Uncover the Truth behind the TaiMed Corruption Scandal
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 8, 2012
Summary: During the election, the TaiMed corruption scandal underwent a number of dramatic ups and downs. The full picture remains murky. But the case concerns cabinet discipline and possible official misconduct. Therefore it must be pursued until the truth is uncovered. The public must be given a proper accounting.
Full Text below:
During the election, the TaiMed corruption scandal underwent a number of dramatic ups and downs. The full picture remains murky. But the case concerns cabinet discipline and possible official misconduct. Therefore it must be pursued until the truth is uncovered. The public must be given a proper accounting.
The scandal be divided into two parts. One. The Special Investigation Unit began investigating the TaiMed corruption scandal during the presidential campaign. The Special Investigation Unit opened the case and began gathering evidence. This was the correct approach. Had it failed to do so, had it delayed until after the election, it would surely be accused of "waiting to settle accounts." But since it already began its investigation, it merely underscores the need to offer the public a proper accounting.
Investigators may conclude that Tsai Ing-wen, Ho Mei-yueh, and others were not guilty of illegal conduct. But the investigation report must explain why the cabinet engaged in such questionable conduct. Therefore, even if the Special Investigation Unit eventually announces that it has chosen not to indict, it is nevertheless duty bound to investigate.
Two. The scandal involves both the Su Tseng-chang cabinet and the Chang Chun-hsiung cabinet. The cabinet members under suspicion should voluntarily come forward and offer frank accounts of their actions to the Special Investigation Unit. Tsai Ing-wen and Ho Mei-yueh insist they did nothing illegal. They insist that the scandal is not even a scandal. Since that is their story, they should offer the public a proper accounting, in accordance with the relevant legal statutes and administrative procedures. After all, this is hardly a routine matter. The public has a right to know. How can a corruption scandal as unthinkable as TaiMed possibly be passed off as "legal?" If more incidents like this occur in the future. will they too be passed off as "legal?"
We should harbor no preconceptions about whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is illegal. This was the consensus during the presidential campaign. That said, it is nevertheless a major scandal. It reveals that the cabinet was engaged in highly questionable conduct. Therefore the Special Investigation Unit must conduct a fair and impartial investigation. The parties under suspicion, including Tsai Ing-wen and Ho Mei-yueh, must come clean. They must present a full picture of the TaiMed corruption scandal. They should use the occasion to clarify the line between cabinet operations and the nation's laws. If they refuse, then the conduct of the cabinet will remain nothing more than black ops.
The TaiMed corruption scandal remains shrouded in mystery. For example, why did TaiMed win out against Nanhua? Was the contract in fact awarded by a secret three man coterie? The company name "TaiMed" appeared for the first time during the second secret contract meeting. The budget for the project was substantially increased. Yet it was never submitted to Premier Su Tseng-chang for approval. Was this actually in compliance with cabinet regulations? Tsai Ing-wen approved the TaiMed case herself. Soon after, she was made chairman of the TaiMed Company. Was the Tsai Ing-wen who approved TaiMed, the same legal entity who assumed the chairmanship of TaiMed? If she was not, then why was the project funded by the cabinet? If she was, then can Vice Premier Tsai explain why she disbursed government funds to TaiMed Chairman Tsai? Tsai later established the TaiMed biotech venture capital firm. She proposed that TaiMed establish a TaiMed biotechnology venture capital investment and management company. She arranged for the National Development Fund to invest billions, in advance, and to her company a 10 year, 1.32 billion dollar management fee, also in advance. Were Premier Su Tseng-chang and Premier Chang Chun-hsiung really unaware of the connection between the TaiMed biotechnology venture capital firm and TaiMed? Every one of these points is highly suspicious. The behavior of the suspects, including Tsai Ing-wen, Ho Mei-yueh, and David Ho, is equally suspicious. This is hardly an "attack upon the biotech industry." Concern for cabinet regulations hardly qualifies as an attack on the biotech industry.
Suspects in the TaiMed corruption scandal must clear up these questions. A nation's cabinet must not be permitted to evade prosecution merely by muddying the waters. The relevant legal norms are one thing. It is possible that everything was "legal." But the conduct of the cabinet is another matter altogether. No one believes such behavior can be tolerated by a nation's cabinet. Therefore the Special Investigation Unit, Tsai Ing-wen, Ho Mei-yueh, and other parties, must clear the air. Otherwise, the cabinet will be nothing more than a black ops organization.
We hope the Special Investigation Unit will take responsibility. It must provide the public with a truthful picture of its investigation results. Even if it chooses not to indict, it must make public its legal reasoning, and allow the public to evaluate what it did.
We hope Tsai Ing-wen will change her attitude. She refused to take responsibility for her conduct during the presidential campaign. She refused to voluntarily explain her conduct to the people. She should seize the initiative, preferably before being formally summoned by the Special Investigation Unit. She should avoid making allegations that the investigation is being conducted in secrecy, or that she is being "legally persecuted." Tsai Ing-wen appears ready to make another bid for the presidency in 2016. She should avoid repeating the history of the Chen corruption case. She should avoid burdening the general election with endless wrangling over judicial proceedings.
宇昌案應當水落石出
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.02.08
大選期間，宇昌案鬧得風風雨雨，但迄仍真相未明；然而，這畢竟是一個攸關內閣紀律及政務官操行的重大事件，仍應使之水落石出，對國人作出一個交代。
可分兩方面說。一方面，特偵組在選舉期間已著手偵辦宇昌案。在現今這個時點回頭來看，特偵組在當時就立案偵辦，查扣證物，應屬正確；倘非如此，若是延至選後發動，必貽「秋後算帳」的譏評；而如今既已啟動偵辦，即必須對國人交出一個清楚的結案報告。
當然，偵辦的結果，可能證實蔡英文、何美玥等未涉不法；但偵查報告亦須向國人說明，為何在內閣中會發生如此離奇之事。因而，即使最後特偵組公布的是一本「不起訴書」，這也是特偵組對國人應負的責任。
另一方面，此案跨越蘇貞昌內閣及張俊雄內閣；相關閣員及事務官今後在配合特偵組偵辦時，應主動坦率交代因果始末。尤其是蔡英文及何美玥二人，既自認未違法，也不是「弊案」，則亦應就相關的法律依據及行政程序向國人明白交代。因為，這絕對不是一個平常事件，國人有權利知道，像宇昌案這樣的奇事，如何可以「合法」地發生？尤其，今後若再發生此類事件，是否仍屬「合法」？
我們認為，現在不必對宇昌案是否違法的問題持有定見，這點在選舉期間即是輿論主流；但畢竟這是一個暴露出內閣操作出現重大疑義的事件，仍應在特偵組的公正偵辦，及當事者如蔡英文、何美玥的坦誠說明下，向社會呈現出宇昌案的真相與全貌。亦即，無論如何，皆應藉此案來釐清內閣操作在國家法律與閣員操守上的界際為何？倘非如此，內閣豈不成了一只大黑箱？
宇昌案疑竇重重。例如：為何宇昌案勝過南華案？是否在程序上真的只是經過「三人密簽」就成案？第二次密簽，首次出現TaiMed公司的名字，並大幅改變計畫成本，卻未呈蘇貞昌院長，這是否符合內閣規制？蔡英文自己批定TaiMed案，後來又出任所有以TaiMed為英文商號的公司之董事長；而那個「蔡英文批定」的TaiMed，與她後來「出任董事長」的TaiMed，在內閣的法律認定上是否為同一主體？若不是，為何由內閣撥款？若是，則蔡如何解釋「蔡副院長批給蔡董事長」？再者，蔡後來又自設台懋生技創投公司，並主張由台懋生技創投「投資並管理」宇昌公司，以此向國發基金請撥投資十億，並預付十年十三‧二億的管理費；此一「台懋生技創投公司」與宇昌公司的「聯結」，蘇內閣或張內閣知不知情？以上種種重大情節，無一不是疑竇叢生；而涉入的當事者，如蔡英文、何美玥、何大一所作所為，也無一不是疑點重重。這絕不是要「打擊」生技，而是內閣規制絕不能糊裡糊塗。
宇昌案必須解答這一切疑問，因為，國家內閣中絕不可容許有如此不清不白的事件。此事的法律規範界際是一回事，因為可能一切皆「合法」；但此事的閣員操守界際卻是另一回事，因為無人認為國家內閣中可以容許這類事件。故而，無論是特偵組的偵辦，及蔡英文、何美玥等當事者的說明，皆應為社會釐清事實，否則內閣即成了黑箱。
我們寄望特偵組能負起責任，務必要向國人作出一個呈現真相全貌的偵結報告，即使是一本「不起訴書」，也應讓國人一睹。
我們更希望蔡英文能改變在選季中不願面對此案的態度，主動向國人說明原委；且最好能在特偵組正式傳訊前即掌握主動，以免因涉偵察不公開而錯失時機，或又導入「司法追殺」的老梗。何況，依目前情勢看，蔡英文仍有投入二○一六年大選的可能性，切勿再演成如扁案一般將大選角力與司法程序糾纏不清的情勢。
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Cabinet Must Make Prosperity Perceptible
The Cabinet Must Make Prosperity Perceptible
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 7, 2012
Summary: Yesterday the old cabinet stepped down and the new cabinet was sworn in. The incoming cabinet faces an entire range of domestic and foreign challenges. President Ma Ying-jeou has characterized the Sean Chen Cabinet as an "Peace of Mind Cabinet." He intends to publish an annual "happiness index" reflecting the people's true feelings. In particular, he intends to respond to public expectations concerning social justice. He intends to ensure that the people feel truly prosperous, both financially and psychologically.
Full Text below:
Yesterday the old cabinet stepped down and the new cabinet was sworn in. The incoming cabinet faces an entire range of domestic and foreign challenges. President Ma Ying-jeou has characterized the Sean Chen Cabinet as an "Peace of Mind Cabinet." He intends to publish an annual "happiness index" reflecting the people's true feelings. In particular, he intends to respond to public expectations concerning social justice. He intends to ensure that the people feel truly prosperous, both financially and psychologically.
The KMT's Ma/Wu ticket won its bid reelection in 2012, and was returned to power. But the DPP's Tsai/Su ticket received over six million votes. This shows that nearly half the voters supported the Green Camp. Ma Ying-jeou's first round cabinet appointments must take into account opposition party policy proposals, some of which resonated with the public. He has replaced quite a number of ministry personnel and political appointees. These reflect President Ma's response to outside concerns.
Inside the new cabinet, the fiscal and economic experts have been the quickest to organize. The European debt crisis affects the entire world, No nation can afford to ignore it. The new cabinet teams up Ying Chi-min, who is familiar with industrial development, with renowned fiscal affairs expert Sean Chen. It teams Chang Shan-cheng, who was lured away from industry, with Chu Ching-yi, who in recent years established a foundation for industrial technology. Clearly the fiscal and economic experts appointed complement each other. As Sean Chen said, a ball team cannot consist only of superstars such as Wang Chien-ming, It must include specialists with expertise who complement each other. The fiscal and economic experts appointed to the new cabinet illustrate this principle.
Fiscal and economic problems are a prime concern. The fiscal and economic experts in the cabinet make a strong team. But during the election the question most asked of the Ma/Wu ticket and the Tsai/Su ticket, was how they planned to deal with the issue of social justice. Before the election, a wave of entrepreneurs endorsed the 1992 Consensus, and publicly backed Ma. This consolidated support for Ma Ying-jeou. But it also raised questions about whether the Ma administration and big business were in bed with each other. It even raised questions about Sean Chen, and whether his "economic cabinet" was becoming a "conglomerate cabinet." Therefore, the proclamation that the new cabinet would be concerned about social justice, and cared about the feelings of ordinary people, was extremely important.
President Ma Ying-jeou wants the new cabinet to promote economic restructuring, tax reform, and to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Ma Ying-jeou spoke of "no longer being subject to re-election pressures." He may be bolder in his attitude, and more conscientious in his actions. He must tackle with tax reform, tax increases, and other long unresolved issues. Taxes and prices are extremely sensitive issues. If one lacks boldness and fails to plan ahead, it makes no difference who is in office. it makes no difference when one is taking action. The problems will remain insoluble. But the nation has its fiscal requirements. It must ensure social justice, It must ensure more equitable income distribution, A responsible government cannot avoid these issues. It must boldly confront them.
Christina Liu, the newly appointed Treasury Minister, has yet to take office. But tax reform and tax increases are already the talk of the town. This does not appear to be an accident. Consumer prices continue rising steadily. This represents a considerable challenge for the ruling administration, which must make ends meet, Newly appointed premier Sean Chen said "At the very least we must ensure that the middle class and the common people feel that the system is fair, and that their lives are prosperous." We must use taxation to diminish the public's sense that it has been exploited. This is something the new government needs to consider carefully. This cabinet has been characterized as a "peace of mind cabinet." Its intent is to give ordinary people and the middle-class peace of mind. Premier Chen stressed that future tax incentives should generate new employment opportunities. This would show that the new cabinet intends to improve the employment picture, that it intends to avoid "imperceptible improvements" and an "imperceptible recovery." After all, whether improvements in the economic environment are perceptible or imperceptible, depend on Increased or decreased employment opportunities. That is its most direct indicator. If we cannot provide people with jobs, we cannot talk about giving people peace of mind. We cannot talk about putting people's minds at ease.
Another important change in the Chen cabinet concerns the head of the cultural sector, This was obviously a response to outside concerns prior to the election. Lung Ying-tai is a person of standing in the community. She has vision, Huang Kuang-nan has been appointed minister without portfolio. He has seniority and connections in the art. cultural, and educational realms. These two appointees have considerable administrative experience. Personnel appointments made by these two people would reassure the cultural realm, and put peoples' minds at ease. They would reduce concern in the cultural realm. They would make way for a transition, and upgrade culture-related government agencies. They would make it possible to get more done, and allow soft power to enhance competition in the cultural realm.
The Chen Cabinet has emphasized its desire to provide people with prosperity. So-called "wealth" is not limited to tangible wealth. It includes psychological and cultural wealth. A wealthy and contented society must be rooted in social justice, humble leaders, and happy people. The cabinet has been reorganized, and is beginning anew. The cabinet appointments show that the ruling administration is doing its best to manifest its dreams. It hopes to realize its well-intended plans. This should do more than provide the public with peace of mind. This should make prosperity perceptible.
