Reshuffle the Cabinet: Create an Effective Team
China Times News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 11, 2010
Mayoral elections for the five directly administered municipalities will be held at the end of the year. The KMT will complete its nomination process in May. Executive Yuan Vice President Eric Chu will enter the Xinbei City mayoral race, necessitating a cabinet reshuffle. Wu Den-yih stepped in as premier last September admidst a political crisis. The cabinet was then reshuffled one job at a time. Now however is a good time to review the cabinet's record and make personnel changes that will increase the effectiveness of cabinet as a team.
President Ma and DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen recently debated ECFA. The Committee for Economic Planning and Development immediately recommended responses to changes in the global economic picture and the signing of ECFA. It recommended drawing up a 10 year plan for the nation's future. It hopes to improve the nation's competitiveness. As one can imagine such plans require a strong administrative team. Socially it must deal with low birth rates, an aging population, inadequate care for the aged, and growing unemployment. Environmentally it must conserve energy and reduce our carbon footprint. These require green manufacturing and green job strategies. These are not goals that bureaucrats who go purely by the book can hope to achieve.
Last year Wu Dun-yi was appointed premier. The Ma administration had barely recovered from the global financial crisis when Typhoon Morakot struck. Premier Wu was in no position to throw open the doors to new appointees. He had to retain many original Ma/Liu team members. The administration's setback made it difficult to attract talent. Wu Dun-yi was forced to deal with this embarrassing situation. Cabinet appointees failed to meet outside expectations. They failed to impress the public. They failed even to form anything that could properly be termed a team. New cabinet members may stay on, or they may leave. But most are unfamilar with Premier Wu's political policies and political style. Over the past half year, a number of controversies and incidents have arisen, mostly for this reason.
When Premier Wu was interviewed recently, he praised the performance of the cabinet as "not bad overall." He said if anything was wrong with the cabinet, it was inadequate horizontal coordination. Some cabinet members came up short. His remarks were subtle. Put plainly, what he said was that the team lacked team awareness and overall effectiveness. Premier Wu praised Director of Health Yang Chi-liang, who proposed raising health insurance premiums, as "loyal and righteous." He praised Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng, who provoked controversy by demanding the abolition of the death penalty as "heroic and intense." As we can see, Premier Wu has abundant political experience. He can tolerate dissent. He must however demand that cabinet members "keep the peoples' hopes aspirations close to their hearts."
Instead of asking cabinet members close to Premier Wu to be patient, it would be better to ask them to "enhance their capabilities." Therefore no government official can complain that the premier is too domineering and denying them an opportunity to shine. Instead, they must ask why have the agencies they head become mute. There is no lack of future stars among current KMT cabinet members. They include individuals with squeaky clean images and political family heirs. But most of them become invisible upon accepting appointments as agency heads. CEPD Chief Chen Tian-chi, a Premier Liu era appointee, was a long time advocate for the Executive Yuan's policies. But what has he advocated on behalf of the Council for Economic Planning and Development? Carbon reduction is currently a hot issue. Does the CEPD have any concrete plans for carbon reduction?
Premier Wu is fully capable of defending his policies. But Premier Wu is only one person. He can speak out in the Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan, or for two or three minutes when the media collars him in the street. At other times he must be responsible for policy planning and policy implementation. He cannot stand on the front lines explaining the administration's policy details.
The public knows that Premier Wu is is politically isolated. He has long experience in party and government affairs. But he has never had his own followers or even his own team. The current cabinet consists of number of different elements. It includes former members of Ma Ying-jeou's staff when he was Taipei Mayor. It includes former KMT Think Tank heads from when the party was out of power. It includes a number of professionals from the private sector. Minor changes to the cabinet were made following Typhoon Morakot, reducing the percentage of scholars and experts in the Cabinet and increasing the role of the KMT Think Tank. But the Kuomintang was out of power for eight years. Heads of the KMT Think Tank are all political appointees from when the party was still in power. They may be capable, but they defer to their elders. Even those who refuse to defer to their elders, must train talent for the government and the nation. Former members of Ma Ying-jeou's mayoral staff include some who are qualified to serve at the central government level, and some who are not. After two years, it should be clear who's who. We trust President Ma will not insist on retaining those not qualified just for old times sake.
The current reshuffling will impact officials as high as Yuan vice presidents. The public expects Yuan vice presidents to play an important role in reinvigorating the financial sector. Premier Wu himself is highly capable politically. What he needs is assistance from financial professionals. This will increase public support for the administration. Changes in minor cabinet officials are urgent. The Ma administration has been in office for two years. Its approval rating has plummeted from its zenith to its nadir. The Ma administration can no longer drag its feet. Forget the five year end mayoral elections for directly administered muncipalities. Forget the 2019 presidential election. Think only of how to create a forceful and effective team that can get things done and leave behind a legacy of achievements for the nation and society.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.11
社論－內閣改組 打造一個能做事的堅強團隊
本報訊
五月，國民黨即將完成年底五都選舉提名，伴隨行政院副院長朱立倫投入新北市長選舉而來的內閣改組，勢在必行，就去年九月臨危受命，接任行政院長的吳敦義而言，與其一個蘿蔔一個坑，填洞式的改組，不妨將這次改組視為檢視內閣團隊整體績效的好時機，透過人事調整組成能發揮整體戰力的「團隊」。
馬總統與民進黨主席蔡英文ＥＣＦＡ辯論後，經建會旋即提出因應全球經濟版圖位移與ＥＣＦＡ洽簽後的情勢，研擬規畫國家十年願景計畫，期能提升競爭力。可以想見，這樣的規畫，勢必需要一個堅強有力的行政團隊，社會面包括少子化、人口老化、安養及就業等，環境面則因節能減碳趨勢，涉及綠色生產、綠色工作等發展策略，這些都不是墨守成規的政務官所能執行達成的。
吳揆去年接任，時值馬政府才從全球金融海嘯的風暴中喘口氣，卻又面臨莫拉克風災的重襲，無可諱言，吳揆用人不宜大開大闔，必須在兼顧馬、劉原有班底外，尚須面對政府重挫後，人才難覓的窘境，若干部會的調整不如外界的期待，非但不能一新國人耳目，甚至還很難稱得上是「團隊」。不論留任或新任閣員，對吳揆的政策理念或政治手腕，若非不熟悉就是很陌生，在這半年多時間中，發生若干爭議事件，大多數都與此有關。
吳揆在接受媒體訪問時，稱許內閣表現大體不壞，如果有錯，錯在橫向連繫不足，閣員有人少根筋，這段表白說得很含蓄，用白話文直接講就是缺乏團隊意識下的整體戰力。吳揆稱許為了調漲健保費的衛生署長楊志良是「忠肝義膽」，引爆廢死爭議的前法務部長王清峰是「壯懷激烈」，可以看出吳揆確實是政治歷練豐富之人，他可以接受與他意見不一之人，卻必須要求閣員「民之所欲，長在我心」。
在這樣的前提下，與其要求閣員在吳揆身旁動心忍性，不如要求閣員「增益其所不能」。因此，任何沒有表現的政務官不能抱怨院長太強，讓他們沒有曝光機會，而是要反省為什麼自己主持的部會，竟成為消音單位？目前閣員中其實不乏國民黨內明日之星，也有形象清新的政治世家第二代，但他們多數在擔任首長後不久全部消音，成了隱形人；例如理應是熱衙門的經建會表現如何，劉內閣時代的經建會主委陳添枝經常是行政院重大政策的辯護者，如今的經建會辯護過什麼？即使今年以來最熱門的節能減碳，也沒人了解經建會有沒有具體規畫，方案是什麼？
吳揆確實擁有政策辯護的能力，但吳揆終究只是一個人，能講的話充其量就是行政院會、立法院會、或者臨路被媒體堵著開口兩、三分鐘，在這些時間之外呢？負責政策規畫與執行的部會，責無旁貸必須站在第一線說明政策方向。
眾所皆知，吳揆是政壇孤鳥，即使黨政職務歷練豐富，他從沒有自己人，遑論班底，眼前的政府團隊，包含幾種元素：舊日馬市府成員、國民黨在野時期智庫主將、少數社會專業人士，莫拉克風災後的微調，讓內閣學者專家比例降低，智庫角色加重，但國民黨在野八年，智庫主將都是國民黨在野前的政務官，人再幹練也得服老，即使不服老都要為政府、為國家培養人才；舊日馬市府成員有適任中央政務官者，也有不適任者，適任與否經過兩年考驗，應該可以公評，相信馬總統也不會因為舊日僚屬之情，硬要留下不適任者。
這次改組，最高職務已達副院長，而副院長又是民意期待在財經產業發展這個領域，應發揮統合戰力的重要職務，吳揆本身政治能力極強，更需財經專業的助力，強化民意認同，財經小內閣的調整刻不容緩，馬政府到位兩年，聲望從最高到谷底，沒有時間再讓馬政府蹉跎，不必考慮年底五都選舉、不必多慮二 ○一二年總統大選，如今唯一能想的事就是為台灣謀定一個有整合戰力、能大魄力做事的團隊，為國家社會留下一點建設的成績和資產。
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng: Government Policy vs. Social Movements
Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng: Government Policy vs. Social Movements
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 10, 2010
Premier Wu recently made reference to free trade zones. He said he was considering delinking wages for foreign workers inside free trade zones with the minimum wage for local workers. Jennifer Wang, Chairman of the Council for Labor Affairs expressed opposition. She said that if the administration delinked the two, she would resign. Jennifer Wang's tough stance echoes that of former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng, who stepped down rather than execute prisoners on death row. The two are mirror images of each other.
President Ma is approaching the middle of his four year term. The arguments advanced by Jennifer Wang, Wang Ching-feng, and Director of Health Yang Chi-hong, who attempted to resign over the issue of health insurance premiums, have captured public attention. Viewed in a positive light, political appointees sticking to their guns is impressive. Viewed in a negative light, the situation reveals problems of compatibility within the Ma administration. It also underscores the difficulty of reaching compromises on policy.
When the Ma administration was formed, it consisted of three categories of people. The first was political appointees with governing experience. The second was social activists such as Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng. A third was intellectuals from academia. It is not difficult to understand how this situation came about. One group has cool heads and technocratic expertise. Another group has the ambition and desire to return to power. But when one reviews the actual record for the past two years, one finds the veteran bureaucrats' performance is often mediocre and out of synch. Political appointees with backgrounds in various social movements introduced a breath of fresh air. But they could not tolerate bureaucratic rigidity, became weary, and one by one left the administration. Political appointees from academia offered a variety of public and private reasons for their departure.
To be fair, Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng's performance in the cabinet won them public respect. Their private conduct and public images were exceptional. Their job performance was considered praiseworthy. Wang Ching-feng resigned over the death penalty. The public did not agree with her. But she held firm to her own convictions. Such resolve is indeed rare. Jennifer Wang fought for jobs for workers during the economic downturn. Yet she was booed at labor gatherings. She wept silently when questioned in the legislature, revealing the depth of her feelings. Yet she was blasted for defending the 22K policy. She found herself caught in the middle, attacked by both sides. For her delinking the minimum wage may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng each have a final arbiter in their own minds. Each considers it their non-\negotiable bottom line. The problem is that a government seldom operates in such a clearcut, straightline fashion. Decision-making often involves difficult back and forth compromises between harsh reality and one's moral bottom line. Only then can one make a breakthrough. Take the minimum wage for example. Suppose the issue of exploitation by employment agencies can be addressed, and workers receive their original level of real income? Is delinking wages really a sacred cow that cannot be touched? Not necessarily.
A properly functioning government apparatus must strike a balance between the considerations of bureaucracies and the ideals of social movements. It must adopt a professional posture and relentlessly seek breakthroughs and improvements. Over-reliance on bureaucracy makes one susceptible to conservative thinking and complacency. Excessive ideological zeal in pursuit of quantum jumps, as demanded by social reformers, may lead to zero-sum confrontation between reality and idealism.
Wang Ching-feng insisted on abolishing the death penalty. Her resignation may have preserved the purity of her personal convictions. But from a larger perspective, her hardline stance provoked public resentment and paradoxically compelled the Ministry of Justice to step up executions. She not only provoked social divisions, she undermined the Republic of China's human rights image. Under the circumstances, Wang Ching-feng's insistence on her own ideals was not necessarily a plus.
Jennifer Wang insists on linking the minimum wage with wages for foreign workers. Her position is the result of her long term involvement in and commitment to the labor movement. She now occupies an important post, one that enables her to delink wages without harming labor rights and to reach a win/win result. She need not sacrifice herself on the altar of her conscience. On this point, labor groups may wish to share their views. They should not be in such hurry to confront this former comrade and ally. After all, if a political appointee who weeps over the plight of labor is driven out of office, what is the likelihood her replacement will be better?
President Ma's approval ratings have risen and fallen over the past two years, allowing us to witness the tug of war between bureaucrats and social reformers within the Ma administration. Governing is not social reform. Nor is governing allowing bureaucrats to govern by the book. Governing requires finding a middle ground that enables progress. Wang Ching-feng's resignation has made the death penalty even more intractable. A solution for the minimum wage issue can be found. Jennifer Wang must not make the same mistake as Wang Ching-feng.
If on the second anniversary of the Ma administration, all those who have resigned from the cabinet are social reformers, the public will find itself speechless.
