Taiwan and the Mainland Can Create More "Straits Combinations"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2013
Summary: Taiwan's number one female tennis star Su-Wei Hsieh and her Hunan counterpart Peng Shuai formed a "Straits Combination" of "incomparable beauty and extraordinary charisma." At Wimbledon, the Mecca of world tennis, the dynamic duo won the women's doubles championship. This was the first time the two have ever won a Grand Slam since they teamed up. The Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai "Straits Combination" are defacto spokesmen for "Chiwan." Chiwan is a portmanteau of Mainland China and Taiwan. It is a perfect example of win/win cross-Strait cooperation.
Full Text below:
Taiwan's number one female tennis star Su-Wei Hsieh and her Hunan counterpart Peng Shuai formed a "Straits Combination" of "incomparable beauty and extraordinary charisma." At Wimbledon, the Mecca of world tennis, the dynamic duo won the women's doubles championship. This was the first time the two have ever won a Grand Slam since they teamed up. The Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai "Straits Combination" are defacto spokesmen for "Chiwan." Chiwan is a portmanteau of Mainland China and Taiwan. It is a perfect example of win/win cross-Strait cooperation.
The foreign media coined the term "Straits Combination" to describe the Hsieh Peng team. It is a combination that was applied to sports. But it is a combination that can also be applied to cross-Strait industrial cooperation, trade and investment, even political issues. The two sides can complement each other, giving them both advantages, and creating a win-win relationship.
Four years ago, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait experienced a major reconciliation. Mainland capital and Mainland businesses were allowed into Taiwan in June of that year. In the past, cross-Strait industrial cooperation meant "Taiwan brands made in Mainland China." The term "Chiwan" made its debut. Now "Mainland China brands made in Taiwan" is a new cross-Strait trend. The concept of "Chiwan" combines the advantages of both sides, and has South Korea worried.
Last year, Japan attempted to "nationalize" the Diaoyutai Islands. This aroused outrage among people on both sides of the Strait against a common enemy. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) previously offered to work with Japan on the joint development of the East China Sea oil fields. But political sensitivities and the Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty dispute have made it impossible to reach any agreement. The CNOOC made its offer in good faith. It proposed joint development of East China Sea oil fields and South China Sea oil and natural gas fields. Now however, it shifted its attention to Taiwan's Chinese Petroleum Corporation.
CNOOC General Counsel Zhao Liguo has visited Taiwan at least five or six times. His mission was to promote cross-Strait cooperation in the exploitation of these oil fields. To promote broader CNOOC and CNPC cooperation, CNOOC transferred some of its Congo mining interests to CNPC. CNOOC and CNPC now have a joint investment in Congo mining, bringing the two even closer together.
Actually CNOOC and CNPC began cooperating with each other as early as 1994. In late December 2008, former CNOOC general manager Fu Chengyu and former CNPC chairman Pan Yan met in Beijing and signed four agreements, including a "partial interests in Kenya 9th district transfer agreement." This took cross-Strait cooperation in the oil industry one step further. The CNOOC and CNPC partnership is the oil industry's "Straits combination."
The biotech industry is universally recognized as a cutting edge industry. The two sides of the Strait are one people who speak the same language. As National Science Council Member Chu Ching-yi noted, the biopharmaceutical value chain is long. The Mainland Region of China has 1.4 billion people. Foreign pharmaceutical companies are eager to sell drugs to the Mainland. Individuals on both sides of the Strait are genetically closer than anywhere else in the world. This facilitates the cross-Strait biopharmaceutical division of labor. Taiwan can perform first stage clinical trials. The Mainland can provide many patient samples. It can also perform the second and third phase trials. This combination, this division of labor, if used in liver cancer and lung cancer testing, can produce excellent results.
Zhongtian Group Diamond Biotech Venture Capital Deputy CEO Tang Chun-je recently noted that cross-Strait cooperation in biotechnology enjoys a "three P advantage" in "Program, People, and Place." With these three advantages, the two sides can expect to become an international biotechnology development center, and establish a joint Chinese biotech industry.
Consider sports from an industry perspective. Doubles tennis is more difficult than singles. The difficulty is in finding the right partner. Only when one finds the right partner, can one plus one be greater than two. Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai first formed a partnership at the age of thirteen. Their "Straits Combination" did not achieve fame overnight. They had to constantly adapt and adjust. Industrial cooperation is not blind groping. But cross-Strait coownership provides many advantages. With "Straits Combination" economic cooperation, Taiwan businesses need no longer go it alone. They can reduce costs and accelerate the recovery of their investments.
Su-Wei Hsieh has played tennis for over 20 years. Since turning pro, the highest rank she has ever achieved in women's singles is 23rd in the world. This is the highest rank any woman tennis player from Taiwan has ever achieved. Asian players on the tennis court lack the speed and strength of European and American players. Achieving Grand Slam pinnacle level success in tennis is extremely difficult. Winning a singles championship is even more difficult. Shu Wei's father Hsieh Chi-lung is a tennis coach. He understands his once rebellious runaway daughter. He knew that for her to make an achievement in her career worth remembering, she had to find a way to break through.
Last year, Hsieh Chi-lung personally appealed to Peng Shuai and her mother. He analyzed Shu Wei and Peng Shuai's performance since their 2008 doubles victory in Bali. Altogether the two won four WTA Pro Tour doubles titles. Peng Shuai excelled at defending the baseline. Shu Wei excelled at net volleys. He argued that if this pair of "Daughters of China" formed a "cross-Strait alliance," the could win a Grand Slam doubles championship. They could achieve a world's first and go down in history.
In singles competition, Xie and Peng might have ended up as competitors. But if the two stood on the same side of the net, they could form an alliance that would defeat all comers. The two have known each other since they were young. They are the same age. They have complementary characteristics. They have no language barrier. They have no problem communicating off the court. On the court, when it comes time to confront their opponents, they have no trouble communicating with each other. A simple look at the other and they know what stroke to use. Together the seized the fruits of victory.
The Wimbledon women's doubles championship is now in hand. But Xie and Peng's cross-Strait Grand Slam victory is merely the beginning of the "Straits Combination." The Wimbledon victory adds fresh impetus to cross-Strait "Chiwan" cooperation. The two sides can now create many more "Straits Combinations," in addition to the wildly successful Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai Straits Combination adds fresh impetus to cross-Strait "Chiwan" cooperation. The two sides can now create many more "Straits Combinations," in addition to the wildly successful Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai Straits Combination.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.07.09
社論－兩岸，可以創造更多的海峽組合
本報訊
台灣「網球一姐」謝淑薇與湖南姑娘彭帥這對「薇力無比、帥氣非凡」的海峽組合，在世界網球聖殿─溫布頓網球錦標賽女子雙打力戰群雌，摘下合拍以來的第一座網球四大滿貫賽冠軍。謝淑薇與彭帥的「海峽組合」，無異是「chiwan」代言人，兩岸合則兩利的最佳典範。
被外國媒體稱之為海峽組合（Strait Combination）的謝、彭兩人，可以在體育競賽上發揮，同樣的組合更可以在兩岸產業合作、經貿投資，甚至政治議題上，發揮互補優勢，進而創造雙贏。
四年前，兩岸大和解，陸資、陸企相繼在當年六月登台，以往兩岸產業合作以「台灣品牌、大陸製造」為主軸，「chiwan」的出現，「中國品牌、台灣製造」成為兩岸概念的火熱風潮，「chiwan」結合兩岸優勢，讓南韓聞風喪膽。
去年，日本企圖將釣魚台國有化，激起兩岸人民同仇敵慨，中國海洋石油總公司（中海油）曾與日本就共同開發東海油田交換意見，不過因涉及敏感，加上釣魚台主權爭議，始終未能達成共識。之後，中海油主動釋出誠意，開發東海油田及南海油氣田的合作夥伴，轉為台灣的中油公司。
中海油總法律顧問趙利國為推動兩岸合作開採油田，已經來過台灣考察拜會至少五、六次，而中海油為求與中油擴大合作平台，還將轉讓非洲剛果礦區的權益給中油，形成中海油與中油相互投資剛果礦區，關係更加緊密。
事實上，中海油與中油早在一九九四年就開始合作，二○○八年十二月底，中海油前任總經理傅成玉與中油前任董事長潘文炎，兩人在北京共同簽署包括「肯亞九號區塊部分權益轉讓協定」等四項協定，兩岸石油界的合作更進一層，中海油與中油是石油界的「海峽組合」。
生技業是全球公認的明星產業，兩岸同文同種，國科會主委朱敬一曾表示，生技製藥的價值鏈非常長，中國大陸有十四億人口，國際藥廠都想賣藥至大陸，由於兩岸基因相似度是全球唯一，兩岸生技製藥分工，可由台灣做臨床實驗第一階段，中國大陸病人樣本多，可做第二與第三階段，這種組合與分工，應用在肝癌與肺癌，會產生很好的利基效果。
中天集團旗下的鑽石生技創投副總裁湯竣鈞日前也表示，兩岸生技合作具備「Program」、「People」、「 Place」，也就是計畫、人才與在地「三Ｐ優勢」，只要好好把握住這三大優勢，兩岸可望成為國際生技開發重鎮，創造屬於華人的生技產業。
從產業看運動，雙打比單打難，難在對的人難找，只有找到對的人，才能發揮一加一大於二的效益，謝淑薇與彭帥從十三歲起就開始搭擋，「海峽組合」功成名就並非一蹴可幾，磨合與調整隨時都在進行；產業合作也非瞎子摸象，台海兩岸各擁優勢，經濟合作上的「海峽組合」，則讓台灣企業界不必單打獨鬥，降低成本，加速投資回收。
謝淑薇投入網球已逾廿年，征戰職業賽場以來，她在女子單打的世界排名最高曾來到第廿三，這已是台灣女將歷來之最。亞洲球員在網球場上的速度與力量不如歐美，想在網壇四大滿貫賽頭角崢嶸極為不易，爭奪單打比賽冠軍則更是艱難。淑薇的父親謝子龍身為教練，自然明白曾經極度叛逆且離家出走的愛女，若要在職業生涯留下永恆記憶，就必須尋求突破。
謝子龍去年索性親自擔任說客，向彭帥和其母親遊說，分析淑薇、彭帥自二○○八年峇里島網賽女雙搭檔奪冠以來，前後已拿過四個WTA職業巡迴賽的雙打冠軍，彭帥專精於底線重抽，淑薇則擅長網前截擊，這一對「中華兒女」若是「兩岸合璧」，絕對有機會在大滿貫雙打賽中捧起金盃，創造「世界第一」的千古佳話。
如果在單打賽場上，謝、彭或許是各據一端的競爭對手，然而，當二人站在球網的同一邊，自然結合成聯手禦敵的合作夥伴。她們自青少年時期即相識結交，二人年齡相仿、個性互補，更加沒有語言的障礙，不僅場外溝通沒有問題，即便臨場迎敵的剎那，她倆也很容易藉由彼此眼神的交換，做出正確的揮拍決定，聯手搶下勝利的果實。
溫布頓女子雙打賽冠軍到手，只是謝、彭在網球四大賽場上樹立起「海峽組合」旗幟的開始，這座溫網金杯，更是兩岸合寫「chiwan」新里程碑的全新動力。兩岸，除了謝淑薇、彭帥之外，可以創造更多的海峽組合。
Monday, July 8, 2013
Two Young Women from Hsinchu and Xiangtan Conquer Wimbledon
Two Young Women from Hsinchu and Xiangtan Conquer Wimbledon
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 8, 2013
Summary: Women's Tennis Association (WTA) players Su-Wei Hsieh from Taiwan and Peng Shuai from the Mainland partnered in the women's doubles competition. Together they won the Wimbledon women's doubles finals. This was a career best for both players. It was also a successful model for cross-Strait cooperation. Su-Wei Hsieh became the first player from Taiwan to win a Grand Slam title. Congratulations are in order.
Full Text below:
Women's Tennis Association (WTA) players Su-Wei Hsieh from Taiwan and Peng Shuai from the Mainland partnered in the women's doubles competition. Together they won the Wimbledon women's doubles finals. This was a career best for both players. It was also a successful model for cross-Strait cooperation. Su-Wei Hsieh became the first player from Taiwan to win a Grand Slam title. Congratulations are in order.
This year's Wimbledon match has been described as a "graveyard for top seeds." Many world famous players were eliminated during the first and second rounds. The Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai "cross-Strait partnership" received little advanced attention. They left the impression that it was easy going all the way. They made their way through the third round, the quarterfinals, and semifinals with straight sets all the way. During yesterday's winning match, the first set was closely fought. But the two were formidable during the second set. Su-Wei Hsieh played the net and Peng Shuai played the baseline, adopting an up-and-back strategy that permitted both offense and defense.
Wang Chien-ming have been sent down to the Triple-A Toronto Blue Jays. Jeremy Lin is reported going to being traded by the Houston Rockets. Golf champion Tseng-Ya-ni remains in a slump. Su-Wei Hsieh's Wimbledon triumph, by contrast, has shone a spotlight on Taiwan on the international stage. This is a truly exciting development.
Su-Wei Hsieh first picked up a tennis racket when she was only 5 years old. Her talent has been obvious since childhood. But her family was so poor it had to sleep in a minivan at night. Hsieh even ran away from home because she was unhappy with her father's strict discipline. But 20 years honing her skills on the tennis court have finally won her a Grand Slam title. Her efforts have paid off. Interestingly enough, the Mainland government, optimistic about Li Na's prospects, dispatched scores of reporters to cover her matches. Who knew that after losing the quarterfinals, Li Na would use harsh language in response to reporters' questions, and cause an uproar. Many Mainland reporters responded by tracking the stunning performance by Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai's "cross-Strait doubles team" and its shared cross-Strait victory.
Su-Wei Hsieh was born in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Peng Shuai was born in Xiangtan, Hunan. The two are the same age. They have known each other since childhood, when the two met and competed on the tennis court. The two became life long friends. The two have each experienced career ups and downs. In singles competition, Peng Shuai has fared somewhat better. The highest she has ranked is 14th. The highest Su-Wei Hsieh has ranked is 23rd. She has never reached the top ranks. In the women's singles matches at Wimbledon, the two shared the same fate. Both were defeated in the second round. But as predicted, their "cross-Strait joining of hands" made them stronger. It made them invincible. In the end, their victory enabled both sides of the Strait to shine.
Between 2008 and 2009, Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai partnered in four matches and won four victories. They easily won four championships in Indonesia, Australia, Italy, and Mainland China. Later on, during their golden years, the two chased after their own dreams. For four years, each pursued solo victories. This year however, the two players' parents encouraged the two to once again work together. The two recently won the women's doubles championship in Italy, offering us a preview of their upcoming success at Wimbledon.
The greatest challenge in doubles is reaching an unspoken understanding. This requires practice, practice, and more practice. Only that will enable two people to work together as one. Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai have achieved a rare fit. Su-Wei Hsieh has a "gui zhi qie qiu," or "demonic slice." Her volley shots are difficult to read. She is skilled at exploiting weaknesses. Peng Shuai is adept at lobs and defending the baseline. As a result, the two working together are able to play a synergistic game in which one plus one adds up to more than two. This six time "cross-Strait partnership" has led to six championships. It is the secret of their success.
Top Taiwan tennis pro Rendy Lu Yen-hsun was expected to do well in this year's Wimbledon men's doubles. He abandoned the partner handpicked by his Czech coach, in favor of Ricardas Berankis of Lithuania. But to everyones' surprise, a singles loss led to a lack of moral during the doubles tournament. The result was a rout. In response, Lu declared he would no longer partner with Berankis. As one can see, one's choice of partner can determine the fate of the game.
