Tseng Ya-ni, Taiwan's Queen of Golf
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 14, 2011
Who knew? She still has a baby face. Just last month, she celebrated her 22nd birthday. But yesterday she won the Australian Women's Masters Championship. Overnight, she became the queen of golf. Tseng Ya-ni became the number one ranked woman golfer in the world. It was too spectacular for words.
Yesterday, even before the final hole, the media swarmed around her. TV anchor persons talked about "Yani's outstanding performance." They expressed amazement at how much she had matured over the past two years. The audience spontaneously lined up on the green to applaud Tseng, and to pay tribute to this newest queen of golf. Tseng nodded to the crowd. She flashed her signature smile. She betrayed no special joy or pride. For Tseng, this day was long coming, and she took it calmly.
In recent years, athletes from Taiwan have shone in a number of sports. Wang Chien-ming and Kuo Hong-chi in baseball. Lu Yan-hsun and Chan Yung-chan have performed brilliantly in tennis, bringing glory to Taiwan. Tseng turned professional only four years ago, She has shone In international competitions since then. She has become a star who has caught the public eye. At age 22, she has been crowned the queen of tennis. That may strike some as incredible. But for Tseng Ya-ni, the title was hard won. Her biggest challenge now, is to hold on to the title.
She began training when she was only five. She was barely taller than the club. Yet she took on adults. Tseng is more experienced than other young golfers. When she was still in elementary school, she watched the U.S. Open for the first time. She boldly declared, "I want to compete in this game." As a result, her parents turned this 12 year old over to the airlines. They "air shipped" her to golfing venues the world over. Flight attendants even stuck "special attention" stickers on her. Tseng Ya-ni, with her unique style, has made a place for herself in the golfing world.
Tseng's success is no secret. It is her self awareness and indomitable will. During junior high, she became junior women's amateur champion. She had no competition. As a result, she found herself in a predicament -- lack of motivation. Her mother demanded that she make a choice between academics and sports. Many athletes on Taiwan have faced this same dilemma before. In the end, most chose to quit sports. But Tseng Ya-ni told her mother, "I have no intention of giving up on either." She decided then to discipline herself. Seven years later, this queen of golf, brimming with self confidence, emerged into the spotlight.
Tseng Ya-ni once revealed how she would secretly watch golf champions and learn from them. The champions she learned from included Australian champion Mark Webber and Swedish legend Annika Suolunsitan. She learned how to maintain her golf rhythm, how to overcome psychological pressure, and how to correct the weaknesses in her putting. She had ambition. But more importantly, she was willing to confront her own weaknesses, and to practice tirelessly. She even used her spare time to practice English. She wanted to be able to express herself more accurately and fluently. She the inevitable day was coming closer and closer. She knew she had to make advance preparations, Interestingly enough, when Tseng rose to the number 2 position last year, she suddenly experienced a sense of unreality. Her ranking showed that she had already surpassed her childhood idols.
At the tender age of 12, Tseng Ya-ni resolved to become "number one in the world." Yesterday she fulfilled her dream. This dream was achieved through a strength of will difficult for outsiders to imagine. But her dreams of glory came true. They are something everyone on Taiwan can share in. Last year, a company on Mainland China offered her a one billion dollar signing bonus, if only she would compete for the Mainland. But Tseng Ya-ni, who was born in Kueishan in Taoyuan County, was unmoved. Her halo shines increasingly bright. But she has chosen to use her fame for the common good. She became a spokesman for children with cancer. She chose to share her light and warmth with underprivileged children. This outspoken young girl is a ray of sunshine.
At age 22, Tseng Ya-ni has scaled the heights of the golfing world. She has achieved her "Impossible Mission." She has become a Taiwan golfing legend. But competition in sports never ends. She must now attempt to retain her title. Other young people look up to her. They are inspired by her. They follow in her footsteps. How should they go about doing so? The answer is in Tseng Ya-ni's confident smile.
全台說讚：陽光雅妮登上世界球后
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.02.14
誰能想像，這個仍一臉稚氣的女孩，上個月剛度過她的廿二歲生日，昨天不僅以傑出而穩健的球技摘下澳洲女子高球名人賽的冠軍寶座，更一夕登上了世界球后的頂峰。曾雅妮奪得這個世界第一，太精采，太令人驚喜了！
昨天尚未打完最後一洞，轉播鏡頭便一再環繞著曾雅妮，主播談到「Yani」的出色表現，直說她這兩年的「成熟、再成熟」令人驚艷。現場觀眾主動列隊為正走向果嶺的曾雅妮鼓掌，向這位準新球后致意；曾雅妮則帶著她慣有的招牌微笑向大家點頭，沒有露出特別的喜悅或驕傲。曾雅妮心中其實早就為這一天做好了準備，她顯得一派從容。
近幾年台灣選手在國際各類球賽中新人輩出，美國職棒的王建民、郭弘志，網球的盧彥勳、詹詠然都大放異采，為台灣爭光。曾雅妮由業餘選手轉為職業不過短短四年，在國際大賽中一路過關斬將，成為深受注目的新星。以廿二歲之齡戴上「世界球后」的桂冠，或許有人覺得不可思議；但對曾雅妮來說，這項殊榮不算早到，未來更大的挑戰是：能保住這個榮銜多久。
五歲開始學球，從個子不比球桿高出多少的時代，就膽敢越齡和大人交手，曾雅妮的高爾夫球之路，並不像其年齡顯示的那麼淺短。小學未畢業，首度在美國觀賞了巡迴公開賽之後，就發下「我也要參加這比賽」的豪語。於是，十二歲起，父母將她交由航空公司「託運」到世界各地參賽，空服人員還在她身上貼著「需要特別照顧」的標籤；就在這一場場東征西討的賽事中，曾雅妮培養出獨立的性格，也走出無限寬闊的高球天地。
曾雅妮的成功沒有秘訣，關鍵在於她敏銳的自覺與不屈的意志。國中時代就成為台灣業餘女子高球界的高手，缺乏足以匹敵的對手，一度使她陷入缺乏動力的困境，母親要求她必須在「學業」和「打球」中作出抉擇。這是許多台灣球員都有過的瓶頸，多數人最後選擇退出；但曾雅妮給母親的答覆斬釘截鐵，她說「兩樣我都不放棄」。就這樣下定決心自我鞭策，七年後，台灣誕生了一個充滿自信與陽光的世界球后。
曾雅妮曾透露，自己在球場上如何向高球前輩「偷偷學習」，包括澳洲名將韋柏、瑞典傳奇球星索倫絲坦等，學習如何保持擊球節奏，如何克服心理壓力，如何強化自己的推桿弱勢。她不僅具有企圖心，更願意面對自己的弱點，不辭辛勞地練習改進。她還利用練球的餘暇勤練英文，目的是希望面對國際媒體時能更準確、流暢地表達自己的想法。她知道，自己愈來愈接近那個不容忽視的位置，必須預先作好完美的準備。有趣的是，去年曾雅妮排名晉升到世界第二時，她突然有一種不真實感，因為排名顯示她的球技已超越了自己少年時代的諸位偶像。
十二歲便立志要成為「世界第一」的曾雅妮，昨天實現了她的夢想。這個夢想，是她用外人難以想像的意志打造的；但她夢想成真的榮耀，卻是所有台灣人都能和她共同分享的。去年大陸一家企業曾提供十億元的簽約金，要求曾雅妮轉而為大陸效力，但這位出身桃園龜山的女孩絲毫不為所動。在身上光環日漸耀眼之際，曾雅妮選擇的是為公益發聲、為癌童代言，把自己的光彩與溫暖和弱勢分享。這個明朗的女孩像個小太陽。
廿二歲登上世界球后的頂峰，曾雅妮完成了不可能的任務，也為台灣寫下一頁燦爛的傳奇。但球場的挑戰永無休止，接下來，要如何保住這頂桂冠，如何讓仰望她的青少年新手踏著其步伐前進，在曾雅妮自信的笑容裡應該備有答案吧！
Monday, February 14, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Put an End to the Liberty Times' McCarthyism
Put an End to the Liberty Times' McCarthyism
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2011
Cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges are finally on track. Cross-strait financial exchanges, investments, official exchanges have all experienced considerable growth. These developments have been a shot in the arm for Taiwan's economy. But amidst this progress, a wave of reaction has struck Taiwan. This reactionary force demonizes anyone connected with cross-Strait trade and investment. It characterizes this progress as the "Invasion of Chinese capital." It calls everyone involved a "Communist." This new wave of McCarthyism is spearheaded by the Liberty Times.
Over the past twenty years, the world has undergone rapid globalization, A nation's economy can no longer remain hermetically sealed. A nation can no longer restrict its dealings to only a handful of other countries. Instead, it must expand its markets. It must invest in plants. It must engage in international cooperation. It must have global distribution and logistics. Otherwise it cannot compete globally. Taiwan businesses are attempting to position themselves globally. The Mainland boasts vast productive resources. Income growth has created a vast market. We enjoy cultural and linquistic advantages. Why on earth should we give them up?
Many Taiwan based enterprises have investments on the Mainland. This has helped them maintain their competitiveness. It has kept them close to their markets. Many OEM oriented industries have set up factories on the Mainland at the behest of their clients. Otherwise their orders would have dried up. They would have found it difficult to survive. If these businesses vanish from the increasingly competitive global arena, Taiwan's economy will decline. The plain fact is that flat panels, OEM chips, and other key industries and enterprises on Taiwan have invested heavily on the Mainland. Only by doing so have they been able to remain competitive in the global marketplace. ECFA has been signed. Mainland tourists have been allowed to visit. This has brought new prosperity to Taiwan. An increasing proportion of the revenues of many listed companies come from the Mainland. For many of them, the proportion exceeds one half. Many investors hold China themed stocks. They are aware of the benefits of setting up plants on the Mainland. They are aware of the profits to be made from Mainland sales. They are aware of the positive impact for Taiwan's economy.
But the Liberty Times holds a different world view. The Liberty Times longs to seal off Taiwan, to put a padlock on Taiwan. In 2002 and 2003, a public debate was held over the construction of chip fabs on the Mainland. The Liberty Times opposed the move. It alleged that allowing the move would result in a loss of competitiveness. Two years ago, negotiations over ECFA began. The Liberty Times opposed ECFA as well. It alleged that signing ECFA would result in the collapse of our economy. People would find themselves out on the street. Over the past two years, successful Taiwan businesses have returned to Taiwan, to list on the stock market, and to invest in the island. Yet the Liberty Times persists in its ravings. It persists in calling others "Communists." It persists in accusing others of "having Chinese coloration." It persists in accusing others of "using proxies to gobble up Taiwan businesses."
These businesses left their hometowns. They struggled to succeed on the Mainland. They established themselves commercially. They struck it rich. Now, they have returned to invest in Taiwan, to set up factories, or purchase businesses. The bottom line is they have created more job opportunities on Taiwan. They have created greater economic value. Yet they must endure baseless attacks from the Liberty Times. According to the Liberty Times, OEM chip plants and other industries should never have been built on the Mainland. ECFA should never have been signed. Taiwan businesses should never have been permitted to return to Taiwan to invest. The fact is, the Liberty Times deluded economic policies would have killed off Taiwan's economy long ago.
The Liberty Times belongs to the Federal Group. The Federal Group got its start in real estate. Its boss Lin Jung-san, is a former legislator, former Control Yuan member, and former Control Yuan President. During authoritarian rule, he obediently carried out political directives. The KMT routinely gained the support and obedience of "nativist" businessmen through land deals. These land deals delivered vast wealth into the hands of these "nativist" businessmen. When former Taipei County Chief You Ching recalled the Xinzhuang Satellite City case, he revealed that all landlords were required to donate land in accordance with regulations. Only Lin Jung-san failed to do so. When the KMT lost Taipei County to the DPP, he swiftly obtained construction permits. You Ching said "Lin Jung-san owes Taipei County."
The public on Taiwan has a high opinion of traditional industries. Those businesses able to export their products, to make money in foreign lands, or to earn foreign exchange, have been applauded by the public. But businesses which have engaged in land speculation, which have colluded with corrupt officials, which have abused land zoning to their private advantage, which have raked in billions in windfall profits, which have deprived ordinary people of housing due to rising prices, have been roundly condemned by the public.
