Avian Flu Epidemic Reveals Holes in the Net
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 14, 2015
Executive Summary: Can Taiwan wage a "decisive offshore battle?" If the battle is over avian influenza, then Taiwan has already fallen to the enemy. Immunization units have belatedly engaged in culling, disinfection, and isolation. Public health physicians have promoted food safety efforts. But these merely plug holes in the net. Ten years ago, the avian flu first appeared in Taiwan. Vaccinations should have become standard operating procedure. Unfortunately, the net remains riddled with holes.
Full Text Below:
Can Taiwan wage a "decisive offshore battle?" If the battle is over avian influenza, then Taiwan has already fallen to the enemy. Immunization units have belatedly engaged in culling, disinfection, and isolation. Public health physicians have promoted food safety efforts. But these merely plug holes in the net. Ten years ago, the avian flu first appeared in Taiwan. Vaccinations should have become standard operating procedure. Unfortunately, the net remains riddled with holes.
From a risk management perspective, the government's response leaves people speechless. An epidemic prevention network must be established before migratory birds arrive from the north, not hastily concocted after an outbreak has already occurred. An old adage states, "Do not hope the enemy will not attack. Prepare for any kind of attack." This is the iron law of epidemic prevention. Yesterday COA chairman Chen Bao-ji said "If the mortality rate exceeds 20%, we will cull." But that merely cleans up the mess. One has already lost the initiative.
Each year migratory birds wintering in the south arrive on Taiwan very punctually. By mid-October, they have arrived on Taiwan. They return north the following April. Once a year, migratory birds are man's honored guests. Naturally we welcome them. But poultry farms are often hotbeds for mutating viruses spread by migratory birds, waterfowl, and waders. Therefore when migratory birds arrive in October,epidemic prevention agencies should be on full alert. Migratory birds will not wait until we are ready before they spread viruses. Waterfowl and waders in particular, often carry diseases. For humans, this requires a cautious response.
Migratory birds are the biggest hosts when it comes to the seasonal spread of viruses. This is something those charged with epidemic control must understand. Academic research on migratory birds is a mature science. Unfortunately Taiwan has yet to apply this science. It has not gone beyond birdwatching. Taiwan has a good reputation for the scientific tracking of migratory bird patterns. But it has yet to apply this knowledge to epidemic prevention.
Taiwan is a hot spot for migratory birds wintering in the south. They arrive on Taiwan from the east, from Sakhalin, Japan, the Korean Peninsula, and Okinawa. They arrive on Taiwan from the west, from Siberia, Heilongjiang, Yancheng, and Poyang Lake Sanctuary. Flight paths and migratory times are fixed. Taiwan is a hot spot because birds fly long distances over land or water. When they encounter headwinds, they need to rest and live off the land. Taiwan for them, has become a Mecca.
Ecologists have urged government land planners to factor in the routes taken by migratory birds. These are high-risk areas for avian influenza. Poultry farms should not be located in these regions. Birds have no bladders. Their feces and urine get mixed together. They indiscriminately discharge these wastes along their flight paths. The avian influenza virus is replicated in the digestive tracts of birds. Therefore the flight paths for migratory birds are high risk zones for avian influenza. But bird excretions are not concentrated in breeding ground waters. Nor are they discharged in the vicinity of feed buckets. Therefore the decision of epidemic prevention units to add bird netting to feed buckets is not necessarily a scientific one.
Ignorance about new viruses is also a major problem. The newly emerged H5N2 virus that has appeared on Taiwan is not the same H5N2 that appeared in the past. Its H gene came from Korea. Its N gene came from the Mainland. The two are very similar. It is impossible to tell the difference. It is impossible to determine whether the new virus is a mutation of the virus from the migratory birds' previous habitat, or a mutation that developed after entering Taiwan. Heavier concentrations of chlorine disinfectants merely suppress the virus. They are not a remedy.
To plug the holes, we must do more than fight a "decisive offshore battle." Regional cooperation is also essential. Before the outbreak on Taiwan, South Korea issued reports of bird flu. This gave Taiwan ample warning. The Korean Peninsula is the birds' previous stop in their southward migration. Taiwan cannot avoid being affected. On Mainland China, for example, the wetlands monitoring system set up by the Mainland's State Forestry Administration is now three years old. It boasts world-class standards. It monitors the migration of wetland waterfowl, and waders, and possible mutations of the virus. This is the role that wetlands play in disease prevention. The Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, Mainland China, the Hong Kong Mai Po Reserve, and other monitoring units should share data promptly. This would help control any future outbreaks.
Taiwan should improve the sensitivity of Taiwan region outbreak detection. This would aid the international exchange of information. For example, migratory birds arrived on Taiwan last October. Suppose they had brought with them new, high risk viruses? Poultry farms would have been affected. Egg production would have declined. Poultry would have suffered increased mortality. Such numbers in isolation may not mean much. But combine them with regional data, and trends become apparent. The more data gathered from neighbouring countries, the clearer the picture. This is something one must realize.
Other factors include human interference with migratory patterns. These are not yet fully understood. They include the impact of wind turbines and wind farms on the path of migratory birds, as well as aircraft take offs and landings that disturb airflow on runways. All these can lead to abnormal animal responses. These are all important indicators of changes in avian influenza. Ignore them and may the price.
The key however remains to “wage a decisive offshore battle." That remains an iron law.
禽流感疫情顯示防疫網破漏累累
2015-01-14 02:28:08 聯合報 社論
從「防疫決戰於境外」的角度審視這波禽流感疫情，毫無疑問，台灣淪陷了。雖然防疫單位事後全力撲殺、消毒、隔離，公衛醫生全力宣導食安，也只能算是「補破網」。事實上，十年前禽流感首度在台灣出現，防疫該怎麼做即應有標準作業程序；遺憾的是，這張網至今仍然破漏累累。
從風險管理的角度看政府應變，實讓人無言。簡言之，防疫網必須在候鳥南來之初即應張起，而非等疫情爆發，才手忙腳亂地張網。所謂「勿恃敵之不來，恃吾有以待之」，就是防疫工作顛撲不破的鐵律。農委會主委陳保基昨天說，「死亡率過兩成就撲殺」；但這只是在收拾殘局，卻已完全失去制敵先機。
每年候鳥南遷來台度冬其實相當「守時」，十月中旬陸續抵台，第二年四月北返。候鳥是人類每年一會的嬌客，我們當然歡迎；然而，北方南遷的候鳥，水禽、涉禽在繁殖區水域有頻密的病毒交換，病毒變種的機率甚高；因此，十月中候鳥光臨時，防疫部門就應繃緊神經。候鳥不會等安營紮寨後才釋放病毒，尤其水禽、涉禽通常能帶毒而不發病；對人類而言，這需謹慎應對。
候鳥是季節病毒傳播最主要的宿主，這是防疫指揮官必須具備的基本認識。遺憾的是，學術上對候鳥的研究已經相當成熟，但在台灣的應用，卻始終未跨出賞鳥之用。台灣在追蹤候鳥、路徑、數量上，享有很高的科學聲望，卻一直未被引介至防疫工作。
台灣是候鳥南遷度冬的熱點。無論是庫頁島、日本、朝鮮半島、沖繩來台的東線，或是西伯利亞、黑龍江、鹽城、鄱陽湖保護區抵台的西線，飛行路徑、移棲時間都很固定。台灣之所以成為熱點，是因為鳥類經陸域或海域的長距離飛行，遇上氣流條件不佳，亟需歇腳覓食之地，台灣就成了款客最佳所在。
生態學界曾建議，政府的國土規劃應該標註候鳥移棲路線，因為此一路徑是禽流感高風險區，應禁止家禽養殖場設置。主要是禽鳥沒有膀胱，大、小便在泄殖腔混合後，沿著飛行路徑隨意排放；加上禽流感病毒是在禽鳥消化道複製，因此候鳥飛行路線是禽流感的高風險地帶。然而，候鳥排泄並不集中在養殖場水域，更不會排放在飼料桶附近；因而，防疫單位認為飼料桶應加覆防鳥網，未必是科學推論。
對新病毒機轉的無知，也是一大問題。新出現的Ｈ５Ｎ２，與過去台灣出現過的Ｈ５Ｎ２並不相同；其Ｈ基因來自韓國，Ｎ基因來自大陸，兩者相似度非常高，但分辨不出差異何在，無法據此推論這個全球首見新病毒是候鳥客人前一個棲地的病毒重組，或者入境台灣後的突變。亦即，加重氯濃度的消毒只是壓制作用，而非對症下藥。
除了「決戰境外」的認知，區域合作也是我們必須補上的缺口。在台灣疫情爆發前，南韓即有禽流感疫情傳出，這當然是台灣的警訊，因為朝鮮半島是候鳥南遷之前站，不可能不影響台灣。以中國大陸為例，中共國家林業局設置的濕地監控系統已進入第三年，具世界級水準。濕地水禽、涉禽頻密地移棲，可以在第一時間監控到病毒可能的變異，這是濕地對防疫最積極的作用。台灣若與朝鮮半島、大陸、香港米埔保護區等監測單位合作，取得第一時間的病毒監控資料，勢必更有助於掌控疫情。
台灣若能提升境內疫情偵測的敏銳度，也能回饋國際的資訊交流。例如，去年十月候鳥抵台，若是攜來新的、危險性大的病毒，則家禽養殖場必然會受影響，最常見的是產蛋率下降、致死率增高等。這些數字，個別看或不覺得具指標意義，但若匯集各地區數字，就能看出趨勢。若再比對鄰近國家數據，面貌即更清晰，這是不能不繃緊神經的。
除此之外，還有更多人為因素干擾生物移棲的變數，尚待解開。例如風力發電機風場對候鳥路徑的影響、飛機起降跑道的干擾氣流等，都會造成生物的異常行為及生理反應，都是禽流感變異觀察的重要指標；一旦忽視，即可能要付出巨大代價。
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
Cheer up! A Lame Duck President Need Not Sit and Brood
Cheer up! A Lame Duck President Need Not Sit and Brood
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 13, 2015
Executive Summary: To overcome its lame duck status, the Ma government must act. The first thing it must do is dare to change. It must cast aside its “safe” conservative mentality. The second thing it must do is dare to challenge itself. It must not be afraid to be different today from what it was yesterday. The third thing it must do it open itself up to the outside world and listen. It must not be afraid to listen to different voices. It must have the courage to confront its own weaknesses. Only then can it expect a breakthrough. Being a lame duck means that it needs even more courage than before. It must not sit back and brood.
Full Text Below:
The Democratic Party in the US suffered a major defeat during last year's midterm election. As a result, for the last two years of Obama's term, he is destined to be a lame duck. But Obama refuses to admit defeat. He is attempting to turn the tide, both domestically and diplomatically. He granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. He thawed relations with Cuba, which have been interrupted for half a century. He reached a carbon reduction agreement with the Chinese mainland. Obama, a basketball fan, told reporters on New Years Eve that usually the game only really begins in the fourth quarter. Obama is taking aggressive action to neutralize his status as a lame duck.
If Obama can neutralize his status as a lame duck, so can President Ma Ying-jeou. The key is whether the Ma administration can think anew and can stop butting its head against the wall. It must reinvent the wheel in order to win over hearts and minds. If it clings to old ways of thinking and decision-making, if it continues to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again, it will merely mire itself deeper in the mud, and meet its predictable fate.
Actually, compared to Obama, Ma Ying-jeou has a political advantage. The KMT still holds an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. It is a ruling party that has never really exploited this advantage. By contrast, the United States Senate and House both fell to the Republicans. Obama's hands are tied. Ma Ying-jeou's lame duck status is not nearly so bad. The Ma government must show the public that he means business. Together with his comrades, he must promote policies whose benefits can be felt by the public. The Ma government must pick itself off the floor. It must not wallow in self-pity. It must not complain about having lost the hearts and minds of the public. Not only is that futile, it will only lead to greater humiliation.
Ma Ying-jeou has a massive blind spot. He lacks political imagination and political skills. He may even consider politics "evil" by nature, hence feel disdain. As a result, he does not know how to pick his battles. He does not know how to distinguish between enemies and allies. He does not even know how to make friends. He does not know how to win the support of the masses. To his mind, ruling means having the Executive Yuan issue instructions and decisions, having them endorsed by the Legislative Yuan, then carried out by various levels of government. He never considers how every decision or reform affects people, consortia, or special interest groups. He never considers the need for trade-offs. He never considers how the policies he promotes may encounter resistance and affect ruling party legislators. He never considers the need to finalize strategies through communication and coordination, or the need to make compromises.
Ma Ying-jeou probably does not realize that if the opposition DPP engages in outrageous political obstructionism, he can still win the support of enough people, enabling him to do what he must, or even turn the tide. Take Obama, for example. He was helpless against the Republican budget proposal. But he granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and won the support of minorities. He lifted the embargo against Cuba, and won the support of the international community. He promoted carbon reduction, and improved environmentalist bona fides of the United States. Cannot President Ma take an inventory of his policy proposals, and find something worth doing?
Since its defeat, the Ma government's policy dilemma has not improved. The main reason is that his cabinet has retained Jiang's legacy, leaving it entirely intact. Its decision-making style also remains unchanged. The most obvious example is the capital gains tax "large investor provisions." Implementation has been pushed back three years by ruling and opposition party legislators. The Ministry of Transportation's proposed high-speed rail financial improvement plan has been blocked by ruling and opposition legislators, leading to Yeh Kuang-shih's resignation. Last year's STA and and "cross-strait agreement oversight regulations" remain in limbo. Unless these obstacles can be overcome, it is difficult to imagine how President Ma and Taiwan are going to get through the remaining ten months of his term.
Former Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-uuan recently criticized the Ma government decisions as "missing a brain." His comment may have been harsh, but everyone knows it's true.
One. Inner circle decision-making, and a lack of communication. Two. Top down decision-making, and an excessive reliance on elites. Three. Closed-minded thinking, and an inability to draw from public knowledge. An inability to recruit talent, leading to decisions made without thinking. A policy-making process that remains opaque, therefore unable to elicit official or public support. These include: An avian influenza epidemic prevention unit that suppresses information. Twenty billion in Taipower profits due to a decline in the price of petroleum, yet no response until the public erupted in outrage. The Ma government must change its "missing a brain" governance model. It must feel the public pulse, and demonstrate decisiveness and courage. Do so, and the people will respond.
Wen-Je Ko has done much since taking office. Much of what he did was pure show. But he understands that the people want change. He made other mayors' silent achievements part of his own eye-catching resume. His populist style may not withstand the test of time. But making policy change visible inspires people. It makes them feel the city is making progress.
To overcome its lame duck status, the Ma government must act. The first thing it must do is dare to change. It must cast aside its “safe” conservative mentality. The second thing it must do is dare to challenge itself. It must not be afraid to be different today from what it was yesterday. The third thing it must do it open itself up to the outside world and listen. It must not be afraid to listen to different voices. It must have the courage to confront its own weaknesses. Only then can it expect a breakthrough. Being a lame duck means that it needs even more courage than before. It must not sit back and brood.