Examine the tennis record. Mainland Chinese women champions Zheng Jie and Yan Zi won the 2006 Wimbledon women's doubles championship. Taiwan champions Yung-Jan Chan and Chia-Jung Chuang were runners up in the 2006 Australian Open and U.S. Open women's doubles championships. This time, cooperation between Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai saved the day. The two helped Taiwan make WTA history. They successfully blazed a new "cross-Strait partnership" trail. The two benefitted from long years of friendship and mutual trust. Their tennis styles complemented each other. They achieved an unspoken understanding. Together they paved the way to a shared victory a the summit.
On the tennis court, arguments about "whether one may choose one's ancestors" are pointless. The real issue is whether one can choose one's opponents. One cannot. One can only choose one's partners. On the tennis court, there can be no such thing as demands for "concessions." Athletic competition is a showdown. One cannot pull one's punches. Two young women, Taiwan's Su-Wei Hsieh and Hunan's Peng Shuai, worked together at Wimbledon, enabling both to shine. The two sides of the Strait are about to sign TISA. Perhaps the example provided by these two young women can provide a flash of inspiration.
新竹女兒和湖南姑娘聯手征服溫布頓
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.08 02:59 am
台灣女網好手謝淑薇和中國大陸女將彭帥搭檔，聯手在英國溫布頓球場摘下了女子雙打冠軍金杯，不僅成就兩人網球生涯的最佳成績，也寫下兩岸選手合作出擊的成功模式。謝淑薇成為首位在大滿貫賽奪冠的台灣選手，可喜可賀！
今 年溫布頓網球賽被形容為「種子墳場」，多位世界名將在前兩輪賽局即慘遭淘汰。而謝淑薇和彭帥的「兩岸拍檔」，在事前未受高度關注的情況下，一路打來反而顯 得輕鬆，闖進十六強、八強、四強都以「直落二」的成績過關斬將。昨天的冠軍之役，第一盤打得糾纏，得手之後，第二盤便勢如破竹；謝淑薇的刁鑽封網，搭配彭 帥的穩健底線，構成無懈可擊的攻守火網。
正當王建民被藍鳥下放三Ａ，林書豪數度傳出將被火箭交易，而曾雅妮遲未走出揮桿低潮，謝淑薇此次在溫布頓的大放異采，持續點亮了台灣在國際球場發光的火炬，讓人振奮。
五 歲即拿起球拍的謝淑薇，自小即展露天分；卻曾因家境困窘到一家擠在小貨車上過夜，乃至因不滿嚴父管教而叛逆逃家。但歷經廿多年的球場奔馳磨練，如今終於戴 上網壇大滿貫的榮耀桂冠，一切努力均有了代價。有趣的是，中國大陸這回派出大批媒體，看好的是國家選手李娜的表現；不料，在八強前止步的李娜在輸球後以粗 話回敬記者，引起軒然大波。大批中國記者隨後卻意外等到了謝淑薇和彭帥「海峽雙打」的驚豔演出，等到了兩岸共同的燦爛金杯。
出 生於台灣新竹的謝淑薇，和來自湖南湘潭的彭帥同齡，兩人自少女時代即在球場結識、過招，從而培養出長遠的純厚友誼。兩人的職業生涯各有起伏，論單打成績， 彭帥略勝一籌，最高排名曾達十四，謝淑薇則為廿三，但均未曾登峰。這次在溫布頓女單，兩人命運一樣，都在第二輪便敗下陣來；孰料，她們的「兩岸攜手」組合 卻是愈戰愈勇，所向披靡，最後光耀了兩岸。
事實上，謝淑薇和彭帥在○八到○九年間曾經四度搭檔出賽，四戰皆勝，順利 奪下印尼、澳洲、義大利和中國四地巡迴賽的冠軍。其後，或許兩人忙於追逐自己黃金歲月的發展，各自單飛了四年。直到今年，雙方父母因緣際會促使兩人重新攜 手合作，兩人不久前又在義大利拿下女雙冠軍寶座，也為這次溫布頓的出擊成功暖身預演。
雙打最大的挑戰就在默契，須有 較多的搭配練習，兩人才能磨合成為一體；而謝淑薇和彭帥之間，就有這種難得的契合。謝淑薇的球風被稱為「鬼之切球」，形容她的截擊出手詭異，在網前尋找突 破機會；而彭帥善於長擊抽球，守住底線滴水不漏。也因此，兩人聯手，往往能發揮一加一大於二的能量。這對「海峽搭檔」，六次合作，六次奪冠，祕訣在此。
相形之下，台灣網球一哥盧彥勳原對這次溫網雙打寄予厚望，特意捨棄原本搭配的捷克教練，找了立陶宛選手比蘭基斯合作。不料，對方因為先在單打輸球，竟在雙打賽打得毫無鬥志，讓球賽輸得極為難看；盧彥勳因此宣稱，再也不找此人合作。搭檔夥伴決定球賽終極命運，由此可見。
檢 視網壇紀錄，中國女將鄭潔和晏紫曾拿下二○○六年溫網女雙冠軍；台灣方面，則是詹詠然與莊佳容曾在二○○七年取得澳網與美網女雙亞軍。這次，謝淑薇和彭帥 的合作奪冠，不僅為台灣寫下女網的最佳成績，也成功開闢了一條「兩岸搭檔」的新路。兩人長年的友誼，彼此的互信，球風的互補，乃至臨場的默契，共同鋪成了 這條攜手登峰之路。
在球場上，「祖先能不能選擇」這樣的討論是沒有意義的，因為你不能選擇對手，但可以選擇夥伴。在 球場上，要求「讓利」這樣的事也不會發生，因為運動競技就是結結實實地一決高下，不能放水相讓。新竹女孩謝淑薇與湖南姑娘彭帥在溫布頓的攜手合作，使兩人 璀璨發光；在兩岸服貿協議爭議方殷之際，或許也提供了一閃靈光。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 8, 2013
Summary: Women's Tennis Association (WTA) players Su-Wei Hsieh from Taiwan and Peng Shuai from the Mainland partnered in the women's doubles competition. Together they won the Wimbledon women's doubles finals. This was a career best for both players. It was also a successful model for cross-Strait cooperation. Su-Wei Hsieh became the first player from Taiwan to win a Grand Slam title. Congratulations are in order.
Full Text below:
Women's Tennis Association (WTA) players Su-Wei Hsieh from Taiwan and Peng Shuai from the Mainland partnered in the women's doubles competition. Together they won the Wimbledon women's doubles finals. This was a career best for both players. It was also a successful model for cross-Strait cooperation. Su-Wei Hsieh became the first player from Taiwan to win a Grand Slam title. Congratulations are in order.
This year's Wimbledon match has been described as a "graveyard for top seeds." Many world famous players were eliminated during the first and second rounds. The Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai "cross-Strait partnership" received little advanced attention. They left the impression that it was easy going all the way. They made their way through the third round, the quarterfinals, and semifinals with straight sets all the way. During yesterday's winning match, the first set was closely fought. But the two were formidable during the second set. Su-Wei Hsieh played the net and Peng Shuai played the baseline, adopting an up-and-back strategy that permitted both offense and defense.
Wang Chien-ming have been sent down to the Triple-A Toronto Blue Jays. Jeremy Lin is reported going to being traded by the Houston Rockets. Golf champion Tseng-Ya-ni remains in a slump. Su-Wei Hsieh's Wimbledon triumph, by contrast, has shone a spotlight on Taiwan on the international stage. This is a truly exciting development.
Su-Wei Hsieh first picked up a tennis racket when she was only 5 years old. Her talent has been obvious since childhood. But her family was so poor it had to sleep in a minivan at night. Hsieh even ran away from home because she was unhappy with her father's strict discipline. But 20 years honing her skills on the tennis court have finally won her a Grand Slam title. Her efforts have paid off. Interestingly enough, the Mainland government, optimistic about Li Na's prospects, dispatched scores of reporters to cover her matches. Who knew that after losing the quarterfinals, Li Na would use harsh language in response to reporters' questions, and cause an uproar. Many Mainland reporters responded by tracking the stunning performance by Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai's "cross-Strait doubles team" and its shared cross-Strait victory.
Su-Wei Hsieh was born in Hsinchu, Taiwan. Peng Shuai was born in Xiangtan, Hunan. The two are the same age. They have known each other since childhood, when the two met and competed on the tennis court. The two became life long friends. The two have each experienced career ups and downs. In singles competition, Peng Shuai has fared somewhat better. The highest she has ranked is 14th. The highest Su-Wei Hsieh has ranked is 23rd. She has never reached the top ranks. In the women's singles matches at Wimbledon, the two shared the same fate. Both were defeated in the second round. But as predicted, their "cross-Strait joining of hands" made them stronger. It made them invincible. In the end, their victory enabled both sides of the Strait to shine.
Between 2008 and 2009, Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai partnered in four matches and won four victories. They easily won four championships in Indonesia, Australia, Italy, and Mainland China. Later on, during their golden years, the two chased after their own dreams. For four years, each pursued solo victories. This year however, the two players' parents encouraged the two to once again work together. The two recently won the women's doubles championship in Italy, offering us a preview of their upcoming success at Wimbledon.
The greatest challenge in doubles is reaching an unspoken understanding. This requires practice, practice, and more practice. Only that will enable two people to work together as one. Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai have achieved a rare fit. Su-Wei Hsieh has a "gui zhi qie qiu," or "demonic slice." Her volley shots are difficult to read. She is skilled at exploiting weaknesses. Peng Shuai is adept at lobs and defending the baseline. As a result, the two working together are able to play a synergistic game in which one plus one adds up to more than two. This six time "cross-Strait partnership" has led to six championships. It is the secret of their success.
Top Taiwan tennis pro Rendy Lu Yen-hsun was expected to do well in this year's Wimbledon men's doubles. He abandoned the partner handpicked by his Czech coach, in favor of Ricardas Berankis of Lithuania. But to everyones' surprise, a singles loss led to a lack of moral during the doubles tournament. The result was a rout. In response, Lu declared he would no longer partner with Berankis. As one can see, one's choice of partner can determine the fate of the game.
Examine the tennis record. Mainland Chinese women champions Zheng Jie and Yan Zi won the 2006 Wimbledon women's doubles championship. Taiwan champions Yung-Jan Chan and Chia-Jung Chuang were runners up in the 2006 Australian Open and U.S. Open women's doubles championships. This time, cooperation between Su-Wei Hsieh and Peng Shuai saved the day. The two helped Taiwan make WTA history. They successfully blazed a new "cross-Strait partnership" trail. The two benefitted from long years of friendship and mutual trust. Their tennis styles complemented each other. They achieved an unspoken understanding. Together they paved the way to a shared victory a the summit.
On the tennis court, arguments about "whether one may choose one's ancestors" are pointless. The real issue is whether one can choose one's opponents. One cannot. One can only choose one's partners. On the tennis court, there can be no such thing as demands for "concessions." Athletic competition is a showdown. One cannot pull one's punches. Two young women, Taiwan's Su-Wei Hsieh and Hunan's Peng Shuai, worked together at Wimbledon, enabling both to shine. The two sides of the Strait are about to sign TISA. Perhaps the example provided by these two young women can provide a flash of inspiration.
新竹女兒和湖南姑娘聯手征服溫布頓
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.08 02:59 am
台灣女網好手謝淑薇和中國大陸女將彭帥搭檔，聯手在英國溫布頓球場摘下了女子雙打冠軍金杯，不僅成就兩人網球生涯的最佳成績，也寫下兩岸選手合作出擊的成功模式。謝淑薇成為首位在大滿貫賽奪冠的台灣選手，可喜可賀！
今 年溫布頓網球賽被形容為「種子墳場」，多位世界名將在前兩輪賽局即慘遭淘汰。而謝淑薇和彭帥的「兩岸拍檔」，在事前未受高度關注的情況下，一路打來反而顯 得輕鬆，闖進十六強、八強、四強都以「直落二」的成績過關斬將。昨天的冠軍之役，第一盤打得糾纏，得手之後，第二盤便勢如破竹；謝淑薇的刁鑽封網，搭配彭 帥的穩健底線，構成無懈可擊的攻守火網。
正當王建民被藍鳥下放三Ａ，林書豪數度傳出將被火箭交易，而曾雅妮遲未走出揮桿低潮，謝淑薇此次在溫布頓的大放異采，持續點亮了台灣在國際球場發光的火炬，讓人振奮。
五 歲即拿起球拍的謝淑薇，自小即展露天分；卻曾因家境困窘到一家擠在小貨車上過夜，乃至因不滿嚴父管教而叛逆逃家。但歷經廿多年的球場奔馳磨練，如今終於戴 上網壇大滿貫的榮耀桂冠，一切努力均有了代價。有趣的是，中國大陸這回派出大批媒體，看好的是國家選手李娜的表現；不料，在八強前止步的李娜在輸球後以粗 話回敬記者，引起軒然大波。大批中國記者隨後卻意外等到了謝淑薇和彭帥「海峽雙打」的驚豔演出，等到了兩岸共同的燦爛金杯。
出 生於台灣新竹的謝淑薇，和來自湖南湘潭的彭帥同齡，兩人自少女時代即在球場結識、過招，從而培養出長遠的純厚友誼。兩人的職業生涯各有起伏，論單打成績， 彭帥略勝一籌，最高排名曾達十四，謝淑薇則為廿三，但均未曾登峰。這次在溫布頓女單，兩人命運一樣，都在第二輪便敗下陣來；孰料，她們的「兩岸攜手」組合 卻是愈戰愈勇，所向披靡，最後光耀了兩岸。
事實上，謝淑薇和彭帥在○八到○九年間曾經四度搭檔出賽，四戰皆勝，順利 奪下印尼、澳洲、義大利和中國四地巡迴賽的冠軍。其後，或許兩人忙於追逐自己黃金歲月的發展，各自單飛了四年。直到今年，雙方父母因緣際會促使兩人重新攜 手合作，兩人不久前又在義大利拿下女雙冠軍寶座，也為這次溫布頓的出擊成功暖身預演。
雙打最大的挑戰就在默契，須有 較多的搭配練習，兩人才能磨合成為一體；而謝淑薇和彭帥之間，就有這種難得的契合。謝淑薇的球風被稱為「鬼之切球」，形容她的截擊出手詭異，在網前尋找突 破機會；而彭帥善於長擊抽球，守住底線滴水不漏。也因此，兩人聯手，往往能發揮一加一大於二的能量。這對「海峽搭檔」，六次合作，六次奪冠，祕訣在此。
相形之下，台灣網球一哥盧彥勳原對這次溫網雙打寄予厚望，特意捨棄原本搭配的捷克教練，找了立陶宛選手比蘭基斯合作。不料，對方因為先在單打輸球，竟在雙打賽打得毫無鬥志，讓球賽輸得極為難看；盧彥勳因此宣稱，再也不找此人合作。搭檔夥伴決定球賽終極命運，由此可見。
檢 視網壇紀錄，中國女將鄭潔和晏紫曾拿下二○○六年溫網女雙冠軍；台灣方面，則是詹詠然與莊佳容曾在二○○七年取得澳網與美網女雙亞軍。這次，謝淑薇和彭帥 的合作奪冠，不僅為台灣寫下女網的最佳成績，也成功開闢了一條「兩岸搭檔」的新路。兩人長年的友誼，彼此的互信，球風的互補，乃至臨場的默契，共同鋪成了 這條攜手登峰之路。
在球場上，「祖先能不能選擇」這樣的討論是沒有意義的，因為你不能選擇對手，但可以選擇夥伴。在 球場上，要求「讓利」這樣的事也不會發生，因為運動競技就是結結實實地一決高下，不能放水相讓。新竹女孩謝淑薇與湖南姑娘彭帥在溫布頓的攜手合作，使兩人 璀璨發光；在兩岸服貿協議爭議方殷之際，或許也提供了一閃靈光。
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Egypt's Tragicomedy: Democracy from the Barrel of a Gun
Egypt's Tragicomedy: Democracy from the Barrel of a Gun
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 5, 2013
Summary: At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?
