Lethal Sloppiness Revisited: One Taiwan, Two Systems
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2014
Summary: Lethal sloppiness syndrome can be overcome in two ways. One. Throw
the doors of the marketplace open to competition. Two. Revamp the system
and its oversight mechanisms to prevent malfeasance. Reject
liberalization and one will not be able to improve oversight and
oversight capabilities. Carelessness and haste will be unavoidable.
Society will be forced to endure such scandals over and over again.
Full Text Below:
On the 23rd, this newspaper published an editorial entitled, "Lethal Sloppiness: One Reason Taiwan Has Not Progressed." Private companies and government agencies have recently committed a string of sloppy and perfunctory blunders. Many readers and netizens became concerned. Some feel a deeper exploration of the causes are required. Others cite TSMC and other technology industries as counterexamples. They think many industries on Taiwan lead the world in precision and efficiency. Clearly the label of "lethal sloppiness" cannot be applied to everyone. Today's editorial elaborates on this.
As one reader said, lethal sloppiness is a label that cannot be applied to everyone. In the technology industry, Taiwan companies' precision and efficiency have made the world sit up and take notice. In this highly competitive field, any slackness leads to one's elimination. Actually, in the traditional food industry, I-Mei also pursues perfection. It does not overlook a single detail. It is not the least bit afraid that the rancid oil scandal will bring it down. Lethal sloppiness also infects government agencies. They complete their assignments in slapdash fashion. They shine the public on with bureaucratese. Only in rare instances do dedicated individuals toil away with due diligence.
Generally speaking, private companies or government agencies guilty of lethal sloppiness exhibit certain traits. One. They operate in a relatively closed environment. They lack obvious competition. Therefore they lack internal incentives. They can perform low quality work and skate by. Two. They are part of more traditional structures. They embody old business models or obey old power structures. Their operations are not dependent upon new knowledge or skills. They can get by with clever tricks or by playing a waiting game. Three. Their leaders' commands are unclear or the leaders have ulterior motives. Lacking a clear mandate, subordinates find themselves at sea. So they go through the motions and ignore content and quality.
Compare the above with the private companies and government agencies implicated during the recent scandals. With the exception of LCY Chemical Corp., such carelessness and sloppiness is not hard to find. The vast majority of sloppy businesses are domestic market oriented. They hide behind lower domestic standards and more lenient oversight. This enables them to skate by. Think about it. What nation's gas industry uses smell alone to determine whether gas is leaking? What kind of food industry watches as underground factories produce rancid oil that stinks to high heaven, yet like the Chang Guan Company, has no qualms about purchasing barrel after barrel as raw material?
Domestic or export is of course not the sole criterion for corporate quality or performance. But in practice, the export industry must accept downstream manufacturer quality control. It must also meet export nation administrative standards. As a result, manufacturers must strive to meet these standards. Only then can they ensure product quality. By contrast, the purely domestic market-oriented industries often face inspection standards lower than those mandated internationally. Intentionally or otherwise, this, coupled with government agency leniency, product or service quality inevitably tends to decline.
Over the past twenty years on Taiwan, the information and communications industries have thrived. Why? Because this sector continues to pursue precision and progress. A steady stream of global technology companies come here to develop new technologies and parts manufacture. Every day engineers from Taiwan fly all over the world, solving technical problems for their customers. In other words, when businesses look to the world stage, they become accustomed to higher standards and more willing to accept them. By doing so, they make themselves more powerful and more irreplaceable. This sector of Taiwan's economy has become a global pioneer. Most companies however, are still spinning their wheels. Many industries are no different than they were 20 or 30 years ago. They have become a slack and backward industry sector.
Take the service industry for example. Most businesses are domestic market oriented. Services have long been a relatively backward and inefficient sector on Taiwan. The sizeable financial industry is no different. Service sector output accounted for 70% of our gross domestic product. It employs almost 60% of the workforce. But insufficient innovation and scale limits it to low-wage, unskilled labor. This is why Taiwan's economic development has been weak in recent years . This is why young people remain trapped in low-wage jobs. Improving the quality and efficiency of the service sector, requires opening up one's markets to competition. Doing so enables the influx of up to date business philosophies, and stimulates industry development. Unfortunately in recent years, many people have demanded protectionism. This includes the Sunflower Student Movement, with its anti-globalization demands. Such demand have even stalled the STA. Opponents of the STA are prescribing the wrong medicine for what ails them.
In fact, the same yardstick can be applied to politics. Politics is a domestic market oriented industry. It is a closed industry sector that lacks competition. It too has become a stagnant sector. Taiwan may have blue vs. green competition. But in recent years neither the KMT nor the DPP have offered a new vision for the nation's future. The two parties merely sabotage each other, or attempt to settle old scores. Voters can effect ruling party changes through the electoral process. But Taiwan's democracy no longer has the ability to solve problems, never mind enhancing the effectiveness of the executive branch. The rancid oil scandal showed that local and central governments are clueless. That much is all too clear.
Lethal sloppiness syndrome can be overcome in two ways. One. Throw the doors of the marketplace open to competition. Two. Revamp the system and its oversight mechanisms to prevent malfeasance. Reject liberalization and one will not be able to improve oversight and oversight capabilities. Carelessness and haste will be unavoidable. Society will be forced to endure such scandals over and over again.
再論草率主義：一個台灣，兩種境界
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.25 02:03 am
本報廿三日社論「致命的草率：台灣無法進步的一大癥結」，對近期民間廠商和行政部門在一連串事件中的草率及敷衍提出檢討，引起許多讀者及網友關注。有人認為應更深入探討其成因，有人則舉台積電等科技業為例，認為台灣不少產業之精準與效率獨步全球，可見「草率主義」不能一概而論。今日社論將就此再加申論。
誠如讀者所言，草率主義不能一概而論。在科技產業，台灣企業卓越的精準和效率讓世界刮目；在這個充滿競爭的領域，業者只要稍一懈怠，即可能遭到淘汰。其實，在傳統的食品產業中，也有像義美這樣追求完美、不放過任何細節的企業，絲毫無懼餿水油風暴侵襲。包括在行政體系，敷衍了事、只求官樣文章的公務員比比皆是，但在幾個案子中，我們看到孜孜矻矻盡忠職守者亦不乏其人。
整體而言，容易流於草率作風或隨便心態的民間或政府部門，多半具有幾個特色：第一，處於比較封閉的地帶，因為外在的競爭不明顯，因此缺乏內在的自我鞭策力量，僅憑低標準作業即能應付了事。第二，屬於比較傳統的結構，因為遵循的是古老的營利模式或權力法則，運作時藉助的不是新知或技能，只需靠取巧或因循即可滿足所需。第三，領導者指令不明或另懷私心，使部屬缺乏明確的任務認知，所以只求形式或格式的應付，而不問內容和品質。
上述特徵，如果與最近一連串事件的相關廠商和部門作一對照，即不難發現，除了榮化之外，這些粗疏、草率的業者絕大多數屬於以「內銷市場」為導向的部門；業者躲在國內較低標準的規範及較鬆散的行政管理底下，因而能逍遙度日。試想，什麼國家的瓦斯業者，可以僅憑「用鼻子聞」，來研判天然氣有沒有外洩？又有什麼樣的食品業者，看到地下工廠內遍地發臭的餿水油，竟還能像強冠那樣可以大桶大桶買進充當原料？
「內銷」或「外銷」當然不是判斷企業品質或表現的唯一判準。但在實務上，外銷產業除必須接受上下游廠商的品管，同時必須通過出口國的行政規範；也因此，廠商必須力求精準，才能確保品質銷售無虞。相對而言，僅以國內市場為導向的產業，所需通過的檢驗標準往往低於國際規範，若再加上行政部門有意無意的放水，其產品或服務品質低落即勢所難免。
回顧台灣過去廿年的發展，資訊及通訊產業之所以一枝獨秀，因為這個部門不斷追求精準與進步，為全球科技廠商源源不斷開發技術與零件，台灣的工程師每天飛往世界各地，為客戶解決技術問題。亦即，當業者放眼以世界為舞台時，他們慣於、也樂於接受更高標準的檢驗，亦因此使自己變得更強大、無可取代。然而，當台灣經濟在這個部分變成了世界的先行者，但整體體質上卻仍有很大一部分在原地踏步，許多產業跟二、三十年前沒有兩樣，便形成了鬆散、落後的部門。
以服務業為例，由於多數企業是以國內市場為主，這一直是台灣相對落後、沒效率的部門，包括規模不小的金融業亦然。服務業產值雖占了國內生產毛額的七成，雇用人數占了就業人口近六成，但由於創新程度不足，服務規模有限，所能吸引的只是低薪、低技術的人才。這點，正是近年台灣經濟發展無力、青年受困低薪的主要原因。要提升服務業的品質和效率，原應開放市場引入競爭，以期導入更新的經營理念，刺激既有產業的發展。但遺憾的是，近年社會上卻反而有更多聲音要求保護，包括太陽花學運的反全球化訴求，乃至《服貿協議》因此卡關，恐怕都開錯了解方。
事實上，以同一標尺檢驗，政治也是屬於內銷、封閉、競爭不足的產業，也淪為「不進步」部門。儘管台灣有藍綠的競爭，但近年國、民兩黨都已經無力再就國家走向提出新的訴求，雙方只能互扯後腿，或清算歷史的舊帳。如此一來，就算民眾還能透過選舉製造政黨輪替，對台灣的民主而言，其實已失去解決公共議題的能力，遑論提升行政部門的效能。從這次餿水油事件，地方政府與中央的茫然無策，已一目了然。
克服草率主義之路有二，一是開放市場引進更多競爭，一是透過制度設計及行政監督來防範劣行。但如果既拒絕開放，又無法提升監督管理能力，粗疏草率就是必然，社會只能一次次承受不確定的風險。
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Harsh Penalties Will Not Ensure Food Safety
Harsh Penalties Will Not Ensure Food Safety
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2014
Summary: Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.
Full Text below:
The rancid oil scandal has undermined Taiwan's reputation as a gourmet's paradise. The Executive Yuan has investigated and dealt with the scandal for nearly one month. The only action it has taken is to propose that night market stalls sign contracts with the "little bees" that recycle waste oil, and express hope that the Legislative Yuan will amend the Food Safety and Health Management Act and impose harsher criminal penalties, Apparently it is attempting to mollify populist sentiment by increasing criminal penalties. Apparently it hopes to divert attention from the government's responsibility. But if society considers the matter rationally, it will mot accept this approach.
This is not the first time a rancid oil scandal has erupted on Taiwan. On the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival in 1985, the De Tai Oil Company acquired rancid oil at low cost from pig farmers, which they then turned into low grade vegetable oil. They mixed it with salad oil, and presto, lawful oil. This was sold to restaurants in the greater Taipei area. Thirty years later, food safety regulations have been totally revamped. Administrative and criminal penalties have been substantially increased. Yet a rancid oil scandal has erupted, yet again. The government should hang its head in ashamed.
A fair and impartial investigation of responsibility in the current food safety scandal is essential. The first line of defense was the Pingtung County Government. Yet it cavalierly igored the public welfare. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is responsible for food safety. The EPA is responsible for waste recycling. The COA is responsible for the management of feed oil. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for the inspection of registered companies and factories. All of them were indolent and derelict in their duty.
The root of the problem is slack management. Nobody wants to be responsible. After the recent outbreak, the Ministry of Health and Welfare attempted to set the tone by issuing a green light for food safety. It even dug up an expert willing to endorse its findings. "Ingesting one or two drops will do no immediate harm to the human body." Taiwan is no longer a society that seeks only a full belly and warm clothing. Food safety and health are a basic right. They can even be considered a national security issue.
Slack management can be divided into two categories. One. Recycling and environmental protection. Every rancid oil scandal over the past 30 years has been rooted in blind greed. Earlier this year, many pigs came down with diarrhea. The number of pigs plummeted. The price of lard rose. Illegal underground oil refiner Kuo Lien-cheng obtained large quantities of waste cooking oil from "little bees," then turned it into low grade lard which he sold for a huge profit.
The government has the necessary mechanisms to prevent such crimes. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is vigorously recycling waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But when oil prices stabilized, biodiesel policy became stalled. Large quantites of recycled waste cooking oil had nowhere to go. With profits to be made, they returned to the dining table, and into consumers' bellies.
The US, Japan, the European countries, and other advanced countries, have also endured waste cooking oil scandals. Painful lessons led to effective management models. Waste cooking oil recycling, processing, production, and marketing all have clear legal norms. Contrast this with Taiwan, where every night "little bees" collect waste cooking oil from night market stalls.
The EPA adopted Europe and US specifications in toto. It required snack bars and night market stalls to sign contracts with "little bees," entrusting them to recycle waste oil. The assumption was that county and municipal environmental protection bureaus would rigorously and control the process. Recycling by anyone other than a lawfully appointed vendor, cleaning company, or moving company, meant penalties. These were truly pie in the sky policies dreamed up by bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices.
The so-called "little bees" are self-employed individuals dedicated to the illegal acquisition of waste cooking oil from night market stalls, vendors, and snack bars. They are like honey bees gathering pollen. An 18 liter bucket of waste oil can be legitimately recycled to make biodiesel. It can sell for 200 to 300 NT. The little bees purchase price is usually 100 to 200 NT per barrel.
Fleece can come only from sheep. The little bees' waste oil recycled at higher cost, is naturally sold to underground oil refiners and turned into higher-priced lard. Little bees operate on the fringes of the law. They are in business to make money, not lose it. If little bees could be persuaded to remain within the law, they would already be legitimate waste disposal companies, Why would they remain little bees? Can the government really control little bees, who flit from here to there?
In Japan all oil recovery is done by professional companies, then sold to the government at higher prices. The government commissions refiners to turn it into fuel for garbage trucks. Buying at higher prices makes it impossible for little bees to survive In Japan. Karl Marx said it best. "If capital can get a 100 percent profit, it will trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run." The EPA should reflect on the system for the disposal of batteries and the recycling of light bulbs, which have been around for years. On what basis can it gradually establish a sound system? The key is people are even willing to commit capital crimes for a profit. But no one is willing to engage in a money losing business.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare has been indolent and derelict in its duty. This has led to resource management blind spots. Its sole response to the scandal has been to urge the amending of the law and an increase in penalties. The underground rancid oil refining business is surely hateful. But food safety violations cannot be compared to the brutal murders on the Taipei MRT. To do so would violate the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would merely underscore the incompetence of civil servants.
Consider the actions taken by government agencies during the recent food safety scandal. The COA finally imposed strict oversight of foreign oil imports and the registration of domestic manufacturing, The Ministry of Economic Affairs intends to assist cities and counties inspect all 202 companies with temporary factory registration for feed oil and edible oil processing. These moves were long overdue. They must continue to perform these duties. After the scandal erupted, the Ministry of Health and Welfare required county and city health bureaus to inspect products and remove them from store shelves. It passed the buck onto the manufacturer. It never implemented any preventive mechanisms. When condemnation from all walks of life reached new highs, it pandered to populist sentiment by calling for increased penalties. It never considered the pursuit of the public welfare. Compared to the judicial and legislative branches, it is clear that it must become more proactive and involved with the community, the economy, and other aspects of people's lives.
Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.
