Does the Public on Taiwan Really Want a New First Lady?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2011
Summary: Mrs. Su Jia-chyuan-chyuan, aka Hung Heng-chu, attended a wild blowout featuring male strippers. When footage of the lewd performance was televised, the scene was described as "a den of iniquity." By contrast, First Lady Chou Mei-ching has been visiting small towns in central and southern Taiwan, seeking support from rural voters. Her dress was plain and simple. Her manner was unostentatious and low-key. The contrast between the two wives could not be clearer.
Full Text Below:
Mrs. Su Jia-chyuan-chyuan, aka Hung Heng-chu, attended a wild blowout featuring male strippers. When footage of the lewd performance was televised, the scene was described as "a den of iniquity." By contrast, First Lady Chou Mei-ching has been visiting small towns in central and southern Taiwan, seeking support from rural voters. Her dress was plain and simple. Her manner was unostentatious and low-key. The contrast between the two wives could not be clearer.
Hung Heng-chu was the Director of the Pingtung Household Registration Office, as well as the wife of the mayor when she attended this public peformance with male strippers and transexuals. Actually, either a public or private performance would have been highly inappropriate. To the general public such wild parties represent atypical behavior by a nouveau riches subculture in northern Taiwan. Who knew that nine years ago such behavior had already manifested itself in southern Taiwan "high society," with the wife of county chief? The DPP has been boasting about its desire to close the "North-South gap," It appears to have done just that, with truly impressive results.
The DPP often ridicules the KMT as a "bourgeois" political party. It casts itself as the "spokeman for the disenfranchised." But when the political curtain is pulled back, we are regaled by the sight of male strippers. That the wife of the Pingtung County Chief was actually part of such a spectacle, that she actually took part in such a bacchanal, is ironic indeed.
Recently the DPP launched its "record breaking" propaganda campaign, attacking the Ma administration, It relentlessly bashed the Ma administration for the "wealth gap" on Taiwan. But given Hung Heng-chu's part in such a Dionysian spectacle, how can the DPP point its finger at others? What was that "den of iniquity" but cinema verite footage of Green Camp decadence?
The DPP can pretend not to see Su Jia-chyuan's luxury "farmhouse." It can pretend to not see Hung Heng-chu suddenly and inexplicably promoted from ordinary policewoman to deputy director of the Pingtung Agricultural Biotechnology Park. But can it pretend to not see the political scandals Hung Heng-chu could precipitate if she becomes First Lady of the Republic of China? Wu Shu-chen was wheelchair bound. Yet she could still turn the presidential palace into a smoke-filled backroom for deal-making with conglomerates and wives of wealthy political patrons. Given Hung Heng-chu's endless string of scandals, what will happen if Su Jia-chyuan is elected vice president? What sort of shenanigans will take place in his official residence?
When Ma Ying-jeou moved into Chen Shui-bian's "Jade Mountain Official Residence" he renamed it the "Chung Hsing Apartment." People virtually forgot all about it. Actually, that was a shame, Had President Ma and the First Lady Chou Mei-ching taken the time and energy to establish a new official residence, they might have established a new image for the First Family. They might have purged the presidency of the vestiges of the Chen family's corruption, extravagance, and abuse of public authority for private advantage. They might have established a new image of integrity. dignity, austerity, and decorum. Perhaps Ma's wife and daughters were too independent minded, too reluctant to bear the burden of the "First Family." They are acutely aware of their proximity to power, They are wary of the once honorific title, "First Family."
Closer examination however reveals that it is not often in politics that those close to power deliberately insulate themselves from power. Take Chou Mei-ching for example, It is hard to find the right word to describe her current activities. One could say she is "stumping." But actually she is merely greeting ordinary people in rural regions, in her capacity as a private citizen. All she does is bow deeply and smile aimiably. She has clearly established an ineffable emotional connection between herself and the public.
Chou Mei-ching's unique style is rooted in her independence and self-sufficiency. It does not emanate from her halo as "First Lady." Chou Mei-ching has made many public appearances lately. The excitement people feel when they see her is palpable. They sense her extraordinary charisma. This the result of energy accumulated during the hundreds of times she did not appear in public beginning three years ago. She regularly and quietly participates in many charitable activiites. She has no desire to make headlines. She is happy to live in the hearts of those whom she has been able to help. She has no need for an extravagant wardrobe to show off her status. Her austerity and sincerity are her greatest assets.
When Su Jia-chyuan's wife scandalized society yet again, Su Jia-chyuan said her conduct "failed to meet society's expectations." But as soon as he finished his statement, he said he hoped for a "high-minded election campaign that returns to policy debate and that lets everyone to know: where's the beef?" What kind of apology is this? What kind of soul-searching is this? Su Jia-chyuan and his wife have repeatedly exposed their corruption and decadence, How can their conduct possibly "meet society's expectations?" Are we to understand that they meet the DPP's expectations? Are we to understand that they meet Tsai Ing-wen's expectations? Never mind that Su Jia-chyuan has no idea where the beef is. Do voters really expect only beef? Do they really not expect their candidate to demonstrate character and conscience?
Chou Mei-ching often wears a slight frown. She appears to be thinking hard while saying litlle. Compare her demeanor to Hung Heng-chu's drunken laughter during the male strippers' performance. This truly is a case of "one Taiwan, two different worlds." The poet Yu Kuang-chung asked: "Does the public on Taiwan really want a new First Lady?" If so, whom? Do they really want Hung Heng-chu instead of Chou Mei-ching?
「台灣人民要換第一夫人嗎？」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.09 02:33 am
蘇嘉全夫人洪恆珠參加有猛男助興的宴會，猥褻艷舞之影片曝光，被形容為如「酒池肉林」。反觀正在中南部走鄉拜鎮的第一夫人周美青，一身便衣輕車簡行，樸素低調。兩相比較，兩人的形象構成了對比分明的反差。
那場宴會舉辦時，洪恆珠是屏東戶政事務所主任，更是縣長夫人；她參與這種猛男及第三性公關助興狂歡的場合，於公於私恐怕都極不合宜。在一般民眾的印象，也許以為這類放浪形骸的宴會，只是近年來一些北部暴發戶及另類社交場合的「非典型」餘興；誰料，竟然早在九年前就出現在台灣尾縣長夫人現身的「上流社會」之中。民進黨一直高唱縮小「南北差距」，還真是成果斐然。
民進黨常譏稱國民黨是「資產階級」政黨，並自詡為「弱勢代言人」；但在政治黑幕背後，這場「猛男脫褲趴」顯示，屏東縣長夫人的交遊居然呈現這般駭人的場景，玩的是如此靡爛的遊戲，真是何其諷刺！
民進黨近日推出的「破紀錄」打馬文宣，猛批馬政府任內「貧富差距」的現象；但從洪恆珠之猛男宴中的聲色光影看來，我們不知道民進黨還有何顏面指責他人？那個酒池肉林，不正是綠色官場蛇鼠一窩的寫實嗎？
民進黨可以裝作看不見蘇嘉全的豪宅，可以裝作看不見洪恆珠從警官搖身變成屏東農業生技園區副主任的詭異升遷；但是，它還能裝作看不見洪恆珠即將成為中華民國第一夫人的政治悲劇可能上演嗎？一個坐輪椅的吳淑珍，都能把總統官邸變成財團、貴婦絡繹於途的獻金基地；那麼，以洪恆珠連珠炮一般爆開的醜行惡跡，一旦蘇嘉全當選副總統，他的官邸將引發國人怎樣的想像？
陳水扁的「玉山官邸」，在馬英九更名為「中興寓所」入駐之後，幾乎讓人忘了它的存在。這其實是件憾事，如果馬總統夫婦願費心營造，應可賦與中興寓所一種新的「第一家庭」形象，洗去陳水扁家族的貪腐豪奢、假公濟私，塑造正派、不庸俗、高而不貴的另類神采；但是，或許馬家妻女都太過自主，不願負荷「第一家族」的沉重頭銜，再加上她們極端有意識地與權力保持距離，使得這張原本絕佳的「第一家庭牌」未能善用。
但深一層看，接近權力而刻意保持「絕緣」，其實是難得的政治境界。以周美青為例，我們很難找到適當的詞句形容她正在進行活動；說她是「助選」，她其實只是以「個人身分」在鄉間向市井百姓問候；能把拜會活動化約到只剩鞠躬、微笑的地步，可見她與民眾之間已經建立了一種一切盡在不言中的相知與相惜。
這種奇特的「周式風格」，最重要的支撐力量應是她個人的「自主」和「自足」，而非來自「總統夫人」的光環加持。周美青這幾天露面，從見到她的民眾那種雀躍與興奮的表情，可以感到她確有不平常的感染力；這其實是她三年來幾百次「未曝光」的行程累積出來的動能。她經常不動聲色地參與種種關懷社會的活動，她不要登上報紙，卻願意活在與她互動者的心深處。她不用華服寶石來堆砌自己的威儀，樸素和誠懇就是她最大的能量。
夫人再次出包，蘇嘉全稱「不符社會期待」而道歉，但言畢卻立即轉向，竟謂「要有一場高格調的選戰，應回歸政策辯論，讓大家知道政策牛肉在哪裡」。這是什麼道歉？這是什麼反省？蘇嘉全夫婦這一陣子出的醜，豈僅是「不符社會期待」，難道能「符合」民進黨的「期待」？「符合」蔡英文的「期待」？何況，莫說蘇嘉全的政策牛肉不知何在，但難道只要牛肉，而不要品德與廉恥？
周美青經常輕鎖眉心，顯得思深而惜言；這與洪恆珠在猛男秀上笑得花枝亂顫的模樣，真是「一個台灣／兩個世界」。詩人余光中問：「台灣人民要換第一夫人嗎？」誰換誰？是要將周美青換洪恆珠嗎？
Thursday, December 8, 2011
James Soong Cannot Escape the Clutches of Lee Teng-hui
James Soong Cannot Escape the Clutches of Lee Teng-hui
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 8, 2011
Summary: Thirteen years ago, during the "Lee/Soong showdown," James Soong's battle cry was opposition to Taiwan independence and opposition to black gold. He forced Lee to suffer a major defeat. Thirteen years later, James Soong has returned. This time he is helping Lee Teng-hui "Topple Ma and protect Taiwan" in the name of Taiwan independence, Lee Teng-hui meanwhile, is making sure that James Soong will find himself without a place in either side of the Blue/Green divide, without a role on either side of the Taiwan Strait. He is making sure that James Soong will be remembered as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, a Green Camp Wu Shan-kui." Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui said "James Soong cannot escape from the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Today his boast has been fulfilled.
Full Text Below:
In 1998, James Soong and Lee Teng-hui split over the freezing of the Taiwan Provinicial Government. Lee said, "Soong cannot escape form the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Predictably, when James Soong split from the KMT in 2000 and ran for the presidency as an independent, Lee Teng-hui used his influence to topple the ruling KMT.
That election, in 2000, is known as the "Lee Teng-hui vs. James Soong showdown." The Soong/Chang ticket did not win. But nevertheless it received more votes than the Lee Teng-hui backed Lien/Siew ticket. Actually the loss was not a loss for the Lien/Siew ticket. It was a loss for Lee Teng-hui The Lien/Siew ticket's eventual come back within the Blue Camp proves that. Meanwhile, Lee Teng-hui was summarily ejected from the KMT.
During the 2000 general election, James Soong became part of the Pan Blue Camp. At the time the term "Pan Blue" had yet to be coined. The Soong/Chang ticket scored a major victory over the Lien/Siew ticket. It received 36.84% of the votes, versus 23.1% for the Lien/Siew ticket. This was followed by the rise of the People First Party in the Legislative Yuan, the formation of the Lien/Soong ticket, the secret Bian/Soong meeting, and Soong's visit to the Mainland as Ah-Bian's "special envoy." These show that although Soong lost in 2000, he retained considerable influence. But this was all based on a precondition. During the process Soong was part of the Blue Camp. This was certainly true for the Lien/Soong ticket. Even the "Bian/Soong meeting" was presumed to be something arranged for the sake of cross-Strait relations.
Now take Lee Teng-hui. During the 2000 general election, he did not care whether Lien Chan or Chen Shui-bian won. A Lien Chan win was Lee's first choice, But he was also eager to increase Chen Shui-bian's influence. As long as James Soong lost, either result was acceptable. Lee Teng-hui was unable to ensure a victory by Lien Chan. But he was able to use the Chung Hsing Bills' scandal to ensure a defeat for James Soong. He was able to ensure a victory for Chen Shui-bian, Superficially Lee lost. He was expelled from the KMT. But upon closer scrutiny, he transformed himself into the leader and standard bearer for the Green Camp, His gains far outweighed his losses.
James Soong appears to be duplicating Lee Teng-hui's actions. But Soong's actions are yielding very different results. Lee used the Deep Green Taiwan Solidarity Union to hijack Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen. James Soong has tried to use Deep Blues to hijack the KMT. But Lee was always part of the Green Camp. He supported DPP candidates Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, Tsai Ing-wen during three presidential elections. Functionally and symbolically, his mission was always to unite the Green Camp, It was always to help the DPP, either openly, in the legislature, or covertly, behind the scenes, That is why Lee has been able to remain a Green Camp leader and a Taiwan Independence standard-bearer. On the other hand, ever since James Soong ran for Taipei mayor in 2006 and entered the 2012 presidential race, he has departed from Lee Teng-hui's precedent. Lee Teng-hui remained an integral part of the Green Camp, He remained a major contributor to unity within the Green Camp. He neatly undermined Ma Ying-jeou by dividing the Blue Camp. Lee's path and Soong's path may appear similar. But they are in fact quite different. They are in fact poles apart.
That is why Soong's fate will be very different from Lee's fate. Lee was expelled from the KMT. But he found a place within the Green Camp and the Taiwan Independence movement. James Soong's gambit during this election, on the other hand, has no chance of success. He has no chance of being elected. No matter how many votes he receives, he will never receive enough to be elected president. He can only receive enough to ensure that Ma Ying-jeou is defeated. The problem for Soong is that if Ma Ying-jeou is elected, Soong's plans will be frustrated. On the other hand, if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, Soong's plans will not necessarily be fulfilled.
If Tsai is elected, Taiwan will be buffeted from within and without by the global economic crisis, an onslaught from Beijing, and internal social divisions. The nation will find itself in a state of crisis. If Tsai Ing-wen joins forces with James Soong, how will Beijing react? How will the Blue Camp react? How will the public react? As AIT Chairman Stephen M. Young noted, given how low James Soong has sunk in his pursuit of personal advantage, there is probably no room for him within the Green Camp either. Would Tsai Ing-wen dare use Soong to unite the political parties, mollify the general public, and mediate between Taipei and Bejing?
That is why James Soong's fate will be very different from Lee Teng-hui's. Lee found a home within the Green Camp, But when the current election is over, James Soong will be persona non grata within the Blue Camp. He will be unable to become a leader within the Green Camp. He has written his own death sentence. He has no chance of survival.
Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui froze the Taiwan Provincial Government. He forced James Soong's hand. Soong lashed back. Lee lost power within the KMT. Thirteen years later, Lee Teng-hui praised James Soong, calling him "the finest political administrator ever." He said that "forcing him to run for the legislature was too demeaning." He fired the opening shot in Soong's presidential campaign. .
Thirteen years ago, during the "Lee/Soong showdown," James Soong's battle cry was opposition to Taiwan independence and opposition to black gold. He forced Lee to suffer a major defeat. Thirteen years later, James Soong has returned. This time he is helping Lee Teng-hui "Topple Ma and protect Taiwan" in the name of Taiwan independence, Lee Teng-hui meanwhile, is making sure that James Soong will find himself without a place in either side of the Blue/Green divide, without a role on either side of the Taiwan Strait. He is making sure that James Soong will be remembered as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, a Green Camp Wu Shan-kui."
Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui said "James Soong cannot escape from the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Today his boast has been fulfilled.
