DPP Must Stop Evading Cross-Strait Issues
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 14, 2011
Yesterday the DPP held its second presidential primary debate. The public is still waiting for the three candidates' cross-Strait policy platforms. Hsu Hsin-liang zeroed in at the heart of the matter: ECFA, the 1992 Consensus, and other key issues. Unfortunately Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang continue to hem and haw. They either answered in the abstract, or they evade the question altogether. The DPP primary debate lacked focus. It merely underscored the DPP's inability to offer a practical and feasible cross-Strait policy.
Two primary debates have been held, during which Su and Tsai stopped attacking ECFA. This is an interesting development indeed. Tsai and Su even crossed swords over who deserved credit for a more liberalized cross-Strait policy. During the first political debate Tsai Ing-wen waited for the closing arguments before showing her hand. She said the DPP is more able to deal with cross-Strait issues than the KMT. She said the DPP promoted the three mini links in late 2000, soon after taking office, and promoted cross-Strait charter flights in 2003. She said the DPP lost power in 2008. Otherwise it too would have promoted direct cross-Strait flights. Su Tseng-chang was apparently unwilling to take a back seat. He chimed in during closing arguments and boasted that "The leader of the Executive Yuan at the time was none other than yours truly!"
The former Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council during the DPP era wrote a letter to the media. He said "The DPP government was aggressive in promoting direct flights." He said promoting three links was always the DPP government's policy. The problem was Beijing. Motivated by political considerations, Beijing made sure the DPP would not benefit at the polls. That was why the three links could not be formally implemented until the elections were over.
If this is not "rewriting history," then we don't know what is. At the very least, it amounts to a 180 degree "That was then, this is now" about face. In fact, right up until the 2008 presidential election, the DPP government refused to expand cross-Strait exchanges. It lambasted the KMT for promoting a "One China Market." It warned that ""Taiwan men will be unable to find work. Taiwan women will be unable to find husbands. Taiwan children will end up as child labor in Heilongjiang." In 2009, a full year after three links were implemented, Tsai Ing-wen was till insisting that they were negatively impacting Taiwan's economy, and were the direct cause of unemployment on Taiwan. Until very recently, the DPP was still demonizing the three links as a Trojan horse, patiently waiting for an opportunity to infiltrate Taiwan. Not long ago, the three links was the DPP's ever convenient, all purpose whipping boy!
We are revisiting the past, not because we want to settle old scores with the DPP. In fact, if DPP presidential candidates are willing to be more pragmatic and rational, that is a national blessing. Good ideas and pragmatic policies are public property. If the DPP adopts the KMT's cross-Strait policy, in toto, the KMT is hardly going to sue the DPP for plagiarism or counterfeiting. As Hsu Hsin-liang said, "When cross-Strait relations remain the sole prerogative of the KMT, the DPP is going to find it hard to govern."
A pragmatic cross-Strait policy is not the exclusive franchise of any single political party. It is a universal good. But over the past decade, the DPP's cross-Strait policy has involved one about face after another. During the Chen Shui-bian era, the DPP went from a "new centrist policy," to "five noes," to calls for a "Taiwan independence referendum and the authoring of a new constitution." With its cavalier historical revisionism, it has left behind it a trail of destruction. When Su and Tsai make these changes in direction, they are hardly undergoing genuine transformation. After all, they still cannot explain their cross-Strait policy position. Such slapdash policy proposals can hardly pass muster during a presidential election and grossly underestimate the voters' common sense.
Cross-Strait relations have come a long way. The DPP must offer more than cross-Strait rhetoric. Su and Tsai must offer specific policies. In 2000 and 2008, the DPP offered empty rhetoric. It talked endlessly in circles. It labeled its empty rhetoric "effective management." In fact, it was nothing more than "hindered communication."
By contrast, over the past three years, under the Ma administration, the two sides have signed 14 agreements. These agreements encompass the three links, trade, mutual legal assistance, food safety, and cultural exchanges. One might say that the status quo is comprehensive cross-Strait exchanges. It is not that far removed from Hsu Hsin-liang's "bold opening." Does the DPP intend to maintain this status quo? Or does it intend to overturn it completely? There is no room for abstractions or for a "walk in the clouds." They must make themselves clear by speaking plainly.
At the very least the DPP must make clear whether it would continue the cross-Strait exchanges promoted during the Ma administration in the event it returns to power. The simplest approach would be to follow the recommendations of Hsu Hsin-liang. If the DPP returns to power, it must embrace all of the Ma administration's cross-Strait liberalization measures.
Last night, during the second primary debate, Hsu Hsin-liang said that both sides are dissatisfied with the 1992 Consensus, but that the 1992 Consensus remains an effective expedient. At the very least, it helps us shelve political disputes. It helps the two sides expand mutually beneficial economic and trade exchanges. The DPP may refuse to accept the 1992 Consensus. But what is its alternative? Is the DPP really prepared to bear the consequences of a setback in cross-Strait relations? The DPP must be honest and tell the voters where it stands. It must allow the voters to take the DPP's position into account when casting their ballots, It cannot attempt to squeak through without taking a stand. It cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. It cannot deceive voters, then hope to muddle through.
The last time the DPP was in power, its cross-Strait policy failed to pass muster. It now has a chance to start over, Cross-Strait relations is the DPP's Achilles Heel. The DPP must not imagine it can continue to bob and weave, and by doing so, somehow muddle through.
民進黨兩岸政策 別想再用閃躲過關
2011-04-14 中國時報
民進黨昨日舉行總統初選第二次政見發表會，大家對三位參選人的兩岸政策拭目以待。可惜的是，許信良雖然直指核心，一開場就切入ＥＣＦＡ、九二共識等重大議題，蔡英文及蘇貞昌卻仍然打模糊戰，不是抽象式回答，就是迴避問題，失焦的政見發表會凸顯的是，民進黨仍無法整合提出一套務實可行的兩岸政策。
值得注意的是，兩次政見會中，蘇蔡不再攻擊ＥＣＦＡ，蔡蘇還為了誰主導兩岸開放政策，有一點小小的交鋒。在首次政見發表會中，蔡英文一直到結辯才露出底牌，她說，民進黨比國民黨更有能力處理兩岸事務，二千年執政後半年就推動小三通，二○○三年推動兩岸包機，她更強調，要不是民進黨二○○八年失去政權，也會推動兩岸直航。蘇貞昌則顯然不願屈居下風，因此也在結辯時加了一句，「當時帶著行政團隊的，正是我！」
而民進黨政府時代的陸委會前主委更是投書媒體，直指「推動直航、民進黨政府積極」，他說，三通一直是民進黨政府的政策，是北京基於政治考量，不想讓民進黨選舉加分，因此直到選舉結束，都無法正式實施。
坦白說，這若不算改寫歷史，也是某種程度的「昨非今是」。事實上，一直到二○○八年總統大選時，民進黨政府都相當排斥兩岸進一步擴大交流，痛批國民黨力推「一中市場」，會讓「查甫找沒工、查某找沒尪」；甚至在三通上路一年多，蔡英文在二○○九年仍然表示，三通影響台灣經濟，直接衝擊台灣失業。可以說，一直到不久之前，民進黨仍視三通為居心叵測的特洛伊木馬，伺機要侵蝕台灣，曾幾何時，直航竟成為民進黨大將爭功的利多政策！
重談這段往事，並不是要和民進黨算老帳，事實上，如果民進黨總統參選人更務實理性，那是國家之福。好的理念或是務實可行的政策都是公共財，如果民進黨全盤接收國民黨的兩岸政策，國民黨難道可以告民進黨抄襲、甚或仿冒？就如許信良所言，「當兩岸關係成為國民黨的專利，民進黨就很難執政了。」
務實的兩岸政策，非哪一個黨的專利，這是全民之福。只是，過去十年來，民進黨的兩岸政策，充斥太多昨是今非、昨非今是的前例。前總統陳水扁執政時代，就從新中間路線、四不一沒有、到推動公投制憲，留下一頁毀壞的轉型史；而這次的蘇蔡「轉向」，不但談不上轉型，連兩岸政策方向都說不清楚，這樣的政策品質，若想在總統大選過關，未免太看輕選民的判斷力！
兩岸關係走到這一步，民進黨不能只有兩岸論述而已，蘇蔡還必須提出對兩岸具體政策的態度。二千年及二○○八年，民進黨都只能空談論述，在無窮盡的前提要件中打轉，這些要件美其名為有效管理，其實經常是另一種形式的阻礙交流。
但是，馬政府近三年來，兩岸簽訂十四項協議，除了三通，尚有經貿協定、司法互助、食品安全及文化交流等；可以說，現狀就是兩岸全面交流，和許信良的大膽開放主張已相去不遠，民進黨執政後是要維持現狀，還是全面翻盤，他們確實沒有「抽象」或「漫步在雲端」的空間，必須說清楚、講明白。
民進黨至少要說清楚，馬政府任內推動兩岸交流，他們上台後是否維持，最簡單的作法是聽從許信良的建議，凡是馬政府任內的兩岸開放措施，民進黨上台後都「概括繼承」。
就如許信良昨晚在第二次政見發表會時所說，各方都對九二共識不滿意，但不能否認的是，九二共識是非常有效的權宜機制，至少能做到擱置政治爭議，讓兩岸能展開互利的經貿交流，民進黨若不接受九二共識，是另有對案呢？還是真要承受兩岸關係倒退的後果；民進黨應該誠實的告訴選民，讓選民做抉擇時納入考量，不能想要頭過身就過，玩兩面手法、騙選民過關。
民進黨上次執政，兩岸政策分數不及格，這次重頭再來，兩岸還是「罩門」，民進黨別想靠著閃躲就輕騎過關。
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
When Choosing National Leaders, First Consider Character
When Choosing National Leaders, First Consider Character
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 13, 2011
No doubt about it. The 2012 presidential election has begun. DPP presidential candidates Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have each aired numerous TV commercials. They have agreed to repeated public interviews. Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou is sure to seek reelection. Beginning with the four day spring break, he repeatedly defended his major policy proposals. He repeatedly appeared at various venues. He reached out to grass-roots voters at the Tachia Matsu ceremony. He rapped with students. His media exposure rivaled that of the DPP presidential candidates.
The incumbency has advantages and disadvantages, The advantage is one need not buy air time, Whenever one appears in public, it is news. The media must report it. The disadvantage is the incumbent is subject to oversight. The opposition need only look on and criticize. It need not assume any responsibility. The incumbent on the other hand, must constantly defend himself. Faced with criticism, he must refute the charges leveled against him. He must clarify the issues. He must reach out to the public. He must present solutions.