Full Text below:
At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?
The military issued an ultimatum. Morsi was extremely recalcitrant. He boasted that he was the freely elected president of a democracy, whose rule was completely legimate and legal. Yet with scant resistance, the military was able to announce his removal from office. It was able to appoint Adly Mahmud Mansour interim national leader. Mansour had been appointed Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court only two days earlier. The action had apparently been planned long ago.
The Egyptian military has ousted a democratically elected president. Was this a coup d'etat? Outsiders are witholding judgment. The military says it is merely complying with the "will of the people." Their action is apparently welcomed by the public. The Egyptian military has assured the U.S. government that it "has no intention of ruling." If "public opinion" is any indicator of democracy, public opinion appears to favor the military. But does this amount to "imbibing poisoned wine in order to quench one's thirst?" That is difficult to say. Will leaders during the transitional period consult with the public, hold another election, and form a democratic government? Then and only then will Egypt have broken its pattern of military dictatorships established under Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.
Military intervention is disturbing. But democratically elected president Morsi was even more intolerable to the Egyptian people. This was a classic case of choosing between the lesser of two evils. The problem with Morsi is that there will be no effective interim government. His administration wantonly appointed Muslim Brotherhood cronies and authored a constitution based solely on his personal whims. But he brought only economic ruin and social chaos. Egypt was originally an Islamic nation with strong secular tendencies. Morsi attempted to impose theocratic rule, and use conservative religious dogma to restrict people's private conduct. As a result, Egypt's secularists, liberals, women, youth, and even forces from the previous regime, are united in their opposition to him.
Morsi may have been a democratically elected president. But his administration failed to fulfill the hopes of the Jasmine Revolution. It could not avoid being overthrown. Such events offer a sober reminder about modern democratic politics. Put simply, an elected head of state must answer to public opinion. He cannot boast that "I won the election" and flaunt his legitimacy and legality. In today's democracy public opinion changes rapidly. Merely winning an election is no longer enough.
Consider the most obvious example. Last month waves of protests hit Turkey. In recent years, Turkey has enjoyed swift economic growth. Many sectors of the economy are thriving. Premier Dogan Erdogan's sound governance has attracted international attention. But a park demolition project in the nation's capitol provoked overwhelming public opposition. Erdogan initially assumed an arrogant posture. He trumpeted his decade long record of accomplishments. He said the public supported a third term. But amidst fierce public unrest, he was eventually forced to offer a low-keyed apology.
Erdogan's dazzling record won him public support. But his arrogance inspired the Western media to ridicule his regime as "zombie democracy." His government met all the formal requirements of democracy. But it lacked a heart. It failed to understand the feelings of the people. Think about it. Erdogan was responsible for Turkey's economic success. Yet even he was not immune to such resentment. Morsi on the other hand, merely won a single election victory. Yet he considered that a mandate to personally write a new constitution, reshuffle the cabinet, and change the social order. He failed to create prosperity for the people or offer them a vision for the future. How was his regime any different from a dictatorship? On the eve of Morsi's downfall, six ministers resigned, abandoning him. The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters were burned. How the public felt about him was obvious.
Will Egyptian military intervention lead to comedy or tragedy? That is difficult to say. Two years ago during the Jasmine Revolution, authoritarian leaders were ousted, only to be replaced by strongman dictatorship, economic decline, and political corruption. Who could have known? By the same token, soldiers have driven out an arrogant head of state. They have met with public expectations. But will the military forces become addicted to meddling in domestic affairs? Will Egyptian democracy turn into government at gunpoint? That is equally difficult to say. For a nation to move from dictatorship to democracy, requires institutional guarantees, regulations, and long term social constraints. It cannot be implemented overnight. But fewer and fewer people have the patience. The rulers remain mired in the mentality of authoritarianism. How can anyone tolerate zombie democracy?
In any event, large scale protests, from Turkey to Egypt, have deposed democratically elected heads of state. This is a lesson for all leaders. Do not think only of the power at your disposal. Instead, think of your responsibilities!
埃及悲喜劇：當民主靠槍桿子維持
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.05 03:18 am
在軍方主導下，埃及一夕變天，剛剛就職滿周年的首位民選總統穆希遭到了罷黜。和兩年半前在解放廣場成功要求獨裁者穆巴拉克下台一樣，群眾的力量再度獲勝；但這一回，埃及人民是不是真能在槍桿子協助下得到他們期待的民主？
面對軍方的最後通牒，穆希極力頑抗，自稱是經「自由選舉」產生的民主總統，具有絕對的「正當性」和「合法性」；然而，軍方似乎不費吹灰之力即控制他的行動，宣布將他解職，並指派剛上任兩天的憲政法院首席大法官曼蘇爾為國家臨時領導人。這項行動，顯然策劃已久。
埃及軍人罷黜民選總統，算不算「政變」，外界暫持保留態度。軍方自稱是遵照「人民的意志」行事，他們的行動似乎也受到民眾的歡迎，埃及軍方並向美國政府保證他們「無意執政」。若「民意」是民主的指針，此刻民意似乎是傾向軍方的；但其間「飲鴆止渴」的風險，恐難估計。除非過渡期的領導人和協商會議能有效運作，順利推動下次選舉，並組成民主政府；那麼，我們才可以說埃及不會重蹈納瑟、沙達特及穆巴拉克的軍人專政覆轍。
軍人干政令人不安，但經民主程序選出的總統穆希卻更令埃及人民難耐，這是「兩害相權取其輕」之計。穆希的問題，在於過度專斷卻無法有效治理：他的政府大肆任命其「穆斯林兄弟會」之親信，並獨斷地依個人意旨制定憲法；但經濟上他卻只帶來凋弊，而社會原有秩序鬆脫。埃及原是一個世俗傾向頗強的伊斯蘭國家，穆希卻企圖「以教領政」，用保守的教規束縛民眾。也因此，埃及的世俗派、自由派、婦女和青年，乃至前政府的舊勢力，全都站到了他的對立面。
穆希雖是經民主選舉產生的總統，但他的施政無法滿足茉莉花革命的民主期待，因而難逃被推翻的命運。這樣的演變，不啻是對現代民主政治一記當頭棒喝。簡單地說，民選元首若不能認真回應民意，卻只是以「我贏得了選舉」來誇示自己的正當性與合法性，在今天民意反覆快速的民主政治下，恐怕已經不夠了。
最明顯的例子，便是上月的土耳其抗議風潮。土耳其近年經濟成長快速，各項發展欣欣向榮，總理厄多岡則因治理有方，受到國際矚目；但僅為了首都一座公園的拆遷案，他卻引起了民眾排山倒海的反對。厄多岡起初傲慢以對，一再誇示自己的十年政績，並宣稱民意支持他「三度連任」；然而，在民眾激烈的抗爭下，他最後只能低調道歉。
厄多岡自誇擁有耀眼政績及民意支持，但他的傲慢，被西方媒體譏為「殭屍民主」。原因是，他領導的政府擁有民主的一切形式要件，少的卻是一顆真心，一顆能體貼並理解人民感受的心。試想，以厄多岡為土耳其創造的經濟成就，都仍無法免於如此巨大的民怨；穆希只憑恃一次勝選，就獨攬制憲、組閣、改變社會秩序的全部權力，最後卻無法為人民創造繁榮與願景，這和獨裁統治有何兩樣？穆希垮台前夕，有六名閣員宣布辭職棄他而去，穆斯林兄弟會總部遭到焚燒，人心向背已一目了然。
埃及這場軍人干政大戲，究竟會以喜劇或悲劇收場，目前尚難斷言。就像兩年前的茉莉花革命，走了獨裁領袖，卻換來專政強人，經濟更委靡、秩序更敗壞，其誰能料？同樣的，今天軍人趕走了傲慢元首，護持了人民的期待；但軍方勢力會不會干政成癮，使埃及民主陷於「槍桿子看守」的危境，同樣難以逆料。事實上，一個國家要從專制走向民主，需要體制、法規和不同社會力量的長期磨合，難以一蹴而就；但當人民的耐心越來越少，而統治者的心態卻還停留在威權時代，這樣的殭屍民主誰能忍受？
無論如何，從土耳其的大示威到埃及民選總統遭罷黜，對所有領導人都是一課深切的提醒：不要只仗恃手中權力，想想你的責任！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 5, 2013
Summary: At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?
Full Text below:
At the behest of the military, Egypt changed overnight. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected president, was ousted one year into his term. Two and a half years ago, the masses gathered in Tahrir Square and successfully demanded that dictator Hosni Mubarak step down. Once again, people power prevailed. But can the Egyptian people really achieve the democracy they desire at the point of a gun?
The military issued an ultimatum. Morsi was extremely recalcitrant. He boasted that he was the freely elected president of a democracy, whose rule was completely legimate and legal. Yet with scant resistance, the military was able to announce his removal from office. It was able to appoint Adly Mahmud Mansour interim national leader. Mansour had been appointed Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court only two days earlier. The action had apparently been planned long ago.
The Egyptian military has ousted a democratically elected president. Was this a coup d'etat? Outsiders are witholding judgment. The military says it is merely complying with the "will of the people." Their action is apparently welcomed by the public. The Egyptian military has assured the U.S. government that it "has no intention of ruling." If "public opinion" is any indicator of democracy, public opinion appears to favor the military. But does this amount to "imbibing poisoned wine in order to quench one's thirst?" That is difficult to say. Will leaders during the transitional period consult with the public, hold another election, and form a democratic government? Then and only then will Egypt have broken its pattern of military dictatorships established under Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak.
Military intervention is disturbing. But democratically elected president Morsi was even more intolerable to the Egyptian people. This was a classic case of choosing between the lesser of two evils. The problem with Morsi is that there will be no effective interim government. His administration wantonly appointed Muslim Brotherhood cronies and authored a constitution based solely on his personal whims. But he brought only economic ruin and social chaos. Egypt was originally an Islamic nation with strong secular tendencies. Morsi attempted to impose theocratic rule, and use conservative religious dogma to restrict people's private conduct. As a result, Egypt's secularists, liberals, women, youth, and even forces from the previous regime, are united in their opposition to him.
Morsi may have been a democratically elected president. But his administration failed to fulfill the hopes of the Jasmine Revolution. It could not avoid being overthrown. Such events offer a sober reminder about modern democratic politics. Put simply, an elected head of state must answer to public opinion. He cannot boast that "I won the election" and flaunt his legitimacy and legality. In today's democracy public opinion changes rapidly. Merely winning an election is no longer enough.
Consider the most obvious example. Last month waves of protests hit Turkey. In recent years, Turkey has enjoyed swift economic growth. Many sectors of the economy are thriving. Premier Dogan Erdogan's sound governance has attracted international attention. But a park demolition project in the nation's capitol provoked overwhelming public opposition. Erdogan initially assumed an arrogant posture. He trumpeted his decade long record of accomplishments. He said the public supported a third term. But amidst fierce public unrest, he was eventually forced to offer a low-keyed apology.
Erdogan's dazzling record won him public support. But his arrogance inspired the Western media to ridicule his regime as "zombie democracy." His government met all the formal requirements of democracy. But it lacked a heart. It failed to understand the feelings of the people. Think about it. Erdogan was responsible for Turkey's economic success. Yet even he was not immune to such resentment. Morsi on the other hand, merely won a single election victory. Yet he considered that a mandate to personally write a new constitution, reshuffle the cabinet, and change the social order. He failed to create prosperity for the people or offer them a vision for the future. How was his regime any different from a dictatorship? On the eve of Morsi's downfall, six ministers resigned, abandoning him. The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters were burned. How the public felt about him was obvious.
Will Egyptian military intervention lead to comedy or tragedy? That is difficult to say. Two years ago during the Jasmine Revolution, authoritarian leaders were ousted, only to be replaced by strongman dictatorship, economic decline, and political corruption. Who could have known? By the same token, soldiers have driven out an arrogant head of state. They have met with public expectations. But will the military forces become addicted to meddling in domestic affairs? Will Egyptian democracy turn into government at gunpoint? That is equally difficult to say. For a nation to move from dictatorship to democracy, requires institutional guarantees, regulations, and long term social constraints. It cannot be implemented overnight. But fewer and fewer people have the patience. The rulers remain mired in the mentality of authoritarianism. How can anyone tolerate zombie democracy?
In any event, large scale protests, from Turkey to Egypt, have deposed democratically elected heads of state. This is a lesson for all leaders. Do not think only of the power at your disposal. Instead, think of your responsibilities!
埃及悲喜劇：當民主靠槍桿子維持
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.05 03:18 am
在軍方主導下，埃及一夕變天，剛剛就職滿周年的首位民選總統穆希遭到了罷黜。和兩年半前在解放廣場成功要求獨裁者穆巴拉克下台一樣，群眾的力量再度獲勝；但這一回，埃及人民是不是真能在槍桿子協助下得到他們期待的民主？
面對軍方的最後通牒，穆希極力頑抗，自稱是經「自由選舉」產生的民主總統，具有絕對的「正當性」和「合法性」；然而，軍方似乎不費吹灰之力即控制他的行動，宣布將他解職，並指派剛上任兩天的憲政法院首席大法官曼蘇爾為國家臨時領導人。這項行動，顯然策劃已久。
埃及軍人罷黜民選總統，算不算「政變」，外界暫持保留態度。軍方自稱是遵照「人民的意志」行事，他們的行動似乎也受到民眾的歡迎，埃及軍方並向美國政府保證他們「無意執政」。若「民意」是民主的指針，此刻民意似乎是傾向軍方的；但其間「飲鴆止渴」的風險，恐難估計。除非過渡期的領導人和協商會議能有效運作，順利推動下次選舉，並組成民主政府；那麼，我們才可以說埃及不會重蹈納瑟、沙達特及穆巴拉克的軍人專政覆轍。
軍人干政令人不安，但經民主程序選出的總統穆希卻更令埃及人民難耐，這是「兩害相權取其輕」之計。穆希的問題，在於過度專斷卻無法有效治理：他的政府大肆任命其「穆斯林兄弟會」之親信，並獨斷地依個人意旨制定憲法；但經濟上他卻只帶來凋弊，而社會原有秩序鬆脫。埃及原是一個世俗傾向頗強的伊斯蘭國家，穆希卻企圖「以教領政」，用保守的教規束縛民眾。也因此，埃及的世俗派、自由派、婦女和青年，乃至前政府的舊勢力，全都站到了他的對立面。
穆希雖是經民主選舉產生的總統，但他的施政無法滿足茉莉花革命的民主期待，因而難逃被推翻的命運。這樣的演變，不啻是對現代民主政治一記當頭棒喝。簡單地說，民選元首若不能認真回應民意，卻只是以「我贏得了選舉」來誇示自己的正當性與合法性，在今天民意反覆快速的民主政治下，恐怕已經不夠了。
最明顯的例子，便是上月的土耳其抗議風潮。土耳其近年經濟成長快速，各項發展欣欣向榮，總理厄多岡則因治理有方，受到國際矚目；但僅為了首都一座公園的拆遷案，他卻引起了民眾排山倒海的反對。厄多岡起初傲慢以對，一再誇示自己的十年政績，並宣稱民意支持他「三度連任」；然而，在民眾激烈的抗爭下，他最後只能低調道歉。
厄多岡自誇擁有耀眼政績及民意支持，但他的傲慢，被西方媒體譏為「殭屍民主」。原因是，他領導的政府擁有民主的一切形式要件，少的卻是一顆真心，一顆能體貼並理解人民感受的心。試想，以厄多岡為土耳其創造的經濟成就，都仍無法免於如此巨大的民怨；穆希只憑恃一次勝選，就獨攬制憲、組閣、改變社會秩序的全部權力，最後卻無法為人民創造繁榮與願景，這和獨裁統治有何兩樣？穆希垮台前夕，有六名閣員宣布辭職棄他而去，穆斯林兄弟會總部遭到焚燒，人心向背已一目了然。
埃及這場軍人干政大戲，究竟會以喜劇或悲劇收場，目前尚難斷言。就像兩年前的茉莉花革命，走了獨裁領袖，卻換來專政強人，經濟更委靡、秩序更敗壞，其誰能料？同樣的，今天軍人趕走了傲慢元首，護持了人民的期待；但軍方勢力會不會干政成癮，使埃及民主陷於「槍桿子看守」的危境，同樣難以逆料。事實上，一個國家要從專制走向民主，需要體制、法規和不同社會力量的長期磨合，難以一蹴而就；但當人民的耐心越來越少，而統治者的心態卻還停留在威權時代，這樣的殭屍民主誰能忍受？
無論如何，從土耳其的大示威到埃及民選總統遭罷黜，對所有領導人都是一課深切的提醒：不要只仗恃手中權力，想想你的責任！
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
TISA Concerns: Real and Phony
TISA Concerns: Real and Phony
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 4, 2013
Summary: The DPP must ask itself what it wants. It must think clearly. The DPP no longer opposes ECFA. Yet it persists in obstructing TISA, which opens markets ever so slightly. What exactly does the DPP advocate? Is it categorically opposed to any market openings? Is it determined to engage in Orwellian "effective management?" A responsible political party must not use popular unrest as a political tool. If it does, Ultimatetly it will be spurned by the public. The DPP must think before acting!
