Naysaying Social Movement Cannot Help Taiwan
United Daily News editorial
2014.05.05 02:46 am
The Economist magazine
observed that Taiwan's future "may well be decided in the streets."
Its implications were twofold.
One. It implied that the political system's decision-making power has increasingly weakened.
Two. It implied that street protests are not an effective means by which to lead a country.
The Economist's observations were not without grounds.
In an April 29 editorial, this newspaper
asked, "Will Taiwan be reduced to obeying the command of mobs in the streets?"
This expressed The Economist's concern over this phenomenon.
The Sunflower Student Movement
delayed the STA.
Perhaps that was due to unavoidable circumstances.
But Lin Yi-hsiung fasted to protest the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The ruling administration, under internal and external pressure, took it upon itself to cave in and "mothball" the plant
In effect, it turned a "Referendum on Whether to Halt Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant" into a more difficult to pass "Referendum on Whether to Restart Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant."
That said
the government is still unable to quell the controversy over the referendum law threshold.
The DPP continues its ongoing struggle.
The Ma administration policy made policy concession to the street protesters.
Was this really necessary?
Either way, it has done enormous damage to the image of public authority.
The government was unable to convert the masses on the streets.
It was unable to persuade its own officials that its decisions were sound.
It revealed that the government was cowardly and timid.
Even more seriously,
it is paying the price for undermining the rule of law.
It sacrificed the will of the silent majority.
This is the most frustratingly aspect of all.
Over the past two years,
the Ma adminstration has repeatedly retreated in the face of street mobs.
The only thing it has gotten in return is shriking public authority.
The perverse phenomenon of "street mobs determining public policy" is now the norm on Taiwan.
The opposition Green Camp parties bear considerable responsibility.
The Legislative Yuan is one of the important sectors of the government.
Yet the opposition Green Camp parties, who occupy over 40% of the seats in the legislature, have never seen themselves as members of the government,
They never attempt to contribute to the nation.
Instead, they constantly enage in obstructionism,
inciting divisions,,
obstructing the progress of the nation and society.
If not for 20 years of internal confrontation between Blue and Green,
how could Taiwan have declined
so precipitously,
such that the new generation no longer holds out any hope for the future?
Taiwan's low growth, high unemployment,
flip-floppng policy decisions,
make any consensus difficult to achieve.
Was this really all the doing of President Ma alone?
When politics fails,
street movements emerge.
Protesters vent their dissatisfaction.
That is understandable.
It is also an important means of forcing the government to address problems.
But taking to the streets too often,
especially when one lacks a positive agenda,
becomes agitation merely for the sake of agitation,
They can never solve Taiwan's economic stagnation or ensure its future.
The reason is clear.
Recent protests
have all flown banners in opposition to this, that, or the other.
They have all been to prevent the government from achieving its goals.
In fact,
The Ma Chiang government has not done enough.
This will only lead to greater government wheel-spinning.
It will lead to greater stagnation, making Taiwan ever weaker.
Frankly, today, the government is still talking horse " free economic demonstration zone "
Regain the year due to political turmoil in Taiwan and unable to do the "Asia-Pacific operations center " dream
In fact, more than 20 years has been adversely affected by time .
When the global earth-shaking changes have taken place ,
Mainland China will soon become the world's largest economy,
Spatial and temporal variability ,
Taiwan is able to stage a comeback ,
Obviously numerous questions .
However , if you do not promote the " free economic demonstration zone "
Taiwan still has many roads to choose from,
But it is a greater survival strategy.
This problem
DPP can provide any answer?
The answer is no.
Street demonstrations and mass student can point in any direction it?
We do not see any signs .
So, just victory in the Battle of antinuclear four of Lin Yi-hsiung ,
Threatened to appeal to the people to boycott legislation " free economic demonstration zone regulations " , the
If he re- roses ,
I ask, what his alternative is ?
What is Taiwan 's next ?
Observe the demands of the student movement of sunflowers ,
Interspersed with "anti- horse "
" Anti- China" , "anti- globalization "
"Anti- free trade" and other different levels of demand.
"Anti- Ma ", " anti- China" is easier to understand,
But how and "anti- globalization "
"Anti- free trade" equate
How Taiwan's pursuit of self-realization through these slogans
Is the most difficult ,
The most suspenseful part .
Will : Students and mentors the student movement have to meet the new generation of "little indeed fortunate " easy answer?
Students and people who had asked Xiang DPP answer?
If the counter- suit trade,
After four anti-nuclear ,
Masses continue anti- demonstration zone,
Anti- referendum law ,
Antinuclear a nuclear III
Take even the police, legislators ,
MRT and passers outlet ,
This makes Taiwan become better strange.
May wish to take a look at Ukraine.
People even months of street protests ,
Get rid of the president,
The results has led to greater foreign aggression and civil unrest ;
After losing the Crimea ,
Populations everywhere in Ukraine ,
People of different ethnic groups hate each other ,
Carnage . Street fashion movement is by no means democratic activities
When the " evil " to be awakened ,
Nobody had to pack ;
Taiwan 's streets ,
It seems there moving around .
Taiwan Shen malady are profound political, economic ,
This requires positive thinking solutions,
Not just to the streets to say "no ."
Google 翻譯企業版：譯者工具包網站翻譯工具全球商機搜尋器
網站總覽│會員∣繁體簡體∣RSS服務
只會說「不」的社運，對台灣並無助益
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.05 02:46 am
《經濟學人》雜誌評論，台灣的前途恐將演成「由街頭決定」時，其言下之意有二：一是政治體制的決策力將愈來愈弱，二是街頭抗議活動並非導引國家的有效力量。
《經濟學人》之言並非無的放矢，本報四月廿九日社論《台灣能淪落到聽命街頭群眾指揮？》，已表達了對此一現象的憂心。在太陽花學運中，服貿協議的審議遭到延擱，或許是形勢所逼不得不然；但在以林義雄禁食為核心的反核四運動中，執政者在內外壓力下主動作出「封存」的退讓，形同將「核四停建公投」變成了難上加難的「核四重啟公投」。而即使如此，政府仍無法平息《公投法》的門檻爭議，民進黨依然持續鏖戰。
馬政府在政策上對街頭示威者作出退讓，無論是必要或非必要，對公權力形象都造成極大損傷：顯示政府對外無力說服群眾，對內無力證明決策的理性與必要性，也暴露了政府的怯弱、怕事。更嚴重的，是付出了法治脫序的代價，犧牲了沉默大眾的意見，這才是最令人扼腕之處。近兩年，馬政府對街頭群眾一步步退讓，換得的只是公權力愈發萎縮。
進一步說，台灣政治演出「街頭領導決策」的倒錯現象，在野黨也要負很大的責任。立法院是整個政府的重要部門之一，但是，占了四成以上席次的在野黨卻從未將自己視為政府部門之一員，設法為國家貢獻心力；反而是無時無刻不在杯葛施政、製造分歧，阻撓國家社會進步。如果不是因為藍綠廿年的內耗對峙，台灣怎麼會江河日下，節節倒退，而至新世代看不到未來願景？台灣的低成長、高失業、決策反覆、共識難以凝聚，又豈是馬總統一手造成？
在政治無法正常運作下，街頭運動興起、抗議群眾宣洩不滿，當然是可以理解的事，這也是迫使政府正視問題的重要手段之一。但必須提醒的是，過於頻繁的街頭活動，尤其是缺乏積極訴求、只是一味以製造騷亂為目的示威，對於解決台灣目前的停滯及尋求未來的出路，其實都難有什麼實質助益。原因很清楚：近來的抗議行動，都是打著「反」的旗號，以阻止政府施為為目的；而事實上，在馬江政府已經缺乏作為空間的情況下，這只會愈發使政府機器陷於空轉，並導致台灣更陷於停滯和萎弱。
坦白說，今天馬政府還在談「自由經濟示範區」，重拾當年台灣因政治紛擾而未能如願的「亞太營運中心」夢想，其實已貽誤了廿多年的時光。當全球已發生翻天覆地的變化，中國大陸即將成為世界第一大經濟體，時空變異，台灣能否再捲土重來，顯然疑問重重。然而，如果不推動「自由經濟示範區」，台灣還有多少道路可以選擇，卻是一個更大的生存戰略問題。這個問題，民進黨能提供任何解答嗎？答案是否定的。街頭示威的學生和群眾能指出任何方向嗎？我們看不到任何跡象。那麼，剛剛在反核四之役大獲全勝的林義雄，揚言要號召群眾杯葛《自由經濟示範區條例》的立法，萬一他再度稱心如意，請問，他的替代方案是什麼？台灣的下一步又是什麼？
觀察太陽花學運的訴求，穿插著「反馬」、「抗中」、「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」等不同層次的訴求。「反馬」、「反中」是比較容易理解的部分，但這如何和「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」畫上等號，又如何透過這些口號追求台灣的自我實現，才是最難、最懸疑的部分。請問：學生和學運導師們有滿足新世代「小確幸」的便捷答案嗎？學生和群眾們又向民進黨追問過答案嗎？如果在反服貿、反核四之後，群眾繼續反示範區、反公投法、反核一到核三，甚至拿警察、立委、捷運和路人出氣，這能使台灣變得更好才怪。
不妨再看看烏克蘭。人民連數月的街頭抗議，趕走了總統，結果卻引來更大的外患與內亂；在失去克里米亞之後，烏克蘭境內烽煙四起，不同族裔的人民互相憎恨、殘殺。街頭運動絕不是民主的時髦活動，當「惡」被喚醒之後，沒人收拾得了；而台灣的街頭，卻似乎正朝那裡走去。
台灣政經皆沉痾甚深，這需要積極思考解決之道，而不只是上街說「不」。
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Economic Roots of Angry Youth
Economic Roots of Angry Youth
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 2, 2014
Summary: We hope that the government will realize that many factors are behind the phenomenon of angry youth. But the economy is definitely one of the most important. Economic problems must be resolved immediately. If one fails to appreciate the underlying cause of the public protests, but treats them as isolated incidents, then one fire will follow another. Eventually the fires will be impossible to extinguish. They will burn even more fiercely, and become a prairie fire. By then Taiwan may be mired in unrest akin to the Arab Spring, and people will pay a terrible price.
Full text below:
The student movement is behind public protests everywhere. Every other day protests have obstructed traffic and incited incidents. Their impact on people's lives has become increasingly noticeable. Their demands have become increasingly numerous. New issues may emerge at any moment, one after another. There are two main reasons for this phenomenon. The first is ideology. The other is discontent with the existing social and economic order. These have led to the so-called "angry youth" phenomenon. This phenomenon is not unique to Taiwan. Large-scale protests have taken place in many countries with high youth unemployment, including Egypt, Greece, and Spain. Such protests are unlikely achieve their goals. But the ensuing turmoil has attracted attention and forced their societies to confront the issues.
Two economic factors are responsible for cynical youth. The first is too low salaries. The second is too high prices. The main solution to too low salaries is increased employment. This must be achieved through increased investment in human resources. Past employment growth on Taiwan relied heavily on investment in manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing remains important for the future of Taiwan. It remains the backbone of Taiwan's economy and employment. But manufacturing is increasingly capital intensive. Many international competitors are emerging. Expecting the creation of large numbers of
manufacturing jobs is no longer realistic. For example, tens of billions of dollars invested in a semiconductor plant only creates a few thousand jobs, mostly for high-level engineers. It does little for youth employment.
The service sector deserves attention. It has far more room for job creation. Taiwan's service sector accounts for about 70% of its GDP. But service sector employment amounts to only 60% of total employment. Attempts should be made to bridge the remaining 10% gap. We must increase the demand for manpower services. The most important way is to increase value added service industries. If this is our goal, the Taiwan market alone is not enough. We must go international. The STA could provide a solid foundation for the revitalization of Taiwan's service industries. Many service industries could open up markets on the relatively backward Mainland. They would have an excellent opportunity to grow and prosper, providing many high-paying jobs. But the STA appears to have run aground. Its future remains uncertain.
This being the case, we must attempt to grow our service industries within the existing WTO framework. We must allow service industries to expand outward. We should see how the Ministry of Economic Affairs trained foreign export talent, improved young peoples' English ability, and prepare for internationalization. Only internationalization offers a way out for Taiwan. Only it will enable workers to enjoy world-class salaries.
The second direction is one we have pushed for many times in the past. This newspaper has discussed it in our editorial columns. But so far no one has implemented our recommendations. Most government agencies charged with overseeing the service industries think in terms of "managing" them. This mentality must be changed. They must think in terms of "aggressively investing" in them. They must promote investment and employment. Government agencies charged with overseeing the service industries should set sector based GDP growth targets and employment growth targets. If the agencies mobilize simultaneously, coordinate their efforts, attract businesses, and promote investments, then over time, they will produce results. If they can achieve the above two goals, unemployment rate will decline. Salaries will increase.
Real estate prices are the highest in Taipei City and New Taipei. Ironically, that is also where the most employment opportunities can be found. Current Taipei real estate prices are higher than New York City's. This makes no sense whatsoever. The real estate price to income ratio is 15, among the highest in the world. Rental prices on the other hand, are among the lowest in the world. Clearly real estate prices are much too high. Premier Chiang said he would like the real estate price to income ratio to fall 30%, to a reasonable level. That is not difficult to achieve. All it requires is determination.
Letting the bubble for luxury real estate burst is the first step toward achieving justice in home ownership. It is the most important step. Allow luxury real estate prices to fall, and prices for all real estate will follow. Influencing the price of luxury real estate is actually very simple. Just do three things. First. Tighten home loans for luxury real estate not occupied by the owner himself. In other words, home loans should be restricted for residential real estate exceeding a certain size and certain price per unit of area. They should be reduced from the current 70% to under 40%.
Secondly, change the property tax system. Increase the cost of ownership for those not living in their own housing units, and for ultra luxurious housing units. The actual tax burden for luxury real estate should ought be at least as high as it is for New York City. It should be increased from 1% to 2%. Also, profits derived from the sale of luxury real estate should be calculated according to the assessed cost, and included in consolidated income tax returns.
We hope that the government will realize that many factors are behind the phenomenon of angry youth. But the economy is definitely one of the most important. Economic problems must be resolved immediately. If one fails to appreciate the underlying cause of the public protests, but treats them as isolated incidents, then one fire will follow another. Eventually the fires will be impossible to extinguish. They will burn even more fiercely, and become a prairie fire. By then Taiwan may be mired in unrest akin to the Arab Spring, and people will pay a terrible price.
