Kuang Ta Hsing Incident: Cause for Celebration, Cause for Regret
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 9, 2013
Summary: The Kuang Ta Hsing incidence is over. This is cause for optimism. But we must not celebrate too soon. Judicial rulings and fisheries negotiations await. They are the key to future ROC-Philippine relations. Only the institutionalization of ROC-Philippine relations can truly assure the rights of our fishermen.
Full text below:
The bloody Kuang Ta Hsing Number 28 fishing vessel incident has come to an end. Foreign Ministry shuttle diplomacy has resulted in the Philippine government agreeing to four ROC government demands, The ROC government lifted 11 economic sanctions on the Philippines. The three month long ROC-Philippines standoff has finally ended, The lengthy quest for legal responsibility however has just begun.
Let us review developments between the ROC and the Philippine to date. They include two causes for celebration, and two causes for regret. One cause for celebration is that negotiations led to concrete and significant breakthroughs. One cause for regret is that domestic factors in the Philippines could still sabotage the final outcome.
Consider another cause for optimism. As Liuchiu County Chief Tsai Tian-yu noted, many fishermen from Taiwan have been shot and killed by Philippines police. This is the first time they have gotten their day in court. In a formal apology, Manila Economic and Cultural Office chief Perez conveyed Philippine President Aquino's official message, including a "touching" personal letter. The letter offered the Philippines' profoundest apologies to the Hung family. The ROC and the Philippines signed a confidentiality agreement regarding the amount of restitution. But it is rumored that the Philippine government referred to the historic amount as "astronomical." Apparently the Philippine government, which has treated the ROC cavalierly in the past, is now dealing with the problem in earnest.
This is very different from the Philippines' handling of the Hong Kong hostage shooting incident of 2010. During the Kuang Ta Hsing incident, the ROC government obtained concrete commitments from the Philippines government. Take for example, punishment of the murderer. The Philippine National Bureau of Investigation considers the shooting of Hung Shi-cheng by Philippine Coast Guard members accidental and unintentional. Nevertheless it recommended charging eight members of the Coast Guard who opened fire with manslaughter. Take the fisheries agreements. The Philippine government has promised to avoid the future use of force when patroling the seas. The ROC and the Philippines have agreed to begin bilateral fisheries negotiations within the month. In other words, the Philippines justice system initially tried to bury the case. Now it appears determined to investigate.
Based on current developments, the ROC government has made four demands. Its demands for an apology and compensation have been met. Its demands for punishment of the murderer and negotiations on fisheries agreements have yet to be fulfilled. For the Hung family, the Kuang Ta Hsing incident is over. But for the government, systematic negotiations between the two governments have yet to begin.
The ROC government has lifted economic sanctions against the Philippines. The Philippine government has long been unreliable regarding its commitments. Now that sanctions have been lifted, will its judicial system continue to take the ROC-Philippines fisheries dispute seriously? We cannot be certain. Two reasons come to mind.
One. The Philippine judicial system is highly politicized. The Philippine Bureau of Investigation recommended manslaughter charges against the eight Coast Guard members who opened fire. But will their recommendation be adopted by the Philippine courts? That remains to be seen. Consider the Hong Kong hostage incident. The investigation report determined that Manila Deputy Mayor Moreno left the scene at the crucial moment, therefore he should be prosecuted for negligence. But under pressure from the Malacanang Palace, the Philippine courts vetoed it. The ROC government must keep a close eye on the Philippines judiciary, to ensure that the guilty are punished.
Two. The Philippines public is biased in favor of the Coast Guard members. The Philippine Bureau of Investigation report provoked an intense backlash. The public considered the report a serious blow to the morale of Coast Guard members. The Philippine Coast Guard vowed to defend the eight Coast Guard members. Two Philippine university professors offered to defend them, pro bono. President Aquino has long been adept at exploiting public sentiment. Will this become another excuse to delay ROC Philippine fisheries negotiations?
Three months ago the Philippine government treated the case in a cavalier manner. Now however, it has issued a "touching" speech. President Aquino's attitude has undergone drastic change. The eleven economic sanctions the ROC imposed was a factor. Another factor was U.S. government pressure.
The United States has implemented an "Asian rebalancing" policy. The Philippines has regained its strategic status vis a vis the United States. The support of the United States has become Aquino's diplomatic trump card. But increased ROC-Philippines conflict provides Mainland Chinese naval forces an excuse to enter the South China Sea, as well as promote cross-Strait military cooperation. This is what Washington is most unwilling to see. As a result the U.S. intervened, demanding Philippine restraint. Naturally this has let the air out of Aquino's balloon. As we can see, the ROC made good use of foreign policy during the ROC-Philippines incident, It leveraged its power in the best interests of the nation.
The Kuang Ta Hsing incidence is over. This is cause for optimism. But we must not celebrate too soon. Judicial rulings and fisheries negotiations await. They are the key to future ROC-Philippine relations. Only the institutionalization of ROC-Philippine relations can truly assure the rights of our fishermen.
「廣大興」事件落幕的喜與憂
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.11 02:46 am
廣大興二十八號喋血事件，在外交部的努力穿梭下，菲律賓政府對我方所提出的四大要求作出善意回應，我國則解除對菲國的十一項經濟制裁。至此，延燒三個多月的台菲事件總算暫告一段落，而漫長的司法究責才要開始。
綜觀台菲事件的發展至今，有兩喜兩憂。喜的是，我們的交涉，取得了較以往更具體且重大的突破；憂的是，菲國內部仍存在一些變數，可能影響最後的結果。
先談可喜的部分。誠如琉球鄉長蔡天裕所說，過去台灣有多少漁民遭到菲律賓軍警射殺，而這是第一次能夠真正討回公道。在正式道歉方面，這次馬尼拉經濟文化辦事處培瑞斯帶著菲律賓總統艾奎諾的正式授權，包括「令人動容」的親筆信，向洪石城家屬表達了菲國最深的歉意。在賠償金方面，台菲雙方雖簽訂保密協議，但據稱菲政府所提的賠償金額堪稱史上「天價」。可見，以往對我抱持敷衍的菲國政府，已展現解決問題的誠意。
與菲國處理二○一○年香港人質射殺事件的不了了之相比，這次的廣大興事件，我國也得到菲國更多的具體承諾。在懲凶方面，雖然菲律賓國家調查局認定菲海巡員槍擊洪石成屬於「意外」，並非有故意殺人之意圖，但仍建議以「一般殺人罪」起訴八名開槍的海巡員。至於在漁業協議方面，菲國政府保證今後將避免在海上執勤使用武力，同時台菲兩國也同意將於一個月內啟動雙邊漁業談判。亦即，先前企圖將此事件輕輕放下的菲國司法單位，似已展現積極調查的決心。
依目前事件的發展，我國政府所要求的四項要件，「道歉」和「賠償」兩項已經完成；至於「懲凶」及「啟動漁業協議談判」，則有待後續觀察和努力。對洪家來說，廣大興事件已經結束；但對政府來說，台菲兩國的制度化談判卻才要開始。
在我國解除對菲經濟制裁之後，態度一向反覆不定的菲國政府，在擺脫制裁之重擔之後，其司法體系是否能夠持續貫徹懲凶的決心，其政府是否有釜底抽薪的誠意談判台菲漁業糾紛問題，仍不容我們掉以輕心。原因有二：
其一，是菲國司法的泛政治化現象。菲調查局雖建議以「殺人罪」起訴八名開槍的海巡人員，但此項「建議」最後是否被菲國法院接受，仍在未定之天。以香港人質事件為例，當時的調查報告認定馬尼拉副市長莫雷諾在槍案關鍵時刻離開現場，應以「怠忽職守」罪起訴；但在馬拉坎南宮的壓力下，最後卻被菲國法院所否決。我政府務必持續關注菲司法部門的行動，以達到嚴懲凶手的目的。
其二，是菲國一般民意傾向偏袒其海巡員。菲調查局的調查報告出爐後，在菲國內引起極大的反彈，認為報告嚴重打擊海巡隊員士氣，菲海防隊也誓言捍衛這八名海防隊員的權益，並有兩位菲大學教授挺身願為他們義務辯護。在這種情況下，一向懂得利用民氣的艾奎諾總統，是否會以其他藉口推遲台菲漁業談判，值得關注。
對照三個月前菲政府對此案表現的輕佻敷衍，如今卻發表「感人肺腑」的言論，艾奎諾總統態度的偌大轉變，除了礙於我方所祭出的十一項經濟制裁外，另一重要因素，是美國政府的壓力。
在美國實施「亞洲再平衡」政策之後，菲律賓的戰略地位重新獲得美國青睞，因此，美國的支持便成為艾奎諾強勢外交的最大倚恃。但在台菲事件衝突升高之際，讓中國大陸海軍的力量找到進入南海的藉口，同時也找到兩岸軍事聯手的理由，這是美國最不願意看到的現象。也因為如此，美國態度轉向介入，要求菲國節制，自然也讓艾奎諾的一身傲氣頓失所倚。由此可見，這次台菲事件是台灣善用外交策略、借力使力爭取國家最大利益的明證。
廣大興事件順利落幕固然可喜，但我們要保持哀矜勿喜，因為後續的司法審判及漁業談判，才是今後台菲關係制度化的關鍵。也唯有落實台菲關係的制度化，政府才能真正成為漁民後盾。
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
An Unrepresentative Legislature Has Become a Potemkin Village
An Unrepresentative Legislature Has Become a Potemkin Village
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 9, 2013
Summary: Ruling and opposition party consultation mechanisms in the legislature must be improved. Legislators must be more capable and experienced. The influence of professional legislators must be increased. Only this can increase the quality of legislation. This includes the role of the Premier. He must maintain procedural harmony. He must demand more from democracy. After all, if a legislature cannot function, the nation has lost one of its mainstays. The legislature has lost its representative role. Such a legislature is nothing more than a Potemkin Village.
Full text below:
The second emergency session of the legislature has hastily adjourned. It addressed the Kuang Ta Hsing case and passed the Fisheries Act. It addressed the Hung Chung-chiu case and amended the Military Justice Act. It also passed a handful of Organizational Acts. The referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant and TISA attracted much public attention. The opposition DPP forcibly occupied the podium. The ruling KMT chose to leave the battlefield and end the session. The legislature has become nothing more than a "town hall meeting." It has demeaned its own role at the heart of the political process, and relagated itself to the political margins.
The last few sessions of the legislature have left the public with two impressions. One. The legislature remains mire in endless struggle. When the opposition encounters a bill it dislikes, it forcibly occupies the podium or the entire hall. It shuts down any and all legislative business. The ruling party is impotent against such tactics. Two. The legislature has no shortage of "smoke filled backrooms." Legislators achieve nothing during the legislative process. But they achieve plenty during secret negotiations in smoke filled backrooms. Bills are like meat being sold at the wet markets. They are put on the chopping block and sold according to weight.
Ruling and opposition party legislators may be oblivious to all this. But such scenes of willful decadence have reduced the legislature from a starring role to a bit player, from an opinion leader to an opinion follower. The public now despise the legislature. Think about it. In the past, important constitutional amendments, environmental protection bills, and economic development bills were passed within the halls of the legislature. The two sides debated the issues. Together, they formulated policy. But how long has it been since the legislature has led public opinion, set the agenda, or stimulated our imaginations?
The legislature's silence and decline is the result of several factors. One. Legislators are mediocre. Their quality has declined. Changes in the electoral system and Blue vs. Green confrontation have displaced rational politics. Mediocrities and extremists hold sway. A deterioration in the quality of legislation is inevitable. Legislators no longer have the ability to discern right from wrong. The principle of "The minority defers to the majority, the majority respects the minority" is ignored. Instead "The majority defers to the minority, and the minority brings everything to a grinding halt." Because the opposition cannot offer rational arguments, it stops the proceedings. Taiwan's democracy has become an international joke. People's ballots have become pieces of waste paper.
Two. The ruling KMT has lost its will and cohesiveness. The KMT commands an absolute majority in the legislature. Yet on individual issues, the ruling party is unable to control its legislators. Many Blue Camp legislators have personal interests in mind. They are indifferent to central government decision-making. The executive branch must defer to ruling party legislators, but they do not trust them. Ruling KMT legislators lack any sense of participation in policy making. This results in a serious disconnect between policy implementation and legislation. The "ruling party" in the legislature rules in name only.
Three. Ruling and opposition party consultation is subject to abuse. The legalization of consultation mechanisms has led to the settling of ruling and opposition party disputes through interparty negotiations, rather than policy debate. In fact, opposition DPP obstructionism is often merely a ploy to gain an edge during backroom negotiations. As a result, proper procedures are cast aside, and a handful of people settle everything under the table. This is not representative democracy, but oligopoly.
The abuse of consultation mechanisms have another effect. It undermines legislative professionalism. A democratic legislature requires experienced professional legislators. They play an important role in the legislative process. But a system of "consultation on everything" overturns the opinions of professional legislators. Such legislators do not command the same attention as demagogues who engage in histrionics. As a result they retreat from the battlefield and resign themselves to "responding to current events." None of this is surprising.
People accuse the president and executive branch of incompetence. But they must acknowledge that much of the problem originates in the legislative branch of government. Think about it. The legislature rushed through a Military Justice Bill just days after the incident erupted. The National Security Law was amended with inadequate deliberation, and rushed through a Third Reading. The referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant should have been debated. TISA, pension reform, and the bond bill were all shelved without any debate. How can such a legislature serve the nation? Today's legislature neither debates policy nor authors legislation. It does not even cultivate political leaders. How can such a legislature have any expectations of itself?
To enhance the function of government, the ruling party must increase coordination with the government. It must expand participation in policy making. Party legislators must be made part of the decision-making process. Only this can win their support in the legislature. Ruling and opposition party consultation mechanisms in the legislature must be improved. Legislators must be more capable and experienced. The influence of professional legislators must be increased. Only this can increase the quality of legislation. This includes the role of the Premier. He must maintain procedural harmony. He must demand more from democracy. After all, if a legislature cannot function, the nation has lost one of its mainstays. The legislature has lost its representative role. Such a legislature is nothing more than a Potemkin Village.