社論－嚴刑峻法不能解決食安問題
2014年09月24日 04:10
本報訊
餿水油風暴重創台灣美食王國聲譽，行政院檢討究辦將近一個月，只提出夜市攤商應與回收廢油的「小蜜蜂」簽契約管控，並寄望立院修《食品安全衛生管理法》提高刑責兩項對策，似有藉提高刑責滿足民粹心理，以轉移政府管理責任的意圖，社會理性思辨後恐難接受。
餿水油風暴並不是第一次發生，民國74年同樣中秋節前夕，調查局查獲台北市德泰油行低價向養豬戶收購餿水浮油，再交由化工廠提煉劣質沙拉油、混充沙拉油，搖身一變合法油品，賣給大台北地區餐飲業。時隔30年，食品安全相關法規都已修訂完備，行政及刑責相關罰則大幅提高，再次爆發餿水油風暴，政府真該汗顏！
持平究責，這次食安風暴，第一線屏東縣政府怠忽輕漫最愧對國人，主管食安的衛福部、負責廢棄物回收的環保署、管理飼料用油的農委會、查察公司與工廠登記的經濟部，同樣怠惰失職。
問題在源頭管理鬆散，沒人願意負責，衛福部在事件爆發後，還想定調食安為「綠燈」、甚至找來專家背書，「吃一、兩滴對人體無立即傷害」，台灣已非只求溫飽的社會，確保食物安全健康是基本權利、也是國安議題。
源頭管理可從兩個層面檢視。首先，回收再利用環保層面，30年來所有餿水油風暴，都起因利字當頭。今年初受仔豬下痢影響，豬隻銳減、豬油水漲船高，不法地下油行業者郭烈成乃大量向「小蜜蜂」 收購廢棄食用油，提煉劣質豬油高價轉售牟暴利。
政府不是沒有相關機制可以防堵。經濟部原本大力回收廢食用油生產生質柴油，但在油價回穩、生質柴油政策卡關後，大量回收的廢食用油沒去處，有利可圖下，又回到餐桌上，吃進消費者肚內。
美國、日本及歐洲等先進國家，也曾爆發過廢棄食用油回收風暴，經歷慘痛教訓後，早已規畫一套有效管理模式，廢食用油從回收、加工、產銷各流程，都有明確法律規範，不像台灣回收主力是流竄各夜市攤商的「小蜜蜂」。
環保署直接把歐美這套規範搬進來，要求小吃店、夜市攤商委託「小蜜蜂」回收廢油須簽訂契約，由各縣市環保局嚴格稽核管控，沒合法委任回收就對攤商、清運公司開罰，這真是官員們辦公室吹冷氣想出來的天兵政策。
所謂「小蜜蜂」就是專門向夜市、攤販、小吃店收購廢食用油的違法個體戶，他們像蜜蜂般四處採蜜，一桶18公升廢油合法回收做生質柴油，可賣200至300元，小蜜蜂收購價則每桶多出行情100至200元。
羊毛出在羊身上，小蜜蜂加價回收廢油，當然轉賣給地下油行提煉成高價豬油。小蜜蜂做的就是遊走法律邊緣、穩賺不賠的生意，如果小蜜蜂可以輔導合法化管理，早就成立合法廢棄物清理公司營業，還要當小蜜蜂嗎？小蜜蜂四處亂飛政府有能力管嗎？
日本所有回收油都由專業公司回收，再以較高價賣給政府，政府委託提煉製成垃圾車的燃料。高價收購政策下，小蜜蜂在日本毫無生存空間。馬克思說得好，「如果有100%的利潤，資本家會鋌而走險，如果有200%的利潤，就會藐視法律。」環保署應反思廢棄電池、燈泡回收制度實施多年，憑什麼逐漸建立完善制度？關鍵就在殺頭生意有人幹，賠本生意沒人做！
衛福部行政怠惰無作為，形成就源管理的盲點，風暴已起又只寄望修法提高刑罰。提煉餿水浮油的地下油行業者固然可惡，把違反食安罪責與北捷殺人殘暴罪刑，放在同一天秤上衡量，不只違反民主法治原則，更凸顯了公務員的顢頇無能。
檢視這波食安風暴行政機關作為，農委會終於要嚴格管理飼料用油國外輸入及國內製造登記，經濟部也要協助各縣市，查察全台202家領有臨時工廠登記飼料用油與食用油的食品公司。這些都是早就該做，也應不斷執行的行政作為。而衛福部總在風暴發生之後，才要求各縣市衛生局稽查、要求下架，把責任推給廠商，從沒落實稽核預防機制。各界譴責聲浪一高漲，就迎合民意高喊修法提高刑罰，卻不思行政追求公益目的，相較司法與立法，必須更主動積極介入社會、經濟等關係人民生活領域。
兩次餿水油風暴，消費者已受夠了！就源管理是杜絕餿水油不二法門，環保回收機制必須建立在民間利潤基礎上；衛福部更應扛起統籌行政稽核職權，只要落實開單、廢照等積極行政處分，自然可以切斷不法源頭！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2014
Summary: Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.
Full Text below:
The rancid oil scandal has undermined Taiwan's reputation as a gourmet's paradise. The Executive Yuan has investigated and dealt with the scandal for nearly one month. The only action it has taken is to propose that night market stalls sign contracts with the "little bees" that recycle waste oil, and express hope that the Legislative Yuan will amend the Food Safety and Health Management Act and impose harsher criminal penalties, Apparently it is attempting to mollify populist sentiment by increasing criminal penalties. Apparently it hopes to divert attention from the government's responsibility. But if society considers the matter rationally, it will mot accept this approach.
This is not the first time a rancid oil scandal has erupted on Taiwan. On the eve of the Mid-Autumn Festival in 1985, the De Tai Oil Company acquired rancid oil at low cost from pig farmers, which they then turned into low grade vegetable oil. They mixed it with salad oil, and presto, lawful oil. This was sold to restaurants in the greater Taipei area. Thirty years later, food safety regulations have been totally revamped. Administrative and criminal penalties have been substantially increased. Yet a rancid oil scandal has erupted, yet again. The government should hang its head in ashamed.
A fair and impartial investigation of responsibility in the current food safety scandal is essential. The first line of defense was the Pingtung County Government. Yet it cavalierly igored the public welfare. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is responsible for food safety. The EPA is responsible for waste recycling. The COA is responsible for the management of feed oil. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for the inspection of registered companies and factories. All of them were indolent and derelict in their duty.
The root of the problem is slack management. Nobody wants to be responsible. After the recent outbreak, the Ministry of Health and Welfare attempted to set the tone by issuing a green light for food safety. It even dug up an expert willing to endorse its findings. "Ingesting one or two drops will do no immediate harm to the human body." Taiwan is no longer a society that seeks only a full belly and warm clothing. Food safety and health are a basic right. They can even be considered a national security issue.
Slack management can be divided into two categories. One. Recycling and environmental protection. Every rancid oil scandal over the past 30 years has been rooted in blind greed. Earlier this year, many pigs came down with diarrhea. The number of pigs plummeted. The price of lard rose. Illegal underground oil refiner Kuo Lien-cheng obtained large quantities of waste cooking oil from "little bees," then turned it into low grade lard which he sold for a huge profit.
The government has the necessary mechanisms to prevent such crimes. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is vigorously recycling waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But when oil prices stabilized, biodiesel policy became stalled. Large quantites of recycled waste cooking oil had nowhere to go. With profits to be made, they returned to the dining table, and into consumers' bellies.
The US, Japan, the European countries, and other advanced countries, have also endured waste cooking oil scandals. Painful lessons led to effective management models. Waste cooking oil recycling, processing, production, and marketing all have clear legal norms. Contrast this with Taiwan, where every night "little bees" collect waste cooking oil from night market stalls.
The EPA adopted Europe and US specifications in toto. It required snack bars and night market stalls to sign contracts with "little bees," entrusting them to recycle waste oil. The assumption was that county and municipal environmental protection bureaus would rigorously and control the process. Recycling by anyone other than a lawfully appointed vendor, cleaning company, or moving company, meant penalties. These were truly pie in the sky policies dreamed up by bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices.
The so-called "little bees" are self-employed individuals dedicated to the illegal acquisition of waste cooking oil from night market stalls, vendors, and snack bars. They are like honey bees gathering pollen. An 18 liter bucket of waste oil can be legitimately recycled to make biodiesel. It can sell for 200 to 300 NT. The little bees purchase price is usually 100 to 200 NT per barrel.
Fleece can come only from sheep. The little bees' waste oil recycled at higher cost, is naturally sold to underground oil refiners and turned into higher-priced lard. Little bees operate on the fringes of the law. They are in business to make money, not lose it. If little bees could be persuaded to remain within the law, they would already be legitimate waste disposal companies, Why would they remain little bees? Can the government really control little bees, who flit from here to there?
In Japan all oil recovery is done by professional companies, then sold to the government at higher prices. The government commissions refiners to turn it into fuel for garbage trucks. Buying at higher prices makes it impossible for little bees to survive In Japan. Karl Marx said it best. "If capital can get a 100 percent profit, it will trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run." The EPA should reflect on the system for the disposal of batteries and the recycling of light bulbs, which have been around for years. On what basis can it gradually establish a sound system? The key is people are even willing to commit capital crimes for a profit. But no one is willing to engage in a money losing business.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare has been indolent and derelict in its duty. This has led to resource management blind spots. Its sole response to the scandal has been to urge the amending of the law and an increase in penalties. The underground rancid oil refining business is surely hateful. But food safety violations cannot be compared to the brutal murders on the Taipei MRT. To do so would violate the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would merely underscore the incompetence of civil servants.
Consider the actions taken by government agencies during the recent food safety scandal. The COA finally imposed strict oversight of foreign oil imports and the registration of domestic manufacturing, The Ministry of Economic Affairs intends to assist cities and counties inspect all 202 companies with temporary factory registration for feed oil and edible oil processing. These moves were long overdue. They must continue to perform these duties. After the scandal erupted, the Ministry of Health and Welfare required county and city health bureaus to inspect products and remove them from store shelves. It passed the buck onto the manufacturer. It never implemented any preventive mechanisms. When condemnation from all walks of life reached new highs, it pandered to populist sentiment by calling for increased penalties. It never considered the pursuit of the public welfare. Compared to the judicial and legislative branches, it is clear that it must become more proactive and involved with the community, the economy, and other aspects of people's lives.
Two rancid oil scandals have erupted. Consumers have had enough. The only way to prevent rancid oil scandals is proper management. Recycling mechanisms must be established on the basis of profit and loss. The Ministry of Health and Welfare must co-ordinate its administration and auditing, If it can impose fines, revoke licenses, and other administrative sanctions, it can address the problem at its source.
社論－嚴刑峻法不能解決食安問題
2014年09月24日 04:10
本報訊
餿水油風暴重創台灣美食王國聲譽，行政院檢討究辦將近一個月，只提出夜市攤商應與回收廢油的「小蜜蜂」簽契約管控，並寄望立院修《食品安全衛生管理法》提高刑責兩項對策，似有藉提高刑責滿足民粹心理，以轉移政府管理責任的意圖，社會理性思辨後恐難接受。
餿水油風暴並不是第一次發生，民國74年同樣中秋節前夕，調查局查獲台北市德泰油行低價向養豬戶收購餿水浮油，再交由化工廠提煉劣質沙拉油、混充沙拉油，搖身一變合法油品，賣給大台北地區餐飲業。時隔30年，食品安全相關法規都已修訂完備，行政及刑責相關罰則大幅提高，再次爆發餿水油風暴，政府真該汗顏！
持平究責，這次食安風暴，第一線屏東縣政府怠忽輕漫最愧對國人，主管食安的衛福部、負責廢棄物回收的環保署、管理飼料用油的農委會、查察公司與工廠登記的經濟部，同樣怠惰失職。
問題在源頭管理鬆散，沒人願意負責，衛福部在事件爆發後，還想定調食安為「綠燈」、甚至找來專家背書，「吃一、兩滴對人體無立即傷害」，台灣已非只求溫飽的社會，確保食物安全健康是基本權利、也是國安議題。
源頭管理可從兩個層面檢視。首先，回收再利用環保層面，30年來所有餿水油風暴，都起因利字當頭。今年初受仔豬下痢影響，豬隻銳減、豬油水漲船高，不法地下油行業者郭烈成乃大量向「小蜜蜂」 收購廢棄食用油，提煉劣質豬油高價轉售牟暴利。
政府不是沒有相關機制可以防堵。經濟部原本大力回收廢食用油生產生質柴油，但在油價回穩、生質柴油政策卡關後，大量回收的廢食用油沒去處，有利可圖下，又回到餐桌上，吃進消費者肚內。
美國、日本及歐洲等先進國家，也曾爆發過廢棄食用油回收風暴，經歷慘痛教訓後，早已規畫一套有效管理模式，廢食用油從回收、加工、產銷各流程，都有明確法律規範，不像台灣回收主力是流竄各夜市攤商的「小蜜蜂」。
環保署直接把歐美這套規範搬進來，要求小吃店、夜市攤商委託「小蜜蜂」回收廢油須簽訂契約，由各縣市環保局嚴格稽核管控，沒合法委任回收就對攤商、清運公司開罰，這真是官員們辦公室吹冷氣想出來的天兵政策。
所謂「小蜜蜂」就是專門向夜市、攤販、小吃店收購廢食用油的違法個體戶，他們像蜜蜂般四處採蜜，一桶18公升廢油合法回收做生質柴油，可賣200至300元，小蜜蜂收購價則每桶多出行情100至200元。
羊毛出在羊身上，小蜜蜂加價回收廢油，當然轉賣給地下油行提煉成高價豬油。小蜜蜂做的就是遊走法律邊緣、穩賺不賠的生意，如果小蜜蜂可以輔導合法化管理，早就成立合法廢棄物清理公司營業，還要當小蜜蜂嗎？小蜜蜂四處亂飛政府有能力管嗎？
日本所有回收油都由專業公司回收，再以較高價賣給政府，政府委託提煉製成垃圾車的燃料。高價收購政策下，小蜜蜂在日本毫無生存空間。馬克思說得好，「如果有100%的利潤，資本家會鋌而走險，如果有200%的利潤，就會藐視法律。」環保署應反思廢棄電池、燈泡回收制度實施多年，憑什麼逐漸建立完善制度？關鍵就在殺頭生意有人幹，賠本生意沒人做！
衛福部行政怠惰無作為，形成就源管理的盲點，風暴已起又只寄望修法提高刑罰。提煉餿水浮油的地下油行業者固然可惡，把違反食安罪責與北捷殺人殘暴罪刑，放在同一天秤上衡量，不只違反民主法治原則，更凸顯了公務員的顢頇無能。
檢視這波食安風暴行政機關作為，農委會終於要嚴格管理飼料用油國外輸入及國內製造登記，經濟部也要協助各縣市，查察全台202家領有臨時工廠登記飼料用油與食用油的食品公司。這些都是早就該做，也應不斷執行的行政作為。而衛福部總在風暴發生之後，才要求各縣市衛生局稽查、要求下架，把責任推給廠商，從沒落實稽核預防機制。各界譴責聲浪一高漲，就迎合民意高喊修法提高刑罰，卻不思行政追求公益目的，相較司法與立法，必須更主動積極介入社會、經濟等關係人民生活領域。
兩次餿水油風暴，消費者已受夠了！就源管理是杜絕餿水油不二法門，環保回收機制必須建立在民間利潤基礎上；衛福部更應扛起統籌行政稽核職權，只要落實開單、廢照等積極行政處分，自然可以切斷不法源頭！
Monday, September 22, 2014
Fatal Haste: One Reason Taiwan Has Not Progressed
Fatal Haste: One Reason Taiwan Has Not Progressed
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 23, 2014
Summary: Hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible. The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Taiwan society has discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has a remedy?
Full Text Below:
Taiwan's economic growth has slowed. Blue vs. green political opposition persists, undiminished. The economy is being strangled and politics provoke disgust. These are two barriers to the nation's progress. Yet recent events prove that private enterprise and government agencies lack seriousness. This is in fact a serious problem that prevents Taiwan society from moving forward.
