Looking at Chiang Kai-Shek and Chen Shui-bian's Approval Ratings

Looking at Chiang Kai-Shek and Chen Shui-bian's Approval Ratings
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2007


東森新聞報
誰對台灣民主毫無貢獻？全班大部分學生都選阿扁
2006/04/15 11:17
北市一所國中的歷史考題，問誰對台灣的民主沒有貢獻，蔣中正、蔣經國、李登輝以及陳水扁四個選項，全班36個學生，竟然就有30個學生選擇陳水扁總統。

This newspaper recently conducted an opinion poll. The poll's first question was: Of all the presidents of the Republic of China, who contributed the most to Taiwan? The answers were: One, Chiang Ching-kuo (50%), Two, Lee Teng-hui (11%), Three, Chiang Kai-Shek (6%), Fourth, Chen Shui-bian (5%).

These answers are consistent with the results of opinion polls conducted but not made public by various political parties. Chen Shui-bian, who bills himself as the "Son of Taiwan" received an approval rating lower than Chiang Kai-shek, the man he accuses of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident."

The poll also asked: Of all the presidents, whose merits outweighed their demerits? The answers were: Chiang Ching-kuo, 65% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 12% say his merits equaled his demerits, 3% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chiang Kai-Shek, 29% say his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% say his merits equaled his demerits, 9% say his demerits outweighed his merits; Chen Shui-bian, 54% say his demerits outweighed his merits, 19% say his merits equaled his demerits, 5% say his merits outweighed his demerits;

As for the Democratic Progressive Party's "Anti-Chiang Campaign," the same poll found that 60% opposed it, 17% supported it.

The Democratic Progressive Party's anti-Chiang witch hunt reached its climax with the demolition of the name plaque on the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. But the DPP did not bother to seek either social consensus or legal authority before it acted. First, with regards legal authority, the Legislative Yuan did not consent to the name change and demolition. Legally speaking, the state institution located at No. 21 Zhongshan South Road is the "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall." The state violence committed by the ruling DPP regime when it installed crowd control barriers and mobilized riot police in order to demolish the name plaque, was the behavior of a Third World warlord, a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law. Second, with regards social consensus, the Democratic Progressive Party accused Chiang Kai-shek of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" to justify its anti-Chiang witch hunt. The Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education expanded the scope of their campaign by dragging in "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and by taunting Ma Ying-jeou, referring to him as "faggoty" and a "little wimp." Their intent was to link "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" Chiang Kai-shek and "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo" to "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou," as part of the DPP's election strategy. Unfortunately for the DPP, the poll results show that its perceptions are miles apart from society's perceptions.

In truth Chiang Kai-Shek's approval rating was rather low. Those who think he contributed the most to Taiwan numbered only 6%. But let's not forget that 29% thought his merits outweighed his demerits, 30% thought his merits equalled his demerits, and a mere 9% thought his demerits outweighed his merits. Obviously, the DPP's attempt to sum up Chiang Kai-shek's political legacy with the label, "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" isn't working. Some people feel that replacing the four characters "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" with "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan" would more accurately sum up Chiangs's legacy and do him greater justice. Had Chiang Kai-Shek chosen foreign exile, like Lee Chung-jen, three to four generations on Taiwan and tens of millions of people would have fallen under Communist rule. Chiang Kai-Shek's merits and demerits are difficult to reconcile. But the Democratic Progressive Party chooses to see only the 228 Incident. It totally blanks out his role as "Enemy of Communism, Defender of Taiwan." Their story is not the complete story. Their history is not genuine history. The poll reveals that the public doesn't go along with the DPP's demonization of Chiang and its anti-Chiang witch hunt.

Besides,the poll compared "all past presidents." Chiang Kai-Shek was compared with Chiang Ching-kuo. As a result, the kudos naturally went to Chiang Ching-kuo. But affirmations of Chiang Ching-kuo also amount to an affirmation of Chiang Kai-Shek. Without Chiang Kai-Shek, after all, one would not have had Chiang Ching-kuo. In fact, if one were to remove Chiang Ching-kuo from the poll, and compare only Chiang Kai-Shek against Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, one might really get one's eyes opened.

The Democratic Progressive Party knows that flogging only Chiang Kai-Shek's corpse is not enough. They must also go on to demonize "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo," and "That faggoty little wimp Ma Ying-jeou." Only then can they totally repudiate the Kuomintang and the Republic of China. Only then can they legitimize their demands for Taiwan independence and a Nation of Taiwan. But as the poll shows, even though Chiang Ching-kuo may be controversial, his stature among the people will not be easy to undermine. Few people believe Chiang Ching-kuo "didn't love Taiwan," or was a "Chi-Com fellow traveller," or was "selling out Taiwan." The Democratic Progressive Party wants to tar the younger Chiang with the same brush as they are tarring the elder Chiang. They want to spin the younger Chiang as "That f**king Chiang Ching-kuo." Instead they are merely undercutting the persuasiveness of their anti-Chiang campaign.

The least surprising aspect of this poll was Chen Shui-bian's last place showing among the four presidents. Note that 54% of the public felt Chen's demerits outweighed his merits, and only 5% felt his merits outweighed his demerits. By contrast self-styled "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian didn't begin to compare with the man Chen accused of being the "Chief culprit in the 228 Incident" (a mere 9% said Chiang's demerits outweighed his merits). Obviously history cannot be distorted, reality cannot be falsified, and public opinion cannot be hijacked as easily as the DPP would like. This most sobering aspect of this poll is: Chiang Kai-shek, who has already been objectified as an authoritarian strongman still had a 29% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating. Currently serving populist autocrat Chen Shui-bian, meanwhile, despite the immense resources of the State at his disposal, was only able to achieve a 5% "merits outweighed his demerits" rating.

The public has a common historical memory: Taiwan's transition from martial law authoritarianism to liberalism constituted a Golden Age of sorts. Once the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power however, the public's realistic perception is that Taiwan underwent a relentless decline in many imporant respects. The perversions of the lawless Chen Shui-bian regime have turned Taiwan into a spiritual and moral Hell on Earth.

Today, the public has a higher opinion of "authoritarian strongman" Chiang Kai-Shek than it does of self-proclaimed "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian. The public does this not in order to defend authoritarianism. It does this in order to reprimand Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party for trampling over democracy and human decency.

談蔣介石與陳水扁的民調名次
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.12 03:11 am

歷屆總統，誰對台灣的貢獻最大？本報民意調查所得的名次是：一、蔣經國（五十％），二、李登輝（十一％），三、蔣介石（六％），四、陳水扁（五％）。

此一排序，據知與各政黨最近所做未發表的民調結果一致。自命為「台灣之子」的陳水扁之民意評價，尚不如他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石。

民 調再問：歷屆總統的功過比例如何？答案是：蔣經國，六十五％功大於過，十二％功過相當，三％過大於功；蔣介石，二十九 ％功大於過，三十％功過相當，九％過大於功；陳水扁，五十四％過大於功，十九 ％功過相當，五％功大於過。至於國人支不支持民進黨的「去蔣化」，同一民調發現，六成反對，一成七支持。

民進黨的「去蔣化」，至中正紀念 堂拆匾改名推向高潮，但在社會共識及法律程序上皆無依據。一、就法律程序言，因立法院不同意撤廢，中正紀念堂迄今在法制及名稱上仍是坐落於中山南路二十一 號的唯一合法國家機構；民進黨用拒馬及鎮暴部隊的政治暴力進行拆匾改名，不啻是流氓盜匪的行徑，有違「依法行政」。二、就社會共識言，民進黨以「二二八元 凶」的罪名對蔣介石鞭屍，現場主事者更延伸戰線斥「蔣經國他媽的」，再罵馬英九「小孬孬」，欲藉「鞭屍老蔣↓小蔣他媽的↓馬英九小孬孬」以建立首尾貫通的 選戰論述。然而，若與前述民意調查對照，即知民進黨的認知與社會共識相去甚遠。