振作點！跛鴨總統不必坐困愁城
2015-01-13 01:57:38 聯合報 社論
美國民主黨去年期中選舉大敗，讓歐巴馬的最後兩年注定成為「跛鴨總統」。然而歐巴馬並不服輸，企圖在內政、外交上力挽狂瀾：他大赦非法移民，解凍與古巴中斷半世紀的關係，並與中國大陸達成減碳協定。喜好籃球的歐巴馬在年終記者會上說：「進入第四節，好戲通常在後頭。」歐巴馬以積極施為，有效掃除了跛鴨形象。
如果歐巴馬能擺脫跛鴨，馬英九總統當然也可以。關鍵只在，馬團隊能不能換個腦袋，拋開讓施政不斷「撞牆」的思維，重起爐灶，爭取民心。否則，如果仍一直使用舊有的思考及決策模式，不斷重蹈覆轍，跛鴨在泥坑裡越陷越深，也是必然的命運。
比起歐巴馬，馬英九其實擁有更多的政治優勢。原因是，國民黨在立院仍掌握絕對多數席次，執政黨尚未到任人宰割的地步；這比起美國參、眾兩院皆淪入共和黨之手、歐巴馬飽受牽制之苦而言，馬英九的跛鴨處境並不算太糟。馬政府要做的，是提出讓人民一新耳目的作為，並聯合自己的同志和戰友共同推動，讓民眾「有感」；如果老是在自己跌倒的地方徘徊惆悵，對著失散的民心怨天尤人，非但無濟於事，還會招致更多譏嘲。
馬英九的一大盲點，是缺乏政治想像與政治手腕，他甚至可能把政治視為帶有「邪惡」本質的事，而不屑為之。也因此，他不懂得劃分戰線的先後，不懂得區分敵人及盟友，不懂得結交朋友，甚至不知道如何爭取廣大群眾的支持。在他的思維裡，所謂執政，似乎就是由行政院發出各種指令與決策，由國會立法背書，由各下屬部門分層推動。他從未想到，每項決策或改革均可能牽動人民、財團或利益團體的損益，必須要有良好的權衡；政策推動中不僅會遭遇反對黨的阻力，也會招致執政黨立委的杯葛，必須和他們溝通協調敲定策略，並作出必要妥協。
當然，馬英九可能也不知道，就算在政治上遭到對手的蠻橫杯葛和暗算，若能爭取到足夠民眾的支持，他仍然有可為的空間，甚至有扳回的勝算。以歐巴馬為例，在預算案遭共和黨強烈箝制自是無奈，但他大赦非法移民，爭取了少數族裔的支持；對古巴解除禁運，爭取到國際社會的支持；推動減碳協定，改善了美國的環保形象。馬總統盤點一下他的施政倉儲，會找不到可以做的事嗎？
從敗選至今，馬政府的施政困境毫無改善；主要原因，除了內閣班底的「江規毛續」原封不動外，決策作風也一成不變。最明顯的例子，是證所稅的「大戶條款」在朝野立委聯手合作下決議「暫緩三年」實施；而交通部提出的高鐵財務改善計畫，也遭朝野立委共同封殺而導致葉匡時辭職；至於去年遭杯葛至今的《服貿協議》和《兩岸協議監督條例》，更毫無解凍跡象。這種低迷氣氛若不設法打破，我們很難想像馬總統剩餘的十六個月任期，台灣將如何度過？
前內政部長李鴻源最近批評，馬政府決策常常像「少一個腦袋」。這個評語雖然苛刻，卻也道出了大家看到的事實：第一，是小圈圈決策，缺乏溝通思維；第二，自上而下，過度菁英取向；第三，封閉性思考，不懂得向民間借力借腦。用人缺少腦袋，就會導致決策沒有腦袋，施政格局打不開，即無法贏得民代和社會的認同。包括禽流感侵襲多時防疫單位卻隱匿疫情，台電因石油跌價而獲利兩百億，竟也要等到民怨沸騰才「從善如流」。馬政府如果能一改這種「少一根筋」的施政模式，貼緊民意脈動，展現決斷與魄力，我們不相信它喚不回民心。
看柯文哲上任後的諸多作為，有些雖然只是取巧炫耀，但他抓住了「民心思變」的要害，把其他市長無聲無息的努力，變成自己光燦奪目的魄力。雖說民粹作風未必禁得起長期檢驗，但把施政變成「看得見的改變」，至少鼓舞了不少市民，覺得市政在前進。
若要克服跛鴨困境，馬政府該做的，首先是要勇於「求變」，拋開只求「安定」的保守心態；其次是要敢於「向自己挑戰」，不要畏懼自己與昨天不同；第三是要以開放的心態吸納外界意見，不要怕聽不同的聲音。敢面對自己的弱點，才有突破的可能；跛鴨更要勇敢走出來，不要坐困愁城。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 13, 2015
Executive Summary: To overcome its lame duck status, the Ma government must act. The first thing it must do is dare to change. It must cast aside its “safe” conservative mentality. The second thing it must do is dare to challenge itself. It must not be afraid to be different today from what it was yesterday. The third thing it must do it open itself up to the outside world and listen. It must not be afraid to listen to different voices. It must have the courage to confront its own weaknesses. Only then can it expect a breakthrough. Being a lame duck means that it needs even more courage than before. It must not sit back and brood.
Full Text Below:
The Democratic Party in the US suffered a major defeat during last year's midterm election. As a result, for the last two years of Obama's term, he is destined to be a lame duck. But Obama refuses to admit defeat. He is attempting to turn the tide, both domestically and diplomatically. He granted amnesty to illegal immigrants. He thawed relations with Cuba, which have been interrupted for half a century. He reached a carbon reduction agreement with the Chinese mainland. Obama, a basketball fan, told reporters on New Years Eve that usually the game only really begins in the fourth quarter. Obama is taking aggressive action to neutralize his status as a lame duck.
If Obama can neutralize his status as a lame duck, so can President Ma Ying-jeou. The key is whether the Ma administration can think anew and can stop butting its head against the wall. It must reinvent the wheel in order to win over hearts and minds. If it clings to old ways of thinking and decision-making, if it continues to repeat the same mistakes, over and over again, it will merely mire itself deeper in the mud, and meet its predictable fate.
Actually, compared to Obama, Ma Ying-jeou has a political advantage. The KMT still holds an absolute majority in the Legislative Yuan. It is a ruling party that has never really exploited this advantage. By contrast, the United States Senate and House both fell to the Republicans. Obama's hands are tied. Ma Ying-jeou's lame duck status is not nearly so bad. The Ma government must show the public that he means business. Together with his comrades, he must promote policies whose benefits can be felt by the public. The Ma government must pick itself off the floor. It must not wallow in self-pity. It must not complain about having lost the hearts and minds of the public. Not only is that futile, it will only lead to greater humiliation.
Ma Ying-jeou has a massive blind spot. He lacks political imagination and political skills. He may even consider politics "evil" by nature, hence feel disdain. As a result, he does not know how to pick his battles. He does not know how to distinguish between enemies and allies. He does not even know how to make friends. He does not know how to win the support of the masses. To his mind, ruling means having the Executive Yuan issue instructions and decisions, having them endorsed by the Legislative Yuan, then carried out by various levels of government. He never considers how every decision or reform affects people, consortia, or special interest groups. He never considers the need for trade-offs. He never considers how the policies he promotes may encounter resistance and affect ruling party legislators. He never considers the need to finalize strategies through communication and coordination, or the need to make compromises.
Ma Ying-jeou probably does not realize that if the opposition DPP engages in outrageous political obstructionism, he can still win the support of enough people, enabling him to do what he must, or even turn the tide. Take Obama, for example. He was helpless against the Republican budget proposal. But he granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and won the support of minorities. He lifted the embargo against Cuba, and won the support of the international community. He promoted carbon reduction, and improved environmentalist bona fides of the United States. Cannot President Ma take an inventory of his policy proposals, and find something worth doing?
Since its defeat, the Ma government's policy dilemma has not improved. The main reason is that his cabinet has retained Jiang's legacy, leaving it entirely intact. Its decision-making style also remains unchanged. The most obvious example is the capital gains tax "large investor provisions." Implementation has been pushed back three years by ruling and opposition party legislators. The Ministry of Transportation's proposed high-speed rail financial improvement plan has been blocked by ruling and opposition legislators, leading to Yeh Kuang-shih's resignation. Last year's STA and and "cross-strait agreement oversight regulations" remain in limbo. Unless these obstacles can be overcome, it is difficult to imagine how President Ma and Taiwan are going to get through the remaining ten months of his term.
Former Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-uuan recently criticized the Ma government decisions as "missing a brain." His comment may have been harsh, but everyone knows it's true.
One. Inner circle decision-making, and a lack of communication. Two. Top down decision-making, and an excessive reliance on elites. Three. Closed-minded thinking, and an inability to draw from public knowledge. An inability to recruit talent, leading to decisions made without thinking. A policy-making process that remains opaque, therefore unable to elicit official or public support. These include: An avian influenza epidemic prevention unit that suppresses information. Twenty billion in Taipower profits due to a decline in the price of petroleum, yet no response until the public erupted in outrage. The Ma government must change its "missing a brain" governance model. It must feel the public pulse, and demonstrate decisiveness and courage. Do so, and the people will respond.
Wen-Je Ko has done much since taking office. Much of what he did was pure show. But he understands that the people want change. He made other mayors' silent achievements part of his own eye-catching resume. His populist style may not withstand the test of time. But making policy change visible inspires people. It makes them feel the city is making progress.
To overcome its lame duck status, the Ma government must act. The first thing it must do is dare to change. It must cast aside its “safe” conservative mentality. The second thing it must do is dare to challenge itself. It must not be afraid to be different today from what it was yesterday. The third thing it must do it open itself up to the outside world and listen. It must not be afraid to listen to different voices. It must have the courage to confront its own weaknesses. Only then can it expect a breakthrough. Being a lame duck means that it needs even more courage than before. It must not sit back and brood.
振作點！跛鴨總統不必坐困愁城
2015-01-13 01:57:38 聯合報 社論
美國民主黨去年期中選舉大敗，讓歐巴馬的最後兩年注定成為「跛鴨總統」。然而歐巴馬並不服輸，企圖在內政、外交上力挽狂瀾：他大赦非法移民，解凍與古巴中斷半世紀的關係，並與中國大陸達成減碳協定。喜好籃球的歐巴馬在年終記者會上說：「進入第四節，好戲通常在後頭。」歐巴馬以積極施為，有效掃除了跛鴨形象。
如果歐巴馬能擺脫跛鴨，馬英九總統當然也可以。關鍵只在，馬團隊能不能換個腦袋，拋開讓施政不斷「撞牆」的思維，重起爐灶，爭取民心。否則，如果仍一直使用舊有的思考及決策模式，不斷重蹈覆轍，跛鴨在泥坑裡越陷越深，也是必然的命運。
比起歐巴馬，馬英九其實擁有更多的政治優勢。原因是，國民黨在立院仍掌握絕對多數席次，執政黨尚未到任人宰割的地步；這比起美國參、眾兩院皆淪入共和黨之手、歐巴馬飽受牽制之苦而言，馬英九的跛鴨處境並不算太糟。馬政府要做的，是提出讓人民一新耳目的作為，並聯合自己的同志和戰友共同推動，讓民眾「有感」；如果老是在自己跌倒的地方徘徊惆悵，對著失散的民心怨天尤人，非但無濟於事，還會招致更多譏嘲。
馬英九的一大盲點，是缺乏政治想像與政治手腕，他甚至可能把政治視為帶有「邪惡」本質的事，而不屑為之。也因此，他不懂得劃分戰線的先後，不懂得區分敵人及盟友，不懂得結交朋友，甚至不知道如何爭取廣大群眾的支持。在他的思維裡，所謂執政，似乎就是由行政院發出各種指令與決策，由國會立法背書，由各下屬部門分層推動。他從未想到，每項決策或改革均可能牽動人民、財團或利益團體的損益，必須要有良好的權衡；政策推動中不僅會遭遇反對黨的阻力，也會招致執政黨立委的杯葛，必須和他們溝通協調敲定策略，並作出必要妥協。
當然，馬英九可能也不知道，就算在政治上遭到對手的蠻橫杯葛和暗算，若能爭取到足夠民眾的支持，他仍然有可為的空間，甚至有扳回的勝算。以歐巴馬為例，在預算案遭共和黨強烈箝制自是無奈，但他大赦非法移民，爭取了少數族裔的支持；對古巴解除禁運，爭取到國際社會的支持；推動減碳協定，改善了美國的環保形象。馬總統盤點一下他的施政倉儲，會找不到可以做的事嗎？
從敗選至今，馬政府的施政困境毫無改善；主要原因，除了內閣班底的「江規毛續」原封不動外，決策作風也一成不變。最明顯的例子，是證所稅的「大戶條款」在朝野立委聯手合作下決議「暫緩三年」實施；而交通部提出的高鐵財務改善計畫，也遭朝野立委共同封殺而導致葉匡時辭職；至於去年遭杯葛至今的《服貿協議》和《兩岸協議監督條例》，更毫無解凍跡象。這種低迷氣氛若不設法打破，我們很難想像馬總統剩餘的十六個月任期，台灣將如何度過？
前內政部長李鴻源最近批評，馬政府決策常常像「少一個腦袋」。這個評語雖然苛刻，卻也道出了大家看到的事實：第一，是小圈圈決策，缺乏溝通思維；第二，自上而下，過度菁英取向；第三，封閉性思考，不懂得向民間借力借腦。用人缺少腦袋，就會導致決策沒有腦袋，施政格局打不開，即無法贏得民代和社會的認同。包括禽流感侵襲多時防疫單位卻隱匿疫情，台電因石油跌價而獲利兩百億，竟也要等到民怨沸騰才「從善如流」。馬政府如果能一改這種「少一根筋」的施政模式，貼緊民意脈動，展現決斷與魄力，我們不相信它喚不回民心。
看柯文哲上任後的諸多作為，有些雖然只是取巧炫耀，但他抓住了「民心思變」的要害，把其他市長無聲無息的努力，變成自己光燦奪目的魄力。雖說民粹作風未必禁得起長期檢驗，但把施政變成「看得見的改變」，至少鼓舞了不少市民，覺得市政在前進。
若要克服跛鴨困境，馬政府該做的，首先是要勇於「求變」，拋開只求「安定」的保守心態；其次是要敢於「向自己挑戰」，不要畏懼自己與昨天不同；第三是要以開放的心態吸納外界意見，不要怕聽不同的聲音。敢面對自己的弱點，才有突破的可能；跛鴨更要勇敢走出來，不要坐困愁城。
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Improved Cross-Strait Relations Brings Opportunities
Improved Cross-Strait Relations Brings Opportunities
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, China)
A Translation
January 9, 2015
Executive Summary: The Mainland is actively discussing cross-Strait policy. The blue and green parties lag behind. Both sides face a new situation. Three way red, blue, and green dialogue and consensus is all the more essential. Only this can ensure the long term peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.
Full Text Below:
What will happen to cross-Strait relations in the wake of the Sunflower Student Movement and the nine in one elections? That is a question many people are asking. Some form of National Affairs Conference in the first half of this year seems like a foregone conclusion. Cross-Strait relations is an important issue. Given the upcoming presidential election, cross-Strait relations is something neither the DPP nor the KMT can avoid. The Mainland faces a changing situation on Taiwan. It too must consider how to respond. One might say that a "cross-Strait new normal" is taking shape over the Taiwan Strait.
The "cross-Strait new normal" began on February 25. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping met with KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan. Together they announced the "Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation and the China Dream" as a common point of departure. They included the "Both sides of the Strait are one family" thesis. This was perhaps the most important thesis on cross-Strait relations since Xi came to power. Zhang Nianchi, a veteran Taiwan expert from the Mainland, said the “national unity” currently advocated by the Mainland authorities is very different from past conceptions of national unity. It has morphed from conquest to "peaceful reintegration." This fundamentally alters Taiwan's status from "being reunified" to something else entirely. Several times during his speech, Xi Jinping referred to this sort of reunification, aka peaceful reintegration, as the "fulfillment of the Chinese Dream" and the "shared rejuvenation of the Chinese people".
