Nuclear Plant Four and Taiwan Independence:
The DPP Owes the Public Two Referenda
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 7, 2011
A Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four is one of the DPP's key policy proposals. But the two times the DPP made a major decision on the Nuclear Plant Number Four, it could not be bothered to seek public approval. Instead, it made its decisions unilaterally, simply because it had the power to do so. The first time was in 2000, when President Chen Shui-bian halted the project. The second time was when Tsai Ing-wen announced that if elected president, she would call for a halt to the commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four.
The Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four touches upon two issues. First, the DPP considers terminating commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four justified substantively. Secondly, the DPP considers a public referendum conducted in a democratic fashion justified procedurally. Such approaches strike one as fair. They are not being promoted by the ruling party. Therefore they must meet with public approval before they can be adopted.
In 2000, when Chen Shui-bian halted construction on Nuclear Plant Number Four, he reneged on his promise to first seek a public referendum. He ordered construction halted on the project without first obtaining public approval via a referendum. Where was the legitimacy in his move? Furthermore, following a constitutional review, the Council of Grand Justices concluded that the president had exceeded his authority. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to halt commercial operation on Nuclear Plant Number Four. This too, raises two questions. First, if the halt is merely temporary, what is the point? If the halt is permanent, it is the same as decommissioning it. In that case, why bother finishing it at all? Secondly, whether the halt is temporary or permanent, it amounts to a major policy decision. Is the president authorized to make such a decision on his own? Shouldn't a decision to halt construction or commercial operation on Nuclear Plant Number Four be submitted to the people for a referendum, in accordance with the DPP's promises?
Chen Shui-bian reneged on his promise to hold a referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four, Now Tsai Ing-wen is doing the same thing. The DPP legislative caucus' call for a referendum is mere posturing. If it really intended to fulfill its commitment. it should have initiated a public referendum, instead of merely making demands within the Legislative Yuan, Tsai Ing-wen said"It is too early to talk about a referendum." Such an attitude casts serious doubt on her stated commitment to a referendum.
Tsai Ing-wen has painted herself into a corner. She initially considered Nuclear Plant Number Four a hot button issue, one with which she could incite Blue vs. Green political passions. She opportunistically suggested "continuing construction, but halting commercial operations." In effect, she decommissioned Nuclear Plant Four in fact but not in name. But if she is decommissioning Nuclear Plant Number Four in fact, why isn't she fulfilling her commitment to hold a referendum? Surely the DPP is not reneging on its promises?
Recently, Tsai Ing-wen began pulling her punches. She even changed the subject, and began talking about renewable energy. She said "We are merely making a modest call for a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy." This was transparent subterfuge. Leave aside the question of practicability. The issue is bogus. Nobody is against a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy. The real issue is, what does a 4% increase in the use of renewable energy have to do with "halting commercial operation of Nuclear Plant Number Four?" What does it have to do with a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Four? The DPP clearly hopes to stir up the pot for the sake of votes. It has no respect for public opinion. But absent a referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four, what right would "President Tsai" have to order a halt on commercial operations?
The DPP owes the public a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four. It also owes the public another referendum, namely, on on Taiwan independence. The Taiwan Independence Party Platform calls for "the founding of a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan, and the authoring of a new constitution. These issues must be referred to the inhabitants of Taiwan for a decision via public referendum." This is what is known as a Taiwan independence referendum. But the DPP insists that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation." The DPP also holds rallies, during which it proclaims that "the ROC is a sovereign and independent nation." At these rallies, Taiwan independence flags fill the air. But not a single ROC flag can be found. The "one nation on each side connection" is emerging as one of the party's newest factions. Frank Hsieh's "half a consensus on the constitution," meanwhile, is unable to reach a consensus. Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. As president he demanded Taiwan independence, demanded the rectification of names, and demanded the authoring of a new constitution. So why didn't he hold a Taiwan independence referendum?
As we can see, the DPP merely wishes to exploit Taiwan independence passions.It merely wishes to incite political divisions for the sake of votes. It has no respect for public opinion. Absent a Referendum on Taiwan independence, how can it assert that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation?" Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have been on the nation's payroll for years. Were their salaries issued to them by a "Nation of Taiwan," rather than the Republic of China? How long must we endure this kind of "backdoor listing," this kind of "brood parasitism," this kind of "self deception and deception of others?"
The DPP has long avoided a Referendum on Nuclear Plant Number Four and a Referendum on Taiwan independence. In 2004, Chen Shui-bian threatened to promote a Referendum a Nuclear Plant Number Four. In the end however, he retreated into his shell. Chen Shui-bian openly vetoed Trong Chai's Taiwan independence referendum bill. Absent any such public referenda, calls for decommissioning Nuclear Plant Number Four and a calls for a declaration of Taiwan independence lack legitimacy. The DPP owes the public two referenda. For decades it has relentlessly demagogued two issues -- Nuclear Plant Number Four and Taiwan independence. Can it really boast that it is "using reason to strengthen democracy?"
Nor is this the end of the matter. Tsai Ing-wen declared that If she is elected president, whether to abolish ECFA "may also be put to a public referendum."
核四與台獨: 民進黨欠國人兩個公投
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.07
核四公投是民進黨的品牌政策，但在兩次對核四作出重大決策時，均未經公投程序，而皆是由政治權力逕行片面作出決定。第一次是二○○○年陳水扁任總統時停建核四，第二次是蔡英文如今以總統初選候選人身分宣布，若當選將推動核四不商轉。
「核四公投」有兩個層次：一是實質方面認為停廢核四有正當性，二是宣示將以公投的民主方式達成，慮及程序正義。客觀而論，此一政策思維比較公允，因為並非由政治權力擅為主張，必須徵詢民意始決定取捨。
陳水扁在二○○○年停建核四，根本違反了「核四公投」的承諾。未經公投徵詢民意，逕自停建核四的正當性何在？何況後來釋憲，大法官會議亦認為總統已經逾權。如今，蔡英文又主張核四不商轉，亦涉兩個問題。一、如果只是暫時不商轉，意義何在？如果是永久不商轉，即同廢核四，則又何必將之續建完工？二、無論暫時或永久不商轉，皆涉重大國策執行，總統豈有權力擅自為之？此一攸關核四停續的動作，是否應履行民進黨的承諾而交付公投？
陳水扁違反了核四公投的承諾，如今蔡英文亦然。民進黨黨團在立法院發動公投，只是作態而已；若真要履行核四公投的承諾，當然應發動公民聯署公投；而即使只在立院發動公投，蔡英文也說：「現在談公投言之過早。」此種態度，分明有違核四公投的承諾。
蔡英文已陷不能自圓其說的困境。她原認為核四是政治圖騰，可以挑激藍綠神經；因而她直接拋出核四「續建／不商轉」的投機主張，認為是「無廢核四之名，有廢核四之實」。但是，既然已有廢核四之實，則為何不履行承諾而交付核四公投？民進黨總不能自食其言吧？
現在蔡英文的話愈來愈軟，竟然轉移到再生能源方面，而謂「我們很客氣的只（主張）增加百分之四（再生能源）而已」；然遁詞知其所窮，因為增加百分之四的再生能源，雖做不做得到是另一回事，但其實並無人反對；問題是：增加百分之四的再生能源，與主張「核四不商轉」有何關係？又與不交付核四公投有何關係？可見，民進黨要的只是挑激選舉衝突，而不在尊重民意；但若不履行核四公投，「蔡總統」憑什麼下令核四不商轉？
「核四公投」以外，民進黨欠國人另一個公投，即台獨公投。台獨黨綱稱：「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國及制定新憲法的主張，應交由台灣全體住民以公民投票方式選擇決定。」此即台獨公投的主張。但是，民進黨迄今稱「台灣（國）是一個主權獨立的國家」，而諱言「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」；集會時台獨旌旗招展，不見一面中華民國國旗，而「一邊一國連線」更是黨內新興派系，甚至連謝長廷的「二分之一憲法共識」亦不能達到「共識」；至於陳水扁主政八年，到頭來仍以總統身分宣示「要台獨，要正名，要制憲」。試問：為何不舉行台獨公投？
可見，民進黨要的也只是藉台獨或台灣國的情愫來挑激選舉衝突，而不在尊重民意；但若不舉行台獨公投，憑何主張「台灣（國）是一主權獨立的國家」？蔡英文及蘇貞昌等領了國家薪水多年，難道是台灣國發給你（妳）的，而不是中華民國？這種「借殼上市」、「鳩佔鵲巢」、「偷天換日」的騙局，還要自欺欺人到何年何月？
民進黨一直躲避核四公投與台獨公投。陳水扁在二○○四年揚言要發動核四公投，後來竟告龜縮；而蔡同榮的台獨公投法，亦是被陳水扁公然擋下。廢核四及台獨，若未經公投通過，皆不具正當性；但民進黨欠國人這兩大公投，幾十年來卻一天到晚盡在操作廢核四及台獨這兩個議題，這還能說是「理性讓民主更有力」嗎？
事情還沒完，蔡英文又說，她若當選總統，ＥＣＦＡ廢不廢止，「公投其實也是一個選項」。
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Elections are a Paradise for Opportunistic Politicians
Elections are a Paradise for Opportunistic Politicians
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 4, 2011
At an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet in Changhua, President Ma was met with shouted obscenties and insults from the host and protesters. For Ma, the occasion was an embarrassment. By contrast, when Green Camp presidential candidates Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen appeared on the dais, they chatted and laughed, and casually signed a statement promising to halt the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. They brazenly blanked out the fact that they themselves were the ones who promoted this project several years ago.
Many of those who gaze upon such a scene are likely to be deceived. They are likely to conclude that the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project was hammered out by the Ma administration, single-handedly. They are likely to conclude that the KMT cared only about economics, cared nothing about the environment, and rode roughshod over any opposition. They are likely to conclude that the KMT must have been an "evil political party that favored Big Business and failed to cherish the earth." In facdt, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But President Ma was denied access to the microphone. This left him in an embarassing situation, unable to speak and defend himself.
The truth is just the opposite of appearances. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was a program vigorously promoted in 2006 by the ruling DPP government. Then Premier Su Tseng-chang and then Deputy Premier Tsai Ing-wen, trumpeted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. They praised it as a "big investment [that would provide] lots of warmth." They ordered government agencies to fully support its implementation. The Ma administration's promotion of the project was merely the continuation of a policy Inherited from the previous administration. But as election sentiment intensified, Su and Tsai waved a magic wand and instantly become environmentalists clamoring for its cancellation. The ability of opportunists to switch sides so swiftly, in response to shifting political winds, leaves one speechless.
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is a 400 billion NT investment project. The amount was staggering. That is why five years ago Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen promoted it as a "big investment." That is why Chen Shui-bian cited it as proof he had made good on his promise of "economic revitalization." Back then, Su and Tsai ordered government agencies to "sweep aside investment barriers" for large investment projects such as Kuo Kuang Petrochemical, Formosa Plastics Steel Division, and the Taichung Science and Technology Park. Tsai Ing-wen was even rumored to have lobbied EIA members. Today, these projects remain stalled in the EIA phase, unable to begin construction. Subtract these major programs from Su and Tsai's "big investment," and what is there left to boast about? Shouldn't they use this opportunity to come clean with the public?
Confronted by the hollowing out of their own policies, Su and Tsai refuse to consider the crux of the matter. Environmental protection and economic development often conflict with each other. They often amount to a zero sum game. Su and Tsai make no effort to reconcile the two. Instead they have taken the most expedient and irresponsible way out. They have joined the chorus of naysayers, donned green vests, and become "instant environmentalists." By contrast, the Ma administration, which inherited the Chen regime's policies, is seeking solutions, for both Taiwan's economy and for Kuo Kuang Petrochemical. Ironically it has become the whipping boy for opportunistic politicians.
President Ma endured public protests and public embarrassment. But that was not the worst of it. The worst was the cavalier demeanor of these opportunistic politicians, who apparently felt no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Su Tseng-chang admits that he once promoted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. But he now argues that the global climate and the business environment have changed, deftly evading responsibility for his own role in the matter. A 400 billion NT investment project was subjected to a 30 year industry assessment process. Plant construction under the Chen regime was delayed several years. Now that the Green Camp is in the opposition however, it is obstructing the project. Business owners may strive mightily to be professional. But try as they might, what can they do when confronted by such shameless opportunism? Tsai Ing-wen said that the plant could be built in Saudi Arabia. Her remark echoed Marie Antoinette's "Then let them eat cake!" Leave aside factors such as plant location, related industries, and labor. These opportunists cannot be bothered to seek solutions for environmental problems. Instead they cavalierly pass these problems on to other countries. What sort of environmental justice is this?
Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen signed a statement promising to oppose the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. By doing so, they defaulted on their original commitments. These individuals apparently feel no anxiety, and lose no sleep over the fact that their current commitments repudiate their earlier commitments. How can anyone believe any of their commitments? If someone changes his mind because he realizes the error of his ways, that is commendable. But if someone panders to the mob, merely for the sake of votes, he is simultaneouly debasing environmentalism and revealing his own opportunism. When Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, she expedited the construction of Nuclear Plant Four. Now however, she is singing a different tune. She is shrilly demanding a "nuclear-free homeland." How can anyone believe an "environmentalist" who straddles both sides of the fence in such a flagrant manner?
The Ma administration has chosen to continue the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. It must now attempt to solve problems the Chen regime could not, including choosing a site, undergoing environmental impact assessment, and meeting the needs of industry. President Ma could decide not to assume responsibility for this mess. He could wash its hands of the matter entirely. Doing so would save him a lot of trouble. But how would the public feel watching another administration take the easy way out? Elections must be about more than political rhetoric. Politicians' deeds must match their words. Voters must determine whether politicians are willing to face problems. They must evaluate them on the basis of their ability to govern. That is why the public must see past the theatrics surrounding the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant.
