A Shallow Yet Far-Reaching Election
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 23, 2010
In terms of campaign rhetoric, the Saturday vote is an extremely superficial election. In terms of real world impact however, it is an election which will have far-reaching consequences.
The 2008 presidential election ended the chaos of the Chen regime, which had generated a constant state of anxiety by unnecessarily provoking both internal and external problems. The Ma administration inherited a nation in political and economic ruin. After two years of stumbling about, the five cities election can be considered a report card on the new government. In 2008, the DPP did not just lose power. It also suffered a humiliating repudiation of its political agenda, and a catastrophic loss of moral legitimacy. But during the current election, it has apparently bottomed out and is making a recovery. It has gathered momentum and is staging a comeback. Most people consider the five cities election a precursor to the Big Event in 2012.
This is an election that will have a profound impact on the future. Ironically it may be the most superficial election since martial law was lifted over 20 years ago. Important elections in the past invariably involved issues of national identity, cross-Strait policy, strategies to cope with economic globalization, and "ethnic" (community group) relations. These issues were upsetting and made people feel helpless. But they undeniably relevant to our political and economic survival. By contrast, the current election may involve core issues affecting life on Taiwan. But these issues have been almost completely obscured during the current election. Before the election, Tsai Ing-wen put forth a "Platform for the Coming Decade." But it has since vanished without a trace. Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, sports a pink shirt. He squats in the mud on an overhead pedestrian bridge. He stands on the sidewalk next to a broken brick paver. He hugs babies and makes faces at them. He eagerly sprovides reporters with photo ops. Both Su and Tsai are candidates for the 2012 presidential election. But neither dares to participate in a political debate. Considering the fact that this is supposed to be a precursor to the 2012 presidential election, isn't their conduct a bit too superficial and hypocritical?
In fact, the DPP would like an in-depth debate over political and economic grand strategy. It surrounded and harassed Zhang Mingqing. It forced Chen Yunlin to remain inside his hotel room. It spun ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China, as "selling out Taiwan," and as an "insult to the nation." These are all core issues affecting the ROC. They are also issues the "Platform for the Coming Decade" ought to explain. But once campaign season began, the DPP willing only to say that "ECFA is a central government issue." These issues were buried and hidden. The DPP even reneged on its "Platform for the Coming Decade." Does the DPP really intend to bring this election down to the superficial level of broken brick pavers on overhead pedestrian bridges?
The jewel in the crown of Ma administration policy is cross-Strait relations. But the public is apparently unimpressed. In two short years, the Ma administration implemented direct flights, enabled Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, signed ECFA and joint crime-fighting initatives. These are significant policies that amount to a radical improvement in long-term cross-Strait relations, and have provided an effective buffer against the impact of the financial crisis. The Jiang Ping issue, the Yang Shu-chun issue, and the Cheng Hung-yi "30,000NT subsidies for Mainland students" are superficial and untrue jibes. Yet they have obliterated the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy achievements in one fell swoop.
Attempting to to use "30,000NT subsidies for Mainland students" to negate cross-Strait policy is superficial. Attempting to use "20NT water spinach" to negate the Taipei Flora Expo is superficial. Yet these superficial arguments have flooded the media and filled people's heads. Eventually it was proven that ECFA would benefit our political and economic system. It was proven that vegetable growers who guaranteed live water spinach plants for six months had been mistreated. But superficial stereotypes had already taken shape. Superficial attitudes of hatred and victimization had already taken hold. Many voters have already decided that "30,000 NT subsidies for Mainland students" invalidate the Ma administration cross-Strait policy. They have already decided that the water spinach issue invalidates the Hau administration's achievements throughout Taipei. These are indeed superficial political ploys. The question is, will voters respond in an equally superficial manner?
As we all know, this election is a precursor to the 2012 presidential election. But within this election, national identity, cross-Strait policy, strategies to cope with economic globalization, and our political and economic prospects in the wake of ECFA, have been buried. They have vanished without a trace. Tsai Ing-wen retracted the DPP's "Platform for the Coming Decade." This alerted the public to its hidden agenda. Cheng Hung-yi's "F**k Your Mother!" fiasco reminded the public that the DPP's problems persist. Otherwise this atypical election would have reached a superficial and hasty end.
The Democratic Progressive Party is wearing a pink mask. Perhaps it hopes that by doing so it can "squeak by" during this election. But immediately afterwards it must confront the 2012 presidential election. The major issues can no longer be covered up. When the time comes, the DPP can no longer hope that these issues will be dealt with on such a shallow level.
這是一場內容膚淺但影響深遠的選舉
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.23
周六投票。就競選內容言，這是一場演出非常膚淺的選舉；但就選舉的結果言，這卻將是一場影響非常深遠的選舉。
從一方面說，二○○八年的總統大選，結束了扁政府鬧得雞犬不寧、惶惶不可終日的內憂外患；馬政府在政經廢墟中，經過兩年的跌撞磕碰、掙扎奮鬥，這次五都選舉可視為國人對新人新政的一次總評鑑。從另一方面說，民進黨在二○○八年非但輸掉政權，且在政策正確性及道德正當性上也一敗塗地；但在這次選舉中似乎谷底翻身，頗具東山再起的氣勢。國人對這次五都大選的共同解讀是：這是一場二○一二政權爭奪戰的前哨戰。
這當然是一次影響非常深遠的選舉。然而，這卻也可說是解嚴二十餘年來最為「膚淺」的一場選舉。在過去的重要選舉中，必然出現國家認同、兩岸政策、經濟全球化戰略及族群關係等議題；這雖使人不安與無奈，卻不可否認那才是真正攸關台灣命脈的政經問題。反觀此次選舉，雖然這類核心問題仍然真實存在於台灣的生命中樞，卻在選舉中幾乎完全被遮蓋或掩藏掉了。蔡英文原稱要在選前提出「十年政綱」，卻無影無蹤；蘇貞昌則穿著粉紅襯衫，蹲在天橋上一灘積泥、人行道上一塊破磚的旁邊，或抱起小孩扮鬼臉，供記者拍照。蘇蔡兩位二○一二大位的競逐者，連一場政見辯論也不敢面對；相較於這場具有二○一二政權爭奪戰之前哨戰的規格，這樣的選舉演出，難道不是太膚淺且太矯情？
其實，民進黨也不是不想深入國家政經大戰略。圍毆張銘清、將陳雲林鎖在酒店，把ＥＣＦＡ說成傾中賣台、喪權辱國等等，皆是深入了台灣的核心問題，也是「十年政綱」必須解釋的事情。然而，進入選季後，民進黨僅以一句「ＥＣＦＡ是中央職權」，就將這類議題完全遮蓋掩藏起來，連「十年政綱」也跳了票。難道民進黨真的將這場選舉看成天橋積泥與人行道破磚如此膚淺的層次？
馬政府的兩岸政策是招牌菜，卻似乎並未給社會留下深刻印象。兩年內，直航、陸客來台、ＥＣＦＡ、司法互助等等，如此重大而密集的政策表現，可謂徹底改善了兩岸長程關係，及有效緩衝了金融風暴的衝擊；卻被江平事件、楊淑君事件，及鄭弘儀「陸生三萬」事件等，只消三言兩語膚淺甚至謬誤已極的譏嘲，就儼然要將馬政府的兩岸政策一筆抹煞。
欲以「陸生三萬」來全盤否定當前兩岸政策的大結構，是「膚淺」的；同樣的，欲以「一株空心菜二十元」來全盤否定台北花博的總體表現，也是「膚淺」的。但是，這些膚淺的議論，卻塞滿媒體頻道，灌滿人民的腦袋；最後即使證明ＥＣＦＡ有益台灣政經體質，及保活六個月的空心菜反而虧待了菜農，但是「膚淺」的刻板印象已經形成，「膚淺」的仇恨與悲情更形鞏固；不少選民大概已經決定用「陸生三萬」去否定馬政府整個兩岸政策，用「空心菜」去否定整個郝市府的政績。這真是何其「膚淺」的政治操作，又是何其「膚淺」的選民反應？
眾所皆知，這是一場二○一二政權爭奪戰的前哨戰。但是，在這場選舉中，國家認同、兩岸政策、經濟全球化戰略及「後ＥＣＦＡ」情勢等國家政經大戰略，卻被遮蓋得無影無蹤；如果不是蔡英文收回了「十年政綱」，使人警覺其蓄意掩藏；如果不是鄭弘儀的「幹Ｘ娘」，使人覺得問題仍在，這場「非典型」的選舉，就將如此「膚淺」地草草收場。
戴著粉紅臉譜的民進黨，也許想藉著這次選舉「頭過身就過」；但是，接下來就要面對二○一二政權爭奪戰，今天被遮蓋掩藏的重大議題即皆無可躲藏，屆時也就欲求膚淺而不可能了！
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Democracy and The Rule of Law, From Tranquility to Anxiety
Democracy and The Rule of Law, From Tranquility to Anxiety
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2010
Judgments have been rendered in some of the Chen family corruption cases. On November 11, 2008, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody, On November 11, 2010, a judgment was rendered in the Chen Shui-bian corruption case. At first, no one knew when the Chen corruption case would reach a resolution. They always assumed it would evolve as Chen Shui-bian described, "stalled between the second and third instance trials." The public was once filled with anxiety and anger. Now, only two years later, the gavel has come down in the third instance trial. Judgments have now been rendered in the trial of the century.
Anxiety and suspicion are the primary emotions felt on Taiwan. People feel anxiety because they cannot endure the waiting. People feel suspicion because they cannot trust the system. The public on Taiwan is fickle. But given the record of the Chen corruption case, democracy may require a little more patience and calm.
Two years ago, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody for the very first time. No one knew how the case would evolve. Under Chen Tsung-ming, the Special Investigative Unit remained hamstrung. Huang Fan-yen fled the country. Efforts to recover embezzled funds from Switzerland ran into a myriad of obstacles. Chou Chan-chun released suspects without bail. All this aroused public suspicion and anger towards the justice system. But despite public controversy and setbacks, judgments were finally rendered in at least some of the Chen corruption cases. They have at least, not been too far off the mark. They have at least, not deviated too much from the public's perception of the law and justice.
Two years have passed. For the public, the experience has been long and difficult. But as far as the justice system is concerned, two years to reach a third instance judgment is considered swift. It is the amount of time necessary to undergo all the required steps. During this period, many people directed their anxiety and suspicion at President Ma Ying-jeou. They concluded that his "weakness" and "lack of drive" contributed to a watch and wait attitude among justice system officials. But suppose Ma Ying-jeou had intervened in the case while it was still in the courts? Suppose he had issued directions to any entities or officials within the justice system? Not only would he immediately have been accused of "political interference in the administration of justice," the credibility of the justice system would have been destroyed. The judgment rendered in the Chen corruption case could not have be accepted as calmly as it has been today.
After two years of investigations and trials, the once almighty Chen Shui-bian has been forced to bow before the law. The once glib DPP has been rendered speechless. Looking back over the past two years, we see that progress toward democracy and the rule of law has not been easy on Taiwan. Nevertheless it has been made. The road to democracy and the rule of law has not been as smooth as we once imagined. But it may also be reached right before our eyes.
The sublimation of democracy sometimes occurs in silence and darkness. Only a few months ago, the DPP denounced ECFA, accusing the Ma administration of bringing ruination and humiliation upon the nation. Now it has fallen silent. In the end, time will tell. What are such changes but forward steps on the rugged road toward democracy? Consider the water spinach controversy. It was initially spun as a major scandal. But after a few days of clarification, it turned out to be mere political farce. Chou Chan-chun is a judge with a clear-cut political stance. He provided society with a valuable object lesson. Chou Chan-chun twisted the Chen corruption case according to his whims. But he inadvertently proved that "The courts are not operated by the KMT." Consider such controversial officials such as Chen Tsung-ming and Yeh Sheng-mao, who were finally purged from the justice system, thereby ensuring its independence and integrity. If, as some advocated, Ma Ying-jeou had forced them to step down as soon as possible, we would be looking at a completely different picture. Looking back at the situation today, it was better to allow the system time to operate. The president must never intervene in the administration of justice.
Consider also the Red Shirt Army of four years ago. A red tide consisting of one million Red Shirt Army supporters swarmed onto Ketegelan Boulevard, laying seige to the city. In the end, they left peacefully. Chen Shui-bian remained ensconced in his official residence, coldly mocking them. On the surface, the Red Shirt Army retreated in defeat. On the surface, Chen Shui-bian consolidated his power and his position. But a mere year and a half later, the legislative elections and presidential elections revealed the will of the people. They forced the DPP government to step down, and Chen Shui-bian to prostrate himself before the law. Had the Red Shirt Army stormed the presidential palace, they would have undermined the 2008 presidential election, The current judgment in the Chen corruption case would have been compromised. Another group of people might storm the presidential palace in the future. Had that been the case, the Red Shirt Army on Taiwan would have been no different than the Red Shirt Army in Thailand.
As we all know, democracy is not an efficient system. Its wheels grind slowly. But it is able to strike a balance between respecting the will of the people and maintaining justice. Politicians on Taiwan have used democracy as an aphrodisiac. Too many expectations of democracy have led to excessive anxiety and suspicion about democracy. The Chen corruption case has undergone twists and turns. As the public looks back at these years of change, it may be able to observe the development of democracy and the rule of law with greater equanimity. A democracy tempered by the flames of anxiety, will hopefully be more robust and enduring.