宋楚瑜畢竟跳不出李登輝手掌心
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.08 01:49 am
一九九八年，宋楚瑜與李登輝因「凍省」決裂，李登輝說，「宋跳不出我的手掌心」；詎料，宋楚瑜在二○○○年脫黨競選總統，竟使李登輝將國民黨政權從他的「手掌心」喪失。
二○○○年的那場大選，被稱作「李登輝vs.宋楚瑜」的大對決。選舉結果，「宋張配」雖未勝選，卻大勝李登輝力挺的「連蕭配」；唯此役其實未必是「連蕭配」的失敗，而當然是李登輝的重挫，這從連蕭二人後來又在藍營崛起即可證明，而李登輝卻就此被踢出了國民黨。
宋楚瑜在二○○○年大選期間，儼然成為泛藍主流（當時尚無「泛藍」一詞），這從「宋張配」大勝「連蕭配」即知（三十六‧八四％比二十三‧一％）。後來，親民黨在立院崛起，到「連宋配」的形成，甚至演變至「扁宋會」，及宋以扁的「特使」身分自居往訪大陸，皆顯示宋在二○○○年大選之役雖敗猶強，餘威仍在。不過，這一切其實皆有一個前提：宋在這些過程中，皆是在「泛藍」的大範疇內，「連宋配」固然是如此，連「扁宋會」時也是被看上他在泛藍及兩岸間的可能效用。
回頭說李登輝。他在二○○○年大選的態勢是，連戰贏或陳水扁贏，對他皆可。連戰贏當然是李登輝的第一志願，但陳水扁贏對他亦有操作空間，只要宋楚瑜輸即可。所以，此役李登輝雖未能使連戰贏，但能用「興票案」擊垮宋楚瑜，而使陳水扁當選，於是李登輝其實也可說是似輸未輸。李雖就此被逐出國民黨，但經過一番算計與操作，如今卻成了綠營教主及台獨旗手，可謂是失之東隅，收之桑榆。
對比之下，宋楚瑜如今的操作，看似與李登輝如出一轍，卻可能是畫虎類犬。李用「極綠」的台聯，挾制陳水扁，迄今仍挾持蔡英文；相對而言，宋楚瑜的手法則似想用「極藍」來挾制國民黨。但李畢竟始終是綠營的側翼，並支持「陳水扁／謝長廷／蔡英文」的民進黨三屆總統選舉；在功能及形象上，他皆以綠營的大整合者自命，始終只在立院層次或幕後與民進黨折衝，這正是李至今仍能維持其綠營教主、台獨旗手地位的原因。然而，宋楚瑜自從在二○○六年跳出來參選台北市長，至此次投入總統大選，他不像李登輝作綠營的側翼，也不像李登輝作綠營的大整合者，卻儼然是要直接扳倒馬英九，作為藍營的大撕裂者。所以，李宋的路數看似相似，實際上卻是大相逕庭、南轅北轍。
因此，李宋二人的下場亦將不同。李登輝被國民黨逐出，卻在綠營及台獨找到了政治歸宿。但宋楚瑜這盤棋走下去，他絕無當選的可能；而他若得票愈高，也絕不可能高到可以當選的程度，卻必可高到使馬英九落選。問題是：馬英九若當選，宋自是所圖不逞，而蔡英文若當選，宋楚瑜也未必能有所圖。
已可預見，蔡若當選，面對全球經濟風暴、北京相逼、社會撕裂，可謂必是內外交煎的困境；在那種焦頭爛額的情勢下，她若欲與宋楚瑜聯手，北京如何反應？藍營何能接受？社會何能信服？何況，以宋的人格扭曲與巧詐至此（楊甦棣語），恐怕連綠營也容不下他；蔡英文敢用宋作為她整合政壇、安撫社會、協調兩岸的仲介嗎？
所以，宋楚瑜與李登輝的下場不同。李在綠營找到了歸宿，但宋楚瑜經過此役，他不可能見容於藍營的主流，亦無可能成為綠營的政治股東。既是自作孽，必是不可活。
十三年前，李登輝以「凍省」，將宋楚瑜逼反，最後李因此丟掉國民黨政權；十三年後，李登輝卻以一句「宋是最佳行政人才」、「選立委太委屈了」的讚語，不啻放了宋競選總統的第一聲起身砲。
十三年前的「李宋對決」中，宋楚瑜以反台獨反黑金的號召，教李登輝吃了大敗仗；但是，十三年後，宋楚瑜回過頭來大力襄助李登輝「棄馬保台」的台獨大業，而李登輝最後則將賞給宋楚瑜一個到頭來「藍綠兩頭落空／兩岸無處立足」的下場，叫宋吃下「藍營汪精衛／綠營吳三桂」的歷史定論。
十三年前，李登輝說「宋跳不出我的手掌心」；此言今日應驗。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 8, 2011
Summary: Thirteen years ago, during the "Lee/Soong showdown," James Soong's battle cry was opposition to Taiwan independence and opposition to black gold. He forced Lee to suffer a major defeat. Thirteen years later, James Soong has returned. This time he is helping Lee Teng-hui "Topple Ma and protect Taiwan" in the name of Taiwan independence, Lee Teng-hui meanwhile, is making sure that James Soong will find himself without a place in either side of the Blue/Green divide, without a role on either side of the Taiwan Strait. He is making sure that James Soong will be remembered as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, a Green Camp Wu Shan-kui." Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui said "James Soong cannot escape from the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Today his boast has been fulfilled.
Full Text Below:
In 1998, James Soong and Lee Teng-hui split over the freezing of the Taiwan Provinicial Government. Lee said, "Soong cannot escape form the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Predictably, when James Soong split from the KMT in 2000 and ran for the presidency as an independent, Lee Teng-hui used his influence to topple the ruling KMT.
That election, in 2000, is known as the "Lee Teng-hui vs. James Soong showdown." The Soong/Chang ticket did not win. But nevertheless it received more votes than the Lee Teng-hui backed Lien/Siew ticket. Actually the loss was not a loss for the Lien/Siew ticket. It was a loss for Lee Teng-hui The Lien/Siew ticket's eventual come back within the Blue Camp proves that. Meanwhile, Lee Teng-hui was summarily ejected from the KMT.
During the 2000 general election, James Soong became part of the Pan Blue Camp. At the time the term "Pan Blue" had yet to be coined. The Soong/Chang ticket scored a major victory over the Lien/Siew ticket. It received 36.84% of the votes, versus 23.1% for the Lien/Siew ticket. This was followed by the rise of the People First Party in the Legislative Yuan, the formation of the Lien/Soong ticket, the secret Bian/Soong meeting, and Soong's visit to the Mainland as Ah-Bian's "special envoy." These show that although Soong lost in 2000, he retained considerable influence. But this was all based on a precondition. During the process Soong was part of the Blue Camp. This was certainly true for the Lien/Soong ticket. Even the "Bian/Soong meeting" was presumed to be something arranged for the sake of cross-Strait relations.
Now take Lee Teng-hui. During the 2000 general election, he did not care whether Lien Chan or Chen Shui-bian won. A Lien Chan win was Lee's first choice, But he was also eager to increase Chen Shui-bian's influence. As long as James Soong lost, either result was acceptable. Lee Teng-hui was unable to ensure a victory by Lien Chan. But he was able to use the Chung Hsing Bills' scandal to ensure a defeat for James Soong. He was able to ensure a victory for Chen Shui-bian, Superficially Lee lost. He was expelled from the KMT. But upon closer scrutiny, he transformed himself into the leader and standard bearer for the Green Camp, His gains far outweighed his losses.
James Soong appears to be duplicating Lee Teng-hui's actions. But Soong's actions are yielding very different results. Lee used the Deep Green Taiwan Solidarity Union to hijack Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen. James Soong has tried to use Deep Blues to hijack the KMT. But Lee was always part of the Green Camp. He supported DPP candidates Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, Tsai Ing-wen during three presidential elections. Functionally and symbolically, his mission was always to unite the Green Camp, It was always to help the DPP, either openly, in the legislature, or covertly, behind the scenes, That is why Lee has been able to remain a Green Camp leader and a Taiwan Independence standard-bearer. On the other hand, ever since James Soong ran for Taipei mayor in 2006 and entered the 2012 presidential race, he has departed from Lee Teng-hui's precedent. Lee Teng-hui remained an integral part of the Green Camp, He remained a major contributor to unity within the Green Camp. He neatly undermined Ma Ying-jeou by dividing the Blue Camp. Lee's path and Soong's path may appear similar. But they are in fact quite different. They are in fact poles apart.
That is why Soong's fate will be very different from Lee's fate. Lee was expelled from the KMT. But he found a place within the Green Camp and the Taiwan Independence movement. James Soong's gambit during this election, on the other hand, has no chance of success. He has no chance of being elected. No matter how many votes he receives, he will never receive enough to be elected president. He can only receive enough to ensure that Ma Ying-jeou is defeated. The problem for Soong is that if Ma Ying-jeou is elected, Soong's plans will be frustrated. On the other hand, if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, Soong's plans will not necessarily be fulfilled.
If Tsai is elected, Taiwan will be buffeted from within and without by the global economic crisis, an onslaught from Beijing, and internal social divisions. The nation will find itself in a state of crisis. If Tsai Ing-wen joins forces with James Soong, how will Beijing react? How will the Blue Camp react? How will the public react? As AIT Chairman Stephen M. Young noted, given how low James Soong has sunk in his pursuit of personal advantage, there is probably no room for him within the Green Camp either. Would Tsai Ing-wen dare use Soong to unite the political parties, mollify the general public, and mediate between Taipei and Bejing?
That is why James Soong's fate will be very different from Lee Teng-hui's. Lee found a home within the Green Camp, But when the current election is over, James Soong will be persona non grata within the Blue Camp. He will be unable to become a leader within the Green Camp. He has written his own death sentence. He has no chance of survival.
Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui froze the Taiwan Provincial Government. He forced James Soong's hand. Soong lashed back. Lee lost power within the KMT. Thirteen years later, Lee Teng-hui praised James Soong, calling him "the finest political administrator ever." He said that "forcing him to run for the legislature was too demeaning." He fired the opening shot in Soong's presidential campaign. .
Thirteen years ago, during the "Lee/Soong showdown," James Soong's battle cry was opposition to Taiwan independence and opposition to black gold. He forced Lee to suffer a major defeat. Thirteen years later, James Soong has returned. This time he is helping Lee Teng-hui "Topple Ma and protect Taiwan" in the name of Taiwan independence, Lee Teng-hui meanwhile, is making sure that James Soong will find himself without a place in either side of the Blue/Green divide, without a role on either side of the Taiwan Strait. He is making sure that James Soong will be remembered as a "Blue Camp Wang Ching-wei, a Green Camp Wu Shan-kui."
Thirteen years ago, Lee Teng-hui said "James Soong cannot escape from the clutches of Lee Teng-hui." Today his boast has been fulfilled.
宋楚瑜畢竟跳不出李登輝手掌心
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.08 01:49 am
一九九八年，宋楚瑜與李登輝因「凍省」決裂，李登輝說，「宋跳不出我的手掌心」；詎料，宋楚瑜在二○○○年脫黨競選總統，竟使李登輝將國民黨政權從他的「手掌心」喪失。
二○○○年的那場大選，被稱作「李登輝vs.宋楚瑜」的大對決。選舉結果，「宋張配」雖未勝選，卻大勝李登輝力挺的「連蕭配」；唯此役其實未必是「連蕭配」的失敗，而當然是李登輝的重挫，這從連蕭二人後來又在藍營崛起即可證明，而李登輝卻就此被踢出了國民黨。
宋楚瑜在二○○○年大選期間，儼然成為泛藍主流（當時尚無「泛藍」一詞），這從「宋張配」大勝「連蕭配」即知（三十六‧八四％比二十三‧一％）。後來，親民黨在立院崛起，到「連宋配」的形成，甚至演變至「扁宋會」，及宋以扁的「特使」身分自居往訪大陸，皆顯示宋在二○○○年大選之役雖敗猶強，餘威仍在。不過，這一切其實皆有一個前提：宋在這些過程中，皆是在「泛藍」的大範疇內，「連宋配」固然是如此，連「扁宋會」時也是被看上他在泛藍及兩岸間的可能效用。
回頭說李登輝。他在二○○○年大選的態勢是，連戰贏或陳水扁贏，對他皆可。連戰贏當然是李登輝的第一志願，但陳水扁贏對他亦有操作空間，只要宋楚瑜輸即可。所以，此役李登輝雖未能使連戰贏，但能用「興票案」擊垮宋楚瑜，而使陳水扁當選，於是李登輝其實也可說是似輸未輸。李雖就此被逐出國民黨，但經過一番算計與操作，如今卻成了綠營教主及台獨旗手，可謂是失之東隅，收之桑榆。
對比之下，宋楚瑜如今的操作，看似與李登輝如出一轍，卻可能是畫虎類犬。李用「極綠」的台聯，挾制陳水扁，迄今仍挾持蔡英文；相對而言，宋楚瑜的手法則似想用「極藍」來挾制國民黨。但李畢竟始終是綠營的側翼，並支持「陳水扁／謝長廷／蔡英文」的民進黨三屆總統選舉；在功能及形象上，他皆以綠營的大整合者自命，始終只在立院層次或幕後與民進黨折衝，這正是李至今仍能維持其綠營教主、台獨旗手地位的原因。然而，宋楚瑜自從在二○○六年跳出來參選台北市長，至此次投入總統大選，他不像李登輝作綠營的側翼，也不像李登輝作綠營的大整合者，卻儼然是要直接扳倒馬英九，作為藍營的大撕裂者。所以，李宋的路數看似相似，實際上卻是大相逕庭、南轅北轍。
因此，李宋二人的下場亦將不同。李登輝被國民黨逐出，卻在綠營及台獨找到了政治歸宿。但宋楚瑜這盤棋走下去，他絕無當選的可能；而他若得票愈高，也絕不可能高到可以當選的程度，卻必可高到使馬英九落選。問題是：馬英九若當選，宋自是所圖不逞，而蔡英文若當選，宋楚瑜也未必能有所圖。
已可預見，蔡若當選，面對全球經濟風暴、北京相逼、社會撕裂，可謂必是內外交煎的困境；在那種焦頭爛額的情勢下，她若欲與宋楚瑜聯手，北京如何反應？藍營何能接受？社會何能信服？何況，以宋的人格扭曲與巧詐至此（楊甦棣語），恐怕連綠營也容不下他；蔡英文敢用宋作為她整合政壇、安撫社會、協調兩岸的仲介嗎？
所以，宋楚瑜與李登輝的下場不同。李在綠營找到了歸宿，但宋楚瑜經過此役，他不可能見容於藍營的主流，亦無可能成為綠營的政治股東。既是自作孽，必是不可活。
十三年前，李登輝以「凍省」，將宋楚瑜逼反，最後李因此丟掉國民黨政權；十三年後，李登輝卻以一句「宋是最佳行政人才」、「選立委太委屈了」的讚語，不啻放了宋競選總統的第一聲起身砲。
十三年前的「李宋對決」中，宋楚瑜以反台獨反黑金的號召，教李登輝吃了大敗仗；但是，十三年後，宋楚瑜回過頭來大力襄助李登輝「棄馬保台」的台獨大業，而李登輝最後則將賞給宋楚瑜一個到頭來「藍綠兩頭落空／兩岸無處立足」的下場，叫宋吃下「藍營汪精衛／綠營吳三桂」的歷史定論。
十三年前，李登輝說「宋跳不出我的手掌心」；此言今日應驗。
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen is the One Repudiating the Taiwan Consensus
Tsai Ing-wen is the One Repudiating the Taiwan Consensus
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2011
Summary: Many people do not understand DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen. What does she mean when she holds forth on her "Taiwan consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen says "The Taiwan consensus is simply the process of Taiwan's democratization." Tsai Ing-wen's explanation is not wrong. Political parties may hold different positions on reunification and independence. But a consensus can still be achieved through the democratic process. A direct presidential election is the clearest example of just such a democratic process. The outcome of such a democratic election is the clearest example of a Taiwan consensus.
Full Text Below:
Many people do not understand DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen. What does she mean when she holds forth on her "Taiwan consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen says "The Taiwan consensus is simply the process of Taiwan's democratization." Tsai Ing-wen's explanation is not wrong. For the 23 million Republic of China citizens who live on Taiwan, the "Taiwan consensus" ought to be an uncontroversial topic. We are all Taiwanese. We all love Taiwan. Political parties may hold different positions on reunification and independence. But a consensus is still possible through the democratic process. A direct presidential election is the clearest example of such a democratic process. The outcome of such a democratic election is the clearest example of a Taiwan consensus.
Unfortunately Tsai Ing-wen persists in obfuscation. The Taiwan consensus is not the Democratic Progressive Party consensus. Voters on Taiwan will decide. The ruling and opposition parties, which compete for power, must accept their decision. The Taiwan consensus is not a unilateral laying down of the law.