For example, Su Tseng-chang's primary ads made purely emotional appeals. His ads spoke of his 30 years in politics, and his identification with the land. They even used his primary school photographs, They made little effort to discuss policy. To gain any understanding of his policy proposals, one would have to watch his interviews or the primary debates. Tsai Ing-wen's primary ads appealed first to reason, then to emotion. Recently she ran a nuclear-free homeland ad. The ad starred an adorable little child, but gave no hint of how a nuclear-free homeland might be achieved.
Advertising is propaganda. Propaganda must be easy to understand. It must reach straight into peoples' hearts. Basically, they can only convey, not express, ideas. Take the noisily debated Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project for example. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project was approved by Premier Su Tseng-chang and Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen. The two can hardly disclaim responsiblity for its implementation. But neither addressed this fact in their TV ads. Su Tseng-chang chose to apologize for his policy decisions, and for promoting the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. He even phoned EIA members, expressing concern over Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to apologize. Whether politicians are consistent is a matter of concern for many swing voters. It may determine whether they are willing to support a candidate. But for the vast majority of voters, who do not understand the importance, consistency makes little difference. Tsai Ing-wen is appealing to first time voters. In the end, how many people know or even care about the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project?
As the incumbent however, Ma Ying-jeou must ensure policy continuity. He must implement the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, which was initiated by the DPP when it was in power. He must bear the brunt of favorable and unfavorable opinions. He must assume responsibility for positive and negative consequences. He must decide whether to continue construction, stop construction, transfer the project overseas, or settle on some other option. To solicit public opinion, he met with university students and raised the issue. In fact, the students who participated could offer no compelling reasons for their position. Basically, this approach is unlikely to help the Ma administration make these important decisions. That said, Ma Ying-jeou did something. It was better than doing nothing. After all, he is the nation's leader, and helped young people understand the importance of public policy.
In addition to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, Ma Ying-jeou discussed issues such as the luxury tax and the abolition of the death penalty. As one can imagine, he could do little more than touch upon these subjects, But Ma Ying-jeou did not give up. His facebook page says he hopes to visit other schools, and discuss other issues of interest to students. If this is Ma Ying-jeou's way of reaching out to first time voters, he comes across as considerably more sincere than Tsai Ing-wen.
As long as Ma remains approachable, he can make a good impression. Many have expressed disapproval with Ma Ying-jeou for repeatedly meeting with voters. He was heckled and denounced as "stupid" when he appeared at an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet. When he and Wang Li-hong spoke to young people about having the courage to pursue their dreams, some mocked him, saying he allowed himself to be upstaged by a pop singer. But when he met with university students to discuss public policy, shouldn't he have been above reproach? No such luck. Who knew a Blue Camp legislator would become incensed at a student for failing to stand when the president entered. "I wanted to slap the student repeatedly across the face," the legislator said. Ma Ying-jeou, on the other hand, dismissed the matter. His face book pages says "Taiwan has entered the era of democracy and freedom, It is not really necessary to impose too many restrictions on college students. We should simply go with the flow." In short, the president and the legislator held very different views about student discipline.
A leader must have the courage to meet his critics face to face. Ma Ying-jeou has been widely praised for his squeaky clean image. But many have questioned his courage. When he ran for president in 2008, he published a book entitled "Quiet Determination," which argued that courage is expressed not in words, but in deeds. He has now served as president for three years. Many people have forgotten that Ma Ying-jeou expresses his courage in a different manner than other politicians. He is a sitting president. He cannot express his courage through empty gestures. He must express his courage through substantive action.
Do not concern yourself with hecklers. Do not worry about whether you will benefit from your exchanges with young people. A politician's reputation and achievements are the result of long term behavior. Ma, Su, and Tsai are competing against each other to become the nation's leader. What they say and do reveal their character. The presidential election has begun. Voters will soon choose qualified leaders, by reading the candidates' campaign literature, but more importantly, by observing their real world conduct.
選國家領導人 首看格局氣度
2011-04-13 中國時報
不必懷疑，二○一二年總統大選已然起跑！民進黨兩位總統初選候選人蔡英文與蘇貞昌，推出大量電視廣告，也密集接受媒體訪問；同時，必然競選連任的馬英九總統，則從連續四天的春假期間開始，頻繁為重大政策親上火線，並且更頻繁的出席各種活動，包括與基層草根感情連結的大甲媽祖遶境，乃至與青年學子座談，其媒體曝光度不輸民進黨總統初選候選人的宣傳廣告。
做為執政者，有優勢也有劣勢，優勢是不必做廣告，只要他現身就是新聞點，媒體就得報導；劣勢是他是權力者，也是被監督者；在野者只須監督與批評，不必負責，執政者卻處於被動守勢，面對批評與質疑，反駁不夠還要澄清，澄清不夠還需要溝通，溝通不夠更得提出解決方案。
舉例來說，蘇貞昌的初選廣告訴求感性，以從政卅年歷程強調他與這塊土地同聲呼氣，連他國小照片都用上了，沒費太大力氣談政策立場，他的政策理念得從媒體訪問和初選辯論會中窺得端倪；蔡英文的初選廣告先理性再感性，最近一支非核家園廣告，運用討人喜歡的孩子卻不必提出如何做到非核家園。
廣告就是宣傳，宣傳要用簡單易懂、直入人心的方式呈現，基本上，只能傳達意念不能表達理念。以最近吵翻天的國光石化案為例，做為批核國光石化案的前正副院長，蘇貞昌和蔡英文的政策責任無可推諉，但完全不必在廣告呈現。蘇貞昌為當年政策決定道歉，當年力推國光石化案，甚至打電話給環評委員表示關切的蔡英文不道歉，對介意政治人物政策立場是否一貫的中間選民，可能是影響其支持意向關鍵，但對絕大多數不是那麼了解政策重要性的選民卻差別不大。像蔡英文訴求的「首投族」，到底有多少人關心甚至知道國光石化案不無疑問。
但是，做為執政者，當馬英九基於政策的延續性，推動民進黨政府執政時的國光石化政策時，所有贊成或反對，正面與負面的後果，他都得概括承受，在繼續興建、停止興建、或者移轉海外等各種選項，他必須有所抉擇。為了聆聽民意，他特別在與大學生座談會的場合，提出這個公共政策，與會學生其實講不出天大的道理，基本上，不大可能成為馬政府決策的參考。即使如此，馬英九的動作還是比不談要好得多，因為，他以國家領導人的高度，讓年輕人體會公共政策的重要性。
除了國光石化案，馬英九與大學生互動的公共政策還包括死刑存廢、奢侈稅等。可想而知，大學生與他的互動再熱絡也只能點到為止，馬英九沒有因此放棄努力，他在臉書上說，還希望有機會到別的學校，討論大學生感興趣的公共政策題目。如果這也是馬英九吸引「首投族」的做法，坦白說，比蔡英文的文宣廣告誠意多了。
只要親近就有機會爭取好感，很多人對馬英九頻頻站到第一線表達不以為然，在彰化參加反國光石化萬人餐會遭嗆，被人批評笨；與王立宏對談年輕人勇敢追求夢想，被人譏嘲風采被偶像歌手搶光了；和大學生座談政策，總沒人批評了吧？沒想到藍營立委竟氣到痛罵大學生和總統講話不起立，「簡直想打那個大學生幾個巴掌。」倒是馬英九非常釋懷，他在臉書上說，「台灣已經進入民主自由的時代，其實不必用太多的條條框框加在大學生身上，一切自然就好。」一句話，就透露總統與立委的胸襟和視野果然差很大。
勇敢面對異議者，是領導者必須具備的膽氣。馬英九的廉潔形象已受肯定，但他的魄力卻總是遭到質疑；二○○八年他競選總統時，出版《沉默的魄力》，以政績說明魄力不在嘴上，而在行動。就任總統三年多，很多人快忘記馬英九曾經如此標榜自己的魄力，不同於其他政治人物，已是現任總統的他，不能以空洞的宣傳說明自己的擔當，更須用行動展現自己能力。
不必介意遭嗆，不必懷疑與年輕人互動有什麼好處，形象與政績都得靠一點一滴的實際作為才能累積，做為競逐國家領導人大位的政治領袖，馬、蘇或蔡的一言一行都得表現格局和氣度，總統大選已然開跑，選民自會從文宣廣告與實際行動間，找到真正適格的國家領導人。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 13, 2011
No doubt about it. The 2012 presidential election has begun. DPP presidential candidates Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have each aired numerous TV commercials. They have agreed to repeated public interviews. Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou is sure to seek reelection. Beginning with the four day spring break, he repeatedly defended his major policy proposals. He repeatedly appeared at various venues. He reached out to grass-roots voters at the Tachia Matsu ceremony. He rapped with students. His media exposure rivaled that of the DPP presidential candidates.
The incumbency has advantages and disadvantages, The advantage is one need not buy air time, Whenever one appears in public, it is news. The media must report it. The disadvantage is the incumbent is subject to oversight. The opposition need only look on and criticize. It need not assume any responsibility. The incumbent on the other hand, must constantly defend himself. Faced with criticism, he must refute the charges leveled against him. He must clarify the issues. He must reach out to the public. He must present solutions.
For example, Su Tseng-chang's primary ads made purely emotional appeals. His ads spoke of his 30 years in politics, and his identification with the land. They even used his primary school photographs, They made little effort to discuss policy. To gain any understanding of his policy proposals, one would have to watch his interviews or the primary debates. Tsai Ing-wen's primary ads appealed first to reason, then to emotion. Recently she ran a nuclear-free homeland ad. The ad starred an adorable little child, but gave no hint of how a nuclear-free homeland might be achieved.
Advertising is propaganda. Propaganda must be easy to understand. It must reach straight into peoples' hearts. Basically, they can only convey, not express, ideas. Take the noisily debated Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project for example. The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project was approved by Premier Su Tseng-chang and Vice Premier Tsai Ing-wen. The two can hardly disclaim responsiblity for its implementation. But neither addressed this fact in their TV ads. Su Tseng-chang chose to apologize for his policy decisions, and for promoting the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. He even phoned EIA members, expressing concern over Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to apologize. Whether politicians are consistent is a matter of concern for many swing voters. It may determine whether they are willing to support a candidate. But for the vast majority of voters, who do not understand the importance, consistency makes little difference. Tsai Ing-wen is appealing to first time voters. In the end, how many people know or even care about the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project?
As the incumbent however, Ma Ying-jeou must ensure policy continuity. He must implement the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, which was initiated by the DPP when it was in power. He must bear the brunt of favorable and unfavorable opinions. He must assume responsibility for positive and negative consequences. He must decide whether to continue construction, stop construction, transfer the project overseas, or settle on some other option. To solicit public opinion, he met with university students and raised the issue. In fact, the students who participated could offer no compelling reasons for their position. Basically, this approach is unlikely to help the Ma administration make these important decisions. That said, Ma Ying-jeou did something. It was better than doing nothing. After all, he is the nation's leader, and helped young people understand the importance of public policy.
