Will the Mainland Change to Accommodate the DPP?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 26, 2015
Executive Summary: Since 2008, cross-Strait interaction has increased. Tourism, business deals, and cultural and educational exchanges have created a boom unseen over the past half century. During the Spring Festival in particular, many Mainland tourists choose to spend the New Year on Taiwan. Many on Taiwan watch Mainland shows via satellite networks. Six or seven years ago, such a scenario was unimaginable. This peaceful scene was achieved with great difficulty. Who is willing to return to the former standoff, or even precipitate a war?
Full Text Below:
Since 2008, cross-Strait interaction has increased. Tourism, business deals, and cultural and educational exchanges have created a boom unseen over the past half century. During the Spring Festival in particular, many Mainland tourists choose to spend the New Year on Taiwan. Many on Taiwan watch Mainland shows via satellite networks. Six or seven years ago, such a scenario was unimaginable. This peaceful scene was achieved with great difficulty. Who is willing to return to the former standoff, or even precipitate a war?
This peace however, was never a godsend. It was not something we should take for granted. It was the result of great wisdom and foresight. Think of how many people sought peace but failed to achieve it. Many people have forgotten this merely because we are on the eve of an election. Or they have blanked out of awareness the difficulty with which this peace was achieved. Today, as we enjoy the fruits of peace, we must remain vigilant. If we allow a reaction to set in, the fruits of peace we now take for granted may well evaporate.
In a previous “Genuine Love for Taiwan” editorial this newspaper noted that the main obstacle standing in the way of cross-Strait peace is anti-(Mainland) China mob sentiment, incited by certain politicians and activists. Last March the Sunflower Student Movement captured a beachhead when it opposed the STA. It then obstructed all cross-Strait bills in the legislature. These reactionaries are now taking advantage of the low prestige of the Ma government. They are advancing the specious argument that as long as the DPP wins office, Beijing will change to accommodate them. In other words, many pro-Taiwan independence politicians are convinced that if the DPP becomes the ruling party in 2016, they need not bother making any changes in cross-Strait policy. Put simply, they intend to force the Mainland to change to accommodate them.
Taiwan is not the Center of the World
This argument implies that no matter which political party comes to power, Beijing has no choice but to maintain peaceful cross-Strait relations. Therefore, the DPP need not make any adjustments to its cross-Strait policy. For example, it need not recognize the 1992 consensus. As long as the DPP comes to power, Beijing will automatically change to accommodate the DPP, and Taiwan will continue to enjoy the peace dividend. This sort of thinking assumes that we are the center of the universe, and that the world revolves around us. But anyone with any understanding about global politics knows otherwise. What makes Taiwan think it can impose its own arbitrary and subjective whims on the rest of the world?
First Vilify, then Benefit?
The DPP assumes that the Mainland will change to accommodate the DPP in the event it returns to power. The DPP clings to another strategic assumption as well. It assumes that it can continue to incite anti-(Mainland) China hatred, and demonize any political parties or politicians who seek cross-Strait peace as "pro-China traitors to Taiwan”. It assumes that upon winning, it can get a free ride merely by "unconditionally accepting the policies of the previous administration”, then sit back and enjoy the fruits of cross-Strait exchanges. Put simply, many green camp politicians today chant anti-(Mainland) China slogans. They smear their opponents as “Com-symps”. Meanwhile however, they or their relatives frantically make investments on the Mainland. How many people benefit from generous Mainland concessions, yet still vote for the DPP? They invoke "Com-symp" and "selling out Taiwan" rhetoric as weapons against their opponents, while confidently enjoying the dividends from cross-Strait exchanges. But where did these dividends originate, if not from the harshly ridiculed KMT and Ma Ying-jeou? We must note of course that this is a simplistic linear thinking. It ignores the dynamic changes, mutual suspicions, and risk/reward calculations made by the CCP and DPP. The Green Camp is not simple-minded, but it is deceiving simple-minded voters.
The DPP has been out of power for the past six or seven years. But its theory and practice regarding cross-Strait relations has not kept pace with the times. Back then the two sides could not fly airliners directly at each other. Back then there was no tourism, no Mainland concessions, no crowds of Mainland tourists at Sun Moon Lake, Alishan and the National Palace Museum, no pandas in the local zoo, no Mainland students walking about on local college campuses, no flattering comments in the Mainland press about how "Taiwan's chief attraction is its people”. Back then there was only political demagoguery, only the incitement of cross-Strait hatred for personal political ambition. Such maneuvers led to the embarrassment of Beijing and Washington “jointly disciplining” an unruly Taipei. Now all this has been forgotten. But think about it. Without a ruling party change in 2008, where would cross-Strait relations be today?
Lest we forget, the prosperity that accompanied cross-Strait exchanges were rooted in mutual recognition of the 1992 consensus. What if this premise no longer existed? Would the prosperity still exist? Set aside Beijing official declarations for the moment. A political party that refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus, and even refuses to abandon Taiwan independence, returns to power. If Beijing makes no changes in its Taiwan policy, Communist leaders will be subject to severe criticism from within. Furthermore, if any of the parties running for office in 2016 engage in anti-(Mainland) China demagoguery, Beijing officials who continue to offer concessions to Taiwan are sure to be run out of office.
The Mainland Will Not Make Concessions on Basic Principles
Moreover, President Xi Jinping is now in power. His governing style is significantly different from that of previous leaders. Internally, he is responding to an overheated economy. He is waging an anti-corruption campaign in order to impose bureaucratic discipline. Externally, he is trumpeting an all-encompassing "dream of a great nation". He is no longer taking a low-keyed approach on core issues of territory, territorial waters, and other issues relating to sovereignty. He has more chips to play and is playing them with greater confidence. The numbers show that, as of 2015 the Chinese mainland, long since ceased being a "rising great power". It has already attained the status of a global economic, technological, and military power. When such a great power deals with cross-Strait affairs, it may be pragmatic and flexible. But it will never make concessions on matters of fundamental principle.
Under the 1992 consensus, it took six or seven years to create our current peace and prosperity. If that consensus is rejected by either side, making this boom evaporate before our very eyes will not be difficult. The Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen believe the DPP is likely to become the ruling party. If so, they must be wise about cross-Strait policy. They must throw open the doors and take the high road.
We would like to believe that no matter which party is in power in 2016, it will be reluctant to take blame for sabotaging cross-Strait peace. We would like to believe that if the DPP returns to power, it will not be stupid enough to revert to trumpeting Taiwan independence. But will DPP leaders continue to incite anti-(Mainland) China sentiment, while expecting the other side to change to accommodate them? If so, conflict is likely to erupt, and Taiwan is likely to revert to its previous state of self-incarceration. Therefore the DPP must give up its hatred, opposition, and rejection of the Mainland. It must continue the policy of cross-Strait peace and synergistic cross-Strait economic cooperation. It must narrow the psychological distance between people on the two sides. It must promote the social integration of the two sides. Otherwise, voters must open their eyes, and choose accordingly.
社論－大陸會因民進黨執政而改變嗎？
2015年02月26日 04:10
本報訊
海峽兩岸自2008年擴大交流互動，因觀光、商務、文教等頻繁的往來，締造了過往半世紀未曾見證過的榮景。特別是今年春節期間，不少陸客選擇在台灣過年，也有不少台灣閱聽眾透過衛星網路收看大陸春晚，6、7年前這還是難以想像的畫面。好不容易走到這般和平景象，誰還願意重返昔日對立、甚至兵戎相見的局面？
然而，「和平」從來不是天賜的，更不是理所當然的，而是憑藉著智慧與遠見經營出來，試想當代世上有多少地域企求和平而不可得，只是大選前夕，不少人或已忘卻，或選擇性忽略和平得來不易。在我們當下享受和平的果實之際，永遠必須深自警惕，如果聽任逆流持續瀰漫擴張，許多被視為理所當然的和平果實，很可能旦夕之間就會化為烏有。
誠如我們在〈真道理性真愛台灣系列社論一〉所指出，橫擋在兩岸間腐蝕著和平果實的最大逆流，就是若干政客與運動人士操作的「仇中」思潮，此一思潮在去年3月學運時，藉著操作反服貿攻下灘頭堡後，就持續擋下所有兩岸交流的立法進程，如今這股逆流更藉著馬政府的聲望低落，不斷釋出一種似是而非的論調，謂只要民進黨拿下政權，北京自然會朝他們調整。換言之，民進黨乃至眾多獨派政客似乎深信，如果2016年的政黨輪替垂手可得，何必還要在兩岸政策上做任何調整呢？說再白一點，屆時會是大陸被迫做調整。
台灣不是世界中心
這種論調隱含的潛台詞是，不管哪一個政黨上台執政，北京都必須維繫兩岸和平發展大局。所以，民進黨根本不必在兩岸政策上做任何調整，包括不必承認「九二共識」，只要民進黨獲得政權，北京自然就會調整，民進黨可持續享受和平紅利。這種思維邏輯的特點，是彷彿將自己想像為地球的中心，所有周邊的國家都繞著你轉，但懂點國際政治常識的人都清楚，這哪裡有任何可能？台灣有什麼本錢，可以憑自己的主觀意願恣意而為？
豈可先醜化再享受
倡議大陸會隨民進黨執政而調整論調的另一重策略思維是，一方面藉意識形態操作「反中」，將台灣社會所有倡議兩岸和平的政黨、政治人物全打成「親中」、「賣台」，若能因此勝選後再「概括承受」，就可搭便車享受所有兩岸交流的果實。說白一些，今天有多少綠營政客一面高唱反中，使勁將對手抹紅，一面本人或親友拚命在大陸投資置產？又有多少人一面享受對岸的「讓利」，一面照樣票投民進黨？一手拿「親中」、「賣台」作武器打擊對手，另一手理直氣壯享受所有兩岸交流的紅利。如果真有有這樣的好處，該被譏笑笨的，不正是國民黨與馬英九嗎？但我們必須坦率指出，這是一種簡單化的直線思維，忽略了民共相互猜忌關係下的可能動態變化與風險。綠營並非出於頭腦簡單，而是對單純選民的欺瞞。
民進黨失去政權這6、7年來，兩岸關係的思維與操作手法並沒有與時俱進，當年兩岸民航客機還不能對飛，沒有觀光，沒有讓利，沒有擠滿日月潭、阿里山與故宮的陸客，沒有動物園的熊貓，沒有漫步大學校園的陸生，沒有讚嘆「台灣最美的風景是人」的大陸媒體。那時節只有政客的口水，只有藉著激化兩岸相互仇視以獲取政治利益的操作，這種操作甚至一度讓台灣淪為被美中「共管」的難堪境地。如今彷彿這一切都船過水無痕！但回頭想想，如果不是2008年政黨輪替，兩岸會走到今天這般榮景嗎？
不該忘了，今天大家已經熟悉、甚至習慣的兩岸交流榮景，不是奠基於雙方共同認定的「九二共識」嗎？試想當這個前提不復存在，這些榮景還會存在嗎？先不談北京官方曾揭示過的所有聲明，面對一個從不願承認九二共識、甚至不願放棄台獨的政黨上台執政，北京對台政策如果不做任何調整，恐怕任誰擔任中共領導人，都會受到內部嚴厲批判！進一步說，如果任何政黨在2016是藉著「反中」操作而贏得政權，北京當局竟還繼續「讓利」，怕是誰在台上都做不下去了。
原則問題大陸不讓
何況習近平接任國家主席後所展現的種種執政風格，明顯不同於先前的領導人。他一方面對內調整過熱的發展路線，藉著反貪腐整飭官僚紀律，對外則是強調全方位的「大國夢」，在諸多涉及領土、領海等主權核心利益議題上，不再低調妥協，也擁有了更多的籌碼與自信。而種種數據也顯示，2015年的中國大陸，早就不是什麼「大國崛起」，而是一個在經濟、科技與軍事上已經在全球登頂的大國，這樣的一個大國在處理兩岸事務上，務實與彈性是一定有的，但不可能會在原則問題上有任何退讓空間。
兩岸在九二共識前提下，花了6、7年才營造出當下的和平榮景，如果這個共識被任何一方所否決，要讓好不容易才營造出來的榮景消失，一點都不困難。做個負責任的政黨，民進黨或蔡英文既然都認為政黨輪替的機會很大，那麼在兩岸政策思維上就必須多些智慧，多些開大門、走大路的視野。
我們寧願相信，不論是哪個政黨在2016年執政，都不願被扣上破壞兩岸和平的罪名。我們也相信，民進黨如果再度執政，應不至於愚蠢到重新炒作台獨議題，但若一方面持續沉陷在反中動員逆流，一方面期待對岸朝著他們調整，最後換得的恐怕是衝突螺旋現象，重回昔日鎖國與孤島困局。那麼，民進黨就應該放棄仇中、反中、拒中炒作，並承諾執政後將延續台海和平政策，持續推動兩岸經濟的合作與互補，致力縮小兩岸民眾的心理距離，有利兩岸社會融一。否則選民就該擦亮眼睛，作出最聰明選擇。
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Economic Prosperity Without the World's Second Largest Economy?
Economic Prosperity Without the World's Second Largest Economy?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 25, 2015
Executive Summary: If the Green Camp loves Taiwan, it must tell the truth. Taiwan must make good use of the Mainland factory, develop the Mainland market, and integrate with the Mainland economy. Taiwan cultural standards are relatively high. It has a people-oriented spirit of service. The service sector is one of Taiwan's unique advantages. Greater China's service industry offers a wonderful opportunity for Taiwan. It is the key to Taiwan's ascent to the next level.
Full Text Below:
As the DPP sees it, the 2016 Republic of China presidential election on Taiwan is a lock. Alas, Green Camp strategy is riddled with economic fallacies. It must make pragmatic changes in the coming year. Otherwise, if it wins, Taiwan's economy will descend into chaos. That would hardly benefit the people. The Ma government stumbled badly. But its basic direction was correct. Taiwan's economic performance over the past year has not been bad. Its GDP growth and unemployment rates were better than those of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. People must see the fallacies in the Democratic Progressive Party's economic strategy. They must pressure the DPP to undergo reform. Failure to do so will be catastrophic for Taiwan's future.
First take the “GDP growth figures fallacy”. The Green Camp argues that GDP figures are meaningless. It dismisses them as cold statistics that evoke only public indifference, and must be swept aside. But we on Taiwan complain about low wages and high unemployment. The reason we are experiencing these difficulties is a stagnant economy. Economic growth is inadequate. To live well, to feel pride, we must grow the economy and increase gross domestic product (GDP).
Internationally the use of GDP figures is a foregone conclusion. When Bobby Kennedy ran for president in 1968, he criticized the use of GDP figures. He said “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.” But GDP growth is closely correlated with health, education, recreation, literature, family, wisdom, integrity and other indices. A bigger pie may present wealth distribution problems. But absent economic growth, the pie will not get bigger. No one will get a larger slice. Economic growth is essential to a better quality of life.
Green Camp trapped in Fallacies
The most serious Green Camp fallacies have their roots in opposition to the Mainland, hatred of the Mainland, and fear of the Mainland. It fears a "Trojan horse". It fears Mainland interference. Therefore it would rather shut out “the enemy” politically, militarily, socially, and economically -- even if it undermines Taiwan's economic development. Over the past year many netizens have satirized the green camp's blanket rejection of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. They have pointed out the green camp's glaring internal contradictions. For example, one netizen wrote, "Allowing capital outflows is condemned as hollowing out Taiwan. Allowing capital inflows is condemned as buying out Taiwan. Allowing talent to leave is condemned as a brain drain. Allowing talent to enter is condemned as inviting the wolf into one's home. Allowing others to earn money from us is condemned as insufferable bullying. Allowing us to make money from others is condemned as buying our affections.” No matter how cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges are conducted, and no matter which way capital and talent flow, they are universally condemned and resisted.
Taiwan has a small, shallow dish economy. Taiwan is a mere 36,000 square kilometers in size. It lacks the natural resources to feed 23 million people. Its economic scale is inadequate. It underwent an economic miracle in the 1980s and became a model for economic development, by dint of hard work on the part of the public, and a successful policy of economic freedom on the part of the government. Under a free economy, Taiwan businesses were energized. Under liberal trade policies, Taiwan burst onto the international scene and demonstrated its mettle.
Mainland China's Economic Rise
But times have changed. Taiwan's spirit remains. But Mainland China and other emerging economies have risen. MIT products are no longer as competitive as they once were in the international market. For the past 30 years economic globalization has been in full swing. Advances in communications technology, transport facilitation, networking without borders, and information flow, have created a global village. New product information is quickly transmitted to every corner of the globe, significantly reducing transaction costs. The world is now flat, and competitors abound. End markets impose harsher demands on language, product quality, market segmentation and lower product prices made possible by regional economic integration. Taiwan's old marketing approaches are no longer feasible.
Globalization Cannot Take Place without the Mainland
Taiwan stands alone. Its markets are small. Internationalization is difficult. In international business and expatriate activity, Taipei City pales next to other Asian capitals. When it comes to business or tourism, Taiwan is often bypassed. Our education system vigorously develops students' foreign language skills. But for whatever reason, language skills on Taiwan are clearly inadequate. On the International English test TOEFL or IELTS, Taiwan scores below the rest of Asia, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines, Malaysia, and the Chinese mainland. South Korea has recently caught up, as a result we have fallen behind them. The only ones we still rank ahead of are Japan and North Korea. Former colonies such as Vietnam and Cambodia speak French. We have been left in the dust. With other international languages such as German and Spanish, Taiwan holds no advantage.
Regional economic integration includes multilateral trade agreements (RTAs) and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). Taiwan's progress on these has been quite slow. Regarding globalization, there is no such thing as globalization without the Mainland. The Mainland is already the world's largest factory and the world's largest market. During the late 1970s Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening introduced “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. This focused on the market and the liberation of economic vitality. Investments and exports led to gradual economic development. The Mainland now has the world's second largest economy and is the second largest destination for FDI.
Targeting Greater China Service Industries
The Green Camp condemns both large and small Taiwan investments on the Chinese mainland as hollowing out Taiwan, as helping the Mainland China, as stealing Taiwan jobs, and as depriving Taiwan of its wealth. But according to IFRS accounting, Taiwan businesses must prepare consolidated cross-Strait financial statements. Profits earned by businesses on the Mainland are combined with those of the parent company on Taiwan. They must pay taxes on both sides, as well as contribute revenue to Taiwan. Mainland profits earned byTaiwan multinationals or Taiwan businesses that return to Taiwan, boost Taiwan parent company stock prices. Taiwan shareholders and investors profit, capital markets benefit, and Taiwan's economy is revived.
The Green Camp assumes that allowing the two sides to expand economic relations will make Taiwan dependent on the Mainland, and favor the Mainland. But Taiwan has a shallow dish economy. Hitching a ride on the Mainland will revive a stagnant economy and bring sustainable development opportunities. Past reliance on exports to the US and European countries is no longer feasible. Taiwan cannot do with the Mainland market. Seeking a niche on the Mainland, integrating into Asia, and subsequently into the world" is the ideal development strategy, especially when we enjoy two irreplaceable advantages, geographical proximity and a common language.
If the Green Camp loves Taiwan, it must tell the truth. Taiwan must make good use of the Mainland factory, develop the Mainland market, and integrate with the Mainland economy. Taiwan cultural standards are relatively high. It has a people-oriented spirit of service. The service sector is one of Taiwan's unique advantages. Greater China's service industry offers a wonderful opportunity for Taiwan. It is the key to Taiwan's ascent to the next level.
社論－切割全球第二大經濟體 活水何在？
2015年02月25日 04:10
（系列二）
2016台灣總統選舉，民進黨看似篤定勝選，但綠營的經濟戰略充滿迷思，如不能在1年內做出務實調整，一旦勝選，台灣經濟將陷入極不確定狀態，恐非國人之福。馬政府施政固然失敗，但國家大方向正確，過去1年台灣經濟表現不差，無論GDP成長率或失業率，表現都優於日、韓、星、港。民眾如果不能看清民進黨經濟戰略的迷思，施壓民進黨轉型，將對台灣未來的發展非常不利。
首先，所謂「GDP成長數字的迷思」，綠營人士主張GDP無用，只是冷冰冰的統計數字，人民無感，應該揚棄。但我們在抱怨低薪、高失業之餘要理解，台灣當前種種困境最主要原因是「悶經濟」，就是因為經濟成長力道不足。要日子過得好，出門有面子，就要發展經濟，要提升國內生產毛額（GDP）。
國際上對GDP有沒有用的問題，討論已久。甘迺迪在1968年競選總統時，就提出對GDP的批評說︰國內生產毛額並不會考慮到我們孩子的健康、良好的教育品質，或是遊玩的快樂；它也不會包含詩詞的美、婚姻的堅定、公眾辯論的機智，或是公務人員的廉正，…。但是GDP提高，與健康、教育、遊樂、文學、家庭、智慧、清廉等指標都有高度正向的關係。把餅做大之後，雖然還有分配的問題，但是沒有經濟成長，餅就不能做大，就不可能讓大家分得更多，經濟成長是改善生活品質必要的條件。
綠營陷於恐中迷思
綠營更嚴重的迷思是反中、仇中、恐中的負面情緒，害怕「木馬屠城」，唯恐大陸因素干擾，因而企圖在政治、軍事、社會，甚至經濟上全面「拒敵」於境外，寧可妨害台灣的經濟發展。這1年來網路有一篇流傳甚廣的貼文，諷刺綠營面對兩岸經貿交流，無所不反對，而且邏輯自相矛盾。貼文如下：「讓資金流出去，叫做掏空台灣；讓資金流進來，叫做買下台灣。讓人才走出去，叫做人才外流；讓人才走進來，叫做引狼入室。人家賺你的錢，叫做欺人太甚；人家讓你賺錢，叫做收買人心。」反正對於兩岸的經貿及資金人才的往來皆高舉反對牌。
台灣是小型淺碟子經濟體，只有36000平方公里，缺少自然資源，要養活2300萬人口，經濟規模又不夠大，能夠有成長奇蹟，成為1980年代經濟發展的模範生，主要憑藉的是台灣人民的努力與政府成功的採用自由經濟的開放政策。在自由經濟的制度中，企業才有活力，在開放的政策下，台灣走出去，在國際舞台上才有大展身手的機會。
中國經濟體大崛起
但時空大環境已經改變，台灣精神雖然依舊，隨著中國等新興經濟體崛起，MIT於國際市場的競爭力已不如以往。30年來經濟全球化如火如荼，通訊技術日新月異，交通運輸便利，網路無國界，資訊流通便捷，「地球村」儼然成型，新產品的訊息可以快速傳遞到世界各個角落，資訊的交易成本大幅降低，「世界是平的」，競爭者眾。最終市場對於溝通語文、產品品質、區隔化及藉區域經濟整合降低產品售價的要求日益提高。台灣人過去的行銷方式，現在看來已經不太行得通了。
全球化不能沒大陸
台灣孤懸海上，市場規模小，推動國際化程度更顯困難。比較亞洲各國首都國際企業及外籍人士活躍度，台北市明顯遜於其他首都，不論是商務或是旅遊，台灣都可能是被跳過去的一個點。我們的教育制度雖然也大力培養學生的外文能力，但是因為種種原因，台灣人外語能力明顯不足。例如國際英語檢定的托福或雅思的分數，低於亞洲的新加坡、香港、菲律賓、馬來西亞，與大陸在伯仲間，最近因為南韓急起直追，我們也已經落後，只比日本、北韓要好。因為殖民地的關係，越南、柬埔寨等地的法文，我們望塵莫及，其他的國際語文如德文、西班牙文，台灣也沒有優勢。
區域經濟整合，不論是多邊的貿易協定（RTA）或雙邊的自由貿易協定（FTA）如雨後春筍的增加，台灣的進展卻相當緩慢。現在談全球化，沒有不談中國大陸的；原因是中國大陸已是世界最大工廠，也是世界最大市場。70年代後期鄧小平的改革開放，開始以中國特色的社會主義，注重市場，釋放經濟活力，力爭上游。在投資與出口的引導下，逐步發展經濟，使大陸已經是世界第二大經濟體，第二大外人直接投資的地區。
瞄準大中華服務業
綠營認為台灣大企業或小台商到大陸投資，是掏空台灣，是幫大陸人搶台灣人的工作，是剝奪台灣造就自己的財富。然而檢視資料，現今在IFRS的會計制度下，台商在兩岸的營業需要編制合併報表，企業在大陸賺錢，併入台灣母公司，也是兩邊都要繳稅，也貢獻台灣的稅收。跨國公司或台商回台上市，大陸獲利推升台灣母公司股價，台灣股東及股民都能得利，資本市場也因而注入活水，活絡台灣經濟。
綠營認為兩岸深化經濟關係將使台灣依賴大陸、向大陸傾斜。但對於台灣的淺碟子經濟，搭上這班順風車不但能突破目前的悶經濟，還可帶來持續的發展機會。台灣過去依靠大量出口至美歐國家的模式已不可行，未來發展的重點不能沒有大陸市場。「卡位大陸、融入亞太、邁向全球」是最佳的發展戰略，況且我們還有「地理位置相鄰」、「語言相通」這兩項無可取代的優勢。
如果綠營真愛台灣，就要講真話，台灣應該善用大陸大工廠，開發大陸大市場，與大陸經濟結合應更加緊密。台灣文化底蘊相對較高，深富「以人為本」的服務精神，是台灣服務業的獨特優勢。大中華的服務業，是台灣的大機會，是讓台灣經濟更上層樓最重要的門道。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 25, 2015
Executive Summary: If the Green Camp loves Taiwan, it must tell the truth. Taiwan must make good use of the Mainland factory, develop the Mainland market, and integrate with the Mainland economy. Taiwan cultural standards are relatively high. It has a people-oriented spirit of service. The service sector is one of Taiwan's unique advantages. Greater China's service industry offers a wonderful opportunity for Taiwan. It is the key to Taiwan's ascent to the next level.
