Amend the Constitution, Combine the 2016 Elections
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 9, 2011
The dates for the presidential and legislative elections are too close together. They necessitate holding two elections merely three months apart. On the one hand, the timing fails to reflect public wishes. On the other hand, it clearly squanders public resources. Therefore the suggestion that the two elections be combined has considerable justification. The DPP has recently said it has "no particular objection."
Combining the elections however, will have constitutional repercussions. One must pay attention to these repercussions. Combining the two elections will require constitutional amendments. The legislature may not have time to pass these amendments. The Blue and Green parties should first amend the constitution. They should first assure the public that the elections will be combined no later than 2016. They can then adopt the administrative and political measures required to merge the presidential and legislative elections.
The president has a four year term. Inauguration day is May 20. Legislators also have four year terms. The legislature convenes each year between February and May and between September and December. A legislator's term of office expires on January 31. The constitution stipulates that newly elected legislators must begin their terms on February 1.
The constitutional amendments in question make no provisions for the date of the presidential election. But the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law states that elections must be announced 120 days before term expiration, and that balloting must take place 30 days before term expiration. For legislators, the constitutional amendments in question merely state that balloting must take place three months before terms expiration. The Civil Service Personnel Election and Recall Law states that balloting must take place at least ten days before term expiration.
Suppose we wish to combine the elections during the current term, by combining the above laws. Our choice of election dates will be limited. The election may need to be held after November 1, 2011, but before January 20, 2012. Only then would the date for the legislative elections be legal. The date for the presidential election is more flexible. As long as it is consistent with the constitution and the law, it can be moved up and held on the same day as the legislative elections. These are the options under the constitution and the law.
Suppose we combine the two elections, according to the above requirements. The presidential election would have be moved up from its current date in March, to sometime before January 20. Next, the date would have to be coordinated with the legislative elections. Suppose both elections are moved up to January 20. The term of office for the outgoing president would be shortened by at least two months, Add two months to that, and it could be shortened by as much as four months. Suppose current conditions prevail. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected. Or suppose conditions change, and another change in ruling parties follows. The president's term of office would be too long. It would risk violating the constitution.
Now take the legislative elections. As mentioned earlier, incoming legislators would assume office on February 1. The law states that elections must be held at least 10 days in advance. But if the legislators are sworn in less than 10 days after elections are announced, the timing would be too rushed. Therefore delaying the changing of the guard as long as the law allows may not be appropriate. If the timing is too rushed, and delays are too long, the presidential election would have to be moved up. The term of the outgoing president would have to be extended. This presents us with a dilemma.
The above applies only to the constitution and law as they currently stand. Changing the polling dates in order to combine the elections must be regarded as an expedient. If the legislature wishes to combine the presidential and legislative elections, and avoid moving up the presidential election or postponing the legislative elections, it must amend the constitution. It has no alternative. Changing the term for legislators requires too many changes to the constitution. It would be easier to change the term for the president, Next, the legislature will need to amend the law. The presidential and legislative elections must precede term expiration by the same amount of time. This will enable the legislature to combine the elections. This will enable the legislature to avoid making the president's term too long, or legislators' changing of the guard too rushed. But we have a problem. Even supposing the ruling and opposition parties were in complete agreement, it is too late to amend the constitution and the law during the current term.
The Blue and Green political parties have already agreed to combine the two elections, Each party has its own political calculations. They could change and combine the election dates without amending the constitution and the law. But that would be an administrative and political solution. The constitutional and legal problems would linger. If they fail to amend the constitution and the law, they will be forced to change the election dates repeatedly for every election. Sooner or later, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis.
There is one solution. The two parties should issue a joint declaration. They should immediately propose an amendment to the constitution and the laws. They should assure the public that the elections will be constitutionally combined no later than 2016. They should present this constitutional amendment to the public for a popular referendum. Such a move would help persuade the public of the need to change and combine the elections. That said, combining the elections during the current term could precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Can the elections be combined? Combining them could conserve precious social capital. Combining them could also precipitate a constitutional crisis. The pros must be weighed against the cons. The gains must be weighed against the losses.
先修憲確定二○一六年合併選舉
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.09
總統大選與立委選舉的日期太近，致在三個多月之內接連舉行兩次重大選舉；一方面未必能反映民情民意的時間差異，另一方面因而也顯得更加耗損社會成本。所以，合併舉行之議有其道理，如今民進黨也表示「不會特別反對」。
唯合併選舉在憲政體制和憲政運作方面，必須注意其連帶影響。問題卡在此屆若要合併選舉的修憲修法工程已趕不及，我們建議：藍綠兩黨先發動修憲修法，對社會作出至少在二○一六年可以合併選舉的保證，再來斟酌是否用行政及政治手段使此屆總統及立委合併選舉。
總統任期四年，在換屆年的五月二十日就職。立法委員任期四年，每年集會是二月至五月、九月至十二月，故換屆年的一月三十一日即上屆任滿日，而二月一日即新任立委的就任日，此為憲法所明定。
憲法增修條文對總統選舉辦理期間未加規定，但總統副總統選罷法則規定，須在任滿一百二十日前公告、任滿三十日前完成選舉投票。立法委員方面，則憲法增修條文只規定任滿前三個月內選出之；而公職人員選罷法則明定，須於立委任滿十日前完成選舉。
綜合上述的規定，若此屆要合併舉行，則可能選擇的區間，只能在民國一百年十一月一日以後，至一百零一年一月二十日以前，以使立委選舉日期合法；總統選舉日期的彈性較大，可以在合憲合法的範圍內配合立委選舉日期的訂定，提前舉行。以上是憲政體制和法律規定下可能的選擇。
由上述規定可知，若採合併案，則總統選舉勢須由現行三月間舉行提前，最少是要提前到一月二十日以前，接著再看立委選舉如何配合；若以提前到一月二十日前合併舉行，則任滿總統的看守期至少由目前的約兩個月，再加兩個月，可長達四個月之久。以目前選情看，若馬英九連任，或可另當別論；但倘出現政黨輪替，則看守期過長，即可能發生種種憲政風險。
至於立委選舉，如前所述，新立委就任是二月一日，法律固然容許最遲在十日前選出，但選出後公告至新舊交接倘若只有不到十日，恐怕過於緊迫；故延後至法律許可的最大極限是否適當，自然亦應加考慮。而若顧慮新舊兩屆立委交接過於緊迫的問題，而不想要延後太久，則總統選舉就要再提前，因而舊任總統看守期也只得再加長，這就帶來兩難的局面。
以上所言，都是在不變動憲法和法律的前提下，採取彈性調整選舉投票日的措施以達合併目的，只能算是權宜處置。至於若欲使總統及立委合併選舉法制化，且消除提前總統選舉或延後立委選舉的連帶影響，則除修憲修法，別無他途。亦即，第一步須修憲調整總統任期，使之與立委任期同步；因為，若欲調整立委任期，變動的憲法條文太多，相較之下以調整總統任期較妥。第二步須修法，使總統和立委選舉，須在任滿前多長期間完成選舉投票的規定相同。這樣一來，即可達成選舉合併，又不致使總統看守期過長或立委就任期太倉促。問題是：即使朝野政黨此刻立即形成修憲修法共識，但在此屆選舉之前完成修憲勢已來不及。
藍綠兩黨如今皆表達贊同合併選舉之傾向，其中當然各懷政治盤算；故而在不修憲不修法的情勢下，亦有可能以調整選舉日期而合併舉行。但這也只是行政及政治解決，憲法及法律上的問題仍在；因為，若不修憲修法，總不能未來次次皆調整選舉日期，則遲早會爆發憲政災禍。
有一個可能的解決之道，即兩黨合議以政治宣示，立即發動單一議題的併選修憲修法，以保證至少在二○一六年可依憲依法合併選舉，並在此屆總統立委併選中將修憲案交付公民複決；在此一法律行動下，此屆若以調整選舉日期併選，或許對社會較具說服力。然而，即使如此，此屆若合併選舉，仍不能排除憲政風險的發生。
總之，是否合併舉行，勢須以合併可能節省社會成本及合併可能引發憲政風險的利弊做比較，務期合乎比例原則。
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety
Conflagration Underscores Problem with Safety
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2011
"It passed inspection. How how could such an accident occur?" A fire of undetermined origin took nine lives in a Taichung nightclub. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu was stunned. The entire nation was stunned. Safety inspections by governments at all levels failed to ensure public safety. They failed to prevent business owners from flouting the law for the sake of larger profits. That being the case, who if anyone can ensure public safety?
Sixteen years ago, the Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire in Taichung shocked the entire nation by taking 64 lives. Then mayor Lin Po-jung was impeached by the Control Yuan and suspended by the Executive Yuan for six months. This provided the public on Taiwan with a painful lesson in public safety. This provided the government on Taiwan with an opportunity to review existing safety measures. The fire prevention codes and regulations were completely rewritten. Non-flammable materials were made mandatory for public spaces. Restaurants and bars were required to purchase accident insurance. Police and fire fighters were separated and made independent. This allowed fire fighting to be more professional.
Sixteen years later, a fire in a Taichung City night club has claimed nine lives. According to the city government, the night club passed 21 safety inspections conductted over a period of five years. It was registered as a juice bar. But according to Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi, the city government still subjected it to the most stringent safety inspection standards. For example, the recent recent fire may have been caused by insulation foam on the ceiling which failed to pass inspection three years earlier. As a result, water and electricity were cut. The store came under new management. It was renamed "Huck" and resumed operations as a juice bar.
Based on the above account, the store was clearly registered as one thing, but operated as something else altogether. The city government failed to conduct a serious investigation. Juice bars are still public facilities. Foam insulation must still prevent fires. Did safety inspections ascertain whether it was safe? The most expedient way for business owners to maximize profits is to minimize operating costs. But competent authorities must keep public safety in mind. They must demand that business owners abide by the most stringent industry standards.
As everyone knows, Taichung has the most varied entertainment facilities on Taiwan. The more difficult an industry is to manage, the more severe government regulations must be. Otherwise, regulations will have no effect. Three years ago, the Taichung City Government explicitly forbade open flames in public facilities. This applied even to wedding receptions. The city government imposed regulations, but no penalties. Not only did it fail to impose penalties, it even failed to conduct inspections. Nightclubs conducted business as usual, behind closed doors. Only customers knew that male strippers were putting on a show, replete with fireworks.
The general public may not know that public facilities are not allowed to stage fireworks displays. But business owners are. The male strippers who staged the performance were reportedly stand ins. But the nightclub owner should have informed them that their show could not include open flames. The male strippers' employer should also have informed them that any show involving open flames were prohibited. Why did the performers juggle torches in such a tiny space? According to the performers, the club was too dark. They could not tell the the stage ceiling was too low. Clearly they failed to do their homework by checking out the venue. In any event, it was clear that shows involving open flames were prohibited. So why were business owners unafraid to defy the law? The only explanation is that this night club in Taichung was not alone in holding such shows. Night club owners never ran into any problems. Night club owners never got caught. As a result they grew ever bolder.
Performers putting on such shows never intended that their shows lead to such catastrophes. But besides being creative, novel, and popular, shows must also be responsible. They must be responsible for their own safety and for the safety of their customers. The male strippers should have been accompanied by two or three monitors to guard against the risk of fire. Had this been done, a disaster might not have ensued. Clearly fire prevention was not something the group paid much attention to, or cared much about. But who today would dare stage a similar performance?
Night clubs are about entertainment. Few people pay any attention to safety. Who bothers to check on the number of emergency exits and their locations before entering? After a few drinks, one's alertness diminishes. The juggled torches turn into a roaring conflagration. Guests assumed they were merely special effects. When they realized something was wrong, some used their own water glasses to fight the fire. They failed to realize their glasses were filled with liquor, and not water. As a result the situation soon spiraled out of control. But one can hardly blame the guests for having too good a time. When the male strippers first fled the scene, did anyone notice that no one was using the fire extinguishers next to the stage?
The Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire broke out six years ago. The Control Yuan exacted Draconian punishments. This time, the Control Yuan will find it difficult to absolve the Taichung City Government of responsibility. Twenty one safety inspections were conducted over five years. The building department, labor affairs department, and fire department conducted joint safety inspections. Three times the club passed muster. Was this due to inadequate attention to detail? Were the competent authorities negligent in their duties? No matter what the Control Yuan investigation uncovers, the Taichung City Government's first step must be to correct its errors. It must conduct a thorough inspection of all the city's public facilities. It must check their registrations against their operations, making sure they match. It must thoroughly inspect all facilities for safety, and bring them into compliance. Any business owners found in violation, must be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. Some must even be shut down. After all, human life is paramount. Negligence cannot be permitted.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.08
社論－這一把大火燒出的安檢問題
本報訊
「安檢過關怎麼還會出事？」台中夜店一把無名火，奪走九條人命，讓台中市市長胡志強錯愕，更讓全國民眾驚愕。如果各級政府機關的安檢工作竟然防堵不了公安問題，阻止不了業者為賺取更大利益違規違法，那麼民眾的人身安全誰來保障？
十六年前，台中市發生震驚全國的衛爾康西餐廳大火，奪走六十四條人命，時任市長的林柏榕因此遭到監察院彈劾，並經行政院停職半年處分，這個慘痛的教訓讓台灣公共安全有一個重新檢討的機會。當時的消防法規制度幾乎面臨全面的檢討重建，除了要求公共場所必須使用防火建材，餐飲業必須強制投保公共意外險，同時在體制上也促成警消分立，讓消防工作愈趨專業化。
十六年過去了，台中市又發生奪走九條人命的夜店大火。根據市府資料，這家夜店五年廿一次安檢過關，儘管該店登記的是飲料店，但副市長蕭家旗指稱，市府仍是以最嚴格的標準進行安檢。舉例來說，這次疑為肇禍的天花板隔音泡棉三年前就不合格，該店因而遭到斷水斷電處分，業者更換人頭，改名「哈克」後，再以飲料店申請復業迄今。
從上述情節看來，該店登記與經營項目顯然不一，市府並未嚴查；飲料店仍屬公共場合，隔音泡棉仍然應具防火效果，稽查到底查出了沒有？對業者而言，降低成本就是爭取最大經營利潤的作法；但對主管機關而言，卻應從公共安全的角度，以最嚴格的標準要求業者做好一切防護措施。
眾所周知，台中是全台娛樂場所新興花樣最多的地方，愈是難管愈是要雷厲風行，否則難收管理之實效。三年前，台中市政府即明令在任何公共場所不得進行明火秀，包括婚嫁都不能有類似活動，然而，市府明令禁止，卻無罰則，非但沒有罰則，甚至連稽查能力都無，夜店關起門來做生意，除了上門的客人，沒人知道裡頭大搞猛男焰火秀。
一般民眾或許不知道公共場所不能有明火秀，業者卻不能不知道。這次上場表演的猛男，據稱只是代班人，夜店老闆應該告知不能有明火秀，除了夜店老闆，猛男所屬表演團體的老闆也該告知不能有明火秀，為什麼該名表演者，還是在狹小的空間拋出煙火棒？據該名表演者聲稱，店裡光線太暗，他不知道天花板距離舞台這麼近，顯然他上場前甚至勘查場地最基本的功課都沒做，但不論如何，不能有明火秀是清清楚楚的，業者何敢以身試法？唯一的解釋只有一個：台中市各家夜店中，類似表演顯然不只這一件，沒出事沒被抓包，膽子就愈來愈大！
原本娛樂大眾的創意表演，卻釀成巨災，絕非表演者所願見，但是，任何表演除了創意、新鮮、熱門，還是要負責，對自己與客人的安危負責，如果猛男出場，他所屬的團體還有二、三個隨行者，注意焰火可能引致的風險，或許也不致於釀災致此。然而，相關的周邊防護顯然亦未受到表演團體的注意，遑論重視，誰還敢邀請類似的表演呢？
夜店逸樂，少有人注意安全，更遑論進門前先檢查逃生口有幾個？各在哪裡？喝了酒之後，警覺性降低，甩火變大火，客人還以為是特效，驚覺不對勁之後，甚至有人拿起杯子澆水滅火，恍若未覺自己杯中是酒不是水，導致事態一發不可收拾，但是，能怪客人玩過頭嗎？當猛男率先逃離現場時，誰還注意到舞台邊的滅火器竟無人使用呢？
十六年前的衛爾康大火，監察院痛下彈劾之重手，這一次，監察院勢必很難放過台中市政府的管理監督之責。五年廿一次安檢中，有三次是建管、工務與消防單位的聯合安檢，全部過關，這中間有人謀不臧之處？還是相關單位疏於稽查職守？不論監察院調查結果為何，台中市政府第一步要做的是拴緊螺絲，進行全市公共場所的總體檢，從登記與經營項目是否名副其實、到各種設施是否符合安全規格，徹底清查並改正不符法令規範的店家，凡不合規定者，務必要嚴查重罰，甚至勒令歇業也在所不惜，畢竟人命關天，一點都閃失不得。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 8, 2011
"It passed inspection. How how could such an accident occur?" A fire of undetermined origin took nine lives in a Taichung nightclub. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu was stunned. The entire nation was stunned. Safety inspections by governments at all levels failed to ensure public safety. They failed to prevent business owners from flouting the law for the sake of larger profits. That being the case, who if anyone can ensure public safety?
