Help the Green Camp Assess Tsai-Lin Government Successes and Failures
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 1, 2016
Executive Summary: Green Camp criticism of the Tsai government has intensified. Green camp members are even referring to Tsai Ing-wen as a “hun jun”, i.e., a “fatuous and self-indulgent ruler”. Taiwan independence elder Wu Li-pei is livid. He says that "If Lin Chuan does not step down, Tsai Ing-wen is done for". He echoed the sentiments of many green camp members. But would replacing Lin Chuan really cure what ails the Tsai government? That is far too naive.
Full Text Below:
Green Camp criticism of the Tsai government has intensified. Green camp members are even referring to Tsai Ing-wen as a “hun jun”, i.e., a “fatuous and self-indulgent ruler”. Taiwan independence elder Wu Li-pei is livid. He says that "If Lin Chuan does not step down, Tsai Ing-wen is done for". He echoed the sentiments of many green camp members. But would replacing Lin Chuan really cure what ails the Tsai government? That is far too naive.
President Tsai has been in office 100 days. But no one is happy. Most people think she has departed from mainstream consensus. The blue camp accuses her of carrying out a political vendetta. The green camp disapproves of her "old, blue, male" cabinet appointments. Beijing is unhappy with her refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Everyone is displeased with her. The Tsai Lin government's response is either too slow or too self-contradictory. The new government's halo has already lost its luster. A government cannot please everyone. No government can stonewall indefinitely. That much is abundantly clear.
Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to take a different path than Chen Shui-bian. But the problem is, she cannot decide what path to take. As a result, she is encountering obstacles all along the way. Many green camp members wax nostalgic over the early days of Chen Shui-bian's rule. They want Tsai Ing-wen to revert to the old green camp path. They assume only that can restore the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's prestige. Chen Shui-bian's path has been proven a failure. Nevertheless it haunts many green camp members like an apparition. Even younger generation green camp members recall Chen Shui-bian's political trickery with fondness. It now remains to be seen whether Tsai Ing-wen possesses the vision and wisdom to change course. If she doesn't, then all she can do is follow meekly in Chen Shui-bian's footsteps, and lead Taiwan to an even greater disaster.
The first indicator is Lin Chuan. Will he become "Tang Fei the Second"? Taiwan independence elements are blasting Lin Chuan. But Tsai Ing-wen is unlikely to throw Lin Chuan to the wolves. At least not immediately. Lin Chuan is more like a partner to Tsai Ying-wen. Tang Fei was more a “guest” and “shield” to Chen Shui-bian. The relationships are quite different. Also, dumping Lin Chuan would probably leave Tsai Ing-wen without a hand to play. Her plight would be even more desperate. When Chen Shui-bian pushed "giant rock" Tang Fei out of his way, all his rhetoric about "a government for all the people", and "a new centrist path" fell by the wayside. Tsai Ing-wen is unlikely to make the same mistake.
The second indicator is whether Tsai can reconcile the differences between the “Tsai-Lin government” and a “DPP government”. Since taking office, Tsai Ing-wen has been struggling to maintain a relationship between the party and the government, but with little success. Differences between the party and the government remain and often lead to clashes. Tsai Ing-wen has given many younger people government jobs. But this has not eased frictions. In short, current Tsai government personnel appointments have not moved the machinery of state. They have failed to meet public expectations. Even if Tsai fails to replace Lin Chuan, she must appoint better people to the cabinet. Otherwise the tail will continue to wag the dog, and the Tsai government will continue to be hijacked by extremist forces.
The third indicator is Tsai Ing-wen's ability to reflect on her own path. The Lin Chuan cabinet has disappointed the public. But those whom the green camp wants to step down, include the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Chief of MAC. All of them are under the President's direct command. Is this a matter of politics, or a matter of decision-making ability? That has yet to be determined. In fact, during the her first 100 days, Tsai Ying-wen directly or indirectly intervened in affairs large and small. Her micro-management has led to confusion over authority and responsibility. Pressure groups have overreached and undermined the rule of law. On the surface, the government has resolved a whole host of problems. But endless complications will ensue, making it ever more difficult to implement fair policies. Tsai Ing-wen relied on pressure groups to seize power. She is now returning the favor. But if one's goal is a sound civil society, one cannot afford to shoot holes in the rule of law. Otherwise one is bound to fall short.
Wu Li-pei's fate will not be Tsai Ing-wen's fate. Tsai Ing-wen's fate will not be determined by whether Lin Chuan goes or stays. Just what sort of government do the green camp and Taiwan independence forces want? Even they cannot say. But careful review of the Tsai government's first 100 days, shows that "green camp ecumenism" is not the answer. If Tsai Ing-wen does not want her administration to go down the tubes, she had better be clear on who is leading her around by the nose.
聯合／幫綠營重新盤點蔡林政府功過
2016-09-01 03:41 聯合報 聯合報社論
最近，綠營對蔡政府的批評聲浪越拉越高，連「昏君」的重話都脫口而出。獨派大老吳澧培更是怒火沖天，指名道姓「林全不下台，蔡英文沒有明天」；此話，恐怕道出了許多綠營人士的心聲。但是，換掉林全，蔡政府的病症就能霍然而癒嗎？這種想法未免太過天真。
蔡英文總統執政百日，其實各方都不滿意。一般民眾認為她偏離了全民的主軸，藍營批評她專搞鬥爭清算，綠營認為「老藍男」內閣所用非人，北京則不滿她拒絕承認九二共識。面對這四面八方紛來沓至的不滿，蔡林政府的因應不是過於緩慢，就是陷入髮夾彎，新政光環因此快速磨損。施政不能一味討好，也不能光靠硬拗，由此可見。
目前主要的問題是，蔡英文企圖走一條不同於陳水扁的執政路線，卻不知路徑何在，因此一路摸索頻遇荊棘。另一方面，許多綠營人士則仍迷戀陳水扁執政早期的「風光」，希望把蔡英文拉回以綠營為中心的老路，以為如此才能光大民進黨的執政威望。事實上，陳水扁路線早已證明是失敗，但它仍像鬼魅般盤踞在綠營人士心頭，連年輕一代幕僚也還在懷念陳水扁耍點小技即能讓全國傾倒的輝煌時光。現在，就看蔡英文能否有足夠的瞻矚和智慧自我調整，如果不能，她恐怕只能選擇向陳水扁路線偏倚，而那恐怕就是台灣更大的災厄。
第一項指標，是林全會不會變成「唐飛第二」。儘管獨派連續砲打林全，蔡英文應不至於立即將林全當成犧牲供品；原因是，其一，林全和蔡英文比較像是夥伴關係，與唐飛之於陳水扁是「客卿」及「擋箭牌」關係大不相同；其二，拋棄林全，蔡英文手中恐怕也沒有第二張好牌可打，情況只會更為棘手。何況，當年陳水扁搬開唐飛這塊「大石頭」之後，他夸夸其談的「全民政府」和「新中間路線」也就圖窮匕現，一路破功。蔡英文大概不會奉這種失敗的經驗為師。
第二個指標，是蔡英文有沒有能力解決「蔡林政府」和「民進黨政府」之間「形影脫離」的關係。上任以來，蔡英文試圖在「黨」和「政」之間維持一定的並駕關係，但顯然並不成功；黨和政的扞格不僅始終存在，而且時常互相牽制。蔡英文雖安排了相當數量的年輕世代進入政府擔任機要職位，卻未發揮潤滑效用。簡言之，目前蔡政府的人事結構，無法順利推動偌大的國家機器，因此難以滿足人民的期待。就這點而言，即使不撤換林全，內閣人事也有必要再作結構上的強化；否則，蔡政府就會不斷出現「尾巴搖狗」現象，一直被極端勢力牽著走。
第三個指標，是蔡英文對自己路線和能力的反省。林全內閣表現雖然讓人失望，但綠營點名應該下台的首長，包括國防部、外交部、陸委會等，其實都是總統直接指揮的部會。這究竟是政治屬性的問題，還是元首決策品質欠佳，必須加以區辨。事實上，上任百日來，蔡英文直接或間接地插手各種大小事務，不僅導致權責混淆，更是治絲益棼。其中，包括對若干公民團體或社運團體的過度傾俯，已到了踰越法治及破壞體制的地步；表面上雖收拾了一個眼前問題，卻可能帶來無窮後遺症，也讓施政公平愈發難以落實。蔡英文在相當程度上是靠著公民運動之助而取得政權，因此願意勤於回饋；然而，如果要塑造健全的公民社會，卻不斷向法制鑿洞，結果必將功虧一簣。
吳澧培的明天，當然不會是蔡英文的明天；而蔡英文的明天，當然也不僅繫於林全的去留。綠營或獨派到底想要什麼樣的政府，他們其實也說不清楚；但是，仔細盤點一下蔡英文執政百日的功過，這顯然不是走回「綠色大一統」的路線即能解決。蔡英文如果不想執政顛顛簸簸一路下滑，她得想清楚誰在牽著自己的鼻子走。
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Old Problems Unsolved, New Problems Created
Old Problems Unsolved, New Problems Created
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 31, 2016
Executive Summary: Nobody likes bad-mouthing the government. When a government is unable to solve problems, ordinary people suffer. Tsai Ing-wen wants people not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. We agree. But after 100 days in office, most people are disappointed. That is a fact. Tsai Ing-wen still has time. Create fewer problems. Solve the problems it has now.
Full Text Below:
The new government has been in office 100 days. But many agencies and media surveys already show the new government's approval ratings headed straight for the basement. Some show disapproval ratings higher than approval ratings. The media has used the term "on death's door". Contrast this with the nearly 70% approval rating it enjoyed when it first took office early this year, after its landslide victory. Tsai Ing-wen's approval rating after 100 days, shows that her administration's honeymoon period is long over. Did the public expect too much? Or did the administration deliver too little?
Recently Tsai Ing-wen told reporters "I hope others will not judge me by my first 100 days in office. By the same token, I am not judging my cabinet by its first 100 days in office”. She claimed that every day since May 20, she has been “solving problems". She said many problems are a legacy from the past. The people have chosen a new government because they hope it will confront and solve problems. "People hope the new government will not pass the buck onto past administrations”. Therefore every day she reminded the ruling DPP administration, "People want to see a different government."
Most people echo President Tsai's concessions. Taiwan has indeed inherited many complex problems. When people choose a new government, they invariably expect the new administration to confront and solve those problems. Tsai Ing-wen promised the voters. She admonished her leadership team. Everyone appears to take the matter seriously. Who doesn't want to see a government solve problems? But has the new government actually solved any problems during its first 100 days? What do the people think? Has the government failed to solve old problems, and instead created new problems?
True. Judging a new president and a new government by its first 100 days in office is unfair, and unnecessary. But 100 days after all, Is more than three months. The administration should have determined its direction long ago. Three months is enough time to understand the new President and the new Premier's political character, decision-making style, policy priorities, domestic policy, foreign policy, cross-Strait policy, and economic policy. Three months is enough time to judge their capacity to govern. More than enough time in fact. The US has a presidential system. American journalists and academics consider the first 100 days a reliable indicator of whether an administration is destined to live or die.
Permit us to be blunt. The poll results are not an exaggeration. Much of the data is embarrassing for the new government. It was made public by agencies close to the green camp. It accurately reflects the public mood. After 100 days of rule, the economy is no better, society is no more harmonious, cross-Strait relations are no more stable, and diplomatic space has not increased. All these problems are getting worse. Leave these problems aside for the moment. The fact remains that over the past three months the new government has created more problems than it has solved.
Call it coincidence. But on the eve of the new government's first 100 days, Genesis International Travel, a company specializing in Mainland tourism, declared bankruptcy. It was the first travel industry company specializing in Mainland tourism to declare bankruptcy since the new government came to power. One can dismiss it as an isolated case. But it could be a canary in the coal mine. The travel industry has been complaining for some time. Since the new government came to power, many hotels have been “watching over empty rooms”, or enjoying "five day off a week". The only business they are doing is on weekends. The only advice the new government has offered the travel industry has been to “survive the hardship together”. The industry has gotten the message loud and clear. The government doesn't care whether it lives or dies. The problem is staring the new government in the face, but it acts as if it does not exist.
What is the new government's answer? Why it's the "New Southern Strategy”, of course! The Mainland has been signing Free Trade Agreements. It has laid out its plan for One Belt, One Road (OBOR) all the way to Southeast Asia. Meanwhile Taiwan refuses to sign the STA and MTA. Tariffs alone prevent any industry from leaving Taiwan. The new government sings the virtues of its "New Southern Strategy”. But for many industries, it remains a mirage. SPIL CEO Lin Wen-po asked the new government, "How can the semiconductor industry go south?" The government has not even considered the supply chain cluster phenomenon. The major semiconductor plants have not moved to Southeast Asia. What good will Taiwan moving south by itself do? How does this solve any problems?
So what has the new government been doing during its first 100 days? In the name of justice, it has withdrawn all charges against the students who illegally occupied the Executive Yuan. It has canceled needed corrections to school history texts. It has abolished the "Red Cross Law" in order to incite class struggle and push pension reform. It has used the "Improper Party Assets Ordinance" to conduct a political purge. It has bought off protesting National Highway System toll collectors with tax monies taken from nearly everyone. It has turned a blind eye to inevitable electricity rate hikes. It has imposed its nuclear free homeland policy in a dictatorial manner. It has dropped a bundle on the emergency construction of natural gas power generation plants. It has undermined the dignity of the nation with its mishandling of the Taiping Island issue. It has dealth with the China Airlines flight attendants strike in a manner that encourages all trade unions to follow suit. It has handled the legal holidays issue in a manner that precludes dialogue with labor. One could go on. But the point is, does any of this look like “solving problems”?
Nobody likes bad-mouthing the government. When a government is unable to solve problems, ordinary people suffer. Tsai Ing-wen wants people not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. We agree. But after 100 days in office, most people are disappointed. That is a fact. Tsai Ing-wen still has time. Create fewer problems. Solve the problems it has now.
舊問題未解決 又製造更多新問題
2016年08月31日 中國時報
新政府執政百天，數個機構與媒體陸續發布民調數據，所有調查都顯示新政府的滿意度直線下跌，部分調查的不滿意度已超過滿意度，媒體都用了「死亡交叉」來形容。相較於年初壓倒式的勝選，就任時近7成的滿意度，蔡英文執政百天的民意評價，顯示她連最起碼的蜜月期都未嘗經歷！這究竟是民眾望治太急切，還是執政團隊出了問題？
蔡英文日前與記者茶敘時表示，「我不希望別人用100天來評斷我個人執政的成敗；同樣地，我也不會只用100天的時間來評論內閣閣員的表現」。她自陳從520到現在，每天都在「解決問題」。她表示，很多問題是長期累積的，人民選擇新政府，是希望能夠勇敢地面對問題、解決問題，「人民也不會希望，新政府將責任全部推給過去」。所以，她每天也用一樣的話告訴民進黨所有執政團隊，「人民希望看到不一樣的政府」。
蔡總統這段告白，很大部分我們是同意的。當下的台灣，確實累積了不少複雜難解的問題，人民選擇新政府，本來就是期盼新的執政團隊能夠勇敢面對問題、解決問題。蔡英文給選民的許諾，以及她對她所領導團隊的叮囑，相信所有人都是認真看待的，誰會不期待看到一個能「解決問題」的政府？但重點就在這裡，剛滿百日的新政府，究竟解決了哪些問題，讓人民有感？或是舊問題還沒有解決，卻製造了更多新問題？
是的，用百日評斷新總統、新政府成敗，確實不公平，也沒有必要。但100天畢竟已3個多月，執政團隊早已就定位，經過3個多月時間後，要理解、判斷新總統與新閣揆的政治性格、決策風格、施政優先順序及新團隊的內政、外交、兩岸、經濟等方方面面的觀念與作風，乃至評斷其治理能力，3個月時間其實很夠了。實施總統制的美國媒體與學術界，就經常以「百日定生死」評斷新總統的政治生命！
容我們直白地說，民調的結果並不誇張，有不少讓新政府特別難堪的數據，還是與綠營關係密切的機構所發布，它誠實反映了民眾當下真實的感覺，亦就是經歷了百日執政，經濟其實並沒有更好，社會並沒有更和諧，兩岸並沒有更穩定，外交空間也並沒有更大，麻煩的是，種種跡象也都顯示，上述這些層面都正在邁向更壞，就算這些大的層面姑且按下不表，過去這3個多月，這個政府製造問題的能耐，遠遠超過它解決問題的能力！
算是湊巧吧，就在新府執政滿百日前夕，一家專營陸客團生意的創世紀國際旅行社驚傳倒閉，這是新政府上台後首家倒閉的接陸客團旅行社，你可以說它只是樁個案，但它卻也可能就是個領先指標與徵候，因為旅行業者早早就在哀鳴了，新政府上台以來，很多旅館幾乎是「守空房」、「周休五日」只做得到周末生意，新政府唯一的召喚，就是叫業者共體時艱，給業者的感受等於是「叫業者去死」。這個問題在新政府上台前，可是不存在的！
而新政府給的答案是什麼？是「新南向政策」！選在大陸透過自由貿易協定，外加一帶一路布局東南亞已經成熟的此刻，台灣沒簽服貿、貨貿，所有產業光在關稅這一關就出不了台灣，新政府高唱的「新南向」，對許多產業而言可望不可及，矽品董事長林文伯就選在百日前夕質問新政府：「半導體南向做什麼？」如果政府根本沒考慮供應鏈群聚效應的問題，各大半導體廠都沒往東南亞聚集，單單台灣南向又有何用？這是在解決問題嗎？
打著正義的旗號，新政府在這100天當中，撤告了違法占領行政院的學生，廢止了微調課綱， 廢止了《紅十字會法》，以近乎煽起階級鬥爭的方式推動年金改革；以近乎清算的手段推動《不當黨產條例》；以近乎全民買單的方式滿足國道收費員的抗爭；無視電價勢必大幅調漲，以近乎粗暴的手段實質廢核，並擴編預算緊急興建天然氣發電廠，其他如處理太平島問題讓國格喪盡，處理華航空服員罷工的模式讓所有工會群起效尤，處理「一例一休」問題讓勞資根本不再對話，例子還可再舉下去，這一切的一切，都像是在解決問題嗎？
沒有人喜歡唱衰政府，因為碰到不能解決問題的政府，受害最大的還是尋常民眾。蔡英文不希望別人用100天來評斷她個人執政的成敗，我們同意，但百日執政讓高比例民眾感到失望，卻也是抹不去的事實。蔡英文還有足夠的時間，少製造問題，趕快務實解決問題吧！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 31, 2016
Executive Summary: Nobody likes bad-mouthing the government. When a government is unable to solve problems, ordinary people suffer. Tsai Ing-wen wants people not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. We agree. But after 100 days in office, most people are disappointed. That is a fact. Tsai Ing-wen still has time. Create fewer problems. Solve the problems it has now.
Full Text Below:
The new government has been in office 100 days. But many agencies and media surveys already show the new government's approval ratings headed straight for the basement. Some show disapproval ratings higher than approval ratings. The media has used the term "on death's door". Contrast this with the nearly 70% approval rating it enjoyed when it first took office early this year, after its landslide victory. Tsai Ing-wen's approval rating after 100 days, shows that her administration's honeymoon period is long over. Did the public expect too much? Or did the administration deliver too little?
Recently Tsai Ing-wen told reporters "I hope others will not judge me by my first 100 days in office. By the same token, I am not judging my cabinet by its first 100 days in office”. She claimed that every day since May 20, she has been “solving problems". She said many problems are a legacy from the past. The people have chosen a new government because they hope it will confront and solve problems. "People hope the new government will not pass the buck onto past administrations”. Therefore every day she reminded the ruling DPP administration, "People want to see a different government."
Most people echo President Tsai's concessions. Taiwan has indeed inherited many complex problems. When people choose a new government, they invariably expect the new administration to confront and solve those problems. Tsai Ing-wen promised the voters. She admonished her leadership team. Everyone appears to take the matter seriously. Who doesn't want to see a government solve problems? But has the new government actually solved any problems during its first 100 days? What do the people think? Has the government failed to solve old problems, and instead created new problems?
True. Judging a new president and a new government by its first 100 days in office is unfair, and unnecessary. But 100 days after all, Is more than three months. The administration should have determined its direction long ago. Three months is enough time to understand the new President and the new Premier's political character, decision-making style, policy priorities, domestic policy, foreign policy, cross-Strait policy, and economic policy. Three months is enough time to judge their capacity to govern. More than enough time in fact. The US has a presidential system. American journalists and academics consider the first 100 days a reliable indicator of whether an administration is destined to live or die.
Permit us to be blunt. The poll results are not an exaggeration. Much of the data is embarrassing for the new government. It was made public by agencies close to the green camp. It accurately reflects the public mood. After 100 days of rule, the economy is no better, society is no more harmonious, cross-Strait relations are no more stable, and diplomatic space has not increased. All these problems are getting worse. Leave these problems aside for the moment. The fact remains that over the past three months the new government has created more problems than it has solved.
Call it coincidence. But on the eve of the new government's first 100 days, Genesis International Travel, a company specializing in Mainland tourism, declared bankruptcy. It was the first travel industry company specializing in Mainland tourism to declare bankruptcy since the new government came to power. One can dismiss it as an isolated case. But it could be a canary in the coal mine. The travel industry has been complaining for some time. Since the new government came to power, many hotels have been “watching over empty rooms”, or enjoying "five day off a week". The only business they are doing is on weekends. The only advice the new government has offered the travel industry has been to “survive the hardship together”. The industry has gotten the message loud and clear. The government doesn't care whether it lives or dies. The problem is staring the new government in the face, but it acts as if it does not exist.
What is the new government's answer? Why it's the "New Southern Strategy”, of course! The Mainland has been signing Free Trade Agreements. It has laid out its plan for One Belt, One Road (OBOR) all the way to Southeast Asia. Meanwhile Taiwan refuses to sign the STA and MTA. Tariffs alone prevent any industry from leaving Taiwan. The new government sings the virtues of its "New Southern Strategy”. But for many industries, it remains a mirage. SPIL CEO Lin Wen-po asked the new government, "How can the semiconductor industry go south?" The government has not even considered the supply chain cluster phenomenon. The major semiconductor plants have not moved to Southeast Asia. What good will Taiwan moving south by itself do? How does this solve any problems?
So what has the new government been doing during its first 100 days? In the name of justice, it has withdrawn all charges against the students who illegally occupied the Executive Yuan. It has canceled needed corrections to school history texts. It has abolished the "Red Cross Law" in order to incite class struggle and push pension reform. It has used the "Improper Party Assets Ordinance" to conduct a political purge. It has bought off protesting National Highway System toll collectors with tax monies taken from nearly everyone. It has turned a blind eye to inevitable electricity rate hikes. It has imposed its nuclear free homeland policy in a dictatorial manner. It has dropped a bundle on the emergency construction of natural gas power generation plants. It has undermined the dignity of the nation with its mishandling of the Taiping Island issue. It has dealth with the China Airlines flight attendants strike in a manner that encourages all trade unions to follow suit. It has handled the legal holidays issue in a manner that precludes dialogue with labor. One could go on. But the point is, does any of this look like “solving problems”?
Nobody likes bad-mouthing the government. When a government is unable to solve problems, ordinary people suffer. Tsai Ing-wen wants people not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. We agree. But after 100 days in office, most people are disappointed. That is a fact. Tsai Ing-wen still has time. Create fewer problems. Solve the problems it has now.
舊問題未解決 又製造更多新問題
2016年08月31日 中國時報
新政府執政百天，數個機構與媒體陸續發布民調數據，所有調查都顯示新政府的滿意度直線下跌，部分調查的不滿意度已超過滿意度，媒體都用了「死亡交叉」來形容。相較於年初壓倒式的勝選，就任時近7成的滿意度，蔡英文執政百天的民意評價，顯示她連最起碼的蜜月期都未嘗經歷！這究竟是民眾望治太急切，還是執政團隊出了問題？
蔡英文日前與記者茶敘時表示，「我不希望別人用100天來評斷我個人執政的成敗；同樣地，我也不會只用100天的時間來評論內閣閣員的表現」。她自陳從520到現在，每天都在「解決問題」。她表示，很多問題是長期累積的，人民選擇新政府，是希望能夠勇敢地面對問題、解決問題，「人民也不會希望，新政府將責任全部推給過去」。所以，她每天也用一樣的話告訴民進黨所有執政團隊，「人民希望看到不一樣的政府」。
蔡總統這段告白，很大部分我們是同意的。當下的台灣，確實累積了不少複雜難解的問題，人民選擇新政府，本來就是期盼新的執政團隊能夠勇敢面對問題、解決問題。蔡英文給選民的許諾，以及她對她所領導團隊的叮囑，相信所有人都是認真看待的，誰會不期待看到一個能「解決問題」的政府？但重點就在這裡，剛滿百日的新政府，究竟解決了哪些問題，讓人民有感？或是舊問題還沒有解決，卻製造了更多新問題？
是的，用百日評斷新總統、新政府成敗，確實不公平，也沒有必要。但100天畢竟已3個多月，執政團隊早已就定位，經過3個多月時間後，要理解、判斷新總統與新閣揆的政治性格、決策風格、施政優先順序及新團隊的內政、外交、兩岸、經濟等方方面面的觀念與作風，乃至評斷其治理能力，3個月時間其實很夠了。實施總統制的美國媒體與學術界，就經常以「百日定生死」評斷新總統的政治生命！
容我們直白地說，民調的結果並不誇張，有不少讓新政府特別難堪的數據，還是與綠營關係密切的機構所發布，它誠實反映了民眾當下真實的感覺，亦就是經歷了百日執政，經濟其實並沒有更好，社會並沒有更和諧，兩岸並沒有更穩定，外交空間也並沒有更大，麻煩的是，種種跡象也都顯示，上述這些層面都正在邁向更壞，就算這些大的層面姑且按下不表，過去這3個多月，這個政府製造問題的能耐，遠遠超過它解決問題的能力！
算是湊巧吧，就在新府執政滿百日前夕，一家專營陸客團生意的創世紀國際旅行社驚傳倒閉，這是新政府上台後首家倒閉的接陸客團旅行社，你可以說它只是樁個案，但它卻也可能就是個領先指標與徵候，因為旅行業者早早就在哀鳴了，新政府上台以來，很多旅館幾乎是「守空房」、「周休五日」只做得到周末生意，新政府唯一的召喚，就是叫業者共體時艱，給業者的感受等於是「叫業者去死」。這個問題在新政府上台前，可是不存在的！
而新政府給的答案是什麼？是「新南向政策」！選在大陸透過自由貿易協定，外加一帶一路布局東南亞已經成熟的此刻，台灣沒簽服貿、貨貿，所有產業光在關稅這一關就出不了台灣，新政府高唱的「新南向」，對許多產業而言可望不可及，矽品董事長林文伯就選在百日前夕質問新政府：「半導體南向做什麼？」如果政府根本沒考慮供應鏈群聚效應的問題，各大半導體廠都沒往東南亞聚集，單單台灣南向又有何用？這是在解決問題嗎？
打著正義的旗號，新政府在這100天當中，撤告了違法占領行政院的學生，廢止了微調課綱， 廢止了《紅十字會法》，以近乎煽起階級鬥爭的方式推動年金改革；以近乎清算的手段推動《不當黨產條例》；以近乎全民買單的方式滿足國道收費員的抗爭；無視電價勢必大幅調漲，以近乎粗暴的手段實質廢核，並擴編預算緊急興建天然氣發電廠，其他如處理太平島問題讓國格喪盡，處理華航空服員罷工的模式讓所有工會群起效尤，處理「一例一休」問題讓勞資根本不再對話，例子還可再舉下去，這一切的一切，都像是在解決問題嗎？
沒有人喜歡唱衰政府，因為碰到不能解決問題的政府，受害最大的還是尋常民眾。蔡英文不希望別人用100天來評斷她個人執政的成敗，我們同意，但百日執政讓高比例民眾感到失望，卻也是抹不去的事實。蔡英文還有足夠的時間，少製造問題，趕快務實解決問題吧！
Monday, August 29, 2016
Only Pragmatism and Realism Can Salvage Tsai Ing-wen's Reputation
Only Pragmatism and Realism Can Salvage Tsai Ing-wen's Reputation
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 30, 2016
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen realizes her public support has plummeted. Recently, during a press conference, she attempted to immunize herself. She urged the media and the public not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. Some commentators however reminded Tsai Ing-wen that she took to the streets and demanded that Ma Ying-jeou step down after a mere 100 days in office. They noted her double standard. That said, she was not entirely wrong.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has been in office only 100 days, yet her halo has been nearly totally tarnished. Why? This newspaper has published a four part editorial series entitled "Exploring the New Government's Dilemma". We hope the new government will consider our views and suggestions. The first three parts amounted to a medical history. Part One was “Old Problems Remain Unsolved, New Problems Have Been Created”. Part Two was “Politics Uber Alles, Pressure Groups Rule, the Nation Imperiled”. Part Three was “Cross-Strait Relations and the Economy: The President Must Face Reality”. Part Four, the last part, offers a prescription for what ails the patient. The cure is simple. But it is not easy – pragmatism and realism. The government and the public both need to be more pragmatic and realistic.