選舉豈是投機政客的天堂？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.06
在彰化的反國光石化餐會上，馬總統遭到主持人的粗口辱罵和民眾抗議，場面難堪。與此形成強烈對比的，則是綠營總統候選人蘇貞昌和蔡英文在台上的談笑風生，他們輕鬆簽下反國光承諾書，把當年自己推動此案的大氣魄全拋在腦後。
看到這個場面，許多民眾也許會產生一種錯覺：以為國光石化是馬政府上台後一手打造的計劃，是國民黨只重經濟、不顧環保的又一顢頇決策，甚至因而得出「邪惡政黨圖利財團、不愛鄉土」的結論。事實其實不是如此，但馬總統在台上連麥克風都拿不到，僅留下百口莫辯的窘境。
真相與人們看到的表象恰好相反。國光石化是2006年民進黨執政時代大力推動的計劃，蘇貞昌、蔡英文任正副閣揆時，還把國光石化當成其「大投資、大溫暖」政策的主軸，轟轟烈烈地鞭策行政體系要全力配合執行；馬政府推動此事，只是政黨輪替後承續執行前朝政策罷了。但隨著大選情勢的激化，蘇、蔡順勢搖身變成了「環保派」，搖旗吶喊要國光石化滾蛋。這樣的形勢變換，投機者選邊易位之快速，讓人咋舌。
國光石化是高達四千億元的投資案，這正是五年前蘇貞昌、蔡英文用它來包裝「大投資」口號的主因；金額實在太動人了，足以幫陳水扁撐起他「拚經濟」的誓言。當時，蘇、蔡不僅訓令各部門設法為國光石化、台塑大鋼廠及中科等大投資案「排除投資障礙」，蔡英文甚至傳出曾致電向環評委員關說；然而，這些案件至今都卡在環評，無法啟動。拿掉這幾個重大計劃後，蘇蔡兩人的「大投資」還剩下什麼可以誇口的東西，他們何不趁此向社會坦誠說明一下？
面對自己執政績效的空洞化，蘇、蔡不去思考癥結何在，不去思考如何解開環保與經濟發展的零和死結，卻選擇了一個最簡單而不負責的方式，就是把自己移到對立面去；以為穿上環保背心，就變成了環保人士。相對的，馬政府承續扁政府政策，試圖為台灣經濟及國光石化等案尋求出路，卻反成為投機政客大肆攻擊的箭靶。
令人不忍卒睹的，倒不是馬總統面對民眾嗆聲的困窘，而是這些投機政客變臉之輕鬆愉悅，好像心理上從不覺得有什麼負擔。蘇貞昌承認推動過國光石化，但辯稱現在全球氣候和產業環境都有了變化，這真是四兩撥千斤的推卸法：一個四千億的投資案，少說得有卅年的產業前景評估，建廠在扁政府任內已拖了幾年，現在綠營再換上在野的袈裟來杯葛；業者再怎麼認真專業，如何擋得了政客的論戰技法？蔡英文說廠可以設到沙烏地阿拉伯去，也是「何不食肉糜」的說法；且不提建廠區位、產業關連、勞動力等因素，自己不想費心解決的攤子隨便倒給其他國家，這又是哪門子環保正義？
因此，當蘇貞昌和蔡英文一派輕鬆地簽下反國光承諾書，別忘了，他們也同時收回了自己當初推動的承諾。能用後一個承諾來銷毀前一個承諾，而不稍覺不安的人，人們如何相信他們會履踐承諾？如果變臉是出於理念的覺醒，也許還值得稱許；若只是為了選舉投群眾所好，那不僅濫用了環保的舞台，也只暴露自己的投機。包括蔡英文在副院長任內催促核四趕工，如今卻改唱「非核家園」的高調，這種左右逢源的環保機會主義者，誰敢相信？
馬政府選擇接續推動國光石化案，就得面對扁政府無法解決的問題，包括地點的選擇、環境影響評估及關連產業的需求等等。當然馬總統也可以選擇不接手這個爛攤子，縮手了事，如此能省去許多麻煩，但大家會覺得一個便宜行事的政府更棒嗎？如果選舉要看的不只是政治人物的優雅說詞，也要檢驗他們言行的一致，要估量他們面對問題的氣度，乃至研判他們的綜合治理能力；那麼，反國光石化這場大戲，值得觀眾深度賞析。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 4, 2011
At an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet in Changhua, President Ma was met with shouted obscenties and insults from the host and protesters. For Ma, the occasion was an embarrassment. By contrast, when Green Camp presidential candidates Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen appeared on the dais, they chatted and laughed, and casually signed a statement promising to halt the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. They brazenly blanked out the fact that they themselves were the ones who promoted this project several years ago.
Many of those who gaze upon such a scene are likely to be deceived. They are likely to conclude that the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project was hammered out by the Ma administration, single-handedly. They are likely to conclude that the KMT cared only about economics, cared nothing about the environment, and rode roughshod over any opposition. They are likely to conclude that the KMT must have been an "evil political party that favored Big Business and failed to cherish the earth." In facdt, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. But President Ma was denied access to the microphone. This left him in an embarassing situation, unable to speak and defend himself.
The truth is just the opposite of appearances. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant was a program vigorously promoted in 2006 by the ruling DPP government. Then Premier Su Tseng-chang and then Deputy Premier Tsai Ing-wen, trumpeted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. They praised it as a "big investment [that would provide] lots of warmth." They ordered government agencies to fully support its implementation. The Ma administration's promotion of the project was merely the continuation of a policy Inherited from the previous administration. But as election sentiment intensified, Su and Tsai waved a magic wand and instantly become environmentalists clamoring for its cancellation. The ability of opportunists to switch sides so swiftly, in response to shifting political winds, leaves one speechless.
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is a 400 billion NT investment project. The amount was staggering. That is why five years ago Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen promoted it as a "big investment." That is why Chen Shui-bian cited it as proof he had made good on his promise of "economic revitalization." Back then, Su and Tsai ordered government agencies to "sweep aside investment barriers" for large investment projects such as Kuo Kuang Petrochemical, Formosa Plastics Steel Division, and the Taichung Science and Technology Park. Tsai Ing-wen was even rumored to have lobbied EIA members. Today, these projects remain stalled in the EIA phase, unable to begin construction. Subtract these major programs from Su and Tsai's "big investment," and what is there left to boast about? Shouldn't they use this opportunity to come clean with the public?
Confronted by the hollowing out of their own policies, Su and Tsai refuse to consider the crux of the matter. Environmental protection and economic development often conflict with each other. They often amount to a zero sum game. Su and Tsai make no effort to reconcile the two. Instead they have taken the most expedient and irresponsible way out. They have joined the chorus of naysayers, donned green vests, and become "instant environmentalists." By contrast, the Ma administration, which inherited the Chen regime's policies, is seeking solutions, for both Taiwan's economy and for Kuo Kuang Petrochemical. Ironically it has become the whipping boy for opportunistic politicians.
President Ma endured public protests and public embarrassment. But that was not the worst of it. The worst was the cavalier demeanor of these opportunistic politicians, who apparently felt no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Su Tseng-chang admits that he once promoted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. But he now argues that the global climate and the business environment have changed, deftly evading responsibility for his own role in the matter. A 400 billion NT investment project was subjected to a 30 year industry assessment process. Plant construction under the Chen regime was delayed several years. Now that the Green Camp is in the opposition however, it is obstructing the project. Business owners may strive mightily to be professional. But try as they might, what can they do when confronted by such shameless opportunism? Tsai Ing-wen said that the plant could be built in Saudi Arabia. Her remark echoed Marie Antoinette's "Then let them eat cake!" Leave aside factors such as plant location, related industries, and labor. These opportunists cannot be bothered to seek solutions for environmental problems. Instead they cavalierly pass these problems on to other countries. What sort of environmental justice is this?
Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen signed a statement promising to oppose the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. By doing so, they defaulted on their original commitments. These individuals apparently feel no anxiety, and lose no sleep over the fact that their current commitments repudiate their earlier commitments. How can anyone believe any of their commitments? If someone changes his mind because he realizes the error of his ways, that is commendable. But if someone panders to the mob, merely for the sake of votes, he is simultaneouly debasing environmentalism and revealing his own opportunism. When Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, she expedited the construction of Nuclear Plant Four. Now however, she is singing a different tune. She is shrilly demanding a "nuclear-free homeland." How can anyone believe an "environmentalist" who straddles both sides of the fence in such a flagrant manner?
The Ma administration has chosen to continue the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. It must now attempt to solve problems the Chen regime could not, including choosing a site, undergoing environmental impact assessment, and meeting the needs of industry. President Ma could decide not to assume responsibility for this mess. He could wash its hands of the matter entirely. Doing so would save him a lot of trouble. But how would the public feel watching another administration take the easy way out? Elections must be about more than political rhetoric. Politicians' deeds must match their words. Voters must determine whether politicians are willing to face problems. They must evaluate them on the basis of their ability to govern. That is why the public must see past the theatrics surrounding the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant.
選舉豈是投機政客的天堂？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.06
在彰化的反國光石化餐會上，馬總統遭到主持人的粗口辱罵和民眾抗議，場面難堪。與此形成強烈對比的，則是綠營總統候選人蘇貞昌和蔡英文在台上的談笑風生，他們輕鬆簽下反國光承諾書，把當年自己推動此案的大氣魄全拋在腦後。
看到這個場面，許多民眾也許會產生一種錯覺：以為國光石化是馬政府上台後一手打造的計劃，是國民黨只重經濟、不顧環保的又一顢頇決策，甚至因而得出「邪惡政黨圖利財團、不愛鄉土」的結論。事實其實不是如此，但馬總統在台上連麥克風都拿不到，僅留下百口莫辯的窘境。
真相與人們看到的表象恰好相反。國光石化是2006年民進黨執政時代大力推動的計劃，蘇貞昌、蔡英文任正副閣揆時，還把國光石化當成其「大投資、大溫暖」政策的主軸，轟轟烈烈地鞭策行政體系要全力配合執行；馬政府推動此事，只是政黨輪替後承續執行前朝政策罷了。但隨著大選情勢的激化，蘇、蔡順勢搖身變成了「環保派」，搖旗吶喊要國光石化滾蛋。這樣的形勢變換，投機者選邊易位之快速，讓人咋舌。
國光石化是高達四千億元的投資案，這正是五年前蘇貞昌、蔡英文用它來包裝「大投資」口號的主因；金額實在太動人了，足以幫陳水扁撐起他「拚經濟」的誓言。當時，蘇、蔡不僅訓令各部門設法為國光石化、台塑大鋼廠及中科等大投資案「排除投資障礙」，蔡英文甚至傳出曾致電向環評委員關說；然而，這些案件至今都卡在環評，無法啟動。拿掉這幾個重大計劃後，蘇蔡兩人的「大投資」還剩下什麼可以誇口的東西，他們何不趁此向社會坦誠說明一下？
面對自己執政績效的空洞化，蘇、蔡不去思考癥結何在，不去思考如何解開環保與經濟發展的零和死結，卻選擇了一個最簡單而不負責的方式，就是把自己移到對立面去；以為穿上環保背心，就變成了環保人士。相對的，馬政府承續扁政府政策，試圖為台灣經濟及國光石化等案尋求出路，卻反成為投機政客大肆攻擊的箭靶。
令人不忍卒睹的，倒不是馬總統面對民眾嗆聲的困窘，而是這些投機政客變臉之輕鬆愉悅，好像心理上從不覺得有什麼負擔。蘇貞昌承認推動過國光石化，但辯稱現在全球氣候和產業環境都有了變化，這真是四兩撥千斤的推卸法：一個四千億的投資案，少說得有卅年的產業前景評估，建廠在扁政府任內已拖了幾年，現在綠營再換上在野的袈裟來杯葛；業者再怎麼認真專業，如何擋得了政客的論戰技法？蔡英文說廠可以設到沙烏地阿拉伯去，也是「何不食肉糜」的說法；且不提建廠區位、產業關連、勞動力等因素，自己不想費心解決的攤子隨便倒給其他國家，這又是哪門子環保正義？
因此，當蘇貞昌和蔡英文一派輕鬆地簽下反國光承諾書，別忘了，他們也同時收回了自己當初推動的承諾。能用後一個承諾來銷毀前一個承諾，而不稍覺不安的人，人們如何相信他們會履踐承諾？如果變臉是出於理念的覺醒，也許還值得稱許；若只是為了選舉投群眾所好，那不僅濫用了環保的舞台，也只暴露自己的投機。包括蔡英文在副院長任內催促核四趕工，如今卻改唱「非核家園」的高調，這種左右逢源的環保機會主義者，誰敢相信？
馬政府選擇接續推動國光石化案，就得面對扁政府無法解決的問題，包括地點的選擇、環境影響評估及關連產業的需求等等。當然馬總統也可以選擇不接手這個爛攤子，縮手了事，如此能省去許多麻煩，但大家會覺得一個便宜行事的政府更棒嗎？如果選舉要看的不只是政治人物的優雅說詞，也要檢驗他們言行的一致，要估量他們面對問題的氣度，乃至研判他們的綜合治理能力；那麼，反國光石化這場大戲，值得觀眾深度賞析。
Thursday, March 31, 2011
No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy
No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 1, 2011
Either Tsai Ing-wen or Su Tseng-chang will represent the DPP in the 2012 presidential election. The two candidates made glowing promises during the party primaries. But neither adequately addressed cross-Strait policy. As a result, the two candidates' primary platforms were all flash and no substance.
The primary platforms issued by Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen were similar to those issued by presidential candidates all over the world. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric about students studying under dim lanterns, and college girls afraid of losing their jobs could easily have been incorporated into the campaign speeches of any nation's presidential candidate, But such rhetoric is clearly inadequate for a candidate seeking the Republic of China presidency. Failure to address cross-Strait policy reduces the entire speech to empty boasting.
Tsai Ing-wen's primary platform barely mentioned cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang mentioned it merely in passing. He said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." Su Tseng-chang's "Survival above all, democracy as a foundation" did not appear in his primary platform. Clearly the two candidates were deliberately avoiding, even hiding, from cross-Strait issues. This is the DPP's Achilles Heel. This is also Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's political Achilles Heel.
Cross-Strait issues are admittedly not the sum total of the ROC's political and economic problems. But they are undoubtedly its most important component. For the ROC, cross-Strait policy must be addressed. Otherwise it is impossible to speak about a vision for the future. If no remedies can be found for cross-Strait ills, then no remedies will be found for our political and economic ills. The Ma administration has laid out its cross-Strait policy, including ECFA. The DPP on the other hand, has failed to offer any comprehensive or substantial proposals in its stead. It even averred that "If elected, it would continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." At the same time, it persists in hurling vague allegations about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen even made a fuss about the headstones and funerary urns of candidates' ancestors. On one side of her mouth, she condemned the incumbent for "pandering to [Mainland] China" and "selling out Taiwan." On the other side of her mouth she assured us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." How can she possibly win on a platform like this? And if elected, how could she possibly govern the nation?
It is now over 20 years since martial law was lifted. The Democratic Progressive Party underwent a considerable period during which it experimented with all manner of "new and unconventional" cross-Strait policies. These include the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, the rectification of names, one nation on each side, the Second Republic, de-Sinicization, the referendum to join the UN, the resolution for a normal nation, and other Taiwan independence oriented proposals. These amounted to a history of the DPP's cross-Strait relations counterproposals. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen know perfectly well that these policies are utterly infeasible. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are running for elective office. On the one hand, they cannot admit their proposals are infeasible. Doing so would mean losing the support of Green Camp zealots. On the other hand, they cannot avoid the realization that their proposals are infeasible. Otherwise, why would they assure us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the preceding administration?"
