Democracy's Shame
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 20, 2014
Summary: The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy.
Full text below:
The "Democratic Front Against Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement" and other pressure groups gathered outside the Legislative Yuan last night. They objected to the submission of the "Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services" to the Legislative Yuan for review. The protestors consisted mainly of students. They stormed the legislature last evening and occupied the legislative hall. They held a press conference and made three demands. They demanded that police immediately withdraw from the legislature, that President Ma Ying-jeou apologize, and that Premier Chiang Yi-hua step down and reject the cross-strait agreement in trade in services. Let us be blunt. If the administration bends to their will, the ROC government may as well close shop.
We are deeply disappointed. Political competition on Taiwan may be fierce. But we do have a clear consensus. We are a democracy under the rule of law, When we hold any election, pass any bill, we must follow proper procedure. We have a democratically elected government. This government has a mandate from a majority of the voters. It is responsible to the overwhelming majority of the people and their interests, as expressed in the proposed bill. The bill was passed by a democratically-elected legislature, in accordance with due process. We are proud of our democracy. it operates according to these rules. We do not believe there is an alternative.
Unfortunately, the laws of democracy were violated late at night, on the day before yesterday. A mob established a "front." Its members gathered before the legislature. They injured policemen attempting to maintain order. They occupied the legislative hall. They forced the legislature to change its schedule. They demanded that the premier step down. They demanded that the president apologize. If the premier and president failed to comply, they threatened to continue their occupation until their demands were met.
Who are these people? Who gave them the power to tell an elected legislature how to legislate? Who gave them the power to flagrantly occupy the hallowed halls of the legislature, and order the police out? The premier is answerable only to the democratically elected legislature. Who gave them the power to demand that he step down? Who gave them the power to demand that an elected president apologize? Today's Taiwan is proud of its democracy. If the mob is permitted to get away with this behavior, why bother to hold elections? Why should we respect the democratic legislative process? After all, if one can muster a hundred or so people, one can occupy the halls of the legislature, and demand to be heard. Others will have no choice but to listen. Simple, right? But the democracy we strived for so many years to achieve will be destroyed in such a manner.
The cross strait agreement in trade and services can be debated. It has already undergone lengthy debate. The pros and cons and relevant factors have all been discussed. Everything that can be discussed, has been discussed, Everything that can be evaluated, has been evaluated. How can industries that benefit increase their competitiveness? How can industries that might be harmed minimize the harm? Everything that can be thought of, has been thought of. Furthermore, opinion polls show that most people support the cross strait agreement in trade in services. President Ma was democratically elected by a majority of voters. So was the ruling party in the legislature. They reflect majority opinion on Taiwan. They support the cross strait agreement on trade in services bill. The bill reflects the will of the majority. If opposition parties have different views, they may express them, then seek to rule after the next election. But they may not engage in irrational obstructionism. They may not incite students to occupy the halls of the legislature. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened on Taiwan.
We sternly condemn the DPP. You are heading step by step in the direction you once opposed. You want to steer the ship of nation. You are welcome to do so. But you must first win majority support. If some day win a majority, then of course you may review the merits of the cross strait agreement in trade in services. But today you are in the opposition. Please respect the rules of the game. Is all you know how to occupy the podium? Is all you know how to engage in technical obstructionism? Are you afraid to state aloud your objections? Your approach demeans democratic values. It is populist demagoguery. Suppose one day you become the ruling party? Surely you don't expect the KMT to pay you back in kind, by engaging in obstructionism to the bitter end?
Your behavior behind the scenes is even more immoral. You encourage students to stand on the front lines. You encourgage them to engage in anti-democratic behavior, to irrationally trample on the dignity of the legislature, to assault law enforcement officers, and to humiliate heads of state and the premier. Worse still, you let the entire world to watch as young students on Taiwan failed the literacy test on democracy, and undermined democracy. You harmed these young students. You urged these youth to engage in violence and subvert the democratic process, This crime is one for which you cannot escape responsibility .
We appeal to the students occupying the halls of the legislature. Your behavior is not an expression of democracy, but the undermining of democracy. The bill is a solemn legal matter. It is not something you can get your way on by occupying the halls of the legislature and demanding whatever you want. Rethink your behavior. Do you wish to oppose the cross strait agreement on trade in services? Then please study the cross strait agreement on trade in services first. Study it carefully. Do not alllow yourself to be manipulated by politicians. Is your purpose merely to pad your resume, to ensure your future in politics? Or are you indifferent to the humiliation of the legislature, the trampling of the legislative process , and the sacrifce of democracy and the rule of law? If you are, we have nothing more to say.
Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying insists that he is neutral. He refuses to invoke his police power to restore the dignity of the legislature. He has long abetted the DPP minority overriding the democratic majority. The result has been a tragedy for democracy. Speaker of the Legislature Wang must restore the dignity of the legislature. Otherwise democracy will perish. How then can we restore public trust in our democratic ideals?
社論－民主之恥
2014-03-20 01:41
中國時報
本報訊
反黑箱服貿民主陣線等民間團體在立法院外舉辦晚會，抗議《服務貿易協議》送立法院院會存查，以學生為主的抗議民眾在晚間衝進立法院占據議場。昨天更召開記者會提出3訴求，要求警察立即退出國會、總統馬英九道歉，行政院長江宜樺下台及退回《服貿協議》。我們很直接的說，若政府果真接受他們的訴求，那中華民國政府乾脆關門算了！
我們如此沉重，是因為台灣政治競爭雖然激烈，卻有一個明確的共識：我們是一個民主法治的國家，舉辦任何一次選舉、通過任何一項法案，都要依循正當的程序。我們有一個民選政府，這個民選政府受多數選民付託，有責任提出符合最大多數人民利益的法案，再由一個民選的國會依正當程序通過，我們大家所自豪的民主，就是依此規律運作的。相信沒有人會認為，除這之外，我們還可以、或應該依循其它任何模式運作。
很遺憾，民主的規律就在前天深夜被打破了！一群人成立一個所謂的「陣線」，聚眾在國會議場外集會，打傷維持秩序的警察，占領國會議場，強迫國會變動議程，要求閣揆下台，要求總統道歉，若不從，他們將持續抗爭下去，直到依他們的訴求為止！
他們是誰？是誰賦與他們這麼大的權力？可以指揮一個民選的國會如何立法，可以公然占據神聖的國會議場還要喝令警察退出，可以直接要求一位只向民選國會負責的閣揆下台，可以要求一位民選的總統道歉？如果在今天的台灣，這個對民主成就還頗為自豪的國家，可以被允許這樣做，那我們必須要說，咱們還要選舉幹嘛！何必還要尊重民主的立法程序！只要有本事糾集百來個人，直接把議場給占領了，就可以非要你聽我的，不聽都不行，那不是非常簡單嗎？問題是，我們努力了那麼多年所打造的民主工程，可以就這樣毀於一旦嗎！
《服貿協議》不是不能討論，但它早已經歷過非常冗長的討論了，所有的利弊相關因素，能討論的也都討論過了，能評估的也早做評估了，怎麼讓受益的產業進一步擴大競爭力，怎麼讓可能受到影響的產業盡量減少衝擊，能想到的都想到了，更何況若干民調也顯示，多數民意是支持簽訂《服貿協議》。在今天，民選出來的馬總統，是多數選民選出來的，國會的執政黨黨團，所反映的也是台灣的多數民意，它們推動《服貿協議》立法，正是向多數民意負責的表現，在野黨若是有意見，在充分表達不同意見後，爭取下一次選舉獲得執政即可，絕不是非理性的抵制，更不能操縱學生占據議場，很不幸，這一切竟然都在台灣發生了！
我們必須嚴肅的譴責民進黨，你們正在一步步朝向你們曾經反對的方向走！你們想要掌握國家發展的方向盤，誰都歡迎，但請先贏得民意多數，有一天你們若真的贏得了選舉多數，當然可以檢討《服貿協議》的功過，但今天你既然是在野，就請尊重遊戲規則，如果只知占據主席台，只會抵制到底，甚至只敢技術性杯葛《服貿協議》的生效，卻不敢大聲說出反對的理由，這種做法，絕不是對民主價值理念的信守，而是民粹的利用。相信有一天你成了執政黨，總不會期待國民黨一報還一報，凡事都抵制到底吧！
你們更不道德的是，居然自己躲在幕後，鼓動學生去站在第一線，讓他們以非民主、非理性的方式去踐踏國會尊嚴，去傷害執法人員，去羞辱國家的元首與閣揆，更不堪的是還讓全世界目睹台灣青年學子如何以不及格的民主素養，去傷害民主，你們是在殘害青年學生！竟然讓他們在還是青春歲月的年代，以暴力的手段去摧毀民主程序，這個罪行，你們是無從迴避的。
我們也想誠摯的奉勸占據議場的學子們，你們的行為不是在踐履民主，而是在傷害民主，一個嚴肅的法案是有法定程序的，不是聽任你們占據議場後就可以予取予求的，重新省思自己的行為吧！要反對《服貿協議》，請先好好研究《服貿協議》，別再被政客操縱了！但如果你們的目的，只是在累積個人政治資歷，作為未來從政的資本，卻無視於國會被羞辱、立法權被踐踏、民主法治被犧牲，那我們就無言了。
王金平院長堅持議長中立，拒絕動用警察權排除議事障礙，長期縱容民進黨以少數凌駕多數，終於釀成議場淪陷的民主悲劇，王院長必須設法重建立法院的尊嚴，否則民主自己淪喪，民眾對民主理念的信賴又如何維繫呢！
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Campaign Promises: Vote Buying, or Public Welfare?
Campaign Promises: Vote Buying, or Public Welfare?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 19, 2014
Summary: The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
Full text below:
The Ministry of the Interior invited the business community and local governments to discuss legal holidays. They decided that when a national holiday lands on a two day weekend, employees will receive compensatory leave. Next year will have 115 non-working days. This was in response to an earlier declaration by Premier Chiang Yi-hua, who wanted to increase the number of holidays so that people could enjoy a "small but real benefit."
In fact, everyone knows this is a charade. It is simply a Blue Camp post-Chinese New Year election ploy in the upcoming local election campaigns. Take for example, the Chinese New Year. New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu said people want pay raises, but giving them pay raises is hard. Instead, if the government allows people to have more days off, it will stimulate consumption and make people felt better. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu then announced that the Taichung City Council proposed making the traditional Hakka Festival a legal holiday. If the bill is passed, it will be submitted to the Executive Yuan. Taipei mayoral candidate Lien Sheng-wen let it be known that if elected he would restore Constitution Day, making December 25 a holiday. This would increase tourism and create economic value. Faced with such artificial presssures, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said the government must view these "small hut real benefits" through the peoples' eyes. He wanted to study the possiblity of changing the legal holidays next year.
A gaggle of politicians have spoken up just in order to have more days off, Premier Chiang Yi-hua in particular. He even adopted the younger generation's vernacular, and used the expression "small but real benefits." As we can see, the political elites are eager to pander to the public. Eric Chu was the most direct. Since they cannot get raises, they may as well get more holidays. After all, when it comes to holidays, who besides the business owner or employer is going to disagree? Administratively speaking approving extra days off is not that complicated. The ruling and opposition parties are accustomed to competing to see who can legislate the most holidays. This would never lead to all out war, such as that over the trade in services agreement. As anyone can see, most of the politicians who have spoken out in favor of more holidays are candidates in county chief and city mayor elections. Their mouths are full of talk about holidays. But their heads are full of thoughts of votes.
Everyone is of course happy to take more holidays. But anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no such thing as "more holidays for economic revitalization." Otherwise, why not simply implement a three day weekend? Then Taiwan's economy would really take-off, right? A few years ago the IT industry was hit by the global financial crisis. This brought upon economic winter and severe recession. Technology and electronics manufacturers resorted to "unpaid leave." No employees rejoiced at the extra days off. They worried that their jobs were no longer secure. They were less likely to take advantage of the opportunity to go shopping. Their income was no longer assured, so why would they want to spend? What's more, the productivity loss must be borne by the employer. Manufacturers may suffer lowered productivity and refuse to increase pay. The price of the vicious cycle will ultimately be borne by the public.
This wave of controversy, motivated by year end campaign considerations, is nothing new. During the previous five cities elections, Taichung mayoral candidate Su Chia-chuan declared that, if elected, he would increase welfare payments to the elderly, from 1,600 NT to 2,000 NT. Other welfare benefits for the elderly would also be provided. They would be comparable to with those provided by Taipei and Kaohsiung. Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang was even more magnanimous. He proposed distributing prepaid garbage bags to the public, for free.
Political candidates compete in using public funds to engage in vote buying. Some scholars are disgusted. They have cited Bureau of Audit statistics. They have cited the outstanding balances in central government public debt for the past year, This increased from 2.6490 trillion NT in late 2001 to 4.2962 trillion NT. Fortunately the candidates who promised the stars were not elected. That spared the treasury from accelerated bankruptcy. But bipartisan vote buying is long-term policy. The government's fiscal balance has deteriorated, By the late January, outstanding balances on central government debt were 5.4618 trillion NT. Next year we are is likely to hit the government debt ceiling.
Every election year, all manner of improvised, short-sighted electioneering tricks emerge. In the past, it was common to use welfare checks as bait. Most common were a variety of annuities. After all, the local governments can make these promises ahead of time, and later blackmail the central government into footing the bill. If they don't succeed, they can provoke other disputes. Election promises have recently created in a new precedent. Council members in six Changhua townships fulfilled campaign promises by privately connecting street lamps without paying for the electricity. Taipower sought payment from the Township Office. But the township administration refused to pay. Taipower sued and won. But the Township Office insists it has no money to pay its electricity bills. The result is six townships will now have a bunch of unlit street lights.
Several major bills are pending in the Legislative Yuan. Most commentators are pessimistic about them passing because this is an election year. Each time an election rolls around, everyones' thinking becomes distorted. The ruling and opposition parties compete in short-sighted pandering to the public. For example, they compete in issuing a variety of annuities. Which beneficiary is going to object? A few extra days off? Who doesn't love that? Will it undermine the government's finances? Will it affect national productivity? Who cares?