Tsai Ing-wen argues that when voters on Taiwan arrive at a consensus, cross-Strait relations will actually be more stable, and the Mainland will actually be happier. The Mainland will no longer have to worry about ruling party changes under Taiwan's democracy. The Mainland will realize that government policy will not change merely because the ruling party has changed. Tsai argues that "When the government holds consultations, rooted in the will of the people, and expressed through a democratic and transparent process, the rights of our citizens will be assured." Tsai promises that if she is elected, she will establish a "dialogue group" and consult with opponents Ma Ying-jeou and James Soong.
Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is unassailable. Since the 1996 presidential election, the Republic of China has undergone two ruling party changes. During this period, cross-Strait policy underwent little change. The only difference was the pace of change. The Mainland is unconcerned about which party rules on Taiwan. But cross-Strait relations must not regress. This is also consistent with the interests and expectations of the public on Taiwan.
President Chiang Ching-kuo opened the doors to cross-Strait communications. Veterans could visit their birthplace. Contacts were no longer forbidden. Chiang's reasoning was simple. People on both sides are friends and relatives. What right did the government have to keep friends and relatives apart? President Lee Teng-hui expanded these exchanges. We went from individual contacts to economic and trade exchanges. The scope may have been limited. But Taiwan businessmen are now our friends and neighbors. Later Lee's "avoid haste, be patient" policy limited the pace of these exchanges. But Lee was unable to prevent Taiwan businessmen from moving to the Mainland.
President Chen Shui-bian invoked "New Centrist Path" rhetoric, enabling the Democratic Progressive Party to attain power. But he could not overturn the foundation for cross-Strait exchanges laid down by the KMT. Chen Shui-bian was in office for eight years. His scorched earth diplomacy led to a cross-Strait freeze. But private sector exchanges never ceased. Cultural and creative exchanges enabled talent from Taiwan to shine on the Mainland.
When Chen Shui-bian was elected, he spoke of an "inter-party cross-Strait policy group." The group was to be headed by former Academia Sinica Chairman Lee Yuan-tse. But this idea was blocked by the National Security Organization, then headed by Chiu Yi-jen and Tsai Ing-wen, and died a natural death. When Chen Shui-bian was "re-elected" in 2004, he spoke of an "inter-party peace and stability committee." Before taking office he even sought out SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu, Lee Yuan-tse, TSMC chairman Morris Chang, PTV chairman Wu Feng-shan, Taiwan Thinktank chairman Chen Po-chih, hoping to establish a consultation team. Chen Shui-bian expressed a desire to chair the team. He invited representatives from the community to participate. Together they studied the possibility of a cross-Strait peace development program. Unfortunately nothing came of these proposals.
Tsai Ing-wen was involved in every one of these projects. She cannot possibly be unaware of what was going on. Cross-Strait policy is central to DPP policy. Chen Shui-bian did nothing for eight years. The obstacle was not the Mainland. The obstacle was not a lack of consensus on Taiwan. The obstacle was the DPP. The DPP was unable to break free from constraints imposed upon it by Taiwan independence fundamentalists.
Tsai Ing-wen clearly understood the importance of dialogue to her own election bid. So why did she refuse to dialogue with Ma Ying-jeou following his election to president in 2008? Lest we forget, when Chen Shui-bian was elected in 2000, KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong personally visited the Presidential Palace to dialogue with Chen Shui-bian. In 2005 James Soong secretly met with Chen Shui-bian and was denounced for his treachery.
Tsai Ing-wen acknowledged the existence of "1992 talks," but denied the existence of a "1992 consensus." She cast the 1992 consensus as a "KMT/CCP consensus," and proposed a "Taiwan consensus" in its stead. But she forgot that the 1992 talks were proposed by President Lee Teng-hui, in order to shelve cross-Strait confrontation. Negotiators did not used the words "1992 consensus." But they reached the conclusion that "there is only one China, but each side has its own interpretation." This tacit understanding between the two sides was reaffirmed in 2005, during the "Lien/Hu Summit." It became the primary plank in Ma Ying-jeou's 2008 political platform. It was vigorously reaffirmed. It received seven million votes. This is how the democratic process on Taiwan established a Taiwan consensus. This consensus was the basis for 17 cross-Strait agreements in three years, all of which were submitted to the Legislative Yuan for review. This is the democratic process. It conforms strictly to Tsai Ing-wen's own logic. She cannot deny it.
Democracy and cross-Strait peace are the Republic of China's most cherished achievements. Just over a month from now, voters on Taiwan will once again participate in the democratic process. Tsai Ing-wen says "The nation is of greater significance than any political party." She must demonstrate her allegiance to this principle through her actions, and not just words. Only then can she convince the public to return the DPP to power.
否定台灣共識的恰是蔡英文自己
2011-12-07中國時報
很多人搞不清楚民進黨主席、總統候選人蔡英文強烈主張的「台灣共識」到底內涵是什麼？蔡英文一句話簡單說明，「台灣共識就是台灣民主化的過程。」蔡英文的說法沒有錯，對身處台灣的二千三百萬人民而言，「台灣共識」理應是一個沒有疑義的概念，我們都是台灣人，我們都愛台灣，即使內部有著不同的政黨立場、統獨主張，都可以透過民主程序取得多數共識，總統直選就是最明確的民主程序，就是最清楚的台灣共識。
遺憾的是，蔡英文自己到現在還沒搞清楚，台灣共識不是民進黨的共識，對於台灣人民的選擇，競逐權力的朝野政黨都必須接受，而非片面否定。
蔡英文說，有了台灣人民共同立場的時候，對中國來講其實是更穩定的兩岸關係，不需要憂心當台灣在民主機制下，有政黨輪替的時候，政策會不會發生變化，「我們的人民也可以得到保證，政府在協商時候是以整體人民的立場，而且是透過民主、透明的程序來進行」。她強調，當選後要組成「兩岸對話小組」，邀請她的對手馬英九和宋楚瑜共同協商。
蔡英文的說法無庸置疑，自從一九九六年總統直選以來，台灣已經兩次政黨輪替，在這個過程中，兩岸政策的大方向並沒有巨大改變，只是速度與密度有異。中國大陸並不擔心台灣的政黨輪替，但對兩岸關係則有不容倒退的期待，這樣的期待其實也符合台灣人民的利益和期待。
兩岸關係自蔣經國總統拍板開放交流，從老兵可以返鄉探親的那一刻開始，交流之門就不能再禁絕，原因很簡單，兩岸既是友更是親，親友之情豈是政治力所能隔絕？李登輝繼任總統更擴大交流，從人倫之常一步就走到了經貿交流，即使範圍不是那麼大，但「台商」已經成為我們的左鄰右舍，即使後期「戒急用忍」限縮交流的節奏和步伐，卻無法阻絕台商登陸之勢。
同樣的，靠著「新中間路線」取得執政的陳水扁總統和民進黨，也不可能翻轉國民黨執政時期奠下的兩岸交流基礎。陳水扁八年任內，因為烽火外交讓兩岸關係停滯，但民間交流卻從未間斷，文化交流讓台灣演藝文創在大陸發光發熱。
陳水扁甫當選就要組「跨黨派兩岸政策小組」，由主張開放的前中研院長李遠哲領軍；這個構想卻在邱義仁、蔡英文主導的國安團隊阻撓下無疾而終。二○○四年陳水扁連任，再次想組成「跨黨派和平穩定委員會」，甚至在就職前就找了海基會董事長辜振甫、李遠哲、台積電董事長張忠謀、公視董事長吳豐山、台灣智庫董事長陳博志等人會商籌組架構小組；陳水扁意欲親任主委，邀請具有代表性的社會人士參與，共同研議兩岸和平發展綱領，可惜還是沒有下文。
這些發展歷程蔡英文幾乎全參與，她不可能不明白，兩岸政策同樣是民進黨執政的核心政策；陳水扁八年無功，其阻力既非來自大陸，亦非缺乏台灣共識，而是民進黨無法擺脫基本教義派的束縛。
蔡英文明白自己當選後朝野對話的重要，為什麼二○○八年馬英九當選總統後卻三番兩次拒絕對話呢？不要忘了，二○○○年陳水扁當選，國親兩黨主席連戰和宋楚瑜親赴總統府與扁對話；二○○五年宋楚瑜更冒罵名與扁再會。
蔡英文承認「九二會談」卻否定「九二共識」，質疑九二共識只是「國共共識」，因而提出「台灣共識」。她忘了，九二會談是李登輝總統任內兩岸兩會對擱置爭議提出的一個方案，即使沒有「九二共識」的名詞，卻有「一個中國，各自表述」的結論或默契。這個默契在二○○五年國共兩黨「連胡會」進一步確認，也成為馬英九競選二○○八年時提出的政見主張，且獲得七百多萬選票的高度肯定，這就是經過民主程序認可的台灣多數共識，在這個共識基礎下，兩岸兩會在這三多年來簽署十七項協議，都送立法院備查或審查，這也是民主程序。依照蔡英文的邏輯，有什麼道理否定之？
台灣民主、兩岸和平是最值得珍惜的成果，一個多月之後，台灣將再次經過民主的洗禮，蔡英文必須以實際行動展現她口中所聲稱「國家的意義大過政黨」，才能爭取民眾對民進黨重返執政的信心。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2011
Summary: Many people do not understand DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen. What does she mean when she holds forth on her "Taiwan consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen says "The Taiwan consensus is simply the process of Taiwan's democratization." Tsai Ing-wen's explanation is not wrong. Political parties may hold different positions on reunification and independence. But a consensus can still be achieved through the democratic process. A direct presidential election is the clearest example of just such a democratic process. The outcome of such a democratic election is the clearest example of a Taiwan consensus.
Full Text Below:
Many people do not understand DPP chairman and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen. What does she mean when she holds forth on her "Taiwan consensus?" Tsai Ing-wen says "The Taiwan consensus is simply the process of Taiwan's democratization." Tsai Ing-wen's explanation is not wrong. For the 23 million Republic of China citizens who live on Taiwan, the "Taiwan consensus" ought to be an uncontroversial topic. We are all Taiwanese. We all love Taiwan. Political parties may hold different positions on reunification and independence. But a consensus is still possible through the democratic process. A direct presidential election is the clearest example of such a democratic process. The outcome of such a democratic election is the clearest example of a Taiwan consensus.
Unfortunately Tsai Ing-wen persists in obfuscation. The Taiwan consensus is not the Democratic Progressive Party consensus. Voters on Taiwan will decide. The ruling and opposition parties, which compete for power, must accept their decision. The Taiwan consensus is not a unilateral laying down of the law.
Tsai Ing-wen argues that when voters on Taiwan arrive at a consensus, cross-Strait relations will actually be more stable, and the Mainland will actually be happier. The Mainland will no longer have to worry about ruling party changes under Taiwan's democracy. The Mainland will realize that government policy will not change merely because the ruling party has changed. Tsai argues that "When the government holds consultations, rooted in the will of the people, and expressed through a democratic and transparent process, the rights of our citizens will be assured." Tsai promises that if she is elected, she will establish a "dialogue group" and consult with opponents Ma Ying-jeou and James Soong.
Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is unassailable. Since the 1996 presidential election, the Republic of China has undergone two ruling party changes. During this period, cross-Strait policy underwent little change. The only difference was the pace of change. The Mainland is unconcerned about which party rules on Taiwan. But cross-Strait relations must not regress. This is also consistent with the interests and expectations of the public on Taiwan.
President Chiang Ching-kuo opened the doors to cross-Strait communications. Veterans could visit their birthplace. Contacts were no longer forbidden. Chiang's reasoning was simple. People on both sides are friends and relatives. What right did the government have to keep friends and relatives apart? President Lee Teng-hui expanded these exchanges. We went from individual contacts to economic and trade exchanges. The scope may have been limited. But Taiwan businessmen are now our friends and neighbors. Later Lee's "avoid haste, be patient" policy limited the pace of these exchanges. But Lee was unable to prevent Taiwan businessmen from moving to the Mainland.
President Chen Shui-bian invoked "New Centrist Path" rhetoric, enabling the Democratic Progressive Party to attain power. But he could not overturn the foundation for cross-Strait exchanges laid down by the KMT. Chen Shui-bian was in office for eight years. His scorched earth diplomacy led to a cross-Strait freeze. But private sector exchanges never ceased. Cultural and creative exchanges enabled talent from Taiwan to shine on the Mainland.
When Chen Shui-bian was elected, he spoke of an "inter-party cross-Strait policy group." The group was to be headed by former Academia Sinica Chairman Lee Yuan-tse. But this idea was blocked by the National Security Organization, then headed by Chiu Yi-jen and Tsai Ing-wen, and died a natural death. When Chen Shui-bian was "re-elected" in 2004, he spoke of an "inter-party peace and stability committee." Before taking office he even sought out SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu, Lee Yuan-tse, TSMC chairman Morris Chang, PTV chairman Wu Feng-shan, Taiwan Thinktank chairman Chen Po-chih, hoping to establish a consultation team. Chen Shui-bian expressed a desire to chair the team. He invited representatives from the community to participate. Together they studied the possibility of a cross-Strait peace development program. Unfortunately nothing came of these proposals.
Tsai Ing-wen was involved in every one of these projects. She cannot possibly be unaware of what was going on. Cross-Strait policy is central to DPP policy. Chen Shui-bian did nothing for eight years. The obstacle was not the Mainland. The obstacle was not a lack of consensus on Taiwan. The obstacle was the DPP. The DPP was unable to break free from constraints imposed upon it by Taiwan independence fundamentalists.
Tsai Ing-wen clearly understood the importance of dialogue to her own election bid. So why did she refuse to dialogue with Ma Ying-jeou following his election to president in 2008? Lest we forget, when Chen Shui-bian was elected in 2000, KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong personally visited the Presidential Palace to dialogue with Chen Shui-bian. In 2005 James Soong secretly met with Chen Shui-bian and was denounced for his treachery.
Tsai Ing-wen acknowledged the existence of "1992 talks," but denied the existence of a "1992 consensus." She cast the 1992 consensus as a "KMT/CCP consensus," and proposed a "Taiwan consensus" in its stead. But she forgot that the 1992 talks were proposed by President Lee Teng-hui, in order to shelve cross-Strait confrontation. Negotiators did not used the words "1992 consensus." But they reached the conclusion that "there is only one China, but each side has its own interpretation." This tacit understanding between the two sides was reaffirmed in 2005, during the "Lien/Hu Summit." It became the primary plank in Ma Ying-jeou's 2008 political platform. It was vigorously reaffirmed. It received seven million votes. This is how the democratic process on Taiwan established a Taiwan consensus. This consensus was the basis for 17 cross-Strait agreements in three years, all of which were submitted to the Legislative Yuan for review. This is the democratic process. It conforms strictly to Tsai Ing-wen's own logic. She cannot deny it.
Democracy and cross-Strait peace are the Republic of China's most cherished achievements. Just over a month from now, voters on Taiwan will once again participate in the democratic process. Tsai Ing-wen says "The nation is of greater significance than any political party." She must demonstrate her allegiance to this principle through her actions, and not just words. Only then can she convince the public to return the DPP to power.