造成憤青問題的經濟根源需要解決
2014年05月02日中國時報
學運和抗爭到處串連，幾乎每隔幾天就有人阻斷交通、形成事件，對民眾生活的影響日趨全面，其訴求則不一而足，隨時都可能有新議題的出現，一個接著一個滾動而來。造成這種現象有兩大原因，一是意識型態，另一就是對既有社會和經濟秩序的不滿，乃至形成所謂「憤青」現象。這個現象非台灣獨有，在年輕人失業率高的國家，如埃及、希臘、西班牙，都曾經發生過大規模的抗爭。這些抗爭的結果最後很可能都沒有達到目的，但畢竟在過程中引發了很大的動亂，值得重視和面對。
造成憤青的經濟性因素主要有二，一是薪水太低，二是房價太高。在薪水太低方面，主要的解決方式是增加就業需求，而這個必須透過增加投資才能達到。過去台灣的就業成長，主要是依靠製造業的投資所創造的大量就業機會；未來製造業對台灣依然重要，是支撐台灣經濟和就業的主幹，但在製造業日趨資本密集化，諸多國際競爭者不斷出現的情況之下，期望製造業能像以前一樣創造大量就業機會變成不切實際。例如半導體工廠投資動輒數千億，但只能創造幾千個就業機會，而且其中很大一部分是高階工程師，對於一般青年的就業幫助有限。
服務業是一個可以著力的部門，還有創造就業的空間。台灣服務業占GDP的百分比大約7成，但服務業就業只占總就業人口的6成，其中一成的差距就是未來可以努力的方向。要增加服務業人力需求，最重要的途徑就是提高服務業的附加價值，而想要達成這個目標，光靠台灣市場不夠，必須走向國際化。《服貿協議》本來是一個可以振興台灣服務業的良好基礎，讓許多有發展潛力的業者進入服務業相對落後的中國大陸開拓市場，將有很好的機會可以快速成長茁壯，進而提供眾多的高薪就業機會，但現在看來已經觸礁，且前途渺渺，未來充滿不確定。
即便如此，還是應當在既有的WTO架構下盡量發展服務業，讓服務業能夠走出去。應當參考過去經濟部培養外貿人才的訓練模式，加強培養年輕人的英文能力，做好國際化的準備。唯有國際化，唯有走出台灣，才能夠享受國際水準的薪水。
第二個努力的方向是已呼籲過多次，包括本報社論曾論及，但目前為止似乎尚未實施的建議，就是我國大部分的服務業主管機構，還是以「管理」的心態來處理所轄服務業。這種心態必須轉變為「積極招商」的心態，促進投資和就業。每個個主管服務業的部會，均應對其所轄之服務業訂定GDP的成長目標，以及該行業的就業成長目標。如果各部會同時動員，分工協力，朝招商和促進投資的方向走，假以時日，一定可以產生效果。如果以上兩點能夠做到，我們的失業率可望下降，薪資水準即可望上升。
在房價方面，較嚴重的是雙北市，但偏偏也就是就業機會最多的地方。目前台北市的房價比紐約還貴，完全不合理。統計上而言，房價占所得比已經達到15倍，位居世界前茅，而租金房價比卻很低，在世界上吊車尾，可見房價確實偏高。要讓雙北房價像江院長所說，下降個3成，達到合理水準，其實不難，只是要看有沒有決心。
讓豪宅價格的泡沫破滅，是實現住宅正義的第一步，也是最重要的一步。只要能讓豪宅價格下降，所有房屋就會跟著降價。而要影響豪宅的價格，其實非常簡單，只要做到3件事。第一件，要收縮非自用豪宅購屋的貸款，也就是面積超過一定坪數且每坪單價超過一定金額的住宅，其貸款都應該要強力收縮，由現在普遍的7成收縮到4成以下。
第二，要改變房地產的稅制，增加非自用或超額豪宅的持有成本。持有豪宅的實質稅負，至少應當要像紐約一樣，提高到百分之一到二。另外，豪宅轉手所獲的利益，應當照實價課稅，而且納入綜合所得稅申報。
我們希望政府能夠認清事實，憤青現象背後的因素很多，但經濟絕對是其中一個重要的因素，一定要立即解決。如果不重視遠因，而只是單就已經發生的個案，一個接著一個滅火，最後可能會發現不但滅不了火，反而越燒越旺，連成燎原大火，到時候台灣陷入如阿拉伯之春一般的動亂，人民將要付出慘痛的代價。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 2, 2014
Summary: We hope that the government will realize that many factors are behind the phenomenon of angry youth. But the economy is definitely one of the most important. Economic problems must be resolved immediately. If one fails to appreciate the underlying cause of the public protests, but treats them as isolated incidents, then one fire will follow another. Eventually the fires will be impossible to extinguish. They will burn even more fiercely, and become a prairie fire. By then Taiwan may be mired in unrest akin to the Arab Spring, and people will pay a terrible price.
Full text below:
The student movement is behind public protests everywhere. Every other day protests have obstructed traffic and incited incidents. Their impact on people's lives has become increasingly noticeable. Their demands have become increasingly numerous. New issues may emerge at any moment, one after another. There are two main reasons for this phenomenon. The first is ideology. The other is discontent with the existing social and economic order. These have led to the so-called "angry youth" phenomenon. This phenomenon is not unique to Taiwan. Large-scale protests have taken place in many countries with high youth unemployment, including Egypt, Greece, and Spain. Such protests are unlikely achieve their goals. But the ensuing turmoil has attracted attention and forced their societies to confront the issues.
Two economic factors are responsible for cynical youth. The first is too low salaries. The second is too high prices. The main solution to too low salaries is increased employment. This must be achieved through increased investment in human resources. Past employment growth on Taiwan relied heavily on investment in manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing remains important for the future of Taiwan. It remains the backbone of Taiwan's economy and employment. But manufacturing is increasingly capital intensive. Many international competitors are emerging. Expecting the creation of large numbers of
manufacturing jobs is no longer realistic. For example, tens of billions of dollars invested in a semiconductor plant only creates a few thousand jobs, mostly for high-level engineers. It does little for youth employment.
The service sector deserves attention. It has far more room for job creation. Taiwan's service sector accounts for about 70% of its GDP. But service sector employment amounts to only 60% of total employment. Attempts should be made to bridge the remaining 10% gap. We must increase the demand for manpower services. The most important way is to increase value added service industries. If this is our goal, the Taiwan market alone is not enough. We must go international. The STA could provide a solid foundation for the revitalization of Taiwan's service industries. Many service industries could open up markets on the relatively backward Mainland. They would have an excellent opportunity to grow and prosper, providing many high-paying jobs. But the STA appears to have run aground. Its future remains uncertain.
This being the case, we must attempt to grow our service industries within the existing WTO framework. We must allow service industries to expand outward. We should see how the Ministry of Economic Affairs trained foreign export talent, improved young peoples' English ability, and prepare for internationalization. Only internationalization offers a way out for Taiwan. Only it will enable workers to enjoy world-class salaries.
The second direction is one we have pushed for many times in the past. This newspaper has discussed it in our editorial columns. But so far no one has implemented our recommendations. Most government agencies charged with overseeing the service industries think in terms of "managing" them. This mentality must be changed. They must think in terms of "aggressively investing" in them. They must promote investment and employment. Government agencies charged with overseeing the service industries should set sector based GDP growth targets and employment growth targets. If the agencies mobilize simultaneously, coordinate their efforts, attract businesses, and promote investments, then over time, they will produce results. If they can achieve the above two goals, unemployment rate will decline. Salaries will increase.
Real estate prices are the highest in Taipei City and New Taipei. Ironically, that is also where the most employment opportunities can be found. Current Taipei real estate prices are higher than New York City's. This makes no sense whatsoever. The real estate price to income ratio is 15, among the highest in the world. Rental prices on the other hand, are among the lowest in the world. Clearly real estate prices are much too high. Premier Chiang said he would like the real estate price to income ratio to fall 30%, to a reasonable level. That is not difficult to achieve. All it requires is determination.
Letting the bubble for luxury real estate burst is the first step toward achieving justice in home ownership. It is the most important step. Allow luxury real estate prices to fall, and prices for all real estate will follow. Influencing the price of luxury real estate is actually very simple. Just do three things. First. Tighten home loans for luxury real estate not occupied by the owner himself. In other words, home loans should be restricted for residential real estate exceeding a certain size and certain price per unit of area. They should be reduced from the current 70% to under 40%.
Secondly, change the property tax system. Increase the cost of ownership for those not living in their own housing units, and for ultra luxurious housing units. The actual tax burden for luxury real estate should ought be at least as high as it is for New York City. It should be increased from 1% to 2%. Also, profits derived from the sale of luxury real estate should be calculated according to the assessed cost, and included in consolidated income tax returns.
We hope that the government will realize that many factors are behind the phenomenon of angry youth. But the economy is definitely one of the most important. Economic problems must be resolved immediately. If one fails to appreciate the underlying cause of the public protests, but treats them as isolated incidents, then one fire will follow another. Eventually the fires will be impossible to extinguish. They will burn even more fiercely, and become a prairie fire. By then Taiwan may be mired in unrest akin to the Arab Spring, and people will pay a terrible price.
造成憤青問題的經濟根源需要解決
2014年05月02日中國時報
學運和抗爭到處串連，幾乎每隔幾天就有人阻斷交通、形成事件，對民眾生活的影響日趨全面，其訴求則不一而足，隨時都可能有新議題的出現，一個接著一個滾動而來。造成這種現象有兩大原因，一是意識型態，另一就是對既有社會和經濟秩序的不滿，乃至形成所謂「憤青」現象。這個現象非台灣獨有，在年輕人失業率高的國家，如埃及、希臘、西班牙，都曾經發生過大規模的抗爭。這些抗爭的結果最後很可能都沒有達到目的，但畢竟在過程中引發了很大的動亂，值得重視和面對。
造成憤青的經濟性因素主要有二，一是薪水太低，二是房價太高。在薪水太低方面，主要的解決方式是增加就業需求，而這個必須透過增加投資才能達到。過去台灣的就業成長，主要是依靠製造業的投資所創造的大量就業機會；未來製造業對台灣依然重要，是支撐台灣經濟和就業的主幹，但在製造業日趨資本密集化，諸多國際競爭者不斷出現的情況之下，期望製造業能像以前一樣創造大量就業機會變成不切實際。例如半導體工廠投資動輒數千億，但只能創造幾千個就業機會，而且其中很大一部分是高階工程師，對於一般青年的就業幫助有限。
服務業是一個可以著力的部門，還有創造就業的空間。台灣服務業占GDP的百分比大約7成，但服務業就業只占總就業人口的6成，其中一成的差距就是未來可以努力的方向。要增加服務業人力需求，最重要的途徑就是提高服務業的附加價值，而想要達成這個目標，光靠台灣市場不夠，必須走向國際化。《服貿協議》本來是一個可以振興台灣服務業的良好基礎，讓許多有發展潛力的業者進入服務業相對落後的中國大陸開拓市場，將有很好的機會可以快速成長茁壯，進而提供眾多的高薪就業機會，但現在看來已經觸礁，且前途渺渺，未來充滿不確定。
即便如此，還是應當在既有的WTO架構下盡量發展服務業，讓服務業能夠走出去。應當參考過去經濟部培養外貿人才的訓練模式，加強培養年輕人的英文能力，做好國際化的準備。唯有國際化，唯有走出台灣，才能夠享受國際水準的薪水。
第二個努力的方向是已呼籲過多次，包括本報社論曾論及，但目前為止似乎尚未實施的建議，就是我國大部分的服務業主管機構，還是以「管理」的心態來處理所轄服務業。這種心態必須轉變為「積極招商」的心態，促進投資和就業。每個個主管服務業的部會，均應對其所轄之服務業訂定GDP的成長目標，以及該行業的就業成長目標。如果各部會同時動員，分工協力，朝招商和促進投資的方向走，假以時日，一定可以產生效果。如果以上兩點能夠做到，我們的失業率可望下降，薪資水準即可望上升。
在房價方面，較嚴重的是雙北市，但偏偏也就是就業機會最多的地方。目前台北市的房價比紐約還貴，完全不合理。統計上而言，房價占所得比已經達到15倍，位居世界前茅，而租金房價比卻很低，在世界上吊車尾，可見房價確實偏高。要讓雙北房價像江院長所說，下降個3成，達到合理水準，其實不難，只是要看有沒有決心。
讓豪宅價格的泡沫破滅，是實現住宅正義的第一步，也是最重要的一步。只要能讓豪宅價格下降，所有房屋就會跟著降價。而要影響豪宅的價格，其實非常簡單，只要做到3件事。第一件，要收縮非自用豪宅購屋的貸款，也就是面積超過一定坪數且每坪單價超過一定金額的住宅，其貸款都應該要強力收縮，由現在普遍的7成收縮到4成以下。
第二，要改變房地產的稅制，增加非自用或超額豪宅的持有成本。持有豪宅的實質稅負，至少應當要像紐約一樣，提高到百分之一到二。另外，豪宅轉手所獲的利益，應當照實價課稅，而且納入綜合所得稅申報。
我們希望政府能夠認清事實，憤青現象背後的因素很多，但經濟絕對是其中一個重要的因素，一定要立即解決。如果不重視遠因，而只是單就已經發生的個案，一個接著一個滅火，最後可能會發現不但滅不了火，反而越燒越旺，連成燎原大火，到時候台灣陷入如阿拉伯之春一般的動亂，人民將要付出慘痛的代價。
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Nuclear-Free Taiwan: Blackouts Will Be a Fact of Life
Nuclear-Free Taiwan: Blackouts Will Be a Fact of Life
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 30, 2014
Summary: Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.
Full text below:
Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.
Power supply stability on Taiwan once ranked among the highest in the world at nearly 99%. This was because the government promoted economic growth. It pursued a policy of "if power is needed, power will be provided." Many needs were provided by Taipower, a state owned enterprise. But 20 years ago, Taiwan began liberalizing the electrical power industry. It authorized the construction of private sector electrical power plants. Later, environmental awareness, global warming, calls for a nuclear free homeland, the rejection of coal, and the insistence on gas burning electrical power plants, led to incremental deterioration of the power grid and eventual crisis.
A stable power supply must meet three criteria. One. Its power supply must be adequate. This includes it total installed capacity and spinning reserve ratio. Two. The power supply must be reliable and schedulable. Three. The power supply must be high quality. The voltage must be stable. If power supply stability decreases, the impact will be serious. Taiwan's economy is highly dependent on heavy industry, the chemical industry, and energy-intensive industry. Taiwan society requires electricity to keep its communications and transportation systems, life support systems, disaster prevention systems, and medical care systems functioning. Blackouts would affect all of these as well.
Taiwan's biggest crisis is power grid deterioration . It is severely deficient in base load capacity, and the situation is getting worse. If Taiwan goes nuclear-free and rejects the use of coal, its situation will be even more difficult. The problem is not confined to power capacity. Power quality is also an issue.
Taiwan's independent power grid makes it more difficult to maintain a stable power supply. This is true for nuclear, coal, gas, oil, and gas fired base load capacity. Installed capacity must to reach at least 60% to support system operation. Low cost fuel power generation capacity exceeds nuclear and coal-fired units as a proportion of installed capacity. They are the backbone of the power system. Eliminate nuclear power plants and coal-fired units. Replace them with high priced gas powered plants, and the system will lose money as fast as it generates electricity. It will also take at least a decade to build gas-fired power plants and relay stations. They will not be able to fill the gap left by nuclear free, coal free power generation.
