Why Society Has No Reason to Forgive the Chen Family
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2009
Wu Shu-chen presented her case in court yesterday. She probably thought she discovered a legal loophole. But her legal arguments were unconvincing, to say the least, and are unlikely to be corroborated by the main witnesses or by the material evidence. Wu Shu-chen says she wants to "save her husband and protect her son." She is unlikely to get her wish.
Wu Shu-chen has admitted she accepted money in the State Affairs Fund Case, the Lungtan case, and the Nankang case. The fact that she took money has already established the legal framework for these cases. Was the money bribes or political contributions? That is not for Wu Shu-chen to say. Was the money connected to Chen Shui-bian? That is not for Wu Shu-chen to say either. The judge's evaluation of the evidence will not be based on Wu Shu-chen's unilateral assertions.
Reading from her notes, Wu Shu-chen revealed how she intended to disassociate herself from these four cases. She pleaded guilty only in the Nankang Case. She admitted accepting 2.2 million USD. She also admitted laundering money using Wu Ching-mao's overseas bank account. Chen Shui-bian was not a defendant in the Nankang Case. That is why Wu Shu-chen was willing to plead guilty in that case. Wu Shu-chen's guilty plea in the Nankang Case is merely a legal ploy to help Chen Chih-chung in his plea bargain. The Nankang Case is Wu Shu-chen's legal loophole. Wu Shu-chen did not plead guilty in any of the other cases involving Chen Shui-bian, at least not completely.
In the State Affairs Fund Case Wu Shu-chen admitted forging documents, but refused to confess to embezzlement. Again the main reason was that if she were to confess to embezzlement, that would make Chen Shui-bian an accomplice. Wu Shu-chen testified that Ma Yung-cheng and others instructed her to use false receipts for reimbursement. She said she complied without understanding what she was doing. She said that after she received the money from Chen Cheng-hui, she transferred it to Chen Shui-bian. Chen referred to the money as funds for "secret diplomacy." One. Wu's defense is that Ma Yung-cheng told her what to do. But that doesn't help her, because Ma Yung-cheng's defense is that Chen Shui-bian told what to do. Two. If the funds were meant for "secret diplomacy," why didn't they deposit them directly into the Office of the President's operating expenses account? Why go through Ah-Chen? Three. Chen Cheng-hui carried millions of dollars in State Affairs Funds at the end of each year to the president's official residence and turned it over to Ah-Chen. Ah-Chen said the money had already been transferred to Ah-Bian. Was Ah-Bian truly unaware that these millions of dollars in cash were obtained by means of false invoices? Such statements defy common sense. Wu Shu-chen has confessed to pocketing State Affairs Fund money. Whether she is guilty of fraud or embezzlement will be decided by a judge, not by Wu Shu-chen.
In the Lungtan Case, Wu Shu-chen's reasoning is even more convoluted. According to her testimony, she had no idea why Leslie Koo gave her so much money. She said Tsai Ming-Jer told her CITIC was bullying Leslie Koo. And because Leslie Koo wanted to "remain on good terms" with the president, he made her a gift of money. If Ah-Chen's testimony is to be believed, then Li Jie-mu never visited the president's official residence to discuss a land deal with the First Couple, face to face. Then Wu Shu-chen never paid a visit to Lungtan to look at the site. And of course President Chen Shui-bian never summoned the Premier and other officials to his official residence to receive direct instructions. But Chen Shui-bian has already admitted to summoning the Premier and other officials, and to discussing a land deal, face to face. He has merely argued that he did not "issue orders," but merely "made suggestions." They were not part of his official responsibilities. Wu Shu-chen says "I have no idea why Leslie Koo gave me money." She expects the public to believe kickbacks from the land deal were campaign contributions having nothing to with Chen Shui-bian. To expect such arguments to convince anyone is wishful thinking.
Since the money-laundering case exploded on August 14 last year, the Chen family's legal strategy was to deny, deny, deny. Chen did not hesitate to tear society apart, to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party, to defame the justice system. Chen resorted to the most vicious and underhanded means at his disposal. But once the trial began, Chen Chih-chung and his wife asked for a plea bargain. Wu Shu-chen attempted to use the Nankang Case to save her husband and protect her son. She deigned to offer the public an apology. Superificially, they changed their both their attitude and their tactics. In short, their confessions are utterly hollow and insincere. They are engaging in legalistic sleight of hand, and taking the public for fools.
Wu Shu-chen's testimony yesterday was riddled with contradictions. The justice system and society have no reason to forgive the Chen family. If this is Wu Shu-chen's defense strategy, she will have a hard time convincing the judge. If she hopes to save her husband, this will hardly do the trick. If she wants to protect her son, she has offered nothing the Special Investigation Unit doesn't already know. What incentive does it have to negotiate with her? She has rolled the dice and come up snake eyes. This, perhaps, fortells the Chen family's fate.
從吳淑珍供詞漏洞 看扁家不可被原諒的理由
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.11 04:21 am
吳淑珍昨天在法庭提出的抗辯架構，或許在邏輯思維上自認找到了「巧門」，卻與經驗法則悖離太甚，更無可能獲得主要證人及證據的支持。若謂吳淑珍想要藉此「救夫保子」，恐怕難如所願。
吳淑珍承認，她在國務費案、龍潭案及南港案中，皆收了錢；這使得全案的「架構」已告底定。至於那些錢的性質，是賄賂或政治獻金，卻非吳淑珍一人所能定義；而那些錢與陳水扁是否有關，更非吳淑珍說了就算。畢竟，法官的心證不會只是建立在吳淑珍的片面之言上。
吳淑珍照著手持的紙條，仔細揭示她對四案的切割手法。她唯一較完整認罪的是南港案，承認收了二百二十萬美元，也承認洗錢至吳景茂的國外帳戶。因為陳水扁不是南港案被告，所以吳淑珍認罪不致牽連陳水扁；而吳淑珍對南港案認罪，只為作球給想要進行認罪協商的陳致中。南港案正是吳淑珍找到的「巧門」；至於其他牽涉陳水扁的案子，吳淑珍皆並未認罪或並非完全認罪。
關於國務費案，吳淑珍認了「偽造文書」，卻不承認貪汙。主要原因亦在，若珍承認貪汙，陳水扁即成共犯。吳淑珍的供詞是：馬永成等指使她要用假發票報銷，她未明就裡地照做；她收到陳鎮慧給她的錢以後，即轉交陳水扁（扁稱用於機密外交）。然而：一、珍的說法，形同咬死了馬永成等指示其犯罪，馬永成即沒有理由不堅持一切出於陳水扁指示的說法；二、若真用於機密外交，則何不把錢在總統府作業程序中即直接交給扁，卻要由珍轉手？三、陳鎮慧有時在年底抱著數百萬國務費現金到官邸交給珍，珍稱皆已轉交給扁，則扁豈有不知道那數百萬現金是用假發票詐取而來之理？這類供詞，顯然違反經驗法則。只要吳淑珍承認拿了國務費，至於是否詐取，是否貪汙，要看法官如何判斷，不是吳淑珍所能一手遮天。
至於龍潭案，吳淑珍的供詞更是捉襟見肘。照她的說法，她完全不知辜成允為什麼送她那麼多錢；而稱只因蔡銘哲告訴她，中信辜家欺負辜成允，辜成允為與總統「維持關係」，所以送錢。在她昨日供詞中，李界木赴官邸與扁珍夫婦面商購地案，及吳淑珍親赴龍潭看地等情節，似乎根本不存在；當然更未提及陳總統召閣揆等重臣入府面授機宜的場景。然而，連陳水扁也承認了召集閣揆等人，曾有當面主張購地的情節；只是辯稱，此非總統「職務」，即使有所「建議」，亦無責任可言。那麼，吳淑珍若想只憑一句「不知辜成允為何送錢」，那筆「土地佣金」就會變成「政治獻金」嗎？或就會與陳水扁無關嗎？此類供詞，恐怕太過一廂情願。
自去年八月十四日洗錢案爆發以來，觀察扁家的操作手法：在審判開始以前，完全不認罪，更不惜撕裂社會、挾持民進黨、攻擊司法，顯得極端激烈狠毒；但至審判開始後，自陳致中夫婦請求認罪協商，至吳淑珍欲藉南港案的「巧門」來救夫保子，又壓低姿態向社會道歉，則完全換了一副面孔，換了一套手法。總結一句話，可謂是：毫無認罪誠意，玩弄司法，欺愚社會！
從吳淑珍昨日所提抗辯架構的矛盾與漏洞中，可以看出扁家四口不能被司法及社會原諒的充分理由。倘若這就是吳淑珍的主要抗辯架構，顯然極難說服法官。想要救夫，恐難如願；若欲保子，則因根本沒有超越特偵組的偵查成果，特偵組又有何理由能夠與之協商？兩頭落空，也許是扁家即將面對的結果。
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Are Tsai Ing-wen and Huang Wu-hsiung Willing to Work Toward Cross-Strait Peace?
Are Tsai Ing-wen and Huang Wu-hsiung Willing to Work Toward Cross-Strait Peace?
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
February 10, 2009
The Democratic Progressive Party is "reexamining its political path." Retired National Taiwan University math professor Huang Wu-hsiung has created his own website, and is seeking support for his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" initiative. A comparison of the two is rather intriguing.
Wikipedia describes Huang Wu-hsiung as a mathematical researcher, educator, writer, social activist, and pioneer of educational reform. Politically speaking he is Green. He says he is unwilling to be classified as either Blue or Green. He says he merely supports democratic reforms. He says he merely supports a nativist cultural identity. He is also Yunlin County Magistrate Su Feng-chi's husband. Readers may remember him from recent news reports.
The Democratic Progressive Party's "reexamination of its political path" contains an immense hole. It talks only about taking to the streets. It evades the issue of national identity. Unless one affirms one's position on national identity, no street movement can possibly succeed. During the "dang wai" party outsider movement, the DPP's social movements and street movements made genuine gains. But Chen Shui-bian's pro-independence moves eventually precipitated to the debacle of 2008, costing the party all its prior gains. If today's DPP is merely a social movement that takes no stand on the nation's identity, it will eventually founder on the reefs of Taiwan independence. After all, a social movement cannot patch up the enormous political hole in the Taiwan independence movement. Nor can the Taiwan independence movement succeed on the basis of a street movement.
Actually, a debate over the future of the nation has been going on within the DPP for some time. But the DPP leadership has suppressed it because it is unwilling to confront the issue. For example, Chen Shui-bian's "Taiwan's Cross" advocates the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan. Lin Cho-shui's "History's Stage -- Eight Painful Years in Power" advocates the "measured promotion of Taiwan independence." Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" provides an alternative point of view. Huang Wu-hsiung is a Pan Green scholar. He stands outside the system, and operates from the bottom up. He is nearly 60, and ranks among those intellectuals who have experienced the political changes on Taiwan over the past few decades. Huang is an open book. His unassuming manner is not something politicians can imitate. One need not search for deep secrets. His initiative merely reveals the evolution of a Pan Green scholar. Besides, only a year ago, Huang Wu-hsiung came to the aid of then notorious Secretary of Education Chuang Kuo-rong.
Huang Wu-hsiung's argument persuades people more through its emotional content than its political content. This is not the place to elaborate. But in his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" he proposes "maintaining the status quo for fifty years, neither reunifying nor declaring independence, and demilitarizing Taiwan," and writing the above into the constitution. His proposal, involving neither reunification nor independence, the avoidance of war, interim agreements, and a peace agreement, has much in common with President Ma Ying-jeou's political views. Huang Wu-hsiung said that if President Ma's proposal can be implemented he is in favor of it. In other words, Huang agrees with Ma Ying-jeou. If anything he is even more radical than Ma, and wants to incorporate these provisions into the constitution.
For someone with Huang Wu-hsiung's background, to propose writing Ma Ying-jeou's political views into the constitution, in order to resolve the controversy over independence and reunification, is staggering in its boldness. But if one thinks about the matter more carefully, when Huang Wu-hsiung refers of writing such provisions into the constitution, he's referring to the Republic of China Constitution. The Republic of China Constitution already defines the Taiwan region as "not reunified" or "yet to be reunified" and "not independent." Any change in status is subject to the approval of all citizens of the Republic of China, in accordance with constitutional due process. In other words, even if Huang Wu-hsiung's provisions are not written into the constitution, its premises and spirit are already contained in within the constitution. The Green Camp and the Taiwan independence movement have long sought a solution to cross-Strait conflict outside the Republic of China Constitution. Huang Wu-hsiung, ironically, has sought a solution within the ROC Constitution.
Huang Wu-hsiung says his program will "shelve disputes regarding reunification and independence." But the reality on today's Taiwan is that there is no "controversy over reunification vs. independence." So-called "reunificationists" are mostly "retake the mainland" or "the Three People's Principles will unify China" advocates. Very few advocate the annexation of Taiwan by mainland China. Today most people advocate "maintaining the status quo." Therefore, the so-called "controversy over reunification vs. independence" on Taiwan is actually a controversy over "preserving the Republic of China" or "terminating the Republic of China." This applies equally to advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence.
After the lifting of martial law and two decades of liberalization, the Republic of China Constitution and constitutional government already contains wording characterizing the Taiwan region as "not reunified, not independent, also reunified, also independent." The only difference being that Taiwan independence advocates demand the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." This is true of both advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence. Huang meanwhile, has sought solutions within the constitution, in an effort to promote cross-Strait peace. His Green background probably made him think in terms of writing his "neither reunification nor independence" provisions into the constitution, and fail to notice that the Republic of China Constitution already contains such provisions. This is a textbook case of searching far and wide for something, only to find it under one's nose.
It is not necessary to bury onself in the details of Huang's proposal. It is enough to understand the evolution of his thought. The lesson of Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Straits Peace" is that in its search for national identity and constitutional rule, the Democratic Progressive Party must find its way. Otherwise it will end up back on the streets, attempting to use social movements as a pretext for either radical or gradualist Taiwan independence.
The tree of the Republic of China flourishes amidst tranquility. But the winds of Taiwan independence refuse to subside. Under the circumstances, Huang Wu-hsiung wonders, does Taiwan still have tomorrow?