王如玄和王清峰：政策與社運之間的平衡
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.10 02:27 am
吳揆日前談自由貿易港區，提到將考慮在區內使外勞與本勞的基本工資脫鉤；勞委會主委王如玄公開表示反對，並稱若果真決定脫鉤，她立刻下台。王如玄的強硬態度，讓人想起前法務部長王清峰堅持寧可下台，也不願執行一件死刑；兩人就像一面鏡子裡外的同一身形與映像。
在馬總統執政即將屆滿兩年之際，王如玄和王清峰的論調，包括稍早衛生署長楊志良為健保費一度求去，皆讓人矚目。從正面看，政務官懷有獨特的堅持，風格不俗；從反面看，這些狀況實反映了馬政府內部的磨合問題，也凸顯了決策主張不易達成妥協的困境。
當初馬政府成立，主要由三股人馬組成，一類是有過執政經驗的行政官僚，一股是像王如玄、王清峰這樣活躍於社運界的人士，另一股則是來自學術界的知識菁英。這樣的布局不難理解：一則可以固守技術官僚的專業和沉穩，一則是能表現重新執政的理想與追求。但從過去兩年的實際運作看，舊官僚一脈表現平平，有時走調；出身社運界的政務官雖帶來清新氣象，卻也因不耐官場的刻板、磨人，接連損兵折將。學界出身者則因各種公私因素求去，更不在話下。
持平而論，王如玄和王清峰在內閣的表現都受到民意信任，除了個人操守及形象不俗，工作積極也受到肯定。王清峰因「廢死」爭議下台，即使國人不同意她的觀點，但她盡力維護個人信仰的堅持，誠屬不可多得。而王如玄在景氣寒冬極力爭取勞工就業機會，卻在勞運場合遭到噓聲，在國會備詢時真情流露而泣不成聲，乃至為22Ｋ政策辯護卻遭到砲轟，說明她面對左右夾擊仍不畏難。如今，基本工資脫鉤的問題，卻可能成為壓垮她的最後一根稻草。
在王如玄和王清峰心中，各有一把「最後的戒尺」，那是她們認為必須捍衛的底線。問題是，一個政府的運作模式，卻往往不是如此一刀兩斷的直線切法，決策往往是要在現實困境和道德底線間往返折衝，尋求一個終極的平衡點或突破口。以基本工資問題為例，如果能夠在解決仲介剝削的前提下，使外勞的實質所得不低於原有水準；那麼，本外勞基本工資脫鉤，真是一頭絕對不可碰觸的聖牛嗎？恐怕未必盡然。
一部優良的國家機器，應該是在官僚思維和社運理想之間求取最佳平衡，站穩專業的立場，並不斷追求突破與提升。如果過度倚賴官僚，很容易陷於保守思維，而故步自封；但如果過度執著意識形態，追逐跳躍式的社運願景，則可能陷於現實與理想零和對立的狀態。
以王清峰對廢除死刑的堅持為例，她的辭官，雖然保住了個人信仰的純度；但整體觀之，因為她的態度過於強烈，卻激起了民眾強大的反感，反而迫使法務部不得不加速死刑的執行，不僅讓社會的分歧擴大，甚至危及台灣力圖保持的人權形象。如此看來，王清峰的堅持對她個人的理想而言，也未必稱得上是「得」了。
王如玄之所以堅持基本工資不可脫鉤，當然是源自長期以來從事勞運的信仰和承諾。她今天居此要職，也許能在不損害勞工權益的原則下，找出讓脫鉤可達到雙贏的辦法，而不必在良心與現實決策之間，把自己推上祭壇。這點，其實勞運團體也不妨共同貢獻意見，而不須對這位昔之戰友和今之同盟者相煎太急。試想，今天若逼走一個肯為勞工垂淚的政務官，下一位主委會更好嗎？
對照馬總統兩年來聲望的起起伏伏，可窺知馬政府決策在官僚和社運之間的拉扯與擺盪，仍未找到最佳的自我定位。執政不是搞社運，執政更不是任官僚照本宣科，而是要在迂迴進退之間找到上升的螺旋。王清峰掛冠，讓台灣的死刑問題變成一件更棘手的難題；今天基本工資的問題並非無解，不能再使王如玄重蹈覆轍。
馬政府兩周年，如果告退的閣員盡是社運界菁英，那真讓人無言以對！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 10, 2010
Premier Wu recently made reference to free trade zones. He said he was considering delinking wages for foreign workers inside free trade zones with the minimum wage for local workers. Jennifer Wang, Chairman of the Council for Labor Affairs expressed opposition. She said that if the administration delinked the two, she would resign. Jennifer Wang's tough stance echoes that of former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng, who stepped down rather than execute prisoners on death row. The two are mirror images of each other.
President Ma is approaching the middle of his four year term. The arguments advanced by Jennifer Wang, Wang Ching-feng, and Director of Health Yang Chi-hong, who attempted to resign over the issue of health insurance premiums, have captured public attention. Viewed in a positive light, political appointees sticking to their guns is impressive. Viewed in a negative light, the situation reveals problems of compatibility within the Ma administration. It also underscores the difficulty of reaching compromises on policy.
When the Ma administration was formed, it consisted of three categories of people. The first was political appointees with governing experience. The second was social activists such as Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng. A third was intellectuals from academia. It is not difficult to understand how this situation came about. One group has cool heads and technocratic expertise. Another group has the ambition and desire to return to power. But when one reviews the actual record for the past two years, one finds the veteran bureaucrats' performance is often mediocre and out of synch. Political appointees with backgrounds in various social movements introduced a breath of fresh air. But they could not tolerate bureaucratic rigidity, became weary, and one by one left the administration. Political appointees from academia offered a variety of public and private reasons for their departure.
To be fair, Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng's performance in the cabinet won them public respect. Their private conduct and public images were exceptional. Their job performance was considered praiseworthy. Wang Ching-feng resigned over the death penalty. The public did not agree with her. But she held firm to her own convictions. Such resolve is indeed rare. Jennifer Wang fought for jobs for workers during the economic downturn. Yet she was booed at labor gatherings. She wept silently when questioned in the legislature, revealing the depth of her feelings. Yet she was blasted for defending the 22K policy. She found herself caught in the middle, attacked by both sides. For her delinking the minimum wage may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Jennifer Wang and Wang Ching-feng each have a final arbiter in their own minds. Each considers it their non-\negotiable bottom line. The problem is that a government seldom operates in such a clearcut, straightline fashion. Decision-making often involves difficult back and forth compromises between harsh reality and one's moral bottom line. Only then can one make a breakthrough. Take the minimum wage for example. Suppose the issue of exploitation by employment agencies can be addressed, and workers receive their original level of real income? Is delinking wages really a sacred cow that cannot be touched? Not necessarily.
A properly functioning government apparatus must strike a balance between the considerations of bureaucracies and the ideals of social movements. It must adopt a professional posture and relentlessly seek breakthroughs and improvements. Over-reliance on bureaucracy makes one susceptible to conservative thinking and complacency. Excessive ideological zeal in pursuit of quantum jumps, as demanded by social reformers, may lead to zero-sum confrontation between reality and idealism.
Wang Ching-feng insisted on abolishing the death penalty. Her resignation may have preserved the purity of her personal convictions. But from a larger perspective, her hardline stance provoked public resentment and paradoxically compelled the Ministry of Justice to step up executions. She not only provoked social divisions, she undermined the Republic of China's human rights image. Under the circumstances, Wang Ching-feng's insistence on her own ideals was not necessarily a plus.
Jennifer Wang insists on linking the minimum wage with wages for foreign workers. Her position is the result of her long term involvement in and commitment to the labor movement. She now occupies an important post, one that enables her to delink wages without harming labor rights and to reach a win/win result. She need not sacrifice herself on the altar of her conscience. On this point, labor groups may wish to share their views. They should not be in such hurry to confront this former comrade and ally. After all, if a political appointee who weeps over the plight of labor is driven out of office, what is the likelihood her replacement will be better?
President Ma's approval ratings have risen and fallen over the past two years, allowing us to witness the tug of war between bureaucrats and social reformers within the Ma administration. Governing is not social reform. Nor is governing allowing bureaucrats to govern by the book. Governing requires finding a middle ground that enables progress. Wang Ching-feng's resignation has made the death penalty even more intractable. A solution for the minimum wage issue can be found. Jennifer Wang must not make the same mistake as Wang Ching-feng.
If on the second anniversary of the Ma administration, all those who have resigned from the cabinet are social reformers, the public will find itself speechless.
王如玄和王清峰：政策與社運之間的平衡
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.10 02:27 am
吳揆日前談自由貿易港區，提到將考慮在區內使外勞與本勞的基本工資脫鉤；勞委會主委王如玄公開表示反對，並稱若果真決定脫鉤，她立刻下台。王如玄的強硬態度，讓人想起前法務部長王清峰堅持寧可下台，也不願執行一件死刑；兩人就像一面鏡子裡外的同一身形與映像。
在馬總統執政即將屆滿兩年之際，王如玄和王清峰的論調，包括稍早衛生署長楊志良為健保費一度求去，皆讓人矚目。從正面看，政務官懷有獨特的堅持，風格不俗；從反面看，這些狀況實反映了馬政府內部的磨合問題，也凸顯了決策主張不易達成妥協的困境。
當初馬政府成立，主要由三股人馬組成，一類是有過執政經驗的行政官僚，一股是像王如玄、王清峰這樣活躍於社運界的人士，另一股則是來自學術界的知識菁英。這樣的布局不難理解：一則可以固守技術官僚的專業和沉穩，一則是能表現重新執政的理想與追求。但從過去兩年的實際運作看，舊官僚一脈表現平平，有時走調；出身社運界的政務官雖帶來清新氣象，卻也因不耐官場的刻板、磨人，接連損兵折將。學界出身者則因各種公私因素求去，更不在話下。
持平而論，王如玄和王清峰在內閣的表現都受到民意信任，除了個人操守及形象不俗，工作積極也受到肯定。王清峰因「廢死」爭議下台，即使國人不同意她的觀點，但她盡力維護個人信仰的堅持，誠屬不可多得。而王如玄在景氣寒冬極力爭取勞工就業機會，卻在勞運場合遭到噓聲，在國會備詢時真情流露而泣不成聲，乃至為22Ｋ政策辯護卻遭到砲轟，說明她面對左右夾擊仍不畏難。如今，基本工資脫鉤的問題，卻可能成為壓垮她的最後一根稻草。
在王如玄和王清峰心中，各有一把「最後的戒尺」，那是她們認為必須捍衛的底線。問題是，一個政府的運作模式，卻往往不是如此一刀兩斷的直線切法，決策往往是要在現實困境和道德底線間往返折衝，尋求一個終極的平衡點或突破口。以基本工資問題為例，如果能夠在解決仲介剝削的前提下，使外勞的實質所得不低於原有水準；那麼，本外勞基本工資脫鉤，真是一頭絕對不可碰觸的聖牛嗎？恐怕未必盡然。
一部優良的國家機器，應該是在官僚思維和社運理想之間求取最佳平衡，站穩專業的立場，並不斷追求突破與提升。如果過度倚賴官僚，很容易陷於保守思維，而故步自封；但如果過度執著意識形態，追逐跳躍式的社運願景，則可能陷於現實與理想零和對立的狀態。
以王清峰對廢除死刑的堅持為例，她的辭官，雖然保住了個人信仰的純度；但整體觀之，因為她的態度過於強烈，卻激起了民眾強大的反感，反而迫使法務部不得不加速死刑的執行，不僅讓社會的分歧擴大，甚至危及台灣力圖保持的人權形象。如此看來，王清峰的堅持對她個人的理想而言，也未必稱得上是「得」了。
王如玄之所以堅持基本工資不可脫鉤，當然是源自長期以來從事勞運的信仰和承諾。她今天居此要職，也許能在不損害勞工權益的原則下，找出讓脫鉤可達到雙贏的辦法，而不必在良心與現實決策之間，把自己推上祭壇。這點，其實勞運團體也不妨共同貢獻意見，而不須對這位昔之戰友和今之同盟者相煎太急。試想，今天若逼走一個肯為勞工垂淚的政務官，下一位主委會更好嗎？
對照馬總統兩年來聲望的起起伏伏，可窺知馬政府決策在官僚和社運之間的拉扯與擺盪，仍未找到最佳的自我定位。執政不是搞社運，執政更不是任官僚照本宣科，而是要在迂迴進退之間找到上升的螺旋。王清峰掛冠，讓台灣的死刑問題變成一件更棘手的難題；今天基本工資的問題並非無解，不能再使王如玄重蹈覆轍。
馬政府兩周年，如果告退的閣員盡是社運界菁英，那真讓人無言以對！
Friday, May 7, 2010
The World Expo and Our Turbulent Era
The World Expo and Our Turbulent Era
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 7, 2010
Since its inception in 1851, The World Expo has undoubtedly been a venue for the expression of national power. That is why the Shanghai World Expo has stirred up so much excitement in the hearts of Chinese on both sides of the Strait. After a 40 year absence, a Republic of China exhibit has reappeared at the World Expo. It stands peacefully next to the Peoples Republic of China exhibit on the banks of the Huangpu River. The theme song of the Republic of China sponsored Taiwan Pavilion is "Taiwan's Heartbeat." The lyrics speak of "A little less hate, a little more us; a little less war, a little more simplicity." Who can possibly remain unmoved?
Nearly 160 years ago, Queen Victoria invited the world's governments to participate in the World Expo. The Qing court's response was lukewarm. During the London Expo of 1851 the China Pavilion was essentially constructed under duress by foreign companies in China. Shanghai businessman Xu Rongcuen, an employee of Dent & Co., had a discerning eye. He entered 12 packages of "Wing Kee Lake Silk," manufactured by his own family business, into the competition. The product won the "Manufacturing and Handicraft Award." Over the next 50 years of the 19th century, the World Expo showcased the remarkable achievements of the Industrial Revolution. Chinese exhibitors displayed Traditional Chinese Medicine, silk, tea, and other traditional commodities. The West displayed steam engines and trains. China displayed spinning wheels and handcarts.
In 1912 the Republic of China was founded. Interim President Sun Yat-sen met with representatives of the United States in February 1911. He vowed that "Once our political situation stablizes, we will send a delegation to participate." Soon afterwards the Qing emperor abdicated. Yuan Shikai was inaugurated as provisional president. U.S. President Taft extended a formal invitation to participate in the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. The following year, Yuan announced his decision to participate. The Northern Warlords Government prepared for over a year. It collected over 100,000 items from 19 provinces. The revolution was over. But the chaos of war was not. China had only a tenth of the funds other nations had to construct its "Chinese Government Pavilion." The Panama-Pacific International Exposition opened in late February 1915. The China Pavilion was belatedly opened in early March. Despite the nation's dire circumstances, the China Pavilion won over 1200 medals, including one for Mao Tai liquor. Ironically, people ignored the Mao Tai liquor because of its primitive packaging. But a porter accidentally knocked over a wine jar. The fragrance of Mao Tai filled the air, and people suddenly paid attention. In 1926, the Northern Warlords Government participated in the Philadelphia Expo. Although contemporaries documented it, referring to it as "Ancient Relics Go Abroad," few people visited the China Village.
By the time of the 1933 World Expo in Chicago, the Northern Expedition had successfully returned to Nanjing. It allocated a budget and established a preparatory committee. It even held a small scale World Expo in Shanghai to determine which products should be showcased. The chief juror was Cai Yuanpei. The total cost of the Chinese Pavilion was 22,000 USD, only one-fifth the cost of the Japan Pavilion. But its distinctive oriental features attracted over 2.5 million visitors. The construction process however was difficult. It officially opened half a month after the World Expo opened. This was the first time the Nationalist Government had participated in an expo. All China could display were ceramics, silk, lacquer carvings, jade, and other traditional crafts. Fortunately, a jade pagoda attract the world's attention. The foreign media commented that "The real China, including her culture and the arts, can be summed up in one word -- Jade!"
The World Expo shows that the march of human civilization did not spell the end of war. During the 1937 Paris Expo Nazi Germany rolled through Europe. Exhausted by war, Spain lacked the wherewithal to construct an exibit hall. Instead Picasso was invited to paint his famous painting "Guernica," indicting Nazi Germany for war crimes. The Chinese people will never forget the year of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and the beginning of an eight year war of resistance against Japanese expansionism. The Republic of China was absent at the Paris Expo, and unable to participate in the 1939 New York Expo. Using donations from patriotic overseas Chinese, a "Chinese Village" was constructed at the San Francisco Expo, showcasing mainly Chinese traditional crafts, including temples and pagodas. Patriotic overseas Chinese recorded their feelings: "Although China is currently weak, we will surely prevail in our war of national resistance. Although China is currently weak, we will surely succeed in our project of national reconstruction."