Full Text below:
The Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement, or TISA, has provoked an intense backlash. The opposition DPP is sharpening its knives. It hopes to kill the agreement in the legislature. The Ma administration has launched a comprehensive public relations war in response. Can this agreement, which involves ECFA policy, continue moving forward? Scrutinize these concerns, and one will encounter gross exaggerations about the agreement's impact on domestic industry. These concerns are clearly phony. But certain cross-strait concerns have provoked public discontent. These concerns are real. Therefore, one must understand the actual situation. Only then can one prescribe the proper medicine, and resolve the disputes effectively.
ECFA can be described as a cross-strait FTA, (Free Trade Agreement). Following the 2012 presidential election, the DPP reluctantly endorsed ECFA. It was compelled to do so, because it knew ECFA would enhance the competitiveness of Taiwan's economy. More importantly, it know ECFA would help Taiwan participate in regional economic integration. ECFA is merely a framework for negotiations. TISA by contrast, marks the beginning of substantive negotiations on cross-strait free trade. But examine TISA's content. TISA is merely a tiny step. It is hard to call TISA a real FTA.
On the surface, our side gave the Mainland side 64 market opening commitments. But compare TISA to Taipei's accession to the WTO (World Trade Organization) in 2002. We made 119 commitments. Most sensitive sectors were excluded. Among 64 commitments, 27 were already open to investment from the Mainland. They included tourist hotels, restaurants, wholesale herbs for Traditional Chinese Medicine, and automobile leasing. Newly opened businesses numbered fewer than 30, mostly in non-sensitive, general service industries. Most of them merely permitted foreign investment.
The other side did not complain about the discriminatory treatment it received. Instead, it made Taiwan 80 commitments that exceeded WTO requirements. These included finance, transportion, e-commerce, and cultural and creative industries. Taiwan business investments on the Mainland still face considerable uncertainty. But the Mainland has unquestionably been making concessions to Taiwan.
Compare the extent of the two sides' market openings. Our side opened its markets only a little. Yet we demanded more and gave less. The opening was lopsided. Had it been any more lopsided, the term "trade liberalization" would lost all meaning.
Consider the impact on industrial production. The impact of opening a market to goods, is completely different from opening a market to services. Foreign investment in certain specific services, may involve either new investments or mergers and acquisitions of existing businesses. But they take nothing from the service industry as a whole. At most they substitute one investor or one manager for another. In the service sector, local businesses have the advantage. If foreign operators hope to enter the market and base themselves on Taiwan, they will not necessarily be competitive. They may even inadvertently stimulate the long-term development of local service industries. As a result WTO rules do not include any damage compensation mechanisms. Some may denounce TISA as an abomination. They will overstate its impact. These concerns are phony. But they have unfortunately provoked widespread suspicion and unhealthy panic.
Meanwhile, there is another core issue must not be overlooked, one that the Ma administration must address. Suppose our government had signed a TISA type agreement with the United States or another country. The public reaction would have been very different. The controversy would not have been nearly so intense. Why has TISA provoked such intense anxiety? The answer is that the government has placed excessive emphasis on the Mainland concessions to Taiwan. It has neglected the contribution of free trade to national security.
The public has clear expectations about cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Most people are willing to accept gradual cross-Strait economic integration that enhances Taiwan's international competitiveness. But many worry about the vast differences in scale between the two sides' economic and political systems. Large numbers of Mainland businesses and Mainland personnel entering Taiwan could lead to variety of side effects. Many worry that Mainland markets, technicians, and professionals could exert a powerful gravitational force on Taiwan that could undermine its economic strength.
Therefore the Ma administration must communicate with the public. We do not mean it should hold various seminars, give speeches in front of temples, sponsor grassroots workshops, or trumpet the benefits for Taiwan. We do not mean it should provide compensation for local industries. We mean that the government must let the public know that it is aware of their concerns. It must create an all-inclusive mechanism to ensure that these public concerns about market opening do not become realities. The government must not put the cart before the horse. It must reassure the public. Only then will it be able to respond to future market openings.
As for the DPP, it must ask itself what it wants. It too must think clearly. The DPP no longer opposes ECFA. Yet it persists in obstructing TISA, which opens markets ever so slightly. What exactly does the DPP advocate? Is it categorically opposed to any market openings? Is it determined to engage in Orwellian "effective management?" A responsible political party must not use popular unrest as a political tool. If it does, Ultimatetly it will be spurned by the public. The DPP must think before acting!
兩岸服貿協議之辨正：假議題及真議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.04 04:35 am
「兩岸服務貿易協議」引發強力反彈聲浪，在野黨磨刀霍霍，欲在立法院攔下該協議，馬政府則全面啟動文宣戰反制。這項協議攸關ＥＣＦＡ政策能否繼續向前推進，審視其間爭議，有過度誇大、渲染對國內產業衝擊的假議題，也有因兩岸關係特殊性導致民間不安的真議題；故此，必須辨清其中虛實，才能掌握問題對症下藥，有效化解爭議。
ＥＣＦＡ可說是兩岸間的ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定），經過二○一二年總統大選，民進黨事實上已為ＥＣＦＡ作了背書。這不僅是因為ＥＣＦＡ有助提升台灣經濟競爭力，更重要的，是可以打通台灣參與區域經濟整合的任督二脈。ＥＣＦＡ只是一個談判架構，兩岸服貿協議才是啟動兩岸自由貿易的關鍵一步。但從協議內容看，這一步其實跨得極小，很難稱得上是服務貿易ＦＴＡ。
表面上，我方給予大陸六十四項市場開放承諾，但和二○○二年我國加入ＷＴＯ（世界貿易組織）所作一百一十九項開放承諾相較，多數敏感行業均已排除在外。而六十四項承諾中，有二十七項是已開放陸資來台投資項目，包括觀光旅館、餐飲、中藥材批發、小汽車租賃等。新開放項目，不過三十多項，多屬非敏感性、一般性的服務行業，且多數是准許僑外投資的項目。
反倒是對岸，不計較我方加諸的歧視性待遇，仍給予台灣八十項高於ＷＴＯ的開放承諾，範圍涵蓋金融、運輸、電子商務、文創等。儘管台商投資利基仍有很多不確定性，但確實是對台「讓利」的思維。
亦即，從市場相對開放來看，我方開放規模不大，而且是台灣「要多」、「讓少」的不對稱開放，若再限縮，就失去貿易自由化的意義了。
從產業衝擊面看，服務市場開放和貨品進口的影響完全不同。因為外來服務業投資特定行業，無論是新增投資、併購既有企業，不會減損整體服務業產值，充其量只是投資或經營階層換人。而服務業發展原本就有在地優勢，外來業者若能進入並立足台灣市場，必然具有競爭力，對本土服務業長期發展反具刺激作用。也因此，在ＷＴＯ規範，並無服務業損害補償機制的設計。部分人士將兩岸服貿協議視為洪水猛獸，過度誇大其衝擊。這是個假議題，但卻造成各行各業杯弓蛇影，人心惶惶，不是健康現象。
但另一方面，也有一個被輕忽的核心議題，馬政府必須正視。假設今天我簽訂服貿協議的對象是美國或其他國家，社會反應必定截然不同，爭議也不會那麼高；那麼，何以兩岸服貿協議會引發那麼強烈的疑慮？追根究柢，癥結就在政府過度重視大陸對台灣「讓利」，卻忽略推動自由貿易應有的國安思維和配套作為。
民間對兩岸經貿關係的期待非常清楚，大多數人願意接受兩岸經濟漸進整合，以提升台灣國際競爭力；但是，也有很多人擔心兩岸經濟規模的巨大差距及政經體制的截然不同，若放任大量陸企及大陸人士進入台灣，可能引發各種後遺症。很多人也擔心，大陸市場對台灣資金、技術及專業人才的強大磁吸效應，可能削弱台灣經濟實力。
有鑑於此，馬政府需要和社會溝通的，並不在辦理各種形式的研討會、廟口開講、基層講習，或強力宣導協議對台灣有多少好處，乃至政府能對受衝擊的產業提供什麼補償；而是要針對民心不安的癥結作出有力宣示，並建構一套完善機制，防止開放市場可能衍生的各種社會憂慮問題。政府切勿本末倒置，須拿出強有力的作為來安定民心，才足以因應未來更廣泛的市場開放。
至於民進黨究竟想要如何，也必須想清楚。民進黨既已不反對ＥＣＦＡ，卻又要抵制自由化程度極有限的服貿協議，那麼，民進黨究竟有何主張？是徹底反對開放市場，還是希望有效管理？作為一個負責任的政黨，若只是利用民心不安大作政治投機，最後必遭反噬而為民意所唾棄。請三思而後行！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 4, 2013
Summary: The DPP must ask itself what it wants. It must think clearly. The DPP no longer opposes ECFA. Yet it persists in obstructing TISA, which opens markets ever so slightly. What exactly does the DPP advocate? Is it categorically opposed to any market openings? Is it determined to engage in Orwellian "effective management?" A responsible political party must not use popular unrest as a political tool. If it does, Ultimatetly it will be spurned by the public. The DPP must think before acting!
Full Text below:
The Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement, or TISA, has provoked an intense backlash. The opposition DPP is sharpening its knives. It hopes to kill the agreement in the legislature. The Ma administration has launched a comprehensive public relations war in response. Can this agreement, which involves ECFA policy, continue moving forward? Scrutinize these concerns, and one will encounter gross exaggerations about the agreement's impact on domestic industry. These concerns are clearly phony. But certain cross-strait concerns have provoked public discontent. These concerns are real. Therefore, one must understand the actual situation. Only then can one prescribe the proper medicine, and resolve the disputes effectively.
ECFA can be described as a cross-strait FTA, (Free Trade Agreement). Following the 2012 presidential election, the DPP reluctantly endorsed ECFA. It was compelled to do so, because it knew ECFA would enhance the competitiveness of Taiwan's economy. More importantly, it know ECFA would help Taiwan participate in regional economic integration. ECFA is merely a framework for negotiations. TISA by contrast, marks the beginning of substantive negotiations on cross-strait free trade. But examine TISA's content. TISA is merely a tiny step. It is hard to call TISA a real FTA.
On the surface, our side gave the Mainland side 64 market opening commitments. But compare TISA to Taipei's accession to the WTO (World Trade Organization) in 2002. We made 119 commitments. Most sensitive sectors were excluded. Among 64 commitments, 27 were already open to investment from the Mainland. They included tourist hotels, restaurants, wholesale herbs for Traditional Chinese Medicine, and automobile leasing. Newly opened businesses numbered fewer than 30, mostly in non-sensitive, general service industries. Most of them merely permitted foreign investment.
The other side did not complain about the discriminatory treatment it received. Instead, it made Taiwan 80 commitments that exceeded WTO requirements. These included finance, transportion, e-commerce, and cultural and creative industries. Taiwan business investments on the Mainland still face considerable uncertainty. But the Mainland has unquestionably been making concessions to Taiwan.
Compare the extent of the two sides' market openings. Our side opened its markets only a little. Yet we demanded more and gave less. The opening was lopsided. Had it been any more lopsided, the term "trade liberalization" would lost all meaning.
Consider the impact on industrial production. The impact of opening a market to goods, is completely different from opening a market to services. Foreign investment in certain specific services, may involve either new investments or mergers and acquisitions of existing businesses. But they take nothing from the service industry as a whole. At most they substitute one investor or one manager for another. In the service sector, local businesses have the advantage. If foreign operators hope to enter the market and base themselves on Taiwan, they will not necessarily be competitive. They may even inadvertently stimulate the long-term development of local service industries. As a result WTO rules do not include any damage compensation mechanisms. Some may denounce TISA as an abomination. They will overstate its impact. These concerns are phony. But they have unfortunately provoked widespread suspicion and unhealthy panic.
Meanwhile, there is another core issue must not be overlooked, one that the Ma administration must address. Suppose our government had signed a TISA type agreement with the United States or another country. The public reaction would have been very different. The controversy would not have been nearly so intense. Why has TISA provoked such intense anxiety? The answer is that the government has placed excessive emphasis on the Mainland concessions to Taiwan. It has neglected the contribution of free trade to national security.
The public has clear expectations about cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Most people are willing to accept gradual cross-Strait economic integration that enhances Taiwan's international competitiveness. But many worry about the vast differences in scale between the two sides' economic and political systems. Large numbers of Mainland businesses and Mainland personnel entering Taiwan could lead to variety of side effects. Many worry that Mainland markets, technicians, and professionals could exert a powerful gravitational force on Taiwan that could undermine its economic strength.
Therefore the Ma administration must communicate with the public. We do not mean it should hold various seminars, give speeches in front of temples, sponsor grassroots workshops, or trumpet the benefits for Taiwan. We do not mean it should provide compensation for local industries. We mean that the government must let the public know that it is aware of their concerns. It must create an all-inclusive mechanism to ensure that these public concerns about market opening do not become realities. The government must not put the cart before the horse. It must reassure the public. Only then will it be able to respond to future market openings.
As for the DPP, it must ask itself what it wants. It too must think clearly. The DPP no longer opposes ECFA. Yet it persists in obstructing TISA, which opens markets ever so slightly. What exactly does the DPP advocate? Is it categorically opposed to any market openings? Is it determined to engage in Orwellian "effective management?" A responsible political party must not use popular unrest as a political tool. If it does, Ultimatetly it will be spurned by the public. The DPP must think before acting!