Full Text Below:
As the DPP sees it, the 2016 Republic of China presidential election on Taiwan is a lock. Alas, Green Camp strategy is riddled with economic fallacies. It must make pragmatic changes in the coming year. Otherwise, if it wins, Taiwan's economy will descend into chaos. That would hardly benefit the people. The Ma government stumbled badly. But its basic direction was correct. Taiwan's economic performance over the past year has not been bad. Its GDP growth and unemployment rates were better than those of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. People must see the fallacies in the Democratic Progressive Party's economic strategy. They must pressure the DPP to undergo reform. Failure to do so will be catastrophic for Taiwan's future.
First take the “GDP growth figures fallacy”. The Green Camp argues that GDP figures are meaningless. It dismisses them as cold statistics that evoke only public indifference, and must be swept aside. But we on Taiwan complain about low wages and high unemployment. The reason we are experiencing these difficulties is a stagnant economy. Economic growth is inadequate. To live well, to feel pride, we must grow the economy and increase gross domestic product (GDP).
Internationally the use of GDP figures is a foregone conclusion. When Bobby Kennedy ran for president in 1968, he criticized the use of GDP figures. He said “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.” But GDP growth is closely correlated with health, education, recreation, literature, family, wisdom, integrity and other indices. A bigger pie may present wealth distribution problems. But absent economic growth, the pie will not get bigger. No one will get a larger slice. Economic growth is essential to a better quality of life.
Green Camp trapped in Fallacies
The most serious Green Camp fallacies have their roots in opposition to the Mainland, hatred of the Mainland, and fear of the Mainland. It fears a "Trojan horse". It fears Mainland interference. Therefore it would rather shut out “the enemy” politically, militarily, socially, and economically -- even if it undermines Taiwan's economic development. Over the past year many netizens have satirized the green camp's blanket rejection of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. They have pointed out the green camp's glaring internal contradictions. For example, one netizen wrote, "Allowing capital outflows is condemned as hollowing out Taiwan. Allowing capital inflows is condemned as buying out Taiwan. Allowing talent to leave is condemned as a brain drain. Allowing talent to enter is condemned as inviting the wolf into one's home. Allowing others to earn money from us is condemned as insufferable bullying. Allowing us to make money from others is condemned as buying our affections.” No matter how cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges are conducted, and no matter which way capital and talent flow, they are universally condemned and resisted.
Taiwan has a small, shallow dish economy. Taiwan is a mere 36,000 square kilometers in size. It lacks the natural resources to feed 23 million people. Its economic scale is inadequate. It underwent an economic miracle in the 1980s and became a model for economic development, by dint of hard work on the part of the public, and a successful policy of economic freedom on the part of the government. Under a free economy, Taiwan businesses were energized. Under liberal trade policies, Taiwan burst onto the international scene and demonstrated its mettle.
Mainland China's Economic Rise
But times have changed. Taiwan's spirit remains. But Mainland China and other emerging economies have risen. MIT products are no longer as competitive as they once were in the international market. For the past 30 years economic globalization has been in full swing. Advances in communications technology, transport facilitation, networking without borders, and information flow, have created a global village. New product information is quickly transmitted to every corner of the globe, significantly reducing transaction costs. The world is now flat, and competitors abound. End markets impose harsher demands on language, product quality, market segmentation and lower product prices made possible by regional economic integration. Taiwan's old marketing approaches are no longer feasible.
Globalization Cannot Take Place without the Mainland
Taiwan stands alone. Its markets are small. Internationalization is difficult. In international business and expatriate activity, Taipei City pales next to other Asian capitals. When it comes to business or tourism, Taiwan is often bypassed. Our education system vigorously develops students' foreign language skills. But for whatever reason, language skills on Taiwan are clearly inadequate. On the International English test TOEFL or IELTS, Taiwan scores below the rest of Asia, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines, Malaysia, and the Chinese mainland. South Korea has recently caught up, as a result we have fallen behind them. The only ones we still rank ahead of are Japan and North Korea. Former colonies such as Vietnam and Cambodia speak French. We have been left in the dust. With other international languages such as German and Spanish, Taiwan holds no advantage.
Regional economic integration includes multilateral trade agreements (RTAs) and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). Taiwan's progress on these has been quite slow. Regarding globalization, there is no such thing as globalization without the Mainland. The Mainland is already the world's largest factory and the world's largest market. During the late 1970s Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening introduced “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. This focused on the market and the liberation of economic vitality. Investments and exports led to gradual economic development. The Mainland now has the world's second largest economy and is the second largest destination for FDI.
Targeting Greater China Service Industries
The Green Camp condemns both large and small Taiwan investments on the Chinese mainland as hollowing out Taiwan, as helping the Mainland China, as stealing Taiwan jobs, and as depriving Taiwan of its wealth. But according to IFRS accounting, Taiwan businesses must prepare consolidated cross-Strait financial statements. Profits earned by businesses on the Mainland are combined with those of the parent company on Taiwan. They must pay taxes on both sides, as well as contribute revenue to Taiwan. Mainland profits earned byTaiwan multinationals or Taiwan businesses that return to Taiwan, boost Taiwan parent company stock prices. Taiwan shareholders and investors profit, capital markets benefit, and Taiwan's economy is revived.
The Green Camp assumes that allowing the two sides to expand economic relations will make Taiwan dependent on the Mainland, and favor the Mainland. But Taiwan has a shallow dish economy. Hitching a ride on the Mainland will revive a stagnant economy and bring sustainable development opportunities. Past reliance on exports to the US and European countries is no longer feasible. Taiwan cannot do with the Mainland market. Seeking a niche on the Mainland, integrating into Asia, and subsequently into the world" is the ideal development strategy, especially when we enjoy two irreplaceable advantages, geographical proximity and a common language.
If the Green Camp loves Taiwan, it must tell the truth. Taiwan must make good use of the Mainland factory, develop the Mainland market, and integrate with the Mainland economy. Taiwan cultural standards are relatively high. It has a people-oriented spirit of service. The service sector is one of Taiwan's unique advantages. Greater China's service industry offers a wonderful opportunity for Taiwan. It is the key to Taiwan's ascent to the next level.
社論－切割全球第二大經濟體 活水何在？
2015年02月25日 04:10
（系列二）
2016台灣總統選舉，民進黨看似篤定勝選，但綠營的經濟戰略充滿迷思，如不能在1年內做出務實調整，一旦勝選，台灣經濟將陷入極不確定狀態，恐非國人之福。馬政府施政固然失敗，但國家大方向正確，過去1年台灣經濟表現不差，無論GDP成長率或失業率，表現都優於日、韓、星、港。民眾如果不能看清民進黨經濟戰略的迷思，施壓民進黨轉型，將對台灣未來的發展非常不利。
首先，所謂「GDP成長數字的迷思」，綠營人士主張GDP無用，只是冷冰冰的統計數字，人民無感，應該揚棄。但我們在抱怨低薪、高失業之餘要理解，台灣當前種種困境最主要原因是「悶經濟」，就是因為經濟成長力道不足。要日子過得好，出門有面子，就要發展經濟，要提升國內生產毛額（GDP）。
國際上對GDP有沒有用的問題，討論已久。甘迺迪在1968年競選總統時，就提出對GDP的批評說︰國內生產毛額並不會考慮到我們孩子的健康、良好的教育品質，或是遊玩的快樂；它也不會包含詩詞的美、婚姻的堅定、公眾辯論的機智，或是公務人員的廉正，…。但是GDP提高，與健康、教育、遊樂、文學、家庭、智慧、清廉等指標都有高度正向的關係。把餅做大之後，雖然還有分配的問題，但是沒有經濟成長，餅就不能做大，就不可能讓大家分得更多，經濟成長是改善生活品質必要的條件。
綠營陷於恐中迷思
綠營更嚴重的迷思是反中、仇中、恐中的負面情緒，害怕「木馬屠城」，唯恐大陸因素干擾，因而企圖在政治、軍事、社會，甚至經濟上全面「拒敵」於境外，寧可妨害台灣的經濟發展。這1年來網路有一篇流傳甚廣的貼文，諷刺綠營面對兩岸經貿交流，無所不反對，而且邏輯自相矛盾。貼文如下：「讓資金流出去，叫做掏空台灣；讓資金流進來，叫做買下台灣。讓人才走出去，叫做人才外流；讓人才走進來，叫做引狼入室。人家賺你的錢，叫做欺人太甚；人家讓你賺錢，叫做收買人心。」反正對於兩岸的經貿及資金人才的往來皆高舉反對牌。
台灣是小型淺碟子經濟體，只有36000平方公里，缺少自然資源，要養活2300萬人口，經濟規模又不夠大，能夠有成長奇蹟，成為1980年代經濟發展的模範生，主要憑藉的是台灣人民的努力與政府成功的採用自由經濟的開放政策。在自由經濟的制度中，企業才有活力，在開放的政策下，台灣走出去，在國際舞台上才有大展身手的機會。
中國經濟體大崛起
但時空大環境已經改變，台灣精神雖然依舊，隨著中國等新興經濟體崛起，MIT於國際市場的競爭力已不如以往。30年來經濟全球化如火如荼，通訊技術日新月異，交通運輸便利，網路無國界，資訊流通便捷，「地球村」儼然成型，新產品的訊息可以快速傳遞到世界各個角落，資訊的交易成本大幅降低，「世界是平的」，競爭者眾。最終市場對於溝通語文、產品品質、區隔化及藉區域經濟整合降低產品售價的要求日益提高。台灣人過去的行銷方式，現在看來已經不太行得通了。
全球化不能沒大陸
台灣孤懸海上，市場規模小，推動國際化程度更顯困難。比較亞洲各國首都國際企業及外籍人士活躍度，台北市明顯遜於其他首都，不論是商務或是旅遊，台灣都可能是被跳過去的一個點。我們的教育制度雖然也大力培養學生的外文能力，但是因為種種原因，台灣人外語能力明顯不足。例如國際英語檢定的托福或雅思的分數，低於亞洲的新加坡、香港、菲律賓、馬來西亞，與大陸在伯仲間，最近因為南韓急起直追，我們也已經落後，只比日本、北韓要好。因為殖民地的關係，越南、柬埔寨等地的法文，我們望塵莫及，其他的國際語文如德文、西班牙文，台灣也沒有優勢。
區域經濟整合，不論是多邊的貿易協定（RTA）或雙邊的自由貿易協定（FTA）如雨後春筍的增加，台灣的進展卻相當緩慢。現在談全球化，沒有不談中國大陸的；原因是中國大陸已是世界最大工廠，也是世界最大市場。70年代後期鄧小平的改革開放，開始以中國特色的社會主義，注重市場，釋放經濟活力，力爭上游。在投資與出口的引導下，逐步發展經濟，使大陸已經是世界第二大經濟體，第二大外人直接投資的地區。
瞄準大中華服務業
綠營認為台灣大企業或小台商到大陸投資，是掏空台灣，是幫大陸人搶台灣人的工作，是剝奪台灣造就自己的財富。然而檢視資料，現今在IFRS的會計制度下，台商在兩岸的營業需要編制合併報表，企業在大陸賺錢，併入台灣母公司，也是兩邊都要繳稅，也貢獻台灣的稅收。跨國公司或台商回台上市，大陸獲利推升台灣母公司股價，台灣股東及股民都能得利，資本市場也因而注入活水，活絡台灣經濟。
綠營認為兩岸深化經濟關係將使台灣依賴大陸、向大陸傾斜。但對於台灣的淺碟子經濟，搭上這班順風車不但能突破目前的悶經濟，還可帶來持續的發展機會。台灣過去依靠大量出口至美歐國家的模式已不可行，未來發展的重點不能沒有大陸市場。「卡位大陸、融入亞太、邁向全球」是最佳的發展戰略，況且我們還有「地理位置相鄰」、「語言相通」這兩項無可取代的優勢。
如果綠營真愛台灣，就要講真話，台灣應該善用大陸大工廠，開發大陸大市場，與大陸經濟結合應更加緊密。台灣文化底蘊相對較高，深富「以人為本」的服務精神，是台灣服務業的獨特優勢。大中華的服務業，是台灣的大機會，是讓台灣經濟更上層樓最重要的門道。
Monday, February 23, 2015
Cross-Strait Confrontation: Cui Bono?
Cross-Strait Confrontation: Cui Bono?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 24, 2015
Executive Summary: The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. Since then it has become ever more bold. Its stance on the 1992 consensus and the Taiwan independence party platform has hardened. Su Chi is a former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, and Chairman of the Taiwan Forum. Su recently issued a warning. He said that if the cross-Strait policy of the DPP presidential candidate are perceived as undermining stability in the Taiwan Strait, and as moving toward Taiwan independence, Xi Jinping will take preemptive action, and Taiwan will “feel him”.
Full Text Below:
We have three questions on cross-Strait relations. What precisely are cross-Strait relations? Will the Chinese mainland allow the DPP to lead Taiwan towards independence? Whom will cross-Strait confrontation ultimately benefit?
Should we seek Taiwan independence?
The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. Since then it has become ever more bold. Its stance on the 1992 consensus and the Taiwan independence party platform has hardened. Su Chi is a former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, and Chairman of the Taiwan Forum. Su recently issued a warning. He said that if the cross-Strait policy of the DPP presidential candidate are perceived as undermining stability in the Taiwan Strait, and as moving toward Taiwan independence, Xi Jinping will take preemptive action, and Taiwan will “feel him”.
Su's outspoken observations drew Green Camp fire. Some on the Internet accused Su of helping the CCP to intimidate Taiwan with words and weapons. Were Su'
s observations intimidation, or prophecy? Or were they bitter medicine and wise counsel? One need not and should not accuse Su of ulterior motives. One should instead return to the key point. Was Su telling the truth?
Does one understand the public mood on the Mainland? Does one understand CCP leadership style and decision-making? Does one understand Xi Jinping? If one does, one will realize that Su was not intimidating Taiwan. The DPP accused Su of "selling out Taiwan". Instead, it should be honest and answer the question in the heart of everyone on Taiwan. What are Tsai Ing-wen's plans? Tsai Ing-wen once referred to Taiwan independence as a "natural ingredient". During the DPP All Party Conference she prevented others from freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. Does Tsai Ing-wen intend to make Taiwan independence part of her bid for the presidency?
If she does, she must honestly tell the people what consequences Taiwan independence will bring. She must not equivocate. If the people are willing to accept the consequences of Taiwan independence, if they are not misled, if they make the choice freely, then everyone will bear the consequences of Taiwan independence together.
If Tsai does not, then we must ask, why not? What are you afraid of? You must also honestly tell the people precisely where you stand. If Tsai is afraid to do so, that proves Su Chi was right. Taiwan independence is not a free promotional cold drink offered during a long, hot summer. A price must be paid, one that as Su Chi noted, the Taiwan people will “feel”.
Two Anti-Mainland Lies
We at this newspaper, oppose Taiwan independence. We oppose Taiwan independence deception and anti-mainland demagoguery even more. Over the years, Taiwan independence advocates have disseminated ambiguous Taiwan independence half-truths. Internally, they have hijacked the DPP. As a result, the DPP has spun its wheels on cross-Strait policy. It has been unable to reform itself. It has been unable to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform. Even Frank Hsieh's open and moderate “constitutional one China” cross-Strait initiative has been aborted in this political atmosphere.
Externally, it continues to spread populist hatred and fear of Mainland China. This sort of populist demagoguery was apparent in the Sunflower Student Movement and contributed to the DPP victory in the nine in one elections.
It has enabled it to create a political atmosphere and celebrate an election victory. It has even enabled the DPP to revel in a premature 2016 victory celebration. It is now confident that even if the two sides remain at loggerheads, the DPP will still win the election.
Worse still are anti-Mainland policy claims, which involve two lies. Lie One: CCP threats are all bark and no bite. The CCP only dares to sound off. It dares not take action. Lie Two: The United States has the Taiwan independence movement's back. If anything happens in the Taiwan Strait, the US will ride to the rescue. These lies reinforce each other. Lie Two increases confidence in Lie One.
Take Lie Two. In late 2003, one US poll indicated that 74% of all Americans opposed US aid to Taiwan in the event the Chinese Communists invade Taiwan. It is not difficult to understand the mood of the American people. Also, the poll was conducted in 2003. Today, 12 years later, Mainland China is many times stronger. Today, any Sino-US military confrontation would exact a far higher price on the US than in 2003. The US-China relationship is coopetition. But in fact cooperation greatly outweighs competition. Economically the two sides may experience friction, but at a deeper level, they are interdependent. On global strategy, including the Korean Peninsula, in Russia and Ukraine, the Islamic State, and other global threats, the United States needs a strategic partnership with the Chinese mainland. Therefore the likelihood of the United States sending troops to Taiwan to defend against the Chinese mainland is zero. How can any responsible political party bet Taiwan's safety on such overwhelming odds?
Opposition to Mainland China traps one in a cycle of hate
Are Chinese Communist Party military threats empty bluffs? That depends on how far the Green Camp goes with its anti-Mainland antics. Unless necessary, no one wants to resort to force. That merely leads to a worst case scenario, in which both parties are wounded. But anti-Mainland antics had better not involve Taiwan independence, or collide head on with the CCP's national goals, or challenge the legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party rule. If they do, the question will not be whether the CCP resorts to force, but whether CCP leaders can justify not using force before the Mainland public. If outward directed Taiwan independence antics continue to escalate, the CCP may not immediately resort to force. But they will lead step by step toward a vicious cycle of cross-Strait hostility. Eventually the foundation for cross-Strait exchanges will be destroyed. Escalating cross-Strait conflict may extend to diplomatic, economic and social exchanges at all levels. Taiwan's international space will be further limited. Can Taiwan's fragile economy withstand such shocks? Can we withstand such attacks? If the DPP persists in its opposition to Mainland China, who exactly will benefit? They know the answer to that question without asking.
Is the DPP unwilling to help Taiwan in a responsible manner? If so, the people of Taiwan must think for themselves. An anti-Mainland posture is infeasible. Both sides want peace. Only peace enables cooperation. Only cooperation enables win/win. This is our sincere recommendation to the DPP and all the people of the nation.
This newspaper has consistently said that "genuine rationality means genuine lover for Taiwan". Genuine rationality is the method. Genuine love for Taiwan is the goal. The antonym of "genuine" is "fake". Genuine love for Taiwan has nothing to do with the hollow slogan, "love for Taiwan". Everyone knows how to shout “love for Taiwan”. But genuine love for Taiwan will not harm Taiwan. Instead it will enable the people of Taiwan to enjoy peace and happiness, and a chance to live the good life. Genuine love requires an objective test that determines whether politicians genuinely love Taiwan. That is "genuine rationality". Rhetoric must be backed by reality. It must with stand the acid test. Speak the truth. Do not deceive yourself. Do not deceive the people. Do not deceive Taiwan.
社論－對抗的兩岸關係 最終對誰有利？
2015年02月24日 04:10
本報訊
首先，我們要就兩岸關係提出3個詢問：兩岸關係究竟是什麼關係？中國大陸會容忍民進黨帶領台灣走向台獨嗎？對抗的兩岸關係究竟對兩岸哪一方有利？
要不要追求台獨？
九合一選舉，民進黨贏得重大勝利後，更顯得自信，在台獨黨綱與九二共識問題上，立場更僵硬。前國安會祕書長、台灣論壇董事長蘇起心所謂危地提出警訊，他指出，若民進黨總統候選人提出的兩岸政策，被認定有損台海穩定，確定走向台獨路線，習近平將主動出手，且讓台灣「有感」。
他的直言不諱果然引來綠營的批評，網路上也有人嘲諷蘇起幫中共對台灣「文攻武嚇」。蘇起說的話究竟是恫嚇、危言？還是苦諫、忠言？不必也不應用陰謀論誅心，而應回到一個關鍵，那就是蘇起說的話，是不是真話？
了解大陸社會民氣、中共決策體系及習近平領導風格的人，大概都不會認同「蘇起恐嚇台灣」的粗鄙攻訐。民進黨不應該指責蘇起「賣台」，而應該誠實回答台灣人民內心的問題：曾經把「台獨」定調為「天然成分」，在民進黨全代會擋下「凍結台獨黨綱」案的蔡英文，要不要把追求台灣獨立當做本次總統的參選政見？
如果要，就明明白白的把台獨會帶來的後果告訴國人，說出真話，不要曖昧模糊。如果台灣人民願意接受台獨的後果，意謂人民本於不被誤導的自由意志做出了選擇，那麼大家就一起勇敢承擔、面對選擇台獨的後果。
如果蔡英文不要，那麼我們要問，為什麼？怕什麼？也一樣請民進黨把話說清楚講明白。如果蔡英文不敢，那不就證明蘇起所言非虛，因為台獨不是免費的夏日促銷冷飲，要付出的是如蘇起所說的，會讓台灣人民「有感」的代價！
反中 隱含兩個欺騙
我們反對台獨，但我們更反對不說真話的台獨所操弄的反中情緒。長期以來，獨派人士一直用一種不說清楚、曖昧朦朧的台獨意識進行反中宣傳，這種話說半套式的欺騙，對內，成功綁架了民進黨，讓民進黨在兩岸政策原地踏步，無法轉型，包括凍結台獨黨綱，乃至於謝長廷的憲法一中等較為開放和緩的兩岸改革工程，都在這樣的氛圍下，只有胎死腹中的悲劇結局。
對外，則是不斷擴散仇中與恐中的民粹情緒，從太陽花學運到民進黨九合一大勝，都可以看到這一系列的民粹操弄，確實獲得了主導社會氣氛並創造勝選契機，甚至已「提前」享受2016年的「勝選心情」，擺出「兩岸繼續鐵板，選舉照樣過關」的自信。
更糟糕的是治理面的反中操作，中間隱含著兩個隱藏的欺騙上。一是，中共的武嚇只是青蛙鼓肚皮，虛張聲勢、敢喊不敢做；二是，有美國當靠山，台海有事，美國會馳援。而這兩者有著相互增強的作用，第二騙強化了第一騙的自信。
先看第二騙，2003年底美國有一份民調指出，高達74%的美國民眾反對美國向台灣保證會在中共攻台時出手搭救。美國民眾的心情不難理解，而且那是2003年的民調，12年後的今天，大陸的國力翻數番，今日中美若出現軍事對抗，美國要付出的代價絕對比2003年更高。現在美中關係雖有競爭有合作，但實際上合作的面向已大於競爭。經濟上雙方有摩擦，但更深的是互賴。在全球戰略上，不管是朝鮮半島的變數、俄羅斯與烏克蘭的情勢、伊斯蘭國對全球的威脅等方方面面，美國都需要建立與中國大陸的戰略合作關係。由此以觀，美國為台灣出兵與大陸抗衡的機率就算不是「零」，會有多少？一個負責任的政黨，豈可將台灣的安危押在微小且不可測的機率上。
抗中 陷入仇視循環
至於中共武嚇是不是虛張聲勢，則要看綠營把反中上綱到什麼程度？非到必要，沒有人想動武，那是傷彼一千、自傷八百的最壞決定。但若反中上綱到台獨，將直撞中共的民族大義，那是中共統治的正當性基礎，問題將不是中共要不要動武，而是中共領導人要如何找到「不動武」的理由對內交代？如果是台獨以外的反中操作繼續升高，也許中共未有即刻動武的迫切性，但也將一步步把兩岸推向仇視循環，毀去好不容易打下的兩岸交流基礎，雙方逐步升高的衝突，也可能擴及外交、經濟與社會交流等各層面，以台灣目前狹限的國際空間與脆弱的經濟體質，我們有多厚的實力承受這些衝擊？值不值得去承受這些衝擊呢？如果民進黨繼續在對抗的道路冒進，終局究竟對誰有利，答案不問自明。
這方方面面，如果民進黨不願意以負責任的態度幫台灣設想，台灣人民就得自己想。反中不可行，兩岸要和平，和平才有合作，合作才能雙贏，這是我們對民進黨與全體國人的誠摰獻議。
本報一以貫之呼籲「真道理性、真愛台灣」，「真道理性」是方法，「真愛台灣」是目的。「真」的對稱是「假」，真愛台灣是要與「愛台灣」的口號區隔。愛台灣人人會喊，但是否出於真心，會不會愛之適足以害之，反而讓台灣人民失去和平幸福、過好日子的機會？「真」，需要客觀的方法檢驗，檢驗政治人物是否真愛台灣的尺標，就是「真道理性」。論述必須有憑據、經得起檢驗，就是要講實話，不要欺騙自己、欺騙人民、欺騙台灣。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 24, 2015
Executive Summary: The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. Since then it has become ever more bold. Its stance on the 1992 consensus and the Taiwan independence party platform has hardened. Su Chi is a former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, and Chairman of the Taiwan Forum. Su recently issued a warning. He said that if the cross-Strait policy of the DPP presidential candidate are perceived as undermining stability in the Taiwan Strait, and as moving toward Taiwan independence, Xi Jinping will take preemptive action, and Taiwan will “feel him”.