蔡英文願與黃武雄共同尋找國家太平歲月？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.10 04:42 am
民進黨正在「檢討路線」之際，退休的台大數學教授黃武雄倡議的「尋找太平歲月──（兩岸）五十年維和方案」，正在網路上徵求連署。兩相對照，頗可玩味。
維基百科對黃武雄的介紹是：數學研究者、教育工作者、作家、社會運動參與者、台灣教育改革的先行者。若就政治光譜說，他是綠的；唯他自稱不願被歸類藍綠，只是支持民主改革，支持本土文化認同。若再點出他是雲林縣長蘇治芬的夫婿，讀者或許會憶起在不久前的新聞報導中看過他的名字。
民進黨此次的「路線檢討」出現一個大缺口，亦即：只談社會街頭運動，諱言國家定位。然而，國家認同若未確立，所有的社會街頭運動就難有歸匯與總結。過去，民進黨自黨外時期以來，在民主運動、社會運動及街頭運動上皆曾有種種努力及成績，卻終於因陳水扁的台獨操作遭致二○○八年的大失敗與大解構，即是明證；如今，民進黨倘若仍然只談社會運動，而諱言國家定位，恐怕最後仍然要在國家認同的台獨礁岩上擱淺。畢竟，社會運動無法填補台獨的政治缺口，台獨亦不可能靠街頭運動實現。
其實，民進黨內及綠營已然正在進行國家路線的辯論，只是黨中央有意壓抑，不願面對。例如，陳水扁的《台灣的十字架》，主張台獨建國；林濁水的《歷史劇場 ──痛苦執政八年》，主張「穩健台獨」；黃武雄的《尋找太平歲月──五十年維和方案》，則是另類的觀點。由於黃武雄的角色屬綠色學者、體制外、由下而上，又是年逾六旬而經歷台灣全程政治變遷的公共知識分子，其素樸與真誠更絕非政壇人物所可比擬。因此，看黃武雄的主張，不須探究其周延深密與否，而是可以觀察一名重要綠色公共知識分子的思想發展。何況，就在一年多前，黃武雄還曾聲援過在選季大出鋒頭的莊國榮。
黃武雄的論述，其情感比主張要動人，此處不暇描述；至於他所提《五十年維和方案》的具體主張是：將「五十年維持現狀，不統不獨，台灣非軍事化」入憲。此一主張中，涉及不統不獨不武、中程協議、和平協議等概念，與馬英九總統的政見頗有交集；黃武雄稱，如果馬總統的構想能夠落實，他是贊同的。換句話說，黃武雄贊同馬英九的看法，且較馬更激進，主張入憲。
以黃武雄的背景，能視「馬英九政見入憲」為解決統獨爭議的方案，其思考空間的寬闊至為驚人。不過，若仔細尋思，黃武雄所謂「入憲」，應是指「入中華民國憲法」；而中華民憲法原即「不統」，或「未統」（明定「國家未統一」之狀態），亦「不獨」（畢竟未經「正名制憲」）；故而，未來若有「統／獨」變異，當然皆須經過中華民國全體公民之憲法程序；換句話說，即使黃武雄的方案未「入憲」，其方案的規範與精神其實本已寄寓於憲法之中。也就是說，綠營及獨派一直欲在中華民國及其憲法之外尋求兩岸解決方案，黃武雄卻思考回到中華民國憲法建立方案。
黃武雄稱，他的方案可以「擱置統獨爭議」；但是，今日台灣政治的實情，卻未必真有「統獨爭議」。若謂「統派」，其實大多只是原本「反攻大陸」至「三民主義統一中國」的一脈遺緒，而絕少主張台灣應由中國大陸併吞者，何況至今已大多趨於主張「維持現狀」；因此，台灣所謂「統獨爭議」，毋寧只是「維持中華民國」與「終結中華民國」的爭議（不論是冒進台獨或穩健台獨）。
也就是說，中華民國憲法及憲政在經過解嚴二十年的民主錘鍊洗禮後，已然具備「不統／不獨／亦統／亦獨」的騰挪空間，只是台獨仍然主張要正名制憲（不論冒進或穩健）；但黃武雄卻在思考，能否在此部憲法上找到解決方案，為兩岸開展「太平歲月」。只是或許因為他綠色認知的邏輯，使他主張須將「不統不獨入憲」，而未注意中華民國及其憲法本已具備此種機制與空間。正是：眾裡尋他千百度，驀然回首，那人卻在燈火闌珊處。
前文提及，不須探究黃武雄之方案的周延深密，而應觀察其思想發展。黃武雄《五十年維和方案》的啟示是：民進黨若不在國家定位及憲法認同上找對路線，難道最後又要將所有的社會街頭運動歸結匯總到自欺欺人的冒進台獨或穩健台獨之上？
中華民國之樹欲靜，而台獨之風不止。如此內耗，借黃武雄的話問：你擔不擔心台灣沒有明天？
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
February 10, 2009
The Democratic Progressive Party is "reexamining its political path." Retired National Taiwan University math professor Huang Wu-hsiung has created his own website, and is seeking support for his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" initiative. A comparison of the two is rather intriguing.
Wikipedia describes Huang Wu-hsiung as a mathematical researcher, educator, writer, social activist, and pioneer of educational reform. Politically speaking he is Green. He says he is unwilling to be classified as either Blue or Green. He says he merely supports democratic reforms. He says he merely supports a nativist cultural identity. He is also Yunlin County Magistrate Su Feng-chi's husband. Readers may remember him from recent news reports.
The Democratic Progressive Party's "reexamination of its political path" contains an immense hole. It talks only about taking to the streets. It evades the issue of national identity. Unless one affirms one's position on national identity, no street movement can possibly succeed. During the "dang wai" party outsider movement, the DPP's social movements and street movements made genuine gains. But Chen Shui-bian's pro-independence moves eventually precipitated to the debacle of 2008, costing the party all its prior gains. If today's DPP is merely a social movement that takes no stand on the nation's identity, it will eventually founder on the reefs of Taiwan independence. After all, a social movement cannot patch up the enormous political hole in the Taiwan independence movement. Nor can the Taiwan independence movement succeed on the basis of a street movement.
Actually, a debate over the future of the nation has been going on within the DPP for some time. But the DPP leadership has suppressed it because it is unwilling to confront the issue. For example, Chen Shui-bian's "Taiwan's Cross" advocates the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan. Lin Cho-shui's "History's Stage -- Eight Painful Years in Power" advocates the "measured promotion of Taiwan independence." Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" provides an alternative point of view. Huang Wu-hsiung is a Pan Green scholar. He stands outside the system, and operates from the bottom up. He is nearly 60, and ranks among those intellectuals who have experienced the political changes on Taiwan over the past few decades. Huang is an open book. His unassuming manner is not something politicians can imitate. One need not search for deep secrets. His initiative merely reveals the evolution of a Pan Green scholar. Besides, only a year ago, Huang Wu-hsiung came to the aid of then notorious Secretary of Education Chuang Kuo-rong.
Huang Wu-hsiung's argument persuades people more through its emotional content than its political content. This is not the place to elaborate. But in his "Fifty Years of Cross-Strait Peace" he proposes "maintaining the status quo for fifty years, neither reunifying nor declaring independence, and demilitarizing Taiwan," and writing the above into the constitution. His proposal, involving neither reunification nor independence, the avoidance of war, interim agreements, and a peace agreement, has much in common with President Ma Ying-jeou's political views. Huang Wu-hsiung said that if President Ma's proposal can be implemented he is in favor of it. In other words, Huang agrees with Ma Ying-jeou. If anything he is even more radical than Ma, and wants to incorporate these provisions into the constitution.
For someone with Huang Wu-hsiung's background, to propose writing Ma Ying-jeou's political views into the constitution, in order to resolve the controversy over independence and reunification, is staggering in its boldness. But if one thinks about the matter more carefully, when Huang Wu-hsiung refers of writing such provisions into the constitution, he's referring to the Republic of China Constitution. The Republic of China Constitution already defines the Taiwan region as "not reunified" or "yet to be reunified" and "not independent." Any change in status is subject to the approval of all citizens of the Republic of China, in accordance with constitutional due process. In other words, even if Huang Wu-hsiung's provisions are not written into the constitution, its premises and spirit are already contained in within the constitution. The Green Camp and the Taiwan independence movement have long sought a solution to cross-Strait conflict outside the Republic of China Constitution. Huang Wu-hsiung, ironically, has sought a solution within the ROC Constitution.
Huang Wu-hsiung says his program will "shelve disputes regarding reunification and independence." But the reality on today's Taiwan is that there is no "controversy over reunification vs. independence." So-called "reunificationists" are mostly "retake the mainland" or "the Three People's Principles will unify China" advocates. Very few advocate the annexation of Taiwan by mainland China. Today most people advocate "maintaining the status quo." Therefore, the so-called "controversy over reunification vs. independence" on Taiwan is actually a controversy over "preserving the Republic of China" or "terminating the Republic of China." This applies equally to advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence.
After the lifting of martial law and two decades of liberalization, the Republic of China Constitution and constitutional government already contains wording characterizing the Taiwan region as "not reunified, not independent, also reunified, also independent." The only difference being that Taiwan independence advocates demand the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." This is true of both advocates of radical Taiwan independence and advocates of gradualist Taiwan independence. Huang meanwhile, has sought solutions within the constitution, in an effort to promote cross-Strait peace. His Green background probably made him think in terms of writing his "neither reunification nor independence" provisions into the constitution, and fail to notice that the Republic of China Constitution already contains such provisions. This is a textbook case of searching far and wide for something, only to find it under one's nose.
It is not necessary to bury onself in the details of Huang's proposal. It is enough to understand the evolution of his thought. The lesson of Huang Wu-hsiung's "Fifty Years of Cross-Straits Peace" is that in its search for national identity and constitutional rule, the Democratic Progressive Party must find its way. Otherwise it will end up back on the streets, attempting to use social movements as a pretext for either radical or gradualist Taiwan independence.
The tree of the Republic of China flourishes amidst tranquility. But the winds of Taiwan independence refuse to subside. Under the circumstances, Huang Wu-hsiung wonders, does Taiwan still have tomorrow?
蔡英文願與黃武雄共同尋找國家太平歲月？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.10 04:42 am
民進黨正在「檢討路線」之際，退休的台大數學教授黃武雄倡議的「尋找太平歲月──（兩岸）五十年維和方案」，正在網路上徵求連署。兩相對照，頗可玩味。
維基百科對黃武雄的介紹是：數學研究者、教育工作者、作家、社會運動參與者、台灣教育改革的先行者。若就政治光譜說，他是綠的；唯他自稱不願被歸類藍綠，只是支持民主改革，支持本土文化認同。若再點出他是雲林縣長蘇治芬的夫婿，讀者或許會憶起在不久前的新聞報導中看過他的名字。
民進黨此次的「路線檢討」出現一個大缺口，亦即：只談社會街頭運動，諱言國家定位。然而，國家認同若未確立，所有的社會街頭運動就難有歸匯與總結。過去，民進黨自黨外時期以來，在民主運動、社會運動及街頭運動上皆曾有種種努力及成績，卻終於因陳水扁的台獨操作遭致二○○八年的大失敗與大解構，即是明證；如今，民進黨倘若仍然只談社會運動，而諱言國家定位，恐怕最後仍然要在國家認同的台獨礁岩上擱淺。畢竟，社會運動無法填補台獨的政治缺口，台獨亦不可能靠街頭運動實現。
其實，民進黨內及綠營已然正在進行國家路線的辯論，只是黨中央有意壓抑，不願面對。例如，陳水扁的《台灣的十字架》，主張台獨建國；林濁水的《歷史劇場 ──痛苦執政八年》，主張「穩健台獨」；黃武雄的《尋找太平歲月──五十年維和方案》，則是另類的觀點。由於黃武雄的角色屬綠色學者、體制外、由下而上，又是年逾六旬而經歷台灣全程政治變遷的公共知識分子，其素樸與真誠更絕非政壇人物所可比擬。因此，看黃武雄的主張，不須探究其周延深密與否，而是可以觀察一名重要綠色公共知識分子的思想發展。何況，就在一年多前，黃武雄還曾聲援過在選季大出鋒頭的莊國榮。
黃武雄的論述，其情感比主張要動人，此處不暇描述；至於他所提《五十年維和方案》的具體主張是：將「五十年維持現狀，不統不獨，台灣非軍事化」入憲。此一主張中，涉及不統不獨不武、中程協議、和平協議等概念，與馬英九總統的政見頗有交集；黃武雄稱，如果馬總統的構想能夠落實，他是贊同的。換句話說，黃武雄贊同馬英九的看法，且較馬更激進，主張入憲。
以黃武雄的背景，能視「馬英九政見入憲」為解決統獨爭議的方案，其思考空間的寬闊至為驚人。不過，若仔細尋思，黃武雄所謂「入憲」，應是指「入中華民國憲法」；而中華民憲法原即「不統」，或「未統」（明定「國家未統一」之狀態），亦「不獨」（畢竟未經「正名制憲」）；故而，未來若有「統／獨」變異，當然皆須經過中華民國全體公民之憲法程序；換句話說，即使黃武雄的方案未「入憲」，其方案的規範與精神其實本已寄寓於憲法之中。也就是說，綠營及獨派一直欲在中華民國及其憲法之外尋求兩岸解決方案，黃武雄卻思考回到中華民國憲法建立方案。
黃武雄稱，他的方案可以「擱置統獨爭議」；但是，今日台灣政治的實情，卻未必真有「統獨爭議」。若謂「統派」，其實大多只是原本「反攻大陸」至「三民主義統一中國」的一脈遺緒，而絕少主張台灣應由中國大陸併吞者，何況至今已大多趨於主張「維持現狀」；因此，台灣所謂「統獨爭議」，毋寧只是「維持中華民國」與「終結中華民國」的爭議（不論是冒進台獨或穩健台獨）。
也就是說，中華民國憲法及憲政在經過解嚴二十年的民主錘鍊洗禮後，已然具備「不統／不獨／亦統／亦獨」的騰挪空間，只是台獨仍然主張要正名制憲（不論冒進或穩健）；但黃武雄卻在思考，能否在此部憲法上找到解決方案，為兩岸開展「太平歲月」。只是或許因為他綠色認知的邏輯，使他主張須將「不統不獨入憲」，而未注意中華民國及其憲法本已具備此種機制與空間。正是：眾裡尋他千百度，驀然回首，那人卻在燈火闌珊處。
前文提及，不須探究黃武雄之方案的周延深密，而應觀察其思想發展。黃武雄《五十年維和方案》的啟示是：民進黨若不在國家定位及憲法認同上找對路線，難道最後又要將所有的社會街頭運動歸結匯總到自欺欺人的冒進台獨或穩健台獨之上？
中華民國之樹欲靜，而台獨之風不止。如此內耗，借黃武雄的話問：你擔不擔心台灣沒有明天？
Friday, February 6, 2009
Does the DPP have the Qualifications to Begin a Social Movement?
