The Republic of China: A Force for Cohesion
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 9, 2014
Summary: The Republic of China has become a banner increasingly able to
inspire the public. Its significance must be broadened and deepened. It
must be made more forward-looking, developmentally oriented,
future-oriented, rather than narrow, self-demeaning, and inflexible. The
ROC has powerful justifications for its existence. The "National
Unification Guidelines" includes such justifications and principles. It
also includes a comprehensive process. It deserves greater
consideration. It deserves to be updated and enriched.
Full Text Below:
Taiwan independence can become a form of religious faith. Opposition to Taiwan independence, on the other hand, cannot become a religious faith. In which case, how should non-Taiwan independence forces formulate their ideals and generate cohesion?
Chen Chang-wen, an attorney at law, wrote an editorial for the China Times. In a clear and straightforward manner he said, "Taiwan independence is a religious faith. But opposition to Taiwan independence cannot become a form of religious faith. Instead, it is a repudiation of faith, one that lacks a firm center." Chen Chang-wen thinks that "Such a repudiation of faith is rooted in fear. Fear will only make people flee. It cannot inspire them to embrace something from within themselves." This is the key reason why non-Taiwan independence forces on Taiwan gradually began losing their idealism and momentum beginning in 2008. This is the key reason why Taiwan independence has gotten stronger day by day.
The Sunflower Student Movement forced Ma Ying-jeou to promote party reforms. Many people are wondering just what are the KMT's ideals and beliefs? Chen Chang-wen argued that opposition to Taiwan independence cannot become a form of religious faith. Jaw Shao-kang said "The raison d'etre for the KMT cannot be merely to oppose Taiwan independence, or enable cynical politicians to fulfill their person ambitions. If the KMT cannot come to that realization, then it has lost touch with its ideals. How then can it appeal to the people and touch people's hearts?" Jaw said, "The KMT must reclaim its ideals. Only ideals can attract young people. Only ideals can give the party hope."
Taiwan independence for some people is indeed a kind of religious faith. It does indeed wield a certain kind of power over them. This "ideal" may look pretty on the outside. But that is an illusion. It will eventually lead to destruction. It lacks a solid foundation. It lacks a real future. The question is, apart from opposition to Taiwan-independence, what choice does Taiwan have? Which political party, the KMT, the PFP, or the New Party, has offered such a choice?
Ma Ying-jeou has proposed and practiced a policy of "no re-unification, no Taiwan independence, and no use of force." This may be the way he positions Taiwan during the next two years. After 2008, brushfires broke out repeatedly in the Taiwan Strait. Cross-Strait tensions increased. "No reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" was a position that most people could depend on for the time being. It represented the preservation of the status quo. It meant that the orderly lives of ordinary people would not be disrupted. But it was hardly a bold position. It could hardly inspire people, and lead them forward. As Chen Chang-wen said, It had a powerful odor of "passivity and longing for safety."
Consider the current international and cross-strait situation. "No reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" is already lagging behind. It cannot unite the people. It cannot lead Taiwan. Taiwan intelligentsia must do more than merely oppose Taiwan independence. They must offer a new practical vision not divorced from reality. A new political vision cannot emerge out of nowhere. It must have a solid foundation, rooted in reality. This solid foundation is the Republic of China.
The Republic of China has a multitude of virtues. It boasts legitimacy, practicality, development potential, and attractiveness.
One. After undergoing democratic transition on Taiwan, the Republic of China ceased being a "foreign regime" or "government in exile." After democratic reforms and numerous elections, the ROC has been thoroughly updated. It boasts a solid foundation that can ensure stability and prosperity for Taiwan.
Two. The Republic of China is a practical option. It offers a stark contrast to the reckless adventurism of Taiwan independence. Even mainstream Green Camp leaders have shifted in the direction of the Republic of China. The Republic of China has become the practical option in Blue vs. Green and reunification vs. independence controversies. It has become the common denominator in the minds of the people.
Three. The Mainland authorities once perceived the ROC as "past history." But with the peaceful development of cross-strait relations, the Mainland authorities are increasingly willing to recognize the Republic of China. The Mainland constitution has ironically become a pillar of strength for cross-Strait relations.
Four. The banner of the republic remains a valuable asset in the development of cross-strait peace, and a valuable legacy for the Republic of China. This may be the result of historical nostalgia, of the Republic of China's rich and diverse culture, of the vitality of its civil society, or of memories of the era's constitutional thought. Whatever the reason, it continues to hold considerable appeal for the people on the Mainland,
For a long time the Mainland authorities repudiated the ROC, or at least avoided acknowledging its existence. But more and more, Mainland scholars are "emancipating their thinking" about Taiwan. National Society of Taiwan Studies Executive Vice President and Secretary General Zhou Zhihuai said "When it comes to reasonable arrangements, (in cross-strait political relations) more imaginative solutions can be found." Peking University Taiwan Research Institute president Li Yihu said we should adopt a "keep what we have unchanged, whatever is added can be reformed" approach. What the two sides have is declarations that their own sovereignty includes the other's constitution. In other words, "one China, two constitutions," means that "one China" and "two constitutions" can coexist.
This means the ROC's "one China framework" is not "past tense." On the contrary, it offers new opportunities and vitality. It can become a stabilizing and constructive force in cross-Strait relations. It can inspire people and bolster their political convictions.
The Republic of China has become a banner increasingly able to inspire the public. Its significance must be broadened and deepened. It must be made more forward-looking, developmentally oriented, future-oriented, rather than narrow, self-demeaning, and inflexible. The ROC has powerful justifications for its existence. The "National Unification Guidelines" includes such justifications and principles. It also includes a comprehensive process. It deserves greater consideration. It deserves to be updated and enriched.
社論－讓中華民國成為凝聚的力量
2014年05月09日 04:09 中國時報 編輯部
太陽花學運被認為與台獨畫上等號。圖為學運人員10日凌晨在議場內拆卸海報標語。（本報系資料照片）
太陽花學運被認為與台獨畫上等號。圖為學運人員10日凌晨在議場內拆卸海報標語。（本報系資料照片）
如果台獨可以成為信仰，反台獨不能成為信仰，那麼，非台獨力量要如何創造理想、凝聚團結呢？
陳長文律師在《中國時報》發表專欄，直白而清晰地表示，「台獨是信仰，反台獨卻不構成信仰。反，是一種中心不定的否定」。陳長文認為，「這樣的反，力量懸於恐懼，恐懼只能讓人逃避，並不能從內我中形成擁抱的力量」。這是台灣非台獨力量自2008年後逐漸失去理想與動能，台獨力量卻日益彰顯的關鍵原因。
太陽花學運迫使馬英九必須推動黨務改革，許多人心中也浮現疑問，國民黨的理想與信仰究竟是什麼？陳長文提出「『反台獨』不能成為信仰」的大哉問，趙少康則說：「國民黨存在的目的絕不應該只是反對台獨，或只是讓一些現實政客遂其私人野心，如果國民黨想不通這一點，失去理想性，又怎麼能夠號召群眾、振奮人心？」他還說：「國民黨要找回理想性，有理想才能吸引年輕人，這個黨才有希望」。
台獨，確實是一些人的信仰，也產生了某種力量，只是，這種「理想」看似美好，卻始於虛幻，終於破壞，缺乏紮實的根基，沒有真正的未來。問題在於，在「反台獨」之外，台灣真正的選擇是什麼？國民黨、親民黨或新黨，哪個政黨能提出，或提供這樣的選擇。
馬英九曾經提出，也正在實踐，也許未來兩年仍將持續的台灣定位論述，就是「不統、不獨、不武」。2008年前後，台海政治烽火不斷，兩岸關係緊張，「不統、不獨、不武」是多數老百姓暫時可以依靠、信賴的選擇，因為這代表了現狀的維持，代表了庶民的生活秩序不會被動搖。然而，這畢竟不是一種積極的選擇，不是足以號召人心、帶領民眾前進，誠如陳長文所說，這有著濃厚的「偏安的消極性」。
就當前的國際和兩岸形勢看來，「不統、不獨、不武」已落後於形勢，也不足以凝聚人心、帶領台灣。在「反台獨」之外，台灣有識之士必須提出新的、既不脫離現實又切實可行的願景。當然，任何新的政治願景與論述，不可能憑空產生，總得在現實的土壤中有著深厚的基礎，而這個土壤、這個基礎就是中華民國。
事實上，中華民國的正當性、務實性、發展性和吸引力都充分具備。首先，在台灣民主轉型之後，中華民國之於台灣，絕對不再是某些人所說的「外來政權」、「流亡政權」，相反的，歷經民主改革和多次選舉，中華民國體制不斷自我修補調整，已為台灣長久的安定繁榮扎下了深厚的基礎。其次，中華民國的務實穩健，與台獨的急進冒險形成鮮明的對比，連綠營的主流立場都只能往中華民國靠攏趨同。中華民國在藍綠政治、統獨爭議之中，越來越成為務實的選擇，成為民眾心中的最大公約數。
第三，中華民國本來已被大陸當局視為「歷史」，但是，兩岸關係進入和平發展期後，大陸當局愈來愈體認中華民國及其憲法已微妙的成為穩定兩岸關係的力量與支柱。
第四，事實上，「民國」這面旗幟，不管是因為對歷史的懷舊、對民國時期文化豐富多元、民間社會生機澎湃的想望，或是對當時憲政思潮的追想，在大陸民間仍具有相當的吸引力，這絕對是兩岸和平發展及中華民國的寶貴資產。
當然，長期以來，大陸當局對於中華民國是否定的，至少是迴避的，但「解放思想」越來越是大陸涉台學者的主張與期待，全國台灣研究會執行副會長兼祕書長周志懷表示，「在（兩岸政治關係）合情合理安排問題上可以發揮更大的想像力」。北京大學台灣研究院李義虎院長也提出：兩岸關係應該秉持「存量不變、增量改革」的構想，所謂兩岸的「存量」就是兩岸宣示主權均包括對方的「兩憲」，即「一中兩憲」，亦即「一中」與「兩憲」並存。
沿著這樣的思路，在一中架構下的中華民國，就不僅不是「過去式」，反而煥發新的機會與生命力，它將能成為兩岸關係中一個穩定的、建設性的力量，成為越來越能號召人心、凝聚力量的「政治信仰」。
當然，中華民國要成為更有號召力量的旗幟，還需要拓寬、加深它的意涵，讓他更有前瞻性、發展性、未來性，而不是被窄化、矮化、僵固化。所以，中華民國需要「配套論述」，例如，《國統綱領》就是有目標、有原則、有進程的完整論述，是值得被重新考慮、調整並使之更為豐富。
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Taiwan Citizen Union: DPP Ally or Rival?
