Literature's Impact on Hearts and Minds Trumps Political Controversy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2012
Summary: Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
Full Text below:
Have any Chinese ever won the Nobel Prize prior to Mo Yan? Yes, they have. But they include Chen Ning Yang, Tsung-Dao Lee, Samuel Ting, Yuan T. Lee, Gao Xingjian. None of them were Chinese nationals. Has no citizen of Mainland China ever won the Nobel Prize? Yes, but the only winner is currently locked away in a Mainland prison. His name is Liu Xiaobo.
This allows us to understand the significance of Mo Yan's Nobel Prize. It was never purely an individual achievement. It was the result of a century of longing for international respect and affirmation, and a concentrated effort to overcome repeated frustrations. These frustrations include two related but not identical matters. One is national culture. The other is national politics.
People of Chinese descent have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, and other sciences. This allieviated some of the frustrations felt by Mainland Chinese regarding China's culture. But it did not affirm the PRC as a political entity. If anything, PRC leaders experienced even more frustrations. These frustrations were intensified when Gao Xingjian and Liu Xiaobo received awards. One disagreed with the Mainland authorities and sought self-imposed exile. The other chose to remain in the country, but as a staunch dissident. The Nobel Prize affirmed certain values. But these were clearly contrary to those of the Mainland authorities.
One may or may not like Mo Yan. One may or may not agree with him. But he is the first Mainland Chinese recipient of the Nobel Prize. He is the first Mainland Chinese recipient who agrees with the Mainland authorities, who accepts the Mainland authorities, whose receipt of the Nobel Prize represent recognition of the Chinese people. Compared to other Nobel laureates, he is on relatively good terms with the Mainland authorities. His relationship with the Mainland authorities is close. Naturally he stands out.
Therefore Mo Yan will inevitably will be put to the microscope. The Mainland authorities and the Nobel Committee have axes to grind. Therefore people will see Mo Yuan a certain way. They will define Mo Yan a certain way. They will see him and define him not by his literary contributions. They will see him and define him not by his creativity. They will say "He was not a dissident."
Some may pay special tribute to him because he is not a dissident. Others may slander him because he is not a dissident. It is true that Mo Yan is not a dissident. He is not particularly concerned about society's ills. He is an intellectual who holds no strong views about about society. This is a fact. This will not change merely because he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
But here is the important point. Mo Yan is just like hundreds of millions of other people on the Mainland. He did not choose to be a dissent. His relationship with the Mainland authorities. is no better or worse than most other people on the Mainland. Some will demean his work and his conduct. They will denounce him as a lackey. Such characterizations are unfair. They are vicious distortions. They are emotion based demonizations.
Hundreds of millions of people are non-dissidents. But only Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Why? The answer must be found in the field of literature.
The Nobel Prize is awarded only once a year. The award is awarded to only a single individual. This does not mean that the winner is "number one in the world." This does not mean others do not compare. It does mean however that his achievements have attained the highest possible level. Compared to his peers, circumstances this year were in his favor. Hence the award.
Mo Yan's work uses rural vernacular to create rich images and strange fantasies. Mo paints a picture of a northeastern China village that is both familiar and alien. This constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan toiled long and hard on his novels. He deftly moves or shocks readers with novels of different lengths. He is noble, forceful, contemptible, vulgar, brutal, gentle. This too constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan's novels fall between realism and fantasy. They echo trends in world literature. But they do not merely mimic existing techniques. They evince self-esteem and self-confidence. He endlessly searches and experiments with his novel writing technique. He is especially concerned about the magic of story-telling. In this respect he has achieved something that cannot be ignored. He has achieved something from which others can learn.
Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
We hope the political controversy will be temporary. We think it will be. Literature touches our hearts and minds. It is more enduring than political controversy. Mo Yan had no choice. He could not escape. He accepted this historic award amidst controversy. Hopefully, the dust from the controversy will subside. People the world over will reassert the primacy of literature over politics. They will recognize Mo Yan's real contribution to Chinese literature, and even world literature.
文學的感動與思考應該比爭議更長遠些
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.11 03:28 am
在莫言之前，有沒有中國人得過諾貝爾獎？有，但他們，包括楊振寧、李政道、丁肇中、李遠哲、高行健，他們都不是中國籍。難道沒有一個中國大陸公民得過諾貝爾獎？有，但那唯一的獲獎者，現在卻關在中國的牢裡，他就是劉曉波。
放在這樣的背景下，或許可以更清楚看出莫言獲獎的意義。諾貝爾獎對中國而言，從來都不是一個單純的個人成就獎，而是凝聚了一百多年想望與挫折的投射焦點──要在國際上得到尊重與肯定的想望，及久求不得累積的挫折。這種挫折有著相關卻不盡相同的兩面，民族文化的一面，和國家政治的一面。
物理、化學等科學領域選出了華人血統的諾貝爾獎得主，有助於紓解中國大陸民族文化面的挫折，卻對國家政治面沒有幫助，甚至還反而強化這方面的挫折。尤其是高行健和劉曉波先後得獎，一位是不認同中共政權的自我流放者，一位是堅決的內部異議分子，諾貝爾獎肯定的價值，顯然與中國國家立場相反。
不管莫言喜不喜歡、同不同意，他就是第一個認同中共政府，也為中共政府接受，又為諾貝爾獎表揚的中國人。和其他受獎者相比，和中共政府的友善、密切關係，很自然地凸顯出來了。
於是莫言在這方面的所有表現，也就無可避免一定會被放大檢驗、討論。放在這樣的中國與諾貝爾獎的糾結中，人們首先看到了，用來定位莫言的，不會是他的文學，不會是他的創作者身分，而是「他不是一個異議者」。
有人因為他不是個異議者而特別讚揚他，也就有人因為他不是個異議者而痛詆他。莫言的確不是個異議者，他甚至不是一個特別關心社會，對社會抱持特殊意見、立場的知識分子。這是個事實，不會也不能因為他得了諾貝爾獎就改變了的。
不過重點在：莫言不過就是和中國大陸的幾億人一樣，沒有選擇作為一個異議者，他和中共當局的關係，不比絕大部分大陸人民緊張，也不比絕大部分大陸人民緊密。從他的作品和他的行事上硬要將他描繪成體制的奴才，那是不公平的深文周納，過激羅織。
幾億人都採取了這種非異議者的立場，卻只有莫言得了諾貝爾文學獎，為什麼？答案顯然還是只能回到文學的領域裡來尋找。
一年只頒一次，只有一位得主的獎項，一定不可能意味著得主就是「世界第一」，把其他人都比下去了；而是他的成就到達了最高的層級，在和其他同等級的大家相較下，今年對他有利的條件特別多，於是由他獲獎。
莫言的作品創造了一種可以承載豐富意象與奇情幻想的鄉土語言，已知描繪了一個看來既親切又陌生的「高密東北鄉」，這是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言對於小說孜孜矻矻的長久追求，能夠在不同篇幅的小說中自在優遊地書寫出不同的文學感動或震撼，可雄渾可鄙瑣可高貴可粗俗可殘酷可溫柔，這又是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言的小說，出入於寫實與魔幻之間，呼應著國際文壇的浪潮，然而卻又不僅只是片面模仿既有的技法，帶著自尊與自信，他不斷琢磨、實驗自己的小說理論，尤其是關注故事與說故事的人的神奇關係，這方面，他也自有不容忽視，可以提供其他人借鏡的成就。
莫言的成就，可以和之前獲得諾貝爾文學獎的各國大家，無愧並列，平起平坐．莫言對於中文的原創性開展，更是足以讓同屬華文世界的我們欣慰可以不經翻譯直接閱讀領會。
我們衷心期待，政治上的激情爭議是一時的，而文學帶來的深沉感動與思考，可以更為長遠。莫言無可選擇、無可逃避，必須要在爭議中領取這歷史性的獎項，但願爭議塵囂落下後，世人能夠回歸文學本位，認知莫言對於華文文學，乃至於世界文學的確實貢獻。
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption
Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2012
Summary: Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
Full Text below:
Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
The Republic of China government implemented local autonomy on Taiwan 60 years ago. County and municipal level governments underwent ruling party changes long ago. Within the system we have parliamentary checks and balances. Without the system we have an aggressive media. We have intellectuals concerned about public affairs. We have public interest groups and self-help groups with a high degree of initiative. All these provide checks and balances on government. The executive power is subject to these constraints. County chiefs, city mayors, and other authorities should find embezzlement difficult. But if we local self-government up close and personal, we discover to our dismay that the checks and balances are hollow, and that oversight is not working. Special political and economic interests persist in wanton disregard of the law, and do whatever they wish.
Within the system, county councils and city councils ought to provide effective checks and balances. County councils and city councils have the authority to approve or disapprove budgets. They have the authority to prevent executive waste and abuse of power. They are in a position to expose government abuse of power. They are in a position to challenge the government on behalf of the taxpayers, in accord with the public interest. But in practice these checks and balances have become the very means by which county councils and city council-based special interest groups divvy up the loot. County councils and city councils have their angles. They take advantage of construction projects to distribute political pork. They make sweetheart deals with lobbyists. Businessmen go along to get along with these county councils and city councils. Conversely, businessmen who refuse to play ball find it impossible to receive fair treatment during the bidding process. The result is the hollowing out of parliamentary checks and balances, which have become mere show.
Without the system, the media were once the eyes and ears of the citizens. They provided oversight on the citizens' behalf. They provided a local public affairs forum. But the rise of the Internet has provided us with free information. The traditional media is operating at a loss. It is scaling back operations. It is giving up on the provision of serious content. Reporters seldom cover county council and city council budget reviews. The media seldom reports on such matters. If citizens or citizens groups fail to audit these proceedings, government budgets and their contents will remain unknown. They will be hidden from the light of day. They will become opportunities for government business collusion.
The Government has for sure enacted procurement laws. Tender offers over a certain amount must be posted on the Internet. Major tender offers must be recorded on video. But websites are usually designed for bidding vendors, not the average citizen. The videos of the bidding procedures are merely for backup. They are not made public. They contribute nothing to transparency. From a practical perspective, the higher the visibility, the stricter the constraints. The bidding process should be webcast live, in audio and video formats. Every citizen should be able to listen or watch in real time. The effect would be more powerful than having the Director of the Government Ethics Office in attendance.
Modern digital technology is advanced. Advanced democracies already use digital technology to make the vast amounts of data gathered by the government and the business community available. This promotes open and transparent government. On Taiwan all levels of government use public funds to collect all sorts of raw data. This process must be made as open as possible. It must be made convenient for taxpayers to use. For example, the more that environmental data is made available to public interest groups, the more environmentalists will be able to use the data to protect the environment. The more that police departments provide law enforcement and traffic data, the easier it will be for citizens to avoid violating county and municipal laws.
Current county chiefs and city mayors stand on the front lines. They deal with public opinion. They must remain close to the people. They are surrounded by council factions, special interest groups, ward heelers, wealthy king-makers, and ordinary voters. As a result many decisions involve political risks. The county chiefs and city mayors can use the Internet to make available mountains of administrative data. Increased transparency will enable citizen oversight. It may hinder the officals' own operations. But it would be backed by a majority of the public. It would constrain those tempted to abuse their privileged status. In short, an open and transparent system is more secure than a simple wolf pack.
During an economic downturn, the government is the marketplace's biggest customer. Putting tender offers on the Internet is merely one small step. The Internet Age will increase transparency. All manufacturers who make tender offers must make their information available. They must publish the amount of their tender offers. They must publish their contributions to political parties and elected officials. The raw data must be disclosed. This data must be made available to county chiefs and city mayors. It must be cross-checked against the county chiefs' and county councilors' political contributions and other data. Only then can we ensure market order and fair competition.
Local governments are responsible for local construction projects. These pertain to ordinary folk. There is little need for secrecy. Limiting access to this information merely creates a hotbed of corruption. The iron rule for anti-corruption is openness and transparency. Sunshine is the best antidote to corruption. The Internet provides that sunshine. Digital technology provides the brightest source of light. The government must make this data as open and available as possible. Tender offers must be webcast in real time. The names of the bidders must be made public. The winning bidder must be made public. The names of political contributors to county chief and city mayor elections must be made public. Counties chiefs, city mayors, and ordinary citizens must be able go online and view the information. In sum, the greater the visibility, the greater assurance of fairness.