否定台灣共識的恰是蔡英文自己
2011-12-07中國時報
很多人搞不清楚民進黨主席、總統候選人蔡英文強烈主張的「台灣共識」到底內涵是什麼？蔡英文一句話簡單說明，「台灣共識就是台灣民主化的過程。」蔡英文的說法沒有錯，對身處台灣的二千三百萬人民而言，「台灣共識」理應是一個沒有疑義的概念，我們都是台灣人，我們都愛台灣，即使內部有著不同的政黨立場、統獨主張，都可以透過民主程序取得多數共識，總統直選就是最明確的民主程序，就是最清楚的台灣共識。
遺憾的是，蔡英文自己到現在還沒搞清楚，台灣共識不是民進黨的共識，對於台灣人民的選擇，競逐權力的朝野政黨都必須接受，而非片面否定。
蔡英文說，有了台灣人民共同立場的時候，對中國來講其實是更穩定的兩岸關係，不需要憂心當台灣在民主機制下，有政黨輪替的時候，政策會不會發生變化，「我們的人民也可以得到保證，政府在協商時候是以整體人民的立場，而且是透過民主、透明的程序來進行」。她強調，當選後要組成「兩岸對話小組」，邀請她的對手馬英九和宋楚瑜共同協商。
蔡英文的說法無庸置疑，自從一九九六年總統直選以來，台灣已經兩次政黨輪替，在這個過程中，兩岸政策的大方向並沒有巨大改變，只是速度與密度有異。中國大陸並不擔心台灣的政黨輪替，但對兩岸關係則有不容倒退的期待，這樣的期待其實也符合台灣人民的利益和期待。
兩岸關係自蔣經國總統拍板開放交流，從老兵可以返鄉探親的那一刻開始，交流之門就不能再禁絕，原因很簡單，兩岸既是友更是親，親友之情豈是政治力所能隔絕？李登輝繼任總統更擴大交流，從人倫之常一步就走到了經貿交流，即使範圍不是那麼大，但「台商」已經成為我們的左鄰右舍，即使後期「戒急用忍」限縮交流的節奏和步伐，卻無法阻絕台商登陸之勢。
同樣的，靠著「新中間路線」取得執政的陳水扁總統和民進黨，也不可能翻轉國民黨執政時期奠下的兩岸交流基礎。陳水扁八年任內，因為烽火外交讓兩岸關係停滯，但民間交流卻從未間斷，文化交流讓台灣演藝文創在大陸發光發熱。
陳水扁甫當選就要組「跨黨派兩岸政策小組」，由主張開放的前中研院長李遠哲領軍；這個構想卻在邱義仁、蔡英文主導的國安團隊阻撓下無疾而終。二○○四年陳水扁連任，再次想組成「跨黨派和平穩定委員會」，甚至在就職前就找了海基會董事長辜振甫、李遠哲、台積電董事長張忠謀、公視董事長吳豐山、台灣智庫董事長陳博志等人會商籌組架構小組；陳水扁意欲親任主委，邀請具有代表性的社會人士參與，共同研議兩岸和平發展綱領，可惜還是沒有下文。
這些發展歷程蔡英文幾乎全參與，她不可能不明白，兩岸政策同樣是民進黨執政的核心政策；陳水扁八年無功，其阻力既非來自大陸，亦非缺乏台灣共識，而是民進黨無法擺脫基本教義派的束縛。
蔡英文明白自己當選後朝野對話的重要，為什麼二○○八年馬英九當選總統後卻三番兩次拒絕對話呢？不要忘了，二○○○年陳水扁當選，國親兩黨主席連戰和宋楚瑜親赴總統府與扁對話；二○○五年宋楚瑜更冒罵名與扁再會。
蔡英文承認「九二會談」卻否定「九二共識」，質疑九二共識只是「國共共識」，因而提出「台灣共識」。她忘了，九二會談是李登輝總統任內兩岸兩會對擱置爭議提出的一個方案，即使沒有「九二共識」的名詞，卻有「一個中國，各自表述」的結論或默契。這個默契在二○○五年國共兩黨「連胡會」進一步確認，也成為馬英九競選二○○八年時提出的政見主張，且獲得七百多萬選票的高度肯定，這就是經過民主程序認可的台灣多數共識，在這個共識基礎下，兩岸兩會在這三多年來簽署十七項協議，都送立法院備查或審查，這也是民主程序。依照蔡英文的邏輯，有什麼道理否定之？
台灣民主、兩岸和平是最值得珍惜的成果，一個多月之後，台灣將再次經過民主的洗禮，蔡英文必須以實際行動展現她口中所聲稱「國家的意義大過政黨」，才能爭取民眾對民進黨重返執政的信心。
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Repudiation of the 1992 Consensus Will Set Back Cross-Strait Economic and Trade Relations
Repudiation of the 1992 Consensus Will Set Back Cross-Strait Economic and Trade Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2011
Summary: On Thursday, Hon Hai Group Chairman Terry Gou threw his support behind Ma Ying-jeou. He is worried that next year's general election could be an upset. He even said that "many companies have two different strategies planned, just in case." The next day, Delta Electronics chairman Bruce Cheng joined the ranks of Taiwanese entrepreneurs backing Ma Ying-jeou. Guo and Cheng are not what would traditionally be referred to as "Blue-oriented Enterprises." Yet they spontaneously expressed identical sentiments. Therefore attention should be paid.
Full Text Below:
On Thursday, Hon Hai Group Chairman Terry Gou threw his support behind Ma Ying-jeou. He is worried that next year's general election could be an upset. He even said that "many companies have two different strategies planned, just in case." The next day, Delta Electronics chairman Bruce Cheng joined the ranks of Taiwanese entrepreneurs backing Ma Ying-jeou. Guo and Cheng are not what would traditionally be referred to as "Blue-oriented Enterprises." Yet they spontaneously expressed identical sentiments. Therefore attention should be paid.
Terry Gou said that next year, when another tsunami strikes, Taiwan's economy will face 10 meter waves, not one meter waves. Turbulent times requires a skilled helmsman. What businesses fear the most is uncertainty. If President Ma wins a second term, businesses can plan for the future. But if a change in ruling parties takes place, businesses may need to wait until May of next year before taking action. "This will result in a deadly window." Companies have responded to the two possible outcomes of next year's presidential election by mapping out two different business strategies. Bruce Cheng said he feared a change in ruling parties would make it impossible for him to respond to changes in the international situation. That was why he supported President Ma's reelection.
The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. Even if the DPP returns to power, it will continue to support business and economic development. So why are domestic enterprises worried? Actually, everyone knows why, but nobody is willing to say so out loud. The problem is the DPP's cross-Strait policy, particulary its refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus. The DPP's cross-Strait policy could completely sabotage 16 cross-Strait agreements reached over the past three years, including ECFA, overnight.
Contrast this with the 2000 general election. The global economy was sound. Taiwan's economy and stock market were sound. Few people worried about the downside risk. The Mainland had an economy worth only 1.1 trillion. Taiwan had an economy one fourth the size of the Mainland's. The Mainland was of much less economic significant to Taiwan than it is today. Back then, it was merely a manufacturing base. Back then, there were no "Mainland tourists."
Today however, the Mainland has an economy worth 5.8 trillion, It is the second largest economy in the world. Today Taiwan's economy is only 7% the size of the Mainland's. The Mainland is not merely the world's factory, its is also the world's fastest growing consumer market. It is the world's largest market for automobiles, LCD TVs, and PCs. Exports from Taiwan to the mainland and Hong Kong increased from 20% to 40%. During the financial tsunami, purchases made by Mainland purchasing groups enabled Taiwan companies to emerge from the shadow of the recession. Millions of Mainland tourists visit Taiwan each year. The finance industry has high hopes for a "green passage." It is conducting follow-up consultations, preparing to increase the number of items on the ECFA checklist.
As we can see, Taiwan's economic and industrial relationship to the Mainland is very different from what it was 12 years ago. Taiwan is much more economically dependent upon the Mainland than it was in the past. This is why the business community is so worried. A global economic downturn next year is inevitable. Economic forecasts for next year have been revised downward. Europe will experience nearly zero growth. The US will experience one to two percent growth. Mainland China meanwhile, will experience 8 to 8.5% growth. Taiwan faces harsh economic challenges next year. If cross-Strait relations change, Taiwan's economy may tank. The DPP's cross-Strait policy will surely force changes upon cross-Strait relations.
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She relentlessly trumpets her "Taiwan consensus." But three years of warming cross-Strait relations, including various agreements and ECFA, are all rooted in the 1992 Consensus. The Mainland has made clear that "rejection of the 1992 Consensus will destroy the foundation for all subsequent agreements." The DPP's "Taiwan consensus" is sheer solipsism. It could set cross-Strait relations back decades. Once cross-Strait relations have been set back, Mainland capital will swiftly evaporate, and Taiwan's future will be jeopardized. This is why the business community is worried.
These concerns have gradually had an impact. First when Ma and Tsai's poll numbers were deadlocked. Taiwanese stocks plummeted to a new low, below 6800. The decline exceeded those in neighboring countries. Market players were concerned that Tsai might be elected. The cross-Strait economy was discounted. The world's six major central banks joined forces to rescue the market. This meant another global financial crisis was gaining momentum. This meant the economic situation was unlikely to improve next year. Business leaders then proceeded to make their views known. They said if Tsai Ing-wen was elected, she might harm Taiwan's economy. Tsai Ing-wen held an emergency press conference the day before the debate. She declared that "anything can be discussed between the two sides." She promised she would not abruptly terminate any previously signed cross-Strait agreements. She tried to reassure the public that a change in ruling parties would not undermine cross-Strait relations.
The main concern of outside observers was that Tsai Ing-wen would terminate ECFA and its accompanying agreements. They were afraid. The Mainland might not explicitly terminate the agreements. But it might refuse to implement them. The agreement would amount to nothing more than a piece of paper. The Mainland would refuse to honor the remaining items on the ECFA checklist. The number of tourists would diminish. Purchasing groups would cease arriving. The green channel eagerly anticipated by the financial sector would vanish. Tsai Ing-wen's only response to these business and market concerns was wishful thinking and hollow assurances of "consultation and dialogue."
The debate was an ideal opportunity to reassure doubts about the DPP. But Tsai Ing-wen offered nothing but platitudes. She reiterated her intention "to promote equitable economic and trade relations, under the aegis of multilateral organizations." This is sheer chutzpah. Since when has Taiwan had the wherewithal to dictate terms to these multilateral organizations? Besides, multilateral organizations such as the WTO are gradually being replaced by bilateral frameworks such as FTAs. Yet the DPP insists that "although there may have been 1992 talks, there was no 1992 consensus." The DPP insists that "the 1992 consensus was merely a consensus between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party." The DPP continues to issue statements denying the existence of the 1992 Consensus. No wonder Terry Gou said many businesses have prepared two sets of responses. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen -- are you listening?
否認九二共識 兩岸經貿恐倒退嚕
2011-12-06 中國時報
上周四，鴻海集團董事長郭台銘首度表態挺馬；因為擔心明年大選後變天，他甚至說「企業都準備兩套方案因應」。隔日，台達電董事長鄭崇華也加入挺馬行列，郭、鄭都不是傳統上定義的「藍色企業」，卻不約而同的發聲，所傳遞的訊息值得注意。
郭台銘說，台灣明年經濟面對的不是一公尺的海浪，而是「十公尺的海浪」，動盪時刻需要熟練的舵手。企業最怕的是不確定因素，如馬總統連任，現在就可規畫往後工作；但如政黨再輪替，可能拖延到明年五月之後才能應變，「這樣將會產生致命的空窗期」。為因應明年總統大選結果，企業心中都備妥Ａ、Ｂ兩套計畫。鄭崇華則說因為他擔心政權更替，無法應付未來的國際變局，因此支持馬總統連任。
從過去民進黨執政的八年來看，民進黨即使再上台，仍會大力支持企業及經濟發展，國內企業到底在擔心什麼？其實，大家意在言外、卻未明說者，就是民進黨的兩岸政策─特別是民進黨不承認「九二共識」，可能讓近三年多修好的兩岸關係及其十六項協議、ＥＣＦＡ…，在一夜間豬羊變色，全部傾覆。
與二○○○年大選時相較，當時全球景氣熱絡，台灣的經濟與股市還算是「熱烘烘」，沒太多人擔心經濟下行風險。而兩岸的經貿關係方面，大陸當時只是一個規模一．一兆美元的經濟體，台灣的經濟規模約大陸的四分之一；大陸對台灣的意義，只是重要的生產基地；當時，沒有所謂「大陸觀光客」。
但今日，大陸已是規模五．八兆美元的全球第二大經濟體，台灣只有大陸的七％；大陸不僅是世界工廠，更是全球成長最快的消費市場─不論是汽車、ＬＣＤ電視、ＰＣ…，都是全球最大市場。台灣對大陸及香港的出口占全體出口的比重，由二成上下增為四成左右；在金融海嘯時，大陸採購團的大手筆採購，讓台灣企業提早走出陰霾，還有每年上百萬的觀光客、發展中金融業寄予厚望的「綠色通道」、準備協商增加的ＥＣＦＡ後續清單…。
由此可以看出迥異於十二年前的兩岸經貿關係圖像，台灣經濟與產業與大陸的互動已不同於過往，台灣經濟依賴大陸活水的比重遠高於當年，企業界的憂心即由此而來。明年全球經濟下行已是難以挽回的趨勢，國際上所有預測單位都不斷下修明年的經濟預測值，歐洲甚至是接近零成長，美國只有一到二％的成長，大陸則下修到八到八．五％。台灣明年面對的經濟挑戰相當嚴苛，如此時再發生兩岸關係生變，台灣經濟將更墜入谷底─但民進黨的兩岸政策，卻明顯會讓兩岸關係生變。
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文不承認「九二共識」，改不斷強調「台灣共識」；但當三年來兩岸關係的和緩與各項協議及ＥＣＦＡ，都建基在九二共識上時，大陸方面也明白表達「棄九二共識則一切協議的基礎都不在」時，自拉自唱的台灣共識，當然就可能讓台灣陷入兩岸關係倒退的險境；兩岸關係一旦倒退，原本來自大陸方面的經濟活水，就可能逐漸乾涸，台灣經濟風險亦增高。企業界憂心者正是這點。
此一憂心近日逐漸發酵。先是在馬蔡選情呈膠著時，台股跌破六八○○點的低點，跌幅高於鄰近國家，市場認為這是擔心蔡當選、兩岸生變的「折價」；接著全球六大央行聯手救市，宣告另波的國際金融風暴正蓄勢待發，明年經濟難有好局面。再來是企業開始表態，說出對蔡當選後可能對台灣經濟的負面影響之憂慮。蔡英文雖然在辯論會前日，緊急召開記者會，宣告「兩岸間什麼都可以談」，並保證不會貿然終止過去兩岸簽署的各項協議，正是安撫各界對變天可能導致兩岸關係丕變的憂慮。
外界主要憂慮者，不是蔡英文會不會終止包括ＥＣＦＡ在內的各項協議，而是擔心對岸就算不明言終止這些協議，但也不確實執行。結果是協議形同具文，ＥＣＦＡ後續清單不再談，觀光客減少、採購團不來、金融業的綠色通道消失…。而蔡英文至今對企業界與市場的這些憂慮，仍只見一廂情願的「協商對話」。
原本應該是釐清外界疑慮最佳場合的辯論會上，還是只能看見蔡英文說「要推動均衡經貿關係，在多邊組織主導議題…」─台灣何德何能在多邊組織主導議題？更何況ＷＴＯ的多邊組織已逐漸被ＦＴＡ的雙邊架構替代；還有「九二年有九二會談，但沒有九二共識」、「九二共識是國民黨與共產黨的共識…」等持續否認九二共識的說法。難怪，郭台銘要說企業都準備兩套因應方案，民進黨與蔡英文，聽到了嗎？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2011
Summary: On Thursday, Hon Hai Group Chairman Terry Gou threw his support behind Ma Ying-jeou. He is worried that next year's general election could be an upset. He even said that "many companies have two different strategies planned, just in case." The next day, Delta Electronics chairman Bruce Cheng joined the ranks of Taiwanese entrepreneurs backing Ma Ying-jeou. Guo and Cheng are not what would traditionally be referred to as "Blue-oriented Enterprises." Yet they spontaneously expressed identical sentiments. Therefore attention should be paid.
Full Text Below:
On Thursday, Hon Hai Group Chairman Terry Gou threw his support behind Ma Ying-jeou. He is worried that next year's general election could be an upset. He even said that "many companies have two different strategies planned, just in case." The next day, Delta Electronics chairman Bruce Cheng joined the ranks of Taiwanese entrepreneurs backing Ma Ying-jeou. Guo and Cheng are not what would traditionally be referred to as "Blue-oriented Enterprises." Yet they spontaneously expressed identical sentiments. Therefore attention should be paid.
Terry Gou said that next year, when another tsunami strikes, Taiwan's economy will face 10 meter waves, not one meter waves. Turbulent times requires a skilled helmsman. What businesses fear the most is uncertainty. If President Ma wins a second term, businesses can plan for the future. But if a change in ruling parties takes place, businesses may need to wait until May of next year before taking action. "This will result in a deadly window." Companies have responded to the two possible outcomes of next year's presidential election by mapping out two different business strategies. Bruce Cheng said he feared a change in ruling parties would make it impossible for him to respond to changes in the international situation. That was why he supported President Ma's reelection.
The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. Even if the DPP returns to power, it will continue to support business and economic development. So why are domestic enterprises worried? Actually, everyone knows why, but nobody is willing to say so out loud. The problem is the DPP's cross-Strait policy, particulary its refusal to recognize the 1992 Consensus. The DPP's cross-Strait policy could completely sabotage 16 cross-Strait agreements reached over the past three years, including ECFA, overnight.