民主法治，在從容與焦慮之間錘煉
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.21
扁家弊案部分定讞。二○○八年十一月十一日陳水扁被收押，二○一○年十一月十一日扁案定讞。早先，不知扁案何日是終期盡頭之時，總以為勢必如陳水扁所說「在二三審之間徘徊」，民間充滿焦慮與憤懣；如今三審落槌，發現也只不過是兩年光陰，世紀大案已告定讞。
焦慮與猜疑是台灣政治社會的主要情愫。焦慮就是等不及，猜疑就是不信任。但從扁案的經歷來看，台灣這個浮躁的社會，未來對民主政治的發展演進，也許應當多幾分耐心與從容。
兩年前，當陳水扁首度遭到羈押，誰也無法預測案子將如何發展；陳聰明主導下的特偵組放不開手腳，加上黃芳彥潛逃，向瑞士索回匯款又枝節橫生，乃至周占春的無保縱放等，都讓民眾對司法體制疑忿交加。然而，如此波折迤邐地一路行來，至少已有部分扁案在輿論喧囂中終告定讞，不算走得太離譜，至少未太偏離法理及民意所認定的公義。
兩年的時間，民眾的感覺是漫長難捱的；但就司法而言，兩年卻是高效率的表現，也是完成程序的必要時間。這段期間，不少人把焦慮與猜疑轉投向馬英九總統，認為他的「軟弱」與「沒有魄力」助長了司法人員的觀望與延宕。但試想，其間只要馬英九曾就扁案細節稍加過問，或對任何司法單位或司法官員作出指示，不僅「政治干預司法」的罪名立刻會加到他頭上，且整個司法的公信力亦將因此而遭到毀滅。如此一來，扁案的判決，也就無法像如今這樣，被各界以平常心接受了。
經過兩年偵審，曾經不可一世的陳水扁終須向法律低頭，一向雄辯滔滔的民進黨也囁嚅無言以對。站在兩年的時間跨度上，大家可以看到台灣民主法治的進程雖非一帆風順，卻仍在穩健前行；民主法治的進程即使不如想像中快速，卻也可能在不經意間就已在眼前實現。
民主的昇華有時是發生在潛滋暗長的無聲之處。不過數月前，民進黨還把ＥＣＦＡ指為馬政府禍國殃民、喪權辱國的惡行，如今卻已絕口不提；畢竟時間能證明一切，這樣的變化，不也正是台灣坎坷崎嶇的民主道路上的一個進步景觀？再以花博的「空心菜」為例，原本以為是一個天大的弊案，結果經幾日澄清沉澱後，卻發現竟是一場政治鬧劇。甚至像周占春這樣立場鮮明的法官，在當前的台灣社會亦具社教意義；扁案因周占春的曲折，至少證明了「法院不是國民黨開的」。更別說，陳聰明及葉盛茂等受到議論的司法官員亦終於在體制內受到清理，保全了體制的獨立與完整；但倘若陳聰明及葉盛茂等，如有些人當初所主張「馬英九應當讓他們盡快下台」，那麼現在必是完全不同的景象了。如今回顧，寧可給體制一些必要的運作時間，但也絕不可出現一個把手伸進司法的總統。
另一個例子是四年前的紅衫軍。當時百萬紅潮在凱道上洶湧圍城，最後和平退場，而陳水扁卻坐在玉山官邸冷言譏嘲。表面上看，紅衫軍敗退，陳水扁鞏固了他的權位；但只要再將時間延長一年半，立委選舉及總統大選中展現的人民意志，教民進黨政權黯然下台，繼而讓陳水扁今天伏倒在司法審判跟前。倘若紅衫軍當時衝入了總統府，二○○八的總統大選必受傷害，今日的扁案定讞也就變質走味；他日恐怕更會換另一批群眾衝入另一總統主持的總統府。倘係如此，台灣的紅衫軍就與泰國的紅衫軍無異了。
眾所皆知，民主不是一套很有效率的制度，卻能在緩慢的程序中維持民意與正義的平衡。台灣是一個被政客利用民主春藥催化的社會，對民主過多的期待，也換來過多的焦慮與猜疑；從扁案的周轉起伏，民眾回看這些年來的變化，也許更能體會如何從容看待民主法治的成長與發展；經過焦慮錘煉後的民主，應該會更強韌與更恆久。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2010
Judgments have been rendered in some of the Chen family corruption cases. On November 11, 2008, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody, On November 11, 2010, a judgment was rendered in the Chen Shui-bian corruption case. At first, no one knew when the Chen corruption case would reach a resolution. They always assumed it would evolve as Chen Shui-bian described, "stalled between the second and third instance trials." The public was once filled with anxiety and anger. Now, only two years later, the gavel has come down in the third instance trial. Judgments have now been rendered in the trial of the century.
Anxiety and suspicion are the primary emotions felt on Taiwan. People feel anxiety because they cannot endure the waiting. People feel suspicion because they cannot trust the system. The public on Taiwan is fickle. But given the record of the Chen corruption case, democracy may require a little more patience and calm.
Two years ago, Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody for the very first time. No one knew how the case would evolve. Under Chen Tsung-ming, the Special Investigative Unit remained hamstrung. Huang Fan-yen fled the country. Efforts to recover embezzled funds from Switzerland ran into a myriad of obstacles. Chou Chan-chun released suspects without bail. All this aroused public suspicion and anger towards the justice system. But despite public controversy and setbacks, judgments were finally rendered in at least some of the Chen corruption cases. They have at least, not been too far off the mark. They have at least, not deviated too much from the public's perception of the law and justice.
Two years have passed. For the public, the experience has been long and difficult. But as far as the justice system is concerned, two years to reach a third instance judgment is considered swift. It is the amount of time necessary to undergo all the required steps. During this period, many people directed their anxiety and suspicion at President Ma Ying-jeou. They concluded that his "weakness" and "lack of drive" contributed to a watch and wait attitude among justice system officials. But suppose Ma Ying-jeou had intervened in the case while it was still in the courts? Suppose he had issued directions to any entities or officials within the justice system? Not only would he immediately have been accused of "political interference in the administration of justice," the credibility of the justice system would have been destroyed. The judgment rendered in the Chen corruption case could not have be accepted as calmly as it has been today.
After two years of investigations and trials, the once almighty Chen Shui-bian has been forced to bow before the law. The once glib DPP has been rendered speechless. Looking back over the past two years, we see that progress toward democracy and the rule of law has not been easy on Taiwan. Nevertheless it has been made. The road to democracy and the rule of law has not been as smooth as we once imagined. But it may also be reached right before our eyes.
The sublimation of democracy sometimes occurs in silence and darkness. Only a few months ago, the DPP denounced ECFA, accusing the Ma administration of bringing ruination and humiliation upon the nation. Now it has fallen silent. In the end, time will tell. What are such changes but forward steps on the rugged road toward democracy? Consider the water spinach controversy. It was initially spun as a major scandal. But after a few days of clarification, it turned out to be mere political farce. Chou Chan-chun is a judge with a clear-cut political stance. He provided society with a valuable object lesson. Chou Chan-chun twisted the Chen corruption case according to his whims. But he inadvertently proved that "The courts are not operated by the KMT." Consider such controversial officials such as Chen Tsung-ming and Yeh Sheng-mao, who were finally purged from the justice system, thereby ensuring its independence and integrity. If, as some advocated, Ma Ying-jeou had forced them to step down as soon as possible, we would be looking at a completely different picture. Looking back at the situation today, it was better to allow the system time to operate. The president must never intervene in the administration of justice.
Consider also the Red Shirt Army of four years ago. A red tide consisting of one million Red Shirt Army supporters swarmed onto Ketegelan Boulevard, laying seige to the city. In the end, they left peacefully. Chen Shui-bian remained ensconced in his official residence, coldly mocking them. On the surface, the Red Shirt Army retreated in defeat. On the surface, Chen Shui-bian consolidated his power and his position. But a mere year and a half later, the legislative elections and presidential elections revealed the will of the people. They forced the DPP government to step down, and Chen Shui-bian to prostrate himself before the law. Had the Red Shirt Army stormed the presidential palace, they would have undermined the 2008 presidential election, The current judgment in the Chen corruption case would have been compromised. Another group of people might storm the presidential palace in the future. Had that been the case, the Red Shirt Army on Taiwan would have been no different than the Red Shirt Army in Thailand.
As we all know, democracy is not an efficient system. Its wheels grind slowly. But it is able to strike a balance between respecting the will of the people and maintaining justice. Politicians on Taiwan have used democracy as an aphrodisiac. Too many expectations of democracy have led to excessive anxiety and suspicion about democracy. The Chen corruption case has undergone twists and turns. As the public looks back at these years of change, it may be able to observe the development of democracy and the rule of law with greater equanimity. A democracy tempered by the flames of anxiety, will hopefully be more robust and enduring.
民主法治，在從容與焦慮之間錘煉
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.21
扁家弊案部分定讞。二○○八年十一月十一日陳水扁被收押，二○一○年十一月十一日扁案定讞。早先，不知扁案何日是終期盡頭之時，總以為勢必如陳水扁所說「在二三審之間徘徊」，民間充滿焦慮與憤懣；如今三審落槌，發現也只不過是兩年光陰，世紀大案已告定讞。
焦慮與猜疑是台灣政治社會的主要情愫。焦慮就是等不及，猜疑就是不信任。但從扁案的經歷來看，台灣這個浮躁的社會，未來對民主政治的發展演進，也許應當多幾分耐心與從容。
兩年前，當陳水扁首度遭到羈押，誰也無法預測案子將如何發展；陳聰明主導下的特偵組放不開手腳，加上黃芳彥潛逃，向瑞士索回匯款又枝節橫生，乃至周占春的無保縱放等，都讓民眾對司法體制疑忿交加。然而，如此波折迤邐地一路行來，至少已有部分扁案在輿論喧囂中終告定讞，不算走得太離譜，至少未太偏離法理及民意所認定的公義。
兩年的時間，民眾的感覺是漫長難捱的；但就司法而言，兩年卻是高效率的表現，也是完成程序的必要時間。這段期間，不少人把焦慮與猜疑轉投向馬英九總統，認為他的「軟弱」與「沒有魄力」助長了司法人員的觀望與延宕。但試想，其間只要馬英九曾就扁案細節稍加過問，或對任何司法單位或司法官員作出指示，不僅「政治干預司法」的罪名立刻會加到他頭上，且整個司法的公信力亦將因此而遭到毀滅。如此一來，扁案的判決，也就無法像如今這樣，被各界以平常心接受了。
經過兩年偵審，曾經不可一世的陳水扁終須向法律低頭，一向雄辯滔滔的民進黨也囁嚅無言以對。站在兩年的時間跨度上，大家可以看到台灣民主法治的進程雖非一帆風順，卻仍在穩健前行；民主法治的進程即使不如想像中快速，卻也可能在不經意間就已在眼前實現。
民主的昇華有時是發生在潛滋暗長的無聲之處。不過數月前，民進黨還把ＥＣＦＡ指為馬政府禍國殃民、喪權辱國的惡行，如今卻已絕口不提；畢竟時間能證明一切，這樣的變化，不也正是台灣坎坷崎嶇的民主道路上的一個進步景觀？再以花博的「空心菜」為例，原本以為是一個天大的弊案，結果經幾日澄清沉澱後，卻發現竟是一場政治鬧劇。甚至像周占春這樣立場鮮明的法官，在當前的台灣社會亦具社教意義；扁案因周占春的曲折，至少證明了「法院不是國民黨開的」。更別說，陳聰明及葉盛茂等受到議論的司法官員亦終於在體制內受到清理，保全了體制的獨立與完整；但倘若陳聰明及葉盛茂等，如有些人當初所主張「馬英九應當讓他們盡快下台」，那麼現在必是完全不同的景象了。如今回顧，寧可給體制一些必要的運作時間，但也絕不可出現一個把手伸進司法的總統。
另一個例子是四年前的紅衫軍。當時百萬紅潮在凱道上洶湧圍城，最後和平退場，而陳水扁卻坐在玉山官邸冷言譏嘲。表面上看，紅衫軍敗退，陳水扁鞏固了他的權位；但只要再將時間延長一年半，立委選舉及總統大選中展現的人民意志，教民進黨政權黯然下台，繼而讓陳水扁今天伏倒在司法審判跟前。倘若紅衫軍當時衝入了總統府，二○○八的總統大選必受傷害，今日的扁案定讞也就變質走味；他日恐怕更會換另一批群眾衝入另一總統主持的總統府。倘係如此，台灣的紅衫軍就與泰國的紅衫軍無異了。
眾所皆知，民主不是一套很有效率的制度，卻能在緩慢的程序中維持民意與正義的平衡。台灣是一個被政客利用民主春藥催化的社會，對民主過多的期待，也換來過多的焦慮與猜疑；從扁案的周轉起伏，民眾回看這些年來的變化，也許更能體會如何從容看待民主法治的成長與發展；經過焦慮錘煉後的民主，應該會更強韌與更恆久。
Friday, November 19, 2010
Appeal to the Olympic Committee, Demand Justice for the Athletes
Appeal to the Olympic Committee, Demand Justice for the Athletes
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2010
In the international arena, the Republic of China has long been forced to suffer in silence. This is equally true in international sports competition, especially Taekwondo matches. Recently our own Asian Games competitor Yang Shu-chun racked up nine wins and no losses in the first round of competition. At this point, the referee suddenly "disqualified" her. This unprecedented move left people in shocked disbelief. The government has decided that it must appeal to the International Court of Arbitration. It intends to keep a close eye on the case. We must be given a satisfactory explanation. We must demand accountability. Otherwise, citizens of the ROC will not be mollified.
When Yang Shu-chun heard the referee rule that she had lost during the Beijing Olympics, she sat on the floor and wept. She was not the only one who found the ruling unacceptable. Every citizen who watched the match on TV found it unacceptable. The reason was simple. When Yang Shu-chun entered the arena for pre-game inspection, the committee asked her to change her electronic socks. She changed them, and after undergoing a second inspection, including one by the chief examiner, no further mention was made of a problem with the electronic socks. If the socks were a problem, she would have changed them. But the referee refused to listen to objections, and summarily disqualified her. In which case, just exactly what did the previous inspector and chief examiner inspect and examine?
According to the Asian Taekwondo Union, Yang Shu-chun's electronic socks had an extra sensor at the heels. Again, if they really had an extra sensor, why was the problem not mentioned during the pre-game inspection? Why was it discovered only after the match began? The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) later claimed that the sensor was installed in an illegal location by Yang Shu-chun after she entered the arena. How strange is that? She was subjected to two inspections, yet nothing was found. If Yang installed the sensor after entering the arena, why did no one see her do it? Why was she disqualified only after the match had already begun?
By an unfortunate coincidence, the referee was again Korean. After the incident happened, netizens lashed out online. Some even launched a movement to boycott Korean films and Korean goods. Some posted videos on YouTube of Korean kimchee being dumped. South Korea's "patriotic referees" are internationally renowned. This is not the first time ROC athletes have been victimized by Korean referees. Japanese athletes have also been subjected to the same treatment. But was the current incident merely an arbitrary "act of patriotism" by a South Korea referee? The public is furious, but it must remain calm, First, the electronic socks Yang Shu-chun wore were Korean made. If anything should be disqualified, it should be Korean merchandise. Secondly, no Korean athletes were competing in Yang Shu-chun's class. Whether Yang Shu-chun took the gold medal had nothing to do with whether South Korea would bask in glory. The Korean referee had no reason to hand down an unfair ruling. If his decision was wrong, the WTF or the Asian Games must investigate thoroughly. If he made a mistake, the problem is his lack of professionalism.
Because South Korea did not participate, netizen rage has been directed at Mainland China. Netizens have blamed the incident on the Mainland athletes who hoped to win the gold medal, whose most likely opponent was Yang Shu-chun. This anger is also unnecessary. Win or lose, Mainland Chinese friendship with Korea, however deep, can never be deeper than cross-Strait relations. The Korean referee has absolutely no reason to make such a counter-intuitive ruling on behalf of Mainland athletes. We now know that the Referee Committee initially intended to suspend the entire ROC taekwondo team, but the Mainland rebuffed it out of hand. Instead, members of the media from the two sides of the Strait began bickering, leaving everyone dumbfounded, Mainland reporters scolded reporters from Taiwan. Their conduct was outrageous. Taiwan reporters responded angrily with "You're talking shit!" Their behavior was equally inappropriate. Lest we forget, this was an international forum. Regardless of one's occupation or status, one's words and deeds are those of Republic of China citizens.
