Collective Silence: An Accomplice in Party Assets Committee Constitutional Violations

Collective Silence: An Accomplice in Party Assets Committee Constitutional Violations
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 30, 2016

Executive Summary: Hannah Eulan, a German political theorist, cited the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal, to show that when the majority of individuals in society refuse to think, collective madness will ultimately push the whole society to commit the ultimate crime. "In politics, obedience is tantamount to support." People must not assume this matter has nothing to do with them. Some people on Taiwan still regard the KMT as a “bandit regime” and seek to remove it. But next to the DPP, the KMT pales by comparison. When Taiwan's democratic values and constitutional foundations are eroded, public silence will be the chief culprit.

Full Text Below:

According to the Executive Yuan Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee, or CIPAS, the Central Investment Company and the Hsinyutai Company must be nationalized in accordance with the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations. CIPAS arrived at this decision last week, and alleged that the Central Investment Company and Hsinyutai Company were illicit creations of the KMT. Premier Lin immediately convened the relevant ministries to discuss the matter, and form a takeover team. The actions of CIPAS have provoked a series of public controversies. Its procedures have been illegal, even unconstitutional. Yet CIPAS chairman Wellington Koo refuses to relent. President Tsai and the DPP bear the greatest responsibility. But the public cannot assume that such matters do not concern them, and stand idly by doing nothing.

Since CIPAS began operations, it has assumed that it is above the law. It has acted in complete disregard of legal procedures and justice. In September it ordered the Bank of Taiwan and Bank Sinopac to freeze the KMT's accounts. The Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that order issued by CIPAS was illegal. It ruled that the KMT is legally allowed to withdraw funds. But CIPAS ignored the court's ruling, and continued its freeze on KMT accounts in the two banks. CIPAS considers itself above the courts, hence entitled to ignore the court's decisions.

Last week, CIPAS decided that the Central Investments Company and Hsinyutai Company must be nationalized. This too, was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. According to Wellington Koo, the two companies are the products of past party-state equivalence, when the government and state owned entities were interconnected, and a single party could use its dominant position to acquire illicit assets. Nationalization, Koo argues, is therefore the fulfillment of transitional justice. But the KMT acquired these assets before the Republic of China Constitution was amended on December 25, 1947. Therefore these assets are not covered by current constitutional provisions. They must be dealt with in accordance with the General Outline of the Constitution for the Political Tutelage Period of the Republic of China. The General Outline stipulated that the party and the government are one. The Party Assets Act was not in effect at the time. Any ruling must therefore abide by the General Outline, according to which “the party leads the government”. Besides, the KMT brought the gold and the government assets to Taiwan from the Mainland.

According to CIPAS, the Central Investment Company sold 200 million NT in bonds in 1971. Before that, KMT party owned businesses showed only a small two year surplus. CIPAS claims that the Central Investment Company, founded in 1971, is a KMT
affiliate organization. But the Company Law and Public Organizations Law then in effect did not expressly prohibit political parties from investing. The Public Organizations Law allowed the formation of organizations outside the party only after 1971. CIPAS claims that the China Investment Company was created by the sale of 200 million in bonds. Nevertheless it cannot ignore the shareholders' investments, the board of supervisors' oversight, and other capital injections. Not to mention the fact that its subsidiaries are independent legal entities and independent shareholder groups. The Constitution protects their property rights as well.

Finally, Executive Yuan and CIPAS spokesmen have repeatedly argued that according to the Administrative Procedure Law, Section 116, the China Investment Company and Hsinyutai Company shares must be nationalized. They will not stop because the KMT files suit. The KMT may call for a constitutional amendment, but it will not influence the CIPAS one iota. The DPP thumbs its nose at the justice system, and issues threats against the justice system, even as it holds high the banner of transitional justice. It abuses its executive power to defy the judicial process. Even if future courts render adverse judgments, such judgments can be challenged as improper.

Even more astonishing is the attitude of CIPAS regarding the burden of proof, the presumption of guilt, and the right to remain silent. It ignores due process and does whatever it pleases. CIPAS even demands the authority to conduct searches of "premises where it is not welcome" despite insufficient evidence, based on the presumption of guilt.

Searches of public organizations for evidence of illegal conduct require police officials to present sufficient evidence to the court for the issuance of search warrants, in order to protect innocent parties. Today however, CIPAS can unilaterally presume illicit conduct and ignore judicial rulings. It can use the Act Governing the Handling of Ill-gotten Properties by Political Parties and Their Affiliate Organizations to ram through tailor made legislation. It can presume guilt, enforce ex post facto laws, and ignore statutes of limitations. These provisions have been in force for 71 years. CIPAS is using a single law to destroy our entire judicial system.

At the core of democracy is the rule of law. Legal abuses by CIPAS reveal how the DPP government is destroying the basic values ​​of democracy. The reason CIPAS is so bold, is of course President Tsai Ing-wen and her policy of transitional justice. Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP government are the driving force behind this subversion of democracy. They bear responsibility for the destruction of democracy.

Hannah Eulan, a German political theorist, cited the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal, to show that when the majority of individuals in society refuse to think, collective madness will ultimately push the whole society to commit the ultimate crime. "In politics, obedience is tantamount to support." People must not assume this matter has nothing to do with them. Some people on Taiwan still regard the KMT as a “bandit regime” and seek to remove it. But next to the DPP, the KMT pales by comparison. When Taiwan's democratic values and constitutional foundations are eroded, public silence will be the chief culprit.

社論》集體緘默是黨產會毀憲幫凶
2016/11/30 下午 07:54:26  主筆室

行政院不當黨產處理委員會上周決議，中央投資公司、欣裕台公司為國民黨不當黨產，依據《不當黨產處理條例》，兩公司股權將移轉國有。行政院院長林全隨即邀集相關部會討論，決定立即成立接管小組接管。由於黨產會的連續作為引發各界爭議，不僅程序違法，甚至有違憲之虞，但是黨產會主委顧立雄仍然一意孤行，蔡總統和民進黨必須負起最大責任，民眾更不能認為事不關己而袖手旁觀。

黨產會自從開始運作以來，就像拿了尚方寶劍一樣，全然不顧法律程序和正義，9月間就逕自發函台灣銀行和永豐銀行，不得隨意讓國民黨提領存款；後經台北高等行政法院認定其合法性有疑義，國民黨依法可以動用存款，但黨產會對兩銀行祭出暫停提領匯出的行政處分，持續凍結國民黨帳戶至今，這種無視於法院裁決的行徑，簡直就是法院的太上皇。

上周黨產會將中投公司和欣裕台公司收歸國有的決議，也違背了憲法精神。首先，根據顧立雄的宣示，這是過去黨國一體的年代，政府與國家組織交互連結，單一政黨利用主導地位，所獲得不法資源，收歸國有是轉型正義的真諦。但是國民黨取得財產大都在民國36年12月25日行憲以前，該時期並非在現行憲法規範下，因此應依當時等同憲法的《中華民國訓政時期約法》處理。約法規定黨政一體，現行《不當黨產處理條例》逾越憲法行憲時期，則需遵循約法「以黨領政」的規範，更何況當時國民黨從大陸攜來黃金與政府財產互有挹注。

其次，依據黨產會調查，中投為國民黨於1971年購置2億元公債所成立，之前黨營事業僅有2年小有盈餘。黨產會認定民國60年成立的中投公司是國民黨附隨組織，可是依照當時的《公司法》與《人民團體法》均未明文禁止政黨投資；《人團法》更是民國60年才有開放黨外組黨之雛議。因此，縱然黨產會認定中投公司是由購置2億元公債而來，不能全盤否認股東的投資、蕫監事會的經營與其他資金的挹注，更不用說轉投資的子公司仍具有獨立的法人人格與獨立的股東會，這些都是憲法保障人民財產權的範圍。

最後，行政院或黨產會發言人一再強調，依《行政訴訟法》第116條規定，中投與欣裕台股權收歸國有的處分之執行，不會因國民黨提起行政訴訟而停止；也預測縱使國民黨聲請釋憲，也不會影響黨產會作業進度。這種無視司法並揚言挑戰司法、高舉轉型正義大旗的黨產會，將以行政權力對抗司法程序，縱然未來法院有不利判決，都可質疑法院判決不當。

令人驚愕的是，黨產會以「舉證責任倒置」、「有罪推定」與「排除緘默」等不當手段，毋須踐履正當程序便可恣意妄為；連黨產會本欲行使黨史館的調閱權或搜索權，都能夠以「不去一個不歡迎我們的地方」、「已經掌握相關事證因此不去」等，以有罪推定的立場放話表態，令人匪疑所思。

我國法律對於人民團體的行政檢查或是違法事證之調查，檢警人員進行搜索都要以足夠證據向法院申請核發「搜索票」，以利當事人自我無罪之保護。而今，黨產會卻能片面認定不當，無視司法審查到這種地步。以《不當黨產處理條例》個別性、針對性立法，又採用「有罪推定」、「溯及既往」、「排除消滅時效」等手段追究71年之久，難道不是用極權式不當的特別法去破壞我國的司法體系嗎？

民主的核心價值就是法治，黨產會的濫權讓我們活生生地見識到民進黨政府的行事是如何在崩解民主的基本價值，黨產會敢於如此膽大妄為，當然是秉持著蔡英文總統推動轉型正義的政策，蔡英文和民進黨政府就是民主逆流的推手，應該負起裂解民主的責任。

德裔政治理論思想家漢娜‧鄂蘭以納粹戰犯阿道夫‧艾希曼的審判為例，說明當社會上的大多數個人不思考，集體的瘋狂，最終將把整個社會推向極致的犯罪，她說「在政治中，服從就等於支持。」民眾不要以為事不關己，在台灣社會固然有一部分人視國民黨為寇讎，必欲除之而後快，但是相較於國民黨，民進黨的作為更值得深思，當台灣的民主價值和憲政基礎被侵蝕的時候，沉默就會是最大的幫凶。

Is the Sacrificial Pawn Determined to be a Starving Sentry?

Is the Sacrificial Pawn Determined to be a Starving Sentry?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 30, 2016

Executive Summary: The Economist Special Edition featured a Tarot card on the cover. It predicted global trends for 2017. It invoked "Planet Trump" as a metaphor for the setback he poses for globalism. The process of regional integration is confusing, disorderly, and intense. Yet Taiwan remains ignorant of the cards it holds. Tsai Ying-wen must wake up and clear her head, lest she follow in Chen Shui-bian's footsteps. She must cast off her illusions and boldly proclaim which path she intends to take. Otherwise, she will become a puppet of deep green pressure groups. The window of opportunity is closing rapidly. She had better complete her test paper, lest her Asian tiger be reduced to a sick cat.

Full Text Below:

Donald Trump wants the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). That is no longer in doubt. Taiwan is stunned. The situation is grim. If the Tsai Ing-wen government sweeps the problem under the rug and does nothing, Tsai's popularity will hit rock bottom. If she attempts to push through reforms after she has lost popular support, it will be too late.

Trump's election victory marks a dramatic reversal in global political tides. Since the end of World War II, the US has dominated global affairs. This domination is now on “Pause”. Meanwhile, Mainland China's "Chinese Dream" has begun to see the light of day. The Mainland is using a variety of means to shape the world to its liking. Trump's New Isolationism and Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream clearly indicate who is pulling back and who is moving forward.

Obama's withdrawal from the Middle East was a precursor of this strategic withdrawal. Hillary Clinton authored Obama's "Asian Rebalancing" strategy to suppress China's rise. But based on its behavior in the South China Sea, the United States' bark is worse than its bite. The TPP, its most important containment tactic, is already unsustainable.

Furthermore, during the same period, Mainland China set forth its One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. It successfully promoted its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) project. Even Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and other US allies have joined. In the South China Sea, it has consolidated its strategic position through island building. This year, for the very first time, it hosted the G20 Summit, the most important platform for global governance.

The world has arrived at a major watershed. The Chinese Dream and the New Isolationism now stand side by side. A new bipolar world is emerging. Yet Tsai's policy remains rigidly anchored in the old world. Tsai sees only Hillary Clinton, who appears to retain the luster of global hegemony. She does not see that the colors of the US Empire have already begun to fade.

Tsai Ing-wen failed to see the signs. She bet everything on the United States. Needless to say, Trump's opposition to the TPP has impacted Taiwan.
The TPP is ostensibly an “economic agreement”. But  Hillary Clinton's economic adviser John W. Holmes described it as the "Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty", as a coalition designed to contain China. Alas, the TPP has collapsed even before it could take shape. Taiwan has consequently become an economic and strategic orphan.

Following the collapse of the TPP, the global focus shifted to the Regional Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) and the Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area (FTAAP) initiatives, both of which are dominated by Mainland China. Taiwan probably will be denied entry. Attempts to sign bilateral agreements will probably be met with frustration. Yet according to the October issue of The Economist, Tsai Ying-wen has affected a carefree manner and declared her intent to promote bilateral and multilateral economic and trade agreements. She even boasted that she would restore Taiwan to her former status as one fo the four Asian tigers.

There are two possible explanations for Tsai's attitude. First, The Tsai government is blind. It does not see that Taiwan is already in its death throes. Second, Tsai Ing-wen knows that Taiwan's condition is critical, but she remains a hostage to ideology. She wants to procrastinate, and whistle in the dark. If the Tsai government is blind, will the fate of the tourism industry and the dissolution of TransAsia Airways shock the Tsai government into awareness? If Tsai already understands the situation, then Taiwan has become a sacrificial pawn to the TPP. Must we tighten our belts, and continue to serve as the United States' starving sentinel in Asia?

Tsai Ying-wen has a responsibility to make the right decisions in the face of cold reality. The new global paradigm shows that Taiwan cannot renounce bilateral agreements. But more importantly, Taiwan must take part in RCEP and FTAAP regional integration. Such an about face is not that difficult. Tsai need only follow through on her inaugural address. She need only reaffirm that she is abiding by the Constitution, and that cross-Strait relations are not relations between different states.

Beijing's recent actions are worth noting. Xi Jinping met with Hung Hsiu-chu in Beijing early this month. In mid-May he embarrassed Ma Ying-jeou in Malaysia, when he omitted “different interpretations” from the 1992 Consensus", leaving only "one China". By contrast, he did not shut James Soong out of APEC in Peru. Before James Soong left for Lima, he declared that "both sides of the Strait belong to one China” and reiterated his “opposition to Taiwan independence". Xi praised Hung, blocked Ma, and met Soong. Beijing is probably waiting for Tsai Ing-wen to complete the unanswered questions on her test paper.