The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
社論－選舉支票競相加碼非全民之福
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月19日 04:10
內政部邀集工商界及縣市政府討論放假方式，決定未來國定假日碰到周休2日一律補假，明年全年放假天數將達到115天。這是為回應行政院長江宜樺早先的宣示，要增加放假天數讓民眾感受「小確幸」。
其實誰都清楚，這齣加假戲碼，根本是為春節以來藍營民選首長的政治加碼秀解套。先是在農曆年前，新北市長朱立倫表示，民眾想加薪比較難，政府應讓大家多放點假，以刺激消費，也讓民眾心裡好過些；接著台中市長胡志強指台中議會正爭取在客家傳統節日「天穿日」放假一天，若通過便向行政院申請。然後台北市市長參選人連勝文也放話，若當選會恢復12月25日的「行憲紀念日」放假，以創造觀光與經濟價值。面對這股加假壓力，行政院長江宜樺才表示，應站在民眾角度創造「小確幸」，要求針對明年休假方案加以研擬修正。
不過就是為了多放幾天假，竟惹得一堆政治人物搶著表態，尤其閣揆江宜樺，連新世代的流行語言「小確幸」都搬出來了！可見得為了討好民意，政治精英們可是卯足了勁。特別是朱立倫的說法最直接，既然加不了薪，就加假嘛！畢竟談到放假，除了企業主或雇主之外，有誰會反對？ 在行政作業上，核定多放幾天假一點都不複雜，朝野政黨習慣競相加碼，不可能鬧到像審議《服貿》般全面開戰。任誰都看得出來，這一波衝著放假表態的政治人物，絕大多數都是現任民選縣市長或是爭取提名的候選人，他們口中講要多放假，心中想的，不折不扣是選票！
多放假大家當然都高興，但大概任何懂點經濟學的人都清楚，根本沒有所謂「放假拚經濟」這回事，否則乾脆推行周休3日，台灣經濟不就騰飛了？前幾年科技業遭逢全球性金融海嘯帶來的景氣寒冬，業績成長出現嚴重衰退，科技電子大廠紛紛祭出「無薪假」，那時可沒有任何員工喜形於色，為多放幾天假歡欣鼓舞，反而擔心飯碗可能不保，更不可能還有人利用放假機會出門消費，收入都不保了，誰還想消費呢？更何況，多放假所造成的生產力損失，全要由雇主承擔，還可能導致廠商以生產力降低為由拒絕加薪，惡性循環最終還是要全民承擔！
這一波為年底選票考量所惹出的話題，並不陌生。上一次五都選舉，競逐大台中市長的蘇嘉全宣布如果他當選，將把重陽敬老金從1600元提高至2000元，其他老人福利也比照北、高發放。當時參選台北市長的蘇貞昌手筆更大，主張垃圾袋免費發放市民。
候選人競相推出「公款買票」政見，有些學者看不下去，搬出審計部統計數據，指中央政府一年以上公共債務未償餘額，從民國90年底的2兆6409億元逐年增加，已達4兆2962億元。所幸濫開選舉支票的候選人均未當選，才避免了國庫加速破產的命運。但在兩黨長期政策買票趨勢下，政府財政收支惡化問題愈演愈烈，今年一月底，中央政府債務未償餘額計5兆4618億元，明年很可能就觸及政府舉債上限。
每逢選舉年，所有即興式、短線式的政見就會跑出來！過去多半以福利支票做誘餌，最常見的就是加發各種年金，反正地方政府先開支票，屆時再強要中央埋單，若是埋單不成還會引發其它爭議。選舉支票引發的最新惡劣案例，就是彰化6鄉鎮部分議員，為履行選舉政見而私接許多的路燈，卻不繳電費，台電追繳電費，要鄉公所負責，但鄉公所不埋單，台電提告雖然贏了一審官司，鄉公所卻堅持沒有錢繳電費，結果就是6個鄉鎮多了一堆不會亮的幽靈路燈。
目前有一些重大法案正在立法院候審，多數評論者對能否順利通過持悲觀態度，因為今年是選舉年，只要逢到了選舉，所有的思考都會受到扭曲。反而能在短時間內討好民眾的政策會被提出來，朝野還競相加碼，譬如加發各種年金。能得到政策好處的人，誰會反對？多放幾天假，誰不喜歡？至於是否會破壞政府財政，是否影響國家生產力，誰會在乎？
距離年底選舉還有大半年，我們擔心增加放假的話題，還只是熱身，接下來還會有更驚人的選舉支票出現，朝野再度競相加碼賄賂選民。但台灣的整體競爭力、國家的財政負擔，經不經得起折騰，我們真的不樂觀。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 19, 2014
Summary: The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
Full text below:
The Ministry of the Interior invited the business community and local governments to discuss legal holidays. They decided that when a national holiday lands on a two day weekend, employees will receive compensatory leave. Next year will have 115 non-working days. This was in response to an earlier declaration by Premier Chiang Yi-hua, who wanted to increase the number of holidays so that people could enjoy a "small but real benefit."
In fact, everyone knows this is a charade. It is simply a Blue Camp post-Chinese New Year election ploy in the upcoming local election campaigns. Take for example, the Chinese New Year. New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu said people want pay raises, but giving them pay raises is hard. Instead, if the government allows people to have more days off, it will stimulate consumption and make people felt better. Taichung City Mayor Jason Hu then announced that the Taichung City Council proposed making the traditional Hakka Festival a legal holiday. If the bill is passed, it will be submitted to the Executive Yuan. Taipei mayoral candidate Lien Sheng-wen let it be known that if elected he would restore Constitution Day, making December 25 a holiday. This would increase tourism and create economic value. Faced with such artificial presssures, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said the government must view these "small hut real benefits" through the peoples' eyes. He wanted to study the possiblity of changing the legal holidays next year.
A gaggle of politicians have spoken up just in order to have more days off, Premier Chiang Yi-hua in particular. He even adopted the younger generation's vernacular, and used the expression "small but real benefits." As we can see, the political elites are eager to pander to the public. Eric Chu was the most direct. Since they cannot get raises, they may as well get more holidays. After all, when it comes to holidays, who besides the business owner or employer is going to disagree? Administratively speaking approving extra days off is not that complicated. The ruling and opposition parties are accustomed to competing to see who can legislate the most holidays. This would never lead to all out war, such as that over the trade in services agreement. As anyone can see, most of the politicians who have spoken out in favor of more holidays are candidates in county chief and city mayor elections. Their mouths are full of talk about holidays. But their heads are full of thoughts of votes.
Everyone is of course happy to take more holidays. But anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no such thing as "more holidays for economic revitalization." Otherwise, why not simply implement a three day weekend? Then Taiwan's economy would really take-off, right? A few years ago the IT industry was hit by the global financial crisis. This brought upon economic winter and severe recession. Technology and electronics manufacturers resorted to "unpaid leave." No employees rejoiced at the extra days off. They worried that their jobs were no longer secure. They were less likely to take advantage of the opportunity to go shopping. Their income was no longer assured, so why would they want to spend? What's more, the productivity loss must be borne by the employer. Manufacturers may suffer lowered productivity and refuse to increase pay. The price of the vicious cycle will ultimately be borne by the public.
This wave of controversy, motivated by year end campaign considerations, is nothing new. During the previous five cities elections, Taichung mayoral candidate Su Chia-chuan declared that, if elected, he would increase welfare payments to the elderly, from 1,600 NT to 2,000 NT. Other welfare benefits for the elderly would also be provided. They would be comparable to with those provided by Taipei and Kaohsiung. Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang was even more magnanimous. He proposed distributing prepaid garbage bags to the public, for free.
Political candidates compete in using public funds to engage in vote buying. Some scholars are disgusted. They have cited Bureau of Audit statistics. They have cited the outstanding balances in central government public debt for the past year, This increased from 2.6490 trillion NT in late 2001 to 4.2962 trillion NT. Fortunately the candidates who promised the stars were not elected. That spared the treasury from accelerated bankruptcy. But bipartisan vote buying is long-term policy. The government's fiscal balance has deteriorated, By the late January, outstanding balances on central government debt were 5.4618 trillion NT. Next year we are is likely to hit the government debt ceiling.
Every election year, all manner of improvised, short-sighted electioneering tricks emerge. In the past, it was common to use welfare checks as bait. Most common were a variety of annuities. After all, the local governments can make these promises ahead of time, and later blackmail the central government into footing the bill. If they don't succeed, they can provoke other disputes. Election promises have recently created in a new precedent. Council members in six Changhua townships fulfilled campaign promises by privately connecting street lamps without paying for the electricity. Taipower sought payment from the Township Office. But the township administration refused to pay. Taipower sued and won. But the Township Office insists it has no money to pay its electricity bills. The result is six townships will now have a bunch of unlit street lights.
Several major bills are pending in the Legislative Yuan. Most commentators are pessimistic about them passing because this is an election year. Each time an election rolls around, everyones' thinking becomes distorted. The ruling and opposition parties compete in short-sighted pandering to the public. For example, they compete in issuing a variety of annuities. Which beneficiary is going to object? A few extra days off? Who doesn't love that? Will it undermine the government's finances? Will it affect national productivity? Who cares?
The year end elections are six months away. We are concerned that the bandwagon to increase the number of holidays is just getting warmed up. The next election will result in even more outrageous campaign promises. The ruling and opposition parties will compete in their efforts to bribe voters. But can Taiwan's competitiveness and the government's finances withstand the stress? We doubt it.
社論－選舉支票競相加碼非全民之福
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月19日 04:10
內政部邀集工商界及縣市政府討論放假方式，決定未來國定假日碰到周休2日一律補假，明年全年放假天數將達到115天。這是為回應行政院長江宜樺早先的宣示，要增加放假天數讓民眾感受「小確幸」。
其實誰都清楚，這齣加假戲碼，根本是為春節以來藍營民選首長的政治加碼秀解套。先是在農曆年前，新北市長朱立倫表示，民眾想加薪比較難，政府應讓大家多放點假，以刺激消費，也讓民眾心裡好過些；接著台中市長胡志強指台中議會正爭取在客家傳統節日「天穿日」放假一天，若通過便向行政院申請。然後台北市市長參選人連勝文也放話，若當選會恢復12月25日的「行憲紀念日」放假，以創造觀光與經濟價值。面對這股加假壓力，行政院長江宜樺才表示，應站在民眾角度創造「小確幸」，要求針對明年休假方案加以研擬修正。
不過就是為了多放幾天假，竟惹得一堆政治人物搶著表態，尤其閣揆江宜樺，連新世代的流行語言「小確幸」都搬出來了！可見得為了討好民意，政治精英們可是卯足了勁。特別是朱立倫的說法最直接，既然加不了薪，就加假嘛！畢竟談到放假，除了企業主或雇主之外，有誰會反對？ 在行政作業上，核定多放幾天假一點都不複雜，朝野政黨習慣競相加碼，不可能鬧到像審議《服貿》般全面開戰。任誰都看得出來，這一波衝著放假表態的政治人物，絕大多數都是現任民選縣市長或是爭取提名的候選人，他們口中講要多放假，心中想的，不折不扣是選票！
多放假大家當然都高興，但大概任何懂點經濟學的人都清楚，根本沒有所謂「放假拚經濟」這回事，否則乾脆推行周休3日，台灣經濟不就騰飛了？前幾年科技業遭逢全球性金融海嘯帶來的景氣寒冬，業績成長出現嚴重衰退，科技電子大廠紛紛祭出「無薪假」，那時可沒有任何員工喜形於色，為多放幾天假歡欣鼓舞，反而擔心飯碗可能不保，更不可能還有人利用放假機會出門消費，收入都不保了，誰還想消費呢？更何況，多放假所造成的生產力損失，全要由雇主承擔，還可能導致廠商以生產力降低為由拒絕加薪，惡性循環最終還是要全民承擔！
這一波為年底選票考量所惹出的話題，並不陌生。上一次五都選舉，競逐大台中市長的蘇嘉全宣布如果他當選，將把重陽敬老金從1600元提高至2000元，其他老人福利也比照北、高發放。當時參選台北市長的蘇貞昌手筆更大，主張垃圾袋免費發放市民。
候選人競相推出「公款買票」政見，有些學者看不下去，搬出審計部統計數據，指中央政府一年以上公共債務未償餘額，從民國90年底的2兆6409億元逐年增加，已達4兆2962億元。所幸濫開選舉支票的候選人均未當選，才避免了國庫加速破產的命運。但在兩黨長期政策買票趨勢下，政府財政收支惡化問題愈演愈烈，今年一月底，中央政府債務未償餘額計5兆4618億元，明年很可能就觸及政府舉債上限。
每逢選舉年，所有即興式、短線式的政見就會跑出來！過去多半以福利支票做誘餌，最常見的就是加發各種年金，反正地方政府先開支票，屆時再強要中央埋單，若是埋單不成還會引發其它爭議。選舉支票引發的最新惡劣案例，就是彰化6鄉鎮部分議員，為履行選舉政見而私接許多的路燈，卻不繳電費，台電追繳電費，要鄉公所負責，但鄉公所不埋單，台電提告雖然贏了一審官司，鄉公所卻堅持沒有錢繳電費，結果就是6個鄉鎮多了一堆不會亮的幽靈路燈。
目前有一些重大法案正在立法院候審，多數評論者對能否順利通過持悲觀態度，因為今年是選舉年，只要逢到了選舉，所有的思考都會受到扭曲。反而能在短時間內討好民眾的政策會被提出來，朝野還競相加碼，譬如加發各種年金。能得到政策好處的人，誰會反對？多放幾天假，誰不喜歡？至於是否會破壞政府財政，是否影響國家生產力，誰會在乎？
距離年底選舉還有大半年，我們擔心增加放假的話題，還只是熱身，接下來還會有更驚人的選舉支票出現，朝野再度競相加碼賄賂選民。但台灣的整體競爭力、國家的財政負擔，經不經得起折騰，我們真的不樂觀。
Expedite Trade in Services Agreement, Postpone Cultural and Creative Industries Negotiations
Expedite Trade in Services Agreement, Postpone Cultural and Creative Industries Negotiations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 18, 2014
Summary: The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
Full text below:
Beginning on the 11th, this newspaper published a series of six consecutive articles entitled, "China Times Recommendations on the Trade in Services Agreement." These articles addressed six areas, including finance, commerce, transportation, health, tourism, and the cultural and creative industries. They discussed the pros and cons of the trade in services agreement. Clearly the Mainland was opening up in the trade in services industry to Taiwan before it opened it up to the rest of the world. It was permitting Taiwan to get a jump on its competitors. It was a gesture of goodwill. The Mainland also made more concessions to Taiwan than Taiwan made to the Mainland.
Consider the six service industries evaluated in these articles. Almost all participants look forward to early passage of the trade in services agreement. This would enable them to immediately gain a foothold on the Mainland, and to grab the biggest piece of the pie. Some industries being allowed to operate, such as the finance industry, will increase the amount of RMB-denominated financial instruments. This will be highly beneficial to the investing public. Only the cultural and creative industries are ambivalent about the trade in services agreement. They are simultaneously filled with hope and disappointment. The trade in services agreement is one small step. But we lost an opportunity to take one giant leap. They worry that upon entry into the Chinese language market, Taiwan's cultural and creative industries will be an industry in name only, one without any market. But blocking the trade in services agreement will not help. They won't have the game. They won't even have the name. Hence their internal dilemma. This has led part of the cultural sector to reject the trade in services agreement in toto.