Sixteen years ago, the Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire in Taichung shocked the entire nation by taking 64 lives. Then mayor Lin Po-jung was impeached by the Control Yuan and suspended by the Executive Yuan for six months. This provided the public on Taiwan with a painful lesson in public safety. This provided the government on Taiwan with an opportunity to review existing safety measures. The fire prevention codes and regulations were completely rewritten. Non-flammable materials were made mandatory for public spaces. Restaurants and bars were required to purchase accident insurance. Police and fire fighters were separated and made independent. This allowed fire fighting to be more professional.
Sixteen years later, a fire in a Taichung City night club has claimed nine lives. According to the city government, the night club passed 21 safety inspections conductted over a period of five years. It was registered as a juice bar. But according to Deputy Mayor Hsiao Chia-chi, the city government still subjected it to the most stringent safety inspection standards. For example, the recent recent fire may have been caused by insulation foam on the ceiling which failed to pass inspection three years earlier. As a result, water and electricity were cut. The store came under new management. It was renamed "Huck" and resumed operations as a juice bar.
Based on the above account, the store was clearly registered as one thing, but operated as something else altogether. The city government failed to conduct a serious investigation. Juice bars are still public facilities. Foam insulation must still prevent fires. Did safety inspections ascertain whether it was safe? The most expedient way for business owners to maximize profits is to minimize operating costs. But competent authorities must keep public safety in mind. They must demand that business owners abide by the most stringent industry standards.
As everyone knows, Taichung has the most varied entertainment facilities on Taiwan. The more difficult an industry is to manage, the more severe government regulations must be. Otherwise, regulations will have no effect. Three years ago, the Taichung City Government explicitly forbade open flames in public facilities. This applied even to wedding receptions. The city government imposed regulations, but no penalties. Not only did it fail to impose penalties, it even failed to conduct inspections. Nightclubs conducted business as usual, behind closed doors. Only customers knew that male strippers were putting on a show, replete with fireworks.
The general public may not know that public facilities are not allowed to stage fireworks displays. But business owners are. The male strippers who staged the performance were reportedly stand ins. But the nightclub owner should have informed them that their show could not include open flames. The male strippers' employer should also have informed them that any show involving open flames were prohibited. Why did the performers juggle torches in such a tiny space? According to the performers, the club was too dark. They could not tell the the stage ceiling was too low. Clearly they failed to do their homework by checking out the venue. In any event, it was clear that shows involving open flames were prohibited. So why were business owners unafraid to defy the law? The only explanation is that this night club in Taichung was not alone in holding such shows. Night club owners never ran into any problems. Night club owners never got caught. As a result they grew ever bolder.
Performers putting on such shows never intended that their shows lead to such catastrophes. But besides being creative, novel, and popular, shows must also be responsible. They must be responsible for their own safety and for the safety of their customers. The male strippers should have been accompanied by two or three monitors to guard against the risk of fire. Had this been done, a disaster might not have ensued. Clearly fire prevention was not something the group paid much attention to, or cared much about. But who today would dare stage a similar performance?
Night clubs are about entertainment. Few people pay any attention to safety. Who bothers to check on the number of emergency exits and their locations before entering? After a few drinks, one's alertness diminishes. The juggled torches turn into a roaring conflagration. Guests assumed they were merely special effects. When they realized something was wrong, some used their own water glasses to fight the fire. They failed to realize their glasses were filled with liquor, and not water. As a result the situation soon spiraled out of control. But one can hardly blame the guests for having too good a time. When the male strippers first fled the scene, did anyone notice that no one was using the fire extinguishers next to the stage?
The Wei Er Kang Restaurant fire broke out six years ago. The Control Yuan exacted Draconian punishments. This time, the Control Yuan will find it difficult to absolve the Taichung City Government of responsibility. Twenty one safety inspections were conducted over five years. The building department, labor affairs department, and fire department conducted joint safety inspections. Three times the club passed muster. Was this due to inadequate attention to detail? Were the competent authorities negligent in their duties? No matter what the Control Yuan investigation uncovers, the Taichung City Government's first step must be to correct its errors. It must conduct a thorough inspection of all the city's public facilities. It must check their registrations against their operations, making sure they match. It must thoroughly inspect all facilities for safety, and bring them into compliance. Any business owners found in violation, must be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. Some must even be shut down. After all, human life is paramount. Negligence cannot be permitted.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.08
社論－這一把大火燒出的安檢問題
本報訊
「安檢過關怎麼還會出事？」台中夜店一把無名火，奪走九條人命，讓台中市市長胡志強錯愕，更讓全國民眾驚愕。如果各級政府機關的安檢工作竟然防堵不了公安問題，阻止不了業者為賺取更大利益違規違法，那麼民眾的人身安全誰來保障？
十六年前，台中市發生震驚全國的衛爾康西餐廳大火，奪走六十四條人命，時任市長的林柏榕因此遭到監察院彈劾，並經行政院停職半年處分，這個慘痛的教訓讓台灣公共安全有一個重新檢討的機會。當時的消防法規制度幾乎面臨全面的檢討重建，除了要求公共場所必須使用防火建材，餐飲業必須強制投保公共意外險，同時在體制上也促成警消分立，讓消防工作愈趨專業化。
十六年過去了，台中市又發生奪走九條人命的夜店大火。根據市府資料，這家夜店五年廿一次安檢過關，儘管該店登記的是飲料店，但副市長蕭家旗指稱，市府仍是以最嚴格的標準進行安檢。舉例來說，這次疑為肇禍的天花板隔音泡棉三年前就不合格，該店因而遭到斷水斷電處分，業者更換人頭，改名「哈克」後，再以飲料店申請復業迄今。
從上述情節看來，該店登記與經營項目顯然不一，市府並未嚴查；飲料店仍屬公共場合，隔音泡棉仍然應具防火效果，稽查到底查出了沒有？對業者而言，降低成本就是爭取最大經營利潤的作法；但對主管機關而言，卻應從公共安全的角度，以最嚴格的標準要求業者做好一切防護措施。
眾所周知，台中是全台娛樂場所新興花樣最多的地方，愈是難管愈是要雷厲風行，否則難收管理之實效。三年前，台中市政府即明令在任何公共場所不得進行明火秀，包括婚嫁都不能有類似活動，然而，市府明令禁止，卻無罰則，非但沒有罰則，甚至連稽查能力都無，夜店關起門來做生意，除了上門的客人，沒人知道裡頭大搞猛男焰火秀。
一般民眾或許不知道公共場所不能有明火秀，業者卻不能不知道。這次上場表演的猛男，據稱只是代班人，夜店老闆應該告知不能有明火秀，除了夜店老闆，猛男所屬表演團體的老闆也該告知不能有明火秀，為什麼該名表演者，還是在狹小的空間拋出煙火棒？據該名表演者聲稱，店裡光線太暗，他不知道天花板距離舞台這麼近，顯然他上場前甚至勘查場地最基本的功課都沒做，但不論如何，不能有明火秀是清清楚楚的，業者何敢以身試法？唯一的解釋只有一個：台中市各家夜店中，類似表演顯然不只這一件，沒出事沒被抓包，膽子就愈來愈大！
原本娛樂大眾的創意表演，卻釀成巨災，絕非表演者所願見，但是，任何表演除了創意、新鮮、熱門，還是要負責，對自己與客人的安危負責，如果猛男出場，他所屬的團體還有二、三個隨行者，注意焰火可能引致的風險，或許也不致於釀災致此。然而，相關的周邊防護顯然亦未受到表演團體的注意，遑論重視，誰還敢邀請類似的表演呢？
夜店逸樂，少有人注意安全，更遑論進門前先檢查逃生口有幾個？各在哪裡？喝了酒之後，警覺性降低，甩火變大火，客人還以為是特效，驚覺不對勁之後，甚至有人拿起杯子澆水滅火，恍若未覺自己杯中是酒不是水，導致事態一發不可收拾，但是，能怪客人玩過頭嗎？當猛男率先逃離現場時，誰還注意到舞台邊的滅火器竟無人使用呢？
十六年前的衛爾康大火，監察院痛下彈劾之重手，這一次，監察院勢必很難放過台中市政府的管理監督之責。五年廿一次安檢中，有三次是建管、工務與消防單位的聯合安檢，全部過關，這中間有人謀不臧之處？還是相關單位疏於稽查職守？不論監察院調查結果為何，台中市政府第一步要做的是拴緊螺絲，進行全市公共場所的總體檢，從登記與經營項目是否名副其實、到各種設施是否符合安全規格，徹底清查並改正不符法令規範的店家，凡不合規定者，務必要嚴查重罰，甚至勒令歇業也在所不惜，畢竟人命關天，一點都閃失不得。
Kuomintang Must Heed Crisis of Governance
Kuomintang Must Heed Crisis of Governance
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 7, 2011
As predicted, the KMT lost the legislative by-elections for both cities in southern Taiwan. Worse still, it lost by a wider margin than previously. The KMT has been back in power for less than three years. Yet it has already lost half a dozen major and minor by-elections in a row. In 13 legislative by-elections, it has retained only three seats. By contrast, the DPP has scored a continuous string of victories. It won one less seat than the KMT in the five cities elections. But the total number of votes it received far exceeded the KMT's. No wonder after the by-elections for the two cities in southern Taiwan, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen confidently declared that the DPP would soon return to power.
Over the past two years, the KMT has failed to exploit the power of the incumbency. It has lost a string of major and minor by-elections. It has suffered so many defeats, one could simply change the names on the file folders for its election post-mortems. The KMT Central Standing Committee has dealt with its defeats in a ritualistic, pro forma manner. No one is willing to confront the KMT's problems head on. Either that, or they see the problems but can offer no solutions.
Pan Blue rule in the north, and Pan Green rule in the south, has become a long standing pattern. The KMT clings to its ostrich mentality, assuming that it need only retain power in northern and central Taiwan. The further south it goes, the more it is reluctant to campaign. During the recent fourth legislative district election in Tainan, the KMT was caught unprepared. It nominated legislator without portfolio Chen Shu-hui. Whether she won or lost, she would have remained a legislator. As a result, she lacked the motivation to campaign hard from the very start. During the Kaohsiung fourth legislative district by-election, the KMT nominated Hsu Ching-huang, the son of former DPP legislator Hsu Chi-min. One. It disregarded the fact that the Hsu family was embroiled in local controversy. Two. It disregarded the fact that Hsu Ching-huang was defeated during his previous legislative bid. Three. It disregarded public consternation over the nomination. Instead, it wallowed in feelgood sentiment. "We can win in Kaohsiung!" it told itself. Instead, it lost by a whopping 30,000 votes. Who in the KMT had the courage to suggest that such a nomination was a mistake?
The candidate might be Chen Shu-hui, or it might be Hsu Ching-huang. But the real problem is that the KMT has failed to campaign vigorously in the south. It has failed o cultivate talented candidates willing to make sacrifices. Chen Shu-hui was able to serve as a legislator without portfolio, because she was the wife of former legislator Lin Nan-sheng. Lin Nan-sheng habitually relied upon support from local factions and military dependents. His terms in office were not controversial within the party. The Chen administration ruled for eight years. Twice during that time, Lin Nan-sheng defected, voting with the DPP against the KMT. During the seventh legislative elections the party made room for Wang Yu-ting. As a result Kao Po-shi waltzed into office. In order to clear the way for the nomination of Chen Shu-hui as legislator without portfolio, Chen did not fill the position until legislator without portfolio Lee Chi-chu assumed the vice chairmanship of the FSC. Wang and Kao lost their bids for reelection. They were given political appointments. Following the five cities elections, the KMT Secretary-General refused to run for elective office, and resigned before the cabinet reshuffle.
The reality was brutal. The legislative by-elections in the two cities in southern Taiwan may have been lost before they even began. But why? The reason is simple. Legislator without portfolio Chen Shu-hui failed to campaign vigorously at the local level. After their political appointments, Wang and Kao failed to make full use of their resources. The central government was silent. The local government was invisible. How could they even hope to win? This was true in Tainan. This was true in Kaohsiung as well. By contrast, during the curent election Lin Dai-hua, the DPP candidate for the legislature, won handily, At the time, she was no different than Wang Yu-ting and Kao Shi-po. All were victims of surprise defeats during their bid for reelection. She served briefly as Youth Commission chairman prior to the change in ruling parties. She was defeated. She then made a determined but unsuccessful bid for Kaohsiung County Chief. If not for the merger between Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County, she would have been the DPP's nominee for Kaohsiung County Chief.
Lin Dai-hua is not yet 40. Hsu Tien-tsai is approximately 60. The age gap between the two DPP elected officials is 20 years. The generation gap is two to three generations. But when it comes to campaign ability, they differ very little. They have never stopped preparing to assume power, They are ready to do battle at any time. This unique characteristic of DPP officials, makes it far easier for them to be "air dropped" into an election than the KMT. Once they are air dropped, they make long term plans. They fight until they win.