The Economist Special Edition featured a Tarot card on the cover. It predicted global trends for 2017. It invoked "Planet Trump" as a metaphor for the setback he poses for globalism. The process of regional integration is confusing, disorderly, and intense. Yet Taiwan remains ignorant of the cards it holds. Tsai Ying-wen must wake up and clear her head, lest she follow in Chen Shui-bian's footsteps. She must cast off her illusions and boldly proclaim which path she intends to take. Otherwise, she will become a puppet of deep green pressure groups. The window of opportunity is closing rapidly. She had better complete her test paper, lest her Asian tiger be reduced to a sick cat.

做了棄卒，還要當饑餓哨兵？
2016-11-30 聯合報

川普要退出「跨太平洋夥伴協定（ＴＰＰ）」，已無懸念，台灣頓失所依。形勢嚴峻，蔡英文的政府若僅故作鎮靜，仍毫無作為，她的聲望恐將一路探底，而當她失去民心，再作任何變革，亦都將藥石罔效。

川普當選是世界浪潮反轉的戲劇性一幕，美國從二戰末期開始主導世局的全球主義，在這一刻突然劃上休止符；而中國大陸卻欲迎向其「中國夢」黎明前的微光，用不同的倡議，嘗試塑造這個世界。川普的新孤立主義，與習近平的「中國夢」，鮮明地呈現了彼消此長的情狀。

美國從歐巴馬中東撤軍就預示了這個戰略收縮的趨勢。希拉蕊．柯林頓雖替歐巴馬制定了「亞洲再平衡」戰略，以遏制中國崛起，但從南海較量中可看出，美國已是色厲內荏，ＴＰＰ就是其遏制手段的主角，如今卻難以為繼。

況且，同一期間，中國大陸提出一帶一路倡議，成功推動亞投行，連英法德義等美國盟友都集體加入，南海造島穩步形成戰略固守；今年更首次舉辦全球治理最重要的平台Ｇ20峰會。

世界正走上一個重大的分水嶺，當「中國夢」與「新孤立主義」並存，一個新的兩極體系的世界將逐步成形；但蔡英文的政策卻還僵固地留守在舊世界裡，只注目於柯林頓身上儼然還在閃爍的世界霸權餘暉，卻看不見美利堅帝國已經嚴重褪色。

當蔡英文誤讀了趨勢又單邊押寶美國，當然就造成了川普反ＴＰＰ主張一夕成真對台灣的衝擊效應。這個曾被柯林頓經濟顧問霍爾邁茨形容為「亞洲版北大西洋公約」的經濟協定，其實是一個包圍與遏制中國的聯盟，當它未成形即告瓦解，台灣頃刻成了經濟與戰略上的國際孤兒。

ＴＰＰ瓦解後，全球目光轉向「區域全面經濟夥伴協定（ＲＣＥＰ）」以及倡議中的「亞太自由貿易區（ＦＴＡＡＰ）」，兩者都由中國大陸主導，台灣恐皆不得其門而入；至若洽簽雙邊協定之路，也恐更加坎坷。蔡英文竟猶一派輕鬆狀，宣稱要推動雙邊與多邊經貿協定，甚至早在十月交給英國《經濟學人》有關明年趨勢的專文裡，夸言要把台灣再變為猛虎。

這等情境可有兩解：其一，蔡政府已如盲瞽，看不見台灣面臨危殆之境；其二，蔡英文雖知台灣已體弱病虛，卻被意識形態挾制，觀望瞻顧，但求拖延，走在暗夜裡，只好吹哨壯膽。若是前者，從觀光慘業到興航解散所揭露的經濟真相，能否搖醒昏睡的蔡政府？若是後者，則試問，難道台灣成了ＴＰＰ的棄卒後，還要勒緊褲帶，無怨無悔地繼續在亞洲充當美國的饑餓哨兵？

作為執政者，蔡英文的職責是面對冷酷的現實作出正確的決策。全球的新格局已經揭示，台灣不能放棄雙邊協定，但更須全力尋求加入ＲＣＥＰ與ＦＴＡＡＰ的區域整合。這個轉身對蔡英文而言，其實並不真的那麼困難，只要在她就職演說基礎上往前一步，表明依據憲法，兩岸並非兩國關係即可。

北京近期幾個動作值得注意。習近平月初在北京接見了洪秀柱，月中卻讓馬英九在馬來西亞碰了一鼻子灰，儼然是要從「九二共識」中剔除「各表」，只留「一中」；但同時間，則未對蔡英文派往秘魯ＡＰＥＣ的宋楚瑜橫加干預，而宋楚瑜行前複誦「兩岸一中、反對台獨」卻留下一些線索。捧洪、卡馬、會宋，北京應是在看蔡英文何時填上那份「未完成的答卷」。

《經濟學人》專刊封面以塔羅牌為背景，占卜二○一七全球趨勢，其中「川普星球」隱喻著一個全球治理的黯淡開端。區域整合進程撲朔迷離，無序博弈更形激烈，台灣卻不自知手上只剩什麼牌。蔡英文必須清醒地認知，若不想步陳水扁後塵，就必須拋棄虛幻主張，大膽更張路線，否則因循泄沓以致失機僨事，她將淪為深綠裹脅的政治傀儡。機會之窗稍縱即逝，莫待答卷收走，猛虎餓成病貓。

How Should Taiwan Respond to US Withdrawal from TPP?

How Should Taiwan Respond to US Withdrawal from TPP? 
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 26, 2016

Executive Summary: Once the United States pulls out of Asia, confrontation between the US and Mainland China is expected to ease. Taiwan will feel less pressure to choose sides. This is a turning point. Taiwan can use this to review its one-sided foreign policy and adopt a Taiwan-centric rebalancing policy. The crux of the problem is the DPP government's anti-Mainland attitude. It lacks the courage to face reality. Since May, the Tsai government has repeatedly misjudged the international situation. It shows no signs of change. As a result, it can only paint itself further into a corner. Think about it. How can a government that pointedly ignores Mainland China, Asia's largest economy, possibly champion Asian co-operation?

Full Text Below:

Donald Trump has publicly announced that he will pull the US out of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) on the very day he takes office. Shinzo Abe, who was still rushing about, could not conceal his dismay. A TPP without the US is meaningless. Tsai Ing-wen, who was attending the Asia-Pacific Chamber of Commerce, used the opportunity to urge Asian nations to follow through on economic integration. Her words were pretty. But does the president really think anyone will respond?

Trump's personnel appointments show that for the next four years the United States will be under the sway of the far right. For the world at large, Trump's announcement that he will pull the US out of the TPP, signaled the beginning of America's "new isolationism".  The global trade order will be seriously impacted. For Taiwan in particular, heavily reliant on exports to the United States, restarting an economy that has been stalled for years will be harder than ever.

The TPP was the single-handed creation of the United States. Its purpose was to counter Mainland China's RCEP. This cross border economic agreement was originally between New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, and Brunei. It was later expanded, becoming a TPP with 12 member nations. The TPP was more a strategic goal than an economic partnership. Obama's Asian Rebalancing strategy forced nations on both sides of the Pacific to choose sides. When the US retreated, Malaysia and Vietnam jumped ship and returned to the RCEP. Only Japan drew its sword and looked around with alarm. Taiwan was even more embarrassed. For years it waited patiently for the second round, hoping to join. Now its dream has been shattered. Where will it go from here?

Japan is obsessed with the TPP. It desperately wants to ally with the United States to contain Mainland China. It wants TPP to cement the relationship between the two nations. Abenomics sees TPP as part of its economic strategy. It wants to use trade liberalization to promote economic restructuring. But the TPP has run aground. This will greatly diminish Abe's economic power. It will also undermine the US-Japan strategic partnership. Japan will be the biggest victim of the US withdrawal from the TPP.

The TPP was originally a set of economic “rules of the game” for small nations. It set a high threshold. It imposed high standards. It removed all tariff barriers, no exceptions. It fully liberalized financial services, telecommunications and other service industries as well. This favored small nations, but disfavored large nations. The United States sacrificed its domestic market for the sake of TPP. No wonder Trump thinks the TPP is a disaster for the United States.

Long time strategic deployment and hegemonic intervention by the United States has prevented Asia from forming its own free trade area. Now however, the US is withdrawing from the TPP. The Mainland Chinese-led RCEP will rush in to fill this vacuum. Mainland China is conducting itself in a low-keyed manner. It has declared its intent to continue Asian integration. It has stressed that the real leader of the RCEP is ASEAN. But with the United States withdrawal from the TPP, Mainland China will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiary.

Once Trump takes office, it will be “America First”. He will not sacrifice US economic interests in order to maintain global hegemony. Instead, economic development will come first. The United States will change from military hegemonism to trade hegemonism. This will change the strategic map for global political and economic power, and determine Taiwan's fate.

What impact will an Asia without the TPP have on Taiwan? When the DPP took office, it brought cross-Strait relations to a standstill. It blindly followed in Japan's footsteps, and deliberately ignored the Mainland led RCEP and ASEAN. It bet Taiwan's foreign trade chips on the TPP. The TPP dream has now evaporated. Taiwan's sole alternative is to return to bilateral FTAs. Sadly, the DPP refuses to rethink Taiwan's development strategy based on the Big Picture. Instead, it is betting on the Taiwan-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement. It has forgotten that Taiwan has failed to improve its long-term deficit relationship with Japan. Its eagerness to become an economic vassal is the main cause of Taiwan's current plight.

In fact, once the United States pulls out of Asia, confrontation between the US and Mainland China is expected to ease. Taiwan will feel less pressure to choose sides. This is a turning point. Taiwan can use this to review its one-sided foreign policy and adopt a Taiwan-centric rebalancing policy. The crux of the problem is the DPP government's anti-Mainland attitude. It lacks the courage to face reality. Since May, the Tsai government has repeatedly misjudged the international situation. It shows no signs of change. As a result, it can only paint itself further into a corner.

Think about it. How can a government that pointedly ignores Mainland China, Asia's largest economy, possibly champion Asian co-operation?

美國退出ＴＰＰ，台灣因應之道何在？
2016-11-26 聯合報

川普公開宣稱，他上任首日，就將宣布美國退出「跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴協議」（ＴＰＰ）。對此，仍在奔走的安倍難掩失望說，一個沒有美國的ＴＰＰ即失去意義。蔡英文則藉著出席亞太工商總會的機會喊話，盼亞洲國家扮演經濟整合角色。話雖說得漂亮，但蔡總統認為空氣中將傳來什麼樣的回聲？

從川普連日任命的人事看，未來四年，美國已無法免於極右派當道的命運。對世界而言，川普宣布退出ＴＰＰ，更吹響了美國「新孤立主義」的號角，全球貿易秩序將受嚴重衝擊。對於高度倚賴對美出口的台灣而言，在低谷徘徊多年的經濟，恐怕更難有起色。

從協議本質看，ＴＰＰ是由美國一手形塑，目的是為了抗衡中國大陸引領的ＲＣＥＰ。美國把原由紐西蘭、智利、新加坡、汶萊四國組成的跨國經濟協議，擴大成擁有十二個會員國的ＴＰＰ，這即註定ＴＰＰ是一個「戰略目標」大於「經濟夥伴關係」的組織。在歐巴馬的「亞洲再平衡」大旗下，太平洋兩岸的國家不得不選邊站；但當美國勢力消褪後，馬來西亞及越南便決定跳船選擇回到ＲＣＥＰ，唯獨日本還在拔劍四顧心茫茫。更尷尬的是台灣，多年來一心一意等著爭取第二輪入會，如今目標變成泡影，我們要朝哪裡前進？

日本之所以執著於ＴＰＰ，除了為聯美抗中，更把它當成日美關係的黏著劑。安倍經濟學也把ＴＰＰ當成經濟戰略的一環，要以貿易自由化來帶動經濟結構改革。如今ＴＰＰ觸礁，不但將使安倍經濟學的威力大打折扣，美日戰略夥伴關係也勢必受到衝擊，日本將成為美國退出ＴＰＰ的最大受害者。

從協議內容看，ＴＰＰ原是小國間的經濟遊戲規則，強調高門檻的規範標準，不僅要一視同仁撤除關稅壁壘，還要全面開放金融、電信等服務產業；這對小國有利，卻對大國不利。亦即，美國其實是以犧牲國內市場來換取ＴＰＰ的主導權；也難怪，川普認為ＴＰＰ對美國將是一場災難。

長期以來，在美國的戰略部署與霸權干預下，亞洲一直無法形成自己的自由貿易區，如今美國要退出ＴＰＰ，中國引領的ＲＣＥＰ將適時填補這個真空。中國雖然在此際表現得相當低調，聲稱將持續推動「亞洲一體化」政策，也強調東協才是ＲＣＥＰ真正的主導者；但美國退出ＴＰＰ，中國無疑將是最大受益者。

可以預見的是，川普上台後，在美國利益優先下，將不會再犧牲自身經濟利益來維持其世界霸權的角色。同時，在經濟發展為先的原則下，美國將從軍事霸權主義轉為貿易霸權主義，這將改變全球政經權力版圖，也左右著台灣的命運。

一個沒有ＴＰＰ的亞洲，對台灣將產生什麼影響？民進黨上台後，不僅將兩岸關係帶入僵局，更一味追隨日本的腳步，刻意忽視中國和東協主導的ＲＣＥＰ，把台灣對外經濟的籌碼全押在ＴＰＰ。而今ＴＰＰ的美景幻滅，台灣恐怕只能走回雙邊ＦＴＡ的道路。可悲的是，民進黨不思從整體形勢重新思考台灣的發展戰略，卻轉而寄希望於「台日經濟夥伴協議」，似渾然忘了台灣對日本長期的逆差關係無能改善，卻自甘淪為經濟附庸，正是當前深陷困境的主要肇因。

事實上，美國一旦退出亞洲，美中對峙可望趨於緩和，台灣面臨選邊的壓力將會減小。這原是一個轉機，台灣可趁此檢討過去一面倒的對外政策，轉而採取以台灣為中心的「再平衡」政策。癥結在，民進黨政府在反中思維作祟下，始終缺乏面對現實的勇氣。五月以來，蔡政府面對國際情勢頻頻誤判，卻看不出它有調整的跡象；其結果，只會把自己逼到死角。

試想，一個無視亞洲最大經濟體中國存在的政府，又如何倡言亞洲共同合作呢？

Totalitarian Means For Desirable Reforms

Totalitarian Means For Desirable Reforms
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 28, 2016

Executive Summary: We must reform. But we must not resort to the abuse power, populist demagoguery, or totalitarian means. These inevitably lead to the collapse of democracy, the abrogation of the rule of law, and the destruction of constitutional rule. We believe Tsai is sincere in her desirre for reform. But if she acts in haste, if she behaves tyrannically and recklesslessly, if she breaks the law and tramples over the Constitution, even good intentions will pave the way to hell.

