Brain Drain Detrimental to Taiwan's Future
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 30 2015
Executive Summary: Market sentiment has improved. The job market has followed suit. Quitting one's job is increasingly commonplace, and viewed positively by the public. But Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore are all recruiting young people from Taiwan. Many young people, lured by higher salaries, have moved overseas. This brain drain is a major problem. It is unfavorable to Taiwan's future. The government must deal with it wisely.
Full Text Below:
Market sentiment has improved. The job market has followed suit. Quitting one's job is increasingly commonplace, and viewed positively by the public. But Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore are all recruiting young people from Taiwan. Many young people, lured by higher salaries, have moved overseas. This brain drain is a major problem. It is unfavorable to Taiwan's future. The government must deal with it wisely.
Last year, the economy began to recover. Employment opportunities increased. The unemployment rate gradually declined. The December unemployment rate was 3.79%. This was 0.29 percentage points lower than the same period last year. It was the lowest in nearly 14 years. Last year, 457,000 people were unemployed. This year that number fell by 21,000. They were unemployed for an average of 25.9 weeks. That is 0.3 weeks shorter than last year. The job market was the best it has been in years. Payroll Statistics show that by November last year, the average salary (including overtime, bonuses) was 47,377 NT, a 3.89% increase. This was the highest salary level for the calendar year. But prices rose 1.26% over the same period. As a result, the actual level remains where it was 15 years ago.
The public has begun to respond. According to a Yes123 employment agency survey, the company and staff were optimistic about the first quarter of this year. The Lunar New Year is approaching. As many as 68% of all office workers are ready to quit this season. The 1111 employment agency found that over 94% of all workers plan to change jobs after the New Year. Clearly many people are changing jobs. This is an international phenomenon. On January 11, CNN Money issued a report on the situation in the United States. The career website Glassdoor.com gave 900 respondents a questionnaire. As many as 35% said that if employers did not give them a raise, they would resign and seek employment elsewhere.
This is the era of self-help. Taking the initiative to find a better job is right and proper. Quitting, even going abroad to earn money, should be encouraged. We should not cling to the outmoded concept of lifetime employment, and require employees to remain in one place. When companies cannot provide employees with better remuneration, bosses should ask themselves why they cannot provide employees with higher incomes. If employees leave and find other jobs, they should be congratulated, not condemned. Bosses should have a sense of corporate responsibility, or noblesse oblige. They should not pocket all the profits. They should give employees better dividends. Greater incentives enable companies to reach greater heights.
Alas, in-depth studies have revealed a phenomenon unique to Taiwan. Many career changers boldly abandon their field of past expertise. They make a blind leap into entirely different industries and jobs. This phenomenon is expected to manifest itself after the New Years holiday. According to 1111 employment agency statistics, 26.7% of all career changer took just such a leap. As a result, salaries declined nearly 1% from the previous quarter. Clearly job seekers are desperate, and willing to leave a familiar environment. They would rather seek change, and sacrifice their current salaries, in pursuit of greater future rewards.
Young people seeking adventure or life experiences should be encouraged. But more and more are leaving home for employment abroad. This is detrimental to the nation's prosperity. Many of them are high-tech and management talent. Data shows that up to 61.1% of those who relocated were professionals. The massive outflow of high-end manpower from Taiwan is particularly serious. Meanwhile, foreign workers on Taiwan are not high-end talent. As a result, Taiwan has become a net exporter of high-end labor. Department of Labor statistics indicate that over the past 10 years, 27,000 people with high-end talent have moved abroad.
Oxford Economics, a British economic research institute, and several multinational corporations have just released their “Global Talent 2021” resport. They estimate that by 2021, Taiwan's brain drain, in combination with its failure to attract foreign talent, will make it the most talent deficient region in the world. This is a huge warning sign for Taiwan. Advanced Western countries and the three other Asian dragons, have inflows of talent as well as outflows. They, unlike Taiwan, do not suffer a serious imbalance.
We lag far behind in the international bidding wars. But why? Because after-tax salaries on Taiwan are too low. As the saying goes, “The temple is too small for the Buddha.” People with ability prefer to be in the international market. So they vote with their feet, and leave Taiwan. Low-incomes and regulatory restrictions prevent the introduction of foreign high-level white-collar workers.
What is the answer to this problem? First of all, the government must abandon the notion of "control" and adopt a spirit of "growth”. This would encourage business executives. Government control is all about avoiding mistakes. But this limits the possibility of progress. Only the spirit of growth can retain talent. One of the key factors is the maximum marginal income tax rate of 40%, which may be raised to 45%. This is highly detrimental to retaining or attracting high-end talent.
The "Industrial Innovation Articles" have yet to be passed. It should be fast tracked. It includes research and development investment tax credits, the formalization of technology shares taxation, five major tax free employee incentives, and three changes to the tax laws. The amendment may encourage continued investment in innovation and research, promote innovation, strengthen domestic enterprises, and retain talent. Legislators have questioned the enterprise tax concessions. They say that they may help enterprises to reduce costs and increase after tax profits. But in the long-term they may be detrimental to international competitiveness and corporate responsibility. Now is a time of extraordinary economic turbulence. Extraordinary measures are required to promote economic and social progress.
社論－人才外流不利台灣發展
2015年01月30日 04:10
本報訊
最近景氣改善，就業市場隨之回溫，「跳槽」風氣逐漸盛行，社會多以正面看待。但中國大陸、香港、新加坡也擴大對台灣青年徵才，很多年輕人在高薪利誘下跳槽海外，人才外流是大問題，不利台灣發展，政府應小心面對。
去年經濟開始復甦，就業機會增多，失業率逐步下降。12月失業率為3.79%，不僅較前年同期減0.29個百分點，也是近14年來同期最低。去年全年平均失業人數45.7萬人，年減2.1萬人，平均失業周數25.9周，也較前年縮短0.3周，這是近年來就業市場的最佳表現。薪資統計顯示，去年1到11月薪資平均（含加班、獎金）4萬7377元，年增3.89%，薪資雖為歷年最高水準，但若扣除同期物價上漲1.26%，仍不及15年前水準。
有鑑於此，社會已經開始有所反應。根據人力銀行業者Yes123調查，公司行號與員工對今年第1季經濟均抱持樂觀看法，加上進入農曆年尾，有68%上班族準備於本季跳槽。而1111人力銀行發現，超過9成4的上班族計畫年後轉職，顯示轉職潮即將湧現。無獨有偶，這也是國際現象。跟據CNN Money1月11日報導美國狀況，由職業網站Glassdoor.com對900名受訪者做出的問卷顯示，35%的人表示如果現僱主不給自己加薪，他們將辭職，另謀蹊徑。
自力救濟的時代，用自己的力量尋找更好機會是天經地義。跳槽，乃至於到國外賺外國人的錢，都應該被鼓勵。我們不應停留在終生僱用制老觀念，要求員工從一而終。當企業無法給員工更好的報酬，老闆就應該檢討，為什麼不能給員工更好的收入。員工離職另謀高就，應該受到祝福，而不是詛咒。老闆應該有企業責任的觀念或是企業王國的胸襟，不要一切利益據為己有，而是能給員工更好的分紅，藉此建立的激勵機制，也可使公司的營運更上層樓。
但深入研究對比，卻發現台灣一種獨有的現象，不少跳槽者大膽放棄過去的領域與經驗，「裸跳」至不同的產業及職務，預計將成為今年年後轉職潮的特殊現象。1111人力銀行統計，「裸跳」占26.7%，造成期望月薪反較上季下滑逾1成。顯示求職者，是斷尾求生，離開熟悉的環境，求新求變，寧可犧牲一時的薪水，追求未來更高的報償。
年輕人冒險或拓展人生經驗值得鼓勵，可是離鄉背井到海外求職就業者越來越多，就不利國家社會的發展。因為這其中有很多都是高科技及管理人才，數據顯示外移人口中專業人才占比高達61.1%，造成台灣高端人力大量外流特別嚴重。可是與此同時，來台就業的外國高端人才卻沒有增加，台灣成為高端勞力淨輸出國。勞動部統計指出，過去10年都維持每年2.7萬人的高端人力流動逆差。
英國經濟研究機構牛津經濟公司和多家跨國企業最新的集體研究《全球天資 2021》（Global Talent 2021）更預估，台灣到2021年時，因人才外流，加上吸引不到國際人才，恐將成為全球最缺乏人才國家。這對台灣未來的發展是很大的警訊。西方先進國家及亞洲其他三小龍，人才有流出也有流入，不像台灣如此嚴重的失衡。
面對國際搶人大戰，我們是遙遙落後。究其原因，台灣的稅後薪水實在太低，小廟容不了菩薩，有能力的人士寧可在國際市場被選才，因此用腳投票，離開台灣。而因為我們社會的低薪及法規的限制，外籍高階白領人力引進卻呈現停滯現象。
如何解決此嚴重的問題？首先，政府應該揚棄「管制」的中心思想，改以「發展」的精神，來促進主管業務的興旺。管制是求不出錯，卻限制了向前的可能性。相反的，透過發展觀念的實踐，引才留人就更容易推動。其中關鍵因素綜合所得稅的最高邊際稅率40%，未來有可能還要拉高到45%，這都非常不利高端人才的選擇。
本會期未竟其功的「產業創新條例」修正案，應加速通過，因為這包括企業研發投資抵減二擇一、技術入股課稅制度化，以及五大員工獎酬工具緩課稅等三大修正方向。修正案可以鼓勵公司持續投入創新研究、推動創新技術產業化及強化國內企業留才攬才。雖然有立委質疑提供企業租稅優惠或許有利於企業降低成本及增加稅後利潤，長期反而不利國際競爭力及企業責任。但現在已經是經濟興衰的非常時期，應該有非常藥方來促進經濟社會進步。
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Burn Your Bridges: Eric Chu's Four Levers
Burn Your Bridges: Eric Chu's Four Levers
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 29, 2015
Executive Summary: The edifice is on the verge of collapse. It is time to save the day. Eric Chu is now KMT chairman. The party's circumstances are dire. He must make full use of four levers. One. The Chu Xi meeting. Two. The National Affairs Conference. Three. The constitutional amendment process. Four. The 2016 legislative and presidential elections. Sunzi's Art of War says: "If soldiers have their backs to the wall, they will not fear, they will fight to the death.” If Chu controls these four levers, he could improve the KMT's chances in 2016. But even if the party loses the election, it may be able to lead Taiwan back onto the right path. This would be the KMT's contribution to Taiwan. It might even enable the KMT to make a comeback.
Full Text Below:
The edifice is on the verge of collapse. It is time to save the day. Eric Chu is now KMT chairman. The party's circumstances are dire. He must make full use of four levers. One. The Chu Xi meeting. Two. The National Affairs Conference. Three. The constitutional amendment process. Four. The 2016 legislative and presidential elections.
These four levers are complementary. Although 2016 is the target, 2020 is also a possibility. Based on current trends, the KMT would find it difficult to win the presidential election in 2016. But Eric Chu must use the election to slow the KMT's fall. The Kuomintang cannot remain in free fall until 2016. Even if it expects to be defeated, the KMT must discuss its policy platform. It must formulate a strategy for a comeback in 2020.
Eric Chu must have a strategic goal for 2016. The DPP may win the election, but lose the policy path debate. The KMT must continue its struggle. Although it is likely to lose the election, it must win the policy path battle.
Take the National Affairs Conference. Chu has indicated a willingness to participate. But he must not allow himself to become one of Tsai Ing-wen's props. The organization of the conference must meet with KMT satisfaction. There must be a proper role for the Ma government, and equal status for the political parties. There must be diversity and balance among the participants. There must be clarity in the agenda, particularly on issues of national identity, amendments to the Constitution, globalization, energy policy, cross-Strait relations, the 1992 consensus, ECFA follow-up negotiations, and other issues troubling Taiwan The Kuomintang must not pass up this opportunity. It must use the conference as a basis for consensus-building.
Tsai Ing-wen wants the National Affairs Conference to serve as a stepping stone in her presidential campaign. Following the nine in one election victory, she has been either silent or highly selective about the issues she is willing to address. But Eric Chu must insist that the conference be a genuine, in depth debate. The KMT must set the agenda. It must have the determination to get to the bottom of things. If Tsai Ing-wen ducks the issues, the KMT must hold her feet to the fire, then turn them into 2016 election issues.
A constitutional amendment is imminent. Tsai Ing-wen apparently has reservations. The KMT, however, must not miss the opportunity to force the nation to hold a constitutional debate. Three themes should be addressed: National identity, cross-Strait relations, and government institutions. None of these should be overlooked. If these issues are not made crystal clear, constitutional reform will be impossible. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen must not be allowed to duck these issues again and again. What would the constitutional amendment include? It could include a referendum on whether 18 year olds may vote in the 2016 election, and whether the Legislative Yuan's authority to approve of premier appointments should be restored. Once the 2016 elections are over, the KMT should demand further constitutional amendments, and a public referendum during the 2018 county and municipal elections. By then, the Legislative Yuan's authority to approve premier appointments may have been restored, and serve as a benchmark. If the KMT can maintain the momentum for constitutional reform from 2016, even if it loses the presidential election, it will retain access to the bully pulpit.
The Chu Xi meeting is the most crucial of the four levers. The KMT may lose the 2016 election. Beijing may not be happy. Any Chu Xi meeting should therefore reaffirm the 1992 Consensus and even go beyond the 1992 Consensus.It should establish a new benchmark for cross-Strait relations. It should establish a new "divided rule but not a divided nation” concept. On the one hand, the KMT could break new ground for 2016. On the other hand it could pressure the DPP to reform. During the Chu Xi meeting, Eric Chu should encourage Beijing to help the DPP reform. The Chu Xi meeting should echo, then surpass the cross-Strait achievements of the National Affairs Conference.
Now take the 2016 presidential election. As mentioned above, the KMT may well lose the election. But it must not allow it to become a crushing defeat. It must make full use of these four levers, rhetorically and strategically. It may lose the election, but it must win the policy path high ground. Eric Chu must be willing to burn his bridges. The National Affairs Conference, the constitutional amendment process, and the Chu Xi meeting will allow him to shrug off the albatross on his back. They will allow him to plan for 2020. Should Eric Chu throw his hat in the ring for 2016? That can be debated. But if the KMT fields another candidate, one unable to wage a respectable campaign, it might never rise again.
For Taiwan, 2016 is a crisis and an opportunity. As mentioned earlier, the shock waves from 2016 will soon buffet Taiwan. A consensus must be reached on national identity, constitutional amendments. energy policy, globalization, the 1992 consensus, cross-Strait relations, and ECFA. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it cannot dodge these issues. Otherwise it may win the election, but lose the national policy debate. The KMT may indeed lose the election. But it need not shrink from the prospect. It must take an even tougher line, and remind itself that even though it lost the election, it won the national policy debate.
Sunzi's Art of War says: "If soldiers have their backs to the wall, they will not fear, they will fight to the death.” If Chu controls these four levers, he could improve the KMT's chances in 2016. But even if the party loses the election, it may be able to lead Taiwan back onto the right path. This would be the KMT's contribution to Taiwan. It might even enable the KMT to make a comeback.
釜破舟沉：朱立倫的四支槓桿
2015-01-29 01:40:30 聯合報 社論
扶大廈之將傾，挽狂瀾於既倒。朱立倫出任國民黨主席，情勢艱危，必須審慎操持四支槓桿：一、朱習會。二、國是會議。三、修憲。四、二○一六立委及總統選舉。
這四支槓桿相因相成，雖將以二○一六大選為總結，但也可能穿越二○二○年。就當前趨勢看，國民黨很難贏得二○一六總統大選，但朱立倫至少必須使國民黨在此次大選中出現煞車甩尾的情勢；也就是說，不能聽任國民黨繼續在二○一六如自由落體般墜落，縱使敗選，也須透過大選為國民黨在論述及戰略上重建一個能夠指向二○二○年的制高點。
朱立倫二○一六年的戰略目標應是：民進黨可能贏了選舉，卻輸在路線；國民黨即應力爭，雖可能輸了選舉，但必須贏在路線。
先論國是會議。朱立倫雖表示願意參與，但不可能只是扮演蔡英文的道具。因此，國民黨對於主辦單位的組成（如馬政府在此會中的角色如何、政黨的對等地位如何），及與會人員之多元及平衡，還有議題設定的高度及深廣度等，皆應爭取到國民黨的話語權。尤其關於國家認同、修憲方案、全球化、能源政策、兩岸關係、九二共識及ＥＣＦＡ後續工程等長期嚴重困擾台灣的議題，國民黨皆不可任其錯失，務必促使大會成為建立共識的平台。
蔡英文似想將國是會議做為她競選總統的政治嫁妝，九合一大勝後，已見她對議題有選擇性並冷處理。但朱立倫必須堅持此會為一個真正深廣辯論的場域，國民黨須成為議題的發動機，要有打破砂鍋問到底的決戰心志。倘若蔡英文有所迴避閃躲，國民黨即應強勢回應，並延伸為二○一六大選的議題。
修憲儼已箭在弦上。蔡英文對修憲似有保留，但國民黨不能錯失藉國是會議進行憲政大辯論的機會，對於憲政的三大主題，國家認同、兩岸關係及政府體制，均不應有所遺漏。因為，若不徹底談清楚這些問題，憲政改革即根本不可能完成，因而亦不容蔡英文對這些問題再閃避。至於實際的修憲方案，二○一六大選或許只將十八歲投票權及恢復立院的閣揆任命同意權兩案付諸公民複決；但待二○一六選後，國民黨應主張在新民意上繼續深化修憲方案，以交付二○一八縣市長選舉時公民複決為目標。屆時，修憲方案若以「恢復立院的閣揆任命同意權」為基準，則國民黨若操持了二○一六後的修憲動能，即使輸掉總統大選，也不致話語權盡失。
朱習會是四支槓桿中最具關鍵效應的一支。由於國民黨可能輸掉二○一六大選，而北京也未必樂見此結果；因此，朱立倫應設法在朱習會上爭取到「延續九二共識／超越九二共識」的兩岸關係新基準。此一新基準應在營造「分治而不分裂」的新思維，一方面可做為國民黨在二○一六年的先驅性主張，另一方面也可使民進黨更感受到轉型的壓力。朱立倫應設法在朱習會中，努力發揮引導北京思維昇華及協助民進黨轉型的功能；而朱習會的成果，在兩岸關係上應以呼應並超越國是會議的政治成就為目標。
再回頭談二○一六總統大選。如前所述，國民黨即使可能輸掉大選，但不可任其一敗塗地，而必須在論述及戰略上透過四支槓桿，建立「雖可能輸掉選舉，但必須贏在路線」的制高點。朱立倫若抱持破釜沉舟的決志，即更有在國是會議、修憲及朱習會中擺脫現實羈絆的操作空間，並將目標指向二○二○年。在這樣的思考下，朱立倫應否當仁不讓親自參選二○一六年總統大選，即有再作考慮的空間；因為，二○一六如果國民黨由其他人參選而打不出一場至少能止滑甩尾的選戰，恐怕就再也站不起來了。
對台灣而言，二○一六年是危機中存有轉機。如前所述，台灣經歷了二○一六年的震盪後，必須在國家認同、修憲方案、能源政策、全球化及九二共識、兩岸關係、ＥＣＦＡ架構等國政綱領上真正建立起共識。民進黨若重返執政，已不能閃躲，否則就可能「贏了選舉／輸了路線」；國民黨則縱使輸掉了選舉，亦無須退縮，而更應對「若輸了選舉，也要贏得路線」有所堅持。
兵法曰：「甚陷則不懼，不得已則鬥。」朱立倫若能正確操持這四支槓桿，或許可改善二○一六的國民黨選情；即使輸掉了選舉，但若能促成整個台灣回到正確的路線與軌道，那也將是國民黨對台灣的貢獻，亦可能是國民黨再起的資產。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 29, 2015
Executive Summary: The edifice is on the verge of collapse. It is time to save the day. Eric Chu is now KMT chairman. The party's circumstances are dire. He must make full use of four levers. One. The Chu Xi meeting. Two. The National Affairs Conference. Three. The constitutional amendment process. Four. The 2016 legislative and presidential elections. Sunzi's Art of War says: "If soldiers have their backs to the wall, they will not fear, they will fight to the death.” If Chu controls these four levers, he could improve the KMT's chances in 2016. But even if the party loses the election, it may be able to lead Taiwan back onto the right path. This would be the KMT's contribution to Taiwan. It might even enable the KMT to make a comeback.
Full Text Below:
The edifice is on the verge of collapse. It is time to save the day. Eric Chu is now KMT chairman. The party's circumstances are dire. He must make full use of four levers. One. The Chu Xi meeting. Two. The National Affairs Conference. Three. The constitutional amendment process. Four. The 2016 legislative and presidential elections.
These four levers are complementary. Although 2016 is the target, 2020 is also a possibility. Based on current trends, the KMT would find it difficult to win the presidential election in 2016. But Eric Chu must use the election to slow the KMT's fall. The Kuomintang cannot remain in free fall until 2016. Even if it expects to be defeated, the KMT must discuss its policy platform. It must formulate a strategy for a comeback in 2020.
Eric Chu must have a strategic goal for 2016. The DPP may win the election, but lose the policy path debate. The KMT must continue its struggle. Although it is likely to lose the election, it must win the policy path battle.
Take the National Affairs Conference. Chu has indicated a willingness to participate. But he must not allow himself to become one of Tsai Ing-wen's props. The organization of the conference must meet with KMT satisfaction. There must be a proper role for the Ma government, and equal status for the political parties. There must be diversity and balance among the participants. There must be clarity in the agenda, particularly on issues of national identity, amendments to the Constitution, globalization, energy policy, cross-Strait relations, the 1992 consensus, ECFA follow-up negotiations, and other issues troubling Taiwan The Kuomintang must not pass up this opportunity. It must use the conference as a basis for consensus-building.
Tsai Ing-wen wants the National Affairs Conference to serve as a stepping stone in her presidential campaign. Following the nine in one election victory, she has been either silent or highly selective about the issues she is willing to address. But Eric Chu must insist that the conference be a genuine, in depth debate. The KMT must set the agenda. It must have the determination to get to the bottom of things. If Tsai Ing-wen ducks the issues, the KMT must hold her feet to the fire, then turn them into 2016 election issues.
A constitutional amendment is imminent. Tsai Ing-wen apparently has reservations. The KMT, however, must not miss the opportunity to force the nation to hold a constitutional debate. Three themes should be addressed: National identity, cross-Strait relations, and government institutions. None of these should be overlooked. If these issues are not made crystal clear, constitutional reform will be impossible. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen must not be allowed to duck these issues again and again. What would the constitutional amendment include? It could include a referendum on whether 18 year olds may vote in the 2016 election, and whether the Legislative Yuan's authority to approve of premier appointments should be restored. Once the 2016 elections are over, the KMT should demand further constitutional amendments, and a public referendum during the 2018 county and municipal elections. By then, the Legislative Yuan's authority to approve premier appointments may have been restored, and serve as a benchmark. If the KMT can maintain the momentum for constitutional reform from 2016, even if it loses the presidential election, it will retain access to the bully pulpit.
The Chu Xi meeting is the most crucial of the four levers. The KMT may lose the 2016 election. Beijing may not be happy. Any Chu Xi meeting should therefore reaffirm the 1992 Consensus and even go beyond the 1992 Consensus.It should establish a new benchmark for cross-Strait relations. It should establish a new "divided rule but not a divided nation” concept. On the one hand, the KMT could break new ground for 2016. On the other hand it could pressure the DPP to reform. During the Chu Xi meeting, Eric Chu should encourage Beijing to help the DPP reform. The Chu Xi meeting should echo, then surpass the cross-Strait achievements of the National Affairs Conference.
Now take the 2016 presidential election. As mentioned above, the KMT may well lose the election. But it must not allow it to become a crushing defeat. It must make full use of these four levers, rhetorically and strategically. It may lose the election, but it must win the policy path high ground. Eric Chu must be willing to burn his bridges. The National Affairs Conference, the constitutional amendment process, and the Chu Xi meeting will allow him to shrug off the albatross on his back. They will allow him to plan for 2020. Should Eric Chu throw his hat in the ring for 2016? That can be debated. But if the KMT fields another candidate, one unable to wage a respectable campaign, it might never rise again.
For Taiwan, 2016 is a crisis and an opportunity. As mentioned earlier, the shock waves from 2016 will soon buffet Taiwan. A consensus must be reached on national identity, constitutional amendments. energy policy, globalization, the 1992 consensus, cross-Strait relations, and ECFA. If the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, it cannot dodge these issues. Otherwise it may win the election, but lose the national policy debate. The KMT may indeed lose the election. But it need not shrink from the prospect. It must take an even tougher line, and remind itself that even though it lost the election, it won the national policy debate.
Sunzi's Art of War says: "If soldiers have their backs to the wall, they will not fear, they will fight to the death.” If Chu controls these four levers, he could improve the KMT's chances in 2016. But even if the party loses the election, it may be able to lead Taiwan back onto the right path. This would be the KMT's contribution to Taiwan. It might even enable the KMT to make a comeback.
