How is Assaulting a Police Officer “Freedom of Speech"?

How is Assaulting a Police Officer “Freedom of Speech"?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
July 1, 2016

Executive Summary: If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?

Full Text Below:

President Tsai Ing-wen has made judicial reform a focal point for her new government. She has stressed the need to restore "people's justice", in order to address injustice and increase public trust. But before she peddles her great reform project, would she please answer one question? Does assaulting a police officer constitute "freedom of speech"?

Big problems always begin small. And so it is with the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. During the Sunflower Student Movement, Legislator Lin Tai-hua attempted to bring a Japanese reporter into the legislature, which the students had occupied, in order to hold an interview. Police stationed at the door blocked him. An altercation ensued, Lin Tai-hua lost his temper and pushed or punched the police officer in the chest. Later some members of the public lodged a complaint with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, which then charged Lin with "obstruction". Last month the Taipei District Court found her not guilty. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed.

Lin Tai-hua assaulted a police officer in a fit of anger. She probably lost control temporarily and had no intention of hurting anyone. But the police officer was enforcing the law on behalf of the government. Was the police officer supposed to turn to jelly merely because he found himself face to face with a legislator? If he is assaulted, must he chalk it up to bad luck? In fact, the core of the problem is not Lin Tai-hua's status, or whether police were according respect. The problem was the wishy-washy attitude of the presiding judge. The judge said he acquitted Lin Tai-hua because she was exercising “free speech” within the legislature. Her action was “protected speech”, therefore the legislature's disciplinary code applied. According to the judge, Lin Tai-hua brought a reporter with her into the legislature. That did not violate the legislature's disciplinary code. Therefore, he claimed, the police had no reason to stop her.

The reasons the judge cited for his ruling were not merely irrational, they distorted the facts and trampled over the rule of law. First, when the students occupied the legislature they shut it down. The legislature was no longer in session. Lin Tai-hua brought a foreign reporter to the scene merely for the sake of a photo op, and to join in on the excitement of the student protest. How could she possibly have been conducting legislative business? Second, the altercation took place at the entrance to the Legislative Yuan. Lin Tai-hua was not even inside the legislature. How could she have been exercising her duties as a legislator at that moment? Third, legislators enjoy "protected speech” during interpolation. Assaulting a police officer involves physical violence.  Lin Tai-hua attacked the police officer. She was not defending herself against attack. Yet the judge had the chutzpah to invoke the legislature's “protected speech” clause in order to give her a free pass. This was a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Fourth, when students occupied the Legislative Yuan, it was under a state of emergency. If the police failed to maintain order at the scene, and allowed people to move in and out at will, Legislative Yuan order and the safety of the students would have been compromised. Yet the judge ruled that the police had no reason to stop Lin. Such a verdict, issued from a judge's mouth, is disgusting.

We have no idea why the judge resorted to such far-fetched rationalizations to acquit Lin Tai-hua. Was it her personal clout as a legislator? Was it the Sunflower Student Movement's phony halo? Was it the change in ruling parties? What we do know is that no judge who cares about justice, whose head is free of political considerations, could possibly hand down such an absurd ruling. Pushing or punching a police officer is not an extraordinarily violent act. Nevertheless it reveals a contempt for the rule of law. But a judge invoked "protected speech” to whitewash such an act, when the legislature was not even in session. He even condemned police officers who stopped legislators from entering. This merely revealed his guilty conscience, and discredited him as a judge.

The DPP has long accused of KMT of “owning the courts”. But the Taipei District Court's judgment makes people wonder whether the ruling party change has also changed who “owns the courts”. Otherwise, why did the court reverse itself the moment a green camp legislator was indicted? Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san recently issued an open letter to prosecutors, demanding that "prosecutorial teams not include black sheep". He said prosecutions must not involve abuses. Nevertheless prosecutors denounced him for failing to grasp the essence of reform. The new government talks a lot about judicial reform. But concentrating exclusively on the issue of  prosecutorial burden of proof misses the point. Many people are deeply dissatisfied with “dinosaur judges” who enjoy tenure, abuse “judicial independence”, and nibble away at the justice system with utter impunity. The dinosaur judge in Lin Tai-hua's case handed down an outrageous ruling. Must people endure such injustices forever? We support the prosecutor's appeal. We hope the next ruling will accord more closely with the truth.

If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?

襲警是一種「言論自由」？
2016-07-01 聯合報

蔡英文總統把「司法改革」列為新府施政重點，強調要回歸「人民的司法」，解決不公，強化人民的信賴。但在推動這項偉大的改革工程之前，請先回答一個小小的問題：打警察，能算是一種「言論自由」嗎？

大問題都始於小地方，司法失去人民信任，也是如此。太陽花運動期間，立委林岱樺想要帶一名日本媒體記者進入被學生占領的國會議場採訪，在門口遭到駐衛警阻攔；雙方發生口角衝突，林岱樺憤而朝執勤警員胸口揮了一拳。事後有民眾向北檢告發，北檢依「妨礙公務」罪嫌起訴，上月台北地院判她無罪；北檢對判決結果不滿，最近提出上訴。

林岱樺憤而襲警，或許只是一時失控，並非刻意傷害對方；但警察執勤代表的是政府公權力的執法界線，能因遇到立委就腿軟放水嗎？難道，即使挨打也應忍氣吞聲，自認倒楣？事實上，問題核心不僅在林岱樺的身分或公權力的不受尊重，而在法官對此案的和稀泥態度讓人忍無可忍。法官判決無罪的理由是：林岱樺是在議場內行使立委職務的「適度意見表達」，屬於「言論免責」的保障範圍，國會的自律原則應該尊重；且林岱樺帶記者進場並不違反議場管制規定，員警沒有理由阻擋。

這些判決理由，不僅強詞奪理，更是歪曲事實踐踏法治。第一，當時學生以占領議場癱瘓國會，會議早已停開，林岱樺帶外媒前往現場只是為湊學運的熱鬧，哪裡是為了議事？第二，衝突地點是在立院門口，林岱樺根本未踏入議場，這也與行使立委職務毫無瓜葛。第三，立委獲有「言論免責權」，是為了保障其質詢的自由；但推打警察已涉及肢體暴力，且林岱樺是主動攻擊而非基於自衛，法官居然還敢套用「言論免責」之冠冕使其免罪，簡直是明目張膽地欺世盜法。第四，學生占領國會已使立院處於緊急狀態，員警若不在現場維持秩序，隨便讓民眾進出，立院秩序和學生安全都可能受到損害；但法官卻說員警沒有理由阻擋，這種話出自司法人之口，讓人吐血。

我們不知道，究竟是林岱樺的立委身分，或者是太陽花學運的光環，或者是政黨輪替的因素，而導致法官掰出這麼牽強的理由來為林岱樺脫罪。但可以確定的是，法官心中若有一尊司法天平，如果腦中沒有那麼多奇怪的政治考量，絕不可能寫出這樣的判決書來。推打警察不算嚴重暴行，卻是無視法治公權力的表現；然而，法官要援引「言論免責」來粉飾太平，把根本沒開的會說得煞有介事，甚至責指警察不該阻擋立委帶人入內，反而暴露了自己的心虛，也蹧蹋了司法尊嚴。

民進黨動輒指控「法院是國民黨開的」，但看到北院這樣的判決，人們不禁懷疑法院也「政黨輪替」了，否則，為何一碰到綠營立委就轉彎。法務部長邱太三最近向檢察官發出公開信，要求「檢察辦案團隊不能有害群之馬」，起訴不能浮濫；卻遭檢察官群起反嗆，認為他沒有抓到改革重點。的確如此，新政府談司法改革，若只能將目光放在檢察官的起訴舉證責任，恐怕無法抓到要害。事實上，許多民眾深感不滿的，是那些躲在「終身職」及「獨立審判」大旗下苟且因循的恐龍法官，日復一日地腐蝕司法正義，卻無人可奈他何。從林岱樺的案子看，這位恐龍法官的判決理由，人們嚥得下去嗎？我們當然支持檢察官再上訴，也等著看下次的判決將說出什麼道理。

如果立委打警察可以因言論自由而脫罪，那麼，華航空少謊稱總統專機有炸彈一案，恐怕也該無罪開釋。因為，空少並沒有採取實際行動，而且他是為了更高的空服員罷工理想而發，不是嗎？如果認為這樣的詭辯不能成立，請問，為什麼林全可以撤銷對太陽花學生的告訴，卻置因執行公權力而被告的警察於不顧？

How Can President Tsai Show Her Face Before Chairman Tsai?

How Can President Tsai Show Her Face Before Chairman Tsai? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 30, 2016

Executive Summary: On August 4, 2000, when she was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen said, Taiwan cannot escape the one China issue. From a cultural and geographical perspective, a "future one China" is the only possible choice for the people of Taiwan. In 2016, the question for President Tsai Ing-wen should not be whether to repudiate "one China". It should be what kind of relationship should the two sides have. Should it be a master-slave relationship, or an undivided, share and share alike relationship? Should the two sides jurisdiction be independent of each other? Should it be a central government vs. local government relationship? Should it be constitutionally divided rule?

Full Text Below:

The two sides of the Strait are still wrestling over the 1992 Consensus. American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt recently joined the fray. He told the VOA that when Koo Chen-fu and Wang Daohan met, they never used the term 1992 Consensus in his presence, but that Koo sometimes used the term "1992 understanding". MAC Chairwoman Katharine Chang immediately latched onto Uncle Sammy's comment, and argued that the 1992 Consensus was merely an agreement to “seek common ground, while shelving differences”. She conveniently forgot the part about “one China, different interpretations”. Taiwan independence elder Lin Cho-shui published an article claiming that the United States has abandoned “joint management of the Taiwan Strait”. The Liberty Times published an article entitled “Taps for the 1992 Consensus". It would appear that the DPP government has the United States' backing, and no longer intends to deal with the dispute over the 1992 Consensus.

We have repeatedly made clear that the 1992 Consensus is an artificial term. It was coined by Su Chi as a good will gesture, to extricate the incoming Chen Shui-bian government from a tight spot. He used the neutral sounding term “1992 Consensus” in order to avoid reference to the "one China principle". But the DPP failed to appreciate it. The DPP did not object to the term itself. It objected to what it meant. The term is merely one of convenience. For example, from a distance we see a mountain. But as we come closer, we see towering trees, rocks, streams, plants, and animals. Mountain is merely a term for everything associated with the mountain. Chuang Tzu once related a story about a group of monkeys. The monkeys would be happy when they received four berries in the morning and three at night, but angry if they received three berries in the morning and four at night. The monkeys' minds were fixated on appearances and could not recognize substance.

1992 Consensus includes two areas of agreement, and one area of disagreement. The two sides agreed to "adhere to the one China principle," and to "seek national reunification". The two sides disagreed about the meaning of "one China". In other words, the two sides disagreed about the nature of cross-Strait relations. Beijing saw the 1992 Consensus as an administrative matter. Therefore it adopted a "one China, no interpretations” stance. Taipei argued that the two sides should adopt a "one China, different interpretations" stance, and argued that "one China" means the Republic of China.

Had Koo characterized the meeting as a "1992 Understanding" with “common ground as well as differences”, he would not have been wrong. In 1992, both sides recognized the "one China principle". Koo knew this. Taipei wanted to emphasize "one China, different interpretations". Beijing wanted to emphasize "opposition to Taiwan independence". This was merely a case of “four berries in the morning, and berries at night” vs. “three berries in the morning, and four at night”. Upholding one China is synonymous with “opposing Taiwan independence". The key point was that neither side advocated separatism. Taken a step further, opposition to separatism is merely another name for opposition to war. Put even more simply, it is merely the advocacy of peace. In short, the essence of the 1992 Consensus is the desire for peace.

Taipei equated the 1992 Consensus with "one China, different interpretations". But Lee Teng-hui's "special state to state relations" formulation in 1999, had Beijing worried that "one China, different interpretations" would be interpreted as "one country on each side". As a result, Beijing rejected it. Ma Ying-jeou also advocated "one China, different interpretations". But for him the two sides were not two nations. Therefore Beijing voiced no opposition. But when the same label refers to different things, it acquires a different meaning.

The Tsai Ing-wen government cannot use the term, 1992 Consensus. But Tsai must swear that she will "uphold the one China principle" by some other means. She may wish to swear that she “will not to divide China as a whole". Tsai Ing-wen must find a way to express her cross-Strait policy that Beijing can accept, and that will enable the two sides to enjoy peace.

Since 1949, the two sides have not engaged in a shooting war. They have conducted frequent exchanges. But legally speaking, the two sides are still in a state of civil war. The 1992 "consensus, understanding, facts, talks, spirit, acknowledgement" has already dealt with one problem. But it has not dealt with another problem, namely that the civil war must not lead to permanent division. Just what is the relationship between the two sides? The 1992 Consensus did not say. As a result, the two sides continue to talk past each other.