Full Text Below:
We have three questions on cross-Strait relations. What precisely are cross-Strait relations? Will the Chinese mainland allow the DPP to lead Taiwan towards independence? Whom will cross-Strait confrontation ultimately benefit?
Should we seek Taiwan independence?
The DPP scored a major victory during the nine in one elections. Since then it has become ever more bold. Its stance on the 1992 consensus and the Taiwan independence party platform has hardened. Su Chi is a former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, and Chairman of the Taiwan Forum. Su recently issued a warning. He said that if the cross-Strait policy of the DPP presidential candidate are perceived as undermining stability in the Taiwan Strait, and as moving toward Taiwan independence, Xi Jinping will take preemptive action, and Taiwan will “feel him”.
Su's outspoken observations drew Green Camp fire. Some on the Internet accused Su of helping the CCP to intimidate Taiwan with words and weapons. Were Su'
s observations intimidation, or prophecy? Or were they bitter medicine and wise counsel? One need not and should not accuse Su of ulterior motives. One should instead return to the key point. Was Su telling the truth?
Does one understand the public mood on the Mainland? Does one understand CCP leadership style and decision-making? Does one understand Xi Jinping? If one does, one will realize that Su was not intimidating Taiwan. The DPP accused Su of "selling out Taiwan". Instead, it should be honest and answer the question in the heart of everyone on Taiwan. What are Tsai Ing-wen's plans? Tsai Ing-wen once referred to Taiwan independence as a "natural ingredient". During the DPP All Party Conference she prevented others from freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. Does Tsai Ing-wen intend to make Taiwan independence part of her bid for the presidency?
If she does, she must honestly tell the people what consequences Taiwan independence will bring. She must not equivocate. If the people are willing to accept the consequences of Taiwan independence, if they are not misled, if they make the choice freely, then everyone will bear the consequences of Taiwan independence together.
If Tsai does not, then we must ask, why not? What are you afraid of? You must also honestly tell the people precisely where you stand. If Tsai is afraid to do so, that proves Su Chi was right. Taiwan independence is not a free promotional cold drink offered during a long, hot summer. A price must be paid, one that as Su Chi noted, the Taiwan people will “feel”.
Two Anti-Mainland Lies
We at this newspaper, oppose Taiwan independence. We oppose Taiwan independence deception and anti-mainland demagoguery even more. Over the years, Taiwan independence advocates have disseminated ambiguous Taiwan independence half-truths. Internally, they have hijacked the DPP. As a result, the DPP has spun its wheels on cross-Strait policy. It has been unable to reform itself. It has been unable to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform. Even Frank Hsieh's open and moderate “constitutional one China” cross-Strait initiative has been aborted in this political atmosphere.
Externally, it continues to spread populist hatred and fear of Mainland China. This sort of populist demagoguery was apparent in the Sunflower Student Movement and contributed to the DPP victory in the nine in one elections.
It has enabled it to create a political atmosphere and celebrate an election victory. It has even enabled the DPP to revel in a premature 2016 victory celebration. It is now confident that even if the two sides remain at loggerheads, the DPP will still win the election.
Worse still are anti-Mainland policy claims, which involve two lies. Lie One: CCP threats are all bark and no bite. The CCP only dares to sound off. It dares not take action. Lie Two: The United States has the Taiwan independence movement's back. If anything happens in the Taiwan Strait, the US will ride to the rescue. These lies reinforce each other. Lie Two increases confidence in Lie One.
Take Lie Two. In late 2003, one US poll indicated that 74% of all Americans opposed US aid to Taiwan in the event the Chinese Communists invade Taiwan. It is not difficult to understand the mood of the American people. Also, the poll was conducted in 2003. Today, 12 years later, Mainland China is many times stronger. Today, any Sino-US military confrontation would exact a far higher price on the US than in 2003. The US-China relationship is coopetition. But in fact cooperation greatly outweighs competition. Economically the two sides may experience friction, but at a deeper level, they are interdependent. On global strategy, including the Korean Peninsula, in Russia and Ukraine, the Islamic State, and other global threats, the United States needs a strategic partnership with the Chinese mainland. Therefore the likelihood of the United States sending troops to Taiwan to defend against the Chinese mainland is zero. How can any responsible political party bet Taiwan's safety on such overwhelming odds?
Opposition to Mainland China traps one in a cycle of hate
Are Chinese Communist Party military threats empty bluffs? That depends on how far the Green Camp goes with its anti-Mainland antics. Unless necessary, no one wants to resort to force. That merely leads to a worst case scenario, in which both parties are wounded. But anti-Mainland antics had better not involve Taiwan independence, or collide head on with the CCP's national goals, or challenge the legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party rule. If they do, the question will not be whether the CCP resorts to force, but whether CCP leaders can justify not using force before the Mainland public. If outward directed Taiwan independence antics continue to escalate, the CCP may not immediately resort to force. But they will lead step by step toward a vicious cycle of cross-Strait hostility. Eventually the foundation for cross-Strait exchanges will be destroyed. Escalating cross-Strait conflict may extend to diplomatic, economic and social exchanges at all levels. Taiwan's international space will be further limited. Can Taiwan's fragile economy withstand such shocks? Can we withstand such attacks? If the DPP persists in its opposition to Mainland China, who exactly will benefit? They know the answer to that question without asking.
Is the DPP unwilling to help Taiwan in a responsible manner? If so, the people of Taiwan must think for themselves. An anti-Mainland posture is infeasible. Both sides want peace. Only peace enables cooperation. Only cooperation enables win/win. This is our sincere recommendation to the DPP and all the people of the nation.
This newspaper has consistently said that "genuine rationality means genuine lover for Taiwan". Genuine rationality is the method. Genuine love for Taiwan is the goal. The antonym of "genuine" is "fake". Genuine love for Taiwan has nothing to do with the hollow slogan, "love for Taiwan". Everyone knows how to shout “love for Taiwan”. But genuine love for Taiwan will not harm Taiwan. Instead it will enable the people of Taiwan to enjoy peace and happiness, and a chance to live the good life. Genuine love requires an objective test that determines whether politicians genuinely love Taiwan. That is "genuine rationality". Rhetoric must be backed by reality. It must with stand the acid test. Speak the truth. Do not deceive yourself. Do not deceive the people. Do not deceive Taiwan.
社論－對抗的兩岸關係 最終對誰有利？
2015年02月24日 04:10
本報訊
首先，我們要就兩岸關係提出3個詢問：兩岸關係究竟是什麼關係？中國大陸會容忍民進黨帶領台灣走向台獨嗎？對抗的兩岸關係究竟對兩岸哪一方有利？
要不要追求台獨？
九合一選舉，民進黨贏得重大勝利後，更顯得自信，在台獨黨綱與九二共識問題上，立場更僵硬。前國安會祕書長、台灣論壇董事長蘇起心所謂危地提出警訊，他指出，若民進黨總統候選人提出的兩岸政策，被認定有損台海穩定，確定走向台獨路線，習近平將主動出手，且讓台灣「有感」。
他的直言不諱果然引來綠營的批評，網路上也有人嘲諷蘇起幫中共對台灣「文攻武嚇」。蘇起說的話究竟是恫嚇、危言？還是苦諫、忠言？不必也不應用陰謀論誅心，而應回到一個關鍵，那就是蘇起說的話，是不是真話？
了解大陸社會民氣、中共決策體系及習近平領導風格的人，大概都不會認同「蘇起恐嚇台灣」的粗鄙攻訐。民進黨不應該指責蘇起「賣台」，而應該誠實回答台灣人民內心的問題：曾經把「台獨」定調為「天然成分」，在民進黨全代會擋下「凍結台獨黨綱」案的蔡英文，要不要把追求台灣獨立當做本次總統的參選政見？
如果要，就明明白白的把台獨會帶來的後果告訴國人，說出真話，不要曖昧模糊。如果台灣人民願意接受台獨的後果，意謂人民本於不被誤導的自由意志做出了選擇，那麼大家就一起勇敢承擔、面對選擇台獨的後果。
如果蔡英文不要，那麼我們要問，為什麼？怕什麼？也一樣請民進黨把話說清楚講明白。如果蔡英文不敢，那不就證明蘇起所言非虛，因為台獨不是免費的夏日促銷冷飲，要付出的是如蘇起所說的，會讓台灣人民「有感」的代價！
反中 隱含兩個欺騙
我們反對台獨，但我們更反對不說真話的台獨所操弄的反中情緒。長期以來，獨派人士一直用一種不說清楚、曖昧朦朧的台獨意識進行反中宣傳，這種話說半套式的欺騙，對內，成功綁架了民進黨，讓民進黨在兩岸政策原地踏步，無法轉型，包括凍結台獨黨綱，乃至於謝長廷的憲法一中等較為開放和緩的兩岸改革工程，都在這樣的氛圍下，只有胎死腹中的悲劇結局。
對外，則是不斷擴散仇中與恐中的民粹情緒，從太陽花學運到民進黨九合一大勝，都可以看到這一系列的民粹操弄，確實獲得了主導社會氣氛並創造勝選契機，甚至已「提前」享受2016年的「勝選心情」，擺出「兩岸繼續鐵板，選舉照樣過關」的自信。
更糟糕的是治理面的反中操作，中間隱含著兩個隱藏的欺騙上。一是，中共的武嚇只是青蛙鼓肚皮，虛張聲勢、敢喊不敢做；二是，有美國當靠山，台海有事，美國會馳援。而這兩者有著相互增強的作用，第二騙強化了第一騙的自信。
先看第二騙，2003年底美國有一份民調指出，高達74%的美國民眾反對美國向台灣保證會在中共攻台時出手搭救。美國民眾的心情不難理解，而且那是2003年的民調，12年後的今天，大陸的國力翻數番，今日中美若出現軍事對抗，美國要付出的代價絕對比2003年更高。現在美中關係雖有競爭有合作，但實際上合作的面向已大於競爭。經濟上雙方有摩擦，但更深的是互賴。在全球戰略上，不管是朝鮮半島的變數、俄羅斯與烏克蘭的情勢、伊斯蘭國對全球的威脅等方方面面，美國都需要建立與中國大陸的戰略合作關係。由此以觀，美國為台灣出兵與大陸抗衡的機率就算不是「零」，會有多少？一個負責任的政黨，豈可將台灣的安危押在微小且不可測的機率上。
抗中 陷入仇視循環
至於中共武嚇是不是虛張聲勢，則要看綠營把反中上綱到什麼程度？非到必要，沒有人想動武，那是傷彼一千、自傷八百的最壞決定。但若反中上綱到台獨，將直撞中共的民族大義，那是中共統治的正當性基礎，問題將不是中共要不要動武，而是中共領導人要如何找到「不動武」的理由對內交代？如果是台獨以外的反中操作繼續升高，也許中共未有即刻動武的迫切性，但也將一步步把兩岸推向仇視循環，毀去好不容易打下的兩岸交流基礎，雙方逐步升高的衝突，也可能擴及外交、經濟與社會交流等各層面，以台灣目前狹限的國際空間與脆弱的經濟體質，我們有多厚的實力承受這些衝擊？值不值得去承受這些衝擊呢？如果民進黨繼續在對抗的道路冒進，終局究竟對誰有利，答案不問自明。
這方方面面，如果民進黨不願意以負責任的態度幫台灣設想，台灣人民就得自己想。反中不可行，兩岸要和平，和平才有合作，合作才能雙贏，這是我們對民進黨與全體國人的誠摰獻議。
本報一以貫之呼籲「真道理性、真愛台灣」，「真道理性」是方法，「真愛台灣」是目的。「真」的對稱是「假」，真愛台灣是要與「愛台灣」的口號區隔。愛台灣人人會喊，但是否出於真心，會不會愛之適足以害之，反而讓台灣人民失去和平幸福、過好日子的機會？「真」，需要客觀的方法檢驗，檢驗政治人物是否真愛台灣的尺標，就是「真道理性」。論述必須有憑據、經得起檢驗，就是要講實話，不要欺騙自己、欺騙人民、欺騙台灣。
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Mysterious Gap between President Ma's Authority and Ideals
The Mysterious Gap between President Ma's Authority and Ideals
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 17, 2015
Executive Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.
Full Text Below:
President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.
During the first three years of President Ma's second term he suffered one setback after another. These setbacks fall into three categories. One. Policy promotion failures. For example, the capital gains tax, the STA, the food safety crisis, the gasoline price and electricity rate hikes, nine year compulsory education, and the 4NPP issue, were all plagued by a haste to claim credit, poor communications, administrative ineptitude, and of course malicious obstructionism by the political opposition. Two. Political bungling led to political crises. For example, the Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal and party membership controversy, the Chang Hsien-yao leaks scandal, the death of Hung Chung-chiu, and the Sunflower Student Movement. Ma misjudged the situation and responded inappropriately. Either that, or he failed to follow proper procedure and plunged himself in hot water. He even forfeited his bully pulpit. Three. Ma was a bad judge of character. For example, he promoted Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru despite their improper conduct. He retained academics and experts who lacked the courage of their convictions. He watched idly as Chang Hsien-yao and Wang Yu-chi committed fratricide. He relied too heavily on advisors who closely controlled the information he received. The debacle that followed was a long time coming.
When President Ma first took office, public support was sky high, and he enjoyed a supermajority in the legislature. But in swift order, both his authority and ideals were frittered away. Intense public resentment left him paralyzed, unable to move. The precise reason for this change has puzzled many.
The previously mentioned three crises were largely the result of Ma administration ineptitude. This indeptitude reflected poorly on his leadership, and was the result of President Ma's own unrealistic expectations. President Ma loved to hold forth on high ideals and high-minded reforms. But he ignored the need for public support. As a result, he not only failed, he also provoked a public backlash. As head of state he must use government authority and national resources to create stepping stones to his ideals. He must clear away the obstacles standing in his way. He must inspire public support, instead of resorting to hollow rhetoric, in the mistaken belief that his ideals can be realized overnight. President Ma insists he is not a lame duck. That is easy to say. Alas, he still does not seem to understand that the gap between reality and ideals cannot be bridged by sheer bravado.
If someone were to say that Ma was the most naive head of state ever, few would disagree. Viewed positively, "naive" means he was pure of heart. Viewed negatively, the implications are highly derogatory. It means he brimmed over with good intentions, but had no idea how to realize them. It means he wielded great power, but had no idea how to use that power to benefit the people. It means he controlled the powerful machinery of state, but repeatedly dropped it on his own toes. True, he remained scrupulously incorruptible, but he never won the public's trust. President Ma occupied the highest political office in the land, yet had not idea how to govern. His contempt for politics, ironically mired him in politics. This was the fundamental reason both his authority and ideals came to naught.
Take the case of Chang Hsien-yao, the clearest example of President Ma's “all talk but no walk” phenomenon. President Ma granted us an interview. The woodpecker diligently searched out insects. Chang Hsien-yao was considered a second-tier official. Yet he provided information to outsiders, and eventually to the Mainland. This was forbidden by public administration ethics and the law. Yet the Taipei District Prosecutors Office failed to prosecute. It was all too incredible. President Ma apparently forgot that the person who appointed Chang Hsien-yao to both the MAC and the SEF was none other than himself. If Chang Hsien-yao's conduct was unacceptable, he could have dealt with the matter politically or removed him from his post. He could have instructed national security or internal affairs units to investigate. He should not have given him access to confidential information that could be leaked. But President Ma refused to remove his political appointee from office. Instead he presented the case to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. The resulting criminal investigation backfired on him.
Consider the outcome. Was it not the same mistake he made with Wang Jin-pyng? The Chang case was the same as the Wang case. The Ma government had evidence of two violations. It mattered not whether the cases involved leaks or influence peddling. They were actions that the public considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, the Ma government could not grasp the political subtleties. He reduced the entire affair to a matter of "criminal justice". In the end, social justice was blurred. Even the legitimacy of his own authority was undermined. President Ma was educated in the law. Perhaps he imagined that criminal justice would restore social justice. But as we all know, he has repeatedly blundered on the political front, and sacrificed his moral beliefs and social values.
Today's Taiwan is a values vacuum. The blue and green camps face each other, daggers drawn. The opposition party engages in defamation, and panders to the mob. These perhaps, are the main factors. But President Ma's political ineptitude and empty promises allowed his opponent to take advantage of him, time and again. They too, are to blame. President Ma says he intends to stand and fight another day. If so, he must first confront his shortcomings, his habits of all talk, no walk, and being quick to retreat.
馬總統的權力和理想落空之謎
2015-02-17 02:01:33 聯合報 社論
馬英九總統日前接受本報系專訪，
回顧馬總統第二屆任期近三年來的挫敗連連，
馬總統上任之初，擁有那麼高的民意支持，在國會也擁有絕對多數；
分析上述三類挫敗危機，有很大的因素是馬團隊「執政力」
事實上，如果有人說馬英九是歷任元首中是最「天真」的一位，
以張顯耀案為例，最足以說明馬總統這種偏好「空談」
試想，這樣的結局，不正是大刀砍王金平卻遭反噬的同一覆轍？
環顧今天台灣的虛無氛圍，藍綠的對峙、在野黨的抹黑、
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 17, 2015
Executive Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.
Full Text Below:
President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.
During the first three years of President Ma's second term he suffered one setback after another. These setbacks fall into three categories. One. Policy promotion failures. For example, the capital gains tax, the STA, the food safety crisis, the gasoline price and electricity rate hikes, nine year compulsory education, and the 4NPP issue, were all plagued by a haste to claim credit, poor communications, administrative ineptitude, and of course malicious obstructionism by the political opposition. Two. Political bungling led to political crises. For example, the Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal and party membership controversy, the Chang Hsien-yao leaks scandal, the death of Hung Chung-chiu, and the Sunflower Student Movement. Ma misjudged the situation and responded inappropriately. Either that, or he failed to follow proper procedure and plunged himself in hot water. He even forfeited his bully pulpit. Three. Ma was a bad judge of character. For example, he promoted Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru despite their improper conduct. He retained academics and experts who lacked the courage of their convictions. He watched idly as Chang Hsien-yao and Wang Yu-chi committed fratricide. He relied too heavily on advisors who closely controlled the information he received. The debacle that followed was a long time coming.
When President Ma first took office, public support was sky high, and he enjoyed a supermajority in the legislature. But in swift order, both his authority and ideals were frittered away. Intense public resentment left him paralyzed, unable to move. The precise reason for this change has puzzled many.
The previously mentioned three crises were largely the result of Ma administration ineptitude. This indeptitude reflected poorly on his leadership, and was the result of President Ma's own unrealistic expectations. President Ma loved to hold forth on high ideals and high-minded reforms. But he ignored the need for public support. As a result, he not only failed, he also provoked a public backlash. As head of state he must use government authority and national resources to create stepping stones to his ideals. He must clear away the obstacles standing in his way. He must inspire public support, instead of resorting to hollow rhetoric, in the mistaken belief that his ideals can be realized overnight. President Ma insists he is not a lame duck. That is easy to say. Alas, he still does not seem to understand that the gap between reality and ideals cannot be bridged by sheer bravado.
If someone were to say that Ma was the most naive head of state ever, few would disagree. Viewed positively, "naive" means he was pure of heart. Viewed negatively, the implications are highly derogatory. It means he brimmed over with good intentions, but had no idea how to realize them. It means he wielded great power, but had no idea how to use that power to benefit the people. It means he controlled the powerful machinery of state, but repeatedly dropped it on his own toes. True, he remained scrupulously incorruptible, but he never won the public's trust. President Ma occupied the highest political office in the land, yet had not idea how to govern. His contempt for politics, ironically mired him in politics. This was the fundamental reason both his authority and ideals came to naught.
Take the case of Chang Hsien-yao, the clearest example of President Ma's “all talk but no walk” phenomenon. President Ma granted us an interview. The woodpecker diligently searched out insects. Chang Hsien-yao was considered a second-tier official. Yet he provided information to outsiders, and eventually to the Mainland. This was forbidden by public administration ethics and the law. Yet the Taipei District Prosecutors Office failed to prosecute. It was all too incredible. President Ma apparently forgot that the person who appointed Chang Hsien-yao to both the MAC and the SEF was none other than himself. If Chang Hsien-yao's conduct was unacceptable, he could have dealt with the matter politically or removed him from his post. He could have instructed national security or internal affairs units to investigate. He should not have given him access to confidential information that could be leaked. But President Ma refused to remove his political appointee from office. Instead he presented the case to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. The resulting criminal investigation backfired on him.
Consider the outcome. Was it not the same mistake he made with Wang Jin-pyng? The Chang case was the same as the Wang case. The Ma government had evidence of two violations. It mattered not whether the cases involved leaks or influence peddling. They were actions that the public considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, the Ma government could not grasp the political subtleties. He reduced the entire affair to a matter of "criminal justice". In the end, social justice was blurred. Even the legitimacy of his own authority was undermined. President Ma was educated in the law. Perhaps he imagined that criminal justice would restore social justice. But as we all know, he has repeatedly blundered on the political front, and sacrificed his moral beliefs and social values.
Today's Taiwan is a values vacuum. The blue and green camps face each other, daggers drawn. The opposition party engages in defamation, and panders to the mob. These perhaps, are the main factors. But President Ma's political ineptitude and empty promises allowed his opponent to take advantage of him, time and again. They too, are to blame. President Ma says he intends to stand and fight another day. If so, he must first confront his shortcomings, his habits of all talk, no walk, and being quick to retreat.
馬總統的權力和理想落空之謎
2015-02-17 02:01:33 聯合報 社論
馬英九總統日前接受本報系專訪，
回顧馬總統第二屆任期近三年來的挫敗連連，
馬總統上任之初，擁有那麼高的民意支持，在國會也擁有絕對多數；
分析上述三類挫敗危機，有很大的因素是馬團隊「執政力」
事實上，如果有人說馬英九是歷任元首中是最「天真」的一位，
以張顯耀案為例，最足以說明馬總統這種偏好「空談」
試想，這樣的結局，不正是大刀砍王金平卻遭反噬的同一覆轍？
環顧今天台灣的虛無氛圍，藍綠的對峙、在野黨的抹黑、
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Tsai Ing-wen's Choice: Traitor to Taiwan Independence or Traitor to Taiwan
Tsai Ing-wen's Choice: Traitor to Taiwan Independence or Traitor to Taiwan
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 16, 2015
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has announced her candidacy for the DPP presidential primaries. She is now approaching her final mile. She now faces her final choice. Looking ahead, Tsai Ing-wen must choose between being a "traitor to Taiwan independence" and a "traitor to Taiwan". Otherwise she will not be able to complete the final mile to the presidential palace.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has announced her candidacy for the DPP presidential primaries. She is now approaching her final mile. She now faces her final choice. Should she be a traitor to Taiwan independence? Or a traitor to Taiwan?