Let us begin with something people feel strongly about. The Taoyuan landscape art festival exhibited a large "moon rabbit." When workers dismantled it with the conclusion of the Mid-Autumn Festival, Sparks from an overheated truck engine caused a fire. The grassy field and the moon rabbit were consumed by flames. The moon rabbit was a work by the Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman. His previous work, a yellow duckling, was exhibited in Taoyuan last year. But a power failure caused it to deflate. This was followed by overinflation which caused it to burst. When exhibited in Keelung, air pollution turned it into a "black duckling." This was followed by the improper use of cleaning agents, which weakened the rubber seams and caused it to explode. Hofman is unlikely to forget the ordeal his pieces have undergone while on Taiwan.
The yellow duckling exploded, twice, due to sloppiness on the part of those in charge and staff members. They failed to anticipate external variables. Could power failures and air pollution really not have been anticipated? Taiwan companies were granted the opportunity to participate in the manufacture of of the yellow duckling. They beamed with pride. But when sewing such a large piece, did they bother to take into account the strength of the seams? When they cleaned the duckling, did it never occurred to them that this might weaken the stitching at the seams? This is typical of the "stop-gap measure" mindset. Even more absurdly, when dismantling the moon rabbit, contractors touched off a conflagration. The county government and exhibitors then had the chutzpah to claim that "They were scheduled for demolition anyway." Apparently no one is to be held to account for this careless accident. Apparently it did not matter that a work of art was destroyed in such a farcical manner.
Coincidentally, the day before the Taoyuan moon rabbit became a "Burning Rabbit," a gas explosion rocked the Kaohsiung MRT project. This was the same place where two months ago a ruptured petrochemical pipe led to a benzene gas leak. This time on site personnel clearly smelled the odor of gas. Yet construction units required workers to wear gas masks and re-enter the tunnel to work, promptly triggering a gas explosion. Thirty-two people died in the Kaohsiung gas explosion. People were just recovering from the disaster. Yet the Kaohsiung MRT resumed work in such a slapdash manner. Did anyone learn a lesson from the experience? This city bills itself as a "human rights city." But does it place any value on the lives of its construction workers?
The Taoyuan and Kaohsiung city governments can of course lay all the blame on contractor neglect. But these works involve construction specifications, working conditions, as well as public safety. The government must require manufacturers to comply with contract specifications and supervise construction. If it allows them to compromise standards, if it abets shoddy construction methods or substandard materials, how can the public feel safe? How can Taiwan ensure product quality?
Following the Kaohsiung MRT gas explosion, construction units installed a large number of fans. They attempted to disperse the gas from the site by blowing air. Firefighters attempted dilute the benzene by spraying it with water. But as everyone knows, benzene is insoluble in water. We can now see just how primitive public safety is in the modern city of Kaohsiung. Information Technology long ago entered the cloud computing era. Yet the Kaohsiung City Government could not produce a complete and accurate map of its petrochemical pipelines and underground drainage culverts. Clearly Taiwan, a purported "IT Giant," is still quite a few evolutionary steps behind the times. More than 50 days later, the bodies of two firefighters were finally recovered. In fact, the "phantom" box culvert outlet was not that far away. Apparently the Kaohsiung City Government never bothered to conduct a serious and systematic search. They later trotted out some tale of "phantom" culverts to evade blame. This is truly a mark of shame for modern Taiwan.
The rancid oil scandal has shown us that the problem is callous indifference on the part of private enterprise and government agencies alike. It is one thing for Kuo Lie-cheng to process rancid oil in his underground processing plants. But when the Chang Guann Company, capitalized in the hundreds of millions, purchases oil from him, that is something else altogether. Chang Guann mixed this oil in with others and sold it to food manufacturers across the nation. How many complaints has the Pingtung County Government been barraged with over the past four years? Environmental protection, health, and agriculture officials politely went through the motions, turning a blind eye to what was going on, again and again. Human lives were at stake. Yet bureaucrats thought nothing of it. And county residents apparently still have complete faith in such a county governmenty.
These are all examples of hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things. They are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible. The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Back then Taiwan lacked resources and knowledge. Chasing after appearances was enough. But 30 years later, after so much progress, Taiwan society has discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has a remedy?
致命的草率：台灣無法進步的一大癥結
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.23 02:02 am
台灣近年經濟成長遲滯，藍綠對立始終無法舒緩，「悶經濟」加上「悶政治」，對國家發展構成了雙重阻障。但綜觀最近的一連串事件，人們可以發現，民間企業和行政體系中「認真」精神的失落，其實也是嚴重羈絆台灣社會前進的一大癥結。
先從令人感受最深刻的例子談起。桃園地景藝術節展出的大月兔，在中秋過後雇工拆除時，竟因施工卡車引擎過熱致火花掉落起火，將現場草坪連同月兔一起燒毀。這隻月兔是荷蘭藝術家霍夫曼的作品，他的前一作品黃小鴨去年在桃園展出時，曾因跳電「消風」而扁掉，又因充氣過度而爆裂；在基隆展出時，則因空氣汙染變成「黑小鴨」，隨即又因清潔劑使用不當傷及膠皮縫線而爆掉。對於其作品在台灣如此多災多難的遭遇，霍夫曼恐怕很難忘吧？
黃小鴨兩度爆裂，都是由於主事者和工作人員態度草率，對於外在變數缺乏估計所致；否則，跳電和空氣汙染豈是無法防範的因素？再者，台灣業者以有幸參與黃小鴨的製作而感自豪，但縫製如此大型的作品是否考慮到牢固性的加強？包括在清洗小鴨時，卻沒想到這同時破壞了其結構縫線，正是典型「頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳」的單向思維作風。更荒唐的是，受雇拆除月兔的包工以火燒的意外收場，縣府和策展單位竟以「本來就要銷毀」一語隨口帶過，彷彿這種粗疏肇事沒有人需要負責，一件作品如此毀棄也毫不足惜。
無獨有偶，在桃園月兔變成「火燒兔」的前一日，高雄衛武營的捷運工程發生了氣爆意外。這個地點兩個月前即曾挖破石化管，導致苯氣外洩；這次施工時，現場人員分明聞到了濃濃的異味氣體，工程單位仍要求工人戴著防毒面具進入地道工作，隨即引發氣爆。試想，在導致卅二死的高雄氣爆重創未癒之際，高捷如此草率的施工表現，有任何記取教訓的態度嗎？這個號稱「人權城市」的都會，有把工人的性命當一回事嗎？
當然，桃園和高雄市府都可以把責任推給施作「包工」的不慎；但是，任何工程的進行均涉及施工規範、勞動條件乃至公共安全，如果政府不確實要求承包廠商遵守規範，不透過有效的機制監督其施工品質，卻放任他們在標準線上下混水摸魚，縱容他們「土法煉鋼」對承包工程偷工減料或上下其手，民眾的安全怎麼會有保障？台灣的產品品質怎麼會有保證？
在高捷工程氣爆後，施工單位在現場架設了多支電扇，企圖以「風吹」的方式驅散現場的異味，還有消防人員試圖以「水澆」的方式稀釋土壤中的苯氣，殊不知苯不溶於水。從這個景象，即可看出，作為現代都會的高雄，在安全治理上處於多麼原始的狀態。當資訊科技早已進入「雲端」，而高雄地下石化管線和排水箱涵卻拿不出準確而完整的地圖；可見，號稱「資訊大國」的台灣，其實有很大一部分跟不上時代的進化腳步。也因此，歷經五十多日方才尋獲的兩名消防弟兄之遺體，其實就在幽靈箱涵出口不遠處，可見先前根本未曾有系統地認真搜尋，事後卻還要拿一些「靈異」故事來襯托，這真是現代台灣的恥辱標記。
在餿水油事件中，我們看到的，正是民間廠商和政府部門合作演出的粗疏草率。郭烈成在地下工廠土法煉油也就罷了，資本額數億的強冠竟敢向他購油，在工廠中調混到一個程度，就賣給全國食品廠。而屏東縣府四年來接獲多少次的檢舉，環保、衛生、農業官員先後登門檢查行禮如儀，卻視而不見，一次次放過。人命關天，官僚卻毫不放在心中，而縣民似乎對這樣的縣府似仍深信不疑。
上述種種草率、粗疏、不精確、無規範的態度，對任何社會的發展都是會致命的病因；只要「隨便主義」存在，法治即難以落實，進步便不可能實現。餿水油事件再現，讓台灣一下子倒回卅年前「仿冒王國」的時代；但那個年代的台灣是因為資源及知識不足，只能以追求外表的神似為已足。而經過卅年的發展之後，台灣社會居然有這麼多官員和人民的自我要求還停留在那個狀態，並驕矜自滿，以先進國家自居，這豈不令人驚駭！這種跨藍綠的台灣病，朝野誰有解方？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 23, 2014
Summary: Hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible. The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Taiwan society has discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has a remedy?
Full Text Below:
Taiwan's economic growth has slowed. Blue vs. green political opposition persists, undiminished. The economy is being strangled and politics provoke disgust. These are two barriers to the nation's progress. Yet recent events prove that private enterprise and government agencies lack seriousness. This is in fact a serious problem that prevents Taiwan society from moving forward.
Let us begin with something people feel strongly about. The Taoyuan landscape art festival exhibited a large "moon rabbit." When workers dismantled it with the conclusion of the Mid-Autumn Festival, Sparks from an overheated truck engine caused a fire. The grassy field and the moon rabbit were consumed by flames. The moon rabbit was a work by the Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman. His previous work, a yellow duckling, was exhibited in Taoyuan last year. But a power failure caused it to deflate. This was followed by overinflation which caused it to burst. When exhibited in Keelung, air pollution turned it into a "black duckling." This was followed by the improper use of cleaning agents, which weakened the rubber seams and caused it to explode. Hofman is unlikely to forget the ordeal his pieces have undergone while on Taiwan.
The yellow duckling exploded, twice, due to sloppiness on the part of those in charge and staff members. They failed to anticipate external variables. Could power failures and air pollution really not have been anticipated? Taiwan companies were granted the opportunity to participate in the manufacture of of the yellow duckling. They beamed with pride. But when sewing such a large piece, did they bother to take into account the strength of the seams? When they cleaned the duckling, did it never occurred to them that this might weaken the stitching at the seams? This is typical of the "stop-gap measure" mindset. Even more absurdly, when dismantling the moon rabbit, contractors touched off a conflagration. The county government and exhibitors then had the chutzpah to claim that "They were scheduled for demolition anyway." Apparently no one is to be held to account for this careless accident. Apparently it did not matter that a work of art was destroyed in such a farcical manner.
Coincidentally, the day before the Taoyuan moon rabbit became a "Burning Rabbit," a gas explosion rocked the Kaohsiung MRT project. This was the same place where two months ago a ruptured petrochemical pipe led to a benzene gas leak. This time on site personnel clearly smelled the odor of gas. Yet construction units required workers to wear gas masks and re-enter the tunnel to work, promptly triggering a gas explosion. Thirty-two people died in the Kaohsiung gas explosion. People were just recovering from the disaster. Yet the Kaohsiung MRT resumed work in such a slapdash manner. Did anyone learn a lesson from the experience? This city bills itself as a "human rights city." But does it place any value on the lives of its construction workers?
The Taoyuan and Kaohsiung city governments can of course lay all the blame on contractor neglect. But these works involve construction specifications, working conditions, as well as public safety. The government must require manufacturers to comply with contract specifications and supervise construction. If it allows them to compromise standards, if it abets shoddy construction methods or substandard materials, how can the public feel safe? How can Taiwan ensure product quality?
Following the Kaohsiung MRT gas explosion, construction units installed a large number of fans. They attempted to disperse the gas from the site by blowing air. Firefighters attempted dilute the benzene by spraying it with water. But as everyone knows, benzene is insoluble in water. We can now see just how primitive public safety is in the modern city of Kaohsiung. Information Technology long ago entered the cloud computing era. Yet the Kaohsiung City Government could not produce a complete and accurate map of its petrochemical pipelines and underground drainage culverts. Clearly Taiwan, a purported "IT Giant," is still quite a few evolutionary steps behind the times. More than 50 days later, the bodies of two firefighters were finally recovered. In fact, the "phantom" box culvert outlet was not that far away. Apparently the Kaohsiung City Government never bothered to conduct a serious and systematic search. They later trotted out some tale of "phantom" culverts to evade blame. This is truly a mark of shame for modern Taiwan.
The rancid oil scandal has shown us that the problem is callous indifference on the part of private enterprise and government agencies alike. It is one thing for Kuo Lie-cheng to process rancid oil in his underground processing plants. But when the Chang Guann Company, capitalized in the hundreds of millions, purchases oil from him, that is something else altogether. Chang Guann mixed this oil in with others and sold it to food manufacturers across the nation. How many complaints has the Pingtung County Government been barraged with over the past four years? Environmental protection, health, and agriculture officials politely went through the motions, turning a blind eye to what was going on, again and again. Human lives were at stake. Yet bureaucrats thought nothing of it. And county residents apparently still have complete faith in such a county governmenty.
These are all examples of hasty, careless, imprecise, non-standardized approaches to doing things. They are fatal for any society that hopes to progress. As long as this sort of "good enough for government work" mindset prevails, the rule of law will remain difficult to implement, and progress will be impossible. The rancid oil scandal was a repeat performance. It abruptly took Taiwan back 30 years, to the "knock-off kingdom" era. Back then Taiwan lacked resources and knowledge. Chasing after appearances was enough. But 30 years later, after so much progress, Taiwan society has discovered that many officials and citizens are still living in the past. They are puffed up with haughty complacency They boast that they live in an advanced nation. Astounding, no? This Taiwan disease has no political coloration. So who among the ruling and opposition parties has a remedy?