Others angrily scolded the Ma administration as weak and incompetent. In fact Sports Commission Chairman Dai Chia-ling, who was on the scene at the time, immediately lodged a vehement protest. He demanded that the Asian Taekwondo Union investigate the incident. If any mistakes were made, she insisted, the union would have to assume full responsibility. If a satisfactory accounting was not forthcoming, she said, the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee would appeal to the International Court of Arbitration. It would demand that the International Olympic Committee see that justice was done. Premier Wu Den-yih also issued a strongly worded statement. He ordered Dai Chia-ling to present the strongest case possible, and safeguard our national dignity. We must not allow our athletes to wronged, he said. "We must not swallow this indignity!"
Premier Wu voiced intense ROC objections. In fact he was already pointing the finger and naming names. Premier Wu was blasting Sports Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chen Hsien-chung, whose initial behavior was highly disingenuous. The SAC is supposed to serve the athletes. The SAC failed to provide a good environment for the training of athletes. This is reason enough for it to be ashamed. Who knew Chen would say something so outrageous as "When athletes encounter such unjust rulings, they have no choice but to swallow them." He failed to consider the hard work the athletes put in. He even failed to consider the plight of his own comrades on the front line. Even as the chairman was lodging a protest with the committee, and the athletes were weeping in the arena, the Vice Chairman was telling the athletes they had no choice but to passively accept unjust rulings. No wonder he provoked such universal outrage.
You might kill me, but you may not insult me. ROC citizens have thrown their full support behind Yang Shu-chun. SAC members must grow spines. It is not enough to demand that the Asian Taekwondo Union offer us a satisfactory explanation. We must appeal the International Olympic Committee. The fairness of the Asian Taekwondo Union has repeatedly been called into question. Only with sufficient international pressure, can we ensure good sportsmanship, and establish fair and equitable rules of the game. Only such a sporting event makes sense. Only such a sporting event can win public respect.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.11.19
一定要上告奧會 替選手討回公道
本報訊
台灣在國際場合遭打壓吃憋是常有的事，國際競賽場上也不例外，跆拳道比賽更是時有所聞，但日前我亞運選手楊淑君在上場第一回合已經打下九比零成績之際，竟遭裁判以「失格」判輸，卻是前所未有的情況，真是令人錯愕！政府決定上訴國際仲裁法庭絕對是必要之舉，而且要緊盯進度，一定要有個說法和交代，否則，無法讓國人氣平。
北京奧運敗下陣來的楊淑君，在知道裁判判決後，痛哭孤坐在賽場上，不但她無法接受，在螢光幕前看到那一幕的國人都無法接受。原因很簡單，楊淑君進場比賽前檢錄時，大會要她換一雙電子襪，她換了，經過再次檢錄，以及主審檢查，都沒提出她所穿的電子襪有任何問題，卻在開賽一分鐘後叫停，如果還有問題，換一雙也可以，裁判卻不待異議，直接判她失格？那麼之前檢查員和主審到底審查了什麼？
亞跆盟的說法，楊淑君所穿電子襪的腳後跟，多了一個墊片；同樣的，如果真多了了墊片，事前檢查不出來嗎？怎麼可能開賽才發覺？世跆總後來的說法又指，後腳跟的貼片是楊淑君進場後才自行貼在違規的地方，這不是很奇怪嗎？整個比賽經過兩次檢錄，都沒發現嗎？就算楊進場才貼，都沒人看到嗎？怎麼會都開賽了才判定失格？
這次事件的裁判，不巧又是韓裔，事發後，在網路上又引起一陣撻伐，甚至有人發起拒看韓片、拒買韓貨運動，還有人在 youtube上ｐｏ網，丟掉韓國泡菜。韓國的「愛國裁判」，在國際間早已聲名遠播，台灣吃韓國裁判的虧不是第一遭，連日本選手都曾經遭到類似待遇，但是，這次事件，是否這麼簡單歸類為韓國裁判莫名其妙的「愛國舉動」，民眾激憤之餘也得冷靜，第一，楊淑君這次穿的電子襪就是韓貨，若有「失格」，正是韓貨「失格」；第二，楊淑君這個量級的競賽，根本沒有韓籍選手參與，楊淑君不論拿不拿金牌，與韓國的榮耀無關，這位韓裔裁判沒道理因此故做錯誤判決，他的判決是否有誤，世跆總或亞運大會得調查清楚，如有錯誤，是他的專業有問題。
因為韓國沒參賽，網民激憤之餘又把矛頭對準中國大陸，把事故怪在大陸選手想拿金牌，最可能的對手就是楊淑君，這股氣實在也沒必要。輸贏場上見真章，中、韓友誼再深，深不過兩岸關係，這位韓裔裁判完全沒有道理為大陸選手，做出違反常理的事。事實證明，裁判委員會本來要裁定台灣跆拳道隊全部停賽，大陸方面一口回絕。反而是兩岸採訪媒體在記者會起口角，讓大家傻眼，大陸記者追著台灣記者罵人，實在很離譜，但台灣記者氣憤中一句「講什麼屁話」，同樣也不妥，不要忘記，那還是一個國際場合，不論什麼職業或身分，言行進退都代表台灣人。
還有人怒而痛罵馬政府軟弱無能，事實上，人在現場的體委會主委戴遐齡，於第一時間就提出強烈抗議，要求亞跆盟必須對此一事件展開調查，如果有誤必須負起完全責任，若無法給一個交代，體委會將委請中華奧會上告國際仲裁法庭，請國際奧會還我們一個公道。行政院長吳敦義更發表措詞強硬的聲明，要求戴遐齡據理力爭，維護國家尊嚴，絕對不能讓選手白白受此委屈，「沒有吞下去這回事！」
吳揆之言，表達台灣嚴正立場外，其實已經點名罵人了，吳揆罵的正是在第一時間極端白目的體委會副主委陳顯宗。體委會是為選手服務的，體委會不能為選手創造好的訓練培養環境，已經要自覺羞愧，沒想到竟講得出「選手碰上這種事，要自己吞下去」的話！他既未顧慮選手的辛苦，甚至也沒考慮自己的主官在前線打仗，主委前腳向大會提出抗議，選手還在場上痛哭，副主委後腳卻要選手吞下這口氣，難怪激起公憤。
士可殺，不可辱！國人要給楊淑君充分的支持，體委會更要拿出主管機關的肩膀和骨氣，追著亞跆盟給一個說法還不夠，一定要上告國際奧會，只有施加足夠的國際壓力，才能讓公平性屢遭質疑的亞跆盟，遵循運動精神，建立公平、公正的遊戲規則，這樣的運動賽事才有意義，才能得到世人的尊敬。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2010
In the international arena, the Republic of China has long been forced to suffer in silence. This is equally true in international sports competition, especially Taekwondo matches. Recently our own Asian Games competitor Yang Shu-chun racked up nine wins and no losses in the first round of competition. At this point, the referee suddenly "disqualified" her. This unprecedented move left people in shocked disbelief. The government has decided that it must appeal to the International Court of Arbitration. It intends to keep a close eye on the case. We must be given a satisfactory explanation. We must demand accountability. Otherwise, citizens of the ROC will not be mollified.
When Yang Shu-chun heard the referee rule that she had lost during the Beijing Olympics, she sat on the floor and wept. She was not the only one who found the ruling unacceptable. Every citizen who watched the match on TV found it unacceptable. The reason was simple. When Yang Shu-chun entered the arena for pre-game inspection, the committee asked her to change her electronic socks. She changed them, and after undergoing a second inspection, including one by the chief examiner, no further mention was made of a problem with the electronic socks. If the socks were a problem, she would have changed them. But the referee refused to listen to objections, and summarily disqualified her. In which case, just exactly what did the previous inspector and chief examiner inspect and examine?
According to the Asian Taekwondo Union, Yang Shu-chun's electronic socks had an extra sensor at the heels. Again, if they really had an extra sensor, why was the problem not mentioned during the pre-game inspection? Why was it discovered only after the match began? The World Taekwondo Federation (WTF) later claimed that the sensor was installed in an illegal location by Yang Shu-chun after she entered the arena. How strange is that? She was subjected to two inspections, yet nothing was found. If Yang installed the sensor after entering the arena, why did no one see her do it? Why was she disqualified only after the match had already begun?
By an unfortunate coincidence, the referee was again Korean. After the incident happened, netizens lashed out online. Some even launched a movement to boycott Korean films and Korean goods. Some posted videos on YouTube of Korean kimchee being dumped. South Korea's "patriotic referees" are internationally renowned. This is not the first time ROC athletes have been victimized by Korean referees. Japanese athletes have also been subjected to the same treatment. But was the current incident merely an arbitrary "act of patriotism" by a South Korea referee? The public is furious, but it must remain calm, First, the electronic socks Yang Shu-chun wore were Korean made. If anything should be disqualified, it should be Korean merchandise. Secondly, no Korean athletes were competing in Yang Shu-chun's class. Whether Yang Shu-chun took the gold medal had nothing to do with whether South Korea would bask in glory. The Korean referee had no reason to hand down an unfair ruling. If his decision was wrong, the WTF or the Asian Games must investigate thoroughly. If he made a mistake, the problem is his lack of professionalism.
Because South Korea did not participate, netizen rage has been directed at Mainland China. Netizens have blamed the incident on the Mainland athletes who hoped to win the gold medal, whose most likely opponent was Yang Shu-chun. This anger is also unnecessary. Win or lose, Mainland Chinese friendship with Korea, however deep, can never be deeper than cross-Strait relations. The Korean referee has absolutely no reason to make such a counter-intuitive ruling on behalf of Mainland athletes. We now know that the Referee Committee initially intended to suspend the entire ROC taekwondo team, but the Mainland rebuffed it out of hand. Instead, members of the media from the two sides of the Strait began bickering, leaving everyone dumbfounded, Mainland reporters scolded reporters from Taiwan. Their conduct was outrageous. Taiwan reporters responded angrily with "You're talking shit!" Their behavior was equally inappropriate. Lest we forget, this was an international forum. Regardless of one's occupation or status, one's words and deeds are those of Republic of China citizens.
Others angrily scolded the Ma administration as weak and incompetent. In fact Sports Commission Chairman Dai Chia-ling, who was on the scene at the time, immediately lodged a vehement protest. He demanded that the Asian Taekwondo Union investigate the incident. If any mistakes were made, she insisted, the union would have to assume full responsibility. If a satisfactory accounting was not forthcoming, she said, the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee would appeal to the International Court of Arbitration. It would demand that the International Olympic Committee see that justice was done. Premier Wu Den-yih also issued a strongly worded statement. He ordered Dai Chia-ling to present the strongest case possible, and safeguard our national dignity. We must not allow our athletes to wronged, he said. "We must not swallow this indignity!"
Premier Wu voiced intense ROC objections. In fact he was already pointing the finger and naming names. Premier Wu was blasting Sports Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chen Hsien-chung, whose initial behavior was highly disingenuous. The SAC is supposed to serve the athletes. The SAC failed to provide a good environment for the training of athletes. This is reason enough for it to be ashamed. Who knew Chen would say something so outrageous as "When athletes encounter such unjust rulings, they have no choice but to swallow them." He failed to consider the hard work the athletes put in. He even failed to consider the plight of his own comrades on the front line. Even as the chairman was lodging a protest with the committee, and the athletes were weeping in the arena, the Vice Chairman was telling the athletes they had no choice but to passively accept unjust rulings. No wonder he provoked such universal outrage.
You might kill me, but you may not insult me. ROC citizens have thrown their full support behind Yang Shu-chun. SAC members must grow spines. It is not enough to demand that the Asian Taekwondo Union offer us a satisfactory explanation. We must appeal the International Olympic Committee. The fairness of the Asian Taekwondo Union has repeatedly been called into question. Only with sufficient international pressure, can we ensure good sportsmanship, and establish fair and equitable rules of the game. Only such a sporting event makes sense. Only such a sporting event can win public respect.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.11.19
一定要上告奧會 替選手討回公道
本報訊
台灣在國際場合遭打壓吃憋是常有的事，國際競賽場上也不例外，跆拳道比賽更是時有所聞，但日前我亞運選手楊淑君在上場第一回合已經打下九比零成績之際，竟遭裁判以「失格」判輸，卻是前所未有的情況，真是令人錯愕！政府決定上訴國際仲裁法庭絕對是必要之舉，而且要緊盯進度，一定要有個說法和交代，否則，無法讓國人氣平。
北京奧運敗下陣來的楊淑君，在知道裁判判決後，痛哭孤坐在賽場上，不但她無法接受，在螢光幕前看到那一幕的國人都無法接受。原因很簡單，楊淑君進場比賽前檢錄時，大會要她換一雙電子襪，她換了，經過再次檢錄，以及主審檢查，都沒提出她所穿的電子襪有任何問題，卻在開賽一分鐘後叫停，如果還有問題，換一雙也可以，裁判卻不待異議，直接判她失格？那麼之前檢查員和主審到底審查了什麼？
亞跆盟的說法，楊淑君所穿電子襪的腳後跟，多了一個墊片；同樣的，如果真多了了墊片，事前檢查不出來嗎？怎麼可能開賽才發覺？世跆總後來的說法又指，後腳跟的貼片是楊淑君進場後才自行貼在違規的地方，這不是很奇怪嗎？整個比賽經過兩次檢錄，都沒發現嗎？就算楊進場才貼，都沒人看到嗎？怎麼會都開賽了才判定失格？
這次事件的裁判，不巧又是韓裔，事發後，在網路上又引起一陣撻伐，甚至有人發起拒看韓片、拒買韓貨運動，還有人在 youtube上ｐｏ網，丟掉韓國泡菜。韓國的「愛國裁判」，在國際間早已聲名遠播，台灣吃韓國裁判的虧不是第一遭，連日本選手都曾經遭到類似待遇，但是，這次事件，是否這麼簡單歸類為韓國裁判莫名其妙的「愛國舉動」，民眾激憤之餘也得冷靜，第一，楊淑君這次穿的電子襪就是韓貨，若有「失格」，正是韓貨「失格」；第二，楊淑君這個量級的競賽，根本沒有韓籍選手參與，楊淑君不論拿不拿金牌，與韓國的榮耀無關，這位韓裔裁判沒道理因此故做錯誤判決，他的判決是否有誤，世跆總或亞運大會得調查清楚，如有錯誤，是他的專業有問題。
因為韓國沒參賽，網民激憤之餘又把矛頭對準中國大陸，把事故怪在大陸選手想拿金牌，最可能的對手就是楊淑君，這股氣實在也沒必要。輸贏場上見真章，中、韓友誼再深，深不過兩岸關係，這位韓裔裁判完全沒有道理為大陸選手，做出違反常理的事。事實證明，裁判委員會本來要裁定台灣跆拳道隊全部停賽，大陸方面一口回絕。反而是兩岸採訪媒體在記者會起口角，讓大家傻眼，大陸記者追著台灣記者罵人，實在很離譜，但台灣記者氣憤中一句「講什麼屁話」，同樣也不妥，不要忘記，那還是一個國際場合，不論什麼職業或身分，言行進退都代表台灣人。
還有人怒而痛罵馬政府軟弱無能，事實上，人在現場的體委會主委戴遐齡，於第一時間就提出強烈抗議，要求亞跆盟必須對此一事件展開調查，如果有誤必須負起完全責任，若無法給一個交代，體委會將委請中華奧會上告國際仲裁法庭，請國際奧會還我們一個公道。行政院長吳敦義更發表措詞強硬的聲明，要求戴遐齡據理力爭，維護國家尊嚴，絕對不能讓選手白白受此委屈，「沒有吞下去這回事！」
吳揆之言，表達台灣嚴正立場外，其實已經點名罵人了，吳揆罵的正是在第一時間極端白目的體委會副主委陳顯宗。體委會是為選手服務的，體委會不能為選手創造好的訓練培養環境，已經要自覺羞愧，沒想到竟講得出「選手碰上這種事，要自己吞下去」的話！他既未顧慮選手的辛苦，甚至也沒考慮自己的主官在前線打仗，主委前腳向大會提出抗議，選手還在場上痛哭，副主委後腳卻要選手吞下這口氣，難怪激起公憤。
士可殺，不可辱！國人要給楊淑君充分的支持，體委會更要拿出主管機關的肩膀和骨氣，追著亞跆盟給一個說法還不夠，一定要上告國際奧會，只有施加足夠的國際壓力，才能讓公平性屢遭質疑的亞跆盟，遵循運動精神，建立公平、公正的遊戲規則，這樣的運動賽事才有意義，才能得到世人的尊敬。
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Moral Bankruptcy: Lethal Threat to Green Camp Survival
Moral Bankruptcy: Lethal Threat to Green Camp Survival
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2010
Society on Taiwan has been divided into two political camps, the Blues and the Greens. These two political camps have evolved very different styles, cultures, traditions, and value systems.