This terminology may sound extreme. This only by calling a spade a spade can we underscore the importance of her decision. If Tsai Ing-wen is elected president and insists on taking the Taiwan independence path, internal and external conflict will erupt. The foundations of the nation will be shaken. She could well become a traitor to Taiwan. If she wants to stabilize the nation, she must become a transformer, a reformer, a revolutionary, an apostate of Taiwan independence. The Taiwan independence movement could well regard her as a traitor. Tsai Ing-wen faces a dilemma, globally, internally, and externally. She faces an difficult choice. She must confront this choice as she approaches her final mile.
The key of course, is cross-strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen persists in repudiating the "1992 consensus". She has refused to deal with the "Taiwan independence party platform". Therefore the DPP national policy appears unchanged. It appears to advocate the following. One. Globalization without Mainland China. Two. Rejection of cross-Strait exchanges based on the 1992 consensus. Three. Peaceful development of cross-Strait relations under the Taiwan independence party platform. Alas, this road is impassable. As even green camp academics have conceded, doing so would lead to the “disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework”.
Consider Taiwan's situation. The "1992 consensus" and its "one China Constitution" and "one China, different interpretations" clauses function as strategic pillars of Taiwan's cross-Strait policy. If one abandons the "1992 consensus", support for and psychological identification with the ROC Constitution among the people of Taiwan will be lost. In other words, rejecting the 1992 consensus will lead to the self-destruction of the Republic of China. Consider the Mainland's situation. The "1992 consensus" is a framework that opposes Taiwan independence and uphold the ROC status quo. Absent this buffer, Taiwan independence elements would find themselves nose to nosw eith Beijing. The Republic of China's status quo would also be at risk.
Some Mainland academics think that Tsai Ing-wen being elected president would provide "new opportunities for the two sides." Beijing used the same words in 2008 when Ma Ying-jeou was elected. They said his election offered "new opportunities for the two sides." But the "new opportunities" referred to were very different in nature. In 2008 the "new opportunities" Ma Ying-jeou offered meant generous concessions. In 2016, the “new opportunities" offered by Tsai Ing-wen mean that the ruling DPP would will be taken prisoner and forced to do Beijing's bidding. Beijing will surely not pass up the "new opportunities" to implement a final solution to the vexing Taiwan problem. Just look at how Beijing responded to Wen-Je Ko' election. Tsai Ing-wen must realize how precarious her situation is. She must not give Beijing any excuse to act, and turn her into a traitor to Taiwan.
Taiwan faces three major challenges. One. The globalization policy dilemma. Two. Cross-Strait deep water. Three. An M-shaped society. Globalization must be dealt with. Otherwise Taiwan will confront both a political and economic crisis. If cross-strait relations are not properly resolved, Taiwan's globalization process will be imperiled. If globalization and cross-Strait relations cannot be reconciled, Taiwan's M-shaped society will not be able to transform its industrial structure and find policy solutions. Therefore cross-Strait relations remain the key to all three problems. Alas, Taiwan independence clearly has no viable options to deal with cross-Strait relations.
Tsai Ing-wen must now deal with a major contradiction in Taiwan society. This contradiction involves a clash between psychology and reality. Psychologically, the Sunflower Student Movement incited the aforementioned public resentment, especially “anti-China” (anti-Mainland) hatred. The Sunflower Student Movement obstructed passage of the STA, MTA, and FEPZ bills. It approached these major problems with a Taiwan Independence mindset. Clearly this was the wrong prescription for what ails it. As a result, Tsai Ing-wen now faces a dilemma. She won by pandering to the mob psychology of Taiwan independence. But now she must reject Taiwan independence and deal with real world problems.
Tsai Ing-wen faces difficulties within and without. She clearly knows that Taiwan independence is a non-starter. If she wants the Democratic Progressive Party to return to power, she must become a transformer, a reformer, a revolutionary, and an apostate of Taiwan independence. She must even become a traitor to Taiwan independence. Without such a determination, she could plunge the nation into chaos and become a traitor to TaiwanThe
The cross-Strait situation includes "belated Taiwan independence" from the Sunflower Student Movement. But many voters merely wanted to transcend blue vs. green bickering. They hope the DPP will transform itself. Besides, the thought of "abandoning Taiwan independence" is nothing new within the DPP. A proposal to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform is still pending before the Executive Council. Therefore "abandoning Taiwan independence" is a way the DPP can save itself as a political party. If Tsai Ing-wen becomes a "traitor to Taiwan independence" she will paradoxically become a savior to the DPP.
The presidential primary process gives Tsai Ing-wen time and space to maneuver, to adopt a position she can defend, now and in the future. One. She can find a way to follow up on the pan-ECFA framework, including the STA and MTA agreements. She can assume responsibility for them all. Two. She can cease evading the "1992 consensus” and adopt the "one China, different interpretations" path. Three. She can tone down her "Republic of China is Taiwan" rhetoric, and move toward a "ROC includes Taiwan" position. Four. Instead of opposing the Republic of China, she can champion the Republic of China. To do so, Tsai must actively seek "new cross-Strait opportunities". She must not allow herself to become Beijing's definition of "new opportunities".
Looking ahead, Tsai Ing-wen must choose between being a "traitor to Taiwan independence" and a "traitor to Taiwan". Otherwise she will not be able to complete the final mile to the presidential palace.
蔡英文的抉擇：台獨叛徒或台灣罪人
2015-02-16 01:59:06 聯合報 社論
蔡英文宣布參加民進黨總統初選，邁向她的最後一哩，也面臨她的最後抉擇：要作台獨的叛徒，或台灣的罪人？
這兩個名詞有些強烈，但非此不足顯現抉擇的重大。蔡英文若當選總統而仍堅持台獨路線，一旦內外衝突再起，國家動盪，她即可能成為台灣的罪人；而她若為安定國家，就必須作台獨路線的轉型者、修正者、革命者或拋棄者，即可能被視為台獨的叛徒。瞻望世局及蔡英文的內外處境，她確實面臨如此強烈衝突的抉擇，而她也必須以面對此種抉擇的心情邁向最後一哩。
當然，關鍵就在兩岸政策。迄至此時，蔡英文仍否定「九二共識」，且未處理《台獨黨綱》，因而其國政綱領似乎仍是：一、沒有中國的全球化。二、沒有九二共識的兩岸交流。三、維持台獨黨綱的兩岸和平發展。但是，這條路不可能走得下去；甚至可能如綠營學者所說，將造成「兩岸和平框架崩解」。
對台灣而言，「九二共識」的「一中憲法」及「一中各表」，可以成為台灣的兩岸戰略支柱；若自棄「九二共識」，則中華民國憲法的支撐力及認同感在台灣人民的心理上皆失憑藉。也就是說，否定九二共識，其實是中華民國的自毀長城。對大陸而言，「九二共識」則是反台獨及默認中華民國現狀的緩衝架構，失此則反台獨即針鋒相對，中華民國的現狀亦受衝擊。
有些大陸學者將蔡英文的可能當選二○一六總統，視為「兩岸新機遇」。同樣的說法，北京曾在二○○八年將馬英九當選總統喻為「兩岸新機遇」。但這兩個「新機遇」，卻有本質上的不同。二○○八年對馬英九的「新機遇」，是以讓利懷柔為主；但二○一六對蔡英文的「新機遇」，則是以挾持脅迫為主張。北京當然不會錯失將蔡英文若主政視為徹底解決台獨問題的「新機遇」，但看北京如何回應柯文哲，蔡英文即應知謹慎面對形勢，勿落北京口實而遭挾制，致成台灣罪人。
台灣面臨三大難題：一、全球化政策的困境，二、兩岸深水區。三、Ｍ型社會的衝擊。不戰勝全球化，台灣在經濟上及政治上將陷危機；但若不能搞定兩岸關係，台灣全球化的前途堪憂；而若不能理順全球化及兩岸關係，台灣的Ｍ型社會亦失去調整產業結構以尋求解決策略的基礎。所以，兩岸關係仍是三大難題的核心因素。但是，要處理兩岸關係，台獨顯然已非可行方案。
蔡英文如今正處於台灣社會在心理及現實上的重大矛盾中。在心理上，太陽花事件掀起了對前述三大難題的社會憤懣，又以抗中仇中為核心；但是，在現實上，太陽花事件所導致的對服貿、貨貿及自由經濟示範區的杯葛，仍然是以台獨思維來處理三大難題，卻顯然是拿錯了藥方。因而，蔡英文所面對的矛盾是：在獲得台獨群眾心理的支持下，卻可能必須以「去台獨」的方案來面對現實。
所以，蔡英文面對國家內外的困局，而明知台獨已非方案，若志在領導民進黨重返執政，即須有成為台獨路線的轉型者、修正者、革命者、拋棄者的決志，甚至不惜成為台獨的叛徒。因為，若無如此強烈深刻的決志，她的另一歸趨即可能使國家遭遇劇烈動盪，成為台灣的罪人。
其實，台灣及兩岸情勢演變至今日，固然有太陽花這一波「遲來的台獨」；但顯然也有一股想要擺脫藍綠糾纏的民意，對民進黨的轉型持有期待。何況，「去台獨」在民進黨中已非新思維，凍結台獨黨綱的提案仍在中執會的待議檔案中。因而，「去台獨」亦是民進黨自救新生之道；蔡英文若是「去台獨」的台獨叛徒，反而將成為民進黨的救星。
蔡英文將總統初選期程提前，可以爭取較具時空縱深的操作空間，爾今可為當為之事：一、設法促成泛ＥＣＦＡ架構如服貿、貨貿協議之完成，以便概括承受。二、勿再迴避「九二共識」，而宜試圖從「一中各表」的途徑入手。三、淡化「中華民國是台灣」的邏輯，轉向「中華民國加台灣」的論述。四、從中華民國的反對者，轉為中華民國的承當者。為今之計，蔡英文必須主動操持對「兩岸新機遇」的定義權，不能陷於前文所述北京所定義的挾制脅迫之「新機遇」。
瞻望前路，蔡英文須有在「台獨叛徒」及「台灣罪人」作一抉擇的覺悟與決志，非此恐不足以走完最後一哩。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 16, 2015
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has announced her candidacy for the DPP presidential primaries. She is now approaching her final mile. She now faces her final choice. Looking ahead, Tsai Ing-wen must choose between being a "traitor to Taiwan independence" and a "traitor to Taiwan". Otherwise she will not be able to complete the final mile to the presidential palace.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has announced her candidacy for the DPP presidential primaries. She is now approaching her final mile. She now faces her final choice. Should she be a traitor to Taiwan independence? Or a traitor to Taiwan?
This terminology may sound extreme. This only by calling a spade a spade can we underscore the importance of her decision. If Tsai Ing-wen is elected president and insists on taking the Taiwan independence path, internal and external conflict will erupt. The foundations of the nation will be shaken. She could well become a traitor to Taiwan. If she wants to stabilize the nation, she must become a transformer, a reformer, a revolutionary, an apostate of Taiwan independence. The Taiwan independence movement could well regard her as a traitor. Tsai Ing-wen faces a dilemma, globally, internally, and externally. She faces an difficult choice. She must confront this choice as she approaches her final mile.
The key of course, is cross-strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen persists in repudiating the "1992 consensus". She has refused to deal with the "Taiwan independence party platform". Therefore the DPP national policy appears unchanged. It appears to advocate the following. One. Globalization without Mainland China. Two. Rejection of cross-Strait exchanges based on the 1992 consensus. Three. Peaceful development of cross-Strait relations under the Taiwan independence party platform. Alas, this road is impassable. As even green camp academics have conceded, doing so would lead to the “disintegration of the cross-Strait peace framework”.
Consider Taiwan's situation. The "1992 consensus" and its "one China Constitution" and "one China, different interpretations" clauses function as strategic pillars of Taiwan's cross-Strait policy. If one abandons the "1992 consensus", support for and psychological identification with the ROC Constitution among the people of Taiwan will be lost. In other words, rejecting the 1992 consensus will lead to the self-destruction of the Republic of China. Consider the Mainland's situation. The "1992 consensus" is a framework that opposes Taiwan independence and uphold the ROC status quo. Absent this buffer, Taiwan independence elements would find themselves nose to nosw eith Beijing. The Republic of China's status quo would also be at risk.
Some Mainland academics think that Tsai Ing-wen being elected president would provide "new opportunities for the two sides." Beijing used the same words in 2008 when Ma Ying-jeou was elected. They said his election offered "new opportunities for the two sides." But the "new opportunities" referred to were very different in nature. In 2008 the "new opportunities" Ma Ying-jeou offered meant generous concessions. In 2016, the “new opportunities" offered by Tsai Ing-wen mean that the ruling DPP would will be taken prisoner and forced to do Beijing's bidding. Beijing will surely not pass up the "new opportunities" to implement a final solution to the vexing Taiwan problem. Just look at how Beijing responded to Wen-Je Ko' election. Tsai Ing-wen must realize how precarious her situation is. She must not give Beijing any excuse to act, and turn her into a traitor to Taiwan.
Taiwan faces three major challenges. One. The globalization policy dilemma. Two. Cross-Strait deep water. Three. An M-shaped society. Globalization must be dealt with. Otherwise Taiwan will confront both a political and economic crisis. If cross-strait relations are not properly resolved, Taiwan's globalization process will be imperiled. If globalization and cross-Strait relations cannot be reconciled, Taiwan's M-shaped society will not be able to transform its industrial structure and find policy solutions. Therefore cross-Strait relations remain the key to all three problems. Alas, Taiwan independence clearly has no viable options to deal with cross-Strait relations.
Tsai Ing-wen must now deal with a major contradiction in Taiwan society. This contradiction involves a clash between psychology and reality. Psychologically, the Sunflower Student Movement incited the aforementioned public resentment, especially “anti-China” (anti-Mainland) hatred. The Sunflower Student Movement obstructed passage of the STA, MTA, and FEPZ bills. It approached these major problems with a Taiwan Independence mindset. Clearly this was the wrong prescription for what ails it. As a result, Tsai Ing-wen now faces a dilemma. She won by pandering to the mob psychology of Taiwan independence. But now she must reject Taiwan independence and deal with real world problems.
Tsai Ing-wen faces difficulties within and without. She clearly knows that Taiwan independence is a non-starter. If she wants the Democratic Progressive Party to return to power, she must become a transformer, a reformer, a revolutionary, and an apostate of Taiwan independence. She must even become a traitor to Taiwan independence. Without such a determination, she could plunge the nation into chaos and become a traitor to TaiwanThe
The cross-Strait situation includes "belated Taiwan independence" from the Sunflower Student Movement. But many voters merely wanted to transcend blue vs. green bickering. They hope the DPP will transform itself. Besides, the thought of "abandoning Taiwan independence" is nothing new within the DPP. A proposal to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform is still pending before the Executive Council. Therefore "abandoning Taiwan independence" is a way the DPP can save itself as a political party. If Tsai Ing-wen becomes a "traitor to Taiwan independence" she will paradoxically become a savior to the DPP.
The presidential primary process gives Tsai Ing-wen time and space to maneuver, to adopt a position she can defend, now and in the future. One. She can find a way to follow up on the pan-ECFA framework, including the STA and MTA agreements. She can assume responsibility for them all. Two. She can cease evading the "1992 consensus” and adopt the "one China, different interpretations" path. Three. She can tone down her "Republic of China is Taiwan" rhetoric, and move toward a "ROC includes Taiwan" position. Four. Instead of opposing the Republic of China, she can champion the Republic of China. To do so, Tsai must actively seek "new cross-Strait opportunities". She must not allow herself to become Beijing's definition of "new opportunities".
Looking ahead, Tsai Ing-wen must choose between being a "traitor to Taiwan independence" and a "traitor to Taiwan". Otherwise she will not be able to complete the final mile to the presidential palace.
蔡英文的抉擇：台獨叛徒或台灣罪人
2015-02-16 01:59:06 聯合報 社論
蔡英文宣布參加民進黨總統初選，邁向她的最後一哩，也面臨她的最後抉擇：要作台獨的叛徒，或台灣的罪人？
這兩個名詞有些強烈，但非此不足顯現抉擇的重大。蔡英文若當選總統而仍堅持台獨路線，一旦內外衝突再起，國家動盪，她即可能成為台灣的罪人；而她若為安定國家，就必須作台獨路線的轉型者、修正者、革命者或拋棄者，即可能被視為台獨的叛徒。瞻望世局及蔡英文的內外處境，她確實面臨如此強烈衝突的抉擇，而她也必須以面對此種抉擇的心情邁向最後一哩。
當然，關鍵就在兩岸政策。迄至此時，蔡英文仍否定「九二共識」，且未處理《台獨黨綱》，因而其國政綱領似乎仍是：一、沒有中國的全球化。二、沒有九二共識的兩岸交流。三、維持台獨黨綱的兩岸和平發展。但是，這條路不可能走得下去；甚至可能如綠營學者所說，將造成「兩岸和平框架崩解」。
對台灣而言，「九二共識」的「一中憲法」及「一中各表」，可以成為台灣的兩岸戰略支柱；若自棄「九二共識」，則中華民國憲法的支撐力及認同感在台灣人民的心理上皆失憑藉。也就是說，否定九二共識，其實是中華民國的自毀長城。對大陸而言，「九二共識」則是反台獨及默認中華民國現狀的緩衝架構，失此則反台獨即針鋒相對，中華民國的現狀亦受衝擊。
有些大陸學者將蔡英文的可能當選二○一六總統，視為「兩岸新機遇」。同樣的說法，北京曾在二○○八年將馬英九當選總統喻為「兩岸新機遇」。但這兩個「新機遇」，卻有本質上的不同。二○○八年對馬英九的「新機遇」，是以讓利懷柔為主；但二○一六對蔡英文的「新機遇」，則是以挾持脅迫為主張。北京當然不會錯失將蔡英文若主政視為徹底解決台獨問題的「新機遇」，但看北京如何回應柯文哲，蔡英文即應知謹慎面對形勢，勿落北京口實而遭挾制，致成台灣罪人。
台灣面臨三大難題：一、全球化政策的困境，二、兩岸深水區。三、Ｍ型社會的衝擊。不戰勝全球化，台灣在經濟上及政治上將陷危機；但若不能搞定兩岸關係，台灣全球化的前途堪憂；而若不能理順全球化及兩岸關係，台灣的Ｍ型社會亦失去調整產業結構以尋求解決策略的基礎。所以，兩岸關係仍是三大難題的核心因素。但是，要處理兩岸關係，台獨顯然已非可行方案。
蔡英文如今正處於台灣社會在心理及現實上的重大矛盾中。在心理上，太陽花事件掀起了對前述三大難題的社會憤懣，又以抗中仇中為核心；但是，在現實上，太陽花事件所導致的對服貿、貨貿及自由經濟示範區的杯葛，仍然是以台獨思維來處理三大難題，卻顯然是拿錯了藥方。因而，蔡英文所面對的矛盾是：在獲得台獨群眾心理的支持下，卻可能必須以「去台獨」的方案來面對現實。
所以，蔡英文面對國家內外的困局，而明知台獨已非方案，若志在領導民進黨重返執政，即須有成為台獨路線的轉型者、修正者、革命者、拋棄者的決志，甚至不惜成為台獨的叛徒。因為，若無如此強烈深刻的決志，她的另一歸趨即可能使國家遭遇劇烈動盪，成為台灣的罪人。
其實，台灣及兩岸情勢演變至今日，固然有太陽花這一波「遲來的台獨」；但顯然也有一股想要擺脫藍綠糾纏的民意，對民進黨的轉型持有期待。何況，「去台獨」在民進黨中已非新思維，凍結台獨黨綱的提案仍在中執會的待議檔案中。因而，「去台獨」亦是民進黨自救新生之道；蔡英文若是「去台獨」的台獨叛徒，反而將成為民進黨的救星。
蔡英文將總統初選期程提前，可以爭取較具時空縱深的操作空間，爾今可為當為之事：一、設法促成泛ＥＣＦＡ架構如服貿、貨貿協議之完成，以便概括承受。二、勿再迴避「九二共識」，而宜試圖從「一中各表」的途徑入手。三、淡化「中華民國是台灣」的邏輯，轉向「中華民國加台灣」的論述。四、從中華民國的反對者，轉為中華民國的承當者。為今之計，蔡英文必須主動操持對「兩岸新機遇」的定義權，不能陷於前文所述北京所定義的挾制脅迫之「新機遇」。
瞻望前路，蔡英文須有在「台獨叛徒」及「台灣罪人」作一抉擇的覺悟與決志，非此恐不足以走完最後一哩。
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Prison Hostage Crisis Reveals Four Major Problems
Prison Hostage Crisis Reveals Four Major Problems
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 13, 2015
Executive Summary: Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant justice system, legal system, and public concern.
Full Text Below:
Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant justice system, legal system, and public concern.
The prison hostage incident was planned in advance by six prisoners. They took advantage of flaws in prison medical treatment procedures and prison visit procedures. They took prison administrators and “substitute civilian servicemen” hostage. They traded the hostages for long guns and handguns in the armory, leading to a tense standoff. This was the first time in Taiwan history that prisoners have taken a prison warden hostage. Heavily armed police surrounding the prison revealed just how grim the situation had become.
But despite the adverse circumstances, the prison system still had two points worthy of recognition. First, during the two hostage swaps, higher-level administrators and prison officials voluntarily took the place of lower-level administrators and substitute civilian servicemen. Their willingness to serve as hostages, evinced coolness and courage. It also made it easier for them to grasp the situation from within the prison. Secondly, once the warden was taken hostage, the other prison officials evacuated the facility in accordance with standard Riot Handling Protocol. They refused the captors' demand to open the gate leading to the outside. The prison authorities kept the situation confined. They prevented the six prisoner hostage crisis from spreading to the rest of the prison. They did not allow them to escape to the outside, and spared the public any anxiety.
The six prisoners eventually shot and killed themselves. Whether their actions were entirely voluntary, has yet to be determined. Cheng Li-teh initially told reporters that the prisoners "took their own lives”. Was their motive merely to protest the justice system and prison conditions? If so, was such an extreme measure really necessary? One has to wonder. In any case, six lives lost was six too many.
Several points surrounding the prison hostage incident must be thoroughly reviewed. One. Prison staffing and management issues. The six prisoners took advantage of prison doctor visits to take hostages. Prison management procedures are clearly inadequate. Kaohsiung Prison houses over 2,000 prisoners, but it has only 200 administrators. Obviously this is not enough. Security procedures are also inadequate. They allowed the prisoners to take hostages. Prisoners were able to obtain scissors that they uses during the ordeal. Clearly prison security procedures contain serious loopholes. A single misstep turned into a serious crisis.
Two. Politicians and businessmen who are serving time receive privileged treatment. The hostage takers were especially incensed at the privileged treatment accorded Chen Shui-bian, including the ease with which he was accorded medical parole. The medical, work, and legal rights of other prisoners are ignored. They feel this is extremely unfair. The DPP dismisses the prisoners' grievances as "mere excuses". Wen-Je Ko held forth about how the government should establish a single standard for all prisoners. In fact, such a single standard already exists. The problem is the Green Camp persists in applying pressure and breaking the rules. Other physicians have even provided Chen with medical records. What reason does Chen Shui-bian have to demand privileged treatment and house custody? The Green Camp applied political pressure in order to open prison doors for Chen Shui-bian. Does this really have no connection to Cheng Li-teh and hostage taking in order to get out of prison?
Three. The suitability of substitute civilian servicemen serving in prison. In recent years, substitute civilian servicemen have been used for more and more jobs. They may fill in during labor shortages. But prisons are high-risk environments. Substitute civilian servicemen have little real world experience. This puts them at risk. It is also likely to result in “nobody minding the store”. The hostage takers' primary target was the substitute civilian servicemen. They knew they were the system's weak point. US federal prison guards must have a four-year college degree. They must be at least 36 years old, or have served as law enforcement officers, parole officers, or corrections officers. Clearly substitute civilian servicemen should not work in prison.