If the Tsai government insists that cross-Strait relations are foreign relations, and that the two sides do not belong to the same nation, then it is not a case of “four in the morning and three at night” vs. “three in the morning and four at night”. It is tantamount to “walking into the sea”. It is calling the mountain before us by another name. Names are sometimes meaningful. The sequence of events is sometimes important. But when the meaning changes, then labels are either self-deception or deception of others.

On August 4, 2000, when she was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen said, Taiwan cannot escape the one China issue. From a cultural and geographical perspective, a "future one China" is the only possible choice for the people of Taiwan. In 2016, the question for President Tsai Ing-wen should not be whether to repudiate "one China". It should be what kind of relationship should the two sides have. Should it be a master-slave relationship, or an undivided, share and share alike relationship? Should the two sides jurisdiction be independent of each other? Should it be a central government vs. local government relationship? Should it be constitutionally divided rule?

蔡總統如何面對蔡主委？
2016年06月30日 中國時報

兩岸「九二共識」之爭還在角力，美國在台協會主席薄瑞光加入戰局。他接受美國之音訪問時指出，過去和辜振甫與汪道涵會面，兩人都沒對他講過「九二共識」，只是辜振甫有時會說「九二諒解」。陸委會主委張小月立刻扣緊老大哥的話，強調「九二共識」就是「求同存異」的共同認知，對「一中各表」則選擇遺忘，台獨大師林濁水發表文章，認為美國已放棄與大陸「共管台海」立場，《自由時報》也發表文章稱「九二共識熄燈號」。看來民進黨政府已取得美國背書，將不再處理「九二共識」兩岸爭議。

我們曾一再闡明，「九二共識」只是人為的名相，是蘇起當時善意「借箸代籌」，希望替即將上任的陳水扁政府解套，乃使用中性的「九二共識」來迴避「一個中國原則」。但是，民進黨並不領情，因為民進黨不接受的不是名詞，而是其內涵。「名相」僅是一種方便的法門，例如，遠看是一座大山，走進大山，看到的卻是參天的大樹，石頭、小溪、花草、動物。大山只是一整體的名相，內部仍有不同的名相。莊子曾以猴子陷於「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」的怒喜而不自覺，來暗喻這些猴子執著於「名相」，而忽略實質其實沒有改變。

「九二共識」包括兩個同與一個異。同的部分是，兩岸在給對方的信函中，都表示要「堅持一個中國原則」、「謀求國家統一」，異的部分是在「一個中國」的內涵上，也就是對於兩岸之間是甚麼關係，彼此有不同看法。北京認為1992年要處理的是事務性問題，因此「一中不表」；但是台北方面認為應該同意「一中各表」，而且主張「一中」就是中華民國。

辜振甫如果稱這樣的「同中有異」為「九二諒解」，也沒有錯，但是1992年兩岸對「一個中國原則」的共同認知卻是事實，相信辜振甫也會同意。至於台北希望多強調「一中各表」，而北京凸顯「反對台獨」，都不過是「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」。如果說「堅持一中」、「反對台獨」也是一個名相，那麼其核心的法義應該就是當時兩岸均各自表示「不分裂」的意願。再進一步說，如果「不分裂」也算是一個「名相」，那麼更簡單的法義就是雙方不想打仗，希望和平相處。簡單來說，「九二共識」的法義本質就是「和平的渴望」。

台北方面將「九二共識」等同於「一中各表」，但李登輝於1999年提出「特殊國與國」後，北京擔心「一中各表」會被詮釋為「一邊一國」，因而不接受。馬英九雖然也主張「一中各表」，但認為兩岸非「國與國」關係，因而北京也沒有明確反對。這就是看似同樣的「名相」，當其內涵法義變化時，名相也就有不同的意義。

蔡英文政府當然可以不要用「九二共識」這個名相，但是她必須要提出一個包括「堅持一個中國原則」內涵的名相，或者她要提出一個可以承諾「不分裂整個中國」的名相。蔡英文必須提出一個可以讓北京接受，兩岸可以確保和平的說法。

從1949年起，兩岸目前雖然表面上沒有硝煙戰火，交流頻繁，但是就法理上而言，兩岸仍然沒有結束內戰狀態。1992年的「共識、諒解、事實、會談、精神、認知」已經處理了一個問題，就是雙方確定內戰的結果不應該是「永久的分裂」，但是兩岸到底是甚麼樣的關係，1992年並沒有解決，而是自說自話。

蔡英文政府如果堅持兩岸關係為外國關係、兩岸主權互不隸屬，那麼就不是「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」何者為佳的辯證；也等於是明明走進大海，口中卻告訴對方，可否用另一個名字稱前面這座「大山」。名相有時有意義，看事情的順序角度有時也很重要，但是當其本質改變時，名相與角度不是自欺就是欺人。

2000年8月4日，時任陸委會主委的蔡英文曾表示：台灣無法逃避「一個中國」問題，從文化、地理來看，「未來的一個中國」是台灣民眾唯一的選擇。2016年的蔡英文總統，應該要做的，不是否定「一個中國」，而是與大陸共同商定兩岸現在應是甚麼樣的關係，是主權互不隸屬、主從關係、還是共有共享的不分裂的關係，兩岸治權是相互獨立、中央與地方、還是憲政分治的關係？

A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster

A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 29, 2016

Executive Summary: Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

Full Text Below:

The first meeting of the Presidential Office National Pension Reform Committee has been in haste amid a storm of controversy. Three representatives of military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers blasted the government, then withdrew in protest. They originally planned to deal with “committee procedures" and “committee member ethics”. Neither was dealt with. Pension Reform Committee Deputy Convener and Executive Director Lin Wan-yi previously vowed to step down if he failed to reform the pension system within one year. After the meeting Lin Wan-yi railed, saying that if the committee cannot reach a consensus, he will force a vote. But a forced vote will undermine the legitimacy of pension reform. It will provoke a powerful backlash, and sow the seeds of future disaster. It must be avoided at all costs.

In order to fulfill her campaign promise, Tsai Ing-wen has made pension reform a top priority. For this she deserves affirmation and support. After all, it is essential to consider global economic trends, government debt, and the equitable distribution of national resources. The current pension system does require reform. But such reform involves the vital interests of the people. One must be careful, especially regarding peoples' expectations about workplace insurance mechanisms. Unfortunately, the new government's pension reform program has gotten off on the wrong foot.

At the first meeting of the Pension Reform Committee, President Tsai solemnly enshrined four principles. One of them was "to abide by the principles of democracy, and to ensure transparency". But the very formation of the Pension Reform Committee has already violated Tsai Ing-wen's promise. The entire process was a black box operation. Tsai Ing-wen has already taken the wrong fork in the road.

The new government has released the names of 37 members of the Pension Reform Committee. But how was the composition of the committee determined? What standards were applied to committee members? The government did not say. Nor did it consult the public. Instead, it unilaterally declared that "a consensus has been reached", and laid down the law. For example, the Pension Reform Committee is supposed to include two private citizens. But by what stretch of the imagination are Lee An-ni and Feng Kuang-yuan private citizens? Both are highly controversial people, especially the latter, who constantly attacked dissenters with obscenities. On what basis can these two people be considered representatives of "civil society"? The government owes the people an explanation.

The legislature is an elective body. Legislators' proposals are important. But the Pension Reform Committee includes only one legislator, who is a member of the ruling party. Do the views of opposition party legislators count for nothing? The composition of the committee is designed to weaken the legislature, and shut out opposition parties. Is this because the government has a guilty conscience and afraid to subject committee members to public scrutiny? Or is this because the government is arrogant and indifferent to the diverse views of society?

All of these have undermined the credibility of the Pension Reform Committee. People will inevitably question the fruit of the poisonous tree. Pension reform is a “river of justice” that everyone supports. But it has been polluted at its source by undemocratic black box operations. How can anyone expect clean water downstream?

The composition of the committee was not the product of the democratic process. A forced vote will only undermine public trust with its pretense of democracy. It will not solve any problems. It will only exacerbate them.

Secondly, the government knows full well that pension reform is a subtractive process. It reduces the number of golden eggs distributed, in order to avoid killing the goose that lays them. The nation's finances are on the edge of a precipice. Long term growth rates will remain low. Reform is urgent. The subtractive process will harm military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, and others. It will undermine trust in the the government. After all, the government promised retirement benefits. That was why many military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers chose their occupations in the first place. How will the number of eggs be cut? This requires fairness. Military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, labor, and farmers. Whose eggs will be cut the most? Establishing objective criteria will be difficult. Ignoring the differences in these occupations and cutting all equally, runs the risk of comparing apples to oranges.

Therefore Pension Reform Committee Executive Director Lin Wan-yi must not casually drop word of forced votes. Such talk only adds fuel to the fire, and undermines reform. Lin Wan-yi must do what Tsai Ying-wen promised to do: "communicate, communicate, communicate". Military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers accused the government of demonizing them. Lin Wan-yi, not to be outdone, lashed back, saying "Since military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers don't want others to demonize them, they should not demonize others!” This was beneath the Pension Reform Committee Executive Director, who ought to remain detached and generous in spirit. Instead, he fanned the flames of conflict and undermined the government's efforts to communicate.

Pension reform has a high degree of public support. In March "This Week" magazine polled legislators. As many as 84% of all legislators, regardless of party affiliation, favored pension reform. This echoed the support for pension reform among the general public in the previous poll, which held at 70%. The support of the public is the new government's most valuable asset. It should have more confidence in itself. It should allow all parties to debate the issue, and not behave in a dictatorial manner.

Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

強行表決年金改革 埋下禍根
2016年06月29日 中國時報

總統府國家年金改革委員會召開第1次會議，火爆中草草結束，3位軍公教代表炮火四射，並退席抗議，原來規畫要處理的「議事規則」、「委員倫理」均未完成。會後曾宣稱「年金改革1年做不到就下台」的年金改革委員會副召集人兼執行長林萬億強勢喊話，若爭論難以取得共識，就要訴諸表決。但我們要提醒新政府，強勢表決不僅會傷及年金改革的正當性，更會引發強烈的反作用力，種下未來激化抗爭的禍源，萬萬不可。

蔡英文總統為實踐競選諾言，把年金改革視為重中之重，這一點應予肯定支持，畢竟全局考慮未來經濟發展趨勢、政府財政負擔及國家資源公平配置等大方向，現行年金制度確有改革必要。但改革涉及全民的切身利益，尤其要改變每一個國民在投入職場加入保險機制時對未來的預期，當然必須謹慎。遺憾的是，新政府年金改革的第一哩路已邁錯了步伐。

蔡總統在年金改革委員會第1次會議時鄭重揭櫫了4原則，其中之一就是：「做到民主原則及資訊透明公開。」然而，年金改革委員會的組成，就先違反了蔡英文宣示的「民主、透明」原則，遭到「黑箱委員會」的質疑，已走上叉路。

新政府公布的37位年金改革委員，分配比例的準據何在？選任委員的標準是什麼？政府未說明，也未經社會討論，就片面以「朕意已決」姿態率爾決定。舉例而言，年金改革委員會設計了2位公民社會代表：李安妮與馮光遠，這2位不但看不出任何「公民社會」的代表性，甚至還帶有爭議性，尤其後者，頻頻以不堪言辭攻訐不同立場者，極具爭議性。憑什麼這2人能代表「公民社會」？政府欠人民一個交待。

國會是民意的代理機關，立法委員的主張非常重要，但在年金改革委員會中只有一位立委代表，而且是執政黨籍，其他在野黨的意見難道不重要嗎？在成員設計上就弱化國會、排斥在野黨，這是不敢接受檢驗的心虛，還是不在意社會多元意見的傲慢？

凡此種種，都傷害了年金改革委員會組成的公信力。就如一顆有毒的樹，會讓人質疑長出的也將是有毒的果子。即便年金改革是一條眾人齊盼的正義之河，但在這河的源頭就被不民主、不透明的黑箱汙染，又如何期盼下游的水清淨可飲？

也正因為委員會組成本身就不是透過民主程序產生的，強勢表決註定只是一個沒有公信、虛矯的假民主。不但不能解決問題，反而會激化問題。

其次，政府當知，年金改革本質上是減法改革，要減少大家原來可以分到的雞蛋，以避免國家財政的金雞母被搾乾。國家財政已在險崖的邊緣，預期未來經濟成長率將長期低迷，改革確實迫在眉睫。但這種減法改革，一則會傷及軍公教等「被改革者」的信賴利益，有違反政府誠信的疑慮，畢竟許多政府原先承諾的退休保障，是當初這些軍公教人員之所以選擇軍公教的考慮因素。二則，雞蛋要怎麼減，涉及的是公平性，軍公教勞農，誰的雞蛋要減多一點？難有客觀標準，若忽略職業不同的屬性，採取齊頭式平等的方式硬砍，則又有陷入拿香蕉比柳丁的錯誤比較之虞。

因此，霸王硬上弓式的強勢表決，身為年金改革委員會執行長的林萬億，實不應輕率地懸之於口，那只會埋下更大的衝突火種，反不利改革的推動進行。林萬億真的該做的，就是蔡英文的名言「溝通、溝通、再溝通」，不能當軍公教團體質疑政府為了年金改革「汙名化軍公教」時，林萬億就不甘示弱地反嗆「既然反對軍公教被汙名化，自己也不要把別人汙名化。」這有失年金改革委員會執行長應有的超然大度，更把自己推上衝突火線，損及政府在改革中的溝通能量。

社會對推動年金改革存在高度共識，《今週刊》在3月對立法委員進行具名調查，不分黨派84%的立委贊成年金改革；反映在歷次民調上支持年金改革的民眾，也多保持在7成以上的水位。擁有民意的支持，這是新政府推動年金改革的最大資本。新政府本應更有信心，讓各方意見充分論辯，以民意決斷是非，來協助推動年金改革，不必也不應獨斷獨行。

年金改革，本應是一條陽光大道，但政府在年金改革委員會的組成上，走了黑箱的錯誤第一步，一步錯，不要步步錯，這黑箱的錯誤，只能以陽光式的開放溝通來修補。強勢表決只會激化甚至正當化抗爭，新政府切莫誤判，呷緊弄破碗，反害了年金改革的大局。

If Business No Longer Trusts the Government, Can the Economy Survive?

