Ma Administration Financial and Economic Policies Should Consider the Common Man
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2010
During the recent five cities elections, the KMT retained control over three cities. But it received 400,000 votes fewer than the DPP. This was partly due to the Yang Chiu-hsing Effect in Kaohsiung, which split the Blue vote. But no matter how one runs the numbers, at least 30% of County Chief Yang's support was his own. Therefore, the Blue Camp lost by at least 100,000 votes. Such an outcome is a clear warning sign that bodes ill for Ma Ying-jeou's re-election prospects. The reasons for this outcome deserves careful analysis by the current administration.
One month ago, the US held its midterm elections. The Democratic Party under by Barack Obama suffered a disastrous defeat. Outside observers attributed this to a sluggish economic recovery and long-term unemployment. Economic issues such as these dragged down the ruling Democratic administration. But this was not the case on Taiwan. A few days before the election, the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics announced the economic growth figures for the first three quarters. GDP growth for this year will exceed 10%, thanks in part to a low baseline last year. Not only did Taiwan's growth reach a new 20 year high, it outpaced the other Asian Tigers. The unemployment rate was not bad either, falling below 5% in October. The Executive Yuan supported a range of short-term employment relief programs. In any event the numbers were much better than in the US. Why were the rejuvenation of the economy and the stablization of cross-Strait relations not reflected in the election outcome?
A closer look at the Ma administration's economic policies suggests a single answer: "Pride goeth before a fall." The Ma administration's general thrust has been to break the bonds imposed upon the nation during the DPP era, to promote the normalization of cross-Strait economic and trade relations, and Taiwan's formal integration into the global community. The DPP has invariably opposed Mainland China at every turn. It has welcomed other aspects of globalization without hesitation. But it has refused to "go west" toward the Mainland. Although its recalitrance applied only to the Mainland, given Taiwan's geographical situation, such recalcitrance effectively precluded the possibility of global integration. The Ma administration's policy addresses this gap. It enables businesses to fully integrate with the global economy. Naturally it has provided a major boost to the economy.
The Ma administration's business policy however, has not necessarily benefitted the common man. The experience of governments the world over has shown that under globalization entrepreneurs are invariably the ones who profit. Disadvantaged workers often become victims. Globalization often widens the gap between rich and poor, and between high-tech talent and low-skilled labor. Therefore, although the Ma administration's cross-Strait policy was sound overall, it ignored the differing impacts on different segments of society. It failed to compensate for them. The most obvious example was the government's liberaization of cross-Strait trade, The government welcomed globalization. It threw the doors open to entrepreneurs, providing them with tax cuts. It dared not touch the capital gains tax. It greatly reduced business taxes and inheritance taxes. By comparison, the disadvantaged felt exploited.
When the Ma administration liberalized cross-Strait exchanges and signed ECFA, it threw open the doors. It boosted economic momentum. But it ignored micro level concerns. The gaps in its policy were glaring. If the Republic of China was a totalitarian nation, such gaps would have no aftereffects. But the Republic of China is a democracy. Therefore the feelings of ordinary people will find expression come election time. The Ma administration implemented only one end of the fiscal policy spectrum. Needless to say ordinary citizens who failed to benefit found little to agree with.
We wholeheartedly agree with the Ma administration's liberalization of relations across the Taiwan Strait, and abandonment of isolationism. But the more ambitious the policy, the more it demands close attention and detailed implementation. It must never be implemented in haste. Take the 17% business tax cut for example. It contravened decisions already made by the Executive Yuan. It ignored the need to balance mid-term and long-term government revenue and expenditures. The result? Most people feel the government was only "looking after Big Business." Such policies make ROC tax rates the lowest in the world. The Ma administration simply will not have the funds required to care for the socially disadvantaged. This may be why so many people feel discontent. Some government officials are single-mindedly populist in their thinking. The Presidential Advisory Group on Finance cabinet members failed to correct them. The results, needless to say, were regrettable.
The Ma administration's economic policies have focused on cross-Strait liberalization and tax cuts. But they neglected the welfare of the common man. Think of economic policy as the structure of a house. Current policy has only the steel skeleton, but no walls or floors, let alone interior spaces. Such a financial policy has breadth and depth, but lacks flesh and blood. It fails to relate to the common man.
The Ma administration has just over a year to redress these shortcomings. By then the 2012 presidential election will no longer be about who is elected president. It will be about whether the Open Door Policy can be maintained. If the current administration loses, and a Closed Door Policy is reimposed, that will be Taiwan's tragedy.
馬政府財經政策 應考量庶民感受
2010-12-02 中國時報
此次五都選舉國民黨贏了三都，但得票數卻輸給民進黨四十餘萬票。此中雖然有大高雄楊秋興分票效應，但再怎麼低估，楊縣長總有個三○％的自力票源，故淨估算藍軍還是大輸十餘萬票。這樣的票數對馬英九的連任之路絕對是個警訊。為什麼會產生這個結果，實在值得主政者仔細分析檢討。
一個月前美國期中選舉歐巴馬所領導的民主黨慘敗，外界咸認為其原因是因為美國經濟復甦緩慢，失業率長期偏高，是經濟問題拖累了民主黨政府，但台灣的情況似乎卻不然。台灣主計處在選前數天公布了前三季的經濟成長率，部分拜去年基期數較低之賜，今年全年ＧＤＰ成長率可能破十％，不但是廿年來新高，且在亞洲四小龍中亦為不俗。就失業率來看，十月降低至五％的表現也不算差，雖然背後有行政院種種短期就業方案的支撐，但總是比美國數據要好看太多。為什麼回春的景氣、穩定的兩岸關係，也無法反映在選票上呢？
大體而言，馬政府的財經政策左看右看，就只有「亢龍有悔」一招，其大方向就是破除民進黨政府時代的鎖國，推動兩岸經貿關係正常化，將台灣正式融入全球化的大布局中。由於民進黨始終抵拒中國大陸，其操作一向是逢中必抗必反，故台灣雖然在其他面向迎接全球化毫不遲疑，唯獨對於西進大陸板塊躊躇不前。這雖然只是西進大陸的局部猶疑，但就台灣地緣而言，就形同全球布局的戰略破功。馬政府的政策恰好補此闕漏，對企業而言不啻使其面對的全球視野完整化，對總體經濟當然是一大利多。
但是前述對企業布局有利的總體政策，不必然與庶民的整體感受有任何關係。全世界所有國家的經驗都顯示，各國面臨全球化之後，都是大企業家獲利、不少弱勢勞工經常反受其害。也因為如此，全球化常使所得分配惡化、高技術人才與低技術勞工的薪資差距擴大。因此，雖然馬政府開放兩岸的總體政策方向正確，但顯然忽視了社會上不同群體之間的衝擊差異，未能有所補足。最明顯的事例，就是在政府開放兩岸經貿、迎向全球化之餘，又全開對企業家大幅減稅之門，一方面不敢觸碰資本利得稅，另一方面卻又大減營所稅、遺贈稅，在在使弱勢民眾感到相對受到剝奪。
簡言之，馬政府開放兩岸、簽訂ＥＣＦＡ的政策固然是大開大闔、氣勢宏觀，但卻忽略了局部防守，以致招式的洞隙清楚明白。如果台灣是一個極權國度，這樣的落差尚不致引發後遺症。但我們畢竟是民主國家，庶民的感受終究會在選舉投票時一一呈現，而馬政府僅執一端的財經政策，當然就得不到基層選民認同了。
開放兩岸、拋棄鎖國當然是我們衷心贊成的政策，但是政策越是格局宏大，就越要有可長可久的配套構思、顧慮周全，萬萬不能倉卒從事。以營所稅降至十七％為例，其既違反行政院已然做成之決策、又完全不顧慮中長期政府收支之平衡、更使大部分民眾徒生「照顧大企業」的反感。這樣的政策幾乎使台灣的租稅負擔率居全球最低，根本不可能承擔馬政府所想要照顧的社會弱勢支出，恐怕也在不少人心中種下了若干不滿的因子。部分政府官員思考單線而民粹，而總統府財經諮詢小組、行政院財經閣員都無法有所補正，結果當然令人遺憾。
整體而言，馬政府的財經政策著重「兩岸開放」、「大幅減稅」兩項，但對於庶民福祉的提升，卻欠缺關照與論述。如果將經濟布局比喻為建房子，則當前的政策只有鋼架卻沒有牆面樓板，更不見內部裝潢規畫。這樣的財經格局大則大矣，但卻無血無肉，與庶民感受當然有距離。
要振衰起敝，馬政府還有一年多的時間。屆時二○一二大選，倒不是誰當總統的問題，而是開放政策能否延續的問題。萬一失去江山再走鎖國回頭路，那就是台灣的悲哀了。
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Blues Vote for a Government, Greens Vote for a Nation
Blues Vote for a Government, Greens Vote for a Nation
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2010
Academia Sinica political scientist Hu Fo said that during elections on Taiwan, the Green Camp votes for a nation, while the Blue Camp votes for a government. That is why the nation remains trapped in a democratic and constitutional dilemma.
Hu hit the nail on the head. In a normal nation, voters share a common national identity. The opposition is a loyal opposition. If elections lead to changes in the ruling party, the government changes hands, but citizens do not question their national identity. As Hu Fo put it, elections are supposed to be about choosing a government. But on Taiwan, ever since the DPP's rise amidst the Taiwan independence movement, it has conflated "democratization" with "ethnic revolution." It has trumpeted a "new and independent nation" in its attempt to appeal to voters. With the change in ruling parties in 2000, it assumed power over the Republic of China. The Chen regime made political hay out of the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." Today, during DPP mass rallies, one sees only "Nation of Taiwan" flags fluttering in the wind. One never sees ROC flags. As Hu Fo noted, for the Green Camp, elections are all about choosing one's nation.
The Blue Camp votes for a government. The Green Camp votes for a nation. During elections, the Green Camp uses the Republic of China playing field to play its "Nation of Taiwan" ball game. During elections the Blue Camp defends the Republic of China. Given the two camps' fundamental differences, it is little wonder our political system is in trouble.
The Taiwan independence movement cites several reasons for its repudiation of the Republic of China. First, it argues that beginning with the 2/28 Incident, martial law and authoritarian rule deprived Taiwan of democracy. Secondly, it argues that the Republic of China is incapable of resisting CCP threats to Taiwan. Thirdly, it argues that the Republic of China is not recognized internationally, therefore this undermines our dignity. In fact, these three reasons are very different in nature. The first, the imposition of martial law and the lack of full democracy, were long ago resolved. Even the DPP, which advocates Taiwan independence, has already ruled for eight years. What better proof that the Republic of China is a democratic nation? The second and third concern national strategy and national policy. The Republic of China must survive amidst coopetition between the Mainland and Taiwan. Can champions of the Republic of China better allay Beijing's concerns about Taiwan than the Taiwan independence movement? Can they better overcome international isolation? Which camp's approach is more feasible? In fact this is a question that can be easily answered by rational analysis and empirical evidence.
The fact is, the Taiwan independence movement has never been endorsed by a democratic majority on Taiwan. If it had, support for the DPP would not have collapsed after it promoted Taiwan independence for eight years. Moreover, the international situation has undergone dramatic change over the past 60 years. Taiwan independence is incapable of resolving the threat posed by Beijing. It is incapable of breaking Taipei out of its international isolation, All Taiwan independence can do is paint Taipei into a corner. Leave aside the shadow of war. Taiwan independence is hardly conducive to economic survival. This has been confirmed by the experience of the past two decades.
Taiwan independence has had a highly detrimental effect on Taiwan. It has distorted constitutional democracy, worsened cross-Strait relations, and damaged its economic vitality. But the most serious problem is that Taiwan independence has become a scourge of civilization. It has destroyed morality, and inverted right and wrong. Taiwan independence ideology argues that, "Taiwan independence is the supreme moral goal. Therefore it trumps the Republic of China, trumps the constitution, trumps the justice system, trumps all standards of morality and all concepts of right or wrong. Since one has already trumped the Republic of China, what else cannot be trumped? As long as one is opposing the Republic of China, one need no longer concern oneself with morality. Therefore, big issues such as Chen Shui-bian's corruption and his 3/19 Shooting Hoax, smaller issues such as Chen Chu's press conference on the per diem matter, Chen Chih-chung's solicitation of prostitutes, Su Chia-chuan's plagiarism, the controversy over water spinach, over Cheng Hung-yi's shouting of obscenities, are all considered legitimate, all considered moral. The winning formula is simple. Founding a "Nation of Taiwan" is our most transcendent moral vision. Therefore as long as we support a Nation of Taiwan, then we are liberated from all moral constraints. The net result? Although founding a Nation of Taiwan has become a political chimera, the demise of morality and the inversion of right and wrong have become a social reality.
The result of this morally fraudulent reasoning, is that DPP members refer to themselves as "Taiwanese." Whosoever does not support Taiwan independence is not "Taiwanese." "Love for Taiwan" has become the DPP's exclusive franchise. Whosoever does not support Taiwan independence "does not love Taiwan." Whosoever advocates Taiwan independence is, ipso facto, a champion of democracy. Whosoever opposes Taiwan independence is, ipso facto, an enemy of democracy. Whosoever advocates Taiwan independence is a paragon of virtue. Whosoever opposes Taiwan independence is the embodiment of evil.
This Taiwan independence rhetoric may once have had a leg to stand on, during the martial law era, when the Mainland maintained a Closed Door Policy, and the Cold War was still on. But times have changed. It is now 2010. The situation has changed, internationally, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and on Taiwan. If Taiwan independence was ever a viable national strategy, it is no longer. Instead, it has become a political weapon that has divided the nation and destroyed morality. It is neither feasible nor moral. How can it continue to monopolize the "Taiwanese" label, and claim that it alone "loves Taiwan?"
During the recent five cities elections, the DPP avoided all mention of national identity and cross-Strait policy. The KMT, meanwhile,has never had the guts to point out the moral defects in the Taiwan independence argument. As a result, the DPP has continued making substantial gains in the five cities election, winning support from its "Deep Green biological mother" and from its "swing voter wet nurse." The fundamental problem on Taiwan today is that for most Green Camp members advocacy of Taiwan independence is the epitome of of virtue, and defense of the Republic of China is the essense of evil.
The DPP's reasoning is morally and politically fraudulent. It is detrimental to the survival of the nation. If this fraud is not exposed, Green Camp masses will remain forever trapped. The Republic of China will remain forever trapped in a tragic paradox, in which the Blue Camp votes for a government, and the Green Camp votes for a nation.
The 2012 presidential election is fast approaching. Let us come together and reaffirm out support for the Republic of China, which we all depend upon for our survival. Let us cease and desist from fraudulent attempts to found a entirely separate nation, under the pretext of electing a new government.