Taiwan Citizen Union: DPP Ally or Rival?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 8, 2014
Summary: The anti-nuclear and anti-STA movements constitute a serious challenge to the Ma administration. But they have also marginalized the opposition DPP. DPP insiders hold two very different views about the two movements. Lin Cho-shui believes that Lin Yi-hsiung's Taiwan Citizen [sic] Union (TCU) poses a major threat to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen by contrast, believes that the student movement and social movements provide synergy for the DPP and promote social change. She believes "Students will always need the DPP."
Full Text Below:
The anti-nuclear and anti-STA movements constituted a serious challenge to the Ma administration. But they have also marginalized the opposition DPP. DPP insiders hold two very different views about the two movements. Lin Cho-shui believes that Lin Yi-hsiung's Taiwan Citizen [sic] Union (TCU) poses a major threat to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen by contrast, believes that the student movement and social movements provide synergy for the DPP and promote social change. She believes "Students will always need the DPP."
These social movements have an ambiguous relationship with the DPP that requires further observation. But judging by the anti-STA and anti-nuclear protests alone, the DPP already has a close relationship with student movement and social movement leaders. The only question is whether the social movements, which are currently allies, will eventually become rivals. Will they erode or cannibalize the DPP's support inside the Green Camp. That is difficult to predict.
Lin Yi-hsiung is the key figure behind both the anti-STA and anti-nuclear movements. When the students occupied the Legislative Yuan, Lin Yi-hsiung began a sit-in outside the Legislative Yuan. That was no accident. When Lin Fei-fan tearfully embraced Lin Yi-hsiung, that was no accident. When the students withdrew, Lin Yi-hsiung announced his hunger strike. That was no accident. When the Ma administration announced that it was mothballing the NPP4, Lin Yi-hsiung ended his hunger strike and asked the public to hone its skills, learn from experience, and become better fighters. This was of course also part of his step by step plan.
Early this year, rumors emerged that Lin Yi-hsiung was forming a "new political group." This group would call itself the "Taiwan Citizen Union," or TCU. On 31 March, the organization officially applied for legal status as an "association." On the same day, the student movement launched its "3/30 March on Ketegelan Boulevard." Obviously it was striking while the iron was hot. In addition to to Lin Yi-hsiung, TCU players included legal scholar Huang Guochang, whom students refer to as the "student movement god of war." They included former Judicial Reform Foundation chief executive Lin Feng-cheng. It is easy to see how the professors and lawyers are speaking out for the student movement on stage, while offering them guidance from behind the scenes.
Student movement supporters and participants may not be aware of what is going on behind the scenes. They participated in anti-STA or anti-nuclear demonstrations merely because they were dissatisfied with the status quo. Key members of the movement combined the power of the student movement with the power of the anti-nuclear movement, and forced the Ma administration to knuckle under on the NPP4. This was quite an accomplishment for the TCU. The next surgical strike could take place anywhere. Lin Yi-hsiung has even declared his opposition to free trade zones. He is not the least bit worried that he will lack supplies, ammunition, or public support.
Lin Cho-shui is concerned. He believes the TCS constitutes a threat to the DPP inside the Green Camp. The STA and NPP4 have been stopped in their tracks. Unfortunately the public thinks this was the work of street protests, and that prolonged DPP obstructionism in the Legislative Yuan achieved nothing. The public therefore, is disappointed with the DPP. It may switch its allegiance to the TCU, which displays the banner of "civic movement" and characterizes itself as a "Third Force." According to polls conducted in the wake of the Sunfllower Student Movement, over 40% of the public now categorizes itself as "neutral." This is more than those who categorize themselves as either Blue or Green. The recent wave of social movements may or may not have been instigated by the DPP. But at least on the surface, they have hurt both the ruling KMT and the opposition DPP.
Tsai Ing-wen considers the student movement and social movements allies of the DPP. She believes "Students will always need the DPP." Tsai Ing-wen may be overly optimistic. Or she may know exactly what she is doing and is maintaining strategic and tactical control over the movement. Current DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has been criticized for poor performance during the student movement, He was forced to withdraw from the May party chairmanship election. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, is the beneficiary of the post-student movement changing of the guard. Two of the student leaders were local youth corps members when she ran for president. Of course she has no reason for concern. In late February Lin Yi-hsiung announced his intention to organize a political group. He made clear that his goal was to "prevent the KMT from achieving a legislative majority in 2016." This being the case, perceiving the TCU as a DPP ally rather than as rebels or rivals, is entirely reasonable.
Long-term confrontation between the Blue and Green camps has hobbled Taiwan's democracy. The public is dissatisfied with increasing Blue vs. Green confrontation. If Green Camp allies wearing "citizens' movement" clothing break such a deadlock, what will happen to democracy on Taiwan? What if most people are unwilling to don Green Camp uniforms? What if they defy or rebel against the DPP? What will happen to democracy on Taiwan then?
It would appear that Lin Yi-hsiung has yet to predict or grasp the consequences of that outcome.
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 8, 2014
Summary: The anti-nuclear and anti-STA movements constitute a serious challenge to the Ma administration. But they have also marginalized the opposition DPP. DPP insiders hold two very different views about the two movements. Lin Cho-shui believes that Lin Yi-hsiung's Taiwan Citizen [sic] Union (TCU) poses a major threat to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen by contrast, believes that the student movement and social movements provide synergy for the DPP and promote social change. She believes "Students will always need the DPP."
Full Text Below:
The anti-nuclear and anti-STA movements constituted a serious challenge to the Ma administration. But they have also marginalized the opposition DPP. DPP insiders hold two very different views about the two movements. Lin Cho-shui believes that Lin Yi-hsiung's Taiwan Citizen [sic] Union (TCU) poses a major threat to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen by contrast, believes that the student movement and social movements provide synergy for the DPP and promote social change. She believes "Students will always need the DPP."
These social movements have an ambiguous relationship with the DPP that requires further observation. But judging by the anti-STA and anti-nuclear protests alone, the DPP already has a close relationship with student movement and social movement leaders. The only question is whether the social movements, which are currently allies, will eventually become rivals. Will they erode or cannibalize the DPP's support inside the Green Camp. That is difficult to predict.