Today, a company which amassed its wealth through real estate profiteering, uses its media mouthpiece to trumpet its "love for Taiwan." Meanwhile, other companies, which struggled far from home, which returned to Taiwan to invest in Taiwan, have been denounced as "Communists." How and when did such glaring double standards become the norm? The Liberty Times amassed a fortune from illicit real estate deals, at the expense of the Taiwan public. The Liberty Times then turned around and denounced companies which made an honest profit on the Mainland as "Communists." Such is the Liberty Times' "love for Taiwan." The 1950s McCarthy era sundered American society, and impacted many of society's elites. The Liberty Times must cease its McCarthyite demagoguery. Otherwise Taiwan will be similarly impacted as well.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.02.11
社論－讓紅色麥卡鍚主義化為灰燼
本報訊
兩岸經貿往來步入正軌日趨熱絡後，兩岸資金往來、投資、人員參訪等都較過去長足的成長，此發展對台灣經濟也注入更多活水。但在此過程中，我們卻發現台灣持續存在著一股逆流，這股逆流對任何涉及兩岸經貿與投資事項，一概給予負面解讀，全視為所謂「中資入侵」，甚至到處給人戴紅帽子。這種紅色麥卡鍚主義又以《自由時報》為代表。
近廿年堪稱全球化進展最快速的時期，一個國家、一個經濟體的運作，早已不再是封閉對內，或面對少數幾個國家即可運作，而是必須在市場拓銷、投資設廠、國際合作上，都要有全球布局與運籌，否則難以在全球競爭中站穩腳步。台灣企業在布局過程中，面對大陸這個擁有龐大生產資源的基地，及在所得增長後釋出的龐大市場，藉由本身在文化、語言上所擁有的相對優勢，怎麼可能會選擇放棄布局？
對許多國內企業而言，赴大陸投資，除了維繫其競爭力外，也有貼近市場的目的。不少以代工為主的業者，則更是應業主要求而必須赴大陸設廠，否則訂單可能流失，企業更難生存；如果這些企業在全球競技場上競爭力日益流失，台灣經濟必然下滑。擺在眼前的事實是，不論是面板、晶圓代工、及各種台灣重要的產業與企業，透過投資大陸，才更能在全球競爭版圖中立穩腳步。ＥＣＦＡ的簽訂、開放陸客觀光，更是為台灣帶來新榮景。看看不少上市櫃企業，來自大陸的出貨、營收比重不斷上升，不少已超過五成，投資人爭捧這些中概股，即知道來自大陸投資設廠與市場銷售的利益，對台灣企業的挹注，及對國內經濟的正面效益。
但是看看《自由時報》的主張，卻一貫是封閉、鎖國。在九十一、九十二年各界討論開放晶圓代工赴大陸投資時，《自由時報》一再主張不能開放，認為開放會導致台灣競爭力流失。在兩年前討論與大陸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ時，《自由時報》亦大力反對，儼然簽訂後台灣經濟要崩盤、台灣人都要失業。而對近兩年在大陸經營有成的台商紛紛回台掛牌與投資，《自由時報》也不改其恐共、戴紅帽的習慣作為，動輒冠以「中資色彩」、「中資找替身買台灣企業」等帽子。
當這些離鄉背井、到大陸奮鬥有成的企業，站穩腳步，存得一桶金後，要回台灣投資，他們或是設廠投資、或是購買企業，無論那種形式，都為台灣創造更多的就業機會、更多的經濟產值，但他們卻要面對《自由時報》這種不分青紅皂白的紅色麥卡鍚主義的質疑與攻擊。如真依《自由時報》主張，等於不要開放晶圓代工等產業赴大陸投資、不要簽ＥＣＦＡ、不要讓台商回台投資，這種封閉、死水式的經濟，早置台灣經濟於死地了。
《自由時報》為聯邦集團擁有，集團以房地產起家，老闆林榮三擔任過立委、監委及監察院副院長。在那個國民威權統治時代的「侍從政治」中，國民黨慣常以土地利益交換本土商界的支持與服從。許多土地變更利益也這樣輸送到個別企業手中。前台北縣長尤清談到新莊副都心案時，就提到當所有地主都依規定捐出抵費地，只有林榮三不捐，而且台北縣長由國民黨變成民進黨籍時，快速取得建照，因此他說「林榮三欠台北縣民一個公道」。
台灣傳統社會對生產事業給予相當高的評價，能外銷出口、或在他鄉創業成功賺錢創匯的企業，都能得到社會普遍的肯定。但對炒作地皮、以官商勾結手法，塗畫變更都市計畫，獲取動輒數十甚至上百億土地暴利，讓房價高漲到庶民幾無立錐之地者，則給予負面評價。
今日一個在房地產獲取高利的企業，透過旗下媒體，口口聲聲愛台灣，卻為那些異地打拚有成，回台投資的企業大戴紅帽，瓦釜雷鳴，何至於斯？一手從島內民眾身上大賺房地產利益，一手為賺大陸錢的企業大戴紅帽，難道，這就是「愛台灣」嗎？上世紀五○年代美國的麥卡鍚主義，讓美國社會分裂，不少社會菁英受創；《自由時報》搞的這套紅色麥卡鍚主義，此一惡質手法如果不能終止，台灣社會也終將承受其負面影響。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2011
Cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges are finally on track. Cross-strait financial exchanges, investments, official exchanges have all experienced considerable growth. These developments have been a shot in the arm for Taiwan's economy. But amidst this progress, a wave of reaction has struck Taiwan. This reactionary force demonizes anyone connected with cross-Strait trade and investment. It characterizes this progress as the "Invasion of Chinese capital." It calls everyone involved a "Communist." This new wave of McCarthyism is spearheaded by the Liberty Times.
Over the past twenty years, the world has undergone rapid globalization, A nation's economy can no longer remain hermetically sealed. A nation can no longer restrict its dealings to only a handful of other countries. Instead, it must expand its markets. It must invest in plants. It must engage in international cooperation. It must have global distribution and logistics. Otherwise it cannot compete globally. Taiwan businesses are attempting to position themselves globally. The Mainland boasts vast productive resources. Income growth has created a vast market. We enjoy cultural and linquistic advantages. Why on earth should we give them up?
Many Taiwan based enterprises have investments on the Mainland. This has helped them maintain their competitiveness. It has kept them close to their markets. Many OEM oriented industries have set up factories on the Mainland at the behest of their clients. Otherwise their orders would have dried up. They would have found it difficult to survive. If these businesses vanish from the increasingly competitive global arena, Taiwan's economy will decline. The plain fact is that flat panels, OEM chips, and other key industries and enterprises on Taiwan have invested heavily on the Mainland. Only by doing so have they been able to remain competitive in the global marketplace. ECFA has been signed. Mainland tourists have been allowed to visit. This has brought new prosperity to Taiwan. An increasing proportion of the revenues of many listed companies come from the Mainland. For many of them, the proportion exceeds one half. Many investors hold China themed stocks. They are aware of the benefits of setting up plants on the Mainland. They are aware of the profits to be made from Mainland sales. They are aware of the positive impact for Taiwan's economy.
But the Liberty Times holds a different world view. The Liberty Times longs to seal off Taiwan, to put a padlock on Taiwan. In 2002 and 2003, a public debate was held over the construction of chip fabs on the Mainland. The Liberty Times opposed the move. It alleged that allowing the move would result in a loss of competitiveness. Two years ago, negotiations over ECFA began. The Liberty Times opposed ECFA as well. It alleged that signing ECFA would result in the collapse of our economy. People would find themselves out on the street. Over the past two years, successful Taiwan businesses have returned to Taiwan, to list on the stock market, and to invest in the island. Yet the Liberty Times persists in its ravings. It persists in calling others "Communists." It persists in accusing others of "having Chinese coloration." It persists in accusing others of "using proxies to gobble up Taiwan businesses."
These businesses left their hometowns. They struggled to succeed on the Mainland. They established themselves commercially. They struck it rich. Now, they have returned to invest in Taiwan, to set up factories, or purchase businesses. The bottom line is they have created more job opportunities on Taiwan. They have created greater economic value. Yet they must endure baseless attacks from the Liberty Times. According to the Liberty Times, OEM chip plants and other industries should never have been built on the Mainland. ECFA should never have been signed. Taiwan businesses should never have been permitted to return to Taiwan to invest. The fact is, the Liberty Times deluded economic policies would have killed off Taiwan's economy long ago.
The Liberty Times belongs to the Federal Group. The Federal Group got its start in real estate. Its boss Lin Jung-san, is a former legislator, former Control Yuan member, and former Control Yuan President. During authoritarian rule, he obediently carried out political directives. The KMT routinely gained the support and obedience of "nativist" businessmen through land deals. These land deals delivered vast wealth into the hands of these "nativist" businessmen. When former Taipei County Chief You Ching recalled the Xinzhuang Satellite City case, he revealed that all landlords were required to donate land in accordance with regulations. Only Lin Jung-san failed to do so. When the KMT lost Taipei County to the DPP, he swiftly obtained construction permits. You Ching said "Lin Jung-san owes Taipei County."
The public on Taiwan has a high opinion of traditional industries. Those businesses able to export their products, to make money in foreign lands, or to earn foreign exchange, have been applauded by the public. But businesses which have engaged in land speculation, which have colluded with corrupt officials, which have abused land zoning to their private advantage, which have raked in billions in windfall profits, which have deprived ordinary people of housing due to rising prices, have been roundly condemned by the public.
Today, a company which amassed its wealth through real estate profiteering, uses its media mouthpiece to trumpet its "love for Taiwan." Meanwhile, other companies, which struggled far from home, which returned to Taiwan to invest in Taiwan, have been denounced as "Communists." How and when did such glaring double standards become the norm? The Liberty Times amassed a fortune from illicit real estate deals, at the expense of the Taiwan public. The Liberty Times then turned around and denounced companies which made an honest profit on the Mainland as "Communists." Such is the Liberty Times' "love for Taiwan." The 1950s McCarthy era sundered American society, and impacted many of society's elites. The Liberty Times must cease its McCarthyite demagoguery. Otherwise Taiwan will be similarly impacted as well.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.02.11
社論－讓紅色麥卡鍚主義化為灰燼
本報訊
兩岸經貿往來步入正軌日趨熱絡後，兩岸資金往來、投資、人員參訪等都較過去長足的成長，此發展對台灣經濟也注入更多活水。但在此過程中，我們卻發現台灣持續存在著一股逆流，這股逆流對任何涉及兩岸經貿與投資事項，一概給予負面解讀，全視為所謂「中資入侵」，甚至到處給人戴紅帽子。這種紅色麥卡鍚主義又以《自由時報》為代表。
近廿年堪稱全球化進展最快速的時期，一個國家、一個經濟體的運作，早已不再是封閉對內，或面對少數幾個國家即可運作，而是必須在市場拓銷、投資設廠、國際合作上，都要有全球布局與運籌，否則難以在全球競爭中站穩腳步。台灣企業在布局過程中，面對大陸這個擁有龐大生產資源的基地，及在所得增長後釋出的龐大市場，藉由本身在文化、語言上所擁有的相對優勢，怎麼可能會選擇放棄布局？
對許多國內企業而言，赴大陸投資，除了維繫其競爭力外，也有貼近市場的目的。不少以代工為主的業者，則更是應業主要求而必須赴大陸設廠，否則訂單可能流失，企業更難生存；如果這些企業在全球競技場上競爭力日益流失，台灣經濟必然下滑。擺在眼前的事實是，不論是面板、晶圓代工、及各種台灣重要的產業與企業，透過投資大陸，才更能在全球競爭版圖中立穩腳步。ＥＣＦＡ的簽訂、開放陸客觀光，更是為台灣帶來新榮景。看看不少上市櫃企業，來自大陸的出貨、營收比重不斷上升，不少已超過五成，投資人爭捧這些中概股，即知道來自大陸投資設廠與市場銷售的利益，對台灣企業的挹注，及對國內經濟的正面效益。
但是看看《自由時報》的主張，卻一貫是封閉、鎖國。在九十一、九十二年各界討論開放晶圓代工赴大陸投資時，《自由時報》一再主張不能開放，認為開放會導致台灣競爭力流失。在兩年前討論與大陸簽訂ＥＣＦＡ時，《自由時報》亦大力反對，儼然簽訂後台灣經濟要崩盤、台灣人都要失業。而對近兩年在大陸經營有成的台商紛紛回台掛牌與投資，《自由時報》也不改其恐共、戴紅帽的習慣作為，動輒冠以「中資色彩」、「中資找替身買台灣企業」等帽子。
當這些離鄉背井、到大陸奮鬥有成的企業，站穩腳步，存得一桶金後，要回台灣投資，他們或是設廠投資、或是購買企業，無論那種形式，都為台灣創造更多的就業機會、更多的經濟產值，但他們卻要面對《自由時報》這種不分青紅皂白的紅色麥卡鍚主義的質疑與攻擊。如真依《自由時報》主張，等於不要開放晶圓代工等產業赴大陸投資、不要簽ＥＣＦＡ、不要讓台商回台投資，這種封閉、死水式的經濟，早置台灣經濟於死地了。
《自由時報》為聯邦集團擁有，集團以房地產起家，老闆林榮三擔任過立委、監委及監察院副院長。在那個國民威權統治時代的「侍從政治」中，國民黨慣常以土地利益交換本土商界的支持與服從。許多土地變更利益也這樣輸送到個別企業手中。前台北縣長尤清談到新莊副都心案時，就提到當所有地主都依規定捐出抵費地，只有林榮三不捐，而且台北縣長由國民黨變成民進黨籍時，快速取得建照，因此他說「林榮三欠台北縣民一個公道」。
台灣傳統社會對生產事業給予相當高的評價，能外銷出口、或在他鄉創業成功賺錢創匯的企業，都能得到社會普遍的肯定。但對炒作地皮、以官商勾結手法，塗畫變更都市計畫，獲取動輒數十甚至上百億土地暴利，讓房價高漲到庶民幾無立錐之地者，則給予負面評價。
今日一個在房地產獲取高利的企業，透過旗下媒體，口口聲聲愛台灣，卻為那些異地打拚有成，回台投資的企業大戴紅帽，瓦釜雷鳴，何至於斯？一手從島內民眾身上大賺房地產利益，一手為賺大陸錢的企業大戴紅帽，難道，這就是「愛台灣」嗎？上世紀五○年代美國的麥卡鍚主義，讓美國社會分裂，不少社會菁英受創；《自由時報》搞的這套紅色麥卡鍚主義，此一惡質手法如果不能終止，台灣社會也終將承受其負面影響。
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wild Accusations of "Chinese Capital" and "Red Enterprises"
Wild Accusations of "Chinese Capital" and "Red Enterprises"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2011
Recently the Liberty Times published a series of news reports. It referred to the head of the Want Want Group as "a Taiwan businessman named Tsai, heavily reliant on Chinese capital." The Liberty Times has repeatedly leveled wild accusations of "Chinese capital" and "Red enterprises." It has given the public a grossly misleading impression. Its conduct is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution or the White Terror. We feel compelled to clarify the matter for the public, and to refute the distortions created by the Liberty Times.
Strictly speaking, so-called "Chinese capital" refers to strictly controlled Mainland government funds. The most obvious source of "Chinese capital" is of course, Mainland government funds. The next most obvious source is funds from state-owned enterprises. Other sources are less obvious. Most of the funding for some family enterprises may come from the private sector. But some funding may come from the government or state-owned enterprises. Other businesses derive no capital whatsoever from the Mainland government or state-owned enterprises. They merely sell their products on the Mainland. Yet the Liberty Times classifies even their profits as "Chinese capital." This is unheard of. The Liberty Times is the only entity in the world that defines "Chinese capital" in such an absurd manner.