It is rumored that King Pu-chung, who resigned as KMT Secretary-General, has been busy. He is in southern Taiwan "head hunting." But head hunting is useless unless one has the DPP's determination to fight until one wins. Also, if those recruited become members of the presidential campaign, what good will that do the KMT? In 2012, it is not enough merely to re-elect Ma Ying-jeou president. It is even more important to ensure a KMT majority in the legislature.
During the seventh legislative elections, the KMT used the Chen family corruption scandals to score a stunning victory. Ma YIng-jeou enjoyed enormous momentum. The KMT won two-thirds of the seats in the legislature. Unfortunately, the legislature failed to bring with it a new political climate. The cabinet was restructured twice. It was subjected to repeated fine-tuning. None of which elevated its political reputation. The year end legislative elections and future by elections are bound to be affected. The KMT has many incumbents. Arriving at compromises between them will not be easy. DPP legislators have considerable growth potential, Rival factions and party princes may have difficult to overcome grievances during the presidential election. But these grievances will be easy to overcome during the legislative elections.
Suppose the DPP or a DPP led coalition wins a majority in the legislature? Suppose President Ma Ying-jeou summons up the courage and makes some bold moves? What can he do if the DPP commands an overwhelming majority in the legislature? By then, the DPP may have amended the ROC Constitution. As its first experiment, it may turn it into a dual leadership system. The powers of the president would be greatly reduced. This would mark the beginning of a figurehead presidency. Tsai Ing-wen has declared that the DPP will use the legislative by-elections to return to power. Is the KMT still unaware that it is undergoing a crisis in goverance?
國民黨該警覺執政危機了
2011-03-07 中國時報
一如預期，南二都兩個選區立委補選，國民黨又敗了，而且票數懸殊。國民黨重新執政三年不到時間中，大小補選戰役連續創造的敗績已經一個手掌數不完，十三席立委補選，只站穩三席。相反的，民進黨一路過關斬將，即使五都選舉席次較國民黨少一席，得票數卻遠遠領先國民黨，難怪南二都補選後，民進黨主席蔡英文可以沉著堅定宣告：民進黨即將重返執政！
過去兩年多來，國民黨未能掌握執政優勢，大小選舉節節敗退，敗選檢討多到從檔案夾裡抽出換選舉名稱即可適用，中常會行禮如儀提出後束之高閣，沒有人正視國民黨問題之所在，或者看到問題卻依舊無力挽救。
北藍南綠格局既成，國民黨鴕鳥地相信靠著中北藍區維持政權足矣，愈往南，黨人愈怯戰，這次台南第四選區立委補選，國民黨臨陣磨槍，提名不分區立委陳淑慧，不論當選與否都還是立委，戰鬥意志先矮人一截；高雄第四選區立委補選則提名前民進黨立委徐志明之子徐慶煌，一無視徐氏家族在地方的爭議，二無視徐慶煌上次立委選舉大敗的事實，三無視民意聽聞如此提名時的錯愕，還自我感覺良好地認為，「高雄有得拚！」拚出來結果大輸三萬票，國民黨誰有膽子抓出當初主張這個錯誤提名的人？
然而，不論是陳淑慧或徐慶煌，其實都只是國民黨疏於經營南部、培養人才的犧牲者。陳淑慧能出任不分區，因為她是前立委林南生之妻，林南生過去靠的是派系和眷村票，在黨內不是沒有爭議，至少扁政府執政八年，林南生就有兩次立法院行使同意權的跑票紀錄，第七屆立委選舉黨內為了讓王昱婷、高思博順利參選，以提名陳淑慧為不分區做疏通，陳一直到不分區立委李紀珠出任金管會副主委才遞補就位。至於王、高兩人卻在連任選舉中全遭挫敗，轉任政務官的他們，在五都選後遭黨祕書長點名拒戰，在內閣改組前後去職。
更殘酷而現實地看待南二都立委補選，就算王、高兩人點頭參選，或許依舊改變不了敗選的結果，何以致此？原因很簡單，遞補不分區的陳淑慧在地方經營顯然不夠，王、高轉換跑道擔任政務官之後，也未善用資源，在中央不發聲，在地方看不到身影，怎麼選？台南如此，高雄就更不必提了。相形之下，這次當選立委的民進黨候選人林岱樺，贏得一點都不僥倖，當年，她和王昱婷、高思博一樣，都意外連任失敗，從而擔任過政黨再輪替前一小段時間的青輔會主委，才落選就鬥志昂揚準備參選高雄縣長，若非高雄縣市合併，她肯定是民進黨高雄縣長提名人選。
林岱樺今年四十不到，許添財差不多六十，民進黨兩位當選人年紀落差廿歲，二到三個世代，但面對選舉的戰鬥力卻毫無二致，他們沒有一刻停下腳步和準備，任何時刻就能提槍上陣，民進黨人特殊的選舉性格，讓他們在尋覓「空降人才」都比國民黨簡單得多，甚且一旦空降，就要做長期抗戰的打算，直到贏得戰役的那一天。
據說，辭卸國民黨祕書長的金溥聰號稱沒閒著，正在南部「獵人頭」。然而，人頭若無民進黨打到勝選才干休的意志力，獵來也無用；此外，人頭若都獵進「總統競選辦公室」，於國民黨執政何干？二○一二年，不只是馬英九總統能否連任，更重要的是，國民黨還能在國會過半嗎？
第七屆立委選舉，國民黨挾扁家弊案全面爆發，馬英九氣勢如虹之賜，大贏三分之二席次；遺憾的是，如此國會生態並未展現什麼新氣象，行政團隊兩次改組，多次微調，也沒拉抬出足夠的執政聲望，這對年底或來年立委改選勢必造成衝擊。加以國民黨現任者眾，協調必然不易，民進黨立委可成長空間卻極大，派系和天王盡管在總統大選心結難解，在立委選舉這塊卻很容易眾志成城。
果若民進黨或加上盟友可過半，即使馬英九總統可連任，他敢像當年的扁，大玩權謀，視國會破碎多數於無物嗎？屆時，或許將是中華民國憲法增修條文雙首長制第一次實驗的時機，這也表示是總統權力大幅削弱、虛位的開始，當蔡英文宣示以立委改選重返執政，國民黨還看不到自己嚴重的執政危機嗎？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 7, 2011
As predicted, the KMT lost the legislative by-elections for both cities in southern Taiwan. Worse still, it lost by a wider margin than previously. The KMT has been back in power for less than three years. Yet it has already lost half a dozen major and minor by-elections in a row. In 13 legislative by-elections, it has retained only three seats. By contrast, the DPP has scored a continuous string of victories. It won one less seat than the KMT in the five cities elections. But the total number of votes it received far exceeded the KMT's. No wonder after the by-elections for the two cities in southern Taiwan, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen confidently declared that the DPP would soon return to power.
Over the past two years, the KMT has failed to exploit the power of the incumbency. It has lost a string of major and minor by-elections. It has suffered so many defeats, one could simply change the names on the file folders for its election post-mortems. The KMT Central Standing Committee has dealt with its defeats in a ritualistic, pro forma manner. No one is willing to confront the KMT's problems head on. Either that, or they see the problems but can offer no solutions.
Pan Blue rule in the north, and Pan Green rule in the south, has become a long standing pattern. The KMT clings to its ostrich mentality, assuming that it need only retain power in northern and central Taiwan. The further south it goes, the more it is reluctant to campaign. During the recent fourth legislative district election in Tainan, the KMT was caught unprepared. It nominated legislator without portfolio Chen Shu-hui. Whether she won or lost, she would have remained a legislator. As a result, she lacked the motivation to campaign hard from the very start. During the Kaohsiung fourth legislative district by-election, the KMT nominated Hsu Ching-huang, the son of former DPP legislator Hsu Chi-min. One. It disregarded the fact that the Hsu family was embroiled in local controversy. Two. It disregarded the fact that Hsu Ching-huang was defeated during his previous legislative bid. Three. It disregarded public consternation over the nomination. Instead, it wallowed in feelgood sentiment. "We can win in Kaohsiung!" it told itself. Instead, it lost by a whopping 30,000 votes. Who in the KMT had the courage to suggest that such a nomination was a mistake?
The candidate might be Chen Shu-hui, or it might be Hsu Ching-huang. But the real problem is that the KMT has failed to campaign vigorously in the south. It has failed o cultivate talented candidates willing to make sacrifices. Chen Shu-hui was able to serve as a legislator without portfolio, because she was the wife of former legislator Lin Nan-sheng. Lin Nan-sheng habitually relied upon support from local factions and military dependents. His terms in office were not controversial within the party. The Chen administration ruled for eight years. Twice during that time, Lin Nan-sheng defected, voting with the DPP against the KMT. During the seventh legislative elections the party made room for Wang Yu-ting. As a result Kao Po-shi waltzed into office. In order to clear the way for the nomination of Chen Shu-hui as legislator without portfolio, Chen did not fill the position until legislator without portfolio Lee Chi-chu assumed the vice chairmanship of the FSC. Wang and Kao lost their bids for reelection. They were given political appointments. Following the five cities elections, the KMT Secretary-General refused to run for elective office, and resigned before the cabinet reshuffle.
The reality was brutal. The legislative by-elections in the two cities in southern Taiwan may have been lost before they even began. But why? The reason is simple. Legislator without portfolio Chen Shu-hui failed to campaign vigorously at the local level. After their political appointments, Wang and Kao failed to make full use of their resources. The central government was silent. The local government was invisible. How could they even hope to win? This was true in Tainan. This was true in Kaohsiung as well. By contrast, during the curent election Lin Dai-hua, the DPP candidate for the legislature, won handily, At the time, she was no different than Wang Yu-ting and Kao Shi-po. All were victims of surprise defeats during their bid for reelection. She served briefly as Youth Commission chairman prior to the change in ruling parties. She was defeated. She then made a determined but unsuccessful bid for Kaohsiung County Chief. If not for the merger between Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County, she would have been the DPP's nominee for Kaohsiung County Chief.
Lin Dai-hua is not yet 40. Hsu Tien-tsai is approximately 60. The age gap between the two DPP elected officials is 20 years. The generation gap is two to three generations. But when it comes to campaign ability, they differ very little. They have never stopped preparing to assume power, They are ready to do battle at any time. This unique characteristic of DPP officials, makes it far easier for them to be "air dropped" into an election than the KMT. Once they are air dropped, they make long term plans. They fight until they win.
It is rumored that King Pu-chung, who resigned as KMT Secretary-General, has been busy. He is in southern Taiwan "head hunting." But head hunting is useless unless one has the DPP's determination to fight until one wins. Also, if those recruited become members of the presidential campaign, what good will that do the KMT? In 2012, it is not enough merely to re-elect Ma Ying-jeou president. It is even more important to ensure a KMT majority in the legislature.
During the seventh legislative elections, the KMT used the Chen family corruption scandals to score a stunning victory. Ma YIng-jeou enjoyed enormous momentum. The KMT won two-thirds of the seats in the legislature. Unfortunately, the legislature failed to bring with it a new political climate. The cabinet was restructured twice. It was subjected to repeated fine-tuning. None of which elevated its political reputation. The year end legislative elections and future by elections are bound to be affected. The KMT has many incumbents. Arriving at compromises between them will not be easy. DPP legislators have considerable growth potential, Rival factions and party princes may have difficult to overcome grievances during the presidential election. But these grievances will be easy to overcome during the legislative elections.
Suppose the DPP or a DPP led coalition wins a majority in the legislature? Suppose President Ma Ying-jeou summons up the courage and makes some bold moves? What can he do if the DPP commands an overwhelming majority in the legislature? By then, the DPP may have amended the ROC Constitution. As its first experiment, it may turn it into a dual leadership system. The powers of the president would be greatly reduced. This would mark the beginning of a figurehead presidency. Tsai Ing-wen has declared that the DPP will use the legislative by-elections to return to power. Is the KMT still unaware that it is undergoing a crisis in goverance?
國民黨該警覺執政危機了
2011-03-07 中國時報
一如預期，南二都兩個選區立委補選，國民黨又敗了，而且票數懸殊。國民黨重新執政三年不到時間中，大小補選戰役連續創造的敗績已經一個手掌數不完，十三席立委補選，只站穩三席。相反的，民進黨一路過關斬將，即使五都選舉席次較國民黨少一席，得票數卻遠遠領先國民黨，難怪南二都補選後，民進黨主席蔡英文可以沉著堅定宣告：民進黨即將重返執政！
過去兩年多來，國民黨未能掌握執政優勢，大小選舉節節敗退，敗選檢討多到從檔案夾裡抽出換選舉名稱即可適用，中常會行禮如儀提出後束之高閣，沒有人正視國民黨問題之所在，或者看到問題卻依舊無力挽救。
北藍南綠格局既成，國民黨鴕鳥地相信靠著中北藍區維持政權足矣，愈往南，黨人愈怯戰，這次台南第四選區立委補選，國民黨臨陣磨槍，提名不分區立委陳淑慧，不論當選與否都還是立委，戰鬥意志先矮人一截；高雄第四選區立委補選則提名前民進黨立委徐志明之子徐慶煌，一無視徐氏家族在地方的爭議，二無視徐慶煌上次立委選舉大敗的事實，三無視民意聽聞如此提名時的錯愕，還自我感覺良好地認為，「高雄有得拚！」拚出來結果大輸三萬票，國民黨誰有膽子抓出當初主張這個錯誤提名的人？
然而，不論是陳淑慧或徐慶煌，其實都只是國民黨疏於經營南部、培養人才的犧牲者。陳淑慧能出任不分區，因為她是前立委林南生之妻，林南生過去靠的是派系和眷村票，在黨內不是沒有爭議，至少扁政府執政八年，林南生就有兩次立法院行使同意權的跑票紀錄，第七屆立委選舉黨內為了讓王昱婷、高思博順利參選，以提名陳淑慧為不分區做疏通，陳一直到不分區立委李紀珠出任金管會副主委才遞補就位。至於王、高兩人卻在連任選舉中全遭挫敗，轉任政務官的他們，在五都選後遭黨祕書長點名拒戰，在內閣改組前後去職。
更殘酷而現實地看待南二都立委補選，就算王、高兩人點頭參選，或許依舊改變不了敗選的結果，何以致此？原因很簡單，遞補不分區的陳淑慧在地方經營顯然不夠，王、高轉換跑道擔任政務官之後，也未善用資源，在中央不發聲，在地方看不到身影，怎麼選？台南如此，高雄就更不必提了。相形之下，這次當選立委的民進黨候選人林岱樺，贏得一點都不僥倖，當年，她和王昱婷、高思博一樣，都意外連任失敗，從而擔任過政黨再輪替前一小段時間的青輔會主委，才落選就鬥志昂揚準備參選高雄縣長，若非高雄縣市合併，她肯定是民進黨高雄縣長提名人選。
林岱樺今年四十不到，許添財差不多六十，民進黨兩位當選人年紀落差廿歲，二到三個世代，但面對選舉的戰鬥力卻毫無二致，他們沒有一刻停下腳步和準備，任何時刻就能提槍上陣，民進黨人特殊的選舉性格，讓他們在尋覓「空降人才」都比國民黨簡單得多，甚且一旦空降，就要做長期抗戰的打算，直到贏得戰役的那一天。
據說，辭卸國民黨祕書長的金溥聰號稱沒閒著，正在南部「獵人頭」。然而，人頭若無民進黨打到勝選才干休的意志力，獵來也無用；此外，人頭若都獵進「總統競選辦公室」，於國民黨執政何干？二○一二年，不只是馬英九總統能否連任，更重要的是，國民黨還能在國會過半嗎？
第七屆立委選舉，國民黨挾扁家弊案全面爆發，馬英九氣勢如虹之賜，大贏三分之二席次；遺憾的是，如此國會生態並未展現什麼新氣象，行政團隊兩次改組，多次微調，也沒拉抬出足夠的執政聲望，這對年底或來年立委改選勢必造成衝擊。加以國民黨現任者眾，協調必然不易，民進黨立委可成長空間卻極大，派系和天王盡管在總統大選心結難解，在立委選舉這塊卻很容易眾志成城。
果若民進黨或加上盟友可過半，即使馬英九總統可連任，他敢像當年的扁，大玩權謀，視國會破碎多數於無物嗎？屆時，或許將是中華民國憲法增修條文雙首長制第一次實驗的時機，這也表示是總統權力大幅削弱、虛位的開始，當蔡英文宣示以立委改選重返執政，國民黨還看不到自己嚴重的執政危機嗎？
Friday, March 4, 2011
Political Parties Must Not Discourage Candidates from Running
Political Parties Must Not Discourage Candidates from Running
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 4, 2011
The 2012 presidential race is about to begin. The ruling and opposition parties are currently attempting to clear the battlefield, Fierce fighting has broken out within the DPP. The DPP primaries remain unique to Taiwan. The party has issued a high-minded call for "solidarity." Annette Lu is the only candidate with the courage to flout the call. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang, the two candidates with the most influence, have heeded the call. Both are on hold. Neither dares to speak out. If they fail to use the primaries to debate the issues, and express their own reason for running, they will squander a precious opportunity, not just for themselves, but for Taiwan as well.