Tsai Ing-wen realizes her public support has plummeted. Recently, during a press conference, she attempted to immunize herself. She urged the media and the public not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. Some commentators however reminded Tsai Ing-wen that she took to the streets and demanded that Ma Ying-jeou step down after a mere 100 days in office. They noted her double standard. That said, she was not entirely wrong.
Since full democratization, presidents have apparently enjoyed "power without responsibility". But in fact "orders have trouble making it out of the Presidential Office". The powers and responsibilities of the Presidential Office, the Premier, the Legislative Yuan, and the DPP Central Committee are intertwined. Coordination is difficult. Public hopes are dashed, time and again. The president cannot escape blame, cannot avoid being scolded, cannot avoid demands to step down. Do constitutional institutions and democratic practices face difficulties on Taiwan? Taiwan faces three major structural problems. Problem One. A disadvantageous international environment. The global economy is troubled. Even democracies are encountering problems. Taiwan is caught in the flood waters. It can do nothing. Problem Two. Cross-Strait relations have not been dealt with properly. This has weakened our already weak economy, and our already weak relations with foreign governments. Problem Three. Runaway domestic criticism and anger. Those in office must accept blame even when it is impossible for them to get anything done. Blue or green makes no difference.
The cure for these ills is pragmatism and realism. Prescription One is a pragmatic approach, one that empathizes with the structural difficulties faced by Tsai Ing-wen. Criticism of the government should not inflict pain, but cure disease. After all, a failed president does not mean a successful Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen's success or failure will help or hurt the people of Taiwan. Empathy for those in office, does not mean forsaking oversight. It merely means encouraging constructive oversight. Criticism can be harsh, but it must be factual. Ineptitude warrants blame, but when the government does something right, it also warrants praise.
This is not an excuse for those in office to shirk responsibility or rationalize failure. Structural problems are beyond the ability of temporary leaders to deal with. They may not be able to improve them. But at least they must not worsen them. Tsai Ing-wen cannot shirk responsibility. Over the past 100 days, the new government has failed to produce results. Tsai's critics are not wrong.
Prescription Two concerns President Tsai Ing-wen individually. She must realistically assess the situation, enable cross-Strait reconciliation, and end ruling vs. opposition party confrontation. On cross-Strait relations, the Mainland has certain expectations. The new government has not budged an inch. It needs to show the Mainland that it is sincere about seeking consensus. It also needs to end its electioneering. The election is over. It is high time the new government began governing the nation.
Tsai Ing-wen faces blue camp outrage, red camp suspicion, and green camp discontent. She is being attacked on three sides. Tsai Ing-wen must realize that Taiwan has undergone years of “democratic civil war”, replete with blue vs. green battles. The people look forward to a truce. Yet immediately upon taking office, Tsai Ing-wen raised the banner of "party assets", and "transitional justice". Swinging these swords and wreaking havoc upon the Kuomintang was a major blunder. It intensified social unrest, worsened her governance, and diminished her desire for reform. Tsai Ing-wen must "lay down her sword, and immediately seek reconciliation". Otherwise her regime will know no peace.
Red camp suspicions are the second obstacle that she must overcome. When commenting on cross-Strait matters, Tsai Ing-wen avoids provocative rhetoric. That is all well and good. But merely avoiding a negative is not enough.
Taiwan rests on its economy. The economy rests on cross-Strait relations. The impetus for Tsai Ing-wen's reforms is of course to improve people's lives. Improving people's lives requires economic prosperity. Without cross-Strait relations, there can be no economic prosperity. This is something Tsai Ing-wen must acknowledge. She must take immediate action. All three editorials stressed this point.
The final problem, ironically, is green camp discontent. Tsai Ing-wen wants to move to the center. But the centrist path is rough going. Her “centrist/Chinese" path is blocked. The deep greens, meanwhile, are in hot pursuit. Tsai Ing-wen has arrived at a political crossroads. She must be resolute. She must step up her pace. She must not cling to the deep greens and retreat. The deep greens want nothing more than to hunt down the blue camp, to oppose and eliminate Taiwan's inherently Chinese nature. If Tsai Ing-wen allows herself to be hijacked by deep green ideologues, she will take Taiwan down with her.
The third and final prescription is pragmatism and realism. In fact, it is the very thing President Tsai spoke of upon her election victory – "humility, humility, and more humility". Unfortunately, the DPP failed to receive President Tsai's memo. No wonder Tuan Yi-kang made a slip of the tongue and revealed his contempt for the voters. Only humility can end ruling vs opposition party conflict, and enable cross-Strait reconciliation. Only humility will enable Tsai Ing-wen to regain public confidence. Only humility can persuade the public to give Tsai Ing-wen more time.
務實與現實 解聲望重挫之危
2016/8/30 中國時報
蔡英文上任短短百天，光環幾乎磨耗殆盡，何以至此？本報以「探究新政府執政困境」為系列，連續發表4篇社論，希望對新政府有所針砭與建言。前3篇提出病歷分析，分別點出了〈舊問題未解決，又製造更多新問題〉、〈政治掛帥公民團體治國，國危矣〉、〈兩岸與經濟，蔡總統要面對現實〉三大病灶。總結篇將針對病灶開出藥方，這個藥說來簡單，做起來不簡單，就是五個字：「務實與現實」，政府與人民都要務實，更要現實。
蔡英文知道自己民意支持度快速滑落，日前與媒體茶敘時先打預防針，希望媒體與社會不要以百日評斷她的執政得失，雖然有論者質疑她，在馬英九就職百日時，就曾經舉辦嗆聲大遊行要馬英九下台，真可謂今是昨非，標準不一。但我們仍要指出，她這句話本身並非完全錯誤。
從完全民主化後，歷任民選總統看似「有權無責」，實則「令難出總統府」，總統、行政院、立法院、黨中央權責相互纏繞、協調困難。但民眾期待殷切，過度期待與一再失望的結果，所有總統都難逃脫「挨罵」、遭詛咒「下台」宿命，台灣的憲政體制與民主實踐是否出現問題？此外，台灣正面對三大結構性困局，一是國際大環境面不佳，全球經濟困頓，連民主政治的運行也普遍遭遇難題，台灣身陷洪流，確有難為；二是，兩岸關係未能理順，以致台灣經濟內在無力、外在失調，惡劣情勢更添霜雪；三是，國內過度批評的氛圍、遍地的憤怒，讓執政者動輒得咎，當家做不了事，成了不分藍綠的共業。
「務實與現實」藥方的第一道藥料，是以務實的態度、以同理心去理解蔡英文所面臨的結構性困境。針砭政府不是為了刺其肌骨，而是為了對症治疾，終究，一個失敗的總統不會帶來成功的台灣。蔡英文的治理成敗將直接澤及或殃及全台灣的人民。對執政者存同理心，不是放棄監督，而是鼓勵「建設性的監督」，批評可以犀利，但需依據事實；執政之非固應責難，但若有做對的地方，也當肯定。
然而，也要嚴正指出，這不是要給執政者推卸責任的空間、合理化失能的藉口。結構性的困難，固然有超越領導人一時能力的難為處，但如何面對結構性困境，努力改善，或至少不要惡化困境，卻是蔡英文無可推託的責任，就此而言，過去百日，新政府交出的成績是不及格的，外界的責難並沒有錯。
「務實與現實」的第二道藥料，是針對蔡英文總統，就是要以現實的態度審時度勢，落實兩岸和解、朝野罷鬥。對大陸堅持的兩岸關係性質問題，我方在堅持己見之餘，也要展現願意與大陸共同管控歧異、謀求共識的誠意，對內也要結束「選舉動員時期」，真正進入「執政狀態」。
蔡英文正面對了藍憤怒、紅不信、綠不滿的三面夾擊，但蔡英文要知道，台灣經歷多年民主內戰，藍綠惡鬥，全民期待休兵之心甚殷甚切，蔡英文一上台就旗幟鮮明揮動「黨產」、「轉型正義」兩柄大刀痛斬國民黨，實是一大失策。激化了社會不安，同時深化了她的治理困境，增加她的改革阻力。蔡英文必須「放下軍刀，立地和解」，否則她的執政必然難有寧日。
「紅不信」是蔡英文第二道要解的鎖。在兩岸的發言上，蔡英文不挑釁的消極自制固可肯定，但在積極創造互信的一面，卻顯然不足。
經濟是台灣之基，兩岸是經濟之本。蔡英文所有的改革能量，源頭當然就是人民生活要改善，而人民生活的改善，非經濟不為功，無兩岸不為果，這是蔡英文必須深切認知，並立刻採取行動者，也是系列三社論所強調的觀點。
三火之中，最末節部分反而是「綠不滿」，蔡英文執政最大的希望就是向中間移動，但最大的困境，也是這個「中間進程」顯然不順利，使得她「『中』路不通，『綠』追於後」。這是蔡英文的政治十字路，但在這十字路上，反而要堅定意志，加大步伐向中間之路邁進，決不可走擁抱深綠的回頭路。深綠要的無非就是加大追剿藍營、去中反中，這不啻是要蔡英文在深綠的意識型態綁架下，帶著台灣一起陪葬。
最後一道藥料，則是態度的「務實與現實」，其實也就是蔡總統在勝選時說的「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」，可惜的是，民進黨並沒有打從心底落實蔡總統的「謙卑令」，才會有段宜康「鄙視選民」的失言。只有落實謙卑，朝野罷鬥，兩岸和解，蔡英文才能贏回人民的信心，贏回人民願意給蔡英文更多一點時間的同理心。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 30, 2016
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen realizes her public support has plummeted. Recently, during a press conference, she attempted to immunize herself. She urged the media and the public not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. Some commentators however reminded Tsai Ing-wen that she took to the streets and demanded that Ma Ying-jeou step down after a mere 100 days in office. They noted her double standard. That said, she was not entirely wrong.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen has been in office only 100 days, yet her halo has been nearly totally tarnished. Why? This newspaper has published a four part editorial series entitled "Exploring the New Government's Dilemma". We hope the new government will consider our views and suggestions. The first three parts amounted to a medical history. Part One was “Old Problems Remain Unsolved, New Problems Have Been Created”. Part Two was “Politics Uber Alles, Pressure Groups Rule, the Nation Imperiled”. Part Three was “Cross-Strait Relations and the Economy: The President Must Face Reality”. Part Four, the last part, offers a prescription for what ails the patient. The cure is simple. But it is not easy – pragmatism and realism. The government and the public both need to be more pragmatic and realistic.
Tsai Ing-wen realizes her public support has plummeted. Recently, during a press conference, she attempted to immunize herself. She urged the media and the public not to judge her by her first 100 days in office. Some commentators however reminded Tsai Ing-wen that she took to the streets and demanded that Ma Ying-jeou step down after a mere 100 days in office. They noted her double standard. That said, she was not entirely wrong.
Since full democratization, presidents have apparently enjoyed "power without responsibility". But in fact "orders have trouble making it out of the Presidential Office". The powers and responsibilities of the Presidential Office, the Premier, the Legislative Yuan, and the DPP Central Committee are intertwined. Coordination is difficult. Public hopes are dashed, time and again. The president cannot escape blame, cannot avoid being scolded, cannot avoid demands to step down. Do constitutional institutions and democratic practices face difficulties on Taiwan? Taiwan faces three major structural problems. Problem One. A disadvantageous international environment. The global economy is troubled. Even democracies are encountering problems. Taiwan is caught in the flood waters. It can do nothing. Problem Two. Cross-Strait relations have not been dealt with properly. This has weakened our already weak economy, and our already weak relations with foreign governments. Problem Three. Runaway domestic criticism and anger. Those in office must accept blame even when it is impossible for them to get anything done. Blue or green makes no difference.
The cure for these ills is pragmatism and realism. Prescription One is a pragmatic approach, one that empathizes with the structural difficulties faced by Tsai Ing-wen. Criticism of the government should not inflict pain, but cure disease. After all, a failed president does not mean a successful Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen's success or failure will help or hurt the people of Taiwan. Empathy for those in office, does not mean forsaking oversight. It merely means encouraging constructive oversight. Criticism can be harsh, but it must be factual. Ineptitude warrants blame, but when the government does something right, it also warrants praise.
This is not an excuse for those in office to shirk responsibility or rationalize failure. Structural problems are beyond the ability of temporary leaders to deal with. They may not be able to improve them. But at least they must not worsen them. Tsai Ing-wen cannot shirk responsibility. Over the past 100 days, the new government has failed to produce results. Tsai's critics are not wrong.
Prescription Two concerns President Tsai Ing-wen individually. She must realistically assess the situation, enable cross-Strait reconciliation, and end ruling vs. opposition party confrontation. On cross-Strait relations, the Mainland has certain expectations. The new government has not budged an inch. It needs to show the Mainland that it is sincere about seeking consensus. It also needs to end its electioneering. The election is over. It is high time the new government began governing the nation.
Tsai Ing-wen faces blue camp outrage, red camp suspicion, and green camp discontent. She is being attacked on three sides. Tsai Ing-wen must realize that Taiwan has undergone years of “democratic civil war”, replete with blue vs. green battles. The people look forward to a truce. Yet immediately upon taking office, Tsai Ing-wen raised the banner of "party assets", and "transitional justice". Swinging these swords and wreaking havoc upon the Kuomintang was a major blunder. It intensified social unrest, worsened her governance, and diminished her desire for reform. Tsai Ing-wen must "lay down her sword, and immediately seek reconciliation". Otherwise her regime will know no peace.
Red camp suspicions are the second obstacle that she must overcome. When commenting on cross-Strait matters, Tsai Ing-wen avoids provocative rhetoric. That is all well and good. But merely avoiding a negative is not enough.
Taiwan rests on its economy. The economy rests on cross-Strait relations. The impetus for Tsai Ing-wen's reforms is of course to improve people's lives. Improving people's lives requires economic prosperity. Without cross-Strait relations, there can be no economic prosperity. This is something Tsai Ing-wen must acknowledge. She must take immediate action. All three editorials stressed this point.
The final problem, ironically, is green camp discontent. Tsai Ing-wen wants to move to the center. But the centrist path is rough going. Her “centrist/Chinese" path is blocked. The deep greens, meanwhile, are in hot pursuit. Tsai Ing-wen has arrived at a political crossroads. She must be resolute. She must step up her pace. She must not cling to the deep greens and retreat. The deep greens want nothing more than to hunt down the blue camp, to oppose and eliminate Taiwan's inherently Chinese nature. If Tsai Ing-wen allows herself to be hijacked by deep green ideologues, she will take Taiwan down with her.
The third and final prescription is pragmatism and realism. In fact, it is the very thing President Tsai spoke of upon her election victory – "humility, humility, and more humility". Unfortunately, the DPP failed to receive President Tsai's memo. No wonder Tuan Yi-kang made a slip of the tongue and revealed his contempt for the voters. Only humility can end ruling vs opposition party conflict, and enable cross-Strait reconciliation. Only humility will enable Tsai Ing-wen to regain public confidence. Only humility can persuade the public to give Tsai Ing-wen more time.
務實與現實 解聲望重挫之危
2016/8/30 中國時報
蔡英文上任短短百天，光環幾乎磨耗殆盡，何以至此？本報以「探究新政府執政困境」為系列，連續發表4篇社論，希望對新政府有所針砭與建言。前3篇提出病歷分析，分別點出了〈舊問題未解決，又製造更多新問題〉、〈政治掛帥公民團體治國，國危矣〉、〈兩岸與經濟，蔡總統要面對現實〉三大病灶。總結篇將針對病灶開出藥方，這個藥說來簡單，做起來不簡單，就是五個字：「務實與現實」，政府與人民都要務實，更要現實。
蔡英文知道自己民意支持度快速滑落，日前與媒體茶敘時先打預防針，希望媒體與社會不要以百日評斷她的執政得失，雖然有論者質疑她，在馬英九就職百日時，就曾經舉辦嗆聲大遊行要馬英九下台，真可謂今是昨非，標準不一。但我們仍要指出，她這句話本身並非完全錯誤。
從完全民主化後，歷任民選總統看似「有權無責」，實則「令難出總統府」，總統、行政院、立法院、黨中央權責相互纏繞、協調困難。但民眾期待殷切，過度期待與一再失望的結果，所有總統都難逃脫「挨罵」、遭詛咒「下台」宿命，台灣的憲政體制與民主實踐是否出現問題？此外，台灣正面對三大結構性困局，一是國際大環境面不佳，全球經濟困頓，連民主政治的運行也普遍遭遇難題，台灣身陷洪流，確有難為；二是，兩岸關係未能理順，以致台灣經濟內在無力、外在失調，惡劣情勢更添霜雪；三是，國內過度批評的氛圍、遍地的憤怒，讓執政者動輒得咎，當家做不了事，成了不分藍綠的共業。
「務實與現實」藥方的第一道藥料，是以務實的態度、以同理心去理解蔡英文所面臨的結構性困境。針砭政府不是為了刺其肌骨，而是為了對症治疾，終究，一個失敗的總統不會帶來成功的台灣。蔡英文的治理成敗將直接澤及或殃及全台灣的人民。對執政者存同理心，不是放棄監督，而是鼓勵「建設性的監督」，批評可以犀利，但需依據事實；執政之非固應責難，但若有做對的地方，也當肯定。
然而，也要嚴正指出，這不是要給執政者推卸責任的空間、合理化失能的藉口。結構性的困難，固然有超越領導人一時能力的難為處，但如何面對結構性困境，努力改善，或至少不要惡化困境，卻是蔡英文無可推託的責任，就此而言，過去百日，新政府交出的成績是不及格的，外界的責難並沒有錯。
「務實與現實」的第二道藥料，是針對蔡英文總統，就是要以現實的態度審時度勢，落實兩岸和解、朝野罷鬥。對大陸堅持的兩岸關係性質問題，我方在堅持己見之餘，也要展現願意與大陸共同管控歧異、謀求共識的誠意，對內也要結束「選舉動員時期」，真正進入「執政狀態」。
蔡英文正面對了藍憤怒、紅不信、綠不滿的三面夾擊，但蔡英文要知道，台灣經歷多年民主內戰，藍綠惡鬥，全民期待休兵之心甚殷甚切，蔡英文一上台就旗幟鮮明揮動「黨產」、「轉型正義」兩柄大刀痛斬國民黨，實是一大失策。激化了社會不安，同時深化了她的治理困境，增加她的改革阻力。蔡英文必須「放下軍刀，立地和解」，否則她的執政必然難有寧日。
「紅不信」是蔡英文第二道要解的鎖。在兩岸的發言上，蔡英文不挑釁的消極自制固可肯定，但在積極創造互信的一面，卻顯然不足。
經濟是台灣之基，兩岸是經濟之本。蔡英文所有的改革能量，源頭當然就是人民生活要改善，而人民生活的改善，非經濟不為功，無兩岸不為果，這是蔡英文必須深切認知，並立刻採取行動者，也是系列三社論所強調的觀點。
三火之中，最末節部分反而是「綠不滿」，蔡英文執政最大的希望就是向中間移動，但最大的困境，也是這個「中間進程」顯然不順利，使得她「『中』路不通，『綠』追於後」。這是蔡英文的政治十字路，但在這十字路上，反而要堅定意志，加大步伐向中間之路邁進，決不可走擁抱深綠的回頭路。深綠要的無非就是加大追剿藍營、去中反中，這不啻是要蔡英文在深綠的意識型態綁架下，帶著台灣一起陪葬。
最後一道藥料，則是態度的「務實與現實」，其實也就是蔡總統在勝選時說的「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」，可惜的是，民進黨並沒有打從心底落實蔡總統的「謙卑令」，才會有段宜康「鄙視選民」的失言。只有落實謙卑，朝野罷鬥，兩岸和解，蔡英文才能贏回人民的信心，贏回人民願意給蔡英文更多一點時間的同理心。
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Cross-Strait Relations and the Economy: President Tsai Must Face Reality
Cross-Strait Relations and the Economy: President Tsai Must Face Reality
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2016
Executive Summary: The new government must seek consensus on cross-Strait relations. It must cease viewing the Mainland as its imagined enemy. It must change its military strategy and legal framework. It must view peace in the Taiwan Strait as its highest priority. Only then cross-Strait relations get back on track. Ony then can Taiwan's economic momentum be restored.
Full Text Below:
President Tsai has been in office 100 days. Her approval ratings now resemble a death sentence. Swing voters are deserting in droves. This newspaper's own survey shows that over half the people oppose joining with the US and Japan to oppose the Mainland. They want the Tsai government to improve the economy and improve cross-Strait relations. President Tsai brushed away such concerns with the comment, "It's not that bad”. But approval ratings reflect current public sentiment. Tsai Ing-wen's approval ratings have nose-dived. They have fallen faster over the same period than her three predecessors'. Her approval ratings and the speed with which they have fallen, cannot be taken lightly. She cannot afford to inhabit a fool's paradise.
Every poll shows what the public wants. It desperately wants Pesident Tsai to deal with cross-Strait and economic matters, each of which affects the other. The Tsai government assumes that Beijing will eventually change its mind, decide that Tsai Ing-wen's May 20 inaugural address is acceptable, and maintain the diplomatic status quo. But the Hsiung Feng III missile launch fiasco, Tsai Ing-wen's callous indifference to the Mainland tourists burned to death in the tour bus fire, and the Presidential Office's remarks about “elephants and ants”, have undermined President Tsai's prestige. They have revealed her appointees' abysmally poor qualifications, and their lack of vision and professionalism. The Mainland has seen through her. They know she is incompetent. They know she lacks strategic vision and governing ability. Why should they compromise and bend over backwards for her? Why not sit back and watch Taiwan wither on the vine? After all, reunification is already at hand.
Taiwan has already undergone three ruling party changes. Democracy has already taken root. The public expects cross-Strait peace. It expects increased participation in international activities. Most people on Taiwan want to maintain the democratic status quo. Most people think neither reunification nor independence are feasible at the moment. So why not maintain a free and democratic way of life, and improve cross-Strait relations? That is why most people oppose the new government's sabotaging of cross-Strait and foreign relations. They oppose the undermining of economically beneficial cross-Strait exchanges. They oppose the new government's reversion to diplomatic war and checkbook diplomacy, which have diminished Taiwan's participation in international activities.
DPP Chairman Tsai is also ROC President Tsai. The Constitution of the Republic of China and the DPP's Taiwan Independence Party Platform flat out contradict each other. Just exactly what does she want to be? President of the Republic of China? Chairman of the DPP? Or President of an independent “Republic of Taiwan”? Even she seems to be undecided. During her inaugural address, she refused to refer to her own nation by name, but referred to it instead as “this nation”.
During the 100 days since the inauguration, the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the DPP, along with deep green pressure groups, have frequently clashed over policy. President Tsai has attempted to mediate. This has confused the public as well as the Mainland. If President Tsai colludes with DPP legislators who promote "cultural Taiwan independence", and with deep green pressure groups who promote "de-Sinicization" Beijing will conclude that she is two-faced. That will undermine cross-Strait relations. Mainland tourists may stop coming altogether. The economy will stagnate. Our international participation will diminish. Unemployment will skyrocket. Antagonisms between the rich and the poor will intensify. Diplomatic isolation will increase. Taiwan's development will stall. International participation and cross-Strait relations go hand in hand. They must be our strategic goal.
The public does not buy the Tsai government's policy of joining with the US and Japan in order to oppose the Mainland. They realize Taiwan is likely to suffer the consequences long before it derives any benefit from such a policy. They fear that once cross-Strait relations deteriorate, the United States and Japan will sell out Taiwan. Investor confidence in Taiwan will plummet. Capital, technology, and talent will take flight. President Tsai longs to reduce economic dependence on the Mainland. To some extent this makes sense. But she must be honest with the people. The "New Southern Strategy" may be an attempt to diversity Taiwan's economy. But Taiwan cannot survive economically without the Mainland. It cannot depend on foreign nations alone.
Former American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Richard Bush recently warned President Tsai. He said Beijing may lose patience with Taiwan's persistent refusal to negotiate. If overall US strategy changes, or US-China military confrontation in East Asia changes, the US may reconsider its security commitments to Taiwan. Also, the Democratic Progressive Party now enjoys “total government” on Taiwan. The US may resort to "dual deterrence". It may use the carrot and the stick against Taipei as well as Beijing. What Taiwan itself chooses to do in the Taiwan Strait, will determine whether it enjoys peace and stability. In other words, long-term US policy will be one of strategic ambiguity. The US may not be able to maintain its current East Asian and cross-Strait posture. The Tsai government must beware.
Taiwan independence was the result of KMT failure to properly deal with the 2/28 Incident. Taiwan and the Mainland have no historical grievances. The current misunderstanding and conflict between Taiwan and the Mainland is the result of long-term separation and confrontation caused by clashes between two political authorities. The new government has recognized and accepted the constitutional system of the Republic of China. It has largely dispensed with the possibility of de jure independence. The new government must offer an interpretation of "one China". It must clarify the nature of relations between the Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China. It must reaffirm that "people on both sides of the Strait are part of the Chinese nation". The resumption of constructive relations is not difficult. Simply straighten out cross-Strait relations. Only then can Taiwan's economic growth resume. Only then can Taiwan find a way out.