The Republic of China's project of national reconstruction succeeded. But unrest continued. Nineteen years later, in 1958, another World Expo was held. The Republic of China had already retreated to Taiwan. In 1970, ROC Vice President Yen Chia-kan visited the World Expo in Osaka. Accompanying him were Sun Yun-suan, Li Kuo-ting and other financial and economic experts. The following year, the Republic of China quit the United Nations, then broke off diplomatic relations with Japan. Four years later, the Spokane Expo marked the last appearance of the Republic of China at a World Expo. The same year as the World Expo in Spokane, the People's Republic of China authorities constructed an exhibit hall and a plaque next to the Osaka World Expo to vent their anger.
Today, 40 years later, pavilions constructed by both Taipei and Beijing have met on the banks of the Huangpu River. China is no longer engulfed in the flames of war. Taipei and Bejing are no longer caught in a zero sum game. The Shanghai World Expo has opened with great fanfare. Taipei is pleased to be a part of it. Taipei hopes the Expo will be a success. Taipei should not be scornful of the chaotic crowds at the Expo. Civilization is a long road. Taiwan has walked that road. We hope that the mainland, which has endured centuries of war and poverty, will also be able to travel down that road and advance toward civilization.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.07
社論－回顧世博與一頁滄桑的現代史
本報訊
毫無疑問，從一八五一年第一屆開始，世界（萬國）博覽會就是國力的展現，從這個角度出發，可以想像，上海世博如此激動兩岸中國人的心；而絕跡四十年之後，台灣終於重回世博，與中國和平地矗立於黃浦江畔，台灣館主題曲《台灣心跳聲》迴盪，「少一點仇恨，多一點我們；少一點戰爭，多一點單純。」沒有人不為之動容。
回望歷史，近一百六十年前，英國維多利亞女王盛情邀約各國政府參展世博，清政府興趣缺缺，一八五一年倫敦世博的中國館，幾乎是由在華洋行集力促成。當時一位在寶順洋行工作的上海商人徐榮村獨具慧眼，拎了十二包自家生產製造的「榮記湖絲」參展，拿下「製造與手工業大獎」。十九世紀的五十個年頭，世博展現工業革命非凡成就的同時，中國參展的還是中藥、絲綢、茶葉等傳統商品為主，面對西方的蒸汽機、火車，中國則是紡車、手推車。
一九一二年，中華民國肇建，二月，臨時大總統孫中山在前一年，會見美國代表時應允，「一旦政治走向常規，就派團參加。」話沒說多久，清帝退位，袁世凱宣布就任臨時大總統，當時的美國總統塔虎脫還是向中華民國發出巴拿馬萬博的正式邀請函，隔年，袁世凱回應表示決定參展，北洋政府以一年多時間籌備，從十九省徵集十多萬件展品。革命才結束，戰亂卻猶未止歇的中國，只有他國十分之一的資金，籌建「中華政府館」，一九一五年二月下旬巴拿馬世博會開幕，中國館卻在三月上旬才正式開館。在這麼拮据困窘的條件下參展，中國館拿下一千二百多枚獎牌，包括茅台酒，讓人笑中帶淚的是，包裝粗鄙的茅台酒根本沒人理，還是因為搬運工打翻了酒罈子，酒香四溢，才引人嘖嘖稱奇。一九二六年，北洋政府又參加了費城世博，儘管時人以「舊幫文物於賽重洋」紀錄這段過程，中國村卻是門前冷落車馬稀。
直到一九三三年芝加哥世博，北伐成功還都南京的國民政府編列預算，成立籌委會，負責參展事務，還特別在上海舉辦了一場小型世博會，為參展品進行評選作業，評選主席是蔡元培。總計花費二點二萬美金的中國館，經費只有日本館的五分之一，但以鮮明的東方特色吸引二百五十多萬民眾參觀。同樣的，建館過程曲折，世博開幕後半個月，才能正式開館。國民政府第一次參展，中國拿得出手的還是陶瓷、絲織、漆雕、玉器等傳統手藝。還好，有一個翠玉大寶塔吸引世人的目光，國外媒體說，「真正的中國，包括她的文化和藝術，是通過另一個符號來描述的，這就是玉！」
世博展現了人類文明，卻無法阻止戰火綿延，一九三七年巴黎世博，納粹德國攻勢席捲歐洲，困頓於戰爭的西班牙沒有壯麗的世博建築，卻請來畢卡索繪製傳世名畫《格爾尼卡》，控訴戰爭罪行！這一年，中國人是不會忘記的，因為盧溝橋事變爆發，八年對日抗戰伊始，巴黎世博，中華民國缺席了。一九三九年的紐約世博，中華民國依舊無力參展，靠著愛國華僑自力集資，在舊金山世博區建造「中國村」，中國村裡還是以傳統工藝為主，包括神廟與佛塔，愛國華僑們寫下他們的情懷，「此際中國雖弱，推斷抗戰必勝；此際中國雖窮，預料建國必成。」
中華民國建國已成，卻動亂不斷，十九年後，世博於一九五八年再次舉行，中華民國卻已播遷台灣。一九七○年，中華民國慎重以對，副總統嚴家淦親臨大阪世博，隨員包括孫運璿、李國鼎等財經重臣。隔年，中華民國退出聯合國、接下來與日斷交；四年後，美國史波肯世博會，是中華民國留在世博的最後身影。就在史波肯世博的同一年，中華人民共和國特別在大阪世博館區旁，蓋了個展館，展後立碑紀念，以洩其憤。
一直到四十年後的今天，兩岸兩館重遇黃浦江畔，中國，不再是流離於戰火的中國；兩岸，不再是漢賊不兩立的兩岸。上海世博盛大開幕，台灣欣然參展；世博成功，台灣祝福；世博人潮紛亂，台灣不必譏嘲。文明，是一條漫漫長路，台灣，走過來了。祝福熬過百年戰禍與貧窮的中國，也能一步一步從崛起走向文明。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 7, 2010
Since its inception in 1851, The World Expo has undoubtedly been a venue for the expression of national power. That is why the Shanghai World Expo has stirred up so much excitement in the hearts of Chinese on both sides of the Strait. After a 40 year absence, a Republic of China exhibit has reappeared at the World Expo. It stands peacefully next to the Peoples Republic of China exhibit on the banks of the Huangpu River. The theme song of the Republic of China sponsored Taiwan Pavilion is "Taiwan's Heartbeat." The lyrics speak of "A little less hate, a little more us; a little less war, a little more simplicity." Who can possibly remain unmoved?
Nearly 160 years ago, Queen Victoria invited the world's governments to participate in the World Expo. The Qing court's response was lukewarm. During the London Expo of 1851 the China Pavilion was essentially constructed under duress by foreign companies in China. Shanghai businessman Xu Rongcuen, an employee of Dent & Co., had a discerning eye. He entered 12 packages of "Wing Kee Lake Silk," manufactured by his own family business, into the competition. The product won the "Manufacturing and Handicraft Award." Over the next 50 years of the 19th century, the World Expo showcased the remarkable achievements of the Industrial Revolution. Chinese exhibitors displayed Traditional Chinese Medicine, silk, tea, and other traditional commodities. The West displayed steam engines and trains. China displayed spinning wheels and handcarts.
In 1912 the Republic of China was founded. Interim President Sun Yat-sen met with representatives of the United States in February 1911. He vowed that "Once our political situation stablizes, we will send a delegation to participate." Soon afterwards the Qing emperor abdicated. Yuan Shikai was inaugurated as provisional president. U.S. President Taft extended a formal invitation to participate in the Panama-Pacific International Exposition. The following year, Yuan announced his decision to participate. The Northern Warlords Government prepared for over a year. It collected over 100,000 items from 19 provinces. The revolution was over. But the chaos of war was not. China had only a tenth of the funds other nations had to construct its "Chinese Government Pavilion." The Panama-Pacific International Exposition opened in late February 1915. The China Pavilion was belatedly opened in early March. Despite the nation's dire circumstances, the China Pavilion won over 1200 medals, including one for Mao Tai liquor. Ironically, people ignored the Mao Tai liquor because of its primitive packaging. But a porter accidentally knocked over a wine jar. The fragrance of Mao Tai filled the air, and people suddenly paid attention. In 1926, the Northern Warlords Government participated in the Philadelphia Expo. Although contemporaries documented it, referring to it as "Ancient Relics Go Abroad," few people visited the China Village.
By the time of the 1933 World Expo in Chicago, the Northern Expedition had successfully returned to Nanjing. It allocated a budget and established a preparatory committee. It even held a small scale World Expo in Shanghai to determine which products should be showcased. The chief juror was Cai Yuanpei. The total cost of the Chinese Pavilion was 22,000 USD, only one-fifth the cost of the Japan Pavilion. But its distinctive oriental features attracted over 2.5 million visitors. The construction process however was difficult. It officially opened half a month after the World Expo opened. This was the first time the Nationalist Government had participated in an expo. All China could display were ceramics, silk, lacquer carvings, jade, and other traditional crafts. Fortunately, a jade pagoda attract the world's attention. The foreign media commented that "The real China, including her culture and the arts, can be summed up in one word -- Jade!"
The World Expo shows that the march of human civilization did not spell the end of war. During the 1937 Paris Expo Nazi Germany rolled through Europe. Exhausted by war, Spain lacked the wherewithal to construct an exibit hall. Instead Picasso was invited to paint his famous painting "Guernica," indicting Nazi Germany for war crimes. The Chinese people will never forget the year of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and the beginning of an eight year war of resistance against Japanese expansionism. The Republic of China was absent at the Paris Expo, and unable to participate in the 1939 New York Expo. Using donations from patriotic overseas Chinese, a "Chinese Village" was constructed at the San Francisco Expo, showcasing mainly Chinese traditional crafts, including temples and pagodas. Patriotic overseas Chinese recorded their feelings: "Although China is currently weak, we will surely prevail in our war of national resistance. Although China is currently weak, we will surely succeed in our project of national reconstruction."
The Republic of China's project of national reconstruction succeeded. But unrest continued. Nineteen years later, in 1958, another World Expo was held. The Republic of China had already retreated to Taiwan. In 1970, ROC Vice President Yen Chia-kan visited the World Expo in Osaka. Accompanying him were Sun Yun-suan, Li Kuo-ting and other financial and economic experts. The following year, the Republic of China quit the United Nations, then broke off diplomatic relations with Japan. Four years later, the Spokane Expo marked the last appearance of the Republic of China at a World Expo. The same year as the World Expo in Spokane, the People's Republic of China authorities constructed an exhibit hall and a plaque next to the Osaka World Expo to vent their anger.
Today, 40 years later, pavilions constructed by both Taipei and Beijing have met on the banks of the Huangpu River. China is no longer engulfed in the flames of war. Taipei and Bejing are no longer caught in a zero sum game. The Shanghai World Expo has opened with great fanfare. Taipei is pleased to be a part of it. Taipei hopes the Expo will be a success. Taipei should not be scornful of the chaotic crowds at the Expo. Civilization is a long road. Taiwan has walked that road. We hope that the mainland, which has endured centuries of war and poverty, will also be able to travel down that road and advance toward civilization.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.07
社論－回顧世博與一頁滄桑的現代史
本報訊
毫無疑問，從一八五一年第一屆開始，世界（萬國）博覽會就是國力的展現，從這個角度出發，可以想像，上海世博如此激動兩岸中國人的心；而絕跡四十年之後，台灣終於重回世博，與中國和平地矗立於黃浦江畔，台灣館主題曲《台灣心跳聲》迴盪，「少一點仇恨，多一點我們；少一點戰爭，多一點單純。」沒有人不為之動容。
回望歷史，近一百六十年前，英國維多利亞女王盛情邀約各國政府參展世博，清政府興趣缺缺，一八五一年倫敦世博的中國館，幾乎是由在華洋行集力促成。當時一位在寶順洋行工作的上海商人徐榮村獨具慧眼，拎了十二包自家生產製造的「榮記湖絲」參展，拿下「製造與手工業大獎」。十九世紀的五十個年頭，世博展現工業革命非凡成就的同時，中國參展的還是中藥、絲綢、茶葉等傳統商品為主，面對西方的蒸汽機、火車，中國則是紡車、手推車。
一九一二年，中華民國肇建，二月，臨時大總統孫中山在前一年，會見美國代表時應允，「一旦政治走向常規，就派團參加。」話沒說多久，清帝退位，袁世凱宣布就任臨時大總統，當時的美國總統塔虎脫還是向中華民國發出巴拿馬萬博的正式邀請函，隔年，袁世凱回應表示決定參展，北洋政府以一年多時間籌備，從十九省徵集十多萬件展品。革命才結束，戰亂卻猶未止歇的中國，只有他國十分之一的資金，籌建「中華政府館」，一九一五年二月下旬巴拿馬世博會開幕，中國館卻在三月上旬才正式開館。在這麼拮据困窘的條件下參展，中國館拿下一千二百多枚獎牌，包括茅台酒，讓人笑中帶淚的是，包裝粗鄙的茅台酒根本沒人理，還是因為搬運工打翻了酒罈子，酒香四溢，才引人嘖嘖稱奇。一九二六年，北洋政府又參加了費城世博，儘管時人以「舊幫文物於賽重洋」紀錄這段過程，中國村卻是門前冷落車馬稀。
直到一九三三年芝加哥世博，北伐成功還都南京的國民政府編列預算，成立籌委會，負責參展事務，還特別在上海舉辦了一場小型世博會，為參展品進行評選作業，評選主席是蔡元培。總計花費二點二萬美金的中國館，經費只有日本館的五分之一，但以鮮明的東方特色吸引二百五十多萬民眾參觀。同樣的，建館過程曲折，世博開幕後半個月，才能正式開館。國民政府第一次參展，中國拿得出手的還是陶瓷、絲織、漆雕、玉器等傳統手藝。還好，有一個翠玉大寶塔吸引世人的目光，國外媒體說，「真正的中國，包括她的文化和藝術，是通過另一個符號來描述的，這就是玉！」
世博展現了人類文明，卻無法阻止戰火綿延，一九三七年巴黎世博，納粹德國攻勢席捲歐洲，困頓於戰爭的西班牙沒有壯麗的世博建築，卻請來畢卡索繪製傳世名畫《格爾尼卡》，控訴戰爭罪行！這一年，中國人是不會忘記的，因為盧溝橋事變爆發，八年對日抗戰伊始，巴黎世博，中華民國缺席了。一九三九年的紐約世博，中華民國依舊無力參展，靠著愛國華僑自力集資，在舊金山世博區建造「中國村」，中國村裡還是以傳統工藝為主，包括神廟與佛塔，愛國華僑們寫下他們的情懷，「此際中國雖弱，推斷抗戰必勝；此際中國雖窮，預料建國必成。」
中華民國建國已成，卻動亂不斷，十九年後，世博於一九五八年再次舉行，中華民國卻已播遷台灣。一九七○年，中華民國慎重以對，副總統嚴家淦親臨大阪世博，隨員包括孫運璿、李國鼎等財經重臣。隔年，中華民國退出聯合國、接下來與日斷交；四年後，美國史波肯世博會，是中華民國留在世博的最後身影。就在史波肯世博的同一年，中華人民共和國特別在大阪世博館區旁，蓋了個展館，展後立碑紀念，以洩其憤。
一直到四十年後的今天，兩岸兩館重遇黃浦江畔，中國，不再是流離於戰火的中國；兩岸，不再是漢賊不兩立的兩岸。上海世博盛大開幕，台灣欣然參展；世博成功，台灣祝福；世博人潮紛亂，台灣不必譏嘲。文明，是一條漫漫長路，台灣，走過來了。祝福熬過百年戰禍與貧窮的中國，也能一步一步從崛起走向文明。
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang: Austerity and Pride
Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang: Austerity and Pride
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 6, 2010
Time Magazine has published its Time 100 list of the world's most influential people. Chen Shu-chu, a vegetable stand owner in Taitung was the only recipient to wear tennis shoes to the awards ceremony. As she stood amidst the world's most famous political leaders and artists, she displayed her uncommon character. She allowed the world to see how People Power originates at the grassroots. She showed that the ability to influence events is not reserved for the world's elites.