In Xi Jinping's address on cross-Strait relations, Chinese reunification was not a matter of who swallows up whom, but rather the joint creation of a new and better China. It was a process of "joint creation". In this "joint creation" process, Taiwan and the Mainland are one. Their relationship is one of equals. Unfortunately, Xi's "two sides of the Strait are one family" thesis was not treated seriously in Taiwan political circles or among the public. It was not fully discussed or evaluated. The public on Taiwan has long been guilty of kneejerk reactions in response to cross-Strait issues. When faced with changes in the external situation, it refuses to reassess the situation, draw new conclusions, or adopt new policies. Shortly after Xi Jinping delivered his "two sides of the Strait are one family" speech, the Sunflower Student Movement erupted on Taiwan. All of a sudden, anti-[Mainland] China and anti-Ma sentiment left no room for rational discussion.
The public believes the DPP may well return to power in 2016. The DPP leadership has acted humble and cautious following the election. Alas, this is superficial political posturing. It does not mean the DPP has laid out its cards as a future ruling party. It does not mean the DPP has entertained the idea of new cross-Strait relations, or transformed its party line. The DPP's smug complacency is rooted in its belief in "ballot determinism." Tsai made clear that "The biggest challenge for the DPP, is the nine in one elections. It must succeed. If it does, even [Mainland] China will alter its policy to accommodate the DPP." If the DPP wins in 2016, Tsai believe that “The Mainland will automatically change its policy," and that once “[Mainland] China changes its policy, the Americans will have no reason to object."
Tsai Ing-wen's remarks reflect deeply embedded DPP thinking. But they have alarmed the Mainland. Zhang Nianchi, who belongs to the pragmatic faction, believes that the DPP has not engaged in self-reflection, has not undergone transformation, and remains an anti-China party. If such a DPP returns to power, "It will be nothing less than a catastrophe for both sides, For Taiwan it will be an unprecedented disaster." Zhang Nianchi raised other critical questions. "If the DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus, and only favors peaceful development," "If the DPP insists on one country each side," but attempts to “reap all the benefits the Mainland has bestowed upon Taiwan over the past six years," how should the Mainland authorities respond? Zhang Nianchi thinks the Mainland "needs to arrive at a new consensus, one that will provide a compass for cross-Strait relations no matter how the Taiwan Strait situation changes." "The two sides must now go one step beyond the 1992 consensus in order to deal with the new situation in cross-Strait relations."
Zhang Nianchi's proposal is something the blue and green parties must take seriously. Knowledgeable parties within the blue and green parties surely must see the big picture. First of all, the Mainland authorities will never budge in their opposition to Taiwan independence, or their support for one country, two systems, and peaceful development. Secondly, under the "one country" premise, the two sides can "co-create" a new China. Under this framework, Taiwanese consciousness can expand and become more inclusive. Thirdly, after two turbulent ruling party changes over the past decade or so, the blue and green camps have a real opportunity at symbiosis and reconciliation. After all, real growth for Taiwan can no longer be delayed. The public on Taiwan should put an end to confrontation and wheel-spinning.
To cope with the new situation in cross-Strait relations, the DPP should abandon its naive "ballot determinism," and "regime determinism." It should earnestly confront Mainland China's peaceful rise, Mainland public opposition to Taiwan independence, and Taiwan's developmental niche. It must embark upon creative destruction, and demonstrate the commitment and responsibility befitting a ruling party. The Kuomintang meanwhile, must cease consoling itself, saying "Our path was not wrong." Nor should it follow the crowd and repudiate its core beliefs as a party. On the one hand, it should review past mistakes. On the other hand, it should formulate a consensus for the future that will win the support of voters. After all, a sound and pragmatic cross-Strait policy is still one of the KMT's most valuable assets.
The Mainland is actively discussing cross-Strait policy. The blue and green parties lag behind. Both sides face a new situation. Three way red, blue, and green dialogue and consensus is all the more essential. Only this can ensure the long term peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.
社論－創造兩岸關係否極泰來契機
2015年01月09日 04:10
本報訊
太陽花學運和九合一大選後，「兩岸關係怎麼辦？」是很多人心中的大哉問。今年上半年以某種形式召開國是會議似乎已成定局，如果召開兩岸關係應該會是重要議題，面對即將到來的總統大選，兩岸關係更是民進黨與國民黨不容閃躲、無法迴避的課題，而大陸面對台灣的變局，勢必有所檢討因應。可以說，「兩岸新常態」正在台海上空醞釀。
探討「兩岸新常態」應從去年2月25日，中共總書記習近平會見國民黨榮譽主席連戰時，發表的《共圓中華民族偉大復興的中國夢》講話，作為思考的起點。其中的「兩岸一家親」理論，可說是他執政以來關於兩岸關係最新、也是最重要的論述。大陸資深台灣問題專家章念馳曾指出，大陸當局如今所提倡的統一與歷史上的統一有很大不同，已從武力征服改為「和平融合」，這在根本上改變了台灣「被統一」的地位，而正是習近平在他的幾次講話中，把這種統一、和平融合的關係稱之為「共圓中國夢」，是要「共同實現中華民族偉大復興」的關係。
也是就是說，在習近平的兩岸關係論述中，中國的統一並不是誰吃掉誰的統一，而是要共創一個更美好的新中國，體現了「共同締造」的精神，在這個「共同締造」的過程中，台灣與大陸都是統一的主體，彼此的關係是平等的。遺憾的是，在習近平「兩岸一家親」論述提出後，台灣政壇與社會大眾並沒有嚴肅認真的對待，更遑論進行仔細的思考與充分的討論，可能是因為台灣社會始終以「慣性思維」來面對兩岸課題、面對外界局勢的變化，缺少對新局勢的評估與判斷，並採取因應作為。在習近平發表「兩岸一家親」講話後不久，台灣就爆發了太陽花學運，一時之間，「反中」、「反馬」情緒高漲，更沒有理性討論的餘地。
社會人心普遍認為民進黨大有可能在2016年重新執政，民進黨中央在選後雖展現謙卑與謹慎，但這僅僅是表面的政治姿態，並不代表民進黨有意識、有計畫展露準執政黨的格局，積極討論、構思兩岸關係的新論述，徹底實現該黨的路線轉型。民進黨的故步自封，或者自我感覺良好，其實是根源於民進黨人信奉的「選票決定論」。蔡英文就曾明確表示，「民進黨最大的挑戰，就是九合一大選一定要打好。如果打好，連中國都會朝民進黨方向來調整」，蔡英文認為，如果大陸覺得民進黨會在2016年大選中獲勝，「他們自動會去創造那個條件」，而只要「中國一調整，美國人就沒有什麼好講的。」
蔡英文這段話，反映了民進黨人的深層思維，卻也讓大陸方面更為警惕，務實派的章念馳就認為民進黨是「沒有反省」、「沒有轉型」、「反中」的政黨，如果這樣的民進黨重新上台，「不啻是兩岸一場巨大災難，也是台灣的一場空前災難。」章念馳更進一步提出關鍵性的問題：「如果民進黨不承認九二共識，僅僅贊成和平發展」，「如果民進黨堅持一邊一國」，但又「願意接收6年來兩岸一切惠台政策的紅利」，大陸當局應該如何因應？章念馳認為，大陸方面「需要研究出一個新的共識，無論台海風雲變化，它都能成為兩岸關係的定海神針。」「現在兩岸需要在九二共識的基礎上進行新的發展，來應對兩岸關係的新局面。」
章念馳在大陸內部提出的呼籲，何嘗不是藍綠兩黨應該認真面對的課題？藍綠兩黨的有識之士，應該要對大局勢有清醒的認識。首先，大陸當局在反台獨、一國兩制、和平發展上的堅持並不會動搖。其次，在堅持「一國」的前提下，在兩岸「共同締造」新中國的大願景、大架構下，台灣的主體意識能夠獲得更寬廣、更具包容性的發展空間。第三，歷經兩次政黨輪替十多年的動盪，藍綠陣營都到了應該真正營造和解共生契機的時刻，畢竟台灣的發展實不容再受到延宕、再陷入停滯，台灣社會也不宜繼續分裂對立、虛耗空轉。
應對兩岸關係發展的新局面，民進黨應揚棄天真的「選票決定論」、「政權決定論」，認真面對「中國和平崛起」、「大陸民意反獨」、「台灣發展利基」三大現實課題，以大破大立的務實轉型，展現迎接執政的承擔與責任感。而在國民黨這方面，既不宜繼續以「路線沒有錯誤」來自我安慰，也不能隨波逐流，失去政黨的基本信念，而是應該一方面檢討過去失誤，一方面凝聚前瞻論述，爭取選民的支持，畢竟，穩健務實的兩岸政策仍是國民黨的最豐厚資產。
當大陸方面正積極充實兩岸新論述的時刻，藍綠兩黨又豈能落後於形勢，而面對兩岸的新局，紅藍綠三方更有必要相互對話，謀求共識，如此，兩岸關係的和平發展也才能可長可久。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, China)
A Translation
January 9, 2015
Executive Summary: The Mainland is actively discussing cross-Strait policy. The blue and green parties lag behind. Both sides face a new situation. Three way red, blue, and green dialogue and consensus is all the more essential. Only this can ensure the long term peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.
Full Text Below:
What will happen to cross-Strait relations in the wake of the Sunflower Student Movement and the nine in one elections? That is a question many people are asking. Some form of National Affairs Conference in the first half of this year seems like a foregone conclusion. Cross-Strait relations is an important issue. Given the upcoming presidential election, cross-Strait relations is something neither the DPP nor the KMT can avoid. The Mainland faces a changing situation on Taiwan. It too must consider how to respond. One might say that a "cross-Strait new normal" is taking shape over the Taiwan Strait.
The "cross-Strait new normal" began on February 25. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping met with KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan. Together they announced the "Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation and the China Dream" as a common point of departure. They included the "Both sides of the Strait are one family" thesis. This was perhaps the most important thesis on cross-Strait relations since Xi came to power. Zhang Nianchi, a veteran Taiwan expert from the Mainland, said the “national unity” currently advocated by the Mainland authorities is very different from past conceptions of national unity. It has morphed from conquest to "peaceful reintegration." This fundamentally alters Taiwan's status from "being reunified" to something else entirely. Several times during his speech, Xi Jinping referred to this sort of reunification, aka peaceful reintegration, as the "fulfillment of the Chinese Dream" and the "shared rejuvenation of the Chinese people".
In Xi Jinping's address on cross-Strait relations, Chinese reunification was not a matter of who swallows up whom, but rather the joint creation of a new and better China. It was a process of "joint creation". In this "joint creation" process, Taiwan and the Mainland are one. Their relationship is one of equals. Unfortunately, Xi's "two sides of the Strait are one family" thesis was not treated seriously in Taiwan political circles or among the public. It was not fully discussed or evaluated. The public on Taiwan has long been guilty of kneejerk reactions in response to cross-Strait issues. When faced with changes in the external situation, it refuses to reassess the situation, draw new conclusions, or adopt new policies. Shortly after Xi Jinping delivered his "two sides of the Strait are one family" speech, the Sunflower Student Movement erupted on Taiwan. All of a sudden, anti-[Mainland] China and anti-Ma sentiment left no room for rational discussion.
The public believes the DPP may well return to power in 2016. The DPP leadership has acted humble and cautious following the election. Alas, this is superficial political posturing. It does not mean the DPP has laid out its cards as a future ruling party. It does not mean the DPP has entertained the idea of new cross-Strait relations, or transformed its party line. The DPP's smug complacency is rooted in its belief in "ballot determinism." Tsai made clear that "The biggest challenge for the DPP, is the nine in one elections. It must succeed. If it does, even [Mainland] China will alter its policy to accommodate the DPP." If the DPP wins in 2016, Tsai believe that “The Mainland will automatically change its policy," and that once “[Mainland] China changes its policy, the Americans will have no reason to object."
Tsai Ing-wen's remarks reflect deeply embedded DPP thinking. But they have alarmed the Mainland. Zhang Nianchi, who belongs to the pragmatic faction, believes that the DPP has not engaged in self-reflection, has not undergone transformation, and remains an anti-China party. If such a DPP returns to power, "It will be nothing less than a catastrophe for both sides, For Taiwan it will be an unprecedented disaster." Zhang Nianchi raised other critical questions. "If the DPP refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus, and only favors peaceful development," "If the DPP insists on one country each side," but attempts to “reap all the benefits the Mainland has bestowed upon Taiwan over the past six years," how should the Mainland authorities respond? Zhang Nianchi thinks the Mainland "needs to arrive at a new consensus, one that will provide a compass for cross-Strait relations no matter how the Taiwan Strait situation changes." "The two sides must now go one step beyond the 1992 consensus in order to deal with the new situation in cross-Strait relations."
Zhang Nianchi's proposal is something the blue and green parties must take seriously. Knowledgeable parties within the blue and green parties surely must see the big picture. First of all, the Mainland authorities will never budge in their opposition to Taiwan independence, or their support for one country, two systems, and peaceful development. Secondly, under the "one country" premise, the two sides can "co-create" a new China. Under this framework, Taiwanese consciousness can expand and become more inclusive. Thirdly, after two turbulent ruling party changes over the past decade or so, the blue and green camps have a real opportunity at symbiosis and reconciliation. After all, real growth for Taiwan can no longer be delayed. The public on Taiwan should put an end to confrontation and wheel-spinning.
To cope with the new situation in cross-Strait relations, the DPP should abandon its naive "ballot determinism," and "regime determinism." It should earnestly confront Mainland China's peaceful rise, Mainland public opposition to Taiwan independence, and Taiwan's developmental niche. It must embark upon creative destruction, and demonstrate the commitment and responsibility befitting a ruling party. The Kuomintang meanwhile, must cease consoling itself, saying "Our path was not wrong." Nor should it follow the crowd and repudiate its core beliefs as a party. On the one hand, it should review past mistakes. On the other hand, it should formulate a consensus for the future that will win the support of voters. After all, a sound and pragmatic cross-Strait policy is still one of the KMT's most valuable assets.
The Mainland is actively discussing cross-Strait policy. The blue and green parties lag behind. Both sides face a new situation. Three way red, blue, and green dialogue and consensus is all the more essential. Only this can ensure the long term peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.