Contrast this with Fukushima Japan, which was struck by nuclear disaster. Anti-nuclear sentiment led to a zero tolerance policy toward nuclear power generation. But during a recent cabinet meeting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promoted a safe nuclear power plant policy, on the grounds that "nuclear power is important for base load capacity." Japan was unable to bear three years and 220 billion USD in gas costs and the associated trade deficits. Taiwan wants to go nuclear free immediately. Even Japan could not afford to do so. How can Taiwan?
Even currently, coal-fired power remains the mainstay of the power grid. It provides northern Taiwan with 43% of its electricity. But many plants are in south-central Taiwan. This makes them difficult to maintain. An accident to a transmission tower, and a unexpected power outage is certain. If Taiwan goes nuclear free, new units at Linkou, Hsiehho, Shenau, and Tatan are bound to encounter more local resistance and difficulties with EIAs, making the situation even worse.
If we leave aside capital costs, gas-fired units could theoretically fill the power gap. But the international natural gas market is severely strained. Demand on Taiwan is rising. Qatar, Indonesia, and Malaysia, account for more than 80% of the procurement structure. Political instability in these countries has long been a concern. The chance that gas may become unavailable continues to increase. Some hope that U.S. shale gas can fill the gap. But this must await the relaxation of export policy, the construction of port liquefaction equipment, and even the completion of Panama Canal widening. How can this possibly be achieved in the short term?
Deterioration of the power grid will affect scheduling and lead to power outages. Voltage instability also presents a problem. In particular, the high-tech industries which account for most of our exports, require a high degree of voltage stability. Voltage instability has a significant impact on equipment and production capacity. Taiwan's high-tech industry has traditionally been able to attract investments, largely due to high quality power supplies.
Power grid deterioration will lead to more than just increased power outages. Life support systems will also be affected. Drinking water, beginning with source water, water purification, pressurized water, and ending up as tap water, depends on electricity. A given amount of water requires a given amount of electricity. Put simply, the production cost of drinking water is not confined to the water supply. Power shortages can affect sewage treatment, pumping, silt removal, and drainage. Every one of these processes requires power.
If the information and communications system is under attack, it will impact our daily lives. ATMs cannot dispense cash to debit card holders. Convenience store logistics, cash flow glitches, mean they will no longer be able to serve you. Airport e-tickets cannot be scanned. Passengers will not be able to board their planes. People will be more than just inconvenienced. Some impacts could cost people their lives. Oxygen supplies for critically ill hospital patients could be interrupted due to power outages. Surgeries could be interrupted mid way by sudden power failures. Disaster monitoring systems could be thrown off by unstable power supplies The impacts are difficult to predict.
We may choose to hold a referendum. We may choose to mothball nuclear power plants. Either way, these are serious decisions. One must give them serious consideration. Whatever we decide, we are the ones who will have to bear the consequences.
非核之後，供電不穩恐將成事實
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.30 01:58 am
主張非核的人士聲稱廢核之後電仍一定夠，「停電」只是擁核人士的恐嚇；這樣的說詞，在非核機率未明顯勝出之際，可以不必舉證、不負責任，但非核主張成了氣 候，有可能實現之際，就再不能信口雌黃，隨便說說。所有用電戶都得正視供電穩定度降低、無預警停電機率增加的事實，否則到時要電沒電，恐還有「要命」的危 機。
台灣過去的供電穩定度全球名列前茅，幾乎達百分之九十九，原因是政府發展經濟、追求成長的能源「以需定供」政策，有多少需求，就要求屬國營事業的台電來配 合。但從二十年前開始推動電業自由化、開放民營電廠設置，之後因環保意識、地球暖化危機，非核、拒絕燃煤、只要燃氣電廠，造成電力系統一步步地劣化，逐漸 步入險境。
供電穩定涵蓋三個層面，其一、供電量是否足夠？牽涉到總裝置容量、備轉容量率；二、可靠度、調度能力；三、供電品質，電壓穩定與否。如果供電穩定度降低， 影響所及絕不只是台灣經濟高度仰賴的重化產業、能源密集產業，甚且維繫社會運作的資通、維生、防災、醫療等系統都將受到波及。
台灣電力系統眼前最大危機是電力系統劣化，嚴重基載不足，且日趨惡化的走勢，在非核、拒絕燃煤電廠後，更將陷於難以穩定運轉局面；而且不止供電量有問題，供電品質也將面臨挑戰。
以台灣獨立電網的不利環境，要維持供電穩定，包括核能、燃煤、燃氣、燃油、汽電共生的基載電力，裝置容量至少要達到百分之六十才能支撐系統運作，尤其是燃 料成本低、發電量超過裝置容量占比的核能及燃煤機組，更是電力系統的骨幹；剔除核能、燃煤機組，改以高單價的燃氣電廠取代，系統將是「發一度、賠一度」； 而需時至少十年的燃氣電廠和接收站建置，根本補不上立即非核、棄煤的電力缺口。
對照遭福島核災重擊的日本，高漲的反核氣氛造成「零核」局面，但首相安倍晉三日前在內閣會議做成推動安全核電廠再運轉政策，理由是「核能發電是重要的基載電源」；三年兩千兩百億美元的燃氣支出和連帶的貿易逆差，日本撐不下去。台灣想要立即非核，難道「日本不能、台灣能」？
即使以目前核能、燃煤仍是供電主力的電力結構，應付台灣北部百分之四十三的高用電比率、電廠卻多在中南部的局面，維持得已很辛苦，萬一輸配電系統有閃失， 迴路上一個鐵塔遭天災損壞，無預警斷電幾乎是必然；非核之後，若林口、協和、深澳、大潭等新增機組因為環評及地方阻力致進度不如預期，局面一定更糟。
不計算成本，理論上燃氣機組是可以補上電力缺口，但問題是國際天然氣市場高度緊繃，台灣的需求又快速攀升，而且以目前對卡達、印尼、馬來西亞三國超過八成 的採購結構，供氣國政治不安定一直是隱憂，買不到氣的危機不斷升高；至於寄望美國頁岩氣補上，須等該國出口政策放寬，港口液化設備建置，甚至還要等巴拿馬 運河拓寬竣工，短期內豈可能實現？
電力結構劣化一定會影響調度，缺電之外，電壓不穩定也是問題，尤其出口主力的高科技業者對電壓穩定的要求極高，如果電壓不穩，對設備、產能都有很大的影響。過去台灣能吸引高科技業來投資，很重要的誘因是供電品質高。
系統劣化後不止缺電機率大增，維生系統的其他因子也同遭衝擊。以飲用水為例，從原水、淨水、加壓給水到水龍頭上水，「一度水、一度電」簡單說明飲用水的生產成本；不止上水，缺電後下水處理也受影響，揚水、沉泥、排水……，每個過程都需要動力。
資通系統受到衝擊，必將影響日常生活，例如帶著提款卡出門櫃員機卻不吐鈔，便利商店的物流、金流當機，暫時不能當你的好鄰居；機場電子機票讀不出來，不能 報到登機……。生活層面的影響還只是不方便，另些影響才真「要命」，例如醫院重症病患的氧氣供應因停電而中斷，手術做到一半突然斷電；又如防災監測系統敏 銳的儀器因供電不穩而失準，影響都極難估計。
公投也好，封存也罷，茲事體大，不能不認真思考，做成決定就得承擔！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 30, 2014
Summary: Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.
Full text below:
Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.
Power supply stability on Taiwan once ranked among the highest in the world at nearly 99%. This was because the government promoted economic growth. It pursued a policy of "if power is needed, power will be provided." Many needs were provided by Taipower, a state owned enterprise. But 20 years ago, Taiwan began liberalizing the electrical power industry. It authorized the construction of private sector electrical power plants. Later, environmental awareness, global warming, calls for a nuclear free homeland, the rejection of coal, and the insistence on gas burning electrical power plants, led to incremental deterioration of the power grid and eventual crisis.
A stable power supply must meet three criteria. One. Its power supply must be adequate. This includes it total installed capacity and spinning reserve ratio. Two. The power supply must be reliable and schedulable. Three. The power supply must be high quality. The voltage must be stable. If power supply stability decreases, the impact will be serious. Taiwan's economy is highly dependent on heavy industry, the chemical industry, and energy-intensive industry. Taiwan society requires electricity to keep its communications and transportation systems, life support systems, disaster prevention systems, and medical care systems functioning. Blackouts would affect all of these as well.
Taiwan's biggest crisis is power grid deterioration . It is severely deficient in base load capacity, and the situation is getting worse. If Taiwan goes nuclear-free and rejects the use of coal, its situation will be even more difficult. The problem is not confined to power capacity. Power quality is also an issue.
Taiwan's independent power grid makes it more difficult to maintain a stable power supply. This is true for nuclear, coal, gas, oil, and gas fired base load capacity. Installed capacity must to reach at least 60% to support system operation. Low cost fuel power generation capacity exceeds nuclear and coal-fired units as a proportion of installed capacity. They are the backbone of the power system. Eliminate nuclear power plants and coal-fired units. Replace them with high priced gas powered plants, and the system will lose money as fast as it generates electricity. It will also take at least a decade to build gas-fired power plants and relay stations. They will not be able to fill the gap left by nuclear free, coal free power generation.
Contrast this with Fukushima Japan, which was struck by nuclear disaster. Anti-nuclear sentiment led to a zero tolerance policy toward nuclear power generation. But during a recent cabinet meeting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promoted a safe nuclear power plant policy, on the grounds that "nuclear power is important for base load capacity." Japan was unable to bear three years and 220 billion USD in gas costs and the associated trade deficits. Taiwan wants to go nuclear free immediately. Even Japan could not afford to do so. How can Taiwan?
Even currently, coal-fired power remains the mainstay of the power grid. It provides northern Taiwan with 43% of its electricity. But many plants are in south-central Taiwan. This makes them difficult to maintain. An accident to a transmission tower, and a unexpected power outage is certain. If Taiwan goes nuclear free, new units at Linkou, Hsiehho, Shenau, and Tatan are bound to encounter more local resistance and difficulties with EIAs, making the situation even worse.
If we leave aside capital costs, gas-fired units could theoretically fill the power gap. But the international natural gas market is severely strained. Demand on Taiwan is rising. Qatar, Indonesia, and Malaysia, account for more than 80% of the procurement structure. Political instability in these countries has long been a concern. The chance that gas may become unavailable continues to increase. Some hope that U.S. shale gas can fill the gap. But this must await the relaxation of export policy, the construction of port liquefaction equipment, and even the completion of Panama Canal widening. How can this possibly be achieved in the short term?
Deterioration of the power grid will affect scheduling and lead to power outages. Voltage instability also presents a problem. In particular, the high-tech industries which account for most of our exports, require a high degree of voltage stability. Voltage instability has a significant impact on equipment and production capacity. Taiwan's high-tech industry has traditionally been able to attract investments, largely due to high quality power supplies.
Power grid deterioration will lead to more than just increased power outages. Life support systems will also be affected. Drinking water, beginning with source water, water purification, pressurized water, and ending up as tap water, depends on electricity. A given amount of water requires a given amount of electricity. Put simply, the production cost of drinking water is not confined to the water supply. Power shortages can affect sewage treatment, pumping, silt removal, and drainage. Every one of these processes requires power.
If the information and communications system is under attack, it will impact our daily lives. ATMs cannot dispense cash to debit card holders. Convenience store logistics, cash flow glitches, mean they will no longer be able to serve you. Airport e-tickets cannot be scanned. Passengers will not be able to board their planes. People will be more than just inconvenienced. Some impacts could cost people their lives. Oxygen supplies for critically ill hospital patients could be interrupted due to power outages. Surgeries could be interrupted mid way by sudden power failures. Disaster monitoring systems could be thrown off by unstable power supplies The impacts are difficult to predict.
We may choose to hold a referendum. We may choose to mothball nuclear power plants. Either way, these are serious decisions. One must give them serious consideration. Whatever we decide, we are the ones who will have to bear the consequences.
非核之後，供電不穩恐將成事實
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.30 01:58 am
主張非核的人士聲稱廢核之後電仍一定夠，「停電」只是擁核人士的恐嚇；這樣的說詞，在非核機率未明顯勝出之際，可以不必舉證、不負責任，但非核主張成了氣 候，有可能實現之際，就再不能信口雌黃，隨便說說。所有用電戶都得正視供電穩定度降低、無預警停電機率增加的事實，否則到時要電沒電，恐還有「要命」的危 機。
台灣過去的供電穩定度全球名列前茅，幾乎達百分之九十九，原因是政府發展經濟、追求成長的能源「以需定供」政策，有多少需求，就要求屬國營事業的台電來配 合。但從二十年前開始推動電業自由化、開放民營電廠設置，之後因環保意識、地球暖化危機，非核、拒絕燃煤、只要燃氣電廠，造成電力系統一步步地劣化，逐漸 步入險境。
供電穩定涵蓋三個層面，其一、供電量是否足夠？牽涉到總裝置容量、備轉容量率；二、可靠度、調度能力；三、供電品質，電壓穩定與否。如果供電穩定度降低， 影響所及絕不只是台灣經濟高度仰賴的重化產業、能源密集產業，甚且維繫社會運作的資通、維生、防災、醫療等系統都將受到波及。
台灣電力系統眼前最大危機是電力系統劣化，嚴重基載不足，且日趨惡化的走勢，在非核、拒絕燃煤電廠後，更將陷於難以穩定運轉局面；而且不止供電量有問題，供電品質也將面臨挑戰。
以台灣獨立電網的不利環境，要維持供電穩定，包括核能、燃煤、燃氣、燃油、汽電共生的基載電力，裝置容量至少要達到百分之六十才能支撐系統運作，尤其是燃 料成本低、發電量超過裝置容量占比的核能及燃煤機組，更是電力系統的骨幹；剔除核能、燃煤機組，改以高單價的燃氣電廠取代，系統將是「發一度、賠一度」； 而需時至少十年的燃氣電廠和接收站建置，根本補不上立即非核、棄煤的電力缺口。
對照遭福島核災重擊的日本，高漲的反核氣氛造成「零核」局面，但首相安倍晉三日前在內閣會議做成推動安全核電廠再運轉政策，理由是「核能發電是重要的基載電源」；三年兩千兩百億美元的燃氣支出和連帶的貿易逆差，日本撐不下去。台灣想要立即非核，難道「日本不能、台灣能」？
即使以目前核能、燃煤仍是供電主力的電力結構，應付台灣北部百分之四十三的高用電比率、電廠卻多在中南部的局面，維持得已很辛苦，萬一輸配電系統有閃失， 迴路上一個鐵塔遭天災損壞，無預警斷電幾乎是必然；非核之後，若林口、協和、深澳、大潭等新增機組因為環評及地方阻力致進度不如預期，局面一定更糟。
不計算成本，理論上燃氣機組是可以補上電力缺口，但問題是國際天然氣市場高度緊繃，台灣的需求又快速攀升，而且以目前對卡達、印尼、馬來西亞三國超過八成 的採購結構，供氣國政治不安定一直是隱憂，買不到氣的危機不斷升高；至於寄望美國頁岩氣補上，須等該國出口政策放寬，港口液化設備建置，甚至還要等巴拿馬 運河拓寬竣工，短期內豈可能實現？
電力結構劣化一定會影響調度，缺電之外，電壓不穩定也是問題，尤其出口主力的高科技業者對電壓穩定的要求極高，如果電壓不穩，對設備、產能都有很大的影響。過去台灣能吸引高科技業來投資，很重要的誘因是供電品質高。
系統劣化後不止缺電機率大增，維生系統的其他因子也同遭衝擊。以飲用水為例，從原水、淨水、加壓給水到水龍頭上水，「一度水、一度電」簡單說明飲用水的生產成本；不止上水，缺電後下水處理也受影響，揚水、沉泥、排水……，每個過程都需要動力。
資通系統受到衝擊，必將影響日常生活，例如帶著提款卡出門櫃員機卻不吐鈔，便利商店的物流、金流當機，暫時不能當你的好鄰居；機場電子機票讀不出來，不能 報到登機……。生活層面的影響還只是不方便，另些影響才真「要命」，例如醫院重症病患的氧氣供應因停電而中斷，手術做到一半突然斷電；又如防災監測系統敏 銳的儀器因供電不穩而失準，影響都極難估計。
公投也好，封存也罷，茲事體大，不能不認真思考，做成決定就得承擔！
Monday, April 28, 2014
Asia Must Take Mainland China's Rise More Seriously
Asia Must Take Mainland China's Rise More Seriously
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 29, 2014
Summary: The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.