安心內閣 須讓人民有感富足
2012-02-07中國時報
新舊內閣昨日交接，面對紛擾複雜的各種國內外挑戰，馬英九總統將陳?領軍的內閣團隊定位為「安心內閣」，並將於每年提出「幸福指數」，著重人民真實的感受，特別是要回應人民對社會公平正義的期望，讓民眾無論在財富及心理層面上，都能真的有富足感。
國民黨的馬吳配贏得二○一二選戰，取得政權，但民進黨的英嘉配也拿到超過六百萬的選票，顯示綠營的主張也得到近半選民的支持，馬英九在布局第一階段內閣人事的時候，當然必須參考在野黨引起較多共鳴的一些理念與政策主張，新內閣中更換幅度較大的部會、政務委員，也可以看見馬總統對外界關注的領域與議題的回應。
新內閣中，財經團隊最快建構完整，因為歐債問題已影響全球經濟，沒有哪個國家可以輕忽；新內閣以熟稔產業發展的尹啟銘搭配以金融見長的陳?，佐以自企業界挖角的張善政和近年來致力建構產業科技基礎環境的朱敬一，可看出財經人事的專業分工與專長互補，正如陳?所說，一個球隊，不能全是王建民，而應該是各有擅長的領域，並且能夠互相搭配。從新內閣的財經小團隊即確實可以看得出這樣的布局。
財經問題是當前的重大課題，新內閣組成的財經團隊也不可謂不算是「卡司堅強」，然而，在這次選舉中，馬吳與英嘉最常被提出來比較的是兩個團隊如何面對與處理社會公義這個問題。特別是選前一波企業家以支持九二共識的方式，公開挺馬，固然對馬英九的選情有正面效益，但也引發外界對馬政府是否是與資本家站在一起的若干疑慮，甚至憂心以陳?為首的「財經內閣」變相成為「財團內閣」，因此，新內閣關注社會公平正義，強調重視庶民感受，是非常重要的宣示。
馬英九總統期勉新內閣要努力推動經濟轉型、進行稅制改革、縮小貧富差距，似乎預告了「已無連任壓力」的馬英九，會以比較勇敢與認真的態度和行動，面對並處理稅改、加稅等多年懸而未決的問題。賦稅與物價極為敏感，可以說，如果沒有「練好膽子」、「做好配套規畫」，不論是誰執政、也不論是在什麼時候，這些問題都不好處理；然而，面對國家財政需要，以及落實社會正義、推動所得分配的合理化，負責任的政府卻也沒有理由永遠逃避，總該好好面對了。
新任財政部長劉憶如還沒上任，有關稅改、加稅問題即已引發滿城風雨，看來並非偶然。在民生物價蠢蠢欲動之際，執政者的智慧面臨相當大考驗，截長補短，讓新閣揆陳?所說：「至少要讓中產階級與庶民感受到公平與富足」，透過租稅手段挪去或者至少減低社會的「相對剝削感」，應是新政府需審慎思考的作為。所謂的安心內閣，不也就是要安庶民的心、安中產階級的心嗎！陳揆強調，未來若要推出什麼租稅優惠時，應思考是不是能相對創造出新的就業機會，這一方向的改變，也顯示新內閣施政將以提高就業為考量，以避免再出現所謂的「無感成長」、「無感復甦」，畢竟，所謂對經濟環境的有感或者是無感，「就業機會」的增減，是最直接的指標。若是不能給人民工作，就談不上讓人民安心，談不上讓人民放心了。
陳內閣另一個重要的變動是有關文化部門的主管，這很顯然也回應選前外界的高度關切，龍應台的格局、視野，加上擔任政務委員的黃光男在藝術、文化和教育界的輩分和人脈，以及兩人的行政經驗，使得這項人事安排，應可讓文化界「安心」並「放心」，至少可以降低文化界的紛擾情緒，給準備轉型、升格的文化部門，多一做事的空間，所謂的提昇文化競爭軟實力，也才有可能。
陳內閣強調「要帶給人民富足的生活」，而所謂的「富有」，不只是表現於有形的財富，也是心理上與文化上的「富有」，這樣的「富而滿足」是以社會的公義、執政者的謙卑與人民的幸福感為基礎的。內閣的改組再出發，從人事安排可見執政者的理念確實朝著這些方向努力，期望未來施政能更為落實種種立意良好的規畫，讓人民不只是「安心」和「放心」，更是「有感富足」。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 7, 2012
Summary: Yesterday the old cabinet stepped down and the new cabinet was sworn in. The incoming cabinet faces an entire range of domestic and foreign challenges. President Ma Ying-jeou has characterized the Sean Chen Cabinet as an "Peace of Mind Cabinet." He intends to publish an annual "happiness index" reflecting the people's true feelings. In particular, he intends to respond to public expectations concerning social justice. He intends to ensure that the people feel truly prosperous, both financially and psychologically.
Full Text below:
Yesterday the old cabinet stepped down and the new cabinet was sworn in. The incoming cabinet faces an entire range of domestic and foreign challenges. President Ma Ying-jeou has characterized the Sean Chen Cabinet as an "Peace of Mind Cabinet." He intends to publish an annual "happiness index" reflecting the people's true feelings. In particular, he intends to respond to public expectations concerning social justice. He intends to ensure that the people feel truly prosperous, both financially and psychologically.
The KMT's Ma/Wu ticket won its bid reelection in 2012, and was returned to power. But the DPP's Tsai/Su ticket received over six million votes. This shows that nearly half the voters supported the Green Camp. Ma Ying-jeou's first round cabinet appointments must take into account opposition party policy proposals, some of which resonated with the public. He has replaced quite a number of ministry personnel and political appointees. These reflect President Ma's response to outside concerns.
Inside the new cabinet, the fiscal and economic experts have been the quickest to organize. The European debt crisis affects the entire world, No nation can afford to ignore it. The new cabinet teams up Ying Chi-min, who is familiar with industrial development, with renowned fiscal affairs expert Sean Chen. It teams Chang Shan-cheng, who was lured away from industry, with Chu Ching-yi, who in recent years established a foundation for industrial technology. Clearly the fiscal and economic experts appointed complement each other. As Sean Chen said, a ball team cannot consist only of superstars such as Wang Chien-ming, It must include specialists with expertise who complement each other. The fiscal and economic experts appointed to the new cabinet illustrate this principle.
Fiscal and economic problems are a prime concern. The fiscal and economic experts in the cabinet make a strong team. But during the election the question most asked of the Ma/Wu ticket and the Tsai/Su ticket, was how they planned to deal with the issue of social justice. Before the election, a wave of entrepreneurs endorsed the 1992 Consensus, and publicly backed Ma. This consolidated support for Ma Ying-jeou. But it also raised questions about whether the Ma administration and big business were in bed with each other. It even raised questions about Sean Chen, and whether his "economic cabinet" was becoming a "conglomerate cabinet." Therefore, the proclamation that the new cabinet would be concerned about social justice, and cared about the feelings of ordinary people, was extremely important.
President Ma Ying-jeou wants the new cabinet to promote economic restructuring, tax reform, and to narrow the gap between rich and poor. Ma Ying-jeou spoke of "no longer being subject to re-election pressures." He may be bolder in his attitude, and more conscientious in his actions. He must tackle with tax reform, tax increases, and other long unresolved issues. Taxes and prices are extremely sensitive issues. If one lacks boldness and fails to plan ahead, it makes no difference who is in office. it makes no difference when one is taking action. The problems will remain insoluble. But the nation has its fiscal requirements. It must ensure social justice, It must ensure more equitable income distribution, A responsible government cannot avoid these issues. It must boldly confront them.
Christina Liu, the newly appointed Treasury Minister, has yet to take office. But tax reform and tax increases are already the talk of the town. This does not appear to be an accident. Consumer prices continue rising steadily. This represents a considerable challenge for the ruling administration, which must make ends meet, Newly appointed premier Sean Chen said "At the very least we must ensure that the middle class and the common people feel that the system is fair, and that their lives are prosperous." We must use taxation to diminish the public's sense that it has been exploited. This is something the new government needs to consider carefully. This cabinet has been characterized as a "peace of mind cabinet." Its intent is to give ordinary people and the middle-class peace of mind. Premier Chen stressed that future tax incentives should generate new employment opportunities. This would show that the new cabinet intends to improve the employment picture, that it intends to avoid "imperceptible improvements" and an "imperceptible recovery." After all, whether improvements in the economic environment are perceptible or imperceptible, depend on Increased or decreased employment opportunities. That is its most direct indicator. If we cannot provide people with jobs, we cannot talk about giving people peace of mind. We cannot talk about putting people's minds at ease.
Another important change in the Chen cabinet concerns the head of the cultural sector, This was obviously a response to outside concerns prior to the election. Lung Ying-tai is a person of standing in the community. She has vision, Huang Kuang-nan has been appointed minister without portfolio. He has seniority and connections in the art. cultural, and educational realms. These two appointees have considerable administrative experience. Personnel appointments made by these two people would reassure the cultural realm, and put peoples' minds at ease. They would reduce concern in the cultural realm. They would make way for a transition, and upgrade culture-related government agencies. They would make it possible to get more done, and allow soft power to enhance competition in the cultural realm.
The Chen Cabinet has emphasized its desire to provide people with prosperity. So-called "wealth" is not limited to tangible wealth. It includes psychological and cultural wealth. A wealthy and contented society must be rooted in social justice, humble leaders, and happy people. The cabinet has been reorganized, and is beginning anew. The cabinet appointments show that the ruling administration is doing its best to manifest its dreams. It hopes to realize its well-intended plans. This should do more than provide the public with peace of mind. This should make prosperity perceptible.
安心內閣 須讓人民有感富足
2012-02-07中國時報
新舊內閣昨日交接，面對紛擾複雜的各種國內外挑戰，馬英九總統將陳?領軍的內閣團隊定位為「安心內閣」，並將於每年提出「幸福指數」，著重人民真實的感受，特別是要回應人民對社會公平正義的期望，讓民眾無論在財富及心理層面上，都能真的有富足感。
國民黨的馬吳配贏得二○一二選戰，取得政權，但民進黨的英嘉配也拿到超過六百萬的選票，顯示綠營的主張也得到近半選民的支持，馬英九在布局第一階段內閣人事的時候，當然必須參考在野黨引起較多共鳴的一些理念與政策主張，新內閣中更換幅度較大的部會、政務委員，也可以看見馬總統對外界關注的領域與議題的回應。
新內閣中，財經團隊最快建構完整，因為歐債問題已影響全球經濟，沒有哪個國家可以輕忽；新內閣以熟稔產業發展的尹啟銘搭配以金融見長的陳?，佐以自企業界挖角的張善政和近年來致力建構產業科技基礎環境的朱敬一，可看出財經人事的專業分工與專長互補，正如陳?所說，一個球隊，不能全是王建民，而應該是各有擅長的領域，並且能夠互相搭配。從新內閣的財經小團隊即確實可以看得出這樣的布局。
財經問題是當前的重大課題，新內閣組成的財經團隊也不可謂不算是「卡司堅強」，然而，在這次選舉中，馬吳與英嘉最常被提出來比較的是兩個團隊如何面對與處理社會公義這個問題。特別是選前一波企業家以支持九二共識的方式，公開挺馬，固然對馬英九的選情有正面效益，但也引發外界對馬政府是否是與資本家站在一起的若干疑慮，甚至憂心以陳?為首的「財經內閣」變相成為「財團內閣」，因此，新內閣關注社會公平正義，強調重視庶民感受，是非常重要的宣示。
馬英九總統期勉新內閣要努力推動經濟轉型、進行稅制改革、縮小貧富差距，似乎預告了「已無連任壓力」的馬英九，會以比較勇敢與認真的態度和行動，面對並處理稅改、加稅等多年懸而未決的問題。賦稅與物價極為敏感，可以說，如果沒有「練好膽子」、「做好配套規畫」，不論是誰執政、也不論是在什麼時候，這些問題都不好處理；然而，面對國家財政需要，以及落實社會正義、推動所得分配的合理化，負責任的政府卻也沒有理由永遠逃避，總該好好面對了。
新任財政部長劉憶如還沒上任，有關稅改、加稅問題即已引發滿城風雨，看來並非偶然。在民生物價蠢蠢欲動之際，執政者的智慧面臨相當大考驗，截長補短，讓新閣揆陳?所說：「至少要讓中產階級與庶民感受到公平與富足」，透過租稅手段挪去或者至少減低社會的「相對剝削感」，應是新政府需審慎思考的作為。所謂的安心內閣，不也就是要安庶民的心、安中產階級的心嗎！陳揆強調，未來若要推出什麼租稅優惠時，應思考是不是能相對創造出新的就業機會，這一方向的改變，也顯示新內閣施政將以提高就業為考量，以避免再出現所謂的「無感成長」、「無感復甦」，畢竟，所謂對經濟環境的有感或者是無感，「就業機會」的增減，是最直接的指標。若是不能給人民工作，就談不上讓人民安心，談不上讓人民放心了。
陳內閣另一個重要的變動是有關文化部門的主管，這很顯然也回應選前外界的高度關切，龍應台的格局、視野，加上擔任政務委員的黃光男在藝術、文化和教育界的輩分和人脈，以及兩人的行政經驗，使得這項人事安排，應可讓文化界「安心」並「放心」，至少可以降低文化界的紛擾情緒，給準備轉型、升格的文化部門，多一做事的空間，所謂的提昇文化競爭軟實力，也才有可能。
陳內閣強調「要帶給人民富足的生活」，而所謂的「富有」，不只是表現於有形的財富，也是心理上與文化上的「富有」，這樣的「富而滿足」是以社會的公義、執政者的謙卑與人民的幸福感為基礎的。內閣的改組再出發，從人事安排可見執政者的理念確實朝著這些方向努力，期望未來施政能更為落實種種立意良好的規畫，讓人民不只是「安心」和「放心」，更是「有感富足」。
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The DPP Must Recognize the Republic of China, But Can It?
The DPP Must Recognize the Republic of China, But Can It?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2012
Summary: The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. DPP leaders remain deadlocked over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. The DPP's dilemma is that one the one hand it must recognize the Republic of China. But on the other hand, it cannot recognize the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. DPP leaders remain deadlocked over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
Internally, the 1992 Consensus means accepting the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. It means accepting that the nation was born in 1912 of the Xinhai Revolution. It means accepting that a century of constitutional and political evolution resulted in the Republic of China we have today. For both Taipei and Beijing, the 1992 Consensus is an example of One China, Different Interpretations.
During the election campaign, Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait rhetoric changed. She began arguing that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." But this merely describes the geographical extent of the Republic of China's current jurisdiction. This has nothing to do with its political sovereignty. This evades the Republic of China's historical reality. In other words, the Republic of China that Tsai Ing-wen refers to is not the Republic of China as defined by the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. It is not the Republic of China of 1912, which evolved into the Republic of China we know today.
Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is yet another example of "backdoor listing." She pays lip service to the Republic of China. But she refuses to recognize the Constitution of the Republic of China. She refuses to use the Constitution of the Republic of China to resolve the cross-Strait dispute that has persisted since 1949. In other words, her "Republic of China" is the "Republic of China" of the "two states theory." It is not the "Republic of China" of One China, Different Interpretations.
This is the DPP's cross-Strait policy bottleneck. Tsai Ing-wen now argues that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." On the surface she appears to have abandoned calls for the "Founding of a Republic of Taiwan," and the DPP's "Taiwan independence party platform." But she refuses to accept One China, Different Interpretations as the basis for cross-Strait interaction. She persists in repudiating the constitutional framework of the Republic of China.
Internally, Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" departs from the Republic of China as defined by the Republic of China Constitution. In cross-Strait relations, it departs from the Republic of China as defined by One China, Different Intepretations. Therefore, her "Republic of China" is not the same as the Republic of China as defined by the Republic of China Constitution. Nor is it the Republic of China as defined by hard cross-Strait realpolitik. Her "Republic of China" is merely another variant of the Taiwan independence movement's "backdoor listing" tactic.
The DPP is currently reviewing its cross-Strait policy. Its fundamental problem however, is that refuses to recognize the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Under this framework, cross-Strait policy means One China, Different Intepretations. But the DPP opposes One China, Different Interpretations. Therefore it repudiates the 1992 Consensus. But a more fundamental question looms. Since the DPP repudiates One China, Different Interpretations, how can it recognize the Republic of China, as defined by the Republic of China Constitution?