社論－創造兩岸關係否極泰來契機
2015年01月09日 04:10
本報訊
太陽花學運和九合一大選後，「兩岸關係怎麼辦？」是很多人心中的大哉問。今年上半年以某種形式召開國是會議似乎已成定局，如果召開兩岸關係應該會是重要議題，面對即將到來的總統大選，兩岸關係更是民進黨與國民黨不容閃躲、無法迴避的課題，而大陸面對台灣的變局，勢必有所檢討因應。可以說，「兩岸新常態」正在台海上空醞釀。
探討「兩岸新常態」應從去年2月25日，中共總書記習近平會見國民黨榮譽主席連戰時，發表的《共圓中華民族偉大復興的中國夢》講話，作為思考的起點。其中的「兩岸一家親」理論，可說是他執政以來關於兩岸關係最新、也是最重要的論述。大陸資深台灣問題專家章念馳曾指出，大陸當局如今所提倡的統一與歷史上的統一有很大不同，已從武力征服改為「和平融合」，這在根本上改變了台灣「被統一」的地位，而正是習近平在他的幾次講話中，把這種統一、和平融合的關係稱之為「共圓中國夢」，是要「共同實現中華民族偉大復興」的關係。
也是就是說，在習近平的兩岸關係論述中，中國的統一並不是誰吃掉誰的統一，而是要共創一個更美好的新中國，體現了「共同締造」的精神，在這個「共同締造」的過程中，台灣與大陸都是統一的主體，彼此的關係是平等的。遺憾的是，在習近平「兩岸一家親」論述提出後，台灣政壇與社會大眾並沒有嚴肅認真的對待，更遑論進行仔細的思考與充分的討論，可能是因為台灣社會始終以「慣性思維」來面對兩岸課題、面對外界局勢的變化，缺少對新局勢的評估與判斷，並採取因應作為。在習近平發表「兩岸一家親」講話後不久，台灣就爆發了太陽花學運，一時之間，「反中」、「反馬」情緒高漲，更沒有理性討論的餘地。
社會人心普遍認為民進黨大有可能在2016年重新執政，民進黨中央在選後雖展現謙卑與謹慎，但這僅僅是表面的政治姿態，並不代表民進黨有意識、有計畫展露準執政黨的格局，積極討論、構思兩岸關係的新論述，徹底實現該黨的路線轉型。民進黨的故步自封，或者自我感覺良好，其實是根源於民進黨人信奉的「選票決定論」。蔡英文就曾明確表示，「民進黨最大的挑戰，就是九合一大選一定要打好。如果打好，連中國都會朝民進黨方向來調整」，蔡英文認為，如果大陸覺得民進黨會在2016年大選中獲勝，「他們自動會去創造那個條件」，而只要「中國一調整，美國人就沒有什麼好講的。」
蔡英文這段話，反映了民進黨人的深層思維，卻也讓大陸方面更為警惕，務實派的章念馳就認為民進黨是「沒有反省」、「沒有轉型」、「反中」的政黨，如果這樣的民進黨重新上台，「不啻是兩岸一場巨大災難，也是台灣的一場空前災難。」章念馳更進一步提出關鍵性的問題：「如果民進黨不承認九二共識，僅僅贊成和平發展」，「如果民進黨堅持一邊一國」，但又「願意接收6年來兩岸一切惠台政策的紅利」，大陸當局應該如何因應？章念馳認為，大陸方面「需要研究出一個新的共識，無論台海風雲變化，它都能成為兩岸關係的定海神針。」「現在兩岸需要在九二共識的基礎上進行新的發展，來應對兩岸關係的新局面。」
章念馳在大陸內部提出的呼籲，何嘗不是藍綠兩黨應該認真面對的課題？藍綠兩黨的有識之士，應該要對大局勢有清醒的認識。首先，大陸當局在反台獨、一國兩制、和平發展上的堅持並不會動搖。其次，在堅持「一國」的前提下，在兩岸「共同締造」新中國的大願景、大架構下，台灣的主體意識能夠獲得更寬廣、更具包容性的發展空間。第三，歷經兩次政黨輪替十多年的動盪，藍綠陣營都到了應該真正營造和解共生契機的時刻，畢竟台灣的發展實不容再受到延宕、再陷入停滯，台灣社會也不宜繼續分裂對立、虛耗空轉。
應對兩岸關係發展的新局面，民進黨應揚棄天真的「選票決定論」、「政權決定論」，認真面對「中國和平崛起」、「大陸民意反獨」、「台灣發展利基」三大現實課題，以大破大立的務實轉型，展現迎接執政的承擔與責任感。而在國民黨這方面，既不宜繼續以「路線沒有錯誤」來自我安慰，也不能隨波逐流，失去政黨的基本信念，而是應該一方面檢討過去失誤，一方面凝聚前瞻論述，爭取選民的支持，畢竟，穩健務實的兩岸政策仍是國民黨的最豐厚資產。
當大陸方面正積極充實兩岸新論述的時刻，藍綠兩黨又豈能落後於形勢，而面對兩岸的新局，紅藍綠三方更有必要相互對話，謀求共識，如此，兩岸關係的和平發展也才能可長可久。
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
American Values Diplomacy Showing Diminishing Returns
American Values Diplomacy Showing Diminishing Returns
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2015
Executive Summary: The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.
Full Text Below:
On Christmas eve US President Barack Obama publicly announced the full withdrawal of US combat troops from Afghanistan. This will end the longest foreign war in America's history. Beginning this year, the number of US troops training Afghan national security teams will be gradually reduced to 1000. Their only role in the future will be to guard US Embassy personnel.
This difficult to win, financially burdensome war on terror has cost the United States dearly. Over 2,000 Americans have been killed and nearly 20,000 wounded. According to Pentagon estimates, merely training Afghan security forces and providing it with weapons has cost the US tens of billions of dollars. Yet Afghan military and police combat effectiveness has not been improved. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan will cost 6 billion dollars. If one includes military equipment, weapons, and ammunition, then estimates run as high as 260 billion dollars, far more than the cost of withdrawal from Iraq. The US economy and US financial resources have been battered by global financial turmoil. They can no longer bear the cost of this expensive and risky war.
After the Cold War, feeling compelled to promote its own values, the United States launched or participated in one war after another. In 2001, Bush Junior attacked Afghanistan. In 2003, he started a war with Iraq. This showed that US national security strategy combines both American values and practical interests. As President Clinton put it, when the United States promotes its political values, it is safeguarding its national interests.
Samuel Huntington, author of "The Clash of Civilizations", said that the United States continually wages foreign wars because it wants to promulgate its values throughout the world. Over the past decade it has used its superpower status to establish an alliance of values with others, based on the universal values of democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Toward nations that contravene American values, it has often applied pressure, imposed sanctions, and adopted "pre-emptive" strategic measures.
After World War II, realism became the norm in international policy. The premise was that the international system was a state of anarchy. The United States assumed a "world policeman" role and established a global political and economic system. This included the Bretton Woods international finance plan, the Marshall Plan to aid Europe, NATO, and the East Asian island containment chain. All these embody the United States' strategic values.
Freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are generally recognized as universal values for all of mankind. The US adopted these as the core of its diplomatic strategy. No one can object to this. But the means by which it implemented these universal values externally, has often been criticized. American culture is rife with missionary zeal, a sense of superiority, of entitlement, and of pragmatism. These are often incompatible with the culture and religion of other nations. The US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. But it could not improve bureaucratic corruption or eliminate sectarian conflict. Instead, US military personnel mocked the Koran, and burned copies of it. This revealed total US failure on the non-military level, as well as a wide culture gap.
Since the beginning of the century, the US Congress has been permeated with American neoconservative thinking. Neocons say the Middle East is plagued by political tyranny, economic failure, and cultural backwardness. They say these "failed states" are breeding grounds for terrorism. When Washington policymakers affirm the core values of the United States, they are often arrogant in their attitude. America during the Bush Jr. era adopted a "forward strategy of freedom" toward the Middle East. It frequently imposed sanctions against dissenting nations. Last September President Obama appeared on the CBS television show "60 Minutes." Obama said, "When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation... We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world." Obama betrayed a typically American presumption of superiority. Not long ago, Obama criticized Mainland China for not fulfilling its responsibility to maintain international security. He openly accused Beijing of getting a free ride from the United States for 30 years. This flagrant “If not for America” presumption of moral superiority has repeatedly mired the US in other countries' affairs, and the consequences have been bitter indeed.
"The United States does not want war, but it must fight wars." That is the consensus of Washington political elites. It is a convenient catch phrase that rolls off the tongue. It also reveals the United States' hegemonic mindset. Compare the outcome of the Vietnam War in the 1960s with the outcomes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. American hegemony is gradually declining. The same effort is achieving diminishing results.
Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and Harvard professor Joseph Nye was blunt. He said America cannot remain a hegemon forever. It cannot cling to its sense of superiority and arrogance, and refuse to understand the outside world. Doing so will merely squander US soft power, the risk of external intervention, and accelerate the erosion of American values.
Democracy, freedom, and human rights are fundamental to good governance. They represent a global trend in national development. The United States feels obligated to spread these political values. But it must not apply these values to every nation in the world. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recent spoke to the US media. He criticized Washington for launching a war without considering the interests of Afghanistan. Today US forces are withdrawing. The Afghan political situation remains volatile. Terrorist organizations are waiting for an opportunity to make a comeback. This has forced Afghanistan to turn to Mainland China for assistance. According to Karzai, if Afghanistan has the chance, it will follow the Mainland Chinese model of development.
The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.
社論－美國價值觀外交 效應正在遞減
2015年01月08日 04:10
本報訊
美國總統歐巴馬耶誕節前夕公開宣稱，美軍作戰部隊即將全數撤出阿富汗，結束美國史上歷時最長的境外戰爭。今年開始，負責培訓阿國安全部隊的美軍會逐步減至千名，未來只專責維護美國使館安全。
為了這場難以獲勝、財政負擔沉重的反恐戰爭，美國已付出無法估計的代價：2千餘生命犧牲，近2萬人受傷。根據五角大廈的估算，僅僅為了阿富汗安全部隊訓練和武裝所耗的資金已達數百億美元，阿國軍警的戰鬥力卻未能提升，目前美軍撤出阿富汗的運費就需要60億美元，若連同軍事裝備和武器彈藥，預估已高達260餘億美元，遠遠超過從伊拉克撤軍的費用。受到全球金融風暴衝擊的美國經濟和財力，實難再繼續承擔這種高成本與高風顯險的戰爭。
冷戰結束後，美國頻頻對外發動或參與戰爭，源於對自身價值觀的堅持。小布希總統2001年進軍阿富汗與2003年春點燃的美伊戰爭，印證了美國國家安全戰略已是將價值觀與現實利益相結合，即如同柯林頓總統所謂的「美國宣揚政治價值觀，本質上就是維護國家核心利益。」
《文明衝突論》的作者杭亭頓曾經說過，美國是想在全球傳播其價值觀的超級強權，近十多年來基於民主，自由、人權、法制的普世價值，才會不斷對外發動戰爭，尋求與盟邦建立「價值同盟」。對牴觸到美國價值觀的國家動輒批評、施壓、制裁，採取戰略上的「先發制人」。
上個世紀二次大戰之後，現實主義思維成為國際政治的主流，認為國際體系屬無政府狀態，美國以「世界警察」的強勢姿態主導建立全球政治與經濟體系，從國際金融的「布列敦森林體系」至援助歐洲的「馬歇爾計畫」，從歐洲成立北約組織至東亞的島鏈圍堵，體現的都是美國的戰略價值觀。
自由、民主、人權、法制是人類普遍認可的共同價值，美國制定以此為核心的外交戰略，固然無可厚非，但是在對外推行普世價值的手段上，經常為人詬病。美國文化充沛著天賦使命感、民族優越論、主導意識、實用主義等思維，往往融不入他國文化和宗教。美國長時間占領阿富汗與伊拉克，卻無法改善治理官僚腐敗問題，未能消弭宗教派系衝突，反而出現美軍焚燒可蘭經的輕慢 ，顯示美國的失敗已非全然在軍事層面，它還反映出深層次的文化問題。
本世紀初以來，美國府會充斥著新保守主義思維，認為中東地區普遍存在政治專制、經濟失敗和文化落後現象，確信這些「失敗國家」是滋生恐怖主義的溫床。華府決策者肯定美國核心價值觀之際，經常存有「傲慢」意識。小布希時代美國對中東的「自由前進戰略」如此，美國動輒制裁異己的作法，亦復如此。歐巴馬總統去年9月接受哥倫比亞電視《60分鐘》節目專訪時就聲稱，「全球任何地區若出現動盪，不會有人尋求北京或莫斯科的援助，最終還是需要美國出面解決。」呈現出典型美國的優越感。 不久前，歐巴馬再批評中國未善盡維護國際安全之責，明指北京搭了美國30年的便車。這種炫耀式美國捨我其誰的「道德優越感」，導致美國再三涉入他國事務，也不斷嘗到苦果。
「美國不喜歡戰爭，卻需要戰爭」是華府政治菁英的共識，也是琅琅上口的一句話，儼然點出美國維繫全球霸主地位的邏輯思維。由1960年代越戰至2000年代初阿富汗與伊拉克戰爭的結果來看，美國霸權正逐漸式微，價值觀輸出效應亦逐漸遞減。
美國前助理國防部長及哈佛大學教授奈伊就明白指出，美國不可能永遠維繫霸權地位，持續優越自大疏於了解外在世界，無異於虛擲美國的軟實力，增加外力入侵的風險，加速喪失美國價值觀的優勢。
民主、自由、人權是善治的根本，也是全球國家發展的大勢所趨。美國負有傳播政治價值觀的傳統使命，卻不宜僅用此標準衡量全球所有的國家。阿富汗總統卡扎伊日前接受美國媒體訪問時，就直言批評華府發動的這場戰爭，並未顧及阿富汗的利益。如今美軍撤離，阿國政局依然動盪，恐怖組織伺機再起，逼使阿富汗轉而尋求中國援助。根據卡扎伊的說法，阿富汗若有機會重新選擇，將追隨中國的模式發展。
中國和新興國家勢力的崛起，已衝擊美國單極霸權的國際格局。此時此刻，美國若持續以全球領導者的姿態處理大國關係，執著於價值觀的輸出，無意改變霸權式的戰略觀與道德優越感，則今後無論是中國、俄羅斯或眾多開發中國家，勢難與美國建立起政治互信。解難之道視美國何時調整自己的心態。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2015
Executive Summary: The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.
Full Text Below:
On Christmas eve US President Barack Obama publicly announced the full withdrawal of US combat troops from Afghanistan. This will end the longest foreign war in America's history. Beginning this year, the number of US troops training Afghan national security teams will be gradually reduced to 1000. Their only role in the future will be to guard US Embassy personnel.
This difficult to win, financially burdensome war on terror has cost the United States dearly. Over 2,000 Americans have been killed and nearly 20,000 wounded. According to Pentagon estimates, merely training Afghan security forces and providing it with weapons has cost the US tens of billions of dollars. Yet Afghan military and police combat effectiveness has not been improved. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan will cost 6 billion dollars. If one includes military equipment, weapons, and ammunition, then estimates run as high as 260 billion dollars, far more than the cost of withdrawal from Iraq. The US economy and US financial resources have been battered by global financial turmoil. They can no longer bear the cost of this expensive and risky war.
After the Cold War, feeling compelled to promote its own values, the United States launched or participated in one war after another. In 2001, Bush Junior attacked Afghanistan. In 2003, he started a war with Iraq. This showed that US national security strategy combines both American values and practical interests. As President Clinton put it, when the United States promotes its political values, it is safeguarding its national interests.
Samuel Huntington, author of "The Clash of Civilizations", said that the United States continually wages foreign wars because it wants to promulgate its values throughout the world. Over the past decade it has used its superpower status to establish an alliance of values with others, based on the universal values of democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Toward nations that contravene American values, it has often applied pressure, imposed sanctions, and adopted "pre-emptive" strategic measures.
After World War II, realism became the norm in international policy. The premise was that the international system was a state of anarchy. The United States assumed a "world policeman" role and established a global political and economic system. This included the Bretton Woods international finance plan, the Marshall Plan to aid Europe, NATO, and the East Asian island containment chain. All these embody the United States' strategic values.
Freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are generally recognized as universal values for all of mankind. The US adopted these as the core of its diplomatic strategy. No one can object to this. But the means by which it implemented these universal values externally, has often been criticized. American culture is rife with missionary zeal, a sense of superiority, of entitlement, and of pragmatism. These are often incompatible with the culture and religion of other nations. The US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. But it could not improve bureaucratic corruption or eliminate sectarian conflict. Instead, US military personnel mocked the Koran, and burned copies of it. This revealed total US failure on the non-military level, as well as a wide culture gap.