失去代議功能，國會已淪為政治花瓶
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.09 01:36 am
立法院第二次臨時會草草落幕，除了因應「廣大興案」而通過的漁業法，及因應「洪仲丘案」而翻修的軍事審判法，僅通過了幾個零星的組織法。至於全民關注的「核四公投」及「服貿協議」，則以在野黨霸占議場、而執政黨棄守戰場作收。立法院成為不折不扣的「時事回應院」，也讓自己的角色從政治核心退到邊緣。
從近幾個會期的表現看，立法院留給民眾的印象只有兩個：其一，是永無止盡的議事抗爭。在野黨遇到有意見的法案，就以攻占主席台或霸占議場杯葛，讓議事功能完全停擺；而占國會多數的執政黨，則對此完全無能為力。其二，是「密室分贓」。立委在立法及議事上缺乏表現，卻透過朝野密室協商各取所需；法案有如菜市場的豬肉，被放在砧板上稱斤論兩。
朝野立委或許毫無自覺，但這種自甘墮落的景象，已使國會從過去「政治發動機」的角色不斷自我邊緣化，從過去「領導民意」退化為被「民意推著走」，甚至到了被民意「鄙視」的地步。試想，以往各種修憲、環保、經濟發展等重大議題，都是在國會殿堂發動，經過正反雙方的論戰，才形成為政策；而如今，人們何曾見到立院還有引領風騷、創造議題、激盪想像的能力？
立法院的沉寂和沉淪，可歸結為幾個因素：第一、是立委的平庸化及民主素養的下降。由於選制的變化及藍綠對峙的形成，排擠了理性問政空間，平庸和偏激之士反而勝出，立法品質劣化是必然趨勢。在無法憑論戰一較高低的情況下，「少數服從多數，多數尊重少數」的原則便不再受到尊重，而演成「多數服從少數，少數杯葛一切」。因為無法辯論，所以就杯葛議事，不僅讓台灣的民主變成國際笑話，人民的選票也如同廢紙。
第二、是執政黨意志及凝聚力的散失。國民黨在國會雖占絕對多數，但在個別議題上，主政者卻往往無法號令黨籍立委；許多藍委因個人利益的考量，對中央決策表現得無心無力。行政部門對執政黨立委只有尊重而無信任，執政黨立委對政策缺乏參與感，使得「行政」和「立法」部門嚴重脫節，「執政黨」在立院徒具虛名。
第三、是朝野協商機制被濫用。協商機制的法制化，使得各項朝野爭端都透過協商、而非政策辯論解決。事實上，在野黨發動許多杯葛，都只是為了能在協商密室裡爭得更多籌碼；於是，正當的議事手段被捨棄，卻讓少數人隻手決定一切。這已不是民主代議，而是寡頭壟斷。
協商機制濫用的另一個影響，是對立法專業的斲傷。一個民主國會，各專業委員會和資深、專業型的立委理應在立法過程裡扮演重要角色；但在「事事皆協商」下，往往輕易推翻委員會和專業立委的意見。因專業立委不如表演型立委受到重視，立委退化到以「回應時事」作為主戰場，也就不足為奇了。
在人們指責總統及行政部門失能時，不能不注意到此一現象其實有很大部分是立法部門的失能所造成。試想，立法院在短短數日匆匆決定軍事審判法、國安法的修法方向，來不及深思便火速三讀；而原本應該要討論的核四公投、服貿協議乃至年金改革、公債法等卻被束諸高閣，不容有討論的機會；這樣的立法院，如何有利於國家？今天的國會，既無政策討論的功能，也幾無主動產出法案的作用，甚至連培植政治菁英的功能都已喪失；這樣的立法院，如何自我期待？
要提升政府職能，執政黨必須加強黨政協調，擴大政策參與，把黨籍立委視為決策團隊的一分子，才能爭取他們在立法院的支持。國會的朝野協商機制必須設法改善，加強委員會功能及資深、專業立委的影響力，才能提升議事品質及立法水準。包括立法院長角色的拿捏，在維持「議事和諧」之外，要有更高的民主追求。畢竟，一個連會議都無法進行的國會，已喪失了國家支柱的角色；而失去了代議功能，立法院恐怕也只是裝飾民主的花瓶了！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 9, 2013
Summary: Ruling and opposition party consultation mechanisms in the legislature must be improved. Legislators must be more capable and experienced. The influence of professional legislators must be increased. Only this can increase the quality of legislation. This includes the role of the Premier. He must maintain procedural harmony. He must demand more from democracy. After all, if a legislature cannot function, the nation has lost one of its mainstays. The legislature has lost its representative role. Such a legislature is nothing more than a Potemkin Village.
Full text below:
The second emergency session of the legislature has hastily adjourned. It addressed the Kuang Ta Hsing case and passed the Fisheries Act. It addressed the Hung Chung-chiu case and amended the Military Justice Act. It also passed a handful of Organizational Acts. The referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant and TISA attracted much public attention. The opposition DPP forcibly occupied the podium. The ruling KMT chose to leave the battlefield and end the session. The legislature has become nothing more than a "town hall meeting." It has demeaned its own role at the heart of the political process, and relagated itself to the political margins.
The last few sessions of the legislature have left the public with two impressions. One. The legislature remains mire in endless struggle. When the opposition encounters a bill it dislikes, it forcibly occupies the podium or the entire hall. It shuts down any and all legislative business. The ruling party is impotent against such tactics. Two. The legislature has no shortage of "smoke filled backrooms." Legislators achieve nothing during the legislative process. But they achieve plenty during secret negotiations in smoke filled backrooms. Bills are like meat being sold at the wet markets. They are put on the chopping block and sold according to weight.
Ruling and opposition party legislators may be oblivious to all this. But such scenes of willful decadence have reduced the legislature from a starring role to a bit player, from an opinion leader to an opinion follower. The public now despise the legislature. Think about it. In the past, important constitutional amendments, environmental protection bills, and economic development bills were passed within the halls of the legislature. The two sides debated the issues. Together, they formulated policy. But how long has it been since the legislature has led public opinion, set the agenda, or stimulated our imaginations?
The legislature's silence and decline is the result of several factors. One. Legislators are mediocre. Their quality has declined. Changes in the electoral system and Blue vs. Green confrontation have displaced rational politics. Mediocrities and extremists hold sway. A deterioration in the quality of legislation is inevitable. Legislators no longer have the ability to discern right from wrong. The principle of "The minority defers to the majority, the majority respects the minority" is ignored. Instead "The majority defers to the minority, and the minority brings everything to a grinding halt." Because the opposition cannot offer rational arguments, it stops the proceedings. Taiwan's democracy has become an international joke. People's ballots have become pieces of waste paper.
Two. The ruling KMT has lost its will and cohesiveness. The KMT commands an absolute majority in the legislature. Yet on individual issues, the ruling party is unable to control its legislators. Many Blue Camp legislators have personal interests in mind. They are indifferent to central government decision-making. The executive branch must defer to ruling party legislators, but they do not trust them. Ruling KMT legislators lack any sense of participation in policy making. This results in a serious disconnect between policy implementation and legislation. The "ruling party" in the legislature rules in name only.
Three. Ruling and opposition party consultation is subject to abuse. The legalization of consultation mechanisms has led to the settling of ruling and opposition party disputes through interparty negotiations, rather than policy debate. In fact, opposition DPP obstructionism is often merely a ploy to gain an edge during backroom negotiations. As a result, proper procedures are cast aside, and a handful of people settle everything under the table. This is not representative democracy, but oligopoly.
The abuse of consultation mechanisms have another effect. It undermines legislative professionalism. A democratic legislature requires experienced professional legislators. They play an important role in the legislative process. But a system of "consultation on everything" overturns the opinions of professional legislators. Such legislators do not command the same attention as demagogues who engage in histrionics. As a result they retreat from the battlefield and resign themselves to "responding to current events." None of this is surprising.
People accuse the president and executive branch of incompetence. But they must acknowledge that much of the problem originates in the legislative branch of government. Think about it. The legislature rushed through a Military Justice Bill just days after the incident erupted. The National Security Law was amended with inadequate deliberation, and rushed through a Third Reading. The referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant should have been debated. TISA, pension reform, and the bond bill were all shelved without any debate. How can such a legislature serve the nation? Today's legislature neither debates policy nor authors legislation. It does not even cultivate political leaders. How can such a legislature have any expectations of itself?
To enhance the function of government, the ruling party must increase coordination with the government. It must expand participation in policy making. Party legislators must be made part of the decision-making process. Only this can win their support in the legislature. Ruling and opposition party consultation mechanisms in the legislature must be improved. Legislators must be more capable and experienced. The influence of professional legislators must be increased. Only this can increase the quality of legislation. This includes the role of the Premier. He must maintain procedural harmony. He must demand more from democracy. After all, if a legislature cannot function, the nation has lost one of its mainstays. The legislature has lost its representative role. Such a legislature is nothing more than a Potemkin Village.
失去代議功能，國會已淪為政治花瓶
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.09 01:36 am
立法院第二次臨時會草草落幕，除了因應「廣大興案」而通過的漁業法，及因應「洪仲丘案」而翻修的軍事審判法，僅通過了幾個零星的組織法。至於全民關注的「核四公投」及「服貿協議」，則以在野黨霸占議場、而執政黨棄守戰場作收。立法院成為不折不扣的「時事回應院」，也讓自己的角色從政治核心退到邊緣。
從近幾個會期的表現看，立法院留給民眾的印象只有兩個：其一，是永無止盡的議事抗爭。在野黨遇到有意見的法案，就以攻占主席台或霸占議場杯葛，讓議事功能完全停擺；而占國會多數的執政黨，則對此完全無能為力。其二，是「密室分贓」。立委在立法及議事上缺乏表現，卻透過朝野密室協商各取所需；法案有如菜市場的豬肉，被放在砧板上稱斤論兩。
朝野立委或許毫無自覺，但這種自甘墮落的景象，已使國會從過去「政治發動機」的角色不斷自我邊緣化，從過去「領導民意」退化為被「民意推著走」，甚至到了被民意「鄙視」的地步。試想，以往各種修憲、環保、經濟發展等重大議題，都是在國會殿堂發動，經過正反雙方的論戰，才形成為政策；而如今，人們何曾見到立院還有引領風騷、創造議題、激盪想像的能力？
立法院的沉寂和沉淪，可歸結為幾個因素：第一、是立委的平庸化及民主素養的下降。由於選制的變化及藍綠對峙的形成，排擠了理性問政空間，平庸和偏激之士反而勝出，立法品質劣化是必然趨勢。在無法憑論戰一較高低的情況下，「少數服從多數，多數尊重少數」的原則便不再受到尊重，而演成「多數服從少數，少數杯葛一切」。因為無法辯論，所以就杯葛議事，不僅讓台灣的民主變成國際笑話，人民的選票也如同廢紙。
第二、是執政黨意志及凝聚力的散失。國民黨在國會雖占絕對多數，但在個別議題上，主政者卻往往無法號令黨籍立委；許多藍委因個人利益的考量，對中央決策表現得無心無力。行政部門對執政黨立委只有尊重而無信任，執政黨立委對政策缺乏參與感，使得「行政」和「立法」部門嚴重脫節，「執政黨」在立院徒具虛名。
第三、是朝野協商機制被濫用。協商機制的法制化，使得各項朝野爭端都透過協商、而非政策辯論解決。事實上，在野黨發動許多杯葛，都只是為了能在協商密室裡爭得更多籌碼；於是，正當的議事手段被捨棄，卻讓少數人隻手決定一切。這已不是民主代議，而是寡頭壟斷。
協商機制濫用的另一個影響，是對立法專業的斲傷。一個民主國會，各專業委員會和資深、專業型的立委理應在立法過程裡扮演重要角色；但在「事事皆協商」下，往往輕易推翻委員會和專業立委的意見。因專業立委不如表演型立委受到重視，立委退化到以「回應時事」作為主戰場，也就不足為奇了。
在人們指責總統及行政部門失能時，不能不注意到此一現象其實有很大部分是立法部門的失能所造成。試想，立法院在短短數日匆匆決定軍事審判法、國安法的修法方向，來不及深思便火速三讀；而原本應該要討論的核四公投、服貿協議乃至年金改革、公債法等卻被束諸高閣，不容有討論的機會；這樣的立法院，如何有利於國家？今天的國會，既無政策討論的功能，也幾無主動產出法案的作用，甚至連培植政治菁英的功能都已喪失；這樣的立法院，如何自我期待？
要提升政府職能，執政黨必須加強黨政協調，擴大政策參與，把黨籍立委視為決策團隊的一分子，才能爭取他們在立法院的支持。國會的朝野協商機制必須設法改善，加強委員會功能及資深、專業立委的影響力，才能提升議事品質及立法水準。包括立法院長角色的拿捏，在維持「議事和諧」之外，要有更高的民主追求。畢竟，一個連會議都無法進行的國會，已喪失了國家支柱的角色；而失去了代議功能，立法院恐怕也只是裝飾民主的花瓶了！
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Fixing Broken Windows: Turning One's Cheek Will Not Win Respect
Fixing Broken Windows: Turning One's Cheek Will Not Win Respect
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 8, 2013
Summary: President Ma has gone from yesterday's charismatic leader to today's embattled leader. Part of the problem is the gap between his self image and public perception. He imagines that turning the other cheek will win respect. This is pure self-delusion. He must first repair the broken windows of his own image. He must change his low-key, passive style, and his habit of fixating on trivialities. He must demonstrate the ability to see what is important, to champion what he believes, and to stand his ground when required. Only then can he to motivate his colleagues in the ruling administration to fight on, shoulder to shoulder.
Full text below:
In one short week, two defense ministers have stepped down. A military justice bill, denounced as "slapdash law-making," has been hastily passed. Two hundred thousand people have gathered at Ketegelan Boulevard in protest. Ma administration crisis management in the Hung Chung-chi case merely made matters worse. The erosion of military discipline is not the only concern. The bigger question is whether the government as a whole can function normally and provide effective leadership for the ROC.
Andrew Yang was in office only six days before he was forced to resign over accusations of plagiarism. These disputes may be military infighting. They may be Blue vs. Green ideological struggles. Either way, they expose the hasty hiring and equally hasty firing of personnel by the Ma administration. The accusations of plagiarism have been around for years. They were confirmed recently. President Ma and Premier Chiang may have been unaware. But they should have exercised more caution. They should have consulted elders familiar with the military subculture. Had they done so, they would not have embarrassed themselves by appointing a "man of letters" minister who would be forced to step down in six days.
Andrew Yang has resigned over charges of plagiarism. Kao Hua-chu was forced to resign over the Hung Chung-chiu case. Which case was more serious? Today it is difficult to tell. The Ma administration is already caught in a vicious cycle known as the "broken windows theory." When President Ma's popularity began to slip, the administration was unable to halt the slide. Today, an endless string of tiny mistakes has added up to one giant mistake. Now anyone can complain about the government. Now anyone can throw stones and break windows. When the government gets blamed for everything under the sun, its reputation becomes increasingly difficult to redeem. The more difficulty the Ma administration encounters, the darker the prospects are for Taiwan. This is the real cause for concern.
In a normal democracy, each agency performs its duties. Political appointees make policy. Career civil servants execute policy. This is the politics of responsibility. On today's Taiwan however, the public has become accustomed to blaming President Ma for everything that goes wrong. This is not entirely fair. The problem is that President Ma has become accustomed to meddling in all affairs, large or small, He does not know where to draw the line. He unwittingly fulfills the public's worst expectations. He also pulls the rug out from under his political appointees, undermining their ability to assume responsibility.