The new government must seek consensus on cross-Strait relations. It must cease viewing the Mainland as its imagined enemy. It must change its military strategy and legal framework. It must view peace in the Taiwan Strait as its highest priority. Only then cross-Strait relations get back on track. Ony then can Taiwan's economic momentum be restored.
社論：探究新政府執政困境系列 三》兩岸與經濟 蔡總統要面對現實
2016/8/28 下午 08:08:07 主筆室
蔡總統執政百天，民調滿意度已瀕臨「死亡交叉」，中間選民流失嚴重，本報調查數據更顯示，過半民眾反對「聯美日、抗中」路線，希望蔡政府優先搞好經濟與兩岸關係。蔡總統雖以一句「還好啦」輕鬆應對，但施政滿意度畢竟是人民即時的反應，尤其以蔡總統與前面三任總統同期民調相較，她的下降幅度與速度都最大，切不可掉以輕心、自我感覺良好。
所有民調數據都顯示，民眾高度期待蔡總統處理好兩岸與經濟問題，這兩者又有很高的連動性。蔡政府樂觀認為北京終究會調整態度，接受520就職演說主軸，並在外交領域維持現狀。但是，雄三誤射事件、輕率處理陸客團火燒車事件，到總統府新南向辦公室的「大象與螞蟻論」，一再重創蔡總統的領導威望，並暴露選才用人的水平、格局視野與專業欠缺，執政能量開始被大陸看破手腳。倘若蔡總統治國戰略高度與執政團隊治理能力被北京輕視，北京又何需對新政府展現靈活彈性與善意，只需坐視台灣走向凋零，「統一」就唾手可得。
台灣歷經三度政黨輪替，民主社會已經成型，公民對於兩岸和平發展有期待，也希望能夠開拓國際活動空間。「維持民主現狀」是台灣民意最大公約數，多數公民認為既然「統」與「獨」目前都做不到，還不如務實地維持自由民主生活方式、兩岸和緩良性互動以及健康的國際活動空間。因此，多數民眾不希望新政府的兩岸與外交政策破壞良性互動、經貿互利的兩岸關係，也反對新政府走回「烽火外交」與「支票簿外交」老路，讓台灣的國際活動空間越變越小。
身兼民進黨主席的蔡總統，糾結在《中華民國憲法》與《台獨黨綱》之間，到底要當中華民國總統？民進黨總統？還是台獨總統？連自己都搞不清楚，因而演說中不願稱呼自己的國號，只敢自稱「這個國家」。
就職百日以來，府院黨與深綠團體頻頻釋出相互矛盾的政策方向，蔡總統極力保持平衡感，民眾與大陸卻一頭霧水。倘若蔡總統放任民進黨閣員力推「文化台獨」，並與深綠團體「去中國化」合唱雙簧，將會被北京當局解讀為玩弄兩手策略，恐進一步影響兩岸良性互動，讓陸客止步、經貿停滯、國際空間萎縮，導致台灣失業人口暴增、社會貧富對立加劇、外交孤立困境惡化，對台灣整體發展不利，遑論達到國際關係是兩岸關係良性循環的戰略目標。
民眾對蔡政府「聯美日、抗中」路線並不買帳，甚至認為台灣恐將未蒙其利、先受其害，擔憂兩岸關係惡化，被美、日兩國出賣，並導致投資台灣信心不足，資金、技術、人才外流加劇。蔡總統有意降低對中國大陸的經濟依賴風險，自有其理性考量，但仍必須誠實告訴台灣人民，「新南向政策」是開拓台灣經濟空間的策略，但台灣的經濟繁榮不可能脫離兩岸與國際因素，尤其繞不開中國大陸。
美國在台協會前理事主席卜睿哲，日前向蔡總統發出警訊，指出北京可能對台灣抗拒協商的態度失去耐心，如果美國整體戰略出現變化，或者美、中在東亞軍力消長達到某種程度，美國可能會改變對台灣的安全承諾。此外，應對民進黨在台灣全面執政的新局，美國或許拿出「雙重嚇阻」劇本，對北京和台北提出適當的警告與保證混合使用，台灣自己要做什麼，將是台海和平穩定的關鍵變數。換言之，美國長期運用兩面嚇阻的模糊戰略，可能難以繼續支撐東亞及兩岸新局，蔡政府務必謹慎。
台獨是國民黨處理二二八事件失敗所造就，台灣和今天的大陸與中共之間並沒有仇恨，台灣和大陸的誤解與衝突，是長期隔絕及政權對抗所造成，新政府承認並接受中華民國憲法與憲政體制，已實質拋棄法理台獨的可能性，只要對「一個中國」的內涵能提出論述，說清楚中華民國與中國的關係，並體現「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，兩岸恢復建設性關係並不難。只要先理順兩岸關係，台灣經濟成長的任督二脈才能打通，台灣才能找到寬闊的出路。
找出與大陸的兩岸關係共識，改變以大陸為假想敵的軍事戰略與法理架構，以台海和平為基本國策，兩岸關係可以回到正軌，台灣經濟成長動能將可恢復。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 28, 2016
Executive Summary: The new government must seek consensus on cross-Strait relations. It must cease viewing the Mainland as its imagined enemy. It must change its military strategy and legal framework. It must view peace in the Taiwan Strait as its highest priority. Only then cross-Strait relations get back on track. Ony then can Taiwan's economic momentum be restored.
Full Text Below:
President Tsai has been in office 100 days. Her approval ratings now resemble a death sentence. Swing voters are deserting in droves. This newspaper's own survey shows that over half the people oppose joining with the US and Japan to oppose the Mainland. They want the Tsai government to improve the economy and improve cross-Strait relations. President Tsai brushed away such concerns with the comment, "It's not that bad”. But approval ratings reflect current public sentiment. Tsai Ing-wen's approval ratings have nose-dived. They have fallen faster over the same period than her three predecessors'. Her approval ratings and the speed with which they have fallen, cannot be taken lightly. She cannot afford to inhabit a fool's paradise.
Every poll shows what the public wants. It desperately wants Pesident Tsai to deal with cross-Strait and economic matters, each of which affects the other. The Tsai government assumes that Beijing will eventually change its mind, decide that Tsai Ing-wen's May 20 inaugural address is acceptable, and maintain the diplomatic status quo. But the Hsiung Feng III missile launch fiasco, Tsai Ing-wen's callous indifference to the Mainland tourists burned to death in the tour bus fire, and the Presidential Office's remarks about “elephants and ants”, have undermined President Tsai's prestige. They have revealed her appointees' abysmally poor qualifications, and their lack of vision and professionalism. The Mainland has seen through her. They know she is incompetent. They know she lacks strategic vision and governing ability. Why should they compromise and bend over backwards for her? Why not sit back and watch Taiwan wither on the vine? After all, reunification is already at hand.
Taiwan has already undergone three ruling party changes. Democracy has already taken root. The public expects cross-Strait peace. It expects increased participation in international activities. Most people on Taiwan want to maintain the democratic status quo. Most people think neither reunification nor independence are feasible at the moment. So why not maintain a free and democratic way of life, and improve cross-Strait relations? That is why most people oppose the new government's sabotaging of cross-Strait and foreign relations. They oppose the undermining of economically beneficial cross-Strait exchanges. They oppose the new government's reversion to diplomatic war and checkbook diplomacy, which have diminished Taiwan's participation in international activities.
DPP Chairman Tsai is also ROC President Tsai. The Constitution of the Republic of China and the DPP's Taiwan Independence Party Platform flat out contradict each other. Just exactly what does she want to be? President of the Republic of China? Chairman of the DPP? Or President of an independent “Republic of Taiwan”? Even she seems to be undecided. During her inaugural address, she refused to refer to her own nation by name, but referred to it instead as “this nation”.
During the 100 days since the inauguration, the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the DPP, along with deep green pressure groups, have frequently clashed over policy. President Tsai has attempted to mediate. This has confused the public as well as the Mainland. If President Tsai colludes with DPP legislators who promote "cultural Taiwan independence", and with deep green pressure groups who promote "de-Sinicization" Beijing will conclude that she is two-faced. That will undermine cross-Strait relations. Mainland tourists may stop coming altogether. The economy will stagnate. Our international participation will diminish. Unemployment will skyrocket. Antagonisms between the rich and the poor will intensify. Diplomatic isolation will increase. Taiwan's development will stall. International participation and cross-Strait relations go hand in hand. They must be our strategic goal.
The public does not buy the Tsai government's policy of joining with the US and Japan in order to oppose the Mainland. They realize Taiwan is likely to suffer the consequences long before it derives any benefit from such a policy. They fear that once cross-Strait relations deteriorate, the United States and Japan will sell out Taiwan. Investor confidence in Taiwan will plummet. Capital, technology, and talent will take flight. President Tsai longs to reduce economic dependence on the Mainland. To some extent this makes sense. But she must be honest with the people. The "New Southern Strategy" may be an attempt to diversity Taiwan's economy. But Taiwan cannot survive economically without the Mainland. It cannot depend on foreign nations alone.
Former American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Richard Bush recently warned President Tsai. He said Beijing may lose patience with Taiwan's persistent refusal to negotiate. If overall US strategy changes, or US-China military confrontation in East Asia changes, the US may reconsider its security commitments to Taiwan. Also, the Democratic Progressive Party now enjoys “total government” on Taiwan. The US may resort to "dual deterrence". It may use the carrot and the stick against Taipei as well as Beijing. What Taiwan itself chooses to do in the Taiwan Strait, will determine whether it enjoys peace and stability. In other words, long-term US policy will be one of strategic ambiguity. The US may not be able to maintain its current East Asian and cross-Strait posture. The Tsai government must beware.
Taiwan independence was the result of KMT failure to properly deal with the 2/28 Incident. Taiwan and the Mainland have no historical grievances. The current misunderstanding and conflict between Taiwan and the Mainland is the result of long-term separation and confrontation caused by clashes between two political authorities. The new government has recognized and accepted the constitutional system of the Republic of China. It has largely dispensed with the possibility of de jure independence. The new government must offer an interpretation of "one China". It must clarify the nature of relations between the Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China. It must reaffirm that "people on both sides of the Strait are part of the Chinese nation". The resumption of constructive relations is not difficult. Simply straighten out cross-Strait relations. Only then can Taiwan's economic growth resume. Only then can Taiwan find a way out.
The new government must seek consensus on cross-Strait relations. It must cease viewing the Mainland as its imagined enemy. It must change its military strategy and legal framework. It must view peace in the Taiwan Strait as its highest priority. Only then cross-Strait relations get back on track. Ony then can Taiwan's economic momentum be restored.
社論：探究新政府執政困境系列 三》兩岸與經濟 蔡總統要面對現實
2016/8/28 下午 08:08:07 主筆室
蔡總統執政百天，民調滿意度已瀕臨「死亡交叉」，中間選民流失嚴重，本報調查數據更顯示，過半民眾反對「聯美日、抗中」路線，希望蔡政府優先搞好經濟與兩岸關係。蔡總統雖以一句「還好啦」輕鬆應對，但施政滿意度畢竟是人民即時的反應，尤其以蔡總統與前面三任總統同期民調相較，她的下降幅度與速度都最大，切不可掉以輕心、自我感覺良好。
所有民調數據都顯示，民眾高度期待蔡總統處理好兩岸與經濟問題，這兩者又有很高的連動性。蔡政府樂觀認為北京終究會調整態度，接受520就職演說主軸，並在外交領域維持現狀。但是，雄三誤射事件、輕率處理陸客團火燒車事件，到總統府新南向辦公室的「大象與螞蟻論」，一再重創蔡總統的領導威望，並暴露選才用人的水平、格局視野與專業欠缺，執政能量開始被大陸看破手腳。倘若蔡總統治國戰略高度與執政團隊治理能力被北京輕視，北京又何需對新政府展現靈活彈性與善意，只需坐視台灣走向凋零，「統一」就唾手可得。
台灣歷經三度政黨輪替，民主社會已經成型，公民對於兩岸和平發展有期待，也希望能夠開拓國際活動空間。「維持民主現狀」是台灣民意最大公約數，多數公民認為既然「統」與「獨」目前都做不到，還不如務實地維持自由民主生活方式、兩岸和緩良性互動以及健康的國際活動空間。因此，多數民眾不希望新政府的兩岸與外交政策破壞良性互動、經貿互利的兩岸關係，也反對新政府走回「烽火外交」與「支票簿外交」老路，讓台灣的國際活動空間越變越小。
身兼民進黨主席的蔡總統，糾結在《中華民國憲法》與《台獨黨綱》之間，到底要當中華民國總統？民進黨總統？還是台獨總統？連自己都搞不清楚，因而演說中不願稱呼自己的國號，只敢自稱「這個國家」。
就職百日以來，府院黨與深綠團體頻頻釋出相互矛盾的政策方向，蔡總統極力保持平衡感，民眾與大陸卻一頭霧水。倘若蔡總統放任民進黨閣員力推「文化台獨」，並與深綠團體「去中國化」合唱雙簧，將會被北京當局解讀為玩弄兩手策略，恐進一步影響兩岸良性互動，讓陸客止步、經貿停滯、國際空間萎縮，導致台灣失業人口暴增、社會貧富對立加劇、外交孤立困境惡化，對台灣整體發展不利，遑論達到國際關係是兩岸關係良性循環的戰略目標。
民眾對蔡政府「聯美日、抗中」路線並不買帳，甚至認為台灣恐將未蒙其利、先受其害，擔憂兩岸關係惡化，被美、日兩國出賣，並導致投資台灣信心不足，資金、技術、人才外流加劇。蔡總統有意降低對中國大陸的經濟依賴風險，自有其理性考量，但仍必須誠實告訴台灣人民，「新南向政策」是開拓台灣經濟空間的策略，但台灣的經濟繁榮不可能脫離兩岸與國際因素，尤其繞不開中國大陸。
美國在台協會前理事主席卜睿哲，日前向蔡總統發出警訊，指出北京可能對台灣抗拒協商的態度失去耐心，如果美國整體戰略出現變化，或者美、中在東亞軍力消長達到某種程度，美國可能會改變對台灣的安全承諾。此外，應對民進黨在台灣全面執政的新局，美國或許拿出「雙重嚇阻」劇本，對北京和台北提出適當的警告與保證混合使用，台灣自己要做什麼，將是台海和平穩定的關鍵變數。換言之，美國長期運用兩面嚇阻的模糊戰略，可能難以繼續支撐東亞及兩岸新局，蔡政府務必謹慎。
台獨是國民黨處理二二八事件失敗所造就，台灣和今天的大陸與中共之間並沒有仇恨，台灣和大陸的誤解與衝突，是長期隔絕及政權對抗所造成，新政府承認並接受中華民國憲法與憲政體制，已實質拋棄法理台獨的可能性，只要對「一個中國」的內涵能提出論述，說清楚中華民國與中國的關係，並體現「兩岸人民同屬中華民族」，兩岸恢復建設性關係並不難。只要先理順兩岸關係，台灣經濟成長的任督二脈才能打通，台灣才能找到寬闊的出路。
找出與大陸的兩岸關係共識，改變以大陸為假想敵的軍事戰略與法理架構，以台海和平為基本國策，兩岸關係可以回到正軌，台灣經濟成長動能將可恢復。
Thursday, August 25, 2016
United Front and Self-Incarceration: Taiwan's Web of Confusion
United Front and Self-Incarceration: Taiwan's Web of Confusion
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2016
Executive Summary: Leaders on Taiwan must understand the global situation. If they frighten themselves to death with "united front" boogeymen, they are merely incarcerating themselves. Sha Hailin cannot form a united front against anyone. But if leaders on Taiwan continue making hairpin turns, they will make prisoners of us all.
Full Text Below:
Sha Hailin, Minister of the Shanghai City United Front, arrived in Taipei to participate in the Twin Cities Forum. The term "united front" is being blown up beyond all proportion. Sha Hailin's arrival on Taiwan is being spun as a conspiracy with Ko Wen-je against their common enemy Tsai Ing-wen. But this reads far too much into it. Viewing the cross-Strait situation in isolation from world events inevitably leads to misinterpretations.
The rise of Mainland China in the 21st century is irreversible. The 2001 collision between Mainland Chinese and US warplanes constituted a microcosmic version of the new global power struggle. To avoid triggering global concern over the coming years, Chinese Communist Party leader Hu Jintao advanced his "peaceful rise" theory as a theoretical framework for the world's future power structure.
The term "peaceful rise" was later changed to "peaceful development" to underscore the Mainland's lack of hegemonic ambitions. This strategic label was later applied to cross-Strait relations, to highlight the unique history of cross-Strait relations over the past half-century. Divided rule and historic grievances were put into a larger strategic framework. They became local matters not fondly remembered by Zhongnanhai.
Just before Tsai Ing-wen was elected, Xi Jinping reaffirmed the 1992 Consensus. This was why. During last year's Ma Xi summit, Xi Jinping laid out the rules of the game. During Tsai Ing-wen's inauguration, she trotted out the ROC Constitution, and the Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area. But Beijing's rules of the game remained exactly the same. Beijing repeatedly demanded that she respond more fully. One reason for this, was fundamental changes in the global strategic picture.
Xi Jinping's opponent is not Tsai Ing-wen, but strategic opponent Barack Obama, or next year's Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Shinzo Abe. The CCP has no need to win over Ko Wen-je. It does not need Ko as leverage over Tsai Ing-wen. The US and Japan are hardly the only ones who can make Tsai Ing-wen flip.
Tsai Ing-wen was Lee Teng-hui's ghost writer. She was the actual author of the previous century's "two states theory”. Seventeen years later, she has become president. During her inauguration she pledged to conduct cross-Strait relations in accordance with the "one China" oriented ROC Constitution. Leave aside the fact that many of her supporters are members of the anti-Mainland, “natural Taiwan independence” oriented Sunflower Student Movement from two years ago. The fact is the Tsai government has been boxed in by the rise of Mainland China.
This is Tsai Ing-wen's dilemma. Changes in the global political and economic order have pushed Taiwan to margins. That was why Tsai confidant James Huang characterized Taiwan as an "ant". Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to cast herself as an anti-China [sic], pro-American, pro-Japan fellow traveler. She is hoping to blaze a new trail. But having been in power 100 days, Tsai Ing-wen and her administration remain trapped on a perilous beachhead, crying out in agony.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Tsai Ing-wen llongs for may be stillborn. Even many in the US oppose it. The New Southern Strategy is a castle in the air. As a result, the government has been forced to extend an olive branch to Beijing, in a gesture of goodwill. All roads to the outside have been blocked or severed. Export figures are not expected to improve. The economy is in a downward spiral. On top of which, Tsai remains a hostage of Taiwan independence forces. She flagrantly rejects the 1992 Consensus, the key to cross-Strait political consensus. Cause and effect are abundantly clear.
Sha Hailin is merely a member of the Shanghai City United Front. When Ma Ying-jeou was in power, such exchanges drew little attention. But Tsai Ing-wen has been in office 100 days. Sha has become the focus of DPP heavyweights. Is this not ironic? The spectre of a "united front" still haunts them. Is this not laughable? It is as if the Berlin Wall has yet to fall, and the Iron Curtain still stands. Taiwan remains trapped in a time warp, and refuses to move forward. Is this not pitiful?
The term "united front" is a term from the previous century. So too is the term "Taiwan independence". The DPP has never leveled with the people. It has never told them that "Taiwan independence" is an outmoded concept, a Cold War era view of the world. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen embrace overlapping sovereignty over the South China Sea and Chinese owned islands?
Leaders on Taiwan must understand the global situation. If they frighten themselves to death with "united front" boogeymen, they are merely incarcerating themselves. Sha Hailin cannot form a united front against anyone. But if leaders on Taiwan continue making hairpin turns, they will make prisoners of us all.
聯合／「統戰」或「自囚」：台灣的政治迷惘
2016-08-26 01:15 聯合報 聯合報社論
上海市委統戰部長沙海林到台北出席「雙城論壇」，「統戰」的頭銜成了巧妙的借喻，恍似沙海林特地來台出席「雙城論壇」，就是為與柯文哲形成所謂「統一戰線」，以對抗共同的敵人蔡英文。但這文章未免作得太大、太遠，彷彿兩岸形勢可以孤空地自世局剝離，當然會失去真貌。
中國崛起自廿一世紀即成為無法逆阻的趨勢，二○○一年的中美撞機事件，即是新世紀全球權力新圖像的一個縮影。為避免引發全球的過度疑慮，隔年接下中共領導班子的胡錦濤提出了「和平崛起」論，為未來的世界權力結構，預為理論部署。
「和平崛起」其後被刻意潤飾成「和平發展」，強調中國並不追求霸權；而這塊全球戰略標籤更進一步被用於兩岸關係上，從而凸顯兩岸關係已從過去半世紀分裂的獨特歷史情仇，被放進全球戰略脈絡之下，成為一個中南海並不十分眷念的局部事務。
這個背景，正是習近平在蔡英文當選以前迄今，不曾從「九二共識」這個前提上退守的底氣所在。他在去年「馬習會」就定下這根「定海神針」，直至蔡英文就職演說搬出中華民國憲法與兩岸人民關係條例，北京的指標尺度依然寸步不移，一再要求蔡英文完成未完成的答卷。其中原因，正是因為全球戰略格局已經產生根本性的改變所致。
亦即，習近平的對弈者，並不是蔡英文，而是歐巴馬、或是明年的川普、希拉蕊，以及安倍等的全球戰略對手。中共其實並不需要刻意籠絡柯文哲，不需要以柯作為槓桿，以求扳動蔡英文。能扳動蔡英文者，豈非只有美、日？
蔡英文作為上世紀末的李登輝「兩國論」幕後的原創者，卻在十七年後自己當上了總統，就職時宣示她將依循其內涵與本質皆為「一個中國」的中華民國憲法處理兩岸關係。且不論她的支持者中，或有相當比例是兩年前太陽花運動中的反中天然獨世代，但就大局而言，蔡政府畢竟受到這一「中國崛起」的現實潮流所框定與制約。
然而，這也正是蔡英文的困境。在全球不斷變動中的政經秩序下，台灣儼然已被世界擠至邊陲，她的親信黃志芳才會把台灣自比為「螞蟻」。蔡英文試圖以她自己編製的遠中、親美、附日的權力路線另闢蹊徑，探索出一片新的海洋，但執政百日將屆，蔡英文團隊卻猶仍深陷惶恐灘頭，大嘆零丁。
如今蔡英文的處境是：她所寄望的跨太平洋夥伴協定（ＴＰＰ）已有胎死腹中之虞，連美國自己內部都群聲反對；新南向政策亦不過是海市蜃樓，於是被迫要向北京遞出橄欖枝，冀圖對岸的善意。而當外圍的通路與連結都在逐次失效與斷絕的情境之下，出口數字更看不到翻紅的契機，整個經濟已然緩緩陷入緊縮的循環。這些，皆與她受到獨派牽制，悍然推拒兩岸政治最重要支撐即「九二共識」，所造成的後果與效應。
沙海林只是上海市委的一位常委，在馬英九主政時期若來交流可能不會引起太多注意，但在蔡英文主政未及百日的此際，卻成為全台聚焦的一位重量級官員，豈不令人深感反諷？而所謂「統戰」幽靈在台飄盪的指控，又怎不讓人啞然失笑？這樣的視角，彷彿處在柏林圍牆猶未倒塌、冷戰鐵幕依然矗立的時空，那種台灣猶留在歷史隧道裡遲遲不願昂藏前行的畏縮，令人感到深沉的悲哀。
「統戰」已是舊世紀的名詞，「台獨」亦然。民進黨未曾告訴人民的是，「台獨」是以冷戰的舊思維與框架去看待世界，所炮製出來的過時主張；否則，蔡英文面對南海仲裁結果，何必依然擁抱與中國主權重疊的南海諸島？
台灣若不能看穿全球現勢，卻用「統戰」自我恫嚇，其實只是在進行「自囚」。沙海林統戰不了誰，但台灣若只在髮夾彎裡打轉，卻可以把自己活活困死。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2016
Executive Summary: Leaders on Taiwan must understand the global situation. If they frighten themselves to death with "united front" boogeymen, they are merely incarcerating themselves. Sha Hailin cannot form a united front against anyone. But if leaders on Taiwan continue making hairpin turns, they will make prisoners of us all.
Full Text Below:
Sha Hailin, Minister of the Shanghai City United Front, arrived in Taipei to participate in the Twin Cities Forum. The term "united front" is being blown up beyond all proportion. Sha Hailin's arrival on Taiwan is being spun as a conspiracy with Ko Wen-je against their common enemy Tsai Ing-wen. But this reads far too much into it. Viewing the cross-Strait situation in isolation from world events inevitably leads to misinterpretations.
The rise of Mainland China in the 21st century is irreversible. The 2001 collision between Mainland Chinese and US warplanes constituted a microcosmic version of the new global power struggle. To avoid triggering global concern over the coming years, Chinese Communist Party leader Hu Jintao advanced his "peaceful rise" theory as a theoretical framework for the world's future power structure.
The term "peaceful rise" was later changed to "peaceful development" to underscore the Mainland's lack of hegemonic ambitions. This strategic label was later applied to cross-Strait relations, to highlight the unique history of cross-Strait relations over the past half-century. Divided rule and historic grievances were put into a larger strategic framework. They became local matters not fondly remembered by Zhongnanhai.
Just before Tsai Ing-wen was elected, Xi Jinping reaffirmed the 1992 Consensus. This was why. During last year's Ma Xi summit, Xi Jinping laid out the rules of the game. During Tsai Ing-wen's inauguration, she trotted out the ROC Constitution, and the Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area. But Beijing's rules of the game remained exactly the same. Beijing repeatedly demanded that she respond more fully. One reason for this, was fundamental changes in the global strategic picture.
Xi Jinping's opponent is not Tsai Ing-wen, but strategic opponent Barack Obama, or next year's Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Shinzo Abe. The CCP has no need to win over Ko Wen-je. It does not need Ko as leverage over Tsai Ing-wen. The US and Japan are hardly the only ones who can make Tsai Ing-wen flip.
Tsai Ing-wen was Lee Teng-hui's ghost writer. She was the actual author of the previous century's "two states theory”. Seventeen years later, she has become president. During her inauguration she pledged to conduct cross-Strait relations in accordance with the "one China" oriented ROC Constitution. Leave aside the fact that many of her supporters are members of the anti-Mainland, “natural Taiwan independence” oriented Sunflower Student Movement from two years ago. The fact is the Tsai government has been boxed in by the rise of Mainland China.
This is Tsai Ing-wen's dilemma. Changes in the global political and economic order have pushed Taiwan to margins. That was why Tsai confidant James Huang characterized Taiwan as an "ant". Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to cast herself as an anti-China [sic], pro-American, pro-Japan fellow traveler. She is hoping to blaze a new trail. But having been in power 100 days, Tsai Ing-wen and her administration remain trapped on a perilous beachhead, crying out in agony.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Tsai Ing-wen llongs for may be stillborn. Even many in the US oppose it. The New Southern Strategy is a castle in the air. As a result, the government has been forced to extend an olive branch to Beijing, in a gesture of goodwill. All roads to the outside have been blocked or severed. Export figures are not expected to improve. The economy is in a downward spiral. On top of which, Tsai remains a hostage of Taiwan independence forces. She flagrantly rejects the 1992 Consensus, the key to cross-Strait political consensus. Cause and effect are abundantly clear.