Does the DPP have the Qualifications to Begin a Social Movement?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2009
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go? As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.
Full Text below:
Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go?
If the DPP is confused about where it intends to go, yet persists in leading its diehard supporters onto the streets, it will have a hard time winning public support and public sympathy. Such a movement can only be termed political mobilization. It does not qualify as a social movement. Nor can it return the Democratic Progressive Party to power. Furthermore, If the DPP refuses to engage in serious soul-searching, if it refuses to ask where the people want to go, if it has no sense of the public mood, it will find it impossible to inspire the masses or play a leadership role. How can a political party that has lost its compass expect the masses to follow?
Tsai Ing-wen has yet to be baptised in the fires of a social movement. Yet her basic strategy is to ignite a social movement. She is probably thinking that, one the one hand, social movements will give the party a fresh start, and on the other hand, social movements worked for the Democratic Progressive Party years ago. Why not now? She's forgetting that people have memories. They can learn. Something Tsai Ing-wen considers fresh, most people consider stale and indigestable. Even more importantly, strategies that were effective in earlier times may have lost their luster after years of exploitation. They may even be badly tarnished. The Democratic Progressive Party must give itself a fresh infusion of progressive values. It must polish up its party logo. Ad hoc Green Camp street demonstrations, in conjunction with Chen Shui-bian's juvenile antics while in custody, will not fly. If the Democratic Progressive Party thinks such a strategy will put the party back on its feet, it is seriously deluded.
Let's not forget that during its reign, the Democratic Progressive Party lost its claim to be a defender of democratic values. During its eight years in office, it came close to strangling all social movements on the island. Many social movement leaders were coopted by the Chen Shui-bian regime. Seduced by power, they abandoned their professed ideals and became mere hacks. Others failed to fit in and looked for a way out. Their former positions were no longer secure. Others eagerly accepted patronage and financial support. They became Democratic Progressive Party flunkies and lost all sense of independence. DPP ideology trumped all. The rights and interests of mainland spouses were trampled underfoot. Cross-strait human rights issues were ignored or suppressed. Social movements on Taiwan have been badly hurt in recent years. Who was the main culprit, if not the Democratic Progressive Party?
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power on the backs of social movements. It has seriously miscalculated. It has falsely equated street movements with social movements. Society must be transformed through social action. But social action must be preceded by conceptual thought, not by turning the streets into battlefields. In recent years many social movements have demonstrated their compassion for foreign spouses or rural communities. They have made extraordinary contributions to society. They have never raised a hue and cry in the streets. They have merely given of themselves, day after day. Without heartfelt goodwill, without long-term effort, how can one possibly transform a society?
The DPP labors under the delusion that it holds a monopoly on the leadership of social movements. It boasts of regaining power on the streets, by piggybacking on social movements. Its tone may be confident, but in its heart it know it is all bluster. The Democratic Progressive Party has forgotten that today social movements lack legitimacy and cohesion. The DPP is in large part responsible for this. To make matters worse, the Democratic Progressive Party, which has been reduced to an opposition party after eight years in power, does not even compare to the Democratic Progressive Party in its infancy. Back then it rode the whirlwind into political prominence, bearing decades of public longing for democracy. Back then, the political opposition and social movements shared the same goal, the pursuit of social justice. Today the public looks at the DPP and sees only hypocrisy and decadence. The public may be frustrated with the KMT's ineptitude. But who on Taiwan believes the Democratic Progressive Party offers a better alternative?
Street movements have a special kind of magic. Unfurl a banner and the hopes of handful of people can be transformed into a mass movement. This is the main reason for the DPP's endless optimism. But if the DPP has no intention of abandoning electoral politics, it had better learn to distinguish between street sentiment and voter sentiment. It has better not wallow in self-deception. And to imagine that social movements can serve as political viagra, is the height of self-deception.
The same hold for social movements. After years of seeing democracy on Taiwan caught in one dilemma or another, they must rethink their values and goals. They must find a way to a genuine civil society. They must refuse to become political pawns or cannon fodder. Only then can social movements advance their own values, and not have their energy sucked into a political black hole.
As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.
民進黨還有重回社運路線的資格嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.06 03:33 am
蔡英文把今年訂為民進黨的「社會運動年」，並宣布三月起將展開連串社會運動。對於此一戰略，蔡英文和她的同志們也許應先問自己兩個問題：一，民進黨知不知道自己要走到哪裡去？二，民進黨知不知道台灣社會想走到哪裡去？
如果民進黨不清楚自己要走到哪裡去，只是一再動員基層支持者上街，恐難引起廣大民眾的參與及共鳴。那樣的運動，只能名之為政治動員，不足以稱為社會運動，更不可能支撐民進黨重回執政。進一步說，如果民進黨不反省，也不想知道台灣社會希望走到哪裡去，摸不清社會的底蘊和心理，它也就不可能稱職扮演激勵群眾或引領風潮的角色。一個迷途的政黨，如何期待群眾追隨？
未曾經歷社運洗禮的蔡英文之所以選擇以社運為基本戰略，一則是認為這有另闢蹊徑的新鮮感，再則是民進黨早年運用這招很有效。但別忘了，人民不僅有記憶，社會也是懂得學習的；蔡英文以為新鮮的東西，多數民眾其實已經煩膩不已了。更重要的是，早年有效的策略，經過多年時光的淘洗，不僅光華褪盡，甚至已蒙上厚重的汙垢。民進黨若無法為自己灌注新的進步價值，重新擦亮政黨招牌，就憑著綠營在街頭即興操兵，再加上陳水扁在獄中耍寶耍賴呼應，民進黨要藉此重振雄風，簡直是緣木求魚。
且不說民進黨在執政期間失落了多少民主價值，在這八年，它也把台灣的社運帶進了一個近乎窒息的狀態。不少社運領袖進入扁政府任職，有人得了榮華忘了志業，淪為墮落官僚；有人因格格不入而狼狽求去，連原有的隊伍都不保；有人則接受招安及金錢資助，成為民進黨附庸，失去了獨立性格。何況，由於民進黨的意識形態作祟，不僅大陸配偶的權益問題變成禁忌，許多兩岸人權議題都遭刻意忽略或打壓。如此看來，台灣社運近年元氣大傷，民進黨不正是摧殘元凶？
民進黨把重返執政的希望寄託在社運上，還存在一個更大的謬誤，是錯把「街頭」和「社運」畫上等號。社會的改造需要透過運動來推展，但亦必須借重思考來啟發行動，而不是把街頭當成戰場。這幾年，有不少獨立社運團體默默關懷外籍配偶或村鎮文化生態等議題，都做出不凡的成績，他們從不曾大張旗鼓在街頭狂飆吶喊，實踐的只是日復一日的關懷及付出。若沒有潛心的思索，沒有長期的耕耘，如何能產生夠深度的社會改造？
可惜，民進黨仍誤以為自己擁有領導社運的壟斷權，大言不慚地揚言要藉他們的力量，幫自己從街頭奪回政權。口氣很大，內心卻恐是相當虛弱；民進黨甚至忘了，今日社運界正當性和凝聚力的消散，民進黨正要負很大的責任。更糟的是，執政八年後重新淪為在野的民進黨，和它早年在野的地位已完全無法相提並論。當年民進黨能乘風而起，承載著台灣社會數十年的民主渴望，是因為反對運動與社會運動有著「追求社會正義」的一致目標；而如今，人們看到的只是一個虛偽沉淪的民進黨，就算民眾不滿國民黨施政，但誰會相信跟隨在迷失的民進黨後面能找到活路？
街頭運動有一種特殊的迷幻效果：只要張開布條，主事者就能把一小撮人的聚會幻想成一場群眾運動；這是民進黨樂此不疲的主因。但民進黨若無意全面捨棄選舉路線，它就必須認清「街頭民意」和「選舉民意」的落差，沒有曖昧地帶可鑽。若以為社運是「大力丸」，那絕對是自欺的幻想。
社運界也一樣，在目睹台灣民主多年的進退失據之後，它需要重新思考自身的價值與目標，走出一條真正屬於民間社會的路，拒絕再成為政治的附庸或馬前卒。那樣，社會運動才能在自主的信念中前進，也才不致使自己的能量被政治黑洞吸走。
既然談社運，就請民進黨要保持「以社會為念」的初衷。只會走上街頭叫罵，其實成不了社會運動。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2009
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go? As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.
Full Text below:
Tsai Ing-wen has decided that for the DPP, this year will be "The Year of the Social Movement." She announced that in March the DPP will launch a series of social movements. Perhaps Tsai Ing-wen and her comrades should first ask themselves two questions: One. Does the DPP know where it is going? Two. Does the DPP know where the public on Taiwan wants to go?
If the DPP is confused about where it intends to go, yet persists in leading its diehard supporters onto the streets, it will have a hard time winning public support and public sympathy. Such a movement can only be termed political mobilization. It does not qualify as a social movement. Nor can it return the Democratic Progressive Party to power. Furthermore, If the DPP refuses to engage in serious soul-searching, if it refuses to ask where the people want to go, if it has no sense of the public mood, it will find it impossible to inspire the masses or play a leadership role. How can a political party that has lost its compass expect the masses to follow?
Tsai Ing-wen has yet to be baptised in the fires of a social movement. Yet her basic strategy is to ignite a social movement. She is probably thinking that, one the one hand, social movements will give the party a fresh start, and on the other hand, social movements worked for the Democratic Progressive Party years ago. Why not now? She's forgetting that people have memories. They can learn. Something Tsai Ing-wen considers fresh, most people consider stale and indigestable. Even more importantly, strategies that were effective in earlier times may have lost their luster after years of exploitation. They may even be badly tarnished. The Democratic Progressive Party must give itself a fresh infusion of progressive values. It must polish up its party logo. Ad hoc Green Camp street demonstrations, in conjunction with Chen Shui-bian's juvenile antics while in custody, will not fly. If the Democratic Progressive Party thinks such a strategy will put the party back on its feet, it is seriously deluded.
Let's not forget that during its reign, the Democratic Progressive Party lost its claim to be a defender of democratic values. During its eight years in office, it came close to strangling all social movements on the island. Many social movement leaders were coopted by the Chen Shui-bian regime. Seduced by power, they abandoned their professed ideals and became mere hacks. Others failed to fit in and looked for a way out. Their former positions were no longer secure. Others eagerly accepted patronage and financial support. They became Democratic Progressive Party flunkies and lost all sense of independence. DPP ideology trumped all. The rights and interests of mainland spouses were trampled underfoot. Cross-strait human rights issues were ignored or suppressed. Social movements on Taiwan have been badly hurt in recent years. Who was the main culprit, if not the Democratic Progressive Party?
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power on the backs of social movements. It has seriously miscalculated. It has falsely equated street movements with social movements. Society must be transformed through social action. But social action must be preceded by conceptual thought, not by turning the streets into battlefields. In recent years many social movements have demonstrated their compassion for foreign spouses or rural communities. They have made extraordinary contributions to society. They have never raised a hue and cry in the streets. They have merely given of themselves, day after day. Without heartfelt goodwill, without long-term effort, how can one possibly transform a society?
The DPP labors under the delusion that it holds a monopoly on the leadership of social movements. It boasts of regaining power on the streets, by piggybacking on social movements. Its tone may be confident, but in its heart it know it is all bluster. The Democratic Progressive Party has forgotten that today social movements lack legitimacy and cohesion. The DPP is in large part responsible for this. To make matters worse, the Democratic Progressive Party, which has been reduced to an opposition party after eight years in power, does not even compare to the Democratic Progressive Party in its infancy. Back then it rode the whirlwind into political prominence, bearing decades of public longing for democracy. Back then, the political opposition and social movements shared the same goal, the pursuit of social justice. Today the public looks at the DPP and sees only hypocrisy and decadence. The public may be frustrated with the KMT's ineptitude. But who on Taiwan believes the Democratic Progressive Party offers a better alternative?
Street movements have a special kind of magic. Unfurl a banner and the hopes of handful of people can be transformed into a mass movement. This is the main reason for the DPP's endless optimism. But if the DPP has no intention of abandoning electoral politics, it had better learn to distinguish between street sentiment and voter sentiment. It has better not wallow in self-deception. And to imagine that social movements can serve as political viagra, is the height of self-deception.
The same hold for social movements. After years of seeing democracy on Taiwan caught in one dilemma or another, they must rethink their values and goals. They must find a way to a genuine civil society. They must refuse to become political pawns or cannon fodder. Only then can social movements advance their own values, and not have their energy sucked into a political black hole.
As long as we are discussing social movements, let's ask the DPP to give society's values precedence. Merely taking to the streets and screaming one's head off will not transform the DPP into a social movement.