致命的草率：台灣無法進步的一大癥結
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.23 02:02 am
台灣近年經濟成長遲滯，藍綠對立始終無法舒緩，「悶經濟」加上「悶政治」，對國家發展構成了雙重阻障。但綜觀最近的一連串事件，人們可以發現，民間企業和行政體系中「認真」精神的失落，其實也是嚴重羈絆台灣社會前進的一大癥結。
先從令人感受最深刻的例子談起。桃園地景藝術節展出的大月兔，在中秋過後雇工拆除時，竟因施工卡車引擎過熱致火花掉落起火，將現場草坪連同月兔一起燒毀。這隻月兔是荷蘭藝術家霍夫曼的作品，他的前一作品黃小鴨去年在桃園展出時，曾因跳電「消風」而扁掉，又因充氣過度而爆裂；在基隆展出時，則因空氣汙染變成「黑小鴨」，隨即又因清潔劑使用不當傷及膠皮縫線而爆掉。對於其作品在台灣如此多災多難的遭遇，霍夫曼恐怕很難忘吧？
黃小鴨兩度爆裂，都是由於主事者和工作人員態度草率，對於外在變數缺乏估計所致；否則，跳電和空氣汙染豈是無法防範的因素？再者，台灣業者以有幸參與黃小鴨的製作而感自豪，但縫製如此大型的作品是否考慮到牢固性的加強？包括在清洗小鴨時，卻沒想到這同時破壞了其結構縫線，正是典型「頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳」的單向思維作風。更荒唐的是，受雇拆除月兔的包工以火燒的意外收場，縣府和策展單位竟以「本來就要銷毀」一語隨口帶過，彷彿這種粗疏肇事沒有人需要負責，一件作品如此毀棄也毫不足惜。
無獨有偶，在桃園月兔變成「火燒兔」的前一日，高雄衛武營的捷運工程發生了氣爆意外。這個地點兩個月前即曾挖破石化管，導致苯氣外洩；這次施工時，現場人員分明聞到了濃濃的異味氣體，工程單位仍要求工人戴著防毒面具進入地道工作，隨即引發氣爆。試想，在導致卅二死的高雄氣爆重創未癒之際，高捷如此草率的施工表現，有任何記取教訓的態度嗎？這個號稱「人權城市」的都會，有把工人的性命當一回事嗎？
當然，桃園和高雄市府都可以把責任推給施作「包工」的不慎；但是，任何工程的進行均涉及施工規範、勞動條件乃至公共安全，如果政府不確實要求承包廠商遵守規範，不透過有效的機制監督其施工品質，卻放任他們在標準線上下混水摸魚，縱容他們「土法煉鋼」對承包工程偷工減料或上下其手，民眾的安全怎麼會有保障？台灣的產品品質怎麼會有保證？
在高捷工程氣爆後，施工單位在現場架設了多支電扇，企圖以「風吹」的方式驅散現場的異味，還有消防人員試圖以「水澆」的方式稀釋土壤中的苯氣，殊不知苯不溶於水。從這個景象，即可看出，作為現代都會的高雄，在安全治理上處於多麼原始的狀態。當資訊科技早已進入「雲端」，而高雄地下石化管線和排水箱涵卻拿不出準確而完整的地圖；可見，號稱「資訊大國」的台灣，其實有很大一部分跟不上時代的進化腳步。也因此，歷經五十多日方才尋獲的兩名消防弟兄之遺體，其實就在幽靈箱涵出口不遠處，可見先前根本未曾有系統地認真搜尋，事後卻還要拿一些「靈異」故事來襯托，這真是現代台灣的恥辱標記。
在餿水油事件中，我們看到的，正是民間廠商和政府部門合作演出的粗疏草率。郭烈成在地下工廠土法煉油也就罷了，資本額數億的強冠竟敢向他購油，在工廠中調混到一個程度，就賣給全國食品廠。而屏東縣府四年來接獲多少次的檢舉，環保、衛生、農業官員先後登門檢查行禮如儀，卻視而不見，一次次放過。人命關天，官僚卻毫不放在心中，而縣民似乎對這樣的縣府似仍深信不疑。
上述種種草率、粗疏、不精確、無規範的態度，對任何社會的發展都是會致命的病因；只要「隨便主義」存在，法治即難以落實，進步便不可能實現。餿水油事件再現，讓台灣一下子倒回卅年前「仿冒王國」的時代；但那個年代的台灣是因為資源及知識不足，只能以追求外表的神似為已足。而經過卅年的發展之後，台灣社會居然有這麼多官員和人民的自我要求還停留在那個狀態，並驕矜自滿，以先進國家自居，這豈不令人驚駭！這種跨藍綠的台灣病，朝野誰有解方？
Sunday, September 21, 2014
The Lesson of Scotland: Why Stay? Why Leave?
The Lesson of Scotland: Why Stay? Why Leave?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 22, 2014
Summary: The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.
Full Text Below;
The referendum on Scottish independence has presented the world with at least three major political revelations.
One. Britain is an advanced democracy. That is why the referendum process was so peaceful. It dealt skillfully with the sensitive issue of whether the nation should be divided. It represented a major achievement for democracy and human rights. Two. The no and yes camps were evenly matched. No matter which side won, the other side would lose. Would the referendum solve the problems the nation faced? Or would it merely deepen the nation's wounds? England and Scotland are both wounded, and Scotland is wounded within. This illustrates the limitations of reunification vs. independence referenda. Three. The referendum has forced the world to consider why a nation should remain either unified or be divided.
This year, two kinds of referenda have attracted global attention. The first was the Crimean referendum. The second was the Scottish referendum. The Crimean referendum dates back to March 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. At that time, Ukraine and 15 republics passed referenda calling for independence from the Soviet Union. Now however, Crimea has approved a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The Soviet Union imploded as a result of the communist dictatorship's political and economic incompetence. But the Crimean referendum reflects post-Soviet Russian factors, international power struggles, violence, and military intervention.
Britain was once an empire over which the sun never set. The United States won independence only after fighting a war with the mother country. Fifty-three nations of the British Commonwealth have become independent from the British Empire. But Scotland is not like them. King James I and King James VI of Scotland were the very same person. Today Queen Elizabeth II's mother is a Scotswoman. Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of the British Isles. The United Kingdom has a highly positive international image and status. The British Isles have no violent political or ideological disagreements. So why must Scotland demand independence? No wonder the previous Conservative government never expected independence to become an issue, one that would force British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that if Scotland became independent, it would amount to a "divorce." So why must Scotland be independent? Observers think the key is North Sea oil interests. They may well trump Scotland's membership in the United Kingdom.
As the Crimean and Scottish examples show, political unity vs. political independence often involve the collision of political and economic systems and their values. This was the case when the Soviet Union imploded. Independence sometimes involves national identity issues. This was the case for Crimea. It sometimes involves economic interests and greed. This was the case for North Sea oil and Scottish independence. One can achieve independence in many ways. One can rise up like the United States and fight a War of Independence. One can hold a public referendum like Quebec did with Canada, or Scotland did with Great Britain. The Spanish government by contrast, has no intention of recognizing Catalonia's independence referendum. Therefore the Scottish independence referendum has relatively narrow appeal. The belief is that oil interests dominate. But the government and the public displayed respect for democracy and civilized behavior during the process.
The Scottish independence referendum has had a powerful impact on cross-Strait thought. The gist of it is that cross-Strait relations are unlike relations between Scotland and the UK. This is correct, but incomplete. Scottish independence is not motivated by differences over political and economic systems or national identiy. It is motivated by dissatisfaction with social and economic policy. The pro-independence faction has even implied that following independence they would be willing to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Cross-Strait relations by contrast, are marked by vastly different political systems, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. On the economic side, Scotland wants to exclude the United Kingdom from the North Sea oil fields. Taiwan of course has no oil. It is also increasingly dependent on the Mainland economy. Today cross-Strait relations are based on economic benefit, but differences in political systems pose a bottleneck.
The biggest difference is that London is willing to abide by the outcome of a Scottish referendum. Beijing on the other hand, has consistently opposed any independence referendum. Even the United States has said that the United Kingdom and Scotland should remain unified. The United States would not want the two sides reunified on an unequal basis. But it has already stated its opposition to any Taiwan independence referendum. Given the international framework and cross-Strait situation, the two sides find themselves within a "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" situation.
For 300 years Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. Yet today it seeks independence from the United Kingdom. Beijing on the other hand, still does not recognize the Republic of China as part of China. It only recognizes Taiwan and the Mainland as part of one China. That is why it cannot persuade people on Taiwan to accept "one China."
Cross-Strait relations and Scotland-UK relations do have one thing in common. Whether they hold a referendum or not, the fundamental problem lies within peoples' hearts. Can the United Kingdom reassure the Scots that if they remain within the United Kingdom, they can maintain their honor and self-esteem? If it can, the people will arrive at their own decision about reunification vs. independence. By contrast, Beijing has long regarded Taiwan as a renegade province. Over the past 65 years, the Republic of China has created a civilization on Taiwan. Yet Beijing refuses to grant it political recognition. It refuses to recognize the Republic of China as a part of China. Yet it demands that the public on Taiwan recognize "one China." Under the circumstances, how can it expect the public on Taiwan to feel pride and self-esteem as part of "one China?"
The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.
蘇格蘭啟示：因何而統？為何要獨？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.22 02:18 am
此次蘇格蘭獨立公投對人類政治文明至少有三大啟示：
一、英國不愧為民主先進國家，能以如此和平的過程，處理國家應否分裂的尖銳議題，這是在民主及人權上的重大成就。二、統獨雙方旗鼓相當，無論哪一方的勝利，皆顯示另一方的失敗，則公投之勝敗是否就此解決了問題，或反而深化了國家撕裂的傷口（英國與蘇格蘭的撕裂，及蘇格蘭內部的撕裂），這就涉及到統獨公投在功能上的侷限。三、引發世人思考一個問題：國家因何要統一？又為何要分裂而獨立？
今年，有兩個類型迥異的公投事件引起世人矚目，一是克里米亞公投，一是蘇格蘭公投。三月的克里米亞公投至少可從一九九一年蘇聯解體說起，當時烏克蘭與十五個加盟共和國相繼通過公投脫離蘇聯而獨立，如今克里米亞卻通過了「脫烏入俄」的公投。蘇聯解體是因共產專政在政治及經濟治理上的崩潰，但克里米亞公投卻是蘇聯解體後俄羅斯元素的迴波，也是國際角力的反映，並發生了暴力及軍事介入。
英國則曾是日不落國，美國是以戰勝從母國獨立，而「大英國協」的五十三國更將一部英帝國史寫成了屬地獨立史。但蘇格蘭卻不太一樣，英王詹姆士一世與蘇格蘭王詹姆士六世為同一人，現今英國女王伊麗沙白二世的母親亦為蘇格蘭人，且蘇格蘭又與英格蘭、威爾斯同在不列顛島上，再加上「聯合王國」的國際形象及地位甚佳，不列顛島上又無政治體制及意識形態的劇烈分歧，則蘇格蘭因何要主張獨立？這也難怪保守黨政府原先根本未料到獨立事件幾乎要鬧到弄假成真，而逼得英相卡麥隆稱，蘇格蘭若獨立，那就是「離婚」。蘇格蘭為何要獨立？觀察家們共認的核心理由是：為了在北海油田利益上排擠「聯合王國」。
從克里米亞及蘇格蘭兩例可見，政治上的統獨概念，可從政經體制及價值理念的激烈衝撞（如蘇聯解體），到民族主義的認同抉擇（如克里米亞），到以經濟利益的貪婪心理為主體訴求（如北海石油之於蘇格蘭獨派）。至於尋求獨立的途徑，則可從美國獨立戰爭的「起義手段」，到魁北克對加拿大或蘇格蘭對英國的公投體制，而西班牙政府則不承認加泰隆尼亞的獨立公投。準此以論，此次蘇格蘭獨立公投，在訴求上較狹隘（石油利益論），但在手段過程上的表現，無論是政府或民眾，卻是最民主亦最文明的。
蘇格蘭獨立公投對台海兩岸思維是一強烈衝擊。一般的說法是，兩岸關係與蘇格蘭之例不同；此說有其見地，但並不周延。蘇格蘭鬧獨立不是對整體政經體制及價值信念的認同歧異（只因對社經政策的不滿），獨派甚至暗示若獨立願留在「大英國協」；但兩岸關係的主要分歧卻是在政治體制、價值信念及生活方式的迥然而異。至於在經濟面，蘇格蘭欲在北海油田排除聯合王國，但台灣非但沒有石油，且在經濟上愈來愈依賴大陸。如今的兩岸關係是：以經濟互利為主軸，但政治體制的歧異卻是瓶頸。
兩岸關係的最大差異在於，倫敦允許蘇格蘭公投，但北京一貫反對台獨公投；甚至美國今日表態贊成蘇格蘭與聯合王國維持「統一」，但美國雖不願見兩岸不對等的統一，卻早已明白表態反對「台獨公投」。由於此種國際架構與兩岸情勢，兩岸遂進入如今這種「不統／不獨／不武」的境況。
蘇格蘭三百年來皆被視為「聯合王國」的一分子，今卻欲脫離聯合王國而獨立；但在北京的立場，卻始終不承認中華民國為一部分的中國（只承認台灣與大陸同屬一個中國），因此不能說服台灣接受這樣的「一個中國」。
然而，蘇格蘭之例與兩岸關係仍有一重要共同點，此即，無論是否舉行公投，問題的根本歸趨仍在民心。當聯合王國的文明條件足使蘇格蘭人自認留在聯合王國中能夠保有光榮與自尊時，民心即會在統獨之間作出大抉擇。相對而言，北京若始終將台灣視為「叛離的一省」，而欲對六十五年以來及以後中華民國在台灣所創造的文明成就不給予政治上的承認，亦即不承認中華民國是一部分的中國，卻教台灣人民如何理解、認同「一個中國」，更教台灣人民如何在「一個中國」之中感受到光榮與自尊？
蘇格蘭獨立公投，使人恍然感知，蘇格蘭原來是「聯合王國」的一分子。兩岸關係若要化解統獨難題，首務當在使中華民國感知是「大屋頂中國」下的「一部分的中國」。這是民心問題，也是超越統獨公投形式的根本問題。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 22, 2014
Summary: The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.
Full Text Below;
The referendum on Scottish independence has presented the world with at least three major political revelations.
One. Britain is an advanced democracy. That is why the referendum process was so peaceful. It dealt skillfully with the sensitive issue of whether the nation should be divided. It represented a major achievement for democracy and human rights. Two. The no and yes camps were evenly matched. No matter which side won, the other side would lose. Would the referendum solve the problems the nation faced? Or would it merely deepen the nation's wounds? England and Scotland are both wounded, and Scotland is wounded within. This illustrates the limitations of reunification vs. independence referenda. Three. The referendum has forced the world to consider why a nation should remain either unified or be divided.
This year, two kinds of referenda have attracted global attention. The first was the Crimean referendum. The second was the Scottish referendum. The Crimean referendum dates back to March 1991, when the Soviet Union imploded. At that time, Ukraine and 15 republics passed referenda calling for independence from the Soviet Union. Now however, Crimea has approved a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The Soviet Union imploded as a result of the communist dictatorship's political and economic incompetence. But the Crimean referendum reflects post-Soviet Russian factors, international power struggles, violence, and military intervention.
Britain was once an empire over which the sun never set. The United States won independence only after fighting a war with the mother country. Fifty-three nations of the British Commonwealth have become independent from the British Empire. But Scotland is not like them. King James I and King James VI of Scotland were the very same person. Today Queen Elizabeth II's mother is a Scotswoman. Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of the British Isles. The United Kingdom has a highly positive international image and status. The British Isles have no violent political or ideological disagreements. So why must Scotland demand independence? No wonder the previous Conservative government never expected independence to become an issue, one that would force British Prime Minister David Cameron to say that if Scotland became independent, it would amount to a "divorce." So why must Scotland be independent? Observers think the key is North Sea oil interests. They may well trump Scotland's membership in the United Kingdom.
As the Crimean and Scottish examples show, political unity vs. political independence often involve the collision of political and economic systems and their values. This was the case when the Soviet Union imploded. Independence sometimes involves national identity issues. This was the case for Crimea. It sometimes involves economic interests and greed. This was the case for North Sea oil and Scottish independence. One can achieve independence in many ways. One can rise up like the United States and fight a War of Independence. One can hold a public referendum like Quebec did with Canada, or Scotland did with Great Britain. The Spanish government by contrast, has no intention of recognizing Catalonia's independence referendum. Therefore the Scottish independence referendum has relatively narrow appeal. The belief is that oil interests dominate. But the government and the public displayed respect for democracy and civilized behavior during the process.
The Scottish independence referendum has had a powerful impact on cross-Strait thought. The gist of it is that cross-Strait relations are unlike relations between Scotland and the UK. This is correct, but incomplete. Scottish independence is not motivated by differences over political and economic systems or national identiy. It is motivated by dissatisfaction with social and economic policy. The pro-independence faction has even implied that following independence they would be willing to remain part of the British Commonwealth. Cross-Strait relations by contrast, are marked by vastly different political systems, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. On the economic side, Scotland wants to exclude the United Kingdom from the North Sea oil fields. Taiwan of course has no oil. It is also increasingly dependent on the Mainland economy. Today cross-Strait relations are based on economic benefit, but differences in political systems pose a bottleneck.