在民調中，蔣介石的評價偏低固是事實（認為其貢獻最大者僅 六％），但亦有二十九 ％認為其功大於過，三十％認為功過相當，而僅九％認為過大於功。可見，現今「二二八元凶」的政治鬥爭標籤，難為蔣介石的畢生功過定論；有人認為，若將「大 中至正」四字卸下，換上「反共保台」四字的匾額，對蔣介石或許才是實至名歸。倘若蔣介石當年如李宗仁逃亡異邦，台灣三四代幾千萬人口已淪赤禍。蔣介石確實 功過難論，但民進黨眼中只有「二二八」，而完全抹殺了「反共保台」，這不是真歷史，更不是全歷史。民調顯示，民間對蔣介石的評價應當不至於到政治鞭屍的地 步。

何況，民調是將「歷屆總統」一起比較， 蔣介石因與蔣經國比， 正面評價自然流向蔣經國； 然而，肯定蔣經國， 從某種角度看亦是肯定蔣介石， 畢竟無蔣介石即無蔣經國。 其實，若在民調中拿掉蔣經國， 而以蔣介石與李登輝或陳水扁比， 也許會有更啟人省思的發現。

當 然，民進黨只鞭屍蔣介石是不夠的，必須再把蔣經國定位為「他媽的」，再將馬英九汙名化為「小孬孬」，這才能全盤否定國民黨及中華民國，也才能建立起台獨或 台灣國的正當性。不過，民調顯示，蔣經國儘管亦頗具爭議性，但他在民間的地位已經不易撼動；極少人會認為蔣經國不愛台灣，是中共同路人，是賣台集團；這次 民進黨欲從打老蔣順手打小蔣，把蔣經國說成「他媽的」，反而使其「去蔣」行動的正當性及說服力大打折扣。

此一民調最令人不感意外的是，陳 水扁在四人中排名最後；且五十四％認為其過大於功，僅五％認為其功大於過。若以陳水扁的功過比例與蔣介石對比，「台灣之子」陳水扁（五十四％過大於功）， 竟然尚遠遜於他口中的「二二八元凶」蔣介石（九％過大於功）；可見歷史不能扭曲，現實亦不能矯飾，民意更不能挾持。此一民調所顯示的最令人感慨的意義是： 已經物化的威權強人蔣介石尚有二十九％功大於過的評價，如今活著掌握一切政治資源優勢的民粹獨夫陳水扁，卻只有五％認為其功大於過。

民間的共同歷史記憶是：台灣在威權戒嚴到解嚴開放時代，國家社會在諸多方面皆曾漸入佳境。民間共同的現實認知則是：民進黨執政後，台灣在許多重要層面卻不斷向下沉淪。無法無天的陳水扁之倒行逆施，使台灣在精神及道德上實已儼如人間地獄。

如今，國人對「威權強人」蔣介石的民意評價，竟然超過自封「台灣之子」的陳水扁；這絕對不是國人欲為威權體制辯護，而是為了民主與人性受到陳水扁及民進黨的蹂躪摧殘而痛心疾首。

The Ministry of Education should return to Its Main Duties

The Ministry of Education should return to Its Main Duties
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2007

Ministry of Education officials announced yesterday that 15 year old students from the ROC participated in the OECD sponsored "Programme for International Student Assessment" (PISA). Among the 57 participating countries, they scored first in mathematics and fourth in science. These were brilliant achievements, they said. They hoped to take advantage of this to alleviate public anxieties about constructive mathematics and the nine year curriculum. Meanwhile, everyone's attention was focused on the Ministry of Education's demolition of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque, and the Ministry of Education Chief Secretary's inflammatory political rhetoric. For a while, the Ministry of Education was on the frontlines of the Blue vs. Green battleground. Faced with hundreds of unsolved educational problems, the government agency charged with education was dedicating all its energy to political campaigning on behalf of the ruling party. How is one to rationalize that?

PISA is considered the International Olympics of education. The government often points to it as a political achievement, even as part of its "educational reform" campaign. It expends an enormous amount of time and energy congratulating itself on its successes. By contrast, officials and educators in Hong Kong and Singapore, which have also gotten good marks, immediately compare their scores against their original targets, discover problems, inform the public about the nation's educational weaknesses and recommend the necessary remedies. By means of self-criticism, they continually improve the quality of education. Meanwhile, our own educators are often busy campaigning for the ruling DPP, giving people the uneasy feeling they are neglecting their basic educational responsibilities.

For example, last month Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng touted the achievements of "educational reform," citing the Swiss World Economic Forum's (WEF) favorable ranking of our government's health and elementary education achievements (incidence of infectious diseases and elementary student enrollment). He failed utterly however to mention other issues related to student health and educational quality such as: physical fitness, nutrition, adequate sleep, physical growth rates, and incidence of myopia, according to which we rank behind other Asian nations. Due to insufficient sleep, nutritional imbalances, and lack of exercise, our elementary and middle school students' running abilities don't even compare to Japan's!

In fact, Taiwan students' positive PISA scores in mathematics and science may be the result of 15 year olds (9th and 10th graders) spending long hours in class, enrolling in extracurricular "cram schools," losing sleep, enduring pressures to make the grade, forsaking their personal dreams, suppressing their self-doubts, and putting their noses to the grindstone. Yet none of these problems have motivated advocates of "educational reform" to change their minds, to ask themselves why students prefer to read books not on the curriculum, why interest in mathematics and science is dropping, or why the academic scores of 30,000 fifteen year olds are increasingly polarized.

Everyone knows the answers to these questions. Even Ministry of Education officials acknowledge that the academic ranking of students on Taiwan is unrelated to class attendance figures. School hours are long (including supplementary classes). Children on Taiwan are good at taking tests, but few of them stand out in any specialty. The average person does not like to read. The Council for Cultural Affairs has learned that people over the age of 15 seldom read books. Forty percent of those who do, read only one book every few months. Half have not bought either a book or a magazine in six months. Forty-six percent of an average child's leisure activity involves playing video games on a PC or watching television. That's why according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), another literacy index, our fourth grade students' reading ability badly trail students in Hong Kong and Singapore. Nearly one in four never reads after school, far lower than the international average.

In addition, according to a survey by Commonwealth magazine, nearly seven out of ten students in the fifth and sixth grades, attend after school programs or "cram schools." Five out of ten spend over 6,000 NT a month for tutoring. Two out of ten receive tutoring in up to four subjects. By junior high, their childrens' education and its attendant costs have become parents' heaviest burden. Nearly seven out of ten junior high students are enrolled in "cram schools." One in four families must spend over 6,000 NT a month in additional tuition. Over half of all families must sacrifice their family's entertainment allowance to pay for their childrens' junior high educations. The "Taiwan Education Panel Survey" (TEPS) conducted by the Academia Sinica discovered that by the ninth grade (15 year olds), as many as 97% of all students in both urban and rural regions were enrolled in "cram schools." By high school the number was approximately five out of ten. Under such pressure cooker conditions, it's no wonder elementary and high school students seek relief by watching televison and playing video games. They don't read books. Those books they read are textbooks or reference books. Another index of student aptitude, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), in contrast with PISA, revealed that elementary and high school students generally dislike mathematics and science and lack self-confidence. This shows that children on Taiwan only know how to take tests.

The Ministry of Education has successfully demolished "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque. The garrulous Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Education is currently basking in his Fifteen Minutes of Fame. Green camp political candidates have even presented him with garlands. Few officials receive such adulation. Isn't it time for the good minister to quit while he's ahead, and return to his job of education? Otherwise, he may win his political struggle, but Taiwan's next generation will be the losers. Where is the honor in that?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.12.11
教育部該回到本業了吧
中時社論

　教育部官員日前向國人宣布十五歲學生在參加ＯＥＣＤ主辦的「學生基礎素養國際研究計畫」（ＰＩＳＡ），在五十七個參與國中數學成績第一、科學第四，成績斐然，希望藉此一掃以往國人對建構式數學與九年一貫課程的疑慮。然而在此同時，整個社會注目焦點，全都在教育部主導拆除中正紀念堂「大中至正」牌匾，以及教育部主祕挑釁的政治語言，教育部頃刻間站到藍綠政治衝突的第一線，面對百廢待舉的教育問題，教育主管單位用心最力竟是在配合選舉造勢，能怎麼說呢？