Full Text Below:

The “Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee”, aka “Party Assets Committee”, has decided to confiscate the Kuomintang's Central Investment Company (CIC), and Hsinyutai Company. Even the KMT's Central Party Headquarters Building is being "nationalized". Wellington Koo, chairman of the Party Assets Committee, said that enforcement of the Party Assets Regulations is the final mile towards democracy. We think Wellington Koo and the Party Assets Committee are busy carving a tombstone for democracy and the rule of law, and that the Party Assets Regulations are an epitaph for democracy and the rule of law.

Those in the know have long advised the KMT to summon up the courage to reform, clarify the historical record, and give the party a fresh start. Doing so would have liberated the party from its historical burdens, and enabled it to begin anew. It would also establish a more equitable environment for intraparty competition. Alas, the KMT could not bring itself to give up short term advantages. It ignored long term risks. It could not bring itself to cease suckling at the party assets teat. It could not bring itself to sever its links to special interests. Naturally it could not avoid relentless green camp attacks during election season. Following its election defeat, the KMT is like a dog without a master. Its home has been invaded, and its property has been looted. Unwilling to part with its assets, it brought this disaster upon itself. It has only itself to blame.

That said, the Party Assets Committee, under the aegis of the Executive Yuan, has exceeded its authority. It has ignored the distinction between executive, legislative, and judicial authority. It has ignored the need for detailed investigation and due process of law. It has presumed guilt and imposed ex post facto law in order to designate KMT assets as “illicit”. In the name of the Republic of China, it invades homes and seizes property via asset forfeiture. The KMT has lost its party assets. That is nothing to lament. But the collapse of democracy can only turn peoples' hearts to dust. The collapse of the rule of law can only leave people heartbroken.

Wellington Koo is holding high the banner of justice. But what many see is the DPP's determination to cling to power indefinitely, by annihilating the KMT, by severing its arteries and cutting off its lifeblood. But given current political realities, the elimination of one of the blue and green parties will lead to one party rule and the overthrow of democracy. If the DPP succeeds in destroying the KMT, it alone will rule the roost. Democracy will be deprived of checks and balances. That is not a good thing. The DPP may be able to monopolize power for a while. But without the checks and balances provided by partisan rivalry, it will find it difficult to hold on to power indefinitely. Any attempt to do so will destroy democracy in the process.

The key is that the ends do not justify the means. Reform is necessary, but it must not be achieved by totalitarian means. Transitional justice is a noble goal. But it cannot justify the abuse of power or the violation of law and the constitution. Wellington Koo  struts about haughtily, full of himself. He sees due process as a nuisance. He sees court decisions as irrelevant. He sees democracy and the rule of law as clods of dirt. He postures as a champion of justice. Anticipating the legal battle ahead, he lectures the KMT about "recognizing the true meaning of transitional justice". He instructs the courts to "appreciate the value of transitional justice". Wellington Koo wields the Party Assets Committee like a battle axe, swinging it wildly this way and that. Today's Taiwan now resembles the Chinese Mainland, during the Cultural Revolution, when an ill wind swept away all traces of democracy and the rule of law.

But most frightening of all, is Koo's attitude toward power. Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "humility, humility, and more humility". The slogan has lost all meaning. Like “communication, communication, and more communication", it is a wilted flower. The democratic values championed by the DPP when it was in the opposition, the principle of the rule of law and due process, have all become stumbling blocks now that the DPP is the ruling party. The DPP demands “total government”. How can it tolerate having its power locked away in a prison cell? The DPP demands swift justice. Why must it wait around while the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly? Since reform is sacrosanct, so what if one's methods are a little totalitarian? So what if the DPP regime must trample over the rule of law? With such a mentality, the emergence of power hungry demagogues such as Wellington Koo and the Party Assets Committee are inevitable.

The DPP has the KMT by the throat. The KMT may wish for a desperate last stand. Alas, even that would be difficult. As an old saying puts it, “The mountains and waters will meet again". Never burn one's bridges. Life always holds out new opportunities. Humiliations endured today will be rewarded ten times over tomorrow. The KMT may live or die. It may be reduced to Ah Q-style “spiritual victories”. But the most disturbing development is that under democracy, party politics has led to an endless cycle of revenge.

In fact, democracy, the rule of law, and constitutional rule, make up an inviolable line in the sand. Once that line has been crossed, it is all too easy to march down the road toward unlimited power and authoritarian dictatorship. It is all too easy to become caught up in populist demagoguery and political chaos. It is all too easy for society to break apart, for old hatreds to resurface, and for cycles of violence to prevail, leaving never a moment's peace.

We must reform. But we must not resort to the abuse power, populist demagoguery, or totalitarian means. These inevitably lead to the collapse of democracy, the abrogation of the rule of law, and the destruction of constitutional rule. We believe Tsai is sincere in her desirre for reform. But if she acts in haste, if she behaves tyrannically and recklesslessly, if she breaks the law and tramples over the Constitution, even good intentions will pave the way to hell.

神聖的改革，卻用極權手段達成
2016-11-28 聯合報

黨產會決議沒收國民黨的中投公司和欣裕台公司，連國民黨中央黨部也「收歸國有」。黨產會主委顧立雄侈言不當黨產條例的落實，是走向民主的最後一哩路；我們則擔心，顧立雄和黨產會的橫行，正在砌起民主法治的第一塊墓碑，而鐫刻其上的黨產條例，也將是民主法治的第一篇墓誌銘。

識者早就勸告國民黨拿出改革勇氣，清理歷史遺緒，讓黨產歸零，不僅丟掉包袱，重新出發，也建立更公平的政黨競爭環境。但國民黨難捨近利，無視長害，既然戒不掉黨產奶嘴，切不斷利益糾葛，當然就掙不脫綠營選舉時的一路夾纏，更躲不過民進黨掌權後的政治追殺。敗選後的國民黨，已若喪家之犬，而今更被逼向抄家滅產的絕境，當捨不捨，招禍取咎，無不自己也。

然而，黨產會以行政院下屬機關，跨越行政、立法、司法分際，毋需詳實調查，不理程序正義，不但有罪推定，還要法溯既往，逕自「判決」國民黨黨產來源「不當」，更假中華民國之名，奪產抄家，沒收充公。國民黨黨產敗散不足惜，民主坍塌才教人心灰，法治裂崩也教人心憂，憲政破毀更教人心痛。

顧立雄高舉轉型正義大纛，許多人看到的卻是民進黨為永保執政，必欲殲滅國民黨的意圖，切其金脈，斷其命脈。但以當前現實政治而言，藍綠兩大黨去其一，政黨政治即告失衡，民主體制隨時可能傾覆。果真國民黨橫遭滅門，民進黨一黨獨大，民主政治的運作，缺乏實質制衡力量，洵非好事；而民進黨即使能夠總攬權力於一時，缺乏政黨的自主競爭，也難永保政權，卻先葬送了民主。

問題的關鍵，在於手段的正當性。改革是必要的，但不能以極權手段來達成；轉型正義目標崇高，更不能以濫權踰法違憲手段為之。然而，從訂頒黨產條例到黨產會成立，政治針對性極強，清算鬥爭味極濃；尤其顧立雄，恃其剛悍，顧盼自雄，既視程序正義如敝屣，復視法院判決如無物，更視民主法治如草芥；卻一副大義凜然之貌，對可預期的法律戰，一方面教訓國民黨要「體認轉型正義的真諦」，一方面指導法院要「體會轉型正義的價值」。顧立雄掄著黨產條例大刀，耍得虎虎生風，於是現代台灣，吹起半世紀前的大陸文革歪風，橫掃一切民主法治。

但最可怕的，還是面對權力的心態。蔡英文叮囑「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」，已如馬耳東風；「溝通、溝通、再溝通」，更成明日黃花。民進黨在野時捍衛的民主價值、法治原則與程序正義，當政後統統成為施政的絆腳石。完全執政，豈容權力被關進制度的牢籠裡？既曰正義，何須等待正當的行政與司法程序？改革神聖，手段極權、踰越法治又何妨？有這種心態，就會有黨產會和顧立雄這種權力怪獸。

狠遭掐喉的國民黨，要背水一戰都很難施展。不過，國民黨撂了一句話，「山水有相逢」。這既是勸人行事應留餘地，不要做得太絕，因為人生總有相遇的機會；也是揚言忍一時屈辱，未來十倍奉還。然而，不論國民黨能否置之死地而後生，或者終究淪為阿Ｑ式的精神勝利戰法，令人悚然而驚的是，在民主政治體制下，我國的政黨競爭難道最後會走向相互報復的循環？

事實上，民主的原則、法治的精神、憲政的分際，都有一條不容踰越的紅線。一旦紅線遭到破壞，就很容易走向擴權濫權、專制獨裁的道路，或者陷入民粹當道、政治失序的亂象；更且演變成社會對立撕裂，仇恨因陳相襲，終致循環報復，永無寧日。

我們要改革，但不要濫權或民粹，更不要極權手段，而致民主崩解，法治蕩然，憲政破毀。我們相信蔡英文的改革動機，但要提醒的是，如果操之過切，鴨霸蠻幹，越法踰憲，即使是善意，也可能鋪成一條通往地獄的道路。

Seizing Power Like an Octopus, Governing Like a Blind Swordsman

Seizing Power Like an Octopus, Governing Like a Blind Swordsman
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 25, 2016

Executive Summary: The DPP government has taken over General Association of Chinese Culture (GACC). It has scored a major victory. But before it could even celebrate, TransAsia Airways' announcement that it was going out of business plunged it into a black hole. Executive Yuan incompetence has people shaking their heads and sighing in dismay. These two developments offer us a striking contrast. The DPP's lust for power vastly exceeds its ability to govern. The DPP may be able to seize power like an octopus, but it governs like a blind swordsman.

Full Text Below:

The DPP government has taken over General Association of Chinese Culture (GACC). It has scored a major victory. But before it could even celebrate, TransAsia Airways' announcement that it was going out of business plunged it into a black hole. Executive Yuan incompetence has people shaking their heads and sighing in dismay. These two developments offer us a striking contrast. The DPP's lust for power vastly exceeds its ability to govern. The DPP may be able to seize power like an octopus, but it governs like a blind swordsman.

Looking ahead, these two incidents hardly represent the the limits of Taiwan's social chaos. For example, labor protests over working hours continue unabated. Public hearings on the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster areas drag on. Unfortunately another earthquake just struck Fukushima. Differences within the DPP over same-sex marriage remain unresolved. The administration and the legislature each have their own ideas on the matter. A number of green camp legislators are indifferent to public opinion. They would ram the bill through the legislature and precipitate social chaos. Some problems were the result of recklessness, others the result of expedience, and still others were the result of reformist zeal. The problem is that some of them violate the DPP's core values, while others ignore the democratic process. It is only natural that such actions would provoke a backlash.

In the DPP's struggle over the GACC, the winner takes all. That determination has already been made. The ruling administration resorted to all manner of devices to bring the GACC under its control. It offered inducements to dilute and divide the opposition. Politicians, businessmen, and culturati surrendered en masse, forcing Liu Chao-hsuan to withdraw. On such an occasion, Tsai Ing-wen can of course declare victory. But is relying on power to drive one's opponents into a corner, and leaving not quarter, really the kind of victory President Tsai wants?

The DPP may want to look at the matter from another angle. What sort of impression has this victory left in the minds of the people? When people look at how this battle was fought, they are bound to have questions. First, Tsai Ing-wen has created over 600 new members where there was only 200. This may be a shrewd move. But as the saying goes, “Men of principle seek wealth only through honorable means”. Second, the DPP has long despised Chinese culture. Liu Sh-ifang considers Chinese yo-yos and calligraphy Chinese culture, and would slash the  budget for the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission in response. So why did the DPP fight a major battle to seize control of the GACC in the first place? For the sake of culture? Which culture? Third, in recent years the GACC has morphed into a civic organization. The DPP government acquired enormous power from the change in ruling parties. But was it really necessary for it to abuse this power to take over the GACC? Furthermore, did President Tsai really need to lead the charge? Fourth, party and government sources say that gaining control over the GACC would transform it into a cross-Strait communication channel. President Tsai refuses to take the 1992 Consensus superhighway, yet would wend her way down the GACC footpath in order to connect with the Mainland? Who's kidding whom?

The Presidential Office seized control of GACC with unseemly haste. The Executive Yuan dealt with the TransAsia Airways company closing with complete cluelessness. Both actions showed that the ruling administration's lust for power far exceeds its ability to govern. An airline announcing that it is closing up shop is a serious matter, not just for passengers and employees, but for financial institutions and the stock market. Yet government agencies remained utterly clueless, and passed the buck onto the Civil Aviation Authority. Nor was that all. The next day the Lin Chuan cabinet misspoke and flip-flopped repeatedly. It announced that the airline would undergo "reorganization". Then just as abruptly, it announced that the government would "take it over completely". Spokesman Hsu Kuo-jung was even slapped in the face by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which said China Airlines would only take two routes, and would not take over completely. These developments show that although the Tsai government is in power, it has no clue how to govern, let alone solve the problems of the nation and society.

The question one must ask is this. During ruling party changes, government agencies replace only the top one-tenth of all political appointees. The rest of the administrative structure remains unchanged. Why has the TransAsia Airways incident caused the entire government to malfunction? There are roughly three reasons. First, the Tsai government has relentlessly concentrated power at the top. All major policy decisions require her personal approval. This prevents middle-level officials from exercising their initiative and professional judgment. Second, the DPP is characterized by “political colors above all”. It considers only ideological orientation and ignores right and wrong. As a result, middle and lower echelon officials and officials who are not "our people" dare not express their views. Third, no professional information and advice is available to inform its decision-making. Naturally, like a blind swordsman, it can only hack away at the air.

Tsai and members of her administration harbor a delusion. They think the purpose of governing is to implement reforms. They are mistaken. A ruling administration that cannot even ensure political stability, that cannot even uphold the rule of law and ensure economic security, has no business running about shouting “Reform! Reform!” as political cover.