She has been away from her native Taitung only twice in her life. The farthest she got in the past was Taipei. Chen Shu-chu obtained her first passport, and along with a new purse she bought for 199NT (US$6) at a roadside stand, traveled to New York to receive her award. She made everyone on Taiwan proud. Given a greengrocer's meager income, it is hard to imagine the energy and boundless willpower she must have demonstrated to overcome hardships and get where she is today. It's a small world. She demonstrated a love for humanity without borders. She scrimped on herself, but was generous to a fault to others. Her humble appearance makes her noble character even more moving.
The media has focused the spotlight on Chen Shu-chu. But let us not forget Acer Chairman JT Wang, the other individual from Taiwan to make the Time 100 list. JT Wang did not go to New York to receive his award. This was consistent with his low-key style. But he was unable to hide his light under a bushel. Over the past four years, JT Wang's leadership has transformed Acer from the world's fifth largest personal computer maker to the second, behind Hewlett-Packard. Time magazine said the trend for the next decade will be the rise of Asian firms. These firms have demonstrated increasing refinement in marketing, design, branding, and other soft factors. JT Wang stands at the forefront of this wave of pioneers.
The Time 100 list shows Wang in the "leaders" category, in second place, behind Brazilian President Lula. He was listed ahead of fourth-ranked U.S. President Barack Obama, and sixth ranked Prime Minister of Japan Yukio Hatoyama. Acer has been praised for leading consumer trends. JT Wang responsded with modesty, saying "We do not rush to judgment. We merely respond to the consumer's needs." That an entrepreneur from Taiwan has been the recipient of such international recognition and praise has filled the public on Taiwan with pride.
Chen Shu-chu is a bodhisattva who works quietly. She is a diligent humanitarian who finds satisfaction in doing good. She preaches a philosophy of "accumulating virtue, not wealth." She unselfishly spreads love to the outside world. This humble vegetable stand owner demonstrated greater humanitarianism than many billionaires. JT Wang represents the wisdom and perseverance of entrepreneurs on Taiwan in pursuit of progress. He is careful in his assessments, and rigorous in his observations. He is never satisfied with the status quo. His is not arrogant. He considers the customer king. He listens to signals from the marketplace. Amidst fierce global competition, companies either move forward or fall behind. As the leader of Acer, JT Wang fully deserves his honor.
Individuals such as Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang reveal the Republic of China's true source of vitality. On Taiwan politics rules. Every day from dawn to dusk. mutual recriminations between the Blue and Green camps fill the air. These internal conflicts wear down the nation. One cannot help wondering how it can possibly endure? Now it would seem, the answer is clear. The Republic of China's vitality will be found not in the temple, but at the grassroots. The Republic of China's compass will be found not in the public sector, but the private. The Republic of China's ethics and values will be found not in the calculating minds of its politicians, but in the beating hearts of its citizens.
Chen Shu-chu is not alone. There are many unsung heroes on Taiwan, each quietly creating a better world, each protecting their weaker neighbors. JT Wang is not alone either. Other companies on Taiwan also have leaders with steady hands and lofty visions. Each of them in their own way, has been through hell and high water. Unfortunately the public is often unaware of their existence or underestimates their value. Until Forbes magazine honored Chen Shu-chu as an Asian humanitarian, her activities drew little attention. If Wang had not ranked high on the Time 100 list, would we have turned a blind eye to his efforts?
Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang are the "Lights of Taiwan." They have brought honor upon Taiwan. But lest we forget, their achievements did not become brighter merely because they were recognized by the foreign media. Their value predated their moment in the spotlight. People have been mesmerized by the political turmoil around them. They can no longer see the gems beneath their noses. Meanwhile, political turmoil has unnecessarily depleted society's energy, without offering one iota of happiness. Why does the public tolerate these politicians?
Vegetable stand owner Chen Shu-chu walked onto the red carpet wearing tennis shoes. She gave new meaning to the term "hero." She also let the world know that the righteousness people expect in life must be created by our own hands.
陳樹菊和王振堂：活出台灣的素樸和驕傲
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.06 02:00 am
時代雜誌頒獎給全球一百大最具影響力人物，台東賣菜阿嬤陳樹菊是唯一穿著球鞋出席的得獎人；但站在全球政治領袖和知名藝術家之間，卻反而格外襯托她的不平凡。她讓世界看到人的力量如何從草根噴湧，證明「影響力」絕非菁英階層的專利。
一生僅離開過兩次台東，過去最遠只到過台北，陳樹菊拿著生平第一本護照和地攤上一九九元新買的皮包遠赴紐約領獎，讓所有的台灣人都沾染了她的光榮。菜販微薄的收入，積蓄著難以想像的能量；刻苦的生活，懷抱著無以倫比的志願；狹小的世界，釋放出沒有邊際的愛心。對自己百般省儉，對助人卻極盡慷慨，正因為這樣強烈的反差，讓其間迸發的高貴人性更顯得珍貴動人。
當媒體幾將全部焦點放在陳樹菊身上時，別忘了台灣還有另一位上了百大影響力人物的企業家，那就是宏碁董事長王振堂。王振堂此次並未前往紐約領獎，這符合他一向的低調風格，卻掩不住他樸素而精準的領導光芒。過去四年多，在王振堂的帶領下，宏碁從全球第五大的個人電腦廠商躍升為第二大，僅次於惠普。時代雜誌的評語是，未來十年亞洲企業的崛起將成為趨勢，在行銷、設計、品牌等企業「軟元素」上愈發精進，王振堂代表了這波趨勢的先驅。
在百大排行榜上，王振堂名列「領袖」類第二名，僅次於巴西總統魯拉，卻領先排名第四的美國總統歐巴馬，及排名第六的日本首相鳩山由紀夫。對於宏碁受到讚譽善於引領消費風潮，王振堂僅謙虛地說：「我們不妄下評斷，我們只是追隨消費者的需要。」一位台灣企業家，在國際上受到這樣鄭重的肯定和推崇，當然也讓台灣與有榮焉。
陳樹菊是一個默默布施的素人菩薩，一個以自苦助人為樂的行善者。她自奉「積德不積財」哲學，無私地把愛心灑向人間，把一個菜販的大愛壘築得比億萬富翁還要高。王振堂則代表著台灣企業家追求精進的智慧和毅力，他審慎評估、嚴謹觀察，不滿足現狀、不妄自尊大，以消費者為師，聽取市場呼喚。在全球化的激烈競爭中，企業不進則退，王振堂領導宏碁成長，其榮譽絕非倖致。
從陳樹菊、王振堂這些人物身上，我們看到了台灣真正的生命力。在政治掛帥的台灣，每天從早到晚充斥著藍綠互罵的口水和爭鬥的煙塵，如此一個擾攘、內耗的國家，不禁讓人懷疑是靠著什麼來維繫？如今看來，答案其實非常明顯：台灣的活力，是在草根而不在廟堂；台灣的方向感，靠的是民間而不是政府；台灣的道德與價值，是鞏固於社會人心而不繫傍於政治。
除了陳樹菊，台灣其實還有很多行義不欲人知的庶人英雄，默默打造自己的善心世界，守護身旁的弱者。除了王振堂，台灣企業也還有其他瞻矚高遠、下手沉穩的領袖人物，在各自的戰場出生入死。遺憾的是，社會大眾似乎常常忽略了他們的存在，甚或低估了他們的價值。在富比世雜誌推選陳樹菊為亞洲慈善英雄前，她的義舉甚少引起國內注意；而如果王振堂不是高掛在時代雜誌的百大排行榜上，我們對他的努力是否也將視若無睹？
沒錯，陳樹菊和王振堂都是台灣之光，也把他們的榮耀帶給了台灣。但別忘了，他們的成就，不是因為受到國外媒體的肯定才變得更亮；他們的價值，是在聚光燈探照前即已存在，只是民眾的心神一直為政治紛擾所侵奪，乃至無法看清我們身旁既有的瑰寶。而反過來看，政治上許多無謂的紛擾耗竭了人們精力，卻無法為台灣增添一絲幸福感，民眾為何甘願受政客的驅遣？
穿著球鞋登上紅地毯的賣菜嬤陳樹菊，在紐約為「英雄」寫下了新的定義。她也讓世人了解：人生所能期待的正義，可以在自己手裡變成可能。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 6, 2010
Time Magazine has published its Time 100 list of the world's most influential people. Chen Shu-chu, a vegetable stand owner in Taitung was the only recipient to wear tennis shoes to the awards ceremony. As she stood amidst the world's most famous political leaders and artists, she displayed her uncommon character. She allowed the world to see how People Power originates at the grassroots. She showed that the ability to influence events is not reserved for the world's elites.
She has been away from her native Taitung only twice in her life. The farthest she got in the past was Taipei. Chen Shu-chu obtained her first passport, and along with a new purse she bought for 199NT (US$6) at a roadside stand, traveled to New York to receive her award. She made everyone on Taiwan proud. Given a greengrocer's meager income, it is hard to imagine the energy and boundless willpower she must have demonstrated to overcome hardships and get where she is today. It's a small world. She demonstrated a love for humanity without borders. She scrimped on herself, but was generous to a fault to others. Her humble appearance makes her noble character even more moving.
The media has focused the spotlight on Chen Shu-chu. But let us not forget Acer Chairman JT Wang, the other individual from Taiwan to make the Time 100 list. JT Wang did not go to New York to receive his award. This was consistent with his low-key style. But he was unable to hide his light under a bushel. Over the past four years, JT Wang's leadership has transformed Acer from the world's fifth largest personal computer maker to the second, behind Hewlett-Packard. Time magazine said the trend for the next decade will be the rise of Asian firms. These firms have demonstrated increasing refinement in marketing, design, branding, and other soft factors. JT Wang stands at the forefront of this wave of pioneers.
The Time 100 list shows Wang in the "leaders" category, in second place, behind Brazilian President Lula. He was listed ahead of fourth-ranked U.S. President Barack Obama, and sixth ranked Prime Minister of Japan Yukio Hatoyama. Acer has been praised for leading consumer trends. JT Wang responsded with modesty, saying "We do not rush to judgment. We merely respond to the consumer's needs." That an entrepreneur from Taiwan has been the recipient of such international recognition and praise has filled the public on Taiwan with pride.
Chen Shu-chu is a bodhisattva who works quietly. She is a diligent humanitarian who finds satisfaction in doing good. She preaches a philosophy of "accumulating virtue, not wealth." She unselfishly spreads love to the outside world. This humble vegetable stand owner demonstrated greater humanitarianism than many billionaires. JT Wang represents the wisdom and perseverance of entrepreneurs on Taiwan in pursuit of progress. He is careful in his assessments, and rigorous in his observations. He is never satisfied with the status quo. His is not arrogant. He considers the customer king. He listens to signals from the marketplace. Amidst fierce global competition, companies either move forward or fall behind. As the leader of Acer, JT Wang fully deserves his honor.
Individuals such as Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang reveal the Republic of China's true source of vitality. On Taiwan politics rules. Every day from dawn to dusk. mutual recriminations between the Blue and Green camps fill the air. These internal conflicts wear down the nation. One cannot help wondering how it can possibly endure? Now it would seem, the answer is clear. The Republic of China's vitality will be found not in the temple, but at the grassroots. The Republic of China's compass will be found not in the public sector, but the private. The Republic of China's ethics and values will be found not in the calculating minds of its politicians, but in the beating hearts of its citizens.
Chen Shu-chu is not alone. There are many unsung heroes on Taiwan, each quietly creating a better world, each protecting their weaker neighbors. JT Wang is not alone either. Other companies on Taiwan also have leaders with steady hands and lofty visions. Each of them in their own way, has been through hell and high water. Unfortunately the public is often unaware of their existence or underestimates their value. Until Forbes magazine honored Chen Shu-chu as an Asian humanitarian, her activities drew little attention. If Wang had not ranked high on the Time 100 list, would we have turned a blind eye to his efforts?
Chen Shu-chu and JT Wang are the "Lights of Taiwan." They have brought honor upon Taiwan. But lest we forget, their achievements did not become brighter merely because they were recognized by the foreign media. Their value predated their moment in the spotlight. People have been mesmerized by the political turmoil around them. They can no longer see the gems beneath their noses. Meanwhile, political turmoil has unnecessarily depleted society's energy, without offering one iota of happiness. Why does the public tolerate these politicians?
Vegetable stand owner Chen Shu-chu walked onto the red carpet wearing tennis shoes. She gave new meaning to the term "hero." She also let the world know that the righteousness people expect in life must be created by our own hands.