　素有教育奧林匹亞之稱的ＰＩＳＡ等國際評比，國內經常把他們當成施政業績，甚至奉為教改成就加以宣傳，甚少在事後認真評估與研究。與同獲佳績的香港與新加坡相比，他們的政府與學界不但在成績公布後，快速分析各種評估指標、發掘問題，並會具體告訴民眾本國教育的強、弱之處，甚至將採取哪些補救措施等。藉由這些深入的檢討，繼續提升教育的品質。相形之下，我們的教育主管當局則往往忙於政治服務，予人荒疏教育本務之感。

　再例如，上個月杜部長曾以瑞士世界經濟論壇（ＷＥＦ）對我國在健康與初等教育（傳染病等及小學生入學比率）的優異排名，而誇讚教改有成，但卻完全不提在其它若干真正關係到學生健康與教育品質等項目，如：體適能、營養、睡眠、長高速度與近視比例等指標，我國在亞洲國家的排名都落後甚多，甚至因學童普遍睡眠不足、營養不均衡與缺乏運動，中小學生的體適能差到連跑步都比不上日本孩子！

　事實上，台灣學生在ＰＩＳＡ數學與科學能獲得佳績，很可能是靠十五歲（國三與高一階段）的孩子超長上課時數、課外補習、犧牲睡眠、忍受升學壓力、不顧興趣、缺乏信心之下勉強而學的結果。而這些問題都未因推動教改而有所改變！否則國內學生就不該不愛閱讀課外書，甚至對數學與科學的興趣逐年下降，更何況每年有卅萬「十五歲」考生在國中基測上，愈來愈明顯地出現學習成績兩極化現象。

　這些問題其實大家心裡都有數，因為連教育部官員都承認台灣學生不論上課的日數和時數都排在世界前幾名。因為上課時間長（包括補習），台灣孩子考試很厲害，但在各領域傑出人才卻不多，尤其一般人不愛閱讀。文建會調查發現：十五歲以上民眾從不看書或幾個月才看一次的比例將近四成，半年內不曾買書或雜誌者占半數以上，而四十六％小朋友的休閒活動是玩電腦、看電視。所以在另一項國際閱讀成就的研究（ＰＩＲＬ），我國小四學童的識字與閱讀能力，成績遠遠落在香港、新加坡之後，且近四分之一放學後幾乎從不閱讀，遠低於國際平均水準。

　此外，根據天下雜誌調查發現，小學裡中、高年級生有近七成參加安親班或補習班，其中五成每月花超過六千元補習，甚至有兩成補四科以上。到了國中，孩子的課業和經濟負擔成為親子間的最痛，其中近七成國中生正在補習，四分之一家庭每月負擔六千元以上補習費，超過半數家庭為了國中孩子的教育而排擠家庭娛樂或生活開銷。同時中研院「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」調查也發現，到了國三（十五歲）不分城鄉，高達九成七補習，高中職約五成。在此種高壓教育環境下，中小學生變得「愛看電視、玩電腦，不看書，要看也只看教科書、參考書」，也就不足為奇了！而相對於ＰＩＳＡ的優異數理成績表現，另一份學生學科能力測驗及教育研究計畫調查（ＴＩＭＳＳ）卻發現，台灣國中小學生普遍不喜歡數學、科學，也缺乏自信心，顯示台灣的孩子其實是「比較會考試」而已！

　是的，教育部確實成功地拆掉了「大中至正」的牌匾，教育部主祕就靠著幾句伶牙俐齒的政治語言，短時期就在全國爆紅，還接受綠營候選人的獻花，這般的風光也沒幾個部會能比得上，此刻是不是該見好就收，回到教育本業上了？否則，政治鬥爭贏了，台灣下一代卻是輸家，又有什麼值得光彩的呢？

How long must We endure these Outrages?

How long must We endure these Outrages?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 10, 2007

Is the public on Taiwan simply too well brought up, hence slow to anger? Or has it patiently endured so many insults that it is already numb? Every day the public on Taiwan is subjected to tasteless profanity. Does the ruling DPP think we are idiots? Are we truly being punished, as former president Lee Teng-hui suggested, for putting it in power?

During the heated controversy over the demolition of "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque on the ceremonial gate to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, Ministry of Education Secretary General Chuang Kuo-jung boasted that if Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-ping dared to resist, he would "send him home crying for his momma." His remark made him even more infamous than Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng and Government Information Office Chief Hsieh Chih-wei. Chen Shui-bian was no shrinking violet either. His utterances were no less inflammatory. Ma Ying-jeou declared that if elected he might restore the name plaque to its original condition. Chen mocked Ma, saying that attempting to reinstall the name plaque was like trying to reattach Qing dynasty eunuch Li Lien-ying's testicles after he had been castrated. Chuang Kuo-jung, who was charged with demolishing the plaque, mocked Ma, saying "He is so gay."

The ruling regime may consider such words and deeds mere electioneering. It may assume that grass roots supporters will find their words and deeds enormously satisfying. But when a nation's leaders resort to tasteless profanity more appropriate for street thugs, then act pleased as punch with themselves, they betray their underlying contempt for the general public.

If a public school teacher were to threaten a student by saying he would "send him home crying to his mother," parents would file a lawsuit. The teacher would be forced to apologize and be punished. Yet we have a high-ranking official within the Ministry of Education making these kinds of utterances. How are teachers and parents supposed to teach their children right and wrong? It is not that the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, or the plaque reading "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" cannot be changed. But can't we retain a modicum of civility in the process? Are such vicious personal attacks and tasteless profanity really necessary? How can the ruling DPP, from the president on down to DPP lawmakers, ignore the concerns of parents who must cover the ears of their children in front of their television sets?

If certain individuals habitually use coarse language when addressing us and assume that doing so won't offend us, it means they think we are low-lifes, just like them. What could be more insulting than that? Intentionally or otherwise? Remember that we elected these high-ranking government officials and support them with our tax monies.

It is bad enough that the character of the people on Taiwan has been demeaned. Their intelligence has been insulted as well. The four characters reading "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" were originally penned by Wang Yang-ming. The plaque was a play on Chiang Kai-Shek's name, "zhong zheng." What does it have to do with Li Lien-ying or some unenlightened ruler of antiquity? Who doesn't want some profound remarks as part of his epitaph? The fact that Li Lien-ying's tombstone displays the same four characters is a coincidence. How can one conclude that others are emulating some eunuch? As for Chen Shui-bian's linkage of the name plaque with a eunuch's testicles, what is that but tasteless profanity, not to mention bewildering illogic? Why can't a name plaque that has been taken down be reinstalled? What connection is there between reinstalling a name plaque and reattaching some eunuch's testicles? Didn't you, Chen Shui-bian, just replace the old plaque with a new one? Applying your own "logic," didn't you just install false testicles on a eunuch as surrogates for the original ones?

These nonsensical sophistries have scraped bottom. Yet the ruling regime acts as if it is making perfect sense. It has decided that its audience has single digit IQs, and cannot discern the gaping holes in their logic. Why must ordinary citizens, who carry the weight of the nation on their shoulders, and who are not permitted to pay a single dollar less in taxes, endure such insults?

The public on Taiwan is viewed with contempt. But that's just the beginning. Chen Shui-bian takes the lead inciting "ethnic strife," which would be more accurately characterized as communal strife. He uses his Anti-Chiang Purge and his Plebiscite to Join the UN to play up differences in provincial origin. His motive is simple. His political record is a joke. He has nothing whatsoever to show for his eight years in office. So he plays the "race" card, compelling the public to choose sides. Countless families have committed suicide by means of charcoal fires, bags of charcoal now come with suicide hotline numbers. Families with five children must share a single bowl of noodles. A single working mother with only one arm is reduced to stealing electricity to allow her daughter to do homework. Have any of our ruling regime's high officials offered an apology, engaged in self-introspection, or shown genuine concern? Not only have they not, they regard these tragedies as threats to their political power. They either look but don't see, or see them only as isolated exceptions. Chen Shui-bian believes that no matter how dismal his political record might be, as long as he can manipulate reunification vs. independence issues, provincial origin issues, reopen historical wounds, incite "ethnic" opposition, the majority of "native Taiwanese" voters will unconditionally back the Democratic Progressive Party.