The DPP is trapped within a "now you see it, now you don't, now you see it again" paradox. Su Tseng-chang says "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." He says this because the DPP's new and unconventional proposals have all turned out to be infeasible. He says this because the DPP has run out of new and unconventional proposals to offer.
Almost every one of the Democratic Progressive Party's new and unconventional cross-Strait policy proposals were rooted in Taiwan independence thought. The fundamental premise of Taiwan independence thought has long been "Resistance against the PRC necessitates the overthrow of the ROC." This eventually degenerated into "Resistance against the ROC equals resistance against the PRC." But the domestic and international situation has changed. Gradually the public is seeing things more clearly. It realizes that if it overthrows the ROC, it will be even more difficult to resist the PRC. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are well aware of this fact. That is why they realize there is no room for "new and unconventional" proposals.
Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional. We have long felt this way. We need only return to the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Future cross-Strait relations will be determined in accordance with the ROC Constitution. The constitutional process must be a democratic process. This naturally implies that "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people." If we can reach such a consenus, we can return to the constitution. We need not concoct anything new and unconventional.
Su Tseng-chang said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, avoided the question altogether, This shows that the Democratic Progressive Party has reached the end of its rope. It has nothing new or unconventional to offer. Hsu Hsing-liang has entered the party primaries, Compared to Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, he comes across as "new and unconventional." But in fact Hsu is merely returning to the mainstream. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are unable to offer anything "new and unconventional" in cross-Strait policy, Yet they want to run for ROC president. As Annette Lu asked of the DPP: Are you ready? Can you be counted on? Do you have the ability?
談兩岸，不必標新立異
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.01 03:46 am
蔡英文與蘇貞昌二人之一可望代表民進黨競選二○一二總統。二人的初選宣言均極盡詞藻華麗之能事，卻因皆未對兩岸議題作出應有的申論，遂使二篇初選宣言皆顯得華而不實。
蘇蔡兩篇初選宣言，大部分內容其實與舉世各國所有總統候選人的競選宣言大同小異；換一個國家的總統候選人，也可以拿著蘇蔡這兩篇講稿，從昏燈下的學童或害怕失業的大學女生講起。但是，這顯然不夠格作為中華民國總統參選人的競選宣言，不談兩岸政策，可使通篇演說變成假、大、空話。
蔡英文的初選宣言對兩岸政策幾乎未置一詞，蘇貞昌則點到為止，甚至稱「談兩岸不必標新立異」。蔡英文的「和而不同，和而求同」，與蘇貞昌的「生存是王道，民主是基礎」也均未見諸初選宣言；顯見二人對兩岸議題皆蓄意迴避，甚至在藏拙。這正是民進黨的阿基里斯腱，亦即是蘇蔡二人的政治罩門。
兩岸問題誠然不是台灣政經問題的全部，卻無疑是最重要的部分。對台灣而言，沒有平衡的兩岸政策，即不可能有未來憧憬可言；若不能在兩岸問題上找到應對方法，則整個政經問題就無從治理。然而，民進黨如今對馬政府的兩岸政策，如ＥＣＦＡ等，其實完全提不出對其全盤否定或作重大修正的建議，甚至還有「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」的說法；但是，另一方面民進黨卻又不斷操弄「傾中賣台」的情緒性空泛指摘，蔡英文甚至拿先人的墓碑及骨灰罈作文章。這種又罵「傾中賣台」，又要「延續前朝兩岸政策」的兩面手法，豈有可能贏得總統大選？或縱使當選豈有可能治國？
解嚴後二十餘年，民進黨在兩岸關係上，確實經過好一陣子「標新立異」的操作，曾經出現過台灣前途決議文、正名制憲、一邊一國、第二共和、去中國化、入聯公投、正常國家等等「標新立異」的台獨副牌及變體，可謂皆是民進黨就兩岸關係提出的對策試驗。但蘇蔡二人當然皆知，這些政策在今日呈現的實驗結果是全無可行。然而，蘇蔡面臨的選舉情境卻使他們既不能承認其不可行，否則即會失去了綠營支持者的熱情；卻又不能不承認其不可行，否則怎會說「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」？
在這種「見山是山／見山不是山／見山又是山」的吊詭過程中，蘇貞昌提出「談兩岸不必標新立異」的說法，其實一方面是因民進黨過去的「標新立異」皆告失敗，另一方面也因如今已是無新可標、無異可立了。
民進黨幾乎嘗試過所有的「標新立異」的兩岸政策，主軸皆是台獨路線。原始的台獨思維是「為了對抗中華人民共和國，所以要顛覆中華民國」，但其後漸漸變質為「把對抗中華民國，當作對抗中華人民共和國」；但是，隨著國內外情勢丕變，國人漸漸感知，若顛覆中華民國，更無以對抗中華人民共和國，蘇蔡二人自然亦深知此理。因而，即無「標新立異」的餘地。
談兩岸，不要標新立異。以我們一貫的看法來說，就是一切皆回歸到中華民國憲法的架構下，未來的兩岸關係亦由中華民國的憲法程序決定；由於憲法程序必然是民主程序，所以其中當然包含了「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」。如果能夠建立這樣的共識，即可返璞歸真於憲法，不必再標新立異。
蘇貞昌所謂的「談兩岸不必標新立異」，及蔡英文的乾脆避而不談，皆顯示民進黨在兩岸政策上的僵固與枯竭，已無新可標，無異可立；許信良的投入初選，相對於於蘇蔡二人，反而是一種「標新立異」，但許其實是回歸主流而已。蘇蔡二人若不能提出「新與異」的兩岸政策，卻想選中華民國總統，借呂秀蓮的話問民進黨：你準備好了嗎？你靠得住嗎？你有這個本事嗎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 1, 2011
Either Tsai Ing-wen or Su Tseng-chang will represent the DPP in the 2012 presidential election. The two candidates made glowing promises during the party primaries. But neither adequately addressed cross-Strait policy. As a result, the two candidates' primary platforms were all flash and no substance.
The primary platforms issued by Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen were similar to those issued by presidential candidates all over the world. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric about students studying under dim lanterns, and college girls afraid of losing their jobs could easily have been incorporated into the campaign speeches of any nation's presidential candidate, But such rhetoric is clearly inadequate for a candidate seeking the Republic of China presidency. Failure to address cross-Strait policy reduces the entire speech to empty boasting.
Tsai Ing-wen's primary platform barely mentioned cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang mentioned it merely in passing. He said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." Su Tseng-chang's "Survival above all, democracy as a foundation" did not appear in his primary platform. Clearly the two candidates were deliberately avoiding, even hiding, from cross-Strait issues. This is the DPP's Achilles Heel. This is also Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's political Achilles Heel.
Cross-Strait issues are admittedly not the sum total of the ROC's political and economic problems. But they are undoubtedly its most important component. For the ROC, cross-Strait policy must be addressed. Otherwise it is impossible to speak about a vision for the future. If no remedies can be found for cross-Strait ills, then no remedies will be found for our political and economic ills. The Ma administration has laid out its cross-Strait policy, including ECFA. The DPP on the other hand, has failed to offer any comprehensive or substantial proposals in its stead. It even averred that "If elected, it would continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." At the same time, it persists in hurling vague allegations about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen even made a fuss about the headstones and funerary urns of candidates' ancestors. On one side of her mouth, she condemned the incumbent for "pandering to [Mainland] China" and "selling out Taiwan." On the other side of her mouth she assured us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." How can she possibly win on a platform like this? And if elected, how could she possibly govern the nation?
It is now over 20 years since martial law was lifted. The Democratic Progressive Party underwent a considerable period during which it experimented with all manner of "new and unconventional" cross-Strait policies. These include the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, the rectification of names, one nation on each side, the Second Republic, de-Sinicization, the referendum to join the UN, the resolution for a normal nation, and other Taiwan independence oriented proposals. These amounted to a history of the DPP's cross-Strait relations counterproposals. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen know perfectly well that these policies are utterly infeasible. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are running for elective office. On the one hand, they cannot admit their proposals are infeasible. Doing so would mean losing the support of Green Camp zealots. On the other hand, they cannot avoid the realization that their proposals are infeasible. Otherwise, why would they assure us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the preceding administration?"
The DPP is trapped within a "now you see it, now you don't, now you see it again" paradox. Su Tseng-chang says "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." He says this because the DPP's new and unconventional proposals have all turned out to be infeasible. He says this because the DPP has run out of new and unconventional proposals to offer.
Almost every one of the Democratic Progressive Party's new and unconventional cross-Strait policy proposals were rooted in Taiwan independence thought. The fundamental premise of Taiwan independence thought has long been "Resistance against the PRC necessitates the overthrow of the ROC." This eventually degenerated into "Resistance against the ROC equals resistance against the PRC." But the domestic and international situation has changed. Gradually the public is seeing things more clearly. It realizes that if it overthrows the ROC, it will be even more difficult to resist the PRC. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are well aware of this fact. That is why they realize there is no room for "new and unconventional" proposals.
Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional. We have long felt this way. We need only return to the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Future cross-Strait relations will be determined in accordance with the ROC Constitution. The constitutional process must be a democratic process. This naturally implies that "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people." If we can reach such a consenus, we can return to the constitution. We need not concoct anything new and unconventional.
Su Tseng-chang said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, avoided the question altogether, This shows that the Democratic Progressive Party has reached the end of its rope. It has nothing new or unconventional to offer. Hsu Hsing-liang has entered the party primaries, Compared to Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, he comes across as "new and unconventional." But in fact Hsu is merely returning to the mainstream. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are unable to offer anything "new and unconventional" in cross-Strait policy, Yet they want to run for ROC president. As Annette Lu asked of the DPP: Are you ready? Can you be counted on? Do you have the ability?
談兩岸，不必標新立異
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.01 03:46 am
蔡英文與蘇貞昌二人之一可望代表民進黨競選二○一二總統。二人的初選宣言均極盡詞藻華麗之能事，卻因皆未對兩岸議題作出應有的申論，遂使二篇初選宣言皆顯得華而不實。
蘇蔡兩篇初選宣言，大部分內容其實與舉世各國所有總統候選人的競選宣言大同小異；換一個國家的總統候選人，也可以拿著蘇蔡這兩篇講稿，從昏燈下的學童或害怕失業的大學女生講起。但是，這顯然不夠格作為中華民國總統參選人的競選宣言，不談兩岸政策，可使通篇演說變成假、大、空話。
蔡英文的初選宣言對兩岸政策幾乎未置一詞，蘇貞昌則點到為止，甚至稱「談兩岸不必標新立異」。蔡英文的「和而不同，和而求同」，與蘇貞昌的「生存是王道，民主是基礎」也均未見諸初選宣言；顯見二人對兩岸議題皆蓄意迴避，甚至在藏拙。這正是民進黨的阿基里斯腱，亦即是蘇蔡二人的政治罩門。
兩岸問題誠然不是台灣政經問題的全部，卻無疑是最重要的部分。對台灣而言，沒有平衡的兩岸政策，即不可能有未來憧憬可言；若不能在兩岸問題上找到應對方法，則整個政經問題就無從治理。然而，民進黨如今對馬政府的兩岸政策，如ＥＣＦＡ等，其實完全提不出對其全盤否定或作重大修正的建議，甚至還有「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」的說法；但是，另一方面民進黨卻又不斷操弄「傾中賣台」的情緒性空泛指摘，蔡英文甚至拿先人的墓碑及骨灰罈作文章。這種又罵「傾中賣台」，又要「延續前朝兩岸政策」的兩面手法，豈有可能贏得總統大選？或縱使當選豈有可能治國？
解嚴後二十餘年，民進黨在兩岸關係上，確實經過好一陣子「標新立異」的操作，曾經出現過台灣前途決議文、正名制憲、一邊一國、第二共和、去中國化、入聯公投、正常國家等等「標新立異」的台獨副牌及變體，可謂皆是民進黨就兩岸關係提出的對策試驗。但蘇蔡二人當然皆知，這些政策在今日呈現的實驗結果是全無可行。然而，蘇蔡面臨的選舉情境卻使他們既不能承認其不可行，否則即會失去了綠營支持者的熱情；卻又不能不承認其不可行，否則怎會說「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」？
在這種「見山是山／見山不是山／見山又是山」的吊詭過程中，蘇貞昌提出「談兩岸不必標新立異」的說法，其實一方面是因民進黨過去的「標新立異」皆告失敗，另一方面也因如今已是無新可標、無異可立了。
民進黨幾乎嘗試過所有的「標新立異」的兩岸政策，主軸皆是台獨路線。原始的台獨思維是「為了對抗中華人民共和國，所以要顛覆中華民國」，但其後漸漸變質為「把對抗中華民國，當作對抗中華人民共和國」；但是，隨著國內外情勢丕變，國人漸漸感知，若顛覆中華民國，更無以對抗中華人民共和國，蘇蔡二人自然亦深知此理。因而，即無「標新立異」的餘地。
談兩岸，不要標新立異。以我們一貫的看法來說，就是一切皆回歸到中華民國憲法的架構下，未來的兩岸關係亦由中華民國的憲法程序決定；由於憲法程序必然是民主程序，所以其中當然包含了「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」。如果能夠建立這樣的共識，即可返璞歸真於憲法，不必再標新立異。
蘇貞昌所謂的「談兩岸不必標新立異」，及蔡英文的乾脆避而不談，皆顯示民進黨在兩岸政策上的僵固與枯竭，已無新可標，無異可立；許信良的投入初選，相對於於蘇蔡二人，反而是一種「標新立異」，但許其實是回歸主流而已。蘇蔡二人若不能提出「新與異」的兩岸政策，卻想選中華民國總統，借呂秀蓮的話問民進黨：你準備好了嗎？你靠得住嗎？你有這個本事嗎？
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Missing Presidential Office Case Files Must Be Investigated to the Bitter End
Missing Presidential Office Case Files Must Be Investigated to the Bitter End
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 31, 2011
As incredible as it may seem, over 36,000 Republic of China government files have sprouted wings and disappeared. Included are over 25,000 secret Ministry of Foreign Affairs files. What is even more outrageous, those responsibile for the disappearance of the documents were 17 highly-placed members of former President Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office.
State documents are national assets, especially since the passage of the Archives Act. All official documents must be filed according to specified procedures. The Archives Act was promoted by the DPP. It was implemented after Ah-Bian assumed office. Prior to the first change in ruling parties, the Chen regime was particularly worried about one thing, the smooth transfer of power. A smooth transfer of power means the military must swear allegiance to the incoming administration. It means the outgoing administration must transfer all government documents to the incoming administration. This will enable successors to know what their predecessors did. This will enable later generations to either carry on or make improvements.