The global strategic picture as well as the state of the nation have evolved. The possibility of Taiwan independence today is zero. When Tsai Ing-wen argues that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan," she is merely reciting the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" is one step removed from Taiwan independence. But it has nothing to do with the Republic of China, as defined by the Republic of China Constitution, or with harsh cross-Strait reality.
Reformers within the Democratic Progressive Party know they must abandon their support for Taiwan independence. But they cannot bring themselves to do so. They are afraid to fully accept the Republic of China. This is the problem the DPP's post-election review is up against. Fully accepting the Republic of China, means fully accepting the Republic of China Constitution. Fully accepting the Republic of China Constitution, means accepting One China, Different Interpretations as the basis for cross-Strait interaction. This is what we said at the beginning. The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. It remains stalled over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
The possibility of Taiwan independence is now zero. Looking to the future, cross-Strait economic and trade relations are bound to become closer. The pressure to resolve the cross-Strait political schism will intensify. The only way to respond to political pressures arising from cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, is to uphold One China, Different Interpetations, and the Republic of China Constitution. In other words, resisting the pressure to reunify, or promoting peaceful development, will require the Republic of China Constituion and One China, Different Interpretations. One cannot rely on Taiwan independence, the "two states theory," or "backdoor listing."
The DPP now has three cross-Strait policy options. One. It can cling to its "Taiwan independence party platform." I can insist that "Taiwan's status is undetermined," and that "The Republic of China is a foreign regime." Two. It can refuse to admit that the Republic of China dates back to the Xinhai Revolution of 1912. It can persist in perceiving the Republic of China through the lens of the 2/28 Incident of 1947. It can argue on the basis of geography that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." It can persist in "backdoor listing" and continue opposing One China, Different Interpretations. Three. It can recognize the Republic of China Constitution. It can use One China, Different Intepretations and cross-Strait peaceful development to regulate cross-Strait relations. It can adopt a more rational approach in order to arrive at a clearer goal for cross-Strait developments.
The DPP's current posture combines option one and option two. But only option three offers the DPP a way out. Unfortunately the DPP has never been willing to recognize the Republic of China. This began during the "dang wai" era. It persisted for decades. National flags never appear at any of its mass rallies. This remains true even today. The DPP has never been willing to recognize the Republic of China. That is why it cannot lead its supporters in a new direction. The DPP cannot recognize the Republic of China because if it recognizes the Republic of China, it will lose its core support. This is the DPP's dilemma.
The DPP's dilemma is that one the one hand it must recognize the Republic of China. But on the other hand, it cannot recognize the Republic of China.
中華民國，民進黨是不是回不去了？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.02.06
民進黨的選後檢討報告難產，問題仍然卡在是否接受「九二共識／一中各表」。
九二共識，對內而言，就是在中華民國憲法的架構下，接受一九一二年肇建、並歷經百年來憲政演化及政局變遷而發展至今的中華民國；九二共識，對兩岸而言，即是一中各表。
在選季，蔡英文的兩岸論述曾經發展至「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」的表述；但這只是從現實的地理概念來界定中華民國的現況，卻迴避了中華民國的歷史意涵。亦即，蔡英文並未正面接受這個中華民國是在中華民國憲法的架構下，所承繼並發展至今的中華民國。
蔡英文的「中華民國論」，仍是一種「借殼上市」。她雖表示接受中華民國，卻不肯接受以中華民國憲法的準據，來解決自一九四九年以來發展演化至今的兩岸關係；換句話說，她的「中華民國」，是「兩國論」的中華民國，而不是「一中各表」的中華民國。
這正是民進黨兩岸政策的瓶頸。蔡英文說「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，看起來似已放棄了「建立台灣共和國」的《台獨黨綱》；但是，她拒絕以「一中各表」為兩岸互動的準據，這仍是否定及背離了「中華民國憲法」的架構。
因此，蔡英文的「中華民國」，對內是脫離了「中華民國憲法」的中華民國；對兩岸，則是脫離了「一中各表」的中華民國。所以，這樣的「中華民國」，其實不是憲法上及兩岸現實上的「中華民國」，而只是「借殼上市」的台獨化身。
民進黨此時檢討其兩岸政策，根本的問題即在要不要回歸到「中華民國憲法架構下」；在此一架構下，兩岸政策的準據即是「一中各表」。然而，民進黨因反對「一中各表」，所以否定「九二共識」；其更深一層的問題卻是，民進黨既否定「一中各表」，將如何回歸到中華民國憲法與中華民國？
世局國情發展至今，台獨的可能性已趨於零。蔡英文說「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，只是趨從《台灣前途決議文》，且再離開了「台獨」一小步；但是，並未就此回歸到憲法上及兩岸現實上的「中華民國」。
然而，民進黨內的改革派均知必須脫離「台獨」，但又不願、不敢完全接受「中華民國」，這正是民進黨選後檢討的難題所在。因為，完全接受「中華民國」，即應完全接受「中華民國憲法」；而完全接受「中華民國憲法」，即是接受以「一中各表」為兩岸互動的準據。這正是文首所說，民進黨選後檢討報告難產，問題仍然卡在是否接受「九二共識／一中各表」的道理。
台獨的可能性已趨於零。瞻望未來，兩岸經貿關係必將愈來愈密切，而兩岸政治解決的壓力也將愈來愈大；但無論如何，因應兩岸經貿交流及政治壓力的唯一方案，皆在依據中華民國憲法的「一中各表」。也就是說，不論是欲抵拒「統一」的壓力，或要提升改善「和平發展」的品質，皆要依憑中華民國憲法及一中各表；不可能靠「台獨」、「兩國論」，或「借殼上市」。
此際，民進黨在兩岸政策上的選項有三：一、繼續維持《台獨黨綱》，主張「台灣地位未定論」，並認定「中華民國」為「外來政權」；二、否定「一九一二年辛亥革命的（延續式）中華民國史觀」，主張「一九四七年二二八事件的（斷裂式）中華民國史觀」，以「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」的「地理論」來「借殼上市」，並反對「一中各表」。三、完全回歸中華民國憲法，並以「一中各表」為兩岸「和平發展」的準據，藉以節制兩岸關係，「從合理的過程到改善之目的」。
民進黨現今的立場，其實是第一選項及第二選項的混合體；但只有第三選項才是民進黨的出路。問題卻在於，民進黨自黨外時代以來，花了幾十年時間，將其群眾帶到造勢活動中看不到一幅國旗的場面；如今倘不能使國旗重現其群眾場合，民進黨就不可能真正回到「中華民國」。因此，若不能改變那些群眾，民進黨就回不了中華民國；倘欲回到中華民國，民進黨即可能失去它的「基本盤」。這應即是民進黨當前面臨的兩難絕境。
也就是說，民進黨當前的問題是在：必須回到中華民國，但是否回不去了？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 6, 2012
Summary: The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. DPP leaders remain deadlocked over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations. The DPP's dilemma is that one the one hand it must recognize the Republic of China. But on the other hand, it cannot recognize the Republic of China.
Full Text below:
The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. DPP leaders remain deadlocked over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
Internally, the 1992 Consensus means accepting the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. It means accepting that the nation was born in 1912 of the Xinhai Revolution. It means accepting that a century of constitutional and political evolution resulted in the Republic of China we have today. For both Taipei and Beijing, the 1992 Consensus is an example of One China, Different Interpretations.
During the election campaign, Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait rhetoric changed. She began arguing that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." But this merely describes the geographical extent of the Republic of China's current jurisdiction. This has nothing to do with its political sovereignty. This evades the Republic of China's historical reality. In other words, the Republic of China that Tsai Ing-wen refers to is not the Republic of China as defined by the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. It is not the Republic of China of 1912, which evolved into the Republic of China we know today.
Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is yet another example of "backdoor listing." She pays lip service to the Republic of China. But she refuses to recognize the Constitution of the Republic of China. She refuses to use the Constitution of the Republic of China to resolve the cross-Strait dispute that has persisted since 1949. In other words, her "Republic of China" is the "Republic of China" of the "two states theory." It is not the "Republic of China" of One China, Different Interpretations.
This is the DPP's cross-Strait policy bottleneck. Tsai Ing-wen now argues that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." On the surface she appears to have abandoned calls for the "Founding of a Republic of Taiwan," and the DPP's "Taiwan independence party platform." But she refuses to accept One China, Different Interpretations as the basis for cross-Strait interaction. She persists in repudiating the constitutional framework of the Republic of China.
Internally, Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" departs from the Republic of China as defined by the Republic of China Constitution. In cross-Strait relations, it departs from the Republic of China as defined by One China, Different Intepretations. Therefore, her "Republic of China" is not the same as the Republic of China as defined by the Republic of China Constitution. Nor is it the Republic of China as defined by hard cross-Strait realpolitik. Her "Republic of China" is merely another variant of the Taiwan independence movement's "backdoor listing" tactic.
The DPP is currently reviewing its cross-Strait policy. Its fundamental problem however, is that refuses to recognize the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Under this framework, cross-Strait policy means One China, Different Intepretations. But the DPP opposes One China, Different Interpretations. Therefore it repudiates the 1992 Consensus. But a more fundamental question looms. Since the DPP repudiates One China, Different Interpretations, how can it recognize the Republic of China, as defined by the Republic of China Constitution?
The global strategic picture as well as the state of the nation have evolved. The possibility of Taiwan independence today is zero. When Tsai Ing-wen argues that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan," she is merely reciting the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" is one step removed from Taiwan independence. But it has nothing to do with the Republic of China, as defined by the Republic of China Constitution, or with harsh cross-Strait reality.
Reformers within the Democratic Progressive Party know they must abandon their support for Taiwan independence. But they cannot bring themselves to do so. They are afraid to fully accept the Republic of China. This is the problem the DPP's post-election review is up against. Fully accepting the Republic of China, means fully accepting the Republic of China Constitution. Fully accepting the Republic of China Constitution, means accepting One China, Different Interpretations as the basis for cross-Strait interaction. This is what we said at the beginning. The DPP 's post-election review has stalled. It remains stalled over whether to accept the 1992 Consensus and One China, Different Interpretations.
The possibility of Taiwan independence is now zero. Looking to the future, cross-Strait economic and trade relations are bound to become closer. The pressure to resolve the cross-Strait political schism will intensify. The only way to respond to political pressures arising from cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, is to uphold One China, Different Interpetations, and the Republic of China Constitution. In other words, resisting the pressure to reunify, or promoting peaceful development, will require the Republic of China Constituion and One China, Different Interpretations. One cannot rely on Taiwan independence, the "two states theory," or "backdoor listing."
The DPP now has three cross-Strait policy options. One. It can cling to its "Taiwan independence party platform." I can insist that "Taiwan's status is undetermined," and that "The Republic of China is a foreign regime." Two. It can refuse to admit that the Republic of China dates back to the Xinhai Revolution of 1912. It can persist in perceiving the Republic of China through the lens of the 2/28 Incident of 1947. It can argue on the basis of geography that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." It can persist in "backdoor listing" and continue opposing One China, Different Interpretations. Three. It can recognize the Republic of China Constitution. It can use One China, Different Intepretations and cross-Strait peaceful development to regulate cross-Strait relations. It can adopt a more rational approach in order to arrive at a clearer goal for cross-Strait developments.
The DPP's current posture combines option one and option two. But only option three offers the DPP a way out. Unfortunately the DPP has never been willing to recognize the Republic of China. This began during the "dang wai" era. It persisted for decades. National flags never appear at any of its mass rallies. This remains true even today. The DPP has never been willing to recognize the Republic of China. That is why it cannot lead its supporters in a new direction. The DPP cannot recognize the Republic of China because if it recognizes the Republic of China, it will lose its core support. This is the DPP's dilemma.
The DPP's dilemma is that one the one hand it must recognize the Republic of China. But on the other hand, it cannot recognize the Republic of China.
中華民國，民進黨是不是回不去了？
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.02.06
民進黨的選後檢討報告難產，問題仍然卡在是否接受「九二共識／一中各表」。
九二共識，對內而言，就是在中華民國憲法的架構下，接受一九一二年肇建、並歷經百年來憲政演化及政局變遷而發展至今的中華民國；九二共識，對兩岸而言，即是一中各表。
在選季，蔡英文的兩岸論述曾經發展至「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」的表述；但這只是從現實的地理概念來界定中華民國的現況，卻迴避了中華民國的歷史意涵。亦即，蔡英文並未正面接受這個中華民國是在中華民國憲法的架構下，所承繼並發展至今的中華民國。
蔡英文的「中華民國論」，仍是一種「借殼上市」。她雖表示接受中華民國，卻不肯接受以中華民國憲法的準據，來解決自一九四九年以來發展演化至今的兩岸關係；換句話說，她的「中華民國」，是「兩國論」的中華民國，而不是「一中各表」的中華民國。
這正是民進黨兩岸政策的瓶頸。蔡英文說「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，看起來似已放棄了「建立台灣共和國」的《台獨黨綱》；但是，她拒絕以「一中各表」為兩岸互動的準據，這仍是否定及背離了「中華民國憲法」的架構。
因此，蔡英文的「中華民國」，對內是脫離了「中華民國憲法」的中華民國；對兩岸，則是脫離了「一中各表」的中華民國。所以，這樣的「中華民國」，其實不是憲法上及兩岸現實上的「中華民國」，而只是「借殼上市」的台獨化身。
民進黨此時檢討其兩岸政策，根本的問題即在要不要回歸到「中華民國憲法架構下」；在此一架構下，兩岸政策的準據即是「一中各表」。然而，民進黨因反對「一中各表」，所以否定「九二共識」；其更深一層的問題卻是，民進黨既否定「一中各表」，將如何回歸到中華民國憲法與中華民國？
世局國情發展至今，台獨的可能性已趨於零。蔡英文說「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，只是趨從《台灣前途決議文》，且再離開了「台獨」一小步；但是，並未就此回歸到憲法上及兩岸現實上的「中華民國」。
然而，民進黨內的改革派均知必須脫離「台獨」，但又不願、不敢完全接受「中華民國」，這正是民進黨選後檢討的難題所在。因為，完全接受「中華民國」，即應完全接受「中華民國憲法」；而完全接受「中華民國憲法」，即是接受以「一中各表」為兩岸互動的準據。這正是文首所說，民進黨選後檢討報告難產，問題仍然卡在是否接受「九二共識／一中各表」的道理。
台獨的可能性已趨於零。瞻望未來，兩岸經貿關係必將愈來愈密切，而兩岸政治解決的壓力也將愈來愈大；但無論如何，因應兩岸經貿交流及政治壓力的唯一方案，皆在依據中華民國憲法的「一中各表」。也就是說，不論是欲抵拒「統一」的壓力，或要提升改善「和平發展」的品質，皆要依憑中華民國憲法及一中各表；不可能靠「台獨」、「兩國論」，或「借殼上市」。
此際，民進黨在兩岸政策上的選項有三：一、繼續維持《台獨黨綱》，主張「台灣地位未定論」，並認定「中華民國」為「外來政權」；二、否定「一九一二年辛亥革命的（延續式）中華民國史觀」，主張「一九四七年二二八事件的（斷裂式）中華民國史觀」，以「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」的「地理論」來「借殼上市」，並反對「一中各表」。三、完全回歸中華民國憲法，並以「一中各表」為兩岸「和平發展」的準據，藉以節制兩岸關係，「從合理的過程到改善之目的」。
民進黨現今的立場，其實是第一選項及第二選項的混合體；但只有第三選項才是民進黨的出路。問題卻在於，民進黨自黨外時代以來，花了幾十年時間，將其群眾帶到造勢活動中看不到一幅國旗的場面；如今倘不能使國旗重現其群眾場合，民進黨就不可能真正回到「中華民國」。因此，若不能改變那些群眾，民進黨就回不了中華民國；倘欲回到中華民國，民進黨即可能失去它的「基本盤」。這應即是民進黨當前面臨的兩難絕境。
也就是說，民進黨當前的問題是在：必須回到中華民國，但是否回不去了？
Friday, February 3, 2012
Untying the Three Knots in the US Beef Controversy
Untying the Three Knots in the US Beef Controversy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2012
Summary: The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.
