Student Movement: Time for an Exit Strategy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 31, 2014
Summary: Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Full text below:
Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. The large numbers resulted in a few minor incidents. But the student organizations lived up to their commitment. They concluded their activities at 7pm. They returned to the Legislative Yuan sit in site. This can be considered a rational and peaceful conclusion. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.
Organizing a protest march and rally involving hundreds of thousands of people is no simple matter. The organizers and mobilizers of this large scale political event were novices -- young students. Many police officers have never encountered such a large-scale event. What's more, the event took place on Ketegelan Plaza, close to the Presidential Palace, a location even more sensitive than the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The potential risks can only be imagined.
Fortunately, neither side wanted the event to degenerate and lead to conflict. As a result, they demonstraed considerable maturity and self-restraint. Student groups were loath to be branded a "mob." Therefore they swore nonviolence beforehand. Police did not want to be branded perpetrators of "state violence" merely for maintaining order. Therefore they declared in advance that they would use "kid gloves." As a result, the march ended peacefully. The efforts by both sides merit recognition.
The protest march has ended, but the deadlock persists. The student groups are loath to end their occupation of the Legislative Yuan. The DPP advocated withdrawing the agreement on trade in services, and reviewing it in committee. Faced with demands by the student movement, President Ma agreed to a dialogue mechanism. He agreed to support cross-strait legislative oversight mechanisms. He agreed to consider convening a citizens' constitutional conference. He has made so many concessions, he can retreat no further. Yet the student leaders are utterly unmoved. They apparently think they are in an excellent bargaining position. As a result, they are demanding even more than the DPP. They have declared that unless the cross strait agreement on trade in services is withdrawn, everything is off the table.
How did matters come to this? Now the dispute may be even more difficult to resolve. President Ma's popularity may be low. But he remains the legitimate head of state, elected by a democratic majority. Policies must be implemented. He is responsible to the electorate who voted for him, not to the students who occuped the legislature. Student groups may accuse President Ma of ignoring public criticism. They may express strong objections through marches and rallies. But in the end they must fall back on the system. The students may think of themselves as smart. They may think they understand the cross-strait agreement on trade in services. But in the end, they cannot bypass the system. They must operate in accordance with the legislative process. If the student movement insists on having its way, Taiwan will confront its most serious crisis ever.
This is most worrisome . The student movement gained the upper hand in the rhetorical battle from day one. But their demands became increasing absolutist. Their definition of "democracy" is their one-sided definition of democracy. Their definition of "dialogue" is their one-sided definition of dialogue. It is only dialogue if it results in what they demand. They occupied the halls of the legislature. They occupied the Executive Yuan. They destroyed public property, yet consider this reasonable behavior. Police evictions are invariably denounced as "state violence." They totally refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Any expression of dissent on the Internet, is besieged or humiliated. The protest has reached a point where it may proceed down a path it once opposed.
Let us be blunt. The student movement leaders may have been wildly successful in achieving their demands. They may be highly effective in their mobilization skills. But sooner or later they must have an exit strategy. Suppose President Ma refuses to withdraw the cross strait agreement in trade in services? Do the students really intend to occupy the legislative yuan forever? True, they could launch a student strike, worker strike, or protest march once every week. Let the stock market plummet. Let political risk on Taiwan skyrocket. After all, if it all goes wrong, you can blame it on President Ma, right? Why didn't he listen to the student movement? But if you actually go down this path, you will drag down more than just the Ma government. You will drag down all of Taiwan.
A note to the student leaders. The excitement is over. Time to establish a stop-loss point. In 13 short days, you achieved what the DPP failed to achieve over eight or nine months. You successfully captured national media attention, even global media attention. You forced the ruling party to retreat, step by step. You forced President Ma to lower himself and seek dialogue. You even mobilized a successful rally. Your achievements rank up there alongside the Wild Lily and Wild Strawberry student movements. Whatever happens to the cross-strait agreement in trade in services, you have earned the respect of the public. The Sunflower student movement will go down in history.
Your next step must be to allow the legislature to do its job. You have unfinished studies that must be completed. One day your time will come.
社論－激情過後 學運該想如何退場
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月31日 04:10
在學運團體的號召下，數十萬的民眾（警方數字最多時近12萬人）昨日參與了上凱道反服貿的大遊行。這也是台灣近幾年罕見規模最大的群眾運動，儘管因為人數過多導致過程中出現若干零星的小擦撞，但學運團體最終也依先前承諾，在晚上七時左右結束了全部活動，回到被占領的立院，堪稱是理性平和的落幕。而無論各界事後將如何評價這場遊行，它終究是會在台灣的政治史上，記上重要的一筆！
操作一場數十萬人的集會與遊行，本來就不是樁容易的事，更何況這次籌畫與動員的主角，都是初次舉辦大型政治活動的年輕學生，而警方這邊也同樣是許久沒有遭遇過這般大規模運動，更何況這次活動的空間是比政院與立院還要敏感的總統府前凱道廣場，其間所蘊藏的不確定風險可想而知。
好在任何一方都不希望這場運動的訴求會因為衝突而變質，因而都表現了相當的成熟與自制。學生團體不願被冠上「暴民」，所以事前就揭示了非暴力行動守則，維持秩序的警方也不願再被冠上什麼「國家暴力」，早在事前就強調一切都要「軟處理」，因而這場遊行能夠平和的落幕，雙方的努力都值得肯定。
只不過，遊行落幕了，僵局卻依舊無解。學生團體仍然占領著立院不願撤出。對執政當局而言，除了先前接受民進黨所主張的將服貿法案退回委員會審查外，面對學運團體的訴求，馬總統不僅願意建立對話機制，更表達願意支持兩岸監督機制立法，也願意評估召開公民憲政會議的可能，可以說讓步到這樣，已經是退無可退了！然而面對馬總統的善意回應與呼籲，學運領袖們全不領情，似乎認為當下他們的形勢已一片大好，因而他們的要價甚至比民進黨還高，表態除了立即「退回服貿協議」外，其他都免談的地步。
形勢走到這一步，怕是會陷入更難解套的地步。要知道，就算馬總統的聲望再低落，他畢竟是合法多數選出的國家元首，政務還是要持續推動下去，他負責的對象是投票選他的選民，不是霸占國會議場的學生。學生團體可以批判馬總統不傾聽民意，可以透過集會遊行表達強烈訴求，但最終還得是要回歸到體制內去解決，學生們就算智慧再高，再懂服貿法案，終究還是不能越俎代庖、非得要立法機構依他們所訂定的標準答案去做為吧！真要這樣，那才是台灣最大的危機。
目前最令人擔憂的正是在這裡，儘管學運團體在話語權爭奪上一路取得了上風，但在訴求上卻也有愈來愈絕對化的傾向。他們所認為的「民主」，是依他們片面定義的才算民主，他們所認可的「對話」，是照他們所提示的答案做才叫對話，他們對占領議場、攻占政院、毀損公物等都自認是合理的行為，對警方的驅離則一律標示為「國家暴力」，他們根本不願傾聽不同的意見，任何在網路上表達不同意見者，不是被圍剿，就是被羞辱！當抗爭走到這一步，他們很可能會走向他們自己所反對的道途上。
講得再直白一些，不論學運團體的訴求多成功，集體動員的成效多卓著，最終總是得選個時機退場吧！難不成如果馬總統持續拒絕「退回服貿協議」，學生們就長期霸著立院抵死不退嗎？是的，確實還可以再發動罷課、罷工，每周遊行一次都可以，何不乾脆讓股匯市下跌，讓台灣政治風險升高，反正都可以歸罪給馬總統，不是嗎？誰叫他不聽我們學運團體的話呢？真要走到這一步，被拖跨的絕不只是馬政府，而是整個台灣！
寄語學運領袖們，激情過後，此時此刻是可以開始思考怎麼設停損點了！你們已經在短短的13天內，達成了民進黨8、9個月來都達不到的成就；你們已成功的贏得了全國輿論的關注，甚至是全球輿論的矚目；你們也已成功的讓執政黨一步步退讓，更讓馬總統低姿態的向你們尋求對話；你們甚而更成功的動員了一場成功的群眾集會。面對野百合乃至野草莓的學運前輩，你們的表現是毫不遜色的，未來不論服貿協議的前景會如何發展，你們已經贏得了許多人的尊敬，太陽花學運日後也是一定會載入史冊的。
接下來的工作，就交給國會去折衝吧，你們還有未竟的學業應完成，終有一天，你們的時代會登場的！
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Trust in Taiwan's Stability
Trust in Taiwan's Stability
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 28, 2014
Summary: The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
Full text below:
The Sunflower student movement continues its protest. The Legislative Yuan grounds remain occupied. Legislative Yuan operations remain paralyzed. The President and Speaker of the Legislature remain at arms length and in opposition. Their moves remain out of sync. They have left the public the impression that they are both passing the buck. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads. They lack mutual trust. In particular, the students covertly support the opposition DPP. Therefore it has nothing to fear. The ruling and opposition parties have consulted three times but to no avail. No solution to the impasse has been found.
The deadlock could have been easily resolved. President Ma declared that the government was willing to dialogue with the students. But the two sides did not trust each other enough. Contacts and dialogue between the two sides yielded no concrete progress. Yesterday, student leaders publicly announced the cessation of all dialogue. They even organized a protest march on Ketegelan Boulevard to escalate the confrontation.
Within the legislature, the KMT legislative caucus made an apparently genuine goodwill gesture. But the DPP was in no mood to compromise. Eventually the KMT caucus' goodwill gesture was rescinded by KMT Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang, who said, "I urge the ruling and opposition parties to propose a solution consistent with legislative procedure as soon as possible. I will then convene ruling and opposition party consultations as soon as possible."
The number of students at the protest sie has diminished. Student stamina and willpower are approaching a breaking point. But student movement leaders have neither seized upon nor proposed a dignified exit strategy. All manner of violence occurs daily at the legislature among legislators, police, students, and reporters. The atmosphere is volatile. Violence may erupte at any moment. The situation can easily get out of hand.
No progress has been made regarding dialogue and consultation. Everything has apparently returned to square one. Square one is the source of political opposition, the source of social division, and the source of public insecurity on Taiwan. It is the source of uncertainty in cross-strait relations. Political leaders must cease being selfish, and confront the current crisis.
The student movement originally targeted the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. In fact, the outbreak was the result of years of accumulated pressure. First, there is pro-Mainland vs. anti-Mainland sentiment. This is a critical factor in Taiwan's development. Between 2008 and now, cross-strait relations have been on a path of peaceful development. But solutions have not been found for Taiwan's internal divisions.
Secondly, there is a society-wide fear of the Mainland. Expanded cross-strait exchanges have been an enormous benefit to both sides of the Strait. But increase contacts between the two sides has also increased distrust toward the Mainland. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services means the two sides will be in closer touch with each other. The economic, social, and cultural exchanges may provoke emotional apprehension toward the Mainland, and concerns about Mainland influence.
Thirdly, the Ma administration's image of ineptitude may not be justified, but it reflects what many people believe. Many people believe the Ma administration is incompetent and unable to defend the interests of ordinary people on Taiwan.
Fourthly, the constitutional framework of the ROC contains shortcomings. Presidential power is monopolized by a single individual. The Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan never read from the same page. The political parties who come to power have never worked out the proper power relationship between the party and the administration, or between the presidential office, the executive yuan, and the legislative party caucus. The current dispute has shone a light on many of these problems.
The ruling authorities face a critical choice. Based on the current situation, they face a triple crisis. First, there is the immediate crisis of confidence in the regime. The student movement is showing signs of decline. But if the government fails to demonstrate sincerity, if it fails to promote dialogue, confrontation could flareup yet again .
Secondly, there is the end of the year election crisis. Absent any surprises, the KMT will be negatively impacted by the student movement. It is likely to suffer an end of the year election defeat. This constitutes a serious threat to the Ma administration during his last year and a half in office.
Thirdly, there is a crisis of social division and social confrontation in Taiwan society. The student movement precipitated unprecedented social divisions and and confrontation. New forms of Internet media provided new tools for the spread of these divisions and confrontation. Everyone is anxious. Everyone is emotional about his plight. The student movement may be ebbing. But the roots of social conflict and instability remain.
How can we solve the current crisis? How can we resolve the impasse? That depends on the political vision of those in office and the political maturity of the general public. Those in office must not seek to resolve the immediate crisis by suddenly surrendering or bulling their way through. Both options are dangerous. No matter which path they take, the KMT is likely to suffer an end of year election defeat. The divisions in Taiwan's society will remain unresolved. Cross-strait relations might regress. The Taiwan Strait crisis might recur. If so, this would be a tragedy not merely for the Kuomintang, but for all of Taiwan.
The background of the student movement may be complex . The DPP has its own political calculations. But the students' four demands can be reduced to two. One. Legislative oversight regulations for Cross-strait agreements. Two. The convening of a citizens' constitutional conference. Regarding the former, in the late 1990s then Premier Vincent Siew twice proposed a similar bill. Regarding the latter, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said he is willing to discuss a constitutional convention. Can two apparently opposed parties not find a basis for a dialogue?