Lin Yi-hsiung is the key figure behind both the anti-STA and anti-nuclear movements. When the students occupied the Legislative Yuan, Lin Yi-hsiung began a sit-in outside the Legislative Yuan. That was no accident. When Lin Fei-fan tearfully embraced Lin Yi-hsiung, that was no accident. When the students withdrew, Lin Yi-hsiung announced his hunger strike. That was no accident. When the Ma administration announced that it was mothballing the NPP4, Lin Yi-hsiung ended his hunger strike and asked the public to hone its skills, learn from experience, and become better fighters. This was of course also part of his step by step plan.
Early this year, rumors emerged that Lin Yi-hsiung was forming a "new political group." This group would call itself the "Taiwan Citizen Union," or TCU. On 31 March, the organization officially applied for legal status as an "association." On the same day, the student movement launched its "3/30 March on Ketegelan Boulevard." Obviously it was striking while the iron was hot. In addition to to Lin Yi-hsiung, TCU players included legal scholar Huang Guochang, whom students refer to as the "student movement god of war." They included former Judicial Reform Foundation chief executive Lin Feng-cheng. It is easy to see how the professors and lawyers are speaking out for the student movement on stage, while offering them guidance from behind the scenes.
Student movement supporters and participants may not be aware of what is going on behind the scenes. They participated in anti-STA or anti-nuclear demonstrations merely because they were dissatisfied with the status quo. Key members of the movement combined the power of the student movement with the power of the anti-nuclear movement, and forced the Ma administration to knuckle under on the NPP4. This was quite an accomplishment for the TCU. The next surgical strike could take place anywhere. Lin Yi-hsiung has even declared his opposition to free trade zones. He is not the least bit worried that he will lack supplies, ammunition, or public support.
Lin Cho-shui is concerned. He believes the TCS constitutes a threat to the DPP inside the Green Camp. The STA and NPP4 have been stopped in their tracks. Unfortunately the public thinks this was the work of street protests, and that prolonged DPP obstructionism in the Legislative Yuan achieved nothing. The public therefore, is disappointed with the DPP. It may switch its allegiance to the TCU, which displays the banner of "civic movement" and characterizes itself as a "Third Force." According to polls conducted in the wake of the Sunfllower Student Movement, over 40% of the public now categorizes itself as "neutral." This is more than those who categorize themselves as either Blue or Green. The recent wave of social movements may or may not have been instigated by the DPP. But at least on the surface, they have hurt both the ruling KMT and the opposition DPP.
Tsai Ing-wen considers the student movement and social movements allies of the DPP. She believes "Students will always need the DPP." Tsai Ing-wen may be overly optimistic. Or she may know exactly what she is doing and is maintaining strategic and tactical control over the movement. Current DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has been criticized for poor performance during the student movement, He was forced to withdraw from the May party chairmanship election. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, is the beneficiary of the post-student movement changing of the guard. Two of the student leaders were local youth corps members when she ran for president. Of course she has no reason for concern. In late February Lin Yi-hsiung announced his intention to organize a political group. He made clear that his goal was to "prevent the KMT from achieving a legislative majority in 2016." This being the case, perceiving the TCU as a DPP ally rather than as rebels or rivals, is entirely reasonable.
Long-term confrontation between the Blue and Green camps has hobbled Taiwan's democracy. The public is dissatisfied with increasing Blue vs. Green confrontation. If Green Camp allies wearing "citizens' movement" clothing break such a deadlock, what will happen to democracy on Taiwan? What if most people are unwilling to don Green Camp uniforms? What if they defy or rebel against the DPP? What will happen to democracy on Taiwan then?
It would appear that Lin Yi-hsiung has yet to predict or grasp the consequences of that outcome.
Taiwan Independence Street Violence: Resurgence or Countercurrent
Taiwan Independence Street Violence: Resurgence or Countercurrent
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 7, 2014
Summary: Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement exploded on March 18. On April 30, Lin Yi-hsiung ended his fast against the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, aka NPP4. Taiwan independence rhetoric has returned. Street protests have returned. Mob violence has returned. Has the tide turned in the affairs of men?
Most of those who participated in the Sunflower Student Movement were not advocates of Taiwan independence. But the mob leaders were. They were unquestionably Taiwan independence zealots. The Sunflower Student Movement demanded a "Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Bill."
Its purpose? To force the government to change its cross-Strait policy to one consistent with Taiwan independence. The nuclear power plant controversy obviously involved anti-nuclear demands. But Lin Yi-hsiung's declaration reveals that the amended referendum law, opposition to the free trade zones, the "Peoples Constitutional Convention," and the constitutional amendment constituted their real political agenda. Their real goal was a nuclear-free Taiwan independence homeland. Such a homeland would not tolerate cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Hence their opposition to the STA. They would demand an even more isolationist policy. Hence their opposition to free trade zones.
Ever since the protests erupted, the STA dispute has ostensibly been over generational deprivation. The NPP4 dispute has ostensibly been over nuclear safety. These concerns are of course real. Today the protests have temporarily died down. What is the Sunflower Student Movement's solution to these problems? Is it a Taiwan independence closed door policy? What is Lin Yi-hsiung's solution to exorbitant electricity rates?
Is it an independent, nuclear free "Nation of Taiwan." Are these the proper solutions to Taiwan's problems?
Many attribute the current controversy over the STA and the NPP4
to "poor communications." But is Taiwan independence the panacea for all that ails Taiwan? That is hardly a matter of "poor communications."
The Sunflower Student Movement may have scored a victory in the political arena. But it failed to score a victory in the moral arena. Its victory consisted of forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan and using it as a bargaining chip for political blackmail. By the same token, Lin Yi-hsiung may have scored a political victory with his hunger strike. But he too failed to score a victory in the moral arena. His victory used his own death by starvation to blackmail the Ma administration. Therefore, they may have gained the upper hand on the STA and the NPP4. But is Taiwan independence really the solution to these problems?
Consider the global perspective, cross-Strait fluctuations, and internal changes. Lin Yi-hsiung threatened to starve himself to death in response to the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan in response to STA. It smashed windows, blocked off streets, and threatened to assassinate a local precinct police chief. It stooped to brute force extortion to achieve short term goals. But it failed to reach just and reasonable solutions. This was true for the STA. This was true for the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung cannot achieve Taiwan independence by forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan, conducting hunger strikes, and lying in the street in front of cars. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung
hope that by opposing the STA, the NPP4, and free trade zones, they can promote a constitutional amendment to achieve Taiwan independence. But that is a pipe dream. They will not achieve Taiwan independence. But they will destroy Taiwan.
Taiwan independence, street protests, and mob violence have temporarily receded. Over the past two years, DPP insiders have even talked about "freezing the Taiwan independence party platform" and promoting a "Resolution on the Republic of China." So far however, no progress has been made toward reform. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have once again raised the banner of Taiwan independence. Doing so could put DPP reformation on indefinite hold. The DPP may not be able to complete the "final mile." It could be compelled to revert to Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung may be delighted at the reversion to Taiwan independence. But the Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen hope to return to power in 2016. For them this amounts to an intolerable setback. .
Chen Shui-bian assumed power in 2000. He was forced to accept the 1992 consensus and political reintegration. But Lee Teng-hui founded the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which bound Chen Shui-bian hand and foot. Lee eventually forced Chen to endure defeat as a result of Lee's cross-Strait policy. Today, Lin Yi-hsiung's "Taiwan Citizen Union," clearly identifies with Taiwan independence. Is the Taiwan Citizen Union a successor to the TSU? Will Lin Yi-hsiung hobble Tsai Ing-wen the way Lee Teng-hui hobbled Chen Shui-bian? The Lee Teng-hui tail wagged the Chen Shui-bian dog. Will the Lin Yi-hsiung tail wag the Tsai Ing-wen dog in the same fashion?
The storm has temporarily subsided. Some may harbor doubts about the STA. But does anyone really think Taiwan independence and isolationism are the answer? Some may harbor doubts about the NPP4. But do people really approve of usingnuclear power as a bargaining chip on behalf of Taiwan independence?
Taiwan's most serious problem is Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence advocates turn almost every public issue and social movement into political chips. This includes opposition to Guoguang Petrochemical, to Wenlin Yuan, to Ta Pu, to school curricula, to the STA, and to the NPP4. All reveal the heavy hand of "Nation of Taiwan civil disobedience toward the ROC" and the promotion of Taiwan independence by means of social movements. Public issues are no longer debated fairly and rationally. This type of "social movement" uses public issues as pretexts to take over the government and implement Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan and conducted hunger strikes. They have blocked off streets, caused traffic jams, and engaged in street violence. Their political blackmail has not won them any genuine victories. Quite the contrary, victims of their political blackmail who were forced to make concessions did not really lose. Taiwan was the loser. No one was a winner.
Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.