In addition to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, Ma Ying-jeou discussed issues such as the luxury tax and the abolition of the death penalty. As one can imagine, he could do little more than touch upon these subjects, But Ma Ying-jeou did not give up. His facebook page says he hopes to visit other schools, and discuss other issues of interest to students. If this is Ma Ying-jeou's way of reaching out to first time voters, he comes across as considerably more sincere than Tsai Ing-wen.
As long as Ma remains approachable, he can make a good impression. Many have expressed disapproval with Ma Ying-jeou for repeatedly meeting with voters. He was heckled and denounced as "stupid" when he appeared at an anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet. When he and Wang Li-hong spoke to young people about having the courage to pursue their dreams, some mocked him, saying he allowed himself to be upstaged by a pop singer. But when he met with university students to discuss public policy, shouldn't he have been above reproach? No such luck. Who knew a Blue Camp legislator would become incensed at a student for failing to stand when the president entered. "I wanted to slap the student repeatedly across the face," the legislator said. Ma Ying-jeou, on the other hand, dismissed the matter. His face book pages says "Taiwan has entered the era of democracy and freedom, It is not really necessary to impose too many restrictions on college students. We should simply go with the flow." In short, the president and the legislator held very different views about student discipline.
A leader must have the courage to meet his critics face to face. Ma Ying-jeou has been widely praised for his squeaky clean image. But many have questioned his courage. When he ran for president in 2008, he published a book entitled "Quiet Determination," which argued that courage is expressed not in words, but in deeds. He has now served as president for three years. Many people have forgotten that Ma Ying-jeou expresses his courage in a different manner than other politicians. He is a sitting president. He cannot express his courage through empty gestures. He must express his courage through substantive action.
Do not concern yourself with hecklers. Do not worry about whether you will benefit from your exchanges with young people. A politician's reputation and achievements are the result of long term behavior. Ma, Su, and Tsai are competing against each other to become the nation's leader. What they say and do reveal their character. The presidential election has begun. Voters will soon choose qualified leaders, by reading the candidates' campaign literature, but more importantly, by observing their real world conduct.
選國家領導人 首看格局氣度
2011-04-13 中國時報
不必懷疑，二○一二年總統大選已然起跑！民進黨兩位總統初選候選人蔡英文與蘇貞昌，推出大量電視廣告，也密集接受媒體訪問；同時，必然競選連任的馬英九總統，則從連續四天的春假期間開始，頻繁為重大政策親上火線，並且更頻繁的出席各種活動，包括與基層草根感情連結的大甲媽祖遶境，乃至與青年學子座談，其媒體曝光度不輸民進黨總統初選候選人的宣傳廣告。
做為執政者，有優勢也有劣勢，優勢是不必做廣告，只要他現身就是新聞點，媒體就得報導；劣勢是他是權力者，也是被監督者；在野者只須監督與批評，不必負責，執政者卻處於被動守勢，面對批評與質疑，反駁不夠還要澄清，澄清不夠還需要溝通，溝通不夠更得提出解決方案。
舉例來說，蘇貞昌的初選廣告訴求感性，以從政卅年歷程強調他與這塊土地同聲呼氣，連他國小照片都用上了，沒費太大力氣談政策立場，他的政策理念得從媒體訪問和初選辯論會中窺得端倪；蔡英文的初選廣告先理性再感性，最近一支非核家園廣告，運用討人喜歡的孩子卻不必提出如何做到非核家園。
廣告就是宣傳，宣傳要用簡單易懂、直入人心的方式呈現，基本上，只能傳達意念不能表達理念。以最近吵翻天的國光石化案為例，做為批核國光石化案的前正副院長，蘇貞昌和蔡英文的政策責任無可推諉，但完全不必在廣告呈現。蘇貞昌為當年政策決定道歉，當年力推國光石化案，甚至打電話給環評委員表示關切的蔡英文不道歉，對介意政治人物政策立場是否一貫的中間選民，可能是影響其支持意向關鍵，但對絕大多數不是那麼了解政策重要性的選民卻差別不大。像蔡英文訴求的「首投族」，到底有多少人關心甚至知道國光石化案不無疑問。
但是，做為執政者，當馬英九基於政策的延續性，推動民進黨政府執政時的國光石化政策時，所有贊成或反對，正面與負面的後果，他都得概括承受，在繼續興建、停止興建、或者移轉海外等各種選項，他必須有所抉擇。為了聆聽民意，他特別在與大學生座談會的場合，提出這個公共政策，與會學生其實講不出天大的道理，基本上，不大可能成為馬政府決策的參考。即使如此，馬英九的動作還是比不談要好得多，因為，他以國家領導人的高度，讓年輕人體會公共政策的重要性。
除了國光石化案，馬英九與大學生互動的公共政策還包括死刑存廢、奢侈稅等。可想而知，大學生與他的互動再熱絡也只能點到為止，馬英九沒有因此放棄努力，他在臉書上說，還希望有機會到別的學校，討論大學生感興趣的公共政策題目。如果這也是馬英九吸引「首投族」的做法，坦白說，比蔡英文的文宣廣告誠意多了。
只要親近就有機會爭取好感，很多人對馬英九頻頻站到第一線表達不以為然，在彰化參加反國光石化萬人餐會遭嗆，被人批評笨；與王立宏對談年輕人勇敢追求夢想，被人譏嘲風采被偶像歌手搶光了；和大學生座談政策，總沒人批評了吧？沒想到藍營立委竟氣到痛罵大學生和總統講話不起立，「簡直想打那個大學生幾個巴掌。」倒是馬英九非常釋懷，他在臉書上說，「台灣已經進入民主自由的時代，其實不必用太多的條條框框加在大學生身上，一切自然就好。」一句話，就透露總統與立委的胸襟和視野果然差很大。
勇敢面對異議者，是領導者必須具備的膽氣。馬英九的廉潔形象已受肯定，但他的魄力卻總是遭到質疑；二○○八年他競選總統時，出版《沉默的魄力》，以政績說明魄力不在嘴上，而在行動。就任總統三年多，很多人快忘記馬英九曾經如此標榜自己的魄力，不同於其他政治人物，已是現任總統的他，不能以空洞的宣傳說明自己的擔當，更須用行動展現自己能力。
不必介意遭嗆，不必懷疑與年輕人互動有什麼好處，形象與政績都得靠一點一滴的實際作為才能累積，做為競逐國家領導人大位的政治領袖，馬、蘇或蔡的一言一行都得表現格局和氣度，總統大選已然開跑，選民自會從文宣廣告與實際行動間，找到真正適格的國家領導人。
Monday, April 11, 2011
DPP Should Understand Why Hsu Hsin-liang Wept
DPP Should Understand Why Hsu Hsin-liang Wept
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 12, 2011
Last Saturday the DPP held its first presidential primary debate. Hsu Hsin-liang, due to his image and rhetoric, made the biggest splash among all the candidates. During his closing arguments, he shared a number of feelings about his political life that shocked everyone in attendance, and moved many to tears.
Green Camp veterans in attendance who heard Hsu Hsin-liang's emotional sharing, teared up. Those who didn't, had hearts of stone. After all, Hsu Hsin-liang's political life was filled with setbacks and heartaches, and reflected the experience of other key figures within the Green Camp. These key figures within the Green Camp may be unwilling to endorse Hsu Hsin-liang's thinking in public. But given their own years of suffering they should be able to empathize with him.
Hsu Hsin-liang precipitated the "Chungli Incident," the prelude to the political opposition movement on Taiwan. This was followed by bridgehead incidents, airport incidents, smuggling incidents, and the Tucheng Incident. Every one of these incidents was a milestone. Hsu Hsin-liang's political views have evolved. It has evolved from "Ensuring that the KMT vanishes from the face of the earth," to "Taiwan Nation Building United Front," to "urban guerrilla warfare," to "boldly going west," to "opposition to the rectification of names," to participation in the "red army" protests, to standing on the same dais as Tsai and Su. but alone in his advocacy of "ensuring the status quo, boldiy opening to the Mainland."
Among those in attendance at Saturday's political debate, no one has sacrificed more on behalf of the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was subject to greater humiliation by the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was more sincere and honest than Hsu Hsin-liang. Spontaneous applause and laughter proved that Hsu Hsin-liang was not a total pariah, and that Hsu Hsin-liang's political platform was not totally unacceptable. After all, they were the crystallization of 30 years of political suffering. They were enough to make those who heard him break into tears.
Why does the DPP see Hsu Hsin-liang as a traitor? Even Chen Shui-bian once advocated "five noes," "swore to defend the Republic of China to the death," and dismissed the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" as "self-deception... if it can't be done, it can't be done." Why isn't Chen Shui-bian considered a traitor? When Hsu Hsin-liang advocated boldly allowing Mainland capital onto Taiwan, and Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Tsai Ing-wen boasted that the three mini links and charter flights were implented during her term in office. Su Tseng-chang claimed he was premier at the time. But as it turned out, he was merely the Taipei County Chief. The scene was risible. Su and Tsai blanked out the complete and utter failure of the Chen regime's cross-Strait policy. They then attempted to invoke the three mini links as evidence of their "political accomplishments." Hsu Hsin-liang, on the other hand, promoted a "one China roof, with each side independent," establishing a framework for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. So just exactly who was engaging in self-deception?
Hsu Hsin-liang's basic proposals are simple and easy to understand. Specifically, the ROC's political path must be consistent with its economic path. This has long been the position of the UDN. Under these preconditions, Hsu Hsin-liang laid out his proposal for DPP rule, in the event it returns to office. The DPP must not advocate Taiwan independence. After all, Chen Shui-bian himself championed the five noes. The DPP must not overturn the "one China principle," ECFA, and other channels of communication. It must not impose limits on Mainland investments, Mainland tourism, and Mainland students studying on Taiwan. It must instead use cross-Strait economic interactions to promote Taiwan's economic development, and to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Taiwan must "boldly open up" and reject Lee Teng-hui's policy of "be patient, avoid haste." As long as the public liberates Taiwan's economic vitality, its economy will naturally flourish. As for the political risks alleged posed by economic exchanges, Hsu Hsin-liang considers this a phony issue. Today's globalized political and economic order is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo.