The DPP has an established timetable. On March 21, the party will begin candidate registration. It will complete its public opinion poll in late April. It will announce its presidential candidate on May 4. The next two months will be the moment of truth for the DPP elites. Annette Lu is not waiting for party approval before registering. She cannot wait and has already declared her candidacy. But she is not the most powerful figure within the DPP. She announced her candidacy at an event commemorating the 2/28 Incident. The result was anti-climatic. This shows that she no longer commands much voter support.
Annette Lu's time has passed. But the recommendations she shouted from the margins of power are worth noting. She suggested holding several primary debates, ideally one in each city and county. Such an intense selection process would produce a candidate able to withstand pressure. She mocked Tsai Ing-wen, saying she remains untested, and that was why Tsai fumbled the 18% preferential interest rate issue.
In fact the model Annette Lu described is the one used in the United States. U.S. presidential primaries last more than six months. Each state adopts a different approach. Some states vote according to party membership, Some states employ party caucus primaries. Caucus members debate then determine which candidate to support. Such a system may appear to waste time and money. But arduous party primaries can bring out the candidates' potential. They can highlight the meaning of the election. During the party primaries, Barak Obama grasped Americans' desire for change. This enabled him to defeat an opponent as powerful as Hillary Clinton.
Some nations lean toward a presidential system. The presidential candidate's personality traits, world view, and experience are all indicators of the candidate's administrative style. These are not something that can be summed up by the candidate's party affiliation. This is true not just in the United States. The Republic of China has held three presidential elections on Taiwan. It elected Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou. All three had ambiguous relationships to their respective political parties. They were all party members. But candidates from the same party often present very different faces to the world. They often offer very different political proposals. They often exhibit very different character traits.
Party primaries in the US are seldom carried out under the banner of "solidarity." They seldom involve such feudal gestures as "persuading a candidate to withdraw." Clinton told Obama: You are still young. Let me go first this time. But Clinton and Obama fought bitterly, until a clear winner emerged. Only then did the loser withdraw. This did not prevent the Democratic Party from winning the presidency. Obama even recruited Clinton, making her part of his "team of rivals."
Taiwan is smaller in scale. Party primaries need not be as hard fought as they are in the United States. But the unique characteristics of individual candidates should not be drowned out by calls for party solidarity. Even supporters of the DPP should be able to understand this. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have different policies. Su may be convinced "If not me, who?" He may be convinced that "time waits for no man," and that "my time is now." But what everyone wants to know is why he is running. Does his oft repeated "Taiwan Consensus" contain any substance whatsoever? Or is it merely an empty slogan?
Tsai Ing-wen wants to break through the glass ceiling for women, She also represents generational change within the DPP. Recently, she finally laid her cards on the table and said "Taiwan needs its next generation of leaders. Let people under forty see the future." This is indeed something worthy of debate, But amidst calls for DPP "solidarity," all these voices have been silenced. All we see is party deal-making, filled with intrigue, and utterly lacking innovation or creativity.
The DPP has its own unique subculture. But much of this is of Tsai's own making. The DPP Central Committee is powerful. Annette Lu advocated a "traveling political debate." In the end, only one debate remained. One is perhaps better than none. This same conservative atmosphere prevails elsewhere. Some DPP elites hope that Su and Tsai can form a single ticket. They hope the party will not need to hold any primaries whatsoever.
For the DPP the point of soliarity is to seize political power. But for voters, the point of solidarity is to unite under the banner of DPP ideas. Is the DPP seeking solidarity to avoid discussing policy? Especially cross-strait policy? Especially untested policy proposals? Especially policy proposals unable to withstand the test of a presidential election?
In nations leaning toward the presidential system, elections are decided not merely by party prestige. The candidate's style is equally important. Can artificial candidate solidarity create party solidarity? No one knows. But without competition, a party will never find its best candidate.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.04
社論－朝野政黨 別再玩團結勸退戲碼
本報訊
二○一二總統大選即將起跑，朝野政黨現階段都各自在清理戰場，民進黨表面上鬥得刀光劍影，依然是一場非常台灣特色的黨內初選。在團結的大帽子下，除了呂秀蓮敢於突圍外，最有實力的蔡英文及蘇貞昌，目前都是欲言又止，不敢暢所欲言；未來他們若不能藉著初選辯論，來表達自己參選的意義，不但對他們自己對台灣，都是浪費了一次寶貴的機會。
依照民進黨既定時程，該黨將於三月二十一日開始進行領表登記，四月底完成民調，五月四日就公告總統候選人。可以說，接下來兩個月將是民進黨菁英激戰的關鍵時刻。日前呂秀蓮不待黨內登記、已迫不急待宣布參選，但她不是民進黨的實力派人物，二二八宣布參選場合有如反高潮，只證明她人氣不再。
呂秀蓮的時機已過，但她從權力邊緣喊出的建議，卻未必不值一聽。她建議多辦幾場初選辯論，最好是每縣市都辦，經過這樣密集的挑戰，才能找出真正有抗壓性的候選人，她還諳諷蔡英文未經考驗，才會在領十八趴的議題上失手。
事實上，呂秀蓮描繪的是美國的形態。美國總統初選時間長達半年以上，各州還採取不同方式，有的州是由登記的黨員投票，有的州還採取黨團會議初選，黨團代表討論後決定支持人選；這樣的制度表面上看起來浪費時間、金錢，但高難度的黨內初選，卻也激發出候選人的潛力，必須凸顯自己參選的意義。歐巴馬當時就是掌握美國人求變的心理，才能打敗實力強大的對手希拉蕊。
可以說，在傾向總統制的國家，總統的人格特質、世界觀、政策經歷等個人條件，對於未來的施政風格都是動見觀瞻，不是政黨屬性可以概括。這不只在美國，台灣過去三任民選總統，從李登輝、陳水扁到馬英九，都和他們所屬政黨若即若離，可以說，即使同一政黨，並不代表候選人都只能同樣面孔、提出同樣的主張，而能各有特色。
因此美國政黨黨內初選，甚少抬出「團結」的大帽子、祭出「勸退」這樣的封建戲碼。希拉蕊絕對拉不下臉來對歐巴馬說:你還年輕，這次就先讓我吧！希拉蕊和歐巴馬就是結結實實打到分出勝負，才宣布退選，但不妨礙民主黨贏得總統，歐巴馬還找希拉蕊組成「政敵團隊」。
台灣幅員小，黨內初選未必要如美國一樣嚴苛，但參選人的特色不該淹沒在政黨的團結聲中，即使是民進黨的支持者也有資格了解，蔡英文與蘇貞昌的政策主張有何不同。如果蘇貞昌深感「捨我其誰」，大家有興趣的是，他除了「時不我與」這樣的個人因素外，他參選的使命感所為何來，他千呼萬喚始提出來的「台灣共識」，有沒有更具體的內容。
對蔡英文而言，她有打破女性玻璃屋頂的意義，她也代表民進黨內的世代交替。近來她總算喊出「台灣需要下一世代的領導人︱要讓四十歲以下的人看到未來」，這是值得論辯的議題，但在民進黨的「團結」聲中，這些不一樣的聲音全都不見了，最後大家看到的就是一場充滿權謀、了無新意的黨內協調。
當然，除了民進黨文化外，這種現象是蔡英文自己造成的。在黨中央的強力主導下，呂秀蓮當時力主的「巡迴政見辯論」，最後只剩一場，可說是聊勝於無；另外，在同樣保守的氛圍下，部分民進黨菁英甚至期待蘇蔡合，最好連初選都不必辦了。
對民進黨來說，團結最重要的意義在於取得執政權，但對選民而言，團結旗幟下的民進黨提出何種主張才是重點。如果，民進黨團結的目的，就是要迴避對政策、尤其是兩岸政策的討論，則未經考驗的主張，到大選時一樣禁不起考驗。
更重要的是，傾向總統制的國家，決定選民投票的，不只是政黨聲望，總統候選人的風格一樣重要。勉強整合出來的人選能否促成黨內大團結猶未可知，但是未經競爭，很肯定無法找到最適合的候選人！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 4, 2011
The 2012 presidential race is about to begin. The ruling and opposition parties are currently attempting to clear the battlefield, Fierce fighting has broken out within the DPP. The DPP primaries remain unique to Taiwan. The party has issued a high-minded call for "solidarity." Annette Lu is the only candidate with the courage to flout the call. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang, the two candidates with the most influence, have heeded the call. Both are on hold. Neither dares to speak out. If they fail to use the primaries to debate the issues, and express their own reason for running, they will squander a precious opportunity, not just for themselves, but for Taiwan as well.
The DPP has an established timetable. On March 21, the party will begin candidate registration. It will complete its public opinion poll in late April. It will announce its presidential candidate on May 4. The next two months will be the moment of truth for the DPP elites. Annette Lu is not waiting for party approval before registering. She cannot wait and has already declared her candidacy. But she is not the most powerful figure within the DPP. She announced her candidacy at an event commemorating the 2/28 Incident. The result was anti-climatic. This shows that she no longer commands much voter support.
Annette Lu's time has passed. But the recommendations she shouted from the margins of power are worth noting. She suggested holding several primary debates, ideally one in each city and county. Such an intense selection process would produce a candidate able to withstand pressure. She mocked Tsai Ing-wen, saying she remains untested, and that was why Tsai fumbled the 18% preferential interest rate issue.
In fact the model Annette Lu described is the one used in the United States. U.S. presidential primaries last more than six months. Each state adopts a different approach. Some states vote according to party membership, Some states employ party caucus primaries. Caucus members debate then determine which candidate to support. Such a system may appear to waste time and money. But arduous party primaries can bring out the candidates' potential. They can highlight the meaning of the election. During the party primaries, Barak Obama grasped Americans' desire for change. This enabled him to defeat an opponent as powerful as Hillary Clinton.
Some nations lean toward a presidential system. The presidential candidate's personality traits, world view, and experience are all indicators of the candidate's administrative style. These are not something that can be summed up by the candidate's party affiliation. This is true not just in the United States. The Republic of China has held three presidential elections on Taiwan. It elected Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou. All three had ambiguous relationships to their respective political parties. They were all party members. But candidates from the same party often present very different faces to the world. They often offer very different political proposals. They often exhibit very different character traits.
Party primaries in the US are seldom carried out under the banner of "solidarity." They seldom involve such feudal gestures as "persuading a candidate to withdraw." Clinton told Obama: You are still young. Let me go first this time. But Clinton and Obama fought bitterly, until a clear winner emerged. Only then did the loser withdraw. This did not prevent the Democratic Party from winning the presidency. Obama even recruited Clinton, making her part of his "team of rivals."
Taiwan is smaller in scale. Party primaries need not be as hard fought as they are in the United States. But the unique characteristics of individual candidates should not be drowned out by calls for party solidarity. Even supporters of the DPP should be able to understand this. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have different policies. Su may be convinced "If not me, who?" He may be convinced that "time waits for no man," and that "my time is now." But what everyone wants to know is why he is running. Does his oft repeated "Taiwan Consensus" contain any substance whatsoever? Or is it merely an empty slogan?
Tsai Ing-wen wants to break through the glass ceiling for women, She also represents generational change within the DPP. Recently, she finally laid her cards on the table and said "Taiwan needs its next generation of leaders. Let people under forty see the future." This is indeed something worthy of debate, But amidst calls for DPP "solidarity," all these voices have been silenced. All we see is party deal-making, filled with intrigue, and utterly lacking innovation or creativity.
The DPP has its own unique subculture. But much of this is of Tsai's own making. The DPP Central Committee is powerful. Annette Lu advocated a "traveling political debate." In the end, only one debate remained. One is perhaps better than none. This same conservative atmosphere prevails elsewhere. Some DPP elites hope that Su and Tsai can form a single ticket. They hope the party will not need to hold any primaries whatsoever.
For the DPP the point of soliarity is to seize political power. But for voters, the point of solidarity is to unite under the banner of DPP ideas. Is the DPP seeking solidarity to avoid discussing policy? Especially cross-strait policy? Especially untested policy proposals? Especially policy proposals unable to withstand the test of a presidential election?