The biggest difference is that London is willing to abide by the outcome of a Scottish referendum. Beijing on the other hand, has consistently opposed any independence referendum. Even the United States has said that the United Kingdom and Scotland should remain unified. The United States would not want the two sides reunified on an unequal basis. But it has already stated its opposition to any Taiwan independence referendum. Given the international framework and cross-Strait situation, the two sides find themselves within a "no reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use of force" situation.
For 300 years Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. Yet today it seeks independence from the United Kingdom. Beijing on the other hand, still does not recognize the Republic of China as part of China. It only recognizes Taiwan and the Mainland as part of one China. That is why it cannot persuade people on Taiwan to accept "one China."
Cross-Strait relations and Scotland-UK relations do have one thing in common. Whether they hold a referendum or not, the fundamental problem lies within peoples' hearts. Can the United Kingdom reassure the Scots that if they remain within the United Kingdom, they can maintain their honor and self-esteem? If it can, the people will arrive at their own decision about reunification vs. independence. By contrast, Beijing has long regarded Taiwan as a renegade province. Over the past 65 years, the Republic of China has created a civilization on Taiwan. Yet Beijing refuses to grant it political recognition. It refuses to recognize the Republic of China as a part of China. Yet it demands that the public on Taiwan recognize "one China." Under the circumstances, how can it expect the public on Taiwan to feel pride and self-esteem as part of "one China?"
The Scottish independence referendum made people realize that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to resolve the issue of reunification vs. independence, they must first allow the ROC to perceive itself as part of China, under a "big roof concept of China." This is a matter of hearts and minds, This is fundamental problem that transcends the issue of reunification vs. independence referenda.
蘇格蘭啟示：因何而統？為何要獨？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.22 02:18 am
此次蘇格蘭獨立公投對人類政治文明至少有三大啟示：
一、英國不愧為民主先進國家，能以如此和平的過程，處理國家應否分裂的尖銳議題，這是在民主及人權上的重大成就。二、統獨雙方旗鼓相當，無論哪一方的勝利，皆顯示另一方的失敗，則公投之勝敗是否就此解決了問題，或反而深化了國家撕裂的傷口（英國與蘇格蘭的撕裂，及蘇格蘭內部的撕裂），這就涉及到統獨公投在功能上的侷限。三、引發世人思考一個問題：國家因何要統一？又為何要分裂而獨立？
今年，有兩個類型迥異的公投事件引起世人矚目，一是克里米亞公投，一是蘇格蘭公投。三月的克里米亞公投至少可從一九九一年蘇聯解體說起，當時烏克蘭與十五個加盟共和國相繼通過公投脫離蘇聯而獨立，如今克里米亞卻通過了「脫烏入俄」的公投。蘇聯解體是因共產專政在政治及經濟治理上的崩潰，但克里米亞公投卻是蘇聯解體後俄羅斯元素的迴波，也是國際角力的反映，並發生了暴力及軍事介入。
英國則曾是日不落國，美國是以戰勝從母國獨立，而「大英國協」的五十三國更將一部英帝國史寫成了屬地獨立史。但蘇格蘭卻不太一樣，英王詹姆士一世與蘇格蘭王詹姆士六世為同一人，現今英國女王伊麗沙白二世的母親亦為蘇格蘭人，且蘇格蘭又與英格蘭、威爾斯同在不列顛島上，再加上「聯合王國」的國際形象及地位甚佳，不列顛島上又無政治體制及意識形態的劇烈分歧，則蘇格蘭因何要主張獨立？這也難怪保守黨政府原先根本未料到獨立事件幾乎要鬧到弄假成真，而逼得英相卡麥隆稱，蘇格蘭若獨立，那就是「離婚」。蘇格蘭為何要獨立？觀察家們共認的核心理由是：為了在北海油田利益上排擠「聯合王國」。
從克里米亞及蘇格蘭兩例可見，政治上的統獨概念，可從政經體制及價值理念的激烈衝撞（如蘇聯解體），到民族主義的認同抉擇（如克里米亞），到以經濟利益的貪婪心理為主體訴求（如北海石油之於蘇格蘭獨派）。至於尋求獨立的途徑，則可從美國獨立戰爭的「起義手段」，到魁北克對加拿大或蘇格蘭對英國的公投體制，而西班牙政府則不承認加泰隆尼亞的獨立公投。準此以論，此次蘇格蘭獨立公投，在訴求上較狹隘（石油利益論），但在手段過程上的表現，無論是政府或民眾，卻是最民主亦最文明的。
蘇格蘭獨立公投對台海兩岸思維是一強烈衝擊。一般的說法是，兩岸關係與蘇格蘭之例不同；此說有其見地，但並不周延。蘇格蘭鬧獨立不是對整體政經體制及價值信念的認同歧異（只因對社經政策的不滿），獨派甚至暗示若獨立願留在「大英國協」；但兩岸關係的主要分歧卻是在政治體制、價值信念及生活方式的迥然而異。至於在經濟面，蘇格蘭欲在北海油田排除聯合王國，但台灣非但沒有石油，且在經濟上愈來愈依賴大陸。如今的兩岸關係是：以經濟互利為主軸，但政治體制的歧異卻是瓶頸。
兩岸關係的最大差異在於，倫敦允許蘇格蘭公投，但北京一貫反對台獨公投；甚至美國今日表態贊成蘇格蘭與聯合王國維持「統一」，但美國雖不願見兩岸不對等的統一，卻早已明白表態反對「台獨公投」。由於此種國際架構與兩岸情勢，兩岸遂進入如今這種「不統／不獨／不武」的境況。
蘇格蘭三百年來皆被視為「聯合王國」的一分子，今卻欲脫離聯合王國而獨立；但在北京的立場，卻始終不承認中華民國為一部分的中國（只承認台灣與大陸同屬一個中國），因此不能說服台灣接受這樣的「一個中國」。
然而，蘇格蘭之例與兩岸關係仍有一重要共同點，此即，無論是否舉行公投，問題的根本歸趨仍在民心。當聯合王國的文明條件足使蘇格蘭人自認留在聯合王國中能夠保有光榮與自尊時，民心即會在統獨之間作出大抉擇。相對而言，北京若始終將台灣視為「叛離的一省」，而欲對六十五年以來及以後中華民國在台灣所創造的文明成就不給予政治上的承認，亦即不承認中華民國是一部分的中國，卻教台灣人民如何理解、認同「一個中國」，更教台灣人民如何在「一個中國」之中感受到光榮與自尊？
蘇格蘭獨立公投，使人恍然感知，蘇格蘭原來是「聯合王國」的一分子。兩岸關係若要化解統獨難題，首務當在使中華民國感知是「大屋頂中國」下的「一部分的中國」。這是民心問題，也是超越統獨公投形式的根本問題。
Thursday, September 18, 2014
We Offer These Words on the Ma Xi Meeting
We Offer These Words on the Ma Xi Meeting
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2014
Summary: The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses. Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic.
Full Text Below:
The Mainland recently sent emissaries to Taiwan to deliver invitations to this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting. Where the two sides will meet and who the participants will be have all been carefully planned in advance. The Mainland side will be represented by Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Director Gong Qinggai. Our side chose the Taipei Guest House. MAC and Foreign Ministry heads will be in attendance. This shows by implication that the relationship between the two sides is neither a state to state relationship, nor a purely internal matter. It is consistent with dignity and equality, and highlights the special relationship between the two sides. It is obviously a compromise, but one acceptable to both sides. It is completely different from the 2001 Shanghai APEC Leaders' Meeting, when an invitation was sent via fax machine. The two sides now understand each other. Their flexibility in dealing with the matter deserves affirmation. We believe it will help the two sides deal with matters pertaining to foreign affairs and mutual trust.
The Taiwan side later engaged in careful internal evaluation and consideration. Since the Chinese Communist Party did not reject outright President Ma attending the Economic Leaders Meeting as an economic leader, there may still be hope for a Ma Xi meeting at APEC in Beijing this year. People from all quarters are making an effort. They are making a last ditch attempt to ensure that it takes place. They include experts regarded as emissaries for the government, the pro-blue media, and even scholars who have never dabbled cross-Strait relations. For several days, a large number of articles were published. They urged the Beijing authorities to adopt a more elevated and strategic perspective, to seize a rare and historic opportunity to advance the two sides' common interests. President Ma Ying-jeou should agree to the meeting and meet with Xi Jinping. Beijing has deliberately released this information to Taipei. It clearly has a clear understanding of what it means.
From the past to the present, the Mainland's response to Ma Ying-jeou attending the APEC Leaders' Conference has been consistent. It will abide by APEC precedents. Beijing does not oppose a Ma Xi Meeting. It merely wishes to stipulate certain conditions. It has pointed out that if the two sides meet in a third country, that should not be construed as an international arena. It has also made clear its bottom line concerns. Our side knows that different people on the Mainland hold different ideas about a Ma Xi Meeting. Some value the historical role of a leaders meeting. They advocate throwing the doors wide open, and making an historic breakthrough. Others advocate gradualism. They think steadiness is preferable to impatience. They think haste could make waste. Still others think this is all a political game. Therefore Taiwan must be pressured to make concrete concessions. Others have suggested that the United States is not happy to see a significant and rapid improvement in cross-Strait relations, and may attempt to undermine it. In short, there is no consensus.
A Ma Xi Meeting is of course no trivial matter. Observers generally consider it more symbolic than real in significance. But the symbolic significance itself would have a significant impact. Since the meaning is largely symbolic, the possibility of success is greater. As long as both sides have a tacit understanding, as long as two people can meet, that will be a great achievement. How they meet and when they meet can be further discussed. Peace has become a common value for compatriots and authorities on both sides. An end to hostilities has become a reality. All that remains is to make the correct legal representations and reasonable and proper arrangements. We should do the easy before the difficult, and the simple before the complex. First publish the KMT Peace Declaration, then gradually proceed from there. Who can object to political dialogue and political consultation, paving the way for political negotiations?
Some may have doubts about the preceding claims. Is peace a process or a goal? People may have different views. Some think that peace is a means, and reunification is the ultimate goal. If peaceful national reunification cannot be achieved, Beijing will change its methods. But others believe that peace is a goal in itself, and a kind of value, one we must work hard to maintain. To be fair, peace is both a goal and a method. As we can see, the concept of national sovereignty is becoming diluted. One example is the independence referendum for Scotland. Authorities on both sides have much to reflect upon. The international community is of course interested in a Ma Xi Meeting. But the United States has made clear that whether Ma and Xi meet is a matter between the two sides. The American position remains to encourage dialogue and reduce tensions, step by step. America cares only about whether it understands what is going on, and is not kept in the dark. Apparently the U.S. will not interfere with or oppose any Ma Xi Meeting.
The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses.
Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic. And for that we offer the above commentary.
社論－對馬習會再進數言
2014年09月19日 04:11
本報訊
日前大陸派員來台遞送今年參加亞太經濟合作會議領袖會議邀請函，雙方見面的地點、人選都經過事前縝密規畫。大陸方面由國台辦副主任龔清概遞交，我方則挑選台北賓館，現場同時有陸委會及外交部主管，間接表明了雙方既不是國與國關係，又不是單純的內政問題，既符合尊嚴、對等的要求，也凸顯兩岸之間的特殊關係，這顯然是個雙方妥協，彼此都能接受的安排，與2001年上海APEC領袖會議以一紙傳真函邀請全然不同。雙方彼此體諒與靈活值得肯定，相信有助於兩岸共同處理涉外事務互信的累積。
事後，台灣內部經過多方評估和考量，研判既然中共並未正面拒絕馬總統以經濟領袖之名出席會議活動，馬習二人藉著今年北京APEC會面的可能並未絕望，各界卯足全力，開始進行最後的嘗試和努力。許多素來被視為幫政府傳遞訊息的專家、親藍的媒體，甚至某些從來不曾涉獵兩岸關係的學者，連續幾天大量發表文章，鼓吹北京當局應該由更高的戰略高度出發，把握稍縱即逝的歷史難得機遇，為兩岸共同利益，應同意馬英九總統與會，並與習近平會面。北京對台北刻意釋放的訊息，應該已經有相當程度的理解。
從過去到現在，大陸對馬英九參加APEC領袖會議一事，一貫立場是尊重APEC的慣例，至於馬習會一事，北京並不反對，只說仍要創造條件，而且指出兩人在第三國見面，並不意味著是國際場合，已經明示、暗示大陸的底線和顧慮。我方也知道，大陸內部對於馬習二人是否會面仍有不同思路，有人看重領導人的歷史性作用，主張大開大闔放手一搏，完成歷史性的突破，也有人主張循續漸進，不要揠苗助長，穩漸比躁進來得理想，欲速卻有不達的可能，更有人認為這是一場政治博奕，台灣必須做出具體讓步，還有人提出美國並不樂見兩岸關係大幅快速改善，不無掣肘的可能，總之，並無共識。
當然，馬習二人會面非同小可，外界一般認為象徵意義應該大於實質意義，而象徵意義的本身又會帶來實質的影響，既然象徵意義較大，事情成功的可能和機會當然就相對大些。只要雙方都有默契，只要兩人能夠見面就是最大的成就，而且見面的方式與時地仍有進一步操作的空間，當和平已經成為兩岸同胞與雙方當局認定的共同價值，當兩岸結束敵對狀態已經成為事實，未來端看雙方如何在法理上做出正確的表述，以及合情合理的妥善安排。至於是否採取由易而難，由簡而繁的方式，先行發表國共和平宣言，再往上逐步發展，為將來的政治對話、政治協商、政治談判進行鋪路，誰曰不宜？
或許，有人會對於前述主張有所質疑，對於和平到底是方法或是目標仍有不同的看法，有人認為和平是手段，統一才是最終的目標，如果以和平的方法無法實現國家統一的目標，北京在方法就會有所調整，但也有人認為和平的本身就是一個目標，就是一種價值，必須全力加以維護。持平而論，和平既是理想目標也是手段方法，我們看到當前各國淡化主權觀的趨勢，及蘇格蘭統獨公投的事例，對兩岸當局或許都有值得深思借鏡的地方。國際社會對馬習會的關切理所當然，但美國已表明，認為馬習是否見面，是兩岸之間的事情，美國的立場仍然是鼓勵對話、降低緊張、循序漸進，美國只在意自己是否能夠了解事態的發展，不被矇在鼓裡。看來，美國不會干擾、反對馬習會的實現。
兩岸和平發展的外力干擾，可能性與強度已逐漸減弱，大局雖仍有風險，但馬習會的主動權操之於北京，中國大陸如何能在既維持原則的堅定性，又不忘策略的靈活性的基礎上，以創造性的思維，突破性的作法，把握歷史的機遇，為了兩岸和平發展的永續，為了中華民族偉大復興的實現，而不要斤斤計較於短期的政治得失。
馬習能否利用這次APEC會議場域見面，其實端在習先生的一念之間。雖然機會之窗已經有限，但我們對此仍然抱持審慎的期望，願意為此再進以上數言。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2014
Summary: The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses. Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic.
Full Text Below:
The Mainland recently sent emissaries to Taiwan to deliver invitations to this year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting. Where the two sides will meet and who the participants will be have all been carefully planned in advance. The Mainland side will be represented by Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Director Gong Qinggai. Our side chose the Taipei Guest House. MAC and Foreign Ministry heads will be in attendance. This shows by implication that the relationship between the two sides is neither a state to state relationship, nor a purely internal matter. It is consistent with dignity and equality, and highlights the special relationship between the two sides. It is obviously a compromise, but one acceptable to both sides. It is completely different from the 2001 Shanghai APEC Leaders' Meeting, when an invitation was sent via fax machine. The two sides now understand each other. Their flexibility in dealing with the matter deserves affirmation. We believe it will help the two sides deal with matters pertaining to foreign affairs and mutual trust.