Hsu Hsin-liang may be too optimistic. But political and economic policy should permit the public to make full use of cross-Strait trade and economic resources, and leave the government to deal with political and security issues. For example, the ruling party must not advocate Taiwan independence. It must adhere to democracy. Su and Tsai cannot bring themselves to publicly oppose Taiwan independence, despite the fact that Chen Shui-bian championed the five noes. Their unwillingness to do so has turned them into the biggest detriment to cross-Strait political security. Su and Tsai nevertheless insist on sacrificing cross-Strait economics and trade, on the altar of Taiwan independence. Compare their thinking to that of Hsu Hsin-liang, and we find they have inverted cause and effect. Hsu openly opposes Taiwan independence. He feels economic exchanges will result in political security. Su and Tsai meanwhile, cannot bring themselves to utter a single word against Taiwan independence. How can they possibly throw open the doors to cross-Strait economic and trade? Even Chen Shui-bian championed the "five noes." Do Su and Tsai actually intend to make people suffer through times even more painful than the Chen Shui-bian era?
When confronted with their about face on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, Su and Tsai attributed their flip flop to "changing times." But Hsu Hsin-liang's opposition to Taiwan independence, and his shift to "ensuring the status quo, and boldly opening up to the Mainland" was also a response to "changing times" in the global "big picture." Su and Tsai reversed themselves on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Are they unaware that "changing times" have affected the cross-Strait strategic picture as well, and that they should rethink their cross-Strait policy?
Hsu Hsin-liang must make full use of his five million NT presidential election registration fee. He has teetered on the edge for most of his political life, and almost become a joke. Now he finds himself on the same dais as Tsai and Su. The public no longer considers him a joke. Hsu Hsin-liang took the lead as he entered a "new era" in history. By doing so, he showed Su and Tsai up for what they were, "older generation" politicians mired in the past. Some in the DPP wept for Hsu Hsin-liang. They wept over the scars Hsu Hsin-liang accumulated over the years. They wept over the Democratic Progressive Party's inability to liberate itself from the self-imposed chains that bind its soul.
民進黨應知為許信良落淚
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.12
上周六民進黨總統初選的首場政見會中，許信良是形象及論述最最突出者。他在結辯時的一段生涯告白，震撼全場，甚至有人感動落淚。
資深的綠營人物，在現場聽了許信良的告白，若未曾濕了眼眶，那真是鐵石心腸。因為，許信良躓踣崎嶇的政治生涯，豈不也正是每一綠營要人自己的生命寫照？而許信良表達的思維辯證，不論綠營要人能否公開贊同，卻也皆應是他（她）自己在良知及理智上煎熬多年的題材。
許信良的「中壢事件」拉開了台灣政治反對運動的序幕，接下來的橋頭事件、機場事件、偷渡事件、土城事件，件件皆是里程碑；而許信良的政治主張，則由「讓國民黨從地球上消失」，至「台灣建國聯合陣線」、「都市游擊戰」、「大膽西進」、「反對正名制憲」、「紅衫軍」，一直到與蘇蔡同台，獨樹一幟地主張「確保現狀，大膽開放」。
環視周六的政見會場中，全場無一人較許信良為民進黨的犧牲更大，更無一人較許信良受民進黨的羞辱更深，尤無一人較許信良的思辨更真誠坦白；現場自發的掌聲及笑聲證明，許信良這個人不是完全不足取，許信良的政見亦非完全不可採，因為那皆是積三十餘年悲苦掙扎，而足以令人聞之落淚的政治生命結晶。
民進黨為何視許信良為叛徒？其實，連陳水扁都曾主張「四不一沒有」、「誓死捍衛中華民國」、「正名制憲是自欺欺人，做不到就是做不到」，則為何陳水扁不是叛徒？當許信良主張大膽開放陸資、陸客、陸生來台時，蔡英文竟然標榜她在陸委會任內實現小三通及包機；蘇貞昌則說，當時他正是行政院長，結果卻發現他當時只是台北縣長。這是多麼滑稽可笑的場景：蘇蔡竟然完全無視於扁政府在兩岸政策的「完全而徹底」的失敗，卻欲以小三通來證明他們的「政績」；此較諸許信良以「一中屋頂，各自獨立」來建立兩岸經貿交流的架構，誰在自欺欺人？
許信良的基本主張淺白易懂，那就是台灣的政治路線必須與經濟路線合轍，這也是本報的一貫主張。在此一準則下，許信良主張民進黨若執政，不可主張台獨（陳水扁也主張「四不一沒有」），不必推翻「一中原則」，不應推翻ＥＣＦＡ等交流機制，不要限制陸資、陸客、陸生來台；而應以兩岸經貿互動來拉升台灣經濟發展，用以改善社會公平。因而認為，只要「大膽開放」，不要「戒急用忍」，只須將台灣人民在兩岸間的經濟活力解放出來，經濟自然就能獲得動能。至於經濟交流所涉政治安全的問題，在許信良的眼中只是一個假議題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」，即足以維持「兩岸現狀」。
許信良的看法也許過於樂觀，但讓民間充分運用兩岸經貿資源，而由政府來處理政治安全的問題（例如，執政黨不主張台獨，堅持民主），應當是一平允的政經路線。現在，蘇蔡二人說不出反對台獨（連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」），已使他們自己就成了兩岸政治安全的最大負數，卻反而要以節制兩岸經貿來作為支撐他們台獨意識的代價，這若與許信良的思維體系相較，其實已是倒果為因。亦即：許主張，不台獨，交流就有政治安全；蘇蔡則既然說不出一句反台獨，則如何可能有大開大闔的兩岸經貿政策？連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」，蘇蔡二人難道準備將台灣帶入比陳水扁時代更痛苦的兩岸風暴？
談到核四及國光石化的出爾反爾，蘇蔡二人皆說「時空環境不同」；其實，許信良不主張台獨，而改採「確保現狀，大膽開放」，不啻也正是緣於全球大勢的「時空環境不同」。蘇蔡能在核四及國光石化翻案，卻為何不知兩岸關係也已「時空環境不同」，而應在兩岸政策上反省改革？
許信良應使自己這五百萬元值回票價。他在飄零反覆的一生幾乎變成一場笑話的邊緣，與蘇蔡站在同一講台上，令眾人不再以笑話視之。許信良走在歷史「新時代」的前沿，映襯出蘇蔡皆仍在「舊世代」中徘徊。民進黨應有人為許信良落淚，一哭許信良體無完膚地走到今日，再哭整個民進黨迄今仍是走不出心靈牢籠的自囚之困獸！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 12, 2011
Last Saturday the DPP held its first presidential primary debate. Hsu Hsin-liang, due to his image and rhetoric, made the biggest splash among all the candidates. During his closing arguments, he shared a number of feelings about his political life that shocked everyone in attendance, and moved many to tears.
Green Camp veterans in attendance who heard Hsu Hsin-liang's emotional sharing, teared up. Those who didn't, had hearts of stone. After all, Hsu Hsin-liang's political life was filled with setbacks and heartaches, and reflected the experience of other key figures within the Green Camp. These key figures within the Green Camp may be unwilling to endorse Hsu Hsin-liang's thinking in public. But given their own years of suffering they should be able to empathize with him.
Hsu Hsin-liang precipitated the "Chungli Incident," the prelude to the political opposition movement on Taiwan. This was followed by bridgehead incidents, airport incidents, smuggling incidents, and the Tucheng Incident. Every one of these incidents was a milestone. Hsu Hsin-liang's political views have evolved. It has evolved from "Ensuring that the KMT vanishes from the face of the earth," to "Taiwan Nation Building United Front," to "urban guerrilla warfare," to "boldly going west," to "opposition to the rectification of names," to participation in the "red army" protests, to standing on the same dais as Tsai and Su. but alone in his advocacy of "ensuring the status quo, boldiy opening to the Mainland."
Among those in attendance at Saturday's political debate, no one has sacrificed more on behalf of the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was subject to greater humiliation by the DPP than Hsu Hsin-liang. No one was more sincere and honest than Hsu Hsin-liang. Spontaneous applause and laughter proved that Hsu Hsin-liang was not a total pariah, and that Hsu Hsin-liang's political platform was not totally unacceptable. After all, they were the crystallization of 30 years of political suffering. They were enough to make those who heard him break into tears.
Why does the DPP see Hsu Hsin-liang as a traitor? Even Chen Shui-bian once advocated "five noes," "swore to defend the Republic of China to the death," and dismissed the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" as "self-deception... if it can't be done, it can't be done." Why isn't Chen Shui-bian considered a traitor? When Hsu Hsin-liang advocated boldly allowing Mainland capital onto Taiwan, and Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Tsai Ing-wen boasted that the three mini links and charter flights were implented during her term in office. Su Tseng-chang claimed he was premier at the time. But as it turned out, he was merely the Taipei County Chief. The scene was risible. Su and Tsai blanked out the complete and utter failure of the Chen regime's cross-Strait policy. They then attempted to invoke the three mini links as evidence of their "political accomplishments." Hsu Hsin-liang, on the other hand, promoted a "one China roof, with each side independent," establishing a framework for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. So just exactly who was engaging in self-deception?
Hsu Hsin-liang's basic proposals are simple and easy to understand. Specifically, the ROC's political path must be consistent with its economic path. This has long been the position of the UDN. Under these preconditions, Hsu Hsin-liang laid out his proposal for DPP rule, in the event it returns to office. The DPP must not advocate Taiwan independence. After all, Chen Shui-bian himself championed the five noes. The DPP must not overturn the "one China principle," ECFA, and other channels of communication. It must not impose limits on Mainland investments, Mainland tourism, and Mainland students studying on Taiwan. It must instead use cross-Strait economic interactions to promote Taiwan's economic development, and to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Taiwan must "boldly open up" and reject Lee Teng-hui's policy of "be patient, avoid haste." As long as the public liberates Taiwan's economic vitality, its economy will naturally flourish. As for the political risks alleged posed by economic exchanges, Hsu Hsin-liang considers this a phony issue. Today's globalized political and economic order is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo.
Hsu Hsin-liang may be too optimistic. But political and economic policy should permit the public to make full use of cross-Strait trade and economic resources, and leave the government to deal with political and security issues. For example, the ruling party must not advocate Taiwan independence. It must adhere to democracy. Su and Tsai cannot bring themselves to publicly oppose Taiwan independence, despite the fact that Chen Shui-bian championed the five noes. Their unwillingness to do so has turned them into the biggest detriment to cross-Strait political security. Su and Tsai nevertheless insist on sacrificing cross-Strait economics and trade, on the altar of Taiwan independence. Compare their thinking to that of Hsu Hsin-liang, and we find they have inverted cause and effect. Hsu openly opposes Taiwan independence. He feels economic exchanges will result in political security. Su and Tsai meanwhile, cannot bring themselves to utter a single word against Taiwan independence. How can they possibly throw open the doors to cross-Strait economic and trade? Even Chen Shui-bian championed the "five noes." Do Su and Tsai actually intend to make people suffer through times even more painful than the Chen Shui-bian era?
