Republic of China Granted Visa-Free Treatment from EU
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 11, 2011
Beginning today, Republic of China passport holders on Taiwan may gain entry to the 35 nations of the European Union without a visa. They may stay up to 90 days. This development means that the public on Taiwan has suddenly gained visa-free entry to 97 countries. This means that the public now has free access to most of the countries they want to visit.
We will soon be celebrating the Republic of China centennial. That Republic of China citizens now enjoy visa free status in 100 countries, makes the approaching centennial even more meaningful. First, the value of the Republic of China has been reaffirmed. The Republic of China is no longer a member of the United Nations. Only 20 or so countries maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei. Nevertheless, nearly 100 countries worldwide recognize Republic of China passports. They recognize the citizens holding these passports, This is tantamount to recognition of the Republic of China. By contrast, Beijing has diplomatic relations with over 170 countries. Yet only 20 countries have granted People's Republic of China passport holders visa-free treatment. The comparative status of the two passports could not be any clearer.
Secondly, this symbolizes international trust in the character of our citizens. These nations subject candidates to careful evaluation before granting visa-free entry status. They evaluate the benefits of economic relations, trade, and tourism. They consider whether an opening may bring incidental risks. In other words, preferential visa treatment is not necessarily the result of diplomatic wrangling. It is often the result of credibility gained by a nation's citizens over long years. ROC citizens from Taiwan have engaged in international trade, overseas travel, and volunteer work for many decades. During their travels, they increased their own knowledge. They simultaneously subjected themselves to public evaluation by the international community. According to the EU announcement, it believes that Republic of China citizens from Taiwan pose no risk of illegal immigration, or any threat to public safety in the EU. Therefore it agreed to remove Taiwan from the restricted list. This was not merely the result of Ma administration negotiations. It was also the result of positive impressions left by millions of Republic of China citizens on the rest of the world.
Thirdly, it proves that the Ma administration's strategy to promote peace is working. The cross-Strait ice is melting. This has reduced costly and futile diplomatic struggles in the international arena. This has also promoted mutually-beneficial bilateral economic relations, trade, and tourism. This has simultaneously reduced cross-Strait confrontation. and is consistent with the international community's desrie for peace. This was a major factor in the EU's granting of visa-free treatment. Five years ago, Tokyo attempted to grant Taipei visa-free treatment. The move was blocked by powerful opposition from Beijing. This time, when the EU moved to grant visa-free treatment to Taipei, Beijing, speaking through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said it had "No objection." Because Beijing demonstrated goodwill, a good thing came to pass. As we can see, the path of peace can often make obstacles disappear.
Similarly, the Taipei American Chamber of Commerce recently released its economic survey. Eighty percent of the respondents were optimistic about Taiwan's economy for the next five years, Ninety percent said ECFA was having a positive impact on Taiwan's economy. Wei Shi-min, president of AmCham, went so far as to say that ECFA had "put Taiwan back on the world map." Many multinational companies are rethinking Taiwan's status among "liang an san di" (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Mainland). Wei said that ECFA had "put Taiwan back on the world map," He said the EU had "opened its doors." In fact, the opening was mutual. On the one hand, Taipei is no longer sealing itself behind its own walls. On the other hand, the world is welcoming the public on Taiwan with open arms.
This inevitably reminds us of the Chen Shui-bian era, and its ear-shattering slogans, calling for Taiwan to "stand up and march forth." On the surface, it was asserting our national sovereignty. In fact, the regime's "Rectification of Names" movement was mere show, staged for the benefit of a single individual and a single political party. The same is true of the regime's periodic "head of state diplomacy" trips. These were staged to satisfy the president, who was eager to put on a show of personal diplomacy. Taipei paid a heavy price in lost international breathing space and suffocating domestic tension. His infamous "lost voyage" was especially lamentable. Chen Shui-bian even tried to butt heads with Washington and embarrass the United States. Chen Shui-bian once quipped that "Taiwan [sic] is an abnormal country." His "head of state diplomacy" merely reinforced that perception. It failed to win the ROC any genuine dignity.
Today, nearly a hundred countries worldwide have opened their borders to Republic of China citizens. This was an honor achieved by a normal government and its citizens. Lest we forget, when people open their doors to us, it means we must open our doors to them. We hope other countries will follow suit and open their doors as well. We hope to promote peaceful exchange and goodwill. This is the only way to ensure mutual understanding in our modern world.
Travel abroad! Become free, enterprising, and bold travelers. Cross a hundred borders. Experience the world. Learn from different ethnic groups, and carry a message from the Republic of China to the ends of the earth.
旅行去！台灣飛渡百國免簽
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.01.11 02:53 am
今天起，台灣民眾持中華民國護照進入歐洲聯盟卅五國，一律不需要簽證，即可停留九十天之久。此一進展，使台灣享受免簽的國家一口氣增至九十七國，這表示國人已可以自由進出絕大多數想去的國家。
在慶祝民國百年之際，台灣取得「百國免簽」的成就，更顯意義非凡。第一，這凸顯中華民國的價值受到肯定。我國雖非聯合國的會員，在國際間也僅廿多國與我維持正式外交關係；但全球有近百個國家承認中華民國政府核發的護照、承認持有此一護照的國民，這也形同對中華民國的實質承認。相形之下，擁有一百七十多個邦交國的中國大陸，卻僅有廿國對其開放免簽，國家護照的重量，就在這裡看出高下。
第二，這象徵我國國民的品德和素質取得國際信任。各國評估開放免簽對象，除衡量經貿、觀光效益，也要看開放是否會帶來其他附帶風險；換句話說，免簽的優遇往往不是外交角力的結果，而是長年國民品質所贏得的信譽。台灣人從事國際貿易、海外旅遊和志工服務達數十年，大家除在旅途中增長自己的見聞，其表現也都禁得起國際社會公評。歐盟在公報上說，歐盟認為台灣人不會構成非法移民的風險，以及對歐盟公共安全的威脅，因此同意把台灣從限制名單上刪除。這項成績，不只是馬政府交涉之功，更是緣自千千萬萬台灣人留給世界的好口碑。
第三，這證明馬政府近年經營的和平策略奏效。兩岸融冰，不僅降低了彼此在國際間不必要的外交競賽代價，亦提高了雙方在經貿、觀光上的互惠互利；與此同時，兩岸降低對峙的態勢，也更符合國際社會追求和平的潮流，這是歐盟給我免簽待遇的一大關鍵。五年前，日本要提供台灣免簽待遇時，即曾因北京的強烈反對而備受阻撓。這次歐盟對台提供免申根簽證待遇，中共卻僅透過外交部簡單表示：「不持異議。」正因對岸釋出善意，一樁好事就此輕騎過關。可見，採取和平路線，有時反而更能化解險阻於無形。
無獨有偶，台北美國商會最近發布景氣調查，八成受訪會員看好台灣未來五年景氣，九成認為ＥＣＦＡ對台灣經濟有正面影響。會長魏世民更說，ＥＣＦＡ讓台灣「重回世界版圖」，許多跨國企業重新思考台灣在兩岸三地的地位。「台灣重回世界版圖」的說法，與歐盟對台灣「敞開大門」的行動，其實是相互呼應的：在一方面，是台灣不再築起高牆來封閉自己；在另一方面，世界也張開雙手歡迎台灣人民的到臨。
這不免讓人回想起陳水扁執政時，喊得震天價響的台灣「站起來、走出去」的口號，表面上聲稱在追求台灣的主體性，其實是以「正名」為煙火，製造一人一黨的聲光效果。包括頻繁的「元首外交」，在滿足總統個人的外交作秀之餘，付出的是台灣國際空間飽受打壓的代價，以及內部社會關係緊張的窒息感。尤其那場謎航之旅，陳水扁甚至企圖以橫衝直闖羞辱美國，結果只為台灣徒增「不正常國家」的觀感，卻沒有帶給台灣真正的尊嚴。
如今，全球有近百個國家向台灣開放疆界，這是一個正常政府和所有台灣人民共同贏得的榮耀。不能忘記的是：當別人為我們打開國門，也意味著我們應持相對態度，為其他國家開放台灣；而促進和平及善意的交流，正是這個世界更臻交互了解的不二法門。
旅行去吧！做一個自由、進取而勇敢的旅人，飛越百國疆界，去見識世界、向不同民族學習，也把台灣的訊息捎到海角天涯。
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
How Much Corruption and Phony Campaign Contributions Must We Endure?
How Much Corruption and Phony Campaign Contributions Must We Endure?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2011
Legislator Huang Wei-tse has been accused of accepting 3.6 million NT in bribes from cemetery developers. The Tainan District Court ruled him innocent in the first instance trial. It ruled that industry leaders gave him "campaign contributions" rather than "bribe money." On the same day, the Supreme Court found Lin Chung-cheng, former member of the FSC, guilty of accepting 1.87 million NT in bribes from a securities firm, in the form of repairs to his cabin. He has been sentenced to fourteen years in prison. The discrepancy in sentences between the two cases, is like night and day.
The "Political Donations Act" has been in force nearly seven years. The provisions of the act clearly define what a political contribution is. But in legal and political reality, how politicians receive money and gifts from others, remains one giant gray area. This leads to almost diametrically opposite court rulings. Sometimes bribery is severely punished. Sometimes bribery is rationalized as "political contributions," enabling the defendant to escape criminal prosecution. This has led to inconsistencies in the administration of justice, and left people confused and troubled.
Consider the Huang Wei-tse case. He accepted money from a business firm on three different occasions. Of the three, only the third sum, which amounted to 2 million NT, coincided with the third legislative election. The 2 million NT check was deposited in his election campaign account. This could be considered in line with the legal requirements for political contributions. But the other two sums he accepted when no election was ongoing. They were inconsistent with the legal requirements pertaining to campaign accounts. They were cash transfers, in sums of 1,000,000 NT and 600,000 NT. The amount, the form, and the procedure were all in violation of the legal requirements of the Political Donation Act. Wu Den-yih received a half million NT in political contributions from industry during election season. This was deposited in his account according to the prevailing legal requirements. But because the sum was in cash, the half million NT was confiscated. He was fined 20,000 NT in addition. The judge in the first instance trial ruled that the sums Huang Wei-tse received were "political contributions," yet failed to hold him legally responsible. Was he deliberately pulling his punches? Or was he manipulating the law?
Also, the industry head transferred the funds through Huang Wei-tse's assistant. The first time 1,000,000 NT in cash changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 600,000 NT. His assistant received 400,000 NT. The second time 600,000 changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 400,000 NT. His assistant received 200,000 NT. If these were above board campaign contributions, why did his assistant "get a piece of the action?" The money was divided 60/40. Was his assistant "skimming off the top?" Was he being paid a "finder's fee?" This must be investigated thoroughly. It may not be passed off simply as "campaign contributions."
Lin Chung-cheng is not an elected official. He accepted gifts of LCD TVs and cabin repair costs from industry heads. He cannot write them off as political contributions. He accepted nearly 2 million NT in benefits. For this, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Huang Wei-tse accept 3,000,000 NT, yet got off scot-free. Lin can only bemoan his bad luck, for not running into that kind of judge. But what legal standards have such diametrically opposed decisions left society? Is the justice system nothing more than a game of Russian Roulette? It is nothing more than a matter of dumb luck?
Over the past year, a long string of court decisions have thrown open the doors to bribery in the guise of political contributions. They have blurred the line between between black and white. They have trampled over the dignity of the law. Two major problems are involved. One. Illegal gifts from industry have been characterized as "political contributions," and recipients have not been held responsibile for criminal conduct. Two. The perpetrators argue there was no "quid pro quo," thereby rationalizing bribery. This has indirectly promoted the phenomenon of the "rationalization of bribery."
Consider the most obvious example. Chen Shui-bian used his Second Financial Reform "program" to exort 600 million NT in bribes from the financial sector. Chou Chan-chun had the chutzpah to argue that Chen never exercised "presidential authority," and let him off scot-free. Former Minister of Transportation Kuo Yao-chi received a tea container filled with 20,000 US from an industry head. The physical evidence was incontrovertible. Yet he was acquitted on the basis that "there was no quid pro quo. The Huang Wei-tse case was the same. He admitted lobbying the Construction and Planning Agency. Yet the Full Court ruled that he lobbied in a "personal capacity" rather than "on behalf of the Legislative Yuan." It ruled that his lobbying had nothing to do with his legislative duties, therefore the money he accepted could not be considered a bribe. But if he was not a legislator, would the Construction and Planning Department take another look at the case merely because he asked it to? Can officials or elected representatives accept money, as long as the case is not directly under their jurisdiction? The Judicial Yuan must provide the public with an acounting.
If only one or two cases were involved, that would be one thing. But a spate of such critical court rulings have exposed official wrongdoing and official undermining of the nation's laws. How can one not be concerned? Lai Hao-min has been President of the Judicial Yuan for just over two months. He earnestly wants to establish an enduring system of justice. But his attempt to establish judicial integrity is being undermined by justice system officials with weaker and weaker commitments to the law. Does he really not mind?
The Judicial Yuan must clarify three issues. One. It must make a clearer distinction between "bribes" and "contributions." Two. It must prosecute illegal campaign contributions. Three. It must clearly define "quid pro quo relationship" and "official responsibility."