用網路陽光防治地方貪腐
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.09
中華民國治下的台閩地區只有二十二位縣市長，
一日之內竟有兩名縣長因貪腐案涉訟；一因採購弊案被起訴，一因工程索賄弊案遭收押，還牽拖出一票公務員、學者專家、親戚同陷訟累。納稅人看著這些平日衣冠楚楚的權貴人物，暗室交易時竟如此沆瀣一氣，豈能不對現有法制失望，甚至對好貪的人性悲觀，又豈能不亟思有以救治。
台灣實施地方自治六十年，縣市層級早已實現政黨輪政，體制內有議會制衡，體制外有活躍的媒體、關心公眾事務的知識分子、各種公益團體及機動性高的自救型利益團體，均能監督制衡政府；行政權既受如此制約，掌權的縣市長和機關主管理應難以勾串貪墨。可是細察地方自治實務，卻發現制衡空洞、監督失焦，政經利益共生體仍常無視法紀而為所欲為。
體制面，縣市議會應是監督制衡政府最有力的機構，議會手握預算審查權，可防止行政濫權和浪費，能揭發政府顢頇，代表納稅人問政，行符合公益之事。但實際操作下來，原有制衡功能設計，竟變成議會各種利益次團體分贓的憑藉；縣市政府為求行事便宜，用分配工程預算、釋放政策利多、接受遊說關說等工具妥協，使依附議會主流勢力的商人有糖吃；反之，未附從的公司行號很難有公平競標機會。以致議會制衡空洞化，幾成秀場。
體制外，媒體原是縣市公民的眼睛，可代位監看政府運作，扮演地方公共事務論壇角色。可是網路崛起後，充斥免費信息，傳媒原有的營運利基流失，乃縮減版面，放棄若干嚴肅內容。今天縣市議會審查預算，已少見記者株守聽審，媒體上幾乎看不到相關訊息。公民或團體若不進議場旁聽，亦無從得知公部門預算科目、經費與實質內容，陽光照不到的地方，最容易成為地方政經特權組合的俎上肉。
政府確實頒行了採購法，一定金額以上標案都要上網公開，重大標案開標時會錄音錄影。可是網站設計以參與競標廠商為對象，非為一般公民能輕鬆讀懂而設想；開標現場的錄音錄影，只是備用檔案，並不公開，難謂透明。從務實的觀點而言，有愈多雙眼睛看，便愈有制約的力量，開標影音若上網轉播實況，不特定公民能即時觀察，會比政風室主任臨場坐鎮，更有震懾威力。
現代數位科技進步，民主先進國家已在運用數位技術開放政府和工商界所蒐集的龐大數據，推動公開透明的陽光政府機制。台灣各級政府用公帑蒐集的各類原始數據，理應盡可能公開，方便所有納稅人使用；譬如環保數據公布得愈多，民間公益團體、環保達人必更能發揚才智，共維生態安全。警察局公開的治安、交通數據愈多，縣市公民會更懂得趨吉避凶。
當下的縣市長既站在面對民意的第一線，當然要有融入群眾的親和力；又置身於議會派系、利益團體、抬轎樁腳、政治金主、投票選民的包圍下，故而，很多決策都伴隨風險。縣市長如能借助網路，大量公開行政數據，用透明化導入公民監督機制，雖可能妨礙自己施展，但背靠廣大公民，必能有力約束欲行險謀求特權者的脅制；也就是說，公開透明的機制，比僅憑一己之力周旋於狼群間，安全得多。
不景氣的時候，政府是市場最大宗生意來源，現行把標案公開上網，只是一小步；網路時代，需加速加大公開透明的步伐，凡承做政府標案的廠商均應公開其負責人資料，公布得標件數金額，公開歷來對政黨和民選公職人員的捐獻。唯有公開原始數據，讓這些數據接受與縣市長、縣市議員公布的政治獻金等其他數據交叉比對，才能規範市場公平競爭秩序。
地方政府業務不外基層建設、庶民生活，幾無保密必要，只讓信息在小範圍內公開，反成貪腐淵藪。防貪鐵律就是公開透明，讓陽光當防腐劑；網路陽光，則是數位科技提供的最佳光源。政府應考慮盡量公開各項數據資料，在網路上實況轉播開標，公開審標人員名單，公開得標廠商負責人名字，公開縣市長、議員政治獻金名單，讓縣市公民都能上網檢視。總而言之，愈多眼睛看到的事，愈禁得起公正考驗。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2012
Summary: Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
Full Text below:
Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
The Republic of China government implemented local autonomy on Taiwan 60 years ago. County and municipal level governments underwent ruling party changes long ago. Within the system we have parliamentary checks and balances. Without the system we have an aggressive media. We have intellectuals concerned about public affairs. We have public interest groups and self-help groups with a high degree of initiative. All these provide checks and balances on government. The executive power is subject to these constraints. County chiefs, city mayors, and other authorities should find embezzlement difficult. But if we local self-government up close and personal, we discover to our dismay that the checks and balances are hollow, and that oversight is not working. Special political and economic interests persist in wanton disregard of the law, and do whatever they wish.
Within the system, county councils and city councils ought to provide effective checks and balances. County councils and city councils have the authority to approve or disapprove budgets. They have the authority to prevent executive waste and abuse of power. They are in a position to expose government abuse of power. They are in a position to challenge the government on behalf of the taxpayers, in accord with the public interest. But in practice these checks and balances have become the very means by which county councils and city council-based special interest groups divvy up the loot. County councils and city councils have their angles. They take advantage of construction projects to distribute political pork. They make sweetheart deals with lobbyists. Businessmen go along to get along with these county councils and city councils. Conversely, businessmen who refuse to play ball find it impossible to receive fair treatment during the bidding process. The result is the hollowing out of parliamentary checks and balances, which have become mere show.
Without the system, the media were once the eyes and ears of the citizens. They provided oversight on the citizens' behalf. They provided a local public affairs forum. But the rise of the Internet has provided us with free information. The traditional media is operating at a loss. It is scaling back operations. It is giving up on the provision of serious content. Reporters seldom cover county council and city council budget reviews. The media seldom reports on such matters. If citizens or citizens groups fail to audit these proceedings, government budgets and their contents will remain unknown. They will be hidden from the light of day. They will become opportunities for government business collusion.
The Government has for sure enacted procurement laws. Tender offers over a certain amount must be posted on the Internet. Major tender offers must be recorded on video. But websites are usually designed for bidding vendors, not the average citizen. The videos of the bidding procedures are merely for backup. They are not made public. They contribute nothing to transparency. From a practical perspective, the higher the visibility, the stricter the constraints. The bidding process should be webcast live, in audio and video formats. Every citizen should be able to listen or watch in real time. The effect would be more powerful than having the Director of the Government Ethics Office in attendance.
Modern digital technology is advanced. Advanced democracies already use digital technology to make the vast amounts of data gathered by the government and the business community available. This promotes open and transparent government. On Taiwan all levels of government use public funds to collect all sorts of raw data. This process must be made as open as possible. It must be made convenient for taxpayers to use. For example, the more that environmental data is made available to public interest groups, the more environmentalists will be able to use the data to protect the environment. The more that police departments provide law enforcement and traffic data, the easier it will be for citizens to avoid violating county and municipal laws.
Current county chiefs and city mayors stand on the front lines. They deal with public opinion. They must remain close to the people. They are surrounded by council factions, special interest groups, ward heelers, wealthy king-makers, and ordinary voters. As a result many decisions involve political risks. The county chiefs and city mayors can use the Internet to make available mountains of administrative data. Increased transparency will enable citizen oversight. It may hinder the officals' own operations. But it would be backed by a majority of the public. It would constrain those tempted to abuse their privileged status. In short, an open and transparent system is more secure than a simple wolf pack.
During an economic downturn, the government is the marketplace's biggest customer. Putting tender offers on the Internet is merely one small step. The Internet Age will increase transparency. All manufacturers who make tender offers must make their information available. They must publish the amount of their tender offers. They must publish their contributions to political parties and elected officials. The raw data must be disclosed. This data must be made available to county chiefs and city mayors. It must be cross-checked against the county chiefs' and county councilors' political contributions and other data. Only then can we ensure market order and fair competition.
Local governments are responsible for local construction projects. These pertain to ordinary folk. There is little need for secrecy. Limiting access to this information merely creates a hotbed of corruption. The iron rule for anti-corruption is openness and transparency. Sunshine is the best antidote to corruption. The Internet provides that sunshine. Digital technology provides the brightest source of light. The government must make this data as open and available as possible. Tender offers must be webcast in real time. The names of the bidders must be made public. The winning bidder must be made public. The names of political contributors to county chief and city mayor elections must be made public. Counties chiefs, city mayors, and ordinary citizens must be able go online and view the information. In sum, the greater the visibility, the greater assurance of fairness.
用網路陽光防治地方貪腐
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.09
中華民國治下的台閩地區只有二十二位縣市長，
一日之內竟有兩名縣長因貪腐案涉訟；一因採購弊案被起訴，一因工程索賄弊案遭收押，還牽拖出一票公務員、學者專家、親戚同陷訟累。納稅人看著這些平日衣冠楚楚的權貴人物，暗室交易時竟如此沆瀣一氣，豈能不對現有法制失望，甚至對好貪的人性悲觀，又豈能不亟思有以救治。
台灣實施地方自治六十年，縣市層級早已實現政黨輪政，體制內有議會制衡，體制外有活躍的媒體、關心公眾事務的知識分子、各種公益團體及機動性高的自救型利益團體，均能監督制衡政府；行政權既受如此制約，掌權的縣市長和機關主管理應難以勾串貪墨。可是細察地方自治實務，卻發現制衡空洞、監督失焦，政經利益共生體仍常無視法紀而為所欲為。
體制面，縣市議會應是監督制衡政府最有力的機構，議會手握預算審查權，可防止行政濫權和浪費，能揭發政府顢頇，代表納稅人問政，行符合公益之事。但實際操作下來，原有制衡功能設計，竟變成議會各種利益次團體分贓的憑藉；縣市政府為求行事便宜，用分配工程預算、釋放政策利多、接受遊說關說等工具妥協，使依附議會主流勢力的商人有糖吃；反之，未附從的公司行號很難有公平競標機會。以致議會制衡空洞化，幾成秀場。
體制外，媒體原是縣市公民的眼睛，可代位監看政府運作，扮演地方公共事務論壇角色。可是網路崛起後，充斥免費信息，傳媒原有的營運利基流失，乃縮減版面，放棄若干嚴肅內容。今天縣市議會審查預算，已少見記者株守聽審，媒體上幾乎看不到相關訊息。公民或團體若不進議場旁聽，亦無從得知公部門預算科目、經費與實質內容，陽光照不到的地方，最容易成為地方政經特權組合的俎上肉。
政府確實頒行了採購法，一定金額以上標案都要上網公開，重大標案開標時會錄音錄影。可是網站設計以參與競標廠商為對象，非為一般公民能輕鬆讀懂而設想；開標現場的錄音錄影，只是備用檔案，並不公開，難謂透明。從務實的觀點而言，有愈多雙眼睛看，便愈有制約的力量，開標影音若上網轉播實況，不特定公民能即時觀察，會比政風室主任臨場坐鎮，更有震懾威力。
現代數位科技進步，民主先進國家已在運用數位技術開放政府和工商界所蒐集的龐大數據，推動公開透明的陽光政府機制。台灣各級政府用公帑蒐集的各類原始數據，理應盡可能公開，方便所有納稅人使用；譬如環保數據公布得愈多，民間公益團體、環保達人必更能發揚才智，共維生態安全。警察局公開的治安、交通數據愈多，縣市公民會更懂得趨吉避凶。
當下的縣市長既站在面對民意的第一線，當然要有融入群眾的親和力；又置身於議會派系、利益團體、抬轎樁腳、政治金主、投票選民的包圍下，故而，很多決策都伴隨風險。縣市長如能借助網路，大量公開行政數據，用透明化導入公民監督機制，雖可能妨礙自己施展，但背靠廣大公民，必能有力約束欲行險謀求特權者的脅制；也就是說，公開透明的機制，比僅憑一己之力周旋於狼群間，安全得多。
不景氣的時候，政府是市場最大宗生意來源，現行把標案公開上網，只是一小步；網路時代，需加速加大公開透明的步伐，凡承做政府標案的廠商均應公開其負責人資料，公布得標件數金額，公開歷來對政黨和民選公職人員的捐獻。唯有公開原始數據，讓這些數據接受與縣市長、縣市議員公布的政治獻金等其他數據交叉比對，才能規範市場公平競爭秩序。
地方政府業務不外基層建設、庶民生活，幾無保密必要，只讓信息在小範圍內公開，反成貪腐淵藪。防貪鐵律就是公開透明，讓陽光當防腐劑；網路陽光，則是數位科技提供的最佳光源。政府應考慮盡量公開各項數據資料，在網路上實況轉播開標，公開審標人員名單，公開得標廠商負責人名字，公開縣市長、議員政治獻金名單，讓縣市公民都能上網檢視。總而言之，愈多眼睛看到的事，愈禁得起公正考驗。
Thursday, December 6, 2012
East Asian Turmoil: Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
East Asian Turmoil:
Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2012
Summary: This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
Full Text below:
This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
North Korea announced that between the 10th and 22nd of this month, it would launch a Galaxy III long-range Satellite Launch Vehicle, carrying a self-developed "Bright Star 3 dual mode (?) satellite. But observers say the satellites launches are mere cover. In fact, North Korea is test firing a Taepodong II long-range ballistic missile.
North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un assumed power in April. North Korea conducted a similar "satellite" launch, which ended in failure. South Korea and the U.S. military seized much of the debris to study. December 17 is the first anniversary of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. It is also Kim Jong-un's first anniversary as his successor. We now face a South Korean presidential election. North Korea has decided to conduct further missile tests. One. It is trumpeting its military might. Two. It is applying pressure on the South Korean elections. Three. It is strengthening the leadership and prestige of Kim Jong-un. It is attempting to make up for the previous failure. Four. It is gathering experience in order to improve its missile launch technology. Five. It is increasing its bargaining chips with the United States.
South Korea's upcoming election pits conservative New Frontier Party incumbent Park Geun Hye against liberal Democratic United Party challenger Moon Jae In. The New Frontier Party has long been tough on North Korea. It differs with the liberal opposition, which has inherited Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy." North Korea has repeatedly issued scathing denunciations of Park Geun Hye. It chose to conduct missile tests during the election. It is obviously trying to undermine Park Geun Hye's election bid. But its move has provoked a public backlash that has given Park Geun Hye a boost.
North Korea's long term strategy has been "marginalism." It uses nuclear weapons, missiles, and other military threats as bargaining chips to protect itself. It uses its geopolitical position to pit Mainland China and Russia against the United States and South Korea, and to maintain the Kim dynasty dictatorship. In the past, South Korea provided aid to North Korea. North Korea interpreted this as South Korean political influence. But the impact on North Korean rule and policy was negligible. This is why advocates of friendly exchanges with North Korea are seldom able to convince others that the exchanges were worthwhile.
North Korean policy is not the decisive factor in the South Korean presidential election. The South Korean people understand that the problem is not with South Korea. They understand that it cannot be solved in the short term. But voters must and will take into account the ability of the candidates deal with the North Korean problem. The president-elect will have to confront the challenges posed by Kim Jong-un, this young North Korean leader.
Japan's future leaders also face major challenges. They must deal with a long-term economic downturn. Mainland China has dethroned Japan as the world's second-largest economy. Japan's aging population is a problem without a solution. Political unrest leads to a new Prime Minister almost every year. Japan's "Lost Decade" has become a "Lost Two Decades," and may even become a "Lost Three Decades." A country lost for so long, is obviously is serious trouble.
The rise of Mainland China has demoted Japan to the number two position in Asia. South Korea is also catching up. Japan has lost its dominance. It feels lost. This anxiety has shaken Japanese society. Political parties are now competing to incite nationalist sentiment. They hope to satisfy the public's desire to restore Japan's national prestige.
Rightist Shintaro Ishihara and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda fought to "purchase" the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then, the dispute over Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty has heightened tensions between Japan, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It has also justified tougher Mainland China assertions of sovereignty over Diaoyutai. The outbreak of anti-Japanese protests on Mainland China have seriously damaged the Japanese business interests. Ironically, Japan is in dire need of the Chinese market if it is to make an economic recovery. Short term grandstanding and nationalist demagoguery may exact a high price on Japan's long-term interests and national prosperity.