What state of mind would permit an individual responsible for state policy, to cavalierly dispose of documents and thumb his nose at the nation's laws? Just before the second change in ruling parties, Chiang Lian-fu, a member of the legislature, said Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office had purchased a large number of document shredders and was preparing to shred official documents. Many treated his accusation as a joke. Most denounced it as absurd. They did so based on the assumption that the Head of State was someone who could be trusted.
Who knew that three years later, Chiang would be vindicated? During the Chen regime's eight years in power, vast numbers of documents disappeared from the Presidential Office. Incredibly, the fate of most documents sent to the Presidential Office remains unknown. Only 0.03% of all documents were archived. One cannot excuse Chen Shui-bian by arguing that he had never served as president. After all, he had served as Taipei Mayor. Surely he knew that the documents he approved or had accessed must be archived? Surely he didn't squirrel away official muncipal government documents in his private files?
Three lowly secretaries in the Presidential Office were able to investigate the matter and issue this astonishing report. DPP officials are accusing the Presidential Office of political persecution in advance of the 2012 presidential election. They say it is no wonder the Ma administration's efficiency has been so severely criticized, it took three years to discover that official documents were missing, DPP spokesman Lin Yu-chang said the Presidential Office logs included letters of invitation and private correspondence. Lin asked how could the Presidential Office generalize and mislead the public? But Lin's non sequiteurs merely prove that DPP officials cannot face the truth, that they did nothing while Chen Shui-bian perverted the law for eight long years.
After the Ma administration took office, the Presidential Office was criticized for streamlining itself so drastically that it could no longer bear comparison with the Chen regime. But three secretaries worked all year around for three years. They were able to uncover 100 missing documents. That certainly qualifies as efficiency. The Presidential Office has indeed sent and received many documents. But all documents were logged. They were inventoried on computer. They include large numbers of "secret and unrecorded" documents that had to be logged manually. But do letters of invitation really need to be "secret and unrecorded?" More absurd is that during the Chen regime, all documents addressed to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary General, and Deputy Secretary General were directly turned over to these government officials, in flagrant defiance of the nation's laws.
Stop making wild allegations about political persecution. The Presidential Office is not above the law. A head of state must comply with the nation's laws. Anyone guilty of misplacing, destroying, concealing, or leaking official documents must bear administrative and criminal responsibility. When the Special Investigation Unit was prosecuting the Chen family's corruption, and Chen was in the Taipei Detention Center, it seized 102 boxes. It discovered over 1,500 secret documents. This was a tiny fraction of what the Presidential Office found. The case has yet to be closed. How can the Ma administration refuse to follow up? Does anyone remember Chen Shen-hui, who was responsible for the disbursement of Presidential Office expenses during the Chen regime? The Chen family was busy of embezzling funds. She on the other hand, received a meager salary. Yet she wound up behind bars. How many more Chen Shen-huis does the DPP intend to sacrifice?
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power after the 2012 presidential campaign. If the DPP were to return to power, would it overlook the misplacing or even destruction of large numbers of documents by highly placed officials within the Ma Ying-jeou administration? The rule of law makes no distinctions between Blue and Green. Even if the DPP were willing to forgive and forget, the public would not. The Ma administration is often criticized for its timidity. But a nation's laws ought to be obeyed. Eight years Chen regime misrule left the nation in chaos. The public wants a president and a government that adheres to the rule of law. Who is the DPP to say no? Are we to understand that if it returns to power, the DPP would repeat the mistakes of the Chen regime?
A year after Chen Shui-bian took office, he published his "Maiden Voyage of the Century." He revealed the secrets behind the transfer of power. He referred to the first change in ruling parties as an "verbal transfer," "a transfer of conscience," as opposed to a "systemic transfer," or "inventory transfer." he said many important events lacked even minutes of the meeting, and left him in a cold sweat. That year, he decided to establish a system for future transfers of political power. Who knew that in his hands a "verbal transfer" would suddenly become a "fraudulent transfer."
For the psst five years, the Chen family corruption scandal has been making waves. For the public, it has been a terrible nightmare. Our cherished democracy has produced a president with total disregard for the rule of law. The public is thoroughly fed up. But the the lost Presidential Office files are more than a link in the Chen family corruption scandal chain. It must be investigated to the bitter end. Ruling party change on Taiwan has become the norm. If the public on Taiwan wants to be the envy of the world, it must perfect its democracy. The first step must be strict oversight of those in power, ensuring that they cannot circumvent the law, This applies to the outgoing president, the current president, and to all future presidential candidates.
總統府檔案佚失案 必須追究到底
2011-03-31 中國時報
不可思議！中華民國政府公文竟有三萬六千多件公文不翼而飛，其中包括二萬五千多件外交祕抄；更離譜的是，帶頭讓這些公文人間蒸發的，竟是前總統陳水扁在內的十七位總統府相關高層。
國家公文屬國家資產，特別在檔案法立法後，所有公事文件都有列檔的程序，檔案法還是民進黨力推的法案，在扁政府執政後公布實施。第一次政黨輪替前，扁政府最介意的就是政權是否順利轉移，政權轉移除了軍隊宣示效忠，最重要的，當然是所有國家文書全面移交，讓後繼者得知前人所為何事，後人如何繼續或改進。
到底是什麼心態，讓執掌國家大政的人，膽敢將公文隨意處置，無視國家法治？二次政黨輪替前，立委江連福言之鑿鑿指稱總統府大量採購碎紙機，要銷毀國家公文，聞者引為笑談，多半還斥無稽，那是出於對國家元首基本的信賴。
沒想到，三年多後，證實扁政府八年執政，府內確有為數龐大的公文佚失，送進總統辦公室的公文，竟多數流向不明，歸檔率僅百分之零點零三，不要說陳水扁沒當過總統，他總當過台北市長，總知道市長批閱或調閱過的公文要歸檔，總不會私藏市府公文吧？
總統府靠三個小祕書逐一清查比對，完成這份驚人的調查報告，民進黨人痛批總統府是為了二○一二年總統大選進行的政治清算、政治迫害；質疑馬政府查三年才查出公文遺失，難怪行政效能遭到嚴厲批評，民進黨發言人林右昌並指總統府外收發登錄的文件包括邀請信、首長私函，豈可一概而論，誤導大眾；這些莫名其妙的說法，只凸顯民進黨人無法正視扁執政八年枉法真相的軟弱。
馬政府就任後，總統府用人精簡到被批評與扁政府的總統府不可同日而語，三個祕書就算全年無休，三年每天得抓到一百件佚失公文，這個效率夠高了。總統府外收發的文件確實很多，所有文件都經過文號登錄，電腦清查之外，還有更龐大的「密不錄由」文件，必須靠人工比對，請問：邀請信需要「密不錄由」嗎？更荒唐的是，扁政府時代凡公文標明給總統、副總統、與正副祕書長者，均跳過收發直送五首長，完全無視國家體制。
不要再扯什麼政治清算、政治迫害，總統府不是法外特區，即令是國家元首，都得遵守國家法令，遑論公務員遺失或故意銷毀、藏匿、洩漏公文，都是要負行政和刑事責任的，特偵組辦扁家弊案時，已經從扁於北所的舍房內查扣一百零二箱，超過一千五百件以上機密文件，這只是總統府這次清查的零頭都不到，此案還沒偵結，馬政府能不追究嗎？還記得扁政府時代的總統府出納陳鎮慧嗎？扁家Ａ錢，她拿微薄的薪資卻受牢獄之災，吃盡苦頭，民進黨人還要犧牲幾個陳鎮慧？
民進黨志在二○一二總統大選重返執政，請問：如果民進黨果真重新執政，能容忍馬英九總統以降的總統府高官，把大量公文佚失、甚或銷毀嗎？國家法治不分藍綠，就算民進黨可容忍，人民也容不了馬英九胡搞。馬政府常被批評行事謹小慎微，從遵守國家法令規章的角度看，經過扁政府八年在國家體制上的失序，人民要求一個嚴守法治的總統和政府，民進黨能說「不」嗎？難道再執政，民進黨政府還要重蹈扁政府的覆轍嗎？
陳水扁上任一年多，就出版《世紀首航》，揭露政權移交的祕辛，書中他直指首次政權輪替，是「口頭移交」、「良心移交」，而非「制度移交」、「清冊移交」，很多重要的事「連一份會議紀錄」都沒有，讓他捏把冷汗。當年，他還立志要於政權再輪替時，建立制度。沒想到，口頭移交到了他手裡，竟成了「空頭移交」！
五年多了，扁家弊案依舊纏繞不休，對全民而言，無異是一場最大的夢魘，我們最珍視的民主竟產生出這麼一個無視法治的總統，真是受夠了。但是，總統府檔案佚失案，不能只視為扁案的一環，非追究到底不可，因為台灣政黨輪替勢成民主常態，台灣要以民主傲視全球，就得讓我們的民主臻於至善，第一步就得嚴格監督權力者沒有濫權枉法的空間，不論卸任總統、現任總統、或者是未來可能的總統人選。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 31, 2011
As incredible as it may seem, over 36,000 Republic of China government files have sprouted wings and disappeared. Included are over 25,000 secret Ministry of Foreign Affairs files. What is even more outrageous, those responsibile for the disappearance of the documents were 17 highly-placed members of former President Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office.
State documents are national assets, especially since the passage of the Archives Act. All official documents must be filed according to specified procedures. The Archives Act was promoted by the DPP. It was implemented after Ah-Bian assumed office. Prior to the first change in ruling parties, the Chen regime was particularly worried about one thing, the smooth transfer of power. A smooth transfer of power means the military must swear allegiance to the incoming administration. It means the outgoing administration must transfer all government documents to the incoming administration. This will enable successors to know what their predecessors did. This will enable later generations to either carry on or make improvements.
What state of mind would permit an individual responsible for state policy, to cavalierly dispose of documents and thumb his nose at the nation's laws? Just before the second change in ruling parties, Chiang Lian-fu, a member of the legislature, said Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office had purchased a large number of document shredders and was preparing to shred official documents. Many treated his accusation as a joke. Most denounced it as absurd. They did so based on the assumption that the Head of State was someone who could be trusted.
Who knew that three years later, Chiang would be vindicated? During the Chen regime's eight years in power, vast numbers of documents disappeared from the Presidential Office. Incredibly, the fate of most documents sent to the Presidential Office remains unknown. Only 0.03% of all documents were archived. One cannot excuse Chen Shui-bian by arguing that he had never served as president. After all, he had served as Taipei Mayor. Surely he knew that the documents he approved or had accessed must be archived? Surely he didn't squirrel away official muncipal government documents in his private files?
Three lowly secretaries in the Presidential Office were able to investigate the matter and issue this astonishing report. DPP officials are accusing the Presidential Office of political persecution in advance of the 2012 presidential election. They say it is no wonder the Ma administration's efficiency has been so severely criticized, it took three years to discover that official documents were missing, DPP spokesman Lin Yu-chang said the Presidential Office logs included letters of invitation and private correspondence. Lin asked how could the Presidential Office generalize and mislead the public? But Lin's non sequiteurs merely prove that DPP officials cannot face the truth, that they did nothing while Chen Shui-bian perverted the law for eight long years.
After the Ma administration took office, the Presidential Office was criticized for streamlining itself so drastically that it could no longer bear comparison with the Chen regime. But three secretaries worked all year around for three years. They were able to uncover 100 missing documents. That certainly qualifies as efficiency. The Presidential Office has indeed sent and received many documents. But all documents were logged. They were inventoried on computer. They include large numbers of "secret and unrecorded" documents that had to be logged manually. But do letters of invitation really need to be "secret and unrecorded?" More absurd is that during the Chen regime, all documents addressed to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary General, and Deputy Secretary General were directly turned over to these government officials, in flagrant defiance of the nation's laws.
Stop making wild allegations about political persecution. The Presidential Office is not above the law. A head of state must comply with the nation's laws. Anyone guilty of misplacing, destroying, concealing, or leaking official documents must bear administrative and criminal responsibility. When the Special Investigation Unit was prosecuting the Chen family's corruption, and Chen was in the Taipei Detention Center, it seized 102 boxes. It discovered over 1,500 secret documents. This was a tiny fraction of what the Presidential Office found. The case has yet to be closed. How can the Ma administration refuse to follow up? Does anyone remember Chen Shen-hui, who was responsible for the disbursement of Presidential Office expenses during the Chen regime? The Chen family was busy of embezzling funds. She on the other hand, received a meager salary. Yet she wound up behind bars. How many more Chen Shen-huis does the DPP intend to sacrifice?
The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power after the 2012 presidential campaign. If the DPP were to return to power, would it overlook the misplacing or even destruction of large numbers of documents by highly placed officials within the Ma Ying-jeou administration? The rule of law makes no distinctions between Blue and Green. Even if the DPP were willing to forgive and forget, the public would not. The Ma administration is often criticized for its timidity. But a nation's laws ought to be obeyed. Eight years Chen regime misrule left the nation in chaos. The public wants a president and a government that adheres to the rule of law. Who is the DPP to say no? Are we to understand that if it returns to power, the DPP would repeat the mistakes of the Chen regime?
A year after Chen Shui-bian took office, he published his "Maiden Voyage of the Century." He revealed the secrets behind the transfer of power. He referred to the first change in ruling parties as an "verbal transfer," "a transfer of conscience," as opposed to a "systemic transfer," or "inventory transfer." he said many important events lacked even minutes of the meeting, and left him in a cold sweat. That year, he decided to establish a system for future transfers of political power. Who knew that in his hands a "verbal transfer" would suddenly become a "fraudulent transfer."
For the psst five years, the Chen family corruption scandal has been making waves. For the public, it has been a terrible nightmare. Our cherished democracy has produced a president with total disregard for the rule of law. The public is thoroughly fed up. But the the lost Presidential Office files are more than a link in the Chen family corruption scandal chain. It must be investigated to the bitter end. Ruling party change on Taiwan has become the norm. If the public on Taiwan wants to be the envy of the world, it must perfect its democracy. The first step must be strict oversight of those in power, ensuring that they cannot circumvent the law, This applies to the outgoing president, the current president, and to all future presidential candidates.