The common people on Taiwan really have been abused beyond endurance! A leader whose entire family has been living high off the hog, thinks that as long he can play the "race" card, it won't matter that the people are starving and cannot survive til the next day. As long as Chen rings the "nativist" bell, they will behave like marionettes. They will forget that they can no longer survive, that they can no longer afford their chidrens' tuition. If he says jump, they will ask "How high?" When he equates the Democratic Progressive Party with Taiwan, with himself, he assumes everyone will respond, "Why yes, of course!" He has decided that Taiwanese lack the ability to think and form judgments, or worse, the will to climb out of their hole of self-pity. He has decided he doesn't need to take responsibility for his abysmal political record. All he needs to do is play the "race" card and the people will fall in line and dance his tune. They will go at each other, hate each other, suspect each other. They will totally forget that we are all in the same boat.

The ruling nomenklatura has taken the people for simpletons without standards, without intelligence, without souls. This, to the people, is the most grievous insult of all. But let's not forget that how others treat you is the result of how you instruct them to treat you. If the people on Taiwan do not wish to be treated like idiots, they must tell their politicians to wash out their mouths, and stop treating the common people with contempt!

還要忍受這種語言暴力多久？
中國時報 2007.12.10　
中時社論

台灣民眾到底是修養太好、遲鈍未覺、還是忍耐到已經麻木了？每天必須承受這麼多低俗語言的轟炸，汙染我們的視聽，形同被當白痴，難道真是在被懲罰？

在拆除「大中至正」的激烈爭議中，教育部主任祕書莊國榮跳出來猛放狠話，要人「哭著回家找媽媽」，不只爆紅到鋒頭蓋過了教育部長杜正勝，連前一陣子還挺得意的新聞局長謝志偉都給比了下去。陳水扁總統也不遑多讓，出口比辣不輸人，將馬英九要掛回中正紀念堂牌匾跟李蓮英的ＬＰ扯在一起。消滅了大中至正的莊國榮，又自動請纓當起了打馬先鋒，借友人之語譏諷馬英九「很娘」。

這些言行，也許當事人覺得是選戰的炒作手法，甚至認為基層民眾聽了會覺得很爽，但是，一個國家的執政高層，可以毫不臉紅地講出小癟三似的下流話，而且還得意洋洋愈講愈亢奮，背後的心態，根本就是徹底把台灣老百姓看得扁、扁、扁了。

如果有老師威脅說要讓學生「哭著回去找媽媽」，家長一投訴，老師恐怕少不得要道歉受處分，但現在卻是最高教育主管機關的官員自己講這種話，要台灣所有的老師和父母怎麼教孩子？中正紀念堂不是不能改名，大中至正也不是不能換掉，但為什麼好好的嘴巴不能講乾淨一點的話，反而吐出那麼多惡毒低俗又粗魯下流的語言呢？為什麼台灣從總統、政府官員到立委，可以毫不在乎地講出讓電視機前的父母想掩住孩子耳朵的骯髒話？

如果有人一直對我們講粗話，而且不覺得會觸怒我們，那表示他們認定我們就是喜歡這個味，就是這樣低級沒品的人，還有什麼比這更大的輕視？還有什麼比這更惡意的羞辱？而這些，是來自我們選、我們養的高官！

台灣民眾的格調受到鄙視，已經夠氣人的了，連智商也要被看扁，才真是吐血。「大中至正」四個字語出王陽明，藉此可以彰顯蔣介石的名字「中正」，跟中正紀念堂也剛好搭，幹嘛硬扯上李蓮英或古代某個昏君？誰的墓誌年號不想挑些崇高偉大的文字？只能說剛巧李蓮英的墓也挑了這四個字，哪能說是後人向太監看齊？至於陳水扁把掛回牌匾講成太監那個東西怎麼裝回，不只語言粗鄙下流，邏輯更是莫名其妙，到底牌匾跟太監那個東西有什麼關係？拿下來的東西不能再擺回去？你不就是要換一個新的上去嗎？難道這是在替太監裝「假東西」？

這些胡扯亂牽拖的邏輯，硬拗到了睜眼說瞎話的地步，也敢講得振振有詞，彷彿認定聽話的對象智商只有個位數，看不出其中大到車子都掉得進去的破綻。我們這些努力扛著國家的老百姓，稅金沒有少繳一塊錢，憑什麼要受這種侮辱？

台灣民眾被看扁，還不只於此。陳水扁帶頭煽動族群議題，藉著去蔣、入聯公投，大玩省籍分化，原因就是政績太差，端不出好菜來，於是拚命揮舞族群大旗逼民眾選邊。全家燒炭這麼多，五個孩子吃一碗麵，獨臂單親媽要偷電，我們的執政高官，有沒有道歉、反省或至少真心關懷過？不但沒有，還把這些事件視如威脅政權的寇讎，不是視而不見，就是認定只是少數個案。陳水扁相信，不管政績有多爛，只要大搞統獨省籍，撕裂歷史傷口，刺激族群對立，居多數的本省籍選票還是會保護民進黨。

台灣老百姓真的被人吃夠夠耶！那個全家吃香喝辣的領袖，居然認定只要催起族群符，民眾就算肚子餓得要死、明天過不下去，也是一聽到本土鈴聲，就像傀儡般乖乖聽命，忘了日子難過、小孩學費沒著落，他說東就跟著東，他說西就跟著西，他說台灣等於民進黨、等於阿扁，大家也會跟著對對對。他認定台灣人沒有思考智慧沒有判斷能力，更沒有走出悲情的意志。他不需要為政績爛負責，反正一張族群牌就可以把人民玩來玩去，讓大家相互廝殺、相互憎恨、相互猜忌，完全忘了在台灣，我們沒有不同的命運。

被執政者認定是沒有格調、沒有智商、沒有靈魂的呆子，對民眾來說，是最大的輕視與侮辱。但是別忘了，人家怎麼對待你，是你教的。如果台灣民眾不喜歡被人當白痴，那就要明明白白告訴所有政治人物，拿肥皂洗洗自己的嘴巴，別看扁老百姓了！

A Democratic Nation whose Legislature is not allowed to Legislate?

A Democratic Nation whose Legislature is not allowed to Legislate?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2007

The ruling and opposition parties will vote on the third reading of the Organic Law of the Central Election Committee tomorrow. The Democratic Progressive Party is boasting that it has ambulances on standby, and is pledging to "fight to the death." The public must get past its intellectually indolent "Not another pointless Blue vs. Green Struggle!" frame of reference. This confrontation is not merely over how to determine the composition of the Central Election Committee. This confrontation is a constitutional crisis that has paralyzed the legislature.

The codification of the Organic Law of the Central Election Committee is long overdue. Recently the central government and local governments have been struggles over the "single stage" vs. "two stage" balloting procedures. This struggle is the direct result of the Central Election Committee's "black box operations," in which it takes its marching orders from the ruling DPP regime, provoking opposition party and county and municipal government outrage. In one major election after another, a discredited Central Election Committee has manipulated the balloting procedure however the ruling DPP commands. Under such cirumstances, how can the public believe that the outcome is the result of a free and fair balloting procedure? This is why the codification of the Organic Law of the Central Election Committee is a matter of such urgency. No matter how much the ruling and opposition parties may disagree, the final solution can only be found in the Legislative Yuan.

The Democratic Progressive Party alleges that the opposition party's version of Organic Law for the Central Election Committee is "unconstitutional." It ignores the fact that the Central Election Committee it is unconditionally backing is an unconstitutional and illegal entity. The Democratic Progressive Party constitutes a minority within the legislature. Yet it refuses to compromise or adopt peaceful means of ruling the nation. Instead it resorts to physical violence, extortion, and disruption to paralyze the legislature and bring the government to a halt. Earlier this year, the legislature attempted to review the Organic Law for the Central Election Committee. Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers surrounded the Speaker of the Legislature, physically dragged him into the Speakers Chamber and locked him inside with a motorcycle lock. Needless to say this made it impossible for the legislature to conduct its official business. The violent political farce that will be enacted in the Legislative Yuan tomorrow, may be difficult to imagine.

The Democratic Progressive Party tolerates only "black box operations" that allow it to abuse its power. In order to prevent the opposition majority in Legislative Yuan from amending the law, it physically obstructs the legislative process. Its logic is self-contradictory. It finds it dfficult to disguise its selfish motives. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party is waging a life or death struggle to preserve the illegal Central Election Committee. Its sole motive is to maintain control at least until May of next year, at which time countless agencies within the Executive Yuan will be able to overtly and covertly interfere with the election to ensure the "right" results. Unless voters next year demand regime change, expecting the Democratic Progressive Party to relax its grip on this juicy piece of raw meat is wishful thinking.