Full Text Below:
The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.
The general election just ended. Yet the U.S. government is already pressuring our government to permit the import of U.S. beef products. Many people are unhappy. They feel the U.S. is too overbearing, especially since U.S. beef imports were linked to the restart of the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). This reinforced the impression that the United States was applying undue pressure. The fact is beef imports are a routine trade issue. The issue could not been discussed rationally for two reasons. One. Clenbuterol involves food safety. Two. Last year Taiwan was caught up in election fever, in political rivalry between the ruling and opposition parties. Now that the elections are over, the issue can now be put back on the table.
To effectively address the problem of U.S. beef imports, we must first untie three knots. Only then can the government understand the bottom line and what principles is must adhere to. Only then will the public understand that its interests have not been sacrificed, and the dignity of the nation has not been impugned.
The first knot that must be untied involves trade and foreign relations. If we persist in seeing the ban on U.S. beef imports as diplomatic wrangling, then most people will demand that we boycott US beef to the bitter end, that we make every effort to safeguard our sovereignty and save face. But if we see the ban on U.S. beef imports as trade negotiations, as a bargaining chip in exchange for greater economic and trade benefits, such as the restart of TIFA, or even visa-free entry to the US, then the Clenbuterol controversy need not be seen as some sort of Quixotic battle for "national dignity".
The heart of the problem is U.S. beef. It has nothing to do with any other country's beef. It is a reflection of the special relationship between Taipei and Washington. This relationship includes trade, diplomatic, military and other long-term partnerships. This makes it different from relations with other countries. That said, we need not acquiesce to every US demand. Our government must weigh our larger interests and adhere to the principles of fair trade. It must demand that U.S. meat suppliers provide products whose quality is in line with our requirements. It need not blindly succumb. For example, the government can use domestic opposition as leverage. It can demand that American businesses provide their own meat inspection reports, instead of putting all the pressure on Taiwan.
The second knot to be untied is to distinguish between consumption and production, and to distinguish between beef, pork and other animal products. The domestic agricultural sector is strongly opposed to allowing the import of meats containing Clenbuterol, or with adopting the two-track system used in Japan. The main reason is that the domestic meat industry has successfully banned the use of Clenbuterol. It has an excellent reputation, at home and abroad. US beef imports must not be allowed to undermine that reputation. Therefore U.S. beef imports must not be allowed to negatively affect the domestic pork, poultry, and other meat industries. If our domestic meat industry is affected, then allowing imports would be an unwise move.
The government has decided to deal with the pork and beef issues separately, This is the right approach. Consider another perspective. The reason U.S. beef has a market on Taiwan is that many consumers consider U.S. beef higher in quality and better in taste, Domestic production of beef is limited. U.S. beef imports are unlikely to affect the domestic cattle industry. But they would meet the needs of consumers. From the consumer's perspective, this does not conflict with the interests of the ROC Swine Association.
The third knot that must be untied is whether "national health" would be sacrificed. Clenbuterol is not the same as mad cow disease. This is clear from the scientific research. That is why so many countries have minimum allowable standards. These are all available for reference. Allowing the use of Clenbuterol does not mean sacrificing the health of our citizens. As American Institute in Taiwan official Richard Bush put it. the U.S. would not sell its trading partners unsafe food. Whether the food is safe should be left to food safety experts. The government should allow experts to set standards within an internationally accepted range. Is should keep a close watch for any violations. It should require sellers of beef products to provide labels identifying their origin, enabling consumers to identify then purchase or boycott them. This way any concerns that the "National Health would be sacrificed" will be allayed.
The U.S. beef imports controversy has dragged on for years. Can it be resolved? This may well be an acid test for the Chen cabinet. One fear is that the government may be impatient, It may be tempted to operate under the table. Its decisions may not win public understanding and support, or even invite a backlash. An even greater fear is that officials will be afraid to act. Nothing will be done. They will continue spining their wheels. They will fail to live up to public expectations for the new cabinet. .
解開美牛問題的三個夾纏
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.02.04 01:43 am
新內閣還未正式就任，美牛瘦肉精是否解禁已經迎面而來。這個問題，因牽涉面向甚廣，在不同的力量拉扯下，其間理路就不容易三言兩語說清楚。但無論如何，問題若能早日妥善解決，總比拖在那裡好；至於應如何拿捏取捨，兼顧對外談判與對內溝通，就要看陳?內閣的功力了。
大選方才結束，美國政府即急急催逼我國開放美牛，一定讓許多民眾感到不悅，認為美方太霸道。尤其，美牛議題又一直與美簽的開放以及美台貿易及投資架構協定談判（ＴＩＦＡ）的重啟掛鉤，更加深了民眾對美國施壓的負面觀感。事實上，牛肉進口只是一般性的貿易行政事務，唯因瘦肉精的使用事關食品安全，加上去年整年台灣都處於朝野大選競爭的政治敏感氛圍，使得此一議題幾乎沒有理性討論的空間；也因此，如今選舉結束才又重新端上檯面。
要有效解決美牛問題，必須先釐清其間的三個夾纏，政府才知道什麼底線不可退讓、什麼原則應該堅持；民眾也才知道自己的權益有沒有受到犧牲、國家的尊嚴有沒有遭到傷害。
第一個要釐清的夾纏，是貿易與外交的權衡。如果把美牛解禁看成一次外交角力，那麼，多數國人一定主張杯葛到底，全力維護台灣主權和顏面。但如果將美牛看成一次貿易談判，藉此能換取更大的經貿利益（如重啟ＴＩＦＡ），乃至更早取得免美簽等待遇；那麼，瘦肉精問題就可以有更寬闊的思考，不必上綱為「國格」之爭。
這次的問題焦點是在「美國」「牛肉」，而不是其他任何國家的牛肉，反映的正是台美間的特殊關係，包括貿易、外交、軍事等長期夥伴關係，這不是任何國家可以比擬。但即使如此，我們也沒有必要對美方有求必應；政府可以做的，是權衡台灣的整體利益，堅持公平貿易的基本原則，要求美國肉商提供品質合乎我方要求的產品，而無需一味屈從。例如，政府甚至可以善用國內的反對力量為槓桿，要求美商自行提供肉品的查驗報告，而不必把全部壓力都放在台灣身上。
第二個要釐清的夾纏，是區隔消費和生產兩端，同時區隔牛肉和豬肉及其他畜產品。這次國內農業界強烈反對開放瘦肉精或採用日本的雙軌制，主要是我國畜牧業禁用瘦肉精有成，在國內外素負盛譽，不能因為美牛解禁，反而使我產業倒退。也因此，政府開放美牛，絕不能導致國內豬、雞等畜產受到衝擊；如果會影響國內畜產，那就是下策。
目前，政府已決定將豬、牛問題分開處理，這是正確的方向。再換一個角度看，美牛之所以在台灣有其市場，是許多消費者覺得美牛肉質更佳、更美味；但國內生產肉牛不多，進口美牛不致影響國內牛產業，卻可滿足消費者的需要。從消費觀點看，這與養豬協會的利益並不衝突。
第三個必須釐清的夾纏，是「國民健康」是否會被犧牲？瘦肉精和狂牛症不同，在科學上已有較明確的研究成果，也因此許多國家訂有最低容許標準，可供台灣參考；並非開放瘦肉精，就會犧牲國人健康。正如美國在台協會官員卜睿哲所說，美國不該向貿易夥伴出售不安全的食品，但食品安全與否，應該交由食品衛生專家決定。我政府要做的，就是根據國際間認可的範圍，由專家訂出標準，並在行政上嚴格把關，防杜一切違規。同時，可規定出售牛肉產品的商店應一律標示產地，供消費者辨識、選擇，甚至拒吃。如此一來，國民健康會被「犧牲」的疑慮，就可以在相當程度上化解。
美牛問題糾纏台美兩國多年，能否妥善解決，是陳?內閣的第一個試金石。最怕的是，政府流於躁進，在黑幕中作業，以致決策無法獲取民眾理解和支持，甚至反彈。更怕的是官員畏怯不前，什麼都不解決，把問題留在原地打轉，徒然辜負了社會對新內閣、新作為的期待。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2012
Summary: The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.
Full Text Below:
The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.
The general election just ended. Yet the U.S. government is already pressuring our government to permit the import of U.S. beef products. Many people are unhappy. They feel the U.S. is too overbearing, especially since U.S. beef imports were linked to the restart of the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). This reinforced the impression that the United States was applying undue pressure. The fact is beef imports are a routine trade issue. The issue could not been discussed rationally for two reasons. One. Clenbuterol involves food safety. Two. Last year Taiwan was caught up in election fever, in political rivalry between the ruling and opposition parties. Now that the elections are over, the issue can now be put back on the table.
To effectively address the problem of U.S. beef imports, we must first untie three knots. Only then can the government understand the bottom line and what principles is must adhere to. Only then will the public understand that its interests have not been sacrificed, and the dignity of the nation has not been impugned.
The first knot that must be untied involves trade and foreign relations. If we persist in seeing the ban on U.S. beef imports as diplomatic wrangling, then most people will demand that we boycott US beef to the bitter end, that we make every effort to safeguard our sovereignty and save face. But if we see the ban on U.S. beef imports as trade negotiations, as a bargaining chip in exchange for greater economic and trade benefits, such as the restart of TIFA, or even visa-free entry to the US, then the Clenbuterol controversy need not be seen as some sort of Quixotic battle for "national dignity".
The heart of the problem is U.S. beef. It has nothing to do with any other country's beef. It is a reflection of the special relationship between Taipei and Washington. This relationship includes trade, diplomatic, military and other long-term partnerships. This makes it different from relations with other countries. That said, we need not acquiesce to every US demand. Our government must weigh our larger interests and adhere to the principles of fair trade. It must demand that U.S. meat suppliers provide products whose quality is in line with our requirements. It need not blindly succumb. For example, the government can use domestic opposition as leverage. It can demand that American businesses provide their own meat inspection reports, instead of putting all the pressure on Taiwan.
The second knot to be untied is to distinguish between consumption and production, and to distinguish between beef, pork and other animal products. The domestic agricultural sector is strongly opposed to allowing the import of meats containing Clenbuterol, or with adopting the two-track system used in Japan. The main reason is that the domestic meat industry has successfully banned the use of Clenbuterol. It has an excellent reputation, at home and abroad. US beef imports must not be allowed to undermine that reputation. Therefore U.S. beef imports must not be allowed to negatively affect the domestic pork, poultry, and other meat industries. If our domestic meat industry is affected, then allowing imports would be an unwise move.
The government has decided to deal with the pork and beef issues separately, This is the right approach. Consider another perspective. The reason U.S. beef has a market on Taiwan is that many consumers consider U.S. beef higher in quality and better in taste, Domestic production of beef is limited. U.S. beef imports are unlikely to affect the domestic cattle industry. But they would meet the needs of consumers. From the consumer's perspective, this does not conflict with the interests of the ROC Swine Association.
The third knot that must be untied is whether "national health" would be sacrificed. Clenbuterol is not the same as mad cow disease. This is clear from the scientific research. That is why so many countries have minimum allowable standards. These are all available for reference. Allowing the use of Clenbuterol does not mean sacrificing the health of our citizens. As American Institute in Taiwan official Richard Bush put it. the U.S. would not sell its trading partners unsafe food. Whether the food is safe should be left to food safety experts. The government should allow experts to set standards within an internationally accepted range. Is should keep a close watch for any violations. It should require sellers of beef products to provide labels identifying their origin, enabling consumers to identify then purchase or boycott them. This way any concerns that the "National Health would be sacrificed" will be allayed.
The U.S. beef imports controversy has dragged on for years. Can it be resolved? This may well be an acid test for the Chen cabinet. One fear is that the government may be impatient, It may be tempted to operate under the table. Its decisions may not win public understanding and support, or even invite a backlash. An even greater fear is that officials will be afraid to act. Nothing will be done. They will continue spining their wheels. They will fail to live up to public expectations for the new cabinet. .