總統府檔案佚失案 必須追究到底
2011-03-31 中國時報
不可思議！中華民國政府公文竟有三萬六千多件公文不翼而飛，其中包括二萬五千多件外交祕抄；更離譜的是，帶頭讓這些公文人間蒸發的，竟是前總統陳水扁在內的十七位總統府相關高層。
國家公文屬國家資產，特別在檔案法立法後，所有公事文件都有列檔的程序，檔案法還是民進黨力推的法案，在扁政府執政後公布實施。第一次政黨輪替前，扁政府最介意的就是政權是否順利轉移，政權轉移除了軍隊宣示效忠，最重要的，當然是所有國家文書全面移交，讓後繼者得知前人所為何事，後人如何繼續或改進。
到底是什麼心態，讓執掌國家大政的人，膽敢將公文隨意處置，無視國家法治？二次政黨輪替前，立委江連福言之鑿鑿指稱總統府大量採購碎紙機，要銷毀國家公文，聞者引為笑談，多半還斥無稽，那是出於對國家元首基本的信賴。
沒想到，三年多後，證實扁政府八年執政，府內確有為數龐大的公文佚失，送進總統辦公室的公文，竟多數流向不明，歸檔率僅百分之零點零三，不要說陳水扁沒當過總統，他總當過台北市長，總知道市長批閱或調閱過的公文要歸檔，總不會私藏市府公文吧？
總統府靠三個小祕書逐一清查比對，完成這份驚人的調查報告，民進黨人痛批總統府是為了二○一二年總統大選進行的政治清算、政治迫害；質疑馬政府查三年才查出公文遺失，難怪行政效能遭到嚴厲批評，民進黨發言人林右昌並指總統府外收發登錄的文件包括邀請信、首長私函，豈可一概而論，誤導大眾；這些莫名其妙的說法，只凸顯民進黨人無法正視扁執政八年枉法真相的軟弱。
馬政府就任後，總統府用人精簡到被批評與扁政府的總統府不可同日而語，三個祕書就算全年無休，三年每天得抓到一百件佚失公文，這個效率夠高了。總統府外收發的文件確實很多，所有文件都經過文號登錄，電腦清查之外，還有更龐大的「密不錄由」文件，必須靠人工比對，請問：邀請信需要「密不錄由」嗎？更荒唐的是，扁政府時代凡公文標明給總統、副總統、與正副祕書長者，均跳過收發直送五首長，完全無視國家體制。
不要再扯什麼政治清算、政治迫害，總統府不是法外特區，即令是國家元首，都得遵守國家法令，遑論公務員遺失或故意銷毀、藏匿、洩漏公文，都是要負行政和刑事責任的，特偵組辦扁家弊案時，已經從扁於北所的舍房內查扣一百零二箱，超過一千五百件以上機密文件，這只是總統府這次清查的零頭都不到，此案還沒偵結，馬政府能不追究嗎？還記得扁政府時代的總統府出納陳鎮慧嗎？扁家Ａ錢，她拿微薄的薪資卻受牢獄之災，吃盡苦頭，民進黨人還要犧牲幾個陳鎮慧？
民進黨志在二○一二總統大選重返執政，請問：如果民進黨果真重新執政，能容忍馬英九總統以降的總統府高官，把大量公文佚失、甚或銷毀嗎？國家法治不分藍綠，就算民進黨可容忍，人民也容不了馬英九胡搞。馬政府常被批評行事謹小慎微，從遵守國家法令規章的角度看，經過扁政府八年在國家體制上的失序，人民要求一個嚴守法治的總統和政府，民進黨能說「不」嗎？難道再執政，民進黨政府還要重蹈扁政府的覆轍嗎？
陳水扁上任一年多，就出版《世紀首航》，揭露政權移交的祕辛，書中他直指首次政權輪替，是「口頭移交」、「良心移交」，而非「制度移交」、「清冊移交」，很多重要的事「連一份會議紀錄」都沒有，讓他捏把冷汗。當年，他還立志要於政權再輪替時，建立制度。沒想到，口頭移交到了他手裡，竟成了「空頭移交」！
五年多了，扁家弊案依舊纏繞不休，對全民而言，無異是一場最大的夢魘，我們最珍視的民主竟產生出這麼一個無視法治的總統，真是受夠了。但是，總統府檔案佚失案，不能只視為扁案的一環，非追究到底不可，因為台灣政黨輪替勢成民主常態，台灣要以民主傲視全球，就得讓我們的民主臻於至善，第一步就得嚴格監督權力者沒有濫權枉法的空間，不論卸任總統、現任總統、或者是未來可能的總統人選。
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Black Money Haunts the White Tower
Black Money Haunts the White Tower
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2011
More procurement scandals have broken out in public hospitals. The Taoyuan District Court has taken four suspects into custody. They include Department of Health officials, the DOH Hospital Chief, and manufacturers. Others are out on bail and under house arrest. No one who knows anything about the medical community on Taiwan is surprised. Their reactions will be the same as former Director of Health Yang Chi-liang.
In the past, "black money," i.e., bribe money, was rampant in the larger public hospitals on Taiwan. This included implicit or explicit appeals to patients for "red envelopes," to drug manufacturers for kickbacks, to procurement personnel for commissions. It even included compulsory contributions for activities inside and outside the hospital. Fortunately, people are becoming more enlightened. Hospital management systems are gradually straightening out their act. The NHI payment system and joint procurement of drugs have made red envelopes and drug kickbacks increasingly rare. Every now and then however, prosecutors will uncover a hospital procurement scandal involving huge sums, that shock the medical community and society as a whole.
Times have changed. New medical devices swiftly become obsolete. The higher the procurement price, the more exorbitant the commissions. This presents a powerful temptation for anyone. Physicians often find themselves in control of large sums of procurement funds. Vendors lobby them day and night, assuring them they will never be found out. Such temptations are hard to resist. Therefore to those in the know, the procurement scandals that have surfaced so far are merely the tip of the iceberg.
in some large public hospitals, rumors of black money have never ended. Because both parties usually refuse to admit guilt, investigating such cases is not easy. But among some large medical equipment providers, the whispers have never stopped. One key factor is that within medical circles on Taiwan, doctors have long been king, Those in charge of large-scale procurements are usually docotrs. As a result, doctors are usually the ones caught during procurement scandals.
Over the past two years the Department of Health has increased restrictions on the outsourcing of medical operations. This may have improved the situation in some public hospitals, reducing procurement abuses. But it has not solved the problem completely. Will halting the outsourcing of medical operations prevent procurement scandals? No one would dare make such a guarantee. In fact, many hospitals benefit greatly from outsourcing. Medical expenses are reduced while income is increased. Many of these are public hospitals. But when the same measures are introduced in DOH hospitals, they paradoxically become a major source of scandals.
The cause of procurement scandals has nothing to do with outsourcing. It has everything to do with the procurement system itself. The public health care system has long opposed laymen being charged with procuring medical devices. But turning total control over to doctors unwittingly increased the opportunities for dirty money. That is why Chang Gung Memorial Hospital has long separated the requisitioners from the purchasers. The administrative staff forms a group responsible for procurement and bargaining. This makes it impossible for merchants to offer bribes. This model merits consideration.
For physicians to actively refuse bribes requires certain conditions. One way is to ensure that doctors are paid enough to keep them honest. But health insurance benefits continue to shrink. Public hospitals find it hard to make ends meet. Leave aside increases in staff salaries. Young doctors must economize on everything from food to clothing. They must work hard to succeed. When large sums of money pass through their hands, how many can resist? How many are not tempted to take something off the top?
Public hospitals want to reduce disputes over black money. They should consider the hospital's position. Public hospitals are subject to human limitations and to the procurement laws. They must be self-financing. They are non-profit public health providers. Clearly the pressure on them is too great. If public hospitals accept government subsidies, they can remain non-profit. They can avoid becoming profit-oriented. This will naturally reduce the phenomenon of black money. But this means government must underwrite their losses.
If the government is unwilling to underwite such losses, or cannot underwrite such losses, it may wish to transform them. They could be privately managed but publicly owned. Their operations could be cut back. Tainan Municipal Hospital has been privately manageed but publicly owned for 20 years. It remains one of Tainan's important medical institutions, and is very well known. There is no reason DOH hospitals could not change their operating model. Meanwhile, some Department of Health hospitals are located in resource-intensive areas. They have no particular raison d'etre. They long ago lost whatever signficance they had when they were founded. Why not phase them out, consolidate, or transform them? DOH hospitals must separate the wheat from the chaff. This will improve their overall quality.
The scandal has undermined the reputation of the medical community. The medical community must share in the shame. It must feel deep remorse. But hospitals continue to develop, and the temptation of money remains. To avoid deleterious results, they must stress medical ethics. They must also consider more fundamental factors. They must cure the disease at its root, and not merely suppress its symptoms. Only then can they eliminate this chronic illness.
白色巨塔中的黑錢糾葛
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.30
公立醫院又發生採購弊案，桃園地院羈押了衛生署官員、署立醫院院長及廠商共四人，另有多人交保並限制住居。只要是對台灣醫界生態稍有認識的人，反應大概都會和前衛生署長楊志良一樣：一點都不意外。
過去，台灣大型公立醫院中的黑錢橫行，包括暗示或明示病人送紅包、藥商給回扣、採購給佣金，甚至醫院內外各種活動的不樂之捐等，不一而足；幸而隨著民智漸開、醫院管理制度漸上軌道，加以全民健保給付制度及藥品實施聯合採購等，已使紅包及藥品回扣的新聞近年來漸不多見。取而代之的，檢調單位每隔一陣子總會揭發一樁醫院採購弊案，涉及數額龐大，震驚了醫界與整個社會。
隨著時代進步，醫療儀器快速推陳出新，採購單價越來越高，佣金也相對的更為驚人，這對任何人都可能形成極大誘惑；定力不夠的醫師一旦有機會掌控金額鉅大的採購案時，在廠商夜以繼日的遊說與安全保證下，難保不心動。因此在有識者眼中，浮出檯面的採購弊案極可能只是冰山一角。
事實上，在一些大型公立醫院中，涉嫌收受黑錢的傳聞不斷，只是因為施受雙方通常堅不承認，查緝並不容易；但在一些大型醫療器材商之間，類似的耳語從未間斷。其間一個重要的關鍵是，在台灣的醫療生態圈中，醫師一向獨大，醫院中提出大型採購案的主要是醫師，採購案的管理者通常也是醫師，因此在醫療採購弊案中醫師往往身陷其間。
也因此，衛生署近兩年推動的限制醫療外包作業，或許部分改善了公立醫院的一些弊病，減少採購弊端，卻很難徹底解決這個問題。醫療作業不外包就不會發生採購弊案了嗎？恐怕沒有人敢做這樣的保證。其實，不少醫院因實施醫療外包作業而大受其惠，非但醫療支出減省了，收入也增加了，而其中不乏公立醫院；但同樣的措施引進署立醫院以後，何以反而成了弊案的源頭之一？
採購弊案的關鍵，其實不在外包與否，而在採購制度本身。公立醫療體系素來反對由外行人負責醫療器械的議價與採購，但在醫師全程主導下，無形中增加了收受黑錢的機會；在這方面，長庚醫院始終堅持申購人與採購人分離，由行政人員組成採購小組負責詢價、議價的做法，令廠商根本無從行賄，值得參考。
要求醫師主動拒絕廠商的賄賂，一個主觀條件是，也許要讓醫師覺得能獲得足以「養廉」的待遇。但在目前，全民健保不斷的緊縮給付，使多數公立醫院的經營喘不過氣來，遑論增加醫護人員的薪酬。從節衣縮食中苦熬出頭的年輕醫師，一旦遇到鉅額金錢過手，還有多少人能把持得住，不想從中撈點油水？
公立醫院要想減少與黑錢的糾葛，現階段更應考量醫院的定位問題：公立醫院都受到人力員額及採購法的限制，需自負盈虧，又得承辦不賺錢的公共衛生業務，顯然經營壓力過大；公立醫院如能接受政府預算補貼，不以營利為目標，更避免以利潤為導向，自然可以減少黑錢流竄的現象。只不過，如此一來，政府必須承擔公立醫院的虧損。
如果政府不願或沒有能力負擔公立醫院的虧損，則不妨考量讓它們轉型，譬如公辦民營，或者減量經營。台南市立醫院公辦民營廿多年來，現已成為台南地區重要的醫療院所，而且頗負盛名，各地署立醫院沒有理由不能改變經營形態。同時，部分署立醫院位在醫療資源密集地區，又不具特色，早已失去當初設立的時代意義，為什麼不及早廢除、整併或轉型呢？署立醫院去蕪存菁後，對提升整體的服務效能應更有助益。
本案使醫界名譽再受重創，這是醫界應同感恥辱並深刻反省的時刻。但是，在醫院發展的過程中，金錢誘惑無時無刻不在，要杜絕可能因而產生的弊端，除了強調醫師要有醫德之外，尤應考量更根本的原因，做標本兼治之計，才能徹底解決多年來久治不癒的沉?。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2011
More procurement scandals have broken out in public hospitals. The Taoyuan District Court has taken four suspects into custody. They include Department of Health officials, the DOH Hospital Chief, and manufacturers. Others are out on bail and under house arrest. No one who knows anything about the medical community on Taiwan is surprised. Their reactions will be the same as former Director of Health Yang Chi-liang.
In the past, "black money," i.e., bribe money, was rampant in the larger public hospitals on Taiwan. This included implicit or explicit appeals to patients for "red envelopes," to drug manufacturers for kickbacks, to procurement personnel for commissions. It even included compulsory contributions for activities inside and outside the hospital. Fortunately, people are becoming more enlightened. Hospital management systems are gradually straightening out their act. The NHI payment system and joint procurement of drugs have made red envelopes and drug kickbacks increasingly rare. Every now and then however, prosecutors will uncover a hospital procurement scandal involving huge sums, that shock the medical community and society as a whole.
Times have changed. New medical devices swiftly become obsolete. The higher the procurement price, the more exorbitant the commissions. This presents a powerful temptation for anyone. Physicians often find themselves in control of large sums of procurement funds. Vendors lobby them day and night, assuring them they will never be found out. Such temptations are hard to resist. Therefore to those in the know, the procurement scandals that have surfaced so far are merely the tip of the iceberg.
in some large public hospitals, rumors of black money have never ended. Because both parties usually refuse to admit guilt, investigating such cases is not easy. But among some large medical equipment providers, the whispers have never stopped. One key factor is that within medical circles on Taiwan, doctors have long been king, Those in charge of large-scale procurements are usually docotrs. As a result, doctors are usually the ones caught during procurement scandals.
Over the past two years the Department of Health has increased restrictions on the outsourcing of medical operations. This may have improved the situation in some public hospitals, reducing procurement abuses. But it has not solved the problem completely. Will halting the outsourcing of medical operations prevent procurement scandals? No one would dare make such a guarantee. In fact, many hospitals benefit greatly from outsourcing. Medical expenses are reduced while income is increased. Many of these are public hospitals. But when the same measures are introduced in DOH hospitals, they paradoxically become a major source of scandals.