多少貪汙，假政治獻金之名以行之
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.08 01:27 am
立委黃偉哲被控收受墓園開發業者三百六十萬元賄賂案，台南地院一審以業者給付的是「政治獻金」而非「賄款」，判他無罪。同一天，前金管會委員林忠正則因收受證券業者為其修繕小木屋等之一百八十七萬賄款，遭最高法院重判十四年定讞。兩案用法及量刑差距之大，直如天壤。
「政治獻金法」實施至今將屆七年，雖條文中對獻金有明確定義和規範，但在法政實務上，政治人物如何收取外界金錢及饋贈，卻仍存在極大的混沌地帶。其中，又以司法判決認定簡直南轅北轍，有時對賄賂行為嚴刑重懲，有時又以「政治獻金」為「賄賂」開脫罪刑，造成司法天平的傾斜偏倚，最讓民眾感到困惑難平。
以黃偉哲的案件為例，他三度接受同一業者金錢，其中僅第三次的兩百萬元正逢立委選舉，以三張支票軋入其選舉專戶，算是合乎政治獻金的規定。至於另兩次，他均在無選舉的情況下收取金錢，不僅不符開立專戶之規定，且收取的分別是一百萬及六十萬元的「現金」，額度、形式及程序均違反政治獻金法規定。先前吳敦義在選季收受業者五十萬獻金，雖依法納入專戶，只因收取的是「現金」，不僅五十萬遭沒收，還追繳廿萬元罰金。在這種情況下，一審法官說黃偉哲收受的是「政治獻金」，卻又不追究其實質違法之責，這是故意放水，或是玩弄法令？
再說，業者是透過黃偉哲的助理交付金錢，第一次的百萬現金，黃偉哲收了六十萬，其助理取四十萬元；第二次的六十萬元，黃偉哲拿四十萬，助理取廿萬元。若是正大光明的政治獻金，怎可能發生助理「分一杯羹」的情事？如此三二拆帳的手法，是助理居間「私吞」，或是「牽線」之酬勞，必須查明就裡，不容以一句「政治獻金」含糊帶過。
林忠正不是民選官員，收受業者贈送的液晶電視及小木屋修繕款等，沒有政治獻金的藉口可用；貪了總值不到兩百萬元的便宜，換得十四年牢獄之災，比起黃偉哲收受三百萬卻無罪脫身，他只能恨自己運氣太差沒碰到那樣的法官。然而，如此南轅北轍的判決，將留給社會什麼樣的法律準繩？難道正義只是俄羅斯賭盤的遊戲，只看各人的司法運氣？
過去一年，多次司法判決以政治獻金之名對收賄者門戶大開，不僅模糊了政治清廉的黑白界際，更嚴重踐踏了法律尊嚴。其間存在兩大問題：一是把業者的非法饋贈說成「政治獻金」，卻又不追究收受者的違失責任；二是以「查無對價關係」為當事人開脫，間接推促了「收賄合理化」的現象。
最明顯的例子，陳水扁在二次金改收受金融業者六億多元賄款，周占春竟以金改「非總統職權」為其脫罪；前交長郭瑤琪收受業者裝在茶葉罐中的兩萬美元，事證明確，竟也以「無對價關係」獲判無罪。包括黃偉哲的案子，他坦承曾向營建署詢問過該案；而合議庭卻稱其以「個人身分」而非「代表立法院」關切業者陳情，與立委職務無關，故無法認定為賄款。問題是，若沒有立委角色，營建署會答覆他詢問個案嗎？如果這樣的邏輯成立，是否只要非直接職務所轄，官員或民代都可以任意收受金錢饋贈？這點，司法院必須向公眾說個明白。
若只是一二個案也就罷了，但接二連三關鍵性的司法審判，一再捅政府官箴的漏子，都在挖國家法律的牆腳，能不教人憂心？賴浩敏出任司法院長兩個多月，心心念念要打造能流傳千秋萬世的「司法園區」，但對於廉潔的城牆被司法人越削越薄，對於法律信念被恐龍法官越拈越輕，他難道一點都不在意？
司法院必須釐清這三個問題：一，就「賄賂」與「獻金」的分際畫出更清楚的界線；二，對於不合法的政治獻金，一律需依法起訴。三，對所謂「對價關係」與「主管職務」之認定，提出更明確的統一解釋。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2011
Legislator Huang Wei-tse has been accused of accepting 3.6 million NT in bribes from cemetery developers. The Tainan District Court ruled him innocent in the first instance trial. It ruled that industry leaders gave him "campaign contributions" rather than "bribe money." On the same day, the Supreme Court found Lin Chung-cheng, former member of the FSC, guilty of accepting 1.87 million NT in bribes from a securities firm, in the form of repairs to his cabin. He has been sentenced to fourteen years in prison. The discrepancy in sentences between the two cases, is like night and day.
The "Political Donations Act" has been in force nearly seven years. The provisions of the act clearly define what a political contribution is. But in legal and political reality, how politicians receive money and gifts from others, remains one giant gray area. This leads to almost diametrically opposite court rulings. Sometimes bribery is severely punished. Sometimes bribery is rationalized as "political contributions," enabling the defendant to escape criminal prosecution. This has led to inconsistencies in the administration of justice, and left people confused and troubled.
Consider the Huang Wei-tse case. He accepted money from a business firm on three different occasions. Of the three, only the third sum, which amounted to 2 million NT, coincided with the third legislative election. The 2 million NT check was deposited in his election campaign account. This could be considered in line with the legal requirements for political contributions. But the other two sums he accepted when no election was ongoing. They were inconsistent with the legal requirements pertaining to campaign accounts. They were cash transfers, in sums of 1,000,000 NT and 600,000 NT. The amount, the form, and the procedure were all in violation of the legal requirements of the Political Donation Act. Wu Den-yih received a half million NT in political contributions from industry during election season. This was deposited in his account according to the prevailing legal requirements. But because the sum was in cash, the half million NT was confiscated. He was fined 20,000 NT in addition. The judge in the first instance trial ruled that the sums Huang Wei-tse received were "political contributions," yet failed to hold him legally responsible. Was he deliberately pulling his punches? Or was he manipulating the law?
Also, the industry head transferred the funds through Huang Wei-tse's assistant. The first time 1,000,000 NT in cash changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 600,000 NT. His assistant received 400,000 NT. The second time 600,000 changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 400,000 NT. His assistant received 200,000 NT. If these were above board campaign contributions, why did his assistant "get a piece of the action?" The money was divided 60/40. Was his assistant "skimming off the top?" Was he being paid a "finder's fee?" This must be investigated thoroughly. It may not be passed off simply as "campaign contributions."
Lin Chung-cheng is not an elected official. He accepted gifts of LCD TVs and cabin repair costs from industry heads. He cannot write them off as political contributions. He accepted nearly 2 million NT in benefits. For this, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Huang Wei-tse accept 3,000,000 NT, yet got off scot-free. Lin can only bemoan his bad luck, for not running into that kind of judge. But what legal standards have such diametrically opposed decisions left society? Is the justice system nothing more than a game of Russian Roulette? It is nothing more than a matter of dumb luck?
Over the past year, a long string of court decisions have thrown open the doors to bribery in the guise of political contributions. They have blurred the line between between black and white. They have trampled over the dignity of the law. Two major problems are involved. One. Illegal gifts from industry have been characterized as "political contributions," and recipients have not been held responsibile for criminal conduct. Two. The perpetrators argue there was no "quid pro quo," thereby rationalizing bribery. This has indirectly promoted the phenomenon of the "rationalization of bribery."
Consider the most obvious example. Chen Shui-bian used his Second Financial Reform "program" to exort 600 million NT in bribes from the financial sector. Chou Chan-chun had the chutzpah to argue that Chen never exercised "presidential authority," and let him off scot-free. Former Minister of Transportation Kuo Yao-chi received a tea container filled with 20,000 US from an industry head. The physical evidence was incontrovertible. Yet he was acquitted on the basis that "there was no quid pro quo. The Huang Wei-tse case was the same. He admitted lobbying the Construction and Planning Agency. Yet the Full Court ruled that he lobbied in a "personal capacity" rather than "on behalf of the Legislative Yuan." It ruled that his lobbying had nothing to do with his legislative duties, therefore the money he accepted could not be considered a bribe. But if he was not a legislator, would the Construction and Planning Department take another look at the case merely because he asked it to? Can officials or elected representatives accept money, as long as the case is not directly under their jurisdiction? The Judicial Yuan must provide the public with an acounting.
If only one or two cases were involved, that would be one thing. But a spate of such critical court rulings have exposed official wrongdoing and official undermining of the nation's laws. How can one not be concerned? Lai Hao-min has been President of the Judicial Yuan for just over two months. He earnestly wants to establish an enduring system of justice. But his attempt to establish judicial integrity is being undermined by justice system officials with weaker and weaker commitments to the law. Does he really not mind?
The Judicial Yuan must clarify three issues. One. It must make a clearer distinction between "bribes" and "contributions." Two. It must prosecute illegal campaign contributions. Three. It must clearly define "quid pro quo relationship" and "official responsibility."
多少貪汙，假政治獻金之名以行之
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.08 01:27 am
立委黃偉哲被控收受墓園開發業者三百六十萬元賄賂案，台南地院一審以業者給付的是「政治獻金」而非「賄款」，判他無罪。同一天，前金管會委員林忠正則因收受證券業者為其修繕小木屋等之一百八十七萬賄款，遭最高法院重判十四年定讞。兩案用法及量刑差距之大，直如天壤。
「政治獻金法」實施至今將屆七年，雖條文中對獻金有明確定義和規範，但在法政實務上，政治人物如何收取外界金錢及饋贈，卻仍存在極大的混沌地帶。其中，又以司法判決認定簡直南轅北轍，有時對賄賂行為嚴刑重懲，有時又以「政治獻金」為「賄賂」開脫罪刑，造成司法天平的傾斜偏倚，最讓民眾感到困惑難平。
以黃偉哲的案件為例，他三度接受同一業者金錢，其中僅第三次的兩百萬元正逢立委選舉，以三張支票軋入其選舉專戶，算是合乎政治獻金的規定。至於另兩次，他均在無選舉的情況下收取金錢，不僅不符開立專戶之規定，且收取的分別是一百萬及六十萬元的「現金」，額度、形式及程序均違反政治獻金法規定。先前吳敦義在選季收受業者五十萬獻金，雖依法納入專戶，只因收取的是「現金」，不僅五十萬遭沒收，還追繳廿萬元罰金。在這種情況下，一審法官說黃偉哲收受的是「政治獻金」，卻又不追究其實質違法之責，這是故意放水，或是玩弄法令？
再說，業者是透過黃偉哲的助理交付金錢，第一次的百萬現金，黃偉哲收了六十萬，其助理取四十萬元；第二次的六十萬元，黃偉哲拿四十萬，助理取廿萬元。若是正大光明的政治獻金，怎可能發生助理「分一杯羹」的情事？如此三二拆帳的手法，是助理居間「私吞」，或是「牽線」之酬勞，必須查明就裡，不容以一句「政治獻金」含糊帶過。
林忠正不是民選官員，收受業者贈送的液晶電視及小木屋修繕款等，沒有政治獻金的藉口可用；貪了總值不到兩百萬元的便宜，換得十四年牢獄之災，比起黃偉哲收受三百萬卻無罪脫身，他只能恨自己運氣太差沒碰到那樣的法官。然而，如此南轅北轍的判決，將留給社會什麼樣的法律準繩？難道正義只是俄羅斯賭盤的遊戲，只看各人的司法運氣？
過去一年，多次司法判決以政治獻金之名對收賄者門戶大開，不僅模糊了政治清廉的黑白界際，更嚴重踐踏了法律尊嚴。其間存在兩大問題：一是把業者的非法饋贈說成「政治獻金」，卻又不追究收受者的違失責任；二是以「查無對價關係」為當事人開脫，間接推促了「收賄合理化」的現象。
最明顯的例子，陳水扁在二次金改收受金融業者六億多元賄款，周占春竟以金改「非總統職權」為其脫罪；前交長郭瑤琪收受業者裝在茶葉罐中的兩萬美元，事證明確，竟也以「無對價關係」獲判無罪。包括黃偉哲的案子，他坦承曾向營建署詢問過該案；而合議庭卻稱其以「個人身分」而非「代表立法院」關切業者陳情，與立委職務無關，故無法認定為賄款。問題是，若沒有立委角色，營建署會答覆他詢問個案嗎？如果這樣的邏輯成立，是否只要非直接職務所轄，官員或民代都可以任意收受金錢饋贈？這點，司法院必須向公眾說個明白。
若只是一二個案也就罷了，但接二連三關鍵性的司法審判，一再捅政府官箴的漏子，都在挖國家法律的牆腳，能不教人憂心？賴浩敏出任司法院長兩個多月，心心念念要打造能流傳千秋萬世的「司法園區」，但對於廉潔的城牆被司法人越削越薄，對於法律信念被恐龍法官越拈越輕，他難道一點都不在意？
司法院必須釐清這三個問題：一，就「賄賂」與「獻金」的分際畫出更清楚的界線；二，對於不合法的政治獻金，一律需依法起訴。三，對所謂「對價關係」與「主管職務」之認定，提出更明確的統一解釋。
Friday, January 7, 2011
Monetary Policy Must Be Long Range
Monetary Policy Must Be Long Range
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 7, 2011
The Central Bank's latest monetary policy has "Three Targets." It is raising interest rates 0.125 points to "target inflation." It is expanding credit control measures to "target real estate speculation." It is substantially increasing the amount of foreign capital in NT denominated savings accounts to "target foreign currency speculation." The Central Bank may be clear about its targets. It may be direct in its methods. But the NTD has recently undergone changes. The real estate market has also been affected. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of monetary policy. From a mid to long-term perspective, monetary policy will need considerably more adjustment.
The Central Bank's "Three Targets" policy appears to cover everything. But raising NTD interest rates will attract international hot money. Targeting inflation and targeting foreign currency speculation are to some extent at odds with each other. The policy involves a dilemma. For one, it imposes a 0.125 point rate hike. For another, it raises the deposit reserve rate for foreign capital in NTD accounts to 90%. As we can see, the Central Bank still sees targeting foreign currency speculation as more important than targeting inflation. Recent reports from foreign exchange markets say that George Soros has targeted the NTD. The Central Bank has good reason to be alarmed. Especially since other Asian countries are also attempting to prevent the influx of hot money. The government should openly declare war on hot money. This is consistent with the principle of Central Bank intervention in currency markets in the event of abnormal fluctuations.
Besides, much of the upward pressure on commodity prices and real estate prices comes from excess liquidity. According to statistics, in November of last year, the M2 money supply was 30.6 trillion dollars. It was 2.3 times the gross domestic product (GDP), and came close to historic highs. This demonstrates the degree of liquidity in domestic capital. But this liquidity has two sources. One. The financial tsunami and an extremely loose monetary supply. Two. The Central Bank's long term defense of exchange rates, its foreign currency purchases, and its subsequent release of NTD into the market. Therefore it must target the accelerants -- commodity prices, the tinder -- real estate prices, and the combustibles -- liquidity. If the Central Bank targets foreign currency speculation, it should be able to reduce pressure on the exchange rate. Controlling the flow from its source will also yield short-term benefits.