If Business No Longer Trusts the Government, Can the Economy Survive? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 28, 2016

Executive Summary: We hope all sectors of society, including labor organizations, will remain calm. We hope they will revert to normal, rational labor management negotiations. The old saw about "Labour and management are in the same boat" may be trite. It may sound too high-minded. But it is undeniably true. If labor demands more than management can afford, then businesses will fail, capital fill flee, and labor itself will suffer. The result will be a lose / lose / lose scenario for employers, employees, and the nation's economy.

Full Text Below:

The chain reaction touched off by the China Airlines flight attendants strike is accelerating. Seven major business organizations are blasting the government for reneging on its promise not to add seven more legal holidays. Yesterday they held a press conference to announce the "suspension of all negotiations with the government and labor organizations”. Labor organizations showed up to protest. Labor and management clashed head on. The situation spun out of control. Premier Lin Chuan mouthed platitudes, urging the two sides to “empathize with each the other's position”. Taiwan is riven by divisions between labor and management and between advocates and opponents of pension reform. The new government has made one complete policy about face after another. It has cavalierly reneged on its commitments. It has raised social antagonism to a new level. Ensuring a 1% growth rate this year was already difficult. Now the economic prospects are even gloomier.

Traditionally the business community has always supported the government. Seldom has it sung a different tune. This is the first time in history seven business organizations have issued a joint declaration suspending all negotiations with the government. This is unprecedented, and reveals the anxiety, even anger felt by entrepreneurs.

The business community has suspended negotiations with the government and labor organizations. Labor and management previously reached an agreement providing for two-day weekends and seven additional legal holidays that were only commemorative in nature, and which involved no down time. Ostensibly the business community is protesting the DPP government's abrogation of this agreement. In fact, legal holidays were merely the fuse. The business community was already uneasy about the deteriorating business environment. The legal holidays issue was merely the last straw.

If the issue were legal holidays, the government would not have a leg to stand on. First, the agreement was the result of negotiations between labor and management. The government promised to honor the result of the negotiations. Second, two day weekends, plus legal holidays, plus vacation days, adds up to 126 days. This is one day more than even military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers receive. It is quite a lot, even in Asia. To the business community, adding seven more legal holidays was obviously going too far. The new government reneged on its policy commitment, merely because a few labor organizations protested and petitioned. Obviously the business community considered this unacceptable.

The more important reason however, is that its heart of hearts, the business community no longer trusts the new government. Ever since the DPP came to power, all its actions have worsened investor confidence and business incentives. President Tsai promised to improve the business environment by addressing the business community's “five needs”. Leave that aside for the moment. Consider instead the power supply, one of the issues the business community is most concerned with. The new government has apparently been hijacked by “nuclear free homeland” true believers, and finds itself impotent to respond. Now, when temperatures rise, the standby transfer capacity falls to 3%, and the shadow of power rationing looms. The new government's timetable for the replacement of nuclear energy with renewable energy, is nowhere to be found. The business community is deeply concerned about the cross-Strait “cold confrontation". The MTA and STA remain blocked. They watch helplessly as Taiwan's trade status is marginalized and export competitiveness are lost. How can the business community not be concerned, not to mention furious?

The EPD has even proclaimed that "Environmental protection will no longer be a neglected child bride".  It intends to terminate mineral rights, further discouraging investors already wary of EIAs and other obstacles to investment. Last week, during the China Airlines strike, public sector shareholders caved in to all of labor's demands. President Tsai took the lead, siding with labor. Leave aside the justifiability of the strike for a moment. This successful strike against a publicly owned business has terrified the business community. It is worried that strikes may spread, making survival for already troubled industries even harder.

The government must realize that only healthy economic development can provide provide new jobs and increase wages for young people. None of these objectives can be achieved without the business community. The most important concerns for the business community are sustainable growth and sustainable investment. Sustainable growth preserves existing jobs and economic returns. Increased investment ensures more increased employment opportunities and increased economic output.

The new government has proposed several industrial policies, including a "five creative industries plan”, and an "Asian Silicon Valley Plan". But if the domestic investment environment deteriorates, and the business community has no desire to invest, none of these proposals will succeed. The government cannot achieve these plans. even if it can raise the funds. Put plainly, the government lacks the talent and ability to achieve these goals. If the business community lacks confidence in the economy and the investment environment, industry will scale back, and private capital will evaporate. Taiwan's economy will suffer heavy losses, and its future will be jeopardized.

Seven major business groups have announced the suspension of all negotiations with the government and labor organizations. The government must consider honoring the original agreement. It must not complicate the matter further. Only this can resolve the short-term issues on the table.

Nor can it ignore the business community's unease with the government's policies. The two most critical policies are energy policy and cross-Strait policy. The government must offer credible, workable policies instead. When dealing with labor disputes, the government must remain resolute, and offer sound policies. Otherwise private investment will plummet.

We hope all sectors of society, including labor organizations, will remain calm. We hope they will revert to normal, rational labor management negotiations. The old saw about "Labour and management are in the same boat" may be trite. It may sound too high-minded. But it is undeniably true. If labor demands more than management can afford, then businesses will fail, capital fill flee, and labor itself will suffer. The result will be a lose / lose / lose scenario for employers, employees, and the nation's economy.

企業界不再信任政府 經濟還會好嗎
2016年06月28日 中國時報

華航空姐罷工事件連鎖效應方興未艾，7大工商團體反對政府片面毀棄協商共識，增加7天國定假日，昨日舉行「中止與政府、勞方所有協商」記者會，工運團體到場抗議，勞資火爆對槓，場面失控。行政院長林全蜻蜓點水呼籲雙方用同理心看待彼此立場！當前社會瀰漫勞資對抗、年金改革與反年金改革的對立情緒，新政府卻不斷出現髮夾彎決策，朝令夕改、毀棄承諾事件，社會對立情緒更形高張，今年經濟保1已經非常困難，現在對經濟前景更心所謂危。

傳統上工商界基於經營需要，向來支持政府，鮮少與政府唱反調；這是第一次7大工商團體一起對政府發出「中止所有協商」的聲音，不僅前所未見，亦可看出企業界的惶恐不安乃至於憤怒。

工商界決定中止與政府、勞方協商，表面原因是民進黨政府上台後，片面推翻當初全面周休二日後，7天國定假日「只紀念，不放假」的勞資協商共識。事實上，休假問題也只是一個導火線，讓原本已處於不安、擔心經營投資環境惡化的企業界，全面爆發。

如果單以休假政策的改變而言，坦白說，政府的立場確實有可議之處：一來原先的結論是經過勞資協商、政府承諾的結論；二來以休假天數而言，全面周休二日之後加上國定假日，休假天數已達126天，不但比軍公教多1天，在亞洲國家中也不算少，再增7天休假的國定假日，顯然對企業界而言，就已經是「太超過了」。新政府只是因為少數勞工團體的陳情抗議即翻轉政策承諾，更讓工商團體難以接受。

更重要的原因是，企業界心中深處已不再信任新政府。在企業界眼中，民進黨上台以來，幾乎所作所為都在惡化企業界的投資信心與經營意願。不談蔡總統承諾要為企業界解決5缺、改善經營環境，單就企業界最關心的供電問題而言，新政府顯然已被「廢核神主牌」綁架，似已無力解決。現在天氣一熱，電力備轉容量就降到3%，限電陰影揮之不去。新政府要以再生能源替代核電，完成時間卻遙遙無期。企業界最關心的兩岸關係也明顯陷入「冷對抗」，貨貿、服貿至今無解，眼見台灣貿易地位邊緣化，貨品出口競爭力流失，企業界能不憂心如焚嗎？

環保署更宣稱「環保不再是小媳婦」，要終止廠商的礦權，讓原本就困於環評等因素阻礙投資的業界，更不抱期望。上周華航罷工，公營的資方全盤退讓接受勞工條件，蔡總統率先表態挺罷工勞工，撇開罷工的合理性不談，這次公營企業成功罷工的案例，確實讓企業界心驚不已，企業界普遍擔心罷工的傳染性，會讓已陷困境的業者更難經營。

政府應該很清楚，要先有良好的經濟發展，才有更多新的就業崗位，年輕人的薪資才可能提升，這些目標沒有一項不能沒有企業界的努力。企業界對經濟最大的助益就是：永續經營、持續投資；企業持續經營可保住已有的就業機會與經濟成果，增加投資則是提供更多就業機會、拉高經濟產出。

新政府劃出「五大創新產業」、「亞洲矽谷計畫」等重大產業政策，如果企業界認為國內投資環境惡化、不願加碼投資，坦白說，毫無成功機會。因為絕無可能靠政府完成這些計畫，即使政府籌措到資金，說白點，政府也沒有這個人才與能力完成。如果沒有企業界的信任、對未來經濟與投資環境的信心，企業一起縮手讓民間投資減少，台灣不僅當期經濟就要受重創，未來前景更難看好。

面對這次7大工商團體聯合宣布與政府、勞方終止所有協商，我們建議政府首先必須考慮讓休假政策回到原來的協商結論，切勿再橫生枝節，這是解決短期及檯面上問題的必要作法。

除此之外，更不能忽視企業界對政策走向的不安與對政府的不信任。其中最關鍵的供電與兩岸兩大因素，政府必須提出可信、可行的政策與因應方案，日增的勞資紛爭，政府亦必須拿定態度、拿出政策，否則民間投資必將減少。

我們也希望勞工團體與社會各界應平息情緒，回歸理性與正常面對勞資彼此的權益。「勞資同在一條船」這句老話，雖然是老生常談，也有唱高調之嫌，但不能否認的是：事實就是如此。如果勞方的要求高過資方能承受的負擔，企業倒閉、資方出走外移，最後勞方也可能受害，結果是成為勞資雙方加上國家經濟「三輸」的結局。

Post-Strike Impasses Loom Ahead

Post-Strike Impasses Loom Ahead 
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 27, 2016

Executive Summary: Ho Nuan-hsuan, the new chairman of China Airlines has caved in. China Airlines flight attendants have announced an end to their strike, which grounded hundreds of flights and canceled tens of thousands of trips. The flight attendants strike was a roaring success. Ho Nuan-hsuan made substantial concessions, but even more importantly, union solidarity and a successful strategy contributed to their victory. Will the CAL strike become a model for other collective bargaining by workers in other public enterprises? That will be something worth observing. Workers at Mandarin Airlines have already threatened to follow suit.

Full Text Below:

Ho Nuan-hsuan, the new chairman of China Airlines has caved in. China Airlines flight attendants have announced an end to their strike, which grounded hundreds of flights and canceled tens of thousands of trips. The flight attendants strike was a roaring success. Ho Nuan-hsuan made substantial concessions, but even more importantly, union solidarity and a successful strategy contributed to their victory. Will the CAL strike become a model for other collective bargaining by workers in other public enterprises? That will be something worth observing. Workers at Mandarin Airlines have already threatened to follow suit.

The strike was not a "win-win" proposition. First, Ho Nuan-Hsuan yielded to all of the union's demands. All he asked for was an early end to the strike. He was not a particularly skillful negotiator. He gave the union more than it demanded. He showed nothing bu good will. Second, after the flight attendants announced the end of the strike, why didn't they immediately start work the next day? Why did they give themselves another day off, and leave tens of thousands of passengers stranded for one more day? They got what they wanted, then forgot all about the passengers. That hardly seems responsible. Third, the strike not only sacrificed the interests of the passengers, it redirected passenger frustration toward the ground crew, who found themselves on the receiving end of passenger anger. The flight attendants won big. But their colleagues paid the price. The flight attendants need to acknowledge this, and not treat the matter lightly.