The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
社論－相信台灣的穩定力量
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月28日 04:10
太陽花學運持續進行，立法院議場繼續被占領，國會運作處於半癱瘓狀態。總統和國會議長隔空對立，步調既不一致，也給社會大眾互推皮球的感覺。朝野嚴重對峙，沒有互信，尤其在野黨在學生奧援下有恃無恐，朝野協商三度無功而返，僵局無解。
本來，僵局不是沒有解決的機會，馬總統已經表示願意邀請學生入府對話，但是在互信不足的情況下，雙方的接觸與對話，可以說毫無具體進展。昨日，學運領導人又公開表示要終止一切對話，甚至決定發動凱道大遊行，擴大對立。
在立法院，原本看似國民黨黨團釋出善意，但民進黨不願意就此妥協。最後，國民黨團的善意，被國民黨籍的立法院長駁回，王院長表示「請朝野各黨團盡速提出符合議事程序及規範之方案之後，會以最快速度再度召開朝野協商」。
在抗爭現場，學生人數有所流失，抗爭學生的體力與意志力都快逼近臨界點，但學運領導人看不到、找不到，也提不出下台階。每天在立法院都出現各種各樣的零星暴力衝突，立委與警察、學生與記者等等，氣氛躁動不安，隨時仍有擦槍走火、局面失控的危險。
對話協商沒有進展，一切似乎回到原點。但這個原點是政治對立的原點，是社會撕裂的原點，是台灣人心浮動不安的原點，更可能是兩岸關係回到不確定前景的原點。我們不得不說，這是政治領袖們必須拋棄一己私心，嚴肅面對的關鍵時刻。
此次學運雖然是《服貿協議》的爭議而起，其實是台灣這幾年積壓的所有病症的總爆發。首先，是親中仇中的糾葛，是對台灣發展方向的歧異。必須承認，從2008年到現在，兩岸關係雖然走上和平發展的道路，但台灣內部的分歧並沒有更好的解決。
其次，是社會疑中、懼中的情緒，兩岸擴大交流帶給兩岸很多向上的力量，但另一方面由於兩岸更頻繁接觸，對相當一部分人來說，反而擴大了對大陸的不信任與不安感。《服貿協議》的簽定，代表兩岸在經濟社會文化上將進入更深層次的交流與密合，也挑動了對大陸疑懼的情緒，擔心大陸的影響力長驅直入。
第三，馬政府無能的形象或許不盡公允，卻已深植人心，許多民眾大有理由認為，無能的馬政府無法捍衛台灣與基層百姓的利益。
第四，台灣憲政體制本來的缺憾，包括總統一人權力獨大，行政、立法兩院扞格，掌握政權的政黨始終無法理順黨政之間、府院黨團之間的權力運作機制，諸多問題也都在這次爭議中暴露。
如今，執政當局正面臨關鍵性的選擇。從目前局面來看，執政者正面臨三重危機，一是眼前的政權穩定危機，雖然學運有開始退潮的跡象，但是府方如果展現不出促進對話的誠意與手腕，局勢隨時有重新升高對立緊張的可能。
二是年底的選舉危機，如果沒有意外，面臨學運大衝擊的國民黨，大有可能在年底選舉中大敗，進而嚴重威脅馬總統在最後一年半的執政基礎。
第三，則是台灣社會大撕裂、大對立的危機，這次學運爆發以後，台灣社會出現空前嚴重的對立撕裂，在網路新媒體新工具的推波助瀾下，人人焦躁、人人各持己見的狀況更為激化，即使學運退潮，社會衝突的不穩定因素也不會消弭。
當前的危機如何解決，僵局如何化解，端視執政者的遠見、格局及全民的民主素養。當權者如果只求解決眼前危機，首鼠兩端突然退讓，或一味堅持強硬，恐怕都是危險的選擇。無論走上哪一條路，年底選舉國民黨固然大敗，台灣社會的撕裂對立也將無法化解，甚至兩岸關係可能倒退，台海危機再現，這不但是國民黨的悲劇，更是台灣的悲劇。
學生運動背景可能非常複雜，民進黨也有政治算計，但學生的四大訴求，其實可以歸結為兩點：兩岸協議監督條例的立法，以及召開公民憲政會議。前者，在1990年代後期，蕭萬長擔任行院長時代曾兩度提出類似法案，後者，江宜樺院長也曾表示可以討論，看似對立的兩方，難道找不到對話的基礎與可能性嗎？
這場風暴是社會長期分裂的總發作，像出疹子般需要一點時間排毒，台灣是一個穩定的社會，各方無須過度憂慮。但風暴本身解鈴還須繫鈴人，馬政府應做出智慧的抉擇，社會也需要發揮穩定的力量，促成這場風暴盡速解決。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 28, 2014
Summary: The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
Full text below:
The Sunflower student movement continues its protest. The Legislative Yuan grounds remain occupied. Legislative Yuan operations remain paralyzed. The President and Speaker of the Legislature remain at arms length and in opposition. Their moves remain out of sync. They have left the public the impression that they are both passing the buck. The ruling and opposition parties remain at loggerheads. They lack mutual trust. In particular, the students covertly support the opposition DPP. Therefore it has nothing to fear. The ruling and opposition parties have consulted three times but to no avail. No solution to the impasse has been found.
The deadlock could have been easily resolved. President Ma declared that the government was willing to dialogue with the students. But the two sides did not trust each other enough. Contacts and dialogue between the two sides yielded no concrete progress. Yesterday, student leaders publicly announced the cessation of all dialogue. They even organized a protest march on Ketegelan Boulevard to escalate the confrontation.
Within the legislature, the KMT legislative caucus made an apparently genuine goodwill gesture. But the DPP was in no mood to compromise. Eventually the KMT caucus' goodwill gesture was rescinded by KMT Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang, who said, "I urge the ruling and opposition parties to propose a solution consistent with legislative procedure as soon as possible. I will then convene ruling and opposition party consultations as soon as possible."
The number of students at the protest sie has diminished. Student stamina and willpower are approaching a breaking point. But student movement leaders have neither seized upon nor proposed a dignified exit strategy. All manner of violence occurs daily at the legislature among legislators, police, students, and reporters. The atmosphere is volatile. Violence may erupte at any moment. The situation can easily get out of hand.
No progress has been made regarding dialogue and consultation. Everything has apparently returned to square one. Square one is the source of political opposition, the source of social division, and the source of public insecurity on Taiwan. It is the source of uncertainty in cross-strait relations. Political leaders must cease being selfish, and confront the current crisis.
The student movement originally targeted the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. In fact, the outbreak was the result of years of accumulated pressure. First, there is pro-Mainland vs. anti-Mainland sentiment. This is a critical factor in Taiwan's development. Between 2008 and now, cross-strait relations have been on a path of peaceful development. But solutions have not been found for Taiwan's internal divisions.
Secondly, there is a society-wide fear of the Mainland. Expanded cross-strait exchanges have been an enormous benefit to both sides of the Strait. But increase contacts between the two sides has also increased distrust toward the Mainland. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services means the two sides will be in closer touch with each other. The economic, social, and cultural exchanges may provoke emotional apprehension toward the Mainland, and concerns about Mainland influence.
Thirdly, the Ma administration's image of ineptitude may not be justified, but it reflects what many people believe. Many people believe the Ma administration is incompetent and unable to defend the interests of ordinary people on Taiwan.
Fourthly, the constitutional framework of the ROC contains shortcomings. Presidential power is monopolized by a single individual. The Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan never read from the same page. The political parties who come to power have never worked out the proper power relationship between the party and the administration, or between the presidential office, the executive yuan, and the legislative party caucus. The current dispute has shone a light on many of these problems.
The ruling authorities face a critical choice. Based on the current situation, they face a triple crisis. First, there is the immediate crisis of confidence in the regime. The student movement is showing signs of decline. But if the government fails to demonstrate sincerity, if it fails to promote dialogue, confrontation could flareup yet again .
Secondly, there is the end of the year election crisis. Absent any surprises, the KMT will be negatively impacted by the student movement. It is likely to suffer an end of the year election defeat. This constitutes a serious threat to the Ma administration during his last year and a half in office.
Thirdly, there is a crisis of social division and social confrontation in Taiwan society. The student movement precipitated unprecedented social divisions and and confrontation. New forms of Internet media provided new tools for the spread of these divisions and confrontation. Everyone is anxious. Everyone is emotional about his plight. The student movement may be ebbing. But the roots of social conflict and instability remain.
How can we solve the current crisis? How can we resolve the impasse? That depends on the political vision of those in office and the political maturity of the general public. Those in office must not seek to resolve the immediate crisis by suddenly surrendering or bulling their way through. Both options are dangerous. No matter which path they take, the KMT is likely to suffer an end of year election defeat. The divisions in Taiwan's society will remain unresolved. Cross-strait relations might regress. The Taiwan Strait crisis might recur. If so, this would be a tragedy not merely for the Kuomintang, but for all of Taiwan.
The background of the student movement may be complex . The DPP has its own political calculations. But the students' four demands can be reduced to two. One. Legislative oversight regulations for Cross-strait agreements. Two. The convening of a citizens' constitutional conference. Regarding the former, in the late 1990s then Premier Vincent Siew twice proposed a similar bill. Regarding the latter, Premier Chiang Yi-hua said he is willing to discuss a constitutional convention. Can two apparently opposed parties not find a basis for a dialogue?
The current political storm is the result of long-term social divisions. Like a rash, it requires time for detoxification. Taiwan has a stable society. People need not be overly concerned. But just as someone must sound the storm alert, someone must end the storm alert. The Ma administration must decide wisely. The community must act as a stabilizing force. Together they must contribute to ending the storm as soon as possible.
社論－相信台灣的穩定力量
稍後再讀
中國時報 編輯部 2014年03月28日 04:10
太陽花學運持續進行，立法院議場繼續被占領，國會運作處於半癱瘓狀態。總統和國會議長隔空對立，步調既不一致，也給社會大眾互推皮球的感覺。朝野嚴重對峙，沒有互信，尤其在野黨在學生奧援下有恃無恐，朝野協商三度無功而返，僵局無解。
本來，僵局不是沒有解決的機會，馬總統已經表示願意邀請學生入府對話，但是在互信不足的情況下，雙方的接觸與對話，可以說毫無具體進展。昨日，學運領導人又公開表示要終止一切對話，甚至決定發動凱道大遊行，擴大對立。
在立法院，原本看似國民黨黨團釋出善意，但民進黨不願意就此妥協。最後，國民黨團的善意，被國民黨籍的立法院長駁回，王院長表示「請朝野各黨團盡速提出符合議事程序及規範之方案之後，會以最快速度再度召開朝野協商」。
在抗爭現場，學生人數有所流失，抗爭學生的體力與意志力都快逼近臨界點，但學運領導人看不到、找不到，也提不出下台階。每天在立法院都出現各種各樣的零星暴力衝突，立委與警察、學生與記者等等，氣氛躁動不安，隨時仍有擦槍走火、局面失控的危險。
對話協商沒有進展，一切似乎回到原點。但這個原點是政治對立的原點，是社會撕裂的原點，是台灣人心浮動不安的原點，更可能是兩岸關係回到不確定前景的原點。我們不得不說，這是政治領袖們必須拋棄一己私心，嚴肅面對的關鍵時刻。
此次學運雖然是《服貿協議》的爭議而起，其實是台灣這幾年積壓的所有病症的總爆發。首先，是親中仇中的糾葛，是對台灣發展方向的歧異。必須承認，從2008年到現在，兩岸關係雖然走上和平發展的道路，但台灣內部的分歧並沒有更好的解決。
其次，是社會疑中、懼中的情緒，兩岸擴大交流帶給兩岸很多向上的力量，但另一方面由於兩岸更頻繁接觸，對相當一部分人來說，反而擴大了對大陸的不信任與不安感。《服貿協議》的簽定，代表兩岸在經濟社會文化上將進入更深層次的交流與密合，也挑動了對大陸疑懼的情緒，擔心大陸的影響力長驅直入。
第三，馬政府無能的形象或許不盡公允，卻已深植人心，許多民眾大有理由認為，無能的馬政府無法捍衛台灣與基層百姓的利益。
第四，台灣憲政體制本來的缺憾，包括總統一人權力獨大，行政、立法兩院扞格，掌握政權的政黨始終無法理順黨政之間、府院黨團之間的權力運作機制，諸多問題也都在這次爭議中暴露。
如今，執政當局正面臨關鍵性的選擇。從目前局面來看，執政者正面臨三重危機，一是眼前的政權穩定危機，雖然學運有開始退潮的跡象，但是府方如果展現不出促進對話的誠意與手腕，局勢隨時有重新升高對立緊張的可能。
二是年底的選舉危機，如果沒有意外，面臨學運大衝擊的國民黨，大有可能在年底選舉中大敗，進而嚴重威脅馬總統在最後一年半的執政基礎。
第三，則是台灣社會大撕裂、大對立的危機，這次學運爆發以後，台灣社會出現空前嚴重的對立撕裂，在網路新媒體新工具的推波助瀾下，人人焦躁、人人各持己見的狀況更為激化，即使學運退潮，社會衝突的不穩定因素也不會消弭。
當前的危機如何解決，僵局如何化解，端視執政者的遠見、格局及全民的民主素養。當權者如果只求解決眼前危機，首鼠兩端突然退讓，或一味堅持強硬，恐怕都是危險的選擇。無論走上哪一條路，年底選舉國民黨固然大敗，台灣社會的撕裂對立也將無法化解，甚至兩岸關係可能倒退，台海危機再現，這不但是國民黨的悲劇，更是台灣的悲劇。
學生運動背景可能非常複雜，民進黨也有政治算計，但學生的四大訴求，其實可以歸結為兩點：兩岸協議監督條例的立法，以及召開公民憲政會議。前者，在1990年代後期，蕭萬長擔任行院長時代曾兩度提出類似法案，後者，江宜樺院長也曾表示可以討論，看似對立的兩方，難道找不到對話的基礎與可能性嗎？
這場風暴是社會長期分裂的總發作，像出疹子般需要一點時間排毒，台灣是一個穩定的社會，各方無須過度憂慮。但風暴本身解鈴還須繫鈴人，馬政府應做出智慧的抉擇，社會也需要發揮穩定的力量，促成這場風暴盡速解決。
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services: Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
Protests Against the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services:
Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 27, 2014
Summary: The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
Full text below:
Protesters opposed to the Cross-Strait Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services waved the banner of opposition to [Mainland] China. But their actions may well harm Taiwan.
Actually, Taiwan must deal with more than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Taiwan hopes that the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services will improve the ECFA system, increase cross-strait trust and goodwill, and facilitate membership in the TPP and RCEP. If Taiwan cannot join the TPP and RCEP, it will be increasingly marginalized in both the regional and international economy. This marginalization will make Taiwan even more economically dependent upon the Mainland, and more suseptible to Mainland China political pressure. Therefore the agreement involves a paradox. In the name of opposition to Mainland China, the protests are bringing disaster upon Taiwan.
This is common knowledge for people on both sides of the issue. The stars of the current political storm are college students. They should have some modicum of common sense and reasoning ability. If they are free from political prejudices, they can read the pros and cons on the Internet. Surely they realize this protest opposing Mainland China has harmed Taiwan instead. Even assuming the college students are unaware of this, can the DPP be equally unaware? After all, it has been dealing with this issue for the past several decades. Therefore the current situation is not the result of protestors ignorance, but something else.
After Jesus was crucified the Apostle Peter said, "Brothers, I know you acted out of ignorance. Your leader did so as well. " The student leaders occupying the legislature grounds did not act out of ignorance. DPP party princes Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang, who fanned the flames, did not act out of ignorance. They knew their actions would precipitate disaster upon Taiwan. They knew their opposition to Mainland China was a dead end path that would in fact harm Taiwan. Yet for partisan advantage, they were perfectly willing bury Taiwan.
How should we characterize this storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to black box operations? Opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to Mainland China? Or harmful to Taiwan? First take opposition to black box operations. Sixteen public hearings and up to one hundred briefings were held. Government officials and the opposition parties addressed the issue almost daily. The Internet featured millions of pro and con opinions regarding everything, from the impact of globalization, to the details of the trade provisions. The common people can complain about a "lack of communication." But student leaders are supposed to be intellectuals seeking rational dialogue. Otherwise why would they seek a meeting with the president? Others may be able to talk about "black box operations." But the DPP legislative caucus can hardly talk about "black box operations." After all, Su Tseng-chang turned down Ma Ying-jeou's invitation to debate the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, did he not? Democracies the world over follow the same procedure. The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed by the legislature. It is voted up or down as a complete package. The provisions of the agreement will be made public during Legislative Yuan review. The pros and cons will all be presented to society. There simply will be no "black box" to speak of.