According to the Liberty Times' novel definition, all Taiwan is under the shadow of "Chinese capital." Over 1600 companies are listed on Taiwan, Nearly 1000 have been plants on Mainland China. Technology companies account for nearly 90%. In the past, most Taiwan businessmen investing on Mainland China merely took advantage of the Mainland's cheap land, cheap labor, and other production factors. They manufactured export-oriented products, and turned the Mainland into the "world's factory." But in recent years the Mainland has undergone a transformation, to the global market. Private sector consumption has skyrocketed. All Taiwan-funded businesses have substantially increased their presence in the Mainland domestic market. These companies make money from the Mainland market. According to the Liberty Times' absurd definition, they have all become "businesses heavily reliant on Chinese capital."
These companies earn money selling products on the mainland. Back on Taiwan, they pay dividends to the investing public. Members of the public pay taxes on their dividends. The salaries of everyone in the government, from President Ma at the top, to civil servants at the bottom, come from government revenues. Therefore, according to the Liberty Times unique definition of "Chinese capital," President Ma and every civil servant on Taiwan is funded by "Chinese capital."
Taiwan-funded enterprises have grown strong on the Mainland. They have won a large market share. The public on Taiwan approves. Initially such success stories applied only to Taiwan's small and medium enterprises. The Chicken King grew strong on the Mainland. The Ting Hsing Group had a small food factory in Changhua. It became the largest instant noodle brand on the Mainland. Taiwan's RT-Mart invested heavily in Mainland China for ten years. It has now surpassed French retail giant Carrefour, and become the number one discount store on the Mainland. Others include Taiwan funded service sector industries, Daphne shoes, Natural Beauty, Les Enphants, Ou Difen Kelisiting lingerie, Christine bakeries, 85 Degree Centigrade coffee shop, Yonghe Soybean Milk. These and other large and small enterprises built their own brands on Mainland China. They created new business empires. After establishing themselves on the Mainland, these businesses returned to Taiwan to invest, or list on the Taiwan stock market, allowing investors on Taiwan to share in the profits.
Take global computer brand Acer, "the pride of Taiwan." Acer made a concerted effort to develop new markets on the Mainland. By the end of last year, it was number two in personal computer sales on the Mainland. One can hardly say that Acer made little money on the Mainland. According to the Liberty Times definition of "Chinese capital," Acer is also funded by "Chinese capital." Acer's sales pitch is highly flexible. On the Mainland, Acer stresses that it is "the pride of the Chinese people." It stresses that it is an "international brand, with local values." According to the Liberty Times' closed minded, inward looking definition of "local values," Acer's sales pitch amounts to "selling out Taiwan." But since cross-Strait financial liberalization, the [連合庫] and other public financial institutions have established branches on the Mainland. They are beginning to earn Mainland dollars. According to the Liberty Times' definition of "Chinese capital," aren't these state-owned banks under the influence of "Chinese capital?" Is the Liberty Times' view of the world reasonable and convincing?
The main business of the Want Want Group's Ilan Food Division is rice crackers. It is a 100% Taiwan owned enterprise. During the 90s it began investing in the Mainland, After 20 years of hard work, it successfully captured the hearts of Mainland consumers. After establishing a firm foothold on the Mainland, it returned to Taiwan to invest in the media. It issued TDRs. During 20 years of development, it never received a penny from the Mainland authorities or state-owned enterprises. All of its income was derived from the sale of products in the Mainland market. It returned to Taiwan to invest in the media. Its sources of funding have been closely scrutinized by the government. No "Chinese capital" is involved.
The Liberty Times however, has turned a blind eye to these facts. It persists in leveling risible allegations of "Chinese capital" against the Want Want Group and other businesses that have achieved success in the Mainland market. It persists in painting them as "Reds." It persists in misleading the general public. We are puzzled. These companies work hard. They develop new markets. They earn money from the locals. They send the profits back to Taiwan, to invest in new businesses, Do they really not "love Taiwan?" Do their actions really represent "domination by Chinese capital?" Others shut themselves up on the island of Taiwan. The engage in land speculation. They inflate real estate prices. They profit from local Taiwanese. They make it impossible for ordinary office workers to afford their own homes. Do they really "love Taiwan?" What right do such businesses have to accuse others of being "Reds?" What rigth to they have to accuse others of "domination by Chinese capital?"
胡亂界定中資 惡扣企業紅帽子
2011-02-10 中國時報
日前《自由時報》在新聞報導中，再以「中資色彩濃厚的蔡姓台商」影射旺旺中時集團負責人；對《自由時報》一再以其自行胡亂界定的中資定義，隨意惡扣企業紅帽子，我們認為已嚴重誤導社會視聽，並成為另外一種文革式的白色恐怖。我們在此做一說明並就教社會大眾與《自由時報》。
所謂的中資，嚴格的定義是指大陸官方掌控的資金，最直接者當然是大陸官方的資金，再來則是其國營企業的資金；至於間接一點者，則是指某家企業中，雖然大部分資金來自民間，但仍有部分資金來自官方或國企。至於，把所有資金都毫無來自大陸官方或國企，只是在大陸賣產品，掙得的錢，也列入「中資」行列，則是聞所未聞─全世界只有《自由時報》是如此定義中資。
依照《自由時報》這個新定義，全台都籠照在中資陰影中。全台一千六百多家上市櫃公司中，近千家已在大陸投資設廠，科技業者更達近九成；過去，大部分台商赴大陸投資是利用大陸廉價土地、勞動力等生產要素，產品以出口為主，大陸成為「世界工廠」。但近年大陸轉型為「全球市場」，民間消費力快速成長，所有台資企業、台商全部都轉而大幅增加在大陸的內銷比重。這些賺大陸市場錢的企業，在《自由時報》的定義中，可全都變成「中資色彩濃厚的企業」了。
這些企業在大陸賣產品掙得錢，回台發股息、股利給投資大眾，民眾拿到股利也要繳稅，上至馬總統、下至基層公務員的薪資，都來自政府稅收。所以，依照《自由時報》這種獨樹一幟、特殊的中資定義，豈不成馬總統與台灣公務員領取的薪資，都有中資了？
對在大陸成長、茁壯，搶攻市場成功的台資企業，台灣社會一向不吝給予掌聲喝采。大成長城原本只是台灣的中小企業，在大陸發展成雞肉大王；頂新集團以彰化的小食品廠，成為大陸最大方便麵品牌。來自台灣的大潤發深耕大陸十年，已快超越全球零售業巨擘法國的家樂福，成為大陸第一大量販店。其它如台商投資的服務業中還有如達芙妮女鞋、自然美、麗嬰房、歐迪芬內衣及賣麵包的克莉絲汀、餐飲的八五度Ｃ、永和豆漿等各種大大小小企業，都在大陸以自有品牌闖出一片天，在大陸立穩腳步後，這些企業也陸續回台投資或掛牌上市，與台灣投資人分享大陸投資利得。
我們再以台灣人的驕傲、全球性電腦品牌宏碁為例。宏碁在大陸努力開拓市場，去年底在大陸的個人電腦銷售市占率站上第二名，宏碁賺的大陸錢不可謂少吧？依《自由時報》的定義，宏碁也是中資。宏碁在大陸的銷售非常靈活，強調宏碁是「中國人的驕傲」，強調「國際名牌，本土價值」，依《自由時報》那種封閉、「內視」的本土價值，豈不是「賣台」？而在兩岸金融開放後，連合庫等公營金融機構也赴大陸設點，開始要賺大陸錢，依《自由時報》定義這豈非連國營行庫都己滲入中資了？這種觀點，豈有道理與說服力？
旺旺集團的宜蘭食品，以販賣米果為本業，是百分之百的台灣企業；在九○年代開始赴大陸投資，經過廿年的耕耘，以自有品牌成功擄獲大陸消費者的心；在大陸立穩腳步後，回台投資媒體及發行台灣存託憑證（ＴＤＲ）。在廿年的發展過程中，從來沒有一分一毫的資金來自大陸官方、國企，完全是在大陸市場銷售產品之所得。回台投資媒體時，也經政府嚴格審核資金來源，其中完全沒有所謂的中資。
不過，《自由時報》對這一切卻視而不見，不斷以其滑天下之大稽的「中資定義」，為包括旺旺集團在內所有在大陸市場成功的企業，大玩戴紅帽子的把戲，錯誤引導社會視聽。我們很疑惑，難道去海外─包括大陸在內打拚，開拓市場、賺當地人錢，再把所得盈餘匯回台灣投資的企業，是不愛台灣、是「中資色彩濃厚」；那些關在台灣島內，惡炒地皮、拉升房價、大賺台灣人錢、讓上班族望屋興嘆的企業，才是愛台灣嗎？這種企業，憑什麼、而且有什麼臉到處為人家戴帽子，亂扣中資帽子？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 10, 2011
Recently the Liberty Times published a series of news reports. It referred to the head of the Want Want Group as "a Taiwan businessman named Tsai, heavily reliant on Chinese capital." The Liberty Times has repeatedly leveled wild accusations of "Chinese capital" and "Red enterprises." It has given the public a grossly misleading impression. Its conduct is reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution or the White Terror. We feel compelled to clarify the matter for the public, and to refute the distortions created by the Liberty Times.
Strictly speaking, so-called "Chinese capital" refers to strictly controlled Mainland government funds. The most obvious source of "Chinese capital" is of course, Mainland government funds. The next most obvious source is funds from state-owned enterprises. Other sources are less obvious. Most of the funding for some family enterprises may come from the private sector. But some funding may come from the government or state-owned enterprises. Other businesses derive no capital whatsoever from the Mainland government or state-owned enterprises. They merely sell their products on the Mainland. Yet the Liberty Times classifies even their profits as "Chinese capital." This is unheard of. The Liberty Times is the only entity in the world that defines "Chinese capital" in such an absurd manner.
According to the Liberty Times' novel definition, all Taiwan is under the shadow of "Chinese capital." Over 1600 companies are listed on Taiwan, Nearly 1000 have been plants on Mainland China. Technology companies account for nearly 90%. In the past, most Taiwan businessmen investing on Mainland China merely took advantage of the Mainland's cheap land, cheap labor, and other production factors. They manufactured export-oriented products, and turned the Mainland into the "world's factory." But in recent years the Mainland has undergone a transformation, to the global market. Private sector consumption has skyrocketed. All Taiwan-funded businesses have substantially increased their presence in the Mainland domestic market. These companies make money from the Mainland market. According to the Liberty Times' absurd definition, they have all become "businesses heavily reliant on Chinese capital."
These companies earn money selling products on the mainland. Back on Taiwan, they pay dividends to the investing public. Members of the public pay taxes on their dividends. The salaries of everyone in the government, from President Ma at the top, to civil servants at the bottom, come from government revenues. Therefore, according to the Liberty Times unique definition of "Chinese capital," President Ma and every civil servant on Taiwan is funded by "Chinese capital."
Taiwan-funded enterprises have grown strong on the Mainland. They have won a large market share. The public on Taiwan approves. Initially such success stories applied only to Taiwan's small and medium enterprises. The Chicken King grew strong on the Mainland. The Ting Hsing Group had a small food factory in Changhua. It became the largest instant noodle brand on the Mainland. Taiwan's RT-Mart invested heavily in Mainland China for ten years. It has now surpassed French retail giant Carrefour, and become the number one discount store on the Mainland. Others include Taiwan funded service sector industries, Daphne shoes, Natural Beauty, Les Enphants, Ou Difen Kelisiting lingerie, Christine bakeries, 85 Degree Centigrade coffee shop, Yonghe Soybean Milk. These and other large and small enterprises built their own brands on Mainland China. They created new business empires. After establishing themselves on the Mainland, these businesses returned to Taiwan to invest, or list on the Taiwan stock market, allowing investors on Taiwan to share in the profits.
Take global computer brand Acer, "the pride of Taiwan." Acer made a concerted effort to develop new markets on the Mainland. By the end of last year, it was number two in personal computer sales on the Mainland. One can hardly say that Acer made little money on the Mainland. According to the Liberty Times definition of "Chinese capital," Acer is also funded by "Chinese capital." Acer's sales pitch is highly flexible. On the Mainland, Acer stresses that it is "the pride of the Chinese people." It stresses that it is an "international brand, with local values." According to the Liberty Times' closed minded, inward looking definition of "local values," Acer's sales pitch amounts to "selling out Taiwan." But since cross-Strait financial liberalization, the [連合庫] and other public financial institutions have established branches on the Mainland. They are beginning to earn Mainland dollars. According to the Liberty Times' definition of "Chinese capital," aren't these state-owned banks under the influence of "Chinese capital?" Is the Liberty Times' view of the world reasonable and convincing?
The main business of the Want Want Group's Ilan Food Division is rice crackers. It is a 100% Taiwan owned enterprise. During the 90s it began investing in the Mainland, After 20 years of hard work, it successfully captured the hearts of Mainland consumers. After establishing a firm foothold on the Mainland, it returned to Taiwan to invest in the media. It issued TDRs. During 20 years of development, it never received a penny from the Mainland authorities or state-owned enterprises. All of its income was derived from the sale of products in the Mainland market. It returned to Taiwan to invest in the media. Its sources of funding have been closely scrutinized by the government. No "Chinese capital" is involved.
The Liberty Times however, has turned a blind eye to these facts. It persists in leveling risible allegations of "Chinese capital" against the Want Want Group and other businesses that have achieved success in the Mainland market. It persists in painting them as "Reds." It persists in misleading the general public. We are puzzled. These companies work hard. They develop new markets. They earn money from the locals. They send the profits back to Taiwan, to invest in new businesses, Do they really not "love Taiwan?" Do their actions really represent "domination by Chinese capital?" Others shut themselves up on the island of Taiwan. The engage in land speculation. They inflate real estate prices. They profit from local Taiwanese. They make it impossible for ordinary office workers to afford their own homes. Do they really "love Taiwan?" What right do such businesses have to accuse others of being "Reds?" What rigth to they have to accuse others of "domination by Chinese capital?"