Sha Hailin is merely a member of the Shanghai City United Front. When Ma Ying-jeou was in power, such exchanges drew little attention. But Tsai Ing-wen has been in office 100 days. Sha has become the focus of DPP heavyweights. Is this not ironic? The spectre of a "united front" still haunts them. Is this not laughable? It is as if the Berlin Wall has yet to fall, and the Iron Curtain still stands. Taiwan remains trapped in a time warp, and refuses to move forward. Is this not pitiful?
The term "united front" is a term from the previous century. So too is the term "Taiwan independence". The DPP has never leveled with the people. It has never told them that "Taiwan independence" is an outmoded concept, a Cold War era view of the world. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen embrace overlapping sovereignty over the South China Sea and Chinese owned islands?
Leaders on Taiwan must understand the global situation. If they frighten themselves to death with "united front" boogeymen, they are merely incarcerating themselves. Sha Hailin cannot form a united front against anyone. But if leaders on Taiwan continue making hairpin turns, they will make prisoners of us all.
聯合／「統戰」或「自囚」：台灣的政治迷惘
2016-08-26 01:15 聯合報 聯合報社論
上海市委統戰部長沙海林到台北出席「雙城論壇」，「統戰」的頭銜成了巧妙的借喻，恍似沙海林特地來台出席「雙城論壇」，就是為與柯文哲形成所謂「統一戰線」，以對抗共同的敵人蔡英文。但這文章未免作得太大、太遠，彷彿兩岸形勢可以孤空地自世局剝離，當然會失去真貌。
中國崛起自廿一世紀即成為無法逆阻的趨勢，二○○一年的中美撞機事件，即是新世紀全球權力新圖像的一個縮影。為避免引發全球的過度疑慮，隔年接下中共領導班子的胡錦濤提出了「和平崛起」論，為未來的世界權力結構，預為理論部署。
「和平崛起」其後被刻意潤飾成「和平發展」，強調中國並不追求霸權；而這塊全球戰略標籤更進一步被用於兩岸關係上，從而凸顯兩岸關係已從過去半世紀分裂的獨特歷史情仇，被放進全球戰略脈絡之下，成為一個中南海並不十分眷念的局部事務。
這個背景，正是習近平在蔡英文當選以前迄今，不曾從「九二共識」這個前提上退守的底氣所在。他在去年「馬習會」就定下這根「定海神針」，直至蔡英文就職演說搬出中華民國憲法與兩岸人民關係條例，北京的指標尺度依然寸步不移，一再要求蔡英文完成未完成的答卷。其中原因，正是因為全球戰略格局已經產生根本性的改變所致。
亦即，習近平的對弈者，並不是蔡英文，而是歐巴馬、或是明年的川普、希拉蕊，以及安倍等的全球戰略對手。中共其實並不需要刻意籠絡柯文哲，不需要以柯作為槓桿，以求扳動蔡英文。能扳動蔡英文者，豈非只有美、日？
蔡英文作為上世紀末的李登輝「兩國論」幕後的原創者，卻在十七年後自己當上了總統，就職時宣示她將依循其內涵與本質皆為「一個中國」的中華民國憲法處理兩岸關係。且不論她的支持者中，或有相當比例是兩年前太陽花運動中的反中天然獨世代，但就大局而言，蔡政府畢竟受到這一「中國崛起」的現實潮流所框定與制約。
然而，這也正是蔡英文的困境。在全球不斷變動中的政經秩序下，台灣儼然已被世界擠至邊陲，她的親信黃志芳才會把台灣自比為「螞蟻」。蔡英文試圖以她自己編製的遠中、親美、附日的權力路線另闢蹊徑，探索出一片新的海洋，但執政百日將屆，蔡英文團隊卻猶仍深陷惶恐灘頭，大嘆零丁。
如今蔡英文的處境是：她所寄望的跨太平洋夥伴協定（ＴＰＰ）已有胎死腹中之虞，連美國自己內部都群聲反對；新南向政策亦不過是海市蜃樓，於是被迫要向北京遞出橄欖枝，冀圖對岸的善意。而當外圍的通路與連結都在逐次失效與斷絕的情境之下，出口數字更看不到翻紅的契機，整個經濟已然緩緩陷入緊縮的循環。這些，皆與她受到獨派牽制，悍然推拒兩岸政治最重要支撐即「九二共識」，所造成的後果與效應。
沙海林只是上海市委的一位常委，在馬英九主政時期若來交流可能不會引起太多注意，但在蔡英文主政未及百日的此際，卻成為全台聚焦的一位重量級官員，豈不令人深感反諷？而所謂「統戰」幽靈在台飄盪的指控，又怎不讓人啞然失笑？這樣的視角，彷彿處在柏林圍牆猶未倒塌、冷戰鐵幕依然矗立的時空，那種台灣猶留在歷史隧道裡遲遲不願昂藏前行的畏縮，令人感到深沉的悲哀。
「統戰」已是舊世紀的名詞，「台獨」亦然。民進黨未曾告訴人民的是，「台獨」是以冷戰的舊思維與框架去看待世界，所炮製出來的過時主張；否則，蔡英文面對南海仲裁結果，何必依然擁抱與中國主權重疊的南海諸島？
台灣若不能看穿全球現勢，卻用「統戰」自我恫嚇，其實只是在進行「自囚」。沙海林統戰不了誰，但台灣若只在髮夾彎裡打轉，卻可以把自己活活困死。
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
James Huang's Talk of “Ants" Demeans Taiwan
James Huang's Talk of “Ants" Demeans Taiwan
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2016
Executive Summary: The New Southern Strategy is a new frontier for foreign investment, not a panacea for the phenomenon of businesses “Going West”. It is an opportunity for industrial restructuring, not a weapon to use against the Mainland. James Huang's talk of “ants” misjudges reality and demeans Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
James Huang is the Director of President Tsai's "Office for New Southern Strategy". Recently, during a discussino of external economic strategy, Huang said "The Mainland China market is full of elephants. If an ant enters, what can he possibly get out of it?" His remark was wrong on two counts. First, it was self-demeaning. It reduced Taiwan businessmen to the status of ants. Second, it was an admission of strategic confusion. Expanding southward is about diversification. It is not an either/or proposition. Expanding southward and remaining part of the Mainland market are not mutually exclusive.
As the head of the Office for New Southern Strategy, James Huang's talk of ants was a serious faux pas. It reflected the government's lack of vision, and lack of concrete plans for implementation. Taiwan businessmen have been operating on the Mainland for over 20 years. The Hon Hai Group alone employs nearly one million people. How can James Huang use the term "ants" to describe Taiwan businessmen? One reason of course, is the DPP's hatred and ignorance of “China”, i.e., the Mainland Area. But when push comes to shove, they suddenly become so humble. Besides, if they truly see themselves as mere "ants", how can they possibly muster up the courage to “Go south”?
The New Southern Strategy substitutes wishful thinking for hard reality. This is its a blind spot. The new government is blind to its own self-demeaning assumptions. It cannot define a clear goal. It cannot map out a clear path. Yet is demands that everyone “Go south!” In fact, this very dangerous. One example is enough to make everything clear.
President Tsai has proposed a New Southern Strategy, including 10 Guidelines for Action. Meanwhile, Tamkang University's Southeast Asian Studies Research Institute, which has been around for 20 years, was closed down in August for lack of student interest. Currently only Jinan University still has a Southeast Asian Studies Institute. Lee Teng-hui began urging people to “Go south!” when he was president. But the research institutes established in conjunction with the policy still cannot attract any interest. As we can see, the government has yet to get past mere sloganeering. It cannot induce students to conduct research. Even more ironically, the Tsai government recently sounded a clarion call for its New Southern Strategy. National Chengchi University, the Taipei University of Education, and other schools applied to establish Southeast Asian Studies Institutes. Will they become the academic counterparts of the “egg tart fad”? That is deeply worrying.
Will this external policy succeed? That depends on whether it involves bilateral mutual benefits, or merely unilateral wishful thinking. The DPP has upgraded the status of the New Southern Strategy to "the nation's overall foreign trade strategy". It ignores the close political and economic relations the nations of Southeast Asia have with the Mainland. The government is shrilly egging people on. But all anyone sees is abstract goals with no concrete path. When entrepreneur Dai Sheng-tong “followed in the government's footsteps" and invested in Haiti, he lost his shirt and was eventually forced to close up shop. Does the government intend to bear responsibility for any future losses?
Ten nations in Southeast Asia have 650 million people. They are the world's youngest market. Naturally they have their place. But government policy must be more economics and less politics. Only then will it be consistent with the needs of the domestic economy, domestic employment, and the limitations imposed by international political realities. Japan's Southern Strategy has been the most successful one of its kind. We may be able to learn from their experience.
Japan began promoting its Southern Strategy during the 70s. The strategy was developed by the government's External Trade Organization and the Asian Institute of Economic Research. Together they established the official "trinity" for economic strategy. First, in the name of economic aid, they helped local businesses enter the domestic market. The Japanese government loaned yen and provided infrastructure, enabling Japanese companies to assist Southeast Asian countries in highway and airport construction. This enabled them to enter the Southeast Asian market. By contrast, Taiwan businesses are merely investors in Southeast Asia. They merely take advantage of cheap labor. They do not find their way into the local domestic market.
Secondly, Japan understood the importance of cultivating talent in Southeast Asia. Japan's External Trade Organization helped businesses cultivate talent within Southeast Asia. It set up Southeast Asian language classes and economic and cultural classes. It provided professional advice for businesses entering the Southeast Asian market. This advice was specifically tailored to the industry's market strategy. By contrast, the government on Taiwan assumes that merely knowing English enables one to communicate with anyone in the world. University students have little interest in Southeast Asian languages. Companies are unable to recruit anyone with Southeast Asian language proficiency. This makes it difficult to lay down local roots.
Finally, Japan conducted in depth research on Southeast Asia. To promote its Southern Strategy, the Japanese government established an "Asian Economic Research Institute" to conduct long term analysis of the 10 nations of Southeast Asia. Each year, it publishes a political and economic white paper on Southeast Asia. By contrast, Taiwan's Southeast Asian Studies are scattered among various universities and research institutions. The lack of integration weakens our studies on Southeast Asia.
The New Southern Strategy is a new frontier for foreign investment, not a panacea for the phenomenon of businesses “Going West”. It is an opportunity for industrial restructuring, not a weapon to use against the Mainland. James Huang's talk of “ants” misjudges reality and demeans Taiwan.
聯合／黃志芳的「螞蟻說」是自我矮化
2016-08-25 03:38 聯合報 聯合報社論
總統府「新南向辦公室」主任黃志芳談到台灣對外經濟戰略說，「中國大陸市場已經站滿了大象，螞蟻進去能爭什麼。」他的說法犯了兩大錯誤：一是自我矮化，把台商小看成「螞蟻」；二是戰略思維錯亂，南向拓展是基於多元、分散之需，而不是和大陸市場互斥。
身為新南向辦公室負責人，黃志芳提出失當的「螞蟻說」，反映這個專案缺乏視野與具體可行的執行計畫。試想，台商在對岸廿多年深耕，僅鴻海集團僱用的人數就將近百萬人，黃志芳怎麼會用「螞蟻」來貶抑台商？其中原因，主要是民進黨因長年反中而昧於事實，到了漸要見真章的時候，卻突然變得如此卑微。更糟的是，若是自視為「螞蟻」，又要拿什麼膽識南進？
以想像混淆事實，正是新南向政策的盲點所在。新政府若自我認知矮化，連目標都說不清楚，又畫不出明確路徑，卻呼喚全民南進，其實是很危險的事。我們試舉一例，即一目了然。
就在蔡總統提出新南向十大行動準則之際，有廿多年歷史的淡江大學「東南亞研究所」卻因長期招生不足，在八月一日吹了熄燈號。至此，全台大學的東南亞研究，僅剩暨南大學獨撐。試想，從李登輝時代台灣就不斷鼓吹南向，但伴隨政策而生的系所，多年來竟仍招生不足，可見政府始終未脫虛浮的口號，根本無法誘發學生起而研究、學習動機。更弔詭的是，蔡政府的新南向號角一響，最近馬上又有政大和台北教育大學等校申請成立東南亞學系；這會不會演成學術市場的「蛋塔現象」，則令人擔憂。
對外政策能否成功，理當構築在雙向互惠的基礎上，而非片面的一廂情願。民進黨把新南向政策提升為「國家總體對外經貿戰略」，卻忽略了東南亞各國與大陸的綿密政經關係；政府大聲呼喚人民前進，卻只見抽象的目標，而不見具體的路徑。當年企業家戴勝通「跟著政府腳步」去海地投資，結果慘賠而歸，終告倒閉，政府又負了什麼責任？
東南亞十國擁有六點五億的人口，且是全球最年輕的市場，當然有其重要性。關鍵在，政府在政策操作上，必須要多一點經濟、少一點政治，以符合國內經濟、就業的需求與國際政治的現實。觀察推動南向政策最成功的日本，其經驗或可供我借鏡。
日本從一九七○年代開始推動南向政策，它是由政府開發援助、貿易振興會、亞細亞經濟研究所協力構築的產官學「三位一體」的經濟大戰略。首先，是透過國家的經濟援助為名，協助企業進入當地內需市場。日本政府以日圓貸款、基礎建設等方式提供經援，讓日本企業協助東南亞國家進行交通及機場建設，並藉此打進東南亞市場。反觀台灣企業，目前在東南亞僅扮演單純的投資者角色，無非利用當地的廉價勞工，並無打進當地內需市場的著眼。
其次，是重視東南亞人才的培育。日本「貿易振興會」協助企業培育東南亞人才，它不但開設東南亞語言、經貿及文化等各類課程，也為企業進入東南亞市場提供專業諮詢，針對企業的產業特性量身定做市場策略。反觀台灣，一直以為只用英語即可行遍天下，東南亞語在大學乏人問津，企業也找不到東南亞語言人才，不利於在當地生根。
最後，是深化對東南亞的研究。為推動南向政策，日本政府成立「亞細亞經濟研究」，對東南亞十國進行長期性的系統分析，每年出版東南亞政經白皮書。而台灣目前的東南亞研究則散落大學和研究機構，欠缺統合主導的機構，也因此削弱我對東南亞的研究動能。
新南向是台灣對外投資的新天地，而不是阻擋企業西進的特效藥；是產業轉型的契機，而不是抗衡中國的武器。就這點看，黃志芳的「螞蟻說」，完全是錯估現實的矮化論。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2016
Executive Summary: The New Southern Strategy is a new frontier for foreign investment, not a panacea for the phenomenon of businesses “Going West”. It is an opportunity for industrial restructuring, not a weapon to use against the Mainland. James Huang's talk of “ants” misjudges reality and demeans Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
James Huang is the Director of President Tsai's "Office for New Southern Strategy". Recently, during a discussino of external economic strategy, Huang said "The Mainland China market is full of elephants. If an ant enters, what can he possibly get out of it?" His remark was wrong on two counts. First, it was self-demeaning. It reduced Taiwan businessmen to the status of ants. Second, it was an admission of strategic confusion. Expanding southward is about diversification. It is not an either/or proposition. Expanding southward and remaining part of the Mainland market are not mutually exclusive.
As the head of the Office for New Southern Strategy, James Huang's talk of ants was a serious faux pas. It reflected the government's lack of vision, and lack of concrete plans for implementation. Taiwan businessmen have been operating on the Mainland for over 20 years. The Hon Hai Group alone employs nearly one million people. How can James Huang use the term "ants" to describe Taiwan businessmen? One reason of course, is the DPP's hatred and ignorance of “China”, i.e., the Mainland Area. But when push comes to shove, they suddenly become so humble. Besides, if they truly see themselves as mere "ants", how can they possibly muster up the courage to “Go south”?
The New Southern Strategy substitutes wishful thinking for hard reality. This is its a blind spot. The new government is blind to its own self-demeaning assumptions. It cannot define a clear goal. It cannot map out a clear path. Yet is demands that everyone “Go south!” In fact, this very dangerous. One example is enough to make everything clear.
President Tsai has proposed a New Southern Strategy, including 10 Guidelines for Action. Meanwhile, Tamkang University's Southeast Asian Studies Research Institute, which has been around for 20 years, was closed down in August for lack of student interest. Currently only Jinan University still has a Southeast Asian Studies Institute. Lee Teng-hui began urging people to “Go south!” when he was president. But the research institutes established in conjunction with the policy still cannot attract any interest. As we can see, the government has yet to get past mere sloganeering. It cannot induce students to conduct research. Even more ironically, the Tsai government recently sounded a clarion call for its New Southern Strategy. National Chengchi University, the Taipei University of Education, and other schools applied to establish Southeast Asian Studies Institutes. Will they become the academic counterparts of the “egg tart fad”? That is deeply worrying.
Will this external policy succeed? That depends on whether it involves bilateral mutual benefits, or merely unilateral wishful thinking. The DPP has upgraded the status of the New Southern Strategy to "the nation's overall foreign trade strategy". It ignores the close political and economic relations the nations of Southeast Asia have with the Mainland. The government is shrilly egging people on. But all anyone sees is abstract goals with no concrete path. When entrepreneur Dai Sheng-tong “followed in the government's footsteps" and invested in Haiti, he lost his shirt and was eventually forced to close up shop. Does the government intend to bear responsibility for any future losses?
Ten nations in Southeast Asia have 650 million people. They are the world's youngest market. Naturally they have their place. But government policy must be more economics and less politics. Only then will it be consistent with the needs of the domestic economy, domestic employment, and the limitations imposed by international political realities. Japan's Southern Strategy has been the most successful one of its kind. We may be able to learn from their experience.
Japan began promoting its Southern Strategy during the 70s. The strategy was developed by the government's External Trade Organization and the Asian Institute of Economic Research. Together they established the official "trinity" for economic strategy. First, in the name of economic aid, they helped local businesses enter the domestic market. The Japanese government loaned yen and provided infrastructure, enabling Japanese companies to assist Southeast Asian countries in highway and airport construction. This enabled them to enter the Southeast Asian market. By contrast, Taiwan businesses are merely investors in Southeast Asia. They merely take advantage of cheap labor. They do not find their way into the local domestic market.
Secondly, Japan understood the importance of cultivating talent in Southeast Asia. Japan's External Trade Organization helped businesses cultivate talent within Southeast Asia. It set up Southeast Asian language classes and economic and cultural classes. It provided professional advice for businesses entering the Southeast Asian market. This advice was specifically tailored to the industry's market strategy. By contrast, the government on Taiwan assumes that merely knowing English enables one to communicate with anyone in the world. University students have little interest in Southeast Asian languages. Companies are unable to recruit anyone with Southeast Asian language proficiency. This makes it difficult to lay down local roots.
Finally, Japan conducted in depth research on Southeast Asia. To promote its Southern Strategy, the Japanese government established an "Asian Economic Research Institute" to conduct long term analysis of the 10 nations of Southeast Asia. Each year, it publishes a political and economic white paper on Southeast Asia. By contrast, Taiwan's Southeast Asian Studies are scattered among various universities and research institutions. The lack of integration weakens our studies on Southeast Asia.
The New Southern Strategy is a new frontier for foreign investment, not a panacea for the phenomenon of businesses “Going West”. It is an opportunity for industrial restructuring, not a weapon to use against the Mainland. James Huang's talk of “ants” misjudges reality and demeans Taiwan.
聯合／黃志芳的「螞蟻說」是自我矮化
2016-08-25 03:38 聯合報 聯合報社論
總統府「新南向辦公室」主任黃志芳談到台灣對外經濟戰略說，「中國大陸市場已經站滿了大象，螞蟻進去能爭什麼。」他的說法犯了兩大錯誤：一是自我矮化，把台商小看成「螞蟻」；二是戰略思維錯亂，南向拓展是基於多元、分散之需，而不是和大陸市場互斥。
身為新南向辦公室負責人，黃志芳提出失當的「螞蟻說」，反映這個專案缺乏視野與具體可行的執行計畫。試想，台商在對岸廿多年深耕，僅鴻海集團僱用的人數就將近百萬人，黃志芳怎麼會用「螞蟻」來貶抑台商？其中原因，主要是民進黨因長年反中而昧於事實，到了漸要見真章的時候，卻突然變得如此卑微。更糟的是，若是自視為「螞蟻」，又要拿什麼膽識南進？
以想像混淆事實，正是新南向政策的盲點所在。新政府若自我認知矮化，連目標都說不清楚，又畫不出明確路徑，卻呼喚全民南進，其實是很危險的事。我們試舉一例，即一目了然。
就在蔡總統提出新南向十大行動準則之際，有廿多年歷史的淡江大學「東南亞研究所」卻因長期招生不足，在八月一日吹了熄燈號。至此，全台大學的東南亞研究，僅剩暨南大學獨撐。試想，從李登輝時代台灣就不斷鼓吹南向，但伴隨政策而生的系所，多年來竟仍招生不足，可見政府始終未脫虛浮的口號，根本無法誘發學生起而研究、學習動機。更弔詭的是，蔡政府的新南向號角一響，最近馬上又有政大和台北教育大學等校申請成立東南亞學系；這會不會演成學術市場的「蛋塔現象」，則令人擔憂。
對外政策能否成功，理當構築在雙向互惠的基礎上，而非片面的一廂情願。民進黨把新南向政策提升為「國家總體對外經貿戰略」，卻忽略了東南亞各國與大陸的綿密政經關係；政府大聲呼喚人民前進，卻只見抽象的目標，而不見具體的路徑。當年企業家戴勝通「跟著政府腳步」去海地投資，結果慘賠而歸，終告倒閉，政府又負了什麼責任？
東南亞十國擁有六點五億的人口，且是全球最年輕的市場，當然有其重要性。關鍵在，政府在政策操作上，必須要多一點經濟、少一點政治，以符合國內經濟、就業的需求與國際政治的現實。觀察推動南向政策最成功的日本，其經驗或可供我借鏡。
日本從一九七○年代開始推動南向政策，它是由政府開發援助、貿易振興會、亞細亞經濟研究所協力構築的產官學「三位一體」的經濟大戰略。首先，是透過國家的經濟援助為名，協助企業進入當地內需市場。日本政府以日圓貸款、基礎建設等方式提供經援，讓日本企業協助東南亞國家進行交通及機場建設，並藉此打進東南亞市場。反觀台灣企業，目前在東南亞僅扮演單純的投資者角色，無非利用當地的廉價勞工，並無打進當地內需市場的著眼。
其次，是重視東南亞人才的培育。日本「貿易振興會」協助企業培育東南亞人才，它不但開設東南亞語言、經貿及文化等各類課程，也為企業進入東南亞市場提供專業諮詢，針對企業的產業特性量身定做市場策略。反觀台灣，一直以為只用英語即可行遍天下，東南亞語在大學乏人問津，企業也找不到東南亞語言人才，不利於在當地生根。
最後，是深化對東南亞的研究。為推動南向政策，日本政府成立「亞細亞經濟研究」，對東南亞十國進行長期性的系統分析，每年出版東南亞政經白皮書。而台灣目前的東南亞研究則散落大學和研究機構，欠缺統合主導的機構，也因此削弱我對東南亞的研究動能。
新南向是台灣對外投資的新天地，而不是阻擋企業西進的特效藥；是產業轉型的契機，而不是抗衡中國的武器。就這點看，黃志芳的「螞蟻說」，完全是錯估現實的矮化論。
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
President Tsai: Learn from Ko Wen-je's Firmness and Flexibility
President Tsai: Learn from Ko Wen-je's Firmness and Flexibility
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2016
Executive Summary: Ko's actions provoked green camp accusations of "selling out", of "spinelessness", of "pandering to China [sic] and cozying up to Communists”. But ignore such emotional outbursts. Scrutinize Ko Wen-je's words. Not one of them was unreasonable. The key question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to defy green camp sentiment, speak from the heart, reason from the head, restore cross-Strait relations, and break the impass. Ko Wen-je is both firm and flexible. Tsai Ing-wen would do well to learn from his example.
Full Text Below:
Ko Wen-je is a self-proclaimed "deep green". Yet the green camp has accused him of being a "modern day Shi Lang" who aspires to be "Beijing's Governor General for Taiwan”. Taiwan independence groups heckle him wherever he goes. The green media mocks him as "a mere local official with embarrassingly low approval ratings”. Nevertheless Ko Wen-je has successfully renewed the Taipei Shanghai Twin Cities Forum.
Through her spokesman, Tsai Ing-wen wished Ko Wen-je well. The presidential spokesman said that exchanges between the two sides should increase. As long as exchanges increase mutual understanding, then exchanges, including city to city exchanges, are a good thing.
Some green camp people habitually denounce the Twin Cities Forum as “Communist”. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, has expressed approval of the Twin Cities Forum. This highlights the difficulty Tsai Ing-wen faces when promoting cross-Strait relations. Resolving this difficulty is a test of Tsai Ing-wen's wisdom. Ko Wen-je's firmness and flexibility regarding the Twin Cities Forum shows that Tsai Ing-wen can learn from his example.
Green Camp condemnation is a problem not just for Tsai Ing-wen, but even for "deep green" Ko Wen-je. The ideological burden he must bear, is no less than that borne by Tsai Ing-wen. Ko Wen-je recently issued a series of cross-Strait policy statements. He made subtle revisions to the Twin Cities Forum. This invited another round of allegations that he was “soft on Communism”. Ko Wen-je now stands at a political crossroads. Which way will he go?
The Taipei Municipal Government has suffered a major setback. Ko Wen-je's governing ability is being questioned. He clearly realizes that cross-Strait relations offers him an opportunity to reverse his political fortunes. He wants the success of the Twins Cities Forum to show that some people in the green camp are able to deal with cross-Strait affairs. He wants to show that regular exchanges between Taipei and Shanghai need not be interrupted, merely because a new government has come to power.
What holds true for a city mayor, holds true for a national president. The Mayor of Taipei has a clear understanding of the importance of cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen should have an even clearer understanding. She should realize that the biggest obstacle she faces, and the chief reason her approval ratings are down, is cross-Strait policy. Unless cross-Strait relations are straightened out, Taiwan's economy will not improve. The economy is the first to feel the impact. The economy is the basis of public satisfaction. It is the fountainhead of the ruling regime's prestige.
The truth is simple. Taiwan has a trade-based economy. The more it merges with the world outside, the more vitality it acquires. The Mainland is one of the world's largest economic blocs. Can Taiwan's economy survive if this bloc is eliminated? Can internal order survive if Taiwan's economy collapses? Can Tsai Ing-wen survive politically if both the economy and internal order collapse?
Tsai Ing-wen's swift response to the China Airlines strike and the National Highway toll collectors strike shows how desperate she is to salvage her approval ratings. Leave aside for the moment the price she may pay in the long run. From a larger perspective, she is like a fly without a head, sacrificing long term interests to short term expediency. She is missing the forest for the trees. Former US President Bill Clinton summed up the fundamental principle of national governance in his campaign slogan: "It's the economy, stupid!"
For Taiwan, the two sides of the Strait are the cornerstone of the economy. Apply Clinton's campaign slogan to Taiwan, and it becomes, "It's cross-Strait relations, stupid!"