In nations leaning toward the presidential system, elections are decided not merely by party prestige. The candidate's style is equally important. Can artificial candidate solidarity create party solidarity? No one knows. But without competition, a party will never find its best candidate.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.04
社論－朝野政黨 別再玩團結勸退戲碼
本報訊
二○一二總統大選即將起跑，朝野政黨現階段都各自在清理戰場，民進黨表面上鬥得刀光劍影，依然是一場非常台灣特色的黨內初選。在團結的大帽子下，除了呂秀蓮敢於突圍外，最有實力的蔡英文及蘇貞昌，目前都是欲言又止，不敢暢所欲言；未來他們若不能藉著初選辯論，來表達自己參選的意義，不但對他們自己對台灣，都是浪費了一次寶貴的機會。
依照民進黨既定時程，該黨將於三月二十一日開始進行領表登記，四月底完成民調，五月四日就公告總統候選人。可以說，接下來兩個月將是民進黨菁英激戰的關鍵時刻。日前呂秀蓮不待黨內登記、已迫不急待宣布參選，但她不是民進黨的實力派人物，二二八宣布參選場合有如反高潮，只證明她人氣不再。
呂秀蓮的時機已過，但她從權力邊緣喊出的建議，卻未必不值一聽。她建議多辦幾場初選辯論，最好是每縣市都辦，經過這樣密集的挑戰，才能找出真正有抗壓性的候選人，她還諳諷蔡英文未經考驗，才會在領十八趴的議題上失手。
事實上，呂秀蓮描繪的是美國的形態。美國總統初選時間長達半年以上，各州還採取不同方式，有的州是由登記的黨員投票，有的州還採取黨團會議初選，黨團代表討論後決定支持人選；這樣的制度表面上看起來浪費時間、金錢，但高難度的黨內初選，卻也激發出候選人的潛力，必須凸顯自己參選的意義。歐巴馬當時就是掌握美國人求變的心理，才能打敗實力強大的對手希拉蕊。
可以說，在傾向總統制的國家，總統的人格特質、世界觀、政策經歷等個人條件，對於未來的施政風格都是動見觀瞻，不是政黨屬性可以概括。這不只在美國，台灣過去三任民選總統，從李登輝、陳水扁到馬英九，都和他們所屬政黨若即若離，可以說，即使同一政黨，並不代表候選人都只能同樣面孔、提出同樣的主張，而能各有特色。
因此美國政黨黨內初選，甚少抬出「團結」的大帽子、祭出「勸退」這樣的封建戲碼。希拉蕊絕對拉不下臉來對歐巴馬說:你還年輕，這次就先讓我吧！希拉蕊和歐巴馬就是結結實實打到分出勝負，才宣布退選，但不妨礙民主黨贏得總統，歐巴馬還找希拉蕊組成「政敵團隊」。
台灣幅員小，黨內初選未必要如美國一樣嚴苛，但參選人的特色不該淹沒在政黨的團結聲中，即使是民進黨的支持者也有資格了解，蔡英文與蘇貞昌的政策主張有何不同。如果蘇貞昌深感「捨我其誰」，大家有興趣的是，他除了「時不我與」這樣的個人因素外，他參選的使命感所為何來，他千呼萬喚始提出來的「台灣共識」，有沒有更具體的內容。
對蔡英文而言，她有打破女性玻璃屋頂的意義，她也代表民進黨內的世代交替。近來她總算喊出「台灣需要下一世代的領導人︱要讓四十歲以下的人看到未來」，這是值得論辯的議題，但在民進黨的「團結」聲中，這些不一樣的聲音全都不見了，最後大家看到的就是一場充滿權謀、了無新意的黨內協調。
當然，除了民進黨文化外，這種現象是蔡英文自己造成的。在黨中央的強力主導下，呂秀蓮當時力主的「巡迴政見辯論」，最後只剩一場，可說是聊勝於無；另外，在同樣保守的氛圍下，部分民進黨菁英甚至期待蘇蔡合，最好連初選都不必辦了。
對民進黨來說，團結最重要的意義在於取得執政權，但對選民而言，團結旗幟下的民進黨提出何種主張才是重點。如果，民進黨團結的目的，就是要迴避對政策、尤其是兩岸政策的討論，則未經考驗的主張，到大選時一樣禁不起考驗。
更重要的是，傾向總統制的國家，決定選民投票的，不只是政黨聲望，總統候選人的風格一樣重要。勉強整合出來的人選能否促成黨內大團結猶未可知，但是未經競爭，很肯定無法找到最適合的候選人！
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Jasmine Revolution and the ROC's Quiet Revolution
The Jasmine Revolution and the ROC's Quiet Revolution
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 3, 2011
The "Jasmine Revolution" has spread like a prairie fire. The once monolithic Arab world suddenly seems as fragile as a rotten log. Dictators have fallen in Tunisia and Egypt. Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi clings to power. But brutal repression has led to mass insurrection, and his regime faces imminent collapse.
It has long been assumed that Islamic societies are closed societies. They are culturally conservative, under the influence of religion and clans. This makes it difficult to promote concepts such as democracy and human rights. With the exception of Turkey and a few other countries, most are monarchies or long-standing authoritarian regimes lorded over by strongmen. In one hand these strongmen hold a gun. In the other, a barrel of oil. Often they rule for twenty or thirty years. Given their long reigns, they ought be difficult to overthrow. Theoretically, their tight control structures have bound their societies hand and foot. They never allow people sufficient power to overthrow them. They have no powerful opposition groups or military forces. Their people seemed destined to remain under their rulers' jackboots, unable to resist.
But last December, a humble grocer immolated himself, igniting resentment smoldering for years. Fueled by the Internet, people took to the streets of Tunisia, Less than a month later, President Ben Ali Niansan, who had ruled for 23 years, fled in a panic. The "Jasmine Revolution" had succeeded. A jasmine flower had blossomed in the barren desert. An ember ignited a wildfire that spread far and wide. People in Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and other countries held demonstrations and demanded that their self-appointed rulers step down.
In 18 short days, Hosni Mubarak's regime, which had ruled for 30 years, collapsed. Strongman Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled over Libya for 42 years, lashed out. This "Mad Dog" ordered troops to massacre his own people, Many government officials, including diplomats and military officers, angrily defected. Gaddafi's days are numbered. He doesn't know it, or is unwilling to accept it. Rulers who have been in power for many years often find it impossible to understand the words "Step down!" Before their fall, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak each ruled for 20 to 30 years. They probably never expected their iron regimes to dissolve before their eyes. They probably never expected to become exiles. Naturally they never formulated any exit strategies. That is why their fall from power has been so undignified.
In fact, decades of iron-fisted rule, was like a pressure cooker. People living in shackles demanded freedom and dignity. The longer they were shackled, the more intense their longing, The eventual result was an explosion. Authoritarian dynasties collapsed instantly. Societies descended into turmoil and chaos. Nations became fell victim to bitter struggles between political or military heads, or tribal separatists. Nations lacked stable mechanisms for the exercise of political power. These power vacuums led to social unrest. The economic development of these nations were also affected.
By contrast, consider how the Republic of China government democratized Taiwan. How it did so provides us with a rare and valuable object lesson. Before promoting democratization, the ROC first promoted economic growth, universal education, and intellectual stimulation by foreign sources. It laid down fertile soil in which the people could pursue freedom, democracy, and human rights. It enabled society to undergo a general awakening of consciousness, and prepare for the oncoming waves of political liberalization.
The late President Chiang Ching-kuo declared that the next president would be elected in accordance with the Constitution. The Chiang family could not and would not run for president. He decided to lift martial law, and abolish censorship. The Chiang family had been in power for over half a century. Those in the ruling circles took this phenomenon for granted. He however, clearly saw the changing times. He respected the changes in society. He cared about the nation's future. Life ebbed from his body. He was like a candle guttering in the wind. He knew his days were numbered. He actively chose to end Chiang family rule, rescind martial law, and restore constitutional rule. This was no easy matter. It required great wisdom. It required a willingness to asssume responsibility for the nation's future. It was under such circumstances that Chiang arrived at these courageous historic decisions.
No one with the same political stature at the time could have make such decisions. First, he ascertained his direction. Then he laid the groundwork. Lee Teng-hui, his successor, failed to realize all of Chiang's reforms. The road to democracy encountered many twists and turns. Chiang fought to his very last breath. He made his last and most important contribution to the Republic of China.
Democracy and reform resulted in protests, tug of wars, struggles, and conflicts. Progress was plagued by setbacks. But compared to other countries, our path toward democracy was stable and smooth. No bloodshed or gunshots. We gradually implemented presidential elections, legislative by-elections, and ruling party changes. We established a democracy under which the people could regularly choose their leaders. Much remains to be done. The system remains immature. It must be improved. But the Republic of China's "quiet revolution" remains something we can be proud of.
No one is willing to be enslaved. Democracy, freedom and human rights are universal human aspirations. They are not exclusive to the West. Progress remains uneven in different countries. But as societies mature, democratization is inevitable. During this process, leaders must avoid turmoil and ensure stable transformation. Since the lifting of martial law, the Republic of China has established an historic record of democratic achievements. These achievements may have been too quiet. They may have been so quiet, many of us take them for granted, We see only our system's shortcomings. But as we contrast our country with others, perhaps we should give ourselves a little more credit.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.03
社論－由茉莉花看台灣的「寧靜革命」
本報訊
「茉莉花革命」勢如燎原，原本鐵板一塊的阿拉伯世界，突然像朽木般不堪一擊，突尼西亞和埃及獨裁者先後垮台，利比亞強人格達費雖仍負嵎頑抗，但殘酷鎮壓已經導致眾叛親離，政權面臨崩潰。
過去總認為，伊斯蘭國家社會封閉，文化保守，宗教與宗族影響力強大，民主人權觀念難以推廣。除土耳其等少數國家，其他大部分不是王國、就是強人長期獨裁。掌權者一手握槍桿，一手握油管，動輒在位廿、卅年。如此長期統治，理論上應該很難撼動，因為控制結構把整個社會綁得牢牢的，不會讓人民有機會取得足夠的力量推翻它。沒有有力的反對組織和軍事力量，人民似乎註定被獨裁者壓得翻不了身。
但是，去年十二月一位被取締的菜販自焚，點燃了鬱積多年的民怨，在網路推波助瀾下，人民站上了突尼西亞的街頭，不到一個月，就讓在位廿三年的總統班阿里倉皇出走，成功寫下「茉莉花革命」。這朵衝破荒蕪沙漠的茉莉花，像火種般瞬間引發遍地烽火。葉門、巴林、阿爾及利亞、約旦、埃及等國的人民，紛紛示威要獨裁者下台。
才短短十八天，在埃及執政達卅年的穆巴拉克就垮台了。如今利比亞人民向掌權四十二年的強人格達費發出怒吼，而這頭「瘋狗」竟動用軍隊屠殺人民，令許多政府官員、外交官與軍官憤而叛離。至此，格達費可謂氣數已盡，只是還無法理解或不願接受。長期掌權的人，往往字典裡沒有「下台」這兩個字。班阿里和穆巴拉克在垮台前的那廿、卅年裡，大概從沒料到鐵打的江山會如流水四散，自己會成了落水狗，當然也沒有預設退場方案，以致下台的身影如此狼狽。
數十年的鐵腕統治，其實像個壓力鍋，桎梏住人民對自由與尊嚴的需求，時間愈久就蒸騰愈烈，最後一夕核爆，獨裁王朝瞬間崩盤，社會也陷入動盪混亂，很容易出現政治山頭激烈角力或軍頭、部族割據。由於缺乏讓人民行使政治權力的穩健機制，權力真空不但帶來社會不安，經濟與國家發展也都會受到衝擊。
相較之下，回顧台灣民主化的過程，益發顯得難能可貴。在推動民主改革之前，台灣先在經濟成長、教育普及、接受外來思潮刺激下，逐漸累積了厚實的土壤，從而讓人民追求自由民主人權的意識普遍覺醒，匯聚成要求政治開放的澎湃巨浪。
當故總統蔣經國宣示下屆總統依憲法產生、蔣家人不能也不會競選總統，決定解除戒嚴、開放黨禁報禁時，蔣家執政已經持續了超過半世紀。在統治圈內把這種現象視為理所當然時，他卻能夠看清楚時代潮流，尊重社會趨勢，關懷國家長遠發展，在身體如風中殘燭自知來日無多時，主動決定就此結束蔣家政權，解嚴回歸憲法體制，這真是非常不容易的。不僅需要大智慧，還要有為國家前途擔起責任、作出歷史性抉擇的勇氣與魄力。
當時沒有人有同樣的政治地位能做這個決定，如果他沒有先確定方向舖陳好布局，繼任的李登輝不可能那麼快就實現多項改革，台灣的民主之路也勢必有更多的衝撞與波折。他拚著最後一口氣，為台灣做了最後一次、也最重要的付出。
接下來，民主改革過程中雖然也有抗爭、拉鋸、角力、衝突，前進之際也不時出現後挫，但比起其他國家，我們的民主路走得算是平穩順利的，沒有流血動亂或槍聲，便陸續實現了總統民選、國會改選與政權輪替，建立起一個由人民定期選擇執政者的民主體制。儘管缺失還很多，不成熟之處也待改進，但台灣的「寧靜革命」，真的值得全民同感驕傲。
沒有人甘於被奴役，民主自由人權是人性共通的渴望，並不是西方的特產。儘管各國發展進度不一，但隨著社會條件的成熟，民主化是必然的道路。在這個過程中，如何避免動亂穩定轉型，是負責任而有見識的領導人必須嚴肅思考的。從解嚴到今天，台灣創下了歷史性的民主建樹，只是也許因為太寧靜了，我們常把台灣的民主視為當然，或者只看到缺點。其實對照之下，我們應該給予自己更多的肯定。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 3, 2011
The "Jasmine Revolution" has spread like a prairie fire. The once monolithic Arab world suddenly seems as fragile as a rotten log. Dictators have fallen in Tunisia and Egypt. Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi clings to power. But brutal repression has led to mass insurrection, and his regime faces imminent collapse.
It has long been assumed that Islamic societies are closed societies. They are culturally conservative, under the influence of religion and clans. This makes it difficult to promote concepts such as democracy and human rights. With the exception of Turkey and a few other countries, most are monarchies or long-standing authoritarian regimes lorded over by strongmen. In one hand these strongmen hold a gun. In the other, a barrel of oil. Often they rule for twenty or thirty years. Given their long reigns, they ought be difficult to overthrow. Theoretically, their tight control structures have bound their societies hand and foot. They never allow people sufficient power to overthrow them. They have no powerful opposition groups or military forces. Their people seemed destined to remain under their rulers' jackboots, unable to resist.
But last December, a humble grocer immolated himself, igniting resentment smoldering for years. Fueled by the Internet, people took to the streets of Tunisia, Less than a month later, President Ben Ali Niansan, who had ruled for 23 years, fled in a panic. The "Jasmine Revolution" had succeeded. A jasmine flower had blossomed in the barren desert. An ember ignited a wildfire that spread far and wide. People in Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Egypt and other countries held demonstrations and demanded that their self-appointed rulers step down.
In 18 short days, Hosni Mubarak's regime, which had ruled for 30 years, collapsed. Strongman Muammar Gaddafi, who ruled over Libya for 42 years, lashed out. This "Mad Dog" ordered troops to massacre his own people, Many government officials, including diplomats and military officers, angrily defected. Gaddafi's days are numbered. He doesn't know it, or is unwilling to accept it. Rulers who have been in power for many years often find it impossible to understand the words "Step down!" Before their fall, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak each ruled for 20 to 30 years. They probably never expected their iron regimes to dissolve before their eyes. They probably never expected to become exiles. Naturally they never formulated any exit strategies. That is why their fall from power has been so undignified.
