legislators say they initially intended full deductions for retained earnings, but the government would have to implement "trust protection". This is “Kingdom of Formosa” logic. Governments the world over raise or lower tax rates routinely. None of them ever talk about delays in order to implement "trust protection". Those who want tax cuts to enrich themselves always say, "We can expand the tax base with lower tax rates, and increase investments." But as everyone knows, that was the rationale 16 years ago for the "unified tax". In fact, tax cuts did not increase investment in Taiwan. Instead investments significantly declined. These self-enriching lies have been laid bare. Why should anyone still believe them?
Today is an important day. The people must look at the spectacle in the legislature and ask themselves which legislators are on the side of the 99%, and which are on the side of the 1%. The people must look at whether those spouting fairness and justice before the election are phonies. The same is true of the capital gains tax "large investors clause". After duping you into voting for them, will they revert to business as usual? The people will see whether Tsai Ing-wen's victory speech was straight from the heart, or mere feel good rhetoric. The people will see whether the Finance Directorate, and even Executive Yuan President Mao has a backbone. The people will see whether they repudiate the wealthy and humiliate the legislators, or whether they will say, "We respect the decision of the legislature."
The people are looking at what is going on in the Legislative Yuan, and they will not forget.
今天立法院如何發展，全民都在看
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.24 01:52 am
民進黨立委吳秉叡、薛凌今天將在立法院召開公聽會，討論《所得稅法》六十六條之六的再修正案。這項稅法是關於「兩稅合一」的部分扣抵，今年五月才三讀通過，預訂明年一月上路，是近年來國內稍有助於抑制貧富不均的條文。而立委企圖翻盤，將「股利扣抵率減半」的規定改為明年起的新增盈餘才適用；別看這麼一個小小動作，一旦得逞，將造成形同「緩課十四年」的結局。
九合一選舉剛結束，民進黨主席蔡英文的勝選感言「嚴厲管控政風紀律，絕不能辜負人民期待」言猶在耳，而綠營立委卻已忙不迭地在國會發動攻勢，要為有錢富人護航減稅。這種「明修棧道、暗渡陳倉」的作法，值得台灣人民嚴重關切。
先讓我們幫讀者了解一下所得稅法六十六條的修正情況。原本，我國稅法對於公司營利事業所得以及個人綜合所得是都要獨立課稅的。民國八十七年，當時的財政部長邱正雄提出「兩稅合一」方案，修改了該條稅法，容許「個人股利所得」於申報綜合所得稅時，得以全額扣抵公司已繳之「營利事業所得」，稱為「個人綜所稅」與「公司營所稅」之合一。這項修法，讓國家每年減少近一千億元稅收。
這類兩稅合一制度，當年確實有一些歐美國家採用；但發展至今，已經有越來越多的國家在租稅邏輯上做了修正，不再將營所稅與綜所稅視為「重複」課稅。此外，各國也因為貧富不均情況惡化，也不願意再為以股利為所得大宗的富人抵免稅負，於是紛紛又修改兩稅合一，重回「兩稅皆課、不得抵減」的舊制。今年上半年，我國立法院才就兩稅合一是否應廢除做過討論，最後決定採取折衷制，容許「半數抵減」。這項修正案，從台灣財政拮据、有必要加稅的情況看來，已經是妥協的最大底限；沒想到，財團富人仍然貪婪不滿，無恥政客還是要替富人護航，竟然敢在新法尚未上路就急急翻案。
《所得稅法》六十六條之一翻案，對誰有好處呢？當然是大富豪。統計資料顯示，絕大多數（超過五十一．七％）適用此扣抵的案件，都是邊際稅率超過卅％的人；而其中適用四十％邊際稅率的，稅額甚至高達四百億元。因此，遊說要翻案的，絕對不是那些只差幾十元、幾百元稅金的中產階級，而是為數約僅萬人的大富豪。台灣所得分配日益不均，已是不爭的事實。國內十幾年來薪資凍漲，許多中產階級買不起房子，年輕人養不起孩子、因此不敢生孩子等情況，更是這次執政黨敗選的原因之一。今天，我們就要看看是哪些立委在立法院為富豪護航，是哪些立委敢把一項十幾年來好不容易修正的公平稅改方案推翻。
為富人護航立委的說詞，其實不值一駁。他們說，要把稅法修正案「等公司保留盈餘發完」才實施；但這一拖，大概拖延十四年，講白了就跟「不再實施」沒什麼兩樣。他們說，保留盈餘原本有全額扣抵的期待，政府必須貫徹「信賴保護」；但這是天龍國的邏輯，全世界各國稅率調高調低年年發生，從來沒有聽說過要為「信賴保護」而延緩或不實施。降稅自肥的人總是說：「稅率低可以擴大稅基、增加投資」，殊不知，這已經是十六年前推「兩稅合一」時的老梗；事實上，減稅之後台灣的投資並未增加，反而大幅衰退到慘不忍睹。撒謊自肥而被戳穿已如前述，今天人民還要再相信他們的謊言嗎？
今天是一個重要的日子。人民一定要看看今天立法院這一幕，究竟是哪些立法委員站在九十九％這一邊、哪些人站在一％那一邊。人民必須看看，是不是選前所有關於公平正義的修法都是假的，就像證所稅的「大戶條款」一樣，騙完選票，就回復原狀。人民也會看看，蔡英文的勝選感言是不是肺腑之言，或者只是「一篇動人演說稿」。人民也會看看財經首長、甚至行政院毛院長的骨氣，看他們是否任憑富豪與立委羞辱，還能死皮賴臉地說「我們尊重大院的決定」。
今天立法院如何發展，全民都在看，也都會記住的。
Monday, December 22, 2014
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP Owe the Public an Apology
Chen Shui-bian and the DPP Owe the Public an Apology
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 23, 2014
Executive Summary: Assertions that Chen's release would bring "blue-green reconciliation" to Taiwan are sheer fantasy. Assertions that Chen Shui-bian going "home for the holidays" would bring warmth to the community are self-deception. Most importantly, this "Free Chen!" farce must not be spun as "Ah-Bian's resurrection." It must not be spun as “The Chen family was never guilty of corruption at all." It must not be allowed to invert right and wrong. To avoid these problems, we urge Chen and the DPP to apologize to the public before Chen is freed. People have been awaiting this moment for six years.
Full Text Below:
The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. The first thing they did afterwards however, was to convene all 13 elected county chiefs and city mayors, and demand that the Ma government release Chen Shui-bian, alleging that this would be the first step in "blue-green reconciliation". Former Vice President Annette Lu was even more specific. She demanded that Chen be released this month, before the 25th, otherwise she would begin a hunger strike. Under such pressures, the Ma government has apparently begun retreating and equivocating. Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice appeared ready to cave in.
A democratic election was held. Yet the winner shows scant concern for the nation's economic future or how to clean up the political mess. Instead, it devotes all its energy to getting a corrupt former head of state released from prison. Do the DPP's actions deserve public support? The Ma administration has repeatedly proclaimed its reverence for the rule of law. Yet a single defeat at the polls has caused the Justice Minister to lose his way in the Chen family corruption case and obsequiously hint that leniency is possible.
The government appears ready to release Chen. But ambiguous legal and ethical issues remain. This is something the ruling and opposition parties and even the Chen family cannot avoid. The various parties involved must speak clearly and make themselves understood. Otherwise if Chen is hastily released, the troubles will merely be beginning.
One. Will Chen be released on humanitarian grounds, or political grounds? The DPP alleges that releasing Chen would be the first step in blue-green reconciliation. Obviously that would be a case of political considerations. But the Ma government is talking about "amnesty," and "medical leave." Obviously it is attempting to keep his contemplated release a legal matter. It hopes to offer Chen leniency on the grounds that he is a "former president." But Chen's condition would also require a professional opinion from the medical community. In other words, the Ma government may wish to consider legal, political, and humanitarian factors. But its passivity has made all of these options difficult.
Chen Shui-bian has been in prison for six years. Despite his corruption, immorality, and dereliction of duty, every time a health problem emerged, medical leave was granted. Giving him special consideration is not out of the question. But when a president breaks the law, he must be treated the same as any ordinary citizen who breaks the law. If the appeal is to "humanity," then other inmates must be treated the same way. Therefore if ruling and opposition party politicians want to argue the matter, the consistent solution would be to amend the law to relax the requirements for medical leave. Only this would be consistent with the universal application of "humanitarian" considerations.
Two. Giving Chen leave does not mean he is "not guilty." This must be clearly understood. Chen Shui-bian was convicted of corruption after two appeals. He was convicted of corruption in the Longtan case, the Diana Chen case, the Nangang Exhibition Hall case, the Yuan Ta and Fu Hua cases. The sums involved amount to over 600 million NT. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and fined 200 million NT. He is also implicated in the state affairs fund case and multiple cases of embezzlement. He has yet to appear in court for these because currently these cases cannot proceed. That does not mean that he and others are innocent.
Therefore, the term "freeing Chen" is highly misleading. Even if the Ministry of Justice grants medical leave, It merely means that his physical condition prevents continued incarceration. In fact, he has been receiving medical care from Peiteh Hospital for some time. That does not mean he was "freed" or "acquitted." Alas, the Green Camp has been up to its usual political tricks. Chen Shui-bian may well be granted "medical leave." But the green camp spins it as "release from prison." They are even arguing that he was never guilty in the first place, but was merely a victim of a KMT "miscarriage of justice" then thrown into a "dungeon." The ruling party must make the truth on this point clear. It must not allow the DPP to confuse the public.
Three. Chen and the DPP are mistaken. Chen family corruption cases began erupting In 2006. The DPP backed him unconditionally. It helped him cover up his crimes. Even after his conviction, the DPP never admitted this or issued an apology. It has dug in its heels to this day. Instead, it attempted to make excuses for Chen. Even now it threatens a hunger strike. It is as if Chen Shui-bian never had a problem with corruption or misconduct. How then, can the DPP claim that it has "the ability to engage in soul-searching?"
Consider also Chen Shui-bian's attitude. Chen has been in prison over six years. He has never once expressed any remorse for his heinous crimes of corruption, let alone apologize or admit guilt. Also, Wu Shu-chen's corruption was no less serious than Chen's. But her poor health gave her a pass and spared her a prison term. It did not mean she was not guilty. Also, the Chen family has squirreled away vast sums overseas. These have yet to be recovered. Several cases have yet to go ahead due to health reasons. Has the green camp blanked these out while demanding medical parole for Chen?
Consider the perspective of the public. Assertions that Chen's release would bring "blue-green reconciliation" to Taiwan are sheer fantasy. Assertions that Chen Shui-bian going "home for the holidays" would bring warmth to the community are self-deception. Most importantly, this "Free Chen!" farce must not be spun as "Ah-Bian's resurrection." It must not be spun as “The Chen family was never guilty of corruption at all." It must not be allowed to invert right and wrong. To avoid these problems, we urge Chen and the DPP to apologize to the public before Chen is freed. People have been awaiting this moment for six years.