藍的選政府 綠的選國家
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.12.01
中研院院士政治學者胡佛曾說：台灣的選舉，綠的在選國家，藍的在選政府，因而陷入民主憲政的困境。
真是一語道破。在正常的民主憲政中，選民的國家認同具有共識，反對黨也是「忠誠的反對黨」；選舉即使發生政黨輪替、政府換手，但國家認同無人質疑。此即胡佛所說，選舉是選政府。但在台灣，民進黨從台獨運動中興起，一直將「民族革命」與「民主工程」混在一起，以標榜建立「新而獨立的國家」訴諸選民；甚至在2000年政黨輪替，贏得中華民國的政權，扁政府仍以「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」玩弄台獨操作。迄至今日，民進黨的群眾集會中，仍是台灣國的旗幟迎風獵獵，見不到一面國旗。因此，如胡佛所說，選舉成了選國家。
藍的選政府，綠的選國家；由於綠營在選舉中借「中華民國」的球場玩「台灣國」的球賽，藍營也在選舉中「捍衛中華民國」。民主憲政當然陷入困境。
台獨是對中華民國的根本否定，主要因由是：一、自二二八事件以來戒嚴時期的威權統治，欠缺民主；二、中共政權對台灣的威脅，中華民國難以抵擋；三、中華民國的國際人格受到打壓，無尊嚴。這三個因由，其實分屬兩個不同層次的問題：其中第一項理由，因解嚴實施完全的民主，已獲解決；連主張台獨的民進黨亦經選舉主政八年，可證中華民國無疑是一民主國家。第二及第三個理由，則是國家戰略及政策層次的問題。台灣必須在與中國大陸的競合關係中生存發展，因而中華民國與台獨在化解大陸威脅及突破國際孤立上，何者較具可行性，其實是一個可以理性分析並求諸實證的問題。
目前的情勢卻是，台獨一直無法取得台灣民主體制的多數民意認同，否則民進黨不會主政八年因操作台獨而垮台；再者，六十年來國際情勢丕變，台獨非但不可能化解大陸的威脅及突破國際孤立，反而勢必將台灣逼上絕路。姑且不談戰爭的陰影，台獨亦絕非一條經濟活路，此已由近二十年來的經驗證實。
台獨對台灣的影響，非但在扭曲民主憲政、惡化兩岸關係，及傷害台灣經濟生機；最嚴重的問題在於已經成為毀滅道德及顛倒是非的文明禍害。其運作動線是：台獨是至高無上的道德目標→否認中華民國→否認憲法體制→否認法院審判→否認一切道德標準及是非理念。總而言之，既已否認中華民國，則還有什麼不可否認？只要是對抗中華民國，一切就可操作成不問道德。於是，大到陳水扁貪腐、三一九槍擊案……；小到陳菊走路工記者會、陳致中召妓、蘇嘉全抄論文、空心菜事件、鄭弘儀爆粗口……，皆為正當，皆為道德。操作的訣竅是：台灣國是一個最高的道德想像，只要支持台灣國，即不受任何道德約制。影響所及，雖然台灣國已成假議題，但道德崩潰與是非顛倒卻成了社會真實。
由於這種道德騙局，民進黨將自己說成「台灣人」，不支持台獨者就不是「台灣人」；「愛台灣」也成了民進黨的專利，不支持台獨者就是「不愛台灣」。主張台獨就是民主，甚至可因台獨而反民主；主張台獨就是道德，甚至可因台獨而反道德。
這一套台獨論述，在過去容或有其立足空間（戒嚴統治，大陸鎖國，國際冷戰等因素）；但是，時移勢變至2010年，國際、兩岸及台灣內部的情勢丕變，台獨已非可行的國家戰略與政策，反而成為撕裂國家、毀滅道德的政治凶器，既無可行性又無道德性，如何能再壟斷「台灣人」的標籤，霸佔「愛台灣」的專利？
在此次五都選舉中，民進黨完全迴避國家定位及兩岸政策的議題；而國民黨也從來沒有膽識將台獨的可行性及道德性討論清楚。因而，民進黨在「深綠親娘」及「中間選民奶媽」的共育下，仍在五都選舉中大有斬獲。台灣現今的根本問題是：綠營的主體群眾認為，台獨是道德的象徵，中華民國則是不道德的代表。
這是一個道德騙局、民主騙局，更是國家生存戰略的騙局。若不能破解這個騙局，將綠營主體群眾救出這個陷阱，台灣的民主政治將永遠困於「你選政府／他選國家」的悲慘弔詭之中。
2012年總統大選，讓我們共同接納這個苦難但賴以相依為命的中華民國；不要再假借以選一個政府為名，實際上卻暗示要另外創建一個國家，且此種暗示根本是一騙局。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2010
Academia Sinica political scientist Hu Fo said that during elections on Taiwan, the Green Camp votes for a nation, while the Blue Camp votes for a government. That is why the nation remains trapped in a democratic and constitutional dilemma.
Hu hit the nail on the head. In a normal nation, voters share a common national identity. The opposition is a loyal opposition. If elections lead to changes in the ruling party, the government changes hands, but citizens do not question their national identity. As Hu Fo put it, elections are supposed to be about choosing a government. But on Taiwan, ever since the DPP's rise amidst the Taiwan independence movement, it has conflated "democratization" with "ethnic revolution." It has trumpeted a "new and independent nation" in its attempt to appeal to voters. With the change in ruling parties in 2000, it assumed power over the Republic of China. The Chen regime made political hay out of the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." Today, during DPP mass rallies, one sees only "Nation of Taiwan" flags fluttering in the wind. One never sees ROC flags. As Hu Fo noted, for the Green Camp, elections are all about choosing one's nation.
The Blue Camp votes for a government. The Green Camp votes for a nation. During elections, the Green Camp uses the Republic of China playing field to play its "Nation of Taiwan" ball game. During elections the Blue Camp defends the Republic of China. Given the two camps' fundamental differences, it is little wonder our political system is in trouble.
The Taiwan independence movement cites several reasons for its repudiation of the Republic of China. First, it argues that beginning with the 2/28 Incident, martial law and authoritarian rule deprived Taiwan of democracy. Secondly, it argues that the Republic of China is incapable of resisting CCP threats to Taiwan. Thirdly, it argues that the Republic of China is not recognized internationally, therefore this undermines our dignity. In fact, these three reasons are very different in nature. The first, the imposition of martial law and the lack of full democracy, were long ago resolved. Even the DPP, which advocates Taiwan independence, has already ruled for eight years. What better proof that the Republic of China is a democratic nation? The second and third concern national strategy and national policy. The Republic of China must survive amidst coopetition between the Mainland and Taiwan. Can champions of the Republic of China better allay Beijing's concerns about Taiwan than the Taiwan independence movement? Can they better overcome international isolation? Which camp's approach is more feasible? In fact this is a question that can be easily answered by rational analysis and empirical evidence.
The fact is, the Taiwan independence movement has never been endorsed by a democratic majority on Taiwan. If it had, support for the DPP would not have collapsed after it promoted Taiwan independence for eight years. Moreover, the international situation has undergone dramatic change over the past 60 years. Taiwan independence is incapable of resolving the threat posed by Beijing. It is incapable of breaking Taipei out of its international isolation, All Taiwan independence can do is paint Taipei into a corner. Leave aside the shadow of war. Taiwan independence is hardly conducive to economic survival. This has been confirmed by the experience of the past two decades.
Taiwan independence has had a highly detrimental effect on Taiwan. It has distorted constitutional democracy, worsened cross-Strait relations, and damaged its economic vitality. But the most serious problem is that Taiwan independence has become a scourge of civilization. It has destroyed morality, and inverted right and wrong. Taiwan independence ideology argues that, "Taiwan independence is the supreme moral goal. Therefore it trumps the Republic of China, trumps the constitution, trumps the justice system, trumps all standards of morality and all concepts of right or wrong. Since one has already trumped the Republic of China, what else cannot be trumped? As long as one is opposing the Republic of China, one need no longer concern oneself with morality. Therefore, big issues such as Chen Shui-bian's corruption and his 3/19 Shooting Hoax, smaller issues such as Chen Chu's press conference on the per diem matter, Chen Chih-chung's solicitation of prostitutes, Su Chia-chuan's plagiarism, the controversy over water spinach, over Cheng Hung-yi's shouting of obscenities, are all considered legitimate, all considered moral. The winning formula is simple. Founding a "Nation of Taiwan" is our most transcendent moral vision. Therefore as long as we support a Nation of Taiwan, then we are liberated from all moral constraints. The net result? Although founding a Nation of Taiwan has become a political chimera, the demise of morality and the inversion of right and wrong have become a social reality.
The result of this morally fraudulent reasoning, is that DPP members refer to themselves as "Taiwanese." Whosoever does not support Taiwan independence is not "Taiwanese." "Love for Taiwan" has become the DPP's exclusive franchise. Whosoever does not support Taiwan independence "does not love Taiwan." Whosoever advocates Taiwan independence is, ipso facto, a champion of democracy. Whosoever opposes Taiwan independence is, ipso facto, an enemy of democracy. Whosoever advocates Taiwan independence is a paragon of virtue. Whosoever opposes Taiwan independence is the embodiment of evil.
This Taiwan independence rhetoric may once have had a leg to stand on, during the martial law era, when the Mainland maintained a Closed Door Policy, and the Cold War was still on. But times have changed. It is now 2010. The situation has changed, internationally, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and on Taiwan. If Taiwan independence was ever a viable national strategy, it is no longer. Instead, it has become a political weapon that has divided the nation and destroyed morality. It is neither feasible nor moral. How can it continue to monopolize the "Taiwanese" label, and claim that it alone "loves Taiwan?"
During the recent five cities elections, the DPP avoided all mention of national identity and cross-Strait policy. The KMT, meanwhile,has never had the guts to point out the moral defects in the Taiwan independence argument. As a result, the DPP has continued making substantial gains in the five cities election, winning support from its "Deep Green biological mother" and from its "swing voter wet nurse." The fundamental problem on Taiwan today is that for most Green Camp members advocacy of Taiwan independence is the epitome of of virtue, and defense of the Republic of China is the essense of evil.
The DPP's reasoning is morally and politically fraudulent. It is detrimental to the survival of the nation. If this fraud is not exposed, Green Camp masses will remain forever trapped. The Republic of China will remain forever trapped in a tragic paradox, in which the Blue Camp votes for a government, and the Green Camp votes for a nation.
The 2012 presidential election is fast approaching. Let us come together and reaffirm out support for the Republic of China, which we all depend upon for our survival. Let us cease and desist from fraudulent attempts to found a entirely separate nation, under the pretext of electing a new government.
藍的選政府 綠的選國家
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.12.01
中研院院士政治學者胡佛曾說：台灣的選舉，綠的在選國家，藍的在選政府，因而陷入民主憲政的困境。
真是一語道破。在正常的民主憲政中，選民的國家認同具有共識，反對黨也是「忠誠的反對黨」；選舉即使發生政黨輪替、政府換手，但國家認同無人質疑。此即胡佛所說，選舉是選政府。但在台灣，民進黨從台獨運動中興起，一直將「民族革命」與「民主工程」混在一起，以標榜建立「新而獨立的國家」訴諸選民；甚至在2000年政黨輪替，贏得中華民國的政權，扁政府仍以「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」玩弄台獨操作。迄至今日，民進黨的群眾集會中，仍是台灣國的旗幟迎風獵獵，見不到一面國旗。因此，如胡佛所說，選舉成了選國家。
藍的選政府，綠的選國家；由於綠營在選舉中借「中華民國」的球場玩「台灣國」的球賽，藍營也在選舉中「捍衛中華民國」。民主憲政當然陷入困境。
台獨是對中華民國的根本否定，主要因由是：一、自二二八事件以來戒嚴時期的威權統治，欠缺民主；二、中共政權對台灣的威脅，中華民國難以抵擋；三、中華民國的國際人格受到打壓，無尊嚴。這三個因由，其實分屬兩個不同層次的問題：其中第一項理由，因解嚴實施完全的民主，已獲解決；連主張台獨的民進黨亦經選舉主政八年，可證中華民國無疑是一民主國家。第二及第三個理由，則是國家戰略及政策層次的問題。台灣必須在與中國大陸的競合關係中生存發展，因而中華民國與台獨在化解大陸威脅及突破國際孤立上，何者較具可行性，其實是一個可以理性分析並求諸實證的問題。
目前的情勢卻是，台獨一直無法取得台灣民主體制的多數民意認同，否則民進黨不會主政八年因操作台獨而垮台；再者，六十年來國際情勢丕變，台獨非但不可能化解大陸的威脅及突破國際孤立，反而勢必將台灣逼上絕路。姑且不談戰爭的陰影，台獨亦絕非一條經濟活路，此已由近二十年來的經驗證實。
台獨對台灣的影響，非但在扭曲民主憲政、惡化兩岸關係，及傷害台灣經濟生機；最嚴重的問題在於已經成為毀滅道德及顛倒是非的文明禍害。其運作動線是：台獨是至高無上的道德目標→否認中華民國→否認憲法體制→否認法院審判→否認一切道德標準及是非理念。總而言之，既已否認中華民國，則還有什麼不可否認？只要是對抗中華民國，一切就可操作成不問道德。於是，大到陳水扁貪腐、三一九槍擊案……；小到陳菊走路工記者會、陳致中召妓、蘇嘉全抄論文、空心菜事件、鄭弘儀爆粗口……，皆為正當，皆為道德。操作的訣竅是：台灣國是一個最高的道德想像，只要支持台灣國，即不受任何道德約制。影響所及，雖然台灣國已成假議題，但道德崩潰與是非顛倒卻成了社會真實。
由於這種道德騙局，民進黨將自己說成「台灣人」，不支持台獨者就不是「台灣人」；「愛台灣」也成了民進黨的專利，不支持台獨者就是「不愛台灣」。主張台獨就是民主，甚至可因台獨而反民主；主張台獨就是道德，甚至可因台獨而反道德。
這一套台獨論述，在過去容或有其立足空間（戒嚴統治，大陸鎖國，國際冷戰等因素）；但是，時移勢變至2010年，國際、兩岸及台灣內部的情勢丕變，台獨已非可行的國家戰略與政策，反而成為撕裂國家、毀滅道德的政治凶器，既無可行性又無道德性，如何能再壟斷「台灣人」的標籤，霸佔「愛台灣」的專利？
在此次五都選舉中，民進黨完全迴避國家定位及兩岸政策的議題；而國民黨也從來沒有膽識將台獨的可行性及道德性討論清楚。因而，民進黨在「深綠親娘」及「中間選民奶媽」的共育下，仍在五都選舉中大有斬獲。台灣現今的根本問題是：綠營的主體群眾認為，台獨是道德的象徵，中華民國則是不道德的代表。
這是一個道德騙局、民主騙局，更是國家生存戰略的騙局。若不能破解這個騙局，將綠營主體群眾救出這個陷阱，台灣的民主政治將永遠困於「你選政府／他選國家」的悲慘弔詭之中。
2012年總統大選，讓我們共同接納這個苦難但賴以相依為命的中華民國；不要再假借以選一個政府為名，實際上卻暗示要另外創建一個國家，且此種暗示根本是一騙局。
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
KMT Must Confront Faultline at Leadership Level
KMT Must Confront Faultline at Leadership Level
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 30, 2010
Executive Summary: During the recent five cities elections, the outcome of the mayoral race between Blue Camp candidate Jason Hu and Green Camp candidate Su Tseng-chang took everyone by surprise. Jason Hu won his bid for reelection. But his margin of victory was so narrow his victory was an embarrassment. Ironically, it is the KMT that finds itself in a state of crisis. It went from ruling party to opposition party, then from opposition party to ruling party. Through all of this, the KMT's leadership crisis persisted, unchanged. Now that unfilled positions have appeared at the grassroots level, how long can one expect stability at the central government level?
Full Text below:
During the recent five cities elections, the outcome of the mayoral race between Blue Camp candidate Jason Hu and Green Camp candidate Su Tseng-chang took everyone by surprise. Jason Hu won his bid for reelection. But his margin of victory was so narrow his victory was an embarrassment. Su Tseng-chang was unsuccessful in his bid for Taipei Mayor. His margin of defeat was so wide, it too was an embarrassment. The falling and rising fortunes of Hu and Su, reflect the crises and opportunities faced by the two parties. The DPP has been presented with new opportunities, Su Tseng-chang may have been defeated. But DPP heavy hitters keep coming, one after the other. Ironically, it is the KMT that finds itself in a state of crisis. It went from ruling party to opposition party, then from opposition party to ruling party. Through all of this, the KMT's leadership crisis persisted, unchanged. Now that unfilled positions have appeared at the grassroots level, how long can one expect stability at the central government level?
In fact, the KMT's leadership crisis is advancing relentlessly from south to north. Jason Hu won by a paltry 30,000 vote margin. His opponent, Su Chia-chuan, the DPP's candidate for Greater Taichung City Mayor, lost. But he put on an impressive performance. Soon afterwards, he announced his intention of remaining a Taichung resident. Two years from now, he may become Tsai Ing-wen's running mate in her bid for the ROC presidency. He may even make a bid for the presidency himself. Suppose he attempts a comeback four years from now, and once again challenges Jason Hu? Will Hu be able to squeak by yet again? That is hard to say.
The reason why isn't necessarily whether Jason Hu did a good job. No matter how well a local official might do his job, nine years is a long time. Two more terms would be another eight years. For voters, "change" is always better than no change. Su Chia-chuan offered "change." People were impressed. After all, "change" is the main theme of democracy. During the first six years of Hu's nine-years in office, the DPP controlled the central government. He could not move upstairs. He could not return to the central government. The Ma administration has been in office over two years. Hu killed himself in Taichung holding down the fort on behalf of the KMT. Yet the KMT failed to arrange a successor for Hu, merely because he was in office? How could the KMT be so foolish?
The KMT found itself out of power for eight years. During this time, it learned what it was like to be out of power. Yet after the KMT regained power, the public was frustrated to discover that they KMT was still unable to offer the public people of talent. Nominees for cabinet members and elective offices were mostly tired old warhorses. If one repeatedly brings them out of retirement, and puts them back in the game, what young person is going to want to join the party? This is true at the cabinet level. This is also true in Tainan and Kaohsiung, where the DPP has ruled for at least 12 to 16 years. How much fresh talent has the KMT cultivated during that time? After Kuo Tien-tsai was defeated in Tainan, all he could do was return to teaching. He is unlikely to become involved in politics again in this lifetime. Huang Chao-shun campaigned hard in Kaohsiung. She suffered a painful defeat. During the next four years, Jason Hu will have to contend with another challenge from Su Chia-chuan. Does the KMT have anyone who can challenge Chen Chu, who has been in office for 12 years?