Contrast this with the 2000 general election. The global economy was sound. Taiwan's economy and stock market were sound. Few people worried about the downside risk. The Mainland had an economy worth only 1.1 trillion. Taiwan had an economy one fourth the size of the Mainland's. The Mainland was of much less economic significant to Taiwan than it is today. Back then, it was merely a manufacturing base. Back then, there were no "Mainland tourists."
Today however, the Mainland has an economy worth 5.8 trillion, It is the second largest economy in the world. Today Taiwan's economy is only 7% the size of the Mainland's. The Mainland is not merely the world's factory, its is also the world's fastest growing consumer market. It is the world's largest market for automobiles, LCD TVs, and PCs. Exports from Taiwan to the mainland and Hong Kong increased from 20% to 40%. During the financial tsunami, purchases made by Mainland purchasing groups enabled Taiwan companies to emerge from the shadow of the recession. Millions of Mainland tourists visit Taiwan each year. The finance industry has high hopes for a "green passage." It is conducting follow-up consultations, preparing to increase the number of items on the ECFA checklist.
As we can see, Taiwan's economic and industrial relationship to the Mainland is very different from what it was 12 years ago. Taiwan is much more economically dependent upon the Mainland than it was in the past. This is why the business community is so worried. A global economic downturn next year is inevitable. Economic forecasts for next year have been revised downward. Europe will experience nearly zero growth. The US will experience one to two percent growth. Mainland China meanwhile, will experience 8 to 8.5% growth. Taiwan faces harsh economic challenges next year. If cross-Strait relations change, Taiwan's economy may tank. The DPP's cross-Strait policy will surely force changes upon cross-Strait relations.
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. She relentlessly trumpets her "Taiwan consensus." But three years of warming cross-Strait relations, including various agreements and ECFA, are all rooted in the 1992 Consensus. The Mainland has made clear that "rejection of the 1992 Consensus will destroy the foundation for all subsequent agreements." The DPP's "Taiwan consensus" is sheer solipsism. It could set cross-Strait relations back decades. Once cross-Strait relations have been set back, Mainland capital will swiftly evaporate, and Taiwan's future will be jeopardized. This is why the business community is worried.
These concerns have gradually had an impact. First when Ma and Tsai's poll numbers were deadlocked. Taiwanese stocks plummeted to a new low, below 6800. The decline exceeded those in neighboring countries. Market players were concerned that Tsai might be elected. The cross-Strait economy was discounted. The world's six major central banks joined forces to rescue the market. This meant another global financial crisis was gaining momentum. This meant the economic situation was unlikely to improve next year. Business leaders then proceeded to make their views known. They said if Tsai Ing-wen was elected, she might harm Taiwan's economy. Tsai Ing-wen held an emergency press conference the day before the debate. She declared that "anything can be discussed between the two sides." She promised she would not abruptly terminate any previously signed cross-Strait agreements. She tried to reassure the public that a change in ruling parties would not undermine cross-Strait relations.
The main concern of outside observers was that Tsai Ing-wen would terminate ECFA and its accompanying agreements. They were afraid. The Mainland might not explicitly terminate the agreements. But it might refuse to implement them. The agreement would amount to nothing more than a piece of paper. The Mainland would refuse to honor the remaining items on the ECFA checklist. The number of tourists would diminish. Purchasing groups would cease arriving. The green channel eagerly anticipated by the financial sector would vanish. Tsai Ing-wen's only response to these business and market concerns was wishful thinking and hollow assurances of "consultation and dialogue."
The debate was an ideal opportunity to reassure doubts about the DPP. But Tsai Ing-wen offered nothing but platitudes. She reiterated her intention "to promote equitable economic and trade relations, under the aegis of multilateral organizations." This is sheer chutzpah. Since when has Taiwan had the wherewithal to dictate terms to these multilateral organizations? Besides, multilateral organizations such as the WTO are gradually being replaced by bilateral frameworks such as FTAs. Yet the DPP insists that "although there may have been 1992 talks, there was no 1992 consensus." The DPP insists that "the 1992 consensus was merely a consensus between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party." The DPP continues to issue statements denying the existence of the 1992 Consensus. No wonder Terry Gou said many businesses have prepared two sets of responses. The DPP and Tsai Ing-wen -- are you listening?
否認九二共識 兩岸經貿恐倒退嚕
2011-12-06 中國時報
上周四，鴻海集團董事長郭台銘首度表態挺馬；因為擔心明年大選後變天，他甚至說「企業都準備兩套方案因應」。隔日，台達電董事長鄭崇華也加入挺馬行列，郭、鄭都不是傳統上定義的「藍色企業」，卻不約而同的發聲，所傳遞的訊息值得注意。
郭台銘說，台灣明年經濟面對的不是一公尺的海浪，而是「十公尺的海浪」，動盪時刻需要熟練的舵手。企業最怕的是不確定因素，如馬總統連任，現在就可規畫往後工作；但如政黨再輪替，可能拖延到明年五月之後才能應變，「這樣將會產生致命的空窗期」。為因應明年總統大選結果，企業心中都備妥Ａ、Ｂ兩套計畫。鄭崇華則說因為他擔心政權更替，無法應付未來的國際變局，因此支持馬總統連任。
從過去民進黨執政的八年來看，民進黨即使再上台，仍會大力支持企業及經濟發展，國內企業到底在擔心什麼？其實，大家意在言外、卻未明說者，就是民進黨的兩岸政策─特別是民進黨不承認「九二共識」，可能讓近三年多修好的兩岸關係及其十六項協議、ＥＣＦＡ…，在一夜間豬羊變色，全部傾覆。
與二○○○年大選時相較，當時全球景氣熱絡，台灣的經濟與股市還算是「熱烘烘」，沒太多人擔心經濟下行風險。而兩岸的經貿關係方面，大陸當時只是一個規模一．一兆美元的經濟體，台灣的經濟規模約大陸的四分之一；大陸對台灣的意義，只是重要的生產基地；當時，沒有所謂「大陸觀光客」。
但今日，大陸已是規模五．八兆美元的全球第二大經濟體，台灣只有大陸的七％；大陸不僅是世界工廠，更是全球成長最快的消費市場─不論是汽車、ＬＣＤ電視、ＰＣ…，都是全球最大市場。台灣對大陸及香港的出口占全體出口的比重，由二成上下增為四成左右；在金融海嘯時，大陸採購團的大手筆採購，讓台灣企業提早走出陰霾，還有每年上百萬的觀光客、發展中金融業寄予厚望的「綠色通道」、準備協商增加的ＥＣＦＡ後續清單…。
由此可以看出迥異於十二年前的兩岸經貿關係圖像，台灣經濟與產業與大陸的互動已不同於過往，台灣經濟依賴大陸活水的比重遠高於當年，企業界的憂心即由此而來。明年全球經濟下行已是難以挽回的趨勢，國際上所有預測單位都不斷下修明年的經濟預測值，歐洲甚至是接近零成長，美國只有一到二％的成長，大陸則下修到八到八．五％。台灣明年面對的經濟挑戰相當嚴苛，如此時再發生兩岸關係生變，台灣經濟將更墜入谷底─但民進黨的兩岸政策，卻明顯會讓兩岸關係生變。
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文不承認「九二共識」，改不斷強調「台灣共識」；但當三年來兩岸關係的和緩與各項協議及ＥＣＦＡ，都建基在九二共識上時，大陸方面也明白表達「棄九二共識則一切協議的基礎都不在」時，自拉自唱的台灣共識，當然就可能讓台灣陷入兩岸關係倒退的險境；兩岸關係一旦倒退，原本來自大陸方面的經濟活水，就可能逐漸乾涸，台灣經濟風險亦增高。企業界憂心者正是這點。
此一憂心近日逐漸發酵。先是在馬蔡選情呈膠著時，台股跌破六八○○點的低點，跌幅高於鄰近國家，市場認為這是擔心蔡當選、兩岸生變的「折價」；接著全球六大央行聯手救市，宣告另波的國際金融風暴正蓄勢待發，明年經濟難有好局面。再來是企業開始表態，說出對蔡當選後可能對台灣經濟的負面影響之憂慮。蔡英文雖然在辯論會前日，緊急召開記者會，宣告「兩岸間什麼都可以談」，並保證不會貿然終止過去兩岸簽署的各項協議，正是安撫各界對變天可能導致兩岸關係丕變的憂慮。
外界主要憂慮者，不是蔡英文會不會終止包括ＥＣＦＡ在內的各項協議，而是擔心對岸就算不明言終止這些協議，但也不確實執行。結果是協議形同具文，ＥＣＦＡ後續清單不再談，觀光客減少、採購團不來、金融業的綠色通道消失…。而蔡英文至今對企業界與市場的這些憂慮，仍只見一廂情願的「協商對話」。
原本應該是釐清外界疑慮最佳場合的辯論會上，還是只能看見蔡英文說「要推動均衡經貿關係，在多邊組織主導議題…」─台灣何德何能在多邊組織主導議題？更何況ＷＴＯ的多邊組織已逐漸被ＦＴＡ的雙邊架構替代；還有「九二年有九二會談，但沒有九二共識」、「九二共識是國民黨與共產黨的共識…」等持續否認九二共識的說法。難怪，郭台銘要說企業都準備兩套因應方案，民進黨與蔡英文，聽到了嗎？
Monday, December 5, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen Chooses Evasiveness
Tsai Ing-wen Chooses Evasiveness
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2011
Summary: How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.
Full Text Below:
How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Outsiders however agree. Ma Ying-jeou made a strong case for himself, but overall the debate came across as lukewarm. Why did the debate lack spark, in spite of Ma Ying-jeou's strong performance? This is very baffling.
Perhaps it was because supporters of the three candidates differed over how their own candidate performed. But this was the first time the three candidates found themselves in the same place since they registered. Each candidate presented his or her platform. Each cross-examined the other two candidates. The public naturally hoped each of the candidates would explain how they stood on important issues. After all, this is a presidential candidate's responsibility. But people were surprised that Tsai Ing-wen evaded every major issue, including cross-Strait policy, two dollar persimmons, and whether she would pardon Chen Shui-bian.
Tsai Ing-wen's evasiveness provoked an uproar. Tsai and her staffers must have known her opponents would not let her off lightly. When Tsai Ing-wen and her staffers practiced for the debate, she must have known these questions would be asked. They must have run simulations. They must prepared their answers. Yet Tsai Ing-wen chose to dodge every one of them. She must have known that her evasiveness would alienate rational, moderate voters. Nevertheless this is the way Tsai Ing-wen decided to go.
Candidates and their political parties are well aware that given Blue vs. Green political divisions on Taiwan, most voters have firmly held political stances. Their support for their candidate is unlikely to be shaken by the outcome of a political debate. These voters decided whom to vote for long ago. What the candidates say during the debate is not terribly important to them. Therefore, the three presidential candidates' goal during the debate is to influence swing voters who "want to discover just exactly what the candidates' positions are."
The China Times polled registered voters who intend to go to the polls. Among them, 64% watched this debate. The number of viewers was impressive. The poll numbers for the Two Yings are extremely close. Therefore every vote counts. No candidate has any reason to forsake this opportunity to influence swing voters. James Soong stressed the need to look after the "three middles/mediums." Soong was referring to: the middle class; small and medium enterprises and lower and middle income households, and of course, middle of the road voters. Ma Ying-jeou cares about economic issues. He has been honest enough to admit he did not do enough during his three years in office. He reiterated his determination to work harder and do better. Ma Ying-jeou apparently knows that one cannot gloss over poor performance. It will not work. Voters are realistic. Therefore they will not tolerate it. Debates invariably include self-promotion. But Ma Ying-jeou has chosen to acknowledge that in some areas, he failed to do a good job and therefore owed everyone an apology.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen seems to care little about influencing swing voters. Many people are concerned about whether she will pardon Chen Shui-bian if elected. Tsai Ing-wen is clearly unwilling to answer this question. Instead, she implied that Chen's conviction was a miscarriage of justice. She implied that upon taking office she would consider retrying the Chen corruption case. She implied that she would grant Chen a pardon. Chen Shui-bian's corruption is well established. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude is disturbing. She is even sweeping Su Jia-Chyuan's luxury "farmhouse" scandal under the rug. Swing voters care about social justice. Tsai's behavior could cost her dearly. Do she and her staffers not know this?
Before the debate Tsai Ing-wen apologized for the two dollar persimmons controversy. But her attitude was unrepentant, people deeped her apology insincere. Sure enough during the debate Tsai Ing-wen made her attitude clear. She said that the DPP did not commit any real mistakes, and that she apologized not because the DPP did anything wrong, but only because she wanted to end the war of words. The fact remains that the fruit calendar was DPP propaganda. This was not something brought up by the KMT. Therefore the Green Camp was responsible for the war of words, not the Blue. Besides, the fruit price controversy was pure fabrication. It led to financial losses for many farmers. Tsai Ing-wen spun herself as the self-sacrificing mother in the Judgment of Solomon. The least she can do is acknowledge that although "I did not kill Bayen, Bayen died because of me." Since she has yet to engage in earnest soul-searching, how can her expression of regret be heartfelt and sincere?
On the eve of the debate, Tsai Ing-wen hurriedly raised cross-Strait issues. As a result, many anticipated a breakthrough in her thinking. But during the debate Tsai Ing-wen offered no fresh ideas. She merely played the same tune louder than before. The press conference she held the night before faded away like a dream.
Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.
蔡英文選擇迴避與模糊的背後
2011-12-05 中國時報
三位總統候選人在第一次的大選辯論會上表現如何？各家媒體所做的民調已顯示出不同的結果。不過，外界對這次辯論會有個普遍的觀感：馬英九攻擊力道強勁，但整場辯論會顯得很平淡。為什麼儘管馬英九火力十足，但辯論會卻竟然是落了個「沒有太多火花」的結果？這就很耐人尋味了。
或許不同政治立場的選民和觀眾對三位總統候選人的表現各有定見，但是這畢竟是三位候選人登記參選後，第一次同台，除了各自申論，還有彼此詰問，人民自然期待候選人會針對幾件重要的爭議和疑慮，提出說明、甚至解釋；事實上，這也是總統候選人的責任。不過，讓人十分意外的是，蔡英文幾乎迴避所有引人關切的議題，包括兩岸政策、兩塊錢柿子是怎麼一回事，以及會不會特赦陳水扁等。
這幾件事情引發社會議論得沸沸揚揚，相信蔡英文和她的幕僚當然想像得到，對手肯定不會輕輕放過，在蔡英文為辯論會準備的「考前猜題」裡頭，應當不可能漏了這幾題，甚至在蔡英文與幕僚所進行的辯論模擬考中，也一定演練過對手質問這幾個問題的場景，但蔡英文還是選擇模糊以對；她明明知道這樣的回答對理性、在乎候選人理念的中間選民來講，是很難過關的，但蔡英文卻仍然決定如此。
候選人與政黨當然也都很清楚，台灣政治藍綠各有版塊，政治立場堅定的選民，對特定候選人的支持，大概不怎麼會受到辯論會的內容影響，這樣的選民對手中的一票要投給誰，早有定見，候選人在辯論會上到底講了些什麼，也不怎麼要緊。因此，三位總統候選人在辯論會上的表現，或者說表演，主要的目的是說服「想聽聽看候選人到底在講什麼」的中間選民。
據中時民調的調查，有投票意願的選民中，六四％有收看這次的辯論會，收視人數相當可觀。雙英民調僵持不下，票票珍貴，沒有理由放棄電視辯論會這個與中間選民對話、向中間選民喊話的機會，如宋楚瑜強調要照顧「三中」：中產階級、中小企業和中低收入戶，中間選民自然涵蓋其中；馬英九重視經濟議題，也坦誠面對執政三年多以來，做得不夠理想的地方，幾次表達要更努力才行。看得出來，馬英九也很了解，如果想用呼攏的方式面對確實做得不好的地方，是行不通的，因為「實事求是」的中間選民不會買帳，所以，在辯論會中無可避免的自我宣傳之外，馬英九也選擇在某些議題上表達「沒做好、很抱歉」的態度。
反觀蔡英文，比較令人納悶的是，她似乎並沒有那麼想「說服」中間選民。面對是否特赦陳水扁這個很多人關心、以致於擔心的議題，蔡英文不願清楚回應「不會特赦」，甚至她是用質疑司法不公、上任後會就扁案再做審議的答案，暗示特赦陳水扁的可能性。陳水扁的官司有多件已定讞，蔡英文的態度讓人不安，甚至於她對蘇嘉全豪華農舍的包庇，都可能讓她在重視社會公義的中間選民這一塊失分，難道她和幕僚會不了解嗎？
在辯論會前，蔡英文對延燒選情的「兩塊錢柿子」風波道歉，不過，由於她的態度很強勢，讓外界感覺她當時的道歉似乎有些「心不甘、情不願」，果然，在辯論會上，蔡英文明確表示：不認為民進黨有什麼嚴重的錯，只是為了遏止口水才道歉。水果月曆是民進黨的文宣，這個話題不是國民黨挑起的，所以論到口水大戰，綠營的「功力」如果沒有多於、那至少也不會少於藍營。更何況，這件無中生有的事情，的確造成了一些農民的損失，以「所羅門王面前的生母」自居的蔡英文，至少應該了解「我不殺伯仁，但伯仁因我而死」，難道沒有反省過，在道義上還是應該誠懇的表達歉意嗎？
在辯論會前夕蔡英文急拋兩岸議題，讓不少人對她出現突破性的思維有所期待。不過，辯論會中，蔡英文並無讓人耳目一新的想法，舊調重彈且彈得更為用力，彷彿前一晚的記者會是一場夢遊。
蔡英文在辯論會上的發言與態度，讓人感覺到她似乎只想要更緊密的擁抱粉絲，至於中間選民，那就算了吧。因此，或許可以說，她在辯論上的表現其實是經過了深思熟慮──迴避就是她的態度，模糊正是她要的結果。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2011
Summary: How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.