In fact, decades of iron-fisted rule, was like a pressure cooker. People living in shackles demanded freedom and dignity. The longer they were shackled, the more intense their longing, The eventual result was an explosion. Authoritarian dynasties collapsed instantly. Societies descended into turmoil and chaos. Nations became fell victim to bitter struggles between political or military heads, or tribal separatists. Nations lacked stable mechanisms for the exercise of political power. These power vacuums led to social unrest. The economic development of these nations were also affected.
By contrast, consider how the Republic of China government democratized Taiwan. How it did so provides us with a rare and valuable object lesson. Before promoting democratization, the ROC first promoted economic growth, universal education, and intellectual stimulation by foreign sources. It laid down fertile soil in which the people could pursue freedom, democracy, and human rights. It enabled society to undergo a general awakening of consciousness, and prepare for the oncoming waves of political liberalization.
The late President Chiang Ching-kuo declared that the next president would be elected in accordance with the Constitution. The Chiang family could not and would not run for president. He decided to lift martial law, and abolish censorship. The Chiang family had been in power for over half a century. Those in the ruling circles took this phenomenon for granted. He however, clearly saw the changing times. He respected the changes in society. He cared about the nation's future. Life ebbed from his body. He was like a candle guttering in the wind. He knew his days were numbered. He actively chose to end Chiang family rule, rescind martial law, and restore constitutional rule. This was no easy matter. It required great wisdom. It required a willingness to asssume responsibility for the nation's future. It was under such circumstances that Chiang arrived at these courageous historic decisions.
No one with the same political stature at the time could have make such decisions. First, he ascertained his direction. Then he laid the groundwork. Lee Teng-hui, his successor, failed to realize all of Chiang's reforms. The road to democracy encountered many twists and turns. Chiang fought to his very last breath. He made his last and most important contribution to the Republic of China.
Democracy and reform resulted in protests, tug of wars, struggles, and conflicts. Progress was plagued by setbacks. But compared to other countries, our path toward democracy was stable and smooth. No bloodshed or gunshots. We gradually implemented presidential elections, legislative by-elections, and ruling party changes. We established a democracy under which the people could regularly choose their leaders. Much remains to be done. The system remains immature. It must be improved. But the Republic of China's "quiet revolution" remains something we can be proud of.
No one is willing to be enslaved. Democracy, freedom and human rights are universal human aspirations. They are not exclusive to the West. Progress remains uneven in different countries. But as societies mature, democratization is inevitable. During this process, leaders must avoid turmoil and ensure stable transformation. Since the lifting of martial law, the Republic of China has established an historic record of democratic achievements. These achievements may have been too quiet. They may have been so quiet, many of us take them for granted, We see only our system's shortcomings. But as we contrast our country with others, perhaps we should give ourselves a little more credit.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.03
社論－由茉莉花看台灣的「寧靜革命」
本報訊
「茉莉花革命」勢如燎原，原本鐵板一塊的阿拉伯世界，突然像朽木般不堪一擊，突尼西亞和埃及獨裁者先後垮台，利比亞強人格達費雖仍負嵎頑抗，但殘酷鎮壓已經導致眾叛親離，政權面臨崩潰。
過去總認為，伊斯蘭國家社會封閉，文化保守，宗教與宗族影響力強大，民主人權觀念難以推廣。除土耳其等少數國家，其他大部分不是王國、就是強人長期獨裁。掌權者一手握槍桿，一手握油管，動輒在位廿、卅年。如此長期統治，理論上應該很難撼動，因為控制結構把整個社會綁得牢牢的，不會讓人民有機會取得足夠的力量推翻它。沒有有力的反對組織和軍事力量，人民似乎註定被獨裁者壓得翻不了身。
但是，去年十二月一位被取締的菜販自焚，點燃了鬱積多年的民怨，在網路推波助瀾下，人民站上了突尼西亞的街頭，不到一個月，就讓在位廿三年的總統班阿里倉皇出走，成功寫下「茉莉花革命」。這朵衝破荒蕪沙漠的茉莉花，像火種般瞬間引發遍地烽火。葉門、巴林、阿爾及利亞、約旦、埃及等國的人民，紛紛示威要獨裁者下台。
才短短十八天，在埃及執政達卅年的穆巴拉克就垮台了。如今利比亞人民向掌權四十二年的強人格達費發出怒吼，而這頭「瘋狗」竟動用軍隊屠殺人民，令許多政府官員、外交官與軍官憤而叛離。至此，格達費可謂氣數已盡，只是還無法理解或不願接受。長期掌權的人，往往字典裡沒有「下台」這兩個字。班阿里和穆巴拉克在垮台前的那廿、卅年裡，大概從沒料到鐵打的江山會如流水四散，自己會成了落水狗，當然也沒有預設退場方案，以致下台的身影如此狼狽。
數十年的鐵腕統治，其實像個壓力鍋，桎梏住人民對自由與尊嚴的需求，時間愈久就蒸騰愈烈，最後一夕核爆，獨裁王朝瞬間崩盤，社會也陷入動盪混亂，很容易出現政治山頭激烈角力或軍頭、部族割據。由於缺乏讓人民行使政治權力的穩健機制，權力真空不但帶來社會不安，經濟與國家發展也都會受到衝擊。
相較之下，回顧台灣民主化的過程，益發顯得難能可貴。在推動民主改革之前，台灣先在經濟成長、教育普及、接受外來思潮刺激下，逐漸累積了厚實的土壤，從而讓人民追求自由民主人權的意識普遍覺醒，匯聚成要求政治開放的澎湃巨浪。
當故總統蔣經國宣示下屆總統依憲法產生、蔣家人不能也不會競選總統，決定解除戒嚴、開放黨禁報禁時，蔣家執政已經持續了超過半世紀。在統治圈內把這種現象視為理所當然時，他卻能夠看清楚時代潮流，尊重社會趨勢，關懷國家長遠發展，在身體如風中殘燭自知來日無多時，主動決定就此結束蔣家政權，解嚴回歸憲法體制，這真是非常不容易的。不僅需要大智慧，還要有為國家前途擔起責任、作出歷史性抉擇的勇氣與魄力。
當時沒有人有同樣的政治地位能做這個決定，如果他沒有先確定方向舖陳好布局，繼任的李登輝不可能那麼快就實現多項改革，台灣的民主之路也勢必有更多的衝撞與波折。他拚著最後一口氣，為台灣做了最後一次、也最重要的付出。
接下來，民主改革過程中雖然也有抗爭、拉鋸、角力、衝突，前進之際也不時出現後挫，但比起其他國家，我們的民主路走得算是平穩順利的，沒有流血動亂或槍聲，便陸續實現了總統民選、國會改選與政權輪替，建立起一個由人民定期選擇執政者的民主體制。儘管缺失還很多，不成熟之處也待改進，但台灣的「寧靜革命」，真的值得全民同感驕傲。
沒有人甘於被奴役，民主自由人權是人性共通的渴望，並不是西方的特產。儘管各國發展進度不一，但隨著社會條件的成熟，民主化是必然的道路。在這個過程中，如何避免動亂穩定轉型，是負責任而有見識的領導人必須嚴肅思考的。從解嚴到今天，台灣創下了歷史性的民主建樹，只是也許因為太寧靜了，我們常把台灣的民主視為當然，或者只看到缺點。其實對照之下，我們應該給予自己更多的肯定。
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Luxury Tax Pros Outweigh Cons
Luxury Tax Pros Outweigh Cons
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 2, 2011
The luxury tax, as it is commonly called, is a special sales tax on certain goods and services. Last Thursday, after the Ministry of Finance reported to President Ma, the draft law for the luxury tax was officially finalized. President Ma is determined to promote the bill, in order to discourage speculation in the housing market. We heartily approve of his move. But the bill needs to be promoted within the legislature. We feel the need to issue a warning. In the short-term the housing market and the economy may be negatively impacted. The government must be psychologically prepared, and ready with a response. It must persist in its efforts at systemic reform.
The luxury tax draft law imposes a 10% luxury tax on automobiles costing over three million NT, on private planes, yachts, and on country club and golf club memberships costing over 500,000 NT. But it is another problem that most concerns the public. That problem is speculation in housing units, building sites, and commercial buildings not intended for personal use, which are sold less than two years after purchase. These will be subject to a 10 to 15% transaction tax. The purpose of this tax is to discourage speculators from creating bubbles in the housing market.
Domestic housing prices began soaring in 2008. They retreated slightly due to the financial tsunami, but then shot straight up again. By the end of last year, housing prices in Taipei had increased 11.1 times. Housing prices in Xinbei City had increased between eight and nine times. The average price of housing units in Taipei City has soared to 700,000 NT. The numbers are at record highs. Three point six million salaried workers earn less than 30,000 NT a month. Finding a house within the metropolitan area to settle down in has become a far off dream. High housing prices have long been the number one source of pubic discontent.
Residential units should resume their normal function, as places to live. Housing prices should increase at roughly the same rate as income. But that is not what we have today. Incomes have remained static, while housing prices have skyrocketed. Between 2008 and the end of last year, average housing prices in Taipei increased 20 percent. Prices in some of the most desirable areas increased over 50 percent. Based on the low point of the current real estate business cycle, prices have more than doubled. Prices in some areas in Xinbei City, in satellite cities such as Xinzhuang, have doubled in one or two short years. The reason is low interest rates and easy money. These enable the growth of asset bubbles. The "investor friendly" domestic housing market system fuels speculation. This is an important contributor to rising prices.
They system does not impose a capital gains tax. Hundreds of speculators have pocketed tens of millions speculating in the housing market. The tax system favors such speculation. Anyone with a little money will see the housing market as an ideal channel for the pursuit of windfall profits. The result is that amidst rising housing prices, speculators spring up like mushrooms. They invest, and contribute to further housing price rises. Such cycles often end in crashes. Industry insiders estimate that over half of all metropolitan area housing sales involve speculation. This gives us some idea of the "contribution" of speculators to the housing market.
The government has introduced a luxury tax targeting housing market speculators. Housing market speculators are the main force pushing up housing prices. They are the real reason ordinary people cannot afford housing. We feel that addressing this problem is helpful. The ideal remains taxation based on a comprehensive assessment of the market price. Ultimately, income from the sale of housing should be integrated into capital gains taxes. But this is a good first step.
The Ministry of Finance's current draft applies only to residential property and construction sites not for personal use, sold less than two years after purchase. Only these will be subject to the luxury tax. Sales made within one year will be subject to a 15% tax. Sales made within two years will be subject to a 10% tax. We think that is reasonable. The impact is limited to housing speculators alone. and will have no impact on most people. But the Ministry of the Treasury should consider lengthening the time frame to three years. Sales made within three years should be subject to a luxury tax of 7%. Most speculators divest themselves of their investments within three years. They tend not to hold on to them for more than five years. For example, the infamous Lien Ching Xinyi building site changed hands in just over two years. In little over two years, it earned nearly 1.5 billion NT in profits. A five year limit may be too harsh. But three years is more reasonable, and should be consistent with the workings of the marketplace.
If the luxury tax bill is approved without opposition and becomes law, it will discourage speculation in the housing market. The number of speculators in the housing market will diminish. Demand will decline, and prices will decline. As a result, the number of people in real estate related industries, including construction companies, real estate brokers, interior decorators, and even others on the margins will decline. The financial sector may need to bear some bad debts. But the financial sector, under central bank direction, imposed risk management controls long ago. Therefore the repercussions will be minimal. But regardless, the overall economy may be affected. The government should be psychologically prepared for the economic and industrial impact of the luxury tax. It must not suddenly announce the suspension of tax in the event the housing market declines, and the economy slows.
Frankly, the current wave of soaring real estate prices is a departure from economic fundamentals. Many above board construction companies are disgusted by it. They fear it will lead to a major crash. The government must curb speculation. In the short term that may affect the housing boom. But in the long term, it will ensure sustainable development in the housing industry. It will avoid the recurrence of a housing market bubble. We hope the government has both the will and the way to discourage speculation in the housing market. We hope members of the legislature will support the bill. Housing speculators boast that "Legislators are mouthpieces for construction firms. The luxury tax will not make it through the legislature." We hope that legislators will prove them wrong.
奢侈稅短空長多 該堅持到底
2011-03-02 中國時報
俗稱「奢侈稅」的「特種貨物與勞務銷售稅」草案，上周四在財政部向馬總統報告後，正式拍板定案。對馬總統決心推動這個以壓制房市投機為主的法案，我們深表肯定。不過，對後續法案的立法推動，我們也必須先提出警示，短期內房市、經濟可能受影響而向下修正，政府必須有心理準備及因應措施，同時對此制度的推動堅持到底。
奢侈稅草案中，雖然對三百萬元以上汽車、私人飛機、遊艇；五十萬元以上的高級俱樂部、高爾夫球等都加徵十％的奢侈稅，但其核心、同時也是社會最關注者，當屬對二年內頻繁買賣非自用住宅、建築空地、商業大樓者，課以十％到十五％的交易稅。後者主要是為抑制因投機客炒作導致房價飆漲的畸形現象。
國內房價從二○○八年開始飆漲，中間因金融海嘯而小幅回檔，接著又看回不回的直線上升。去年底台北市的房價所得比已達十一．一倍，新北市亦達八．九倍，北市預售屋平均價格已飆破七十萬元，所有數字都創新高。對三六○萬月入不到三萬元的上班族而言，在都會區購屋找到安身立命之住所，成為遙不可及的夢想。高房價一直是「民怨之首」，其來有自。
在住宅回歸其「居住功能」的正常情況下，房價與所得應該成相同比例的成長，但現在的情況則是：所得紋風不動，房價卻不斷飆破天價。從二○○八到去年底，北市平均房價上漲近兩成，部分菁華區域則上漲到五成以上。如果從這波房地產景氣循環的低點起算，則價格上漲超過一倍；部分新北市區域如新莊副都中心等，更是在短短一、二年內漲了一倍。究其原因，除了市場利率低、資金寬鬆，有利各種資產泡沫成長外，國內房市交易制度「對投資客友善」，更是助長投機、讓房價高漲的重要因素。
在不課徵資本利得稅的制度下，動輒數百上千萬的賣屋所得，幾乎全由投機客落袋。如此友善又一本萬利的房市課稅制度，稍微有資金者自然視房市投機為追求暴富的最佳投資管道。結果是房價上漲聲中，投機客如雨後春筍的冒出、投入，然後又再進一步助長房價上漲，這個循環最後往往以大崩盤作收。由業界估計都會區房屋買賣交易中有五成以上是投機客所為，即可窺知投機客對助長房市上漲的「貢獻」。
因此，對這次政府推出奢侈稅，目標對準房市投機客，我們認為對匡正房市這種以投機客為主力，推升房價，然後造成真正有居住需求的庶民望屋興嘆的畸形奇景，應有相當的助益。雖然距離全面以市價課稅，買賣房屋所得納入綜所稅課資本利得稅的理想，仍有相當距離，但至少是跨出了一步。
目前財政部訂定的草案中，把範圍侷限在二年內的非自用住宅、建築用地等買賣，才需要課以奢侈稅（一年內課十五％，二年內課十％）。我們認為已相當合理，其影響與打擊範圍已限縮到完全針對房市投機客，對大部分民眾可說毫無影響。不過，我們認為財政部仍應考慮再提高課奢侈稅的年限，增加到三年內課以七％的規定。坦白說，一般投機客與養地者，大部分以三年內脫手為目標，最久不超過五年。例如著名的聯勤信義土地，轉手時間大概是二年多，二年多獲取近三十五億元的利益。如果訂五年或許過於苛刻，三年應屬較中庸且「合乎市場運作」。
如果奢侈稅順利推動，完成立法，且發揮其打擊房市投機的效果，可想見必然發生房市投機客減少、房價需求減少、房價下滑；影響所及，房地產關聯產業─從第一線的建設公司、房仲業、房屋裝潢、甚至較周邊的代書，都會下滑；金融業則可能會承受到部分呆帳，不過金融業因央行及早出手調控做風險控管，問題相對較小。但不論如何，整體經濟可能受波及，政府對此奢侈稅在經濟與產業上的後續效應，應有心理準備及因應措施，萬不可看到房市下滑、景氣趨緩，又慌慌張張的宣布「暫緩推動」。
坦白說，這波的房地產飆漲已背離經濟基本面，連不少正派的建設公司都看不下去，憂心再走下去就是大崩盤。政府此時推動抑制投機的方案，短期固然影響房市景氣，但長期而言，卻是讓房地產業能永續經營，而不是在暴漲暴跌的泡沫中輪迴。期望政府能有決心、有方法，在抑制房市投機上收到成效；更希望立法院諸公能支持此法案，不要真被房市投機大咖講中─「立委都是財團建商代言人，奢侈稅過不了立法院」。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 2, 2011
The luxury tax, as it is commonly called, is a special sales tax on certain goods and services. Last Thursday, after the Ministry of Finance reported to President Ma, the draft law for the luxury tax was officially finalized. President Ma is determined to promote the bill, in order to discourage speculation in the housing market. We heartily approve of his move. But the bill needs to be promoted within the legislature. We feel the need to issue a warning. In the short-term the housing market and the economy may be negatively impacted. The government must be psychologically prepared, and ready with a response. It must persist in its efforts at systemic reform.