兩岸服貿協議之辨正：假議題及真議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.04 04:35 am
「兩岸服務貿易協議」引發強力反彈聲浪，在野黨磨刀霍霍，欲在立法院攔下該協議，馬政府則全面啟動文宣戰反制。這項協議攸關ＥＣＦＡ政策能否繼續向前推進，審視其間爭議，有過度誇大、渲染對國內產業衝擊的假議題，也有因兩岸關係特殊性導致民間不安的真議題；故此，必須辨清其中虛實，才能掌握問題對症下藥，有效化解爭議。
ＥＣＦＡ可說是兩岸間的ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定），經過二○一二年總統大選，民進黨事實上已為ＥＣＦＡ作了背書。這不僅是因為ＥＣＦＡ有助提升台灣經濟競爭力，更重要的，是可以打通台灣參與區域經濟整合的任督二脈。ＥＣＦＡ只是一個談判架構，兩岸服貿協議才是啟動兩岸自由貿易的關鍵一步。但從協議內容看，這一步其實跨得極小，很難稱得上是服務貿易ＦＴＡ。
表面上，我方給予大陸六十四項市場開放承諾，但和二○○二年我國加入ＷＴＯ（世界貿易組織）所作一百一十九項開放承諾相較，多數敏感行業均已排除在外。而六十四項承諾中，有二十七項是已開放陸資來台投資項目，包括觀光旅館、餐飲、中藥材批發、小汽車租賃等。新開放項目，不過三十多項，多屬非敏感性、一般性的服務行業，且多數是准許僑外投資的項目。
反倒是對岸，不計較我方加諸的歧視性待遇，仍給予台灣八十項高於ＷＴＯ的開放承諾，範圍涵蓋金融、運輸、電子商務、文創等。儘管台商投資利基仍有很多不確定性，但確實是對台「讓利」的思維。
亦即，從市場相對開放來看，我方開放規模不大，而且是台灣「要多」、「讓少」的不對稱開放，若再限縮，就失去貿易自由化的意義了。
從產業衝擊面看，服務市場開放和貨品進口的影響完全不同。因為外來服務業投資特定行業，無論是新增投資、併購既有企業，不會減損整體服務業產值，充其量只是投資或經營階層換人。而服務業發展原本就有在地優勢，外來業者若能進入並立足台灣市場，必然具有競爭力，對本土服務業長期發展反具刺激作用。也因此，在ＷＴＯ規範，並無服務業損害補償機制的設計。部分人士將兩岸服貿協議視為洪水猛獸，過度誇大其衝擊。這是個假議題，但卻造成各行各業杯弓蛇影，人心惶惶，不是健康現象。
但另一方面，也有一個被輕忽的核心議題，馬政府必須正視。假設今天我簽訂服貿協議的對象是美國或其他國家，社會反應必定截然不同，爭議也不會那麼高；那麼，何以兩岸服貿協議會引發那麼強烈的疑慮？追根究柢，癥結就在政府過度重視大陸對台灣「讓利」，卻忽略推動自由貿易應有的國安思維和配套作為。
民間對兩岸經貿關係的期待非常清楚，大多數人願意接受兩岸經濟漸進整合，以提升台灣國際競爭力；但是，也有很多人擔心兩岸經濟規模的巨大差距及政經體制的截然不同，若放任大量陸企及大陸人士進入台灣，可能引發各種後遺症。很多人也擔心，大陸市場對台灣資金、技術及專業人才的強大磁吸效應，可能削弱台灣經濟實力。
有鑑於此，馬政府需要和社會溝通的，並不在辦理各種形式的研討會、廟口開講、基層講習，或強力宣導協議對台灣有多少好處，乃至政府能對受衝擊的產業提供什麼補償；而是要針對民心不安的癥結作出有力宣示，並建構一套完善機制，防止開放市場可能衍生的各種社會憂慮問題。政府切勿本末倒置，須拿出強有力的作為來安定民心，才足以因應未來更廣泛的市場開放。
至於民進黨究竟想要如何，也必須想清楚。民進黨既已不反對ＥＣＦＡ，卻又要抵制自由化程度極有限的服貿協議，那麼，民進黨究竟有何主張？是徹底反對開放市場，還是希望有效管理？作為一個負責任的政黨，若只是利用民心不安大作政治投機，最後必遭反噬而為民意所唾棄。請三思而後行！
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Big Roof Concept of China: DPP Should Leapfrog KMT
Big Roof Concept of China: DPP Should Leapfrog KMT
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2013
Summary: Frank Hsieh is akin to a dentist pulling a tooth. Taiwan independence is a decayed tooth that he has loosened with pliers. The decayed tooth no longer functions. But it continues to take up space on the gums. Sooner or later however, it is bound to loosen and fall away.
Full Text below:
Frank Hsieh is akin to a dentist pulling a tooth. Taiwan independence is a decayed tooth that he has loosened with pliers. The decayed tooth no longer functions. But it continues to take up space on the gums. Sooner or later however, it is bound to loosen and fall away.
Last October Frank Hsieh completed his "Journey of Exploration." He met with then State Council Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi. He also met with current director Zhang Zhijun, who was in Shenzhen to attend talks in Hong Kong. DPP insiders have been highly critical of Hsieh. But party disciplinary measures can clearly no longer prevent him from making ever bolder moves. Years ago Hsu Hsing-liang was expelled from the DPP for suggesting that the party "boldy go west." Frank Hsieh is unlikely to emulate Hsu. But he apparently hopes to be the DPP counterpart to Lien Chan.
On international, cross-Strait, and internal Taiwan matters, the trend within the DPP is to echo Su Tseng-chang. Su declared that the DPP "must not turn back the clock (in order to promote Taiwan independence)." Debate over Taiwan independence is increasingly a part of internecine struggles within the DPP. It has already become a phony issue.
The real tooth extraction is being performed by the Beijing authorities. Frank Hsieh is merely a pair of pliers in Beijing's hands. As long as Frank Hsieh can continue to cast Mainland policy as party reform, the DPP cannot expel him. The decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence will inevitably loosen and fall away. The decayed tooth of Taiwan independence must fall away. Only then can the DPP replace it with a new implant. If the decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence remains in place, and does not vacate its position, the opportunity to install new implants will be lost. The result will be the DPP's worst nightmare.
Taiwan independence has become a bone of contention within the DPP, in two ways. One. It is a bone of contention between reformers and Taiwan independence fundamentalists. Two. It is a bone of contention between Su and Tsai in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Fundamentalists such as Yao Wen-chia argue that the issue of Taiwan independence has no bearing on the big picture, internally or externally. They argue that the rivalry between presidential candidates Tsai and Su is what is hindering DPP cross-Strait policy reform. They argue that the result is sure to be a lose-lose scenario, both for Su and for Tsai. If policy reform fails, the DPP cannot win in 2016. Even if it is fortunate enough to win, it will not be able to govern the nation based on current policy. This is a consensus shared by all factions within the DPP. This is why Frank Hsieh's rhetoric has become increasingly heated. So far no one has been able to shut him up or expel him from the party.
Frank Hsieh has defended the Republic of China Constitution in public. He has also reiterated his advocacy of a "constitutional one China" in closed-door talks with Zhang Zhijun. This must be considered a major milestone in DPP cross-Strait policy reform. So far Frank Hsieh's "constitutional one China" has no firm definition. Frank Hsieh has repeatedly amended it on a piecemeal basis. His current interpretation appears to be "overlapping sovereignty" and "both sides have a right to govern that is not subordinated to the other." This probably amounts to a return to the "one China constitution." It is no different that the Ma administration's "one China, different interpretations" position.
Frank Hsieh has a dilemma. Whether he admits it or not, his "constitutional one China" inevitably leads to "one China, different interpretations." This being the case, he is sure to encounter opposition from Taiwan independence advocates. Accusations that he is "plagiarizing the KMT" will make it difficult for him to win over swing voters. Given his predicament, Frank Hsieh should take full advantage of his freedom of action. He should use the "constitutional one China" argument to raise cross-Strait relations to the next level, to the "big roof concept of China" advocated by this newspaper. Such a rationale would transcend the "one China, different interpretations" rationale. It would amount to an upgraded version of "one China, different interpretations." It would leapfrog the KMT. It would elevate understanding of the cross-Strait relationship to a newer and higher level.
In fact, "constitutional one China" and the "big roof concept of China" are the same proposition on different levels. Frank Hsieh's plight will be the same whether he champions a "constitutional one China" or a "big roof concept of China." He will be attacked by his comrades just as vehemently. But if he elevates the cross-Strait framework to the level of a "big roof concept of China," he will not be "plagiarizing the KMT." He will leapfrog the KMT. He could redraw the map for Blue vs. Green political struggle.
The "big roof concept of China" is something the Ma administration does not dare touch. It is also something Beijing is reluctant to raise. Frank Hsieh enjoys greater freedom of action. But is is something that Hsieh, as an incoming leader, can make his platform. As long as Frank Hsieh does not depart from the "one China framework" or "constitutional one China," his argument will be considered "sensible and logical." In fact, he can dismiss Taiwan independence advocates within the party as diehards. As long as people in positions of influence on both sides consider Hsieh's argument "sensible and logical," he may be able to set the agenda for cross-strait relations.
The "constitutional one China" argument and the "one China framework" require linkage points. The "big roof concept of China" is precisely what Frank Hsieh should use to upgrade the existing framework; This being the case, DPP cross-strait policy reform may be able to leapfrog the KMT. It may be able to transcend the Blue camp. It may be able to persuade "non-Taiwan independence" forces on both sides of the Strait to think anew.
Frank Hsieh should use the "big roof concept of China" to replace the decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence, accelerating its loosening and falling away.
大屋頂中國：民進黨可以走在國民黨的前面
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.03 02:04 am
謝長廷像是一名正在拔牙的牙醫，台獨這個蛀牙已經被他的鐵鉗搖得鬆動起來；現在，這顆蛀牙已然失去了功能，只是仍然佔著牙床的一隅，但已可預見它遲早必將脫落。
謝長廷繼在去年十月的「開展之旅」中會見當時的國台辦主任王毅後，又借香港座談赴深圳會見現任的張志軍。民進黨內雖然對他頗有批評的聲音，卻顯然已無可能將謝長廷步步升高與拉大的動作當作黨紀事件來處理。謝長廷不太可能如當年主張「大膽西進」而遭民進黨逐出的許信良，他儼然希望將自己塑造成民進黨的連戰。
就國際、兩岸及台灣內部的大勢來看，台獨皆已是「不能再走的回頭路」（蘇貞昌語）；因此，台獨議題在台灣也愈來愈成為民進黨內部鬥爭的「溢出效應」，已是一個假議題。
其實，真正在拔牙的是北京當局，謝長廷則是北京手中的那一把鉗子。只要謝長廷能維持他的轉型議題不致熄火，而民進黨也無法逐出謝長廷，那顆台獨牙就必將愈來愈鬆動。接下來，如果那顆台獨牙脫落了，民進黨尚有重植新牙的機會；但如果那顆台獨牙只是愈來愈搖得厲害，卻始終佔著牙床不肯脫落，那就連重植新牙的機會都會喪失，這才將是民進黨的惡夢。
台獨議題當下成為民進黨的內鬥題材，可分兩個層次：一、是基本教義派與轉型派的鬥爭；二、是二○一六總統大選，蘇、蔡二人的鬥爭。基本教義派如姚嘉文等的見解，其實對內外大局已無關痛癢，倒是蘇蔡二人的總統候選人之爭若阻礙了民進黨兩岸政策的轉型，則必將是蘇蔡兩敗俱傷的下場。而若因此轉型失敗，民進黨倘不是二○一六無法勝選，就是即使僥倖勝選亦沒有主政治國的憑藉。這應是民進黨內所有派系的共同見解，而謝長廷也正因如此才能愈搞愈火熱，黨內迄今無人能叫他閉嘴或逐他出黨。
謝長廷此行不但公開倡議中華民國憲法，且在與張志軍的閉門會談中再提「憲法一中」；這應是民進黨兩岸政策轉型的根本基準。謝長廷的「憲法一中」迄今尚無穩定的論述。試撿拾拼湊起謝長廷一再變動的說法，他目前的看法似乎可以說是「主權相互涵蓋／治權互不隸屬」；這應可視為回到「憲法一中」的基準，已與馬政府主張的「一中各表」沒有區隔。
謝長廷面臨的困境，正在於他的「憲法一中」必定會走上「一中各表」的結論，無論他承不承認。倘係如此，他一方面仍會遭遇獨派的反對，而這種「抄襲國民黨」的格局也不易贏得中間選民的讚賞。在這樣的困境中，其實謝長廷應當運用他目前較其他人更大的自由揮灑空間，根據「憲法一中」，將兩岸關係提升至本報所倡的「大屋頂中國」之高度；這樣的論述體系，就可超越「一中各表」（升級版的一中各表），亦即可以超越國民黨，將兩岸論述推向一個更高更大的新境界。
其實，「憲法一中」與「大屋頂中國」，是同一命題的兩個層次。以謝長廷的處境，他不論是主張「憲法一中」或「大屋頂中國」，在黨內遭遇的攻擊都是一樣的；但是，若能將兩岸論述提升至「大屋頂中國」的高度，這就不是抄襲國民黨，而是一舉超越了國民黨，將有重劃藍綠政治版圖的可能性。
「大屋頂中國」這一個主張，正是馬政府不敢輕易碰觸的命題，也是北京不願輕易開啟的空間，卻正是謝長廷這樣具有較大自由度的新入局者可以領導倡議的題材。謝長廷只要不脫離「一中框架」或「憲法一中」，且能說得「合情合理」，他其實可以將黨內獨派留做最後一個嘗試說服的對象，只要讓兩岸有心人都覺得「合情合理」，他即不無可能操持了兩岸「議題設定」的主導權。
「憲法一中」及「一中框架」均苦無「連結點」，而「大屋頂中國」正是謝長廷能對現行架構提出補正的元素；倘若如此，民進黨的兩岸政策轉型，或許就能找到一條超越國民黨──青出於藍勝於藍──的道路，引領兩岸所有「非台獨」的勢力進入新思維。
謝長廷若以「大屋頂中國」為取代的新牙，則台獨這顆蛀牙的動搖與脫落將更是順理成章。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2013
Summary: Frank Hsieh is akin to a dentist pulling a tooth. Taiwan independence is a decayed tooth that he has loosened with pliers. The decayed tooth no longer functions. But it continues to take up space on the gums. Sooner or later however, it is bound to loosen and fall away.
Full Text below:
Frank Hsieh is akin to a dentist pulling a tooth. Taiwan independence is a decayed tooth that he has loosened with pliers. The decayed tooth no longer functions. But it continues to take up space on the gums. Sooner or later however, it is bound to loosen and fall away.
Last October Frank Hsieh completed his "Journey of Exploration." He met with then State Council Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi. He also met with current director Zhang Zhijun, who was in Shenzhen to attend talks in Hong Kong. DPP insiders have been highly critical of Hsieh. But party disciplinary measures can clearly no longer prevent him from making ever bolder moves. Years ago Hsu Hsing-liang was expelled from the DPP for suggesting that the party "boldy go west." Frank Hsieh is unlikely to emulate Hsu. But he apparently hopes to be the DPP counterpart to Lien Chan.
On international, cross-Strait, and internal Taiwan matters, the trend within the DPP is to echo Su Tseng-chang. Su declared that the DPP "must not turn back the clock (in order to promote Taiwan independence)." Debate over Taiwan independence is increasingly a part of internecine struggles within the DPP. It has already become a phony issue.
The real tooth extraction is being performed by the Beijing authorities. Frank Hsieh is merely a pair of pliers in Beijing's hands. As long as Frank Hsieh can continue to cast Mainland policy as party reform, the DPP cannot expel him. The decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence will inevitably loosen and fall away. The decayed tooth of Taiwan independence must fall away. Only then can the DPP replace it with a new implant. If the decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence remains in place, and does not vacate its position, the opportunity to install new implants will be lost. The result will be the DPP's worst nightmare.
Taiwan independence has become a bone of contention within the DPP, in two ways. One. It is a bone of contention between reformers and Taiwan independence fundamentalists. Two. It is a bone of contention between Su and Tsai in the upcoming 2016 presidential election. Fundamentalists such as Yao Wen-chia argue that the issue of Taiwan independence has no bearing on the big picture, internally or externally. They argue that the rivalry between presidential candidates Tsai and Su is what is hindering DPP cross-Strait policy reform. They argue that the result is sure to be a lose-lose scenario, both for Su and for Tsai. If policy reform fails, the DPP cannot win in 2016. Even if it is fortunate enough to win, it will not be able to govern the nation based on current policy. This is a consensus shared by all factions within the DPP. This is why Frank Hsieh's rhetoric has become increasingly heated. So far no one has been able to shut him up or expel him from the party.