The cause of procurement scandals has nothing to do with outsourcing. It has everything to do with the procurement system itself. The public health care system has long opposed laymen being charged with procuring medical devices. But turning total control over to doctors unwittingly increased the opportunities for dirty money. That is why Chang Gung Memorial Hospital has long separated the requisitioners from the purchasers. The administrative staff forms a group responsible for procurement and bargaining. This makes it impossible for merchants to offer bribes. This model merits consideration.
For physicians to actively refuse bribes requires certain conditions. One way is to ensure that doctors are paid enough to keep them honest. But health insurance benefits continue to shrink. Public hospitals find it hard to make ends meet. Leave aside increases in staff salaries. Young doctors must economize on everything from food to clothing. They must work hard to succeed. When large sums of money pass through their hands, how many can resist? How many are not tempted to take something off the top?
Public hospitals want to reduce disputes over black money. They should consider the hospital's position. Public hospitals are subject to human limitations and to the procurement laws. They must be self-financing. They are non-profit public health providers. Clearly the pressure on them is too great. If public hospitals accept government subsidies, they can remain non-profit. They can avoid becoming profit-oriented. This will naturally reduce the phenomenon of black money. But this means government must underwrite their losses.
If the government is unwilling to underwite such losses, or cannot underwrite such losses, it may wish to transform them. They could be privately managed but publicly owned. Their operations could be cut back. Tainan Municipal Hospital has been privately manageed but publicly owned for 20 years. It remains one of Tainan's important medical institutions, and is very well known. There is no reason DOH hospitals could not change their operating model. Meanwhile, some Department of Health hospitals are located in resource-intensive areas. They have no particular raison d'etre. They long ago lost whatever signficance they had when they were founded. Why not phase them out, consolidate, or transform them? DOH hospitals must separate the wheat from the chaff. This will improve their overall quality.
The scandal has undermined the reputation of the medical community. The medical community must share in the shame. It must feel deep remorse. But hospitals continue to develop, and the temptation of money remains. To avoid deleterious results, they must stress medical ethics. They must also consider more fundamental factors. They must cure the disease at its root, and not merely suppress its symptoms. Only then can they eliminate this chronic illness.
白色巨塔中的黑錢糾葛
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.30
公立醫院又發生採購弊案，桃園地院羈押了衛生署官員、署立醫院院長及廠商共四人，另有多人交保並限制住居。只要是對台灣醫界生態稍有認識的人，反應大概都會和前衛生署長楊志良一樣：一點都不意外。
過去，台灣大型公立醫院中的黑錢橫行，包括暗示或明示病人送紅包、藥商給回扣、採購給佣金，甚至醫院內外各種活動的不樂之捐等，不一而足；幸而隨著民智漸開、醫院管理制度漸上軌道，加以全民健保給付制度及藥品實施聯合採購等，已使紅包及藥品回扣的新聞近年來漸不多見。取而代之的，檢調單位每隔一陣子總會揭發一樁醫院採購弊案，涉及數額龐大，震驚了醫界與整個社會。
隨著時代進步，醫療儀器快速推陳出新，採購單價越來越高，佣金也相對的更為驚人，這對任何人都可能形成極大誘惑；定力不夠的醫師一旦有機會掌控金額鉅大的採購案時，在廠商夜以繼日的遊說與安全保證下，難保不心動。因此在有識者眼中，浮出檯面的採購弊案極可能只是冰山一角。
事實上，在一些大型公立醫院中，涉嫌收受黑錢的傳聞不斷，只是因為施受雙方通常堅不承認，查緝並不容易；但在一些大型醫療器材商之間，類似的耳語從未間斷。其間一個重要的關鍵是，在台灣的醫療生態圈中，醫師一向獨大，醫院中提出大型採購案的主要是醫師，採購案的管理者通常也是醫師，因此在醫療採購弊案中醫師往往身陷其間。
也因此，衛生署近兩年推動的限制醫療外包作業，或許部分改善了公立醫院的一些弊病，減少採購弊端，卻很難徹底解決這個問題。醫療作業不外包就不會發生採購弊案了嗎？恐怕沒有人敢做這樣的保證。其實，不少醫院因實施醫療外包作業而大受其惠，非但醫療支出減省了，收入也增加了，而其中不乏公立醫院；但同樣的措施引進署立醫院以後，何以反而成了弊案的源頭之一？
採購弊案的關鍵，其實不在外包與否，而在採購制度本身。公立醫療體系素來反對由外行人負責醫療器械的議價與採購，但在醫師全程主導下，無形中增加了收受黑錢的機會；在這方面，長庚醫院始終堅持申購人與採購人分離，由行政人員組成採購小組負責詢價、議價的做法，令廠商根本無從行賄，值得參考。
要求醫師主動拒絕廠商的賄賂，一個主觀條件是，也許要讓醫師覺得能獲得足以「養廉」的待遇。但在目前，全民健保不斷的緊縮給付，使多數公立醫院的經營喘不過氣來，遑論增加醫護人員的薪酬。從節衣縮食中苦熬出頭的年輕醫師，一旦遇到鉅額金錢過手，還有多少人能把持得住，不想從中撈點油水？
公立醫院要想減少與黑錢的糾葛，現階段更應考量醫院的定位問題：公立醫院都受到人力員額及採購法的限制，需自負盈虧，又得承辦不賺錢的公共衛生業務，顯然經營壓力過大；公立醫院如能接受政府預算補貼，不以營利為目標，更避免以利潤為導向，自然可以減少黑錢流竄的現象。只不過，如此一來，政府必須承擔公立醫院的虧損。
如果政府不願或沒有能力負擔公立醫院的虧損，則不妨考量讓它們轉型，譬如公辦民營，或者減量經營。台南市立醫院公辦民營廿多年來，現已成為台南地區重要的醫療院所，而且頗負盛名，各地署立醫院沒有理由不能改變經營形態。同時，部分署立醫院位在醫療資源密集地區，又不具特色，早已失去當初設立的時代意義，為什麼不及早廢除、整併或轉型呢？署立醫院去蕪存菁後，對提升整體的服務效能應更有助益。
本案使醫界名譽再受重創，這是醫界應同感恥辱並深刻反省的時刻。但是，在醫院發展的過程中，金錢誘惑無時無刻不在，要杜絕可能因而產生的弊端，除了強調醫師要有醫德之外，尤應考量更根本的原因，做標本兼治之計，才能徹底解決多年來久治不癒的沉?。
Monday, March 28, 2011
Lin Chueh-min-min Wants Nothing More than a Ballot
Lin Chueh-min-min Wants Nothing More than a Ballot
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 29, 2011
Today is the 100th anniversary of the Huanghuagang Uprising. It is also Youth Day. When one thinks of Huanghuagang, one invariably thinks of Lin Chueh-min, and the deeply felt, tragic letter he wrote his wife just before his death. It added an exclamation point to the nationalist revolution that will endure through the ages.
Both sides of the Taiwan Strait commemorate the Xinhai Revolution. Both sides commemorate Lin Chueh-min. On Taiwan, TV channels broadcast Lin Chueh-min commercials. "In his letter, he called out to his beloved wife 49 times. Three days later, he died at the Battle of Huanghuagang, and never returned. He was only 24 years old." On the Mainland, the Guangdong Repertory Theatre staged a "Letter to His Wife." It debuted last March at the Taipei City New Stage. Blood red letters filled the air. The scene left the audience incredulous.
The greatness of the Xinhai Revolution was not merely that red-blooded patriots such as Lin Chueh-min overthrew a tyranny in which "the land reeked with the scent of blood, and the streets ran wild with jackals and hyenas." More importantly, the revolution ended two thousand years of tyranny. Hopefully future generations will no longer need a Lin Chueh-min to sacrifice himself resisting tyranny. Hopefully people will simply exercise their right to vote in order to remain masters of their nation and of their government. The greatness of Lin Chueh-min is that he may have made future Lin Chueh-mins superfluous.
The Xinhai Revolution had an indelible impact on both sides of the Strait. On Taiwan, the Republic of China left behind the legacy of the Three People's Principles, i.e., "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." This was why Taiwan has been able to survive and develop. This was why the two sides have been able to engage in cross-Strait exchanges and strive for win-win symbiosis. On the mainland, the bankruptcy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and of "class struggle" reaffirmed Sun Yat-sen's status as a "revolutionary forerunner." The Xinhai Revolution touted "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," It provided a political and ideological alternative. Otherwise, the portrait of Sun Yat-sen would not be displayed opposite that of Mao Zedong, in Tiananmen Square, every November. Even indigenous political activists on Taiwan, beginning with Japanese occupation era figures Lo Fu-hsing, Lin Hsien-tang, Chiang Wei-shui, were inspired and guided by the Xinhai Revolution, and made it "Taiwan's Xinhai Revolution."
The Xinhai Revolution was an historical event nearly erased from our collective memory. On the Mainland, in 1949, the Peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution replaced the Nationalist Revolution. The Communist Revolution nearly erased the Xinhai Revolution from our memories. On Taiwan, the "nativization movement" disseminated outright distortions. 2/28 Incident rhetoric hijacked the history of the Xinhai Revolution. De-Sinicization, needless to say, de-emphasized the Xinhai Revolution. But history has retraced its steps. Once again, Republic of China citizens swear allegiance to the Xinhai Revolution. It has also become a common denominator for the two sides of the Strait. Lin Chueh-min has become the symbol of our shared history, and the basis for consensus building.
Then again, 100 years have passed. On Taiwan, the Xinhai Revolution's goal of "one man, one vote" has already been realized. Young people no longer need to follow the example of Lin Chueh-min. They need only acknowledge, appreciate, and exercise their right to vote. On the mainland, they praise the Xinhai Revolution's ideals. But it would be better if they worked toward the goal of universal suffrage. They praise Lin Chueh-min's heroic martyrdom. But it would be better if they gave young people the vote. It would be better if they did not make young people today experience the same despair Lin Chueh-min experienced a century ago.
Merely commemorating Lin Chueh-min as someone who protested corrupt government is not enough. Lin Chueh-min and others embarked on a sacred mission. They established a system for future generations, in which everyone would have a vote. Today both sides are commemorating the Xinhai Revolution. Why not make the goal "giving everyone the vote?"
Mainland China's ultimate goal should be to give everyone the vote. Taiwan's problem is how to ensure that everyone cherishes and makes good use of their votes. Young people on Taiwan today no longer need to be Lin Chueh-min-Mins. But consider the revolution from the perspective of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." The world and the nation are far more complex than they were during Lin Chueh-min's day. During Lin Chueh-min's day, right and wrong were clear cut. Young people could sacrifice their lives for justice. But youth on Taiwan today face competitive pressures from globalization, unpredictable cross-Strait coopetition, Blue vs. Green domestic politics, and the mendacious rhetoric of politicians. A correct understanding of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," individually and collectively, is even more difficult than during Lin Chueh-min's day. Young people on Taiwan today may not need to shed blood and sacrifice their lives like Lin Chueh-min. But the duty imposed upon them is just as heavy, intellectually and emotionally, than the duy imposed upon Lin Chueh-min. They too must make important choices. They too must sacrifice themselves for the ones they love. They too must sacrifice themselves for humanity.
The inscription on the Huanghuagang memorial mourns martyrs such as Huang Hsing-cho and Lin Chueh-min. It reads, "Seventy-two youths in their prime, shed crimson blood in pitched battle. Four hundred trillion sons of the nation, looked on as autumn rains fell upon golden petals." Spring winds and autumn rains. Crimson blood and golden petals. Today's cross-Strait issues can be reduced to a single phrase. Enfranchise the disenfranchised. It is no longer necessary to be a Lin Chueh-min. It is only necessary to ensure that everyone able to vote, feels the same compassion that Lin Chueh-min felt, and cherishes and makes full use of his vote.
林覺民要的只是一張選票
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.29
今天是黃花崗起義一百年紀念日，也是青年節。想到黃花崗，就想到林覺民，一聲意映卿卿如晤，深情又淒絕的一喚，為整個國民革命留下了一個激盪千古的感嘆號！
兩岸皆在紀念辛亥革命，兩岸亦皆在紀念林覺民。在台灣，電視廣告播著林覺民，「他在信中呼喚愛妻四十九次，三天後黃花崗之役，他再也沒有回來了，得年二十四歲。」在對岸，廣東話劇團排演了一齣《與妻書》，在去年三月還在台北市新舞台劇場公演，漫天撒下血染的信箋，令人低迴不置。
辛亥革命的偉大，不止是如林覺民者以鮮血推翻一個「遍地腥羶，滿街狼犬」的惡政，最重要的是革命之目的在終結二千餘年專制，希望後世不須再有殉身抗暴的「林覺民」，人民只要用手中的選票即可作國家與政府的主人。林覺民的偉大，正在希望後世不必再有「林覺民」。
辛亥革命對兩岸皆有不可磨滅的影響。在台灣，中華民國所傳承的三民主義「民族／民權／民生」，既是台灣之所以能生存發展至今日的根本追求，亦是在兩岸關係中尋求雙贏共生的主要憑藉。在大陸，則當「無產階級專政」及「以階級鬥爭為綱」的教條破產，孫中山做為「革命先行者」，及辛亥革命標舉的「民族／民權／民生」，儼已成政治思想上的替代或補充，否則孫中山遺像不會每年十一出現在天安門毛澤東像的對立面。即使對於台灣的本土政治運動言，始自日據時代羅福星、林獻堂、蔣渭水等的民主追求，當然也是受到辛亥革命的感召與啟迪，成為「台灣的辛亥革命」。
但是，辛亥革命一度卻是一個幾乎要被塗銷抹煞的歷史事件。在大陸，一九四九年中華人民共和國取代了中華民國，無產階級革命取代了國民革命，辛亥革命幾幾乎就要被中共塗銷、抹煞。在台灣，隨著本土化運動的扭曲，「二二八論述」欲凌駕取代「辛亥革命論述」，「去中國化」當然就走向「去辛亥革命化」。然而，當歷史的腳步逐漸從這一條岔路走回頭，辛亥革命又成為中華民國建立國家認同的題材，亦成為兩岸的共同語言，林覺民則又成了召喚歷史與建構共識的典型人物。
但是，畢竟已經一百年了。在台灣，辛亥革命當年追求的「人人都有一張選票」已經實現，不必再要青年們效法林覺民，只要青年們知道珍惜及並善用這張選票即可。在大陸，則與其禮讚辛亥革命的理想，不如朝「給人人一張選票」的目標去努力；與其歌頌林覺民的壯烈，亦不如努力設法給青年一張選票，勿使當代青年仍有一百年前林覺民式的抑鬱。
若只看到林覺民等對抗昏庸腐敗的政府，這是不夠的；林覺民等更神聖的追求，是要建立制度，欲為後世人人爭到一張選票。今日兩岸共同紀念辛亥革命，何不即以「給人人一張選票」做為目標。
大陸的目標應在努力設法終究要給人人一張選票，台灣的問題則在如何珍惜及善用這張選票。其實，今日台灣青年雖可不做「林覺民」，但就「民族／民權／民生」的角度來說，其面對的世界局勢與國家情勢可能較林覺民時代更為複雜。林覺民那個時代，是非判然，青年可以為正義而殉身；但今日台灣的青年，在全球化的競爭壓力、競合莫測的兩岸關係、藍綠撕裂的國內政治，及買空賣空的政客語言中，如何正確體認「民族／民權／民生」個別層面及綜合思考的是非曲直，反而可能較林覺民的時代來得困惑難解。這一代台灣青年，不必做流血殉身的「林覺民」，但其在理智與情感上所承負的國家使命未必輕於林覺民當時；因為，皆是一個「吾充吾愛汝之心，助天下人愛其所愛」的重大抉擇。
黃興悼林覺民等黃花崗烈士文曰：「七十二健兒，酣戰春雲湛碧血；四百兆國子，愁看秋雨濕黃花。」春風秋雨，碧血黃花，今日的兩岸問題可以化約作：給沒有選票的人人一張選票，不必再作「林覺民」；讓有選票的人人以「林覺民」那種聖潔悲憫的心情，知道珍惜並善用那張選票。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 29, 2011
Today is the 100th anniversary of the Huanghuagang Uprising. It is also Youth Day. When one thinks of Huanghuagang, one invariably thinks of Lin Chueh-min, and the deeply felt, tragic letter he wrote his wife just before his death. It added an exclamation point to the nationalist revolution that will endure through the ages.