陳水扁和民進黨都尚欠全民一個道歉
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.23 02:04 am
民進黨九合一選舉大勝後的首件大事，就是集合十三名當選的縣市長，齊聲要求馬政府釋放陳水扁，宣稱這是「藍綠和解」的第一步。前副總統呂秀蓮更指定日期，要求在本月廿五日前釋扁，否則將發動絕食抗議。在這樣的壓力下，馬政府似乎只能被迫步步撤守，放寬解
釋，昨天法務部的鑑定作業便充滿這種放水的情緒。
一場民主選舉結果，勝利者關心的不是國家經濟發展大計，不是如何收拾殘破的政局，卻將全部重點放在一名貪瀆前元首身上；民進黨的做法，對得起它虛胖的民意支持嗎？而馬政府先前一再宣示尊重法治專業，但臨到選舉挫敗當頭，法務部長卻忙不迭地為扁家「指點迷津」，示意可以網開一面從寬認定，也未免氣短而畏縮。
目前朝野「釋扁」的氣候已經箭在弦上，但其間有一些曖昧、灰暗的法理及倫理議題，仍有待釐清，這是執政黨和在野黨乃至扁家都無法迴避的事。各方如果不能說清楚、講明白，一旦隨意鬆手放扁回家，勢必引發諸多後患。
第一，釋扁是人道考量或政治考量？民進黨聲稱釋扁是「藍綠和解」的第一步，顯然將此事視為政治象徵。然而，馬政府捨「特赦」而採「保外就醫」之途，顯然希望將此事局限在法律層次，希望僅就陳水扁「前總統」之身分從寬認定，而其病情也恰好有醫界的專業意見作為佐證。亦即，馬政府希望兼顧法律、政治、人道三方面的因素，但由於形勢已嚴重落於被動，反而顯得面面不俱到。
事實上，以陳水扁之貪汙、無德、失職，在關了六年之後，身體每下愈況，要讓他保外就醫，並非不能給予特殊考量。然而，從「總統犯法與庶民同罪」的法理看，如果要從「人道」的角度處理陳水扁的情況，對其他受刑人也應該採取同樣的標準。因此，朝野政治人物若要置喙此事，更根本的辦法應該是推動修法，放寬保外就醫的相關規定，這才合乎普世價值的「人道」。
第二，「釋扁」並不等於「無罪」，其間因果邏輯必須清楚說明。陳水扁是經司法三審定讞的貪汙犯，他在龍潭案、陳敏薰案、南港展覽館案、元大併復華案等合計貪汙所得達六億餘元，皆被判刑定讞，須合併執行最高廿年的徒刑，並併科兩億元罰金。除此之外，他還有國務機要費案、侵占公文案等多個案件因無法出庭，至今無法審結，這並不表示他和其他相關人等在這些案件中無罪。
也因此，所謂「釋扁」是一個易滋誤解的措詞。就算他通過法務部鑑定可以「保外就醫」，也只意味其身體狀況不適合繼續坐牢（其實他早在培德戒護就醫），並不表示他獲得「假釋」或「無罪釋放」。然而，以綠營慣用的政治伎倆，極可能將陳水扁的「保外就醫」說成「獲釋」，甚至說他原本無罪，卻受冤坐了國民黨的「冤獄」或「黑牢」云云。這點，執政黨必須清楚說明，民進黨更須保證不會混淆視聽。
第三，關於陳水扁和民進黨的認錯態度。從二○○六年扁案爆發後，民進黨始終在全力挺扁，幫他遮掩；即使在扁定罪入獄後，民進黨也從未就此向社會道歉認錯。拗到今天，它反而振振有詞地要求釋扁，甚至以絕食作為要脅，彷彿陳水扁從來沒有發生貪瀆失德的問題。這樣的民進黨，還敢說自己是「有反省能力」的政黨嗎？
再看扁家的態度。陳水扁入獄六年多來，從來不曾為自己犯下的滔天貪瀆罪行有過任何反省，遑論道歉認錯。再說，吳淑珍的貪汙情節其實絲毫不遜於陳水扁，只是因為她的身體違和而免於繫獄，並非她無罪。然而，扁家藏在海外的許多賄款迄今尚未追回，若干案件也因兩人健康因素而停擺；這些，難道也都要隨著陳水扁保外就醫一併拋諸腦後？
從民眾的角度看，要說釋扁能為台灣帶來「藍綠和解」，恐怕是天方夜譚；要說陳水扁能「回家過年」可以為社會增添溫暖，也只是自欺欺人。重要的是，這齣「放扁記」的大戲，絕不能淪為「阿扁復活記」的序曲，不能變成扁家「貪瀆無罪」的政治證書，更不能使社會的是非黑白觀念因此被扭曲顛倒。為了避免這些後遺症發生，我們要求陳水扁和民進黨在釋扁前應先向社會大眾致歉；這一刻，民眾已經等了六年。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 23, 2014
Executive Summary: Assertions that Chen's release would bring "blue-green reconciliation" to Taiwan are sheer fantasy. Assertions that Chen Shui-bian going "home for the holidays" would bring warmth to the community are self-deception. Most importantly, this "Free Chen!" farce must not be spun as "Ah-Bian's resurrection." It must not be spun as “The Chen family was never guilty of corruption at all." It must not be allowed to invert right and wrong. To avoid these problems, we urge Chen and the DPP to apologize to the public before Chen is freed. People have been awaiting this moment for six years.
Full Text Below:
The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. The first thing they did afterwards however, was to convene all 13 elected county chiefs and city mayors, and demand that the Ma government release Chen Shui-bian, alleging that this would be the first step in "blue-green reconciliation". Former Vice President Annette Lu was even more specific. She demanded that Chen be released this month, before the 25th, otherwise she would begin a hunger strike. Under such pressures, the Ma government has apparently begun retreating and equivocating. Yesterday, the Ministry of Justice appeared ready to cave in.
A democratic election was held. Yet the winner shows scant concern for the nation's economic future or how to clean up the political mess. Instead, it devotes all its energy to getting a corrupt former head of state released from prison. Do the DPP's actions deserve public support? The Ma administration has repeatedly proclaimed its reverence for the rule of law. Yet a single defeat at the polls has caused the Justice Minister to lose his way in the Chen family corruption case and obsequiously hint that leniency is possible.
The government appears ready to release Chen. But ambiguous legal and ethical issues remain. This is something the ruling and opposition parties and even the Chen family cannot avoid. The various parties involved must speak clearly and make themselves understood. Otherwise if Chen is hastily released, the troubles will merely be beginning.
One. Will Chen be released on humanitarian grounds, or political grounds? The DPP alleges that releasing Chen would be the first step in blue-green reconciliation. Obviously that would be a case of political considerations. But the Ma government is talking about "amnesty," and "medical leave." Obviously it is attempting to keep his contemplated release a legal matter. It hopes to offer Chen leniency on the grounds that he is a "former president." But Chen's condition would also require a professional opinion from the medical community. In other words, the Ma government may wish to consider legal, political, and humanitarian factors. But its passivity has made all of these options difficult.
Chen Shui-bian has been in prison for six years. Despite his corruption, immorality, and dereliction of duty, every time a health problem emerged, medical leave was granted. Giving him special consideration is not out of the question. But when a president breaks the law, he must be treated the same as any ordinary citizen who breaks the law. If the appeal is to "humanity," then other inmates must be treated the same way. Therefore if ruling and opposition party politicians want to argue the matter, the consistent solution would be to amend the law to relax the requirements for medical leave. Only this would be consistent with the universal application of "humanitarian" considerations.
Two. Giving Chen leave does not mean he is "not guilty." This must be clearly understood. Chen Shui-bian was convicted of corruption after two appeals. He was convicted of corruption in the Longtan case, the Diana Chen case, the Nangang Exhibition Hall case, the Yuan Ta and Fu Hua cases. The sums involved amount to over 600 million NT. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and fined 200 million NT. He is also implicated in the state affairs fund case and multiple cases of embezzlement. He has yet to appear in court for these because currently these cases cannot proceed. That does not mean that he and others are innocent.
Therefore, the term "freeing Chen" is highly misleading. Even if the Ministry of Justice grants medical leave, It merely means that his physical condition prevents continued incarceration. In fact, he has been receiving medical care from Peiteh Hospital for some time. That does not mean he was "freed" or "acquitted." Alas, the Green Camp has been up to its usual political tricks. Chen Shui-bian may well be granted "medical leave." But the green camp spins it as "release from prison." They are even arguing that he was never guilty in the first place, but was merely a victim of a KMT "miscarriage of justice" then thrown into a "dungeon." The ruling party must make the truth on this point clear. It must not allow the DPP to confuse the public.
Three. Chen and the DPP are mistaken. Chen family corruption cases began erupting In 2006. The DPP backed him unconditionally. It helped him cover up his crimes. Even after his conviction, the DPP never admitted this or issued an apology. It has dug in its heels to this day. Instead, it attempted to make excuses for Chen. Even now it threatens a hunger strike. It is as if Chen Shui-bian never had a problem with corruption or misconduct. How then, can the DPP claim that it has "the ability to engage in soul-searching?"
Consider also Chen Shui-bian's attitude. Chen has been in prison over six years. He has never once expressed any remorse for his heinous crimes of corruption, let alone apologize or admit guilt. Also, Wu Shu-chen's corruption was no less serious than Chen's. But her poor health gave her a pass and spared her a prison term. It did not mean she was not guilty. Also, the Chen family has squirreled away vast sums overseas. These have yet to be recovered. Several cases have yet to go ahead due to health reasons. Has the green camp blanked these out while demanding medical parole for Chen?
Consider the perspective of the public. Assertions that Chen's release would bring "blue-green reconciliation" to Taiwan are sheer fantasy. Assertions that Chen Shui-bian going "home for the holidays" would bring warmth to the community are self-deception. Most importantly, this "Free Chen!" farce must not be spun as "Ah-Bian's resurrection." It must not be spun as “The Chen family was never guilty of corruption at all." It must not be allowed to invert right and wrong. To avoid these problems, we urge Chen and the DPP to apologize to the public before Chen is freed. People have been awaiting this moment for six years.
陳水扁和民進黨都尚欠全民一個道歉
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.23 02:04 am
民進黨九合一選舉大勝後的首件大事，就是集合十三名當選的縣市長，齊聲要求馬政府釋放陳水扁，宣稱這是「藍綠和解」的第一步。前副總統呂秀蓮更指定日期，要求在本月廿五日前釋扁，否則將發動絕食抗議。在這樣的壓力下，馬政府似乎只能被迫步步撤守，放寬解
釋，昨天法務部的鑑定作業便充滿這種放水的情緒。
一場民主選舉結果，勝利者關心的不是國家經濟發展大計，不是如何收拾殘破的政局，卻將全部重點放在一名貪瀆前元首身上；民進黨的做法，對得起它虛胖的民意支持嗎？而馬政府先前一再宣示尊重法治專業，但臨到選舉挫敗當頭，法務部長卻忙不迭地為扁家「指點迷津」，示意可以網開一面從寬認定，也未免氣短而畏縮。
目前朝野「釋扁」的氣候已經箭在弦上，但其間有一些曖昧、灰暗的法理及倫理議題，仍有待釐清，這是執政黨和在野黨乃至扁家都無法迴避的事。各方如果不能說清楚、講明白，一旦隨意鬆手放扁回家，勢必引發諸多後患。
第一，釋扁是人道考量或政治考量？民進黨聲稱釋扁是「藍綠和解」的第一步，顯然將此事視為政治象徵。然而，馬政府捨「特赦」而採「保外就醫」之途，顯然希望將此事局限在法律層次，希望僅就陳水扁「前總統」之身分從寬認定，而其病情也恰好有醫界的專業意見作為佐證。亦即，馬政府希望兼顧法律、政治、人道三方面的因素，但由於形勢已嚴重落於被動，反而顯得面面不俱到。
事實上，以陳水扁之貪汙、無德、失職，在關了六年之後，身體每下愈況，要讓他保外就醫，並非不能給予特殊考量。然而，從「總統犯法與庶民同罪」的法理看，如果要從「人道」的角度處理陳水扁的情況，對其他受刑人也應該採取同樣的標準。因此，朝野政治人物若要置喙此事，更根本的辦法應該是推動修法，放寬保外就醫的相關規定，這才合乎普世價值的「人道」。
第二，「釋扁」並不等於「無罪」，其間因果邏輯必須清楚說明。陳水扁是經司法三審定讞的貪汙犯，他在龍潭案、陳敏薰案、南港展覽館案、元大併復華案等合計貪汙所得達六億餘元，皆被判刑定讞，須合併執行最高廿年的徒刑，並併科兩億元罰金。除此之外，他還有國務機要費案、侵占公文案等多個案件因無法出庭，至今無法審結，這並不表示他和其他相關人等在這些案件中無罪。
也因此，所謂「釋扁」是一個易滋誤解的措詞。就算他通過法務部鑑定可以「保外就醫」，也只意味其身體狀況不適合繼續坐牢（其實他早在培德戒護就醫），並不表示他獲得「假釋」或「無罪釋放」。然而，以綠營慣用的政治伎倆，極可能將陳水扁的「保外就醫」說成「獲釋」，甚至說他原本無罪，卻受冤坐了國民黨的「冤獄」或「黑牢」云云。這點，執政黨必須清楚說明，民進黨更須保證不會混淆視聽。
第三，關於陳水扁和民進黨的認錯態度。從二○○六年扁案爆發後，民進黨始終在全力挺扁，幫他遮掩；即使在扁定罪入獄後，民進黨也從未就此向社會道歉認錯。拗到今天，它反而振振有詞地要求釋扁，甚至以絕食作為要脅，彷彿陳水扁從來沒有發生貪瀆失德的問題。這樣的民進黨，還敢說自己是「有反省能力」的政黨嗎？
再看扁家的態度。陳水扁入獄六年多來，從來不曾為自己犯下的滔天貪瀆罪行有過任何反省，遑論道歉認錯。再說，吳淑珍的貪汙情節其實絲毫不遜於陳水扁，只是因為她的身體違和而免於繫獄，並非她無罪。然而，扁家藏在海外的許多賄款迄今尚未追回，若干案件也因兩人健康因素而停擺；這些，難道也都要隨著陳水扁保外就醫一併拋諸腦後？
從民眾的角度看，要說釋扁能為台灣帶來「藍綠和解」，恐怕是天方夜譚；要說陳水扁能「回家過年」可以為社會增添溫暖，也只是自欺欺人。重要的是，這齣「放扁記」的大戲，絕不能淪為「阿扁復活記」的序曲，不能變成扁家「貪瀆無罪」的政治證書，更不能使社會的是非黑白觀念因此被扭曲顛倒。為了避免這些後遺症發生，我們要求陳水扁和民進黨在釋扁前應先向社會大眾致歉；這一刻，民眾已經等了六年。
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Tsai Ing-wen Must Do More than “Continue Past Cross-Strait Policy”
Tsai Ing-wen Must Do More than “Continue Past Cross-Strait Policy”
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2014
Executive Summary: In 2012 Tsai Ing-wen said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration." As 2016 approaches Tsai must repeat these words, and add another, "The DPP will unconditionally accept the Ma administration's 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations.”