Frank Hsieh has defended the Republic of China Constitution in public. He has also reiterated his advocacy of a "constitutional one China" in closed-door talks with Zhang Zhijun. This must be considered a major milestone in DPP cross-Strait policy reform. So far Frank Hsieh's "constitutional one China" has no firm definition. Frank Hsieh has repeatedly amended it on a piecemeal basis. His current interpretation appears to be "overlapping sovereignty" and "both sides have a right to govern that is not subordinated to the other." This probably amounts to a return to the "one China constitution." It is no different that the Ma administration's "one China, different interpretations" position.
Frank Hsieh has a dilemma. Whether he admits it or not, his "constitutional one China" inevitably leads to "one China, different interpretations." This being the case, he is sure to encounter opposition from Taiwan independence advocates. Accusations that he is "plagiarizing the KMT" will make it difficult for him to win over swing voters. Given his predicament, Frank Hsieh should take full advantage of his freedom of action. He should use the "constitutional one China" argument to raise cross-Strait relations to the next level, to the "big roof concept of China" advocated by this newspaper. Such a rationale would transcend the "one China, different interpretations" rationale. It would amount to an upgraded version of "one China, different interpretations." It would leapfrog the KMT. It would elevate understanding of the cross-Strait relationship to a newer and higher level.
In fact, "constitutional one China" and the "big roof concept of China" are the same proposition on different levels. Frank Hsieh's plight will be the same whether he champions a "constitutional one China" or a "big roof concept of China." He will be attacked by his comrades just as vehemently. But if he elevates the cross-Strait framework to the level of a "big roof concept of China," he will not be "plagiarizing the KMT." He will leapfrog the KMT. He could redraw the map for Blue vs. Green political struggle.
The "big roof concept of China" is something the Ma administration does not dare touch. It is also something Beijing is reluctant to raise. Frank Hsieh enjoys greater freedom of action. But is is something that Hsieh, as an incoming leader, can make his platform. As long as Frank Hsieh does not depart from the "one China framework" or "constitutional one China," his argument will be considered "sensible and logical." In fact, he can dismiss Taiwan independence advocates within the party as diehards. As long as people in positions of influence on both sides consider Hsieh's argument "sensible and logical," he may be able to set the agenda for cross-strait relations.
The "constitutional one China" argument and the "one China framework" require linkage points. The "big roof concept of China" is precisely what Frank Hsieh should use to upgrade the existing framework; This being the case, DPP cross-strait policy reform may be able to leapfrog the KMT. It may be able to transcend the Blue camp. It may be able to persuade "non-Taiwan independence" forces on both sides of the Strait to think anew.
Frank Hsieh should use the "big roof concept of China" to replace the decayed tooth that is Taiwan independence, accelerating its loosening and falling away.
大屋頂中國：民進黨可以走在國民黨的前面
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.03 02:04 am
謝長廷像是一名正在拔牙的牙醫，台獨這個蛀牙已經被他的鐵鉗搖得鬆動起來；現在，這顆蛀牙已然失去了功能，只是仍然佔著牙床的一隅，但已可預見它遲早必將脫落。
謝長廷繼在去年十月的「開展之旅」中會見當時的國台辦主任王毅後，又借香港座談赴深圳會見現任的張志軍。民進黨內雖然對他頗有批評的聲音，卻顯然已無可能將謝長廷步步升高與拉大的動作當作黨紀事件來處理。謝長廷不太可能如當年主張「大膽西進」而遭民進黨逐出的許信良，他儼然希望將自己塑造成民進黨的連戰。
就國際、兩岸及台灣內部的大勢來看，台獨皆已是「不能再走的回頭路」（蘇貞昌語）；因此，台獨議題在台灣也愈來愈成為民進黨內部鬥爭的「溢出效應」，已是一個假議題。
其實，真正在拔牙的是北京當局，謝長廷則是北京手中的那一把鉗子。只要謝長廷能維持他的轉型議題不致熄火，而民進黨也無法逐出謝長廷，那顆台獨牙就必將愈來愈鬆動。接下來，如果那顆台獨牙脫落了，民進黨尚有重植新牙的機會；但如果那顆台獨牙只是愈來愈搖得厲害，卻始終佔著牙床不肯脫落，那就連重植新牙的機會都會喪失，這才將是民進黨的惡夢。
台獨議題當下成為民進黨的內鬥題材，可分兩個層次：一、是基本教義派與轉型派的鬥爭；二、是二○一六總統大選，蘇、蔡二人的鬥爭。基本教義派如姚嘉文等的見解，其實對內外大局已無關痛癢，倒是蘇蔡二人的總統候選人之爭若阻礙了民進黨兩岸政策的轉型，則必將是蘇蔡兩敗俱傷的下場。而若因此轉型失敗，民進黨倘不是二○一六無法勝選，就是即使僥倖勝選亦沒有主政治國的憑藉。這應是民進黨內所有派系的共同見解，而謝長廷也正因如此才能愈搞愈火熱，黨內迄今無人能叫他閉嘴或逐他出黨。
謝長廷此行不但公開倡議中華民國憲法，且在與張志軍的閉門會談中再提「憲法一中」；這應是民進黨兩岸政策轉型的根本基準。謝長廷的「憲法一中」迄今尚無穩定的論述。試撿拾拼湊起謝長廷一再變動的說法，他目前的看法似乎可以說是「主權相互涵蓋／治權互不隸屬」；這應可視為回到「憲法一中」的基準，已與馬政府主張的「一中各表」沒有區隔。
謝長廷面臨的困境，正在於他的「憲法一中」必定會走上「一中各表」的結論，無論他承不承認。倘係如此，他一方面仍會遭遇獨派的反對，而這種「抄襲國民黨」的格局也不易贏得中間選民的讚賞。在這樣的困境中，其實謝長廷應當運用他目前較其他人更大的自由揮灑空間，根據「憲法一中」，將兩岸關係提升至本報所倡的「大屋頂中國」之高度；這樣的論述體系，就可超越「一中各表」（升級版的一中各表），亦即可以超越國民黨，將兩岸論述推向一個更高更大的新境界。
其實，「憲法一中」與「大屋頂中國」，是同一命題的兩個層次。以謝長廷的處境，他不論是主張「憲法一中」或「大屋頂中國」，在黨內遭遇的攻擊都是一樣的；但是，若能將兩岸論述提升至「大屋頂中國」的高度，這就不是抄襲國民黨，而是一舉超越了國民黨，將有重劃藍綠政治版圖的可能性。
「大屋頂中國」這一個主張，正是馬政府不敢輕易碰觸的命題，也是北京不願輕易開啟的空間，卻正是謝長廷這樣具有較大自由度的新入局者可以領導倡議的題材。謝長廷只要不脫離「一中框架」或「憲法一中」，且能說得「合情合理」，他其實可以將黨內獨派留做最後一個嘗試說服的對象，只要讓兩岸有心人都覺得「合情合理」，他即不無可能操持了兩岸「議題設定」的主導權。
「憲法一中」及「一中框架」均苦無「連結點」，而「大屋頂中國」正是謝長廷能對現行架構提出補正的元素；倘若如此，民進黨的兩岸政策轉型，或許就能找到一條超越國民黨──青出於藍勝於藍──的道路，引領兩岸所有「非台獨」的勢力進入新思維。
謝長廷若以「大屋頂中國」為取代的新牙，則台獨這顆蛀牙的動搖與脫落將更是順理成章。
Monday, July 1, 2013
Taiwan's Democracy Can No Longer Rest on Its Laurels
Taiwan's Democracy Can No Longer Rest on Its Laurels
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 2, 2013
Summary: Take the Chang An-lo incident. The Blue and Green camps neutralized each other. The end result was "black plus red" becoming the consensus for both sides. How sad is that? Take the student protests against Hau Pei-tsun. Democracy remains mired in memories of persecution from 20 years ago. What are these, but signs that Taiwan's democracy has atrophied? If people do not extricate themselves from this democratic nihilism, how many more years can Taiwan's capital last?
Full Text below:
Chang An-lo, aka the "White Wolf," a wanted man who has been hiding on the Mainland for 17 years, has just returned to Taiwan and turned himself in to the authorities. The airport was crammed with thousands of people brandishing "Peaceful Reunification" banners. They even arranged a ceremonial lion dance to welcome him home. On the same day, former Premier Hau Pei-tsun delivered a speech at National Taiwan University. A dozen or so students waved protests signs, condemning him for his past repression of democracy.
Such protests have become commonplace. The public no longer considers them noteworthy. But look more closely. Contrast the Chang An-lo welcome and the Hao Pe-tsun protest, both of which took place on the same day. They underscore the astonishing diversity Taiwan's democracy. But they also underscore the disintegration of society's core values.
First take the welcome accorded the "White Wolf." He used the "China Unification Party" as cover for his criminal triad. He used the banner of "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems" to ingratiate himself with the Mainland authorities. The White Wolf's antics are perhaps the most surreal of all since the lifting of martial law on Taiwan. Especially noteworthy is Chang An-lo's triad background. Both the Blue and Green camp have been wary of his Red camp political leanings. His "black and red" political coloration stands out on Taiwan's political spectrum. This is precisely why he was not extradited 17 years after he fled. This is why his high-profile return, surrender, and immediate release on bail was so startling.
Now take the protests held against Hau Pei-tsun. In 1990, students initiated an "oppose military intervention in government" campaign. Thirty years later, some students are still waving "authoritarian injustice" protest signs, even though Hau long ago departed the political scene. One cannot help but experience a sense of "This evening, such an evening" chronological disorientation. It is not that students should not protest. It is merely that the wheels of democracy on Taiwan have continued turning over the past 20 years. These children were not even born when students first waved banners bearing identical slogans. Does this generation of young people really have no grievances of their own? Are they really so lacking in original thought that they can only parrot their elders' indignation? Is Taiwan's democracy really trapped in limbo, spinning its wheels?
Control Yuan President Wang Chien-hsuan spoke out that same day. He said that ever since direct presidential elections were initiated on Taiwan 25 years ago, we have been "eating our seed corn," i.e., "resting on our laurels." His choice of the 25 year mark since direct presidential elections may be problematic. But "resting on our laurels" was accurate and brutal. It sums up many peoples' feelings about Taiwan's political and economic decline. In recent years, everyone has sensed that Taiwan is in decline. We have undergone two changes in ruling parties. This has enabled people to see that the root of the problem is not with any particular political party or any particular individual, but with Taiwan's political system, with the utter debasement of its economic structure and its core values. This is the most horrific aspect of the problem. If Taiwan cannot find its way back, its weakened democratic structure may soon consume all its political and economic capital.
Chang An-lo's high-profile return reveals Blue vs. Green politics and democracy for what it is -- empty bluster. The college students' protests against Hau Pei-tsun merely underscore how Taiwan's democracy has discovered nothing new or meaningful for over two decades. Everyday Blue and Green legislators openly engage in pushing and shouting matches. Every year they convene extraordinary sessions to clear out all the bills still pending. Ruling and opposition party whips meet in smoke-filled rooms to negotiate all manner of under the table deals. These scenarios flagrantly consume our democratic capital. Administrative agencies are no exception. Every day, in order to appease the public, they offer "free benefits." But they have no idea how to communcate and coordinate before reaching final decisions. They have no idea how to brainstorm decisions to ensure effective policies. As a consequence, their underlings can only mutter under their breath, unable to persuade their superiors to change their thinking. How can this not consume Taiwan's democratic capital?
The government has become sluggish. The worst delusion of Taiwan's democracy is relativistic thinking. One person makes a suggestion. Another person immediately repudidates it. Once the different views have been made public, the two sides rehash the issue. Sometimes a third or fourth party chimes in. Together, they seek a broader consensus. But this is precisely why people lose sight of the bigger picture, and find it impossible to reach a consensus on the larger issues. Finally, this is a society that has been ripped apart by Blue vs. Green partisan conflict. It is doomed to obssess over a handful of trivialities, and incapable of upgrading itself.
Take the Chang An-lo incident. The Blue and Green camps neutralized each other. The end result was "black plus red" becoming the consensus for both sides. How sad is that? Take the student protests against Hau Pei-tsun. Democracy remains mired in memories of persecution from 20 years ago. It has failed to raise new concerns, such as the crowds who rioted over free Kingbus tickets worth a mere 100 NTD. What are these, but signs that Taiwan's democracy has atrophied?
If people do not extricate themselves from this democratic nihilism, how many more years can Taiwan's capital last?
台灣必須走出「吃老本」的民主
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.02 01:53 am
滯留大陸十七年的通緝犯「白狼」張安樂返台投案，機場湧進上千人拉著「和平統一」的布條並舞獅為他接機；同一天，前行政院長郝柏村在台大發表演講，十幾名學生在現場舉標語抗議，控訴他當年鎮壓民主。
對這類群眾場面，民眾其實已經司空見慣到沒什麼特別感覺。但如果仔細分辨，「歡迎張安樂」和「抗議郝柏村」兩個同日場景的突兀對照，除了說明台灣民主的奇幻多元，恐怕也相當程度反映了社會核心價值的崩裂失焦。
先說「白狼」，他用「中華統一促進黨」的名義掩護了他的黑幫組織，並高舉「和平統一，一國兩制」的旗號吃定對岸，這恐怕是台灣解嚴後政黨開放最超現實的演出。更值得玩味的是，由於張安樂的幫派背景，卻讓藍綠陣營都對他的「紅色」立場保持幾分「戒懼」；這抹「黑中帶紅」，成為台灣政治的藍綠調色板上詭異的裝飾。也正因為如此，他逃亡十七年而未被引渡，高調回國投案立刻交保，才那麼令人矚目。
至於郝柏村，在一九九○年學生發起「反軍人干政」運動廿三年之後，仍有學生舉著「威權不公」的牌子，向早已遠離政壇的他嗆聲，不禁讓人有「今夕何夕」之慨。並非學生不該抗議，而是台灣民主的巨輪轟隆轟隆地轉著，廿多年過去，這些當時尚未出生的孩子竟還舉著當年大學生同樣的標語；難道是這一代年輕人還沒有發現屬於自己的苦悶和憤慨，只能隨著前輩效顰；或者這反映了台灣民主繞來繞去走不出歷史陰影，還一直在原地踏步？
同一天，監察院長王建?也批評，自從總統直選後，台灣廿五年來一直在「吃老本」。他口中的廿五年或「總統直選」是不是準確的因素或分界點，仍有待驗證；但「吃老本」這個形容，確實殘酷地描述了很多人對台灣政經頹勢的感受。近年，大家都意識到台灣一直在走下坡；而歷經兩次政黨輪替，也讓人們看清問題根源不只在單一政黨或特定人物，而是台灣政治體制、經濟結構和價值觀全面性的退化與脫序，這才是最可怕的地方。如果台灣不能找到重振之道，以如此荏弱的民主體質繼續內耗下去，可能很快就會把老本吃光。
通緝犯張安樂的高調返國，暴露了藍綠政治與民主法治的虛張聲勢；而大學生向郝柏村嗆聲，則顯示台灣民主廿多年來找不到新的意義與座標。事實上，藍綠立委每天在那裡公開推擠對嗆，年年都要召開臨時會來進行法案清倉，而朝野黨鞭卻坐在協商密室中牽手進行各色的交易；這些景象，也都明目張膽地在吃民主的老本。包括行政部門，天天為了討好民意而不斷釋放小利小惠，卻不知道拍板定案前如何做好溝通協調，更不知道如何集思廣益提高決策效能；如此，徒有低聲下氣、打躬作揖卻缺乏說服能力的官員，又怎麼不吃掉台灣的民主老本？
除了政府體制的鈍化，台灣最嚴重的民主迷思，是墜入一種「相對式」的思考泥沼。有人提出一項主張，立刻有人用一個相對的意見把它抵銷或抹煞；而不是在出現不同的思考後，雙方反覆對話辯論，或加入第三方及第四方的主張，共同求取更成熟、包容更廣的結論。正因為如此，台灣也就失去了許多在大議題、大論述上求取共識的可能；最後，這個被藍綠撕裂的社會，就注定只能圍繞著少數枝微末節的事情打轉，而無法提升。
以張安樂事件為例，就是藍綠政治互相化約到最後，讓「黑加紅」變成了雙方共識的底線，豈不可悲！以學生抗議郝柏村為例，顯示民主還停滯在廿多年前的被迫害記憶，未能發展出新的關注。包括大批民眾為了區區一百多元的國光客運免費票，在那裡擾攘叫囂，不都是台灣民主志氣和尊嚴萎縮的徵象？
如果人們不把自己從這種民主虛無的狀態中振拔出來，請問，台灣還有多少年的老本可供磨耗？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 2, 2013
Summary: Take the Chang An-lo incident. The Blue and Green camps neutralized each other. The end result was "black plus red" becoming the consensus for both sides. How sad is that? Take the student protests against Hau Pei-tsun. Democracy remains mired in memories of persecution from 20 years ago. What are these, but signs that Taiwan's democracy has atrophied? If people do not extricate themselves from this democratic nihilism, how many more years can Taiwan's capital last?