釜破舟沉：朱立倫的四支槓桿
2015-01-29 01:40:30 聯合報 社論
扶大廈之將傾，挽狂瀾於既倒。朱立倫出任國民黨主席，情勢艱危，必須審慎操持四支槓桿：一、朱習會。二、國是會議。三、修憲。四、二○一六立委及總統選舉。
這四支槓桿相因相成，雖將以二○一六大選為總結，但也可能穿越二○二○年。就當前趨勢看，國民黨很難贏得二○一六總統大選，但朱立倫至少必須使國民黨在此次大選中出現煞車甩尾的情勢；也就是說，不能聽任國民黨繼續在二○一六如自由落體般墜落，縱使敗選，也須透過大選為國民黨在論述及戰略上重建一個能夠指向二○二○年的制高點。
朱立倫二○一六年的戰略目標應是：民進黨可能贏了選舉，卻輸在路線；國民黨即應力爭，雖可能輸了選舉，但必須贏在路線。
先論國是會議。朱立倫雖表示願意參與，但不可能只是扮演蔡英文的道具。因此，國民黨對於主辦單位的組成（如馬政府在此會中的角色如何、政黨的對等地位如何），及與會人員之多元及平衡，還有議題設定的高度及深廣度等，皆應爭取到國民黨的話語權。尤其關於國家認同、修憲方案、全球化、能源政策、兩岸關係、九二共識及ＥＣＦＡ後續工程等長期嚴重困擾台灣的議題，國民黨皆不可任其錯失，務必促使大會成為建立共識的平台。
蔡英文似想將國是會議做為她競選總統的政治嫁妝，九合一大勝後，已見她對議題有選擇性並冷處理。但朱立倫必須堅持此會為一個真正深廣辯論的場域，國民黨須成為議題的發動機，要有打破砂鍋問到底的決戰心志。倘若蔡英文有所迴避閃躲，國民黨即應強勢回應，並延伸為二○一六大選的議題。
修憲儼已箭在弦上。蔡英文對修憲似有保留，但國民黨不能錯失藉國是會議進行憲政大辯論的機會，對於憲政的三大主題，國家認同、兩岸關係及政府體制，均不應有所遺漏。因為，若不徹底談清楚這些問題，憲政改革即根本不可能完成，因而亦不容蔡英文對這些問題再閃避。至於實際的修憲方案，二○一六大選或許只將十八歲投票權及恢復立院的閣揆任命同意權兩案付諸公民複決；但待二○一六選後，國民黨應主張在新民意上繼續深化修憲方案，以交付二○一八縣市長選舉時公民複決為目標。屆時，修憲方案若以「恢復立院的閣揆任命同意權」為基準，則國民黨若操持了二○一六後的修憲動能，即使輸掉總統大選，也不致話語權盡失。
朱習會是四支槓桿中最具關鍵效應的一支。由於國民黨可能輸掉二○一六大選，而北京也未必樂見此結果；因此，朱立倫應設法在朱習會上爭取到「延續九二共識／超越九二共識」的兩岸關係新基準。此一新基準應在營造「分治而不分裂」的新思維，一方面可做為國民黨在二○一六年的先驅性主張，另一方面也可使民進黨更感受到轉型的壓力。朱立倫應設法在朱習會中，努力發揮引導北京思維昇華及協助民進黨轉型的功能；而朱習會的成果，在兩岸關係上應以呼應並超越國是會議的政治成就為目標。
再回頭談二○一六總統大選。如前所述，國民黨即使可能輸掉大選，但不可任其一敗塗地，而必須在論述及戰略上透過四支槓桿，建立「雖可能輸掉選舉，但必須贏在路線」的制高點。朱立倫若抱持破釜沉舟的決志，即更有在國是會議、修憲及朱習會中擺脫現實羈絆的操作空間，並將目標指向二○二○年。在這樣的思考下，朱立倫應否當仁不讓親自參選二○一六年總統大選，即有再作考慮的空間；因為，二○一六如果國民黨由其他人參選而打不出一場至少能止滑甩尾的選戰，恐怕就再也站不起來了。
對台灣而言，二○一六年是危機中存有轉機。如前所述，台灣經歷了二○一六年的震盪後，必須在國家認同、修憲方案、能源政策、全球化及九二共識、兩岸關係、ＥＣＦＡ架構等國政綱領上真正建立起共識。民進黨若重返執政，已不能閃躲，否則就可能「贏了選舉／輸了路線」；國民黨則縱使輸掉了選舉，亦無須退縮，而更應對「若輸了選舉，也要贏得路線」有所堅持。
兵法曰：「甚陷則不懼，不得已則鬥。」朱立倫若能正確操持這四支槓桿，或許可改善二○一六的國民黨選情；即使輸掉了選舉，但若能促成整個台灣回到正確的路線與軌道，那也將是國民黨對台灣的貢獻，亦可能是國民黨再起的資產。
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
To Rescue the KMT Eric Chu Must Think Like a Player
To Rescue the KMT Eric Chu Must Think Like a Player
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 28, 2015
Executive Summary: The groundswell of support for Professor Ko has swept the island. Ruling and opposition party leaders are in danger of being marginalized. Eric Chu is probably in a tougher spot than Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai's political party after all, has just scored a major victory. She and the DPP may well return to power in 2016. This gives her more room to maneuver. Eric Chu's situation is different. The Kuomintang he inherited is experiencing a leadership crisis. Morale at the grassroots is non-existent. Chu has even made a tactical withdrawal. He has chosen not to run in 2016. But who else among the party elite is qualified to fight this battle?
Full Text Below:
The groundswell of support for Professor Ko has swept the island. Ruling and opposition party leaders are in danger of being marginalized. Eric Chu is probably in a tougher spot than Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai's political party after all, has just scored a major victory. She and the DPP may well return to power in 2016. This gives her more room to maneuver. Eric Chu's situation is different. The Kuomintang he inherited is experiencing a leadership crisis. Morale at the grassroots is non-existent. Chu has even made a tactical withdrawal. He has chosen not to run in 2016. But who else among the party elite is qualified to fight this battle?
The groundswell of support for Professor Ko may provide some indicators. Chu should pay attention to the finer points behind the phenomenon. Professor Ko does have charisma. But he is reckless. He is hostile toward the wealthy political elites. He reflects the society's collective discontent over six years of Kuomintang rule. The KMT's policy path may be correct. But its political style is timid and conservative. Its leaders are indecisive. They try too hard to please everyone. They only wind up pleasing no one and alienating everyone. They try to display moderation. But they only wind up taking one step forward and two steps back. They clearly enjoyed a ruling majority. Yet they allowed themselves to be hijacked by a radical minority.
The people probably could not countenance this style of governance. Professor Ko is outspoken. He lacks political calculation. He refuse to present a pleasing image. Suddenly many people who were unhappy with the status quo, who were depressed and could find no outlet for their frustration found their answer. Professor Ko's mythology is a product of the times. This is the same thing that happened six years ago. People were fed up with Ah-Bian's style of governance, with his incitement of hatred. Ma Ying-jeou's moderate image suited the times. There is no enduring rule that one can follow. What matters the most important is the ability to read the writing on the wall.
In other words, Eric Chu must think like a “player”. He must not perpetuate the Kuomintang's current style of governance. He must not be timid and indecisive. His “cabinet system” must not remain distant from the public. Otherwise, in this rapidly changing era, he will swiftly be marginalized, if not elbowed aside entirely.
In recent years political stars have been swiftly replaced one after another. Once the page has been turned, there is no going back. The new generation of voters has no patience. It will not wait for you to sort things out. You say you are aiming for 2020. But if you have nothing to offer in 2016, no one will care what you have to offer in 2020.
Eric Chu must get back to basics. He must honestly assess his situation. The nine in one election debacle put the KMT in the hospital. Today the party is a critically ill patient in the intensive care unit. President Ma has a full year left in his term. But in fact his era has ended. The party elders have all retired. This is the first time the KMT has been in this situation since retreating to Taiwan. Meanwhile, grassroots party members have deserted. Blue camp supporter morale has hit rock bottom. Put bluntly, this is the most unfavorable the KMT's circumstances have been in decades. Could this be an unprecedented opportunity for Chu to remake the KMT? That is of course not the real question. The real question is how can he remake the KMT?
Our suggestion is that he must first of all cast aside the image of timidity and indecisiveness. He must set aside those issues that ordinary people simply do not understand. They include such issues as a cabinet system constitutional amendment. He must appeal to the grassroots. He must discover what the public really thinks. He must not blindly parrot the populist rhetoric of the cyber army. He must proceed according to political party evolution. He must remember that the KMT's traditional ideology of peoples livelihood began at the grassroots. He must remember that the party's original ideal was a society in which wealth was distributed equitably. In recent years, the party's policy has favored wealthy consortia. This widened the gap between rich and poor. Accumulated grievances have run deep, and ultimately led to the collapse of its support base. Therefore Eric Chu must think clearly. He must not allow a handful of political stars to play power games and engage in internecine warfare. The public has long ago tired of these antics.
Eric Chu must clearly state where the party stands. The KMT and DPP represent different ideologies and policy paths. Between the two, there is no room for ambiguity. The KMT must stand by its principles. It must affirm the righteousness of its stance. It must wage a forthright battle with the opposition. It must not permit the opposition to set the agenda or seize the bully pulpit. It must not allow itself to be hijacked by populist sentiment, only to end up with nothing. This is how President Ma came to his end. If you replicate his path, your fate will be even more tragic than his.
Finally, you must stop dodging cross-Strait issues. Dodging these issues will not win you any green camp supporters. It will only weaken cohesion within the blue camp. Cross-Strait relations have always been an asset for the KMT, not a burden, especially at this moment, when the DPP is complacent and hesitant about cross-Strait relations. You must seize the initiative and establish a new model for dialogue between Washington and Beijing. You have much room to maneuver on this issue. But you cannot afford to miss the opportunity. If you allow the opposition to hijack the issue, then the game will already be over.
社論－搶救國民黨 朱立倫需梟雄思維
2015年01月28日 04:10
本報訊
在柯P旋風鋪天蓋地的浪潮下，朝野兩黨的領袖似乎都有被邊緣化之虞。這中間朱立倫的處境恐怕比蔡英文還要更艱困，小英最起碼還領導一個剛獲得大勝的政黨，加上2016年重回執政的想像空間，讓她有更多的餘裕去布局；朱立倫則完全不同，他所接掌的國民黨，現階段根本是一個領導群潰散，基層士氣全面崩解的爛攤子，他縱然以退為進，放棄角逐2016，但放眼黨內剩餘菁英，他又能挺誰去打這場硬仗呢？
如果柯P的旋風可以提供若干啟示，那麼朱立倫或許應心領神會這背後的若干奧祕。是的，柯P有他的魅力，但這種率性直言、敵視權貴的特質，更多反映的其實是台灣集體社會心理的苦悶。執政6年多的國民黨，或許執政大方向是對的，但整個治理風格卻是溫吞保守、瞻前顧後的氣息，想討好所有人，最後弄得所有人都不領情，想表現溫良恭儉讓，結果什麼政策都是進一步退兩步，讓局面弄到明明是執政多數，卻硬生陷入被激進少數綁架的窘境。
也或許是這種治理氛圍讓人民悶得受不了，柯P這種直言不諱，沒有刻意政治算計，不願屈顏討好的形象，竟突然讓許多不滿現狀，鬱悶情緒得不到紓解的人們獲得釋放。不諱言說，柯P神話的塑造，其實更多是時代的產物。這正好像6年多前，當人們已經厭倦了阿扁激化對立的治理風格，馬英九的溫和形象得以適時崛起原因，這中間其實沒有什麼常規可循，最重要的是能否識讀出這中間微妙的變化。
換言之，朱立倫要有梟雄思維，假如他繼續複製國民黨目前的執政風格，還在處處謹言慎行，溫吞低調，機關算盡，成天盡扯些距離民眾遙遠的「內閣制」論調云云，那麼不客氣的說，在這個十倍速的年代中，甭說立即被邊緣化，立馬被淘汰出局都有可能。
這幾年政治菁英的消耗與替換難道還不夠快嗎？一頁翻過了就再翻不回來了，新世代的選民根本沒有什麼耐心等你慢慢布局，說什麼瞄準2020，如果2016都拿不出勇氣捨我其誰，2020又有誰會在乎你呢？
所以此刻的朱立倫，何妨就回歸基本面，誠實審度自己處境。沒錯，九合一的敗選，讓國民黨重傷到宛如送進加護病房急救重症患者，馬總統的任期還有一年多，但他的時代其實已經結束，黨內的公公老老也全數隱退，這是遷台後國民黨很少見的大人皆不管事的景況；另一方面，基層黨員大量流失，藍營支持者普遍士氣低落，講得直白一點，這是近十年來國民黨所面臨的最壞年代，但或許也是朱立倫重塑新國民黨最佳的歷史契機，只不過重點在於，他究竟要怎麼做！
我們的建議是，首先請拋掉那些優雅溫吞、瞻前顧後的身段，丟開那些尋常百姓根本搞不懂的議題（如內閣制修憲），真正走向草根，探問當下民間的實在心聲（絕不是盲從網軍的民粹），據以制定政黨發展的走向。要知道國民黨傳統民生主義的意識型態，本來就是從草根出發的，也本來就是要塑造均富社會理想的，只不過近幾年政策取向太過偏向財團，讓貧富差距日益擴大，民怨積累過深，終致支持基盤瓦解！所以，朱立倫得想清楚，千萬別再讓少數一二菁英閉著門玩權謀，成天搞鬥爭內耗，民眾對這些戲碼早就煩透了。
再者，朱立倫必須弄清楚政黨定位的區隔，國民黨與民進黨本來就代表著不同的意識型態與政策路線，這中間沒有任何混淆模糊的空間，國民黨必須堅持的理念，就應該理直氣壯，與在野黨光明正大的進行博弈，絕不能聽任在野黨為其設定話語權的框架，最後淪為民粹的俘虜，終至一事無成！馬總統就是這樣潰敗的，朱立倫如果還要持續複製，局面只會更壞。
最後，也寄語朱立倫別再閃躲兩岸議題，閃躲這個議題討好不了任何綠營的支持者，反而削弱了藍營的向心力！兩岸關係的現況與發展，從來就是國民黨的資產而不是包袱，特別是在此時此刻，民進黨還在兩岸議題故步自封且猶疑不定之際，朱立倫更該掌握發球權，在華府與北京之間打造一個新的對話模式，要知道在這個議題上，朱立倫的活動空間是很大的，但如果錯失了機遇，讓話語權被在野黨搶去，就什麼都不必提了！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 28, 2015
Executive Summary: The groundswell of support for Professor Ko has swept the island. Ruling and opposition party leaders are in danger of being marginalized. Eric Chu is probably in a tougher spot than Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai's political party after all, has just scored a major victory. She and the DPP may well return to power in 2016. This gives her more room to maneuver. Eric Chu's situation is different. The Kuomintang he inherited is experiencing a leadership crisis. Morale at the grassroots is non-existent. Chu has even made a tactical withdrawal. He has chosen not to run in 2016. But who else among the party elite is qualified to fight this battle?
Full Text Below:
The groundswell of support for Professor Ko has swept the island. Ruling and opposition party leaders are in danger of being marginalized. Eric Chu is probably in a tougher spot than Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai's political party after all, has just scored a major victory. She and the DPP may well return to power in 2016. This gives her more room to maneuver. Eric Chu's situation is different. The Kuomintang he inherited is experiencing a leadership crisis. Morale at the grassroots is non-existent. Chu has even made a tactical withdrawal. He has chosen not to run in 2016. But who else among the party elite is qualified to fight this battle?
The groundswell of support for Professor Ko may provide some indicators. Chu should pay attention to the finer points behind the phenomenon. Professor Ko does have charisma. But he is reckless. He is hostile toward the wealthy political elites. He reflects the society's collective discontent over six years of Kuomintang rule. The KMT's policy path may be correct. But its political style is timid and conservative. Its leaders are indecisive. They try too hard to please everyone. They only wind up pleasing no one and alienating everyone. They try to display moderation. But they only wind up taking one step forward and two steps back. They clearly enjoyed a ruling majority. Yet they allowed themselves to be hijacked by a radical minority.
The people probably could not countenance this style of governance. Professor Ko is outspoken. He lacks political calculation. He refuse to present a pleasing image. Suddenly many people who were unhappy with the status quo, who were depressed and could find no outlet for their frustration found their answer. Professor Ko's mythology is a product of the times. This is the same thing that happened six years ago. People were fed up with Ah-Bian's style of governance, with his incitement of hatred. Ma Ying-jeou's moderate image suited the times. There is no enduring rule that one can follow. What matters the most important is the ability to read the writing on the wall.
In other words, Eric Chu must think like a “player”. He must not perpetuate the Kuomintang's current style of governance. He must not be timid and indecisive. His “cabinet system” must not remain distant from the public. Otherwise, in this rapidly changing era, he will swiftly be marginalized, if not elbowed aside entirely.
In recent years political stars have been swiftly replaced one after another. Once the page has been turned, there is no going back. The new generation of voters has no patience. It will not wait for you to sort things out. You say you are aiming for 2020. But if you have nothing to offer in 2016, no one will care what you have to offer in 2020.
Eric Chu must get back to basics. He must honestly assess his situation. The nine in one election debacle put the KMT in the hospital. Today the party is a critically ill patient in the intensive care unit. President Ma has a full year left in his term. But in fact his era has ended. The party elders have all retired. This is the first time the KMT has been in this situation since retreating to Taiwan. Meanwhile, grassroots party members have deserted. Blue camp supporter morale has hit rock bottom. Put bluntly, this is the most unfavorable the KMT's circumstances have been in decades. Could this be an unprecedented opportunity for Chu to remake the KMT? That is of course not the real question. The real question is how can he remake the KMT?
Our suggestion is that he must first of all cast aside the image of timidity and indecisiveness. He must set aside those issues that ordinary people simply do not understand. They include such issues as a cabinet system constitutional amendment. He must appeal to the grassroots. He must discover what the public really thinks. He must not blindly parrot the populist rhetoric of the cyber army. He must proceed according to political party evolution. He must remember that the KMT's traditional ideology of peoples livelihood began at the grassroots. He must remember that the party's original ideal was a society in which wealth was distributed equitably. In recent years, the party's policy has favored wealthy consortia. This widened the gap between rich and poor. Accumulated grievances have run deep, and ultimately led to the collapse of its support base. Therefore Eric Chu must think clearly. He must not allow a handful of political stars to play power games and engage in internecine warfare. The public has long ago tired of these antics.
Eric Chu must clearly state where the party stands. The KMT and DPP represent different ideologies and policy paths. Between the two, there is no room for ambiguity. The KMT must stand by its principles. It must affirm the righteousness of its stance. It must wage a forthright battle with the opposition. It must not permit the opposition to set the agenda or seize the bully pulpit. It must not allow itself to be hijacked by populist sentiment, only to end up with nothing. This is how President Ma came to his end. If you replicate his path, your fate will be even more tragic than his.
Finally, you must stop dodging cross-Strait issues. Dodging these issues will not win you any green camp supporters. It will only weaken cohesion within the blue camp. Cross-Strait relations have always been an asset for the KMT, not a burden, especially at this moment, when the DPP is complacent and hesitant about cross-Strait relations. You must seize the initiative and establish a new model for dialogue between Washington and Beijing. You have much room to maneuver on this issue. But you cannot afford to miss the opportunity. If you allow the opposition to hijack the issue, then the game will already be over.
社論－搶救國民黨 朱立倫需梟雄思維
2015年01月28日 04:10
本報訊
在柯P旋風鋪天蓋地的浪潮下，朝野兩黨的領袖似乎都有被邊緣化之虞。這中間朱立倫的處境恐怕比蔡英文還要更艱困，小英最起碼還領導一個剛獲得大勝的政黨，加上2016年重回執政的想像空間，讓她有更多的餘裕去布局；朱立倫則完全不同，他所接掌的國民黨，現階段根本是一個領導群潰散，基層士氣全面崩解的爛攤子，他縱然以退為進，放棄角逐2016，但放眼黨內剩餘菁英，他又能挺誰去打這場硬仗呢？
如果柯P的旋風可以提供若干啟示，那麼朱立倫或許應心領神會這背後的若干奧祕。是的，柯P有他的魅力，但這種率性直言、敵視權貴的特質，更多反映的其實是台灣集體社會心理的苦悶。執政6年多的國民黨，或許執政大方向是對的，但整個治理風格卻是溫吞保守、瞻前顧後的氣息，想討好所有人，最後弄得所有人都不領情，想表現溫良恭儉讓，結果什麼政策都是進一步退兩步，讓局面弄到明明是執政多數，卻硬生陷入被激進少數綁架的窘境。
也或許是這種治理氛圍讓人民悶得受不了，柯P這種直言不諱，沒有刻意政治算計，不願屈顏討好的形象，竟突然讓許多不滿現狀，鬱悶情緒得不到紓解的人們獲得釋放。不諱言說，柯P神話的塑造，其實更多是時代的產物。這正好像6年多前，當人們已經厭倦了阿扁激化對立的治理風格，馬英九的溫和形象得以適時崛起原因，這中間其實沒有什麼常規可循，最重要的是能否識讀出這中間微妙的變化。
換言之，朱立倫要有梟雄思維，假如他繼續複製國民黨目前的執政風格，還在處處謹言慎行，溫吞低調，機關算盡，成天盡扯些距離民眾遙遠的「內閣制」論調云云，那麼不客氣的說，在這個十倍速的年代中，甭說立即被邊緣化，立馬被淘汰出局都有可能。
這幾年政治菁英的消耗與替換難道還不夠快嗎？一頁翻過了就再翻不回來了，新世代的選民根本沒有什麼耐心等你慢慢布局，說什麼瞄準2020，如果2016都拿不出勇氣捨我其誰，2020又有誰會在乎你呢？
所以此刻的朱立倫，何妨就回歸基本面，誠實審度自己處境。沒錯，九合一的敗選，讓國民黨重傷到宛如送進加護病房急救重症患者，馬總統的任期還有一年多，但他的時代其實已經結束，黨內的公公老老也全數隱退，這是遷台後國民黨很少見的大人皆不管事的景況；另一方面，基層黨員大量流失，藍營支持者普遍士氣低落，講得直白一點，這是近十年來國民黨所面臨的最壞年代，但或許也是朱立倫重塑新國民黨最佳的歷史契機，只不過重點在於，他究竟要怎麼做！
我們的建議是，首先請拋掉那些優雅溫吞、瞻前顧後的身段，丟開那些尋常百姓根本搞不懂的議題（如內閣制修憲），真正走向草根，探問當下民間的實在心聲（絕不是盲從網軍的民粹），據以制定政黨發展的走向。要知道國民黨傳統民生主義的意識型態，本來就是從草根出發的，也本來就是要塑造均富社會理想的，只不過近幾年政策取向太過偏向財團，讓貧富差距日益擴大，民怨積累過深，終致支持基盤瓦解！所以，朱立倫得想清楚，千萬別再讓少數一二菁英閉著門玩權謀，成天搞鬥爭內耗，民眾對這些戲碼早就煩透了。
再者，朱立倫必須弄清楚政黨定位的區隔，國民黨與民進黨本來就代表著不同的意識型態與政策路線，這中間沒有任何混淆模糊的空間，國民黨必須堅持的理念，就應該理直氣壯，與在野黨光明正大的進行博弈，絕不能聽任在野黨為其設定話語權的框架，最後淪為民粹的俘虜，終至一事無成！馬總統就是這樣潰敗的，朱立倫如果還要持續複製，局面只會更壞。
最後，也寄語朱立倫別再閃躲兩岸議題，閃躲這個議題討好不了任何綠營的支持者，反而削弱了藍營的向心力！兩岸關係的現況與發展，從來就是國民黨的資產而不是包袱，特別是在此時此刻，民進黨還在兩岸議題故步自封且猶疑不定之際，朱立倫更該掌握發球權，在華府與北京之間打造一個新的對話模式，要知道在這個議題上，朱立倫的活動空間是很大的，但如果錯失了機遇，讓話語權被在野黨搶去，就什麼都不必提了！
Monday, January 26, 2015
The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Can Be Mothballed, But Electricity Must Continue to Flow
The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Can Be Mothballed, But Electricity Must Continue to Flow
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 27, 2015
Executive Summary: Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.
Full Text Below:
Six years later, the government has re-convened the National Energy Conference. Last year Lin Yi-hsiung staged a hunger strike and succeeded in getting the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) mothballed. The government now seeks to address the nuclear power plant controversy by convening the National Energy Conference. But the public doubts that the National Energy Conference will be able to resolve the matter. The ruling and opposition parties have wrestled over the nuclear power issue to no avail. A better approach might be to first address the problem of power shortages.
Over the past several years, the 4NPP controversy has overshadowed issues such as power shortages. The two sides remain deadlocked. Alternative energy development has been slow in coming. Take power generation on Taiwan. Two indicators, "operating reserve" and “idle capacity” are used to assess the electricity supply. Last year, both indicators triggered alarms. Between September 15 and 19, operating reserves fell to 6%, below the brownout risk level for five consecutive days, triggering a red alert. This was the most serious nationwide power outage since the 9/21 Earthquake 15 years ago.
Regulations state that the idle capacity must not fall below 15%. But last year it fell to 14.7%. This was the first time it fell below spec during the past decade. Between 1989 and 2003, idle capacities have fallen short of government specifications, year after year. During that period, 55 nationwide brownouts occurred. Between 2004 and 2013 idle capacity exceeded targets. During this period no brownouts occurred. But last year's crisis meant that the good times are over.
Six years ago, the government convened a National Energy Conference. The idle capacity was at a high of 28.1%. Since Taiwan had a surplus, people questioned the need for the 4NPP. But last year, just five years later, the idle capacity has been halved relative to 2009. We now face an electricity shortage. Nuclear power plants have been delayed. New power plants cannot be built. To this must be added old power plant decommissioning. Over the past six years idle capacity has fallen more than it has risen. This shows that generating capacity has lagged electrical demand. In short, when it comes to power generation, we are consuming our seed corn.
The theme of the energy conference is "Where will our power come from?" The hope is that the National Energy Conference will establish a long-term energy development plan. But power generation involves highly specialized technical knowledge. Reaching a consensus is no easy matter. Answers will not be found in “Groupthink” conferences. Even more seriously, signs of unstable power supply have emerged. The government lacks the courage to propose real solutions. The public lacks a sense of crisis. Last year, the government hastily mothballed the 4NPP. It has no idea whether to keep the 1NPP and 2NPP in operation. It has euphemistically “left the decision for future generations." The result may well be a electrical power crisis.
We may or may not want the 4NPP. We may or may not want to continue using existing nuclear power plants. New power plant construction is often a time-consuming, multi-year planning and construction process. If we wait until the power supply comes up short before seeking alternatives, it will be too late. Take Japan, for example. The Fukushima nuclear disaster struck in 2011. Twice, all nuclear power plants were shut down completely and overhauled for security purposes. Japan held a long debate. Those who opposed nuclear power constituted a majority. But the Japanese government reaffirmed nuclear power as its electrical generation mainstay. As a result, the Kagoshima "Sendai Nuclear Power Plant" will resume operation as early as this summer, and end Japan's "non-nuclear” status.
The Japanese government risked the wrath of anti-nuclear public opinion and resumed nuclear power generation. The key was the fact that "zero nuclear power" required the import of expensive natural gas as a replacement. This led to soaring trade deficits. The Abe government was forced to consider both economic development and energy security. Therefore it decided to resume the use of nuclear power.
Now look at Taiwan. With the Fukushima nuclear disaster, anti-nuclear sentiment on Taiwan skyrocketed. It moderated only after the government announced that it would mothball the 4NPP. Unfortunately, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan lack Japan's ability to engage in self-examination. They lack the ability to decide on a single energy path. Tsai Ing-wen recently criticized our national energy policy, saying it was monopolized by state-owned enterprises. She advocated an "Electric Industry Act." Power generation, transmission, and distribution would no longer be concentrated in the hands of Taipower. This is the right approach, but it is too late to be of any help. The divestiture of Taipower and changes to the electrical power generation structure are two different matters. Tsai Ing-wen has dodged the issue of the upcoming power shortage. Such energy measures are merely “distant waters unable to put out nearby fires”.
Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.
Doing nothing will not make the problem go away. If we wait until power must be rationed, and power failure alarms sound before responding, it will be too late.