Full Text Below:
How well did the three presidential candidates do in their first election debate? Different media polls show different results. Outsiders however agree. Ma Ying-jeou made a strong case for himself, but overall the debate came across as lukewarm. Why did the debate lack spark, in spite of Ma Ying-jeou's strong performance? This is very baffling.
Perhaps it was because supporters of the three candidates differed over how their own candidate performed. But this was the first time the three candidates found themselves in the same place since they registered. Each candidate presented his or her platform. Each cross-examined the other two candidates. The public naturally hoped each of the candidates would explain how they stood on important issues. After all, this is a presidential candidate's responsibility. But people were surprised that Tsai Ing-wen evaded every major issue, including cross-Strait policy, two dollar persimmons, and whether she would pardon Chen Shui-bian.
Tsai Ing-wen's evasiveness provoked an uproar. Tsai and her staffers must have known her opponents would not let her off lightly. When Tsai Ing-wen and her staffers practiced for the debate, she must have known these questions would be asked. They must have run simulations. They must prepared their answers. Yet Tsai Ing-wen chose to dodge every one of them. She must have known that her evasiveness would alienate rational, moderate voters. Nevertheless this is the way Tsai Ing-wen decided to go.
Candidates and their political parties are well aware that given Blue vs. Green political divisions on Taiwan, most voters have firmly held political stances. Their support for their candidate is unlikely to be shaken by the outcome of a political debate. These voters decided whom to vote for long ago. What the candidates say during the debate is not terribly important to them. Therefore, the three presidential candidates' goal during the debate is to influence swing voters who "want to discover just exactly what the candidates' positions are."
The China Times polled registered voters who intend to go to the polls. Among them, 64% watched this debate. The number of viewers was impressive. The poll numbers for the Two Yings are extremely close. Therefore every vote counts. No candidate has any reason to forsake this opportunity to influence swing voters. James Soong stressed the need to look after the "three middles/mediums." Soong was referring to: the middle class; small and medium enterprises and lower and middle income households, and of course, middle of the road voters. Ma Ying-jeou cares about economic issues. He has been honest enough to admit he did not do enough during his three years in office. He reiterated his determination to work harder and do better. Ma Ying-jeou apparently knows that one cannot gloss over poor performance. It will not work. Voters are realistic. Therefore they will not tolerate it. Debates invariably include self-promotion. But Ma Ying-jeou has chosen to acknowledge that in some areas, he failed to do a good job and therefore owed everyone an apology.
By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen seems to care little about influencing swing voters. Many people are concerned about whether she will pardon Chen Shui-bian if elected. Tsai Ing-wen is clearly unwilling to answer this question. Instead, she implied that Chen's conviction was a miscarriage of justice. She implied that upon taking office she would consider retrying the Chen corruption case. She implied that she would grant Chen a pardon. Chen Shui-bian's corruption is well established. Tsai Ing-wen's attitude is disturbing. She is even sweeping Su Jia-Chyuan's luxury "farmhouse" scandal under the rug. Swing voters care about social justice. Tsai's behavior could cost her dearly. Do she and her staffers not know this?
Before the debate Tsai Ing-wen apologized for the two dollar persimmons controversy. But her attitude was unrepentant, people deeped her apology insincere. Sure enough during the debate Tsai Ing-wen made her attitude clear. She said that the DPP did not commit any real mistakes, and that she apologized not because the DPP did anything wrong, but only because she wanted to end the war of words. The fact remains that the fruit calendar was DPP propaganda. This was not something brought up by the KMT. Therefore the Green Camp was responsible for the war of words, not the Blue. Besides, the fruit price controversy was pure fabrication. It led to financial losses for many farmers. Tsai Ing-wen spun herself as the self-sacrificing mother in the Judgment of Solomon. The least she can do is acknowledge that although "I did not kill Bayen, Bayen died because of me." Since she has yet to engage in earnest soul-searching, how can her expression of regret be heartfelt and sincere?
On the eve of the debate, Tsai Ing-wen hurriedly raised cross-Strait issues. As a result, many anticipated a breakthrough in her thinking. But during the debate Tsai Ing-wen offered no fresh ideas. She merely played the same tune louder than before. The press conference she held the night before faded away like a dream.
Tsai Ing-wen's attitude during the debate gave people the impression she was reaching out only to her fans. She was not interested in reaching out to swing voters. Her performance during the debate was premeditated. She adopted an evasive attitude. Her evasiveness was intentional.
蔡英文選擇迴避與模糊的背後
2011-12-05 中國時報
三位總統候選人在第一次的大選辯論會上表現如何？各家媒體所做的民調已顯示出不同的結果。不過，外界對這次辯論會有個普遍的觀感：馬英九攻擊力道強勁，但整場辯論會顯得很平淡。為什麼儘管馬英九火力十足，但辯論會卻竟然是落了個「沒有太多火花」的結果？這就很耐人尋味了。
或許不同政治立場的選民和觀眾對三位總統候選人的表現各有定見，但是這畢竟是三位候選人登記參選後，第一次同台，除了各自申論，還有彼此詰問，人民自然期待候選人會針對幾件重要的爭議和疑慮，提出說明、甚至解釋；事實上，這也是總統候選人的責任。不過，讓人十分意外的是，蔡英文幾乎迴避所有引人關切的議題，包括兩岸政策、兩塊錢柿子是怎麼一回事，以及會不會特赦陳水扁等。
這幾件事情引發社會議論得沸沸揚揚，相信蔡英文和她的幕僚當然想像得到，對手肯定不會輕輕放過，在蔡英文為辯論會準備的「考前猜題」裡頭，應當不可能漏了這幾題，甚至在蔡英文與幕僚所進行的辯論模擬考中，也一定演練過對手質問這幾個問題的場景，但蔡英文還是選擇模糊以對；她明明知道這樣的回答對理性、在乎候選人理念的中間選民來講，是很難過關的，但蔡英文卻仍然決定如此。
候選人與政黨當然也都很清楚，台灣政治藍綠各有版塊，政治立場堅定的選民，對特定候選人的支持，大概不怎麼會受到辯論會的內容影響，這樣的選民對手中的一票要投給誰，早有定見，候選人在辯論會上到底講了些什麼，也不怎麼要緊。因此，三位總統候選人在辯論會上的表現，或者說表演，主要的目的是說服「想聽聽看候選人到底在講什麼」的中間選民。
據中時民調的調查，有投票意願的選民中，六四％有收看這次的辯論會，收視人數相當可觀。雙英民調僵持不下，票票珍貴，沒有理由放棄電視辯論會這個與中間選民對話、向中間選民喊話的機會，如宋楚瑜強調要照顧「三中」：中產階級、中小企業和中低收入戶，中間選民自然涵蓋其中；馬英九重視經濟議題，也坦誠面對執政三年多以來，做得不夠理想的地方，幾次表達要更努力才行。看得出來，馬英九也很了解，如果想用呼攏的方式面對確實做得不好的地方，是行不通的，因為「實事求是」的中間選民不會買帳，所以，在辯論會中無可避免的自我宣傳之外，馬英九也選擇在某些議題上表達「沒做好、很抱歉」的態度。
反觀蔡英文，比較令人納悶的是，她似乎並沒有那麼想「說服」中間選民。面對是否特赦陳水扁這個很多人關心、以致於擔心的議題，蔡英文不願清楚回應「不會特赦」，甚至她是用質疑司法不公、上任後會就扁案再做審議的答案，暗示特赦陳水扁的可能性。陳水扁的官司有多件已定讞，蔡英文的態度讓人不安，甚至於她對蘇嘉全豪華農舍的包庇，都可能讓她在重視社會公義的中間選民這一塊失分，難道她和幕僚會不了解嗎？
在辯論會前，蔡英文對延燒選情的「兩塊錢柿子」風波道歉，不過，由於她的態度很強勢，讓外界感覺她當時的道歉似乎有些「心不甘、情不願」，果然，在辯論會上，蔡英文明確表示：不認為民進黨有什麼嚴重的錯，只是為了遏止口水才道歉。水果月曆是民進黨的文宣，這個話題不是國民黨挑起的，所以論到口水大戰，綠營的「功力」如果沒有多於、那至少也不會少於藍營。更何況，這件無中生有的事情，的確造成了一些農民的損失，以「所羅門王面前的生母」自居的蔡英文，至少應該了解「我不殺伯仁，但伯仁因我而死」，難道沒有反省過，在道義上還是應該誠懇的表達歉意嗎？
在辯論會前夕蔡英文急拋兩岸議題，讓不少人對她出現突破性的思維有所期待。不過，辯論會中，蔡英文並無讓人耳目一新的想法，舊調重彈且彈得更為用力，彷彿前一晚的記者會是一場夢遊。
蔡英文在辯論會上的發言與態度，讓人感覺到她似乎只想要更緊密的擁抱粉絲，至於中間選民，那就算了吧。因此，或許可以說，她在辯論上的表現其實是經過了深思熟慮──迴避就是她的態度，模糊正是她要的結果。
Thursday, December 1, 2011
World University Games, Dreamer, and Two Dollar Persimmons
World University Games, Dreamer, and Two Dollar Persimmons
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2011
Summary: Taipei City has defeated the the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, and won its bid to host the 2017 Summer World University Games. President Ma stayed up to 2:30 am hoping for good news from Brussels, Clearly our head of state was concerned about this victory, Winning the bid touched the hearts of the people. The 2017 World University Games is allowing us to affirm our achievements. It is enabling us to extricate ourselves from internecine conflict and futile wheel-spinning.
Full Text Below:
Taipei City has defeated the the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, and won its bid to host the 2017 Summer World University Games. By the time the ballots were counted, it was 2:30 am in Taipei. Sports Commission Chairman Dai Hsia-ling telephoned President Ma Ying-jeou from Brussels to tell him the good news. The next morning the public soon felt the significance of this achievement. Excitement quickly spread.
This was Taipei's fifth bid for the World University Games. Before the news broke, people did not hold out much hope. This was clear from news photos from Brussels posted by the Mainland's Xinhua News Agency. But the good news was infectious, It pushed the "two dollar persimmons" controversy to the back pages.
The World University Games is open to university students, college students, grad school students, and alumni who graduated less than two years ago, aged 17 to 28, from 163 countries. In 2017, over 12,000 of them will arrive on Taiwan to compete. Sports Commission Chairman Dai Hsia-ling said the World University Games is known as the "Little Olympics." It is the highest level, largest scale sporting event ever hosted by Taipei, and has far-reaching historical significance.
Dai Hsia-ling spoke of "far-reaching historical significance," What he meant was that One, the level of Taipei's participation in international events just moved up a level. Two, winning the bid just elevated Taipei City to new heights. Three, Taiwan's soft power has just been given a better international stage. Four, the international community will better understand Taiwan, It will better appreciate it and support it. Five, the victory is a win/win milestone that will benefit cross-Strait relations, Without three supporting votes from Beijing, Taipei could well have lost again. Six, winning the bid will enhance the public's sense of identity and pride. This synergy is something the public on Taiwan experienced during the World Games in Kaohsiung, the Deaflympics in Taipei, and the Taipei Flora Expo. Now the 2017 World University Games, to be held six years from now, may be of similar "far-reaching historical significance" to the public.
All in all, the aforemention "historical significance" can be summed up as "Taipei has shown its face, the public is unanimous in its approval." When major international sporting events are held in any country, the effect is the same. The 2008 Beijing Olympics was also a case of "Beijing has shown its face, the public is unanimous in its approval." The Republic of China has been alienated from international events for too long. It has been plagued by serious political divisions within, It is now able to host a major international event. This "showing one's face to the outside world," this "marketing of the nation," this "domestic sense of identity," and this "solidarity" feels even more worth fighting for.
The 2009 World Games in Kaohsiung, the Taipei Deaflympics, and the 2010 Taipei Flora Expo had a "Taipei shows its face, the public is unanimous in its approval" effect. The 2011 "Dreamer" centennial, celebrating the nation's founding, is also a major event. Yet is suffered a setback. The "Dreamer" celebration was an attempt to promote internal dialog over the founding of the nation. But political polarization deepened differences over artistic expression and resource allocation. Examined with a cool eye, the failure of the "Dreamer" celebration was not due to an out of control budget. It was not due to subjective differences over artistic expression. It may or may not have been the result of political ideology in artistic garments. It enabled hostile elements to exacerbate political divisions. Such is the political situation on Taiwan. Replacing Emile Sheng and Lai Sheng-chuan, the organizers of the "Dreamers" celebration, would not have made any difference.
Internal dialogue on Taiwan is difficult. The main reason is a lack of consensus over political identity. Paradoxically, the World Games in Kaohsiung, the Taipei Deaflympics, the Taipei Flora Expo, and the 2017 World University Games enable "showing one's face to the outside world." These non-political sports and arts activities may facilitate "unanimous approval." The 2008 Beijing Olympics healed festering wounds suffered beginning with the Opium War. The Kaohsiung World Games, the World University Games, and a whole slew of major international events are healing similar festering wounds, including the sense of being an international orphan, and internal divisions.
The general election is now in progress. Our ears are filled with claims and counterclaims. Is there a 1992 consensus? Are persimmon really two dollars per catty? Everyone turns a deaf ear to them. Everyone on Taiwan seems to be out for blood, out to destroy society. But this is not the nature of the most people on Taiwan, This is not what they want. The World Games, the Deaflympics, and the Taipei Flora Expo experience shows that the public on Taiwan remains hopeful and supportive about "showing one's face to the outside world" and "unanimous approval." Therefore, we too look forward to and wholeheartedly support the 2017 World University Games.
President Ma stayed up to 2:30 am hoping for good news from Brussels, Clearly our head of state was concerned about this victory, Winning the bid touched the hearts of the people. The 2017 World University Games is allowing us to affirm our achievements. It is enabling us to extricate ourselves from internecine conflict and futile wheel-spinning.