Wang Jin-pyng refused to participate in the inter-yuan coordination meeting. Leave aside his political calculations. He correctly defined the matter as the internal affairs of the legislature. This is a serious procedural conflict. It is a controversial matter of procedural justice. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must resume operations. It must return to a line item review and line item vote. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is a matter of Legislative Yuan political consultation. It is a political process. It completely eliminates the problem of "black box operations."
So are the protests opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? The students occupying the legislature and the DPP are not advocating totally severing cross-strait trade. Nor do they oppose those parts of the agreement that are beneficial to Taiwan. They merely mutter about "harm to SMEs." But all FTAs are instances of "give a little to get a little." The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a unilaterally favorable trade agreement, highly favorable to our side. Or do the students and the DPP want Beijing to become Taiwan's "sugar daddy?" If not, how can Taiwan demand a treaty that only takes but does not give? And what if the agreement were to become a "sugar daddy treaty?" Would this not be a benefit to Taiwan? Besides, Taiwan wants to join the TPP and RCEP. Isn't this another case of only taking without giving?
Therefore opposition to black box operations, and opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, are mere pretexts. In fact, the true nature of the current storm has to do with Sinophobia. Otherwise, why was legislative review of the agreements with Singapore and New Zealand conducted in accordance with legislative convention? The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed. It is voted up or down as a total package. Only the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has been subjected to political negotiations and a line item review. Some protestors have even advocated a separate "Articles on Cross Strait Negotiation Oversight." Do they want a separate "Articles on TPP Negotiation Oversight" as well? Do they advocate prior review? Besides, the administration has promised a line item review and line item vote. Why not leave well enough alone? Why continue to incite Sinophobia? Therefore as noted above, this is a political storm rooted in Sinophobia. It may cause irreversible harm to Taiwan.
The political storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has had at least three effects. First, the DPP's policy of reconciliation with Beijing has been exposed as phony. This means that if Democratic Progressive Party ever regains power, Beijing will subject it to extreme pressure. Secondly, international and domestic respect for Taiwan's democracy has been badly undermined. Abroad, trust in any future contracts Taiwan might sign has been undermined. At home, society has been torn asunder. Public confidence in the future of the nation has take a serious hit. Thirdly, a dark shadow has been cast over cross-strait relations. Taiwan's chances of joining the TPP and RCEP may have been undermined. Cross-strait relations without an international network makes Taiwan more dependent on Mainland China. The consequences are hard to imagine.
The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
服貿風暴弔詭：抗中或害台？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.27 04:12 am
這場服貿風暴，打的是「反中抗中」的旗幟，卻不無可能造成「害台禍台」的後果。
其實，台灣現在面對的並不只是「服貿協議」，而是希望以服貿協議來完善ＥＣＦＡ體系，進而在兩岸的互信及善意下，試圖加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ。台灣若不能加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，無論在區域經濟或國際政治上將更趨邊緣化；而邊緣化的結果，即必使台灣在經濟上更依賴大陸，亦在政治上更受中國的挾制。因而，這場服貿風暴的弔詭是：打著反中抗中的旗幟，卻將造成害台禍台的後果。
這樣的推理，可謂已是在兩岸議題上的常識。這場風暴的主角是大學生，應有基本的求知及論理能力，倘若不持政治成見，只要在網路上參閱正反意見，即不會不知這種「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的弔詭；即使大學生不知，但已在兩岸議題中翻滾了幾十年的民進黨豈可能不知？因此，今日的局面難謂是與事者出於無知，而是另有原因。
使徒彼得在耶穌被釘十字架後說：「兄弟們，我知道你們所行的是出於無知，你們的首領也如此。」但是，今日占領立院議場的學生領袖卻未必是出於無知，煽風點火的民進黨蘇蔡謝等天王們更絕非出於無知，彼等皆明明知道這是將台灣帶上「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的絕路。但只是為了黨爭，竟不惜葬送台灣。
這場服貿風暴應如何定性？是反黑箱？反服貿？反中？或禍台？先談反黑箱。十六場公聽會、上百場說明會，政府官員及反對黨幾乎每日都有針對性發言，網路上更有千萬則大自全球化、小至服貿條文的正反意見；一般庶民容或可說仍是「溝通不夠」，但學生領袖若能善盡知識分子的「自我理智對話」，則何須慕求「總統接見」？何況，大家都說「黑箱」，唯民進黨立院黨團不能說「黑箱」；至少應還記得蘇貞昌拒絕了馬英九服貿專題辯論的邀請吧？其實，「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」是世界民主國家簽訂條約的通例，當服貿協議的全部條文在立院公開審議，一切利弊盡已公諸社會，即無「黑箱」可言。
因此，王金平拒絕出席院際協調，不論其政治算計為何；但他將此事界定為「立法院內部事務」則屬正確。此事誠是一件嚴重的議事衝突，在程序正義上引起爭議；因此，若能讓立院恢復運作，回復「逐條審查／逐條表決」（這不是法定程序，而是立院「政黨協商」的政治程序），更可完全消除「黑箱」的問題，是為正辦。
再言是否反服貿？占院學生及民進黨並未主張全面停斷兩岸經貿，亦未反對服貿協議對台灣有利部分，而只是空泛地說「傷害中小企業」。但一切的ＦＴＡ皆是「有給有取」，而此一服貿協議則是一高度片面讓利的條約；除非學生及民進黨主張台灣應由北京全面「包養」，否則台灣豈有可能訂出一紙「只取不給」的條約？且倘若真有那種「包養條約」，又豈對台灣有利？再者，台灣能想像入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ也是「只取不給」嗎？
因此，反黑箱、反服貿只是藉口，這場風暴的真正性質其實是「反中」。否則，為何立院審議新加坡協議及紐西蘭協議皆遵照「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」的立法規範，唯獨服貿協議卻要「政黨協商／逐條審查」，甚至尚主張另訂《兩岸協議監督條例》（難道也要訂《ＴＰＰ監督條例》，主張事前審查？）；何況，如今既已應允「逐條審查／逐條表決」，卻何以仍不善罷干休，繼續煽動「反中抗中」的情緒。於是，如前所述，這一場「反中抗中」的風暴，即不無可能出現無以逆轉的「害台禍台」的後果。
這場服貿風暴至少已產生三種效應：一、民進黨對北京當局的和解政策崩盤，這使得民進黨若再執政必遭北京嚴酷挾制。二、國際及國內對台灣民主政治的評價動搖，對外傷害台灣未來的締約信任，對內使社會撕裂更形嚴重，全民對國家前途的信心受到嚴重打擊。三、兩岸關係蒙上陰影，倘致影響了台灣參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，兩岸關係失去國際節制的網絡，將使台灣更加依賴中國，後果不堪想像。
這場反服貿大火愈燒愈烈並走上歧路，帶頭的幾個學生當非出於無知；民進黨的火上加油更非出於無知。但請問：為何明明知道，卻仍要將台灣帶上絕路？
Hating Mainland China? Or Harming Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
(Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 27, 2014
Summary: The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
Full text below:
Protesters opposed to the Cross-Strait Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services waved the banner of opposition to [Mainland] China. But their actions may well harm Taiwan.
Actually, Taiwan must deal with more than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Taiwan hopes that the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services will improve the ECFA system, increase cross-strait trust and goodwill, and facilitate membership in the TPP and RCEP. If Taiwan cannot join the TPP and RCEP, it will be increasingly marginalized in both the regional and international economy. This marginalization will make Taiwan even more economically dependent upon the Mainland, and more suseptible to Mainland China political pressure. Therefore the agreement involves a paradox. In the name of opposition to Mainland China, the protests are bringing disaster upon Taiwan.
This is common knowledge for people on both sides of the issue. The stars of the current political storm are college students. They should have some modicum of common sense and reasoning ability. If they are free from political prejudices, they can read the pros and cons on the Internet. Surely they realize this protest opposing Mainland China has harmed Taiwan instead. Even assuming the college students are unaware of this, can the DPP be equally unaware? After all, it has been dealing with this issue for the past several decades. Therefore the current situation is not the result of protestors ignorance, but something else.
After Jesus was crucified the Apostle Peter said, "Brothers, I know you acted out of ignorance. Your leader did so as well. " The student leaders occupying the legislature grounds did not act out of ignorance. DPP party princes Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang, who fanned the flames, did not act out of ignorance. They knew their actions would precipitate disaster upon Taiwan. They knew their opposition to Mainland China was a dead end path that would in fact harm Taiwan. Yet for partisan advantage, they were perfectly willing bury Taiwan.
How should we characterize this storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to black box operations? Opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? Opposition to Mainland China? Or harmful to Taiwan? First take opposition to black box operations. Sixteen public hearings and up to one hundred briefings were held. Government officials and the opposition parties addressed the issue almost daily. The Internet featured millions of pro and con opinions regarding everything, from the impact of globalization, to the details of the trade provisions. The common people can complain about a "lack of communication." But student leaders are supposed to be intellectuals seeking rational dialogue. Otherwise why would they seek a meeting with the president? Others may be able to talk about "black box operations." But the DPP legislative caucus can hardly talk about "black box operations." After all, Su Tseng-chang turned down Ma Ying-jeou's invitation to debate the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, did he not? Democracies the world over follow the same procedure. The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed by the legislature. It is voted up or down as a complete package. The provisions of the agreement will be made public during Legislative Yuan review. The pros and cons will all be presented to society. There simply will be no "black box" to speak of.
Wang Jin-pyng refused to participate in the inter-yuan coordination meeting. Leave aside his political calculations. He correctly defined the matter as the internal affairs of the legislature. This is a serious procedural conflict. It is a controversial matter of procedural justice. Therefore the Legislative Yuan must resume operations. It must return to a line item review and line item vote. This is not a matter of legal procedure. It is a matter of Legislative Yuan political consultation. It is a political process. It completely eliminates the problem of "black box operations."
So are the protests opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services? The students occupying the legislature and the DPP are not advocating totally severing cross-strait trade. Nor do they oppose those parts of the agreement that are beneficial to Taiwan. They merely mutter about "harm to SMEs." But all FTAs are instances of "give a little to get a little." The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a unilaterally favorable trade agreement, highly favorable to our side. Or do the students and the DPP want Beijing to become Taiwan's "sugar daddy?" If not, how can Taiwan demand a treaty that only takes but does not give? And what if the agreement were to become a "sugar daddy treaty?" Would this not be a benefit to Taiwan? Besides, Taiwan wants to join the TPP and RCEP. Isn't this another case of only taking without giving?
Therefore opposition to black box operations, and opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, are mere pretexts. In fact, the true nature of the current storm has to do with Sinophobia. Otherwise, why was legislative review of the agreements with Singapore and New Zealand conducted in accordance with legislative convention? The executive signs a treaty. It is later reviewed. It is voted up or down as a total package. Only the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has been subjected to political negotiations and a line item review. Some protestors have even advocated a separate "Articles on Cross Strait Negotiation Oversight." Do they want a separate "Articles on TPP Negotiation Oversight" as well? Do they advocate prior review? Besides, the administration has promised a line item review and line item vote. Why not leave well enough alone? Why continue to incite Sinophobia? Therefore as noted above, this is a political storm rooted in Sinophobia. It may cause irreversible harm to Taiwan.
The political storm over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services has had at least three effects. First, the DPP's policy of reconciliation with Beijing has been exposed as phony. This means that if Democratic Progressive Party ever regains power, Beijing will subject it to extreme pressure. Secondly, international and domestic respect for Taiwan's democracy has been badly undermined. Abroad, trust in any future contracts Taiwan might sign has been undermined. At home, society has been torn asunder. Public confidence in the future of the nation has take a serious hit. Thirdly, a dark shadow has been cast over cross-strait relations. Taiwan's chances of joining the TPP and RCEP may have been undermined. Cross-strait relations without an international network makes Taiwan more dependent on Mainland China. The consequences are hard to imagine.
The wildfire of opposition to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services burns ever hotter, even as it goes ever more astray. The students leading the protests did not act out of ignorance. The DPP, which added fuel to the fire, did not act out of ignorance. So the question is: Since you clearly understand this, why are you insisting that Taiwan travel the road to ruin?