The LDP was already rightist. Now the Democratic Party is also leaning to the right. Old rightist Ishihara has joined with young rightist Toru Hashimoto's Japan Restoration Association. This has created a force that cannot be ignored. The Democratic Party lacks policy experience and achievements. It is expected to lose. . The Liberal Democratic Party is expected to win. But it still needs to form coalitions with others. Whether the formation of a stable political scenario is possible remains to be seen. But Japan's domestic and international plight is far grimmer than it was during the old LDP period.
Japan and Korea play a vital role in Asia. The surrounding Asian-Pacific strategic picture is more unpredictable than ever. The new leaders of Japan and South Korea must respond prudently. For the Pacific Rim, 2012 is an election year. Several nations are holding elections or changing leaders. They are responding to extremist political actions that have raised regional tensions and led to regional conflicts. Will these leaders return to pragmatism? Will they promote peace and prosperity? That remains to be seen. Naturally Taiwan must pay close attention to this turbulence in the Asian-Pacific region.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.07
社論－東亞風雲詭譎 日韓大選焦慮
本報訊
本月東亞將有兩場重要選舉，日本眾議院選舉與東京都知事選舉在十六日登場，接著南韓總統大選在十九日舉行，預料日韓都將出現新的領導人。而這兩場選舉，在日中韓領土爭議加劇、北韓試射長程飛彈的背景下進行，益發凸顯了亞太局勢未來面臨的詭譎張力。
北韓宣布將於本月十日到廿二日之間，發射「銀河三號」長程運載火箭，攜載自力研製的「光明星三號」二期實用衛星升空。不過外界多認為發射衛星只是表面說法，實際上是要試射「大浦洞二號」長程彈道飛彈。
四月間北韓新領導人金正恩確定接班時，北韓就進行過同樣的「衛星」發射行動，結果以失敗墜落收場，讓南韓和美軍搶撈了不少碎片帶回去研究。十二月十七日是北韓前領導人金正日逝世一周年，也是金正恩接掌大位一周年的日子，又遇上南韓要選總統，北韓決定再度試射飛彈，一來誇耀軍事力量，二來對南韓選舉施壓，三來強化金正恩的領導威信，為上次的失敗扳回一城，四來吸取經驗改進飛彈發射技術，五來增加與美國討價還價的籌碼。
南韓這次是保守派執政黨「新世界黨」的朴槿惠與自由派「民主統合黨」的文在寅對決，「新世界黨」向來對北韓態度嚴峻，與承襲金大中「陽光政策」的自由派反對陣營立場不同。北韓連番對朴槿惠發出嚴厲批判，並且挑在選舉期間試射飛彈，明顯是想打壓朴槿惠的選情。不過此舉反而激起民意反彈，讓朴槿惠的聲勢獲得拉抬。
北韓向來的策略是走偏鋒的「邊緣主義」，用核武飛彈等軍事威脅製造談判自保的籌碼，藉地緣政治的位置取得中、俄相挺以對抗美國、南韓，其主要目的，是維持金氏王朝的獨裁封閉統治。南韓過去對北韓的援助與交流，被北韓當成影響南韓的政治工具，反過頭來卻沒有對北韓的統治與政策造成太大改變，這也是為什麼主張與北韓友善交往的人到最後往往拿不出足以說服他人的成果。
因此，這次的南韓大選，對北政策並不是決定性的因素，畢竟南韓民眾都了解，大部分的問題並不在南韓這邊，而且這也不是短時間可以解決的事。不過選民一定要而且會考慮候選人處理對北問題的能力，而總統當選人也將面對金正恩這位年輕北韓領導人所帶來的新挑戰。
日本未來的領導人同樣面臨重大挑戰，除了經濟長期低迷，全球第二大經濟體的寶座拱手讓給中國，而人口老化問題無解，政局不安幾乎一年一換首相，也讓日本從「失落的十年」走到「失落的廿年」，如今可能邁入「失落的卅年」。一個國家可以失落這麼久，顯然沉痾不輕。
近年來中國崛起把日本壓成亞洲二哥，南韓也意氣風發急起直追，日本對本身優勢地位的流失，有著相當的失落感，連帶引發的焦慮造成了整個社會的右傾化，以致於政黨競相擺出民族主義者姿態，以滿足民眾希望重振國威之心。
在右派的石原慎太郎與首相野田佳彥搶購釣魚台之後，釣魚台主權爭議激化了日中台之間的緊張，更讓中國大陸有理由對釣魚台作更強硬的宣示主權動作。中國大陸的反日風潮爆發以來，日本企業界的利益大受損傷，而偏偏當今經濟復甦亟需中國市場，短期譁眾取寵的民族主義操弄，卻可能讓日本長期實質利益及國家發展付出代價。
日本自民黨原本就較為右傾，現在民主黨也跟著往右靠，而老右派石原和少壯右派橋下徹的日本維新會結合，形成另一股不可忽視的勢力。一般預料，缺乏施政經驗與成績的民主黨恐將交出政權，自民黨可望勝選，但仍需與其他勢力聯合執政。是否能形成穩定政局，猶待觀察，但日本今天面對的內外局勢，其嚴峻早已遠遠超過昔日自民黨執政時期。
日、韓這兩個國家在亞洲舉足輕重，環繞其周圍的亞太局勢更是風雲詭譎，日、韓新的領導人必須盱衡情勢審慎因應。二○一二年環太平洋地區可說是走了一遭「大選年」，有多個國家進行國家領導人選舉或換屆，而因應選舉發生的各種極端或政治動作，以及所引起的區域緊張與衝突，是否會隨著各國領導人的底定而回歸務實思維，落實和平共榮的目標，仍然相當令人關切；當然，台灣必須密切注意整體亞太情勢的動盪發展。
Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2012
Summary: This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
Full Text below:
This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
North Korea announced that between the 10th and 22nd of this month, it would launch a Galaxy III long-range Satellite Launch Vehicle, carrying a self-developed "Bright Star 3 dual mode (?) satellite. But observers say the satellites launches are mere cover. In fact, North Korea is test firing a Taepodong II long-range ballistic missile.
North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un assumed power in April. North Korea conducted a similar "satellite" launch, which ended in failure. South Korea and the U.S. military seized much of the debris to study. December 17 is the first anniversary of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. It is also Kim Jong-un's first anniversary as his successor. We now face a South Korean presidential election. North Korea has decided to conduct further missile tests. One. It is trumpeting its military might. Two. It is applying pressure on the South Korean elections. Three. It is strengthening the leadership and prestige of Kim Jong-un. It is attempting to make up for the previous failure. Four. It is gathering experience in order to improve its missile launch technology. Five. It is increasing its bargaining chips with the United States.
South Korea's upcoming election pits conservative New Frontier Party incumbent Park Geun Hye against liberal Democratic United Party challenger Moon Jae In. The New Frontier Party has long been tough on North Korea. It differs with the liberal opposition, which has inherited Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy." North Korea has repeatedly issued scathing denunciations of Park Geun Hye. It chose to conduct missile tests during the election. It is obviously trying to undermine Park Geun Hye's election bid. But its move has provoked a public backlash that has given Park Geun Hye a boost.
North Korea's long term strategy has been "marginalism." It uses nuclear weapons, missiles, and other military threats as bargaining chips to protect itself. It uses its geopolitical position to pit Mainland China and Russia against the United States and South Korea, and to maintain the Kim dynasty dictatorship. In the past, South Korea provided aid to North Korea. North Korea interpreted this as South Korean political influence. But the impact on North Korean rule and policy was negligible. This is why advocates of friendly exchanges with North Korea are seldom able to convince others that the exchanges were worthwhile.
North Korean policy is not the decisive factor in the South Korean presidential election. The South Korean people understand that the problem is not with South Korea. They understand that it cannot be solved in the short term. But voters must and will take into account the ability of the candidates deal with the North Korean problem. The president-elect will have to confront the challenges posed by Kim Jong-un, this young North Korean leader.
Japan's future leaders also face major challenges. They must deal with a long-term economic downturn. Mainland China has dethroned Japan as the world's second-largest economy. Japan's aging population is a problem without a solution. Political unrest leads to a new Prime Minister almost every year. Japan's "Lost Decade" has become a "Lost Two Decades," and may even become a "Lost Three Decades." A country lost for so long, is obviously is serious trouble.
The rise of Mainland China has demoted Japan to the number two position in Asia. South Korea is also catching up. Japan has lost its dominance. It feels lost. This anxiety has shaken Japanese society. Political parties are now competing to incite nationalist sentiment. They hope to satisfy the public's desire to restore Japan's national prestige.
Rightist Shintaro Ishihara and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda fought to "purchase" the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then, the dispute over Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty has heightened tensions between Japan, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It has also justified tougher Mainland China assertions of sovereignty over Diaoyutai. The outbreak of anti-Japanese protests on Mainland China have seriously damaged the Japanese business interests. Ironically, Japan is in dire need of the Chinese market if it is to make an economic recovery. Short term grandstanding and nationalist demagoguery may exact a high price on Japan's long-term interests and national prosperity.
The LDP was already rightist. Now the Democratic Party is also leaning to the right. Old rightist Ishihara has joined with young rightist Toru Hashimoto's Japan Restoration Association. This has created a force that cannot be ignored. The Democratic Party lacks policy experience and achievements. It is expected to lose. . The Liberal Democratic Party is expected to win. But it still needs to form coalitions with others. Whether the formation of a stable political scenario is possible remains to be seen. But Japan's domestic and international plight is far grimmer than it was during the old LDP period.
Japan and Korea play a vital role in Asia. The surrounding Asian-Pacific strategic picture is more unpredictable than ever. The new leaders of Japan and South Korea must respond prudently. For the Pacific Rim, 2012 is an election year. Several nations are holding elections or changing leaders. They are responding to extremist political actions that have raised regional tensions and led to regional conflicts. Will these leaders return to pragmatism? Will they promote peace and prosperity? That remains to be seen. Naturally Taiwan must pay close attention to this turbulence in the Asian-Pacific region.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.07
社論－東亞風雲詭譎 日韓大選焦慮
本報訊
本月東亞將有兩場重要選舉，日本眾議院選舉與東京都知事選舉在十六日登場，接著南韓總統大選在十九日舉行，預料日韓都將出現新的領導人。而這兩場選舉，在日中韓領土爭議加劇、北韓試射長程飛彈的背景下進行，益發凸顯了亞太局勢未來面臨的詭譎張力。
北韓宣布將於本月十日到廿二日之間，發射「銀河三號」長程運載火箭，攜載自力研製的「光明星三號」二期實用衛星升空。不過外界多認為發射衛星只是表面說法，實際上是要試射「大浦洞二號」長程彈道飛彈。
四月間北韓新領導人金正恩確定接班時，北韓就進行過同樣的「衛星」發射行動，結果以失敗墜落收場，讓南韓和美軍搶撈了不少碎片帶回去研究。十二月十七日是北韓前領導人金正日逝世一周年，也是金正恩接掌大位一周年的日子，又遇上南韓要選總統，北韓決定再度試射飛彈，一來誇耀軍事力量，二來對南韓選舉施壓，三來強化金正恩的領導威信，為上次的失敗扳回一城，四來吸取經驗改進飛彈發射技術，五來增加與美國討價還價的籌碼。
南韓這次是保守派執政黨「新世界黨」的朴槿惠與自由派「民主統合黨」的文在寅對決，「新世界黨」向來對北韓態度嚴峻，與承襲金大中「陽光政策」的自由派反對陣營立場不同。北韓連番對朴槿惠發出嚴厲批判，並且挑在選舉期間試射飛彈，明顯是想打壓朴槿惠的選情。不過此舉反而激起民意反彈，讓朴槿惠的聲勢獲得拉抬。
北韓向來的策略是走偏鋒的「邊緣主義」，用核武飛彈等軍事威脅製造談判自保的籌碼，藉地緣政治的位置取得中、俄相挺以對抗美國、南韓，其主要目的，是維持金氏王朝的獨裁封閉統治。南韓過去對北韓的援助與交流，被北韓當成影響南韓的政治工具，反過頭來卻沒有對北韓的統治與政策造成太大改變，這也是為什麼主張與北韓友善交往的人到最後往往拿不出足以說服他人的成果。
因此，這次的南韓大選，對北政策並不是決定性的因素，畢竟南韓民眾都了解，大部分的問題並不在南韓這邊，而且這也不是短時間可以解決的事。不過選民一定要而且會考慮候選人處理對北問題的能力，而總統當選人也將面對金正恩這位年輕北韓領導人所帶來的新挑戰。
日本未來的領導人同樣面臨重大挑戰，除了經濟長期低迷，全球第二大經濟體的寶座拱手讓給中國，而人口老化問題無解，政局不安幾乎一年一換首相，也讓日本從「失落的十年」走到「失落的廿年」，如今可能邁入「失落的卅年」。一個國家可以失落這麼久，顯然沉痾不輕。
近年來中國崛起把日本壓成亞洲二哥，南韓也意氣風發急起直追，日本對本身優勢地位的流失，有著相當的失落感，連帶引發的焦慮造成了整個社會的右傾化，以致於政黨競相擺出民族主義者姿態，以滿足民眾希望重振國威之心。
在右派的石原慎太郎與首相野田佳彥搶購釣魚台之後，釣魚台主權爭議激化了日中台之間的緊張，更讓中國大陸有理由對釣魚台作更強硬的宣示主權動作。中國大陸的反日風潮爆發以來，日本企業界的利益大受損傷，而偏偏當今經濟復甦亟需中國市場，短期譁眾取寵的民族主義操弄，卻可能讓日本長期實質利益及國家發展付出代價。
日本自民黨原本就較為右傾，現在民主黨也跟著往右靠，而老右派石原和少壯右派橋下徹的日本維新會結合，形成另一股不可忽視的勢力。一般預料，缺乏施政經驗與成績的民主黨恐將交出政權，自民黨可望勝選，但仍需與其他勢力聯合執政。是否能形成穩定政局，猶待觀察，但日本今天面對的內外局勢，其嚴峻早已遠遠超過昔日自民黨執政時期。
日、韓這兩個國家在亞洲舉足輕重，環繞其周圍的亞太局勢更是風雲詭譎，日、韓新的領導人必須盱衡情勢審慎因應。二○一二年環太平洋地區可說是走了一遭「大選年」，有多個國家進行國家領導人選舉或換屆，而因應選舉發生的各種極端或政治動作，以及所引起的區域緊張與衝突，是否會隨著各國領導人的底定而回歸務實思維，落實和平共榮的目標，仍然相當令人關切；當然，台灣必須密切注意整體亞太情勢的動盪發展。
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Unseemly Conduct and Educational Failure
Unseemly Conduct and Educational Failure
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2012
Summary: Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.