Full Text Below:
During the 2012 presidential election, Tsai promised that the DPP would "unconditionally accept" ECFA, which she previously condemned as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." She said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the former administration's cross-Strait policy." Yet she repudiated the "1992 consensus." This made it impossible to reconcile her cross-Strait rhetoric with her campaign promise. This was the main reason for her defeat. Now that scenario is being replayed. Is history repeating itself?
During a recent visit to the US, DPP Secretary-General Joseph Wu said that the results of the nine in one election should not be interpreted as a failure on the part of the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT. He did not say that the cross-Strait policy adopted by Beijing and the KMT was correct or successful. But he was clear that it "should not be interpreted as a failure." Wu made this statement in his capacity as Secretary-General of the DPP. He was probably paving the way for a future DPP declaration that it was "continuing the previous administration's cross-Strait policy."
Joseph Wu said that if people think the one China principle or the 1992 consensus are that important, then the two sides need to talk. He said they "can be topics of discussion, but not a preconditions for discussions." This was a departure from Tsai Ing-wen's 2012 assertion that there was no such thing as a 1992 consensus.
In fact, as the DPP knows, the Ma government, under the 1992 consensus, has successfully used globalization to guide cross-Strait relations. Therefore its policies can hardly be interpreted as a failure. By the same token, Beijing, under the 1992 consensus, has successfully promoted ECFA and "peaceful development." This can hardly be interpreted as a failure either. This cross-Strait framework may contain flaws and pose risks. But the flaws can be remedied and the risks can be minimized. Globalization reigns supreme. The rise of Mainland China foretells Taiwan's marginalization. This framework is already Taiwan's only survival strategy.
Joseph Wu said, "This cannot be interpreted as [Mainland] China's failure or the failure of KMT cross-Strait policy.” This means the DPP is unable to propose a better or different policy. It is likely to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy." The DPP knows it must reform its cross-Strait policy. Nevertheless, despite this political reality, the DPP shows no sign of relenting on the 1992 consensus. It persists in obstructing ECFA follow-up agreements and the establishment of cross-Strait representative offices. The DPP remains caught in a contradiction. It appears to be repeating the same scenario as it did in 2012.
During the Sunflower Student Movement protests, the DPP encouraged anti-Ma and anti-Mainland mob sentiments. It incited hatred against the STA and other ECFA follow-up agreements. These incitements to violence attempted to prove that “The cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT is mistaken and a failure." The DPP reaped the political rewards of characterizing the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT as mistaken and failed. This was a major factor in the DPP's populist victory in the nine in one election. Now that the election is over, Joseph Wu is saying that the nine in one election results should not be interpreted as China's failure or a failure of KMT cross-Strait policy. As we all know, those who fabricate lies are obligated to refute them.
Sunflower Student Movement agitation and public objections to cross-Strait policy provided the impetus for anti-government sentiment during the nine in one election. These sidelined other events and factors. Therefore the result of this election cannot be attributed solely to cross-Strait policy. But the 2016 presidential election debate will be about cross-Strait policy. There should be no doubt about that. The DPP say it believes that the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT “cannot be interpreted as a failure." If so, how does it intend to resolve the riddle of its cross-Strait policy?
On the 17th, Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office issued its first comments on the impact of the nine in one elections on cross-Strait relations. It made three points. One. It reiterated that the cross-Strait relationship was based on the 1992 consensus. Two. City to city exchanges between Taipei and Shanghai must also be based on 1992 consensus. Three. The interaction between CPC and KMT leaders must of course insist on the 1992 consensus and predicted a Chu Xi meeting. The above shows that Beijing does not consider the nine in one election results proof that the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT was a failure. The situation is similar to 2012. But the pressure on the DPP is far greater than it was back then. By contrast, the DPP today has been taken hostage by the Sunflower Student Movement, it has more trouble reforming its cross-Strait policies than before.
Given this dilemma, the DPP should first deal with the 1992 consensus. Joseph Wu said that the 1992 consensus can be a topic of discussion, but it cannot be a precondition for discussions. But if the 1992 consensus became a topic of discussion, it would be even more vaguely defined, with different interpretations. It would be even more unmanageable. The 1992 consensus is subject to different interpretations. If the ambiguity in it is eliminated, if the 1992 consensus is eliminated, the bottom line becomes crystal clear: Taiwan independence is out of the question. The DPP needs to think again. Would it prefer to accept the 1992 consensus, with all its glorious ambiguity? Or would it prefer a blunt declaration flatly rejecting Taiwan independence? Does it really want to paint itself into that corner? Does the DPP really want to burst that bubble? As for the ECFA follow-up provisions, the DPP should use the opportunity to promote their implementation before the 2016 election. This will help the party in the event it returns to office and must “unconditionally accept” it.
In 2012 Tsai Ing-wen said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration." As 2016 approaches Tsai must repeat these words, and add another, "The DPP will unconditionally accept the Ma administration's 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations.”
延續前朝兩岸政策 蔡英文須加一句話
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.22 02:24 am
二○一二年總統大選期間，蔡英文表示將「概括承受」她曾指為「傾中賣台」的ＥＣＦＡ，並宣示「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」；但因她否定「九二共識」，遂使其兩岸論述不能自圓其說，成為敗選主因。如今這似曾相識的情景彷彿再度浮現，歷史難道正在重演？
民進黨秘書長吳釗燮日前訪美期間表示：九合一的選舉結果，不應解讀為中國的失敗或國民黨兩岸政策的失敗。他雖未正面表述成北京及國民黨的兩岸政策為正確或成功，卻明白指出「不應解讀為失敗」。以黨秘書長身分作此發言，應是為「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」預作鋪墊。
且吳釗燮又說：如果認為九二共識或一中原則那麼重要，雙方需要談一談，「可以當作議題，但不能當前提」。此段發言至少已改變了二○一二年蔡英文根本否認「九二共識」之存在的說法。
其實，民進黨深知，馬政府在「九二共識」下，經營以全球化為導向的兩岸競合關係，不能解讀為失敗；相對地，北京在「九二共識」下，藉ＥＣＦＡ架構推動兩岸「和平發展」的進程，亦不能解讀為失敗。此一兩岸架構容有缺陷及風險，自待彌補與防範；但在全球化當道、中國崛起及台灣邊緣化的走勢下，此一架構已然是台灣別無選擇的生存戰略。
吳釗燮說「不能解讀為中國的失敗及國民黨兩岸政策的失敗」，應是深知民進黨其實無法提出較此更佳或與此不同的政策，極有可能「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」，亦顯示民進黨深知其兩岸政策有轉型之必要。但是，在眼下的政治現實中，民進黨對「九二共識」卻仍無鬆口跡象，且對ＥＣＦＡ架構後續協議及兩岸互設辦事處等續持杯葛立場。這種進退維谷、自相矛盾的情勢，儼然正在重演二○一二年的場景。
在太陽花事件期間，民進黨全力鼓動「反馬即反中／反中即反馬」的民憤，更煽動反對服貿協議等ＥＣＦＡ後續工程，此種激越的操作不啻是要證明「北京及國民黨的兩岸政策是錯誤、失敗的」，且民進黨最後亦收割了「將北京及國民黨的兩岸政策打成失敗」的政治果實，這也成為民進黨九合一大勝的主要民粹因素。但是，豈知到了選後，吳釗燮卻說：九合一的選舉結果，不應解讀為中國的失敗或國民黨兩岸政策的失敗。莫非已知：解鈴還須繫鈴人。
由於太陽花事件的激盪，民間對兩岸政策的不滿雖是九合一選舉反政府的底氣，卻大多藉其他事件及因素嫁接轉移出去，因而不能視此次選舉為對兩岸政策的攤牌；但是，二○一六總統大選的主要議題將是兩岸政策的辯論，應無疑問。民進黨若認為，在二○一六大選中，北京的與國民黨的兩岸政策仍「不能解讀為失敗」，則將如何重建其兩岸論述？
十七日，北京國台辦首度對九合一選後的兩岸情勢發表談話，要點有三：一、再申兩岸大局建立在「九二共識」之上；二、台北與上海的城市交流亦必須依循「九二共識」；三、國共兩黨黨魁的互動「當然應該堅持」，亦即預告「朱習會」。以上足徵北京亦未將九合一選舉解讀為國共政府兩岸政策的失敗。此一情勢與二○一二年相似，但對民進黨的壓力卻遠逾當年；相對而言，今日的民進黨因受太陽花餘緒的挾持，其轉型的困難則甚於當年。
面對此情勢，民進黨首應處理的是「九二共識」。吳釗燮說，九二共識可作議題，不能當前提。但是，九二共識若真成為一個說破、說透的「議題」，似較作為一個「定義模糊／各自表述」的「前提」更難處理。因為，「九二共識」尚有「各自表述」的空間，但若說破了，拿掉「九二共識」，即是「反台獨」；民進黨應思，接納「九二共識」畢竟比較含糊，若至必須直接表態「反台獨」，則更無轉圜餘地，則民進黨何必要把這層窗戶紙捅破？至於對ＥＣＦＡ後續工程，民進黨尤應運用二○一六大選前的時機促其實現，以便倘重返執政即能「概括承受」。
在二○一二年，蔡英文曾說過：「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策。」面對二○一六，蔡英文必須把這句話再說一遍，且要加上一句：「包括延續馬政府一中各表的九二共識。」
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2014
Executive Summary: In 2012 Tsai Ing-wen said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration." As 2016 approaches Tsai must repeat these words, and add another, "The DPP will unconditionally accept the Ma administration's 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations.”
Full Text Below:
During the 2012 presidential election, Tsai promised that the DPP would "unconditionally accept" ECFA, which she previously condemned as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." She said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the former administration's cross-Strait policy." Yet she repudiated the "1992 consensus." This made it impossible to reconcile her cross-Strait rhetoric with her campaign promise. This was the main reason for her defeat. Now that scenario is being replayed. Is history repeating itself?
During a recent visit to the US, DPP Secretary-General Joseph Wu said that the results of the nine in one election should not be interpreted as a failure on the part of the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT. He did not say that the cross-Strait policy adopted by Beijing and the KMT was correct or successful. But he was clear that it "should not be interpreted as a failure." Wu made this statement in his capacity as Secretary-General of the DPP. He was probably paving the way for a future DPP declaration that it was "continuing the previous administration's cross-Strait policy."
Joseph Wu said that if people think the one China principle or the 1992 consensus are that important, then the two sides need to talk. He said they "can be topics of discussion, but not a preconditions for discussions." This was a departure from Tsai Ing-wen's 2012 assertion that there was no such thing as a 1992 consensus.
In fact, as the DPP knows, the Ma government, under the 1992 consensus, has successfully used globalization to guide cross-Strait relations. Therefore its policies can hardly be interpreted as a failure. By the same token, Beijing, under the 1992 consensus, has successfully promoted ECFA and "peaceful development." This can hardly be interpreted as a failure either. This cross-Strait framework may contain flaws and pose risks. But the flaws can be remedied and the risks can be minimized. Globalization reigns supreme. The rise of Mainland China foretells Taiwan's marginalization. This framework is already Taiwan's only survival strategy.
Joseph Wu said, "This cannot be interpreted as [Mainland] China's failure or the failure of KMT cross-Strait policy.” This means the DPP is unable to propose a better or different policy. It is likely to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy." The DPP knows it must reform its cross-Strait policy. Nevertheless, despite this political reality, the DPP shows no sign of relenting on the 1992 consensus. It persists in obstructing ECFA follow-up agreements and the establishment of cross-Strait representative offices. The DPP remains caught in a contradiction. It appears to be repeating the same scenario as it did in 2012.
During the Sunflower Student Movement protests, the DPP encouraged anti-Ma and anti-Mainland mob sentiments. It incited hatred against the STA and other ECFA follow-up agreements. These incitements to violence attempted to prove that “The cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT is mistaken and a failure." The DPP reaped the political rewards of characterizing the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT as mistaken and failed. This was a major factor in the DPP's populist victory in the nine in one election. Now that the election is over, Joseph Wu is saying that the nine in one election results should not be interpreted as China's failure or a failure of KMT cross-Strait policy. As we all know, those who fabricate lies are obligated to refute them.
Sunflower Student Movement agitation and public objections to cross-Strait policy provided the impetus for anti-government sentiment during the nine in one election. These sidelined other events and factors. Therefore the result of this election cannot be attributed solely to cross-Strait policy. But the 2016 presidential election debate will be about cross-Strait policy. There should be no doubt about that. The DPP say it believes that the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT “cannot be interpreted as a failure." If so, how does it intend to resolve the riddle of its cross-Strait policy?