The cross-strait trade in services agreement cultural and creative industries law covers 15 industries. Only two are on the liberalization list. The Mainland has obtained the right to invest in the existing printing industry on Taiwan. But it may not own over half the shares. Taiwan on the other hand, has secured the right to supply the videogame industry. A two month long time limit has been put on approval for Super WTO treatment. Taiwan's content industry faces barrers to access in the Mainland market. This situation has not improved. The wall remains impregnable.
The trade in services agreement was signed last year. Culturally oriented publications on Taiwan expressed disappointment and regret. The ostensible reason was the one-sided market opening. Taiwan was required to unilaterally allow Mainland investment in Taiwan's existing printing industry. It was not allowed to become a majority shareholder. But the Mainland refused to make any concessions. The DPP, which opposes the trade in services agreement, reveled in Schadenfreude. It turned the matter into a political storm. In fact, Taiwan has never restricted Japanese, European, and American investment in the printing industry. So how can Mainland capital become a threat? The real reason people in the cultural and creative industries are complaining, is that government negotiators failed to deal with a single link in the publishing industry chain. The publishing industry on the Mainland is highly regulated. Opening up our side did not create any upstream or downstream market opportunities for our side.
Ever since the two sides began cross-strait exchanges, we have been regaled with talk of concessions. But the cultural and creative industries, including film and television, publishing, digital content, and the videogame industry cannot wait for concessions. The two sides have different economic systems. This has resulted in unfair trade barriers. Taiwan complains of restrictions. But market opening has created difficulties for management. As a result, the restrictions are mere formalities. Take the videogame industry for example. Taiwan has banned the videogame industry on Taiwan. But Mainland companies are going ahead. The already account for almost half of the market on Taiwan. But the Mainland is being ultra cautious. As long as Taiwan share holders are involved, progress is nearly impossible. The Taiwan videogame industry controls under 1% of the Mainland market. The system has led to unfair competition. It has forced the industry to rethink whether Taiwan and the Mainland are really friends, or whether it should formulate a business strategy that excludes the Mainland.
Mainland authorities should address this matter. In the cultural and creative industries Taiwan entrepreneurs have run into a brick wall. Young people love videogames. Taiwan-based companies are forced to give up markets in the Chinese hinterland. Why? Even Hollywood embraces the Chinese Dream. They welcome Mainland investments. They cast many Chinese stars in their films. Must people on Taiwan formulate a cultural and creative industry strategy that excludes the Mainland market?
During the KMT era the government banned puppet theater broadcasts. Today, the Mainland authorities impose content restrictions. Anyone who lived through those times understands this mentality. Back then puppet theater was banned. Today it has become the vanguard of Taiwan's cultural and creative industry. Some want puppet theater to be broadcast on national satellite television channels on the Mainland. But this is still a fantasy. Mainland authorities should change their thinking. Teresa Teng's banned songs are among the sweetest memories shared by both sides. The two sides should create new memories together.
We issue this earnest appeal. The trade in services agreement is currently being reviewed in the legislature. The Taipei Computer Association will run an industry-sponsored advertisement entitled, "Taiwan Can Be Better." It will support the trade in services agreement. There is no reason why young people on the two sides must drift farther and farther apart. Young people from Taiwan should not ecounter only frustration on the Mainland.
The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. But what it has given, should take effect as soon as possible. The issue of access for Taiwan's cultural entrepreneurs can be discussed under the WTO cross-strait trade in services market and trade agreements, or under a cross-strait cultural agreement.
Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
社論－服貿應早日生效 文創須另啟協商
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月18日 04:10
本報自11日起連續發表6篇「中時對服貿協議的主張」，就金融、電子商務、交通運輸、醫療、觀光旅遊、文化創意等6領域，分別探討了服貿協議的利弊得失。很顯然的，這是大陸在對世界開放服務業市場前，先對台灣開放，讓台灣搶得先機的善意體現，而且大陸對台開放大於台灣對陸開放。
就本報探討的6服務產業，幾乎所有業者都期盼服貿協議早日生效，可以立刻逐鹿中原，搶食市場大餅，有的開放項目，譬如金融開放，將增加人民幣計價金融商品額度，對投資大眾非常有利。唯獨文創產業，卻對服貿協議的簽訂抱持既期待又難掩失望的矛盾心理，因為服貿協議只跨了開放的一小步，卻失去邁開大步的契機，憂慮服貿協議生效後，台灣文創在華文市場仍然徒有影響力空名，而無市場實益，但阻擋服貿生效卻連空名也不可得，因而內心糾結，也造成部分文化界人士棄雞肋、反服貿的選擇。
兩岸服貿協議中，文創法所定義的15項產業，僅兩項納入開放清單。陸方取得投資台灣現有印刷業的機會，但持股不得過半，台灣則為遊戲業者爭取到在材料齊備前提下，限時兩個月審批完成的超WTO待遇。除此之外，台灣內容產業在大陸所面臨的市場准入障礙，完全未獲得改善，仍如銅牆鐵壁般嚴密。
回顧去年服貿協議簽署後，台灣文化出版界的失望與悲鳴，表面理由是台灣單向開放陸資投資現有印刷廠業，持股不得過半，大陸卻寸土未讓，反服貿的民進黨見獵心喜，擴大成為政治風暴。事實上，台灣印刷業未曾限制歐美日資，又豈會把陸資視為威脅？文化界悲鳴的真正理由，在於政府談判代表未正視印刷為整體出版產業鏈之一環，我方的開放，並未換得高度管制的大陸出版行業上下游任何市場參與的機會。
兩岸交流以來，讓利之聲不絕於耳，但文創產業從影視、出版、數位內容到遊戲等行業，非但等不到讓利，甚且因兩岸經濟體制的差異性，形成了不公平貿易障礙的壁壘。台灣雖聲稱限制，卻因開放的體制造成管理困難，因而形同具文。僅以遊戲業為例，台灣禁止大陸遊戲業者在台營運，但大陸業者迂迴前行，已在台取得幾乎過半市占。但大陸查核嚴密，只要最終持股有任一自然人為台灣人，即難逾雷池一步，致台灣遊戲業者在大陸市占率不及1％。體制造成的不公平競爭，迫使台灣業者必須重新思考自己和中國大陸究竟應該為友，或者應該制訂排除大陸思考的經營策略。
大陸當局應該深思，在文創領域對台灣業者設下銅牆鐵壁，連在年輕人深愛的遊戲產業上，都迫使台灣業者不得不放棄華文市場腹地，其深層目的究係為何？連好萊塢都懷著中國夢，歡迎陸資合拍，並大量選角中國明星，難道台灣人在文創內容領域必須全面思考一個沒有中國大陸市場的戰略？
曾經走過國民黨禁止布袋戲播出年代的人，對大陸當局設下的內容准入限制，應當有理解之心。但當年被禁的布袋戲，如今已蛻化成為台灣文創類股的下一支霹靂尖兵。霹靂布袋戲想在大陸衛星電視頻道全國落地，卻仍然是奢侈的想像。大陸當局理應轉念，鄧麗君當年被禁的歌聲已是兩岸最甜美的共同回憶，兩岸應當藉諸文化力量發展共同記憶。
我們必須嚴肅回應，日前服貿協議在立院開始審查時，台灣遊戲產業振興會業者聯名刊登「台灣可以更好」的支持服貿生效說帖廣告。兩岸年輕人沒有理由愈走愈遠，台灣年輕人不該在大陸滿是挫折。
我們知道服貿對台灣文創業爭取得不夠多、不夠好，但已經爭取到的，理應早日生效。尚待努力的台灣文創業者准入議題，可放在世界貿易體系下的兩岸服貿協議市場准入議題中討論，或另以兩岸文化協議處理。
台灣文創業者在深厚的中華文化底蘊中，涵養出獨特的文化美學，應該有進入大陸尋找知音的機會，這是兩岸政府的責任。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 18, 2014
Summary: The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
Full text below:
Beginning on the 11th, this newspaper published a series of six consecutive articles entitled, "China Times Recommendations on the Trade in Services Agreement." These articles addressed six areas, including finance, commerce, transportation, health, tourism, and the cultural and creative industries. They discussed the pros and cons of the trade in services agreement. Clearly the Mainland was opening up in the trade in services industry to Taiwan before it opened it up to the rest of the world. It was permitting Taiwan to get a jump on its competitors. It was a gesture of goodwill. The Mainland also made more concessions to Taiwan than Taiwan made to the Mainland.
Consider the six service industries evaluated in these articles. Almost all participants look forward to early passage of the trade in services agreement. This would enable them to immediately gain a foothold on the Mainland, and to grab the biggest piece of the pie. Some industries being allowed to operate, such as the finance industry, will increase the amount of RMB-denominated financial instruments. This will be highly beneficial to the investing public. Only the cultural and creative industries are ambivalent about the trade in services agreement. They are simultaneously filled with hope and disappointment. The trade in services agreement is one small step. But we lost an opportunity to take one giant leap. They worry that upon entry into the Chinese language market, Taiwan's cultural and creative industries will be an industry in name only, one without any market. But blocking the trade in services agreement will not help. They won't have the game. They won't even have the name. Hence their internal dilemma. This has led part of the cultural sector to reject the trade in services agreement in toto.
The cross-strait trade in services agreement cultural and creative industries law covers 15 industries. Only two are on the liberalization list. The Mainland has obtained the right to invest in the existing printing industry on Taiwan. But it may not own over half the shares. Taiwan on the other hand, has secured the right to supply the videogame industry. A two month long time limit has been put on approval for Super WTO treatment. Taiwan's content industry faces barrers to access in the Mainland market. This situation has not improved. The wall remains impregnable.
The trade in services agreement was signed last year. Culturally oriented publications on Taiwan expressed disappointment and regret. The ostensible reason was the one-sided market opening. Taiwan was required to unilaterally allow Mainland investment in Taiwan's existing printing industry. It was not allowed to become a majority shareholder. But the Mainland refused to make any concessions. The DPP, which opposes the trade in services agreement, reveled in Schadenfreude. It turned the matter into a political storm. In fact, Taiwan has never restricted Japanese, European, and American investment in the printing industry. So how can Mainland capital become a threat? The real reason people in the cultural and creative industries are complaining, is that government negotiators failed to deal with a single link in the publishing industry chain. The publishing industry on the Mainland is highly regulated. Opening up our side did not create any upstream or downstream market opportunities for our side.
Ever since the two sides began cross-strait exchanges, we have been regaled with talk of concessions. But the cultural and creative industries, including film and television, publishing, digital content, and the videogame industry cannot wait for concessions. The two sides have different economic systems. This has resulted in unfair trade barriers. Taiwan complains of restrictions. But market opening has created difficulties for management. As a result, the restrictions are mere formalities. Take the videogame industry for example. Taiwan has banned the videogame industry on Taiwan. But Mainland companies are going ahead. The already account for almost half of the market on Taiwan. But the Mainland is being ultra cautious. As long as Taiwan share holders are involved, progress is nearly impossible. The Taiwan videogame industry controls under 1% of the Mainland market. The system has led to unfair competition. It has forced the industry to rethink whether Taiwan and the Mainland are really friends, or whether it should formulate a business strategy that excludes the Mainland.
Mainland authorities should address this matter. In the cultural and creative industries Taiwan entrepreneurs have run into a brick wall. Young people love videogames. Taiwan-based companies are forced to give up markets in the Chinese hinterland. Why? Even Hollywood embraces the Chinese Dream. They welcome Mainland investments. They cast many Chinese stars in their films. Must people on Taiwan formulate a cultural and creative industry strategy that excludes the Mainland market?
During the KMT era the government banned puppet theater broadcasts. Today, the Mainland authorities impose content restrictions. Anyone who lived through those times understands this mentality. Back then puppet theater was banned. Today it has become the vanguard of Taiwan's cultural and creative industry. Some want puppet theater to be broadcast on national satellite television channels on the Mainland. But this is still a fantasy. Mainland authorities should change their thinking. Teresa Teng's banned songs are among the sweetest memories shared by both sides. The two sides should create new memories together.
We issue this earnest appeal. The trade in services agreement is currently being reviewed in the legislature. The Taipei Computer Association will run an industry-sponsored advertisement entitled, "Taiwan Can Be Better." It will support the trade in services agreement. There is no reason why young people on the two sides must drift farther and farther apart. Young people from Taiwan should not ecounter only frustration on the Mainland.
The trade in services agreement has not been fair to Taiwan's cultural and creative industries. But what it has given, should take effect as soon as possible. The issue of access for Taiwan's cultural entrepreneurs can be discussed under the WTO cross-strait trade in services market and trade agreements, or under a cross-strait cultural agreement.
Taiwan entrepreneurs have preserved a unique cultural aesthetic within the Chinese cultural tradition. They should be given the opportunity to break into the Mainland market. There, they should find a friend. This is the responsibility of both governments.