抓權如八爪章魚，施政卻像盲劍客
2016-11-25 聯合報

民進黨政府剛在「中華文化總會」的戰場大獲全勝，但還來不及慶祝，隨即陷入了復興航空宣布停飛的黑洞，行政院的表現只能讓人搖頭嘆氣。前後二事對照，留給社會大眾鮮明的對比：權力欲望和行政能力完全不成正比，爭權攬權如同八爪章魚，施政作為卻像盲劍客。

放眼望去，台灣社會的紛紛擾擾，又豈止這兩樁？比方說，吵嚷多時的一例一休之爭，勞工的抗爭仍未止息；日本核虞食品是否解禁，公聽會尚未開完，不幸又遇上福島再次地震；同性婚姻的問題，黨內的歧見尚未解決，政院版也另有主張，卻有少數綠委不顧社會溝通要強行偷渡民法條文，引起偌大風波。這些紛擾，有的是出於輕率，有的是便宜行事，或許也有改革心切。問題在，其中有的違背了民進黨原來主張的價值，有的跳過了必要的民主程序，想要蠻幹，當然會引起反彈。

在「中華文化總會」的主導權之爭中，以勝負論英雄，顯然高下已判。執政者極盡稀釋、拉攏、分化之手段，必欲將文化總會納入自己麾下，隨即有政客、企業界、文化人接受招降納叛，逼得劉兆玄棄甲曳兵而去；此刻，蔡英文當然可以昂首高呼勝利。然而，仗恃權勢在每個角落把對手殺到寸草不留，就是蔡總統想要展示的勝利嗎？

民進黨不妨換個角度想想，這場勝利在民間留下的是什麼印象？民眾看這場爭奪戰，勢必有幾個質疑：一，操作蔡英文為首的六百多名新會員，去灌爆原來只有兩百多會員的文總，雖是致命狠招，但不符「君子愛財，取之有道」的原則。二，民進黨一向切割中華文化，劉世芳還以「扯鈴」和「書法」是中華文化為由要刪除僑委會預算，然則民進黨如此大陣仗去搶奪文總，又為了什麼文化？三，文化總會近年已轉型為民間社團，政府有必要以政黨輪替為由強以政治力量去染指、征服嗎？何況竟由蔡總統帶頭發動。四，黨政人士稱，拿下文化總會，是要以文化為橋梁作為兩岸溝通管道；然而，蔡總統放著「九二共識」的大道不走，卻侈言要用文總的小橋來打通兩岸經脈，豈不是天方夜譚？

無論如何，從總統府對奪取文總的用心之深，操作之急，對照近日行政院處理復興航空事件的茫無頭緒，徹底暴露了政府團隊的權力與能力顯不相稱。航空公司宣告停飛是一件嚴重的事，牽動的不只是旅客和員工權益，還可以引起金融機構及股票市場的連鎖效應；然而，政府部門對此事一問三不知，交通部更退避三舍，把責任全推給民航局。不僅如此，在隔日的處理，林全內閣的應對也顯得言不及義，顛三倒四，忽而說要改提「重整」，忽而說要政府「全面接手」，皆未能切中要害；發言人徐國勇甚至遭交通部打臉，說華航只接兩條航線，而非全面接手。這些現象都顯示，蔡政府雖然大權在握，卻不知道如何運用手中權力來平順行政，遑論解決國家社會的問題。

要問的是：一次政黨輪替，政府部門充其量更換了上層十分之一的政務官人事，其他的行政架構都維持不變；為何一次興航事件，就讓政府整個周轉失靈？粗略分析，原因大致有三：第一，蔡政府的執政特質，是不斷地把權力向上收攏，由總統一人對所有大政拍板定案，如此一來便大大壓抑了中層官員的專業判斷。第二，民進黨的政治特質，往往只問顏色而不問是非，這使得中下層官員乃至「非我族類」的政務官不敢表達主張。第三，沒有專業資訊及意見支撐的政治決策，當然就像盲劍客，只能對空亂砍。

蔡英文和她的團隊有一個迷思，以為執政的目的就是為了改革。她錯了！一個執政團隊如果連什麼叫「穩健行政」都不知道，如果連給人民一個安定的生活與法治都做不到，卻不斷用改革為幌子四處攬權，那就太遜了！

Yet Another Willfully Blind Government

Yet Another Willfully Blind Government
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 24, 2016

Executive Summary: External uncertainties have increased. Internal consumption and investment remain low. The ruling administration must not underestimate the risks. It must not be overly optimistic. It must not reduce investment because business prospects are dim. It must not turn a blind eye to TransAsia Airways early dissolution. It must remain pragmatic, and reform the laws and regulations. It must free up the economy, create a sound environment for investment. Only then can industry upgrade itself and the economy prosper. Wishful thinking, assuming that "If you plan it, they will come" is no answer. How would this government be any different from past governments that turned a blind eye to harsh economic reality?

Full Text Below:

The board of directors of TransAsia Airways, the oldest airline company in the ROC, has decided to close the company down. The news came as a shock. Two consecutive years of air disasters imposed a  heavy burden on TransAsia Airways. It also undermined the image of its brand, making the resumption of normal operations difficult. Financially speaking, TransAsia shares were selling at over seven NT per share. But the board decided to close the company's doors because its "prospects were dim". Major shareholders were reluctant to continue investing. According to Chairman Lin Ming-sheng, it was better to close the company down while assets still exceeded debt. This would enable the company to better deal with debts, staff salaries, and accident compensation.

Before this, only the impact of reduced Mainland tourism on restaurants and souvenir shops went noticed. Travel industry related businesses went belly up. The powerful Lealea Enterprise Company turned pessimistic about the domestic economy, including domestic industries. It announced the closing of its Kaohsiung International Youth Hostel. Investment incentives declined across the board. The domestic housing market continued to fall. The risk of power shortages continued to rise. Private sector business leader Formosa Plastics Group announced a reduction in domestic investment. Over the next several years it would focus more on overseas investments, especially in the United States. The Apple supply chain is critical for exports. During the second half of this year, iPhone7 sales were disappointing. Orders will be cut by the end of the year. Bad news continues to roll in.

People are pessimistic about the economy. Only the ruling administration remains optimistic. One news report quoted Tsai government "chief aides and officials" who said that the past six months was merely a stage during which "obstacles would be cleared away, and a foundation laid for the future". Now, they said, several industrial projects are “in the pipeline”. By next year the economy will be better than this year. Therefore “the economic environment will be more beneficial to the ruling administration".

Frankly, the ruling administration has misjudged the situation and is being much too optimistic. They are equating rhetorical flourishes with economic achievements. Their “Five Plus Two Industrial Innovation Program” includes an Asian Silicon Valley, biotech medical treatment, green energy technology, and smart devices. They assure us that these are now in the pipeline, therefore the economic outlook is bright.

But what precisely is “in the pipeline”? If administration officials define the completion of planning and design, and Executive Yuan approval of them as being “in the pipeline”, then of course, they are “in the pipeline”. But the completion of an economic plan or industrial plan, the approval of the plan by the Executive Yuan, and the completion of administrative procedures, has nothing to do with the economy or industry. The real question is how much capital investment will these projects bring? What benefits do they offer? Do any watershed examples exist that one can point to? Eight years ago, when Liu Chao-hsuan was premier, he approved "Six New Industrial Projects". The plans long been "in the pipeline" forever. But what benefits and results have they yielded over the years? None. Therefore how can anyone claim that “It's in the pipeline, and the economy is looking up”?

Equating completion of paperwork with completion of a plan that leads to real world benefits, is wishful thinking. Leave aside the ridicule industry insiders have heaped upon these plans for the moment. Can these plans be implemented? Can they lead to real world benefits? Can they contribute to industry and the economy? That all depends on business investment. But given the concerns of the business community and their responses, it is clear that private investment will be quite limited.

The ruling administration has declared that "The economy is expected to be better next year than this year, and the economic environment will be more favorable to the government next year". Its blind optimism fails to understand business cycles and ignores business risks. According to statistics released by the Executive Yuan General Administration of Taxation, the estimated third quarter economic growth rate is 2.06%, higher than the 1.99% forecast in August. The estimated growth rate for the entire year is 1%. Three consecutive quarters of economic recession, plus two consecutive quarters of positive growth, have led to an economic bottom. But suppose the estimated growth rate of 1.88% is achievable next year? Suppose as suggested by the SDC, it reaches 2%? Is that really anything to cheer about? Whether it is 2% or 1.88%, both are low growth rates.

This means that Taiwan may be facing an L-shaped economic trend rather than a V-shaped economic trend. They economy may no longer be declining. But the recovery may remain weak, and maintain a low rate of growth. In fact, almost all major economies have experienced L-type recoveries in recent years. Japan has has remained at the bottm for many years. Europe is in the same situation. The United States has made a comparatively strong recovery. But following the financial tsunami, it too spent several years at the bottom before finally making a clear recovery. Even the Mainland has remained mired in L-type growth for three years.

Domestic economic risks are exceedingly high. Foreign economic risks are far from low. Mainland economic prospects are cautiously optimistic. Trump being elected President of the United States has led to uncertainty. So far, no one is sure what his presidency means. Trump's trade protectionism is obviously detrimental to Taiwan's economy, which relies on export trade. Our exports and export orders in September were positive. October was disappointing. Clearly the economy has yet to begin a smooth upward trend. Volatility and risk remain high.

External uncertainties have increased. Internal consumption and investment remain low. The ruling administration must not underestimate the risks. It must not be overly optimistic. It must not reduce investment because business prospects are dim. It must not turn a blind eye to TransAsia Airways early dissolution. It must remain pragmatic, and reform the laws and regulations. It must free up the economy, create a sound environment for investment. Only then can industry upgrade itself and the economy prosper. Wishful thinking, assuming that "If you plan it, they will come" is no answer. How would this government be any different from past governments that turned a blind eye to harsh economic reality?

又是一個蒙著眼睛過日子的政府
2016/11/24 中國時報

國內最老牌的復興航空董事會決定解散公司，消息傳出令人震撼。興航雖然因為連續兩年發生空難，造成嚴重的財務負擔，同時也影響品牌形象，讓其營運難有起色，不過以財務面來看，復興航空每股淨值仍有7元以上，相較扁朝時70億的累積虧損，財務體質算好，但董事會仍決定解散公司，原因就是「看不到前景」，大股東不願繼續投資。依照董事長林明昇的說法，寧可在資產大於負債時先把公司結束掉，還有能力好好處理債務與員工資遣與安頓問題，傷害可以減到最小。

之前，外界已看到陸客減少對觀光餐飲、禮品業的負面效應浮現，旅行業出現倒閉現象，國內頗有實力的力麗集團看壞產業與經濟前景，宣布終止承租高雄國際青年會館；企業投資意願整體低落、缺電風險提高、國內房市持續滑落、民營企業龍頭台塑集團宣布減少國內投資，要把未來幾年投資重心移往海外，特別是美國；今年下半年對出口挹注良多的蘋果供應鏈，傳出因iPhone7銷售不如預期，年底將砍單，壞消息頻傳。

民間對經濟前景悲觀，唯獨執政團隊抱持樂觀態度。近日一家媒體引述了蔡政府團隊「主要幕僚與官員」的說法，認為過去半年是「清障礙及打地基」階段，現在幾個產業計畫已上路，明年景氣又比今年佳，因此「大環境會對執政團隊較為有利」。

坦白說，這個執政團隊可能錯估情勢又太過分樂觀，更把文書作業錯當經濟成果。他們認為產業創新五加二計畫中，包括：亞洲矽谷、生技醫療、綠能科技、智慧機械四項都已陸續上路，經濟前景樂觀可期。

何謂上路？如果官員認為完成規畫與計畫，經行政院通過定案就是上路，那當然是確定無誤。但實質來說，一個經濟計畫或產業規畫，完成計畫並經行政院核定，只是完成行政程序，其實與經濟或產業毫無關係。真正的重點在這些計畫帶來了多少投資？引發什麼效益？甚至是否已有指標性的個案成形，否則，8年前劉兆玄在行政院長任內，不早就核定「六大新興產業計畫」，這些計畫也早已「上路」，但多年來到底帶來什麼效益與成果呢？答案當然是否定的。那麼，現在又憑什麼說計畫上路，經濟就可以樂觀？

把完成文書作業當成完成計畫，以為效益就會滾滾而來，是過分的簡化及盲目的樂觀。撇開業界一直對這些計畫內涵的嘲笑與批評不談，這些計畫要能落實到發揮效益，對產業與經濟有貢獻，終究要靠企業的投資。但由企業界的反應與憂心來看，顯然民間投資意願仍然相當低落。

執政團隊「明年景氣預期比今年更好，大環境會對政府較為有利」的樂觀，是對景氣循環統計數字的誤解，也是對風險的無知。根據行政院主計總處公布的今年第三季經濟成長率概估為2.06%，較8月預測的1.99%高，全年經濟成長率篤定可「保1」，在去年連續3季經濟衰退後再拉出連續2季正成長，這波經濟谷底算是已經通過。但問題是即使明年經濟成長率預測值1.88%可達成，或甚至如國發會所說的「一定可破2%」，但這值得欣慰嗎？老實說，無論保2或1.88%，都是低成長率。

這代表台灣面對的可能是Ｌ型的經濟走勢，而非Ｖ型走勢，即經濟不再下滑但復甦力道微弱，持續保持在低度成長。事實上這幾年幾個主要經濟體的經濟幾乎都是出現Ｌ型復甦─日本固然在低檔徘徊多年，歐洲也是如此，今日復甦力道較強勁的美國，在金融海嘯的谷底後，也是花了多年才出現明顯的復甦；甚至大陸這3年也陷入增長放緩的Ｌ型。

國內經濟風險極高，外部風險不低。除了大陸經濟勉強可以樂觀外，川普當選美國總統帶來的不確定性，至今仍無人能評估，單以其貿易保護主義基調而言，倚賴出口貿易的台灣經濟，顯然只見其弊難見其利。我們單由出口與外銷訂單在9月表現良好，10月又不如預期，就可看出經濟尚未進入平穩向上趨勢，波動與風險仍高。

外部不確定風險增加、內部消費與投資雙冷，執政團隊不該低估風險、過度樂觀，卻對企業界看淡前景因而減少投資，甚至如興航般趁早打包解散的事實視而不見。要務實推動法令改革、開放改革，打好投資環境，才可能見到產業升級、經濟上揚。若還是一廂情願以為「計畫完成投資就來」，那麼，這個政府與那個蒙著眼睛過日子的政府，又有什麼不同呢？

James Soong and Xi Jinping, So Near and Yet So Far

James Soong and Xi Jinping, So Near and Yet So Far
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 23, 2016

Executive Summary: The Tsai government should view the Soong Xi meeting as treading on thin ice. The Tsai government has upped the ante on cross-Strait relations. If it fails to win back its ante, it will lose even more than it has. This will leave Beijing in an even more advantageous situation. Beijing should take advantage of this situation. It should not treat it as a provocation, but rather as goodwill gesture from Tsai. If it does, James Soong's visit to APEC may become a surprise hit. The “meet and greet” may be regarded as James Soong's personal victory. Will it become a victory for Tsai Ying-wen? That depends on the remaining pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

Full Text Below:

The Soong Xi meeting is a jigsaw puzzle.

James Soong set out on the 15th. On the 16th, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Mainland State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, said Taiwan's participation at APEC requires conformance with the One China Principle and the related Memorandum of Understanding. He did not say that James Soong conformed to the One China Principle or the Memorandum of Understanding. His wording suggested that Soong did not. Apparently Beijing failed to discourage Soong from attending.