服貿風暴弔詭：抗中或害台？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.27 04:12 am
這場服貿風暴，打的是「反中抗中」的旗幟，卻不無可能造成「害台禍台」的後果。
其實，台灣現在面對的並不只是「服貿協議」，而是希望以服貿協議來完善ＥＣＦＡ體系，進而在兩岸的互信及善意下，試圖加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ。台灣若不能加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，無論在區域經濟或國際政治上將更趨邊緣化；而邊緣化的結果，即必使台灣在經濟上更依賴大陸，亦在政治上更受中國的挾制。因而，這場服貿風暴的弔詭是：打著反中抗中的旗幟，卻將造成害台禍台的後果。
這樣的推理，可謂已是在兩岸議題上的常識。這場風暴的主角是大學生，應有基本的求知及論理能力，倘若不持政治成見，只要在網路上參閱正反意見，即不會不知這種「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的弔詭；即使大學生不知，但已在兩岸議題中翻滾了幾十年的民進黨豈可能不知？因此，今日的局面難謂是與事者出於無知，而是另有原因。
使徒彼得在耶穌被釘十字架後說：「兄弟們，我知道你們所行的是出於無知，你們的首領也如此。」但是，今日占領立院議場的學生領袖卻未必是出於無知，煽風點火的民進黨蘇蔡謝等天王們更絕非出於無知，彼等皆明明知道這是將台灣帶上「反中抗中變成害台禍台」的絕路。但只是為了黨爭，竟不惜葬送台灣。
這場服貿風暴應如何定性？是反黑箱？反服貿？反中？或禍台？先談反黑箱。十六場公聽會、上百場說明會，政府官員及反對黨幾乎每日都有針對性發言，網路上更有千萬則大自全球化、小至服貿條文的正反意見；一般庶民容或可說仍是「溝通不夠」，但學生領袖若能善盡知識分子的「自我理智對話」，則何須慕求「總統接見」？何況，大家都說「黑箱」，唯民進黨立院黨團不能說「黑箱」；至少應還記得蘇貞昌拒絕了馬英九服貿專題辯論的邀請吧？其實，「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」是世界民主國家簽訂條約的通例，當服貿協議的全部條文在立院公開審議，一切利弊盡已公諸社會，即無「黑箱」可言。
因此，王金平拒絕出席院際協調，不論其政治算計為何；但他將此事界定為「立法院內部事務」則屬正確。此事誠是一件嚴重的議事衝突，在程序正義上引起爭議；因此，若能讓立院恢復運作，回復「逐條審查／逐條表決」（這不是法定程序，而是立院「政黨協商」的政治程序），更可完全消除「黑箱」的問題，是為正辦。
再言是否反服貿？占院學生及民進黨並未主張全面停斷兩岸經貿，亦未反對服貿協議對台灣有利部分，而只是空泛地說「傷害中小企業」。但一切的ＦＴＡ皆是「有給有取」，而此一服貿協議則是一高度片面讓利的條約；除非學生及民進黨主張台灣應由北京全面「包養」，否則台灣豈有可能訂出一紙「只取不給」的條約？且倘若真有那種「包養條約」，又豈對台灣有利？再者，台灣能想像入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ也是「只取不給」嗎？
因此，反黑箱、反服貿只是藉口，這場風暴的真正性質其實是「反中」。否則，為何立院審議新加坡協議及紐西蘭協議皆遵照「行政議簽／事後審查／包裹表決」的立法規範，唯獨服貿協議卻要「政黨協商／逐條審查」，甚至尚主張另訂《兩岸協議監督條例》（難道也要訂《ＴＰＰ監督條例》，主張事前審查？）；何況，如今既已應允「逐條審查／逐條表決」，卻何以仍不善罷干休，繼續煽動「反中抗中」的情緒。於是，如前所述，這一場「反中抗中」的風暴，即不無可能出現無以逆轉的「害台禍台」的後果。
這場服貿風暴至少已產生三種效應：一、民進黨對北京當局的和解政策崩盤，這使得民進黨若再執政必遭北京嚴酷挾制。二、國際及國內對台灣民主政治的評價動搖，對外傷害台灣未來的締約信任，對內使社會撕裂更形嚴重，全民對國家前途的信心受到嚴重打擊。三、兩岸關係蒙上陰影，倘致影響了台灣參與ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ，兩岸關係失去國際節制的網絡，將使台灣更加依賴中國，後果不堪想像。
這場反服貿大火愈燒愈烈並走上歧路，帶頭的幾個學生當非出於無知；民進黨的火上加油更非出於無知。但請問：為何明明知道，卻仍要將台灣帶上絕路？
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students
President Must Demonstrate Sincerity When Dialoguing with Students
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 26, 2014
Summary: Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition
Full text below:
The student occupation of the Legislature has intensified yet again. It led to an unprecedented "occupation" of the Executive Yuan, and a bloody eviction by the police. The image of the government has been battered. The day before yesterday, Christine Chow, the president's wife, responded on Chen Yu-hui's FaceBook page. She said "The government has explained its position repeatedly. But since the people still have doubts, it has a responsibility to say it a few more times." Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services.
To being with, public opinion is as mercurial as flowing water. Changes in the political situation are constant. The moment the students succeeded in occupying the grounds of the legislature, the solution ceased being the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan Speaker. Nor was it the responsibility of the students. It became the responsibility of the Ma administration. The police stormed the Executive Yuan and expelled the students. From that moment on, any "violence" was the result of the government, not the students, and definitely not the opposition.
Those opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services accused the government of "black box operations." As we know perfectly well, such accusations are false. Take a step back. Before and during negotiations, government agencies held a total of 110 small-scale seminars with industry representatives from domestic finance, video games, exhibition, shipping, printing, cosmetics , food, travel, advertising, and logistics. According to the Legislative Yuan, the Legislative Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services in 2013. One on April 20, one on May 2, and one on May 30. Government officials reported in detail the negotiation process. The second session was a secret meeting. It concerned the content of the agreement we were preparing to sign with the other side.
During these three briefing sessions, DPP legislators were present along with KMT legislators. They included Chen Chi-mai, Li Chun-yi, Tuan Yi-kang, Lin Chia-lung, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Pi-ling, Yeh Yi-Ching, Yao Wen-chih, Chen Ou-po, Hsu Tain-Tsair, Chiu Chih-wei, Hsueh Ling, Tsai Chi-Chang, Yu Mei-nu, Lee Kun-tse, Wu Ping-jui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lin Shu-Fen, Tien Chiu-chin, Huang Wei-cher, Wei Ming Ku, and other committee members. Also in attendance were the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party and independents.
Large numbers of ruling and opposition party legislators took part in the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services hearings. No one can say the administration ignored the legislature. No one can say the administration operated inside a black box. Furthermore, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in July 2013. Between then and March 10 of this year, the legislature held 20 public hearings. According to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the executive is required only to inform the Legislative Yuan of what it intends to do. Yet KMT legislators consented to a line item review and line item vote. This was a public hearing, public review, and public vote, conducted entirely within the glare of the public spotlight. How can anyone accuse the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services of being a black box operation?
We know the students are opposed to more than black box operations. We know they are opposed to matters other than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. They are more concerned that the Ma administration's cross-strait policy is leaning too far toward the Mainland. They accuse the government's negotiating team of failing to obtain the best terms, and of allowing Taiwan to get a raw deal. Others of course, are indeed motivated by deep-seated Sinophobia.
Former National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi best summed up the problem. He says the struggle over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a continuation of an ongoing internal struggle inside Taiwan, over three issues: policy, reunification vs.independence, and the system. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services by itself has no bearing on reunification vs. independence. That is why President Ma repeatedly emphasized that the legislature must pass the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services "solely for the sake of of Taiwan's economy." Taiwan's trade liberalization and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and the RCEP, are merely "policy" issues. But for the DPP and the protesting students, they are reunification vs. independence issues. Some students even argue that the trade dispute proves that the legislative process no longer works, and that therefore the "system" of political representation needs reconsideration. Enormous cognitive differences exist regarding all three issues. This is why after President Ma held his March 23 press conference, the protesting students accused President Ma of being "a broken record."
We hope President Ma and the student representatives can meet and talk without preconditions. We hope they can break the current political impasse. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The dialogue must be open and transparent. The Presidential Office may wish to televise the process in toto. This would prevent students from accusing him of merely giving them a "pat on the head." The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition. They must not issue all sorts of demands about the venue and the program.
The president must consider the fact that the students have already made various demands. Student representatives proposed "convening a citizens' constitutional convention." In terms of political reality, this was a jarring suggestion. But six large business groups have also suggested convening a similar "national conference." This suggests a social consensus. Presidential staffers must respond to society's expectations. They must make comprehensive plans and preparations. They must ensure that the students and the community feel the president's sincerity. He must not sound like a broken record.
We would like to caution the DPP. You know and we know that the negotiations over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services were not black box operations. Yet you deliberately created a false public perception. DPP political leaders, including Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang should issue public vows regarding the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. This is the only attitude proper for any politican answerable to history.
社論－與學生對話 總統須展現誠意
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月26日 04:10
學生占領立法院行動一再激化，造成行政院大樓前所未見的「淪陷」，及警察驅離過程的血腥，重創政府形象。繼前天總統夫人周美青在作家陳玉慧臉書回文，同意「政府覺得已經說過許多次了，但是人民既然有疑慮，就有責任再多說幾次」，總統府昨天終於願意在不預設任何前提下，邀請學生代表來總統府會談。學生代表林飛帆立即回應，願意在公開的平台跟總統對話，服貿僵局呈現突破的一線曙光。
首先，民意如流水，政治情勢變動不居，從學生成功占領立法院議場那一刻開始，「解套」就不是立法院長，更不是學生的責任，而是馬政府的責任，從警察被迫衝進行政院辦公大樓驅離學生開始，「暴力」的印記就要由政府承擔，而非學生，更不是反對黨。
當然，我們非常清楚，反對《服貿協議》人士訴求的「反對黑箱作業」並非事實。回溯相關資料可以發現，在談判前及談判期間，政府相關部門曾與國內金融、遊戲、會展、海運、印刷、美容、餐飲、旅遊、廣告、物流等產業代表，總共舉行110次小型座談會。依據立法院議事資料，在《兩岸服貿協議》談判過程中，立法院內政委員會曾於102年4月20日、5月2日及5月30日舉行3場會議，政府官員詳細報告了談判進程，其中第二場會議為祕密會議，實質說明了我方準備與對岸簽訂的內容。
在這3場行簡報會議中，除國民黨立委外，民進黨的陳其邁、李俊俋、段宜康、林佳龍、陳亭妃、管碧玲、葉宜津、姚文智、陳歐珀、許添財、邱志偉、薛凌、蔡其昌、尤美女、李昆澤、吳秉叡、蕭美琴、林淑芬、田秋堇、黃偉哲、魏明谷等委員，都在出列席名單中，台聯、親民黨及無黨籍立委也曾出列席。
這麼多朝野立委都聽過《服貿協議》簡報，不能說是不尊重國會，更不應該是黑箱作業，何況《服貿協議》在進入立法院後，從102年7月到今年的3月10日，立法院已舉行過20場公聽會，依《兩岸人民關係條例》第五條，原本只需立法院備查，在國民黨立委同意下，已決定要進行逐條逐項審查及表決，這種公開聽證、公開審查的做法，又怎能說《服貿協議》是黑箱作業呢？
我們也理解，學生並非單純「反對黑箱作業」，更不只是「反服貿」，更多的是憂心馬政府兩岸政策傾中，認定政府談判團隊並未爭取到最好條件，讓台灣吃虧。其中當然也有些人，是根深柢固的「反中」心態。
其實，前國安會祕書長蘇起的分析最能捕捉到核心，他認為服貿爭議是台灣內部在「政策」、「統獨」和「制度」3個層次上爭論不休的延續。《服貿協議》本身與統一、獨立無涉，所以馬總統反覆強調，立法院一定要通過《服貿協議》「完全是為了台灣經濟的未來」，是台灣貿易自由化、加入TPP與RCEP的一環，是單純的「政策」議題。但對民進黨與抗議學生而言，卻是一個與「統獨」有關的議題，部分學生更認為，服貿爭議顯示國會運作已經失靈，所以還是一個必須重新檢討代議政治的「制度」議題。三方認知差異極大，這也是馬總統3月23日記者會後，抗爭學生認為「馬總統只是一再跳針」的原因。
我們期待馬總統與學生代表，都能不預設立場促成對話實現，共同尋找突破當前政治僵局之道。首先，總統應該展現最大誠意，務期對話環境公開透明，總統府可考慮全程開放電視轉播，避免學生產生「被摸頭」的疑慮，學生亦不能心存「公審總統」的企圖，提出場域與程序的條件。
總統也要全盤思考學生已經提出與可能提出的各項訴求，包括學生代表倡議的「召開公民憲政會議」，雖然從政治現實面而言顯得突兀，但六大工商團體也提出意義接近的召開「國是會議」建言，顯示社會的部分共識。總統幕僚應對如何回應社會的期待，有完整的思考與準備，要讓學生及全社會體會到總統溝通的誠意，絕不能再讓人感覺「又是跳針」。
我們還要敬告民進黨，你知我知，服貿談判絕非黑箱，卻在有心人刻意操作下造成社會錯誤認知，民進黨政治領袖，包括蔡英文、蘇貞昌，應對是否贊成簽署《兩岸服貿協議》立下「軍令狀」，表示為人民立誓、對歷史負責的政治家應有態度。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 26, 2014
Summary: Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition
Full text below:
The student occupation of the Legislature has intensified yet again. It led to an unprecedented "occupation" of the Executive Yuan, and a bloody eviction by the police. The image of the government has been battered. The day before yesterday, Christine Chow, the president's wife, responded on Chen Yu-hui's FaceBook page. She said "The government has explained its position repeatedly. But since the people still have doubts, it has a responsibility to say it a few more times." Yesterday the Presidential Office finally invited student representatives to the Presidential Palace for talks, without preconditions. Student representative Lin Fei-fan responded immediately. He said he was willing to dialogue with the president in an open forum to break the deadlock over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services.
To being with, public opinion is as mercurial as flowing water. Changes in the political situation are constant. The moment the students succeeded in occupying the grounds of the legislature, the solution ceased being the responsibility of the Legislative Yuan Speaker. Nor was it the responsibility of the students. It became the responsibility of the Ma administration. The police stormed the Executive Yuan and expelled the students. From that moment on, any "violence" was the result of the government, not the students, and definitely not the opposition.
Those opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services accused the government of "black box operations." As we know perfectly well, such accusations are false. Take a step back. Before and during negotiations, government agencies held a total of 110 small-scale seminars with industry representatives from domestic finance, video games, exhibition, shipping, printing, cosmetics , food, travel, advertising, and logistics. According to the Legislative Yuan, the Legislative Affairs Committee held three hearings on the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services in 2013. One on April 20, one on May 2, and one on May 30. Government officials reported in detail the negotiation process. The second session was a secret meeting. It concerned the content of the agreement we were preparing to sign with the other side.
During these three briefing sessions, DPP legislators were present along with KMT legislators. They included Chen Chi-mai, Li Chun-yi, Tuan Yi-kang, Lin Chia-lung, Chen Ting-fei, Kuan Pi-ling, Yeh Yi-Ching, Yao Wen-chih, Chen Ou-po, Hsu Tain-Tsair, Chiu Chih-wei, Hsueh Ling, Tsai Chi-Chang, Yu Mei-nu, Lee Kun-tse, Wu Ping-jui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lin Shu-Fen, Tien Chiu-chin, Huang Wei-cher, Wei Ming Ku, and other committee members. Also in attendance were the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party and independents.
Large numbers of ruling and opposition party legislators took part in the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services hearings. No one can say the administration ignored the legislature. No one can say the administration operated inside a black box. Furthermore, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in July 2013. Between then and March 10 of this year, the legislature held 20 public hearings. According to Article 5 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the executive is required only to inform the Legislative Yuan of what it intends to do. Yet KMT legislators consented to a line item review and line item vote. This was a public hearing, public review, and public vote, conducted entirely within the glare of the public spotlight. How can anyone accuse the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services of being a black box operation?
We know the students are opposed to more than black box operations. We know they are opposed to matters other than the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. They are more concerned that the Ma administration's cross-strait policy is leaning too far toward the Mainland. They accuse the government's negotiating team of failing to obtain the best terms, and of allowing Taiwan to get a raw deal. Others of course, are indeed motivated by deep-seated Sinophobia.
Former National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi best summed up the problem. He says the struggle over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services is a continuation of an ongoing internal struggle inside Taiwan, over three issues: policy, reunification vs.independence, and the system. The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services by itself has no bearing on reunification vs. independence. That is why President Ma repeatedly emphasized that the legislature must pass the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services "solely for the sake of of Taiwan's economy." Taiwan's trade liberalization and Taiwan's membership in the TPP and the RCEP, are merely "policy" issues. But for the DPP and the protesting students, they are reunification vs. independence issues. Some students even argue that the trade dispute proves that the legislative process no longer works, and that therefore the "system" of political representation needs reconsideration. Enormous cognitive differences exist regarding all three issues. This is why after President Ma held his March 23 press conference, the protesting students accused President Ma of being "a broken record."