陳樹菊和王振堂：活出台灣的素樸和驕傲
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.06 02:00 am
時代雜誌頒獎給全球一百大最具影響力人物，台東賣菜阿嬤陳樹菊是唯一穿著球鞋出席的得獎人；但站在全球政治領袖和知名藝術家之間，卻反而格外襯托她的不平凡。她讓世界看到人的力量如何從草根噴湧，證明「影響力」絕非菁英階層的專利。
一生僅離開過兩次台東，過去最遠只到過台北，陳樹菊拿著生平第一本護照和地攤上一九九元新買的皮包遠赴紐約領獎，讓所有的台灣人都沾染了她的光榮。菜販微薄的收入，積蓄著難以想像的能量；刻苦的生活，懷抱著無以倫比的志願；狹小的世界，釋放出沒有邊際的愛心。對自己百般省儉，對助人卻極盡慷慨，正因為這樣強烈的反差，讓其間迸發的高貴人性更顯得珍貴動人。
當媒體幾將全部焦點放在陳樹菊身上時，別忘了台灣還有另一位上了百大影響力人物的企業家，那就是宏碁董事長王振堂。王振堂此次並未前往紐約領獎，這符合他一向的低調風格，卻掩不住他樸素而精準的領導光芒。過去四年多，在王振堂的帶領下，宏碁從全球第五大的個人電腦廠商躍升為第二大，僅次於惠普。時代雜誌的評語是，未來十年亞洲企業的崛起將成為趨勢，在行銷、設計、品牌等企業「軟元素」上愈發精進，王振堂代表了這波趨勢的先驅。
在百大排行榜上，王振堂名列「領袖」類第二名，僅次於巴西總統魯拉，卻領先排名第四的美國總統歐巴馬，及排名第六的日本首相鳩山由紀夫。對於宏碁受到讚譽善於引領消費風潮，王振堂僅謙虛地說：「我們不妄下評斷，我們只是追隨消費者的需要。」一位台灣企業家，在國際上受到這樣鄭重的肯定和推崇，當然也讓台灣與有榮焉。
陳樹菊是一個默默布施的素人菩薩，一個以自苦助人為樂的行善者。她自奉「積德不積財」哲學，無私地把愛心灑向人間，把一個菜販的大愛壘築得比億萬富翁還要高。王振堂則代表著台灣企業家追求精進的智慧和毅力，他審慎評估、嚴謹觀察，不滿足現狀、不妄自尊大，以消費者為師，聽取市場呼喚。在全球化的激烈競爭中，企業不進則退，王振堂領導宏碁成長，其榮譽絕非倖致。
從陳樹菊、王振堂這些人物身上，我們看到了台灣真正的生命力。在政治掛帥的台灣，每天從早到晚充斥著藍綠互罵的口水和爭鬥的煙塵，如此一個擾攘、內耗的國家，不禁讓人懷疑是靠著什麼來維繫？如今看來，答案其實非常明顯：台灣的活力，是在草根而不在廟堂；台灣的方向感，靠的是民間而不是政府；台灣的道德與價值，是鞏固於社會人心而不繫傍於政治。
除了陳樹菊，台灣其實還有很多行義不欲人知的庶人英雄，默默打造自己的善心世界，守護身旁的弱者。除了王振堂，台灣企業也還有其他瞻矚高遠、下手沉穩的領袖人物，在各自的戰場出生入死。遺憾的是，社會大眾似乎常常忽略了他們的存在，甚或低估了他們的價值。在富比世雜誌推選陳樹菊為亞洲慈善英雄前，她的義舉甚少引起國內注意；而如果王振堂不是高掛在時代雜誌的百大排行榜上，我們對他的努力是否也將視若無睹？
沒錯，陳樹菊和王振堂都是台灣之光，也把他們的榮耀帶給了台灣。但別忘了，他們的成就，不是因為受到國外媒體的肯定才變得更亮；他們的價值，是在聚光燈探照前即已存在，只是民眾的心神一直為政治紛擾所侵奪，乃至無法看清我們身旁既有的瑰寶。而反過來看，政治上許多無謂的紛擾耗竭了人們精力，卻無法為台灣增添一絲幸福感，民眾為何甘願受政客的驅遣？
穿著球鞋登上紅地毯的賣菜嬤陳樹菊，在紐約為「英雄」寫下了新的定義。她也讓世人了解：人生所能期待的正義，可以在自己手裡變成可能。
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Why the US Approves of President Ma's Cross-Strait Policy
Why the US Approves of President Ma's Cross-Strait Policy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 5, 2010
The cross-Strait situation has changed. The most important factor in Taipei's security is no longer military might. Instead it is the restoration of Taiwan's regional economic status. Rather than buying arms from Washington, Taipei would be better off upgrading Taiwan's economy. Doing so would attract international trade. International companies, including US companies, would increase economic and trade relations with Taiwan, and thereby transform Taiwan into an international trade platform.
This is one reason why Taipei should sign ECFA. It is also the reason Washington wants Taipei and Beijing to sign ECFA.
Taipei faces a new global and cross-Strait scenario. The only way for Taiwan to survive is for Taipei to open Taiwan up. Taipei must transform Taiwan into an "island of free trade" or an "Asian Pacific Platform." Actually ECFA is merely one of any number of ways of transforming Taiwan into an "island of economic freedom." Doing so will improve exports for businesses that have kept their roots on Taiwan. But this is hardly the only benefit. Even more important, doing so will attract foreign and mainland companies, encouraging them to develop trade relations with Taiwan. If capital from Taiwan, the mainland, and abroad can come together on Taiwan, creating common interests, not only will Taiwan's economy be reborn, the Republic of China's national security will be reinforced. This is something we have consistently advocated for over a decade. If Taiwan's economic role can be internationalized, the "Taiwan problem" can also be internationalized.
Tsai Ing-wen issued a strategic assessment of ECFA. She said that if Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA, East Asia will become a "Sino-centric East Asia." The result would be a weakening and marginalization of the US. Her unspoken implication was that [mainland] China's "rise" and the United States' "decline" must not be allowed. What is this but turning the clock back? What is this but a Cold War mentality? Tsai Ing-wen tried to play the America card. Unfortunately her play was inconsistent with US interests. As a result Washington gave her a sharp slap across the face. The American Institute in Taiwan issued a statement saying that the United States would be happy to see Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA.
Washington's cross-Strait policy naturally includes strategic considerations. But these are not considerations Tsai Ing-wen can readily manipulate. Washington of course has interests in East Asia. But obviously they are not what Tsai Ing-wen imagined them to be. In recent years, Washington has held the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy in high regard. Clearly Washington's strategic thinking has changed. Washington wants Taipei to move from violent confrontation with Beijing, to peaceful relations with Beijing. Washington wants Taipei to move from military and political confrontation to economic coopetition. Therefore ECFA is consistent with Washington's strategic thinking. It is also consistent with Washington's interests.
Any sensible person can see that the most pressing national security concern Taipei faces is not any military threat from Beijing, but Taiwan's economic plight. Taipei cannot eliminate the military threat from Bejing by force. It must use economic and trade coopetition to blunt the threat and transform the crisis. The Ma administration's policy uses economics and trade to change Taipei's strategic circumstances. Washington holds this policy in high regard. Washington is well aware it can no longer determine the direction of cross-Strait relations through military intervention. It knows the best way to balance cross-Strait relations is to help Taipei turn Taiwan into a regional economic platform. Given this thinking, Washington will naturally want Taipei and Beijing to sign ECFA. American, Japanese, and European companies will naturally be happy to see Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA. They consider it beneficial to the development of trade with Taiwan.
Opposition to ECFA is in effect opposition to foreign and mainland business interests entering the gateway to Taiwan. Opposition to ECFA prevents Taiwan from becoming a "island of free trade" or and "Asian Pacific Platform." Taipei has a strategic goal -- to establish a national security system based on international trade. Opposition to ECFA runs counter to this goal. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen's strategic proposal was not merely incompatible with the Ma administration's strategic thinking. It was diametrically opposed to the strategic thinking of the U.S. government, and the economic interests of American, Japanese, and European businesses. Is it any wonder Tsai Ing-wen received a slap in the face?
Given globalization and the G2 framework, Washington may still wish to help Taipei. But it can only do so by means of economics and trade. If Taipei wants to defuse cross-Strait tensions, it must deal with cross-Strait trade and economic coopetition. What else is there? Opposition to ECFA effectively slams the door in the face of US and foreign investors. Opposition to ECFA will also force cross-Strait economic and political relations to spiral out of control. Opposition to ECFA may deliver a fatal blow to Taipei's security. Even Washington objects to it. Is Tsai Ing-wen the only one who fails to see this? Tsai Ing-wen boasted that she hoped to "join the world in its march into [mainland] China." But why not let the world march into Taiwan first?
Washington may sell Taipei F-16Cs and F-16Ds. But such sales are mere political symbolism. Besides, Washington has been quite hesitant about such sales. Taipei can and must commit to opening its doors, post haste. It must rescind its Closed Door Policy. It must improve Taiwan's international trade environment. It must allow capital from Taiwan, the mainland, the US, and other nations to create a deeply-rooted community of interests. This community of interests will be Taipei's security system. Time is not on our side. Circumstances are not on our side. It is not enough to sign ECFA. Far more must be done, and time is running out.
Rather than buying F-16s, why not sign an FTA with Washington? Why not transform Taiwan into an "island of free trade?" Signing ECFA is merely a tiny step. But without this tiny step, nothing else is possible.
美國為何贊同馬總統的兩岸政策
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.05 03:17 am
兩岸情勢丕變，台灣最重要的安全憑藉不是軍事，而在整建台灣的區域經貿角色。或許可以這麼說：台灣與其向美國採購軍火，不如致力於改善台灣吸引國際經貿往來的環境，使得包括美資在內的國際廠商，與台灣加深放大經貿關係，將台灣建設成一個國際經貿平台。
這是台灣為何要簽ＥＣＦＡ的理由之一，也應是美國樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ的理由之一。
面對全球及兩岸新局，台灣唯一的生存之道就是開放，朝向「經貿自由島」或「亞太平台」的目標邁進；就此以言，ＥＣＦＡ其實只是邁向「經貿自由島」的條件之一而已，其效益絕非僅在便利根留台灣的台商出口，而更重要的是期能吸引外商及陸商加強發展對台經貿關係；若能使台資、陸資、外資在台灣因而發生盤根錯節的利害關係，台灣非但在經濟上得以脫胎換骨，在國家安全上也可獲得保障。這就是我們十餘年來所一貫主張的：台灣的經貿角色若能國際化，「台灣問題」就能國際化。
蔡英文對ＥＣＦＡ發表「戰略」評價，她說，台灣與中國簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，將使東亞變成「以中國為中心的東亞」，更將造成美國的弱化與邊緣化。言外之意是，不能讓中國「崛起」，不能將美國「弱化」；這其實是倒撥時鐘的冷戰思維。然而，蔡英文借箸代籌為美國謀，卻顯不符合美國的利益，故挨了美國火辣辣的一耳光。在台協會發布聲明稱：美國樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ。
美國的台海兩岸政策，自然有「戰略」思維，但不是蔡英文所能左右；美國在東亞當然有「利益」關懷，但也顯非蔡英文所想像。近年來，美國對馬政府的兩岸政策持高度的肯定評價，可見美國的相關戰略與利益思考已經轉向，亦即：台灣對中國必須由對抗走向和平，由軍事及政治角力走向經貿競合。準此以論，ＥＣＦＡ符合美國此種「戰略」思維，亦即符合美國的利益。
任何明理者皆可看出，台灣如今面臨的最直接且最嚴重的國家安全顧慮，不是對岸的軍事威脅，而在經濟困局；且台灣亦無可能靠武力來解決對岸的軍事威脅，而必須以經貿競合手段來柔化情勢、轉化危機。美國對馬政府所採「以經貿手段改變台灣戰略角色」的政策持高度肯定態度，亦當是深知，美國已無可能以軍事手段介入兩岸關係；而平衡兩岸關係最好的方法，應是協助台灣建立其在區域經濟上的平台角色。在此種思考下，美國當然樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ；因為，美商、日商、歐商都樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，皆認為有益於他們發展對台經貿。
就此以論，反對ＥＣＦＡ，其實是阻擋了外商、陸商進入台灣的門徑，使得台灣成為「經貿自由島」或「亞太平台」的可能性趨低，因而也傷損了台灣欲以國際經貿網絡來建構國家安全體系的「戰略」目標。也就是說，蔡英文所提出的「戰略」主張，非但與馬政府冰炭不容，甚至亦與美國政府及美商、日商和歐商的戰略與利益背道而馳，豈能不挨一巴掌？
在全球化及Ｇ２的世局架構下，美國縱然仍有協助台灣之心，但也只能從經貿門徑入手；而台灣若欲化解兩岸危機，倘連雙邊經貿競合問題亦無能力處理，遑論其他？反對ＥＣＦＡ，其實形同在經貿門徑上對美國及外資關門，也將使得兩岸經貿及政治關係更形失控。這些皆可能形成對台灣安全的致命性傷害，連美國都不贊成，何獨蔡英文的「戰略觀」見不及此？蔡英文誇稱要「由世界走向中國」，但為何不先讓世界走進台灣？
美國即使賣給台灣Ｆ十六／ＣＤ，那主要也只是政治象徵意義，何況美國對此頗見猶豫；台灣如今能夠作與應當作的，就是致力於全速打開大門，勿再鎖國，改善台灣的國際經貿環境，使得台資、陸資、美資，及其他外資在台灣形成一個盤根錯節的「利益共同體」，化作台灣的安全體系。就此以言，時不我予，勢不我予，只簽ＥＣＦＡ還不夠，要作的事還多著、急著呢！
與其買Ｆ十六，不如與美國簽ＦＴＡ，更不如將台灣建設為「自由貿易島」。就此而言，簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，其實只是很小很小的一步而已；但若無此一小步，就沒有其他。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 5, 2010
The cross-Strait situation has changed. The most important factor in Taipei's security is no longer military might. Instead it is the restoration of Taiwan's regional economic status. Rather than buying arms from Washington, Taipei would be better off upgrading Taiwan's economy. Doing so would attract international trade. International companies, including US companies, would increase economic and trade relations with Taiwan, and thereby transform Taiwan into an international trade platform.
This is one reason why Taipei should sign ECFA. It is also the reason Washington wants Taipei and Beijing to sign ECFA.
Taipei faces a new global and cross-Strait scenario. The only way for Taiwan to survive is for Taipei to open Taiwan up. Taipei must transform Taiwan into an "island of free trade" or an "Asian Pacific Platform." Actually ECFA is merely one of any number of ways of transforming Taiwan into an "island of economic freedom." Doing so will improve exports for businesses that have kept their roots on Taiwan. But this is hardly the only benefit. Even more important, doing so will attract foreign and mainland companies, encouraging them to develop trade relations with Taiwan. If capital from Taiwan, the mainland, and abroad can come together on Taiwan, creating common interests, not only will Taiwan's economy be reborn, the Republic of China's national security will be reinforced. This is something we have consistently advocated for over a decade. If Taiwan's economic role can be internationalized, the "Taiwan problem" can also be internationalized.
Tsai Ing-wen issued a strategic assessment of ECFA. She said that if Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA, East Asia will become a "Sino-centric East Asia." The result would be a weakening and marginalization of the US. Her unspoken implication was that [mainland] China's "rise" and the United States' "decline" must not be allowed. What is this but turning the clock back? What is this but a Cold War mentality? Tsai Ing-wen tried to play the America card. Unfortunately her play was inconsistent with US interests. As a result Washington gave her a sharp slap across the face. The American Institute in Taiwan issued a statement saying that the United States would be happy to see Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA.