In short, this flight attendants strike gained widespread public support because ruling party change involved management level appointments, therefore the strikers readily secured preferential terms. That is something worth celebrating. But flight attendants must now win passengers' respect during their daily routine. They must embody the spirit of customer service. Otherwise, the flight attendants' strike victory will not make China Airlines more competitive. What will happen to them if passengers lose confidence in China Airlines due to the strike, and cease booking flights? Employees must be prudent. They cannot assume that such problems affect only employers.

A re-examination of the recent strike and its causes reveals several important structural problems that must be addressed. The first problem is China Airlines' inept crisis management. Airline strikes affect travel plans for tens of thousands of people, as well as confidence in the airline's flight schedules. Therefore if a strike or other factor leads to changes in the flight schedule, the airline must inform passengers as soon as possible. It must offer alternative flight options, and emergency contacts. If it cannot offer alternatives, it must provide compensation. But China Airlines management response was slow. Many passengers reported that China Airlines provided a mere 100 USD in compensation, and failed to offer a clear explanation of what happened. This may have been because both the chairman and general manager were replaced at the same time. But if the airline's system was sound, the results would not have been so haphazard. This is a management defect that must be addressed.

The second problem that must be addressed is the government's inept personnel appointments. The flight attendants strike was described as a "labor dispute". That is inaccurate. Flight attendants may be labor, but not the CAL board of directors and general manager are not “management”. They are "officials". Personnel appointments and company policy for quasi-public enterprises are determined by government officials. These officials must defer to their superiors, but not to investors, consumers, or lenders. The decision to replace the chairman and general manager was made by Premier Lin Chuan. The "Company Law" expressly provides that "the board of directors choose the general manager". But this provision was totally ignored. This sort of administrative indifference to the rules is one of the reasons why public companies are inefficient, and their crisis management clueless.

The third problem that must be addressed is one of politics vs. professionalism. Personnel appointments for China Airlines, as well as for other publicly-owned or state-owned enterprises, have long been matters of political patronage. Professionalism is often the victim. Take Ho Nuan-hsuan, for example. He is qualified in transportation. But his expertise is in road transport rather than aviation. His emergency appointment as chairman drew largely on his experience in dealing with the Taiwan Railway Administration and the ROC Post Office workers protest, rather than any expertise in aviation. In other words, when faced with a unexpected labor strike and long-term aviation industry management reorganization, the new government chose to address the short-term crisis, and ignored the problem of long-term management and airline market positioning. No wonder Ho Nuan-hsuan immediately yielded to the flight attendants' seven demands. But this was mere politics. Will Ho Nuan-hsuan be as professional when dealing with China Airlines long-term operational efficiency and market competitiveness?

The CAL strike has ended. The flight attendants won a major victory. But they must not forget how many innocent people had to suffer, and how many impasses lie ahead in the dark.

聯合／罷工光鮮落幕後 更多死角浮現
2016-06-27 03:00 聯合報 聯合報社論

分享在華航新董事長何煖軒全盤讓步下，華航空服員宣布結束罷工，讓這場影響上百航班、數萬旅次的停飛危機宣告落幕。空服員罷工成功，除了歸因何煖軒讓步得徹底，主要還在工會團結及戰略成功等主客觀因素；而「華航模式」會不會變成其他公民營事業勞工群起效法對象，值得觀察，至少目前華信已揚言跟進。

要說這次罷工危機的化解是一個「雙贏」之局，恐不盡然。第一，何煖軒對工會的要求照單全收，只在尋求早日結束罷工，並未見他的談判手腕有何高明。他送出的大禮比工會要求的多，也顯示其一味示好。第二，空服員在達到目的後宣布結束罷工，為何不次日立即上工，卻還要給自己「補假」一天，讓上萬旅客多受一天折磨？要到糖果就忘了旅客，似難謂負責的表現？第三，這次罷工不僅以旅客權益為犧牲，更將全部壓力轉移到地勤人員身上，讓他們在機場直接承受旅客的叫罵。空服員贏得漂亮，卻讓同僚付出代價；這點，空服員應知輕重，不能認為理所當然。

簡言之，這次罷工因空服員「顏值」極高而深獲民眾支持，又因政權交替牽動主管異動而輕易爭取到各種優惠條件，值得慶賀。但是，我們要提醒的是，如果空服員不能在日常的工作現場贏得旅客尊重，並落實「以客為尊」的服務精神，空服員罷工的勝利即無法轉換為華航競爭力強大的動力。甚至，旅客可能因這次罷工失去對華航的信任，而不再搭乘華航班機；這點，員工也要有所警惕，不能以為這只是資方需要苦惱的問題。

重新檢視這次罷工的成因和解決經過，有幾項重要的結構問題必須正視。首先，是華航的危機處理。航空公司罷工動輒影響成千上萬人的旅行規畫，以及對航線安排的信心，因此航空公司對於因為罷工或其他因素造成的航班變動，最基本的危機處理，就是要通知近日內訂位旅客其因應方案，包括替代航班的選項、延誤的緊急聯繫、無法替代時的補償等。但華航管理階層對此因應遲緩，許多旅客除了從報導得知賠償一百美元之外，公司連個清楚的說明稿都沒有。這或許與董事長和總經理同時遭到撤換有關，但如果制度明確，應不致如此漫無章法，此一治理漏洞必須補強。

第二，政府處理華航人事的妥適性。把空服員罷工描述為「勞資爭議」其實並不準確，空服員固是勞方，但華航董事會、總經理所代表的並非「資方」，而是「官方」；準公營事業的人事與政策概由政府決定，他們看主管官員的臉色，卻不必看股民、消費者、貸款銀行的臉色。這次撤換董事長和總經理的決定，即來自行政院長林全，《公司法》明文規定「董事會決定總經理」，在此事件中卻可以跳過不管。這種行政處理彈性，與公營事業的無效率、危機處理顢頇，其實正是一體的兩面，相成相因。

第三，政治性與專業性的取捨。包括華航在內的公營或國營事業人事，一直被執政者當成政治酬庸職位運用，往往難以兼顧其專業角色。以何煖軒為例，雖然有交通方面的資歷，但其專長是在道路運輸，而非航空領域。而這次他臨危受命出任董事長，主要是借重他處理台鐵和中華郵政勞工抗爭之經驗，而非航空專長。換言之，在處理突發性的罷工事件，與進行航空事業的長期管理整頓之間，新政府似乎更強調短期事件的解決，而未思及華航長期的管理定位。這也難怪，何煖軒一上桌，就對空服員的七大訴求全盤讓步，以示任務「達陣」；但這只是政治處理，當何煖軒要面對華航長期的營運競爭問題時，他能表現相對的專業嗎？

華航罷工光鮮落幕，空服員贏得亮麗，但切莫忘了多少人因此無辜遭殃，還有暗處死角多少陳年問題積灰深重。

The Political and Economic Consequences of Brownouts and Power Rationing

The Political and Economic Consequences of Brownouts and Power Rationing
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 24, 2016

Executive Summary: During late May Taiwan was on the verge of power rationing. The Executive Yuan considered restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. But DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups voiced strong opposition. As a result that plan was shelved. According to meteorological experts, this year will be an “Anti-El Nino” year. A long, hot summer is inevitable. Brownouts are probable. The new government has clearly failed to think things through. Once power rationing is imposed, serious political and economic consequences will follow.

Full Text Below:

During late May Taiwan was on the verge of power rationing. The Executive Yuan considered restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. But DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups voiced strong opposition. As a result that plan was shelved. According to meteorological experts, this year will be an “Anti-El Nino” year. A long, hot summer is inevitable. Brownouts are probable. The new government has clearly failed to think things through. Once power rationing is imposed, serious political and economic consequences will follow.

Less than two weeks after the new government took office, a heat wave struck Taiwan. Reserve transfer capacity plummeted. On May 31, it fell to a mere 1.64%.  Power rationing almost became necessary. More recently, temperatures have soared. Transfer capacity rate has fallen to 3-5%. Fortunately annual maintenance was completed in time to avoid brownouts. But the situation remains troubling. Taiwan already faces power rationing. That is no longer even in doubt. Premier Lin Chuan was being honest when he said "This year and next year will be the most difficult".

If the Number One Nuclear Power Plant is restarted, estimates are that the equipment transfer capacity will increase, from 1.5 to 1.7%. Frankly that is not enough to eliminate brownouts. But at least it will reduce the amount of power rationing. Nevertheless DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups continue to voice strong opposition. The consequence has been brownouts caused by ignorance.

People were intitally skeptical of the DPP's energy policy. But Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly assured them that there would be no power shortages. When Minister of Economic Affairs Roy S. Lee took office, he met with the business community. He thumped his chest and also promised them there would be no power shortages for the next two years. These promises are still ringing in our ears. But Taiwan already faces brownouts. Once power rationing becomes a reality, trust in the new government will collapse. People will remember the solemn promises, repeated again and again, broken within a few short months. They will wonder what other promises the new government intends to break? Once the public loses faith in the new government, the political consequences will render it impotent.

The economic consequences will be even more serious and far-reaching. If power rationing is imposed, manufacturing and commerce will be affected. In the short term, manufacturing output and economic output will be reduced. But this is a relatively minor problem. The truly serious, hidden impact, will be to private investment.

Business investment must consider the investment environment. An abundant and stable power supply is one of the most important considerations. As TSMC Chairman Morris Chang noted, "TSMC cannot afford power shortages for even one minute". TSMC is hardly the only industry that cannot afford power shortages. Traditional industries and high tech industries alike cannot afford random interruptions of power during the manufacturing process. If sudden brownouts or blackouts occur during the manufacture of semi-finished products, they will be completely destroyed. Manufacturers will suffer huge losses. Orders and shipping will be delayed.

Last year Morris Chang publicly expressed concern for the future of power generation on Taiwan. Recently Lin Chuan revealed that TSMC, Google, and other major companies are building their own power plants. These companies say they have confidence in the new government's ability to solve problems. But the fact that they are building their own power plants is clearly a vote of no confidence in DPP energy policy. Otherwise why go to all the trouble and spend all that money to build privately owned power plants? TSMC and Google are large scale enterprises. They have the financial resources to build their own power plants. Most other companies lack this capability. In the event of power shortages, all they can do is suspend further investments.

Amidst the global economic downturn, Taiwan faces trade and economic marginalization. Cross-Strait relations have also deteriorated. Private investment is already low. Add to that the risk of power shortages, and additional private investment is unlikely, to say nothing of foreign investment. Investments are falling. Economic growth is sluggish. The new government's plans to create jobs and boost staff salaries will remain a rosy dream. This will seriously impact the future of Taiwan's economy.

Politicians and pressure groups who insist on a nuclear free homeland, who are strongly opposed to restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, also ignore the impact brownouts will have on their agenda. When the power supply is ample, a majority of the people may support a nuclear-free homeland. But when power shortages make their lives miserable, undermine the economy, and take away their jobs, support for a nuclear-free homeland will evaporate. Political advisor Chang Ling-chen put it bluntly. "If power rationing is imposed over the next two years, the private sector anti-nuclear movement will collapse".

Regarding “civilian oversight” of power generation, the government should consider the matter carefully. Some people have accused Taipower of "hiding generating capacity". This is highly unlikely. But in order to dispel any remaining doubts, the government can release more information. It can commission credible experts to provide oversight. But it must not pander to populist sentiment by implementing "civilian oversight". Still less should it include individuals with axes to grind, and who lack professionalism. Doing so would would demoralize Taipower, making the power supply problem even more intractable.

To avoid brownouts and reduce their political and economic impact, to prevent the collapse of public support for a nuclear-free homeland, we suggest restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. This will alleviate our immediate plight. The government should also increase power transfer capacity as soon as possible. It should accelerate the construction of new power plants and renewable energy. The timetable for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants need not be changed. But it should be adjusted depending on overall power supply and demand. This is probably the least risky and most pragmatic approach for the ruling party, for Taiwan society, and for the economy.