核四可以封存 電力不能短缺
2015-01-27 02:36:26 聯合報 社論
相隔六年，政府再度召開全國能源會議。去年核四廠因林義雄絕食而「封存」後，政府希望將核四爭議交由全國能源會議討論；然而，能源會議有沒有能力解決此事，讓人存疑。朝野與其一直圍繞著核電問題纏鬥不休，不如另闢蹊徑，先把電力短缺的現實攤開來討論。
過去幾年，核四的爭議遠遠蓋過電力的其他面向問題，同時，由於爭議僵持不下，替代能源的開發也相對遲滯。事實上，檢視台灣的供電現況，就「備轉容量率」與「備用容量率」兩項評估電力供應穩定的指標而言，去年兩項指標均已亮起紅燈。尤其去年九月十五日到十九日，我國供電備轉容量率連續五天低於有「限電風險」的六％，處於嚴峻的紅燈狀態。這是自九二一大地震造成全國大停限電後，十五年來台灣供電最吃緊的一刻。
依規定，我國電力「備用容量率」不能低於十五％，但去年我備用容量率實績值跌到十四．七％，是近十年首度低於規定。在一九八九年到二○○三年間，台灣供電備用容量率年年低於政府規定的目標值，那段期間，全國共限電五十五次。二○○四年到二○一三年，國內備用容量率實績值都高於目標，這段期間全台零限電。但從去年的吃緊情況看，「太平歲月」已經過去。
六年前召開全國能源會議時，我備用容量率高達廿八．一％；當時外界質疑台灣電力已經過剩，根本不需要核四。但短短五年光景，去年備用容量率已較二○○九年幾近腰斬，目前我們面臨的已是電力不足。受到核四商轉延宕、新電廠無法順利興建，及老舊電廠除役等因素影響，六年來台灣備用容量率跌多漲少，顯示電源開發速度已落後電力需求。簡言之，現在的用電是在「吃老本」。
此次能源會議的主題為「未來電力哪裡來」，即是希望透過能源會議的平台，找出台灣中長期能源發展方向。問題是，供電問題涉及高度專業和技術，在共識凝聚不易的情況下，很難透過大拜拜式的會議找到答案。更嚴重的是，供電不穩的徵兆已現，政府卻缺乏魄力提出解決方案，民間也缺乏危機意識。政府去年倉促「封存」核四，對核一、核二是否延役，亦無明確方向；美其名將爭議「留給後代決定」，其實可能讓台灣陷入缺電的危機中。
無論要不要核四，或現有核電廠要不要延役，由於新設電廠往往耗時多年規劃與建設，若等到供電不足再尋找替代方案，必然緩不濟急。以日本為例，二○一一年福島核災後，兩度讓所有核電廠停機徹底檢修其安全性。其後，歷經長時間辯論，儘管民間反核聲浪仍然過半，日本政府仍確認核電為基載電力之一；也因此，最快在今年夏天前位於鹿兒島的「川內核電廠」就會重啟運轉，結束日本「零核電」狀態。
日本政府甘冒觸怒反核民意之險重啟核電，關鍵就在「零核電」使其必須進口昂貴的天然氣發電取代，造成貿易逆差大增。安倍政府在經濟發展與能源安全的雙重考慮下，決定仍要緩步推動核能電力。
反觀台灣，福島核災後，台灣反核聲浪升高，在政府宣布封存核四後仍未休止。遺憾的是，台灣朝野缺乏日本那樣的自我檢視精神，確認究竟要選擇哪一條能源道路。蔡英文最近批評我能源政策遭國營事業壟斷，並主張修改《電業法》，將發電、輸電、配電業務拆開，不再集中於台電手上；此一方向正確，卻緩不濟急。理由是，整頓台電和調整電力結構是兩回事，蔡英文對即將面臨的缺電危機卻避而不談；這樣的能源對策，根本是遠水救不了近火。
台灣如果不能完全捨棄核電，就必須徹底檢視核電廠的安全性，甚至可採用日本模式將核電廠逐一停機檢驗，釐清各種疑慮並完成電廠所有強化措施後，再重啟核電。而如果台灣要提前在二○二五年前走入「非核家園」，則必須加速興建天然氣儲運站與天然氣發電廠，推動更嚴格的節能方案，並讓民眾和工商企業做好迎接高電價的準備。
什麼都不做，問題不會自動消失。等到限電、斷電的警鐘響起，才想到要應變，恐為時已晚。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 27, 2015
Executive Summary: Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.
Full Text Below:
Six years later, the government has re-convened the National Energy Conference. Last year Lin Yi-hsiung staged a hunger strike and succeeded in getting the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) mothballed. The government now seeks to address the nuclear power plant controversy by convening the National Energy Conference. But the public doubts that the National Energy Conference will be able to resolve the matter. The ruling and opposition parties have wrestled over the nuclear power issue to no avail. A better approach might be to first address the problem of power shortages.
Over the past several years, the 4NPP controversy has overshadowed issues such as power shortages. The two sides remain deadlocked. Alternative energy development has been slow in coming. Take power generation on Taiwan. Two indicators, "operating reserve" and “idle capacity” are used to assess the electricity supply. Last year, both indicators triggered alarms. Between September 15 and 19, operating reserves fell to 6%, below the brownout risk level for five consecutive days, triggering a red alert. This was the most serious nationwide power outage since the 9/21 Earthquake 15 years ago.
Regulations state that the idle capacity must not fall below 15%. But last year it fell to 14.7%. This was the first time it fell below spec during the past decade. Between 1989 and 2003, idle capacities have fallen short of government specifications, year after year. During that period, 55 nationwide brownouts occurred. Between 2004 and 2013 idle capacity exceeded targets. During this period no brownouts occurred. But last year's crisis meant that the good times are over.
Six years ago, the government convened a National Energy Conference. The idle capacity was at a high of 28.1%. Since Taiwan had a surplus, people questioned the need for the 4NPP. But last year, just five years later, the idle capacity has been halved relative to 2009. We now face an electricity shortage. Nuclear power plants have been delayed. New power plants cannot be built. To this must be added old power plant decommissioning. Over the past six years idle capacity has fallen more than it has risen. This shows that generating capacity has lagged electrical demand. In short, when it comes to power generation, we are consuming our seed corn.
The theme of the energy conference is "Where will our power come from?" The hope is that the National Energy Conference will establish a long-term energy development plan. But power generation involves highly specialized technical knowledge. Reaching a consensus is no easy matter. Answers will not be found in “Groupthink” conferences. Even more seriously, signs of unstable power supply have emerged. The government lacks the courage to propose real solutions. The public lacks a sense of crisis. Last year, the government hastily mothballed the 4NPP. It has no idea whether to keep the 1NPP and 2NPP in operation. It has euphemistically “left the decision for future generations." The result may well be a electrical power crisis.
We may or may not want the 4NPP. We may or may not want to continue using existing nuclear power plants. New power plant construction is often a time-consuming, multi-year planning and construction process. If we wait until the power supply comes up short before seeking alternatives, it will be too late. Take Japan, for example. The Fukushima nuclear disaster struck in 2011. Twice, all nuclear power plants were shut down completely and overhauled for security purposes. Japan held a long debate. Those who opposed nuclear power constituted a majority. But the Japanese government reaffirmed nuclear power as its electrical generation mainstay. As a result, the Kagoshima "Sendai Nuclear Power Plant" will resume operation as early as this summer, and end Japan's "non-nuclear” status.
The Japanese government risked the wrath of anti-nuclear public opinion and resumed nuclear power generation. The key was the fact that "zero nuclear power" required the import of expensive natural gas as a replacement. This led to soaring trade deficits. The Abe government was forced to consider both economic development and energy security. Therefore it decided to resume the use of nuclear power.
Now look at Taiwan. With the Fukushima nuclear disaster, anti-nuclear sentiment on Taiwan skyrocketed. It moderated only after the government announced that it would mothball the 4NPP. Unfortunately, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan lack Japan's ability to engage in self-examination. They lack the ability to decide on a single energy path. Tsai Ing-wen recently criticized our national energy policy, saying it was monopolized by state-owned enterprises. She advocated an "Electric Industry Act." Power generation, transmission, and distribution would no longer be concentrated in the hands of Taipower. This is the right approach, but it is too late to be of any help. The divestiture of Taipower and changes to the electrical power generation structure are two different matters. Tsai Ing-wen has dodged the issue of the upcoming power shortage. Such energy measures are merely “distant waters unable to put out nearby fires”.
Taiwan cannot completely abandon nuclear power. Therefore it must conduct a thorough review of the safety of its nuclear power plants. It may need to adopt the Japanese model for nuclear power plant safety, shutting them down one by one for testing. It must clear up doubts, complete the necessary safety measures, then resume nuclear power generation. Do people want Taiwan to be a "nuclear-free homeland" by 2025? It they do, then they must accelerate the construction of natural gas storage stations and gas power plants, promote energy-saving programs, and ensure that the people and businesses realize the high price they will have to pay.
Doing nothing will not make the problem go away. If we wait until power must be rationed, and power failure alarms sound before responding, it will be too late.
核四可以封存 電力不能短缺
2015-01-27 02:36:26 聯合報 社論
相隔六年，政府再度召開全國能源會議。去年核四廠因林義雄絕食而「封存」後，政府希望將核四爭議交由全國能源會議討論；然而，能源會議有沒有能力解決此事，讓人存疑。朝野與其一直圍繞著核電問題纏鬥不休，不如另闢蹊徑，先把電力短缺的現實攤開來討論。
過去幾年，核四的爭議遠遠蓋過電力的其他面向問題，同時，由於爭議僵持不下，替代能源的開發也相對遲滯。事實上，檢視台灣的供電現況，就「備轉容量率」與「備用容量率」兩項評估電力供應穩定的指標而言，去年兩項指標均已亮起紅燈。尤其去年九月十五日到十九日，我國供電備轉容量率連續五天低於有「限電風險」的六％，處於嚴峻的紅燈狀態。這是自九二一大地震造成全國大停限電後，十五年來台灣供電最吃緊的一刻。
依規定，我國電力「備用容量率」不能低於十五％，但去年我備用容量率實績值跌到十四．七％，是近十年首度低於規定。在一九八九年到二○○三年間，台灣供電備用容量率年年低於政府規定的目標值，那段期間，全國共限電五十五次。二○○四年到二○一三年，國內備用容量率實績值都高於目標，這段期間全台零限電。但從去年的吃緊情況看，「太平歲月」已經過去。
六年前召開全國能源會議時，我備用容量率高達廿八．一％；當時外界質疑台灣電力已經過剩，根本不需要核四。但短短五年光景，去年備用容量率已較二○○九年幾近腰斬，目前我們面臨的已是電力不足。受到核四商轉延宕、新電廠無法順利興建，及老舊電廠除役等因素影響，六年來台灣備用容量率跌多漲少，顯示電源開發速度已落後電力需求。簡言之，現在的用電是在「吃老本」。
此次能源會議的主題為「未來電力哪裡來」，即是希望透過能源會議的平台，找出台灣中長期能源發展方向。問題是，供電問題涉及高度專業和技術，在共識凝聚不易的情況下，很難透過大拜拜式的會議找到答案。更嚴重的是，供電不穩的徵兆已現，政府卻缺乏魄力提出解決方案，民間也缺乏危機意識。政府去年倉促「封存」核四，對核一、核二是否延役，亦無明確方向；美其名將爭議「留給後代決定」，其實可能讓台灣陷入缺電的危機中。
無論要不要核四，或現有核電廠要不要延役，由於新設電廠往往耗時多年規劃與建設，若等到供電不足再尋找替代方案，必然緩不濟急。以日本為例，二○一一年福島核災後，兩度讓所有核電廠停機徹底檢修其安全性。其後，歷經長時間辯論，儘管民間反核聲浪仍然過半，日本政府仍確認核電為基載電力之一；也因此，最快在今年夏天前位於鹿兒島的「川內核電廠」就會重啟運轉，結束日本「零核電」狀態。
日本政府甘冒觸怒反核民意之險重啟核電，關鍵就在「零核電」使其必須進口昂貴的天然氣發電取代，造成貿易逆差大增。安倍政府在經濟發展與能源安全的雙重考慮下，決定仍要緩步推動核能電力。
反觀台灣，福島核災後，台灣反核聲浪升高，在政府宣布封存核四後仍未休止。遺憾的是，台灣朝野缺乏日本那樣的自我檢視精神，確認究竟要選擇哪一條能源道路。蔡英文最近批評我能源政策遭國營事業壟斷，並主張修改《電業法》，將發電、輸電、配電業務拆開，不再集中於台電手上；此一方向正確，卻緩不濟急。理由是，整頓台電和調整電力結構是兩回事，蔡英文對即將面臨的缺電危機卻避而不談；這樣的能源對策，根本是遠水救不了近火。
台灣如果不能完全捨棄核電，就必須徹底檢視核電廠的安全性，甚至可採用日本模式將核電廠逐一停機檢驗，釐清各種疑慮並完成電廠所有強化措施後，再重啟核電。而如果台灣要提前在二○二五年前走入「非核家園」，則必須加速興建天然氣儲運站與天然氣發電廠，推動更嚴格的節能方案，並讓民眾和工商企業做好迎接高電價的準備。
什麼都不做，問題不會自動消失。等到限電、斷電的警鐘響起，才想到要應變，恐為時已晚。
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Our Commitment to World Universiade Games Must Be Kept
Our Commitment to World Universiade Games Must Be Kept
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 26 2015
Executive Summary: The Taipei City Government will hold the the World Universiade games in 2017. But this has provoked prolonged controversy. In fact, the controversy has escalated. The entire event may now be subject to review and revision. But the World Universiade Games is part of the ROC's struggle to cultivate international goodwill and participate in international events. If the original plan involved government waste, it must of course be dealt with. But one must not fail to see the forest for the trees. As hosts, we cannot afford to discredit ourselves by reneging on our commitments.
Full Text Below:
The Taipei City Government will hold the the World Universiade games in 2017. But this has provoked prolonged controversy. In fact, the controversy has escalated. The entire event may now be subject to review and revision. But the World Universiade Games is part of the ROC's struggle to cultivate international goodwill and participate in international events. If the original plan involved government waste, it must of course be dealt with. But one must not fail to see the forest for the trees. As hosts, we cannot afford to discredit ourselves by reneging on our commitments.
Recently Taipei Mayor Wen-Je Ko inspected the World Universiade Games athletes' village in Linkou. He publicly challenged the tangible benefits of spending 20 billion NT for the World Universiade Games. He even declared that "Had I been mayor, I would not have chosen to host the World Universiade Games." The Games Village restaurant will cost 380 million NT. It will be used for 12 days, then demolished. Mayor Ko threw a fit. He suggested that we emulate the 2013 World Universiade in Kazan, Russia, which rented facilities where possible. The Taipei City New Construction Department followed suit. It announced that it favored tents to house the athletes' village restaurant in order to cut costs.
Renting tents would definitely cost less than 380 million NT. But that is hardly the best choice. They should reconsider. Most World Universiade Games restaurants have been set up in tents. But the Spartan, unventilated spaces provoked widespread criticism. Taiwan has a subtropical climate. Summers are already hot as it is. In recent years, global warming and extreme weather conditions frequently mean 37 to 38 degrees Celsius high summer temperatures. Flimsy tents offer little protection from the sun. Prefab corrugated metal buildings are not much better. Air-conditioning must be installed and set on “high” all day.
Moreover, Taiwan often experiences summer afternoon thunderstorms. Typhoons are also likely. Tents as shelters against the rain and wind are totally inappropriate.
The World Universiade Games restaurant must be able to accommodate 3,500 people. In addition to the dining area, it must also accommodate kitchen facilities. Finding so many large tents would be a major challenge. But the most important issue is the climate. The Taipei City Government considered this before deciding to adopt steel framed buildings equipped with ventilation and lighting.
Taipei may have a new mayor. But it still has the same old climate. The summer of 2017 is expected to be a scorcher hit by typhoons. What if high winds overturn the tents?What if players crowded into prefab corrugated metal shelters get heat stroke? Can we allow this new mayor to cut corners without regard for the consequences? Is this not penny wise and pound foolish? Will this not lead to our international disgrace?
The problem of restaurants has not been solved. Yet the Taipei and New Taipei City Construction and Planning Departments are already bickering over the allocation of the athletes' villages once the games have concluded. This was followed by quarrels between the Taipei City Government and Far Glory over the Taipei Dome construction process. Wen-Je Ko is demanding a thorough investigation to determine whether Far Glory is guilty of fraud. He wants to avoid threats from Far Glory. Therefore he has demanded a review to determine whether the project should be canceled or moved elsewhere. This would be a massive change. If it were to comes to pass, the ROC's international reputation would be undermined even more severely.
Funding for the World Universiade Games comes from the taxpayers, from their hard-earned money. Corruption of course cannot be tolerated. Wasteful spending is also intolerable. This is something that both central and local governments must keep in mind. Hosting an international event requires reasonable expenses. Certain amenities and facilities are indispensable. Pinching pennies at the expense of international guests, would undermine our reputation for hospitality. That is no way to treat guests.
Let us return to the original reason for hosting the World Universiade Games. The ROC has long been at a disadvantage. It has been diplomatically isolated and unable to participate in international activities. It has been unable to conduct international exchanges or protect the rights and interests of its people. For the ROC, hosting a major international event such as this is a valuable opportunity. It provides the ROC with global media exposure. It establishes friendships through exchanges. It increases international goodwill and support for the ROC. It improves the ROC's reputation as a host for international activities. It enables young people on Taiwan to participate in international activities, and acquire a more global perspective.
Taipei beat out Brazil in its bid to host the 2017 World Universiade Games. The main reason was that it offered better venues and facilities. This event is considered a "Mini-Olympics." Approximately 12,000 competitors from 160 countries will participate. It is the largest international event ever held by the ROC. Its significance is enormous, It deserves unanimous support from the people as a whole. As the host, we must fulfill out commitments. We must see the event through. Participants must leave with fond memories. They must not leave with negative impressions because their quarters were too shabby, and their hospitality was inadequate. Even threatening to cancel the World Universiade Games is a no-no. Our guests would be disappointed. Our reputation as a host for international events would be damaged. Our chance at hosting future events would be jeopardized. The harm would far exceed any good.
The World Universiade Games controversy requires a more elevated perspective. It is beneficial to the nation's interests. Therefore is must not fall victim to political wrangling over the details. The World Universiade Games offer us a chance to shine. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot. Make this event a success. Everyone will share the glory.
社論－世大運錢要省 承諾不能打折
2015年01月26日 04:10
本報訊
台北市府舉辦2017年世大運引發的爭議，不但衝突話題不斷，還持續延燒擴大，以致於整個規畫方案都面臨重新檢討修正的命運。然而，舉辦世大運，是為了替台灣爭取國際參與及好感，原本的計畫若有浮誇浪費之處，確實必須務實調整，但思考時不能見樹不見林，更不應該讓台灣的承辦誠意與禮數打了大折扣。
日前台北市長柯文哲在視察林口的世大運選手村時，公開質疑台北市花200億元申辦世大運的實質效益，甚至直言，「如果我是市長，我不會辦世大運。」對於花3.8億元蓋的選手村餐廳，要在使用12天後拆除，柯市長也大為光火，並指示向2013年俄羅斯的喀山世大運取經，能租則租。北市府新工處隨即表示，傾向租帳篷來搭建選手村餐廳，以降低成本。
租帳篷的費用必然遠遠低於3.8億元，但這是不是最好的選擇，恐怕還得再仔細想想。過去世大運的餐廳通常都是搭帳篷，不過也因為簡陋且悶不通風頗受詬病。台灣位處亞熱帶，原本夏季就炎熱，近幾年全球暖化及極端氣候頻仍，高達攝氏37、38度的酷熱經常出現，材質單薄的帳篷很難阻隔日曬，即使用鐵皮屋效果都不會太好，得加裝冷氣全日猛開才行。
何況台灣的夏天常有午後雷陣雨，也很可能遇上颱風，帳篷的遮風蔽雨效果，絕對難以令人滿意。
同時，世大運規定餐廳要能同時容納3500人，除了用餐區，還要有廚房設施，能不能找到這麼多大型帳篷，也是一大考驗。不過最重要的問題，還是天候。當初台北市府就是考量到這點，才決定採用鋼架建材的通風採光設計。
現在台北市雖然換了市長，可沒換了天氣，2017年的夏天，預料還會是一個酷熱加上陣雨甚至颱風的夏天，萬一風把帳篷掀了頂，或者選手在窄小的鐵皮屋裡熱到中暑，我們這個不管該不該省都拚命剋扣的東道主，豈不因小失大，丟臉丟到國際去了？
餐廳的問題還沒解決，北市與新北市、營建署談選手村賽後的分配又不歡而散，接著北市府和遠雄為了大巨蛋的工程更是吵翻了天，柯文哲為了徹底調查遠雄拿下大巨蛋案是否有弊，避免受遠雄要脅，於是要求評估取消世大運或移師其他地方舉辦的替代方案。這樣的變動更是非同小可，果若成真，對台灣的國際聲譽恐怕損多益少。
世大運的經費來自納稅人的血汗錢，當然不能允許任何貪瀆行為，無端的浪費支出也必須嚴格刪減，這是中央與地方政府承辦任何活動時都應該遵循的原則。但要舉辦國際活動，畢竟需要有合理的開支，接待國際友人，也必須提供必要的禮遇與生活便利，省錢省到了客人身上，實在有違台灣熱情好客之美名，也不是待客之道。
讓我們回到申辦世大運的初衷。台灣長期處於外交孤立劣勢，失去很多參與國際活動、交流國際事務並保護國人權益的舞台，能夠爭取到舉辦大型國際活動，對台灣來說，是非常難能可貴的機會。既能讓台灣在全球媒體上大量曝光，藉著活動交流建立友誼，提升國際間對台灣的好感與支持，也累積台灣舉辦國際活動的聲譽，還能讓參與的台灣年輕人有國際活動的歷練，打開全球性視野。
當初台北能打敗巴西取得2017世大運的主辦權，是因為較佳的財務評估與場館設施。估計這場有「小奧運」之稱的盛會，將有160國12000名選手參加，是台灣舉辦過的最大規模國際賽事，意義相當重大，也應該得到國人的共同支持。作為東道主，我們應該以完善履行申辦承諾、成功完成活動、讓參與者留下美好回憶為優先，如果因為過於剋扣寒酸，以致提供的服務怠慢簡陋，甚至揚言放棄舉辦，不但讓世大運的客人失望，復損傷台灣主辦國際活動的聲譽，影響未來爭取其他活動的機會，可就得不償失了。
對於世大運的爭議，大家應該拉高視野來看，整體而言，它對國家利益有正面意義，那麼就不應拘泥在小枝小節與政治角力中。世大運將是我們可以努力發揮的機會，不要自己絆住自己的腳，能夠讓這場盛會圓滿成功，相信全體國人都將同感光榮。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 26 2015
Executive Summary: The Taipei City Government will hold the the World Universiade games in 2017. But this has provoked prolonged controversy. In fact, the controversy has escalated. The entire event may now be subject to review and revision. But the World Universiade Games is part of the ROC's struggle to cultivate international goodwill and participate in international events. If the original plan involved government waste, it must of course be dealt with. But one must not fail to see the forest for the trees. As hosts, we cannot afford to discredit ourselves by reneging on our commitments.
Full Text Below:
The Taipei City Government will hold the the World Universiade games in 2017. But this has provoked prolonged controversy. In fact, the controversy has escalated. The entire event may now be subject to review and revision. But the World Universiade Games is part of the ROC's struggle to cultivate international goodwill and participate in international events. If the original plan involved government waste, it must of course be dealt with. But one must not fail to see the forest for the trees. As hosts, we cannot afford to discredit ourselves by reneging on our commitments.
Recently Taipei Mayor Wen-Je Ko inspected the World Universiade Games athletes' village in Linkou. He publicly challenged the tangible benefits of spending 20 billion NT for the World Universiade Games. He even declared that "Had I been mayor, I would not have chosen to host the World Universiade Games." The Games Village restaurant will cost 380 million NT. It will be used for 12 days, then demolished. Mayor Ko threw a fit. He suggested that we emulate the 2013 World Universiade in Kazan, Russia, which rented facilities where possible. The Taipei City New Construction Department followed suit. It announced that it favored tents to house the athletes' village restaurant in order to cut costs.
Renting tents would definitely cost less than 380 million NT. But that is hardly the best choice. They should reconsider. Most World Universiade Games restaurants have been set up in tents. But the Spartan, unventilated spaces provoked widespread criticism. Taiwan has a subtropical climate. Summers are already hot as it is. In recent years, global warming and extreme weather conditions frequently mean 37 to 38 degrees Celsius high summer temperatures. Flimsy tents offer little protection from the sun. Prefab corrugated metal buildings are not much better. Air-conditioning must be installed and set on “high” all day.
Moreover, Taiwan often experiences summer afternoon thunderstorms. Typhoons are also likely. Tents as shelters against the rain and wind are totally inappropriate.
The World Universiade Games restaurant must be able to accommodate 3,500 people. In addition to the dining area, it must also accommodate kitchen facilities. Finding so many large tents would be a major challenge. But the most important issue is the climate. The Taipei City Government considered this before deciding to adopt steel framed buildings equipped with ventilation and lighting.
Taipei may have a new mayor. But it still has the same old climate. The summer of 2017 is expected to be a scorcher hit by typhoons. What if high winds overturn the tents?What if players crowded into prefab corrugated metal shelters get heat stroke? Can we allow this new mayor to cut corners without regard for the consequences? Is this not penny wise and pound foolish? Will this not lead to our international disgrace?
The problem of restaurants has not been solved. Yet the Taipei and New Taipei City Construction and Planning Departments are already bickering over the allocation of the athletes' villages once the games have concluded. This was followed by quarrels between the Taipei City Government and Far Glory over the Taipei Dome construction process. Wen-Je Ko is demanding a thorough investigation to determine whether Far Glory is guilty of fraud. He wants to avoid threats from Far Glory. Therefore he has demanded a review to determine whether the project should be canceled or moved elsewhere. This would be a massive change. If it were to comes to pass, the ROC's international reputation would be undermined even more severely.
Funding for the World Universiade Games comes from the taxpayers, from their hard-earned money. Corruption of course cannot be tolerated. Wasteful spending is also intolerable. This is something that both central and local governments must keep in mind. Hosting an international event requires reasonable expenses. Certain amenities and facilities are indispensable. Pinching pennies at the expense of international guests, would undermine our reputation for hospitality. That is no way to treat guests.
Let us return to the original reason for hosting the World Universiade Games. The ROC has long been at a disadvantage. It has been diplomatically isolated and unable to participate in international activities. It has been unable to conduct international exchanges or protect the rights and interests of its people. For the ROC, hosting a major international event such as this is a valuable opportunity. It provides the ROC with global media exposure. It establishes friendships through exchanges. It increases international goodwill and support for the ROC. It improves the ROC's reputation as a host for international activities. It enables young people on Taiwan to participate in international activities, and acquire a more global perspective.
Taipei beat out Brazil in its bid to host the 2017 World Universiade Games. The main reason was that it offered better venues and facilities. This event is considered a "Mini-Olympics." Approximately 12,000 competitors from 160 countries will participate. It is the largest international event ever held by the ROC. Its significance is enormous, It deserves unanimous support from the people as a whole. As the host, we must fulfill out commitments. We must see the event through. Participants must leave with fond memories. They must not leave with negative impressions because their quarters were too shabby, and their hospitality was inadequate. Even threatening to cancel the World Universiade Games is a no-no. Our guests would be disappointed. Our reputation as a host for international events would be damaged. Our chance at hosting future events would be jeopardized. The harm would far exceed any good.
The World Universiade Games controversy requires a more elevated perspective. It is beneficial to the nation's interests. Therefore is must not fall victim to political wrangling over the details. The World Universiade Games offer us a chance to shine. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot. Make this event a success. Everyone will share the glory.