Kuo Tien-tsai is an academic who took up politics. Huang Chao-shun, on the other hand, is a member of a political dynasty. She got her start by campaigning at the grassroots level. From where else can the KMT recruit talent? The victorious candidates in the five cities elections were Hau Lung-pin, Chu Li-lun, and Jason Hu. All three were academics who took up politics, When they took up politics, the KMT still had a plan for cultivating new talent. Does the KMT still have a plan for cultivating new talent? Does it still allow ambitious elites in diverse fields to learn step by step how to serve their party and their country?
Following the five cities elections, local politics underwent a major change. The Blue north Green south strategic scenario does not appear as if it is about to undergo change in the near term. But the DPP has an abundance of fighting spirit. The Green south will relentlessly advance northward. Chiayi County was once an alien landscape for the DPP. But the DPP stopped at nothing. It went all out and recruited Chen Ming-wen. Chiayi County is now DPP country. Chiayi County is fast becoming an alien landscape for the KMT. Has the KMT ever taken the time and effort to consider whom its candidates will be for the next five cities elections?
An election is held on Taiwan virtually every year. The content and style of elections, large and small, are never the same. One cannot draw definitive conclusions based on past campaigns. But the one constant is the candidate. The candidate remains the most important variable during an election. The right candidate is half the game. But for whatever reason, the KMT invariably gets this half wrong. No wonder every election is an uphill battle.
The five cities elections are over. The 2012 presidential election and legislative elections are looming. The DPP has Tsai Ing-wen and Su Chia-chuan, Consider the results of the five cities elections. The DPP may have lost seats. But it received 400,000 more votes than the KMT. The DPP has experienced a massive surge in political momentum. By contrast, the KMT has taken on a sickly pallor. Leave aside the question of whether Ma Ying-jeou can rebuild the momentum the KMT enjoyed during the 2008 presidential election. The KMT is going to have a hard time maintaining its absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. It will be all it can do to maintain a 51% majority. The KMT is consoling itself on passing its "midterm exam." But has it given any thought to how it will perform in the finals?
During the recent elections, DPP campaign propaganda adopted centrist rhetoric. It eschewed the "ethnic" (community group) antagonism and reunification vs. independence cards. The net effect was relatively appealing. If this is how the DPP intends to run its 2012 election campaign, President Ma will face a completely different campaign team as he makes a bid for re-election. How many fresh faces can Ma Ying-jeou present to the public? How many new appeals can he make to attract voters dissatisfied with the status quo? A campaign team must be able to pass the torch from one member to another. It must be able to demonstrate vitality and fighting spirit. Otherwise, how can it meet challenges from other political parties? During the five cities elections, the voters demonstrated wisdom. They used their votes to send a message to the two major parties. Wherever one finds opportunities, one invariably confronts crises. As long as one sees the crises, as long as one resolves the crises, one will always be presented with fresh opportunities.
國民黨應正視菁英斷層危機
2010-11-30 中國時報
此次五都選舉結果，藍綠兩位政治人物胡志強、蘇貞昌的得票結果最出人意料之外。胡志強因為當選但票差太近，贏得難看；蘇貞昌則是因為落選但票差太大，輸得離譜。然而，胡、蘇兩人的處境，卻反映出兩黨一跌一升的危機與轉機，有轉機的是民進黨，畢竟即使蘇貞昌敗，卻預告民進黨的戰將正在一棒接一棒；有危機的卻是國民黨，從執政到在野，從在野到執政，國民黨的人才斷層危機卻始終未變，特別是當基層經營出現空窗，如何奢望中央執政能長久穩定？
事實上，國民黨菁英的斷層危機，此刻正在從南向北一步步擴大蔓延。胡志強這次以三萬多票差慘勝，他的對手、民進黨提名的大台中市長候選人蘇嘉全則是雖敗猶榮，落選第一時間宣告繼續落籍大台中。可以想見，不論兩年後他是否要與蔡英文搭檔競逐大位、或不論競逐大位是成是敗，四年後，他若要捲土重來，再向連任的胡志強下戰帖，胡志強能否再次驚險過關，實難逆料。
其中原因未必是胡志強做得好或不好，基層父母官做得再好，連九年誰都嫌久，何況再兩任八年？對選民而言，能「改變」總比不改變要好，蘇嘉全訴求「改變」，強有力地打動民心，因為「改變」正是民主的主要精神。胡志強九年任期中，即使前六年因為民進黨中央執政，無緣再上層樓，重回中央，馬政府執政兩年多，他拚了命為國民黨堅守城池，國民黨豈能因為有胡志強坐鎮，就忘了培養後繼人才的重要性？
國民黨在野八年，重新執政後，最為人詬病者就是臥薪嘗膽，還是沒有人才，內閣成員與選舉提名多是老驥伏櫪，壯心雖不已，但老是從壓箱底裡找人才，哪還有年輕人願意投身黨政為志業？內閣如此，大台南和大高雄，從民進黨執政開始，至少也十二年到十六年了，國民黨培養了什麼人才出來？郭添財大台南敗選後，只能重回教職，此生大概與選舉絕緣；黃昭順苦心經營大高雄，慘然落敗，下一個四年，胡志強眼前已經有一個蘇嘉全可能再下戰帖，國民黨還有誰能挑戰同樣連任十二年的陳菊？
郭添財是學者從政，黃昭順則是政治世家、基層選舉出身，國民黨還能從什麼地方搜羅人才？這次五都當選的三位直轄市長郝龍斌、朱立倫、胡志強，昔日都是學者從政，他們當年學者從政時，還有國民黨有計畫地栽培，請問國民黨現在還有什麼栽培人才的計畫？一步一步讓學有專攻、且有志於政治的各個領域菁英，有機會為黨、為國效力？
五都選後，地方生態再次丕變，北藍南綠格局短期看不到改變的可能性，但因為民進黨有旺盛的戰鬥意志，南綠不斷向北推進，嘉義縣曾經是民進黨的沙漠，民進黨一不做二不休，硬是拉攏帶槍投靠的陳明文，沙漠變綠洲，現在嘉義縣快成了國民黨的沙漠了，請問：國民黨有時間和心力思考，下次縣市長選舉有誰是適合的候選人嗎？
台灣幾乎年年有選舉，大大小小選舉內涵和型態未盡相同，不能以一次選舉做定論，但不變的是，選舉最重要的就是候選人，人選對了就贏了一半，偏偏國民黨每次選舉都苦於「奠基的這一半」，難怪每次選舉都艱困。
五都選後，立刻面臨二○一二年的總統大選和立委改選，民進黨除了蘇貞昌還有蔡英文和蘇嘉全，以五都選舉結果的選票結構，民進黨即使席次輸了，但總得票數卻超過國民黨四十多萬票，民進黨上升氣勢依舊如虹，反倒是國民黨贏得臉色慘白，先不論面對未來總統大選馬英九還能否重拾二○○八的氣勢，至少已經可以預告：國民黨想要維持目前絕對多數的立法院，恐怕會很難，拚過半都得費盡力氣。國民黨欣慰於「期中考過關」的同時，有沒有想過期末考會是如何？
民進黨這次選舉，文宣走得是年輕中間路線，完全不打族群對立和統獨牌，確實相對吸引人，如果某種程度上這算是二○一二年大選的文宣操兵，可以想像馬總統連任之途將遭遇全然不同的競爭隊伍，馬英九能拿出什麼新面孔、新訴求吸引對現狀猶有不滿的選民？一個不能一棒接一棒展現生命力與戰鬥力的團隊，怎麼迎接政黨競爭的考驗？五都選舉，選民展現智慧，藉由選票直接告訴兩個政黨，機會何在、危機何在，只要看到危機、解決危機，就永遠有機會。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 30, 2010
Executive Summary: During the recent five cities elections, the outcome of the mayoral race between Blue Camp candidate Jason Hu and Green Camp candidate Su Tseng-chang took everyone by surprise. Jason Hu won his bid for reelection. But his margin of victory was so narrow his victory was an embarrassment. Ironically, it is the KMT that finds itself in a state of crisis. It went from ruling party to opposition party, then from opposition party to ruling party. Through all of this, the KMT's leadership crisis persisted, unchanged. Now that unfilled positions have appeared at the grassroots level, how long can one expect stability at the central government level?
Full Text below:
During the recent five cities elections, the outcome of the mayoral race between Blue Camp candidate Jason Hu and Green Camp candidate Su Tseng-chang took everyone by surprise. Jason Hu won his bid for reelection. But his margin of victory was so narrow his victory was an embarrassment. Su Tseng-chang was unsuccessful in his bid for Taipei Mayor. His margin of defeat was so wide, it too was an embarrassment. The falling and rising fortunes of Hu and Su, reflect the crises and opportunities faced by the two parties. The DPP has been presented with new opportunities, Su Tseng-chang may have been defeated. But DPP heavy hitters keep coming, one after the other. Ironically, it is the KMT that finds itself in a state of crisis. It went from ruling party to opposition party, then from opposition party to ruling party. Through all of this, the KMT's leadership crisis persisted, unchanged. Now that unfilled positions have appeared at the grassroots level, how long can one expect stability at the central government level?
In fact, the KMT's leadership crisis is advancing relentlessly from south to north. Jason Hu won by a paltry 30,000 vote margin. His opponent, Su Chia-chuan, the DPP's candidate for Greater Taichung City Mayor, lost. But he put on an impressive performance. Soon afterwards, he announced his intention of remaining a Taichung resident. Two years from now, he may become Tsai Ing-wen's running mate in her bid for the ROC presidency. He may even make a bid for the presidency himself. Suppose he attempts a comeback four years from now, and once again challenges Jason Hu? Will Hu be able to squeak by yet again? That is hard to say.
The reason why isn't necessarily whether Jason Hu did a good job. No matter how well a local official might do his job, nine years is a long time. Two more terms would be another eight years. For voters, "change" is always better than no change. Su Chia-chuan offered "change." People were impressed. After all, "change" is the main theme of democracy. During the first six years of Hu's nine-years in office, the DPP controlled the central government. He could not move upstairs. He could not return to the central government. The Ma administration has been in office over two years. Hu killed himself in Taichung holding down the fort on behalf of the KMT. Yet the KMT failed to arrange a successor for Hu, merely because he was in office? How could the KMT be so foolish?
The KMT found itself out of power for eight years. During this time, it learned what it was like to be out of power. Yet after the KMT regained power, the public was frustrated to discover that they KMT was still unable to offer the public people of talent. Nominees for cabinet members and elective offices were mostly tired old warhorses. If one repeatedly brings them out of retirement, and puts them back in the game, what young person is going to want to join the party? This is true at the cabinet level. This is also true in Tainan and Kaohsiung, where the DPP has ruled for at least 12 to 16 years. How much fresh talent has the KMT cultivated during that time? After Kuo Tien-tsai was defeated in Tainan, all he could do was return to teaching. He is unlikely to become involved in politics again in this lifetime. Huang Chao-shun campaigned hard in Kaohsiung. She suffered a painful defeat. During the next four years, Jason Hu will have to contend with another challenge from Su Chia-chuan. Does the KMT have anyone who can challenge Chen Chu, who has been in office for 12 years?
Kuo Tien-tsai is an academic who took up politics. Huang Chao-shun, on the other hand, is a member of a political dynasty. She got her start by campaigning at the grassroots level. From where else can the KMT recruit talent? The victorious candidates in the five cities elections were Hau Lung-pin, Chu Li-lun, and Jason Hu. All three were academics who took up politics, When they took up politics, the KMT still had a plan for cultivating new talent. Does the KMT still have a plan for cultivating new talent? Does it still allow ambitious elites in diverse fields to learn step by step how to serve their party and their country?
Following the five cities elections, local politics underwent a major change. The Blue north Green south strategic scenario does not appear as if it is about to undergo change in the near term. But the DPP has an abundance of fighting spirit. The Green south will relentlessly advance northward. Chiayi County was once an alien landscape for the DPP. But the DPP stopped at nothing. It went all out and recruited Chen Ming-wen. Chiayi County is now DPP country. Chiayi County is fast becoming an alien landscape for the KMT. Has the KMT ever taken the time and effort to consider whom its candidates will be for the next five cities elections?
An election is held on Taiwan virtually every year. The content and style of elections, large and small, are never the same. One cannot draw definitive conclusions based on past campaigns. But the one constant is the candidate. The candidate remains the most important variable during an election. The right candidate is half the game. But for whatever reason, the KMT invariably gets this half wrong. No wonder every election is an uphill battle.
The five cities elections are over. The 2012 presidential election and legislative elections are looming. The DPP has Tsai Ing-wen and Su Chia-chuan, Consider the results of the five cities elections. The DPP may have lost seats. But it received 400,000 more votes than the KMT. The DPP has experienced a massive surge in political momentum. By contrast, the KMT has taken on a sickly pallor. Leave aside the question of whether Ma Ying-jeou can rebuild the momentum the KMT enjoyed during the 2008 presidential election. The KMT is going to have a hard time maintaining its absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. It will be all it can do to maintain a 51% majority. The KMT is consoling itself on passing its "midterm exam." But has it given any thought to how it will perform in the finals?
During the recent elections, DPP campaign propaganda adopted centrist rhetoric. It eschewed the "ethnic" (community group) antagonism and reunification vs. independence cards. The net effect was relatively appealing. If this is how the DPP intends to run its 2012 election campaign, President Ma will face a completely different campaign team as he makes a bid for re-election. How many fresh faces can Ma Ying-jeou present to the public? How many new appeals can he make to attract voters dissatisfied with the status quo? A campaign team must be able to pass the torch from one member to another. It must be able to demonstrate vitality and fighting spirit. Otherwise, how can it meet challenges from other political parties? During the five cities elections, the voters demonstrated wisdom. They used their votes to send a message to the two major parties. Wherever one finds opportunities, one invariably confronts crises. As long as one sees the crises, as long as one resolves the crises, one will always be presented with fresh opportunities.
