Cross-Strait Talent Competition Means Taipei Must Let Mainland Students In
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2011
The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office has announced that beginning this year, Mainland universities will recruit high school graduates from Taiwan without requiring them to take entrance exams. They will broaden their standards to include academic scores from Taiwan. According to estimates, 30,000 or more students on Taiwan will become eligible. Beijing University, Beijing Tsinghua University, Fudan University, and other prestigious Mainland universities will be among the 205 universities listed. Students may apply for admission without entrance exams. Those passing a live interview will be admitted and enrolled.
There is no denying that expanded Mainland recruitment of students from Taiwan will impact university education on Taiwan. The reason is simple. The Mainland is on the rise. Its annual growth rate exceeds eight or nine percent. Well-known universities the world over have all added "understanding of China" to their curriculum. The Mainland is vast. Although its universities are of mixed quality, many of them are famous and historic universities that rank among the world's finest. They have attracted considerable attention. The two sides have the same roots. Culture and language pose no barriers. Attending university there is relatively easy. For students from Taiwan, studying on the Mainland holds considerable appeal.
In addition, the Mainland market has great potential. Cross-Strait exchanges are increasingly close. For Taiwan, the Mainland has become an indispensable partner in economic and trade development. Students from Taiwan studying on the Mainland, can choose to stay on the Mainland or to return to Taiwan for future employment. They enjoy options. From the perspective of workplace diversity, studying on Mainland China also allows students to establish contacts for the future. Of course, another factor cannot be ignored. Tuition and fees for students studying on the Mainland are much lower than for students studying in Europe and the US.
In fact, in recent years more and more students from Taiwan are studying on the Mainland. Over 40% of the children of businessmen from Taiwan on the Mainland, are choosing to stay on the Mainland to study. Last year, for the first time, the Mainland admitted the top 12% of students from Taiwan, based on academic grades, into Mainland universities without requiring entrance exams. Eighty-three high school graduates were admitted to 37 Mainland universities. This year the Mainland has broadened its standards to include the top 25% of all students from Taiwwan. Any student able to gain admission to Fu Jen Catholic University may apply. As one can imagine, the number of students applying for admission to Mainland universities this year has exploded.
So what should the government do? This is more than a competition between schools. This is a competition for human resources. These young people will attend university. After completing their studies, they will become the vanguard of the labor market, They will also become the main force behind the nation's development. The probability of a brain drain has increased. At the same time, we lack the courage to open ourselves up. The Mainland has opened itself up to students from Taiwan, virtually without limits. Taiwan, on the other hand, persists in tying Mainland students hand and foot. We deny them scholarships. We deny them extra credits. We deny them the right to moonlight. We deny them professional certification after graduation. We deny them the opportunity to seek work on Taiwan. Superficially, these restrictions protect the interests of students on Taiwan. In fact they merely limit the possibilities for students from the Mainland. In other words, no matter how good universities on Taiwan might be, the incentive for outstanding students from the mainland to apply will be limited. The result can be imagined. The two sides are competing for outstanding university students. The numbers will rise and fall. The competitiveness of universities on Taiwan is certain to fall. Once it does, a vicious will begin, and they will find it increasingly difficult to attract the best students.
This is not merely a cross-Strait competition for talent. This is a global competition for talent. The Mainland has picked up its pace. Taiwan meanwhile, is spinning its wheels. The Ministry of Education boasts that "The quality of universities on Taiwan is better than those on the Mainland." "We recognize only 41 universites on the Mainland." "The two sides have a tacit understanding to recruit no more than 2000 students." Such whistling in the dark will not reverse our fortunes. Can superior private universities on Taiwan ignore competition from Beijing University, Tsinghua University, and Fudan University? Students from Taiwan studying on Mainland China may attend schools not recognized by the Ministry of Education, But university attendance does not mark the end academic life. The government may refuse to recognize their diplomas. But Europe and the United States will. After graduating from universities on the Mainland, students may seek advanced degrees in Europe or the US. They may or may not return to Taiwan to work or conduct research. Their academic credentials will not be an issue. Far more worrisome is the Ministry of Education's negativity. These outstanding young people may choose never to return. Doesn't that constitute a far greater loss to the nation? Forget the fact that the Ministry of Education lacks the wherewithal to verify whether the Mainland has admitted only 2000 students from Taiwan.
Time waits for no man. The Mainland is undergoing vigorous development. It is not about to wait for Taiwan to catch up. In the face of competition, the government must accelerate our opening up. We must adopt international standards. The Obama administration has decided to send 100,000 students a year to Mainland China. Hong Kong and Singapore are offering generous scholarships to Mainland students. Taipei's policy regarding Mainland students is in clear defiance of gobal trends. This highlights the serious lack of self-confidence on Taiwan.
We live in an era of global competition. National competitiveness is tied to individual competitiveness. The Mainland is rapidly catching up in all areas. It is displaying powerful ambitions. It is liberalizing in one area after another. Even Europe and America must remain vigilant. They cannot afford to take matters lightly. If we constantly tie our own hands, it will negatively impact higher education. it will harm the development of human resources on Taiwan. The government must adopt a more inclusive posture. It must contemplate its own globalization and regional integration. It must contemplate even the Mainland's role as it too undergoes globalization. We were once proud of the "Taiwan experience." We did not impose limits on ourselves. In the face of competition, we must once again open ourselves to the world. We must once again pick up the pace.
兩岸人才競爭 台灣須速開放陸生
2011-03-25 中國時報
大陸國台辦日前宣布，從今年開始，大陸大學免試招收台灣高中畢業生的標準，由學測的頂標級擴大至前標級。根據估算，台灣約有三萬多位學生符合申請資格，可向包括北京大學、北京清華大學及復旦大學等大陸頂尖名校在內的二百零五所大學，提出免試入學申請，經面試合格者，就可錄取就讀。
無可諱言，大陸擴大對台招收大學生，勢必對台灣的大學教育造成某種程度的衝擊。原因很簡單，大陸正在崛起，每年ＧＤＰ成長率都在八、九％以上，全世界知名大學都將《認識中國》列為學習地圖，大陸幅員廣闊，盡管大學良莠不齊，但仍有不少知名且歷史悠久的大學在世界排名中，相當搶眼，遑論兩岸同根同源，不論在文化語言上都沒有溝通的障礙，就學相對容易，留學大陸，對台灣學子而言，確實有一定的吸引力。
此外，大陸市場潛力無窮，兩岸交流益發密切，大陸已經成為台灣經貿發展不可或缺的重要夥伴之一，台生赴大陸就學，未來可選擇留在大陸或返台就業，進可攻退可守；從職場多元化選擇的角度，赴大陸就學還可以累積未來的人脈資源。當然，還有一個不可忽視的因素：留學大陸的學雜費，遠比留學歐美來得便宜許多。
事實上，這幾年在大陸就學的台生愈來愈多，台商子弟選擇留在大陸繼續求學者已達四成以上；去年大陸第一次對台灣學測成績排前十二％的頂標生提供免試入學，就有八十三位高中畢業生，由卅七所大陸大學錄取。今年大陸擴大招收前廿五％的前標生，推估只要考取輔大以上的學生，都可以申請，可想而知，今年申請免試進入大陸大學的人數必然暴增。
那麼台灣該怎麼辦呢？要知道，這已經不只是兩岸學校間的競爭，而是兩岸的人才競爭，這些就讀大學的年輕人，在完成學業後，都是就業市場的尖兵，也是國家社會發展的主力，我們的人才外流機率升高，又缺乏膽識大幅開放，對比大陸不設限的開放台生免試赴陸就學，台灣到現在對陸生的態度依舊綁手綁腳，不給獎學金、不加分、不能打工，畢業後不能考職業證照、不能在台工作…，種種限制表面上是維護台灣學生的權益，實際上則是限縮陸生來台的機會，換言之，就算台灣大學再頂尖，恐怕都缺乏充足的誘因，來吸引大陸優秀學子。想像得到，當兩岸大學因為優秀學生的消長，台灣的大學勢將陷入競爭力滑落，也愈難吸引優秀學生的惡性循環。
更重要的，這還不只是一場兩岸人才競爭，而是全球人才競爭，大陸加速開跑，台灣卻原地打轉，教育部好整以暇地說，「台灣大學素質比大陸好」、「我們只承認對岸四十一所大學」、「雙方有默契各招收不超過二千名學生」云云，都不足以扭轉形勢。台灣辦學優良的私校對上北大、清華、復旦的競爭，能不憂心嗎？赴大陸就學的台生，就算就讀的學校非教育部所認定，但大學不是人生求學的終點站，台灣不承認其學歷，歐美國家承認，讀完大陸大學再赴歐美取得更高學位，不論未來返台工作或考證照，就沒有承認學歷的問題，更讓人擔心的是，如果因為教育部的消極作為，這些優秀的年輕人索性不回台，國家的損失豈不更大？更甭提教育部哪來的能力查核對岸到底是否招收超過二千名學生！
時間不等人，大陸蓬勃發展的同時，更不會停下腳步等台灣。面對競爭，台灣只能加速開放，與國際接軌，美國歐巴馬政府都決定每年送出十萬名學生赴大陸學習，香港、新加坡則以豐厚優渥的獎學金爭取陸生，台灣的陸生政策顯然違反這股世界潮流，更嚴重凸顯台灣信心不足的問題。
這是一個全球競爭的時代，國家競爭力正繫於人才競爭力，大陸各方面發展都急起直追，展現旺盛的企圖心，開放措施一個接著一個，連歐美國家都嚴陣以待，不敢輕忽，我們若始終自縛手腳，對高等教育必然有負面影響，對國家人才培育更為不利。台灣應該放大格局，思考自己在全球化、區域整合，乃至大陸與世界接軌的過程中，能扮演什麼角色。我們曾經引以為傲的「台灣經驗」，從來不是自我限縮的，面對競爭，只能開放再開放，加速再加速。
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Political Posturing Worthless During a Disaster
Political Posturing Worthless During a Disaster
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2011
Summary: The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.
Full Text below:
The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.
Over the past two decades, Japan has remained mired in recession. The same is true on the political stage, where efforts to divide and rule and political unrest have aggravated each other. The recent disaster was a complex disaster. Any government would have been overwhelmed. The Japanese government's performance was worse than usual. It was opaque as well. Local government relief and resettlement efforts were fairly orderly. But the transport of post-disaster relief materiel was relatively slow. Victims suffered from both bereavement and starvation. The civil service, long praised for its machine-like efficiency, seems to have gotten rusty.
The scenario in Japan has held up a mirror to the public on Taiwan, and allowed them to see their own problems. Faced with a major crisis similar to Japan's, could we do better? This is probably a question neither the ruling and opposition parties, nor anyone else on Taiwan can answer in the affirmative. No one in our current political environment cares a whit about making advance preparations for future disasters, or about solving social problems. They care only about paving the way for their own political ambitions, and erecting obstacles in the path of their political opponents. Once disaster strikes, the first reaction of politicians is to point fingers at others, and make excuses for themselves. No one is willing to approach problems pragmatically.
The March 20 anti-nuclear protest march was a stark example. Radiation leakages in Japan have forced the public on Taiwan to rethink the issues. New responses to nuclear power plant safety management and crisis response are needed. We may even need to consider alternatives to nuclear power generation. This should have been the goal of the protest march. This activity was initiated by environmental groups. Yet Green Camp politicians normally indifferent to these issues positioned themselves at the head of the procession, They hogged the media limelight. They usurped the protest march, and turned it into a campaign rally. Environmentalists were pushed to the back of the procession. Kungliao villagers were ignored from start to finish. Political grandstanding reached new lows.
The DPP has shrilly opposed nuclear power generation for 20 years. But when it was in office, it first halted then restarted construction on Nuclear Plant Four. Now that it is once again in the opposition, it has returned to shouting anti-nuclear slogans. Its repeated waffling grossly increased the cost of Nuclear Plant Four, and repeatedly delayed its completion. The introduction of more variables has jeopardized future security. Worst of all, the DPP has never sought to make nuclear oversight and management more professional. It has sought only to hog the anti-nuclear spotlight. How can such opportunism possibly promote the safe use of nuclear energy?
The DPP's anti-nuclear posturing is merely one example. Everyday on Taiwan, the political agenda brims over with hypocritical expressions of concern. None of them ever hit their targets, because none of them are rooted in professionalism or genuine concern. That is why they are expressed in such strident terms. That is why they required props and sensationalism. That is why city and county council members insisted on brandishing flaming torches. That is why legislators demanded that a Japanese flag be flown at half mast. That is why they demanded that Taipower present a list of 50 deceased persons. That is why they made political hay out of the inscription on someone else's funerary urn. Which of these political gestures did anything to promote the public welfare? Which of these political gestures was sincere, responsible, and substantive?
Democracy on Taiwan has spun its wheels for over a decade. It has transitioned from a multi-party system to a two party system. The energies of both the ruling and opposition parties have been squandered on electioneering, mobilization, and the struggle for power, not on growing the economy. The situation is clear to see. First, politicians engage in theatrical question and answer sessions. They undermine official efforts to maintain professionalism, while offering no solutions of their own. Secondly, politicians use ideology to distort the significance of real world events. They prevent anyone else from finding solutions to the problems. Thirdly, politicians resort to populist demagoguery. They engage in glib sophistry. They abet the rise of extremism. Those unwilling to sink so low soon take themselves out of the running. Politicians on Taiwan have created far more problems than they have ever solved.
In times of peace, populist grandstanding merely results in overspending. But in times of crisis, the truth emerges. Japan experienced a three in one disaster. Politicians in Tokyo spouted pious rhetoric. Self-disciplined members of the public on the other hand, helped maintain social order. Courageous rescuers laid down their lives attempting to bring the nuclear disaster under control. If not for them, who knows where Japan might be? The disaster has taught the public on Taiwan a lesson. When disaster strikes, political grandstanding is worthless. A nation can successfully respond to a crisis only if the ruling and opposition parties forsake their habit of empty posturing. The public must vote out politicians who only blow hot air.
A number of politicians are vying for the presidency, They are seeking high office. But have they ever considered the weighty responsibility they must assume? Are they really prepared?