But defending exchange rates to keep out hot money is merely a short-term countermeasure. Currency exchange rates must reflect long-term economic growth and trade strength. Otherwise expectations of currency appreciation mean that hot money will inevitably interfere with monetary policy. Also, the longer one delays, the higher the price one must eventually pay. Liquidity has increased in recent years. Monetary policy now sits atop a landslide dam about to give way. The real attraction is the expected appreciation of hot money, and the resulting capital gains. The NTD has appreciated less than the currencies of less developed neighbors. But it has not lagged behind economically. Paradoxically, this may encourage more attacks. Therefore Central Bank monetary policy must target short-term currency speculation. But in the mid and long term, it must reduce expectations of appreciation, and inhibit asset price speculation. It must allow the market to determine the price of the NTD. and aggressively target real estate speculation. Each of these policies is necessary.
Now consider the targeting of real estate speculation. This reduces the incentive for hot money inflows. It also reduces the risk of excessive loans in the housing market. Lest we forget, one of the causes of the financial crisis was inflated U.S. housing prices. This led to the excessive expansion of credit. When real estate prices turned around, the entire financial system experienced cash flow problems. High real estate prices have long been the prime cause of public discontent. Targeting real estate speculation may calm the public, and stabilize the political situation. But the Central Bank has targeted only certain areas, special loans as a means of credit control. The domestic money supply remains too large. Therefore its policies may not be effective as hoped. It must raise interest rates in a comprehensive manner. Increased costs will reduce the speed at which funds flow into the housing market.
Targeting real estate speculation requires raising interest rates. A tightening of monetary policy is necessary for many reasons. When assessing quality, people usually resort to comparisons, They compare their level of development and economic structure with that of similar countries. They compare consumer price increases. But from a long-term perspective, a less than two per cent rate of return of capital is unlikely to promote investment in productive capacity and may limit long-term economic growth. Funds will flock the real estate and equity markets, which yield far higher returns, creating asset bubbles. Low interest rates are even more likely to lead to financial inertia, over-reliance on public investment in debt, and neglect its self-liquidating character. Therefore, getting interest rates back on track is key to the structural adjustment of domestic economic development.
The global world economy will invariably deal us wild cards. Monetary policy involves a time lag. With monetary policy one can not look only at the current numbers. One must look far ahead. Central Bank President Peng Hui-nan began raising rates in June of last year. He displayed the panache of a star CEO. But we remind Peng that while gradually raising interest rates 0.125 points may not be harmful to the health, any beneficial effects may be diluted by the time lag. It is not an adequate solution to this year's raging inflation pressures. It may even end up stillborn thanks to political and economic variables, and cause the government's carefully laid out monetary policy to fall short.
貨幣政策要短打長攻並濟
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.07
中央銀行最新的貨幣政策訂下「三打」目標，以升息半碼「打通膨」，以擴大針對性信用管制措施「打炒房」、以大幅提高外資新台幣活期存款準備率「打炒匯」。儘管央行目標清楚、手段直接，但觀察近日新台幣變化、房地產買賣氣氛，似乎所受影響有限。現在評斷貨幣政策的成效自是言之過早，以中長期觀點而言，貨幣政策其實還有不小的調整空間。
央行的「三打」政策看似面面俱到，但因調升新台幣利率會增加國際炒匯熱錢的誘因，「打通膨」與「打炒匯」之間也存有某些矛盾。但從這個兩難間的政策力度，一是維持零點一二五的半碼升息幅度，一是將外資在台新台幣帳戶的存準率提到九成，則可看出央行當下仍是「打炒匯」重於「打通膨」。從近期外匯市場不斷傳出炒匯巨鱷索羅斯鎖定新台幣的訊息，央行確實必須提高警覺，尤其是在其他亞洲國家也全面築堤防堵熱錢之際，台灣自應以明確的行動向熱錢宣戰；這也符合央行干預匯市非正常波動的原則。
再者，當前物價、房價上漲的壓力，有很大一部分是來自過剩的流動性；根據統計，去年十一月貨幣供給總計數M2已達卅點六兆元，是國內生產毛額（GDP）的二點三倍，逼近歷史高峰，凸顯國內游資之多。但這麼多的流動性，一是來自金融海嘯後極度寬鬆的貨幣供給，另一則是央行長期守匯買匯下所釋出的新台幣；因此，要移除助燃物價、房價的柴薪，收回流動性勢所必然。由此邏輯推斷，央行先「打炒匯」以降低守匯壓力，從源頭控制流動性，也可收短期之效。
然而，守匯抗熱錢畢竟只能是短期對策；如果一國貨幣的匯率水準長期未能反映其經濟成長實力及貿易表現，進而引發升值的預期心理，貨幣政策就會時時刻刻為熱錢所苦所擾；而且時間愈久、代價愈大，近年流動性的持續增加正是一例，反而讓貨幣政策如同坐在一個隨時可能潰堤的堰塞湖上。由於真正吸引熱錢的是升值的預期及由此產生的資產增值利益，在新台幣升值幅度落後鄰國，而經濟表現並未落後下，反而可能引來更多的攻擊；因此，央行的貨幣政策除了正面迎擊短期炒匯巨鱷外，從中長期而言，仍應由降低升值預期著手，並抑制資產價格的炒作，而放手讓市場決定新台幣價格、積極「打炒房」，都是必要之策。
再就「打炒房」而言，這不僅是為了減少熱錢流入的誘因，也是要降低目前金融體系放款過度集中房市的風險；別忘了，金融海嘯的成因之一就是美國房價非理性上漲造成信用過度擴張，以致房價反轉而下時造成整個金融體系周轉不靈。再者，高房價一直高居民怨之首，「打炒房」亦可收安定社會、穩定政局之效。然而，央行僅以針對特定區域、特定貸款做信用管制，在國內資金供給過剩下，恐難以起到預期的作用，仍須輔以升息的全面性作為，以增加成本來阻擋資金湧向房市的速度。
不只「打炒房」需要升息，從很多層面看，貨幣政策都有升息的必要。一般評估水準的高低，不少人會用相對的概念，即與經濟結構或發展程度相當的國家相比，或與物價上漲幅度相比。但是，從長期的觀點，不到百分之二的資金報酬率，既難以促進生產性投資的意願，限制長期經濟成長的能量，更會驅使資金湧向報酬率動輒以倍計的房地產、股票等市場，催生資產泡沫；同樣的，低利率更養成財政惰性，在公共投資上過度依賴舉債，而輕忽其自償性。因此，利率走回上升軌道，對國內經濟發展的結構性調整，實具有關鍵的啟動作用。
此外，由於世界經濟總有意想不到的變數，貨幣政策更有時間滯後的遞延特性，貨幣政策也不能只看眼下的數字，而需要保持充分的前瞻性。從這點而言，央行總裁彭淮南在去年六月即啟動升息循環，實已展現七A總裁的功力；但還是要提醒彭總裁，一次半碼的緩步升息，藥效溫和雖不傷身，卻也可能被時間稀釋了效果，不足以因應今年來勢洶洶的物價上漲壓力，更可能還沒有升足，就會因政治、經濟變數而中斷，讓精心布局的貨幣政策功虧一簣。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 7, 2011
The Central Bank's latest monetary policy has "Three Targets." It is raising interest rates 0.125 points to "target inflation." It is expanding credit control measures to "target real estate speculation." It is substantially increasing the amount of foreign capital in NT denominated savings accounts to "target foreign currency speculation." The Central Bank may be clear about its targets. It may be direct in its methods. But the NTD has recently undergone changes. The real estate market has also been affected. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of monetary policy. From a mid to long-term perspective, monetary policy will need considerably more adjustment.
The Central Bank's "Three Targets" policy appears to cover everything. But raising NTD interest rates will attract international hot money. Targeting inflation and targeting foreign currency speculation are to some extent at odds with each other. The policy involves a dilemma. For one, it imposes a 0.125 point rate hike. For another, it raises the deposit reserve rate for foreign capital in NTD accounts to 90%. As we can see, the Central Bank still sees targeting foreign currency speculation as more important than targeting inflation. Recent reports from foreign exchange markets say that George Soros has targeted the NTD. The Central Bank has good reason to be alarmed. Especially since other Asian countries are also attempting to prevent the influx of hot money. The government should openly declare war on hot money. This is consistent with the principle of Central Bank intervention in currency markets in the event of abnormal fluctuations.
Besides, much of the upward pressure on commodity prices and real estate prices comes from excess liquidity. According to statistics, in November of last year, the M2 money supply was 30.6 trillion dollars. It was 2.3 times the gross domestic product (GDP), and came close to historic highs. This demonstrates the degree of liquidity in domestic capital. But this liquidity has two sources. One. The financial tsunami and an extremely loose monetary supply. Two. The Central Bank's long term defense of exchange rates, its foreign currency purchases, and its subsequent release of NTD into the market. Therefore it must target the accelerants -- commodity prices, the tinder -- real estate prices, and the combustibles -- liquidity. If the Central Bank targets foreign currency speculation, it should be able to reduce pressure on the exchange rate. Controlling the flow from its source will also yield short-term benefits.
But defending exchange rates to keep out hot money is merely a short-term countermeasure. Currency exchange rates must reflect long-term economic growth and trade strength. Otherwise expectations of currency appreciation mean that hot money will inevitably interfere with monetary policy. Also, the longer one delays, the higher the price one must eventually pay. Liquidity has increased in recent years. Monetary policy now sits atop a landslide dam about to give way. The real attraction is the expected appreciation of hot money, and the resulting capital gains. The NTD has appreciated less than the currencies of less developed neighbors. But it has not lagged behind economically. Paradoxically, this may encourage more attacks. Therefore Central Bank monetary policy must target short-term currency speculation. But in the mid and long term, it must reduce expectations of appreciation, and inhibit asset price speculation. It must allow the market to determine the price of the NTD. and aggressively target real estate speculation. Each of these policies is necessary.
Now consider the targeting of real estate speculation. This reduces the incentive for hot money inflows. It also reduces the risk of excessive loans in the housing market. Lest we forget, one of the causes of the financial crisis was inflated U.S. housing prices. This led to the excessive expansion of credit. When real estate prices turned around, the entire financial system experienced cash flow problems. High real estate prices have long been the prime cause of public discontent. Targeting real estate speculation may calm the public, and stabilize the political situation. But the Central Bank has targeted only certain areas, special loans as a means of credit control. The domestic money supply remains too large. Therefore its policies may not be effective as hoped. It must raise interest rates in a comprehensive manner. Increased costs will reduce the speed at which funds flow into the housing market.
Targeting real estate speculation requires raising interest rates. A tightening of monetary policy is necessary for many reasons. When assessing quality, people usually resort to comparisons, They compare their level of development and economic structure with that of similar countries. They compare consumer price increases. But from a long-term perspective, a less than two per cent rate of return of capital is unlikely to promote investment in productive capacity and may limit long-term economic growth. Funds will flock the real estate and equity markets, which yield far higher returns, creating asset bubbles. Low interest rates are even more likely to lead to financial inertia, over-reliance on public investment in debt, and neglect its self-liquidating character. Therefore, getting interest rates back on track is key to the structural adjustment of domestic economic development.
The global world economy will invariably deal us wild cards. Monetary policy involves a time lag. With monetary policy one can not look only at the current numbers. One must look far ahead. Central Bank President Peng Hui-nan began raising rates in June of last year. He displayed the panache of a star CEO. But we remind Peng that while gradually raising interest rates 0.125 points may not be harmful to the health, any beneficial effects may be diluted by the time lag. It is not an adequate solution to this year's raging inflation pressures. It may even end up stillborn thanks to political and economic variables, and cause the government's carefully laid out monetary policy to fall short.
貨幣政策要短打長攻並濟
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.07
中央銀行最新的貨幣政策訂下「三打」目標，以升息半碼「打通膨」，以擴大針對性信用管制措施「打炒房」、以大幅提高外資新台幣活期存款準備率「打炒匯」。儘管央行目標清楚、手段直接，但觀察近日新台幣變化、房地產買賣氣氛，似乎所受影響有限。現在評斷貨幣政策的成效自是言之過早，以中長期觀點而言，貨幣政策其實還有不小的調整空間。
央行的「三打」政策看似面面俱到，但因調升新台幣利率會增加國際炒匯熱錢的誘因，「打通膨」與「打炒匯」之間也存有某些矛盾。但從這個兩難間的政策力度，一是維持零點一二五的半碼升息幅度，一是將外資在台新台幣帳戶的存準率提到九成，則可看出央行當下仍是「打炒匯」重於「打通膨」。從近期外匯市場不斷傳出炒匯巨鱷索羅斯鎖定新台幣的訊息，央行確實必須提高警覺，尤其是在其他亞洲國家也全面築堤防堵熱錢之際，台灣自應以明確的行動向熱錢宣戰；這也符合央行干預匯市非正常波動的原則。
再者，當前物價、房價上漲的壓力，有很大一部分是來自過剩的流動性；根據統計，去年十一月貨幣供給總計數M2已達卅點六兆元，是國內生產毛額（GDP）的二點三倍，逼近歷史高峰，凸顯國內游資之多。但這麼多的流動性，一是來自金融海嘯後極度寬鬆的貨幣供給，另一則是央行長期守匯買匯下所釋出的新台幣；因此，要移除助燃物價、房價的柴薪，收回流動性勢所必然。由此邏輯推斷，央行先「打炒匯」以降低守匯壓力，從源頭控制流動性，也可收短期之效。
然而，守匯抗熱錢畢竟只能是短期對策；如果一國貨幣的匯率水準長期未能反映其經濟成長實力及貿易表現，進而引發升值的預期心理，貨幣政策就會時時刻刻為熱錢所苦所擾；而且時間愈久、代價愈大，近年流動性的持續增加正是一例，反而讓貨幣政策如同坐在一個隨時可能潰堤的堰塞湖上。由於真正吸引熱錢的是升值的預期及由此產生的資產增值利益，在新台幣升值幅度落後鄰國，而經濟表現並未落後下，反而可能引來更多的攻擊；因此，央行的貨幣政策除了正面迎擊短期炒匯巨鱷外，從中長期而言，仍應由降低升值預期著手，並抑制資產價格的炒作，而放手讓市場決定新台幣價格、積極「打炒房」，都是必要之策。
再就「打炒房」而言，這不僅是為了減少熱錢流入的誘因，也是要降低目前金融體系放款過度集中房市的風險；別忘了，金融海嘯的成因之一就是美國房價非理性上漲造成信用過度擴張，以致房價反轉而下時造成整個金融體系周轉不靈。再者，高房價一直高居民怨之首，「打炒房」亦可收安定社會、穩定政局之效。然而，央行僅以針對特定區域、特定貸款做信用管制，在國內資金供給過剩下，恐難以起到預期的作用，仍須輔以升息的全面性作為，以增加成本來阻擋資金湧向房市的速度。
不只「打炒房」需要升息，從很多層面看，貨幣政策都有升息的必要。一般評估水準的高低，不少人會用相對的概念，即與經濟結構或發展程度相當的國家相比，或與物價上漲幅度相比。但是，從長期的觀點，不到百分之二的資金報酬率，既難以促進生產性投資的意願，限制長期經濟成長的能量，更會驅使資金湧向報酬率動輒以倍計的房地產、股票等市場，催生資產泡沫；同樣的，低利率更養成財政惰性，在公共投資上過度依賴舉債，而輕忽其自償性。因此，利率走回上升軌道，對國內經濟發展的結構性調整，實具有關鍵的啟動作用。
此外，由於世界經濟總有意想不到的變數，貨幣政策更有時間滯後的遞延特性，貨幣政策也不能只看眼下的數字，而需要保持充分的前瞻性。從這點而言，央行總裁彭淮南在去年六月即啟動升息循環，實已展現七A總裁的功力；但還是要提醒彭總裁，一次半碼的緩步升息，藥效溫和雖不傷身，卻也可能被時間稀釋了效果，不足以因應今年來勢洶洶的物價上漲壓力，更可能還沒有升足，就會因政治、經濟變數而中斷，讓精心布局的貨幣政策功虧一簣。
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Health Care Must Be More Than a Pretext for a Crucifixion
Health Care Must Be More Than a Pretext for a Crucifixion
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 6, 2011
The Second Generation Health Care Bill has become law. The Department of Health estimates that once health care premiums and coverage are adjusted, the health insurance system will remain solvent for the next five years. It will not have to raise premiums. The main intention of the bill passed by the Legislative Yuan was to make premiums fairer, to cover the shorfall in the health care system budget, and to make the system more egalitarian. The amended law gets a passing grade.