社論－服貿應早日生效 文創須另啟協商
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月18日 04:10
本報自11日起連續發表6篇「中時對服貿協議的主張」，就金融、電子商務、交通運輸、醫療、觀光旅遊、文化創意等6領域，分別探討了服貿協議的利弊得失。很顯然的，這是大陸在對世界開放服務業市場前，先對台灣開放，讓台灣搶得先機的善意體現，而且大陸對台開放大於台灣對陸開放。
就本報探討的6服務產業，幾乎所有業者都期盼服貿協議早日生效，可以立刻逐鹿中原，搶食市場大餅，有的開放項目，譬如金融開放，將增加人民幣計價金融商品額度，對投資大眾非常有利。唯獨文創產業，卻對服貿協議的簽訂抱持既期待又難掩失望的矛盾心理，因為服貿協議只跨了開放的一小步，卻失去邁開大步的契機，憂慮服貿協議生效後，台灣文創在華文市場仍然徒有影響力空名，而無市場實益，但阻擋服貿生效卻連空名也不可得，因而內心糾結，也造成部分文化界人士棄雞肋、反服貿的選擇。
兩岸服貿協議中，文創法所定義的15項產業，僅兩項納入開放清單。陸方取得投資台灣現有印刷業的機會，但持股不得過半，台灣則為遊戲業者爭取到在材料齊備前提下，限時兩個月審批完成的超WTO待遇。除此之外，台灣內容產業在大陸所面臨的市場准入障礙，完全未獲得改善，仍如銅牆鐵壁般嚴密。
回顧去年服貿協議簽署後，台灣文化出版界的失望與悲鳴，表面理由是台灣單向開放陸資投資現有印刷廠業，持股不得過半，大陸卻寸土未讓，反服貿的民進黨見獵心喜，擴大成為政治風暴。事實上，台灣印刷業未曾限制歐美日資，又豈會把陸資視為威脅？文化界悲鳴的真正理由，在於政府談判代表未正視印刷為整體出版產業鏈之一環，我方的開放，並未換得高度管制的大陸出版行業上下游任何市場參與的機會。
兩岸交流以來，讓利之聲不絕於耳，但文創產業從影視、出版、數位內容到遊戲等行業，非但等不到讓利，甚且因兩岸經濟體制的差異性，形成了不公平貿易障礙的壁壘。台灣雖聲稱限制，卻因開放的體制造成管理困難，因而形同具文。僅以遊戲業為例，台灣禁止大陸遊戲業者在台營運，但大陸業者迂迴前行，已在台取得幾乎過半市占。但大陸查核嚴密，只要最終持股有任一自然人為台灣人，即難逾雷池一步，致台灣遊戲業者在大陸市占率不及1％。體制造成的不公平競爭，迫使台灣業者必須重新思考自己和中國大陸究竟應該為友，或者應該制訂排除大陸思考的經營策略。
大陸當局應該深思，在文創領域對台灣業者設下銅牆鐵壁，連在年輕人深愛的遊戲產業上，都迫使台灣業者不得不放棄華文市場腹地，其深層目的究係為何？連好萊塢都懷著中國夢，歡迎陸資合拍，並大量選角中國明星，難道台灣人在文創內容領域必須全面思考一個沒有中國大陸市場的戰略？
曾經走過國民黨禁止布袋戲播出年代的人，對大陸當局設下的內容准入限制，應當有理解之心。但當年被禁的布袋戲，如今已蛻化成為台灣文創類股的下一支霹靂尖兵。霹靂布袋戲想在大陸衛星電視頻道全國落地，卻仍然是奢侈的想像。大陸當局理應轉念，鄧麗君當年被禁的歌聲已是兩岸最甜美的共同回憶，兩岸應當藉諸文化力量發展共同記憶。
我們必須嚴肅回應，日前服貿協議在立院開始審查時，台灣遊戲產業振興會業者聯名刊登「台灣可以更好」的支持服貿生效說帖廣告。兩岸年輕人沒有理由愈走愈遠，台灣年輕人不該在大陸滿是挫折。
我們知道服貿對台灣文創業爭取得不夠多、不夠好，但已經爭取到的，理應早日生效。尚待努力的台灣文創業者准入議題，可放在世界貿易體系下的兩岸服貿協議市場准入議題中討論，或另以兩岸文化協議處理。
台灣文創業者在深厚的中華文化底蘊中，涵養出獨特的文化美學，應該有進入大陸尋找知音的機會，這是兩岸政府的責任。
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Address Exports Decline, Remedy Structural Causes
Address Exports Decline, Remedy Structural Causes
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 17, 2014
Summary: The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
Full text below:
The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. These include machining centers, which declined 22%, and petrochemical industry raw materials such as terephthalic acid, which declined 74%. Others, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), chips, wafers, blank optical media, set-top boxes, and built-in or external Internet modems, declined 12% to 32%. LCD panels and parts declined approximately 6%. Most other basic industries, base metals and products, machinery, transportation equipment, and textiles declined. For example, bicycle exports declined nearly 5%.
Take imports. Import substitution industrialization is increasingly difficult. Japan has traditionally been a major exporter to Taiwan. In 2013 overall imports from Japan fell 9%. But some imports rose. Most were products we cannot currently produce ourselves, and are unlikely to produce in the future. They include automobiles and machinery and equipment for the manufacture of semiconductor integrated circuits. Meanwhile, imports from South Korea rose 4% last year. It has clearly replaced Japan in the manufacture of many other electronics products, optical equipment. integrated circuits, polarizers and polarizer panels, and processed glass panels. South Korea does not consider Taiwan its match. It is now gunning for Japan.
There are three structural causes for poor export performance. The first is Taiwan's unsuccessful economic integration. Other countries have kept pace. The current tension in the East China Sea will probably accelerate Free Trade Agreement negotiations between the Mainland and the Republic of Korea. It could be signed this year. South Korean and Taiwan exports overlap by 63%. They include petrochemical, rubber and rubber products, textiles and textile products, steel, machinery, semiconductor devices, flat panel display equipment, and integrated circuit components. The two have a highly competitive relationship. Current FTAs cover 6.4% of all exports from Taiwan. They cover 36.5% of all exports from South Korea. If South Korea and Mainland China sign an FTA, that percentage will become 62.6%. On Taiwan, the trade in services agreement remains blocked by the Legislative Yuan. That is the most serious crisis.
Seeking to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are steps in the right direction. But "distant waters cannot put out nearby fires." The biggest obstacle to Taiwan signing the TPP is political resistance to agricultural imports, including chicken, organ meats, and rice. Joining the RCEP is not easy. It requires support from Mainland China and the ASEAN countries. Only then can one even begin negotiations. Meanwhile, the trade in services agreements remains stalled. Such delays may be interpreted as passivity or even hostility toward international and regional integration. This will discourage other nations from supporting our bid to join the TPP and RCEP.
Secondly, the Intel and Microsoft based computer market has changed. Our domestic industry failed to change accordingly. Taiwan's manufacturing industry boom of the 1980s has slowed. The industry boomed once again during the 1990s. But the main reason was it became the world's supply center for personal computers. This was later extended to include other PC components, including monitors, power supplies, chassis, and peripherals. But this structure has undergone revolutionary changes over the past five years. Handheld devices have replaced the PC. They have gradually become the mainstream consumer electronics product. This has had a significant impact on the industry chain on Taiwan. Handheld devices are flourishing in many foundries on Taiwan. They have earned considerable profits, but nothing compared with the past. HTC is a domestic brand. It has had a difficult time competing with Apple and Samsung.
Finally, our industries have not done enough R&D. As a result we are being squeezed from front and rear. The "flying geese theory" states that if one fails to advance, backward countries will soon catch up. During the Ten Great Construction Projects era, Taiwan made huge investments in intermediate materials production. These replaced imports. The Mainland and ASEAN are now taking the same path. Taiwan has only one option. It must increase R&D. It must continue to move forward. Only then can it avoid being caught from both front and rear. It must breakout. But the situation is not optimistic.
As matters stand, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Education, are the three ministries most closely related to research and development. They should cooperate to integrate research and development potential currently dispersed among various universities. These three ministries should identify which technologies will be the first to breakthrough. They should then work on them together. They should create an incentive mechanism. Researchers should be encouraged to engage in research and development that will directly benefit individual industries or an industry as a whole. Take applied sciences. Current journal articles in the West are heavy in reference data, such as educational evaluation modes. These do not meet the needs of industry. As a result, professors or researchers have become blind followers of Western studies. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
解決結構性出口衰退之道
中國時報
2014年03月17日
台灣近年經濟表現不佳，去年全年出口前100大產品中，幾個重要的傳統主力出口品都大幅衰退，包含綜合加工機衰退22％，石化原料像對苯二甲酸衰退74％；其他像發光二極體（LED）晶粒及晶圓、空白光學媒體、具有通訊功能之機上盒、內建或外接網際網路之數據機，衰退12％到32％不等，而液晶面板及其零件各衰退約6％。其他基礎工業方面，基本金屬及其製品、機械、交通運輸設備、紡織品等亦多呈衰退，如腳踏車出口就衰退了近5％。
在進口方面，進口替代愈來愈難走下去。2013年自傳統入超大國日本進口總共減少9％，但單項自該國進口成長的，多為目前未能自行生產且未來也很難看到可以自行發展成功的產品，如汽車成車和製造半導體或積體電路之機器及器具等。另一方面，去年對南韓進口增加4％，其在電子產品、光學器材等項目中已經明顯出現大幅替代日本產品的態勢，包含積體電路、偏光片或偏光版、經過加工的玻璃面板等。韓國沒有把台灣當對手，它現在正在緊迫追趕日本。
出口表現不佳的結構性原因有三，首先是台灣加入經濟整合之路不順，其他國家卻未曾放慢腳步。值得注意的是，當前東海情勢緊張，恐將加快大陸與韓國間自由貿易協議（FTA）談判的進度，快則今年內即可簽署。韓國與台灣出口產品63％重疊，包括石化、橡塑膠製品、紡織原料及紡織品、鋼材、機具、半導體設備、平板顯示器設備、積體電路零組件等產品，雙方具有高度的競爭關係。目前台灣出口的FTA覆蓋率為6.4％，南韓已達36.5％。如果南韓和大陸簽訂FTA，將達62.6％。對於服貿協議還在立法院打轉的台灣而言，是最大危機。
尋求洽簽跨太平洋夥伴協議（TPP）與區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）方向正確，但遠水救不了近火。台灣簽署TPP最大的困難在於政治上很難大幅開放農產品進口，包含雞肉、內臟、稻米等。加入RCEP亦不容易，必須得到中國大陸和東協的諸國支持，才得以進行談判。但現在連服貿協議都還沒過，這樣的拖延恐被國際解釋為台灣對區域整合抱持消極、甚至敵視的負面訊號，對未來尋求各國支持加入RCEP或TPP至為不利。
其次，以英代爾和微軟架構為首的電腦市場已經改變，我國產業界還沒有做出相應的調整。1980年代台灣製造業的發展曾經趨緩，但90年代再度蓬勃發展，其主因是製造業開始成為世界個人電腦的供應重鎮，後來延伸到所有其他供應個人電腦的元件，包括監視器、電源、機殼、周邊設備等。但這樣的架構在過去5年間已經出現革命性的轉變，手持裝置取代了個人電腦，逐漸成為主流電子消費產品，讓台灣的產業鏈面臨重大衝擊。雖然手持裝置的勃興也為台灣許多代工廠賺進相當的利潤，但是完全無法和早期相比；經營本土品牌的HTC則近年受蘋果和三星兩面夾擊，極為艱辛。
最後，我國產業研發能量不夠，已出現被夾殺危機。在雁行理論下，如果不持續進步，隨時都會被後進國迎頭趕上。台灣當年在十大建設時代，大量投資中間原料的生產，以取代進口，現在大陸和東協正重複同樣的途徑。台灣唯有擴增研發能量，繼續快速前進，才能避免夾殺，衝出重圍，但目前情況並不樂觀。
當今之計，經濟部、科技部和教育部3個與研發高度相關的部會，應該趕快攜手合作，積極整合分散在各大學、研究單位的研發能量。這3個部會應先就我國有待突破的產業技術領域，做好認定，然後通力合作，訂出誘因機制，鼓勵研究人員從事台灣個別或全體業界可以直接受益的題目。對於應用科學而言，當前以西方期刊論文數、引用數據等為重的教育評鑑模式，並不符合產業的需求，結果是教授或研究人員各行其是，成為西方研究的盲目跟隨者。韓國單靠一家三星就可以整合韓國相當的研究能量，我們沒有三星，必須靠政府的積極作為始可以為功。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 17, 2014
Summary: The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
Full text below:
The economy on Taiwan has performed poorly in recent years. Last year exports of many of the one hundred most exported products declined. These include machining centers, which declined 22%, and petrochemical industry raw materials such as terephthalic acid, which declined 74%. Others, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), chips, wafers, blank optical media, set-top boxes, and built-in or external Internet modems, declined 12% to 32%. LCD panels and parts declined approximately 6%. Most other basic industries, base metals and products, machinery, transportation equipment, and textiles declined. For example, bicycle exports declined nearly 5%.
Take imports. Import substitution industrialization is increasingly difficult. Japan has traditionally been a major exporter to Taiwan. In 2013 overall imports from Japan fell 9%. But some imports rose. Most were products we cannot currently produce ourselves, and are unlikely to produce in the future. They include automobiles and machinery and equipment for the manufacture of semiconductor integrated circuits. Meanwhile, imports from South Korea rose 4% last year. It has clearly replaced Japan in the manufacture of many other electronics products, optical equipment. integrated circuits, polarizers and polarizer panels, and processed glass panels. South Korea does not consider Taiwan its match. It is now gunning for Japan.
There are three structural causes for poor export performance. The first is Taiwan's unsuccessful economic integration. Other countries have kept pace. The current tension in the East China Sea will probably accelerate Free Trade Agreement negotiations between the Mainland and the Republic of Korea. It could be signed this year. South Korean and Taiwan exports overlap by 63%. They include petrochemical, rubber and rubber products, textiles and textile products, steel, machinery, semiconductor devices, flat panel display equipment, and integrated circuit components. The two have a highly competitive relationship. Current FTAs cover 6.4% of all exports from Taiwan. They cover 36.5% of all exports from South Korea. If South Korea and Mainland China sign an FTA, that percentage will become 62.6%. On Taiwan, the trade in services agreement remains blocked by the Legislative Yuan. That is the most serious crisis.
Seeking to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are steps in the right direction. But "distant waters cannot put out nearby fires." The biggest obstacle to Taiwan signing the TPP is political resistance to agricultural imports, including chicken, organ meats, and rice. Joining the RCEP is not easy. It requires support from Mainland China and the ASEAN countries. Only then can one even begin negotiations. Meanwhile, the trade in services agreements remains stalled. Such delays may be interpreted as passivity or even hostility toward international and regional integration. This will discourage other nations from supporting our bid to join the TPP and RCEP.
Secondly, the Intel and Microsoft based computer market has changed. Our domestic industry failed to change accordingly. Taiwan's manufacturing industry boom of the 1980s has slowed. The industry boomed once again during the 1990s. But the main reason was it became the world's supply center for personal computers. This was later extended to include other PC components, including monitors, power supplies, chassis, and peripherals. But this structure has undergone revolutionary changes over the past five years. Handheld devices have replaced the PC. They have gradually become the mainstream consumer electronics product. This has had a significant impact on the industry chain on Taiwan. Handheld devices are flourishing in many foundries on Taiwan. They have earned considerable profits, but nothing compared with the past. HTC is a domestic brand. It has had a difficult time competing with Apple and Samsung.
Finally, our industries have not done enough R&D. As a result we are being squeezed from front and rear. The "flying geese theory" states that if one fails to advance, backward countries will soon catch up. During the Ten Great Construction Projects era, Taiwan made huge investments in intermediate materials production. These replaced imports. The Mainland and ASEAN are now taking the same path. Taiwan has only one option. It must increase R&D. It must continue to move forward. Only then can it avoid being caught from both front and rear. It must breakout. But the situation is not optimistic.
As matters stand, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Education, are the three ministries most closely related to research and development. They should cooperate to integrate research and development potential currently dispersed among various universities. These three ministries should identify which technologies will be the first to breakthrough. They should then work on them together. They should create an incentive mechanism. Researchers should be encouraged to engage in research and development that will directly benefit individual industries or an industry as a whole. Take applied sciences. Current journal articles in the West are heavy in reference data, such as educational evaluation modes. These do not meet the needs of industry. As a result, professors or researchers have become blind followers of Western studies. South Korea's Samsung by itself can integrate considerable research and development. We lack a Samsung, We must rely on the government to make an aggressive start.