遇上災難，政治一點都不管用
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.24
這次震災，日本民眾的沉著自制令全球刮目；相形之下，日本政府救災賑災慢三拍、搶救核災一再失效脫槌，讓人失望。政治當局主導國家資源的分配，決定公共事務的優先順序，占據社會議題的焦點；然一旦遇上災難，東京的政治中樞卻幾乎束手無策。這場災難，暴露了政府角色的失能，民眾也應重新思考如何馴服政治這頭權力怪獸。
近廿年日本國力衰退，與之平行的是政壇的縱橫捭闔、政治的動盪擾攘，兩者互為因果。其實，這次來勢猛烈的複合式災難，任何國家遇上了都必是手忙腳亂，但日本政府的表現卻更為離譜，且相當不透明。地方政府方面，救災安置尚稱秩序井然，但動態的物資運補及災後搶救則相對遲緩，讓災民同時遭受喪親及挨餓受凍之苦。以往受人讚譽的日本行政效率及鋼鐵般的公務員隊伍，似乎也生了鏽。
日本的景象像一面照妖鏡，也讓台灣看到自己的問題。若是面對日本那樣的大危機，我們能不能做得較好，這恐非朝野或任何人所能誇口。進一步看，我們當前的政治運作，目標都不是在幫助台灣作好準備，或在幫社會大眾解決問題，而只是在為政治人物自己鋪設舞台，並給對手製造難題。一有事故，政治人物的第一反應不是在怪罪別人，就是在為自己尋找卸責藉口，這皆非務實面對問題的態度。
三二○反核大遊行，就是赤裸裸的寫照。目睹日本輻射外洩危機，台灣確需重新思考此一議題，設法加強現有電廠的安全管理及危機因應，甚至思考核能的替代方案，這應是遊行的宗旨。但這場環保團體發起的活動中，卻是平日對此不聞不問的綠營政治人物走在隊伍前端，霸占了發言舞台，將遊行篡竊為自己的造勢大拜拜；環保人士則被擠到隊伍尾巴，貢寮鄉民更從頭到尾乏人聞問。政治操弄到這般地步，真是何其厚顏！
民進黨高唱反核廿年，它執政時下令核四停工，旋又宣布重新開工；如今在野，再回頭吶喊反核。如此反反覆覆，徒使核四興建經費暴漲、時程不斷拉長、變數增多，更平添未來的安全疑慮。更可議的是，它從未設法從專業層面去加強核安的監督與管理，卻始終霸著反核的舞台不放。這種機會主義作風，如何保證核能的安全無虞？
反核只是一例，台灣每天的政治議程上充滿著這類沒有真誠關懷的空包彈，當然也就無法命中什麼真實的目標。由於缺乏關懷與專業，所以得用疾言厲色來包裝，甚至藉助道具和煽情演出來爭取曝光。諸如議員強要將火把帶進議場，立委提議為日本降半旗，要求台電提出五十死士名單，拿他人父親骨灰罈上的刻字做文章，哪一項有助於國計民生？哪一項是真誠、負責、有料的問政？
台灣政治陷於空轉已十餘年，從先前多黨並起到如今兩黨爭衡，朝野的心力幾皆耗在選舉動員、爭奪權力，而不是在建設國家。大家看到的現象是：一，作秀式的質詢充斥，磨損了官員心力和專業見解，卻無法提供解決方案；二，對於實際存在的現象，屢屢用意識形態來扭曲其本質，導致問題完全無法聚焦；三，民粹式的問政風氣，徒讓逞口舌、走極端的政客崛起，不願隨波逐流的人反遭淘汰。台灣政治人物所製造的問題，遠比他們解決的問題多太多。
在太平歲月，表演式民主政治或許尚容揮霍，但一碰到危機，真相馬上現形。日本的三合一災難，要不是有那麼多自持的民眾在支撐社會秩序，要不是有那麼多捨命勇士在核電廠搶救，光靠東京那些高談闊論的政治人物，這個國家不知將淪於何地。這正是這場災難帶給台灣民眾最大的啟示：碰到災難，政治表演其實一點用處都沒有；要讓國家具有因應危機的能力，朝野必須改變虛問虛答的問政風格，民眾要用選票淘汰那些只會膨風的政客。
許多人正搶著要當總統、爭大位，他們可曾想過：在需要擔起千鈞重擔的一刻，自己究竟有幾分準備？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2011
Summary: The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.
Full Text below:
The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.
Over the past two decades, Japan has remained mired in recession. The same is true on the political stage, where efforts to divide and rule and political unrest have aggravated each other. The recent disaster was a complex disaster. Any government would have been overwhelmed. The Japanese government's performance was worse than usual. It was opaque as well. Local government relief and resettlement efforts were fairly orderly. But the transport of post-disaster relief materiel was relatively slow. Victims suffered from both bereavement and starvation. The civil service, long praised for its machine-like efficiency, seems to have gotten rusty.
The scenario in Japan has held up a mirror to the public on Taiwan, and allowed them to see their own problems. Faced with a major crisis similar to Japan's, could we do better? This is probably a question neither the ruling and opposition parties, nor anyone else on Taiwan can answer in the affirmative. No one in our current political environment cares a whit about making advance preparations for future disasters, or about solving social problems. They care only about paving the way for their own political ambitions, and erecting obstacles in the path of their political opponents. Once disaster strikes, the first reaction of politicians is to point fingers at others, and make excuses for themselves. No one is willing to approach problems pragmatically.
The March 20 anti-nuclear protest march was a stark example. Radiation leakages in Japan have forced the public on Taiwan to rethink the issues. New responses to nuclear power plant safety management and crisis response are needed. We may even need to consider alternatives to nuclear power generation. This should have been the goal of the protest march. This activity was initiated by environmental groups. Yet Green Camp politicians normally indifferent to these issues positioned themselves at the head of the procession, They hogged the media limelight. They usurped the protest march, and turned it into a campaign rally. Environmentalists were pushed to the back of the procession. Kungliao villagers were ignored from start to finish. Political grandstanding reached new lows.
The DPP has shrilly opposed nuclear power generation for 20 years. But when it was in office, it first halted then restarted construction on Nuclear Plant Four. Now that it is once again in the opposition, it has returned to shouting anti-nuclear slogans. Its repeated waffling grossly increased the cost of Nuclear Plant Four, and repeatedly delayed its completion. The introduction of more variables has jeopardized future security. Worst of all, the DPP has never sought to make nuclear oversight and management more professional. It has sought only to hog the anti-nuclear spotlight. How can such opportunism possibly promote the safe use of nuclear energy?
The DPP's anti-nuclear posturing is merely one example. Everyday on Taiwan, the political agenda brims over with hypocritical expressions of concern. None of them ever hit their targets, because none of them are rooted in professionalism or genuine concern. That is why they are expressed in such strident terms. That is why they required props and sensationalism. That is why city and county council members insisted on brandishing flaming torches. That is why legislators demanded that a Japanese flag be flown at half mast. That is why they demanded that Taipower present a list of 50 deceased persons. That is why they made political hay out of the inscription on someone else's funerary urn. Which of these political gestures did anything to promote the public welfare? Which of these political gestures was sincere, responsible, and substantive?
Democracy on Taiwan has spun its wheels for over a decade. It has transitioned from a multi-party system to a two party system. The energies of both the ruling and opposition parties have been squandered on electioneering, mobilization, and the struggle for power, not on growing the economy. The situation is clear to see. First, politicians engage in theatrical question and answer sessions. They undermine official efforts to maintain professionalism, while offering no solutions of their own. Secondly, politicians use ideology to distort the significance of real world events. They prevent anyone else from finding solutions to the problems. Thirdly, politicians resort to populist demagoguery. They engage in glib sophistry. They abet the rise of extremism. Those unwilling to sink so low soon take themselves out of the running. Politicians on Taiwan have created far more problems than they have ever solved.
In times of peace, populist grandstanding merely results in overspending. But in times of crisis, the truth emerges. Japan experienced a three in one disaster. Politicians in Tokyo spouted pious rhetoric. Self-disciplined members of the public on the other hand, helped maintain social order. Courageous rescuers laid down their lives attempting to bring the nuclear disaster under control. If not for them, who knows where Japan might be? The disaster has taught the public on Taiwan a lesson. When disaster strikes, political grandstanding is worthless. A nation can successfully respond to a crisis only if the ruling and opposition parties forsake their habit of empty posturing. The public must vote out politicians who only blow hot air.
A number of politicians are vying for the presidency, They are seeking high office. But have they ever considered the weighty responsibility they must assume? Are they really prepared?
遇上災難，政治一點都不管用
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.24
這次震災，日本民眾的沉著自制令全球刮目；相形之下，日本政府救災賑災慢三拍、搶救核災一再失效脫槌，讓人失望。政治當局主導國家資源的分配，決定公共事務的優先順序，占據社會議題的焦點；然一旦遇上災難，東京的政治中樞卻幾乎束手無策。這場災難，暴露了政府角色的失能，民眾也應重新思考如何馴服政治這頭權力怪獸。
近廿年日本國力衰退，與之平行的是政壇的縱橫捭闔、政治的動盪擾攘，兩者互為因果。其實，這次來勢猛烈的複合式災難，任何國家遇上了都必是手忙腳亂，但日本政府的表現卻更為離譜，且相當不透明。地方政府方面，救災安置尚稱秩序井然，但動態的物資運補及災後搶救則相對遲緩，讓災民同時遭受喪親及挨餓受凍之苦。以往受人讚譽的日本行政效率及鋼鐵般的公務員隊伍，似乎也生了鏽。
日本的景象像一面照妖鏡，也讓台灣看到自己的問題。若是面對日本那樣的大危機，我們能不能做得較好，這恐非朝野或任何人所能誇口。進一步看，我們當前的政治運作，目標都不是在幫助台灣作好準備，或在幫社會大眾解決問題，而只是在為政治人物自己鋪設舞台，並給對手製造難題。一有事故，政治人物的第一反應不是在怪罪別人，就是在為自己尋找卸責藉口，這皆非務實面對問題的態度。
三二○反核大遊行，就是赤裸裸的寫照。目睹日本輻射外洩危機，台灣確需重新思考此一議題，設法加強現有電廠的安全管理及危機因應，甚至思考核能的替代方案，這應是遊行的宗旨。但這場環保團體發起的活動中，卻是平日對此不聞不問的綠營政治人物走在隊伍前端，霸占了發言舞台，將遊行篡竊為自己的造勢大拜拜；環保人士則被擠到隊伍尾巴，貢寮鄉民更從頭到尾乏人聞問。政治操弄到這般地步，真是何其厚顏！
民進黨高唱反核廿年，它執政時下令核四停工，旋又宣布重新開工；如今在野，再回頭吶喊反核。如此反反覆覆，徒使核四興建經費暴漲、時程不斷拉長、變數增多，更平添未來的安全疑慮。更可議的是，它從未設法從專業層面去加強核安的監督與管理，卻始終霸著反核的舞台不放。這種機會主義作風，如何保證核能的安全無虞？
反核只是一例，台灣每天的政治議程上充滿著這類沒有真誠關懷的空包彈，當然也就無法命中什麼真實的目標。由於缺乏關懷與專業，所以得用疾言厲色來包裝，甚至藉助道具和煽情演出來爭取曝光。諸如議員強要將火把帶進議場，立委提議為日本降半旗，要求台電提出五十死士名單，拿他人父親骨灰罈上的刻字做文章，哪一項有助於國計民生？哪一項是真誠、負責、有料的問政？
台灣政治陷於空轉已十餘年，從先前多黨並起到如今兩黨爭衡，朝野的心力幾皆耗在選舉動員、爭奪權力，而不是在建設國家。大家看到的現象是：一，作秀式的質詢充斥，磨損了官員心力和專業見解，卻無法提供解決方案；二，對於實際存在的現象，屢屢用意識形態來扭曲其本質，導致問題完全無法聚焦；三，民粹式的問政風氣，徒讓逞口舌、走極端的政客崛起，不願隨波逐流的人反遭淘汰。台灣政治人物所製造的問題，遠比他們解決的問題多太多。
在太平歲月，表演式民主政治或許尚容揮霍，但一碰到危機，真相馬上現形。日本的三合一災難，要不是有那麼多自持的民眾在支撐社會秩序，要不是有那麼多捨命勇士在核電廠搶救，光靠東京那些高談闊論的政治人物，這個國家不知將淪於何地。這正是這場災難帶給台灣民眾最大的啟示：碰到災難，政治表演其實一點用處都沒有；要讓國家具有因應危機的能力，朝野必須改變虛問虛答的問政風格，民眾要用選票淘汰那些只會膨風的政客。
許多人正搶著要當總統、爭大位，他們可曾想過：在需要擔起千鈞重擔的一刻，自己究竟有幾分準備？
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky
The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2011
Yesterday Su Tseng-chang declared his candidacy in the Democratic Progressive Party presidential primary. On Sunday he revealed the first plank in his campaign platform. He joined the anti-nuclear march, and endorsed the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three, and a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four.
Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the DPP -- its inconsistency and constant waffling. It opposes nuclear power generation. But during its eight years in power, it first halted, then resumed construction on Nuclear Plant Four. The premier at the time was Su Tseng-chang. The vice premier at the time was Tsai Ing-wen. At the time, Su never gave a second thought to halting construction. Yet now he is calling for the total abolition of nuclear power generation. By the same token, during the DPP's eight years in power, it championed the Five Noes, it upheld the Republic of China, It put on a good show, swearing allegiance up and down. On the other hand, it championed the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." It blanked out Chen Shui-bian's reluctant admission that "if it can't be done, it can't be done." Yet now the "one nation on each side connection" has become an influential faction within the party, a tail that wags the dog.
A nuclear-free homeland is of course a desirable goal. But the DPP was in power for eight years. Why did it do nothing to establish a non-nuclear homeland? Nor is Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation inconceivable. Why did the DPP do nothing during its eight years in power, other than engage in self-deception and deception of others?
All three DPP presidential hopefuls have the temerity to prattle on about "the future." Annette Lu, who withdrew at the moment of truth, boasted of a "grand future for Taiwan and the world." Tsai Ing-wen proclaimed that "I have heard the voice of Taiwan: It calls to the new generation, and urges them to seize the future." Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, spoke of "facing the future, with our feet on the ground." But the DPP was in power for eight years. Did it not promise to seize the future back then? Yesterday's future has become today's past. The DPP's non-nuclear future never came to pass. Its dream of Taiwan independence lies in ruins. The stench of DPP corruption assaults our nostrils. Yet it is now demanding another chance, a chance to lead us toward some sort of "grand future." What sort of bizarre political experiment does it intend to inflict upon us this time around?