台獨‧街頭‧暴力：是回潮還是逆流
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.07 02:14 am
自三一八太陽花學運爆發，至四三○林義雄結束禁食及核四事件落幕，台獨論述回來了，街頭運動回來了，群眾暴力也回來了。這究竟是歷史的回潮，或時代的逆流？
這場風暴中出現的群眾，絕大多數未必是台獨主張者，但這場風暴的主導者無疑是持台獨立場。太陽花最後提出的《兩岸協定締結條例》，即是欲逼令政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。至於核四爭議，固然有反核訴求，但從林義雄的聲明可知，補正公投法、反對自由經濟示範區、促成人民憲政會議，及推動修憲，始是更高層次的政治目標。其標舉的遠景是一個非核的台獨家園，非但不容兩岸經貿交流（反服貿協議），並主張更廣泛的鎖國政策（反自由經濟示範區）。
風暴之起，服貿爭議是因世代剝奪，核四則是因核安疑慮，這些皆是真實存在的社會氛圍。如今風暴暫歇，倘若太陽花給的解答是台獨鎖國，而林義雄給的答案亦是高電價的非核鎖國台獨，這算不算是為台灣未來找到了正確的答案？
這場風暴，無論服貿或核四，眾人皆謂是因「溝通不足」所致；但是，台獨能否成為台灣的終極解決方案，恐怕更是一個「溝通不足」的議題。太陽花看似在這場角力中獲勝，但未必贏在論理，而是勝在以霸占立院為其政治勒索的「籌碼」；同理，林義雄看似在此役獲勝，其實亦未必贏在論理，而是勝在以死相逼的政治勒索。因而，即使他們在服貿及核四爭議中占了上風，但能否以台獨為台灣的終極解決方案，卻仍是個大問號。
從整個世局、兩岸消長及台灣內部的情勢變遷來看，欲以霸占立院來解答服貿問題，或欲以禁食尋死來解答核四問題，或欲以砸窗破門、圍堵街道、乃至恐嚇分局長「被暗殺」來解答問題，即或能在暴力勒索下暫時得到一個扭曲的答案，但那絕非正當合理的答案。服貿問題如此，核四問題如此，因而也不可能用霸占立院、絕食尋死、趴車堵路來實現台獨。因此，若想由反服貿、反核四、反自由經濟示範區，及推動修憲來實現台獨，這些恐怕都是想入非非。只恐台獨不成，台灣已毀。
但是，經此風暴，台獨、街頭、暴力皆已回潮。在過去兩年，民進黨內甚至出現論及「凍結台獨黨綱」及《中華民國決議文》層次的轉型呼籲；如今，轉型未見進展，太陽花及林義雄卻已再度擎起台獨大旗。這可能使民進黨的轉型工程就此「封存」，「最後一哩」也被迫不得不走上「回頭路」。太陽花及林義雄，或許以台獨回潮而沾沾自得；但對目標懸於二○一六而想要重返執政的民進黨及蔡英文而言，這卻是一個不可承受的大逆流。
陳水扁在二○○○年初執政權，曾有接受「九二共識」及研議「政治統合」的構想；卻因李登輝組成台聯，扼制了陳水扁，使陳水扁終於敗在兩岸政策。如今，林義雄的「公民組合」呼之欲出，且明顯是以台獨號召為政治認同。然則，「公民組合」會不會是民進黨的下一個「台聯」？林義雄會不會是蔡英文的下一個「李登輝」？李扁關係是「尾巴搖狗」的關係，未來林蔡關係是否亦復如此？
風暴暫歇，即使是對「服貿協議」有疑慮，但國人贊不贊成以「台獨鎖國」為解答？即使是對「核四／核電」有疑慮，但國人同不同意以反核做為台獨運動推波助瀾的籌碼？
台灣的問題癥結在台獨。當台獨主張者幾乎將所有的公共議題及「社運」皆視為「政治籌碼」，從反國光石化、反文林苑、反大埔、反課綱，到反服貿、反核四，皆可見「台灣國對中華民國公民不服從」、「以社運推動台獨」的陰影，公共議題即失去了公平理性的辯論平台。這種性質的「社運」，是在藉公共議題推翻政權，而欲在取得政權後操作台獨。如今再加上霸占立院、禁食尋死、圍路堵車等街頭及暴力手段；遂使因政治勒索而得逞者不是真勝，因被政治勒索而讓步者不是真輸。如此，台灣只剩內耗相殘，沒有贏家。
以街頭、暴力及禁食而回頭的台獨，不可能成為台灣的終極解決方案；因為，這在本質上是政治勒索，而不是民主公論。這場台獨、街頭及暴力的大回潮，其實是對民主的大摧殘，也是一股將使台灣內耗相殘的大逆流。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 7, 2014
Summary: Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement exploded on March 18. On April 30, Lin Yi-hsiung ended his fast against the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, aka NPP4. Taiwan independence rhetoric has returned. Street protests have returned. Mob violence has returned. Has the tide turned in the affairs of men?
Most of those who participated in the Sunflower Student Movement were not advocates of Taiwan independence. But the mob leaders were. They were unquestionably Taiwan independence zealots. The Sunflower Student Movement demanded a "Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Bill."
Its purpose? To force the government to change its cross-Strait policy to one consistent with Taiwan independence. The nuclear power plant controversy obviously involved anti-nuclear demands. But Lin Yi-hsiung's declaration reveals that the amended referendum law, opposition to the free trade zones, the "Peoples Constitutional Convention," and the constitutional amendment constituted their real political agenda. Their real goal was a nuclear-free Taiwan independence homeland. Such a homeland would not tolerate cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Hence their opposition to the STA. They would demand an even more isolationist policy. Hence their opposition to free trade zones.
Ever since the protests erupted, the STA dispute has ostensibly been over generational deprivation. The NPP4 dispute has ostensibly been over nuclear safety. These concerns are of course real. Today the protests have temporarily died down. What is the Sunflower Student Movement's solution to these problems? Is it a Taiwan independence closed door policy? What is Lin Yi-hsiung's solution to exorbitant electricity rates?
Is it an independent, nuclear free "Nation of Taiwan." Are these the proper solutions to Taiwan's problems?
Many attribute the current controversy over the STA and the NPP4
to "poor communications." But is Taiwan independence the panacea for all that ails Taiwan? That is hardly a matter of "poor communications."
The Sunflower Student Movement may have scored a victory in the political arena. But it failed to score a victory in the moral arena. Its victory consisted of forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan and using it as a bargaining chip for political blackmail. By the same token, Lin Yi-hsiung may have scored a political victory with his hunger strike. But he too failed to score a victory in the moral arena. His victory used his own death by starvation to blackmail the Ma administration. Therefore, they may have gained the upper hand on the STA and the NPP4. But is Taiwan independence really the solution to these problems?
Consider the global perspective, cross-Strait fluctuations, and internal changes. Lin Yi-hsiung threatened to starve himself to death in response to the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan in response to STA. It smashed windows, blocked off streets, and threatened to assassinate a local precinct police chief. It stooped to brute force extortion to achieve short term goals. But it failed to reach just and reasonable solutions. This was true for the STA. This was true for the NPP4. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung cannot achieve Taiwan independence by forcibly occupying the Legislative Yuan, conducting hunger strikes, and lying in the street in front of cars. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung
hope that by opposing the STA, the NPP4, and free trade zones, they can promote a constitutional amendment to achieve Taiwan independence. But that is a pipe dream. They will not achieve Taiwan independence. But they will destroy Taiwan.
Taiwan independence, street protests, and mob violence have temporarily receded. Over the past two years, DPP insiders have even talked about "freezing the Taiwan independence party platform" and promoting a "Resolution on the Republic of China." So far however, no progress has been made toward reform. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have once again raised the banner of Taiwan independence. Doing so could put DPP reformation on indefinite hold. The DPP may not be able to complete the "final mile." It could be compelled to revert to Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung may be delighted at the reversion to Taiwan independence. But the Democratic Progressive Party and Tsai Ing-wen hope to return to power in 2016. For them this amounts to an intolerable setback. .
Chen Shui-bian assumed power in 2000. He was forced to accept the 1992 consensus and political reintegration. But Lee Teng-hui founded the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which bound Chen Shui-bian hand and foot. Lee eventually forced Chen to endure defeat as a result of Lee's cross-Strait policy. Today, Lin Yi-hsiung's "Taiwan Citizen Union," clearly identifies with Taiwan independence. Is the Taiwan Citizen Union a successor to the TSU? Will Lin Yi-hsiung hobble Tsai Ing-wen the way Lee Teng-hui hobbled Chen Shui-bian? The Lee Teng-hui tail wagged the Chen Shui-bian dog. Will the Lin Yi-hsiung tail wag the Tsai Ing-wen dog in the same fashion?