Full Text below:
Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.
First, consider whether the contents of the Ministry of Education's official statement were appropriate. Taken literally, the statement merely asks universities to express concern about the health of students who are taking part in sports. But two questions arose. The first was "How did executive branch authorities obtain background information about students participating in sports?" The second was 'Did the expression "concerned about their health" contain an innuendo?' In the former instance, the Ministry of Education obtained information that certain students attended certain universities through normal channels. This was perfectly reasonable information gathering. It is hardly necessary to invoke terrorism related concepts such as "undercover operations." Now consider the expression "concerned about their health." It is hardly necessary to compare this to Mafia expressions of concern for their victims' health. The opposition DPP is making quite a stretch by equating these e-mails with the White Terror. The Ministry of Education's only questionable action was to make a mountain out of a molehill, and issue an official statement. This made the Minister's statement sound like an interrogation instead a personal expression of concern. This was a case of "official statements sent 200 km are better than ministers walking 200 meters." The official statement ought to be criticized. But the error was not that grievous.
The second point of controvery is the students' attitude and legislators' behavior. Let us be blunt. The legislators and the students set the worst possible example. They insulted the legislature. They underscored the students' lack of socialization. Legislators have no right to "transfer" their interpolation authority to others. Government officials are under no obligation to submit to questioning by non-legislators. Grand Justice Constitutional Interpretation 461 states that legislators may invite students to interpolations, but the students would be the ones being interpolated. They would not be the ones doing the interpolating. They would be permitted to respond to questions from legislators. They would not be permitted to point fingers at government officials.
Consider the behavior of the students. We do not agree that "Etiquette is of secondary importance when the issue is right and wrong." If anything, the opposite is true. Respect for other human beings must reign supreme in any civilized society. Every member of a democratic society must understand this. The school system must teach students how to behave like human beings. Only then can they choose to be human beings who practice science, human beings who practice the arts and culture, human beings who protect the environment. Every human being must treat others with respect. They must accord others the basic courtesies, especially when the person is 30 years one's senior and a member of the cabinet. Even supposing the students interpreted the Ministry of Education's official statement in a negative light, they should still not have demonstrated a total disregard for etiquette, and called Minister Chiang names. Phony indignation cannot rationalize boorish behavior. The students behavior reminded one the Red Guards. If legislators engaged in political struggles provide intellectual cover for boorish students, they set a negative example for society. They also weaken society's core values.
The Ministry of Education's official statement contained no serious errors. The students and legislators behaved badly. That said, Education Minister Chiang's handling of the matter warrants criticism. Ministry heads in today's political arena must meet three requirements. One. They must adhere to a consistent policy framework. Two. They must uphold the dignity of their office. Three. They must remain flexible during prolonged ordeals. Over the past 10 months Minister Chiang has demonstrated extraordinary patience and flexibility. But he has shown little in the way of the first two requirements. One month ago, legislators interpolating Minister Chiang demanded that he translate several remarks by President Obama. This demand was nonsensical. It had nothing to do with educational policy. Yet Vice Minister Chiang translated them. In a similar case, the National Youth Commission chairman agreed to legislators' demand that he donate his year-end bonus. This is how legislators avoid interpolation and instead use the opportunity to insult ministry heads. When ministry heads behave like pushovers, it may help them survive Legislative Yuan interpolation. But the job of ministry heads is to serve the people, by implementing policy. If the only thing that ministry heads do all day is bow and scrape and come across like children terrified of making mistakes, then officials within these ministries will have no choice but to act equally frightened. Officials from top to bottom will be paralyzed. Where will they find the energy to implement policy?
Finally, we must talk about the Minister of Education's ideas. Should the Ministry of Education or universities care about students? If so, what sort of care is consistent with liberalism? A Minister of Education should know the answers to these questions. By the same token, suppose one wishes to promote 12 year compulsory education? Ministry heads cannot simply dialogue with people everywhere. They must have their own conceptual framework and rhetorical style. Minister Chiang issued an official statement which was sent to various universities. He conducted himself ineptly during Legislative Yuan interpolation. He was too much of a pushover. Many political appointees probably do not understand the policies they themselves are promoting. Students behaved boorishly and self-importantly. The opposition DPP legislators' coarse demagoguery was regrettable. But our greatest concern is ministry heads. They must have a better command of the concepts they are promoting. Taiwan's educational system hangs in the balance.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.06
社論－國會尊嚴淪喪 公民教育失敗
本報訊
教育部長蔣偉寧在立法院被參與社運的清大學生當面責罵，受到媒體關注，也引發了許多討論。這件事的是非並不難釐清，我們要從三個面向切入分別探討。
首先，是教育部所發公文其內容是否妥適。從字面上看，這份公文只是要求各大學對參與運動學生的身體健康表示關切。但是這裡有兩個問題：其一是行政機關如何得知參與運動學生的學校背景資料？其二是「關心身體健康」是否有其他的隱寓涵意？就前者而言，教育部若透過管道得知某在場學生是來自Ａ大學，其實算是合理的資料蒐尋，未必有什麼「滲透情搜」的恐怖概念。就關心學生身體而論，我們也無法將此類關心與黑手黨「黃鼠狼給雞拜年」式的問候相提並論；在野黨硬要把這封電子郵件牽拖成白色恐怖，實在是相當勉強。教育部唯一可議之處，是這種公文式關心太不真切，是形式詢問而非部長本人的關注，似乎表示「公文旅行兩百公里優於部長走路兩百公尺」，確實可以批評，但此事即使有錯也不算嚴重。
第二個爭議點則是學生的態度與立委的處理。讓我們直率地說：立委與學生都做了最壞的示範；既侮辱了國會尊嚴、也暴露了學生公民教育的失敗。就國會尊嚴而言，立法委員並沒有權力把質詢權「讓」給任何人，而政府官員也沒有義務要面對任何非立委的質詢。依大法官釋字四六一號解釋，立委邀請學生備詢固然合法，但此時學生只是受詢問者，只能回答立委問題，而絕不能對在席其他政府官員指指點點。
就學生的表現分際而言，我們完全不能同意「禮貌是公理辯爭時的次要價值」這種辯詞。事實上剛好相反，任何人對人的尊重，是公民社會極為上位的、不容侵犯的價值。所有民主社會的成員都該了解，學校教育一定是先教學生做「人」，然後他們才會選擇做科學人、文化人、環保人等。任何人對於任何其他人都該有基本的禮貌與尊重，更何況對話者是一位比自己年長卅歲、身任閣員的公僕。就算學生們對於教育部公文有極為負面的解釋，也不應該以完全不顧禮儀的態度，對蔣部長辱罵。這種假抗爭有理之名、行粗魯無禮之實的作風，確實有紅衛兵的影子。立委們若是在政治鬥爭的盤算下袒護無禮的學生，不但是錯誤社會教育，也是在摧毀台灣社會最基本的敦厚文化價值。
即便教育部的公文沒有明顯錯誤、學生與立委的表現荒腔走板，我們也還是要對教育部蔣部長的表現予以批評。在當今台灣政壇作為部會首長，大概需要三個條件：其一是圓融一貫的政策思考、其二是維護部會官屬尊嚴的能力、其三是折衝樽俎的柔軟身段。令人遺憾的是，蔣部長在過去十個月似乎展現了凡事忍讓、彎腰的柔軟，但是對於前兩個要件卻殊少呈現。一個月前有立委質詢蔣部長要他即席翻譯歐巴馬總統的幾句英文，對於這麼無厘頭、與教育政策無關的質詢要求，蔣部長也居然逐句翻譯。類似的案例包括青輔會主委隨便答應立委要求捐出年終獎金，這也是為求逃脫質詢而妥協掉機關或首長尊嚴的例子。部會首長脖軟腰輕固然有助於其在立院存活，但是首長的任務是服務人民、推動政務，如果首長整天鞠躬合十，活像是個恐懼犯錯的小孩子，那麼部會內的官員也只好如驚弓之鳥。如此機關上下皆忙於應對進退，又哪裡有推動政策的主體性與積極性？
最後，我們也要談談教育部長的理念。教育部或大學該不該、可不可以關心學生？若是關心，要怎麼關心才合乎自由主義的理念？這些問題是教育部長該要有的知識底蘊。同理，要推動十二年國教，部長不能只是四處訪問座談溝通，而要有一整套的哲學思想與論述鋪陳。此次發函各大學之事，蔣部長之所以在立法院表現這麼差，不只反映出身段柔軟之不足恃，恐怕也凸顯不少政務官對於自己主管政策欠缺圓融之觀念。學生們的失禮膨脹、立委們的粗鄙操弄固然令人遺憾，但對於台灣教育，教育部長對理念掌握的深度才是最令我們擔心的。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2012
Summary: Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.
Full Text below:
Education Minister Chiang Wei-ning was subjected to name-calling in the Legislative Yuan by Tsinghua University students taking part in political protests. The incident attracted considerable media attention and sparked considerable public debate. Right and wrong in this matter is easily determined. We would like to examine the matter from three perspectives.
First, consider whether the contents of the Ministry of Education's official statement were appropriate. Taken literally, the statement merely asks universities to express concern about the health of students who are taking part in sports. But two questions arose. The first was "How did executive branch authorities obtain background information about students participating in sports?" The second was 'Did the expression "concerned about their health" contain an innuendo?' In the former instance, the Ministry of Education obtained information that certain students attended certain universities through normal channels. This was perfectly reasonable information gathering. It is hardly necessary to invoke terrorism related concepts such as "undercover operations." Now consider the expression "concerned about their health." It is hardly necessary to compare this to Mafia expressions of concern for their victims' health. The opposition DPP is making quite a stretch by equating these e-mails with the White Terror. The Ministry of Education's only questionable action was to make a mountain out of a molehill, and issue an official statement. This made the Minister's statement sound like an interrogation instead a personal expression of concern. This was a case of "official statements sent 200 km are better than ministers walking 200 meters." The official statement ought to be criticized. But the error was not that grievous.
The second point of controvery is the students' attitude and legislators' behavior. Let us be blunt. The legislators and the students set the worst possible example. They insulted the legislature. They underscored the students' lack of socialization. Legislators have no right to "transfer" their interpolation authority to others. Government officials are under no obligation to submit to questioning by non-legislators. Grand Justice Constitutional Interpretation 461 states that legislators may invite students to interpolations, but the students would be the ones being interpolated. They would not be the ones doing the interpolating. They would be permitted to respond to questions from legislators. They would not be permitted to point fingers at government officials.
Consider the behavior of the students. We do not agree that "Etiquette is of secondary importance when the issue is right and wrong." If anything, the opposite is true. Respect for other human beings must reign supreme in any civilized society. Every member of a democratic society must understand this. The school system must teach students how to behave like human beings. Only then can they choose to be human beings who practice science, human beings who practice the arts and culture, human beings who protect the environment. Every human being must treat others with respect. They must accord others the basic courtesies, especially when the person is 30 years one's senior and a member of the cabinet. Even supposing the students interpreted the Ministry of Education's official statement in a negative light, they should still not have demonstrated a total disregard for etiquette, and called Minister Chiang names. Phony indignation cannot rationalize boorish behavior. The students behavior reminded one the Red Guards. If legislators engaged in political struggles provide intellectual cover for boorish students, they set a negative example for society. They also weaken society's core values.
The Ministry of Education's official statement contained no serious errors. The students and legislators behaved badly. That said, Education Minister Chiang's handling of the matter warrants criticism. Ministry heads in today's political arena must meet three requirements. One. They must adhere to a consistent policy framework. Two. They must uphold the dignity of their office. Three. They must remain flexible during prolonged ordeals. Over the past 10 months Minister Chiang has demonstrated extraordinary patience and flexibility. But he has shown little in the way of the first two requirements. One month ago, legislators interpolating Minister Chiang demanded that he translate several remarks by President Obama. This demand was nonsensical. It had nothing to do with educational policy. Yet Vice Minister Chiang translated them. In a similar case, the National Youth Commission chairman agreed to legislators' demand that he donate his year-end bonus. This is how legislators avoid interpolation and instead use the opportunity to insult ministry heads. When ministry heads behave like pushovers, it may help them survive Legislative Yuan interpolation. But the job of ministry heads is to serve the people, by implementing policy. If the only thing that ministry heads do all day is bow and scrape and come across like children terrified of making mistakes, then officials within these ministries will have no choice but to act equally frightened. Officials from top to bottom will be paralyzed. Where will they find the energy to implement policy?