社論－世大運錢要省 承諾不能打折
2015年01月26日 04:10
本報訊
台北市府舉辦2017年世大運引發的爭議，不但衝突話題不斷，還持續延燒擴大，以致於整個規畫方案都面臨重新檢討修正的命運。然而，舉辦世大運，是為了替台灣爭取國際參與及好感，原本的計畫若有浮誇浪費之處，確實必須務實調整，但思考時不能見樹不見林，更不應該讓台灣的承辦誠意與禮數打了大折扣。
日前台北市長柯文哲在視察林口的世大運選手村時，公開質疑台北市花200億元申辦世大運的實質效益，甚至直言，「如果我是市長，我不會辦世大運。」對於花3.8億元蓋的選手村餐廳，要在使用12天後拆除，柯市長也大為光火，並指示向2013年俄羅斯的喀山世大運取經，能租則租。北市府新工處隨即表示，傾向租帳篷來搭建選手村餐廳，以降低成本。
租帳篷的費用必然遠遠低於3.8億元，但這是不是最好的選擇，恐怕還得再仔細想想。過去世大運的餐廳通常都是搭帳篷，不過也因為簡陋且悶不通風頗受詬病。台灣位處亞熱帶，原本夏季就炎熱，近幾年全球暖化及極端氣候頻仍，高達攝氏37、38度的酷熱經常出現，材質單薄的帳篷很難阻隔日曬，即使用鐵皮屋效果都不會太好，得加裝冷氣全日猛開才行。
何況台灣的夏天常有午後雷陣雨，也很可能遇上颱風，帳篷的遮風蔽雨效果，絕對難以令人滿意。
同時，世大運規定餐廳要能同時容納3500人，除了用餐區，還要有廚房設施，能不能找到這麼多大型帳篷，也是一大考驗。不過最重要的問題，還是天候。當初台北市府就是考量到這點，才決定採用鋼架建材的通風採光設計。
現在台北市雖然換了市長，可沒換了天氣，2017年的夏天，預料還會是一個酷熱加上陣雨甚至颱風的夏天，萬一風把帳篷掀了頂，或者選手在窄小的鐵皮屋裡熱到中暑，我們這個不管該不該省都拚命剋扣的東道主，豈不因小失大，丟臉丟到國際去了？
餐廳的問題還沒解決，北市與新北市、營建署談選手村賽後的分配又不歡而散，接著北市府和遠雄為了大巨蛋的工程更是吵翻了天，柯文哲為了徹底調查遠雄拿下大巨蛋案是否有弊，避免受遠雄要脅，於是要求評估取消世大運或移師其他地方舉辦的替代方案。這樣的變動更是非同小可，果若成真，對台灣的國際聲譽恐怕損多益少。
世大運的經費來自納稅人的血汗錢，當然不能允許任何貪瀆行為，無端的浪費支出也必須嚴格刪減，這是中央與地方政府承辦任何活動時都應該遵循的原則。但要舉辦國際活動，畢竟需要有合理的開支，接待國際友人，也必須提供必要的禮遇與生活便利，省錢省到了客人身上，實在有違台灣熱情好客之美名，也不是待客之道。
讓我們回到申辦世大運的初衷。台灣長期處於外交孤立劣勢，失去很多參與國際活動、交流國際事務並保護國人權益的舞台，能夠爭取到舉辦大型國際活動，對台灣來說，是非常難能可貴的機會。既能讓台灣在全球媒體上大量曝光，藉著活動交流建立友誼，提升國際間對台灣的好感與支持，也累積台灣舉辦國際活動的聲譽，還能讓參與的台灣年輕人有國際活動的歷練，打開全球性視野。
當初台北能打敗巴西取得2017世大運的主辦權，是因為較佳的財務評估與場館設施。估計這場有「小奧運」之稱的盛會，將有160國12000名選手參加，是台灣舉辦過的最大規模國際賽事，意義相當重大，也應該得到國人的共同支持。作為東道主，我們應該以完善履行申辦承諾、成功完成活動、讓參與者留下美好回憶為優先，如果因為過於剋扣寒酸，以致提供的服務怠慢簡陋，甚至揚言放棄舉辦，不但讓世大運的客人失望，復損傷台灣主辦國際活動的聲譽，影響未來爭取其他活動的機會，可就得不償失了。
對於世大運的爭議，大家應該拉高視野來看，整體而言，它對國家利益有正面意義，那麼就不應拘泥在小枝小節與政治角力中。世大運將是我們可以努力發揮的機會，不要自己絆住自己的腳，能夠讓這場盛會圓滿成功，相信全體國人都將同感光榮。
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Why Does the Government Forbid Foreigners to Buy Taipei 101 Shares?
Why Does the Government Forbid Foreigners to Buy Taipei 101 Shares?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 23, 2015
Executive Summary: Over the past year the government has interacted with the Chamber of Commerce and listened to advice from foreigners. We think every business should use the AmCham sentiment survey and white paper as a policy reference, and demand that the National Development Council and Ministry of Economic Affairs respond affirmatively. Regulations must be relaxed. That is a priority. That will create an environment more favorable to investment. Only then can we inject new vitality into the economy. Only then can we end Taiwan's economic stagnation.
Full Text Below:
Taiwan's economy this year may be slightly better than it was last year. The American Chamber of Commerce recently released its "2015 Business Climate Survey". American businessmen are optimistic about Taiwan's economy. The survey revealed that 70% of respondents believe this year will be as profitable as last year. Respondents were willing to increase investments and personnel recruitment in Taiwan. But American businessmen also hoped the government would loosen its regulations and change its politics as soon as possible, in order to reduce uncertainty. This survey gives us much to contemplate.
First of all we must point out that Taiwan's economic fundamentals are not bad. Taiwan has clearly been in recession for nearly 10 years. But its foundations have not been eroded. Certain structural problems however must be addressed before prosperity can be restored. The American Chamber of Commerce business sentiment survey is published every January. Last year's survey complained that regulations on Taiwan were stifling growth. They were tantamount to trade barriers. It feared this would affect Taiwan's participation in regional economic integration. Premier Jiang Yi Hua tried to reconcile domestic legislation with international requirements. Laws affecting trade must undergo regulatory impact assessments. Complaints have been lodged regarding nearly 300 regulations. These must be relaxed.
In June, the American Chamber of Commerce issued its White Paper. It affirmed the various ministries' efforts at self-examination. It cited a number of important developments. It praised regulatory reform. But this year it complained that over the past five years, interpretations of the regulations have been inconsistent, administrative efficiency has been low, and regulations remain outdated. These problems continue to plague foreign investors, in particular inconsistent regulations. As many as 60% of the companies complained about "serious impacts on business operations." Members also hoped that the government would reduce political unrest, clarify its policy toward the Mainland, narrow differences between local and international regulations and standards, and increase transparency in rulemaking. These would mitigate the negative impact of other factors.
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2011 Taiwan absorbed direct investment (FDI) amounting to a negative $ 1.96 billion, placing it next to last in the world. This year shows slight improvement. But it remains ranked near the bottom. Once upon a time, Taiwan was a model for attracting foreign investment. Today, it has been reduced to this.
The 2014 World Bank publication "Doing Business 2015 Global Report" was issued on October 29. Among the 189 economies surveyed for ease of doing business, Taiwan ranked 19th, one place lower than before, and well behind Korea's 5th place showing. Our worst showing was in the execution of contracts, scoring only 57.75 points and ranking 93rd, bringing up the rear. This is a very serious and embarrassing phenomenon, one that we must attach great importance to and confront.
The market economy is a kind of exchange system. In Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he focused on the "invisible hand" and how it successfully operated in the marketplace. In 1991, Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase argued for clear definitions of property ownership, to reduce transaction costs, enable market participants to engage in trade, and achieve economic efficiency.
Coase's theorem is rooted in legal autonomy, consultations, and economic freedom. In 1993 Nobel Prize winner Douglass North reminded us that copyright laws protect the interests of inventors, encourage people to invest, and result in more inventions and innovation.
Institutional innovation for long-term economic growth is even more important than technical invention. In 2009 Nobel Prize Oliver Williamson used transaction costs to explain corporate governance and development. He underscored the importance of property rights and the rule of law in modern economy and society.
As we can see, Taiwan must pay attention to the rule of law and to appropriate regulations. Consider another example that recent foreign investors consider outrageous. The Ting Hsin Group decided to sell its stake in the Taipei 101 Building to the Malaysian based 101 Corporation. But the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, and the FSC unanimously opposed the sale. Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ho argued that the IOI Group invested 25.1 billion NT, of which 24.4 billion NT was debt. He said this would weaken Taipei 101's capital. The IOI Group completed additional documents addressing government concerns. But Minister Chang reiterated his opposition anyway. The Treasury was at a loss for words. It repeated its "Taiwan's Gateway must belong to us” rhetoric.
In order to express opposition to Wei Chuan, Taiwan has moved toward populism. We must ask: Why can't Taipei 101 be sold to foreign investors? What excuse is the government offering for its intervention? The government says it is safeguarding the public interest. It says public perceptions and public expectations oppose selling Taipei 101 to foreigners. But these are the same reasons for rejecting foreign investments by KKR years ago. The spectre of KKR has returned. The government wants to buy Taipei 101. But it wants to pay lower than market prices. Meanwhile, the Malaysian IOI purchase price is twice the market price.
The Ministry of Finance even declared that before Wei Chuan sells, it must first provide notice. But as long as a transaction is legal, it is supposed to be confidential. The Ministry of Finance is currently the second largest shareholder. It cannot be both a player and referee. If Taiwan is to move towards the rule of law, everything must be handled according to law.
Taiwan has a shallow dish economy. Openness is crucial. The government must be committed to improving the investment environment and removing investment barriers. Over the past year the government has interacted with the Chamber of Commerce and listened to advice from foreigners. We think every business should use the AmCham sentiment survey and white paper as a policy reference, and demand that the National Development Council and Ministry of Economic Affairs respond affirmatively. Regulations must be relaxed. That is a priority. That will create an environment more favorable to investment. Only then can we inject new vitality into the economy. Only then can we end Taiwan's economic stagnation.
社論－政府憑什麼不准外資買101股權
2015年01月23日 04:10
本報訊
台灣經濟今年可能比去年稍好，美國商會最近發表《2015商業景氣調查》，顯示美商對今年台灣經濟樂觀，7成受訪企業認為去年獲利今年可望延續，也願意加強在台投資及增聘人員。但美商希望政府能在法規及政治上盡速作出調整，減少不確定性。此份調查帶給我們很多的省思及建議。
首先我們要指出，台灣經濟基礎不差，近10年雖然明顯衰退，根基卻未受到腐蝕，但有一些結構性問題必須面對，才能再造繁榮。美國商會每年一月發表商業景氣調查，去年的調查就抱怨台灣法規「卡卡」，形同設下技術性貿易障礙，恐影響台灣參與區域經濟整合進程。行政院長江宜樺當時大動作要求國內法規要與國際調和，涉及經貿的新法律案出爐前要經過法規影響評估、現有近300條遭抱怨法規，也要適度鬆綁。
到了6月，美國商會的白皮書中，肯定部會的正面檢討，並列舉多項重要進展，讚許法規調和的進步。但今年的抱怨說這5年來，法規解釋不一致性、行政效能不彰和法規不合時宜等，仍然持續困擾外資企業，特別是法規不一致問題，有60%企業認為「已嚴重影響企業營運」。會員也期待我政府能積極降低政治不安定性、對中國政策的不明確性、縮小本地法規標準與國際間的差異、提升法規制定的透明度，來減緩其他負面因素可能帶來的影響。
另外，根據聯合國貿易暨發展會議（UNCTAD），2011年台灣吸收的直接投資（FDI）金額，竟然為負19.6億美元，名列全球倒數第2。這兩年稍有改善，卻也都還是排在倒數。曾幾何時，吸引外資典範的台灣，竟然淪落到此。
而2014年世界銀行於10月29日公布《2015年全球經商環境報告》評比結果，在 189個受調查國家中，計算各國經商便利度，台灣為19名，比過去退步1名，遠遠落後韓國第5名。我國表現最差的就是契約的執行，得分僅57.75分排名93，到了後段班。這是一個十分嚴肅與難堪的現象，應該高度重視並面對。
市場經濟是一種交換制度。亞當斯密在《國富論》中就很注重「一隻看不見的手」能在市場上順利運作。1991年得諾貝爾獎的寇斯（Ronald Coase）主張產權的歸屬清楚，能減低交易成本，使市場參與者能夠進行交易，達到經濟效率。
寇斯定理是依法自治，自我協商，自由經濟的根本。1993年獲得諾貝爾獎的諾斯（Douglass North）則提醒我們，專利法保障了發明者的利益，因而鼓勵更多人投入，才會出現更重大的發明與創新。
而制度創新對經濟的長期成長，甚至比技術發明還重要。2009年得諾貝爾獎的威廉森（Oliver Williamson） 把交易成本說，深入應用來解釋公司治理及發展。由此可見產權與法治在現代經濟社會的重要性。
準此，台灣應該要注重法規的合宜與法治的精神。再舉最近外資認為離譜的例子。頂新集團決定將台北101大樓股權售予馬來西亞外資IOI，但財政部、中央銀行、金管會三大財金部會首長一致反對，財政部長張盛和認為，IOI集團投資251億元，其中244億元是貸款，恐造成台北101資本弱化。在IOI集團針對政府疑慮事項完成補件後，張部長日前依然重申反對的立場，看來財政部吃了螺絲釘，堅持「台灣的門面」要屬於自己。
台灣為了反頂新，已經走向民粹。我們要問101為何不能賣給外資？政府憑什麼干預？政府以公共利益、社會觀感及民眾期待等理由要將101的股權出售區別於一般外人投資，這些都是當年否決合法外資KKR投資國巨的理由，現在陰影又重現。政府雖然想買，但只想用比市價更低的價格購買，而馬來西亞IOI購買價格卻是市價的兩倍。
財政部甚至表示頂新要賣之前應該先告知，但交易只要不違法，本來就應該保密。財政部目前也是第二大股東，不能球員兼裁判。台灣要走向法治，一切應該依法辦理。
台灣是淺碟子經濟體，唯有開放才是王道。政府應致力於改善投資環境，排除投資障礙。過去政府每年是有與外僑商會互動並聽取外商意見。我們建議應將美國商會每次的商業景氣調查與白皮書作為施政參考，要求國發會與經濟部積極回應。未來更應將法規鬆綁列為當務之急，營造更有利投資環境，才能注入經濟新活力，帶領台灣突破悶經濟。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 23, 2015
Executive Summary: Over the past year the government has interacted with the Chamber of Commerce and listened to advice from foreigners. We think every business should use the AmCham sentiment survey and white paper as a policy reference, and demand that the National Development Council and Ministry of Economic Affairs respond affirmatively. Regulations must be relaxed. That is a priority. That will create an environment more favorable to investment. Only then can we inject new vitality into the economy. Only then can we end Taiwan's economic stagnation.
Full Text Below:
Taiwan's economy this year may be slightly better than it was last year. The American Chamber of Commerce recently released its "2015 Business Climate Survey". American businessmen are optimistic about Taiwan's economy. The survey revealed that 70% of respondents believe this year will be as profitable as last year. Respondents were willing to increase investments and personnel recruitment in Taiwan. But American businessmen also hoped the government would loosen its regulations and change its politics as soon as possible, in order to reduce uncertainty. This survey gives us much to contemplate.
First of all we must point out that Taiwan's economic fundamentals are not bad. Taiwan has clearly been in recession for nearly 10 years. But its foundations have not been eroded. Certain structural problems however must be addressed before prosperity can be restored. The American Chamber of Commerce business sentiment survey is published every January. Last year's survey complained that regulations on Taiwan were stifling growth. They were tantamount to trade barriers. It feared this would affect Taiwan's participation in regional economic integration. Premier Jiang Yi Hua tried to reconcile domestic legislation with international requirements. Laws affecting trade must undergo regulatory impact assessments. Complaints have been lodged regarding nearly 300 regulations. These must be relaxed.
In June, the American Chamber of Commerce issued its White Paper. It affirmed the various ministries' efforts at self-examination. It cited a number of important developments. It praised regulatory reform. But this year it complained that over the past five years, interpretations of the regulations have been inconsistent, administrative efficiency has been low, and regulations remain outdated. These problems continue to plague foreign investors, in particular inconsistent regulations. As many as 60% of the companies complained about "serious impacts on business operations." Members also hoped that the government would reduce political unrest, clarify its policy toward the Mainland, narrow differences between local and international regulations and standards, and increase transparency in rulemaking. These would mitigate the negative impact of other factors.
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2011 Taiwan absorbed direct investment (FDI) amounting to a negative $ 1.96 billion, placing it next to last in the world. This year shows slight improvement. But it remains ranked near the bottom. Once upon a time, Taiwan was a model for attracting foreign investment. Today, it has been reduced to this.
The 2014 World Bank publication "Doing Business 2015 Global Report" was issued on October 29. Among the 189 economies surveyed for ease of doing business, Taiwan ranked 19th, one place lower than before, and well behind Korea's 5th place showing. Our worst showing was in the execution of contracts, scoring only 57.75 points and ranking 93rd, bringing up the rear. This is a very serious and embarrassing phenomenon, one that we must attach great importance to and confront.
The market economy is a kind of exchange system. In Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" he focused on the "invisible hand" and how it successfully operated in the marketplace. In 1991, Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase argued for clear definitions of property ownership, to reduce transaction costs, enable market participants to engage in trade, and achieve economic efficiency.
Coase's theorem is rooted in legal autonomy, consultations, and economic freedom. In 1993 Nobel Prize winner Douglass North reminded us that copyright laws protect the interests of inventors, encourage people to invest, and result in more inventions and innovation.
Institutional innovation for long-term economic growth is even more important than technical invention. In 2009 Nobel Prize Oliver Williamson used transaction costs to explain corporate governance and development. He underscored the importance of property rights and the rule of law in modern economy and society.
As we can see, Taiwan must pay attention to the rule of law and to appropriate regulations. Consider another example that recent foreign investors consider outrageous. The Ting Hsin Group decided to sell its stake in the Taipei 101 Building to the Malaysian based 101 Corporation. But the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, and the FSC unanimously opposed the sale. Finance Minister Chang Sheng-ho argued that the IOI Group invested 25.1 billion NT, of which 24.4 billion NT was debt. He said this would weaken Taipei 101's capital. The IOI Group completed additional documents addressing government concerns. But Minister Chang reiterated his opposition anyway. The Treasury was at a loss for words. It repeated its "Taiwan's Gateway must belong to us” rhetoric.
In order to express opposition to Wei Chuan, Taiwan has moved toward populism. We must ask: Why can't Taipei 101 be sold to foreign investors? What excuse is the government offering for its intervention? The government says it is safeguarding the public interest. It says public perceptions and public expectations oppose selling Taipei 101 to foreigners. But these are the same reasons for rejecting foreign investments by KKR years ago. The spectre of KKR has returned. The government wants to buy Taipei 101. But it wants to pay lower than market prices. Meanwhile, the Malaysian IOI purchase price is twice the market price.
The Ministry of Finance even declared that before Wei Chuan sells, it must first provide notice. But as long as a transaction is legal, it is supposed to be confidential. The Ministry of Finance is currently the second largest shareholder. It cannot be both a player and referee. If Taiwan is to move towards the rule of law, everything must be handled according to law.
Taiwan has a shallow dish economy. Openness is crucial. The government must be committed to improving the investment environment and removing investment barriers. Over the past year the government has interacted with the Chamber of Commerce and listened to advice from foreigners. We think every business should use the AmCham sentiment survey and white paper as a policy reference, and demand that the National Development Council and Ministry of Economic Affairs respond affirmatively. Regulations must be relaxed. That is a priority. That will create an environment more favorable to investment. Only then can we inject new vitality into the economy. Only then can we end Taiwan's economic stagnation.
社論－政府憑什麼不准外資買101股權
2015年01月23日 04:10
本報訊
台灣經濟今年可能比去年稍好，美國商會最近發表《2015商業景氣調查》，顯示美商對今年台灣經濟樂觀，7成受訪企業認為去年獲利今年可望延續，也願意加強在台投資及增聘人員。但美商希望政府能在法規及政治上盡速作出調整，減少不確定性。此份調查帶給我們很多的省思及建議。
首先我們要指出，台灣經濟基礎不差，近10年雖然明顯衰退，根基卻未受到腐蝕，但有一些結構性問題必須面對，才能再造繁榮。美國商會每年一月發表商業景氣調查，去年的調查就抱怨台灣法規「卡卡」，形同設下技術性貿易障礙，恐影響台灣參與區域經濟整合進程。行政院長江宜樺當時大動作要求國內法規要與國際調和，涉及經貿的新法律案出爐前要經過法規影響評估、現有近300條遭抱怨法規，也要適度鬆綁。
到了6月，美國商會的白皮書中，肯定部會的正面檢討，並列舉多項重要進展，讚許法規調和的進步。但今年的抱怨說這5年來，法規解釋不一致性、行政效能不彰和法規不合時宜等，仍然持續困擾外資企業，特別是法規不一致問題，有60%企業認為「已嚴重影響企業營運」。會員也期待我政府能積極降低政治不安定性、對中國政策的不明確性、縮小本地法規標準與國際間的差異、提升法規制定的透明度，來減緩其他負面因素可能帶來的影響。
另外，根據聯合國貿易暨發展會議（UNCTAD），2011年台灣吸收的直接投資（FDI）金額，竟然為負19.6億美元，名列全球倒數第2。這兩年稍有改善，卻也都還是排在倒數。曾幾何時，吸引外資典範的台灣，竟然淪落到此。
而2014年世界銀行於10月29日公布《2015年全球經商環境報告》評比結果，在 189個受調查國家中，計算各國經商便利度，台灣為19名，比過去退步1名，遠遠落後韓國第5名。我國表現最差的就是契約的執行，得分僅57.75分排名93，到了後段班。這是一個十分嚴肅與難堪的現象，應該高度重視並面對。
市場經濟是一種交換制度。亞當斯密在《國富論》中就很注重「一隻看不見的手」能在市場上順利運作。1991年得諾貝爾獎的寇斯（Ronald Coase）主張產權的歸屬清楚，能減低交易成本，使市場參與者能夠進行交易，達到經濟效率。
寇斯定理是依法自治，自我協商，自由經濟的根本。1993年獲得諾貝爾獎的諾斯（Douglass North）則提醒我們，專利法保障了發明者的利益，因而鼓勵更多人投入，才會出現更重大的發明與創新。
而制度創新對經濟的長期成長，甚至比技術發明還重要。2009年得諾貝爾獎的威廉森（Oliver Williamson） 把交易成本說，深入應用來解釋公司治理及發展。由此可見產權與法治在現代經濟社會的重要性。
準此，台灣應該要注重法規的合宜與法治的精神。再舉最近外資認為離譜的例子。頂新集團決定將台北101大樓股權售予馬來西亞外資IOI，但財政部、中央銀行、金管會三大財金部會首長一致反對，財政部長張盛和認為，IOI集團投資251億元，其中244億元是貸款，恐造成台北101資本弱化。在IOI集團針對政府疑慮事項完成補件後，張部長日前依然重申反對的立場，看來財政部吃了螺絲釘，堅持「台灣的門面」要屬於自己。
台灣為了反頂新，已經走向民粹。我們要問101為何不能賣給外資？政府憑什麼干預？政府以公共利益、社會觀感及民眾期待等理由要將101的股權出售區別於一般外人投資，這些都是當年否決合法外資KKR投資國巨的理由，現在陰影又重現。政府雖然想買，但只想用比市價更低的價格購買，而馬來西亞IOI購買價格卻是市價的兩倍。
財政部甚至表示頂新要賣之前應該先告知，但交易只要不違法，本來就應該保密。財政部目前也是第二大股東，不能球員兼裁判。台灣要走向法治，一切應該依法辦理。
台灣是淺碟子經濟體，唯有開放才是王道。政府應致力於改善投資環境，排除投資障礙。過去政府每年是有與外僑商會互動並聽取外商意見。我們建議應將美國商會每次的商業景氣調查與白皮書作為施政參考，要求國發會與經濟部積極回應。未來更應將法規鬆綁列為當務之急，營造更有利投資環境，才能注入經濟新活力，帶領台灣突破悶經濟。
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Scandals Call for Criminal Investigations, not Political Purges
Scandals Call for Criminal Investigations, not Political Purges
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2015
Executive Summary: We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.
Full Text Below:
Taipei Mayor Wen-Je Ko has been in office less than a month, but he has already launched attacks against Ma Ying-jeou, Hau Lung-ping, Chao Teng-hsiung, and Terry Guo. He has already condemned the Zhongxiao West Road bus lanes, the Taipei Arena, and Taipei Chiu Yue Yuan projects. Meanwhile, Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung denounced the BRT project as a fraud the day after taking office, and announced that the Taiwan Tower project would be suspended.
When a feudal state undergoes regime change, and a new monarch seizes power, he feels obligated to underscore the previous monarch's deficiencies. This is how he “demonstrates his compassion” and “rights past wrongs”. But this is the era of democracy. Ruling party changes reflect changes in public sentiment. Newly-elected mayors feel even more righteous when they “demonstrate compassion” and “right past wrongs”. They often do this immediately upon taking office. They categorically repudiate their predecessor's achievements, in order to show off their new thinking, new style, and new politics. The practice of repudiating everything done by the preceding regime is now standard operating procedure for newly-elected officials upon taking office.
If a newly-elected official adopts a constructive manner, offers new policies, and demonstrates courage, the public will naturally support him. If he fights corruption and attacks special interests, if he refuses to abet illegal conduct, the public will naturally applaud him. When Mayor Wen-Je Ko took office, he promoted many new policies. The dust from the ensuing controversies have yet to settle. But Mayor Ko displayed courage when he proposed new ideas. He dared to turn over a rock and aggressively promote transparency in decision-making. That warrants recognition.
But recent developments are deeply worrisome. We must caution newly-elected mayors, including Wen-Je Ko. Everyone welcomes the uncovering of scandals. But one must not tar everything a previous mayor did with a broad brush merely to win public applause. Prematurely leveling accusations of corruption is unfair to the previous administration. It will further divide society. It will set consortia against the common people, the ruling party against the opposition, and even intensify so-called “ethnic group” antagonism. Mayor Ko recently blasted everyone around him. By doing so, he trampled over due process of law and set many negative precedents.
There is nothing wrong with course changes. But a chief executive is not an civilian in the opposition. A newly-elected mayor is the focus of public attention. If he wishes to uncover corruption, he must present evidence. He must respect legal norms. His methods must be both reasonable and lawful. Regardless of Mayor Wen-Je Ko's motives, his means are highly questionable.
Assume for the sake of argument that the Far Glory Taipei Dome case, the Mei He City case, the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park case, and the Taipei Chiu Yeh case all involve corruption. How should an elected mayor in a democratic nation approach the problem? First of all, he should study the relevant legal documents and the original decision-making process. If there is cause for suspicion, the proper approach is an investigation by the justice system, acting as referee. The newly elected mayor should not hurl reckless accusations. Mayor Ko is not a criminal prosecutor. Yet he has used his office to accuse Far Glory of "lawlessness." What is this, if not “first sentence, then try” a practice that many, in particular DPP supporters, once rightly condemned? In fact, the correct approach is extremely simple. Mayor Ko should submit the contracting procedures he considers illegal to internal affairs, who will in turn submit them to prosecutors for investigation. This must be done for the proper administration of justice. Cases must be subjected to layer upon layer of legal review.
Mayor Ko even threatened vendors, saying "If you sue me, then I will deal with you first!” This too was a clear violation of administrative law, which "prohibits improper linkage." Internal affairs units have investigative priority. How can disputants be allowed to take part in cases connected to the administrative agency? That amounts to a flagrant abuse of executive power.
Ko said that the Taipei City Government rejects threats from consortia. It is true that Terry Gou's front page ad was a tad heavy-handed. But on the other hand, the Taipei City Government must not threaten consortia either. Mayor Ko agreed that "Consortia are important to the nation's industrial and commercial strength." To respond by seeking revenge is hardly proper conduct for a Taipei mayor.
Mayor Ko has broken free of the existing framework. He has experimented with a new political culture. To this extent, we affirm his achievement. We hope Mayor Ko is the herald of a new political culture. But that does not mean Mayor Ko can ignore the legal framework, blur the distinction between the tripartite powers, and treat administrative authority as a weapon and open fire on at everyone in sight.
One of the most valuable characteristics of democracy, is term limits and competitive elections. These allow peaceful, non-violent regime change. Politicians who seek political power, must be elected. They have no need to wage war, shed blood, or liquidate enemies. This means that the cost to the losers is reduced. Moreover, losers are not necessarily losers forever. Once the terms of those in power expire, losers still have a chance at a comeback. The cost of losing is small. The possibility of a comeback is permanent. This makes winners in democracies less likely to resort to extreme measures to defend their regimes. This also allows losers to honor the election results, concede, and step down. These are all factors that ensure stability within democracies.