解決結構性出口衰退之道
中國時報
2014年03月17日
台灣近年經濟表現不佳，去年全年出口前100大產品中，幾個重要的傳統主力出口品都大幅衰退，包含綜合加工機衰退22％，石化原料像對苯二甲酸衰退74％；其他像發光二極體（LED）晶粒及晶圓、空白光學媒體、具有通訊功能之機上盒、內建或外接網際網路之數據機，衰退12％到32％不等，而液晶面板及其零件各衰退約6％。其他基礎工業方面，基本金屬及其製品、機械、交通運輸設備、紡織品等亦多呈衰退，如腳踏車出口就衰退了近5％。
在進口方面，進口替代愈來愈難走下去。2013年自傳統入超大國日本進口總共減少9％，但單項自該國進口成長的，多為目前未能自行生產且未來也很難看到可以自行發展成功的產品，如汽車成車和製造半導體或積體電路之機器及器具等。另一方面，去年對南韓進口增加4％，其在電子產品、光學器材等項目中已經明顯出現大幅替代日本產品的態勢，包含積體電路、偏光片或偏光版、經過加工的玻璃面板等。韓國沒有把台灣當對手，它現在正在緊迫追趕日本。
出口表現不佳的結構性原因有三，首先是台灣加入經濟整合之路不順，其他國家卻未曾放慢腳步。值得注意的是，當前東海情勢緊張，恐將加快大陸與韓國間自由貿易協議（FTA）談判的進度，快則今年內即可簽署。韓國與台灣出口產品63％重疊，包括石化、橡塑膠製品、紡織原料及紡織品、鋼材、機具、半導體設備、平板顯示器設備、積體電路零組件等產品，雙方具有高度的競爭關係。目前台灣出口的FTA覆蓋率為6.4％，南韓已達36.5％。如果南韓和大陸簽訂FTA，將達62.6％。對於服貿協議還在立法院打轉的台灣而言，是最大危機。
尋求洽簽跨太平洋夥伴協議（TPP）與區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）方向正確，但遠水救不了近火。台灣簽署TPP最大的困難在於政治上很難大幅開放農產品進口，包含雞肉、內臟、稻米等。加入RCEP亦不容易，必須得到中國大陸和東協的諸國支持，才得以進行談判。但現在連服貿協議都還沒過，這樣的拖延恐被國際解釋為台灣對區域整合抱持消極、甚至敵視的負面訊號，對未來尋求各國支持加入RCEP或TPP至為不利。
其次，以英代爾和微軟架構為首的電腦市場已經改變，我國產業界還沒有做出相應的調整。1980年代台灣製造業的發展曾經趨緩，但90年代再度蓬勃發展，其主因是製造業開始成為世界個人電腦的供應重鎮，後來延伸到所有其他供應個人電腦的元件，包括監視器、電源、機殼、周邊設備等。但這樣的架構在過去5年間已經出現革命性的轉變，手持裝置取代了個人電腦，逐漸成為主流電子消費產品，讓台灣的產業鏈面臨重大衝擊。雖然手持裝置的勃興也為台灣許多代工廠賺進相當的利潤，但是完全無法和早期相比；經營本土品牌的HTC則近年受蘋果和三星兩面夾擊，極為艱辛。
最後，我國產業研發能量不夠，已出現被夾殺危機。在雁行理論下，如果不持續進步，隨時都會被後進國迎頭趕上。台灣當年在十大建設時代，大量投資中間原料的生產，以取代進口，現在大陸和東協正重複同樣的途徑。台灣唯有擴增研發能量，繼續快速前進，才能避免夾殺，衝出重圍，但目前情況並不樂觀。
當今之計，經濟部、科技部和教育部3個與研發高度相關的部會，應該趕快攜手合作，積極整合分散在各大學、研究單位的研發能量。這3個部會應先就我國有待突破的產業技術領域，做好認定，然後通力合作，訂出誘因機制，鼓勵研究人員從事台灣個別或全體業界可以直接受益的題目。對於應用科學而言，當前以西方期刊論文數、引用數據等為重的教育評鑑模式，並不符合產業的需求，結果是教授或研究人員各行其是，成為西方研究的盲目跟隨者。韓國單靠一家三星就可以整合韓國相當的研究能量，我們沒有三星，必須靠政府的積極作為始可以為功。
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Oversights in Premier Chiang's Twenty-Five Points
Oversights in Premier Chiang's Twenty-Five Points
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 14, 2014
Summary: Premier Chiang Yi-hua recently spoke to cabinet ministers. He made 25 major and minor demands. The demands were unimagineably trivial. The premier ordered cabinet ministers to carry out a large number of complicated tasks. Critics considered this inappropriate. They mocked him, saying "The premier is acting like a drill instructor, and putting cabinet ministers through boot camp." More importantly, consider the dignity of those in authority. The premier's action demeans the cabinet ministers. It also blurs the long range vision required for the nation's governance.
Full text below:
Premier Chiang Yi-hua recently spoke to cabinet ministers. He made 25 major and minor demands. The demands were unimagineably trivial. The premier ordered cabinet ministers to carry out a large number of complicated tasks. Critics considered this inappropriate. They mocked him, saying "The premier is acting like a drill instructor, and putting cabinet ministers through boot camp." More importantly, consider the dignity of those in authority. The premier's action demeans the cabinet ministers. It also blurs the long range vision required for the nation's governance.
Taiwan faces intractable problems. What sort of responses are required? Salaries on Taiwan have remain frozen. Ten years ago, the high-tech and OEM industries relocated or were eclipsed by the Koreans. Industrial upgrading has remained an empty promise. Society is anxious. Take the individual. The gap between rich and poor has widened. Young people have no hope. They have no future. Postgraduate study cannot guarantee employment. Take Taiwan as a whole. The government lacks sufficient tax revenue. Public works are at a standstill. EIAs are drawn out and inefficient. Blue vs. Green ideological opposition remains a Gordian knot. Taiwan still enjoys a few advantages, but they are rapidly being frittered away. This is the situation on Taiwan. To change it we need leaders with the courage to throw open the doors.
The environment Taiwan confronts is far from ideal. But take recent history. Both many outstanding political leaders abroad have led their people out of predicaments far worse than ours. They have blazed new trails. Brazil's 36th president is Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Thirty years ago, Taiwan's Sun Yun-suan was also an excellent example. So is Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Leave aside his controversial nationalist policies. He successfully turned Japanese morale around. He had the will to fight.
Look at these leaders. The common denominator is high energy. They know how to clarify the situation, identify the problem, uncover strategies, win public support, and turn things around. Political conditions in Brazil and Japan are worse than they are on Taiwan. Cardoso and Abe would never obsess over how to communicate with members of parliament, over how long it took to return a phone call, over when to consult a PR firm, or over whether to first report to the executive. Put more harshly, if politicians obsess over such trivialities, it is sure to thrwart the realization of their vision.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the premier and cabinet ministers are relative. Does the premier intend to demand strict accountability from cabinet members on all manner of trivia? Does he intend to treat them the way a primary school teacher treats his students? If he does, the result will not difficult to imagine. What caliber of people is willing to tolerate this kind of leadership? The result would be an exodus of the most talented individuals. Premier Chiang does not want cabinet members to make policy behind closed doors. He is right about this. But let us back up. Who recruited the cabinet members who formulate policy behind closed doors to begin with? No large company on Taiwan is going to tolerate anyone above a vice president who formulates policy behind closed doors. Must 30 or more cabinet members follow the premier around and whisper in his ear?
Before Premier Chiang promotes a major policy, he is going to need the support of the president and the various cabinet ministers. This is true enough. But the public on Taiwan has to wonder. The President and the Premier promoted such absurd policies as 12 year compulsory education. They promoted an isolated case which led to the repeal of courts martials. They issued foolhardy hikes in gasoline prices and electricity rates. They promoted a stillborn capital gains tax unique in all the world. Were any of these moves supported by the public on Taiwan? Have the policy leaders who operated behind closed doors learned their lesson? Suppose these cases, which cabinet members were warned about, turn out to be the fault of the president and the premier? Just how effective was this cabinet member boot camp?
Ma administration governance remains troubled even after five years and ten months in office. It is understandably anxious. Everyone knows this. But no matter how anxious it might be, it must not panic and lose its composure. The Chiang 25 Points may represent the conclusions of the abortive Ma Chiang review. But can they really attribute the errors to cabinet officials speaking out of turn, or poor communications, or poor policies? Can they then demand strict discipline? First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. This sort of finger pointing will hardly remedy the problem.
Can Ma and Chiang enage in self-introspection? Can they take a long, hard look at their own managerial approach, their own vision, their own decision-making style, and their own policy direction? If so, the conclusions they reach will be dramatically different. We would like to remind President Ma and Premier Chiang. Blaming others upon encountering setbacks is easy. Contemplating one's own responsibility on the other hand, is hard. As a Western saying puts it, "Most men think they are a good drivers. But few men know where they are going." Nitpicking over cabinet discipline may help the cabinet march in lockstep. But it will not help it find a way out of its current predicament. It may even limit the creativity of its political appointees.
格局與器識：「江廿五點」遺漏的事
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.14 03:57 am
行政院長江宜樺日前在內閣閣員的集訓講話中，提出大大小小的廿五點要求，內容瑣細到難以想像。閣揆把內閣大臣找來吩咐這麼多繁雜瑣事，輿論皆以為不妥，譏為「閣揆做教官、閣員上軍訓」。更重要的是，從治國的高度看，閣揆此舉不僅貶低了閣員的格局，也模糊了當前國家治理與政府決策所需要的遠大瞻矚。
先談台灣當前面對什麼樣的難題、需要什麼樣的改變。台灣社會的平均薪資凍漲已久，十幾年前的高科技產業或者代工外移、或者被韓國超越，產業升級徒託空言，整個社會焦躁不安。就個人而言，社會上貧富差距日益擴大，年輕人對未來沒有熱情、沒有憧憬，讀書深造也不保證有就業前景。就整體台灣而言，國家租稅收入不足，公共建設幾近停擺，環評冗長而無效率，藍綠意識形態糾結難解。台灣當下還有一些所剩不多的優勢，但是這些優勢也正在快速流失。這是當前台灣面對的處境，而要改變這樣的氛圍，我們需要的是大開大闔的領導人。
台灣今天面對的大環境雖然不理想，但觀諸近代歷史，國內外均仍有不少優秀的政治領袖能帶領其人民突破比台灣今天更惡劣的困境，開創新局。巴西第卅六任總統卡多索、台灣卅年前的孫運璿，都是極佳的典範。包括日本首相安倍晉三，若不去深究其政策所涉的國族主義爭議，他也成功將日本的民心士氣從低谷翻轉，有奮勇突破的氣勢。
綜觀這些領導者，他們的共通點是能居高布局，包括釐清當前局面、看準問題癥結，找尋切入策略，喚起民眾認同，設法扭轉局勢等。巴西與日本的政治環境絕對不比台灣單純，但是，卡多索與安倍絕不會把全副重點擺在如何與國會議員溝通、多久要回覆議員電話、什麼時候要找公關公司、政策形成要先向長官報告等等。?得嚴重些，政治人物若是將領導統御的重點豆丁化、瑣碎化，那就注定侷限了其格局與發展。
另一方面，閣揆與閣員的關係當然也是相對的。如果閣揆對閣員的言行枝節嚴予課責，如同老師對小學生那樣耳提面命，大家也不難想像「什麼樣的人願意在如此的領導氣氛下擔任閣員」，其結果必然是反淘汰。江揆要求閣員政策形成不要閉門造車，這話固然沒錯，但是請返其始，這些會閉門造車的閣員又是誰找來的？台灣任何大公司都不可能找閉門造車的人出任副總以上職位，為什麼三十幾位堂堂部會首長，卻要勞煩行政院長在耳邊叮嚀？
江揆要求各部會推動重大政策前要先取得總統與閣揆的支持，這話也沒錯；但台灣人民也不禁要問：總統與院長以往所推動的一拖拉庫荒誕政策（諸如眾人皆曰不宜的十二年國教、由單一個案延伸到軍法審判的廢除、有勇無謀的油電雙漲、舉世無雙即推即廢的證所稅），有沒有得到台灣人民的支持？而那些閉門造車的政策領導人，有沒有得到什麼教訓？如果大人們告誡閣員的種種事例，竟然是總統與院長常犯的錯誤，請問這堂內閣軍訓課的功能究竟在哪裡？
馬政府過去五年十個月施政不順，因而心中焦慮，大家可以理解。然而，再怎麼著急，也不能亂了方寸，慌了手腳。「江廿五點」或許代表馬江檢討挫敗的結論，但把錯誤歸咎於閣員的談話不當、溝通不良、政策不佳，所以要求嚴格的紀律，這恐怕是「見秋毫而不見輿薪」的反省，對於扭轉局勢恐是於事無補。
馬江若能夠反求諸己，多在自己用人、視野、決策風格、施政方向上做檢討，其所能得到的結論與見解，應該會大大不同。我們要提醒馬總統與江院長：在挫敗中檢討別人容易，反省自己困難。西諺有云：「絕大多數男士都認為自己是個好駕駛，但很少人知道自己所駛之方向是否正確。」瑣細的閣員紀律，或許可以讓內閣步伐一致，但是卻絕難找到走出當前困局的方向，更可能侷限了政務官的開創能力。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 14, 2014
Summary: Premier Chiang Yi-hua recently spoke to cabinet ministers. He made 25 major and minor demands. The demands were unimagineably trivial. The premier ordered cabinet ministers to carry out a large number of complicated tasks. Critics considered this inappropriate. They mocked him, saying "The premier is acting like a drill instructor, and putting cabinet ministers through boot camp." More importantly, consider the dignity of those in authority. The premier's action demeans the cabinet ministers. It also blurs the long range vision required for the nation's governance.
Full text below:
Premier Chiang Yi-hua recently spoke to cabinet ministers. He made 25 major and minor demands. The demands were unimagineably trivial. The premier ordered cabinet ministers to carry out a large number of complicated tasks. Critics considered this inappropriate. They mocked him, saying "The premier is acting like a drill instructor, and putting cabinet ministers through boot camp." More importantly, consider the dignity of those in authority. The premier's action demeans the cabinet ministers. It also blurs the long range vision required for the nation's governance.
Taiwan faces intractable problems. What sort of responses are required? Salaries on Taiwan have remain frozen. Ten years ago, the high-tech and OEM industries relocated or were eclipsed by the Koreans. Industrial upgrading has remained an empty promise. Society is anxious. Take the individual. The gap between rich and poor has widened. Young people have no hope. They have no future. Postgraduate study cannot guarantee employment. Take Taiwan as a whole. The government lacks sufficient tax revenue. Public works are at a standstill. EIAs are drawn out and inefficient. Blue vs. Green ideological opposition remains a Gordian knot. Taiwan still enjoys a few advantages, but they are rapidly being frittered away. This is the situation on Taiwan. To change it we need leaders with the courage to throw open the doors.