On the 17th, Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office issued its first comments on the impact of the nine in one elections on cross-Strait relations. It made three points. One. It reiterated that the cross-Strait relationship was based on the 1992 consensus. Two. City to city exchanges between Taipei and Shanghai must also be based on 1992 consensus. Three. The interaction between CPC and KMT leaders must of course insist on the 1992 consensus and predicted a Chu Xi meeting. The above shows that Beijing does not consider the nine in one election results proof that the cross-Strait policy advocated by Beijing and the KMT was a failure. The situation is similar to 2012. But the pressure on the DPP is far greater than it was back then. By contrast, the DPP today has been taken hostage by the Sunflower Student Movement, it has more trouble reforming its cross-Strait policies than before.
Given this dilemma, the DPP should first deal with the 1992 consensus. Joseph Wu said that the 1992 consensus can be a topic of discussion, but it cannot be a precondition for discussions. But if the 1992 consensus became a topic of discussion, it would be even more vaguely defined, with different interpretations. It would be even more unmanageable. The 1992 consensus is subject to different interpretations. If the ambiguity in it is eliminated, if the 1992 consensus is eliminated, the bottom line becomes crystal clear: Taiwan independence is out of the question. The DPP needs to think again. Would it prefer to accept the 1992 consensus, with all its glorious ambiguity? Or would it prefer a blunt declaration flatly rejecting Taiwan independence? Does it really want to paint itself into that corner? Does the DPP really want to burst that bubble? As for the ECFA follow-up provisions, the DPP should use the opportunity to promote their implementation before the 2016 election. This will help the party in the event it returns to office and must “unconditionally accept” it.
In 2012 Tsai Ing-wen said, "If the DPP returns to power, it will continue the cross-Strait policies of the previous administration." As 2016 approaches Tsai must repeat these words, and add another, "The DPP will unconditionally accept the Ma administration's 1992 consensus, and one China, different interpretations.”
延續前朝兩岸政策 蔡英文須加一句話
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.22 02:24 am
二○一二年總統大選期間，蔡英文表示將「概括承受」她曾指為「傾中賣台」的ＥＣＦＡ，並宣示「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」；但因她否定「九二共識」，遂使其兩岸論述不能自圓其說，成為敗選主因。如今這似曾相識的情景彷彿再度浮現，歷史難道正在重演？
民進黨秘書長吳釗燮日前訪美期間表示：九合一的選舉結果，不應解讀為中國的失敗或國民黨兩岸政策的失敗。他雖未正面表述成北京及國民黨的兩岸政策為正確或成功，卻明白指出「不應解讀為失敗」。以黨秘書長身分作此發言，應是為「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」預作鋪墊。
且吳釗燮又說：如果認為九二共識或一中原則那麼重要，雙方需要談一談，「可以當作議題，但不能當前提」。此段發言至少已改變了二○一二年蔡英文根本否認「九二共識」之存在的說法。
其實，民進黨深知，馬政府在「九二共識」下，經營以全球化為導向的兩岸競合關係，不能解讀為失敗；相對地，北京在「九二共識」下，藉ＥＣＦＡ架構推動兩岸「和平發展」的進程，亦不能解讀為失敗。此一兩岸架構容有缺陷及風險，自待彌補與防範；但在全球化當道、中國崛起及台灣邊緣化的走勢下，此一架構已然是台灣別無選擇的生存戰略。
吳釗燮說「不能解讀為中國的失敗及國民黨兩岸政策的失敗」，應是深知民進黨其實無法提出較此更佳或與此不同的政策，極有可能「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」，亦顯示民進黨深知其兩岸政策有轉型之必要。但是，在眼下的政治現實中，民進黨對「九二共識」卻仍無鬆口跡象，且對ＥＣＦＡ架構後續協議及兩岸互設辦事處等續持杯葛立場。這種進退維谷、自相矛盾的情勢，儼然正在重演二○一二年的場景。
在太陽花事件期間，民進黨全力鼓動「反馬即反中／反中即反馬」的民憤，更煽動反對服貿協議等ＥＣＦＡ後續工程，此種激越的操作不啻是要證明「北京及國民黨的兩岸政策是錯誤、失敗的」，且民進黨最後亦收割了「將北京及國民黨的兩岸政策打成失敗」的政治果實，這也成為民進黨九合一大勝的主要民粹因素。但是，豈知到了選後，吳釗燮卻說：九合一的選舉結果，不應解讀為中國的失敗或國民黨兩岸政策的失敗。莫非已知：解鈴還須繫鈴人。
由於太陽花事件的激盪，民間對兩岸政策的不滿雖是九合一選舉反政府的底氣，卻大多藉其他事件及因素嫁接轉移出去，因而不能視此次選舉為對兩岸政策的攤牌；但是，二○一六總統大選的主要議題將是兩岸政策的辯論，應無疑問。民進黨若認為，在二○一六大選中，北京的與國民黨的兩岸政策仍「不能解讀為失敗」，則將如何重建其兩岸論述？
十七日，北京國台辦首度對九合一選後的兩岸情勢發表談話，要點有三：一、再申兩岸大局建立在「九二共識」之上；二、台北與上海的城市交流亦必須依循「九二共識」；三、國共兩黨黨魁的互動「當然應該堅持」，亦即預告「朱習會」。以上足徵北京亦未將九合一選舉解讀為國共政府兩岸政策的失敗。此一情勢與二○一二年相似，但對民進黨的壓力卻遠逾當年；相對而言，今日的民進黨因受太陽花餘緒的挾持，其轉型的困難則甚於當年。
面對此情勢，民進黨首應處理的是「九二共識」。吳釗燮說，九二共識可作議題，不能當前提。但是，九二共識若真成為一個說破、說透的「議題」，似較作為一個「定義模糊／各自表述」的「前提」更難處理。因為，「九二共識」尚有「各自表述」的空間，但若說破了，拿掉「九二共識」，即是「反台獨」；民進黨應思，接納「九二共識」畢竟比較含糊，若至必須直接表態「反台獨」，則更無轉圜餘地，則民進黨何必要把這層窗戶紙捅破？至於對ＥＣＦＡ後續工程，民進黨尤應運用二○一六大選前的時機促其實現，以便倘重返執政即能「概括承受」。
在二○一二年，蔡英文曾說過：「若再執政將延續前朝兩岸政策。」面對二○一六，蔡英文必須把這句話再說一遍，且要加上一句：「包括延續馬政府一中各表的九二共識。」
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Abolish Large Investor Provisions, Avoid Lose/Lose/Lose Proposition
Abolish Large Investor Provisions, Avoid Lose/Lose/Lose Proposition
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2014
Executive Summary: It is a wise man who acknowledges past errors. Capital gains tax reform has been tossed around for over two years. The Large Investor Provisions is a lose/lose/lose proposition for large investors, treasury revenue, and capital markets. The legislature must assume responsibility. It must swiftly abolish the Large Investor Provisions. It must retain the provisions for taxation of newly listed shares. That is the right way to proceed.
Full Text Below:
Following a heated debate, the Legislative Yuan Finance Committee has decided to postpone implementation of the Large Investor Provisions for three years. This major tax provision was set to take effect on New Year's Day next year. Their content has not been changed. This has temporarily defused a ticking bomb, but has done nothing to solve the problem. Financial markets, the media and the public reacted badly. They consider it a farce, and a case of the old “Father and son ride a donkey” parable.
During the legislative debate, FSC Chairman Tseng Ming-chung said that tax policy should take into account four principles. Revenue, the national economy, social justice, and taxation methods. This is something many textbooks advocate. It is the crystallized wisdom of tax experts, scholars, and the experience of many nations. It deserves careful consideration.
Given these four principles, it should be clear how to reform the taxation of securities income. The capital gains tax on newly listed stocks (IPOs) should be retained. But the so-called Large Investor Provisions should be abolished. Listed companies that sell 10 billion NT in shares within one year should be subject to capital gains taxes.
The reason to why IPO capital gains should be retained is simple. Those able to accumulate a large number of IPO shares are invariably the largest shareholders in newly created or expanded companies. These shareholder stocks come in many denominations. But following an IPO, they are several to a hundred times their original worth. This is typical for capital gains, and of course should be taxed. Such a tax is consistent with the principle of fairness. Levying it poses no technical difficulties. Taxpayers cannot easily evade it. It is unlikely people will refuse to invest in new businesses, expand existing businesses, or list them on the stock market for this reason.
Trading in listed shares meanwhile, is completely different. If taxes must be levied, investors can choose not to transact them on the market. They can resort to foreign corporations, i.e., foreign transactions. Government agencies can establish tax regulations. But they cannot prevent people from changing their behavior to evade taxes. The 2012 tax reform program was passed with several amendments. The market did not fall below 8500 points. But volume failed to recover. In April 2012, former Finance Minister Christina Liu promised securities tax reform. In 2012 Taiwan stock market turnover was 20.78 trillion NT. In 2013 it was 19.60 trillion NT. Compare this to the 28.89 trillion NT Taiwan stock market turnover in 2010, and the 26.99 trillion NT level in 2011. Volume has fallen significantly. Estimates for this year are not optimistic. As of late November, they were 21.02 trillion NT.
Trading volume reduction directly affects treasury income. Between 2010 and 2013 income from capital gains taxeswere 104.57 billion NT, 93.99 billion NT, 71.94 billion NT, and 71.38 billion NT, respectively. Obviously capital gains tax reform reduced Treasury income by about 30 billion NT a year. As a result, from a tax perspective, this tax should be reviewed. This tax failed to increase treasury revenue. Instead, it led to treasury revenue losses. This was contrary to the original purpose of national taxation. It also reduced stock market momentum. It indirectly impacted the ability of listed companies to acquire financing. The imposition of this tax, violated the principle of "revenue income." It violated the principle of a "national economy." The government could have used this 30 billion in revenue, to help the underprivileged. It could have paid for a earned income tax credit, new residential construction for young people, public transit, or other public works. These would have helped reduce the disparity between rich and poor, and implemented social justice. The Large Investor Provisions are a major contributor to revenue loss. It is of course, also a violation of the principle of "social justice."
Some may say that since so many stock transactions took place, paying more in taxes is common sense. In fact, this is the essence of the current stock market securities transaction tax. The Taiwan stock market securities transaction tax is as high as 3 per thousand. It is among the best in Asia and the world. The reason is the stock market securities transaction tax. In 1988 the Ministry of Finance announced that in 1989 the stock market transaction tax would be reinstated. The news caused the Taiwan stock market to plummet 19 straight trading days. In January 1990, the Treasury ceased collecting capital gains taxes. Instead, it increased the stock market transaction tax. Revenue from stock market transaction taxes increased from 1.5 per thousand to 6 per thousand. The economy declined, stimulating stock market turnover. By 1993 it had fallen to 3 per thousand. That is the current tax rate. But its essence has not changed. It combines stock market transaction taxes and estimated stock market transaction taxes.
The stock market exchange tax adopts a "taxation by volume" approach. It ensures that investors with large trading volumes are subject to higher taxes. This is in line with the principle of fairness. Reinstate the old system, abolish the Large Investor Provisions, allow large investors to make large returns. The treasury will once again receive 30 billion NT in revenues, and large investors will pay for it. If these taxes are used for social welfare or infrastructure construction, won’t that be a win/win?
It is a wise man who acknowledges past errors. Capital gains tax reform has been tossed around for over two years. The Large Investor Provisions is a lose/lose/lose proposition for large investors, treasury revenue, and capital markets. The legislature must assume responsibility. It must swiftly abolish the Large Investor Provisions. It must retain the provisions for taxation of newly listed shares. That is the right way to proceed.