Ma Xiaoguang also said "The Taiwan authorities do not recognize the 1992 Consensus. Therefore the two sides cannot possibly engage in any real and meaningful interaction". The Mainland realized that some form of unavoidable contact would take place. Therefore it immunized itself in advance by stipulating that any interaction “would not be real and meaningful”.

The “meet and greet” took place in the arrival lounge. James Soong sought out Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping did not seek out James Soong. Before the meeting, the green camp revealed its calculations. If Xi Jinping responded to James Soong's overture in an unseemly manner, he would become an international laughing stock. He would also anger the public on Taiwan. Therefore Xi Jinping would probably not ignore Soong outright. Most of the Mainland media dismissed the prospect of a Xi Soong meeting. But naturally Xi Jinping was not about to lose his composure.

The TPP has been badly shaken. The Beijing sponsored RCEP and FTAAP have stolen the spotlight. Xi Jinping suddenly became the star of the Lima conference. For Xi to deal with James Soong by blocking him, rejecting his overtures, or totally ignoring him, was unthinkable. Xi may have concluded that Tsai Ing-wen and James Soong were attempting to take advantage of him. But he knew that under such circumstances he must nevertheless observe the social niceties. Therefore characterizing the Soong Xi “meet and greet” as a “Soong Xi summit” is gross exaggeration.

The Soong Xi “meet and greet” left no photographic record. The two sides met behind the scenes. The bottom line was “No photos”. Beijing insisted on this. It had no desire to publicize the encounter. One can only speculate, but photographs were probably not the only thing that the Mainland rejected behind the scenes.

The size of the lounge resulted in a Soong Xi “meet and greet”. But the Tsai government remains far from Beijing on matters of policy. The political foundation established by the 1992 Consensus, the one China principle, opposition to Taiwan independence, and one China, different interpretations, has collapsed. James Soong said he asked Xi Jinping to "look after Taiwan's small and medium enterprises". This was virtually a case of “lan jiao cheng qing”, i.e., prostrating oneself before the sedan chair of a high official to plead one's case. Also, before the conference, while he was still in Taipei, James Soong proclaimed his support for the one China principle, his opposition to Taiwan independence, and his support for the concept of a “one China roof” covering both Taiwan and the Mainland. After he arrived in Lima however, he told reporters he would only discuss economics and trade, and that they must not be confused with politics.

Was this chess move by Tsai and Soong a one-time event? Or can we expect more of the same? Is Tsai Ying-wen using James Soong as an overt or covert cross-Strait go between? Will Beijing decide to play along and use Soong as a cross-Strait go between? This is a serious matter. James Soong may be Alibaba. But even he must shout “Open sesame” before the door will open. Will the two sides continue to abide by the 1992 Consensus? Or will the Mainland demand recognition of the one China principle and opposition to Taiwan independence as well, as a prerequisite for restored cross-Strait relations?

The APEC scenario showed the Tsai government suing for peace. It also featured Beijing in the role of Jiang Taigong, who dangled his fish hook three feet above the surface of the water, to ensure that any fish that he caught actually wanted to be caught. Tsai Ing-wen used James Soong as her calling card, just as Chen Shui-bian once used James Soong as his stepping stone. In 2005, Beijing played up the Lien Hu summit, while playing down the Soong Hu summit. James Soong's "sincere" alliance with Chen Shui-bian alienated Beijing. James Soong made the red green trial balloon at APEC possible. Beijing may decide to strike while the iron is hot, and play Tsai Ying-wen's game.

If so, Tsai Ing-wen will have to overcome a number of difficulties. Difficulty One. She is using James Soong to pave the way. But whether he can do so, depends on Beijing. Difficulty Two. When James Soong's role in paving the way becomes more apparent, how will the green camp and Taiwan independence elements react? That is something Tsai Ying-wen will have to deal with. As matters stand, Beijing may accept James Soong. The question is whether Taiwan independence elements will find it acceptable.

The Tsai government should view the Soong Xi meeting as treading on thin ice. The Tsai government has upped the ante on cross-Strait relations. If it fails to win back its ante, it will lose even more than it has. This will leave Beijing in an even more advantageous situation. Beijing should take advantage of this situation. It should not treat it as a provocation, but rather as goodwill gesture from Tsai. If it does, James Soong's visit to APEC may become a surprise hit.

The “meet and greet” may be regarded as James Soong's personal victory. Will it become a victory for Tsai Ying-wen? That depends on the remaining pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

宋楚瑜與習近平的咫尺天涯
2016-11-23 聯合報

欲解讀「宋習寒暄」的過程與意義，仍是一幅尚待拼湊的拼圖。

宋楚瑜十五日啟程赴會。十六日，國台辦發言人馬曉光仍說，台灣方面人士參加ＡＰＥＣ會議，必須符合一中原則和有關諒解備忘錄的規定。不過，他未說明，宋是「符合一中原則」，或不符諒解備忘錄？唯語意透露著否定，可見宋的出席乃是北京阻擋未果。

馬曉光又說：「台灣當局不承認九二共識，兩岸雙方就不可能進行任何有實質意義的良性互動。」這是預期習宋在會中不能避免某種形式的接觸，但已事前定位為「不具實質意義的互動」，打了預防針。

寒暄是在等候進場的休息室發生，由宋「主動出擊」，習是被動。會前，綠營透露沙盤推演，謂若習近平對宋的動作之回應失態，不但貽笑國際，也將激怒台灣人，因此習不致峻拒；大陸多數媒體則唱衰習宋互動的可能性。但習近平的不致失態，應屬必然。

由於ＴＰＰ動搖，北京推倡的ＲＣＥＰ與ＦＴＡＡＰ頓成顯學，習近平儼然成為利馬年會的明星。倘若他在處理宋楚瑜的動作時，竟出以阻攔、拒絕或完全相應不理，是無法想像的事。習的平靜應對，透露著自信；他可能會認為，這是被蔡英文及宋楚瑜吃了豆腐，但在這樣的場合仍須維持儀態。因而，若要將在此種情境中發生的宋習寒暄稱為「宋習會」，恐是逾格的渲染解讀。

宋習寒暄，未見合影。由此可見，雙方應有幕後交涉，不見照片是底線，且此係出自北京的主張，不願見此事過度渲染。由此亦可推測，雙方的幕後交涉，可能不只不見照片。

休息室的咫尺，造成宋習寒暄；但蔡政府與北京的政策距離仍隔如天涯。如今，兩岸連「九二共識／一中原則／反對台獨／一中各表」等共同政治基礎都告崩解，宋楚瑜卻稱，他對習近平說的是「如何照顧台灣中小企業」，這其實是近乎「攔轎陳情」的層次。何況，會前在台北宣示「一中原則／反對台獨／一中屋頂」的宋楚瑜，在利馬記者會上卻稱，只講經貿，不要混為一談。

蔡宋聯手的這一著棋，是一次性或後效可期？蔡英文今後難道就以宋楚瑜為公開或秘密的兩岸管道？或北京今後也將計就計地以宋為兩岸管道？這是茲事體大。因為，宋即使是阿里巴巴，也要喊芝麻開門。只打出宋楚瑜三字恐怕不夠，兩岸是否繼續維繫「九二共識」，或另建包括「一中原則／反對台獨」的其他論述成為兩岸共同政治基礎，必是無可迴避的前提。

ＡＰＥＣ的這一場景暴露了蔡政府求和的殷切，也顯露了北京姜太公釣魚願者上鉤的淡定。蔡英文用宋楚瑜作敲門磚，猶如陳水扁當年用宋楚瑜為探路石。二○○五年，北京抬高了連胡會、壓低了宋胡會，而宋扁的「真誠」結盟亦旋告反目。然而，此番ＡＰＥＣ的紅綠試探，若因宋楚瑜開了頭，北京亦不無打蛇隨棍上的可能性，也許會試著陪蔡英文玩下去。

倘係如此，困難應在蔡英文的肩頭。困難之一，她用宋楚瑜開路，但開不開得成及路向何處開，恐仍操在北京之手。何況，困難之二，當宋楚瑜開路的角色漸形凸顯，綠營及獨派會如何反應，那將是蔡英文必須面對的事。事態發展至此地步，北京接受宋的可能性是有的，問題在獨派吞不吞得下去。

蔡政府應以臨深履薄的心情看宋習寒暄。此事已使蔡政府在兩岸博奕中投下更多的賭注，如果不能回本，就會輸得更多。此事亦使北京站在穩賺不賠的地位，因此似應順勢而為，不必將「被寒暄」視為挑釁，而宜看作蔡英文的善意試探。倘係如此，宋楚瑜出使ＡＰＥＣ，也許就成了歪打正著。

這場寒暄或許可視為宋楚瑜個人的戰役成功，至於是否會形成蔡英文的戰爭勝利，尚待拼圖。

Do Not Exaggerate Significance of Soong Xi Greeting

Do Not Exaggerate Significance of Soong Xi Greeting
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 18, 2016

Executive Summary: James Soong and Mainland Chinese leader Xi Jinping talked for more than 10 minutes in private at the APEC informal leaders meeting. Until then, most people assumed that since the Tsai government refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus, a Soong Xi meeting would be out of the question. Some assumed that Soong would not even be admitted into into the APEC venue in Peru. The Mainland authorities sent the same message to Mainland government agencies, and to most Taiwan experts. The meeting was unexpected, and warrants review and evaluation.

Full Text Below:

James Soong and Mainland Chinese leader Xi Jinping talked for more than 10 minutes in private at the APEC informal leaders meeting. Until then, most people assumed that since the Tsai government refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus, a Soong Xi meeting would be out of the question. Some assumed that Soong would not even be admitted into into the APEC venue in Peru. The Mainland authorities sent the same message to Mainland government agencies, and to most Taiwan experts. The meeting was unexpected, and warrants review and evaluation.

First of all, one must not read too much into this brief “meet and greet”. As Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Ma Xiaoguang noted, the Xi Soong meeting was merely a "natural and brief greeting" in the venue lounge area. Some on Taiwan however, are determined to exaggerate the significance of the meeting. Some say "See! Cross-Strait relations are not as bad as previously imagined". Others say “This is an opportunity to break the ice between the DPP and CCP". But they kidding both themselves and others. They are merely pacifying their own constituencies.

Prior to his departure, on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, James Soong issued a declaration. He said that the People First Party's position on the definition of the nation and cross-Strait relations remained unchanged. In other words, it advocated one China and opposed Taiwan independence. Under the “roof of one China”, it advocated cross-Strait equality and mutual understanding, increased exchanges, the realization of the "two sides are one family" premise, and the promotion of cross-Strait peace. James Soong's position is fully consistent with the long held position of the Mainland. Any party, group, or individual on Taiwan should accept the 1992 Consensus and agree that both the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China.

The Mainland has taken measures to prevent the Tsai government from declaring to the outside world that even if the 1992 Consensus is not recognized, cross-Strait official interaction can continue. According to the official statement made by the Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman, the meeting was a simple “meet and greet” between General Secretary Xi Jinping and James Soong. It was an interaction between a party and an individual. The Mainland will not resume official cross-Strait contacts as long as the Tsai government refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus.

Obviously the Mainland is using a two-pronged strategy to win hearts and minds while remaining resolutely firm on the 1992 Consensus. This provides an important reference point by which to understand cross-Strait relations.

For the Tsai government, the stalemate between the two sides over administrative level issues can be overcome. President Tsai has already declared that she will deal with cross-Strait affairs in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Regulations Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area. The Mainland, meanwhile, allows political parties on Taiwan to discuss economic and trade issues and participation in international events. When James Soong met with Xi Jinping, he asked the Mainland to continue its cross-Strait economic and trade policies, and continue to look after small and medium enterprises from Taiwan.

This means that even if James Soong is President Tsai's representative, the Mainland is willing to listen to his views, as long as he personally agrees that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China. In other words, President Tsai can use James Soong as a representative in future cross-Strait consultations. Taiwan can also use other channels of communication outside the KMT to resolve a number of administrative level issues. Now that cross-Strait official interaction is frozen, this is a positive message.

But the cross-Strait political impasse has yet to be resolved. Xi Jinping sent a clear political signal to Taiwan this year. The Mainland is determined to oppose any form of Taiwan independence. The only possible solution to the cross-Strait stalemate is the recognition of the 1992 Consensus, and the correct handling of cross-Strait relations. This means that if President Tsai truly seeks to resume official cross-Strait exchanges, especially the normalization of cross-Strait relations, she must correctly define the nature of cross-Strait relations. She must acknowledge that the two sides belong to one China, and are not separate nations. If President Tsai persists in being vague on this issue, she should harbor no illusions. Cross-Strait relations will not improve. The Soong Xi meeting was merely a personal and administrative level matter, with no spillover effects. There will be no official exchanges, only private exchanges. DPP government hopes of maintaining the status quo can maintain only an incomplete status quo.

Since President Xi took office, he has set forth a series of proposals on cross-Strait relations and the rebirth of the Chinese nation. He hopes that the two sides can join hands in revitalizing China. He also discussed the meeting with Hong Xiu-chu and Sun Yat-sen's 150th Anniversary. Guided by this concept, the Mainland has never rejected cross-Strait civil interaction. In fact it has been actively promoting such interaction. Mainland officials have also taken measures to improve living and working conditions for people from Taiwan living on the Mainland. These are clear evidence of Mainland goodwill toward Taiwan, and constitute opportunities for the people of Taiwan. President Tsai must realize this. This shows that while the Mainland is firm in its stance, it also has seeks to improve cross-Strait relations and influence President Tsai Ying-wen.

President Tsai must reconsider the impact cross-Strait relations and peace will have on Taiwan. She must cease cozying up to the US while distancing Taiwan from the Mainland. Such fantasies are impractical delusions. She must addresss the Mainland's core concerns and resolve the political deadlock between the two sides of the Strait. Only then the cross-Strait freeze be resolved.

Short of this, sitting and doing nothing under today's "incomplete status quo" will only result in Taiwan becoming a boiled frog.