Four. On scene negotiations, deployment, and protocol. When the incident first occurred, the media immediately linked it to prison riots in Central and South American hellholes. In fact, the hostage takers twice agreed to accept replacement hostages. Some "mob boss" characters even entered into negotiations with them. Clearly the incident exhibited local Taiwan characteristics. Clearly none of this was “by the book.” The Warden even read the prisoners' declaration. Some consider this inappropriate. But it may have help ensure the safety of the hostages by reducing the hostage takers' hostility. These "interludes" however blurred the question of who was really in control of negotiations. Also, some reporters used drones to film the prison from the air. The hostage takers mistakenly assumed that the police were attacking from helicopters, and fired into the air. The perimeter was clearly not secured. This unexpected move could easily have enraged the hostage takers, and provoked them to kill. Media coverage is important. But hostage safety must come first. At least it must not increase the burden on prison authorities and the police.
Thankfully the hostage incident has ended. But we must not forget people's anxiety during the confrontation. These flaws must be addressed. Otherwise many provisions will ring hollow. The next time such an event occurs, the outcome might not be so fortunate.
監獄劫持事件暴露的四大問題
2015-02-13 01:33:12 聯合報 社論
高雄監獄囚犯挾持人質事件，昨日清晨在六名挾持者舉槍自盡後落幕。這起驚心動魄的挾持事件，歷經十四小時的對峙，能在人質毫髮無傷下收場，堪稱萬幸。然而，其間掀出的司法及獄政管理問題，確實值得司法、法務及相關各界重視。
這起監獄挾持事件，六名囚犯顯係事前經過共謀策劃，因而能夠利用獄方在看病、會客上的管理疏漏，挾持管理員和替代役男為人質，並利用人質交換取得槍械庫中的長短槍，形成要脅和對峙之勢。如此棘手的監獄挾持典獄長事件，是台灣治安史上首見，以現場警力荷槍實彈的嚴密部署看，可知情況之嚴峻。
但即便在這樣惡劣情勢下，獄方的整體應變仍有兩點值得肯定。一，其間兩次人質交換，都是較高層獄官自願取代低層管理員及替代役男，充當人質，顯示了他們的冷靜與勇敢，也使情勢處於較易掌握的狀態；二，在典獄長成為人質後，其他監獄管理人員根據「暴動處理程序」的ＳＯＰ流程全數撤離，而未屈從挾持者之要求開啟通往外面的閘門。正因為獄方將情勢控制在特定區間，因此六名囚犯的挾持行動未蔓延成整座監獄的暴動，更未放縱其得逞脫逸，故得以免於社會的不安。
這六名囚犯最後舉槍互射自盡，他們是否全皆出於自願，真相仍待查明。儘管首謀鄭立德在事發第一時間接受媒體訪問，即透露有「自我了斷」之意；但是，若僅為表達對司法與獄政的不滿，有無必要採取如此玉石俱焚手段，令人費解；無論如何，六條生命的代價未免太高。
檢視這次監獄挾持事件的來龍去脈，我們認為其中有幾點必須徹底檢討：第一，監獄的員額及管理問題：這次六名犯人能輕易利用看病的機會挾持人質，顯示獄方在這方面的管理暴露出很大疏漏。高雄監獄有二千多名人犯，但管理員僅二百多人，員額顯然不足因應，也因此配置不夠周密，致讓挾持者有機可乘。包括囚犯如何取得剪刀作為攻擊挾持武器，顯然也是管理漏洞造成，卻一步步擴大成為嚴重危機。
第二，政商人物在監的特權待遇：這次挾持者最感不滿的，就是陳水扁在獄中享受絕佳待遇並輕易保外就醫，但其他監獄犯人的人權問題諸如罹病、勞動、司法人權皆遭漠視，讓他們感到極為不公。對此，民進黨聲稱這只是囚徒的「藉口」，柯文哲則大談政府應如何制訂一套適用於所有犯人的辦法；事實上，辦法本來就訂在那裡，但如果不是綠營鍥而不捨地施壓打破規則，有些醫師更為他提供體檢紀錄，陳水扁如何有理由破格保外在家？從某個角度看，綠營利用政治手段為陳水扁開啟了出獄之門，這和鄭立德等六人挾持人質意圖逃獄，能說沒有因果關係嗎？
第三，替代役男是否適宜在監獄服役：近年替代役男的役職範圍愈來愈廣，雖可填補機關的人力短缺，但以監獄這種高風險部門，卻不宜讓社會經驗空白的替代役男擔任。因為，這不僅使他們易陷於險境，也容易造成監獄的管理空窗；這次，囚犯的首要下手目標就是替代役男，必然知道那是最弱的點。美國聯邦監獄的守衛，必須要四年制大學畢業，至少卅六歲，或曾擔任過執法、假釋、矯正之類的工作；可知，替代役男不應在監獄工作。
第四，對峙現場的談判、部署與秩序：這次事件一發生，立即被媒體引申為中南美的黑獄暴動；事實上，挾持者兩度接受替換人質，其間又有「大哥」級的民代進入協商，都顯出其處理具有台灣的「民間」特色，而非官方制式規範。包括矯正署長代念囚徒聲明，雖有人覺得不妥，但或許有兼顧人質安危及降低挾持者敵意之作用。然也正因為「插曲」不斷，談判的主軸由誰在掌控，便顯得模糊。此外，若干媒體為了貪功，使用空拍機在監獄上空拍攝畫面，讓挾持者誤以為警方動用直升機攻堅，因而對空開槍掃射。這顯示現場隔離控制不佳，外界這類突兀舉動極可能激怒人犯，導致他們萌生殺機。媒體報導一手消息固然重要，但絕對必須以人質安全為重，至少不可增加獄方和警方處理的負荷。
挾持事件落幕固值得慶幸，請不要忘記人們在懸疑對峙期間有過的焦慮。如果漏洞不補，聽任許多規定形同虛設，下一次再發生這種事件，結局恐怕沒那麼好過。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 13, 2015
Executive Summary: Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant justice system, legal system, and public concern.
Full Text Below:
Kaohsiung Prison inmates recently took hostages. Yesterday morning, six of the hostage-takers shot and killed themselves, ending the siege. This alarming hostage incident lasted 14 hours, yet none of the hostages were harmed. One could characterize this as fortunate. But it revealed problems with the justice system and with prison administration. These problems warrant justice system, legal system, and public concern.
The prison hostage incident was planned in advance by six prisoners. They took advantage of flaws in prison medical treatment procedures and prison visit procedures. They took prison administrators and “substitute civilian servicemen” hostage. They traded the hostages for long guns and handguns in the armory, leading to a tense standoff. This was the first time in Taiwan history that prisoners have taken a prison warden hostage. Heavily armed police surrounding the prison revealed just how grim the situation had become.
But despite the adverse circumstances, the prison system still had two points worthy of recognition. First, during the two hostage swaps, higher-level administrators and prison officials voluntarily took the place of lower-level administrators and substitute civilian servicemen. Their willingness to serve as hostages, evinced coolness and courage. It also made it easier for them to grasp the situation from within the prison. Secondly, once the warden was taken hostage, the other prison officials evacuated the facility in accordance with standard Riot Handling Protocol. They refused the captors' demand to open the gate leading to the outside. The prison authorities kept the situation confined. They prevented the six prisoner hostage crisis from spreading to the rest of the prison. They did not allow them to escape to the outside, and spared the public any anxiety.
The six prisoners eventually shot and killed themselves. Whether their actions were entirely voluntary, has yet to be determined. Cheng Li-teh initially told reporters that the prisoners "took their own lives”. Was their motive merely to protest the justice system and prison conditions? If so, was such an extreme measure really necessary? One has to wonder. In any case, six lives lost was six too many.
Several points surrounding the prison hostage incident must be thoroughly reviewed. One. Prison staffing and management issues. The six prisoners took advantage of prison doctor visits to take hostages. Prison management procedures are clearly inadequate. Kaohsiung Prison houses over 2,000 prisoners, but it has only 200 administrators. Obviously this is not enough. Security procedures are also inadequate. They allowed the prisoners to take hostages. Prisoners were able to obtain scissors that they uses during the ordeal. Clearly prison security procedures contain serious loopholes. A single misstep turned into a serious crisis.
Two. Politicians and businessmen who are serving time receive privileged treatment. The hostage takers were especially incensed at the privileged treatment accorded Chen Shui-bian, including the ease with which he was accorded medical parole. The medical, work, and legal rights of other prisoners are ignored. They feel this is extremely unfair. The DPP dismisses the prisoners' grievances as "mere excuses". Wen-Je Ko held forth about how the government should establish a single standard for all prisoners. In fact, such a single standard already exists. The problem is the Green Camp persists in applying pressure and breaking the rules. Other physicians have even provided Chen with medical records. What reason does Chen Shui-bian have to demand privileged treatment and house custody? The Green Camp applied political pressure in order to open prison doors for Chen Shui-bian. Does this really have no connection to Cheng Li-teh and hostage taking in order to get out of prison?
Three. The suitability of substitute civilian servicemen serving in prison. In recent years, substitute civilian servicemen have been used for more and more jobs. They may fill in during labor shortages. But prisons are high-risk environments. Substitute civilian servicemen have little real world experience. This puts them at risk. It is also likely to result in “nobody minding the store”. The hostage takers' primary target was the substitute civilian servicemen. They knew they were the system's weak point. US federal prison guards must have a four-year college degree. They must be at least 36 years old, or have served as law enforcement officers, parole officers, or corrections officers. Clearly substitute civilian servicemen should not work in prison.
Four. On scene negotiations, deployment, and protocol. When the incident first occurred, the media immediately linked it to prison riots in Central and South American hellholes. In fact, the hostage takers twice agreed to accept replacement hostages. Some "mob boss" characters even entered into negotiations with them. Clearly the incident exhibited local Taiwan characteristics. Clearly none of this was “by the book.” The Warden even read the prisoners' declaration. Some consider this inappropriate. But it may have help ensure the safety of the hostages by reducing the hostage takers' hostility. These "interludes" however blurred the question of who was really in control of negotiations. Also, some reporters used drones to film the prison from the air. The hostage takers mistakenly assumed that the police were attacking from helicopters, and fired into the air. The perimeter was clearly not secured. This unexpected move could easily have enraged the hostage takers, and provoked them to kill. Media coverage is important. But hostage safety must come first. At least it must not increase the burden on prison authorities and the police.
Thankfully the hostage incident has ended. But we must not forget people's anxiety during the confrontation. These flaws must be addressed. Otherwise many provisions will ring hollow. The next time such an event occurs, the outcome might not be so fortunate.
監獄劫持事件暴露的四大問題
2015-02-13 01:33:12 聯合報 社論
高雄監獄囚犯挾持人質事件，昨日清晨在六名挾持者舉槍自盡後落幕。這起驚心動魄的挾持事件，歷經十四小時的對峙，能在人質毫髮無傷下收場，堪稱萬幸。然而，其間掀出的司法及獄政管理問題，確實值得司法、法務及相關各界重視。
這起監獄挾持事件，六名囚犯顯係事前經過共謀策劃，因而能夠利用獄方在看病、會客上的管理疏漏，挾持管理員和替代役男為人質，並利用人質交換取得槍械庫中的長短槍，形成要脅和對峙之勢。如此棘手的監獄挾持典獄長事件，是台灣治安史上首見，以現場警力荷槍實彈的嚴密部署看，可知情況之嚴峻。
但即便在這樣惡劣情勢下，獄方的整體應變仍有兩點值得肯定。一，其間兩次人質交換，都是較高層獄官自願取代低層管理員及替代役男，充當人質，顯示了他們的冷靜與勇敢，也使情勢處於較易掌握的狀態；二，在典獄長成為人質後，其他監獄管理人員根據「暴動處理程序」的ＳＯＰ流程全數撤離，而未屈從挾持者之要求開啟通往外面的閘門。正因為獄方將情勢控制在特定區間，因此六名囚犯的挾持行動未蔓延成整座監獄的暴動，更未放縱其得逞脫逸，故得以免於社會的不安。
這六名囚犯最後舉槍互射自盡，他們是否全皆出於自願，真相仍待查明。儘管首謀鄭立德在事發第一時間接受媒體訪問，即透露有「自我了斷」之意；但是，若僅為表達對司法與獄政的不滿，有無必要採取如此玉石俱焚手段，令人費解；無論如何，六條生命的代價未免太高。
檢視這次監獄挾持事件的來龍去脈，我們認為其中有幾點必須徹底檢討：第一，監獄的員額及管理問題：這次六名犯人能輕易利用看病的機會挾持人質，顯示獄方在這方面的管理暴露出很大疏漏。高雄監獄有二千多名人犯，但管理員僅二百多人，員額顯然不足因應，也因此配置不夠周密，致讓挾持者有機可乘。包括囚犯如何取得剪刀作為攻擊挾持武器，顯然也是管理漏洞造成，卻一步步擴大成為嚴重危機。
第二，政商人物在監的特權待遇：這次挾持者最感不滿的，就是陳水扁在獄中享受絕佳待遇並輕易保外就醫，但其他監獄犯人的人權問題諸如罹病、勞動、司法人權皆遭漠視，讓他們感到極為不公。對此，民進黨聲稱這只是囚徒的「藉口」，柯文哲則大談政府應如何制訂一套適用於所有犯人的辦法；事實上，辦法本來就訂在那裡，但如果不是綠營鍥而不捨地施壓打破規則，有些醫師更為他提供體檢紀錄，陳水扁如何有理由破格保外在家？從某個角度看，綠營利用政治手段為陳水扁開啟了出獄之門，這和鄭立德等六人挾持人質意圖逃獄，能說沒有因果關係嗎？
第三，替代役男是否適宜在監獄服役：近年替代役男的役職範圍愈來愈廣，雖可填補機關的人力短缺，但以監獄這種高風險部門，卻不宜讓社會經驗空白的替代役男擔任。因為，這不僅使他們易陷於險境，也容易造成監獄的管理空窗；這次，囚犯的首要下手目標就是替代役男，必然知道那是最弱的點。美國聯邦監獄的守衛，必須要四年制大學畢業，至少卅六歲，或曾擔任過執法、假釋、矯正之類的工作；可知，替代役男不應在監獄工作。
第四，對峙現場的談判、部署與秩序：這次事件一發生，立即被媒體引申為中南美的黑獄暴動；事實上，挾持者兩度接受替換人質，其間又有「大哥」級的民代進入協商，都顯出其處理具有台灣的「民間」特色，而非官方制式規範。包括矯正署長代念囚徒聲明，雖有人覺得不妥，但或許有兼顧人質安危及降低挾持者敵意之作用。然也正因為「插曲」不斷，談判的主軸由誰在掌控，便顯得模糊。此外，若干媒體為了貪功，使用空拍機在監獄上空拍攝畫面，讓挾持者誤以為警方動用直升機攻堅，因而對空開槍掃射。這顯示現場隔離控制不佳，外界這類突兀舉動極可能激怒人犯，導致他們萌生殺機。媒體報導一手消息固然重要，但絕對必須以人質安全為重，至少不可增加獄方和警方處理的負荷。
挾持事件落幕固值得慶幸，請不要忘記人們在懸疑對峙期間有過的焦慮。如果漏洞不補，聽任許多規定形同虛設，下一次再發生這種事件，結局恐怕沒那麼好過。
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
MAC: Hsia Replaces Wang Amidst Tripartite Wrangling
MAC: Hsia Replaces Wang Amidst Tripartite Wrangling
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 12, 2015
Executive Summary: Former Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Chang Hsien-yao will not be indicted for leaking information to Beijing. Chairman Wang Yu-chi will assume responsibility and resign, to be succeeded by Deputy Defense Minister Hsia Li-yan. No agreement was reached on the M503 mid-Strait flight path proposed by the Mainland. Last Wednesday the MAC cited it as grounds for postponing Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. Today Wang Yu-chi resigned. The Wang Zhang meeting is now a bust. The future of cross-Strait relations is now a matter of increasing concern.
Full Text Below:
Former Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Chang Hsien-yao will not be indicted for leaking information to Beijing. Chairman Wang Yu-chi will assume responsibility and resign, to be succeeded by Deputy Defense Minister Hsia Li-yan. No agreement was reached on the M503 mid-Strait flight path proposed by the Mainland. Last Wednesday the MAC cited it as grounds for postponing Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. Today Wang Yu-chi resigned. The Wang Zhang meeting is now a bust. The future of cross-Strait relations is now a matter of increasing concern.
Over the past year, cross-Strait relations have been troubled. Last February Wang Yu-chi visited Nanjing. Last June Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan. The two Wang Zhang meetings held on the two sides of the Strait authored a new page in cross-Strait history. But the impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case, the never realized APEC Ma Xi meeting, Xi Jinping's underscoring of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong's Occupy Central protests, and the nine in one KMT election debacle all took their toll. Cross-Strait relations are the worst they have been since the Ma government took office in 2008.
Last August, Wang Yu-chi accused vice chairman and chief negotiator Chang Hsien-yao of leaking information to Beijing. This inflicted irreparable harm upon cross-Strait trust. Worse, it undermined the credibility of nearly 20 agreements reached by the two sides over the past six years. Chang Hsien-yao will not be prosecuted due to insufficient evidence. Chang Hsien-yao's behavior remains questionable, but at least the damage to cross-Strait relations has been minimized. The credibility of the cross-Strait agreements has been upheld. On the other hand, such incidents and their poor handling have precipitated political storms. They have exposed disarray and lack of leadership among those in authority. Wang Yu-chi is taking the fall. This may limit the damage to cross-Strait relations. But it makes the Ma government look even worse.
The two Wang Zhang meetings have already established the mechanism for regular meetings between those charged with cross-Strait affairs. MAC chairperson changes, such as Hsia replacing Wang, are unlikely to affect normal cross-Strait relations. The nine in one elections last November dramatically changed the blue-green political landscape and the KMT power structure. Cross-strait relations are now part of a complex three-way struggle between the KMT, DPP, and CCP.
Given the changes in Taiwan's political situation, Beijing must be psychologically prepared for another ruling party change in 2016. It must be prepared to modify its strategic Taiwan policy arrangements. On the one hand, Beijing appears committed to maintaining normal cross-Strait relations. The Entrepreneurs Summit agreed upon last December will be held in Taipei, as planned. ARATS chairman Chen Demin will visit Taiwan, as planned. MTA technical consultations and three meetings concerning the cross-Strait financial industry will take place, as planned. The late January cross-Strait "Economic Cooperation Meeting" will be held in Taipei, as planned. Zhang Zhijun will visit Kinmen and attend the third Wang Zhang meeting, as planned. On the other hand, Beijing has reaffirmed the 1992 consensus and opposition to Taiwan independence as the foundation for cross-Strait interaction. In early January it unilaterally announced a new flight path near the center line of the Taiwan Strait. The strategic implications are self-evident. It is adopting a carrot and stick policy towards Taiwan. It has issued a powerful declaration. It will continue to offer cross-Strait economic benefits as incentives for cooperation. But it will not hesitate to apply pressure when it comes to the political bottom line. The blue and green camps will feel varying degrees of pressure. The DPP in particular will surely get Beijing's meaning, loud and clear.
Consider the KMT's nine in one election defeat. President Ma Ying-jeou has resigned as party chairman. His farewell address stressed the correctness of the KMT's basic path for the nation, and that the KMT was a victim of circumstances. The public on Taiwan has been skeptical of the Ma government's cross-Strait policy. Even New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu, the newly-elected Chairman of the KMT, has publicly declared that the KMT must consider the psychological impact of its cross-Strait policy on the people of Taiwan, and who benefits from them. Also, Beijing's main consideration on Taiwan policy is no longer the Ma government's position. Its new, unilaterally established flight path provoked a public backlash on Taiwan. Fearing an impact on the 2016 elections, the Ma government has taken a tougher line on cross-Strait policy. Without warning it postponed Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. This is understandable. But the greatest advantage the KMT has over the DPP is its ability to maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations. What if anything will Eric Chu do differently? Beijing and the DPP are undoubtedly watching.
The DPP must adopt a more pragmatic cross-strait policy, one acceptable to both Washington and Beijing. The DPP seeks the presidency in 2016. A more pragmatic policy is essential if Tsai Ing-wen hopes to complete the final mile towards the Presidential Palace. But the nine in one elections boosted support fot the green camp. The DPP will now find it difficult to change its cross-Strait policy. Xi Jinping is taking a tougher stance. Expecting Beijing to make further concessions is increasingly unrealistic. The KMT, DPP, and CCP are engaged in a three way struggle. The DPP has very few cards it can play. Tsai Ing-wen's final mile will remain rocky and strewn with obstacles.
Cross-strait relations have entered a new phase. The old model can no longer cope with rapidly changing circumstances. The KMT, DPP, and CCP must realize this. Can they move from wrestling with each other to understanding each other? Can they join hands and ensure peaceful cross-Strait relations? The political wisdom of the leaders of the three parties will soon be tested. The replacement of the MAC chairperson may be an embarrassing setback. But it may also be an opportunity for change.
陸委會王下夏上 兩岸關係三方角力
2015-02-12 03:04:27 聯合報 社論
陸委會前副主委張顯耀洩密案以不起訴處分，王郁琦主委隨即請辭以示負責，由國防部副部長夏立言接任。上周三陸委會才以大陸劃設海峽中線Ｍ五○三航線雙方協商未達成共識為由，推遲大陸國台辦主任張志軍訪問金門；如今王郁琦請辭，「王張會」已成絕響，未來兩岸關係會如何變化備受關切。
過去一年，兩岸關係處於多事之秋。去年二月王郁琦訪問南京及六月張志軍來台訪問，兩次「王張會」雖寫下兩岸官方互動的歷史新頁；但受到太陽花學運、張顯耀洩密案、ＡＰＥＣ「馬習會」破局、習近平強調對台「一國兩制」、香港占中事件、九合一選舉國民黨慘敗等一連串事件的衝擊，兩岸關係跌入二○○八年馬政府上任以來的低潮期。
在上述事件中，去年八月爆發王郁琦主委指控副主委兼我方首席談判代表張顯耀洩密一案，不僅對兩岸互信造成難以彌補的傷害，也讓過去六年多來兩岸簽署近二十項協議的公信力受到外界強烈質疑。如今張顯耀案因證據不足予以不起訴，雖不能因此認定張顯耀的所作所為沒有爭議，但對兩岸關係的傷害卻相對減輕，兩岸協議的公信力也得以維繫。另一方面，發生此一事件並因處理程序似顯錯亂而掀起政治風暴，亦暴露出主政當局的領導缺失及自亂陣腳；王郁琦為此扛起責任，雖可為兩岸關係止血，但對馬政府的整體形象卻是雪上加霜。
王張二會已確立兩岸事務首長會議的常態化機制，陸委會主委換人，王下夏上，尚不致影響兩岸正常往來和互動。但不可諱言，去年十一月底台灣九合一選舉後，因為藍綠政治版圖大幅消長及國民黨權力結構改變，兩岸關係正進入到國、民、共三方角力的複雜情勢。
鑑於台灣政局的變化，北京顯然已有面對二○一六年台灣再次出現政黨輪替的心理準備，對台政策的戰略調整及重新布局已陸續展開。一方面，北京致力維繫兩岸正常互動，去年十二月兩岸企業家峰會如期在台北舉行，海協會會長陳德銘訪台，兩岸貨貿協議技術性諮商及兩岸金融三會先後在北京舉行；今年一月底兩岸「經合會」在台北召開，緊接著又安排張志軍訪問金門及第三次「王張會」。另一方面，北京不斷重申「九二共識」及反台獨是兩岸互動的基礎；一月上旬又片面宣布在海峽中線附近劃設新航路，其戰略意涵不言而喻。這種對台軟硬兩手策略，具有強烈的宣示意義，既持續以兩岸經貿利益作為互動誘因，亦凸顯北京的政治底線及強大的施壓籌碼，對國內藍綠陣營都構成不同程度的壓力，尤其是民進黨更會感受到項莊舞劍的意味。
就國民黨而言，九合一敗選後，馬英九總統在辭去黨主席聲明中雖強調「國家總路線」並沒有輸，但形勢比人強，國內質疑馬政府兩岸政策的聲浪更加高漲，就連新任黨主席的新北市長朱立倫也公開表示，國民黨必須誠懇檢討兩岸政策對台灣人民心理層面的衝擊及在分配公平正義上的疑慮。再加上，北京對台政策顯已不再以馬政府立場為主要考量，片面劃設新航路更引發台灣民意強烈反彈；馬政府為避免拖累二○一六選情，在兩岸政策上轉趨強硬，無預警推遲張志軍訪問金門，可以理解。但相較於民進黨，國民黨最大優勢仍在於可以維繫兩岸和平穩定的互動關係，朱立倫會採取何種新作為，無疑是北京和民進黨關注的焦點。
民進黨兩岸政策如何務實調整，讓美國和北京都可以接受，一直被視為幾乎篤定代表民進黨角逐二○一六總統大位的蔡英文的最後一哩路。但九合一選後，泛綠陣營聲勢大振，相對壓縮民進黨內兩岸政策調整空間；面對習近平日益強勢的作為，期待北京退讓更不切實際。在國、民、共三方賽局中，民進黨可利用的籌碼不多，蔡英文最後一哩路仍然是荊棘滿布，挑戰重重。
兩岸關係已進入一個新的階段，老舊的車子已難肆應快速變化的各種情勢。國、民、共三方都應該有這樣的體認，如何從彼此的角力和互相牽制，走向相互諒解並展現誠意，共同維護兩岸和平發展大局，正考驗三方領導人的政治智慧。陸委會主委換人固是一次尷尬的內挫，卻或許亦是一個改變的契機。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 12, 2015
Executive Summary: Former Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Chang Hsien-yao will not be indicted for leaking information to Beijing. Chairman Wang Yu-chi will assume responsibility and resign, to be succeeded by Deputy Defense Minister Hsia Li-yan. No agreement was reached on the M503 mid-Strait flight path proposed by the Mainland. Last Wednesday the MAC cited it as grounds for postponing Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. Today Wang Yu-chi resigned. The Wang Zhang meeting is now a bust. The future of cross-Strait relations is now a matter of increasing concern.