民進黨還有重回社運路線的資格嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.06 03:33 am
蔡英文把今年訂為民進黨的「社會運動年」，並宣布三月起將展開連串社會運動。對於此一戰略，蔡英文和她的同志們也許應先問自己兩個問題：一，民進黨知不知道自己要走到哪裡去？二，民進黨知不知道台灣社會想走到哪裡去？
如果民進黨不清楚自己要走到哪裡去，只是一再動員基層支持者上街，恐難引起廣大民眾的參與及共鳴。那樣的運動，只能名之為政治動員，不足以稱為社會運動，更不可能支撐民進黨重回執政。進一步說，如果民進黨不反省，也不想知道台灣社會希望走到哪裡去，摸不清社會的底蘊和心理，它也就不可能稱職扮演激勵群眾或引領風潮的角色。一個迷途的政黨，如何期待群眾追隨？
未曾經歷社運洗禮的蔡英文之所以選擇以社運為基本戰略，一則是認為這有另闢蹊徑的新鮮感，再則是民進黨早年運用這招很有效。但別忘了，人民不僅有記憶，社會也是懂得學習的；蔡英文以為新鮮的東西，多數民眾其實已經煩膩不已了。更重要的是，早年有效的策略，經過多年時光的淘洗，不僅光華褪盡，甚至已蒙上厚重的汙垢。民進黨若無法為自己灌注新的進步價值，重新擦亮政黨招牌，就憑著綠營在街頭即興操兵，再加上陳水扁在獄中耍寶耍賴呼應，民進黨要藉此重振雄風，簡直是緣木求魚。
且不說民進黨在執政期間失落了多少民主價值，在這八年，它也把台灣的社運帶進了一個近乎窒息的狀態。不少社運領袖進入扁政府任職，有人得了榮華忘了志業，淪為墮落官僚；有人因格格不入而狼狽求去，連原有的隊伍都不保；有人則接受招安及金錢資助，成為民進黨附庸，失去了獨立性格。何況，由於民進黨的意識形態作祟，不僅大陸配偶的權益問題變成禁忌，許多兩岸人權議題都遭刻意忽略或打壓。如此看來，台灣社運近年元氣大傷，民進黨不正是摧殘元凶？
民進黨把重返執政的希望寄託在社運上，還存在一個更大的謬誤，是錯把「街頭」和「社運」畫上等號。社會的改造需要透過運動來推展，但亦必須借重思考來啟發行動，而不是把街頭當成戰場。這幾年，有不少獨立社運團體默默關懷外籍配偶或村鎮文化生態等議題，都做出不凡的成績，他們從不曾大張旗鼓在街頭狂飆吶喊，實踐的只是日復一日的關懷及付出。若沒有潛心的思索，沒有長期的耕耘，如何能產生夠深度的社會改造？
可惜，民進黨仍誤以為自己擁有領導社運的壟斷權，大言不慚地揚言要藉他們的力量，幫自己從街頭奪回政權。口氣很大，內心卻恐是相當虛弱；民進黨甚至忘了，今日社運界正當性和凝聚力的消散，民進黨正要負很大的責任。更糟的是，執政八年後重新淪為在野的民進黨，和它早年在野的地位已完全無法相提並論。當年民進黨能乘風而起，承載著台灣社會數十年的民主渴望，是因為反對運動與社會運動有著「追求社會正義」的一致目標；而如今，人們看到的只是一個虛偽沉淪的民進黨，就算民眾不滿國民黨施政，但誰會相信跟隨在迷失的民進黨後面能找到活路？
街頭運動有一種特殊的迷幻效果：只要張開布條，主事者就能把一小撮人的聚會幻想成一場群眾運動；這是民進黨樂此不疲的主因。但民進黨若無意全面捨棄選舉路線，它就必須認清「街頭民意」和「選舉民意」的落差，沒有曖昧地帶可鑽。若以為社運是「大力丸」，那絕對是自欺的幻想。
社運界也一樣，在目睹台灣民主多年的進退失據之後，它需要重新思考自身的價值與目標，走出一條真正屬於民間社會的路，拒絕再成為政治的附庸或馬前卒。那樣，社會運動才能在自主的信念中前進，也才不致使自己的能量被政治黑洞吸走。
既然談社運，就請民進黨要保持「以社會為念」的初衷。只會走上街頭叫罵，其實成不了社會運動。
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Prescribing the Right Remedy for Unemployment
Prescribing the Right Remedy for Unemployment
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 5, 2009
Soon after the New Year, the government hastily launched its "educational voucher" program. The vouchers are intended to encourage young people who have been unemployed for many months to return to college or to technical institutes. They would receive both academic credit and subsidies. Educational vouchers would in effect be government allowances. It is generally believed that recently graduated twenty somethings are most likely to benefit from such a program. Once people are married and have children, economic pressures usually prevent them from returning to school.
Meanwhile the Executive Yuan has introduced a variety of plans to combat unemployment. Various ministries would draw up programs and project the number of jobs they would provide. These would include jobs as EPD resource recovery workers, Department of Health dengue fever prevention and control workers, Ministry of Education field workers, Department of the Interior landscape beautification and small scale construction project workers. A few days ago at the KMT's Chinese New Year party, President Ma and others expressed their approval of these measures. But a wave of outside criticism has cast doubt on its potential efficacy.
The government's task is to settle down, determine the root cause of unemployment on Taiwan, then decide how to solve it. Policy planners should ask themselves, "Why has unemployment surged recently? How can we moderate it?" They should refrain from prescribing remedies willy nilly.
Let's look at the government's educational vouchers program. Labor statistics divide adults into three categories. One. Employed workers, Two. Unemployed workers. Three. Non-workers. Employed workers plus unemployed workers are referred to as the work force. Unemployment is calculated by dividing unemployed workers by the labor force. Housewives, students, retirees and those who are idle but not seeking work are referred to as non-workers. The government's educational vouchers would encourage young people to return to college for further education. In effect they would encourage many people to withdraw from the labor force and become students or other non-workers. Statistically such an arrangement would reduce the unemployment rate. But it would hardly be what the public has in mind when talking about reducing unemployment.
Those most likely to return to college for further education would probably be twenty somethings. They may be unmarried, living with their parents, and feel less pressured to make a living. For them to return to school during a recession is not wrong per se. But these people are not really those who need rescuing. Those who need rescuing are married forty and fifty somethings with substantial monthly expenditures who cannot afford to be without an income. Their unemployment would result in social problems, even domestic tragedies. Therefore, social compassion, social assistance, and social security ought to rescue these people. These middle-aged unemployed workers will find it difficult to abandon their families and return to school. The educational vouchers program will cost 5.4 billion in taxpayer money, but will do nothing for those most in need of a helping hand, those who must support a family. As a number of observers have noted, educational vouchers merely rescue the government's unemployment figures, not the unemployed. If one thinks of a depression as a severe foot disease, then educational vouchers do not treat the disease. They merely tell the patients to stop walking. As long as they don't walk, their feet won't hurt, and the government can pretend that no one is afflicted with a foot disease.
Now let's look at the various ministries' programs for combatting unemployment. When the Executive Yuan grouped job opportunities along ministerial lines, it made the mistake of thinking in supply side terms. Unemployment on Taiwan is not not evenly distributed among the various industries. This is a natural consequence of East Asian economies' export-driven orientation. To combat today's massive unemployment, one must adopt a bottom-up approach. First the government must understand the imbalance between supply and demand in the marketplace and industry. Then the Ministry of Economic Affairs and other ministries must provide specific remedies. These remedies need not be drawn up from scratch. For example, they could be fast-tracked or modified versions of the "i-Taiwan Project." Such a demand side policy would be the correct policy. For central ministries and departments to prescribe top-down landscape beautification programs and environmental cleanup programs, in the hope of alleviating unemployment, is akin to manufacturing a product and attempting to sell it to consumers without first doing market research. Such an thoughtless approach is unlikely to be successful.
A number of financial publications have evaluated various governments' responses to the financial crisis. Many experts feel the best way to reduce unemployment during a recession is to invest in infrastructure. This creates a solid foundation for future growth. But so far we have seen only one short-term, money-burning government program after another. We have not seen any aggressive programs prescribing the right cure for the disease. Still less have we seen any projections of where our economy will be in three to five years. President Ma would like the public to give Executive Yuan Vice Minister Chiu Chen-hsiung's financial experts a big hand. Positive encouragement is fine as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice the people can applaud until their palms are red. It still won't reduce the pain in their feet.
中國時報 2009.02.05
搶救失業 終究要對症下藥
中時社論
政府新春開張沒多久，就急急忙忙推出所謂「教育券」方案，要鼓勵失業幾個月的年青人回大專院校充電，對他們提供學分費的補助。教育券在本質上是一種政府提供的學分津貼，一般認為只有剛畢業不久的七年級生比較可能受用；一旦成家育子，則家庭開支的壓力將逼得勞工無法享受「無薪充電」。
另一方面，行政院也推出一籮筐的搶救失業計畫，由各部會署提出種種方案提供雇用量，包括環保署的資源回收工、衛生署的登革熱防治員、教育部的外派訪員、內政部的景觀拉皮小工程等等。國民黨日前新春團拜時，馬總統等對這些措施多所肯定，但無奈外界批評聲浪不少，未來成效也不被看好。
我們認為，政府當務之急，就是靜下心來好好檢視一下台灣面臨失業問題的本質及其解決之道，請政策規畫者問問自己：「為什麼最近失業率會暴增？要怎麼舒緩這些失業？」切忌急衝擅動而推出倉卒的雜湯濁藥。
先看政府的教育券政策。在勞動統計上，社會成年人可以概分為三群，其一是就業人口，其二是失業人口，其三是非勞動力。就業與失業人口的總和，稱之為勞動力。所謂失業率，就是失業人口除以勞動力。至於非勞動力，則是指家庭主婦、學生、退休賦閒在家等「不去市場找工作」的人。政府以教育券鼓勵年輕人回大學充電，就是在促使許多人退出勞動市場、重新歸類為學生等非勞動力。就統計數字來看，這樣的安排當然會使失業率降低，但這恐怕與社會各界所期待的搶救失業，有相當的距離。
就概念上看，比較可能回大學充電的，大概是三十歲不到的年輕人。他們也許未婚、也許與父母同住，生活比較沒有壓力，不景氣的時候回學校蟄伏一兩年本無不可。但換個角度來講，這些人原本就不是需要「搶救」的失業群。之所以社會要求政府搶救失業，是指那些四、五十歲、已婚、有相當經常性支出、不能沒有收入的群體，他們的失業將產生許多社會問題甚至悲劇。因此，在社會關懷、社會救助、社會保險的理念下，才會期待對這些人有所搶救。但是，這些中年失業者卻難以放棄家庭、重回學校。教育券政策用五十四億的人民納稅錢，卻未能幫助那些亟需伸予援手的家計負擔中堅者。誠如許多輿論所言，教育券是在救失業率，不是在救失業！經濟蕭條就像是病人得了嚴重足疾，但教育券政策卻不是開藥治療足疾，而是叫病人不要走路；只要不走路，腳就不太會痛，自然也就無所謂足疾。
再談各部會所提的搶救失業方案。當行政院依其部會編組而分配就業額度時，其實出發點就已經有「生產者導向」的扭曲。台灣的失業不均勻地散布在各個產業，這是東亞諸國著重出口導向的自然結果。如果要救當前特殊的大量失業，當然就該由下而上去構思計畫：先評估市場與產業供需失調的情況，再由經濟部及其他部會署規畫特定的補救計畫。這些計畫未必完全是從零開始，卻可能是將愛台十二建設中若干相關計畫挪前或加速或修改，就自然能有所銜接─這才是「消費者導向」的正確政策構思。由中央部會署由上而下地開列一些景觀拉皮、環境清潔等工作，期待失業者投入，則就像是廠商先生產產品，而後再強行推銷給消費者一樣，在概念上失之懶惰，在效果上也會大打折扣。
最近許多國際財經刊物，都已經針對世界各國在金融海嘯期間的財經因應政策有所評比。許多國際專家都認為，最好的搶救失業政策，就是在經濟衰退期間吸引勞動力投入基礎建設，以待未來健康地重新出發。但遺憾的是，到目前為止，我們只看到一波接一波的短期政府支出燒錢方案，卻看不到多少對症下藥的積極建設規畫，更不用說三、五年後台灣的經濟遠景了。馬總統希望大家給邱正雄副院長所領導的財經內閣多鼓鼓掌，在精神上我們完全同意；但在實務上，人民即使雙手用力鼓掌、拍得紅腫，也不能減輕足疾的疼痛。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 5, 2009
Soon after the New Year, the government hastily launched its "educational voucher" program. The vouchers are intended to encourage young people who have been unemployed for many months to return to college or to technical institutes. They would receive both academic credit and subsidies. Educational vouchers would in effect be government allowances. It is generally believed that recently graduated twenty somethings are most likely to benefit from such a program. Once people are married and have children, economic pressures usually prevent them from returning to school.
Meanwhile the Executive Yuan has introduced a variety of plans to combat unemployment. Various ministries would draw up programs and project the number of jobs they would provide. These would include jobs as EPD resource recovery workers, Department of Health dengue fever prevention and control workers, Ministry of Education field workers, Department of the Interior landscape beautification and small scale construction project workers. A few days ago at the KMT's Chinese New Year party, President Ma and others expressed their approval of these measures. But a wave of outside criticism has cast doubt on its potential efficacy.
The government's task is to settle down, determine the root cause of unemployment on Taiwan, then decide how to solve it. Policy planners should ask themselves, "Why has unemployment surged recently? How can we moderate it?" They should refrain from prescribing remedies willy nilly.
Let's look at the government's educational vouchers program. Labor statistics divide adults into three categories. One. Employed workers, Two. Unemployed workers. Three. Non-workers. Employed workers plus unemployed workers are referred to as the work force. Unemployment is calculated by dividing unemployed workers by the labor force. Housewives, students, retirees and those who are idle but not seeking work are referred to as non-workers. The government's educational vouchers would encourage young people to return to college for further education. In effect they would encourage many people to withdraw from the labor force and become students or other non-workers. Statistically such an arrangement would reduce the unemployment rate. But it would hardly be what the public has in mind when talking about reducing unemployment.
Those most likely to return to college for further education would probably be twenty somethings. They may be unmarried, living with their parents, and feel less pressured to make a living. For them to return to school during a recession is not wrong per se. But these people are not really those who need rescuing. Those who need rescuing are married forty and fifty somethings with substantial monthly expenditures who cannot afford to be without an income. Their unemployment would result in social problems, even domestic tragedies. Therefore, social compassion, social assistance, and social security ought to rescue these people. These middle-aged unemployed workers will find it difficult to abandon their families and return to school. The educational vouchers program will cost 5.4 billion in taxpayer money, but will do nothing for those most in need of a helping hand, those who must support a family. As a number of observers have noted, educational vouchers merely rescue the government's unemployment figures, not the unemployed. If one thinks of a depression as a severe foot disease, then educational vouchers do not treat the disease. They merely tell the patients to stop walking. As long as they don't walk, their feet won't hurt, and the government can pretend that no one is afflicted with a foot disease.
Now let's look at the various ministries' programs for combatting unemployment. When the Executive Yuan grouped job opportunities along ministerial lines, it made the mistake of thinking in supply side terms. Unemployment on Taiwan is not not evenly distributed among the various industries. This is a natural consequence of East Asian economies' export-driven orientation. To combat today's massive unemployment, one must adopt a bottom-up approach. First the government must understand the imbalance between supply and demand in the marketplace and industry. Then the Ministry of Economic Affairs and other ministries must provide specific remedies. These remedies need not be drawn up from scratch. For example, they could be fast-tracked or modified versions of the "i-Taiwan Project." Such a demand side policy would be the correct policy. For central ministries and departments to prescribe top-down landscape beautification programs and environmental cleanup programs, in the hope of alleviating unemployment, is akin to manufacturing a product and attempting to sell it to consumers without first doing market research. Such an thoughtless approach is unlikely to be successful.