The Taiwan side later engaged in careful internal evaluation and consideration. Since the Chinese Communist Party did not reject outright President Ma attending the Economic Leaders Meeting as an economic leader, there may still be hope for a Ma Xi meeting at APEC in Beijing this year. People from all quarters are making an effort. They are making a last ditch attempt to ensure that it takes place. They include experts regarded as emissaries for the government, the pro-blue media, and even scholars who have never dabbled cross-Strait relations. For several days, a large number of articles were published. They urged the Beijing authorities to adopt a more elevated and strategic perspective, to seize a rare and historic opportunity to advance the two sides' common interests. President Ma Ying-jeou should agree to the meeting and meet with Xi Jinping. Beijing has deliberately released this information to Taipei. It clearly has a clear understanding of what it means.
From the past to the present, the Mainland's response to Ma Ying-jeou attending the APEC Leaders' Conference has been consistent. It will abide by APEC precedents. Beijing does not oppose a Ma Xi Meeting. It merely wishes to stipulate certain conditions. It has pointed out that if the two sides meet in a third country, that should not be construed as an international arena. It has also made clear its bottom line concerns. Our side knows that different people on the Mainland hold different ideas about a Ma Xi Meeting. Some value the historical role of a leaders meeting. They advocate throwing the doors wide open, and making an historic breakthrough. Others advocate gradualism. They think steadiness is preferable to impatience. They think haste could make waste. Still others think this is all a political game. Therefore Taiwan must be pressured to make concrete concessions. Others have suggested that the United States is not happy to see a significant and rapid improvement in cross-Strait relations, and may attempt to undermine it. In short, there is no consensus.
A Ma Xi Meeting is of course no trivial matter. Observers generally consider it more symbolic than real in significance. But the symbolic significance itself would have a significant impact. Since the meaning is largely symbolic, the possibility of success is greater. As long as both sides have a tacit understanding, as long as two people can meet, that will be a great achievement. How they meet and when they meet can be further discussed. Peace has become a common value for compatriots and authorities on both sides. An end to hostilities has become a reality. All that remains is to make the correct legal representations and reasonable and proper arrangements. We should do the easy before the difficult, and the simple before the complex. First publish the KMT Peace Declaration, then gradually proceed from there. Who can object to political dialogue and political consultation, paving the way for political negotiations?
Some may have doubts about the preceding claims. Is peace a process or a goal? People may have different views. Some think that peace is a means, and reunification is the ultimate goal. If peaceful national reunification cannot be achieved, Beijing will change its methods. But others believe that peace is a goal in itself, and a kind of value, one we must work hard to maintain. To be fair, peace is both a goal and a method. As we can see, the concept of national sovereignty is becoming diluted. One example is the independence referendum for Scotland. Authorities on both sides have much to reflect upon. The international community is of course interested in a Ma Xi Meeting. But the United States has made clear that whether Ma and Xi meet is a matter between the two sides. The American position remains to encourage dialogue and reduce tensions, step by step. America cares only about whether it understands what is going on, and is not kept in the dark. Apparently the U.S. will not interfere with or oppose any Ma Xi Meeting.
The possibility of outside interference with the development of cross-Strait peace has gradually diminished, Risks to the big picture remain. But a Ma Xi Meeting is now up to Beijing. Can the Chinese mainland maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking, and groundbreaking approaches? It must seize an historic opportunity to ensure cross-Strait peace and rejuvenate the Chinese nation. It must not quibble over short-term political gains and losses.
Can Ma and Xi use the APEC meeting to meet? It all depends on Mr. Xi. The window of opportunity may be small. But we remain cautiously optimistic. And for that we offer the above commentary.
社論－對馬習會再進數言
2014年09月19日 04:11
本報訊
日前大陸派員來台遞送今年參加亞太經濟合作會議領袖會議邀請函，雙方見面的地點、人選都經過事前縝密規畫。大陸方面由國台辦副主任龔清概遞交，我方則挑選台北賓館，現場同時有陸委會及外交部主管，間接表明了雙方既不是國與國關係，又不是單純的內政問題，既符合尊嚴、對等的要求，也凸顯兩岸之間的特殊關係，這顯然是個雙方妥協，彼此都能接受的安排，與2001年上海APEC領袖會議以一紙傳真函邀請全然不同。雙方彼此體諒與靈活值得肯定，相信有助於兩岸共同處理涉外事務互信的累積。
事後，台灣內部經過多方評估和考量，研判既然中共並未正面拒絕馬總統以經濟領袖之名出席會議活動，馬習二人藉著今年北京APEC會面的可能並未絕望，各界卯足全力，開始進行最後的嘗試和努力。許多素來被視為幫政府傳遞訊息的專家、親藍的媒體，甚至某些從來不曾涉獵兩岸關係的學者，連續幾天大量發表文章，鼓吹北京當局應該由更高的戰略高度出發，把握稍縱即逝的歷史難得機遇，為兩岸共同利益，應同意馬英九總統與會，並與習近平會面。北京對台北刻意釋放的訊息，應該已經有相當程度的理解。
從過去到現在，大陸對馬英九參加APEC領袖會議一事，一貫立場是尊重APEC的慣例，至於馬習會一事，北京並不反對，只說仍要創造條件，而且指出兩人在第三國見面，並不意味著是國際場合，已經明示、暗示大陸的底線和顧慮。我方也知道，大陸內部對於馬習二人是否會面仍有不同思路，有人看重領導人的歷史性作用，主張大開大闔放手一搏，完成歷史性的突破，也有人主張循續漸進，不要揠苗助長，穩漸比躁進來得理想，欲速卻有不達的可能，更有人認為這是一場政治博奕，台灣必須做出具體讓步，還有人提出美國並不樂見兩岸關係大幅快速改善，不無掣肘的可能，總之，並無共識。
當然，馬習二人會面非同小可，外界一般認為象徵意義應該大於實質意義，而象徵意義的本身又會帶來實質的影響，既然象徵意義較大，事情成功的可能和機會當然就相對大些。只要雙方都有默契，只要兩人能夠見面就是最大的成就，而且見面的方式與時地仍有進一步操作的空間，當和平已經成為兩岸同胞與雙方當局認定的共同價值，當兩岸結束敵對狀態已經成為事實，未來端看雙方如何在法理上做出正確的表述，以及合情合理的妥善安排。至於是否採取由易而難，由簡而繁的方式，先行發表國共和平宣言，再往上逐步發展，為將來的政治對話、政治協商、政治談判進行鋪路，誰曰不宜？
或許，有人會對於前述主張有所質疑，對於和平到底是方法或是目標仍有不同的看法，有人認為和平是手段，統一才是最終的目標，如果以和平的方法無法實現國家統一的目標，北京在方法就會有所調整，但也有人認為和平的本身就是一個目標，就是一種價值，必須全力加以維護。持平而論，和平既是理想目標也是手段方法，我們看到當前各國淡化主權觀的趨勢，及蘇格蘭統獨公投的事例，對兩岸當局或許都有值得深思借鏡的地方。國際社會對馬習會的關切理所當然，但美國已表明，認為馬習是否見面，是兩岸之間的事情，美國的立場仍然是鼓勵對話、降低緊張、循序漸進，美國只在意自己是否能夠了解事態的發展，不被矇在鼓裡。看來，美國不會干擾、反對馬習會的實現。
兩岸和平發展的外力干擾，可能性與強度已逐漸減弱，大局雖仍有風險，但馬習會的主動權操之於北京，中國大陸如何能在既維持原則的堅定性，又不忘策略的靈活性的基礎上，以創造性的思維，突破性的作法，把握歷史的機遇，為了兩岸和平發展的永續，為了中華民族偉大復興的實現，而不要斤斤計較於短期的政治得失。
馬習能否利用這次APEC會議場域見面，其實端在習先生的一念之間。雖然機會之窗已經有限，但我們對此仍然抱持審慎的期望，願意為此再進以上數言。
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
The Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen
The Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 18, 2014
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of its anti-business image. She hopes to reverse the DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in 2016. But whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy, Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of its anti-business image. The DPP recently convened the first meeting of the new Legislative Yuan session. It issued a "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues." Tsai Ing-wen issued a sternly worded military directive. She ordered the DPP legislative caucus to establish a "10 person team to consider fiscally oriented legislative issues." She wanted to accelerate the introduction of fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people." She hopes to reverse the DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in 2016.
The "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues" is an important meeting that the DPP holds once every week. Think tank staff, caucus cadres, and concerned Central Committee heads attend. The list of participants is expanded when necessary. County and municipal party leaders are invited to participate. During the conference Tsai Ing-wen declared that since we have taken the time to meet, "This should not be merely a pro forma ritual."
The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" underscored DPP neglect of fiscal issues. It shocked people out of their complacency. The conference report was supposed to address high priority legislation and offensive and defensive arrangements in the new session of the Legislative Yuan. But Tsai Ing-wen arrived on scene, only to find that DPP high priority legislation did not include any major fiscal legislation, This was of course no oversight. It merely confirmed that DPP party caucus struggles habitually ignore fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people."
The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" sent an important message. The DPP still intends to subject the FEPZ proposal to "rigorous review." It still intends to "propose an amended version" and give it conditional support. It merely stressed the need to develop economic strategies or strategic industries. As everyone knows, many other citizens' groups before and after the Sunflower Student Movement are preparing to obstruct passage of the FEPZ. Tsai Ing-wen is leading the DPP. In order to reverse its anti-business image, she will not be waging a scorched earth campaign against the FEPZ. How will the DPP relate to these civic groups? How will the relationship affect these new political groups? Will it lead to the emergence of a new political party? These questions merit close attention.
According to media reports, Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP must present a different image to the outside world. It must not be seen merely as a civic group concerned about the underprivileged. It must be seen as a "quasi-ruling party." But given its performance, the DPP does not qualify as a "quasi-ruling party." It does not even qualify as a competent "opposition party." Take the FEPZ for example. The KMT announced the details of the bill early this year. Yet the DPP dragged its feet until August before proposing an alternative. Its alternative is "Oppose everything having anything to do with [Mainland] China." As the product of a conservative and protectionist mentality, how can it possibly win public support?
Actually, Tsai Ying-wen herself is one of the sources of the DPP's problems. Late last month, the DPP held its first "Citizen's Economic Conference." Tsai Ing-wen blasted the government. She said "Taiwan's economic vitality and industrial competitiveness are increasingly on the wane." She said "government policies are out of touch with economic reality." She said "Taiwan's economic growth model and economic decision-making model cannot keep up with the times." That is why the DPP must address several major issues, including its "choice of core values and economic development goals," its "choice of economic growth mode," and the "balanced development of globalization and cross-strait relations." Alas, after holding forth all day, Tsai Ing-wen failed to say just how the DPP would implement a new economic growth model, one that was "innovation-oriented, export and domestic demand-oriented, that links employment, wages, wage equity, and the public welfare." Even the pro-green media criticized Tsai Ing-wen, saying that she was merely building castles in the air, and lacked any real policy prescriptions. Today, after the "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen," the responsibility to consider policy appears to have fallen onto the DPP's collective shoulders. We truly doubt that a "water spinach" party chairman and a gaggle of legislators contemptuous of fiscal issues, can ever offer up a "new model of economic development."
Tsai Ing-wen also revealed shocking ignorance about issues other than economics. Recently the right-wing, pro-Japanese World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) convened a seminar entitled "U.S. Return to Asia and Asia-Pacific Regional Security." Tsai Ing-wen was invited to speak. The media focused her proposal that Taiwan establish a new mode of interaction with the Chinese mainland. In fact, Tsai Ing-wen did not say anything she hadn't said many times before. She presented nothing new. The Mainland publicly criticized her assertion that "Once the DPP returns to power, the Mainland will automatically adjust its policies." She failed to offer any concrete suggestions as to how Taiwan could interact with the Chinese mainland in a new way. She still could not shake off the "water spinach" (hollow stalks with nothing at the center) label.
Another issue was even more controversial. In order to underscore the DPP's advocacy of "democracy, freedom, justice, and connecting with the world," and highlight Taiwan's geo-strategic position, Tsai Ing-wen quoted Douglas MacArthur's Cold War era remark about "unsinkable aircraft carriers." As we all know, the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" remark was a product of the Cold War. The United States and Japan see Taiwan as the first island chain by which they can "contain" Mainland China. The so-called "first island chain" is part of a US-Japan effort to prevent the Mainland from accessing blue water and adopting a blue water naval strategy.
Tsai Ing-wen lauded the Japanese government's collective self-defense as "positive." She sang an old Cold War tune, and attempted to bind Taiwan to the US-Japan security system. Politically speaking, this was bothwrong and dangerous. If this is how Tsai Ing-wen thinks, how can she possibly establish mutual trust with the Mainland? How can she possibly "seek to establish a new mode of interaction and communication with the other side, in order to ensure a peaceful and stable cross-Strait relationship?"
Whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy, Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.
社論－蔡英文發怒了
2014年09月18日 04:11
本報訊
蔡英文這次發怒，是為了民進黨沒有努力擺脫反商形象。日前民進黨召開立法院新會期首場「重大議題協調會報」，蔡英文措詞嚴厲地下達軍令，要求民進黨立法院黨團成立「財經立法議題研議十人小組」，加速推出「福國利民」的財經法案，希望扭轉外界對於民進黨「反商」的刻板印象，替2016年重返執政作好準備。
「重大議題協調會報」是民進黨每周召開一次的重要會議，由智庫幕僚、黨團幹部、中央黨部相關主管與會，必要時還會擴大召開，邀黨籍縣市首長參與。蔡英文在這次會議上表明，既然花時間開會，「就不該只是聊表形式」。
「蔡英文之怒」，凸顯了民進黨對財經議題的忽略，實在讓人怵目驚心。原來，這場會報目標在討論立法院新會期的優先法案和相關攻防部署，沒想到蔡英文到場之後，才發現民進黨規畫的優先法案中未見重大財經法案，這當然不是疏漏，只是顯示了民進黨團志在鬥爭，無意福國利民的慣性。
另一方面，「蔡英文之怒」也透露一個重要訊息，那就是民進黨對於自由經濟示範區議題，仍將採取「嚴格審查」、「提出具體修法版本」的有條件支持路線，只不過強調要發展策略經濟或者策略性產業。我們知道，太陽花學運前後成立的諸多所謂公民團體，正摩拳擦掌準備杯葛自由經濟示範區，蔡英文主政下的民進黨，為了導正反商形象，對示範區議題勢必不會進行焦土抗戰，民進黨跟公民團體的關係會如何互動、如何發展，是否會牽動新政團、新政黨的出現，都值得密切觀察。
根據媒體報導，蔡英文在會報中說，民進黨給外界的印象不能只有公民參與、弱勢關懷，還要是個「準執政黨」，然而從這樣的表現看來，民進黨不但扮演不了「準執政黨」，連稱職的「反對黨」都未必做得好。仍以自由經濟示範區為例，國民黨方面是從年初即公布相關法案政策的內容，民進黨卻直到8月才提出對策，而且內容仍是「逢中必反」、保護主義等保守心態下的產物，如此的版本又如何能說服大眾呢？
事實上，蔡英文自己正是民進黨問題的根源之一。上個月底，民進黨舉辦首場公民經濟會議，蔡英文嚴詞批判「台灣的經濟活力和產業競爭力是在日益衰退中」，指責「政府政策和經濟的現實也是脫節的」，她強調說「台灣經濟成長的模式和經濟決策的模式都跟不上時代的潮流」，所以民進黨要同時處理幾大議題，包括「經濟發展核心價值和目標的抉擇」、「經濟成長模式的抉擇」和「全球化與兩岸關係平衡發展。」然而，蔡英文漂亮話說了半天，卻說不清楚民進黨要如何型塑「以創新為導向，兼顧出口及內需，連結就業、薪資、所得分配跟人民生活福祉的新經濟成長模式」。連親綠媒體都批評蔡英文只有飄在雲端的口號，沒有實質的政策。如今，在「蔡英文之怒」後，提出論述和政策的責任似乎落到民進黨團肩上。我們實在懷疑，一位空心菜黨主席，一群漠視財經議題的立委，又能提出怎樣的民進黨版「經濟發展新模式」？
在經濟問題之外，蔡英文見識淺薄也令人驚訝。日前，親日本右翼的台灣安保協會舉辦「美國重返亞洲及亞太區域安全」研討會，蔡英文應邀致詞。蔡英文當天的言論，媒體聚焦在要與中國大陸建立全新互動模式的主張。蔡英文類似的談話，其實已經說了多次，這次並無新意，尤其在大陸公開批判她所謂「民進黨重新執政後，大陸就會自動調整」的說法後，她仍然提不出如何與中國大陸建立互動模式的具體作為，仍未能擺脫「空心」之譏。
更可議的是，蔡英文為了強調民進黨「以民主、自由、公義價值連結世界」的主張，引用了麥克阿瑟在冷戰時期的名言「台灣是不沉的航空母艦」，希望凸顯台灣的地緣戰略位置。大家都清楚，「不沉航空母艦說」是冷戰時期的產物，背景是美日將台灣視為圍堵中國大陸之第一島鏈，所謂「第一島鏈」正是美日防堵中共走向深水、走向遠洋的戰略謀畫。
蔡英文一方面讚許日本政府將集體自衛權解禁是「積極」的，一方面重提冷戰時的老調，企圖把台灣綁進美日的安保體制，在政治上絕對是錯誤而危險的。這種思維下的蔡英文，當然不可能真正和大陸建立互信，也不可能做到「努力和對岸建立全新的互動及溝通的模式，以實踐和平穩定發展的兩岸互動的關係。」
從財經議題到兩岸互信，蔡英文離「準執政黨領袖」的格局還很遠，又怎可能帶領蛻變為選民信賴的「準執政黨」？這種飄在雲端的口號，寧可少些！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 18, 2014
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of its anti-business image. She hopes to reverse the DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in 2016. But whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy, Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen is angry. The DPP has made no effort to divest itself of its anti-business image. The DPP recently convened the first meeting of the new Legislative Yuan session. It issued a "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues." Tsai Ing-wen issued a sternly worded military directive. She ordered the DPP legislative caucus to establish a "10 person team to consider fiscally oriented legislative issues." She wanted to accelerate the introduction of fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people." She hopes to reverse the DPP's "anti-business" image in order to prepare for a return to power in 2016.