國民黨應正視菁英斷層危機
2010-11-30 中國時報
此次五都選舉結果，藍綠兩位政治人物胡志強、蘇貞昌的得票結果最出人意料之外。胡志強因為當選但票差太近，贏得難看；蘇貞昌則是因為落選但票差太大，輸得離譜。然而，胡、蘇兩人的處境，卻反映出兩黨一跌一升的危機與轉機，有轉機的是民進黨，畢竟即使蘇貞昌敗，卻預告民進黨的戰將正在一棒接一棒；有危機的卻是國民黨，從執政到在野，從在野到執政，國民黨的人才斷層危機卻始終未變，特別是當基層經營出現空窗，如何奢望中央執政能長久穩定？
事實上，國民黨菁英的斷層危機，此刻正在從南向北一步步擴大蔓延。胡志強這次以三萬多票差慘勝，他的對手、民進黨提名的大台中市長候選人蘇嘉全則是雖敗猶榮，落選第一時間宣告繼續落籍大台中。可以想見，不論兩年後他是否要與蔡英文搭檔競逐大位、或不論競逐大位是成是敗，四年後，他若要捲土重來，再向連任的胡志強下戰帖，胡志強能否再次驚險過關，實難逆料。
其中原因未必是胡志強做得好或不好，基層父母官做得再好，連九年誰都嫌久，何況再兩任八年？對選民而言，能「改變」總比不改變要好，蘇嘉全訴求「改變」，強有力地打動民心，因為「改變」正是民主的主要精神。胡志強九年任期中，即使前六年因為民進黨中央執政，無緣再上層樓，重回中央，馬政府執政兩年多，他拚了命為國民黨堅守城池，國民黨豈能因為有胡志強坐鎮，就忘了培養後繼人才的重要性？
國民黨在野八年，重新執政後，最為人詬病者就是臥薪嘗膽，還是沒有人才，內閣成員與選舉提名多是老驥伏櫪，壯心雖不已，但老是從壓箱底裡找人才，哪還有年輕人願意投身黨政為志業？內閣如此，大台南和大高雄，從民進黨執政開始，至少也十二年到十六年了，國民黨培養了什麼人才出來？郭添財大台南敗選後，只能重回教職，此生大概與選舉絕緣；黃昭順苦心經營大高雄，慘然落敗，下一個四年，胡志強眼前已經有一個蘇嘉全可能再下戰帖，國民黨還有誰能挑戰同樣連任十二年的陳菊？
郭添財是學者從政，黃昭順則是政治世家、基層選舉出身，國民黨還能從什麼地方搜羅人才？這次五都當選的三位直轄市長郝龍斌、朱立倫、胡志強，昔日都是學者從政，他們當年學者從政時，還有國民黨有計畫地栽培，請問國民黨現在還有什麼栽培人才的計畫？一步一步讓學有專攻、且有志於政治的各個領域菁英，有機會為黨、為國效力？
五都選後，地方生態再次丕變，北藍南綠格局短期看不到改變的可能性，但因為民進黨有旺盛的戰鬥意志，南綠不斷向北推進，嘉義縣曾經是民進黨的沙漠，民進黨一不做二不休，硬是拉攏帶槍投靠的陳明文，沙漠變綠洲，現在嘉義縣快成了國民黨的沙漠了，請問：國民黨有時間和心力思考，下次縣市長選舉有誰是適合的候選人嗎？
台灣幾乎年年有選舉，大大小小選舉內涵和型態未盡相同，不能以一次選舉做定論，但不變的是，選舉最重要的就是候選人，人選對了就贏了一半，偏偏國民黨每次選舉都苦於「奠基的這一半」，難怪每次選舉都艱困。
五都選後，立刻面臨二○一二年的總統大選和立委改選，民進黨除了蘇貞昌還有蔡英文和蘇嘉全，以五都選舉結果的選票結構，民進黨即使席次輸了，但總得票數卻超過國民黨四十多萬票，民進黨上升氣勢依舊如虹，反倒是國民黨贏得臉色慘白，先不論面對未來總統大選馬英九還能否重拾二○○八的氣勢，至少已經可以預告：國民黨想要維持目前絕對多數的立法院，恐怕會很難，拚過半都得費盡力氣。國民黨欣慰於「期中考過關」的同時，有沒有想過期末考會是如何？
民進黨這次選舉，文宣走得是年輕中間路線，完全不打族群對立和統獨牌，確實相對吸引人，如果某種程度上這算是二○一二年大選的文宣操兵，可以想像馬總統連任之途將遭遇全然不同的競爭隊伍，馬英九能拿出什麼新面孔、新訴求吸引對現狀猶有不滿的選民？一個不能一棒接一棒展現生命力與戰鬥力的團隊，怎麼迎接政黨競爭的考驗？五都選舉，選民展現智慧，藉由選票直接告訴兩個政黨，機會何在、危機何在，只要看到危機、解決危機，就永遠有機會。
Monday, November 29, 2010
Defeat Amidst Victory, Victory Amidst Defeat
Defeat Amidst Victory, Victory Amidst Defeat
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2010
Executive Summary: Regarding the five cities elections, the most incisive observation has been that the KMT experienced "defeat amidst victory", and the DPP "victory amidst defeat." Victory contains the seeds of defeat. Defeat contains the seeds of victory. The KMT has experienced "defeat amidst victory." It should seek victory amidst defeat. The DPP has experienced "victory amidst defeat." It should seek to avoid defeat amidst victory.
Full Text below:
Regarding the five cities elections, the most incisive observation has been that the KMT experienced "defeat amidst victory", and the DPP "victory amidst defeat."
The KMT held onto to three cities in the north. But during its victorious 2008 presidential campaign it received 1.1 million votes more than the DPP. This time it received 400,000 fewer votes than the DPP. Altogether, it received 1.5 million fewer votes than before. In two cities in the south, it suffered landslide defeats. Hence, the characterization, "defeat amidst victory." By contrast, Although the DPP was unable to beat the odds in the north, it received 1.5 million more votes than in 2008. It also made major gains in the number of city council seats held. The two cities in the south remain Green Camp bastions. Hence, the characterization, "victory amidst defeat."
But the night the ballots were tallied, history had already been rewritten. The criteria for victory in the five cities elections, may not be the criteria for victory in the 2012 presidential election. By then, how the candidates are measured against one other may have changed. The issues may have changed. The level on which the campaigns are conducted may have changed. Therefore the criteria for victory may also have changed. When Ma Ying-jeou runs for reelection, will the KMT have lost so many votes since the five cities election, that it will also lose the presidential election? Conversely, will Tsai Ing-wen, assuming she is the DPP candidate, have gained so many votes since the five cities elections that she wins the presidential election? The answer should be clear. Nothing is impossible. But nothing is guaranteed.
The five cities elections are, after all, different from the presidential election. During the recent five cities elections, the DPP avoided all discussion of national identity and cross-Strait issues. But during the presidential election it cannot avoid these two issues. The DPP opposes the "1992 consensus." But during the presidential election, it must reiterate whether it opposes the "1992 consensus." During the five cities elections, the DPP can say that "ECFA is a central government issue." But during the presidential election, the DPP must respond. Does it intend to honor ECFA? If so, how? If it opposes the "1992 consensus, how can it possibly honor ECFA? In the five cities elections, the DPP put its "Platform for the Coming Decade" on hold. But can it refuse to reintroduce it during the presidential election?
The DPP's current "victory" was won mainly on the basis of well-executed campaign tactics, and Tsai Ing-wen's apparently moderate public image. But these were the thinnest of political masks. The DPP has yet to alter either its fundamental ideology or its innate character. Su Tseng-chang held an evening rally to thank supporters in his unsuccessful bid for Taipei Mayor. Hundreds of young people stayed on after the rally concluded. Were they there to listen to the musicians, or to Su Tseng-chang? Clearly the DPP must get back to basics.
The increase in DPP votes can be attributed to the "Deep Green biological mother" plus "swing voters wet nurse" phenomenon mentioned in one of our recent editorials. On the one hand, the DPP's deft campaign tactics attracted a number of swing voters who hope desperately that the DPP will undergo a complete metamorphosis. On the other hand, Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" consolidated support from Deep Green Taiwan independence extremists, who remain deeply embedded within the genetic makeup of the DPP. These divergent sources of support and conflicting expectations mean that when the DPP makes appeals to national identity and cross-Strait policy, it is caught on the horns of a dilemma. These internal contradictions will put the party to the test during the 2012 presidential election, at which time it will no longer be able to duck the issues. Therefore, one has to ask whether the victory scored during the five cities elections will be repeated during the presidential election?
The DPP may achieve victory in the 2012 presidential election through sophisticated campaign tactics. But if it continues relying on both its "biological mother" and its "swing voter wet nurse" to win elections, how can it govern while it holds these internal contradictions? Chen Shui-bian's eight year regime was a nightmare. The DPP "won the election, but lost its values." It was a "technical victory, but a substantive defeat." It showed the public that the DPP "knew only how to win elections, but not how to govern the nation." This has always been the case. Suppose the DPP replicates its five cities "victory amidst defeat" during its 2012 presidential campaign? At most it will experience the same fate as Chen Shui-bian. In the end it will merely experience "defeat amidst victory."
Now let's look at the KMT. The Ma administration's most important contribution over the past two and a half years, has been the establishment of a clear framework for national identity and cross-Strait policy. This framework has a close relationship to the survival of Taiwan's economy. It includes the "1992 consensus," "one China, different interpretations," "no reunification, no independence, no use of force," a diplomatic truce, direct flights, allowing Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, ECFA, and enabling ROC citizens to visit over 100 countries without the need for visas. This framework may be imperfect. It may involve well-recognized risks. But the ROC has no alternative. By contrast, Taiwan Independence is utterly infeasible. It is a concept fast being relegated to the history books. So why are so many people still addicted to Taiwan independence ideology?
The Ma administration should apply itself to the following policies. On the one hand it must explain to the public on Taiwan how such a framework defends their interests and upholds their dignity. It must persuade people through deeds. On the other hand it must increase public support for our national identity as ROC citizens, and increase public discussion of cross-Strait issues. If it allows the DPP to monopolize the role of "champion of Taiwan" and to obtain a patent on "loving Taiwan," it will never be able to allay Deep Green concerns about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." The KMT lost many hearts and minds in the south. The Ma administration's policies may be correct. But it may lose the presidential election nevertheless. As mentioned earlier, Chen Shui-bian "won the election, but lose the DPP's values." Ma Ying-jeou could "retain the KMT's values, but lose the election."
Victory contains the seeds of defeat. Defeat contains the seeds of victory. The KMT has experienced "defeat amidst victory." It should seek victory amidst defeat. The DPP has experienced "victory amidst defeat." It should seek to avoid defeat amidst victory.
勝中有敗．敗中有勝
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.29
關於五都選舉，也許最獲人心的一句評論是：國民黨勝中有敗，民進黨敗中有勝。
國民黨穩住了北三都，但總得票數自二○○八年總統大選在此區大勝一一○萬票，變成倒輸四十萬票，來回流失了一五○萬票，且在南二都崩盤慘敗。這自是「勝中有敗」。相對而言，民進黨雖未能使北三都翻盤，但總得票數相較於二○○八年增長了一五○萬票，又在市議會席次有長足增進，南二都更是從綠營的鐵板一塊變成一堵銅牆鐵壁。這自是「敗中有勝」。
然而，就在開票當夜，歷史已經翻頁。五都選舉的勝敗標準，未必能繼續成為一年四個月後二○一二總統大選的勝敗標準。屆時，候選人的對照效應變了，選舉議題變了，選舉層次變了；因而，或許勝敗的標準也會改變。也就是說，到時候，國民黨（馬英九競選連任）會不會延續五都選舉輸掉總得票數而輸掉總統大選？或民進黨（蔡英文是候選人）會不會延續五都選舉贏得總得票數而贏得總統大選？任人皆知的答案是：不無可能，但也未必如此。
因為，五都選舉畢竟與總統大選不同。比如說，民進黨在此次選舉中，將國家定位及兩岸議題完全遮蔽掩蓋，避而不談；但面對總統大選，卻無可能迴避這兩大議題。例如：民進黨現今反對「九二共識」，但到總統大選，卻必須再說一次究竟反不反對「九二共識」？在五都選舉中，民進黨可以說「ＥＣＦＡ是中央議題」；但在總統大選中，民進黨卻必須回答，是否延續ＥＣＦＡ及如何延續（反對「九二共識」能延續ＥＣＦＡ嗎）？在五都選舉中，民進黨可將「十年政綱」擱置，但難道能到總統大選還不端出來？
民進黨此次的「勝」，主要是勝在選舉技術演出的精妙，及由蔡英文主導的在氣質形象上的感染力。但是，這畢竟只是如一張面具搬地膚淺，未能根本改善民進黨的主體論述與內在本質。只要看蘇貞昌落選謝票晚會最後留下的數百青年群眾，已分不清他們是因樂團的感應而來或是為蘇貞昌而來，即知民進黨還是要回頭練一練紮實的基本功。
民進黨選票增加，或許印證了日前社論所說「深綠親娘」加「中間選民奶媽」的共育現象。一方面民進黨精妙的選舉操作所吸引來的游離選民，對民進黨深寄轉型蛻變的期望；另一方面，例如陳致中「一邊一國連線」深綠極獨的強固勢力，仍然深植在民進黨的神髓血脈之中。這種「分裂的支持」與「分裂的期許」，使得民進黨在道德號召、國家定位及兩岸政策上，皆陷於左支右絀的兩難之境。而此類矛盾錯亂，在二○一二總統大選中，皆將面臨考驗，無可閃躲。那麼，此次五都選舉民進黨在總得票數上的勝利，難道也能在總統大選中重現？
進一步說，民進黨亦不無可能在二○一二總統大選因選舉技術的精妙操作而致勝。但是，倘若仍然是憑藉「親娘／奶媽」的共育而贏得選舉，則如何以此種矛盾錯亂的體質執政？陳水扁八年主政「贏了選舉／輸了路線」的噩夢，正是「技術勝利／本質失敗」及「只會選舉／不會治國」的慘痛寫照。倘係如此，民進黨即使延續五都選舉的「敗中有勝」，而贏得了二○一二總統大選，那也將只是複製了陳水扁的宿命，而仍將走到「勝中有敗」的下場。
回頭看國民黨。馬政府兩年半來最重大的表現，是在國家定位及兩岸政策上建築了明確的架構；而此一架構又與台灣的經濟生路密切相關。從「九二共識／一中各表」、「不統／不獨／不武」、外交休兵，到直航、陸客來台、ＥＣＦＡ，百國免簽證……；這個架構雖絕非十全十美，且其中更隱伏了任人皆知的風險，卻仍是台灣別無他途的選擇。相較而言，台獨可謂已是全無可能實現的歷史名詞，但為何仍有那麼多人沉溺於台獨的情愫之中？
馬政府應當致力的是：一方面努力體現此一架構給台灣人民帶來的利益與尊嚴，用實際政績說服人民；另一方面亦當深化關於國家認同與兩岸關係的討論，否則，如果仍讓民進黨壟斷「台灣代言人」及「愛台灣」的政治專利，又不能扭轉深綠「親中賣台」的疑慮，而出現了像南二都這般天塌地陷般的民心流失；則即使馬政府的政策是正確的，卻也不無可能輸掉大選。如前所述，陳水扁是「贏了選舉／輸了路線」，馬英九則不無可能「贏了路線／輸了選舉」。
勝敗相倚，吉凶相伏。國民黨勝中有敗，應謀敗中求勝之道；民進黨敗中有勝，則應避勝中猶敗之險。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2010
Executive Summary: Regarding the five cities elections, the most incisive observation has been that the KMT experienced "defeat amidst victory", and the DPP "victory amidst defeat." Victory contains the seeds of defeat. Defeat contains the seeds of victory. The KMT has experienced "defeat amidst victory." It should seek victory amidst defeat. The DPP has experienced "victory amidst defeat." It should seek to avoid defeat amidst victory.
Full Text below:
Regarding the five cities elections, the most incisive observation has been that the KMT experienced "defeat amidst victory", and the DPP "victory amidst defeat."
The KMT held onto to three cities in the north. But during its victorious 2008 presidential campaign it received 1.1 million votes more than the DPP. This time it received 400,000 fewer votes than the DPP. Altogether, it received 1.5 million fewer votes than before. In two cities in the south, it suffered landslide defeats. Hence, the characterization, "defeat amidst victory." By contrast, Although the DPP was unable to beat the odds in the north, it received 1.5 million more votes than in 2008. It also made major gains in the number of city council seats held. The two cities in the south remain Green Camp bastions. Hence, the characterization, "victory amidst defeat."
But the night the ballots were tallied, history had already been rewritten. The criteria for victory in the five cities elections, may not be the criteria for victory in the 2012 presidential election. By then, how the candidates are measured against one other may have changed. The issues may have changed. The level on which the campaigns are conducted may have changed. Therefore the criteria for victory may also have changed. When Ma Ying-jeou runs for reelection, will the KMT have lost so many votes since the five cities election, that it will also lose the presidential election? Conversely, will Tsai Ing-wen, assuming she is the DPP candidate, have gained so many votes since the five cities elections that she wins the presidential election? The answer should be clear. Nothing is impossible. But nothing is guaranteed.
The five cities elections are, after all, different from the presidential election. During the recent five cities elections, the DPP avoided all discussion of national identity and cross-Strait issues. But during the presidential election it cannot avoid these two issues. The DPP opposes the "1992 consensus." But during the presidential election, it must reiterate whether it opposes the "1992 consensus." During the five cities elections, the DPP can say that "ECFA is a central government issue." But during the presidential election, the DPP must respond. Does it intend to honor ECFA? If so, how? If it opposes the "1992 consensus, how can it possibly honor ECFA? In the five cities elections, the DPP put its "Platform for the Coming Decade" on hold. But can it refuse to reintroduce it during the presidential election?
The DPP's current "victory" was won mainly on the basis of well-executed campaign tactics, and Tsai Ing-wen's apparently moderate public image. But these were the thinnest of political masks. The DPP has yet to alter either its fundamental ideology or its innate character. Su Tseng-chang held an evening rally to thank supporters in his unsuccessful bid for Taipei Mayor. Hundreds of young people stayed on after the rally concluded. Were they there to listen to the musicians, or to Su Tseng-chang? Clearly the DPP must get back to basics.
The increase in DPP votes can be attributed to the "Deep Green biological mother" plus "swing voters wet nurse" phenomenon mentioned in one of our recent editorials. On the one hand, the DPP's deft campaign tactics attracted a number of swing voters who hope desperately that the DPP will undergo a complete metamorphosis. On the other hand, Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" consolidated support from Deep Green Taiwan independence extremists, who remain deeply embedded within the genetic makeup of the DPP. These divergent sources of support and conflicting expectations mean that when the DPP makes appeals to national identity and cross-Strait policy, it is caught on the horns of a dilemma. These internal contradictions will put the party to the test during the 2012 presidential election, at which time it will no longer be able to duck the issues. Therefore, one has to ask whether the victory scored during the five cities elections will be repeated during the presidential election?