A number of financial publications have evaluated various governments' responses to the financial crisis. Many experts feel the best way to reduce unemployment during a recession is to invest in infrastructure. This creates a solid foundation for future growth. But so far we have seen only one short-term, money-burning government program after another. We have not seen any aggressive programs prescribing the right cure for the disease. Still less have we seen any projections of where our economy will be in three to five years. President Ma would like the public to give Executive Yuan Vice Minister Chiu Chen-hsiung's financial experts a big hand. Positive encouragement is fine as a matter of principle. But as a matter of practice the people can applaud until their palms are red. It still won't reduce the pain in their feet.
中國時報 2009.02.05
搶救失業 終究要對症下藥
中時社論
政府新春開張沒多久，就急急忙忙推出所謂「教育券」方案，要鼓勵失業幾個月的年青人回大專院校充電，對他們提供學分費的補助。教育券在本質上是一種政府提供的學分津貼，一般認為只有剛畢業不久的七年級生比較可能受用；一旦成家育子，則家庭開支的壓力將逼得勞工無法享受「無薪充電」。
另一方面，行政院也推出一籮筐的搶救失業計畫，由各部會署提出種種方案提供雇用量，包括環保署的資源回收工、衛生署的登革熱防治員、教育部的外派訪員、內政部的景觀拉皮小工程等等。國民黨日前新春團拜時，馬總統等對這些措施多所肯定，但無奈外界批評聲浪不少，未來成效也不被看好。
我們認為，政府當務之急，就是靜下心來好好檢視一下台灣面臨失業問題的本質及其解決之道，請政策規畫者問問自己：「為什麼最近失業率會暴增？要怎麼舒緩這些失業？」切忌急衝擅動而推出倉卒的雜湯濁藥。
先看政府的教育券政策。在勞動統計上，社會成年人可以概分為三群，其一是就業人口，其二是失業人口，其三是非勞動力。就業與失業人口的總和，稱之為勞動力。所謂失業率，就是失業人口除以勞動力。至於非勞動力，則是指家庭主婦、學生、退休賦閒在家等「不去市場找工作」的人。政府以教育券鼓勵年輕人回大學充電，就是在促使許多人退出勞動市場、重新歸類為學生等非勞動力。就統計數字來看，這樣的安排當然會使失業率降低，但這恐怕與社會各界所期待的搶救失業，有相當的距離。
就概念上看，比較可能回大學充電的，大概是三十歲不到的年輕人。他們也許未婚、也許與父母同住，生活比較沒有壓力，不景氣的時候回學校蟄伏一兩年本無不可。但換個角度來講，這些人原本就不是需要「搶救」的失業群。之所以社會要求政府搶救失業，是指那些四、五十歲、已婚、有相當經常性支出、不能沒有收入的群體，他們的失業將產生許多社會問題甚至悲劇。因此，在社會關懷、社會救助、社會保險的理念下，才會期待對這些人有所搶救。但是，這些中年失業者卻難以放棄家庭、重回學校。教育券政策用五十四億的人民納稅錢，卻未能幫助那些亟需伸予援手的家計負擔中堅者。誠如許多輿論所言，教育券是在救失業率，不是在救失業！經濟蕭條就像是病人得了嚴重足疾，但教育券政策卻不是開藥治療足疾，而是叫病人不要走路；只要不走路，腳就不太會痛，自然也就無所謂足疾。
再談各部會所提的搶救失業方案。當行政院依其部會編組而分配就業額度時，其實出發點就已經有「生產者導向」的扭曲。台灣的失業不均勻地散布在各個產業，這是東亞諸國著重出口導向的自然結果。如果要救當前特殊的大量失業，當然就該由下而上去構思計畫：先評估市場與產業供需失調的情況，再由經濟部及其他部會署規畫特定的補救計畫。這些計畫未必完全是從零開始，卻可能是將愛台十二建設中若干相關計畫挪前或加速或修改，就自然能有所銜接─這才是「消費者導向」的正確政策構思。由中央部會署由上而下地開列一些景觀拉皮、環境清潔等工作，期待失業者投入，則就像是廠商先生產產品，而後再強行推銷給消費者一樣，在概念上失之懶惰，在效果上也會大打折扣。
最近許多國際財經刊物，都已經針對世界各國在金融海嘯期間的財經因應政策有所評比。許多國際專家都認為，最好的搶救失業政策，就是在經濟衰退期間吸引勞動力投入基礎建設，以待未來健康地重新出發。但遺憾的是，到目前為止，我們只看到一波接一波的短期政府支出燒錢方案，卻看不到多少對症下藥的積極建設規畫，更不用說三、五年後台灣的經濟遠景了。馬總統希望大家給邱正雄副院長所領導的財經內閣多鼓鼓掌，在精神上我們完全同意；但在實務上，人民即使雙手用力鼓掌、拍得紅腫，也不能減輕足疾的疼痛。
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Chen Shui-bian: From Son of Taiwan to Scourge of Taiwan
Chen Shui-bian: From Son of Taiwan to Scourge of Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2009
On September 27, 2001, Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian, stood on a red carpet, holding daughter Chen Hsing-yu's hand. He turned to his new son-in-law Chao Chien-ming and joked, "I am peacefully transferring my daughter to you. But will peace prevail in this marriage?" On June 27, 2007, as a result of Chao Chien-ming's involvement in the Taiwan Development Corporation scandal, Chen Hsing-yu denounced her father-in-law, saying "Someone of his ilk is better off dead!" This shocking remark from a daughter-in-law gave the outside world a glimpse into the turmoil brewing within the First Family.
This exclusive wedding banquet, one year into President Chen Shui-bian's first term, was his first report card, and revealed the extent of collusion between government and business interests within his administration. The heads of all five branches of government were present. So was Taiwan's most powerful family, the Koo family, including the late Koo Chen-fu and his wife, CITIC Group chairman Jeffrey Koo and his wife; Fubon Financial Holding chairman Tsai Min-chung and his wife; future High Speed Rail chairman Nita Ing; Taishin Financial Holding Co. chairman Wu-liang and his wife; Sheraton Hotel chairman Tsai Chen-yang and his wife; former China Development Corporation General Manager Wu Ting-wu; Taiwan Mobile chairman Sun Tao-chung, future Mega Holdings Chairman Cheng Shen-chi. President Lee Teng-hui, who seldom made public speeches at weddings, said Chen Shui-bian "genuinely loves Taiwan."
On June 18, 2005, another wedding jumpstarted Chen Shui-bian's money-laundering operations. Although Chen claimed that his son Chen Chih-chung and daughter-in-law Huang Jui-ching would not accept either wedding presents or gifts of cash, the very same political and business elites were in attendance. Hundreds of millions in tribute were presented to the couple. They even received a Tiffany diamond ring, which led to a succession of aftershocks. By then Chen Shui-bian was well into his second term. All taboos had been lifted. Riches and power were his for the taking. His son and daughter were married. Publicly and privately, the Chen family business was flourishing. But behind the facade of domestic tranquility and prosperity was the ugly face of insatiable greed, quietly sowing the seeds for future disaster, when it would be every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
On August 24, 2008, Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching still insisted they knew nothing about the money-laundering scandal. They insisted they were merely the heads of dummy accounts, that they were "merely following orders." Five months later, outside accomplices in the money-laundering case pleaded guilty one after the other. Realizing the jig was up, this young couple pled guilty as well, offered a public apology, and expressed a willingness to return 1.8 billion NT in overseas funds. Although many people doubt the amount of money the Chen family has laundered stops there, this was the first time a member of the Chen Shui-bian family explicitly admitted the Chen family had squirreled away assets throughout the world. The confession sent shockwaves through the nation. Huang Jui-ching told the media she was worried. If she and her husband were imprisoned, what would happen to their daughter? For the sake of their children, Huang Jui-ching pleaded guilty, and asked her mother-in-law for forgiveness.
Meanwhile, the only member of the Chen family not barred from leaving the country as a result of the money-laundering case was Chen Hsing-yu. In early February 2009, she went to New York to take an exam. Whether the purpose of the exam was advanced studies or preparation for professional practice in the United States, leaving the country now appeared to be the only choice for Chen Hsing-yu, who has had her fill of the Chen family corruption and money-laundering scandal. The stakes in the case have rapidly escalated. The sum of money laundered has rapidly increased. Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen have begun cutting ties to their partners in crime. Former political comrades and business tycoons have chosen to break off relations with Chen Shui-bian. We have now arrived at the final layer. Their own children and their own legal defense team.
Chen Shui-bian, writing from within in the detention center, has long maintained that he is a martyr, heroically bearing Taiwan's cross. He maintains he has been grievously wronged, and has unfulfilled political ambitions. Outside the detention center, people close to Chen and distant from Chen are actively or passively deserting Chen Shui-bian's little kingdom. When asked about Chen Shui-bian's dream of directing the DPP's upcoming election campaign, comrades hem and haw, saying "Thank you for asking." They can no longer even be termed "comrades." After all, Chen Shui-bian has already resigned from the party. One day key members of this kleptocracy will have to account for their behavior. The public may well boo and hiss as these once powerful players scramble to point fingers at each other, in the hope of saving themselves. The public may well note that in the end, these players could not fool all of the people all of the time. The truth would eventually come out. When their complicity was exposed, the dark side of human nature would prevail. When push came to shove, even the sons and daughters of the Chen family would give priority to their own interests.
At the zenith of his power, political superstar Chen Shui-bian radiated blinding charisma, causing those whom he favored to ignore right and wrong, and shamelessly cover for the Chen crime family's mind-boggling greed. When special interests uniformly tilted toward the Chen Shui-bian crime family, they assumed their good fortune would stretch into eternity, and their glory would endure forever. Their dream lasted eight years. The Chen dynasty now faces Huang Jui-ching's defection. Former comrades now maintain a safe distance. The Son of Taiwan has become the Scourge of Taiwan. Who knew it would come to this? The Rise and Fall of Chen Shui-bian has become Taiwan's most sobering morality tale. There is no such thing a party that goes on forever. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whether riches or power, it's easy come, easy go. Squander them and one day the bill will come due. Wealth squandered may sometimes be recouped. But friendships lost can seldom be regained.
中國時報
2009.02.04
台灣之子竟變瘟神 孰令致之？
中時社論
二○○一年九月二十七日，當時擔任中華民國總統的陳水扁牽著女兒陳幸妤的手走上紅毯，他幽默地對趙建銘說，女兒從此和平移轉給你；但和平是否真的降臨到了這個婚姻？二○○七年六月二十七日，陳幸妤因為趙建銘涉入台開案，飆罵公公趙玉柱「那種人去死算了啦。」驚世媳婦讓人看見了第一家族內的雲詭波譎。
但這場冠蓋雲集的婚宴確實是剛擔任總統一年多的陳水扁政商關係的第一次大校閱，除了五院院長全都到場之外，台灣第一大家族、已故的辜振甫與夫人，中信集團辜濂松與夫人，富邦金控董事長蔡明忠夫婦，後來擔任高鐵董事長的殷琪、台新金控董事長吳東亮夫婦，還有喜來登蔡辰洋夫婦，前中華開發總經理胡定吾，以及當時的台灣大哥大董事長孫道存，後來擔任兆豐金董事長的鄭深池等人都到場；鮮少為婚禮公開講話的前總統李登輝更在婚禮上讚美陳水扁是「真心愛台灣」。
二○○五年六月十八日，另一場婚禮更啟動了陳水扁的洗錢行動引擎。儘管陳水扁聲稱兒子陳致中與黃睿靚的婚禮不收禮金，但同樣匯聚了台灣政商名流的這場婚禮，前前後後卻有好幾億的資金在其中閃閃發亮，還有一個著名的Tiffany鑽戒惹來遺緒連連。彼時，已進入第二任的陳水扁百無禁忌，集金錢與權力於一身，兒女都已成婚，於公於私，陳家家業興盛。然而家和萬事興的背後，永無止境的貪婪卻悄悄埋下日後大難來時只能各自分飛的伏筆。
二○○八年八月二十四日還說自己對洗錢案什麼都不知道，只是被支配的人頭的陳致中與黃睿靚，五個月後，或許自知「大勢已去」，在洗錢案扁家之外的相關人士一一承認罪行後，這對年輕夫婦也選擇了認罪，公開向大眾道歉，並表示願意繳回十八億元；儘管很多人認為扁家洗錢數額絕不止於此，但這是陳水扁家第一次有人如此明確地指出了扁家藏匿各處的資金，在引發大震撼的同時，很多人都注意到了黃睿靚在接受媒體訪問時說，她很擔心如果夫妻倆都入獄的話，女兒將來怎麼辦？為了孩子，黃睿靚認罪，並且請求婆婆原諒。
另一方面，扁家唯一未因洗錢案被限制出境的陳幸妤，二○○九年二月初，一個人赴紐約考試，不論這個考試是為了繼續深造還是尋求在美國執業的機會，「離開」似乎是飽受扁案轟擊的陳幸妤不得不做的一個選擇；事實上，隨著案情的不斷升高、洗錢金額的愈滾愈大，陳水扁和吳淑珍就開始面對各路人馬的「切割」，從昔日政治夥伴到財團金主，人們選擇離開陳水扁；終於來到了最核心的一層：自己的兒女，以及一同打司法硬仗的律師群。
在看守所裡奮筆疾書的陳水扁始終認為自己是為台灣揹上了十字架，他既有說不完的冤屈，也有不能忘懷的政治抱負；看守所外，無論遠近親疏，一個一個地，不論是主動還是被動，他們走出了陳水扁所建構的王國，對於陳水扁仍意欲指揮選舉，同志們只能尷尬無奈地淡淡回一句：「謝謝關心。」如今，他們連「同黨」都談不上了，因為陳水扁已經退黨；有朝一日，當昔日錢權大帝國的要角們對簿公堂時，為求自保的針鋒相對，或許會讓人們唏噓感嘆於他們過往曾經的「親愛精誠」，感嘆於隻手終究不能遮天，隱藏的事總有一天要顯明，並且，當惡行顯明時，人情冷暖也不能不豬羊變色；這是人性，更是相關當事人再一次斟酌利益後的抉擇，就連扁家兒女也要為自己的將來打算。
政治舞台上的超級巨星陳水扁曾在權力峰頂輻射魅惑人心的光芒，趨炎附勢者不顧是非、寡廉鮮恥地為扁家貪腐王國挑磚砌牆；高牆內是陳水扁不可思議的貪婪掠奪。當一切資源不斷往陳水扁貪腐集團靠攏、集中的時候，他們或許以為這樣的幸福可以不斷綿延，這樣的風光可以永遠上演。然而，走過夢幻八年，扁家王朝此刻面對的是黃睿靚口中的家庭分崩離析，是昔日同志的保持距離以策安全──台灣之子竟然變成瘟神，孰令致之？陳水扁的大起大落，成為台灣最寫實也最現實的一則寓言：天下沒有不散的筵席，更沒白吃的午餐，金錢和權力怎麼來就怎麼去，你揮霍它們，有一天，它們就回過頭來消耗你；千金散盡或可復來，人情淡散消退，卻是萬古難消之愁啊。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2009
On September 27, 2001, Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian, stood on a red carpet, holding daughter Chen Hsing-yu's hand. He turned to his new son-in-law Chao Chien-ming and joked, "I am peacefully transferring my daughter to you. But will peace prevail in this marriage?" On June 27, 2007, as a result of Chao Chien-ming's involvement in the Taiwan Development Corporation scandal, Chen Hsing-yu denounced her father-in-law, saying "Someone of his ilk is better off dead!" This shocking remark from a daughter-in-law gave the outside world a glimpse into the turmoil brewing within the First Family.