When confronted with their about face on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, Su and Tsai attributed their flip flop to "changing times." But Hsu Hsin-liang's opposition to Taiwan independence, and his shift to "ensuring the status quo, and boldly opening up to the Mainland" was also a response to "changing times" in the global "big picture." Su and Tsai reversed themselves on Nuclear Plant Number Four and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Are they unaware that "changing times" have affected the cross-Strait strategic picture as well, and that they should rethink their cross-Strait policy?
Hsu Hsin-liang must make full use of his five million NT presidential election registration fee. He has teetered on the edge for most of his political life, and almost become a joke. Now he finds himself on the same dais as Tsai and Su. The public no longer considers him a joke. Hsu Hsin-liang took the lead as he entered a "new era" in history. By doing so, he showed Su and Tsai up for what they were, "older generation" politicians mired in the past. Some in the DPP wept for Hsu Hsin-liang. They wept over the scars Hsu Hsin-liang accumulated over the years. They wept over the Democratic Progressive Party's inability to liberate itself from the self-imposed chains that bind its soul.
民進黨應知為許信良落淚
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.12
上周六民進黨總統初選的首場政見會中，許信良是形象及論述最最突出者。他在結辯時的一段生涯告白，震撼全場，甚至有人感動落淚。
資深的綠營人物，在現場聽了許信良的告白，若未曾濕了眼眶，那真是鐵石心腸。因為，許信良躓踣崎嶇的政治生涯，豈不也正是每一綠營要人自己的生命寫照？而許信良表達的思維辯證，不論綠營要人能否公開贊同，卻也皆應是他（她）自己在良知及理智上煎熬多年的題材。
許信良的「中壢事件」拉開了台灣政治反對運動的序幕，接下來的橋頭事件、機場事件、偷渡事件、土城事件，件件皆是里程碑；而許信良的政治主張，則由「讓國民黨從地球上消失」，至「台灣建國聯合陣線」、「都市游擊戰」、「大膽西進」、「反對正名制憲」、「紅衫軍」，一直到與蘇蔡同台，獨樹一幟地主張「確保現狀，大膽開放」。
環視周六的政見會場中，全場無一人較許信良為民進黨的犧牲更大，更無一人較許信良受民進黨的羞辱更深，尤無一人較許信良的思辨更真誠坦白；現場自發的掌聲及笑聲證明，許信良這個人不是完全不足取，許信良的政見亦非完全不可採，因為那皆是積三十餘年悲苦掙扎，而足以令人聞之落淚的政治生命結晶。
民進黨為何視許信良為叛徒？其實，連陳水扁都曾主張「四不一沒有」、「誓死捍衛中華民國」、「正名制憲是自欺欺人，做不到就是做不到」，則為何陳水扁不是叛徒？當許信良主張大膽開放陸資、陸客、陸生來台時，蔡英文竟然標榜她在陸委會任內實現小三通及包機；蘇貞昌則說，當時他正是行政院長，結果卻發現他當時只是台北縣長。這是多麼滑稽可笑的場景：蘇蔡竟然完全無視於扁政府在兩岸政策的「完全而徹底」的失敗，卻欲以小三通來證明他們的「政績」；此較諸許信良以「一中屋頂，各自獨立」來建立兩岸經貿交流的架構，誰在自欺欺人？
許信良的基本主張淺白易懂，那就是台灣的政治路線必須與經濟路線合轍，這也是本報的一貫主張。在此一準則下，許信良主張民進黨若執政，不可主張台獨（陳水扁也主張「四不一沒有」），不必推翻「一中原則」，不應推翻ＥＣＦＡ等交流機制，不要限制陸資、陸客、陸生來台；而應以兩岸經貿互動來拉升台灣經濟發展，用以改善社會公平。因而認為，只要「大膽開放」，不要「戒急用忍」，只須將台灣人民在兩岸間的經濟活力解放出來，經濟自然就能獲得動能。至於經濟交流所涉政治安全的問題，在許信良的眼中只是一個假議題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」，即足以維持「兩岸現狀」。
許信良的看法也許過於樂觀，但讓民間充分運用兩岸經貿資源，而由政府來處理政治安全的問題（例如，執政黨不主張台獨，堅持民主），應當是一平允的政經路線。現在，蘇蔡二人說不出反對台獨（連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」），已使他們自己就成了兩岸政治安全的最大負數，卻反而要以節制兩岸經貿來作為支撐他們台獨意識的代價，這若與許信良的思維體系相較，其實已是倒果為因。亦即：許主張，不台獨，交流就有政治安全；蘇蔡則既然說不出一句反台獨，則如何可能有大開大闔的兩岸經貿政策？連陳水扁都說「四不一沒有」，蘇蔡二人難道準備將台灣帶入比陳水扁時代更痛苦的兩岸風暴？
談到核四及國光石化的出爾反爾，蘇蔡二人皆說「時空環境不同」；其實，許信良不主張台獨，而改採「確保現狀，大膽開放」，不啻也正是緣於全球大勢的「時空環境不同」。蘇蔡能在核四及國光石化翻案，卻為何不知兩岸關係也已「時空環境不同」，而應在兩岸政策上反省改革？
許信良應使自己這五百萬元值回票價。他在飄零反覆的一生幾乎變成一場笑話的邊緣，與蘇蔡站在同一講台上，令眾人不再以笑話視之。許信良走在歷史「新時代」的前沿，映襯出蘇蔡皆仍在「舊世代」中徘徊。民進黨應有人為許信良落淚，一哭許信良體無完膚地走到今日，再哭整個民進黨迄今仍是走不出心靈牢籠的自囚之困獸！
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Su, Tsai, and Hsu: How They Did During the First Primary Debate
Su, Tsai, and Hsu: How They Did During the First Primary Debate
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 10, 2011
The DPP has held its first presidential primary debate. The debate however, failed to lay out the candidates' policy positions. But judging by the candidates' presentations so far, one would have to say that Tsai Ing-wen's was hollow, that Su Tseng-chang's was evasive, and that only Hsu Hsin-liang evinced any sincerity.
In order to come across as convincing during a political debate, two conditions must be met. First, a candidate's speech must be reasoned and logical. Only then can his speech take flight. But if his speech is all flash and no substance, if it is transparent subterfuge, he will lose credibility. Secondly, only a heartfelt appeal will ring true. The candidate must be in tune with his presentation. If the candidate is not in tune with his presentation, it will ring false. Yesterday Su and Tsai delivered eloquent closing arguments. But their 10 minute closing arguments were filled with evasions. Their words failed to ring true. Therefore they as candidates failed to ring true. Hsu Hsin-liang on the other hand, was in tune with his presentation. As a result he moved listeners, who repeatedly broke out into applause and laughter.
Last April, during the "Two Yings Debate," Tsai Ing-wen took on Ma Ying-jeou. The result was disappointing. The consensus was that Tsai Ing-wen lost the debate over a single issue -- ECFA. Yesterday the framework of the debate was expanded to include a wider range of issues. But Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric was even emptier than before. She was unable to reconcile the internal contradictions in her own position. This was truly unexpected.
Yesterday Tsai Ing-wen clung to the same line as during the "Two Yings Debate." If anything, she was more evasive. When responding to questions about cross-Strait issues, she said that cross-Strait issues cannot be decided by individual leaders. They must be made democratically. They must be made collectively. The day before she said "they should be made by the next generation." But 40 minutes later, during her closing arguments, she said leaders must make the decisions. She said "Problems cannot be left to the next generation." On the very same dais, she advanced truly incomprehensible contradictions. In recent years, Tsai Ing-wen has refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She has opposed ECFA, and she has opposed the Chiang-Chen Summits. But which of these was not a unilateral proposal by the DPP? Were any of these submitted to the public for their approval? How does Tsai Ing-wen stand on them? Does she still support them as she did before?
Tsai Ing-wen reiterated that macro level problems cannot be resolved in piecemeal fashion. But she boasted that during DPP rule, charter flights and the three mini-links were quite successful. She addressed cross-Strait relations in piecemeal fashion, isolating it from the ruling DPP's macro level policy failure. Next, she opposed the pursuit of economic growth. She said the policy of favoring industry over agriculture should be reversed. But she failed to take into account economic growth, without which she can hardly realize her welfare state. Finally, she reiterated her desire for "multilateral international relations." But she failed to explain how such a state of affairs could be achieved given her advocacy of "globalization without [Mainland] China."
Su Tseng-chang was the first to present his political platform. He pontificated about "not taking the wrong road, lest we miss important opportunities." Listeners can be forgiven for thinking he was conducting a post mortem of the DPP's eight years in office, when it "took the wrong road, and missed important opportunities." But as it turns out, he was referring merely to public transportation and public housing policies. Such a political platform might have made sense four years ago. But four years later, it left the impression that Su was blowing smoke for 10 minutes. Not "everyone on Taiwan is smiling." The reason they are not, is the result of issues far more critical than public transportation and public housing.
Su Tseng-chang apparently engaged in greater soul-searching than Tsai Ing-wen. He was apologetic and beat around the bush. He said that on Taiwan, if a political party comes to power, half the people feel abandoned. He described the problem, but offered no solution. Su Tseng-chang did not say, "Leaders cannot decide cross-Strait policy on their own." He reaffirmed the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. He adopted a clearer posture than Tsai Ing-wen. But the DPP remains a political party that persists in walking the Taiwan independence high wire. Besides, Chen Shui-bian has already discredited the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Isn't this precisely why "when one political party comes to power, half of the people feel abandoned?"
During this political debate, Hsu Hsin-liang gave voice to political views once regarded as "betraying the party and selling out Taiwan." This was the debate's greatest achievement. Hsu believes that the One China Principle is not a problem, because today's globalized political and economic system is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo. When addressing industrial policy, he said that as long as we boldly open our doors and discontinue our past policy of "be patient, avoid haste," Taiwan's economy will grow by leaps and bounds, The wealth earned can then be used to increase social equality. He even characterized the Ma administration's opening to the Mainland as overly conservative. He said if we were to open to the same degree as Hong Kong, and allow 20 million Mainland tourists onto Taiwan each year, we would enjoy a boom in domestic demand. Hsu Hsin-liang said that if Acer had not bowed to the policy of "be patient, avoid haste," it would already have become the world's largest electronics company. He blasted the DPP for exploiting social movements while it was in the opposition, but then abandoning the weak and the poor once it was in power.
Hsu's speech may have bordered on the fanciful, but his words were sincere. In particular, he recalled the frustrations of political life. He addressed Green Camp members, both those on and below the dais. He reminded them that no one in the DPP had sacrificed more. He asked them which DPP official was the poorest while in public office? The audience roared with laughter. The DPP exploited then discarded this party elder. Was the Green Camp laughter tinged with regret? One has to wonder.
The candidates each had 20 minutes to read their speeches. Each was asked softball questions. Even the questioners used the opportunity to snipe at the Ma administration. A political debate such as this has little real significance. During the next three debates, the media should be allowed to ask questions, Either that, or the three candidates should ask each other questions. The candidates should stop talking past each other. The candidates should stop talking to themselves.