The environment Taiwan confronts is far from ideal. But take recent history. Both many outstanding political leaders abroad have led their people out of predicaments far worse than ours. They have blazed new trails. Brazil's 36th president is Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Thirty years ago, Taiwan's Sun Yun-suan was also an excellent example. So is Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Leave aside his controversial nationalist policies. He successfully turned Japanese morale around. He had the will to fight.
Look at these leaders. The common denominator is high energy. They know how to clarify the situation, identify the problem, uncover strategies, win public support, and turn things around. Political conditions in Brazil and Japan are worse than they are on Taiwan. Cardoso and Abe would never obsess over how to communicate with members of parliament, over how long it took to return a phone call, over when to consult a PR firm, or over whether to first report to the executive. Put more harshly, if politicians obsess over such trivialities, it is sure to thrwart the realization of their vision.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the premier and cabinet ministers are relative. Does the premier intend to demand strict accountability from cabinet members on all manner of trivia? Does he intend to treat them the way a primary school teacher treats his students? If he does, the result will not difficult to imagine. What caliber of people is willing to tolerate this kind of leadership? The result would be an exodus of the most talented individuals. Premier Chiang does not want cabinet members to make policy behind closed doors. He is right about this. But let us back up. Who recruited the cabinet members who formulate policy behind closed doors to begin with? No large company on Taiwan is going to tolerate anyone above a vice president who formulates policy behind closed doors. Must 30 or more cabinet members follow the premier around and whisper in his ear?
Before Premier Chiang promotes a major policy, he is going to need the support of the president and the various cabinet ministers. This is true enough. But the public on Taiwan has to wonder. The President and the Premier promoted such absurd policies as 12 year compulsory education. They promoted an isolated case which led to the repeal of courts martials. They issued foolhardy hikes in gasoline prices and electricity rates. They promoted a stillborn capital gains tax unique in all the world. Were any of these moves supported by the public on Taiwan? Have the policy leaders who operated behind closed doors learned their lesson? Suppose these cases, which cabinet members were warned about, turn out to be the fault of the president and the premier? Just how effective was this cabinet member boot camp?
Ma administration governance remains troubled even after five years and ten months in office. It is understandably anxious. Everyone knows this. But no matter how anxious it might be, it must not panic and lose its composure. The Chiang 25 Points may represent the conclusions of the abortive Ma Chiang review. But can they really attribute the errors to cabinet officials speaking out of turn, or poor communications, or poor policies? Can they then demand strict discipline? First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. This sort of finger pointing will hardly remedy the problem.
Can Ma and Chiang enage in self-introspection? Can they take a long, hard look at their own managerial approach, their own vision, their own decision-making style, and their own policy direction? If so, the conclusions they reach will be dramatically different. We would like to remind President Ma and Premier Chiang. Blaming others upon encountering setbacks is easy. Contemplating one's own responsibility on the other hand, is hard. As a Western saying puts it, "Most men think they are a good drivers. But few men know where they are going." Nitpicking over cabinet discipline may help the cabinet march in lockstep. But it will not help it find a way out of its current predicament. It may even limit the creativity of its political appointees.
格局與器識：「江廿五點」遺漏的事
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.14 03:57 am
行政院長江宜樺日前在內閣閣員的集訓講話中，提出大大小小的廿五點要求，內容瑣細到難以想像。閣揆把內閣大臣找來吩咐這麼多繁雜瑣事，輿論皆以為不妥，譏為「閣揆做教官、閣員上軍訓」。更重要的是，從治國的高度看，閣揆此舉不僅貶低了閣員的格局，也模糊了當前國家治理與政府決策所需要的遠大瞻矚。
先談台灣當前面對什麼樣的難題、需要什麼樣的改變。台灣社會的平均薪資凍漲已久，十幾年前的高科技產業或者代工外移、或者被韓國超越，產業升級徒託空言，整個社會焦躁不安。就個人而言，社會上貧富差距日益擴大，年輕人對未來沒有熱情、沒有憧憬，讀書深造也不保證有就業前景。就整體台灣而言，國家租稅收入不足，公共建設幾近停擺，環評冗長而無效率，藍綠意識形態糾結難解。台灣當下還有一些所剩不多的優勢，但是這些優勢也正在快速流失。這是當前台灣面對的處境，而要改變這樣的氛圍，我們需要的是大開大闔的領導人。
台灣今天面對的大環境雖然不理想，但觀諸近代歷史，國內外均仍有不少優秀的政治領袖能帶領其人民突破比台灣今天更惡劣的困境，開創新局。巴西第卅六任總統卡多索、台灣卅年前的孫運璿，都是極佳的典範。包括日本首相安倍晉三，若不去深究其政策所涉的國族主義爭議，他也成功將日本的民心士氣從低谷翻轉，有奮勇突破的氣勢。
綜觀這些領導者，他們的共通點是能居高布局，包括釐清當前局面、看準問題癥結，找尋切入策略，喚起民眾認同，設法扭轉局勢等。巴西與日本的政治環境絕對不比台灣單純，但是，卡多索與安倍絕不會把全副重點擺在如何與國會議員溝通、多久要回覆議員電話、什麼時候要找公關公司、政策形成要先向長官報告等等。?得嚴重些，政治人物若是將領導統御的重點豆丁化、瑣碎化，那就注定侷限了其格局與發展。
另一方面，閣揆與閣員的關係當然也是相對的。如果閣揆對閣員的言行枝節嚴予課責，如同老師對小學生那樣耳提面命，大家也不難想像「什麼樣的人願意在如此的領導氣氛下擔任閣員」，其結果必然是反淘汰。江揆要求閣員政策形成不要閉門造車，這話固然沒錯，但是請返其始，這些會閉門造車的閣員又是誰找來的？台灣任何大公司都不可能找閉門造車的人出任副總以上職位，為什麼三十幾位堂堂部會首長，卻要勞煩行政院長在耳邊叮嚀？
江揆要求各部會推動重大政策前要先取得總統與閣揆的支持，這話也沒錯；但台灣人民也不禁要問：總統與院長以往所推動的一拖拉庫荒誕政策（諸如眾人皆曰不宜的十二年國教、由單一個案延伸到軍法審判的廢除、有勇無謀的油電雙漲、舉世無雙即推即廢的證所稅），有沒有得到台灣人民的支持？而那些閉門造車的政策領導人，有沒有得到什麼教訓？如果大人們告誡閣員的種種事例，竟然是總統與院長常犯的錯誤，請問這堂內閣軍訓課的功能究竟在哪裡？
馬政府過去五年十個月施政不順，因而心中焦慮，大家可以理解。然而，再怎麼著急，也不能亂了方寸，慌了手腳。「江廿五點」或許代表馬江檢討挫敗的結論，但把錯誤歸咎於閣員的談話不當、溝通不良、政策不佳，所以要求嚴格的紀律，這恐怕是「見秋毫而不見輿薪」的反省，對於扭轉局勢恐是於事無補。
馬江若能夠反求諸己，多在自己用人、視野、決策風格、施政方向上做檢討，其所能得到的結論與見解，應該會大大不同。我們要提醒馬總統與江院長：在挫敗中檢討別人容易，反省自己困難。西諺有云：「絕大多數男士都認為自己是個好駕駛，但很少人知道自己所駛之方向是否正確。」瑣細的閣員紀律，或許可以讓內閣步伐一致，但是卻絕難找到走出當前困局的方向，更可能侷限了政務官的開創能力。
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Arrange a Ma Xi Meeting, Issue a One China Joint Declaration
Arrange a Ma Xi Meeting, Issue a One China Joint Declaration
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 13, 2014
Summary: Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace.
Full text below:
Much has happened recently, internationally, on Taiwan, and across the Taiwan Strait. The Malaysian Airlines incident has attracted global attention. So far no trace of the plane has been found. The public is concerned. The turmoil in Ukraine, including Crimean independence, has impacted relations between the United States, Europe, and Russia. The repercussions are far-reaching. Election season on Taiwan is approaching. Both the KMT and DPP election campaigns are plagued by internal problems. A dispute between Su and Tsai is about to erupt. Times are hard. The Wang Zhang and Lien Xi meetings have adjourned. How can bilateral relations move forward? Can a Ma Xi meeting be arranged? The question demands collective brainstorming. The ruling and opposition parties appear determined to wage a lose/lose battle over the cross-strait trade and services agreement. Absent a showdown, any sort of resolution is unlikely.
In general, one cannot ignore the hard realities. How should they be dealt with? How will they play out? A number of elements are involved. One's decisions depend on one's values. Take cross-strait relations. The two sides have declared their official views. The realities are apparent. President Ma Ying-jeou has a subjective desire. He also has an objective need. In an appropriate capacity, he hopes to meet with Mainland President Xi Jinping, at and appropriate time and appropriate place. Taipei considers the November APEC conference in Beijing the most appropriate venue. Mainland China understands Taiwan's position. It is willing to consider a meeting between Xi and Ma. It is even willing to make major concessions. But it has different considerations regarding the venue and the theme of the meeting. In principle, it does not favor the two mean meeting at APEC.
Both sides want to meet. That is a reality. But each has concerns regarding how and where they should meet. We must all facilitate such a meeting, They should ask themselves, is the symbolic value of such a meeting more important, or the practical rewards? If one can achieve both, that is of course ideal. But when the obstacles are difficult or near impossible, shouldn't the two sides consider a higher, more strategic perspective? A different way of thinking means different values.
Suppose one's greatest concern is national reunification? Suppose one's concern is to make a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. One must not start out by making an about face. Symbolism is the most important consideration. But suppose one's concern is practical rewards? Then of course one must be a bean counter. One must move carefully in order to force the other side to make the most concessions possible.
Naturally the two sides should deal with cross-strait issues. Most major nations believe the symbolic significance of a Ma Xi meeting would be greater than its practical significance. They are encouraging the two sides to reduce tensions and solve problems through dialogue. They understand Taiwan's internal politics and the Mainland's political concerns. The window of opportunity for the two to meet is narrow. Naturally there is no reason to deliberately stand in the way of a Ma Xi meeting. Other nations wish such a meeting well. They merely offer Taiwan some a well-intentioned advice. One must think before acting. One approach complex issues with a progressive approach. One must not have overly high expectations. Only such an approach is consistent with regional security for all. The two sides should not disregard other nations' goodwill, or keep everyone in the dark.
The two sides are still haggling over the time and place for the Ma Xi meeting. Taipei has made clear it wants to meet at APEC. It has repeatedly stressed that there is no alternative. It is waiting for the nod from the Mainland. Its reasoning seems to make sense. The Mainland considers the APEC venue inappropriate. But it considers a third locale or country acceptable, as long as it is not an international venue. This leaves considerable room for the imagination. Some have suggested Hawaii, Taiping Island, Singapore, Switzerland, even Mongolia. Some of the suggestions are almost comical. The Mainland has concerns about meeting at APEC. To be fair, it is not without reason. A Ma Xi meeting could unfold according to the script. But suppose Japan's Abe, or America's Barack Obama, or any other national leader were to warmly embrace Ma Ying-jeou? Suppose he or she, intentionally or otherwise, welcomed "Taiwan's president?" Suppose he or she expressed hoped that his attendance would become routine? This alone would give Beijing cold sweats. Therefore it must be avoided.
The DPP persists in obstructing cross-strait peaceful development. Along with the CCP and KMT, it often plays word games. Sometimes these games resemble theology or metaphysics. Arguments persist over Zhonghua Taipei vs. Zhonguo Taipei, the one China framework vs. one China architecture, sovereignty vs. jurisdiction, the Koo Wang meeting vs. the Wang Koo meeting, and domestic vs. international. Each party feels it is righteous and merely "telling it like it is." But when the crisis has passed, the entire affair seems ridiculous.
Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. In 1992, the two sides achieved a consensus. They moved forward on the basis of one China, different interpretations. One can call it the "one China framework," "one China architecture," or "one China roof." As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace. A Ma Xi meeting could become a model for mankind, and make an historic contribution to China.
社論－實現馬習會 成就「一中共表」
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月13日 04:10
從國際到台灣到兩岸，近來發生不少大事。馬航事件舉世關注，迄今不見飛機蹤影，讓人揪心；烏克蘭動亂、克里米亞獨立牽動美、歐、俄關係，後遺症不小；台灣政治旺季即將到來，國、民兩黨選情都有內憂，蘇、蔡之爭不日登場，日子看來都不好過；兩岸繼王、張及連、習會後，雙邊關係究竟要如何進一步往前發展，馬、習會能否成功推動，均須各界集思廣益，至於眼前的《兩岸服貿協議》，看來朝野非要焦土抗戰、惡鬥一回，否則很難有個答案。
綜觀一切，其實都脫離不了基本的事實、處理方法及結果幾個要項，而選擇的方案則又與價值觀有關。在兩岸關係方面，從雙方官方的各種談話看來，眼前看到的事實是，馬英九總統不但有主觀的願望，恐怕也有客觀的需要，希望以合適的身分，在適當的時機和場合與大陸國家主席習近平見面，台北認為今年11月的北京亞太經合會是最適當的安排。中國大陸一方面了解台灣的態度，二方面也覺得習、馬二人會面並非不能考慮，甚至還願意給予相當程度的配合，但對兩人見面的場地和會談的內容有些不同的考量，原則上並不贊成兩人在APEC見面。
既然事實是雙方都有意願見面，只是對方法、場合等有些不同的考量，為了促成此事，那麼大家就不妨進一步思考，兩人見面到底是應該以象徵意義為重或要有實質收穫為主？如果能夠兩者兼顧當然最好，但當此事的難度甚大或幾乎不可能的時候，雙方是否要從更高的戰略高度出發，有個不同的思考，這裡面就牽涉到價值取向的問題了。
如果要從有利於國家統一，能讓兩岸關係有所突破，不可逆轉出發，以象徵意義為重，事情相對就會較為簡單容易，但如果要以實質收穫為主，那當然就要錙銖必較，謹小慎微的務求迫使對方做出最大程度的讓步為要。
理所當然，兩岸的事應由兩岸自己來辦，但至少就我們所知，相關的主要國家在看待馬習會一事上，多數還是認為，如果能落實，其象徵意義應該大於實質成果，既然各國都鼓勵兩岸雙方透過溝通、對話來降低緊張，解決問題，也理解台灣的內政和大陸的政治顧慮，使得兩人見面的機會之窗未必很大，自然也就沒有刻意阻擾馬習會成局的道理。各國對此基本上仍持樂觀其成的態度，只是善意的勸告台灣，一切都要謀定而後動，要用漸進的方式來處理複雜的問題，不要有過高的期望，這才符合區域安全與大家最大的共同利益，不希望兩岸將各國善意的關切置之不顧，或把大家蒙在鼓裡。
客觀而言，馬習會的地點和場合問題，雙方還在漫天喊價及就地還錢的階段。台北表明就要在APEC場合，而且多次強調沒有備用方案，只等大陸點頭，似乎言之成理；大陸方面則認為不宜，但明示第三地或國並非國際場合，這裡面就有了很大的想像空間。現在有人主張在夏威夷、太平島、新加坡、瑞士，甚至外蒙古，有些簡直到了搞笑的地步。持平而論，大陸不願兩人在APEC場合見面的顧忌不是完全沒有道理，即使馬、習照腳本演出，但如果日本安倍或美國歐巴馬，或任一國家與會領袖在會上存心或無意的熱忱擁抱馬英九，歡迎台灣總統與會，表示希望形成慣例，光是這樣就會讓北京嚇出一身冷汗，能免則免。
兩岸雙方及堅持杯葛兩岸和平發展的民進黨，時常都在玩弄文字遊戲，有時甚至到了神學、玄學的地步，雙方可以為中華台北或中國台北，一中框架與一中架構，主權和治權，辜汪或汪辜、國內或國際吵個沒完沒了，事情當下都覺得自己理直氣壯，為所當為，但等到事過境遷之後，實在讓人覺得簡直可笑到不知所為何來。
其實，馬、習二人會面在第三地或第三國自亦無妨，只要這是兩岸自家人的事，如果雙方都同意二人會面應以象徵意義為重，那麼雙方都可展現出形式上的善意，做出不失立場的表面讓步，讓雙方可以在九二共識、一中各表的基礎上往前邁步，無論稱「一中架構」、「一中框架」或「一中屋頂」，只要兩人見了面，「一中共表」已然成局，可展現兩岸中國人化解政治歧見、追求和平的意願，而成為人類的典範，馬、習二人對兩岸中國的歷史性貢獻。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 13, 2014
Summary: Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace.