But as predicted, Director of Health Yang Chi-liang has stepped down. Once again, health insurance rate hikes have become an excuse to crucify the Director of Health. The political environment on Taiwan has once again subjected experienced professionals to undeserved abuse.
Seeking new sources of income, Second Generation Health Care has undergone a major change, from a single-track system to a dual-track system. The current system calculates monthly premiums entirely on the basis of income. This is the standard premium. The new system calculates monthly premiums on the basis of dividends, interest, and business income as well. This is the supplementary premium. The fee base has been expanded. As a result, annual premiums will increase 20 billion NT. According to Department of Health estimates, the dual-track system will obviate the need for health insurance rate hikes for the next five years. As a result of the new supplementary premium system, highly-paid professionals, major investors in the stock market, company bosses worth hundreds of millions of dollars, highly paid performing artists, and highly-paid talking heads will have to pay higher premiums. This is consistent with public demands for social justice.
In addition to increased premiums, Second Generation Health Care includes other reforms. For example, expatriates usually do not need to pay premiums. But they often make special trips to Taiwan each year. They renew their policies, pay the premium for one month, and immediately begin enjoying exactly the same benefits as everyone else. The new system requires expatriates to return for a six-month waiting period. Only then can they begin receiving benefits. These reforms will reduce the extent to which people exploit the health care system's limited resources. For underprivileged families and victims of domestic violence, Second Generation Health Insurance will continue to honor their cards even if they cannot pay the premiums, even if they are late in their payments, and if they are sick and unable to receive medical care.
Yang Chi-liang and other medical professionals have certain ideals. Second Generation Health Insurance failed to nullify six categories and 14 items defining the status of policy holders. Instead it adopted a "total household income" policy for calculating premiums. This amounts to a major failure. Nevertheless it mandated increased premiums. Health insurance rates for the majority of salaried and working class policy holders were reduced from 5.17% to 4.91%. Approximately 83% of all policy holders will have their premiums reduced. This is probably the best compromise possible between ensuring a solvent health care system, and minimizing the financial burden on the public. It was also a major achievement for long-suffering Director of Health Yang Chi-liang. Unfortunately, he was still forced to step down.
Look back at the history of health care. Every Director of Health understands that when the NHI was created, no one had any experience with national health care. Estimates for premiums, for dependents, for fees and other items were still very rough. They soon had to be adjusted upwards. But no one dared to make the first move. Anyone who did, would be blasted by the Legislative Yuan. The Executive Yuan, needless to say, cowered and did nothing. In 2002, Li Ming-liang was the only Director of Health who dared call for a rate hike. But as soon as it was passed, he too had to step down. Add to this the example of Yang Chi-liang, and health insurance rate hikes have become synonymous with Directors of Health stepping down!
But the most ridiculous aspect of Yang Chi-liang's resignation was that he was not forced to step down due to pressure from the opposition party or the public. He was forced to step down because he was sabotaged and attacked by the ruling party executive and legislature. The most popular official in the cabinet was forced to tender his resignation. Last March, health insurance premiums were hiked. Concerned about the five cities elections, Premier Wu Den-yih pressured Yang Chi-liang not to increase rates as much as planned. In November, the Second Generation National Health Insurance Bill was submitted to the Legislative Yuan. Amazingly, KMT legislators were the ones who blocked the bill. Then, over the past two days, KMT legislators were the ones who asked teary-eyed, that Yang Chi-liang stay on. Their two-faced behavior was truly disgusting.
Li Ming-liang defended Yang Chi-liang. Li said that when he proposed dual increases in health insurance premiums, there was a public outcry, A number of NGOs and trade unions took to the streets. The pressure was immense, and hard to imagine. But at least he had the support of the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan. Public opposition to the current increase was comparatively mild. But ignorance on the part of the ruling party and deliberate distortions spread by the opposition party left Yang Chi-liang all alone, hung out to dry, surrounded by enemies, front and rear. He had no choice. Not leaving would merely have made him a glutton for punishment.
Yang Chi-liang's resignation has been approved. He asked to be relieved, and he was. The public sees him as a man with the courage of his convictions, as a political appointee with the guts to defend his own policies. Over the past two years, the Ma administration has used and abused three Directors of Health in rapid succession, including Lin Fang-yu, Yeh Ching-chuan, and Yang Chi-liang. All three were well thought of by the medical community. All three were capable professionals. Yet their average tenure was less than one year. They did not step down because they committed major errors in medical policy. Yeh Ching-chuan was ordered to resign and wage an unsuccessful campaign for elective office. This underscores the alarming rate at which Directors of Health are being used up.
Yang Chi-liang has quit. His departure reveals the cruel logic of Ma administration rule. It persistently trumpets its idealism, its assumption of total responsibility, its commitment to public policy objectives, and to cabinet officials who have earned the public trust. But when push comes to shove, all it ever does is back down. How can the public not be disillusioned?
別再讓健保議題 變成署長絞肉機
2011-01-06 中國時報
二代健保修法過關，根據衛生署估算，這次調整保費費率及費基範圍後，可保五年健保財務平衡，不會再談費率調整。綜觀立法院通過的法案內容，最主要的精神是保費計算更趨公平，既可補健保財務大洞，也更符合社會公平原則，算是一次差強人意的修法結果。
只不過，一如預告，衛生署長楊志良下台走人，再一次的，健保費率調整變成了衛生署長絞肉機，也為台灣政治生態霸凌專業再添一例。
為了替健保找財源，二代健保一大變革是費基從單軌變雙軌；現制只就月投保薪資計算保費（一般保費），新制把股利、利息、執行業務所得等也計入（補充保費），費基擴大，一年可以因此多收到二百億保費。根據衛生署試算，雙軌制因此可以使健保在五年內不必再調整保費費率，而領高額獎金的業務員、股市大戶、億萬身價的大老板，還有高所得的藝人與名嘴則因為補充保費的設計而要多繳保費，符合社會公平的呼聲。
除了補充保費，二代健保還有多項改革。例如，目前海外僑民平常不繳保費，但一年專程回來一次，幾天內辦好加保、繳了一個月的保費，馬上就可以和你我享受完全一樣的健保待遇。新制則要求，僑胞回國要經過六個月等待期，之後才可以加保看病，以此減少「占便宜」式的健保資源消耗。對於弱勢家庭、家暴受害者等經濟弱勢對象，二代健保有不鎖卡的規定，以免他們因繳不起保費或遲繳而有病沒法醫。
雖然，從楊志良和部分醫界人士的理想來看，二代健保未能取消六類十四目投保人身分分類、改從「家戶總所得」的概念計算保費，仍是一大敗筆。但因為補充保費的制定，適用廣大受薪及勞工階級的健保費率反而由現行五．一七％降低為四．九一％，約有八三％的投保人保費會降低，這個結果應該是健保財務與民眾負擔二者間最大的公約數，也是奮鬥多時的衛生署長楊志良的大功一件。遺憾的是，他竟然還是辭職下台了。
回顧國內的健保歷程，每一任署長都知道，當年健保開辦，國內沒有經驗，儘管經過各種精算，費率、眷屬、費基等重大項目仍很粗率，必須調整、調高。但沒有人敢碰，一碰，立法院就罵、行政院就龜縮。民國九十一年，唯一調漲健保費率的衛生署長李明亮也是法案一通過就下台，加上楊志良，健保費率調整與衛生署長下台成了同義詞！
然而，楊志良下台最令人感到荒謬的是，他並非因反對黨或社會壓力而下台，他之所以走人，絕大部分因素是執政黨行政、立法部門的掣肘或打擊，才讓這位內閣人氣最高的政務官大唱驪歌。去年三月，現行健保費率調漲，因五都選舉考量，行政院長吳敦義硬是要求楊志良降低調漲幅度；同年十一月，二代健保草案在立法院闖關，竟然是國民黨立委封殺草案。但這兩天又是國民黨立委出面哽咽慰留楊志良，前後嘴臉令人作嘔。
李明亮替楊志良叫屈，他說，當年他提出健保雙漲，輿論大譁，各種民間團體、工會走上街頭，壓力之大，難以想像，但他至少還有總統府和行政院的支持。這次調漲，來自社會力量的反彈相對輕微的多，但因執政黨的愚昧畏縮及反對黨的刻意扭曲操作，楊志良只能孤軍奮戰、腹背受敵，不走人，是自取其辱！
楊志良請辭獲准，是他求仁得仁，民眾也看到一個敢於堅持理想、替政策辯護的政務官。而馬政府二年多來，已經消耗了三任衛生署長，從林芳郁到葉金川到楊志良，都是醫界風評不錯，也有相當能力的專業人士，但他們平均任期不到一年，下台原因也並非醫療政策有重大錯誤─葉金川甚至是啣命辭官參選卻敗選！反映了衛生署長驚人的消耗率。
楊志良走人，反映了當下馬政府治國團隊中的一個殘酷邏輯，一路堅持理念、任事負責、達成政策目標並獲民意肯定的閣員，最終還是「不如歸去」，如何不令人喟嘆！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 6, 2011
The Second Generation Health Care Bill has become law. The Department of Health estimates that once health care premiums and coverage are adjusted, the health insurance system will remain solvent for the next five years. It will not have to raise premiums. The main intention of the bill passed by the Legislative Yuan was to make premiums fairer, to cover the shorfall in the health care system budget, and to make the system more egalitarian. The amended law gets a passing grade.
But as predicted, Director of Health Yang Chi-liang has stepped down. Once again, health insurance rate hikes have become an excuse to crucify the Director of Health. The political environment on Taiwan has once again subjected experienced professionals to undeserved abuse.
Seeking new sources of income, Second Generation Health Care has undergone a major change, from a single-track system to a dual-track system. The current system calculates monthly premiums entirely on the basis of income. This is the standard premium. The new system calculates monthly premiums on the basis of dividends, interest, and business income as well. This is the supplementary premium. The fee base has been expanded. As a result, annual premiums will increase 20 billion NT. According to Department of Health estimates, the dual-track system will obviate the need for health insurance rate hikes for the next five years. As a result of the new supplementary premium system, highly-paid professionals, major investors in the stock market, company bosses worth hundreds of millions of dollars, highly paid performing artists, and highly-paid talking heads will have to pay higher premiums. This is consistent with public demands for social justice.
In addition to increased premiums, Second Generation Health Care includes other reforms. For example, expatriates usually do not need to pay premiums. But they often make special trips to Taiwan each year. They renew their policies, pay the premium for one month, and immediately begin enjoying exactly the same benefits as everyone else. The new system requires expatriates to return for a six-month waiting period. Only then can they begin receiving benefits. These reforms will reduce the extent to which people exploit the health care system's limited resources. For underprivileged families and victims of domestic violence, Second Generation Health Insurance will continue to honor their cards even if they cannot pay the premiums, even if they are late in their payments, and if they are sick and unable to receive medical care.
Yang Chi-liang and other medical professionals have certain ideals. Second Generation Health Insurance failed to nullify six categories and 14 items defining the status of policy holders. Instead it adopted a "total household income" policy for calculating premiums. This amounts to a major failure. Nevertheless it mandated increased premiums. Health insurance rates for the majority of salaried and working class policy holders were reduced from 5.17% to 4.91%. Approximately 83% of all policy holders will have their premiums reduced. This is probably the best compromise possible between ensuring a solvent health care system, and minimizing the financial burden on the public. It was also a major achievement for long-suffering Director of Health Yang Chi-liang. Unfortunately, he was still forced to step down.
Look back at the history of health care. Every Director of Health understands that when the NHI was created, no one had any experience with national health care. Estimates for premiums, for dependents, for fees and other items were still very rough. They soon had to be adjusted upwards. But no one dared to make the first move. Anyone who did, would be blasted by the Legislative Yuan. The Executive Yuan, needless to say, cowered and did nothing. In 2002, Li Ming-liang was the only Director of Health who dared call for a rate hike. But as soon as it was passed, he too had to step down. Add to this the example of Yang Chi-liang, and health insurance rate hikes have become synonymous with Directors of Health stepping down!