This is perhaps the DPP's most important trait. The DPP ignores the past. How did it manage to leave such a mess after eight years in office? The DPP ignores the present, Does it recognize the 1992 Consensus? Does it intend to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy?" The DPP recognizes only "the future." Two thousand years ago, the "Li Yun Datong" made far more spectacular promises than the DPP. We hardly need Su and Tsai to paint us a "grand future" pie in the sky.
Su and Tsai both talk of the future. But is there really any difference between the futures they promise? Each boasts that his or her future is better than the other's. But might not they announce a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket in the blink of an eye? Might not they call for "unity," in order to divvy up the power and the loot? In fact, if we look at the declarations they made during the party primary, it is hard to see any real difference between the futures they promised. Tsai boasts about ushering in a "new generation," but merely to underscore her relative youth. Su boasts of "transcendence," but merely to underscore his seniority, and how well he has kept up with the times. But if we examine the two candidates' rhetoric more closely, what do we find besides empty talk? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from past DPP rhetoric? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from each other? The two candidates are afraid to face up to the DPP's past. All they can do is reflexively criticize the status quo, Can they really lead the DPP and the ROC to any sort of future by this alone?
Tsai and Su made ringing proclamations about the future during the party primary. They even did so during their introductions. Tsai addressed young students. Su responded to questions from college girls. Both invoked Yang Shu-chung, sitting on the ground weeping during the Guangzhou Asian Games. Both dodged questions about cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen failed to utter a single word about Mainland policy. Su Tseng-chang argued against the introduction of "novelty and oddity" in cross-Strait matters." Both candidates denounced the Ma administration's three year term as devoid of merit. But neither drew any honest comparisons with the DPP's eight years in office. The two candidates rhapsodized about a Brave New World. But neither offered any clue as to how they would realize their Utopias.
Su and Tsai both need to answer for their eight years in office. They both need to offer comprehensive strategies for the nation's survival. They cannot merely fantasize about a rosy future. After all, the people have already experienced eight years of the future promised them by the DPP.
Annette Lu has pulled out of the race. She has ended her controversial political career. She had the good fortune to occupy a position in which she could have leveraged her political influence to maximum advantage. Alas, her personality quirks prevented her from fully exploiting her good fortune. She was Vice President of the Republic of China for eight years. As we look back at her years in office, we realize how absurd and terrifying politics can be, and we no longer know whether to laugh or to cry.
民進黨要有比畫大餅更高明的未來論述
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.23
蘇貞昌昨天宣布參加民進黨總統初選，周日他預先公布了他的第一個競選政見；他參加了反核遊行，為核一二三除役及停建核四背書。
民進黨的根本問題在此；出爾反爾，顛三倒四。反核，但主政八年，核四停建又復工；在蘇貞昌任行政院長及蔡英文任副院長期間，亦從未有停工之想，現在卻又主張全面廢核。同理，民進黨主政八年，一方面四不一沒有、捍衛中華民國，指天畫地，重誓連連；而另一方面正名制憲、入聯公投，又沒有一樣不是「做不到就是做不到」，但現在「一邊一國」竟又成了黨內舉足輕重的大派系。
非核家園當然令人嚮往，但曾經執政八年，民進黨為非核家園做了什麼事？獨立建國也不是不能想像，但民進黨執政八年又何以只是「自欺欺人」？
巧的是，民進黨三名有意參選總統者，居然異口同聲皆訴諸「未來」。臨陣退選的呂秀蓮標榜「世界台灣大未來」。蔡英文宣示「我聽見台灣的聲音：召喚新世代，把未來扛起來」，蘇貞昌則謂：「腳踏土地，迎向未來。」然而，民進黨在執政八年以前，豈不也是訴諸「未來」？但當時的「未來」，如今已成「過去」，民進黨非核未成，台獨破敗，貪汙腐臭，現在又要第二次將台灣帶向什麼樣的「大未來」？又要第二次給台灣什麼樣的政治實驗？
這或許是民進黨最重要的特徵。不談過去，執政八年怎麼搞成那樣悽慘？也不談現在，承不承認「九二共識」、「是否延續前朝兩岸政策」？卻只是奢言及空談「大未來」。若只談未來，二千年前的《禮運大同篇》比民進黨任何一人皆說得精彩，何勞蘇蔡二人競相為「大未來」畫大餅？
蘇蔡皆談未來，但二人的「未來」到底有何不同？會不會二人現在相互標榜自己的「未來」優於對方，轉眼又宣布「蔡蘇配」或「蘇蔡合」，為權力分贓而「團結」？其實，從蘇蔡二人的初選宣言，國人並看不出二人有何大不同；蔡標榜「新世代」，只是要襯托自己比蘇年輕；蘇強調「超越」，只是要凸顯自己資深又與時俱進。然而，探究二人的論述，除了空泛的詞藻，二人與過去的民進黨有何不同？現在的民進黨又與過去有何不同？二人之間又有什麼不同？二人皆不敢面對民進黨的過去，也皆只會八股地批判現狀，光憑這些就能將民進黨及台灣帶向怎樣的未來？
蔡蘇二人非但皆將初選宣言指向未來，連破題的引言也如出一轍；蔡帶出燈下學童，蘇則舉發問的大學女生。兩人皆提到楊淑君在廣州亞運坐地哭泣，而兩人亦皆對兩岸關係閃避不談；蔡英文無一字論及大陸政策，蘇貞昌則稱兩岸問題「不要標新立異」。兩人皆將馬政府的三年治理說得一無是處，卻未見忠實比較與民進黨八年執政的高下得失。兩人皆說得一口美麗的未來，但怎麼也聽不出來他們憑什麼實現那個烏托邦？
蘇蔡二人應將過去八年執政的結果交代清楚，並對現在的國家生存戰略提出總體的構想；不可只是買空賣空談未來，畢竟國人已經領教過民進黨執政八年那個「已成過去的未來」了！
呂秀蓮退選，為她爭議性的政治生涯添加一筆。她一直幸運地站在政治槓桿的最佳使力點，但她的人格素質與才器實在無法匹配她的幸運。從現今這個場景回顧中華民國曾有這麼一位在位八年的副總統，可知政治的荒謬可至恐怖的地步，令人啼笑皆非。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2011
Yesterday Su Tseng-chang declared his candidacy in the Democratic Progressive Party presidential primary. On Sunday he revealed the first plank in his campaign platform. He joined the anti-nuclear march, and endorsed the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three, and a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four.
Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the DPP -- its inconsistency and constant waffling. It opposes nuclear power generation. But during its eight years in power, it first halted, then resumed construction on Nuclear Plant Four. The premier at the time was Su Tseng-chang. The vice premier at the time was Tsai Ing-wen. At the time, Su never gave a second thought to halting construction. Yet now he is calling for the total abolition of nuclear power generation. By the same token, during the DPP's eight years in power, it championed the Five Noes, it upheld the Republic of China, It put on a good show, swearing allegiance up and down. On the other hand, it championed the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." It blanked out Chen Shui-bian's reluctant admission that "if it can't be done, it can't be done." Yet now the "one nation on each side connection" has become an influential faction within the party, a tail that wags the dog.
A nuclear-free homeland is of course a desirable goal. But the DPP was in power for eight years. Why did it do nothing to establish a non-nuclear homeland? Nor is Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation inconceivable. Why did the DPP do nothing during its eight years in power, other than engage in self-deception and deception of others?
All three DPP presidential hopefuls have the temerity to prattle on about "the future." Annette Lu, who withdrew at the moment of truth, boasted of a "grand future for Taiwan and the world." Tsai Ing-wen proclaimed that "I have heard the voice of Taiwan: It calls to the new generation, and urges them to seize the future." Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, spoke of "facing the future, with our feet on the ground." But the DPP was in power for eight years. Did it not promise to seize the future back then? Yesterday's future has become today's past. The DPP's non-nuclear future never came to pass. Its dream of Taiwan independence lies in ruins. The stench of DPP corruption assaults our nostrils. Yet it is now demanding another chance, a chance to lead us toward some sort of "grand future." What sort of bizarre political experiment does it intend to inflict upon us this time around?
This is perhaps the DPP's most important trait. The DPP ignores the past. How did it manage to leave such a mess after eight years in office? The DPP ignores the present, Does it recognize the 1992 Consensus? Does it intend to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy?" The DPP recognizes only "the future." Two thousand years ago, the "Li Yun Datong" made far more spectacular promises than the DPP. We hardly need Su and Tsai to paint us a "grand future" pie in the sky.
Su and Tsai both talk of the future. But is there really any difference between the futures they promise? Each boasts that his or her future is better than the other's. But might not they announce a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket in the blink of an eye? Might not they call for "unity," in order to divvy up the power and the loot? In fact, if we look at the declarations they made during the party primary, it is hard to see any real difference between the futures they promised. Tsai boasts about ushering in a "new generation," but merely to underscore her relative youth. Su boasts of "transcendence," but merely to underscore his seniority, and how well he has kept up with the times. But if we examine the two candidates' rhetoric more closely, what do we find besides empty talk? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from past DPP rhetoric? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from each other? The two candidates are afraid to face up to the DPP's past. All they can do is reflexively criticize the status quo, Can they really lead the DPP and the ROC to any sort of future by this alone?
Tsai and Su made ringing proclamations about the future during the party primary. They even did so during their introductions. Tsai addressed young students. Su responded to questions from college girls. Both invoked Yang Shu-chung, sitting on the ground weeping during the Guangzhou Asian Games. Both dodged questions about cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen failed to utter a single word about Mainland policy. Su Tseng-chang argued against the introduction of "novelty and oddity" in cross-Strait matters." Both candidates denounced the Ma administration's three year term as devoid of merit. But neither drew any honest comparisons with the DPP's eight years in office. The two candidates rhapsodized about a Brave New World. But neither offered any clue as to how they would realize their Utopias.
Su and Tsai both need to answer for their eight years in office. They both need to offer comprehensive strategies for the nation's survival. They cannot merely fantasize about a rosy future. After all, the people have already experienced eight years of the future promised them by the DPP.
Annette Lu has pulled out of the race. She has ended her controversial political career. She had the good fortune to occupy a position in which she could have leveraged her political influence to maximum advantage. Alas, her personality quirks prevented her from fully exploiting her good fortune. She was Vice President of the Republic of China for eight years. As we look back at her years in office, we realize how absurd and terrifying politics can be, and we no longer know whether to laugh or to cry.
民進黨要有比畫大餅更高明的未來論述
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.23
蘇貞昌昨天宣布參加民進黨總統初選，周日他預先公布了他的第一個競選政見；他參加了反核遊行，為核一二三除役及停建核四背書。
民進黨的根本問題在此；出爾反爾，顛三倒四。反核，但主政八年，核四停建又復工；在蘇貞昌任行政院長及蔡英文任副院長期間，亦從未有停工之想，現在卻又主張全面廢核。同理，民進黨主政八年，一方面四不一沒有、捍衛中華民國，指天畫地，重誓連連；而另一方面正名制憲、入聯公投，又沒有一樣不是「做不到就是做不到」，但現在「一邊一國」竟又成了黨內舉足輕重的大派系。
非核家園當然令人嚮往，但曾經執政八年，民進黨為非核家園做了什麼事？獨立建國也不是不能想像，但民進黨執政八年又何以只是「自欺欺人」？
巧的是，民進黨三名有意參選總統者，居然異口同聲皆訴諸「未來」。臨陣退選的呂秀蓮標榜「世界台灣大未來」。蔡英文宣示「我聽見台灣的聲音：召喚新世代，把未來扛起來」，蘇貞昌則謂：「腳踏土地，迎向未來。」然而，民進黨在執政八年以前，豈不也是訴諸「未來」？但當時的「未來」，如今已成「過去」，民進黨非核未成，台獨破敗，貪汙腐臭，現在又要第二次將台灣帶向什麼樣的「大未來」？又要第二次給台灣什麼樣的政治實驗？
這或許是民進黨最重要的特徵。不談過去，執政八年怎麼搞成那樣悽慘？也不談現在，承不承認「九二共識」、「是否延續前朝兩岸政策」？卻只是奢言及空談「大未來」。若只談未來，二千年前的《禮運大同篇》比民進黨任何一人皆說得精彩，何勞蘇蔡二人競相為「大未來」畫大餅？
蘇蔡皆談未來，但二人的「未來」到底有何不同？會不會二人現在相互標榜自己的「未來」優於對方，轉眼又宣布「蔡蘇配」或「蘇蔡合」，為權力分贓而「團結」？其實，從蘇蔡二人的初選宣言，國人並看不出二人有何大不同；蔡標榜「新世代」，只是要襯托自己比蘇年輕；蘇強調「超越」，只是要凸顯自己資深又與時俱進。然而，探究二人的論述，除了空泛的詞藻，二人與過去的民進黨有何不同？現在的民進黨又與過去有何不同？二人之間又有什麼不同？二人皆不敢面對民進黨的過去，也皆只會八股地批判現狀，光憑這些就能將民進黨及台灣帶向怎樣的未來？
蔡蘇二人非但皆將初選宣言指向未來，連破題的引言也如出一轍；蔡帶出燈下學童，蘇則舉發問的大學女生。兩人皆提到楊淑君在廣州亞運坐地哭泣，而兩人亦皆對兩岸關係閃避不談；蔡英文無一字論及大陸政策，蘇貞昌則稱兩岸問題「不要標新立異」。兩人皆將馬政府的三年治理說得一無是處，卻未見忠實比較與民進黨八年執政的高下得失。兩人皆說得一口美麗的未來，但怎麼也聽不出來他們憑什麼實現那個烏托邦？
蘇蔡二人應將過去八年執政的結果交代清楚，並對現在的國家生存戰略提出總體的構想；不可只是買空賣空談未來，畢竟國人已經領教過民進黨執政八年那個「已成過去的未來」了！
呂秀蓮退選，為她爭議性的政治生涯添加一筆。她一直幸運地站在政治槓桿的最佳使力點，但她的人格素質與才器實在無法匹配她的幸運。從現今這個場景回顧中華民國曾有這麼一位在位八年的副總統，可知政治的荒謬可至恐怖的地步，令人啼笑皆非。
Monday, March 21, 2011
Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?
Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 22, 2011
The earthquake in Japan disrupted Tsai Ing-wen's campaign schedule. On the morning of March 11, she ceremoniously declared her candidacy. By that afternoon however, her announcement was totally drowned out by news of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Tsai Ing-wen found herself buried beneath a landslide of news reports on the disaster of the century. Five days later, Tsai Ing-wen finally dug herself out from under the rubble. Who knew the very first election topic she would toss out, would be the funerary urn of President Ma's father Ma Ho-ling, and the headstone of her own father Tsai Chieh-sheng.
Tsai Ing-wen told reporters that her father's tombstone contained the inscription "Pingtung Feng Gang," whereas the funerary urn of President Ma's father contained the inscription, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification." Tsai Ing-wen said she was simply underscoring the difference between the headstone and funerary urn for the two fathers, and how these differences symbolized their differing allegiances.
Tsai Ing-wen has used this issue as the opening volley in her run for the presidency. We are both surprised and disappointed. How is this such demagoguery any different from previous DPP attacks on Ma Ying-jeou as a "poodle," as [afflicted with] "Hong Kong foot" (athlete's foot), and as "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl)? During the party primaries Tsai Ing-wen urged the nation to "Cease inciting confrontation and hatred," and to "Extricate Taiwan from the politics of mob passions, and lead it toward the politics of rational persuasion." Is this what Tsai Ing-wen considers rational persuasion?
Tsai Ing-wen has compared Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn to Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. Does this qualify as "the politics of rational persuasion?" Are we to understand that Tsai Ing-wen's ringing declaration during the party primaries, has not held up for even five days? Tsai Ing-wen insisted that she was merely underscoring a "difference in allegiances." She insisted that she was merely pointing out the fact that Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone identified him as a native of Feng Gang, not Zhangzhou. In fact of course, Tsai Ing-wen was conducting another form of "rectification of names." In fact she was implying that the inscription on Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification" prove that President Ma is descended from someone who "pandered to [Mainland] China, and sold out Taiwan."
This was the opening volley in Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign. The gunpowder she used was "rectification of names." The bullet she used was "ancestry." Tsai Ing-wen put her own spin on the Two Ying's confrontation. She not only compared Tsai Ing-wen with Ma Ying-jeou, she even compared Tsai Chieh-sheng with Ma Ho-ling.
The fact is, Ma Ho-ling's last wish, calling for the "defusing of Taiwan independence, and the promotion of gradual reunification," was merely his personal wish. President Ma has proposed "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." That is national policy. By contrast, the inscription on Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone could read Zhangzhou. It could read Feng Gang. Either way, it too was merely his personal wish. It could have been inscribed with Yingchuan, Jinjiang, Longxi, or Quanzhou. None of this proves that anyone "did not love Taiwan." None of this supports Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy White Paper. In short, this is anything but the "politics of rational persuasion."
If Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen confront each other during the presidential election, they must compare their national policy proposals, and not the personal wishes expressed by Ma Ho-ling on his funerary urn, or Tsai Chieh-sheng on his headstone.
Tsai Ing-wen trumpets a "new generation." She aspires to the establishment of a "new political culture." But instead, she chose to demagogue funerary urns and headstones. If anything, her gesture is even more contemptible than taunting Ma Ying-jeou by calling him a "poodle," accusing him of "being afflicted with Hong Kong feet" (athletes foot), or referring to him as a "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl). That's because calling Ma Ying-jeou a "poodle" is directed only at Ma Ying-jeou as an individual. Demagoguing funerary urns, on the other hand, drags his ancestors into the picture.
Chen Shui-bian engaged in rampant corruption, and pocketed astronomical amounts of wealth. Yet Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" is now an important faction within the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to issue a single word in condemnation of Chen Shui-bian and Chen Chih-chung's criminal complicity. Does she want President Ma to schlep his late father's funerary urn around with him, while she lugs her late father's headstone as they run for president? Does this qualify as the "politics of rational persuasion?"
It is true that allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and cross-Strait relations, are likely to be the focus during any upcoming presidential election debates. But the debate should not be about Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. The debate should be over concrete policy measures that have already been implemented. These include questions such as whether Tsai Ing-wen recognizes the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, ECFA, whether the OECD will continue functioning, whether fruit and milkfish will be sold, whether she agrees with "No [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," whether she will continue direct flights, and whether she will continue the policies of the preceding administration. These questions have nothing to do with Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. They are however the questions that ought to be asked during any presidential election policy debate.
Over the past three years, President Ma's policy measures have been explicitly informed by his allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and his cross-Strait policy premises. Tsai Ing-wen is the one who has exceeded her brief. She is the one whose policy proposals are diametrically opposed to allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution and the current administration's cross-Strait policy. Answers to these issues will not be found in Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. That is because Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng are not running for president.
Tsai Ing-wen's opening volley was both a surprise and a disappointment. Her take on the matter was so off base, it underscored the vacuum at the heart of her political rhetoric. Her rhetoric is tough on the outside, but hollow on the inside. Tsai Ing-wen said "We must travel a different road." Apparently the road she wants us to travel is strewn with funerary urns and headstones. It is different indeed.
是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生競選總統嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.22
日本大地震，震亂了蔡英文的參選步調；她在三月十一日早上大陣仗宣布參選的新聞，當天下午就被日本的地震海嘯完全吞沒。
五天後，蔡英文勉力從世紀災變的新聞土石流中鑽出來，她丟出的第一個令人注意的選舉話題，竟然是馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈，及她自己父親蔡潔生的墓碑。
蔡英文在接受媒體專訪時說，她父親蔡潔生的墓碑上刻著「屏東楓港」，馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈上卻刻著「化獨漸統」。蔡英文說，她只是簡單陳述兩人父親墓碑及骨灰罈的差異，以及此差異所象徵的認同差異。
蔡英文以這個話題作為她競選總統的第一槍，著實令人十分意外又失望；這與民進黨過去操弄的「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」與「馬統」有何不同？這難道就是蔡英文在初選宣言所說的「不要再召喚對立的仇恨」，「把台灣從過去激情嘶吼的政治，帶往一個理性說服的政治」？
拿馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑相提並論，算不算是「一個理性說服的政治」？蔡英文的初選宣言，難道禁不起五天的考驗？蔡英文說，這是要陳述一種「認同差異」，其意是指蔡潔生的墓碑上不刻祖籍漳州，而刻楓港，其實是一種「正名運動」；至於馬鶴凌骨灰上刻的「化獨漸統」，可以證明馬總統「傾中賣台」的血統。
這就是蔡英文參選總統的第一槍，火藥是「正名」，彈頭是「血統論」。蔡英文擺出的態勢儼然是：雙英交鋒，不但是蔡英文與馬英九比，甚至連蔡潔生也要與馬鶴凌比。
其實，馬鶴凌的遺願「化獨漸統」，只是表達了「個人思維」；馬總統所主張的「不統／不獨／不武」，才是「國家政策」。相對而言，蔡潔生的墓碑不論是刻著漳州或楓港，這也只是「個人思維」，既不能證明其他刻著穎川、晉江、隴西、泉州者就是「不愛台灣」，更不能作為蔡英文兩岸政策白皮書的任何支撐。總之，這完全不是「一個理性說服的政治」。
總統大選如果馬蔡對壘，要比的是馬英九與蔡英文的「國家政策」，而不是馬鶴凌的骨灰罈或蔡潔生的墓碑上刻了什麼「個人思維」。
蔡英文標榜「新世代」，宣稱要建立「新的政治文化」。但這種把骨灰罈與墓碑丟入戰火的動作，其實比「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」或「馬統」更低劣；因為，「貴賓狗」只是針對馬英九個人，骨灰罈卻是把人家祖宗也拖下水。
陳水扁巨貪惡腐，但陳致中的「一邊一國連線」儼然已是民進黨內舉足輕重的派系；蔡英文不對陳水扁與陳致中父子的共犯關係發一語，卻難道想叫馬總統捧著乃父的骨灰罈，與扛著亡父墓碑的自己競選總統？這又豈是「一個理性說服的政治」？
沒有錯，這次總統大選，國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係皆可能是辯論焦點；但辯論的支撐並不在馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑，而是須對已經上路運行的具體政策進行論證。蔡英文承不承認「九二共識，一中各表」，ＥＣＦＡ、經合會繼不繼續？水果虱目魚還賣不賣？「不統／不獨／不武」是否同意？還要不要直航？「前朝兩岸政策」是否應當延續？這些皆與馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑無關，卻是總統大選應當辯論的國家政策。
近三年來，馬總統的國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策皆已明明白白地實際運作；蔡英文欲超越馬英九，即應在國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策上提出針鋒相對的主張。這些，皆不可能從馬鶴凌及蔡潔生的墓碑上找到答案，因為不是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生在競選總統。
蔡英文的第一槍令人意外又失望；走這種偏鋒，只是徒顯其空洞無物、色厲內荏。蔡英文說，「我們要走一條不一樣的路」，在這條路的入口處竟就擺著骨灰罈、豎著墓碑，果然很不一樣。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 22, 2011
The earthquake in Japan disrupted Tsai Ing-wen's campaign schedule. On the morning of March 11, she ceremoniously declared her candidacy. By that afternoon however, her announcement was totally drowned out by news of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Tsai Ing-wen found herself buried beneath a landslide of news reports on the disaster of the century. Five days later, Tsai Ing-wen finally dug herself out from under the rubble. Who knew the very first election topic she would toss out, would be the funerary urn of President Ma's father Ma Ho-ling, and the headstone of her own father Tsai Chieh-sheng.
Tsai Ing-wen told reporters that her father's tombstone contained the inscription "Pingtung Feng Gang," whereas the funerary urn of President Ma's father contained the inscription, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification." Tsai Ing-wen said she was simply underscoring the difference between the headstone and funerary urn for the two fathers, and how these differences symbolized their differing allegiances.
Tsai Ing-wen has used this issue as the opening volley in her run for the presidency. We are both surprised and disappointed. How is this such demagoguery any different from previous DPP attacks on Ma Ying-jeou as a "poodle," as [afflicted with] "Hong Kong foot" (athlete's foot), and as "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl)? During the party primaries Tsai Ing-wen urged the nation to "Cease inciting confrontation and hatred," and to "Extricate Taiwan from the politics of mob passions, and lead it toward the politics of rational persuasion." Is this what Tsai Ing-wen considers rational persuasion?
Tsai Ing-wen has compared Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn to Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. Does this qualify as "the politics of rational persuasion?" Are we to understand that Tsai Ing-wen's ringing declaration during the party primaries, has not held up for even five days? Tsai Ing-wen insisted that she was merely underscoring a "difference in allegiances." She insisted that she was merely pointing out the fact that Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone identified him as a native of Feng Gang, not Zhangzhou. In fact of course, Tsai Ing-wen was conducting another form of "rectification of names." In fact she was implying that the inscription on Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification" prove that President Ma is descended from someone who "pandered to [Mainland] China, and sold out Taiwan."
This was the opening volley in Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign. The gunpowder she used was "rectification of names." The bullet she used was "ancestry." Tsai Ing-wen put her own spin on the Two Ying's confrontation. She not only compared Tsai Ing-wen with Ma Ying-jeou, she even compared Tsai Chieh-sheng with Ma Ho-ling.
The fact is, Ma Ho-ling's last wish, calling for the "defusing of Taiwan independence, and the promotion of gradual reunification," was merely his personal wish. President Ma has proposed "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." That is national policy. By contrast, the inscription on Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone could read Zhangzhou. It could read Feng Gang. Either way, it too was merely his personal wish. It could have been inscribed with Yingchuan, Jinjiang, Longxi, or Quanzhou. None of this proves that anyone "did not love Taiwan." None of this supports Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy White Paper. In short, this is anything but the "politics of rational persuasion."
If Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen confront each other during the presidential election, they must compare their national policy proposals, and not the personal wishes expressed by Ma Ho-ling on his funerary urn, or Tsai Chieh-sheng on his headstone.
Tsai Ing-wen trumpets a "new generation." She aspires to the establishment of a "new political culture." But instead, she chose to demagogue funerary urns and headstones. If anything, her gesture is even more contemptible than taunting Ma Ying-jeou by calling him a "poodle," accusing him of "being afflicted with Hong Kong feet" (athletes foot), or referring to him as a "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl). That's because calling Ma Ying-jeou a "poodle" is directed only at Ma Ying-jeou as an individual. Demagoguing funerary urns, on the other hand, drags his ancestors into the picture.
Chen Shui-bian engaged in rampant corruption, and pocketed astronomical amounts of wealth. Yet Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" is now an important faction within the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to issue a single word in condemnation of Chen Shui-bian and Chen Chih-chung's criminal complicity. Does she want President Ma to schlep his late father's funerary urn around with him, while she lugs her late father's headstone as they run for president? Does this qualify as the "politics of rational persuasion?"
It is true that allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and cross-Strait relations, are likely to be the focus during any upcoming presidential election debates. But the debate should not be about Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. The debate should be over concrete policy measures that have already been implemented. These include questions such as whether Tsai Ing-wen recognizes the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, ECFA, whether the OECD will continue functioning, whether fruit and milkfish will be sold, whether she agrees with "No [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," whether she will continue direct flights, and whether she will continue the policies of the preceding administration. These questions have nothing to do with Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. They are however the questions that ought to be asked during any presidential election policy debate.
Over the past three years, President Ma's policy measures have been explicitly informed by his allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and his cross-Strait policy premises. Tsai Ing-wen is the one who has exceeded her brief. She is the one whose policy proposals are diametrically opposed to allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution and the current administration's cross-Strait policy. Answers to these issues will not be found in Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. That is because Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng are not running for president.
Tsai Ing-wen's opening volley was both a surprise and a disappointment. Her take on the matter was so off base, it underscored the vacuum at the heart of her political rhetoric. Her rhetoric is tough on the outside, but hollow on the inside. Tsai Ing-wen said "We must travel a different road." Apparently the road she wants us to travel is strewn with funerary urns and headstones. It is different indeed.