Recently scholars have criticized the Ma administration, saying that its "cabinet ministers are like passers-by." This is why. The more presidential prestige declines, the more ministerial morale erodes, and the more President Ma's political appointees distance themselves from him. When the president meddles in specialize matters beyond his purview, he leaves those in charge at a loss. He disrupts their affairs. This vicious cycle makes it more difficult for the government to meet public expectations. The handling of the Hung Chung-chiu case forced the administration to retreat, again and again. The process was like flood waters breaching a dike. President Ma must change his "failing to see the forest for the trees" governing style. He must rebuild adminstration morale at the systemic level. He must encourage ministries to exercise initiative. Otherwise his chances of restoring the prestige of his administration during the remainder of the term are slim to none.
If this was a golden era of peace, Ma Ying-jeou's low-keyed, gentlemanly, turn the other cheek manner might be worthy of praise. But today's Taiwan lacks consensus. Its society is divided. Its economy is stagnant. Its system is undergoing transition. Under such conditions the president's low-keyed manner comes across as incompetent. His soft-spoken manner comes across as gutless. His habit of apologizing for everything and "turning the other cheek" make it difficult to uphold the nation's dignity. Put bluntly, President Ma has conflated his personal mannerisms with the duties of a head of state. He may think the former trumps the latter. This has led to government decision-making disasters. Yet he remain utterly oblivious.
President Ma's approval rating has been on the decline for some time. Yet he shows no signs of wanting to turn the tide. Instead, he often displays an "I'm living the dream!" attitude. To the public, these are danger signs. They show that he is out of touch with reality. In recent years, the duties of many administration officials, of cabinet members, have been seriously constrained. For example, the Minister of Economic Affairs appears to have only two tasks: the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, and TISA. The COA appears to have only one task: dealing with epidemics. New political appointees from academia have been charged with "care for the elderly," a field utterly outside their specialty. Such appointments have upset the government's operational structure. This includes the Presidential Office Secretary-General, whose expertise is in diplomacy. He has no experience in government to party coordination and communication. Never mind such bungled appointments as Lin Yi-shi or Lai Shu-ru. These show what a poor a judge of character Ma is. President Ma must rehabilitate his administration. He must cease using inferior material for the pillars of his edifice. Otherwise, the government's image will be in tatters.
President Ma has gone from yesterday's charismatic leader to today's embattled leader. Part of the problem is the gap between his self image and public perception. He imagines that turning the other cheek will win respect. This is pure self-delusion. He must first repair the broken windows of his own image. He must change his low-key, passive style, and his habit of fixating on trivialities. He must demonstrate the ability to see what is important, to champion what he believes, and to stand his ground when required. Only then can he to motivate his colleagues in the ruling administration to fight on, shoulder to shoulder.
補破窗：唾面自乾的政府無法贏得尊重
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.08 03:07 am
短短一個星期，垮掉兩名國防部長，通過一個被批為「草率修法」的軍審法，廿萬人湧上凱道怒吼。馬政府對洪仲丘案的危機處理，越補越漏；令人擔心的已不只是軍心軍紀的流失，而是整個政府是否還能正常運作有效領導台灣？
楊念祖上任僅六日即因抄襲案下台，無論其中涉及的是軍中內鬥或藍綠之爭，都暴露草率任命和輕率去職是馬政府用人的病灶所在。抄襲事件發生多年，近日才被揭發，馬總統及江揆或許無從知曉此事；然而，只要事前多用點心，向熟悉軍中生態的前輩稍稍徵詢，應不致天真到去任命一個連六天都撐不過的文人部長，讓政府形象跟著慘賠。
楊念祖為抄襲案去職，比起高華柱因洪仲丘案下台，兩者究竟孰輕孰重，如今已無從比較。原因是，馬政府目前已經陷於「破窗理論」所描述的惡性循環：在馬總統聲望開始下跌時，整個政府團隊未能及時積極修補；以至於今，一次次的小錯再積累成大錯，乃至什麼人都可以隨便向這個政府丟石頭砸窗子。在動輒得咎的情況下，政府的頹勢將越發難以挽回；而馬政府越難施展，台灣前景也就越不樂觀，這才是真正令人擔心的事。
在一個正常的民主國家，應該是各個部門各司其職，政務官負決策責任，事務官負執行責任，這才是責任政治。今天在台灣，民眾似乎越來越習慣將一切錯誤都歸咎馬總統，這其實未盡公平。問題是，當馬總統也越來越習慣插手任何大小事務，他的分際不明，不僅坐實外界對他的指責，也可能破壞政務官的積極性，損毀了責任政治的基本精神。
最近，有學者批評「內閣閣員像路人」，其中原由，正在於此。總統聲望愈低，閣員愈是喪失鬥志，愈希望和他保持距離；而總統插手非其專業之議題，又導致主事部會無所適從，反而愈容易僨事。在這樣的惡性循環下，政府的表現即越難符合人民期待；洪仲丘案的處理一退再退，有如洪水決堤，就是一個鮮明的例子。如果馬總統不能改變自己「抓小放大」的瑣碎作風，從體制源頭將政府團隊追求作為的士氣激發出來，並鼓勵各部會積極施展，他在剩餘任期想要重振威望的機會只怕極渺茫。
如果是處在承平年代，馬英九的低調、柔軟、溫厚、忍辱負重等風格，可能會是受到讚揚的美德；然而，台灣正處在一個共識破碎、社會分歧、經濟停滯、轉型困難的掙扎年代，總統的低調便顯得無能，柔軟和溫厚便顯得缺乏魄力，而他凡事道歉「唾面自乾」的馬氏修養，卻也常導致政府和國家的榮耀無法維持。說得直接一些，馬總統把「個人修養」和「元首角色」混為一談，甚至將前者看得比後者重要，這一再造成政府決策顛躓的災難，他卻無法自覺。
老實說，馬總統的民意支持度長期低迷，但人們卻看不出他有力挽狂瀾的意圖，甚且常常表現出「自我感覺良好」的態度；在民眾看來，這都是與現實脫節的危險訊號。僅看近年政府團隊的部署，許多閣員的功能都被嚴重單一化，例如：經濟部長彷彿只有核四和服貿溝通兩項任務，農委會窮於對付疫情，新進的學者政委只是為了非其專長的「長照」；這樣的人事任命，都讓政府的運作架構變得單薄失重且失衡。包括總統府祕書長所專長的外交，其實對黨政協調或府院溝通毫無助益；更別提林益世或賴素如的任命，印證了多麼缺乏識人之明。馬總統如果不能好好整建他的團隊班底，劣材竟當成棟樑，政府的決策和形象怎能不百孔千瘡？
馬總統從一個魅力領袖陷入今天的四面楚歌，恐怕和他對自己的角色認知與社會之期待發生嚴重落差有關；以為唾面自乾可以贏得尊重，完全是自欺欺人。他必須先把自己形象的破窗補起來，改變自己低調、無為、瑣碎的作風，展現抓大政、有主張、不畏怯的身段；那樣，才能激勵執政團隊的同僚一起奮發。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 8, 2013
Summary: President Ma has gone from yesterday's charismatic leader to today's embattled leader. Part of the problem is the gap between his self image and public perception. He imagines that turning the other cheek will win respect. This is pure self-delusion. He must first repair the broken windows of his own image. He must change his low-key, passive style, and his habit of fixating on trivialities. He must demonstrate the ability to see what is important, to champion what he believes, and to stand his ground when required. Only then can he to motivate his colleagues in the ruling administration to fight on, shoulder to shoulder.
Full text below:
In one short week, two defense ministers have stepped down. A military justice bill, denounced as "slapdash law-making," has been hastily passed. Two hundred thousand people have gathered at Ketegelan Boulevard in protest. Ma administration crisis management in the Hung Chung-chi case merely made matters worse. The erosion of military discipline is not the only concern. The bigger question is whether the government as a whole can function normally and provide effective leadership for the ROC.
Andrew Yang was in office only six days before he was forced to resign over accusations of plagiarism. These disputes may be military infighting. They may be Blue vs. Green ideological struggles. Either way, they expose the hasty hiring and equally hasty firing of personnel by the Ma administration. The accusations of plagiarism have been around for years. They were confirmed recently. President Ma and Premier Chiang may have been unaware. But they should have exercised more caution. They should have consulted elders familiar with the military subculture. Had they done so, they would not have embarrassed themselves by appointing a "man of letters" minister who would be forced to step down in six days.
Andrew Yang has resigned over charges of plagiarism. Kao Hua-chu was forced to resign over the Hung Chung-chiu case. Which case was more serious? Today it is difficult to tell. The Ma administration is already caught in a vicious cycle known as the "broken windows theory." When President Ma's popularity began to slip, the administration was unable to halt the slide. Today, an endless string of tiny mistakes has added up to one giant mistake. Now anyone can complain about the government. Now anyone can throw stones and break windows. When the government gets blamed for everything under the sun, its reputation becomes increasingly difficult to redeem. The more difficulty the Ma administration encounters, the darker the prospects are for Taiwan. This is the real cause for concern.
In a normal democracy, each agency performs its duties. Political appointees make policy. Career civil servants execute policy. This is the politics of responsibility. On today's Taiwan however, the public has become accustomed to blaming President Ma for everything that goes wrong. This is not entirely fair. The problem is that President Ma has become accustomed to meddling in all affairs, large or small, He does not know where to draw the line. He unwittingly fulfills the public's worst expectations. He also pulls the rug out from under his political appointees, undermining their ability to assume responsibility.
Recently scholars have criticized the Ma administration, saying that its "cabinet ministers are like passers-by." This is why. The more presidential prestige declines, the more ministerial morale erodes, and the more President Ma's political appointees distance themselves from him. When the president meddles in specialize matters beyond his purview, he leaves those in charge at a loss. He disrupts their affairs. This vicious cycle makes it more difficult for the government to meet public expectations. The handling of the Hung Chung-chiu case forced the administration to retreat, again and again. The process was like flood waters breaching a dike. President Ma must change his "failing to see the forest for the trees" governing style. He must rebuild adminstration morale at the systemic level. He must encourage ministries to exercise initiative. Otherwise his chances of restoring the prestige of his administration during the remainder of the term are slim to none.
If this was a golden era of peace, Ma Ying-jeou's low-keyed, gentlemanly, turn the other cheek manner might be worthy of praise. But today's Taiwan lacks consensus. Its society is divided. Its economy is stagnant. Its system is undergoing transition. Under such conditions the president's low-keyed manner comes across as incompetent. His soft-spoken manner comes across as gutless. His habit of apologizing for everything and "turning the other cheek" make it difficult to uphold the nation's dignity. Put bluntly, President Ma has conflated his personal mannerisms with the duties of a head of state. He may think the former trumps the latter. This has led to government decision-making disasters. Yet he remain utterly oblivious.
President Ma's approval rating has been on the decline for some time. Yet he shows no signs of wanting to turn the tide. Instead, he often displays an "I'm living the dream!" attitude. To the public, these are danger signs. They show that he is out of touch with reality. In recent years, the duties of many administration officials, of cabinet members, have been seriously constrained. For example, the Minister of Economic Affairs appears to have only two tasks: the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, and TISA. The COA appears to have only one task: dealing with epidemics. New political appointees from academia have been charged with "care for the elderly," a field utterly outside their specialty. Such appointments have upset the government's operational structure. This includes the Presidential Office Secretary-General, whose expertise is in diplomacy. He has no experience in government to party coordination and communication. Never mind such bungled appointments as Lin Yi-shi or Lai Shu-ru. These show what a poor a judge of character Ma is. President Ma must rehabilitate his administration. He must cease using inferior material for the pillars of his edifice. Otherwise, the government's image will be in tatters.
President Ma has gone from yesterday's charismatic leader to today's embattled leader. Part of the problem is the gap between his self image and public perception. He imagines that turning the other cheek will win respect. This is pure self-delusion. He must first repair the broken windows of his own image. He must change his low-key, passive style, and his habit of fixating on trivialities. He must demonstrate the ability to see what is important, to champion what he believes, and to stand his ground when required. Only then can he to motivate his colleagues in the ruling administration to fight on, shoulder to shoulder.
補破窗：唾面自乾的政府無法贏得尊重
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.08 03:07 am
短短一個星期，垮掉兩名國防部長，通過一個被批為「草率修法」的軍審法，廿萬人湧上凱道怒吼。馬政府對洪仲丘案的危機處理，越補越漏；令人擔心的已不只是軍心軍紀的流失，而是整個政府是否還能正常運作有效領導台灣？
楊念祖上任僅六日即因抄襲案下台，無論其中涉及的是軍中內鬥或藍綠之爭，都暴露草率任命和輕率去職是馬政府用人的病灶所在。抄襲事件發生多年，近日才被揭發，馬總統及江揆或許無從知曉此事；然而，只要事前多用點心，向熟悉軍中生態的前輩稍稍徵詢，應不致天真到去任命一個連六天都撐不過的文人部長，讓政府形象跟著慘賠。
楊念祖為抄襲案去職，比起高華柱因洪仲丘案下台，兩者究竟孰輕孰重，如今已無從比較。原因是，馬政府目前已經陷於「破窗理論」所描述的惡性循環：在馬總統聲望開始下跌時，整個政府團隊未能及時積極修補；以至於今，一次次的小錯再積累成大錯，乃至什麼人都可以隨便向這個政府丟石頭砸窗子。在動輒得咎的情況下，政府的頹勢將越發難以挽回；而馬政府越難施展，台灣前景也就越不樂觀，這才是真正令人擔心的事。
在一個正常的民主國家，應該是各個部門各司其職，政務官負決策責任，事務官負執行責任，這才是責任政治。今天在台灣，民眾似乎越來越習慣將一切錯誤都歸咎馬總統，這其實未盡公平。問題是，當馬總統也越來越習慣插手任何大小事務，他的分際不明，不僅坐實外界對他的指責，也可能破壞政務官的積極性，損毀了責任政治的基本精神。
最近，有學者批評「內閣閣員像路人」，其中原由，正在於此。總統聲望愈低，閣員愈是喪失鬥志，愈希望和他保持距離；而總統插手非其專業之議題，又導致主事部會無所適從，反而愈容易僨事。在這樣的惡性循環下，政府的表現即越難符合人民期待；洪仲丘案的處理一退再退，有如洪水決堤，就是一個鮮明的例子。如果馬總統不能改變自己「抓小放大」的瑣碎作風，從體制源頭將政府團隊追求作為的士氣激發出來，並鼓勵各部會積極施展，他在剩餘任期想要重振威望的機會只怕極渺茫。
如果是處在承平年代，馬英九的低調、柔軟、溫厚、忍辱負重等風格，可能會是受到讚揚的美德；然而，台灣正處在一個共識破碎、社會分歧、經濟停滯、轉型困難的掙扎年代，總統的低調便顯得無能，柔軟和溫厚便顯得缺乏魄力，而他凡事道歉「唾面自乾」的馬氏修養，卻也常導致政府和國家的榮耀無法維持。說得直接一些，馬總統把「個人修養」和「元首角色」混為一談，甚至將前者看得比後者重要，這一再造成政府決策顛躓的災難，他卻無法自覺。
老實說，馬總統的民意支持度長期低迷，但人們卻看不出他有力挽狂瀾的意圖，甚且常常表現出「自我感覺良好」的態度；在民眾看來，這都是與現實脫節的危險訊號。僅看近年政府團隊的部署，許多閣員的功能都被嚴重單一化，例如：經濟部長彷彿只有核四和服貿溝通兩項任務，農委會窮於對付疫情，新進的學者政委只是為了非其專長的「長照」；這樣的人事任命，都讓政府的運作架構變得單薄失重且失衡。包括總統府祕書長所專長的外交，其實對黨政協調或府院溝通毫無助益；更別提林益世或賴素如的任命，印證了多麼缺乏識人之明。馬總統如果不能好好整建他的團隊班底，劣材竟當成棟樑，政府的決策和形象怎能不百孔千瘡？
馬總統從一個魅力領袖陷入今天的四面楚歌，恐怕和他對自己的角色認知與社會之期待發生嚴重落差有關；以為唾面自乾可以贏得尊重，完全是自欺欺人。他必須先把自己形象的破窗補起來，改變自己低調、無為、瑣碎的作風，展現抓大政、有主張、不畏怯的身段；那樣，才能激勵執政團隊的同僚一起奮發。
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
How Can the Ma Administration Redeem Itself?