But the most ridiculous aspect of Yang Chi-liang's resignation was that he was not forced to step down due to pressure from the opposition party or the public. He was forced to step down because he was sabotaged and attacked by the ruling party executive and legislature. The most popular official in the cabinet was forced to tender his resignation. Last March, health insurance premiums were hiked. Concerned about the five cities elections, Premier Wu Den-yih pressured Yang Chi-liang not to increase rates as much as planned. In November, the Second Generation National Health Insurance Bill was submitted to the Legislative Yuan. Amazingly, KMT legislators were the ones who blocked the bill. Then, over the past two days, KMT legislators were the ones who asked teary-eyed, that Yang Chi-liang stay on. Their two-faced behavior was truly disgusting.
Li Ming-liang defended Yang Chi-liang. Li said that when he proposed dual increases in health insurance premiums, there was a public outcry, A number of NGOs and trade unions took to the streets. The pressure was immense, and hard to imagine. But at least he had the support of the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan. Public opposition to the current increase was comparatively mild. But ignorance on the part of the ruling party and deliberate distortions spread by the opposition party left Yang Chi-liang all alone, hung out to dry, surrounded by enemies, front and rear. He had no choice. Not leaving would merely have made him a glutton for punishment.
Yang Chi-liang's resignation has been approved. He asked to be relieved, and he was. The public sees him as a man with the courage of his convictions, as a political appointee with the guts to defend his own policies. Over the past two years, the Ma administration has used and abused three Directors of Health in rapid succession, including Lin Fang-yu, Yeh Ching-chuan, and Yang Chi-liang. All three were well thought of by the medical community. All three were capable professionals. Yet their average tenure was less than one year. They did not step down because they committed major errors in medical policy. Yeh Ching-chuan was ordered to resign and wage an unsuccessful campaign for elective office. This underscores the alarming rate at which Directors of Health are being used up.
Yang Chi-liang has quit. His departure reveals the cruel logic of Ma administration rule. It persistently trumpets its idealism, its assumption of total responsibility, its commitment to public policy objectives, and to cabinet officials who have earned the public trust. But when push comes to shove, all it ever does is back down. How can the public not be disillusioned?
別再讓健保議題 變成署長絞肉機
2011-01-06 中國時報
二代健保修法過關，根據衛生署估算，這次調整保費費率及費基範圍後，可保五年健保財務平衡，不會再談費率調整。綜觀立法院通過的法案內容，最主要的精神是保費計算更趨公平，既可補健保財務大洞，也更符合社會公平原則，算是一次差強人意的修法結果。
只不過，一如預告，衛生署長楊志良下台走人，再一次的，健保費率調整變成了衛生署長絞肉機，也為台灣政治生態霸凌專業再添一例。
為了替健保找財源，二代健保一大變革是費基從單軌變雙軌；現制只就月投保薪資計算保費（一般保費），新制把股利、利息、執行業務所得等也計入（補充保費），費基擴大，一年可以因此多收到二百億保費。根據衛生署試算，雙軌制因此可以使健保在五年內不必再調整保費費率，而領高額獎金的業務員、股市大戶、億萬身價的大老板，還有高所得的藝人與名嘴則因為補充保費的設計而要多繳保費，符合社會公平的呼聲。
除了補充保費，二代健保還有多項改革。例如，目前海外僑民平常不繳保費，但一年專程回來一次，幾天內辦好加保、繳了一個月的保費，馬上就可以和你我享受完全一樣的健保待遇。新制則要求，僑胞回國要經過六個月等待期，之後才可以加保看病，以此減少「占便宜」式的健保資源消耗。對於弱勢家庭、家暴受害者等經濟弱勢對象，二代健保有不鎖卡的規定，以免他們因繳不起保費或遲繳而有病沒法醫。
雖然，從楊志良和部分醫界人士的理想來看，二代健保未能取消六類十四目投保人身分分類、改從「家戶總所得」的概念計算保費，仍是一大敗筆。但因為補充保費的制定，適用廣大受薪及勞工階級的健保費率反而由現行五．一七％降低為四．九一％，約有八三％的投保人保費會降低，這個結果應該是健保財務與民眾負擔二者間最大的公約數，也是奮鬥多時的衛生署長楊志良的大功一件。遺憾的是，他竟然還是辭職下台了。
回顧國內的健保歷程，每一任署長都知道，當年健保開辦，國內沒有經驗，儘管經過各種精算，費率、眷屬、費基等重大項目仍很粗率，必須調整、調高。但沒有人敢碰，一碰，立法院就罵、行政院就龜縮。民國九十一年，唯一調漲健保費率的衛生署長李明亮也是法案一通過就下台，加上楊志良，健保費率調整與衛生署長下台成了同義詞！
然而，楊志良下台最令人感到荒謬的是，他並非因反對黨或社會壓力而下台，他之所以走人，絕大部分因素是執政黨行政、立法部門的掣肘或打擊，才讓這位內閣人氣最高的政務官大唱驪歌。去年三月，現行健保費率調漲，因五都選舉考量，行政院長吳敦義硬是要求楊志良降低調漲幅度；同年十一月，二代健保草案在立法院闖關，竟然是國民黨立委封殺草案。但這兩天又是國民黨立委出面哽咽慰留楊志良，前後嘴臉令人作嘔。
李明亮替楊志良叫屈，他說，當年他提出健保雙漲，輿論大譁，各種民間團體、工會走上街頭，壓力之大，難以想像，但他至少還有總統府和行政院的支持。這次調漲，來自社會力量的反彈相對輕微的多，但因執政黨的愚昧畏縮及反對黨的刻意扭曲操作，楊志良只能孤軍奮戰、腹背受敵，不走人，是自取其辱！
楊志良請辭獲准，是他求仁得仁，民眾也看到一個敢於堅持理想、替政策辯護的政務官。而馬政府二年多來，已經消耗了三任衛生署長，從林芳郁到葉金川到楊志良，都是醫界風評不錯，也有相當能力的專業人士，但他們平均任期不到一年，下台原因也並非醫療政策有重大錯誤─葉金川甚至是啣命辭官參選卻敗選！反映了衛生署長驚人的消耗率。
楊志良走人，反映了當下馬政府治國團隊中的一個殘酷邏輯，一路堅持理念、任事負責、達成政策目標並獲民意肯定的閣員，最終還是「不如歸去」，如何不令人喟嘆！
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Extend and Correct National Compulsory Education
Extend and Correct National Compulsory Education
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2011
In his Year 100 New Year's Day message, President Ma spoke of "bai nian shu ren," i.e., the long term cultivation of the individual, as one of his four main hopes. He also announced that he would begin implementing this policy immediately. The extension of national compulsory education is important. National compulsory education was extended from six years to nine years in 1968. Forty-three years later, it was extended from nine years to 12 years. As we can see, this step was a difficult one.
National Compulsory Education refers to the universal education of every citizen. Every national government provides such an education, either free, or at extremely low cost, via subsidies. It is accompanied by compulsory schooling or homeschooling laws. Only this can ensure that each citizen receives an education. Many scholars have pointed out that in modern society, education is probably where state intervention in the affairs of the people is the greatest. The government is extending National Compulsory Education, This means that state intervention in education will be even greater and more widespread than before. Therefore, before discussing 12 year compulsory education, we should examine the proper role of government in education. This will enable us to get to the heart of the problem, and arrive at the right policy decisions.
Even readers not familiar with educational literature, will have at least a rough understanding. Centuries and millennia ago, the state's role in public education was virtually nil. Parents sought out private schools for their children. Which private school they enrolled in, and which books, authored by which sages they would read, were all private decisions. In ancient China or medieval Europe, few states underwrote public schools. China's imperial court established a central library, a Wen Yuan Ge, and other institutions in charge of cultural relics, or research units in charge of compiling history. But it did not interfere with private sector educational content and methods. The government held unified national examinations each year. But the examination system exerted only an indirect effect on educational content and educational subject matter. No trace of "national compulsory education" could be found.
Over the past 200 years however, governments the world over gradually began to provide free public education. Two environmental factors play a part. One. With the spread of humanist thought, people's desire for self-realization gradually evolved into the rights of individuals. The government now provides free basic education. This foundation facilitates self-realization. Two. As society becomes more complex, social harmony requires each citizen to be knowledgeable about law, politics, economics, and society. The transmission of this knowledge has become the essence of national education.
The advent of national compulsory education in the Republic of China corresponds to the evolution of these two trends. We have only one regret. The larger goal of national compulsory education may be individual self-realization and social harmony. But our edcational system has never escaped the bonds of the centuries old system for imperial advancement. What is required is a basic national education. But those administering the educational system insist on grouping students according to ability, on establishing elite schools, and on applying irrelevant screening mechanisms. They artificially establish rankings in what should be basic education. Some parents may be behind this. They may have distorted expectations. This is the worst ill afflicting national compulsory education on Taiwan today. The Ma administration wants to extend national compulsory education. He should also consider how he will correct current distortions in the system. He must diagnose the ills in the current educational system. He must not merely increase the length of a distorted education. Doing so will merely exacerbate existing problems, Society will not benefit. It may become even more deeply mired in the nightmare of "educational reform."
The Ministry of Education wants to screen students with academic tests. These would determine whether they are promoted to the next grade. Such tests would constitute 30% of their score. Their purpose of course, is to accommodate existing elite high schools. Educational experts the world over have no objections to elite universities such as Harvard and Stanford. But surely no one wants elite nursery schools, elite kindergartens, and other forms of early screening? Surely no one wants to rank sweet little children using irrelevant ranking systems? Between elite universities and elite kindergartens, at what stage should one begin screening students? That is a matter that may be debated. Reasons can be given for one's position. One may even succeed in changing society's views. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Education has no plans to dialogue with the public. It is offering no explanations about how students will be promoted, and grades will be issue under national compulsory education. It is simply laying down the law. Thirty percent of each student's grades will be determined by his academic test scores. The ministry's plans are crude, and their negative impact on national compulsory education cannot be underestimated.
The biggest variable affecting the effectiveness of 12 year national compulsory education, is the percentage of elite high schools or classes. The higher the percentage, the farther the system has strayed from the ideals of national compulsory education. The Ma administration has ambitious plans for the long term cultivation of the individual. Therefore we have been thinking about how to achieve this goal. We must first have a clear understanding of the problem. If we begin by making all sorts of compromises, we limit the effectiveness of current educational reforms. We also fail to inspire people with our ideals. Education is a monumental undertaking that cultivates the individual. Think of students as trees. We must pay attention to everything on the tree, from the roots to the leaves. We must not focus only on those portions of the tree that grow tall and long, and neglect diseases that harm the tree as a whole.
國民教育既要延長也該矯正
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.05
馬總統在民國百年元旦祝詞中，將「百年樹人」列為四大期許之一，並宣布自今年開始啟動。國民教育的延長是件重要的政策；上次國教自六年延長至九年是民國五十七年的事，時隔四十三年後才由九年再度展延至十二年，可見這一步踏得有多麼辛苦。
既名為國民教育，就表示其內涵是每一個國民皆要接受的陶冶，而各國政府都是以免費或極低收費的方式予以補貼，輔之以強迫入學或在家自學的法令，才能做到國民受教權的保障。許多學者的研究均指出：在現代社會，「教育」大概是國家介入人民事務最多的面向。在政府將國民教育予以延長時，當然表示國家介入教育更多、更廣。因此在討論十二年國教之前，我們應該要花些篇幅檢視一下國家在教育中應該扮演的角色，俾便抓住問題核心，得到正確的政策結論。
讀者即使不熟悉教育文獻應該也能大略想像：在數百、數千年前，國家在人民教育中的角色極為微小；父母要為孩子找什麼私塾、入哪家私人學堂、讀哪些聖賢書，都是私人決策。在中國古代或歐洲中世紀，幾乎少見國家出錢的公立學校。中國歷代朝廷只在中樞設置上書房、文淵閣等掌理典章文物或史書編纂的研究單位，卻不干涉民間的教育內容與方法。即使是國家每年有統一的科舉考試，也只是透過考試內容與科目間接影響教育，根本沒有公辦「國民教育」的蹤影。
近兩百年來世界各國逐漸開始由國家提供免費之公辦教育，大概有兩個方面的環境因素。第一，隨著人本思想的拓展，人民自我實現的理想逐漸演變成為個人的權利，而政府提供免費基本教育，則是為自我實現奠基的手段。第二，當社會運作漸趨複雜時，每個公民在社會上圓融自處都需要相當的法政經社知識，而這些知識的傳授也逐漸成為國民教育的必要內涵。
大體而言，台灣國民教育的推展進程，也約略符合前述兩個社會脈動的演變方向。唯一的遺憾則是，我們的國民教育背後雖然有自我實現的個體理想與社會和諧的總體目的，卻始終擺脫不了數百年來的科舉進階遺毒，總是要在理當「基本」的國民教育中，加進能力分班、明星學校、假性資優等不相干的篩選機制。這種「在基礎國民教育中強行擇優」的干擾，也許背後有若干家長的扭曲期待，卻也是當前台灣國民教育的最大弊病。在馬政府「延長」國民教育的時候，就必須要同時考慮如何對當前的扭曲有所「矯治」；如果不做教育診斷而只將現有的扭曲制式延展，那麼就有可能只是把現有問題加長加劇，社會未必會因此而得到效益，甚至有可能再淪為一個「教改」噩夢。
教育部宣稱要維持三十％的學生以考試篩選的方式升學，當然是為了遷就現有的若干明星高中。全世界教育專家沒有人反對明星大學（如哈佛、史丹福），但相信沒有人會同意明星托兒所、明星幼稚園等過早的篩選，硬要對白胖可愛的孩童做無聊的評比。在眾皆曰可的明星大學與眾皆曰不可的明星幼稚園之間，究竟該在哪一個階段容許做分梳篩選，其實是可以討論、可以說理，甚至可以改變的社會觀念。遺憾的是，教育部似乎並不打算在這個面向做溝通，也沒有闡釋其國教理念下升學分發的論述，就逕行規劃三十％的考試入學比率。這樣的規劃失之粗糙，且此規劃對國民教育理想的衝擊，恐怕也不容小覷。
不必諱言，影響十二年國教成效之最大變數，就是明星高中或班級的比例。而比例越高則離國民教育的理想就越遙遠。馬政府既然要推百年樹人的宏大計畫，我們就期許能取法乎上，對問題癥結先有清楚的理解；若是一開始就推個七折八扣的妥協案，那麼不但對矯治當前教育扭曲功效有限，也欠缺感動人心的力量。教育既是百年樹人的大計，就務必在根幹枝葉上處處講究，千萬不能只著重抽高抽長，卻忽略了樹木的病害與摧折。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2011
In his Year 100 New Year's Day message, President Ma spoke of "bai nian shu ren," i.e., the long term cultivation of the individual, as one of his four main hopes. He also announced that he would begin implementing this policy immediately. The extension of national compulsory education is important. National compulsory education was extended from six years to nine years in 1968. Forty-three years later, it was extended from nine years to 12 years. As we can see, this step was a difficult one.