胡亂界定中資 惡扣企業紅帽子
2011-02-10 中國時報
日前《自由時報》在新聞報導中，再以「中資色彩濃厚的蔡姓台商」影射旺旺中時集團負責人；對《自由時報》一再以其自行胡亂界定的中資定義，隨意惡扣企業紅帽子，我們認為已嚴重誤導社會視聽，並成為另外一種文革式的白色恐怖。我們在此做一說明並就教社會大眾與《自由時報》。
所謂的中資，嚴格的定義是指大陸官方掌控的資金，最直接者當然是大陸官方的資金，再來則是其國營企業的資金；至於間接一點者，則是指某家企業中，雖然大部分資金來自民間，但仍有部分資金來自官方或國企。至於，把所有資金都毫無來自大陸官方或國企，只是在大陸賣產品，掙得的錢，也列入「中資」行列，則是聞所未聞─全世界只有《自由時報》是如此定義中資。
依照《自由時報》這個新定義，全台都籠照在中資陰影中。全台一千六百多家上市櫃公司中，近千家已在大陸投資設廠，科技業者更達近九成；過去，大部分台商赴大陸投資是利用大陸廉價土地、勞動力等生產要素，產品以出口為主，大陸成為「世界工廠」。但近年大陸轉型為「全球市場」，民間消費力快速成長，所有台資企業、台商全部都轉而大幅增加在大陸的內銷比重。這些賺大陸市場錢的企業，在《自由時報》的定義中，可全都變成「中資色彩濃厚的企業」了。
這些企業在大陸賣產品掙得錢，回台發股息、股利給投資大眾，民眾拿到股利也要繳稅，上至馬總統、下至基層公務員的薪資，都來自政府稅收。所以，依照《自由時報》這種獨樹一幟、特殊的中資定義，豈不成馬總統與台灣公務員領取的薪資，都有中資了？
對在大陸成長、茁壯，搶攻市場成功的台資企業，台灣社會一向不吝給予掌聲喝采。大成長城原本只是台灣的中小企業，在大陸發展成雞肉大王；頂新集團以彰化的小食品廠，成為大陸最大方便麵品牌。來自台灣的大潤發深耕大陸十年，已快超越全球零售業巨擘法國的家樂福，成為大陸第一大量販店。其它如台商投資的服務業中還有如達芙妮女鞋、自然美、麗嬰房、歐迪芬內衣及賣麵包的克莉絲汀、餐飲的八五度Ｃ、永和豆漿等各種大大小小企業，都在大陸以自有品牌闖出一片天，在大陸立穩腳步後，這些企業也陸續回台投資或掛牌上市，與台灣投資人分享大陸投資利得。
我們再以台灣人的驕傲、全球性電腦品牌宏碁為例。宏碁在大陸努力開拓市場，去年底在大陸的個人電腦銷售市占率站上第二名，宏碁賺的大陸錢不可謂少吧？依《自由時報》的定義，宏碁也是中資。宏碁在大陸的銷售非常靈活，強調宏碁是「中國人的驕傲」，強調「國際名牌，本土價值」，依《自由時報》那種封閉、「內視」的本土價值，豈不是「賣台」？而在兩岸金融開放後，連合庫等公營金融機構也赴大陸設點，開始要賺大陸錢，依《自由時報》定義這豈非連國營行庫都己滲入中資了？這種觀點，豈有道理與說服力？
旺旺集團的宜蘭食品，以販賣米果為本業，是百分之百的台灣企業；在九○年代開始赴大陸投資，經過廿年的耕耘，以自有品牌成功擄獲大陸消費者的心；在大陸立穩腳步後，回台投資媒體及發行台灣存託憑證（ＴＤＲ）。在廿年的發展過程中，從來沒有一分一毫的資金來自大陸官方、國企，完全是在大陸市場銷售產品之所得。回台投資媒體時，也經政府嚴格審核資金來源，其中完全沒有所謂的中資。
不過，《自由時報》對這一切卻視而不見，不斷以其滑天下之大稽的「中資定義」，為包括旺旺集團在內所有在大陸市場成功的企業，大玩戴紅帽子的把戲，錯誤引導社會視聽。我們很疑惑，難道去海外─包括大陸在內打拚，開拓市場、賺當地人錢，再把所得盈餘匯回台灣投資的企業，是不愛台灣、是「中資色彩濃厚」；那些關在台灣島內，惡炒地皮、拉升房價、大賺台灣人錢、讓上班族望屋興嘆的企業，才是愛台灣嗎？這種企業，憑什麼、而且有什麼臉到處為人家戴帽子，亂扣中資帽子？
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Proper Nomenclature Beneficial to Cross-Strait Relations
Proper Nomenclature Beneficial to Cross-Strait Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9, 2011
In his Chinese New Year speech, President Ma Ying-jeou gave government officials specific instructions. In all future documents, they must refer to the other side of the Taiwan Strait as "the Mainland," or as "Mainland China." They must not refer to it as "China." This would avoid confusion over the issue of sovereignty and "two Chinas." It would ensure that cross-Strait relations are based on the constitution. His remarks elicited different reactions from the Blue and Green camps. But in fact this was a simple matter of law, and fundamental to cross-Strait relations. It was what the government should have been doing all along.
Under the provisions of the ROC Constitution, the current cross-Strait situation is one in which "the nation has yet to be reunified." Therefore the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been classified as the "Free Region" and the "Mainland Region." Article One of the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region" states that "This article has been specially crafted to ensure the safety and welfare of people in the Taiwan Region prior to national reunification, to regulate exchanges between the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region, and to deal with such legal matters as may arise," The article explicitly defines the Taiwan Region as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other areas under the jurisdiction of the government. The Mainland Region is defined as "sovereign territory outside the Taiwan Region belonging to the Republic of China." The competent authority in charge of cross-Strait affairs shall be the "Mainland Affairs Council."
Everything, from the constitution, to the law, to government entities, explicitly refer to the other side as "the Mainland." Logically speaking, official documents are the same as the law. Naturally they must accord with the law. They can hardly use concocted names. President Ma reiterated the government's position. He stressed that this was a description of the status quo. This status quo was derived from amendments to the constitution, and from the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region." It has not changed since the establishment of the MAC, despite two changes in the ruling party.
DPP legislators have alleged that President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration demeaned our sovereignty. Their allegations are groundless. When the DPP was in power, then Premier Yu Shyi-kun was questioned in the Legislative Yuan. Yu ordered the various government agencies to refer to the other side as "Mainland China" or "the Chinese Communists." Yu Shyi-kun had no choice. As the chief executive of the Republic of China, he was duty bound by its constitution and laws. Besides, the other side refers to us as "Taiwan." We refer to it as "the Mainland." Who can complain? We have not repudiated the Beijing authorities' jurisdiction. But neither have we recognized their sovereignty. How exactly have we "demeaned" ourselves?
Following the five cities elections, the DPP held lively debates, in which they discussed new cross-Strait policies. Former DPP chairman and premier Frank Hsieh proposed "One Constitution, Different Interpretations." He proposed a return to his long held "One China Constitution." The DPP may refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But it can not avoid the spirit of "One China, Different Interpretations" when dealing with cross-Strait affairs. The ROC Constitution, after all, implies "One China." On Taiwan, the term "China" means the Republic of China. On Taiwan, this is the lowest common denominator regarding cross-Strait policy.
Scholars have commented on President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration. They consider it a gesture of goodwill toward the mainland. They also think it may appeal to swing voters. The two may go hand in hand. Official documents are law. They represent the government's position, When government officials prepare official documents, or are questioned by legislators, they must do so in accordance with the law. They must refer to the other side as "the Mainland" or "Mainland China." Basically they must reaffirm the Republic of China. They must not repudiate the policies of the Republic of China "prior to reunification." The Mainland fears that Taipei's attempts to assert its sovereignty may pave the way for Taiwan independence. The government must dispel any such concerns. On the other hand, the government must firmly uphold the Republic of China's sovereignty. This is its public responsibility. The government must not neglect national sovereignty, merely because it is attempting to strengthen cross-Strait relations.
For the public on Taiwan, the constitution should be treated like air and water, essential to our national survival. It is not necessary to pay it constant lip service. But cross-Strait relations are increasingly intimate. Historical disputes over the two sides' sovereignty have yet to be resolved, If repeated declarations reduce controversy, why not? Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan spoke of Taiwan's seven major interests. But she failed to stipulate "under the framework of the ROC Constitution." As a result, scholars wondered whether her proposal was "unconstitutional." People were incredulous. Beijing characterized this as a "minor matter." Just to make sure, Ma Ying-jeou reiterated the government's position, He gave Lai Shin-yuan support. Cross-Strait exchanges are currently in full swing. The various ministries may be forced to deal with cross-Strait matters. The Lai Shin-yuan incident may become a problem for all government officials.
Cross-Strait exchanges have been going on for 24 years. People to people exchanges are warmer than ever. People refer to the other side using all sorts of names. These include China, the Peoples Republic of China, the Beijing authorities, the Mainland, Mainland China, even the Chinese Communists. The man in the street may not understand the distinction between "jurisdiction" and "sovereignty." The government is not about to tell private citizens what terms they should use when referring to the other side. Take the calendar for example. The private sector has long used the Western calendar for publication dates. But the government is not the private sector. All official documents must use "Year of the Republic" dates. When dealing with cross-Strait affairs and policy, the government must abide by the same laws. Only then can it avoid misusing words and generating controversy within a complex political environment.
對等稱呼 有利兩岸關係平順發展
2011-02-09 中國時報
馬英九總統新春講話，特別要求各部會未來的公文書，一律要稱對岸為「大陸」或「中國大陸」，不能簡稱其為「中國」，避免產生「兩個中國」的主權混淆，也讓兩岸關係回歸憲法架構。這番談話，引起藍綠不同解讀，但這其實是兩岸關係最簡單的法律基礎，符合政府一貫政策應有的作為。
根據中華民國憲法增修條文，兩岸處境仍屬「國家未統一前」，因此分別以「自由地區」與「大陸地區」定位兩岸。而根據《台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》，第一條開宗明義就是「國家統一前，為確保臺灣地區安全與民眾福祉，規範臺灣地區與大陸地區人民之往來，並處理衍生之法律事件，特制定本條例。」條例並明確定義台灣地區是指臺灣、澎湖、金門、馬祖及政府統治權所及之其他地區，而大陸地區則是指「臺灣地區以外之中華民國領土」。至於處理兩岸事務的主管機關名稱則是「行政院大陸委員會」。
從憲法到法律，從法律到機關，都非常明確的定位對岸為「大陸」，照常理，機關公文書形同法令，當然得依法而行，豈能自創名稱？馬總統重申政府立場，強調這是對現狀的描述，這個現狀從憲法增修條文、《兩岸人民關係條例》制定、陸委會設置以來，即使歷經兩次政黨輪替，都沒改變。
民進黨立委指責馬英九總統的宣示是矮化主權之舉，完全沒有道理。因為民進黨執政時期，當年的行政院長游錫?就在立法院總質詢時表明，要求各部會稱對岸為「中國大陸」或者「中共」，游錫?沒有其他選擇，既身為中華民國最高行政首長，恪遵憲法和法律，就是他的職責。何況對岸稱我為「台灣」，我稱對岸為「大陸」，誰曰不宜？我們不否認北京當局的「治權」，但沒承認其「主權」，又何來矮化自己的問題？
五都選舉之後，民進黨也熱烈討論新的兩岸論述。前民進黨主席、行政院長謝長廷提出「憲法各表」，回歸他過去一貫主張「憲法一中」。盡管民進黨不承認「九二共識」，但也無法迴避以「一個中國，各自表述」的精神，處理兩岸事務。畢竟中華民國憲法就是「一個中國」，這個「中國」在台灣就是中華民國，這是台灣內部對兩岸政策紛歧中的最大公約數。
學者評論馬英九總統的宣示，認為是對大陸表達善意的做法，也有爭取中間選民的政治意涵，這兩種作用完全可以並行不悖。公文書是法律，是政府立場，官員在公文書，甚至國會備詢時，依法而行，稱呼對岸為大陸或中國大陸，基本上是重申了中華民國的立場，不否定中華民國「統一前」的各種政策作為，緩解大陸對台灣爭取主權作為可能導致獨立的疑慮；另一方面，政府堅守主權立場，也是對國人最負責任的做法，政府不會因為強化兩岸交流，而輕忽國家主權定位。
對台灣而言，憲法理應如空氣與水，是國家存在的必需品，不必每天掛在嘴上宣示。但兩岸關係愈趨頻密，兩岸主權的歷史糾葛卻猶未解決，如果多一次宣示，多減少一些爭議，有何不可？就像陸委會主委賴幸媛提出台灣七大利益論，只因為少說了一句「在中華民國憲法架構下」，竟引發學者質疑「違憲」，令人不可思議，馬英九以確定對岸稱謂這件其實非常簡單的「小事」，重申政府立場，也為賴幸媛緩頰。而賴幸媛事件，在目前兩岸交流全面開展，各部會都有機會觸及兩岸事務的情況下，可能會成為政府官員的共同問題。
兩岸開放交流廿四年，民間往來愈趨熱絡，對於對岸的稱呼，從中國、中華人民共和國、北京當局、大陸、中國大陸、乃至中共，林林種種。民間並不會嚴格區分「治權」與「主權」的差異，政府也很難約束民間到底要用什麼名詞稱呼對岸，就像談到紀年，民間出版品早已常用西元紀年。但政府不同於民間，所有的公文書紀年還是得用「民國」，在處理兩岸事務與政策時，政府同樣得須依循法律基礎，才能在複雜的政治論述中，避免因為言詞誤用造成的爭議和困擾。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 9, 2011
In his Chinese New Year speech, President Ma Ying-jeou gave government officials specific instructions. In all future documents, they must refer to the other side of the Taiwan Strait as "the Mainland," or as "Mainland China." They must not refer to it as "China." This would avoid confusion over the issue of sovereignty and "two Chinas." It would ensure that cross-Strait relations are based on the constitution. His remarks elicited different reactions from the Blue and Green camps. But in fact this was a simple matter of law, and fundamental to cross-Strait relations. It was what the government should have been doing all along.