Cheng Hung-yi and Li Tao are television personalities. They can be considered Deep Green and Deep Blue political icons. When Cheng Hung-yi stumped for a Green Camp political candidate recently, he spread rumors about "30,000NT subsidies for Mainland exchange students." He repeatedly shouted "F**k your mother!" in an effort to incite mob passions. The mob enthusiastically shouted "F**k your mother!" in response. By contrast, one can hardly imagine Li Tao shouting obscenities while stumping for a candidate he approves of. One can hardly imagine Blue Camp supporters shouting obscenities in response. The Blue and Green camps evince entirely different styles, entirely different cultures, entirely different traditions, and entirely different value systems.
Cheng Hung-yi and Li Tao are not the same. The former is willing to stump for a candidate. The latter is not. The former hosts a TV talk show rife with rumors and full of commercials. The latter hosts a TV talk show featuring only public service announcements. The former backs Chen Shui-bian to the bitter end, The latter blasts the Ma administration until its ears burn. The former demagogues the issue of water spinach. The latter opens phone lines to accused parties, providing them with the opportunity to defend themselves. Even the television networks these two talk show hosts work for are different. So are their viewers. If Li Tao were to shout "F**k your mother!" while stumping for a Blue Camp candidate, the very next day TVBS headquarters would be besieged by stone and egg throwing Green Camp masses. Its administration building would be vandalized beyond recognition. Li Tao would probably be unable to stay on. He was once forced to resign as general manager because a reporter under his charge made a mistake. By contrast, SET has turned Cheng Hung-yi into a political "designer label" and cash cow. No Blue Camp supporters have ever held mass protests outside SET headquarters. Li Tao and Cheng Hung-yi are media icons. They exemplify the vastly different styles, cultures, and value systems held by the Blue and Green camps.
These differences between the Blue and Green camps extend from media stars to the man in the street. They have a long history, and have already evolved into traditions. Twenty-five years ago today, on November 18, 1985, Wu Shu-chen was struck by a tractor driven by Chang Jung Choi. The collision was clearly an accident. But it was spun by Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen into a [KMT] political conspiracy. Ever since then, whenever Chen Shui-bian ran for political office, he would carry Wu Shu-chen onto the podium in his arms. Both the Democratic Progressive Party leadership and masses knew in their hearts of hearts that the alleged conspiracy was a lie. But together with Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen, they tacitly agreed to co-star in this charade, and eventually sent Chen Shui-bian into the Presidential Palace. Green camp leaders and followers alike engage in this game of self-deception. They distort reality and numb themselves to the truth. This distortion of reality and numbing oneself to the truth enabled Green Camp masses to swallow the 3/19 Shooting Hoax without question. It enabled Green Camp masses to pretend that bribe money was "earmarked for a nation-building fund." It enabled Green Camp masses to deny that the "Referendum to Join the UN" was merely a ploy by Chen Shui-bian to rally public sentiment in order to evade criminal prosecution. This Green Camp culture and tradition is the result of long practice. When Chen Chu engaged in smear tactics, alleging that "Huang Chun-ying has been caught engaging in bribery," it enabled Green Camp masses to consider Chen Chu's sleazy move as a "master stroke." It enabled Green Camp masses to pretend that Chen Chih-chung never solicited the services of a prostitute, but instead to depict him as an innocent victim and to "demand justice for him at the ballot box." Chuang Jui-jung raised a stink over water spinach and was seen as a hero. Cheng Hung-yi shouted "F**k you mother!" and was seen as a "God of War." Is this not bizarre beyond belief? Yet this style, this culture, this tradition, is what the Green Camp perceives as perfectly normal. In sum, this underscores the Green Camp's moral bankruptcy.
The problem confronting the Green Camp and the DPP is not merely that it advocates Taiwan independence, even though Taiwan independence is a dead end. It is not merely that it incites "ethnic" (communal group) hatred over the 2/28 Incident, even though 60 years of healing have already taken place. It is not merely that it hates [Mainland] China and opposes [Mainland] China, even though cross-Strait rapproachment is a fait accompli. The real problem confronting the DPP and the Green Camp is its moral bankruptcy.
The Green Camp's most serious problem is that its moral bankruptcy is not confined to Green camp leaders and talking heads, but has trickled down to its core supporters. Its leaders have resorted to immoral political ploys to retain the allegiance of their supporters. Its supporters have abandoned their moral bottom line in order to support their leaders. Cheng Hung-yi stands on the podium shouting "F**k your mother!" The masses in the audience shout "F**k your mother!" in enthusiastic response. This is a classic Green Camp scenario. This style, this culture, this tradition, means that the greatest threat the Green Camp and the DPP poses is no longer its advocacy of Taiwan independence, its attempts to divide society, and its attempts to undermine cross-Strait relations. Rather, the greatest threat the Green Camp and the DPP poses is its destruction of fundamental moral concepts, of integrity and conscience.
Without morality, there can be no nation. The Green Camp and the DPP already know they cannot establish a Nation of Taiwan. Yet they demand the annihilation of morality and honor on Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party's prospects in the five cities elections are good. It is all geared up to play the "Sacrifice Ma, Defend Taiwan" sympathy card. But do the Green Camp and the DPP intend to confront the moral bankruptcy that now plagues our nation?
The DPP's latest lie is its alleged "ability to govern" and "ability to execute policy." In fact the DPP's only real ability is its ability to manipulate the election process. The failure of its Taiwan independence demagoguery led to its moral bankruptcy. The failure of its "ethnic" (communal group) demagoguery led to its moral bankruptcy. The failure of its cross-Strait demagoguery also led to its moral bankruptcy.
Eight years of the DPP's alleged "ability to govern" and "ability to execute policy" ended in total fiasco, in preoccupation with political intrigue, and the thorough repudiation of DPP members' fundamental humanity. Even assuming the DPP wins the five cities elections, how will it confront the Green Camp's moral, cultural, and traditional bankruptcy? Without morality, without conscience, without a sense of right and wrong, without distinctions between what is true and what is false, whither one's "ability to govern?" Whither one's "ability to execute policy?"
道德崩潰是綠營的致命危機
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.18
台灣已是分裂成藍綠兩半的社會，而且這兩個板塊亦已逐漸形成截然不同的風格、文化、傳統與價值體系。
鄭弘儀與李濤兩位媒體人，也許可分別視為深綠與重藍的代表人物。鄭弘儀為綠營候選人站台，散播「陸生三萬」的政治謠言，以「幹X娘」挑激民眾情緒，台下群眾亦以「幹X娘」熱烈回應……。然而，無人能想像李濤會為任何候選人站台，也無法想像他會口出三字經，更無法想像藍營群眾會為他若口出三字經而癡狂回應。藍綠兩大板塊已經形成兩種風格、兩種文化、兩種傳統與兩種價值體系。
鄭弘儀與李濤不一樣。一個站台，一個不會；一個八卦節目及商業廣告滿檔，一個只在義務性公益廣告露面；一個八年挺陳水扁到底，一個批起來也叫馬政府頭皮發麻；一個大炒「空心菜」，一個現場開放當事人澄清專線……。而且，兩人工作的機構與支持的群眾也不一樣；如果是李濤在藍營候選人的台上「幹Ｘ娘」，第二天TVBS總部必遭綠營群眾石頭雞蛋砸得面目全非，李濤恐亦不可能再在TVBS立足（他曾因屬下記者犯錯而辭總經理職）；但三立仍將鄭弘儀當成政治商標及搖錢樹，且門口也未見藍營群眾示威抗議。從李濤及鄭弘儀二人，可以看出藍綠兩個板塊迥然而異的兩種風格、文化及價值體系。
這種從明星至群眾一條鞭的藍綠差異，其來有自，已經儼然形成一種傳統。吳淑珍在25年前的今天（1985年11月18日）被張榮財的鐵牛車撞傷致殘，明明是一意外事故，卻被扁珍操作成政治車禍；此後，陳水扁在競選場合將吳淑珍抱出抱進，民進黨領導階層及台下的群眾心中亦明知政治車禍是謊言，卻也心照不宣地與扁珍合演這個自欺欺人的大騙局，終將陳水扁送上了總統大位。這種領袖與群眾相互欺騙、相互麻醉的扭曲關係，也使綠營群眾對三一九槍擊案沒有質疑，對貪汙是為了「建國基金」佯作相信，更不願承認「入聯公投」只是陳水扁為了對抗司法在積蓄社會實力……。這種日積月累的綠營文化與傳統，使陳菊「黃俊英，賄選抓到了」的卑劣操作被視為高妙權謀，也使陳致中召妓仍叫嚷要「以選票來討回公道」；浸染所致，莊瑞雄大炒「空心菜」被視為英雄，鄭弘儀大罵「幹X娘」被視為戰神……。這些皆不是「千奇百怪」，而是被綠營視為理所當然的風格、文化、傳統及價值體系。歸納來說，這些實皆顯示了綠營的道德崩潰。
綠營及民進黨現在的問題，已不只在於主張台獨，因為台獨已絕無生路；亦不在挑唆二二八的族群仇恨，因為畢竟已經六十餘年的療傷止痛；亦不在仇中反中，因為兩岸關係已無可能反轉。民進黨與綠營真正的問題在於：道德崩潰。
更嚴重的問題是，這種道德崩潰，不止在綠營的領袖及名嘴階層，而是一路到了其主體支持群眾。領袖階層以不道德的政治操作來維繫群眾，群眾以揚棄道德底線來回應及支持其領袖。鄭弘儀在台上「幹Ｘ娘」，群眾在台下也以「幹X娘」熱烈回應，正是經典畫面。這種風格、文化及傳統，使得綠營及民進黨對台灣的威脅不再只是在操作台獨、撕裂社會、傷害兩岸關係，而是在從根本處摧毀了道德底線及廉恥觀念。
沒有道德，不成國家。綠營及民進黨已搞不成台灣國，卻要將台灣的道德底線及廉恥觀念摧殘淨盡。現在，民進黨在五都選舉情勢看好，儼然就要實現「棄馬保台」的悲情大願。但是，可否問綠營及民進黨：如何面對這種道德崩潰的國家悲劇？
新的謊言叫做「治理能力」與「執行力」。民進黨真正過人的能力，是在於操作選舉。但台獨的失敗，敗於道德崩潰；族群操作的失敗，敗於道德崩潰；兩岸關係操作的失敗，亦敗於道德崩潰；八年執政在「治理能力」及「執行力」上的慘敗，更是敗於「沉溺權謀／糟蹋人性」的道德崩潰……。那麼，即使民進黨這次能贏得五都選舉，將如何面對這個道德崩潰的綠營文化及傳統？無道德、無廉恥，無是非，無真偽，何來「治理能力」？何來「執行力」？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 18, 2010
Society on Taiwan has been divided into two political camps, the Blues and the Greens. These two political camps have evolved very different styles, cultures, traditions, and value systems.
Cheng Hung-yi and Li Tao are television personalities. They can be considered Deep Green and Deep Blue political icons. When Cheng Hung-yi stumped for a Green Camp political candidate recently, he spread rumors about "30,000NT subsidies for Mainland exchange students." He repeatedly shouted "F**k your mother!" in an effort to incite mob passions. The mob enthusiastically shouted "F**k your mother!" in response. By contrast, one can hardly imagine Li Tao shouting obscenities while stumping for a candidate he approves of. One can hardly imagine Blue Camp supporters shouting obscenities in response. The Blue and Green camps evince entirely different styles, entirely different cultures, entirely different traditions, and entirely different value systems.
Cheng Hung-yi and Li Tao are not the same. The former is willing to stump for a candidate. The latter is not. The former hosts a TV talk show rife with rumors and full of commercials. The latter hosts a TV talk show featuring only public service announcements. The former backs Chen Shui-bian to the bitter end, The latter blasts the Ma administration until its ears burn. The former demagogues the issue of water spinach. The latter opens phone lines to accused parties, providing them with the opportunity to defend themselves. Even the television networks these two talk show hosts work for are different. So are their viewers. If Li Tao were to shout "F**k your mother!" while stumping for a Blue Camp candidate, the very next day TVBS headquarters would be besieged by stone and egg throwing Green Camp masses. Its administration building would be vandalized beyond recognition. Li Tao would probably be unable to stay on. He was once forced to resign as general manager because a reporter under his charge made a mistake. By contrast, SET has turned Cheng Hung-yi into a political "designer label" and cash cow. No Blue Camp supporters have ever held mass protests outside SET headquarters. Li Tao and Cheng Hung-yi are media icons. They exemplify the vastly different styles, cultures, and value systems held by the Blue and Green camps.