Finally, we must talk about the Minister of Education's ideas. Should the Ministry of Education or universities care about students? If so, what sort of care is consistent with liberalism? A Minister of Education should know the answers to these questions. By the same token, suppose one wishes to promote 12 year compulsory education? Ministry heads cannot simply dialogue with people everywhere. They must have their own conceptual framework and rhetorical style. Minister Chiang issued an official statement which was sent to various universities. He conducted himself ineptly during Legislative Yuan interpolation. He was too much of a pushover. Many political appointees probably do not understand the policies they themselves are promoting. Students behaved boorishly and self-importantly. The opposition DPP legislators' coarse demagoguery was regrettable. But our greatest concern is ministry heads. They must have a better command of the concepts they are promoting. Taiwan's educational system hangs in the balance.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.06
社論－國會尊嚴淪喪 公民教育失敗
本報訊
教育部長蔣偉寧在立法院被參與社運的清大學生當面責罵，受到媒體關注，也引發了許多討論。這件事的是非並不難釐清，我們要從三個面向切入分別探討。
首先，是教育部所發公文其內容是否妥適。從字面上看，這份公文只是要求各大學對參與運動學生的身體健康表示關切。但是這裡有兩個問題：其一是行政機關如何得知參與運動學生的學校背景資料？其二是「關心身體健康」是否有其他的隱寓涵意？就前者而言，教育部若透過管道得知某在場學生是來自Ａ大學，其實算是合理的資料蒐尋，未必有什麼「滲透情搜」的恐怖概念。就關心學生身體而論，我們也無法將此類關心與黑手黨「黃鼠狼給雞拜年」式的問候相提並論；在野黨硬要把這封電子郵件牽拖成白色恐怖，實在是相當勉強。教育部唯一可議之處，是這種公文式關心太不真切，是形式詢問而非部長本人的關注，似乎表示「公文旅行兩百公里優於部長走路兩百公尺」，確實可以批評，但此事即使有錯也不算嚴重。
第二個爭議點則是學生的態度與立委的處理。讓我們直率地說：立委與學生都做了最壞的示範；既侮辱了國會尊嚴、也暴露了學生公民教育的失敗。就國會尊嚴而言，立法委員並沒有權力把質詢權「讓」給任何人，而政府官員也沒有義務要面對任何非立委的質詢。依大法官釋字四六一號解釋，立委邀請學生備詢固然合法，但此時學生只是受詢問者，只能回答立委問題，而絕不能對在席其他政府官員指指點點。
就學生的表現分際而言，我們完全不能同意「禮貌是公理辯爭時的次要價值」這種辯詞。事實上剛好相反，任何人對人的尊重，是公民社會極為上位的、不容侵犯的價值。所有民主社會的成員都該了解，學校教育一定是先教學生做「人」，然後他們才會選擇做科學人、文化人、環保人等。任何人對於任何其他人都該有基本的禮貌與尊重，更何況對話者是一位比自己年長卅歲、身任閣員的公僕。就算學生們對於教育部公文有極為負面的解釋，也不應該以完全不顧禮儀的態度，對蔣部長辱罵。這種假抗爭有理之名、行粗魯無禮之實的作風，確實有紅衛兵的影子。立委們若是在政治鬥爭的盤算下袒護無禮的學生，不但是錯誤社會教育，也是在摧毀台灣社會最基本的敦厚文化價值。
即便教育部的公文沒有明顯錯誤、學生與立委的表現荒腔走板，我們也還是要對教育部蔣部長的表現予以批評。在當今台灣政壇作為部會首長，大概需要三個條件：其一是圓融一貫的政策思考、其二是維護部會官屬尊嚴的能力、其三是折衝樽俎的柔軟身段。令人遺憾的是，蔣部長在過去十個月似乎展現了凡事忍讓、彎腰的柔軟，但是對於前兩個要件卻殊少呈現。一個月前有立委質詢蔣部長要他即席翻譯歐巴馬總統的幾句英文，對於這麼無厘頭、與教育政策無關的質詢要求，蔣部長也居然逐句翻譯。類似的案例包括青輔會主委隨便答應立委要求捐出年終獎金，這也是為求逃脫質詢而妥協掉機關或首長尊嚴的例子。部會首長脖軟腰輕固然有助於其在立院存活，但是首長的任務是服務人民、推動政務，如果首長整天鞠躬合十，活像是個恐懼犯錯的小孩子，那麼部會內的官員也只好如驚弓之鳥。如此機關上下皆忙於應對進退，又哪裡有推動政策的主體性與積極性？
最後，我們也要談談教育部長的理念。教育部或大學該不該、可不可以關心學生？若是關心，要怎麼關心才合乎自由主義的理念？這些問題是教育部長該要有的知識底蘊。同理，要推動十二年國教，部長不能只是四處訪問座談溝通，而要有一整套的哲學思想與論述鋪陳。此次發函各大學之事，蔣部長之所以在立法院表現這麼差，不只反映出身段柔軟之不足恃，恐怕也凸顯不少政務官對於自己主管政策欠缺圓融之觀念。學生們的失禮膨脹、立委們的粗鄙操弄固然令人遺憾，但對於台灣教育，教育部長對理念掌握的深度才是最令我們擔心的。
Condolence Payments for Retired Civil Servants: A System is Required
Condolence Payments for Retired Civil Servants:
A System is Required
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2012
Summary: It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.
Full Text below:
It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Premier Sean Chen has announced that the condolence payments will be slashed. Only those receiving less than 20,000 NT per month will continue receiving condolence payments. President Ma Ying-jeou publicly praised the move. Blue camp legislators reversed their stand. Green Camp legislators chose to support the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. This broke the deadlock on the month long controversy. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.
Every problem has a cause. Why have year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers been a problem? The main reason is the pension fund may go belly up. If it does, all manner of pension reforms will be floated. But pension reform must be well thought out. The devil is in the details, which have yet to be made public. The Executive Yuan has announced that it will slash year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to address imbalances in the treatment accorded labor, and the treatment accorded retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to avoid class conflict, which could lead to even greater social conflict. In other words, it matters not how low the salary for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers was, or how meager their retirement benefits were. Taiwan has taken off economically. The treatment of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers has improved. The treatment of the working class has not.
The Executive Yuan slashed year-end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Haste may have resulted in waste. But it has substantially mollified labor discontent. Now a number of questions must be asked. One. Has the Executive Yuan's decision to slash condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers significantly lowered their standard of living? Two. Has undermining military personnnel, civil servants, and public school teachers actually benefitted labor? Three. Suppose the ruling and opposition parties agree that a real gap exists between benefits for the working class and benefits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? Who has the courage to reduce these benefits, so that the disadvantaged may benefit?
All three questions have answers. One. The year end condolence payments have been slashed for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Some of them have had their standard of living lowered. But not all. This can be verified by the authorities in charge. Remedies can be implemented, including Ministry of the Interior social welfare grants. Two. Robbing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers will not raise enough money to pay labor. Labor income, including retirement funds, must be paid for by the market place. Government subsidies cannot fill the gap. The question is whether the government can make pie bigger.
Three. How much does the government intend to slash condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? How much does the government intend to divert to social welfare or public works? Ten billion, or tens of billions? That has yet to be determined. According to the budget submitted to the Legislative Yuan, items may be deleted, but they may not be diverted to other uses. The current budget is smaller, not larger. Labor may have grievances. But the amount cannot be taken out of the hide of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers.
As we can see, the Ma administration's problem with pensions is one that will not go away. The inevitable result will be egg on its face. But as the ruling government, it must nevertheless make a decision. One. Should it stick to the Executive Yuan's version? Or should it accept the compromise version proposed by the Blue camp legislative caucus? Either way, it must come forward and apologize. It must apologize to civil servants for undercutting their standard of living, and for the collective hardships they must endure. If any of them are in need, they must be given assistance. It must apologize to labor, for its failure to engage in comprehensive decision-making. It must apologize to the people as a whole for the controversy that has persisted. Two. As soon as possible, it must set forth a range of pension reforms. It must ensure that labor, which feels agrieved, knows that the government "feels its pain." The inequities may be difficult to address in the short term. But labor must feel that improvement in its lot is possible. Three. The Executive Yuan must understand that government decision-making requires adherence to procedure. The central government ministries and departments must not operate separately. They must not lobby separately. The Executive Yuan must not tolerate chaotic decision-making that makes final decisions difficult.
The DPP has been hostile towar retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers for decades. This hostility began during the "dang wai" era. It continued during the DPP's eight years in power. The DPP's opposition to the 18% interest rate on savings deposits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers is clear evidence of that. Alas, DPP officials who stepped down collected the 18% interest, all the same. They denounced the interest rate, all the same. During their reign they mobilized civil servants. They even ordered civil servants to join the DPP. For the sake of votes, they never hesistated to use retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers as their political whipping boy. DPP political appointees pocketed the 18% interest, all the same. Year-end condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers were issued, all the same. At the moment the DPP is demanding reform. It is even backing the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. To put it bluntly, it is playing a game. It is attempting to throw retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers to the wolves, in order to curry favor with the working class, whose numbers are significantly greater. The DPP is simultaneously attempting to prove that it cares about disadvantaged military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. That is why it is supporting the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. But is the KMT that stupid? Does the KMT not know how to appeal to this tiny constituency?
The Ma administration trumpets reform. But reform does not mean limitless drawing from the public treasury. It does not mean eliminating condolence payments today, only to reinstate them tomorrow. Reform must be implemented by means of the system. It does not mean politicians sacrificing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers each time an election rolls around. Political appointees, retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, are government officials who are independent of political parties. They must not be sacrificed so that politicians can engage in populist demagoguery. President Ma and Premier Chen must stop thinking about who will govern tomorrow. They must apply themselves to making decisions today. Only decisiveness can quell controversy.
退休公務員慰問金 應快建立制度
2012-12-05
中國時報
很難想像，在退休公務員年終慰問金改革方案上，朝野易位。就在行政院長陳?宣布大砍慰問金，僅保留月領二萬元退休金以下者的慰問金，而馬英九總統公開讚揚後，藍營立委醞釀翻案；綠營立委卻決定力挺行政院版本，讓這個議題熱炒一個月而無法止歇，退休公務員的尊嚴成了藍綠政治角力的祭品；既看到綠營的政治算計，也看到藍營的進退失據。最尷尬的是，執政政府舉足無措，不論什麼決定都得挨罵，卻不敢拍板決定。
任何問題的發生都有其根源，為什麼會有軍公教年終慰問金的問題？主因在勞退基金可能破產，接續衍生的是各種金年制度的改革，不過，年金改革必須費點心力做成完整的配套，在配套未規畫出爐前，行政院即行宣布大砍軍公教年終慰問金，以撫平勞工與軍公教待遇福利之間的不平，避免因為階級矛盾造成更大的社會衝突。換言之，不論早年軍公教的薪資有多低，退休待遇有多差，相對於台灣經濟起飛後的發展，軍公教待遇福利已經長足進展，而勞工階級遠遠趕不上。
行政院對大砍軍公教年終慰問金的決策可能失之於快，但相當程度換取了勞工抗爭情緒之降溫。現在要問的是：第一，行政院的決策是否確實對部分遭大砍慰問金的退休軍公教造成生活上實質的損傷；第二，讓軍公教尊嚴受傷的結果是否真能拉抬勞工福利待遇？第三，如果朝野都承認勞工階級與軍公教之間福利待遇確有落差，那麼誰有膽氣讓相對有利者減少其利益，讓相對不利者能因此受惠？
上述三個問題都有答案，第一，遭大砍年終慰問金的退休軍公教，一定有人生活因此實質受傷，但肯定不是全部，這是可以經過主管機關查核並另覓補救方案的，比方說，內政部的其他社會福利補助；第二，割了軍公教的肉補不了勞工失的血，勞工所得包括其退休處遇是要由市場機制同步彌補的，不是政府片面補貼可能完全拉平其落差，重點在政府如何做大市場之餅？第三，砍掉軍公教的慰問金而省下的國家預算不論是百多億或數十億，政府到底要挪移到社會福利還是公共建設，尚無定論，但依照立法院審查政府預算，能刪卻不能挪移於人增加其他科目的規定，此刻政府面對的是減法預算，而非加法預算，勞工即使有怨都不能掛帳到軍公教頭上而得到撫平。
由此觀之，馬政府面對燒不停的年金之火，滿臉豆花是必然的結果，但是，身為執政政府挨罵還是得做出決策，第一，不論是維持政院版或者接受藍委折衷版，都要出面道歉，前者是要向因此可能生活需求受損者致歉，請他們共體時艱，若有困難者另案協助，後者則要為自己決策不夠周詳引爆爭議向全民致歉；第二，盡速提出各種年金的改革方案，讓相對不平的勞工感覺政府體會到各階層民眾的生活都被注意，即使一時半刻很難全面拉平，但有解決並逐年改善的可能；第三，行政院必須深切了解，政府決策有其運作機制，不容中央政府各部會各自運作、各自遊說，縱容決策混亂，終至拍不了板而難決。
民進黨與軍公教利益為敵非始於今朝，從黨外在野時期如此，即使執政八年也從未放棄操作，退休軍公教十八％優存利率就是明證，執政卸任後照拿者比比皆是，放話痛罵者所在多有，執政時期既動員公務員，甚至要求文官入黨，然而，為了選舉無時無刻不以軍公教為祭品，十八％民進黨政務官照拿，軍公教年終慰問金照發，此刻民進黨訴求改革又力挺政院版，說穿了，也是避重就輕，企圖損及軍公教以討好相對多數的勞工階層，但又企圖反證民進黨也會照顧軍公教之弱勢，因此支持政院版，國民黨又豈會笨到不懂以最小範圍示惠示好？
馬政府口口聲聲要改革，改革的定義不是從人民有限的荷包挖錢，也非今日刪慰問金明日再恢復，改革只能從制度著手，讓軍公教免於每逢選舉或每逢政客的政治算計就被犧牲，除了政務官，軍公教都是中立於政黨之外的國家文武百官，沒有任何必要奉獻自己的尊嚴陪政客玩操弄民粹的遊戲，不論馬總統或陳院長，忘記明日誰執政，請用心於今日之決策，拍板才能杜爭議。
A System is Required
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2012
Summary: It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.
Full Text below:
It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Premier Sean Chen has announced that the condolence payments will be slashed. Only those receiving less than 20,000 NT per month will continue receiving condolence payments. President Ma Ying-jeou publicly praised the move. Blue camp legislators reversed their stand. Green Camp legislators chose to support the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. This broke the deadlock on the month long controversy. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.
Every problem has a cause. Why have year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers been a problem? The main reason is the pension fund may go belly up. If it does, all manner of pension reforms will be floated. But pension reform must be well thought out. The devil is in the details, which have yet to be made public. The Executive Yuan has announced that it will slash year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to address imbalances in the treatment accorded labor, and the treatment accorded retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to avoid class conflict, which could lead to even greater social conflict. In other words, it matters not how low the salary for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers was, or how meager their retirement benefits were. Taiwan has taken off economically. The treatment of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers has improved. The treatment of the working class has not.
The Executive Yuan slashed year-end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Haste may have resulted in waste. But it has substantially mollified labor discontent. Now a number of questions must be asked. One. Has the Executive Yuan's decision to slash condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers significantly lowered their standard of living? Two. Has undermining military personnnel, civil servants, and public school teachers actually benefitted labor? Three. Suppose the ruling and opposition parties agree that a real gap exists between benefits for the working class and benefits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? Who has the courage to reduce these benefits, so that the disadvantaged may benefit?
All three questions have answers. One. The year end condolence payments have been slashed for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Some of them have had their standard of living lowered. But not all. This can be verified by the authorities in charge. Remedies can be implemented, including Ministry of the Interior social welfare grants. Two. Robbing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers will not raise enough money to pay labor. Labor income, including retirement funds, must be paid for by the market place. Government subsidies cannot fill the gap. The question is whether the government can make pie bigger.