Full text below:
Much has happened recently, internationally, on Taiwan, and across the Taiwan Strait. The Malaysian Airlines incident has attracted global attention. So far no trace of the plane has been found. The public is concerned. The turmoil in Ukraine, including Crimean independence, has impacted relations between the United States, Europe, and Russia. The repercussions are far-reaching. Election season on Taiwan is approaching. Both the KMT and DPP election campaigns are plagued by internal problems. A dispute between Su and Tsai is about to erupt. Times are hard. The Wang Zhang and Lien Xi meetings have adjourned. How can bilateral relations move forward? Can a Ma Xi meeting be arranged? The question demands collective brainstorming. The ruling and opposition parties appear determined to wage a lose/lose battle over the cross-strait trade and services agreement. Absent a showdown, any sort of resolution is unlikely.
In general, one cannot ignore the hard realities. How should they be dealt with? How will they play out? A number of elements are involved. One's decisions depend on one's values. Take cross-strait relations. The two sides have declared their official views. The realities are apparent. President Ma Ying-jeou has a subjective desire. He also has an objective need. In an appropriate capacity, he hopes to meet with Mainland President Xi Jinping, at and appropriate time and appropriate place. Taipei considers the November APEC conference in Beijing the most appropriate venue. Mainland China understands Taiwan's position. It is willing to consider a meeting between Xi and Ma. It is even willing to make major concessions. But it has different considerations regarding the venue and the theme of the meeting. In principle, it does not favor the two mean meeting at APEC.
Both sides want to meet. That is a reality. But each has concerns regarding how and where they should meet. We must all facilitate such a meeting, They should ask themselves, is the symbolic value of such a meeting more important, or the practical rewards? If one can achieve both, that is of course ideal. But when the obstacles are difficult or near impossible, shouldn't the two sides consider a higher, more strategic perspective? A different way of thinking means different values.
Suppose one's greatest concern is national reunification? Suppose one's concern is to make a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. One must not start out by making an about face. Symbolism is the most important consideration. But suppose one's concern is practical rewards? Then of course one must be a bean counter. One must move carefully in order to force the other side to make the most concessions possible.
Naturally the two sides should deal with cross-strait issues. Most major nations believe the symbolic significance of a Ma Xi meeting would be greater than its practical significance. They are encouraging the two sides to reduce tensions and solve problems through dialogue. They understand Taiwan's internal politics and the Mainland's political concerns. The window of opportunity for the two to meet is narrow. Naturally there is no reason to deliberately stand in the way of a Ma Xi meeting. Other nations wish such a meeting well. They merely offer Taiwan some a well-intentioned advice. One must think before acting. One approach complex issues with a progressive approach. One must not have overly high expectations. Only such an approach is consistent with regional security for all. The two sides should not disregard other nations' goodwill, or keep everyone in the dark.
The two sides are still haggling over the time and place for the Ma Xi meeting. Taipei has made clear it wants to meet at APEC. It has repeatedly stressed that there is no alternative. It is waiting for the nod from the Mainland. Its reasoning seems to make sense. The Mainland considers the APEC venue inappropriate. But it considers a third locale or country acceptable, as long as it is not an international venue. This leaves considerable room for the imagination. Some have suggested Hawaii, Taiping Island, Singapore, Switzerland, even Mongolia. Some of the suggestions are almost comical. The Mainland has concerns about meeting at APEC. To be fair, it is not without reason. A Ma Xi meeting could unfold according to the script. But suppose Japan's Abe, or America's Barack Obama, or any other national leader were to warmly embrace Ma Ying-jeou? Suppose he or she, intentionally or otherwise, welcomed "Taiwan's president?" Suppose he or she expressed hoped that his attendance would become routine? This alone would give Beijing cold sweats. Therefore it must be avoided.
The DPP persists in obstructing cross-strait peaceful development. Along with the CCP and KMT, it often plays word games. Sometimes these games resemble theology or metaphysics. Arguments persist over Zhonghua Taipei vs. Zhonguo Taipei, the one China framework vs. one China architecture, sovereignty vs. jurisdiction, the Koo Wang meeting vs. the Wang Koo meeting, and domestic vs. international. Each party feels it is righteous and merely "telling it like it is." But when the crisis has passed, the entire affair seems ridiculous.
Ma and Xi can meet at a third locale or a third country. The important thing is that the meeting must be treated as a domestic affair. If both sides agree that symbolism is more important, then they must demonstrate goodwill on matters of protocol. They must make compromises without fear of losing face. In 1992, the two sides achieved a consensus. They moved forward on the basis of one China, different interpretations. One can call it the "one China framework," "one China architecture," or "one China roof." As long as the two men can meet, a "one China joint affirmation" will be a foregone conclusion. This would show that the Chinese people on both sides of the strait can resolve their political differences, and are willing to pursue peace. A Ma Xi meeting could become a model for mankind, and make an historic contribution to China.
社論－實現馬習會 成就「一中共表」
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月13日 04:10
從國際到台灣到兩岸，近來發生不少大事。馬航事件舉世關注，迄今不見飛機蹤影，讓人揪心；烏克蘭動亂、克里米亞獨立牽動美、歐、俄關係，後遺症不小；台灣政治旺季即將到來，國、民兩黨選情都有內憂，蘇、蔡之爭不日登場，日子看來都不好過；兩岸繼王、張及連、習會後，雙邊關係究竟要如何進一步往前發展，馬、習會能否成功推動，均須各界集思廣益，至於眼前的《兩岸服貿協議》，看來朝野非要焦土抗戰、惡鬥一回，否則很難有個答案。
綜觀一切，其實都脫離不了基本的事實、處理方法及結果幾個要項，而選擇的方案則又與價值觀有關。在兩岸關係方面，從雙方官方的各種談話看來，眼前看到的事實是，馬英九總統不但有主觀的願望，恐怕也有客觀的需要，希望以合適的身分，在適當的時機和場合與大陸國家主席習近平見面，台北認為今年11月的北京亞太經合會是最適當的安排。中國大陸一方面了解台灣的態度，二方面也覺得習、馬二人會面並非不能考慮，甚至還願意給予相當程度的配合，但對兩人見面的場地和會談的內容有些不同的考量，原則上並不贊成兩人在APEC見面。
既然事實是雙方都有意願見面，只是對方法、場合等有些不同的考量，為了促成此事，那麼大家就不妨進一步思考，兩人見面到底是應該以象徵意義為重或要有實質收穫為主？如果能夠兩者兼顧當然最好，但當此事的難度甚大或幾乎不可能的時候，雙方是否要從更高的戰略高度出發，有個不同的思考，這裡面就牽涉到價值取向的問題了。
如果要從有利於國家統一，能讓兩岸關係有所突破，不可逆轉出發，以象徵意義為重，事情相對就會較為簡單容易，但如果要以實質收穫為主，那當然就要錙銖必較，謹小慎微的務求迫使對方做出最大程度的讓步為要。
理所當然，兩岸的事應由兩岸自己來辦，但至少就我們所知，相關的主要國家在看待馬習會一事上，多數還是認為，如果能落實，其象徵意義應該大於實質成果，既然各國都鼓勵兩岸雙方透過溝通、對話來降低緊張，解決問題，也理解台灣的內政和大陸的政治顧慮，使得兩人見面的機會之窗未必很大，自然也就沒有刻意阻擾馬習會成局的道理。各國對此基本上仍持樂觀其成的態度，只是善意的勸告台灣，一切都要謀定而後動，要用漸進的方式來處理複雜的問題，不要有過高的期望，這才符合區域安全與大家最大的共同利益，不希望兩岸將各國善意的關切置之不顧，或把大家蒙在鼓裡。
客觀而言，馬習會的地點和場合問題，雙方還在漫天喊價及就地還錢的階段。台北表明就要在APEC場合，而且多次強調沒有備用方案，只等大陸點頭，似乎言之成理；大陸方面則認為不宜，但明示第三地或國並非國際場合，這裡面就有了很大的想像空間。現在有人主張在夏威夷、太平島、新加坡、瑞士，甚至外蒙古，有些簡直到了搞笑的地步。持平而論，大陸不願兩人在APEC場合見面的顧忌不是完全沒有道理，即使馬、習照腳本演出，但如果日本安倍或美國歐巴馬，或任一國家與會領袖在會上存心或無意的熱忱擁抱馬英九，歡迎台灣總統與會，表示希望形成慣例，光是這樣就會讓北京嚇出一身冷汗，能免則免。
兩岸雙方及堅持杯葛兩岸和平發展的民進黨，時常都在玩弄文字遊戲，有時甚至到了神學、玄學的地步，雙方可以為中華台北或中國台北，一中框架與一中架構，主權和治權，辜汪或汪辜、國內或國際吵個沒完沒了，事情當下都覺得自己理直氣壯，為所當為，但等到事過境遷之後，實在讓人覺得簡直可笑到不知所為何來。
其實，馬、習二人會面在第三地或第三國自亦無妨，只要這是兩岸自家人的事，如果雙方都同意二人會面應以象徵意義為重，那麼雙方都可展現出形式上的善意，做出不失立場的表面讓步，讓雙方可以在九二共識、一中各表的基礎上往前邁步，無論稱「一中架構」、「一中框架」或「一中屋頂」，只要兩人見了面，「一中共表」已然成局，可展現兩岸中國人化解政治歧見、追求和平的意願，而成為人類的典範，馬、習二人對兩岸中國的歷史性貢獻。
Be Responsible to History: Approve the Trade in Services Agreement
Be Responsible to History: Approve the Trade in Services Agreement
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 12, 2014
Summary: Were there inadequate communications regarding the trade in services agreement beforehand? Will the agreement cause shocks to certain industries? The fact remains Taiwan cannot afford to retreat into itself. Time is not on our side. Everyone in the ruling party, including President Ma, Chiang Yi-hua, Wang Jin-pyng, as well as legislators from both parties, must answer to history. Let the trade in services agreement go into effect, asap.
Full text below:
Sixteeen public hearings have been held. The cross-strait trade in services agreement has finally entered the legislative review stage. The ruling and opposition parties in the legislature remain poles apart. Although numerous public hearings have been held, the participants remain at loggerheads. Each side has its own arguments, and little agreement is possible.
During today's review, the two camps will probably remain at loggerheads. They may even engage in physical confrontations. Scuffles would be no surprise. If the legislature becomes the arena for such a democratic farce, the result will be a huge embarrassment. The public will feel regret. Lawmakers are elected to office through the democratic process. Yet they forsake rational debate. They forsake communication and consultation. They forsake parliamentary democracy. Instead they resort to violence and bullying. In the end, neither the government nor the opposition will win. The public and the nation howeer will lose.
The review of the trade in services agreement has led to six months of ruling vs. opposition party confrontations. Remaining cool has been difficult. There is little room for rationality. Consider the controversy that has surrounded the agreement. The review has provoked intense controversy. Outside circumstances have changed dramatically. Much must be clarified to avoid a complete loss.
First, the trade in services agreement has provoked numerous controversies. The most urgent controversy concerns the nature of the trade in services agreement. Is the agreement a law? If it is, the legislature has constitutional authority. It should review the issues one by one. Is the agreement an executive order which the Executive Yuan merely copied the Legislative Yuan for reference? If it is, then according to the Legislative Yuan Exercise of Powers Law legislators may review the agreement. But they must do so within six months. Is the trade in services agreement a treaty? If it is, then the contents of the agreement may be reviewed one at a time. But the agreement must be approved or rejected, in toto. The text of the agreement cannot be changed.
The trade in services agreement is not a law drafted by the Mainland Affairs Council. Nor of course, is it an executive order, issued by the MAC. Rather, it is an agreement signed with the government on the other side. Therefore it must be classified as a treaty. The legislature claims that the agreement has a significant impact, therefore the text of the agreement must be reviewed. But the legislature may not modify the agreement unilaterally. Consider the most famous case in the international arena. When World War I ended in 1918, a peace conference was convened in Paris. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson attended the conference. He adopted the draft Treaty of Versailles. But the Congress of the United States failed to approve it. Therefore the United States did not sign it and did not join the League of Nations.
The Legislative Yuan is reviewing the trade in services agreement. If it makes additions or deletions, it will be in violation of international treaty conventions. Also, the Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Relations Ordinance contains clear stipulations regarding agreements signed between the two sides. If the contents need not be amended by legal custom, they may be approved by the Executive Yuan. They may then inform the Legislative Yuan, merely for the record. For future reference, the Legislative Yuan has already exceeded the six month time limit for review of the trade in services agreement. No wonder some argue that the trade in services agreement is already in force. The legislature is in violation of the law when it begins reviewing the agreement today. The results of its review should also be considered invalid.
Consider the matter cooly. The legislature has only now begun reviewing the trade in services agreement. It boasts that it has the right to decide whether the agreement lives or dies. This is in violation of international conventions. It is also legally dubious. The trade in services agreement has generated much controversy. Leave aside the partisan confrontation and opportunistic hype. The failure of the administration to communicate in advance with the legislative branch was a major mistake. Many more cross-strait agreements need to be promoted. Let this be a learning experience. Let this become a guide for the future. We hope the executive branch has learned its lesson. It must win the support of the legislative branch during negotiations. It must not clash with the other side during negotiations, only to be second guessed from within. The trade in services agreement must go into effect without further ado. If necessary, the Executive Yuan must have the guts to ram it through. It must declare that the trade in services agreement is already in force, in accordance with the law.