Washington's cross-Strait policy naturally includes strategic considerations. But these are not considerations Tsai Ing-wen can readily manipulate. Washington of course has interests in East Asia. But obviously they are not what Tsai Ing-wen imagined them to be. In recent years, Washington has held the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy in high regard. Clearly Washington's strategic thinking has changed. Washington wants Taipei to move from violent confrontation with Beijing, to peaceful relations with Beijing. Washington wants Taipei to move from military and political confrontation to economic coopetition. Therefore ECFA is consistent with Washington's strategic thinking. It is also consistent with Washington's interests.
Any sensible person can see that the most pressing national security concern Taipei faces is not any military threat from Beijing, but Taiwan's economic plight. Taipei cannot eliminate the military threat from Bejing by force. It must use economic and trade coopetition to blunt the threat and transform the crisis. The Ma administration's policy uses economics and trade to change Taipei's strategic circumstances. Washington holds this policy in high regard. Washington is well aware it can no longer determine the direction of cross-Strait relations through military intervention. It knows the best way to balance cross-Strait relations is to help Taipei turn Taiwan into a regional economic platform. Given this thinking, Washington will naturally want Taipei and Beijing to sign ECFA. American, Japanese, and European companies will naturally be happy to see Taipei and Beijing sign ECFA. They consider it beneficial to the development of trade with Taiwan.
Opposition to ECFA is in effect opposition to foreign and mainland business interests entering the gateway to Taiwan. Opposition to ECFA prevents Taiwan from becoming a "island of free trade" or and "Asian Pacific Platform." Taipei has a strategic goal -- to establish a national security system based on international trade. Opposition to ECFA runs counter to this goal. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen's strategic proposal was not merely incompatible with the Ma administration's strategic thinking. It was diametrically opposed to the strategic thinking of the U.S. government, and the economic interests of American, Japanese, and European businesses. Is it any wonder Tsai Ing-wen received a slap in the face?
Given globalization and the G2 framework, Washington may still wish to help Taipei. But it can only do so by means of economics and trade. If Taipei wants to defuse cross-Strait tensions, it must deal with cross-Strait trade and economic coopetition. What else is there? Opposition to ECFA effectively slams the door in the face of US and foreign investors. Opposition to ECFA will also force cross-Strait economic and political relations to spiral out of control. Opposition to ECFA may deliver a fatal blow to Taipei's security. Even Washington objects to it. Is Tsai Ing-wen the only one who fails to see this? Tsai Ing-wen boasted that she hoped to "join the world in its march into [mainland] China." But why not let the world march into Taiwan first?
Washington may sell Taipei F-16Cs and F-16Ds. But such sales are mere political symbolism. Besides, Washington has been quite hesitant about such sales. Taipei can and must commit to opening its doors, post haste. It must rescind its Closed Door Policy. It must improve Taiwan's international trade environment. It must allow capital from Taiwan, the mainland, the US, and other nations to create a deeply-rooted community of interests. This community of interests will be Taipei's security system. Time is not on our side. Circumstances are not on our side. It is not enough to sign ECFA. Far more must be done, and time is running out.
Rather than buying F-16s, why not sign an FTA with Washington? Why not transform Taiwan into an "island of free trade?" Signing ECFA is merely a tiny step. But without this tiny step, nothing else is possible.
美國為何贊同馬總統的兩岸政策
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.05 03:17 am
兩岸情勢丕變，台灣最重要的安全憑藉不是軍事，而在整建台灣的區域經貿角色。或許可以這麼說：台灣與其向美國採購軍火，不如致力於改善台灣吸引國際經貿往來的環境，使得包括美資在內的國際廠商，與台灣加深放大經貿關係，將台灣建設成一個國際經貿平台。
這是台灣為何要簽ＥＣＦＡ的理由之一，也應是美國樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ的理由之一。
面對全球及兩岸新局，台灣唯一的生存之道就是開放，朝向「經貿自由島」或「亞太平台」的目標邁進；就此以言，ＥＣＦＡ其實只是邁向「經貿自由島」的條件之一而已，其效益絕非僅在便利根留台灣的台商出口，而更重要的是期能吸引外商及陸商加強發展對台經貿關係；若能使台資、陸資、外資在台灣因而發生盤根錯節的利害關係，台灣非但在經濟上得以脫胎換骨，在國家安全上也可獲得保障。這就是我們十餘年來所一貫主張的：台灣的經貿角色若能國際化，「台灣問題」就能國際化。
蔡英文對ＥＣＦＡ發表「戰略」評價，她說，台灣與中國簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，將使東亞變成「以中國為中心的東亞」，更將造成美國的弱化與邊緣化。言外之意是，不能讓中國「崛起」，不能將美國「弱化」；這其實是倒撥時鐘的冷戰思維。然而，蔡英文借箸代籌為美國謀，卻顯不符合美國的利益，故挨了美國火辣辣的一耳光。在台協會發布聲明稱：美國樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ。
美國的台海兩岸政策，自然有「戰略」思維，但不是蔡英文所能左右；美國在東亞當然有「利益」關懷，但也顯非蔡英文所想像。近年來，美國對馬政府的兩岸政策持高度的肯定評價，可見美國的相關戰略與利益思考已經轉向，亦即：台灣對中國必須由對抗走向和平，由軍事及政治角力走向經貿競合。準此以論，ＥＣＦＡ符合美國此種「戰略」思維，亦即符合美國的利益。
任何明理者皆可看出，台灣如今面臨的最直接且最嚴重的國家安全顧慮，不是對岸的軍事威脅，而在經濟困局；且台灣亦無可能靠武力來解決對岸的軍事威脅，而必須以經貿競合手段來柔化情勢、轉化危機。美國對馬政府所採「以經貿手段改變台灣戰略角色」的政策持高度肯定態度，亦當是深知，美國已無可能以軍事手段介入兩岸關係；而平衡兩岸關係最好的方法，應是協助台灣建立其在區域經濟上的平台角色。在此種思考下，美國當然樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ；因為，美商、日商、歐商都樂見兩岸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，皆認為有益於他們發展對台經貿。
就此以論，反對ＥＣＦＡ，其實是阻擋了外商、陸商進入台灣的門徑，使得台灣成為「經貿自由島」或「亞太平台」的可能性趨低，因而也傷損了台灣欲以國際經貿網絡來建構國家安全體系的「戰略」目標。也就是說，蔡英文所提出的「戰略」主張，非但與馬政府冰炭不容，甚至亦與美國政府及美商、日商和歐商的戰略與利益背道而馳，豈能不挨一巴掌？
在全球化及Ｇ２的世局架構下，美國縱然仍有協助台灣之心，但也只能從經貿門徑入手；而台灣若欲化解兩岸危機，倘連雙邊經貿競合問題亦無能力處理，遑論其他？反對ＥＣＦＡ，其實形同在經貿門徑上對美國及外資關門，也將使得兩岸經貿及政治關係更形失控。這些皆可能形成對台灣安全的致命性傷害，連美國都不贊成，何獨蔡英文的「戰略觀」見不及此？蔡英文誇稱要「由世界走向中國」，但為何不先讓世界走進台灣？
美國即使賣給台灣Ｆ十六／ＣＤ，那主要也只是政治象徵意義，何況美國對此頗見猶豫；台灣如今能夠作與應當作的，就是致力於全速打開大門，勿再鎖國，改善台灣的國際經貿環境，使得台資、陸資、美資，及其他外資在台灣形成一個盤根錯節的「利益共同體」，化作台灣的安全體系。就此以言，時不我予，勢不我予，只簽ＥＣＦＡ還不夠，要作的事還多著、急著呢！
與其買Ｆ十六，不如與美國簽ＦＴＡ，更不如將台灣建設為「自由貿易島」。就此而言，簽訂ＥＣＦＡ，其實只是很小很小的一步而已；但若無此一小步，就沒有其他。
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
President Ma is Determined to Sign FTAs
President Ma is Determined to Sign FTAs
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 4, 2010
President Ma Ying-jeou said he would elevate the status of the administration's free trade agreement (FTA) task force. He would personally head the organization. This is a rare departure from past practice. It underscores our leaders' resolve, and it deserves our applause.
The president is the nation's highest ranking political leader. Entities headed by the president have extraordinary significance. Examples include the National Unification Council and the Cultural Association. Such entities can be counted on the fingers of one hand. For the president to convene such an entity is no minor matter. It is a powerful political gesture, a declaration that the government intends to do everything in its power to promote the matter and to achieve results. Therefore when Ma Ying-jeou announces that the government is elevating the status of the FTA task force to the presidential level, it amounts to a political endorsement by the highest ranking official in the nation. It is a political commitment to the public as a whole. Obviously once the two sides sign ECFA, the Ma administration's next objective will be to sign FTAs.
Taipei has long sought to sign FTAs with other governments. But so far it has made little headway. Only five governments in Central America have signed. They are Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador. The problem is primarily political -- opposition from Beijing. Taipei's major trading partners are not diplomatic allies. During past attempts to sign FTAs, the other side was often concerned about Beijing. The most progress made toward the signing of FTAs with former allies or non allies was with Singapore. But negotiations broke down over what to call the Republic of China government in Taipei.
Products exported from other countries are often tariff free. Products exported from the Taiwan region on the other hand, are subject to tariffs. This of course adversely impacts price competitiveness and profits. That is why our government actively sought World Trade Organization (WTO) membership for so long, and why it has now finally been able to join. We hoped that the WTO would eliminate all national trade barriers in one fell swoop. But progress was stalled during the Doha Rounds. Many governments reverted to bilateral and regional FTAs. To date nations the world over have signed 266 FTAs. On January 1 of this year, the ASEAN plus mainland China (ASEAN plus One) Free Trade Zone was launched. In terms of size it trails only the European Union and NAFTA. Two years from now, Japan and South Korea will join, making it ASEAN plus Three.
FTAs are of course not panaceas. Deciding which industries should be opened up and which should be protected will require lengthy consultation. Signing an FTA does not guarantee a dramatic increase in trade. But once a free trade bloc has been formed, not being part of it often means the loss of vital opportunities. That is why so many are worried. If Taipei cannot find a way to join FTAs as soon as possible, Taiwan's economy is likely to be marginalized in the global marketplace.
Signing ECFA will definitely help the cross-Strait flow of goods, capital and technology. But the public also wants Taipei to improve cross-Strait relations. It wants more internationalization. It does not want to move further away from the international community. It does not want to be absorbed by the mainland's economic system, and to gradually lose its autonomy. To do so would increase public anxiety. If the government can sign FTAs with the governments of other countries, it will create more trade opportunities. It will also establish balance, reducing dependence upon the mainland market, and decreasing public anxiety.
Beijing once opposed Taipei signing FTAs with non allies. It felt that signing FTAs was an assertion of national sovereignty. Therefore once the two sides sign ECFA, Beijing will no longer stop Taipei from signing FTAs with other countries. This will be an important indicator of Beijing's goodwill, and is something the Ma administration eagerly anticipates. Many governments have expressed a willingness to sign FTAs with Taipei. The precondition is that Beijing does not object. In other words, if this obstacle can be removed, Taipei may be able to sign FTAs much sooner.
In recent years Taipei has attempted to handle the matter according to WTO rules. Some time ago, the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" (Chinese Taipei for short) joined the WTO, the Conference on Asian Economic Cooperation (APEC) and other organizations. This was a flexible and pragmatic approach. Resort to such terminology allowed greater ambiguity regarding sovereignty. It increased the likelihood that Taipei would be admitted. This is not our favored model. This is not a perfect model. But it is the most viable model, and it enables us to rejoin the international community.
Beijing and Taipei are both WTO members. If Taipei uses the WTO model to sign FTAs with non allies, it is consistent with WTO resolutions. It does not conflict with these countries' non recognition policy toward the Republic of China. Beijing, which is also a WTO member, truly has no cause to object.
The Beijing government's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi recently said that if Taipei signs FTAs with other countries, it will be "good for everyone." This is a positive development. We hope this means Beijing is willing to express greater goodwill toward Taipei. The diplomatic truce has enabled Taipei to attend the World Health Assembly. Once the two sides increase exchanges by signing ECFA, Beijing should drop its objections and allow Taipei to sign FTAs with other governments.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.04
馬總統領軍簽FTA 展現積極意志
本報訊
馬英九總統表示將提升政府自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）小組層級，由他本人親自領軍，這是過去少見的作法，充分傳達出一個國家領導人的積極意志，值得喝采。
總統的政治高度居全國之最，回顧過去，由總統親自領軍的組織，都有特別重要的實質及象徵意義，例如國統會、文化總會，但類似案例屈指可數，因為以總統之尊來擔綱召集非同小可，其動作本身就是一個強烈的政治姿態，宣示國家將全力推動這項政策，而且務求取得成果。因此，馬英九宣布把政府ＦＴＡ小組拉高到總統層級，是以國家最高領導人的全部政治重量來背書，也是他自己對全民的一個政治承諾。由此看來，顯然在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，馬政府下一個全力推動的目標將是ＦＴＡ。
台灣過去一直尋求與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，但進展有限，至今只和巴拿馬、瓜地馬拉、尼加拉瓜、宏都拉斯、薩爾瓦多等五個中美洲國家完成簽署。問題主要還是卡在政治─也就是中國的反對。台灣的主要貿易夥伴都不是邦交國，過去要洽簽ＦＴＡ時，往往對方會顧忌中國的反對。之前和非邦交國談ＦＴＡ進度最好的是新加坡，但最後是在台灣的名稱問題上卡住而停擺至今。
同一個市場，其他國家產品進入不需關稅，台灣產品進入卻要加上關稅，價格競爭力及獲利當然大受影響。這也是為什麼，我國積極爭取多年，終於能夠加入世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）。當時希望藉著ＷＴＯ的平台，一舉翻越各國貿易障礙，但杜哈回合進展停滯，許多國家於是回歸雙邊及集團化的ＦＴＡ。至今全球已經簽了二百六十六個ＦＴＡ，今年一月一日起東南亞國協與中國的「東協加一」自由貿易區上路，規模僅次於歐洲聯盟與北美自由貿易區。兩年後，日本與南韓還會加入，形成「東協加三」的格局。
當然，ＦＴＡ不是萬靈丹，哪些產業要開放、哪些要保護，都需要相當的磋商過程，簽了也不見得保證讓貿易突飛猛進，但在這個自由貿易區塊紛紛成形的時代，沒有它，可能會失去很多機會。因此不少人擔心，台灣如果不能盡快尋求進入自貿集團的管道，很可能會在全球競爭中落入邊緣地位。
兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ固然有助貨品、資金、技術的流通，但民眾也希望台灣在改善兩岸關係後，能進一步加強國際化，而不是被吸納到中國經濟體系裡，逐漸失去自主性，離國際社會也愈來愈遠，這會讓民眾的不安全感增強。如果政府能與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，當然有助於開拓更多貿易商機，此外還可以產生平衡效果，一方面降低對中國市場的依賴，一方面也化解民眾的不安。
過去中國強烈反對台灣與非邦交國簽署ＦＴＡ，認為簽署ＦＴＡ是對國家主權地位的一種肯定，因此在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，中國是不是繼續阻擋台灣與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，將是民眾評量中國對台善意的一項重要指標，也是接下來對馬政府的期待。很多國家都表示樂意與台灣簽署ＦＴＡ，前提是中國並不反對，換句話說，這道障礙若能撤除，台灣對外簽署ＦＴＡ的進度有可能大幅加快。
其實，近年來台灣已試圖循ＷＴＯ模式處理。當年台灣以台澎金馬關稅領域（簡稱中華台北）加入ＷＴＯ、亞洲經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）等組織，就是一種務實的變通作法。用這個名稱模式，可以讓主權地位問題多些模糊空間，增加台灣被接納的機會。這不是我們最喜歡的完美模式，卻是要參與國際社會目前最可行的方案。
事實上，中國與台灣都是ＷＴＯ的會員，台灣如果用ＷＴＯ模式來與非邦交國簽署ＦＴＡ，既符合ＷＴＯ的決議，也不違背這些國家並不承認中華民國的外交立場，同樣是ＷＴＯ會員的中國，實在不需要再強硬反對。
中國國台辦主任王毅日前表示，台灣與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，「對大家都有好處」，態度相當正面。我們希望這意味著中國對台灣願意釋出更多善意，在「外交休兵」、台灣獲邀出席世界衛生組織年會、兩岸加強交流及簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，中國還能放手不再干擾台灣對外簽署ＦＴＡ的努力。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 4, 2010
President Ma Ying-jeou said he would elevate the status of the administration's free trade agreement (FTA) task force. He would personally head the organization. This is a rare departure from past practice. It underscores our leaders' resolve, and it deserves our applause.