Cooperation with the Mainland is essential to Taiwan's survival and growth. It affects the complex East Asian strategic picture, and the ROC's diplomatic space. Many non-economic issues stand in the way of cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen has created an impasse in cross-Strait relations by refusing to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She stubbornly insists that her "inaugural address has already demonstrated the utmost in goodwill toward Beijing". She has throws her hands up in feigned indignation. Her passive aggressive approach will kill cross-Strait exchanges. It will lead Taiwan down a blind alley, and can only be characterized as irresponsible. Ko Wen-je realizes the importance of cross-Strait relations for his political ambitions. But he has also done his homework. He expended the necessary effort, and assumed the necessary humility.
The Mainland was initially no less skeptical of the "deep green” Ko Wen-je than it was of Tsai Ing-wen. But Ko Wen-je's continued efforts on behalf of the Twin Cities Forum prevented the interruption of official exchanges. A series of statements sympathetic to Mainland compatriots, along with changes in his attitude made a dramatic difference. Ko Wen-je did not hesitate to proclaim himself "Chinese". He boldly echoed Xi Jinping's declaration that "Both sides of the Strait belong to one family". He publicly affirmed the Mainland for ensuring that everyone had enough to eat, a rare feat in China' history. also spoke of "four mutuals" and a "2015 New Perspective". His pronouncements were constructive and low keyed. He succeeded in maintaining uninterrupted communication between the Twin Cities. The Shanghai representative refrained from embarrassing Ko Wen-je over the 1992 Consensus at the Shanghai Twin Cities Forum. This too was a gesture of good faith.
Ko's actions provoked green camp accusations of "selling out", of "spinelessness", of "pandering to China [sic] and cozying up to Communists”. But ignore such emotional outbursts. Scrutinize Ko Wen-je's words. Not one of them was unreasonable. The key question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to defy green camp sentiment, speak from the heart, reason from the head, restore cross-Strait relations, and break the impass.
Ko Wen-je is both firm and flexible. Tsai Ing-wen would do well to learn from his example.
柯文哲的堅定與彈性 蔡總統學學
2016/8/24 中國時報
自稱「墨綠」的柯文哲，頂著綠營人士扣上的「現代施琅」、「搶當台灣特首」紅帽子，不在乎獨派團體「如影隨形抗議」的威脅，及親綠媒體「區區一個地方官、民調數字又難看」的嘲弄，柯文哲還是成功地續辦了台北、上海雙城論壇。
倒是蔡英文透過發言人表達了祝福，總統府發言人表示，兩岸之間應該多交流，只要有助增進雙方互相了解，包括城市交流在內，都是好事。
一些綠營人士習慣性對雙城論壇扣紅帽，和蔡英文對雙城論壇釋出的柔軟善意，兩者間的矛盾正凸顯蔡英文推動兩岸事務的難處。這「難處」要如何化解，也正考驗蔡英文智慧，而柯文哲推動雙城論壇所展現的堅定態度與彈性思維，正是蔡英文可以借鑑參考的。
綠營人士的攻詰，這個難處，不是只有蔡英文有，自況「墨綠」的柯文哲，其意識型態的光譜包袱並不比蔡英文輕。柯文哲近來一系列兩岸政策的發言，以及為促成雙城論壇的柔軟修正，都招來了昔日盟友一頂又一頂的紅帽，成為柯文哲政治十字路口上的另類「紅綠燈」。但柯文哲又是如何看待這盞紅綠燈呢？
首先，在台北市政遭到重大挫敗、市政能力備受質疑的柯文哲，顯然知道，兩岸議題對他而言是敗部復活的契機，他要讓雙城論壇順利舉行，以凸顯他在綠營中擁有人所不及的兩岸事務處理能力，讓上海台北的定期交流不會因為新政府上台而中斷。
舉輕明重，如果不是兩岸事務主管首長的台北市長都對兩岸關係的重要性有此清楚認知，蔡英文就更該知道，她治理國政的最大死角、民調重挫的核心原因就是兩岸。兩岸關係不理順，台灣的發展就沒有樂觀空間，直接衝擊的就是經濟，而經濟為人民滿意之本，也是執政者累積民信威望的源水流泉。
這道理很簡單，台灣是外貿導向的經濟體，與世界愈融，則台灣的活力積木堆得愈高，中國大陸是世界經濟體中極大的積木，台灣把這塊積木拿掉，經濟能不垮嗎？經濟垮了，內政又焉能不垮？經濟、內政都垮了，蔡英文陷入死亡交叉的民調如何振起？
從華航、國道收費員等議題的「快刀」，都可以看到蔡團隊「搶救民調大兵」的急切，先不說這中間諸多討好式的速斷，可能會留下的後遺症，從治國大方略來看，也可以說是無頭蒼蠅式的捨近求遠、捨本逐末。因為，治國的道理就是美國前總統柯林頓那句競選名言：「笨蛋，問題在經濟！」
在台灣，兩岸是經濟之本，所以這句柯林頓的競選名言在台灣的實踐，又可以變成：「笨蛋，問題在兩岸！」
和中國大陸合作，是台灣生存發展的絕對必要，更不要說，還牽涉到複雜的東亞戰略、台灣的外交空間，以及諸多經濟以外、卻可能卡住台灣的兩岸事務。蔡英文身為國家元首，對於因九二共識僵局而卡死的兩岸關係，繼續堅持「就職演說已對北京釋出最大善意」，然後兩手一攤，以悉聽尊便的消極強硬任由兩岸關係崩盤、台灣陷入困境，可謂不負責任、失職。其次，柯文哲雖認知兩岸關係對他政治布局的重要，但他也確實在兩岸問題上做足功課、花足功夫、降足身段。
嚴格說來，陸方原來對「墨綠柯文哲」的疑慮，並不亞於蔡英文，但雙城論壇仍能在柯文哲的努力下，不致隨其他官方交流的中斷而停擺，柯文哲一連串對陸友善與同理心的發言和態度調整，當然有極大關係。柯文哲不避諱自稱「中國人」，大方呼應習近平的「兩岸一家親」，公道肯定今天中國大陸做到「人人有飯吃」在歷史上很不容易，加上「四個互相」、「一五新觀點」的建設性柔軟，終能維持雙城的交流不致中斷。同時，上海代表沙海林在雙城論壇也沒有以「九二共識」為難柯文哲，這就是一種善意的努力。
雖然，這些也招致綠營「背叛」、「軟骨」、「傾中媚共」的質疑。但排除這些情緒性扣帽，詳觀細究柯文哲上開發言，無一不入情理。關鍵是，蔡英文願不願不憚於綠營民粹，說出具同理心、合情合理之言，為重建兩岸關係，找出一條突圍之道？
從決心到做法，柯文哲的堅定與彈性，蔡英文應該參考。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 24, 2016
Executive Summary: Ko's actions provoked green camp accusations of "selling out", of "spinelessness", of "pandering to China [sic] and cozying up to Communists”. But ignore such emotional outbursts. Scrutinize Ko Wen-je's words. Not one of them was unreasonable. The key question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to defy green camp sentiment, speak from the heart, reason from the head, restore cross-Strait relations, and break the impass. Ko Wen-je is both firm and flexible. Tsai Ing-wen would do well to learn from his example.
Full Text Below:
Ko Wen-je is a self-proclaimed "deep green". Yet the green camp has accused him of being a "modern day Shi Lang" who aspires to be "Beijing's Governor General for Taiwan”. Taiwan independence groups heckle him wherever he goes. The green media mocks him as "a mere local official with embarrassingly low approval ratings”. Nevertheless Ko Wen-je has successfully renewed the Taipei Shanghai Twin Cities Forum.
Through her spokesman, Tsai Ing-wen wished Ko Wen-je well. The presidential spokesman said that exchanges between the two sides should increase. As long as exchanges increase mutual understanding, then exchanges, including city to city exchanges, are a good thing.
Some green camp people habitually denounce the Twin Cities Forum as “Communist”. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, has expressed approval of the Twin Cities Forum. This highlights the difficulty Tsai Ing-wen faces when promoting cross-Strait relations. Resolving this difficulty is a test of Tsai Ing-wen's wisdom. Ko Wen-je's firmness and flexibility regarding the Twin Cities Forum shows that Tsai Ing-wen can learn from his example.
Green Camp condemnation is a problem not just for Tsai Ing-wen, but even for "deep green" Ko Wen-je. The ideological burden he must bear, is no less than that borne by Tsai Ing-wen. Ko Wen-je recently issued a series of cross-Strait policy statements. He made subtle revisions to the Twin Cities Forum. This invited another round of allegations that he was “soft on Communism”. Ko Wen-je now stands at a political crossroads. Which way will he go?
The Taipei Municipal Government has suffered a major setback. Ko Wen-je's governing ability is being questioned. He clearly realizes that cross-Strait relations offers him an opportunity to reverse his political fortunes. He wants the success of the Twins Cities Forum to show that some people in the green camp are able to deal with cross-Strait affairs. He wants to show that regular exchanges between Taipei and Shanghai need not be interrupted, merely because a new government has come to power.
What holds true for a city mayor, holds true for a national president. The Mayor of Taipei has a clear understanding of the importance of cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen should have an even clearer understanding. She should realize that the biggest obstacle she faces, and the chief reason her approval ratings are down, is cross-Strait policy. Unless cross-Strait relations are straightened out, Taiwan's economy will not improve. The economy is the first to feel the impact. The economy is the basis of public satisfaction. It is the fountainhead of the ruling regime's prestige.
The truth is simple. Taiwan has a trade-based economy. The more it merges with the world outside, the more vitality it acquires. The Mainland is one of the world's largest economic blocs. Can Taiwan's economy survive if this bloc is eliminated? Can internal order survive if Taiwan's economy collapses? Can Tsai Ing-wen survive politically if both the economy and internal order collapse?
Tsai Ing-wen's swift response to the China Airlines strike and the National Highway toll collectors strike shows how desperate she is to salvage her approval ratings. Leave aside for the moment the price she may pay in the long run. From a larger perspective, she is like a fly without a head, sacrificing long term interests to short term expediency. She is missing the forest for the trees. Former US President Bill Clinton summed up the fundamental principle of national governance in his campaign slogan: "It's the economy, stupid!"
For Taiwan, the two sides of the Strait are the cornerstone of the economy. Apply Clinton's campaign slogan to Taiwan, and it becomes, "It's cross-Strait relations, stupid!"
Cooperation with the Mainland is essential to Taiwan's survival and growth. It affects the complex East Asian strategic picture, and the ROC's diplomatic space. Many non-economic issues stand in the way of cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen has created an impasse in cross-Strait relations by refusing to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She stubbornly insists that her "inaugural address has already demonstrated the utmost in goodwill toward Beijing". She has throws her hands up in feigned indignation. Her passive aggressive approach will kill cross-Strait exchanges. It will lead Taiwan down a blind alley, and can only be characterized as irresponsible. Ko Wen-je realizes the importance of cross-Strait relations for his political ambitions. But he has also done his homework. He expended the necessary effort, and assumed the necessary humility.
The Mainland was initially no less skeptical of the "deep green” Ko Wen-je than it was of Tsai Ing-wen. But Ko Wen-je's continued efforts on behalf of the Twin Cities Forum prevented the interruption of official exchanges. A series of statements sympathetic to Mainland compatriots, along with changes in his attitude made a dramatic difference. Ko Wen-je did not hesitate to proclaim himself "Chinese". He boldly echoed Xi Jinping's declaration that "Both sides of the Strait belong to one family". He publicly affirmed the Mainland for ensuring that everyone had enough to eat, a rare feat in China' history. also spoke of "four mutuals" and a "2015 New Perspective". His pronouncements were constructive and low keyed. He succeeded in maintaining uninterrupted communication between the Twin Cities. The Shanghai representative refrained from embarrassing Ko Wen-je over the 1992 Consensus at the Shanghai Twin Cities Forum. This too was a gesture of good faith.
Ko's actions provoked green camp accusations of "selling out", of "spinelessness", of "pandering to China [sic] and cozying up to Communists”. But ignore such emotional outbursts. Scrutinize Ko Wen-je's words. Not one of them was unreasonable. The key question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to defy green camp sentiment, speak from the heart, reason from the head, restore cross-Strait relations, and break the impass.
Ko Wen-je is both firm and flexible. Tsai Ing-wen would do well to learn from his example.
柯文哲的堅定與彈性 蔡總統學學
2016/8/24 中國時報
自稱「墨綠」的柯文哲，頂著綠營人士扣上的「現代施琅」、「搶當台灣特首」紅帽子，不在乎獨派團體「如影隨形抗議」的威脅，及親綠媒體「區區一個地方官、民調數字又難看」的嘲弄，柯文哲還是成功地續辦了台北、上海雙城論壇。
倒是蔡英文透過發言人表達了祝福，總統府發言人表示，兩岸之間應該多交流，只要有助增進雙方互相了解，包括城市交流在內，都是好事。
一些綠營人士習慣性對雙城論壇扣紅帽，和蔡英文對雙城論壇釋出的柔軟善意，兩者間的矛盾正凸顯蔡英文推動兩岸事務的難處。這「難處」要如何化解，也正考驗蔡英文智慧，而柯文哲推動雙城論壇所展現的堅定態度與彈性思維，正是蔡英文可以借鑑參考的。
綠營人士的攻詰，這個難處，不是只有蔡英文有，自況「墨綠」的柯文哲，其意識型態的光譜包袱並不比蔡英文輕。柯文哲近來一系列兩岸政策的發言，以及為促成雙城論壇的柔軟修正，都招來了昔日盟友一頂又一頂的紅帽，成為柯文哲政治十字路口上的另類「紅綠燈」。但柯文哲又是如何看待這盞紅綠燈呢？
首先，在台北市政遭到重大挫敗、市政能力備受質疑的柯文哲，顯然知道，兩岸議題對他而言是敗部復活的契機，他要讓雙城論壇順利舉行，以凸顯他在綠營中擁有人所不及的兩岸事務處理能力，讓上海台北的定期交流不會因為新政府上台而中斷。
舉輕明重，如果不是兩岸事務主管首長的台北市長都對兩岸關係的重要性有此清楚認知，蔡英文就更該知道，她治理國政的最大死角、民調重挫的核心原因就是兩岸。兩岸關係不理順，台灣的發展就沒有樂觀空間，直接衝擊的就是經濟，而經濟為人民滿意之本，也是執政者累積民信威望的源水流泉。
這道理很簡單，台灣是外貿導向的經濟體，與世界愈融，則台灣的活力積木堆得愈高，中國大陸是世界經濟體中極大的積木，台灣把這塊積木拿掉，經濟能不垮嗎？經濟垮了，內政又焉能不垮？經濟、內政都垮了，蔡英文陷入死亡交叉的民調如何振起？
從華航、國道收費員等議題的「快刀」，都可以看到蔡團隊「搶救民調大兵」的急切，先不說這中間諸多討好式的速斷，可能會留下的後遺症，從治國大方略來看，也可以說是無頭蒼蠅式的捨近求遠、捨本逐末。因為，治國的道理就是美國前總統柯林頓那句競選名言：「笨蛋，問題在經濟！」
在台灣，兩岸是經濟之本，所以這句柯林頓的競選名言在台灣的實踐，又可以變成：「笨蛋，問題在兩岸！」
和中國大陸合作，是台灣生存發展的絕對必要，更不要說，還牽涉到複雜的東亞戰略、台灣的外交空間，以及諸多經濟以外、卻可能卡住台灣的兩岸事務。蔡英文身為國家元首，對於因九二共識僵局而卡死的兩岸關係，繼續堅持「就職演說已對北京釋出最大善意」，然後兩手一攤，以悉聽尊便的消極強硬任由兩岸關係崩盤、台灣陷入困境，可謂不負責任、失職。其次，柯文哲雖認知兩岸關係對他政治布局的重要，但他也確實在兩岸問題上做足功課、花足功夫、降足身段。
嚴格說來，陸方原來對「墨綠柯文哲」的疑慮，並不亞於蔡英文，但雙城論壇仍能在柯文哲的努力下，不致隨其他官方交流的中斷而停擺，柯文哲一連串對陸友善與同理心的發言和態度調整，當然有極大關係。柯文哲不避諱自稱「中國人」，大方呼應習近平的「兩岸一家親」，公道肯定今天中國大陸做到「人人有飯吃」在歷史上很不容易，加上「四個互相」、「一五新觀點」的建設性柔軟，終能維持雙城的交流不致中斷。同時，上海代表沙海林在雙城論壇也沒有以「九二共識」為難柯文哲，這就是一種善意的努力。
雖然，這些也招致綠營「背叛」、「軟骨」、「傾中媚共」的質疑。但排除這些情緒性扣帽，詳觀細究柯文哲上開發言，無一不入情理。關鍵是，蔡英文願不願不憚於綠營民粹，說出具同理心、合情合理之言，為重建兩岸關係，找出一條突圍之道？
從決心到做法，柯文哲的堅定與彈性，蔡英文應該參考。
Monday, August 22, 2016
Tsai Ing-wen Must Not Allow the Tail to Wag the Dog
Tsai Ing-wen Must Not Allow the Tail to Wag the Dog
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2016
Executive Summary: Take the president's four-year term. The first 100 days in office is merely the beginning. The coffin lid has yet to be sealed. The government's legacy has yet to be determined. But the first 100 days has been utter chaos. The President and the Premier's poll numbers have plummeted. The public is thoroughly disillusioned. Tsai Ing-wen must wonder how she can possibly stay the course. The DPP will be in power for four years. But the public has not been able to tolerate Tsai Ing-wen's policy path for even 100 days. What will Taiwan do for the next four years?
Full Text Below:
President Tsai has been in power for over three months, but the political atmosphere on Taiwan has not changed one iota. Bureaucratic arrogance persists. Domestic governance, foreign affairs, and national defense have all gone off the rails. Social antagonisms have intensified. Tsai Ing-wen wants to avoid being judged according to her first 100 days in office. We would warn her against allowing the tail to wag the dog. She must deal with this problem as soon as possible. Otherwise during the next 100 days public anger will boil over.
Actually, if one begins counting from January 16, when Tsai Ing-wen was elected, seven months or 200 days have already passed. In other words, Tsai's record has been far from satisfactory. She wasted her four months preparation period. Her administrative team was overconfident. Her cabinet's performance has been hit or miss. Her administration's strategic direction remains a huge question mark. It is overwhelmed. All it can do is put out fires. It cannot offer a new vision for Taiwan. How can people not be dismayed?
For the new government, the tail is wagging the dog. This phenomenon has manifested itself in two ways. Way Number One. The president is confused about her national priorities. She is having difficulty differentiating between what is important and what is not, what is primary and what is secondary. She is having difficulty establishing a convincing value system. Way Number Two. Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to differentiate herself from Chen Shui-bian. She is attempting to take a more rational, middle road. But she is finding it hard to hold her course when confronted by the DPP and various pressure groups. She has been constantly forced to compromise or cave in. Her repeated changes in direction, her constant course corrections, have gradually blurred her policy path.
Take the former. The President has a responsibility to lead the government in a direction that enables the nation to grow. The President must offer a vision able to inspire people. The new government has already been in office 100 days, yet it remains preoccupied with electioneering. It remains mired in its opposition party mindset, preoccupied with political spin doctoring, historical grievances, revenge seeking, political purges, or personnel reshufflings. Such a preoccupation with the past, prevents it from seeing the problems it faces now. How can it possibly offer a vision for the future?
Some of the reforms Tsai has proposed make sense. For example, pension reform has reached a point where it is a matter of extreme urgency. Judicial reform has been the focus of popular resentment. These reforms should be implemented. But the recovery of Kuomintang assets, the promotion of transitional justice, the rewriting of history texts, are merely cut-throat political battles. They are manifestations of political tyranny, because they trample over the rule of law, they lack legitimacy, and they incite social unrest.
The Tsai government has placed so much emphasis on reform, it is completely overlooking what most people care about, their livelihood. Taiwan's economy has shown no improvement for a very long time. But few hear any words of wisdom from President Tsai. Her Minister of Economic Affairs cares olnly about keeping up appearances on the President's "nuclear-free homeland" initiative. He has little time for anything else. The Minister of Finance has become the Invisible Man. On election night, Tsai swore that "The DPP will give priority to bills that the people are concerned about". But all anyone sees today, is the DPP's abuse of its majority in the Legislative Yuan to wage all out war. The bills it has passed have nothing to do with people's livelihood. Even more distressing, the government has no qualms whatsoever about importing US pork containing Clenbuterol or foodstuffs from Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster zone. How are people supposed to feel about such betrayals by the DPP once it was in power?
Now consider the "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon. Tsai Ing-wen initially hoped to free herself from the constraints that bound Chen Shui-bian. She drew clearer boundaries between the party and the government. But the Tsai faction is having difficulty sticking to its path. The distribution of political pork has been met with challenges from within the party. The Lin Chuan cabinet's performance has been poor. This has given rival DPP factions a pretext to engage in extortion. During her election campaign, Tsai Ing-wen viewed pressure groups that attacked the Ma government as “partners”. She has rewarded them handsomely. In some cases, she has even spun their narrow agendas as mainstream values. She has ignored the fact that they are inapplicable to the nation as a whole, and may provoke a backlash. Such decisions have resulted in Tsai Ing-wen's loss of direction. Pandering to a tiny minority may pass for idealism. But it is utterly impractical. After all, a president is supposed lead a majority, and not be led by a minority. Such administrative practices violate the rule of law. They cannot win the approval of the public. They implicitly encourage people to take to the streets in protest. They can only provoke greater dissatisfaction, and make problems harder for the government to solve.
Take the president's four-year term. The first 100 days in office is merely the beginning. The coffin lid has yet to be sealed. The government's legacy has yet to be determined. But the first 100 days has been utter chaos. The President and the Premier's poll numbers have plummeted. The public is thoroughly disillusioned. Tsai Ing-wen must wonder how she can possibly stay the course. The DPP will be in power for four years. But the public has not been able to tolerate Tsai Ing-wen's policy path for even 100 days. What will Taiwan do for the next four years?
蔡英文要小心「尾巴搖狗」現象
2016-08-23 聯合報
蔡總統執政三個多月，並未給台灣帶來新的氣象，官僚顢頇依舊，內政、外交、國防脫軌事件頻傳，社會對立焦躁氣氛則隱隱發作。蔡英文希望外界不要僅以百日來評斷她執政的成敗，但我們也要提醒她：政府的「尾巴搖狗」現象若不能儘快消除，再下一個百日恐將民怨滔天。
說準確些，如果從一月十六日蔡英文當選時起算，迄今已超過七個月，計兩百多天。換言之，蔡政府今天的表現難如人意，和她在四個多月執政準備期的蹉跎有關，而這當然也和政府團隊的過度自信有關。如今，內閣表現離離落落，整個政府執政的方向和戰略不明，一再淪為消極的危機處理，終至無力為台灣形塑新的願景，能不讓人遺憾？
新政府的「尾巴搖狗」現象，表現在兩方面：在主觀面，是總統面對國政優先次序的混亂，重枝節而輕根本、重表象而輕制度，難以建立有說服力的價值信念。在客觀面，蔡英文原企圖走一條有別於陳水扁的中間理性路線，但面對民進黨及社運團體的掣肘似乎難以自持，不斷作出妥協或迎合。一再轉彎、修正的結果，路線特質和目標也逐漸消損、模糊。
先談前者。總統的責任，在帶領政府部門對國家發展作全方位的擘劃執行，並提出可堪想像的願景召喚人民前進。但新政府就位百日以來，似乎還未擺脫「競選」和「在野」心態，一心只想著政治上的扳回或扭轉，想著各項歷史問題的抹平或追剿，乃至於政策及人馬的更汰和重置。既充滿這類思維，所有心思即專注在計較「過去」，看不到「現在」的問題，遑論未來願景。
當然，蔡英文提出的某些改革主張是有意義的。例如，年金改革已到極其迫切的地步，司法改革則一直是人民怨懟所在，應該推動。然而，諸如追討國民黨黨產、推動轉型正義、修改課綱等作法，則落入了政治惡鬥和割喉之戰；甚至因為手段霸道，以政治踰越法制，而顯得正當性不足，卻攪得社會不寧。
問題在，蔡政府把改革議題打得虎虎生風，多數民眾關注的民生施政卻受到嚴重漠視。例如，台灣經濟久無起色，人們幾未聞蔡總統有何高見，而經濟部長展現的則似乎只是在幫總統的「非核家園」撐場面，別無關注，遑論財政部長幾已變成隱形人。在當選之夜，蔡英文承諾「民進黨會優先處理人民關心的法案」，但今天人們看到的，卻是民進黨濫用國會優勢擴大鬥爭，臨時會優先通過的法案均與民生無關。更讓人扼腕的是，連瘦肉精美豬、日本核區食品等食安事項，政府都輕易想要髮夾彎放水。如此本末倒置偏離主軸的施政，如何教人民有感？
再談第二種「尾巴搖狗」現象。蔡英文原企圖跳脫陳水扁的窠臼，在黨、政之間劃出更清楚的界線，但英派路線似乎難獨撐大局，隨即因執政大餅的利益分配受到黨內挑戰；而林全內閣表現不佳，更成為民進黨各派系指責及勒索的藉口。不僅如此，蔡英文把各色社運團體在她競選期間對馬政府的抗爭都視為「夥伴關係」，除大肆犒賞，甚至將這些特殊案例的主張當成主流價值宣揚，而不顧其適用之局限性，及可能引致的反挫力。這樣的選擇，也導致蔡英文的思路和作為每每走向偏鋒。一味迎合少數的作法，或可宣稱是在表達某些理想，但其反義就是不務實；畢竟，總統是要領導多數而不是被少數領導。就行政和法治而言，這不利爭取多數民眾的認同，且其間隱含鼓勵抗爭的意味只會誘發更多不滿，使政府窮於處理。
就總統的四年任期而言，百日執政只是起步，尚不足蓋棺論定。然而，看這百日的紛紛擾擾，總統和閣揆民調支持度的急墜，民眾不滿之聲四起，蔡英文不能不警惕她的路線將何以為繼。民眾對四年政黨輪替的期待若撐不過百日，台灣要怎麼辦？
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2016
Executive Summary: Take the president's four-year term. The first 100 days in office is merely the beginning. The coffin lid has yet to be sealed. The government's legacy has yet to be determined. But the first 100 days has been utter chaos. The President and the Premier's poll numbers have plummeted. The public is thoroughly disillusioned. Tsai Ing-wen must wonder how she can possibly stay the course. The DPP will be in power for four years. But the public has not been able to tolerate Tsai Ing-wen's policy path for even 100 days. What will Taiwan do for the next four years?
Full Text Below:
President Tsai has been in power for over three months, but the political atmosphere on Taiwan has not changed one iota. Bureaucratic arrogance persists. Domestic governance, foreign affairs, and national defense have all gone off the rails. Social antagonisms have intensified. Tsai Ing-wen wants to avoid being judged according to her first 100 days in office. We would warn her against allowing the tail to wag the dog. She must deal with this problem as soon as possible. Otherwise during the next 100 days public anger will boil over.