Full Text Below:
Former Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council Chang Hsien-yao will not be indicted for leaking information to Beijing. Chairman Wang Yu-chi will assume responsibility and resign, to be succeeded by Deputy Defense Minister Hsia Li-yan. No agreement was reached on the M503 mid-Strait flight path proposed by the Mainland. Last Wednesday the MAC cited it as grounds for postponing Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. Today Wang Yu-chi resigned. The Wang Zhang meeting is now a bust. The future of cross-Strait relations is now a matter of increasing concern.
Over the past year, cross-Strait relations have been troubled. Last February Wang Yu-chi visited Nanjing. Last June Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan. The two Wang Zhang meetings held on the two sides of the Strait authored a new page in cross-Strait history. But the impact of the Sunflower Student Movement, the Chang Hsien-yao leaks case, the never realized APEC Ma Xi meeting, Xi Jinping's underscoring of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong's Occupy Central protests, and the nine in one KMT election debacle all took their toll. Cross-Strait relations are the worst they have been since the Ma government took office in 2008.
Last August, Wang Yu-chi accused vice chairman and chief negotiator Chang Hsien-yao of leaking information to Beijing. This inflicted irreparable harm upon cross-Strait trust. Worse, it undermined the credibility of nearly 20 agreements reached by the two sides over the past six years. Chang Hsien-yao will not be prosecuted due to insufficient evidence. Chang Hsien-yao's behavior remains questionable, but at least the damage to cross-Strait relations has been minimized. The credibility of the cross-Strait agreements has been upheld. On the other hand, such incidents and their poor handling have precipitated political storms. They have exposed disarray and lack of leadership among those in authority. Wang Yu-chi is taking the fall. This may limit the damage to cross-Strait relations. But it makes the Ma government look even worse.
The two Wang Zhang meetings have already established the mechanism for regular meetings between those charged with cross-Strait affairs. MAC chairperson changes, such as Hsia replacing Wang, are unlikely to affect normal cross-Strait relations. The nine in one elections last November dramatically changed the blue-green political landscape and the KMT power structure. Cross-strait relations are now part of a complex three-way struggle between the KMT, DPP, and CCP.
Given the changes in Taiwan's political situation, Beijing must be psychologically prepared for another ruling party change in 2016. It must be prepared to modify its strategic Taiwan policy arrangements. On the one hand, Beijing appears committed to maintaining normal cross-Strait relations. The Entrepreneurs Summit agreed upon last December will be held in Taipei, as planned. ARATS chairman Chen Demin will visit Taiwan, as planned. MTA technical consultations and three meetings concerning the cross-Strait financial industry will take place, as planned. The late January cross-Strait "Economic Cooperation Meeting" will be held in Taipei, as planned. Zhang Zhijun will visit Kinmen and attend the third Wang Zhang meeting, as planned. On the other hand, Beijing has reaffirmed the 1992 consensus and opposition to Taiwan independence as the foundation for cross-Strait interaction. In early January it unilaterally announced a new flight path near the center line of the Taiwan Strait. The strategic implications are self-evident. It is adopting a carrot and stick policy towards Taiwan. It has issued a powerful declaration. It will continue to offer cross-Strait economic benefits as incentives for cooperation. But it will not hesitate to apply pressure when it comes to the political bottom line. The blue and green camps will feel varying degrees of pressure. The DPP in particular will surely get Beijing's meaning, loud and clear.
Consider the KMT's nine in one election defeat. President Ma Ying-jeou has resigned as party chairman. His farewell address stressed the correctness of the KMT's basic path for the nation, and that the KMT was a victim of circumstances. The public on Taiwan has been skeptical of the Ma government's cross-Strait policy. Even New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu, the newly-elected Chairman of the KMT, has publicly declared that the KMT must consider the psychological impact of its cross-Strait policy on the people of Taiwan, and who benefits from them. Also, Beijing's main consideration on Taiwan policy is no longer the Ma government's position. Its new, unilaterally established flight path provoked a public backlash on Taiwan. Fearing an impact on the 2016 elections, the Ma government has taken a tougher line on cross-Strait policy. Without warning it postponed Zhang Zhijun's visit to Kinmen. This is understandable. But the greatest advantage the KMT has over the DPP is its ability to maintain peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations. What if anything will Eric Chu do differently? Beijing and the DPP are undoubtedly watching.
The DPP must adopt a more pragmatic cross-strait policy, one acceptable to both Washington and Beijing. The DPP seeks the presidency in 2016. A more pragmatic policy is essential if Tsai Ing-wen hopes to complete the final mile towards the Presidential Palace. But the nine in one elections boosted support fot the green camp. The DPP will now find it difficult to change its cross-Strait policy. Xi Jinping is taking a tougher stance. Expecting Beijing to make further concessions is increasingly unrealistic. The KMT, DPP, and CCP are engaged in a three way struggle. The DPP has very few cards it can play. Tsai Ing-wen's final mile will remain rocky and strewn with obstacles.
Cross-strait relations have entered a new phase. The old model can no longer cope with rapidly changing circumstances. The KMT, DPP, and CCP must realize this. Can they move from wrestling with each other to understanding each other? Can they join hands and ensure peaceful cross-Strait relations? The political wisdom of the leaders of the three parties will soon be tested. The replacement of the MAC chairperson may be an embarrassing setback. But it may also be an opportunity for change.
陸委會王下夏上 兩岸關係三方角力
2015-02-12 03:04:27 聯合報 社論
陸委會前副主委張顯耀洩密案以不起訴處分，王郁琦主委隨即請辭以示負責，由國防部副部長夏立言接任。上周三陸委會才以大陸劃設海峽中線Ｍ五○三航線雙方協商未達成共識為由，推遲大陸國台辦主任張志軍訪問金門；如今王郁琦請辭，「王張會」已成絕響，未來兩岸關係會如何變化備受關切。
過去一年，兩岸關係處於多事之秋。去年二月王郁琦訪問南京及六月張志軍來台訪問，兩次「王張會」雖寫下兩岸官方互動的歷史新頁；但受到太陽花學運、張顯耀洩密案、ＡＰＥＣ「馬習會」破局、習近平強調對台「一國兩制」、香港占中事件、九合一選舉國民黨慘敗等一連串事件的衝擊，兩岸關係跌入二○○八年馬政府上任以來的低潮期。
在上述事件中，去年八月爆發王郁琦主委指控副主委兼我方首席談判代表張顯耀洩密一案，不僅對兩岸互信造成難以彌補的傷害，也讓過去六年多來兩岸簽署近二十項協議的公信力受到外界強烈質疑。如今張顯耀案因證據不足予以不起訴，雖不能因此認定張顯耀的所作所為沒有爭議，但對兩岸關係的傷害卻相對減輕，兩岸協議的公信力也得以維繫。另一方面，發生此一事件並因處理程序似顯錯亂而掀起政治風暴，亦暴露出主政當局的領導缺失及自亂陣腳；王郁琦為此扛起責任，雖可為兩岸關係止血，但對馬政府的整體形象卻是雪上加霜。
王張二會已確立兩岸事務首長會議的常態化機制，陸委會主委換人，王下夏上，尚不致影響兩岸正常往來和互動。但不可諱言，去年十一月底台灣九合一選舉後，因為藍綠政治版圖大幅消長及國民黨權力結構改變，兩岸關係正進入到國、民、共三方角力的複雜情勢。
鑑於台灣政局的變化，北京顯然已有面對二○一六年台灣再次出現政黨輪替的心理準備，對台政策的戰略調整及重新布局已陸續展開。一方面，北京致力維繫兩岸正常互動，去年十二月兩岸企業家峰會如期在台北舉行，海協會會長陳德銘訪台，兩岸貨貿協議技術性諮商及兩岸金融三會先後在北京舉行；今年一月底兩岸「經合會」在台北召開，緊接著又安排張志軍訪問金門及第三次「王張會」。另一方面，北京不斷重申「九二共識」及反台獨是兩岸互動的基礎；一月上旬又片面宣布在海峽中線附近劃設新航路，其戰略意涵不言而喻。這種對台軟硬兩手策略，具有強烈的宣示意義，既持續以兩岸經貿利益作為互動誘因，亦凸顯北京的政治底線及強大的施壓籌碼，對國內藍綠陣營都構成不同程度的壓力，尤其是民進黨更會感受到項莊舞劍的意味。
就國民黨而言，九合一敗選後，馬英九總統在辭去黨主席聲明中雖強調「國家總路線」並沒有輸，但形勢比人強，國內質疑馬政府兩岸政策的聲浪更加高漲，就連新任黨主席的新北市長朱立倫也公開表示，國民黨必須誠懇檢討兩岸政策對台灣人民心理層面的衝擊及在分配公平正義上的疑慮。再加上，北京對台政策顯已不再以馬政府立場為主要考量，片面劃設新航路更引發台灣民意強烈反彈；馬政府為避免拖累二○一六選情，在兩岸政策上轉趨強硬，無預警推遲張志軍訪問金門，可以理解。但相較於民進黨，國民黨最大優勢仍在於可以維繫兩岸和平穩定的互動關係，朱立倫會採取何種新作為，無疑是北京和民進黨關注的焦點。
民進黨兩岸政策如何務實調整，讓美國和北京都可以接受，一直被視為幾乎篤定代表民進黨角逐二○一六總統大位的蔡英文的最後一哩路。但九合一選後，泛綠陣營聲勢大振，相對壓縮民進黨內兩岸政策調整空間；面對習近平日益強勢的作為，期待北京退讓更不切實際。在國、民、共三方賽局中，民進黨可利用的籌碼不多，蔡英文最後一哩路仍然是荊棘滿布，挑戰重重。
兩岸關係已進入一個新的階段，老舊的車子已難肆應快速變化的各種情勢。國、民、共三方都應該有這樣的體認，如何從彼此的角力和互相牽制，走向相互諒解並展現誠意，共同維護兩岸和平發展大局，正考驗三方領導人的政治智慧。陸委會主委換人固是一次尷尬的內挫，卻或許亦是一個改變的契機。
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Ukraine Crisis Recurs, US and EU Differ
Ukraine Crisis Recurs, US and EU Differ
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2015
Executive Summary: Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.
Full Text Below:
Europe now faces a triple crisis. One. Former Middle Eastern and North African colonies are experiencing outbreaks of terrorism. Immigrants are importing these conflicts to continental Europe. Two. The economic integration of Europe is being undermined by imminent Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone. Three. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a crisis in Eastern Europe and the resumption of fighting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the most besieged. She must deal with the Greek debt relief problem, and convince Obama not to add fuel to the fire.
Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine will begin four party talks today in Minsk. They will redraft peace agreements on the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine recently launched a fierce offensive. They expanded their occupied areas. The Russians used the opportunity send troops. Ukraine was overwhelmed. Germany, France, and other European countries of course hope that the two sides can reach a ceasefire and establish a DMZ to maintain stability. But the United States is determined to provide Ukraine with arms, to bolster its military capabilities against the rebels and Russian troops. Europe and the United States disagree on how to handle the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. They agree on the ends but differ on the means. Both sides want to lend Ukraine a helping hand. But they hope to employ very different means.
Such is the tragedy in Ukraine. They lack the ability to resist either outside aggression or internal strife. They can only rely on assistance from other countries. Suppose US weapons stream in? At best they will enable the Ukrainian military to hold the line. They will not enable it to win. The result will be prolonged war and endless unrest. This is why Merkel opposes Obama's "no troops, only weapons" aid plan.
Two republics in Eastern Ukraine have declared their independence. Fierce fighting is taking place between the rebels and government forces. So far the unrest has caused the death of over 5000 people. Locally 1.25 million inhabitants have fled their homes. Last September the two sides reached a ceasefire agreement. But their armies continued fighting. The peace agreement was for naught.
The West has accused Russia of crossing the border and supplying the rebels with arms and troops. But Europe and the United States are reluctant to send troops to Ukraine. Before NATO's eastward expansion it dared not include Georgia. Now, if it includes Ukraine, Russia will inevitably react. Therefore some advocate providing Ukraine with defensive weaponry to counterbalance the Russian military. One US think tank recently proposed providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Secretary of Defense Carter agreed with this proposal during a congressional hearing. At that same moment, US Secretary of State Kerry was in Kiev. The rumor was that final negotiations over the weapons were then in progress.
Some NATO countries, such as Poland and the Baltic states, have also agreed to provide Ukraine with arms. But larger European countries such as Germany and France think that providing only arms without sending US troops will merely intensify the conflict and widen the conflagration. Hardliners think that improving Ukraine's fighting ability will result in body bags arriving in Russia. Putin will then be forced to withdraw. But this approach is likely to be counterproductive. The Russian economy has deteriorated. But Putin's poll numbers remain as high as 72%. This is due to Ukraine. Putin says the Ukrainian army is merely NATO's "Foreign Legion". The arrival of NATO or US weaponry will merely confirm his allegation. Putin's plan is to escalate the civil war in Ukraine into a conflict between NATO and Russia. This will ensure Russian unity, drive up international oil prices, and resolve the financial crisis.
Europe and the United States now differ on the Ukraine crisis. Merkel of Germany and Hollande of France are worried about the situation deteriorating. On the fifth, they suddenly went to Kiev, then on to Moscow to meet with Putin. They proposed a "demilitarized zone". Once Putin agreed, German, French, and Ukrainian leaders met in Belarus for a four party summit. Merkel personally met with Obama, hoping to get him to agree. Merkel stressed that a peace agreement may not succeed, but the conflict cannot be resolved by military means, because this is not merely a civil war. It could well become a "regional disaster".
Frankly, Ukraine cannot win the conflict by itself. Kiev must freeze the conflict. It must buy time, then use economic means to win Eastern Ukraine. Therefore the Ukrainian government must withdraw from the rebel-occupied zones. It must govern East Ukraine using a decentralized "federalist" model. Only that will enable it to ensure its territorial integrity. As for Russia, it is selling its oil and gas to Mainland China, India, and Turkey. That however, is merely a temporary measure. The long-term solution is to set aside its Cold War mentality, and find a way to coexist with the European Union and NATO. Blindly insisting on "buffer states" is obsolete.
European countries dealing with European affairs is perfectly justified. The United States is on the other side of the Atlantic. It does not understand the sensitive and delicate nature of the situation. Merkel stepped forward, just in time. Europe and the United States have a long and special relationship. The United States accounts for half of the military in NATO. It cannot be excluded from the negotiations. European and US coordination is essential.
Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.
烏克蘭危機再現，美歐志同道不合
2015-02-11 03:56:12 聯合報 社論
歐洲此刻正面臨三重危機：一是中東與北非的舊殖民地所爆發的恐怖主義，正經由移民蔓延至歐洲大陸；二是歐洲經濟統合的基礎，正隨著希臘威脅退出歐元區而面臨威脅；三是東歐的烏克蘭遭俄羅斯侵犯的危機又重燃戰火。其中，最忙碌的莫過於德國總理梅克爾，她除了處理希臘的減債問題，還要說服歐巴馬別在烏東危機火上加油。
德法俄烏四國今天將在明斯克舉行四國會談，就「烏東危機」重擬和平協議。主要是，烏東親俄叛軍最近發動猛烈攻勢，擴大占領地區，而俄軍亦不斷趁機派兵支援，使烏克蘭難以招架。在德法等歐洲國家的立場，當然希望雙方能停戰弭兵，劃出非軍事區來維持安定；但美國卻意圖提供烏克蘭武器，以強化其軍隊抵禦叛軍和俄軍的能力。歐美對烏東危機的處理可謂「志同而道不合」：雙方都想要對烏克蘭伸援手，但手段卻大相逕庭。
這也正是烏克蘭的悲情。自己國家沒有能力抵禦內亂與外患，只能仰賴他國協助；但若美國武器源源流入，卻充其量僅足以供烏軍抵抗，而無力讓其打贏，其結果勢必是戰事綿延，動亂不可能止息。梅克爾反對歐巴馬「不派軍，只送武器」的援助計畫，擔心的就是這個。
目前，烏東兩個共和國已宣布獨立，叛軍與政府軍激烈戰鬥。動亂迄今，已造成五千多人死亡，當地已有一百廿萬居民逃離家園。去年九月，雙方一度達成停火協議，但兩軍仍持續交火，和平協議形同廢紙。
對此，西方雖然極力指控俄國越界供應軍備與人員，但歐美對出兵烏克蘭卻有所顧忌。之前「北約」東擴，就不敢將喬治亞納入；現在若納入烏克蘭，勢必引發俄國強烈反彈。也因此，有人主張應該提供烏克蘭還手與自衛的武器，以制衡俄軍。美國智庫最近便建議給烏克蘭防禦性致命武器，接著，國防部長內定人卡特在國會任命聽證會上表示贊同。就在此時，美國務卿凱瑞訪問基輔，盛傳即是為武器的種類做最後磋商。
部分北約國家如波蘭與波羅的海國家，也贊成向烏克蘭提供軍火；但歐洲大國如德、法卻認為，美國只提供軍火不派兵，反而會升高衝突，引發遍地烽火。強硬派的想法是：提高烏克蘭的戰力後，一旦屍袋開始運抵俄羅斯，可迫使普亭收斂。但這種想法極可能適得其反，儘管俄國經濟惡化，但普亭目前民調支持度達七十二％，就是靠著烏東戰事贏得的。且普亭已經放話，烏克蘭軍隊不過是北約的「外籍兵團」，如果還接收北約或美國的裝備，更坐實這個指控。普亭的盤算，就是要把烏東內戰升高為「北約」與「俄羅斯」的緊張，既可催化俄國內部的團結，又可炒高國際油價，化解財政危機。
歐洲與美國對因應烏克蘭危機出現不同步調。德法領導人梅克爾與歐蘭德擔心情況惡化，五日突然前往基輔，隨後轉赴莫斯科會晤普亭，提出「非武裝區」之議，得到普亭的同意後，隨即敲定德法俄烏領袖今天在白俄羅斯舉行四國峰會。梅克爾更親訪歐巴馬，希望能說服他同意。梅克爾強調，和平協議未必一定成功，但重要的是，「這場衝突不能以軍事手段解決」。因為這不僅是一場內戰，而是一場可能升級為「地區災難」的戰爭。
老實說，烏克蘭不可能獨力贏得這場衝突。對基輔而言，重要的是先凍結衝突，以時間換取空間，再用經濟來爭取東烏。所以，烏克蘭政府必須退出叛軍佔領的地盤，改採分權的「聯邦制」治理烏東，才能挽救國家領土的完整。至於俄羅斯，目前將油氣市場轉往中國大陸、印度與土耳其，畢竟只是暫時之計，長遠之計是要放下冷戰心態，找尋與歐盟和北約共處之道，因為一味守護著「緩衝國」的手段已經落伍了。
歐洲國家處理歐洲事務，本來就天經地義，美國隔著大西洋，其實並不理解其中的敏感細膩之處。梅克爾這次出頭，恰如其時，也恰如其分。但是，歐美畢竟有長久的特殊關係，尤其美國在北約組織中佔有一半軍力，不可能把它隔在談判範圍之外，歐美協調畢竟不可或缺。
烏克蘭夾在歐美俄之間的兩難處境，台灣感同身受。今天的東歐，也許就是明日的台海，國際情勢與國內局勢永遠是相激相盪的，我們要從烏克蘭的危機中汲取自己的教訓。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2015
Executive Summary: Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.
Full Text Below:
Europe now faces a triple crisis. One. Former Middle Eastern and North African colonies are experiencing outbreaks of terrorism. Immigrants are importing these conflicts to continental Europe. Two. The economic integration of Europe is being undermined by imminent Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone. Three. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a crisis in Eastern Europe and the resumption of fighting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the most besieged. She must deal with the Greek debt relief problem, and convince Obama not to add fuel to the fire.
Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine will begin four party talks today in Minsk. They will redraft peace agreements on the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine recently launched a fierce offensive. They expanded their occupied areas. The Russians used the opportunity send troops. Ukraine was overwhelmed. Germany, France, and other European countries of course hope that the two sides can reach a ceasefire and establish a DMZ to maintain stability. But the United States is determined to provide Ukraine with arms, to bolster its military capabilities against the rebels and Russian troops. Europe and the United States disagree on how to handle the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. They agree on the ends but differ on the means. Both sides want to lend Ukraine a helping hand. But they hope to employ very different means.
Such is the tragedy in Ukraine. They lack the ability to resist either outside aggression or internal strife. They can only rely on assistance from other countries. Suppose US weapons stream in? At best they will enable the Ukrainian military to hold the line. They will not enable it to win. The result will be prolonged war and endless unrest. This is why Merkel opposes Obama's "no troops, only weapons" aid plan.
Two republics in Eastern Ukraine have declared their independence. Fierce fighting is taking place between the rebels and government forces. So far the unrest has caused the death of over 5000 people. Locally 1.25 million inhabitants have fled their homes. Last September the two sides reached a ceasefire agreement. But their armies continued fighting. The peace agreement was for naught.
The West has accused Russia of crossing the border and supplying the rebels with arms and troops. But Europe and the United States are reluctant to send troops to Ukraine. Before NATO's eastward expansion it dared not include Georgia. Now, if it includes Ukraine, Russia will inevitably react. Therefore some advocate providing Ukraine with defensive weaponry to counterbalance the Russian military. One US think tank recently proposed providing Ukraine with lethal weapons. Secretary of Defense Carter agreed with this proposal during a congressional hearing. At that same moment, US Secretary of State Kerry was in Kiev. The rumor was that final negotiations over the weapons were then in progress.
Some NATO countries, such as Poland and the Baltic states, have also agreed to provide Ukraine with arms. But larger European countries such as Germany and France think that providing only arms without sending US troops will merely intensify the conflict and widen the conflagration. Hardliners think that improving Ukraine's fighting ability will result in body bags arriving in Russia. Putin will then be forced to withdraw. But this approach is likely to be counterproductive. The Russian economy has deteriorated. But Putin's poll numbers remain as high as 72%. This is due to Ukraine. Putin says the Ukrainian army is merely NATO's "Foreign Legion". The arrival of NATO or US weaponry will merely confirm his allegation. Putin's plan is to escalate the civil war in Ukraine into a conflict between NATO and Russia. This will ensure Russian unity, drive up international oil prices, and resolve the financial crisis.
Europe and the United States now differ on the Ukraine crisis. Merkel of Germany and Hollande of France are worried about the situation deteriorating. On the fifth, they suddenly went to Kiev, then on to Moscow to meet with Putin. They proposed a "demilitarized zone". Once Putin agreed, German, French, and Ukrainian leaders met in Belarus for a four party summit. Merkel personally met with Obama, hoping to get him to agree. Merkel stressed that a peace agreement may not succeed, but the conflict cannot be resolved by military means, because this is not merely a civil war. It could well become a "regional disaster".