The president is the nation's highest ranking political leader. Entities headed by the president have extraordinary significance. Examples include the National Unification Council and the Cultural Association. Such entities can be counted on the fingers of one hand. For the president to convene such an entity is no minor matter. It is a powerful political gesture, a declaration that the government intends to do everything in its power to promote the matter and to achieve results. Therefore when Ma Ying-jeou announces that the government is elevating the status of the FTA task force to the presidential level, it amounts to a political endorsement by the highest ranking official in the nation. It is a political commitment to the public as a whole. Obviously once the two sides sign ECFA, the Ma administration's next objective will be to sign FTAs.
Taipei has long sought to sign FTAs with other governments. But so far it has made little headway. Only five governments in Central America have signed. They are Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador. The problem is primarily political -- opposition from Beijing. Taipei's major trading partners are not diplomatic allies. During past attempts to sign FTAs, the other side was often concerned about Beijing. The most progress made toward the signing of FTAs with former allies or non allies was with Singapore. But negotiations broke down over what to call the Republic of China government in Taipei.
Products exported from other countries are often tariff free. Products exported from the Taiwan region on the other hand, are subject to tariffs. This of course adversely impacts price competitiveness and profits. That is why our government actively sought World Trade Organization (WTO) membership for so long, and why it has now finally been able to join. We hoped that the WTO would eliminate all national trade barriers in one fell swoop. But progress was stalled during the Doha Rounds. Many governments reverted to bilateral and regional FTAs. To date nations the world over have signed 266 FTAs. On January 1 of this year, the ASEAN plus mainland China (ASEAN plus One) Free Trade Zone was launched. In terms of size it trails only the European Union and NAFTA. Two years from now, Japan and South Korea will join, making it ASEAN plus Three.
FTAs are of course not panaceas. Deciding which industries should be opened up and which should be protected will require lengthy consultation. Signing an FTA does not guarantee a dramatic increase in trade. But once a free trade bloc has been formed, not being part of it often means the loss of vital opportunities. That is why so many are worried. If Taipei cannot find a way to join FTAs as soon as possible, Taiwan's economy is likely to be marginalized in the global marketplace.
Signing ECFA will definitely help the cross-Strait flow of goods, capital and technology. But the public also wants Taipei to improve cross-Strait relations. It wants more internationalization. It does not want to move further away from the international community. It does not want to be absorbed by the mainland's economic system, and to gradually lose its autonomy. To do so would increase public anxiety. If the government can sign FTAs with the governments of other countries, it will create more trade opportunities. It will also establish balance, reducing dependence upon the mainland market, and decreasing public anxiety.
Beijing once opposed Taipei signing FTAs with non allies. It felt that signing FTAs was an assertion of national sovereignty. Therefore once the two sides sign ECFA, Beijing will no longer stop Taipei from signing FTAs with other countries. This will be an important indicator of Beijing's goodwill, and is something the Ma administration eagerly anticipates. Many governments have expressed a willingness to sign FTAs with Taipei. The precondition is that Beijing does not object. In other words, if this obstacle can be removed, Taipei may be able to sign FTAs much sooner.
In recent years Taipei has attempted to handle the matter according to WTO rules. Some time ago, the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" (Chinese Taipei for short) joined the WTO, the Conference on Asian Economic Cooperation (APEC) and other organizations. This was a flexible and pragmatic approach. Resort to such terminology allowed greater ambiguity regarding sovereignty. It increased the likelihood that Taipei would be admitted. This is not our favored model. This is not a perfect model. But it is the most viable model, and it enables us to rejoin the international community.
Beijing and Taipei are both WTO members. If Taipei uses the WTO model to sign FTAs with non allies, it is consistent with WTO resolutions. It does not conflict with these countries' non recognition policy toward the Republic of China. Beijing, which is also a WTO member, truly has no cause to object.
The Beijing government's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi recently said that if Taipei signs FTAs with other countries, it will be "good for everyone." This is a positive development. We hope this means Beijing is willing to express greater goodwill toward Taipei. The diplomatic truce has enabled Taipei to attend the World Health Assembly. Once the two sides increase exchanges by signing ECFA, Beijing should drop its objections and allow Taipei to sign FTAs with other governments.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.04
馬總統領軍簽FTA 展現積極意志
本報訊
馬英九總統表示將提升政府自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）小組層級，由他本人親自領軍，這是過去少見的作法，充分傳達出一個國家領導人的積極意志，值得喝采。
總統的政治高度居全國之最，回顧過去，由總統親自領軍的組織，都有特別重要的實質及象徵意義，例如國統會、文化總會，但類似案例屈指可數，因為以總統之尊來擔綱召集非同小可，其動作本身就是一個強烈的政治姿態，宣示國家將全力推動這項政策，而且務求取得成果。因此，馬英九宣布把政府ＦＴＡ小組拉高到總統層級，是以國家最高領導人的全部政治重量來背書，也是他自己對全民的一個政治承諾。由此看來，顯然在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，馬政府下一個全力推動的目標將是ＦＴＡ。
台灣過去一直尋求與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，但進展有限，至今只和巴拿馬、瓜地馬拉、尼加拉瓜、宏都拉斯、薩爾瓦多等五個中美洲國家完成簽署。問題主要還是卡在政治─也就是中國的反對。台灣的主要貿易夥伴都不是邦交國，過去要洽簽ＦＴＡ時，往往對方會顧忌中國的反對。之前和非邦交國談ＦＴＡ進度最好的是新加坡，但最後是在台灣的名稱問題上卡住而停擺至今。
同一個市場，其他國家產品進入不需關稅，台灣產品進入卻要加上關稅，價格競爭力及獲利當然大受影響。這也是為什麼，我國積極爭取多年，終於能夠加入世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）。當時希望藉著ＷＴＯ的平台，一舉翻越各國貿易障礙，但杜哈回合進展停滯，許多國家於是回歸雙邊及集團化的ＦＴＡ。至今全球已經簽了二百六十六個ＦＴＡ，今年一月一日起東南亞國協與中國的「東協加一」自由貿易區上路，規模僅次於歐洲聯盟與北美自由貿易區。兩年後，日本與南韓還會加入，形成「東協加三」的格局。
當然，ＦＴＡ不是萬靈丹，哪些產業要開放、哪些要保護，都需要相當的磋商過程，簽了也不見得保證讓貿易突飛猛進，但在這個自由貿易區塊紛紛成形的時代，沒有它，可能會失去很多機會。因此不少人擔心，台灣如果不能盡快尋求進入自貿集團的管道，很可能會在全球競爭中落入邊緣地位。
兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ固然有助貨品、資金、技術的流通，但民眾也希望台灣在改善兩岸關係後，能進一步加強國際化，而不是被吸納到中國經濟體系裡，逐漸失去自主性，離國際社會也愈來愈遠，這會讓民眾的不安全感增強。如果政府能與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，當然有助於開拓更多貿易商機，此外還可以產生平衡效果，一方面降低對中國市場的依賴，一方面也化解民眾的不安。
過去中國強烈反對台灣與非邦交國簽署ＦＴＡ，認為簽署ＦＴＡ是對國家主權地位的一種肯定，因此在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，中國是不是繼續阻擋台灣與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，將是民眾評量中國對台善意的一項重要指標，也是接下來對馬政府的期待。很多國家都表示樂意與台灣簽署ＦＴＡ，前提是中國並不反對，換句話說，這道障礙若能撤除，台灣對外簽署ＦＴＡ的進度有可能大幅加快。
其實，近年來台灣已試圖循ＷＴＯ模式處理。當年台灣以台澎金馬關稅領域（簡稱中華台北）加入ＷＴＯ、亞洲經合會議（ＡＰＥＣ）等組織，就是一種務實的變通作法。用這個名稱模式，可以讓主權地位問題多些模糊空間，增加台灣被接納的機會。這不是我們最喜歡的完美模式，卻是要參與國際社會目前最可行的方案。
事實上，中國與台灣都是ＷＴＯ的會員，台灣如果用ＷＴＯ模式來與非邦交國簽署ＦＴＡ，既符合ＷＴＯ的決議，也不違背這些國家並不承認中華民國的外交立場，同樣是ＷＴＯ會員的中國，實在不需要再強硬反對。
中國國台辦主任王毅日前表示，台灣與其他國家簽署ＦＴＡ，「對大家都有好處」，態度相當正面。我們希望這意味著中國對台灣願意釋出更多善意，在「外交休兵」、台灣獲邀出席世界衛生組織年會、兩岸加強交流及簽署ＥＣＦＡ之後，中國還能放手不再干擾台灣對外簽署ＦＴＡ的努力。
Monday, May 3, 2010
A Confident Taiwan Will Not Fear Mainland Students
A Confident Taiwan Will Not Fear Mainland Students
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 3, 2010
Twice fistfights have broken out during Legislative Yuan Educational Committee hearings on the admission of mainland students. Have the relevant bills made it through committee review? The ruling and opposition parties disagree. Martial law was lifted 23 years ago. The Legislative Yuan eliminated the "10,000 year parliament" and held all new elections. Two changes in ruling parties have occurred. The time for fistfights is long past. How long will the Legislative Yuan remain a boxing ring? If legislators persist in starting fistfights and overturning tables, whether the Blue Camp or Green Camp is in power will be irrelevant. The antics of the legislature will no longer represent the values of a democratic society.
Just before the "Two Yings" debated ECFA, the DPP provoked violent clashes over the admission of mainland students. Following their debate, the DPP legislative caucus continued to initiate fistfights. But why? What irreconcilable hatreds compel the DPP to resort to such methods to prevent mainland students from studying on Taiwan? What manner of evil scourge are mainland students -- in the minds DPP legislators?
Just before the second wave of violence erupted in the Legislative Yuan, Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tse said "Taiwan should welcome mainland students." Lee Yuan-tse was Educational Reform Commissioner during the Lee Teng-hui administration. He was a Principal Advisor on the president's National Policy Advisory Committee during the Chen Shui-bian administration. He identifies with Taiwan, but has never rejected the mainland. On the contrary, he and Lee Cheng-tao visited Beijing even before Taipei and Beijing allowed cross-Strait exchanges, and met with then President Deng Xiaoping. During his eight years within the Chen administration, he visited the mainland twice. He attended Yang Cheng-ning's 80th birthday party, and the international conference Tsinghua University Beijing held in Yang's honor. He also attended the 85th anniversary of the founding of Xiamen University.
Why does Lee Yuan-tse favor allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan? Because as he puts it, "a society that values education, is a society with diversity, and a variety of classes." Since the Republic of China has a democratic system, It should tolerate and even welcome diversity. Even more importantly, Lee is increasingly confident of the Republic of China's democracy. Someone with self-confidence will not be afraid of liberalization. He will not reject liberalization. No one has a clearer understanding of the consequences of allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan than university presidents. Once the nation's universities have made an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan, and have made preparations for their arrival, what justifications do legislators have to refuse?
DPP legislators say that allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan "will allow China's [sic] political elites to infiltrate and take overTaiwan." The mainland students who will come to Taiwan to study will be young people around the age of 20. How can they possibly "take over?" Even if political elites replace them, what of it? Even better. We should not exclude them. If anything, we should welcome them with open arms. Let them come to Taiwan to study. Let them be exposed to the advantages of a democratic society and a market economy. Let them convey a message of friendship from Taiwan. Once they assume positions of authority on the mainland, let them liberalize the mainland even further. Let this "powerful opponent" lean toward democracy, thereby ensuring Taiwan's security, and cross-Strait prosperity. Actually, the mainland began liberalizing 30 years ago. Already countless students from the mainland have studied in Europe and the United States. In recent years, these "haigui" (overseas returnees) have become the most important link in the mainland's development. Over the next ten or twenty years mainland elites will include "taigui" (Taiwan returnees). Wouldn't this be a feather in Taiwan's cap?
During the Two Yings Debate Ma Ying-jeou reiterated that the government welcomed oversight, and should be subjected to oversight. Ma Ying-jeou welcomed and invited questions from DPP and Green Camp legislators. But the DPP legislative caucus turned down his invitation, ten times. The DPP refused to attend public hearings, public briefings, or participate in ruling and opposition party consultations. Instead it accused the government of not being transparent. Actually, the DPP legislative caucus need merely take the tiniest bit of initiative. ECFA was never something the chairmen of the two parties needed to debate in the first place. It could have been debated and cleared up in the legislature. Unfortunately the DPP's attitude in response to cross-Strait matters, is to "Just say no!" Not content to oppose it, they have to provoke fistfights over it, undermining the image of the legislature and the reputations of legislators. The clashes over admitting mainland students are a perfect case in point.