是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生競選總統嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.22
日本大地震，震亂了蔡英文的參選步調；她在三月十一日早上大陣仗宣布參選的新聞，當天下午就被日本的地震海嘯完全吞沒。
五天後，蔡英文勉力從世紀災變的新聞土石流中鑽出來，她丟出的第一個令人注意的選舉話題，竟然是馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈，及她自己父親蔡潔生的墓碑。
蔡英文在接受媒體專訪時說，她父親蔡潔生的墓碑上刻著「屏東楓港」，馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈上卻刻著「化獨漸統」。蔡英文說，她只是簡單陳述兩人父親墓碑及骨灰罈的差異，以及此差異所象徵的認同差異。
蔡英文以這個話題作為她競選總統的第一槍，著實令人十分意外又失望；這與民進黨過去操弄的「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」與「馬統」有何不同？這難道就是蔡英文在初選宣言所說的「不要再召喚對立的仇恨」，「把台灣從過去激情嘶吼的政治，帶往一個理性說服的政治」？
拿馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑相提並論，算不算是「一個理性說服的政治」？蔡英文的初選宣言，難道禁不起五天的考驗？蔡英文說，這是要陳述一種「認同差異」，其意是指蔡潔生的墓碑上不刻祖籍漳州，而刻楓港，其實是一種「正名運動」；至於馬鶴凌骨灰上刻的「化獨漸統」，可以證明馬總統「傾中賣台」的血統。
這就是蔡英文參選總統的第一槍，火藥是「正名」，彈頭是「血統論」。蔡英文擺出的態勢儼然是：雙英交鋒，不但是蔡英文與馬英九比，甚至連蔡潔生也要與馬鶴凌比。
其實，馬鶴凌的遺願「化獨漸統」，只是表達了「個人思維」；馬總統所主張的「不統／不獨／不武」，才是「國家政策」。相對而言，蔡潔生的墓碑不論是刻著漳州或楓港，這也只是「個人思維」，既不能證明其他刻著穎川、晉江、隴西、泉州者就是「不愛台灣」，更不能作為蔡英文兩岸政策白皮書的任何支撐。總之，這完全不是「一個理性說服的政治」。
總統大選如果馬蔡對壘，要比的是馬英九與蔡英文的「國家政策」，而不是馬鶴凌的骨灰罈或蔡潔生的墓碑上刻了什麼「個人思維」。
蔡英文標榜「新世代」，宣稱要建立「新的政治文化」。但這種把骨灰罈與墓碑丟入戰火的動作，其實比「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」或「馬統」更低劣；因為，「貴賓狗」只是針對馬英九個人，骨灰罈卻是把人家祖宗也拖下水。
陳水扁巨貪惡腐，但陳致中的「一邊一國連線」儼然已是民進黨內舉足輕重的派系；蔡英文不對陳水扁與陳致中父子的共犯關係發一語，卻難道想叫馬總統捧著乃父的骨灰罈，與扛著亡父墓碑的自己競選總統？這又豈是「一個理性說服的政治」？
沒有錯，這次總統大選，國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係皆可能是辯論焦點；但辯論的支撐並不在馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑，而是須對已經上路運行的具體政策進行論證。蔡英文承不承認「九二共識，一中各表」，ＥＣＦＡ、經合會繼不繼續？水果虱目魚還賣不賣？「不統／不獨／不武」是否同意？還要不要直航？「前朝兩岸政策」是否應當延續？這些皆與馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑無關，卻是總統大選應當辯論的國家政策。
近三年來，馬總統的國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策皆已明明白白地實際運作；蔡英文欲超越馬英九，即應在國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策上提出針鋒相對的主張。這些，皆不可能從馬鶴凌及蔡潔生的墓碑上找到答案，因為不是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生在競選總統。
蔡英文的第一槍令人意外又失望；走這種偏鋒，只是徒顯其空洞無物、色厲內荏。蔡英文說，「我們要走一條不一樣的路」，在這條路的入口處竟就擺著骨灰罈、豎著墓碑，果然很不一樣。
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Reading the Tsai/Su Script
Reading the Tsai/Su Script
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2011
In March last year, Su Tseng-chang announced his candidacy for Mayor of Taipei. This forced Tsai Ing-wen, in accordance with her own Two Cities script, to run for Mayor of Xinbei City. Today Tsai Ing-wen has seized the inititative and announced her candidacy for president in 2012. This has forced Su Tseng-chang to play by her script.
Rumor has it Tsai Ing-wen's script called for "the winner to run for president, and the loser to run for the legislature." Tsai and Su would compete in the primaries. Whoever lost would be put at the top of the party roster for legislator without portfolio. He or she would then head up the party's bid for an absolute majority in the legislature. When the news broke, Tsai Ing-wen admitted that some aspects of this proposal had been floated before, but that they were absolutely not Tsai's idea. The suggestion that it was however, is not far-fetched.
The DPP leadership abruptly said it "had no particular objection" to consolidating the presidential and legislative elections, confirming that such a script existed. Consider the matter from Tsai Ing-wen's perspective. The winner of the party primaries runs for president. The loser runs for the legislature. This allows her to avoid being made one half of either a Tsai/Su ticket or a Su/Tsai ticket. If Tsai wins the primaries, she can refuse to be part of a Tsai/Su ticket. On the other hand, If Su wins, Tsai can refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. Furthermore, if the presidential and legislative elections are merged, a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket would force the two to run together, on the same ticket. Such a coordinated attack would result in a multiplier effect. But suppose the legislative elections are held first, and the presidential election is held later? The result of coopetition between Tsai and Su or Su and Tsai could be unpredictable. The Tsai Ing-wen camp probably believes it can win the primary. That is why it cooked up this particular script; In other words, it wanted to force Su Tseng-chang to run for the legislature. This would block the straightjacket of a Tsai/Su ticket. If the presidential election and legislative elections are merged, Su Tseng-chang will be unable to make trouble. He will be forced to throw his support behind Tsai Ing-wen. Furthermore, suppose the presidential election and legislative elections are held separately? Suppose , the results of the legislative elections are not as favorable as the DPP hoped for? This could undermine the momentum of the DPP's presidential campaign. But if the presidential election and the legislative elections are held on the same day, and the results announced on the same day, then this will not be a concern. Therefore "the winner runs for president, and the loser runs for the legislature" and merging the presidential election with the legislative elections has now become the DPP's strategy..
What Su Tseng-chang finds hardest to swallow, is reports that DPP leaders believe President Ma Ying-jeou may be reelected. Such reports say that if Tsai Ing-wen feels confident of victory during the current presidential election, the DPP will nominate her. Conversely, if Tsai Ing-wen does not feel confident, the party will nominate Su Tseng-chang. This would avoid undermining Tsai Ing-wen's momentum, and maximize her chances of winning in the 2016 election. Confronted by such sentiments within the party, Su Tseng-chang must be deeply disgruntled.
Tsai and Su differ primarily in their age. Tsai can run in 2012. She can also run in 2016. But 2012 will probably be Su Tseng-chang's last hurrah. Tsai Ing-wen is competing with Su Tseng-chang in the presidential primaries. Not only that, if she loses the party primaries, she will refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. This has left Su Tseng-chang no room to maneuver. The party sees Tsai Ing-wen as the frontrunner. It has tilted in her direction. Tsai Ing-wen is also far more popular than Su Tseng-chang. Now consider the matter from Su Tseng-chang's perspective, Tsai Ing-wen is a Johnny Come Lately to the DPP. She has offered little besides empty rhetoric, She has failed to set forth any "outside the box" political concepts or policy proposals. Yet based on this, she is calling for a "new generation" to elbow aside the "old generation." How must Su Tseng-chang feel about that?
Tsai Ing-wen said she is not political enough. She does not know how to make political calculations. But she seized the initiative, and declared her candidacy. She promoted the idea that "the winner should run for president, the loser should run for the legislature." She also promoted the idea that the DPP "has no particular objection to merging the presidential and legislative elections." She precisely calculated the impact of Tsai/Su coopetition. She didn't miss a trick. Tsai Ing-wen clearly does know how to make political calculations. Su Tseng-chang is hoping for a Su/Tsai ticket, or failing that, a Tsai/Su ticket. But Tsai has only one goal, to run for president. She does not want a Su/Tsai ticket. She wants to rid herself of a Tsai/Su ticket. She apparently believes that Tsai can do without Su, but Su cannot do without Tsai.
For Tsai Ing-wen, such political calculations have all been calmly and rationally mapped out. Leave aside Su Tseng-chang's personal interests and preferences. Is not "the winner runs for president, the loser runs for the legislature" the fairest and most synergetic strategy? Moreover, if Tsai wants to run for president, she must rid herself of Su Tseng-chang or Annette Lu. She must also rid herself of the fetters attached to her by the Old Guard within the Green Camp.
We said that Tsai Ing-wen's "three in one goal" includes generational power transfer, waging a presidential campaign, and transforming the party's political platform. Among these, the key is generational change. Su Tseng-chang and Annette Lu were her targets during the party primaries. Furthermore, suppose she is elected and takes office. Suppose she fails to promote Green Camp generational change, and transform the party's political platform. She will find herself walking down the same path as Chen Shui-bian. She will "win the election, but lose her ideals."
蘇貞昌如何看蔡英文的劇本
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.21
蘇貞昌去年三月在保安宮宣布參選台北市長，逼蔡英文照著他「雙城奇謀」的劇本參選新北市長；如今，蔡英文率先宣布參選二○一二總統，又回過頭來迫蘇貞昌照著她的劇本演出。
傳說蔡英文方面的劇本是「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」，亦即：蔡蘇二人在初選落敗者，擔任不分區立委第一名，率黨籍立委候選人拚國會過半。消息傳出後，蔡英文方面說有人曾提此議，卻非蔡英文自己的主張。不過，這不像是空穴來風。
民進黨中央突然表態「不會特別反對」總統、立委合併選舉，可以證實這套劇本確實存在。站在蔡英文方面設想，初選贏的選總統，輸的拚國會，即可跳出「蔡蘇配／蘇蔡配」的框架。初選蔡若贏，即可不要「蔡蘇配」；蘇若贏，蔡亦可拒絕「蘇蔡配」。再者，總統、立委若合併選舉，蔡蘇或蘇蔡二人被合併選舉的大局綁住，應可產生分進合擊的乘數效應；但若先選立委、後選總統，蔡蘇或蘇蔡的競合關係即可能出現難測的變數。何況，蔡英文方面應是估計蔡有可能贏得初選而構想出這一套劇本；也就是說，屆時可把蘇貞昌推到不分區立委，堵住「蔡蘇配」的「膏膏纏」；又以總統立委合併選舉，不讓蘇貞昌有作亂的空間，而不得不為蔡英文抬轎。再者，總統、立委分開選舉，民進黨若選得不如預期，可能影響總統大選的聲勢；總統立委同日選舉，同日揭曉，即不會有此顧慮。所以，「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」與「總統立委合併選舉」，是兼籌並顧的算計。
最令蘇貞昌吃不消的是，又有消息指出，民進黨中有人估計馬英九總統仍有連任可能，則如果蔡英文此屆總統選舉有勝選的把握，民進黨就推舉她參選；反之，倘若蔡英文無勝選把握，就推舉蘇貞昌，以避免傷害蔡英文，為她保全二○一六的機會。蘇貞昌面對這樣的黨內氛圍，心中必是五味雜陳。
蔡蘇二人的對比關鍵在年齡。蔡可以選二○一二，也可以選二○一六；但二○一二應是蘇的人生最後一戰。蔡英文非但要與蘇貞昌爭總統初選，如今甚至表明若初選落敗也拒絕「蘇蔡配」，這不啻已使蘇貞昌失去轉圜空間。如今，黨內皆將蔡英文視為「西瓜的大邊」，且蔡在民間的聲勢亦有壓倒蘇貞昌的跡象；但是，看在蘇貞昌眼裡，蔡英文畢竟是民進黨的一個「遲到的黨員」，且她除了空泛的詞藻堆砌外，也未能提出什麼「超越」的主張或政見，憑這樣就要召喚「新世代」，推開「舊世代」，此對蘇貞昌而言真是情何以堪？
蔡英文說，她不夠政治，不會算計；但她先聲奪人、宣布參選，並傳出「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」的劇本，再放出「不特別反對總統立委併選」的聲音，不啻是將「蔡蘇競合」的政治算計已算到毫釐分明、滴水不漏的地步。蔡英文算得很清楚：蘇貞昌希望「蘇蔡配」，至少要「蔡蘇配」；但她只有參選總統一個目標，不要「蘇蔡配」，也要甩掉「蔡蘇配」。她顯然認為，蔡可以不要蘇，蘇不能沒有蔡。
這一切的政治算計，對蔡英文來說，皆是理性而冷靜的擘劃。試問：撇開蘇貞昌個人的利害愛憎而言，「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」，難道不是最公平且最具綜效的大戰略？何況，蔡英文若想當選總統，不僅要甩掉蘇貞昌或呂秀蓮，也須在執政後甩掉其他綠營老舊勢力的羈絆。
我們曾說，蔡英文面對的「三合一工程」是：世代交替、總統大選、路線轉型。其中，世代交替更是關鍵工程，蘇貞昌、呂秀蓮是她初選中的箭靶；進一步說，她若有朝一日當選而執政，倘不能進一步對綠營「世代交替」，以達成「路線轉型」，她也必將步上陳水扁「贏了選舉，輸了路線」的後塵。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2011
In March last year, Su Tseng-chang announced his candidacy for Mayor of Taipei. This forced Tsai Ing-wen, in accordance with her own Two Cities script, to run for Mayor of Xinbei City. Today Tsai Ing-wen has seized the inititative and announced her candidacy for president in 2012. This has forced Su Tseng-chang to play by her script.
Rumor has it Tsai Ing-wen's script called for "the winner to run for president, and the loser to run for the legislature." Tsai and Su would compete in the primaries. Whoever lost would be put at the top of the party roster for legislator without portfolio. He or she would then head up the party's bid for an absolute majority in the legislature. When the news broke, Tsai Ing-wen admitted that some aspects of this proposal had been floated before, but that they were absolutely not Tsai's idea. The suggestion that it was however, is not far-fetched.