世大運‧夢想家‧兩元柿
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.02 01:37 am
台北市擊敗巴西首都巴西利亞，贏得二○一七年夏季世界大學運動會主辦權；開票揭曉，台北半夜兩點半，體委會主委戴遐齡自布魯塞爾打電話向馬英九總統報告佳音，天亮後國人也立刻感受到這項成就的重大意義，興奮之情迅速在社會中感染瀰漫開來。
這是台灣第五次申辦世大運，事前新聞界對此次能達陣也未抱太大期望，這從布魯塞爾傳出的主要新聞照片皆大陸「新華社」所攝即可看出；但這個喜訊的爆發力與感染力卻相當強大，硬是將陷於「兩元柿」風波的大選新聞擠到了報紙後頁的版面。
展望二○一七世大運，至少將有一百六十國的一萬兩千名大專院校在校或畢業不超過兩年的學生選手（年齡在十七歲至二十八歲）來台出賽；體委會主委戴遐齡說，世大運有「小奧運」之稱，這是台灣有史以來所獲最高層級、最大規模綜合性賽事的主辦權，具有深遠歷史意義。
戴遐齡所說的「深遠歷史意義」，或許可引申為：一、將使台灣的國際參與更上台階；二、將使台北市的都會品級更上層樓；三、將使台灣的綜合社會力有了更佳的提升機會與展示舞台；四、將給國際社會對台灣的瞭解、欣賞與支持添加元素；五、將為兩岸關係的互惠雙贏建立里程碑，蓋若無北京支持三票，台北這次可能還會摃龜；六、將給台灣社會的自我認同感與共同的榮譽感有了更佳的觸媒。這類綜效（synergy），台灣人民在高雄世運、台北聽奧及台北花博舉辦期間，皆曾深刻感受到；現在，六年後的二○一七世大運，應可為台灣的社會生命史再度留下一頁「深遠的歷史意義」。
總括而言，以上所言的「歷史意義」，可以歸納為「台灣露臉／全民認同」八個字。重大國際體育賽事，在任何國家舉辦，其綜效可謂皆不出這八個字；即使二○○八的京奧，也是「中國露臉／全民認同」。然而，對於中華民國這個與國際核心事件疏離已久，且內部又處於嚴重政治分裂的國家而言，能夠主辦國際巨型活動，那種「對外露臉」的「國家行銷」，與「對內認同」的「我們（一體）感」，當然就更加值得爭取與珍惜了。
二○○九年的高雄世運、台北聽奧，及二○一○年的台北花博，皆有「台灣露臉／全民認同」的綜效；但是，二○一一年的建國百年「夢想家」，同樣是巨型活動，卻儼然受到挫折。主因在「夢想家」是試圖進行「建國百年」的「內部對話」，由於政治意識的對立，所以加深了對藝文表現與資源配置的歧見；若冷靜下來看，「夢想家」的失敗未必在預算失控，也未必在藝文表現的見仁見智（確實是「穿著創意外衣的政治八股」？），卻在反而授人政治撕裂的把柄，而助長了台灣的政治分裂。然而，台灣的政治情勢既是如此，則如果「夢想家」的主持人以盛治仁及賴聲川換作別人，恐怕同樣亦難逃此一宿命。
台灣的「內部對話」如此困難，主因在於沒有全民一致的「政治認同」。如今，透過高雄世運、台北聽奧、台北花博，及二○一七年世大運，反而可以透過「對外露臉」，及非政治性的體育賽事及藝文活動，逐漸補償與修復「全民認同」。正如二○○八京奧，是中國自鴉片戰爭起長期挫辱以來的創傷自療儀式，而台灣也能從主辦高雄世運至台北世大運的一連串巨型國際活動中，對國際孤兒、內部分裂的宿疾進行自我療癒。
大選正在進行，「有沒有九二共識？」「甜柿一斤兩元？」充耳皆是這類相互詛咒的語言；令人彷彿覺得，台灣是一個自相殘殺、相互毀滅的社會。但是，這絕非多數台灣人的本質與期望，從世運、聽奧、花博的經驗可知，全民對「台灣露臉」及「全民認同」仍是充滿期待與衷心支持。因此，我們對二○一七世大運也充滿期待並衷心支持！
馬總統在半夜兩點半接聽來自布魯塞爾的喜訊，可見贏得此事是元首心繫，也牽動了全民的情感。讓我們一同迎向二○一七世大運，讓大家一起成全、成就台灣，勿再使我們陷溺於相互詛咒、自相殘殺的空轉內耗之中而不能自拔！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2011
Summary: Taipei City has defeated the the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, and won its bid to host the 2017 Summer World University Games. President Ma stayed up to 2:30 am hoping for good news from Brussels, Clearly our head of state was concerned about this victory, Winning the bid touched the hearts of the people. The 2017 World University Games is allowing us to affirm our achievements. It is enabling us to extricate ourselves from internecine conflict and futile wheel-spinning.
Full Text Below:
Taipei City has defeated the the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, and won its bid to host the 2017 Summer World University Games. By the time the ballots were counted, it was 2:30 am in Taipei. Sports Commission Chairman Dai Hsia-ling telephoned President Ma Ying-jeou from Brussels to tell him the good news. The next morning the public soon felt the significance of this achievement. Excitement quickly spread.
This was Taipei's fifth bid for the World University Games. Before the news broke, people did not hold out much hope. This was clear from news photos from Brussels posted by the Mainland's Xinhua News Agency. But the good news was infectious, It pushed the "two dollar persimmons" controversy to the back pages.
The World University Games is open to university students, college students, grad school students, and alumni who graduated less than two years ago, aged 17 to 28, from 163 countries. In 2017, over 12,000 of them will arrive on Taiwan to compete. Sports Commission Chairman Dai Hsia-ling said the World University Games is known as the "Little Olympics." It is the highest level, largest scale sporting event ever hosted by Taipei, and has far-reaching historical significance.
Dai Hsia-ling spoke of "far-reaching historical significance," What he meant was that One, the level of Taipei's participation in international events just moved up a level. Two, winning the bid just elevated Taipei City to new heights. Three, Taiwan's soft power has just been given a better international stage. Four, the international community will better understand Taiwan, It will better appreciate it and support it. Five, the victory is a win/win milestone that will benefit cross-Strait relations, Without three supporting votes from Beijing, Taipei could well have lost again. Six, winning the bid will enhance the public's sense of identity and pride. This synergy is something the public on Taiwan experienced during the World Games in Kaohsiung, the Deaflympics in Taipei, and the Taipei Flora Expo. Now the 2017 World University Games, to be held six years from now, may be of similar "far-reaching historical significance" to the public.
All in all, the aforemention "historical significance" can be summed up as "Taipei has shown its face, the public is unanimous in its approval." When major international sporting events are held in any country, the effect is the same. The 2008 Beijing Olympics was also a case of "Beijing has shown its face, the public is unanimous in its approval." The Republic of China has been alienated from international events for too long. It has been plagued by serious political divisions within, It is now able to host a major international event. This "showing one's face to the outside world," this "marketing of the nation," this "domestic sense of identity," and this "solidarity" feels even more worth fighting for.
The 2009 World Games in Kaohsiung, the Taipei Deaflympics, and the 2010 Taipei Flora Expo had a "Taipei shows its face, the public is unanimous in its approval" effect. The 2011 "Dreamer" centennial, celebrating the nation's founding, is also a major event. Yet is suffered a setback. The "Dreamer" celebration was an attempt to promote internal dialog over the founding of the nation. But political polarization deepened differences over artistic expression and resource allocation. Examined with a cool eye, the failure of the "Dreamer" celebration was not due to an out of control budget. It was not due to subjective differences over artistic expression. It may or may not have been the result of political ideology in artistic garments. It enabled hostile elements to exacerbate political divisions. Such is the political situation on Taiwan. Replacing Emile Sheng and Lai Sheng-chuan, the organizers of the "Dreamers" celebration, would not have made any difference.
Internal dialogue on Taiwan is difficult. The main reason is a lack of consensus over political identity. Paradoxically, the World Games in Kaohsiung, the Taipei Deaflympics, the Taipei Flora Expo, and the 2017 World University Games enable "showing one's face to the outside world." These non-political sports and arts activities may facilitate "unanimous approval." The 2008 Beijing Olympics healed festering wounds suffered beginning with the Opium War. The Kaohsiung World Games, the World University Games, and a whole slew of major international events are healing similar festering wounds, including the sense of being an international orphan, and internal divisions.
The general election is now in progress. Our ears are filled with claims and counterclaims. Is there a 1992 consensus? Are persimmon really two dollars per catty? Everyone turns a deaf ear to them. Everyone on Taiwan seems to be out for blood, out to destroy society. But this is not the nature of the most people on Taiwan, This is not what they want. The World Games, the Deaflympics, and the Taipei Flora Expo experience shows that the public on Taiwan remains hopeful and supportive about "showing one's face to the outside world" and "unanimous approval." Therefore, we too look forward to and wholeheartedly support the 2017 World University Games.
President Ma stayed up to 2:30 am hoping for good news from Brussels, Clearly our head of state was concerned about this victory, Winning the bid touched the hearts of the people. The 2017 World University Games is allowing us to affirm our achievements. It is enabling us to extricate ourselves from internecine conflict and futile wheel-spinning.
世大運‧夢想家‧兩元柿
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.12.02 01:37 am
台北市擊敗巴西首都巴西利亞，贏得二○一七年夏季世界大學運動會主辦權；開票揭曉，台北半夜兩點半，體委會主委戴遐齡自布魯塞爾打電話向馬英九總統報告佳音，天亮後國人也立刻感受到這項成就的重大意義，興奮之情迅速在社會中感染瀰漫開來。
這是台灣第五次申辦世大運，事前新聞界對此次能達陣也未抱太大期望，這從布魯塞爾傳出的主要新聞照片皆大陸「新華社」所攝即可看出；但這個喜訊的爆發力與感染力卻相當強大，硬是將陷於「兩元柿」風波的大選新聞擠到了報紙後頁的版面。
展望二○一七世大運，至少將有一百六十國的一萬兩千名大專院校在校或畢業不超過兩年的學生選手（年齡在十七歲至二十八歲）來台出賽；體委會主委戴遐齡說，世大運有「小奧運」之稱，這是台灣有史以來所獲最高層級、最大規模綜合性賽事的主辦權，具有深遠歷史意義。
戴遐齡所說的「深遠歷史意義」，或許可引申為：一、將使台灣的國際參與更上台階；二、將使台北市的都會品級更上層樓；三、將使台灣的綜合社會力有了更佳的提升機會與展示舞台；四、將給國際社會對台灣的瞭解、欣賞與支持添加元素；五、將為兩岸關係的互惠雙贏建立里程碑，蓋若無北京支持三票，台北這次可能還會摃龜；六、將給台灣社會的自我認同感與共同的榮譽感有了更佳的觸媒。這類綜效（synergy），台灣人民在高雄世運、台北聽奧及台北花博舉辦期間，皆曾深刻感受到；現在，六年後的二○一七世大運，應可為台灣的社會生命史再度留下一頁「深遠的歷史意義」。
總括而言，以上所言的「歷史意義」，可以歸納為「台灣露臉／全民認同」八個字。重大國際體育賽事，在任何國家舉辦，其綜效可謂皆不出這八個字；即使二○○八的京奧，也是「中國露臉／全民認同」。然而，對於中華民國這個與國際核心事件疏離已久，且內部又處於嚴重政治分裂的國家而言，能夠主辦國際巨型活動，那種「對外露臉」的「國家行銷」，與「對內認同」的「我們（一體）感」，當然就更加值得爭取與珍惜了。
二○○九年的高雄世運、台北聽奧，及二○一○年的台北花博，皆有「台灣露臉／全民認同」的綜效；但是，二○一一年的建國百年「夢想家」，同樣是巨型活動，卻儼然受到挫折。主因在「夢想家」是試圖進行「建國百年」的「內部對話」，由於政治意識的對立，所以加深了對藝文表現與資源配置的歧見；若冷靜下來看，「夢想家」的失敗未必在預算失控，也未必在藝文表現的見仁見智（確實是「穿著創意外衣的政治八股」？），卻在反而授人政治撕裂的把柄，而助長了台灣的政治分裂。然而，台灣的政治情勢既是如此，則如果「夢想家」的主持人以盛治仁及賴聲川換作別人，恐怕同樣亦難逃此一宿命。
台灣的「內部對話」如此困難，主因在於沒有全民一致的「政治認同」。如今，透過高雄世運、台北聽奧、台北花博，及二○一七年世大運，反而可以透過「對外露臉」，及非政治性的體育賽事及藝文活動，逐漸補償與修復「全民認同」。正如二○○八京奧，是中國自鴉片戰爭起長期挫辱以來的創傷自療儀式，而台灣也能從主辦高雄世運至台北世大運的一連串巨型國際活動中，對國際孤兒、內部分裂的宿疾進行自我療癒。
大選正在進行，「有沒有九二共識？」「甜柿一斤兩元？」充耳皆是這類相互詛咒的語言；令人彷彿覺得，台灣是一個自相殘殺、相互毀滅的社會。但是，這絕非多數台灣人的本質與期望，從世運、聽奧、花博的經驗可知，全民對「台灣露臉」及「全民認同」仍是充滿期待與衷心支持。因此，我們對二○一七世大運也充滿期待並衷心支持！
馬總統在半夜兩點半接聽來自布魯塞爾的喜訊，可見贏得此事是元首心繫，也牽動了全民的情感。讓我們一同迎向二○一七世大運，讓大家一起成全、成就台灣，勿再使我們陷溺於相互詛咒、自相殘殺的空轉內耗之中而不能自拔！
Refusal to Apologize is Heartless, Shameless, and Inept
Refusal to Apologize is Heartless, Shameless, and Inept
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2011
Summary: Voter amnesia in a democratic society is a dangerous phenomenon. But collective amnesia in a political party is even more dangerous. The DPP is currently in a bind. It has forgotten that only three years ago it reached rock bottom, that it was mired in corruption and impotence. It has forgotten that it must regain the voters trust through appeals to reason. It has forgotten how to admit wrongdoing. It has even forgotten how to apologize.
Full Text Below:
Voter amnesia in a democratic society is a dangerous phenomenon. But collective amnesia in a political party is even more dangerous. The DPP is currently in a bind. It has forgotten that only three years ago it reached rock bottom, that it was mired in corruption and impotence. It has forgotten that it must regain the voters trust through appeals to reason. It has forgotten how to admit wrongdoing. It has even forgotten how to apologize.
An old addage says that knowing shame is the beginning of courage. A political party or political leader may blunder. But a refusal to admit wrongdoing and apologize merely digs one in deeper. It merely encourages one to repeat the same mistake, over and over again. Refusal to admit wrongdoing and apologize is not merely shameless. It is also evidence of ineptitude.
The "little pigs" fever may have left the DPP feeling a bit too smug. The DPP was encouraged to make false allegations against Ma Ying-jeou, to claim that he secretly met with a triad boss. The allegations made the headlines, and led to the miraculous transformation of a black gold politician into a moral paragon. It led to an even more intense persimmons controversy. The DPP's malicious propaganda campaign undermined the fruit market. It seriously hurt fruit growers, both economically and emotionally. Yet the DPP refuses to admit wrongdoing. It persists in making excuses. It makes excuses about the photographs, the varieties of fruit, and even about the initital point of sale. It is digging in its heels and refusing to admit wrongdoing. If the goal is to champion justice, isn't this plain shamelessness? If the goal is to crisis management, isn't this plain incompetence?
The DPP has long adopted a "take no prisoners" stance. When it is in the right, it does not forgive. But suppose it is in the wrong, yet adopts an air of self-righteousness? Suppose it knows its arguments do not hold water, yet persists in pretending it is in the right? Does such a political party have any maturity or dignity to speak of? A political party that behaves this way cares only about selfish advantage. How can a party devoid of moral scruples advance democracy on Taiwan?
The DPP leveled wild allegations about a secret meeting with a triad boss. It attempted to whitewash Chen Ying-chu, then scurry for cover. It correctly predicted that the KMT would not pursue the matter, and that the Green Camp could avoid making an apology. But the persimmons controvery and the triad boss allegations took them by surprise. The direct victims of the triad boss allegations were Ma Ying-jeou and the Blue Camp. But the persimmons controversy widened, and impacted fruit growers. False allegations destroyed the market for persimmons. It hurt fruit growers, financially and emotionally. Yet the DPP feels no responsibility whatsoever. Perhaps it is unwilling to show weakness in front of the KMT. But does it have the courage to apologize to the farmers it purports to champion?
Admitting one's mistakes and offering apologies is hardly heroism. It is the least any citizen should do, let alone an elected official. If elected officials are not even willing to do this, how can they assume responsibility for their actions in office? Once such a political party is in office, can it be trusted to honor the public's wishes? Will such a party have the courage to assume political responsibility? Will such a party be willing to clean up its own mess? The DPP has long counted on the farm vote in its war against Chinese reunification. Now however, farmers find themselves in a life or death struggle. Yet all the DPP does is turn a deaf ear to their cries of outrage. Such heartlessness. Such shamelessness. Such ineptitude.
The DPP obstinately refuses to admit wrongdoing. It inverts right and wrong. But this is its basic nature. This is the result of complicity by voters who tolerate its behavior. This is why the Chen family got away with rampant corruption for eight years. This is the result of complicity in the abuse of state power by the DPP and its supporters. Three years have elapsed. But the DPP has yet to engage in self-introspection. It has yet to express the slightest regret over its eight years of misrule. All it did was install a new party chairman. Yet that enabled it to make a comeback. If the voters' moral standards for political parties are this lax, no wonder the DPP can get away with smears, fabrications, and refusal to admit guilt. No wonder it feels no shame.