社論－正視限電的政治與經濟後果
2016年06月24日 04:10 主筆室

5月底瀕臨限電危機，行政院有意重啟核一廠1號機供電，在民進黨立委與反核團體強烈反對下已宣告擱置。依照氣象專家的說法，今年適逢反聖嬰年，酷暑高溫難免，限電風險很高。新政府顯然仍未想清楚一旦限電成真，可能帶來的嚴重政治與經濟後果。

新政府上台不到兩周，碰上提早報到的高溫天氣，電力備轉容量直線下降，5月31日甚至低到只有1.64%，幾乎就要宣告限電。近日氣溫飆高，備轉容量率又降到3～5%，幸而有機組完成歲修才免於限電。但以目前的態勢而言，無論如何台灣已步入限電風險，殆無疑義。行政院長林全很誠實，他說，「今年、明年是最辛苦的兩年」。

核一廠1號機如能加入發電，估計可增加1.5～1.7%的備轉容量，坦白說，也未必能完全消除風險，但至少降低限電機率，而民進黨立委與許多反核團體仍強力反對，顯然對限電帶來的後果無知。

外界原本就對民進黨的能源政策有疑慮，但蔡英文都信誓旦旦保證不缺電，經濟部長李世光上任後與工商界座談，也拍胸保證2年不缺電。言猶在耳，台灣馬上跌入限電危機中，一旦限電成真，新政府的承諾與社會信任度幾乎就要崩盤。民眾會聯想，一而再再而三的不缺電保證與承諾，短短幾個月就跳票，那新政府還有哪些承諾與保證註定要跳票？新政府一旦失去社會信任，其政治後果可能是未來施政寸步難行。

經濟方面的影響則更嚴重且深遠。如果限電發生，不論製造業或商業的生產、營業必受影響，短期而言，當然是折損了產出與經濟產值。不過，這還只是小問題，真正嚴重又屬「隱性」的影響是對民間投資的打擊。

企業投資必然考量與評估投資環境，電力供應充裕、穩定與否則是其中最重要的項目。台積電董事長張忠謀就說過：「台積電一分鐘都不能缺電」。豈止台積電不能缺電，不論是傳統產業或是科技產業，大部分製造業生產的製程是無法承受「隨機暫停」，若突然限電、停電，前面製程的半成品就要全毀，廠商蒙受損失，訂單與出貨時程也將延誤。

張忠謀去年底就曾公開表示對台灣未來電力供應的憂心，日前林全則透露包括台積電、谷歌等大企業，都準備要自蓋電廠；縱然企業表面上說對新政府解決問題的能力有信心，但某個角度而言，自蓋電廠其實就是對民進黨的能源政策投下不信任票，否則何需大費周章、花大筆錢蓋電廠？台積電與谷歌這種實力雄厚的大型企業，有財力與能力自蓋電廠，但其他多數企業絕無此能力，碰上缺電風險就只能暫停投資再觀望。

在全球景氣低迷、台灣又有經貿邊緣化之虞、兩岸關係也生變時，民間投資意願原本就低，再加上一個缺電風險，民間投資要好也難，更甭提吸引外資來台投資了。投資減少，當期經濟成長表現差事小，新政府期盼的創造就業、拉抬員工薪資，都將成鏡花水月一場空，這將真正重創台灣經濟的未來。

對那些堅持廢核、強烈反對重啟核一廠1號機的政客及民間團體而言，也同樣忽視了限電對他們的理念帶來的風險。在電力供應充裕時，表面上看到有超過半數民眾支持非核家園，但如限電讓民眾生活不便，甚至影響經濟與就業時，非核家園的支持度必然衰退。這點政務委員張景森說得最直白：「若這兩年一旦限電，民間反核的力量就會崩潰。」

至於民間監督電力供應，政府應慎思。外界指台電「藏電」，坦白說，可能性不高；但為釋疑，政府可讓資訊更公開、讓專業有公信力者去監督，但請千萬別再來那套「民間監督」的民粹。更何況列入民間監督小組名單中者，既有明確的特定立場、又乏專業，如此做只會搞垮台電士氣，電力問題更難解。

要避免發生限電，降低政治與經濟衝擊，防止民間非核家園支持度崩盤，我們建議應先讓核一廠1號機重新發電，紓解眼前困境；政府也應盡快強化電力調度能力、加快興建中的電廠與再生能源的推動。各核電廠的除役時間不必先變動，但要視整體電力供需情況而調整。這種作法對執政黨、台灣社會與經濟而言，應是風險最小、最務實的作法。

Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter

Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 23, 2016

Executive Summary: For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

Full Text Below:

The Tsai government has been in office for only one month. But it has already reneged on its pledge to "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations".  Before the election, Tsai Ing-wen vowed to "maintain very good relations with the Mainland". She said, "When I say I will maintain the status quo, it means I will maintain the status quo". She said "I said I can do it, and I will".

Alas, the current situation has already departed from the status quo. The two cross-Strait associations' official channels of communication have already been shut down. The status quo there no longer exists. Premier Lin Chuan says he has not ruled out a second channel of communications. But that is impossible. The status quo there no longer exists. Even the SEF chairman candidates have yet to be chosen, providing even more evidence that the status quo no longer exists.

Rumors that Wang Jin-pyng or James Soong may head the SEF have provoked controversy. Meanwhile  Wu Chi-chia and Kuo Cheng-liang have issued a proposal. They want the DPP to approve a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform” during next month's Party Congress. They want to appoint someone to the SEF who can stabilize the situation. They want to change the party platform to rescue Taiwan from her current plight. The two men have issued a warning: the new government has already failed to maintain the status quo.

The "Wu Guo Party Platform" states that the Taiwan Independence Party Platform, the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, and the Resolution for a Normal Nation, are antithetical to maintaining the status quo. As long as these three provisions remain, the status quo cannot be maintained. Instead, the party must replace them with a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform”, that "highlights the party's new mission in a new era of cross-Strait and international relations".

Virtually the same DPP officials proposed freezing the Taiwan Independence Party Platform before the election. At the moment they are avoiding any mention of “freezing the Taiwan independence party platform”. Instead they are saying that “advocacy of the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions is superfluous".

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, everyone in the party agrees that Taiwan independence is already "outdated". Nevertheless, jettisoning either is more difficult than accepting the 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations.

If the DPP can no longer advocate Taiwan independence, then why not accept the 1992 Consensus? Because the 1992 Consensus includes “one China, different interpretations”. The party has yet to deal directly with the Taiwan Independence Party Platform. This leaves some room to maneuver.

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that their “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, all agree that Taiwan independence is at odds with maintaining the status quo. Therefore in the absence of a shared cross-Strait political framework, expecting an SEF appointment to turn the tide and maintain the status quo, is utterly futile.

James Soong may be the DPP's intended SEF appointee. But the PFP insists that "policy is its first priority, personnel appointments are secondary". The PFP has its own priorities. It is also pragmatic. Beijing has said it will not accept the Straits Exchange Foundation recognizing the 1992 Consensus on behalf of the Tsai government. It has said the words must come from Tsai Ing-wen herself.

Therefore, if the Tsai government can accept the 1992 Consensus, it does not need James Soong, Wang Jin-pyng, or anyone else to head the SEF. After all, the two men have their own priorities, and concerns about their public image. As long as the Tsai government changes its policy, the appointment of any qualified person is acceptable. As long as the Tsai government's policy is clear, who it appoints will be secondary, and the appointment process will be simple. Besides, if the Tsai government accepts the 1992 Consensus, it will not be under as much pressure to eliminate the Taiwan independence party platform.

To sum up, the Wu Kuo Party Platform and rumors that James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng will be appointed SEF Chief, confirm one thing. The status quo has already been violated. But as previously mentioned, the Wu Kuo Party Platform actually goes beyond the 1992 Consensus. If the Tsai government has yet to recognize the 1992 consensus, why bother appointing James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng, and provoke an uproar within the DPP?

Now let us return to "maintaining the status quo". The 1992 Consensus is an integral part of the status quo. It is the shared political framework for the status quo. The Tsai government refuses to accept the 1992 Consensus. It also asserts that "If I say I'm going to maintain the status quo, then I'm going to maintain the status quo". This is a clear self-contradiction. The 1992 Consensus is an evolving concept. It is the means by which Taiwan sought to maintain "one China, different interpretations”, "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use force", and peaceful, mutually beneficial cross-strait economic and trade exchanges. If this framework is shattered, the trade and diplomatic repercussions will do more than destroy the status quo. They will jeopardize Taiwan's survival. Therefore, if the Tsai government cannot maintain the status quo, it may well jeopardize Taiwan's future.

The Wu Kuo Party Platform may be risky, but it makes the hard choices. The SEF appointment political theater on the other hand, fails to see the forest for the trees. If the Tsai government wishes to avoid repeating the cross-Strait policy blunders of the past, it must find some way to recognize the 1992 Consensus.

For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

聯合／維持現狀 困難重重
2016-06-23 02:45 聯合報 聯合報社論

蔡政府彌月，「兩岸關係維持現狀」的政治承諾已告跳票。
選前，蔡英文信誓旦旦：「我一定會與大陸維持非常良好的關係」、「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」、「我說得到，就做得到」。

但是，現狀其實已非現狀。兩會兩辦的制度化溝通管道已告封閉，現狀不再；閣揆林全聲稱不排除「二軌管道」亦不可得，也是現狀不再；甚至連海基會董事長人選也舉棋不定，這更是現狀無以維持的印證。

最近，以宋楚瑜或王金平出掌海基會引起熱議；與此同時，吳子嘉與郭正亮提案，希望在下月民進黨全代會通過《維持現狀新黨綱》。海基會人選，是想藉人事來穩定情勢；變更黨綱，則是欲藉政策來扭轉局面。二者皆在警示：現狀已不能維持。

「吳郭黨綱」旨在指出：台獨黨綱、台灣前途決議文及正常國家決議文，皆與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違；有此三者，就不能維持現狀，而應代以與時俱進的《維持現狀新黨綱》，「凸顯本黨強化處理兩岸事務和國際事務的新時代使命」。

幾乎是同一批民進黨人，大選前也曾提出「凍結台獨黨綱」之議。此時，他們則迴避了「凍獨」的說法，而稱台獨黨綱及二決議文「實無再予標舉的必要」。

無論是「凍獨」或「實無再予標舉的必要」，皆係認為台獨已「不合時宜」；但凍獨或不再標舉，其實已經超逾了「九二共識／一中各表」的要求與難度。

民進黨若真能不再標舉台獨，則何以不能接納並發展「九二共識」？因為，九二共識畢竟存有一中各表的契機，且亦暫未直接進逼至台獨黨綱之處理，留有緩衝空間。

不過，無論是凍獨或不再標舉，皆在指出台獨的主張與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違。亦由此可見，若不在兩岸共同政治基礎上有所確立，並藉以維持現狀，卻奢望以海基會人事來扭轉局面，恐是緣木求魚。

於是，再說海基會人事。宋楚瑜可能是目標人選，但親民黨方面已稱「政策是第一優先，人事是第二順位」，可謂知所先後，亦算是知機務實。且北京方面已稱，不會接受「海基會代蔡政府接受九二共識」的手法，而必須出自蔡英文本人之口。

因此，蔡政府若能將政策立場轉向九二共識，即無須以宋楚瑜、王金平等出掌海基會，畢竟二人皆有齊大非偶的顧慮。只要政策轉向，任用一篤實可靠之人，政策清朗，人事樸實，當可省去許多橫生枝節之事。而且，蔡政府若接納九二共識，或可暫免處理《台獨黨綱》的壓力。

綜上所論，「吳郭黨綱」及宋楚瑜、王金平的人事傳言，皆印證了「維持現狀」已告跳票。但如前所述，「吳郭黨綱」的要求其實超出了「九二共識」，而倘若接納了九二共識，又何必任用宋楚瑜、王金平，徒惹民進黨內陣陣譁然？

問題回到「維持現狀」四字。九二共識是現狀的一部分，又是一切現狀的共同政治基礎。因此，蔡政府不接納九二共識，卻稱「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」，邏輯難以自圓。九二共識是一發展性的概念，台灣努力爭取的「現狀」是「一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」，以及兩岸經貿互利與和平交流。萬一失去這個平衡的架構，自經貿面及外交面發生的衝擊，非但會毀了「現狀」，且可能使台灣的生存體質發生無可回逆的致命變化。故而，蔡政府若不能維持現狀，亦可能因此失去了將來。

「吳郭黨綱」雖是操危慮患，卻是捨易就難；海基人事的反覆盤算，則是捨本逐末。蔡政府若不願見兩岸和平發展之舟重蹈覆轍，仍應設法在九二共識上找出路。

七月十七日的全代會又是一個重大節點，蔡政府切勿再自誤誤國。蔡英文既說：「在中華民國現行憲政體制下，維持兩岸關係。」當然亦可理直氣壯地說：「在中華民國憲法架構下，理解並發展九二共識。」

Peace, Reunification, and the Chinese People: Three Antidotes for Taiwan's Crisis

Peace, Reunification, and the Chinese People: Three Antidotes for Taiwan's Crisis
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 22, 2016

Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen and the ruling DPP regime need to realize that hate is a poison, born of mutual deception. Hatred of Mainland China will eventually force the Mainland to hate Taiwan. The hatred incited on Taiwan today, will be reciprocated in kind tomorrow by the Mainland, and push Taiwan inexorably toward the abyss. As the party in power, the DPP should be happy to see the KMT help Taiwan extricate itself from its threefold dilemma. “The Chinese people”. How long has it been since we have heard these words? Only "Chinese people helping Chinese people" can extricate Taiwan from its predicament.