The DPP leadership abruptly said it "had no particular objection" to consolidating the presidential and legislative elections, confirming that such a script existed. Consider the matter from Tsai Ing-wen's perspective. The winner of the party primaries runs for president. The loser runs for the legislature. This allows her to avoid being made one half of either a Tsai/Su ticket or a Su/Tsai ticket. If Tsai wins the primaries, she can refuse to be part of a Tsai/Su ticket. On the other hand, If Su wins, Tsai can refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. Furthermore, if the presidential and legislative elections are merged, a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket would force the two to run together, on the same ticket. Such a coordinated attack would result in a multiplier effect. But suppose the legislative elections are held first, and the presidential election is held later? The result of coopetition between Tsai and Su or Su and Tsai could be unpredictable. The Tsai Ing-wen camp probably believes it can win the primary. That is why it cooked up this particular script; In other words, it wanted to force Su Tseng-chang to run for the legislature. This would block the straightjacket of a Tsai/Su ticket. If the presidential election and legislative elections are merged, Su Tseng-chang will be unable to make trouble. He will be forced to throw his support behind Tsai Ing-wen. Furthermore, suppose the presidential election and legislative elections are held separately? Suppose , the results of the legislative elections are not as favorable as the DPP hoped for? This could undermine the momentum of the DPP's presidential campaign. But if the presidential election and the legislative elections are held on the same day, and the results announced on the same day, then this will not be a concern. Therefore "the winner runs for president, and the loser runs for the legislature" and merging the presidential election with the legislative elections has now become the DPP's strategy..
What Su Tseng-chang finds hardest to swallow, is reports that DPP leaders believe President Ma Ying-jeou may be reelected. Such reports say that if Tsai Ing-wen feels confident of victory during the current presidential election, the DPP will nominate her. Conversely, if Tsai Ing-wen does not feel confident, the party will nominate Su Tseng-chang. This would avoid undermining Tsai Ing-wen's momentum, and maximize her chances of winning in the 2016 election. Confronted by such sentiments within the party, Su Tseng-chang must be deeply disgruntled.
Tsai and Su differ primarily in their age. Tsai can run in 2012. She can also run in 2016. But 2012 will probably be Su Tseng-chang's last hurrah. Tsai Ing-wen is competing with Su Tseng-chang in the presidential primaries. Not only that, if she loses the party primaries, she will refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. This has left Su Tseng-chang no room to maneuver. The party sees Tsai Ing-wen as the frontrunner. It has tilted in her direction. Tsai Ing-wen is also far more popular than Su Tseng-chang. Now consider the matter from Su Tseng-chang's perspective, Tsai Ing-wen is a Johnny Come Lately to the DPP. She has offered little besides empty rhetoric, She has failed to set forth any "outside the box" political concepts or policy proposals. Yet based on this, she is calling for a "new generation" to elbow aside the "old generation." How must Su Tseng-chang feel about that?
Tsai Ing-wen said she is not political enough. She does not know how to make political calculations. But she seized the initiative, and declared her candidacy. She promoted the idea that "the winner should run for president, the loser should run for the legislature." She also promoted the idea that the DPP "has no particular objection to merging the presidential and legislative elections." She precisely calculated the impact of Tsai/Su coopetition. She didn't miss a trick. Tsai Ing-wen clearly does know how to make political calculations. Su Tseng-chang is hoping for a Su/Tsai ticket, or failing that, a Tsai/Su ticket. But Tsai has only one goal, to run for president. She does not want a Su/Tsai ticket. She wants to rid herself of a Tsai/Su ticket. She apparently believes that Tsai can do without Su, but Su cannot do without Tsai.
For Tsai Ing-wen, such political calculations have all been calmly and rationally mapped out. Leave aside Su Tseng-chang's personal interests and preferences. Is not "the winner runs for president, the loser runs for the legislature" the fairest and most synergetic strategy? Moreover, if Tsai wants to run for president, she must rid herself of Su Tseng-chang or Annette Lu. She must also rid herself of the fetters attached to her by the Old Guard within the Green Camp.
We said that Tsai Ing-wen's "three in one goal" includes generational power transfer, waging a presidential campaign, and transforming the party's political platform. Among these, the key is generational change. Su Tseng-chang and Annette Lu were her targets during the party primaries. Furthermore, suppose she is elected and takes office. Suppose she fails to promote Green Camp generational change, and transform the party's political platform. She will find herself walking down the same path as Chen Shui-bian. She will "win the election, but lose her ideals."
蘇貞昌如何看蔡英文的劇本
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.21
蘇貞昌去年三月在保安宮宣布參選台北市長，逼蔡英文照著他「雙城奇謀」的劇本參選新北市長；如今，蔡英文率先宣布參選二○一二總統，又回過頭來迫蘇貞昌照著她的劇本演出。
傳說蔡英文方面的劇本是「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」，亦即：蔡蘇二人在初選落敗者，擔任不分區立委第一名，率黨籍立委候選人拚國會過半。消息傳出後，蔡英文方面說有人曾提此議，卻非蔡英文自己的主張。不過，這不像是空穴來風。
民進黨中央突然表態「不會特別反對」總統、立委合併選舉，可以證實這套劇本確實存在。站在蔡英文方面設想，初選贏的選總統，輸的拚國會，即可跳出「蔡蘇配／蘇蔡配」的框架。初選蔡若贏，即可不要「蔡蘇配」；蘇若贏，蔡亦可拒絕「蘇蔡配」。再者，總統、立委若合併選舉，蔡蘇或蘇蔡二人被合併選舉的大局綁住，應可產生分進合擊的乘數效應；但若先選立委、後選總統，蔡蘇或蘇蔡的競合關係即可能出現難測的變數。何況，蔡英文方面應是估計蔡有可能贏得初選而構想出這一套劇本；也就是說，屆時可把蘇貞昌推到不分區立委，堵住「蔡蘇配」的「膏膏纏」；又以總統立委合併選舉，不讓蘇貞昌有作亂的空間，而不得不為蔡英文抬轎。再者，總統、立委分開選舉，民進黨若選得不如預期，可能影響總統大選的聲勢；總統立委同日選舉，同日揭曉，即不會有此顧慮。所以，「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」與「總統立委合併選舉」，是兼籌並顧的算計。
最令蘇貞昌吃不消的是，又有消息指出，民進黨中有人估計馬英九總統仍有連任可能，則如果蔡英文此屆總統選舉有勝選的把握，民進黨就推舉她參選；反之，倘若蔡英文無勝選把握，就推舉蘇貞昌，以避免傷害蔡英文，為她保全二○一六的機會。蘇貞昌面對這樣的黨內氛圍，心中必是五味雜陳。
蔡蘇二人的對比關鍵在年齡。蔡可以選二○一二，也可以選二○一六；但二○一二應是蘇的人生最後一戰。蔡英文非但要與蘇貞昌爭總統初選，如今甚至表明若初選落敗也拒絕「蘇蔡配」，這不啻已使蘇貞昌失去轉圜空間。如今，黨內皆將蔡英文視為「西瓜的大邊」，且蔡在民間的聲勢亦有壓倒蘇貞昌的跡象；但是，看在蘇貞昌眼裡，蔡英文畢竟是民進黨的一個「遲到的黨員」，且她除了空泛的詞藻堆砌外，也未能提出什麼「超越」的主張或政見，憑這樣就要召喚「新世代」，推開「舊世代」，此對蘇貞昌而言真是情何以堪？
蔡英文說，她不夠政治，不會算計；但她先聲奪人、宣布參選，並傳出「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」的劇本，再放出「不特別反對總統立委併選」的聲音，不啻是將「蔡蘇競合」的政治算計已算到毫釐分明、滴水不漏的地步。蔡英文算得很清楚：蘇貞昌希望「蘇蔡配」，至少要「蔡蘇配」；但她只有參選總統一個目標，不要「蘇蔡配」，也要甩掉「蔡蘇配」。她顯然認為，蔡可以不要蘇，蘇不能沒有蔡。
這一切的政治算計，對蔡英文來說，皆是理性而冷靜的擘劃。試問：撇開蘇貞昌個人的利害愛憎而言，「贏的選總統，輸的拚國會」，難道不是最公平且最具綜效的大戰略？何況，蔡英文若想當選總統，不僅要甩掉蘇貞昌或呂秀蓮，也須在執政後甩掉其他綠營老舊勢力的羈絆。
我們曾說，蔡英文面對的「三合一工程」是：世代交替、總統大選、路線轉型。其中，世代交替更是關鍵工程，蘇貞昌、呂秀蓮是她初選中的箭靶；進一步說，她若有朝一日當選而執政，倘不能進一步對綠營「世代交替」，以達成「路線轉型」，她也必將步上陳水扁「贏了選舉，輸了路線」的後塵。
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Japan's Nuclear Apocalypse
Japan's Nuclear Apocalypse
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2011
A powerful earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter Scale triggered an explosion and radiation leakage at a Japanese nuclear power plant. Nations the world over are in a panic. The European Union described the huge nuclear disaster in Japan as an "apocalypse." It said Tokyo authorities have already lost control. Foreign reports call the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident one of the three worst nuclear power plant accidents in history. It is already considered more serious than the U.S. nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. If the situation deteriorates even further, it may be considered even more serious than the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Officials are attempting to allay public fears. Over the past several days, officials from the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council have repeatedly assured the public that the impact of the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident on Taiwan will be limited. But this is not the reaction of governments the world over. On the 16th, during a U.S. Congressional hearing, Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that the pool of water for storing spent fuel rods at the Number Four Reactor in the Fukushima nuclear power plant had already dried up, He said the situation was more serious than Japanese officials are willing to say. The U.S. has proposed the withdrawal of its citizens from a wider area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant than Japan has suggested.
Yukiya Amano is the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog agency for the United Nations. Amano said he is prepared to go to Japan and obtain first-hand information. Amano considers developments at the Fukushima nuclear power plant "very serious." But he says it is too early to characterize the situation as "out of control."
The European Union uses nuclear power generation more than any other region of the world. It is concerned about the fallout from this incident. One-third of the electricity used by the EU comes from nuclear power generation. It accounts for 15% of its total energy use. According to European Nuclear Society (ENS) statistics, Europe has a total of 195 nuclear reactors in operation. Of these, 143 are in EU countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed to include nuclear safety on the agenda at the G20 Summit, to be held in France at the end of March.
Despite intense reactions from these advanced nations, the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council remains firm. It has made a number of calculations based on certain assumptions. It assumed that 10 units at the Fukushima plant leaked high dosages of radioactive material. It assumed the worst, that winds blew toward Taiwan. It assumed that the radioactive material was 13 times as serious as Chernobyl. It assumed that Taiwan was located downwind from Fukushima. It assumed that the radioactive material would take 120 hours to reach Taiwan and spread through the atmosphere. Based on these assumptions, it said that over two days, the cumulative dose of radiation per hour for the public on Taiwan would be 7.3 mSv, less than the baseline measurement of 10 mSv. Over seven days the accumulated radiation dose would be 25.5 mSv, less than the 50 to 100 mSv standard mandating evacuation. It would even be less than the 100 mSv standard mandating iodine tablets.
The Atomic Energy Council concluded its remarks. But yesterday, Japan's three largest airports tested returning travelers for radiation exposure. They tested over 4000 visitors. Among them, 26 were slightly exposed. They were treated and retested. None had any problems. Nevertheless, the results show that concerns about radioactivity are not groundless.
Reactions from nations the world over show that the Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation leak has become the world's most significant nuclear power plant disaster. Even the Japanese Ministry of Education admitted that approximately 20 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, it detected 330 mSv of radiation per hour. That is 6600 times the norm. Japan's technological standards and management capabilities are higher than those on Taiwan. When even nuclear power plants on Japan are subject to such accidents, how can nuclear power plants on Taiwan remain immune? The council's reassurances are clearly contrary to common sense. This is why the more the Atomic Energy Council urges everyone not to panic, the more the public considers the council's reassurances meaningless.
Radiative contamination is a risk management issue. Nature includes background radiation. We are exposed to radiation every time we are X-rayed. The public does not expect zero exposure to radiation. The problem is the manner in which the government has chosen to address the public. The result is inevitable. The speaker drones on, but the listener dismisses everything he has heard. Therefore, the most pressing issue in disaster prevention education is how to establish a society able to cope, through risk analysis and risk management.