We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.
社論－前朝弊案該查但不可清算
2015年01月22日 04:10
本報訊
台北市長柯文哲上任尚未足月，前砍馬英九、後踢郝龍斌、左打趙藤雄、右擊郭台銘，從忠孝西路公車專用道、小巨蛋、三創數位園區（台北秋葉原），一路推翻前朝的施政；另一方面，台中市長林佳龍，繼上任隔天將BRT形容成「騙局」之後，又拋出「台灣塔暫緩執行」。
從政治上言，封建時期改朝換代的新君主，都要顯出前朝君主的無道，才能映襯自己「弔民伐罪」的正當性。現在是民主時代，政黨輪替代表民心思變，新科市長「弔民伐罪」更理直氣壯，上任的起手式，就是全面否定前任首長的政績，對襯出自己的新思維、新作風與新政治。種種「蕭規曹不隨」的作為，就變成新官上任的共同火。
從正向言，新人新政、展現魄力，社會都會支持，打貪擊特、勿縱不法，民眾也會拍掌叫好。特別是柯文哲市長上任後，力推的許多新政，雖然惹來不少爭議塵埃，但大體上，柯市長勇於表達主張、敢於掀開鍋蓋、積極推動決策公開化、透明化的企圖心，值得肯定。
但我們必須說，近日的情況發展，已經令人憂心。我們必須要提醒並建議包括柯文哲市長在內的新科市長們。揭發弊案，國人欣見，但不能為了贏得揭發弊案的美譽，而把所有前任市長的建設，都先戴上圖利的帽子，先罩上貪汙的疑雲，這對前任者不公平，更將進一步的撕裂社會，讓社會演變成財團對庶民、執政對在野，乃至於族群對族群的激化對立。就以柯市長最近火炮四射的爭議為例，中間就有很多違反程序正義的錯誤示範。
改弦更張並無不妥，但既然已是行政首長而非在野平民，新科市長們的一言一行動見觀瞻，就算要偵弊，也要準於證據、依於規範，無論如何也應該要有「合理」、「合法」的手段。而柯文哲市長到目前為止，不論出發點為何，手段實有商榷之必要。
首先，就算先假設遠雄大巨蛋案、美河市案、松菸文創、台北秋葉原都有人謀不臧之處，作為民主國家的民選市長，應該要如何處理？首先，應該研究相關法律文件及當初決策過程，如果確有疑義，最適當的做法是，由司法來調查、裁判，而非由自己輕率定奪。柯市長並非司法機關，以首長之姿宣告遠雄「無法無天」，不正是之前許多人，特別是民進黨支持者常常掛在口中的「未審先判」嗎？正確的作法其實簡單至極，應是將訂約程序中柯市長認為有「違法之虞」者，由政風單位移送檢調偵辦，而在司法裁判之前，可藉由驗收審查機制層層把關。
此外，柯市長對民間廠商說出「你再告，我每一案就優先查你」，也明顯違反了行政法的「不當聯結禁止原則」。政風單位查案的優先順序，怎麼可以跟當事人在其他案件與行政機關的爭議有關連呢？這已是公然宣示濫用行政權力！
他又說，台北市政府不受財團要脅，確實，郭台銘在報紙頭版刊登廣告，話是說得太重了，但同樣地，台北市政府也不可以要脅財團。就如同柯市長也同意的「財團是國家重要的工商力量」，用秋後算帳方式來對應，這不是台北市長應有之風範。
這一段時間以來，我們看到柯市長打破框架，實驗新政治文化的企圖心與可能性，對這一點，我們持正向的態度，期待柯市長帶來不一樣的新氣象。但這不代表柯市長可以打破體制、紊亂三權的分際，以違背體制的行政做為武器四方開火。
民主政體的可貴處之一，就是它會透過任期制與競爭性的選舉，讓政權移轉以和平而非暴力的方式進行。想要贏得政權的政治人物，只要透過選舉，而無須透過流血的戰爭或清算鬥爭，這意謂輸家要付出的代價較小，而且，輸家未必是永遠的輸家，主政者任期屆滿，輸家仍有機會捲土重來。失去政權的代價較小、重贏執政的可能性永遠存在，這讓民主政體的贏家比較不會採取極端的方式保衛政權，也讓輸家比較能夠尊重選舉結果，認輸下野。這些都構成民主政治的安定因子。
我們希望，包括柯市長在內的所有新科市長，乃至於2016年也許有機會重贏執政的民進黨，要珍惜、珍視這一份民主政治的「和平元素」。查弊我們欣見，但不能以「入人於罪」的心態，無限上綱式的否定、質疑前任者的施政。一旦「清算」成為了所有新執政者的共同起手式，民主政體和平輪替政權的功能，也將會受到嚴重的斲喪。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2015
Executive Summary: We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.
Full Text Below:
Taipei Mayor Wen-Je Ko has been in office less than a month, but he has already launched attacks against Ma Ying-jeou, Hau Lung-ping, Chao Teng-hsiung, and Terry Guo. He has already condemned the Zhongxiao West Road bus lanes, the Taipei Arena, and Taipei Chiu Yue Yuan projects. Meanwhile, Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung denounced the BRT project as a fraud the day after taking office, and announced that the Taiwan Tower project would be suspended.
When a feudal state undergoes regime change, and a new monarch seizes power, he feels obligated to underscore the previous monarch's deficiencies. This is how he “demonstrates his compassion” and “rights past wrongs”. But this is the era of democracy. Ruling party changes reflect changes in public sentiment. Newly-elected mayors feel even more righteous when they “demonstrate compassion” and “right past wrongs”. They often do this immediately upon taking office. They categorically repudiate their predecessor's achievements, in order to show off their new thinking, new style, and new politics. The practice of repudiating everything done by the preceding regime is now standard operating procedure for newly-elected officials upon taking office.
If a newly-elected official adopts a constructive manner, offers new policies, and demonstrates courage, the public will naturally support him. If he fights corruption and attacks special interests, if he refuses to abet illegal conduct, the public will naturally applaud him. When Mayor Wen-Je Ko took office, he promoted many new policies. The dust from the ensuing controversies have yet to settle. But Mayor Ko displayed courage when he proposed new ideas. He dared to turn over a rock and aggressively promote transparency in decision-making. That warrants recognition.
But recent developments are deeply worrisome. We must caution newly-elected mayors, including Wen-Je Ko. Everyone welcomes the uncovering of scandals. But one must not tar everything a previous mayor did with a broad brush merely to win public applause. Prematurely leveling accusations of corruption is unfair to the previous administration. It will further divide society. It will set consortia against the common people, the ruling party against the opposition, and even intensify so-called “ethnic group” antagonism. Mayor Ko recently blasted everyone around him. By doing so, he trampled over due process of law and set many negative precedents.
There is nothing wrong with course changes. But a chief executive is not an civilian in the opposition. A newly-elected mayor is the focus of public attention. If he wishes to uncover corruption, he must present evidence. He must respect legal norms. His methods must be both reasonable and lawful. Regardless of Mayor Wen-Je Ko's motives, his means are highly questionable.
Assume for the sake of argument that the Far Glory Taipei Dome case, the Mei He City case, the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park case, and the Taipei Chiu Yeh case all involve corruption. How should an elected mayor in a democratic nation approach the problem? First of all, he should study the relevant legal documents and the original decision-making process. If there is cause for suspicion, the proper approach is an investigation by the justice system, acting as referee. The newly elected mayor should not hurl reckless accusations. Mayor Ko is not a criminal prosecutor. Yet he has used his office to accuse Far Glory of "lawlessness." What is this, if not “first sentence, then try” a practice that many, in particular DPP supporters, once rightly condemned? In fact, the correct approach is extremely simple. Mayor Ko should submit the contracting procedures he considers illegal to internal affairs, who will in turn submit them to prosecutors for investigation. This must be done for the proper administration of justice. Cases must be subjected to layer upon layer of legal review.
Mayor Ko even threatened vendors, saying "If you sue me, then I will deal with you first!” This too was a clear violation of administrative law, which "prohibits improper linkage." Internal affairs units have investigative priority. How can disputants be allowed to take part in cases connected to the administrative agency? That amounts to a flagrant abuse of executive power.
Ko said that the Taipei City Government rejects threats from consortia. It is true that Terry Gou's front page ad was a tad heavy-handed. But on the other hand, the Taipei City Government must not threaten consortia either. Mayor Ko agreed that "Consortia are important to the nation's industrial and commercial strength." To respond by seeking revenge is hardly proper conduct for a Taipei mayor.
Mayor Ko has broken free of the existing framework. He has experimented with a new political culture. To this extent, we affirm his achievement. We hope Mayor Ko is the herald of a new political culture. But that does not mean Mayor Ko can ignore the legal framework, blur the distinction between the tripartite powers, and treat administrative authority as a weapon and open fire on at everyone in sight.
One of the most valuable characteristics of democracy, is term limits and competitive elections. These allow peaceful, non-violent regime change. Politicians who seek political power, must be elected. They have no need to wage war, shed blood, or liquidate enemies. This means that the cost to the losers is reduced. Moreover, losers are not necessarily losers forever. Once the terms of those in power expire, losers still have a chance at a comeback. The cost of losing is small. The possibility of a comeback is permanent. This makes winners in democracies less likely to resort to extreme measures to defend their regimes. This also allows losers to honor the election results, concede, and step down. These are all factors that ensure stability within democracies.
We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.
社論－前朝弊案該查但不可清算
2015年01月22日 04:10
本報訊
台北市長柯文哲上任尚未足月，前砍馬英九、後踢郝龍斌、左打趙藤雄、右擊郭台銘，從忠孝西路公車專用道、小巨蛋、三創數位園區（台北秋葉原），一路推翻前朝的施政；另一方面，台中市長林佳龍，繼上任隔天將BRT形容成「騙局」之後，又拋出「台灣塔暫緩執行」。
從政治上言，封建時期改朝換代的新君主，都要顯出前朝君主的無道，才能映襯自己「弔民伐罪」的正當性。現在是民主時代，政黨輪替代表民心思變，新科市長「弔民伐罪」更理直氣壯，上任的起手式，就是全面否定前任首長的政績，對襯出自己的新思維、新作風與新政治。種種「蕭規曹不隨」的作為，就變成新官上任的共同火。
從正向言，新人新政、展現魄力，社會都會支持，打貪擊特、勿縱不法，民眾也會拍掌叫好。特別是柯文哲市長上任後，力推的許多新政，雖然惹來不少爭議塵埃，但大體上，柯市長勇於表達主張、敢於掀開鍋蓋、積極推動決策公開化、透明化的企圖心，值得肯定。
但我們必須說，近日的情況發展，已經令人憂心。我們必須要提醒並建議包括柯文哲市長在內的新科市長們。揭發弊案，國人欣見，但不能為了贏得揭發弊案的美譽，而把所有前任市長的建設，都先戴上圖利的帽子，先罩上貪汙的疑雲，這對前任者不公平，更將進一步的撕裂社會，讓社會演變成財團對庶民、執政對在野，乃至於族群對族群的激化對立。就以柯市長最近火炮四射的爭議為例，中間就有很多違反程序正義的錯誤示範。
改弦更張並無不妥，但既然已是行政首長而非在野平民，新科市長們的一言一行動見觀瞻，就算要偵弊，也要準於證據、依於規範，無論如何也應該要有「合理」、「合法」的手段。而柯文哲市長到目前為止，不論出發點為何，手段實有商榷之必要。
首先，就算先假設遠雄大巨蛋案、美河市案、松菸文創、台北秋葉原都有人謀不臧之處，作為民主國家的民選市長，應該要如何處理？首先，應該研究相關法律文件及當初決策過程，如果確有疑義，最適當的做法是，由司法來調查、裁判，而非由自己輕率定奪。柯市長並非司法機關，以首長之姿宣告遠雄「無法無天」，不正是之前許多人，特別是民進黨支持者常常掛在口中的「未審先判」嗎？正確的作法其實簡單至極，應是將訂約程序中柯市長認為有「違法之虞」者，由政風單位移送檢調偵辦，而在司法裁判之前，可藉由驗收審查機制層層把關。
此外，柯市長對民間廠商說出「你再告，我每一案就優先查你」，也明顯違反了行政法的「不當聯結禁止原則」。政風單位查案的優先順序，怎麼可以跟當事人在其他案件與行政機關的爭議有關連呢？這已是公然宣示濫用行政權力！
他又說，台北市政府不受財團要脅，確實，郭台銘在報紙頭版刊登廣告，話是說得太重了，但同樣地，台北市政府也不可以要脅財團。就如同柯市長也同意的「財團是國家重要的工商力量」，用秋後算帳方式來對應，這不是台北市長應有之風範。
這一段時間以來，我們看到柯市長打破框架，實驗新政治文化的企圖心與可能性，對這一點，我們持正向的態度，期待柯市長帶來不一樣的新氣象。但這不代表柯市長可以打破體制、紊亂三權的分際，以違背體制的行政做為武器四方開火。
民主政體的可貴處之一，就是它會透過任期制與競爭性的選舉，讓政權移轉以和平而非暴力的方式進行。想要贏得政權的政治人物，只要透過選舉，而無須透過流血的戰爭或清算鬥爭，這意謂輸家要付出的代價較小，而且，輸家未必是永遠的輸家，主政者任期屆滿，輸家仍有機會捲土重來。失去政權的代價較小、重贏執政的可能性永遠存在，這讓民主政體的贏家比較不會採取極端的方式保衛政權，也讓輸家比較能夠尊重選舉結果，認輸下野。這些都構成民主政治的安定因子。
我們希望，包括柯市長在內的所有新科市長，乃至於2016年也許有機會重贏執政的民進黨，要珍惜、珍視這一份民主政治的「和平元素」。查弊我們欣見，但不能以「入人於罪」的心態，無限上綱式的否定、質疑前任者的施政。一旦「清算」成為了所有新執政者的共同起手式，民主政體和平輪替政權的功能，也將會受到嚴重的斲喪。
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Eric Chu's First Mile vs. Tsai Ing-wen's Final Mile
Eric Chu's First Mile vs. Tsai Ing-wen's Final Mile
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 21, 2015
Executive Summary: Eric Chu did not start his first day as KMT chairman with much fanfare. Instead he quietly announced some new generation ideas and approaches. Chu has been mocked as "the weakest party chairman ever." Yet his first mile as party chairman went off without a hitch. Can he resolve the differences between Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng? Today's Central Standing Committee meeting will provide the answer to that question.
Full Text Below:
Eric Chu did not start his first day as KMT chairman with much fanfare. Instead he quietly announced some new generation ideas and approaches. Chu has been mocked as "the weakest party chairman ever." Yet his first mile as party chairman went off without a hitch. Can he resolve the differences between Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng? Today's Central Standing Committee meeting will provide the answer to that question.
On his very first day, Chu announced several noteworthy personnel appointments and policies. One. He appointed Lai Shyh-bao, Huang Chao-hsun, and Lu Hsiu-yen to party posts. This should enable the party to act as a buffer between the Cabinet and the Legislature. Two. Out of seven deputy chairmen, he retained only two: Hau Lung-ping and Huang Ming-hui. He chose not to automatically assign former cabinet members to party posts. Three. Chu canceled Ma Ying-jeou's "Chungshan Conference". Party decision-making will now revert to the Central Standing Committee. Four. Party cadres were reorganized. Li Si-chuan, the Secretary-General of the Executive Yuan, will serve as Party Secretary-General. He will draw upon his qualifications and his relationship as a confidant.
First, Chu eliminated pro forma appointments. For example, he reduced the number of Deputy Chairman seats and discontinued the Chungshan Conference. The party's Central Standing Committee will now play a more substantial role in decision-making. Secondly, he increased the Party Central Committee's role, enabling it to coordinate between the executive and the legislature. Legislators will now serve as deputy secretary-generals for the party. Cabinet decisions have long been hampered by ruling party legislators. This is a structural problem that requires a remedy. Thirdly, this "weakest party chairman ever" has found a lever by which to apply pressure. He can use it to coordinate the cabinet with the legislature. These upper level structural reforms will soon be complete. The party machine lacks fighting ability. Its mindset is overly conservative. Chu will have his work cut out for him. He must recruit more talent for the Party Central Committee.
Only then can be begin anew.
Do these changes mean that Chu wants the party to lead the government? That inference may be premature. The Kuomintang may be in power, yet it has been blocked every which way it turns. It cannot get anything done. Most importantly, Chu must unify the party from top to bottom, and not just talk about who will be leading whom. In short, without President Ma, the Kuomintang would not be the ruling party at the central government level today. Wang Jin-pying would not be Legislative Speaker. He would be trampled underfoot in the legislature. On the other hand, KMT ineffectiveness while in power cost it the support of the people. That is why it went down in defeat. That is why it has a new party chairman today. The KMT faces challenges. How can it maximize benefits to the people? How can it regain lost public support? Those are the questions it should be asking. Not quibbling over who will be boss, or who must listen to whose commands.
Over the past two years, observers have been making prognostications about the 2016 presidential election. Many of them assumed that the election would be a showdown between Tsai and Chu. Who knew that the nine in one election results would shatter their expectations? Tsai Ing-wen need only complete the final mile. Eric Chu, on the other hand, is fettered, and is only beginning his first mile. The race between the two reminds one of the tortoise and hare. Tsai is well ahead in the game. That is why Chu announced that he will not run for president in 2016.
Will Chu run or not? Either way, the KMT cannot forfeit the race. President Ma said that if the KMT fails to retain the presidency in 2016, then his eight years in office was a failure, and his legacy will be called into question. Ma Ying-jeou is in the last year of his term. His prime concern should be the rescue and revival of his party. He must have the courage to change. He must let the new chairman show what he can do. Together they must restore the party's past glory.
Will Eric Chu be a good party chairman? He and Ma Ying-jeou have a good relationship. President Ma apparently let Eric Chu make his own appointments. He did not interfere. Such tolerance called for moderation on Chu's part, to ensure a gentlemanly relationship. Every Monday when the presidential palace calls a senior party and government meeting, Chu does his best to attend. This shows his respect for Ma. It also helps maintain smooth communications between the party and the administration. The KMT's defeat was prompted mainly by its hermetic decision-making process. If everyone opens their hearts for the sake of the nation, the wisdom of the people will far exceed the wisdom of a handful of insiders. Why assume that Ma and Chu will form two party central committees?
Eric Chu presided over his first Central Standing Committee meeting today. Nearly 30 members petitioned for the revocation of Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. How Chu deals with this will reveal his leadership style. A majority of the Standing Committee would like to withdraw the motion. Chu could easily go with the flow. That would help the KMT get past this incident. But most importantly, as he treads lightly through this crisis, how will he explain himself? That will reveal whether he has leadership.
Chu has taken his first step towards the Presidency. He neither announced sweeping measures, nor adopted alarming positions. He acted swiftly and said little. Tsai Ing-wen is already beginning her final mile. Chu's first mile seemed effortless. But the road ahead of him is a long one.
朱立倫的第一哩vs.蔡英文的最後一哩
2015-01-21 02:02:01 聯合報 社論
朱立倫出任國民黨主席第一天，沒有太戲劇化的演出，倒也不慍不火地傳達了一個中生代政黨領導人的新想法與新作法。雖被譏為「最弱的黨主席」，朱立倫黨主席的第一哩路起手式堪稱明快；至於他能否有效解決馬英九與王金平之間的歧見，今天的中常會便見分曉。
朱立倫上任首日，發布了幾項值得注意的人事與新政：第一，延攬賴士葆、黃昭順、盧秀燕出任黨職，讓黨可扮演內閣與國會間的溝通角色；第二，七名副主席僅保留郝龍斌、黃敏惠兩人專任，拋開原來一群人排排坐的形式主義；第三，取消馬英九創設的「中山會報」，讓黨的決策中心重回中常會；第四，黨內幹部作了小幅改組，李四川由行政院祕書長出任黨祕書長，借重其協調資歷及親信關係。
這些布局，一則具有「去儀式化」作用（如副主席席位的減少及中山會報停開），使黨的中常會具有更多實質決策作用；二則強化黨中央在行政和立法之間的協調及轉承角色（如立委出任黨副祕書長），改善內閣決策屢遭執政黨立委掣肘的結構問題；三則為「最弱黨主席」找到自己的槓桿作用點，在內閣與國會之間協助平衡、協調。俟這些上層架構大致完成後，朱立倫對黨機器戰鬥力不足、思維老舊的問題，未來恐怕還要加一把勁，延攬更多人才加入黨中央，才能展開一番新局。
上述改變，是不是能解讀為朱立倫意圖「以黨領政」，恐怕言之過早。事實上，正當國民黨陷入政權在握卻左右碰壁、令出不行之際，當前最重要的，是要舉黨上下一心重新找回黨的能量和熱力，而不是在那裡奢談誰領導誰。簡言之，如果沒有馬總統，國民黨今天不會有中央的執政權，也就不會有國會的王金平院長，在立法院也將任人宰割；然而，也正因為國民黨執政大權在握卻無法有效執政爭取民心，才會有去年底的慘敗，才會有如今的黨主席的交接。現在，國民黨面對的挑戰，是如何共同把政權造福百姓的效益發揮到最大，以挽回失去的民意，而不是在那裡區分誰才是老大、誰該聽誰的命令。
近兩年，外界看待二○一六年的總統大選，許多人原預料應該是蔡英文與朱立倫的「英倫對決」之局；誰料，九合一選舉結果，狠狠打破了這個想像。當蔡英文只剩下她「最後一哩」的衝刺，朱立倫卻因為形勢羈絆，至今只跨出他的「第一哩」；兩人之間，像烏龜和兔子的賽跑，遠遠拉開了距離。這也是朱立倫宣布不選二○一六的主因。
然而，不管朱立倫選或不選，國民黨都不可能放棄此役。對馬總統而言，如果二○一六無法保住政權，那將代表著他八年執政的失敗，他的歷史定位勢將難堪。也因此，馬英九在他任期的最後一年多，應該以全力追求黨的再興為務，勇敢接受改變，並放手讓新主席發揮能量，共同把黨的光榮找回來。
不可諱言，朱立倫能否扮演好黨主席角色，他和馬英九關係的良窳是一大關鍵。從朱立倫這波布局來看，顯然馬總統選擇放手讓他去做，並未介入或干預。這樣的氣度，就需要朱立倫適度的「尊重」，來維持雙方的君子關係。至少，每周一在總統府召集的高層黨政會報，朱立倫應儘可能出席，除保持「尊馬」的禮貌，也是保持黨政交流的通暢。國民黨的敗績，主要即肇因於決策思維的封閉；如果大家能敞開心胸，為全民利益著想，眾人的智慧豈有不勝過一小撮人的道理，又何必認為馬、朱將形成「兩個黨中央」？
朱立倫今天的第一個中常會，已有近卅名中常委連署要求撤銷對王金平黨籍案的告訴；他將如何處理這項提案，正是觀察朱立倫領導風格的切入點。根據目前多數中常委的意向，會中決議撤銷的機會極大，朱立倫其實不難順水推舟，幫國民黨了卻這一樁公案；但重要的是，在輕騎過關之餘，他將用什麼說詞解釋這項決定，那才是顯示他領導高度的指標。
朱立倫跨出主席的第一步，談不上大刀闊斧或姿態驚人，卻是簡潔明快，無需多言。然而，比起蔡英文已走到艱險的最後一哩，他的第一哩路看似輕鬆，接下來的路卻是漫長無比。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 21, 2015
Executive Summary: Eric Chu did not start his first day as KMT chairman with much fanfare. Instead he quietly announced some new generation ideas and approaches. Chu has been mocked as "the weakest party chairman ever." Yet his first mile as party chairman went off without a hitch. Can he resolve the differences between Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng? Today's Central Standing Committee meeting will provide the answer to that question.
Full Text Below:
Eric Chu did not start his first day as KMT chairman with much fanfare. Instead he quietly announced some new generation ideas and approaches. Chu has been mocked as "the weakest party chairman ever." Yet his first mile as party chairman went off without a hitch. Can he resolve the differences between Ma Ying-jeou and Wang Jin-pyng? Today's Central Standing Committee meeting will provide the answer to that question.
On his very first day, Chu announced several noteworthy personnel appointments and policies. One. He appointed Lai Shyh-bao, Huang Chao-hsun, and Lu Hsiu-yen to party posts. This should enable the party to act as a buffer between the Cabinet and the Legislature. Two. Out of seven deputy chairmen, he retained only two: Hau Lung-ping and Huang Ming-hui. He chose not to automatically assign former cabinet members to party posts. Three. Chu canceled Ma Ying-jeou's "Chungshan Conference". Party decision-making will now revert to the Central Standing Committee. Four. Party cadres were reorganized. Li Si-chuan, the Secretary-General of the Executive Yuan, will serve as Party Secretary-General. He will draw upon his qualifications and his relationship as a confidant.
First, Chu eliminated pro forma appointments. For example, he reduced the number of Deputy Chairman seats and discontinued the Chungshan Conference. The party's Central Standing Committee will now play a more substantial role in decision-making. Secondly, he increased the Party Central Committee's role, enabling it to coordinate between the executive and the legislature. Legislators will now serve as deputy secretary-generals for the party. Cabinet decisions have long been hampered by ruling party legislators. This is a structural problem that requires a remedy. Thirdly, this "weakest party chairman ever" has found a lever by which to apply pressure. He can use it to coordinate the cabinet with the legislature. These upper level structural reforms will soon be complete. The party machine lacks fighting ability. Its mindset is overly conservative. Chu will have his work cut out for him. He must recruit more talent for the Party Central Committee.
Only then can be begin anew.
Do these changes mean that Chu wants the party to lead the government? That inference may be premature. The Kuomintang may be in power, yet it has been blocked every which way it turns. It cannot get anything done. Most importantly, Chu must unify the party from top to bottom, and not just talk about who will be leading whom. In short, without President Ma, the Kuomintang would not be the ruling party at the central government level today. Wang Jin-pying would not be Legislative Speaker. He would be trampled underfoot in the legislature. On the other hand, KMT ineffectiveness while in power cost it the support of the people. That is why it went down in defeat. That is why it has a new party chairman today. The KMT faces challenges. How can it maximize benefits to the people? How can it regain lost public support? Those are the questions it should be asking. Not quibbling over who will be boss, or who must listen to whose commands.
Over the past two years, observers have been making prognostications about the 2016 presidential election. Many of them assumed that the election would be a showdown between Tsai and Chu. Who knew that the nine in one election results would shatter their expectations? Tsai Ing-wen need only complete the final mile. Eric Chu, on the other hand, is fettered, and is only beginning his first mile. The race between the two reminds one of the tortoise and hare. Tsai is well ahead in the game. That is why Chu announced that he will not run for president in 2016.
Will Chu run or not? Either way, the KMT cannot forfeit the race. President Ma said that if the KMT fails to retain the presidency in 2016, then his eight years in office was a failure, and his legacy will be called into question. Ma Ying-jeou is in the last year of his term. His prime concern should be the rescue and revival of his party. He must have the courage to change. He must let the new chairman show what he can do. Together they must restore the party's past glory.