Actually, if one begins counting from January 16, when Tsai Ing-wen was elected, seven months or 200 days have already passed. In other words, Tsai's record has been far from satisfactory. She wasted her four months preparation period. Her administrative team was overconfident. Her cabinet's performance has been hit or miss. Her administration's strategic direction remains a huge question mark. It is overwhelmed. All it can do is put out fires. It cannot offer a new vision for Taiwan. How can people not be dismayed?
For the new government, the tail is wagging the dog. This phenomenon has manifested itself in two ways. Way Number One. The president is confused about her national priorities. She is having difficulty differentiating between what is important and what is not, what is primary and what is secondary. She is having difficulty establishing a convincing value system. Way Number Two. Tsai Ing-wen is attempting to differentiate herself from Chen Shui-bian. She is attempting to take a more rational, middle road. But she is finding it hard to hold her course when confronted by the DPP and various pressure groups. She has been constantly forced to compromise or cave in. Her repeated changes in direction, her constant course corrections, have gradually blurred her policy path.
Take the former. The President has a responsibility to lead the government in a direction that enables the nation to grow. The President must offer a vision able to inspire people. The new government has already been in office 100 days, yet it remains preoccupied with electioneering. It remains mired in its opposition party mindset, preoccupied with political spin doctoring, historical grievances, revenge seeking, political purges, or personnel reshufflings. Such a preoccupation with the past, prevents it from seeing the problems it faces now. How can it possibly offer a vision for the future?
Some of the reforms Tsai has proposed make sense. For example, pension reform has reached a point where it is a matter of extreme urgency. Judicial reform has been the focus of popular resentment. These reforms should be implemented. But the recovery of Kuomintang assets, the promotion of transitional justice, the rewriting of history texts, are merely cut-throat political battles. They are manifestations of political tyranny, because they trample over the rule of law, they lack legitimacy, and they incite social unrest.
The Tsai government has placed so much emphasis on reform, it is completely overlooking what most people care about, their livelihood. Taiwan's economy has shown no improvement for a very long time. But few hear any words of wisdom from President Tsai. Her Minister of Economic Affairs cares olnly about keeping up appearances on the President's "nuclear-free homeland" initiative. He has little time for anything else. The Minister of Finance has become the Invisible Man. On election night, Tsai swore that "The DPP will give priority to bills that the people are concerned about". But all anyone sees today, is the DPP's abuse of its majority in the Legislative Yuan to wage all out war. The bills it has passed have nothing to do with people's livelihood. Even more distressing, the government has no qualms whatsoever about importing US pork containing Clenbuterol or foodstuffs from Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster zone. How are people supposed to feel about such betrayals by the DPP once it was in power?
Now consider the "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon. Tsai Ing-wen initially hoped to free herself from the constraints that bound Chen Shui-bian. She drew clearer boundaries between the party and the government. But the Tsai faction is having difficulty sticking to its path. The distribution of political pork has been met with challenges from within the party. The Lin Chuan cabinet's performance has been poor. This has given rival DPP factions a pretext to engage in extortion. During her election campaign, Tsai Ing-wen viewed pressure groups that attacked the Ma government as “partners”. She has rewarded them handsomely. In some cases, she has even spun their narrow agendas as mainstream values. She has ignored the fact that they are inapplicable to the nation as a whole, and may provoke a backlash. Such decisions have resulted in Tsai Ing-wen's loss of direction. Pandering to a tiny minority may pass for idealism. But it is utterly impractical. After all, a president is supposed lead a majority, and not be led by a minority. Such administrative practices violate the rule of law. They cannot win the approval of the public. They implicitly encourage people to take to the streets in protest. They can only provoke greater dissatisfaction, and make problems harder for the government to solve.
Take the president's four-year term. The first 100 days in office is merely the beginning. The coffin lid has yet to be sealed. The government's legacy has yet to be determined. But the first 100 days has been utter chaos. The President and the Premier's poll numbers have plummeted. The public is thoroughly disillusioned. Tsai Ing-wen must wonder how she can possibly stay the course. The DPP will be in power for four years. But the public has not been able to tolerate Tsai Ing-wen's policy path for even 100 days. What will Taiwan do for the next four years?
蔡英文要小心「尾巴搖狗」現象
2016-08-23 聯合報
蔡總統執政三個多月，並未給台灣帶來新的氣象，官僚顢頇依舊，內政、外交、國防脫軌事件頻傳，社會對立焦躁氣氛則隱隱發作。蔡英文希望外界不要僅以百日來評斷她執政的成敗，但我們也要提醒她：政府的「尾巴搖狗」現象若不能儘快消除，再下一個百日恐將民怨滔天。
說準確些，如果從一月十六日蔡英文當選時起算，迄今已超過七個月，計兩百多天。換言之，蔡政府今天的表現難如人意，和她在四個多月執政準備期的蹉跎有關，而這當然也和政府團隊的過度自信有關。如今，內閣表現離離落落，整個政府執政的方向和戰略不明，一再淪為消極的危機處理，終至無力為台灣形塑新的願景，能不讓人遺憾？
新政府的「尾巴搖狗」現象，表現在兩方面：在主觀面，是總統面對國政優先次序的混亂，重枝節而輕根本、重表象而輕制度，難以建立有說服力的價值信念。在客觀面，蔡英文原企圖走一條有別於陳水扁的中間理性路線，但面對民進黨及社運團體的掣肘似乎難以自持，不斷作出妥協或迎合。一再轉彎、修正的結果，路線特質和目標也逐漸消損、模糊。
先談前者。總統的責任，在帶領政府部門對國家發展作全方位的擘劃執行，並提出可堪想像的願景召喚人民前進。但新政府就位百日以來，似乎還未擺脫「競選」和「在野」心態，一心只想著政治上的扳回或扭轉，想著各項歷史問題的抹平或追剿，乃至於政策及人馬的更汰和重置。既充滿這類思維，所有心思即專注在計較「過去」，看不到「現在」的問題，遑論未來願景。
當然，蔡英文提出的某些改革主張是有意義的。例如，年金改革已到極其迫切的地步，司法改革則一直是人民怨懟所在，應該推動。然而，諸如追討國民黨黨產、推動轉型正義、修改課綱等作法，則落入了政治惡鬥和割喉之戰；甚至因為手段霸道，以政治踰越法制，而顯得正當性不足，卻攪得社會不寧。
問題在，蔡政府把改革議題打得虎虎生風，多數民眾關注的民生施政卻受到嚴重漠視。例如，台灣經濟久無起色，人們幾未聞蔡總統有何高見，而經濟部長展現的則似乎只是在幫總統的「非核家園」撐場面，別無關注，遑論財政部長幾已變成隱形人。在當選之夜，蔡英文承諾「民進黨會優先處理人民關心的法案」，但今天人們看到的，卻是民進黨濫用國會優勢擴大鬥爭，臨時會優先通過的法案均與民生無關。更讓人扼腕的是，連瘦肉精美豬、日本核區食品等食安事項，政府都輕易想要髮夾彎放水。如此本末倒置偏離主軸的施政，如何教人民有感？
再談第二種「尾巴搖狗」現象。蔡英文原企圖跳脫陳水扁的窠臼，在黨、政之間劃出更清楚的界線，但英派路線似乎難獨撐大局，隨即因執政大餅的利益分配受到黨內挑戰；而林全內閣表現不佳，更成為民進黨各派系指責及勒索的藉口。不僅如此，蔡英文把各色社運團體在她競選期間對馬政府的抗爭都視為「夥伴關係」，除大肆犒賞，甚至將這些特殊案例的主張當成主流價值宣揚，而不顧其適用之局限性，及可能引致的反挫力。這樣的選擇，也導致蔡英文的思路和作為每每走向偏鋒。一味迎合少數的作法，或可宣稱是在表達某些理想，但其反義就是不務實；畢竟，總統是要領導多數而不是被少數領導。就行政和法治而言，這不利爭取多數民眾的認同，且其間隱含鼓勵抗爭的意味只會誘發更多不滿，使政府窮於處理。
就總統的四年任期而言，百日執政只是起步，尚不足蓋棺論定。然而，看這百日的紛紛擾擾，總統和閣揆民調支持度的急墜，民眾不滿之聲四起，蔡英文不能不警惕她的路線將何以為繼。民眾對四年政黨輪替的期待若撐不過百日，台灣要怎麼辦？
Sunday, August 21, 2016
President Tsai Must Do More to End Cross-Strait Confrontation
President Tsai Must Do More to End Cross-Strait Confrontation
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2016
Executive Summary: Does President Tsai want to avoid Chen Shui-bian's old mistakes? If she does, she must make a genuine effort to improve cross-Strait relations. Trust between the CCP and the DPP is in short supply. Endless pro forma lip service will not reassure the Mainland. In fact, the Tsai government no longer even bothers with that. The Tsai government has restrained only internal de-Sinicization. Externally, it is using the US and Japan to counter the Mainland. Just what is the nature of cross-Strait relations? The Tsai government must respond to Mainland concerns in a clearer manner. Only then can she narrow the distance between the two sides and enable the resumption of official cross-Strait interaction.
Full Text Below:
President Tsai recently reiterated her intention to maintain the status quo and to conduct cross-Strait relations based on the existing constitutional framework. She volunteered the opinion that both sides share responsibility for cross-Strait dialogue and exchanges. She appeared to be challenging the Mainland's claim that Taiwan alone was responsible for the breakdown in cross-Strait communication. But when a reporter asked her whether there was a 1992 Consensus, President Tsai invoked her 5/20 speech, and implied that she had done everything in her power to bring the two sides closer.
This is the heart of the problem. The Mainland has never stopped working toward cross-Strait peace. It considers President Tsai's inaugural address an improvement, because it made reference to "on the basis of the Constitution's Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area”. But the Mainland also noted that President Tsai equivocated on the core meaning of the 1992 Consensus. Therefore her response to the Mainland was incomplete. It hoped that President Tsai would continue to move forward, until both sides met in the middle.
The Mainland refrained from taking tough measures immediately following Tsai's 5/20 address. Feeling responsible, it was reluctant to set back bilateral goodwill. Anyone who pays attention to public opinion on the Mainland, will find more and more people advocating reunification by means of military force. Mainland netizens are increasingly hostile toward Taiwan. They are increasingly filled with resentment. This was not the case a few years ago. Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties, as well as the general public, must pay attention. In spite of this negative atmosphere, the Mainland government has yet to take hostile action against Taiwan in the name of "public opinion". The Mainland response has been restrained, even to the Hsiung Feng III missile launch fiasco and the tour bus fire tragedy. It has done everything in its power to minimize public hostility toward Taiwan. The Tsai government ought to acknowledge this, and respond with goodwill.
Alas, it clearly has not. President Tsai's actions since taking office have provoked deep concern. The Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education have taken giant steps backwards. They have "de-Sinicized" Taiwan repeatedly. The new government has used "transitional justice" as a pretext to liquidate Kuomintang Party assets. The public has witnessed DPP hatred for the KMT in action. Even more, it has seen the DPP's underlying motive – de-Sinicization. Everything the KMT did in the past to promote cross-Strait peace, is now being stigmatized as “pandering to China [sic], and selling out Taiwan”. The peace dividend the KMT painstakingly created for Taiwan, has been obliterated by the new government. Internationally, the Tsai government has cozied up to United States and Japan. It even prosecuted Taiwan fishermen who sailed to Taiping Island to reaffirm our sovereignty, then claimed it was “merely enforcing the law”. In fact, it has been struggling to prove to the United States and Japan that it is not working with the Mainland to defend Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea. This has sent a chill through patriots within Taiwan. Mainland compatriates consider this as an even more hostile act.
Former SEF Vice Chairman Ma Shao-chang referred to this approach in his new book. He characterized Chen era cross-Strait policy as a two pronged strategy of "stabilization plus differentiation". The stabilization part proved Chen's ability to manage cross-Strait relations. The differentiation part included a wide range of policies. Initial stabilization enabled the creation of increasingly prominent differentiations. The important point was that the stabilization part was mere show. Only the differentiation part was real. The guise of stabilization provided cover for actual differentiation. President Tsai's approach is similar. She uses misleading appearances to hide her true intent. Her show of sensitivity toward Mainland concerns is merely a delaying tactic. Meanwhile, her real world actions move Taiwan farther and farther away from the Mainland. Hung Chi-chang recently expressed concern about President Tsai going down Chen Shui-bian's old path. People who follow cross-Strait relations are clearly concerned about this problem.
President Tsai said both sides share responsibility for cross-Strait communication and interaction. In fact, only the Mainland has acted in a responsible manner. President Tsai has evaded all responsibility. She has not as she alleges, done everything within her ability. The fact is cross-Strait problems cannot be postponed indefinitely. Public opinion on the Mainland is boiling over. It could easily affect Mainland government decision-making. The Mainland's current restraint could yield to public sentiment. That would not be a blessing for cross-Strait relations. President Tsai has been deliberately equivocal and ambiguous. But she may be painting herself into a corner. Refusal to make clear her cross-Strait policy intentions, enables Taiwan independence extremists to force her to openly adopt a Taiwan independence path. The Taiwan Solidarity Union or New Power Party may oppose her merely out of sheer spite. Pressure groups may renew pressure to “Join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan”. If President Tsai fails to make a decision, she will face greater pressures from within, and lose any room to maneuver.
Does President Tsai want to avoid Chen Shui-bian's old mistakes? If she does, she must make a genuine effort to improve cross-Strait relations. Trust between the CCP and the DPP is in short supply. Endless pro forma lip service will not reassure the Mainland. In fact, the Tsai government no longer even bothers with that. The Tsai government has restrained only internal de-Sinicization. Externally, it is using the US and Japan to counter the Mainland. Just what is the nature of cross-Strait relations? The Tsai government must respond to Mainland concerns in a clearer manner. Only then can she narrow the distance between the two sides and enable the resumption of official cross-Strait interaction.
解兩岸冷對抗 蔡總統並未盡其所能
2016/8/22 中國時報
蔡總統在記者節茶敘上主動提及兩岸關係，除了重申維持現狀和在當前憲政體制下發展兩岸關係以外，也再度強調推進兩岸對話交流需要兩岸雙方共同努力，是雙方共同的責任，似乎是針對大陸所稱兩岸溝通停擺責任完全在台灣一方的說法。不過當記者問到沒有九二共識怎麼辦時，蔡總統卻又回到520講話，指其已經盡其所能把雙方立場拉近。
問題的癥結就在這裡，大陸從未放棄推動兩岸關係和平發展的努力，也部分認同蔡總統的就職演講，認為增加了「依據憲法和《兩岸人民關係條例》」的用詞是一種進步。但大陸也注意到，蔡總統還是在九二共識的核心意涵問題上採取模糊態度，因此大陸的回應指這是一份未完成的答卷，希望蔡總統可以繼續向前走，讓雙方產生交集。
大陸並沒有在520講話之後立即採取強硬措施，正是不願雙方關係倒退的善意之舉，也是一種負責任的表現。民眾如果關心大陸網路輿論，會發現愈來愈多的武統言論甚囂塵上，而大陸網民對台灣的態度也愈來愈不友善，愈來愈充滿反感，這是幾年前還不存在的現象，台灣朝野及社會大眾應生警惕。但即便在這種輿論氛圍下，大陸官方也沒有藉「民意」之名對台灣採取敵對行動，甚至在發生雄三飛彈誤射及火燒車事件，我方應對荒腔走板，大陸卻選擇克制，盡可能避免輿論朝敵視台灣的方向發展。蔡政府應該正視、接受並回應這份善意。
結果顯然不是如此，蔡總統上任以來的種種作為讓人深感憂慮，文化部和教育部大開歷史倒車，「去中國化」的行動此起彼落，新政府對「轉型正義」和清算國民黨黨產全力以赴，讓人不僅看到民進黨對國民黨的仇視，更讓人注意到背後的去中國化邏輯。事實上，國民黨過去推動兩岸關係和平發展的種種能力，現在都被汙名化為親中賣台，國民黨為台灣創造的和平紅利，也被新政府逐步消滅殆盡。不僅如此，在對外關係上，蔡政府一再向美、日靠攏，甚至連前往太平島宣示主權的漁船都要假行政執法名義處罰之，與其說是依法行政，不如說是向美、日交心，證明自己無意與大陸聯手共同捍衛南海主權，這無疑讓台灣內部的愛國者心寒，看在大陸眼裡，更是十分不友好的舉動。
前海基會副董事長馬紹章在其新著，將扁時代的兩岸策略總結為「穩定」與「區別」兩手策略。「穩定」是為了證明其有處理兩岸關係的能力，「區別」則是創造多數的策略，執政初期以「穩定」為主，隨著時間的推移則愈來愈凸顯「區別」，更重要的是，「穩定」策略是虛是表，表現為不作為，「區別」則是實，表現在作為，是以虛掩實，以表蓋裡。檢視蔡總統現階段的做法，也可發現其有類似的發展趨勢，對大陸的核心關切都在虛與委蛇、以拖待變，實質行動則與大陸漸行漸遠。洪奇昌最近表達其對蔡總統走陳水扁老路的擔心，可見關心兩岸前途的人們都已注意到這個嚴峻問題。
雖然蔡總統言必稱兩岸溝通互動是兩岸共同的責任，但事實上大陸一直在盡責，反而是蔡總統一直在迴避，更未如其所言那般已盡其所能。但兩岸之間的問題終究不可能一直久拖不決，大陸的民意沸騰也很容易傳導至政府決策層，讓暫時的克制不得不退卻，轉而對民意做出回應，這絕非兩岸關係之福。蔡總統的曖昧模糊，也會讓自己陷入進退失據，遲遲不確定兩岸政策意向，其內部的激進派也有心推她一把，讓其走向公開台獨路線，無論是台聯與時代力量為反對而反對，還是民間團體的入聯倡議皆是新一輪的施壓。若蔡總統再不做出決斷，她將面對更大的內部壓力，反而讓自己失去迴旋空間。
蔡總統若想避免重蹈阿扁的老路，就應該採取實際行動為兩岸關係的改善做出努力，民、共互信嚴重不足，不斷的口頭論述不會讓大陸感到放心，更何況現在蔡政府連口頭的善意都鮮少出現。蔡政府只有在內部施政層面克制去中國化的衝動，在對外政策上做好美、日外交和兩岸關係的平衡，在兩岸究竟是什麼關係的問題上，以更清晰的態度回應大陸的關切，才能讓兩岸之間的距離拉近，從而為兩岸官方互動的重啟創造有利條件。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2016
Executive Summary: Does President Tsai want to avoid Chen Shui-bian's old mistakes? If she does, she must make a genuine effort to improve cross-Strait relations. Trust between the CCP and the DPP is in short supply. Endless pro forma lip service will not reassure the Mainland. In fact, the Tsai government no longer even bothers with that. The Tsai government has restrained only internal de-Sinicization. Externally, it is using the US and Japan to counter the Mainland. Just what is the nature of cross-Strait relations? The Tsai government must respond to Mainland concerns in a clearer manner. Only then can she narrow the distance between the two sides and enable the resumption of official cross-Strait interaction.
Full Text Below:
President Tsai recently reiterated her intention to maintain the status quo and to conduct cross-Strait relations based on the existing constitutional framework. She volunteered the opinion that both sides share responsibility for cross-Strait dialogue and exchanges. She appeared to be challenging the Mainland's claim that Taiwan alone was responsible for the breakdown in cross-Strait communication. But when a reporter asked her whether there was a 1992 Consensus, President Tsai invoked her 5/20 speech, and implied that she had done everything in her power to bring the two sides closer.
This is the heart of the problem. The Mainland has never stopped working toward cross-Strait peace. It considers President Tsai's inaugural address an improvement, because it made reference to "on the basis of the Constitution's Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area”. But the Mainland also noted that President Tsai equivocated on the core meaning of the 1992 Consensus. Therefore her response to the Mainland was incomplete. It hoped that President Tsai would continue to move forward, until both sides met in the middle.
The Mainland refrained from taking tough measures immediately following Tsai's 5/20 address. Feeling responsible, it was reluctant to set back bilateral goodwill. Anyone who pays attention to public opinion on the Mainland, will find more and more people advocating reunification by means of military force. Mainland netizens are increasingly hostile toward Taiwan. They are increasingly filled with resentment. This was not the case a few years ago. Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties, as well as the general public, must pay attention. In spite of this negative atmosphere, the Mainland government has yet to take hostile action against Taiwan in the name of "public opinion". The Mainland response has been restrained, even to the Hsiung Feng III missile launch fiasco and the tour bus fire tragedy. It has done everything in its power to minimize public hostility toward Taiwan. The Tsai government ought to acknowledge this, and respond with goodwill.
Alas, it clearly has not. President Tsai's actions since taking office have provoked deep concern. The Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education have taken giant steps backwards. They have "de-Sinicized" Taiwan repeatedly. The new government has used "transitional justice" as a pretext to liquidate Kuomintang Party assets. The public has witnessed DPP hatred for the KMT in action. Even more, it has seen the DPP's underlying motive – de-Sinicization. Everything the KMT did in the past to promote cross-Strait peace, is now being stigmatized as “pandering to China [sic], and selling out Taiwan”. The peace dividend the KMT painstakingly created for Taiwan, has been obliterated by the new government. Internationally, the Tsai government has cozied up to United States and Japan. It even prosecuted Taiwan fishermen who sailed to Taiping Island to reaffirm our sovereignty, then claimed it was “merely enforcing the law”. In fact, it has been struggling to prove to the United States and Japan that it is not working with the Mainland to defend Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea. This has sent a chill through patriots within Taiwan. Mainland compatriates consider this as an even more hostile act.
Former SEF Vice Chairman Ma Shao-chang referred to this approach in his new book. He characterized Chen era cross-Strait policy as a two pronged strategy of "stabilization plus differentiation". The stabilization part proved Chen's ability to manage cross-Strait relations. The differentiation part included a wide range of policies. Initial stabilization enabled the creation of increasingly prominent differentiations. The important point was that the stabilization part was mere show. Only the differentiation part was real. The guise of stabilization provided cover for actual differentiation. President Tsai's approach is similar. She uses misleading appearances to hide her true intent. Her show of sensitivity toward Mainland concerns is merely a delaying tactic. Meanwhile, her real world actions move Taiwan farther and farther away from the Mainland. Hung Chi-chang recently expressed concern about President Tsai going down Chen Shui-bian's old path. People who follow cross-Strait relations are clearly concerned about this problem.
President Tsai said both sides share responsibility for cross-Strait communication and interaction. In fact, only the Mainland has acted in a responsible manner. President Tsai has evaded all responsibility. She has not as she alleges, done everything within her ability. The fact is cross-Strait problems cannot be postponed indefinitely. Public opinion on the Mainland is boiling over. It could easily affect Mainland government decision-making. The Mainland's current restraint could yield to public sentiment. That would not be a blessing for cross-Strait relations. President Tsai has been deliberately equivocal and ambiguous. But she may be painting herself into a corner. Refusal to make clear her cross-Strait policy intentions, enables Taiwan independence extremists to force her to openly adopt a Taiwan independence path. The Taiwan Solidarity Union or New Power Party may oppose her merely out of sheer spite. Pressure groups may renew pressure to “Join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan”. If President Tsai fails to make a decision, she will face greater pressures from within, and lose any room to maneuver.
Does President Tsai want to avoid Chen Shui-bian's old mistakes? If she does, she must make a genuine effort to improve cross-Strait relations. Trust between the CCP and the DPP is in short supply. Endless pro forma lip service will not reassure the Mainland. In fact, the Tsai government no longer even bothers with that. The Tsai government has restrained only internal de-Sinicization. Externally, it is using the US and Japan to counter the Mainland. Just what is the nature of cross-Strait relations? The Tsai government must respond to Mainland concerns in a clearer manner. Only then can she narrow the distance between the two sides and enable the resumption of official cross-Strait interaction.
解兩岸冷對抗 蔡總統並未盡其所能
2016/8/22 中國時報
蔡總統在記者節茶敘上主動提及兩岸關係，除了重申維持現狀和在當前憲政體制下發展兩岸關係以外，也再度強調推進兩岸對話交流需要兩岸雙方共同努力，是雙方共同的責任，似乎是針對大陸所稱兩岸溝通停擺責任完全在台灣一方的說法。不過當記者問到沒有九二共識怎麼辦時，蔡總統卻又回到520講話，指其已經盡其所能把雙方立場拉近。
問題的癥結就在這裡，大陸從未放棄推動兩岸關係和平發展的努力，也部分認同蔡總統的就職演講，認為增加了「依據憲法和《兩岸人民關係條例》」的用詞是一種進步。但大陸也注意到，蔡總統還是在九二共識的核心意涵問題上採取模糊態度，因此大陸的回應指這是一份未完成的答卷，希望蔡總統可以繼續向前走，讓雙方產生交集。
大陸並沒有在520講話之後立即採取強硬措施，正是不願雙方關係倒退的善意之舉，也是一種負責任的表現。民眾如果關心大陸網路輿論，會發現愈來愈多的武統言論甚囂塵上，而大陸網民對台灣的態度也愈來愈不友善，愈來愈充滿反感，這是幾年前還不存在的現象，台灣朝野及社會大眾應生警惕。但即便在這種輿論氛圍下，大陸官方也沒有藉「民意」之名對台灣採取敵對行動，甚至在發生雄三飛彈誤射及火燒車事件，我方應對荒腔走板，大陸卻選擇克制，盡可能避免輿論朝敵視台灣的方向發展。蔡政府應該正視、接受並回應這份善意。
結果顯然不是如此，蔡總統上任以來的種種作為讓人深感憂慮，文化部和教育部大開歷史倒車，「去中國化」的行動此起彼落，新政府對「轉型正義」和清算國民黨黨產全力以赴，讓人不僅看到民進黨對國民黨的仇視，更讓人注意到背後的去中國化邏輯。事實上，國民黨過去推動兩岸關係和平發展的種種能力，現在都被汙名化為親中賣台，國民黨為台灣創造的和平紅利，也被新政府逐步消滅殆盡。不僅如此，在對外關係上，蔡政府一再向美、日靠攏，甚至連前往太平島宣示主權的漁船都要假行政執法名義處罰之，與其說是依法行政，不如說是向美、日交心，證明自己無意與大陸聯手共同捍衛南海主權，這無疑讓台灣內部的愛國者心寒，看在大陸眼裡，更是十分不友好的舉動。
前海基會副董事長馬紹章在其新著，將扁時代的兩岸策略總結為「穩定」與「區別」兩手策略。「穩定」是為了證明其有處理兩岸關係的能力，「區別」則是創造多數的策略，執政初期以「穩定」為主，隨著時間的推移則愈來愈凸顯「區別」，更重要的是，「穩定」策略是虛是表，表現為不作為，「區別」則是實，表現在作為，是以虛掩實，以表蓋裡。檢視蔡總統現階段的做法，也可發現其有類似的發展趨勢，對大陸的核心關切都在虛與委蛇、以拖待變，實質行動則與大陸漸行漸遠。洪奇昌最近表達其對蔡總統走陳水扁老路的擔心，可見關心兩岸前途的人們都已注意到這個嚴峻問題。
雖然蔡總統言必稱兩岸溝通互動是兩岸共同的責任，但事實上大陸一直在盡責，反而是蔡總統一直在迴避，更未如其所言那般已盡其所能。但兩岸之間的問題終究不可能一直久拖不決，大陸的民意沸騰也很容易傳導至政府決策層，讓暫時的克制不得不退卻，轉而對民意做出回應，這絕非兩岸關係之福。蔡總統的曖昧模糊，也會讓自己陷入進退失據，遲遲不確定兩岸政策意向，其內部的激進派也有心推她一把，讓其走向公開台獨路線，無論是台聯與時代力量為反對而反對，還是民間團體的入聯倡議皆是新一輪的施壓。若蔡總統再不做出決斷，她將面對更大的內部壓力，反而讓自己失去迴旋空間。
蔡總統若想避免重蹈阿扁的老路，就應該採取實際行動為兩岸關係的改善做出努力，民、共互信嚴重不足，不斷的口頭論述不會讓大陸感到放心，更何況現在蔡政府連口頭的善意都鮮少出現。蔡政府只有在內部施政層面克制去中國化的衝動，在對外政策上做好美、日外交和兩岸關係的平衡，在兩岸究竟是什麼關係的問題上，以更清晰的態度回應大陸的關切，才能讓兩岸之間的距離拉近，從而為兩岸官方互動的重啟創造有利條件。
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Can Law-Abiding Citizens Tolerate Such a System?