解開美牛問題的三個夾纏
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.02.04 01:43 am
新內閣還未正式就任，美牛瘦肉精是否解禁已經迎面而來。這個問題，因牽涉面向甚廣，在不同的力量拉扯下，其間理路就不容易三言兩語說清楚。但無論如何，問題若能早日妥善解決，總比拖在那裡好；至於應如何拿捏取捨，兼顧對外談判與對內溝通，就要看陳?內閣的功力了。
大選方才結束，美國政府即急急催逼我國開放美牛，一定讓許多民眾感到不悅，認為美方太霸道。尤其，美牛議題又一直與美簽的開放以及美台貿易及投資架構協定談判（ＴＩＦＡ）的重啟掛鉤，更加深了民眾對美國施壓的負面觀感。事實上，牛肉進口只是一般性的貿易行政事務，唯因瘦肉精的使用事關食品安全，加上去年整年台灣都處於朝野大選競爭的政治敏感氛圍，使得此一議題幾乎沒有理性討論的空間；也因此，如今選舉結束才又重新端上檯面。
要有效解決美牛問題，必須先釐清其間的三個夾纏，政府才知道什麼底線不可退讓、什麼原則應該堅持；民眾也才知道自己的權益有沒有受到犧牲、國家的尊嚴有沒有遭到傷害。
第一個要釐清的夾纏，是貿易與外交的權衡。如果把美牛解禁看成一次外交角力，那麼，多數國人一定主張杯葛到底，全力維護台灣主權和顏面。但如果將美牛看成一次貿易談判，藉此能換取更大的經貿利益（如重啟ＴＩＦＡ），乃至更早取得免美簽等待遇；那麼，瘦肉精問題就可以有更寬闊的思考，不必上綱為「國格」之爭。
這次的問題焦點是在「美國」「牛肉」，而不是其他任何國家的牛肉，反映的正是台美間的特殊關係，包括貿易、外交、軍事等長期夥伴關係，這不是任何國家可以比擬。但即使如此，我們也沒有必要對美方有求必應；政府可以做的，是權衡台灣的整體利益，堅持公平貿易的基本原則，要求美國肉商提供品質合乎我方要求的產品，而無需一味屈從。例如，政府甚至可以善用國內的反對力量為槓桿，要求美商自行提供肉品的查驗報告，而不必把全部壓力都放在台灣身上。
第二個要釐清的夾纏，是區隔消費和生產兩端，同時區隔牛肉和豬肉及其他畜產品。這次國內農業界強烈反對開放瘦肉精或採用日本的雙軌制，主要是我國畜牧業禁用瘦肉精有成，在國內外素負盛譽，不能因為美牛解禁，反而使我產業倒退。也因此，政府開放美牛，絕不能導致國內豬、雞等畜產受到衝擊；如果會影響國內畜產，那就是下策。
目前，政府已決定將豬、牛問題分開處理，這是正確的方向。再換一個角度看，美牛之所以在台灣有其市場，是許多消費者覺得美牛肉質更佳、更美味；但國內生產肉牛不多，進口美牛不致影響國內牛產業，卻可滿足消費者的需要。從消費觀點看，這與養豬協會的利益並不衝突。
第三個必須釐清的夾纏，是「國民健康」是否會被犧牲？瘦肉精和狂牛症不同，在科學上已有較明確的研究成果，也因此許多國家訂有最低容許標準，可供台灣參考；並非開放瘦肉精，就會犧牲國人健康。正如美國在台協會官員卜睿哲所說，美國不該向貿易夥伴出售不安全的食品，但食品安全與否，應該交由食品衛生專家決定。我政府要做的，就是根據國際間認可的範圍，由專家訂出標準，並在行政上嚴格把關，防杜一切違規。同時，可規定出售牛肉產品的商店應一律標示產地，供消費者辨識、選擇，甚至拒吃。如此一來，國民健康會被「犧牲」的疑慮，就可以在相當程度上化解。
美牛問題糾纏台美兩國多年，能否妥善解決，是陳?內閣的第一個試金石。最怕的是，政府流於躁進，在黑幕中作業，以致決策無法獲取民眾理解和支持，甚至反彈。更怕的是官員畏怯不前，什麼都不解決，把問題留在原地打轉，徒然辜負了社會對新內閣、新作為的期待。
Thursday, February 2, 2012
U.S. Beef and Tax Increases Test the New Cabinet
U.S. Beef and Tax Increases Test the New Cabinet
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2012
Summary: Prior to the general election, the political parties were at loggerheads with each other. They gave no quarter, and asked for none in return. But once the outcome of the election was confirmed, society on Taiwan quickly returned to normal. The ruling and opposition parties resumed their assigned roles, and prepared for their next mission. Neither the winning nor the losing camps showed signs of emotional backlash. Society as a whole faced the situation calmly. Such maturity and rationality is the pride of Taiwan. We should ask ourselves how we can move ahead given this shared asset.
Full Text Below:
Prior to the general election, the political parties were at loggerheads with each other. They gave no quarter, and asked for none in return. But once the outcome of the election was confirmed, society on Taiwan quickly returned to normal. The ruling and opposition parties resumed their assigned roles, and prepared for their next mission. Neither the winning nor the losing camps showed signs of emotional backlash. Society as a whole faced the situation calmly. Such maturity and rationality is the pride of Taiwan. We should ask ourselves how we can move ahead given this shared asset.
The KMT won the presidential election. But it received one million fewer votes than last time. Before the election the DPP assumed it would win by a small margin. Instead it lost by nearly 800,000 votes. Still, it gained 13 seats in the legislature. Before to the election, both camp floated rumors. But voters on Taiwan had minds of their own. They made choices reflecting their own priorities. The two parties made gains and suffered losses. This means Taiwan is unlikely to encounter another "winner-take-all" scenario again.
Both the Blue and Green camps need to conduct post-election soul-searching. President Ma Ying-jeou said that during the New Year holidays, he spent four days "sitting in the corner pondering his mistakes." He asked himself why the KMT received so many fewer votes. He reflected upon his new cabinet appointments. During the New Year's holiday Tsai Ing-wen traveled around Taiwan thanking voters for their support. She said times have changed, and the DPP must change with them.
This election has taught the two major parties the importance of cultivating a new generation of supporters. If a political party wishes to govern long term, it must have a large pool of talent to draw from. Such talent takes time and experience to cultivate. Therefore the Ma administration must make room for the younger generation when making its party and governmental appointments. Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP needs generational change. Her words and actions may make some "party elders" uncomfortable. But time waits for no man. As the saying goes, "The water from the upper reaches of the Yangtze push the waters from the lower reaches into the sea." Only this can inject new blood into a political party. Only this can provide a nation with fresh drive.
President Ma and newly appointed Premier Sean Chen have reshuffled the cabinet. Most outsiders give them a thumbs up. Of course some remain unhappy. They consider the magnitude of changes inadequate. But the president and vice president elect will take office on May 20. By that time, assuming the public still wants fresh blood and a new climate, there could be yet another major or minor cabinet shakeup. The time between early February and May is either short or long, depending on one's perception. During this time, Ma Ying-jeou will be conisidering new political appointments. Naturally he will be making both short and long-term plans. Therefore his current cabinet roster is understandable.
The public is watching the Ma administration like a hawk. To establish a dependable economic team at this stage, Ma must first fine tune his cabinet appointments. That is a relatively safe move. The public expects a fresh, forward looking administration. But it also needs experienced governance. All told, this is the best approach. There is no need for "reorganization and restructuring." After all the goal is not "change," but rather "improvement."
The DPP lost the presidential election. Soon afterwards, party members demanded a review. Some blamed Taiwan entrepreneurs. They even demanded boycotts. But Annette Lu wondered whether the DPP party chairman's powers were too sweeping. She reminded people that the real issue was whether to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Chen Ming-wen noted how supporters were torn between voting their hearts or voting their pocketbooks. Younger leaders even demanded that Tsai Ing-wen answer for the party's defeat, and explain why the election turned out the way it did. This led to internal debate over the DPP's power arrangements and its policy toward "[Mainland] China."
Tsai Ing-wen lost. But she still received over six million votes. She came within striking distance of the presidency. Tsai Ing-wen, DPP leaders, and DPP supporters may feel aggrieved. That is only human. But DPP leaders and DPP supporters must not forget their original intent. They must set aside their feelings of disappointment and loss, and regroup. Of course, there is always hope for the future.
Many consider the recent election a model of democracy. The winner was not arrogant. The loser was not sore. More importantly, the public on Taiwan remained law-abiding and rational. Together they established the indispenable "iron triangle of democracy."
The peaceful conclusion of the electoral process is merely the first chapter in the story. The election results are now known. How will the future unfold? The challenges have just begun. The new cabinet is still warming up. The U.S. beef controversy and the tax increase controvery loom. Now that Ma Ying-jeou has won, he must face this, the first test of his administration. Will he pass muster? The public is holding its collective breath. Many voters on Taiwan want to know whether the choice they made a month and a half ago was a wise one.
Of course none of these issues is new. The Ma administration has encountered them all before. The process may be tortuous. The questions may be old. But that does not mean the Ma administration already knows the answers. Problems arise quickly. Ruling administrations soon finds themselves beseiged. The new cabinet will officially take office next Monday. Perhaps this is too cruel. But didn't newly appointed Premier Sean Chen say that having an old hand at the helm was reassuring? The cabinet includes veteran financial and economic experts in addition to agricultural experts. Wasn't the reason for their appointment so they could hit the ground running? The second journey following the general election is about to begin.
美牛與加稅馬上考驗新內閣
2012-02-03中國時報
儘管大選前各政黨對立甚至廝殺，但是當選舉結果一確定，台灣社會很快地就恢復了平靜，朝野兩黨也「各就各位」，努力為下個階段的任務進行準備。無論是選贏的陣營還是選輸的陣營，都未見強烈反彈的情緒，整個社會也平心靜氣面對這全新的局面。這種成熟理性是台灣的驕傲，我們應思索如何以這樣的共同資產為基礎，繼續向前進。
國民黨雖然贏得總統大選，但選票較上次減少百萬票，而民進黨更是從選前預估會小贏的局面變成輸了近八十萬票，但立委席次則較上次增加了十三席。就算各陣營選前不斷進行各種放話，但看來台灣選民心中自有定見，做出了合於其價值的選擇。兩黨有得有失，說明台灣政治已很難有「贏家通吃」的傾斜局面。
也因此藍綠兩黨選後都得進行檢討與反省。馬英九總統說在新春假期裡，他用了四天時間「面壁思過」，思考國民黨票源流失的原因，也為年後布局新的人事；蔡英文則在年後的「謝票之旅」中表示，時代已經改變，民進黨必須轉型。
經歷這次選舉，兩黨都體會到培養新世代的重要。畢竟政黨如果想要永續經營，必須要有豐沛的人才庫，而人才需要時間與歷練的養成。因此馬政府在這次的黨政人事布局裡，為年輕世代留下了一些空間；蔡英文則表示，民進黨需要進行世代交替。或許這些措詞和動作，會令黨內的部分所謂大老感到不舒服，但這是時代的趨勢，後浪推前浪，政黨才會有新的生命力，國家也才會有新的動力。
外界對馬總統與準行政院長陳?這次的內閣人事改組多持正面肯定，當然也有些人不盡滿意，認為改變幅度不夠大。不過，需要注意的是，新任正副總統是五二○就任，到時候，民意如果要求「新人新氣象」，難保執政團隊又要來個幅度可大可小的換血！從二月初至五月，說長不長、說短不短，這個時候馬英九思考新的政黨人事，自然會有短中長期不同時程的規畫和布局，出現如此布局也是可以理解的。
在目前這個階段，建立一個穩定的經濟團隊，以及就民意關注度高、一定要有所安排的部會先行調整，應該算是比較穩當的做法；在想要耳目一新的民意期待與施政成熟度之間拿捏出一個適當比例才是上策，無須「為了改組而改組」，畢竟「改變」不是目的，「變好」才是。
民進黨在這次總統敗選後，黨內很快傳出檢討聲浪，雖有部分人士竟以企業為檢討的對象，甚至發起杯葛，但也有呂秀蓮就民進黨黨主席的權力是否過大，做出提醒；而針對是否應認同九二共識，陳明文也提出支持者有「要顧佛祖、還是要顧肚腹」的矛盾；甚至有新世代要求蔡英文必須提出具體的敗選檢討等等，說明這次選舉的結果，的確在民進黨內部引發對黨內權力結構機制，以及民進黨中國路線是否合宜的省思。
雖然蔡英文這次是輸了，但終究也拿下六百多萬票，在距離執政就只差這「最後一哩」的情況下，無論是蔡英文自己、民進黨人還是支持者，心有未甘以至於有些情緒性的反應，恐怕也是人情之常，只要民進黨人勿忘初心，拋下失望、失落，重新整軍，未來當然仍然問鼎有望。
很多人認為台灣這次選舉是非常優質的民主示範，這樣的成果，是由勝選一方所表現出來的不驕與敗選一方所表現出來的不餒，再加上，最重要的是，整個台灣人民的守法、理性，所共同創造的；這「民主的鐵三角」可說是缺一不可。
不過，選舉過程和平落幕也還只是整個故事的第一章，選舉結果出來後，台灣未來的路要怎麼走，挑戰才剛要開始─新內閣還在暖身，「美牛」與「加稅」兩大難題已迎面撲來，馬英九勝選後所要面對的這第一場考驗，能不能過關，大家正摒息以對；許多台灣人民想知道，半個多月前的選票抉擇是否明智。
當然，這兩大議題都不新鮮，之前馬政府也早已經歷，而且過程堪稱備受折磨；但就算是「考古題」，也不表示馬政府有充分的把握，問題如此迅速「兵臨城下」，對下個禮拜一才正式就任的新內閣來講，或許是有些殘忍，但是，準閣揆陳?不是說老船長能讓人安心嗎！團隊裡的經濟老兵加上農業專家，不就是準備好要來打這第一場硬仗嗎！台灣大選後的第二場驚奇之旅，即將展開！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 3, 2012
Summary: Prior to the general election, the political parties were at loggerheads with each other. They gave no quarter, and asked for none in return. But once the outcome of the election was confirmed, society on Taiwan quickly returned to normal. The ruling and opposition parties resumed their assigned roles, and prepared for their next mission. Neither the winning nor the losing camps showed signs of emotional backlash. Society as a whole faced the situation calmly. Such maturity and rationality is the pride of Taiwan. We should ask ourselves how we can move ahead given this shared asset.
Full Text Below:
Prior to the general election, the political parties were at loggerheads with each other. They gave no quarter, and asked for none in return. But once the outcome of the election was confirmed, society on Taiwan quickly returned to normal. The ruling and opposition parties resumed their assigned roles, and prepared for their next mission. Neither the winning nor the losing camps showed signs of emotional backlash. Society as a whole faced the situation calmly. Such maturity and rationality is the pride of Taiwan. We should ask ourselves how we can move ahead given this shared asset.
The KMT won the presidential election. But it received one million fewer votes than last time. Before the election the DPP assumed it would win by a small margin. Instead it lost by nearly 800,000 votes. Still, it gained 13 seats in the legislature. Before to the election, both camp floated rumors. But voters on Taiwan had minds of their own. They made choices reflecting their own priorities. The two parties made gains and suffered losses. This means Taiwan is unlikely to encounter another "winner-take-all" scenario again.
Both the Blue and Green camps need to conduct post-election soul-searching. President Ma Ying-jeou said that during the New Year holidays, he spent four days "sitting in the corner pondering his mistakes." He asked himself why the KMT received so many fewer votes. He reflected upon his new cabinet appointments. During the New Year's holiday Tsai Ing-wen traveled around Taiwan thanking voters for their support. She said times have changed, and the DPP must change with them.
This election has taught the two major parties the importance of cultivating a new generation of supporters. If a political party wishes to govern long term, it must have a large pool of talent to draw from. Such talent takes time and experience to cultivate. Therefore the Ma administration must make room for the younger generation when making its party and governmental appointments. Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP needs generational change. Her words and actions may make some "party elders" uncomfortable. But time waits for no man. As the saying goes, "The water from the upper reaches of the Yangtze push the waters from the lower reaches into the sea." Only this can inject new blood into a political party. Only this can provide a nation with fresh drive.
President Ma and newly appointed Premier Sean Chen have reshuffled the cabinet. Most outsiders give them a thumbs up. Of course some remain unhappy. They consider the magnitude of changes inadequate. But the president and vice president elect will take office on May 20. By that time, assuming the public still wants fresh blood and a new climate, there could be yet another major or minor cabinet shakeup. The time between early February and May is either short or long, depending on one's perception. During this time, Ma Ying-jeou will be conisidering new political appointments. Naturally he will be making both short and long-term plans. Therefore his current cabinet roster is understandable.
The public is watching the Ma administration like a hawk. To establish a dependable economic team at this stage, Ma must first fine tune his cabinet appointments. That is a relatively safe move. The public expects a fresh, forward looking administration. But it also needs experienced governance. All told, this is the best approach. There is no need for "reorganization and restructuring." After all the goal is not "change," but rather "improvement."
The DPP lost the presidential election. Soon afterwards, party members demanded a review. Some blamed Taiwan entrepreneurs. They even demanded boycotts. But Annette Lu wondered whether the DPP party chairman's powers were too sweeping. She reminded people that the real issue was whether to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Chen Ming-wen noted how supporters were torn between voting their hearts or voting their pocketbooks. Younger leaders even demanded that Tsai Ing-wen answer for the party's defeat, and explain why the election turned out the way it did. This led to internal debate over the DPP's power arrangements and its policy toward "[Mainland] China."