Both sides of the Taiwan Strait commemorate the Xinhai Revolution. Both sides commemorate Lin Chueh-min. On Taiwan, TV channels broadcast Lin Chueh-min commercials. "In his letter, he called out to his beloved wife 49 times. Three days later, he died at the Battle of Huanghuagang, and never returned. He was only 24 years old." On the Mainland, the Guangdong Repertory Theatre staged a "Letter to His Wife." It debuted last March at the Taipei City New Stage. Blood red letters filled the air. The scene left the audience incredulous.
The greatness of the Xinhai Revolution was not merely that red-blooded patriots such as Lin Chueh-min overthrew a tyranny in which "the land reeked with the scent of blood, and the streets ran wild with jackals and hyenas." More importantly, the revolution ended two thousand years of tyranny. Hopefully future generations will no longer need a Lin Chueh-min to sacrifice himself resisting tyranny. Hopefully people will simply exercise their right to vote in order to remain masters of their nation and of their government. The greatness of Lin Chueh-min is that he may have made future Lin Chueh-mins superfluous.
The Xinhai Revolution had an indelible impact on both sides of the Strait. On Taiwan, the Republic of China left behind the legacy of the Three People's Principles, i.e., "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." This was why Taiwan has been able to survive and develop. This was why the two sides have been able to engage in cross-Strait exchanges and strive for win-win symbiosis. On the mainland, the bankruptcy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and of "class struggle" reaffirmed Sun Yat-sen's status as a "revolutionary forerunner." The Xinhai Revolution touted "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," It provided a political and ideological alternative. Otherwise, the portrait of Sun Yat-sen would not be displayed opposite that of Mao Zedong, in Tiananmen Square, every November. Even indigenous political activists on Taiwan, beginning with Japanese occupation era figures Lo Fu-hsing, Lin Hsien-tang, Chiang Wei-shui, were inspired and guided by the Xinhai Revolution, and made it "Taiwan's Xinhai Revolution."
The Xinhai Revolution was an historical event nearly erased from our collective memory. On the Mainland, in 1949, the Peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution replaced the Nationalist Revolution. The Communist Revolution nearly erased the Xinhai Revolution from our memories. On Taiwan, the "nativization movement" disseminated outright distortions. 2/28 Incident rhetoric hijacked the history of the Xinhai Revolution. De-Sinicization, needless to say, de-emphasized the Xinhai Revolution. But history has retraced its steps. Once again, Republic of China citizens swear allegiance to the Xinhai Revolution. It has also become a common denominator for the two sides of the Strait. Lin Chueh-min has become the symbol of our shared history, and the basis for consensus building.
Then again, 100 years have passed. On Taiwan, the Xinhai Revolution's goal of "one man, one vote" has already been realized. Young people no longer need to follow the example of Lin Chueh-min. They need only acknowledge, appreciate, and exercise their right to vote. On the mainland, they praise the Xinhai Revolution's ideals. But it would be better if they worked toward the goal of universal suffrage. They praise Lin Chueh-min's heroic martyrdom. But it would be better if they gave young people the vote. It would be better if they did not make young people today experience the same despair Lin Chueh-min experienced a century ago.
Merely commemorating Lin Chueh-min as someone who protested corrupt government is not enough. Lin Chueh-min and others embarked on a sacred mission. They established a system for future generations, in which everyone would have a vote. Today both sides are commemorating the Xinhai Revolution. Why not make the goal "giving everyone the vote?"
Mainland China's ultimate goal should be to give everyone the vote. Taiwan's problem is how to ensure that everyone cherishes and makes good use of their votes. Young people on Taiwan today no longer need to be Lin Chueh-min-Mins. But consider the revolution from the perspective of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." The world and the nation are far more complex than they were during Lin Chueh-min's day. During Lin Chueh-min's day, right and wrong were clear cut. Young people could sacrifice their lives for justice. But youth on Taiwan today face competitive pressures from globalization, unpredictable cross-Strait coopetition, Blue vs. Green domestic politics, and the mendacious rhetoric of politicians. A correct understanding of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," individually and collectively, is even more difficult than during Lin Chueh-min's day. Young people on Taiwan today may not need to shed blood and sacrifice their lives like Lin Chueh-min. But the duty imposed upon them is just as heavy, intellectually and emotionally, than the duy imposed upon Lin Chueh-min. They too must make important choices. They too must sacrifice themselves for the ones they love. They too must sacrifice themselves for humanity.
The inscription on the Huanghuagang memorial mourns martyrs such as Huang Hsing-cho and Lin Chueh-min. It reads, "Seventy-two youths in their prime, shed crimson blood in pitched battle. Four hundred trillion sons of the nation, looked on as autumn rains fell upon golden petals." Spring winds and autumn rains. Crimson blood and golden petals. Today's cross-Strait issues can be reduced to a single phrase. Enfranchise the disenfranchised. It is no longer necessary to be a Lin Chueh-min. It is only necessary to ensure that everyone able to vote, feels the same compassion that Lin Chueh-min felt, and cherishes and makes full use of his vote.
林覺民要的只是一張選票
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.29
今天是黃花崗起義一百年紀念日，也是青年節。想到黃花崗，就想到林覺民，一聲意映卿卿如晤，深情又淒絕的一喚，為整個國民革命留下了一個激盪千古的感嘆號！
兩岸皆在紀念辛亥革命，兩岸亦皆在紀念林覺民。在台灣，電視廣告播著林覺民，「他在信中呼喚愛妻四十九次，三天後黃花崗之役，他再也沒有回來了，得年二十四歲。」在對岸，廣東話劇團排演了一齣《與妻書》，在去年三月還在台北市新舞台劇場公演，漫天撒下血染的信箋，令人低迴不置。
辛亥革命的偉大，不止是如林覺民者以鮮血推翻一個「遍地腥羶，滿街狼犬」的惡政，最重要的是革命之目的在終結二千餘年專制，希望後世不須再有殉身抗暴的「林覺民」，人民只要用手中的選票即可作國家與政府的主人。林覺民的偉大，正在希望後世不必再有「林覺民」。
辛亥革命對兩岸皆有不可磨滅的影響。在台灣，中華民國所傳承的三民主義「民族／民權／民生」，既是台灣之所以能生存發展至今日的根本追求，亦是在兩岸關係中尋求雙贏共生的主要憑藉。在大陸，則當「無產階級專政」及「以階級鬥爭為綱」的教條破產，孫中山做為「革命先行者」，及辛亥革命標舉的「民族／民權／民生」，儼已成政治思想上的替代或補充，否則孫中山遺像不會每年十一出現在天安門毛澤東像的對立面。即使對於台灣的本土政治運動言，始自日據時代羅福星、林獻堂、蔣渭水等的民主追求，當然也是受到辛亥革命的感召與啟迪，成為「台灣的辛亥革命」。
但是，辛亥革命一度卻是一個幾乎要被塗銷抹煞的歷史事件。在大陸，一九四九年中華人民共和國取代了中華民國，無產階級革命取代了國民革命，辛亥革命幾幾乎就要被中共塗銷、抹煞。在台灣，隨著本土化運動的扭曲，「二二八論述」欲凌駕取代「辛亥革命論述」，「去中國化」當然就走向「去辛亥革命化」。然而，當歷史的腳步逐漸從這一條岔路走回頭，辛亥革命又成為中華民國建立國家認同的題材，亦成為兩岸的共同語言，林覺民則又成了召喚歷史與建構共識的典型人物。
但是，畢竟已經一百年了。在台灣，辛亥革命當年追求的「人人都有一張選票」已經實現，不必再要青年們效法林覺民，只要青年們知道珍惜及並善用這張選票即可。在大陸，則與其禮讚辛亥革命的理想，不如朝「給人人一張選票」的目標去努力；與其歌頌林覺民的壯烈，亦不如努力設法給青年一張選票，勿使當代青年仍有一百年前林覺民式的抑鬱。
若只看到林覺民等對抗昏庸腐敗的政府，這是不夠的；林覺民等更神聖的追求，是要建立制度，欲為後世人人爭到一張選票。今日兩岸共同紀念辛亥革命，何不即以「給人人一張選票」做為目標。
大陸的目標應在努力設法終究要給人人一張選票，台灣的問題則在如何珍惜及善用這張選票。其實，今日台灣青年雖可不做「林覺民」，但就「民族／民權／民生」的角度來說，其面對的世界局勢與國家情勢可能較林覺民時代更為複雜。林覺民那個時代，是非判然，青年可以為正義而殉身；但今日台灣的青年，在全球化的競爭壓力、競合莫測的兩岸關係、藍綠撕裂的國內政治，及買空賣空的政客語言中，如何正確體認「民族／民權／民生」個別層面及綜合思考的是非曲直，反而可能較林覺民的時代來得困惑難解。這一代台灣青年，不必做流血殉身的「林覺民」，但其在理智與情感上所承負的國家使命未必輕於林覺民當時；因為，皆是一個「吾充吾愛汝之心，助天下人愛其所愛」的重大抉擇。
黃興悼林覺民等黃花崗烈士文曰：「七十二健兒，酣戰春雲湛碧血；四百兆國子，愁看秋雨濕黃花。」春風秋雨，碧血黃花，今日的兩岸問題可以化約作：給沒有選票的人人一張選票，不必再作「林覺民」；讓有選票的人人以「林覺民」那種聖潔悲憫的心情，知道珍惜並善用那張選票。
Friday, March 25, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen's Cutthroat Attacks Harm Nuclear Power Plants
Tsai Ing-wen's Cutthroat Attacks Harm Nuclear Power Plants
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 26, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen said that if elected president, she will ensure that Nuclear Plant Four never goes into commercial operation. She also said she would halt construction on the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project.
In fact, if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she may halt or abolish more than just these two projects. Tsai Ing-wen also said that if the Democratic Progressive Party once again assumes power, it would repudiate the 1992 consensus, rethink ECFA, and abandon "growth first" economic policies.
Tsai Ing-wen has taken the DPP's "cut-throat tactics" to the limit. What are cut-throat tactics? A nation's survival and development requires a macroeconomic framework. This general framework is different for every nation. It is usually difficult to cover every policy issue within this framework. Therefore when dealing with the many policy issues that fall under this general framework, one must often make different choices. For example, for Saudi Arabia, nuclear power generation is not an issue. Relations between the ROK and PRC do not require an SEF. But the ROC has different concerns than Saudi Arabia. When the ROC and the PRC conduct exchanges, they must don white gloves. In other words, specific policies will vary depending upon the general framework. One cannot divorce specific policies from the general framework and deal with them individually.
In the Republic of China, the general political and economic framework involves issues of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait relations and globalization. Specific policies are more or less subject to constraints imposed by this general framework. The first thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is divorce the general framework from specific policies. Tsai Ing-wen repudiates the general framework of 1992 consensus. She talks only of specific policies, such as cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. She wants a general framework of globalization. But she also wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Taiwan independence is utterly inconsistent with the general framework of the Republic of China. Yet she persists in addressing specific policies while ignoring the general framework.
The second thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is chop specific policies into even smaller pieces, and incite social division with each of these pieces. The DPP incites as much social division as possible using these pieces. It engages in cut-throat tactics, until no one is left breathing.
Tsai Ing-wen's campaign strategy already shows signs of ignoring the general framework while exploiting specific policy issues. She ignores the general framework of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, and cross-Strait relations. She ruthlessly exploits specific issues to the hilt. She repudiates the 1992 consensus, thereby appealing to the Deep Greens. She opposes nuclear power generation and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project, thereby appealing to environmental groups. She expresses support for "lu yi teh" compensation, thereby appealing to army veterans. She opposes the 18% special interest rate, thereby appealing to those who resent civil service retirees. She supports first time voters, thereby appealing to the young. The supports impoverished students, thereby appealing to class consciousness. She bills herself as "rational," thereby appealing to moderate voters.
Tsai Ing-wen would deny that she is calculating. But she calculates that she can ignore the general framework. She calculates that as long as the public loses sight of the general framework, she can address only specific issues and win the presidency. Such cut-throat tactics were not Tsai's invention. They have been the DPP's standard operating procedure for the past 20 years. Take subsidies for seniors and farmers. The DPP knows that its general framework is fragile and questionable. Therefore it avoids talking about it. Instead, it demagogues specific issues.
Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the 1992 consensus? She said "If elected, I will continue the former administration's cross-Strait policy." Does Tsai Ing-wen really stand for the total abolition of nuclear power generation? If she does, why not begin by decommissioning Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three? Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project? Then why did she lobby on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project when it was undergoing EIA, and she was vice premier? Does Tsai Ing-wen really support "lu yi teh" compensation for Army veterans? Then why did she not include full compensation in her campaign platform? From this it should be clear that Tsai Ing-wen ignores the general framework in order to exploit specific issues. When discussing political and economic issues, she puts the cart before the horse. She contradicts herself. She fails to balance the pros and cons, She ignores conflicts of interest. She demagogues isolated issues, but fails to offer a comprehensive plan for governing the nation.