不可過度解讀宋習寒暄的意義
2016/11/22 中國時報

宋楚瑜與大陸領導人習近平在APEC非正式領袖會議場合，非公開會晤超過10分鐘時間。在此之前，多數人認為蔡政府不承認九二共識，宋習會很難成局，甚至有人認為宋進不了秘魯APEC會場，大陸對台工作部門及多數涉台學者也傳遞了同樣的訊息，事實發展卻出乎多數人意料，其意涵值得各界審視評估。

首先，不必過度解釋場外的簡短寒暄，就像國台辦發言人馬曉光的簡短說明，習、宋只是在會場休息室進行了「自然簡短的寒暄」。台灣方面卻有人擴大解讀，無論認為「兩岸關係沒有想像的糟糕」，或「民共之間出現破冰的契機」，其實都是自欺欺人之論，只能滿足內部的需要。

宋楚瑜在出發之前，選擇在孫中山先生誕辰150周年之際，公開聲明親民黨對國家定位和兩岸關係的立場不變，也就是兩岸一中、反對台獨，在「一中屋頂」概念下，尊重兩岸對等分治的政治現實，相互體諒、強化交流，實現「兩岸一家親」的信念，推動兩岸和平發展的路線。宋楚瑜這一表態完全符合大陸所一直強調的立場，台灣任何黨派、團體、個人，只要承認九二共識，認同大陸和台灣同屬一個中國，大陸都願意同其交往。

但大陸同時也採取了預防措施，以避免蔡政府藉機向外界宣告即便不承認九二共識，兩岸官方互動也可以維繫的印象。根據國台辦發言人的正式說法，此次會晤被大陸定性為習近平總書記與宋楚瑜的簡單寒暄，突出黨對個人的互動關係，顯示在蔡政府拒不承認九二共識背景下，大陸不會恢復兩岸官方接觸。

顯而易見，大陸運用兩手策略，一方面盡可能爭取台灣民心，另一方面堅定原則立場不動搖，這也為我們理解當下兩岸關係走向提供了重要參考。

對蔡政府而言，目前兩岸的僵局在事務性問題的層級上還是有化解的可能。一方面，蔡總統已經宣示會按照《中華民國憲法》和《兩岸人民關係條例》來處理兩岸事務，另一方面大陸也不排斥台灣各黨派人士與大陸協商處理經貿領域和國際參與的議題。此番宋楚瑜在與習近平會面之際，也提出要求大陸重申兩岸經貿往來政策持續，以及持續照顧台灣中小企業。

這意味著宋楚瑜即便作為蔡總統的代表，但只要他個人表示認同兩岸同屬一個中國，大陸也願意傾聽他的意見，換句話說，未來兩岸事務性問題需要協商處理時，蔡總統也可以藉助宋楚瑜的個人關係來加以處理，台灣也可在國民黨外多了其他溝通管道，兩岸之間面臨的諸多事務性問題也有了化解的可能，這在兩岸官方互動陷入僵局之際，不啻為一項正面訊息。

但兩岸政治僵局仍未出現解決的曙光。習近平今年已經先後通過洪習會和紀念孫中山先生誕辰150周年大會的講話，向台灣發出明確的政治訊號，即大陸有堅定的決心反對任何形式的台獨，兩岸僵局化解的唯一可能在於承認九二共識，以及正確處理兩岸關係的定位。這就意味著，蔡總統若想要真正實現兩岸官方互動的重啟，特別是實現兩岸關係的正常化，恐怕還是需要正面處理兩岸關係的基本性質問題，也就是兩岸同屬一個中國、兩岸非國與國關係。若是蔡總統繼續在此問題上採取模糊態度，自然不必有任何幻想兩岸關係會得到根本性的改善。宋習會的正面意義僅止於個人關係和事務層級，不會再有其他的外溢效應。沒有官方交往，只有民間交流，對希望維持現狀的民進黨政府只是一種「不完整現狀」的維持。

習近平自上任以來接連提出「兩岸一家親」和中華民族偉大復興理念，希望兩岸共同攜手振興中華，在與洪秀柱會面及孫中山150周年紀念大會上又有了進一步論述。在這一理念指導下，大陸從來都不排斥，或者說一直都在積極推動兩岸民間互動，大陸官方也在努力採取措施，為台灣民眾在大陸的生活和工作創造更加便利的條件。這些無疑都是大陸對台灣釋放的善意，也是台灣人民在兩岸關係中的機遇所在。宋習會更進一步表明大陸改善兩岸關係的誠意以及處理兩岸互動的高度靈活性，對此蔡總統應有清楚的認知。這清楚表明，大陸在立場堅定之餘，也對改善兩岸關係有高度期待，如何抉擇存乎蔡英文總統的一念之間。

蔡總統除非重新思考兩岸關係和平發展對台灣的重要作用，放下「親美疏中」不切實際的戰略幻想，在此基礎上，以正面態度回應大陸的核心關切，兩岸政治僵局才有化解的可能。

不此之圖，坐視「不完整的現狀」持續下去，對台灣而言就是「溫水煮青蛙」的結局。

DPP Government Overestimates Itself and Underestimates Others

DPP Government Overestimates Itself and Underestimates Others 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 18, 2016

Executive Summary: President Tsai vowed that her government would be the most communicative government in history, and that she would not "turn the clock back" on cross-Strait relations. Even when cross-Strait official interactions shut down, she alleged that many cross-Strait communication channels were still open. In fact cross-Strait relations have clearly been frozen. Taiwan's latitude in international relations has clearly shrunk. All the MAC can do is periodically call on the Mainland and ask it to communicate. It cannot take any real countermeasures. Clearly the communication channels President Tsai talked about are not in operation. Is this a government that is able to communicate? Obviously not.

Full Text Below:

President Tsai vowed that her government would be the most communicative government in history, and that she would not "turn the clock back" on cross-Strait relations. Even when cross-Strait official interactions shut down, she alleged that many cross-Strait communication channels were still open. In fact cross-Strait relations have clearly been frozen. Taiwan's latitude in international relations has clearly shrunk. All the MAC can do is periodically call on the Mainland and ask it to communicate. It cannot take any real countermeasures. Clearly the communication channels President Tsai talked about are not in operation. Is this a government that is able to communicate? Obviously not.

Communication has three prerequisites. First of all, it requires self-knowledge. We must recognize our own legal status and actual strength. In particular, we must strictly abide by the Constitution of the Republic of China and its relevant laws. Second, we must walk a mile in another man's shoes. We must understand our strengths and weaknesses, as well as other peoples' strengths and weaknesses. We must demonstrate flexibility. Lastly, we must be transparent and predictable. Only then can we communicate with others and prevent misunderstandings. Only then can mutual trust lead to consensus.

As these three criteria show, the Tsai government has many problems communicating with the Mainland.

First of all, President Tsai refuses to acknowledge the reality of cross-Strait relations. She evades the core meaning of the Republic of China Constitution. It is true that in her inaugural address, President Tsai clearly declared that cross-Strait affairs will be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Regulations Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area. But cross-Strait affairs are merely a matter of governing in accordance with the law. They do not define the nature of the relationship between the two sides. In other words, the Tsai government may ringingly declare that it abides by the Constitution and relevant laws at the administrative level. But as everyone knows, cross-Strait exchanges and cross-Strait relations are no longer at the administrative level. They have entered the deep water area of political agendas. If these political problems are not resolved, they will compromise interaction at the administrative level.

Secondly, President Tsai has never fully appreciated the power differential between the two sides of the Strait, which is unlike that for other nations. Or perhaps President Tsai is aware of it, but chooses to rely on American and Japanese power to resist pressure from the Mainland. But President Tsai failed to realize America and Japan care only about themselves. Relying on them will not yield any results, but will exact a huge price. In other words, President Tsai's strategic premise was wrong from the start. How could it possibly lead to effective interaction with the Mainland?

Just what is the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait? President Tsai has dodged the issue. Meanwhile she has aided and abetted cultural Taiwan independence and educational Taiwan independence. This makes the Mainland doubt her sincerity, and continue applying pressure. Many long overcome obstacles have resurfaced, such as participation in international events. In the past, the relationship between the two sides was clearly defined. Therefore Taiwan could openly take part in international events. Today however, the Mainland is worried that Taiwan is moving toward Taiwan independence. It must take precautions, and refuse to allow Taiwan to participate. Clearly, the Tsai government's approach lacks predictability and flexibility. It has forced the Mainland to adopt a hard line policy in response.

The Mainland's position, by contrast, is quite clear regarding the above three conditions. The Mainland, through a variety of ways, has conveyed a clear strategic message to the Tsai government. It is promoting cross-Strait relations on the basis that the two sides are one family. Cross-Strait exchanges are viewed from the perspective of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. As long as the Tsai government reaffirms the relationship between the two sides of the Strait, the Mainland will abandon all hostility and interact with Taiwan in a friendly manner. Its message is quite clear. There can be no misunderstandings. But if the Tsai government turns a blind eye to the matter, it will not be a failure to understand, but a refusal to understand.

In the early days following her inauguration, President Tsai showed a certain degree of flexibility. When confronted with Mainland proposals, she was willing to change directions. Unfortunately, this rosy scenario did not last. The Tsai government demanded goodwill gestures from the Mainland, but refused to take the right path in return. Instead it embraced its Taiwan independence fundamentalist political base. This signaled President Tsai's retreat, and revealed the lack of clarity in her cross-Strait policy strategy. She bowed to various political forces, constantly seeking to juggle them. She lost sight of the strategic picture. President Tsai's problems originated not merely from within Taiwan. They also came from without, and exacerbate her internal problems. The inevitable result is that internal problems remain unresolved, while external problems mire Taiwan in further difficulties.

If President Tsai is still willing to get back on track, she can. The Mainland now wields more power, both soft and hard. Its  Asian-Pacific situation is increasingly favorable. The Mainland no longer needs to make concessions to Taiwan. It has a clear strategy. Nevertheless it is willing to be flexible. This amounts to goodwill toward Taiwan. The Mainland is willing to view both sides of the Taiwan Strait as one family, and make them part of the Chinese peoples' cultural rebirth. President Tsai should appreciate this. Taiwan has an opportunity to maintain the peaceful cross-Strait status quo.

If the Tsai government is willing to reaffirm the constitutional framework of the Republic of China, the two sides of the Strait can cooperate. This of course is what people want, and where the opportunity for communication lies.

高估自己、低估對方 害慘台灣
2016/11/19 中國時報

蔡英文總統曾說，她的政府將會是最會溝通的政府，有關兩岸關係，蔡總統也曾保證「不會倒退」，甚至在兩岸官方互動停擺的情況下，還是堅持兩岸保有多元溝通管道。但兩岸關係顯然進入冰凍期，國際空間愈來愈緊蹙，陸委會只能跳針式地呼籲大陸要溝通，卻拿不出實質對策。顯然，蔡總統口中的溝通管道並沒有在運作。這個政府還是一個會溝通的政府嗎？答案當然是否定的。

溝通要有3個前提，首先是正確認識自己，對台灣來說，要意識自己的法理身分與實力，特別是要嚴格遵守《中華民國憲法》和相關法律。其次是要在本位基礎上做到換位思考，既要清楚自己的優缺點，也要意識到對方的優劣勢並展現彈性。再次是透明和可預測，溝通雙方才能避免誤判，進而在互信的基礎上達成共識。

按照這3個標準檢視蔡政府作為，可以看到蔡政府與大陸溝通時，確實存在許多問題。

首先，蔡總統不肯面對兩岸的現實關係，更迴避《中華民國憲法》的核心內容。誠然，蔡總統在就職演說中已經明確宣示，會按照《中華民國憲法》和《兩岸人民關係條例》的相關規定處理兩岸事務，但是，處理兩岸事務只是一種依法行政的概念，並未對兩岸關係進行界定，也就是說，蔡政府只是在事務層級宣示尊重憲法和相關法律，但在政治層面則採取了迴避的態度。殊不知兩岸交流發展早已讓兩岸關係超越事務層級，進入政治議題深水區，如果政治問題得不到解決，只會損及事務層級的互動。

其次，蔡總統始終沒有真正意識到兩岸實力對比今非昔比，或者說可能蔡總統已經意識到，所以才選擇藉助美、日力量來抵抗大陸的壓力，但蔡總統想不到的是，美、日也自顧不暇，依靠他們並不會得到什麼結果，反而要先付出巨大的代價。換句話說，蔡總統的戰略前提就先錯了，又怎能與大陸建立有效的互動呢？

蔡總統迴避兩岸關係定位，卻在內部縱容文化台獨和教育台獨，這只會引起大陸的疑慮，進而不斷在此問題上施壓，許多過去已經解決的爭議如今又浮上檯面，如國際場合的參與問題，過去兩岸定位明確，台灣自可大方參加，如今大陸擔心台灣走向台獨路線，只得採取預防做法，堅壁清野拒絕台灣參與。顯而易見，蔡政府的做法對大陸來說缺乏可預測性，也沒有足夠的彈性，迫使大陸只能以強硬態度回應。

反觀大陸，在以上3個前提的表現卻是相當清楚，大陸通過各種方式向蔡政府發出清晰的戰略訊息，以兩岸一家親的理念推動兩岸交流，兩岸關係則要放在中華民族偉大復興的高度來思考。只要蔡政府確認兩岸非國與國關係，大陸就會摒棄前嫌，與台灣繼續友好互動。這些訊息都十分清楚，根本不會讓人產生誤判，如果蔡政府還對此視而不見，那恐怕就不是看不懂，而是故意裝作看不懂。

蔡總統在就職初期，曾展現一定的彈性，面對大陸的主張，也有過相向而行的舉動，可惜好景不常，蔡政府一味要求大陸釋放善意，自己卻沒有沿著正確的道路繼續前進，反而開始擁抱基本盤，這反映了蔡總統進退失據的困境，這也說明，蔡總統的兩岸政策因為缺乏清晰的戰略目標，最後流於討好不同的政治勢力，不斷在不同力量間尋求平衡，反倒讓自己失去了戰略的立基點。蔡總統面臨的問題不光來自台灣內部，甚至可以說，外部危機不解決，只會進一步牽連內部問題的解決，讓台灣深陷內外交困的深淵。

蔡總統若要回到正軌，現在仍未失去機會。大陸軟硬體實力遽增，亞太形勢對大陸更有利，已無對台灣讓步的必要，但即便如此，大陸仍然在戰略清晰的同時，保持了彈性的可能，這正是對台灣善意之所在。蔡總統應該認真領會大陸所謂兩岸一家親，及中華民族偉大復興的核心意涵，既然大陸願意以兩岸同胞命運共同體的理念處理兩岸關係，台灣當然有機會繼續維持兩岸和平發展現狀。

前提是，蔡政府願意在中華民國的憲法架構之下，回到憲法所確立的兩岸非國與國關係，在此基礎上兩岸就可以積極尋求合作的機會，而這也當然是民共之間建立共識、推進溝通的機會之所在。

The DPP Promised the Sky then Became Drunk with Power

The DPP Promised the Sky then Became Drunk with Power
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 18, 2016

Executive Summary: During her presidential campaign, Tsai Ing-wen boasted that her government would be "the most communicative government in history". She even suggested that young people who seek redress the government but are ignored twice, slam their fists down on the table the third time. Her words still echo in our ears. Yet when the public vociferously protested the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area, the implementation of longer work weeks, and pension cuts for military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, what we saw was the least communicative and least willing to be communicative government in history.