This exclusive wedding banquet, one year into President Chen Shui-bian's first term, was his first report card, and revealed the extent of collusion between government and business interests within his administration. The heads of all five branches of government were present. So was Taiwan's most powerful family, the Koo family, including the late Koo Chen-fu and his wife, CITIC Group chairman Jeffrey Koo and his wife; Fubon Financial Holding chairman Tsai Min-chung and his wife; future High Speed Rail chairman Nita Ing; Taishin Financial Holding Co. chairman Wu-liang and his wife; Sheraton Hotel chairman Tsai Chen-yang and his wife; former China Development Corporation General Manager Wu Ting-wu; Taiwan Mobile chairman Sun Tao-chung, future Mega Holdings Chairman Cheng Shen-chi. President Lee Teng-hui, who seldom made public speeches at weddings, said Chen Shui-bian "genuinely loves Taiwan."
On June 18, 2005, another wedding jumpstarted Chen Shui-bian's money-laundering operations. Although Chen claimed that his son Chen Chih-chung and daughter-in-law Huang Jui-ching would not accept either wedding presents or gifts of cash, the very same political and business elites were in attendance. Hundreds of millions in tribute were presented to the couple. They even received a Tiffany diamond ring, which led to a succession of aftershocks. By then Chen Shui-bian was well into his second term. All taboos had been lifted. Riches and power were his for the taking. His son and daughter were married. Publicly and privately, the Chen family business was flourishing. But behind the facade of domestic tranquility and prosperity was the ugly face of insatiable greed, quietly sowing the seeds for future disaster, when it would be every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
On August 24, 2008, Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching still insisted they knew nothing about the money-laundering scandal. They insisted they were merely the heads of dummy accounts, that they were "merely following orders." Five months later, outside accomplices in the money-laundering case pleaded guilty one after the other. Realizing the jig was up, this young couple pled guilty as well, offered a public apology, and expressed a willingness to return 1.8 billion NT in overseas funds. Although many people doubt the amount of money the Chen family has laundered stops there, this was the first time a member of the Chen Shui-bian family explicitly admitted the Chen family had squirreled away assets throughout the world. The confession sent shockwaves through the nation. Huang Jui-ching told the media she was worried. If she and her husband were imprisoned, what would happen to their daughter? For the sake of their children, Huang Jui-ching pleaded guilty, and asked her mother-in-law for forgiveness.
Meanwhile, the only member of the Chen family not barred from leaving the country as a result of the money-laundering case was Chen Hsing-yu. In early February 2009, she went to New York to take an exam. Whether the purpose of the exam was advanced studies or preparation for professional practice in the United States, leaving the country now appeared to be the only choice for Chen Hsing-yu, who has had her fill of the Chen family corruption and money-laundering scandal. The stakes in the case have rapidly escalated. The sum of money laundered has rapidly increased. Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen have begun cutting ties to their partners in crime. Former political comrades and business tycoons have chosen to break off relations with Chen Shui-bian. We have now arrived at the final layer. Their own children and their own legal defense team.
Chen Shui-bian, writing from within in the detention center, has long maintained that he is a martyr, heroically bearing Taiwan's cross. He maintains he has been grievously wronged, and has unfulfilled political ambitions. Outside the detention center, people close to Chen and distant from Chen are actively or passively deserting Chen Shui-bian's little kingdom. When asked about Chen Shui-bian's dream of directing the DPP's upcoming election campaign, comrades hem and haw, saying "Thank you for asking." They can no longer even be termed "comrades." After all, Chen Shui-bian has already resigned from the party. One day key members of this kleptocracy will have to account for their behavior. The public may well boo and hiss as these once powerful players scramble to point fingers at each other, in the hope of saving themselves. The public may well note that in the end, these players could not fool all of the people all of the time. The truth would eventually come out. When their complicity was exposed, the dark side of human nature would prevail. When push came to shove, even the sons and daughters of the Chen family would give priority to their own interests.
At the zenith of his power, political superstar Chen Shui-bian radiated blinding charisma, causing those whom he favored to ignore right and wrong, and shamelessly cover for the Chen crime family's mind-boggling greed. When special interests uniformly tilted toward the Chen Shui-bian crime family, they assumed their good fortune would stretch into eternity, and their glory would endure forever. Their dream lasted eight years. The Chen dynasty now faces Huang Jui-ching's defection. Former comrades now maintain a safe distance. The Son of Taiwan has become the Scourge of Taiwan. Who knew it would come to this? The Rise and Fall of Chen Shui-bian has become Taiwan's most sobering morality tale. There is no such thing a party that goes on forever. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whether riches or power, it's easy come, easy go. Squander them and one day the bill will come due. Wealth squandered may sometimes be recouped. But friendships lost can seldom be regained.
中國時報
2009.02.04
台灣之子竟變瘟神 孰令致之？
中時社論
二○○一年九月二十七日，當時擔任中華民國總統的陳水扁牽著女兒陳幸妤的手走上紅毯，他幽默地對趙建銘說，女兒從此和平移轉給你；但和平是否真的降臨到了這個婚姻？二○○七年六月二十七日，陳幸妤因為趙建銘涉入台開案，飆罵公公趙玉柱「那種人去死算了啦。」驚世媳婦讓人看見了第一家族內的雲詭波譎。
但這場冠蓋雲集的婚宴確實是剛擔任總統一年多的陳水扁政商關係的第一次大校閱，除了五院院長全都到場之外，台灣第一大家族、已故的辜振甫與夫人，中信集團辜濂松與夫人，富邦金控董事長蔡明忠夫婦，後來擔任高鐵董事長的殷琪、台新金控董事長吳東亮夫婦，還有喜來登蔡辰洋夫婦，前中華開發總經理胡定吾，以及當時的台灣大哥大董事長孫道存，後來擔任兆豐金董事長的鄭深池等人都到場；鮮少為婚禮公開講話的前總統李登輝更在婚禮上讚美陳水扁是「真心愛台灣」。
二○○五年六月十八日，另一場婚禮更啟動了陳水扁的洗錢行動引擎。儘管陳水扁聲稱兒子陳致中與黃睿靚的婚禮不收禮金，但同樣匯聚了台灣政商名流的這場婚禮，前前後後卻有好幾億的資金在其中閃閃發亮，還有一個著名的Tiffany鑽戒惹來遺緒連連。彼時，已進入第二任的陳水扁百無禁忌，集金錢與權力於一身，兒女都已成婚，於公於私，陳家家業興盛。然而家和萬事興的背後，永無止境的貪婪卻悄悄埋下日後大難來時只能各自分飛的伏筆。
二○○八年八月二十四日還說自己對洗錢案什麼都不知道，只是被支配的人頭的陳致中與黃睿靚，五個月後，或許自知「大勢已去」，在洗錢案扁家之外的相關人士一一承認罪行後，這對年輕夫婦也選擇了認罪，公開向大眾道歉，並表示願意繳回十八億元；儘管很多人認為扁家洗錢數額絕不止於此，但這是陳水扁家第一次有人如此明確地指出了扁家藏匿各處的資金，在引發大震撼的同時，很多人都注意到了黃睿靚在接受媒體訪問時說，她很擔心如果夫妻倆都入獄的話，女兒將來怎麼辦？為了孩子，黃睿靚認罪，並且請求婆婆原諒。
另一方面，扁家唯一未因洗錢案被限制出境的陳幸妤，二○○九年二月初，一個人赴紐約考試，不論這個考試是為了繼續深造還是尋求在美國執業的機會，「離開」似乎是飽受扁案轟擊的陳幸妤不得不做的一個選擇；事實上，隨著案情的不斷升高、洗錢金額的愈滾愈大，陳水扁和吳淑珍就開始面對各路人馬的「切割」，從昔日政治夥伴到財團金主，人們選擇離開陳水扁；終於來到了最核心的一層：自己的兒女，以及一同打司法硬仗的律師群。
在看守所裡奮筆疾書的陳水扁始終認為自己是為台灣揹上了十字架，他既有說不完的冤屈，也有不能忘懷的政治抱負；看守所外，無論遠近親疏，一個一個地，不論是主動還是被動，他們走出了陳水扁所建構的王國，對於陳水扁仍意欲指揮選舉，同志們只能尷尬無奈地淡淡回一句：「謝謝關心。」如今，他們連「同黨」都談不上了，因為陳水扁已經退黨；有朝一日，當昔日錢權大帝國的要角們對簿公堂時，為求自保的針鋒相對，或許會讓人們唏噓感嘆於他們過往曾經的「親愛精誠」，感嘆於隻手終究不能遮天，隱藏的事總有一天要顯明，並且，當惡行顯明時，人情冷暖也不能不豬羊變色；這是人性，更是相關當事人再一次斟酌利益後的抉擇，就連扁家兒女也要為自己的將來打算。
政治舞台上的超級巨星陳水扁曾在權力峰頂輻射魅惑人心的光芒，趨炎附勢者不顧是非、寡廉鮮恥地為扁家貪腐王國挑磚砌牆；高牆內是陳水扁不可思議的貪婪掠奪。當一切資源不斷往陳水扁貪腐集團靠攏、集中的時候，他們或許以為這樣的幸福可以不斷綿延，這樣的風光可以永遠上演。然而，走過夢幻八年，扁家王朝此刻面對的是黃睿靚口中的家庭分崩離析，是昔日同志的保持距離以策安全──台灣之子竟然變成瘟神，孰令致之？陳水扁的大起大落，成為台灣最寫實也最現實的一則寓言：天下沒有不散的筵席，更沒白吃的午餐，金錢和權力怎麼來就怎麼去，你揮霍它們，有一天，它們就回過頭來消耗你；千金散盡或可復來，人情淡散消退，卻是萬古難消之愁啊。
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Fighting Our Way Out of the Economic Doldrums
Fighting Our Way Out of the Economic Doldrums
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2009
The first problem the government must tackle in the Year of the Ox, is unemployment. The Executive Yuan has not had an easy time this past year. Immediately following the Lunar New Year, it introduced its "New Programs to Revive the Economy." It intends to invest 300 billion in the coming year, creating at least 150,000 job opportunities. The Executive Yuan is hardly jumping the gun. Job seekers packed employment agencies on the first day of work following the Lunar New Year. The Year of the Ox may "change heaven and earth," but severe challenges remain.
The Legislative Yuan began a new session. Legislators kicked off the New Year by dressing up as immortals from traditional Chinese opera. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng dressed up as the Jade Emperor. Ruling and opposition party legislators, who are normally at each others' throats, called a truce. They posed next to the Jade Emperor, resplendent in their costumes, amidst an atmosphere of festivity. These high-ranking officials play an important role in the human world. Perhaps they really were demigods in a previous life, who have now descended to earth in this life. They command the power of the budget. We can only hope that these ruling and opposition party legislators will take pity on us mere mortals, that they will feel our pain. We can only hope that they will transcend partisanship and ensure swift passage of the budget and other bills affecting the economy.
The Executive Yuan's small scale works program to revitalize the economy is merely an emergency measure. It will not lift people out of destitution. But with the global economic slowdown, every government is combatting unemployment. They do not have time for long-term planning. They cannot save the poor. They can only fight fires. Like the consumer vouchers issued just before New Year, they cannot save the economy. They can only boost consumer spending. They can only buy time. They can only help the economic recession from falling into a vicious cycle. People have different opinions about the consumer vouchers. But judging by the results, they have undoubtedly stimulated consumption. Government heads have even taken the lead. They have used the vouchers and made cash donations of their own. Charitable groups have received substantial donations.
Past government programs to stimulate domestic demand were handled by local governments. They held bids and awarded contracts. After passage by the central government, these programs were again reviewed and approved by local legislatures. This wasted valuable time and interfered with the bidding and awards process. Quick results were out of the question. This time, the Executive Yuan allocated central government funds directly to local governments. They authorized them to handle the matter, bypassing the middle-man -- local legislatures. Therefore the speed at which the "New Program to Revitalize the Economy" can be implemented is limited only by the Legislative Yuan's own review process. During the last session, the Legislative Yuan burned the midnight oil, passing a number of budgets. This allows the Executive Yuan to adopt its programs this spring, creating many job opportunities.
From the figures alone, one really can't tell how the 150,000 jobs were calculated. But since the budget has already been allocated, the Executive Yuan must watch local governments like a hawk. It must not allow its good intentions to come to naught. It must guard against local governments divvying up the loot, sacrificing the interests of the unemployed.
The Executive Yuan's small scale public works program was a response to the needs of blue-collar workers. Programs for university graduates and technical institute graduates will be announced within the week. Basically the central government will inject funds through the National Science Council and other agencies, providing jobs for research assistants. How many long term jobs these programs will provide is hard to say. Again, this is merely a band aid, a way to make life a little easier until the economy recovers.
Last year the financial crisis inundated the globe. The world now faces the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Plants have been closed and workers have been laid off. No country has been spared. Governments have become the most important pillar amidst the crisis. When the private sector loses economic momentum, only the government can provide the economic engine, and start a new wave of economic activity. Obviously the executive branch cannot do the job by itself. The Legislative Yuan, which provides a check on the power of the Executive Yuan, is equally important. In addition to watching over the purse strings, it must also ensure administrative efficiency. In such trying times as these. ensuring efficiency may be even more important than approving budgets.