We hope President Ma and the student representatives can meet and talk without preconditions. We hope they can break the current political impasse. First, the president must demonstrate sincerity. The dialogue must be open and transparent. The Presidential Office may wish to televise the process in toto. This would prevent students from accusing him of merely giving them a "pat on the head." The students, meanwhile, must not attempt to turn the dialogue into a public inquisition. They must not issue all sorts of demands about the venue and the program.
The president must consider the fact that the students have already made various demands. Student representatives proposed "convening a citizens' constitutional convention." In terms of political reality, this was a jarring suggestion. But six large business groups have also suggested convening a similar "national conference." This suggests a social consensus. Presidential staffers must respond to society's expectations. They must make comprehensive plans and preparations. They must ensure that the students and the community feel the president's sincerity. He must not sound like a broken record.
We would like to caution the DPP. You know and we know that the negotiations over the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services were not black box operations. Yet you deliberately created a false public perception. DPP political leaders, including Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang should issue public vows regarding the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. This is the only attitude proper for any politican answerable to history.
社論－與學生對話 總統須展現誠意
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月26日 04:10
學生占領立法院行動一再激化，造成行政院大樓前所未見的「淪陷」，及警察驅離過程的血腥，重創政府形象。繼前天總統夫人周美青在作家陳玉慧臉書回文，同意「政府覺得已經說過許多次了，但是人民既然有疑慮，就有責任再多說幾次」，總統府昨天終於願意在不預設任何前提下，邀請學生代表來總統府會談。學生代表林飛帆立即回應，願意在公開的平台跟總統對話，服貿僵局呈現突破的一線曙光。
首先，民意如流水，政治情勢變動不居，從學生成功占領立法院議場那一刻開始，「解套」就不是立法院長，更不是學生的責任，而是馬政府的責任，從警察被迫衝進行政院辦公大樓驅離學生開始，「暴力」的印記就要由政府承擔，而非學生，更不是反對黨。
當然，我們非常清楚，反對《服貿協議》人士訴求的「反對黑箱作業」並非事實。回溯相關資料可以發現，在談判前及談判期間，政府相關部門曾與國內金融、遊戲、會展、海運、印刷、美容、餐飲、旅遊、廣告、物流等產業代表，總共舉行110次小型座談會。依據立法院議事資料，在《兩岸服貿協議》談判過程中，立法院內政委員會曾於102年4月20日、5月2日及5月30日舉行3場會議，政府官員詳細報告了談判進程，其中第二場會議為祕密會議，實質說明了我方準備與對岸簽訂的內容。
在這3場行簡報會議中，除國民黨立委外，民進黨的陳其邁、李俊俋、段宜康、林佳龍、陳亭妃、管碧玲、葉宜津、姚文智、陳歐珀、許添財、邱志偉、薛凌、蔡其昌、尤美女、李昆澤、吳秉叡、蕭美琴、林淑芬、田秋堇、黃偉哲、魏明谷等委員，都在出列席名單中，台聯、親民黨及無黨籍立委也曾出列席。
這麼多朝野立委都聽過《服貿協議》簡報，不能說是不尊重國會，更不應該是黑箱作業，何況《服貿協議》在進入立法院後，從102年7月到今年的3月10日，立法院已舉行過20場公聽會，依《兩岸人民關係條例》第五條，原本只需立法院備查，在國民黨立委同意下，已決定要進行逐條逐項審查及表決，這種公開聽證、公開審查的做法，又怎能說《服貿協議》是黑箱作業呢？
我們也理解，學生並非單純「反對黑箱作業」，更不只是「反服貿」，更多的是憂心馬政府兩岸政策傾中，認定政府談判團隊並未爭取到最好條件，讓台灣吃虧。其中當然也有些人，是根深柢固的「反中」心態。
其實，前國安會祕書長蘇起的分析最能捕捉到核心，他認為服貿爭議是台灣內部在「政策」、「統獨」和「制度」3個層次上爭論不休的延續。《服貿協議》本身與統一、獨立無涉，所以馬總統反覆強調，立法院一定要通過《服貿協議》「完全是為了台灣經濟的未來」，是台灣貿易自由化、加入TPP與RCEP的一環，是單純的「政策」議題。但對民進黨與抗議學生而言，卻是一個與「統獨」有關的議題，部分學生更認為，服貿爭議顯示國會運作已經失靈，所以還是一個必須重新檢討代議政治的「制度」議題。三方認知差異極大，這也是馬總統3月23日記者會後，抗爭學生認為「馬總統只是一再跳針」的原因。
我們期待馬總統與學生代表，都能不預設立場促成對話實現，共同尋找突破當前政治僵局之道。首先，總統應該展現最大誠意，務期對話環境公開透明，總統府可考慮全程開放電視轉播，避免學生產生「被摸頭」的疑慮，學生亦不能心存「公審總統」的企圖，提出場域與程序的條件。
總統也要全盤思考學生已經提出與可能提出的各項訴求，包括學生代表倡議的「召開公民憲政會議」，雖然從政治現實面而言顯得突兀，但六大工商團體也提出意義接近的召開「國是會議」建言，顯示社會的部分共識。總統幕僚應對如何回應社會的期待，有完整的思考與準備，要讓學生及全社會體會到總統溝通的誠意，絕不能再讓人感覺「又是跳針」。
我們還要敬告民進黨，你知我知，服貿談判絕非黑箱，卻在有心人刻意操作下造成社會錯誤認知，民進黨政治領袖，包括蔡英文、蘇貞昌，應對是否贊成簽署《兩岸服貿協議》立下「軍令狀」，表示為人民立誓、對歷史負責的政治家應有態度。
Monday, March 24, 2014
Pay Attention to the Middle Class
Pay Attention to the Middle Class
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 25, 2014
Summary: Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
Full text below:
The night of March 23 may have been the longest and most worrisome night for Taiwan's democracy in nearly 30 years. The "Sunflower" student movement, begun on March 18, is opposed to the Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement. It has begun drawing to a close. But student movement hawks suddenly expanded the battlefield from the Legislative Yuan to the Executive Yuan. Fortunately Premier Chiang Yi-hua moved decisively. He ordered police to expel the protestors. After several clashes, the area in front of the Executive Yuan was cleared at 4:00 on the morning of the 24th. Alas, some of the students and crowd broke into the Executive Yuan. They smashed, looted, or tossed the contents, leaving behind them a trail of destruction. This deliberate act of vandalism in the name of a student movement, left many deeply fearful and concerned.
How did Taiwan wind up in this mess? Political schemers with ulterior motives draped themselves in the clothing of the student movement. This rendered them invulnerable. It made them exempt from outside criticism. The government wanted to respond, but was deterred by the possible repercussions. It feared charges of "adults bullying children," and of "police beating students."
The students who occupied the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan included naive, romantic, idealistic young students. But the leaders at center stage were all well-versed in manipulation. They used hand signals to order the crowds to link arms and lie down, to increase the difficulty of police eviction. They carried wire cutters to destroy barricades. If anyone even brushed against them, they screamed bloody murder. After breaking into the Executive Yuan, they went straight to the electrical closet, the premier's office, and the offices of key officials. One cannot help wondering. Would amateur activists really be so sophisticated? Were they really ordinary students?
The movement opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services was swift to take shape. Currently it includes student groups from the National Taipei University Department of Sociology and the Tsinghua University Institute for Social Research. It includes student groups from National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, National Chengchi University, National Taiwan Normal University, Donghua University, and Soochow University. They coordinated and urged students all across Taiwan to skip classes. Five major school association chairmen, including National Association of Colleges Chairman Yang Hung-dun, Private Universities and Colleges Association Chairman Lai Ting-min, National University of Science and Technology Association Chairman Yao Li-teh, Private Colleges Technology Association Chairman Ke Chi-hsiang, and Vocational Institute Association Chairman Chen Wen-kui issued a joint statement. They urged students to remain rational in their means of expression. They said schools respect the students' freedom to participate in anti-trade in service agreement protests. But they said that occupying the Executive Yuan was obviously disorderly, illegal, and bore no relation to free speech.
The student movement is degenerating into student protests. What kind of unrest and anxiety will these student protests bring society? Are the students, and the politicians and teachers who urged the students to take to the streets, willing to bear responsibility? Different segments of society may have different views about the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. But are they willing to see Taiwan society divided in this manner, to the point where they hate each other?
Besides, President Ma Ying-jeou, who is KMT party chairman, and Premier Chiang Yi-hua, are willing to review the trade in services agreement on a line item basis. On the 24th, the Legislative Yuan passed the proposal in a Joint Committee, then asked the Executive Yuan to immediately withdraw all cross-strait trade agreements and restart negotiations. As one can imagine, the process is rife with challenges and difficulties. But the ROC is a free and democratic nation. The people use their votes to decide their own future. Where is the need to resort to the means adopted by the student movement?
The student movement issued an endless string of accusations. It accused the administration of being a dictatorship. There was no shortage of university and graduate school students among those who participated in the student movement. Do higher echelon intellectuals on Taiwan really care about global political change? Do they even know what a dictator looks like? The police used batons to evict those occupying the Executive Yuan. They were assaulted by the mob. The KMT is the majority party in the Legislative Yuan. When KMT legislators serve as co-chairman, they are physically prevented from even mounting the podium. They are denied the opportunity to speak. They must stand in the corner using their personal megaphones to be heard. When the premier attempted to speak to the students, he was booed off the stage within 10 minutes. After the president held a press conference with the foreign press, he was blasted from all sides. Will everyone please look into your heart? Can such a free, open, diverse, and precious society really be termed a dictatorship? Do we really intend to denounce it, trample over it, and finally destroy it and lose it?
Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Will the occupation of the Legislative Yuan, the occupation of the Executive Yuan, or even the occupation of the Presidential Palace, result in jobs descending from heaven? The future is now. It is hurtling straight toward us. How much time can Taiwan afford to waste? Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
社論－中產階級的心聲需要被關照
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月25日 04:10
3月23日的黃昏到凌晨，可能是台灣近30年來，民主發展的歷程中，最漫長又最讓人揪心的一夜。從318開始的「反服貿太陽花學運」，本來已經逐漸接近尾聲，但學運中的鷹派卻突如其來的將戰場從立法院擴大至行政院，幸而行政長院江宜樺當機立斷，決定加派員警驅離群眾；經過多次攻堅，總算在24日清晨4點多讓行政院附近淨空。然而，進入行政院的部分學生和群眾，在各辦公處所任意打、砸、搶、丟，留下滿目瘡痍，這場刻意包裝成學生運動的惡意破壞行動，更在許多人民的心中，留下了無限的憂慮與擔心。
台灣怎麼會走到如今的這步田地？當別有盤算的政治謀略披掛上學生運動的包裝後，立刻就如同有了「金剛護體」、有了外界不能評論的正當性。政府投鼠忌器，生怕一個不小心就惹來「大人欺負小孩」、「警察打學生」的負面批評。
然而，從占領立法院到占領行政院，天真浪漫、滿懷理想性的青年學子或許有之，但檯面上的領導人物，個個訓練有素，在現場指揮群眾手絆手躺下，以增加警察驅離的困難度；手持利剪破壞拒馬；稍一被觸及就瘋狂大喊；進入行政院之後，直奔供電室、院長室與重要員官員辦公室…凡此種種，不得不讓人聯想，素人街頭運動者怎麼可能如此老練？他們真的都只是單純的學生嗎？
這一場反服貿的社運快速發酵，目前已有台北大學社會系、清華大學社會研究所，以及台大、清大、政大、台師大、東華、東吳等多所大學的學生團體經過串聯後，發起全台大罷課，並呼籲學生「自主罷課」。對此，已有5大學校協進會，包括國立大學校院協會理事長（中山大學校長楊弘敦），私立大學校院協進會理事長（世新大學校長賴鼎銘），國立科技大學協會理事長（台北科技大學校長姚立德）、私立科技大學校院協進會理事長（龍華科技大學校長葛自祥）和專科學校協會理事長（國立台南專科護理學校校長陳文貴）等5人發表共同聲明，呼籲學生應秉持理性表達意見；學校尊重同學有參與反服貿行動的自由，但攻占行政院的行為，已明顯脫序、違法，脫離了言論表達的自由。
如今，學運已經快要變質為學潮了，而學潮會給社會帶來怎樣的動盪、不安，主事者，包括參與的學生以及鼓吹學生走上街頭的政治人物和老師們能夠承擔嗎？社會各界對《兩岸服務貿易協議》容或有不同的見解和意見，但大多數民眾會願意見到台灣社會因此分裂、因此對立，甚至因此彼此仇恨嗎？
再說，馬英九總統（國民黨黨主席）和江宜樺院長都已明確表示，同意讓《服貿協議》進入「逐條討論、逐條審議」，立院24日也已在聯席會中通過提案，要求行政院立即撤回兩岸服貿協議，並重啟談判。儘管可以想像這個過程將會充滿各種挑戰與困難，但台灣已經是個民主自由的國家，人民手中有選票可以決定自己的未來，何須再訴諸學運這樣的手段？
這次學運中，不斷有人指控執政者為獨裁者，說實在的，如果台灣的高級知識份子（參加學運者不乏大學生與研究生）的確關心這個世界的政局變化，當知道所謂的「獨裁者」是何等模樣！在台灣，面對強行攻占行政院的群眾，警察使用警棍驅離會被海K；在立法院占多數的國民黨立委擔任聯席會主席時，連主席台都上不了、找不到任何發言的機會，還得用自備的小蜜蜂躲在一個角落裡說話；行政院長跟學生講話、講不到10分鐘就被轟走；總統舉行中外記者會後，還得遭受來自四面八方的狂罵狠批…請大家摸摸良心，這樣的台灣能叫獨裁社會嗎？如此自由、如此開放、如此多元的台灣，是何等珍貴！難道我們要不斷否定、踐踏，終至毀滅而失去嗎？
此外，正是因為許多年輕人擔心低薪、爆肝的生活無止無盡，台灣才更需要走出去，以世界為舞台，創造更多、更好、附加價值更高的工作機會，這是台灣一定要審慎考慮簽訂各項經濟協定、包括《兩岸服貿協議》的理由。難道占領立法院、占領行政院，甚至占領總統府好了，工作機會就會從天上掉下來嗎？未來正不停地一直來、一直來，台灣還有多少時間可以浪費？連簽一個ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》都可以搞得如此天翻地覆，台灣在全球化浪潮下的嚴酷考驗中，還能有什麼作為？真的讓人無比憂心。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 25, 2014
Summary: Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
Full text below:
The night of March 23 may have been the longest and most worrisome night for Taiwan's democracy in nearly 30 years. The "Sunflower" student movement, begun on March 18, is opposed to the Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement. It has begun drawing to a close. But student movement hawks suddenly expanded the battlefield from the Legislative Yuan to the Executive Yuan. Fortunately Premier Chiang Yi-hua moved decisively. He ordered police to expel the protestors. After several clashes, the area in front of the Executive Yuan was cleared at 4:00 on the morning of the 24th. Alas, some of the students and crowd broke into the Executive Yuan. They smashed, looted, or tossed the contents, leaving behind them a trail of destruction. This deliberate act of vandalism in the name of a student movement, left many deeply fearful and concerned.