Tsai Ing-wen lost. But she still received over six million votes. She came within striking distance of the presidency. Tsai Ing-wen, DPP leaders, and DPP supporters may feel aggrieved. That is only human. But DPP leaders and DPP supporters must not forget their original intent. They must set aside their feelings of disappointment and loss, and regroup. Of course, there is always hope for the future.
Many consider the recent election a model of democracy. The winner was not arrogant. The loser was not sore. More importantly, the public on Taiwan remained law-abiding and rational. Together they established the indispenable "iron triangle of democracy."
The peaceful conclusion of the electoral process is merely the first chapter in the story. The election results are now known. How will the future unfold? The challenges have just begun. The new cabinet is still warming up. The U.S. beef controversy and the tax increase controvery loom. Now that Ma Ying-jeou has won, he must face this, the first test of his administration. Will he pass muster? The public is holding its collective breath. Many voters on Taiwan want to know whether the choice they made a month and a half ago was a wise one.
Of course none of these issues is new. The Ma administration has encountered them all before. The process may be tortuous. The questions may be old. But that does not mean the Ma administration already knows the answers. Problems arise quickly. Ruling administrations soon finds themselves beseiged. The new cabinet will officially take office next Monday. Perhaps this is too cruel. But didn't newly appointed Premier Sean Chen say that having an old hand at the helm was reassuring? The cabinet includes veteran financial and economic experts in addition to agricultural experts. Wasn't the reason for their appointment so they could hit the ground running? The second journey following the general election is about to begin.
美牛與加稅馬上考驗新內閣
2012-02-03中國時報
儘管大選前各政黨對立甚至廝殺，但是當選舉結果一確定，台灣社會很快地就恢復了平靜，朝野兩黨也「各就各位」，努力為下個階段的任務進行準備。無論是選贏的陣營還是選輸的陣營，都未見強烈反彈的情緒，整個社會也平心靜氣面對這全新的局面。這種成熟理性是台灣的驕傲，我們應思索如何以這樣的共同資產為基礎，繼續向前進。
國民黨雖然贏得總統大選，但選票較上次減少百萬票，而民進黨更是從選前預估會小贏的局面變成輸了近八十萬票，但立委席次則較上次增加了十三席。就算各陣營選前不斷進行各種放話，但看來台灣選民心中自有定見，做出了合於其價值的選擇。兩黨有得有失，說明台灣政治已很難有「贏家通吃」的傾斜局面。
也因此藍綠兩黨選後都得進行檢討與反省。馬英九總統說在新春假期裡，他用了四天時間「面壁思過」，思考國民黨票源流失的原因，也為年後布局新的人事；蔡英文則在年後的「謝票之旅」中表示，時代已經改變，民進黨必須轉型。
經歷這次選舉，兩黨都體會到培養新世代的重要。畢竟政黨如果想要永續經營，必須要有豐沛的人才庫，而人才需要時間與歷練的養成。因此馬政府在這次的黨政人事布局裡，為年輕世代留下了一些空間；蔡英文則表示，民進黨需要進行世代交替。或許這些措詞和動作，會令黨內的部分所謂大老感到不舒服，但這是時代的趨勢，後浪推前浪，政黨才會有新的生命力，國家也才會有新的動力。
外界對馬總統與準行政院長陳?這次的內閣人事改組多持正面肯定，當然也有些人不盡滿意，認為改變幅度不夠大。不過，需要注意的是，新任正副總統是五二○就任，到時候，民意如果要求「新人新氣象」，難保執政團隊又要來個幅度可大可小的換血！從二月初至五月，說長不長、說短不短，這個時候馬英九思考新的政黨人事，自然會有短中長期不同時程的規畫和布局，出現如此布局也是可以理解的。
在目前這個階段，建立一個穩定的經濟團隊，以及就民意關注度高、一定要有所安排的部會先行調整，應該算是比較穩當的做法；在想要耳目一新的民意期待與施政成熟度之間拿捏出一個適當比例才是上策，無須「為了改組而改組」，畢竟「改變」不是目的，「變好」才是。
民進黨在這次總統敗選後，黨內很快傳出檢討聲浪，雖有部分人士竟以企業為檢討的對象，甚至發起杯葛，但也有呂秀蓮就民進黨黨主席的權力是否過大，做出提醒；而針對是否應認同九二共識，陳明文也提出支持者有「要顧佛祖、還是要顧肚腹」的矛盾；甚至有新世代要求蔡英文必須提出具體的敗選檢討等等，說明這次選舉的結果，的確在民進黨內部引發對黨內權力結構機制，以及民進黨中國路線是否合宜的省思。
雖然蔡英文這次是輸了，但終究也拿下六百多萬票，在距離執政就只差這「最後一哩」的情況下，無論是蔡英文自己、民進黨人還是支持者，心有未甘以至於有些情緒性的反應，恐怕也是人情之常，只要民進黨人勿忘初心，拋下失望、失落，重新整軍，未來當然仍然問鼎有望。
很多人認為台灣這次選舉是非常優質的民主示範，這樣的成果，是由勝選一方所表現出來的不驕與敗選一方所表現出來的不餒，再加上，最重要的是，整個台灣人民的守法、理性，所共同創造的；這「民主的鐵三角」可說是缺一不可。
不過，選舉過程和平落幕也還只是整個故事的第一章，選舉結果出來後，台灣未來的路要怎麼走，挑戰才剛要開始─新內閣還在暖身，「美牛」與「加稅」兩大難題已迎面撲來，馬英九勝選後所要面對的這第一場考驗，能不能過關，大家正摒息以對；許多台灣人民想知道，半個多月前的選票抉擇是否明智。
當然，這兩大議題都不新鮮，之前馬政府也早已經歷，而且過程堪稱備受折磨；但就算是「考古題」，也不表示馬政府有充分的把握，問題如此迅速「兵臨城下」，對下個禮拜一才正式就任的新內閣來講，或許是有些殘忍，但是，準閣揆陳?不是說老船長能讓人安心嗎！團隊裡的經濟老兵加上農業專家，不就是準備好要來打這第一場硬仗嗎！台灣大選後的第二場驚奇之旅，即將展開！
The DPP Would Do Well to Listen to Different Voices
The DPP Would Do Well to Listen to Different Voices
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2012
Summary: DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew it would do well to listen to different voices.
Full Text Below:
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. By doing so, Tsai Ing-wen behaved appropriately. Unfortunately this was soon followed by a vendetta against Taiwan entrepreneur Cher Wang and HTC brand mobile phones, by a DPP member of the Taipei City Council. It was followed also by Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to meet American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt. By refusing to meet with Burghardt, Tsai and the DPP have evinced a closed-minded, "pity poor me" attitude. This can only be detrimental to the political fortunes of the largest opposition party on Taiwan.
Following the election, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan immediately began a second round of competition. The Ma administration announced a new cabinet. This new cabinet would begin implementing the administration's blueprint for a "Golden Decade." But the KMT government would not have the stage to itself. Sean Chen's cabinet must soon face the newly-elected legislature. The DPP will soon surface and play an important role in legislative oversight. When that happens, how will the ruling and opposition parties react to each other? What sort of sparks will fly? Will it be a case of the expert finessing the situation? Or will it be a case of "the scholar encounters the soldier?" The Chen cabinet cannot relax. It must begin work immediately. The same is true for the DPP leadership. It can no longer remain clueless. After all, thorough soul-searching by the DPP is also a priority.
This is why the "explanation" the DPP leadership offered for the DPP's defeat has left observers incredulous. According to reports, the DPP has offered two reasons for its defeat. Reason Number One. Former American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal publicly supported the 1992 Consensus prior to the election. This had a major impact on the general election. Reason Number Two. Rumors of voting irregularities on election day.
First, let us address the alleged voting irregularities. The quality of civil service personnel on Taiwan is high. So is the quality of civil service training. Allegations of large scale vote tampering, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of votes, are utterly nonsensical. The DPP's attitude is indistinguishable from an ostrich with its head in the sand.
The charges of voting irregularities are outrageous. That said, the list of reasons the DPP offered for its defeat put the U.S. government's attitude at the top of the list. This reveals an even more peculiar attitude. Dozens of entrepreneurial heavyweights came out in support of the 1992 Consensus. Yet the DPP singled out the United States for blame. Tsai Ing-wen even refused to meet with Raymond Burghardt, who was visiting at the time. What can one say? The DPP has long followed Uncle Sam's lead in diplomacy. Yet this was their reward. Their feelings can be summed up in the expression, "I gave my heart to the moon, but the moon cast its light in the gutter."
Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP blame the United States. But why don't they ask themselves whether their perceptions and expectations of the United States were mistaken? During the debate over ECFA Tsai Ing-wen castigated the Ma administration. She accused it of pandering to Mainland China. She accused it of changing the strategic balance in the Asian-Pacific region. She implied that the relationship between the United States and Mainland China was a zero sum game. She implied that Taiwan was getting too chummy with Mainland China, and that this was something the U.S. and Japan do not welcome. But the United States and even Japan made clear their attitudes during the general election. They made it clear that US-China relations were be both competitive and cooperative, that it was not a zero-sum game. They made it clear that the US did not welcome heightened cross-Strait tensions. In fact, WikiLeaks revealed that the AIT Director conveyed this message to the DPP, well in advance of the election. But the DPP failed to get the message, intentionally or otherwise. As a result, it misjudged the situation and it paid the price.
More importantly, it matters not how much the DPP values the United States. As Raymond Burghardt pointed out, the United States does not have that much influence. The final choice was made by the public on Taiwan. The DPP can blame the United States. It can can blame Cher Wang, Terry Gou, and other entrepreneurs. But Americans did not vote in the election. Entrepreneurs on Taiwan had only one vote apiece. The DPP casts blame left and right. Instead it should try to understand why those who championed the 1992 Consensus were able to sway other voters.
For politicians, a presidential election is a winner take all proposition. But for voters, it is a referendum on the nation's future. Therefore, any blueprint for the nation's future, drafted by any campaign committee, must understand the problems. Only then can it offer realistic solutions. The DPP has a major problem. It might not talk about reunification vs. independence during its election campaigns. But it never stops thinking about it. The DPP painted the Ma administration as "reunificationist." It insisted that the 1992 Consensus would undermine "Taiwan's sovereignty." By doing so, it moved further and further away from public opinion. Because for voters on Taiwan, reunification vs independence long ceased being an issue. The Republic of China's sovereignty is not in jeopardy. Voters on Taiwan are concerned about other matters. They are concerned about their fate amidst globalization and Asian-Pacific regional competition. They are afraid of being marginalized. They want to find a new economic niche for themselves. The DPP fails to understand the problem. Naturally it is unable to render a correct diagnosis.
Election defeat is a painful experience. Especially since the DPP had such high hopes for this particular election. But as the saying goes, a day of jubilation is plenty. By the same token, a day of mourning is also plenty. A pragmatic political party should be willing to engage in earnest soul-searching. Only that will ensure future victory. But soul-searching is merely the first step. The DPP must take a bold step forward. It must listen to different voices. During the the election, Tsai Ing-wen promised that in the event the DPP won, it would form a coalition government. She promised to listen to different voices. The DPP should not renege on its commitment because it has lost instead of won.
The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew, it would do well to listen to different voices.
民進黨何妨聽取不同的聲音
2012-02-02中國時報
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文的敗選感言，不但在台灣備受肯定，甚至在對岸引起深遠的迴響，成為台灣民主的象徵；但在蔡英文的完美表現後，隨之而來的卻是民進黨市議員扺制企業家王雪紅旗下的ＨＴＣ品牌手機，以及這兩日的拒見美國在台協會主席薄瑞光事件，這其間流露出的受害、封閉心態，對最大反對黨未來的發展，可說是有害無益。
大選後，台灣的朝野政黨立即展開第二回合的競爭，馬政府風風火火啟動新閣，要開始著手完成黃金十年藍圖；但是，國民黨或馬政府不可能唱獨角戲，很快的，當陳內閣面對新國會，民進黨將浮出檯面，而且在國會監督中擔綱重要角色，屆時，朝野政黨會爆出何種火花？是高手過招？還是秀才遇到兵？如果說，陳內閣毫無喘息的空間，必須馬上上手；同樣的，民進黨的菁英們，也不能一出場就毫無章法，歸根究柢，民進黨的徹底反省檢討，同樣也是當務之急。
正因如此，民進黨中央日前提出的敗選檢討，特別令人錯愕；據報導，民進黨中央提出的兩項敗選原因，分別是一、前美國在台協會辦事處（ＡＩＴ）處長包道格選前公開支持九二共識，對大選造成影響；第二、投票當天傳出開票作業異常。
先就開票作業異常而言，以台灣公務人員的素質及訓練，任何人試圖在開票時大規模做手腳，做掉數十萬選票，皆是匪夷所思，民進黨若提出這樣的「檢討」，簡直和鴕鳥無異。
作票指控離譜，但民進黨敗選報告中優先挑出美國政府的態度，則更有特殊的情結。事實上，大選時有數十位重量級的企業家跳出來挺九二共識，民進黨中央獨責美國，蔡英文甚而拒絕和來訪的薄瑞光會面，只能說，民進黨自認外交向來以美國老大哥馬首是瞻，卻得到這樣的回報，頗有「我本將心向明月、奈何明月照溝渠」、感情受傷害之嘆。
但是，蔡英文或民進黨在責怪美國之前，何妨深思，他們對美國一直有錯誤的認知及期待。蔡英文曾在ＥＣＦＡ大辯論時批評，馬政府政策傾中，可能會改變亞太地區的戰略結構，言下之意，美中是零和關係，台灣太靠近中國，是美日所不樂見；但美國、甚至日本在大選期間所表現的，卻顯示出美中關係是既競爭又合作，並非零和之爭，兩岸關係緊張，非美國所樂見；事實上，維基解密透露，歷任ＡＩＴ處長早已向民進黨傳達這樣的訊息，民進黨不論是有心或無意，都因為誤判而付出慘痛的代價。
更重要的是，無論民進黨多看重美國，正如薄瑞光所說，美國人沒有那麼大的影響力，最後還是台灣人民所做的抉擇；民進黨可以怪美國，可以怪王雪紅、郭台銘等企業家，但美國人沒有選票，企業家頂多也是一人一票，民進黨與其怪東怪西，何不好好去了解，為何這些支持九二共識的聲音，能夠說服選民！
對政客來說，總統選舉輸贏無異是贏者全拿的零和競爭，但對選民而言，其實就是選擇一個心目中可行的國家方向；因此，任何競選團隊提出的治國藍圖中，必須包含正確的現狀，然後才可能開出務實的藥方。民進黨最大的問題在於，他們在這次大選雖然絕口不談統獨，但卻無法脫離統獨的架構來打選戰；當民進黨將馬政府都打成統派、九二共識會傷害主權時，其實和民意愈離愈遠；因為，對台灣選民來說，統獨早就不是問題，台灣主權也沒有受傷之虞，他們關心的是，台灣如何在全球化、亞太區域競爭中，不被邊緣化、重新找到利基；民進黨對現狀解讀錯誤，當然就無法提出正確診斷。
敗選當然是個傷痛的經驗，尤其民進黨對此次選舉寄望甚深；但就如大家經常說的，勝選高興一天就夠了，同樣的，敗選也是難過一天就夠了；務實的政黨會誠實檢討敗選原因，未來才可能勝選。但自己人的檢討，只是第一步，民進黨有必要跨出去，了解不同的聲音，正如大選時蔡英文曾經承諾，如果勝選將籌組大聯合內閣，包容各種不同聲音，這樣的承諾不該因為敗選而失效。
不挺民進黨，不代表這些人傾中賣台，民進黨要重新站起來，何妨先從聽取不同的聲音開始！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 2, 2012
Summary: DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew it would do well to listen to different voices.