We would caution the public against dismissing the struggle over the Organic Law for the Central Election Committee as the same old "pointless ruling vs. opposition party struggles" that it has become accustomed to. The Democratic Progressive Party has no intention whatsoever of debating the merits or demerits of the bill. It has no intention whatsoever of seeking a solution to the problem by legal means. Its only purpose is to prevent the legislature from functioning. This will inevitably affect the normalization of the nation. What everyone ought to be worried about is not that the Legislative Yuan will degenerate into a killing field, but that the ROC's system of constitutional government will become a One Party, or worse, One Man dictatorship.

This is the danger of Taiwan's so-called "Blue vs. Green Politics." Once the concept of "Blue vs. Green Opposition" became popular, any and all violations of the constitution were dumped into this simplistic frame of reference, and treated as if it was all the same political garbage. Many failed to realize that under an "Either you're Blue or you're Green" dichotomy, the public has been partitioned, and the government paralyzed. The Democratic Progressive Party has taken advantage of this paralysis to turn the nation's resources into the party's resources. It has used the Legislative Yuan's ineffectuality to expand the power of the executive. It has arrogated to itself the power to act without constitutional authority. Over the past eight years, many saw only "Blue vs. Green Opposition." They were blind to the pathological deterioration of the ROC's system of constitutional government.

Chen Shui-bian's demagoguery over the past month has plunged Taiwan into a state of civil war. Over the legislative elections and the issue of the Central Election Committee, the central government and 18 counties and municipalities are each going their own way. Over the name plaque on the ceremonial gate to the CKS Memorial, police officers answering to the Executive Yuan and the Taipei Municipal Government respectively have found themselves head to head, daggers drawn. Now, to codify the Organic Law for the Central Election Committee, ruling and opposition party legislators are about to go to war. These conflagrations, breaking out on a daily basis, show that our politicians cannot solve even the most basic problems. Under these circumstances, how can Taiwan possibly aspire to the status of a "normal nation?" Day after day, political fires engulf the island, most of them set by Chen Shui-bian. Democratic politics, after venturing into this pestilential quagmire, has virtually vanished from sight.

In order to demolish "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" name plaque, the Executive Yuan simply rewrote the law on its own, ignored the legislature, and did whatever it damn well pleased. In order to prevent the Legislative Yuan from passing the Organic Law for the Central Election Committee, the minority Democratic Progressive Party stooped to naked intimidation, threatening to physically assault any opposition legislators who attempted to vote on the proposed legislation. Do the nation's laws really have no meaning whatsoever to the "Democratic Progressive Party?"

Years ago the Democratic Progressive Party forced out the "10,000 Year Legislature." Now, in support of A Bian, the Democratic Progressive Party is once again sending its Storm Troopers into the legislature. This shows that history repeats itself. Is there such a thing as a democratic nation that does not allow its legislature to convene? Is there such a thing as a democratic ruling party that does not allow the nation's legislature to legislate?

豈有不容國會表決運作的民主國家？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.06 03:44 am

朝野明天將就中選會組織法的三讀展開立法攻防，民進黨揚言 「傳好救護車」誓死杯葛。民眾應該跳脫「藍綠對決」的刻板框架來看待此事，因為這涉及的不單純是中選會的法制化問題，而是整個國會的憲政運作已面臨癱瘓危機。

中 選會的法制化延宕已久，最近中央與地方之所以有「一階段vs.二階段」之爭，正是源於中選會以「黑機關」身分聽命執政黨偏頗行事，引起在野黨及縣市政府的 不服。由於重大選舉接二連三，若中選會以受質疑的身分與手法強行主導選務，民眾如何相信最後的選舉結果是經公正程序產生？也因此，中選會的法制化問題備顯 迫切，不論朝野見解多麼歧異，最終仍必須在立法院尋求解決，才可能找到出路。

矛盾的是，民進黨一面指責在野黨版的中選會組織條例「違 憲」，一面卻忘了自己全力維護的現行中選會，正是個「不合憲」又「不合法」的機構。更嚴重的是，民進黨身為國會少數，不知善用「妥協」或「遠交近攻」戰略 來達成執政治國的使命，卻頻頻採取暴力、威脅及干擾戰略，使國會陷入癱瘓，使國家瀕於空轉。今年初，立院審查中選會組織法，即因民進黨立委圍攻並以「三秒 膠」鎖住議長，使議事無法進行；以此觀之，明天立法院可能上演的政治暴力醜劇，恐怕令人難以想像。

民進黨這種「只許黑機關濫權，不准立法 院修法」的死纏爛打戰略，不僅在邏輯上自相矛盾，在現實上也難掩其師心自用。民進黨之所以拚死維護中選會的「非法狀態」，無非是為了既有的掌控方便；至少 在明年五月仍然政權在握之際，行政部門可以透過各種公開或隱匿的形式插手選務，進而影響選舉。亦即，除非選民明年再度締造政黨輪替，否則要民進黨把中選會 這塊肥肉從它嘴巴裡吐出來，難如登天。

可以提醒民眾的是：這次中選會組織法的攻防，不該當成人們習以為常的又一次「朝野對決」看待；因為 民進黨已然無意辯論法案的是非曲直，也無意解決中選會的法制化課題，目的只在阻擋國會的立法運作，其結果，必然影響國家的正常化發展。大家要擔心的，不是 立法院淪為殺戮戰場，而是台灣憲政體制變成一黨一人一用即棄的工具。

這也正是台灣所謂「藍綠政治」的危險。當「藍綠對抗」這樣的概念流行 後，所有扭曲違憲的不正常活動都被丟進這個框框裡，當成普通政治垃圾處理；殊不知，在「非藍即綠」這樣的二分法下，不僅人民被分成兩種等級，國家機器也日 漸四分五裂，幾至無法動彈。然而，民進黨卻利用國家癱瘓的機會，透過黨政合一的手段將公共資源納為己用；更利用立法院的職能失效，大肆擴張行政權的專擅和 獨攬。八年了，人們若只看到一次次的藍綠對抗硝煙，卻看不到台灣憲政的病變與衰敗，那就太盲目了。

回顧過去這一個月，在陳水扁的刻意操弄 下，台灣其實是處於類似「內戰」的狀態：為了立委選舉領投票的問題，中央和地方十八縣市各執己見；為了大中至正門的更名問題，行政院與台北市府劍拔弩張， 導致警察相互對壘；現在，為了中選會的法制化，朝野立委要展開大戰。這種日日烽火高舉的景象，顯示政治人物連解決問題的基本能力都沒有，台灣如何可能變成 一個正常國家？更何況，島內的連天戰火，大半都是陳水扁總統煽的風點的火；民主政治走到這步田地，也幾近虛無幻滅了。

那廂為了拆「大中至正」門， 行政院自己私下修改法令， 然後挾著未完成立法程序的條文就要蠻幹。 這廂立法院要審中選會組織法， 居於少數的民進黨仗恃著拳頭， 揚言要打就打。 國家的體制和法律， 真任其予取予求嗎？

當年逼退了萬年國會， 如今民進黨為了擁護阿扁， 一再將拳頭「表決部隊」重新開進國會， 這只證明歷史果然會倒退。 天下豈有不容國會表決運作的民主國家？ 豈有不容國會表決運作的民主執政黨？

Chen Shui-bian vs. the Golden Mean and the Way of Righteousness

Chen Shui-bian vs. the Golden Mean and the Way of Righteousness
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2007

Chen Shui-bian ordered the Ministry of Education to tear down name plaque reading "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness" on the ceremonial gate to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, changing it to read "Liberty Square." His order was illegal. Chen Shui-bian and the ruling regime must bear the legal consequences of their actions.

The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is a Level Three National Institution. Any changes to it must be approved by the Legislative Yuan. The Legislative Yuan rejected the Executive Yuan's proposed changes to the "Organic Laws for the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Administrative Office." Therefore, the name of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall and its status remain unchanged. The Ministry of Education's arbitrarily issued "Regulations for the Administration of the National Taiwan Democratic Memorial Hall," which attempt to demote the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to a Level Four National Institution and to change its name, have no legal foundation. Therefore Chen Shui-bian's order to the Ministry of Education to change the name on the ceremonial gate to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is illegal.