How Can the Ma Administration Redeem Itself?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 7, 2013
Summary: To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.
Full text below:
To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.
President Ma himself is honest and upright. His entire ruling team is also industrious, His cabinet members have worked hard. They have worked so hard that Premier Chiang told them, "It is time to take a break." What is one to make of the situation?
One cannot say that the administration has done nothing. During an internal KMT meeting, President Ma choked back tears. He spoke of ECFA, and of visa-free treatment from over one hundred countries. He could not understand the gap between his self image and public opinion. Premier Chiang Yi-hua underscored the need to make the public understand that the government is actually doing something. Obviously the administration is aware of and afraid of public discontent, and wants to do better.
The government has been doing something. But it has not done them right, or done them well. The long economic slump has led to accumulated grievances. Consider recent headlines. At times the people need the government, but the government appears indifferent. This happened during the Kuang Ta Hsing incident. At times the people do not need the government, but the government insists on meddling regardless. This happened during the Ta Pu case. At times the government may do something that affects the public, but fails to communicate in advance. This happened with TISA. The public may express disagreement, but feel it is being manipulated. This happened with the referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Such scenes have been reenacted again and again. People have certain expectations from government. They have placed their trust in public authority. But the government is often ahead of the curve at one moment, then behind the curve the next. As a result, it is perceived as incompetent.
The government is often incompetent. It works hard, but it fails to work well. It is often damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Often the more it does, the worse the results. A number of examples come to mind. One. It formulates the correct policy, but is terrified to come forth to defend it. This includes little things such as electricity rate hikes to reduce consumption. This are consistent with environmental principles, yet the government does not dare to defend it. This includes big things such as TISA. The government allowed opponents to shrilly denounce it. The ruling party was afraid to raise a peep. The government's failure to communicate in advance is one of its major failings. In fact, liberalization is both universal and inevitable. The government's ECDC agreement with New Zealand failed to meet public expectations regarding major Kiwifruit price cuts. Meanwhile, Shi Ya-ping defended TISA by arguing that beauty parlors would feel little impact. How can this style of governance win any respect? How can it convince the public that its policies are beneficial?
Two. The government makes the same mistake, over and over again. During the U.S. beef imports controversy, the government was wrong to make a commitment to the United States first, then communicate and consult with the legislature after the fact. During TISA negotiations, it made exactly the same mistake. It makes the same mistake over and over again. What's worse, it shirks responsibility and passes the buck. The recent conduct of the military is a good example. During Typhoon Morakot, it blamed inaccurate weather forecasts. The U.S. beef imports controversy was the result of the newly appointed Director of Health Yang Chi-liang's verbal gaffes. Government officials never admit "I made a mistake. I am responsible."
Three. As soon as the government feels any political heat, it changes its tune, and reverses its policy. This has virtually become a trademark of Ma administration decision-making. This happened with subsidies for elderly farmers, the capital gains tax, 12 year compulsory education, and the accounting farce in the legislature. All of them reveal a lack of a guiding principles in its decision-making. All of them reveal an unseemly eagerness to pander to mob sentiment.
Four. The government often fails to compromise on policy. It often favors certain special interest groups. Its pension reform favored civil service employees over labor. Its business tax cuts favored industry but allowed the treasury to suffer. Meanwhile, basic wages are raised by the price of a "hard boiled egg," and only after all manner of foot-dragging. This uneven distribution of wealth is a major source of resentment. The government's decision-making lacks coherence. No wonder the public always feel that the government is robbing the poor to pay the rich.
In sum, the government does not dare to come forward and defend its policies. It repeats the same mistakes, over and over. It is indifferent to right and wrong. Whenever it encounters public resistance, it performs an about face. Whenever it changes its policy, it leaves the impression that it has caved in to special interest groups. This manner of governance has left us with an administration indifferent to right and wrong, and afraid to stick to its principles during the formulation and implementation of policy. Whenever a controversy arises, it runs for cover. How can such an administration not create chaos?
The government has been blasted so long and so hard it has lost confidence in itself. This is not good for the remaining three years of the Ma administration. We hope however, that the administration will try to pull itself together and govern well. Recently, during a White Shirts gathering on Ketegelan Boulevard, Premier Chiang Yi-hua made a public commitment to radical reform. This is a case of "better late than never." But it may restore some degree of public confidence. We hope the government will rid itself of its wooden image as soon as possible. We hope it will spring back into action, and demonstrate courage and wisdom. Only then can it redeem itself in the eyes of the public.
馬政府如何從倒地的民意中爬起來？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.07 01:28 am
馬政府近日處境，用「焦頭爛額」都不足以形容，其中又以馬總統本人的境況最窘。他的民意支持度持續下滑，竟然比卸任時「聲名狼藉」的陳水扁總統還低。在延燒的洪仲丘案中，馬總統不僅三番兩次低頭道歉，在走向洪仲丘告別式會場的短短路上頻遭民眾辱罵，他必然刻骨銘心；看在民眾眼裡，則更感不堪。
馬總統本人清廉自持，整個執政團隊也堪稱勤勞，閣員個個操勞到由江揆督促「該去休假」的地步。這種景況，孰令致之？
執政團隊當然不能說完全沒做事。馬總統在國民黨內座談時一度哽咽，細數有關簽署ＥＣＦＡ、百國免簽等政績，似乎不解自己形象和民意落差從何而來。行政院長江宜樺也曾在一場演講中強調，要讓外界感受到「政府有做事」。顯然執政團隊都認知、也戒慎恐懼於民意不滿的壓力，希望有所改善。
政府不是沒做事，但沒把事情做對、做好。姑且不論長期經濟不振所累積出的民怨，就以喧騰近期的重大新聞而言，人民需要政府時，卻感受不到政府協助（如廣大興號事件）；不需要政府時，卻被強力介入或侵害（如大埔案）；政府做事會影響到人民，卻事先不溝通、不徵詢（如服貿協議）；人民表達異議，卻感覺受到糊弄（如核四公投）。這些場景一再上演，人民對政府本來具有一定的期待，對公權力有一定的信任，但現在政府的角色「忽焉在前，忽焉在後」，也因此落得「政府失能」的評價。
政府失能，努力做事卻做不對，不但動輒得咎，且越做越亂。其中，犖犖大者諸如：第一，政策是對的也不敢挺身辯護。小事如電價上漲的「以價制量」，具環保原則卻不敢力爭；大事如兩岸服貿協議，反對聲音罵得凶，執政黨幾乎囁嚅不敢多言。政策缺乏事前溝通固然是一大缺失，但國際間的開放潮流原是必然趨勢。政府對台紐間的經合協定，尚知推銷「奇異果大降價」的社會期待；對兩岸服貿協議的效果，卻僅有由史亞平上美容院以示「不會衝擊很大」那種檔次的辯護。這種風格，如何贏得敬重？又如何說服民眾政策有利民生？
第二，做錯的一錯再錯。當年美牛風波，錯在政府對美承諾在先，與國會溝通協商在後；這次服貿協議，程序上完全重蹈覆轍。不但一錯再錯，且習於諉過卸責，最近軍方的表現堪稱例證。其他，例如八八風災怪罪氣象預報不準，美牛風波歸責於當時上任未久的衛生署長楊志良失言，完全看不出政府官員表現出「我做錯，我擔當」的氣魄。
第三，一遇民意壓力立即轉彎，政策反覆，幾乎已成馬政府決策風格的「標章」。老農津貼、證所稅、十二年國教的排富條款、會計法立院鬧劇……，均可看出決策缺乏中心思想，為了迎合民意不時轉彎妥協。
第四，政策非僅妥協，還往往向特定利益團體傾斜。例如年金改革，輕勞工而重公務員。營所稅調降，對企業利多，讓國庫大失血；但對基本工資僅一顆「茶葉蛋」程度的調整，卻百般計較。貧富不均本已是民怨來源，決策方向又缺乏首尾一致的原則，難怪人民的印象總覺得政府劫貧濟富。
總的來說：對的政策也不敢挺身辯護；做錯的則一錯再錯；不問黑白，遇到民意壓力就轉彎；不辨對錯，轉彎總讓人感覺向特定利益團體那方妥協。這種風格，使整個行政體系在制訂和執行政策時不敢堅持是非，一遇爭議能閃就閃。如此，行政秩序怎能不大亂？
政府現在被民意罵得有點失去信心了，對剩下不到三年任期的馬政府絕非好事。但望執政團隊還有勵精圖治、扳回一城的企圖，如日前江宜樺院長在白衫軍聚集凱道的同時，就公開作出改革承諾，且劍及履及啟動修法，這種「遲來總比不做好」的態度，至少對修補人民信心有點作用。希望政府儘快擺脫「木頭人」的形象，回復行動力，拿出魄力和智慧，才有機會從倒地的民意中爬起來。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 7, 2013
Summary: To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.
Full text below:
To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.
President Ma himself is honest and upright. His entire ruling team is also industrious, His cabinet members have worked hard. They have worked so hard that Premier Chiang told them, "It is time to take a break." What is one to make of the situation?
One cannot say that the administration has done nothing. During an internal KMT meeting, President Ma choked back tears. He spoke of ECFA, and of visa-free treatment from over one hundred countries. He could not understand the gap between his self image and public opinion. Premier Chiang Yi-hua underscored the need to make the public understand that the government is actually doing something. Obviously the administration is aware of and afraid of public discontent, and wants to do better.
The government has been doing something. But it has not done them right, or done them well. The long economic slump has led to accumulated grievances. Consider recent headlines. At times the people need the government, but the government appears indifferent. This happened during the Kuang Ta Hsing incident. At times the people do not need the government, but the government insists on meddling regardless. This happened during the Ta Pu case. At times the government may do something that affects the public, but fails to communicate in advance. This happened with TISA. The public may express disagreement, but feel it is being manipulated. This happened with the referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Such scenes have been reenacted again and again. People have certain expectations from government. They have placed their trust in public authority. But the government is often ahead of the curve at one moment, then behind the curve the next. As a result, it is perceived as incompetent.
The government is often incompetent. It works hard, but it fails to work well. It is often damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Often the more it does, the worse the results. A number of examples come to mind. One. It formulates the correct policy, but is terrified to come forth to defend it. This includes little things such as electricity rate hikes to reduce consumption. This are consistent with environmental principles, yet the government does not dare to defend it. This includes big things such as TISA. The government allowed opponents to shrilly denounce it. The ruling party was afraid to raise a peep. The government's failure to communicate in advance is one of its major failings. In fact, liberalization is both universal and inevitable. The government's ECDC agreement with New Zealand failed to meet public expectations regarding major Kiwifruit price cuts. Meanwhile, Shi Ya-ping defended TISA by arguing that beauty parlors would feel little impact. How can this style of governance win any respect? How can it convince the public that its policies are beneficial?
Two. The government makes the same mistake, over and over again. During the U.S. beef imports controversy, the government was wrong to make a commitment to the United States first, then communicate and consult with the legislature after the fact. During TISA negotiations, it made exactly the same mistake. It makes the same mistake over and over again. What's worse, it shirks responsibility and passes the buck. The recent conduct of the military is a good example. During Typhoon Morakot, it blamed inaccurate weather forecasts. The U.S. beef imports controversy was the result of the newly appointed Director of Health Yang Chi-liang's verbal gaffes. Government officials never admit "I made a mistake. I am responsible."
Three. As soon as the government feels any political heat, it changes its tune, and reverses its policy. This has virtually become a trademark of Ma administration decision-making. This happened with subsidies for elderly farmers, the capital gains tax, 12 year compulsory education, and the accounting farce in the legislature. All of them reveal a lack of a guiding principles in its decision-making. All of them reveal an unseemly eagerness to pander to mob sentiment.
Four. The government often fails to compromise on policy. It often favors certain special interest groups. Its pension reform favored civil service employees over labor. Its business tax cuts favored industry but allowed the treasury to suffer. Meanwhile, basic wages are raised by the price of a "hard boiled egg," and only after all manner of foot-dragging. This uneven distribution of wealth is a major source of resentment. The government's decision-making lacks coherence. No wonder the public always feel that the government is robbing the poor to pay the rich.
In sum, the government does not dare to come forward and defend its policies. It repeats the same mistakes, over and over. It is indifferent to right and wrong. Whenever it encounters public resistance, it performs an about face. Whenever it changes its policy, it leaves the impression that it has caved in to special interest groups. This manner of governance has left us with an administration indifferent to right and wrong, and afraid to stick to its principles during the formulation and implementation of policy. Whenever a controversy arises, it runs for cover. How can such an administration not create chaos?
The government has been blasted so long and so hard it has lost confidence in itself. This is not good for the remaining three years of the Ma administration. We hope however, that the administration will try to pull itself together and govern well. Recently, during a White Shirts gathering on Ketegelan Boulevard, Premier Chiang Yi-hua made a public commitment to radical reform. This is a case of "better late than never." But it may restore some degree of public confidence. We hope the government will rid itself of its wooden image as soon as possible. We hope it will spring back into action, and demonstrate courage and wisdom. Only then can it redeem itself in the eyes of the public.