Can Law-Abiding Citizens Tolerate Such a System?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2016
Executive Summary: Last month President Tsai Ing-wen met with representatives of the Chinese National Federation of Industries. She said, "My job is not to please people one after the other". Recent events show what she really meant was that the Tsai government will treat ordinary, law-abiding citizens with bureaucratic contempt. Only those able to raise a huge stink, will gain the president's ear. That being the case, expect taxi drivers to follow suit. After all, isn't Uber the result of the government's “regime change”?
Full Text Below:
Toll collectors for the national highway system have been protesting for the past two years. The new government has announced a "special subsidy" in hopes of bringing the protests to an end. The Lin Chuan Cabinet appears to be “adept at martial arts”. But the reality is far simpler than that. Government officials are forcing private companies to throw public money at the problem, hoping it will go away. No particular aptitude is involved. What is particulary objectionable is the government's indifference to the negative impression this is leaving on law-abiding citizens.
The moment Lin Chuan took office, he dropped all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement. Ho Nuan-hsuan caved in to all of the China Airlines flight attendants' demands. As a result, the major concessions Lin Wan-yi and Kuo Fang-yu made to toll collectors came as no surprise. People were initially willing to believe that the government sincerely sought to embody "progressive values". But when it enacted the same script again and again, progressive values became indistinguishable from throwing money at problems and vote buying via public policy. Meanwhile, the government continued to persecute Taiwan fishermen who sailed to Taiping Island to reassert our national sovereignty. The government's alleged “compassion for ordinary folk” and “respect for the working man” have been exposed for what they are -- hypocritical lies.
The general public is mostly sympathetic to the plight of toll collectors for the national highway system. They believe the government should attempt to resolve the problem. Since the toll collectors' chief concern is unemployment, the government should help them find jobs, and not merely provide subsidies. The toll collectors are still of working age. Yet the government claims they are unable to work, and reduced them to the status of recipients of unemployment. This reveals the Ministry of Labour's incompetence.
If we look closer, electronic highway toll collection has led to job losses. For two years, the government has been doling out either subsidies or severance pay. It has also provided job training. Out of 947 toll collectors, 795 have already changed their line of work. The government has provided the 795 toll collectors with 200 million NT in subsidies or severance pay. That is even more incomprehensible. When just over 100 toll collectors protested recently, the government agreed to provide 590 million NT in special subsidies, and promised to provide them to everyone. Such irresponsible scattering of public funds, merely digs the government into a deeper and deeper hole. How can this possibly be considered a reasonable solution?
Providing protesters with generous subsidies is like giving candy to children who throw the loudest tantrum. It penalizes law-abiding citizens who behave reasonably. What fate awaits a nation that penalizes the law-abiding, while rewarding the trouble-makers? What fate awaits the rule of law and public morality?
Consider the Lin Chuan cabinet's logic. The Ma era Ministry of Transportation could not resolve the problem. The new government bypassed the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It put Lin Wan-yi, a political appointee who heads up health and welfare, and Minister of Labour Kuo Fang-yu, in charge of negotiations. It clearly wanted health and welfare to throw money at the problem until it want away. Lin Wan-yi argued that toll collectors were out of work because of "regime change". Therefore the state must provide them with subsidies. But lest we forget, Lin Wan-yi is charged with pension reform. He used government authority to change the pension system. Based on his logic, military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers can also cite “regime change” in response to their pension cuts. They too can stage mass protests, and demand that the government compensate them for the loss of their pensions. If so, Taiwan will never know peace.
The government's handling of the toll collectors' protest appears successful. But its flawed logic penalizes law-abiding workers. Negative consequences are inevitable. The government is attempting to showcase its compassion for grass-roots workers. But what people are seeing is officials mercilessly persecuting fishermen who are attempting to reaffirm our nation's sovereignty over Taiping Island. From the fishermens' departure to return, these officials have shown the public the ugly face of bureaucratic indifference. The government claims that out of work toll collectors are suffering. Therefore the government must treat them with compassion, and provide them with special subsidies. But the government refuses to give patriotic fishermen similar subsidies. So be it. But why is the government intimidating down? Why is it hunting them down? Why is it mercilessly punishing them? The contrast reveals the government's hypocrisy, and rips the mask off the government's purported "love for the people".
Last month President Tsai Ing-wen met with representatives of the Chinese National Federation of Industries. She said, "My job is not to please people one after the other". Recent events show what she really meant was that the Tsai government will treat ordinary, law-abiding citizens with bureaucratic contempt. Only those able to raise a huge stink, will gain the president's ear. That being the case, expect taxi drivers to follow suit. After all, isn't Uber the result of the government's “regime change”?
這種治理哲學，如何說服守分公民？
2016-08-19 聯合報
延燒兩年的國道收費員抗爭事件，新政府宣布以「專案補貼」方式使事件落幕。林全內閣看似武功高超，但說穿了一點都不稀奇：官員是拿公帑並逼著企業一起撒錢了事，毫無技巧可言；更可議的是，政府似乎毫不在意此舉會對守本分的公民造成什麼負面影響。
從林全一上任即撤銷對太陽花學運的告訴，及何煖軒對華航空服員罷工的照單全收，林萬億和郭芳煜這次對收費員的大讓步其實在意料之中。第一次，民眾也許願意相信政府確實想表達什麼「進步價值」，但一而再、再而三的雷同演出，所謂進步價值和「花錢消災」或「政策買票」其實已水乳交融，難分難解。倘若再與政府不斷打壓登太平島漁民對照，所有體恤民情、勞工至上的說詞，顯然都變成虛偽的謊言。
一般社會大眾對於國道收費員的處境，多半抱持同情的態度，也認為政府應該積極設法解決。然而，既然「失業」是他們的主要訴求，政府應該做的當然是協助他們找到適合的工作，而不只是消極地發錢或加碼年資以補貼其生活。這些收費員都還在勞動年齡，政府卻否定他們的工作能力，把他們變成失業補助對象；從這點看，勞動部的處理完全難謂稱職。
進一步看，高速公路因電子化而導致收費員失業，兩年多來政府除了發放慰助金或資遣費，也設計了輔導轉業機制；在九四七名收費員中，有七九五人稍早已接受了轉置的安排。更令人費解的是，完成轉置的七九五人，先前政府發放的總慰助經費是二．二億元；而這次政府為滿足最後一百多名抗爭者，竟同意增加五．九億元的專案補貼，還承諾擴及全員。這種作法，除了亂慷全民之慨，也把窟窿越挖越大，能說是合理的解決嗎？
試想，對於抗爭者給予優渥的補貼獎勵，如同「會鬧的孩子有糖吃」，更形同是對沉默守分勞工的變相懲罰。在一個國家中，如果是安分守己的人受到輕蔑及懲罰，而喧騰鬧事的人則受到獎賞，這個社會的法治和倫理要如何建立？
同樣值得討論的，是林全內閣處理這次事件的政策邏輯。或許是鑑於馬政府時代交通部無法解決抗爭問題，這次新政府直接拋開交通部，改由主管社福的政務委員林萬億和勞動部長郭芳煜共同主持協商，這即擺明要用社福的撒錢手段解決此事。林萬億更論證說，國道收費員失業，主要是由於政府「制度改變」，因此國家有必要提供他們補貼。但別忘了，林萬億正在主持「年金改革」，就是企圖用政府的力量來改變年金給付制度。如果他上述邏輯成立的話，那麼軍公教年金一旦遭到縮減，未來是否也可援用「制度改變」的邏輯發動抗爭，要求國家補償他們的年金損失？若然，台灣社會恐將永無寧日了。
無論如何，這次政府處理收費員抗爭，表面上結局圓滿，邏輯卻漏洞百出，處理手法則打擊了安分勞工，留下諸多後遺症。更矛盾的是，政府企圖藉此展現「體恤基層勞工」的姿態，但在另一方面人們看到的卻是，官員對於主動前往太平島宣示主權的漁民百般刁難，從啟程前到返航後，日復一日不斷示以官僚嘴臉壓逼。如果說失業收費員處境困窘，因此政府要特別給予專案補貼照顧，以示憐恤；那麼，政府對愛國漁民不給與油耗補貼也就算了，為何卻一路威逼追懲。兩相對照，所謂「愛民」之說，完全道盡政府兩張臉孔的虛偽。
蔡英文總統上月會晤工總代表時，曾說：「我的工作不是輪流討好誰。」這句話從最近的案例來解讀是：蔡政府對一般百姓是不假詞色的，尤其是守法、守分的公民；除非誰有本事鬧到不可開交，總統才會討好你。那麼，馬上可以跟進效法的就是計程車司機，因為Uber的衝擊湧至，正是政府「制度改變」所致。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2016
Executive Summary: Last month President Tsai Ing-wen met with representatives of the Chinese National Federation of Industries. She said, "My job is not to please people one after the other". Recent events show what she really meant was that the Tsai government will treat ordinary, law-abiding citizens with bureaucratic contempt. Only those able to raise a huge stink, will gain the president's ear. That being the case, expect taxi drivers to follow suit. After all, isn't Uber the result of the government's “regime change”?
Full Text Below:
Toll collectors for the national highway system have been protesting for the past two years. The new government has announced a "special subsidy" in hopes of bringing the protests to an end. The Lin Chuan Cabinet appears to be “adept at martial arts”. But the reality is far simpler than that. Government officials are forcing private companies to throw public money at the problem, hoping it will go away. No particular aptitude is involved. What is particulary objectionable is the government's indifference to the negative impression this is leaving on law-abiding citizens.
The moment Lin Chuan took office, he dropped all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement. Ho Nuan-hsuan caved in to all of the China Airlines flight attendants' demands. As a result, the major concessions Lin Wan-yi and Kuo Fang-yu made to toll collectors came as no surprise. People were initially willing to believe that the government sincerely sought to embody "progressive values". But when it enacted the same script again and again, progressive values became indistinguishable from throwing money at problems and vote buying via public policy. Meanwhile, the government continued to persecute Taiwan fishermen who sailed to Taiping Island to reassert our national sovereignty. The government's alleged “compassion for ordinary folk” and “respect for the working man” have been exposed for what they are -- hypocritical lies.
The general public is mostly sympathetic to the plight of toll collectors for the national highway system. They believe the government should attempt to resolve the problem. Since the toll collectors' chief concern is unemployment, the government should help them find jobs, and not merely provide subsidies. The toll collectors are still of working age. Yet the government claims they are unable to work, and reduced them to the status of recipients of unemployment. This reveals the Ministry of Labour's incompetence.
If we look closer, electronic highway toll collection has led to job losses. For two years, the government has been doling out either subsidies or severance pay. It has also provided job training. Out of 947 toll collectors, 795 have already changed their line of work. The government has provided the 795 toll collectors with 200 million NT in subsidies or severance pay. That is even more incomprehensible. When just over 100 toll collectors protested recently, the government agreed to provide 590 million NT in special subsidies, and promised to provide them to everyone. Such irresponsible scattering of public funds, merely digs the government into a deeper and deeper hole. How can this possibly be considered a reasonable solution?
Providing protesters with generous subsidies is like giving candy to children who throw the loudest tantrum. It penalizes law-abiding citizens who behave reasonably. What fate awaits a nation that penalizes the law-abiding, while rewarding the trouble-makers? What fate awaits the rule of law and public morality?
Consider the Lin Chuan cabinet's logic. The Ma era Ministry of Transportation could not resolve the problem. The new government bypassed the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It put Lin Wan-yi, a political appointee who heads up health and welfare, and Minister of Labour Kuo Fang-yu, in charge of negotiations. It clearly wanted health and welfare to throw money at the problem until it want away. Lin Wan-yi argued that toll collectors were out of work because of "regime change". Therefore the state must provide them with subsidies. But lest we forget, Lin Wan-yi is charged with pension reform. He used government authority to change the pension system. Based on his logic, military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers can also cite “regime change” in response to their pension cuts. They too can stage mass protests, and demand that the government compensate them for the loss of their pensions. If so, Taiwan will never know peace.
The government's handling of the toll collectors' protest appears successful. But its flawed logic penalizes law-abiding workers. Negative consequences are inevitable. The government is attempting to showcase its compassion for grass-roots workers. But what people are seeing is officials mercilessly persecuting fishermen who are attempting to reaffirm our nation's sovereignty over Taiping Island. From the fishermens' departure to return, these officials have shown the public the ugly face of bureaucratic indifference. The government claims that out of work toll collectors are suffering. Therefore the government must treat them with compassion, and provide them with special subsidies. But the government refuses to give patriotic fishermen similar subsidies. So be it. But why is the government intimidating down? Why is it hunting them down? Why is it mercilessly punishing them? The contrast reveals the government's hypocrisy, and rips the mask off the government's purported "love for the people".
Last month President Tsai Ing-wen met with representatives of the Chinese National Federation of Industries. She said, "My job is not to please people one after the other". Recent events show what she really meant was that the Tsai government will treat ordinary, law-abiding citizens with bureaucratic contempt. Only those able to raise a huge stink, will gain the president's ear. That being the case, expect taxi drivers to follow suit. After all, isn't Uber the result of the government's “regime change”?
這種治理哲學，如何說服守分公民？
2016-08-19 聯合報
延燒兩年的國道收費員抗爭事件，新政府宣布以「專案補貼」方式使事件落幕。林全內閣看似武功高超，但說穿了一點都不稀奇：官員是拿公帑並逼著企業一起撒錢了事，毫無技巧可言；更可議的是，政府似乎毫不在意此舉會對守本分的公民造成什麼負面影響。
從林全一上任即撤銷對太陽花學運的告訴，及何煖軒對華航空服員罷工的照單全收，林萬億和郭芳煜這次對收費員的大讓步其實在意料之中。第一次，民眾也許願意相信政府確實想表達什麼「進步價值」，但一而再、再而三的雷同演出，所謂進步價值和「花錢消災」或「政策買票」其實已水乳交融，難分難解。倘若再與政府不斷打壓登太平島漁民對照，所有體恤民情、勞工至上的說詞，顯然都變成虛偽的謊言。
一般社會大眾對於國道收費員的處境，多半抱持同情的態度，也認為政府應該積極設法解決。然而，既然「失業」是他們的主要訴求，政府應該做的當然是協助他們找到適合的工作，而不只是消極地發錢或加碼年資以補貼其生活。這些收費員都還在勞動年齡，政府卻否定他們的工作能力，把他們變成失業補助對象；從這點看，勞動部的處理完全難謂稱職。
進一步看，高速公路因電子化而導致收費員失業，兩年多來政府除了發放慰助金或資遣費，也設計了輔導轉業機制；在九四七名收費員中，有七九五人稍早已接受了轉置的安排。更令人費解的是，完成轉置的七九五人，先前政府發放的總慰助經費是二．二億元；而這次政府為滿足最後一百多名抗爭者，竟同意增加五．九億元的專案補貼，還承諾擴及全員。這種作法，除了亂慷全民之慨，也把窟窿越挖越大，能說是合理的解決嗎？
試想，對於抗爭者給予優渥的補貼獎勵，如同「會鬧的孩子有糖吃」，更形同是對沉默守分勞工的變相懲罰。在一個國家中，如果是安分守己的人受到輕蔑及懲罰，而喧騰鬧事的人則受到獎賞，這個社會的法治和倫理要如何建立？
同樣值得討論的，是林全內閣處理這次事件的政策邏輯。或許是鑑於馬政府時代交通部無法解決抗爭問題，這次新政府直接拋開交通部，改由主管社福的政務委員林萬億和勞動部長郭芳煜共同主持協商，這即擺明要用社福的撒錢手段解決此事。林萬億更論證說，國道收費員失業，主要是由於政府「制度改變」，因此國家有必要提供他們補貼。但別忘了，林萬億正在主持「年金改革」，就是企圖用政府的力量來改變年金給付制度。如果他上述邏輯成立的話，那麼軍公教年金一旦遭到縮減，未來是否也可援用「制度改變」的邏輯發動抗爭，要求國家補償他們的年金損失？若然，台灣社會恐將永無寧日了。
無論如何，這次政府處理收費員抗爭，表面上結局圓滿，邏輯卻漏洞百出，處理手法則打擊了安分勞工，留下諸多後遺症。更矛盾的是，政府企圖藉此展現「體恤基層勞工」的姿態，但在另一方面人們看到的卻是，官員對於主動前往太平島宣示主權的漁民百般刁難，從啟程前到返航後，日復一日不斷示以官僚嘴臉壓逼。如果說失業收費員處境困窘，因此政府要特別給予專案補貼照顧，以示憐恤；那麼，政府對愛國漁民不給與油耗補貼也就算了，為何卻一路威逼追懲。兩相對照，所謂「愛民」之說，完全道盡政府兩張臉孔的虛偽。
蔡英文總統上月會晤工總代表時，曾說：「我的工作不是輪流討好誰。」這句話從最近的案例來解讀是：蔡政府對一般百姓是不假詞色的，尤其是守法、守分的公民；除非誰有本事鬧到不可開交，總統才會討好你。那麼，馬上可以跟進效法的就是計程車司機，因為Uber的衝擊湧至，正是政府「制度改變」所致。
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
From the Philippines to Korea: Diplomacy Must Be Flexible
From the Philippines to Korea: Diplomacy Must Be Flexible
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2016
Executive Summary: To appease public outrage, Minister of the Interior Yeh Chun-jung landed on Taiping Island yesterday and reaffirmed out sovereignty. President Tsai has approved her New Southern Strategy. But she did not rule out cooperation with the Mainland. Is this the first of the new government's policy changes? If so, we look forward to more such changes.
Full Text Below:
The Philippines emerged victorious in the South China Sea arbitration dispute. But its victory did not raise tensions in the region. Instead the Philippines stressed its willingness to share South China Sea resources with Mainland China. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte sent former President Fidel Ramos to Hong Kong to “break the ice” and restart talks with Mainland China. Ramos fulfilled his mission. The Mainland invited the special envoy from the Philippines to Beijing.
President Duterte may be a populist. But when it comes to diplomacy, he is a pragmatist. He has no desire to butt heads with the Mainland in the South China Sea. The 88-year-old Ramos is a capable ambassador. He has used his image, experience, and contacts to defuse diplomatic crises. Three years ago, a Philippines government vessel fired upon the Kuang Ta Hsing, a fishing vessel from Taiwan, and killed one of its crew. Ramos enabled the two sides to investigate the case together. He was neither overbearing nor servile. His performance was impressive. Taiwan does not men of his caliber. But blue vs. green distrust means that ideology trumps all. Therefore the talents of such individuals can seldom be put to use.
Ramos hopes to mend relations with the Mainland over the South China Sea. That will not be easy. The two sides will communicate in two stages. The first will be exploratory contacts in Hong Kong, that will create a climate conducive to reconciliation. According to Ramos, his job in Hong Kong is not to negotiate, but to restore the traditional friendship between the two nations. Therefore Ramos visited a number of old friends in Hong Kong, all high ranking CCP officials, including Wu Sichun, President of the South China Sea Institute. His visit lasted five days. Ramos and Fu Ying, Chairman of the National Peoples Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that the two nations would discuss "maritime conservation" and "avoid tensions while promoting fisheries cooperation". The Mainland then invited the Ramos to visit Beijing.
Leaders of the Philippines did not allow themselves to be carried away by their arbitration victory. Instead, they realized that their national interests lie in smooth foreign relationships. They noted that Aquino, who demanded arbitration, was already out of the picture. Duterte was in charge. The heads of state could now modify Philippines-Mainland relations to meet with the best interests of their respective nations.
Also worth noting is the relationship between the Mainland and South Korea. In May, South Korean President Park Geun-hye agreed to deploy the THAAD missile system. This triggering tensions in Mainland-ROK relations. The Mainland issued “limits on Koreans", forcing Korean entertainers to cancel scheduled performances on the Mainland. The Mainland tightened requirements for Korean entrepreneur visas. It threatened to remove South Korea from its list of approved parts suppliers.
In fact, the Mainland did not actually implement the so-called "limit on Koreans" policy. So far only South Korean entertainers and talent agents have been affected. The impact has yet to extend to the economic and trade levels. The South Korean public has accused the Mainland of lacking the tolerance befitting a great nation. But the South Korean government is cautious. It sent six members of parliament to the Mainland. They stressed that the THAAD missile system was not directed against the Mainland. Cheong Wa Dae will be using the Hangzhou G20 meeting in early September to melt the ice. South Korea's deployment of the THAAD missile system has undermined its relations with the Mainland. Nevertheless the two sides continue to talk, allowing for eventual reconciliation.
Mainland relations with the Philippines, and Mainland relations with South Korea, offer a valuable lesson for cross-Strait relations. The DPP government has been in office three months. Cross-Strait channels of communication have already been severed. STA negotiations have essentially been abandoned. Neither side trusts the other. The number of Mainland tourists and Mainland students arriving on Taiwan has steadly been reduced. The impact on the private sector is increasingly evident. In the absence of channels of communication with the Mainland, Beijing has repeatedly extradited scam artists from Taiwan to the Mainland for trial. The Mainland is gradually reducing Taiwan's international wriggle space. Yet the Tsai government is doing nothing to defuse the situation.
Taiwan's current diplomatic difficulties are the result of the Tsai government's cross-Strait policy. It is overly rigid and has failed to keep up with the times. In the long run, this will leave Taiwan increasingly isolated and incapable of determining its own fate. The DPP has chosen to be part of the United States' Asia rebalancing policy. It seeks to reduce economic dependence on the Mainland with its New Southern Strategy. From a strategic perspective, this seems reasonable. Alas, dependence on the US means forfeiting Taiwan's primacy. To wit, the downgrading of Taiping Island in the South China Sea arbitration case to the status of a “reef”. To wit, the unsustainable nature of the New Southern Strategy. Formosa Plastics steel mills have been repeatedly subjected to extortion by foreign governments. Is the Tsai government really too obstinate to make the necessary changes?
To appease public outrage, Minister of the Interior Yeh Chun-jung landed on Taiping Island yesterday and reaffirmed out sovereignty. President Tsai has approved her New Southern Strategy. But she did not rule out cooperation with the Mainland. Is this the first of the new government's policy changes? If so, we look forward to more such changes.
從菲韓作法談外交靈活之必要
2016-08-18 聯合報
菲律賓在南海仲裁案大獲全勝後，非但未乘勝挑起區域的緊張，反而強調願意與中國大陸分享南海資源。菲國總統杜特蒂並派前總統羅慕斯為特使，赴港進行「破冰之旅」，謀求重新開啟中菲兩國對話管道。羅慕斯不辱使命，中方已表示歡迎菲國特使訪問北京。
杜特蒂總統行事雖頗具民粹風格，但面對外交工作，卻充分表現出務實的一面，不願為南海問題與中共鬧僵。八十八歲的羅慕斯則是幹練的親善大使，屢屢運用自己從政時累積的形象、經驗和人脈，為菲國化解外交危機。三年前，他為台灣漁船廣大興遭菲公務船射殺案來台，促成雙方共同調查該案，不卑不亢的態度令人印象深刻。台灣其實並不缺乏這類人才，但因為藍綠政府彼此猜忌，加上意識形態作祟，鮮少被用上。
羅慕斯要修補中菲的南海齟齬，並不是輕鬆的任務；雙方設定為兩階段的溝通，先在香港進行試探性接觸，以營造和解氣氛。羅慕斯的定位是：香港行之任務不在談判，而在幫中菲「恢復歷史的傳統友誼」；也因此，他在港拜訪多位與中共高層有聯繫的老友，包括中國南海研究院院長吳士存。五天的訪問中，他最後與人大外事委員會主委傅瑩發表共同新聞稿，宣布兩國將探討「海洋生態保護」與「避免局勢緊張及促進漁業合作」的可能性；中方同時表示，歡迎菲國特使訪問北京。
由此可見，菲律賓沒有被仲裁的勝利沖昏頭，反而意識到對外關係的平順才是國家利益之所在。而提出仲裁的艾奎諾下台，杜特蒂執政，讓菲國元首有調整中菲關係的機會，以追求最佳的國家利益。
同樣值得注意的，是中韓的關係變化。五月間，韓國總統朴槿惠同意美國在韓國部署薩德飛彈系統，引發中韓關係的緊張。為此，中國大陸最近祭出「限韓令」，首先取消了韓國演藝人員在大陸的一些演出以為施壓，同時縮緊韓國企業家的赴大陸簽證，並揚言考慮將排除韓國某些零件製造商於中國供應商的名單之外。
事實上，中共並未全面推動所謂的「限韓令」，迄今為止，僅對韓國演藝人員及經紀公司造成較大的衝擊，尚未擴大至經貿層面。韓國社會雖有批評中國缺乏大國氣度的聲音，但韓國政府則小心翼翼，派出六名國會議員前往大陸溝通，強調薩德系統並非針對大陸而來。此外，青瓦台也把九月初將在杭州召開的Ｇ20會議，當成兩國融冰對話的機會。亦即，薩德飛彈部署雖影響中韓友善關係，但雙方鬥而不破，為彼此的和解預留空間。
由中菲、中韓的外交作法對應，對我國處理兩岸關係或許可以有一些提示作用。民進黨政府上台三個月，兩岸對話機制處於斷線狀態，服貨貿的簽署談判已形同放棄進度，在彼此猜忌下，來台陸客及陸生人數逐漸減少，對民間的衝擊日益明顯。在欠缺對話管道的情況下，中共屢屢逕將台灣詐欺犯押解到大陸受審，大陸對於台灣國際空間的打壓也日益增強。然而，人們卻看不到蔡政府在這方面作出試圖化解的努力。
當前台灣的外交困境，主要是蔡政府的兩岸政策過於僵化，無法隨形勢的轉變而調整；長此以往，這將使台灣陷入愈發孤立而難以自主的困境。民進黨選擇積極配合美國的亞洲再平衡政策，並推動新南向政策以化解對大陸的經濟依賴，從戰略觀點似無可厚非。問題是，當對美的依附角色損及台灣的主體性（例如太平島在南海仲裁案被貶為礁），當新南向政策缺乏主客觀的支撐（例如台塑越鋼廠頻遭當地政府剝削），我們的政策要不要作出相應的調整？
為撫平民怨，內政部長葉俊榮日昨赴太平島宣示主權，蔡總統拍板「南向政策」綱領，也聲稱不排除與大陸合作。如果這是政府路線調整的第一步，我們希望能看到更具體的作為。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2016
Executive Summary: To appease public outrage, Minister of the Interior Yeh Chun-jung landed on Taiping Island yesterday and reaffirmed out sovereignty. President Tsai has approved her New Southern Strategy. But she did not rule out cooperation with the Mainland. Is this the first of the new government's policy changes? If so, we look forward to more such changes.