Full Text Below:

During her presidential campaign, Tsai Ing-wen boasted that her government would be "the most communicative government in history". She even suggested that young people who seek redress the government but are ignored twice, slam their fists down on the table the third time. Her words still echo in our ears. Yet when the public vociferously protested the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area, the implementation of longer work weeks, and pension cuts for military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, what we saw was the least communicative and least willing to be communicative government in history.

During the pension reform process, the Presidential Office chose to listen only to people with political agendas who distorted the facts and demonized military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. The result was over 100 thousand people took to the streets in protest. When the Legislative Yuan reviewed longer work weeks, DPP legislator Chen Ying pretended not to hear legislators who loudly called out "Dissenting opinion!" He rammed the bill through in under one minute, pretending that no objections had been raised. Labor and youth voiced their objections hundreds of times. Yet the government pretended not to hear them. The situation was long past slamming one's fist down on the table. Protesters crashed their way into the Legislative Yuan and DPP headquarters, but the Tsai government still refused to listen. The Council of Agriculture presented false information on food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. It even fabricated lies, alleging that only Mainland China and Taiwan prohibited their importation. It deliberately concealed the fact that the United States and many other nations prohibited their importation. Even during public hearings, it hastily attempted to ram the measure through. This eventually led to violent struggles and bloody conflicts.

As the three cases show, Tsai Ing-wen government political communications are riddled with distortions, defamation, brutality, deceit, and opacity. The Tsai government has neither the desire to engage in genuine communications, nor the ability. It is riddled with all manner of problems that should never have arisen in the first place. It is a clear example of what a government must not do.

Political communication is one the basic skills political leaders in a democratic society must learn. The most essential element of communication is knowing oneself, making the most of one's own advantages, minimizing one's shortcomings, and perceiving threats and opportunities in order to gain public support. During the communication process, one must not be too egocentric and egotistical. One must understand the needs of the citizens and not overestimate one's own ability. One must adopt an open and transparent attitude when interacting with the community, and seek common ground. Only then can one establish predictable and enforceable public policy.

The Tsai Ying-wen government understands these basic principles of communication. But despite its understanding, it repeatedly makes mistakes during actual communications. As a result the president's job approval rating has plummeted, so much so that she has complained that “I am in great pain". Actually the reason behind all this is quite simple. First, the when the DPP was in the political opposition, and Tsai Ing-wen was still waging her presidential campaign, they made too many impossible promises. Upon assuming power they found these promises impossible to fufill. They were forced to make repeated 180 degree policy reversals. The imposition of longer work weeks was a typical example. Second, in cross-Strait relations, their ideological obstinacy prevented them from recognizing the 1992 Consensus and arriving at a compromise. Cross-Strait tensions rose. The Tsai government compensated by seeking closer relations with Japan. This forced it to make endless concessions to the Japanese, even at the expense of the feelings of ordinary ROC citizens. This is why it was determined to allow the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. Third, the Tsai Ying-wen government lacks the temperament necessary to govern. Its governance could not be any further from “humility”. Instead it is arrogant in every imaginable way. It views military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers as political enemies to be liquidated. It views pension reform as a political struggle, and an opportunity to demonize its foes.

The KMT was in the same plight when it was in office. It was blasted mercilessly by the DPP. Now that it is in the opposition, it will naturally argue that “What's good for the goose, is good for the gander”. The KMT is considerably less adept at anti-government political struggle than the DPP. Nevetheless Taiwan has long been trapped in a situation where the ruling party cannot govern the nation. It cannot communicate with the opposition party, which invariably demands “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. If partisan political struggles and economic stagnation cannot be resolved, the nation can only decline.

Tsai Ing-wen prided her government on being the most communicative government in history. She cannot sit idly by as her own government becomes the least communicative government in history. After all, the victims of government incompetence are hardly confined to President Tsai Ying-wen, who complains that “I am in great pain”. They include the vast majority of the public on Taiwan whose lives are filled with suffering.

Does Tsai Ing-wen really seek to redeem this uncommunicative government and make it government truly responsive to the people of Taiwan? If so, he must communicate correctly. She must acknowledge that the DPP was wrong to engage in political obstructionism when it was in the political opposition, and that it was wrong to make false promises. Second, in cross-Strait and foreign affairs, she must set aside political and ideological antagonism, and return to policies necessary for Taiwan's prosperity. Third, she must abandon electioneering oriented political struggles. She must take the high road, and seek to communicate with the KMT and other sectors of the nation. Only rational policy communications can get the nation's policies back on track. Only this will enable the Tsai Ying-wen government to get past the current political dilemma, strengthen the nation, and enable the nation to begin a new wave of development.

錯在選前過度承諾 選後態度傲慢
2016/11/18 中國時報

蔡英文選前曾標榜她的政府一定是「史上最會溝通的政府」，還建議年輕人跟政府溝通時，若第二次講了還聽不見，第三次就可以拍桌子。言猶在耳，國人在開放日本核災食品進口、一例一休砍勞工7天假、軍公教年金改革這三大案，卻看到史上最不會、更不願溝通的政府。

在年金改革過程中，總統府聽任有心人士扭曲事實與惡意汙名化軍公教，激起10多萬人走上街頭抗議；立法院審查一例一休，民進黨籍立委陳瑩不顧在場還有立委高喊「不同意見」，只用1分鐘就強行宣布無異議通過，勞運年輕人反對了幾百次，政府還是聽不見，早就不只是拍桌，而是直接闖入立法院與民進黨中央黨部，卻依然看不到有意義的溝通。開放日本核災食品進口，農委會不只提供錯誤資訊，捏造只有中國大陸與台灣禁止進口的說法，刻意隱瞞美國等許多國家都不開放的事實，連舉辦公聽會也想以偷渡方式草率完成，終於爆發了強烈抗爭與多起流血衝突事件。

從這三大案來看，蔡英文政府的政治溝通，夾雜了太多的扭曲、汙名、粗暴、欺瞞與黑箱，不只沒有任何溝通的誠意與技巧可言，還充滿了各種不應該出現的負面元素，簡直是錯誤示範的集大成。

政治溝通是民主社會政治領導人必須懂的基本功，溝通的最基本要素是確實認識自己，能準確掌握己方優勢、避開不足，以前瞻眼光看到威脅與機會，才能在溝通中獲取公民的最大支持。在實際溝通過程中，不能過度本位主義、以我為主，要瞭解公民的需求與想法，不高估自己的能耐，本於公開透明的坦誠態度跟各界互動，找出理想交集，才能訂出可預測、可執行的公共政策。

這些政策溝通的基本原理，蔡英文政府不會不懂。儘管懂得原理，卻在實際的政治溝通中一再犯錯，使得總統的民調滿意度跌落谷底，讓她浩歎「很痛苦」。其原因很簡單，一來是民進黨在野時期及蔡英文競選階段，給了民眾太多不可行的承諾，掌權執政後發現難以推行，只好反覆上演政策「髮夾彎」，強推一例一休、大砍勞工7天假就是典型的例子；二來在兩岸關係上，因為對意識形態的堅持而失去「九二共識」爭議的妥協空間，兩岸緊張情勢升高，只好設法從對日關係上尋求彌補，對日本需索一再讓步，甚至不惜違反公民的普遍情感，這正是開放日本核災食品進口的政治背景；三來是蔡英文政府仍然欠缺治國的格局與高度，完全執政之後不見謙卑反而處處傲慢，把軍公教當成清算對象，才把好好的年金改革操作成汙名化的政治鬥爭。

在這個過程之中，執政時曾經因為類似處境而飽受民進黨批判的國民黨，如今已經在野，當然免不了「以其人之道，還治其人之身」。儘管國民黨在政治鬥爭方面的決心與功力，都遠遠不如在野之時的民進黨，但是台灣長期陷在執政黨治國無道、溝通無方，在野黨以牙還牙、上綱上線批判的情境中，政治惡鬥與經濟停滯問題永遠無解，國家注定走向衰敗。

曾經自豪要籌組最會溝通政府的蔡英文，當然不應該坐視自己的政府淪為史上最不會溝通的政府。畢竟政府無能的犧牲品，絕不是「我很痛苦」的蔡英文總統，而是真實生活飽受煎熬的廣大台灣人民。

蔡英文如果真的有心拯救這個非常不會溝通的政府，讓自己的政府成為真正對台灣有貢獻的政府，就必須採取正確的政治溝通策略，唯坦承以對，一是對在野時期的錯誤杯葛與錯誤承諾表示由衷的歉意；二在兩岸與外交方面，應放下政治與意識形態對抗心態，回歸真正對於台灣發展有利的政策基本面；三則要擺脫政治鬥爭的選舉對抗思維，轉而從治國的高度，積極與國民黨等各界進行理性的政策溝通，才能讓國家的各項重大政策重新回歸正軌。如此，蔡英文政府才有可能擺脫當前這種紛亂的政治困局，從而壯大台灣的實力，推動國家再度邁向新一波的發展。

The Government Rams Its Slapdash Policy Decisions Down Peoples' Throats

The Government Rams Its Slapdash Policy Decisions Down Peoples' Throats
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 17, 2016

Executive Summary: Controversy over the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area rages on. The ten public hearings have become venues for public protests. A dozen or so counties and municipalities, blue and green alike, have chosen to save themselves. They have asserted their autonomy and passed regulations prohibiting the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. The DPP forced four green camp county and municipal leaders to issue statements expressing their agreement with the central government. But forcing these leaders to change their tune, hardly means that people have changed their minds. The Tsai government will not have its way in this matter.

Full Text Below:

Controversy over the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area rages on. The ten public hearings have become venues for public protests. A dozen or so counties and municipalities, blue and green alike, have chosen to save themselves. They have asserted their autonomy and passed regulations prohibiting the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. The DPP forced four green camp county and municipal leaders to issue statements expressing their agreement with the central government. But forcing these leaders to change their tune, hardly means that people have changed their minds. The Tsai government will not have its way in this matter.

The government's decision to allow the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area has provoked widespread protests for three reasons. First, there was insufficient administrative preparation. Neither the COA nor the Department of Health and Welfare presented convincing data and explanations. Second, its communications with the public were haphazard. Ten hearings in three days were purely pro forma gestures, utterly lacking in sincerity. Three, its decisions were made top-down, and issued in haste from the outside in. Government agencies had no idea how to respond. The result was bureaucratic “by the numbers” conduct that failed to address the issues.

Who was responsible for the hasty decision to allow the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area? Obviously it was not David Lee, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nor was it Agricultural Commission Director Chen Chun-yen, who took offense and attempted to resign. No, it was high-level national security officials responsible for negotiations between Taipei and Tokyo, including of course President Tsai herself. Whether the lifting of the ban on food products was a quid pro quo for the sake of a “Soong Abe Meeting” is irrelevant. The government's decision-making was haphazard and rushed. It made huge concessions on food safety for the sake of diplomacy. It made these decisions behind closed doors, with no attempt to communicate with the public or seek its approval. How can the public possibly swallow them?

Premier Lin Chuan suggested two ways to deal with the protests at public hearings. First, increase the number of public hearings so that public opinions may be fully expressed, and second, investigate and prosecute "people wearing black" to protect the public and civil servants from threats of violence. These two approaches of course reaffirm the government's policy. But they will not resolve public doubts. The government's arguments for lifting the ban were riddled with holes, and constituted a grab bag approach. The test results conflated food products from nuclear disaster areas with those from non-nuclear disaster areas. Experts revealed these facts, making it difficult for the government to regain the public trust. Also, the government lacks the manpower to meet the rigorous challenge of food inspections. Claims to the contrary are exaggerated and cannot be trusted.

Compare the difficulties encountered during public hearings with yesterday's clash at the Legislative Yuan during labor law hearings. The problems were the same. The government can hardly blame “opposition party obstructionism” or "people wearing black". These were two distinct events. Both involved labor unions, social movements, and spontaneous grass roots dissent. The public and social organizations do not believe these public hearings were held in order to listen to what the people have to say. They realize that the government has already decided what to do, no matter what the people have to say. No matter what the people say, the government has no intention of changing what it will do.

The public realizes that the public hearings were merely bones thrown at them in order to placate them. They were pro forma gestures. This is evident from the fact that the Tsai government's major decisions have been top-down edicts. The "Policy Coordination Conferences" ostensibly enable the president to more effectively promote policy. Each week it finalizes decisions on long controversial matters. On the surface this appears “decisive”. But these party-government shindigs sideline essential discussion and communications. They ignore both general direction and specific details. Under the circumstances, the faster the president brings down the gavel, the sooner she prevents the Executive Yuan, Legislative Yuan, and even local governments from processing the information and arriving at their own conclusions. Think about it. If communication and coordination is lacking, even among government agencies, and policies emerged half-baked, how can people be expected to swallow them without question?

The reason blue and green county and municipal government heads have had the audacity to work together to halt the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area, is public opinion. It is why labor organizations blasted the Tsai government during Legislative Yuan labor law hearings. They know the Tsai government has sold them out. They know President Tsai has a soft spot in her heart for them. Moreover, the two issues clearly bear the imprimatur of Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP. A president who advocates a non-nuclear homeland has the chutzpah to demand the importation of food products from nuclear disaster areas. Labor organizations that support the DPP are now on the same page as the KMT. Under these circumstances, how can the government maintain the public trust?

As a further reminder, when President Tsai brings down the gavel during Policy Coordination Conference meetings, she should consider just how much the Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan, and the public are willing to swallow. Otherwise, when decisions are made at breakneck speed, one after the other, the government's recklessness may lead to unimaginable consequences.