Full text below:
U.S. President Barack Obama is conducting a major tour of Asia. He has visited Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines. He is putting on a major diplomatic show. In his manner and his words, he is seeking to underscore the importance of the Asian-Pacific region to the US government. He is saying that the US government still maintains considerable influence in the region. Nevertheless, the situation has obviously changed.
The visit may be eventful and exciting. But behind Obama's visit to Asia, is a record of lackluster diplomatic achievements. US global influence has declined. In the past the US government could rely on its political, economic, and military might to exert a major influence on global affairs. But in recent years the situation has changed. Economic decline has led to huge cuts in US military and diplomatic budgets. The public is weary of foreign wars, The US government can no longer play the role of world policeman.
Consider the many international disputes in the world today. The US government can deal with them. But only with help from foreign governments. Since taking office, Obama has offered no grand strategy for US foreign policy. Instead, his priority was to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US government has no solution for long-simmering issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. North Korea is getting close to making a nuclear bomb. But the US government can do nothing.
Consider some newer issues that the US government has mismanaged. The US was marginalized during the turmoil of the Arab Spring. Pro-American strongmen such as Hosni Mubarak fell. Obama dared not intervene in the Syrian civil war. Fortunately the Russian government persuaded Syria to abandon its chemical weapons program. Currently Ukraine is in chaos. Obama has no intention of engaging in a shooting war with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He could not even if he wanted to. All he can do is discuss sanctions with EU members. Putin has reacted to these sanctions with contempt. Mainland China's power has grown significantly. Disputes between Mainland China and Japan over territorial sovereignty and World War II have become increasingly acute. Sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea are heating up as well. U.S. forces in the Asian region face increasingly serious threats.
To avoid being ejected from Asia by Mainland China, Obama has resorted to "re-balancing." He has re-directed U.S. attention toward the Asian-Pacific region. HIs visit to Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines, encircled the Chinese mainland. Such a political move is not hard to understand. One. It sends a message to Mainland China. It says that the US government remains a powerful force in the Asian-Pacific region. Two. It strengthens relations with other Asian-Pacific governments. Three. It attempts to expedite the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), opening doors for American products. It also creates a trade bloc directed against Mainland China.
During Obama's first stop, he gave Japan a major gift. He publicly declared that the US-Japan Security Treaty covers the Diaoyutai Islands. He also expressed concern over Mainland China's unilaterally declared East China Sea air defense identification zone. This failed to persuade Japan to compromise on the TPP however. Negotiations continued until the last minute, when a Joint Communique was reluctantly released. Obama left empty-handed. Upon reaching Korea, Obama promptly blasted Japan's human rights violations against comfort women. He retaliated against the Japanese government and expressed solidarity with South Korea.
Obama's main task in South Korea was to strengthen the ROK-US alliance. It was to exchange views with South Korean President Park Geun-hye over the North Korean nuclear situation and the Northeast Asian strategic scenario. It was to discuss economic matters such as Korean participation in the TPP, and the implementation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. The US government also wants to postpone the transfer of wartime operational control to the South Korean government.
The last time a U.S. president visited Malaysia was in 1966. Since then nearly half a century has passed. This reveals the degree to which the United States has neglected Malaysia. Obama hopes to use the visit to cultivate relations with the Malaysian government. He also hopes to highlight friendly and cooperative relations with a moderate Muslim country. Malaysia is not especially eager to join the TPP. Obama personally lobbied Malaysia. The two sides will conduct follow-up consultations on their agreements. The last leg of the visit was the Philippines. Obama has long indicated that the United States would return to Asia. Besides TPP negotiations, he specifically discussed increasing U.S. troop deployments in the Philippines.
Several governments, including the Japanese government, the Malaysian government, and the Philippine government, have grievances with China over the Diaoyutai Islands, WWII, and the South China Sea. Relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Japanese government, and relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Philippine government have deteriorated. Obama's visit was clearly intended to prevent China from taking stronger action. The declaration of the East China Sea air defense identification zone has the US and other governments worried about a South China Sea air defense identification zone. They hope to block Chinese stealth expansion in the South China Sea.
But China remains the largest force in the region. It has close relations with all neighboring countries. These countries may want United States government backing on individual disputes, but only as protection and as a bargaining chip. They still hope to develop friendly relations with Mainland China and to seek out trade opportunities. If the US wants to use force to suppress Mainland China, the only willing ally is Japan.
The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.
社論－亞洲應更慎重面對中國崛起
2014年04月29日 04:09 中國時報 本報訊
美國總統歐巴馬的亞洲行正盛大進行中，走訪了日本、韓國、馬來西亞和菲律賓。這是一場大動作的外交秀，以姿態與言語力圖彰顯美國對亞太的重視，以及宣示美國在此區依然保有強大的影響力，但顯然局勢已經改變了。
雖然行程風光熱鬧，但歐巴馬這趟來亞洲的背景，卻是上任以來外交成績乏善可陳、美國全球影響力下滑的窘境。以往美國挾其政經軍力量，可以很大程度左右全球事務；但近年來情勢丕變，美國經濟衰退大刪軍事外交預算，民心厭倦海外戰事，已無力支應一個強悍的世界警察角色。
放眼當前多項重要國際紛爭，美國不是拿不出辦法來，就是需要其他國家奧援。歐巴馬上任以來對美國的外交政策並無大戰略，反而把從伊拉克、阿富汗撤軍作為首要工作。長年問題諸如以巴之爭，美國仍然喬不出個解決辦法，對離成功做出核彈愈來愈接近的北韓，也完全無能為力。
至於新的問題，美國也應對得左支右絀。不但在阿拉伯之春動盪中處於邊緣地位，原本親美的埃及穆巴拉克等強人還垮台。敘利亞內戰歐巴馬根本不敢介入，幸而俄羅斯斡旋出了敘國政府放棄化武的方案。現在烏克蘭又出事，歐巴馬無意也無力為此和俄國總統普丁開火，只能和歐盟國家研商一些普丁根本沒看在眼裡的制裁措施。而隨著中國大陸國力大幅增長，中日主權與二戰紛爭日趨尖銳，南海主權之爭也方興未艾，美國在亞洲的勢力版圖更嚴重受到威脅。
為了避免勢力被中國踢出亞洲，歐巴馬祭出「再平衡」策略，重新強調美國對亞太的關注。這次他訪問日、韓、馬、菲，繞著中國大陸走了一圈，這樣的政治動作相當容易理解，一來向中國發出「美國還是亞太強大勢力」的訊息，二來強化與亞太國家的關係，三來希望跨太平洋經濟夥伴協定（TPP）早日獲得成果，替美國產品打開方便門，也對抗以中國大陸為核心的自貿區塊。
歐巴馬第一站就給日本送上大禮，公開宣示釣魚台屬於美日安保條約範圍，並對中國大陸片面宣布東海防空識別區表達關切。不過，這並沒有換來日本在TPP的讓步，聯合公報甚至談判到最後一刻才勉強出爐。空手離去的歐巴馬，到了韓國立即痛批日本的慰安婦制度侵犯人權，既回敬日本一記，也對韓國表達道義相挺。
歐巴馬在南韓的主要任務是強化韓美同盟、與南韓總統朴槿惠對北韓核武及東北亞局勢交換意見，經貿方面則是談韓國參與TPP以及落實韓美自由貿易協定的問題，另外美方還想把戰時作戰指揮權移交給南韓的時間再延後。
上次美國總統訪問馬來西亞，是在1966年，近半世紀以來都未再到訪，足見馬來西亞被美國忽略的程度。歐巴馬希望能藉著這趟訪問經營與馬國的關係，也凸顯與溫和派穆斯林國家的友好合作。馬國對TPP態度並不積極，在歐巴馬的親自遊說下，雙方後續會就協定內容展開磋商。至於最後一站菲律賓，歐巴馬除了一貫作出美國重返亞洲的政治動作、磋商TPP外，也會具體討論增加美軍在菲國輪替兵力。
這幾個國家裡，日、馬、菲與中國之間有釣魚台、南海與二戰歷史恩怨的齟齬，日本和菲律賓近來與中國更是關係惡化，歐巴馬此行確實有阻擋中國採取進一步強勢作為的意思。尤其繼東海防空識別區後，美國對涉及更多國家的南海防空識別區十分關切，希望能在南海營造攔阻中國擴張之隱形陣線。
不過，中國大陸是區域最大勢力，與鄰國各項交流合作都很密切，相關國家即使希望在個別爭執議題上有美國當後盾，但那只是作為保護與談判籌碼，各國仍然希望能與中國大陸發展友好關係並爭取經貿商機。美國如果想強力壓制中國大陸，將會發現願聯手的盟國可能只有日本。
隨著中國大陸的崛起茁壯，亞太局勢必然逐漸出現根本性的變化，美、中及周邊相關國家，包括台灣，都必須及早思考因應，為未來營造一個最有利於各方利益的新互動關係。不需要再回到冷戰的圍堵狀態，美中也未必不能在競爭角力中尋求合作共存模式。歐巴馬走完亞洲這一圈，有些課題，值得各方開始深思籌謀了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 29, 2014
Summary: The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.
Full text below:
U.S. President Barack Obama is conducting a major tour of Asia. He has visited Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines. He is putting on a major diplomatic show. In his manner and his words, he is seeking to underscore the importance of the Asian-Pacific region to the US government. He is saying that the US government still maintains considerable influence in the region. Nevertheless, the situation has obviously changed.
The visit may be eventful and exciting. But behind Obama's visit to Asia, is a record of lackluster diplomatic achievements. US global influence has declined. In the past the US government could rely on its political, economic, and military might to exert a major influence on global affairs. But in recent years the situation has changed. Economic decline has led to huge cuts in US military and diplomatic budgets. The public is weary of foreign wars, The US government can no longer play the role of world policeman.
Consider the many international disputes in the world today. The US government can deal with them. But only with help from foreign governments. Since taking office, Obama has offered no grand strategy for US foreign policy. Instead, his priority was to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US government has no solution for long-simmering issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. North Korea is getting close to making a nuclear bomb. But the US government can do nothing.
Consider some newer issues that the US government has mismanaged. The US was marginalized during the turmoil of the Arab Spring. Pro-American strongmen such as Hosni Mubarak fell. Obama dared not intervene in the Syrian civil war. Fortunately the Russian government persuaded Syria to abandon its chemical weapons program. Currently Ukraine is in chaos. Obama has no intention of engaging in a shooting war with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He could not even if he wanted to. All he can do is discuss sanctions with EU members. Putin has reacted to these sanctions with contempt. Mainland China's power has grown significantly. Disputes between Mainland China and Japan over territorial sovereignty and World War II have become increasingly acute. Sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea are heating up as well. U.S. forces in the Asian region face increasingly serious threats.
To avoid being ejected from Asia by Mainland China, Obama has resorted to "re-balancing." He has re-directed U.S. attention toward the Asian-Pacific region. HIs visit to Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines, encircled the Chinese mainland. Such a political move is not hard to understand. One. It sends a message to Mainland China. It says that the US government remains a powerful force in the Asian-Pacific region. Two. It strengthens relations with other Asian-Pacific governments. Three. It attempts to expedite the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), opening doors for American products. It also creates a trade bloc directed against Mainland China.
During Obama's first stop, he gave Japan a major gift. He publicly declared that the US-Japan Security Treaty covers the Diaoyutai Islands. He also expressed concern over Mainland China's unilaterally declared East China Sea air defense identification zone. This failed to persuade Japan to compromise on the TPP however. Negotiations continued until the last minute, when a Joint Communique was reluctantly released. Obama left empty-handed. Upon reaching Korea, Obama promptly blasted Japan's human rights violations against comfort women. He retaliated against the Japanese government and expressed solidarity with South Korea.
Obama's main task in South Korea was to strengthen the ROK-US alliance. It was to exchange views with South Korean President Park Geun-hye over the North Korean nuclear situation and the Northeast Asian strategic scenario. It was to discuss economic matters such as Korean participation in the TPP, and the implementation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. The US government also wants to postpone the transfer of wartime operational control to the South Korean government.
The last time a U.S. president visited Malaysia was in 1966. Since then nearly half a century has passed. This reveals the degree to which the United States has neglected Malaysia. Obama hopes to use the visit to cultivate relations with the Malaysian government. He also hopes to highlight friendly and cooperative relations with a moderate Muslim country. Malaysia is not especially eager to join the TPP. Obama personally lobbied Malaysia. The two sides will conduct follow-up consultations on their agreements. The last leg of the visit was the Philippines. Obama has long indicated that the United States would return to Asia. Besides TPP negotiations, he specifically discussed increasing U.S. troop deployments in the Philippines.
Several governments, including the Japanese government, the Malaysian government, and the Philippine government, have grievances with China over the Diaoyutai Islands, WWII, and the South China Sea. Relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Japanese government, and relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Philippine government have deteriorated. Obama's visit was clearly intended to prevent China from taking stronger action. The declaration of the East China Sea air defense identification zone has the US and other governments worried about a South China Sea air defense identification zone. They hope to block Chinese stealth expansion in the South China Sea.
But China remains the largest force in the region. It has close relations with all neighboring countries. These countries may want United States government backing on individual disputes, but only as protection and as a bargaining chip. They still hope to develop friendly relations with Mainland China and to seek out trade opportunities. If the US wants to use force to suppress Mainland China, the only willing ally is Japan.
The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.
