Failure of US Containment: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Makes History
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2015
Executive Summary: Globalization and the Internet are blurring the boundaries between West and East. International politics and international power will be increasingly dependent upon realpolitik rather than ideology. Britain, France, Germany, and Italy rushing to join the AIIB is a manifestation of this phenomenon. Under the circumstances, will Taiwan raise the barrier between the two sides? Will it cut off relations with the World Island? The STA, MTA must be approved as soon as possible. Every agency of the ROC government should be thinking about how to join the AIIB.
Full Text Below:
Let us recall some history. In 1793, Lord Macartney, the British special envoy to Beijing, refused to kneel before
Emperor Qianlong on the latter's birthday. The implication was that China was in decline. In 2015 however, in defiance of US objectiions, Britain chose to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), headquartered in Beijing. Is the implication that China is now ascendant?
Britain has never been a nation ruled by ideology. She has long practiced realpolitik. Her policies invariably favor commercial interests. Two Opium Wars during the 19th century humiliated China. But for the British, they merely cleared the way for trade. Today, despite powerful opposition from her staunch Anglo-Saxon ally, she has decided to join the AIIB. She has relied on old-fashioned business sense, and sniffed out the astonishing commercial potential of the AIIB and “One Belt, One Road”.
Britain ignored US opposition and joined the AIIB. This makes it a landmark event. The US postures as the global hegemon. Last year, when Beijing announced its intention to establish the AIIB, the US categorically opposed any of its allies joining. The EU, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, having been warned, all did nothing. On March 12, however, Britain defected, and the situation changed overnight. To everyone's surprise, the staunchest members of "Team America" were first to break rank. Britain led, followed by Germany, France, and Italy, all running for the door. Luxembourg and Switzerland, two little financial giants, followed in the footsteps of the Big Guy. Without a trace of embarrassment, they joined the ranks of “Team China”.
Strategic analysts the world over regard this as a major geopolitical event. This was not merely a diplomatic defeat for United States. This hinted at an historical trend. This suggests that the US hegemon's China containment strategy will probably fail.
The US boycotted the AIIB for a very superficial reason. It hinted darkly that “AIIB lending standards may be too low, resulting in risk." But as former US Treasury official Ted Truman noted, if the US hopes to influence the AIIB, it must be inside the tent, not outside. Put bluntly, this is all part of a long term Sino-US struggle for hegemony, one that is ending in US defeat. The United States is attempting to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) to shut Mainland China out. That is another way of excluding Mainland China. That is the next battle, one in which the outcome remains hard to foresee.
The AIIB incident has yet another meaning. It represents a geopolitical tectonic shift. The century old "European-American alliance" shows signs of fracturing. By contrast, Europe and Asia show signs of coming together. Beginning with Marco Polo in the 13th century, "Eurasia" was equated with “the world”, with a "world island". By the end of the 19th century however, the United States was reunified in the wake of the Civil War. It abandoned isolationism and participated in European affairs. Europe and America merged into "The West”. By contrast, Asia remained under colonial subjugation, and was plunged into darkness.
Over the past 20 years however, Mainland China and India have re-emerged and caught up. Formerly backward Asia, once again leapt onto the world stage. The "One Belt, One Road” paradigm has reconnected India and Mainland China with Europe by means of an historic "Silk Road". The AIIB attempts to build a even more powerful "World Island” financial mechanism, linking Europe and Asia. The European nations saw the cultural and economic implications, and did an abrupt about face.
Years from now, when the "world island" has been successfully formed in accordance with the two Silk Roads blueprint, the world will consist of a "World Island" and an "American Island". When the time comes, Mainland China will not necessarily be the World Island chief. She has many internal defects, including an authoritarian political system. She may not be able to create an entirely new model. But she will play an important role. By then, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Mainland China, India and Russia will form one team, while Team America will boast only the US, Canada and Brazil.
The tide is putting several East Asian members of "Team America" to the test. As we look to the future, the awakened World Island comes as a shock. Will Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan cling to their Cold War mentality? Will they persist in their attempts to contain Mainland China? Will they align themselves with the nearby World Island, or with Team American thousands of nautical miles away? Will they resign themselves to being America's Kinmen, Wuqui, and Matsu?