Combatting unemployment requires mobilizing all the people. The Executive Yuan must be swift, decisive, and precise. The Legislative Yuan must understand the public's needs. It must set aside partisanship, and give economic issues priority. Above all, those with jobs must save themselves. At times like these, one cannot consider only easy, high paying jobs close to home. One must roll up one's sleeves, and dedicate oneself to one's work. One must first get on track. Only then can one think about changing tracks. One must think of one's job as a means of stimulating the economy, as a way to liberate oneself from the consequences of the economic slump.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.02.03
一起打拚擺脫低迷景氣吧
中時社論
牛年開春第一件事，就是搶救失業大作戰！行政院這個年過得不輕鬆，年後立刻推出「振興經濟新方案」，預計在新年度投入三千億預算，創造至少十五萬個工作機會。行政院的提前備戰，絕非過度憂心，事實上，從開年上班日第一天，各地就業服務站就人潮大爆滿，可以看得出，牛年欲轉乾坤，挑戰有多嚴峻。
同一時間，會期開始的立法院，以扮仙班唱戲揭開序幕，立法院長王金平以玉皇大帝的姿態現身，平日議事攻防激烈的朝野立委，偃旗息鼓，個個開開心心地穿起戲服，位列玉皇大帝身邊，一片榮景，一片新氣象。對這群形同部會首長的國會議員而言，能在人世間扮演這麼重要的角色，上輩子也真得位列仙班才能降世人間，手握政策預算法案大權，但願朝野立委果能如仙界照顧眾生般，苦民所苦，對攸關國計民生的法案預算和重大政策，揚棄藍綠之見，盡速通過。
無可諱言，行政院推出的小型工程振興經濟方案，只能救急，不能救窮，但以目前全球景氣低迷，各國政府無不以搶救失業作為最大的施政核心，此時或許也沒有太多的時間和空間，考量長遠的規畫和計畫，只能先救急再救窮；就像年前發放的消費券一樣，談不上救經濟，只能先刺激消費，讓景氣不振的惡循環能有一時紓緩的可能，事實上，儘管消費券從動議到發放，民間各種仁智之見不斷，但從結果來看，消費券確實發揮了刺激消費的功用，甚至因為政府首長帶動花消費券、捐現金，部分社會團體也在這一波獲得不少捐募款項。
不同於過去的擴大內需方案交由地方政府自行招標發包，所有的補助通過中央之後，還得再經過地方議會審查，曠日廢時，直接影響地方中小型工程招標發包作業，也使得預算很難短時間見到績效；這一回，行政院直接由中央部會編列預算，再委託地方政府辦理，流程上省掉地方議會的中介，換言之，關係到「振興經濟新方案」能否加速推動的就是立法院的審查了。立法院上會期末挑燈夜戰，通過數項預算案，讓行政院開春就能整合這些計畫，釋出龐大的工作機會。
從數字上看，實在看不出來這十五萬個工作到底是怎麼計算出來的，但是，既已有預算，行政院要做到的就是精準地盯牢地方政府的效率，不要再讓中央美意到了地方卻完全行不通，尤其要避免分贓式的資源分配，讓失業勞工的權益受損。
從行政院的規畫來看，這一波以小型工程為主軸的搶救失業，因應的是藍領工作者的需求；至於下一波大專畢業生的就業危機，則在一周內要提出方案，原則上同樣由中央政府挹注經費，由國科會等單位提供研究助理的工作，坦白講，這些職務能讓多少大專畢業生，安安心心地長久待在工作崗位上，還很難說，但是，同樣的此時此刻只能先救急，在經濟復甦的循環來到前，讓日子好過一點點。
從去年上半年開始席捲全球的金融風暴，影響所及，使得全世界面臨大蕭條年代之後，最嚴酷的經濟低迷，關廠裁員潮如海嘯般，無一國可以倖免，政府成為挽救危機的最重要柱石，當民間失去經濟動能的時候，只有政府能扮演發動機的角色，促發新一波的景氣循環，而談到政府效能，顯然不能只是行政機關而已，作為民主政治中最重要的監督機制，立法院同樣重要，監督除了為民眾看緊荷包外，緊盯時效也很重要，特別在這麼艱困的時候，緊盯時效可能比看緊政府編列多少預算更重要。
搶救失業得要全民動員，行政院要快狠準，立法院要體會民眾最急迫的需求，把政治議題擺一邊，民生法案得先上陣，更重要的，所有就業人口得自己救自己，這年頭，不要再想著錢多事少離家近的工作，只能卯足了勁，埋頭打拚，先搶進工作軌道，再思考如何換軌，把自己的一份飯碗當成刺激經濟的一環，讓大家一起加速脫離低迷不振的景氣惡循環。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2009
The first problem the government must tackle in the Year of the Ox, is unemployment. The Executive Yuan has not had an easy time this past year. Immediately following the Lunar New Year, it introduced its "New Programs to Revive the Economy." It intends to invest 300 billion in the coming year, creating at least 150,000 job opportunities. The Executive Yuan is hardly jumping the gun. Job seekers packed employment agencies on the first day of work following the Lunar New Year. The Year of the Ox may "change heaven and earth," but severe challenges remain.
The Legislative Yuan began a new session. Legislators kicked off the New Year by dressing up as immortals from traditional Chinese opera. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng dressed up as the Jade Emperor. Ruling and opposition party legislators, who are normally at each others' throats, called a truce. They posed next to the Jade Emperor, resplendent in their costumes, amidst an atmosphere of festivity. These high-ranking officials play an important role in the human world. Perhaps they really were demigods in a previous life, who have now descended to earth in this life. They command the power of the budget. We can only hope that these ruling and opposition party legislators will take pity on us mere mortals, that they will feel our pain. We can only hope that they will transcend partisanship and ensure swift passage of the budget and other bills affecting the economy.
The Executive Yuan's small scale works program to revitalize the economy is merely an emergency measure. It will not lift people out of destitution. But with the global economic slowdown, every government is combatting unemployment. They do not have time for long-term planning. They cannot save the poor. They can only fight fires. Like the consumer vouchers issued just before New Year, they cannot save the economy. They can only boost consumer spending. They can only buy time. They can only help the economic recession from falling into a vicious cycle. People have different opinions about the consumer vouchers. But judging by the results, they have undoubtedly stimulated consumption. Government heads have even taken the lead. They have used the vouchers and made cash donations of their own. Charitable groups have received substantial donations.
Past government programs to stimulate domestic demand were handled by local governments. They held bids and awarded contracts. After passage by the central government, these programs were again reviewed and approved by local legislatures. This wasted valuable time and interfered with the bidding and awards process. Quick results were out of the question. This time, the Executive Yuan allocated central government funds directly to local governments. They authorized them to handle the matter, bypassing the middle-man -- local legislatures. Therefore the speed at which the "New Program to Revitalize the Economy" can be implemented is limited only by the Legislative Yuan's own review process. During the last session, the Legislative Yuan burned the midnight oil, passing a number of budgets. This allows the Executive Yuan to adopt its programs this spring, creating many job opportunities.
From the figures alone, one really can't tell how the 150,000 jobs were calculated. But since the budget has already been allocated, the Executive Yuan must watch local governments like a hawk. It must not allow its good intentions to come to naught. It must guard against local governments divvying up the loot, sacrificing the interests of the unemployed.
The Executive Yuan's small scale public works program was a response to the needs of blue-collar workers. Programs for university graduates and technical institute graduates will be announced within the week. Basically the central government will inject funds through the National Science Council and other agencies, providing jobs for research assistants. How many long term jobs these programs will provide is hard to say. Again, this is merely a band aid, a way to make life a little easier until the economy recovers.
Last year the financial crisis inundated the globe. The world now faces the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Plants have been closed and workers have been laid off. No country has been spared. Governments have become the most important pillar amidst the crisis. When the private sector loses economic momentum, only the government can provide the economic engine, and start a new wave of economic activity. Obviously the executive branch cannot do the job by itself. The Legislative Yuan, which provides a check on the power of the Executive Yuan, is equally important. In addition to watching over the purse strings, it must also ensure administrative efficiency. In such trying times as these. ensuring efficiency may be even more important than approving budgets.
Combatting unemployment requires mobilizing all the people. The Executive Yuan must be swift, decisive, and precise. The Legislative Yuan must understand the public's needs. It must set aside partisanship, and give economic issues priority. Above all, those with jobs must save themselves. At times like these, one cannot consider only easy, high paying jobs close to home. One must roll up one's sleeves, and dedicate oneself to one's work. One must first get on track. Only then can one think about changing tracks. One must think of one's job as a means of stimulating the economy, as a way to liberate oneself from the consequences of the economic slump.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.02.03
一起打拚擺脫低迷景氣吧
中時社論
牛年開春第一件事，就是搶救失業大作戰！行政院這個年過得不輕鬆，年後立刻推出「振興經濟新方案」，預計在新年度投入三千億預算，創造至少十五萬個工作機會。行政院的提前備戰，絕非過度憂心，事實上，從開年上班日第一天，各地就業服務站就人潮大爆滿，可以看得出，牛年欲轉乾坤，挑戰有多嚴峻。
同一時間，會期開始的立法院，以扮仙班唱戲揭開序幕，立法院長王金平以玉皇大帝的姿態現身，平日議事攻防激烈的朝野立委，偃旗息鼓，個個開開心心地穿起戲服，位列玉皇大帝身邊，一片榮景，一片新氣象。對這群形同部會首長的國會議員而言，能在人世間扮演這麼重要的角色，上輩子也真得位列仙班才能降世人間，手握政策預算法案大權，但願朝野立委果能如仙界照顧眾生般，苦民所苦，對攸關國計民生的法案預算和重大政策，揚棄藍綠之見，盡速通過。
無可諱言，行政院推出的小型工程振興經濟方案，只能救急，不能救窮，但以目前全球景氣低迷，各國政府無不以搶救失業作為最大的施政核心，此時或許也沒有太多的時間和空間，考量長遠的規畫和計畫，只能先救急再救窮；就像年前發放的消費券一樣，談不上救經濟，只能先刺激消費，讓景氣不振的惡循環能有一時紓緩的可能，事實上，儘管消費券從動議到發放，民間各種仁智之見不斷，但從結果來看，消費券確實發揮了刺激消費的功用，甚至因為政府首長帶動花消費券、捐現金，部分社會團體也在這一波獲得不少捐募款項。
不同於過去的擴大內需方案交由地方政府自行招標發包，所有的補助通過中央之後，還得再經過地方議會審查，曠日廢時，直接影響地方中小型工程招標發包作業，也使得預算很難短時間見到績效；這一回，行政院直接由中央部會編列預算，再委託地方政府辦理，流程上省掉地方議會的中介，換言之，關係到「振興經濟新方案」能否加速推動的就是立法院的審查了。立法院上會期末挑燈夜戰，通過數項預算案，讓行政院開春就能整合這些計畫，釋出龐大的工作機會。
從數字上看，實在看不出來這十五萬個工作到底是怎麼計算出來的，但是，既已有預算，行政院要做到的就是精準地盯牢地方政府的效率，不要再讓中央美意到了地方卻完全行不通，尤其要避免分贓式的資源分配，讓失業勞工的權益受損。
從行政院的規畫來看，這一波以小型工程為主軸的搶救失業，因應的是藍領工作者的需求；至於下一波大專畢業生的就業危機，則在一周內要提出方案，原則上同樣由中央政府挹注經費，由國科會等單位提供研究助理的工作，坦白講，這些職務能讓多少大專畢業生，安安心心地長久待在工作崗位上，還很難說，但是，同樣的此時此刻只能先救急，在經濟復甦的循環來到前，讓日子好過一點點。
從去年上半年開始席捲全球的金融風暴，影響所及，使得全世界面臨大蕭條年代之後，最嚴酷的經濟低迷，關廠裁員潮如海嘯般，無一國可以倖免，政府成為挽救危機的最重要柱石，當民間失去經濟動能的時候，只有政府能扮演發動機的角色，促發新一波的景氣循環，而談到政府效能，顯然不能只是行政機關而已，作為民主政治中最重要的監督機制，立法院同樣重要，監督除了為民眾看緊荷包外，緊盯時效也很重要，特別在這麼艱困的時候，緊盯時效可能比看緊政府編列多少預算更重要。
搶救失業得要全民動員，行政院要快狠準，立法院要體會民眾最急迫的需求，把政治議題擺一邊，民生法案得先上陣，更重要的，所有就業人口得自己救自己，這年頭，不要再想著錢多事少離家近的工作，只能卯足了勁，埋頭打拚，先搶進工作軌道，再思考如何換軌，把自己的一份飯碗當成刺激經濟的一環，讓大家一起加速脫離低迷不振的景氣惡循環。
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Right Medicine for the Unemployment Crisis
The Right Medicine for the Unemployment Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2009
This time around, the government is clearly preparing to guard against a wave of unemployment. In this it deserves affirmation and support. We hope the government will make effective use of its resources amidst the current financial crisis, and that it will prescribe the proper medicine for the current wave of unemployment.
First rule of economics is that the purpose of economic development is to enhance the nation's quality of life. The fruits of economic growth must be enjoyed by all the people. Imbalanced economic growth that benefits only the few must be classified as unsatisfactory economic growth. The government's economic policies must benefit a majority of the people.
The government has not sought to restore past economic prosperity and growth. It has merely cried "Help!" The three stages of a financial crisis are: One. Financial turmoil. Two. Traumatized economic fundamentals. Three. A traumatized job market. We are now half way through the process. The extent of the damage is difficult to estimate while the process is going on. The wealth of the super-rich has shrunk. Business owners are making smaller profits. Some are even suffering losses and business closures. Ordinary investors' wealth have evaporated. Many are no longer able to make a living. No one is immune. No one is unaffected. The unemployed are the most severely affected. They are the ones most in need of government relief.
Unemployment is not merely an economic issue. It is also a social issue. Unemployment can cause any number of domestic problems. It can constitute a blow to an individual's self-esteem. It can even lead to a decline in law and order. A look at the society section will show us how many problems are caused by unemployment. If the government cannot reduce unemployment during the initial phase of the crisis, unemployment may well result in a vicious cycle. First, unemployment leads to a fall in domestic consumption. The fall in domestic consumption leads to more business closures. Business closures in turn create more unemployment. By then one must hit bottom before things can turn around.