社論－速廢大戶條款 擺脫三輸局面
2014年12月19日 04:10
本報訊
立法院財政委員會經過激烈辯論後，決議原訂明年元旦起實施的證所稅大戶條款，將暫緩3年實施，其內容則不做改變。雖然暫時拆解了就要引爆的引信，但沒有達到基本上解決問題的效果，金融市場、媒體與社會大眾普遍反應不好，認為又是一場父子騎驢的荒謬演出。
我們認為，立法院辯論中，金管會主委曾銘宗強調，租稅政策應考量4個原則，就是財政收入、國民經濟、社會公平和課稅技術。這是許多教科書中所楬櫫的原則，也是學者專家們根據租稅理論和各國經驗所得到的結晶，應予重視。
如果從這4個原則來看，證券交易所得稅該怎麼修，就很清楚了，就是應當保留新上市（IPO）股票資本利得課稅，但是廢除所謂大戶條款，也就是1年內出售上市櫃公司股票金額達新台幣10億元以上者須課證所稅。
保留IPO資本利得的原因很簡單，凡是有能力累積大量IPO股票者，必為新創或擴充中公司的大股東。這些股東的股票，很多是從面額認購而來，但在新上市以後，身價變成原來的數倍到百倍不等，這是標準的資本利得，當然應當課稅。這樣的稅符合公平原則，在課徵技術上並無困難，納稅人也不容易逃避。基本上，很難想像有投資人會因此而不創業，或不擴充其事業到上市櫃的標準。
但是已上市股票的交易，情況完全不同。如果有超額的稅要課，投資人可以選擇不到市場交易，或改用外國法人也就是外資身分交易。主管機關可以訂立課稅規則，但無法阻止潛在被課稅者以改變其行為來避稅。這就是為什麼101年證所稅改革方案通過後，幾經修正，即使已經拿掉了8500點的天險，成交量並未明顯恢復：101年4月，前財政部長劉憶如宣示推動證券交易所得稅稅制改革後，101年台股的成交量為20.78兆元、102年為19.60兆元，與99年台股成交金額28.89兆元、100年26.99兆元的水準相較，量能已減少許多。今年預估也不樂觀，至11月底止僅有21.02兆元。
交易量縮減，直接影響的就是國庫的收入。99年至102年證交稅的收入，分別為1045.7億元、939.9億元、719.4億元，以及713.8億元。顯見自提出證所稅的改革方案之後，國庫平均每年減少約300億元。這樣一來，就租稅原則來看，這個稅就應當要重新檢討。此稅非但不能增加國庫收入，反而造成國庫損失，與課稅的原始目的背道而馳，而且還讓股市的動能減少，間接影響上市公司在股市籌資的能量。所以，此稅之課徵，違反「財政收入」原則，也違反「國民經濟」原則。
如果有這300億的收入，政府可以用之於救濟弱勢、幫薪資所得者減稅、興建青年住宅或充實捷運等公共建設，這些都有助於改善貧富差距、落實社會公平。證所稅的大戶條款，是造成稅收損失的重大原因之一，當然就違反了「社會公平」原則。
或有人說，既然買賣股票這麼多，多繳點稅才合乎常理。事實上，這正是現行證交稅的本質。為什麼台灣股市的證券交易稅（證交稅）高達千分之3，在亞洲乃至世界名列前茅，就是因為其中已經隱含了證所稅。
民國77年財政部宣布自民國78年起復徵證所稅，消息一出，造成台股無量崩跌19個交易日，財政部遂於民國79年元月起停徵證所稅，改以調高證交稅取代，證交稅稅率因此由千分之1點5提高到千分之6。此稅後為了因應經濟景氣下滑，刺激股市成交量，曾於82年調降至千分之3，也就是現行稅率，但其本質並無改變，是綜合了交易課稅和由交易所設算的所得稅。
既然股市交易採「從量課稅」的方式，正好確保了交易量大的投資人，也會被課以較多的稅，符合公平原則。如果恢復舊制，廢除大戶條款，讓大戶回籠，而重新得到300億的稅收，這些稅不都是大戶繳的嗎？把這些稅拿來做社會福利或建設，不是雙贏嗎？
「知錯能改、善莫大焉」，證所稅的改革已經折騰兩年多，其中大戶條款尤其造成股市投資人、國庫稅收、資本市場三輸的局面。立法院應當有所為，有所不為，趕快廢除大戶條款，保留新上市股票資本利得課稅的規定，才是正途。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2014
Executive Summary: It is a wise man who acknowledges past errors. Capital gains tax reform has been tossed around for over two years. The Large Investor Provisions is a lose/lose/lose proposition for large investors, treasury revenue, and capital markets. The legislature must assume responsibility. It must swiftly abolish the Large Investor Provisions. It must retain the provisions for taxation of newly listed shares. That is the right way to proceed.
Full Text Below:
Following a heated debate, the Legislative Yuan Finance Committee has decided to postpone implementation of the Large Investor Provisions for three years. This major tax provision was set to take effect on New Year's Day next year. Their content has not been changed. This has temporarily defused a ticking bomb, but has done nothing to solve the problem. Financial markets, the media and the public reacted badly. They consider it a farce, and a case of the old “Father and son ride a donkey” parable.
During the legislative debate, FSC Chairman Tseng Ming-chung said that tax policy should take into account four principles. Revenue, the national economy, social justice, and taxation methods. This is something many textbooks advocate. It is the crystallized wisdom of tax experts, scholars, and the experience of many nations. It deserves careful consideration.
Given these four principles, it should be clear how to reform the taxation of securities income. The capital gains tax on newly listed stocks (IPOs) should be retained. But the so-called Large Investor Provisions should be abolished. Listed companies that sell 10 billion NT in shares within one year should be subject to capital gains taxes.
The reason to why IPO capital gains should be retained is simple. Those able to accumulate a large number of IPO shares are invariably the largest shareholders in newly created or expanded companies. These shareholder stocks come in many denominations. But following an IPO, they are several to a hundred times their original worth. This is typical for capital gains, and of course should be taxed. Such a tax is consistent with the principle of fairness. Levying it poses no technical difficulties. Taxpayers cannot easily evade it. It is unlikely people will refuse to invest in new businesses, expand existing businesses, or list them on the stock market for this reason.
Trading in listed shares meanwhile, is completely different. If taxes must be levied, investors can choose not to transact them on the market. They can resort to foreign corporations, i.e., foreign transactions. Government agencies can establish tax regulations. But they cannot prevent people from changing their behavior to evade taxes. The 2012 tax reform program was passed with several amendments. The market did not fall below 8500 points. But volume failed to recover. In April 2012, former Finance Minister Christina Liu promised securities tax reform. In 2012 Taiwan stock market turnover was 20.78 trillion NT. In 2013 it was 19.60 trillion NT. Compare this to the 28.89 trillion NT Taiwan stock market turnover in 2010, and the 26.99 trillion NT level in 2011. Volume has fallen significantly. Estimates for this year are not optimistic. As of late November, they were 21.02 trillion NT.
Trading volume reduction directly affects treasury income. Between 2010 and 2013 income from capital gains taxeswere 104.57 billion NT, 93.99 billion NT, 71.94 billion NT, and 71.38 billion NT, respectively. Obviously capital gains tax reform reduced Treasury income by about 30 billion NT a year. As a result, from a tax perspective, this tax should be reviewed. This tax failed to increase treasury revenue. Instead, it led to treasury revenue losses. This was contrary to the original purpose of national taxation. It also reduced stock market momentum. It indirectly impacted the ability of listed companies to acquire financing. The imposition of this tax, violated the principle of "revenue income." It violated the principle of a "national economy." The government could have used this 30 billion in revenue, to help the underprivileged. It could have paid for a earned income tax credit, new residential construction for young people, public transit, or other public works. These would have helped reduce the disparity between rich and poor, and implemented social justice. The Large Investor Provisions are a major contributor to revenue loss. It is of course, also a violation of the principle of "social justice."
Some may say that since so many stock transactions took place, paying more in taxes is common sense. In fact, this is the essence of the current stock market securities transaction tax. The Taiwan stock market securities transaction tax is as high as 3 per thousand. It is among the best in Asia and the world. The reason is the stock market securities transaction tax. In 1988 the Ministry of Finance announced that in 1989 the stock market transaction tax would be reinstated. The news caused the Taiwan stock market to plummet 19 straight trading days. In January 1990, the Treasury ceased collecting capital gains taxes. Instead, it increased the stock market transaction tax. Revenue from stock market transaction taxes increased from 1.5 per thousand to 6 per thousand. The economy declined, stimulating stock market turnover. By 1993 it had fallen to 3 per thousand. That is the current tax rate. But its essence has not changed. It combines stock market transaction taxes and estimated stock market transaction taxes.
The stock market exchange tax adopts a "taxation by volume" approach. It ensures that investors with large trading volumes are subject to higher taxes. This is in line with the principle of fairness. Reinstate the old system, abolish the Large Investor Provisions, allow large investors to make large returns. The treasury will once again receive 30 billion NT in revenues, and large investors will pay for it. If these taxes are used for social welfare or infrastructure construction, won’t that be a win/win?
It is a wise man who acknowledges past errors. Capital gains tax reform has been tossed around for over two years. The Large Investor Provisions is a lose/lose/lose proposition for large investors, treasury revenue, and capital markets. The legislature must assume responsibility. It must swiftly abolish the Large Investor Provisions. It must retain the provisions for taxation of newly listed shares. That is the right way to proceed.
社論－速廢大戶條款 擺脫三輸局面
2014年12月19日 04:10
本報訊
立法院財政委員會經過激烈辯論後，決議原訂明年元旦起實施的證所稅大戶條款，將暫緩3年實施，其內容則不做改變。雖然暫時拆解了就要引爆的引信，但沒有達到基本上解決問題的效果，金融市場、媒體與社會大眾普遍反應不好，認為又是一場父子騎驢的荒謬演出。
我們認為，立法院辯論中，金管會主委曾銘宗強調，租稅政策應考量4個原則，就是財政收入、國民經濟、社會公平和課稅技術。這是許多教科書中所楬櫫的原則，也是學者專家們根據租稅理論和各國經驗所得到的結晶，應予重視。
如果從這4個原則來看，證券交易所得稅該怎麼修，就很清楚了，就是應當保留新上市（IPO）股票資本利得課稅，但是廢除所謂大戶條款，也就是1年內出售上市櫃公司股票金額達新台幣10億元以上者須課證所稅。
保留IPO資本利得的原因很簡單，凡是有能力累積大量IPO股票者，必為新創或擴充中公司的大股東。這些股東的股票，很多是從面額認購而來，但在新上市以後，身價變成原來的數倍到百倍不等，這是標準的資本利得，當然應當課稅。這樣的稅符合公平原則，在課徵技術上並無困難，納稅人也不容易逃避。基本上，很難想像有投資人會因此而不創業，或不擴充其事業到上市櫃的標準。
但是已上市股票的交易，情況完全不同。如果有超額的稅要課，投資人可以選擇不到市場交易，或改用外國法人也就是外資身分交易。主管機關可以訂立課稅規則，但無法阻止潛在被課稅者以改變其行為來避稅。這就是為什麼101年證所稅改革方案通過後，幾經修正，即使已經拿掉了8500點的天險，成交量並未明顯恢復：101年4月，前財政部長劉憶如宣示推動證券交易所得稅稅制改革後，101年台股的成交量為20.78兆元、102年為19.60兆元，與99年台股成交金額28.89兆元、100年26.99兆元的水準相較，量能已減少許多。今年預估也不樂觀，至11月底止僅有21.02兆元。
交易量縮減，直接影響的就是國庫的收入。99年至102年證交稅的收入，分別為1045.7億元、939.9億元、719.4億元，以及713.8億元。顯見自提出證所稅的改革方案之後，國庫平均每年減少約300億元。這樣一來，就租稅原則來看，這個稅就應當要重新檢討。此稅非但不能增加國庫收入，反而造成國庫損失，與課稅的原始目的背道而馳，而且還讓股市的動能減少，間接影響上市公司在股市籌資的能量。所以，此稅之課徵，違反「財政收入」原則，也違反「國民經濟」原則。
如果有這300億的收入，政府可以用之於救濟弱勢、幫薪資所得者減稅、興建青年住宅或充實捷運等公共建設，這些都有助於改善貧富差距、落實社會公平。證所稅的大戶條款，是造成稅收損失的重大原因之一，當然就違反了「社會公平」原則。
或有人說，既然買賣股票這麼多，多繳點稅才合乎常理。事實上，這正是現行證交稅的本質。為什麼台灣股市的證券交易稅（證交稅）高達千分之3，在亞洲乃至世界名列前茅，就是因為其中已經隱含了證所稅。
民國77年財政部宣布自民國78年起復徵證所稅，消息一出，造成台股無量崩跌19個交易日，財政部遂於民國79年元月起停徵證所稅，改以調高證交稅取代，證交稅稅率因此由千分之1點5提高到千分之6。此稅後為了因應經濟景氣下滑，刺激股市成交量，曾於82年調降至千分之3，也就是現行稅率，但其本質並無改變，是綜合了交易課稅和由交易所設算的所得稅。
既然股市交易採「從量課稅」的方式，正好確保了交易量大的投資人，也會被課以較多的稅，符合公平原則。如果恢復舊制，廢除大戶條款，讓大戶回籠，而重新得到300億的稅收，這些稅不都是大戶繳的嗎？把這些稅拿來做社會福利或建設，不是雙贏嗎？
「知錯能改、善莫大焉」，證所稅的改革已經折騰兩年多，其中大戶條款尤其造成股市投資人、國庫稅收、資本市場三輸的局面。立法院應當有所為，有所不為，趕快廢除大戶條款，保留新上市股票資本利得課稅的規定，才是正途。
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Jack Ma Wants to Help Young Entrepreneurs. Do Entrepreneurs on Taiwan?