Furthermore, after the Taipei Municipal Government certified the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as a "Provisional Historic Relic," the Council for Cultural Affairs, invoking the authority of the central government, certified the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as a "National Historical Relic." Leave aside for the moment whether local or central governments have final authority. The fact is both local and central governments certified the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as an historical relic which must be protected by law.

The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act forbids the destruction, alteration, or use of historical relics without due process. Both central and local governments have already certified the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as an historical relic. Therefore both have a responsibility to protect it. Chen Shui-bian arbitrarily ordered the Ministry of Education to alter and destroy a historical relic in defiance of the law, then his action was illegal.

Any destruction of the name plaque on the ceremonial gateway to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is illegal. The maximum penalty according to the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act is a five year prison sentence. In addition one is liable for any damage and must pay compensation. Therefore both the central and local governments have a legal responsibility to prevent any damage to historical relics. If the central government, which has a responsibility to protect historical relics, turns around and takes the lead in destroying such relics, then local governments must prosecute guilty parties according to the law. The Taipei Municipal Government petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court, asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent central authorities from changing the name. Although the court refused to grant a preliminary injunction, it clearly indicated its reasoning in its ruling: "Local authorities have the legal right to prevent any destruction of historical relics." Central authorities should memorize this section and repeat it back to themselves.

The central issue behind the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall conflict is whether it is permissible to destroy a historical relic without due process. Whether the Taipei Municipal Government's request for a preliminary injunction was procedurally defective and therefore rejected does not change the facts. The central government is not permitted to arbitrarily change the name merely because it wishes to. If Chen Shui-bian deliberately provokes an incident, if he uses the name change to create conflict in search of political advantage, then the legal burden must be borne by Chen Shui-bian himself. The Taipei Municipal Government has no alternative but to enforce the law.

When the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the Taipei Municipal Government's request for a preliminary injunction, Chen Shui-bian began shouting: "The central government won!" In fact the court rejected the request for procedural reasons, but more importantly, because the request was superfluous. In fact, in this particular jurisdictional dispute, the court strongly affirmed the jurisdiction of local authorities over central authorities. For example, the court ruled that central authorities had no higher jurisdiction over local authorities in the certification of historical relics. Central authorities and local authorities were on the same footing. Central authorities were not above local authorities, and local authorities were under no obligation to "automatically yield." To the contrary, if local authorities felt that central authorities were violating the right to local self-government, they had the right to file suit for administrative relief. The court ruled that if central authorities and local authorities both designated a building as an historical relic, the local authorities' designation was not automatically invalidated by the central authorities' designation. In fact, as noted above, the ruling clearly stated: "Local authorities have the legal right to prevent any destruction of historical relics." Therefore, Chen Shui-bian's order to the Council for Cultural Affairs to designate the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as an historical site, in order to override the authority of the Taipei Municipal Government, was a complete debacle.

Whether a peaceful resolution is possible depends on Chen Shui-bian. If Chen Shui-bian, motivated by election considerations, decides to escalate the conflict, by directly interfering the Taipei Municipal Government's enforcement of the law, then not only will he create a law enforcement problem, he will intensify social polarization. Social unrest will be inevitable. Chen Shui-bian is not merely demolishing four characters reading: "The Golden Mean, the Way of Righteousness," He is tearing apart society and destroying the nation.

陳水扁不可違法破壞大中至正門
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.05 03:20 am

陳水扁指令教育部拆掉中正紀念堂大門「大中至正」，改名「自由廣場」，這是非法的舉動，其法律後果應由陳水扁和執行者承擔。

中 正紀念堂是國家三級機關，其變動須立法院同意。但是，行政院送到立法院的《中正紀念堂管理處組織條例》廢止案，立法院並不同意；因此，中正紀念堂的法定名 稱和地位迄今並未改變。亦因此，教育部擅自發布《國立台灣民主紀念館組織規程及辦事細則》，欲據以將中正紀念堂降為四級機關並改名，迄仍不具法律基礎。在 此前提下，陳水扁任意指令教育部拆換中正紀念堂大門名字，即為非法舉動。

再者，台北市政府核定中正紀念堂為「暫定古蹟」後，文建會又以中央政府地位，核定中正紀念堂為「國定古蹟」；而目前文化資產保存法及其施行細則，並未規定地方或中央對同一古蹟之核定何者優先，因而中正紀念堂就成了中央與地方均依法同為指定、並依法必須保護的古蹟。

在此前提下，如未經文化資產保存法規定的程序，對古蹟自不得為任何破壞或更動、利用；而且，中央與地方既均核定中正紀念堂為古蹟，就同樣有保護的責任。陳水扁倘未經合法程序，任意指令教育部更動及破壞古蹟，當然是違法行為。

既 然在未完成法律程序之前，任何破壞中正紀念堂大門牌匾的行為皆是違法行為，依文化資產保存法最重得處以五年以下有期徒刑，並須負損害賠償責任；則中央與地 方均有法律義務，排除並阻止任何破壞古蹟的行為。倘若有保護責任的中央政府，竟反而帶頭非法破壞古蹟，則地方政府當然必須將相關人員予以移送法辦。台北市 政府請求高等行政法院對中央政府假處分命其不得更名，雖然法院不同意假處分，但在裁定理由中已經清楚指明：「地方政府依法得動用公權力，阻止任何破壞古蹟 的行為。」中央政府應將此段文字，記誦再三。

在法定程序完成以前，不得破壞古蹟，就法言法，這是中正紀念堂事件的核心問題。台北市政府聲 請假處分或有訴訟程序方面的失誤，以致聲請被駁回；但問題的本質並不受影響，中央政府當然不能蠻橫地逕自更名。如果陳水扁刻意製造事端，藉改名行動製造衝 突，以謀選舉利益，則衝突的法律責任當由陳水扁自己承擔；台北市政府恐別無選擇，只能依法取締。

高等行政法院駁回台北市政府假處分聲請， 使陳水扁四處亂喊「中央贏了」；但事實上，法院只是因為聲請程序以及有無必要等問題而駁回，對本事件中地方政府的權限和地位，其實是給予極大的肯定。例 如，法院認為，就具體古蹟指定權限方面，中央和地方就同一標的指定，中央並沒有優先地位，地方政府也不必「當然應該退讓」；反之，倘若地方認為中央的行政 處分侵害地方自治權利，就可以提起行政訴訟救濟。法院也認為，中央與地方就古蹟的指定可以並存，地方的指定不因中央就同一標的指定即自動解除。更何況，如 前所述，判決亦已明言：地方政府依法得動用公權力，阻止任何破壞古蹟的行為。因此，陳水扁命文建會指定中正紀念堂為古蹟，企圖藉此排除台北市政府對其政治 秀的阻撓，可謂完全失敗。

事情演變至此，能否和平落幕，端看陳水扁怎麼收場了。倘若陳水扁為了選舉不惜擴大衝突，與台北市政府依法執行職務對撞，則非僅產生執法問題，民間對立亦必隨之加劇，社會動盪必不可免。陳水扁不止是要拆毀「大中至正」四字，他要撕裂這個社會，毀滅這個國家。

How to Maintain the Status Quo for 100 Years

How to Maintain the Status Quo for 100 Years
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 4, 2007

One of the principle reasons the Taiwan independence movement still has room to maneuveur, is that the Beijing authorities have never been willing to give the "Republic of China" its proper due. If Beijing refuses to give the Republic of China its proper due, some people on Taiwan will conclude that since the "Republic of China" doesn't get any respect from Beijing, one might as well give Taiwan independence a chance.

The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is an example. The motive for pushing the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is not really to champion Taiwan's membership in the United Nations. The real motive is to mock the Republic of China for being expelled from the United Nations. The Taiwan independence movement likes to stress how badly the Republic of China has been mistreated by "China." But it is unable to offer a convincing argument that a "Republic of Taiwan" would fare any better.

The Taiwan independence movement "reasons" that since the Republic of China doesn't get any respect from Beijing, one might as well go for Taiwan independence.