馬政府如何從倒地的民意中爬起來？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.07 01:28 am
馬政府近日處境，用「焦頭爛額」都不足以形容，其中又以馬總統本人的境況最窘。他的民意支持度持續下滑，竟然比卸任時「聲名狼藉」的陳水扁總統還低。在延燒的洪仲丘案中，馬總統不僅三番兩次低頭道歉，在走向洪仲丘告別式會場的短短路上頻遭民眾辱罵，他必然刻骨銘心；看在民眾眼裡，則更感不堪。
馬總統本人清廉自持，整個執政團隊也堪稱勤勞，閣員個個操勞到由江揆督促「該去休假」的地步。這種景況，孰令致之？
執政團隊當然不能說完全沒做事。馬總統在國民黨內座談時一度哽咽，細數有關簽署ＥＣＦＡ、百國免簽等政績，似乎不解自己形象和民意落差從何而來。行政院長江宜樺也曾在一場演講中強調，要讓外界感受到「政府有做事」。顯然執政團隊都認知、也戒慎恐懼於民意不滿的壓力，希望有所改善。
政府不是沒做事，但沒把事情做對、做好。姑且不論長期經濟不振所累積出的民怨，就以喧騰近期的重大新聞而言，人民需要政府時，卻感受不到政府協助（如廣大興號事件）；不需要政府時，卻被強力介入或侵害（如大埔案）；政府做事會影響到人民，卻事先不溝通、不徵詢（如服貿協議）；人民表達異議，卻感覺受到糊弄（如核四公投）。這些場景一再上演，人民對政府本來具有一定的期待，對公權力有一定的信任，但現在政府的角色「忽焉在前，忽焉在後」，也因此落得「政府失能」的評價。
政府失能，努力做事卻做不對，不但動輒得咎，且越做越亂。其中，犖犖大者諸如：第一，政策是對的也不敢挺身辯護。小事如電價上漲的「以價制量」，具環保原則卻不敢力爭；大事如兩岸服貿協議，反對聲音罵得凶，執政黨幾乎囁嚅不敢多言。政策缺乏事前溝通固然是一大缺失，但國際間的開放潮流原是必然趨勢。政府對台紐間的經合協定，尚知推銷「奇異果大降價」的社會期待；對兩岸服貿協議的效果，卻僅有由史亞平上美容院以示「不會衝擊很大」那種檔次的辯護。這種風格，如何贏得敬重？又如何說服民眾政策有利民生？
第二，做錯的一錯再錯。當年美牛風波，錯在政府對美承諾在先，與國會溝通協商在後；這次服貿協議，程序上完全重蹈覆轍。不但一錯再錯，且習於諉過卸責，最近軍方的表現堪稱例證。其他，例如八八風災怪罪氣象預報不準，美牛風波歸責於當時上任未久的衛生署長楊志良失言，完全看不出政府官員表現出「我做錯，我擔當」的氣魄。
第三，一遇民意壓力立即轉彎，政策反覆，幾乎已成馬政府決策風格的「標章」。老農津貼、證所稅、十二年國教的排富條款、會計法立院鬧劇……，均可看出決策缺乏中心思想，為了迎合民意不時轉彎妥協。
第四，政策非僅妥協，還往往向特定利益團體傾斜。例如年金改革，輕勞工而重公務員。營所稅調降，對企業利多，讓國庫大失血；但對基本工資僅一顆「茶葉蛋」程度的調整，卻百般計較。貧富不均本已是民怨來源，決策方向又缺乏首尾一致的原則，難怪人民的印象總覺得政府劫貧濟富。
總的來說：對的政策也不敢挺身辯護；做錯的則一錯再錯；不問黑白，遇到民意壓力就轉彎；不辨對錯，轉彎總讓人感覺向特定利益團體那方妥協。這種風格，使整個行政體系在制訂和執行政策時不敢堅持是非，一遇爭議能閃就閃。如此，行政秩序怎能不大亂？
政府現在被民意罵得有點失去信心了，對剩下不到三年任期的馬政府絕非好事。但望執政團隊還有勵精圖治、扳回一城的企圖，如日前江宜樺院長在白衫軍聚集凱道的同時，就公開作出改革承諾，且劍及履及啟動修法，這種「遲來總比不做好」的態度，至少對修補人民信心有點作用。希望政府儘快擺脫「木頭人」的形象，回復行動力，拿出魄力和智慧，才有機會從倒地的民意中爬起來。
Will Ma Ying-jeou's Three Arrows Miss their Marks?
Will Ma Ying-jeou's Three Arrows Miss their Marks?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 5, 2013
Summary: Shinzo Abe's three arrows created the desired effect. The key was not the three arrows. The key was the archer's determination and courage. He was determined to restore long lost Japanese national confidence. Can Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows free the economy from the doldrums? Can his arrows reach their targets? Or will arrow upon arrow miss its mark? That will depend on the archer.
Full text below:
Taiwan's economic growth during the first quarter of this year was a meager 1.67%. The attempt to ensure a 2% growth rate during the second quarter was successful, but only barely. Many variables bedevil the second half of the year. The Comptroller General predicts that second-quarter GDP will increase 0.29%. He defines this as a "soft expansion." The annual GDP is expected to remain the same -- 2.4%. A 2% growth rate this year is no problem, but 3% is beyond reach.
The economic malaise lingers. President Ma Ying-jeou recently announced "three major movers" to promote Taiwan's economic growth. They are the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program, additional public works, and increased exports, particularly service sector exports. To rescue Taiwan's economy, President Ma Ying-jeou fired three "Ying-jeou arrows" into the air. Will they hit their targets? Will they enable to administration to think outside the box? Or will all three Ying-jeou arrows miss their mark?
The Ma administration is promoting the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. Initially only four major industries were included. They are smart logistics, medical tourism, value-added agriculture, and industrial cooperation. CEPD Chief Kuan Chung-ming advocated including the financial industry. Former FSC chairman Chen Yu-chang disagreed. Finally, at the last moment, President Ma Ying-jeou approved its inclusion. On Thursday, Premier Jiang Yi-hua approved the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. The 4+N pilot industries began operation.
Smart logistics, medical tourism, value-added agriculture, and industrial cooperation are the four major pilot industries. The CEPD intends to use the "shop in front, plant in back" concept to maximize efficiency. But its proposal differs from existing international free trade zones with "shop in front" planning. Take medical tourism for example. The Taipei and Taoyuan Airports are the "shops in front." Tourists arrive at the airports. They promptly enter the "plants in back," i.e., 39 international medical facilities, for health checks or medical treatment. This plan clearly benefits the Free Trade Zones economically. Some worry that Mainland Chinese visitors may vanish into the crowd soon after entry. But we truly need not impose such constraints upon ourselves. We want the program to be comprehensive. But we cannot refuse to open ourselves up out of fear.
The industrial sector expects even more from the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. It wants expanded scope, added industries, and more tax incentives. The Chinese National Federation of Industries and Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-chu held talks. They recommended another increase in the scope of the Free Trade Zones. They need not be limited to five harbors and one airport. The science parks, export processing zones, even the six light industrial parks could be included. They could be linked into a comprehensive free trade island.
The most eagerly anticipated industry is the financial industry. Newly appointed FSC Chairman Chang Ming-chung and CEPD Chief Kuan Chung-ming have reportedly planned to include the financial industry. Offshore funds and structured products would be given priority through the OBU And OSU (International Securities Business Group). Restrictions against investment by foreign professionals would be relaxed. The ultimate goal would be to enable Taiwan to become an offshore RMB center.
Taiwan's qualifications as an offshore RMB center are, in all fairness, far inferior to those of Hong Kong, Singapore, or London. Hong Kong and London have received public support from the Mainland authorities. Singapore has revealed its ambition to become the biggest offshore RMB center outside of Hong Kong. In July 2010, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the People's Bank of China signed a 150 billion RMB bilateral currency swap agreement. Singapore has allowed the trading of RMB-denominated securities. It has established conditions favorable for an offshore RMB center.
By contrast, Taiwan authorities still impose many limitations on the free inflow and outflow of RMB. RMB-denominated commodities are in short supply. Mainland industries cannot issue bonds to raise capital on Taiwan. This handicaps Taiwan in its fight to become an offshore RMB center. The incorporation of the financial sector into the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program must await the liberalization of the financial sector. An offshore RMB center is still a long way off.
The second of the three Ma Ying-jeou arrows is more public works. More public works requires more money. Where is the money coming from? According to statistics, four years ago ROC investment in public works was about 446 billion NT. This year it is only 385 billion NT. Every year public funds for public works fall short. They are limited by the debt ceiling and the deterioration of public finances. No matter how clever one may be, one cannot make bricks without straw.
The central government complains that it has no money. But lest we forget, whenever the stock market fluctuates, Four major funds, including the Bureau of Labor Insurance, serve as a fire brigade and prop up the market. They can guide public works investment. They can solve the problem of inadequate financial resources. They can allow the stock market to return to conducting normal market transactions, reducing artificial intervention into the market.
The third of Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows is increased exports. The exchange rate is an important factor in export competitiveness. Central Bank President Peng Huai-nan defended the rights of 15 million scooter riders. The NT exchange rate will remain stable. The devaluation that exporters wanted was explicitly rejected. June export orders unexpectedly declined 3.5%. This was yet another warning.
Therefore, increased exports must be freed from outdated electronics industry-orientation. The government should fully support the more promising e-commerce market. Service industry exports should replace traditional manufacturing industry exports. The liberalization of third-party payments is clearly more urgent and important.
Shinzo Abe's three arrows created the desired effect. The key was not the three arrows. The key was the archer's determination and courage. He was determined to restore long lost Japanese national confidence. Can Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows free the economy from the doldrums? Can his arrows reach their targets? Or will arrow upon arrow miss its mark? That will depend on the archer.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.08.06
社論－英九三箭 切勿箭箭落空
本報訊
台灣今年第1季經濟成長率僅1.67％，第2季勉強保2成功，由於下半年變數仍多，主計總處將第2季GDP回升0.29個百分點，定位為「軟性擴張」，全年GDP還是維持原預估值2.4％，今年只能「保2有餘，無力拚3」。
面對揮之不去的悶經濟，馬英九總統日前喊出需靠「三大引擎」推動台灣經濟動能，分別是自由經濟示範區、擴大公共建設及增強出口，尤其是擴大服務業出口。馬英九總統射出拯救台灣經濟的「英九三箭」，能否發揮效益，有賴行政體系打破舊思維，「英九三箭」，切勿箭箭落空。
馬政府推動的自由經濟示範區，原僅有4大示範產業，包括智慧運籌、國際醫療、農業加值及產業合作等，經建會主委管中閔力推的金融產業，前金管會主委陳裕璋有不同意見，最後一刻在馬英九總統拍板下納入，行政院長江宜樺將在周四正式核定自由經濟示範區方案，4+N示範產業將點火上路。
智慧運籌、國際醫療、農業加值及產業合作等4大示範產業，經建會擬以「前店後廠」的概念發揮一條龍效益，和國際間現行經濟特區僅有「前店」式的規畫不同。以國際醫療為例，松山和桃園機場是「前店」，旅客扺達機場後，快速入關到「後廠」的39家國際醫療業進行健檢或醫美，此一規畫確實可放大特區的經濟效益。至於部分人士擔心的陸客入關後的無故失蹤後遺症，實不必畫地自限，力求配套方案完整，總不能因為擔心，就不開放。
產業界對自由經濟示範區期待更大，包括擴大適用範圍，增加營業項目、租稅優惠等，工總與經濟部長張家祝座談時，建議自由經濟示範區的範圍要再擴大，不必拘限在五港一空，科學園區、加工出口區、甚至六輕園區都應適用，串連成完整的自由島運作模式。
最值得期待的示範產業則是金融業。據報載，金管會新任主委曾銘宗與經建會主委管中閔對自由經濟示範區納入金融業已擬妥腹案，境外基金及境外結構型商品，將優先透過OBU（國際金融業務分行）及OSU（國際證券業務分公司），對外國專業投資人鬆綁，最終目標是要爭取台灣成為人民幣離岸中心。
台灣爭取人民幣離岸中心的條件，平心而論遠不如香港、新加坡和倫敦。香港和倫敦都已獲得中國政府公開表態支持，新加坡則是展現強大的企圖心，有志成為香港以外的第2個人民幣離岸中心。早在2010年7月，新加坡金融管理局即與中國人民銀行簽署1500億人民幣的雙邊貨幣互換協定，新加坡並已允許人民幣計價證券掛牌交易，建構成為人民幣離岸中心有利條件。
反觀台灣在人民幣的自由流入與流出上仍有諸多限制，人民幣計價商品不足、陸企更無法在台發債籌資，都讓台灣在爭取成為人民幣離岸中心落居下風，自由經濟示範區納入金融業，只能視為踏出金融自由化的一步，與人民幣離岸中心的規格落差仍大。
「英九三箭」的第二箭是擴大公共建設。擴大公共建設要錢，但錢從哪來？根據統計，4年前，我國在公共建設的投資約4460億元，但今年只剩下3850億元，公共建設資金年年短缺，受限於舉債上限與政府財政惡化問題，早已巧婦難為無米之炊。
雖然中央政府喊沒錢，但別忘了，每當股市波動時，擔任救火隊護盤的勞保等四大基金，可導引投資有償性公共建設，不但解決中央政府財源不足問題，也讓股市回歸市場正常交易，減少人為護盤干預。
「英九三箭」的最後一箭是增強出口。出口競爭力的強弱，匯率是重要因素之一，在央行總裁彭淮南全力捍衛1500萬機車族權益下，台幣匯率仍會維持動態穩定，出口業者期待的貶值，已被明確否決，而6月外銷訂單意外衰退3.5％，更是警訊。
因此，增強出口這一箭，應跳脫舊有的電子產業導向，全力輔導「錢」景看好的電子商務市場，以服務業出口取代傳統的製造業出口，第三方支付的開放更顯其急迫性與重要性。
安倍三箭創造出超乎預期的效果，關鍵不在於三箭的「內容」，射箭人的決心與魄力帶動大和民族失去已久的信心；「英九三箭」，能否打破悶經濟，是箭箭正中紅心，還是箭箭落空，就看射箭人了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 5, 2013
Summary: Shinzo Abe's three arrows created the desired effect. The key was not the three arrows. The key was the archer's determination and courage. He was determined to restore long lost Japanese national confidence. Can Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows free the economy from the doldrums? Can his arrows reach their targets? Or will arrow upon arrow miss its mark? That will depend on the archer.
Full text below:
Taiwan's economic growth during the first quarter of this year was a meager 1.67%. The attempt to ensure a 2% growth rate during the second quarter was successful, but only barely. Many variables bedevil the second half of the year. The Comptroller General predicts that second-quarter GDP will increase 0.29%. He defines this as a "soft expansion." The annual GDP is expected to remain the same -- 2.4%. A 2% growth rate this year is no problem, but 3% is beyond reach.
The economic malaise lingers. President Ma Ying-jeou recently announced "three major movers" to promote Taiwan's economic growth. They are the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program, additional public works, and increased exports, particularly service sector exports. To rescue Taiwan's economy, President Ma Ying-jeou fired three "Ying-jeou arrows" into the air. Will they hit their targets? Will they enable to administration to think outside the box? Or will all three Ying-jeou arrows miss their mark?
The Ma administration is promoting the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. Initially only four major industries were included. They are smart logistics, medical tourism, value-added agriculture, and industrial cooperation. CEPD Chief Kuan Chung-ming advocated including the financial industry. Former FSC chairman Chen Yu-chang disagreed. Finally, at the last moment, President Ma Ying-jeou approved its inclusion. On Thursday, Premier Jiang Yi-hua approved the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. The 4+N pilot industries began operation.