Jack Ma Wants to Help Young Entrepreneurs. Do Entrepreneurs on Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2014
Executive Summary: The item that gathered the most attention during the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" held in Taipei had nothing to do with cross-Strait business cooperation and transformation. The item that gathered the most attention was Alibaba founder Jack Ma encouraging Taiwan entrepreneurs to pass the torch on to the younger generation. That, and his plan to establish a fund to assist young entrepreneurs on Taiwan. Jack Ma shone a spotlight on Taiwan society. He expressed concern for the future of the younger generation. This is something many Taiwan entrepreneurs have probably never given a single thought.
Full Text Below:
The item that gathered the most attention during the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" held in Taipei had nothing to do with cross-Strait business cooperation and transformation. The item that gathered the most attention was Alibaba founder Jack Ma encouraging Taiwan entrepreneurs to pass the torch on to the younger generation. That, and his plan to establish a fund to assist young entrepreneurs on Taiwan. Jack Ma shone a spotlight on Taiwan society. He expressed concern for the future of the younger generation. This is something many Taiwan entrepreneurs have probably never given a single thought.
When Ma asked entrepreneurs to pass the baton, he was speaking from the heart. Four years ago, when he visited he shared his feelings. “There is no hope for Taiwan,” he said, “Seventy, eighty-year-olds are still talking about innovation. They don’t believe young people have the ability to innovate." At the time many concluded he merely lacked good manners. This time Ma once again harped on the matter. That was not surprising. Because sitting with him on the same stage was the same group of grizzled entrepreneurs. Four years have gone by but everything on Taiwan is just as it was before. The only difference is that Ma has become the richest man in Asia, and is no longer a nonentity.
To other entrepreneurs, Ma’s comments probably sounded harsh. But etiquette does not appear to be his concern. His concern is the future. "If you believe in the future,” Ma said, “you must believe in young people. If you believe in young people, you will believe that their future is bright." He looked down on MBAs. "I helped many people obtain MBAs. They started out smart. They came back dumb." He believes that the economics of the future must be "altruistic." It must pay attention to "sharing, transparency, and responsibility." He called upon entrepreneurs from both sides to establish a fund to help young people on Taiwan establish businesses on the Mainland, participate in exchanges, or study.
Leave aside the matter of whether the economy of the future must be based on “altruism." How many Taiwan entrepreneurs have ever thought about business in "altruistic" terms? How many people in positions of authority? If there are any, then why has the younger generation failed to break the curse of the 20K salary ceiling? If there are any, then why has the number of foreign workers in Taiwan surged from 300,000 to half a million over the past few years? Why do businesses still complain that the number is inadequate? If there are any, then why do Taiwan entrepreneurs threaten to flee whenever changes are made to Taiwan's fiscal policies? If there are any, then why do so many big name companies dump their industrial waste into the rivers and seas, and adulterate their foodstuffs with cheap artificial ingredients? Why do they use raw materials intended for industrial use or fertilizers?
The fact is, that without Ma’s speech, the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" would have been nothing more than a trendy bash at a country club where the wealthy eat, drink, and be merry, while flashing their wealth. In recent years, many fashionable EMBA university courses are merely opportunities for students to climb the corporate ladder, expand their network of contacts, gain other peoples’ blessings, or transfer money from other peoples’ pockets into their own.
Ma is different. He has bragging rights. Taobao is a success not because Ma invented a unique business model or was exceptionally proficient at marketing. It is a success because he created a free and open platform that allowed thousands of products, from trinkets to luxury goods, to be sold online to Mainland China's rural and urban populations, to unknown buyers thousands of miles away. These transactions have propped up the economies in countless villages throughout the Chinese mainland. This is the best way to understand Ma’s "economics of altruism."
Recently, the daughter of the CEO of Korean Air lost her temper and assaulted a cabin crew chief because she was unhappy with flight attendant service. She even demanded that the aircraft turn around and return to the airport. The incident revealed how arrogant wealthy tycoons can be. Meanwhile as a result of the "third party payment" issue, Home Network chairman Chan Hung-chi blasted Banking Association chairman Li Chi-chu. Li visited to the Mainland to investigate e-commerce. Chan said Li "sacrificed those nearby to rescue those afar." This shows how out of step the government's policies and perceptions are with those of the common man. As Ma noted, over the past 15 years Mainland China has undergone tremendous changes. Many new businesses and business models have emerged. By comparison, Taiwan's economy has stagnated because entrepreneurs are too conservative and government officials are too closed minded. On this point, we ought to be ashamed.
Jack Ma wants to establish a fund to help young entrepreneurs on Taiwan establish companies. Some people may feel uncomfortable about that. They may wonder when have younger entrepreneurs on Taiwan ever needed help from Mainland entrepreneurs to succeed? But step back and think. Remember what Ma said about "altruism." If the younger generation can share ideas, why should we care so much about political boundaries? Furthermore, if Mainland entrepreneurs can appreciate the wisdom and creativity of promising young people on Taiwan, why can’t Taiwan entrepreneurs? Have they realized the problem, but have not thought of a way to proceed? If that is the case, why not take advantage of the opportunity to practice what we preach?
Taiwan entrepreneurs, why not contribute to a "Youth Fund?" Why not allow people of all ages ensure that the younger generation on Taiwan has a future.
馬雲要幫年輕人創業，台灣企業家呢？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.18 01:30 am
《兩岸企業家峰會》在台北舉行，會中最受矚目的話題，不是兩岸企業如何深化合作、推動轉型，而是阿里巴巴創辦人馬雲在會上鼓勵企業家交棒，並暢談自己計畫成立基金，鼓勵台灣年輕人創業。馬雲把目光投向社會，關注下一代的未來，這恐怕是許多企業家罕曾思及之處。
呼籲企業家交棒，馬雲應該是深有所感。四年前他來台訪問後，即曾發表感慨：「台灣沒希望了，七、八十歲的人還在談創新，不相信年輕人更會創新。」當時，許多人聽了只覺得他不懂禮貌。這次馬雲重彈此調，其實並不意外，因為放眼看去和他同台並坐的，仍是同一批頭髮斑白的企業家。四年之隔，台灣依然一切如故；不同的是，馬雲已搖身變成亞洲首富，不再是吳下阿蒙。
馬雲的話聽在其他企業家耳裡，或許有些刺耳，但「禮貌」似乎不是他掛慮的事，他更關心的是未來：「如果你相信未來，就要相信年輕人；如果你相信年輕人，就會相信未來是美好的。」他看扁ＭＢＡ：「我送了很多人去上ＭＢＡ，本來很聰明，回來都變傻了。」他相信，未來的經濟一定是「利他主義」經濟，講究「分享、透明、擔當」。因此，他呼籲兩岸企業家共襄盛舉成立基金，幫助台灣年輕人到大陸創業、交流或學習。
撇開未來的經濟是否「利他主義」的命題不談，試問，有多少台灣企業家思考過企業經營裡的「利他」動機？政府部門的掌權者又有多少人有此思維？如果有，為什麼年輕世代的廿二Ｋ薪資魔咒多年來始終無法打破？如果有，為什麼幾年來台灣的外勞從卅萬激增到五十萬人，企業仍嫌不敷使用？如果有，為什麼台灣一有財經政策變動，就有企業家揚言要「出走」？如果有，為什麼還有那麼多知名企業摸黑向河海排放汙水，在食品裡胡亂添加廉價人工製劑，把工業用或肥料用原料做成人吃的黑心東西？
事實是，如果這場《兩岸企業家峰會》沒有馬雲的一席演說，它充其量就是兩岸「富人俱樂部」的一次聯歡大會，有錢人相聚一堂把酒言歡，相互炫富。或者，也就像近年大學裡最時髦的ＥＭＢＡ課程，許多學員只想趁機彼此攀結，擴大人脈，想著如何使別人為自己加持，如何把別人口袋裡的錢變到自己的口袋裡。
馬雲不同，他有驕傲的資格。「淘寶網」最大的成功，並不在馬雲發明了什麼獨特的營運模式，或者多麼精通行銷之道，而在他拉開了一個自由開放的平台，讓中國千千萬萬的農村與城鎮從小商品到奢侈貨都能在網路上架，賣給萬里之外的不知名買家；這種交易，撐起了中國無數村鎮人家的經濟。這點，也正是他的「利他主義」經濟的最佳詮釋。
最近，大韓航空會長之女趙顯娥因不滿空服員服務而大發雷霆，動手毆打座艙長，甚至要求飛機掉頭；由此事件，可以看出資本家之恃財而驕可以目中無人到什麼地步。與此同時，網家董事長詹宏志為「第三方支付」問題，痛批銀行公會理事長李紀珠要到大陸考察電子商務是「捨近求遠」，則可看出政府施政步調和觀念落後於民間到了多嚴重的地步。誠如馬雲所言，過去十五年中國發生了天翻地覆的變化，出現了許多新型企業和經營模式；而反觀台灣經濟，卻因企業家保守、政府思維封閉而變得停滯不前。這點，我們不該汗顏嗎？
對於馬雲宣稱要設基金幫助台灣年輕人創業，有些人可能會感到不快：曾幾何時，台灣年輕世代的問題竟需要大陸企業家插手幫忙了？但退一步想，回到「利他主義」的觀點，如果新世代的創意能夠供更多世人分享，為什麼要那麼在乎疆域之界？再進一步想，如果大陸企業家珍惜並看好台灣年輕人的智慧和創意，為什麼台灣企業家不能看到這點？或者，他們看到了這點，只是還沒想到著手的方式；果真如此的話，趁著這次的機遇和動力，大家是不是應該起而行了！
有心的企業家，今天就捐款成立「青年基金」吧！讓老中青三代好好一起想想如何創造台灣和下一代的未來。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 18, 2014
Executive Summary: The item that gathered the most attention during the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" held in Taipei had nothing to do with cross-Strait business cooperation and transformation. The item that gathered the most attention was Alibaba founder Jack Ma encouraging Taiwan entrepreneurs to pass the torch on to the younger generation. That, and his plan to establish a fund to assist young entrepreneurs on Taiwan. Jack Ma shone a spotlight on Taiwan society. He expressed concern for the future of the younger generation. This is something many Taiwan entrepreneurs have probably never given a single thought.
Full Text Below:
The item that gathered the most attention during the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" held in Taipei had nothing to do with cross-Strait business cooperation and transformation. The item that gathered the most attention was Alibaba founder Jack Ma encouraging Taiwan entrepreneurs to pass the torch on to the younger generation. That, and his plan to establish a fund to assist young entrepreneurs on Taiwan. Jack Ma shone a spotlight on Taiwan society. He expressed concern for the future of the younger generation. This is something many Taiwan entrepreneurs have probably never given a single thought.
When Ma asked entrepreneurs to pass the baton, he was speaking from the heart. Four years ago, when he visited he shared his feelings. “There is no hope for Taiwan,” he said, “Seventy, eighty-year-olds are still talking about innovation. They don’t believe young people have the ability to innovate." At the time many concluded he merely lacked good manners. This time Ma once again harped on the matter. That was not surprising. Because sitting with him on the same stage was the same group of grizzled entrepreneurs. Four years have gone by but everything on Taiwan is just as it was before. The only difference is that Ma has become the richest man in Asia, and is no longer a nonentity.
To other entrepreneurs, Ma’s comments probably sounded harsh. But etiquette does not appear to be his concern. His concern is the future. "If you believe in the future,” Ma said, “you must believe in young people. If you believe in young people, you will believe that their future is bright." He looked down on MBAs. "I helped many people obtain MBAs. They started out smart. They came back dumb." He believes that the economics of the future must be "altruistic." It must pay attention to "sharing, transparency, and responsibility." He called upon entrepreneurs from both sides to establish a fund to help young people on Taiwan establish businesses on the Mainland, participate in exchanges, or study.
Leave aside the matter of whether the economy of the future must be based on “altruism." How many Taiwan entrepreneurs have ever thought about business in "altruistic" terms? How many people in positions of authority? If there are any, then why has the younger generation failed to break the curse of the 20K salary ceiling? If there are any, then why has the number of foreign workers in Taiwan surged from 300,000 to half a million over the past few years? Why do businesses still complain that the number is inadequate? If there are any, then why do Taiwan entrepreneurs threaten to flee whenever changes are made to Taiwan's fiscal policies? If there are any, then why do so many big name companies dump their industrial waste into the rivers and seas, and adulterate their foodstuffs with cheap artificial ingredients? Why do they use raw materials intended for industrial use or fertilizers?
The fact is, that without Ma’s speech, the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" would have been nothing more than a trendy bash at a country club where the wealthy eat, drink, and be merry, while flashing their wealth. In recent years, many fashionable EMBA university courses are merely opportunities for students to climb the corporate ladder, expand their network of contacts, gain other peoples’ blessings, or transfer money from other peoples’ pockets into their own.