Three. How much does the government intend to slash condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? How much does the government intend to divert to social welfare or public works? Ten billion, or tens of billions? That has yet to be determined. According to the budget submitted to the Legislative Yuan, items may be deleted, but they may not be diverted to other uses. The current budget is smaller, not larger. Labor may have grievances. But the amount cannot be taken out of the hide of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers.
As we can see, the Ma administration's problem with pensions is one that will not go away. The inevitable result will be egg on its face. But as the ruling government, it must nevertheless make a decision. One. Should it stick to the Executive Yuan's version? Or should it accept the compromise version proposed by the Blue camp legislative caucus? Either way, it must come forward and apologize. It must apologize to civil servants for undercutting their standard of living, and for the collective hardships they must endure. If any of them are in need, they must be given assistance. It must apologize to labor, for its failure to engage in comprehensive decision-making. It must apologize to the people as a whole for the controversy that has persisted. Two. As soon as possible, it must set forth a range of pension reforms. It must ensure that labor, which feels agrieved, knows that the government "feels its pain." The inequities may be difficult to address in the short term. But labor must feel that improvement in its lot is possible. Three. The Executive Yuan must understand that government decision-making requires adherence to procedure. The central government ministries and departments must not operate separately. They must not lobby separately. The Executive Yuan must not tolerate chaotic decision-making that makes final decisions difficult.
The DPP has been hostile towar retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers for decades. This hostility began during the "dang wai" era. It continued during the DPP's eight years in power. The DPP's opposition to the 18% interest rate on savings deposits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers is clear evidence of that. Alas, DPP officials who stepped down collected the 18% interest, all the same. They denounced the interest rate, all the same. During their reign they mobilized civil servants. They even ordered civil servants to join the DPP. For the sake of votes, they never hesistated to use retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers as their political whipping boy. DPP political appointees pocketed the 18% interest, all the same. Year-end condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers were issued, all the same. At the moment the DPP is demanding reform. It is even backing the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. To put it bluntly, it is playing a game. It is attempting to throw retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers to the wolves, in order to curry favor with the working class, whose numbers are significantly greater. The DPP is simultaneously attempting to prove that it cares about disadvantaged military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. That is why it is supporting the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. But is the KMT that stupid? Does the KMT not know how to appeal to this tiny constituency?
The Ma administration trumpets reform. But reform does not mean limitless drawing from the public treasury. It does not mean eliminating condolence payments today, only to reinstate them tomorrow. Reform must be implemented by means of the system. It does not mean politicians sacrificing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers each time an election rolls around. Political appointees, retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, are government officials who are independent of political parties. They must not be sacrificed so that politicians can engage in populist demagoguery. President Ma and Premier Chen must stop thinking about who will govern tomorrow. They must apply themselves to making decisions today. Only decisiveness can quell controversy.
退休公務員慰問金 應快建立制度
2012-12-05
中國時報
很難想像，在退休公務員年終慰問金改革方案上，朝野易位。就在行政院長陳?宣布大砍慰問金，僅保留月領二萬元退休金以下者的慰問金，而馬英九總統公開讚揚後，藍營立委醞釀翻案；綠營立委卻決定力挺行政院版本，讓這個議題熱炒一個月而無法止歇，退休公務員的尊嚴成了藍綠政治角力的祭品；既看到綠營的政治算計，也看到藍營的進退失據。最尷尬的是，執政政府舉足無措，不論什麼決定都得挨罵，卻不敢拍板決定。
任何問題的發生都有其根源，為什麼會有軍公教年終慰問金的問題？主因在勞退基金可能破產，接續衍生的是各種金年制度的改革，不過，年金改革必須費點心力做成完整的配套，在配套未規畫出爐前，行政院即行宣布大砍軍公教年終慰問金，以撫平勞工與軍公教待遇福利之間的不平，避免因為階級矛盾造成更大的社會衝突。換言之，不論早年軍公教的薪資有多低，退休待遇有多差，相對於台灣經濟起飛後的發展，軍公教待遇福利已經長足進展，而勞工階級遠遠趕不上。
行政院對大砍軍公教年終慰問金的決策可能失之於快，但相當程度換取了勞工抗爭情緒之降溫。現在要問的是：第一，行政院的決策是否確實對部分遭大砍慰問金的退休軍公教造成生活上實質的損傷；第二，讓軍公教尊嚴受傷的結果是否真能拉抬勞工福利待遇？第三，如果朝野都承認勞工階級與軍公教之間福利待遇確有落差，那麼誰有膽氣讓相對有利者減少其利益，讓相對不利者能因此受惠？
上述三個問題都有答案，第一，遭大砍年終慰問金的退休軍公教，一定有人生活因此實質受傷，但肯定不是全部，這是可以經過主管機關查核並另覓補救方案的，比方說，內政部的其他社會福利補助；第二，割了軍公教的肉補不了勞工失的血，勞工所得包括其退休處遇是要由市場機制同步彌補的，不是政府片面補貼可能完全拉平其落差，重點在政府如何做大市場之餅？第三，砍掉軍公教的慰問金而省下的國家預算不論是百多億或數十億，政府到底要挪移到社會福利還是公共建設，尚無定論，但依照立法院審查政府預算，能刪卻不能挪移於人增加其他科目的規定，此刻政府面對的是減法預算，而非加法預算，勞工即使有怨都不能掛帳到軍公教頭上而得到撫平。
由此觀之，馬政府面對燒不停的年金之火，滿臉豆花是必然的結果，但是，身為執政政府挨罵還是得做出決策，第一，不論是維持政院版或者接受藍委折衷版，都要出面道歉，前者是要向因此可能生活需求受損者致歉，請他們共體時艱，若有困難者另案協助，後者則要為自己決策不夠周詳引爆爭議向全民致歉；第二，盡速提出各種年金的改革方案，讓相對不平的勞工感覺政府體會到各階層民眾的生活都被注意，即使一時半刻很難全面拉平，但有解決並逐年改善的可能；第三，行政院必須深切了解，政府決策有其運作機制，不容中央政府各部會各自運作、各自遊說，縱容決策混亂，終至拍不了板而難決。
民進黨與軍公教利益為敵非始於今朝，從黨外在野時期如此，即使執政八年也從未放棄操作，退休軍公教十八％優存利率就是明證，執政卸任後照拿者比比皆是，放話痛罵者所在多有，執政時期既動員公務員，甚至要求文官入黨，然而，為了選舉無時無刻不以軍公教為祭品，十八％民進黨政務官照拿，軍公教年終慰問金照發，此刻民進黨訴求改革又力挺政院版，說穿了，也是避重就輕，企圖損及軍公教以討好相對多數的勞工階層，但又企圖反證民進黨也會照顧軍公教之弱勢，因此支持政院版，國民黨又豈會笨到不懂以最小範圍示惠示好？
馬政府口口聲聲要改革，改革的定義不是從人民有限的荷包挖錢，也非今日刪慰問金明日再恢復，改革只能從制度著手，讓軍公教免於每逢選舉或每逢政客的政治算計就被犧牲，除了政務官，軍公教都是中立於政黨之外的國家文武百官，沒有任何必要奉獻自己的尊嚴陪政客玩操弄民粹的遊戲，不論馬總統或陳院長，忘記明日誰執政，請用心於今日之決策，拍板才能杜爭議。
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
ROC Security Needs G2 Communication
ROC Security Needs G2 Communication
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 4, 2012
Summary: After expressions of concern by many, and nearly three months delay, King Pu-tsung finally arrived in Washington and assumed his duties as the Taipei's Representative to Washington. When asked how he felt, he said the only difference was that "Today is an important new beginning." American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Burghardt said Taipei-Washington relations are the best they have been in 30 years. Bilateral relations are good, in both the private and public sectors. King Pu-tsung once said he "would not join the government, and would not join the cabinet." Why is this new post so important that he would break his promise?
Full Text below:
After expressions of concern by many, and nearly three months delay, King Pu-tsung finally arrived in Washington and assumed his duties as the Taipei's Representative to Washington. When asked how he felt, he said the only difference was that "Today is an important new beginning." American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Burghardt said Taipei-Washington relations are the best they have been in 30 years. Bilateral relations are good, in both the private and public sectors. King Pu-tsung once said he "would not join the government, and would not join the cabinet." Why is this new post so important that he would break his promise?
The answer is obvious -- increasingly strained relations between Beijing and Washington.
Ma Ying-jeou became president in 2008. Almost immediately, Washington-Beijing confrontation intensified, especially when the Obama administration declared the following year that the US would "return to Asia." Storm clouds gathered over the Asian-Pacific Rim, in the East China Sea and South China Sea. Despite subsequent developments, they have yet to dissipate. In late October, Beijing dispatched ocean surveillance ships to waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands for an "indefinite period." This "normalized" navigation through the waters, in response to Japan's "nationalization" of the islands. Confrontation between Beijing and Tokyo intensified. Several days ago, the U.S. Senate decided to interpret the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It declared that Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty applied to the Diaoyutai Islands, and that in the event of a Sino-Japanese conflict, the United States would intervene, possibly even directly, with force. This inflamed the situation even more.
In August 2010, the U.S. State Department declared that the Diaoyutai Islands were still under Japan's administrative jurisdiction. Therefore they were covered by the US-Japan Security Treaty. Japan's "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands made Beijing realize it could no longer tolerate "business as usual." The bilateral conflict did not end there. In 2009, just as the Diaoyutai Islands dispute was surfacing, the Philippines proclaimed the baselines for its territorial waters. It alleged that Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands were part of its sovereign territory. The South China Sea issue has become another attention-getting Beijing-Wasington confrontation.
The United States used the South Korean Tianan ship incident as a pretext to increase diplomatic pressure in the Western Pacific region and to call for more strategic exercises. Mainland Chinese forces gathered for the first time in the North China Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. One after another, they conducted joint exercises in the East China Sea, Bashi Channel, and the Nansha Islands. Shortly thereafter, in 2011, the long-awaited aircraft carrier was launched, ahead of schedule. This touched off a new arms race in the region. Recently the Mainland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued new passports, complete with diagrams which included the disputed areas as part of its sovereign territory. The Hainan People's Congress amended the law. It authorized provincial public security officials to board and search "illegal" foreign ships in South China Sea waters. The Mainland's State Oceanic Administration vowed to tighten controls over the Xisha waters, beginning next year. It also normalized law enforcement in waters surrounding Huangyan Island. This led to increased tensions in the South China Sea.
Beijing-Washington confrontation is nothing new. Strategically and geopolitically, Taipei finds itself caught between the two powers. How should it seek to survive? The challenges are already multiplying. Su Chi, former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, said Ma administration policy is to "make peace with the Mainland, maintain friendship with Japan, and remain close to the United States." In practice, this means the promotion of cross-Strait talks and diplomatic truce, and closer Taipei-Tokyo economic and trade ties. It also means increased understanding and trust from Washington in exchange for concessions on US beef imports. These all reflect hard work by senior government officials. But Washington-Beijing grievances, and regional conflicts are growing. Implementing the foregoing strategic objectives may not be easy.
Admittedly, dealing with the G2 is not easy matter. But there is still room to maneuver. The key is to make clear to the two powers that Taipei's position is benevolent. In 2009, during the Ma administration's first term, King Pu-tsung was a researcher at the Brookings Institution. Various parties speculated that he would convey Taipei's policy to Washington. He has since been "promoted" to Representative to the United States. This reflects new pressures resulting from the deterioration of Beijing-Washington relations. This is apparently something he could not address in his former capacity. It is widely believed that "Whether King has foreign policy experience is not important. What is important, is that he is Ma's avatar." This "special relationship" reveals anxieties about the regional scenario. We must avoid misunderstandings with Washington that could lead to unnecessary difficulties for Taipei. For the moment, King is irreplaceable.
For the foreseeable future, Washington will remain the main pillar of Taipei's security. We look forward to King fulfilling his mission. We hope he will successfully communicate with Washington and prevent peripheral conflicts from undermining ROC security. We hope the environment will remain predictable, and development will remain sustainable.
兩大之間 台灣安全有賴準確傳達訊息
2012-12-04
中國時報
在各方關切並延宕將近三個月後，新任駐美代表金溥聰終於順利抵達華府履新；當問及其赴任心情時，他表示，唯一不同的是「今天是另外一個重要的開始」。其實，假使如美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光所言，台美關係正處於三十年來的最佳狀態，不論民間或政府，雙方互動大體緊密良好的話，那麼，讓一度號稱「不入府、不入閣」的金溥聰打破承諾，毅然於此刻赴任新職的重要性究竟何在？
答案顯而易見，關鍵就在當前日趨緊繃的中美關係。
幾乎就在馬英九於二○○八年就任總統同時，美國與中共的對立態勢也跟著陡然上升。尤其在歐巴馬政府於翌年公開宣示將「重返亞洲」後，亞太周邊的東海與南海局勢隨之風雲驟起，後續發展迄今陰霾未去。例如今年十月底以來，中共決定讓海監船「無限期」巡航釣魚島海域，以落實「常態化通行」來對應日本國有化方針的結果，不僅中日關係持續尖銳化，美國參議院數日前決定於二○一三年國防授權法案當中，明確規定將《美日安保條約》第五條適用於釣魚台，暗示一旦中日在此發生衝突，美國將採干預措施，甚至直接武力介入，更無異是火上澆油之舉。
事實上，早在二○一○年八月，美國國務院便公開表示，由於釣魚台仍在日本行政管轄之下，當然屬於安保涵蓋範圍，日本更進一步將釣島「國有化」，埋下中共衝撞此一「現狀」的背後動機，更別說雙方矛盾還不僅於此。就在釣魚台爭端浮現之際，菲律賓在二○○九年透過畫定領海基線，將黃岩島及南沙群島部分島礁納入其主權後，南海問題又成為另一個關注中美角力的焦點。
為回應美國以南韓天安艦事件為由，在西太平洋地區擴大「演習外交」所帶來的戰略壓力，中共方面隨即首度集結其北海、東海與南海三大艦隊，陸續於東海、巴士海峽與南沙群島實施聯合演練；緊接著，醞釀已久的航母平台被迫在二○一一年提前下水，從而為新一輪區域軍備競賽點火加溫；日前其外交部在新版護照中納入主權爭議地區圖片，再加上海南人大常委會修法授權該省公安登船搜索「非法」進入南海水域的外國船隻，以及中共國家海洋局稱將自明年起強化對西沙海域的實際管控，並落實黃岩島與鄰近海域的常態性執法等一連串動作，亦再度引發南海周邊區域緊張。
儘管中美對峙早已眾所周知，對台灣來說，就戰略或地緣政治的角度，未來應該如何於兩大強權夾縫中尋求自處之道，挑戰則已愈來愈大；前國安會祕書長蘇起曾言，馬政府的對外策略就是要建構一個「和中、友日、親美」的平衡戰略格局，事實上，包括推動兩岸復談與外交和解、深化台日雙方更密切之經貿聯繫，甚至一度透過在牛肉問題上讓步以換取美國信任諒解等，在在顯示政府高層的努力；只不過，面對美中心結日深與區域內部矛盾難解的局勢，要貫徹前述主觀之戰略目標，確實很不容易。
誠然，兩大之間確實難為小，但小者絕非沒迴旋空間，關鍵在於向大者明確釐清其無害之立場。在馬政府第一個任期中，金溥聰於二○○九年以布魯金斯研究所研究員身分赴美，本即被各方揣測肩負向美方傳達我國政策內涵任務，此次「升格」擔任駐美代表，即反映出現階段中美關係惡化所帶來之新一波壓力，似已非他原先的非正式身分所能解決，正如一般認為，「金小刀有沒有外交經驗不重要，重點是他是老馬的分身」，這種「特殊關係」也說明了在近期山雨欲來的區域情勢中，為免美方誤解、引發我國不必要困擾，目前確實存在「非他不可」的外交考量。
基於在可見的未來，美國依舊將是台灣安全主要支柱的現實，我們衷心期盼金代表能「使命必達」，準確傳達並成功完成向美溝通的職責，以便盡可能降低台灣安全受到周邊衝突加劇之牽累，繼續在一個較可預期的大環境中，持續發展。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 4, 2012
Summary: After expressions of concern by many, and nearly three months delay, King Pu-tsung finally arrived in Washington and assumed his duties as the Taipei's Representative to Washington. When asked how he felt, he said the only difference was that "Today is an important new beginning." American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Burghardt said Taipei-Washington relations are the best they have been in 30 years. Bilateral relations are good, in both the private and public sectors. King Pu-tsung once said he "would not join the government, and would not join the cabinet." Why is this new post so important that he would break his promise?