These differences between the Blue and Green camps extend from media stars to the man in the street. They have a long history, and have already evolved into traditions. Twenty-five years ago today, on November 18, 1985, Wu Shu-chen was struck by a tractor driven by Chang Jung Choi. The collision was clearly an accident. But it was spun by Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen into a [KMT] political conspiracy. Ever since then, whenever Chen Shui-bian ran for political office, he would carry Wu Shu-chen onto the podium in his arms. Both the Democratic Progressive Party leadership and masses knew in their hearts of hearts that the alleged conspiracy was a lie. But together with Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen, they tacitly agreed to co-star in this charade, and eventually sent Chen Shui-bian into the Presidential Palace. Green camp leaders and followers alike engage in this game of self-deception. They distort reality and numb themselves to the truth. This distortion of reality and numbing oneself to the truth enabled Green Camp masses to swallow the 3/19 Shooting Hoax without question. It enabled Green Camp masses to pretend that bribe money was "earmarked for a nation-building fund." It enabled Green Camp masses to deny that the "Referendum to Join the UN" was merely a ploy by Chen Shui-bian to rally public sentiment in order to evade criminal prosecution. This Green Camp culture and tradition is the result of long practice. When Chen Chu engaged in smear tactics, alleging that "Huang Chun-ying has been caught engaging in bribery," it enabled Green Camp masses to consider Chen Chu's sleazy move as a "master stroke." It enabled Green Camp masses to pretend that Chen Chih-chung never solicited the services of a prostitute, but instead to depict him as an innocent victim and to "demand justice for him at the ballot box." Chuang Jui-jung raised a stink over water spinach and was seen as a hero. Cheng Hung-yi shouted "F**k you mother!" and was seen as a "God of War." Is this not bizarre beyond belief? Yet this style, this culture, this tradition, is what the Green Camp perceives as perfectly normal. In sum, this underscores the Green Camp's moral bankruptcy.
The problem confronting the Green Camp and the DPP is not merely that it advocates Taiwan independence, even though Taiwan independence is a dead end. It is not merely that it incites "ethnic" (communal group) hatred over the 2/28 Incident, even though 60 years of healing have already taken place. It is not merely that it hates [Mainland] China and opposes [Mainland] China, even though cross-Strait rapproachment is a fait accompli. The real problem confronting the DPP and the Green Camp is its moral bankruptcy.
The Green Camp's most serious problem is that its moral bankruptcy is not confined to Green camp leaders and talking heads, but has trickled down to its core supporters. Its leaders have resorted to immoral political ploys to retain the allegiance of their supporters. Its supporters have abandoned their moral bottom line in order to support their leaders. Cheng Hung-yi stands on the podium shouting "F**k your mother!" The masses in the audience shout "F**k your mother!" in enthusiastic response. This is a classic Green Camp scenario. This style, this culture, this tradition, means that the greatest threat the Green Camp and the DPP poses is no longer its advocacy of Taiwan independence, its attempts to divide society, and its attempts to undermine cross-Strait relations. Rather, the greatest threat the Green Camp and the DPP poses is its destruction of fundamental moral concepts, of integrity and conscience.
Without morality, there can be no nation. The Green Camp and the DPP already know they cannot establish a Nation of Taiwan. Yet they demand the annihilation of morality and honor on Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party's prospects in the five cities elections are good. It is all geared up to play the "Sacrifice Ma, Defend Taiwan" sympathy card. But do the Green Camp and the DPP intend to confront the moral bankruptcy that now plagues our nation?
The DPP's latest lie is its alleged "ability to govern" and "ability to execute policy." In fact the DPP's only real ability is its ability to manipulate the election process. The failure of its Taiwan independence demagoguery led to its moral bankruptcy. The failure of its "ethnic" (communal group) demagoguery led to its moral bankruptcy. The failure of its cross-Strait demagoguery also led to its moral bankruptcy.
Eight years of the DPP's alleged "ability to govern" and "ability to execute policy" ended in total fiasco, in preoccupation with political intrigue, and the thorough repudiation of DPP members' fundamental humanity. Even assuming the DPP wins the five cities elections, how will it confront the Green Camp's moral, cultural, and traditional bankruptcy? Without morality, without conscience, without a sense of right and wrong, without distinctions between what is true and what is false, whither one's "ability to govern?" Whither one's "ability to execute policy?"
道德崩潰是綠營的致命危機
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.18
台灣已是分裂成藍綠兩半的社會，而且這兩個板塊亦已逐漸形成截然不同的風格、文化、傳統與價值體系。
鄭弘儀與李濤兩位媒體人，也許可分別視為深綠與重藍的代表人物。鄭弘儀為綠營候選人站台，散播「陸生三萬」的政治謠言，以「幹X娘」挑激民眾情緒，台下群眾亦以「幹X娘」熱烈回應……。然而，無人能想像李濤會為任何候選人站台，也無法想像他會口出三字經，更無法想像藍營群眾會為他若口出三字經而癡狂回應。藍綠兩大板塊已經形成兩種風格、兩種文化、兩種傳統與兩種價值體系。
鄭弘儀與李濤不一樣。一個站台，一個不會；一個八卦節目及商業廣告滿檔，一個只在義務性公益廣告露面；一個八年挺陳水扁到底，一個批起來也叫馬政府頭皮發麻；一個大炒「空心菜」，一個現場開放當事人澄清專線……。而且，兩人工作的機構與支持的群眾也不一樣；如果是李濤在藍營候選人的台上「幹Ｘ娘」，第二天TVBS總部必遭綠營群眾石頭雞蛋砸得面目全非，李濤恐亦不可能再在TVBS立足（他曾因屬下記者犯錯而辭總經理職）；但三立仍將鄭弘儀當成政治商標及搖錢樹，且門口也未見藍營群眾示威抗議。從李濤及鄭弘儀二人，可以看出藍綠兩個板塊迥然而異的兩種風格、文化及價值體系。
這種從明星至群眾一條鞭的藍綠差異，其來有自，已經儼然形成一種傳統。吳淑珍在25年前的今天（1985年11月18日）被張榮財的鐵牛車撞傷致殘，明明是一意外事故，卻被扁珍操作成政治車禍；此後，陳水扁在競選場合將吳淑珍抱出抱進，民進黨領導階層及台下的群眾心中亦明知政治車禍是謊言，卻也心照不宣地與扁珍合演這個自欺欺人的大騙局，終將陳水扁送上了總統大位。這種領袖與群眾相互欺騙、相互麻醉的扭曲關係，也使綠營群眾對三一九槍擊案沒有質疑，對貪汙是為了「建國基金」佯作相信，更不願承認「入聯公投」只是陳水扁為了對抗司法在積蓄社會實力……。這種日積月累的綠營文化與傳統，使陳菊「黃俊英，賄選抓到了」的卑劣操作被視為高妙權謀，也使陳致中召妓仍叫嚷要「以選票來討回公道」；浸染所致，莊瑞雄大炒「空心菜」被視為英雄，鄭弘儀大罵「幹X娘」被視為戰神……。這些皆不是「千奇百怪」，而是被綠營視為理所當然的風格、文化、傳統及價值體系。歸納來說，這些實皆顯示了綠營的道德崩潰。
綠營及民進黨現在的問題，已不只在於主張台獨，因為台獨已絕無生路；亦不在挑唆二二八的族群仇恨，因為畢竟已經六十餘年的療傷止痛；亦不在仇中反中，因為兩岸關係已無可能反轉。民進黨與綠營真正的問題在於：道德崩潰。
更嚴重的問題是，這種道德崩潰，不止在綠營的領袖及名嘴階層，而是一路到了其主體支持群眾。領袖階層以不道德的政治操作來維繫群眾，群眾以揚棄道德底線來回應及支持其領袖。鄭弘儀在台上「幹Ｘ娘」，群眾在台下也以「幹X娘」熱烈回應，正是經典畫面。這種風格、文化及傳統，使得綠營及民進黨對台灣的威脅不再只是在操作台獨、撕裂社會、傷害兩岸關係，而是在從根本處摧毀了道德底線及廉恥觀念。
沒有道德，不成國家。綠營及民進黨已搞不成台灣國，卻要將台灣的道德底線及廉恥觀念摧殘淨盡。現在，民進黨在五都選舉情勢看好，儼然就要實現「棄馬保台」的悲情大願。但是，可否問綠營及民進黨：如何面對這種道德崩潰的國家悲劇？
新的謊言叫做「治理能力」與「執行力」。民進黨真正過人的能力，是在於操作選舉。但台獨的失敗，敗於道德崩潰；族群操作的失敗，敗於道德崩潰；兩岸關係操作的失敗，亦敗於道德崩潰；八年執政在「治理能力」及「執行力」上的慘敗，更是敗於「沉溺權謀／糟蹋人性」的道德崩潰……。那麼，即使民進黨這次能贏得五都選舉，將如何面對這個道德崩潰的綠營文化及傳統？無道德、無廉恥，無是非，無真偽，何來「治理能力」？何來「執行力」？
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The DPP Owes the People an Explanation
The DPP Owes the People an Explanation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2010
Chen Shui-bian is about to be sent to prison. The Democratic Progressive Party owes the public an explanation for the eight years of chaos it inflicted upon the nation. Only by publicly acknowledging the legal sentences handed down by the justice system on Chen Shui-bian, and clarifying the party's position, can the DPP shrug the monkey off its back and move forward unencumbered.
Doing so is not that difficult. But the DPP not miss another opportunity. Third instance rulings have been handed down in the Longtan Land Acquisition and sale of official positions scandals. Hoping to avoid any negative impact on its election prospects, the DPP has studiously avoided commenting on the matter. One would think Ah-Bian had nothing to do with the DPP. Deep Green elements are shrilly protesting, alleging that the ruling was unjust. Chen Shui-bian has compared himself to Nelson Mandela. He even said that the "KMT and CCP have joined hands" in order to see him dead. Does the DPP intend to continue hiding behind Deep Green hardliners? Does it intend to remain a political party indifferent to right and wrong, and afraid to own up to its mistakes?
For the sake of political accountability, the DPP should apologize to the people. The people have been waiting for one almost six years. Six years ago, Chen Shui-bian perpetrated the 3/19 Shooting Hoax. This was followed by one Chen family corruption scandal after another, after which the Red Shirt Army took to the streets. This presented the DPP with an opportunity to act decisively. Who knew the party would allow itself to be bought off by Ah-Bian? It did everything in its power to shield him and cover for him. It crushed reformists within the party. Two years ago Chen Shui-bian stepped down. One corruption scandal after another entered the judicial system hopper. This presented the DPP with yet another opportunity to draw a line between itself and Ah-Bian. Instead, it allowed the problem to drag on. The party argued that it wanted to wait for confirmation of guilt before passing moral judgment. But third instance rulings have already been rendered in two of the cases. What exactly is the DPP waiting for?
The DPP can not evade the issue, which should be considered on several levels. First, consider political responsibility. Ah-Bian ruled for eight years. Virtually every member of the Democratic Progressive Party elite became part of the ruling nomenklatura. Chen Shui-bian got away with rampant corruption, decadence, and lawlessness, only because of the aid he received from the entire administration. Even if members of the DPP elite were not directly involved in criminal activity, they cannot shirk political responsibility. They made it possible for Ah-Bian to engage in the rampant looting of state assets. This responsibility is not about to vanish into thin air merely because Ah-Bian is behind bars.
Secondly, consider moral responsibility. Chen Shui-bian's corruption has led directly to the distortion and destruction of society's moral values. These need correcting and clarifying. If the DPP insists that Chen Shui-bian is innocent, and has suffered the same injustice as Nelson Mandela, it should publicly state how the justice system was unfair. It should even urge people to take to the streets to protest. But if it thinks Chen Shui-bian is guilty, and that his conduct should not be encouraged, then it should concede this point to the public and Deep Green supporters. It should liberate Taiwan from Ah-Bian's negative influence, and restore Taiwan's moral compass.
Third, consider responsibility to the nation. The Democratic Progressive Party has long exploited Blue vs. Green confrontation to its advantage. It has repeatedly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the government. This has led to a loss of confidence in public authority, and led the people toward nihilism. The Chen corruption trial rendered a judgment on the nation's highest leader. This was the justice system's last line of defense. Moreover, Chen Shui-bian was prosecuted by the Special Investigation Unit he himself established. That makes it even more remarkable. It is bad enough that the DPP failed to prevent Ah-Bian from engaging in corruption. What's worse is how even today it refuses to support our nation's justice system. It insists on repudiating its legitimacy by means of political demagoguery. The public will find it easy to see which political party lacks sincerity.
Chen Shui-bian, by going from "political golden boy" to "the first head of state to enter prison," has nullified the Democratic Progressive Party's "progressive" credentials. He has turned Taiwan's democracy into a joke. The degree to which the public has suffered is incalculable. The DPP should not assume that such wounds will heal automatically. It should not assume that its responsibilities will disappear with Chen Shui-bian's imprisonment. The DPP is busy trumpeting the "good government" card. But the Chen corruption case is raising such a stink, who is going to buy into the DPP's promises of "good government?"
A political party that cannot face up to its own mistakes, cannot help revealing its cowardly, deceitful, and insincere nature. In fact, the DPP must do far more than merely distance itself from Ah-Bian. It must solemnly apologize to the public for eight years of brutal, corrupt, and myopic rule. In fact, isn't this something the justice system has overlooked as it prosecutes the guilty?
Over the past twenty years, the DPP has stridently demanded apologies from the KMT for an endless list of offenses. Ma Ying-jeou bears no responsibility whatsoever for the 2/28 Incident. But no matter how many times he has apologized for it, the Green Camp is never satisfied. By contrast, the DPP eagerly aided and abetted Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Yet no one has heard it offer a single apology over the past several years. A legal judgment is the least a nation has the right to expect. The people also need to hear the DPP express remorse and offer them an apology. The DPP owes the public an explanation.