Full Text Below:
The Philippines emerged victorious in the South China Sea arbitration dispute. But its victory did not raise tensions in the region. Instead the Philippines stressed its willingness to share South China Sea resources with Mainland China. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte sent former President Fidel Ramos to Hong Kong to “break the ice” and restart talks with Mainland China. Ramos fulfilled his mission. The Mainland invited the special envoy from the Philippines to Beijing.
President Duterte may be a populist. But when it comes to diplomacy, he is a pragmatist. He has no desire to butt heads with the Mainland in the South China Sea. The 88-year-old Ramos is a capable ambassador. He has used his image, experience, and contacts to defuse diplomatic crises. Three years ago, a Philippines government vessel fired upon the Kuang Ta Hsing, a fishing vessel from Taiwan, and killed one of its crew. Ramos enabled the two sides to investigate the case together. He was neither overbearing nor servile. His performance was impressive. Taiwan does not men of his caliber. But blue vs. green distrust means that ideology trumps all. Therefore the talents of such individuals can seldom be put to use.
Ramos hopes to mend relations with the Mainland over the South China Sea. That will not be easy. The two sides will communicate in two stages. The first will be exploratory contacts in Hong Kong, that will create a climate conducive to reconciliation. According to Ramos, his job in Hong Kong is not to negotiate, but to restore the traditional friendship between the two nations. Therefore Ramos visited a number of old friends in Hong Kong, all high ranking CCP officials, including Wu Sichun, President of the South China Sea Institute. His visit lasted five days. Ramos and Fu Ying, Chairman of the National Peoples Congress Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that the two nations would discuss "maritime conservation" and "avoid tensions while promoting fisheries cooperation". The Mainland then invited the Ramos to visit Beijing.
Leaders of the Philippines did not allow themselves to be carried away by their arbitration victory. Instead, they realized that their national interests lie in smooth foreign relationships. They noted that Aquino, who demanded arbitration, was already out of the picture. Duterte was in charge. The heads of state could now modify Philippines-Mainland relations to meet with the best interests of their respective nations.
Also worth noting is the relationship between the Mainland and South Korea. In May, South Korean President Park Geun-hye agreed to deploy the THAAD missile system. This triggering tensions in Mainland-ROK relations. The Mainland issued “limits on Koreans", forcing Korean entertainers to cancel scheduled performances on the Mainland. The Mainland tightened requirements for Korean entrepreneur visas. It threatened to remove South Korea from its list of approved parts suppliers.
In fact, the Mainland did not actually implement the so-called "limit on Koreans" policy. So far only South Korean entertainers and talent agents have been affected. The impact has yet to extend to the economic and trade levels. The South Korean public has accused the Mainland of lacking the tolerance befitting a great nation. But the South Korean government is cautious. It sent six members of parliament to the Mainland. They stressed that the THAAD missile system was not directed against the Mainland. Cheong Wa Dae will be using the Hangzhou G20 meeting in early September to melt the ice. South Korea's deployment of the THAAD missile system has undermined its relations with the Mainland. Nevertheless the two sides continue to talk, allowing for eventual reconciliation.
Mainland relations with the Philippines, and Mainland relations with South Korea, offer a valuable lesson for cross-Strait relations. The DPP government has been in office three months. Cross-Strait channels of communication have already been severed. STA negotiations have essentially been abandoned. Neither side trusts the other. The number of Mainland tourists and Mainland students arriving on Taiwan has steadly been reduced. The impact on the private sector is increasingly evident. In the absence of channels of communication with the Mainland, Beijing has repeatedly extradited scam artists from Taiwan to the Mainland for trial. The Mainland is gradually reducing Taiwan's international wriggle space. Yet the Tsai government is doing nothing to defuse the situation.
Taiwan's current diplomatic difficulties are the result of the Tsai government's cross-Strait policy. It is overly rigid and has failed to keep up with the times. In the long run, this will leave Taiwan increasingly isolated and incapable of determining its own fate. The DPP has chosen to be part of the United States' Asia rebalancing policy. It seeks to reduce economic dependence on the Mainland with its New Southern Strategy. From a strategic perspective, this seems reasonable. Alas, dependence on the US means forfeiting Taiwan's primacy. To wit, the downgrading of Taiping Island in the South China Sea arbitration case to the status of a “reef”. To wit, the unsustainable nature of the New Southern Strategy. Formosa Plastics steel mills have been repeatedly subjected to extortion by foreign governments. Is the Tsai government really too obstinate to make the necessary changes?
To appease public outrage, Minister of the Interior Yeh Chun-jung landed on Taiping Island yesterday and reaffirmed out sovereignty. President Tsai has approved her New Southern Strategy. But she did not rule out cooperation with the Mainland. Is this the first of the new government's policy changes? If so, we look forward to more such changes.
從菲韓作法談外交靈活之必要
2016-08-18 聯合報
菲律賓在南海仲裁案大獲全勝後，非但未乘勝挑起區域的緊張，反而強調願意與中國大陸分享南海資源。菲國總統杜特蒂並派前總統羅慕斯為特使，赴港進行「破冰之旅」，謀求重新開啟中菲兩國對話管道。羅慕斯不辱使命，中方已表示歡迎菲國特使訪問北京。
杜特蒂總統行事雖頗具民粹風格，但面對外交工作，卻充分表現出務實的一面，不願為南海問題與中共鬧僵。八十八歲的羅慕斯則是幹練的親善大使，屢屢運用自己從政時累積的形象、經驗和人脈，為菲國化解外交危機。三年前，他為台灣漁船廣大興遭菲公務船射殺案來台，促成雙方共同調查該案，不卑不亢的態度令人印象深刻。台灣其實並不缺乏這類人才，但因為藍綠政府彼此猜忌，加上意識形態作祟，鮮少被用上。
羅慕斯要修補中菲的南海齟齬，並不是輕鬆的任務；雙方設定為兩階段的溝通，先在香港進行試探性接觸，以營造和解氣氛。羅慕斯的定位是：香港行之任務不在談判，而在幫中菲「恢復歷史的傳統友誼」；也因此，他在港拜訪多位與中共高層有聯繫的老友，包括中國南海研究院院長吳士存。五天的訪問中，他最後與人大外事委員會主委傅瑩發表共同新聞稿，宣布兩國將探討「海洋生態保護」與「避免局勢緊張及促進漁業合作」的可能性；中方同時表示，歡迎菲國特使訪問北京。
由此可見，菲律賓沒有被仲裁的勝利沖昏頭，反而意識到對外關係的平順才是國家利益之所在。而提出仲裁的艾奎諾下台，杜特蒂執政，讓菲國元首有調整中菲關係的機會，以追求最佳的國家利益。
同樣值得注意的，是中韓的關係變化。五月間，韓國總統朴槿惠同意美國在韓國部署薩德飛彈系統，引發中韓關係的緊張。為此，中國大陸最近祭出「限韓令」，首先取消了韓國演藝人員在大陸的一些演出以為施壓，同時縮緊韓國企業家的赴大陸簽證，並揚言考慮將排除韓國某些零件製造商於中國供應商的名單之外。
事實上，中共並未全面推動所謂的「限韓令」，迄今為止，僅對韓國演藝人員及經紀公司造成較大的衝擊，尚未擴大至經貿層面。韓國社會雖有批評中國缺乏大國氣度的聲音，但韓國政府則小心翼翼，派出六名國會議員前往大陸溝通，強調薩德系統並非針對大陸而來。此外，青瓦台也把九月初將在杭州召開的Ｇ20會議，當成兩國融冰對話的機會。亦即，薩德飛彈部署雖影響中韓友善關係，但雙方鬥而不破，為彼此的和解預留空間。
由中菲、中韓的外交作法對應，對我國處理兩岸關係或許可以有一些提示作用。民進黨政府上台三個月，兩岸對話機制處於斷線狀態，服貨貿的簽署談判已形同放棄進度，在彼此猜忌下，來台陸客及陸生人數逐漸減少，對民間的衝擊日益明顯。在欠缺對話管道的情況下，中共屢屢逕將台灣詐欺犯押解到大陸受審，大陸對於台灣國際空間的打壓也日益增強。然而，人們卻看不到蔡政府在這方面作出試圖化解的努力。
當前台灣的外交困境，主要是蔡政府的兩岸政策過於僵化，無法隨形勢的轉變而調整；長此以往，這將使台灣陷入愈發孤立而難以自主的困境。民進黨選擇積極配合美國的亞洲再平衡政策，並推動新南向政策以化解對大陸的經濟依賴，從戰略觀點似無可厚非。問題是，當對美的依附角色損及台灣的主體性（例如太平島在南海仲裁案被貶為礁），當新南向政策缺乏主客觀的支撐（例如台塑越鋼廠頻遭當地政府剝削），我們的政策要不要作出相應的調整？
為撫平民怨，內政部長葉俊榮日昨赴太平島宣示主權，蔡總統拍板「南向政策」綱領，也聲稱不排除與大陸合作。如果這是政府路線調整的第一步，我們希望能看到更具體的作為。
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Tsai Ing-wen Is Exceeding Her Constitutional Authority
Tsai Ing-wen Is Exceeding Her Constitutional Authority
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2016
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen, having withdrawn her nominations for the Judicial Yuan, has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of a "National Conference on Judicial Reform", and will personally take charge of judicial reform. This has provoked condemnation by judges, who say that for a president to exceed her authority and interfere with the judiciary in this manner, amounts to "imperial rule".
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen, having withdrawn her nominations for the Judicial Yuan, has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of a "National Conference on Judicial Reform", and will personally take charge of judicial reform. This has provoked condemnation by judges, who say that for a president to exceed her authority and interfere with the judiciary in this manner, amounts to "imperial rule". Prosecutor Eric Chen, Chairman of the Prosecutorial Reform Committee, urged the President to desist from convening any “National Conference on Judicial Reform”, and allow the Legislative Yuan to debate what must be done to reform the judiciary.
Why is Tsai Ing-wen in such a panic? Presumably she is concerned about the precipitous decline in her approval ratings. She probably wants to take charge of legal reforms in order to win back hearts and minds. But the more panicky her behavior, the more her government reveals its confusion, and the more likely she is to create chaos. Three months ago, Tsai Ing-wen won the presidency with a 56% majority. Today however, she is being accused of instituting “imperial rule”. She probably finds this hard to swallow. But has President Tsai forgotten her own admonition: “Humility, humility, and more humility”. If she has not, she will find that her new government is anything but humble.
The new government has been in power for three months. With the exception of several "apologize, apologize, and apologize again" rituals, not much has changed. The Tsai government has sharpened its knives in preparation for "Transitional Justice" and "Judicial Reform". But all that has come out of it is hasty and sloppy legislation. Worse still, the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan have established unconstitutional bodies in utter disregard of legal procedure, and total indifference to public perception. President Tsai Ing-wen may feel a powerful sense of commitment. But a president after all, is not an emperor. She must still abide by the separation of powers.
Take the Special Investigation Division for example. Merely because a single green camp legislator called for its abolition, Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san immediately obliged. He did not even bother to wait for the legislature to debate and amend the law before announcing an abolition date. What is this, but the abuse of executive power? A closer look reveals that abolishing the Special Investigation Division was not Chiu Tai-san's personal wish. He was merely currying favor with the President. If that was the case, then Tsai Ing-wen was effectively granting Chen Shui-bian a “pardon in disguise”. Chen Shui-bian has already been granted "medical parole". Now that the Special Investigation Division has been abolished, the charges that have yet to be filed against him have already been wiped clean? Just how many political sleights of hand have been hidden beneath the label of “judicial reform”?
Consider the “recovery of illicit KMT party assets” for example. Several provisions of the law are clearly questionable. Establishing an agency under the Executive Yuan is highly inappropriate. The DPP however, ignored this. It used its majority to ram the bill through the legislature. Compare the behavior of the DPP to that of the KMT. Which has behaved in a more civilized manner? Nor was that all. President Tsai appointed the politically biased Ku Li-hsiung Chairman of the "Illicit Party Assets Handling Committee". She made no bones about the entire process being motivated by revenge, and that the end justified the means. Do such cheap, crude power games have anything to do with transitional justice?
Abolishing the Special Investigation Division and recovering KMT party assets reflect the expansion of executive power. The two differ only in degree. The President has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of the "National Conference on Judicial Reform". This amounts to an even more flagrant exceeding of executive authority. The Constitution separates the powers of government into five branches. The President of the Republic of China may nominate the President of the Judicial Yuan and the President of the Examination Yuan. But the President may not interfere with the administration of justice. Tsai Ing-wen is determined to take charge of judicial reform. But she has drawn fire from the legal world for "imperial rule", because she exceeded her powers as executive. President Tsai may have an intense desire to promote judicial reform. But any such reforms must be consistent with the Constitution and the law. Only then can her nominations win public trust. She must appoint people trusted by the legal world to the Judicial Yuan, instead of diving into the water and appointing herself judicial reformer. One may be filled with reformist zeal. But if one fails to understand the limits of power, one poses a severe danger to the nation.
Even executive authority is divided between the President and the Premier. Coordination between the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the ruling party has been lacking. As a result, President Tsai has frequently exceeded her authority. She has interfered with the duties of the Premier and Ministers. For example, the Investment Commission has just issued a deadline for Uber divestment. The Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan immediately slammed on the brakes. The Ministry of Labor implemented a policy of "one day off for every seven days worked". President Tsai immediately issued a solemn promise of "two-day weekends" These missteps have left the pubic at a loss. They have left officials incapable of formulating policy. The new government has stumbled badly. It has blundered repeatedly. Much of the problem lies here.
President Tsai may genuinely want reform. Observers see this. But in the short time she has spread herself too thin. She lacks the manpower and the drive to follow through. She may be eager to achieve her goals. But she has ridden roughshod over due process. She has exceeded her authority, and has raised constitutional concerns.
聯合／蔡英文正走向不當擴權之路
2016-08-17 05:48 聯合報 聯合報社論
在撤回謝文定的司法院長提名後，蔡英文總統宣布自己將出任「司改國是會議」召集人，親自領導司法改革。此舉旋即招致法官批評，認為總統把手伸入司法，無異已形同「帝制」。檢改會檢察官陳瑞仁更呼籲，總統應停止召開司改國是會議，讓司改議題回到立法院進行民主討論。
蔡英文如此操切，想必是見到近來民意支持度大幅滑落，想親自領導司法改革以收復民心。但越是如此操切，越顯示蔡政府已方寸大亂，也越可能鑄下大亂。蔡英文三個月前方挾五成六的高得票聲勢登上總統寶座，如今突然一頂「帝制」的大帽套在自己頭上，她恐怕難以接受。但蔡總統如果還記得自己「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」的叮嚀，她會發現新政府的作為，距離謙卑其實已越來越遠。
回顧新政府執政這三個月，除了幾場「道歉、再道歉」的儀式外，其實未帶給人民太多耳目一新的感受。另一方面，一些以「轉型正義」和「改革」為名的行動則磨刀霍霍，但只見倉促而草率的立法，更在總統府和行政院底下任意增設違建機構，全然不顧程序正義和社會觀瞻。這些，也許出自蔡英文對總統一職的強烈使命感，但無論如何，總統不是皇帝，她仍有權力分立及權力制衡的界線必須遵守。
以特偵組為例，僅因一名綠委提案要求廢除，法務部長邱太三立即跟進附和，且不待立法討論修正，即逕自宣布廢除日期。這種踰越的作法，不是行政濫權是什麼？仔細分析，廢特偵組未必是邱太三個人的意志專擅，而是奉承總統的命令行事；倘果真如此，將此舉解讀為蔡英文變相「特赦」陳水扁，其實並不為過。因為，所有因陳水扁「保外就醫」而未能辦完的案件，即可隨特偵組之廢而一筆勾銷。試想，在司法改革的美名下，可以隱藏多少政治操作？
以國民黨不當黨產的處理為例，該條例中分明有數個條文頗待商榷，機構設在行政院也極不恰當；民進黨卻不顧一切動用席次優勢強行通過，這比起國民黨執政時的表現有更文明嗎？不僅如此，蔡總統更任意欽點政治色彩濃厚的顧立雄出任「不當黨產處理委員會」之主委，表明了此事只問目的、不擇手段。試問，人間的轉型正義，能以如此廉價而粗暴的手段實現嗎？
廢特偵組與追討黨產，都反映了不同程度的行政擴權；而總統自命為司法改革會議召集人，則更是赤裸裸的行政侵權。依憲法五權分立原則，中華民國總統雖可提名司法、考試等院長，卻不表示總統可以干預司法。蔡英文有意主導司法改革，引發司法界的「帝制」之譏，原因即在於此，因為她企圖以行政權踰越司法權。蔡總統改革司法的使命感也許十分強烈，但她應有的改革方式，是提名她所信賴、也為司法界所信賴的人出任司法院長，來幫她推動改革，而不是自己跳下海去擔任改革舵手。一個不知道自己權力界線何在的國家元首，就算滿腔改革理想，也是危險的。
事實上，即使只論行政權，總統和行政院長之間也有傳統的分工領域。然而，由於新政府在府、院、黨間的磨合並不十分順利，外界也頻頻看到蔡總統急切撈過界插手閣揆乃至部會職權的情事。例如，投審會剛剛對Uber下達限期撤資令，府院馬上跳出來踩煞車；勞動部作出「七休一」的決策，蔡總統隨即發表「周休二日」的嚴正聲明。凡此種種，不僅讓民眾無所適從，更導致官員在決策上顯得瞻顧失據。新政府政績欠佳，失誤連連，其實與此息息相關。
蔡總統確有改革之心，這點外界看得出來；問題是她在短短時間內開闢了太多戰線，在人力和心力上似乎左支右絀，難以應付。更嚴重的是，她為了急於達成目標，卻放任粗糙的手段跨越正當程序；不當擴權，正是憲政隱憂。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2016
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen, having withdrawn her nominations for the Judicial Yuan, has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of a "National Conference on Judicial Reform", and will personally take charge of judicial reform. This has provoked condemnation by judges, who say that for a president to exceed her authority and interfere with the judiciary in this manner, amounts to "imperial rule".
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen, having withdrawn her nominations for the Judicial Yuan, has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of a "National Conference on Judicial Reform", and will personally take charge of judicial reform. This has provoked condemnation by judges, who say that for a president to exceed her authority and interfere with the judiciary in this manner, amounts to "imperial rule". Prosecutor Eric Chen, Chairman of the Prosecutorial Reform Committee, urged the President to desist from convening any “National Conference on Judicial Reform”, and allow the Legislative Yuan to debate what must be done to reform the judiciary.
Why is Tsai Ing-wen in such a panic? Presumably she is concerned about the precipitous decline in her approval ratings. She probably wants to take charge of legal reforms in order to win back hearts and minds. But the more panicky her behavior, the more her government reveals its confusion, and the more likely she is to create chaos. Three months ago, Tsai Ing-wen won the presidency with a 56% majority. Today however, she is being accused of instituting “imperial rule”. She probably finds this hard to swallow. But has President Tsai forgotten her own admonition: “Humility, humility, and more humility”. If she has not, she will find that her new government is anything but humble.
The new government has been in power for three months. With the exception of several "apologize, apologize, and apologize again" rituals, not much has changed. The Tsai government has sharpened its knives in preparation for "Transitional Justice" and "Judicial Reform". But all that has come out of it is hasty and sloppy legislation. Worse still, the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan have established unconstitutional bodies in utter disregard of legal procedure, and total indifference to public perception. President Tsai Ing-wen may feel a powerful sense of commitment. But a president after all, is not an emperor. She must still abide by the separation of powers.
Take the Special Investigation Division for example. Merely because a single green camp legislator called for its abolition, Minister of Justice Chiu Tai-san immediately obliged. He did not even bother to wait for the legislature to debate and amend the law before announcing an abolition date. What is this, but the abuse of executive power? A closer look reveals that abolishing the Special Investigation Division was not Chiu Tai-san's personal wish. He was merely currying favor with the President. If that was the case, then Tsai Ing-wen was effectively granting Chen Shui-bian a “pardon in disguise”. Chen Shui-bian has already been granted "medical parole". Now that the Special Investigation Division has been abolished, the charges that have yet to be filed against him have already been wiped clean? Just how many political sleights of hand have been hidden beneath the label of “judicial reform”?
Consider the “recovery of illicit KMT party assets” for example. Several provisions of the law are clearly questionable. Establishing an agency under the Executive Yuan is highly inappropriate. The DPP however, ignored this. It used its majority to ram the bill through the legislature. Compare the behavior of the DPP to that of the KMT. Which has behaved in a more civilized manner? Nor was that all. President Tsai appointed the politically biased Ku Li-hsiung Chairman of the "Illicit Party Assets Handling Committee". She made no bones about the entire process being motivated by revenge, and that the end justified the means. Do such cheap, crude power games have anything to do with transitional justice?
Abolishing the Special Investigation Division and recovering KMT party assets reflect the expansion of executive power. The two differ only in degree. The President has appointed herself “Chief Convener” of the "National Conference on Judicial Reform". This amounts to an even more flagrant exceeding of executive authority. The Constitution separates the powers of government into five branches. The President of the Republic of China may nominate the President of the Judicial Yuan and the President of the Examination Yuan. But the President may not interfere with the administration of justice. Tsai Ing-wen is determined to take charge of judicial reform. But she has drawn fire from the legal world for "imperial rule", because she exceeded her powers as executive. President Tsai may have an intense desire to promote judicial reform. But any such reforms must be consistent with the Constitution and the law. Only then can her nominations win public trust. She must appoint people trusted by the legal world to the Judicial Yuan, instead of diving into the water and appointing herself judicial reformer. One may be filled with reformist zeal. But if one fails to understand the limits of power, one poses a severe danger to the nation.
Even executive authority is divided between the President and the Premier. Coordination between the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and the ruling party has been lacking. As a result, President Tsai has frequently exceeded her authority. She has interfered with the duties of the Premier and Ministers. For example, the Investment Commission has just issued a deadline for Uber divestment. The Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan immediately slammed on the brakes. The Ministry of Labor implemented a policy of "one day off for every seven days worked". President Tsai immediately issued a solemn promise of "two-day weekends" These missteps have left the pubic at a loss. They have left officials incapable of formulating policy. The new government has stumbled badly. It has blundered repeatedly. Much of the problem lies here.
President Tsai may genuinely want reform. Observers see this. But in the short time she has spread herself too thin. She lacks the manpower and the drive to follow through. She may be eager to achieve her goals. But she has ridden roughshod over due process. She has exceeded her authority, and has raised constitutional concerns.
聯合／蔡英文正走向不當擴權之路
2016-08-17 05:48 聯合報 聯合報社論
在撤回謝文定的司法院長提名後，蔡英文總統宣布自己將出任「司改國是會議」召集人，親自領導司法改革。此舉旋即招致法官批評，認為總統把手伸入司法，無異已形同「帝制」。檢改會檢察官陳瑞仁更呼籲，總統應停止召開司改國是會議，讓司改議題回到立法院進行民主討論。
蔡英文如此操切，想必是見到近來民意支持度大幅滑落，想親自領導司法改革以收復民心。但越是如此操切，越顯示蔡政府已方寸大亂，也越可能鑄下大亂。蔡英文三個月前方挾五成六的高得票聲勢登上總統寶座，如今突然一頂「帝制」的大帽套在自己頭上，她恐怕難以接受。但蔡總統如果還記得自己「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」的叮嚀，她會發現新政府的作為，距離謙卑其實已越來越遠。
回顧新政府執政這三個月，除了幾場「道歉、再道歉」的儀式外，其實未帶給人民太多耳目一新的感受。另一方面，一些以「轉型正義」和「改革」為名的行動則磨刀霍霍，但只見倉促而草率的立法，更在總統府和行政院底下任意增設違建機構，全然不顧程序正義和社會觀瞻。這些，也許出自蔡英文對總統一職的強烈使命感，但無論如何，總統不是皇帝，她仍有權力分立及權力制衡的界線必須遵守。
以特偵組為例，僅因一名綠委提案要求廢除，法務部長邱太三立即跟進附和，且不待立法討論修正，即逕自宣布廢除日期。這種踰越的作法，不是行政濫權是什麼？仔細分析，廢特偵組未必是邱太三個人的意志專擅，而是奉承總統的命令行事；倘果真如此，將此舉解讀為蔡英文變相「特赦」陳水扁，其實並不為過。因為，所有因陳水扁「保外就醫」而未能辦完的案件，即可隨特偵組之廢而一筆勾銷。試想，在司法改革的美名下，可以隱藏多少政治操作？
以國民黨不當黨產的處理為例，該條例中分明有數個條文頗待商榷，機構設在行政院也極不恰當；民進黨卻不顧一切動用席次優勢強行通過，這比起國民黨執政時的表現有更文明嗎？不僅如此，蔡總統更任意欽點政治色彩濃厚的顧立雄出任「不當黨產處理委員會」之主委，表明了此事只問目的、不擇手段。試問，人間的轉型正義，能以如此廉價而粗暴的手段實現嗎？
廢特偵組與追討黨產，都反映了不同程度的行政擴權；而總統自命為司法改革會議召集人，則更是赤裸裸的行政侵權。依憲法五權分立原則，中華民國總統雖可提名司法、考試等院長，卻不表示總統可以干預司法。蔡英文有意主導司法改革，引發司法界的「帝制」之譏，原因即在於此，因為她企圖以行政權踰越司法權。蔡總統改革司法的使命感也許十分強烈，但她應有的改革方式，是提名她所信賴、也為司法界所信賴的人出任司法院長，來幫她推動改革，而不是自己跳下海去擔任改革舵手。一個不知道自己權力界線何在的國家元首，就算滿腔改革理想，也是危險的。
事實上，即使只論行政權，總統和行政院長之間也有傳統的分工領域。然而，由於新政府在府、院、黨間的磨合並不十分順利，外界也頻頻看到蔡總統急切撈過界插手閣揆乃至部會職權的情事。例如，投審會剛剛對Uber下達限期撤資令，府院馬上跳出來踩煞車；勞動部作出「七休一」的決策，蔡總統隨即發表「周休二日」的嚴正聲明。凡此種種，不僅讓民眾無所適從，更導致官員在決策上顯得瞻顧失據。新政府政績欠佳，失誤連連，其實與此息息相關。
蔡總統確有改革之心，這點外界看得出來；問題是她在短短時間內開闢了太多戰線，在人力和心力上似乎左支右絀，難以應付。更嚴重的是，她為了急於達成目標，卻放任粗糙的手段跨越正當程序；不當擴權，正是憲政隱憂。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)