Full Text below:
After expressions of concern by many, and nearly three months delay, King Pu-tsung finally arrived in Washington and assumed his duties as the Taipei's Representative to Washington. When asked how he felt, he said the only difference was that "Today is an important new beginning." American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Burghardt said Taipei-Washington relations are the best they have been in 30 years. Bilateral relations are good, in both the private and public sectors. King Pu-tsung once said he "would not join the government, and would not join the cabinet." Why is this new post so important that he would break his promise?
The answer is obvious -- increasingly strained relations between Beijing and Washington.
Ma Ying-jeou became president in 2008. Almost immediately, Washington-Beijing confrontation intensified, especially when the Obama administration declared the following year that the US would "return to Asia." Storm clouds gathered over the Asian-Pacific Rim, in the East China Sea and South China Sea. Despite subsequent developments, they have yet to dissipate. In late October, Beijing dispatched ocean surveillance ships to waters surrounding the Diaoyutai Islands for an "indefinite period." This "normalized" navigation through the waters, in response to Japan's "nationalization" of the islands. Confrontation between Beijing and Tokyo intensified. Several days ago, the U.S. Senate decided to interpret the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It declared that Article V of the US-Japan Security Treaty applied to the Diaoyutai Islands, and that in the event of a Sino-Japanese conflict, the United States would intervene, possibly even directly, with force. This inflamed the situation even more.
In August 2010, the U.S. State Department declared that the Diaoyutai Islands were still under Japan's administrative jurisdiction. Therefore they were covered by the US-Japan Security Treaty. Japan's "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands made Beijing realize it could no longer tolerate "business as usual." The bilateral conflict did not end there. In 2009, just as the Diaoyutai Islands dispute was surfacing, the Philippines proclaimed the baselines for its territorial waters. It alleged that Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands were part of its sovereign territory. The South China Sea issue has become another attention-getting Beijing-Wasington confrontation.
The United States used the South Korean Tianan ship incident as a pretext to increase diplomatic pressure in the Western Pacific region and to call for more strategic exercises. Mainland Chinese forces gathered for the first time in the North China Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea. One after another, they conducted joint exercises in the East China Sea, Bashi Channel, and the Nansha Islands. Shortly thereafter, in 2011, the long-awaited aircraft carrier was launched, ahead of schedule. This touched off a new arms race in the region. Recently the Mainland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued new passports, complete with diagrams which included the disputed areas as part of its sovereign territory. The Hainan People's Congress amended the law. It authorized provincial public security officials to board and search "illegal" foreign ships in South China Sea waters. The Mainland's State Oceanic Administration vowed to tighten controls over the Xisha waters, beginning next year. It also normalized law enforcement in waters surrounding Huangyan Island. This led to increased tensions in the South China Sea.
Beijing-Washington confrontation is nothing new. Strategically and geopolitically, Taipei finds itself caught between the two powers. How should it seek to survive? The challenges are already multiplying. Su Chi, former Secretary-General of the National Security Council, said Ma administration policy is to "make peace with the Mainland, maintain friendship with Japan, and remain close to the United States." In practice, this means the promotion of cross-Strait talks and diplomatic truce, and closer Taipei-Tokyo economic and trade ties. It also means increased understanding and trust from Washington in exchange for concessions on US beef imports. These all reflect hard work by senior government officials. But Washington-Beijing grievances, and regional conflicts are growing. Implementing the foregoing strategic objectives may not be easy.
Admittedly, dealing with the G2 is not easy matter. But there is still room to maneuver. The key is to make clear to the two powers that Taipei's position is benevolent. In 2009, during the Ma administration's first term, King Pu-tsung was a researcher at the Brookings Institution. Various parties speculated that he would convey Taipei's policy to Washington. He has since been "promoted" to Representative to the United States. This reflects new pressures resulting from the deterioration of Beijing-Washington relations. This is apparently something he could not address in his former capacity. It is widely believed that "Whether King has foreign policy experience is not important. What is important, is that he is Ma's avatar." This "special relationship" reveals anxieties about the regional scenario. We must avoid misunderstandings with Washington that could lead to unnecessary difficulties for Taipei. For the moment, King is irreplaceable.
For the foreseeable future, Washington will remain the main pillar of Taipei's security. We look forward to King fulfilling his mission. We hope he will successfully communicate with Washington and prevent peripheral conflicts from undermining ROC security. We hope the environment will remain predictable, and development will remain sustainable.
兩大之間 台灣安全有賴準確傳達訊息
2012-12-04
中國時報
在各方關切並延宕將近三個月後，新任駐美代表金溥聰終於順利抵達華府履新；當問及其赴任心情時，他表示，唯一不同的是「今天是另外一個重要的開始」。其實，假使如美國在台協會理事主席薄瑞光所言，台美關係正處於三十年來的最佳狀態，不論民間或政府，雙方互動大體緊密良好的話，那麼，讓一度號稱「不入府、不入閣」的金溥聰打破承諾，毅然於此刻赴任新職的重要性究竟何在？
答案顯而易見，關鍵就在當前日趨緊繃的中美關係。
幾乎就在馬英九於二○○八年就任總統同時，美國與中共的對立態勢也跟著陡然上升。尤其在歐巴馬政府於翌年公開宣示將「重返亞洲」後，亞太周邊的東海與南海局勢隨之風雲驟起，後續發展迄今陰霾未去。例如今年十月底以來，中共決定讓海監船「無限期」巡航釣魚島海域，以落實「常態化通行」來對應日本國有化方針的結果，不僅中日關係持續尖銳化，美國參議院數日前決定於二○一三年國防授權法案當中，明確規定將《美日安保條約》第五條適用於釣魚台，暗示一旦中日在此發生衝突，美國將採干預措施，甚至直接武力介入，更無異是火上澆油之舉。
事實上，早在二○一○年八月，美國國務院便公開表示，由於釣魚台仍在日本行政管轄之下，當然屬於安保涵蓋範圍，日本更進一步將釣島「國有化」，埋下中共衝撞此一「現狀」的背後動機，更別說雙方矛盾還不僅於此。就在釣魚台爭端浮現之際，菲律賓在二○○九年透過畫定領海基線，將黃岩島及南沙群島部分島礁納入其主權後，南海問題又成為另一個關注中美角力的焦點。
為回應美國以南韓天安艦事件為由，在西太平洋地區擴大「演習外交」所帶來的戰略壓力，中共方面隨即首度集結其北海、東海與南海三大艦隊，陸續於東海、巴士海峽與南沙群島實施聯合演練；緊接著，醞釀已久的航母平台被迫在二○一一年提前下水，從而為新一輪區域軍備競賽點火加溫；日前其外交部在新版護照中納入主權爭議地區圖片，再加上海南人大常委會修法授權該省公安登船搜索「非法」進入南海水域的外國船隻，以及中共國家海洋局稱將自明年起強化對西沙海域的實際管控，並落實黃岩島與鄰近海域的常態性執法等一連串動作，亦再度引發南海周邊區域緊張。
儘管中美對峙早已眾所周知，對台灣來說，就戰略或地緣政治的角度，未來應該如何於兩大強權夾縫中尋求自處之道，挑戰則已愈來愈大；前國安會祕書長蘇起曾言，馬政府的對外策略就是要建構一個「和中、友日、親美」的平衡戰略格局，事實上，包括推動兩岸復談與外交和解、深化台日雙方更密切之經貿聯繫，甚至一度透過在牛肉問題上讓步以換取美國信任諒解等，在在顯示政府高層的努力；只不過，面對美中心結日深與區域內部矛盾難解的局勢，要貫徹前述主觀之戰略目標，確實很不容易。
誠然，兩大之間確實難為小，但小者絕非沒迴旋空間，關鍵在於向大者明確釐清其無害之立場。在馬政府第一個任期中，金溥聰於二○○九年以布魯金斯研究所研究員身分赴美，本即被各方揣測肩負向美方傳達我國政策內涵任務，此次「升格」擔任駐美代表，即反映出現階段中美關係惡化所帶來之新一波壓力，似已非他原先的非正式身分所能解決，正如一般認為，「金小刀有沒有外交經驗不重要，重點是他是老馬的分身」，這種「特殊關係」也說明了在近期山雨欲來的區域情勢中，為免美方誤解、引發我國不必要困擾，目前確實存在「非他不可」的外交考量。
基於在可見的未來，美國依舊將是台灣安全主要支柱的現實，我們衷心期盼金代表能「使命必達」，準確傳達並成功完成向美溝通的職責，以便盡可能降低台灣安全受到周邊衝突加劇之牽累，繼續在一個較可預期的大環境中，持續發展。
Monday, December 3, 2012
Establish Special Taiwanese Characteristics: Allow Genuine Creativity to Thrive
Establish Special Taiwanese Characteristics:
Allow Genuine Creativity to Thrive
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2012
Summary: The government commands vast resources. It has the ability and the responsibility to encourage investment in films with uniquely Taiwanese characteristics. The private sector will naturally chase after fads, and pander to consumers. Fads are highly visible. Everyone notices them. Many chase after them. There is no need for government to do so. The government should provide a more elevated perspective and broader horizons. It should offer a vision of the future that competes with market fads. It should enable true creativity to bloom and thrive on Taiwan.
Full Text below:
Hou Hsiao-hsien has created a very special film aesthetic. He always uses medium distance shots and a stationary camera to tell his story. This style of movie narrative has attracted admirers from around the world. He has many imitators within the international film scene.
But if we examine Hou's "style" closely, and attempt to discern its source, certain factors become apparent. Taiwan is an impoverished and unfeeling environment for film makers. We lack actors who can withstand the gaze of the lens close-up. We lack sufficient funds and studios large enough to provide directors with adequate production values.
In other words, Hou Hsiao-hsien's achievement was the result of his understanding of the crippling constraints imposed upon him by local conditions on Taiwan. He is painfully aware of these constraints. In order to cope with reality and make up for his lack of resources, he was forced to create a unique artistic language.
Imagine a film buff with Hou's talent. Suppose he or she ignores this harsh reality. Suppose he or she decides to shoot a Hollywood style blockbuster, or a low-keyed drama rooted in English theater. He or she would invest much effort but suffer only setbacks. In the end, he or she would probably wind up with a mediocre, amateurish, and underwhelming product.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" is being shot on Taiwan. But everything from the capital, to the talent, to the technology, is from Hollywood. Apart from a few local soap operas, most TV shows on Taiwan are shot on the Mainland. This is a reality we cannot ignore. These are facts we cannot deny. The soil for the film and television industry on Taiwan is barren. How can we expect our movies to offer anything fresh? How can we expect Taiwan films to compete within Chinese film circles for the Golden Horse Award? How can we expect them to achieve excellence and dazzle audiences?
DPP legislators have suggested that the Golden Horse Awards be restricted. Only Taiwanese films would be eligible for consideration. Then one could be sure that the winner was a "Taiwanese film." But would such a Golden Horse Award do anything to nurture Taiwan's film industry?
The problem is not that Taiwan films lose to others. The problem is that our society and government lacks discernment. They are unwilling to encourage people of ability who really could win. They rush to judgment, based on simplistic criteria. Few people realize that over the years, Taiwan's documentary film output has outpaced its dramatic film output. Taiwan has a new breed of film and television documentary makers who have accepted their fate. They know they lack talented actors, well-written scripts, and sufficient funding. They lug their cameras up to the mountains and down to the sea. They tell their stories in the documentary format. Over the past fifteen to twenty years, they have created a uniquely Taiwanese style of documentary syntax, performance, and editing.
An unsound system has kept Taiwan's public television network from ever playing a truly public role. PTV has a limited budget. But over the years, it was enough to nurture these documentary film makers. It gave birth to many outstanding documentaries that inspired an autonomous community of documentary film makers.
Current documentary films from Taiwan are far superior to documentary films from Hong Kong and the Mainland. They are in no way inferior to documentaries from other countries. Unfortunately, most people do not know or care about these achievements. Our legislators do not know, and care even less.
These documentaries have been outstanding successes. Why has the government not given them more attention? Why has the government not proposed a film industry development strategy based on this as a foundation? It has guided and backed dramatic films. Why not use documentary film narrative to gradually blaze a trail for dramatic film narrative?