How did Taiwan wind up in this mess? Political schemers with ulterior motives draped themselves in the clothing of the student movement. This rendered them invulnerable. It made them exempt from outside criticism. The government wanted to respond, but was deterred by the possible repercussions. It feared charges of "adults bullying children," and of "police beating students."
The students who occupied the Legislative Yuan and the Executive Yuan included naive, romantic, idealistic young students. But the leaders at center stage were all well-versed in manipulation. They used hand signals to order the crowds to link arms and lie down, to increase the difficulty of police eviction. They carried wire cutters to destroy barricades. If anyone even brushed against them, they screamed bloody murder. After breaking into the Executive Yuan, they went straight to the electrical closet, the premier's office, and the offices of key officials. One cannot help wondering. Would amateur activists really be so sophisticated? Were they really ordinary students?
The movement opposed to the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services was swift to take shape. Currently it includes student groups from the National Taipei University Department of Sociology and the Tsinghua University Institute for Social Research. It includes student groups from National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, National Chengchi University, National Taiwan Normal University, Donghua University, and Soochow University. They coordinated and urged students all across Taiwan to skip classes. Five major school association chairmen, including National Association of Colleges Chairman Yang Hung-dun, Private Universities and Colleges Association Chairman Lai Ting-min, National University of Science and Technology Association Chairman Yao Li-teh, Private Colleges Technology Association Chairman Ke Chi-hsiang, and Vocational Institute Association Chairman Chen Wen-kui issued a joint statement. They urged students to remain rational in their means of expression. They said schools respect the students' freedom to participate in anti-trade in service agreement protests. But they said that occupying the Executive Yuan was obviously disorderly, illegal, and bore no relation to free speech.
The student movement is degenerating into student protests. What kind of unrest and anxiety will these student protests bring society? Are the students, and the politicians and teachers who urged the students to take to the streets, willing to bear responsibility? Different segments of society may have different views about the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. But are they willing to see Taiwan society divided in this manner, to the point where they hate each other?
Besides, President Ma Ying-jeou, who is KMT party chairman, and Premier Chiang Yi-hua, are willing to review the trade in services agreement on a line item basis. On the 24th, the Legislative Yuan passed the proposal in a Joint Committee, then asked the Executive Yuan to immediately withdraw all cross-strait trade agreements and restart negotiations. As one can imagine, the process is rife with challenges and difficulties. But the ROC is a free and democratic nation. The people use their votes to decide their own future. Where is the need to resort to the means adopted by the student movement?
The student movement issued an endless string of accusations. It accused the administration of being a dictatorship. There was no shortage of university and graduate school students among those who participated in the student movement. Do higher echelon intellectuals on Taiwan really care about global political change? Do they even know what a dictator looks like? The police used batons to evict those occupying the Executive Yuan. They were assaulted by the mob. The KMT is the majority party in the Legislative Yuan. When KMT legislators serve as co-chairman, they are physically prevented from even mounting the podium. They are denied the opportunity to speak. They must stand in the corner using their personal megaphones to be heard. When the premier attempted to speak to the students, he was booed off the stage within 10 minutes. After the president held a press conference with the foreign press, he was blasted from all sides. Will everyone please look into your heart? Can such a free, open, diverse, and precious society really be termed a dictatorship? Do we really intend to denounce it, trample over it, and finally destroy it and lose it?
Many young people are concerned about low wages, and about being worked to death. That is why Taiwan businesses must expand onto the world stage. They must create more and better high-value added jobs. That is something Taiwan must consider when signing various economic agreements, including the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Will the occupation of the Legislative Yuan, the occupation of the Executive Yuan, or even the occupation of the Presidential Palace, result in jobs descending from heaven? The future is now. It is hurtling straight toward us. How much time can Taiwan afford to waste? Even the ECFA trade in services agreement has turned Taiwan upside down. What will happen to Taiwan when the tsunami of globalization strikes? This is truly cause for concern.
社論－中產階級的心聲需要被關照
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月25日 04:10
3月23日的黃昏到凌晨，可能是台灣近30年來，民主發展的歷程中，最漫長又最讓人揪心的一夜。從318開始的「反服貿太陽花學運」，本來已經逐漸接近尾聲，但學運中的鷹派卻突如其來的將戰場從立法院擴大至行政院，幸而行政長院江宜樺當機立斷，決定加派員警驅離群眾；經過多次攻堅，總算在24日清晨4點多讓行政院附近淨空。然而，進入行政院的部分學生和群眾，在各辦公處所任意打、砸、搶、丟，留下滿目瘡痍，這場刻意包裝成學生運動的惡意破壞行動，更在許多人民的心中，留下了無限的憂慮與擔心。
台灣怎麼會走到如今的這步田地？當別有盤算的政治謀略披掛上學生運動的包裝後，立刻就如同有了「金剛護體」、有了外界不能評論的正當性。政府投鼠忌器，生怕一個不小心就惹來「大人欺負小孩」、「警察打學生」的負面批評。
然而，從占領立法院到占領行政院，天真浪漫、滿懷理想性的青年學子或許有之，但檯面上的領導人物，個個訓練有素，在現場指揮群眾手絆手躺下，以增加警察驅離的困難度；手持利剪破壞拒馬；稍一被觸及就瘋狂大喊；進入行政院之後，直奔供電室、院長室與重要員官員辦公室…凡此種種，不得不讓人聯想，素人街頭運動者怎麼可能如此老練？他們真的都只是單純的學生嗎？
這一場反服貿的社運快速發酵，目前已有台北大學社會系、清華大學社會研究所，以及台大、清大、政大、台師大、東華、東吳等多所大學的學生團體經過串聯後，發起全台大罷課，並呼籲學生「自主罷課」。對此，已有5大學校協進會，包括國立大學校院協會理事長（中山大學校長楊弘敦），私立大學校院協進會理事長（世新大學校長賴鼎銘），國立科技大學協會理事長（台北科技大學校長姚立德）、私立科技大學校院協進會理事長（龍華科技大學校長葛自祥）和專科學校協會理事長（國立台南專科護理學校校長陳文貴）等5人發表共同聲明，呼籲學生應秉持理性表達意見；學校尊重同學有參與反服貿行動的自由，但攻占行政院的行為，已明顯脫序、違法，脫離了言論表達的自由。
如今，學運已經快要變質為學潮了，而學潮會給社會帶來怎樣的動盪、不安，主事者，包括參與的學生以及鼓吹學生走上街頭的政治人物和老師們能夠承擔嗎？社會各界對《兩岸服務貿易協議》容或有不同的見解和意見，但大多數民眾會願意見到台灣社會因此分裂、因此對立，甚至因此彼此仇恨嗎？
再說，馬英九總統（國民黨黨主席）和江宜樺院長都已明確表示，同意讓《服貿協議》進入「逐條討論、逐條審議」，立院24日也已在聯席會中通過提案，要求行政院立即撤回兩岸服貿協議，並重啟談判。儘管可以想像這個過程將會充滿各種挑戰與困難，但台灣已經是個民主自由的國家，人民手中有選票可以決定自己的未來，何須再訴諸學運這樣的手段？
這次學運中，不斷有人指控執政者為獨裁者，說實在的，如果台灣的高級知識份子（參加學運者不乏大學生與研究生）的確關心這個世界的政局變化，當知道所謂的「獨裁者」是何等模樣！在台灣，面對強行攻占行政院的群眾，警察使用警棍驅離會被海K；在立法院占多數的國民黨立委擔任聯席會主席時，連主席台都上不了、找不到任何發言的機會，還得用自備的小蜜蜂躲在一個角落裡說話；行政院長跟學生講話、講不到10分鐘就被轟走；總統舉行中外記者會後，還得遭受來自四面八方的狂罵狠批…請大家摸摸良心，這樣的台灣能叫獨裁社會嗎？如此自由、如此開放、如此多元的台灣，是何等珍貴！難道我們要不斷否定、踐踏，終至毀滅而失去嗎？
此外，正是因為許多年輕人擔心低薪、爆肝的生活無止無盡，台灣才更需要走出去，以世界為舞台，創造更多、更好、附加價值更高的工作機會，這是台灣一定要審慎考慮簽訂各項經濟協定、包括《兩岸服貿協議》的理由。難道占領立法院、占領行政院，甚至占領總統府好了，工作機會就會從天上掉下來嗎？未來正不停地一直來、一直來，台灣還有多少時間可以浪費？連簽一個ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》都可以搞得如此天翻地覆，台灣在全球化浪潮下的嚴酷考驗中，還能有什麼作為？真的讓人無比憂心。
Let Students Besieging the Legislature Speak Before Resuming Review
Let Students Besieging the Legislature Speak Before Resuming Review
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth.
Full text below:
The day before yesterday, Premier Chiang went to the Legislative Yuan to speak with the students gathered outside. Instead, he was heckled. President Ma also went to the firing line, where he held a press conference with the foreign media. He stressed the importance and necessity of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. He responded to questions from reporters. President Ma has already presented a comprehensive case for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. But the response of the student leaders occupying the grounds of the legislature was swift. It made clear that the president and the protesting students are not even on the same page. The president considers the protesting students' demands utterly unacceptable. Conversely, most students are not the least bit interested in listening to the president's argument for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. As a result, situation remains deadlocked.
In fact this was predictable. The protesting students initially demanded that the premier step down and that the president issue an apology. Later, they demanded that the president "take back the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" and "establish rules for oversight of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services." This alone made it a non-starter. This alone precluded the possibility of any dialogue. Premier Chiang visited the protest site outside the Legislative Yuan. He even asked for the chance to say a few words. His request was rejected outright. President Ma is not about to visit the site and be subjected to even worse humiliations. The ruling authorities have labored for eight to nine months on the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Will their efforts be for naught, merely because the legislature grounds are occupied? If they are, then maybe we should demand that the premier step down, and that the president apologize. Frankly, no elected government would dare submit to such demands.
So what next? The halls of the legislature belong to the people as a whole. It has been reduced to the protesting students' sit in site. They have made it clear that unless the government acquiesces to their demands, they will continue to occupy the site and refuse to leave. They will soon test the patience of the community. The legislature is authorized by the taxpayers to legislate. Legislation has always required negotiations. It has always required the minority to obey the majority. A minority party forcibly occupies the podium because it is unable to prevent the passage of a bill. It even helps students occupy the entire legislature. It spins this as "citizen participation." In any dialogue with them, the only acceptable answers are their answers. All other answers are brushed aside. One has to wonder. What do those citizens who must pay taxes think of this?
President Ma convened a press conference. He patiently described the role of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The circumstances may have influenced the manner of his presentation and its audience. He was clearly not addressing the protesting students besieging the legislature. He was clearly addressing the people of the nation as a whole. He was speaking to those individual taxpayers whose careers and futures would be affect by the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Most of them are working hard to increase Taiwan's competitiveness. They have no time to kill surfing Internet comments sections. They have no time to engage in online debate. They are more concerned that their children might skip class and catch a cold while laying siege to the legislature overnight. Naturally these people have no time to express solidarity with President Ma. They have no time to sound off in the media. President Ma probably realizes praising the students' patriotism and humiliated himself before them would have done little to resolve the impasse.
What will the protesting students' next move be? Will they declare victory and go home? Will they struggle to the bitter end? The latter seems more likely. Unfortunately the decision to wage long-term war may be simple. But discovering an honorable way to step down may be hard. Executive branch agencies have made it clear they will not forcibly evict the students. They probably will not talk to them either. This is the middle of the university semester. If the students decide to sacrifice their studies, and stand their ground to the bitter end, they will eventually find that their aspirations are unachievable. All they might be able to do is cultivate a few new generation candidates for future DPP election campaigns. Besides Wang Jin-pyng, they are the biggest beneficiaries of the struggle.
The student occupation of the legislature has taught everyone a lesson. Today's Taiwan remains dogged by divisions. In addition to reunification vs. Taiwan independence divisions, Blue Camp vs. Green Camp divisions, Northern Region vs. Southern Region divisions, and class divisions, there are generation vs. generation divisions. The young students gathered around the legislature are a preview of coming attractions. The 90s generation on Taiwan has officially debuted and spoken up. This is the "PC mouse generation," whose hands are never far from their cell phones. During all these years the economy has been poor. Youth employment has been difficult. Starting salaries have been low. Consumer prices have risen. Housing prices have been even more terrifying. This generation has become a stifled, lost, and anxious generation. Their understanding of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services derives mostly from Internet "Books for Dummies." They gathered at the Legislative Yuan mostly through social media mobilization. If one attempts to dialogue with them while ignoring these facts, one will naturally talk past them. Unfortunately, few in the ruling administration are willing to make an effort in this regard. They persist in using older generation language and communication techniques. Is it any wonder they have wound up with egg on their faces from beginning to end?
As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth. Before entering a mature civil society, cultivate your own reason and judgment. Let this experience become the key to your becoming an adult.