The luxury tax draft law imposes a 10% luxury tax on automobiles costing over three million NT, on private planes, yachts, and on country club and golf club memberships costing over 500,000 NT. But it is another problem that most concerns the public. That problem is speculation in housing units, building sites, and commercial buildings not intended for personal use, which are sold less than two years after purchase. These will be subject to a 10 to 15% transaction tax. The purpose of this tax is to discourage speculators from creating bubbles in the housing market.
Domestic housing prices began soaring in 2008. They retreated slightly due to the financial tsunami, but then shot straight up again. By the end of last year, housing prices in Taipei had increased 11.1 times. Housing prices in Xinbei City had increased between eight and nine times. The average price of housing units in Taipei City has soared to 700,000 NT. The numbers are at record highs. Three point six million salaried workers earn less than 30,000 NT a month. Finding a house within the metropolitan area to settle down in has become a far off dream. High housing prices have long been the number one source of pubic discontent.
Residential units should resume their normal function, as places to live. Housing prices should increase at roughly the same rate as income. But that is not what we have today. Incomes have remained static, while housing prices have skyrocketed. Between 2008 and the end of last year, average housing prices in Taipei increased 20 percent. Prices in some of the most desirable areas increased over 50 percent. Based on the low point of the current real estate business cycle, prices have more than doubled. Prices in some areas in Xinbei City, in satellite cities such as Xinzhuang, have doubled in one or two short years. The reason is low interest rates and easy money. These enable the growth of asset bubbles. The "investor friendly" domestic housing market system fuels speculation. This is an important contributor to rising prices.
They system does not impose a capital gains tax. Hundreds of speculators have pocketed tens of millions speculating in the housing market. The tax system favors such speculation. Anyone with a little money will see the housing market as an ideal channel for the pursuit of windfall profits. The result is that amidst rising housing prices, speculators spring up like mushrooms. They invest, and contribute to further housing price rises. Such cycles often end in crashes. Industry insiders estimate that over half of all metropolitan area housing sales involve speculation. This gives us some idea of the "contribution" of speculators to the housing market.
The government has introduced a luxury tax targeting housing market speculators. Housing market speculators are the main force pushing up housing prices. They are the real reason ordinary people cannot afford housing. We feel that addressing this problem is helpful. The ideal remains taxation based on a comprehensive assessment of the market price. Ultimately, income from the sale of housing should be integrated into capital gains taxes. But this is a good first step.
The Ministry of Finance's current draft applies only to residential property and construction sites not for personal use, sold less than two years after purchase. Only these will be subject to the luxury tax. Sales made within one year will be subject to a 15% tax. Sales made within two years will be subject to a 10% tax. We think that is reasonable. The impact is limited to housing speculators alone. and will have no impact on most people. But the Ministry of the Treasury should consider lengthening the time frame to three years. Sales made within three years should be subject to a luxury tax of 7%. Most speculators divest themselves of their investments within three years. They tend not to hold on to them for more than five years. For example, the infamous Lien Ching Xinyi building site changed hands in just over two years. In little over two years, it earned nearly 1.5 billion NT in profits. A five year limit may be too harsh. But three years is more reasonable, and should be consistent with the workings of the marketplace.
If the luxury tax bill is approved without opposition and becomes law, it will discourage speculation in the housing market. The number of speculators in the housing market will diminish. Demand will decline, and prices will decline. As a result, the number of people in real estate related industries, including construction companies, real estate brokers, interior decorators, and even others on the margins will decline. The financial sector may need to bear some bad debts. But the financial sector, under central bank direction, imposed risk management controls long ago. Therefore the repercussions will be minimal. But regardless, the overall economy may be affected. The government should be psychologically prepared for the economic and industrial impact of the luxury tax. It must not suddenly announce the suspension of tax in the event the housing market declines, and the economy slows.
Frankly, the current wave of soaring real estate prices is a departure from economic fundamentals. Many above board construction companies are disgusted by it. They fear it will lead to a major crash. The government must curb speculation. In the short term that may affect the housing boom. But in the long term, it will ensure sustainable development in the housing industry. It will avoid the recurrence of a housing market bubble. We hope the government has both the will and the way to discourage speculation in the housing market. We hope members of the legislature will support the bill. Housing speculators boast that "Legislators are mouthpieces for construction firms. The luxury tax will not make it through the legislature." We hope that legislators will prove them wrong.
奢侈稅短空長多 該堅持到底
2011-03-02 中國時報
俗稱「奢侈稅」的「特種貨物與勞務銷售稅」草案，上周四在財政部向馬總統報告後，正式拍板定案。對馬總統決心推動這個以壓制房市投機為主的法案，我們深表肯定。不過，對後續法案的立法推動，我們也必須先提出警示，短期內房市、經濟可能受影響而向下修正，政府必須有心理準備及因應措施，同時對此制度的推動堅持到底。
奢侈稅草案中，雖然對三百萬元以上汽車、私人飛機、遊艇；五十萬元以上的高級俱樂部、高爾夫球等都加徵十％的奢侈稅，但其核心、同時也是社會最關注者，當屬對二年內頻繁買賣非自用住宅、建築空地、商業大樓者，課以十％到十五％的交易稅。後者主要是為抑制因投機客炒作導致房價飆漲的畸形現象。
國內房價從二○○八年開始飆漲，中間因金融海嘯而小幅回檔，接著又看回不回的直線上升。去年底台北市的房價所得比已達十一．一倍，新北市亦達八．九倍，北市預售屋平均價格已飆破七十萬元，所有數字都創新高。對三六○萬月入不到三萬元的上班族而言，在都會區購屋找到安身立命之住所，成為遙不可及的夢想。高房價一直是「民怨之首」，其來有自。
在住宅回歸其「居住功能」的正常情況下，房價與所得應該成相同比例的成長，但現在的情況則是：所得紋風不動，房價卻不斷飆破天價。從二○○八到去年底，北市平均房價上漲近兩成，部分菁華區域則上漲到五成以上。如果從這波房地產景氣循環的低點起算，則價格上漲超過一倍；部分新北市區域如新莊副都中心等，更是在短短一、二年內漲了一倍。究其原因，除了市場利率低、資金寬鬆，有利各種資產泡沫成長外，國內房市交易制度「對投資客友善」，更是助長投機、讓房價高漲的重要因素。
在不課徵資本利得稅的制度下，動輒數百上千萬的賣屋所得，幾乎全由投機客落袋。如此友善又一本萬利的房市課稅制度，稍微有資金者自然視房市投機為追求暴富的最佳投資管道。結果是房價上漲聲中，投機客如雨後春筍的冒出、投入，然後又再進一步助長房價上漲，這個循環最後往往以大崩盤作收。由業界估計都會區房屋買賣交易中有五成以上是投機客所為，即可窺知投機客對助長房市上漲的「貢獻」。
因此，對這次政府推出奢侈稅，目標對準房市投機客，我們認為對匡正房市這種以投機客為主力，推升房價，然後造成真正有居住需求的庶民望屋興嘆的畸形奇景，應有相當的助益。雖然距離全面以市價課稅，買賣房屋所得納入綜所稅課資本利得稅的理想，仍有相當距離，但至少是跨出了一步。
目前財政部訂定的草案中，把範圍侷限在二年內的非自用住宅、建築用地等買賣，才需要課以奢侈稅（一年內課十五％，二年內課十％）。我們認為已相當合理，其影響與打擊範圍已限縮到完全針對房市投機客，對大部分民眾可說毫無影響。不過，我們認為財政部仍應考慮再提高課奢侈稅的年限，增加到三年內課以七％的規定。坦白說，一般投機客與養地者，大部分以三年內脫手為目標，最久不超過五年。例如著名的聯勤信義土地，轉手時間大概是二年多，二年多獲取近三十五億元的利益。如果訂五年或許過於苛刻，三年應屬較中庸且「合乎市場運作」。
如果奢侈稅順利推動，完成立法，且發揮其打擊房市投機的效果，可想見必然發生房市投機客減少、房價需求減少、房價下滑；影響所及，房地產關聯產業─從第一線的建設公司、房仲業、房屋裝潢、甚至較周邊的代書，都會下滑；金融業則可能會承受到部分呆帳，不過金融業因央行及早出手調控做風險控管，問題相對較小。但不論如何，整體經濟可能受波及，政府對此奢侈稅在經濟與產業上的後續效應，應有心理準備及因應措施，萬不可看到房市下滑、景氣趨緩，又慌慌張張的宣布「暫緩推動」。
坦白說，這波的房地產飆漲已背離經濟基本面，連不少正派的建設公司都看不下去，憂心再走下去就是大崩盤。政府此時推動抑制投機的方案，短期固然影響房市景氣，但長期而言，卻是讓房地產業能永續經營，而不是在暴漲暴跌的泡沫中輪迴。期望政府能有決心、有方法，在抑制房市投機上收到成效；更希望立法院諸公能支持此法案，不要真被房市投機大咖講中─「立委都是財團建商代言人，奢侈稅過不了立法院」。
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
DPP Cross-Strait Policy: Empty Slogans?
DPP Cross-Strait Policy: Empty Slogans?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 1, 2011
Cross-strait relations are special. Political parties on Taiwan disagree about what they ought to be. When addressing cross-Strait and Mainland policy, Blue and Green camp political leaders invariably avoid the tough issues. They invariably resort to obscurantist political jargon. But the purpose of language is communication. Only by communicating can we reach some sort of understanding. If political jargon is so vague that even people within our own political camp find it incomprehensible, that defeats the purpose of political discourse.
Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has been in the limelight recently, When the DPP established a think tank recently, it proposed a "new cross-Strait discourse." This discourse would begin by "identifying with Taiwan." It would adopt "Taiwanese values" as its core value. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait would "maintain peace but allow the two sides to remain different." They would "seek commonalities on the basis of peace." They would seek peace but not reunification.
Tsai Ing-wen offered a new understanding of cross-Strait relations. Her move was bound to attract attention. She is the Chairman of the DPP, which could well become the ruling party. Her understanding of such matters is likely to affect cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's development. Regrettably, Tsai Ing-wen's new discourse offers no clear direction. To say that one "identifies with Taiwan," and adopts "Taiwanese values" as one's core values, is meaningless. This was true even before Lee Teng-hui became president. The moment Chiang Ching-kuo said "I am also Taiwanese," identifying with Taiwan has been the national consensus.
The DPP boasts about its "identification with Taiwan," This helps distinguish it from its enemies. It also provides it with a basis for political mobilization. But this pitch involves a huge blind spot. Identification with Taiwan has long since ceased to be a DPP monopoly. Nor does it equate with the DPP's calls for independence. Most ROC citizens strongly identify with Taiwan, But they do not necessarily support Taiwan independence. After all, what is in "Taiwan's interest" remains open to interpretation.
In fact, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, interactions between the two sides have "maintained peace but allowed the two sides to remain different." They have "sought commonalities on the basis of peace." The two sides' political systems may be very different. But the two sides beliefs and values are very similar. They share historical memories of traditional Chinese culture, and of KMT vs. CCP rivalry. These factors underlie cross-Strait relations, and cannot be ignored. The DPP cannot sever these ties merely by advocating Taiwan independence. If the DPP is willing to confront the issue of cross-Strait relations, it cannot repudiate historical facts.
Following the five cities elections, the "princes" of the Democratic Progressive Party set forth their own proposals. Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Su Tseng-chang, and Tsai Ing-wen all came forth. Each candidate was vaguer than the next. Annette Lu opposed the 1992 Consensus. She proposed a 1996 Consensus. Frank Hsieh proposed a "constitutional consensus" to replace the 1992 Consensus, which the Democratic Progressive Party refuses to endorse. Su evaded the issue. But he affirmed that survival was foremost, and that democracy was the cornerstone. His terminology suggests that he knew cross-Strait exchanges must continue. He upheld Taiwan's belief in democracy. Maintaining peace while remaining different is a fait accompli. Chen Shui-bian has already advanced his "Five Noes" and his cross-Strait "Unification Theory." Therefore we would like to ask Chairman Tsai, just exactly what "commonalities" are you seeking? Do you agree with the 1992 Consensus? If not, what is the Democratic Progressive Party's alternative? Do you accept ECFA? If not, how does the DPP intend to deal with ECFA in the event it assumes power?
As the chairman of the largest opposition party on Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen must make the Democratic Progressive Party more responsible to Taiwan. Especially since Tsai Ing-wen, or at least the DPP, is seeking the presidency in 2012. Is "maintaining peace while remaining different" and "seeking commonalities on the basis of peace" the theme of the DPP's 2012 election platform? If the DPP once again assumes power, what changes will there be to cross-Strait policy?