Full Text Below:

Taiwan was once one of the “Four Asian Tigers". It created an "economic miracle". It was a "beacon of democracy". But everyone on Taiwan, with the exception of a few willfully blind, willfully deaf politicians, knows that Taiwan now faces marginalized on the world stage, enmity from the other side of the Strait, and social divisions from within. If it continues on its current course, Taiwan will eventually lose everything it has. It will even suffer the indignity of being reunified by force.

The most serious crisis facing Taiwan is cross-Strait relations. Fortunately it is the crisis most easily remedied. In fact, a former president proposed a solution to the cross-Strait crisis 20 years ago, during his inaugural address. His address has been touted as the most enlightened in two decades. During his address, he said historical factors may have led to divided rule, but both sides of the Strait nevertheless seek national reunification as their goal. Only through sincerity and patience, through communications, through the seeking of common ground while shelving differences, can the two sides resolve the problem of national reunification, and ensure the common good of the Chinese nation as a whole.

He said the two sides of the Strait must end hostilities in order to facilitate national reunification. He said peace and tolerance is the only way to defuse confrontation and hatred. The former president's inaugural address invoked many current catchphrases, including “peace, tolerance, national reunification, the Chinese people, an end to hostilities”, and “overcoming hatred”.

The former president was of course Lee Teng-hui. In 1996, during his inauguration, he issued his "Promote a Great Taiwan, Establish a New Chinese Nation" proclamation. Even the title was praised as "lofty in its sentiment, extraordinary in its courage". But soon afterward "national reunification" became a taboo expression. Even "peace agreements" were denounced as "selling out Taiwan", as part of an "evil agenda".

Any president today who echoed Lee Teng-hui's "Promote a Great Taiwan, Establish a New Chinese Nation" inaugural speech would immediately be crucified on Facebook. The presidential palace would be besieged by mobs of students. Talking heads would hold him up to ridicule. They would conclude that he no longer wanted to be president, and was intent on committing political suicide.

If this speech by Lee Teng-hui from 20 years ago, were delivered today, it would obviously be deemed Politically Incorrect. In fact, the first person to leap forward and denounce this speech as “selling out Taiwan”, the first person to cast a stone, would be none other than Godfather of Taiwan Independence Lee Teng-hui himself. But set aside Politic Correctness for the moment. Return to the reality of the three crises facing Taiwan. Is this inaugural speech, which today seems so Politically Incorrect, factually incorrect? Are not the ringing sentiments expressed in this speech in fact the remedy for Taiwan's marginalization in the world today, for the enmity between the two sides of the Strait, and for the social divisions tearing Taiwan apart from within?

If so, why must we be held hostage by Political Correctness? Why can't “Chinese people help Chinese people". Why can't they acknowledge that they are members of the same family? Why can't people on the two sides be friends? Why can't people on the two sides benefit from their association and pursue a brighter future? If this is not wrong, our course of action should crystal clear.

The two sides have been isolated from each other for some time. Nevertheless the two sides' political, cultural, social, economic links have never truly bee broken. People on Taiwan and people on the Mainland have never had any real grievances with each other. Current opposition and hatred of Mainland China is the result of political manipulation. Young people in particular, never experienced the Chinese Civil War. They don't realize that this hate is the result of "mutual vilification". It is a remnant of history. Much of today's emotionalism is a legacy of the Chinese Civil War. It is hatred between regimes, not hatred among people.

Cross-Strait hatred is a legacy of KMT vs. CCP history. An end to enmity can only be achieved by the enemies themselves. The KMT and CCP are the ones who must put an end to the enmity. Hung Shiu-chu should meet with Xi Jinping and issue a joint declaration. The two parties should declare an end to hostilities. They should declare an end to the Chinese Civil War. Hung should pledge that upon a KMT return to power, she will promote the normalization of cross-Strait relations, the rule of law, and the concept of Chinese people helping Chinese people. When the Kuomintang was in office, it lacked courage. Now it has been reduced to a feeble opposition party. If it still cannot muster the courage to defy Political Correctness, if it still lacks the fortitude to uphold National Correctness, Taiwan Correctness, and Cross-Strait Correctness, what chance does it have of returning to office?

Tsai Ing-wen and the ruling DPP regime need to realize that hate is a poison, born of mutual deception. Hatred of Mainland China will eventually force the Mainland to hate Taiwan. The hatred incited on Taiwan today, will be reciprocated in kind tomorrow by the Mainland, and push Taiwan inexorably toward the abyss. As the party in power, the DPP should be happy to see the KMT help Taiwan extricate itself from its threefold dilemma.

“The Chinese people”. How long has it been since we have heard these words? Only "Chinese people helping Chinese people" can extricate Taiwan from its predicament.

真道理性真愛台灣》社論－台灣三危解藥 和平、統一、中國人
2016年06月22日 04:10 主筆室

今日的台灣，除了一些蒙眼裝瞎、遮耳扮聾的政客外，有識之士無不清楚看見，曾是「亞洲小龍」、曾創造「經濟奇蹟」、曾被譽為「民主燈塔」的台灣，正面對在世界舞台邊緣化、兩岸關係對立化、社會內部撕裂化三危之局，如果繼續無所作為，台灣將一步一步走向滿盤皆輸，甚至淪為沒有尊嚴的被統一局面。

其中，最關鍵危局在兩岸，三個危局中最可解者也是在兩岸。其實早就有一位前總統，在就職演說中提出過兩岸危局的解方，這篇就職演說堪稱台灣20年來最有高度與氣度的演說。在這篇就職演說中，他指出，海峽兩岸因為歷史因素隔海分治，乃是事實；但是海峽雙方都以追求國家統一為目標，也是事實。兩岸唯有面對這些事實，以最大的誠意與耐心，進行對談溝通，化異求同，才能真正解決國家統一的問題，謀求中華民族的共同福祉。

他說，海峽兩岸都應該正視處理結束敵對狀態這項重大問題，以便為追求國家統一的歷史大業，做出關鍵性的貢獻。他說，我們深信，和平寬容是化解對立仇恨的唯一手段。這位前總統的就職演說，使用了許多今日看來仍然是打開兩岸死結、為台灣衝出生路的關鍵字：和平寬容、國家統一、中國人及結束敵對、化解仇恨等。

這位前總統的名字叫李登輝，這是他在1996年就職總統時發表的演說「經營大台灣，建立新中原」，連演說的標題都可謂「豪情萬丈、氣魄非凡」。然而曾幾何時，「國家統一」變成了不可說的「禁忌」，連談「和平協議」都變成「賣台」「邪議」。

今日此時若有哪一位總統，敢把李登輝這篇「經營大台灣，建立新中原」的就職演說拿出來照念，大概立刻就會被網路鄉民灌爆臉書，總統府前可能馬上圍聚大批學生想要衝進去，媒體名嘴也會齊出訕笑，認為這位總統當得不耐煩了，想要政治自殺。

20年前李登輝這篇演說若今日重現，注定是政治不正確，而且會第一個跳出來痛批這篇演說是賣台言論、會丟出第一個石頭的，應該就是號稱台獨教父的李登輝。但讓我們放下所謂「政治正確」局限，回到台灣面對的三危局現實，好好想想，今日看來如此「政治不正確」的這篇就職演說，真的那麼不正確嗎？難道這篇演說裡句句鏗鏘的主張，不是台灣今日在世界邊緣化、在兩岸對立化、在台灣撕裂化，解救三疾齊發的一帖對症處方嗎？

如果是，那麼為什麼我們要被「政治正確」綁架，為什麼不能以「中國人幫中國人」一家親的高度，讓兩岸人民可以立足於友好善意，追求兩岸同利共榮的光明未來？如果大家認為這些方向沒錯，那麼，接下來，台灣該做的事就非常清楚而明白了。

兩岸政治雖然長期隔絕，兩岸民眾的文化、社會、經濟連結卻未真正斷絕，台灣人與大陸人從來沒有冤仇，眼前社會充斥的「反中」與「仇中」情緒都是政治操控的結果。尤其年輕人不曾走過兩岸烽火那段歷史，不知道仇恨是一種「相互醜化」的歷史遺留，今天很多的情緒是國共內戰遺留下來的，那是「政權間的仇恨」，不是「人民間的仇恨」。

兩岸的仇恨是國共兩黨的歷史遺留，解仇還需結仇人，國共兩黨理當率先笑泯恩仇，洪秀柱與習近平不妨會面並共同發表宣言，實現兩黨結束敵對，藉此宣示國共內戰的歷史終結，並承諾執政後將推動兩岸關係的正常化與法制化、中國人幫助中國人的社會認知。國民黨執政時沒有勇氣，現在淪為弱勢的在野黨，若還不拿出抗拒政治正確的勇氣，以大格局堅持國家正確、台灣正確、兩岸正確，豈有機會再起？

握有政權的蔡英文與民進黨更要知道，仇恨是一種「互相矇蔽」的歷史毒藥，今天台灣煽起的仇中，都是讓明日大陸醞釀仇台的種子，那將把台灣推向不可逆的深淵。身為執政者當有氣度樂見國民黨側翼幫助台灣脫離三危困境。

中國人，好久不見的三個字，唯有開創「中國人幫中國人」新局，台灣才能走出困局。

End KMT-CCP Hostilities, Create New Cross-Strait Opportunities

End KMT-CCP Hostilities, Create New Cross-Strait Opportunities 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 20, 2016 

Executive Summary: A KMT that finds itself in the opposition need not belittle itself. It must have courage. It must be determined to prove its worth to the Taiwan public. If the KMT and CCP can make peace, then a KMT CCP forum makes sense, and a Hong Hsiu-chu-Xi Jinping has value. If the KMT can take this step, history will affirm it, and people will remember it. This may be the only way the KMT can return to power.

Full Text Below:

Ma Ying-jeou was in office for eight years. During that time his cross-Strait policy was "one China, different interpretations”, "no reunification, no Taiwan independence", "maintain the status quo", and “economics not politics”. This policy failed to end the 60 year long civil war between the two sides. It failed to create a stable framework for lasting cross-Strait peace and mutual trust.

Private sector interactions without a peace agreement are destined to remain unstable. Cross-Strait relations without mutual trust are destined to remain fragile. Ma Ying-jeou governed for eight years. Cross-Strait relations ended where they began. The party was over, and the guests went home. Worse still, Ma allowed the green camp to paint him as a cross-Strait pimp, “pandering to China and selling out Taiwan”. The result was eventual defeat and loss of power. This is Ma Ying-jeou's place in history. Put nicely, he was a well-meaning bungler. Put less nicely, he rejected heaven's mandate, only to receive heaven's retribution.

Over the past eight years, the opposition Democratic Progressive Party's cross-Strait rhetoric has not evolved. The party still clings to separatism. But once it felt assured of victory, even before the election, Tsai Ing-wen began parroting the KMT. She began talking about “maintaining the status quo". She substituted the "1992 spirit", the "facts of 1992", and the "acknowledgement of 1992" to win Beijing's approval. Beijing ignored her. As a result, some DPP members want this year's Party Congress to replace the “Taiwan independence party platform” with "maintain the status quo". But these expedients were rendered moot when the new Minister of Education issued an executive order repealing any and all corrections to the public school history texts.

The DPP's refusal to correct the public school history texts betrays the party's overeagerness. In fact, the original history texts featured "one version of history for each side". The so-called "fine tuning of the course curriculum” did not change this structure. It merely modified a few terms and added a few historical facts. Nevertheless the DPP considered it intolerable, and demanded immediate rejection. Ironically, this move touched Beijing's most sensitive nerve, namely the DPP's "cultural Taiwan independence", the instrument by which the DPP advances "soft Taiwan independence" and "creeping Taiwan independence".

The DPP's "cultural Taiwan independence" will make trust between the DPP and CCP over the next four years utterly impossible. Mainland intelligentsia are now concerned that “We will eventually lose Taiwan". They have concluded that the public on Taiwan no longer supports the Mainland's traditional arguments for reunification. Taiwan's rapid alienation from the Mainland also makes peaceful reunification virtually impossible. Therefore only military force can prevent a split between the two sides.

Cross-Strait developments truly are worrisome. The DPP cannot possibly accept the 1992 Consensus, which demands that the two sides be reunited. Beijing cannot possibly accept "cultural Taiwan independence" and allow Taiwan independence sentiment to reach  a point of no return. Fundamental contradictions in political stance make trust between the DPP and CCP impossible. That means that over the next four years cross-Strait relations will be plagued by anxiety, even war.

At such a time the opposition Kuomintang's responsibility is greater than ever, even greater than when it was in office. It must make Beijing feel that peaceful cross-Strait relations are still possible. It must let the public on Taiwan know that only the KMT can prevent cross-Strait war. The situation is similar to what it was in 2005. Without the Lien-Hu summit and the five-point consensus, it is difficult to imagine how cross-Strait relations could have successfully survived the late Chen Shui-bian era.