Japan is a country which places a high value on risk management. A natural disaster struck, and led to a nuclear power plant radiation leak that shocked the world. The ROC government considers nuclear power a strategy to reduce carbon emissions and prevent global warming, Japan's earthquake experience tells us we must address the issues of nuclear power plant safety and radiation leakage. We must reexamine energy generation policy from the perspective of disaster management and security. We must adopt a professional perspective, weighing advantages against disadvantages. Disaster prevention and mitigation must include risk management measures. Information must be open and transparent. We must seek a public consensus. Only then can we allay public fears about the safety of nuclear power generation.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.18
日本核災「啟示錄」
本報訊
一場規模九的大地震引發的日本核電廠爆炸輻射外洩事件，讓全世界各國一陣驚慌。歐盟以「啟示錄」（APOCALYPSE）般的大災變形容日本核電災難，指稱東京當局對福島核電事件幾已失去控制；外電亦稱日本福島核電廠事件是人類有史以來最嚴重的三大核能事故之一，其嚴重程度已超越美國三浬島核事故，如果事態惡化，也可能更甚俄國的車諾比核災事故。
為了安撫民心，這幾天行政院原子能委員會官員一再對外說：日本福島核電廠事件對台灣，不會影響或是影響有限；反觀世界各國的反應卻非如此：美國核子管理委員會 （ＮＲＣ）主委亞茲柯十六日在美國國會聽證會上表示，福島核電廠四號反應爐廢燃料棒儲存池的水已經乾涸，災情比日本官方說法嚴重，而美方建議福島核電廠附近美僑撤離範圍比日方宣布範圍廣。
聯合國核子監督機構「國際原子能總署」（ＩＡＥＡ）署長天野之彌則表示，他準備前往日本，掌握第一手資訊。天野之彌認為，日本福島核電廠的情勢發展「非常嚴重」，但還不是斷言「失控」的時候。
全世界使用核能發電最多的歐盟更關心此一事件後續發展。目前歐盟所使用的電力，三分之一來自核能發電，占能源使用總量的十五％。根據「歐洲核能學會」（ＥＮＳ）統計，目前歐洲共有一九五座運作中的核子反應爐，其中一四三座位於歐盟國家內。德國總理梅克爾和法國總統薩科奇並已同意，共同推動把核能安全列入三月底於法國舉行的廿大工業國（Ｇ二十）領袖峰會議程。
儘管先進國家反應激烈，但行政院原子能委員會說，經過模式計算，假設日本福島電廠十座機組全都外洩高劑量的放射性物質，且風向吹向台灣的最壞情況下，估計輻射汙染值為車諾比事件的十三倍，而台灣位在福島下風處、由日本飄到台灣的時間約為一百二十小時，再藉由大氣擴散，得出台灣民眾兩天內的輻射累積劑量將為每小時七．三毫西弗，不到十毫西弗的掩蔽措施基準；而七天的輻射累積劑量為二五．五毫西弗，也不到五十至一百毫西弗的疏散標準，更不到一百毫西弗需要服用碘片的情況。
原能會話才剛說完，昨天國內三大機場針對日本返國旅客輻射檢測，受檢的四千多名旅客中，就有二十六人受輕微汙染，雖然經過處理後，再次量測，都沒有問題。但此一檢測結果，說明了輻射外洩顯非空穴來風。
從外電與世界各國的訊息顯示，福島核電廠輻射外洩事件已經是全球重大核電廠災變事件，即使是日本文部科學省亦不得不承認，在福島核電廠西北方約廿公里處，偵測到最高每小時三三○毫西弗輻射量，是平常值的六千六百倍。日本的科技水平與管理能力都遠較台灣高出許多，如果連日本的核電廠都會出事，卻要國人接受台灣核電廠不會出事的說法，顯然有違一般民眾認知。這也是為何行政院原子能委員會愈強調不用恐慌，但一般民眾卻愈無法接受。
輻射汙染問題是一個風險管理的課題，自然背景中就有輻射，平常我們照Ｘ光也會接受到輻射汙染，但目前社會氛圍似乎是要求沒有輻射汙染，這樣的風險溝通，結果一定是言者諄諄，聽者藐藐，因此當前防災教育最迫切的課題就是如何透過風險分析與風險管理而建立一個風險社會。
日本是最重視風險管理的國家之一，一場天災下來，還是發生了舉世震驚的核電廠輻射外洩事件。而當前的台灣政府亦考慮以核能發電做為達到減碳防止地球暖化的策略之一，從日本的地震經驗告訴我們，核電廠安全與輻射外洩問題是我們必須正視的課題，重新以災難管理及安全的角度檢視能源發電政策，先從專業角度分析各方利弊得失，應採取防災與減災的風險管理措施以及風險多寡，再將資訊完全公開透明，尋求全民共識，這樣才有可能化解民眾對核電安全的疑慮。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2011
A powerful earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter Scale triggered an explosion and radiation leakage at a Japanese nuclear power plant. Nations the world over are in a panic. The European Union described the huge nuclear disaster in Japan as an "apocalypse." It said Tokyo authorities have already lost control. Foreign reports call the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident one of the three worst nuclear power plant accidents in history. It is already considered more serious than the U.S. nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. If the situation deteriorates even further, it may be considered even more serious than the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Officials are attempting to allay public fears. Over the past several days, officials from the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council have repeatedly assured the public that the impact of the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident on Taiwan will be limited. But this is not the reaction of governments the world over. On the 16th, during a U.S. Congressional hearing, Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that the pool of water for storing spent fuel rods at the Number Four Reactor in the Fukushima nuclear power plant had already dried up, He said the situation was more serious than Japanese officials are willing to say. The U.S. has proposed the withdrawal of its citizens from a wider area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant than Japan has suggested.
Yukiya Amano is the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog agency for the United Nations. Amano said he is prepared to go to Japan and obtain first-hand information. Amano considers developments at the Fukushima nuclear power plant "very serious." But he says it is too early to characterize the situation as "out of control."
The European Union uses nuclear power generation more than any other region of the world. It is concerned about the fallout from this incident. One-third of the electricity used by the EU comes from nuclear power generation. It accounts for 15% of its total energy use. According to European Nuclear Society (ENS) statistics, Europe has a total of 195 nuclear reactors in operation. Of these, 143 are in EU countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed to include nuclear safety on the agenda at the G20 Summit, to be held in France at the end of March.
Despite intense reactions from these advanced nations, the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council remains firm. It has made a number of calculations based on certain assumptions. It assumed that 10 units at the Fukushima plant leaked high dosages of radioactive material. It assumed the worst, that winds blew toward Taiwan. It assumed that the radioactive material was 13 times as serious as Chernobyl. It assumed that Taiwan was located downwind from Fukushima. It assumed that the radioactive material would take 120 hours to reach Taiwan and spread through the atmosphere. Based on these assumptions, it said that over two days, the cumulative dose of radiation per hour for the public on Taiwan would be 7.3 mSv, less than the baseline measurement of 10 mSv. Over seven days the accumulated radiation dose would be 25.5 mSv, less than the 50 to 100 mSv standard mandating evacuation. It would even be less than the 100 mSv standard mandating iodine tablets.
The Atomic Energy Council concluded its remarks. But yesterday, Japan's three largest airports tested returning travelers for radiation exposure. They tested over 4000 visitors. Among them, 26 were slightly exposed. They were treated and retested. None had any problems. Nevertheless, the results show that concerns about radioactivity are not groundless.
Reactions from nations the world over show that the Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation leak has become the world's most significant nuclear power plant disaster. Even the Japanese Ministry of Education admitted that approximately 20 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, it detected 330 mSv of radiation per hour. That is 6600 times the norm. Japan's technological standards and management capabilities are higher than those on Taiwan. When even nuclear power plants on Japan are subject to such accidents, how can nuclear power plants on Taiwan remain immune? The council's reassurances are clearly contrary to common sense. This is why the more the Atomic Energy Council urges everyone not to panic, the more the public considers the council's reassurances meaningless.
Radiative contamination is a risk management issue. Nature includes background radiation. We are exposed to radiation every time we are X-rayed. The public does not expect zero exposure to radiation. The problem is the manner in which the government has chosen to address the public. The result is inevitable. The speaker drones on, but the listener dismisses everything he has heard. Therefore, the most pressing issue in disaster prevention education is how to establish a society able to cope, through risk analysis and risk management.
Japan is a country which places a high value on risk management. A natural disaster struck, and led to a nuclear power plant radiation leak that shocked the world. The ROC government considers nuclear power a strategy to reduce carbon emissions and prevent global warming, Japan's earthquake experience tells us we must address the issues of nuclear power plant safety and radiation leakage. We must reexamine energy generation policy from the perspective of disaster management and security. We must adopt a professional perspective, weighing advantages against disadvantages. Disaster prevention and mitigation must include risk management measures. Information must be open and transparent. We must seek a public consensus. Only then can we allay public fears about the safety of nuclear power generation.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.03.18
日本核災「啟示錄」
本報訊
一場規模九的大地震引發的日本核電廠爆炸輻射外洩事件，讓全世界各國一陣驚慌。歐盟以「啟示錄」（APOCALYPSE）般的大災變形容日本核電災難，指稱東京當局對福島核電事件幾已失去控制；外電亦稱日本福島核電廠事件是人類有史以來最嚴重的三大核能事故之一，其嚴重程度已超越美國三浬島核事故，如果事態惡化，也可能更甚俄國的車諾比核災事故。
為了安撫民心，這幾天行政院原子能委員會官員一再對外說：日本福島核電廠事件對台灣，不會影響或是影響有限；反觀世界各國的反應卻非如此：美國核子管理委員會 （ＮＲＣ）主委亞茲柯十六日在美國國會聽證會上表示，福島核電廠四號反應爐廢燃料棒儲存池的水已經乾涸，災情比日本官方說法嚴重，而美方建議福島核電廠附近美僑撤離範圍比日方宣布範圍廣。
聯合國核子監督機構「國際原子能總署」（ＩＡＥＡ）署長天野之彌則表示，他準備前往日本，掌握第一手資訊。天野之彌認為，日本福島核電廠的情勢發展「非常嚴重」，但還不是斷言「失控」的時候。
全世界使用核能發電最多的歐盟更關心此一事件後續發展。目前歐盟所使用的電力，三分之一來自核能發電，占能源使用總量的十五％。根據「歐洲核能學會」（ＥＮＳ）統計，目前歐洲共有一九五座運作中的核子反應爐，其中一四三座位於歐盟國家內。德國總理梅克爾和法國總統薩科奇並已同意，共同推動把核能安全列入三月底於法國舉行的廿大工業國（Ｇ二十）領袖峰會議程。
儘管先進國家反應激烈，但行政院原子能委員會說，經過模式計算，假設日本福島電廠十座機組全都外洩高劑量的放射性物質，且風向吹向台灣的最壞情況下，估計輻射汙染值為車諾比事件的十三倍，而台灣位在福島下風處、由日本飄到台灣的時間約為一百二十小時，再藉由大氣擴散，得出台灣民眾兩天內的輻射累積劑量將為每小時七．三毫西弗，不到十毫西弗的掩蔽措施基準；而七天的輻射累積劑量為二五．五毫西弗，也不到五十至一百毫西弗的疏散標準，更不到一百毫西弗需要服用碘片的情況。
原能會話才剛說完，昨天國內三大機場針對日本返國旅客輻射檢測，受檢的四千多名旅客中，就有二十六人受輕微汙染，雖然經過處理後，再次量測，都沒有問題。但此一檢測結果，說明了輻射外洩顯非空穴來風。
從外電與世界各國的訊息顯示，福島核電廠輻射外洩事件已經是全球重大核電廠災變事件，即使是日本文部科學省亦不得不承認，在福島核電廠西北方約廿公里處，偵測到最高每小時三三○毫西弗輻射量，是平常值的六千六百倍。日本的科技水平與管理能力都遠較台灣高出許多，如果連日本的核電廠都會出事，卻要國人接受台灣核電廠不會出事的說法，顯然有違一般民眾認知。這也是為何行政院原子能委員會愈強調不用恐慌，但一般民眾卻愈無法接受。
輻射汙染問題是一個風險管理的課題，自然背景中就有輻射，平常我們照Ｘ光也會接受到輻射汙染，但目前社會氛圍似乎是要求沒有輻射汙染，這樣的風險溝通，結果一定是言者諄諄，聽者藐藐，因此當前防災教育最迫切的課題就是如何透過風險分析與風險管理而建立一個風險社會。
日本是最重視風險管理的國家之一，一場天災下來，還是發生了舉世震驚的核電廠輻射外洩事件。而當前的台灣政府亦考慮以核能發電做為達到減碳防止地球暖化的策略之一，從日本的地震經驗告訴我們，核電廠安全與輻射外洩問題是我們必須正視的課題，重新以災難管理及安全的角度檢視能源發電政策，先從專業角度分析各方利弊得失，應採取防災與減災的風險管理措施以及風險多寡，再將資訊完全公開透明，尋求全民共識，這樣才有可能化解民眾對核電安全的疑慮。
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Official Chest-thumping No Solution for Radiation Scare
Official Chest-thumping No Solution for Radiation Scare
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2011
Summary: The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased. When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.
Full Text below:
The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased.
When the earthquake first occurred, officials in charge assured the public more than once that radioactive contaminants would not leak from the power plant. The power plant experienced a series of hydrogen gas explosions. But Japanese officials insisted that "hydrogen gas explosions are not nuclear explosions," therefore were no danger to public health. Only when the situation deteriorated, did they admit that radioactive materials had leaked. Only then did they enlarge the evacuation zone. The U.S. aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan withdrew to a position off the coast of Fukushima, highlighting the severity of the radiation leakage. Rescue helicopters flew through clouds to reach the affected areas. Upon their return, crew members and helicopter fuselages revealed clear signs of radiation exposure. The radiation leaks cannot be minimized.
Nuclear energy officials on Taiwan have remained tight-lipped about whether radioactive fallout would reach Taiwan. All they have been willing to say is that they probably will not, that the fallout will be diluted, that winds over Japan are currently blowing from the west, and that "They absolutely will not reach Taiwan." In short, they think there is virtually no risk. But the public remains skeptical of such official assurances. They have stopped buying oysters, scallops, Aomori apples, and Fukushima peaches from Miyagi Prefecture. They even have doubts about dairy products, which have yet to feel the impact on the food chain. Ordinary people who would normally visit the night markets on Taiwan, now prefer to avoid the radiation. For them "It is safer to stay at home." As a result, business has fallen roughly thirty percent.
This is not because the public entertains stereotypes about officials who thump their chests and offer loud assurances. It is because the hazards of radiation are cumulative, and increase geometrically. They accumulate in the body. They harm not just the current generation. Genetic mutations are passed on to the next generation as well. When confronting disaster, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. We cannot simply hope that winds will blow the contaminants out over the Pacific Ocean and dilute the fallout. Such assurances are little more than asking for Buddha's blessing.
In April of last year the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland erupted. Volcanic ash reached Asia and the Americas. That was because the volcanic ash reached the stratosphere. It was caught by jet streams and carried along. The smoke and dust discharged from Fukushima failed to reach such altitudes. Tropospheric transport is unstable. Officials are attempting to defuse public panic. They claim that "Currently the winds are from the west. The U.S. may need to be careful. But Taiwan is all right!" Such rhetoric reveals a lack of understanding. Wind direction is subject to abrupt changes in atmospheric pressure and altitude. Currently the winds over Japan's earthquake-stricken areas are no longer from the west.
The government is hoping for favorable winds. It has set up monitors at the three nuclear power plants on Taiwan, and at 50 other locations. It intends to monitor radiation doses and to post the results on the Internet, It will provide the public with real-time information. This is a progressive measure. It will enable the public to immediately grasp the situation regarding radiation pollution. We approve. But such measures are reactive. The choice of monitoring locations was subjective. They should have been studied in greater depth. Radioactive materials do not remain in the air. With rain, they enter the soil, water, plants, and the food chain. People eating fruits and vegetables, dairy products, meat, and fish may ingest radioactive materials. This is not something monitoring radiation doses in the atmosphere can guard against. Besides, suppose the radiation detected reaches dangerous levels? What are we suppose to do then? Besides evading and covering up problems, what has the government done?