社論－亞洲應更慎重面對中國崛起
2014年04月29日 04:09 中國時報 本報訊
美國總統歐巴馬的亞洲行正盛大進行中，走訪了日本、韓國、馬來西亞和菲律賓。這是一場大動作的外交秀，以姿態與言語力圖彰顯美國對亞太的重視，以及宣示美國在此區依然保有強大的影響力，但顯然局勢已經改變了。
雖然行程風光熱鬧，但歐巴馬這趟來亞洲的背景，卻是上任以來外交成績乏善可陳、美國全球影響力下滑的窘境。以往美國挾其政經軍力量，可以很大程度左右全球事務；但近年來情勢丕變，美國經濟衰退大刪軍事外交預算，民心厭倦海外戰事，已無力支應一個強悍的世界警察角色。
放眼當前多項重要國際紛爭，美國不是拿不出辦法來，就是需要其他國家奧援。歐巴馬上任以來對美國的外交政策並無大戰略，反而把從伊拉克、阿富汗撤軍作為首要工作。長年問題諸如以巴之爭，美國仍然喬不出個解決辦法，對離成功做出核彈愈來愈接近的北韓，也完全無能為力。
至於新的問題，美國也應對得左支右絀。不但在阿拉伯之春動盪中處於邊緣地位，原本親美的埃及穆巴拉克等強人還垮台。敘利亞內戰歐巴馬根本不敢介入，幸而俄羅斯斡旋出了敘國政府放棄化武的方案。現在烏克蘭又出事，歐巴馬無意也無力為此和俄國總統普丁開火，只能和歐盟國家研商一些普丁根本沒看在眼裡的制裁措施。而隨著中國大陸國力大幅增長，中日主權與二戰紛爭日趨尖銳，南海主權之爭也方興未艾，美國在亞洲的勢力版圖更嚴重受到威脅。
為了避免勢力被中國踢出亞洲，歐巴馬祭出「再平衡」策略，重新強調美國對亞太的關注。這次他訪問日、韓、馬、菲，繞著中國大陸走了一圈，這樣的政治動作相當容易理解，一來向中國發出「美國還是亞太強大勢力」的訊息，二來強化與亞太國家的關係，三來希望跨太平洋經濟夥伴協定（TPP）早日獲得成果，替美國產品打開方便門，也對抗以中國大陸為核心的自貿區塊。
歐巴馬第一站就給日本送上大禮，公開宣示釣魚台屬於美日安保條約範圍，並對中國大陸片面宣布東海防空識別區表達關切。不過，這並沒有換來日本在TPP的讓步，聯合公報甚至談判到最後一刻才勉強出爐。空手離去的歐巴馬，到了韓國立即痛批日本的慰安婦制度侵犯人權，既回敬日本一記，也對韓國表達道義相挺。
歐巴馬在南韓的主要任務是強化韓美同盟、與南韓總統朴槿惠對北韓核武及東北亞局勢交換意見，經貿方面則是談韓國參與TPP以及落實韓美自由貿易協定的問題，另外美方還想把戰時作戰指揮權移交給南韓的時間再延後。
上次美國總統訪問馬來西亞，是在1966年，近半世紀以來都未再到訪，足見馬來西亞被美國忽略的程度。歐巴馬希望能藉著這趟訪問經營與馬國的關係，也凸顯與溫和派穆斯林國家的友好合作。馬國對TPP態度並不積極，在歐巴馬的親自遊說下，雙方後續會就協定內容展開磋商。至於最後一站菲律賓，歐巴馬除了一貫作出美國重返亞洲的政治動作、磋商TPP外，也會具體討論增加美軍在菲國輪替兵力。
這幾個國家裡，日、馬、菲與中國之間有釣魚台、南海與二戰歷史恩怨的齟齬，日本和菲律賓近來與中國更是關係惡化，歐巴馬此行確實有阻擋中國採取進一步強勢作為的意思。尤其繼東海防空識別區後，美國對涉及更多國家的南海防空識別區十分關切，希望能在南海營造攔阻中國擴張之隱形陣線。
不過，中國大陸是區域最大勢力，與鄰國各項交流合作都很密切，相關國家即使希望在個別爭執議題上有美國當後盾，但那只是作為保護與談判籌碼，各國仍然希望能與中國大陸發展友好關係並爭取經貿商機。美國如果想強力壓制中國大陸，將會發現願聯手的盟國可能只有日本。
隨著中國大陸的崛起茁壯，亞太局勢必然逐漸出現根本性的變化，美、中及周邊相關國家，包括台灣，都必須及早思考因應，為未來營造一個最有利於各方利益的新互動關係。不需要再回到冷戰的圍堵狀態，美中也未必不能在競爭角力中尋求合作共存模式。歐巴馬走完亞洲這一圈，有些課題，值得各方開始深思籌謀了。
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence
Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 28, 2014
Summary: Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path. But if the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.
Full text below:
Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path.
Taiwan independence and social reform were once the DPP's two pillars. In recent years, a new generation has assumed the mantle of "leftist Taiwan independence" and attempted to formulate a theoretical rationale for their belief system. During the 2012 election, Tsai Ing-wen advocated "approaching [Mainland] China via the world," and "globalization without [Mainland] China." She also advocated a "high degree of social welfare" and a "local economy." She advocated a "leftist Taiwan independence" theoretical framework. We labeled her path "Taiwan independence welfare statism."
But Tsai's leftist socio-economic path is fundamentally at odds with her Taiwan independence political path. Taiwan independence cannot coexist alongside cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Therefore it rejects globalization a survival strategy. But such a political and economic framework cannot afford the high cost of environmental protection and social welfare. Still less can it afford to reduce wealth inequality.
One cannot implement Taiwan independence without a Closed Door Policy. That is why Taiwan independence must oppose globalization. Taiwan independence rooted in a Closed Door Policy will never be able to afford the cost of a welfare state. Leftist commitment to the welfare state, conversely, can only lead to loss of support for Taiwan independence. The two are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. Therefore this check is one that must eventually bounce.
Consider the Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence. Most members of the Sunflower Student Movement are not Taiwan independence advocates. It is merely their leaders who have declared their support for Taiwan independence. Their leaders support the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." Basically they hope to hijack the government in order to implement a Taiwan independence oriented cross-Strait policy.
The Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence apparently does not seek to establish a "Republic of Taiwan." Instead it attempts to implement "one nation on each side," by "backdoor listing" the ROC. Taiwan independence opposition to the STA is hardly surprising. The STA improves cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It pushes Taiwan closer to globalization. This is detrimental to Taiwan independence. Conversely, those who are genuine about the ROC political path, tend to support cross-Strait economic exchanges. They support using the outcome of globalization to control cross-Strait relations. The anti-STA protests led to the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." This made it abundantly clear that the protests were actually Taiwan independence protests led by the oligarchs of the student movement.
Now consider the Sunflower Student Movement's leftism. The central figures in the recent student movement were all familiar faces, invariably in attendence during recent social movements. They opposed Guoguang Petrochemical. They opposed the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. They opposed Wenlin Yuan. They opposed Ta Pu, they opposed the relocation of the Tainan railway. They opposed the STA. They opposed globalization. They stressed generational deprivation and inequality. Such are the leftist elements in their agenda. On the one hand they have used draconian environmental standards to challenge the economic model. To wit, the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. On the other hand they have stressed individual rights over community aspirations, To wit, Wenlin Yuan. Will this leftist political protest against STA, against liberalization, and against globalization, prevent Taipei from joining the TPP and RCEP? Will it force Taiwan to pay 5 to 10% more in tariffs than 90% of its competitors in the export market? This is a question these leftists have no desire to confront and answer. Leftists don't care if Taiwan businesses are unable to compete with Korea in ramen noodle sales in Britain.
Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may oppose the STA. They may use the Articles Pertaining to the Concludiing of Cross-Strait Agreements to repudiate ECFA in toto. But leftist advocates of Taiwan independence must not prevent Taipei from joining the TPP, RCEP and other major FTAs. Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may reject globalization. But they cannot prevent globalization. When 90% of Taiwan's exports are subject to 10% tariffs, when Taiwan is totally marginalized by globalization, how will Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence pay for high environmental protection standards, high-wage standards, and Taiwan independence welfare statism? The fact is, when Taiwan is marginalized by globalization, it will be even more dependent on trade with Mainland China.
Therefore, "leftist Taiwan independence" is merely a political patchwork quilt, one that attempts to add a moral sheen to Taiwan independence. In fact, it is a self-refuting paradox. The more leftist it is, the less it will be able to afford Taiwan independence. The more committed to Taiwan independence it is, the less it will be able to afford leftist policies. In reality, a Taiwan independence welfare state is an impossible utopia.
The more fundamental problem is that leftism and Taiwan independence are usually nothing more than political bargaining chips. The person holding them knows they are no solution to the problems. They merely use them to incite mob sentiment. In 2008, when Tsai Ing-wen led the anti-ECFA protests, she was engaging in classic "leftist Taiwan independence." But by the time of the 2012 election, she was forced to eat her words, and adopt unconditionally the very same Ma administration "crapper" policies she previously denounced as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," and "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Tsai thought she could create a "local economy" out of nothing. But take a look at the Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. What part of that represents is a "local economy," and what part of that represents "cross-Strait economic and trade relations?" Students can play trendy "leftist Taiwan independence" games. But can Tsai Ing-wen pretend not to know better?
If the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.
評太陽花的「左派台獨」
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.28 03:04 am
幾名太陽花學運領袖公開宣示「我主張台灣獨立」，並自稱是「左派台獨」。其中，「台獨」是政治路線，「左派」是社經路線。
「台獨」加「社運」，原本即是民進黨的兩大支柱；近年，新世代將之冠上「左派台獨」的封號，並嘗試將之理論化。蔡英文在二○一二年大選時，一方面主張「由世界走向中國」、「擺脫中國的全球化」，另一方面又主張「高社會福利」、「在地經濟」，即是呈現「左派台獨」的理論架構，當時我們稱之為「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」。
然而，「左派」的社經路線與「台獨」的政治路線，卻存在著基本的矛盾。因為，台獨主張壓抑兩岸經貿關係，因而亦形同否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略；這樣的政經架構，如何能夠支撐其高環保、高社會福利的社經承諾，更如何改善貧富不均的分配問題？
可以斷言，鎖國的台獨（不鎖國，就不能台獨，所以台獨必須反全球化）不可能具有撐持福利國家的社經實力；因為，「左派」的高福利國家承諾只會使「台獨」更失去支撐條件，二者只會相剋，不能相成，因而此承諾終究必成虛妄。
先看太陽花的「台獨」。太陽花學運的多數群眾皆不是台獨，但領袖階層多自我表白為台獨，至提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》，不啻要挾制政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。
太陽花的台獨，應當不是「建立台灣共和國」的台獨，而是「一邊一國」，以中華民國來「借殼上市」的台獨。台獨反服貿是合於邏輯的，因為服貿會使兩岸經貿關係更緊密，亦進一步把台灣推向全球化，不利台獨。反之，若在政治上主張「真正中華民國路線」，則傾向支持兩岸經貿交流，並進而以全球化的成果來節制兩岸關係。所以，這場「反服貿風暴」，從《兩岸協定締結條例》的提出，可以清楚看見這其實是一場學運寡頭操作的台獨風暴。
再看太陽花的「左派」。這場學運的核心人物皆是近年社運場合無役不與的面孔，反國光石化、反核四、反文林苑、反大埔、反台南鐵路東移、反服貿、反全球化，強調世代剝奪及貧富差距；這些都是「左派」的元素，一方面以高環保來質疑經濟模式（核四），另一方面又以凸出個人權益來壓制社區發展的期待（文林苑）。如果這場反服貿的反自由化、反全球化的「左派風暴」破滅了台灣加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ的憧憬，實則將迫使台灣在九成以上的出口市場中較競爭者多付五％至十％的關稅；然而，這似乎不是「左派」想要面對及回答的問題。「左派」當然也不在意台灣的泡麵在英國賣不過韓國！
「左派台獨」可以抵制服貿協議，甚至可以用《兩岸協定締結條例》否決整個ＥＣＦＡ架構；但是「左派台獨」不可能讓ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ等巨型ＦＴＡ簽不成。也就是「左派台獨」可以拒絕全球化，但絕無可能阻擋全球化。那麼，當台灣在九成出口市場要多付十％關稅，當台灣因全球化而被徹底邊緣化後，「左派台獨」用什麼條件來支撐它所承諾的高環保、高工資、高社會福利的「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」？其實，當台灣在全球化中被邊緣化後，結果必然是在經貿上更依賴中國大陸。
所以，「左派台獨」只是一個政治上的技術性拼湊，試圖為「台獨」抹上一層道德胭脂，其實卻是一個相互自噬的悖論：亦即，愈「左派」愈支撐不起「台獨」；愈「台獨」也愈支撐不起「左派」。在現實中，恐無可能出現「社會主義台獨福利國家」這樣的烏托邦。
更根本的問題是：「左派」與「台獨」往往只是政治運動的「籌碼」；操作者明知這不是解決問題的方法，卻用它來煽動仇恨鬥爭的情緒。蔡英文在二○○八年領導反ＥＣＦＡ，即是「左派台獨」的經典之作；但到了二○一二年大選，她卻概括承受了這套「傾中賣台／喪權辱國」的「馬桶政策」。至於蔡英文認為「在地經濟」似乎可以「無中生有」，但看看高雄六合夜市的陸客，那該叫做「在地經濟」或「兩岸經貿」？學生可以玩弄「左派台獨」的時髦，但蔡英文豈能不知其中的虛無？
如果學運領袖能夠領略「真正的中華民國路線」是台灣唯一的生路，則發動一場催促立法院通過「不動產實價課稅」的大遊行，那也許才真有幾分「左派」的丰采。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 28, 2014
Summary: Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path. But if the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.
Full text below:
Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path.
Taiwan independence and social reform were once the DPP's two pillars. In recent years, a new generation has assumed the mantle of "leftist Taiwan independence" and attempted to formulate a theoretical rationale for their belief system. During the 2012 election, Tsai Ing-wen advocated "approaching [Mainland] China via the world," and "globalization without [Mainland] China." She also advocated a "high degree of social welfare" and a "local economy." She advocated a "leftist Taiwan independence" theoretical framework. We labeled her path "Taiwan independence welfare statism."
But Tsai's leftist socio-economic path is fundamentally at odds with her Taiwan independence political path. Taiwan independence cannot coexist alongside cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Therefore it rejects globalization a survival strategy. But such a political and economic framework cannot afford the high cost of environmental protection and social welfare. Still less can it afford to reduce wealth inequality.
One cannot implement Taiwan independence without a Closed Door Policy. That is why Taiwan independence must oppose globalization. Taiwan independence rooted in a Closed Door Policy will never be able to afford the cost of a welfare state. Leftist commitment to the welfare state, conversely, can only lead to loss of support for Taiwan independence. The two are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. Therefore this check is one that must eventually bounce.
Consider the Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence. Most members of the Sunflower Student Movement are not Taiwan independence advocates. It is merely their leaders who have declared their support for Taiwan independence. Their leaders support the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." Basically they hope to hijack the government in order to implement a Taiwan independence oriented cross-Strait policy.
The Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence apparently does not seek to establish a "Republic of Taiwan." Instead it attempts to implement "one nation on each side," by "backdoor listing" the ROC. Taiwan independence opposition to the STA is hardly surprising. The STA improves cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It pushes Taiwan closer to globalization. This is detrimental to Taiwan independence. Conversely, those who are genuine about the ROC political path, tend to support cross-Strait economic exchanges. They support using the outcome of globalization to control cross-Strait relations. The anti-STA protests led to the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." This made it abundantly clear that the protests were actually Taiwan independence protests led by the oligarchs of the student movement.
Now consider the Sunflower Student Movement's leftism. The central figures in the recent student movement were all familiar faces, invariably in attendence during recent social movements. They opposed Guoguang Petrochemical. They opposed the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. They opposed Wenlin Yuan. They opposed Ta Pu, they opposed the relocation of the Tainan railway. They opposed the STA. They opposed globalization. They stressed generational deprivation and inequality. Such are the leftist elements in their agenda. On the one hand they have used draconian environmental standards to challenge the economic model. To wit, the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. On the other hand they have stressed individual rights over community aspirations, To wit, Wenlin Yuan. Will this leftist political protest against STA, against liberalization, and against globalization, prevent Taipei from joining the TPP and RCEP? Will it force Taiwan to pay 5 to 10% more in tariffs than 90% of its competitors in the export market? This is a question these leftists have no desire to confront and answer. Leftists don't care if Taiwan businesses are unable to compete with Korea in ramen noodle sales in Britain.
Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may oppose the STA. They may use the Articles Pertaining to the Concludiing of Cross-Strait Agreements to repudiate ECFA in toto. But leftist advocates of Taiwan independence must not prevent Taipei from joining the TPP, RCEP and other major FTAs. Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may reject globalization. But they cannot prevent globalization. When 90% of Taiwan's exports are subject to 10% tariffs, when Taiwan is totally marginalized by globalization, how will Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence pay for high environmental protection standards, high-wage standards, and Taiwan independence welfare statism? The fact is, when Taiwan is marginalized by globalization, it will be even more dependent on trade with Mainland China.
Therefore, "leftist Taiwan independence" is merely a political patchwork quilt, one that attempts to add a moral sheen to Taiwan independence. In fact, it is a self-refuting paradox. The more leftist it is, the less it will be able to afford Taiwan independence. The more committed to Taiwan independence it is, the less it will be able to afford leftist policies. In reality, a Taiwan independence welfare state is an impossible utopia.
The more fundamental problem is that leftism and Taiwan independence are usually nothing more than political bargaining chips. The person holding them knows they are no solution to the problems. They merely use them to incite mob sentiment. In 2008, when Tsai Ing-wen led the anti-ECFA protests, she was engaging in classic "leftist Taiwan independence." But by the time of the 2012 election, she was forced to eat her words, and adopt unconditionally the very same Ma administration "crapper" policies she previously denounced as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," and "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Tsai thought she could create a "local economy" out of nothing. But take a look at the Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. What part of that represents is a "local economy," and what part of that represents "cross-Strait economic and trade relations?" Students can play trendy "leftist Taiwan independence" games. But can Tsai Ing-wen pretend not to know better?
If the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.
評太陽花的「左派台獨」
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.28 03:04 am
幾名太陽花學運領袖公開宣示「我主張台灣獨立」，並自稱是「左派台獨」。其中，「台獨」是政治路線，「左派」是社經路線。
「台獨」加「社運」，原本即是民進黨的兩大支柱；近年，新世代將之冠上「左派台獨」的封號，並嘗試將之理論化。蔡英文在二○一二年大選時，一方面主張「由世界走向中國」、「擺脫中國的全球化」，另一方面又主張「高社會福利」、「在地經濟」，即是呈現「左派台獨」的理論架構，當時我們稱之為「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」。
然而，「左派」的社經路線與「台獨」的政治路線，卻存在著基本的矛盾。因為，台獨主張壓抑兩岸經貿關係，因而亦形同否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略；這樣的政經架構，如何能夠支撐其高環保、高社會福利的社經承諾，更如何改善貧富不均的分配問題？
可以斷言，鎖國的台獨（不鎖國，就不能台獨，所以台獨必須反全球化）不可能具有撐持福利國家的社經實力；因為，「左派」的高福利國家承諾只會使「台獨」更失去支撐條件，二者只會相剋，不能相成，因而此承諾終究必成虛妄。
先看太陽花的「台獨」。太陽花學運的多數群眾皆不是台獨，但領袖階層多自我表白為台獨，至提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》，不啻要挾制政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。
太陽花的台獨，應當不是「建立台灣共和國」的台獨，而是「一邊一國」，以中華民國來「借殼上市」的台獨。台獨反服貿是合於邏輯的，因為服貿會使兩岸經貿關係更緊密，亦進一步把台灣推向全球化，不利台獨。反之，若在政治上主張「真正中華民國路線」，則傾向支持兩岸經貿交流，並進而以全球化的成果來節制兩岸關係。所以，這場「反服貿風暴」，從《兩岸協定締結條例》的提出，可以清楚看見這其實是一場學運寡頭操作的台獨風暴。
再看太陽花的「左派」。這場學運的核心人物皆是近年社運場合無役不與的面孔，反國光石化、反核四、反文林苑、反大埔、反台南鐵路東移、反服貿、反全球化，強調世代剝奪及貧富差距；這些都是「左派」的元素，一方面以高環保來質疑經濟模式（核四），另一方面又以凸出個人權益來壓制社區發展的期待（文林苑）。如果這場反服貿的反自由化、反全球化的「左派風暴」破滅了台灣加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ的憧憬，實則將迫使台灣在九成以上的出口市場中較競爭者多付五％至十％的關稅；然而，這似乎不是「左派」想要面對及回答的問題。「左派」當然也不在意台灣的泡麵在英國賣不過韓國！
「左派台獨」可以抵制服貿協議，甚至可以用《兩岸協定締結條例》否決整個ＥＣＦＡ架構；但是「左派台獨」不可能讓ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ等巨型ＦＴＡ簽不成。也就是「左派台獨」可以拒絕全球化，但絕無可能阻擋全球化。那麼，當台灣在九成出口市場要多付十％關稅，當台灣因全球化而被徹底邊緣化後，「左派台獨」用什麼條件來支撐它所承諾的高環保、高工資、高社會福利的「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」？其實，當台灣在全球化中被邊緣化後，結果必然是在經貿上更依賴中國大陸。
所以，「左派台獨」只是一個政治上的技術性拼湊，試圖為「台獨」抹上一層道德胭脂，其實卻是一個相互自噬的悖論：亦即，愈「左派」愈支撐不起「台獨」；愈「台獨」也愈支撐不起「左派」。在現實中，恐無可能出現「社會主義台獨福利國家」這樣的烏托邦。
更根本的問題是：「左派」與「台獨」往往只是政治運動的「籌碼」；操作者明知這不是解決問題的方法，卻用它來煽動仇恨鬥爭的情緒。蔡英文在二○○八年領導反ＥＣＦＡ，即是「左派台獨」的經典之作；但到了二○一二年大選，她卻概括承受了這套「傾中賣台／喪權辱國」的「馬桶政策」。至於蔡英文認為「在地經濟」似乎可以「無中生有」，但看看高雄六合夜市的陸客，那該叫做「在地經濟」或「兩岸經貿」？學生可以玩弄「左派台獨」的時髦，但蔡英文豈能不知其中的虛無？
如果學運領袖能夠領略「真正的中華民國路線」是台灣唯一的生路，則發動一場催促立法院通過「不動產實價課稅」的大遊行，那也許才真有幾分「左派」的丰采。
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected
Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 25, 2014
Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out. Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.
Full text below:
The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out.
The Sunflower Student Movement highlighted the creativity and vitality of young people. They set up a live webcams at the protest sites. They used a variety of Internet tools to promote their beliefs. They used a variety of images, catchphrases, and sketches to incite passions and influence public perceptions. They initiated discussions debating the future of the movement and the nation. During the "da cang hua forum" that took place near the end of the student movement, young people engaged in untrammeled challenges to authority.
From one perspective, the Sunflower Student Movement's freedom and lack of restraint was a positive influence on Taiwan society. Chinese society has long been conservative, with a intense patriarchal flavor. Even after the transition to democracy on Taiwan, adult authority remains strong. During public debates and decision-making, people of different social status should be able to engage in dialogues among equals. But this remains more ideal than reality. The student movement challenged the authority of the "adult world." It transformed the STA, a boring trade issue. All of a sudden, government propaganda became the common concern of Everyman. Many more were able to join the debate and be heard. Despite numerous fallacies and prejudices, the student movemetn played a role in emancipating the public and challenging the government's long-held monopoly on political discourse. In this sense, the Sunflower Student Movement was both valuable and significant.
In fact, opposition to authority has long been the defining characteristic of student movements. During the previous century, China's May Fourth Movement opposed both foreign aggressors and domestic traitors. It was anti-imperialist, patriotic, and dedicated to saving the nation. The New Culture Movement was imbued with a strong anti-feudal, anti-traditional, anti-authoritarian flavor as well. Its animating spirit was "reevaluate all values."
During the 1960s, student movements in Europe and Japan were also imbued with a strong anti-authoritarian flavor. As pundits have noted, Western capitalist society underwent severe changes following World War II. Changes took place in the traditional family system, in ethics, and in value systems. Lifestyles and the educational system fell under the sway of bureaucrats and plutocrats. They even served the military-industrial complex. Young people felt alienated from the system. A new youth culture and identity arose. Rebeling against authority and against the establishment became part of the younger generation's collective identity. This expressed itself not just in the student movement, but in music, movies, and other aspects of life.
Such revolts against authority however, always have limits. No social system can avoid all authority. Otherwise it will have difficulty functioning. And if young people "revaluate all values" and do "whatever they damn well please," there will be serious consequences for youth, for the nation, and for society as a whole. That is not necessarily a positive development.
In fact, 140 years ago, Marxists and other anti-capitalists revolted against capitalist authority. They engaged in a major debate with anarchists, who advocated absolute freedom. Socialist theoretician Friedrich Engels discussed the issue at great length. Engels stated his position clearly. He said authority refers to the will of others, imposed on us. On the other hand, authority is a prerequisite to submission. Therefore we have a problem. Is there any social system that can do without such relationships? Can authority become something meaningless, that disappears?
The answer of course is no. Engels cited the example of railways and shipwrecks. He pointed out that for a railway to run smoothly, cooperation among countless people is essential. To avoid mishaps, cooperation must follow an exact timetable. This requires a will able to handle every problem, in charge of everything. In other words, a clear authority. When a shipwreck occurrs, during an emergency situation, to save lives, people must immediately obey the will of a sing person. This requires absolute authority.
The reason is simple. It has to do with life. Authority may sometimes be annoying, and freedom is of course appealing. But the answer lies in between. This is not a question of choosing A or B. Young people will soon be leaving the campus. They will soon be entering society. Young people may become part of a business. They may become part of the public sector. They may become SOHO types, or small business owners. As long as people need to engage in production, or engage in labor, they will not be able to do whatever they damn well please. They will have to abide by certain norms. These include the legal system and commercial contracts. They will have to subordinate themselves to this or that authority. Too much freedom and the first person hurt will not others, but those young people who reject all authority.
From the individual level to the national level, the autonomy and freedom of the ROC is everyones' goal. But deeper understanding, mastering the norms of international order and reality, are basic skills necessary to preserve a nation's freedom and undependence, In international relations, one can never do whatever one damn well pleases. Only a clear understanding of the international order and its limits, will enable one to maximize one's living space.
Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.
思想可以解放 權威不能全然否定
2014年04月25日中國時報
太陽花學運當然會是台灣歷史上一件大事，歷史會怎麼評價這場學運，其實還難論定，這場學運究竟帶給台灣社會哪些正面與負面的衝擊與刺激，也需要相當時間的觀察。
太陽花學運確實展現了年輕人的創意與活力，他們架起了網路現場實況轉播，他們善用各種網路工作宣揚理念，他們活用各種影像、詞語、繪畫來渲染情緒，影響社會大眾的視聽，他們發展各種討論，辯論運動和國家的未來，學運結束前後的「大腸花論壇」，也可以看到青年們百無禁忌、挑戰各種權威的自由與奔放。
從某個角度來說，太陽花學運展現的自由與奔放，對台灣社會有一定的正面作用，華人社會向來保守，有著濃厚的家父長制色彩，即使在台灣這個歷經民主化轉型的社會，「大人」的權威仍然相當強固，在公共事務的討論與決策上，不同社會位置的人相互「平等對話」始終還只是理想。學運學生以自己的強力行動，挑戰了「大人世界」的權威，讓服貿這種生冷的議題，一下子從政府高官上對下的「宣導」，轉變為庶民共同關心的話題，也讓更多民間的聲音能夠進入討論領域，即使中間存在許多謬誤與偏見，但是在一定程度上確實起到了「思想解放」的作用，甚至大大挑戰了政府、政黨長期壟斷的話語權，太陽花學運在這些方面，確實有其價值與意義。
其實，「反權威」可以說是歷來學生運動的基本性格。上個世紀中國的五四運動，就直接的起源而言，固然是「外抗強權、內除國賊」的反帝、愛國、救亡等訴求，但是其前後的新文化運動，卻有著濃烈的反封建、反傳統、反權威色彩，「重估一切價值」被認為是運動的核心精神。
1960年代從歐美到日本等地的學生運動，也有著強烈的「反權威」色彩，論者指出，由於第二次世界大戰後西方資本主義社會的劇烈變遷，傳統的家庭制度、倫理與價值觀、生活方式以及教育制度的官僚化、財閥化，甚至赤裸地為軍事工業綜合體服務，使得青年對體制感到疏離，逐漸形成新的青年文化與認同，反叛權威、反抗體制成了青年世代的集體認同，除了展現在學生運動上，更展現在音樂、電影、生活方式等各方面。
然而，這種對於「權威」的反抗，始終有其限度，而任何社會制度大概都無法避免存在某種程度的「權威」，否則就難以運行。而青年們如果從「重估一切價值」，走向了「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」，往往會產生極其嚴重的負面效應，對於青年、對於整個國家社會，都未必是正面而積極的。
其實，早在140多年前，當反抗「資本主義權威」的馬克思主義者和同樣反對資本主義，卻崇尚絕對自由的無政府主義者在進行大論辯時，社會主義的理論家恩格斯早就認真討論過這個問題了。恩格斯說得很清楚，如果「權威是指把別人的意志強加於我們；另一方面，權威又是以服從為前提的」，那麼，我們就面臨一個問題：有沒有任何社會制度中「可以不要這種關係」，「使這個權威成為沒有意義的東西而歸於消失呢」？
答案自然是否定的。恩格斯以鐵路和海難為例，他指出鐵路要運行順暢，「無數人的合作也是絕對必要的；為了避免不幸事故，這種合作必須依照準確規定的時間來進行」，這就需要「一個能處理一切所屬問題的起支配作用的意志」，也就是「表現得很明顯的權威」。至於船難發生時，「在危險關頭，要拯救大家的生命，所有的人就得立即絕對服從一個人的意志」，需要「最專斷的權威」。
道理很簡單，也很生活化。「權威」固然有時令人生厭，「自由」固然相當美好，但是在兩者之間，卻不是零和的二擇一的關係。青年們是要離開校園的，進入社會之後，不管青年們是進入企業、進入公部門，還是成為SOHO族、成為小老闆，只要人們需要從事生產、需要從事勞動，大概都很難真正做到「隨心所欲」，都要遵守一定的規範，不管是法律制度或者是商業契約，也就有服從某一些權威的需要。如果自由過了頭，最先受到傷害的，不是別人，正是那「反抗一切權威」的青年朋友。
再從個人層次衍生到國家層次，台灣的自主、自由當然是人人追求的目標，但是深切了解、掌握國際秩序的規範與現實，卻是國家得以維持某種程度自由、自主的基本功，在國際關係當中，從來沒有「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」這件事，只有認清國際秩序的限制所在，也才有爭取最大生存空間的可能。
追求個人自主和國家自主的青年人，不能不調整好「自由」與「權威」的關係，如此才真正是台灣之福。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 25, 2014
Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out. Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.