The above arguments are by now general knowledge. If Beijing wants to resolve the cross-straits deadlock, if Beijing is unwilling to see Taiwan independence continue to develop, if it wants to undergo radical reform, it must give the Republic of China its due and room for development. Actually, in recent years the Beijing authorities have made significant concessions in this direction. What is needed is greater clarity and explicitness.

The Beijing authorities' current position is: First, maintaining the the status quo. Second, publicly stressing that although the two sides of the strait are not yet unified, both the mainland and Taiwan are part of One China. This is the cross-straits status quo. This position, that the two sides of the strait are not yet unified, is acceptable and sustainable. That being the case, why can't Beijing state clearly that the cross-straits status quo is One Divided China? Third, Beijing says the cross-straits status quo is not merely our (Beijing's) viewpoint, it is also Taiwan's current legal status. That being the case, why can't Beijing state clearly that it acknowledges the "ROC's current constitution and laws?" Fourth, the Beijing authorities no longer say that "Taiwan is a part of China." Instead they say that "The mainland and Taiwan are both part of China." That being the case, why not state clearly that Beijing acknowledges that "One China" is a third concept, senior to both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China? Why not state that it accepts the "One China/Big Roof Theory?" To sum up, Beijing has already attempted to redefine the "Republic of China." Maintaining the status quo amounts to preserving the Republic of China. Our position is: Why not clarify matters by making them more explicit? Why not state matters even more clearly?

The Taiwan independence movement's arguments and Beijing's One China arguments have moved in unexpected directions in recent years. The Taiwan independence movement's argument has suddenly retreated from "Taiwan is already independent" to "Taiwan is not yet independent, and must rectify its name, author a new constitution, and establish a Nation of Taiwan." It has changed from "Taiwan independence is the status quo" to "Taiwan independence is the future." By contrast, Beijing's "One China" argument used to stress ensuring the reunification of a "Future One China." That has now changed to "Although the two sides are not yet unified, they remain part of One China." It has changed its "future unification" to "Although the two sides are not yet unified, they remain part of One China." The Taiwan independence movement now rejects the status quo, and insists on destroying the Republic of China. Beijing, on the other hand, is maintaining the status quo. In fact it has already accepted the status quo in which the Republic of China is "Not yet unified or refuses to be unified."

In recent years the Beijing authorities' cross-straits argument has undergone three major adjustments: First, maintaining the status quo, which implies "accepting the Republic of China." Second, no longer demanding unification, accepting a cross-straits status quo that is not yet unified; Third, "One China" has changed from future tense to present tense. Also "One China is the People's Republic of China" has changed to the "Big Roof Theory" in which "Both the mainland and Taiwan are part of One China." Beijing's new cross-straits argument has already been integrated into a "One China, Different Interpretations" framework. It merely needs further clarification and explicitness. It merely needs to be stated more clearly.

The knot can only be untied by the person who tied it. If Beijing can correctly define the "Republic of China," the Taiwan independence movement's room to maneuveur will be reduced accordingly. Last week in Hong Kong Tang Shu-bei said, "So long as both sides insist on One China, 100 years is not too long to wait to reunify." Conversely, If one can refrain from unifying within 100 years, or if unifying within 100 years is disadvantageous to mainland China, then why not accept the "One China, Different Interpretations" approach to maintaining the status quo?

如何維持現狀一百年？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.04 03:39 am

台獨迄今仍有操弄空間，主因之一是北京當局始終未能對「中華民國」作出正確定位。倘若北京不給「中華民國」應有的定位，使台灣人民覺得反正「中華民國」亦不見容於北京，台獨就有了操弄空間。

「入聯公投」即是顯例。「入聯公投」的心理訴求，其實不在主張「台灣進得了聯合國」，反而只是要挖苦奚落「中華民國被聯合國趕出去」而已。台獨的主張類皆如此，其重點只在凸顯「中華民國被『中國』欺壓」的負面效應，卻未必提得出「台灣國能夠存活」的正面表述或策略。

台獨的社會心理認為：既然「中華民國」亦不見容於中共，則為何不能搞台獨，又為何不乾脆搞台獨？

以上這些議論，如今皆是眾所周知的常識。北京若要化解兩岸僵局，或北京若不願見台獨發展，正本清源，即在北京必須給「中華民國」一個正確定位與發展空間。其實，近年來北京當局的相關政策朝此方向已有大幅調整，問題在於必須更加清晰化與名目化。

北 京當局相關論述的現行架構是：一、以「維持現狀」為核心主軸；二、公開指出「儘管兩岸尚未統一，但大陸與台灣同屬一個中國的事實從未改變」，又稱：「這就 是兩岸關係的現狀」。此一論述是在指出：「兩岸尚未統一的現狀」可以接受，也可以維持。然則，北京為何不能更清楚地指出可以接受「兩岸分裂分治的現狀」？ 三、北京又謂：「（兩岸關係的現狀）不僅是我們（北京）的立場，也見之於台灣現有的規定與文件……。」然則，北京為何不直接明說「見之台灣現行之憲法及法 律」？四、北京當局如今已罕言「台灣是中國的一部分」，而改謂「大陸與台灣同屬一個中國」；則何不明說，北京接受「一個中國」為超越「中華人民共和國」及 「中華民國」的「第三概念」；亦即接受「一個中國」為「屋頂理論」？綜上所論，可知中共已在嘗試將「中華民國」重新定位；所謂「維持現狀」，其實就是「維 持中華民國」。我們的主張則是：何不更加清晰化與名目化，何不乾脆把話說得更清楚一些？

「台獨論述」與北京的「一中論述」，近年出現反向 動線的弔詭發展。「台獨論述」從「台灣現狀已經獨立」，突然倒車轉入「台灣現狀尚未獨立，必須正名制憲，另建台灣國」；亦即從「現狀已經台獨」，變成「未 來台獨」。相對而言，北京的「一中論述」，過去強調「必『將』統一」的「未來一中」；如今則已經變成「儘管尚未統一，仍是一個中國」；亦即從「未來統 一」，變成了「現狀雖未統一，仍可視為一中」。兩者之間的反向動線是：台獨否定「現狀」，要毀滅中華民國；北京則維持現狀，其實已經接受了中華民國「尚未 統一，或拒不統一」的「現狀」。

北京當局近年來的兩岸論述已有三大調整：一、維持現狀，當然也就存有「接受中華民國」的含義；二、不再催 迫統一，接受了「兩岸儘管尚未統一」的現狀；三、「一個中國」從「未來式」變成「現在式」；也從「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，變成「大陸與台灣同屬一 個中國」的「屋頂理論」。中共的這套兩岸新論述其實已見「一中各表」的完整架構，問題只在仍可進一步清晰化、名目化，必須把話說得更清楚一些。

解 鈴還須繫鈴人。北京若能對「中華民國」作出正確定位，台獨的操作空間必將相對減縮。唐樹備上周在香港說：「只要堅持一個中國，一百年不統一也可以！」然 而，換個角度來說：「若能一百年不統一，或若百年內統一對中國大陸不利，則倘不明言接受『一中各表』，將如何維持一百年的現狀？」

Government Confiscation of Books? What Age are We Living In?

Government Confiscation of Books? What Age are We Living In?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 3, 2007

Chen Shui-bian's declaration that he was "seriously considering imposing martial law" makes us uneasy. But the recent Gestapo raid conducted by the National Security Bureau, public prosecutors, and police against the Shih Ying Publishing Company, makes us even more uneasy.

Chen Shui-bian's words have left a bad odor in our nostrils, and a queasy feeling in the pit of our stomachs. The Gestapo raid conducted by public prosecutors and police on a private sector publishing house, have provided us with a real world demonstration of how quickly an evil we thought we had bid farewell to on Taiwan over 20 years ago, could make such a surprisingly speedy comeback.

Don't tell us this is an isolated case. Don't talk to us about "national security." Don't tell us that "freedom of speech has limits." This is the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law on Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party rose to power on its promise to "rule the nation on a foundation of human rights." Yet now, on the basis of a single search warrant, it has allowed hordes of prosecutors and police to swoop down on a private sector publishing house, to arbitrarily seize and impound a large number of publications. This is a scene we have not witnessed on Taiwan since police raided the premises of "Dang Wai" (party outsider) magazines and confiscated banned political journals. So now we know. The National Security Bureau's understanding of the public's right to freedom of expression and freedom of press, and its respect for property rights, is 20 years behind the times, frozen in the era of the Police Superintendent.