Since the beginning of the century, the US Congress has been permeated with American neoconservative thinking. Neocons say the Middle East is plagued by political tyranny, economic failure, and cultural backwardness. They say these "failed states" are breeding grounds for terrorism. When Washington policymakers affirm the core values of the United States, they are often arrogant in their attitude. America during the Bush Jr. era adopted a "forward strategy of freedom" toward the Middle East. It frequently imposed sanctions against dissenting nations. Last September President Obama appeared on the CBS television show "60 Minutes." Obama said, "When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation... We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world." Obama betrayed a typically American presumption of superiority. Not long ago, Obama criticized Mainland China for not fulfilling its responsibility to maintain international security. He openly accused Beijing of getting a free ride from the United States for 30 years. This flagrant “If not for America” presumption of moral superiority has repeatedly mired the US in other countries' affairs, and the consequences have been bitter indeed.
"The United States does not want war, but it must fight wars." That is the consensus of Washington political elites. It is a convenient catch phrase that rolls off the tongue. It also reveals the United States' hegemonic mindset. Compare the outcome of the Vietnam War in the 1960s with the outcomes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. American hegemony is gradually declining. The same effort is achieving diminishing results.
Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense and Harvard professor Joseph Nye was blunt. He said America cannot remain a hegemon forever. It cannot cling to its sense of superiority and arrogance, and refuse to understand the outside world. Doing so will merely squander US soft power, the risk of external intervention, and accelerate the erosion of American values.
Democracy, freedom, and human rights are fundamental to good governance. They represent a global trend in national development. The United States feels obligated to spread these political values. But it must not apply these values to every nation in the world. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recent spoke to the US media. He criticized Washington for launching a war without considering the interests of Afghanistan. Today US forces are withdrawing. The Afghan political situation remains volatile. Terrorist organizations are waiting for an opportunity to make a comeback. This has forced Afghanistan to turn to Mainland China for assistance. According to Karzai, if Afghanistan has the chance, it will follow the Mainland Chinese model of development.
The rise of Mainland China and other emerging nations has undermined the United States' unipolar hegemony. Will the United States continue to deal with great power relations as the self-styled world's leader? Will it remain obsessed with exporting its values? Will it cling to its hegemonic strategy and presumption of moral superiority? If so, then Mainland China, Russia, and other developing countries will find it hard to trust the United States. These problems cannot be solved until the United States changes its way of seeing the world.
社論－美國價值觀外交 效應正在遞減
2015年01月08日 04:10
本報訊
美國總統歐巴馬耶誕節前夕公開宣稱，美軍作戰部隊即將全數撤出阿富汗，結束美國史上歷時最長的境外戰爭。今年開始，負責培訓阿國安全部隊的美軍會逐步減至千名，未來只專責維護美國使館安全。
為了這場難以獲勝、財政負擔沉重的反恐戰爭，美國已付出無法估計的代價：2千餘生命犧牲，近2萬人受傷。根據五角大廈的估算，僅僅為了阿富汗安全部隊訓練和武裝所耗的資金已達數百億美元，阿國軍警的戰鬥力卻未能提升，目前美軍撤出阿富汗的運費就需要60億美元，若連同軍事裝備和武器彈藥，預估已高達260餘億美元，遠遠超過從伊拉克撤軍的費用。受到全球金融風暴衝擊的美國經濟和財力，實難再繼續承擔這種高成本與高風顯險的戰爭。
冷戰結束後，美國頻頻對外發動或參與戰爭，源於對自身價值觀的堅持。小布希總統2001年進軍阿富汗與2003年春點燃的美伊戰爭，印證了美國國家安全戰略已是將價值觀與現實利益相結合，即如同柯林頓總統所謂的「美國宣揚政治價值觀，本質上就是維護國家核心利益。」
《文明衝突論》的作者杭亭頓曾經說過，美國是想在全球傳播其價值觀的超級強權，近十多年來基於民主，自由、人權、法制的普世價值，才會不斷對外發動戰爭，尋求與盟邦建立「價值同盟」。對牴觸到美國價值觀的國家動輒批評、施壓、制裁，採取戰略上的「先發制人」。
上個世紀二次大戰之後，現實主義思維成為國際政治的主流，認為國際體系屬無政府狀態，美國以「世界警察」的強勢姿態主導建立全球政治與經濟體系，從國際金融的「布列敦森林體系」至援助歐洲的「馬歇爾計畫」，從歐洲成立北約組織至東亞的島鏈圍堵，體現的都是美國的戰略價值觀。
自由、民主、人權、法制是人類普遍認可的共同價值，美國制定以此為核心的外交戰略，固然無可厚非，但是在對外推行普世價值的手段上，經常為人詬病。美國文化充沛著天賦使命感、民族優越論、主導意識、實用主義等思維，往往融不入他國文化和宗教。美國長時間占領阿富汗與伊拉克，卻無法改善治理官僚腐敗問題，未能消弭宗教派系衝突，反而出現美軍焚燒可蘭經的輕慢 ，顯示美國的失敗已非全然在軍事層面，它還反映出深層次的文化問題。
本世紀初以來，美國府會充斥著新保守主義思維，認為中東地區普遍存在政治專制、經濟失敗和文化落後現象，確信這些「失敗國家」是滋生恐怖主義的溫床。華府決策者肯定美國核心價值觀之際，經常存有「傲慢」意識。小布希時代美國對中東的「自由前進戰略」如此，美國動輒制裁異己的作法，亦復如此。歐巴馬總統去年9月接受哥倫比亞電視《60分鐘》節目專訪時就聲稱，「全球任何地區若出現動盪，不會有人尋求北京或莫斯科的援助，最終還是需要美國出面解決。」呈現出典型美國的優越感。 不久前，歐巴馬再批評中國未善盡維護國際安全之責，明指北京搭了美國30年的便車。這種炫耀式美國捨我其誰的「道德優越感」，導致美國再三涉入他國事務，也不斷嘗到苦果。
「美國不喜歡戰爭，卻需要戰爭」是華府政治菁英的共識，也是琅琅上口的一句話，儼然點出美國維繫全球霸主地位的邏輯思維。由1960年代越戰至2000年代初阿富汗與伊拉克戰爭的結果來看，美國霸權正逐漸式微，價值觀輸出效應亦逐漸遞減。
美國前助理國防部長及哈佛大學教授奈伊就明白指出，美國不可能永遠維繫霸權地位，持續優越自大疏於了解外在世界，無異於虛擲美國的軟實力，增加外力入侵的風險，加速喪失美國價值觀的優勢。
民主、自由、人權是善治的根本，也是全球國家發展的大勢所趨。美國負有傳播政治價值觀的傳統使命，卻不宜僅用此標準衡量全球所有的國家。阿富汗總統卡扎伊日前接受美國媒體訪問時，就直言批評華府發動的這場戰爭，並未顧及阿富汗的利益。如今美軍撤離，阿國政局依然動盪，恐怖組織伺機再起，逼使阿富汗轉而尋求中國援助。根據卡扎伊的說法，阿富汗若有機會重新選擇，將追隨中國的模式發展。
中國和新興國家勢力的崛起，已衝擊美國單極霸權的國際格局。此時此刻，美國若持續以全球領導者的姿態處理大國關係，執著於價值觀的輸出，無意改變霸權式的戰略觀與道德優越感，則今後無論是中國、俄羅斯或眾多開發中國家，勢難與美國建立起政治互信。解難之道視美國何時調整自己的心態。
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Combat Rancid Oil, But Avoid Damaging the Environment
Combat Rancid Oil, But Avoid Damaging the Environment
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 7, 2015
Executive Summary: The EPA waste cooking oil recycling program just went into effect on New Years day. But it has already run into problems. Food industry tycoon Kao Chi-ming of the Yi Mei company criticized the government's certification process for the recycling industry. He said its attempt to prevent the recycling of rancid cooking oil could encourage vendors to dump the oil into ditches, thereby polluting the environment. If government control of cooking oil recycling destroys the environment, the trade-off becomes deeply worrisome.
Full Text Below:
The EPA waste cooking oil recycling program just went into effect on New Years day. But it has already run into problems. Food industry tycoon Kao Chi-ming of the Yi Mei company criticized the government's certification process for the recycling industry. He said its attempt to prevent the recycling of rancid cooking oil could encourage vendors to dump the oil into ditches, thereby polluting the environment. If government control of cooking oil recycling destroys the environment, the trade-off becomes deeply worrisome.
Kao Chi-ming is hardly an alarmist. Restaurants and snack bars can be found everywhere on Taiwan. Conservative estimates put the amount of waste cooking oil produced annually at 70 to 80 thousand tons. The EPA registers less than 7,000 tons of recycled waste oil. That means that over 90% of the oil is unaccounted for. The EPA assumes that as long as it controls the source, and all recyclers are registered, the problem is solved. It assumes they can be tracked, the flow of oil can be controlled, and the recycling of rancid oil into cooking oil can be prevented. That is why it issues work permits and adopts a QR Code for auditing. These are all examples of a “Maginot mentality”.
But "source management" of waste cooking oil on Taiwan is no easy matter. The reality is grim. The sources are too many and too scattered. Every night market stall operator and hole in the wall shop creates waste oil. The government may try to manage the recycling industry. But it will find it impossible to cover all the market stalls. Moreover, even before the rancid oil scandal erupted, mechanisms for oil recovery already existed in the market place. Rancid cooking oil was sold to the "little bee" recycling industry or donated to pig farmers. Such recycling takes place regardless of what the price is or where the oil goes. In fact, it indirectly helps the community maintain a clean and healthy environment. Therefore it makes sense to recycle resources. One cannot repudiate this issue in one fell swoop.
To prevent rancid oil from getting back into the cooking oil market, the government must increase oversight over recyclers. But if increased government oversight leads to a breakdown in the waste oil recycling network, stall owners will indiscriminately dump waste oil in the sewers. This could lead to serious consequences. It could breed mosquitoes and cockroaches, impact neighborhood health, block drains, impede drainage, cause flooding. The discharge of rancid oil into the rivers and eventually the sea, could lead to the death of fish, plants, and animals. If it results in environmental disaster, the results would be unthinkable.
The job of the EPA is to protect the environment, to protect it against destruction. If the EPA's waste cooking oil recycling policies result in the destruction and deterioration of the environment, that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. That would be shooting oneself in one's foot. There are three reasons for such decision-making blind spots. One. Administration officials are too close to the problem. They are bent on solving the recycled cooking oil problem, and have taken their eyes off the ball. Two. Bureaucratic inertia. Their heads are filled with thoughts about "official authority" and "management." They hope to master and control industry. But they have forgotten the need to go with the flow. Three. Linear thinking. They want to push a button and solve all problems in the most expedient manner possible. They lack any understanding of society and its complexity, of the need to unravel problems one by one, using different means in different cases.
In order to prevent vendors from cavalierly dumping waste oil, Kao Chi-ming's advice is for the government to set the price of oil high enough to ensure its recovery, then turn it into fuel. The extra cost can be made up with government subsidies. This is a much more feasible solution. Pricing oil high enough would prevent the oil from flowing every which way. It would encourage industry to actively recycle. Should China Petroleum fill this role? That can be discussed. Private sector firms more experienced in biodiesel production might be more suited to the task. That might be better than piling too many responsibilities onto China Petroleum. Government and industry should communicate with each other in order to find the best solution.
Allowing businesses to dump their oil in ditches would lead to environmental disaster. It would leave a mess that the government would have to spend even more money to clean up later. It would be better to use subsidies to turn that oil into a community resource. On balance, the latter clearly has lower social costs. Moreover, the situation is different in cities and counties all over Taiwan. Central government “one size fits all” solutions to the problem of waste oil recycling fails to consider differences in local conditions. It also lacks a phased implementation plan. It is difficult to be optimistic about the outcome. The EPA should practice source management. But it should also consult with the petroleum and refining industries. It should work with them to solve the problem of downstream oil problems.
Dayu tamed the waters. He allowed them to flow. He dredged nine rivers, allowing the flood waters to reach the sea. The EPA by contrast, has attempted to tame the rancid oil crisis by blocking it. It has adopted a "Maginot mentality." It has imposed strict controls on the recycling industry, and heavy fines on vendors and restaurants. The effectiveness of these measures is dubious. Worse still, it could damage to the environment. Can we afford not to take precautions?
大愚治油：切忌堵了廢油，卻壞了環境
2015-01-07 聯合報 社論
環保署廢食用油回收新制元旦甫上路，立即面臨挑戰。食品大廠義美總經理高志明批評，政府採發證方式管理回收業者，以為可收防堵效果，卻可能導致攤商將廢油直接倒進水溝，造成環境的汙染。若為管理食油，卻破壞了環境，這種顧此失彼的政策後果堪憂。
高志明的話，並非危言聳聽。台灣餐廳及小吃攤商林立，每年產生的廢食油保守估計達七、八萬噸，但環保署登記回收的廢油不到七千噸，亦即有九成以上流向不明。而環保署的想法，以為只要把握「從源管理」的原則，將所有回收業者列管，即可追蹤、掌握廢油之流向，防止業者利用回收油再製成黑心油出售。因此，核發工作證、採用QR Code供檢舉稽核，都是根據這套「防堵哲學」所設計出來的策略。
然而，台灣的廢食油不易「從源管理」，卻是嚴峻的事實。原因是，源頭太多、太散，每家夜市攤商、每個街邊小店都是產生廢油的來源；就算政府對回收業者的管理再嚴，也難以涵蓋所有攤商。再說，在黑心油事件發生前，民間原即存在一套自由市場的回收機制，或者將廢油賣給俗稱「小蜜蜂」的回收業者，或者摻入餿水免費送給養豬人家。這樣的回收工作，不論價格多少或去向如何，其實都間接幫助社會維護了環境的清潔與衛生，故而是有意義的資源再利用，不可一舉將它否定。
簡單地說，為避免廢油重新流入食油市場，政府對回收業者當然要加強管理，確保其流向無虞。但是，政府加強管理的結果，如果造成廢油回收網的破裂、斷鍊或失控，導致攤商業者將廢油任意傾倒於溝渠，那就可能引發嚴重的後遺症。例如，輕則帶來蚊蠅蟑螂，影響鄰里社區的衛生；重則引起溝渠阻塞、妨礙排水，引發區域水患；甚至是油汙隨著水流排向河川、進入大海，造成魚類或動植物的死亡。倘真造成環境的災難，後果不堪想像。
試想，環保署的主要職掌是在保護環境，使其免於遭到人為破壞；如果環保署制定的廢食油回收政策，結果卻會造成環境的破壞與惡化，這豈不是挖東牆、補西牆，自己搬石頭砸腳？之所以會出現這樣的決策盲點，原因有三：一是思考點距離問題太近，一心想解決食油問題，卻忘了其他的著眼；二是官僚慣性，滿腦子都是「官威」和「管理」，想要掌握及控制業者，卻忘了因勢利導；三是線性思考，以為有一種「按鈕模式」，可以用最省事的方法解決全部問題，卻不知社會現象的存在有其複雜度，需要抽絲剝繭去逐一釐清，利用不同手段去對付。
為避免攤商任意棄倒廢油，高志明的建議是，政府可以指定中油以保證價格回收，再製成燃油；多出的成本，可用政府預算給予補貼。這項建議，至少指出一個比較可行的方向：定價收購廢油，可以確保油的流向不會四處亂竄，有助鼓勵業者積極回收。至於中油是否扮演此一角色的最合適企業，其實可以再作討論；事實上，一些具有產製生質柴油經驗的民間廠商，也許更適合承擔這樣的任務，而不必讓中油包山包海地接受額外的政策任務。這點，則有待政府與業者從長溝通計議，找出最佳解決之道。
事實是，與其任由攤商業者將廢油棄倒水溝，釀成環境災難後再由政府花錢收拾，不如善用一些補貼機制，將廢油變成社會可利用的資源；兩相權衡，後者的社會成本顯然較低。再說，台灣各縣市的情況不同，中央企圖用一套簡單的指令解決廢油問題，卻不考慮各地的條件差異，也沒有分階段推進的計畫，其結果恐怕讓人難以樂觀。我們建議，環保署在推動源頭管理的同時，應該召集中油、油廠及相關回收業者協商，設法將中下游廢油的溢流及疏通問題一起解決。
大禹治水，是採取疏導的方式，疏通九河，把洪水引入大海。環保署治油，採取的則是「防堵思維」，嚴管回收業者，重罰攤商和餐廳，除了讓人擔心其成效，若更引起破壞環境之後遺症，則噬臍莫及，豈可不慎？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 7, 2015
Executive Summary: The EPA waste cooking oil recycling program just went into effect on New Years day. But it has already run into problems. Food industry tycoon Kao Chi-ming of the Yi Mei company criticized the government's certification process for the recycling industry. He said its attempt to prevent the recycling of rancid cooking oil could encourage vendors to dump the oil into ditches, thereby polluting the environment. If government control of cooking oil recycling destroys the environment, the trade-off becomes deeply worrisome.