社論－給立法院現場學生的幾句話
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月24日 04:10
江揆前日赴立院外與學生溝通被嗆後，馬總統昨也親上火線，召開中外記者會，向全民說明《服貿協議》的重要性與必要性，並回應記者提問。儘管馬總統已經就何以必須簽訂《服貿協議》做了很完整的論述，但從占領立院議場學生領袖的即時回應看來，很明顯，總統與抗議學生之間根本沒有對上焦。抗議學生的訴求總統不可能接受，總統對《服貿協議》的說明，多數學生也沒有興趣理解，所以結論是：僵局依舊！
其實這個結論在事前就可以預期，抗議學生先是要求閣揆下台、總統道歉，後來又提出「退回服貿協議」、「建立兩岸協議監督條例」兩大訴求，而且還設定其為對話的前提，這其實已經封阻了任何對話的可能，江揆親赴在立院外抗議現場，連要求講幾分鐘話的機會都不給，馬總統去現場豈不是遭受到更大的羞辱！同樣的，執政當局如果因為議場被占據，就將已經努力8、9個月的《服貿協議》立法進程一切歸零，那麼恐怕我們會也要求閣揆下台、總統道歉了，講得再直白一些，沒有任何民選政府，敢於在這樣的要脅下屈服的。
重點是，接下來怎麼辦？一座全民擁有的國會殿堂，如今淪為抗議學生的休憩場所，而且擺明了就是除非依他們意，否則就是霸占不走了，那麼接下來考驗的，恐怕是社會的耐心了。立院可是被納稅人授權來立法的，立法本來就是要協商的，也本來就是該服從多數的，如果少數黨抵制不成就霸占主席台，甚至放任學生霸占整個國會議場，還宣稱這叫做「公民參與」，與他們對話只准接受他們的答案，別的選項一概不談，試問對那些真正在納稅的公民，能怎麼想呢？
所以，馬總統召開記者會，不厭其煩的針對《服貿協議》的定位、來龍去脈乃至可能的影響做仔細說明，所設定的聽眾，很明顯根本不是議場內外的抗議學生，而是全國的民眾，那些會受到《服貿協議》通過與否而影響個人生計與發展的納稅人，其中絕大多數都在為台灣的競爭力打拚，既沒時間在網路討論區上消磨，也沒時間去任何現場抗爭，更擔心自己孩子不去上課卻圍在立法院過夜，會不會著涼！當然，這些人沒時間聲援馬總統，也不會有機會在媒體上發聲，所以，馬總統或許會發現，即便他已經肯定了學生的愛國心，也放低了身段，但對抗爭僵局的化解，好像幫助不大。
抗爭學生接下來的處境也將面臨考驗，是見好就收呢，還是抗爭到底呢？看樣子選擇後者的可能性比較多，問題是選擇長期抗戰的決定很簡單，但要再找光榮退場的時機可就難了，行政部門已經擺明了不會強制驅離，大概也不會再跟他們對話，現在才是大學的學期中，他們如果決定犧牲課業，死守議場抗爭的結果，恐怕終將會發現，他們的訴求根本不可能獲得實現，唯一的成就恐怕只剩下替民進黨未來的選舉，培養幾位新生代的候選人而已！畢竟，除了王金平之外，他們才是這場抗爭中最大的獲利者。
當然，我們還是不得不說，經歷過這場學生占據國會議場的風暴，我們其實都上了一課，現今的台灣，除了統獨、藍綠、南北與階級的矛盾衝突外，還存在著世代的問題，這次群聚在國會議場的年輕學子，預示了台灣九○後的世代，已經正式登場發聲，他們是手不離手機「滑世代」，而這些年景氣不好，年輕人就業難、起薪低、民生物價高漲，房價更是可怕，更成為茫然焦慮的「悶世代」，他們對《服貿協議》的理解，絕大部分來自網路上的懶人包，他們聚集在立院，絕大部分來自社群媒體的動員。與他們對話，忽略了這些層面，當然不可能對上焦。很遺憾的是，目前的執政團隊很少願意在這方面投注心力，甚至還在拿舊世代的語言與溝通模式在應付，這也就難怪會一路弄得這般灰頭土臉。
對於堅守在立院現場的學子們，在享受完占國會、嗆閣揆乃至罵總統的快意後，也不妨沉澱下來，冷靜的研究一下《服貿協議》到底是怎麼回事，別再把懶人包中的論述當真理，在邁入社會轉化為成熟公民之前，淬鍊自己的理性與判斷能力，才是讓這段經歷有助自己成長轉大人的關鍵。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth.
Full text below:
The day before yesterday, Premier Chiang went to the Legislative Yuan to speak with the students gathered outside. Instead, he was heckled. President Ma also went to the firing line, where he held a press conference with the foreign media. He stressed the importance and necessity of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. He responded to questions from reporters. President Ma has already presented a comprehensive case for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. But the response of the student leaders occupying the grounds of the legislature was swift. It made clear that the president and the protesting students are not even on the same page. The president considers the protesting students' demands utterly unacceptable. Conversely, most students are not the least bit interested in listening to the president's argument for the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. As a result, situation remains deadlocked.
In fact this was predictable. The protesting students initially demanded that the premier step down and that the president issue an apology. Later, they demanded that the president "take back the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" and "establish rules for oversight of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services." This alone made it a non-starter. This alone precluded the possibility of any dialogue. Premier Chiang visited the protest site outside the Legislative Yuan. He even asked for the chance to say a few words. His request was rejected outright. President Ma is not about to visit the site and be subjected to even worse humiliations. The ruling authorities have labored for eight to nine months on the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Will their efforts be for naught, merely because the legislature grounds are occupied? If they are, then maybe we should demand that the premier step down, and that the president apologize. Frankly, no elected government would dare submit to such demands.
So what next? The halls of the legislature belong to the people as a whole. It has been reduced to the protesting students' sit in site. They have made it clear that unless the government acquiesces to their demands, they will continue to occupy the site and refuse to leave. They will soon test the patience of the community. The legislature is authorized by the taxpayers to legislate. Legislation has always required negotiations. It has always required the minority to obey the majority. A minority party forcibly occupies the podium because it is unable to prevent the passage of a bill. It even helps students occupy the entire legislature. It spins this as "citizen participation." In any dialogue with them, the only acceptable answers are their answers. All other answers are brushed aside. One has to wonder. What do those citizens who must pay taxes think of this?
President Ma convened a press conference. He patiently described the role of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The circumstances may have influenced the manner of his presentation and its audience. He was clearly not addressing the protesting students besieging the legislature. He was clearly addressing the people of the nation as a whole. He was speaking to those individual taxpayers whose careers and futures would be affect by the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Most of them are working hard to increase Taiwan's competitiveness. They have no time to kill surfing Internet comments sections. They have no time to engage in online debate. They are more concerned that their children might skip class and catch a cold while laying siege to the legislature overnight. Naturally these people have no time to express solidarity with President Ma. They have no time to sound off in the media. President Ma probably realizes praising the students' patriotism and humiliated himself before them would have done little to resolve the impasse.
What will the protesting students' next move be? Will they declare victory and go home? Will they struggle to the bitter end? The latter seems more likely. Unfortunately the decision to wage long-term war may be simple. But discovering an honorable way to step down may be hard. Executive branch agencies have made it clear they will not forcibly evict the students. They probably will not talk to them either. This is the middle of the university semester. If the students decide to sacrifice their studies, and stand their ground to the bitter end, they will eventually find that their aspirations are unachievable. All they might be able to do is cultivate a few new generation candidates for future DPP election campaigns. Besides Wang Jin-pyng, they are the biggest beneficiaries of the struggle.
The student occupation of the legislature has taught everyone a lesson. Today's Taiwan remains dogged by divisions. In addition to reunification vs. Taiwan independence divisions, Blue Camp vs. Green Camp divisions, Northern Region vs. Southern Region divisions, and class divisions, there are generation vs. generation divisions. The young students gathered around the legislature are a preview of coming attractions. The 90s generation on Taiwan has officially debuted and spoken up. This is the "PC mouse generation," whose hands are never far from their cell phones. During all these years the economy has been poor. Youth employment has been difficult. Starting salaries have been low. Consumer prices have risen. Housing prices have been even more terrifying. This generation has become a stifled, lost, and anxious generation. Their understanding of the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services derives mostly from Internet "Books for Dummies." They gathered at the Legislative Yuan mostly through social media mobilization. If one attempts to dialogue with them while ignoring these facts, one will naturally talk past them. Unfortunately, few in the ruling administration are willing to make an effort in this regard. They persist in using older generation language and communication techniques. Is it any wonder they have wound up with egg on their faces from beginning to end?
As for the students laying siege to the Legislative Yuan. They have had the pleasure of occupying the legislature. They have had the pleasure of heckling the premier. They have even had the pleasure of scolding the president. Now they may wish to settle down, take a calm look at the Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. Just what is it? Do not equate your "Books for Dummies" understanding of it with the truth. Before entering a mature civil society, cultivate your own reason and judgment. Let this experience become the key to your becoming an adult.
社論－給立法院現場學生的幾句話
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月24日 04:10
江揆前日赴立院外與學生溝通被嗆後，馬總統昨也親上火線，召開中外記者會，向全民說明《服貿協議》的重要性與必要性，並回應記者提問。儘管馬總統已經就何以必須簽訂《服貿協議》做了很完整的論述，但從占領立院議場學生領袖的即時回應看來，很明顯，總統與抗議學生之間根本沒有對上焦。抗議學生的訴求總統不可能接受，總統對《服貿協議》的說明，多數學生也沒有興趣理解，所以結論是：僵局依舊！
其實這個結論在事前就可以預期，抗議學生先是要求閣揆下台、總統道歉，後來又提出「退回服貿協議」、「建立兩岸協議監督條例」兩大訴求，而且還設定其為對話的前提，這其實已經封阻了任何對話的可能，江揆親赴在立院外抗議現場，連要求講幾分鐘話的機會都不給，馬總統去現場豈不是遭受到更大的羞辱！同樣的，執政當局如果因為議場被占據，就將已經努力8、9個月的《服貿協議》立法進程一切歸零，那麼恐怕我們會也要求閣揆下台、總統道歉了，講得再直白一些，沒有任何民選政府，敢於在這樣的要脅下屈服的。
重點是，接下來怎麼辦？一座全民擁有的國會殿堂，如今淪為抗議學生的休憩場所，而且擺明了就是除非依他們意，否則就是霸占不走了，那麼接下來考驗的，恐怕是社會的耐心了。立院可是被納稅人授權來立法的，立法本來就是要協商的，也本來就是該服從多數的，如果少數黨抵制不成就霸占主席台，甚至放任學生霸占整個國會議場，還宣稱這叫做「公民參與」，與他們對話只准接受他們的答案，別的選項一概不談，試問對那些真正在納稅的公民，能怎麼想呢？
所以，馬總統召開記者會，不厭其煩的針對《服貿協議》的定位、來龍去脈乃至可能的影響做仔細說明，所設定的聽眾，很明顯根本不是議場內外的抗議學生，而是全國的民眾，那些會受到《服貿協議》通過與否而影響個人生計與發展的納稅人，其中絕大多數都在為台灣的競爭力打拚，既沒時間在網路討論區上消磨，也沒時間去任何現場抗爭，更擔心自己孩子不去上課卻圍在立法院過夜，會不會著涼！當然，這些人沒時間聲援馬總統，也不會有機會在媒體上發聲，所以，馬總統或許會發現，即便他已經肯定了學生的愛國心，也放低了身段，但對抗爭僵局的化解，好像幫助不大。
抗爭學生接下來的處境也將面臨考驗，是見好就收呢，還是抗爭到底呢？看樣子選擇後者的可能性比較多，問題是選擇長期抗戰的決定很簡單，但要再找光榮退場的時機可就難了，行政部門已經擺明了不會強制驅離，大概也不會再跟他們對話，現在才是大學的學期中，他們如果決定犧牲課業，死守議場抗爭的結果，恐怕終將會發現，他們的訴求根本不可能獲得實現，唯一的成就恐怕只剩下替民進黨未來的選舉，培養幾位新生代的候選人而已！畢竟，除了王金平之外，他們才是這場抗爭中最大的獲利者。
當然，我們還是不得不說，經歷過這場學生占據國會議場的風暴，我們其實都上了一課，現今的台灣，除了統獨、藍綠、南北與階級的矛盾衝突外，還存在著世代的問題，這次群聚在國會議場的年輕學子，預示了台灣九○後的世代，已經正式登場發聲，他們是手不離手機「滑世代」，而這些年景氣不好，年輕人就業難、起薪低、民生物價高漲，房價更是可怕，更成為茫然焦慮的「悶世代」，他們對《服貿協議》的理解，絕大部分來自網路上的懶人包，他們聚集在立院，絕大部分來自社群媒體的動員。與他們對話，忽略了這些層面，當然不可能對上焦。很遺憾的是，目前的執政團隊很少願意在這方面投注心力，甚至還在拿舊世代的語言與溝通模式在應付，這也就難怪會一路弄得這般灰頭土臉。
對於堅守在立院現場的學子們，在享受完占國會、嗆閣揆乃至罵總統的快意後，也不妨沉澱下來，冷靜的研究一下《服貿協議》到底是怎麼回事，別再把懶人包中的論述當真理，在邁入社會轉化為成熟公民之前，淬鍊自己的理性與判斷能力，才是讓這段經歷有助自己成長轉大人的關鍵。
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Legislature Under Occupation: Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
Legislature Under Occupation:
Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
Full text below:
Students opposed to the "Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" continue to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Outside, expressions of support are growing louder. Viewed from without, the fear is not that the situation will get out of control. The fear is that no peaceful resolution will be found. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying and ruling and opposition party legislators are sitting on the walls outside the legislature. They must resume negotiations. They must regain control of the legislature from the students.
The students have been protesting for two days. For the most part, they have been orderly. This is the biggest difference between them and most political party and social movement protests. The problem with the student movement is that it is easy to start but difficult to stop. Especially since the 500 or so students currently occupying the legislature belong to different schools and come from different regions. Several leaders are on the scene. But it is difficult to say whether these hundreds of demonstrators share the same goals. Over the past two days they issued three demands, which abruptly turned into four demands. As we can see, the participants are indecisive.
The incident has attracted international notice. There are two reasons for this. One. The halls that the students have occupied represent the sovereign authority of a democratic legislature. This is a first for the ROC. It is also rare in other nations. A recent example is the occupation of the Ukrainian Parliament in February by protesting militants. But Ukranian society and democracy are not as mature and stable as the ROC's.
Two. The proximate cause was last year's decision by the ruling and opposition parties to conduct a line item review and line item vote on the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. During the process, the DPP deliberate dragged its feet. During the Joint Legislative Committee Meeting, the KMT sent the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services to committee. This provoked public anti-agreement sentiment. This must be properly resolved. Otherwise future agreements with other nations or regional economic organizations will be affected by this incident and progress will be difficult.
The student occupation of the legislature held up a mirror. One side reflected government dereliction. The other side reflected democratic loss of control. The Legislative Yuan is the symbol of the nation's sovereignty. It is the highest representative of the public will. But in recent years, it has often solved problems through backroom deals. Legislative review is invariably plagued by obstructionism, foot-dragging, and deal-making. Majority rule and public consultation under democracy are no more. Bills that reach the Legislative Yuan fall into an black hole, never to see the light of day. The executive branch is afraid of offending the Legislative Yuan. Most of the time it stews in its own juices. This truly is government dereliction.
Consider the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. It was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in June last year. There it sat for a full nine months before being submitted for committee review. One may support the bill or oppose it. But is this any way to treat such a serious matter? In fact, the ruling and opposition parties had no interest whatsoever in substantive review. The DPP scheduled the review only so that it could filibuster it. The KMT scheduled the review only so it could get it out of the way. The two parties turned the legislature into the colosseum or circus. Under the circumstances, the consequences of submitting the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services for committee review were totally forseeable.