Full Text below:
Chang An-lo, aka the "White Wolf," a wanted man who has been hiding on the Mainland for 17 years, has just returned to Taiwan and turned himself in to the authorities. The airport was crammed with thousands of people brandishing "Peaceful Reunification" banners. They even arranged a ceremonial lion dance to welcome him home. On the same day, former Premier Hau Pei-tsun delivered a speech at National Taiwan University. A dozen or so students waved protests signs, condemning him for his past repression of democracy.
Such protests have become commonplace. The public no longer considers them noteworthy. But look more closely. Contrast the Chang An-lo welcome and the Hao Pe-tsun protest, both of which took place on the same day. They underscore the astonishing diversity Taiwan's democracy. But they also underscore the disintegration of society's core values.
First take the welcome accorded the "White Wolf." He used the "China Unification Party" as cover for his criminal triad. He used the banner of "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems" to ingratiate himself with the Mainland authorities. The White Wolf's antics are perhaps the most surreal of all since the lifting of martial law on Taiwan. Especially noteworthy is Chang An-lo's triad background. Both the Blue and Green camp have been wary of his Red camp political leanings. His "black and red" political coloration stands out on Taiwan's political spectrum. This is precisely why he was not extradited 17 years after he fled. This is why his high-profile return, surrender, and immediate release on bail was so startling.
Now take the protests held against Hau Pei-tsun. In 1990, students initiated an "oppose military intervention in government" campaign. Thirty years later, some students are still waving "authoritarian injustice" protest signs, even though Hau long ago departed the political scene. One cannot help but experience a sense of "This evening, such an evening" chronological disorientation. It is not that students should not protest. It is merely that the wheels of democracy on Taiwan have continued turning over the past 20 years. These children were not even born when students first waved banners bearing identical slogans. Does this generation of young people really have no grievances of their own? Are they really so lacking in original thought that they can only parrot their elders' indignation? Is Taiwan's democracy really trapped in limbo, spinning its wheels?
Control Yuan President Wang Chien-hsuan spoke out that same day. He said that ever since direct presidential elections were initiated on Taiwan 25 years ago, we have been "eating our seed corn," i.e., "resting on our laurels." His choice of the 25 year mark since direct presidential elections may be problematic. But "resting on our laurels" was accurate and brutal. It sums up many peoples' feelings about Taiwan's political and economic decline. In recent years, everyone has sensed that Taiwan is in decline. We have undergone two changes in ruling parties. This has enabled people to see that the root of the problem is not with any particular political party or any particular individual, but with Taiwan's political system, with the utter debasement of its economic structure and its core values. This is the most horrific aspect of the problem. If Taiwan cannot find its way back, its weakened democratic structure may soon consume all its political and economic capital.
Chang An-lo's high-profile return reveals Blue vs. Green politics and democracy for what it is -- empty bluster. The college students' protests against Hau Pei-tsun merely underscore how Taiwan's democracy has discovered nothing new or meaningful for over two decades. Everyday Blue and Green legislators openly engage in pushing and shouting matches. Every year they convene extraordinary sessions to clear out all the bills still pending. Ruling and opposition party whips meet in smoke-filled rooms to negotiate all manner of under the table deals. These scenarios flagrantly consume our democratic capital. Administrative agencies are no exception. Every day, in order to appease the public, they offer "free benefits." But they have no idea how to communcate and coordinate before reaching final decisions. They have no idea how to brainstorm decisions to ensure effective policies. As a consequence, their underlings can only mutter under their breath, unable to persuade their superiors to change their thinking. How can this not consume Taiwan's democratic capital?
The government has become sluggish. The worst delusion of Taiwan's democracy is relativistic thinking. One person makes a suggestion. Another person immediately repudidates it. Once the different views have been made public, the two sides rehash the issue. Sometimes a third or fourth party chimes in. Together, they seek a broader consensus. But this is precisely why people lose sight of the bigger picture, and find it impossible to reach a consensus on the larger issues. Finally, this is a society that has been ripped apart by Blue vs. Green partisan conflict. It is doomed to obssess over a handful of trivialities, and incapable of upgrading itself.
Take the Chang An-lo incident. The Blue and Green camps neutralized each other. The end result was "black plus red" becoming the consensus for both sides. How sad is that? Take the student protests against Hau Pei-tsun. Democracy remains mired in memories of persecution from 20 years ago. It has failed to raise new concerns, such as the crowds who rioted over free Kingbus tickets worth a mere 100 NTD. What are these, but signs that Taiwan's democracy has atrophied?
If people do not extricate themselves from this democratic nihilism, how many more years can Taiwan's capital last?
台灣必須走出「吃老本」的民主
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.02 01:53 am
滯留大陸十七年的通緝犯「白狼」張安樂返台投案，機場湧進上千人拉著「和平統一」的布條並舞獅為他接機；同一天，前行政院長郝柏村在台大發表演講，十幾名學生在現場舉標語抗議，控訴他當年鎮壓民主。
對這類群眾場面，民眾其實已經司空見慣到沒什麼特別感覺。但如果仔細分辨，「歡迎張安樂」和「抗議郝柏村」兩個同日場景的突兀對照，除了說明台灣民主的奇幻多元，恐怕也相當程度反映了社會核心價值的崩裂失焦。
先說「白狼」，他用「中華統一促進黨」的名義掩護了他的黑幫組織，並高舉「和平統一，一國兩制」的旗號吃定對岸，這恐怕是台灣解嚴後政黨開放最超現實的演出。更值得玩味的是，由於張安樂的幫派背景，卻讓藍綠陣營都對他的「紅色」立場保持幾分「戒懼」；這抹「黑中帶紅」，成為台灣政治的藍綠調色板上詭異的裝飾。也正因為如此，他逃亡十七年而未被引渡，高調回國投案立刻交保，才那麼令人矚目。
至於郝柏村，在一九九○年學生發起「反軍人干政」運動廿三年之後，仍有學生舉著「威權不公」的牌子，向早已遠離政壇的他嗆聲，不禁讓人有「今夕何夕」之慨。並非學生不該抗議，而是台灣民主的巨輪轟隆轟隆地轉著，廿多年過去，這些當時尚未出生的孩子竟還舉著當年大學生同樣的標語；難道是這一代年輕人還沒有發現屬於自己的苦悶和憤慨，只能隨著前輩效顰；或者這反映了台灣民主繞來繞去走不出歷史陰影，還一直在原地踏步？
同一天，監察院長王建?也批評，自從總統直選後，台灣廿五年來一直在「吃老本」。他口中的廿五年或「總統直選」是不是準確的因素或分界點，仍有待驗證；但「吃老本」這個形容，確實殘酷地描述了很多人對台灣政經頹勢的感受。近年，大家都意識到台灣一直在走下坡；而歷經兩次政黨輪替，也讓人們看清問題根源不只在單一政黨或特定人物，而是台灣政治體制、經濟結構和價值觀全面性的退化與脫序，這才是最可怕的地方。如果台灣不能找到重振之道，以如此荏弱的民主體質繼續內耗下去，可能很快就會把老本吃光。
通緝犯張安樂的高調返國，暴露了藍綠政治與民主法治的虛張聲勢；而大學生向郝柏村嗆聲，則顯示台灣民主廿多年來找不到新的意義與座標。事實上，藍綠立委每天在那裡公開推擠對嗆，年年都要召開臨時會來進行法案清倉，而朝野黨鞭卻坐在協商密室中牽手進行各色的交易；這些景象，也都明目張膽地在吃民主的老本。包括行政部門，天天為了討好民意而不斷釋放小利小惠，卻不知道拍板定案前如何做好溝通協調，更不知道如何集思廣益提高決策效能；如此，徒有低聲下氣、打躬作揖卻缺乏說服能力的官員，又怎麼不吃掉台灣的民主老本？
除了政府體制的鈍化，台灣最嚴重的民主迷思，是墜入一種「相對式」的思考泥沼。有人提出一項主張，立刻有人用一個相對的意見把它抵銷或抹煞；而不是在出現不同的思考後，雙方反覆對話辯論，或加入第三方及第四方的主張，共同求取更成熟、包容更廣的結論。正因為如此，台灣也就失去了許多在大議題、大論述上求取共識的可能；最後，這個被藍綠撕裂的社會，就注定只能圍繞著少數枝微末節的事情打轉，而無法提升。
以張安樂事件為例，就是藍綠政治互相化約到最後，讓「黑加紅」變成了雙方共識的底線，豈不可悲！以學生抗議郝柏村為例，顯示民主還停滯在廿多年前的被迫害記憶，未能發展出新的關注。包括大批民眾為了區區一百多元的國光客運免費票，在那裡擾攘叫囂，不都是台灣民主志氣和尊嚴萎縮的徵象？
如果人們不把自己從這種民主虛無的狀態中振拔出來，請問，台灣還有多少年的老本可供磨耗？
Taiwan Independence: DPP Successes and Failures
Taiwan Independence: DPP Successes and Failures
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2013
Summary: When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.
Full Text below:
When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.
Su Tseng-chang said the party "must turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." His remark carries with it three implications. One. In the past the DPP promoted Taiwan independence; Two. In the future, the DPP will no longer promote Taiwan independence. Three. Promoting Taiwan independence is an outdated effort to turn back the clock. Over the past six decades, the Taiwan independence movement and the pro-democracy movement have worked hand in hand. The promotion of Taiwan independence has often been characterized as the promotion of democracy. AT other times, the pro-democracy movement has relied on Taiwan independence as its driving force. Is the DPP willing to engage in an honest evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence? If it is not, then talk of "not turning the clock back and promoting Taiwan independence" is mere lip service.
First consider the DPP's successes. One. It succeeded in increasing the momentum of the pro-democracy movement. Two. Its promotion of a "Taiwan independence consciousness" succeeded in inspiring a "Taiwanese consciousness" and establishing "Taiwan's primacy." Three. It succeeded in its role as "bad cop" in cross-Strait relations. Four. In cross-Strait relations, it succeeded in providing our side with greater in-depth defense. Five. It succeeded in its effort to undermine the nation and incite social divisions, and mischaracterize this effort as "the promotion of democracy."
Consider the DPP's failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. One. It failed to promote democracy. Instead it incited a "democratic civil war" that tore Taiwan apart. Two. As the record shows, it failed to counter the PRC's strategic moves. Three. It failed to "defend Taiwan." Its fanatical attempts to "de-Sinicize" Taiwan and to "purge all traces of the Republic of China" weakened the Republic of China and left Taiwan more vulnerable. Four. It failed to "raise Taiwan's international profile." Instead, it merely turned Taiwan into an international "troublemaker," and undermined Taiwan's international status. Five. Lee Teng-hui's repeated flip-flopping and Chen Shui-bian's unbridled corruption failed Taiwan independence. Their conduct undermined the credibility of Taiwan independence and deprived it of the moral high ground.
The Taiwan independence movement seeks the overthrow of the Republic of China. It sees this as the pro-democracy movement's highest end. It sees this as a means of countering the CCP's strategic moves. But it has failed on both count. Consider its attempt to overthrow the Republic of China. The Taiwan independence movement's greatest achievement was winning the right to rule the Republic of China in 2000, under the guise of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In 2004, it prolonged its rule for another four years, via the "Two Bullets Assassination Attempt," a false flag operation. It unsuccessfully promoted the "rectification of names," the "referendum to join the UN," the concept of "one nation on each side," and other forms of street violence. In 2008, having failed to achieve its goal of overthrowing the Republic of China, it lost power and was forced to step down. As we can see, the ROC may undergo ruling party changes. But that does not mean the DPP can use them to overthrow the Republic of China and establish a "Republic of Taiwan."
Now consider the DPP's attempt to counter the Peoples Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. He found himself in a standoff, during which Beijing "listened to what he said, and watched what he did." Tsai Ing-wen's stubborn opposition to ECFA made her the butt of jokes. As we can see, Taiwan independence efforts to counter strategic moves by the Peoples Republic of China have failed. These are all reasons why Su Tseng-chang vowed that the DPP "would not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."
In the early years, when Taiwan independence got its start, at home and abroad, Taiwan was under martial law. Mainland China was caught up in the Cultural Revolution. It was understandable that many young people would dedicate themselves to Taiwan independence. The Taiwan independence movement did indeed provide democracy on Taiwan with added momentum. But today's Republic of China already is a democracy. The Taiwan independence movement may be able to effect ruling party changes. But it will not be able to implement the "rectification of names." The hot topic on Mainland China today is the "Chinese Dream" and a "Renaissance of the Chinese People." The public on Taiwan must adopt a more mature, more strategically minded perspective on national and constitutional allegiance. The Taiwan independence movement has unwittingly taken a stand antithetical to democracy on Taiwan. It has even become a threat to Taiwan's security and economic growth.
Taiwan independence advocacy within today's DPP falls into two categories. The first is old style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Koo Kuan-min and Lee Teng-hui. They are either lifelong advocates of Taiwan independence, or individuals whose place in history precludes retreat. They cannot alter course. The other category is instrumental style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen. On the one hand, they argue that the DPP "must not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." On the other hand they persist in promoting "backdoor listing" style Taiwan independence. The old style Taiwan independence advocates inspire pity. Forsaking Taiwan independence for them means forsaking values they have held all their lives. But instrumental style Taiwan independence advocates inspire merely contempt. They are constantly checking the wind direction. They are constantly hedging their bets. For them, the Republic of China and Taiwan are political tools. They feel no loyalty to either. They feel no responsibility to either.
Today, "Taiwan's primacy" rests on the Republic of China. The Republic of China has become a model democracy. It was tolerant enough to allow a political party that advocates Taiwan independence to rule for eight years. The Republic of China has a constitutional framework that must be upheld when dealing with the Mainland. During democratization, the Taiwan independence movement attempted to disparage the Republic of China. Instead, it inadvertently underscored the political value of the Republic of China, and the moral legitimacy of the Republic of China. Over the past six decades, Taiwan's relationship with the Mainland, the international community, and its internal circumstances have all changed dramatically. Taiwan truly cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."
Taiwan has long been mired in self-pity. The emergence of a Taiwan independence mindset 30 years ago was perfectly understandable. Taiwan's plight today remains difficult. But that is precisely why it is inconceivable anyone could still believe that Taiwan independence is the answer. Over the past six decades, Taiwan independence ideology played a part in Taiwan's evolution. But Taiwan independence has reached the end of its rope. It can go no further. Taiwan independence is an ideological rut. We cannot turn back the clock. We cannot permit Taiwan independence to obstruct and harass the Republic of China, which still faces a difficult future.
Taiwan independence will not vanish from Taiwan. But the DPP is one of Taiwan's major political parties. It simply cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." Was "love of Taiwan" really it original motive for Taiwan independence? If it was, then it is time to allow et both Taiwan and the Republic of China to survive.