Take the recent uproar over the Su Jia-chyuan "farmhouse" scandal. The Su family built a string of illegal luxury mansion cum "farmhouses." It operated illegal night markets. It exploited agricultural land under the pretense of being farmers. It knowingly violated the law, abused public authority, and allowed family members to enrich themselves at public expense. The DPP turned a blind eye to its crimes, and pretended not to see. It has neither searched its soul, nor acknowledged guilt. When a political party with such irresponsible attitudes rises to power, how can its conduct not become the norm in the presidential palace? How can its conduct not become the norm for the entire government?
In recent years, the DPP has advanced a perverse argument. It argues that only the ruling party requires oversight. It argues that an opposition party has no power, therefore requires no oversight. Using this as an excuse, it has exempted itself from scrutiny for the sins it committed during its eight years in office. Using this as an excuse, it has obstructed, attacked, and smeared others while evading responsibility for its behavior. But the DPP is a major player in Taiwan's political arena. Can it really engage in empty sophistry yet assume no responsibility? Take the persimmons controversy. The answer is no. If the DPP refuses to apologize to farmers, if it refuses to convey the correct market information to the public, it probably will not squeak by. Just wait till fruit growers begin camping out in front of Tsai Ying-wen's campaign headquarters.
The DPP must consult its own dictionary. Is the word "mistake" still there? How about the word "apology?" If not, it is time to restore them. Look upon the faces of those angry peasants. The damage has been done. It is too late for an apology. You want to once again become the ruling party. But if you are unwilling or are afraid to offer an apology, your heartlessness, shamelessness, and ineptitude will only drive voters away.
不敢道歉 是無情無恥無能
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.01
民主社會，選民失憶是一件危險的事；但更危險的，則是政黨的集體失憶。現在民進黨正陷於這樣的情境，它似乎忘了自己三年多來是如何逐步走出貪腐、無能的低迷幽谷，忘了政治需要以理服人，乃至連如何認錯、及如何道歉都忘記了。
所謂「知恥近乎勇」，一個政黨或一位政治領袖，若犯了大錯，竟不肯認錯，不敢道歉，以致愈陷愈深、一錯再錯；這非但是無恥，且是最大的無能！
先前的一波「小豬風潮」，或許讓民進黨太過自我感覺良好，於是在「馬英九密會組頭」事件中，遂有「黑金變好人」的荒腔走板演出。最近的「甜柿風波」則更變本加厲，分明是選戰文宣惡意扭曲水果行情，嚴重損害了農民的利益和感情，民進黨卻堅不認錯，繼續在照片、品種上硬拗，甚至在地方大打「收購戰」以對抗中央。把無理的事堅持到底，死不認錯，就伸張公義言，這不是無恥是什麼？就危機處理言，這不是無能是什麼？
民進黨問政風格一向強悍，得理不饒人。問題是，如果是「無理還不饒人」，明知自己立論站不住腳，卻還作出咄咄逼人之勢，這樣不講是非的政黨有何民主素養和風度可言？而一個唯政治利益是圖、拒絕和民眾分享共同道德價值的政黨，又如何將台灣民主帶上理性之路？
在「密會組頭」事件，民進黨是以「美化陳盈助」的障眼法，匆匆棄甲而逃；料定國民黨不會發兵再追，綠營也就省下了一次道歉。但「甜柿風波」與「組頭事件」性質截然不同：組頭事件的直接受害者只是馬英九和藍營，但甜柿風波卻使廣大果農受到株連，因不實文宣之誤導而使得甜柿敗市滯銷，農民不僅利益受損，情感也受到傷害。在這種情況下，民進黨的責任已無所遁逃，就算它不甘向國民黨示弱，但它能堅不向自己宣稱要保護的農民致歉嗎？
認錯、道歉談不上是什麼偉大的情操，這只是公民的基本道德。尤其，對政治人物而言，若連自己做的事都不肯或不敢面對，要如何談政治責任？這樣的政黨一旦執政，人民如何相信它會尊重民意，會勇於負責，會誠懇收拾自己不當決策所造成的後果？何況，民進黨一向在統獨的虛擬戰場上挾農民以自重，但如今遇上農民現實生計的生死之爭，卻置他們的怒吼如罔聞，這何其無情、無恥與無能！
民進黨如此虛矯硬拗、顛倒黑白，一則是政黨性格使然，二則與選民的縱容不無關係。陳水扁家族之所以能橫行貪腐八年，是整個民進黨共犯結構濫權使然；但三年多過去，民進黨從未有過任何反省，甚至未對執政八年的失德失能表示絲毫歉意，只是換上了一張清湯掛麵的新面孔當了黨主席，居然也能風雲再起。如果選民對政黨的道德門檻要求這麼低，民進黨當然以抹黑、造假、硬拗為能事，而無需有任何愧色。
再看先前沸沸揚揚的蘇嘉全農舍風波，其家族一次次假農民之名建豪宅、開夜市、剝削農地，在在涉及知法玩法濫用公權力包庇自肥；但民進黨內對此卻裝作視若無睹，遑論自我反省或公開認錯。這種態度，一旦取得政權，誰能保證它不會把種種惡習帶入總統府，乃至把整個政府帶回上下交征利的深淵？
這幾年，民進黨創造了一個堂皇的詭辯邏輯：執政黨才需要接受監督，在野黨沒有權力，因此不需要受到監督。運用這個藉口，它不僅自行豁免了執政八年的罪愆，更肆無忌憚地杯葛、攻擊、抹黑而不必負責。但作為台灣政治的主要參與者，民進黨真的可以靠狡辯揮霍自由自在，不負任何責任嗎？從甜柿風波看，答案只怕不然。民進黨如果不公開向果農致歉，並設法把正確行情訊息還諸社會公眾，這次它恐怕過不了這一關。那麼，就等著果農到競選總部門口埋鍋造飯吧！
民進黨該回去翻翻自己的字典，還有沒有「認錯」、「道歉」這兩個詞。如果沒有的話，現在還來得及趕快補回去。看看那一張張氣憤的、無奈的農民的臉，傷害已經造成了，道歉其實已無補於事；但作為一個企圖重返執政的政黨，若連道歉都不會、都不敢，此種無情、無恥、無能，真讓人心寒。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2011
Summary: Voter amnesia in a democratic society is a dangerous phenomenon. But collective amnesia in a political party is even more dangerous. The DPP is currently in a bind. It has forgotten that only three years ago it reached rock bottom, that it was mired in corruption and impotence. It has forgotten that it must regain the voters trust through appeals to reason. It has forgotten how to admit wrongdoing. It has even forgotten how to apologize.
Full Text Below:
Voter amnesia in a democratic society is a dangerous phenomenon. But collective amnesia in a political party is even more dangerous. The DPP is currently in a bind. It has forgotten that only three years ago it reached rock bottom, that it was mired in corruption and impotence. It has forgotten that it must regain the voters trust through appeals to reason. It has forgotten how to admit wrongdoing. It has even forgotten how to apologize.
An old addage says that knowing shame is the beginning of courage. A political party or political leader may blunder. But a refusal to admit wrongdoing and apologize merely digs one in deeper. It merely encourages one to repeat the same mistake, over and over again. Refusal to admit wrongdoing and apologize is not merely shameless. It is also evidence of ineptitude.
The "little pigs" fever may have left the DPP feeling a bit too smug. The DPP was encouraged to make false allegations against Ma Ying-jeou, to claim that he secretly met with a triad boss. The allegations made the headlines, and led to the miraculous transformation of a black gold politician into a moral paragon. It led to an even more intense persimmons controversy. The DPP's malicious propaganda campaign undermined the fruit market. It seriously hurt fruit growers, both economically and emotionally. Yet the DPP refuses to admit wrongdoing. It persists in making excuses. It makes excuses about the photographs, the varieties of fruit, and even about the initital point of sale. It is digging in its heels and refusing to admit wrongdoing. If the goal is to champion justice, isn't this plain shamelessness? If the goal is to crisis management, isn't this plain incompetence?
The DPP has long adopted a "take no prisoners" stance. When it is in the right, it does not forgive. But suppose it is in the wrong, yet adopts an air of self-righteousness? Suppose it knows its arguments do not hold water, yet persists in pretending it is in the right? Does such a political party have any maturity or dignity to speak of? A political party that behaves this way cares only about selfish advantage. How can a party devoid of moral scruples advance democracy on Taiwan?
The DPP leveled wild allegations about a secret meeting with a triad boss. It attempted to whitewash Chen Ying-chu, then scurry for cover. It correctly predicted that the KMT would not pursue the matter, and that the Green Camp could avoid making an apology. But the persimmons controvery and the triad boss allegations took them by surprise. The direct victims of the triad boss allegations were Ma Ying-jeou and the Blue Camp. But the persimmons controversy widened, and impacted fruit growers. False allegations destroyed the market for persimmons. It hurt fruit growers, financially and emotionally. Yet the DPP feels no responsibility whatsoever. Perhaps it is unwilling to show weakness in front of the KMT. But does it have the courage to apologize to the farmers it purports to champion?
Admitting one's mistakes and offering apologies is hardly heroism. It is the least any citizen should do, let alone an elected official. If elected officials are not even willing to do this, how can they assume responsibility for their actions in office? Once such a political party is in office, can it be trusted to honor the public's wishes? Will such a party have the courage to assume political responsibility? Will such a party be willing to clean up its own mess? The DPP has long counted on the farm vote in its war against Chinese reunification. Now however, farmers find themselves in a life or death struggle. Yet all the DPP does is turn a deaf ear to their cries of outrage. Such heartlessness. Such shamelessness. Such ineptitude.
The DPP obstinately refuses to admit wrongdoing. It inverts right and wrong. But this is its basic nature. This is the result of complicity by voters who tolerate its behavior. This is why the Chen family got away with rampant corruption for eight years. This is the result of complicity in the abuse of state power by the DPP and its supporters. Three years have elapsed. But the DPP has yet to engage in self-introspection. It has yet to express the slightest regret over its eight years of misrule. All it did was install a new party chairman. Yet that enabled it to make a comeback. If the voters' moral standards for political parties are this lax, no wonder the DPP can get away with smears, fabrications, and refusal to admit guilt. No wonder it feels no shame.
Take the recent uproar over the Su Jia-chyuan "farmhouse" scandal. The Su family built a string of illegal luxury mansion cum "farmhouses." It operated illegal night markets. It exploited agricultural land under the pretense of being farmers. It knowingly violated the law, abused public authority, and allowed family members to enrich themselves at public expense. The DPP turned a blind eye to its crimes, and pretended not to see. It has neither searched its soul, nor acknowledged guilt. When a political party with such irresponsible attitudes rises to power, how can its conduct not become the norm in the presidential palace? How can its conduct not become the norm for the entire government?
In recent years, the DPP has advanced a perverse argument. It argues that only the ruling party requires oversight. It argues that an opposition party has no power, therefore requires no oversight. Using this as an excuse, it has exempted itself from scrutiny for the sins it committed during its eight years in office. Using this as an excuse, it has obstructed, attacked, and smeared others while evading responsibility for its behavior. But the DPP is a major player in Taiwan's political arena. Can it really engage in empty sophistry yet assume no responsibility? Take the persimmons controversy. The answer is no. If the DPP refuses to apologize to farmers, if it refuses to convey the correct market information to the public, it probably will not squeak by. Just wait till fruit growers begin camping out in front of Tsai Ying-wen's campaign headquarters.
The DPP must consult its own dictionary. Is the word "mistake" still there? How about the word "apology?" If not, it is time to restore them. Look upon the faces of those angry peasants. The damage has been done. It is too late for an apology. You want to once again become the ruling party. But if you are unwilling or are afraid to offer an apology, your heartlessness, shamelessness, and ineptitude will only drive voters away.
不敢道歉 是無情無恥無能
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.01
民主社會，選民失憶是一件危險的事；但更危險的，則是政黨的集體失憶。現在民進黨正陷於這樣的情境，它似乎忘了自己三年多來是如何逐步走出貪腐、無能的低迷幽谷，忘了政治需要以理服人，乃至連如何認錯、及如何道歉都忘記了。
所謂「知恥近乎勇」，一個政黨或一位政治領袖，若犯了大錯，竟不肯認錯，不敢道歉，以致愈陷愈深、一錯再錯；這非但是無恥，且是最大的無能！
先前的一波「小豬風潮」，或許讓民進黨太過自我感覺良好，於是在「馬英九密會組頭」事件中，遂有「黑金變好人」的荒腔走板演出。最近的「甜柿風波」則更變本加厲，分明是選戰文宣惡意扭曲水果行情，嚴重損害了農民的利益和感情，民進黨卻堅不認錯，繼續在照片、品種上硬拗，甚至在地方大打「收購戰」以對抗中央。把無理的事堅持到底，死不認錯，就伸張公義言，這不是無恥是什麼？就危機處理言，這不是無能是什麼？
民進黨問政風格一向強悍，得理不饒人。問題是，如果是「無理還不饒人」，明知自己立論站不住腳，卻還作出咄咄逼人之勢，這樣不講是非的政黨有何民主素養和風度可言？而一個唯政治利益是圖、拒絕和民眾分享共同道德價值的政黨，又如何將台灣民主帶上理性之路？
在「密會組頭」事件，民進黨是以「美化陳盈助」的障眼法，匆匆棄甲而逃；料定國民黨不會發兵再追，綠營也就省下了一次道歉。但「甜柿風波」與「組頭事件」性質截然不同：組頭事件的直接受害者只是馬英九和藍營，但甜柿風波卻使廣大果農受到株連，因不實文宣之誤導而使得甜柿敗市滯銷，農民不僅利益受損，情感也受到傷害。在這種情況下，民進黨的責任已無所遁逃，就算它不甘向國民黨示弱，但它能堅不向自己宣稱要保護的農民致歉嗎？
認錯、道歉談不上是什麼偉大的情操，這只是公民的基本道德。尤其，對政治人物而言，若連自己做的事都不肯或不敢面對，要如何談政治責任？這樣的政黨一旦執政，人民如何相信它會尊重民意，會勇於負責，會誠懇收拾自己不當決策所造成的後果？何況，民進黨一向在統獨的虛擬戰場上挾農民以自重，但如今遇上農民現實生計的生死之爭，卻置他們的怒吼如罔聞，這何其無情、無恥與無能！
民進黨如此虛矯硬拗、顛倒黑白，一則是政黨性格使然，二則與選民的縱容不無關係。陳水扁家族之所以能橫行貪腐八年，是整個民進黨共犯結構濫權使然；但三年多過去，民進黨從未有過任何反省，甚至未對執政八年的失德失能表示絲毫歉意，只是換上了一張清湯掛麵的新面孔當了黨主席，居然也能風雲再起。如果選民對政黨的道德門檻要求這麼低，民進黨當然以抹黑、造假、硬拗為能事，而無需有任何愧色。
再看先前沸沸揚揚的蘇嘉全農舍風波，其家族一次次假農民之名建豪宅、開夜市、剝削農地，在在涉及知法玩法濫用公權力包庇自肥；但民進黨內對此卻裝作視若無睹，遑論自我反省或公開認錯。這種態度，一旦取得政權，誰能保證它不會把種種惡習帶入總統府，乃至把整個政府帶回上下交征利的深淵？
這幾年，民進黨創造了一個堂皇的詭辯邏輯：執政黨才需要接受監督，在野黨沒有權力，因此不需要受到監督。運用這個藉口，它不僅自行豁免了執政八年的罪愆，更肆無忌憚地杯葛、攻擊、抹黑而不必負責。但作為台灣政治的主要參與者，民進黨真的可以靠狡辯揮霍自由自在，不負任何責任嗎？從甜柿風波看，答案只怕不然。民進黨如果不公開向果農致歉，並設法把正確行情訊息還諸社會公眾，這次它恐怕過不了這一關。那麼，就等著果農到競選總部門口埋鍋造飯吧！
民進黨該回去翻翻自己的字典，還有沒有「認錯」、「道歉」這兩個詞。如果沒有的話，現在還來得及趕快補回去。看看那一張張氣憤的、無奈的農民的臉，傷害已經造成了，道歉其實已無補於事；但作為一個企圖重返執政的政黨，若連道歉都不會、都不敢，此種無情、無恥、無能，真讓人心寒。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)