That of course does not mean the students had a right to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Democracies generate legislators through periodic elections. The legislature is inviolable. Not because individual legislators are inviolable, but because the legislature is a body that exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people. The legislature symbolizes the will of the people. Unless the legislature uses democracy to destroy democracy, and illegally alters its democratic institutions, then forcing one's way into the legislature and occupying it shames the nation and shames democracy. Are 5.86 million votes that elected over 60 KMT legislators unrepresentative? If they are not, then how representative are 500 students?
Not everyone agrees with the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The review process may have been flawed. But opposition to the agreement is merely one of many dissenting views, with no greater validity than any other. Furthermore, the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services has only been submitted for committee review. It has yet to be finalized. It has yet to get on track. Allegations of "anti-democratic" and "black box operations" are clearly exaggerations. The student occupation of the Legislative Yuan was clearly an overreaction. Is this not a case of democratic loss of control?
The students are not the ones who must be condemned. Those who must be condemned are the ruling and opposition party politicians sitting on the wall outside. They used the students as pawns. Consider the ruling and opposition party attitudes. President Ma said he "respected the autonomy of the legislature," then passed the buck to the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng pontificated about "protecting the students " and "public safety," then passed the buck back to the executive. DPP legislators furnished the students with weapons and provisions. They helped them prepare for a protracted battle. The Green Camp princes chuckled as they used these students as cannon fodder. They were only too happy to reap the windfall. Are any of these people treating student discontent seriously?
The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
國會失守，議長和朝野立委不可袖手旁觀
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.21 03:49 am
「反服貿」學生「占領立法院」行動持續進行，院外和各地的聲援也在擴大。在外界看來，值得擔心的倒不是此一行動會演成失控，而是有沒有辦法找到讓此事和平落幕的途徑。就這點而言，目前在場外作壁上觀的王金平院長和朝野立委，有必要重新進行協商，把國會議事權從學生手中討回來。
觀察這兩天學生的抗爭，多半能維持基本的秩序，這和一般政黨動員的社會群眾大不相同。但學生運動的問題，往往在容易發動而難以收場；尤其，目前的占領議場的五百多名學生分別來自不同學校及不同社團，儘管現場有數名領導者，但很難說這數百人對示威目標都具有共識；這兩天他們忽而提出三訴求，忽而又改成四訴求，可以看出參與者的舉棋不定。
此事引起國際矚目，主因有二：其一，是學生們攻占的是代表民主國家「國會主權」的議事殿堂，這不僅是台灣首見，在其他國家也極少見。最近一次例子，是今年二月烏克蘭國會在示威中遭到武裝分子占領；但烏克蘭無論社會的穩定度或民主的成熟度，都難與台灣相提並論。
其二，事件的導火線是朝野去年協商時決定「逐條審查、逐條表決兩岸服貿協議」，民進黨在過程中不斷刻意拖延，國民黨則在全院聯席會發動突襲將服貿送出委員會，引爆「反服貿」民眾的怒火。若此事無法妥善解決，未來台灣與任何其他國家洽簽協議或加入區域經濟組織，都將受到此一事件的影響而難有進展。
毫無疑問，學生占領立法院就像一面鏡子，一面反映的是「政府的失能」，另一面反射的則是「民主的失控」。立法院是「國家主權」象徵，代表最高民意，但台灣近年來頻頻透過「密室協商」解決問題，法案審理始終充滿杯葛、拖延和交易，民主政治應有的多數統治、大眾諮商功能則蕩然無存。許多法案到了立法院，就如同進入無底洞，從此不見天日；而行政部門唯恐得罪立院，多半敢怒不敢言。這確實是政府的失能。
以服貿協議為例，早在去年六月即已送進立院，拖了整整九個月，才排進委員會審查；不管是支持或反對，這真的有把服貿當回事嗎？事實上，朝野對「實質審查」根本毫無興趣，民進黨排案只為了杯葛，國民黨排案只為了早日交差了事，兩黨把議場當成鬥獸場、馬戲團。在這種情況下，服貿案趁亂送出委員會，是可以預期的結果。
儘管如此，這也不表示學生占領立院是理直氣壯。民主國家經由定期選舉產生立委，國會凜然不可侵犯，不是因個別立委如何了得，而是因為這個機構代表人民行使主權，國會象徵的就是民意。除非國會「以民主埋葬民主」，做出違法修改民主體制的決定，否則群眾強行進入國會占領議場，就是羞辱國家、羞辱民主的失格舉動。試問：如果五百八十六萬張選票選出的六十多席國民黨立委沒有代表性，那麼，區區五百名學生的代表性又在哪裡？
此次服貿協議的內容或許無法讓所有人感到認同，案件審議的程序也有瑕疵，但「反服貿」畢竟只是各種不同主張中的一種，並非超乎其他主張。更何況，服貿協議只是「送出委員會」，尚未定案，也並未上路，要指誰「反民主」、「黑箱」，顯然言過其實。反對學生透過「占領立法院」來宣揚自己的主張，違反了比例原則，這難道不是民主的失控？
但應該譴責的不是學生，而是在那裡作壁上觀的朝野政治人物，因為他們把學生當成棋子。且看朝野各方的姿態，馬總統聲稱「尊重國會自主」，把問題推給國會；王金平高談「保護學生」、「社會治安問題」，再把問題丟回行政部門。而民進黨立委則全力為學生提供軍火和糧草，幫他們作長期抗戰之準備，天王們則輕鬆笑看學生充當綠軍的馬前卒，樂得坐收漁利。這些人有認真看待學生的不滿嗎？
如果朝野立委還有一點責任意識，他們應該為國會的淪陷感到羞愧；如果王金平覺得議長職務還有一點尊嚴可期，他應該立即召集朝野立委重新協商，讓服貿重新回到審議的軌道。丟掉立法院的不是警察，而是這些失職立委，他們有責任把議場從學生手中要回來。
Speaker and Legislators Cannot Sit Idly By
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 21, 2014
Summary: The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
Full text below:
Students opposed to the "Cross-Strait Agreement in Trade in Services" continue to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Outside, expressions of support are growing louder. Viewed from without, the fear is not that the situation will get out of control. The fear is that no peaceful resolution will be found. Speaker of the Legislature Wang Jin-pying and ruling and opposition party legislators are sitting on the walls outside the legislature. They must resume negotiations. They must regain control of the legislature from the students.
The students have been protesting for two days. For the most part, they have been orderly. This is the biggest difference between them and most political party and social movement protests. The problem with the student movement is that it is easy to start but difficult to stop. Especially since the 500 or so students currently occupying the legislature belong to different schools and come from different regions. Several leaders are on the scene. But it is difficult to say whether these hundreds of demonstrators share the same goals. Over the past two days they issued three demands, which abruptly turned into four demands. As we can see, the participants are indecisive.
The incident has attracted international notice. There are two reasons for this. One. The halls that the students have occupied represent the sovereign authority of a democratic legislature. This is a first for the ROC. It is also rare in other nations. A recent example is the occupation of the Ukrainian Parliament in February by protesting militants. But Ukranian society and democracy are not as mature and stable as the ROC's.
Two. The proximate cause was last year's decision by the ruling and opposition parties to conduct a line item review and line item vote on the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. During the process, the DPP deliberate dragged its feet. During the Joint Legislative Committee Meeting, the KMT sent the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services to committee. This provoked public anti-agreement sentiment. This must be properly resolved. Otherwise future agreements with other nations or regional economic organizations will be affected by this incident and progress will be difficult.
The student occupation of the legislature held up a mirror. One side reflected government dereliction. The other side reflected democratic loss of control. The Legislative Yuan is the symbol of the nation's sovereignty. It is the highest representative of the public will. But in recent years, it has often solved problems through backroom deals. Legislative review is invariably plagued by obstructionism, foot-dragging, and deal-making. Majority rule and public consultation under democracy are no more. Bills that reach the Legislative Yuan fall into an black hole, never to see the light of day. The executive branch is afraid of offending the Legislative Yuan. Most of the time it stews in its own juices. This truly is government dereliction.
Consider the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. It was submitted to the Legislative Yuan in June last year. There it sat for a full nine months before being submitted for committee review. One may support the bill or oppose it. But is this any way to treat such a serious matter? In fact, the ruling and opposition parties had no interest whatsoever in substantive review. The DPP scheduled the review only so that it could filibuster it. The KMT scheduled the review only so it could get it out of the way. The two parties turned the legislature into the colosseum or circus. Under the circumstances, the consequences of submitting the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services for committee review were totally forseeable.
That of course does not mean the students had a right to occupy the Legislative Yuan. Democracies generate legislators through periodic elections. The legislature is inviolable. Not because individual legislators are inviolable, but because the legislature is a body that exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people. The legislature symbolizes the will of the people. Unless the legislature uses democracy to destroy democracy, and illegally alters its democratic institutions, then forcing one's way into the legislature and occupying it shames the nation and shames democracy. Are 5.86 million votes that elected over 60 KMT legislators unrepresentative? If they are not, then how representative are 500 students?
Not everyone agrees with the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services. The review process may have been flawed. But opposition to the agreement is merely one of many dissenting views, with no greater validity than any other. Furthermore, the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services has only been submitted for committee review. It has yet to be finalized. It has yet to get on track. Allegations of "anti-democratic" and "black box operations" are clearly exaggerations. The student occupation of the Legislative Yuan was clearly an overreaction. Is this not a case of democratic loss of control?
The students are not the ones who must be condemned. Those who must be condemned are the ruling and opposition party politicians sitting on the wall outside. They used the students as pawns. Consider the ruling and opposition party attitudes. President Ma said he "respected the autonomy of the legislature," then passed the buck to the legislature. Wang Jin-pyng pontificated about "protecting the students " and "public safety," then passed the buck back to the executive. DPP legislators furnished the students with weapons and provisions. They helped them prepare for a protracted battle. The Green Camp princes chuckled as they used these students as cannon fodder. They were only too happy to reap the windfall. Are any of these people treating student discontent seriously?
The ruling and opposition party legislators feel little sense of responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the legislature to be occupied. If Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng still has any dignity left to speak of, he should immediately order ruling and opposition party legislators back to the negotiating table. He should see that negotiations over the Cross Strait Agreement in Trade in Services resume. The police did not allow the legislature to be occupied. These derelict legislators did. They have the responsibility to regain control of the legislature from the students.
國會失守，議長和朝野立委不可袖手旁觀
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.03.21 03:49 am
「反服貿」學生「占領立法院」行動持續進行，院外和各地的聲援也在擴大。在外界看來，值得擔心的倒不是此一行動會演成失控，而是有沒有辦法找到讓此事和平落幕的途徑。就這點而言，目前在場外作壁上觀的王金平院長和朝野立委，有必要重新進行協商，把國會議事權從學生手中討回來。
觀察這兩天學生的抗爭，多半能維持基本的秩序，這和一般政黨動員的社會群眾大不相同。但學生運動的問題，往往在容易發動而難以收場；尤其，目前的占領議場的五百多名學生分別來自不同學校及不同社團，儘管現場有數名領導者，但很難說這數百人對示威目標都具有共識；這兩天他們忽而提出三訴求，忽而又改成四訴求，可以看出參與者的舉棋不定。
此事引起國際矚目，主因有二：其一，是學生們攻占的是代表民主國家「國會主權」的議事殿堂，這不僅是台灣首見，在其他國家也極少見。最近一次例子，是今年二月烏克蘭國會在示威中遭到武裝分子占領；但烏克蘭無論社會的穩定度或民主的成熟度，都難與台灣相提並論。
其二，事件的導火線是朝野去年協商時決定「逐條審查、逐條表決兩岸服貿協議」，民進黨在過程中不斷刻意拖延，國民黨則在全院聯席會發動突襲將服貿送出委員會，引爆「反服貿」民眾的怒火。若此事無法妥善解決，未來台灣與任何其他國家洽簽協議或加入區域經濟組織，都將受到此一事件的影響而難有進展。
毫無疑問，學生占領立法院就像一面鏡子，一面反映的是「政府的失能」，另一面反射的則是「民主的失控」。立法院是「國家主權」象徵，代表最高民意，但台灣近年來頻頻透過「密室協商」解決問題，法案審理始終充滿杯葛、拖延和交易，民主政治應有的多數統治、大眾諮商功能則蕩然無存。許多法案到了立法院，就如同進入無底洞，從此不見天日；而行政部門唯恐得罪立院，多半敢怒不敢言。這確實是政府的失能。
以服貿協議為例，早在去年六月即已送進立院，拖了整整九個月，才排進委員會審查；不管是支持或反對，這真的有把服貿當回事嗎？事實上，朝野對「實質審查」根本毫無興趣，民進黨排案只為了杯葛，國民黨排案只為了早日交差了事，兩黨把議場當成鬥獸場、馬戲團。在這種情況下，服貿案趁亂送出委員會，是可以預期的結果。
儘管如此，這也不表示學生占領立院是理直氣壯。民主國家經由定期選舉產生立委，國會凜然不可侵犯，不是因個別立委如何了得，而是因為這個機構代表人民行使主權，國會象徵的就是民意。除非國會「以民主埋葬民主」，做出違法修改民主體制的決定，否則群眾強行進入國會占領議場，就是羞辱國家、羞辱民主的失格舉動。試問：如果五百八十六萬張選票選出的六十多席國民黨立委沒有代表性，那麼，區區五百名學生的代表性又在哪裡？
此次服貿協議的內容或許無法讓所有人感到認同，案件審議的程序也有瑕疵，但「反服貿」畢竟只是各種不同主張中的一種，並非超乎其他主張。更何況，服貿協議只是「送出委員會」，尚未定案，也並未上路，要指誰「反民主」、「黑箱」，顯然言過其實。反對學生透過「占領立法院」來宣揚自己的主張，違反了比例原則，這難道不是民主的失控？
但應該譴責的不是學生，而是在那裡作壁上觀的朝野政治人物，因為他們把學生當成棋子。且看朝野各方的姿態，馬總統聲稱「尊重國會自主」，把問題推給國會；王金平高談「保護學生」、「社會治安問題」，再把問題丟回行政部門。而民進黨立委則全力為學生提供軍火和糧草，幫他們作長期抗戰之準備，天王們則輕鬆笑看學生充當綠軍的馬前卒，樂得坐收漁利。這些人有認真看待學生的不滿嗎？
如果朝野立委還有一點責任意識，他們應該為國會的淪陷感到羞愧；如果王金平覺得議長職務還有一點尊嚴可期，他應該立即召集朝野立委重新協商，讓服貿重新回到審議的軌道。丟掉立法院的不是警察，而是這些失職立委，他們有責任把議場從學生手中要回來。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)