The "Report on the Coordination of Major Issues" is an important meeting that the DPP holds once every week. Think tank staff, caucus cadres, and concerned Central Committee heads attend. The list of participants is expanded when necessary. County and municipal party leaders are invited to participate. During the conference Tsai Ing-wen declared that since we have taken the time to meet, "This should not be merely a pro forma ritual."
The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" underscored DPP neglect of fiscal issues. It shocked people out of their complacency. The conference report was supposed to address high priority legislation and offensive and defensive arrangements in the new session of the Legislative Yuan. But Tsai Ing-wen arrived on scene, only to find that DPP high priority legislation did not include any major fiscal legislation, This was of course no oversight. It merely confirmed that DPP party caucus struggles habitually ignore fiscal legislation that would "enrich the nation and benefit the people."
The "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen" sent an important message. The DPP still intends to subject the FEPZ proposal to "rigorous review." It still intends to "propose an amended version" and give it conditional support. It merely stressed the need to develop economic strategies or strategic industries. As everyone knows, many other citizens' groups before and after the Sunflower Student Movement are preparing to obstruct passage of the FEPZ. Tsai Ing-wen is leading the DPP. In order to reverse its anti-business image, she will not be waging a scorched earth campaign against the FEPZ. How will the DPP relate to these civic groups? How will the relationship affect these new political groups? Will it lead to the emergence of a new political party? These questions merit close attention.
According to media reports, Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP must present a different image to the outside world. It must not be seen merely as a civic group concerned about the underprivileged. It must be seen as a "quasi-ruling party." But given its performance, the DPP does not qualify as a "quasi-ruling party." It does not even qualify as a competent "opposition party." Take the FEPZ for example. The KMT announced the details of the bill early this year. Yet the DPP dragged its feet until August before proposing an alternative. Its alternative is "Oppose everything having anything to do with [Mainland] China." As the product of a conservative and protectionist mentality, how can it possibly win public support?
Actually, Tsai Ying-wen herself is one of the sources of the DPP's problems. Late last month, the DPP held its first "Citizen's Economic Conference." Tsai Ing-wen blasted the government. She said "Taiwan's economic vitality and industrial competitiveness are increasingly on the wane." She said "government policies are out of touch with economic reality." She said "Taiwan's economic growth model and economic decision-making model cannot keep up with the times." That is why the DPP must address several major issues, including its "choice of core values and economic development goals," its "choice of economic growth mode," and the "balanced development of globalization and cross-strait relations." Alas, after holding forth all day, Tsai Ing-wen failed to say just how the DPP would implement a new economic growth model, one that was "innovation-oriented, export and domestic demand-oriented, that links employment, wages, wage equity, and the public welfare." Even the pro-green media criticized Tsai Ing-wen, saying that she was merely building castles in the air, and lacked any real policy prescriptions. Today, after the "Wrath of Tsai Ing-wen," the responsibility to consider policy appears to have fallen onto the DPP's collective shoulders. We truly doubt that a "water spinach" party chairman and a gaggle of legislators contemptuous of fiscal issues, can ever offer up a "new model of economic development."
Tsai Ing-wen also revealed shocking ignorance about issues other than economics. Recently the right-wing, pro-Japanese World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI) convened a seminar entitled "U.S. Return to Asia and Asia-Pacific Regional Security." Tsai Ing-wen was invited to speak. The media focused her proposal that Taiwan establish a new mode of interaction with the Chinese mainland. In fact, Tsai Ing-wen did not say anything she hadn't said many times before. She presented nothing new. The Mainland publicly criticized her assertion that "Once the DPP returns to power, the Mainland will automatically adjust its policies." She failed to offer any concrete suggestions as to how Taiwan could interact with the Chinese mainland in a new way. She still could not shake off the "water spinach" (hollow stalks with nothing at the center) label.
Another issue was even more controversial. In order to underscore the DPP's advocacy of "democracy, freedom, justice, and connecting with the world," and highlight Taiwan's geo-strategic position, Tsai Ing-wen quoted Douglas MacArthur's Cold War era remark about "unsinkable aircraft carriers." As we all know, the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" remark was a product of the Cold War. The United States and Japan see Taiwan as the first island chain by which they can "contain" Mainland China. The so-called "first island chain" is part of a US-Japan effort to prevent the Mainland from accessing blue water and adopting a blue water naval strategy.
Tsai Ing-wen lauded the Japanese government's collective self-defense as "positive." She sang an old Cold War tune, and attempted to bind Taiwan to the US-Japan security system. Politically speaking, this was bothwrong and dangerous. If this is how Tsai Ing-wen thinks, how can she possibly establish mutual trust with the Mainland? How can she possibly "seek to establish a new mode of interaction and communication with the other side, in order to ensure a peaceful and stable cross-Strait relationship?"
Whether the subject is cross-Strait mutual trust or fiscal policy, Tsai Ing-wen is far from a "quasi-ruling party leader." How can voters possibly trust a changeable "quasi-ruling party" only capable of building castles in the air? They would just as soon not.
社論－蔡英文發怒了
2014年09月18日 04:11
本報訊
蔡英文這次發怒，是為了民進黨沒有努力擺脫反商形象。日前民進黨召開立法院新會期首場「重大議題協調會報」，蔡英文措詞嚴厲地下達軍令，要求民進黨立法院黨團成立「財經立法議題研議十人小組」，加速推出「福國利民」的財經法案，希望扭轉外界對於民進黨「反商」的刻板印象，替2016年重返執政作好準備。
「重大議題協調會報」是民進黨每周召開一次的重要會議，由智庫幕僚、黨團幹部、中央黨部相關主管與會，必要時還會擴大召開，邀黨籍縣市首長參與。蔡英文在這次會議上表明，既然花時間開會，「就不該只是聊表形式」。
「蔡英文之怒」，凸顯了民進黨對財經議題的忽略，實在讓人怵目驚心。原來，這場會報目標在討論立法院新會期的優先法案和相關攻防部署，沒想到蔡英文到場之後，才發現民進黨規畫的優先法案中未見重大財經法案，這當然不是疏漏，只是顯示了民進黨團志在鬥爭，無意福國利民的慣性。
另一方面，「蔡英文之怒」也透露一個重要訊息，那就是民進黨對於自由經濟示範區議題，仍將採取「嚴格審查」、「提出具體修法版本」的有條件支持路線，只不過強調要發展策略經濟或者策略性產業。我們知道，太陽花學運前後成立的諸多所謂公民團體，正摩拳擦掌準備杯葛自由經濟示範區，蔡英文主政下的民進黨，為了導正反商形象，對示範區議題勢必不會進行焦土抗戰，民進黨跟公民團體的關係會如何互動、如何發展，是否會牽動新政團、新政黨的出現，都值得密切觀察。
根據媒體報導，蔡英文在會報中說，民進黨給外界的印象不能只有公民參與、弱勢關懷，還要是個「準執政黨」，然而從這樣的表現看來，民進黨不但扮演不了「準執政黨」，連稱職的「反對黨」都未必做得好。仍以自由經濟示範區為例，國民黨方面是從年初即公布相關法案政策的內容，民進黨卻直到8月才提出對策，而且內容仍是「逢中必反」、保護主義等保守心態下的產物，如此的版本又如何能說服大眾呢？
事實上，蔡英文自己正是民進黨問題的根源之一。上個月底，民進黨舉辦首場公民經濟會議，蔡英文嚴詞批判「台灣的經濟活力和產業競爭力是在日益衰退中」，指責「政府政策和經濟的現實也是脫節的」，她強調說「台灣經濟成長的模式和經濟決策的模式都跟不上時代的潮流」，所以民進黨要同時處理幾大議題，包括「經濟發展核心價值和目標的抉擇」、「經濟成長模式的抉擇」和「全球化與兩岸關係平衡發展。」然而，蔡英文漂亮話說了半天，卻說不清楚民進黨要如何型塑「以創新為導向，兼顧出口及內需，連結就業、薪資、所得分配跟人民生活福祉的新經濟成長模式」。連親綠媒體都批評蔡英文只有飄在雲端的口號，沒有實質的政策。如今，在「蔡英文之怒」後，提出論述和政策的責任似乎落到民進黨團肩上。我們實在懷疑，一位空心菜黨主席，一群漠視財經議題的立委，又能提出怎樣的民進黨版「經濟發展新模式」？
在經濟問題之外，蔡英文見識淺薄也令人驚訝。日前，親日本右翼的台灣安保協會舉辦「美國重返亞洲及亞太區域安全」研討會，蔡英文應邀致詞。蔡英文當天的言論，媒體聚焦在要與中國大陸建立全新互動模式的主張。蔡英文類似的談話，其實已經說了多次，這次並無新意，尤其在大陸公開批判她所謂「民進黨重新執政後，大陸就會自動調整」的說法後，她仍然提不出如何與中國大陸建立互動模式的具體作為，仍未能擺脫「空心」之譏。
更可議的是，蔡英文為了強調民進黨「以民主、自由、公義價值連結世界」的主張，引用了麥克阿瑟在冷戰時期的名言「台灣是不沉的航空母艦」，希望凸顯台灣的地緣戰略位置。大家都清楚，「不沉航空母艦說」是冷戰時期的產物，背景是美日將台灣視為圍堵中國大陸之第一島鏈，所謂「第一島鏈」正是美日防堵中共走向深水、走向遠洋的戰略謀畫。
蔡英文一方面讚許日本政府將集體自衛權解禁是「積極」的，一方面重提冷戰時的老調，企圖把台灣綁進美日的安保體制，在政治上絕對是錯誤而危險的。這種思維下的蔡英文，當然不可能真正和大陸建立互信，也不可能做到「努力和對岸建立全新的互動及溝通的模式，以實踐和平穩定發展的兩岸互動的關係。」
從財經議題到兩岸互信，蔡英文離「準執政黨領袖」的格局還很遠，又怎可能帶領蛻變為選民信賴的「準執政黨」？這種飄在雲端的口號，寧可少些！
Recalling 12 Year Compulsory Education's Teething Pains
Recalling 12 Year Compulsory Education's Teething Pains
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 17, 2014
Summary: The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12 year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be happy.
Full Text Below:
The Taipei City Government has abolished the Academic Ability Test for Admission to Senior High School. To avoid controversy, some elite schools have also ceased using the Academic Ability Test. The controversy over 12 year compulsory education has finally been settled. But many people, including Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa, insist that the Academic Ability Test should be retained. After all, diversity in admissions is a core value of 12 year compulsory education. Wu Se-hwa has even encouraged second tier schools to offer the Academic Ability Test in order to compete with first tier schools. Some parent organizations believe that the Ministry of Education exerted political pressure to force schools to abolish the Academic Ability Test, and to eliminate elite education for the sake of ersatz egalitarianism. The rush to adopt 12 year compulsory education has indeed led to endless aftereffects. Now that the political controversy over student recruitment has finally been settled, we need to look back and ask ourselves what was the purpose of 12 year compulsory education?
The purpose of 12 year compulsory education was to improve the quality of our citizenry. The 12 year compulsory education program stressed admissions without entrance exams. The intent was to reduce academic pressure on students and allow senior high schools to become standardized community senior high schools. Students would simply attend the nearest school. Children would be spared academic pressures and commute long distances. Diversity in admissions would encourage senior high schools to offer specialized curricula. The Academic Ability Test was a student recruitment method that would introduce specialized curricula to senior high schools. The goal was to create an environment in which students could fulfill their expectations. So many well-intentioned goals were hitched to the wagon of an admissions test, that its original nature became blurred by controversy.
This year, for the first time, senior high schools will not require entrance examinations. This has led to considerable controversy. Just how many senior high schools that do not require entrance exams must a student apply to before being admitted? Allowing schools to recruit students has already led to confusion and complaints by schools, parents, and students. The brutal reality is that academic pressure on students has not been relieved. Instead new pressures have been created. According to 1111 Job Bank statistics, online tutoring numbers show that between January and August, 10,000 more students applied. This represents a 45% surge over the same period in 2013. It also established a record high since the tutoring network was established. The 12 year compulsory education enrollment program is too complicated. Parents and students are at sea. They must seek help on their own. They can seek help from tailor made tutoring programs. Under the circumstances how can students possibly reduce academic pressure on themselves? Before they had to bone up on English, math, physics, and chemistry. Now they must learn Japanese, take violin lessons, and volunteer for community service. Diversity in admissions and Academic Ability Tests have become distorted. They have become alternative sources of income for cram schools or home tutors.
The Academic Ability Test was supposed to give students with different strengths the opportunity to receive specialized training. Instead, its implementation has merely provided elite schools with a pipeline by which to recruit students more adept at taking tests. It has merely muddied the waters. It has left the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students in a state of uncertainty, and students and parents in a state of anxiety.
The Academic Ability Test has morphed into a back door for elite senior high schools. It has already violated the spirit of diversity. It has even less to do with education tailored to the student's potential. It merely perpetuates academic test scores as an admissions threshold. It merely engages in pretense. Schools have blind faith in test scores. Parents continue to have blind faith in the values held by elite schools. It will probably be a long time before students on Taiwan can receive an education tailored to the student's potential.