The storm has temporarily subsided. Some may harbor doubts about the STA. But does anyone really think Taiwan independence and isolationism are the answer? Some may harbor doubts about the NPP4. But do people really approve of usingnuclear power as a bargaining chip on behalf of Taiwan independence?
Taiwan's most serious problem is Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence advocates turn almost every public issue and social movement into political chips. This includes opposition to Guoguang Petrochemical, to Wenlin Yuan, to Ta Pu, to school curricula, to the STA, and to the NPP4. All reveal the heavy hand of "Nation of Taiwan civil disobedience toward the ROC" and the promotion of Taiwan independence by means of social movements. Public issues are no longer debated fairly and rationally. This type of "social movement" uses public issues as pretexts to take over the government and implement Taiwan independence. The Sunflower Student Movement and Lin Yi-hsiung have forcibly occupied the Legislative Yuan and conducted hunger strikes. They have blocked off streets, caused traffic jams, and engaged in street violence. Their political blackmail has not won them any genuine victories. Quite the contrary, victims of their political blackmail who were forced to make concessions did not really lose. Taiwan was the loser. No one was a winner.
Street violence, hunger strikes, and reversion to promoting Taiwan independence will never solve Taiwan's problems. They are nothing more than political blackmail. They do not represent democracy and the will of the people. This resurgence of Taiwan independence and street violence has been destructive of democracy. They are part of a countercurrent that will destroy Taiwan through internecine struggle.
台獨‧街頭‧暴力：是回潮還是逆流
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.07 02:14 am
自三一八太陽花學運爆發，至四三○林義雄結束禁食及核四事件落幕，台獨論述回來了，街頭運動回來了，群眾暴力也回來了。這究竟是歷史的回潮，或時代的逆流？
這場風暴中出現的群眾，絕大多數未必是台獨主張者，但這場風暴的主導者無疑是持台獨立場。太陽花最後提出的《兩岸協定締結條例》，即是欲逼令政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。至於核四爭議，固然有反核訴求，但從林義雄的聲明可知，補正公投法、反對自由經濟示範區、促成人民憲政會議，及推動修憲，始是更高層次的政治目標。其標舉的遠景是一個非核的台獨家園，非但不容兩岸經貿交流（反服貿協議），並主張更廣泛的鎖國政策（反自由經濟示範區）。
風暴之起，服貿爭議是因世代剝奪，核四則是因核安疑慮，這些皆是真實存在的社會氛圍。如今風暴暫歇，倘若太陽花給的解答是台獨鎖國，而林義雄給的答案亦是高電價的非核鎖國台獨，這算不算是為台灣未來找到了正確的答案？
這場風暴，無論服貿或核四，眾人皆謂是因「溝通不足」所致；但是，台獨能否成為台灣的終極解決方案，恐怕更是一個「溝通不足」的議題。太陽花看似在這場角力中獲勝，但未必贏在論理，而是勝在以霸占立院為其政治勒索的「籌碼」；同理，林義雄看似在此役獲勝，其實亦未必贏在論理，而是勝在以死相逼的政治勒索。因而，即使他們在服貿及核四爭議中占了上風，但能否以台獨為台灣的終極解決方案，卻仍是個大問號。
從整個世局、兩岸消長及台灣內部的情勢變遷來看，欲以霸占立院來解答服貿問題，或欲以禁食尋死來解答核四問題，或欲以砸窗破門、圍堵街道、乃至恐嚇分局長「被暗殺」來解答問題，即或能在暴力勒索下暫時得到一個扭曲的答案，但那絕非正當合理的答案。服貿問題如此，核四問題如此，因而也不可能用霸占立院、絕食尋死、趴車堵路來實現台獨。因此，若想由反服貿、反核四、反自由經濟示範區，及推動修憲來實現台獨，這些恐怕都是想入非非。只恐台獨不成，台灣已毀。
但是，經此風暴，台獨、街頭、暴力皆已回潮。在過去兩年，民進黨內甚至出現論及「凍結台獨黨綱」及《中華民國決議文》層次的轉型呼籲；如今，轉型未見進展，太陽花及林義雄卻已再度擎起台獨大旗。這可能使民進黨的轉型工程就此「封存」，「最後一哩」也被迫不得不走上「回頭路」。太陽花及林義雄，或許以台獨回潮而沾沾自得；但對目標懸於二○一六而想要重返執政的民進黨及蔡英文而言，這卻是一個不可承受的大逆流。
陳水扁在二○○○年初執政權，曾有接受「九二共識」及研議「政治統合」的構想；卻因李登輝組成台聯，扼制了陳水扁，使陳水扁終於敗在兩岸政策。如今，林義雄的「公民組合」呼之欲出，且明顯是以台獨號召為政治認同。然則，「公民組合」會不會是民進黨的下一個「台聯」？林義雄會不會是蔡英文的下一個「李登輝」？李扁關係是「尾巴搖狗」的關係，未來林蔡關係是否亦復如此？
風暴暫歇，即使是對「服貿協議」有疑慮，但國人贊不贊成以「台獨鎖國」為解答？即使是對「核四／核電」有疑慮，但國人同不同意以反核做為台獨運動推波助瀾的籌碼？
台灣的問題癥結在台獨。當台獨主張者幾乎將所有的公共議題及「社運」皆視為「政治籌碼」，從反國光石化、反文林苑、反大埔、反課綱，到反服貿、反核四，皆可見「台灣國對中華民國公民不服從」、「以社運推動台獨」的陰影，公共議題即失去了公平理性的辯論平台。這種性質的「社運」，是在藉公共議題推翻政權，而欲在取得政權後操作台獨。如今再加上霸占立院、禁食尋死、圍路堵車等街頭及暴力手段；遂使因政治勒索而得逞者不是真勝，因被政治勒索而讓步者不是真輸。如此，台灣只剩內耗相殘，沒有贏家。
以街頭、暴力及禁食而回頭的台獨，不可能成為台灣的終極解決方案；因為，這在本質上是政治勒索，而不是民主公論。這場台獨、街頭及暴力的大回潮，其實是對民主的大摧殘，也是一股將使台灣內耗相殘的大逆流。
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Cross-Strait Peaceful Development Must Not Be Delayed
Cross-Strait Peaceful Development Must Not Be Delayed
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 6, 2014
Summary: A cross-Strait peace agreement will require consensus. Achieving an internal consensus on both sides, as well as among East Asian nations with a strategic interest will not be easy. The authorities on both sides must remain true to their principles. They must pursue their ideals, free their minds, be realistic, cautious, and discreet.
Full text below:
Following the Sunflower Student Movement, a whole range of street protests erupted one after the other. These represent the sudden outbreak of years of long-festering maladies. As an old Chinese expression has it, "Three feet of ice is not the result of an overnight chill." Since the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian regimes, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan have been locked in internecine struggles. Politicians have deliberately incited mob sentiment. The result has been the rise of populism. Taiwan has frittered away nearly 30 years of precious time. It has become a cautionary tale for neighboring countries. Even the foreign media has issued alerts, and expressed concern that the future of Taiwan is being decided on its streets. Taiwan scholars pessimistically note
that Taiwan has become mired in a vicious cycle. Is the Republic of China about to perish? That may be an overstatement. But Taiwan is definitely sinking to the level of a Third World nation. That is the harsh reality we must face.
In April, the Hong Kong based China Review magazine published a special edition dedicated to the cross-Strait peace agreement. It identified issues relevant to cross-Strait relations. It listed what ought to be in a peace agreement. It drew a map showing how to reach a peace agreement. It proposed a one China framework. It urged the two sides to free their thinking, remain realistic, and face facts. The two sides must seek consensus, win-win,
and process-orientation. They must value people, cooperation, and good faith.
In particular, they must be pragmatic, forward-looking, and acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. Mainland scholars now have greater goodwill and understanding regarding this matter. The Ma administration is currently mired in internal political turmoil. It is totally preoccupied, and can barely take care of itself. All it can do is view the good intentions of the Mainland as it would a distant rainbow.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian to the contrary notwithstanding, both sides want a cross-Strait peace agreement. Lien Chan and Ma Ying-jeou have repeatedly urged a bilateral peace agreement. Just before the 2012 presidential election, Ma Ying-jeou yet again proposed a cross-Strait peace agreement. Later on however, he quickly backed away from it, by adding all sorts of preconditions, including "sufficient public support, national need, and legislative oversight." On the Chinese mainland, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jingtao also urged the two sides to end hostilities and reach a peace agreement.