The external situation remains changeable. We dare not delay. Early last year the trade in services draft agreement was initialed. Taiwan was the envy of others who wanted to enter the Mainland market, especially the Republic of Korea. To avoid falling behind, Korea accelerated negotiations over the Mainland China-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It expects to sign trade in services, trade in goods, and investment cooperation agreements this year. If Taiwan is still bickering by then, it it will find itself at a disadvantage relative to South Korea in the Mainland market. This confirms what Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-chu said about Taiwan. It will not longer even rate.
Were there inadequate communications regarding the trade in services agreement beforehand? Will the agreement cause shocks to certain industries? The fact remains Taiwan cannot afford to retreat into itself. Time is not on our side. Everyone in the ruling party, including President Ma, Chiang Yi-hua, Wang Jin-pyng, as well as legislators from both parties, must answer to history. Let the trade in services agreement go into effect, asap.
社論－為歷史負責 讓服貿協議早日生效
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月12日 04:10
在辦完了16場的公聽會之後，《兩岸服務貿易協議》終於要在今天正式進入立法院委員會審查階段，由於立院朝野政黨對於《服貿協議》的評價南轅北轍，即使舉辦了多場次的公聽會，與會人士也是各執一詞，各說各話而難有交集。
一般研判，今天的審查會雙方陣營不只劍拔弩張，甚至出現肢體對抗，相互扭打的場面也不令人意外，立院果真出現這種民主鬧劇，將會令人感到汗顏，但國人無疑將更遺憾，何以經由民主投票產生的立法委員，竟然捨理性論辯、溝通協調的議會民主程序而不為，竟然要淪落到以暴力相向。最終不只朝野沒有贏家，全民和國家更是最大輸家。
《服貿協議》的審查，經過這大半年來朝野間的相激相盪，其實已很難有心平氣和、理性審議的空間。但是綜觀過去圍繞《服貿協議》審查所引發的諸多爭議，以及外部情勢的消長變化，還是有必要做些釐清與提醒；以免陷入全盤皆輸之局。
首先，針對《服貿協議》所引發的爭議事項，最應該探討的，乃是有關《服貿協議》定位的問題。如果它算是法律案，則自然是立法院的憲法職權，理應逐條、逐項的討論、審議。如果它只算是行政院送請立法院查照的行政命令，依《立法院職權行使法》的規定，立委雖可經一定程序將之交付審查；不過，如循此途徑，卻有至少要在6個月內完成的條文規定。又或者如果把《服貿協議》視為是條約案，則即使可以逐條審視其內容，但最後只能全案通過或不予背書，並不能比照法律案更改協議內容。
循此，由於《服貿協議》並非陸委會自己草擬的法律條文，當然更非陸委會所訂法律之下的行政命令，而是與對岸政府所簽署的協議，固然定位上應屬條約案。否則立法院即使以影響重大為由，要就協議內文逐條檢視討論，但卻不應片面單方的修改協議內容。這在國際上最著名的案例，莫過於1918年第一次世界大戰結束後召開巴黎和會時，和會參採美國總統威爾遜的倡議草擬《凡爾賽條約》，但最後卻因國會沒有批准，以致美國並未簽約及加入國聯組織。
立法院審議《服貿協議》，如果進行條文內容的增刪，不只與條約案審議的國際通則有違。另外，經立院立法的《兩岸關係條例》，也明訂兩岸間簽署之協議，內容若涉及法律之修正或無須予以法律訂之者，主管機關只需報請行政院核定，並送立法院備查即可。而果真循備查的途徑，則《服貿協議》送達立院早已超過6個月的審查時限，無怪乎有一種論點認為《服貿協議》已經生效，立法院今天才要開始審查根本就是違法，則本來的審查結果也應屬無效。
平情而論，立法院此際才展開《服貿協議》的審查，並且揚言握有生殺予奪之權，不只有違反國際通則的爭議，更要面對合法性的質疑。不過，從《服貿協議》這一次引發這麼大的爭議，撇開政黨對立與藉機炒作之外，行政部門事前未能與立法部門有效溝通也是敗筆。鑑於兩岸今後尚有諸多協議要推動，所謂前事不忘，後事之師，我們期盼行政部門今後應引以為鑑，要注意取得立法部門的支持，作為談判的後盾，而不是陷入既要與對手談判折衝，又要在內部面對質疑杯葛的內外交困之局。不過，服貿協議的早日生效事不宜遲，必要時行政院須有壯士斷腕的勇氣，依法宣布《服貿協議》業已生效。
須知外部情勢的消長變化不容我們拖延。當去年初《服貿協議》草簽之際，台灣曾是其他想要積極進入大陸市場國家豔羨的對象。最顯著的就是南韓，為免落後形勢，只好加快「中」韓自由貿易協定的談判，預計今年完成簽署服務貿易、貨品貿易、投資合作等一步到位的協議。台灣如果還在爭吵不休，則相對於韓國，在大陸市場的競爭更將處在不利地位。如此倒真應驗了經濟部長張家祝所說，台灣可真是什麼咖都不是了。
不論《服貿協議》是否有事前溝通不足之處，或者是會造成個別產業何等的衝擊影響，但是台灣沒有自我閉關的條件，同時時間更不站在我們這邊。執政黨從馬總統及江宜樺、王金平兩位院長到全體黨籍立委，都應秉持對歷史負責的態度，讓《服貿協議》早日生效。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 12, 2014
Summary: Were there inadequate communications regarding the trade in services agreement beforehand? Will the agreement cause shocks to certain industries? The fact remains Taiwan cannot afford to retreat into itself. Time is not on our side. Everyone in the ruling party, including President Ma, Chiang Yi-hua, Wang Jin-pyng, as well as legislators from both parties, must answer to history. Let the trade in services agreement go into effect, asap.
Full text below:
Sixteeen public hearings have been held. The cross-strait trade in services agreement has finally entered the legislative review stage. The ruling and opposition parties in the legislature remain poles apart. Although numerous public hearings have been held, the participants remain at loggerheads. Each side has its own arguments, and little agreement is possible.
During today's review, the two camps will probably remain at loggerheads. They may even engage in physical confrontations. Scuffles would be no surprise. If the legislature becomes the arena for such a democratic farce, the result will be a huge embarrassment. The public will feel regret. Lawmakers are elected to office through the democratic process. Yet they forsake rational debate. They forsake communication and consultation. They forsake parliamentary democracy. Instead they resort to violence and bullying. In the end, neither the government nor the opposition will win. The public and the nation howeer will lose.
The review of the trade in services agreement has led to six months of ruling vs. opposition party confrontations. Remaining cool has been difficult. There is little room for rationality. Consider the controversy that has surrounded the agreement. The review has provoked intense controversy. Outside circumstances have changed dramatically. Much must be clarified to avoid a complete loss.
First, the trade in services agreement has provoked numerous controversies. The most urgent controversy concerns the nature of the trade in services agreement. Is the agreement a law? If it is, the legislature has constitutional authority. It should review the issues one by one. Is the agreement an executive order which the Executive Yuan merely copied the Legislative Yuan for reference? If it is, then according to the Legislative Yuan Exercise of Powers Law legislators may review the agreement. But they must do so within six months. Is the trade in services agreement a treaty? If it is, then the contents of the agreement may be reviewed one at a time. But the agreement must be approved or rejected, in toto. The text of the agreement cannot be changed.
The trade in services agreement is not a law drafted by the Mainland Affairs Council. Nor of course, is it an executive order, issued by the MAC. Rather, it is an agreement signed with the government on the other side. Therefore it must be classified as a treaty. The legislature claims that the agreement has a significant impact, therefore the text of the agreement must be reviewed. But the legislature may not modify the agreement unilaterally. Consider the most famous case in the international arena. When World War I ended in 1918, a peace conference was convened in Paris. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson attended the conference. He adopted the draft Treaty of Versailles. But the Congress of the United States failed to approve it. Therefore the United States did not sign it and did not join the League of Nations.
The Legislative Yuan is reviewing the trade in services agreement. If it makes additions or deletions, it will be in violation of international treaty conventions. Also, the Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Relations Ordinance contains clear stipulations regarding agreements signed between the two sides. If the contents need not be amended by legal custom, they may be approved by the Executive Yuan. They may then inform the Legislative Yuan, merely for the record. For future reference, the Legislative Yuan has already exceeded the six month time limit for review of the trade in services agreement. No wonder some argue that the trade in services agreement is already in force. The legislature is in violation of the law when it begins reviewing the agreement today. The results of its review should also be considered invalid.
Consider the matter cooly. The legislature has only now begun reviewing the trade in services agreement. It boasts that it has the right to decide whether the agreement lives or dies. This is in violation of international conventions. It is also legally dubious. The trade in services agreement has generated much controversy. Leave aside the partisan confrontation and opportunistic hype. The failure of the administration to communicate in advance with the legislative branch was a major mistake. Many more cross-strait agreements need to be promoted. Let this be a learning experience. Let this become a guide for the future. We hope the executive branch has learned its lesson. It must win the support of the legislative branch during negotiations. It must not clash with the other side during negotiations, only to be second guessed from within. The trade in services agreement must go into effect without further ado. If necessary, the Executive Yuan must have the guts to ram it through. It must declare that the trade in services agreement is already in force, in accordance with the law.
The external situation remains changeable. We dare not delay. Early last year the trade in services draft agreement was initialed. Taiwan was the envy of others who wanted to enter the Mainland market, especially the Republic of Korea. To avoid falling behind, Korea accelerated negotiations over the Mainland China-Korea Free Trade Agreement. It expects to sign trade in services, trade in goods, and investment cooperation agreements this year. If Taiwan is still bickering by then, it it will find itself at a disadvantage relative to South Korea in the Mainland market. This confirms what Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-chu said about Taiwan. It will not longer even rate.
Were there inadequate communications regarding the trade in services agreement beforehand? Will the agreement cause shocks to certain industries? The fact remains Taiwan cannot afford to retreat into itself. Time is not on our side. Everyone in the ruling party, including President Ma, Chiang Yi-hua, Wang Jin-pyng, as well as legislators from both parties, must answer to history. Let the trade in services agreement go into effect, asap.
社論－為歷史負責 讓服貿協議早日生效
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月12日 04:10
在辦完了16場的公聽會之後，《兩岸服務貿易協議》終於要在今天正式進入立法院委員會審查階段，由於立院朝野政黨對於《服貿協議》的評價南轅北轍，即使舉辦了多場次的公聽會，與會人士也是各執一詞，各說各話而難有交集。
一般研判，今天的審查會雙方陣營不只劍拔弩張，甚至出現肢體對抗，相互扭打的場面也不令人意外，立院果真出現這種民主鬧劇，將會令人感到汗顏，但國人無疑將更遺憾，何以經由民主投票產生的立法委員，竟然捨理性論辯、溝通協調的議會民主程序而不為，竟然要淪落到以暴力相向。最終不只朝野沒有贏家，全民和國家更是最大輸家。
《服貿協議》的審查，經過這大半年來朝野間的相激相盪，其實已很難有心平氣和、理性審議的空間。但是綜觀過去圍繞《服貿協議》審查所引發的諸多爭議，以及外部情勢的消長變化，還是有必要做些釐清與提醒；以免陷入全盤皆輸之局。
首先，針對《服貿協議》所引發的爭議事項，最應該探討的，乃是有關《服貿協議》定位的問題。如果它算是法律案，則自然是立法院的憲法職權，理應逐條、逐項的討論、審議。如果它只算是行政院送請立法院查照的行政命令，依《立法院職權行使法》的規定，立委雖可經一定程序將之交付審查；不過，如循此途徑，卻有至少要在6個月內完成的條文規定。又或者如果把《服貿協議》視為是條約案，則即使可以逐條審視其內容，但最後只能全案通過或不予背書，並不能比照法律案更改協議內容。
循此，由於《服貿協議》並非陸委會自己草擬的法律條文，當然更非陸委會所訂法律之下的行政命令，而是與對岸政府所簽署的協議，固然定位上應屬條約案。否則立法院即使以影響重大為由，要就協議內文逐條檢視討論，但卻不應片面單方的修改協議內容。這在國際上最著名的案例，莫過於1918年第一次世界大戰結束後召開巴黎和會時，和會參採美國總統威爾遜的倡議草擬《凡爾賽條約》，但最後卻因國會沒有批准，以致美國並未簽約及加入國聯組織。
立法院審議《服貿協議》，如果進行條文內容的增刪，不只與條約案審議的國際通則有違。另外，經立院立法的《兩岸關係條例》，也明訂兩岸間簽署之協議，內容若涉及法律之修正或無須予以法律訂之者，主管機關只需報請行政院核定，並送立法院備查即可。而果真循備查的途徑，則《服貿協議》送達立院早已超過6個月的審查時限，無怪乎有一種論點認為《服貿協議》已經生效，立法院今天才要開始審查根本就是違法，則本來的審查結果也應屬無效。
平情而論，立法院此際才展開《服貿協議》的審查，並且揚言握有生殺予奪之權，不只有違反國際通則的爭議，更要面對合法性的質疑。不過，從《服貿協議》這一次引發這麼大的爭議，撇開政黨對立與藉機炒作之外，行政部門事前未能與立法部門有效溝通也是敗筆。鑑於兩岸今後尚有諸多協議要推動，所謂前事不忘，後事之師，我們期盼行政部門今後應引以為鑑，要注意取得立法部門的支持，作為談判的後盾，而不是陷入既要與對手談判折衝，又要在內部面對質疑杯葛的內外交困之局。不過，服貿協議的早日生效事不宜遲，必要時行政院須有壯士斷腕的勇氣，依法宣布《服貿協議》業已生效。
須知外部情勢的消長變化不容我們拖延。當去年初《服貿協議》草簽之際，台灣曾是其他想要積極進入大陸市場國家豔羨的對象。最顯著的就是南韓，為免落後形勢，只好加快「中」韓自由貿易協定的談判，預計今年完成簽署服務貿易、貨品貿易、投資合作等一步到位的協議。台灣如果還在爭吵不休，則相對於韓國，在大陸市場的競爭更將處在不利地位。如此倒真應驗了經濟部長張家祝所說，台灣可真是什麼咖都不是了。
不論《服貿協議》是否有事前溝通不足之處，或者是會造成個別產業何等的衝擊影響，但是台灣沒有自我閉關的條件，同時時間更不站在我們這邊。執政黨從馬總統及江宜樺、王金平兩位院長到全體黨籍立委，都應秉持對歷史負責的態度，讓《服貿協議》早日生效。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)