Smart logistics, medical tourism, value-added agriculture, and industrial cooperation are the four major pilot industries. The CEPD intends to use the "shop in front, plant in back" concept to maximize efficiency. But its proposal differs from existing international free trade zones with "shop in front" planning. Take medical tourism for example. The Taipei and Taoyuan Airports are the "shops in front." Tourists arrive at the airports. They promptly enter the "plants in back," i.e., 39 international medical facilities, for health checks or medical treatment. This plan clearly benefits the Free Trade Zones economically. Some worry that Mainland Chinese visitors may vanish into the crowd soon after entry. But we truly need not impose such constraints upon ourselves. We want the program to be comprehensive. But we cannot refuse to open ourselves up out of fear.
The industrial sector expects even more from the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program. It wants expanded scope, added industries, and more tax incentives. The Chinese National Federation of Industries and Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-chu held talks. They recommended another increase in the scope of the Free Trade Zones. They need not be limited to five harbors and one airport. The science parks, export processing zones, even the six light industrial parks could be included. They could be linked into a comprehensive free trade island.
The most eagerly anticipated industry is the financial industry. Newly appointed FSC Chairman Chang Ming-chung and CEPD Chief Kuan Chung-ming have reportedly planned to include the financial industry. Offshore funds and structured products would be given priority through the OBU And OSU (International Securities Business Group). Restrictions against investment by foreign professionals would be relaxed. The ultimate goal would be to enable Taiwan to become an offshore RMB center.
Taiwan's qualifications as an offshore RMB center are, in all fairness, far inferior to those of Hong Kong, Singapore, or London. Hong Kong and London have received public support from the Mainland authorities. Singapore has revealed its ambition to become the biggest offshore RMB center outside of Hong Kong. In July 2010, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the People's Bank of China signed a 150 billion RMB bilateral currency swap agreement. Singapore has allowed the trading of RMB-denominated securities. It has established conditions favorable for an offshore RMB center.
By contrast, Taiwan authorities still impose many limitations on the free inflow and outflow of RMB. RMB-denominated commodities are in short supply. Mainland industries cannot issue bonds to raise capital on Taiwan. This handicaps Taiwan in its fight to become an offshore RMB center. The incorporation of the financial sector into the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program must await the liberalization of the financial sector. An offshore RMB center is still a long way off.
The second of the three Ma Ying-jeou arrows is more public works. More public works requires more money. Where is the money coming from? According to statistics, four years ago ROC investment in public works was about 446 billion NT. This year it is only 385 billion NT. Every year public funds for public works fall short. They are limited by the debt ceiling and the deterioration of public finances. No matter how clever one may be, one cannot make bricks without straw.
The central government complains that it has no money. But lest we forget, whenever the stock market fluctuates, Four major funds, including the Bureau of Labor Insurance, serve as a fire brigade and prop up the market. They can guide public works investment. They can solve the problem of inadequate financial resources. They can allow the stock market to return to conducting normal market transactions, reducing artificial intervention into the market.
The third of Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows is increased exports. The exchange rate is an important factor in export competitiveness. Central Bank President Peng Huai-nan defended the rights of 15 million scooter riders. The NT exchange rate will remain stable. The devaluation that exporters wanted was explicitly rejected. June export orders unexpectedly declined 3.5%. This was yet another warning.
Therefore, increased exports must be freed from outdated electronics industry-orientation. The government should fully support the more promising e-commerce market. Service industry exports should replace traditional manufacturing industry exports. The liberalization of third-party payments is clearly more urgent and important.
Shinzo Abe's three arrows created the desired effect. The key was not the three arrows. The key was the archer's determination and courage. He was determined to restore long lost Japanese national confidence. Can Ma Ying-jeou's three arrows free the economy from the doldrums? Can his arrows reach their targets? Or will arrow upon arrow miss its mark? That will depend on the archer.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.08.06
社論－英九三箭 切勿箭箭落空
本報訊
台灣今年第1季經濟成長率僅1.67％，第2季勉強保2成功，由於下半年變數仍多，主計總處將第2季GDP回升0.29個百分點，定位為「軟性擴張」，全年GDP還是維持原預估值2.4％，今年只能「保2有餘，無力拚3」。
面對揮之不去的悶經濟，馬英九總統日前喊出需靠「三大引擎」推動台灣經濟動能，分別是自由經濟示範區、擴大公共建設及增強出口，尤其是擴大服務業出口。馬英九總統射出拯救台灣經濟的「英九三箭」，能否發揮效益，有賴行政體系打破舊思維，「英九三箭」，切勿箭箭落空。
馬政府推動的自由經濟示範區，原僅有4大示範產業，包括智慧運籌、國際醫療、農業加值及產業合作等，經建會主委管中閔力推的金融產業，前金管會主委陳裕璋有不同意見，最後一刻在馬英九總統拍板下納入，行政院長江宜樺將在周四正式核定自由經濟示範區方案，4+N示範產業將點火上路。
智慧運籌、國際醫療、農業加值及產業合作等4大示範產業，經建會擬以「前店後廠」的概念發揮一條龍效益，和國際間現行經濟特區僅有「前店」式的規畫不同。以國際醫療為例，松山和桃園機場是「前店」，旅客扺達機場後，快速入關到「後廠」的39家國際醫療業進行健檢或醫美，此一規畫確實可放大特區的經濟效益。至於部分人士擔心的陸客入關後的無故失蹤後遺症，實不必畫地自限，力求配套方案完整，總不能因為擔心，就不開放。
產業界對自由經濟示範區期待更大，包括擴大適用範圍，增加營業項目、租稅優惠等，工總與經濟部長張家祝座談時，建議自由經濟示範區的範圍要再擴大，不必拘限在五港一空，科學園區、加工出口區、甚至六輕園區都應適用，串連成完整的自由島運作模式。
最值得期待的示範產業則是金融業。據報載，金管會新任主委曾銘宗與經建會主委管中閔對自由經濟示範區納入金融業已擬妥腹案，境外基金及境外結構型商品，將優先透過OBU（國際金融業務分行）及OSU（國際證券業務分公司），對外國專業投資人鬆綁，最終目標是要爭取台灣成為人民幣離岸中心。
台灣爭取人民幣離岸中心的條件，平心而論遠不如香港、新加坡和倫敦。香港和倫敦都已獲得中國政府公開表態支持，新加坡則是展現強大的企圖心，有志成為香港以外的第2個人民幣離岸中心。早在2010年7月，新加坡金融管理局即與中國人民銀行簽署1500億人民幣的雙邊貨幣互換協定，新加坡並已允許人民幣計價證券掛牌交易，建構成為人民幣離岸中心有利條件。
反觀台灣在人民幣的自由流入與流出上仍有諸多限制，人民幣計價商品不足、陸企更無法在台發債籌資，都讓台灣在爭取成為人民幣離岸中心落居下風，自由經濟示範區納入金融業，只能視為踏出金融自由化的一步，與人民幣離岸中心的規格落差仍大。
「英九三箭」的第二箭是擴大公共建設。擴大公共建設要錢，但錢從哪來？根據統計，4年前，我國在公共建設的投資約4460億元，但今年只剩下3850億元，公共建設資金年年短缺，受限於舉債上限與政府財政惡化問題，早已巧婦難為無米之炊。
雖然中央政府喊沒錢，但別忘了，每當股市波動時，擔任救火隊護盤的勞保等四大基金，可導引投資有償性公共建設，不但解決中央政府財源不足問題，也讓股市回歸市場正常交易，減少人為護盤干預。
「英九三箭」的最後一箭是增強出口。出口競爭力的強弱，匯率是重要因素之一，在央行總裁彭淮南全力捍衛1500萬機車族權益下，台幣匯率仍會維持動態穩定，出口業者期待的貶值，已被明確否決，而6月外銷訂單意外衰退3.5％，更是警訊。
因此，增強出口這一箭，應跳脫舊有的電子產業導向，全力輔導「錢」景看好的電子商務市場，以服務業出口取代傳統的製造業出口，第三方支付的開放更顯其急迫性與重要性。
安倍三箭創造出超乎預期的效果，關鍵不在於三箭的「內容」，射箭人的決心與魄力帶動大和民族失去已久的信心；「英九三箭」，能否打破悶經濟，是箭箭正中紅心，還是箭箭落空，就看射箭人了。
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Red Shirts and White Shirts
Red Shirts and White Shirts
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 5, 2013
Summary: The Ma administration must engage in soul-searching. It must address the public discontent it has provoked over the past five years through its unpopular policies. The Ma administration must think about winning peoples' hearts and minds, and not just implementing reform. It does not even know who the White Shirt protestors are. Unless it catches on, more and more White Shirts will take to the streets, with increasing frequency.
Full text below:
In August 2006, corruption by President Chen Shui-bian and his family inspired former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh to launch his "Million Man Movement to depose Ah-Bian." Beginning on September 9th, street protests raged for a full month. On October 10, Republic of China National Day, Shih launched his "Siege of All Under Heaven." On that day, an estimated 1.5 million people surrounded the presidential palace.
Less than 7 years later, 250,000 people have taken to the streets. This time however, the object of their protest, was Ma Ying-jeou, long time champion of political reform and clean government. Ma Ying-jeou is a "boy scout." He is a stickler about the law, without even a whiff of corruption. Why has his honeymoon period been shorter than Chen Shui-bian, who was guilty of unbridled corruption?
Behind the Red Shirts political protests were long-accumulated grievances against the DPP and Chen Shui-bian. As a result, the movement received over one million NT in contributions within 10 days. It also had the participation of well-known political, cultural, social movement, and community leaders. They underscored the legitimacy of the movement and broadened its appeal. The political parties participated from behind the scenes. The media added fuel to the fire. The result was a sweeping social movement.
Last Saturday's White Shirts protest march received substantial media coverage. But otherwise it lacked the conditions that made the Red Shirts movement a success. Its leaders were 39 individuals from different walks of life. Many were novices who never participated in a social protest movement before. Yet in a mere 20 days, they persuaded tens of thousands of people to take to the streets, not once, but twice, surprising everyone.
Hung Chung-chiu died just over one month ago. One month ago, no one imagined a lowly corporal's death would inspire a quarter of a million people to take to the streets. Even on the eve of the protest, no ruling or opposition party politician imagined that online publicity could result in such a strong showing.
The pundits failed to predict and could not explain this phenomenon. Many of them concluded that an Internet generation "new citizens' movement" had taken shape. But that is an oversimplification. Does it really hold water? That remains open to question. The simplest answer is, suppose it had been a different social issue, and a different target of protest? Suppose today the president was Chen Shui-bian or Tsai Ing-wen? Would the same approach have yielded the same results?
A quarter of a million White Shirts took to the streets. The participants looked younger than those who participated in the earlier protest in front of the Ministry of National Defense. Some were parents who brought along their daughters, who are exempt from military duty. Some were young men, who were exempt because Ma Ying-jeou abolished the draft and implemented a volunteer military. Some were protesting the "Tai Po Incident." Some were concerned about the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Some objected to TISA. Some were angry about 12 year compulsory education. After the protest march ended, those who demolished the Legislative Yuan wall were none other than Tsai Ting-kui and his supporters, who insist that "Ah-Bian is not guilty."
Hung Chung-chiu's death is unfortunate and infuriating. Over the past month, the military has been arrogant and indifferent. It has trotted out bizarre excuses that have only added fuel to the fire and made people angrier than they were before. Nevertheless, most people do no think the military harbors an criminal cabal that planned the murder of Hung Chung-chiu. Therefore the focus of the protests will remain "We want the Truth!"
The Hung Chung-chiu case is like a dam that has developed cracks. Long term discontent with the Ma administration has reached the boiling point. It has spilled out because of these cracks in the dam. The Hung Chung-chiu incident was the public's cue to lam into the Ma administration.
Even absent Ma Ying-jeou's verbal faux pas yesterday, the military is not the only source of public dissatisfaction. The military can be reformed. The Ma administration must solve these problems one by one. It must address these many and varied grievances. It must relieve the pressure. Otherwise the White Shirts are likely to return. Their numbers may increase. Their stay may increase as well.
Ma Ying-jeou is already a lame duck. Society as a whole remains awash in dissatisfaction over Ma. It has become a pressure cooker. Any reform that harms anyone's interests, will add fuel to the fire and result in an explosion. When Premier Chiang took office he championed a referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Ma Ying-jeou has never given up on pension reform. Now both appear to be "Mission Impossible." Even TISA, which does Taiwan far more good than harm, may encounter difficulty.
The only reform Ma can promote now is self-reform. He can reform the KMT. He can reform the Ma administration. But he can no longer do so on a piecemeal basis. He can no longer assume that tinkering at the margins, and that reforming the military can quell discontent, and allow him to squeak by.