Frankly, Ukraine cannot win the conflict by itself. Kiev must freeze the conflict. It must buy time, then use economic means to win Eastern Ukraine. Therefore the Ukrainian government must withdraw from the rebel-occupied zones. It must govern East Ukraine using a decentralized "federalist" model. Only that will enable it to ensure its territorial integrity. As for Russia, it is selling its oil and gas to Mainland China, India, and Turkey. That however, is merely a temporary measure. The long-term solution is to set aside its Cold War mentality, and find a way to coexist with the European Union and NATO. Blindly insisting on "buffer states" is obsolete.
European countries dealing with European affairs is perfectly justified. The United States is on the other side of the Atlantic. It does not understand the sensitive and delicate nature of the situation. Merkel stepped forward, just in time. Europe and the United States have a long and special relationship. The United States accounts for half of the military in NATO. It cannot be excluded from the negotiations. European and US coordination is essential.
Ukraine finds itself caught between Europe and Russia. Taiwan can empathize. Today Eastern Europe. Tomorrow the Taiwan Strait. The international situation and domestic situation constantly impinge upon each other. We must learn a lesson from the crisis in Ukraine.
烏克蘭危機再現，美歐志同道不合
2015-02-11 03:56:12 聯合報 社論
歐洲此刻正面臨三重危機：一是中東與北非的舊殖民地所爆發的恐怖主義，正經由移民蔓延至歐洲大陸；二是歐洲經濟統合的基礎，正隨著希臘威脅退出歐元區而面臨威脅；三是東歐的烏克蘭遭俄羅斯侵犯的危機又重燃戰火。其中，最忙碌的莫過於德國總理梅克爾，她除了處理希臘的減債問題，還要說服歐巴馬別在烏東危機火上加油。
德法俄烏四國今天將在明斯克舉行四國會談，就「烏東危機」重擬和平協議。主要是，烏東親俄叛軍最近發動猛烈攻勢，擴大占領地區，而俄軍亦不斷趁機派兵支援，使烏克蘭難以招架。在德法等歐洲國家的立場，當然希望雙方能停戰弭兵，劃出非軍事區來維持安定；但美國卻意圖提供烏克蘭武器，以強化其軍隊抵禦叛軍和俄軍的能力。歐美對烏東危機的處理可謂「志同而道不合」：雙方都想要對烏克蘭伸援手，但手段卻大相逕庭。
這也正是烏克蘭的悲情。自己國家沒有能力抵禦內亂與外患，只能仰賴他國協助；但若美國武器源源流入，卻充其量僅足以供烏軍抵抗，而無力讓其打贏，其結果勢必是戰事綿延，動亂不可能止息。梅克爾反對歐巴馬「不派軍，只送武器」的援助計畫，擔心的就是這個。
目前，烏東兩個共和國已宣布獨立，叛軍與政府軍激烈戰鬥。動亂迄今，已造成五千多人死亡，當地已有一百廿萬居民逃離家園。去年九月，雙方一度達成停火協議，但兩軍仍持續交火，和平協議形同廢紙。
對此，西方雖然極力指控俄國越界供應軍備與人員，但歐美對出兵烏克蘭卻有所顧忌。之前「北約」東擴，就不敢將喬治亞納入；現在若納入烏克蘭，勢必引發俄國強烈反彈。也因此，有人主張應該提供烏克蘭還手與自衛的武器，以制衡俄軍。美國智庫最近便建議給烏克蘭防禦性致命武器，接著，國防部長內定人卡特在國會任命聽證會上表示贊同。就在此時，美國務卿凱瑞訪問基輔，盛傳即是為武器的種類做最後磋商。
部分北約國家如波蘭與波羅的海國家，也贊成向烏克蘭提供軍火；但歐洲大國如德、法卻認為，美國只提供軍火不派兵，反而會升高衝突，引發遍地烽火。強硬派的想法是：提高烏克蘭的戰力後，一旦屍袋開始運抵俄羅斯，可迫使普亭收斂。但這種想法極可能適得其反，儘管俄國經濟惡化，但普亭目前民調支持度達七十二％，就是靠著烏東戰事贏得的。且普亭已經放話，烏克蘭軍隊不過是北約的「外籍兵團」，如果還接收北約或美國的裝備，更坐實這個指控。普亭的盤算，就是要把烏東內戰升高為「北約」與「俄羅斯」的緊張，既可催化俄國內部的團結，又可炒高國際油價，化解財政危機。
歐洲與美國對因應烏克蘭危機出現不同步調。德法領導人梅克爾與歐蘭德擔心情況惡化，五日突然前往基輔，隨後轉赴莫斯科會晤普亭，提出「非武裝區」之議，得到普亭的同意後，隨即敲定德法俄烏領袖今天在白俄羅斯舉行四國峰會。梅克爾更親訪歐巴馬，希望能說服他同意。梅克爾強調，和平協議未必一定成功，但重要的是，「這場衝突不能以軍事手段解決」。因為這不僅是一場內戰，而是一場可能升級為「地區災難」的戰爭。
老實說，烏克蘭不可能獨力贏得這場衝突。對基輔而言，重要的是先凍結衝突，以時間換取空間，再用經濟來爭取東烏。所以，烏克蘭政府必須退出叛軍佔領的地盤，改採分權的「聯邦制」治理烏東，才能挽救國家領土的完整。至於俄羅斯，目前將油氣市場轉往中國大陸、印度與土耳其，畢竟只是暫時之計，長遠之計是要放下冷戰心態，找尋與歐盟和北約共處之道，因為一味守護著「緩衝國」的手段已經落伍了。
歐洲國家處理歐洲事務，本來就天經地義，美國隔著大西洋，其實並不理解其中的敏感細膩之處。梅克爾這次出頭，恰如其時，也恰如其分。但是，歐美畢竟有長久的特殊關係，尤其美國在北約組織中佔有一半軍力，不可能把它隔在談判範圍之外，歐美協調畢竟不可或缺。
烏克蘭夾在歐美俄之間的兩難處境，台灣感同身受。今天的東歐，也許就是明日的台海，國際情勢與國內局勢永遠是相激相盪的，我們要從烏克蘭的危機中汲取自己的教訓。
Monday, February 9, 2015
From Policy Packaging to Policy Marketing
From Policy Packaging to Policy Marketing
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2015
Executive Summary: The KMT was routed in the recent nine in one elections. One of the main reasons was that merely having a bunch of well-intentioned, ambitious policy prescriptions was not enough. Opposition obstructionism and defamation took its toll. The public did not appreciate what was being offered. No matter how well the policies were packaged, no one was buying them. The policies simply could not be implemented. The Mao cabinet should rethink its policy marketing strategy. Its grand projects cannot be realized. It should do something tangible that people can feel, first hand. That might get peoples' attention.
Full Text Below:
The KMT was routed in the recent nine in one elections. One of the main reasons was that merely having a bunch of well-intentioned, ambitious policy prescriptions was not enough. Opposition obstructionism and defamation took its toll. The public did not appreciate what was being offered. No matter how well the policies were packaged, no one was buying them. The policies simply could not be implemented. The Mao cabinet should rethink its policy marketing strategy. Its grand projects cannot be realized. It should do something tangible that people can feel, first hand. That might get peoples' attention.
To invoke a business metaphor, the Ma government has long been adept at "wholesale marketing", but inept at "retail marketing", and even more inept at "professional marketing". Officials love to publish policy bills that resemble encyclopedias. But they can't be bothered to consider variables or alternatives. Under these circumstances, the tiny defect in the merchandise will be blasted by the political opposition or dissenting members of the public. Every defect will be blown out of proportion, and the policy as a whole will be discredited. This has been true of every policy including the STA, the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations, and the FEPZ. Add to this endless protests by highway toll collectors, the San Ying Tribe, property owners evicted for the Taoyuan Aviation City. All of these underscore the ruling party's neglect for “retail marketing”.
Long-term national growth cannot do without large scale infrastructure planning. Policy ideas cannot be dictated by populist demagogues dispensing political favors in a haphazard manner. If that happens, we are lost. But conversely, social development on Taiwan has led to great importance placed on individual rights and opposition to all-encompassing public authority. Such is the current atmosphere. The government cannot continue to offer only "turnkey" and "wholesale marketing" solutions. It cannot continue to insist on a simple set of rules that everyone must comply with. It must make concessions. It must become more detailed oriented. It must think in terms of "retail marketing" and "customization". Otherwise it will continue encountering obstructionism and protests, and end up butting its head against a wall.
Take the FEPZ policy, for example. Opposition obstructionism prevented its passage in the Legislative Yuan. As a result, one of Taiwan's key advantages was lost. Yesterday, Pingtung University Associate Professor Cheng Po-wen penned an opinion piece for this newspaper. He said that if only the government had first designated Kaohsiung a "pilot project", given the port city of Kaohsiung's advantages, it might already have made considerable progress. Instead, the government repeatedly expanded the scale of the pilot project. Eventually it expanded to include "six harbors and one airport”, plus an "Agriculture Technology Park". As a result, the schedule was delayed and the scale was too large. The all inclusive package deal led to differences in opinion, and compromise was no longer possible.
In fact, the FEPZ cannot possibly be so grand a project. Its vision far exceeds the understanding and imagination of lawmakers. Nor is it something people can understand at a glance. Worse still, layer upon layer of legislation turned it into an unwieldy beast, replete with political pork for special interest groups and corrupt officials. Add to this malicious opposition obstructionism, and suddenly this golden goose egg was no longer marketable. The Mao cabinet recently considered decentralizing the FEPZ bill as part of its "Five Points of Innovation". It would abandon the "special legislation" and return to the original scheme where each jurisdiction dealt with its own regulations. This was tantamount to skipping the "FEPZ" and adopting an economic "liberalization of the entire island" approach. But this also meant that the past two or three years of struggle to package the bill were all for naught.
The FEPZ is a major national economic and political policy issue. But it was "unmarketable" and "not passable". How well it was packaged was irrelevant. This was a painful lesson. Now take the anti-demolition protests by residents of Miaoli Tai Po, the San Ying tribe, Taoyuan City and other locales. All of them involved eminent domain land acquisition or demolition of houses. No matter how generous the government settlements, inevitably some would balk. They might have emotional attachments to the land, or other motives. All of them needed a more delicate approach and individual treatment. They were not obstacles that could be swept aside by "administrative law".
Government agencies like to settle all problems with rules. They like to claim that that they absolutely cannot "make exceptions." In fact, public authority has become devalued. If public interests lack a "customer service" attitude, endless troubles will ensue. Take the construction of public housing for the Sijhou tribe. A small number of Aboriginal tribal members found it difficult to obtain loans. The New Taipei City Government should not have insisted that all residents obtain home loans. It should have offered some units as rental property. Wouldn't that have been the best of both worlds?
When Chang San-cheng became a cabinet member three years ago he said, "If Chunghwa Telecom earned five to ten percent less, it would eliminate 90% of all complaints". Consider how much money Chunghwa Telecom earns from each family and each young person every month. Chang San-cheng's implications were clear. This year, Chunghwa Telecom's revenue exceeded 200 billion NT. Average year-end bonuses amounted to 6.6 month's pay. Chairman Tsai Li-hang even announced pay raises. But is Chunghwa Telecom willing to do anything to eliminate 90% of all complaints?
We are entering an era of diversification. The government must go from "wholesale-oriented marketing” to "retail services marketing”. A policy should be “marketable” rather than "packaged well”. This is a lesson the Mao cabinet must learn from the KMT's recent setbacks.
從「包得好」到「賣得掉」談政策行銷
2015-02-10 01:23:26 聯合報 社論
國民黨九合一選舉慘敗，最主要的原因之一是，空有一堆立意良好、包裝宏大的政策，卻因對手的杯葛與中傷而受阻；加上民眾不領情，說得再好聽的政策也賣不掉。面對這種窒礙難行的窘境，毛內閣應該重新思考政策的行銷策略，與其不斷打造推不動的大部頭施政，不如做一些民眾感受得到的實事，也許更易收一新耳目之效。
以商業術語為喻，馬政府一向擅長「批發」，卻拙於「零售」，更拙於「專業行銷」；官員喜歡打造百科全書式的巨型套裝政策，卻怠於處理其間的變數或另類個案。在這種情況下，只要大部頭商品中有一點點瑕疵，遭到對手或異議民眾的批評指摘，缺點不斷被放大，結果整套政策就跟著掛了。從《服貿協議》、《兩岸協議監督條例》、「自由經濟示範區」政策的命運看，無一不是如此；包括高速公路收費員至今抗議不休，三鶯部落自救會、桃園航空城反迫遷的抗爭等，在在顯示執政黨對「零售」這塊的輕忽與漠視。
不可諱言，國家的長遠發展不能沒有大架構的規劃，政策構思也不應流於雞零狗碎、好施小惠式的民粹討巧；那樣的話，一定會迷失方向。但換一個角度看，當台灣社會的發展走到一個重視個人權益、反對公權力怪手無所不包的拐點，在這樣的氛圍下，政府決策若仍然只有「統包」、「批發」的概念，想要以一套簡單的規則要求所有人全部遵從，而不朝更細緻化的「零售」、「客製化」思維調整，勢必會不斷碰到杯葛與抗議，而陷入「撞牆」的困境。
以「自由經濟示範區」政策為例，由於在野黨的杯葛，法案遲遲無法在立院過關，已使台灣把握關鍵優勢發展的契機不斷流失。屏大副教授鄭博文昨天在本報民意論壇版投書，慨嘆如果當初政府先將高雄市劃為「示範區」，就高雄的港市特點率先試行，也許至今已經做出一些成績。然而，政府卻不斷擴張示範區規模，最後膨脹為「六海一空」外加「農業科技園區」；如此一來，不僅造成時日遷延，更因規模宏大、包山包海而致各方意見分歧，無從協調。
其實，自由經濟示範區的擘劃，不可謂不宏大高遠，但它所勾勒的願景不僅遠超乎國會議員的理解和想像，也不是民眾所能一目了然。更嚴重的是，經過層層的法案包裝，它反而成了令人望而生畏的龐然怪物，唯恐其中夾帶著某些利益集團或官員的私心；再加上在野黨的惡意杯葛，這顆包裝精美的金蛋遂根本賣不動。毛內閣最近考慮將示範區條例中的「五大創新重點」化整為零，棄「特別法」回歸原本各自的法規處理，形同跳過「示範區」朝「全島自由化」前進。這也意味，先前兩三年的努力包裝建構，又要全部拆掉重練，這簡直是白忙一場。
自由經濟示範區是國家重大經建政策，但是，「賣不掉」、「推不動」的政策，包裝得再漂亮也沒有用，這是血淋淋的教訓。再以苗栗大埔、三鶯部落、桃園航空城等地的拆遷抗爭為例，凡涉及土地徵收或拆遷民房，無論政府開出的條件多麼優厚，都仍免不了會有少數人持不同態度；不論他們是基於對土地的感情或其他因素，都需要以更細膩的手法個別溝通處理，而非一句「依法行政」便可解決。
政府部門人員辦事，喜歡用一套規則打發所有的問題，聲稱絕對不能「破例」。事實上，隨著公權力威望的「貶值」，對涉及人民權益的事若不抱著「客服」的態度面對，只會引發無窮後患。以溪洲部落社會住宅的興建為例，如果少數原住民確難負擔龐大貸款，新北市府似無必要要求所有住民一律貸款購屋，而可保留一些住宅供其租用，豈不更兩全其美？
再如，張善政三年前初入閣時曾說，「中華電信如果少賺五％到十％，可以減少九成民怨」。只要想想中華電信每月從每個家庭、每個年輕人身上拿走多少錢，人們即不難理解張善政的言下之意。而今年中華電信營收超過二千多億元，員工平均年終獎金達六．六個月，董事長蔡力行宣布要加薪；但是，可以減少「九成民怨」的事，中華電信又做了幾件？
當時代不斷走向多元分化，政府行銷也必須從「批發至上」兼顧「零售服務」。政策「包得好」不如「賣得掉」，這是毛內閣必須從挫折中學到的一課。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2015
Executive Summary: The KMT was routed in the recent nine in one elections. One of the main reasons was that merely having a bunch of well-intentioned, ambitious policy prescriptions was not enough. Opposition obstructionism and defamation took its toll. The public did not appreciate what was being offered. No matter how well the policies were packaged, no one was buying them. The policies simply could not be implemented. The Mao cabinet should rethink its policy marketing strategy. Its grand projects cannot be realized. It should do something tangible that people can feel, first hand. That might get peoples' attention.
Full Text Below:
The KMT was routed in the recent nine in one elections. One of the main reasons was that merely having a bunch of well-intentioned, ambitious policy prescriptions was not enough. Opposition obstructionism and defamation took its toll. The public did not appreciate what was being offered. No matter how well the policies were packaged, no one was buying them. The policies simply could not be implemented. The Mao cabinet should rethink its policy marketing strategy. Its grand projects cannot be realized. It should do something tangible that people can feel, first hand. That might get peoples' attention.
To invoke a business metaphor, the Ma government has long been adept at "wholesale marketing", but inept at "retail marketing", and even more inept at "professional marketing". Officials love to publish policy bills that resemble encyclopedias. But they can't be bothered to consider variables or alternatives. Under these circumstances, the tiny defect in the merchandise will be blasted by the political opposition or dissenting members of the public. Every defect will be blown out of proportion, and the policy as a whole will be discredited. This has been true of every policy including the STA, the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations, and the FEPZ. Add to this endless protests by highway toll collectors, the San Ying Tribe, property owners evicted for the Taoyuan Aviation City. All of these underscore the ruling party's neglect for “retail marketing”.
Long-term national growth cannot do without large scale infrastructure planning. Policy ideas cannot be dictated by populist demagogues dispensing political favors in a haphazard manner. If that happens, we are lost. But conversely, social development on Taiwan has led to great importance placed on individual rights and opposition to all-encompassing public authority. Such is the current atmosphere. The government cannot continue to offer only "turnkey" and "wholesale marketing" solutions. It cannot continue to insist on a simple set of rules that everyone must comply with. It must make concessions. It must become more detailed oriented. It must think in terms of "retail marketing" and "customization". Otherwise it will continue encountering obstructionism and protests, and end up butting its head against a wall.
Take the FEPZ policy, for example. Opposition obstructionism prevented its passage in the Legislative Yuan. As a result, one of Taiwan's key advantages was lost. Yesterday, Pingtung University Associate Professor Cheng Po-wen penned an opinion piece for this newspaper. He said that if only the government had first designated Kaohsiung a "pilot project", given the port city of Kaohsiung's advantages, it might already have made considerable progress. Instead, the government repeatedly expanded the scale of the pilot project. Eventually it expanded to include "six harbors and one airport”, plus an "Agriculture Technology Park". As a result, the schedule was delayed and the scale was too large. The all inclusive package deal led to differences in opinion, and compromise was no longer possible.
In fact, the FEPZ cannot possibly be so grand a project. Its vision far exceeds the understanding and imagination of lawmakers. Nor is it something people can understand at a glance. Worse still, layer upon layer of legislation turned it into an unwieldy beast, replete with political pork for special interest groups and corrupt officials. Add to this malicious opposition obstructionism, and suddenly this golden goose egg was no longer marketable. The Mao cabinet recently considered decentralizing the FEPZ bill as part of its "Five Points of Innovation". It would abandon the "special legislation" and return to the original scheme where each jurisdiction dealt with its own regulations. This was tantamount to skipping the "FEPZ" and adopting an economic "liberalization of the entire island" approach. But this also meant that the past two or three years of struggle to package the bill were all for naught.
The FEPZ is a major national economic and political policy issue. But it was "unmarketable" and "not passable". How well it was packaged was irrelevant. This was a painful lesson. Now take the anti-demolition protests by residents of Miaoli Tai Po, the San Ying tribe, Taoyuan City and other locales. All of them involved eminent domain land acquisition or demolition of houses. No matter how generous the government settlements, inevitably some would balk. They might have emotional attachments to the land, or other motives. All of them needed a more delicate approach and individual treatment. They were not obstacles that could be swept aside by "administrative law".
Government agencies like to settle all problems with rules. They like to claim that that they absolutely cannot "make exceptions." In fact, public authority has become devalued. If public interests lack a "customer service" attitude, endless troubles will ensue. Take the construction of public housing for the Sijhou tribe. A small number of Aboriginal tribal members found it difficult to obtain loans. The New Taipei City Government should not have insisted that all residents obtain home loans. It should have offered some units as rental property. Wouldn't that have been the best of both worlds?
When Chang San-cheng became a cabinet member three years ago he said, "If Chunghwa Telecom earned five to ten percent less, it would eliminate 90% of all complaints". Consider how much money Chunghwa Telecom earns from each family and each young person every month. Chang San-cheng's implications were clear. This year, Chunghwa Telecom's revenue exceeded 200 billion NT. Average year-end bonuses amounted to 6.6 month's pay. Chairman Tsai Li-hang even announced pay raises. But is Chunghwa Telecom willing to do anything to eliminate 90% of all complaints?
We are entering an era of diversification. The government must go from "wholesale-oriented marketing” to "retail services marketing”. A policy should be “marketable” rather than "packaged well”. This is a lesson the Mao cabinet must learn from the KMT's recent setbacks.
從「包得好」到「賣得掉」談政策行銷
2015-02-10 01:23:26 聯合報 社論
國民黨九合一選舉慘敗，最主要的原因之一是，空有一堆立意良好、包裝宏大的政策，卻因對手的杯葛與中傷而受阻；加上民眾不領情，說得再好聽的政策也賣不掉。面對這種窒礙難行的窘境，毛內閣應該重新思考政策的行銷策略，與其不斷打造推不動的大部頭施政，不如做一些民眾感受得到的實事，也許更易收一新耳目之效。
以商業術語為喻，馬政府一向擅長「批發」，卻拙於「零售」，更拙於「專業行銷」；官員喜歡打造百科全書式的巨型套裝政策，卻怠於處理其間的變數或另類個案。在這種情況下，只要大部頭商品中有一點點瑕疵，遭到對手或異議民眾的批評指摘，缺點不斷被放大，結果整套政策就跟著掛了。從《服貿協議》、《兩岸協議監督條例》、「自由經濟示範區」政策的命運看，無一不是如此；包括高速公路收費員至今抗議不休，三鶯部落自救會、桃園航空城反迫遷的抗爭等，在在顯示執政黨對「零售」這塊的輕忽與漠視。
不可諱言，國家的長遠發展不能沒有大架構的規劃，政策構思也不應流於雞零狗碎、好施小惠式的民粹討巧；那樣的話，一定會迷失方向。但換一個角度看，當台灣社會的發展走到一個重視個人權益、反對公權力怪手無所不包的拐點，在這樣的氛圍下，政府決策若仍然只有「統包」、「批發」的概念，想要以一套簡單的規則要求所有人全部遵從，而不朝更細緻化的「零售」、「客製化」思維調整，勢必會不斷碰到杯葛與抗議，而陷入「撞牆」的困境。
以「自由經濟示範區」政策為例，由於在野黨的杯葛，法案遲遲無法在立院過關，已使台灣把握關鍵優勢發展的契機不斷流失。屏大副教授鄭博文昨天在本報民意論壇版投書，慨嘆如果當初政府先將高雄市劃為「示範區」，就高雄的港市特點率先試行，也許至今已經做出一些成績。然而，政府卻不斷擴張示範區規模，最後膨脹為「六海一空」外加「農業科技園區」；如此一來，不僅造成時日遷延，更因規模宏大、包山包海而致各方意見分歧，無從協調。
其實，自由經濟示範區的擘劃，不可謂不宏大高遠，但它所勾勒的願景不僅遠超乎國會議員的理解和想像，也不是民眾所能一目了然。更嚴重的是，經過層層的法案包裝，它反而成了令人望而生畏的龐然怪物，唯恐其中夾帶著某些利益集團或官員的私心；再加上在野黨的惡意杯葛，這顆包裝精美的金蛋遂根本賣不動。毛內閣最近考慮將示範區條例中的「五大創新重點」化整為零，棄「特別法」回歸原本各自的法規處理，形同跳過「示範區」朝「全島自由化」前進。這也意味，先前兩三年的努力包裝建構，又要全部拆掉重練，這簡直是白忙一場。
自由經濟示範區是國家重大經建政策，但是，「賣不掉」、「推不動」的政策，包裝得再漂亮也沒有用，這是血淋淋的教訓。再以苗栗大埔、三鶯部落、桃園航空城等地的拆遷抗爭為例，凡涉及土地徵收或拆遷民房，無論政府開出的條件多麼優厚，都仍免不了會有少數人持不同態度；不論他們是基於對土地的感情或其他因素，都需要以更細膩的手法個別溝通處理，而非一句「依法行政」便可解決。
政府部門人員辦事，喜歡用一套規則打發所有的問題，聲稱絕對不能「破例」。事實上，隨著公權力威望的「貶值」，對涉及人民權益的事若不抱著「客服」的態度面對，只會引發無窮後患。以溪洲部落社會住宅的興建為例，如果少數原住民確難負擔龐大貸款，新北市府似無必要要求所有住民一律貸款購屋，而可保留一些住宅供其租用，豈不更兩全其美？
再如，張善政三年前初入閣時曾說，「中華電信如果少賺五％到十％，可以減少九成民怨」。只要想想中華電信每月從每個家庭、每個年輕人身上拿走多少錢，人們即不難理解張善政的言下之意。而今年中華電信營收超過二千多億元，員工平均年終獎金達六．六個月，董事長蔡力行宣布要加薪；但是，可以減少「九成民怨」的事，中華電信又做了幾件？
當時代不斷走向多元分化，政府行銷也必須從「批發至上」兼顧「零售服務」。政策「包得好」不如「賣得掉」，這是毛內閣必須從挫折中學到的一課。
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Competing in Asia: Publicly Owned Banks Must Introduce Foreign Capital
Competing in Asia: Publicly Owned Banks Must Introduce Foreign Capital
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9 2015
Executive Summary: The Ministry of Finance recently made a clear commitment. Publicly owned banks need not turn over all their future earnings to the Treasury. They should hold on to them, and issue them as dividends. This will increase bank capital and comply with the Basel III agreement. Publicly owned banks should definitely increase dividends. Only then will they have the ability to compete with other Asian banks. This of course is merely one approach to capital accumulation. The Treasury should seriously consider allowing foreign bank investment. It should allow foreign banks to become strategic partners, enabling them and the Central Bank to enter the international market together.