Under the provisions of the ROC Constitution, the current cross-Strait situation is one in which "the nation has yet to be reunified." Therefore the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been classified as the "Free Region" and the "Mainland Region." Article One of the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region" states that "This article has been specially crafted to ensure the safety and welfare of people in the Taiwan Region prior to national reunification, to regulate exchanges between the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region, and to deal with such legal matters as may arise," The article explicitly defines the Taiwan Region as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other areas under the jurisdiction of the government. The Mainland Region is defined as "sovereign territory outside the Taiwan Region belonging to the Republic of China." The competent authority in charge of cross-Strait affairs shall be the "Mainland Affairs Council."
Everything, from the constitution, to the law, to government entities, explicitly refer to the other side as "the Mainland." Logically speaking, official documents are the same as the law. Naturally they must accord with the law. They can hardly use concocted names. President Ma reiterated the government's position. He stressed that this was a description of the status quo. This status quo was derived from amendments to the constitution, and from the "Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Region and the Mainland Region." It has not changed since the establishment of the MAC, despite two changes in the ruling party.
DPP legislators have alleged that President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration demeaned our sovereignty. Their allegations are groundless. When the DPP was in power, then Premier Yu Shyi-kun was questioned in the Legislative Yuan. Yu ordered the various government agencies to refer to the other side as "Mainland China" or "the Chinese Communists." Yu Shyi-kun had no choice. As the chief executive of the Republic of China, he was duty bound by its constitution and laws. Besides, the other side refers to us as "Taiwan." We refer to it as "the Mainland." Who can complain? We have not repudiated the Beijing authorities' jurisdiction. But neither have we recognized their sovereignty. How exactly have we "demeaned" ourselves?
Following the five cities elections, the DPP held lively debates, in which they discussed new cross-Strait policies. Former DPP chairman and premier Frank Hsieh proposed "One Constitution, Different Interpretations." He proposed a return to his long held "One China Constitution." The DPP may refuse to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But it can not avoid the spirit of "One China, Different Interpretations" when dealing with cross-Strait affairs. The ROC Constitution, after all, implies "One China." On Taiwan, the term "China" means the Republic of China. On Taiwan, this is the lowest common denominator regarding cross-Strait policy.
Scholars have commented on President Ma Ying-jeou's declaration. They consider it a gesture of goodwill toward the mainland. They also think it may appeal to swing voters. The two may go hand in hand. Official documents are law. They represent the government's position, When government officials prepare official documents, or are questioned by legislators, they must do so in accordance with the law. They must refer to the other side as "the Mainland" or "Mainland China." Basically they must reaffirm the Republic of China. They must not repudiate the policies of the Republic of China "prior to reunification." The Mainland fears that Taipei's attempts to assert its sovereignty may pave the way for Taiwan independence. The government must dispel any such concerns. On the other hand, the government must firmly uphold the Republic of China's sovereignty. This is its public responsibility. The government must not neglect national sovereignty, merely because it is attempting to strengthen cross-Strait relations.
For the public on Taiwan, the constitution should be treated like air and water, essential to our national survival. It is not necessary to pay it constant lip service. But cross-Strait relations are increasingly intimate. Historical disputes over the two sides' sovereignty have yet to be resolved, If repeated declarations reduce controversy, why not? Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan spoke of Taiwan's seven major interests. But she failed to stipulate "under the framework of the ROC Constitution." As a result, scholars wondered whether her proposal was "unconstitutional." People were incredulous. Beijing characterized this as a "minor matter." Just to make sure, Ma Ying-jeou reiterated the government's position, He gave Lai Shin-yuan support. Cross-Strait exchanges are currently in full swing. The various ministries may be forced to deal with cross-Strait matters. The Lai Shin-yuan incident may become a problem for all government officials.
Cross-Strait exchanges have been going on for 24 years. People to people exchanges are warmer than ever. People refer to the other side using all sorts of names. These include China, the Peoples Republic of China, the Beijing authorities, the Mainland, Mainland China, even the Chinese Communists. The man in the street may not understand the distinction between "jurisdiction" and "sovereignty." The government is not about to tell private citizens what terms they should use when referring to the other side. Take the calendar for example. The private sector has long used the Western calendar for publication dates. But the government is not the private sector. All official documents must use "Year of the Republic" dates. When dealing with cross-Strait affairs and policy, the government must abide by the same laws. Only then can it avoid misusing words and generating controversy within a complex political environment.
對等稱呼 有利兩岸關係平順發展
2011-02-09 中國時報
馬英九總統新春講話，特別要求各部會未來的公文書，一律要稱對岸為「大陸」或「中國大陸」，不能簡稱其為「中國」，避免產生「兩個中國」的主權混淆，也讓兩岸關係回歸憲法架構。這番談話，引起藍綠不同解讀，但這其實是兩岸關係最簡單的法律基礎，符合政府一貫政策應有的作為。
根據中華民國憲法增修條文，兩岸處境仍屬「國家未統一前」，因此分別以「自由地區」與「大陸地區」定位兩岸。而根據《台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》，第一條開宗明義就是「國家統一前，為確保臺灣地區安全與民眾福祉，規範臺灣地區與大陸地區人民之往來，並處理衍生之法律事件，特制定本條例。」條例並明確定義台灣地區是指臺灣、澎湖、金門、馬祖及政府統治權所及之其他地區，而大陸地區則是指「臺灣地區以外之中華民國領土」。至於處理兩岸事務的主管機關名稱則是「行政院大陸委員會」。
從憲法到法律，從法律到機關，都非常明確的定位對岸為「大陸」，照常理，機關公文書形同法令，當然得依法而行，豈能自創名稱？馬總統重申政府立場，強調這是對現狀的描述，這個現狀從憲法增修條文、《兩岸人民關係條例》制定、陸委會設置以來，即使歷經兩次政黨輪替，都沒改變。
民進黨立委指責馬英九總統的宣示是矮化主權之舉，完全沒有道理。因為民進黨執政時期，當年的行政院長游錫?就在立法院總質詢時表明，要求各部會稱對岸為「中國大陸」或者「中共」，游錫?沒有其他選擇，既身為中華民國最高行政首長，恪遵憲法和法律，就是他的職責。何況對岸稱我為「台灣」，我稱對岸為「大陸」，誰曰不宜？我們不否認北京當局的「治權」，但沒承認其「主權」，又何來矮化自己的問題？
五都選舉之後，民進黨也熱烈討論新的兩岸論述。前民進黨主席、行政院長謝長廷提出「憲法各表」，回歸他過去一貫主張「憲法一中」。盡管民進黨不承認「九二共識」，但也無法迴避以「一個中國，各自表述」的精神，處理兩岸事務。畢竟中華民國憲法就是「一個中國」，這個「中國」在台灣就是中華民國，這是台灣內部對兩岸政策紛歧中的最大公約數。
學者評論馬英九總統的宣示，認為是對大陸表達善意的做法，也有爭取中間選民的政治意涵，這兩種作用完全可以並行不悖。公文書是法律，是政府立場，官員在公文書，甚至國會備詢時，依法而行，稱呼對岸為大陸或中國大陸，基本上是重申了中華民國的立場，不否定中華民國「統一前」的各種政策作為，緩解大陸對台灣爭取主權作為可能導致獨立的疑慮；另一方面，政府堅守主權立場，也是對國人最負責任的做法，政府不會因為強化兩岸交流，而輕忽國家主權定位。
對台灣而言，憲法理應如空氣與水，是國家存在的必需品，不必每天掛在嘴上宣示。但兩岸關係愈趨頻密，兩岸主權的歷史糾葛卻猶未解決，如果多一次宣示，多減少一些爭議，有何不可？就像陸委會主委賴幸媛提出台灣七大利益論，只因為少說了一句「在中華民國憲法架構下」，竟引發學者質疑「違憲」，令人不可思議，馬英九以確定對岸稱謂這件其實非常簡單的「小事」，重申政府立場，也為賴幸媛緩頰。而賴幸媛事件，在目前兩岸交流全面開展，各部會都有機會觸及兩岸事務的情況下，可能會成為政府官員的共同問題。
兩岸開放交流廿四年，民間往來愈趨熱絡，對於對岸的稱呼，從中國、中華人民共和國、北京當局、大陸、中國大陸、乃至中共，林林種種。民間並不會嚴格區分「治權」與「主權」的差異，政府也很難約束民間到底要用什麼名詞稱呼對岸，就像談到紀年，民間出版品早已常用西元紀年。但政府不同於民間，所有的公文書紀年還是得用「民國」，在處理兩岸事務與政策時，政府同樣得須依循法律基礎，才能在複雜的政治論述中，避免因為言詞誤用造成的爭議和困擾。
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Set Aside Cross-Strait Enmity, Give Priority to Law and Reason
Set Aside Cross-Strait Enmity, Give Priority to Law and Reason
Chang Chang-wen, Professor of Law
United Daily News (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2011
The government of the Philippines has extradited 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects to the Chinese Mainland. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately lodged a protest. The MAC is negotiating with its Mainland counterpart, in the hope that the suspects can be turned over to Taipei. Will we be able to set aside ideology and cross-Strait enmity? Will we be able to give priority to the law, to reason, and return the 14 Taiwanese suspects to Taiwan? Will we be able to make those arrangements most consistent with jurisprudence?
Taipei argues that the suspects are from Taiwan. It argues that the perpetrators' nationality should determine which government has jurisdiction. Beijing argues that the victims are Mainland Chinese. It argues that the victims' nationality should determine which government has jurisdiction. It argues that the effects of the crime were felt on Mainland China. It argues that the guest nation should have priority. Manila argues that the crime was committed in the Philippines. It argues that the host nation should have priority. It would seem that every nation has a basis for its claims, and that every nation has reason on its side.
So which nation should have priority? The author feels we must decide which of the three factors, the nationality of the suspect, the nationality of the victim, and the nation in which the crime was committed, is the most relevant. Which government will see that justice is done? Which government will see that future crimes are deterred? The answer will determine which government should take charge.
The usual rule is that the nation which has jurisdiction, i.e., the nation in which the crime occurred, should take charge. Therefore, the Philippines' claim that it should have priority because the crime occurred within its jurisdiction, is valid. Mainland China's claim that it should have priority, is also legitimate. After all, the victims were Mainland Chinese. The repercussions of the crime were felt on Mainland China. Since the victims were on the Mainland, Beijing should find it easier to gather evidence. By contrast, Taipei's only connection with the case is the suspects are Republic of China citizens.
Suppose the Philippines had not extradited the suspects to the Mainland, but instead to Taiwan? Suppose Beijing, having accepted the suspects, in turn extradited them to Taiwan? How would Taipei go about conducting a criminal investigation? The crime was committed in the Philippines. The repercussions of the crime were felt on the Chinese Mainland. How would we go about collecting evidence? Would we subpoena Mainland Chinese victims, and compel them to come to Taiwan to testify? As we all know, the courts on Taiwan are hardly the most effective venues in which to hear criminal cases.
The standards governing the admissibility of evidence on Taiwan are extremely high. If the suspects were extradited to Taiwan, evidence gathering would not be easy. We might not be able to compel the victims to testify. The suspects might need to be released due to insufficient evidence. This would encourage ROC citizens to commit crimes overseas. Is this really what the public on Taiwan wants?
We should look into our hearts. Suppose the victims had been from Taiwan? How would we feel then? The Philippines decision to extradite ROC citizens to the Mainland may not have been entirely rooted in legal reasoning. Its diplomatic relations with the Mainland may have been a factor. The reality is we are at a diplomatic disadvantage. But this is exactly why we must appeal to the rule of law and the rule of reason. Otherwise, when reality and even law and reason work against us, how can we assert our rights? How can we defend Taiwan? Or, more accurately, how can we defend equality and justice?
A Commentary
排除兩岸情結 法理優先
United Daily News
February 8, 2011
陳長文／法學教授
菲律賓政府將十四名台籍詐欺嫌犯遣送至中國大陸，我外交部立即對菲提出抗議，陸委會並與陸方交涉，希望嫌犯能遣送回台。然而，排除意識形態糾結的「兩岸情結」，就法、論理，這十四名台籍嫌犯送回台灣，會是最合於法理的安排嗎？
台灣的主張是因為張三是台灣人（行為人國籍管轄）；大陸的主張是犯罪的受害人李四是大陸人（被害人國籍管轄），而且犯罪的結果也發生在大陸（客體領域原則）；而菲律賓的主張是，犯罪發生在菲律賓（主體領域原則）。看起來，每個主張都有其依據，都有理。
那麼到底最該由誰先管呢？筆者認為，應看那一個因素（嫌疑人國籍、被害人國籍、犯罪地）的聯繫關係最深。亦即由那一方來管轄，最能發現真實、實踐正義、制裁（嚇阻）犯罪。
一般而言，領域管轄（特別是由犯罪發生國）來管轄，是通常採取的方式。因此，菲律賓依領域管轄原則主張管轄權是有正當性的。而中國大陸主張管轄的法理基礎也有一定的強度，畢竟被害者是大陸人（犯罪結果也在大陸），由於被害人在大陸，證據調查也有便利性。相對的，台灣唯一的連結就是犯罪嫌疑人具有中華民國國籍。
試想，如果菲律賓不把人送到大陸而是送到台灣，或是大陸在接收了嫌犯後，又把嫌犯送到台灣。請問，台灣要如何進行犯罪調查？犯罪發生地在菲律賓，結果地在大陸，我們要如何蒐證？要如何把大陸的受害人傳到台灣來作證呢？可見台灣的法庭，並不是審理該案最有效的「便利的法庭」。
台灣對於刑事犯罪的證據求的強度相當高，當這些嫌犯被遣送回台灣，在蒐證不易，甚至連被害人傳喚都不可得的情況下，可能的情形是，嫌犯將以罪證不足被釋放，這時，反而等於變相鼓勵國人透過第三地向海外犯罪。這樣的不正義會是台灣人民所希望的結果嗎？
不妨將心比心，想想如果相同的犯罪受害人是台灣人時，我們又會作何感想？當然，很顯然，菲律賓將我國籍的嫌犯遣送大陸，也未必完全是基於法理的判斷結果，考量的可能是其與大陸的邦交。這一點，的確是台灣外交上不利處境的「現實」。但也正因這樣的「現實」，更應該訴之以法、訴之以理，否則當現實不站在台灣這一邊，而連「法理」都沒辦法站得住腳時，我們要如何去伸張權利、捍衛台灣（或，更正確，公平正義）的利益呢？
Chang Chang-wen, Professor of Law
United Daily News (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2011
The government of the Philippines has extradited 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects to the Chinese Mainland. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately lodged a protest. The MAC is negotiating with its Mainland counterpart, in the hope that the suspects can be turned over to Taipei. Will we be able to set aside ideology and cross-Strait enmity? Will we be able to give priority to the law, to reason, and return the 14 Taiwanese suspects to Taiwan? Will we be able to make those arrangements most consistent with jurisprudence?