評蘇蔡許首場初選政見會表現
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.10
這是民進黨總統初選的首場政見發表會，似尚未展現三位參選人政見體系的全貌。但若僅以這場政見會的表現作一評價，可說是：蔡英文空洞、蘇貞昌迴旋、許信良真誠。
政見辯論的說服力有兩個主要因素。一、書面講稿的理路、邏輯及境界：由於有講稿，因此修辭較美；但若美到虛無縹緲的地步，遁詞知其所窮，即失真誠。二、人格感染力的發揮：也就是能否給人真誠的感覺；人格與講稿合體即有真誠感，人格與講稿分離就顯虛假。昨日蘇蔡二人申論及結辯講稿的辭藻均不錯，但似乎皆多少是用避重就輕的詞句去「塞滿」那二十分鐘，文不真誠，人也失真誠。倒是許信良人稿合體，幾次帶動的掌聲與笑聲皆可見其動人之處。
蔡英文在去年四月與馬總統「雙英辯論」，評價不如預期。一般認為，那是因蔡英文在E CFA這個單一議題上比較吃虧；但昨日的議題架構拉開放大，蔡英文的論述卻較「雙英辯論」時更空泛無物，甚且矛盾不能自圓其說，這卻有些出人意表。
蔡英文昨仍然接續「雙英辯論」的論述主軸，但更加閃爍其詞。她在回答關於兩岸的問題時強調，兩岸問題不能由領導人一個人決定，必須經由民主機制，由大家一起來決定（日前她曾說「應當由下一代決定」）；四十分鐘後她在作結辯時，卻又說領導人必須作出決定，「不能把問題留給下一代」。在同一講台上出現此種矛盾，是難以理解的；何況，蔡英文近年來所作「否認九二共識」、「否認ECFA」、「反對江陳會」的決定，又有哪一件不是出自民進黨的片面主張？又有哪一件經由民主機制？而蔡英文在此時對這些主張的立場是否堅持如故？
蔡英文一再強調，整體的問題不能切割處理。她自我表揚說，民進黨執政期間的小三通及包機做得很成功；卻似乎「切割」掉了民進黨執政八年在兩岸關係上的「整體」失敗。再如，她主張不要只追求「經濟成長率」，應當「翻轉」「重工輕農」的經濟政策；卻未交代，沒有「經濟成長率」，如何實現她的「福利社會」？另如，她又重申她的「國際多邊體系」，但仍未申論她那一套「排除中國的全球化」如何實現？
蘇貞昌是這場政見會的第一個發言者，破題就沉痛地說了一長串「不能走錯路，否則會錯失機會」的話語，令人以為他是要對民進黨八年執政「走錯了路，錯失機會」提出檢討，結果說的竟是公共交通與住宅政策；這類的政見，四年前可以說，四年後也可以說，令人覺得只是想「拖」過那十分鐘。台灣之所以不是「人人有笑容」，恐怕有比公共交通與住宅政策更重要的議題。
與蔡英文相較，蘇貞昌表現了較大的反省、歉疚與迴旋。但他說，台灣的政治，一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄；這說出了現象，卻未說出解藥。蘇貞昌沒有說，「領導人不能一個人決定兩岸政策」，他回到了《台灣前途決議文》，顯示他比蔡英文有立場；但是，民進黨仍是一個《台獨黨綱》高懸的政黨，且陳水扁已全盤撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》，這是否正是「一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄」的根本原因？
許信良能在這場政見會上，說出以前被視為「叛黨賣台」的政見，是這場政見會最大的政治成就。他認為，「一中原則」根本不是問題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」足可維持「兩岸現狀」。在論及產業政策時，他說，只要「大膽開放」，不要再「戒急用忍」，台灣的經濟即能巨幅成長，可以用於改善社會公平；他甚至指馬政府的開放太過保守，若像香港那樣，一年開放二千萬陸客來台，台灣的內需榮景可期。許信良說，倘若當年宏碁不是尊奉「戒急用忍」，如今應當已成為全球最大的電子企業。此外，他又痛批民進黨，在野時利用社運團體，執政後就遺棄貧弱大眾。
許信良的發言雖是洋溢浪漫，但情辭俱見真誠。尤其，他回述坎坷的政治生涯，令人驚覺昨日在台上及台下的綠營諸人，可謂沒有一人對民進黨較他付出更多、犧牲更大；他並當場問，民進黨中那一個曾任公職者比他更窮？全場哄堂大笑，但面對這位被民進黨糟蹋至此地步的前輩，綠營難道不覺笑中帶淚？
二十分鐘念稿子，三個海闊天空的提問，甚至提問者也跟著表演辱罵馬政府；這樣的政見會沒有太大意義。未來三場，應開放媒體提問，或由三人交互詰問，不要再各說各話、自說自話。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 10, 2011
The DPP has held its first presidential primary debate. The debate however, failed to lay out the candidates' policy positions. But judging by the candidates' presentations so far, one would have to say that Tsai Ing-wen's was hollow, that Su Tseng-chang's was evasive, and that only Hsu Hsin-liang evinced any sincerity.
In order to come across as convincing during a political debate, two conditions must be met. First, a candidate's speech must be reasoned and logical. Only then can his speech take flight. But if his speech is all flash and no substance, if it is transparent subterfuge, he will lose credibility. Secondly, only a heartfelt appeal will ring true. The candidate must be in tune with his presentation. If the candidate is not in tune with his presentation, it will ring false. Yesterday Su and Tsai delivered eloquent closing arguments. But their 10 minute closing arguments were filled with evasions. Their words failed to ring true. Therefore they as candidates failed to ring true. Hsu Hsin-liang on the other hand, was in tune with his presentation. As a result he moved listeners, who repeatedly broke out into applause and laughter.
Last April, during the "Two Yings Debate," Tsai Ing-wen took on Ma Ying-jeou. The result was disappointing. The consensus was that Tsai Ing-wen lost the debate over a single issue -- ECFA. Yesterday the framework of the debate was expanded to include a wider range of issues. But Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric was even emptier than before. She was unable to reconcile the internal contradictions in her own position. This was truly unexpected.
Yesterday Tsai Ing-wen clung to the same line as during the "Two Yings Debate." If anything, she was more evasive. When responding to questions about cross-Strait issues, she said that cross-Strait issues cannot be decided by individual leaders. They must be made democratically. They must be made collectively. The day before she said "they should be made by the next generation." But 40 minutes later, during her closing arguments, she said leaders must make the decisions. She said "Problems cannot be left to the next generation." On the very same dais, she advanced truly incomprehensible contradictions. In recent years, Tsai Ing-wen has refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She has opposed ECFA, and she has opposed the Chiang-Chen Summits. But which of these was not a unilateral proposal by the DPP? Were any of these submitted to the public for their approval? How does Tsai Ing-wen stand on them? Does she still support them as she did before?
Tsai Ing-wen reiterated that macro level problems cannot be resolved in piecemeal fashion. But she boasted that during DPP rule, charter flights and the three mini-links were quite successful. She addressed cross-Strait relations in piecemeal fashion, isolating it from the ruling DPP's macro level policy failure. Next, she opposed the pursuit of economic growth. She said the policy of favoring industry over agriculture should be reversed. But she failed to take into account economic growth, without which she can hardly realize her welfare state. Finally, she reiterated her desire for "multilateral international relations." But she failed to explain how such a state of affairs could be achieved given her advocacy of "globalization without [Mainland] China."
Su Tseng-chang was the first to present his political platform. He pontificated about "not taking the wrong road, lest we miss important opportunities." Listeners can be forgiven for thinking he was conducting a post mortem of the DPP's eight years in office, when it "took the wrong road, and missed important opportunities." But as it turns out, he was referring merely to public transportation and public housing policies. Such a political platform might have made sense four years ago. But four years later, it left the impression that Su was blowing smoke for 10 minutes. Not "everyone on Taiwan is smiling." The reason they are not, is the result of issues far more critical than public transportation and public housing.
Su Tseng-chang apparently engaged in greater soul-searching than Tsai Ing-wen. He was apologetic and beat around the bush. He said that on Taiwan, if a political party comes to power, half the people feel abandoned. He described the problem, but offered no solution. Su Tseng-chang did not say, "Leaders cannot decide cross-Strait policy on their own." He reaffirmed the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. He adopted a clearer posture than Tsai Ing-wen. But the DPP remains a political party that persists in walking the Taiwan independence high wire. Besides, Chen Shui-bian has already discredited the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Isn't this precisely why "when one political party comes to power, half of the people feel abandoned?"
During this political debate, Hsu Hsin-liang gave voice to political views once regarded as "betraying the party and selling out Taiwan." This was the debate's greatest achievement. Hsu believes that the One China Principle is not a problem, because today's globalized political and economic system is sufficient to maintain the cross-Strait status quo. When addressing industrial policy, he said that as long as we boldly open our doors and discontinue our past policy of "be patient, avoid haste," Taiwan's economy will grow by leaps and bounds, The wealth earned can then be used to increase social equality. He even characterized the Ma administration's opening to the Mainland as overly conservative. He said if we were to open to the same degree as Hong Kong, and allow 20 million Mainland tourists onto Taiwan each year, we would enjoy a boom in domestic demand. Hsu Hsin-liang said that if Acer had not bowed to the policy of "be patient, avoid haste," it would already have become the world's largest electronics company. He blasted the DPP for exploiting social movements while it was in the opposition, but then abandoning the weak and the poor once it was in power.
Hsu's speech may have bordered on the fanciful, but his words were sincere. In particular, he recalled the frustrations of political life. He addressed Green Camp members, both those on and below the dais. He reminded them that no one in the DPP had sacrificed more. He asked them which DPP official was the poorest while in public office? The audience roared with laughter. The DPP exploited then discarded this party elder. Was the Green Camp laughter tinged with regret? One has to wonder.
The candidates each had 20 minutes to read their speeches. Each was asked softball questions. Even the questioners used the opportunity to snipe at the Ma administration. A political debate such as this has little real significance. During the next three debates, the media should be allowed to ask questions, Either that, or the three candidates should ask each other questions. The candidates should stop talking past each other. The candidates should stop talking to themselves.