People want to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But they must first witness the government take concrete actions. Consider the 1986 Japanese response to the release of radioactive material during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. On April 26 the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred. First, the Japanese government confirmed that the disaster was serious, Then it established, for the very first time, a Disaster Prevention and Countermeasures Headquarters, directly answerable to the Prime Minister. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, universities, research institutions, scientific research institutions, the military, and NGOs were all mobilized. All of Japan, including land, sea, air, water, soil, and living organisms, were categorized and thoroughly monitored.
Monitoring continued for one month. It confirmed traces of radioactive contamination. Nuclear energy officials were joined by experts in public health, nuclear medicine, and environmental medicine. All participated in the survey, signed the investigation report, and adjourned the task force. Concrete and responsible action enabled the Japanese to believe in the government's findings.
International nuclear authorities have classified the Fukushima nuclear disaster as a Level Six "Serious Accident," second only to Chernobyl. This implies a serious leak of radioactive materials. This means that contingency plans must be initiated. The United Nations IAEA is planning an emergency meeting next week. It will discuss measures to combat the continuous increase of radioactive materials. It has adopted a cautious attitude regarding Japan's nuclear disaster. This contrasts sharply with our own government's smugly confident attitude. Premier Wu Den-yih put it well when he said we must not be overconfident in our predictions.
When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.
輻射恐慌不能只靠官員拍胸脯
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.17
日本政府宣布，由於福島第一核電廠的輻射量過高，一度將電廠人員全數撤離，形同宣告全面棄守。此一情勢顯示，災變可能更趨惡化，輻射塵外洩飄散的危機亦告升高。
震災發生之初，日相菅直人不止一次保證核電廠沒有輻射外洩之虞；即便電廠隨即接連氫爆，日本官員還是說「氫爆不是核爆」，不會危及民眾健康；直到事態惡化才承認確已輻射外洩，緊急擴大撤離範圍。美國航母雷根號撤離福島外海的行動更凸顯輻射外洩的嚴重性，僅是前往災區救援的直升機穿過雲層，回航後即在人員與機身都測出明顯輻射劑量，顯示輻射外洩不容輕忽。
我國主管原能的官員對輻射塵會否飄來台灣一直非常「鐵齒」，只是說應該不會、空氣會稀釋、現在日本吹西風、「根本就不會飄到台灣」云云，總之，幾乎不認為有任何風險存在。民眾對官員的說法將信將疑，自主反應則是不買災區宮城縣進口的生蠔、扇貝，青森的蘋果、福島桃子，連還沒循食物鏈反應到的乳製品也有疑慮；而台灣庶民常逛的夜市，也因為避輻射「待在家裡很安全」的宣導，生意急落了好幾成。
不是對官員的拍胸脯保證有「不相信」的成見，而是因輻射危害會累積加乘，不僅會在體內累積，且傷害不只這一代，而會因基因突變遺傳給下一代。因此，從「料災從寬／防災從嚴」的角度來看，若是光寄望災區的風往太平洋吹、空氣稀釋，這樣的保證，程度上不會超過祈求菩薩保佑。
沒錯，去年四月冰島艾雅法拉火山爆發，火山灰吹到亞洲、美洲，那是因為火山灰噴發已經到了平流層的高度，才能搭上噴射氣流穩定輸送，而福島爆炸噴發煙塵的高度卻極有限，對流層並沒有穩定輸送的氣流條件。但官員試圖化解民眾恐慌的說詞只是：「現在吹西風，美國可能得小心了，台灣沒事啦！」這種說詞可能是不理解風向會因大氣的壓力場、高度而有變化，日本災區目前的風向也不再是西風。
除了寄望風向，政府另個動作是在三個核電廠與五十個點設置監測儀，將監測到的輻射劑量公布在網站上，告訴民眾即時資訊。這是進階的作法，可以即時瞭解輻射汙染資訊，值得肯定，但畢竟仍是被動的、主觀選擇地點的讀取汙染數據，必須要再進一步做現地調查。輻射物質不僅在空中，會隨降水落入土壤、水體、植株、進入食物鏈循環……，民眾攝食蔬果、乳品、肉、魚都可能讓輻射汙染進入人體，這絕非僅監測空氣中的輻射劑量即足以防範。更何況，若是偵測到輻射劑量達危險值，我們該怎麼應對？除了掩蔽，還有積極的動作嗎？
民眾願意相信政府「安啦！」的保證，前提是必須看到政府的具體作為。一九八六年日本因應車諾比核災輻射汙染的具體作法可供參考。當年四月二十六日車諾比爆發核災，確認嚴重性後，日本在第一時間組成直屬總理的防災對策本部，包括原子動力省、通產省、農部、大學、科研單位、自衛隊、ＮＧＯ……幾乎全面動員，把日本全境陸域、海域、空域、水體、土壤、生物……劃分責任區徹底監測。
持續一個月的監測，確認輻射汙染微量，除了核能官員，還由包括公衛、核子醫學、環境醫學等共同參與調查的學者共同簽署調查報告後，結束任務編組。這一具體、負責的動作，讓日本民眾相信政府的調查結果。
日本福島核災，國際核能界已認定危險應升高到僅次於車諾比災變的第六級「嚴重成災事故」的程度，意思是輻射物質嚴重外洩，應全面啟動應變計畫；聯合國原能總署也計畫下周緊急集會，商討持續升高的輻射汙染對策，對日本核災戒慎恐懼的態度，與我國官員的自信滿滿成強烈對比。還是吳敦義院長說得好：這時候，話不能說得太滿。
「料敵從寬、禦敵從嚴」是防災基本態度，對可能的輻射汙染，民眾當然希望政府「安啦！」說的是實話，但若只是靠拍胸脯而已，可能屆時連「禦敵」的空間都流失殆盡。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2011
Summary: The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased. When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.
Full Text below:
The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased.
When the earthquake first occurred, officials in charge assured the public more than once that radioactive contaminants would not leak from the power plant. The power plant experienced a series of hydrogen gas explosions. But Japanese officials insisted that "hydrogen gas explosions are not nuclear explosions," therefore were no danger to public health. Only when the situation deteriorated, did they admit that radioactive materials had leaked. Only then did they enlarge the evacuation zone. The U.S. aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan withdrew to a position off the coast of Fukushima, highlighting the severity of the radiation leakage. Rescue helicopters flew through clouds to reach the affected areas. Upon their return, crew members and helicopter fuselages revealed clear signs of radiation exposure. The radiation leaks cannot be minimized.
Nuclear energy officials on Taiwan have remained tight-lipped about whether radioactive fallout would reach Taiwan. All they have been willing to say is that they probably will not, that the fallout will be diluted, that winds over Japan are currently blowing from the west, and that "They absolutely will not reach Taiwan." In short, they think there is virtually no risk. But the public remains skeptical of such official assurances. They have stopped buying oysters, scallops, Aomori apples, and Fukushima peaches from Miyagi Prefecture. They even have doubts about dairy products, which have yet to feel the impact on the food chain. Ordinary people who would normally visit the night markets on Taiwan, now prefer to avoid the radiation. For them "It is safer to stay at home." As a result, business has fallen roughly thirty percent.
This is not because the public entertains stereotypes about officials who thump their chests and offer loud assurances. It is because the hazards of radiation are cumulative, and increase geometrically. They accumulate in the body. They harm not just the current generation. Genetic mutations are passed on to the next generation as well. When confronting disaster, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. We cannot simply hope that winds will blow the contaminants out over the Pacific Ocean and dilute the fallout. Such assurances are little more than asking for Buddha's blessing.
In April of last year the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland erupted. Volcanic ash reached Asia and the Americas. That was because the volcanic ash reached the stratosphere. It was caught by jet streams and carried along. The smoke and dust discharged from Fukushima failed to reach such altitudes. Tropospheric transport is unstable. Officials are attempting to defuse public panic. They claim that "Currently the winds are from the west. The U.S. may need to be careful. But Taiwan is all right!" Such rhetoric reveals a lack of understanding. Wind direction is subject to abrupt changes in atmospheric pressure and altitude. Currently the winds over Japan's earthquake-stricken areas are no longer from the west.
The government is hoping for favorable winds. It has set up monitors at the three nuclear power plants on Taiwan, and at 50 other locations. It intends to monitor radiation doses and to post the results on the Internet, It will provide the public with real-time information. This is a progressive measure. It will enable the public to immediately grasp the situation regarding radiation pollution. We approve. But such measures are reactive. The choice of monitoring locations was subjective. They should have been studied in greater depth. Radioactive materials do not remain in the air. With rain, they enter the soil, water, plants, and the food chain. People eating fruits and vegetables, dairy products, meat, and fish may ingest radioactive materials. This is not something monitoring radiation doses in the atmosphere can guard against. Besides, suppose the radiation detected reaches dangerous levels? What are we suppose to do then? Besides evading and covering up problems, what has the government done?
People want to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But they must first witness the government take concrete actions. Consider the 1986 Japanese response to the release of radioactive material during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. On April 26 the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred. First, the Japanese government confirmed that the disaster was serious, Then it established, for the very first time, a Disaster Prevention and Countermeasures Headquarters, directly answerable to the Prime Minister. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, universities, research institutions, scientific research institutions, the military, and NGOs were all mobilized. All of Japan, including land, sea, air, water, soil, and living organisms, were categorized and thoroughly monitored.
Monitoring continued for one month. It confirmed traces of radioactive contamination. Nuclear energy officials were joined by experts in public health, nuclear medicine, and environmental medicine. All participated in the survey, signed the investigation report, and adjourned the task force. Concrete and responsible action enabled the Japanese to believe in the government's findings.
International nuclear authorities have classified the Fukushima nuclear disaster as a Level Six "Serious Accident," second only to Chernobyl. This implies a serious leak of radioactive materials. This means that contingency plans must be initiated. The United Nations IAEA is planning an emergency meeting next week. It will discuss measures to combat the continuous increase of radioactive materials. It has adopted a cautious attitude regarding Japan's nuclear disaster. This contrasts sharply with our own government's smugly confident attitude. Premier Wu Den-yih put it well when he said we must not be overconfident in our predictions.
When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.
輻射恐慌不能只靠官員拍胸脯
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.17
日本政府宣布，由於福島第一核電廠的輻射量過高，一度將電廠人員全數撤離，形同宣告全面棄守。此一情勢顯示，災變可能更趨惡化，輻射塵外洩飄散的危機亦告升高。
震災發生之初，日相菅直人不止一次保證核電廠沒有輻射外洩之虞；即便電廠隨即接連氫爆，日本官員還是說「氫爆不是核爆」，不會危及民眾健康；直到事態惡化才承認確已輻射外洩，緊急擴大撤離範圍。美國航母雷根號撤離福島外海的行動更凸顯輻射外洩的嚴重性，僅是前往災區救援的直升機穿過雲層，回航後即在人員與機身都測出明顯輻射劑量，顯示輻射外洩不容輕忽。
我國主管原能的官員對輻射塵會否飄來台灣一直非常「鐵齒」，只是說應該不會、空氣會稀釋、現在日本吹西風、「根本就不會飄到台灣」云云，總之，幾乎不認為有任何風險存在。民眾對官員的說法將信將疑，自主反應則是不買災區宮城縣進口的生蠔、扇貝，青森的蘋果、福島桃子，連還沒循食物鏈反應到的乳製品也有疑慮；而台灣庶民常逛的夜市，也因為避輻射「待在家裡很安全」的宣導，生意急落了好幾成。
不是對官員的拍胸脯保證有「不相信」的成見，而是因輻射危害會累積加乘，不僅會在體內累積，且傷害不只這一代，而會因基因突變遺傳給下一代。因此，從「料災從寬／防災從嚴」的角度來看，若是光寄望災區的風往太平洋吹、空氣稀釋，這樣的保證，程度上不會超過祈求菩薩保佑。
沒錯，去年四月冰島艾雅法拉火山爆發，火山灰吹到亞洲、美洲，那是因為火山灰噴發已經到了平流層的高度，才能搭上噴射氣流穩定輸送，而福島爆炸噴發煙塵的高度卻極有限，對流層並沒有穩定輸送的氣流條件。但官員試圖化解民眾恐慌的說詞只是：「現在吹西風，美國可能得小心了，台灣沒事啦！」這種說詞可能是不理解風向會因大氣的壓力場、高度而有變化，日本災區目前的風向也不再是西風。
除了寄望風向，政府另個動作是在三個核電廠與五十個點設置監測儀，將監測到的輻射劑量公布在網站上，告訴民眾即時資訊。這是進階的作法，可以即時瞭解輻射汙染資訊，值得肯定，但畢竟仍是被動的、主觀選擇地點的讀取汙染數據，必須要再進一步做現地調查。輻射物質不僅在空中，會隨降水落入土壤、水體、植株、進入食物鏈循環……，民眾攝食蔬果、乳品、肉、魚都可能讓輻射汙染進入人體，這絕非僅監測空氣中的輻射劑量即足以防範。更何況，若是偵測到輻射劑量達危險值，我們該怎麼應對？除了掩蔽，還有積極的動作嗎？
民眾願意相信政府「安啦！」的保證，前提是必須看到政府的具體作為。一九八六年日本因應車諾比核災輻射汙染的具體作法可供參考。當年四月二十六日車諾比爆發核災，確認嚴重性後，日本在第一時間組成直屬總理的防災對策本部，包括原子動力省、通產省、農部、大學、科研單位、自衛隊、ＮＧＯ……幾乎全面動員，把日本全境陸域、海域、空域、水體、土壤、生物……劃分責任區徹底監測。
持續一個月的監測，確認輻射汙染微量，除了核能官員，還由包括公衛、核子醫學、環境醫學等共同參與調查的學者共同簽署調查報告後，結束任務編組。這一具體、負責的動作，讓日本民眾相信政府的調查結果。
日本福島核災，國際核能界已認定危險應升高到僅次於車諾比災變的第六級「嚴重成災事故」的程度，意思是輻射物質嚴重外洩，應全面啟動應變計畫；聯合國原能總署也計畫下周緊急集會，商討持續升高的輻射汙染對策，對日本核災戒慎恐懼的態度，與我國官員的自信滿滿成強烈對比。還是吳敦義院長說得好：這時候，話不能說得太滿。
「料敵從寬、禦敵從嚴」是防災基本態度，對可能的輻射汙染，民眾當然希望政府「安啦！」說的是實話，但若只是靠拍胸脯而已，可能屆時連「禦敵」的空間都流失殆盡。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)