Will Eric Chu be a good party chairman? He and Ma Ying-jeou have a good relationship. President Ma apparently let Eric Chu make his own appointments. He did not interfere. Such tolerance called for moderation on Chu's part, to ensure a gentlemanly relationship. Every Monday when the presidential palace calls a senior party and government meeting, Chu does his best to attend. This shows his respect for Ma. It also helps maintain smooth communications between the party and the administration. The KMT's defeat was prompted mainly by its hermetic decision-making process. If everyone opens their hearts for the sake of the nation, the wisdom of the people will far exceed the wisdom of a handful of insiders. Why assume that Ma and Chu will form two party central committees?
Eric Chu presided over his first Central Standing Committee meeting today. Nearly 30 members petitioned for the revocation of Wang Jin-pyng's party membership. How Chu deals with this will reveal his leadership style. A majority of the Standing Committee would like to withdraw the motion. Chu could easily go with the flow. That would help the KMT get past this incident. But most importantly, as he treads lightly through this crisis, how will he explain himself? That will reveal whether he has leadership.
Chu has taken his first step towards the Presidency. He neither announced sweeping measures, nor adopted alarming positions. He acted swiftly and said little. Tsai Ing-wen is already beginning her final mile. Chu's first mile seemed effortless. But the road ahead of him is a long one.
朱立倫的第一哩vs.蔡英文的最後一哩
2015-01-21 02:02:01 聯合報 社論
朱立倫出任國民黨主席第一天，沒有太戲劇化的演出，倒也不慍不火地傳達了一個中生代政黨領導人的新想法與新作法。雖被譏為「最弱的黨主席」，朱立倫黨主席的第一哩路起手式堪稱明快；至於他能否有效解決馬英九與王金平之間的歧見，今天的中常會便見分曉。
朱立倫上任首日，發布了幾項值得注意的人事與新政：第一，延攬賴士葆、黃昭順、盧秀燕出任黨職，讓黨可扮演內閣與國會間的溝通角色；第二，七名副主席僅保留郝龍斌、黃敏惠兩人專任，拋開原來一群人排排坐的形式主義；第三，取消馬英九創設的「中山會報」，讓黨的決策中心重回中常會；第四，黨內幹部作了小幅改組，李四川由行政院祕書長出任黨祕書長，借重其協調資歷及親信關係。
這些布局，一則具有「去儀式化」作用（如副主席席位的減少及中山會報停開），使黨的中常會具有更多實質決策作用；二則強化黨中央在行政和立法之間的協調及轉承角色（如立委出任黨副祕書長），改善內閣決策屢遭執政黨立委掣肘的結構問題；三則為「最弱黨主席」找到自己的槓桿作用點，在內閣與國會之間協助平衡、協調。俟這些上層架構大致完成後，朱立倫對黨機器戰鬥力不足、思維老舊的問題，未來恐怕還要加一把勁，延攬更多人才加入黨中央，才能展開一番新局。
上述改變，是不是能解讀為朱立倫意圖「以黨領政」，恐怕言之過早。事實上，正當國民黨陷入政權在握卻左右碰壁、令出不行之際，當前最重要的，是要舉黨上下一心重新找回黨的能量和熱力，而不是在那裡奢談誰領導誰。簡言之，如果沒有馬總統，國民黨今天不會有中央的執政權，也就不會有國會的王金平院長，在立法院也將任人宰割；然而，也正因為國民黨執政大權在握卻無法有效執政爭取民心，才會有去年底的慘敗，才會有如今的黨主席的交接。現在，國民黨面對的挑戰，是如何共同把政權造福百姓的效益發揮到最大，以挽回失去的民意，而不是在那裡區分誰才是老大、誰該聽誰的命令。
近兩年，外界看待二○一六年的總統大選，許多人原預料應該是蔡英文與朱立倫的「英倫對決」之局；誰料，九合一選舉結果，狠狠打破了這個想像。當蔡英文只剩下她「最後一哩」的衝刺，朱立倫卻因為形勢羈絆，至今只跨出他的「第一哩」；兩人之間，像烏龜和兔子的賽跑，遠遠拉開了距離。這也是朱立倫宣布不選二○一六的主因。
然而，不管朱立倫選或不選，國民黨都不可能放棄此役。對馬總統而言，如果二○一六無法保住政權，那將代表著他八年執政的失敗，他的歷史定位勢將難堪。也因此，馬英九在他任期的最後一年多，應該以全力追求黨的再興為務，勇敢接受改變，並放手讓新主席發揮能量，共同把黨的光榮找回來。
不可諱言，朱立倫能否扮演好黨主席角色，他和馬英九關係的良窳是一大關鍵。從朱立倫這波布局來看，顯然馬總統選擇放手讓他去做，並未介入或干預。這樣的氣度，就需要朱立倫適度的「尊重」，來維持雙方的君子關係。至少，每周一在總統府召集的高層黨政會報，朱立倫應儘可能出席，除保持「尊馬」的禮貌，也是保持黨政交流的通暢。國民黨的敗績，主要即肇因於決策思維的封閉；如果大家能敞開心胸，為全民利益著想，眾人的智慧豈有不勝過一小撮人的道理，又何必認為馬、朱將形成「兩個黨中央」？
朱立倫今天的第一個中常會，已有近卅名中常委連署要求撤銷對王金平黨籍案的告訴；他將如何處理這項提案，正是觀察朱立倫領導風格的切入點。根據目前多數中常委的意向，會中決議撤銷的機會極大，朱立倫其實不難順水推舟，幫國民黨了卻這一樁公案；但重要的是，在輕騎過關之餘，他將用什麼說詞解釋這項決定，那才是顯示他領導高度的指標。
朱立倫跨出主席的第一步，談不上大刀闊斧或姿態驚人，卻是簡潔明快，無需多言。然而，比起蔡英文已走到艱險的最後一哩，他的第一哩路看似輕鬆，接下來的路卻是漫長無比。
Monday, January 19, 2015
Stop Refuting Opponents, Start Solving Problems
Stop Refuting Opponents, Start Solving Problems
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 20, 2015
Executive Summary: Taiwan's political culture is highly polarized. This helps ensure oversight and avoid corruption. But it also leads to hard-line policies, volatility, and public works being shelved or delayed. This is how it is following the nine in one elections. Many newly elected leaders are throwing out works projects and governance plans begun by previous administrations, merely to demonstrate that “There's a new sheriff in town.” We would like to remind them that refuting opponents without solving problems hardly qualifies as progress.
Full Text Below;
Taiwan's political culture is highly polarized. This helps ensure oversight and avoid corruption. But it also leads to hard-line policies, volatility, and public works being shelved or delayed. This is how it is following the nine in one elections. Many newly elected leaders are throwing out works projects and governance plans begun by previous administrations, merely to demonstrate that “There's a new sheriff in town.” We would like to remind them that refuting opponents without solving problems hardly qualifies as progress.
For example, over the past few days Wen-Je Ko has blasted several Taipei City BOT projects. They include the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park. Ko accused the Fubon Group of "leaving a negative public perception." They include the Taipei Dome. Ko accused the Far Glory Group of "lawlessness." They include the Taipei Chiu Yeh Construction Project. Ko accused the Hon Hai Group of "selling too low." Some consortia have indeed been unscrupulous and mercenary. Someone should blow the whistle on them. Whoever does will deserve public applause. But these projects involve public works. The city government is the primary client. It has access to all the information. Wen-Je Ko should review these cases carefully, then seeks solutions. The city government can impose fines or sanctions. It can ensure a project free of defects. But Ko must not abuse his authority by defaming others.
When Wen-Je Ko throws temper tantrums, some consortia are afraid to confront him directly. They avert their eyes and chalk up their plight to bad luck. But if nothing changes once the tantrum is over, then it was “all for show.” What good is that? When Ko runs into an entrepreneur such as Terry Gou, who is refuses to take insuts lying down, he can expect a powerful backlash. Guo demanded that Wen-Je Ko take back his allegations within 48 hours. Alas, such verbal volleys will not tell us who was right and who was wrong. They will only increase social anxiety.
Wen-Je Ko removed the Zhong Xiao West Raod bus lanes. He demolished the Kunyang Bridge. He resolved the health care debt repayment problem. These moves demonstrated his courage. They merit public approval. But policy includes both long-term and short-term policy. Policy implementation includes eliminating defects and providing benefits. Short-term policy and eliminating defects alone are not enough. One must formulate both long-term policies and provide benefits. Only that will create real value for Taipei. Take the Shetzu Island development plan, for example. Does one wish to adopt the "Manhattan model" or the "Amsterdam model"? Either way, an accurate assessment must be made. One cannot simply proceed according to one's first impressions, sweeping aside any and all previous plans. In any event, Wen-Je Ko must admit that many municipal issues are complex and require knowledge and experience far beyond that of a physician, Ko must remain humble and learn from others.
Speaking of political obstructionism, the DPP has long shined. Take the STA and Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations for example. As a result of Green Camp obstructionism, they have remained stalled in the legislature for over a year. They have neither been reviewed nor voted on. Must we wait until the DPP is in power before it can be passed? Another example is fiscal improvements to the high-speed rail system. The Democratic Progressive Party opposes the Ministry of Transportation's plans. It blindly obstructs passage, but cannot offer a better alternative. Once the Department of Transportation abandoned its fiscal reform program however, and adopted a "take-over" approach, the DPP suddenly did an about face and obstructed the amendment affecting participation and awards. It refused to allow the government to take over the high-speed rail system. Such an opposition party need not consider or offer solutions. All it has to do is sit there, shake its head and say "No!” All it has to do is obstruct every proposal its opponent makes. Yet lo and behold, it is rewarded handsomely for doing so by the public come election day. When politics has degenerated to this level, what hope is there for Taiwan?
Admittedly, the contracts for the Taipei Cultural and Creative Park, or the Farglory Taipei Dome BOT project, should have been reviewed more carefully before they were signed. All sorts of complications may now arise. The impression is that the city government was "taken advantage of" or that "the consortia got sweetheart deals." If Wen-Je Ko is truly sharp, he will uncover the other side's pressure points, and enable the city government to impose fines and right wrongs. Ko should make the “unequal treaties” public, ensuring that future generations will not repeat the same mistakes. That is what he should do, rather than invoke "conspiracy theories" to tar everyone with the same broad brush, to treat all officials as corrupt, and to repudiate earnest efforts by other business owners.
The degree to which Taiwan has regressed over the past 20 years is shocking. GDP has fallen. Youth unemployment has risen. Educational quality has fallen. Even more seriously, the government has almost no ability to establish consensus. Long-term and large-scale construction plans remain frozen. People are bewildered and concerned about the nation's future. Their greatest disappointment is ruling and opposition party politicians who constantly engage in mutual recriminations, whose goal never seems to be problem solving. These politicians compete to refute each other in order to enhance their own prestige. This sort of refutation of opponents may feel good in the short term. It may enable one to vent one's spleen. But it will help society progress.
If Taiwan is not to become a mentally challenged society, people must demand that politicians think. They must refuse to take no for an answer. Voters must ask the politicians, "Do you have a better solution?" and "Why is it better?" They must force them to think things through. Politicians must cease refuting their opponents and start solving problems. Only then can Taiwan progress, both politically and economically.
Does Professor Ko's election victory count as a breakthrough or a retrogression? Ma Ying-jeou must give Eric Chu a helping hand.
期待「否決模式」向「解決模式」進化
2015-01-20 01:24:40 聯合報 社論
台灣政治具有很強的對立文化，這一方面具有監督作用，可以避免腐化；另一方面卻也導致施政的窒礙難行及反覆不定，計畫動輒擱置延宕。九合一選後的局勢便是如此，不少新任首長不斷推翻前任的建設和施政計畫，以示自己的「新政」作風。我們要提醒的是，如果只有「否決」，而不能提出「解決」，其實沒有進步的意義。
舉例而言，柯文哲連日來針對台北市多項ＢＯＴ案力槓財團，包括就松山文創園區責備富邦集團「社會觀感不佳」，為大巨蛋建案怒罵遠雄集團「無法無天」，並痛批由鴻海集團承包的台北秋葉原建案「賣得太便宜」云云。有些財團唯利是圖不擇手段，不妨鳴鼓而攻之，也能贏得民眾掌聲。然而，這些案件均涉及公共建設，市府是計畫的主要當事人，掌握有全部的資料；柯文哲應該逐案檢視，就其中問題找出解決之道，或加重罰責，或從市政權責中找出制裁之道，使計畫更臻完美，而不能只是憑著權威任意貶損他人。
柯文哲正值盛氣凌人之際，有些財團不敢直接和他對槓，只能摸摸鼻子，自認倒楣了事。但怒罵一通之後，如果一切都沒改變，終歸是作秀及發洩罷了，於事無補。而碰上郭台銘這種不願忍氣吞聲的企業家，大張旗鼓反擊，要柯文哲四十八小時內還他清白；如此相互叫陣，而其間是非黑白依舊不明，除了徒然擾亂社會人心，又有何用？
柯文哲拆忠孝西路公車專用道、拆除昆陽陸橋、償還若干健保欠款，都顯示他的魄力，贏得市民叫好。然而政策有長期／短期之分，施政有除弊／興利之別，只做短期或只會除弊，其實都不夠；要有長期的興利作為，才能為台北市創造真正的價值。以社子島的開發為例，不論要選擇「曼哈頓模式」或「阿姆斯特丹模式」，都必須提出可靠的評估，而不是憑自己的第一印象率爾全盤否決前人計畫。無論如何，柯文哲必須承認，許多市政議題的專業度和複雜度遠超乎其醫師的知識及經驗範疇，他必須虛心學習。
談到政治上的杯葛，民進黨更是此中翹楚。以《兩岸服貿協議》與《兩岸協議監督條例》為例，由於綠營的抵制，在立法院已經躺了一年多，既不審理，也不表決；難道是要等到民進黨執政，才肯放它過關？再如高鐵的財務改善案，民進黨反對交通部的計畫，自己卻又提不出更佳的解決途徑，只是一味杯葛；俟交通部放棄財改方案打算改走「接管」一途，民進黨卻又去阻擋獎參條例的修法，不許政府接管高鐵。像這樣的反對黨，不必動腦出任何主意，只需坐在那裡搖頭說「不」，擋住對手的每一條路，居然也在選舉中大獲人民的選票獎勵；政治落到如此簡單、弱智的地步，台灣怎麼有進步的希望？
不可否認，台北文創園區或遠雄巨蛋的ＢＯＴ可能都因當初簽約不夠謹慎，才會留下各種後遺症，讓外界覺得市府「吃了虧」或「圖利財團」。柯文哲如果厲害，應該設法抓住對方要害，設法在權利金或罰款上扳回一城，或者將不平等條約之癥結公諸社會，讓後人不致重蹈覆轍，那才是高明的解決。而不是利用「陰謀論」一竿子打翻一船人，把所有官員都當成貪庸之輩，並抹殺企業經營者在其間付出的努力。
台灣近廿年來的倒退，已到了令人驚心的地步。除了國民所得降低、年輕族群失業率高、教育品質下滑外，更嚴重的是，政府幾乎沒有凝聚共識的能力，長期及大型的建設規劃完全停滯，人民對國家前途感到迷茫失措。最令人失望的是，朝野政治人物每天在那裡叫陣互鬥，從來不是以「解決問題」為目標，而是競以「相互否決」為手段，目的只在彰顯自己的聲威。這種「否決模式」，也許能逞一時之快，也許能抒心頭之怒，卻不可能為社會帶來進步的推力。
台灣如果不想淪為弱智社會，民眾必須鞭策政治人物思考，大家拒絕接受「不」作為答案。選民要追問政治人物：「你有什麼更好方案？」「你的理由是什麼？」這樣才能逼他們把問題想清楚。政治人物只有從「否定模式」向「解決模式」進化，台灣的政治與經濟才有進化的可能。
柯Ｐ是突破口或倒退點 馬應以餘力為朱加把勁
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 20, 2015
Executive Summary: Taiwan's political culture is highly polarized. This helps ensure oversight and avoid corruption. But it also leads to hard-line policies, volatility, and public works being shelved or delayed. This is how it is following the nine in one elections. Many newly elected leaders are throwing out works projects and governance plans begun by previous administrations, merely to demonstrate that “There's a new sheriff in town.” We would like to remind them that refuting opponents without solving problems hardly qualifies as progress.
Full Text Below;
Taiwan's political culture is highly polarized. This helps ensure oversight and avoid corruption. But it also leads to hard-line policies, volatility, and public works being shelved or delayed. This is how it is following the nine in one elections. Many newly elected leaders are throwing out works projects and governance plans begun by previous administrations, merely to demonstrate that “There's a new sheriff in town.” We would like to remind them that refuting opponents without solving problems hardly qualifies as progress.
For example, over the past few days Wen-Je Ko has blasted several Taipei City BOT projects. They include the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park. Ko accused the Fubon Group of "leaving a negative public perception." They include the Taipei Dome. Ko accused the Far Glory Group of "lawlessness." They include the Taipei Chiu Yeh Construction Project. Ko accused the Hon Hai Group of "selling too low." Some consortia have indeed been unscrupulous and mercenary. Someone should blow the whistle on them. Whoever does will deserve public applause. But these projects involve public works. The city government is the primary client. It has access to all the information. Wen-Je Ko should review these cases carefully, then seeks solutions. The city government can impose fines or sanctions. It can ensure a project free of defects. But Ko must not abuse his authority by defaming others.
When Wen-Je Ko throws temper tantrums, some consortia are afraid to confront him directly. They avert their eyes and chalk up their plight to bad luck. But if nothing changes once the tantrum is over, then it was “all for show.” What good is that? When Ko runs into an entrepreneur such as Terry Gou, who is refuses to take insuts lying down, he can expect a powerful backlash. Guo demanded that Wen-Je Ko take back his allegations within 48 hours. Alas, such verbal volleys will not tell us who was right and who was wrong. They will only increase social anxiety.
Wen-Je Ko removed the Zhong Xiao West Raod bus lanes. He demolished the Kunyang Bridge. He resolved the health care debt repayment problem. These moves demonstrated his courage. They merit public approval. But policy includes both long-term and short-term policy. Policy implementation includes eliminating defects and providing benefits. Short-term policy and eliminating defects alone are not enough. One must formulate both long-term policies and provide benefits. Only that will create real value for Taipei. Take the Shetzu Island development plan, for example. Does one wish to adopt the "Manhattan model" or the "Amsterdam model"? Either way, an accurate assessment must be made. One cannot simply proceed according to one's first impressions, sweeping aside any and all previous plans. In any event, Wen-Je Ko must admit that many municipal issues are complex and require knowledge and experience far beyond that of a physician, Ko must remain humble and learn from others.
Speaking of political obstructionism, the DPP has long shined. Take the STA and Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations for example. As a result of Green Camp obstructionism, they have remained stalled in the legislature for over a year. They have neither been reviewed nor voted on. Must we wait until the DPP is in power before it can be passed? Another example is fiscal improvements to the high-speed rail system. The Democratic Progressive Party opposes the Ministry of Transportation's plans. It blindly obstructs passage, but cannot offer a better alternative. Once the Department of Transportation abandoned its fiscal reform program however, and adopted a "take-over" approach, the DPP suddenly did an about face and obstructed the amendment affecting participation and awards. It refused to allow the government to take over the high-speed rail system. Such an opposition party need not consider or offer solutions. All it has to do is sit there, shake its head and say "No!” All it has to do is obstruct every proposal its opponent makes. Yet lo and behold, it is rewarded handsomely for doing so by the public come election day. When politics has degenerated to this level, what hope is there for Taiwan?
Admittedly, the contracts for the Taipei Cultural and Creative Park, or the Farglory Taipei Dome BOT project, should have been reviewed more carefully before they were signed. All sorts of complications may now arise. The impression is that the city government was "taken advantage of" or that "the consortia got sweetheart deals." If Wen-Je Ko is truly sharp, he will uncover the other side's pressure points, and enable the city government to impose fines and right wrongs. Ko should make the “unequal treaties” public, ensuring that future generations will not repeat the same mistakes. That is what he should do, rather than invoke "conspiracy theories" to tar everyone with the same broad brush, to treat all officials as corrupt, and to repudiate earnest efforts by other business owners.
The degree to which Taiwan has regressed over the past 20 years is shocking. GDP has fallen. Youth unemployment has risen. Educational quality has fallen. Even more seriously, the government has almost no ability to establish consensus. Long-term and large-scale construction plans remain frozen. People are bewildered and concerned about the nation's future. Their greatest disappointment is ruling and opposition party politicians who constantly engage in mutual recriminations, whose goal never seems to be problem solving. These politicians compete to refute each other in order to enhance their own prestige. This sort of refutation of opponents may feel good in the short term. It may enable one to vent one's spleen. But it will help society progress.
If Taiwan is not to become a mentally challenged society, people must demand that politicians think. They must refuse to take no for an answer. Voters must ask the politicians, "Do you have a better solution?" and "Why is it better?" They must force them to think things through. Politicians must cease refuting their opponents and start solving problems. Only then can Taiwan progress, both politically and economically.
Does Professor Ko's election victory count as a breakthrough or a retrogression? Ma Ying-jeou must give Eric Chu a helping hand.
期待「否決模式」向「解決模式」進化
2015-01-20 01:24:40 聯合報 社論
台灣政治具有很強的對立文化，這一方面具有監督作用，可以避免腐化；另一方面卻也導致施政的窒礙難行及反覆不定，計畫動輒擱置延宕。九合一選後的局勢便是如此，不少新任首長不斷推翻前任的建設和施政計畫，以示自己的「新政」作風。我們要提醒的是，如果只有「否決」，而不能提出「解決」，其實沒有進步的意義。
舉例而言，柯文哲連日來針對台北市多項ＢＯＴ案力槓財團，包括就松山文創園區責備富邦集團「社會觀感不佳」，為大巨蛋建案怒罵遠雄集團「無法無天」，並痛批由鴻海集團承包的台北秋葉原建案「賣得太便宜」云云。有些財團唯利是圖不擇手段，不妨鳴鼓而攻之，也能贏得民眾掌聲。然而，這些案件均涉及公共建設，市府是計畫的主要當事人，掌握有全部的資料；柯文哲應該逐案檢視，就其中問題找出解決之道，或加重罰責，或從市政權責中找出制裁之道，使計畫更臻完美，而不能只是憑著權威任意貶損他人。
柯文哲正值盛氣凌人之際，有些財團不敢直接和他對槓，只能摸摸鼻子，自認倒楣了事。但怒罵一通之後，如果一切都沒改變，終歸是作秀及發洩罷了，於事無補。而碰上郭台銘這種不願忍氣吞聲的企業家，大張旗鼓反擊，要柯文哲四十八小時內還他清白；如此相互叫陣，而其間是非黑白依舊不明，除了徒然擾亂社會人心，又有何用？
柯文哲拆忠孝西路公車專用道、拆除昆陽陸橋、償還若干健保欠款，都顯示他的魄力，贏得市民叫好。然而政策有長期／短期之分，施政有除弊／興利之別，只做短期或只會除弊，其實都不夠；要有長期的興利作為，才能為台北市創造真正的價值。以社子島的開發為例，不論要選擇「曼哈頓模式」或「阿姆斯特丹模式」，都必須提出可靠的評估，而不是憑自己的第一印象率爾全盤否決前人計畫。無論如何，柯文哲必須承認，許多市政議題的專業度和複雜度遠超乎其醫師的知識及經驗範疇，他必須虛心學習。
談到政治上的杯葛，民進黨更是此中翹楚。以《兩岸服貿協議》與《兩岸協議監督條例》為例，由於綠營的抵制，在立法院已經躺了一年多，既不審理，也不表決；難道是要等到民進黨執政，才肯放它過關？再如高鐵的財務改善案，民進黨反對交通部的計畫，自己卻又提不出更佳的解決途徑，只是一味杯葛；俟交通部放棄財改方案打算改走「接管」一途，民進黨卻又去阻擋獎參條例的修法，不許政府接管高鐵。像這樣的反對黨，不必動腦出任何主意，只需坐在那裡搖頭說「不」，擋住對手的每一條路，居然也在選舉中大獲人民的選票獎勵；政治落到如此簡單、弱智的地步，台灣怎麼有進步的希望？
不可否認，台北文創園區或遠雄巨蛋的ＢＯＴ可能都因當初簽約不夠謹慎，才會留下各種後遺症，讓外界覺得市府「吃了虧」或「圖利財團」。柯文哲如果厲害，應該設法抓住對方要害，設法在權利金或罰款上扳回一城，或者將不平等條約之癥結公諸社會，讓後人不致重蹈覆轍，那才是高明的解決。而不是利用「陰謀論」一竿子打翻一船人，把所有官員都當成貪庸之輩，並抹殺企業經營者在其間付出的努力。
台灣近廿年來的倒退，已到了令人驚心的地步。除了國民所得降低、年輕族群失業率高、教育品質下滑外，更嚴重的是，政府幾乎沒有凝聚共識的能力，長期及大型的建設規劃完全停滯，人民對國家前途感到迷茫失措。最令人失望的是，朝野政治人物每天在那裡叫陣互鬥，從來不是以「解決問題」為目標，而是競以「相互否決」為手段，目的只在彰顯自己的聲威。這種「否決模式」，也許能逞一時之快，也許能抒心頭之怒，卻不可能為社會帶來進步的推力。
台灣如果不想淪為弱智社會，民眾必須鞭策政治人物思考，大家拒絕接受「不」作為答案。選民要追問政治人物：「你有什麼更好方案？」「你的理由是什麼？」這樣才能逼他們把問題想清楚。政治人物只有從「否定模式」向「解決模式」進化，台灣的政治與經濟才有進化的可能。
柯Ｐ是突破口或倒退點 馬應以餘力為朱加把勁
Sunday, January 18, 2015
DPP: Beware Disintegration of Cross-Strait Peace Framework
DPP: Beware Disintegration of Cross-Strait Peace Framework
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 19, 2015
Executive Summary: If the DPP returns to power, but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. That in turn will cause the ruling Democratic Progressive Party regime to disintegrate. The DPP must prevent this prospect from materializing. That is the final mile the DPP must negotiate on the road to the ROC Presidency.
Full Text Below:
Tung Chen-yuan, MAC Vice Chairman during the Chen Shui-bian era, has warned the DPP that in the event it returns to power, it must change its cross-Strait policy. If it refuses to do so, the framework for cross-Strait peace established by General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Jintao a decade ago may well disintegrate.
Over the past year, Tung Chen-yuan has repeatedly called on the DPP to tackle cross-Strait policy reform. He has urged the DPP to author a "Resolution on the Republic of China”. He has called for a petition to "freeze the Taiwan independence party platform". In the past, he was tactful. His language was reserved. But this time his language was blunt. He said that the DPP must confront the issue, head on. He warned that “the cross-Strait peace framework is in danger of disintegration".
When Tung Chen-yuan advocates freezing the Taiwan independence party platform, he is being constructive. He is urging the DPP to do the right thing. Even Ker Chien-ming has advocated freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. Tung's recommendation has been ignored. This time however, he warned that if the DPP refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the repercussions will be catastrophic. He said the DPP must face the possibility of cross-Strait peace framework disintegration head on.
Tsai Ing-wen, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council during the Chen Shui-bian era, insists that if the DPP does well during the election, "Even [Mainland] China will accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party". What she meant was that the DPP need not change, because Beijing will change to accommodate the DPP. Tung Chen-yuan however says the DPP must change. Otherwise Beijing will also change. But it will not change to accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party. Rather it will change in a manner that results in the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework.
Tsai Ing-wen and Tung Chen-yuan offer very different scenarios for cross-Strait relations in the event DPP returns to power. Tsai assumes that Beijing will swallow its pride and accommodate the DPP. Tung believes that DPP failure to change its cross-Strait policy will lead to the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework. In our view, Tsai Ing-wen should heed Tung Chen-yuan's warnings. She must not bury her head in the sand. That will only bring incalculable disaster upon Taiwan.