After Xi Jinping assumed power the CCP 18th National Party Congress report
said a cross-Strait peace agreement would promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. This showed that the two sides are currently, or were at one time, willing to sign a peace agreement. Alas, no progress has been made so far.
The the CCP's current policy toward Taiwan is peaceful development, and "The two sides are one family." This is unlikely to change in the near future.
That does not mean the Mainland has no timetable or expectations regarding cross-Strait relations. Everyone in Beijing feels a tremendous sense of urgency
about peace agreements and related issues. Some argue that the process should be like putting on a hat. The two sides should reach an agreement on basic principles and immediately sign a peace agreement. Other issues, such as military security mutual trust mechanisms and the cessation of hostilities can be addressed later. Others argue that the process should be like stacking wood.
The two sides should proceed from the bottom-up, from large to small, until they reach a peace agreement.
For Taiwan, a cross-Strait peace agreement implies eventual reunification.
But Beijing realizes that peace is an ongoing process. Beijing recognizes Taipei's shared jurisdiction and sovereignty. Will people on both sides accept divided rule and shared sovereignty? If they can, this will stabilize cross-Strait relations within the established framework. In turn, this will secure unity and stability within the region and cross-Strait peace. A peace agreement is of course worth the effort. But before the two sides can sign a peace agreement
much homework remains to be done. The political status of the two sides must be defined. The matter of international intervention must be addressed. Issues such as the cessation of hostilities, the establishment of security and mutual trust, international activities, the mechanics of the signing ceremony, and the mechanic of implemention have yet to be clarified. As this newspaper has advocated before, a preliminary KMT/CCP peace agreement is worth considering.
Cross-Strait relations will not change as a result of the student protests. The current political climate may be difficult. But President Ma must remain true to his principles. The government agencies in charge and the SEF should handle the matter calmly and rationally, pragmatically and progressively.
They should adopt a phased process, beginning with the easy and proceeding to the difficult, beginning with economics and proceeding to politics.
They should assess the situation, promote cross-Strait exchanges and establish a pragmatic process. They should not rule out the signing of a peace agreement. If anything, they must expedite it. They should take the initiative to put forward their own ideas, win the support of the international community and public opinion. Mainland agencies need to understand the political and social forces on Taiwan, and how they differ from those on the Mainland. Progress in cross-Strait relations is currently difficult. In the spirit of "The two sides are one family" the Mainland must be patient. The Mainland has already invested considerable resources on Taiwan. But it has yet to win hearts and minds on Taiwan. The Mainland must not give up. It should dig more deeply.
It must learn how to make people on Taiwan like and know the Mainland.
A cross-Strait peace agreement will require consensus. Achieving an internal consensus on both sides, as well as among East Asian nations with a strategic interest will not be easy. The authorities on both sides must remain true to their principles. They must pursue their ideals, free their minds, be realistic, cautious, and discreet.
社論－兩岸和平發展道路不能延宕
2014年05月06日 04:09 中國時報 本報訊
馬英九總統表示，兩岸目前要談的「兩岸和平協議」一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。（本報系資料照片）
馬英九總統表示，兩岸目前要談的「兩岸和平協議」一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。（本報系資料照片）
太陽花運動後，各種街頭抗爭活動紛至沓來，其實這是多年沉痾的總爆發，冰凍三尺並非一日之寒。自李、扁以降，台灣朝野勇於內鬥，加上政客蓄意操弄，民粹坐大的結果，台灣失去了近30年的寶貴時光，已成為周邊國家的反面教材。當國際媒體發出警訊，擔心台灣的未來要在街頭決定，當國內學者悲觀的指出，台灣已經淪入惡性循環、向下沉淪的困境而不可自拔時，坦白的說，長此以往，如果說中華民國正在覆亡的過程中掙扎或許言重，但台灣往第三世界國家方向沉淪幾乎無可避免，我們必須誠實面對當前的困境。
香港《中國評論》月刊，於4月間推出專輯討論兩岸和平協議相關問題，提出有關兩岸關係的定位、和平協議應有的內容、達成協議的路徑圖，在認知方面，提出在一中框架下，兩岸應解放思想、實事求是，本著兩岸共同決定、兩岸雙贏、過程導向、以民為本、善意合作原則等，尤其在中華民國存在問題上的認知，既務實又前瞻，代表大陸學者對台灣「善意的理解」程度的增加。但對目前陷於內政動盪、無暇他顧的馬政府來說，可能自顧不暇，只能把大陸的善意當成遠在天邊的彩虹。
兩岸和平協議一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張，2012年總統大選前，馬英九再主動提出兩岸和平協議一事，但後來一路退守，又加上「民意支持、國家需要、國會監督」等前提。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。習近平當家後，在中共的十八大報告中提到，協商達成兩岸和平協議，開創兩岸關係和平發展新前景。在在表明兩岸目前，或至少曾經都有簽署和平協議的意願，但迄今未見任何實質進展。
和平發展、兩岸一家親是當前中共對台政策主軸，今後相當一段時期內不會輕易改變，但這不表示大陸對兩岸關係的進展與節奏沒有主張，北京各界對於和平協議與其他相關議題的討論與推動仍然有急迫感。有人主張應以戴帽子方式，先確定原則，直接簽署和平協議，其他的問題，如建立軍事安全互信機制，結束敵對狀態都可迎刃而解，也有人主張用堆積木方法，由下而上、由小而大，最後再簽署和平協議。
對台灣而言，和平協議若意味著兩岸終將統一，但北京確認是一個持續發展的和平過程，這就隱涵了北京對台北治權的承認與主權的分享，分治與分享的過程若能讓兩岸民眾滿意，將有助於兩岸關係穩定在一定的框架之內，這又會對兩岸的和平統一與區域安全的穩定產生正面的助益，簽署和平協議自然值得努力以赴。但在兩岸真正簽署和平協議之前，仍有太多的功課得做，有關兩岸定位、國際干預、結束敵對狀態、安全互信、國際活動空間、協議如何簽署、如何落實實質內容這些問題都有待進一步加以釐清，而本報過去所提，由國共先行簽署和平協議的主張也值得列入思考。
兩岸關係大局不會因部分學生的抗拒而改變，當前政治環境雖然艱困，馬總統仍應堅持理念，政府相關各部門及海基會應抱持冷靜理性、務實漸進、分階段處理、由易而難、先經後政的態度和立場，審時度勢務實推動兩岸交流與既定進程。對和平協議的討論與簽署，不但不應排斥，更應該適時、主動提出自己的構想，爭取國際社會和輿論的支持。大陸相關部門也需要理解台灣政治力與社會力運作與大陸的本質性不同，要對當前兩岸關係進展的困難，本著「兩岸一家親」態度表現更大的耐心，大陸對台工作已投入很多資源，卻未如願爭取到台灣的人心，大陸不但不應退縮，反而須更認真研究「如何讓台灣人認識大陸、喜歡大陸」。
簽署和平協議需要兩岸共識、兩岸內部共識及東亞戰略利益相關國家共識，這決不是一件簡單工程。兩岸當局要把握原則，追求理想，解放思想、實事求是，更要摸著石頭過河，小心應對。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 6, 2014
Summary: A cross-Strait peace agreement will require consensus. Achieving an internal consensus on both sides, as well as among East Asian nations with a strategic interest will not be easy. The authorities on both sides must remain true to their principles. They must pursue their ideals, free their minds, be realistic, cautious, and discreet.
Full text below:
Following the Sunflower Student Movement, a whole range of street protests erupted one after the other. These represent the sudden outbreak of years of long-festering maladies. As an old Chinese expression has it, "Three feet of ice is not the result of an overnight chill." Since the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian regimes, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan have been locked in internecine struggles. Politicians have deliberately incited mob sentiment. The result has been the rise of populism. Taiwan has frittered away nearly 30 years of precious time. It has become a cautionary tale for neighboring countries. Even the foreign media has issued alerts, and expressed concern that the future of Taiwan is being decided on its streets. Taiwan scholars pessimistically note
that Taiwan has become mired in a vicious cycle. Is the Republic of China about to perish? That may be an overstatement. But Taiwan is definitely sinking to the level of a Third World nation. That is the harsh reality we must face.
In April, the Hong Kong based China Review magazine published a special edition dedicated to the cross-Strait peace agreement. It identified issues relevant to cross-Strait relations. It listed what ought to be in a peace agreement. It drew a map showing how to reach a peace agreement. It proposed a one China framework. It urged the two sides to free their thinking, remain realistic, and face facts. The two sides must seek consensus, win-win,
and process-orientation. They must value people, cooperation, and good faith.