Full Text Below:
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen conceded defeat in the recent general election. Her concession statement was affirmed on Taiwan. It also had far-reaching repercussions on the Mainland. It symbolized democracy on Taiwan. By doing so, Tsai Ing-wen behaved appropriately. Unfortunately this was soon followed by a vendetta against Taiwan entrepreneur Cher Wang and HTC brand mobile phones, by a DPP member of the Taipei City Council. It was followed also by Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to meet American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt. By refusing to meet with Burghardt, Tsai and the DPP have evinced a closed-minded, "pity poor me" attitude. This can only be detrimental to the political fortunes of the largest opposition party on Taiwan.
Following the election, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan immediately began a second round of competition. The Ma administration announced a new cabinet. This new cabinet would begin implementing the administration's blueprint for a "Golden Decade." But the KMT government would not have the stage to itself. Sean Chen's cabinet must soon face the newly-elected legislature. The DPP will soon surface and play an important role in legislative oversight. When that happens, how will the ruling and opposition parties react to each other? What sort of sparks will fly? Will it be a case of the expert finessing the situation? Or will it be a case of "the scholar encounters the soldier?" The Chen cabinet cannot relax. It must begin work immediately. The same is true for the DPP leadership. It can no longer remain clueless. After all, thorough soul-searching by the DPP is also a priority.
This is why the "explanation" the DPP leadership offered for the DPP's defeat has left observers incredulous. According to reports, the DPP has offered two reasons for its defeat. Reason Number One. Former American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal publicly supported the 1992 Consensus prior to the election. This had a major impact on the general election. Reason Number Two. Rumors of voting irregularities on election day.
First, let us address the alleged voting irregularities. The quality of civil service personnel on Taiwan is high. So is the quality of civil service training. Allegations of large scale vote tampering, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of votes, are utterly nonsensical. The DPP's attitude is indistinguishable from an ostrich with its head in the sand.
The charges of voting irregularities are outrageous. That said, the list of reasons the DPP offered for its defeat put the U.S. government's attitude at the top of the list. This reveals an even more peculiar attitude. Dozens of entrepreneurial heavyweights came out in support of the 1992 Consensus. Yet the DPP singled out the United States for blame. Tsai Ing-wen even refused to meet with Raymond Burghardt, who was visiting at the time. What can one say? The DPP has long followed Uncle Sam's lead in diplomacy. Yet this was their reward. Their feelings can be summed up in the expression, "I gave my heart to the moon, but the moon cast its light in the gutter."
Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP blame the United States. But why don't they ask themselves whether their perceptions and expectations of the United States were mistaken? During the debate over ECFA Tsai Ing-wen castigated the Ma administration. She accused it of pandering to Mainland China. She accused it of changing the strategic balance in the Asian-Pacific region. She implied that the relationship between the United States and Mainland China was a zero sum game. She implied that Taiwan was getting too chummy with Mainland China, and that this was something the U.S. and Japan do not welcome. But the United States and even Japan made clear their attitudes during the general election. They made it clear that US-China relations were be both competitive and cooperative, that it was not a zero-sum game. They made it clear that the US did not welcome heightened cross-Strait tensions. In fact, WikiLeaks revealed that the AIT Director conveyed this message to the DPP, well in advance of the election. But the DPP failed to get the message, intentionally or otherwise. As a result, it misjudged the situation and it paid the price.
More importantly, it matters not how much the DPP values the United States. As Raymond Burghardt pointed out, the United States does not have that much influence. The final choice was made by the public on Taiwan. The DPP can blame the United States. It can can blame Cher Wang, Terry Gou, and other entrepreneurs. But Americans did not vote in the election. Entrepreneurs on Taiwan had only one vote apiece. The DPP casts blame left and right. Instead it should try to understand why those who championed the 1992 Consensus were able to sway other voters.
For politicians, a presidential election is a winner take all proposition. But for voters, it is a referendum on the nation's future. Therefore, any blueprint for the nation's future, drafted by any campaign committee, must understand the problems. Only then can it offer realistic solutions. The DPP has a major problem. It might not talk about reunification vs. independence during its election campaigns. But it never stops thinking about it. The DPP painted the Ma administration as "reunificationist." It insisted that the 1992 Consensus would undermine "Taiwan's sovereignty." By doing so, it moved further and further away from public opinion. Because for voters on Taiwan, reunification vs independence long ceased being an issue. The Republic of China's sovereignty is not in jeopardy. Voters on Taiwan are concerned about other matters. They are concerned about their fate amidst globalization and Asian-Pacific regional competition. They are afraid of being marginalized. They want to find a new economic niche for themselves. The DPP fails to understand the problem. Naturally it is unable to render a correct diagnosis.
Election defeat is a painful experience. Especially since the DPP had such high hopes for this particular election. But as the saying goes, a day of jubilation is plenty. By the same token, a day of mourning is also plenty. A pragmatic political party should be willing to engage in earnest soul-searching. Only that will ensure future victory. But soul-searching is merely the first step. The DPP must take a bold step forward. It must listen to different voices. During the the election, Tsai Ing-wen promised that in the event the DPP won, it would form a coalition government. She promised to listen to different voices. The DPP should not renege on its commitment because it has lost instead of won.
The voters voted against the DPP. That does not mean they "pandered to Mainland China and sold out Taiwan." If the DPP wants to begin anew, it would do well to listen to different voices.
民進黨何妨聽取不同的聲音
2012-02-02中國時報
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文的敗選感言，不但在台灣備受肯定，甚至在對岸引起深遠的迴響，成為台灣民主的象徵；但在蔡英文的完美表現後，隨之而來的卻是民進黨市議員扺制企業家王雪紅旗下的ＨＴＣ品牌手機，以及這兩日的拒見美國在台協會主席薄瑞光事件，這其間流露出的受害、封閉心態，對最大反對黨未來的發展，可說是有害無益。
大選後，台灣的朝野政黨立即展開第二回合的競爭，馬政府風風火火啟動新閣，要開始著手完成黃金十年藍圖；但是，國民黨或馬政府不可能唱獨角戲，很快的，當陳內閣面對新國會，民進黨將浮出檯面，而且在國會監督中擔綱重要角色，屆時，朝野政黨會爆出何種火花？是高手過招？還是秀才遇到兵？如果說，陳內閣毫無喘息的空間，必須馬上上手；同樣的，民進黨的菁英們，也不能一出場就毫無章法，歸根究柢，民進黨的徹底反省檢討，同樣也是當務之急。
正因如此，民進黨中央日前提出的敗選檢討，特別令人錯愕；據報導，民進黨中央提出的兩項敗選原因，分別是一、前美國在台協會辦事處（ＡＩＴ）處長包道格選前公開支持九二共識，對大選造成影響；第二、投票當天傳出開票作業異常。
先就開票作業異常而言，以台灣公務人員的素質及訓練，任何人試圖在開票時大規模做手腳，做掉數十萬選票，皆是匪夷所思，民進黨若提出這樣的「檢討」，簡直和鴕鳥無異。
作票指控離譜，但民進黨敗選報告中優先挑出美國政府的態度，則更有特殊的情結。事實上，大選時有數十位重量級的企業家跳出來挺九二共識，民進黨中央獨責美國，蔡英文甚而拒絕和來訪的薄瑞光會面，只能說，民進黨自認外交向來以美國老大哥馬首是瞻，卻得到這樣的回報，頗有「我本將心向明月、奈何明月照溝渠」、感情受傷害之嘆。
但是，蔡英文或民進黨在責怪美國之前，何妨深思，他們對美國一直有錯誤的認知及期待。蔡英文曾在ＥＣＦＡ大辯論時批評，馬政府政策傾中，可能會改變亞太地區的戰略結構，言下之意，美中是零和關係，台灣太靠近中國，是美日所不樂見；但美國、甚至日本在大選期間所表現的，卻顯示出美中關係是既競爭又合作，並非零和之爭，兩岸關係緊張，非美國所樂見；事實上，維基解密透露，歷任ＡＩＴ處長早已向民進黨傳達這樣的訊息，民進黨不論是有心或無意，都因為誤判而付出慘痛的代價。
更重要的是，無論民進黨多看重美國，正如薄瑞光所說，美國人沒有那麼大的影響力，最後還是台灣人民所做的抉擇；民進黨可以怪美國，可以怪王雪紅、郭台銘等企業家，但美國人沒有選票，企業家頂多也是一人一票，民進黨與其怪東怪西，何不好好去了解，為何這些支持九二共識的聲音，能夠說服選民！
對政客來說，總統選舉輸贏無異是贏者全拿的零和競爭，但對選民而言，其實就是選擇一個心目中可行的國家方向；因此，任何競選團隊提出的治國藍圖中，必須包含正確的現狀，然後才可能開出務實的藥方。民進黨最大的問題在於，他們在這次大選雖然絕口不談統獨，但卻無法脫離統獨的架構來打選戰；當民進黨將馬政府都打成統派、九二共識會傷害主權時，其實和民意愈離愈遠；因為，對台灣選民來說，統獨早就不是問題，台灣主權也沒有受傷之虞，他們關心的是，台灣如何在全球化、亞太區域競爭中，不被邊緣化、重新找到利基；民進黨對現狀解讀錯誤，當然就無法提出正確診斷。
敗選當然是個傷痛的經驗，尤其民進黨對此次選舉寄望甚深；但就如大家經常說的，勝選高興一天就夠了，同樣的，敗選也是難過一天就夠了；務實的政黨會誠實檢討敗選原因，未來才可能勝選。但自己人的檢討，只是第一步，民進黨有必要跨出去，了解不同的聲音，正如大選時蔡英文曾經承諾，如果勝選將籌組大聯合內閣，包容各種不同聲音，這樣的承諾不該因為敗選而失效。
不挺民進黨，不代表這些人傾中賣台，民進黨要重新站起來，何妨先從聽取不同的聲音開始！
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A New Cabinet, A New Political Climate: Just Do It!
A New Cabinet, A New Political Climate: Just Do It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 1, 2012
Summary: There is no honeymoon period for a second term president, let alone a trial period. President Ma Ying-jeou's second term cabinet has a new lineup. It includes old veterans and new hires. It includes many outspoken individuals. It deserves our affirmation. The most important aspect of the newly formed cabinet however, is not whether it includes new faces. The important point is whether it can make a fresh start and more effectively implement administration policy. This will depend on whether cabinet members have the determination, initiative, and willingness to do what needs to be done. Only then can President Ma leave behind a legacy.
Full Text Below:
There is no honeymoon period for a second term president, let alone a trial period. President Ma Ying-jeou's second term cabinet has a new lineup. It includes old veterans and new hires. It includes many outspoken individuals. It deserves our affirmation. The most important aspect of the newly formed cabinet however, is not whether it includes new faces. The important point is whether it can make a fresh start and more effectively implement administration policy. This will depend on whether cabinet members have the determination, initiative, and willingness to do what needs to be done. Only then can President Ma leave behind a legacy.
When the cabinet reshuffle was first announced, Ma's choice financial and economic cabinet members was subject to considerable criticism. The reason was simple. With the exception of Academia Sinica member Kuan Chung-min, the cabinet was filled with old faces. But as cabinet member Sean Chen pointed out, given the European debt crisis, they could hardly risk naming an all new captain and an all new crew. The good thing about old faces is that they put people at ease. A ball team cannot consist entirely of Wang Chien-mings. Political appointees each have their own roles, their own duties. Only then can they work as a team. Only then will their fighting ability be optimal. Do not underestimate the importance of political appointees. Things do no get done by themselves. People get things done. Some people twiddle their thumbs. Others spontaneously seek out things that need to be done. Kuan Chung-min may be able to give the financial and economic cabinet the shot in the arm that it needs.
The list of new cabinet members includes many eye-catching names. It includes Chang Shan-cheng, who was lured back to Taiwan from Google. During his early years he was the National Science Council's Chief of Science and Technology. Following the 2000 change in ruling parties, he left public office and went into the private sector. He is experienced in both industry and government. The new list of cabinet members includes Chairman of the National Science Council and Academia Sinica member Chu Ching-yi. He and Chang were both Division Chiefs in Human Resources. They are good friends and interact well with each other. They should be able to upgrade the Ministry of Science and Technology and pioneer new horizons for Taiwan's technology industry.
Ma has also recruited Lung Ying-tai, from the University of Hong Kong. He has persuaded her to return to Taiwan to serve as Chairman of the Council for Cultural Affairs. She has written extensively. She is a heavy weight in humanist circles. She is outspoken to those in power. She is unafraid to admonish them, and has never been one to mince words. Years ago Ma persuaded her to return to Taiwan from Germany, where she was serving as Chief of the Bureau of Culture. She gave the Ma administration considerable face. Ma Ying-jeou has once again convinced her to serve his administration. Morale within the CCA has been low since last year's "Dreamer" controversy. The task will be arduous. But her appointment has raised public expectations for the soon to be upgraded Ministry of Culture.
Central University President Chiang Wei-ning is a dark horse who will serve as Minister of Education. He spoke frankly, saying he will have to do at least a week's worth of homework. The administration is about to promote its program of 12 year compulsory education. This includes "admissions without entrance exams," and "admissions on the basis of special merit" to be finalized in April, prior to May 20. Chiang must quickly familiarize himself with the situation, and make his decision before the deadline. This is an enormous challenge. But for the fleet of foot and swift to act, creative and effective Chiang Wei-ning, this should be no problem.
Former DPP Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing has accepted a cabinet appointment. When interviewed he said he would pay special attention to Taiwan's agricultural systems, especially in southern Taiwan. He believes the KMT needs to do more in southern Taiwan. His thinking may make up for certain deficiencies in the KMT government. He and the new COA chairman Chen Pao-chi can complement each other.
When men and women of ability are willing to serve in the government, it means the government is one people can trust. But being an official on Taiwan is not easy. Above the political appointee is the President and the Premier. Below the political appointee is public opinion, Alongside the political appointee are one hundred fierce legislators. One either sits while being lectured, or stands while being scolded. Political appointees find it difficult to survive. As a result scholars and industrialists consider a political appointment risky business. Ma has presented a cabinet rich in new ideas. Clearly President Ma's people skills are appreciated, That is why so many people are willing to set aside their comfortable lives in academia or industry for an opportunity to show what they can do.
Having crossed the Rubicon, all Ma can do is continue advancing. The new cabinet has yet to take office, but it must face the European debt crisis, Taiwan's economy is about to flash blue, signaling a crisis. The larger environment is extremely unfavorable for the new cabinet. But the Ma administration is not under re-election pressure. No elections are schedule for the next two years, It should be able to quietly get things done. It should be free from excessive political interference.