The founding of the DPP is part of the Republic of China's democratic heritage. Senior DPP legislators persevered, playing an indispensable role in each stage of the Republic of China's transformation. Two ruling party changes have taken place. Can DPP legislators permit their forebears' inspirational words to perish amidst wars of words, and waves of physical violence? These forebears founded their party. They established the largest force in the legislature. They ruled for eight years. The party currently holds fewer than thirty seats. The DPP can no longer use its fists each time it lacks the votes. Violence is not a substitute for debate. Legislators represent the public will. A majority of seats represents the majority will. If the Ma administration fails to win the approval of a majority of the public, it will be punished by a loss of seats. Only those unable to offer a convincing argument, lose their tempers and resort to hitting people. Why does the DPP repeatedly descend to such methods? Isn't its image bad enough already?
The most important characteristic of a democratic society is the resolution of differences and the seeking of common ground through public debate. But the DPP prefers to operate outside this framework. It summons press conferences to denounce those who dare to differ, instead of dialoguing with ruling administration officials, it prefers to ignore its duty as legislators. The public pays taxes to support these legislators and their army of legislative aides. It expects them to review legislation, budgets, and policies. Instead all they do is denounce their opponents and provoke fistfights.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.03
社論－有自信的台灣 何必怕開放陸生
本報訊
為了開放陸生來台，立法院教育委員會已經連打兩架，到現在，相關法案到底算不算完成委員審查，朝野兩黨還是各說各話。解嚴迄今廿三年，立法院打出萬年國會全面改選，但是，政黨輪替已經兩次，早該過了打架議事的歲月，立法院還要打到什麼時候？如果立委肢體衝突習性不改，不論藍綠誰執政都要打架翻桌，國會議事還有何民主價值可言？
民進黨為開放陸生，在雙英ＥＣＦＡ辯論前，已經引爆一波嚴重衝突；辯論會後，民進黨立院黨團照打不誤，到底所謂何來？有什麼國仇家恨，需要民進黨立委用這種方式防堵陸生來台？大陸年輕人在民進黨立委心目中，難不成是洪水猛獸嗎？
就在立法院為陸生來台第二波開打前，前中研院長李遠哲公開表示，「台灣社會應該歡迎陸生。」李遠哲是李登輝時代的教改召集人，是扁政府時代的國政顧問團首席顧問。他認同台灣，卻從不排斥大陸，相反的，他在兩岸開放交流前，就與李政道同時受邀訪問北京，並面見當時的國家主席鄧小平；扁政府執政八年，曾兩度訪問大陸，參加北京清華大學為楊振寧八十大壽舉辦的國際學術研討會，和廈門大學八十五周年校慶。
李遠哲為什麼贊成陸生來台？很簡單，「因為對教育有益的社會，應該是多元化的環境，存在不同階層的人。」台灣既是民主社會，就應該接納、甚至歡迎多元環境，更重要的，因為他對台灣的民主，愈來愈有信心！對自己有信心的人，不會迴避開放，遑論拒絕。對於開放陸生來台這件事，沒有人比大學校長們更清楚、更深入，當全國大學院校做好一切利弊得失評估後，大都贊成並準備好迎接陸生，立委有什麼道理阻擋這件事？
民進黨立委說，開放陸生來台，「要小心中國將會接班的政治菁英滲透到台灣。」可能來台念大學的陸生，年紀不過是廿歲上下的年輕人，誰能接班？就算可能有會接班的政治菁英來，那更好，台灣不但不該排斥，甚至要大表歡迎，透過他們來台修習的數年時間，全面輸出民主開放與市場經濟的優點，傳達台灣的友善，讓他們接班後強化大陸的開放，讓「強敵」向世界民主靠攏，更能確保台灣安全和兩岸繁榮發展。事實上，大陸開放卅年，已有無數陸生赴歐美修習，近幾年，「海歸派」已成為大陸發展最重要的一環，試想，未來十年、廿年，大陸菁英階層也有「台歸派」，這不更是台灣的驕傲嗎？
雙英辯論時，馬英九特別提及政府歡迎監督，也應該監督，對民進黨所有質疑，馬英九也期待綠委嚴格質詢；但是，民進黨立院黨團已經拒絕了十次，從公聽會、說明會到朝野協商，民進黨既不聽報告，又責怪政府不透明。事實上，只要民進黨立院黨團能發揮議事火力，ＥＣＦＡ根本不必兩黨主席辯論，在國會就可以把事理辯個清楚，遺憾的是，民進黨對兩岸事務，採取的態度就是反對到底，反對也罷，還非打不可，打到國會形象盡失，立委社會聲望滑落，開放陸生來台爭端，就是最明顯的例子。
民進黨創黨迄今是台灣民主發展的資產之一，因為民進黨前輩立委們的用心用力，在台灣每一個轉型提昇的重要階段，都扮演不可或缺的角色。兩次政黨輪替之後，民進黨立委何忍讓曾經雄辯濤濤的前輩立委身影，盡數湮滅於口水戰與肢體衝突之中。從艱辛創黨、創造國會最大能量、執政八年、到如今卅席不到，民進黨不能再以數不過人頭就動拳頭，做為辯解，國會代表的是民意，多數席次代表多數民意，馬政府的政策若不得民意，自有選票定期制裁；打架，是講不出道理又惱羞成怒的人，才會採取的招數，民進黨一用再用，是嫌自己的社會形象還不夠差嗎？
民主社會最重要的就是透過公開討論，化解歧見，求同存異，民進黨寧可在正常議事程序外，舉行記者會開罵，卻不肯與政務官對話詰問，完全有失立委職責。國民納稅，付薪給立委和龐大的助理群，是要立委審查法案、預算與重大政策，立委只會罵人打架不審案，就是怠忽職守。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 3, 2010
Twice fistfights have broken out during Legislative Yuan Educational Committee hearings on the admission of mainland students. Have the relevant bills made it through committee review? The ruling and opposition parties disagree. Martial law was lifted 23 years ago. The Legislative Yuan eliminated the "10,000 year parliament" and held all new elections. Two changes in ruling parties have occurred. The time for fistfights is long past. How long will the Legislative Yuan remain a boxing ring? If legislators persist in starting fistfights and overturning tables, whether the Blue Camp or Green Camp is in power will be irrelevant. The antics of the legislature will no longer represent the values of a democratic society.
Just before the "Two Yings" debated ECFA, the DPP provoked violent clashes over the admission of mainland students. Following their debate, the DPP legislative caucus continued to initiate fistfights. But why? What irreconcilable hatreds compel the DPP to resort to such methods to prevent mainland students from studying on Taiwan? What manner of evil scourge are mainland students -- in the minds DPP legislators?
Just before the second wave of violence erupted in the Legislative Yuan, Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tse said "Taiwan should welcome mainland students." Lee Yuan-tse was Educational Reform Commissioner during the Lee Teng-hui administration. He was a Principal Advisor on the president's National Policy Advisory Committee during the Chen Shui-bian administration. He identifies with Taiwan, but has never rejected the mainland. On the contrary, he and Lee Cheng-tao visited Beijing even before Taipei and Beijing allowed cross-Strait exchanges, and met with then President Deng Xiaoping. During his eight years within the Chen administration, he visited the mainland twice. He attended Yang Cheng-ning's 80th birthday party, and the international conference Tsinghua University Beijing held in Yang's honor. He also attended the 85th anniversary of the founding of Xiamen University.
Why does Lee Yuan-tse favor allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan? Because as he puts it, "a society that values education, is a society with diversity, and a variety of classes." Since the Republic of China has a democratic system, It should tolerate and even welcome diversity. Even more importantly, Lee is increasingly confident of the Republic of China's democracy. Someone with self-confidence will not be afraid of liberalization. He will not reject liberalization. No one has a clearer understanding of the consequences of allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan than university presidents. Once the nation's universities have made an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan, and have made preparations for their arrival, what justifications do legislators have to refuse?
DPP legislators say that allowing mainland students to study on Taiwan "will allow China's [sic] political elites to infiltrate and take overTaiwan." The mainland students who will come to Taiwan to study will be young people around the age of 20. How can they possibly "take over?" Even if political elites replace them, what of it? Even better. We should not exclude them. If anything, we should welcome them with open arms. Let them come to Taiwan to study. Let them be exposed to the advantages of a democratic society and a market economy. Let them convey a message of friendship from Taiwan. Once they assume positions of authority on the mainland, let them liberalize the mainland even further. Let this "powerful opponent" lean toward democracy, thereby ensuring Taiwan's security, and cross-Strait prosperity. Actually, the mainland began liberalizing 30 years ago. Already countless students from the mainland have studied in Europe and the United States. In recent years, these "haigui" (overseas returnees) have become the most important link in the mainland's development. Over the next ten or twenty years mainland elites will include "taigui" (Taiwan returnees). Wouldn't this be a feather in Taiwan's cap?
During the Two Yings Debate Ma Ying-jeou reiterated that the government welcomed oversight, and should be subjected to oversight. Ma Ying-jeou welcomed and invited questions from DPP and Green Camp legislators. But the DPP legislative caucus turned down his invitation, ten times. The DPP refused to attend public hearings, public briefings, or participate in ruling and opposition party consultations. Instead it accused the government of not being transparent. Actually, the DPP legislative caucus need merely take the tiniest bit of initiative. ECFA was never something the chairmen of the two parties needed to debate in the first place. It could have been debated and cleared up in the legislature. Unfortunately the DPP's attitude in response to cross-Strait matters, is to "Just say no!" Not content to oppose it, they have to provoke fistfights over it, undermining the image of the legislature and the reputations of legislators. The clashes over admitting mainland students are a perfect case in point.
The founding of the DPP is part of the Republic of China's democratic heritage. Senior DPP legislators persevered, playing an indispensable role in each stage of the Republic of China's transformation. Two ruling party changes have taken place. Can DPP legislators permit their forebears' inspirational words to perish amidst wars of words, and waves of physical violence? These forebears founded their party. They established the largest force in the legislature. They ruled for eight years. The party currently holds fewer than thirty seats. The DPP can no longer use its fists each time it lacks the votes. Violence is not a substitute for debate. Legislators represent the public will. A majority of seats represents the majority will. If the Ma administration fails to win the approval of a majority of the public, it will be punished by a loss of seats. Only those unable to offer a convincing argument, lose their tempers and resort to hitting people. Why does the DPP repeatedly descend to such methods? Isn't its image bad enough already?
The most important characteristic of a democratic society is the resolution of differences and the seeking of common ground through public debate. But the DPP prefers to operate outside this framework. It summons press conferences to denounce those who dare to differ, instead of dialoguing with ruling administration officials, it prefers to ignore its duty as legislators. The public pays taxes to support these legislators and their army of legislative aides. It expects them to review legislation, budgets, and policies. Instead all they do is denounce their opponents and provoke fistfights.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.05.03
社論－有自信的台灣 何必怕開放陸生
本報訊
為了開放陸生來台，立法院教育委員會已經連打兩架，到現在，相關法案到底算不算完成委員審查，朝野兩黨還是各說各話。解嚴迄今廿三年，立法院打出萬年國會全面改選，但是，政黨輪替已經兩次，早該過了打架議事的歲月，立法院還要打到什麼時候？如果立委肢體衝突習性不改，不論藍綠誰執政都要打架翻桌，國會議事還有何民主價值可言？
民進黨為開放陸生，在雙英ＥＣＦＡ辯論前，已經引爆一波嚴重衝突；辯論會後，民進黨立院黨團照打不誤，到底所謂何來？有什麼國仇家恨，需要民進黨立委用這種方式防堵陸生來台？大陸年輕人在民進黨立委心目中，難不成是洪水猛獸嗎？
就在立法院為陸生來台第二波開打前，前中研院長李遠哲公開表示，「台灣社會應該歡迎陸生。」李遠哲是李登輝時代的教改召集人，是扁政府時代的國政顧問團首席顧問。他認同台灣，卻從不排斥大陸，相反的，他在兩岸開放交流前，就與李政道同時受邀訪問北京，並面見當時的國家主席鄧小平；扁政府執政八年，曾兩度訪問大陸，參加北京清華大學為楊振寧八十大壽舉辦的國際學術研討會，和廈門大學八十五周年校慶。
李遠哲為什麼贊成陸生來台？很簡單，「因為對教育有益的社會，應該是多元化的環境，存在不同階層的人。」台灣既是民主社會，就應該接納、甚至歡迎多元環境，更重要的，因為他對台灣的民主，愈來愈有信心！對自己有信心的人，不會迴避開放，遑論拒絕。對於開放陸生來台這件事，沒有人比大學校長們更清楚、更深入，當全國大學院校做好一切利弊得失評估後，大都贊成並準備好迎接陸生，立委有什麼道理阻擋這件事？
民進黨立委說，開放陸生來台，「要小心中國將會接班的政治菁英滲透到台灣。」可能來台念大學的陸生，年紀不過是廿歲上下的年輕人，誰能接班？就算可能有會接班的政治菁英來，那更好，台灣不但不該排斥，甚至要大表歡迎，透過他們來台修習的數年時間，全面輸出民主開放與市場經濟的優點，傳達台灣的友善，讓他們接班後強化大陸的開放，讓「強敵」向世界民主靠攏，更能確保台灣安全和兩岸繁榮發展。事實上，大陸開放卅年，已有無數陸生赴歐美修習，近幾年，「海歸派」已成為大陸發展最重要的一環，試想，未來十年、廿年，大陸菁英階層也有「台歸派」，這不更是台灣的驕傲嗎？
雙英辯論時，馬英九特別提及政府歡迎監督，也應該監督，對民進黨所有質疑，馬英九也期待綠委嚴格質詢；但是，民進黨立院黨團已經拒絕了十次，從公聽會、說明會到朝野協商，民進黨既不聽報告，又責怪政府不透明。事實上，只要民進黨立院黨團能發揮議事火力，ＥＣＦＡ根本不必兩黨主席辯論，在國會就可以把事理辯個清楚，遺憾的是，民進黨對兩岸事務，採取的態度就是反對到底，反對也罷，還非打不可，打到國會形象盡失，立委社會聲望滑落，開放陸生來台爭端，就是最明顯的例子。
民進黨創黨迄今是台灣民主發展的資產之一，因為民進黨前輩立委們的用心用力，在台灣每一個轉型提昇的重要階段，都扮演不可或缺的角色。兩次政黨輪替之後，民進黨立委何忍讓曾經雄辯濤濤的前輩立委身影，盡數湮滅於口水戰與肢體衝突之中。從艱辛創黨、創造國會最大能量、執政八年、到如今卅席不到，民進黨不能再以數不過人頭就動拳頭，做為辯解，國會代表的是民意，多數席次代表多數民意，馬政府的政策若不得民意，自有選票定期制裁；打架，是講不出道理又惱羞成怒的人，才會採取的招數，民進黨一用再用，是嫌自己的社會形象還不夠差嗎？
民主社會最重要的就是透過公開討論，化解歧見，求同存異，民進黨寧可在正常議事程序外，舉行記者會開罵，卻不肯與政務官對話詰問，完全有失立委職責。國民納稅，付薪給立委和龐大的助理群，是要立委審查法案、預算與重大政策，立委只會罵人打架不審案，就是怠忽職守。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)