In particular, they must be pragmatic, forward-looking, and acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. Mainland scholars now have greater goodwill and understanding regarding this matter. The Ma administration is currently mired in internal political turmoil. It is totally preoccupied, and can barely take care of itself. All it can do is view the good intentions of the Mainland as it would a distant rainbow.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian to the contrary notwithstanding, both sides want a cross-Strait peace agreement. Lien Chan and Ma Ying-jeou have repeatedly urged a bilateral peace agreement. Just before the 2012 presidential election, Ma Ying-jeou yet again proposed a cross-Strait peace agreement. Later on however, he quickly backed away from it, by adding all sorts of preconditions, including "sufficient public support, national need, and legislative oversight." On the Chinese mainland, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jingtao also urged the two sides to end hostilities and reach a peace agreement.
After Xi Jinping assumed power the CCP 18th National Party Congress report
said a cross-Strait peace agreement would promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. This showed that the two sides are currently, or were at one time, willing to sign a peace agreement. Alas, no progress has been made so far.
The the CCP's current policy toward Taiwan is peaceful development, and "The two sides are one family." This is unlikely to change in the near future.
That does not mean the Mainland has no timetable or expectations regarding cross-Strait relations. Everyone in Beijing feels a tremendous sense of urgency
about peace agreements and related issues. Some argue that the process should be like putting on a hat. The two sides should reach an agreement on basic principles and immediately sign a peace agreement. Other issues, such as military security mutual trust mechanisms and the cessation of hostilities can be addressed later. Others argue that the process should be like stacking wood.
The two sides should proceed from the bottom-up, from large to small, until they reach a peace agreement.
For Taiwan, a cross-Strait peace agreement implies eventual reunification.
But Beijing realizes that peace is an ongoing process. Beijing recognizes Taipei's shared jurisdiction and sovereignty. Will people on both sides accept divided rule and shared sovereignty? If they can, this will stabilize cross-Strait relations within the established framework. In turn, this will secure unity and stability within the region and cross-Strait peace. A peace agreement is of course worth the effort. But before the two sides can sign a peace agreement
much homework remains to be done. The political status of the two sides must be defined. The matter of international intervention must be addressed. Issues such as the cessation of hostilities, the establishment of security and mutual trust, international activities, the mechanics of the signing ceremony, and the mechanic of implemention have yet to be clarified. As this newspaper has advocated before, a preliminary KMT/CCP peace agreement is worth considering.
Cross-Strait relations will not change as a result of the student protests. The current political climate may be difficult. But President Ma must remain true to his principles. The government agencies in charge and the SEF should handle the matter calmly and rationally, pragmatically and progressively.
They should adopt a phased process, beginning with the easy and proceeding to the difficult, beginning with economics and proceeding to politics.
They should assess the situation, promote cross-Strait exchanges and establish a pragmatic process. They should not rule out the signing of a peace agreement. If anything, they must expedite it. They should take the initiative to put forward their own ideas, win the support of the international community and public opinion. Mainland agencies need to understand the political and social forces on Taiwan, and how they differ from those on the Mainland. Progress in cross-Strait relations is currently difficult. In the spirit of "The two sides are one family" the Mainland must be patient. The Mainland has already invested considerable resources on Taiwan. But it has yet to win hearts and minds on Taiwan. The Mainland must not give up. It should dig more deeply.
It must learn how to make people on Taiwan like and know the Mainland.
A cross-Strait peace agreement will require consensus. Achieving an internal consensus on both sides, as well as among East Asian nations with a strategic interest will not be easy. The authorities on both sides must remain true to their principles. They must pursue their ideals, free their minds, be realistic, cautious, and discreet.
社論－兩岸和平發展道路不能延宕
2014年05月06日 04:09 中國時報 本報訊
馬英九總統表示，兩岸目前要談的「兩岸和平協議」一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。（本報系資料照片）
馬英九總統表示，兩岸目前要談的「兩岸和平協議」一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。（本報系資料照片）
太陽花運動後，各種街頭抗爭活動紛至沓來，其實這是多年沉痾的總爆發，冰凍三尺並非一日之寒。自李、扁以降，台灣朝野勇於內鬥，加上政客蓄意操弄，民粹坐大的結果，台灣失去了近30年的寶貴時光，已成為周邊國家的反面教材。當國際媒體發出警訊，擔心台灣的未來要在街頭決定，當國內學者悲觀的指出，台灣已經淪入惡性循環、向下沉淪的困境而不可自拔時，坦白的說，長此以往，如果說中華民國正在覆亡的過程中掙扎或許言重，但台灣往第三世界國家方向沉淪幾乎無可避免，我們必須誠實面對當前的困境。
香港《中國評論》月刊，於4月間推出專輯討論兩岸和平協議相關問題，提出有關兩岸關係的定位、和平協議應有的內容、達成協議的路徑圖，在認知方面，提出在一中框架下，兩岸應解放思想、實事求是，本著兩岸共同決定、兩岸雙贏、過程導向、以民為本、善意合作原則等，尤其在中華民國存在問題上的認知，既務實又前瞻，代表大陸學者對台灣「善意的理解」程度的增加。但對目前陷於內政動盪、無暇他顧的馬政府來說，可能自顧不暇，只能把大陸的善意當成遠在天邊的彩虹。
兩岸和平協議一度是兩岸共同的願望，李、扁二人姑且不論，連戰、馬英九也曾經多次提及兩岸簽署和平協議的主張，2012年總統大選前，馬英九再主動提出兩岸和平協議一事，但後來一路退守，又加上「民意支持、國家需要、國會監督」等前提。中國大陸的江澤民、胡錦濤二人過去也曾主張兩岸結束敵對狀態、達成和平協議。習近平當家後，在中共的十八大報告中提到，協商達成兩岸和平協議，開創兩岸關係和平發展新前景。在在表明兩岸目前，或至少曾經都有簽署和平協議的意願，但迄今未見任何實質進展。
和平發展、兩岸一家親是當前中共對台政策主軸，今後相當一段時期內不會輕易改變，但這不表示大陸對兩岸關係的進展與節奏沒有主張，北京各界對於和平協議與其他相關議題的討論與推動仍然有急迫感。有人主張應以戴帽子方式，先確定原則，直接簽署和平協議，其他的問題，如建立軍事安全互信機制，結束敵對狀態都可迎刃而解，也有人主張用堆積木方法，由下而上、由小而大，最後再簽署和平協議。
對台灣而言，和平協議若意味著兩岸終將統一，但北京確認是一個持續發展的和平過程，這就隱涵了北京對台北治權的承認與主權的分享，分治與分享的過程若能讓兩岸民眾滿意，將有助於兩岸關係穩定在一定的框架之內，這又會對兩岸的和平統一與區域安全的穩定產生正面的助益，簽署和平協議自然值得努力以赴。但在兩岸真正簽署和平協議之前，仍有太多的功課得做，有關兩岸定位、國際干預、結束敵對狀態、安全互信、國際活動空間、協議如何簽署、如何落實實質內容這些問題都有待進一步加以釐清，而本報過去所提，由國共先行簽署和平協議的主張也值得列入思考。
兩岸關係大局不會因部分學生的抗拒而改變，當前政治環境雖然艱困，馬總統仍應堅持理念，政府相關各部門及海基會應抱持冷靜理性、務實漸進、分階段處理、由易而難、先經後政的態度和立場，審時度勢務實推動兩岸交流與既定進程。對和平協議的討論與簽署，不但不應排斥，更應該適時、主動提出自己的構想，爭取國際社會和輿論的支持。大陸相關部門也需要理解台灣政治力與社會力運作與大陸的本質性不同，要對當前兩岸關係進展的困難，本著「兩岸一家親」態度表現更大的耐心，大陸對台工作已投入很多資源，卻未如願爭取到台灣的人心，大陸不但不應退縮，反而須更認真研究「如何讓台灣人認識大陸、喜歡大陸」。
簽署和平協議需要兩岸共識、兩岸內部共識及東亞戰略利益相關國家共識，這決不是一件簡單工程。兩岸當局要把握原則，追求理想，解放思想、實事求是，更要摸著石頭過河，小心應對。
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Social Movements: Just Saying No Cannot Help Taiwan
Social Movements: Just Saying No Cannot Help Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 5, 2014
Summary: The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country. Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"
Full Text Below:
The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country.