Taipei argues that the suspects are from Taiwan. It argues that the perpetrators' nationality should determine which government has jurisdiction. Beijing argues that the victims are Mainland Chinese. It argues that the victims' nationality should determine which government has jurisdiction. It argues that the effects of the crime were felt on Mainland China. It argues that the guest nation should have priority. Manila argues that the crime was committed in the Philippines. It argues that the host nation should have priority. It would seem that every nation has a basis for its claims, and that every nation has reason on its side.
So which nation should have priority? The author feels we must decide which of the three factors, the nationality of the suspect, the nationality of the victim, and the nation in which the crime was committed, is the most relevant. Which government will see that justice is done? Which government will see that future crimes are deterred? The answer will determine which government should take charge.
The usual rule is that the nation which has jurisdiction, i.e., the nation in which the crime occurred, should take charge. Therefore, the Philippines' claim that it should have priority because the crime occurred within its jurisdiction, is valid. Mainland China's claim that it should have priority, is also legitimate. After all, the victims were Mainland Chinese. The repercussions of the crime were felt on Mainland China. Since the victims were on the Mainland, Beijing should find it easier to gather evidence. By contrast, Taipei's only connection with the case is the suspects are Republic of China citizens.
Suppose the Philippines had not extradited the suspects to the Mainland, but instead to Taiwan? Suppose Beijing, having accepted the suspects, in turn extradited them to Taiwan? How would Taipei go about conducting a criminal investigation? The crime was committed in the Philippines. The repercussions of the crime were felt on the Chinese Mainland. How would we go about collecting evidence? Would we subpoena Mainland Chinese victims, and compel them to come to Taiwan to testify? As we all know, the courts on Taiwan are hardly the most effective venues in which to hear criminal cases.
The standards governing the admissibility of evidence on Taiwan are extremely high. If the suspects were extradited to Taiwan, evidence gathering would not be easy. We might not be able to compel the victims to testify. The suspects might need to be released due to insufficient evidence. This would encourage ROC citizens to commit crimes overseas. Is this really what the public on Taiwan wants?
We should look into our hearts. Suppose the victims had been from Taiwan? How would we feel then? The Philippines decision to extradite ROC citizens to the Mainland may not have been entirely rooted in legal reasoning. Its diplomatic relations with the Mainland may have been a factor. The reality is we are at a diplomatic disadvantage. But this is exactly why we must appeal to the rule of law and the rule of reason. Otherwise, when reality and even law and reason work against us, how can we assert our rights? How can we defend Taiwan? Or, more accurately, how can we defend equality and justice?
A Commentary
排除兩岸情結 法理優先
United Daily News
February 8, 2011
陳長文／法學教授
菲律賓政府將十四名台籍詐欺嫌犯遣送至中國大陸，我外交部立即對菲提出抗議，陸委會並與陸方交涉，希望嫌犯能遣送回台。然而，排除意識形態糾結的「兩岸情結」，就法、論理，這十四名台籍嫌犯送回台灣，會是最合於法理的安排嗎？
台灣的主張是因為張三是台灣人（行為人國籍管轄）；大陸的主張是犯罪的受害人李四是大陸人（被害人國籍管轄），而且犯罪的結果也發生在大陸（客體領域原則）；而菲律賓的主張是，犯罪發生在菲律賓（主體領域原則）。看起來，每個主張都有其依據，都有理。
那麼到底最該由誰先管呢？筆者認為，應看那一個因素（嫌疑人國籍、被害人國籍、犯罪地）的聯繫關係最深。亦即由那一方來管轄，最能發現真實、實踐正義、制裁（嚇阻）犯罪。
一般而言，領域管轄（特別是由犯罪發生國）來管轄，是通常採取的方式。因此，菲律賓依領域管轄原則主張管轄權是有正當性的。而中國大陸主張管轄的法理基礎也有一定的強度，畢竟被害者是大陸人（犯罪結果也在大陸），由於被害人在大陸，證據調查也有便利性。相對的，台灣唯一的連結就是犯罪嫌疑人具有中華民國國籍。
試想，如果菲律賓不把人送到大陸而是送到台灣，或是大陸在接收了嫌犯後，又把嫌犯送到台灣。請問，台灣要如何進行犯罪調查？犯罪發生地在菲律賓，結果地在大陸，我們要如何蒐證？要如何把大陸的受害人傳到台灣來作證呢？可見台灣的法庭，並不是審理該案最有效的「便利的法庭」。
台灣對於刑事犯罪的證據求的強度相當高，當這些嫌犯被遣送回台灣，在蒐證不易，甚至連被害人傳喚都不可得的情況下，可能的情形是，嫌犯將以罪證不足被釋放，這時，反而等於變相鼓勵國人透過第三地向海外犯罪。這樣的不正義會是台灣人民所希望的結果嗎？
不妨將心比心，想想如果相同的犯罪受害人是台灣人時，我們又會作何感想？當然，很顯然，菲律賓將我國籍的嫌犯遣送大陸，也未必完全是基於法理的判斷結果，考量的可能是其與大陸的邦交。這一點，的確是台灣外交上不利處境的「現實」。但也正因這樣的「現實」，更應該訴之以法、訴之以理，否則當現實不站在台灣這一邊，而連「法理」都沒辦法站得住腳時，我們要如何去伸張權利、捍衛台灣（或，更正確，公平正義）的利益呢？
Taipei Must Not Tolerate the Philippines' Behavior
Taipei Must Not Tolerate the Philippines' Behavior
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2011
Despite vehement protests from Taipei, and an order from Philippine courts, the Philippine government will extradite 14 Republic of China citizens suspected of fraud to the Chinese Mainland. This move is contrary to international conventions. It is also an affront to our nation's sovereignty. It is intolerable. Taipei can no longer suffer in silence, Yesterday the government announced the recall of its representatives in the Philippines, and imposed strict measures on Filipino workers. We fully support the government's actions.
Last October the Ministry of Public Security sent officials to the Philippines to investigate phone fraud, The Philippines police arrested a 24 person confidence ring, 14 of whom were ROC citizens. We strongly support the principle of dealing with suspects on the basis of nationality. The 14 ROC citizens should be handed over to Taipei, to be dealt with according to ROC law, But the Philippine government has has insisted that these suspects be handed over to Beijing. On February 2, in the middle of the night, it turned them over to Beijing. Our government's representatives in the Philippines, along with Philippine officials and Philippine lawyers, rushed to the airport with a writ of habeas corpus, issued by the Philippine Court of Appeals, Alas, they were unable to prevent the executive branch of the Philippine government from turning the suspects over to Mainland Chinese security officials. This action flouted international conventions. It disregarded an order issued by the Philippine courts. The Philippine government behaved arrogantly. It cared only about Beijing, and nothing for Taipei, Its behavior was intolerable.
Manila has no diplomatic relations with Taipei. But international practice and international cooperation in the fight against crime involves certain precedents. Manila must respect Taipei's judicial sovereignty. When similar incidents occurred in the past, suspects from Taiwan were handed over to Taipei, suspects from the Mainland were handed over to Beijing, Each side conducted its own investigations and trials. The two sides have signed a "joint crime fighting and mutual legal assistance agreement," and have agreed to exchange case information. They have agreed to separately enforce court judgments and other judicial rulings.
Taipei has not asked for special treatment from Manila. It merely wants matters handled the way they always have, in accordance with international precedents. But the Philippine government's handling of the matter has been ridiculous. Its decisions have defied international conventions. Its methods have harmed Taipei's interests. Its attitude has been rude and arrogant. Its procedures have defied the orders of its own courts. It has repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Taipei's requests. It has ignored Taipei's interests. It handed a suspect from Taiwan over to Beijing, as if Taiwan was under the jurisdiction of the Beijing authorities. This is an insult to Taipei's sovereignty, How can ROC citizens not be angry?
Since the incident, senior government officials have lodged repeated protests. They have taken retaliatory measures. Apparently the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Yesterday the Philippines adopted a more conciliatory attitude. It issued a statement expressing "deep regret." It hoped the incident would not harm the close friendship between the two peoples. It explained that in this case the victims were Mainland Chinese, the accomplices were Mainland Chinese, Therefore the Philippine government felt it was appropriate that the case be tried in Mainland China. That is why it decided to extradite the suspects to Mainland China. Beijing and Manila have an extradition treaty. Manila has also signed a joint agreement with Beijing. The two sides would fight crime and follow judicial interaction protocols. They would work together to bring the current case to a close.
Initially the Philippines ignored strong protests from Taipei. Now that Taipei is angry and on the verge of retaliation, the Philippines is finally beginning to take notice and speak of "long-term friendship and common values" shared by Taipei and Manila. Manila failed to communicate properly before extraditing the suspects. It ignored Taipei's feelings. The extradition is a fait accompli. The Philippines seems to think that if it offers a few platitudes, the matter will blow over. The 14 suspects have been transferred to Mainland China. How will the matter be handled henceforth? Taipei will have to confront Beijing, It is no longer Manila's affair.
If Taipei allows the matter to drop, the international community will view it with contempt. The Philippines' assumption that Taipei can be treated with contempt will not change. More importantly, a precedent will have been set in the international community. This will leave the mistaken impression that Taipei's judicial affairs may be turned over to Beijing. The Repubic of China' status as an independent and sovereign state will be undermined. Taipei is attempting to defend the Republic of China's sovereignty. It is attempting to defend the Republic of China's national interests. It hopes to participate in the international community, on the basis of equality. If the international community concludes that Beijing is authorized to manage Taipei's affairs, then all of Taipei's efforts will be undermined.
Therefore, Taipei must not tolerate the Philippines' behavior. Consider the current incident. Taipei and Beijing cooperate on judicial matters. Yet suspects from Taiwan are turned over to Beijing. If the two sides subsequently deal with the matter in accordance with cross-Strait conventions, the matter will be perceived as a PRC internal affair. This is totally unacceptable.
Taipei's international agreements must not be made through Beijing. Beijing is not Taipei's master. This must be made clear. The international community must realize this. Mainland Chinese public security officials may not appreciate the delicacy of cross-Strait interactions. But their higher ups surely have a more comprehensive understanding. Cross-Strait judicial cooperation agreements do not cover third country involvement. Future cross-Strait agreements must be clarified, as soon as possible, This will ensure that similar incidents do not happen again.