Full Text Below:
The EPA waste cooking oil recycling program just went into effect on New Years day. But it has already run into problems. Food industry tycoon Kao Chi-ming of the Yi Mei company criticized the government's certification process for the recycling industry. He said its attempt to prevent the recycling of rancid cooking oil could encourage vendors to dump the oil into ditches, thereby polluting the environment. If government control of cooking oil recycling destroys the environment, the trade-off becomes deeply worrisome.
Kao Chi-ming is hardly an alarmist. Restaurants and snack bars can be found everywhere on Taiwan. Conservative estimates put the amount of waste cooking oil produced annually at 70 to 80 thousand tons. The EPA registers less than 7,000 tons of recycled waste oil. That means that over 90% of the oil is unaccounted for. The EPA assumes that as long as it controls the source, and all recyclers are registered, the problem is solved. It assumes they can be tracked, the flow of oil can be controlled, and the recycling of rancid oil into cooking oil can be prevented. That is why it issues work permits and adopts a QR Code for auditing. These are all examples of a “Maginot mentality”.
But "source management" of waste cooking oil on Taiwan is no easy matter. The reality is grim. The sources are too many and too scattered. Every night market stall operator and hole in the wall shop creates waste oil. The government may try to manage the recycling industry. But it will find it impossible to cover all the market stalls. Moreover, even before the rancid oil scandal erupted, mechanisms for oil recovery already existed in the market place. Rancid cooking oil was sold to the "little bee" recycling industry or donated to pig farmers. Such recycling takes place regardless of what the price is or where the oil goes. In fact, it indirectly helps the community maintain a clean and healthy environment. Therefore it makes sense to recycle resources. One cannot repudiate this issue in one fell swoop.
To prevent rancid oil from getting back into the cooking oil market, the government must increase oversight over recyclers. But if increased government oversight leads to a breakdown in the waste oil recycling network, stall owners will indiscriminately dump waste oil in the sewers. This could lead to serious consequences. It could breed mosquitoes and cockroaches, impact neighborhood health, block drains, impede drainage, cause flooding. The discharge of rancid oil into the rivers and eventually the sea, could lead to the death of fish, plants, and animals. If it results in environmental disaster, the results would be unthinkable.
The job of the EPA is to protect the environment, to protect it against destruction. If the EPA's waste cooking oil recycling policies result in the destruction and deterioration of the environment, that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul. That would be shooting oneself in one's foot. There are three reasons for such decision-making blind spots. One. Administration officials are too close to the problem. They are bent on solving the recycled cooking oil problem, and have taken their eyes off the ball. Two. Bureaucratic inertia. Their heads are filled with thoughts about "official authority" and "management." They hope to master and control industry. But they have forgotten the need to go with the flow. Three. Linear thinking. They want to push a button and solve all problems in the most expedient manner possible. They lack any understanding of society and its complexity, of the need to unravel problems one by one, using different means in different cases.
In order to prevent vendors from cavalierly dumping waste oil, Kao Chi-ming's advice is for the government to set the price of oil high enough to ensure its recovery, then turn it into fuel. The extra cost can be made up with government subsidies. This is a much more feasible solution. Pricing oil high enough would prevent the oil from flowing every which way. It would encourage industry to actively recycle. Should China Petroleum fill this role? That can be discussed. Private sector firms more experienced in biodiesel production might be more suited to the task. That might be better than piling too many responsibilities onto China Petroleum. Government and industry should communicate with each other in order to find the best solution.
Allowing businesses to dump their oil in ditches would lead to environmental disaster. It would leave a mess that the government would have to spend even more money to clean up later. It would be better to use subsidies to turn that oil into a community resource. On balance, the latter clearly has lower social costs. Moreover, the situation is different in cities and counties all over Taiwan. Central government “one size fits all” solutions to the problem of waste oil recycling fails to consider differences in local conditions. It also lacks a phased implementation plan. It is difficult to be optimistic about the outcome. The EPA should practice source management. But it should also consult with the petroleum and refining industries. It should work with them to solve the problem of downstream oil problems.
Dayu tamed the waters. He allowed them to flow. He dredged nine rivers, allowing the flood waters to reach the sea. The EPA by contrast, has attempted to tame the rancid oil crisis by blocking it. It has adopted a "Maginot mentality." It has imposed strict controls on the recycling industry, and heavy fines on vendors and restaurants. The effectiveness of these measures is dubious. Worse still, it could damage to the environment. Can we afford not to take precautions?
大愚治油：切忌堵了廢油，卻壞了環境
2015-01-07 聯合報 社論
環保署廢食用油回收新制元旦甫上路，立即面臨挑戰。食品大廠義美總經理高志明批評，政府採發證方式管理回收業者，以為可收防堵效果，卻可能導致攤商將廢油直接倒進水溝，造成環境的汙染。若為管理食油，卻破壞了環境，這種顧此失彼的政策後果堪憂。
高志明的話，並非危言聳聽。台灣餐廳及小吃攤商林立，每年產生的廢食油保守估計達七、八萬噸，但環保署登記回收的廢油不到七千噸，亦即有九成以上流向不明。而環保署的想法，以為只要把握「從源管理」的原則，將所有回收業者列管，即可追蹤、掌握廢油之流向，防止業者利用回收油再製成黑心油出售。因此，核發工作證、採用QR Code供檢舉稽核，都是根據這套「防堵哲學」所設計出來的策略。
然而，台灣的廢食油不易「從源管理」，卻是嚴峻的事實。原因是，源頭太多、太散，每家夜市攤商、每個街邊小店都是產生廢油的來源；就算政府對回收業者的管理再嚴，也難以涵蓋所有攤商。再說，在黑心油事件發生前，民間原即存在一套自由市場的回收機制，或者將廢油賣給俗稱「小蜜蜂」的回收業者，或者摻入餿水免費送給養豬人家。這樣的回收工作，不論價格多少或去向如何，其實都間接幫助社會維護了環境的清潔與衛生，故而是有意義的資源再利用，不可一舉將它否定。
簡單地說，為避免廢油重新流入食油市場，政府對回收業者當然要加強管理，確保其流向無虞。但是，政府加強管理的結果，如果造成廢油回收網的破裂、斷鍊或失控，導致攤商業者將廢油任意傾倒於溝渠，那就可能引發嚴重的後遺症。例如，輕則帶來蚊蠅蟑螂，影響鄰里社區的衛生；重則引起溝渠阻塞、妨礙排水，引發區域水患；甚至是油汙隨著水流排向河川、進入大海，造成魚類或動植物的死亡。倘真造成環境的災難，後果不堪想像。
試想，環保署的主要職掌是在保護環境，使其免於遭到人為破壞；如果環保署制定的廢食油回收政策，結果卻會造成環境的破壞與惡化，這豈不是挖東牆、補西牆，自己搬石頭砸腳？之所以會出現這樣的決策盲點，原因有三：一是思考點距離問題太近，一心想解決食油問題，卻忘了其他的著眼；二是官僚慣性，滿腦子都是「官威」和「管理」，想要掌握及控制業者，卻忘了因勢利導；三是線性思考，以為有一種「按鈕模式」，可以用最省事的方法解決全部問題，卻不知社會現象的存在有其複雜度，需要抽絲剝繭去逐一釐清，利用不同手段去對付。
為避免攤商任意棄倒廢油，高志明的建議是，政府可以指定中油以保證價格回收，再製成燃油；多出的成本，可用政府預算給予補貼。這項建議，至少指出一個比較可行的方向：定價收購廢油，可以確保油的流向不會四處亂竄，有助鼓勵業者積極回收。至於中油是否扮演此一角色的最合適企業，其實可以再作討論；事實上，一些具有產製生質柴油經驗的民間廠商，也許更適合承擔這樣的任務，而不必讓中油包山包海地接受額外的政策任務。這點，則有待政府與業者從長溝通計議，找出最佳解決之道。
事實是，與其任由攤商業者將廢油棄倒水溝，釀成環境災難後再由政府花錢收拾，不如善用一些補貼機制，將廢油變成社會可利用的資源；兩相權衡，後者的社會成本顯然較低。再說，台灣各縣市的情況不同，中央企圖用一套簡單的指令解決廢油問題，卻不考慮各地的條件差異，也沒有分階段推進的計畫，其結果恐怕讓人難以樂觀。我們建議，環保署在推動源頭管理的同時，應該召集中油、油廠及相關回收業者協商，設法將中下游廢油的溢流及疏通問題一起解決。
大禹治水，是採取疏導的方式，疏通九河，把洪水引入大海。環保署治油，採取的則是「防堵思維」，嚴管回收業者，重罰攤商和餐廳，除了讓人擔心其成效，若更引起破壞環境之後遺症，則噬臍莫及，豈可不慎？
Monday, January 5, 2015
Four Reform Suggestions for Eric Chu and the KMT
Four Reform Suggestions for Eric Chu and the KMT
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 06, 2015
Executive Summary: The KMT is in a predicament. One. In recent years, it has governed poorly. Two. It has fallen victim to long term “greying.” These two problems will require more than just time to address. They will also require new thinking, new attitudes, and new operating methods. In any case, this is hardly something that electing a new chairman can solve. This is not the sole responsibility of a single party chairman. Eric Chu must encourage everyone to think anew. Only then can the party reverse its fortunes.
Full Text Below:
Since its election defeat late last November, everyone in the KMT has been afraid to break the silence. Eric Chu is seeking the party chairmanship. That of course is a welcome move. He has suggested a number of reform proposals while on tour. Angry demands for party reform were anticipated. But surprisingly they have failed to materialize. This is puzzling. A full month has passed, yet the defeated blue camp remains eerily silent. That is not a good sign.
The KMT has suffered a serious defeat. Yet no one inside the KMT is demanding an accounting. The main reason may be that President Ma Ying-jeou resigned shortly after the elections. Everyone is waiting for a new generation leader to address the matter upon his election. But political parties are "political organisms.” The KMT has long been overly reliant on strongman leadership. This has led to the gradual failure of the party machinery, to tone-deafness regarding social currents, and unresponsiveness to shifts in public opinion. In other words, if the KMT merely follows Chu's lead instead of Ma's lead, it will remain calcified and out of touch. What is required is creative thinking and listening to the public.
The current situation suggests that the KMT should promote four basic reforms, and begin as soon as possible. It cannot afford to delay. One. It must consider the matter of talent and campaign ability. One of the main shortcomings of the KMT's political culture, is its preoccupation with bickering over internal resources, its inability to recruit outside talent, and cultivate new talent. Over the long term, this has led to inbreeding and cliquishness. Ambitious and creative talents are marginalized and the party is hollowed out. Between 2009 and today, KMT membership fell from 50,000 to 35,000. The speed of the fall surpassed all expectations. Clearly the KMT leadership has been derelict in recruiting new members.
One. A shortage of talent will of course affect the party's ability to wage campaigns. When the Ma government attempts to implement policy, party members often gang up on it. The DPP, by contrast, derives its support largely from the surrounding community or social movements. Among these, dissidents often belong to several societies. One man often plays several roles. They use different pulpits from which to speak. The blue camp, by contrast, has no countermeasures against such attacks. They are unable to win agreement from their opponents. They are unable to organize any sort of counter-force. They often have no idea how to counter an opponent's argument. We do not believe the Kuomintang lacks all talent. But the party leadership must recognize it and reward it. Unless it does so, it will not be able to change its operational methods. In which case, what difference will having 30,000 members make?
Two. Consider the matter of party assets. Despite repeated party asset reorganizations, the matter has yet to be put to rest. It has become an albatross around the KMT's neck. Eric Chu recently declared that the party must totally divest itself of improper assets. This is the proper approach. The party assets are held by only a few. Most party members never get even a whiff of them. Political candidates do not share in them. Yet the entire party is constantly vilified and humiliated over them. If the KMT continues to bear this heavy burden, it will eventually be crushed. The party must first totally divested itself of all its improper assets. The party's hiring practices and financial practices must be changed. Only this will rid the party of its "big but illegitimate" party structure. At which time, it can emulate the DPP, and require public servants to donate a certain percentage to candidates as campaign funds and underwrite any shortfalls.
Three. Consider the matter of party democratization. The KMT has a rigid seniority system. It is rife with pro forma ritual. Worse, this seriously affects the internal exchange of views. It makes it hard for subordinates to express views to superiors. Following the election, Eric Chu should reform the Central Standing Committee communication channels. He should include more diverse voices. He should make party policy match the pulse of society. The KMT "Examination Board" is formed by non-democratic means. When Wang Jin-pyng was expelled from the party, this problem reared its ugly head. The courts ruled the election invalid. Following the election, Eric Chu should convene a party assembly as soon as possible. Future Examination Board members should to be elected. Only then will their decisions not be repeatedly challenged.
Four. Consider the matter of younger party members. The KMT has abundant resources. Yet it cannot attract young people. This is because the party's manner of operation is too old fashioned. The party has suffered a major blow. Yet it still refuses to budge. Eric Chu recently addressed this matter. He vowed to "use the Internet to link members with the public." Allowing party members to make proposals directly on the Internet or communicate with other party members is of course a good first step. But it is not enough. Just look at how Tsai Ing-wen surrounded herself by the "Youth Corps" during the 2012 election. Many of them became Sunflower Student Movement members and opponents of Ma during the nine in one elections. If the KMT fails to cultivate a new generation of leaders, it will only go further astray, and never win the hearts of young people.
The KMT is in a predicament. One. In recent years, it has governed poorly. Two. It has fallen victim to long term “greying.” These two problems will require more than just time to address. They will also require new thinking, new attitudes, and new operating methods. In any case, this is hardly something that electing a new chairman can solve. This is not the sole responsibility of a single party chairman. Eric Chu must encourage everyone to think anew. Only then can the party reverse its fortunes.