民進黨欠人民一個說法
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.17
在陳水扁即將發監之際，民進黨須就其執政八年的錯亂給公眾一個交代；唯有公開承認司法對陳水扁的判決，說明黨的立場，民進黨才有機會真正卸下阿扁這個包袱，自由地往前走。
這並非強人所難，而是提醒民進黨不要一再錯失機會。龍潭和買官案三審宣判後，民進黨為避免影響選情，一致迴避評論此事，彷彿阿扁與該黨毫無關係。深綠陣營則激烈指控判決不公，陳水扁更自比為曼德拉，甚至說「國共聯手」要置其於死地。民進黨要繼續躲在深綠的鐵殼後面，當一個不問是非、不敢認錯的政黨嗎？
基於政治責任，民進黨應當向人民道歉，人民已經等了足足六年。六年多前，三一九槍擊案爆發，接著扁家弊案逐一揭露，紅衫軍湧上街頭，民進黨原本有很好的機會果斷面對；不料該黨卻懾於扁的淫威，不僅全力簇擁他、包庇他，更反過來壓制黨內改革派。兩年多前陳水扁下台，弊案陸續進入司法程序，民進黨亦有機會與扁「切割」，卻把問題一拖再拖。當時黨內的說法都是：要等司法確認有罪，再來論斷是非。那麼，如今已有兩案三審定讞，民進黨還在等待什麼？
民進黨無法迴避這個問題，可從幾個層次討論。第一，就責任政治而言，扁執政八年，民進黨菁英幾乎都是其團隊的核心及周邊成員；陳水扁能跨越體制做出那麼多貪瀆、敗德、踰法之事，是仗著整個團隊的縱容、疏失與掩護才能得逞。從這個角度看，民進黨菁英縱未參與犯罪，也負有無法推卸的政治責任。導致扁盜用國家機器橫行至此，這個責任，不會因扁入獄，即從民進黨肩上消失。
第二，就道德層次而言，陳水扁的貪贓枉法，對於社會價值造成的扭曲和破毀，有必要導正與釐清。如果民進黨堅持陳水扁無罪，認為他是像曼德拉一樣遭受了莫名的冤屈，那就請公開指出司法有何不公，甚至可呼喚民眾上街聲討。如果認為陳水扁罪有應得，他的作法不值得鼓勵，就應向社會大眾、向深綠支持者坦承這點，讓台灣社會的道德指針能夠擺脫扁案的邪惡引力，回歸正常。
第三，就國家層次而言，民進黨長期利用藍綠對峙，一再質疑各種國家機器的正當性，導致公權力的信用不斷受到摧折，使人民陷入虛無。扁案的審理，對國家最高領導人的貪瀆違法予以判決，是司法守住了最後一道正義防線；而且，由陳水扁親手成立的特偵組將他起訴，意義更是非凡。民進黨當年無法節制阿扁貪瀆也就罷了，如果今天仍不能表態支持司法作為，還要用政治操弄來否定其價值，則民眾也就不難看出，這個政黨對台灣其實沒有多少真誠的認同和珍惜。
從一個「政治金童」變成首位「入獄元首」，陳水扁不僅耗光了民進黨所有的「進步」價值，更簡直把台灣的民主改革變成一場笑話。這場災難，台灣人民承受的痛苦是難以想像的，民進黨不要以為這個創傷會自動癒合，更不要以為自己的責任會隨著阿扁入獄自動消失。民進黨正在猛打「治理牌」，但隨便一個扁案攤開來都是臭不可聞，「治理牌」能說服誰？
一個不能面對自己過失的政黨，終歸難掩其懦弱、欺罔、不誠懇的本質。事實上，民進黨目前要做的，已不止是和阿扁「切割」，而是要對自己執政八年的粗暴、貪腐、護短作出深刻反省，並向人民鄭重致歉。這點，其實不也是司法對他們略過的審判？
廿多年來，民進黨要求國民黨道歉的事難盡枚舉。試想，不管馬英九為遙遠的二二八事件道歉了多少次，綠營都無法滿意；相形之下，民進黨扮演阿扁貪腐禍國的馬前卒，幾年來卻囁嚅不發一語。司法判決只是國家體制的必然程序，但國人更想聽到民進黨的悔悟與道歉。民進黨欠人民一個說法。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2010
Chen Shui-bian is about to be sent to prison. The Democratic Progressive Party owes the public an explanation for the eight years of chaos it inflicted upon the nation. Only by publicly acknowledging the legal sentences handed down by the justice system on Chen Shui-bian, and clarifying the party's position, can the DPP shrug the monkey off its back and move forward unencumbered.
Doing so is not that difficult. But the DPP not miss another opportunity. Third instance rulings have been handed down in the Longtan Land Acquisition and sale of official positions scandals. Hoping to avoid any negative impact on its election prospects, the DPP has studiously avoided commenting on the matter. One would think Ah-Bian had nothing to do with the DPP. Deep Green elements are shrilly protesting, alleging that the ruling was unjust. Chen Shui-bian has compared himself to Nelson Mandela. He even said that the "KMT and CCP have joined hands" in order to see him dead. Does the DPP intend to continue hiding behind Deep Green hardliners? Does it intend to remain a political party indifferent to right and wrong, and afraid to own up to its mistakes?
For the sake of political accountability, the DPP should apologize to the people. The people have been waiting for one almost six years. Six years ago, Chen Shui-bian perpetrated the 3/19 Shooting Hoax. This was followed by one Chen family corruption scandal after another, after which the Red Shirt Army took to the streets. This presented the DPP with an opportunity to act decisively. Who knew the party would allow itself to be bought off by Ah-Bian? It did everything in its power to shield him and cover for him. It crushed reformists within the party. Two years ago Chen Shui-bian stepped down. One corruption scandal after another entered the judicial system hopper. This presented the DPP with yet another opportunity to draw a line between itself and Ah-Bian. Instead, it allowed the problem to drag on. The party argued that it wanted to wait for confirmation of guilt before passing moral judgment. But third instance rulings have already been rendered in two of the cases. What exactly is the DPP waiting for?
The DPP can not evade the issue, which should be considered on several levels. First, consider political responsibility. Ah-Bian ruled for eight years. Virtually every member of the Democratic Progressive Party elite became part of the ruling nomenklatura. Chen Shui-bian got away with rampant corruption, decadence, and lawlessness, only because of the aid he received from the entire administration. Even if members of the DPP elite were not directly involved in criminal activity, they cannot shirk political responsibility. They made it possible for Ah-Bian to engage in the rampant looting of state assets. This responsibility is not about to vanish into thin air merely because Ah-Bian is behind bars.
Secondly, consider moral responsibility. Chen Shui-bian's corruption has led directly to the distortion and destruction of society's moral values. These need correcting and clarifying. If the DPP insists that Chen Shui-bian is innocent, and has suffered the same injustice as Nelson Mandela, it should publicly state how the justice system was unfair. It should even urge people to take to the streets to protest. But if it thinks Chen Shui-bian is guilty, and that his conduct should not be encouraged, then it should concede this point to the public and Deep Green supporters. It should liberate Taiwan from Ah-Bian's negative influence, and restore Taiwan's moral compass.
Third, consider responsibility to the nation. The Democratic Progressive Party has long exploited Blue vs. Green confrontation to its advantage. It has repeatedly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the government. This has led to a loss of confidence in public authority, and led the people toward nihilism. The Chen corruption trial rendered a judgment on the nation's highest leader. This was the justice system's last line of defense. Moreover, Chen Shui-bian was prosecuted by the Special Investigation Unit he himself established. That makes it even more remarkable. It is bad enough that the DPP failed to prevent Ah-Bian from engaging in corruption. What's worse is how even today it refuses to support our nation's justice system. It insists on repudiating its legitimacy by means of political demagoguery. The public will find it easy to see which political party lacks sincerity.
Chen Shui-bian, by going from "political golden boy" to "the first head of state to enter prison," has nullified the Democratic Progressive Party's "progressive" credentials. He has turned Taiwan's democracy into a joke. The degree to which the public has suffered is incalculable. The DPP should not assume that such wounds will heal automatically. It should not assume that its responsibilities will disappear with Chen Shui-bian's imprisonment. The DPP is busy trumpeting the "good government" card. But the Chen corruption case is raising such a stink, who is going to buy into the DPP's promises of "good government?"
A political party that cannot face up to its own mistakes, cannot help revealing its cowardly, deceitful, and insincere nature. In fact, the DPP must do far more than merely distance itself from Ah-Bian. It must solemnly apologize to the public for eight years of brutal, corrupt, and myopic rule. In fact, isn't this something the justice system has overlooked as it prosecutes the guilty?
Over the past twenty years, the DPP has stridently demanded apologies from the KMT for an endless list of offenses. Ma Ying-jeou bears no responsibility whatsoever for the 2/28 Incident. But no matter how many times he has apologized for it, the Green Camp is never satisfied. By contrast, the DPP eagerly aided and abetted Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Yet no one has heard it offer a single apology over the past several years. A legal judgment is the least a nation has the right to expect. The people also need to hear the DPP express remorse and offer them an apology. The DPP owes the public an explanation.
民進黨欠人民一個說法
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.17
在陳水扁即將發監之際，民進黨須就其執政八年的錯亂給公眾一個交代；唯有公開承認司法對陳水扁的判決，說明黨的立場，民進黨才有機會真正卸下阿扁這個包袱，自由地往前走。
這並非強人所難，而是提醒民進黨不要一再錯失機會。龍潭和買官案三審宣判後，民進黨為避免影響選情，一致迴避評論此事，彷彿阿扁與該黨毫無關係。深綠陣營則激烈指控判決不公，陳水扁更自比為曼德拉，甚至說「國共聯手」要置其於死地。民進黨要繼續躲在深綠的鐵殼後面，當一個不問是非、不敢認錯的政黨嗎？
基於政治責任，民進黨應當向人民道歉，人民已經等了足足六年。六年多前，三一九槍擊案爆發，接著扁家弊案逐一揭露，紅衫軍湧上街頭，民進黨原本有很好的機會果斷面對；不料該黨卻懾於扁的淫威，不僅全力簇擁他、包庇他，更反過來壓制黨內改革派。兩年多前陳水扁下台，弊案陸續進入司法程序，民進黨亦有機會與扁「切割」，卻把問題一拖再拖。當時黨內的說法都是：要等司法確認有罪，再來論斷是非。那麼，如今已有兩案三審定讞，民進黨還在等待什麼？
民進黨無法迴避這個問題，可從幾個層次討論。第一，就責任政治而言，扁執政八年，民進黨菁英幾乎都是其團隊的核心及周邊成員；陳水扁能跨越體制做出那麼多貪瀆、敗德、踰法之事，是仗著整個團隊的縱容、疏失與掩護才能得逞。從這個角度看，民進黨菁英縱未參與犯罪，也負有無法推卸的政治責任。導致扁盜用國家機器橫行至此，這個責任，不會因扁入獄，即從民進黨肩上消失。
第二，就道德層次而言，陳水扁的貪贓枉法，對於社會價值造成的扭曲和破毀，有必要導正與釐清。如果民進黨堅持陳水扁無罪，認為他是像曼德拉一樣遭受了莫名的冤屈，那就請公開指出司法有何不公，甚至可呼喚民眾上街聲討。如果認為陳水扁罪有應得，他的作法不值得鼓勵，就應向社會大眾、向深綠支持者坦承這點，讓台灣社會的道德指針能夠擺脫扁案的邪惡引力，回歸正常。
第三，就國家層次而言，民進黨長期利用藍綠對峙，一再質疑各種國家機器的正當性，導致公權力的信用不斷受到摧折，使人民陷入虛無。扁案的審理，對國家最高領導人的貪瀆違法予以判決，是司法守住了最後一道正義防線；而且，由陳水扁親手成立的特偵組將他起訴，意義更是非凡。民進黨當年無法節制阿扁貪瀆也就罷了，如果今天仍不能表態支持司法作為，還要用政治操弄來否定其價值，則民眾也就不難看出，這個政黨對台灣其實沒有多少真誠的認同和珍惜。
從一個「政治金童」變成首位「入獄元首」，陳水扁不僅耗光了民進黨所有的「進步」價值，更簡直把台灣的民主改革變成一場笑話。這場災難，台灣人民承受的痛苦是難以想像的，民進黨不要以為這個創傷會自動癒合，更不要以為自己的責任會隨著阿扁入獄自動消失。民進黨正在猛打「治理牌」，但隨便一個扁案攤開來都是臭不可聞，「治理牌」能說服誰？
一個不能面對自己過失的政黨，終歸難掩其懦弱、欺罔、不誠懇的本質。事實上，民進黨目前要做的，已不止是和阿扁「切割」，而是要對自己執政八年的粗暴、貪腐、護短作出深刻反省，並向人民鄭重致歉。這點，其實不也是司法對他們略過的審判？
廿多年來，民進黨要求國民黨道歉的事難盡枚舉。試想，不管馬英九為遙遠的二二八事件道歉了多少次，綠營都無法滿意；相形之下，民進黨扮演阿扁貪腐禍國的馬前卒，幾年來卻囁嚅不發一語。司法判決只是國家體制的必然程序，但國人更想聽到民進黨的悔悟與道歉。民進黨欠人民一個說法。
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The G20 Summit and the Rise and Fall of G2 Power
The G20 Summit and the Rise and Fall of G2 Power
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2010
On the 12th of this month, under the dark cloud of a currency war, the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit adjourned its meeting in Seoul, South Korea. In the end, summit leaders issued a vaguely worded statement. They agreed to adopt a more market-oriented exchange rate system in order to avoid a currency war and trade protectionism. Discussion of the specifics were postponed until next year. The vague statement is unlikely to resolve tensions between the major currencies, or improve global economic imbalances. It also reflects the rise of Mainland China, and the decline of US power.
The Group of Twenty is comprised of the world's 19 largest economies, plus the European Union. Following the outbreak of the financial tsunami, leaders of the G20 met in Washington for the first time, seeking a way to resolve the financial crisis. The G20 has replaced the original G8, and become a major global economic forum. During the financial crisis, national leaders experienced a heightened sense of crisis. They were willing to work together to resolve difficulties. As a result last year's summit in London arrived at a number of specific agreements designed to prevent the global economy from falling into a Great Depression. The Seoul summit was the fifth Leadership Conference held since the outbreak of the financial crisis. As each of the nations moves towards recovery, selfish considerations have paradoxically made concrete agreements more difficult. Steven Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said bluntly that the summit failed to address any critical problems.
This time the leaders of both Mainland China and the US confronted each other over exchange rates. This became the focus of the summit. President Barack Obama once again applied pressure on the RMB exchange rate, but failed to elicit an explicit response. Mainland President Hu Jintao stressed that the Mainland would adopt gradual exchange rate reform. He also criticized U.S. Federal Reserve monetary policy for its second wave of quantitative easing. This actually made for a weaker dollar and triggered the large scale entry of hot money into emerging markets. He called on the United States as a major reserve currency economy to adopt a responsible monetary policy, and to consider the interests of emerging economies. Also, the United States had previously proposed a quantitative indicator to avoid competition over currency devaluation. It had proposed limiting the GDP current account surplus or deficit to approximately four percent. In the end this motion came to nothing due to opposition from Mainland China and Germany.
During Barak Obama's recent ten-day Asian trip, the main theme was economic and trade issues. But it ran aground during negotiations on the RMB exchange rate issue and the bilateral US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. This suggests that U.S. influence in the international arena is gradually weakening. The Wall Street Journal noted that Obama's setback in Seoul was due mainly to the weak U.S. economic recovery and the defeat of the Democratic Party in the midterm elections. This weakened the United States as a global economic leader. The New York Times noted that the compromise-filled "Seoul Declaration" reflects the rise of Mainland Chinese influence.
This year for the first time, Mainland China's economy surpassed Japan's. It has now become the world's second largest economy. It is not merely the world's largest factory. It is also the world's largest market. According to statistics, last year it accounted for nearly half the world's consumption of coal, zinc, and aluminum. It consumes twice as much iron and steel as the US, the European Union, and Japan combined. China is also the world's largest automotive and mobile phone market.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Mainland China will account for one-fifth of the world's economic growth this year. During the financial crisis, the U.S. entered an economic recession. Mainland China on the other hand, maintained its growth. Although Mainland China still cannot replace the United States, the fact that the United States failed to make a breakthrough on trade issues during the G20 summit underscores Mainland China's growing international influence.
The Fed's quantitative easing has become everyone's favorite target. This has weakened the United States' demands for RMB appreciation. Even host nation South Korea expressed concern. This is one reason US-South Korea free trade negotiations failed to reach any agreement. The International Monetary Fund has long opposed capital controls. Now however, it favors capital controls for emerging countries, when necessary. The "Seoul Declaration" in particular, hinted that emerging nations could adopt prudent capital controls measures to avoid exchange rate volatility caused by hot money. This endorsement handed emerging nations their most powerful weapon in their fight against hot money. It also showed how intense dissatisfaction was among emerging nations for the United States' policy of quantitative easing.