菲律賓的鳥氣 台灣嚥不下
2011-02-08 中國時報
不顧台灣的強烈反對以及菲律賓法院的命令，菲律賓政府仍然將十四名涉嫌詐欺的台灣人遣送給中國，這樣的動作，不僅有違國際打擊犯罪慣例，對我國的主權地位更是極不尊重。是可忍孰不可忍，台灣絕不能就這麼「吞」下去了，政府昨天宣布召回駐菲代表及嚴審菲勞等措施，我們全力支持。
去年十月中國公安部派人到菲律賓，就電信詐騙案進行調查，菲律賓警方逮捕了詐騙集團共廿四人，其中有十四名台灣人。雖然我方強烈要求依據國籍原則，這十四名台灣嫌犯應該交給我國進行後續司法程序，但菲律賓政府卻執意把台灣嫌犯一併遣送到中國大陸。甚至在二月二日當天，是趁著半夜三更進行遣送，我方駐菲官員及律師持著菲律賓上訴法院簽發的「人身保護令」趕到機場，卻仍然無法阻止菲國行政部門把人交給中國公安人員帶上飛機。這種無視於國際慣例，不顧台菲關係也不管法院命令，眼裡只有中國不見台灣的傲慢態度，實在太欺負人了！
就算菲律賓與中華民國沒有外交關係，但按照國際慣例以及國際間共同打擊犯罪的合作模式，菲律賓也必須尊重台灣的司法主權。向來，在遇到類似狀況時，台灣嫌犯應交給台灣、中國嫌犯應交給中國，各自進行偵辦審訊，並且遁兩岸簽署的《共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》交換案情資訊，接著各自進行判決執行等司法程序。
台灣並沒有要求菲律賓特別予以優惠，只是希望能比照國際社會向來的慣例處理。但菲律賓政府的處理，卻徹頭徹尾離譜至極。論決策不符合國際慣例，論手法傷害台灣利益，論態度則粗魯蠻橫，論程序甚至有違其法院之命令。對台灣一再的要求置若罔聞，完全沒有顧及台灣的權益，逕行將台灣嫌犯送給中國發落，彷彿台灣是屬於中國的，這是對台灣主權尊嚴的莫大侮辱，台灣人怎麼可能不生氣！
事件發生以來，我國政府高層多次抗議指責，也採取了報復措施。也許是不點不亮，菲律賓昨天態度轉趨軟化，發表聲明表達「深切遺憾」，希望這次事件不會損害雙方人民緊密情誼。菲方是依此案受害人為中國人、共犯也為中國人，以及本案在中國可以得到最妥適解決等考量，決定了遣送的動作。中國和菲律賓簽有引渡條約，且菲方了解兩岸簽訂了共同打擊犯罪及司法互動協議，可以共同處理本案。
之前對台灣的強烈要求置之不理，如今台灣氣到祭出報復手段了，菲律賓才開始注意到台菲之間有「長久友誼與共同價值」。遣送前不做妥善溝通，也無視台灣的感受，如今木已成舟，菲律賓似乎認為講兩句好聽話，就可以大事化小小事化無。反正十四名台灣嫌犯已送到中國，之後要怎麼處理，台灣應該找中國談，不干菲律賓的事了。
如果台灣也就這樣算了，那真的會被國際社會看扁，也不可能改變菲律賓目中無「台」的態度。更嚴重的是，這如果成為一個先例，在國際間產生示範效應，逐漸形成中國可處理台灣司法問題的錯誤認知，那麼台灣做為獨立主權國家的地位與權益必然會受到侵蝕傷害。當國際社會認為中國可以「代理」台灣事務時，台灣爭取主權地位、保護國民權益與平等參與國際社會的訴求必然會受到阻礙。
所以，台灣絕對不能姑息。以這次事件來說，即使兩岸可以進行司法合作，但台灣嫌犯是先交給中國、然後兩岸再來合作處理的操作方式，有把台灣貶低為中國內部事務之態勢，這是我們絕對不允許的。
台灣的國際協商，不能透過中國，中國不是台灣的代理人，這點必須確定，也必須讓國際社會清楚認知。而中國公安單位也許不明白兩岸互動之微妙，但決策高層必須有更通盤的考量。目前兩岸司法合作協議並未周延涵蓋涉及第三國的狀況，兩岸後續協商必須盡快予以補強，務必確保類似事件不會再度發生。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2011
Despite vehement protests from Taipei, and an order from Philippine courts, the Philippine government will extradite 14 Republic of China citizens suspected of fraud to the Chinese Mainland. This move is contrary to international conventions. It is also an affront to our nation's sovereignty. It is intolerable. Taipei can no longer suffer in silence, Yesterday the government announced the recall of its representatives in the Philippines, and imposed strict measures on Filipino workers. We fully support the government's actions.
Last October the Ministry of Public Security sent officials to the Philippines to investigate phone fraud, The Philippines police arrested a 24 person confidence ring, 14 of whom were ROC citizens. We strongly support the principle of dealing with suspects on the basis of nationality. The 14 ROC citizens should be handed over to Taipei, to be dealt with according to ROC law, But the Philippine government has has insisted that these suspects be handed over to Beijing. On February 2, in the middle of the night, it turned them over to Beijing. Our government's representatives in the Philippines, along with Philippine officials and Philippine lawyers, rushed to the airport with a writ of habeas corpus, issued by the Philippine Court of Appeals, Alas, they were unable to prevent the executive branch of the Philippine government from turning the suspects over to Mainland Chinese security officials. This action flouted international conventions. It disregarded an order issued by the Philippine courts. The Philippine government behaved arrogantly. It cared only about Beijing, and nothing for Taipei, Its behavior was intolerable.
Manila has no diplomatic relations with Taipei. But international practice and international cooperation in the fight against crime involves certain precedents. Manila must respect Taipei's judicial sovereignty. When similar incidents occurred in the past, suspects from Taiwan were handed over to Taipei, suspects from the Mainland were handed over to Beijing, Each side conducted its own investigations and trials. The two sides have signed a "joint crime fighting and mutual legal assistance agreement," and have agreed to exchange case information. They have agreed to separately enforce court judgments and other judicial rulings.
Taipei has not asked for special treatment from Manila. It merely wants matters handled the way they always have, in accordance with international precedents. But the Philippine government's handling of the matter has been ridiculous. Its decisions have defied international conventions. Its methods have harmed Taipei's interests. Its attitude has been rude and arrogant. Its procedures have defied the orders of its own courts. It has repeatedly turned a deaf ear to Taipei's requests. It has ignored Taipei's interests. It handed a suspect from Taiwan over to Beijing, as if Taiwan was under the jurisdiction of the Beijing authorities. This is an insult to Taipei's sovereignty, How can ROC citizens not be angry?
Since the incident, senior government officials have lodged repeated protests. They have taken retaliatory measures. Apparently the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Yesterday the Philippines adopted a more conciliatory attitude. It issued a statement expressing "deep regret." It hoped the incident would not harm the close friendship between the two peoples. It explained that in this case the victims were Mainland Chinese, the accomplices were Mainland Chinese, Therefore the Philippine government felt it was appropriate that the case be tried in Mainland China. That is why it decided to extradite the suspects to Mainland China. Beijing and Manila have an extradition treaty. Manila has also signed a joint agreement with Beijing. The two sides would fight crime and follow judicial interaction protocols. They would work together to bring the current case to a close.
Initially the Philippines ignored strong protests from Taipei. Now that Taipei is angry and on the verge of retaliation, the Philippines is finally beginning to take notice and speak of "long-term friendship and common values" shared by Taipei and Manila. Manila failed to communicate properly before extraditing the suspects. It ignored Taipei's feelings. The extradition is a fait accompli. The Philippines seems to think that if it offers a few platitudes, the matter will blow over. The 14 suspects have been transferred to Mainland China. How will the matter be handled henceforth? Taipei will have to confront Beijing, It is no longer Manila's affair.
If Taipei allows the matter to drop, the international community will view it with contempt. The Philippines' assumption that Taipei can be treated with contempt will not change. More importantly, a precedent will have been set in the international community. This will leave the mistaken impression that Taipei's judicial affairs may be turned over to Beijing. The Repubic of China' status as an independent and sovereign state will be undermined. Taipei is attempting to defend the Republic of China's sovereignty. It is attempting to defend the Republic of China's national interests. It hopes to participate in the international community, on the basis of equality. If the international community concludes that Beijing is authorized to manage Taipei's affairs, then all of Taipei's efforts will be undermined.
Therefore, Taipei must not tolerate the Philippines' behavior. Consider the current incident. Taipei and Beijing cooperate on judicial matters. Yet suspects from Taiwan are turned over to Beijing. If the two sides subsequently deal with the matter in accordance with cross-Strait conventions, the matter will be perceived as a PRC internal affair. This is totally unacceptable.
Taipei's international agreements must not be made through Beijing. Beijing is not Taipei's master. This must be made clear. The international community must realize this. Mainland Chinese public security officials may not appreciate the delicacy of cross-Strait interactions. But their higher ups surely have a more comprehensive understanding. Cross-Strait judicial cooperation agreements do not cover third country involvement. Future cross-Strait agreements must be clarified, as soon as possible, This will ensure that similar incidents do not happen again.
菲律賓的鳥氣 台灣嚥不下
2011-02-08 中國時報
不顧台灣的強烈反對以及菲律賓法院的命令，菲律賓政府仍然將十四名涉嫌詐欺的台灣人遣送給中國，這樣的動作，不僅有違國際打擊犯罪慣例，對我國的主權地位更是極不尊重。是可忍孰不可忍，台灣絕不能就這麼「吞」下去了，政府昨天宣布召回駐菲代表及嚴審菲勞等措施，我們全力支持。
去年十月中國公安部派人到菲律賓，就電信詐騙案進行調查，菲律賓警方逮捕了詐騙集團共廿四人，其中有十四名台灣人。雖然我方強烈要求依據國籍原則，這十四名台灣嫌犯應該交給我國進行後續司法程序，但菲律賓政府卻執意把台灣嫌犯一併遣送到中國大陸。甚至在二月二日當天，是趁著半夜三更進行遣送，我方駐菲官員及律師持著菲律賓上訴法院簽發的「人身保護令」趕到機場，卻仍然無法阻止菲國行政部門把人交給中國公安人員帶上飛機。這種無視於國際慣例，不顧台菲關係也不管法院命令，眼裡只有中國不見台灣的傲慢態度，實在太欺負人了！
就算菲律賓與中華民國沒有外交關係，但按照國際慣例以及國際間共同打擊犯罪的合作模式，菲律賓也必須尊重台灣的司法主權。向來，在遇到類似狀況時，台灣嫌犯應交給台灣、中國嫌犯應交給中國，各自進行偵辦審訊，並且遁兩岸簽署的《共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議》交換案情資訊，接著各自進行判決執行等司法程序。
台灣並沒有要求菲律賓特別予以優惠，只是希望能比照國際社會向來的慣例處理。但菲律賓政府的處理，卻徹頭徹尾離譜至極。論決策不符合國際慣例，論手法傷害台灣利益，論態度則粗魯蠻橫，論程序甚至有違其法院之命令。對台灣一再的要求置若罔聞，完全沒有顧及台灣的權益，逕行將台灣嫌犯送給中國發落，彷彿台灣是屬於中國的，這是對台灣主權尊嚴的莫大侮辱，台灣人怎麼可能不生氣！
事件發生以來，我國政府高層多次抗議指責，也採取了報復措施。也許是不點不亮，菲律賓昨天態度轉趨軟化，發表聲明表達「深切遺憾」，希望這次事件不會損害雙方人民緊密情誼。菲方是依此案受害人為中國人、共犯也為中國人，以及本案在中國可以得到最妥適解決等考量，決定了遣送的動作。中國和菲律賓簽有引渡條約，且菲方了解兩岸簽訂了共同打擊犯罪及司法互動協議，可以共同處理本案。
之前對台灣的強烈要求置之不理，如今台灣氣到祭出報復手段了，菲律賓才開始注意到台菲之間有「長久友誼與共同價值」。遣送前不做妥善溝通，也無視台灣的感受，如今木已成舟，菲律賓似乎認為講兩句好聽話，就可以大事化小小事化無。反正十四名台灣嫌犯已送到中國，之後要怎麼處理，台灣應該找中國談，不干菲律賓的事了。
如果台灣也就這樣算了，那真的會被國際社會看扁，也不可能改變菲律賓目中無「台」的態度。更嚴重的是，這如果成為一個先例，在國際間產生示範效應，逐漸形成中國可處理台灣司法問題的錯誤認知，那麼台灣做為獨立主權國家的地位與權益必然會受到侵蝕傷害。當國際社會認為中國可以「代理」台灣事務時，台灣爭取主權地位、保護國民權益與平等參與國際社會的訴求必然會受到阻礙。
所以，台灣絕對不能姑息。以這次事件來說，即使兩岸可以進行司法合作，但台灣嫌犯是先交給中國、然後兩岸再來合作處理的操作方式，有把台灣貶低為中國內部事務之態勢，這是我們絕對不允許的。
台灣的國際協商，不能透過中國，中國不是台灣的代理人，這點必須確定，也必須讓國際社會清楚認知。而中國公安單位也許不明白兩岸互動之微妙，但決策高層必須有更通盤的考量。目前兩岸司法合作協議並未周延涵蓋涉及第三國的狀況，兩岸後續協商必須盡快予以補強，務必確保類似事件不會再度發生。
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Talk of Raises on New Years Eve
Talk of Raises on New Years Eve
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 1, 2011
Today is Lunar New Years Eve. We hope businesses have a prosperous New Year. We hope every employee receives a raise.
Should civil service employees receive a pay raise? Nearly two months have passed since last year's five cities elections. But we still have no clear answer. Proponents say a civil service pay raise would encourage private sector pay raises. Opponents say a civil service pay raise would increase the national deficit. Premier Wu Den-yih meanwhile, spoke of "five conditions," and whetted everyone's appetite. He appeared to be waiting for the right time to fill in the amount. Civil service pay raises are supposed to be political decisions. They are supposed to be made by the the premier. He is supposed to assume responsibility. Why must he complicate the matter? As for the long-term, the civil service salary structure must undergo thorough reform. Indiscriminate feeding at the government trough must be eliminated.
Current proponents of a civil service pay raise argue that civil service employees have not received a pay raise in five years. They need a boost to their morale. They should share in last year's record high economic growth, which established a new 21 year high. A civil service pay raise would set an example for the private sector, proponents argue. It would promote private sector consumption. The fact that civil servants have not received a pay raise in five years is a valid argument for a pay raise now. The other three justifications however, are specious. Last year the economic growth rate exceeded 10% only because the year before we were in a depression. If we combine the two, we discover that the real gross domestic product (GDP) has not increased that much. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would set an example for the private sector. Consider the recent results of a private poll. Most companies adjust their salaries independently. Government pay raises would have limited impact. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would promote private sector consumption. A civil service pay raise means an increase in government spending. If overall government expenditures are increased, this amounts to a hidden tax increase. Any increase in consumption would be offset by tax increases on the public. Tax increases on the public would force them to reduce consumption. Therefore making the public foot the bill for a civil service pay raise, merely because they have experienced a recovery, in the hope that it will promote consumption, inverts cause and effect. The return will not justify the investment.
At the same time, the arguments against a civil service pay raise are equally far-fetched. The most common argument is that the government has been running a deficit year after year. The government is deep in debt, the argument goes. Where is it going to get the money for a pay raise? If this argument holds, must we wait until the government pays off its debt or balances the budget before giving civil servants a pay raise? If so, civil servants would never get a pay raise. Therefore, whether civil servants should receive a pay raise, has little relationship with the government's fiscal circumstances. It may not require an increase in the government's annual expenditures. It may involve juggling the government limited financial resources. This power belongs to the premier. It is his decision. It is his responsibility. He must allocate government spending in accordance with his policy goals. A civil service pay raise would of course be one of his many policy options.