Everyone is suggesting cures for the problems caused by 12 year compulsory education. The cures suggested include more "specialized curricula" once the Academic Ability Tests are abolished and insufficient diversity becomes a problem. The school districts for Taipei and Keelung will be reduced in size. A student will first obtain Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores, then arrange for Academic Ability Tests. The 12 year compulsory education program has just been launched. Yet patchwork repairs are already required. One can safely predict that the situation will soon be even more fragmented and confusing. Worse still, the suggested cures are mere technicalities. The 12 year compulsory education program has become a big brawl over school admissions. How can this possibly be the object and purpose of education?
If we really want diversity, if we really want education tailored to the student's potential, we must begin by respecting individual differences and traits. In the book "Now, Discover Your Strengths," Donald Clifton, the "the Father of Strengths Psychology," proposed that education should transform talent into ability and enable people to feel a sense of accomplishment. Our society does not need perfect people with perfect test scores. If a person can find and use his innate talent, he can make a meaningful contribution to himself and to society. The book "Talk Like TED:The 9 Public-Speaking Secrets of the World’s Top Minds," mentions a touching example -- the story of "Phantom of the Opera" choreographer Dame Gillian Barbara Lynne. When Lynne was young, her mother discovered that she liked to move around and couldn't concentrate. So she took her to see a doctor. The doctor discovered that Lynne loved dancing. She told the mother to send Lynne to dance school to learn dance. As a result, Lynne became a superstar in the dance world. Just imagine what would have happened if Lynne's mother had insisted that Lynne quiet down, read books, and study for exams?
The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12 year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be happy.
社論－回頭想想十二年國教的初衷
2014年09月17日 04:11
本報訊
台北市宣布取消特招，一些明星學校為了省事、也為了減少爭議，相繼宣布放棄特招後，吵吵嚷嚷一陣子的12年國教問題，總算暫時塵埃落定。但包括教育部長吳思華在內的不少人又回頭說，特招不該廢，畢竟多元入學是12年國教的核心價值。吳思華甚至鼓勵所謂的「第二志願」學校應辦理特招，好搶第一志願學校的學生。也有家長團體認為教育部用政治壓力強逼名校放棄特招，消滅菁英教育，是追求假性公平，匆促上路的12年國教果然留下無窮的後遺症。現在招生方式的政治爭議終於塵埃落定，應該回頭想想：為什麼要辦理12年國教？
國民教育的目的在提升國民素質，12年國教標榜免試入學，是希望減輕學子的升學壓力，並讓高中均質化成為社區高中，讓學生就近就讀，免除孩子的升學壓力及就學的舟車勞頓；多元入學則希望鼓勵高中辦出教學特色，特招是為達成高中特色化目標而產生的招生方式，期望創造學生適性揚才學習的環境。這麼多立意良好的目標最後統統被壓縮在「入學方式」的爭執中而變得面目模糊。
今年首次辦理高中免試入學，發生非常多爭議，到底要「幾免」才能讓學生找到學校讀、讓學校招收到學生，已搞得學校、家長和學生人仰馬翻、怨聲載道，更殘酷的現實是，學生的升學壓力未見減輕，反而滋生出新的壓力。根據1111人力銀行統計線上家教網的數據顯示，今年1到8月徵求家教的案件數超過了1萬件，比102年同期大增45%，也同時創下家教網成立以來的新高紀錄。這是因為12年國教的入學方案實在太複雜，家長、學子無所適從，只得自力救濟，尋求家教幫忙量身訂做教學方案。在這種情況下，學子的升學壓力怎麼會減輕？從前補英數理化，如今補日文、小提琴外加志工服務。多元入學、特色招生走樣，成為補教業或家教老師的另類財源。
特色招生本來是為了讓有不同專長的學生有機會藉此得到不同的造就，不過，實施的結果只是讓明星學校有個管道，可以招收到比較會考試的學生，更因此攪亂一池春水，讓一般會考的招生程序充滿了不確定性，讓考生和家長飽受煎熬。
特色招生變相為明星高中開後門，早已違背多元精神，更與所謂的適性揚才無關，只是維持以學科考試成績做為招生門檻的掩耳盜鈴做法。學校迷信分數、家長迷信名校的價值觀不改，台灣學子要得到適性學習的機會，恐怕還是一條遙遠的路。
目前各界紛紛針對12年國教所引發的問題提出建言，包括停止特招後，多元性不足的問題，可以「特色課程」予以補強；將基北區切小；拿到會考成績單再辦特招等，12年國教才剛剛推出，就必須要補破網，可以預料未來可能愈趨於零碎與混亂；更何況，目前的種種建議方案，其實都只是在「技術面」打轉，12年國教淪為入學方式大車拚，豈是教育的宗旨與目的？
真要多元、真要適性揚才，恐怕要從尊重個人的差異與特質開始。在《發現我的天才》這本書裡，作者之一的「天賦心理學之父」唐諾．克里夫頓提出一個理念：教育應該「化天賦為能力，在適當的位置上發揮所長，更能讓享受滿足的成就感。」 這個社會不需要十項全能、每一科都考高分的人，如果一個人能找到並運用自己與生俱來的天賦，對個人、對社會都更有意義與貢獻。在《跟TED學表達，讓世界記住你》這本書裡提到一個動人的例子是《歌劇魅影》編舞家林恩的故事。林恩小時母親發現她喜歡動來動去、注意力不集中，於是帶她去看醫生，結果醫生發現林恩熱愛舞動，建議母親，應該把林恩送去舞蹈學校學舞。如此造就了這位舞蹈界的巨星。試想：如果當初林恩的母親硬是要她安靜念書考試，結果會如何？
12年國教已是既定的教育政策，如果我們同意延長義務教育的目的在提高國民素質，就不應該在招生、入學方式上打轉，應該回到受教者的主體性來思考。華倫．巴菲特曾說：「我與其他人的差別，是我每天起床後，有機會作自己想要作的事情。」不論是多元還是特色，或是什麼其他名稱，12年國教最重要的是給孩子做自己的空間，讓他們找到自己的天賦，並能夠快樂學習。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 17, 2014
Summary: The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12 year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be happy.
Full Text Below:
The Taipei City Government has abolished the Academic Ability Test for Admission to Senior High School. To avoid controversy, some elite schools have also ceased using the Academic Ability Test. The controversy over 12 year compulsory education has finally been settled. But many people, including Minister of Education Wu Se-hwa, insist that the Academic Ability Test should be retained. After all, diversity in admissions is a core value of 12 year compulsory education. Wu Se-hwa has even encouraged second tier schools to offer the Academic Ability Test in order to compete with first tier schools. Some parent organizations believe that the Ministry of Education exerted political pressure to force schools to abolish the Academic Ability Test, and to eliminate elite education for the sake of ersatz egalitarianism. The rush to adopt 12 year compulsory education has indeed led to endless aftereffects. Now that the political controversy over student recruitment has finally been settled, we need to look back and ask ourselves what was the purpose of 12 year compulsory education?
The purpose of 12 year compulsory education was to improve the quality of our citizenry. The 12 year compulsory education program stressed admissions without entrance exams. The intent was to reduce academic pressure on students and allow senior high schools to become standardized community senior high schools. Students would simply attend the nearest school. Children would be spared academic pressures and commute long distances. Diversity in admissions would encourage senior high schools to offer specialized curricula. The Academic Ability Test was a student recruitment method that would introduce specialized curricula to senior high schools. The goal was to create an environment in which students could fulfill their expectations. So many well-intentioned goals were hitched to the wagon of an admissions test, that its original nature became blurred by controversy.
This year, for the first time, senior high schools will not require entrance examinations. This has led to considerable controversy. Just how many senior high schools that do not require entrance exams must a student apply to before being admitted? Allowing schools to recruit students has already led to confusion and complaints by schools, parents, and students. The brutal reality is that academic pressure on students has not been relieved. Instead new pressures have been created. According to 1111 Job Bank statistics, online tutoring numbers show that between January and August, 10,000 more students applied. This represents a 45% surge over the same period in 2013. It also established a record high since the tutoring network was established. The 12 year compulsory education enrollment program is too complicated. Parents and students are at sea. They must seek help on their own. They can seek help from tailor made tutoring programs. Under the circumstances how can students possibly reduce academic pressure on themselves? Before they had to bone up on English, math, physics, and chemistry. Now they must learn Japanese, take violin lessons, and volunteer for community service. Diversity in admissions and Academic Ability Tests have become distorted. They have become alternative sources of income for cram schools or home tutors.
The Academic Ability Test was supposed to give students with different strengths the opportunity to receive specialized training. Instead, its implementation has merely provided elite schools with a pipeline by which to recruit students more adept at taking tests. It has merely muddied the waters. It has left the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students in a state of uncertainty, and students and parents in a state of anxiety.
The Academic Ability Test has morphed into a back door for elite senior high schools. It has already violated the spirit of diversity. It has even less to do with education tailored to the student's potential. It merely perpetuates academic test scores as an admissions threshold. It merely engages in pretense. Schools have blind faith in test scores. Parents continue to have blind faith in the values held by elite schools. It will probably be a long time before students on Taiwan can receive an education tailored to the student's potential.
Everyone is suggesting cures for the problems caused by 12 year compulsory education. The cures suggested include more "specialized curricula" once the Academic Ability Tests are abolished and insufficient diversity becomes a problem. The school districts for Taipei and Keelung will be reduced in size. A student will first obtain Comprehensive Assessment Program test scores, then arrange for Academic Ability Tests. The 12 year compulsory education program has just been launched. Yet patchwork repairs are already required. One can safely predict that the situation will soon be even more fragmented and confusing. Worse still, the suggested cures are mere technicalities. The 12 year compulsory education program has become a big brawl over school admissions. How can this possibly be the object and purpose of education?
If we really want diversity, if we really want education tailored to the student's potential, we must begin by respecting individual differences and traits. In the book "Now, Discover Your Strengths," Donald Clifton, the "the Father of Strengths Psychology," proposed that education should transform talent into ability and enable people to feel a sense of accomplishment. Our society does not need perfect people with perfect test scores. If a person can find and use his innate talent, he can make a meaningful contribution to himself and to society. The book "Talk Like TED:The 9 Public-Speaking Secrets of the World’s Top Minds," mentions a touching example -- the story of "Phantom of the Opera" choreographer Dame Gillian Barbara Lynne. When Lynne was young, her mother discovered that she liked to move around and couldn't concentrate. So she took her to see a doctor. The doctor discovered that Lynne loved dancing. She told the mother to send Lynne to dance school to learn dance. As a result, Lynne became a superstar in the dance world. Just imagine what would have happened if Lynne's mother had insisted that Lynne quiet down, read books, and study for exams?
The 12 year compulsory education program is our nation's established educational policy. If we agree that extending compulsory education will improve the quality of our citizens, then we should not spin our wheels on admissions policy. We should concentrate on the person to be educated. Warren Buffett said that the difference between himself and others is that after he gets out of bed each morning, he has a chance to do what he wants to do. Call it diversity. Call it special characteristics. Call it any name you want. The most important thing 12 year compulsory education can do is give children the space to do what they need to do. Let them discover their own talents, and learn to be happy.
社論－回頭想想十二年國教的初衷
2014年09月17日 04:11
本報訊
台北市宣布取消特招，一些明星學校為了省事、也為了減少爭議，相繼宣布放棄特招後，吵吵嚷嚷一陣子的12年國教問題，總算暫時塵埃落定。但包括教育部長吳思華在內的不少人又回頭說，特招不該廢，畢竟多元入學是12年國教的核心價值。吳思華甚至鼓勵所謂的「第二志願」學校應辦理特招，好搶第一志願學校的學生。也有家長團體認為教育部用政治壓力強逼名校放棄特招，消滅菁英教育，是追求假性公平，匆促上路的12年國教果然留下無窮的後遺症。現在招生方式的政治爭議終於塵埃落定，應該回頭想想：為什麼要辦理12年國教？
國民教育的目的在提升國民素質，12年國教標榜免試入學，是希望減輕學子的升學壓力，並讓高中均質化成為社區高中，讓學生就近就讀，免除孩子的升學壓力及就學的舟車勞頓；多元入學則希望鼓勵高中辦出教學特色，特招是為達成高中特色化目標而產生的招生方式，期望創造學生適性揚才學習的環境。這麼多立意良好的目標最後統統被壓縮在「入學方式」的爭執中而變得面目模糊。
今年首次辦理高中免試入學，發生非常多爭議，到底要「幾免」才能讓學生找到學校讀、讓學校招收到學生，已搞得學校、家長和學生人仰馬翻、怨聲載道，更殘酷的現實是，學生的升學壓力未見減輕，反而滋生出新的壓力。根據1111人力銀行統計線上家教網的數據顯示，今年1到8月徵求家教的案件數超過了1萬件，比102年同期大增45%，也同時創下家教網成立以來的新高紀錄。這是因為12年國教的入學方案實在太複雜，家長、學子無所適從，只得自力救濟，尋求家教幫忙量身訂做教學方案。在這種情況下，學子的升學壓力怎麼會減輕？從前補英數理化，如今補日文、小提琴外加志工服務。多元入學、特色招生走樣，成為補教業或家教老師的另類財源。
特色招生本來是為了讓有不同專長的學生有機會藉此得到不同的造就，不過，實施的結果只是讓明星學校有個管道，可以招收到比較會考試的學生，更因此攪亂一池春水，讓一般會考的招生程序充滿了不確定性，讓考生和家長飽受煎熬。
特色招生變相為明星高中開後門，早已違背多元精神，更與所謂的適性揚才無關，只是維持以學科考試成績做為招生門檻的掩耳盜鈴做法。學校迷信分數、家長迷信名校的價值觀不改，台灣學子要得到適性學習的機會，恐怕還是一條遙遠的路。
目前各界紛紛針對12年國教所引發的問題提出建言，包括停止特招後，多元性不足的問題，可以「特色課程」予以補強；將基北區切小；拿到會考成績單再辦特招等，12年國教才剛剛推出，就必須要補破網，可以預料未來可能愈趨於零碎與混亂；更何況，目前的種種建議方案，其實都只是在「技術面」打轉，12年國教淪為入學方式大車拚，豈是教育的宗旨與目的？
真要多元、真要適性揚才，恐怕要從尊重個人的差異與特質開始。在《發現我的天才》這本書裡，作者之一的「天賦心理學之父」唐諾．克里夫頓提出一個理念：教育應該「化天賦為能力，在適當的位置上發揮所長，更能讓享受滿足的成就感。」 這個社會不需要十項全能、每一科都考高分的人，如果一個人能找到並運用自己與生俱來的天賦，對個人、對社會都更有意義與貢獻。在《跟TED學表達，讓世界記住你》這本書裡提到一個動人的例子是《歌劇魅影》編舞家林恩的故事。林恩小時母親發現她喜歡動來動去、注意力不集中，於是帶她去看醫生，結果醫生發現林恩熱愛舞動，建議母親，應該把林恩送去舞蹈學校學舞。如此造就了這位舞蹈界的巨星。試想：如果當初林恩的母親硬是要她安靜念書考試，結果會如何？
12年國教已是既定的教育政策，如果我們同意延長義務教育的目的在提高國民素質，就不應該在招生、入學方式上打轉，應該回到受教者的主體性來思考。華倫．巴菲特曾說：「我與其他人的差別，是我每天起床後，有機會作自己想要作的事情。」不論是多元還是特色，或是什麼其他名稱，12年國教最重要的是給孩子做自己的空間，讓他們找到自己的天賦，並能夠快樂學習。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)