Political appointees come and go, When they step down, their departure is handled discreetly. But once they have agreed to serve, they must be fully prepared psychologically, They must be determined to succeed and not accept failure. They must be determined to achieve results and to not surrender. The Ma administration's first term achievements were ridiculed as "wu gan," or "undetectable." The reason was that some officials were afraid or reluctant to defend the administration's policies. Yin Chi-ming has been reappointed Minister of Economic Affairs, probably because he vigorously defended ECFA during the reelection campaign.
Political appointees must of course do more than defend administration policies during election campaigns. They must assume final responsibility for their own policies. They must not reflexively kowtow to legislators. They must not reflexively run from the media. When offered suggestions or constructive criticism, they should respectfully listen. When attacked irrationally, they should step forward and say "no." If they do their jobs well, the public will applaud them. If they do their jobs poorly, they should quietly pack up and leave, They should not feel aggrieved. The Ma administration is not President Ma's personal adminstration. A government must assume responsibility for its political appointees. The president cannot sit at home year after year "reflecting upon his mistakes."
新內閣新氣象 要敢作敢擔當
2012-02-01中國時報
連任者沒有蜜月期，遑論試驗期；馬英九總統第二任新內閣在開春後擺好陣容，老幹新枝，而且納入不少敢言之士，值得肯定。最重要的，內閣改組不在於閣員是否都是新面孔，而在於政府政策效能是否確實全新啟動，這就有賴所有閣員拿出魄力，肯擔當、肯負責，才能創造馬總統希望的歷史評價。
這次改組最早披露的財經小內閣，反而遭到較多批評。原因很簡單，除了中研院士管中閔出任政務委員外，都是老面孔搬風。然而，誠如閣揆陳?所言，面對歐債危機總不能都是新船長，老手的好處是讓民眾安心；一個球隊不可能個個都是王建民，政務官各司其職，各負其責，才能將團隊戰力發揮到最高。不要小看政務委員的功能，事情是人做的，有些人為官投閒置散，有些人天生就會找事做，管中閔或許就能為財經小內閣注入推力和動能。
新閣名單中有不少讓人眼睛一亮的人士。諸如從谷哥挖角回台灣的張善政出任政務委員，他早年即任國科會科技處長，二○○○年政黨輪替後離開公職，轉到民間公司任職，業界與政府歷練都夠豐富；新閣發布出任國科會主委的中研院士朱敬一當年與他同期擔任人文處長，兩人交誼甚深互動更佳，相信可以為升格後的科技部及台灣科技產業再升級，創造一番新局面。
此外，從香港大學延攬返台出任文建會主委的龍應台，著作豐沛，在人文圈分量極重，對權力者以敢言敢諫著稱，從來不是唯唯諾諾之輩。當年馬英九延攬她從德國返台出任文化局長，為馬市府團隊增添不少光釆，這回馬英九再次說服她為政府服務，還要重振文建會自去年夢想家爭議後的低迷士氣，任務艱鉅，卻讓大眾對未來升格後的文化部更加期待。
中央大學校長蔣偉寧則以黑馬之姿出任教育部長。他很誠實的說，他至少要花一個星期時間做功課，十二年國教推動在即，甚至包括「免試入學超額比序條件」、「特色招生辦法」都要在五二○前的四月就得定案，他得花最少的時間進入狀況，並在限期內做成決策，必然是極大的挑戰，但對衝勁十足、行動快速，講究創意和效率的蔣偉寧而言，應該不是大問題。
這次入閣的前民進黨籍高雄縣長楊秋興受訪時自陳要關注台灣的農業系統，特別是南台灣。他認為國民黨在南台灣還需要耕耘，他的思維可以挹注國民黨政府的不足，相信也能和學者出身的新任農委會主委陳保基相輔相成。
對社會大眾而言，能人幹士願意為政府服務，代表這個政府可以讓人信賴。然而，在台灣為官不易，政務官上有總統、院長，下有輿論監督，旁邊還有上百位火力勇猛的立法委員，官員不是坐著聽訓就得站著挨罵，「官不聊生」讓學界和業者視為官為畏途。這次能擺出不乏新意的布局，顯見馬總統為人還是受到肯定，才會讓這麼多人才願意放下自己熟悉的學術生活或在業界一展長才的機會。
既已做了過河卒子，只能拚命向前。新內閣還沒就任就要面對歐債風暴，台灣景氣逼近藍燈的危機，整體大環境對新內閣極為不利；但是，馬政府沒有連任壓力，兩年後才有選舉，相對可以安安靜靜做點事，不受到太多政治外力的干擾。
政務官來來去去，下台時要淡然處之，但既點頭上台，就得做好完全的心理準備，只許成功不許失敗，拿出不做出點成績絕不罷休的拚勁。馬政府第一任績被譏評為「無感」，和部分政務官不敢、不肯為政策辯護相關。這次重回內閣出任經建會主委的尹啟銘，相信和他在大選期間火力旺盛為ＥＣＦＡ政策辯護有關。
身為政務官不只在選舉期間才有需要辯護，時時刻刻都要為自己拍板定案的政策負責，不能見立委就彎腰，見媒體就落跑；但凡建議或批評，有道理者敬謹受教，沒道理者當然要挺身說「不」，做得好民眾自會給予掌聲，做不好二話不說請打包走人，沒有任何委屈可言。馬政府不是馬總統一人的政府，這個政府需要政務官共同擔起責任，總不能年年讓總統在家「閉門思過」。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 1, 2012
Summary: There is no honeymoon period for a second term president, let alone a trial period. President Ma Ying-jeou's second term cabinet has a new lineup. It includes old veterans and new hires. It includes many outspoken individuals. It deserves our affirmation. The most important aspect of the newly formed cabinet however, is not whether it includes new faces. The important point is whether it can make a fresh start and more effectively implement administration policy. This will depend on whether cabinet members have the determination, initiative, and willingness to do what needs to be done. Only then can President Ma leave behind a legacy.
Full Text Below:
There is no honeymoon period for a second term president, let alone a trial period. President Ma Ying-jeou's second term cabinet has a new lineup. It includes old veterans and new hires. It includes many outspoken individuals. It deserves our affirmation. The most important aspect of the newly formed cabinet however, is not whether it includes new faces. The important point is whether it can make a fresh start and more effectively implement administration policy. This will depend on whether cabinet members have the determination, initiative, and willingness to do what needs to be done. Only then can President Ma leave behind a legacy.
When the cabinet reshuffle was first announced, Ma's choice financial and economic cabinet members was subject to considerable criticism. The reason was simple. With the exception of Academia Sinica member Kuan Chung-min, the cabinet was filled with old faces. But as cabinet member Sean Chen pointed out, given the European debt crisis, they could hardly risk naming an all new captain and an all new crew. The good thing about old faces is that they put people at ease. A ball team cannot consist entirely of Wang Chien-mings. Political appointees each have their own roles, their own duties. Only then can they work as a team. Only then will their fighting ability be optimal. Do not underestimate the importance of political appointees. Things do no get done by themselves. People get things done. Some people twiddle their thumbs. Others spontaneously seek out things that need to be done. Kuan Chung-min may be able to give the financial and economic cabinet the shot in the arm that it needs.
The list of new cabinet members includes many eye-catching names. It includes Chang Shan-cheng, who was lured back to Taiwan from Google. During his early years he was the National Science Council's Chief of Science and Technology. Following the 2000 change in ruling parties, he left public office and went into the private sector. He is experienced in both industry and government. The new list of cabinet members includes Chairman of the National Science Council and Academia Sinica member Chu Ching-yi. He and Chang were both Division Chiefs in Human Resources. They are good friends and interact well with each other. They should be able to upgrade the Ministry of Science and Technology and pioneer new horizons for Taiwan's technology industry.
Ma has also recruited Lung Ying-tai, from the University of Hong Kong. He has persuaded her to return to Taiwan to serve as Chairman of the Council for Cultural Affairs. She has written extensively. She is a heavy weight in humanist circles. She is outspoken to those in power. She is unafraid to admonish them, and has never been one to mince words. Years ago Ma persuaded her to return to Taiwan from Germany, where she was serving as Chief of the Bureau of Culture. She gave the Ma administration considerable face. Ma Ying-jeou has once again convinced her to serve his administration. Morale within the CCA has been low since last year's "Dreamer" controversy. The task will be arduous. But her appointment has raised public expectations for the soon to be upgraded Ministry of Culture.
Central University President Chiang Wei-ning is a dark horse who will serve as Minister of Education. He spoke frankly, saying he will have to do at least a week's worth of homework. The administration is about to promote its program of 12 year compulsory education. This includes "admissions without entrance exams," and "admissions on the basis of special merit" to be finalized in April, prior to May 20. Chiang must quickly familiarize himself with the situation, and make his decision before the deadline. This is an enormous challenge. But for the fleet of foot and swift to act, creative and effective Chiang Wei-ning, this should be no problem.
Former DPP Kaohsiung County Chief Yang Chiu-hsing has accepted a cabinet appointment. When interviewed he said he would pay special attention to Taiwan's agricultural systems, especially in southern Taiwan. He believes the KMT needs to do more in southern Taiwan. His thinking may make up for certain deficiencies in the KMT government. He and the new COA chairman Chen Pao-chi can complement each other.
When men and women of ability are willing to serve in the government, it means the government is one people can trust. But being an official on Taiwan is not easy. Above the political appointee is the President and the Premier. Below the political appointee is public opinion, Alongside the political appointee are one hundred fierce legislators. One either sits while being lectured, or stands while being scolded. Political appointees find it difficult to survive. As a result scholars and industrialists consider a political appointment risky business. Ma has presented a cabinet rich in new ideas. Clearly President Ma's people skills are appreciated, That is why so many people are willing to set aside their comfortable lives in academia or industry for an opportunity to show what they can do.
Having crossed the Rubicon, all Ma can do is continue advancing. The new cabinet has yet to take office, but it must face the European debt crisis, Taiwan's economy is about to flash blue, signaling a crisis. The larger environment is extremely unfavorable for the new cabinet. But the Ma administration is not under re-election pressure. No elections are schedule for the next two years, It should be able to quietly get things done. It should be free from excessive political interference.
Political appointees come and go, When they step down, their departure is handled discreetly. But once they have agreed to serve, they must be fully prepared psychologically, They must be determined to succeed and not accept failure. They must be determined to achieve results and to not surrender. The Ma administration's first term achievements were ridiculed as "wu gan," or "undetectable." The reason was that some officials were afraid or reluctant to defend the administration's policies. Yin Chi-ming has been reappointed Minister of Economic Affairs, probably because he vigorously defended ECFA during the reelection campaign.
Political appointees must of course do more than defend administration policies during election campaigns. They must assume final responsibility for their own policies. They must not reflexively kowtow to legislators. They must not reflexively run from the media. When offered suggestions or constructive criticism, they should respectfully listen. When attacked irrationally, they should step forward and say "no." If they do their jobs well, the public will applaud them. If they do their jobs poorly, they should quietly pack up and leave, They should not feel aggrieved. The Ma administration is not President Ma's personal adminstration. A government must assume responsibility for its political appointees. The president cannot sit at home year after year "reflecting upon his mistakes."
新內閣新氣象 要敢作敢擔當
2012-02-01中國時報
連任者沒有蜜月期，遑論試驗期；馬英九總統第二任新內閣在開春後擺好陣容，老幹新枝，而且納入不少敢言之士，值得肯定。最重要的，內閣改組不在於閣員是否都是新面孔，而在於政府政策效能是否確實全新啟動，這就有賴所有閣員拿出魄力，肯擔當、肯負責，才能創造馬總統希望的歷史評價。
這次改組最早披露的財經小內閣，反而遭到較多批評。原因很簡單，除了中研院士管中閔出任政務委員外，都是老面孔搬風。然而，誠如閣揆陳?所言，面對歐債危機總不能都是新船長，老手的好處是讓民眾安心；一個球隊不可能個個都是王建民，政務官各司其職，各負其責，才能將團隊戰力發揮到最高。不要小看政務委員的功能，事情是人做的，有些人為官投閒置散，有些人天生就會找事做，管中閔或許就能為財經小內閣注入推力和動能。
新閣名單中有不少讓人眼睛一亮的人士。諸如從谷哥挖角回台灣的張善政出任政務委員，他早年即任國科會科技處長，二○○○年政黨輪替後離開公職，轉到民間公司任職，業界與政府歷練都夠豐富；新閣發布出任國科會主委的中研院士朱敬一當年與他同期擔任人文處長，兩人交誼甚深互動更佳，相信可以為升格後的科技部及台灣科技產業再升級，創造一番新局面。
此外，從香港大學延攬返台出任文建會主委的龍應台，著作豐沛，在人文圈分量極重，對權力者以敢言敢諫著稱，從來不是唯唯諾諾之輩。當年馬英九延攬她從德國返台出任文化局長，為馬市府團隊增添不少光釆，這回馬英九再次說服她為政府服務，還要重振文建會自去年夢想家爭議後的低迷士氣，任務艱鉅，卻讓大眾對未來升格後的文化部更加期待。
中央大學校長蔣偉寧則以黑馬之姿出任教育部長。他很誠實的說，他至少要花一個星期時間做功課，十二年國教推動在即，甚至包括「免試入學超額比序條件」、「特色招生辦法」都要在五二○前的四月就得定案，他得花最少的時間進入狀況，並在限期內做成決策，必然是極大的挑戰，但對衝勁十足、行動快速，講究創意和效率的蔣偉寧而言，應該不是大問題。
這次入閣的前民進黨籍高雄縣長楊秋興受訪時自陳要關注台灣的農業系統，特別是南台灣。他認為國民黨在南台灣還需要耕耘，他的思維可以挹注國民黨政府的不足，相信也能和學者出身的新任農委會主委陳保基相輔相成。
對社會大眾而言，能人幹士願意為政府服務，代表這個政府可以讓人信賴。然而，在台灣為官不易，政務官上有總統、院長，下有輿論監督，旁邊還有上百位火力勇猛的立法委員，官員不是坐著聽訓就得站著挨罵，「官不聊生」讓學界和業者視為官為畏途。這次能擺出不乏新意的布局，顯見馬總統為人還是受到肯定，才會讓這麼多人才願意放下自己熟悉的學術生活或在業界一展長才的機會。
既已做了過河卒子，只能拚命向前。新內閣還沒就任就要面對歐債風暴，台灣景氣逼近藍燈的危機，整體大環境對新內閣極為不利；但是，馬政府沒有連任壓力，兩年後才有選舉，相對可以安安靜靜做點事，不受到太多政治外力的干擾。
政務官來來去去，下台時要淡然處之，但既點頭上台，就得做好完全的心理準備，只許成功不許失敗，拿出不做出點成績絕不罷休的拚勁。馬政府第一任績被譏評為「無感」，和部分政務官不敢、不肯為政策辯護相關。這次重回內閣出任經建會主委的尹啟銘，相信和他在大選期間火力旺盛為ＥＣＦＡ政策辯護有關。
身為政務官不只在選舉期間才有需要辯護，時時刻刻都要為自己拍板定案的政策負責，不能見立委就彎腰，見媒體就落跑；但凡建議或批評，有道理者敬謹受教，沒道理者當然要挺身說「不」，做得好民眾自會給予掌聲，做不好二話不說請打包走人，沒有任何委屈可言。馬政府不是馬總統一人的政府，這個政府需要政務官共同擔起責任，總不能年年讓總統在家「閉門思過」。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)