Premier Wu's "five conditions" rhetoric was clearly superfluous. Premier Wu Den-yih has confronted the issue of civil service pay raises many times recently. His standard answer is that he must consider fourth quarter exports, the economic growth rate, this year's tax revenues, the overall price situation, private sector profits, and year-end bonuses. Premier Wu cited specific criteria. But he never cited a specific pay raise threshold. Therefore any civil service pay raise would ultimately depend on Premier Wu's policy priorities, i.e., his whims. His decision may depend on first quarter tax revenues.
Therefore, the civil service pay issue will continue to simmer. It may become next year's presidential election hot potato. It will be difficult not to politicize it. Therefore the Executive Yuan should explain its position on second half civil service pay raises. We urge a timely and appropriate decision. This will avoid excessive speculation and too many irrelevancies. This will minimize the political impact. Failure to do so could increase social frictions, incite confrontations, and make the final decision even more difficult.
The Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan can also take advantage of the civil service pay raise issue. They can conduct a comprehensive review of civil service salary levels, structures, and their connection to civil service employee effectiveness. Civil service salaries have long been considered lower than employee salaries in general. In fact, lower level civil service salaries are higher than lower level employee salaries in general. Higher level civil service salaries are lower than salaries for upper management. The question is how to change this wage structure. How can the government widen the gap between low level civil service employees and high level civil service employees? How can the government compete with the private sector, and attract more people into government service?
Civil service employees are often paid the same amount regardless of their job performance. How can the government address this problem? Salaries must be linked to job performance. The government must attempt to create such links. Such reforms will surely provoke a backlash. But they should receive the support of dedicated civil servants. We have experienced a recovery. We have undergone a cabinet reshuffle. Therefore we should implement reforms. We must engage in creative destruction, create a new generation civil service salary appraisal system, thereby enabling the government to enrich its talent pool.
小年夜談加薪：應帶動改善公務員績效
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.02.01
今天小年夜，祝願新年百業興旺，人人加薪。
公務員要不要加薪一案，從去年五都選前提出迄今逾兩個月，還是沒有個明確的答案；主張加的說可帶動民間加薪，反對加的說會加大國庫赤字。行政院長吳敦義則以「五狀況」說吊著大家的胃口，彷彿只等著時機成熟之後填上金額。以今年情勢而言，公務員加薪原本就是個政治決定，完全看閣揆願不願意承擔，何必複雜化？至於長期，公務員薪資結構則必須做徹底的改革，打破政府這碗大鍋飯。
目前贊成公務員加薪的立論，大致不脫公務員五年未加薪需要激勵士氣、分享去年經濟成長率創廿一年新高的果實、可帶動民間加薪風潮、促進民間消費等。但除五年未加薪這項外，另三者均似是而非；其中，去年經濟成長率超過百分之十，是因前年大衰退，一減一加後實質國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）增加並不多；至於示範效果說，近來各民間民調機構出爐的結果，絕大多數企業的調薪是走自己的路，受政府加薪影響有限；在促進民間消費方面，公務員加薪就是政府支出增加，若政府歲出總額因此而擴大，就是隱性的加稅，即使可以增加消費，其效果也被對民眾加稅抵銷泰半。故而，為促進消費、讓民眾有感復甦而為公務員加薪，是錯把目標當手段，實不足取。
不過，反對公務員加薪的理由，也是甚為牽強。最常見的理由就是政府財政連年赤字、負債累累，政府哪裡來的本錢加薪？如果這個理由成立的話，豈不是要等到政府還清債務或財政平衡之時，才是公務員加薪之日？那可就是遙遙無期了。因此，公務員調薪與否，與財政狀況的關聯性低，因為它可在不增加政府歲出總額的前提下，與其他政策共同競逐有限的政府財政資源。這也正是行政院長的權力、選擇及責任，他必須依據他的政策目標，對各項政事支出的優先性進行預算分配，而公務員加薪自然也可以成為其政策選項之一。
準此，吳揆的「五狀況」說，就明顯是畫蛇添足了。近來吳敦義院長在面對公務員加薪的問題時，通篇一律的標準答案是：看去年第四季進出口表現、經濟成長率、看今年初稅收、看整體物價情勢，以及看企業尾牙、年終獎金發放情形等做決定。然而，吳揆看似具體的指標，卻沒有設下明確的調整門檻，因而公務員薪資要調不調，其實還是取決於吳揆政策優先性選擇的一念之間，並且可能要到第一季稅收結果出爐後再決定。
所以，公務員加薪的議題將持續發酵，也可能會成為明年總統大選前的熱門話題之一，想不泛政治化考量都難；也因此，行政院終究要為今年下半年公務員調不調薪給個明確的說法。吾人建議還是及時當機立斷為宜，以免此一話題過度炒作下摻入太多雜料，不只政治效應的邊際效益愈來愈低，反而可能升高贊成與反對者的社會摩擦與對立，讓決策變得更加困難。
另一方面，行政院及考試院也可運用這次公務員加薪的議題，全面性檢討公務員薪資水準、結構及其與績效的連結等問題。長期以來，公務員薪資水準普遍被認為低於受雇員工的平均薪資，但實際狀況是基層公務員薪資高於低年資勞工、但高階公務員不如民間高階經理人，因而關鍵是在如何改變這樣的計價結構，拉大高低階公務員的薪資差距，使政府具有與民間爭才的能力，進而吸引更多人才到政府服務。
此外，如何打破公務員不論績效優劣，都能吃到政府大鍋飯的現況，也是重要課題；而調薪與績效連結已是趨勢，政府應設法納入這類設計。這樣的改革當然會遭遇反彈，但相信也會同時獲得力爭上游的公務員支持；既然復甦須有感、內閣改組要有感，改革自然更應有感，庶幾得以大破大立，創建新世代的公務員薪資暨考核制度，充實現代化政府所需要的人才庫。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 1, 2011
Today is Lunar New Years Eve. We hope businesses have a prosperous New Year. We hope every employee receives a raise.
Should civil service employees receive a pay raise? Nearly two months have passed since last year's five cities elections. But we still have no clear answer. Proponents say a civil service pay raise would encourage private sector pay raises. Opponents say a civil service pay raise would increase the national deficit. Premier Wu Den-yih meanwhile, spoke of "five conditions," and whetted everyone's appetite. He appeared to be waiting for the right time to fill in the amount. Civil service pay raises are supposed to be political decisions. They are supposed to be made by the the premier. He is supposed to assume responsibility. Why must he complicate the matter? As for the long-term, the civil service salary structure must undergo thorough reform. Indiscriminate feeding at the government trough must be eliminated.
Current proponents of a civil service pay raise argue that civil service employees have not received a pay raise in five years. They need a boost to their morale. They should share in last year's record high economic growth, which established a new 21 year high. A civil service pay raise would set an example for the private sector, proponents argue. It would promote private sector consumption. The fact that civil servants have not received a pay raise in five years is a valid argument for a pay raise now. The other three justifications however, are specious. Last year the economic growth rate exceeded 10% only because the year before we were in a depression. If we combine the two, we discover that the real gross domestic product (GDP) has not increased that much. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would set an example for the private sector. Consider the recent results of a private poll. Most companies adjust their salaries independently. Government pay raises would have limited impact. Now consider the argument that civil service pay raises would promote private sector consumption. A civil service pay raise means an increase in government spending. If overall government expenditures are increased, this amounts to a hidden tax increase. Any increase in consumption would be offset by tax increases on the public. Tax increases on the public would force them to reduce consumption. Therefore making the public foot the bill for a civil service pay raise, merely because they have experienced a recovery, in the hope that it will promote consumption, inverts cause and effect. The return will not justify the investment.
At the same time, the arguments against a civil service pay raise are equally far-fetched. The most common argument is that the government has been running a deficit year after year. The government is deep in debt, the argument goes. Where is it going to get the money for a pay raise? If this argument holds, must we wait until the government pays off its debt or balances the budget before giving civil servants a pay raise? If so, civil servants would never get a pay raise. Therefore, whether civil servants should receive a pay raise, has little relationship with the government's fiscal circumstances. It may not require an increase in the government's annual expenditures. It may involve juggling the government limited financial resources. This power belongs to the premier. It is his decision. It is his responsibility. He must allocate government spending in accordance with his policy goals. A civil service pay raise would of course be one of his many policy options.
Premier Wu's "five conditions" rhetoric was clearly superfluous. Premier Wu Den-yih has confronted the issue of civil service pay raises many times recently. His standard answer is that he must consider fourth quarter exports, the economic growth rate, this year's tax revenues, the overall price situation, private sector profits, and year-end bonuses. Premier Wu cited specific criteria. But he never cited a specific pay raise threshold. Therefore any civil service pay raise would ultimately depend on Premier Wu's policy priorities, i.e., his whims. His decision may depend on first quarter tax revenues.
Therefore, the civil service pay issue will continue to simmer. It may become next year's presidential election hot potato. It will be difficult not to politicize it. Therefore the Executive Yuan should explain its position on second half civil service pay raises. We urge a timely and appropriate decision. This will avoid excessive speculation and too many irrelevancies. This will minimize the political impact. Failure to do so could increase social frictions, incite confrontations, and make the final decision even more difficult.
The Executive Yuan and the Examination Yuan can also take advantage of the civil service pay raise issue. They can conduct a comprehensive review of civil service salary levels, structures, and their connection to civil service employee effectiveness. Civil service salaries have long been considered lower than employee salaries in general. In fact, lower level civil service salaries are higher than lower level employee salaries in general. Higher level civil service salaries are lower than salaries for upper management. The question is how to change this wage structure. How can the government widen the gap between low level civil service employees and high level civil service employees? How can the government compete with the private sector, and attract more people into government service?
Civil service employees are often paid the same amount regardless of their job performance. How can the government address this problem? Salaries must be linked to job performance. The government must attempt to create such links. Such reforms will surely provoke a backlash. But they should receive the support of dedicated civil servants. We have experienced a recovery. We have undergone a cabinet reshuffle. Therefore we should implement reforms. We must engage in creative destruction, create a new generation civil service salary appraisal system, thereby enabling the government to enrich its talent pool.
小年夜談加薪：應帶動改善公務員績效
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.02.01
今天小年夜，祝願新年百業興旺，人人加薪。
公務員要不要加薪一案，從去年五都選前提出迄今逾兩個月，還是沒有個明確的答案；主張加的說可帶動民間加薪，反對加的說會加大國庫赤字。行政院長吳敦義則以「五狀況」說吊著大家的胃口，彷彿只等著時機成熟之後填上金額。以今年情勢而言，公務員加薪原本就是個政治決定，完全看閣揆願不願意承擔，何必複雜化？至於長期，公務員薪資結構則必須做徹底的改革，打破政府這碗大鍋飯。
目前贊成公務員加薪的立論，大致不脫公務員五年未加薪需要激勵士氣、分享去年經濟成長率創廿一年新高的果實、可帶動民間加薪風潮、促進民間消費等。但除五年未加薪這項外，另三者均似是而非；其中，去年經濟成長率超過百分之十，是因前年大衰退，一減一加後實質國內生產毛額（ＧＤＰ）增加並不多；至於示範效果說，近來各民間民調機構出爐的結果，絕大多數企業的調薪是走自己的路，受政府加薪影響有限；在促進民間消費方面，公務員加薪就是政府支出增加，若政府歲出總額因此而擴大，就是隱性的加稅，即使可以增加消費，其效果也被對民眾加稅抵銷泰半。故而，為促進消費、讓民眾有感復甦而為公務員加薪，是錯把目標當手段，實不足取。
不過，反對公務員加薪的理由，也是甚為牽強。最常見的理由就是政府財政連年赤字、負債累累，政府哪裡來的本錢加薪？如果這個理由成立的話，豈不是要等到政府還清債務或財政平衡之時，才是公務員加薪之日？那可就是遙遙無期了。因此，公務員調薪與否，與財政狀況的關聯性低，因為它可在不增加政府歲出總額的前提下，與其他政策共同競逐有限的政府財政資源。這也正是行政院長的權力、選擇及責任，他必須依據他的政策目標，對各項政事支出的優先性進行預算分配，而公務員加薪自然也可以成為其政策選項之一。
準此，吳揆的「五狀況」說，就明顯是畫蛇添足了。近來吳敦義院長在面對公務員加薪的問題時，通篇一律的標準答案是：看去年第四季進出口表現、經濟成長率、看今年初稅收、看整體物價情勢，以及看企業尾牙、年終獎金發放情形等做決定。然而，吳揆看似具體的指標，卻沒有設下明確的調整門檻，因而公務員薪資要調不調，其實還是取決於吳揆政策優先性選擇的一念之間，並且可能要到第一季稅收結果出爐後再決定。
所以，公務員加薪的議題將持續發酵，也可能會成為明年總統大選前的熱門話題之一，想不泛政治化考量都難；也因此，行政院終究要為今年下半年公務員調不調薪給個明確的說法。吾人建議還是及時當機立斷為宜，以免此一話題過度炒作下摻入太多雜料，不只政治效應的邊際效益愈來愈低，反而可能升高贊成與反對者的社會摩擦與對立，讓決策變得更加困難。
另一方面，行政院及考試院也可運用這次公務員加薪的議題，全面性檢討公務員薪資水準、結構及其與績效的連結等問題。長期以來，公務員薪資水準普遍被認為低於受雇員工的平均薪資，但實際狀況是基層公務員薪資高於低年資勞工、但高階公務員不如民間高階經理人，因而關鍵是在如何改變這樣的計價結構，拉大高低階公務員的薪資差距，使政府具有與民間爭才的能力，進而吸引更多人才到政府服務。
此外，如何打破公務員不論績效優劣，都能吃到政府大鍋飯的現況，也是重要課題；而調薪與績效連結已是趨勢，政府應設法納入這類設計。這樣的改革當然會遭遇反彈，但相信也會同時獲得力爭上游的公務員支持；既然復甦須有感、內閣改組要有感，改革自然更應有感，庶幾得以大破大立，創建新世代的公務員薪資暨考核制度，充實現代化政府所需要的人才庫。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)