Full text below:
The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out.
The Sunflower Student Movement highlighted the creativity and vitality of young people. They set up a live webcams at the protest sites. They used a variety of Internet tools to promote their beliefs. They used a variety of images, catchphrases, and sketches to incite passions and influence public perceptions. They initiated discussions debating the future of the movement and the nation. During the "da cang hua forum" that took place near the end of the student movement, young people engaged in untrammeled challenges to authority.
From one perspective, the Sunflower Student Movement's freedom and lack of restraint was a positive influence on Taiwan society. Chinese society has long been conservative, with a intense patriarchal flavor. Even after the transition to democracy on Taiwan, adult authority remains strong. During public debates and decision-making, people of different social status should be able to engage in dialogues among equals. But this remains more ideal than reality. The student movement challenged the authority of the "adult world." It transformed the STA, a boring trade issue. All of a sudden, government propaganda became the common concern of Everyman. Many more were able to join the debate and be heard. Despite numerous fallacies and prejudices, the student movemetn played a role in emancipating the public and challenging the government's long-held monopoly on political discourse. In this sense, the Sunflower Student Movement was both valuable and significant.
In fact, opposition to authority has long been the defining characteristic of student movements. During the previous century, China's May Fourth Movement opposed both foreign aggressors and domestic traitors. It was anti-imperialist, patriotic, and dedicated to saving the nation. The New Culture Movement was imbued with a strong anti-feudal, anti-traditional, anti-authoritarian flavor as well. Its animating spirit was "reevaluate all values."
During the 1960s, student movements in Europe and Japan were also imbued with a strong anti-authoritarian flavor. As pundits have noted, Western capitalist society underwent severe changes following World War II. Changes took place in the traditional family system, in ethics, and in value systems. Lifestyles and the educational system fell under the sway of bureaucrats and plutocrats. They even served the military-industrial complex. Young people felt alienated from the system. A new youth culture and identity arose. Rebeling against authority and against the establishment became part of the younger generation's collective identity. This expressed itself not just in the student movement, but in music, movies, and other aspects of life.
Such revolts against authority however, always have limits. No social system can avoid all authority. Otherwise it will have difficulty functioning. And if young people "revaluate all values" and do "whatever they damn well please," there will be serious consequences for youth, for the nation, and for society as a whole. That is not necessarily a positive development.
In fact, 140 years ago, Marxists and other anti-capitalists revolted against capitalist authority. They engaged in a major debate with anarchists, who advocated absolute freedom. Socialist theoretician Friedrich Engels discussed the issue at great length. Engels stated his position clearly. He said authority refers to the will of others, imposed on us. On the other hand, authority is a prerequisite to submission. Therefore we have a problem. Is there any social system that can do without such relationships? Can authority become something meaningless, that disappears?
The answer of course is no. Engels cited the example of railways and shipwrecks. He pointed out that for a railway to run smoothly, cooperation among countless people is essential. To avoid mishaps, cooperation must follow an exact timetable. This requires a will able to handle every problem, in charge of everything. In other words, a clear authority. When a shipwreck occurrs, during an emergency situation, to save lives, people must immediately obey the will of a sing person. This requires absolute authority.
The reason is simple. It has to do with life. Authority may sometimes be annoying, and freedom is of course appealing. But the answer lies in between. This is not a question of choosing A or B. Young people will soon be leaving the campus. They will soon be entering society. Young people may become part of a business. They may become part of the public sector. They may become SOHO types, or small business owners. As long as people need to engage in production, or engage in labor, they will not be able to do whatever they damn well please. They will have to abide by certain norms. These include the legal system and commercial contracts. They will have to subordinate themselves to this or that authority. Too much freedom and the first person hurt will not others, but those young people who reject all authority.
From the individual level to the national level, the autonomy and freedom of the ROC is everyones' goal. But deeper understanding, mastering the norms of international order and reality, are basic skills necessary to preserve a nation's freedom and undependence, In international relations, one can never do whatever one damn well pleases. Only a clear understanding of the international order and its limits, will enable one to maximize one's living space.
Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.
思想可以解放 權威不能全然否定
2014年04月25日中國時報
太陽花學運當然會是台灣歷史上一件大事，歷史會怎麼評價這場學運，其實還難論定，這場學運究竟帶給台灣社會哪些正面與負面的衝擊與刺激，也需要相當時間的觀察。
太陽花學運確實展現了年輕人的創意與活力，他們架起了網路現場實況轉播，他們善用各種網路工作宣揚理念，他們活用各種影像、詞語、繪畫來渲染情緒，影響社會大眾的視聽，他們發展各種討論，辯論運動和國家的未來，學運結束前後的「大腸花論壇」，也可以看到青年們百無禁忌、挑戰各種權威的自由與奔放。
從某個角度來說，太陽花學運展現的自由與奔放，對台灣社會有一定的正面作用，華人社會向來保守，有著濃厚的家父長制色彩，即使在台灣這個歷經民主化轉型的社會，「大人」的權威仍然相當強固，在公共事務的討論與決策上，不同社會位置的人相互「平等對話」始終還只是理想。學運學生以自己的強力行動，挑戰了「大人世界」的權威，讓服貿這種生冷的議題，一下子從政府高官上對下的「宣導」，轉變為庶民共同關心的話題，也讓更多民間的聲音能夠進入討論領域，即使中間存在許多謬誤與偏見，但是在一定程度上確實起到了「思想解放」的作用，甚至大大挑戰了政府、政黨長期壟斷的話語權，太陽花學運在這些方面，確實有其價值與意義。
其實，「反權威」可以說是歷來學生運動的基本性格。上個世紀中國的五四運動，就直接的起源而言，固然是「外抗強權、內除國賊」的反帝、愛國、救亡等訴求，但是其前後的新文化運動，卻有著濃烈的反封建、反傳統、反權威色彩，「重估一切價值」被認為是運動的核心精神。
1960年代從歐美到日本等地的學生運動，也有著強烈的「反權威」色彩，論者指出，由於第二次世界大戰後西方資本主義社會的劇烈變遷，傳統的家庭制度、倫理與價值觀、生活方式以及教育制度的官僚化、財閥化，甚至赤裸地為軍事工業綜合體服務，使得青年對體制感到疏離，逐漸形成新的青年文化與認同，反叛權威、反抗體制成了青年世代的集體認同，除了展現在學生運動上，更展現在音樂、電影、生活方式等各方面。
然而，這種對於「權威」的反抗，始終有其限度，而任何社會制度大概都無法避免存在某種程度的「權威」，否則就難以運行。而青年們如果從「重估一切價值」，走向了「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」，往往會產生極其嚴重的負面效應，對於青年、對於整個國家社會，都未必是正面而積極的。
其實，早在140多年前，當反抗「資本主義權威」的馬克思主義者和同樣反對資本主義，卻崇尚絕對自由的無政府主義者在進行大論辯時，社會主義的理論家恩格斯早就認真討論過這個問題了。恩格斯說得很清楚，如果「權威是指把別人的意志強加於我們；另一方面，權威又是以服從為前提的」，那麼，我們就面臨一個問題：有沒有任何社會制度中「可以不要這種關係」，「使這個權威成為沒有意義的東西而歸於消失呢」？
答案自然是否定的。恩格斯以鐵路和海難為例，他指出鐵路要運行順暢，「無數人的合作也是絕對必要的；為了避免不幸事故，這種合作必須依照準確規定的時間來進行」，這就需要「一個能處理一切所屬問題的起支配作用的意志」，也就是「表現得很明顯的權威」。至於船難發生時，「在危險關頭，要拯救大家的生命，所有的人就得立即絕對服從一個人的意志」，需要「最專斷的權威」。
道理很簡單，也很生活化。「權威」固然有時令人生厭，「自由」固然相當美好，但是在兩者之間，卻不是零和的二擇一的關係。青年們是要離開校園的，進入社會之後，不管青年們是進入企業、進入公部門，還是成為SOHO族、成為小老闆，只要人們需要從事生產、需要從事勞動，大概都很難真正做到「隨心所欲」，都要遵守一定的規範，不管是法律制度或者是商業契約，也就有服從某一些權威的需要。如果自由過了頭，最先受到傷害的，不是別人，正是那「反抗一切權威」的青年朋友。
再從個人層次衍生到國家層次，台灣的自主、自由當然是人人追求的目標，但是深切了解、掌握國際秩序的規範與現實，卻是國家得以維持某種程度自由、自主的基本功，在國際關係當中，從來沒有「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」這件事，只有認清國際秩序的限制所在，也才有爭取最大生存空間的可能。
追求個人自主和國家自主的青年人，不能不調整好「自由」與「權威」的關係，如此才真正是台灣之福。
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The Limits of Civil Disobedience
The Limits of Civil Disobedience
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 24, 2014
Summary: Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.
Full text below:
The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. But the social and political movements provoked by the students remain on the ascendant. During the student movement the television cameras captured the naive and uncomplicated expressions of the protesting youths. They also revealed the methodical planning behind the movement. They television cameras forced adults to look upon the students with grudging admiration. They enabled the student movement to win public support and recognition.
The students have dispersed. But the passions surrounding the movement have intensified. Misconceptions about the student movement have shaken the foundations of our social order. It is time to let go of passions, and cooly contemplate the Sunflower phenomenon. If one sits back and allows misconceptions to persist, eventually our government and society will cease to function. This is very worrisome.
Mobs beseiged and occupied government offices. Many people would rationalize away their behavior as "civil disobedience." Civil disobedience has suddenly become a buzz word. Student groups occupied the Legislative Yuan, stormed the Executive Yuan, and eventually laid seige to a police substation. Groups opposed to the construction of windmills occupied the atrium of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Groups opposed to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant began a hunger strike and surrounded the Legislative Yuan. Every one of them invoked the concept of "civil disobedience." Even KMT legislators invoked "civil disobedience" when questioning Premier Chiang. This forced political scientists to offer an impromptu class in remedial political science for legislators.
Can Premier Chiang's interpretation allay legislative doubts? We do not know. But we can be sure that "civil disobedience" rhetoric has already confused many members of the public. This is reminiscent of the STA. Many people have no idea what the STA stands for. Yet they march in lockstep to oppose it. Many people have no idea what the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy is about. Yet they have hurriedly jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. They oppose this. They oppose that. They trample over existing laws. They refuse to abide by the results of legal protocol. Instead, they trot out "civil disobedience" rhetoric to rationalize illegal conduct. Apparently illegal conduct is able to magically seize the moral high ground.
Sunflower student leaders Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were questioned on suspicion of obstructing official business. They surrendered to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office. Their statements brimmed over with boasts that their conduct constituted "civil disobedience." They essentially proclaimed that even if their conduct was unreasonable, disorderly, and illegal, they need merely redefined it as "civil disobedience" in order to escape punishment. They may even be praised as heroes. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting trotted out this high-minded rhetoric. They even argued that their conduct saved constitutional rule and democracy.
This is truly clever sophistry. Their conduct clearly undermined constitutional rule and democracy. But all they had to do was label it "civil disobedience," and presto, they are instantly transformed into saviors of constitutional rule and democracy. Such useful political rhetoric., They could ignore the rule of law. They could destroy the system. They could do whatever they wanted. Afterwards, all they had to do was to spin their conduct as "civil disobedience." They can then claim without blushing or breathing hard, that they were in fact saving the system, therefore the police cannot arrest them, prosecutors cannot indict them, and judges cannot judge them. If they do, then they are resorting to "state violence" against them.
Is constitutional rule and democracy on today's Taiwan in fact on the brink of a crisis? Has it in fact been brought to the level where it must be saved by the likes of Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting? Can it be saved only by occupying the Legislative Yuan, storming the Executive Yuan, and beseiging a police precinct station? If so, then the 30 years since the lifting of martial law count for nothing. The constitutional reforms, the second change in ruling parties, the praise the nation has earned as an exemplar of third wave democratic transition and consolidation. These and other achievements all count for nothing.
Or perhaps we can pose the question in a different way. Citizens pay taxes and elect legislators. The vast majority of the students have yet to pay any taxes. Yet they occupied the Legislative Yuan for over 20 days. They seriously delayed legislative business. Many major bills affecting the public welfare could not be reviewed, harming the interests of many citizens. Yet the students who occupied the Legislative Yuan declared that by engaging in "civil disobedience," they were saving constitutional rule and democracy. Put bluntly, they, not the taxpayers, are the true "citizens." As for those who choose to obey the system, who pay their taxes according to the law, who voted for the representatives of their choice? Well, tough luck. They probably got what they deserved.
Actually, this is the biggest crisis on Taiwan. Our democracy holds elections. It elects a government and a legislature, according to majority rule. But opposition political parties and groups are unwilling to accept the results. So they use obstructionism and mass movements to overthrow majority rule, and destroy the rules of the game. They euphemistically refer to this as "civil disobedience." They further claim that only they represent the people. Democracy is what they say it is, nothing else. Anything that fails to go their way, is labeled a backroom deal. They have flagrantly destroyed the system, yet blatantly boast that they saved the system.
"On Civil Disobedience" is a famous essay, written in 1894, by famed American author Henry David Thoreau. He was protesting against the Mexican-American War and slavery at the time. He refused to pay the poll tax. He was arrested and imprisoned. Later, during the mid-20th century, African American civil rights leader Martin Luther King protested discriminatory laws and policies against blacks in the southern states.
He too invoked "civil disobedience" during his protests. These examples constitute the true fulfillment of justice. They were not motivated by the desire to benefit a particular political party's private interests.
Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.