中央決策失速暴衝，豈可逼人民硬吞
2016-11-17 聯合報

日本核災食品解禁議題延燒，除了十場公聽會變成民眾抗爭現場，十多個跨藍綠縣市也紛紛表態，要以修改自治條例的方式「自救」，擋住核災食品。儘管昨天民進黨強迫綠營四縣市長發表聲明，強調他們並未與中央不同調；但是，摀得住首長嘴巴，不意味改變得了民眾心意，蔡政府在此事恐怕無法一意孤行。

政府開放日本核災食品的決策，之所以會演成遍地烽火的景象，追根究柢，原因有三：一是事前的行政準備不足，農委會和衛福部均未提出具說服力的數據和說明；二是事後的社會溝通草率，三天十場臨時公聽會純屬應付了事，毫無誠意可言；三是決策由上而下、由外而內倉促下達，各部門因應不及，才會有「等因奉此」的潦草官僚應對；這尤其是關鍵因素。

若問：誰該為核災食品開放的草率決策負責？其答案，絕對不是外交部長李大維，當然更不會是自稱受辱而要辭官的農委會處長陳俊言；而是負責中日談判的國安高層和台日關係代表人物，當然也包括蔡總統本人。不論解禁日本核食換取「宋安會」的傳聞是否屬實，從整個決策操作的跳躍和倉促看，政府為外交在食安上作出這麼大的讓步，卻缺乏透明的程序及謙卑的溝通，人民如何吞得下去？

對於公聽會遇挫，林全內閣宣示的應變之道有二：一是增加公聽會場次，使民眾意見能充分表達；二是查辦「黑衣人」，防止民眾和公務員受到暴力威脅。這兩項作法，當然有助於政策的再說明，但就化解民眾的疑慮而言，卻未必有效。原因是，行政部門一開始提出來的解禁說明，不僅疏漏重重，還以「竹篙接菜刀」的手法，將核區及非核區食品的檢驗結果混為一談。這點，一經專家戳破，民眾的信任即難再重拾。何況，以現有政府的食品查驗人力，若要說足以勝任這樣嚴酷的挑戰，恐怕是誇大之詞，難獲信賴。

無獨有偶，以核災食品公聽會的難產，對照昨天立法院勞基法修法公聽會的火爆景象，其實有相同的脈絡可尋，殊難一舉歸咎「在野黨杯葛」或「黑衣人鬧場」。兩個截然不同的事件，分別有勞團、社運和民眾的自發參與，其主要原因，就是民眾和社運團體都不相信這些公聽會是為「傾聽民意」而開，而認為政府只是為了「搪塞民意」；無論民眾說什麼，政府都心意已決，不可能再調整作法。

民眾認為政府公聽會「虛應化」、「形式化」，並非無的放矢；這從近期蔡政府的重大決策都「由上而下」拍板交付，即可見一斑。尤其，在「執政決策協調會議」召開之後，總統為求各項政策的有效推動，每周均拍板定奪爭議多時的大政；表面看似果斷，但這樣黨政巨頭的大拜拜中，許多決策所必需的討論和溝通便會被省略，從而忽略掉重要的決策方向及執行細節。在這種情況下，總統拍板得越快，行政、立法部門乃至地方機構的消化能力就越發應接不暇。試想，如果連政府跨部門間的溝通協調都不順暢，不成熟的政策，又要叫民眾如何生吞活剝下去？

藍綠縣市首長之所以膽敢聯手圍堵日本核災食品，是自恃有各地廣大民意當靠山；勞團之所以在立法院猛烈衝撞勞基法修法，則是自認遭蔡政府「背叛」，且清楚蔡總統心中對他們有塊「柔軟」的部分。進一步看，兩個議題也都有清楚印有蔡英文及民進黨未信守的許諾：主張「非核家園」的總統竟開放疑慮未廓清的核災食品，支持勞團的民進黨在作法上跟國民黨並無二致，要如何維繫人民的信任？

更必須提醒的是，當蔡總統在決策協調會上不斷拍板裁奪大政，她恐須想想行政、立法部門的執行能力及人民的消化胃納。否則，當決策不斷超速、失速，暴衝的就是整個政府，可能帶來不堪設想的後果。

Neither the US nor Japan are Reliable Allies, Taiwan Must Depend On Itself

Neither the US nor Japan are Reliable Allies, Taiwan Must Depend On Itself
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 16, 2016

Executive Summary: Trump's election has dramatically changed the Asian-Pacific security environment. The US is likely to reduce its Asian-Pacific strategic presence. The TPP is DOA. The United States may reevaluate its relations with Asian-Pacific nations. These nations may also reevaluate their diplomatic strategies. Asian-Pacific opposition to Beijing will no longer be so marked. Mutual cooperation and win-win policies will become mainstream. ASEAN nations will not be the only ones to move closer to Mainland China. Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other nations will also be forced to move closer to Beijing. Taiwan must review the situation pragmatically, and respond to changes in the external environment. Above all we must abandon our ideological shackles. Relations with the US and Japan are important. But even more importantly we must get along with the Mainland.

Full Text Below:

Donald Trump's policies conform to public opinion. The Tsai Ying-wen government bet on the wrong horse, and is now frightened out of its mind. It hopes the United States will honor its "Six Assurances". It hopes that a Trump Cabinet and its Republican friends will continue to support Taiwan. Frank Hsieh put it bluntly. The moment the United States withdraws from Asia, a crisis will erupt. Trump's presidency may well lead to an Asian crisis. According to Hsieh, Taiwan and Japan must cooperate more closely. An Asian crisis may or may not erupt. The real crisis is the mentality behind the DPP government's reaction.

Trump is a political novice. He has no political experience whatsoever. He thinks like an entrepreneur, and says whatever is on his mind. Pundits are finding it difficult to fathom his behavior. Campaign rhetoric is not the same as practical policy after a candidate has assumed office. But Trump's isolationism will not change. He lacks a detailed understanding of Asian-Pacific security situation. Upon taking office he will change Obama's policy path. Taiwan's international plight will worsen.

For Trump, domestic concerns take precedence over foreign concerns. Most important are the economy and unemployment. In order to avoid conflict in the South China Sea, Trump has not ruled out a timely olive branch to Beijing, and a joint quest for stability on the Korean Peninsula. When Trump telephoned President Xi Jinping, he praised China, saying "China is a great and important country". He adopted a soft approach, and urged cooperation between the United States and China for mutual benefit and win-win.

Trump is contemptuous of Obama's Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy. He wants allies to bear the cost of their own defense. Japan and South Korea would bear the brunt of these expenses. Mr Abe has publicly refused to pay the full amount the US military is spending in Japan. Park Geun-hye is caught up in the Choi-gate scandal, and unable to deploy the THAAD anti-missile system. US military intervention in Asian-Pacific affairs is less and less likely. A strategic vacuum in East Asia will increase Mainland China's influence dramatically.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), one of the three pillars of Asia-Pacific rebalancing, has failed. The US war on terror at the beginning of the century provided Mainland China with new strategic opportunities. It is once again free to pursue these opportunities. Trump is eager to resume trade negotiations. Beijing can use the opportunity to establish a multilateral trade regime for the "Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area" (FTAAP), covering TPP and RCEP member countries. Beijing's influence in global economic governance will increase dramatically. Taipei will be increasingly marginalized in the Asian-Pacific region. Obama refused to become one of the 57 founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).  During the election, a Trump senior adviser criticized this decision as a strategic blunder. AIIB president Jin Liqun recently claimed that once Trump is in the White House next year, he may join the AIIB. The trend is clear.

Relations between Taipei and Washington, between Beijing and Washington, and between Taipei and Beijing have long been closely linked. The Tsai administration has neglected cross-Strait relations and put Taiwan's security in the hands of the United States. During Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, he expressed his desire to restore diplomatic relations with Taiwan. After he was elected however, he signed the August 17 Communiqué with Beijing which seriously undermined Taipei's position. During Bill Clinton's election campaign, he blasted Mainland China's human rights record. After he was elected however, he helped Mainland China gain WTO membership. George W. Bush characterized Mainland China as a "rival" and publicly declared his obligation to defend Taiwan. After he was elected however, he praised Beijing as "great" and supported one China and opposed Taiwan independence.

Barack Obama called himself a friend of Taiwan. But when Taiwan sought to attend the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Interpol annual meetings, Obama was all talk and no substance. Trump is a businessman committed to realism. Policies must be pragmatic. Taiwan is merely the United States' strategic pawn. Of course it is going to be relegated to the status of a bargaining chip in the United States' national interest.

"Abandoning Taiwan" may not be the mainstream view in American politics. But that does not mean it will not become that with changes in the larger picture. After President Carter established diplomatic relations with Beijing, calls to abandon Taiwan became louder. Pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with the Mainland forced then Premier Sun Yun-hsien to declare "Never fear to negotiate, but never negotiate out of fear". The DPP party and DPP government must not underestimate Trump's decision-making style. Republican think tanks support US arms sales to Taiwan. But is this an indicator of goodwill, or a sign that the United States is about to abandon Taiwan? Taiwan must be cautious. Is the purchase of advanced weaponry the only way to ensure Taiwan's security? How can one maintain cross-Strait peace and mutually beneficial exchanges? That is the real question.

The United States under a Trump administration can no longer be relied upon. Unilateral reliance on Japan is even more dangerous. Taiwan fishermen have lost their traditional fishing grounds. Taiwan fishing boats have been seized by the Japanese government. Nobuo Kishi is the younger brother of Shinzo Abe. He met with the Tsai government behind closed doors.
In utter disregard for the health of the people of Taiwan, he pressured the Tsai government into lifting the ban on food imports from the nuclear disaster area. This makes people wonder just what sort of quid pro quo deals were struck.

Tsai's loyalty to Japan has not improved Japan's treatment of Taiwan. Masaru Igawahara, Deputy Consul-General of Japan in Hong Kong, made clear that Japan's Taiwan policy will not change. No breakthroughs are in the offing. Igawahara said peace and stability in cross-Strait relations will help relations between Japan and the Mainland, as well as relations between Japan and Taiwan. The Tsai government's obsession with confrontation, he said, actually puts Taiwan at risk.

Trump's election has dramatically changed the Asian-Pacific security environment. The US is likely to reduce its Asian-Pacific strategic presence. The TPP is DOA. The United States may reevaluate its relations with Asian-Pacific nations. These nations may also reevaluate their diplomatic strategies. Asian-Pacific opposition to Beijing will no longer be so marked. Mutual cooperation and win-win policies will become mainstream. ASEAN nations will not be the only ones to move closer to Mainland China. Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other nations will also be forced to move closer to Beijing.

Taiwan must review the situation pragmatically, and respond to changes in the external environment. Above all we must abandon our ideological shackles. Relations with the US and Japan are important. But even more importantly we must get along with the Mainland.

美日都不可靠 台灣當自立自強
2016/11/16 中國時報

川普政策走向眾說紛紜，押錯寶的蔡英文政府似驚魂未定，但仍堅信美國將信守對台「六項保證」，並寄望川普內閣及共和黨友台人士繼續支持台灣；謝長廷更直言，美國一旦撤離亞洲，將是亞洲的危機，川普上台危機可能成真，台、日應加強合作。亞洲危機未必實現，從民進黨政府初步反應呈現的心態，才是台灣的危機。

川普是政治素人，沒有任何政治歷練，加上企業家的思維和言語暴衝的個性，外界確實難以捉摸其行為模式。競選語言與施政後的政策走向會有落差，但川普主張孤立主義不會改變，對亞太安全情勢的認識更是淺薄，就任後勢必會調整歐巴馬的路線，台灣外在環境較以往將更加嚴峻。

川普施政先內而外，首重經濟與就業，為求避免南海問題與中國升高衝突和對立，不排除會適時向北京遞出橄欖枝，共尋朝鮮半島的安定。他與大陸國家主席習近平通電話時就稱讚「中國是偉大和重要的國家」，擺出樂見美、中合作與實現互利共贏的軟姿態。

川普蔑視歐巴馬的亞太再平衡戰略，要求盟邦自行承擔防衛經費，日、韓首當其衝。安倍晉三已公開拒絕全額負擔駐日美軍支出；陷入「閨密事件」風暴的朴槿惠更不可能承接部署「薩德」反導系統的所有經費，美國未來減少軍事介入亞太事務恐會成真。東亞一旦出現戰略真空，中國的影響力自然會大幅擴增。

亞太再平衡三大支柱之一的《跨太平洋夥伴協定》（TPP）已宣告失敗，中國繼本世紀初美國反恐戰爭後，再一次逢戰略發展新機遇。面對川普殷切期盼重啟貿易談判，北京若趁勢提出建構「亞太自由貿易區」（FTAAP）的多邊貿易機制，涵蓋TPP與《區域全面經濟夥伴協定》（RCEP）的成員國，屆時中國在全球經濟治理的話語權將大幅躍升，台灣在亞太的定位將更加被邊緣化。選舉期間，川普的高級顧問批評歐巴馬反對有57個創始成員國的亞投行是「戰略錯誤」，亞投行行長金立群最近更聲稱，川普明年入主白宮後可能考慮加入亞投行，已透露趨勢。

台、美關係與中、美及兩岸關係向來密切連動，蔡政府疏於經營兩岸關係，把台灣安全寄託於美國，絕非智慧的選擇。殷鑑不遠，當年雷根總統選前表示要與台灣恢復邦交，選後就與北京簽署《八一七公報》，傷害台灣至深；柯林頓總統選舉時重批中國人權，選後促成中國加入世貿組織；小布希總統選前視中國為「競爭敵手」且公開宣稱有義務保衛台灣，選後卻以「偉大」讚美北京，支持一中、反對台獨。

歐巴馬堪稱友台的美國總統，但對台灣參加國際民航組織（ICAO）及國際刑警組織（Interpol）年會的問題上，同樣口惠而實不至。川普是生意人講求現實，政策必然務實，台灣是美國的戰略棋子，當然也會成為美國爭取國家利益的交易籌碼。

「棄台論」雖非美國政界主流想法，但並不意味不會隨著環境變遷而發酵。卡特總統任內與北京建交後，棄台論在美國甚囂塵上，繼而敦促台灣與大陸談判，逼使當時的行政院長孫運璿以「絕不恐懼談判，但絕不在恐懼中談判」回應美方壓力，民進黨政府千萬不可小覷川普的決策風格。共和黨智庫支持美、台軍售是善意表態，或是美國棄台的前兆，必須謹慎對之。購買先進武器是否為確保台灣安全的唯一路徑？如何維繫兩岸和平互惠關係，恐怕才是正本清源之道。

川普主政下的美國不再可靠，若因此單方面倒向日本，恐更加危險。蔡英文上任後，將沖之鳥礁去「礁」化，台灣漁民失去傳統漁場，坐視日本公務船強行扣押台灣漁船；閉門會見來訪的安倍晉三之弟岸信夫；無視台灣民眾健康，欲強行解禁日本核災區食品進口等，都令人質疑其中的暗盤交易。

蔡政府對日本的表忠，並不會產生正面效果。日本駐港首席領事井川原賢就明言：日、台關係仍在框架內，日本對台政策不會有變化，也無「突破性」的計畫。日人井川都認為，兩岸關係的和平與穩定有助於中、日關係和日、台關係發展，蔡政府卻執迷對抗，豈非置台灣安全於險境。

亞太安全環境因川普上台而產生劇烈變動，美國的亞太戰略收縮可以預期，TPP解體後，美國可能重整與亞太國家關係，各國勢必也會重新調整外交戰略。當亞太對抗北京的氛圍不再明顯，互惠合作、共贏政策成為主流，不僅東協國家會逐漸向中國靠攏，日、韓、澳、紐等國也會被迫對北京示好。

台灣必須審時度勢，務實因應外在環境變化，首先要拋開意識型態桎梏，美、日關係固然重要，但更要與大陸好好相處。