民進黨應為台獨功罪作出評價
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.29 03:46 am
維權律師陳光誠拜會蘇貞昌，直言：「台獨概念已經過時」。民進黨正在議論要不要為陳水扁的功罪進行評價，其實，應先為該黨台獨操作的功罪作出評價。只要能對台獨的功罪作出平允的評價，陳水扁的功罪亦不辯自明。
蘇貞昌說：「不要回過頭去搞台獨。」此話有三層意義：一、民進黨過去是搞台獨的；二、以後不要搞台獨了；三、搞台獨是倒退落伍的回頭路。過去一甲子，台獨運動與民主運動在現實政治上交纏如麻花；有時台獨以民主為包裝，有時民主以台獨為驅力。若不能對台獨的功罪作出評價，「不要回過頭去搞台獨」恐怕只是空言。
先略論台獨之功：一、為台灣的民主運動增添動能；二、「台獨意識」激發了「台灣意識」，協助建立了台灣的「主體性」；三、在兩岸關係中扮演「黑臉」；四、拉長了兩岸關係的縱深；五、顛覆國家、撕裂族群成為日常的民主議題。
再略論台獨之過：一、造成民主內戰，撕裂了台灣；二、作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略，已證明失敗；三、「去中國化」及「去中華民國化」的狂飆運動，使中華民國受傷慘重；四、成為國際上的「麻煩製造者」，傷害了台灣的國際處境；五、李登輝的顛倒反覆與陳水扁的貪腐無狀，降低了台獨的說服力，也摧毀了台獨的道德性。
台獨主張顛覆中華民國，以此作為民主運動的最高目標，及對抗中共的戰略手段；但兩者皆已失敗。以顛覆中華民國而言，台獨運動的最大成就是，在《台灣前途決議文》的化妝下，在兩千年贏得了中華民國的統治權，又在二○○四年藉「兩顆子彈」續任四年。但經正名制憲、入聯公投、一邊一國等狂暴操作後，又在○八年失去政權，並未實現其顛覆中華民國之目的。可見，中華民國可以政黨輪替，但不易推翻而改立「台灣國」。
再就對抗中華人民共和國言，陳水扁主政八年，陷於「聽其言，觀其行」的僵局中，蔡英文的反ＥＣＦＡ如今亦成笑柄。可見，台獨作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略手段已告失敗。這些，皆應是蘇貞昌說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」的原因。
早年台獨意識在海內外開展時，台灣處於戒嚴統治，大陸則陷於文化大革命；在那樣的背景中，許多人將自己的青春投入台獨運動，是可以理解的。台獨運動也確為台灣民主運動增添了動能。但今天的中華民國已是民主體制，台獨運動者即使可以政黨輪替也不能「正名制憲」；而今天中國大陸的熱門議題，則是中國夢與中華民族的偉大復興。在此背景下，台灣民意對國憲認同與兩岸戰略皆有了更成熟的思考，而台獨運動則在不知不覺中站到了台灣民主的對立面，甚至威脅到台灣的安全與發展。
現今民進黨內的台獨可分為兩類：一類是老台獨，如辜寬敏、李登輝，他們或是一輩子主張台獨，或是在歷史定位上已無退路，所以難有轉彎餘地；另一類是工具性台獨，如蘇貞昌、蔡英文等，他們一方面說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」，另一方面又繼續操弄「借殼上市」的台獨。那些老台獨是值得同情的，因為要他們放棄台獨，即形同要他們放棄自己一輩子的價值；但那些工具性台獨卻是應當鄙視的，他們左顧右盼，言詞閃爍，把中華民國和台灣視為其政治投機的工具，對兩者皆無忠誠，對兩者皆不負責任。
今天台灣的主體性唯賴中華民國支撐，中華民國亦已成民主典範，包括包容了台獨政黨執政八年。且中華民國更是台灣在與中華人民共和國交往折衝時，必須持守的憲政架構。台獨曾在民主化過程中打擊了中華民國，卻反彰顯了中華民國的意義，亦增強了中華民國的正當性。六十餘年來，兩岸、國際及台灣內部的情勢皆告丕變，台灣真的不能再「回過頭去搞台獨」了。
以台灣之悲情，三十年前會出現台獨思想事屬當然；但亦正因台灣的艱難處境，今天若仍認為台獨是台灣的出路，則不可思議。在過去六十餘年中，台獨已留下了階段性的意義與功能；但台灣要再走下去，台獨既是「不能再回頭」的覆車之轍，也請勿再騷擾阻擋中華民國備極艱辛之前程。
台獨在台灣不會絕跡，但民進黨作為台灣的主要政黨，卻絕不可「再回過頭去搞台獨」。如果台獨的初衷真的是「愛台灣」，則今天也到了應當放台灣與中華民國一條生路的時候了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 29, 2013
Summary: When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.
Full Text below:
When human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng met with Su Tseng-chang, he told Su bluntly, "The idea of Taiwan independence is outdated." The DPP is currently debating whether to issue a public statement on Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures. In fact, it should be debating whether to issue a public statement on the DPP's successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. If the DPP can arrive at a balanced evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence, then Chen Shui-bian's successes and failures will be self-evident.
Su Tseng-chang said the party "must turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." His remark carries with it three implications. One. In the past the DPP promoted Taiwan independence; Two. In the future, the DPP will no longer promote Taiwan independence. Three. Promoting Taiwan independence is an outdated effort to turn back the clock. Over the past six decades, the Taiwan independence movement and the pro-democracy movement have worked hand in hand. The promotion of Taiwan independence has often been characterized as the promotion of democracy. AT other times, the pro-democracy movement has relied on Taiwan independence as its driving force. Is the DPP willing to engage in an honest evaluation of its successes and failures vis a vis Taiwan independence? If it is not, then talk of "not turning the clock back and promoting Taiwan independence" is mere lip service.
First consider the DPP's successes. One. It succeeded in increasing the momentum of the pro-democracy movement. Two. Its promotion of a "Taiwan independence consciousness" succeeded in inspiring a "Taiwanese consciousness" and establishing "Taiwan's primacy." Three. It succeeded in its role as "bad cop" in cross-Strait relations. Four. In cross-Strait relations, it succeeded in providing our side with greater in-depth defense. Five. It succeeded in its effort to undermine the nation and incite social divisions, and mischaracterize this effort as "the promotion of democracy."
Consider the DPP's failures vis a vis Taiwan independence. One. It failed to promote democracy. Instead it incited a "democratic civil war" that tore Taiwan apart. Two. As the record shows, it failed to counter the PRC's strategic moves. Three. It failed to "defend Taiwan." Its fanatical attempts to "de-Sinicize" Taiwan and to "purge all traces of the Republic of China" weakened the Republic of China and left Taiwan more vulnerable. Four. It failed to "raise Taiwan's international profile." Instead, it merely turned Taiwan into an international "troublemaker," and undermined Taiwan's international status. Five. Lee Teng-hui's repeated flip-flopping and Chen Shui-bian's unbridled corruption failed Taiwan independence. Their conduct undermined the credibility of Taiwan independence and deprived it of the moral high ground.
The Taiwan independence movement seeks the overthrow of the Republic of China. It sees this as the pro-democracy movement's highest end. It sees this as a means of countering the CCP's strategic moves. But it has failed on both count. Consider its attempt to overthrow the Republic of China. The Taiwan independence movement's greatest achievement was winning the right to rule the Republic of China in 2000, under the guise of the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." In 2004, it prolonged its rule for another four years, via the "Two Bullets Assassination Attempt," a false flag operation. It unsuccessfully promoted the "rectification of names," the "referendum to join the UN," the concept of "one nation on each side," and other forms of street violence. In 2008, having failed to achieve its goal of overthrowing the Republic of China, it lost power and was forced to step down. As we can see, the ROC may undergo ruling party changes. But that does not mean the DPP can use them to overthrow the Republic of China and establish a "Republic of Taiwan."
Now consider the DPP's attempt to counter the Peoples Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian was in power for eight years. He found himself in a standoff, during which Beijing "listened to what he said, and watched what he did." Tsai Ing-wen's stubborn opposition to ECFA made her the butt of jokes. As we can see, Taiwan independence efforts to counter strategic moves by the Peoples Republic of China have failed. These are all reasons why Su Tseng-chang vowed that the DPP "would not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."
In the early years, when Taiwan independence got its start, at home and abroad, Taiwan was under martial law. Mainland China was caught up in the Cultural Revolution. It was understandable that many young people would dedicate themselves to Taiwan independence. The Taiwan independence movement did indeed provide democracy on Taiwan with added momentum. But today's Republic of China already is a democracy. The Taiwan independence movement may be able to effect ruling party changes. But it will not be able to implement the "rectification of names." The hot topic on Mainland China today is the "Chinese Dream" and a "Renaissance of the Chinese People." The public on Taiwan must adopt a more mature, more strategically minded perspective on national and constitutional allegiance. The Taiwan independence movement has unwittingly taken a stand antithetical to democracy on Taiwan. It has even become a threat to Taiwan's security and economic growth.
Taiwan independence advocacy within today's DPP falls into two categories. The first is old style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Koo Kuan-min and Lee Teng-hui. They are either lifelong advocates of Taiwan independence, or individuals whose place in history precludes retreat. They cannot alter course. The other category is instrumental style Taiwan independence. Exemplars include Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen. On the one hand, they argue that the DPP "must not turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." On the other hand they persist in promoting "backdoor listing" style Taiwan independence. The old style Taiwan independence advocates inspire pity. Forsaking Taiwan independence for them means forsaking values they have held all their lives. But instrumental style Taiwan independence advocates inspire merely contempt. They are constantly checking the wind direction. They are constantly hedging their bets. For them, the Republic of China and Taiwan are political tools. They feel no loyalty to either. They feel no responsibility to either.
Today, "Taiwan's primacy" rests on the Republic of China. The Republic of China has become a model democracy. It was tolerant enough to allow a political party that advocates Taiwan independence to rule for eight years. The Republic of China has a constitutional framework that must be upheld when dealing with the Mainland. During democratization, the Taiwan independence movement attempted to disparage the Republic of China. Instead, it inadvertently underscored the political value of the Republic of China, and the moral legitimacy of the Republic of China. Over the past six decades, Taiwan's relationship with the Mainland, the international community, and its internal circumstances have all changed dramatically. Taiwan truly cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence."
Taiwan has long been mired in self-pity. The emergence of a Taiwan independence mindset 30 years ago was perfectly understandable. Taiwan's plight today remains difficult. But that is precisely why it is inconceivable anyone could still believe that Taiwan independence is the answer. Over the past six decades, Taiwan independence ideology played a part in Taiwan's evolution. But Taiwan independence has reached the end of its rope. It can go no further. Taiwan independence is an ideological rut. We cannot turn back the clock. We cannot permit Taiwan independence to obstruct and harass the Republic of China, which still faces a difficult future.
Taiwan independence will not vanish from Taiwan. But the DPP is one of Taiwan's major political parties. It simply cannot "turn back the clock and promote Taiwan independence." Was "love of Taiwan" really it original motive for Taiwan independence? If it was, then it is time to allow et both Taiwan and the Republic of China to survive.
民進黨應為台獨功罪作出評價
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.29 03:46 am
維權律師陳光誠拜會蘇貞昌，直言：「台獨概念已經過時」。民進黨正在議論要不要為陳水扁的功罪進行評價，其實，應先為該黨台獨操作的功罪作出評價。只要能對台獨的功罪作出平允的評價，陳水扁的功罪亦不辯自明。
蘇貞昌說：「不要回過頭去搞台獨。」此話有三層意義：一、民進黨過去是搞台獨的；二、以後不要搞台獨了；三、搞台獨是倒退落伍的回頭路。過去一甲子，台獨運動與民主運動在現實政治上交纏如麻花；有時台獨以民主為包裝，有時民主以台獨為驅力。若不能對台獨的功罪作出評價，「不要回過頭去搞台獨」恐怕只是空言。
先略論台獨之功：一、為台灣的民主運動增添動能；二、「台獨意識」激發了「台灣意識」，協助建立了台灣的「主體性」；三、在兩岸關係中扮演「黑臉」；四、拉長了兩岸關係的縱深；五、顛覆國家、撕裂族群成為日常的民主議題。
再略論台獨之過：一、造成民主內戰，撕裂了台灣；二、作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略，已證明失敗；三、「去中國化」及「去中華民國化」的狂飆運動，使中華民國受傷慘重；四、成為國際上的「麻煩製造者」，傷害了台灣的國際處境；五、李登輝的顛倒反覆與陳水扁的貪腐無狀，降低了台獨的說服力，也摧毀了台獨的道德性。
台獨主張顛覆中華民國，以此作為民主運動的最高目標，及對抗中共的戰略手段；但兩者皆已失敗。以顛覆中華民國而言，台獨運動的最大成就是，在《台灣前途決議文》的化妝下，在兩千年贏得了中華民國的統治權，又在二○○四年藉「兩顆子彈」續任四年。但經正名制憲、入聯公投、一邊一國等狂暴操作後，又在○八年失去政權，並未實現其顛覆中華民國之目的。可見，中華民國可以政黨輪替，但不易推翻而改立「台灣國」。
再就對抗中華人民共和國言，陳水扁主政八年，陷於「聽其言，觀其行」的僵局中，蔡英文的反ＥＣＦＡ如今亦成笑柄。可見，台獨作為對抗中華人民共和國的戰略手段已告失敗。這些，皆應是蘇貞昌說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」的原因。
早年台獨意識在海內外開展時，台灣處於戒嚴統治，大陸則陷於文化大革命；在那樣的背景中，許多人將自己的青春投入台獨運動，是可以理解的。台獨運動也確為台灣民主運動增添了動能。但今天的中華民國已是民主體制，台獨運動者即使可以政黨輪替也不能「正名制憲」；而今天中國大陸的熱門議題，則是中國夢與中華民族的偉大復興。在此背景下，台灣民意對國憲認同與兩岸戰略皆有了更成熟的思考，而台獨運動則在不知不覺中站到了台灣民主的對立面，甚至威脅到台灣的安全與發展。
現今民進黨內的台獨可分為兩類：一類是老台獨，如辜寬敏、李登輝，他們或是一輩子主張台獨，或是在歷史定位上已無退路，所以難有轉彎餘地；另一類是工具性台獨，如蘇貞昌、蔡英文等，他們一方面說「不要回過頭去搞台獨」，另一方面又繼續操弄「借殼上市」的台獨。那些老台獨是值得同情的，因為要他們放棄台獨，即形同要他們放棄自己一輩子的價值；但那些工具性台獨卻是應當鄙視的，他們左顧右盼，言詞閃爍，把中華民國和台灣視為其政治投機的工具，對兩者皆無忠誠，對兩者皆不負責任。
今天台灣的主體性唯賴中華民國支撐，中華民國亦已成民主典範，包括包容了台獨政黨執政八年。且中華民國更是台灣在與中華人民共和國交往折衝時，必須持守的憲政架構。台獨曾在民主化過程中打擊了中華民國，卻反彰顯了中華民國的意義，亦增強了中華民國的正當性。六十餘年來，兩岸、國際及台灣內部的情勢皆告丕變，台灣真的不能再「回過頭去搞台獨」了。
以台灣之悲情，三十年前會出現台獨思想事屬當然；但亦正因台灣的艱難處境，今天若仍認為台獨是台灣的出路，則不可思議。在過去六十餘年中，台獨已留下了階段性的意義與功能；但台灣要再走下去，台獨既是「不能再回頭」的覆車之轍，也請勿再騷擾阻擋中華民國備極艱辛之前程。
台獨在台灣不會絕跡，但民進黨作為台灣的主要政黨，卻絕不可「再回過頭去搞台獨」。如果台獨的初衷真的是「愛台灣」，則今天也到了應當放台灣與中華民國一條生路的時候了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)