The Ma administration must engage in soul-searching. It must address the public discontent it has provoked over the past five years through its unpopular policies. Only then can it escape reproach. Only then can it avoid a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation and survive for the next three years. The Ma administration must think about winning peoples' hearts and minds, and not just implementing reform. It does not even know who the White Shirt protestors are. Unless it catches on, more and more White Shirts will take to the streets, with increasing frequency.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.08.05
社論－紅衫軍與白衫軍
本報訊
2006年8月，因為前總統陳水扁家族涉及多項貪瀆案，前民進黨主席施明德發起了「百萬人民倒扁運動」，從9月9日起開始了連續一個多月的街頭抗爭，並於10月10日國慶日發動「天下圍攻」，當天號稱有150萬民眾包圍總統府。
事隔不到7年，25萬民眾再度上街，抗議的對象卻是一向高舉改革、標榜清廉的馬英九。是什麼樣的原因，會讓一個強調守法、不貪不取的「好學生」馬英九，「賞味期限」居然比貪腐的陳水扁更短？
「紅衫軍」旋風的背後，有民進黨和阿扁長期累積的民怨，才能在10天內匯集了100多萬人的捐款。又有知名政治、文化、社運界人士的參與，提高了整個運動的正當性和擴散能量，加上政黨的幕後參與、媒體的推波助瀾，才能成為一股席捲社會的風潮。
但上周六的「白衫軍」，除了媒體的大幅報導之外，幾乎卻不具備其他任何一項「紅衫軍」成功的條件。39個來自各行各業的人，其中不少還是社運新手，從來沒有參與過社會運動，卻在短短20幾天內，兩度號召數萬人走上街頭，跌破各界的眼鏡。
洪仲丘過世剛滿一個月。一個月前，沒有人會想到，一個下士之死，居然能延燒一個月、引起25萬人上街。即便在上街的前一天，也沒有任何朝野政治人物預想到，單靠網路的宣傳，居然能出現這樣的場面。
因為無法預料、無法解釋這種現象，事後很多評論就直接認定是網路世代的「新公民運動」已經成形。但這樣過度簡化的結論，能否真的成立，恐怕還有待商榷。最簡單的問題就是，如果換了另外一個社會議題、另外一個抗議對象，如果今天的總統是陳水扁、蔡英文，同樣的運作方式，還會不會有同樣的結果？
25萬「白衫軍」上街，參與民眾的面孔，比第一次在國防部抗議的成員更年輕。有的父母，帶著不用當兵的女兒一起來，有的是因為馬英九改募兵制「德政」而不用當兵的男孩；台下有的談的是「大埔事件」、有的關心的是核四、有的是反《服貿》、有的恨的是「十二年國教」；遊行結束後，拆立法院圍牆的，是蔡丁貴和認為「阿扁無罪」的民眾。
洪仲丘的死，令人遺憾、憤怒。尤其軍方過去一個月來的表現，傲慢、敷衍的態度，各種光怪陸離的說辭，更無異是提油救火，讓民眾的怒火越燒越旺。縱然如此，大概多數民眾至今並不認為，軍中真有一個犯罪集團，是有計畫、有組織的，要致洪仲丘於死，所以活動的主軸才會定位為「要真相」。
洪仲丘事件像是水庫上的一道裂縫，所有長期以來對馬政府不滿，都早已累積到臨界點，只是因為這道裂縫的出現而潰堤而已。民眾藉著洪仲丘事件，發出各種對馬政府不滿的怒吼。
事件演變至今，即便沒有馬英九昨天的失言，民怨也不是單靠整頓軍方、改革軍檢就可以解決的。如果馬政府沒有辦法一一梳理、化解各種不同的民怨，讓壓力適當的宣洩，下次的任何一個事件，都可能重演「白衫軍」的場景，甚至人數還可能更多、時間還可能更長。
馬英九其實已經跛腳了。當整個社會充斥對馬政府不滿的氛圍，變成一個壓力鍋的同時，任何的改革、傷害任何人的權益，都形同是在鍋底增添柴火，隨時有爆炸的可能。江揆上任推出的核四公投、馬英九念茲在茲的年金改革，如今幾乎都已經是不可能的任務；即便是看來對台灣利大於弊的《服貿協議》，要過關都有相當的難度。
馬英九現在唯一可以做的改革，就是改革自己、改革國民黨、改革馬團隊。不能再以頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳的方式，以為只要修理、改革軍方，就能夠平息民怨，安然度過。
馬政府應該要重新檢視、處理過去五年所有引起民怨、不得民心的施政，才有可能擺脫目前這種動輒得咎、父子騎驢的窘境，比較平順的度過未來的三年。如果心中還是只有「改革」、沒有人民，甚至不知道面前的民眾是「哪位」？「白衫軍」上街的場景，恐怕只會越來越頻繁、人數越來越多。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 5, 2013
Summary: The Ma administration must engage in soul-searching. It must address the public discontent it has provoked over the past five years through its unpopular policies. The Ma administration must think about winning peoples' hearts and minds, and not just implementing reform. It does not even know who the White Shirt protestors are. Unless it catches on, more and more White Shirts will take to the streets, with increasing frequency.
Full text below:
In August 2006, corruption by President Chen Shui-bian and his family inspired former DPP Chairman Shih Ming-teh to launch his "Million Man Movement to depose Ah-Bian." Beginning on September 9th, street protests raged for a full month. On October 10, Republic of China National Day, Shih launched his "Siege of All Under Heaven." On that day, an estimated 1.5 million people surrounded the presidential palace.
Less than 7 years later, 250,000 people have taken to the streets. This time however, the object of their protest, was Ma Ying-jeou, long time champion of political reform and clean government. Ma Ying-jeou is a "boy scout." He is a stickler about the law, without even a whiff of corruption. Why has his honeymoon period been shorter than Chen Shui-bian, who was guilty of unbridled corruption?
Behind the Red Shirts political protests were long-accumulated grievances against the DPP and Chen Shui-bian. As a result, the movement received over one million NT in contributions within 10 days. It also had the participation of well-known political, cultural, social movement, and community leaders. They underscored the legitimacy of the movement and broadened its appeal. The political parties participated from behind the scenes. The media added fuel to the fire. The result was a sweeping social movement.
Last Saturday's White Shirts protest march received substantial media coverage. But otherwise it lacked the conditions that made the Red Shirts movement a success. Its leaders were 39 individuals from different walks of life. Many were novices who never participated in a social protest movement before. Yet in a mere 20 days, they persuaded tens of thousands of people to take to the streets, not once, but twice, surprising everyone.
Hung Chung-chiu died just over one month ago. One month ago, no one imagined a lowly corporal's death would inspire a quarter of a million people to take to the streets. Even on the eve of the protest, no ruling or opposition party politician imagined that online publicity could result in such a strong showing.
The pundits failed to predict and could not explain this phenomenon. Many of them concluded that an Internet generation "new citizens' movement" had taken shape. But that is an oversimplification. Does it really hold water? That remains open to question. The simplest answer is, suppose it had been a different social issue, and a different target of protest? Suppose today the president was Chen Shui-bian or Tsai Ing-wen? Would the same approach have yielded the same results?
A quarter of a million White Shirts took to the streets. The participants looked younger than those who participated in the earlier protest in front of the Ministry of National Defense. Some were parents who brought along their daughters, who are exempt from military duty. Some were young men, who were exempt because Ma Ying-jeou abolished the draft and implemented a volunteer military. Some were protesting the "Tai Po Incident." Some were concerned about the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Some objected to TISA. Some were angry about 12 year compulsory education. After the protest march ended, those who demolished the Legislative Yuan wall were none other than Tsai Ting-kui and his supporters, who insist that "Ah-Bian is not guilty."
Hung Chung-chiu's death is unfortunate and infuriating. Over the past month, the military has been arrogant and indifferent. It has trotted out bizarre excuses that have only added fuel to the fire and made people angrier than they were before. Nevertheless, most people do no think the military harbors an criminal cabal that planned the murder of Hung Chung-chiu. Therefore the focus of the protests will remain "We want the Truth!"
The Hung Chung-chiu case is like a dam that has developed cracks. Long term discontent with the Ma administration has reached the boiling point. It has spilled out because of these cracks in the dam. The Hung Chung-chiu incident was the public's cue to lam into the Ma administration.
Even absent Ma Ying-jeou's verbal faux pas yesterday, the military is not the only source of public dissatisfaction. The military can be reformed. The Ma administration must solve these problems one by one. It must address these many and varied grievances. It must relieve the pressure. Otherwise the White Shirts are likely to return. Their numbers may increase. Their stay may increase as well.
Ma Ying-jeou is already a lame duck. Society as a whole remains awash in dissatisfaction over Ma. It has become a pressure cooker. Any reform that harms anyone's interests, will add fuel to the fire and result in an explosion. When Premier Chiang took office he championed a referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Ma Ying-jeou has never given up on pension reform. Now both appear to be "Mission Impossible." Even TISA, which does Taiwan far more good than harm, may encounter difficulty.
The only reform Ma can promote now is self-reform. He can reform the KMT. He can reform the Ma administration. But he can no longer do so on a piecemeal basis. He can no longer assume that tinkering at the margins, and that reforming the military can quell discontent, and allow him to squeak by.
The Ma administration must engage in soul-searching. It must address the public discontent it has provoked over the past five years through its unpopular policies. Only then can it escape reproach. Only then can it avoid a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation and survive for the next three years. The Ma administration must think about winning peoples' hearts and minds, and not just implementing reform. It does not even know who the White Shirt protestors are. Unless it catches on, more and more White Shirts will take to the streets, with increasing frequency.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2013.08.05
社論－紅衫軍與白衫軍
本報訊
2006年8月，因為前總統陳水扁家族涉及多項貪瀆案，前民進黨主席施明德發起了「百萬人民倒扁運動」，從9月9日起開始了連續一個多月的街頭抗爭，並於10月10日國慶日發動「天下圍攻」，當天號稱有150萬民眾包圍總統府。
事隔不到7年，25萬民眾再度上街，抗議的對象卻是一向高舉改革、標榜清廉的馬英九。是什麼樣的原因，會讓一個強調守法、不貪不取的「好學生」馬英九，「賞味期限」居然比貪腐的陳水扁更短？
「紅衫軍」旋風的背後，有民進黨和阿扁長期累積的民怨，才能在10天內匯集了100多萬人的捐款。又有知名政治、文化、社運界人士的參與，提高了整個運動的正當性和擴散能量，加上政黨的幕後參與、媒體的推波助瀾，才能成為一股席捲社會的風潮。
但上周六的「白衫軍」，除了媒體的大幅報導之外，幾乎卻不具備其他任何一項「紅衫軍」成功的條件。39個來自各行各業的人，其中不少還是社運新手，從來沒有參與過社會運動，卻在短短20幾天內，兩度號召數萬人走上街頭，跌破各界的眼鏡。
洪仲丘過世剛滿一個月。一個月前，沒有人會想到，一個下士之死，居然能延燒一個月、引起25萬人上街。即便在上街的前一天，也沒有任何朝野政治人物預想到，單靠網路的宣傳，居然能出現這樣的場面。
因為無法預料、無法解釋這種現象，事後很多評論就直接認定是網路世代的「新公民運動」已經成形。但這樣過度簡化的結論，能否真的成立，恐怕還有待商榷。最簡單的問題就是，如果換了另外一個社會議題、另外一個抗議對象，如果今天的總統是陳水扁、蔡英文，同樣的運作方式，還會不會有同樣的結果？
25萬「白衫軍」上街，參與民眾的面孔，比第一次在國防部抗議的成員更年輕。有的父母，帶著不用當兵的女兒一起來，有的是因為馬英九改募兵制「德政」而不用當兵的男孩；台下有的談的是「大埔事件」、有的關心的是核四、有的是反《服貿》、有的恨的是「十二年國教」；遊行結束後，拆立法院圍牆的，是蔡丁貴和認為「阿扁無罪」的民眾。
洪仲丘的死，令人遺憾、憤怒。尤其軍方過去一個月來的表現，傲慢、敷衍的態度，各種光怪陸離的說辭，更無異是提油救火，讓民眾的怒火越燒越旺。縱然如此，大概多數民眾至今並不認為，軍中真有一個犯罪集團，是有計畫、有組織的，要致洪仲丘於死，所以活動的主軸才會定位為「要真相」。
洪仲丘事件像是水庫上的一道裂縫，所有長期以來對馬政府不滿，都早已累積到臨界點，只是因為這道裂縫的出現而潰堤而已。民眾藉著洪仲丘事件，發出各種對馬政府不滿的怒吼。
事件演變至今，即便沒有馬英九昨天的失言，民怨也不是單靠整頓軍方、改革軍檢就可以解決的。如果馬政府沒有辦法一一梳理、化解各種不同的民怨，讓壓力適當的宣洩，下次的任何一個事件，都可能重演「白衫軍」的場景，甚至人數還可能更多、時間還可能更長。
馬英九其實已經跛腳了。當整個社會充斥對馬政府不滿的氛圍，變成一個壓力鍋的同時，任何的改革、傷害任何人的權益，都形同是在鍋底增添柴火，隨時有爆炸的可能。江揆上任推出的核四公投、馬英九念茲在茲的年金改革，如今幾乎都已經是不可能的任務；即便是看來對台灣利大於弊的《服貿協議》，要過關都有相當的難度。
馬英九現在唯一可以做的改革，就是改革自己、改革國民黨、改革馬團隊。不能再以頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳的方式，以為只要修理、改革軍方，就能夠平息民怨，安然度過。
馬政府應該要重新檢視、處理過去五年所有引起民怨、不得民心的施政，才有可能擺脫目前這種動輒得咎、父子騎驢的窘境，比較平順的度過未來的三年。如果心中還是只有「改革」、沒有人民，甚至不知道面前的民眾是「哪位」？「白衫軍」上街的場景，恐怕只會越來越頻繁、人數越來越多。
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Accurately Diagnose Epidemic, Prevent Pet Abandonment
Accurately Diagnose Epidemic, Prevent Pet Abandonment
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 2, 2013
Summary: To no one's surprise, the public on Taiwan has been quick to panic and overreact. So far no cases of rabies in dogs have been found. Yet all over Taiwan, people have abandoned their cats, dogs, and other pets in panic. Such irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Otherwise, any rabies epidemic will only become more unpredictable, perhaps even uncontrollable.
Full text below:
To no one's surprise, the public on Taiwan has been quick to panic and overreact. So far no cases of rabies in dogs have been found. Yet all over Taiwan, people have abandoned their cats, dogs, and other pets in panic. Such irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Otherwise, any rabies epidemic will only become more unpredictable, perhaps even uncontrollable.
The COA has confirmed a case of rabies in a shrew in Taitung. This makes scientific interpretation more difficult. Why is the current wave of rabies concentrated in ferret badgers and shrews? What was the source of the virus? If the virus attacks another species, can it survive? These questions must be answered. Only then can the government's preventive measures be effective.
In 1959 Taiwan recorded its last case of rabies. Since then only three cases have been reported, all from foreign sources. For over half a century, Taiwan has not had a single local rabies case. Therefore a lack of familiarity with rabies is understandable. Naturally we lack monitoring or pathological studies. When agricultural authorities suddenly announced the discovery of ferret badger rabies, Taiwan promptly became an OIE rabies epidemic zone. This caught people off guard.
If humans are infected with the rabies virus, mortality after onset is nearly 100%. This number is truly frightening. But this number involves preconditions. For example, the infection rate varies depending upon one's physical constitution. Among those bitten, only 30% become infected. Over 90% of those infected were bitten by mad dogs. Taiwan has had three cases of rabies, all from the foreign sources. The rest were the result of scratches or bites from cats with rabies. The incident of infections from ferret badgers, shrews, and other mammals is nearly infinitesjmal.
Almost all mammals can be infected with the rabies virus. This is a fact. But animals able to infect humans with rabies are limited to five species of carnivora, specifically dogs, cats, mongooses, civets, and raccoons, and the "Chiroptera" bat. When the rabies virus enters these animals, it will divide and proliferate. The animals' bodies will harbor the viruses. After the onset of of the disease, it will pass the virus on to humans.
One point must be clarified. Different strains of rabies attach themselves to different hosts. The chance of transmission from one species to another is slight. Even if it spreads to another species, the virus cannot survive and multiply. Therefore, if a dog bites and infects a ferret badger, the virus has not found a new host. The shrew that bit a woman in Taitung was indeed infected. But it was probably incapable of hosting the virus. At least, no record of such cases exist.
Shrews are considered omens of good fortune in folklore. That is why they escaped slaughter by humans. Their are numerous. They have few natural enemies. Confirmation of infection could trigger a new wave of panic. The World Health Organization has examined tens of thousands of rodents found in human residences. They have found none infected with rabies. This shows that rodents are unable to act as hosts for the rabies virus. The shrew is an insectivore. No cases of shrews infected with rabies have been reported anywhere in the world. The infected shrew in Taitung is lower on the food chain than ordinary mice. Its ability to spread the rabies virus should be minimal.
Rabies has made a comeback. It is severely testing the ability of the epidemic prevention system to deal with unfamiliar viruses, This autumn the H7N9 avian flu will return to Taiwan. The rabies outbreak will serve as an exercise. It is also an opportunity to review the quarantine system for leaks.