Ever since President Ma took office, he has been clear about advocating cross-Strait exchanges. He has been clear about Republic of China sovereignty. The two sides cannot possibly recognize each other legally. But they can refrain from repudiating each other in practice. He has been clear about "first economics, then politics." Under the framework of the ROC Constitution, he advocates "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," He advocates the development of cross-Strait relations on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. The Ma administration has not evaded the issues, either short-term or long-term. Ma administration theory and practice permit the development of cross-Strait relations. Meanwhile on the diplomatic front, the Republic of China expects one hundred nations to offer visa-free treatment this year.
Tsai Ing-wen blasted the Ma adminstration for identifying with China, for treating Chinese values as its core values. She blasted it for taking the road to "peace and reunification" and "peace and inevitable reunification." But she ignored the fact that the China which the Ma administration upholds is the Republic of China, as defined in our constitution. She persists in McCarthyite name-calling. It is hard to understand how someone who repudiates the Republic of China and the ROC Constitution, can have the temerity to run for Republic of China President.
The words and deeds of political leaders have a profound impact on the people of a nation. They cannot hide their own beliefs. Nor can they ignore the need to turn their beliefs into policy. These determine the direction a nation takes. Political language may be vague. But the direction the nation takes must not be. The Democratic Progressive Party has established a think tank. Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait understanding may be nothing more than general principles. But the DPP must behave responsibly. It must tell us just exactly what its "empty rhetoric" means for the future.
民進黨兩岸論述 僅「八字空言」？
2011-03-01 中國時報
兩岸關係特殊，台灣內部又缺乏充分共識，在論述兩岸關係與大陸政策時，藍綠政治領袖難免避重就輕，採取相對模糊的政治語言，但語言的功能在於溝通，並藉由溝通取得某種程度的理解，如果政治語言模糊到連自己人都直言「太深奧」，就完全失去論述的意義了。
民進黨主席蔡英文日前在眾人矚目中，於民進黨成立智庫的同時，提出民進黨的「兩岸新論述」：從台灣認同出發，以台灣價值為核心，兩岸必須維持「和而不同，和而求同」，這個「和」就是和平的和。
蔡英文針對兩岸提出新論述本來就會受到矚目，因為她是民進黨主席，也因為民進黨可能再執政，她的論述方向有很大可能影響兩岸關係，影響台灣發展。只不過令人遺憾的是，蔡英文的新論述裡，完全看不出可能的具體方向，從台灣認同出發，以台灣價值為核心，說了等於沒說，不要說從李登輝執政開始，從蔣經國說「我也是台灣人」的那一刻起，台灣認同就已經是國民共識。
民進黨執著於台灣認同，除了以其為區分敵我的標準外，也依賴其為政治動員的基礎。這種論述最大盲點是：台灣認同早已不是民進黨的專利，更不等於民進黨所堅持的台獨。絕大多數國民都擁有強烈的台灣認同，卻不一定會支持台獨。畢竟什麼才是「台灣利益」，本來就有很大討論空間的。
其實，兩岸自開放交流起，雙方互動一直都是「和而不同，和而求同」。儘管目前在政治體制上雙方確有相當落差，但不論是中華文化的本源、或是過往的國共分合下，在歷史記憶、信仰價值上都還是有相當程度的重疊，這是兩岸關係無法迴避的基本緣由，不是民進黨所主張的台獨或者台灣認同所能割斷的。民進黨願意正視兩岸關係，就不能否定既有的歷史事實。
五都選舉後，民進黨諸位天王先後提出主張，不論呂秀蓮、謝長廷或蘇貞昌，所言再模糊都比蔡英文具體。呂秀蓮反對「九二共識」，並負責任的提出她主張「九六共識」；謝長廷也提出以「憲法共識」，取代民進黨不認同的「九二共識」；蘇貞昌避開了，但他至少確認生存是王道，民主為基石，從語詞至少看得懂他要繼續兩岸交流，但堅持台灣所信仰的民主價值。請問蔡主席：和而不同是現實，陳水扁至少還提出過「四不一沒有」及兩岸「統合論」，你求的「同」又是什麼呢？是同意「九二共識」還是不同意？如果不同意，民進黨的替代主張是什麼？是接受ＥＣＦＡ還是不接受？如果不接受，民進黨如何後續處理？
身為最大在野黨主席，蔡英文必須更誠懇地認知民進黨是要為台灣負責的，尤其是蔡英文或民進黨是要競逐二○一二總統大位的，如果「和而不同，和而求同」八個字就是民進黨二○一二總統大選的兩岸政見主軸，請問誰知道民進黨若再執政，在兩岸政策上會有什麼變化或延續？
馬總統自就任以來，明確主張兩岸積極開放交流，在台灣主權認知上清楚表態：兩岸在法理上不可能相互承認，但在事實上應互不否認；做法上也明確提出「先經濟，後政治」，在中華民國憲法架構下，不統、不獨、不武，並以九二共識為基礎，發展兩岸關係，從遠期目標到短期做法，馬政府都沒有迴避。馬政府的主張和做法，讓兩岸關係有效開展，在外交上，台灣甚至在今年可望達到百國免簽證的亮眼成績。
蔡英文批評馬政府以中國認同、中國價值為核心，走的是「和而要統，和而必統」的路子，卻無視馬政府始終堅持的中國是憲法的中華民國，又是硬扣帽子的選舉語言。很難想像，一個完全否定中華民國、否定中華民國憲法，竟能如此理直氣壯地要競逐中華民國總統？
身為政治領袖，一言一行都對國家人民有深遠影響，既不能逃避自己的信仰，更不能輕忽自己所堅持的信仰落實於政策，就是國家發展方向，政治語言可以模糊，國家方向卻不能在虛空中打模糊仗。民進黨智庫甫成立，蔡英文的兩岸新論述或許只是一個大原則，民進黨必須更負責任地告訴我們，在這「八字空言」下，將有什麼具體主張和做法。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 1, 2011
Cross-strait relations are special. Political parties on Taiwan disagree about what they ought to be. When addressing cross-Strait and Mainland policy, Blue and Green camp political leaders invariably avoid the tough issues. They invariably resort to obscurantist political jargon. But the purpose of language is communication. Only by communicating can we reach some sort of understanding. If political jargon is so vague that even people within our own political camp find it incomprehensible, that defeats the purpose of political discourse.
Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen has been in the limelight recently, When the DPP established a think tank recently, it proposed a "new cross-Strait discourse." This discourse would begin by "identifying with Taiwan." It would adopt "Taiwanese values" as its core value. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait would "maintain peace but allow the two sides to remain different." They would "seek commonalities on the basis of peace." They would seek peace but not reunification.
Tsai Ing-wen offered a new understanding of cross-Strait relations. Her move was bound to attract attention. She is the Chairman of the DPP, which could well become the ruling party. Her understanding of such matters is likely to affect cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's development. Regrettably, Tsai Ing-wen's new discourse offers no clear direction. To say that one "identifies with Taiwan," and adopts "Taiwanese values" as one's core values, is meaningless. This was true even before Lee Teng-hui became president. The moment Chiang Ching-kuo said "I am also Taiwanese," identifying with Taiwan has been the national consensus.
The DPP boasts about its "identification with Taiwan," This helps distinguish it from its enemies. It also provides it with a basis for political mobilization. But this pitch involves a huge blind spot. Identification with Taiwan has long since ceased to be a DPP monopoly. Nor does it equate with the DPP's calls for independence. Most ROC citizens strongly identify with Taiwan, But they do not necessarily support Taiwan independence. After all, what is in "Taiwan's interest" remains open to interpretation.
In fact, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, interactions between the two sides have "maintained peace but allowed the two sides to remain different." They have "sought commonalities on the basis of peace." The two sides' political systems may be very different. But the two sides beliefs and values are very similar. They share historical memories of traditional Chinese culture, and of KMT vs. CCP rivalry. These factors underlie cross-Strait relations, and cannot be ignored. The DPP cannot sever these ties merely by advocating Taiwan independence. If the DPP is willing to confront the issue of cross-Strait relations, it cannot repudiate historical facts.
Following the five cities elections, the "princes" of the Democratic Progressive Party set forth their own proposals. Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Su Tseng-chang, and Tsai Ing-wen all came forth. Each candidate was vaguer than the next. Annette Lu opposed the 1992 Consensus. She proposed a 1996 Consensus. Frank Hsieh proposed a "constitutional consensus" to replace the 1992 Consensus, which the Democratic Progressive Party refuses to endorse. Su evaded the issue. But he affirmed that survival was foremost, and that democracy was the cornerstone. His terminology suggests that he knew cross-Strait exchanges must continue. He upheld Taiwan's belief in democracy. Maintaining peace while remaining different is a fait accompli. Chen Shui-bian has already advanced his "Five Noes" and his cross-Strait "Unification Theory." Therefore we would like to ask Chairman Tsai, just exactly what "commonalities" are you seeking? Do you agree with the 1992 Consensus? If not, what is the Democratic Progressive Party's alternative? Do you accept ECFA? If not, how does the DPP intend to deal with ECFA in the event it assumes power?
As the chairman of the largest opposition party on Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen must make the Democratic Progressive Party more responsible to Taiwan. Especially since Tsai Ing-wen, or at least the DPP, is seeking the presidency in 2012. Is "maintaining peace while remaining different" and "seeking commonalities on the basis of peace" the theme of the DPP's 2012 election platform? If the DPP once again assumes power, what changes will there be to cross-Strait policy?
Ever since President Ma took office, he has been clear about advocating cross-Strait exchanges. He has been clear about Republic of China sovereignty. The two sides cannot possibly recognize each other legally. But they can refrain from repudiating each other in practice. He has been clear about "first economics, then politics." Under the framework of the ROC Constitution, he advocates "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," He advocates the development of cross-Strait relations on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. The Ma administration has not evaded the issues, either short-term or long-term. Ma administration theory and practice permit the development of cross-Strait relations. Meanwhile on the diplomatic front, the Republic of China expects one hundred nations to offer visa-free treatment this year.
Tsai Ing-wen blasted the Ma adminstration for identifying with China, for treating Chinese values as its core values. She blasted it for taking the road to "peace and reunification" and "peace and inevitable reunification." But she ignored the fact that the China which the Ma administration upholds is the Republic of China, as defined in our constitution. She persists in McCarthyite name-calling. It is hard to understand how someone who repudiates the Republic of China and the ROC Constitution, can have the temerity to run for Republic of China President.
The words and deeds of political leaders have a profound impact on the people of a nation. They cannot hide their own beliefs. Nor can they ignore the need to turn their beliefs into policy. These determine the direction a nation takes. Political language may be vague. But the direction the nation takes must not be. The Democratic Progressive Party has established a think tank. Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait understanding may be nothing more than general principles. But the DPP must behave responsibly. It must tell us just exactly what its "empty rhetoric" means for the future.
民進黨兩岸論述 僅「八字空言」？
2011-03-01 中國時報
兩岸關係特殊，台灣內部又缺乏充分共識，在論述兩岸關係與大陸政策時，藍綠政治領袖難免避重就輕，採取相對模糊的政治語言，但語言的功能在於溝通，並藉由溝通取得某種程度的理解，如果政治語言模糊到連自己人都直言「太深奧」，就完全失去論述的意義了。
民進黨主席蔡英文日前在眾人矚目中，於民進黨成立智庫的同時，提出民進黨的「兩岸新論述」：從台灣認同出發，以台灣價值為核心，兩岸必須維持「和而不同，和而求同」，這個「和」就是和平的和。
蔡英文針對兩岸提出新論述本來就會受到矚目，因為她是民進黨主席，也因為民進黨可能再執政，她的論述方向有很大可能影響兩岸關係，影響台灣發展。只不過令人遺憾的是，蔡英文的新論述裡，完全看不出可能的具體方向，從台灣認同出發，以台灣價值為核心，說了等於沒說，不要說從李登輝執政開始，從蔣經國說「我也是台灣人」的那一刻起，台灣認同就已經是國民共識。
民進黨執著於台灣認同，除了以其為區分敵我的標準外，也依賴其為政治動員的基礎。這種論述最大盲點是：台灣認同早已不是民進黨的專利，更不等於民進黨所堅持的台獨。絕大多數國民都擁有強烈的台灣認同，卻不一定會支持台獨。畢竟什麼才是「台灣利益」，本來就有很大討論空間的。
其實，兩岸自開放交流起，雙方互動一直都是「和而不同，和而求同」。儘管目前在政治體制上雙方確有相當落差，但不論是中華文化的本源、或是過往的國共分合下，在歷史記憶、信仰價值上都還是有相當程度的重疊，這是兩岸關係無法迴避的基本緣由，不是民進黨所主張的台獨或者台灣認同所能割斷的。民進黨願意正視兩岸關係，就不能否定既有的歷史事實。
五都選舉後，民進黨諸位天王先後提出主張，不論呂秀蓮、謝長廷或蘇貞昌，所言再模糊都比蔡英文具體。呂秀蓮反對「九二共識」，並負責任的提出她主張「九六共識」；謝長廷也提出以「憲法共識」，取代民進黨不認同的「九二共識」；蘇貞昌避開了，但他至少確認生存是王道，民主為基石，從語詞至少看得懂他要繼續兩岸交流，但堅持台灣所信仰的民主價值。請問蔡主席：和而不同是現實，陳水扁至少還提出過「四不一沒有」及兩岸「統合論」，你求的「同」又是什麼呢？是同意「九二共識」還是不同意？如果不同意，民進黨的替代主張是什麼？是接受ＥＣＦＡ還是不接受？如果不接受，民進黨如何後續處理？
身為最大在野黨主席，蔡英文必須更誠懇地認知民進黨是要為台灣負責的，尤其是蔡英文或民進黨是要競逐二○一二總統大位的，如果「和而不同，和而求同」八個字就是民進黨二○一二總統大選的兩岸政見主軸，請問誰知道民進黨若再執政，在兩岸政策上會有什麼變化或延續？
馬總統自就任以來，明確主張兩岸積極開放交流，在台灣主權認知上清楚表態：兩岸在法理上不可能相互承認，但在事實上應互不否認；做法上也明確提出「先經濟，後政治」，在中華民國憲法架構下，不統、不獨、不武，並以九二共識為基礎，發展兩岸關係，從遠期目標到短期做法，馬政府都沒有迴避。馬政府的主張和做法，讓兩岸關係有效開展，在外交上，台灣甚至在今年可望達到百國免簽證的亮眼成績。
蔡英文批評馬政府以中國認同、中國價值為核心，走的是「和而要統，和而必統」的路子，卻無視馬政府始終堅持的中國是憲法的中華民國，又是硬扣帽子的選舉語言。很難想像，一個完全否定中華民國、否定中華民國憲法，竟能如此理直氣壯地要競逐中華民國總統？
身為政治領袖，一言一行都對國家人民有深遠影響，既不能逃避自己的信仰，更不能輕忽自己所堅持的信仰落實於政策，就是國家發展方向，政治語言可以模糊，國家方向卻不能在虛空中打模糊仗。民進黨智庫甫成立，蔡英文的兩岸新論述或許只是一個大原則，民進黨必須更負責任地告訴我們，在這「八字空言」下，將有什麼具體主張和做法。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)