Taiwan's predicament is largely the result of a lack of insight and a lack of self-esteem. Many people, including central and local government officials, lack the patience to understand these diverse fields. They habitually adopt external standards. They apply them haphazardly. How can they accurately perceive Taiwan? We are not the United States. We are not Hong Kong or the Mainland. What we need is a Taiwan film industry policy tailored to our specific conditions. We do not need to chase after fads.
The government commands vast resources. It has the ability and the responsibility to encourage investment in films with uniquely Taiwanese characteristics. The private sector will naturally chase after fads, and pander to consumers. Fads are highly visible. Everyone notices them. Many chase after them. There is no need for government to do so. The government should provide a more elevated perspective and broader horizons. It should offer a vision of the future that competes with market fads. It should enable true creativity to bloom and thrive on Taiwan.
Instead, government at all levels on Taiwan throw money at New Year's Eve Celebrations. They flagrantly copy each other. As a result the festivities lack uniqueness. Those who expect the public sector to play the role of creative mentor, may have a long wait ahead of them.
建立「台灣特色」 讓真實創意茁壯
2012-12-02
中國時報
侯孝賢創造了一種非常特殊的電影美學，總是在中距離以外的鏡頭，不動地凝視著戲劇的推展。這樣的電影敘事手法，為他在全世界吸引了崇拜者，也有不少國際影壇上的仿效者。
但若深入探討「侯氏風格」的來源，其中絕對無法忽視的因素，是台灣貧乏而缺憾的電影環境。我們沒有夠優秀、夠傑出的演員，可以經得起特寫鏡頭的凝視；我們也沒有充裕的資金、廣大的片場，可供導演揮灑全景呈現。
換句話說，侯孝賢的成就，是建立在認知台灣的特殊環境條件上，正因為深刻體會這樣的缺憾，為了應付現實、彌補不足，才創造出了獨特的藝術語言。
我們完全能夠想像：一個具備了和侯導同等才能的電影藝術追求者，若是無視於自己面對的現實條件，一心想拍出好萊塢式的「大片」，或者是源自豐厚劇場背景而來的英國式細膩心理片，那麼投入再多的努力，承受了再多的挫折，恐怕都還是只能有平庸、半吊子、不起眼的作品吧！
李安的《少年Pi的奇幻漂流》雖然在台灣拍攝，但從資金到人才到技術，都是好萊塢提供的。除少數「本土劇」，台灣大部分電視劇，也紛紛到對岸去拍攝了。這是無從忽視、無法否認的事實。影視戲劇的土壤是如此，要怎樣期待我們的電影有「小清新」以外的表現？又要如何期待台灣電影在設定以華人圈為競賽範圍的「金馬獎」中，獲取優異、亮眼成績呢？
除非像民進黨立委建議的，金馬獎關起門來，只評選台灣電影，那樣就可保證得獎的一定是「台灣電影」了。但問題是，那樣辦出來的金馬獎，就對台灣電影環境有幫助？
關鍵的問題不在於台灣電影比輸人家，而在於我們的社會、我們的政府無法查知、更不願去鼓勵台灣真正可以贏人家的本事，老是以一窩蜂的單一標準來衡量成就。很少人意識到：這些年來，台灣電影在紀錄片上的表現，遠勝過劇情片。台灣有一批青壯派的影視工作者，他們認命地面對沒有好演員、沒有好劇本、沒有充裕資金的限制，扛起攝影機，上山下海，把故事寫在記錄形式的作品裡。十幾、二十年的累積，在紀錄片的語法、表現、剪接上，他們逐漸在建立台灣獨特的風格傳統。
不健全的制度，使得台灣的公共電視，始終無法發揮真正「公共」功能，然而以公視有限的預算，卻也就足夠在這些年中扮演起「紀錄片搖籃」的角色，催生許多傑出的紀錄片，更刺激出紀錄片工作者的自主社群來。
拿當前的台灣紀錄片，去和香港、大陸相較，一定只贏不輸。拿去和其他任何國家的紀錄片比較，也絕不遜色。可惜，這樣的成就，大部分的國人不知道也不關心，我們的立委們更是從來都不知道、更不關心。
為什麼政府不能讓已經有了如此傑出成就的紀錄片，獲得更普遍重視？為什麼政府不能提出一套站在這個基礎上的電影產業發展策略，在輔導、投資劇情片之外，開出另外一條由紀錄敘事逐漸成熟虛構敘事的道路出來？
台灣今天的困境，很大一部分來自於缺乏真正的自知與自重。很多人，包括很多中央及地方的政府官員、立委，沒有耐心實地去了解各個領域的面貌，習慣撿拾外來的標準，粗率地套用，這樣怎麼能準確看見台灣呢？我們不是美國、也不是香港大陸，我們需要的，是依照台灣具體條件量身訂做的電影產業政策，不是一窩蜂的流行意見。
掌握龐大公資源的政府，有能力、也有責任鼓勵投資真正的台灣特色。一窩蜂的事，一時討好消費者的事，民間商業市場自然會做，不需要政府。一窩蜂的事，誰都看得到，也有很多人會投入跟隨，這更不需要政府。相反地，政府應該提供更高更廣的視野，提供未來的願景，以視野和願景對抗市場的一窩蜂，讓從台灣現實土地上長出來的真實創意能夠茁壯成型。
不過看看台灣各級政府一窩蜂地砸錢辦跨年晚會，毫不在意地彼此抄襲模仿，讓各地的活動都沒有特色，若要期待公部門扮演起這種創意品味領路的角色，恐怕還得經過一段漫長時間的等待吧！
Allow Genuine Creativity to Thrive
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 2, 2012
Summary: The government commands vast resources. It has the ability and the responsibility to encourage investment in films with uniquely Taiwanese characteristics. The private sector will naturally chase after fads, and pander to consumers. Fads are highly visible. Everyone notices them. Many chase after them. There is no need for government to do so. The government should provide a more elevated perspective and broader horizons. It should offer a vision of the future that competes with market fads. It should enable true creativity to bloom and thrive on Taiwan.
Full Text below:
Hou Hsiao-hsien has created a very special film aesthetic. He always uses medium distance shots and a stationary camera to tell his story. This style of movie narrative has attracted admirers from around the world. He has many imitators within the international film scene.
But if we examine Hou's "style" closely, and attempt to discern its source, certain factors become apparent. Taiwan is an impoverished and unfeeling environment for film makers. We lack actors who can withstand the gaze of the lens close-up. We lack sufficient funds and studios large enough to provide directors with adequate production values.
In other words, Hou Hsiao-hsien's achievement was the result of his understanding of the crippling constraints imposed upon him by local conditions on Taiwan. He is painfully aware of these constraints. In order to cope with reality and make up for his lack of resources, he was forced to create a unique artistic language.
Imagine a film buff with Hou's talent. Suppose he or she ignores this harsh reality. Suppose he or she decides to shoot a Hollywood style blockbuster, or a low-keyed drama rooted in English theater. He or she would invest much effort but suffer only setbacks. In the end, he or she would probably wind up with a mediocre, amateurish, and underwhelming product.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" is being shot on Taiwan. But everything from the capital, to the talent, to the technology, is from Hollywood. Apart from a few local soap operas, most TV shows on Taiwan are shot on the Mainland. This is a reality we cannot ignore. These are facts we cannot deny. The soil for the film and television industry on Taiwan is barren. How can we expect our movies to offer anything fresh? How can we expect Taiwan films to compete within Chinese film circles for the Golden Horse Award? How can we expect them to achieve excellence and dazzle audiences?
DPP legislators have suggested that the Golden Horse Awards be restricted. Only Taiwanese films would be eligible for consideration. Then one could be sure that the winner was a "Taiwanese film." But would such a Golden Horse Award do anything to nurture Taiwan's film industry?
The problem is not that Taiwan films lose to others. The problem is that our society and government lacks discernment. They are unwilling to encourage people of ability who really could win. They rush to judgment, based on simplistic criteria. Few people realize that over the years, Taiwan's documentary film output has outpaced its dramatic film output. Taiwan has a new breed of film and television documentary makers who have accepted their fate. They know they lack talented actors, well-written scripts, and sufficient funding. They lug their cameras up to the mountains and down to the sea. They tell their stories in the documentary format. Over the past fifteen to twenty years, they have created a uniquely Taiwanese style of documentary syntax, performance, and editing.
An unsound system has kept Taiwan's public television network from ever playing a truly public role. PTV has a limited budget. But over the years, it was enough to nurture these documentary film makers. It gave birth to many outstanding documentaries that inspired an autonomous community of documentary film makers.
Current documentary films from Taiwan are far superior to documentary films from Hong Kong and the Mainland. They are in no way inferior to documentaries from other countries. Unfortunately, most people do not know or care about these achievements. Our legislators do not know, and care even less.
These documentaries have been outstanding successes. Why has the government not given them more attention? Why has the government not proposed a film industry development strategy based on this as a foundation? It has guided and backed dramatic films. Why not use documentary film narrative to gradually blaze a trail for dramatic film narrative?
Taiwan's predicament is largely the result of a lack of insight and a lack of self-esteem. Many people, including central and local government officials, lack the patience to understand these diverse fields. They habitually adopt external standards. They apply them haphazardly. How can they accurately perceive Taiwan? We are not the United States. We are not Hong Kong or the Mainland. What we need is a Taiwan film industry policy tailored to our specific conditions. We do not need to chase after fads.
The government commands vast resources. It has the ability and the responsibility to encourage investment in films with uniquely Taiwanese characteristics. The private sector will naturally chase after fads, and pander to consumers. Fads are highly visible. Everyone notices them. Many chase after them. There is no need for government to do so. The government should provide a more elevated perspective and broader horizons. It should offer a vision of the future that competes with market fads. It should enable true creativity to bloom and thrive on Taiwan.
Instead, government at all levels on Taiwan throw money at New Year's Eve Celebrations. They flagrantly copy each other. As a result the festivities lack uniqueness. Those who expect the public sector to play the role of creative mentor, may have a long wait ahead of them.
建立「台灣特色」 讓真實創意茁壯
2012-12-02
中國時報
侯孝賢創造了一種非常特殊的電影美學，總是在中距離以外的鏡頭，不動地凝視著戲劇的推展。這樣的電影敘事手法，為他在全世界吸引了崇拜者，也有不少國際影壇上的仿效者。
但若深入探討「侯氏風格」的來源，其中絕對無法忽視的因素，是台灣貧乏而缺憾的電影環境。我們沒有夠優秀、夠傑出的演員，可以經得起特寫鏡頭的凝視；我們也沒有充裕的資金、廣大的片場，可供導演揮灑全景呈現。
換句話說，侯孝賢的成就，是建立在認知台灣的特殊環境條件上，正因為深刻體會這樣的缺憾，為了應付現實、彌補不足，才創造出了獨特的藝術語言。
我們完全能夠想像：一個具備了和侯導同等才能的電影藝術追求者，若是無視於自己面對的現實條件，一心想拍出好萊塢式的「大片」，或者是源自豐厚劇場背景而來的英國式細膩心理片，那麼投入再多的努力，承受了再多的挫折，恐怕都還是只能有平庸、半吊子、不起眼的作品吧！
李安的《少年Pi的奇幻漂流》雖然在台灣拍攝，但從資金到人才到技術，都是好萊塢提供的。除少數「本土劇」，台灣大部分電視劇，也紛紛到對岸去拍攝了。這是無從忽視、無法否認的事實。影視戲劇的土壤是如此，要怎樣期待我們的電影有「小清新」以外的表現？又要如何期待台灣電影在設定以華人圈為競賽範圍的「金馬獎」中，獲取優異、亮眼成績呢？
除非像民進黨立委建議的，金馬獎關起門來，只評選台灣電影，那樣就可保證得獎的一定是「台灣電影」了。但問題是，那樣辦出來的金馬獎，就對台灣電影環境有幫助？
關鍵的問題不在於台灣電影比輸人家，而在於我們的社會、我們的政府無法查知、更不願去鼓勵台灣真正可以贏人家的本事，老是以一窩蜂的單一標準來衡量成就。很少人意識到：這些年來，台灣電影在紀錄片上的表現，遠勝過劇情片。台灣有一批青壯派的影視工作者，他們認命地面對沒有好演員、沒有好劇本、沒有充裕資金的限制，扛起攝影機，上山下海，把故事寫在記錄形式的作品裡。十幾、二十年的累積，在紀錄片的語法、表現、剪接上，他們逐漸在建立台灣獨特的風格傳統。
不健全的制度，使得台灣的公共電視，始終無法發揮真正「公共」功能，然而以公視有限的預算，卻也就足夠在這些年中扮演起「紀錄片搖籃」的角色，催生許多傑出的紀錄片，更刺激出紀錄片工作者的自主社群來。
拿當前的台灣紀錄片，去和香港、大陸相較，一定只贏不輸。拿去和其他任何國家的紀錄片比較，也絕不遜色。可惜，這樣的成就，大部分的國人不知道也不關心，我們的立委們更是從來都不知道、更不關心。
為什麼政府不能讓已經有了如此傑出成就的紀錄片，獲得更普遍重視？為什麼政府不能提出一套站在這個基礎上的電影產業發展策略，在輔導、投資劇情片之外，開出另外一條由紀錄敘事逐漸成熟虛構敘事的道路出來？
台灣今天的困境，很大一部分來自於缺乏真正的自知與自重。很多人，包括很多中央及地方的政府官員、立委，沒有耐心實地去了解各個領域的面貌，習慣撿拾外來的標準，粗率地套用，這樣怎麼能準確看見台灣呢？我們不是美國、也不是香港大陸，我們需要的，是依照台灣具體條件量身訂做的電影產業政策，不是一窩蜂的流行意見。
掌握龐大公資源的政府，有能力、也有責任鼓勵投資真正的台灣特色。一窩蜂的事，一時討好消費者的事，民間商業市場自然會做，不需要政府。一窩蜂的事，誰都看得到，也有很多人會投入跟隨，這更不需要政府。相反地，政府應該提供更高更廣的視野，提供未來的願景，以視野和願景對抗市場的一窩蜂，讓從台灣現實土地上長出來的真實創意能夠茁壯成型。
不過看看台灣各級政府一窩蜂地砸錢辦跨年晚會，毫不在意地彼此抄襲模仿，讓各地的活動都沒有特色，若要期待公部門扮演起這種創意品味領路的角色，恐怕還得經過一段漫長時間的等待吧！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)