給朱立倫和國民黨的四點改革建議
2015-01-06 聯合報 社論
從十一月底的選舉慘敗至今，國民黨似乎陷入了萬馬齊瘖的境地。朱立倫以同額競選主席當然是眾望所歸，也在巡迴政見會上陸續提出了一些改革主張；但相對的，黨內憤怒及檢討的聲音遠不如預期，卻是令人不解的事。才經過一個多月，藍營敗選的焦慮似乎已經日漸平復，這絕對不是好現象。
歷經慘烈的敗仗，國民黨內竟未聞砲聲隆隆，主要原因或許是馬英九已在選後不久即辭去主席，大家正等待新黨魁的產生，再來談論下一步興革。然而，從政黨作為「政治有機體」的角度看，國民黨長期以來正是因為過度瞻望上意、仰賴一人領導，以致整部黨機器逐漸失靈，社會觸角鈍化，致無法靈敏回應民意的變化。亦即，國民黨若僅從「唯馬首是瞻」移向「唯朱意為先」，恐怕無法全盤解決黨與社會脫節和組織僵化的問題，這需要更多的社會傾聽與黨內的腦力激盪。
從目前顯而易見的跡象看，我們認為，國民黨應該全力推動的改革工程有四，且必須儘速著手，不能再拖。
首先，人才與戰力的問題：國民黨政治文化的主要弊病之一，是汲汲於內部資源的爭奪與鞏固，卻拙於對外的擴張與求才，更吝於培植新人。長期下來，便形成封閉式的近親繁殖生態，安於小圈圈的穩定，有企圖心及有創意的人才則漸漸遭到排擠和淘空。從二○○九年至今，國民黨員人數從五十萬人下降到卅五萬人，流失速度之快，遠超乎想像，也可見黨中央經營黨員漫不經心。
人才不足，當然影響到黨的戰鬥能力。馬政府施政經常受到圍剿和抗爭，尤以民進黨的周邊團體或社運組織為大宗。其中，有些異議者同時組織數個社團，一人分飾多角，利用不同的發言位置不斷發動攻擊；然而，藍軍對這些攻訐之聲卻毫無應對之策，既不爭取對方認同，也不組織自己的反制部隊，有時連發言反駁都不知所云。我們不相信國民黨內沒有人才，但如果黨中央不能知人善任、不能改變經營策略，坐擁卅幾萬黨員又有何用？
第二，黨產的問題：黨產歷經數次整頓，始終未曾徹底解決，成為國民黨被妖魔化的包袱。朱立倫最近宣示，不當黨產要全數「歸零」，這是正確的方向。試想，黨產握在少數操盤者手中，一般黨員嗅不到，參選者分不著，而整個黨卻不斷遭到醜化及羞辱；國民黨若繼續扛著這個大包袱，只會被壓垮。我們建議，一旦黨產歸零，黨的用人及財務都需重新調整，才能甩掉「大而不當」的結構；屆時，可以效法民進黨作法，要求公職參選人捐出一定比例的「選舉補助款」，以濟財務之不足。
第三，黨內民主化問題：國民黨論資排輩之森嚴，不僅充斥著形式主義的虛文，更嚴重影響到內部意見的交流，尤其不利下情之上達。朱立倫當選後，應設法改革中常會的黨政溝通平台，納進更多元的聲音，讓黨的施政能更貼近社會的脈動。此外，國民黨「考紀會」的組成未經民主選舉程序產生，已在王金平的「開除黨籍案」中連遭挫敗，被法院判為無效；朱立倫當選後，應盡速召開黨員大會進行改選，未來考紀委員至少需由黨代表選舉產生，才不致屢屢遭到挑戰。
第四，黨的年輕化問題：國民黨的資源豐沛，卻無法吸引年輕人投入，和黨的作風太過老大有關；這在歷經首次政黨輪替的強烈衝擊後，依然未能調整。朱立倫近日談到這個問題，宣稱要「用網路連結網員和人民」，讓黨員可以直接在網路上提案或與幹部溝通，這固然是邁開了一步，但仍遠遠不足。只需看蔡英文二○一二年大選時在地方帶出一批「青年軍」，其中不少人如今已成為太陽花學運及九合一反馬的主力；國民黨如果不思向新世代扎根，未來只會越漂越遠，再也抓不住年輕人的心。
國民黨目前的困境，一是近年執政不力的影響，二是長期的結構老化所致；這兩點，不僅需要時間調整，更必須在思維、心態及經營上都要有所轉變。無論如何，這不是選出一個新主席就能解決，更不是黨主席一個人的責任，朱立倫必須鼓勵大家跟他一起動腦，才有逆境翻轉的可能。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 06, 2015
Executive Summary: The KMT is in a predicament. One. In recent years, it has governed poorly. Two. It has fallen victim to long term “greying.” These two problems will require more than just time to address. They will also require new thinking, new attitudes, and new operating methods. In any case, this is hardly something that electing a new chairman can solve. This is not the sole responsibility of a single party chairman. Eric Chu must encourage everyone to think anew. Only then can the party reverse its fortunes.
Full Text Below:
Since its election defeat late last November, everyone in the KMT has been afraid to break the silence. Eric Chu is seeking the party chairmanship. That of course is a welcome move. He has suggested a number of reform proposals while on tour. Angry demands for party reform were anticipated. But surprisingly they have failed to materialize. This is puzzling. A full month has passed, yet the defeated blue camp remains eerily silent. That is not a good sign.
The KMT has suffered a serious defeat. Yet no one inside the KMT is demanding an accounting. The main reason may be that President Ma Ying-jeou resigned shortly after the elections. Everyone is waiting for a new generation leader to address the matter upon his election. But political parties are "political organisms.” The KMT has long been overly reliant on strongman leadership. This has led to the gradual failure of the party machinery, to tone-deafness regarding social currents, and unresponsiveness to shifts in public opinion. In other words, if the KMT merely follows Chu's lead instead of Ma's lead, it will remain calcified and out of touch. What is required is creative thinking and listening to the public.
The current situation suggests that the KMT should promote four basic reforms, and begin as soon as possible. It cannot afford to delay. One. It must consider the matter of talent and campaign ability. One of the main shortcomings of the KMT's political culture, is its preoccupation with bickering over internal resources, its inability to recruit outside talent, and cultivate new talent. Over the long term, this has led to inbreeding and cliquishness. Ambitious and creative talents are marginalized and the party is hollowed out. Between 2009 and today, KMT membership fell from 50,000 to 35,000. The speed of the fall surpassed all expectations. Clearly the KMT leadership has been derelict in recruiting new members.
One. A shortage of talent will of course affect the party's ability to wage campaigns. When the Ma government attempts to implement policy, party members often gang up on it. The DPP, by contrast, derives its support largely from the surrounding community or social movements. Among these, dissidents often belong to several societies. One man often plays several roles. They use different pulpits from which to speak. The blue camp, by contrast, has no countermeasures against such attacks. They are unable to win agreement from their opponents. They are unable to organize any sort of counter-force. They often have no idea how to counter an opponent's argument. We do not believe the Kuomintang lacks all talent. But the party leadership must recognize it and reward it. Unless it does so, it will not be able to change its operational methods. In which case, what difference will having 30,000 members make?
Two. Consider the matter of party assets. Despite repeated party asset reorganizations, the matter has yet to be put to rest. It has become an albatross around the KMT's neck. Eric Chu recently declared that the party must totally divest itself of improper assets. This is the proper approach. The party assets are held by only a few. Most party members never get even a whiff of them. Political candidates do not share in them. Yet the entire party is constantly vilified and humiliated over them. If the KMT continues to bear this heavy burden, it will eventually be crushed. The party must first totally divested itself of all its improper assets. The party's hiring practices and financial practices must be changed. Only this will rid the party of its "big but illegitimate" party structure. At which time, it can emulate the DPP, and require public servants to donate a certain percentage to candidates as campaign funds and underwrite any shortfalls.
Three. Consider the matter of party democratization. The KMT has a rigid seniority system. It is rife with pro forma ritual. Worse, this seriously affects the internal exchange of views. It makes it hard for subordinates to express views to superiors. Following the election, Eric Chu should reform the Central Standing Committee communication channels. He should include more diverse voices. He should make party policy match the pulse of society. The KMT "Examination Board" is formed by non-democratic means. When Wang Jin-pyng was expelled from the party, this problem reared its ugly head. The courts ruled the election invalid. Following the election, Eric Chu should convene a party assembly as soon as possible. Future Examination Board members should to be elected. Only then will their decisions not be repeatedly challenged.
Four. Consider the matter of younger party members. The KMT has abundant resources. Yet it cannot attract young people. This is because the party's manner of operation is too old fashioned. The party has suffered a major blow. Yet it still refuses to budge. Eric Chu recently addressed this matter. He vowed to "use the Internet to link members with the public." Allowing party members to make proposals directly on the Internet or communicate with other party members is of course a good first step. But it is not enough. Just look at how Tsai Ing-wen surrounded herself by the "Youth Corps" during the 2012 election. Many of them became Sunflower Student Movement members and opponents of Ma during the nine in one elections. If the KMT fails to cultivate a new generation of leaders, it will only go further astray, and never win the hearts of young people.
The KMT is in a predicament. One. In recent years, it has governed poorly. Two. It has fallen victim to long term “greying.” These two problems will require more than just time to address. They will also require new thinking, new attitudes, and new operating methods. In any case, this is hardly something that electing a new chairman can solve. This is not the sole responsibility of a single party chairman. Eric Chu must encourage everyone to think anew. Only then can the party reverse its fortunes.
給朱立倫和國民黨的四點改革建議
2015-01-06 聯合報 社論
從十一月底的選舉慘敗至今，國民黨似乎陷入了萬馬齊瘖的境地。朱立倫以同額競選主席當然是眾望所歸，也在巡迴政見會上陸續提出了一些改革主張；但相對的，黨內憤怒及檢討的聲音遠不如預期，卻是令人不解的事。才經過一個多月，藍營敗選的焦慮似乎已經日漸平復，這絕對不是好現象。
歷經慘烈的敗仗，國民黨內竟未聞砲聲隆隆，主要原因或許是馬英九已在選後不久即辭去主席，大家正等待新黨魁的產生，再來談論下一步興革。然而，從政黨作為「政治有機體」的角度看，國民黨長期以來正是因為過度瞻望上意、仰賴一人領導，以致整部黨機器逐漸失靈，社會觸角鈍化，致無法靈敏回應民意的變化。亦即，國民黨若僅從「唯馬首是瞻」移向「唯朱意為先」，恐怕無法全盤解決黨與社會脫節和組織僵化的問題，這需要更多的社會傾聽與黨內的腦力激盪。
從目前顯而易見的跡象看，我們認為，國民黨應該全力推動的改革工程有四，且必須儘速著手，不能再拖。
首先，人才與戰力的問題：國民黨政治文化的主要弊病之一，是汲汲於內部資源的爭奪與鞏固，卻拙於對外的擴張與求才，更吝於培植新人。長期下來，便形成封閉式的近親繁殖生態，安於小圈圈的穩定，有企圖心及有創意的人才則漸漸遭到排擠和淘空。從二○○九年至今，國民黨員人數從五十萬人下降到卅五萬人，流失速度之快，遠超乎想像，也可見黨中央經營黨員漫不經心。
人才不足，當然影響到黨的戰鬥能力。馬政府施政經常受到圍剿和抗爭，尤以民進黨的周邊團體或社運組織為大宗。其中，有些異議者同時組織數個社團，一人分飾多角，利用不同的發言位置不斷發動攻擊；然而，藍軍對這些攻訐之聲卻毫無應對之策，既不爭取對方認同，也不組織自己的反制部隊，有時連發言反駁都不知所云。我們不相信國民黨內沒有人才，但如果黨中央不能知人善任、不能改變經營策略，坐擁卅幾萬黨員又有何用？
第二，黨產的問題：黨產歷經數次整頓，始終未曾徹底解決，成為國民黨被妖魔化的包袱。朱立倫最近宣示，不當黨產要全數「歸零」，這是正確的方向。試想，黨產握在少數操盤者手中，一般黨員嗅不到，參選者分不著，而整個黨卻不斷遭到醜化及羞辱；國民黨若繼續扛著這個大包袱，只會被壓垮。我們建議，一旦黨產歸零，黨的用人及財務都需重新調整，才能甩掉「大而不當」的結構；屆時，可以效法民進黨作法，要求公職參選人捐出一定比例的「選舉補助款」，以濟財務之不足。
第三，黨內民主化問題：國民黨論資排輩之森嚴，不僅充斥著形式主義的虛文，更嚴重影響到內部意見的交流，尤其不利下情之上達。朱立倫當選後，應設法改革中常會的黨政溝通平台，納進更多元的聲音，讓黨的施政能更貼近社會的脈動。此外，國民黨「考紀會」的組成未經民主選舉程序產生，已在王金平的「開除黨籍案」中連遭挫敗，被法院判為無效；朱立倫當選後，應盡速召開黨員大會進行改選，未來考紀委員至少需由黨代表選舉產生，才不致屢屢遭到挑戰。
第四，黨的年輕化問題：國民黨的資源豐沛，卻無法吸引年輕人投入，和黨的作風太過老大有關；這在歷經首次政黨輪替的強烈衝擊後，依然未能調整。朱立倫近日談到這個問題，宣稱要「用網路連結網員和人民」，讓黨員可以直接在網路上提案或與幹部溝通，這固然是邁開了一步，但仍遠遠不足。只需看蔡英文二○一二年大選時在地方帶出一批「青年軍」，其中不少人如今已成為太陽花學運及九合一反馬的主力；國民黨如果不思向新世代扎根，未來只會越漂越遠，再也抓不住年輕人的心。
國民黨目前的困境，一是近年執政不力的影響，二是長期的結構老化所致；這兩點，不僅需要時間調整，更必須在思維、心態及經營上都要有所轉變。無論如何，這不是選出一個新主席就能解決，更不是黨主席一個人的責任，朱立倫必須鼓勵大家跟他一起動腦，才有逆境翻轉的可能。
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Megadata: a National Strategy, not a Marketing Tool
Megadata: a National Strategy, not a Marketing Tool
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2015
Executive Summary: Professor Ko's campaign committee won the election by means of data calculation. That of course must be taken into consideration. But is making the effects perceptible to voters the Mao cabinet's only motive for megadata planning? Is megadata merely a policy marketing tool, rather than a comprehensive policy planning strategy? If so, then the Mao cabinet is truly out of touch with global trends, and the Kuomintang government is destined for defeat yet again in its cyberwar with the DPP.
Full Text Below:
The New Year holiday was chilly. We are now into the year 2015. We look back. We look ahead. We alternate between the old and the new. We see that we have plenty of homework to do. Many people are still caught up in wake of the nine in one elections. Several newly elected city mayors have shocked voters with impressive victories. But from a larger perspective, this was inevitable. A ruling party made way for newcomers. In a democratic society, none of this is surprising. In 2015 the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan should not be concerned about who will run for president in 2016. They should be concerned about the way Internet technology is changing the world.
Many commentaries about last year's nine in one elections mention the arriveal of a new generation of voters. They noted how this new generation grew up with the Internet. It knows how to use new media. It became involved with the election campaigns. In March last year, during the student movement, many noted how students were using the new media. They overrode the influence of traditional mainstream media. They even monopolized discussion of the STA. They successfully blocked passage of trade in services legislation. They forced the ruling KMT to study the new media and incorporate it into their own policy advocacy approach. Clearly the real world effect was negligible.
Many still do not understand the new media behind the March student movement. In fact, it was merely one link in the development of a digital network. It was not the cause, but merely the effect. Ignore the media for the moment, and one soon discovers that the banking, retail, travel, mobile phone, and entertainment industries all underwent tectonic changes long ago. More and more e-commerce sites have surpassed bricks and mortar stores in performance. These changes are quietly rewriting our lives.
Take the world's largest retailer Wal-Mart, for example. It has 50,000 employees on Mainland China and an annual turnover of more than 10 billion dollars. It is a retail giant. But once Jack Ma founded Taobao, a mere three years later, Taobao's annual turnover was three times that of all Wal-Mart stores on Mainland China. On 11/11, 2013, Singles Day, a single day's transactions equaled that of an entire Hong Kong Golden Week. This simple data should surprise anyone. The world has changed. Alas, many have yet to wake up to the fact.