National Compulsory Education refers to the universal education of every citizen. Every national government provides such an education, either free, or at extremely low cost, via subsidies. It is accompanied by compulsory schooling or homeschooling laws. Only this can ensure that each citizen receives an education. Many scholars have pointed out that in modern society, education is probably where state intervention in the affairs of the people is the greatest. The government is extending National Compulsory Education, This means that state intervention in education will be even greater and more widespread than before. Therefore, before discussing 12 year compulsory education, we should examine the proper role of government in education. This will enable us to get to the heart of the problem, and arrive at the right policy decisions.
Even readers not familiar with educational literature, will have at least a rough understanding. Centuries and millennia ago, the state's role in public education was virtually nil. Parents sought out private schools for their children. Which private school they enrolled in, and which books, authored by which sages they would read, were all private decisions. In ancient China or medieval Europe, few states underwrote public schools. China's imperial court established a central library, a Wen Yuan Ge, and other institutions in charge of cultural relics, or research units in charge of compiling history. But it did not interfere with private sector educational content and methods. The government held unified national examinations each year. But the examination system exerted only an indirect effect on educational content and educational subject matter. No trace of "national compulsory education" could be found.
Over the past 200 years however, governments the world over gradually began to provide free public education. Two environmental factors play a part. One. With the spread of humanist thought, people's desire for self-realization gradually evolved into the rights of individuals. The government now provides free basic education. This foundation facilitates self-realization. Two. As society becomes more complex, social harmony requires each citizen to be knowledgeable about law, politics, economics, and society. The transmission of this knowledge has become the essence of national education.
The advent of national compulsory education in the Republic of China corresponds to the evolution of these two trends. We have only one regret. The larger goal of national compulsory education may be individual self-realization and social harmony. But our edcational system has never escaped the bonds of the centuries old system for imperial advancement. What is required is a basic national education. But those administering the educational system insist on grouping students according to ability, on establishing elite schools, and on applying irrelevant screening mechanisms. They artificially establish rankings in what should be basic education. Some parents may be behind this. They may have distorted expectations. This is the worst ill afflicting national compulsory education on Taiwan today. The Ma administration wants to extend national compulsory education. He should also consider how he will correct current distortions in the system. He must diagnose the ills in the current educational system. He must not merely increase the length of a distorted education. Doing so will merely exacerbate existing problems, Society will not benefit. It may become even more deeply mired in the nightmare of "educational reform."
The Ministry of Education wants to screen students with academic tests. These would determine whether they are promoted to the next grade. Such tests would constitute 30% of their score. Their purpose of course, is to accommodate existing elite high schools. Educational experts the world over have no objections to elite universities such as Harvard and Stanford. But surely no one wants elite nursery schools, elite kindergartens, and other forms of early screening? Surely no one wants to rank sweet little children using irrelevant ranking systems? Between elite universities and elite kindergartens, at what stage should one begin screening students? That is a matter that may be debated. Reasons can be given for one's position. One may even succeed in changing society's views. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Education has no plans to dialogue with the public. It is offering no explanations about how students will be promoted, and grades will be issue under national compulsory education. It is simply laying down the law. Thirty percent of each student's grades will be determined by his academic test scores. The ministry's plans are crude, and their negative impact on national compulsory education cannot be underestimated.
The biggest variable affecting the effectiveness of 12 year national compulsory education, is the percentage of elite high schools or classes. The higher the percentage, the farther the system has strayed from the ideals of national compulsory education. The Ma administration has ambitious plans for the long term cultivation of the individual. Therefore we have been thinking about how to achieve this goal. We must first have a clear understanding of the problem. If we begin by making all sorts of compromises, we limit the effectiveness of current educational reforms. We also fail to inspire people with our ideals. Education is a monumental undertaking that cultivates the individual. Think of students as trees. We must pay attention to everything on the tree, from the roots to the leaves. We must not focus only on those portions of the tree that grow tall and long, and neglect diseases that harm the tree as a whole.
國民教育既要延長也該矯正
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.05
馬總統在民國百年元旦祝詞中，將「百年樹人」列為四大期許之一，並宣布自今年開始啟動。國民教育的延長是件重要的政策；上次國教自六年延長至九年是民國五十七年的事，時隔四十三年後才由九年再度展延至十二年，可見這一步踏得有多麼辛苦。
既名為國民教育，就表示其內涵是每一個國民皆要接受的陶冶，而各國政府都是以免費或極低收費的方式予以補貼，輔之以強迫入學或在家自學的法令，才能做到國民受教權的保障。許多學者的研究均指出：在現代社會，「教育」大概是國家介入人民事務最多的面向。在政府將國民教育予以延長時，當然表示國家介入教育更多、更廣。因此在討論十二年國教之前，我們應該要花些篇幅檢視一下國家在教育中應該扮演的角色，俾便抓住問題核心，得到正確的政策結論。
讀者即使不熟悉教育文獻應該也能大略想像：在數百、數千年前，國家在人民教育中的角色極為微小；父母要為孩子找什麼私塾、入哪家私人學堂、讀哪些聖賢書，都是私人決策。在中國古代或歐洲中世紀，幾乎少見國家出錢的公立學校。中國歷代朝廷只在中樞設置上書房、文淵閣等掌理典章文物或史書編纂的研究單位，卻不干涉民間的教育內容與方法。即使是國家每年有統一的科舉考試，也只是透過考試內容與科目間接影響教育，根本沒有公辦「國民教育」的蹤影。
近兩百年來世界各國逐漸開始由國家提供免費之公辦教育，大概有兩個方面的環境因素。第一，隨著人本思想的拓展，人民自我實現的理想逐漸演變成為個人的權利，而政府提供免費基本教育，則是為自我實現奠基的手段。第二，當社會運作漸趨複雜時，每個公民在社會上圓融自處都需要相當的法政經社知識，而這些知識的傳授也逐漸成為國民教育的必要內涵。
大體而言，台灣國民教育的推展進程，也約略符合前述兩個社會脈動的演變方向。唯一的遺憾則是，我們的國民教育背後雖然有自我實現的個體理想與社會和諧的總體目的，卻始終擺脫不了數百年來的科舉進階遺毒，總是要在理當「基本」的國民教育中，加進能力分班、明星學校、假性資優等不相干的篩選機制。這種「在基礎國民教育中強行擇優」的干擾，也許背後有若干家長的扭曲期待，卻也是當前台灣國民教育的最大弊病。在馬政府「延長」國民教育的時候，就必須要同時考慮如何對當前的扭曲有所「矯治」；如果不做教育診斷而只將現有的扭曲制式延展，那麼就有可能只是把現有問題加長加劇，社會未必會因此而得到效益，甚至有可能再淪為一個「教改」噩夢。
教育部宣稱要維持三十％的學生以考試篩選的方式升學，當然是為了遷就現有的若干明星高中。全世界教育專家沒有人反對明星大學（如哈佛、史丹福），但相信沒有人會同意明星托兒所、明星幼稚園等過早的篩選，硬要對白胖可愛的孩童做無聊的評比。在眾皆曰可的明星大學與眾皆曰不可的明星幼稚園之間，究竟該在哪一個階段容許做分梳篩選，其實是可以討論、可以說理，甚至可以改變的社會觀念。遺憾的是，教育部似乎並不打算在這個面向做溝通，也沒有闡釋其國教理念下升學分發的論述，就逕行規劃三十％的考試入學比率。這樣的規劃失之粗糙，且此規劃對國民教育理想的衝擊，恐怕也不容小覷。
不必諱言，影響十二年國教成效之最大變數，就是明星高中或班級的比例。而比例越高則離國民教育的理想就越遙遠。馬政府既然要推百年樹人的宏大計畫，我們就期許能取法乎上，對問題癥結先有清楚的理解；若是一開始就推個七折八扣的妥協案，那麼不但對矯治當前教育扭曲功效有限，也欠缺感動人心的力量。教育既是百年樹人的大計，就務必在根幹枝葉上處處講究，千萬不能只著重抽高抽長，卻忽略了樹木的病害與摧折。
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Is There a 1992 Consensus?
Is There a 1992 Consensus?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 4, 2010
The KMT and the DPP are crossing swords over whether there is a "1992 Consensus," and whether to recognize the 1992 Consensus. These are really two questions. If there is no 1992 Consensus, what's the point of recognizing it? If there is a 1992 Consensus, what would be the consequences of repudiating it?
First, suppose there is no 1992 Consensus. Then what? The answer is, even assuming there was no 1992 Consensus before, there is a 1992 Consensus now. In 1992, during negotiations in Hong Kong, no one actually used the term, "1992 Consensus." But since then, Taipei has characterized the negotiations as "one China, different interpretations," while Beijing has characterized the negotiations as "different interpretations of one China." The two sides clearly arrived at a consensus. They agreed to emphasize areas they shared in common, and to set aside areas they did not. Since then, this consensus has become known as the "1992 Consensus." It has become a keyword in cross-Strait interaction. That is an even clearer fact. That is why even though the term "1992 Consensus" may not have existed before, it exists now. As for "one China, different interpretations," and "different interpretations of one China," these existed long ago. This sums up the KMT position.
Tsai Ing-wen said: "Asking me to recognize something that does not exist is very difficult." In other words, she insists there is no 1992 Consensus. If Tsai Ing-wen is merely asserting that no one used the term "1992 Consensus" back in 1992, then she is merely indulging in meaningless sophistry. She must confront reality. The fact is that today, when the two sides wish to state their position, they refer to the "1992 Consensus." Imagine a baby born in 1992. He is later given a name -- "1992 Consensus." Tsai Ing-wen cannot insist that merely because the baby was not given a name in 1992, therefore it does not exist. The fundamental question is not whether the baby exists, but whether to recognize that it exists. Nineteen years have elapsed. Yet the baby is still struggling to survive. It was belatedly given a name -- "1992 Consensus," merely for convenience.
The Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen have two reasons for repudiating the 1992 Consensus. Reason One, as this newspaper recently noted, is that In 2000, then Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, stopped President Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. If she reneges by recognizing the 1992 Consensus today, she will be stoned to death by Taiwan independence advocates. Reason Two is that from Taipei's perspective, the "1992 Consensus" is "one China, different interpretations." The "one China" aspect is already part of our own "One China Constitution." But the DPP cannot free itself of its attachment to Taiwan independence. If it recognizes the 1992 Consensus, it must also recognize the One China Constitution, which is diametrically opposed to Taiwan independence. This, for the DPP, is an insurmountable internal obstacle. In other words, the primary reason the DPP feels compelled to repudiate the 1992 Consensus, is the One China Constitution. If the DPP recognizes the One China Constitution, it has no reason to repudiate "one China, different interpretations." Conversely, if it recognizes "one China, different interpretations," how can it repudiate the 1992 Consensus?
Therefore, the two parties have a fundamental difference. The KMT upholds the Republic of China, the "One China Constitution," "one China, different interpretations," and champions the 1992 Consensus. The DPP repudiates the Republic of China and the "One China Constitution." It insists that "one China, different interpretations" is infeasible, and repudates the 1992 Consensus. The fundamental difference between the two parties lies in the way they think. One thinks in terms of the "Republic of China." The other thinks in terms of a "Nation of Taiwan."
The DPP has offered one somewhat more persuasive argument. It asks, "Can one China, different interpretations really work?" Will the CCP really recognize the Republic of China? Unfortunately this merely reflects the DPP's long-standing policy of repudiating and humiliating the Republic of China. The DPP ignores the Republic of China's struggle to survive. It ignores the Republic of China's achievements. It attempts to replace the Republic of China with a "Nation of Taiwan." It is true that Beijing does not publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." But Hu Jintao recognized it once, while speaking on the Bush/Hu hotline. This recognition was one of great significance. But the progress made in "mutual non-repudiation" in any number of areas, has been obvious. The Republic of China should make a greater effort on behalf of "one China, different interpretations." Beijing has yet to publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." But for the past two years, it has never publicly repudiated "one China, different interpretations." As an editorial published by this newspaper on New Year's day noted, this has moved cross-Strait relations out of the era of "confrontation," into the era of "avoidance," and finally into the era of "coopetition." This is a major achievement, based on the "1992 Consensus." To the Republic of China, the situation is hardly satisfactory. But at least it holds the possibility of improvement. After all, the 1992 Consensus is a concept that allows growth and development.
By contrast, the DPP repudiates the "1992 Consensus," the "One China Constitution," "one China, different interpretations," and the "1992 Consensus." This is tantamount to a total negation of our existing constitution and the foundation of cross-Strait "peaceful development."