The DPP may achieve victory in the 2012 presidential election through sophisticated campaign tactics. But if it continues relying on both its "biological mother" and its "swing voter wet nurse" to win elections, how can it govern while it holds these internal contradictions? Chen Shui-bian's eight year regime was a nightmare. The DPP "won the election, but lost its values." It was a "technical victory, but a substantive defeat." It showed the public that the DPP "knew only how to win elections, but not how to govern the nation." This has always been the case. Suppose the DPP replicates its five cities "victory amidst defeat" during its 2012 presidential campaign? At most it will experience the same fate as Chen Shui-bian. In the end it will merely experience "defeat amidst victory."
Now let's look at the KMT. The Ma administration's most important contribution over the past two and a half years, has been the establishment of a clear framework for national identity and cross-Strait policy. This framework has a close relationship to the survival of Taiwan's economy. It includes the "1992 consensus," "one China, different interpretations," "no reunification, no independence, no use of force," a diplomatic truce, direct flights, allowing Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, ECFA, and enabling ROC citizens to visit over 100 countries without the need for visas. This framework may be imperfect. It may involve well-recognized risks. But the ROC has no alternative. By contrast, Taiwan Independence is utterly infeasible. It is a concept fast being relegated to the history books. So why are so many people still addicted to Taiwan independence ideology?
The Ma administration should apply itself to the following policies. On the one hand it must explain to the public on Taiwan how such a framework defends their interests and upholds their dignity. It must persuade people through deeds. On the other hand it must increase public support for our national identity as ROC citizens, and increase public discussion of cross-Strait issues. If it allows the DPP to monopolize the role of "champion of Taiwan" and to obtain a patent on "loving Taiwan," it will never be able to allay Deep Green concerns about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." The KMT lost many hearts and minds in the south. The Ma administration's policies may be correct. But it may lose the presidential election nevertheless. As mentioned earlier, Chen Shui-bian "won the election, but lose the DPP's values." Ma Ying-jeou could "retain the KMT's values, but lose the election."
Victory contains the seeds of defeat. Defeat contains the seeds of victory. The KMT has experienced "defeat amidst victory." It should seek victory amidst defeat. The DPP has experienced "victory amidst defeat." It should seek to avoid defeat amidst victory.
勝中有敗．敗中有勝
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.29
關於五都選舉，也許最獲人心的一句評論是：國民黨勝中有敗，民進黨敗中有勝。
國民黨穩住了北三都，但總得票數自二○○八年總統大選在此區大勝一一○萬票，變成倒輸四十萬票，來回流失了一五○萬票，且在南二都崩盤慘敗。這自是「勝中有敗」。相對而言，民進黨雖未能使北三都翻盤，但總得票數相較於二○○八年增長了一五○萬票，又在市議會席次有長足增進，南二都更是從綠營的鐵板一塊變成一堵銅牆鐵壁。這自是「敗中有勝」。
然而，就在開票當夜，歷史已經翻頁。五都選舉的勝敗標準，未必能繼續成為一年四個月後二○一二總統大選的勝敗標準。屆時，候選人的對照效應變了，選舉議題變了，選舉層次變了；因而，或許勝敗的標準也會改變。也就是說，到時候，國民黨（馬英九競選連任）會不會延續五都選舉輸掉總得票數而輸掉總統大選？或民進黨（蔡英文是候選人）會不會延續五都選舉贏得總得票數而贏得總統大選？任人皆知的答案是：不無可能，但也未必如此。
因為，五都選舉畢竟與總統大選不同。比如說，民進黨在此次選舉中，將國家定位及兩岸議題完全遮蔽掩蓋，避而不談；但面對總統大選，卻無可能迴避這兩大議題。例如：民進黨現今反對「九二共識」，但到總統大選，卻必須再說一次究竟反不反對「九二共識」？在五都選舉中，民進黨可以說「ＥＣＦＡ是中央議題」；但在總統大選中，民進黨卻必須回答，是否延續ＥＣＦＡ及如何延續（反對「九二共識」能延續ＥＣＦＡ嗎）？在五都選舉中，民進黨可將「十年政綱」擱置，但難道能到總統大選還不端出來？
民進黨此次的「勝」，主要是勝在選舉技術演出的精妙，及由蔡英文主導的在氣質形象上的感染力。但是，這畢竟只是如一張面具搬地膚淺，未能根本改善民進黨的主體論述與內在本質。只要看蘇貞昌落選謝票晚會最後留下的數百青年群眾，已分不清他們是因樂團的感應而來或是為蘇貞昌而來，即知民進黨還是要回頭練一練紮實的基本功。
民進黨選票增加，或許印證了日前社論所說「深綠親娘」加「中間選民奶媽」的共育現象。一方面民進黨精妙的選舉操作所吸引來的游離選民，對民進黨深寄轉型蛻變的期望；另一方面，例如陳致中「一邊一國連線」深綠極獨的強固勢力，仍然深植在民進黨的神髓血脈之中。這種「分裂的支持」與「分裂的期許」，使得民進黨在道德號召、國家定位及兩岸政策上，皆陷於左支右絀的兩難之境。而此類矛盾錯亂，在二○一二總統大選中，皆將面臨考驗，無可閃躲。那麼，此次五都選舉民進黨在總得票數上的勝利，難道也能在總統大選中重現？
進一步說，民進黨亦不無可能在二○一二總統大選因選舉技術的精妙操作而致勝。但是，倘若仍然是憑藉「親娘／奶媽」的共育而贏得選舉，則如何以此種矛盾錯亂的體質執政？陳水扁八年主政「贏了選舉／輸了路線」的噩夢，正是「技術勝利／本質失敗」及「只會選舉／不會治國」的慘痛寫照。倘係如此，民進黨即使延續五都選舉的「敗中有勝」，而贏得了二○一二總統大選，那也將只是複製了陳水扁的宿命，而仍將走到「勝中有敗」的下場。
回頭看國民黨。馬政府兩年半來最重大的表現，是在國家定位及兩岸政策上建築了明確的架構；而此一架構又與台灣的經濟生路密切相關。從「九二共識／一中各表」、「不統／不獨／不武」、外交休兵，到直航、陸客來台、ＥＣＦＡ，百國免簽證……；這個架構雖絕非十全十美，且其中更隱伏了任人皆知的風險，卻仍是台灣別無他途的選擇。相較而言，台獨可謂已是全無可能實現的歷史名詞，但為何仍有那麼多人沉溺於台獨的情愫之中？
馬政府應當致力的是：一方面努力體現此一架構給台灣人民帶來的利益與尊嚴，用實際政績說服人民；另一方面亦當深化關於國家認同與兩岸關係的討論，否則，如果仍讓民進黨壟斷「台灣代言人」及「愛台灣」的政治專利，又不能扭轉深綠「親中賣台」的疑慮，而出現了像南二都這般天塌地陷般的民心流失；則即使馬政府的政策是正確的，卻也不無可能輸掉大選。如前所述，陳水扁是「贏了選舉／輸了路線」，馬英九則不無可能「贏了路線／輸了選舉」。
勝敗相倚，吉凶相伏。國民黨勝中有敗，應謀敗中求勝之道；民進黨敗中有勝，則應避勝中猶敗之險。
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Leader of a Nation Should Be Preoccupied with Economic Growth
The Leader of a Nation Should Be Preoccupied with Economic Growth
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2010
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen said "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP." This is truly flabbergasting. The Cold War is over. Ideology is in retreat. Globalization has transformed economic and trade relations, The key to national governance is now economic governance. Economic growth and increased GDP are the key indicators of sound economic governance. If the president's head is indeed "filled only with thoughts of economic development and increased GDP," so what? What is wrong with that?
Full Text below:
Cross-Strait issues have vanished from the five cities election campaigns without a trace. Even economic issues seem to have faded from the agenda. Fortunately at the eleventh hour, DPP leaders have seen fit to remind everyone they have not forgotten it. At a campaign rally Tsai Ing-wen told the crowd that even though many people remain in dire economic straits, the KMT chose to hold a carnival style parade. She said "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP."
President Ma responded to Tsai Ing-wen's criticism. He said that without economic growth, how can one equalize the distribution of wealth? How can one extricate people from their economic plight? Whether political parties should hold carnival style parades depends on whom you ask. But to condemn the leader of a nation for being concerned about the state of the economy, and to characterize his concern as some sort of delusion or sin, is truly incomprehensible. Whether President Ma's head is in fact "filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP" is another matter. But ensuring economic growth is the key to governing a nation. If a president is preoccupied with the economy, we can hardly say that is wrong.
Chen Shui-bian governed for eight years. He drained all vitality out of the economy. As a result industries withered on the vine. Many young and middle-aged workers remain unemployed. The DPP can hardly shirk responsibility. After assuming office the Ma administration removed political and economic shackles. As a result Taiwan's economy has gradually climbed out of the financial crisis. This year Taiwan's growth rate will be close to 10%, establishing a record 20 year high. Per capita income is expected to reach 19,000 USD, breaking through the barrier of the past decade. Unemployment has fallen below 5%. Therefore although "many people remain in dire economic straits," one can hardly wipe away the economic achievements of the Ma administration in one fell swoop.
When the Democratic Progressive Party was in office, how many times did it say it was determined to "revitalize the economy?" When Chen Shui-bian took office in 2000 and established the Economic Development Council, he vowed to "revitalize the economy." What followed instead was "My daughter has now been married," "I have now become a grandfather," "My son Chih-chung has now married," and so on, and so forth. Chen Shui-bian solemnly declared at least 28 times that "The most important task during my term of office will be economic revitalization." This means that Chen Shui-bian also knew that economic growth was the key to national governance. But selfishness and corruption during his eight years of misrule saw the economy go from bad to worse. Only in his private vaults did the piles of money grown higher and higher.
Chen Shui-bian paid empty lip service to economic revitalization. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to utter a single word of apology. Ma Ying-jeou has dramatically improved the nation's economy. Yet she accuses him of ignoring the feelings of the poor. Tsai Ing-wen's political compass appears to be broken. Perhaps someone should provide her with one that works. Lest we forget, when the DPP was in office, it set a record for the highest suicide rate in Taiwan's history, not to mention a wave of young and middle-aged unemployment. This makes Tsai Ing-wen's accusations against Ma Ying-jeou even more incredible.
The problem can be seen from two perspectives. First, the factual perspective. No sooner had the Ma administration taken office, than the financial tsunami struck. As a result the economy failed to improve "immediately." But as we can see today, it did improve "steadily." By contrast, the DPP is playing the "good governance" card. If it is referring to its economic performance during its eight years in office, it can't begin to compare with the Ma administration. Secondly, the social perspective. Although the DPP has expressed concern for disadvantaged members of society, it has not in fact promoted economic growth or increased our GDP. This means its effusive expressions of concern are nothing more than hypocritical and empty talk. The DPP expects to dispense economic subsidies even as it neglects economic growth. No economic system can do what the DPP expects. For example, the DPP canceled relief for the elderly in Taoyuan County, but then placed the blame on Chu Li-lun. What did the DPP do, but shoot itself in the foot?
Tsai Ing-wen opposed ECFA. Therefore she issued a statement opposing economics first and export-oriented policies. Today she is apparently even more opposed to concern for economic growth and increased GDP. This is truly flabbergasting. The Cold War is over. Ideology is in retreat. Globalization has transformed economic and trade relations, The key to national governance is now economic governance. Economic growth and increased GDP are the key indicators of sound economic governance. Tsai Ing-wen snickered, "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth." Perhaps the people should ask Tsai the same question. "What is your head filled with?" If economic growth is unimportant, what is?
Chen Shui-bian once said that "Even if I revitalize the economy, that does not mean I will get reelected." But will ruining the economy get one reelected? Besides, if one is incapable of revitalizing the economy, what is one capable of doing? And if one is incapable of implemeting the necessary supporting policies, how can one do a good job of revitalizing the economy? The DPP ruled for eight years. It failed to implement the necessary supporting policies. As a result, the economy went from bad to worse.
"Economic growth" is not an isolated concept. As far as Taiwan is concerned, cross-Strait relations and the domestic investment environment must be improved before one can improve the economy. Therefore if a national leader's "head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP," he must as a matter of course successfully implement the necessary supporting policies. If the president's head is indeed "filled only with thoughts of economic development and increased GDP," so what? What is wrong with that?
國家領袖應當滿腦子都是經濟成長
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.26 02:56 am
整個五都選舉，非但兩岸議題消逝無蹤，連經濟也幾乎是一個消失的議題；所幸在最後一刻，民進黨提醒大家他們還沒忘掉這件事。蔡英文在造勢大會上說，許多人還處在困境，國民黨卻在舉辦嘉年華遊行，她直批「馬總統的腦袋，只有經濟成長和國民所得」。
馬總統回應蔡英文：沒有經濟發展，如何改善分配，如何解決人民困境？政黨遊行造勢要不要辦成歡樂嘉年華，見仁見智；但把國家元首對經濟的重視，說成好像是一種錯誤或罪惡，卻是難以理解的事。馬總統腦袋裡是不是「只有經濟成長和國民所得」容可另論，但經濟治理就是國家治理問題的根本；一個總統若時時以經濟為念，恐怕不能說有什麼不對。
陳水扁執政八年，把台灣經濟弄得元氣盡喪，至今產業萎縮、青壯失業的創傷猶未痊癒，這是民進黨無法推諉的責任。馬政府上台後，設法解除政經枷鎖，又逐漸把台灣經濟拔出金融危機的泥淖。今年台灣的經濟成長率將接近百分之十，創廿年來新高；平均國民所得可望達一萬九千美元，突破過去十年停滯不前的撞牆障礙，失業率降到百分之五以下。因而，雖然台灣如今確實仍有「許多人還處在困境」，但也不能一筆勾消馬政府在經濟治理上的努力與成績。
民進黨執政時宣示過多少回要「拚經濟」。陳水扁從兩千年上任成立經發會聲稱要「拚經濟」算起，前前後後藉「女兒辦完喜事了」、「拚完外交了」、「現在做外公了」、「致中結婚了」等場合，至少有二十八次鄭重宣稱「任內最重要的任務，就是拚經濟」。這表示，陳水扁也知道發展經濟是國家治理的重要課題；然而，耽於貪腐及師心自用的結果，他主政八年的經濟治理每下愈況，只見他在私人金庫中鈔票愈堆愈高。
對於陳水扁的嘴巴拚經濟，蔡英文沒有片語隻字的反省；對於馬英九攤開的經濟成績，她卻說是罔顧窮人感受。蔡英文的天平，或許有人該伸手幫她扶正一下。別忘了，民進黨執政期間曾創下台灣史上最高的自殺率，包括中產階級的大幅衰退，這還沒算上壯年失業潮。正因如此，蔡英文對馬英九的指控，更顯得不可思議。
在這裡，有兩個層次的問題。第一，從事實層次看，馬政府在上任時因迎面就碰上金融海嘯，其經濟治理雖未能「馬上好」，但如今已見「漸漸好」；相較而言，民進黨主打的「治理牌」，若是指執政八年經濟治理的表現而言，顯然不如馬政府。第二，從社會層次看，民進黨雖作出關注弱勢的姿態，但在不能實際促進經濟成長與提高國民所得下，這種關懷終究流於矯情與空言，因為沒有任何制度能支撐民進黨那種「不要發展、只要補貼」的邏輯。例如民進黨縣長取消桃園老人慰問金，這次卻栽贓給朱立倫，豈不是自打耳光。
蔡英文因反ＥＣＦＡ，曾發表反對經濟掛帥及出口導向的經濟政策之說法，如今似更認為不應強調經濟發展與國民所得，令人難以理解。在冷戰結束、意識形態退潮，及全球化改變世界經貿競合關係之際，國家治理的核心課題就是經濟治理，而經濟發展及國民所得則是經濟治理的中心指標。蔡英文質問「馬總統滿腦子只有經濟成長」之際，民眾也可反問：「那妳的腦子裡只有什麼？」經濟成長如果不重要，什麼才是重要的？
陳水扁曾說「把經濟搞好也未必選得上」，但難道把經濟搞壞了反而應當選上？何況，倘若經濟搞不好，又能把什麼搞好？而若不能將其他一切配套政策搞好，經濟又怎能搞得好？民進黨八年執政，未將其他配套政策搞好，所以經濟才每下愈況。
「經濟成長」不是一個孤立的概念，以台灣的情勢而言，例如必須將兩岸關係及國內投資環境都弄好，才有可能把經濟搞好。因而，國家領導人若是「腦子裡只有經濟成長及國民所得」，他自然也會把必須與經濟配套的其他政務也統統做好才行。然則，總統的腦袋裡「只有經濟發展及國民所得」，有何不對？又有何不好？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2010
Executive Summary: Tsai Ing-wen said "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP." This is truly flabbergasting. The Cold War is over. Ideology is in retreat. Globalization has transformed economic and trade relations, The key to national governance is now economic governance. Economic growth and increased GDP are the key indicators of sound economic governance. If the president's head is indeed "filled only with thoughts of economic development and increased GDP," so what? What is wrong with that?