First, expert members of the group should expand immunization. Rabies vaccination diagnosis and implementation is handled mainly by agricultural and public health agencies. This should be expanded to include veterinary experts, zoos with practical experience, and animal shelters. Experts must compile accurate records. Only that will prevent incorrect diagnoses.
Secondly, the rapid exchange of information and experience is vital, especially during a rabies outbreak. Mainland China has similar living conditions and customs. They have considerable experience that we could find valuable.
Thirdly, pet abandonment in the wake of epidemics must be addressed. Recently pet abandonment increased more than 30%. Many of them were trendy species owned by celebrities. This is cold-blooded animal exploitation. Among those exotic pets abandoned were minks, pangolins, and hedgehogs. Removal from their original habitat or overbreeding has left them with weak constitutions. Under the shadow of rabies, they are often abandoned. Most of these exotic pets were smuggled in. Customs and Coast Guard personnel lack expertise with wildlife. But the more fundamental problem is that government agencies are lax about enforcement. Abandoned pets could make any rabies outbreak even more catastrophic.
When dealing with rabies, honesty and caution are the real preventive measure. People bitten by unknown animals require first aid and vaccinations. The authorities must be frank, and not attempt to cover up the truth. Only this can ensure immunization, deterrence, and security.
精準判讀疫情，嚴防動物棄養釀災
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.02 04:29 am
不出所料，以台灣人民遇事之易於恐慌及過度反應，目前尚未發現任何犬隻感染狂犬病的案例，全台各地已出現了民眾棄養貓狗等寵物的狂潮。這種不負責的行為若不能有效遏止，只會使狂犬病疫情出現更多無法預期的變數，甚至導致失控。
農委會確認台東那隻錢鼠帶有狂犬病毒後，讓科學解讀變得更加複雜。為何這波狂犬病毒集中發生在鼬獾和錢鼠身上？其病毒源頭為何？其病毒若侵入另一物種，能不能繼續存活？這些問題必須解開，政府防疫工作才能有效對症下藥。
台灣在一九五九年的最後一例狂犬病紀錄後，迄今僅出現三例境外移入病例，超過半世紀不曾有過本土狂犬病例；因此，對狂犬病陌生是必然的，當然也缺乏監測或病理研究。因而，在農政單位驟然宣布鼬獾檢體驗出狂犬病毒後，台灣隨即被「世界動物衛生組織」列為狂犬病疫區，確實讓民眾感到措手不及。
人體若遭狂犬病毒感染，發病後死亡率幾達百分之百，確實可怕；但別忘了，這個數字有其前提：例如，感染者因體質不同，被咬後平均發病率只有三成；且人感染狂犬病超過百分之九十是被「狂狗」咬傷（台灣境外移入三例皆是），其餘則是遭帶有狂犬病毒且已發病的貓抓咬。來自鼬獾、錢鼠等其他哺乳類動物傳染的病例，少到幾乎可以忽略。
幾乎所有哺乳動物都會感染狂犬病毒，這是事實；但能將狂犬病毒傳染給人類的，只有「食肉目」的犬、貓、鼬、靈貓、浣熊等五科，及「翼手目」的蝙蝠。狂犬病毒進入這些動物宿主體內後，會分裂、增生，且具「保毒」作用，並在發病後有機會將病毒傳染給人類。
但必須釐清的是，不同的狂犬病毒株各有特定宿主，會傳染給另一物種的機率極小；即使傳染給其他物種，病毒也無法增生存活。因此，狗咬了帶毒的鼬獾，並不會成為病毒新宿主。至於台東咬傷婦人的錢鼠雖確認帶毒，但應不具「保毒」能力；至少，根據文獻記載，這種案例幾未發生過。
錢鼠因在民間傳說中被視為招財之兆，而逃過人類的追殺；因數量龐大，與人居環境的障礙較少，在確認牠帶毒下，可能引發新一波的恐慌。「世界衛生組織」曾檢驗上萬隻住宅區齧齒動物，並未發現齧齒動物有感染狂犬病現象，這說明齧齒動物不具擔任狂犬病毒宿主的條件。至於屬「食蟲目」之錢鼠，專家認為，過去全球尚無錢鼠感染狂犬病的報告，像台東這隻染毒錢鼠比起一般老鼠更在食物鏈之底層，散播狂犬病毒的能力應該不大。
狂犬病疫情捲土重來，嚴格考驗了防疫體系對陌生病毒的防禦能力，這對秋天Ｈ７Ｎ９禽流感將重返台灣具有操兵作用，也可趁機檢視防疫體系需要補漏之處。
首先，防疫編組專家成員應擴大層面。此次狂犬病疫情判讀及防疫指揮主要是農政、公衛體系在操作，應增加演化、獸醫學專家，及具實務經驗的動物園、野生動物收容中心等單位；且須對專家做精確的專長建檔，才不致再發生判讀疫情不到位的缺失。
其次，迅速的國際資訊交換及經驗借鏡，尤其是狂犬病好發、頻發且生活環境及習性相近的中國大陸，有不少經驗可供我參考。
第三，對寵物恐慌性棄養潮的迅速補漏。近日各地的寵物棄養增加了三成以上，其中不少是流行浪頭上的明星寵物，這是對動物的冷酷剝削。再如坊間盛行的另類寵物，如雪貂、穿山甲、刺蝟等，因為離開原生地或繁殖場過度繁殖，原就體質孱弱，在狂犬病陰影籠罩下，往往難逃棄養命運。這些稀有寵物，絕大多數是走私與夾帶進口，海關、海巡人員不具備野生動物專業固是原因，但更根本的問題在於政府相關單位執法的漫不經心。若任由動物棄養成災，這波狂犬病災情恐會更雪上加霜。
對付狂犬病，防範之道唯有誠實與謹慎，民眾被不明動物咬傷應立刻急救並施打疫苗，主管單位也應開誠布公，切勿企圖掩蓋真相。如此，我們的防疫網才能發揮遏阻及保安的效果。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 2, 2013
Summary: To no one's surprise, the public on Taiwan has been quick to panic and overreact. So far no cases of rabies in dogs have been found. Yet all over Taiwan, people have abandoned their cats, dogs, and other pets in panic. Such irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Otherwise, any rabies epidemic will only become more unpredictable, perhaps even uncontrollable.
Full text below:
To no one's surprise, the public on Taiwan has been quick to panic and overreact. So far no cases of rabies in dogs have been found. Yet all over Taiwan, people have abandoned their cats, dogs, and other pets in panic. Such irresponsible behavior must be curbed. Otherwise, any rabies epidemic will only become more unpredictable, perhaps even uncontrollable.
The COA has confirmed a case of rabies in a shrew in Taitung. This makes scientific interpretation more difficult. Why is the current wave of rabies concentrated in ferret badgers and shrews? What was the source of the virus? If the virus attacks another species, can it survive? These questions must be answered. Only then can the government's preventive measures be effective.
In 1959 Taiwan recorded its last case of rabies. Since then only three cases have been reported, all from foreign sources. For over half a century, Taiwan has not had a single local rabies case. Therefore a lack of familiarity with rabies is understandable. Naturally we lack monitoring or pathological studies. When agricultural authorities suddenly announced the discovery of ferret badger rabies, Taiwan promptly became an OIE rabies epidemic zone. This caught people off guard.
If humans are infected with the rabies virus, mortality after onset is nearly 100%. This number is truly frightening. But this number involves preconditions. For example, the infection rate varies depending upon one's physical constitution. Among those bitten, only 30% become infected. Over 90% of those infected were bitten by mad dogs. Taiwan has had three cases of rabies, all from the foreign sources. The rest were the result of scratches or bites from cats with rabies. The incident of infections from ferret badgers, shrews, and other mammals is nearly infinitesjmal.
Almost all mammals can be infected with the rabies virus. This is a fact. But animals able to infect humans with rabies are limited to five species of carnivora, specifically dogs, cats, mongooses, civets, and raccoons, and the "Chiroptera" bat. When the rabies virus enters these animals, it will divide and proliferate. The animals' bodies will harbor the viruses. After the onset of of the disease, it will pass the virus on to humans.
One point must be clarified. Different strains of rabies attach themselves to different hosts. The chance of transmission from one species to another is slight. Even if it spreads to another species, the virus cannot survive and multiply. Therefore, if a dog bites and infects a ferret badger, the virus has not found a new host. The shrew that bit a woman in Taitung was indeed infected. But it was probably incapable of hosting the virus. At least, no record of such cases exist.
Shrews are considered omens of good fortune in folklore. That is why they escaped slaughter by humans. Their are numerous. They have few natural enemies. Confirmation of infection could trigger a new wave of panic. The World Health Organization has examined tens of thousands of rodents found in human residences. They have found none infected with rabies. This shows that rodents are unable to act as hosts for the rabies virus. The shrew is an insectivore. No cases of shrews infected with rabies have been reported anywhere in the world. The infected shrew in Taitung is lower on the food chain than ordinary mice. Its ability to spread the rabies virus should be minimal.
Rabies has made a comeback. It is severely testing the ability of the epidemic prevention system to deal with unfamiliar viruses, This autumn the H7N9 avian flu will return to Taiwan. The rabies outbreak will serve as an exercise. It is also an opportunity to review the quarantine system for leaks.
First, expert members of the group should expand immunization. Rabies vaccination diagnosis and implementation is handled mainly by agricultural and public health agencies. This should be expanded to include veterinary experts, zoos with practical experience, and animal shelters. Experts must compile accurate records. Only that will prevent incorrect diagnoses.
Secondly, the rapid exchange of information and experience is vital, especially during a rabies outbreak. Mainland China has similar living conditions and customs. They have considerable experience that we could find valuable.
Thirdly, pet abandonment in the wake of epidemics must be addressed. Recently pet abandonment increased more than 30%. Many of them were trendy species owned by celebrities. This is cold-blooded animal exploitation. Among those exotic pets abandoned were minks, pangolins, and hedgehogs. Removal from their original habitat or overbreeding has left them with weak constitutions. Under the shadow of rabies, they are often abandoned. Most of these exotic pets were smuggled in. Customs and Coast Guard personnel lack expertise with wildlife. But the more fundamental problem is that government agencies are lax about enforcement. Abandoned pets could make any rabies outbreak even more catastrophic.
When dealing with rabies, honesty and caution are the real preventive measure. People bitten by unknown animals require first aid and vaccinations. The authorities must be frank, and not attempt to cover up the truth. Only this can ensure immunization, deterrence, and security.
精準判讀疫情，嚴防動物棄養釀災
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.02 04:29 am
不出所料，以台灣人民遇事之易於恐慌及過度反應，目前尚未發現任何犬隻感染狂犬病的案例，全台各地已出現了民眾棄養貓狗等寵物的狂潮。這種不負責的行為若不能有效遏止，只會使狂犬病疫情出現更多無法預期的變數，甚至導致失控。
農委會確認台東那隻錢鼠帶有狂犬病毒後，讓科學解讀變得更加複雜。為何這波狂犬病毒集中發生在鼬獾和錢鼠身上？其病毒源頭為何？其病毒若侵入另一物種，能不能繼續存活？這些問題必須解開，政府防疫工作才能有效對症下藥。
台灣在一九五九年的最後一例狂犬病紀錄後，迄今僅出現三例境外移入病例，超過半世紀不曾有過本土狂犬病例；因此，對狂犬病陌生是必然的，當然也缺乏監測或病理研究。因而，在農政單位驟然宣布鼬獾檢體驗出狂犬病毒後，台灣隨即被「世界動物衛生組織」列為狂犬病疫區，確實讓民眾感到措手不及。
人體若遭狂犬病毒感染，發病後死亡率幾達百分之百，確實可怕；但別忘了，這個數字有其前提：例如，感染者因體質不同，被咬後平均發病率只有三成；且人感染狂犬病超過百分之九十是被「狂狗」咬傷（台灣境外移入三例皆是），其餘則是遭帶有狂犬病毒且已發病的貓抓咬。來自鼬獾、錢鼠等其他哺乳類動物傳染的病例，少到幾乎可以忽略。
幾乎所有哺乳動物都會感染狂犬病毒，這是事實；但能將狂犬病毒傳染給人類的，只有「食肉目」的犬、貓、鼬、靈貓、浣熊等五科，及「翼手目」的蝙蝠。狂犬病毒進入這些動物宿主體內後，會分裂、增生，且具「保毒」作用，並在發病後有機會將病毒傳染給人類。
但必須釐清的是，不同的狂犬病毒株各有特定宿主，會傳染給另一物種的機率極小；即使傳染給其他物種，病毒也無法增生存活。因此，狗咬了帶毒的鼬獾，並不會成為病毒新宿主。至於台東咬傷婦人的錢鼠雖確認帶毒，但應不具「保毒」能力；至少，根據文獻記載，這種案例幾未發生過。
錢鼠因在民間傳說中被視為招財之兆，而逃過人類的追殺；因數量龐大，與人居環境的障礙較少，在確認牠帶毒下，可能引發新一波的恐慌。「世界衛生組織」曾檢驗上萬隻住宅區齧齒動物，並未發現齧齒動物有感染狂犬病現象，這說明齧齒動物不具擔任狂犬病毒宿主的條件。至於屬「食蟲目」之錢鼠，專家認為，過去全球尚無錢鼠感染狂犬病的報告，像台東這隻染毒錢鼠比起一般老鼠更在食物鏈之底層，散播狂犬病毒的能力應該不大。
狂犬病疫情捲土重來，嚴格考驗了防疫體系對陌生病毒的防禦能力，這對秋天Ｈ７Ｎ９禽流感將重返台灣具有操兵作用，也可趁機檢視防疫體系需要補漏之處。
首先，防疫編組專家成員應擴大層面。此次狂犬病疫情判讀及防疫指揮主要是農政、公衛體系在操作，應增加演化、獸醫學專家，及具實務經驗的動物園、野生動物收容中心等單位；且須對專家做精確的專長建檔，才不致再發生判讀疫情不到位的缺失。
其次，迅速的國際資訊交換及經驗借鏡，尤其是狂犬病好發、頻發且生活環境及習性相近的中國大陸，有不少經驗可供我參考。
第三，對寵物恐慌性棄養潮的迅速補漏。近日各地的寵物棄養增加了三成以上，其中不少是流行浪頭上的明星寵物，這是對動物的冷酷剝削。再如坊間盛行的另類寵物，如雪貂、穿山甲、刺蝟等，因為離開原生地或繁殖場過度繁殖，原就體質孱弱，在狂犬病陰影籠罩下，往往難逃棄養命運。這些稀有寵物，絕大多數是走私與夾帶進口，海關、海巡人員不具備野生動物專業固是原因，但更根本的問題在於政府相關單位執法的漫不經心。若任由動物棄養成災，這波狂犬病災情恐會更雪上加霜。
對付狂犬病，防範之道唯有誠實與謹慎，民眾被不明動物咬傷應立刻急救並施打疫苗，主管單位也應開誠布公，切勿企圖掩蓋真相。如此，我們的防疫網才能發揮遏阻及保安的效果。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)