The Economist's observations were not groundless. In an April 29 editorial, this newspaper wondered, "Will Taiwan be reduced to obeying commands issued by mobs in the streets?" It expressed the same concerns as The Economist regarding this phenomenon. The Sunflower Student Movement delayed ratification of the STA. That may have been the result of unavoidable circumstances. But Lin Yi-hsiung fasted to protest the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Under internal and external pressure, the ruling administration caved in and mothballed the plant. In effect, it turned a "Referendum on Whether to Halt Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant" into a harder to pass "Referendum on Whether to Restart Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant." The government still cannot quell the controversy over the referendum law threshold. The DPP continues its struggle.
The Ma administration caved in to the policy demands issued by the street protesters. Was this really necessary? Whether it was or not, enormous damage has been done to the government's authority. The government could not convert the masses on the streets to its way of thinking. It could even not persuade its own officials of the soundness of its decisions. It showed itself to be timid and cowardly. Mor seriously still, it paid a price for undermining the rule of law. It sacrificed the aspirations of the silent majority. This was the most frustrating aspect of it all. Over the past two years, the Ma adminstration has retreated again and again in the face of street mobs. All it received in return was diminished public authority.
The perverse phenomenon of "street mobs dictating public policy" has now become standard operating procedure on Taiwan. Opposition Green Camp parties bear much responsibility. The Legislative Yuan is among the important sectors of the government. Yet the opposition Green Camp parties, who hold over 40% of the seats in the legislature, have never perceived themselves as part of the government, They have never contributed to the nation. To the contrary, they have enaged in obstructionism, incited social divisions, obstructed the progress of the nation and society. If not for 20 years of internecine warfare between the Blue and Green camps, would Taiwan have declined so precipitously? Would the new generation have lost all hope for their future? Taiwan's low growth, high unemployment, and policy flip-flops make consensus nearly impossible. This was hardly the doing of President Ma alone.
When the political process fails, street movements arise. Protesters use them to 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 frequently, especially when one lacks any constructive alternative, is agitation for the sake of agitation. That will never relieve Taiwan's economic stagnation and ensure its future. The reason is clear. Recent protests have opposed this, that, and the other. They have all prevented the government from achieving its goals. It is true that the Ma Chiang government failed to do enough. But such protests will only increase government wheel-spinning. They will only result in even greater stagnation. They will only make Taiwan weaker still.
The Ma government is still jabbering about "free trade zones." It is revisiting the old dreams of an "Asian Pacific Operations Center" that arose during past political turmoil. In fact, that dream is 20 years too late. Earth-shattering changes have taken place. Mainland China is about to become the world's largest economy. Times have changed. Can Taiwan stage a comeback? That is highly doubtful. But even if Taiwan does not promote "free trade zones," it still has many paths to choose from. Which of these many paths should Taiwan take? That is an even greater strategic issue. Does the DPP have any answers to such questions? No, it does not. Have the student mobs holding street demonstrations offered any solutions? We have yet to see even one. Lin Yi-hsiung has just emerged victorious from the battle over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. He has threatened to organize public opposition to "free trade zones." Suppose he wins another victory? What alternative will he offer? What will Taiwan's next step be?
Have you noticed how the demands of the Sunflower Student Movement involve opposition to this, that, and the other? They are all opposed to Ma, to Mainland China, to globalization, or to free trade. Their opposition to Ma and to Mainland China is easier to understand. But what about their opposition to globalization and free trade? How can Taiwan realize its potential if all it can do is shouts such slogans? That is the most baffling question of all. Have student movement members and offered any quick fixes that will ensure new generation hopes for "modest but assured prosperity?" Have student movement members and public supporters gotten any answers from the DPP? The mobs opposed the STA and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Will they follow up with opposition to the free trade zone, the referendum law, and the First, Second, and Third Nuclear Power Plants? Will they take their anger out on the police, the legislators, the MRT system, and even on passersby? Will their temper tantrums make Taiwan any better?
We would do well to look at Ukraine. People there have engaged in months of street protests. They have gotten rid of their president. The result has been greater foreign aggression and civil unrest. They have lost the Crimea. Now people of different ethnic backgrounds throughout Ukraine hate and murder each other. Street demonstrations are not some fashionable activity that democracies indulge in for their amusement. Once Pandora's Box has been opened, no one can stuff the demons back in. The streets of Taiwan appear to be moving in the same direction.
Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"
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」。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 5, 2014
Summary: The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country. Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"
Full Text Below:
The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country.
The Economist's observations were not groundless. In an April 29 editorial, this newspaper wondered, "Will Taiwan be reduced to obeying commands issued by mobs in the streets?" It expressed the same concerns as The Economist regarding this phenomenon. The Sunflower Student Movement delayed ratification of the STA. That may have been the result of unavoidable circumstances. But Lin Yi-hsiung fasted to protest the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Under internal and external pressure, the ruling administration caved in and mothballed the plant. In effect, it turned a "Referendum on Whether to Halt Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant" into a harder to pass "Referendum on Whether to Restart Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant." The government still cannot quell the controversy over the referendum law threshold. The DPP continues its struggle.
The Ma administration caved in to the policy demands issued by the street protesters. Was this really necessary? Whether it was or not, enormous damage has been done to the government's authority. The government could not convert the masses on the streets to its way of thinking. It could even not persuade its own officials of the soundness of its decisions. It showed itself to be timid and cowardly. Mor seriously still, it paid a price for undermining the rule of law. It sacrificed the aspirations of the silent majority. This was the most frustrating aspect of it all. Over the past two years, the Ma adminstration has retreated again and again in the face of street mobs. All it received in return was diminished public authority.
The perverse phenomenon of "street mobs dictating public policy" has now become standard operating procedure on Taiwan. Opposition Green Camp parties bear much responsibility. The Legislative Yuan is among the important sectors of the government. Yet the opposition Green Camp parties, who hold over 40% of the seats in the legislature, have never perceived themselves as part of the government, They have never contributed to the nation. To the contrary, they have enaged in obstructionism, incited social divisions, obstructed the progress of the nation and society. If not for 20 years of internecine warfare between the Blue and Green camps, would Taiwan have declined so precipitously? Would the new generation have lost all hope for their future? Taiwan's low growth, high unemployment, and policy flip-flops make consensus nearly impossible. This was hardly the doing of President Ma alone.
When the political process fails, street movements arise. Protesters use them to 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 frequently, especially when one lacks any constructive alternative, is agitation for the sake of agitation. That will never relieve Taiwan's economic stagnation and ensure its future. The reason is clear. Recent protests have opposed this, that, and the other. They have all prevented the government from achieving its goals. It is true that the Ma Chiang government failed to do enough. But such protests will only increase government wheel-spinning. They will only result in even greater stagnation. They will only make Taiwan weaker still.
The Ma government is still jabbering about "free trade zones." It is revisiting the old dreams of an "Asian Pacific Operations Center" that arose during past political turmoil. In fact, that dream is 20 years too late. Earth-shattering changes have taken place. Mainland China is about to become the world's largest economy. Times have changed. Can Taiwan stage a comeback? That is highly doubtful. But even if Taiwan does not promote "free trade zones," it still has many paths to choose from. Which of these many paths should Taiwan take? That is an even greater strategic issue. Does the DPP have any answers to such questions? No, it does not. Have the student mobs holding street demonstrations offered any solutions? We have yet to see even one. Lin Yi-hsiung has just emerged victorious from the battle over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. He has threatened to organize public opposition to "free trade zones." Suppose he wins another victory? What alternative will he offer? What will Taiwan's next step be?
Have you noticed how the demands of the Sunflower Student Movement involve opposition to this, that, and the other? They are all opposed to Ma, to Mainland China, to globalization, or to free trade. Their opposition to Ma and to Mainland China is easier to understand. But what about their opposition to globalization and free trade? How can Taiwan realize its potential if all it can do is shouts such slogans? That is the most baffling question of all. Have student movement members and offered any quick fixes that will ensure new generation hopes for "modest but assured prosperity?" Have student movement members and public supporters gotten any answers from the DPP? The mobs opposed the STA and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Will they follow up with opposition to the free trade zone, the referendum law, and the First, Second, and Third Nuclear Power Plants? Will they take their anger out on the police, the legislators, the MRT system, and even on passersby? Will their temper tantrums make Taiwan any better?
We would do well to look at Ukraine. People there have engaged in months of street protests. They have gotten rid of their president. The result has been greater foreign aggression and civil unrest. They have lost the Crimea. Now people of different ethnic backgrounds throughout Ukraine hate and murder each other. Street demonstrations are not some fashionable activity that democracies indulge in for their amusement. Once Pandora's Box has been opened, no one can stuff the demons back in. The streets of Taiwan appear to be moving in the same direction.
Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"
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」。
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」。
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」。
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。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)