Full Text below:
Cross-Strait issues have vanished from the five cities election campaigns without a trace. Even economic issues seem to have faded from the agenda. Fortunately at the eleventh hour, DPP leaders have seen fit to remind everyone they have not forgotten it. At a campaign rally Tsai Ing-wen told the crowd that even though many people remain in dire economic straits, the KMT chose to hold a carnival style parade. She said "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP."
President Ma responded to Tsai Ing-wen's criticism. He said that without economic growth, how can one equalize the distribution of wealth? How can one extricate people from their economic plight? Whether political parties should hold carnival style parades depends on whom you ask. But to condemn the leader of a nation for being concerned about the state of the economy, and to characterize his concern as some sort of delusion or sin, is truly incomprehensible. Whether President Ma's head is in fact "filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP" is another matter. But ensuring economic growth is the key to governing a nation. If a president is preoccupied with the economy, we can hardly say that is wrong.
Chen Shui-bian governed for eight years. He drained all vitality out of the economy. As a result industries withered on the vine. Many young and middle-aged workers remain unemployed. The DPP can hardly shirk responsibility. After assuming office the Ma administration removed political and economic shackles. As a result Taiwan's economy has gradually climbed out of the financial crisis. This year Taiwan's growth rate will be close to 10%, establishing a record 20 year high. Per capita income is expected to reach 19,000 USD, breaking through the barrier of the past decade. Unemployment has fallen below 5%. Therefore although "many people remain in dire economic straits," one can hardly wipe away the economic achievements of the Ma administration in one fell swoop.
When the Democratic Progressive Party was in office, how many times did it say it was determined to "revitalize the economy?" When Chen Shui-bian took office in 2000 and established the Economic Development Council, he vowed to "revitalize the economy." What followed instead was "My daughter has now been married," "I have now become a grandfather," "My son Chih-chung has now married," and so on, and so forth. Chen Shui-bian solemnly declared at least 28 times that "The most important task during my term of office will be economic revitalization." This means that Chen Shui-bian also knew that economic growth was the key to national governance. But selfishness and corruption during his eight years of misrule saw the economy go from bad to worse. Only in his private vaults did the piles of money grown higher and higher.
Chen Shui-bian paid empty lip service to economic revitalization. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to utter a single word of apology. Ma Ying-jeou has dramatically improved the nation's economy. Yet she accuses him of ignoring the feelings of the poor. Tsai Ing-wen's political compass appears to be broken. Perhaps someone should provide her with one that works. Lest we forget, when the DPP was in office, it set a record for the highest suicide rate in Taiwan's history, not to mention a wave of young and middle-aged unemployment. This makes Tsai Ing-wen's accusations against Ma Ying-jeou even more incredible.
The problem can be seen from two perspectives. First, the factual perspective. No sooner had the Ma administration taken office, than the financial tsunami struck. As a result the economy failed to improve "immediately." But as we can see today, it did improve "steadily." By contrast, the DPP is playing the "good governance" card. If it is referring to its economic performance during its eight years in office, it can't begin to compare with the Ma administration. Secondly, the social perspective. Although the DPP has expressed concern for disadvantaged members of society, it has not in fact promoted economic growth or increased our GDP. This means its effusive expressions of concern are nothing more than hypocritical and empty talk. The DPP expects to dispense economic subsidies even as it neglects economic growth. No economic system can do what the DPP expects. For example, the DPP canceled relief for the elderly in Taoyuan County, but then placed the blame on Chu Li-lun. What did the DPP do, but shoot itself in the foot?
Tsai Ing-wen opposed ECFA. Therefore she issued a statement opposing economics first and export-oriented policies. Today she is apparently even more opposed to concern for economic growth and increased GDP. This is truly flabbergasting. The Cold War is over. Ideology is in retreat. Globalization has transformed economic and trade relations, The key to national governance is now economic governance. Economic growth and increased GDP are the key indicators of sound economic governance. Tsai Ing-wen snickered, "President Ma's head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth." Perhaps the people should ask Tsai the same question. "What is your head filled with?" If economic growth is unimportant, what is?
Chen Shui-bian once said that "Even if I revitalize the economy, that does not mean I will get reelected." But will ruining the economy get one reelected? Besides, if one is incapable of revitalizing the economy, what is one capable of doing? And if one is incapable of implemeting the necessary supporting policies, how can one do a good job of revitalizing the economy? The DPP ruled for eight years. It failed to implement the necessary supporting policies. As a result, the economy went from bad to worse.
"Economic growth" is not an isolated concept. As far as Taiwan is concerned, cross-Strait relations and the domestic investment environment must be improved before one can improve the economy. Therefore if a national leader's "head is filled only with thoughts of economic growth and increased GDP," he must as a matter of course successfully implement the necessary supporting policies. If the president's head is indeed "filled only with thoughts of economic development and increased GDP," so what? What is wrong with that?
國家領袖應當滿腦子都是經濟成長
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.26 02:56 am
整個五都選舉，非但兩岸議題消逝無蹤，連經濟也幾乎是一個消失的議題；所幸在最後一刻，民進黨提醒大家他們還沒忘掉這件事。蔡英文在造勢大會上說，許多人還處在困境，國民黨卻在舉辦嘉年華遊行，她直批「馬總統的腦袋，只有經濟成長和國民所得」。
馬總統回應蔡英文：沒有經濟發展，如何改善分配，如何解決人民困境？政黨遊行造勢要不要辦成歡樂嘉年華，見仁見智；但把國家元首對經濟的重視，說成好像是一種錯誤或罪惡，卻是難以理解的事。馬總統腦袋裡是不是「只有經濟成長和國民所得」容可另論，但經濟治理就是國家治理問題的根本；一個總統若時時以經濟為念，恐怕不能說有什麼不對。
陳水扁執政八年，把台灣經濟弄得元氣盡喪，至今產業萎縮、青壯失業的創傷猶未痊癒，這是民進黨無法推諉的責任。馬政府上台後，設法解除政經枷鎖，又逐漸把台灣經濟拔出金融危機的泥淖。今年台灣的經濟成長率將接近百分之十，創廿年來新高；平均國民所得可望達一萬九千美元，突破過去十年停滯不前的撞牆障礙，失業率降到百分之五以下。因而，雖然台灣如今確實仍有「許多人還處在困境」，但也不能一筆勾消馬政府在經濟治理上的努力與成績。
民進黨執政時宣示過多少回要「拚經濟」。陳水扁從兩千年上任成立經發會聲稱要「拚經濟」算起，前前後後藉「女兒辦完喜事了」、「拚完外交了」、「現在做外公了」、「致中結婚了」等場合，至少有二十八次鄭重宣稱「任內最重要的任務，就是拚經濟」。這表示，陳水扁也知道發展經濟是國家治理的重要課題；然而，耽於貪腐及師心自用的結果，他主政八年的經濟治理每下愈況，只見他在私人金庫中鈔票愈堆愈高。
對於陳水扁的嘴巴拚經濟，蔡英文沒有片語隻字的反省；對於馬英九攤開的經濟成績，她卻說是罔顧窮人感受。蔡英文的天平，或許有人該伸手幫她扶正一下。別忘了，民進黨執政期間曾創下台灣史上最高的自殺率，包括中產階級的大幅衰退，這還沒算上壯年失業潮。正因如此，蔡英文對馬英九的指控，更顯得不可思議。
在這裡，有兩個層次的問題。第一，從事實層次看，馬政府在上任時因迎面就碰上金融海嘯，其經濟治理雖未能「馬上好」，但如今已見「漸漸好」；相較而言，民進黨主打的「治理牌」，若是指執政八年經濟治理的表現而言，顯然不如馬政府。第二，從社會層次看，民進黨雖作出關注弱勢的姿態，但在不能實際促進經濟成長與提高國民所得下，這種關懷終究流於矯情與空言，因為沒有任何制度能支撐民進黨那種「不要發展、只要補貼」的邏輯。例如民進黨縣長取消桃園老人慰問金，這次卻栽贓給朱立倫，豈不是自打耳光。
蔡英文因反ＥＣＦＡ，曾發表反對經濟掛帥及出口導向的經濟政策之說法，如今似更認為不應強調經濟發展與國民所得，令人難以理解。在冷戰結束、意識形態退潮，及全球化改變世界經貿競合關係之際，國家治理的核心課題就是經濟治理，而經濟發展及國民所得則是經濟治理的中心指標。蔡英文質問「馬總統滿腦子只有經濟成長」之際，民眾也可反問：「那妳的腦子裡只有什麼？」經濟成長如果不重要，什麼才是重要的？
陳水扁曾說「把經濟搞好也未必選得上」，但難道把經濟搞壞了反而應當選上？何況，倘若經濟搞不好，又能把什麼搞好？而若不能將其他一切配套政策搞好，經濟又怎能搞得好？民進黨八年執政，未將其他配套政策搞好，所以經濟才每下愈況。
「經濟成長」不是一個孤立的概念，以台灣的情勢而言，例如必須將兩岸關係及國內投資環境都弄好，才有可能把經濟搞好。因而，國家領導人若是「腦子裡只有經濟成長及國民所得」，他自然也會把必須與經濟配套的其他政務也統統做好才行。然則，總統的腦袋裡「只有經濟發展及國民所得」，有何不對？又有何不好？
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Yang Shu-chun: An Authentic Beauty
Yang Shu-chun: An Authentic Beauty
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2010
Executive Summary: Yang Shu-chun is not merely an impressive taekwondo martial artist. She is also physically attractive, pure of mind, and kind of heart. She is "adroit with both the sword and the pen." She is beautiful inside and out. She has earned our admiration and deserves our respect. In speaking out, Yang Shu-chun has personified the values of civilization and humanity. Election season has coincided with the Asian Games. One might say that a gross injustice has become the occasion for a valuable moral lesson.
Full Text below:
Yang Shu-chun is not merely an impressive taekwondo martial artist. She is also physically attractive, pure of mind, and kind of heart. She is "skilled with both the sword and the pen." She is beautiful inside and out. She has earned our admiration and deserves our respect.
The entire nation is outraged at the injustice she suffered. Politicians and the media have demagogued the issue. Public anger is boiling over. She has become the object of public idolatry. Yet she remains clear-headed. Her reflections on the incident on the evening of her return were both touching and thought-provoking.
The incident provoked conflict between the ROC and the ROK. But Yang Shu-chun said "We must deal with the matter rationally. This is truly not the fault of the Korean people." The incident provoked frictions between Taiwan and the Mainland, and touched upon issues of national dignity. But Yang Shu-chun said "Politics is politics, sports is sports." The incident provoked electoral and partisan disputes between Blue and Green political parties. But Yang Shu-chun said "Do not demagogue the issue." The incident drew attention away from fellow Asian Games competitors. But Yang Shu-chun said "Other team members also took gold medals. My teammates performed brilliantly. They should be applauded."
Yang Shu-chun was confronted with fellow citizens caught up in the excitement. But she kept her head. She demands justice for herself and for her nation, of course. But she also knows that some people have become caught up in their emotions. They may express solidarity with her, but they lack a genuine understanding of what happened. She refused to take advantage of their human weaknesses to boost her own celebrity. Instead, she cited first-hand information and judgments from the athletes themselves, and helped people rise above hatred, misunderstanding, and confusion.
When Yang Shu-chun was victimized by an unjust referee, she sat on the floor and wept, eliciting public sympathy. When Yang Shu-chun returned home, she urged fellow citizens to remain clear-headed, eliciting public respect. She was, after all, concerned about the big picture. She had no desire to politicize the issue. She was concerned about human foibles. She did not want people to become victims of their own emotions. She considered this more important than the humiliation she suffered.
The black socks incident touched off a firestorm of controversy. It revealed public concern for justice and public feelings of patriotism. This is natural and normal. It also attracted international attention, bringing with it positive benefits. Therefore this sudden outpouring of public emotion should not be reprimanded, but cherished. But the primary goal remains the pursuit of truth and justice. Therefore, we must allow our emotions to settle. Only then can truth and justice emerge. Yang Shu-chun's remarks will contribute mightily to this pursuit of truth and justice.
Consider how the incident unfolded. From Day One, some alleged conspiracy. They screamed, "[Mainland] China and South Korea conspired to to do away with Yang Shu-chun!" They then blew the incident up totally out of proportion, alleging insults to our national sovereignty and our national dignity. Needless to say, it immediately became a Blue vs. Green political football. Today, Yang Shu-chun has told everyone she was indeed the victim of an unjust decision, but one unrelated to politics. She urged people "not to demagogue the issue," and "not to hurt innocent people."
Yang Shu-chun has earned our respect. She insists on the pursuit of truth and justice. But she is unwilling to pursue truth and justice by distorting the facts. Yang Shu-chun has unfortunately lost her chance to win a gold medal. But her commentary on the incident has enlightened the public on Taiwan. This is even more valuable and important than a gold medal.
Society on Taiwan suffers from cognitive dysfunction, especially during election season. The black socks incident has been distorted as a result of the elections. Yang Shu-chun pointed this out. Consider the water spinach incident, the Jiang Ping incident, the fictitious "30,000 NT subsidies for Mainland students" incident, and the "official persecution of Chen Chih-chung" incident. Which of these incidents was not an aberration? Which of them did not involve cognitive dysfunction? Which of them was not an ersatz "pursuit of truth?" Which one of them did not involve fabricating lies while trumpeting truth and justice?
On the 23rd this newspaper published an article in our editorial column "Black and White Chronicles." We said society on Taiwan is plagued by a number of blind spots. These include the exaggeration of Machiavellian trickery and the neglect of fundamental truths, the exaggeration of rumors and the neglect of facts, the exaggeration of defeats and the neglect of achievements, the exaggeration of the negative and the neglect of the positive, the exaggeration of the exceptional and the neglect of the normal, the exaggeration of pathos and the neglect of healing, the exaggeration of divisions and the neglect of integration. This determination to twist the truth has left our society spinning its wheels, wallowing in self-pity, incapable of bettering itself.
Yang Shu-chun has deftly pointed out these blind spots, these cognitive and emotional weaknesses. We deeply regret the fact that Yang Shu-chun lost her chance to win the gold medal. But we cherish the fact that Yang Shu-chun has used this opportunity to enlighten the public on Taiwan.
In speaking out, Yang Shu-chun has personified the values of civilization and humanity. Election season has coincided with the Asian Games. One might say that a gross injustice has become the occasion for a valuable moral lesson.