In fact, the question the DPP faces is not "whether there is a 1992 Consensus." The question is how can Taipei possibly cope with cross-Strait relations if it abandons the currently accepted 1992 Consensus,
有沒有「九二共識」？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.04
國民黨與民進黨正為「有沒有九二共識」及「承不承認九二共識」激烈交火。其實，這是不同層次的兩個問題：如果根本「沒有」，談何「承認」？如果「有」，則「不承認」將有何後果？
先談「有沒有」。答案是：即使本來沒有，現在也有了。這意思是說，在九二當年的香港會談中，確實未有「九二共識」四個字；但是，若將當年的會談要義歸納成「一中各表」（台灣所強調）及「各表一中」（大陸所強調），則絕無疑義；而兩岸此種「求同存異」的立場，後來被製作成「九二共識」的「語彙膠囊」，且如今已通行使用，成為兩岸互動的關鍵字，則更是有目共睹的事實。所以說，「九二共識」這四個字，即使原本沒有，現在也有了；至於「一中各表」及「各表一中」的「求同存異」的立場，更是早已有之。以上大抵可簡要說明國民黨的立場。
蔡英文則說：「要我承認不存在的東西很困難。」也就是說，她主張沒有「九二共識」。如果蔡英文只是說，九二當年沒有「九二共識」這四個字，這種說法只是遁詞，已無意義；她必須對現在已經通行使用的「九二共識」表達立場。這好比九二誕生了一個嬰兒，後來取名「九二共識」；蔡英文不能只說當年沒這個名字，因為現在根本的問題是在承不承認這個經歷十九年折磨而至今仍在奮鬥求生的九二之子，至於它在事後才被命名為「九二共識」，則不過是為了便於指稱而已。
民進黨及蔡英文否定「九二共識」，有兩層原因。原因之一是如本報日前社論所說，蔡英文在二○○○年任陸委會主委時，曾阻擋陳水扁總統承認九二共識；如今她若回頭承認「九二共識」，必遭獨派矢石交加。另一層原因是，對台灣而言，「九二共識」即是「一個中國／各自表述」，而「一個中國」的根本是在「一中憲法」；但民進黨無法擺脫台獨的立場，以致若承認「九二共識」，即須承認「一中憲法」（反對台獨），這卻是民進黨無法超越的「內鍵障礙」。也就是說，對民進黨而言，不承認「九二共識」的主因是在不能承認「一中憲法」；因為，如果承認了「一中憲法」，即沒有理由否定「一中各表」；而若承認了「一中各表」，又豈須否認「九二共識」？
所以，兩黨的根本差異是在：國民黨擁護中華民國，維持「一中憲法」，推動「一中各表」，因而主張「九二共識」；民進黨則否定中華民國，否定「一中憲法」，不認為「一中各表」有可行性，因而不承認「九二共識」。二者根本的差異，是在於「中華民國」與「台灣國」的不同思維。
民進黨較有說服性的說法是：「一中各表」可行嗎？中共承認中華民國嗎？然而，這其實是民進黨的一貫態度：只是不斷地否定及羞辱中華民國，無視中華民國奮鬥求生的努力及成就，而又拿不出「取代中華民國」的方案來（成立台灣國嗎？）。北京確未公開承認「一中各表」（布胡熱線有過一次，且是極重要的一次），但在各領域中「互不否認」的進度十分明顯，而中華民國在「一中各表」上亦非沒有努力的空間。總括來看，北京雖未公開承認「一中各表」，但兩年多來亦未公開否認「一中各表」；正如本報元旦社論所說，這使得台灣的兩岸關係，由「對抗期」、「迴避期」進入了「競合期」。這是何其重大的成就，而這樣的成就全是建立在「九二共識」上的。對中華民國而言，當然絕不滿意，但仍大有努力的空間；畢竟，「九二共識」仍是一個成長發展中的概念。
相對而言，民進黨否定了「九二共識」，亦即對內否定「一中憲法」，對外否定「一中各表」；而否定了「九二共識」，也就形同對內與對外皆全盤否定了現行憲法及兩岸「和平發展」的前提與基礎。
其實，民進黨現在面對的問題已不是「有沒有九二共識」，而是若否棄了如今已經通行使用的「九二共識」，台灣將如何面對兩岸關係？將如何走下去？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 4, 2010
The KMT and the DPP are crossing swords over whether there is a "1992 Consensus," and whether to recognize the 1992 Consensus. These are really two questions. If there is no 1992 Consensus, what's the point of recognizing it? If there is a 1992 Consensus, what would be the consequences of repudiating it?
First, suppose there is no 1992 Consensus. Then what? The answer is, even assuming there was no 1992 Consensus before, there is a 1992 Consensus now. In 1992, during negotiations in Hong Kong, no one actually used the term, "1992 Consensus." But since then, Taipei has characterized the negotiations as "one China, different interpretations," while Beijing has characterized the negotiations as "different interpretations of one China." The two sides clearly arrived at a consensus. They agreed to emphasize areas they shared in common, and to set aside areas they did not. Since then, this consensus has become known as the "1992 Consensus." It has become a keyword in cross-Strait interaction. That is an even clearer fact. That is why even though the term "1992 Consensus" may not have existed before, it exists now. As for "one China, different interpretations," and "different interpretations of one China," these existed long ago. This sums up the KMT position.
Tsai Ing-wen said: "Asking me to recognize something that does not exist is very difficult." In other words, she insists there is no 1992 Consensus. If Tsai Ing-wen is merely asserting that no one used the term "1992 Consensus" back in 1992, then she is merely indulging in meaningless sophistry. She must confront reality. The fact is that today, when the two sides wish to state their position, they refer to the "1992 Consensus." Imagine a baby born in 1992. He is later given a name -- "1992 Consensus." Tsai Ing-wen cannot insist that merely because the baby was not given a name in 1992, therefore it does not exist. The fundamental question is not whether the baby exists, but whether to recognize that it exists. Nineteen years have elapsed. Yet the baby is still struggling to survive. It was belatedly given a name -- "1992 Consensus," merely for convenience.
The Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen have two reasons for repudiating the 1992 Consensus. Reason One, as this newspaper recently noted, is that In 2000, then Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, stopped President Chen Shui-bian from recognizing the 1992 Consensus. If she reneges by recognizing the 1992 Consensus today, she will be stoned to death by Taiwan independence advocates. Reason Two is that from Taipei's perspective, the "1992 Consensus" is "one China, different interpretations." The "one China" aspect is already part of our own "One China Constitution." But the DPP cannot free itself of its attachment to Taiwan independence. If it recognizes the 1992 Consensus, it must also recognize the One China Constitution, which is diametrically opposed to Taiwan independence. This, for the DPP, is an insurmountable internal obstacle. In other words, the primary reason the DPP feels compelled to repudiate the 1992 Consensus, is the One China Constitution. If the DPP recognizes the One China Constitution, it has no reason to repudiate "one China, different interpretations." Conversely, if it recognizes "one China, different interpretations," how can it repudiate the 1992 Consensus?
Therefore, the two parties have a fundamental difference. The KMT upholds the Republic of China, the "One China Constitution," "one China, different interpretations," and champions the 1992 Consensus. The DPP repudiates the Republic of China and the "One China Constitution." It insists that "one China, different interpretations" is infeasible, and repudates the 1992 Consensus. The fundamental difference between the two parties lies in the way they think. One thinks in terms of the "Republic of China." The other thinks in terms of a "Nation of Taiwan."
The DPP has offered one somewhat more persuasive argument. It asks, "Can one China, different interpretations really work?" Will the CCP really recognize the Republic of China? Unfortunately this merely reflects the DPP's long-standing policy of repudiating and humiliating the Republic of China. The DPP ignores the Republic of China's struggle to survive. It ignores the Republic of China's achievements. It attempts to replace the Republic of China with a "Nation of Taiwan." It is true that Beijing does not publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." But Hu Jintao recognized it once, while speaking on the Bush/Hu hotline. This recognition was one of great significance. But the progress made in "mutual non-repudiation" in any number of areas, has been obvious. The Republic of China should make a greater effort on behalf of "one China, different interpretations." Beijing has yet to publicly recognize "one China, different interpretations." But for the past two years, it has never publicly repudiated "one China, different interpretations." As an editorial published by this newspaper on New Year's day noted, this has moved cross-Strait relations out of the era of "confrontation," into the era of "avoidance," and finally into the era of "coopetition." This is a major achievement, based on the "1992 Consensus." To the Republic of China, the situation is hardly satisfactory. But at least it holds the possibility of improvement. After all, the 1992 Consensus is a concept that allows growth and development.
By contrast, the DPP repudiates the "1992 Consensus," the "One China Constitution," "one China, different interpretations," and the "1992 Consensus." This is tantamount to a total negation of our existing constitution and the foundation of cross-Strait "peaceful development."
In fact, the question the DPP faces is not "whether there is a 1992 Consensus." The question is how can Taipei possibly cope with cross-Strait relations if it abandons the currently accepted 1992 Consensus,
有沒有「九二共識」？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.04
國民黨與民進黨正為「有沒有九二共識」及「承不承認九二共識」激烈交火。其實，這是不同層次的兩個問題：如果根本「沒有」，談何「承認」？如果「有」，則「不承認」將有何後果？
先談「有沒有」。答案是：即使本來沒有，現在也有了。這意思是說，在九二當年的香港會談中，確實未有「九二共識」四個字；但是，若將當年的會談要義歸納成「一中各表」（台灣所強調）及「各表一中」（大陸所強調），則絕無疑義；而兩岸此種「求同存異」的立場，後來被製作成「九二共識」的「語彙膠囊」，且如今已通行使用，成為兩岸互動的關鍵字，則更是有目共睹的事實。所以說，「九二共識」這四個字，即使原本沒有，現在也有了；至於「一中各表」及「各表一中」的「求同存異」的立場，更是早已有之。以上大抵可簡要說明國民黨的立場。
蔡英文則說：「要我承認不存在的東西很困難。」也就是說，她主張沒有「九二共識」。如果蔡英文只是說，九二當年沒有「九二共識」這四個字，這種說法只是遁詞，已無意義；她必須對現在已經通行使用的「九二共識」表達立場。這好比九二誕生了一個嬰兒，後來取名「九二共識」；蔡英文不能只說當年沒這個名字，因為現在根本的問題是在承不承認這個經歷十九年折磨而至今仍在奮鬥求生的九二之子，至於它在事後才被命名為「九二共識」，則不過是為了便於指稱而已。
民進黨及蔡英文否定「九二共識」，有兩層原因。原因之一是如本報日前社論所說，蔡英文在二○○○年任陸委會主委時，曾阻擋陳水扁總統承認九二共識；如今她若回頭承認「九二共識」，必遭獨派矢石交加。另一層原因是，對台灣而言，「九二共識」即是「一個中國／各自表述」，而「一個中國」的根本是在「一中憲法」；但民進黨無法擺脫台獨的立場，以致若承認「九二共識」，即須承認「一中憲法」（反對台獨），這卻是民進黨無法超越的「內鍵障礙」。也就是說，對民進黨而言，不承認「九二共識」的主因是在不能承認「一中憲法」；因為，如果承認了「一中憲法」，即沒有理由否定「一中各表」；而若承認了「一中各表」，又豈須否認「九二共識」？
所以，兩黨的根本差異是在：國民黨擁護中華民國，維持「一中憲法」，推動「一中各表」，因而主張「九二共識」；民進黨則否定中華民國，否定「一中憲法」，不認為「一中各表」有可行性，因而不承認「九二共識」。二者根本的差異，是在於「中華民國」與「台灣國」的不同思維。
民進黨較有說服性的說法是：「一中各表」可行嗎？中共承認中華民國嗎？然而，這其實是民進黨的一貫態度：只是不斷地否定及羞辱中華民國，無視中華民國奮鬥求生的努力及成就，而又拿不出「取代中華民國」的方案來（成立台灣國嗎？）。北京確未公開承認「一中各表」（布胡熱線有過一次，且是極重要的一次），但在各領域中「互不否認」的進度十分明顯，而中華民國在「一中各表」上亦非沒有努力的空間。總括來看，北京雖未公開承認「一中各表」，但兩年多來亦未公開否認「一中各表」；正如本報元旦社論所說，這使得台灣的兩岸關係，由「對抗期」、「迴避期」進入了「競合期」。這是何其重大的成就，而這樣的成就全是建立在「九二共識」上的。對中華民國而言，當然絕不滿意，但仍大有努力的空間；畢竟，「九二共識」仍是一個成長發展中的概念。
相對而言，民進黨否定了「九二共識」，亦即對內否定「一中憲法」，對外否定「一中各表」；而否定了「九二共識」，也就形同對內與對外皆全盤否定了現行憲法及兩岸「和平發展」的前提與基礎。
其實，民進黨現在面對的問題已不是「有沒有九二共識」，而是若否棄了如今已經通行使用的「九二共識」，台灣將如何面對兩岸關係？將如何走下去？
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Ensure Republic of China Continuity and Commitment to Unity
Ensure Republic of China Continuity and Commitment to Unity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 2, 2011
President Ma Ying-jeou yesterday delivered a New Year's Day message. President Ma said he hoped one day all Chinese would be like those on Taiwan. They would all enjoy freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and a pluralistic way of life. Such a dream is not some distant dream. These ideals have already been achieved -- on Taiwan. They are not the monopoly of Westerners. The Taiwan experience should serve as an example for Mainland China's future development.
The Republic of China is now one hundred years old! The CCA has repeatedly broadcast a television ad. Lin Jue-min can be found in public school textbooks. But otherwise, how many people know who the heroes in the ad are? They fulfilled their sacred duty and saved the lives of their countrymen. But how many people care about their sacrifices? One hundred years ago, young people had revolutionary spirit. They founded the Republic of China. One hundred years later, all young people care about is finding a job, getting paid well, and whether they can attend a pop concert tomorrow.
One hundred years has resulted in a vast gap in the dreams we dream. But we need not feel bad. History invariably repeats itself. Obstacles to progress arise during every era. For example, for the first time in the history of the Republic of China, a president guilty of corruption is serving time in prison. As early as 88 years ago, the Republic of China had a president who bought official positions with vast sums of money -- Tsao Kun. The question is whether we can step off the treadmill?
Even more importantly, as we celebrate the Republic of China centennial, we should stop to ask ourselves whether the dream we have pursued so long been achieved? Is there still work to be done? Over the past 100 years, how many names have gone down in history? How many have not, yet laid down their lives for this troubled nation? How many have left behind an enduring legacy for this century-old system and culture? Will we remember them? Will we be grateful to them?
For half a century, the Republic of China remained trapped within a maelstrom of war and chaos. During the second half-century, on Taiwan, the ROC underwent the White Terror and the Formosa Incident. How many peoples' youth and dreams were lost in the pursuit of democracy? The ROC was the first democratic republic in Asia. It was reborn on Taiwan. Step by step, it stumbled toward its revolutionary ideals. It implemented rent reduction and land to the tiller policies, creating one of the world's most stunning economic miracles. It went from local self-government to the direct election of mayors and county chiefs, provincial governors, and even presidents. The peaceful change of ruling parties effected a quiet revolution, Democracy on Taiwan has become like air and water, It is our constant companion. But even today, its quality is still unsatisfactory.
The ROC has endured for a century. It nearly perished. The loss of the Mainland portion of its territory, paradoxically permitted the island of Formosa to thrive amidst the chaos. Perpetuating the Republic of China required much hardship. Suppression by Beijing went on for nearly four decades. The Republic of China national title, national flag, and national anthem have virtually disappeared from the international stage. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party has long made replacing the Republic of China by a new state its party platform. Under assault from without and within, the Republic of China centennial is undeniably bittersweet.