In fact, Tsai Ing-wen is not unaware of the relationship between the general framework and specific policies. During the party primaries she spoke of the general framework. She declared that "Taiwan [sic] is a nation facing a difficult dilemma." She spoke of specific issues. She she declared that "[ROC] sovereignty, diplomacy, economics, fiscal affairs, distribution of wealth, education, public safety, ecology, social welfare, and the rule of law, are complex issues that cannot be reduced to slogans." But now Tsai Ing-wen cannot even offer a decent slogan, such as "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." On specific issues, she calls for a halt in the construction of Nuclear Plant Four, and demagogues the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. Tsai Ing-wen calls for a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four, and the development of renewable energy. She opposes the petrochemical industry. She calls for petrochemical industry restructuring! She opposes the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. She says it should be moved to Saudi Arabia! She wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, She wants to abandon "growth first" economic policies! It would appear that all her policy proposals have been reduced to slogans. Does anyone find that ironic?
Such cut throat tactics cannot successfully build a nation. Tsai Ing-wen may be able to use cut-throat tactics to win the party primary and the presidential election. But when her cut-throat tactics undermine her presidency, how can she possibly "bear the burden of the future?"
蔡英文割喉割到核電廠
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.26
蔡英文說，她若當選總統，將推動核四不商業運轉，並停止國光石化案。
其實，蔡英文若當選，可能停廢的不只是這兩件事。蔡英文也說過，民進黨再執政，要否定「九二共識」、要重估「ECFA」，並要揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策。
蔡英文將民進黨的「割喉戰術」施展得淋漓盡致。先談什麼叫做割喉戰？每一個國家的生存發展，都必須有一個宏觀通盤的總架構，在此可稱為「總題」；通常，這個總架構或總題因個別國家各自的不同條件，而皆難面面俱到，因此，在根據這個「總題」，來處理不同政策領域的「分題」時，即會呈現不同的抉擇。比如說，沙烏地阿拉伯不會有核電的問題，韓國與中國交往不必有「海基會」；但在台灣談核電就與沙烏地阿拉伯有不同的考慮，中華民國與中華人民共和國交往就要先戴上白手套。也就是說，「分題」是「總題」的依變項，不能脫離「總題」而割裂處理「分題」。
在中華民國，政經「總題」的主要元素包含國家認同、憲法認同、兩岸關係及全球化等；其他「分題」則或多或少皆受這個「總題」的制約與影響。民進黨的割喉戰術，第一個步驟就是將「總題」與「分題」割開。蔡英文否定「九二共識」（總題），而談「兩岸經貿」（分題）；欲發展「全球化」（總題），卻抑制「兩岸經貿」（分題）；台獨路線則是在根本否定「中華民國」這個「總題」之下，去談論其他的「分題」。
割喉戰術的第二個步驟，是將各個「分題」也切割肢解開來，並將每一「分題」的社會矛盾分別摳挖出來，以割取每一分每一毫的對立因素，甚至不惜割到喉斷氣絕。
蔡英文的競選策略已經浮現這種「割去總題，剁爛分題」的手法。關於國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係的「總題」，她迴避，她割開；但對每一個可以引發爭議的「分題」，她則盡情把它剁爛，血腥四溢。反對「九二共識」，割向深綠的喉嚨；反對核電及國光石化，割向環保團體的喉嚨；聲援陸一特，割向要求賠償者的喉嚨；反十八趴，割向憎惡公務員者的喉嚨；抬捧首投族，割向年輕族群的喉嚨；對昏燈下的學童表態，割向階級意識的喉嚨；標榜理性，割向中間選民的喉嚨……。
蔡英文的「算計」（她說她不會算計）是：只要把「總題」割開甩掉，讓大家忘掉「總題」，她就能從「分題」切割下來的肉丁骨渣之中當選總統。這種「割喉戰術」其實並非蔡英文的首創，而是民進黨二十餘年來的看家本領，如老農津貼。民進黨自知其「總題論述」既脆弱又令人質疑，所以迴避「總題」，而更要用「分題」來割喉。
蔡英文反「九二共識」嗎？她卻說：「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策。」蔡英文主張全面廢核電嗎？何以不從核一二三廠除役思考起？蔡英文反國光石化嗎？何以在行政院副院長任內為國光石化的環評關說？蔡英文挺陸一特嗎？何以尚未見她將全面賠償列為競選政見？由此可以預見：蔡英文這種「割去總題，剁爛分題」的手法，將使她的政經論述本末倒置、自相矛盾、輕重失衡、利害衝突，成為支離破碎的割喉語言，而無可能構成一套自圓其說的治國方案。
其實，蔡英文不是不知「總題」與「分題」的關聯。她在初選宣言中說：「台灣是一個處境艱難的國家（總題），主權、外交、經濟、財政、分配、教育、治安、生態、社福、法治，這些複雜的問題（皆是分題）根本無法簡化成一個口號」。但是，現在的蔡英文，在「總題」上，連一句像樣的「口號」也提不出來（和而不同，和而求同？）；在「分題」上，則用停核四、停國光石化等「口號」來割喉。蔡英文說，停核四，發展再生能源嘛！反石化業，調整產業結構嘛！反國光石化，搬到沙烏地阿拉伯嘛！抑制兩岸經貿交流，揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策嘛！這些主張，似乎皆可「簡化成一個口號」：何不食肉糜？
割喉議題不能造就一個完整的國家。也許，蔡英文有可能以割喉戰術贏得初選及總統大選；但是，當她在割喉戰術造成的肉丁骨屑中就任總統，她將憑什麼「將未來扛起來」？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 26, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen said that if elected president, she will ensure that Nuclear Plant Four never goes into commercial operation. She also said she would halt construction on the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project.
In fact, if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she may halt or abolish more than just these two projects. Tsai Ing-wen also said that if the Democratic Progressive Party once again assumes power, it would repudiate the 1992 consensus, rethink ECFA, and abandon "growth first" economic policies.
Tsai Ing-wen has taken the DPP's "cut-throat tactics" to the limit. What are cut-throat tactics? A nation's survival and development requires a macroeconomic framework. This general framework is different for every nation. It is usually difficult to cover every policy issue within this framework. Therefore when dealing with the many policy issues that fall under this general framework, one must often make different choices. For example, for Saudi Arabia, nuclear power generation is not an issue. Relations between the ROK and PRC do not require an SEF. But the ROC has different concerns than Saudi Arabia. When the ROC and the PRC conduct exchanges, they must don white gloves. In other words, specific policies will vary depending upon the general framework. One cannot divorce specific policies from the general framework and deal with them individually.
In the Republic of China, the general political and economic framework involves issues of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait relations and globalization. Specific policies are more or less subject to constraints imposed by this general framework. The first thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is divorce the general framework from specific policies. Tsai Ing-wen repudiates the general framework of 1992 consensus. She talks only of specific policies, such as cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. She wants a general framework of globalization. But she also wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Taiwan independence is utterly inconsistent with the general framework of the Republic of China. Yet she persists in addressing specific policies while ignoring the general framework.
The second thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is chop specific policies into even smaller pieces, and incite social division with each of these pieces. The DPP incites as much social division as possible using these pieces. It engages in cut-throat tactics, until no one is left breathing.
Tsai Ing-wen's campaign strategy already shows signs of ignoring the general framework while exploiting specific policy issues. She ignores the general framework of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, and cross-Strait relations. She ruthlessly exploits specific issues to the hilt. She repudiates the 1992 consensus, thereby appealing to the Deep Greens. She opposes nuclear power generation and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project, thereby appealing to environmental groups. She expresses support for "lu yi teh" compensation, thereby appealing to army veterans. She opposes the 18% special interest rate, thereby appealing to those who resent civil service retirees. She supports first time voters, thereby appealing to the young. The supports impoverished students, thereby appealing to class consciousness. She bills herself as "rational," thereby appealing to moderate voters.
Tsai Ing-wen would deny that she is calculating. But she calculates that she can ignore the general framework. She calculates that as long as the public loses sight of the general framework, she can address only specific issues and win the presidency. Such cut-throat tactics were not Tsai's invention. They have been the DPP's standard operating procedure for the past 20 years. Take subsidies for seniors and farmers. The DPP knows that its general framework is fragile and questionable. Therefore it avoids talking about it. Instead, it demagogues specific issues.
Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the 1992 consensus? She said "If elected, I will continue the former administration's cross-Strait policy." Does Tsai Ing-wen really stand for the total abolition of nuclear power generation? If she does, why not begin by decommissioning Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three? Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project? Then why did she lobby on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project when it was undergoing EIA, and she was vice premier? Does Tsai Ing-wen really support "lu yi teh" compensation for Army veterans? Then why did she not include full compensation in her campaign platform? From this it should be clear that Tsai Ing-wen ignores the general framework in order to exploit specific issues. When discussing political and economic issues, she puts the cart before the horse. She contradicts herself. She fails to balance the pros and cons, She ignores conflicts of interest. She demagogues isolated issues, but fails to offer a comprehensive plan for governing the nation.
In fact, Tsai Ing-wen is not unaware of the relationship between the general framework and specific policies. During the party primaries she spoke of the general framework. She declared that "Taiwan [sic] is a nation facing a difficult dilemma." She spoke of specific issues. She she declared that "[ROC] sovereignty, diplomacy, economics, fiscal affairs, distribution of wealth, education, public safety, ecology, social welfare, and the rule of law, are complex issues that cannot be reduced to slogans." But now Tsai Ing-wen cannot even offer a decent slogan, such as "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." On specific issues, she calls for a halt in the construction of Nuclear Plant Four, and demagogues the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. Tsai Ing-wen calls for a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four, and the development of renewable energy. She opposes the petrochemical industry. She calls for petrochemical industry restructuring! She opposes the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. She says it should be moved to Saudi Arabia! She wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, She wants to abandon "growth first" economic policies! It would appear that all her policy proposals have been reduced to slogans. Does anyone find that ironic?
Such cut throat tactics cannot successfully build a nation. Tsai Ing-wen may be able to use cut-throat tactics to win the party primary and the presidential election. But when her cut-throat tactics undermine her presidency, how can she possibly "bear the burden of the future?"
蔡英文割喉割到核電廠
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.26
蔡英文說，她若當選總統，將推動核四不商業運轉，並停止國光石化案。
其實，蔡英文若當選，可能停廢的不只是這兩件事。蔡英文也說過，民進黨再執政，要否定「九二共識」、要重估「ECFA」，並要揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策。
蔡英文將民進黨的「割喉戰術」施展得淋漓盡致。先談什麼叫做割喉戰？每一個國家的生存發展，都必須有一個宏觀通盤的總架構，在此可稱為「總題」；通常，這個總架構或總題因個別國家各自的不同條件，而皆難面面俱到，因此，在根據這個「總題」，來處理不同政策領域的「分題」時，即會呈現不同的抉擇。比如說，沙烏地阿拉伯不會有核電的問題，韓國與中國交往不必有「海基會」；但在台灣談核電就與沙烏地阿拉伯有不同的考慮，中華民國與中華人民共和國交往就要先戴上白手套。也就是說，「分題」是「總題」的依變項，不能脫離「總題」而割裂處理「分題」。
在中華民國，政經「總題」的主要元素包含國家認同、憲法認同、兩岸關係及全球化等；其他「分題」則或多或少皆受這個「總題」的制約與影響。民進黨的割喉戰術，第一個步驟就是將「總題」與「分題」割開。蔡英文否定「九二共識」（總題），而談「兩岸經貿」（分題）；欲發展「全球化」（總題），卻抑制「兩岸經貿」（分題）；台獨路線則是在根本否定「中華民國」這個「總題」之下，去談論其他的「分題」。
割喉戰術的第二個步驟，是將各個「分題」也切割肢解開來，並將每一「分題」的社會矛盾分別摳挖出來，以割取每一分每一毫的對立因素，甚至不惜割到喉斷氣絕。
蔡英文的競選策略已經浮現這種「割去總題，剁爛分題」的手法。關於國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係的「總題」，她迴避，她割開；但對每一個可以引發爭議的「分題」，她則盡情把它剁爛，血腥四溢。反對「九二共識」，割向深綠的喉嚨；反對核電及國光石化，割向環保團體的喉嚨；聲援陸一特，割向要求賠償者的喉嚨；反十八趴，割向憎惡公務員者的喉嚨；抬捧首投族，割向年輕族群的喉嚨；對昏燈下的學童表態，割向階級意識的喉嚨；標榜理性，割向中間選民的喉嚨……。
蔡英文的「算計」（她說她不會算計）是：只要把「總題」割開甩掉，讓大家忘掉「總題」，她就能從「分題」切割下來的肉丁骨渣之中當選總統。這種「割喉戰術」其實並非蔡英文的首創，而是民進黨二十餘年來的看家本領，如老農津貼。民進黨自知其「總題論述」既脆弱又令人質疑，所以迴避「總題」，而更要用「分題」來割喉。
蔡英文反「九二共識」嗎？她卻說：「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策。」蔡英文主張全面廢核電嗎？何以不從核一二三廠除役思考起？蔡英文反國光石化嗎？何以在行政院副院長任內為國光石化的環評關說？蔡英文挺陸一特嗎？何以尚未見她將全面賠償列為競選政見？由此可以預見：蔡英文這種「割去總題，剁爛分題」的手法，將使她的政經論述本末倒置、自相矛盾、輕重失衡、利害衝突，成為支離破碎的割喉語言，而無可能構成一套自圓其說的治國方案。
其實，蔡英文不是不知「總題」與「分題」的關聯。她在初選宣言中說：「台灣是一個處境艱難的國家（總題），主權、外交、經濟、財政、分配、教育、治安、生態、社福、法治，這些複雜的問題（皆是分題）根本無法簡化成一個口號」。但是，現在的蔡英文，在「總題」上，連一句像樣的「口號」也提不出來（和而不同，和而求同？）；在「分題」上，則用停核四、停國光石化等「口號」來割喉。蔡英文說，停核四，發展再生能源嘛！反石化業，調整產業結構嘛！反國光石化，搬到沙烏地阿拉伯嘛！抑制兩岸經貿交流，揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策嘛！這些主張，似乎皆可「簡化成一個口號」：何不食肉糜？
割喉議題不能造就一個完整的國家。也許，蔡英文有可能以割喉戰術贏得初選及總統大選；但是，當她在割喉戰術造成的肉丁骨屑中就任總統，她將憑什麼「將未來扛起來」？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)