Ma is different. He has bragging rights. Taobao is a success not because Ma invented a unique business model or was exceptionally proficient at marketing. It is a success because he created a free and open platform that allowed thousands of products, from trinkets to luxury goods, to be sold online to Mainland China's rural and urban populations, to unknown buyers thousands of miles away. These transactions have propped up the economies in countless villages throughout the Chinese mainland. This is the best way to understand Ma’s "economics of altruism."
Recently, the daughter of the CEO of Korean Air lost her temper and assaulted a cabin crew chief because she was unhappy with flight attendant service. She even demanded that the aircraft turn around and return to the airport. The incident revealed how arrogant wealthy tycoons can be. Meanwhile as a result of the "third party payment" issue, Home Network chairman Chan Hung-chi blasted Banking Association chairman Li Chi-chu. Li visited to the Mainland to investigate e-commerce. Chan said Li "sacrificed those nearby to rescue those afar." This shows how out of step the government's policies and perceptions are with those of the common man. As Ma noted, over the past 15 years Mainland China has undergone tremendous changes. Many new businesses and business models have emerged. By comparison, Taiwan's economy has stagnated because entrepreneurs are too conservative and government officials are too closed minded. On this point, we ought to be ashamed.
Jack Ma wants to establish a fund to help young entrepreneurs on Taiwan establish companies. Some people may feel uncomfortable about that. They may wonder when have younger entrepreneurs on Taiwan ever needed help from Mainland entrepreneurs to succeed? But step back and think. Remember what Ma said about "altruism." If the younger generation can share ideas, why should we care so much about political boundaries? Furthermore, if Mainland entrepreneurs can appreciate the wisdom and creativity of promising young people on Taiwan, why can’t Taiwan entrepreneurs? Have they realized the problem, but have not thought of a way to proceed? If that is the case, why not take advantage of the opportunity to practice what we preach?
Taiwan entrepreneurs, why not contribute to a "Youth Fund?" Why not allow people of all ages ensure that the younger generation on Taiwan has a future.
馬雲要幫年輕人創業，台灣企業家呢？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.18 01:30 am
《兩岸企業家峰會》在台北舉行，會中最受矚目的話題，不是兩岸企業如何深化合作、推動轉型，而是阿里巴巴創辦人馬雲在會上鼓勵企業家交棒，並暢談自己計畫成立基金，鼓勵台灣年輕人創業。馬雲把目光投向社會，關注下一代的未來，這恐怕是許多企業家罕曾思及之處。
呼籲企業家交棒，馬雲應該是深有所感。四年前他來台訪問後，即曾發表感慨：「台灣沒希望了，七、八十歲的人還在談創新，不相信年輕人更會創新。」當時，許多人聽了只覺得他不懂禮貌。這次馬雲重彈此調，其實並不意外，因為放眼看去和他同台並坐的，仍是同一批頭髮斑白的企業家。四年之隔，台灣依然一切如故；不同的是，馬雲已搖身變成亞洲首富，不再是吳下阿蒙。
馬雲的話聽在其他企業家耳裡，或許有些刺耳，但「禮貌」似乎不是他掛慮的事，他更關心的是未來：「如果你相信未來，就要相信年輕人；如果你相信年輕人，就會相信未來是美好的。」他看扁ＭＢＡ：「我送了很多人去上ＭＢＡ，本來很聰明，回來都變傻了。」他相信，未來的經濟一定是「利他主義」經濟，講究「分享、透明、擔當」。因此，他呼籲兩岸企業家共襄盛舉成立基金，幫助台灣年輕人到大陸創業、交流或學習。
撇開未來的經濟是否「利他主義」的命題不談，試問，有多少台灣企業家思考過企業經營裡的「利他」動機？政府部門的掌權者又有多少人有此思維？如果有，為什麼年輕世代的廿二Ｋ薪資魔咒多年來始終無法打破？如果有，為什麼幾年來台灣的外勞從卅萬激增到五十萬人，企業仍嫌不敷使用？如果有，為什麼台灣一有財經政策變動，就有企業家揚言要「出走」？如果有，為什麼還有那麼多知名企業摸黑向河海排放汙水，在食品裡胡亂添加廉價人工製劑，把工業用或肥料用原料做成人吃的黑心東西？
事實是，如果這場《兩岸企業家峰會》沒有馬雲的一席演說，它充其量就是兩岸「富人俱樂部」的一次聯歡大會，有錢人相聚一堂把酒言歡，相互炫富。或者，也就像近年大學裡最時髦的ＥＭＢＡ課程，許多學員只想趁機彼此攀結，擴大人脈，想著如何使別人為自己加持，如何把別人口袋裡的錢變到自己的口袋裡。
馬雲不同，他有驕傲的資格。「淘寶網」最大的成功，並不在馬雲發明了什麼獨特的營運模式，或者多麼精通行銷之道，而在他拉開了一個自由開放的平台，讓中國千千萬萬的農村與城鎮從小商品到奢侈貨都能在網路上架，賣給萬里之外的不知名買家；這種交易，撐起了中國無數村鎮人家的經濟。這點，也正是他的「利他主義」經濟的最佳詮釋。
最近，大韓航空會長之女趙顯娥因不滿空服員服務而大發雷霆，動手毆打座艙長，甚至要求飛機掉頭；由此事件，可以看出資本家之恃財而驕可以目中無人到什麼地步。與此同時，網家董事長詹宏志為「第三方支付」問題，痛批銀行公會理事長李紀珠要到大陸考察電子商務是「捨近求遠」，則可看出政府施政步調和觀念落後於民間到了多嚴重的地步。誠如馬雲所言，過去十五年中國發生了天翻地覆的變化，出現了許多新型企業和經營模式；而反觀台灣經濟，卻因企業家保守、政府思維封閉而變得停滯不前。這點，我們不該汗顏嗎？
對於馬雲宣稱要設基金幫助台灣年輕人創業，有些人可能會感到不快：曾幾何時，台灣年輕世代的問題竟需要大陸企業家插手幫忙了？但退一步想，回到「利他主義」的觀點，如果新世代的創意能夠供更多世人分享，為什麼要那麼在乎疆域之界？再進一步想，如果大陸企業家珍惜並看好台灣年輕人的智慧和創意，為什麼台灣企業家不能看到這點？或者，他們看到了這點，只是還沒想到著手的方式；果真如此的話，趁著這次的機遇和動力，大家是不是應該起而行了！
有心的企業家，今天就捐款成立「青年基金」吧！讓老中青三代好好一起想想如何創造台灣和下一代的未來。
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Toward a Mutually-Acceptable Cross-Strait Exchange Policy
Toward a Mutually-Acceptable Cross-Strait Exchange Policy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2014
Executive Summary: Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.
Full Text Below:
Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Hundreds of people from industry, government and academia on both sides attended. Current ARATS chairman and former president Chen Deming, Chen Yunlin, and Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Chief Gong Qing participated in an advisory capacity. The summit was held
at a sensitive moment, right after Taiwan's nine in one elections. Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.
The "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" was chaired by cross-Strait representatives Vincent Siew and Zeng Peiyan. Participants included heavyweights from both sides. It was seen as a KMT-CCP forum, as a cross-Strait forum and cross-Strait business exchange and cooperation platform between participants of equal rank. It was an important symbol of cross-Strait economic cooperation. The summit was officially established last year. It promotes specific cooperation plans and projects affecting macroeconomic exchange, smart appliances, energy and petrochemical equipment, financial, cultural and creative industries, biotech, health care, and small and medium enterprises.
It must be said that in recent years the effectiveness of cross-Strait economic cooperation has diminished. The benefits have obviously accrued to big business and consortia. provoking an intense political and economic backlash on Taiwan. During the nine in one elections, beneficial cross-Strait cooperation was denounced as a “power elites monopoly”. This had a palpable impact on the ruling party in the election. Following the election, even party members have begun to question cross-Strait economic cooperation.
Since the Ma government took office in 2008, its main theme has been the promotion of cross-Strait economic liberalization and cooperation. Its goal has been to revive Taiwan's economy and reap a peace dividend that will benefit all walks of life, not just a few. Yet a few short years later, cross-Strait economic cooperation has become a major social issue. It has even become a liability to the ruling party's election efforts. The Ma government and many people are baffled. They blame the problem on distortions spread by the green camp cyber army.
Cross-Strait economic cooperation has led to social unrest, growing concern, and public resentment, for three main reasons. One. The form of exchange. Economic exchange and cooperation platforms such as the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" are attended mostly by representatives of big business and consortia. They inevitably take on the coloration of special interests. KMT elders often lead delegations of “hong ding” entrepreneurs to Beijing to meet with or play host to Mainland leaders. This inevitably leaves ordinary people with the impression of business government collusion and political privilege. These forms of cross-Strait exchanges are bound to engender public resentment. They are sure to be criticized and demonized. They likely to be adverse to long-term cooperation and regular exchanges.
Two. The form of cooperation. Cross-Strait industrial cooperation tends to treat Mainland China as the main body. The Ministry of Economic Affairs cross-Strait industrial cooperation bypass plan concentrates too much on developing the Mainland market. This increases the magnetic attraction that the Mainland has on Taiwan based talent, capital, and technology. This is unfavorable to full employment and salary increases. Furthermore, Mainland economic growth has slowed sharply in recent years. Hence the Mainland’s efforts to promote industrial restructuring and upgrading. Mainland companies have plagiarized Taiwan experience, talent, and technology. This has swiftly narrowed the gap between the two sides. The result has been rapid economic transition from a complementary cross-Strait relationship, to a competitive one. In recent years, Mainland investments abroad have increased. Political constraints have blocked investments in Taiwan. The transfer of talent, capital, and technology have remained a one-way street, leading to public unease.
Three. The distribution of benefits. The above model for cross-Strait exchange, cooperation, and market opening are the heart of the STA and MTA. The beneficiaries are clearly consortia and large enterprises. SMEs, young people, and the grassroots generally fail to benefit. Worse, they are often victims. As a result, cross-Strait economic cooperation continues to lose public support.
As a result, over the past six years, the benefits of cross-Strait economic cooperation have gradually been diminished and distorted. Reform is now essential. In the future, we should consider the interests of a majority of people. Siew advocates an upgraded version of cross-strait economic relations. He suggested that cross-Strait business cooperation should have two strategic objectives. They should be "palpable" and they should "share the benefits." Zeng Peiyan also says the two sides should explore new modes of business cooperation, pave the way for SME cooperation, and improve the people's livelihood on both sides of the Strait. As we can see, both sides share the same objectives. Both sides want economic cooperation to benefit the grassroots equitably.
Specifically, cross-Strait economic cooperation should change in three ways. One. Exchanges should be among the common folk. The cross-Strait exchange platform should not focus on large companies and consortia. It should help SMEs, young people, and the grassroots. Two. Cooperation should improve people's livelihood. It should establish and expand SME partnerships, web services, and public services. These should be the focus of future attention. Three. The benefits should be universal. Market opening and cross-Strait cooperation should make people feel good. They should not benefit only isolated companies and organizations. We hope the "cross-strait entrepreneurs summit" will work towards that goal. We hope the two governments will take specific measures to implement them.