Tsai Ing-wen must offer reasons why she thinks “[Mainland] China will accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party." If the DPP repudiates the 1992 consensus and affirms the Taiwan independence party platform, will Beijing in fact accommodate the DPP? What if Beijing refuses to do as Tsai predicts, “accommodate the DPP”? Won't this lead to the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework that Tung Chen-yuan has warned about?
There are too many signs that Beijing will not accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party in the event it returns to power but refuses to change. Consider one example. Observers on both sides of the Strait have been closely following the first annual ministerial level "China - Latin America and Caribbean Community” or CARICOM, which recently convened in Beijing. Twelve ROC diplomatic allies in the region sent ministers to the summit. Panama proposed that the summit be upgraded to a heads of state level event. Mainland scholars have warned the DPP that if it returns to power but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait diplomatic truce will disintegrate. If so, the cross-Strait diplomatic war in Central and South America may well resume. If that happens, the dominoes will fall in swift succession. The psychological and practical impact on Taiwan society would be massive, and could cause the collapse of the new DPP regime. If ECFA is impacted, if cross-Strait flights are reduced in numbers, if Taiwan pineapple cakes become unmarketable, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party government will not be able to withstand the impact.
Even if the DPP wins in 2016 and returns to power, Beijing will never do as Tsai Ing-wen suggests, and "accommodate the DPP". Most likely it will do what Tung Chen-yuan warned against. If the DPP does not change, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. The result will be the disintegration of the ruling DPP regime. As such, the DPP should probably adopt a pragmatic cross-Strait policy before it returns to power. It should seize the initiative. It should not give anyone leverage over it. It should not give Beijing any excuse to nullify the cross-Strait peace framework.
The nine in one elections showed that Taiwan has political alternatives besides blue and green. The DPP should turn the 2016 general election into an event that transcends blue or green. It should turn party reform into a cross-Strait policy platform. More importantly, once it has returned to power, it must not precipitate the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework. Current indications are that the Chen Shui-bian faction's “one nation on on each side” ideology will prevail. The Sunflower Student Movement threat will rear its ugly head. Wen-Je Ko will continue to repudiate the 1992 consensus. Yao Hsi and other Taiwan independence elements will demand a bigger piece of the political pie. These constraints are all factors standing in the way of Democratic Progressive Party reform. That said, the DPP still has Ker Chien-ming, who advocates freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. It still has Frank Hsieh, who advocates a constitutional consensus. It still has Julian Kuo, who frets about the big picture and party reform. The community still has Tung Chen-yuan and his generation of reform advocates. The DPP can use them as leverage to prevent Taiwan independence fringe elements within the Democratic Progressive Party from wagging the dog. It must take advantage of public expectations to prevent Taiwan independence elements within the DPP from obstructing party reform.
If the DPP returns to power, but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. That in turn will cause the ruling Democratic Progressive Party regime to disintegrate. The DPP must prevent this prospect from materializing. That is the final mile the DPP must negotiate on the road to the ROC Presidency.
民進黨必須正視兩岸和平框架崩解的警告
2015-01-19 聯合報
民進黨扁政府時代的陸委會副主委童振源指出，民進黨一旦執政卻不調整兩岸政策，由中共前總書記胡錦濤執政十年建立的兩岸和平框架，將面臨崩解危機。
一年多來，童振源持續呼籲民進黨正視兩岸政策轉型的課題。他曾主張民進黨另議《中華民國決議文》，且曾連署「凍結台獨黨綱」的提案。唯均言辭委婉，語多保留。但此次他說得直白，直接發出民進黨必須面對「兩岸和平框架崩解」的警告。
童振源主張凍結台獨黨綱，這是從正面主張民進黨應當做的事；其實，柯建銘也曾主張凍結台獨黨綱。但童的這類正面主張未獲回應，他此次卻是從民進黨若不調整兩岸政策的負面效應提出警告。他說，民進黨必須正視兩岸和平框架將面臨崩解危機。
曾任扁政府陸委會主委的蔡英文說，如果民進黨選舉選得好，「連中國都會朝民進黨的方向來調整」；此意是指，民進黨不必調整，北京會「朝民進黨的方向」來調整。但童振源卻指出，民進黨必須調整，否則北京也會「調整」，卻不是「朝民進黨的方向」來調整，而是將使「兩岸和平框架崩解」。
對於民進黨一旦重返執政後的兩岸關係，蔡英文與童振源的不同說法，代表了兩種不同想像。蔡認為，北京會吞下去，然後「朝民進黨的方向調整」；童則認為，民進黨若不調整兩岸政策，其效應將是「兩岸和平框架崩解」。我們認為，蔡英文應正視童振源的警告，不要蓋頭鰻不知生死門，為台灣帶來莫測的災禍。
蔡英文必須拿出其所謂「中國會朝民進黨的方向調整」的根據所在。若民進黨的「方向」是「否定九二共識／維持台獨黨綱」，難道屆時北京也會「朝民進黨的方向調整」？萬一北京不肯如蔡英文說「朝民進黨的方向調整」，則有無可能就導致如童振源所說的「兩岸和平框架崩解」？
已有太多的跡象顯示北京可能如何面對民進黨的一旦再執政與不調整，僅舉一例。兩岸問題觀察者，對最近在北京舉行的「中國—拉丁美洲與加勒比海共同體（拉共體）」首屆部長級會議均予高度關注。這次會議，中華民國在此區域的十二個邦交國均派部長級官員參加，其中巴拿馬並主張將此會升高為元首級高峰會。已有大陸學者警告，若民進黨再執政而不調整兩岸政策，兩岸的「外交休兵」將失憑據；則屆時若在中南美洲再現兩岸「烽火外交」的境況，當非不可想像。到時候萬一發生急遽的骨牌效應，這對台灣社會的心理衝擊與實質影響，皆可能對若重返執政的民進黨政府發生「政權崩解」的嚴重效應。至於因此若使ＥＣＦＡ體系發生動搖，兩岸航班減量、台灣鳳梨酥滯銷，在在皆將是再執政的民進黨政府無可承受之重。
民進黨即使贏得二○一六大選再度執政，北京亦絕無可能如蔡英文所說「朝民進黨的方向調整」，而極可能如童振源所警告的「民進黨不調整，將面臨兩岸和平框架的崩解」，其結果甚至將導致民進黨再執政之政府的「政權崩解」。因此，民進黨應當在可能重返執政之前，務實地完成兩岸政策轉型的工程，操持主動地位，不能授人以柄，亦即不要留給北京任何導致「兩岸和平框架崩解」的藉口。
九合一選舉顯示，台灣的政治競合其實存有超越藍綠的可能性。民進黨應將二○一六大選營造成一場超越藍綠的工程，將之做為兩岸政策轉型的平台；更必須避免一旦再執政，卻造成「兩岸和平框架崩解」的惡果。跡象顯示，陳水扁一邊一國勢力可能看漲、太陽花公民組合的威脅可能形成、柯文哲持續否定九二共識，及妖西等新獨派要求分食政治大餅的姿態可能升高，這些皆是民進黨轉型的掣肘因素。但民進黨內仍有如柯建銘凍獨、謝長廷憲法共識及郭正亮關注大局等轉型派，而社會上也有童振源這輩傾向民進黨的轉型鼓吹者，此皆民進黨可以運用的槓桿。民進黨勿使少數的激進獨派形成「尾巴搖狗」的局面，而應善用黨內及社會上期待民進黨轉型的民意去擺脫獨派扯後腿。
民進黨若再執政卻不在兩岸政策轉型，勢將導致「兩岸和平框架崩解」，亦將同時造成「民進黨再執政的政權崩解」。如何勿使這個警告不幸而言中，才是民進黨的「最後一哩路」。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 19, 2015
Executive Summary: If the DPP returns to power, but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. That in turn will cause the ruling Democratic Progressive Party regime to disintegrate. The DPP must prevent this prospect from materializing. That is the final mile the DPP must negotiate on the road to the ROC Presidency.
Full Text Below:
Tung Chen-yuan, MAC Vice Chairman during the Chen Shui-bian era, has warned the DPP that in the event it returns to power, it must change its cross-Strait policy. If it refuses to do so, the framework for cross-Strait peace established by General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Hu Jintao a decade ago may well disintegrate.
Over the past year, Tung Chen-yuan has repeatedly called on the DPP to tackle cross-Strait policy reform. He has urged the DPP to author a "Resolution on the Republic of China”. He has called for a petition to "freeze the Taiwan independence party platform". In the past, he was tactful. His language was reserved. But this time his language was blunt. He said that the DPP must confront the issue, head on. He warned that “the cross-Strait peace framework is in danger of disintegration".
When Tung Chen-yuan advocates freezing the Taiwan independence party platform, he is being constructive. He is urging the DPP to do the right thing. Even Ker Chien-ming has advocated freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. Tung's recommendation has been ignored. This time however, he warned that if the DPP refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the repercussions will be catastrophic. He said the DPP must face the possibility of cross-Strait peace framework disintegration head on.
Tsai Ing-wen, Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council during the Chen Shui-bian era, insists that if the DPP does well during the election, "Even [Mainland] China will accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party". What she meant was that the DPP need not change, because Beijing will change to accommodate the DPP. Tung Chen-yuan however says the DPP must change. Otherwise Beijing will also change. But it will not change to accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party. Rather it will change in a manner that results in the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework.
Tsai Ing-wen and Tung Chen-yuan offer very different scenarios for cross-Strait relations in the event DPP returns to power. Tsai assumes that Beijing will swallow its pride and accommodate the DPP. Tung believes that DPP failure to change its cross-Strait policy will lead to the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework. In our view, Tsai Ing-wen should heed Tung Chen-yuan's warnings. She must not bury her head in the sand. That will only bring incalculable disaster upon Taiwan.
Tsai Ing-wen must offer reasons why she thinks “[Mainland] China will accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party." If the DPP repudiates the 1992 consensus and affirms the Taiwan independence party platform, will Beijing in fact accommodate the DPP? What if Beijing refuses to do as Tsai predicts, “accommodate the DPP”? Won't this lead to the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework that Tung Chen-yuan has warned about?
There are too many signs that Beijing will not accommodate the Democratic Progressive Party in the event it returns to power but refuses to change. Consider one example. Observers on both sides of the Strait have been closely following the first annual ministerial level "China - Latin America and Caribbean Community” or CARICOM, which recently convened in Beijing. Twelve ROC diplomatic allies in the region sent ministers to the summit. Panama proposed that the summit be upgraded to a heads of state level event. Mainland scholars have warned the DPP that if it returns to power but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait diplomatic truce will disintegrate. If so, the cross-Strait diplomatic war in Central and South America may well resume. If that happens, the dominoes will fall in swift succession. The psychological and practical impact on Taiwan society would be massive, and could cause the collapse of the new DPP regime. If ECFA is impacted, if cross-Strait flights are reduced in numbers, if Taiwan pineapple cakes become unmarketable, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party government will not be able to withstand the impact.
Even if the DPP wins in 2016 and returns to power, Beijing will never do as Tsai Ing-wen suggests, and "accommodate the DPP". Most likely it will do what Tung Chen-yuan warned against. If the DPP does not change, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. The result will be the disintegration of the ruling DPP regime. As such, the DPP should probably adopt a pragmatic cross-Strait policy before it returns to power. It should seize the initiative. It should not give anyone leverage over it. It should not give Beijing any excuse to nullify the cross-Strait peace framework.
The nine in one elections showed that Taiwan has political alternatives besides blue and green. The DPP should turn the 2016 general election into an event that transcends blue or green. It should turn party reform into a cross-Strait policy platform. More importantly, once it has returned to power, it must not precipitate the disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework. Current indications are that the Chen Shui-bian faction's “one nation on on each side” ideology will prevail. The Sunflower Student Movement threat will rear its ugly head. Wen-Je Ko will continue to repudiate the 1992 consensus. Yao Hsi and other Taiwan independence elements will demand a bigger piece of the political pie. These constraints are all factors standing in the way of Democratic Progressive Party reform. That said, the DPP still has Ker Chien-ming, who advocates freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. It still has Frank Hsieh, who advocates a constitutional consensus. It still has Julian Kuo, who frets about the big picture and party reform. The community still has Tung Chen-yuan and his generation of reform advocates. The DPP can use them as leverage to prevent Taiwan independence fringe elements within the Democratic Progressive Party from wagging the dog. It must take advantage of public expectations to prevent Taiwan independence elements within the DPP from obstructing party reform.
If the DPP returns to power, but refuses to change its cross-Strait policy, the cross-Strait peace framework will disintegrate. That in turn will cause the ruling Democratic Progressive Party regime to disintegrate. The DPP must prevent this prospect from materializing. That is the final mile the DPP must negotiate on the road to the ROC Presidency.
民進黨必須正視兩岸和平框架崩解的警告
2015-01-19 聯合報
民進黨扁政府時代的陸委會副主委童振源指出，民進黨一旦執政卻不調整兩岸政策，由中共前總書記胡錦濤執政十年建立的兩岸和平框架，將面臨崩解危機。
一年多來，童振源持續呼籲民進黨正視兩岸政策轉型的課題。他曾主張民進黨另議《中華民國決議文》，且曾連署「凍結台獨黨綱」的提案。唯均言辭委婉，語多保留。但此次他說得直白，直接發出民進黨必須面對「兩岸和平框架崩解」的警告。
童振源主張凍結台獨黨綱，這是從正面主張民進黨應當做的事；其實，柯建銘也曾主張凍結台獨黨綱。但童的這類正面主張未獲回應，他此次卻是從民進黨若不調整兩岸政策的負面效應提出警告。他說，民進黨必須正視兩岸和平框架將面臨崩解危機。
曾任扁政府陸委會主委的蔡英文說，如果民進黨選舉選得好，「連中國都會朝民進黨的方向來調整」；此意是指，民進黨不必調整，北京會「朝民進黨的方向」來調整。但童振源卻指出，民進黨必須調整，否則北京也會「調整」，卻不是「朝民進黨的方向」來調整，而是將使「兩岸和平框架崩解」。
對於民進黨一旦重返執政後的兩岸關係，蔡英文與童振源的不同說法，代表了兩種不同想像。蔡認為，北京會吞下去，然後「朝民進黨的方向調整」；童則認為，民進黨若不調整兩岸政策，其效應將是「兩岸和平框架崩解」。我們認為，蔡英文應正視童振源的警告，不要蓋頭鰻不知生死門，為台灣帶來莫測的災禍。
蔡英文必須拿出其所謂「中國會朝民進黨的方向調整」的根據所在。若民進黨的「方向」是「否定九二共識／維持台獨黨綱」，難道屆時北京也會「朝民進黨的方向調整」？萬一北京不肯如蔡英文說「朝民進黨的方向調整」，則有無可能就導致如童振源所說的「兩岸和平框架崩解」？
已有太多的跡象顯示北京可能如何面對民進黨的一旦再執政與不調整，僅舉一例。兩岸問題觀察者，對最近在北京舉行的「中國—拉丁美洲與加勒比海共同體（拉共體）」首屆部長級會議均予高度關注。這次會議，中華民國在此區域的十二個邦交國均派部長級官員參加，其中巴拿馬並主張將此會升高為元首級高峰會。已有大陸學者警告，若民進黨再執政而不調整兩岸政策，兩岸的「外交休兵」將失憑據；則屆時若在中南美洲再現兩岸「烽火外交」的境況，當非不可想像。到時候萬一發生急遽的骨牌效應，這對台灣社會的心理衝擊與實質影響，皆可能對若重返執政的民進黨政府發生「政權崩解」的嚴重效應。至於因此若使ＥＣＦＡ體系發生動搖，兩岸航班減量、台灣鳳梨酥滯銷，在在皆將是再執政的民進黨政府無可承受之重。
民進黨即使贏得二○一六大選再度執政，北京亦絕無可能如蔡英文所說「朝民進黨的方向調整」，而極可能如童振源所警告的「民進黨不調整，將面臨兩岸和平框架的崩解」，其結果甚至將導致民進黨再執政之政府的「政權崩解」。因此，民進黨應當在可能重返執政之前，務實地完成兩岸政策轉型的工程，操持主動地位，不能授人以柄，亦即不要留給北京任何導致「兩岸和平框架崩解」的藉口。
九合一選舉顯示，台灣的政治競合其實存有超越藍綠的可能性。民進黨應將二○一六大選營造成一場超越藍綠的工程，將之做為兩岸政策轉型的平台；更必須避免一旦再執政，卻造成「兩岸和平框架崩解」的惡果。跡象顯示，陳水扁一邊一國勢力可能看漲、太陽花公民組合的威脅可能形成、柯文哲持續否定九二共識，及妖西等新獨派要求分食政治大餅的姿態可能升高，這些皆是民進黨轉型的掣肘因素。但民進黨內仍有如柯建銘凍獨、謝長廷憲法共識及郭正亮關注大局等轉型派，而社會上也有童振源這輩傾向民進黨的轉型鼓吹者，此皆民進黨可以運用的槓桿。民進黨勿使少數的激進獨派形成「尾巴搖狗」的局面，而應善用黨內及社會上期待民進黨轉型的民意去擺脫獨派扯後腿。
民進黨若再執政卻不在兩岸政策轉型，勢將導致「兩岸和平框架崩解」，亦將同時造成「民進黨再執政的政權崩解」。如何勿使這個警告不幸而言中，才是民進黨的「最後一哩路」。
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Authority and Authoritarianism: Leader, Boss, Tyrant
Authority and Authoritarianism: Leader, Boss, Tyrant
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 16, 2015
Executive Summary: A good mayor should be a leader, rather than a boss, and certainly not a tyrant. Good leaders attract talent, and do not treat them as slaves. Powerful bosses inspire so much fear no one is willing to work for them. Outstanding leaders inspire so much enthusiasm everyone with ability flocks to them. Which course should Ko adopt? That should not be a difficult decision.
Full Text Below;
Wen-Je Ko publicly excoriated Taipei Xinyi District Police Chief Li Teh-wei. Li responded by applying for early retirement. Wen-Je Ko gave Hsu Li-ming of the National Taiwan University Hospital a promotion, making him Taipei City Chief of Social Services. Ko then threw a temper tantrum and embarrassed him by scolding him in public. Ko abuses his authority. He demands that subordinates attend meetings at 7:30. He demands that they log any dinner engagements not with their families. He referred to Tsai Pi-ru as his "Flying Guillotine". Ko has revealed an autocratic leadership style. Wen-Je Ko will be around for the next four years. Everyone is concerned that he will only become even more insufferable over time.
Wen-Je Ko is a political novice. He feels unconstrained by conventional bureaucratic shackles. This may be exciting for those accustomed to sluggish bureaucracies. A political novice may indeed inject new life into such a system. But we must remind Mayor Ko that in an emergency room the objective is clear. The circumstances are straightforward. An authoritarian command structure may be necessary. But in a multi-faceted democracy, where people must work together, a different sort of leadership is needed.
The Li Teh-wei incident was especially striking. Not because Ko was concerned about Concentric Patriotism Association attacks on Falun Gong. It was striking because Ko publicly dressed down the precinct police chief. The mayor is the boss of the city police. He is also the boss of the Xinyi District Precinct Police Chief. He can of course make demands of his subordinates. But does he really need to humiliate them? After all, the work performed by the city government is far more complex than the work performed in the emergency room at National Taiwan University Hospital. The responsibilities are more complex. The division of labor is more delicate. The employees are more numerous. Within, one must deal with checks and balances from the city council. Without, one must deal with public oversight. On the periphery, one must deal with various interest groups and civic organizations. This is not something a mayor can handle by himself. Therefore the mayor of the capital city should not attempt to be a boss , but instead a leader. Wen-Je Ko must appreciate the difference between a boss and a leader.
Owner-managed transactions are usually simple. The goal is uncomplicated. All one need to is issue instructions, make assessments, and confirm the results. But leadership is not so simple, not so standardized. Being a leader is not a "one-man show." It means leading a team. It requires good morale and a fighting spirit. It requires initiative at all levels, the willingness to assume responsibility and work together to ensure success. It requires the ability to persuade people to work together like a well-oiled machine. That, of course, depends upon the leader's individual ability. But more than that, it depends upon his ability to inspire, delegate, support, and rally his subordinates behind a common cause. This leadership style has no name. In English it is called leadership. By contrast, a boss need not rely on style to mobilize subordinates. The English term “bossy” refers to a tyrannical manner.
A good leader need not have an IQ of 157. But he must not have an EQ lower than necessary. He must be able to persuade people with an IQ of 175 to join a team and work together. A good leader does not demand that his team adopt his own habit of meeting at 7:30. Instead, he respects individual differences. He makes use of each person's strengths. He requires members to meet with each other. When a good leader issues rewards and punishments, he does not dispatch his Flying Guillotine. He does not make his team worry about being humiliated in public. If Ko administration leaders are truly talented individuals, they will have high self-esteem, individual ability, and a solid record of achievements. Ko must show them respect. He cannot afford to cavalierly taunt them.
We do not want to say too much about the Xinyi District precinct police chief incident. But the qualifications for any office, invariably involve comparisons with other candidates with similar qualifications. If word gets around that the boss of a company requires that his vice president get down on his knees before him, then the only people who will apply for vice president, will be sycophants willing to humiliate themselves. Suppose a bureau chief must attend meetings every morning at half past seven, just like a resident physician? Suppose he must work with a Sword of Damocles dangling over his head? Suppose he must log in every dinner he attends? Suppose his decisions can be cavalierly swept aside by the mayor with a wave of his hand? Who then will still want to become a bureau chief? Probably only yes men with no sense of responsibility, self-confidence, or professional dignity. Can one expect such officials to exercise initiative, stay the course, develop the city, and tend to the well-being of the public?
Since Wen-Je Ko took office, he has made a number of encouraging decisions. They including swiftly disconnecting bus lanes on Zhong Xiao West Road, announcing the demolition of hundreds of bootlegged buildings within three months, removing lobbying webpages belonging to city councilmen from the web, protecting trees, and re-evaluating works projects. Some decisions may have been hasty. Some policies may be whimsical. But Mayor Ko appears well-intentioned. Unfortunately, his lack of respect for other people, his insufferable arrogance, and his haste to contradict others, reveal an authoritarian mentality that brooks no dissent. This is probably his greatest weakness as a democratic leader.
A good mayor should be a leader, rather than a boss, and certainly not a tyrant. Good leaders attract talent, and do not treat them as slaves. Powerful bosses inspire so much fear no one is willing to work for them. Outstanding leaders inspire so much enthusiasm everyone with ability flocks to them. Which course should Ko adopt? That should not be a difficult decision.
權威與威權：領袖、老闆、朕
2015-01-16 02:01:39 聯合報 社論
北市信義警分局長李德威遭柯文哲當眾訓斥後，於日前提早申請退休；柯文哲對待自己由台大醫院拔擢至市府的社會局長許立民同樣不假辭色，當眾變臉發飆，給他難堪。諸如此類的官威，包括要求同仁七點半開會、除家人以外的飯局要登錄、稱蔡璧如是他的「血滴子」等等，在在展現了他的強勢領導風格。柯文哲有四年任期，大家都在關注這樣的領導作風將如何發展。
柯文哲是政治素人，不接受官場習氣及制式框架的束縛，對習於迂緩繁縟的官僚體系，當然有正面意義的刺激。但除期待素人新政能帶來清新活潑的風格外，我們也要提醒柯市長：急診室裡的目標清晰、環境單純，威權式的上下指揮或有其必要；但民主政治的考慮多面，更需要眾人協力合作，所需要的領導藝術是截然不同的。
李德威事件之所以引人側目，不是因為柯文哲對於法輪功遭愛國同心會攻擊事件多麼重視，而是他對分局長這個「人」的當眾辱罵。市長是市警局的老闆，也是信義分局長的大老闆，他當然可以對屬下提出要求；但是，似乎不需要用羞辱的方式吧？畢竟，市政府的工作比台大急診部複雜太多，除業務龐雜、分工細膩、員工眾多，內有議會制衡、外有市民監督，周邊更有無數利益團體與公民組合環伺等，這絕非市長一人之力足以應付。因此，首都市長不應該是老闆（boss），而應該是領袖（leader）。而老闆與領袖的差別，正是柯文哲需要體會與酌量的。
老闆管理的事務通常面向單純，目標也不複雜，所以其工作重點不外乎下指令、行考核、驗成果；但做領袖則不這麼簡單，這麼制式。領袖的工作不是一種「個人秀」，而是要帶動一個團隊，使其士氣高昂、鬥志旺盛，各個層級主動發揮、積極負責，願意同心協力以助團隊開創佳績。這種「讓龐大機器協力運轉」的本事，當然與領袖的個人能力有關；但更重要的是，他對團隊要能鼓舞、授權、支持，喚起大家共同的使命感。這種領袖風範無以名狀，英文以抽象的leadership涵蓋。相對地，老闆不太需要靠風範調動下屬的積極性，英文裡bossy這個字就只剩下頤指氣使、跋扈飛揚的老闆架子。
好的領袖未必需要有一五七的高智商，但他們的ＥＱ應該都不低，重點是能夠請到一群智商一七五的人進入團隊，共同發揮功能。好的領袖未必要求團隊配合自己的習慣（七點半開會），而是儘量在尊重個別差異、發揮各人長處的情況下，要求成員彼此配合。好的領袖賞罰分明，但不應該設一個血滴子，讓團隊走在空曠處還得擔心尊嚴受辱。別忘記，柯團隊所延攬的局處首長如果真是人才，便也應該是有自尊、有能力、成就斐然的菁英，尊重猶恐不及，豈能隨便點名管束或言語奚落？
我們不想對信義分局長的事件多做評論，但任何職位所需的條件，都是「相對於這個條件有優勢的人」才會來應聘。因此，如果像坊間傳言，某企業大老闆會要求副總經理當眾下跪，那麼會來應徵副總的，當然多是「視下跪為無物」的膝軟腰輕之輩。如果局處長如住院醫師一般每天早上七點半要開會，不在意頭上籠罩著「血滴子」的陰影，與人吃飯需要報備，自己的決策被市長一句不著邊際的話就輕易否定，那麼甘願就任局處長的，恐怕也多為缺乏專業尊嚴、責任感與自信心的諾諾之輩。這樣的官員，能夠期待他們主動負責，擇善固執，心念城市的發展遠景與廣大市民的福祉嗎？
柯文哲上任至今，做了若干堪稱大快人心的決定，包括速拆忠孝西路公車道、宣示三個月內拆除數百戶頂樓違建、議員關說上網公告、為護樹而重新檢討工程等等。即使一些決策顯得草率反覆，彷彿心血來潮便可決定政策方向，我們對於柯市長的明快作風願給予善意的肯定；但是，他對於人的缺乏尊重，當眾頤指氣使，動不動就否定他人，則露出了其威權、不可挑戰的一面，這恐怕是他最大的民主教養弱點。
好的市長應該是領袖，而非老闆，當然更不是「朕」。好的領袖吸引人才、善用人才，而非使喚奴才。厲害的老闆令「害怕的都不敢來」，但傑出的領袖卻使「有能力的都願意來」。此中高下，應該是不難判斷的。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 16, 2015
Executive Summary: A good mayor should be a leader, rather than a boss, and certainly not a tyrant. Good leaders attract talent, and do not treat them as slaves. Powerful bosses inspire so much fear no one is willing to work for them. Outstanding leaders inspire so much enthusiasm everyone with ability flocks to them. Which course should Ko adopt? That should not be a difficult decision.