Obama declared the Seoul summit a success. But U.S. economic power is undeniably waning in the wake of the financial crisis. This was the reason for the setbacks Obama suffered. On the other hand, on international economic and trade issues, Mainland China's voice is increasingly influential. Without Mainland China's cooperation it is difficult to reach a consensus. As we monitor the rise of Mainland China and the decline of U.S. power, we realize that power is never permanent. Nations will cooperate. They will also compete and conflict. Within the fabric of the international trade system, if one wishes to become a major power, one can do so only through overwhelming economic strength.
從G20峰會 看G2勢力消長
2010-11-16 中國時報
在貨幣戰爭陰影籠罩下，二十國集團（Ｇ20）高峰會十二日於南韓首都首爾閉幕，與會領袖最後發表了措辭模糊的聲明，同意將採取更市場導向的匯率制度，避免貨幣競貶與貿易保護主義，不過，具體作法與細節則延後至明年再行討論。這項流於空泛的聲明，不僅難以有效化解主要貨幣間的緊張關係並改善全球經貿失衡問題，另一方面也反映出中美兩國勢力的消長。
二十國集團是由全球最大的十九個經濟體加上歐盟共同組成，金融海嘯爆發之後，二十國集團領袖首度在華盛頓集會，共謀解決金融危機之道，如今Ｇ20取代了原先的Ｇ８，成為全球主要經濟論壇。金融海嘯期間，各國領袖有極高的危機意識，願意共體時艱，因此在去年的倫敦峰會達成多項具體共識，讓全球經濟避免陷入大蕭條；這次首爾峰會是金融海嘯爆發以來第五次領袖會議，各國邁向復甦之際，基於本位主義考量，反而較難達成具體共識。加拿大總理賀博坦言：「這次峰會並沒有解決關鍵性的問題。」
這次中美兩國領袖就匯率議題針鋒相對，成為主要焦點。美國總統歐巴馬再次對人民幣匯率施壓，未獲得具體回應。中國國家主席胡錦濤強調，將採取漸進式的匯率改革，並反批美國聯準會推出第二次量化寬鬆貨幣政策，實際上是讓美元走貶且引發大量熱錢湧入新興市場，他呼籲美國做為主要儲備貨幣發行經濟體應採行負責任的貨幣政策，同時考量新興經濟體的利益。此外，美國先前曾提出一項避免貨幣競貶的量化指標，擬將經常帳順差或逆差限制在ＧＤＰ的四％範圍內，不過，這項議案因中國、德國反對，最後不了了之。
歐巴馬這次為期十天的亞洲行，經貿議題是主軸，但這次從人民幣匯率議題未有交集到美韓自由貿易協定雙邊談判觸礁，似乎顯示美國在國際舞台的影響力逐漸減弱。《華爾街日報》指出，歐巴馬的首爾行受挫，主要因為美國經濟復甦力道薄弱且民主黨在期中選舉大敗，削弱了美國做為全球經濟龍頭的權威。《紐約時報》則指出，這次充滿妥協的《首爾宣言》，反映出中國影響力的上升。
今年中國的經濟規模首度超越日本，成為全球第二大經濟體，她不僅是全球最大工廠，也是最大的市場。據統計，中國在去年消耗了全球近半數的煤、鋅和鋁，她所消耗的鋼鐵是歐盟、美國與日本等國加總的二倍；中國同時是全球最大汽車、手機市場。
國際貨幣基金統計，今年全球的經濟成長有五分之一來自中國的增長。金融海嘯期間，儘管美國經濟衰退，中國仍可維持一定的成長。雖然中國在現階段仍無法取代美國，但從這次二十國集團峰會中，美國在經貿議題上未能達成突破性進展，的確凸顯了中國在國際舞台的影響力與日俱增。
值得注意的是，這次聯準會的量化寬鬆政策幾乎成為眾矢之的，削弱了美國要求人民幣升值的壓力，甚至連峰會主辦國南韓都表示疑慮，也成為美韓自由貿易談判未能達成共識的原因之一。向來反對資本管制的國際貨幣基金，如今轉而支持新興國家必要時可以實施資本管制。此次《首爾宣言》特別暗示，新興國家可以採取審慎的資本管制措施，以避免熱錢造成匯率的劇烈波動。這項聲明的背書，使得新興國家在對抗熱錢時，有了尚方寶劍，也顯示新興國家對美國量化寬鬆政策的強烈不滿。
儘管歐巴馬仍宣稱這次首爾峰會是成功的，然而，不可否認地，金融海嘯之後，美國經濟力逐漸減弱，使得歐巴馬在這次峰會中的多項談判受挫；另方面，在國際經貿議題上，中國的發言權增加，如果未能取得中國的合作，這些議題很難達成共識。從美中勢力的消長看來，沒有永遠的強權，各國彼此間有合作、有競爭，也有衝突；在合縱連橫的國際經貿體系中，要成為強權，也唯有經濟實力才是最堅強的後盾。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2010
On the 12th of this month, under the dark cloud of a currency war, the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit adjourned its meeting in Seoul, South Korea. In the end, summit leaders issued a vaguely worded statement. They agreed to adopt a more market-oriented exchange rate system in order to avoid a currency war and trade protectionism. Discussion of the specifics were postponed until next year. The vague statement is unlikely to resolve tensions between the major currencies, or improve global economic imbalances. It also reflects the rise of Mainland China, and the decline of US power.
The Group of Twenty is comprised of the world's 19 largest economies, plus the European Union. Following the outbreak of the financial tsunami, leaders of the G20 met in Washington for the first time, seeking a way to resolve the financial crisis. The G20 has replaced the original G8, and become a major global economic forum. During the financial crisis, national leaders experienced a heightened sense of crisis. They were willing to work together to resolve difficulties. As a result last year's summit in London arrived at a number of specific agreements designed to prevent the global economy from falling into a Great Depression. The Seoul summit was the fifth Leadership Conference held since the outbreak of the financial crisis. As each of the nations moves towards recovery, selfish considerations have paradoxically made concrete agreements more difficult. Steven Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, said bluntly that the summit failed to address any critical problems.
This time the leaders of both Mainland China and the US confronted each other over exchange rates. This became the focus of the summit. President Barack Obama once again applied pressure on the RMB exchange rate, but failed to elicit an explicit response. Mainland President Hu Jintao stressed that the Mainland would adopt gradual exchange rate reform. He also criticized U.S. Federal Reserve monetary policy for its second wave of quantitative easing. This actually made for a weaker dollar and triggered the large scale entry of hot money into emerging markets. He called on the United States as a major reserve currency economy to adopt a responsible monetary policy, and to consider the interests of emerging economies. Also, the United States had previously proposed a quantitative indicator to avoid competition over currency devaluation. It had proposed limiting the GDP current account surplus or deficit to approximately four percent. In the end this motion came to nothing due to opposition from Mainland China and Germany.
During Barak Obama's recent ten-day Asian trip, the main theme was economic and trade issues. But it ran aground during negotiations on the RMB exchange rate issue and the bilateral US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. This suggests that U.S. influence in the international arena is gradually weakening. The Wall Street Journal noted that Obama's setback in Seoul was due mainly to the weak U.S. economic recovery and the defeat of the Democratic Party in the midterm elections. This weakened the United States as a global economic leader. The New York Times noted that the compromise-filled "Seoul Declaration" reflects the rise of Mainland Chinese influence.
This year for the first time, Mainland China's economy surpassed Japan's. It has now become the world's second largest economy. It is not merely the world's largest factory. It is also the world's largest market. According to statistics, last year it accounted for nearly half the world's consumption of coal, zinc, and aluminum. It consumes twice as much iron and steel as the US, the European Union, and Japan combined. China is also the world's largest automotive and mobile phone market.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Mainland China will account for one-fifth of the world's economic growth this year. During the financial crisis, the U.S. entered an economic recession. Mainland China on the other hand, maintained its growth. Although Mainland China still cannot replace the United States, the fact that the United States failed to make a breakthrough on trade issues during the G20 summit underscores Mainland China's growing international influence.
The Fed's quantitative easing has become everyone's favorite target. This has weakened the United States' demands for RMB appreciation. Even host nation South Korea expressed concern. This is one reason US-South Korea free trade negotiations failed to reach any agreement. The International Monetary Fund has long opposed capital controls. Now however, it favors capital controls for emerging countries, when necessary. The "Seoul Declaration" in particular, hinted that emerging nations could adopt prudent capital controls measures to avoid exchange rate volatility caused by hot money. This endorsement handed emerging nations their most powerful weapon in their fight against hot money. It also showed how intense dissatisfaction was among emerging nations for the United States' policy of quantitative easing.
Obama declared the Seoul summit a success. But U.S. economic power is undeniably waning in the wake of the financial crisis. This was the reason for the setbacks Obama suffered. On the other hand, on international economic and trade issues, Mainland China's voice is increasingly influential. Without Mainland China's cooperation it is difficult to reach a consensus. As we monitor the rise of Mainland China and the decline of U.S. power, we realize that power is never permanent. Nations will cooperate. They will also compete and conflict. Within the fabric of the international trade system, if one wishes to become a major power, one can do so only through overwhelming economic strength.
從G20峰會 看G2勢力消長
2010-11-16 中國時報
在貨幣戰爭陰影籠罩下，二十國集團（Ｇ20）高峰會十二日於南韓首都首爾閉幕，與會領袖最後發表了措辭模糊的聲明，同意將採取更市場導向的匯率制度，避免貨幣競貶與貿易保護主義，不過，具體作法與細節則延後至明年再行討論。這項流於空泛的聲明，不僅難以有效化解主要貨幣間的緊張關係並改善全球經貿失衡問題，另一方面也反映出中美兩國勢力的消長。
二十國集團是由全球最大的十九個經濟體加上歐盟共同組成，金融海嘯爆發之後，二十國集團領袖首度在華盛頓集會，共謀解決金融危機之道，如今Ｇ20取代了原先的Ｇ８，成為全球主要經濟論壇。金融海嘯期間，各國領袖有極高的危機意識，願意共體時艱，因此在去年的倫敦峰會達成多項具體共識，讓全球經濟避免陷入大蕭條；這次首爾峰會是金融海嘯爆發以來第五次領袖會議，各國邁向復甦之際，基於本位主義考量，反而較難達成具體共識。加拿大總理賀博坦言：「這次峰會並沒有解決關鍵性的問題。」
這次中美兩國領袖就匯率議題針鋒相對，成為主要焦點。美國總統歐巴馬再次對人民幣匯率施壓，未獲得具體回應。中國國家主席胡錦濤強調，將採取漸進式的匯率改革，並反批美國聯準會推出第二次量化寬鬆貨幣政策，實際上是讓美元走貶且引發大量熱錢湧入新興市場，他呼籲美國做為主要儲備貨幣發行經濟體應採行負責任的貨幣政策，同時考量新興經濟體的利益。此外，美國先前曾提出一項避免貨幣競貶的量化指標，擬將經常帳順差或逆差限制在ＧＤＰ的四％範圍內，不過，這項議案因中國、德國反對，最後不了了之。
歐巴馬這次為期十天的亞洲行，經貿議題是主軸，但這次從人民幣匯率議題未有交集到美韓自由貿易協定雙邊談判觸礁，似乎顯示美國在國際舞台的影響力逐漸減弱。《華爾街日報》指出，歐巴馬的首爾行受挫，主要因為美國經濟復甦力道薄弱且民主黨在期中選舉大敗，削弱了美國做為全球經濟龍頭的權威。《紐約時報》則指出，這次充滿妥協的《首爾宣言》，反映出中國影響力的上升。
今年中國的經濟規模首度超越日本，成為全球第二大經濟體，她不僅是全球最大工廠，也是最大的市場。據統計，中國在去年消耗了全球近半數的煤、鋅和鋁，她所消耗的鋼鐵是歐盟、美國與日本等國加總的二倍；中國同時是全球最大汽車、手機市場。
國際貨幣基金統計，今年全球的經濟成長有五分之一來自中國的增長。金融海嘯期間，儘管美國經濟衰退，中國仍可維持一定的成長。雖然中國在現階段仍無法取代美國，但從這次二十國集團峰會中，美國在經貿議題上未能達成突破性進展，的確凸顯了中國在國際舞台的影響力與日俱增。
值得注意的是，這次聯準會的量化寬鬆政策幾乎成為眾矢之的，削弱了美國要求人民幣升值的壓力，甚至連峰會主辦國南韓都表示疑慮，也成為美韓自由貿易談判未能達成共識的原因之一。向來反對資本管制的國際貨幣基金，如今轉而支持新興國家必要時可以實施資本管制。此次《首爾宣言》特別暗示，新興國家可以採取審慎的資本管制措施，以避免熱錢造成匯率的劇烈波動。這項聲明的背書，使得新興國家在對抗熱錢時，有了尚方寶劍，也顯示新興國家對美國量化寬鬆政策的強烈不滿。
儘管歐巴馬仍宣稱這次首爾峰會是成功的，然而，不可否認地，金融海嘯之後，美國經濟力逐漸減弱，使得歐巴馬在這次峰會中的多項談判受挫；另方面，在國際經貿議題上，中國的發言權增加，如果未能取得中國的合作，這些議題很難達成共識。從美中勢力的消長看來，沒有永遠的強權，各國彼此間有合作、有競爭，也有衝突；在合縱連橫的國際經貿體系中，要成為強權，也唯有經濟實力才是最堅強的後盾。
Monday, November 15, 2010
Chou Chan-chun: Using Constitutional Pretexts to Set Criminals Free
Chou Chan-chun: Using Constitutional Pretexts to Set Criminals Free
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2010
The Supreme Court has handed down its rulings in the four Chen family corruption cases. It has essentially nullified the legal opinions offered by Chou Chan-chun in the Second Financial Reform scandal trial. The Taipei District Court Full Court, led by Chou Chan-chun found former President Chen not guilty. It cited legal sophistries about "presidential authority" and the "official duties of the president." Fortunately the Supreme Court knows the difference between right and wrong. It has reaffirmed the correct legal principles. It has put the legal system back on track, in accordance with the understanding of a majority of the nation's citizens.
Chou Chan-chun expended a great deal of ink writing his judgment. He wrote that the president's authority was constrained by the constitution and 16 amendments. He wrote that the majority of scholars and judges also feel that the president has exceeded his executive authority. From this he concluded that promoting the Second Financial Reform "program" was not within the president's legal authority. When Chen Shui-bian intervened, he exceeded his authority. Since his conduct was not part of his official duty, therefore the money he collected cannot be considered bribes.
Such a legal opinion misapplies a dispute pertaining to constitutionally mandated presidential authority to criminal law regulating the conduct of civil servants, in order to arrive at the fallacious conclusion that "The president was innocent of corruption." Put simply, whether the president should intervene in a particular area of executive power is one thing. It is a constitutional matter. Whether a president who has already exceeded his executive authority is also committing a crime, is something else altogether. It is a criminal matter. The two must not be conflated.