社論－兩岸共商人民有感的交流政策
2014年12月17日 04:10
本報訊
由前副總統蕭萬長和大陸前國務院副總理曾培炎擔任理事長的「兩岸企業家峰會」年會前兩天在台北舉行，兩岸產官學界共數百人出席，大陸海協會現任及前任會長陳德銘、陳雲林和國台辦副主任龔清概以顧問身分與會。這次峰會舉行適值九合一選舉後台灣政局丕變的敏感時刻，公民團體在會場外抗議並嚴詞批評是兩岸權貴峰會，表露出對當前兩岸經濟合作的強烈不滿。蕭萬長致詞時則特別強調，兩岸經濟合作要摒棄少數人受益的舊思維，並採取兩岸合作升級版的新架構，讓多數民眾有感、受益；曾培炎和龔清概致詞亦呼應看重中小企業和基層民眾的心聲。
「兩岸企業家峰會」由在兩岸有代表性的蕭萬長和曾培炎領軍，成員涵蓋兩岸重量級企業，被視為是和國共論壇、海峽論壇同位階的兩岸企業交流及合作平台，在兩岸整體經濟合作上具有重要象徵意義。峰會在去年正式成立後，設立了宏觀經濟交流、資訊家電、能源石化裝備、金融、文創、生技與健康照護及中小企業等7個小組，推動具體合作計畫和項目。
但不可諱言，近年兩岸經濟合作的效益日益遞減，利益分配又明顯向大企業和財團傾斜，因而在台灣引發強烈政經效應，這次九合一選舉兩岸合作利益被「權貴」、「買辦」壟斷的影射和抨擊，在一定程度上衝擊執政黨選情，選後黨內檢討兩岸經濟合作的聲浪亦浮上檯面。
自2008年馬政府上任以來，推動以經濟開放及合作為主軸的兩岸政策，為台灣經濟引進活水，和平紅利普及各行各業，並非只有少數人獲益，但不過幾年時間，何以兩岸經濟合作會備受社會質疑，甚至成為執政黨的選舉負債？馬政府及很多黨政人士皆百思不得其解，甚至將其歸咎網軍負面文宣的扭曲。
追根究柢，兩岸經濟合作日益變質及引發社會日增的憂慮與反感，主要是出於三方面因素：其一、交流形式。「兩岸企業家峰會」等經濟交流合作平台，主要成員及參與者多屬重量級企業及財團代表，難免被賦予利益色彩。而國民黨大老經常帶領紅頂企業家赴北京和大陸領導人會面，頻率之高，令社會側目；大陸重量級人士來台，知名企業及財團爭相求見或作東招待，看在庶民眼裡，不免有政商掛勾及特權利益的印象和聯想。這種兩岸交流形式愈是深化，民間反感愈深，愈容易被批評及妖魔化，不利兩岸長期合作和正常交往。
其二、合作模式。兩岸企業合作多以大陸為主體，經濟部推動兩岸產業合作的搭橋計畫，也多以開發大陸市場為目標，因而強化大陸對台灣人才、資金、技術等磁吸效應，不利台灣就業及薪資提升。再者，近年大陸經濟增長大幅減緩，因而致力推動產業轉型升級，陸企爭相抄襲台商經驗及重金挖掘台灣人才和技術，快速拉近兩岸產業差距，導致兩岸經濟從互補關係快速轉變為競爭關係。大陸近年對外投資倍數成長，對台投資卻因台灣種種政治限制而動彈不得，兩岸人才、資金、技術始終呈單向流動現象，造成人心不平。
其三、利益分配。上述兩岸交流及合作模式，加上以開放市場為核心的兩岸服貿、貨貿協議，受益者明顯偏向財團及大型企業，對中小企業、年輕人及基層民眾普遍無感，甚至還是受害者，從而讓兩岸經濟合作民意基礎不斷流失。
有鑑於此，6年多來逐漸變質、利益傾斜的兩岸經濟合作型態，已到了非改不可的地步，未來改革大方向應以多數人利益為導向，蕭萬長主張應打造升級版兩岸經濟關係，並建議兩岸企業合作須設定「人民有感」及「利益共享」兩大策略目標；曾培炎亦主張兩岸應積極探索企業合作新模式，為中小企業合作鋪路搭橋，增進和改善兩岸民生。可見兩岸目標一致，就是要讓經濟合作更貼近基層民眾，利益雨露均霑。
在具體作為上，我們主張兩岸經濟合作應朝三大方向調整：一是交流親民化，兩岸交流平台不應以大企業及財團為重心，打造涵蓋中小企業、青年及基層民眾的多元化平台至為必要；二是合作民生化，重視中小企業合作網路建構及擴大民生服務業合作，應是未來重點；三是利益普及化，兩岸開放政策及合作計畫，必須讓人民普遍感受到好處，避免只圖利特定企業及少數團體。我們期待「兩岸企業家峰會」能朝以上方向努力，也期待兩岸政府能夠共商具體做法，落實推動。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 17, 2014
Executive Summary: Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.
Full Text Below:
Two days ago, former Vice President Vincent Siew and former Mainland Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan jointly chaired the annual meeting of the “Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit." Hundreds of people from industry, government and academia on both sides attended. Current ARATS chairman and former president Chen Deming, Chen Yunlin, and Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Chief Gong Qing participated in an advisory capacity. The summit was held
at a sensitive moment, right after Taiwan's nine in one elections. Citizen groups protested outside the venue and denounced the meeting as a cross-Strait “power elites summit.” They expressed intense dissatisfaction with current cross-Strait economic cooperation. Siew said cross-Strait economic cooperation must abandon old ways that benefit only a few people, and adopt a new cross-Strait cooperation framework that benefits more people. Zeng Peiyan and Gong Qinggai echoed the sentiments of SMEs and the grassroots.
The "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" was chaired by cross-Strait representatives Vincent Siew and Zeng Peiyan. Participants included heavyweights from both sides. It was seen as a KMT-CCP forum, as a cross-Strait forum and cross-Strait business exchange and cooperation platform between participants of equal rank. It was an important symbol of cross-Strait economic cooperation. The summit was officially established last year. It promotes specific cooperation plans and projects affecting macroeconomic exchange, smart appliances, energy and petrochemical equipment, financial, cultural and creative industries, biotech, health care, and small and medium enterprises.
It must be said that in recent years the effectiveness of cross-Strait economic cooperation has diminished. The benefits have obviously accrued to big business and consortia. provoking an intense political and economic backlash on Taiwan. During the nine in one elections, beneficial cross-Strait cooperation was denounced as a “power elites monopoly”. This had a palpable impact on the ruling party in the election. Following the election, even party members have begun to question cross-Strait economic cooperation.
Since the Ma government took office in 2008, its main theme has been the promotion of cross-Strait economic liberalization and cooperation. Its goal has been to revive Taiwan's economy and reap a peace dividend that will benefit all walks of life, not just a few. Yet a few short years later, cross-Strait economic cooperation has become a major social issue. It has even become a liability to the ruling party's election efforts. The Ma government and many people are baffled. They blame the problem on distortions spread by the green camp cyber army.
Cross-Strait economic cooperation has led to social unrest, growing concern, and public resentment, for three main reasons. One. The form of exchange. Economic exchange and cooperation platforms such as the "Cross-Strait Entrepreneurs Summit" are attended mostly by representatives of big business and consortia. They inevitably take on the coloration of special interests. KMT elders often lead delegations of “hong ding” entrepreneurs to Beijing to meet with or play host to Mainland leaders. This inevitably leaves ordinary people with the impression of business government collusion and political privilege. These forms of cross-Strait exchanges are bound to engender public resentment. They are sure to be criticized and demonized. They likely to be adverse to long-term cooperation and regular exchanges.
Two. The form of cooperation. Cross-Strait industrial cooperation tends to treat Mainland China as the main body. The Ministry of Economic Affairs cross-Strait industrial cooperation bypass plan concentrates too much on developing the Mainland market. This increases the magnetic attraction that the Mainland has on Taiwan based talent, capital, and technology. This is unfavorable to full employment and salary increases. Furthermore, Mainland economic growth has slowed sharply in recent years. Hence the Mainland’s efforts to promote industrial restructuring and upgrading. Mainland companies have plagiarized Taiwan experience, talent, and technology. This has swiftly narrowed the gap between the two sides. The result has been rapid economic transition from a complementary cross-Strait relationship, to a competitive one. In recent years, Mainland investments abroad have increased. Political constraints have blocked investments in Taiwan. The transfer of talent, capital, and technology have remained a one-way street, leading to public unease.
Three. The distribution of benefits. The above model for cross-Strait exchange, cooperation, and market opening are the heart of the STA and MTA. The beneficiaries are clearly consortia and large enterprises. SMEs, young people, and the grassroots generally fail to benefit. Worse, they are often victims. As a result, cross-Strait economic cooperation continues to lose public support.
As a result, over the past six years, the benefits of cross-Strait economic cooperation have gradually been diminished and distorted. Reform is now essential. In the future, we should consider the interests of a majority of people. Siew advocates an upgraded version of cross-strait economic relations. He suggested that cross-Strait business cooperation should have two strategic objectives. They should be "palpable" and they should "share the benefits." Zeng Peiyan also says the two sides should explore new modes of business cooperation, pave the way for SME cooperation, and improve the people's livelihood on both sides of the Strait. As we can see, both sides share the same objectives. Both sides want economic cooperation to benefit the grassroots equitably.
Specifically, cross-Strait economic cooperation should change in three ways. One. Exchanges should be among the common folk. The cross-Strait exchange platform should not focus on large companies and consortia. It should help SMEs, young people, and the grassroots. Two. Cooperation should improve people's livelihood. It should establish and expand SME partnerships, web services, and public services. These should be the focus of future attention. Three. The benefits should be universal. Market opening and cross-Strait cooperation should make people feel good. They should not benefit only isolated companies and organizations. We hope the "cross-strait entrepreneurs summit" will work towards that goal. We hope the two governments will take specific measures to implement them.
社論－兩岸共商人民有感的交流政策
2014年12月17日 04:10
本報訊
由前副總統蕭萬長和大陸前國務院副總理曾培炎擔任理事長的「兩岸企業家峰會」年會前兩天在台北舉行，兩岸產官學界共數百人出席，大陸海協會現任及前任會長陳德銘、陳雲林和國台辦副主任龔清概以顧問身分與會。這次峰會舉行適值九合一選舉後台灣政局丕變的敏感時刻，公民團體在會場外抗議並嚴詞批評是兩岸權貴峰會，表露出對當前兩岸經濟合作的強烈不滿。蕭萬長致詞時則特別強調，兩岸經濟合作要摒棄少數人受益的舊思維，並採取兩岸合作升級版的新架構，讓多數民眾有感、受益；曾培炎和龔清概致詞亦呼應看重中小企業和基層民眾的心聲。
「兩岸企業家峰會」由在兩岸有代表性的蕭萬長和曾培炎領軍，成員涵蓋兩岸重量級企業，被視為是和國共論壇、海峽論壇同位階的兩岸企業交流及合作平台，在兩岸整體經濟合作上具有重要象徵意義。峰會在去年正式成立後，設立了宏觀經濟交流、資訊家電、能源石化裝備、金融、文創、生技與健康照護及中小企業等7個小組，推動具體合作計畫和項目。
但不可諱言，近年兩岸經濟合作的效益日益遞減，利益分配又明顯向大企業和財團傾斜，因而在台灣引發強烈政經效應，這次九合一選舉兩岸合作利益被「權貴」、「買辦」壟斷的影射和抨擊，在一定程度上衝擊執政黨選情，選後黨內檢討兩岸經濟合作的聲浪亦浮上檯面。
自2008年馬政府上任以來，推動以經濟開放及合作為主軸的兩岸政策，為台灣經濟引進活水，和平紅利普及各行各業，並非只有少數人獲益，但不過幾年時間，何以兩岸經濟合作會備受社會質疑，甚至成為執政黨的選舉負債？馬政府及很多黨政人士皆百思不得其解，甚至將其歸咎網軍負面文宣的扭曲。
追根究柢，兩岸經濟合作日益變質及引發社會日增的憂慮與反感，主要是出於三方面因素：其一、交流形式。「兩岸企業家峰會」等經濟交流合作平台，主要成員及參與者多屬重量級企業及財團代表，難免被賦予利益色彩。而國民黨大老經常帶領紅頂企業家赴北京和大陸領導人會面，頻率之高，令社會側目；大陸重量級人士來台，知名企業及財團爭相求見或作東招待，看在庶民眼裡，不免有政商掛勾及特權利益的印象和聯想。這種兩岸交流形式愈是深化，民間反感愈深，愈容易被批評及妖魔化，不利兩岸長期合作和正常交往。
其二、合作模式。兩岸企業合作多以大陸為主體，經濟部推動兩岸產業合作的搭橋計畫，也多以開發大陸市場為目標，因而強化大陸對台灣人才、資金、技術等磁吸效應，不利台灣就業及薪資提升。再者，近年大陸經濟增長大幅減緩，因而致力推動產業轉型升級，陸企爭相抄襲台商經驗及重金挖掘台灣人才和技術，快速拉近兩岸產業差距，導致兩岸經濟從互補關係快速轉變為競爭關係。大陸近年對外投資倍數成長，對台投資卻因台灣種種政治限制而動彈不得，兩岸人才、資金、技術始終呈單向流動現象，造成人心不平。
其三、利益分配。上述兩岸交流及合作模式，加上以開放市場為核心的兩岸服貿、貨貿協議，受益者明顯偏向財團及大型企業，對中小企業、年輕人及基層民眾普遍無感，甚至還是受害者，從而讓兩岸經濟合作民意基礎不斷流失。
有鑑於此，6年多來逐漸變質、利益傾斜的兩岸經濟合作型態，已到了非改不可的地步，未來改革大方向應以多數人利益為導向，蕭萬長主張應打造升級版兩岸經濟關係，並建議兩岸企業合作須設定「人民有感」及「利益共享」兩大策略目標；曾培炎亦主張兩岸應積極探索企業合作新模式，為中小企業合作鋪路搭橋，增進和改善兩岸民生。可見兩岸目標一致，就是要讓經濟合作更貼近基層民眾，利益雨露均霑。
在具體作為上，我們主張兩岸經濟合作應朝三大方向調整：一是交流親民化，兩岸交流平台不應以大企業及財團為重心，打造涵蓋中小企業、青年及基層民眾的多元化平台至為必要；二是合作民生化，重視中小企業合作網路建構及擴大民生服務業合作，應是未來重點；三是利益普及化，兩岸開放政策及合作計畫，必須讓人民普遍感受到好處，避免只圖利特定企業及少數團體。我們期待「兩岸企業家峰會」能朝以上方向努力，也期待兩岸政府能夠共商具體做法，落實推動。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)