楊淑君真是漂亮寶貝
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.25
楊淑君不但跆拳功夫了得，人長得漂亮，而且思慮清純，心地善良，她真是一個允武允文，秀外慧中的漂亮寶貝。值得大家疼愛，更值得大家尊敬。
當全國為她所受屈辱憤恨不平，政客炒作、媒體挑撥，民心在激憤中如焚如沸之際；她雖受寵若驚，但仍神智清明，返國當晚對情勢所作的一番評論，令人動容，發人深省。
此事指向台韓衝突，但楊淑君說，「大家要理性對待，真的不是韓國人的錯」；此事導向兩岸摩擦及國格尊嚴，但楊淑君說「政治歸政治，體育歸體育」；此事陷於藍綠選舉黨爭，但楊淑君說「不要炒作」；此事掩蓋了國人對其他亞運選手的關注，但楊淑君說「隊上還有拿金牌、表現傑出的隊友，他們更值得喝采」。
楊淑君面對陷於情緒亢奮的國人，並未不知所以地迷失了自己。她當然要為自己及國家討回公道，然而她也明知有些國人是因陷於不平衡、不完整的認知而聲援她，但她不願利用這種人性弱點來抬升自己的勢位；反而以局中人的第一手資訊及判斷，來協助國人從仇恨、誤解及迷惘中走出來。
乍聆誣判坐地哭泣的楊淑君令人憐惜，回國一番話開導國人的楊淑君令人尊敬。畢竟，她對大局的關注（不要陷於政治化），及她對人性的呵護（不要陷於情緒難自拔），高於對自己所受屈辱的在乎。
黑襪事件掀起偌大風潮，顯示民間的正義感及愛國心；這是自然而正常的現象，且這股風潮對引起國際關注、重視亦有正面效益。因此，對於突然爆發的民間情緒不必苛責，反而應當珍惜。然而，畢竟追求真相、重建正義才是首要目標；所以，要讓激憤的情緒澄清沉澱下來，真相及正義始能顯現。而楊淑君的一番話，對於追求真相及重建正義應有重大效用。
回過頭來看此事的演化軌跡，一開始就爆出「中韓聯手做掉楊淑君」的陰謀論，接著就無限上綱成了國家主權及國格的羞辱，當然也立即成為藍綠選舉相互攻訐的題材……。如今，楊淑君告訴大家，她確實受到不公不義的裁判，但與那些政治聯想皆無關，「不要炒作」，「不要傷害無辜的人」。
楊淑君之所以值得尊敬，是她在追求真相、重建正義的同時，卻不願以捏造真相及扭曲正義為手段。楊淑君不幸失去了贏得金牌的機會，但她評述此事的這一番話，對啟迪台灣人心的作用，應比一塊金牌的意義更為珍貴和重大。
台灣是一個認知錯亂的社會，在選舉期間尤其如此。黑襪事件因選舉而扭曲的面貌，已被楊淑君點出。再想一想，空心菜事件、江平事件、虛構的「陸生三萬」事件、「司法迫害」陳致中事件，又有哪一件不也是一個畸形的認知錯亂事件。亦即，皆是偽冒一個追求真相、重建正義的號召，卻以捏造真相、扭曲正義為手段。
正如二十三日本報《黑白集》指出，台灣政治社會的認知盲點是：「放大權謀／漠視根本」、「放大謠言／漠視事實」、「放大挫敗／漠視成就」、「放大負面／漠視正面」、「放大異常／漠視正常」、「放大悲情／漠視療癒」、「放大撕裂／漠視整合」，這種扭曲的心態，正是台灣長期陷於內耗空轉，沉溺於自怨自艾，無以向上提升的重要原因。
楊淑君正是點出了這種認知的盲點與情緒的弱點。我們萬分痛惜楊淑君失去贏得金牌的機會，卻也更加萬分珍惜她的這一番話對台灣社會帶來的啟示與開導。
就文明及人性的價值而言，楊淑君以身示範的這一番話，可謂是在選季進行的亞運會中，以最大屈辱換得的最大昇華。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2010
Executive Summary: Yang Shu-chun is not merely an impressive taekwondo martial artist. She is also physically attractive, pure of mind, and kind of heart. She is "adroit with both the sword and the pen." She is beautiful inside and out. She has earned our admiration and deserves our respect. In speaking out, Yang Shu-chun has personified the values of civilization and humanity. Election season has coincided with the Asian Games. One might say that a gross injustice has become the occasion for a valuable moral lesson.
Full Text below:
Yang Shu-chun is not merely an impressive taekwondo martial artist. She is also physically attractive, pure of mind, and kind of heart. She is "skilled with both the sword and the pen." She is beautiful inside and out. She has earned our admiration and deserves our respect.
The entire nation is outraged at the injustice she suffered. Politicians and the media have demagogued the issue. Public anger is boiling over. She has become the object of public idolatry. Yet she remains clear-headed. Her reflections on the incident on the evening of her return were both touching and thought-provoking.
The incident provoked conflict between the ROC and the ROK. But Yang Shu-chun said "We must deal with the matter rationally. This is truly not the fault of the Korean people." The incident provoked frictions between Taiwan and the Mainland, and touched upon issues of national dignity. But Yang Shu-chun said "Politics is politics, sports is sports." The incident provoked electoral and partisan disputes between Blue and Green political parties. But Yang Shu-chun said "Do not demagogue the issue." The incident drew attention away from fellow Asian Games competitors. But Yang Shu-chun said "Other team members also took gold medals. My teammates performed brilliantly. They should be applauded."
Yang Shu-chun was confronted with fellow citizens caught up in the excitement. But she kept her head. She demands justice for herself and for her nation, of course. But she also knows that some people have become caught up in their emotions. They may express solidarity with her, but they lack a genuine understanding of what happened. She refused to take advantage of their human weaknesses to boost her own celebrity. Instead, she cited first-hand information and judgments from the athletes themselves, and helped people rise above hatred, misunderstanding, and confusion.
When Yang Shu-chun was victimized by an unjust referee, she sat on the floor and wept, eliciting public sympathy. When Yang Shu-chun returned home, she urged fellow citizens to remain clear-headed, eliciting public respect. She was, after all, concerned about the big picture. She had no desire to politicize the issue. She was concerned about human foibles. She did not want people to become victims of their own emotions. She considered this more important than the humiliation she suffered.
The black socks incident touched off a firestorm of controversy. It revealed public concern for justice and public feelings of patriotism. This is natural and normal. It also attracted international attention, bringing with it positive benefits. Therefore this sudden outpouring of public emotion should not be reprimanded, but cherished. But the primary goal remains the pursuit of truth and justice. Therefore, we must allow our emotions to settle. Only then can truth and justice emerge. Yang Shu-chun's remarks will contribute mightily to this pursuit of truth and justice.
Consider how the incident unfolded. From Day One, some alleged conspiracy. They screamed, "[Mainland] China and South Korea conspired to to do away with Yang Shu-chun!" They then blew the incident up totally out of proportion, alleging insults to our national sovereignty and our national dignity. Needless to say, it immediately became a Blue vs. Green political football. Today, Yang Shu-chun has told everyone she was indeed the victim of an unjust decision, but one unrelated to politics. She urged people "not to demagogue the issue," and "not to hurt innocent people."
Yang Shu-chun has earned our respect. She insists on the pursuit of truth and justice. But she is unwilling to pursue truth and justice by distorting the facts. Yang Shu-chun has unfortunately lost her chance to win a gold medal. But her commentary on the incident has enlightened the public on Taiwan. This is even more valuable and important than a gold medal.
Society on Taiwan suffers from cognitive dysfunction, especially during election season. The black socks incident has been distorted as a result of the elections. Yang Shu-chun pointed this out. Consider the water spinach incident, the Jiang Ping incident, the fictitious "30,000 NT subsidies for Mainland students" incident, and the "official persecution of Chen Chih-chung" incident. Which of these incidents was not an aberration? Which of them did not involve cognitive dysfunction? Which of them was not an ersatz "pursuit of truth?" Which one of them did not involve fabricating lies while trumpeting truth and justice?
On the 23rd this newspaper published an article in our editorial column "Black and White Chronicles." We said society on Taiwan is plagued by a number of blind spots. These include the exaggeration of Machiavellian trickery and the neglect of fundamental truths, the exaggeration of rumors and the neglect of facts, the exaggeration of defeats and the neglect of achievements, the exaggeration of the negative and the neglect of the positive, the exaggeration of the exceptional and the neglect of the normal, the exaggeration of pathos and the neglect of healing, the exaggeration of divisions and the neglect of integration. This determination to twist the truth has left our society spinning its wheels, wallowing in self-pity, incapable of bettering itself.
Yang Shu-chun has deftly pointed out these blind spots, these cognitive and emotional weaknesses. We deeply regret the fact that Yang Shu-chun lost her chance to win the gold medal. But we cherish the fact that Yang Shu-chun has used this opportunity to enlighten the public on Taiwan.
In speaking out, Yang Shu-chun has personified the values of civilization and humanity. Election season has coincided with the Asian Games. One might say that a gross injustice has become the occasion for a valuable moral lesson.
楊淑君真是漂亮寶貝
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.25
楊淑君不但跆拳功夫了得，人長得漂亮，而且思慮清純，心地善良，她真是一個允武允文，秀外慧中的漂亮寶貝。值得大家疼愛，更值得大家尊敬。
當全國為她所受屈辱憤恨不平，政客炒作、媒體挑撥，民心在激憤中如焚如沸之際；她雖受寵若驚，但仍神智清明，返國當晚對情勢所作的一番評論，令人動容，發人深省。
此事指向台韓衝突，但楊淑君說，「大家要理性對待，真的不是韓國人的錯」；此事導向兩岸摩擦及國格尊嚴，但楊淑君說「政治歸政治，體育歸體育」；此事陷於藍綠選舉黨爭，但楊淑君說「不要炒作」；此事掩蓋了國人對其他亞運選手的關注，但楊淑君說「隊上還有拿金牌、表現傑出的隊友，他們更值得喝采」。
楊淑君面對陷於情緒亢奮的國人，並未不知所以地迷失了自己。她當然要為自己及國家討回公道，然而她也明知有些國人是因陷於不平衡、不完整的認知而聲援她，但她不願利用這種人性弱點來抬升自己的勢位；反而以局中人的第一手資訊及判斷，來協助國人從仇恨、誤解及迷惘中走出來。
乍聆誣判坐地哭泣的楊淑君令人憐惜，回國一番話開導國人的楊淑君令人尊敬。畢竟，她對大局的關注（不要陷於政治化），及她對人性的呵護（不要陷於情緒難自拔），高於對自己所受屈辱的在乎。
黑襪事件掀起偌大風潮，顯示民間的正義感及愛國心；這是自然而正常的現象，且這股風潮對引起國際關注、重視亦有正面效益。因此，對於突然爆發的民間情緒不必苛責，反而應當珍惜。然而，畢竟追求真相、重建正義才是首要目標；所以，要讓激憤的情緒澄清沉澱下來，真相及正義始能顯現。而楊淑君的一番話，對於追求真相及重建正義應有重大效用。
回過頭來看此事的演化軌跡，一開始就爆出「中韓聯手做掉楊淑君」的陰謀論，接著就無限上綱成了國家主權及國格的羞辱，當然也立即成為藍綠選舉相互攻訐的題材……。如今，楊淑君告訴大家，她確實受到不公不義的裁判，但與那些政治聯想皆無關，「不要炒作」，「不要傷害無辜的人」。
楊淑君之所以值得尊敬，是她在追求真相、重建正義的同時，卻不願以捏造真相及扭曲正義為手段。楊淑君不幸失去了贏得金牌的機會，但她評述此事的這一番話，對啟迪台灣人心的作用，應比一塊金牌的意義更為珍貴和重大。
台灣是一個認知錯亂的社會，在選舉期間尤其如此。黑襪事件因選舉而扭曲的面貌，已被楊淑君點出。再想一想，空心菜事件、江平事件、虛構的「陸生三萬」事件、「司法迫害」陳致中事件，又有哪一件不也是一個畸形的認知錯亂事件。亦即，皆是偽冒一個追求真相、重建正義的號召，卻以捏造真相、扭曲正義為手段。
正如二十三日本報《黑白集》指出，台灣政治社會的認知盲點是：「放大權謀／漠視根本」、「放大謠言／漠視事實」、「放大挫敗／漠視成就」、「放大負面／漠視正面」、「放大異常／漠視正常」、「放大悲情／漠視療癒」、「放大撕裂／漠視整合」，這種扭曲的心態，正是台灣長期陷於內耗空轉，沉溺於自怨自艾，無以向上提升的重要原因。
楊淑君正是點出了這種認知的盲點與情緒的弱點。我們萬分痛惜楊淑君失去贏得金牌的機會，卻也更加萬分珍惜她的這一番話對台灣社會帶來的啟示與開導。
就文明及人性的價值而言，楊淑君以身示範的這一番話，可謂是在選季進行的亞運會中，以最大屈辱換得的最大昇華。
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Biological Mother and Wet Nurse: Chen Chih-chung's "Ballots for Justice"
Biological Mother and Wet Nurse: Chen Chih-chung's "Ballots for Justice"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2010
Executive Summary: Those who have pinned their hopes on Tsai and Su, hoping they will "transcend" Deep Green dogma, are certain to have their hopes dashed. Unless one can change the DPP's Deep Green nature, all such hopes will be in vain. The Deep Greens will vote for Chen Chih-chung. Needless to say they will also vote for Chen Chu, Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen.
Full Text below:
The truth in the Chen Chi-chung prostitute solicitation scandal has emerged. Paradoxically Chen Chih-chung's election prospects have been given a huge boost. Democratic Progressive Party candidates in the same voting district are hurting, and have declared an emergency. Even Frank Hsieh, who has been stumping for Chen Chih-chung, is worried that "the votes may be too concentrated."
How should one interpret this apparently incomprehensible phenomenon? Some think this is merely the reaction of Deep Green voters, and lacks larger significance. Such a view involves a serious and long-standing misconception. It assumes that Deep Greens are merely a "minority," merely a "tail wagging the dog." In fact, Deep Greens are not a minority. They are a voting block constituting roughly 20% of the public. They advocate Taiwan independence and indiscriminately oppose Pan Blue administration policy. DPP core supporters constitute roughly 40% of the public. Deep Greens constitute about half of that 40%. Deep Greens are no minority. More importantly, as this newspaper noted on the 13th, Deep Greens may not command an absolute majority within the Green Camp, but neither are they "merely a tail." They constitute its hard core, its main body. Chen Chih-chung is not the only one seeking to survive by appealing to the Deep Greens. So are Chu Chen, Tsai Ing-wen, and Su Tseng-chang. None of them can turn their backs on the Deep Greens and expect to survive, That's because the Deep Greens are the mother of the Green Camp and the DPP. They are the source of Green Camp nourishment.
The simple fact remains that Deep Greens in the Xiaogang District and Qiancheng District will be casting their ballots for Chen Chih-chung. They will also be casting ballots for Chen Chu. That is why Chen Chu stumped for Chen Chih-chung. Similarly, Deep Greens in Kaohsiung will be casting their ballots for Chen Chih-chung. Deep Greens in Taipei will be casting their ballots for Su Tseng-chang. Deep Greens in Xinbei City will be casting their ballots for Tsai Ing-wen. What this political paradox means is that in the eyes of Deep Green DPP supporters, Chen Chih-chung is no different from Su or Tsai. Conversely, Tsai, Su, and Chen Chih-chung must acknowledge the Deep Greens as their biological mother, and their primary source of political support.
Chen Chih-chung, Chen Chu, Tsai Ing-wen, and Su Tseng-chang are the same. All consider the Deep Greens their biological mother. Where Chen Chih-chung differs from the others, is that he has suckled only at the teat of his Deep Green biological mother. The others have also suckled at the teat of swing voters. As a result, several generations of "swing voter wet nurses" have nursed these politicians in their Deep Green biological mother's stead. The result has been several generations of genetically and indelibly Green politicians. The bizarre spectacle of politicians jointly raised by their biological mothers and their wet nurses is nothing new. These politicians did not make their debut during this year's five cities elections. If we think back, we realize this is an old story. The actors may change, but the script remains the same.
The Deep Greens are the biological mother. The biological mother backs Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, and Cheng Hung-yi. Therefore no DPP politician can distance himself from Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, or Cheng Hung-yi. No DPP politician can "transform himself" or "transcend Deep Green dogma." No DPP politician can extricate the Democratic Progressive Party or Taiwan from Deep Green quicksand. That is because the Deep Greens are their biological mother. They are the main body, not the tail.
This is the source of political deadlock on Taiwan. Generation upon generation of "swing voter wet nurses" have nursed liberal reformers within the DPP, in the hope that they would "transform" themselves or "transcend Deep Green dogma," that they would extricate the DPP and Taiwan from Deep Green quicksand. But a wet nurse is merely a wet nurse. Who is willing to be an unfilial son and defy his biological mother? Therefore swing voters are merely icing on the Deep Green cake. Just as wet nurses are merely icing on the biological mother cake.
Everyone says the DPP is adept at electioneering. What they really mean is that it is adept at manipulating its biological mother and its wet nurse. The ongoing five cities elections show that the Deep Green biological mother is willing turn a blind eye to Chen Shui-bian's corruption, to Chen Chih-chung's solicitation of prostitutes, and to Cheng Hung-yi's repeated uttering of "F**k Your Mother!" As a result, Tsai and Su are playing the "new happiness" and "transcendence" cards. They have no qualms about acting coquettishly toward their wet nurse. Their biological mother nurses them unconditionally. Their wet nurse nurses them in the hope they will turn over a new leaf. In the end however, they merely wind up nurturing yet another generation of Deep Green politicians.