Full Text Below:
The Ministry of Finance recently made a clear commitment.Publicly owned banks need not turn over all their future earnings to the Treasury. They should hold on to them, and issue them as dividends. This will increase bank capital and comply with the Basel III agreement. Publicly owned banks should definitely increase dividends. Only then will they have the ability to compete with other Asian banks. This of course is merely one approach to capital accumulation. The Treasury should seriously consider allowing foreign bank investment. It should allow foreign banks to become strategic partners, enabling them and the Central Bank to enter the international market together.
The Basel III Capital Accord raised the fund requirement for banks. That is a step in the right direction. Following the financial crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and Administration Commission resolved to toughen the statutory requirements for capital structure. It imposed strict requirements for capital inflows, and increased capital adequacy ratios. It promoted sound banking procedures to reduce the risk of another financial crisis. Under new regulations, Tier 1 Capital and common equity ratio requirements will be raised each year. In January 2016 the ratio will be increased to 0.625 percent from 0.5 percent. This is expected to result in a further influx of bank capital.
Under the new standards, publicly owned banks face more serious capital shortages than private banks. In the past publicly owned banks were required to turn their earnings over to the Treasury. This made it difficult for them to accumulate funds. According to reports, the Ministry of Finance will coordinate with the Comptroller General and ask the Treasury to return last year's earnings to the banks. Even if this is true, it is a drop in the bucket. For example, the Bank of Taiwan and the Land Bank turned over 20 billion NT to the Treasury last year. But the Bank of Taiwan's capital shortfall for 2016 alone was 66 billion NT. In order to meet the standards of the Basel agreement, to enable banks to accumulate more capital, and to improve their competitiveness in the international community, an issue of new shares and capital increases are necessary. If we want our banks to be able to compete with other Asian banks, we cannot limit ourselves to Taiwan. We must consider large international banks as strategic partners. In other words, capital increases need not be limited to domestic stock issues. We can use an open approach. We can attract capital from the outside, from banks with more advanced management. We can use the opportunity to transform out domestic banks, to make them more international, and make tehm more internationally competitive.
The experience of Mainland China, just across the Strait, may be instructive. The Mainland financial industry was once closed and backward. In 1994 it even issued its "Provisional Regulations on Investment in Shares of Financial Institutions", which forbade foreign investment in Chinese banks. Back then there was no distinction between politics and industry. Banks made huge numbers of non-performing loans. They hired too many employees. Their attitude was poor. Their efficiency was low. The international financial system concluded that the Mainland economy was about to collapse.
When Zhu Rongi took office, he introduced two reforms. The first was to "transform debt into shares". He eliminated non-performing loans, and established asset management companies. This immediately improved bank performance.The second was to use foreign capital to transform state-owned enterprises, and improve their capital adequacy ratios. Each bank introduced a foreign bank as a strategic partner. It made them important partners, but did not grant them controlling shares.
The Chinese mainland's closed financial markets were hit less hard than other Asian economies by the Asian financial crisis. This was at a time when the Mainland was joining the WTO and gradually opening its markets. In 2003, Zhu Rongji's determination and persistence led to the establishment of the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the publication of the "Overseas Financial Institutions Capital investment in Financial Institutions Management Approach". This encouraged foreign banks to acquire shares. The State Council also increased the allowable percentage of foreign shares. For a time this caused considerable controversy.
Between 2004 and 2006, huge sums of foreign capital flowed into Mainland state owned banks. HSBC invested $ 1.75 billion US for a 19.9% stake in the Bank of Communications. The China Construction Bank cooperated with Bank of America and Singapore's Temasek. These two foreign banks took a 9 percent $ 2.5 billion US share, and a 5.1% $ 1.4 billion US share. The Bank of China allowed a number of foreign bank investments. They include the Royal Bank of Scotland at 9.6 percent, Singapore's Temasek at 4.8%, Switzerland's UBS at 1.55%, and the Asian Development Bank at 0.23%. The Commercial Bank of China allowed Goldman Sachs, American Express, and Allianz to purchase shares. Together with Goldman Sachs they acquired a $ 3.8 billion US or 7.89% share.
Other regional commercial banks also invested over the same period. Foreign ownership in most of these exceeded 10%. The ING Group acquired 19.9% of the Bank of Beijing. Standard Chartered Bank acquired 19.99% of the Bohai Bank. Some even acquired ove r 20%. Citigroup and IBM Credit acquired 24.74% of the Guangdong Development Bank.
Foreign ownership will not of course achieve all the results desired. Incompatibilities and run-in costs remain. But basically Mainland banks greatly improved their degree of internationalization. This improved the competitiveness of Mainland financial institutions. This enabled them to expand their business. Internet banking on the Mainland is now well developed. Following their transformation, Mainland banks have now begun providing international financing. HSBC acquired Mainland Transportation Bank shares. It now has seats on the board. It has also introduced a large number of executives, who have improved bank management, staff training, risk management, internal controls, and electronic systems. The bank is now even listed in Hong Kong.
We must have open minds. We must take the long view. We urge the Treasury to use the opportunity to replenish its capital, accept international bids, select superior foreign banks, and them our strategic partners. That is the right way to compete in the Asian financial industry.
社論－打亞洲盃 公股銀行須引入外資
2015年02月09日 04:10
本報訊
財政部日前明確承諾，公股銀行未來盈餘可以不用全部繳庫，
巴塞爾資本協定三（Basel III）提高了對銀行自有資金的要求，方向正確。歷經金融風暴，
面對新的標準，公營行庫面臨資本不足問題比民營銀行更為嚴重，
為了符合巴賽爾協定的標準，讓銀行擁有更堅實的資本適足基礎，
對岸中國大陸的經驗，或許可作為借鏡。
朱鎔基上台後，做了兩項改革，第一項就是「債轉股」，
亞洲金融危機過後，中國大陸封閉的金融市場相較亞洲其他國家，
2004年到2006年間，外資開始大量入股大陸國有銀行，
其他地區性商業銀行也在同時期引入各國外資，
外資入股最後當然不是百分之百達成預期效果，
我們一定要把心胸放寬，把眼界放遠。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9 2015
Executive Summary: The Ministry of Finance recently made a clear commitment. Publicly owned banks need not turn over all their future earnings to the Treasury. They should hold on to them, and issue them as dividends. This will increase bank capital and comply with the Basel III agreement. Publicly owned banks should definitely increase dividends. Only then will they have the ability to compete with other Asian banks. This of course is merely one approach to capital accumulation. The Treasury should seriously consider allowing foreign bank investment. It should allow foreign banks to become strategic partners, enabling them and the Central Bank to enter the international market together.
Full Text Below:
The Ministry of Finance recently made a clear commitment.Publicly owned banks need not turn over all their future earnings to the Treasury. They should hold on to them, and issue them as dividends. This will increase bank capital and comply with the Basel III agreement. Publicly owned banks should definitely increase dividends. Only then will they have the ability to compete with other Asian banks. This of course is merely one approach to capital accumulation. The Treasury should seriously consider allowing foreign bank investment. It should allow foreign banks to become strategic partners, enabling them and the Central Bank to enter the international market together.
The Basel III Capital Accord raised the fund requirement for banks. That is a step in the right direction. Following the financial crisis, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and Administration Commission resolved to toughen the statutory requirements for capital structure. It imposed strict requirements for capital inflows, and increased capital adequacy ratios. It promoted sound banking procedures to reduce the risk of another financial crisis. Under new regulations, Tier 1 Capital and common equity ratio requirements will be raised each year. In January 2016 the ratio will be increased to 0.625 percent from 0.5 percent. This is expected to result in a further influx of bank capital.
Under the new standards, publicly owned banks face more serious capital shortages than private banks. In the past publicly owned banks were required to turn their earnings over to the Treasury. This made it difficult for them to accumulate funds. According to reports, the Ministry of Finance will coordinate with the Comptroller General and ask the Treasury to return last year's earnings to the banks. Even if this is true, it is a drop in the bucket. For example, the Bank of Taiwan and the Land Bank turned over 20 billion NT to the Treasury last year. But the Bank of Taiwan's capital shortfall for 2016 alone was 66 billion NT. In order to meet the standards of the Basel agreement, to enable banks to accumulate more capital, and to improve their competitiveness in the international community, an issue of new shares and capital increases are necessary. If we want our banks to be able to compete with other Asian banks, we cannot limit ourselves to Taiwan. We must consider large international banks as strategic partners. In other words, capital increases need not be limited to domestic stock issues. We can use an open approach. We can attract capital from the outside, from banks with more advanced management. We can use the opportunity to transform out domestic banks, to make them more international, and make tehm more internationally competitive.
The experience of Mainland China, just across the Strait, may be instructive. The Mainland financial industry was once closed and backward. In 1994 it even issued its "Provisional Regulations on Investment in Shares of Financial Institutions", which forbade foreign investment in Chinese banks. Back then there was no distinction between politics and industry. Banks made huge numbers of non-performing loans. They hired too many employees. Their attitude was poor. Their efficiency was low. The international financial system concluded that the Mainland economy was about to collapse.
When Zhu Rongi took office, he introduced two reforms. The first was to "transform debt into shares". He eliminated non-performing loans, and established asset management companies. This immediately improved bank performance.The second was to use foreign capital to transform state-owned enterprises, and improve their capital adequacy ratios. Each bank introduced a foreign bank as a strategic partner. It made them important partners, but did not grant them controlling shares.
The Chinese mainland's closed financial markets were hit less hard than other Asian economies by the Asian financial crisis. This was at a time when the Mainland was joining the WTO and gradually opening its markets. In 2003, Zhu Rongji's determination and persistence led to the establishment of the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the publication of the "Overseas Financial Institutions Capital investment in Financial Institutions Management Approach". This encouraged foreign banks to acquire shares. The State Council also increased the allowable percentage of foreign shares. For a time this caused considerable controversy.
Between 2004 and 2006, huge sums of foreign capital flowed into Mainland state owned banks. HSBC invested $ 1.75 billion US for a 19.9% stake in the Bank of Communications. The China Construction Bank cooperated with Bank of America and Singapore's Temasek. These two foreign banks took a 9 percent $ 2.5 billion US share, and a 5.1% $ 1.4 billion US share. The Bank of China allowed a number of foreign bank investments. They include the Royal Bank of Scotland at 9.6 percent, Singapore's Temasek at 4.8%, Switzerland's UBS at 1.55%, and the Asian Development Bank at 0.23%. The Commercial Bank of China allowed Goldman Sachs, American Express, and Allianz to purchase shares. Together with Goldman Sachs they acquired a $ 3.8 billion US or 7.89% share.
Other regional commercial banks also invested over the same period. Foreign ownership in most of these exceeded 10%. The ING Group acquired 19.9% of the Bank of Beijing. Standard Chartered Bank acquired 19.99% of the Bohai Bank. Some even acquired ove r 20%. Citigroup and IBM Credit acquired 24.74% of the Guangdong Development Bank.
Foreign ownership will not of course achieve all the results desired. Incompatibilities and run-in costs remain. But basically Mainland banks greatly improved their degree of internationalization. This improved the competitiveness of Mainland financial institutions. This enabled them to expand their business. Internet banking on the Mainland is now well developed. Following their transformation, Mainland banks have now begun providing international financing. HSBC acquired Mainland Transportation Bank shares. It now has seats on the board. It has also introduced a large number of executives, who have improved bank management, staff training, risk management, internal controls, and electronic systems. The bank is now even listed in Hong Kong.
We must have open minds. We must take the long view. We urge the Treasury to use the opportunity to replenish its capital, accept international bids, select superior foreign banks, and them our strategic partners. That is the right way to compete in the Asian financial industry.
社論－打亞洲盃 公股銀行須引入外資
2015年02月09日 04:10
本報訊
財政部日前明確承諾，公股銀行未來盈餘可以不用全部繳庫，
巴塞爾資本協定三（Basel III）提高了對銀行自有資金的要求，方向正確。歷經金融風暴，
面對新的標準，公營行庫面臨資本不足問題比民營銀行更為嚴重，
為了符合巴賽爾協定的標準，讓銀行擁有更堅實的資本適足基礎，
對岸中國大陸的經驗，或許可作為借鏡。
朱鎔基上台後，做了兩項改革，第一項就是「債轉股」，
亞洲金融危機過後，中國大陸封閉的金融市場相較亞洲其他國家，
2004年到2006年間，外資開始大量入股大陸國有銀行，
其他地區性商業銀行也在同時期引入各國外資，
外資入股最後當然不是百分之百達成預期效果，
我們一定要把心胸放寬，把眼界放遠。
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Did Deception Sentence Passengers to Death?
GE235: Did Deception Sentence Passengers to Death?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2015
Executive Summary: The GE235 crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.
Full Text Below:
According to some TransAsia Airways pilots, just before GE235 crashed, Captain Liao Chien-chung made a round trip between Taipei and Kinmen. His entry in the flight log read, "One of the engines is acting up". But the ground crew feared CAA fines for delayed flights. So they asked him to "Just make this flight, then we'll see”. Who knew they were handing those onboard death sentences? If this rumor is true, then TransAsia Airways' flight safety procedures and attitudes must be totally revamped.
Yesterday TransAsia Airways flatly denied the rumors. The CAA also said it has received no reports of any abnormalities. The facts should be easy to confirm. The possibilities are limited. One. Ground crews deliberately covered up the truth. Two. Someone doctored the flight logs. Three. The captain's report was verbal, not in writing. Four. Whistleblowers deliberately fabricated or distorted the facts. Flight safety officials and prosecutors can uncover the truth by interviewing the relevant personnel. would like to believe that if the engine really had a problem, Liao Chien-chung would not have been willing to re-enter the cockpit, and treat his own life and the lives of the passengers lightly.
In any event, the plane crashed primarily because the engine failed and was unable to gain altitude. This is an indisputable fact. In other words, whether Liao Chen-chung reported an abnormal condition that day or not, TransAsia Airways cannot deny that its plane experienced a mechanical failure. In fact, when TransAsia Airways purchased this brand new plane last April, it experienced an engine failure en route and was forced to land in Macau. A new engine had to be installed before it could fly on to Taipei. Were such twists of fate the result of hidden defects in the system? Were they blind spots that TransAsia Airways must acknowledge?
Twin-engined airliners are designed so that if they lose power in one engine, they can still climb well enough to return to the airport. This is Flight Simulation 101 for civil aviation pilots. Yet GE235 crashed right after take off. It lost altitude and speed until if finally crashed into the river. Therefore the plane must have experienced something even more serious than a single engine failure. This was either the result of a design defect, improper TransAsia Airways maintenance, or pilot error. All possibilities must be investigated. A review of flight safety records reveals, that on May 2, 2002, the TransAsia Airways flight GE515 ATR experienced a left engine failure when taking off from Sungshan Airport. When attempting to return to the airport, the pilot lost his bearings and flew all the way to the Qi Xing Mountain region. Only then did he discover his mistake and turn around. During this process, the aircraft issued five "stall warnings" and three "ground proximity warnings". It was a miracle that it was finally able to land safely. Last year's Makong Airport GE222 crash shocked the public. An investigation revealed that the pilot failed to see the runway before he dropped to a lower altitude. As a result, it was too late to climb back. These problems show that the ATR fleet desperately needs a thorough review of its flight or aircraft maintenance procedures.
TransAsia Airways has been expanding in recent years. It has introduced new aircraft, opened new routes, and improved its service. Increased tourism within and without the island has reaped dazzling results. But flight safety for passengers is a basic requirement. It is the lifeblood of an airline. If a pilot reports that an engine is behaving abnormally, yet ground crews allow the plane to fly, what does that say about their attitude toward flight safety? If they endanger the lives of passengers merely to avoid a CAA fine, what does that say about their sense of responsibility?
On closer examination, the Kinmen route has become so popular in recent years mainly due to frequent cross-Strait exchanges. Many passengers transit through Kinmen. Of the 53 passengers on the ill-fated flight, 31 were Mainland tourists, far more than the number of local passengers. After massive rescue efforts, only three Mainland tourists were rescued. The remaining 20 or more are either dead or missing. TransAsia Airways owes its Kinmen route success to large numbers of Mainland tourists. Yet it is unable to ensure these tourists' safety. That is truly regrettable.
Advances in information technology have given the public unprecedented access to information. The plane crash was recorded by the dashcam of a passing car. The flight path of the plane before the accident can also be found on the Internet. But mistaken or false information can also be found on the Internet. For example, claims that the ATR was "a model even Mainland China no longer uses" are misleading. The ATR series debuted 30 years ago. Over one thousand planes have been produced. It remains the global short-range airliner sales champion. It does not meet most of Mainland China's needs. But that does not mean it is an "outdated" model. TransAsia Airlines ATR aircraft have experienced a series of accidents. They are used for transportation to Taiwan's outlying islands. Are its systems properly maintained? Are the company's attitude towards flight safety sufficiently rigorous? Those are the real questions.
This crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.
誰在欺上瞞下，讓班機飛向死亡之路？
2015-02-06 02:30:55 聯合報 社論
據復興航空機師爆料，失事班機墜毀前，
復興航空昨天鄭重否認這項傳聞，
但無論如何，這架班機之所以失事，
依民航機的設計，雙引擎飛機如果失去一具發動機動力，
追溯飛安會紀錄可發現，民國一○一年五月二日，
復興航空近年銳意擴展，引進新機、開闢航線、提升服務，
進一步看，金門航線近年之所以變得如此熱絡，
這次空難，由於資訊科技的進步，
對於這場不幸的空難，我們呼籲相關部門必須深入徹查。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2015
Executive Summary: The GE235 crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.
Full Text Below:
According to some TransAsia Airways pilots, just before GE235 crashed, Captain Liao Chien-chung made a round trip between Taipei and Kinmen. His entry in the flight log read, "One of the engines is acting up". But the ground crew feared CAA fines for delayed flights. So they asked him to "Just make this flight, then we'll see”. Who knew they were handing those onboard death sentences? If this rumor is true, then TransAsia Airways' flight safety procedures and attitudes must be totally revamped.
Yesterday TransAsia Airways flatly denied the rumors. The CAA also said it has received no reports of any abnormalities. The facts should be easy to confirm. The possibilities are limited. One. Ground crews deliberately covered up the truth. Two. Someone doctored the flight logs. Three. The captain's report was verbal, not in writing. Four. Whistleblowers deliberately fabricated or distorted the facts. Flight safety officials and prosecutors can uncover the truth by interviewing the relevant personnel. would like to believe that if the engine really had a problem, Liao Chien-chung would not have been willing to re-enter the cockpit, and treat his own life and the lives of the passengers lightly.
In any event, the plane crashed primarily because the engine failed and was unable to gain altitude. This is an indisputable fact. In other words, whether Liao Chen-chung reported an abnormal condition that day or not, TransAsia Airways cannot deny that its plane experienced a mechanical failure. In fact, when TransAsia Airways purchased this brand new plane last April, it experienced an engine failure en route and was forced to land in Macau. A new engine had to be installed before it could fly on to Taipei. Were such twists of fate the result of hidden defects in the system? Were they blind spots that TransAsia Airways must acknowledge?
Twin-engined airliners are designed so that if they lose power in one engine, they can still climb well enough to return to the airport. This is Flight Simulation 101 for civil aviation pilots. Yet GE235 crashed right after take off. It lost altitude and speed until if finally crashed into the river. Therefore the plane must have experienced something even more serious than a single engine failure. This was either the result of a design defect, improper TransAsia Airways maintenance, or pilot error. All possibilities must be investigated. A review of flight safety records reveals, that on May 2, 2002, the TransAsia Airways flight GE515 ATR experienced a left engine failure when taking off from Sungshan Airport. When attempting to return to the airport, the pilot lost his bearings and flew all the way to the Qi Xing Mountain region. Only then did he discover his mistake and turn around. During this process, the aircraft issued five "stall warnings" and three "ground proximity warnings". It was a miracle that it was finally able to land safely. Last year's Makong Airport GE222 crash shocked the public. An investigation revealed that the pilot failed to see the runway before he dropped to a lower altitude. As a result, it was too late to climb back. These problems show that the ATR fleet desperately needs a thorough review of its flight or aircraft maintenance procedures.
TransAsia Airways has been expanding in recent years. It has introduced new aircraft, opened new routes, and improved its service. Increased tourism within and without the island has reaped dazzling results. But flight safety for passengers is a basic requirement. It is the lifeblood of an airline. If a pilot reports that an engine is behaving abnormally, yet ground crews allow the plane to fly, what does that say about their attitude toward flight safety? If they endanger the lives of passengers merely to avoid a CAA fine, what does that say about their sense of responsibility?
On closer examination, the Kinmen route has become so popular in recent years mainly due to frequent cross-Strait exchanges. Many passengers transit through Kinmen. Of the 53 passengers on the ill-fated flight, 31 were Mainland tourists, far more than the number of local passengers. After massive rescue efforts, only three Mainland tourists were rescued. The remaining 20 or more are either dead or missing. TransAsia Airways owes its Kinmen route success to large numbers of Mainland tourists. Yet it is unable to ensure these tourists' safety. That is truly regrettable.
Advances in information technology have given the public unprecedented access to information. The plane crash was recorded by the dashcam of a passing car. The flight path of the plane before the accident can also be found on the Internet. But mistaken or false information can also be found on the Internet. For example, claims that the ATR was "a model even Mainland China no longer uses" are misleading. The ATR series debuted 30 years ago. Over one thousand planes have been produced. It remains the global short-range airliner sales champion. It does not meet most of Mainland China's needs. But that does not mean it is an "outdated" model. TransAsia Airlines ATR aircraft have experienced a series of accidents. They are used for transportation to Taiwan's outlying islands. Are its systems properly maintained? Are the company's attitude towards flight safety sufficiently rigorous? Those are the real questions.
This crash was a tragedy. The responsible agencies must must conduct a thorough investigation. The black box has left a record. Did the captain report an engine abnormality? Was his warning ignored? A thorough investigation must be conducted. Did someone violate procedure and cover this up, sentencing those onboard to death? The public deserves to know the truth.
誰在欺上瞞下，讓班機飛向死亡之路？
2015-02-06 02:30:55 聯合報 社論
據復興航空機師爆料，失事班機墜毀前，
復興航空昨天鄭重否認這項傳聞，
但無論如何，這架班機之所以失事，
依民航機的設計，雙引擎飛機如果失去一具發動機動力，
追溯飛安會紀錄可發現，民國一○一年五月二日，
復興航空近年銳意擴展，引進新機、開闢航線、提升服務，
進一步看，金門航線近年之所以變得如此熱絡，
這次空難，由於資訊科技的進步，
對於這場不幸的空難，我們呼籲相關部門必須深入徹查。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)