社論－公民不服從的界限
2014年04月24日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊
太陽花學運雖然已經落幕，學生們激起的社會與政治運動卻方興未艾。學運期間的電視鏡頭前，街頭那些單純而質樸孩子們的臉孔，展現出細膩的規畫力與有條不紊的執行力，莫不讓大人們刮目相看，讓學運贏得國人一定的肯定與支持。
學生已經散去，盤旋上空的激情反而愈繞愈緊，學運傳遞的一些錯誤觀念，正逐漸衝擊維持社會穩定運作的重要基礎。現在應該是放下激情，冷靜思考「太陽花現象」的時機。如果坐視錯誤觀念繼續穿透這個社會，不久以後，整個政府與社會的運作會趨於崩解，我們對此極為憂心。
首先，一些人為了合理化脫序的群眾包圍或占據官署作為，「公民不服從」突然成了流行用語，從學運團體發動占領國會、攻占行政院，到後續衍生的群眾包圍警局，乃至反風車團體占領經濟部中庭，甚至這幾天為反核四所啟動的絕食、包圍立院等，無一不可以扯上「公民不服從」，連國民黨立委都拿「公民不服從」的議題來質詢江揆，逼得這位昔日的政治學者得緊急給立委上課！
江揆的詮釋能否為立委解惑我們不知道，但我們可以確定的是，「公民不服從」語言已經發揮了它應有的混淆效果。這就好像許多人根本還沒搞懂究竟什麼是「服貿」，就跟著反服貿，還未認識「核四」是怎麼回事，就急著跳進來反核四，反來反去，觸犯了一堆現行法，又不甘心接受司法審理，於是，再紛紛搬出「公民不服從」論調，來合理化自己所有的違法行徑。結果，明明是違法脫序的行為，卻彷彿還占據了道德的制高點。
太陽花學運領袖林飛帆和陳為廷，因為涉嫌妨礙公務遭到約談，日前主動前往北檢「自首」，在他們洋洋灑灑的聲明中，即是宣稱他們的一切所作所為，都是依循所謂「公民不服從」的法理。這無異宣稱：就算再不合理的違法脫序行為，只要被界定為「公民不服從」，不僅不應被懲罰，還應該被歌頌才對！林飛帆和陳為廷就是搬出了這個冠冕堂皇的推論前提，進一步宣稱他們所採取的行動，是為了挽救已陷險境的憲政、民主！
這真的是一個高明的詭辯！一樁明明是在破壞憲政、民主的作為，冠上了所謂「公民不服從」的外衣，卻可以立即翻轉為是在挽救憲政與民主！多麼好用的政治修辭，我可以無視法治，我可以破壞體制，我甚至可以為所欲為，只要宣稱我是在踐履「公民不服從」，我可以臉不紅、氣不喘的宣稱我其實是在挽救體制，所以警察不能法辦我，司法更不能審判我，否則就是在對我行使「國家暴力」！
問題是，當前台灣的憲政與民主，真的已經瀕臨到陷入險境，淪落到非得要由林飛帆和陳為廷來挽救的地步？或是非得要占領國會、攻占政院，包圍警局才能挽救的局面？若真是如此，那麼台灣過去30年從解嚴、憲改、兩度政黨輪替，甚至被譽為全球第三波民主轉型與鞏固的模範生，這些林林總總的成就，根本不值一提，是嗎？
或者，容我們換一個方式問：我們合法納稅的公民所選出來的國會，被一群絕大多數尚未納稅的學生占領了20多天，導致立法進度嚴重遲滯，諸多重大民生法案無法完成立法程序，不少公民的權益因此受損，但占領立院的學生卻宣稱，他們是在行使「公民不服從」，他們是在挽救憲政與民主，講得再直白一些，他們才是「公民」，至於那些選擇服從體制，合法納稅，投票選出自己代議士的公民呢？只能自認倒楣，甚至活該嗎？
這其實正是台灣當前最大的危機。我們透過民主的競賽規則，選出一個代表多數民意的政府與國會，在野的政黨與團體不願接受這個結果，於是藉由議事抵制與群眾運動來推翻這個多數，甚至破壞這個競賽規則，還美化稱之其為「公民不服從」，再進一步宣稱只有他們才能代表人民，依他們的意才叫民主，不依他們意就是黑箱，他們明明摧毀了體制，卻還大剌剌宣稱是在挽救體制。
「論公民的不服從」是19世紀的美國著名作家亨利梭羅於1849年所撰寫的一篇短文，他當年是為了抗議美墨戰爭、奴隸制度拒絕付人頭稅，而被逮捕入獄；稍後20世紀中葉的美國黑人民權領袖金恩博士，亦曾為了抗議南部各州歧視黑人的法律與政策，而同樣藉由「公民不服從」的訴求加以抗爭。這些事例之所以會載入史冊，是他們確實是為了踐履某種實質正義，而非為讓特定政黨圖謀一黨之私。
且容我們不客氣的說，如果說「公民不服從」可以被這般的濫用，那我們何需要什麼民主與選舉？何需要什麼恪遵體制？反正贏家勝者全拿，輸家就玩「公民不服從」即可。只不過今日的國民黨被「公民不服從」整得寸步難行，但是政黨輪替後，民進黨就一定不會遭逢「公民不服從」的衝撞嗎？且讓我們拭目以待。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 24, 2014
Summary: Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.
Full text below:
The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. But the social and political movements provoked by the students remain on the ascendant. During the student movement the television cameras captured the naive and uncomplicated expressions of the protesting youths. They also revealed the methodical planning behind the movement. They television cameras forced adults to look upon the students with grudging admiration. They enabled the student movement to win public support and recognition.
The students have dispersed. But the passions surrounding the movement have intensified. Misconceptions about the student movement have shaken the foundations of our social order. It is time to let go of passions, and cooly contemplate the Sunflower phenomenon. If one sits back and allows misconceptions to persist, eventually our government and society will cease to function. This is very worrisome.
Mobs beseiged and occupied government offices. Many people would rationalize away their behavior as "civil disobedience." Civil disobedience has suddenly become a buzz word. Student groups occupied the Legislative Yuan, stormed the Executive Yuan, and eventually laid seige to a police substation. Groups opposed to the construction of windmills occupied the atrium of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Groups opposed to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant began a hunger strike and surrounded the Legislative Yuan. Every one of them invoked the concept of "civil disobedience." Even KMT legislators invoked "civil disobedience" when questioning Premier Chiang. This forced political scientists to offer an impromptu class in remedial political science for legislators.
Can Premier Chiang's interpretation allay legislative doubts? We do not know. But we can be sure that "civil disobedience" rhetoric has already confused many members of the public. This is reminiscent of the STA. Many people have no idea what the STA stands for. Yet they march in lockstep to oppose it. Many people have no idea what the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy is about. Yet they have hurriedly jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. They oppose this. They oppose that. They trample over existing laws. They refuse to abide by the results of legal protocol. Instead, they trot out "civil disobedience" rhetoric to rationalize illegal conduct. Apparently illegal conduct is able to magically seize the moral high ground.
Sunflower student leaders Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were questioned on suspicion of obstructing official business. They surrendered to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office. Their statements brimmed over with boasts that their conduct constituted "civil disobedience." They essentially proclaimed that even if their conduct was unreasonable, disorderly, and illegal, they need merely redefined it as "civil disobedience" in order to escape punishment. They may even be praised as heroes. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting trotted out this high-minded rhetoric. They even argued that their conduct saved constitutional rule and democracy.
This is truly clever sophistry. Their conduct clearly undermined constitutional rule and democracy. But all they had to do was label it "civil disobedience," and presto, they are instantly transformed into saviors of constitutional rule and democracy. Such useful political rhetoric., They could ignore the rule of law. They could destroy the system. They could do whatever they wanted. Afterwards, all they had to do was to spin their conduct as "civil disobedience." They can then claim without blushing or breathing hard, that they were in fact saving the system, therefore the police cannot arrest them, prosecutors cannot indict them, and judges cannot judge them. If they do, then they are resorting to "state violence" against them.
Is constitutional rule and democracy on today's Taiwan in fact on the brink of a crisis? Has it in fact been brought to the level where it must be saved by the likes of Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting? Can it be saved only by occupying the Legislative Yuan, storming the Executive Yuan, and beseiging a police precinct station? If so, then the 30 years since the lifting of martial law count for nothing. The constitutional reforms, the second change in ruling parties, the praise the nation has earned as an exemplar of third wave democratic transition and consolidation. These and other achievements all count for nothing.
Or perhaps we can pose the question in a different way. Citizens pay taxes and elect legislators. The vast majority of the students have yet to pay any taxes. Yet they occupied the Legislative Yuan for over 20 days. They seriously delayed legislative business. Many major bills affecting the public welfare could not be reviewed, harming the interests of many citizens. Yet the students who occupied the Legislative Yuan declared that by engaging in "civil disobedience," they were saving constitutional rule and democracy. Put bluntly, they, not the taxpayers, are the true "citizens." As for those who choose to obey the system, who pay their taxes according to the law, who voted for the representatives of their choice? Well, tough luck. They probably got what they deserved.
Actually, this is the biggest crisis on Taiwan. Our democracy holds elections. It elects a government and a legislature, according to majority rule. But opposition political parties and groups are unwilling to accept the results. So they use obstructionism and mass movements to overthrow majority rule, and destroy the rules of the game. They euphemistically refer to this as "civil disobedience." They further claim that only they represent the people. Democracy is what they say it is, nothing else. Anything that fails to go their way, is labeled a backroom deal. They have flagrantly destroyed the system, yet blatantly boast that they saved the system.
"On Civil Disobedience" is a famous essay, written in 1894, by famed American author Henry David Thoreau. He was protesting against the Mexican-American War and slavery at the time. He refused to pay the poll tax. He was arrested and imprisoned. Later, during the mid-20th century, African American civil rights leader Martin Luther King protested discriminatory laws and policies against blacks in the southern states.
He too invoked "civil disobedience" during his protests. These examples constitute the true fulfillment of justice. They were not motivated by the desire to benefit a particular political party's private interests.
Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.
社論－公民不服從的界限
2014年04月24日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊
太陽花學運雖然已經落幕，學生們激起的社會與政治運動卻方興未艾。學運期間的電視鏡頭前，街頭那些單純而質樸孩子們的臉孔，展現出細膩的規畫力與有條不紊的執行力，莫不讓大人們刮目相看，讓學運贏得國人一定的肯定與支持。
學生已經散去，盤旋上空的激情反而愈繞愈緊，學運傳遞的一些錯誤觀念，正逐漸衝擊維持社會穩定運作的重要基礎。現在應該是放下激情，冷靜思考「太陽花現象」的時機。如果坐視錯誤觀念繼續穿透這個社會，不久以後，整個政府與社會的運作會趨於崩解，我們對此極為憂心。
首先，一些人為了合理化脫序的群眾包圍或占據官署作為，「公民不服從」突然成了流行用語，從學運團體發動占領國會、攻占行政院，到後續衍生的群眾包圍警局，乃至反風車團體占領經濟部中庭，甚至這幾天為反核四所啟動的絕食、包圍立院等，無一不可以扯上「公民不服從」，連國民黨立委都拿「公民不服從」的議題來質詢江揆，逼得這位昔日的政治學者得緊急給立委上課！
江揆的詮釋能否為立委解惑我們不知道，但我們可以確定的是，「公民不服從」語言已經發揮了它應有的混淆效果。這就好像許多人根本還沒搞懂究竟什麼是「服貿」，就跟著反服貿，還未認識「核四」是怎麼回事，就急著跳進來反核四，反來反去，觸犯了一堆現行法，又不甘心接受司法審理，於是，再紛紛搬出「公民不服從」論調，來合理化自己所有的違法行徑。結果，明明是違法脫序的行為，卻彷彿還占據了道德的制高點。
太陽花學運領袖林飛帆和陳為廷，因為涉嫌妨礙公務遭到約談，日前主動前往北檢「自首」，在他們洋洋灑灑的聲明中，即是宣稱他們的一切所作所為，都是依循所謂「公民不服從」的法理。這無異宣稱：就算再不合理的違法脫序行為，只要被界定為「公民不服從」，不僅不應被懲罰，還應該被歌頌才對！林飛帆和陳為廷就是搬出了這個冠冕堂皇的推論前提，進一步宣稱他們所採取的行動，是為了挽救已陷險境的憲政、民主！
這真的是一個高明的詭辯！一樁明明是在破壞憲政、民主的作為，冠上了所謂「公民不服從」的外衣，卻可以立即翻轉為是在挽救憲政與民主！多麼好用的政治修辭，我可以無視法治，我可以破壞體制，我甚至可以為所欲為，只要宣稱我是在踐履「公民不服從」，我可以臉不紅、氣不喘的宣稱我其實是在挽救體制，所以警察不能法辦我，司法更不能審判我，否則就是在對我行使「國家暴力」！
問題是，當前台灣的憲政與民主，真的已經瀕臨到陷入險境，淪落到非得要由林飛帆和陳為廷來挽救的地步？或是非得要占領國會、攻占政院，包圍警局才能挽救的局面？若真是如此，那麼台灣過去30年從解嚴、憲改、兩度政黨輪替，甚至被譽為全球第三波民主轉型與鞏固的模範生，這些林林總總的成就，根本不值一提，是嗎？
或者，容我們換一個方式問：我們合法納稅的公民所選出來的國會，被一群絕大多數尚未納稅的學生占領了20多天，導致立法進度嚴重遲滯，諸多重大民生法案無法完成立法程序，不少公民的權益因此受損，但占領立院的學生卻宣稱，他們是在行使「公民不服從」，他們是在挽救憲政與民主，講得再直白一些，他們才是「公民」，至於那些選擇服從體制，合法納稅，投票選出自己代議士的公民呢？只能自認倒楣，甚至活該嗎？
這其實正是台灣當前最大的危機。我們透過民主的競賽規則，選出一個代表多數民意的政府與國會，在野的政黨與團體不願接受這個結果，於是藉由議事抵制與群眾運動來推翻這個多數，甚至破壞這個競賽規則，還美化稱之其為「公民不服從」，再進一步宣稱只有他們才能代表人民，依他們的意才叫民主，不依他們意就是黑箱，他們明明摧毀了體制，卻還大剌剌宣稱是在挽救體制。
「論公民的不服從」是19世紀的美國著名作家亨利梭羅於1849年所撰寫的一篇短文，他當年是為了抗議美墨戰爭、奴隸制度拒絕付人頭稅，而被逮捕入獄；稍後20世紀中葉的美國黑人民權領袖金恩博士，亦曾為了抗議南部各州歧視黑人的法律與政策，而同樣藉由「公民不服從」的訴求加以抗爭。這些事例之所以會載入史冊，是他們確實是為了踐履某種實質正義，而非為讓特定政黨圖謀一黨之私。
且容我們不客氣的說，如果說「公民不服從」可以被這般的濫用，那我們何需要什麼民主與選舉？何需要什麼恪遵體制？反正贏家勝者全拿，輸家就玩「公民不服從」即可。只不過今日的國民黨被「公民不服從」整得寸步難行，但是政黨輪替後，民進黨就一定不會遭逢「公民不服從」的衝撞嗎？且讓我們拭目以待。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)