Do not casually dismiss this case. If government agencies can arbitrarily accuse private sector publications of revealing state secrets, If prosecutors and police can ransack publishers' premises and confiscate their publications, on the basis of a single piece of paper, then the impact of such displays of police power is too frightening by far. If such conduct is tolerated, even forgiven, does our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of opinion and freedom of the press still have any meaning? Does the ruling party still have a right to boast of its human rights record, 20 years after the rescinding of martial law, without turning red in the face or skipping a heartbeat?

Even more disturbing, is that intelligence agencies, prosecutors, police, and even judicial authorities, consider swooping down on a private sector publishing house to search its premises and to confiscate its inventory of books acceptable behavior. All you need is a search warrant. No one in the entire government has been willing to stand up and denounce such behavior as wrong. The public has also been silent on the matter. Therefore we can confidently predict that this will not be an isolated case. This will merely be the beginning.

A few years ago, Next Magazine was subjected to a Gestapo raid for reporting the National Security Budget. The search was controversial, but at least it did not prevent the magazine's normal publication. Whether the magazine actually leaked secrets was left to the courts to decide. This time however, the ruling DPP's goons impounded the publisher's books outright. This is utterly intolerable. When Chen Shui-bian said he was seriously considering imposing martial law, he was exceeding his constitutionally delegated authority. When prosecutors and police impounded a private sector publishing house's inventory of books, they were issuing a direct challenge to the constitution.

Given the National Security Bureau's own internal and external security measures, it is impossible to prevent its own retiring personnel from divulging secrets. Besides, Hsiao Tai-fu, the accused in this case, allowed the National Security Bureau to review his book before it was published, and the book was already being sold on the Internet in early November, Why did the National Security Bureau wait until now to search the publisher's premises and impound the books? Wouldn't any earthshaking secrets have been leaked a long time ago? Besides, everyone who has read this book by a senior intelligence operative says it doesn't contain any extraordinary secrets, The process of searching the publishing house's premises and impounding the books was nothing but a warning to others. Was it because the author "affronted the dignity of senior officials" or some other reason? To tell the truth, we don't really care. The National Security Bureau's problems with its own internal management, do not amount to an excuse to infringe freedom of expression or the freeom of the press.

This is not the first time we have raised many of these issues. But we have found to our dismay, that after 20 years of trial by fire, although ROC citizens now have some concept of human rights, the government remains frozen in the martial law era. It imagines it can unilaterally decide whether an accused divulged a state secret in a private sector publication, and that on the basis of a single search warrant, it can ransack and impound the such publications. Freedom of opinion and freedom of the press are constitutionally safeguarded basic rights. The 20 years that have elapsed since the lifting of martial law apparently have no meaning for apparatchiks ensconced in the state apparatus.

Perhaps it is necessary to reemphasize an important point. Any information that affects the public interest, belongs to the people. It does not belong to the nation. Any national secrets are not the property of the government, even intelligence agencies. Prosecutors and police do not have the right to unilaterally make such judgments. At the very least, courts must rule on such matters. The constitutional safeguards written into the constitution safeguarding freedom of opinion and freedom of the press, safeguard the people's rights, and limit the government's actions, because the only institution that can can infringe upon the people's freedom of opinion and freedom of the press, is the government.

Several years ago, we went to great lengths to abolish the Publication Laws. We wanted to guard against the government infringing upon the people's freedom of opinion and freedom of the press. Now we have such constitutional safeguards. We no longer have the Publication Laws. Yet the government infringes upon the people's freedom of opinion and freedom of press in exactly the same way. Is it not obvious that democracy is in full retreat?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.12.03
什麼年代了 還查抄出版社！
中時社論

　 如果說，陳水扁的「慎重考慮戒嚴」說令我們感到驚訝， 那麼國安局與檢警人員日前到時英出版社查抄書籍的動作，則是讓我們感到驚懼！ 陳水扁的語言讓我們嗅到了那尚在星星之火的不祥意圖， 但檢警查抄出版社的作為， 卻讓我們見識到了具體行動， 一個已經在台灣消逝二十多年的惡行， 竟就在這麼不經意間悄悄復活了！

　別辯稱這只是個案，也不要搬出什麼「國家安全」如何如何，更不要扯什麼「言論自由不能無限上綱」這種謬 論。此時此刻是解嚴二十年後的台灣，這是一個反覆以「人權治國」為標榜的政黨在執政，竟容得大批檢警人員，拿著一紙搜索令，就能闖進一家民間的出版社，不 由分說就將大批出版品全部查扣帶走。這幅只有在二十年前警總查扣黨外雜誌才看得到的畫面，全套的在此刻的台灣重現了！原來解嚴了二十年，我們的國安局與檢 警人員對人民言論、出版自由的理解，對人民財產權的尊重，竟然還停留在二十年前的警總年代。

　千萬別輕忽這個案例，如果政府相關部門可以 片面指控人民的著作出版洩密，如果檢警僅憑一紙搜索令就可以將出版品當違禁品予以查扣沒收，那麼它的示範效應實在是太可怕了！這些行為如果是可以被容許 的，甚至是可以被原諒的，那麼我們真的不知道憲法中所謂的言論出版自由，還有沒有意義？我們更不知道，執政黨還有沒有資格在這解嚴二十年的時刻，臉不紅氣 不喘的繼續吹噓他們對人權保障的功業？

　而更令我們害怕的是，如果從情治單位、檢警甚至司法單位，都認為直接闖進一家民間出版社查扣書籍 的行為，是可以被容許的，是一紙公文就可以恣意執行的作為，而整個政府上下沒有一個人願意站出來批評這個行為不對，整個民間也都噤聲不語，那我們可以在這 預言：這不會只是個個案，這將會是個開端！

　還記得前幾年，壹週刊曾經因為報導國安祕帳案而遭搜索，過程雖有爭議，但至少沒有阻止雜誌正 常出刊，洩密與否則歸司法審理。但這次卻是過分到直接查扣書籍，就完全不能原諒了！如果說陳水扁的慎重考慮戒嚴說是在憲政理念的信守上越了界，則這次檢警 在查扣民間出版品的作為，則是直接在向憲法挑戰了。

　講實在話，以國安局本身的內控與外控機制，不可能做不到防堵自己的離休人員著書洩 密，更何況這次事件的當事人蕭台福在出書前都給國安局看過，且該書在十一月初就已經在網路販售，國安局拖到這個時候才大張旗鼓搜索查扣，真要有什麼驚天動 地的大機密，不早就全洩露光了？更何況看過該書的資深情治人員都說該書根本沒有什麼了不得的機密，整個偵辦查扣的行動被相關人士解讀為是在「殺雞儆猴」， 是因為作者「挑戰長官尊嚴」，而到底實情究為何？不諱言說我們其實沒太大興趣想知道，我們所最不能接受的是，國安局不能因為自己內部管理機制出了問題，就 以傷害人民的言論、出版自由為代價。

　有許多觀念，我們已不是第一次強調，但我們很遺憾的發現，經歷解嚴二十年的淬鍊，台灣人民已經具有 人權的觀念，但政府的許多部門卻還停留在戒嚴的年代，自認可以片面就判定民間出版品有無洩密，可以持一張搜索令就將人民的出版品查扣搬走，言論出版自由這 些憲法所保障的基本權利，經過了解嚴二十年，對身處國家機器裡的人們，好像根本毫無意義。

　或許，我們有必要在這再強調一次：任何涉及公 共利益的資訊，是屬於人民的，不屬於國家的，什麼是國家機密，不是情治單位、甚至檢警有資格片面裁定的，最起碼是該交由司法裁定的；而憲法所保障的人民言 論出版自由，不是寫在憲法裡供觀賞用的，它具體保障的是人民權利，所規範的是政府的作為，因為唯一能侵犯人民言論出版自由的，就是政府。

　若干年前，我們花那麼大的力量廢除出版法，就是要防堵國家對人民言論出版自由的干預。如今有了憲法保障，沒了出版法干預，國家還是照樣侵犯人民的言論、出版自由，這不明擺的就是在走民主回頭路？