Actually the current cabinet includes many members who understand new media. For example, over the past several years, the cabinet has been promoting 4G mobile broadband networks and related industries. It has invested a great deal of effort into them. The popularization of 4G smart phones is merely a matter of time. It will inevitably accelerate the development of new media on Taiwan. But the ruling administration failed to realize that the establishment of 4G broadband technology on Taiwan was merely one link in the digitization chain. Other factors are changing as well. They include political, economic, social, and even psychological factors. They include of course the digital generational divide. In other words, the new generation media exercise was not a forecast. It was an announcement that the New World has already arrived.
When Premier Mao took office, he issued his so-called "Mao's three arrows." He assigned Chang San-cheng, a deputy premier with ICT expertise, to plan and implement "open data," "megadata," and "crowdsourcing," and make the benefits perceptible to the public within within six months. The Mao cabinet apparently expected megadata to accurately calculate public demand and facilitate farsighted governance. Was Premier Mao's vision for megadata merely for public perception? If so, then he underestimate the power of this new global trend.
Consider current practice in nations all across the globe. The US plans to raise research and production of megadata to the strategic level. In 2012 alone it invested $ 200 million to implement a "Megadata Research and Development Plan". Mainland China has already made plans. They include promoting open government information, encouraging large data clusters, establishing the Zhongguancun Information Industry Alliance trading platform, and building science and technology megadata platforms. Britain will treat megadata as a strategic technology. It invested 189 million pounds in 2013 to develop megadata technology. France has issued a "digital roadmap" and announced that it will support strategic megadata, including a € 300 million high-tech investment fund to promote megadat development. Korea is aggressively pursuing a series of strategies for megadata development. The related research and development is seen as a matter of "national will". It budgeted $ 200 million in 2013 for a four-year national megadata engineering project. Singapore intends to increase its government data analysis capacity, and promote Singapore as a global data analysis center.
Professor Ko's campaign committee won the election by means of data calculation. That of course must be taken into consideration. But is making the effects perceptible to voters the Mao cabinet's only motive for megadata planning? Is megadata merely a policy marketing tool, rather than a comprehensive policy planning strategy? If so, then the Mao cabinet is truly out of touch with global trends, and the Kuomintang government is destined for defeat yet again in its cyberwar with the DPP.
社論－解構2014 大數據不只是行銷工具 是國家戰略
2015年01月05日 04:10
本報訊
在幾許涼意的新年假期中，我們邁向了嶄新的2015年。回首過往，展望未來，永遠都是在新舊年歲交替中，必須要給自己的功課！有許多人或許到現在還沉浸在去年底九合一選舉結果的後續效應中，幾位新當選的市長在新舊年交替時節所帶來的震撼，確實令人印象深刻。不過宏觀看來，這原本就是政黨輪替、新人新政必然的現象，在民主社會中本就不足為奇，我們倒是認為，展望即將到來的2015年，台灣朝野更該關注的絕不是2016年誰出馬參選總統，而是正在被網路科技改變的世界！
許多人在評論去年底九合一選舉結果時，都會提到世代選民的興起，當然也會提到這批在網路氛圍中成長的新世代，如何運用他們所熟悉的新媒體，介入了這場選戰的操作。事實上更早在去年的三月學運，許多人就已目睹了這群學生如何運用新媒體的操作，不僅凌駕了主流媒體的傳統影響力，更全面篡奪了服貿議題的話語權，成功阻擋了服貿立法進度，逼得執政黨的行政部門成立了專責單位研究新媒體，期盼將之納入政策宣導的機制，但很顯然實踐的效果並不顯著。
有不少人還弄不清楚，三月學運背後所謂新媒體的神話，其實正是數位網路發展的一環，它其實不是原因，而是結果。如果先不將目光集中媒體，就不難發現，當下從銀行業、零售業、旅行業、手機業、娛樂業等，早就出現版圖龐大挪移的現象，越來越多商業網站的業績，已經超越實體產業經營許久才能達到的成果。而這些改變，也正在悄悄改寫我們的生活。
以全球最大的零售商沃爾瑪為例，它在大陸有5萬名員工，年交易額超過百億，可謂為零售業巨無霸；然而在馬雲創辦他的淘寶網之後，僅3年的時間其交易額就是沃爾瑪在大陸所有交易額的3倍，2012年光棍節一天的交易額，就是沃爾瑪所有門市在大陸1年的交易額，也相當7個香港黃金周。僅憑這幾個簡單的數據，任誰都會驚覺，這個世界已經改變，怕只怕有許多人還沒有醒覺過來。
事實上，目前的內閣團隊中並不乏瞭解新媒體趨勢的，例如過去幾年行政團隊在推動4G行動寬頻網路建制與相關產業的發展上，就投注了不少心力，4G智慧性手機的全面普及化，只是時間早晚的問題，這勢必也會加速了新媒體在台灣的發展。然而執政團隊所未顧及的是，4G寬頻的技術建制，僅只是台灣邁向數位化升段的環節之一，同步在變化的，其實還包含了政治、經濟、社會甚至還包含了心理層面，這中間當然就包括了世代數位落差的因素。換言之，新世代對新媒體的演練，並不是預告，而是宣告新世界的到來。
毛揆上任後，曾發出所謂「毛式三箭」，他指派有資通訊專長的副閣揆張善政規畫，半年內要靠「開放資料」、「大數據」與「群眾外包」，讓民眾有感。據了解，毛內閣期盼要透過大數據，精準「算出」民眾需求與前瞻施政。毛揆對大數據的願景，如果僅只是想讓民眾有感，就低估了這個新趨勢在全球發展上的威力。
看看當下全球各國的做法，美國將大資料研究和生產計畫提高到國家戰略層面，僅2012年就投資2億美元實施「大數據研究和發展計畫」；中國大陸亦早已經提前布局，包括推動政府資訊公開、鼓勵大數據產業集群、建立中關村的資料產業聯盟及交易平台、搭建首都科技大數據平台等；英國將大數據列為戰略性技術，2013年投資1.89億英鎊支援大數據技術研發。法國發布《數位化路線圖》，宣布將大力支持大數據在內的戰略性高新技術，投入3億歐元資金用於推動大數據領域的發展；韓國積極制定一系列有關大數據的發展戰略，將相關研發專案視為具有「國家意志」的科技專案，撥2億美元預算在2013年起的4年時間裡打造運用大數據的國家工程；新加坡則是加強政府資料分析的能力建設，推動新加坡成為全球資料分析中心。
講得直白一些，柯P競選團隊藉由數據計算打贏了選戰，固然必須檢討，但如果只是規畫怎麼利用大數據讓民眾有感，把大數據做為政策行銷工具，卻未視為國家戰略做出完整規畫，那就真的與全球大趨勢脫節，國民黨政府的網路戰爭注定一敗再敗。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2015
Executive Summary: Professor Ko's campaign committee won the election by means of data calculation. That of course must be taken into consideration. But is making the effects perceptible to voters the Mao cabinet's only motive for megadata planning? Is megadata merely a policy marketing tool, rather than a comprehensive policy planning strategy? If so, then the Mao cabinet is truly out of touch with global trends, and the Kuomintang government is destined for defeat yet again in its cyberwar with the DPP.
Full Text Below:
The New Year holiday was chilly. We are now into the year 2015. We look back. We look ahead. We alternate between the old and the new. We see that we have plenty of homework to do. Many people are still caught up in wake of the nine in one elections. Several newly elected city mayors have shocked voters with impressive victories. But from a larger perspective, this was inevitable. A ruling party made way for newcomers. In a democratic society, none of this is surprising. In 2015 the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan should not be concerned about who will run for president in 2016. They should be concerned about the way Internet technology is changing the world.
Many commentaries about last year's nine in one elections mention the arriveal of a new generation of voters. They noted how this new generation grew up with the Internet. It knows how to use new media. It became involved with the election campaigns. In March last year, during the student movement, many noted how students were using the new media. They overrode the influence of traditional mainstream media. They even monopolized discussion of the STA. They successfully blocked passage of trade in services legislation. They forced the ruling KMT to study the new media and incorporate it into their own policy advocacy approach. Clearly the real world effect was negligible.
Many still do not understand the new media behind the March student movement. In fact, it was merely one link in the development of a digital network. It was not the cause, but merely the effect. Ignore the media for the moment, and one soon discovers that the banking, retail, travel, mobile phone, and entertainment industries all underwent tectonic changes long ago. More and more e-commerce sites have surpassed bricks and mortar stores in performance. These changes are quietly rewriting our lives.
Take the world's largest retailer Wal-Mart, for example. It has 50,000 employees on Mainland China and an annual turnover of more than 10 billion dollars. It is a retail giant. But once Jack Ma founded Taobao, a mere three years later, Taobao's annual turnover was three times that of all Wal-Mart stores on Mainland China. On 11/11, 2013, Singles Day, a single day's transactions equaled that of an entire Hong Kong Golden Week. This simple data should surprise anyone. The world has changed. Alas, many have yet to wake up to the fact.
Actually the current cabinet includes many members who understand new media. For example, over the past several years, the cabinet has been promoting 4G mobile broadband networks and related industries. It has invested a great deal of effort into them. The popularization of 4G smart phones is merely a matter of time. It will inevitably accelerate the development of new media on Taiwan. But the ruling administration failed to realize that the establishment of 4G broadband technology on Taiwan was merely one link in the digitization chain. Other factors are changing as well. They include political, economic, social, and even psychological factors. They include of course the digital generational divide. In other words, the new generation media exercise was not a forecast. It was an announcement that the New World has already arrived.
When Premier Mao took office, he issued his so-called "Mao's three arrows." He assigned Chang San-cheng, a deputy premier with ICT expertise, to plan and implement "open data," "megadata," and "crowdsourcing," and make the benefits perceptible to the public within within six months. The Mao cabinet apparently expected megadata to accurately calculate public demand and facilitate farsighted governance. Was Premier Mao's vision for megadata merely for public perception? If so, then he underestimate the power of this new global trend.
Consider current practice in nations all across the globe. The US plans to raise research and production of megadata to the strategic level. In 2012 alone it invested $ 200 million to implement a "Megadata Research and Development Plan". Mainland China has already made plans. They include promoting open government information, encouraging large data clusters, establishing the Zhongguancun Information Industry Alliance trading platform, and building science and technology megadata platforms. Britain will treat megadata as a strategic technology. It invested 189 million pounds in 2013 to develop megadata technology. France has issued a "digital roadmap" and announced that it will support strategic megadata, including a € 300 million high-tech investment fund to promote megadat development. Korea is aggressively pursuing a series of strategies for megadata development. The related research and development is seen as a matter of "national will". It budgeted $ 200 million in 2013 for a four-year national megadata engineering project. Singapore intends to increase its government data analysis capacity, and promote Singapore as a global data analysis center.
Professor Ko's campaign committee won the election by means of data calculation. That of course must be taken into consideration. But is making the effects perceptible to voters the Mao cabinet's only motive for megadata planning? Is megadata merely a policy marketing tool, rather than a comprehensive policy planning strategy? If so, then the Mao cabinet is truly out of touch with global trends, and the Kuomintang government is destined for defeat yet again in its cyberwar with the DPP.
社論－解構2014 大數據不只是行銷工具 是國家戰略
2015年01月05日 04:10
本報訊
在幾許涼意的新年假期中，我們邁向了嶄新的2015年。回首過往，展望未來，永遠都是在新舊年歲交替中，必須要給自己的功課！有許多人或許到現在還沉浸在去年底九合一選舉結果的後續效應中，幾位新當選的市長在新舊年交替時節所帶來的震撼，確實令人印象深刻。不過宏觀看來，這原本就是政黨輪替、新人新政必然的現象，在民主社會中本就不足為奇，我們倒是認為，展望即將到來的2015年，台灣朝野更該關注的絕不是2016年誰出馬參選總統，而是正在被網路科技改變的世界！
許多人在評論去年底九合一選舉結果時，都會提到世代選民的興起，當然也會提到這批在網路氛圍中成長的新世代，如何運用他們所熟悉的新媒體，介入了這場選戰的操作。事實上更早在去年的三月學運，許多人就已目睹了這群學生如何運用新媒體的操作，不僅凌駕了主流媒體的傳統影響力，更全面篡奪了服貿議題的話語權，成功阻擋了服貿立法進度，逼得執政黨的行政部門成立了專責單位研究新媒體，期盼將之納入政策宣導的機制，但很顯然實踐的效果並不顯著。
有不少人還弄不清楚，三月學運背後所謂新媒體的神話，其實正是數位網路發展的一環，它其實不是原因，而是結果。如果先不將目光集中媒體，就不難發現，當下從銀行業、零售業、旅行業、手機業、娛樂業等，早就出現版圖龐大挪移的現象，越來越多商業網站的業績，已經超越實體產業經營許久才能達到的成果。而這些改變，也正在悄悄改寫我們的生活。
以全球最大的零售商沃爾瑪為例，它在大陸有5萬名員工，年交易額超過百億，可謂為零售業巨無霸；然而在馬雲創辦他的淘寶網之後，僅3年的時間其交易額就是沃爾瑪在大陸所有交易額的3倍，2012年光棍節一天的交易額，就是沃爾瑪所有門市在大陸1年的交易額，也相當7個香港黃金周。僅憑這幾個簡單的數據，任誰都會驚覺，這個世界已經改變，怕只怕有許多人還沒有醒覺過來。
事實上，目前的內閣團隊中並不乏瞭解新媒體趨勢的，例如過去幾年行政團隊在推動4G行動寬頻網路建制與相關產業的發展上，就投注了不少心力，4G智慧性手機的全面普及化，只是時間早晚的問題，這勢必也會加速了新媒體在台灣的發展。然而執政團隊所未顧及的是，4G寬頻的技術建制，僅只是台灣邁向數位化升段的環節之一，同步在變化的，其實還包含了政治、經濟、社會甚至還包含了心理層面，這中間當然就包括了世代數位落差的因素。換言之，新世代對新媒體的演練，並不是預告，而是宣告新世界的到來。
毛揆上任後，曾發出所謂「毛式三箭」，他指派有資通訊專長的副閣揆張善政規畫，半年內要靠「開放資料」、「大數據」與「群眾外包」，讓民眾有感。據了解，毛內閣期盼要透過大數據，精準「算出」民眾需求與前瞻施政。毛揆對大數據的願景，如果僅只是想讓民眾有感，就低估了這個新趨勢在全球發展上的威力。
看看當下全球各國的做法，美國將大資料研究和生產計畫提高到國家戰略層面，僅2012年就投資2億美元實施「大數據研究和發展計畫」；中國大陸亦早已經提前布局，包括推動政府資訊公開、鼓勵大數據產業集群、建立中關村的資料產業聯盟及交易平台、搭建首都科技大數據平台等；英國將大數據列為戰略性技術，2013年投資1.89億英鎊支援大數據技術研發。法國發布《數位化路線圖》，宣布將大力支持大數據在內的戰略性高新技術，投入3億歐元資金用於推動大數據領域的發展；韓國積極制定一系列有關大數據的發展戰略，將相關研發專案視為具有「國家意志」的科技專案，撥2億美元預算在2013年起的4年時間裡打造運用大數據的國家工程；新加坡則是加強政府資料分析的能力建設，推動新加坡成為全球資料分析中心。
講得直白一些，柯P競選團隊藉由數據計算打贏了選戰，固然必須檢討，但如果只是規畫怎麼利用大數據讓民眾有感，把大數據做為政策行銷工具，卻未視為國家戰略做出完整規畫，那就真的與全球大趨勢脫節，國民黨政府的網路戰爭注定一敗再敗。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)