Full Text Below;
Wen-Je Ko publicly excoriated Taipei Xinyi District Police Chief Li Teh-wei. Li responded by applying for early retirement. Wen-Je Ko gave Hsu Li-ming of the National Taiwan University Hospital a promotion, making him Taipei City Chief of Social Services. Ko then threw a temper tantrum and embarrassed him by scolding him in public. Ko abuses his authority. He demands that subordinates attend meetings at 7:30. He demands that they log any dinner engagements not with their families. He referred to Tsai Pi-ru as his "Flying Guillotine". Ko has revealed an autocratic leadership style. Wen-Je Ko will be around for the next four years. Everyone is concerned that he will only become even more insufferable over time.
Wen-Je Ko is a political novice. He feels unconstrained by conventional bureaucratic shackles. This may be exciting for those accustomed to sluggish bureaucracies. A political novice may indeed inject new life into such a system. But we must remind Mayor Ko that in an emergency room the objective is clear. The circumstances are straightforward. An authoritarian command structure may be necessary. But in a multi-faceted democracy, where people must work together, a different sort of leadership is needed.
The Li Teh-wei incident was especially striking. Not because Ko was concerned about Concentric Patriotism Association attacks on Falun Gong. It was striking because Ko publicly dressed down the precinct police chief. The mayor is the boss of the city police. He is also the boss of the Xinyi District Precinct Police Chief. He can of course make demands of his subordinates. But does he really need to humiliate them? After all, the work performed by the city government is far more complex than the work performed in the emergency room at National Taiwan University Hospital. The responsibilities are more complex. The division of labor is more delicate. The employees are more numerous. Within, one must deal with checks and balances from the city council. Without, one must deal with public oversight. On the periphery, one must deal with various interest groups and civic organizations. This is not something a mayor can handle by himself. Therefore the mayor of the capital city should not attempt to be a boss , but instead a leader. Wen-Je Ko must appreciate the difference between a boss and a leader.
Owner-managed transactions are usually simple. The goal is uncomplicated. All one need to is issue instructions, make assessments, and confirm the results. But leadership is not so simple, not so standardized. Being a leader is not a "one-man show." It means leading a team. It requires good morale and a fighting spirit. It requires initiative at all levels, the willingness to assume responsibility and work together to ensure success. It requires the ability to persuade people to work together like a well-oiled machine. That, of course, depends upon the leader's individual ability. But more than that, it depends upon his ability to inspire, delegate, support, and rally his subordinates behind a common cause. This leadership style has no name. In English it is called leadership. By contrast, a boss need not rely on style to mobilize subordinates. The English term “bossy” refers to a tyrannical manner.
A good leader need not have an IQ of 157. But he must not have an EQ lower than necessary. He must be able to persuade people with an IQ of 175 to join a team and work together. A good leader does not demand that his team adopt his own habit of meeting at 7:30. Instead, he respects individual differences. He makes use of each person's strengths. He requires members to meet with each other. When a good leader issues rewards and punishments, he does not dispatch his Flying Guillotine. He does not make his team worry about being humiliated in public. If Ko administration leaders are truly talented individuals, they will have high self-esteem, individual ability, and a solid record of achievements. Ko must show them respect. He cannot afford to cavalierly taunt them.
We do not want to say too much about the Xinyi District precinct police chief incident. But the qualifications for any office, invariably involve comparisons with other candidates with similar qualifications. If word gets around that the boss of a company requires that his vice president get down on his knees before him, then the only people who will apply for vice president, will be sycophants willing to humiliate themselves. Suppose a bureau chief must attend meetings every morning at half past seven, just like a resident physician? Suppose he must work with a Sword of Damocles dangling over his head? Suppose he must log in every dinner he attends? Suppose his decisions can be cavalierly swept aside by the mayor with a wave of his hand? Who then will still want to become a bureau chief? Probably only yes men with no sense of responsibility, self-confidence, or professional dignity. Can one expect such officials to exercise initiative, stay the course, develop the city, and tend to the well-being of the public?
Since Wen-Je Ko took office, he has made a number of encouraging decisions. They including swiftly disconnecting bus lanes on Zhong Xiao West Road, announcing the demolition of hundreds of bootlegged buildings within three months, removing lobbying webpages belonging to city councilmen from the web, protecting trees, and re-evaluating works projects. Some decisions may have been hasty. Some policies may be whimsical. But Mayor Ko appears well-intentioned. Unfortunately, his lack of respect for other people, his insufferable arrogance, and his haste to contradict others, reveal an authoritarian mentality that brooks no dissent. This is probably his greatest weakness as a democratic leader.
A good mayor should be a leader, rather than a boss, and certainly not a tyrant. Good leaders attract talent, and do not treat them as slaves. Powerful bosses inspire so much fear no one is willing to work for them. Outstanding leaders inspire so much enthusiasm everyone with ability flocks to them. Which course should Ko adopt? That should not be a difficult decision.
權威與威權：領袖、老闆、朕
2015-01-16 02:01:39 聯合報 社論
北市信義警分局長李德威遭柯文哲當眾訓斥後，於日前提早申請退休；柯文哲對待自己由台大醫院拔擢至市府的社會局長許立民同樣不假辭色，當眾變臉發飆，給他難堪。諸如此類的官威，包括要求同仁七點半開會、除家人以外的飯局要登錄、稱蔡璧如是他的「血滴子」等等，在在展現了他的強勢領導風格。柯文哲有四年任期，大家都在關注這樣的領導作風將如何發展。
柯文哲是政治素人，不接受官場習氣及制式框架的束縛，對習於迂緩繁縟的官僚體系，當然有正面意義的刺激。但除期待素人新政能帶來清新活潑的風格外，我們也要提醒柯市長：急診室裡的目標清晰、環境單純，威權式的上下指揮或有其必要；但民主政治的考慮多面，更需要眾人協力合作，所需要的領導藝術是截然不同的。
李德威事件之所以引人側目，不是因為柯文哲對於法輪功遭愛國同心會攻擊事件多麼重視，而是他對分局長這個「人」的當眾辱罵。市長是市警局的老闆，也是信義分局長的大老闆，他當然可以對屬下提出要求；但是，似乎不需要用羞辱的方式吧？畢竟，市政府的工作比台大急診部複雜太多，除業務龐雜、分工細膩、員工眾多，內有議會制衡、外有市民監督，周邊更有無數利益團體與公民組合環伺等，這絕非市長一人之力足以應付。因此，首都市長不應該是老闆（boss），而應該是領袖（leader）。而老闆與領袖的差別，正是柯文哲需要體會與酌量的。
老闆管理的事務通常面向單純，目標也不複雜，所以其工作重點不外乎下指令、行考核、驗成果；但做領袖則不這麼簡單，這麼制式。領袖的工作不是一種「個人秀」，而是要帶動一個團隊，使其士氣高昂、鬥志旺盛，各個層級主動發揮、積極負責，願意同心協力以助團隊開創佳績。這種「讓龐大機器協力運轉」的本事，當然與領袖的個人能力有關；但更重要的是，他對團隊要能鼓舞、授權、支持，喚起大家共同的使命感。這種領袖風範無以名狀，英文以抽象的leadership涵蓋。相對地，老闆不太需要靠風範調動下屬的積極性，英文裡bossy這個字就只剩下頤指氣使、跋扈飛揚的老闆架子。
好的領袖未必需要有一五七的高智商，但他們的ＥＱ應該都不低，重點是能夠請到一群智商一七五的人進入團隊，共同發揮功能。好的領袖未必要求團隊配合自己的習慣（七點半開會），而是儘量在尊重個別差異、發揮各人長處的情況下，要求成員彼此配合。好的領袖賞罰分明，但不應該設一個血滴子，讓團隊走在空曠處還得擔心尊嚴受辱。別忘記，柯團隊所延攬的局處首長如果真是人才，便也應該是有自尊、有能力、成就斐然的菁英，尊重猶恐不及，豈能隨便點名管束或言語奚落？
我們不想對信義分局長的事件多做評論，但任何職位所需的條件，都是「相對於這個條件有優勢的人」才會來應聘。因此，如果像坊間傳言，某企業大老闆會要求副總經理當眾下跪，那麼會來應徵副總的，當然多是「視下跪為無物」的膝軟腰輕之輩。如果局處長如住院醫師一般每天早上七點半要開會，不在意頭上籠罩著「血滴子」的陰影，與人吃飯需要報備，自己的決策被市長一句不著邊際的話就輕易否定，那麼甘願就任局處長的，恐怕也多為缺乏專業尊嚴、責任感與自信心的諾諾之輩。這樣的官員，能夠期待他們主動負責，擇善固執，心念城市的發展遠景與廣大市民的福祉嗎？
柯文哲上任至今，做了若干堪稱大快人心的決定，包括速拆忠孝西路公車道、宣示三個月內拆除數百戶頂樓違建、議員關說上網公告、為護樹而重新檢討工程等等。即使一些決策顯得草率反覆，彷彿心血來潮便可決定政策方向，我們對於柯市長的明快作風願給予善意的肯定；但是，他對於人的缺乏尊重，當眾頤指氣使，動不動就否定他人，則露出了其威權、不可挑戰的一面，這恐怕是他最大的民主教養弱點。
好的市長應該是領袖，而非老闆，當然更不是「朕」。好的領袖吸引人才、善用人才，而非使喚奴才。厲害的老闆令「害怕的都不敢來」，但傑出的領袖卻使「有能力的都願意來」。此中高下，應該是不難判斷的。
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Lai Ching-teh's Strongman Politics: A Crisis for Taiwan's Democracy
Lai Ching-teh's Strongman Politics: A Crisis for Taiwan's Democracy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 15, 2015
Executive Summary: Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?
Full Text Below:
During the 1990s Taiwan underwent a quiet revolution. It established democratic institutions. But traditional cultural factors posed obstacles. The foundation remained unstable. During the past decade populism has reared its ugly head. Democratic values have been called into question. During the past two years, the Mainland Chinese political model has been affirmed by the international community. Strongman politics appears to be the new trend in global politics. Following Taiwan's nine in one elections, a wave of political strongman appeared. What effect will these strongmen have on Taiwan's democracy? That is a question well worth contemplating.
Strongman politics does not necessarily mean authoritarian rule. Rather it refers to strong-willed political leaders who distort or alter democratically enacted laws and institutions, and who are barely constrained by checks and balances. On many key issues, especially when the strongman asserts his own will and imposes his own decisions, elected authorities and legal procedures become dead letters.
During the nine in one elections, Lai Ching-teh won by a landslide. His political star appeared to be on the rise. Lai Ching-teh assumed an obdurate “If not me, then who?” stance. Within the party, he assumed the role of an elder. He shared his experience with newly elected county chiefs and city mayors. Without the party, he relentlessly blasted Eric Chu. These political moves reflected Lai's political ambitions. He was merely following the path of least resistance. That was understandable. But following the city council speaker election Lai Ching-teh revealed the most serious defect in his character. He hijacked public opinion, imposed his personal will, ignored the coordination and compromise inherent in politics. His most serious problem was his autocratic mindset, which trampled over democracy and the rule of law.
The Tainan City Council Speaker election controversy, had its roots in Lai Ching-teh's plan to seize total control over the city council. He would not merely exclude other factions. He would reduce the Tainan City Council to a regulatory agence of Tainan City. In local government political circles Lai Ching-teh's speaker candidate was long perceived as Lai's rubber stamp. When Lai's candidate lost the election, the green camp raised a hue and cry True to form, Lai Ching-teh evaded controversy. He invoked "vote-buying" as grounds for refusing to set foot in the city council chambers. This move merely intensified his first mistake.
In theory, under local self-government, the mayor and the city council represent a separation of powers by which one branch checks the other. An elected mayor has powers. But he must be subject to city council oversight. The mayor must remain accountable to the city council. Meanwhile, the city council retains autonomy over its internal affairs. The mayor may never and must never intervene. Lai Ching-teh provoked controversy during the speaker election. As mayor, he attempted to interfere with the city council's autonomy, and dictate who would be speaker candidates. Once the speaker candidate controversy was settled, he attempted to exploit public support for him as a person to reverse the outcome of the council speaker election. This was a case of a strongman abusing this executive authority to interfere with legislative authority.
Secondly, the speaker election bribery case had yet to be prosecuted. No verdict had been rendered. No sentence had been passed. Yet Lai concluded that the new speaker was guilty. This was his pretext for boycotting the proceedings and applying pressure on the city council and the justice system. This was a case of a new strongman interfering with administrative authority, and exceeding his brief. Thirdly, and most seriously, the facts of the vote buying case have yet to be sorted out in the city council. Lai Ching-teh said he "refused to set foot in the city council." He claimed he wanted to answer directly to the public. A new strongman abused his executive authority and interfered with legislature authority. He thumbed his nose at democratic institutions and established a negative precedent for the rule of law.
Under representative politics, the public oversees local government heads through elected representatives. This is the clearly defined in the constitution and in legislation. No one may arbitrarily alter this, no matter how much popular support he may enjoy, and no matter how many votes he may have received. So-called "direct oversight by the public" and "Open Government" are merely fig leaves for new strongman politics.
New strongman politics and new populist politics are two sides of the same coin. Populism exploits the concept of public opinion to lay claim to momentary popular support, override public policy, and trample over professionalism, the reconciliation of diverse interests, the achievement of a broad consensus, democracy, and transparency in decision-making. Lai Ching-teh relied on his high numbers and strong support to throw his weight around. He relied on this foundation to implement his strongman politics. Under nascent strongman politics, "public opinion" trumps democracy and professionalism. It leaves no room for deliberation or verification. It leaves no room to question whether public opinion is merely illusory “manufactured consent.” One can forget about rational discussion and multi-party consultation in order to arrive at an optimum solution.
Lai Ching-teh's "new strongman politics" and "new populist politics" remains nascent. But the danger is already apparent. Populism is not democracy. Strongman politics is contrary to citizenship, civil society, and the new values of democracy. This new strongman politics must be checked, corrected, and challenged. If it is not, then in two or three years civic consciousness and civil society will all come to naught. It will become a shadow of its former self. Such a barren society will destroy democracy and the rule of law, and yield the poisonous fruit of new strongman politics.
Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?
社論－賴清德強人政治 是台灣民主危機
2015年01月15日 04:09
本報訊
台灣90年代完成寧靜革命，建立民主體制，但受傳統文化因素牽制，根基並不穩。近10年在民粹氛圍的衝擊下，民主的價值漸漸受到懷疑。這兩年中國模式開始受到國際社會肯定，強人政治似乎成為全球政治發展新趨勢，台灣於九合一大選後，似乎也出現了強人政治風潮，強人對台灣民主發展會產生什麼影響，值得觀察。
強人政治，未必是指獨裁專制統治，而是指政治領導人以主觀意志超越、扭曲或修改，以民主程序制定出來的法律與制度，不受或很少受到民選機關的制衡與監督，在許多重大、關鍵的事件，尤其是違逆政治領導人的意志與決策時，民選機關的決議與程序成為具文。
九合一選舉，賴清德獲得壓倒性的票數，原本就被看好的政治行情更是水漲船高，賴清德確實也擺出捨我其誰的態勢，在黨內以師長姿態，教導新科縣市長執政經驗，在黨外不斷針對朱立倫開炮，這些政治動作固然反映了賴個人的政治企圖，只要依循正道而行，原本無可厚非。但志得意滿的賴清德卻在議長選舉後暴露了他政治性格的最大問題：挾民意自重，漠視政治中必然存在的協調與妥協，更嚴重的是出於一己的意志，踐踏民主與法治。
台南市議會議長選舉的爭議，其根源在於賴清德意圖全面控制議會，不但排斥其他派系，更在客觀上使台南市議會淪為台南市政府的法規、法制局。賴清德支持的議長候選人，在其議長任內早已被地方政治圈視為賴的橡皮圖章。在賴支持人選落馬後，綠營輿論譁然，賴清德進一步迴避個人政治風格的爭議，以「賄選」為由，拒絕進入議會，這一步，更是他錯誤的進一步升級。
理論上，在地方自治制度中，府會是權力分立的制衡關係，民選市長固然有其權力，但必須受到議會的監督，市長必須向議會負責，同時議會內部事務有其自主性，市長無法也不應干預。賴清德在面對議長選舉的爭議時，首先是以市長的意志企圖干預議會自主，左右議長人選，在議長人選底定後，仍企圖以個人民意支持度為後盾，扭轉議長選舉結果，這是新強人的以行政權干預立法權。
其次，在議長賄選案未經司法審理、宣判定讞前，就自己認定新任議長涉案甚至有罪，並以此理由和政治大動作向議會與司法施壓，這是新強人的以行政權干涉、凌駕司法權。第三，最嚴重的是，賴清德以議會賄選疑案未獲澄清為理由，聲稱「不踏入議會一步」，要直接接受市民監督，這不但是新強人的以行政權踐踏、漠視立法權，更是挑戰民主機制、法治程序的惡劣示範。
須知，在代議政治下，市民透過民選民意代表來監督地方首長施政，這是憲法、法律所明確規範的，沒有任何人可以擅自改變，不論他擁有多高民意支持度、不論他曾獲得多少選票。所謂的「市民直接監督」、「開放政府」，只是新強人政治的化妝術、遮羞布。
新強人政治和新民粹政治是一體兩面。民粹就是假民意之名、挾大眾一時之間的所謂支持，凌駕與踐踏公共政策應有的專業意見呈現、利益多元折衝、廣泛凝聚共識、民主透明決策。賴清德挾高選票、高支持度而自重，更以此為基礎和後盾遂行其強人政治。而在這強人政治的醞釀、萌芽和施展過程中，「民意」，而非民主和專業，成了尚方寶劍，卻沒有空間來檢證，所謂的民意是否是虛幻的、被操作的，更遑論透過理性討論、多方論證後，找到最佳、最妥適的平衡方案。
賴清德的「新強人政治」、「新民粹政治」風格，還在萌芽之中，但是已經顯露其危害，民粹非民主，強人政治更是和公民意識、公民社會、審議民主等等新政治價值背道而馳。如果新強人政治得不到矯治、修正和挑戰，台灣這兩三年所謂的公民意識崛起，所謂的公民社會茁壯，不但將全面落空、成為虛幻，更會在這貧瘠的公民社會土壤上，成長出毀棄民主法治的新強人政治毒果。
無須諱言，賴清德的強人作風確實有不少民眾叫好，這應該是對過去馬政府執政無能的反動。馬英九缺的是政治魄力和施政手腕，但這不代表我們應該把民粹政治的幽靈喚醒，打造新政治強人。賴清德能不慎乎？民眾又豈能不慎乎？
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 15, 2015
Executive Summary: Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?
Full Text Below:
During the 1990s Taiwan underwent a quiet revolution. It established democratic institutions. But traditional cultural factors posed obstacles. The foundation remained unstable. During the past decade populism has reared its ugly head. Democratic values have been called into question. During the past two years, the Mainland Chinese political model has been affirmed by the international community. Strongman politics appears to be the new trend in global politics. Following Taiwan's nine in one elections, a wave of political strongman appeared. What effect will these strongmen have on Taiwan's democracy? That is a question well worth contemplating.
Strongman politics does not necessarily mean authoritarian rule. Rather it refers to strong-willed political leaders who distort or alter democratically enacted laws and institutions, and who are barely constrained by checks and balances. On many key issues, especially when the strongman asserts his own will and imposes his own decisions, elected authorities and legal procedures become dead letters.
During the nine in one elections, Lai Ching-teh won by a landslide. His political star appeared to be on the rise. Lai Ching-teh assumed an obdurate “If not me, then who?” stance. Within the party, he assumed the role of an elder. He shared his experience with newly elected county chiefs and city mayors. Without the party, he relentlessly blasted Eric Chu. These political moves reflected Lai's political ambitions. He was merely following the path of least resistance. That was understandable. But following the city council speaker election Lai Ching-teh revealed the most serious defect in his character. He hijacked public opinion, imposed his personal will, ignored the coordination and compromise inherent in politics. His most serious problem was his autocratic mindset, which trampled over democracy and the rule of law.
The Tainan City Council Speaker election controversy, had its roots in Lai Ching-teh's plan to seize total control over the city council. He would not merely exclude other factions. He would reduce the Tainan City Council to a regulatory agence of Tainan City. In local government political circles Lai Ching-teh's speaker candidate was long perceived as Lai's rubber stamp. When Lai's candidate lost the election, the green camp raised a hue and cry True to form, Lai Ching-teh evaded controversy. He invoked "vote-buying" as grounds for refusing to set foot in the city council chambers. This move merely intensified his first mistake.
In theory, under local self-government, the mayor and the city council represent a separation of powers by which one branch checks the other. An elected mayor has powers. But he must be subject to city council oversight. The mayor must remain accountable to the city council. Meanwhile, the city council retains autonomy over its internal affairs. The mayor may never and must never intervene. Lai Ching-teh provoked controversy during the speaker election. As mayor, he attempted to interfere with the city council's autonomy, and dictate who would be speaker candidates. Once the speaker candidate controversy was settled, he attempted to exploit public support for him as a person to reverse the outcome of the council speaker election. This was a case of a strongman abusing this executive authority to interfere with legislative authority.
Secondly, the speaker election bribery case had yet to be prosecuted. No verdict had been rendered. No sentence had been passed. Yet Lai concluded that the new speaker was guilty. This was his pretext for boycotting the proceedings and applying pressure on the city council and the justice system. This was a case of a new strongman interfering with administrative authority, and exceeding his brief. Thirdly, and most seriously, the facts of the vote buying case have yet to be sorted out in the city council. Lai Ching-teh said he "refused to set foot in the city council." He claimed he wanted to answer directly to the public. A new strongman abused his executive authority and interfered with legislature authority. He thumbed his nose at democratic institutions and established a negative precedent for the rule of law.
Under representative politics, the public oversees local government heads through elected representatives. This is the clearly defined in the constitution and in legislation. No one may arbitrarily alter this, no matter how much popular support he may enjoy, and no matter how many votes he may have received. So-called "direct oversight by the public" and "Open Government" are merely fig leaves for new strongman politics.
New strongman politics and new populist politics are two sides of the same coin. Populism exploits the concept of public opinion to lay claim to momentary popular support, override public policy, and trample over professionalism, the reconciliation of diverse interests, the achievement of a broad consensus, democracy, and transparency in decision-making. Lai Ching-teh relied on his high numbers and strong support to throw his weight around. He relied on this foundation to implement his strongman politics. Under nascent strongman politics, "public opinion" trumps democracy and professionalism. It leaves no room for deliberation or verification. It leaves no room to question whether public opinion is merely illusory “manufactured consent.” One can forget about rational discussion and multi-party consultation in order to arrive at an optimum solution.
Lai Ching-teh's "new strongman politics" and "new populist politics" remains nascent. But the danger is already apparent. Populism is not democracy. Strongman politics is contrary to citizenship, civil society, and the new values of democracy. This new strongman politics must be checked, corrected, and challenged. If it is not, then in two or three years civic consciousness and civil society will all come to naught. It will become a shadow of its former self. Such a barren society will destroy democracy and the rule of law, and yield the poisonous fruit of new strongman politics.
Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?
社論－賴清德強人政治 是台灣民主危機
2015年01月15日 04:09
本報訊
台灣90年代完成寧靜革命，建立民主體制，但受傳統文化因素牽制，根基並不穩。近10年在民粹氛圍的衝擊下，民主的價值漸漸受到懷疑。這兩年中國模式開始受到國際社會肯定，強人政治似乎成為全球政治發展新趨勢，台灣於九合一大選後，似乎也出現了強人政治風潮，強人對台灣民主發展會產生什麼影響，值得觀察。
強人政治，未必是指獨裁專制統治，而是指政治領導人以主觀意志超越、扭曲或修改，以民主程序制定出來的法律與制度，不受或很少受到民選機關的制衡與監督，在許多重大、關鍵的事件，尤其是違逆政治領導人的意志與決策時，民選機關的決議與程序成為具文。
九合一選舉，賴清德獲得壓倒性的票數，原本就被看好的政治行情更是水漲船高，賴清德確實也擺出捨我其誰的態勢，在黨內以師長姿態，教導新科縣市長執政經驗，在黨外不斷針對朱立倫開炮，這些政治動作固然反映了賴個人的政治企圖，只要依循正道而行，原本無可厚非。但志得意滿的賴清德卻在議長選舉後暴露了他政治性格的最大問題：挾民意自重，漠視政治中必然存在的協調與妥協，更嚴重的是出於一己的意志，踐踏民主與法治。
台南市議會議長選舉的爭議，其根源在於賴清德意圖全面控制議會，不但排斥其他派系，更在客觀上使台南市議會淪為台南市政府的法規、法制局。賴清德支持的議長候選人，在其議長任內早已被地方政治圈視為賴的橡皮圖章。在賴支持人選落馬後，綠營輿論譁然，賴清德進一步迴避個人政治風格的爭議，以「賄選」為由，拒絕進入議會，這一步，更是他錯誤的進一步升級。
理論上，在地方自治制度中，府會是權力分立的制衡關係，民選市長固然有其權力，但必須受到議會的監督，市長必須向議會負責，同時議會內部事務有其自主性，市長無法也不應干預。賴清德在面對議長選舉的爭議時，首先是以市長的意志企圖干預議會自主，左右議長人選，在議長人選底定後，仍企圖以個人民意支持度為後盾，扭轉議長選舉結果，這是新強人的以行政權干預立法權。
其次，在議長賄選案未經司法審理、宣判定讞前，就自己認定新任議長涉案甚至有罪，並以此理由和政治大動作向議會與司法施壓，這是新強人的以行政權干涉、凌駕司法權。第三，最嚴重的是，賴清德以議會賄選疑案未獲澄清為理由，聲稱「不踏入議會一步」，要直接接受市民監督，這不但是新強人的以行政權踐踏、漠視立法權，更是挑戰民主機制、法治程序的惡劣示範。
須知，在代議政治下，市民透過民選民意代表來監督地方首長施政，這是憲法、法律所明確規範的，沒有任何人可以擅自改變，不論他擁有多高民意支持度、不論他曾獲得多少選票。所謂的「市民直接監督」、「開放政府」，只是新強人政治的化妝術、遮羞布。
新強人政治和新民粹政治是一體兩面。民粹就是假民意之名、挾大眾一時之間的所謂支持，凌駕與踐踏公共政策應有的專業意見呈現、利益多元折衝、廣泛凝聚共識、民主透明決策。賴清德挾高選票、高支持度而自重，更以此為基礎和後盾遂行其強人政治。而在這強人政治的醞釀、萌芽和施展過程中，「民意」，而非民主和專業，成了尚方寶劍，卻沒有空間來檢證，所謂的民意是否是虛幻的、被操作的，更遑論透過理性討論、多方論證後，找到最佳、最妥適的平衡方案。
賴清德的「新強人政治」、「新民粹政治」風格，還在萌芽之中，但是已經顯露其危害，民粹非民主，強人政治更是和公民意識、公民社會、審議民主等等新政治價值背道而馳。如果新強人政治得不到矯治、修正和挑戰，台灣這兩三年所謂的公民意識崛起，所謂的公民社會茁壯，不但將全面落空、成為虛幻，更會在這貧瘠的公民社會土壤上，成長出毀棄民主法治的新強人政治毒果。
無須諱言，賴清德的強人作風確實有不少民眾叫好，這應該是對過去馬政府執政無能的反動。馬英九缺的是政治魄力和施政手腕，但這不代表我們應該把民粹政治的幽靈喚醒，打造新政治強人。賴清德能不慎乎？民眾又豈能不慎乎？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)