When the KMT was in office, the China Times called on the KMT and CCP to jointly announce an end to hostilities or issue a declaration of peace. The two governments could then legally end the civil war. But in a democracy the ruling party's political position is not necessarily the government's. Such an action by the Kuomintang would not have been appropriate. Now however, the Kuomintang is in the opposition. It can reach a consensus with the CCP on the two sides' political status. The two parties can even sign a declaration of peace, and propose a framework for continued cross-Strait peace.

The KMT must have the courage to make peace. Can the KMT and CCP complete the above mentioned transactions? If they can, then the KMT, Taiwan, and both sides of the Strait can enjoy an historic breakthrough. First, the KMT can fundamentally distinguish its cross-Strait policy from the DPP's. Ma Ying-jeou's "one China, different interpretations", and "maintaining the status quo" served its purpose. In the wake of the Sunflower Student Movement, it is obsolete. Now that Tsai Ing-wen is spouting "maintaining the status quo" along with the KMT, the catechism has lost its rhetorical value. A KMT in the opposition must offer a whole new cross-Strait strategy. Only then can it justify its continued existence. Second, Mainland intelligenstia have lost confidence in peaceful reunification. They now think military reunification may be unavoidable. If the KMT and the CCP can reach a consensus to legally end the civil war, continued peace may still be possible. This would be the KMT's contribution to Taiwan. Third, if the KMT and the CCP can take the first step toward legally ending the civil war, the DPP may decide to follow. Only then can an official cross-Strait peace treaty become a reality.

A KMT that finds itself in the opposition need not belittle itself. It must have courage. It must be determined to prove its worth to the Taiwan public. If the KMT and CCP can make peace, then a KMT CCP forum makes sense, and a Hong Hsiu-chu-Xi Jinping has value. If the KMT can take this step, history will affirm it, and people will remember it. This may be the only way the KMT can return to power.

真道理性真愛台灣》社論－國共結束敵對 開創兩岸新機會
2016年06月21日 04:10 主筆室

馬英九執政8年，以「一中各表」、「不統不獨」、「維持現狀」定位兩岸關係，使得兩岸關係「只經不政」，既沒有結束長達60多年法理內戰狀態，解除兩岸敵對狀態；也沒有為兩岸創造穩定安全的和平架構，建立真正的互信與永遠的和平。

缺少和平結構的民間互動絕不穩定，沒有互信的兩岸關係必然脆弱，馬英九執政8年的兩岸關係最終落得人走茶涼、人去政息，還讓國民黨背上傾中賣台、兩岸掮客惡名，終至慘敗，失去政權。這就是馬英九在兩岸關係上的歷史定位，說得好聽些是「為德不卒」，說得嚴苛點是「天予不取、反受其咎」。

這8年以來，在野的民進黨在兩岸論述上也沒有進展，仍維持其分離主義的立場。但是在自認即將贏得選舉前與取得勝選後，蔡英文也牙牙學語跟著國民黨喊「維持現狀」，改用「九二精神」、「九二事實」、「九二認知」等修飾語，期盼獲得北京的認可。看到北京沒有正面回應，一些著急的民進黨員甚而希望在今年全代會中，以「維持現狀」來取代以往的台獨黨綱及相關決議文。不過，這些權宜之計，因為新任教育部長一紙廢除課綱微調的行政命令後已全部破功。

廢除課綱微調，暴露了民進黨過於急切的企圖。原有的課綱其實已是「一邊一史」的結構，所謂「課綱微調」並沒有撼動原有的結構，只是一些用語的調整、史實的增加而已。即使如此，民進黨仍然難以忍受，要去之而後快。但是此一行為恰恰觸動到北京最敏感的神經，坐實了民進黨以「文化台獨」為工具，走一條「柔性台獨」與「穩健台獨」的道路。

民進黨的「文化台獨」作為，使得未來4年民共之間幾乎不可能建立互信。大陸知識界已有「我們終將失去台灣」的警語，認為大陸傳統的統一論述已經無法再得到台灣人民的支持，台灣對大陸認同的快速疏離也使得「和平統一」幾乎已經絕望，因而出現唯有武力才能促使兩岸不分裂的「武統」言論。

兩岸的發展的確讓人憂心忡忡。民進黨不可能接受在本義上兩岸不可永久分裂的「九二共識」，北京也不會輕易地讓「文化台獨」成為一條不歸路。立場上的根本矛盾使得民共之間不可能建立互信，這也使得蔡英文政府未來4年的兩岸關係注定不安，衝突的可能也並非全無。

此時在野的國民黨，責任較執政時期更為重要，一方面要讓北京感覺到兩岸和平發展的機會仍然存在，另一方面要讓台灣民眾了解，國民黨有能力讓兩岸關係避免衝突。其情形類似於2005年的情景，如果沒有當時的連胡會及五點共識，我們很難想像，兩岸關係如何能夠平穩地度過陳水扁後期的兩岸敏感期。

國民黨執政期間，《中國時報》曾呼籲國共兩黨應率先宣布結束敵對狀態，或共同發表和平宣言，為兩岸政府未來結束法理內戰創造條件。但是，基於民主責任政治原則，執政黨的立場與行為必須與政府一致，當時由國民黨採先行主張並不適當。不過，既然國民黨現在已經在野，可以嘗試與共產黨就兩岸應有的政治定位達成共識，甚而簽署和平宣言，提出兩岸和平發展應有的框架。

國民黨要有勇氣創造和平。如果國共兩黨能夠完成上列重大事務，對國民黨、台灣及兩岸均是一大突破與貢獻。第一、對國民黨而言，可以在兩岸論述及政策上與民進黨做出根本性的區隔。馬英九的「一中各表」、「維持現狀」論述，在太陽花運動以後已經失去其階段性的功能。在蔡英文也提出「維持現狀」後，國民黨基本上也不再享有論述的優勢。在野的國民黨必須要創造兩岸和平論述，才有存在的價值。第二、對台灣而言，大陸的知識界已經開始對「和平統一」失去信心，視「武統」為可能的必要選擇。國共兩黨如果能夠就結束法理內戰達成共識，和平發展的聲音將不致成為絕響，這是國民黨對台灣的貢獻。第三、對兩岸而言，國共兩黨能夠往結束法理內戰跨出第一步，民進黨才有可能認真思考是否要跟進，官方的兩岸和平協議也才有簽署的可能。

在野的國民黨切勿妄自菲薄，應當勇敢向台灣人民證明國民黨存在的價值。從國共兩黨共同創造和平這個角度出發，國共論壇才有意義，洪習會也才有價值。國民黨如果能夠成功地跨出這一步，歷史會正面評價，人民也不會忘記，這或許才是國民黨重返執政的必由之路。

Tsai Ing-wen's Three Major Problems

Tsai Ing-wen's Three Major Problems
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 20, 2016

Executive Summary: After one month in office, the challenges faced by Tsai Ing-wen are clear. She must stabilize the cabinet and ministries. She must end administration policy flip-flops. The new government's image is steadily being eroded. The public will soon lose its patience. Once that happens, any policy reform whatsoever will be difficult. The difficulties encountered by Ma Ying-jeou during his second term of office prove that.

Full Text Below:

Since her inauguration on May 20, President Tsai Ing-wen has been in office three full months. Polls show her public approval rating at around 50%. Apparently a majority supports her leadership. But Premier Lin Chuan's approval rating is nearly 10 points lower, indicating public dissatisfaction with the new cabinet.

The gap in approval ratings for Tsai Ing-wen and Lin Chuan is intriguing for three reasons. First, the Cabinet Chief's lower approval rating may be the result of either personal faux pas or extreme policy statements. For this, Lin Chuan must bear full responsibility. It also reveals uneven quality among cabinet members. Second, the chaos within the cabinet makes Tsai Ing-wen's role as  head of state even more essential. The public distinguishes between the two. It does not consider them the same. Third, the public still has high hopes for the new government. It is still willing to give the new president time to improve. Alas, no one knows when public discontent with the cabinet chief will burn through the firewall between the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan. The new government cannot afford to be careless about this.

One month after taking office, Tsai Ing-wen's status was secure. She concentrated on visiting the armed forces, and called for unity. She met with foreign dignitaries. As a finishing touch, she participated in various social activities to prove she was a “woman of the people”. Cabinet ministers were reckless. She used her status in the party and the government to mollify green camp legislators. She invited government heads into her home and communicated with them. She differed from Chen Shui-bian, a loose cannon. She also differed from Ma Ying-jeou, who stood on the front lines with a target painted on his back. This has helped her maintain her stature as president. It has also provided the new government room to retreat and flexibility in decision-making.

In any event, after one month in office, the challenges faced by Tsai Ing-wen are clear. She must stabilize the cabinet and ministries. She must end administration policy flip-flops. The new government's image is steadily being eroded. The public will soon lose its patience. Once that happens, any policy reform whatsoever will be difficult. The difficulties encountered by Ma Ying-jeou during his second term of office prove that.

In summary, Tsai Ing-wen faces three major problems, each of which require her personal attention. The first problem is the gap between electoral politics and the reality of governance. During Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign, she opposed certain policies out of sheer spite. She failed to consider the issues with due diligence. Now that she is in power, she finds herself out of touch with reality. During the past month, she has completely reversed herself on one policy after another. Even cabinet members charged with carrying out her imperial edicts are grumbling. Electoral politics is running head on into harsh reality. Tsai must either collide with reality head on, derail, or make a “hairpin turn”. The most obvious example is her ostensibly unshakable commitment to a nuclear free homeland. Power shortages loom. Yet her only response was to ask universities to conserve electricity, or return to old-fashioned hydropower. Are these really wise moves? Tsai Ing-wen's only solution is to default on her campaign promises and confront harsh reality.

The second problem she faces, is friction between the new government and the new ruling party. The Lin Chuan cabinet stresses its "professionalism". As such, its cabinet members lack political sensitivity. When cabinet ministers speak out, they frequently touch sensitive political nerves. This includes peripheral appointees, several of whom have angered DPP legislators. Unfortunately, if Tsai is too accommodating towards the party, the result will be an image of green camp favoritism, which would undermine her status as head of state. She would also be responsible for the misallocation of national resources. Tsai Ing-wen is both DPP chairman and ROC president. As such, she must master communications. Otherwise, if she leaves an impression of favoritism, she will find it difficult to retain public respect.

The third problem is that her cross-Strait policy, which puts the ROC at an economic and diplomatic disadvantage. The new government longs to rid itself of economic dependence on the Mainland. It longs to develop relations with Southeast Asia. Affirming the sovereignty of the Republic of China is are the right thing to do. But implementation must be prudent. One cannot suddenly deny the importance of the Mainland market, or even the benefits of cross-Strait exchanges, on the assumption that one can “pick chestnuts out of the fire”. The public expects the new government to revive Taiwan's economy. But cross-Strait relations have become increasingly tense. The first victim of such tensions will be the economy. The stalled STA talks have undermined our export competitiveness. Fewer Mainland tourists has cut into vendor profits. Once the flames of diplomatic war erupt, they will be difficult to extinguish. Tsai Ing-wen must persuade Taiwan independence elements to change course. At the very least, she must have the courage to get out from under their thumb. Otherwise the new government, which is currently walking a tightrope, cannot possibly achive prosperity for Taiwan.

Taiwan politics, which has long been divided along blue vs. green lines, remains trapped within a whirlpool. Tsai Ing-wen's honeymoon period is not quite over. But Lin Chuan's honeymoon period is about to end. Genuine vigilance is the order of the day.