評蘇蔡許首場初選政見會表現
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.04.10
這是民進黨總統初選的首場政見發表會，似尚未展現三位參選人政見體系的全貌。但若僅以這場政見會的表現作一評價，可說是：蔡英文空洞、蘇貞昌迴旋、許信良真誠。
政見辯論的說服力有兩個主要因素。一、書面講稿的理路、邏輯及境界：由於有講稿，因此修辭較美；但若美到虛無縹緲的地步，遁詞知其所窮，即失真誠。二、人格感染力的發揮：也就是能否給人真誠的感覺；人格與講稿合體即有真誠感，人格與講稿分離就顯虛假。昨日蘇蔡二人申論及結辯講稿的辭藻均不錯，但似乎皆多少是用避重就輕的詞句去「塞滿」那二十分鐘，文不真誠，人也失真誠。倒是許信良人稿合體，幾次帶動的掌聲與笑聲皆可見其動人之處。
蔡英文在去年四月與馬總統「雙英辯論」，評價不如預期。一般認為，那是因蔡英文在E CFA這個單一議題上比較吃虧；但昨日的議題架構拉開放大，蔡英文的論述卻較「雙英辯論」時更空泛無物，甚且矛盾不能自圓其說，這卻有些出人意表。
蔡英文昨仍然接續「雙英辯論」的論述主軸，但更加閃爍其詞。她在回答關於兩岸的問題時強調，兩岸問題不能由領導人一個人決定，必須經由民主機制，由大家一起來決定（日前她曾說「應當由下一代決定」）；四十分鐘後她在作結辯時，卻又說領導人必須作出決定，「不能把問題留給下一代」。在同一講台上出現此種矛盾，是難以理解的；何況，蔡英文近年來所作「否認九二共識」、「否認ECFA」、「反對江陳會」的決定，又有哪一件不是出自民進黨的片面主張？又有哪一件經由民主機制？而蔡英文在此時對這些主張的立場是否堅持如故？
蔡英文一再強調，整體的問題不能切割處理。她自我表揚說，民進黨執政期間的小三通及包機做得很成功；卻似乎「切割」掉了民進黨執政八年在兩岸關係上的「整體」失敗。再如，她主張不要只追求「經濟成長率」，應當「翻轉」「重工輕農」的經濟政策；卻未交代，沒有「經濟成長率」，如何實現她的「福利社會」？另如，她又重申她的「國際多邊體系」，但仍未申論她那一套「排除中國的全球化」如何實現？
蘇貞昌是這場政見會的第一個發言者，破題就沉痛地說了一長串「不能走錯路，否則會錯失機會」的話語，令人以為他是要對民進黨八年執政「走錯了路，錯失機會」提出檢討，結果說的竟是公共交通與住宅政策；這類的政見，四年前可以說，四年後也可以說，令人覺得只是想「拖」過那十分鐘。台灣之所以不是「人人有笑容」，恐怕有比公共交通與住宅政策更重要的議題。
與蔡英文相較，蘇貞昌表現了較大的反省、歉疚與迴旋。但他說，台灣的政治，一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄；這說出了現象，卻未說出解藥。蘇貞昌沒有說，「領導人不能一個人決定兩岸政策」，他回到了《台灣前途決議文》，顯示他比蔡英文有立場；但是，民進黨仍是一個《台獨黨綱》高懸的政黨，且陳水扁已全盤撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》，這是否正是「一個政黨上台，就有一半的人覺得被放棄」的根本原因？
許信良能在這場政見會上，說出以前被視為「叛黨賣台」的政見，是這場政見會最大的政治成就。他認為，「一中原則」根本不是問題，因為現今的「全球化政經體系」足可維持「兩岸現狀」。在論及產業政策時，他說，只要「大膽開放」，不要再「戒急用忍」，台灣的經濟即能巨幅成長，可以用於改善社會公平；他甚至指馬政府的開放太過保守，若像香港那樣，一年開放二千萬陸客來台，台灣的內需榮景可期。許信良說，倘若當年宏碁不是尊奉「戒急用忍」，如今應當已成為全球最大的電子企業。此外，他又痛批民進黨，在野時利用社運團體，執政後就遺棄貧弱大眾。
許信良的發言雖是洋溢浪漫，但情辭俱見真誠。尤其，他回述坎坷的政治生涯，令人驚覺昨日在台上及台下的綠營諸人，可謂沒有一人對民進黨較他付出更多、犧牲更大；他並當場問，民進黨中那一個曾任公職者比他更窮？全場哄堂大笑，但面對這位被民進黨糟蹋至此地步的前輩，綠營難道不覺笑中帶淚？
二十分鐘念稿子，三個海闊天空的提問，甚至提問者也跟著表演辱罵馬政府；這樣的政見會沒有太大意義。未來三場，應開放媒體提問，或由三人交互詰問，不要再各說各話、自說自話。
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Needed: Alternatives to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant
Needed: Alternatives to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 8, 2011
An anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet has once again stirred up economic and environmental controversy. The Changhua Medical Association and related groups recently held an "All People's Just Say No to Kuo Kuang Petrochemical, Ten Thousand Man Health Promotion Banquet" in Fangyuan. DPP presidential contenders Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen made personal appearances, as did President Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen and Su Cheng Tsang seldom appear in the same venue as potential rival President Ma Ying-jeou. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang tested each others' mettle. Tsai and Su were both applauded for signing a memorandum of understanding. President Ma on the other hand, refused to play along. The next day President Ma traveled south for the second time, and paid a visit the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant wetlands building site.
During these anti-Kuo Kuang ideological debates, Tsai Ing-wen suggested moving the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant to the Middle East. Su Tseng-chang stressed that when the ruling DPP first promoted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, the site was in Yunlin, and that the DPP government never pulled its punches. The EIA failed to pass. Nevertheless he refrained from exerting any pressure. Now however, the current administration wants to build it within a large city. He feels this must not be allowed to happen, Valuable wetlands must not be destroyed. Tsai Ing-wen wants to move the petrochemical industry to the Middle East. Former President Lee Teng-hui also entered the fray. He said Tsai Ing-wen did not understand the issues. He said the current administration has provided accurate information to the public and is moving in the right direction.
President Ma Ying-jeou is being relatively cautious. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen have expressed open opposition to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. But when President Ma visited Changhua and discussed the issue with local officials, they informed him that when Su Tseng-chang was premier and Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, Su and Tsai backed the project, full force. Su and Tsai referred to their flagship project as "a major investment that would provide an abundance of warmth." Su and Tsai have cavalierly performed an about face. They have disowned their own policy with the wave of a hand. But the construction of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is crucial to Taiwan's environmental sustainability and industrial policy. President Ma attended the banquet. His presence represented a willingness on the part of his administration to exercise caution.
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is crucial to both continued industrial development and environmental sustainabity. The issue has rightly been elevated in importance, to something that the president considers relevant to national security.
Consider the economics. This is a huge investment of over 400 billion NT. Economically, it is absolutely essential. But environmentally, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will emit huge quantities of greenhouse gas. It will also consume huge quantities of water. The selected site raises concerns over wetland conservation. Add to this the problem of endangered white dolphins. Groundwater pumping has led to serious problems with ground subsidence. Therefore the fate of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will be determined by a combination of old and familiar economic and environmental factors.
In the past, such controversial economic and environmental hot potatoes were passed on to environmental impact assessment officials. Everyone in authority said that as long as it cleared the EIA, it could be built. If it failed to clear the EIA, it could not be built. But this did not resolve disputes. Failure to clarify matters merely generated greater confusion. It discredited the environmental impact assessment process in the minds of the public.
The environmental impact assessment process enables decision-makers to better understand environmental issues and environmental impacts. Policy makers can then weigh the economic, environmental, and other factors to arrive at a decision. Public dissatisfaction can be expressed through the machinery of democracy. Therefore the environmental impact assessment process should allow more alternatives. It should enable scholars and experts to assess the feasibility and merits of alternative solutions. Its conclusions would ultimately be submitted to decision makers, who would make the selection.
Consider the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Currently the only site undergoing EIA review is the one in Changhua. Suppose Su Tseng-chang's proposal could be built in other locales? Suppose Tsai Ing-wen's proposal to build the plant in the Middle East was also an option? Every solution has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, if one rules out shipping the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant overseas, one immediately runs into a problem. Shipping the plants overseas leads to domestic unemployment. According to Ministry of Economic Affairs estimates, the Jen-wu and Ta-shi Petrochemical Zones employ nearly 120,000 people. If one includes sock manufacturing, an industry well down the production stream, that number reaches as high as 400,000. But this represents only the economic aspect. If one sets up factories overseas, then Taiwan will have no problem with carbon dioxide emissions, because there will be no domestic pollution.
The EIA of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is not yet complete. But the controversy has already reached the policy level. Therefore the EIA must address the fundamentals. It must consider alternatives to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is not built, or if it is not built here, what will beconme of Taiwan's petrochemical industry? Do we have any alternatives? How many people will be affected? How can we minimize the damage? If the project is built, or if it is built on another site, will that address the environmental problems? Will that allay public fears? These issues must undergo detailed assessment. In the end, decision makers must exercise their best judgment. If voters choose intelligent leaders, disagreements can be resolved, and we can emerge from our dilemma.