The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court restored the case to the realm of criminal law. It stated bluntly that "Article V, Paragraph One of the Punishment of Corruption Act stipulates that accepting money or gifts based on one's official position, constitutes a crime. This includes all sorts of considerations disguised as gifts and other benefits. The term "official duties" refers to what a civil servant should do or must do within the scope of his duties. As long as his conduct bears a relationship to the nature of his duties, and he wields substantial influence during the performance of those duties, then his conduct is defined as his duty." The Supreme Court specifically mentioned several points. It stated that if a civil servant wields substantial influence during the performance of his duties, then his conduct is defined as his duty. This dissolves the fog of confusion Chou Chan-chun attempted to generate between constitutionally mandated presidential authority and criminal law. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the president's official duties provided him with substantial influence over the Second Financial Reform "program." He took advantage of that influence to collect bribes, and that constitutes corruption. These are established facts. Under these circumstances, one may not arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that the president was innocent of corruption.
Another aspect of the Supreme Court's judgment is worth noting. It increased Lee Chieh-mu's sentence to three years and six months, without the possibility of parole. The Chen family corruption case involves four parts. In the second instance they were found guilty. But their sentences were reduced to an unreasonable degree. The most extreme example is Lee Chieh-mu. He was the mastermind behind the Longtan Land Acquisition scandal. He shared his practical expertise in the administration of the Science Park. He found ways to profit illicitly. Companies going under would allow the government to pick up their debt. Lee helped Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen to profit from the opportunity. He acted as Chen's "stalking horse." Contrast this with his former image as a "scholar for democracy." One truly has no reason to sympathize with him. He was granted probation during the second instance trial. This newspaper pointed out that the judge clearly pulled his punches. His conduct was completely unacceptable.
The Supreme Court now says that the "Original decision did not find Lee Chieh-mu deserving of any sympathy for the crimes he committed. According to the text of the original decision, he showed no remorse. Yet in accordance with Article 59 of the Penal Code, his sentence was reduced. But Article 59 of the Penal Code stipulates that mitigation of punishment requires expressions of remorse over one's criminal conduct. It applies only to defendants for whom the lightest penalty is still too severe." Therefore the original sentence amounted to a commutation of the sentence. This was illegal, and a misapplication the law. Therefore the Supreme Court rendered its own decision in the matter. It ruled that Lee Chieh-mu must serve time.
Also, the State Affairs Fund case must be retried. It is being retried by the Supreme Court, but can only be retried based on the Second Instance ruling. The grounds given for retrying the State Affairs Fund scandal include all applicable laws, but also mention "the impact of findings of fact." The original decision explained away many of the Chen families improper expenses as part of the president's official duties. It failed to pursue them. It ignored the "Southern Front" and other fraudulent schemes. Clearly the Supreme Court considered this unacceptable.
The State Affairs Fund case involves the crime of embezzlement of public property, as specified in Article Four, Paragraph One, Line One, of the Punishment of Corruption Act. The heaviest penalty that can be imposed is life imprisonment. The original sentence failed to include huge sums of embezzled funds. That was the only reason for the lighter sentences. The retrial will take into account these sums. If the findings of fact are overturned, and the sums involved become larger, it is possible that Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen's sentences may be increased.
周占春以憲政爭議混淆刑事判斷
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.15
扁家四大弊案最高法院宣判結果，形同反駁了台北地院周占春合議庭在二次金改弊案所持「總統職權」、「總統職務上行為」的見解，總算將法院的是非判斷標準，拉回至正確法理及多數國民法律感情認同的正軌。
周占春在其判決中花費巨大篇幅，論定總統職權僅限憲法本文和增修條文列舉的十六項權力；並且說，多數學者及大法官解釋，也都認為現今政治現實是總統侵越了行政權。他從而據此認定，二次金改既非總統法定職權，陳水扁介入，是越權行為，亦即非職務上行為，收錢即不可論以受賄。
這種見解其實是將憲政學理上有關行政權力歸屬的爭議，錯用到刑事法律規範公職人員行為的領域，遂生「總統貪汙無罪」的謬誤結論。簡單地說，總統該不該介入行政權的領域是一回事（憲政爭議）；總統在已然侵越行政權的既成事實下，有無藉此犯罪，則是另一回事（刑事判斷）。二者不可混為一談。
最高法院這次公布的判決理由，乃回歸到刑事判斷的領域，直接了當地宣示：「貪汙治罪條例第五條第一項第三款之對於職務上之行為收受賄賂罪，祇須所收受之金錢或財物與其職務有相當對價關係，即已成立，且包括假借餽贈等各種名義之變相給付在內……再所謂職務上之行為，係指公務員在其職務範圍內所應為或得為之行為而言，祇要該行為與其職務具有關連性，實質上為該職務影響力所及者，即屬相當」。最高法院特別指出幾個判斷點，如公務員在其職務範圍內所「得為」、「有關聯性」、「實質上為該職務影響力所及」等等，恰是破除了周占春以刑事審判思維和憲政學理爭議相混淆的迷霧。換言之，依最高法院的判斷標準，總統職務範圍在實質上能給予二次金改影響，並且藉此收賄，那就是貪汙。不可能在確定有此事實下，竟得出總統貪汙無罪的結論。
最高法院判決另一值得注意的地方，是改以重判李界木三年六個月有期徒刑，不得緩刑。扁家四大弊案部分，二審雖仍判有罪，卻無端大減刑度，其中尤以李界木為最。其在龍潭購地案中，扮演軍師角色，提供其經管過科學園區的實際經驗，擬定圖利的辦法，以利廠商倒債給國家、扁珍藉機貪汙；其為虎作倀的惡行，對照早年其「民主學者」的形象，實無給予同情的理由，而二審判決竟予緩刑。當時本報即指出，這等於是法官放水，甚為不當。
如今最高法院說，「原判決並未認定李界木之犯罪情狀有何顯可憫恕之情形，依原判決之記載亦無顯可憫恕之事實，卻依刑法第五十九條規定減輕其刑……而依刑法第五十九條所規定之得酌量減輕其刑，必其犯罪之情狀顯可憫恕，認科以最低度刑仍嫌過重者，始得為之」，所以原判決等於無端減刑，即有適用法則不當之違法。最高法院於是就這部分自為判決，重判李界木且使其必須入監服刑。
國務機要費案發回更審的發展亦值注意。雖然最高法院是法律審，只能在二審認定的事實上作判決；但在國務機要費發回更審的理由中，除了談及適用法律外，還特別提到了「影響事實認定」，顯然是對原判決就許多扁家不當開支擴大解釋均與總統公務有關不加追究、且漠視「南線專案」等造假行為，無法認同。由於國務機要費案涉及的是貪汙治罪條例第四條第一項第一款侵占公有財物罪，最重可判無期徒刑；而原判決是在大量排除侵占金額後，才判較輕刑度；未來更審重加論定的結果，若事實認定翻轉，數額變得龐大，則扁珍的刑度即不無再加重的可能。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 15, 2010
The Supreme Court has handed down its rulings in the four Chen family corruption cases. It has essentially nullified the legal opinions offered by Chou Chan-chun in the Second Financial Reform scandal trial. The Taipei District Court Full Court, led by Chou Chan-chun found former President Chen not guilty. It cited legal sophistries about "presidential authority" and the "official duties of the president." Fortunately the Supreme Court knows the difference between right and wrong. It has reaffirmed the correct legal principles. It has put the legal system back on track, in accordance with the understanding of a majority of the nation's citizens.
Chou Chan-chun expended a great deal of ink writing his judgment. He wrote that the president's authority was constrained by the constitution and 16 amendments. He wrote that the majority of scholars and judges also feel that the president has exceeded his executive authority. From this he concluded that promoting the Second Financial Reform "program" was not within the president's legal authority. When Chen Shui-bian intervened, he exceeded his authority. Since his conduct was not part of his official duty, therefore the money he collected cannot be considered bribes.
Such a legal opinion misapplies a dispute pertaining to constitutionally mandated presidential authority to criminal law regulating the conduct of civil servants, in order to arrive at the fallacious conclusion that "The president was innocent of corruption." Put simply, whether the president should intervene in a particular area of executive power is one thing. It is a constitutional matter. Whether a president who has already exceeded his executive authority is also committing a crime, is something else altogether. It is a criminal matter. The two must not be conflated.
The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court restored the case to the realm of criminal law. It stated bluntly that "Article V, Paragraph One of the Punishment of Corruption Act stipulates that accepting money or gifts based on one's official position, constitutes a crime. This includes all sorts of considerations disguised as gifts and other benefits. The term "official duties" refers to what a civil servant should do or must do within the scope of his duties. As long as his conduct bears a relationship to the nature of his duties, and he wields substantial influence during the performance of those duties, then his conduct is defined as his duty." The Supreme Court specifically mentioned several points. It stated that if a civil servant wields substantial influence during the performance of his duties, then his conduct is defined as his duty. This dissolves the fog of confusion Chou Chan-chun attempted to generate between constitutionally mandated presidential authority and criminal law. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the president's official duties provided him with substantial influence over the Second Financial Reform "program." He took advantage of that influence to collect bribes, and that constitutes corruption. These are established facts. Under these circumstances, one may not arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that the president was innocent of corruption.
Another aspect of the Supreme Court's judgment is worth noting. It increased Lee Chieh-mu's sentence to three years and six months, without the possibility of parole. The Chen family corruption case involves four parts. In the second instance they were found guilty. But their sentences were reduced to an unreasonable degree. The most extreme example is Lee Chieh-mu. He was the mastermind behind the Longtan Land Acquisition scandal. He shared his practical expertise in the administration of the Science Park. He found ways to profit illicitly. Companies going under would allow the government to pick up their debt. Lee helped Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen to profit from the opportunity. He acted as Chen's "stalking horse." Contrast this with his former image as a "scholar for democracy." One truly has no reason to sympathize with him. He was granted probation during the second instance trial. This newspaper pointed out that the judge clearly pulled his punches. His conduct was completely unacceptable.
The Supreme Court now says that the "Original decision did not find Lee Chieh-mu deserving of any sympathy for the crimes he committed. According to the text of the original decision, he showed no remorse. Yet in accordance with Article 59 of the Penal Code, his sentence was reduced. But Article 59 of the Penal Code stipulates that mitigation of punishment requires expressions of remorse over one's criminal conduct. It applies only to defendants for whom the lightest penalty is still too severe." Therefore the original sentence amounted to a commutation of the sentence. This was illegal, and a misapplication the law. Therefore the Supreme Court rendered its own decision in the matter. It ruled that Lee Chieh-mu must serve time.
Also, the State Affairs Fund case must be retried. It is being retried by the Supreme Court, but can only be retried based on the Second Instance ruling. The grounds given for retrying the State Affairs Fund scandal include all applicable laws, but also mention "the impact of findings of fact." The original decision explained away many of the Chen families improper expenses as part of the president's official duties. It failed to pursue them. It ignored the "Southern Front" and other fraudulent schemes. Clearly the Supreme Court considered this unacceptable.
The State Affairs Fund case involves the crime of embezzlement of public property, as specified in Article Four, Paragraph One, Line One, of the Punishment of Corruption Act. The heaviest penalty that can be imposed is life imprisonment. The original sentence failed to include huge sums of embezzled funds. That was the only reason for the lighter sentences. The retrial will take into account these sums. If the findings of fact are overturned, and the sums involved become larger, it is possible that Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen's sentences may be increased.
周占春以憲政爭議混淆刑事判斷
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.15
扁家四大弊案最高法院宣判結果，形同反駁了台北地院周占春合議庭在二次金改弊案所持「總統職權」、「總統職務上行為」的見解，總算將法院的是非判斷標準，拉回至正確法理及多數國民法律感情認同的正軌。
周占春在其判決中花費巨大篇幅，論定總統職權僅限憲法本文和增修條文列舉的十六項權力；並且說，多數學者及大法官解釋，也都認為現今政治現實是總統侵越了行政權。他從而據此認定，二次金改既非總統法定職權，陳水扁介入，是越權行為，亦即非職務上行為，收錢即不可論以受賄。
這種見解其實是將憲政學理上有關行政權力歸屬的爭議，錯用到刑事法律規範公職人員行為的領域，遂生「總統貪汙無罪」的謬誤結論。簡單地說，總統該不該介入行政權的領域是一回事（憲政爭議）；總統在已然侵越行政權的既成事實下，有無藉此犯罪，則是另一回事（刑事判斷）。二者不可混為一談。
最高法院這次公布的判決理由，乃回歸到刑事判斷的領域，直接了當地宣示：「貪汙治罪條例第五條第一項第三款之對於職務上之行為收受賄賂罪，祇須所收受之金錢或財物與其職務有相當對價關係，即已成立，且包括假借餽贈等各種名義之變相給付在內……再所謂職務上之行為，係指公務員在其職務範圍內所應為或得為之行為而言，祇要該行為與其職務具有關連性，實質上為該職務影響力所及者，即屬相當」。最高法院特別指出幾個判斷點，如公務員在其職務範圍內所「得為」、「有關聯性」、「實質上為該職務影響力所及」等等，恰是破除了周占春以刑事審判思維和憲政學理爭議相混淆的迷霧。換言之，依最高法院的判斷標準，總統職務範圍在實質上能給予二次金改影響，並且藉此收賄，那就是貪汙。不可能在確定有此事實下，竟得出總統貪汙無罪的結論。
最高法院判決另一值得注意的地方，是改以重判李界木三年六個月有期徒刑，不得緩刑。扁家四大弊案部分，二審雖仍判有罪，卻無端大減刑度，其中尤以李界木為最。其在龍潭購地案中，扮演軍師角色，提供其經管過科學園區的實際經驗，擬定圖利的辦法，以利廠商倒債給國家、扁珍藉機貪汙；其為虎作倀的惡行，對照早年其「民主學者」的形象，實無給予同情的理由，而二審判決竟予緩刑。當時本報即指出，這等於是法官放水，甚為不當。
如今最高法院說，「原判決並未認定李界木之犯罪情狀有何顯可憫恕之情形，依原判決之記載亦無顯可憫恕之事實，卻依刑法第五十九條規定減輕其刑……而依刑法第五十九條所規定之得酌量減輕其刑，必其犯罪之情狀顯可憫恕，認科以最低度刑仍嫌過重者，始得為之」，所以原判決等於無端減刑，即有適用法則不當之違法。最高法院於是就這部分自為判決，重判李界木且使其必須入監服刑。
國務機要費案發回更審的發展亦值注意。雖然最高法院是法律審，只能在二審認定的事實上作判決；但在國務機要費發回更審的理由中，除了談及適用法律外，還特別提到了「影響事實認定」，顯然是對原判決就許多扁家不當開支擴大解釋均與總統公務有關不加追究、且漠視「南線專案」等造假行為，無法認同。由於國務機要費案涉及的是貪汙治罪條例第四條第一項第一款侵占公有財物罪，最重可判無期徒刑；而原判決是在大量排除侵占金額後，才判較輕刑度；未來更審重加論定的結果，若事實認定翻轉，數額變得龐大，則扁珍的刑度即不無再加重的可能。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)