聯合／蔡英文執政滿月的三大難題
2016-06-20 01:39 聯合報 聯合報社論

分享五二○就任至今，蔡英文總統執政正好滿月。綜觀各方的民調，蔡英文的滿意度在五成上下，可見多數國人對其領導表示支持；然而，閣揆林全的滿意度低她近十個百分點，顯示新內閣的表現無法讓民眾滿意。
蔡英文與林全的偌大支持差距，耐人尋味。其中原因有三：第一，內閣首長狀況頻傳，或因個人言行失當，或因政策發言偏頗，均須由林全概括承受，這也暴露了閣員素質不齊。第二，相對於新閣的亂象橫生，蔡英文的元首角色詮釋更為妥貼，民眾也能區辨兩者之別，未混為一談。第三，民眾對於新政府仍然頗有期待，願意多給新總統一些時間改善；問題是，民眾對內閣首長頻頻凸槌的怒火，不知何時便會燒過府院之間的防火線，新政府不能不謹慎以對。

蔡英文上任一個月來的表現，堪稱穩健。她集中心力走訪三軍號召團結，不時接見外賓，並畫龍點睛地參與社會活動，表現元首親民的一面；對於內閣部長的暴衝，她則利用黨政平台安撫綠委，並在家中設宴與首長溝通。比較起來，她不像陳水扁那樣動輒暴走，也不像馬英九那樣直接站上火線挑起話題；這除了有助於她保持總統高度，也讓政府決策多了一些進退彈性和轉圜空間。

無論如何，經過一個月的考驗，蔡英文面對的挑戰其實也很清楚：如果她不能提升內閣部會的穩定度，如果行政決策一直處於東拉西扯、碰碰撞撞的狀態，新政府的形象勢必日漸磨損，民眾的耐性也將迅速耗光。屆時，要再推動什麼改革，恐怕就困難重重。這點，馬英九第二任期內的困頓，就是最佳的殷鑑。

歸納而言，蔡英文面對的是三大難題，每一項都需要她親手解決。第一道難題，是競選政見與施政現實的差距。蔡英文的競選政見是在野時所提出，當時或許為了反對而反對，或許因未及深思熟慮，如今到了實踐時刻，未免與現實有所扞格。一個月來出現諸多的政策「髮夾彎」，乃至閣員奉若聖旨的一些論調，問題都出在競選政見與社會現實碰撞，發生了脫軌現象或被迫轉彎。其中最明顯的例子是，廢核的承諾不可動搖，但眼看著缺電危機迫在眉睫，卻只能求諸大學節電、或重返水力發電等「古方」，果真是明智之舉嗎？解決之道，恐怕蔡英文必須適度修改選舉支票，以符合兌現之可能。

第二道難題，是新政府與執政黨的磨合。林全內閣的組成強調的是「專業」，相對而言，閣員的政治性格和政治敏感度則普遍偏弱；也因此，許多閣員的發言動輒挑動社會神經，包括一些周邊的人事任命，都讓民進黨立委破口大罵。問題在，如果過度遷就黨意，勢必形成對綠營的「偏袒」，喪失國家元首的超然，也造成國家資源分配的誤用。這點，蔡英文既然黨政雙駕，即必須妥慎拿捏溝通；否則，若留下徇私的口實，即難以再獲民眾尊重。

第三道難題，是現行兩岸政策對經濟和外交的不利。新政府要擺脫對中國大陸的經濟依賴，要建立主權尊嚴，要發展與東南亞的關係，都是正確的目標；問題是，作法上應該穩健以行，不宜驟然否定中國大陸市場的重要性，甚至否定兩岸既有的良好交流，卻以為可以火中取栗。目前民眾對新政府期待最深的，正是台灣經濟的重振；但兩岸關係轉趨緊張，首當其衝的必然是經濟，不僅服貿貨貿停議影響廠商出口競爭，包括陸客減少都會影響攤商經濟。一旦外交烽火點燃，勢必更難收拾。關鍵在，蔡英文必須在兩岸政策上設法說服獨派，或至少要有勇氣擺脫其牽制；否則，要在鋼索上打造富強的台灣，豈有可能？

台灣的政治，在藍綠二分後，已陷入一種相互牽制的漩渦。蔡英文的蜜月期餘溫猶在，但林全的蜜月期轉瞬即逝，實值得警惕。

Trust between the People: The Foundation for Cross-Strait Relations

Trust between the People: The Foundation for Cross-Strait Relations 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 17, 2016

Executive Summary: One cannot establish trust among people overnight.  But cross-Strait relations and trust among ordinary people has far-reaching significance. As the saying goes, "Deep roots enable a tree to live long". If trust between people cannot be established, then trust between governments will be impossible. Cross-Strait relations are currently in deep water. A key reason is insufficient trust at the grassroots level. This is the reason for the lack of momentum.

Full Text Below:

The "Straits Forum" convened in Xiamen on the 12th as scheduled. Cross-Strait relations are now in a state of "Cold Confrontation". The convening of the forum however, sent several positive signals. First, cross-Strait relations remain on track. They remain sustainable. The channels for communication and consultations between MAC and the SEF, and between ARATS and the Taiwan Affairs Office have been admittedly been interrupted. But the Straits Forum was held as usual. This means that fundamentally, Mainland policy has not changed as a result of political changes on Taiwan. Second, the Mainland dealings with Taiwan have changed, from "official" to "unofficial". Both Mainland CPPCC Chairman Yu Zhengsheng and Taiwan political party leaders were present at the meeting. They will continue promoting non-governmental exchanges. Third, cross-Strait private sector cooperation is being expanded. This year the forum agenda covers issues relating to youth, the public interest, community, science and technology, meteorology, and think tank exchanges. The surfeit of projects underscores the potential for cross-Strait private sector cooperation.

The Straits Forum was born of the need for cross-Strait communications. Eight years of work at the grass roots level has enabled hundreds of thousands of people to understand each other better, develop friendships, and discover affinities. Political party exchanges may be frozen, but the forum retains its vitality. It adopts a private sector approach. This suits the Mainland, which seeks to increase cross-Strait economic and social integration, and narrow the distance between hearts and minds. It also addresses the need for increased private sector trust amidst a lack of government trust.

Over the past 30 years, cross-Strait exchanges have increased. But cross-Strait trust has not increased accordingly. Mainland demands for reunification have never changed. But the two sides' values, societies, and political systems remain different. Doubts about the sustainability of differing economic models persist. The rise of the Mainland has led to a "I call the shots" mindset toward Taiwan. The Sunflower Student Movement and opposition to the STA revealed how differently people on the two sides perceive cross-Strait cooperation. Public reaction toward Taiwan on the Mainland also varies widely. Taiwan scam artists operating out of Kenya sparked heated debate on the Mainland. As one online comment put it, "Taiwan's boast that its greatest tourist attraction is her people is a lie”. Mainland discontent with Taiwan was also in evidence when Mainlanders broke through the Great Firewall and left comments on Taiwan Facebook pages.

People on both sides of the Strait have the cultural roots. The same blood flows through their veins. The only difference is their historical perception. Prolonged isolation has left the two sides unable to share the same experience, still less create a common history. The inevitable result has been some degree of alienation. Their perceptions, feelings, and values differ. Taken as a whole, they have a "You and I are different" feeling. Cross-Strait information exchange is hampered by geography and government and media inertia. These limitations result in isolation and distorted information. People on the two sides have trouble understanding who their real enemy is. Politicians incite political divisions, making trust among people difficult.

One cannot establish trust among people overnight.  But cross-Strait relations and trust among ordinary people has far-reaching significance. As the saying goes, "Deep roots enable a tree to live long". If trust between people cannot be established, then trust between governments will be impossible. Cross-Strait relations are currently in deep water. A key reason is insufficient trust at the grassroots level. This is the reason for the lack of momentum.

Breaking through the current dilemma requires bottom-up support. Shared living experiences and a shared history contribute to mutual trust and the creation of a shared cross-Strait destiny. The Straits Forum offers a model. It focuses on youth and the grassroots. It highlights the sharing of experiences. This new form of cross-Strait dialogue links young entrepreneurs. It enabled Jingdong Group CEO Liu Qiangdong and Taiwan Phison Chairman Pan Chien-Cheng to provide employment and entrepreneurship opportunities, and to fulfill their shared dream of a platform for exchanges. Livelihood-related topics include a Fujian FTA, the construction of a "Marine Silk Road", community governance, and public service activities. All of these involve in depth, shared experiences and opportunities for cooperation between industry on both sides.

Without communication there can be no trust. Only in depth exchanges can establish shared memories and develop mutual trust. Addressing the future cross-strait development, Yu Zhengsheng said the more complex relations are between the two sides, the more people must communicate.

KMT Vice Chairman Hu, Hualien County Chief Fu Kun-chi and others also addressed the forum. Ordinary people on both sides are the most powerful promoters of cross-Strait relations, they said. People to people exchanges must be increased.

Regarding information distortions, think tanks and the media must play a larger role. They are the channel by which people on the two sides can understand each other. The two sides must build mutual trust through media interaction. They must objectively and impartially communicate information. This will build cross-Strait trust at the grassroots level. Exchanges among think tanks can fill the void left by interrupted political party exchanges. They can communicate real intentions, reduce misunderstandings, and offer constructive suggestions.

Establishing a shared identity among the younger generation will take longer. The wider the door is opened, the more opportunities there will be for interaction. The more extensive the interactions, the more cross-Strait trust will grow. But all this depends on official mobilization of private sector forces. Official cross-Strait relations have been interrupted. High-level party officials must be more open minded. They must keep the common people in mind. They must respect their wishes. The must devote their energy and resources to cross-Strait exchanges among young people, for they are the basis for long-term cross-Strait peace and goodwill.

深化民間互信是兩岸基礎工程
2016年06月17日 中國時報

「兩岸海峽論壇」12日如期在廈門舉行，在兩岸關係進入「冷對抗」情勢下，此次論壇的召開傳遞了幾個訊號：一是兩岸關係仍在可持續發展的軌道上，兩會、陸委會與國台辦常態化溝通機制與協商管道雖告中斷，海峽論壇照常舉辦，表示大陸對台大政方針未因台灣政局變化而變化。二是大陸對台工作模式調整，由「官」轉「民」。大陸政協主席俞正聲、台灣政黨領袖均出席大會，將共同致力推動民間交流。三是兩岸民間合作領域擴大。今年論壇議程涵蓋青年、公益、社區、科技、氣象、智庫交流，專案之豐富凸顯兩岸民間合作面廣闊，且可發掘的潛力巨大。

海峽論壇應兩岸關係而生，8年間深耕兩岸基層，數十萬兩岸民眾由此增進了解、加深情誼，展現親和力與生命力，在兩岸政黨交流「急凍」情境下，仍展現出巨大活力。走民間道路，契合大陸現階段「深化兩岸經濟社會融合發展，拉近同胞心靈距離」思路，也切合化解兩岸「政治互信不足，民間互信待提升」的需要。

30多年來，兩岸互動雖然漸趨頻繁，但互信水準卻未升至相應高度。大陸對台灣堅持統一從未鬆動，兩岸價值觀、社會運作模式與政治制度都有一段差距，對經濟模式的可持續性又存有疑慮，加上大陸崛起後社會反向瀰漫的「台灣我最大」氛圍。太陽花反服貿就體現出民間社會對兩岸合作的認知落差，大陸民間社會對台灣也出現多樣情緒。肯亞事件在大陸民間引發熱議，網路媒體上出現「台灣最美的風景是騙人」等言論，大陸「帝吧出征」台灣，論戰中對立情緒也可見一斑。

兩岸血脈相通、文化同根，但歷史記憶大不同。兩岸因長期隔絕，未能分享相同的經驗，更未創造共同歷史，積蓄了一定的反向力量，彼此的認知、情感和價值不同，社會運作亦有別，聚在一起，容易有「你和我不同」的感覺。兩岸資訊交流受到地理、政府管理及傳播機構慣性等因素限制，造成相互封閉、訊息扭曲等現象，兩岸民眾非常不容易全面了解真實的對方，加上政治人物操縱政治對立，民間互信自然十分困難。

建立民間互信非一日之功，但民間互信對兩岸關係發展有深遠意義。「柢固則生長，根深則樹久」，民間互信若不能建立，上層互動乃至互信建立則更加艱難。當前兩岸關係進入深水區，重要原因亦在於兩岸民間層面社會支援度不夠，動力不足。

突破當前困境，需要自下而上的力量支撐。創造共同生活的經歷乃至共同歷史記憶才能有助於互信，繼而建設兩岸命運共同體。此次海峽論壇做出典範，側重青年和基層，突出體驗式交流。新增的兩岸青年企業家對話環節，提供了京東集團首席執行官劉強東與台灣群聯電子董事長潘健成等就兩岸青年就業創業、共圓夢想深入交流的平台。有關民生話題，從福建自貿區、「海絲」建設，到社區治理、公益活動，都有深度參與環節，兩岸業界共用經驗和機遇，對口合作。

沒有交流就沒有互信，有了深度交流才能建立起共同的記憶，就可以培養互信。俞正聲在海峽論壇中談及兩岸未來發展時表示，兩岸愈複雜，民眾愈須交流。

國民黨副主席胡志強、花蓮縣縣長傅崐萁等也在發言中表示，兩岸民眾是兩岸關係發展最有力的推動者，應當大力加強兩岸民眾交流。

針對兩岸資訊扭曲問題，智庫和媒體可以扮演更重要角色。作為兩岸民眾了解彼此的最主要管道，兩岸媒體應通過互動交流建立互信，客觀、公正地溝通兩岸，建立起兩岸民間互信的基礎。智庫交流則可以補位當前政黨交流的空缺，溝通彼此真正意圖，減少誤判，並提出建設性建議。

青年一代建立認同需要更長的時間，兩岸之門開得越多，雙向進入的機會越多，交流的領域越廣，兩岸互信就會得到根本的增長。但這一切都有賴兩岸官方更多的擘畫，調動民間力量廣泛參與。當此兩岸官方關係中斷之際，格外需要兩岸政黨高層放寬格局，以蒼生為念，順民心而行，把精力、資源更多的投向兩岸青年的民間往來，長期奠基兩岸和平，是為仁、智也。