This "biological mother plus wet nurse" campaign strategy helped make Chen Shui-bian. Remember his "New Centrist Path?" It will also help make Tsai Ing-wen, Su Tseng-chang, and Chen Chu. Consider their recent "pink themed" makeovers, and their electric light versions of the Third Lotus Prince. Every generation of DPP politician trots out his own "centrist path." Every generation of "swing voter" reenacts the role of long-suffering wet nurse. But as long as the DPP's biological mother remains the Deep Greens, every generation of DPP politician will merely be another Chen Shui-bian or Chen Chu. They might not engage in corruption. They might not solicit prostitutes. But they will invariably march toward the same political dead end. They will invariably attempt to divide society and provoke hatred between Taiwan and the Mainland. Why? Because of the support they receive from their biological mother and wet nurse. Their biological mother and their wet nurse have fundamentally different expectations regarding good and evil and right and wrong. These differences in expectations allow them to manipulate their supporters. During a crisis of authority, they can always seek refuge in their biological mother's arms. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have both done precisely this. The farther they proceed, the deeper they descend. The farther they proceed, the lower they sink. Not one of their successors has been able to escape this fate.
As a result, those who have pinned their hopes on Tsai and Su, hoping they will "transcend Deep Green dogma," will have their hopes dashed. Unless one can change the DPP's Deep Green nature, all such hopes will be in vain. The Deep Greens will vote for Chen Chih-chung. Needless to say they will also vote for Chen Chu, Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen.
親娘與奶媽：陳致中用選票討公道
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.24
召妓案真相呈現，陳致中的選情逆勢大漲；同選區的民進黨候選人「皮皮剉」紛紛告急，連輔選者謝長廷也憂慮陳致中將使「選票太集中」。
如何解讀這個似乎難以理解的現象？有人認為這只是「深綠」選民的反應，沒有「全局意義」。這種觀點其實是長期存在的重大誤解，認為「深綠」只是「少數」，只是「尾巴搖狗」；但實際的情勢卻是，「深綠」未必是「少數」，而是一個在所有民調中大約佔了公民總數百分之二十上下的板塊（如主張台獨，為反對而反對），亦即約佔民進黨「基本盤」（總公民數四成許）的五成上下，這絕非「少數」。更重要的是，正如本報十三日社論所言，「深綠」即使不是綠營的「絕大多數」，也絕非「尾巴」，而是最核心最紮實的「主體」。不但陳致中要在「深綠」尋求生路，陳菊、蔡英文、蘇貞昌等也無可能背叛「深綠」而存活，因為「深綠」是綠營與民進黨的母親，是綠營乳汁的根源。
簡單明白的事實是：在小港區、前鎮區的「深綠」投票給陳致中，但他們也投票給陳菊（所以陳菊為陳致中站台）；同理，在高雄的深綠投票給陳致中，在台北市的深綠則投票給蘇貞昌，在新北市的深綠投票給蔡英文。此一政治吊詭顯現的意義是：在民進黨的主體深綠眼中，陳致中與蘇蔡無異；反過來說，對蔡蘇及陳致中而言，則皆必須以深綠親娘為主要的政治乳汁根源。
陳致中與陳菊、蔡英文與蘇貞昌都是一樣的，皆是以深綠為親娘；陳致中與其他三人不一樣處，是陳致中只能喝到深綠親娘的奶，但其他三人則也有機會找到「中間選民」為奶媽。結果是，一代又一代「中間選民奶媽」代「深綠親娘」授乳，養出幾代繼承綠色基因、不改綠色本色的政治風雲人物。這種「親娘／奶媽」共育的奇觀，不是只在今年五都大選出現；回頭想一想，這其實已是二十年來不斷只換主角不換劇本的陳年戲碼。
深綠是親娘，親娘挺陳水扁、陳致中及鄭弘儀；所以，任何民進黨的政治領袖，即不可能與陳水扁、陳致中及鄭弘儀切割，不可能「轉型」、「超越」，不可能將民進黨及台灣救出泥淖。因為，深綠是親娘、是主體，不是尾巴。
這是台灣政治的死結。一代一代的「中間選民奶媽」，授乳給民進黨的開明改革人士，希望他們能「轉型」、「超越」，將民進黨及台灣救出泥淖；但是，奶媽畢竟只是奶媽，誰敢成為忤逆親娘家訓的不肖子？因此，「中間選民」只是「深綠」的錦上添花，正如奶媽只是「親娘」的錦上添花。
眾人皆曰民進黨很會選舉，其實就是指極擅「親娘／奶媽」的操作。此次五都選舉顯示，深綠親娘已經綠到連陳水扁貪瀆、陳致中召妓，及鄭弘儀「幹Ｘ娘」也力挺到底的地步；所以打著「新幸福」及「超越」口號的蔡蘇等人，即可毫無後顧之憂地全力向「奶媽」討好撒嬌。親娘無怨無悔的乳汁，加上奶媽心存憧憬的奶水，即可哺育新一代的綠營領袖。
這種「親娘加奶媽」的戰略，造就了陳水扁（還記得新中間路線嗎？）；也能造就蔡英文、蘇貞昌及陳菊（粉紅臉譜加電音三太子）。每一代民進黨政治人物都有不同的「中間路線」，每一代「中間選民」也願扮演大悲大慈的奶媽。但是，只要深綠仍是民進黨的親娘與主體，每一代民進黨的政治領袖都會變成另一個「陳水扁」或「陳致中」，這未必是指他們會貪污或召妓，但他們一定也會走上撕裂社會、挑撥兩岸的死路上去。因為，他們所獲得的社會支持分別來自「親娘／奶媽」，而親娘的家訓與奶媽的期許根本上卻正邪是非迥然不同，終將使他們在「分裂的支持」與「分裂的期許」中左支右絀，最後在權力危機中倒回親娘的懷抱。李登輝、陳水扁皆是如此，愈走愈下坡、愈沉淪，後繼者亦無人能超脫此種宿命。
因而，僅寄望蔡蘇等人能「超越」民進黨者，勢必希望落空。如果不能改變民進黨的「深綠」本性、本質與本體，一切均屬枉然。深綠投票給陳致中，難道他們不投票給陳菊、蘇貞昌及蔡英文？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2010
Executive Summary: Those who have pinned their hopes on Tsai and Su, hoping they will "transcend" Deep Green dogma, are certain to have their hopes dashed. Unless one can change the DPP's Deep Green nature, all such hopes will be in vain. The Deep Greens will vote for Chen Chih-chung. Needless to say they will also vote for Chen Chu, Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen.
Full Text below:
The truth in the Chen Chi-chung prostitute solicitation scandal has emerged. Paradoxically Chen Chih-chung's election prospects have been given a huge boost. Democratic Progressive Party candidates in the same voting district are hurting, and have declared an emergency. Even Frank Hsieh, who has been stumping for Chen Chih-chung, is worried that "the votes may be too concentrated."
How should one interpret this apparently incomprehensible phenomenon? Some think this is merely the reaction of Deep Green voters, and lacks larger significance. Such a view involves a serious and long-standing misconception. It assumes that Deep Greens are merely a "minority," merely a "tail wagging the dog." In fact, Deep Greens are not a minority. They are a voting block constituting roughly 20% of the public. They advocate Taiwan independence and indiscriminately oppose Pan Blue administration policy. DPP core supporters constitute roughly 40% of the public. Deep Greens constitute about half of that 40%. Deep Greens are no minority. More importantly, as this newspaper noted on the 13th, Deep Greens may not command an absolute majority within the Green Camp, but neither are they "merely a tail." They constitute its hard core, its main body. Chen Chih-chung is not the only one seeking to survive by appealing to the Deep Greens. So are Chu Chen, Tsai Ing-wen, and Su Tseng-chang. None of them can turn their backs on the Deep Greens and expect to survive, That's because the Deep Greens are the mother of the Green Camp and the DPP. They are the source of Green Camp nourishment.
The simple fact remains that Deep Greens in the Xiaogang District and Qiancheng District will be casting their ballots for Chen Chih-chung. They will also be casting ballots for Chen Chu. That is why Chen Chu stumped for Chen Chih-chung. Similarly, Deep Greens in Kaohsiung will be casting their ballots for Chen Chih-chung. Deep Greens in Taipei will be casting their ballots for Su Tseng-chang. Deep Greens in Xinbei City will be casting their ballots for Tsai Ing-wen. What this political paradox means is that in the eyes of Deep Green DPP supporters, Chen Chih-chung is no different from Su or Tsai. Conversely, Tsai, Su, and Chen Chih-chung must acknowledge the Deep Greens as their biological mother, and their primary source of political support.
Chen Chih-chung, Chen Chu, Tsai Ing-wen, and Su Tseng-chang are the same. All consider the Deep Greens their biological mother. Where Chen Chih-chung differs from the others, is that he has suckled only at the teat of his Deep Green biological mother. The others have also suckled at the teat of swing voters. As a result, several generations of "swing voter wet nurses" have nursed these politicians in their Deep Green biological mother's stead. The result has been several generations of genetically and indelibly Green politicians. The bizarre spectacle of politicians jointly raised by their biological mothers and their wet nurses is nothing new. These politicians did not make their debut during this year's five cities elections. If we think back, we realize this is an old story. The actors may change, but the script remains the same.
The Deep Greens are the biological mother. The biological mother backs Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, and Cheng Hung-yi. Therefore no DPP politician can distance himself from Chen Shui-bian, Chen Chih-chung, or Cheng Hung-yi. No DPP politician can "transform himself" or "transcend Deep Green dogma." No DPP politician can extricate the Democratic Progressive Party or Taiwan from Deep Green quicksand. That is because the Deep Greens are their biological mother. They are the main body, not the tail.
This is the source of political deadlock on Taiwan. Generation upon generation of "swing voter wet nurses" have nursed liberal reformers within the DPP, in the hope that they would "transform" themselves or "transcend Deep Green dogma," that they would extricate the DPP and Taiwan from Deep Green quicksand. But a wet nurse is merely a wet nurse. Who is willing to be an unfilial son and defy his biological mother? Therefore swing voters are merely icing on the Deep Green cake. Just as wet nurses are merely icing on the biological mother cake.
Everyone says the DPP is adept at electioneering. What they really mean is that it is adept at manipulating its biological mother and its wet nurse. The ongoing five cities elections show that the Deep Green biological mother is willing turn a blind eye to Chen Shui-bian's corruption, to Chen Chih-chung's solicitation of prostitutes, and to Cheng Hung-yi's repeated uttering of "F**k Your Mother!" As a result, Tsai and Su are playing the "new happiness" and "transcendence" cards. They have no qualms about acting coquettishly toward their wet nurse. Their biological mother nurses them unconditionally. Their wet nurse nurses them in the hope they will turn over a new leaf. In the end however, they merely wind up nurturing yet another generation of Deep Green politicians.
This "biological mother plus wet nurse" campaign strategy helped make Chen Shui-bian. Remember his "New Centrist Path?" It will also help make Tsai Ing-wen, Su Tseng-chang, and Chen Chu. Consider their recent "pink themed" makeovers, and their electric light versions of the Third Lotus Prince. Every generation of DPP politician trots out his own "centrist path." Every generation of "swing voter" reenacts the role of long-suffering wet nurse. But as long as the DPP's biological mother remains the Deep Greens, every generation of DPP politician will merely be another Chen Shui-bian or Chen Chu. They might not engage in corruption. They might not solicit prostitutes. But they will invariably march toward the same political dead end. They will invariably attempt to divide society and provoke hatred between Taiwan and the Mainland. Why? Because of the support they receive from their biological mother and wet nurse. Their biological mother and their wet nurse have fundamentally different expectations regarding good and evil and right and wrong. These differences in expectations allow them to manipulate their supporters. During a crisis of authority, they can always seek refuge in their biological mother's arms. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian have both done precisely this. The farther they proceed, the deeper they descend. The farther they proceed, the lower they sink. Not one of their successors has been able to escape this fate.
As a result, those who have pinned their hopes on Tsai and Su, hoping they will "transcend Deep Green dogma," will have their hopes dashed. Unless one can change the DPP's Deep Green nature, all such hopes will be in vain. The Deep Greens will vote for Chen Chih-chung. Needless to say they will also vote for Chen Chu, Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen.
親娘與奶媽：陳致中用選票討公道
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.24
召妓案真相呈現，陳致中的選情逆勢大漲；同選區的民進黨候選人「皮皮剉」紛紛告急，連輔選者謝長廷也憂慮陳致中將使「選票太集中」。
如何解讀這個似乎難以理解的現象？有人認為這只是「深綠」選民的反應，沒有「全局意義」。這種觀點其實是長期存在的重大誤解，認為「深綠」只是「少數」，只是「尾巴搖狗」；但實際的情勢卻是，「深綠」未必是「少數」，而是一個在所有民調中大約佔了公民總數百分之二十上下的板塊（如主張台獨，為反對而反對），亦即約佔民進黨「基本盤」（總公民數四成許）的五成上下，這絕非「少數」。更重要的是，正如本報十三日社論所言，「深綠」即使不是綠營的「絕大多數」，也絕非「尾巴」，而是最核心最紮實的「主體」。不但陳致中要在「深綠」尋求生路，陳菊、蔡英文、蘇貞昌等也無可能背叛「深綠」而存活，因為「深綠」是綠營與民進黨的母親，是綠營乳汁的根源。
簡單明白的事實是：在小港區、前鎮區的「深綠」投票給陳致中，但他們也投票給陳菊（所以陳菊為陳致中站台）；同理，在高雄的深綠投票給陳致中，在台北市的深綠則投票給蘇貞昌，在新北市的深綠投票給蔡英文。此一政治吊詭顯現的意義是：在民進黨的主體深綠眼中，陳致中與蘇蔡無異；反過來說，對蔡蘇及陳致中而言，則皆必須以深綠親娘為主要的政治乳汁根源。
陳致中與陳菊、蔡英文與蘇貞昌都是一樣的，皆是以深綠為親娘；陳致中與其他三人不一樣處，是陳致中只能喝到深綠親娘的奶，但其他三人則也有機會找到「中間選民」為奶媽。結果是，一代又一代「中間選民奶媽」代「深綠親娘」授乳，養出幾代繼承綠色基因、不改綠色本色的政治風雲人物。這種「親娘／奶媽」共育的奇觀，不是只在今年五都大選出現；回頭想一想，這其實已是二十年來不斷只換主角不換劇本的陳年戲碼。
深綠是親娘，親娘挺陳水扁、陳致中及鄭弘儀；所以，任何民進黨的政治領袖，即不可能與陳水扁、陳致中及鄭弘儀切割，不可能「轉型」、「超越」，不可能將民進黨及台灣救出泥淖。因為，深綠是親娘、是主體，不是尾巴。
這是台灣政治的死結。一代一代的「中間選民奶媽」，授乳給民進黨的開明改革人士，希望他們能「轉型」、「超越」，將民進黨及台灣救出泥淖；但是，奶媽畢竟只是奶媽，誰敢成為忤逆親娘家訓的不肖子？因此，「中間選民」只是「深綠」的錦上添花，正如奶媽只是「親娘」的錦上添花。
眾人皆曰民進黨很會選舉，其實就是指極擅「親娘／奶媽」的操作。此次五都選舉顯示，深綠親娘已經綠到連陳水扁貪瀆、陳致中召妓，及鄭弘儀「幹Ｘ娘」也力挺到底的地步；所以打著「新幸福」及「超越」口號的蔡蘇等人，即可毫無後顧之憂地全力向「奶媽」討好撒嬌。親娘無怨無悔的乳汁，加上奶媽心存憧憬的奶水，即可哺育新一代的綠營領袖。
這種「親娘加奶媽」的戰略，造就了陳水扁（還記得新中間路線嗎？）；也能造就蔡英文、蘇貞昌及陳菊（粉紅臉譜加電音三太子）。每一代民進黨政治人物都有不同的「中間路線」，每一代「中間選民」也願扮演大悲大慈的奶媽。但是，只要深綠仍是民進黨的親娘與主體，每一代民進黨的政治領袖都會變成另一個「陳水扁」或「陳致中」，這未必是指他們會貪污或召妓，但他們一定也會走上撕裂社會、挑撥兩岸的死路上去。因為，他們所獲得的社會支持分別來自「親娘／奶媽」，而親娘的家訓與奶媽的期許根本上卻正邪是非迥然不同，終將使他們在「分裂的支持」與「分裂的期許」中左支右絀，最後在權力危機中倒回親娘的懷抱。李登輝、陳水扁皆是如此，愈走愈下坡、愈沉淪，後繼者亦無人能超脫此種宿命。
因而，僅寄望蔡蘇等人能「超越」民進黨者，勢必希望落空。如果不能改變民進黨的「深綠」本性、本質與本體，一切均屬枉然。深綠投票給陳致中，難道他們不投票給陳菊、蘇貞昌及蔡英文？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)