給國光石化多一點替代方案
2011-04-08 中國時報
一場反國光石化的餐會再度炒熱經濟與環保兩難的議題。由彰化醫界聯盟等團體，日前在芳苑舉辦「全民拒絕國光石化，萬人拚健康餐會」，民進黨二○一二總統競選人蘇貞昌跟蔡英文以及總統馬英九都親自出席，難得和二○一二可能的競爭對手，蔡英文，蘇貞昌同場較勁，蔡蘇兩個人都簽下承諾書，受到歡呼鼓掌；馬總統則拒絕配合，隔天馬總統並二度南下造訪國光石化預定點大城濕地。
在這場反國光石化論戰中，蔡英文首先丟出石化產業外移到中東的主張，蘇貞昌強調，民進黨執政時推動國光石化，當時選在雲林，不過沒有放水，環評沒過也沒硬推，現在要在大城設立，他期期以為不可，不能破壞珍貴濕地。針對蔡英文主張石化產業外移至中東，前總統李登輝也加入戰局，指蔡英文不了解這個問題，政府應提出正確資訊與方向，供民眾討論、決定。
馬英九總統態度則相對謹慎。報載，馬總統在南下彰化與地方人士座談時，對蘇貞昌、蔡英文明白主張反國光石化，黨政高層人士表示，國光石化在蘇貞昌、蔡英文任行政院長、副院長時，被列入大溫暖大投資旗艦計畫全力推動，蘇蔡兩人可以輕率地對過去自己的政策說變就變，但國光石化興建與否，攸關台灣環境永續與產業政策，馬總統出席餐會，代表政府願意審慎以對。
無論是從經濟或是環境來看，國光石化都攸關國家未來產業發展與環境的永續發展，因此提高至總統與國家安全戰略高度來思考此一問題，應該是值得肯定的。
就經濟層面而言，一個超過四千億的大投資，從經濟發展角度來看都絕對是必要的。但就環境而言，國光石化排放大量的溫室氣體，又是一個高耗水耗能產業，預定場址又有濕地保育問題，也有白海豚瀕臨滅絕的難題，當地地層又面臨超抽地下水而致地層嚴重地層下陷的問題。因此經濟與環保面熟重的兩難抉擇，就成為國光石化的宿命。
在過去，大家把這樣的經濟與環保爭議兩難課題，丟給了環境影響評估，每一位有權決定的人都說，環評過關就蓋，環評不過就不蓋，其結果，不但沒有化解紛爭，結果反而治絲益棼，也賠上了環評的公信力。
環境評估制度的核心精神，就是要讓決策者透過環評制度，多了解環境問題與影響，然再由決策者在考量經濟環境與社會等相關問題後做出決定，民眾不滿意則可透過民主機制表達出來。如果依此精神，環境影響評估制度也就應該有多一些的替代方案，然後再由學者專家進行每一個替代方案可行性與優劣評估，評估結論最後再交由決策者選擇最終方案。
以國光石化為例，目前在環評審查只有設在彰化大城一案，如果依蘇貞昌的主張可能要增加其它地區的選項，如果依照蔡英文的主張，則應該增加中東設廠的選項，每一選項都有其優劣。例如「國光石化沒有要考慮到海外去」選項，馬上會碰到的是因產業外移後本國勞工失業的問題，據經濟部的估計，如果只算到仁武、大社石化專業區的就業，人數就有十一、十二萬人；如果算到織襪等最下游，則人數可能高達四十萬人。不過這只是經濟方面，如果是海外設廠，就沒有所謂的台灣二氧化碳排放量的問題了，也沒有國內汙染的問題。
國光石化環評程序還沒走完，爭議已拉高到政策層面，因此環評審查應從根本問題切入，多關注國光石化的替代方案：如果國光石化不做，或是如果國光石化不在國內做，台灣石化工業要何去何從？有無替代方案？有多少人受到衝擊？如何把傷害降到最低？如果要做，或是要換地做，環境的問題是否有可能解決？民眾的疑慮是否可以化解？這些問題都經過詳細評估，最後選擇就交給有決策的人去做最佳選擇，選民只要選擇最有智慧的領導人，這樣才能化解爭議，走出困局。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 8, 2011
An anti-Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant banquet has once again stirred up economic and environmental controversy. The Changhua Medical Association and related groups recently held an "All People's Just Say No to Kuo Kuang Petrochemical, Ten Thousand Man Health Promotion Banquet" in Fangyuan. DPP presidential contenders Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen made personal appearances, as did President Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen and Su Cheng Tsang seldom appear in the same venue as potential rival President Ma Ying-jeou. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang tested each others' mettle. Tsai and Su were both applauded for signing a memorandum of understanding. President Ma on the other hand, refused to play along. The next day President Ma traveled south for the second time, and paid a visit the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant wetlands building site.
During these anti-Kuo Kuang ideological debates, Tsai Ing-wen suggested moving the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant to the Middle East. Su Tseng-chang stressed that when the ruling DPP first promoted the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project, the site was in Yunlin, and that the DPP government never pulled its punches. The EIA failed to pass. Nevertheless he refrained from exerting any pressure. Now however, the current administration wants to build it within a large city. He feels this must not be allowed to happen, Valuable wetlands must not be destroyed. Tsai Ing-wen wants to move the petrochemical industry to the Middle East. Former President Lee Teng-hui also entered the fray. He said Tsai Ing-wen did not understand the issues. He said the current administration has provided accurate information to the public and is moving in the right direction.
President Ma Ying-jeou is being relatively cautious. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen have expressed open opposition to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. But when President Ma visited Changhua and discussed the issue with local officials, they informed him that when Su Tseng-chang was premier and Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, Su and Tsai backed the project, full force. Su and Tsai referred to their flagship project as "a major investment that would provide an abundance of warmth." Su and Tsai have cavalierly performed an about face. They have disowned their own policy with the wave of a hand. But the construction of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is crucial to Taiwan's environmental sustainability and industrial policy. President Ma attended the banquet. His presence represented a willingness on the part of his administration to exercise caution.
The Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is crucial to both continued industrial development and environmental sustainabity. The issue has rightly been elevated in importance, to something that the president considers relevant to national security.
Consider the economics. This is a huge investment of over 400 billion NT. Economically, it is absolutely essential. But environmentally, the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will emit huge quantities of greenhouse gas. It will also consume huge quantities of water. The selected site raises concerns over wetland conservation. Add to this the problem of endangered white dolphins. Groundwater pumping has led to serious problems with ground subsidence. Therefore the fate of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant will be determined by a combination of old and familiar economic and environmental factors.
In the past, such controversial economic and environmental hot potatoes were passed on to environmental impact assessment officials. Everyone in authority said that as long as it cleared the EIA, it could be built. If it failed to clear the EIA, it could not be built. But this did not resolve disputes. Failure to clarify matters merely generated greater confusion. It discredited the environmental impact assessment process in the minds of the public.
The environmental impact assessment process enables decision-makers to better understand environmental issues and environmental impacts. Policy makers can then weigh the economic, environmental, and other factors to arrive at a decision. Public dissatisfaction can be expressed through the machinery of democracy. Therefore the environmental impact assessment process should allow more alternatives. It should enable scholars and experts to assess the feasibility and merits of alternative solutions. Its conclusions would ultimately be submitted to decision makers, who would make the selection.
Consider the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. Currently the only site undergoing EIA review is the one in Changhua. Suppose Su Tseng-chang's proposal could be built in other locales? Suppose Tsai Ing-wen's proposal to build the plant in the Middle East was also an option? Every solution has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, if one rules out shipping the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant overseas, one immediately runs into a problem. Shipping the plants overseas leads to domestic unemployment. According to Ministry of Economic Affairs estimates, the Jen-wu and Ta-shi Petrochemical Zones employ nearly 120,000 people. If one includes sock manufacturing, an industry well down the production stream, that number reaches as high as 400,000. But this represents only the economic aspect. If one sets up factories overseas, then Taiwan will have no problem with carbon dioxide emissions, because there will be no domestic pollution.
The EIA of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project is not yet complete. But the controversy has already reached the policy level. Therefore the EIA must address the fundamentals. It must consider alternatives to the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. If the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant is not built, or if it is not built here, what will beconme of Taiwan's petrochemical industry? Do we have any alternatives? How many people will be affected? How can we minimize the damage? If the project is built, or if it is built on another site, will that address the environmental problems? Will that allay public fears? These issues must undergo detailed assessment. In the end, decision makers must exercise their best judgment. If voters choose intelligent leaders, disagreements can be resolved, and we can emerge from our dilemma.
給國光石化多一點替代方案
2011-04-08 中國時報
一場反國光石化的餐會再度炒熱經濟與環保兩難的議題。由彰化醫界聯盟等團體，日前在芳苑舉辦「全民拒絕國光石化，萬人拚健康餐會」，民進黨二○一二總統競選人蘇貞昌跟蔡英文以及總統馬英九都親自出席，難得和二○一二可能的競爭對手，蔡英文，蘇貞昌同場較勁，蔡蘇兩個人都簽下承諾書，受到歡呼鼓掌；馬總統則拒絕配合，隔天馬總統並二度南下造訪國光石化預定點大城濕地。
在這場反國光石化論戰中，蔡英文首先丟出石化產業外移到中東的主張，蘇貞昌強調，民進黨執政時推動國光石化，當時選在雲林，不過沒有放水，環評沒過也沒硬推，現在要在大城設立，他期期以為不可，不能破壞珍貴濕地。針對蔡英文主張石化產業外移至中東，前總統李登輝也加入戰局，指蔡英文不了解這個問題，政府應提出正確資訊與方向，供民眾討論、決定。
馬英九總統態度則相對謹慎。報載，馬總統在南下彰化與地方人士座談時，對蘇貞昌、蔡英文明白主張反國光石化，黨政高層人士表示，國光石化在蘇貞昌、蔡英文任行政院長、副院長時，被列入大溫暖大投資旗艦計畫全力推動，蘇蔡兩人可以輕率地對過去自己的政策說變就變，但國光石化興建與否，攸關台灣環境永續與產業政策，馬總統出席餐會，代表政府願意審慎以對。
無論是從經濟或是環境來看，國光石化都攸關國家未來產業發展與環境的永續發展，因此提高至總統與國家安全戰略高度來思考此一問題，應該是值得肯定的。
就經濟層面而言，一個超過四千億的大投資，從經濟發展角度來看都絕對是必要的。但就環境而言，國光石化排放大量的溫室氣體，又是一個高耗水耗能產業，預定場址又有濕地保育問題，也有白海豚瀕臨滅絕的難題，當地地層又面臨超抽地下水而致地層嚴重地層下陷的問題。因此經濟與環保面熟重的兩難抉擇，就成為國光石化的宿命。
在過去，大家把這樣的經濟與環保爭議兩難課題，丟給了環境影響評估，每一位有權決定的人都說，環評過關就蓋，環評不過就不蓋，其結果，不但沒有化解紛爭，結果反而治絲益棼，也賠上了環評的公信力。
環境評估制度的核心精神，就是要讓決策者透過環評制度，多了解環境問題與影響，然再由決策者在考量經濟環境與社會等相關問題後做出決定，民眾不滿意則可透過民主機制表達出來。如果依此精神，環境影響評估制度也就應該有多一些的替代方案，然後再由學者專家進行每一個替代方案可行性與優劣評估，評估結論最後再交由決策者選擇最終方案。
以國光石化為例，目前在環評審查只有設在彰化大城一案，如果依蘇貞昌的主張可能要增加其它地區的選項，如果依照蔡英文的主張，則應該增加中東設廠的選項，每一選項都有其優劣。例如「國光石化沒有要考慮到海外去」選項，馬上會碰到的是因產業外移後本國勞工失業的問題，據經濟部的估計，如果只算到仁武、大社石化專業區的就業，人數就有十一、十二萬人；如果算到織襪等最下游，則人數可能高達四十萬人。不過這只是經濟方面，如果是海外設廠，就沒有所謂的台灣二氧化碳排放量的問題了，也沒有國內汙染的問題。
國光石化環評程序還沒走完，爭議已拉高到政策層面，因此環評審查應從根本問題切入，多關注國光石化的替代方案：如果國光石化不做，或是如果國光石化不在國內做，台灣石化工業要何去何從？有無替代方案？有多少人受到衝擊？如何把傷害降到最低？如果要做，或是要換地做，環境的問題是否有可能解決？民眾的疑慮是否可以化解？這些問題都經過詳細評估，最後選擇就交給有決策的人去做最佳選擇，選民只要選擇最有智慧的領導人，這樣才能化解爭議，走出困局。
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Nuclear Plant Four and Taiwan Independence:
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」。
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」。
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。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)