That is why we fully support the government's unemployment initiatives. The government may spend money as if it was water while coping with the current economic crisis, its future revenues will surely diminish. Therefore it must pinch every penny, conserving its limited resources. It must spend its resources wisely, and only on those who truly need it.
One. The government's main thrust should be to substantially increase public construction and government procurement. Given Taiwan's current infrastructure, many areas still need improvement. It should take advantage of the opportunity to improve the infrastructure. It would simultaneously be laying a foundation for the next wave of economic growth and quality of life improvements. If companies have business and construction projects, they will be eager to hire people. They are hardly likely to lay anybody off. We must of course guard against sweetheart deals and the construction of useless projects. The CEPD intends to split large construction projects into smaller ones. This approach will result in major after-effects, and should be discouraged.
Two. While creating job opportunities, the government should take into account market demand. When the Democratic Progressive Party was in office it created job opportunities in order to combat unemployment. But the jobs it created were jobs pruning flowers and weeding grass. They were jobs for which the market had no demand. Once the government's budget ran out, most of these people found themselves unemployed again. Therefore, we hope the government's job creation program does not merely give the unemployed fish for a few years, but instead teaches them how to fish.
Three. The government should not not save employees by saving companies. This approach will squander too many resources and too much of its budget. Saving companies requires immense outlays, often hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much of the wealth goes straight into the pockets of business owners or other market players. Furthermore, businesses often employ hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of employees. The government simply has no way of deciding which employees ought to be saved. The government need not squander its resources on highly-paid employees, some of whom enjoy profit sharing, or on well to do employees. They have the resources to survive the downturn. Governments resources should be used on unemployed individuals with entire families dependent upon them.
Four. The government should establish a social safety net. It should maintain a minimum standard of living for those who did not benefit from the first wave of Full Employment measures. After all, the government of a nation with a per capita income of 20,000 USD, should make every effort to ensure a minimum standard of living.
During the early 70's Mideast Oil Crisis and Taipei Tenth Credit Cooperative Crisis, the mid-80's Asian Financial Crisis, the domestic financial crisis, and the post Y2K Internet Bubble, the domestic unemployment rate nearly doubled. Frankly the government will find it hard to keep unemployment below 4.5% during the financial crisis of the century. But it must do what it must do. The rest is in the hands of higher powers.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.02.02
務必對症下藥迎戰失業海嘯
中時社論
看得出來，這回政府是上緊了發條要對抗失業潮。這點，該肯定、該支持。而對具體政策內容，則期望政府在財政困難中，能善用資源，對症下藥，迎戰這波失業海嘯。
經濟學的第一課，提到經濟發展的目的，就強調：經濟發展的目的在提升國民生活品質。經濟成長的果實應為全民所享。也因此，不平衡的高經濟成長，讓少數人受惠，也被歸類為劣質的經濟成果。因此，政府在推動各項經濟政策時，終究要回歸到讓大部分民眾受惠。
而這波的不景氣，政府的經濟政策重點，已非過去的追求繁榮與成長，而是「救命」了。傳統的「三部曲」─先是金融風暴、然後重創經濟基本面、最後再重擊就業市場，現在才走到一半而已。在三部曲中，受創者難以估計─從富豪財富縮水、企業主獲利大減甚至虧損倒閉、到一般投資人的投資蒸發、甚至連賴以維生的工作都不保。沒有人逃得過、可以不受影響。在這些海嘯受傷者之中，政府最需要關注與強力救援者，莫過於失業者。
失業，不僅是經濟問題，更是嚴重的社會問題。因為失業，造成多少家庭問題、個人心理與尊嚴的受創、甚至，最後可能導致治安惡化。看看社會新聞，有多少是因為失業而引發的案例。而如果政府不能在目前這個失業率的「初升階段」，就祭出強力的政策緩和失業問題，失業可能會進入一個「惡性循環」的墜落階段。先是一批失業者造成國內消費再緊縮，緊縮後又讓更多商家、企業無法支撐而倒閉，接著造就更多失業者；然後繼續循環…。結果，真的要到「谷底」才能結束這個噩夢。
因此，對政府總動員，強力救失業，我們百分之百支持與肯定。不過，我們也必須提醒政府，為了迎戰這波海嘯，政府可說花錢如流水，但未來的各項收入肯定減少，因此，一定要珍惜每分錢、每分資源，用在刀口上，花在真正需要的民眾身上。在此，我們提出幾項簡單的基本看法：
首先、以大幅增加公共建設與政府採購為主軸。以台灣的基礎建設，仍有許多需要加強的地方，趁此時厚植基礎建設，也是為下波的經濟成長與民眾生活品質的提升，奠下基礎。企業如果有生意、有工程，請人都來不及，那會去裁員？不過應避免變成綁樁、及花費在無效益的建設上。經建會有意把工程拆成小型工程的想法，坦白說，後遺症與問題非常大，不宜推動。
其次、政府直接釋出的工作機會，應考慮未來與市場的接合性。民進黨執政時，也曾以擴大就業方案力圖對抗失業潮，但其釋出的工作機會都屬雇人修剪花木、除草等與市場無法接合的工作，一旦政府預算結束，這些人大部分都要繼續失業。因此，我們希望政府這次的擴大就業內涵，不僅是讓失業者這一、二年「有魚吃」，更重要的是同時也可「教他釣魚」。
第三、切莫以「救企業方式救員工」，因為，這將虛擲太多寶貴的資源與預算。其主要問題在：救企業要耗費鉅資，動輒數百上千億元，但有許多利益是資本家或市場其它人拿走；再者，一家企業，動輒數百上千，甚至破萬名的員工，政府根本無法分辨那些是該救、要救的員工。對一些曾經享有高薪、甚至高分紅、或原本就較富有的員工，政府實在不需要耗費資源在其身上，其本身能力與財力，足以支撐度過不景氣。這些資源，該用在那些失業即全家無以為繼者身上。
第四、積極建構社會安全網，以維持所有無法受惠於前端搶救失業措施者的基本生活。畢竟，以一個平均國民所得近二萬美元的國家而言，政府應盡力讓民眾能維持基本生活所需。
民國七○年代的石油危機與十信風暴、八○年代中期的亞洲與本土金融風暴、廿一世紀的網路泡沫，國內失業率幾乎都是倍增；在這波百年僅見的全球金融海嘯中，政府鎖定今年失業率要維持在四．五％以下，坦白說，很難、很難。不過，該做的還是要做，其它，只能交給老天了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2009
This time around, the government is clearly preparing to guard against a wave of unemployment. In this it deserves affirmation and support. We hope the government will make effective use of its resources amidst the current financial crisis, and that it will prescribe the proper medicine for the current wave of unemployment.
First rule of economics is that the purpose of economic development is to enhance the nation's quality of life. The fruits of economic growth must be enjoyed by all the people. Imbalanced economic growth that benefits only the few must be classified as unsatisfactory economic growth. The government's economic policies must benefit a majority of the people.
The government has not sought to restore past economic prosperity and growth. It has merely cried "Help!" The three stages of a financial crisis are: One. Financial turmoil. Two. Traumatized economic fundamentals. Three. A traumatized job market. We are now half way through the process. The extent of the damage is difficult to estimate while the process is going on. The wealth of the super-rich has shrunk. Business owners are making smaller profits. Some are even suffering losses and business closures. Ordinary investors' wealth have evaporated. Many are no longer able to make a living. No one is immune. No one is unaffected. The unemployed are the most severely affected. They are the ones most in need of government relief.
Unemployment is not merely an economic issue. It is also a social issue. Unemployment can cause any number of domestic problems. It can constitute a blow to an individual's self-esteem. It can even lead to a decline in law and order. A look at the society section will show us how many problems are caused by unemployment. If the government cannot reduce unemployment during the initial phase of the crisis, unemployment may well result in a vicious cycle. First, unemployment leads to a fall in domestic consumption. The fall in domestic consumption leads to more business closures. Business closures in turn create more unemployment. By then one must hit bottom before things can turn around.
That is why we fully support the government's unemployment initiatives. The government may spend money as if it was water while coping with the current economic crisis, its future revenues will surely diminish. Therefore it must pinch every penny, conserving its limited resources. It must spend its resources wisely, and only on those who truly need it.
One. The government's main thrust should be to substantially increase public construction and government procurement. Given Taiwan's current infrastructure, many areas still need improvement. It should take advantage of the opportunity to improve the infrastructure. It would simultaneously be laying a foundation for the next wave of economic growth and quality of life improvements. If companies have business and construction projects, they will be eager to hire people. They are hardly likely to lay anybody off. We must of course guard against sweetheart deals and the construction of useless projects. The CEPD intends to split large construction projects into smaller ones. This approach will result in major after-effects, and should be discouraged.
Two. While creating job opportunities, the government should take into account market demand. When the Democratic Progressive Party was in office it created job opportunities in order to combat unemployment. But the jobs it created were jobs pruning flowers and weeding grass. They were jobs for which the market had no demand. Once the government's budget ran out, most of these people found themselves unemployed again. Therefore, we hope the government's job creation program does not merely give the unemployed fish for a few years, but instead teaches them how to fish.
Three. The government should not not save employees by saving companies. This approach will squander too many resources and too much of its budget. Saving companies requires immense outlays, often hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much of the wealth goes straight into the pockets of business owners or other market players. Furthermore, businesses often employ hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of employees. The government simply has no way of deciding which employees ought to be saved. The government need not squander its resources on highly-paid employees, some of whom enjoy profit sharing, or on well to do employees. They have the resources to survive the downturn. Governments resources should be used on unemployed individuals with entire families dependent upon them.
Four. The government should establish a social safety net. It should maintain a minimum standard of living for those who did not benefit from the first wave of Full Employment measures. After all, the government of a nation with a per capita income of 20,000 USD, should make every effort to ensure a minimum standard of living.
During the early 70's Mideast Oil Crisis and Taipei Tenth Credit Cooperative Crisis, the mid-80's Asian Financial Crisis, the domestic financial crisis, and the post Y2K Internet Bubble, the domestic unemployment rate nearly doubled. Frankly the government will find it hard to keep unemployment below 4.5% during the financial crisis of the century. But it must do what it must do. The rest is in the hands of higher powers.
中時電子報
中國時報 2009.02.02
務必對症下藥迎戰失業海嘯
中時社論
看得出來，這回政府是上緊了發條要對抗失業潮。這點，該肯定、該支持。而對具體政策內容，則期望政府在財政困難中，能善用資源，對症下藥，迎戰這波失業海嘯。
經濟學的第一課，提到經濟發展的目的，就強調：經濟發展的目的在提升國民生活品質。經濟成長的果實應為全民所享。也因此，不平衡的高經濟成長，讓少數人受惠，也被歸類為劣質的經濟成果。因此，政府在推動各項經濟政策時，終究要回歸到讓大部分民眾受惠。
而這波的不景氣，政府的經濟政策重點，已非過去的追求繁榮與成長，而是「救命」了。傳統的「三部曲」─先是金融風暴、然後重創經濟基本面、最後再重擊就業市場，現在才走到一半而已。在三部曲中，受創者難以估計─從富豪財富縮水、企業主獲利大減甚至虧損倒閉、到一般投資人的投資蒸發、甚至連賴以維生的工作都不保。沒有人逃得過、可以不受影響。在這些海嘯受傷者之中，政府最需要關注與強力救援者，莫過於失業者。
失業，不僅是經濟問題，更是嚴重的社會問題。因為失業，造成多少家庭問題、個人心理與尊嚴的受創、甚至，最後可能導致治安惡化。看看社會新聞，有多少是因為失業而引發的案例。而如果政府不能在目前這個失業率的「初升階段」，就祭出強力的政策緩和失業問題，失業可能會進入一個「惡性循環」的墜落階段。先是一批失業者造成國內消費再緊縮，緊縮後又讓更多商家、企業無法支撐而倒閉，接著造就更多失業者；然後繼續循環…。結果，真的要到「谷底」才能結束這個噩夢。
因此，對政府總動員，強力救失業，我們百分之百支持與肯定。不過，我們也必須提醒政府，為了迎戰這波海嘯，政府可說花錢如流水，但未來的各項收入肯定減少，因此，一定要珍惜每分錢、每分資源，用在刀口上，花在真正需要的民眾身上。在此，我們提出幾項簡單的基本看法：
首先、以大幅增加公共建設與政府採購為主軸。以台灣的基礎建設，仍有許多需要加強的地方，趁此時厚植基礎建設，也是為下波的經濟成長與民眾生活品質的提升，奠下基礎。企業如果有生意、有工程，請人都來不及，那會去裁員？不過應避免變成綁樁、及花費在無效益的建設上。經建會有意把工程拆成小型工程的想法，坦白說，後遺症與問題非常大，不宜推動。
其次、政府直接釋出的工作機會，應考慮未來與市場的接合性。民進黨執政時，也曾以擴大就業方案力圖對抗失業潮，但其釋出的工作機會都屬雇人修剪花木、除草等與市場無法接合的工作，一旦政府預算結束，這些人大部分都要繼續失業。因此，我們希望政府這次的擴大就業內涵，不僅是讓失業者這一、二年「有魚吃」，更重要的是同時也可「教他釣魚」。
第三、切莫以「救企業方式救員工」，因為，這將虛擲太多寶貴的資源與預算。其主要問題在：救企業要耗費鉅資，動輒數百上千億元，但有許多利益是資本家或市場其它人拿走；再者，一家企業，動輒數百上千，甚至破萬名的員工，政府根本無法分辨那些是該救、要救的員工。對一些曾經享有高薪、甚至高分紅、或原本就較富有的員工，政府實在不需要耗費資源在其身上，其本身能力與財力，足以支撐度過不景氣。這些資源，該用在那些失業即全家無以為繼者身上。
第四、積極建構社會安全網，以維持所有無法受惠於前端搶救失業措施者的基本生活。畢竟，以一個平均國民所得近二萬美元的國家而言，政府應盡力讓民眾能維持基本生活所需。
民國七○年代的石油危機與十信風暴、八○年代中期的亞洲與本土金融風暴、廿一世紀的網路泡沫，國內失業率幾乎都是倍增；在這波百年僅見的全球金融海嘯中，政府鎖定今年失業率要維持在四．五％以下，坦白說，很難、很難。不過，該做的還是要做，其它，只能交給老天了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)