The CCP and the KMT fought each other for half a century. But they cannot avoid celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution at the same time. Nor can they deny that this was the revolution that created the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China still exists. It continues to hold flag-raising ceremonies, and sing the national anthem.
The goal of the Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, is to establish an independent state, Therefore even at this unique moment in history, it refuses to participate in any Republic of China centennial activities. It cannot however deny that it was once the ruling party of the Republic of China. It once set government policy. Countless DPP members have sworn allegience to the Republic of China, under the ROC flag State and in front of the ROC public.
The Republic of China is 100 years old! Yet it faces countless dangers, internally and externally. The Republic of China may be one hundred years old. But a Republic of China passport will still permit one to visit one hundred different countries, visa-free. The flag however, continues to present an awkward problem. Sun Yat-sen held egalitarian ideals. But following Taiwan's economic miracle, the gap between rich and poor increased.
President Ma said the two sides should not struggle over matters of political authority. They should not stuggle over reunification vs. independence. They should not struggle over international manuevering room. They should strive toward freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and other core values. They should encourage each other and support each other.
The revolution has yet to succeed, Comrades must continue to struggle! The good news is that we need no longer shed blood in pursuit of our dreams. When we look up at the night sky and the splendor of fireworks displays, we should remember that the martyrs were equally moved. They sacrificed themselves to found the Republic of China. It may be imperfect, but at least it is still here. It is still a good place. We who live in this nation, should promise to live up to the efforts of our forebears. We must ensure that each generation bequeath succeeding generations a greater heritage and a better life.
為中華民國承先啟後、團結永續許諾
2011-01-02 中國時報
馬英九總統昨日發表元旦祝詞，馬總統說，希望有一天，所有炎黃子孫都能和台灣人民一樣，享有自由、民主與法治的多元生活方式，這樣的夢想並不遙遠，因為這些價值在台灣都已經實現，不是西方人的專利，台灣經驗應可作為中國大陸未來發展的借鏡。
中華民國一百年了！當文建會廣告反覆在電視播出的時刻，除了林覺民成了教科書上的一頁教材，還有多少人知道廣告中的主角們到底是誰？他們「行天職以救同胞」的胸懷，還能感動多少人？一百年前，年輕人的抱負是革命以建民國；一百年後，年輕人關心的是找不找得到工作、能賺多少錢、甚至明天要趕哪一場演唱會？
百年夢想的落差直如天淵，但也不必感傷，歷史總是在重複或循環中前進，任何時代都會出現阻礙進步的變數。這正好像：中華民國出現第一個因貪汙入獄的總統，而早在八十八年前，中華民國就已有一個巨款買來大位的賄選總統曹錕。重要的是，我們能不能超越這些循環？
更重要的是，當我們歡慶民國百年之際，靜下心來反思，我們一路追求的夢想達成了沒有？還有未竟之功嗎？在這一百年裡，曾經有多少留下名字，或是未留下一個名字的人們，或是為這個多災多難的國家，奉獻了身家性命；或是為這個成就百年的制度與文化基業，留下永恆的功業，我們會記得嗎？會感謝嗎？
中華民國曾經有長達半個世紀，陷在戰火與紛亂的漩渦裡，後半世紀在台灣，也曾經走過白色恐怖、走過美麗島事件，多少人的青春歲月、夢想與生命，葬送在追求民主的路程中，做為亞洲第一個民主共和國，在台灣重生的中華民國，在顛簸中一步一步實行著當年革命黨人的理想，從三七五減租、耕者有其田、到創造舉世驚艷的經濟奇蹟；從地方自治、縣市長民選、直轄市長民選、省長民選、總統民選、到政黨輪替創造了寧靜革命，民主在台灣已成為空氣與水，日日與我們相伴，儘管到今天，這個空氣品質始終未盡人意。
走過一百年，曾經幾乎亡國的中華民國失去了秋海棠，卻讓福爾摩沙之島在喧囂中，洋溢著生命力。不可諱言，為了讓這個中華民國永續，也確實備嘗艱辛。在對岸的抵制下，已經有近四十年的時間，代表中華民國的國號、國旗與國歌幾乎已在國際場合消失；同樣的，台灣在野的民進黨，也早將建立新國家取代中華民國，做為該黨的黨綱。在這種內外煎逼之下，中華民國邁向一百年，還是帶著些許苦澀的。
只不過，共產黨與國民黨曾爭鬥半世紀，卻也不能不同步紀念辛亥革命一百年，更不能不承認辛亥革命創造的是中華民國，而非中華人民共和國，中華民國迄今依舊紅紅火火地存在。當然，也依舊在升國旗、唱國歌。
同樣的，民進黨以獨立建國為目標，因而即使在這個特殊的歷史時刻，依舊拒絕參與一切與中華民國一百年相關的活動，卻也不能不承認，他們曾經是中華民國的執政黨，曾經主導過政府施政，無數民進黨人也都在中華民國國旗之下宣誓效忠國家與人民。
民國一百年了！對內、對外，還有無數險阻困難，儘管民國一百年，中華民國護照可望行走一百個國家免簽證，但這面國旗、這個國號依舊處於相對尷尬的處境；孫文均富的理想，在台灣創造經濟奇蹟後，又拉開了貧富差距。
馬總統強調，兩岸間不應該是政權之爭，不應該是統獨之爭，不應該是國際空間之爭，而應努力在自由、民主、人權、法治等核心價值上，彼此激勵，相互提升。
革命尚未成功，同志仍須努力！值得慶幸的是，我們不必再以拋頭顱、灑熱血的方式追求我們的夢想，當我們仰望夜空燦爛的煙火，記得：烈士們同樣感動，因為他們犧牲而創建的中華民國，雖然不夠完美，但依舊存在，還算幸福。我們所有生活在這個國度的人們，最應該許的承諾就是，絕對不能辜負前人的努力，更要將我們一代代所努力打造出的美好傳承與生活方式，繼續保留下去！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 2, 2011
President Ma Ying-jeou yesterday delivered a New Year's Day message. President Ma said he hoped one day all Chinese would be like those on Taiwan. They would all enjoy freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and a pluralistic way of life. Such a dream is not some distant dream. These ideals have already been achieved -- on Taiwan. They are not the monopoly of Westerners. The Taiwan experience should serve as an example for Mainland China's future development.
The Republic of China is now one hundred years old! The CCA has repeatedly broadcast a television ad. Lin Jue-min can be found in public school textbooks. But otherwise, how many people know who the heroes in the ad are? They fulfilled their sacred duty and saved the lives of their countrymen. But how many people care about their sacrifices? One hundred years ago, young people had revolutionary spirit. They founded the Republic of China. One hundred years later, all young people care about is finding a job, getting paid well, and whether they can attend a pop concert tomorrow.
One hundred years has resulted in a vast gap in the dreams we dream. But we need not feel bad. History invariably repeats itself. Obstacles to progress arise during every era. For example, for the first time in the history of the Republic of China, a president guilty of corruption is serving time in prison. As early as 88 years ago, the Republic of China had a president who bought official positions with vast sums of money -- Tsao Kun. The question is whether we can step off the treadmill?
Even more importantly, as we celebrate the Republic of China centennial, we should stop to ask ourselves whether the dream we have pursued so long been achieved? Is there still work to be done? Over the past 100 years, how many names have gone down in history? How many have not, yet laid down their lives for this troubled nation? How many have left behind an enduring legacy for this century-old system and culture? Will we remember them? Will we be grateful to them?
For half a century, the Republic of China remained trapped within a maelstrom of war and chaos. During the second half-century, on Taiwan, the ROC underwent the White Terror and the Formosa Incident. How many peoples' youth and dreams were lost in the pursuit of democracy? The ROC was the first democratic republic in Asia. It was reborn on Taiwan. Step by step, it stumbled toward its revolutionary ideals. It implemented rent reduction and land to the tiller policies, creating one of the world's most stunning economic miracles. It went from local self-government to the direct election of mayors and county chiefs, provincial governors, and even presidents. The peaceful change of ruling parties effected a quiet revolution, Democracy on Taiwan has become like air and water, It is our constant companion. But even today, its quality is still unsatisfactory.
The ROC has endured for a century. It nearly perished. The loss of the Mainland portion of its territory, paradoxically permitted the island of Formosa to thrive amidst the chaos. Perpetuating the Republic of China required much hardship. Suppression by Beijing went on for nearly four decades. The Republic of China national title, national flag, and national anthem have virtually disappeared from the international stage. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party has long made replacing the Republic of China by a new state its party platform. Under assault from without and within, the Republic of China centennial is undeniably bittersweet.
The CCP and the KMT fought each other for half a century. But they cannot avoid celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution at the same time. Nor can they deny that this was the revolution that created the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China still exists. It continues to hold flag-raising ceremonies, and sing the national anthem.
The goal of the Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, is to establish an independent state, Therefore even at this unique moment in history, it refuses to participate in any Republic of China centennial activities. It cannot however deny that it was once the ruling party of the Republic of China. It once set government policy. Countless DPP members have sworn allegience to the Republic of China, under the ROC flag State and in front of the ROC public.
The Republic of China is 100 years old! Yet it faces countless dangers, internally and externally. The Republic of China may be one hundred years old. But a Republic of China passport will still permit one to visit one hundred different countries, visa-free. The flag however, continues to present an awkward problem. Sun Yat-sen held egalitarian ideals. But following Taiwan's economic miracle, the gap between rich and poor increased.
President Ma said the two sides should not struggle over matters of political authority. They should not stuggle over reunification vs. independence. They should not struggle over international manuevering room. They should strive toward freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and other core values. They should encourage each other and support each other.
The revolution has yet to succeed, Comrades must continue to struggle! The good news is that we need no longer shed blood in pursuit of our dreams. When we look up at the night sky and the splendor of fireworks displays, we should remember that the martyrs were equally moved. They sacrificed themselves to found the Republic of China. It may be imperfect, but at least it is still here. It is still a good place. We who live in this nation, should promise to live up to the efforts of our forebears. We must ensure that each generation bequeath succeeding generations a greater heritage and a better life.
為中華民國承先啟後、團結永續許諾
2011-01-02 中國時報
馬英九總統昨日發表元旦祝詞，馬總統說，希望有一天，所有炎黃子孫都能和台灣人民一樣，享有自由、民主與法治的多元生活方式，這樣的夢想並不遙遠，因為這些價值在台灣都已經實現，不是西方人的專利，台灣經驗應可作為中國大陸未來發展的借鏡。
中華民國一百年了！當文建會廣告反覆在電視播出的時刻，除了林覺民成了教科書上的一頁教材，還有多少人知道廣告中的主角們到底是誰？他們「行天職以救同胞」的胸懷，還能感動多少人？一百年前，年輕人的抱負是革命以建民國；一百年後，年輕人關心的是找不找得到工作、能賺多少錢、甚至明天要趕哪一場演唱會？
百年夢想的落差直如天淵，但也不必感傷，歷史總是在重複或循環中前進，任何時代都會出現阻礙進步的變數。這正好像：中華民國出現第一個因貪汙入獄的總統，而早在八十八年前，中華民國就已有一個巨款買來大位的賄選總統曹錕。重要的是，我們能不能超越這些循環？
更重要的是，當我們歡慶民國百年之際，靜下心來反思，我們一路追求的夢想達成了沒有？還有未竟之功嗎？在這一百年裡，曾經有多少留下名字，或是未留下一個名字的人們，或是為這個多災多難的國家，奉獻了身家性命；或是為這個成就百年的制度與文化基業，留下永恆的功業，我們會記得嗎？會感謝嗎？
中華民國曾經有長達半個世紀，陷在戰火與紛亂的漩渦裡，後半世紀在台灣，也曾經走過白色恐怖、走過美麗島事件，多少人的青春歲月、夢想與生命，葬送在追求民主的路程中，做為亞洲第一個民主共和國，在台灣重生的中華民國，在顛簸中一步一步實行著當年革命黨人的理想，從三七五減租、耕者有其田、到創造舉世驚艷的經濟奇蹟；從地方自治、縣市長民選、直轄市長民選、省長民選、總統民選、到政黨輪替創造了寧靜革命，民主在台灣已成為空氣與水，日日與我們相伴，儘管到今天，這個空氣品質始終未盡人意。
走過一百年，曾經幾乎亡國的中華民國失去了秋海棠，卻讓福爾摩沙之島在喧囂中，洋溢著生命力。不可諱言，為了讓這個中華民國永續，也確實備嘗艱辛。在對岸的抵制下，已經有近四十年的時間，代表中華民國的國號、國旗與國歌幾乎已在國際場合消失；同樣的，台灣在野的民進黨，也早將建立新國家取代中華民國，做為該黨的黨綱。在這種內外煎逼之下，中華民國邁向一百年，還是帶著些許苦澀的。
只不過，共產黨與國民黨曾爭鬥半世紀，卻也不能不同步紀念辛亥革命一百年，更不能不承認辛亥革命創造的是中華民國，而非中華人民共和國，中華民國迄今依舊紅紅火火地存在。當然，也依舊在升國旗、唱國歌。
同樣的，民進黨以獨立建國為目標，因而即使在這個特殊的歷史時刻，依舊拒絕參與一切與中華民國一百年相關的活動，卻也不能不承認，他們曾經是中華民國的執政黨，曾經主導過政府施政，無數民進黨人也都在中華民國國旗之下宣誓效忠國家與人民。
民國一百年了！對內、對外，還有無數險阻困難，儘管民國一百年，中華民國護照可望行走一百個國家免簽證，但這面國旗、這個國號依舊處於相對尷尬的處境；孫文均富的理想，在台灣創造經濟奇蹟後，又拉開了貧富差距。
馬總統強調，兩岸間不應該是政權之爭，不應該是統獨之爭，不應該是國際空間之爭，而應努力在自由、民主、人權、法治等核心價值上，彼此激勵，相互提升。
革命尚未成功，同志仍須努力！值得慶幸的是，我們不必再以拋頭顱、灑熱血的方式追求我們的夢想，當我們仰望夜空燦爛的煙火，記得：烈士們同樣感動，因為他們犧牲而創建的中華民國，雖然不夠完美，但依舊存在，還算幸福。我們所有生活在這個國度的人們，最應該許的承諾就是，絕對不能辜負前人的努力，更要將我們一代代所努力打造出的美好傳承與生活方式，繼續保留下去！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)