Globalization and the Internet are blurring the boundaries between West and East. International politics and international power will be increasingly dependent upon realpolitik rather than ideology. Britain, France, Germany, and Italy rushing to join the AIIB is a manifestation of this phenomenon. Under the circumstances, will Taiwan raise the barrier between the two sides? Will it cut off relations with the World Island? The STA, MTA must be approved as soon as possible. Every agency of the ROC government should be thinking about how to join the AIIB.
聯合／美國圍堵失靈：亞投行事件的歷史徵候
2015-03-25 02:25:57 聯合報 聯合報社論
從大歷史的角度看，一七九三年到北京祝壽的英國特使馬戛爾尼拒絕向乾隆皇帝下跪，暗示了中國的衰落；而二○一五年英國不顧美國勸阻，決定加入以北京為總部的「亞洲基礎設施投資銀行」，是否將注解中國的復興？
英國向來不以意識形態作為國家指針，她遵循現實主義，商業利益是其政策依歸。十九世紀兩次鴉片戰爭，對中國是民族的恥辱；但對英國而言，卻不過是替貿易鑿出孔道。這次，她不顧盎格魯撒克遜民族堅定盟友的反對，毅然加入「亞投行」，依舊是出於老派行家的商業嗅覺，她顯然嗅出了「亞投行」眺目的陸海兩條絲路所蟄藏的驚人金脈。
英國不顧美國勸阻加入「亞投行」，是一樁標誌性事件。美國以全球霸主之姿，從前年北京倡議成立亞投行開始，即全面性地攔阻其盟友加入，歐盟各國與日、韓、澳大利亞都受到警告按兵不動；直到三月十二日英國發動了這起堪稱「叛逃」的行動，情勢一夕翻轉。事前沒人料到，軍容壯闊的「美國隊伍」竟由她最堅定的盟友打破了陣線缺口，不列顛的槍聲劃過，德、法、義也奪門而出，盧森堡、瑞士兩個金融小巨人則跟著前面的大個子，臉不紅氣不喘地踱到對方的中國隊伍裡。
全球外交戰略學者都把這次事件當成一樁重大的全球地緣政治事件。首先，它不只是美國的一次外交挫敗，它也可能洩漏了一個歷史風聲：美國對可能挑戰她全球霸主地位的中國所採取的圍堵戰略，長期而言恐將歸於失效。
美國抵制亞投行，用了一個十分膚淺的理由：「亞投行的放貸標準可能太低，造成風險」。但誠如美國前財政部官員泰德．杜魯門（Ted Truman）所言，「如果你想對亞投行發生影響力，你應該在帳篷裡面，而不是在帳篷外面。」說穿了，這完全是美中爭霸長遠戲碼的一段折子，並暫以美國慘敗收場。但美國正藉著跨太平洋夥伴協議（ＴＰＰ），以排斥中國加入方式，組成另一道反華防線；那是下一場搏鬥，而勝負尚難以逆料。
其次，這樁「亞投行事件」的另一意涵，是地緣政治板塊的劇烈滑動：被鑄造在一起已超過百年的「歐美」合稱，出現了裂解的跡象，而分隔許久的「歐亞」則正被重新黏合起來。自十三世紀馬可波羅開始，「歐亞」已被理解是整個地球的「世界島」，但十九世紀美國結束南北戰爭重歸統一後，逐漸拋棄孤立主義，參與歐洲事務，歐美反而融成一個「西方」；相對的，亞洲則陷入被殖民的命運，跌進了黑暗。
但近廿年來，不僅中國重新崛起，印度也迎頭趕上，衰落的亞洲再度躍上世界舞台。而「一帶一路」兩條絲路主張，是將印、中與歐洲再度藉由歷史上的那條「絲路」連結起來，亞投行是歐、亞試圖打造較諸中世紀更強大的「世界島」的資金機制，歐洲看到了它在文化與經濟上的意涵，遂翩然來歸。
若干年後，當「世界島」依據兩條絲路的藍圖與願望被成功塑造之後，世界的格局將成為「世界島」vs.「美洲島」的態勢，那時，中國未必是世界島的盟主，因為她有諸多內在缺陷，包括其專制的政治，但她未必不能演繹出一個全新的模式而依然舉足輕重。屆時，有可能英德法義中印俄將是一隊，而美洲隊卻只剩美加和巴西。
浪潮正在拷問東亞的幾個「美國隊員」，當我們遠眺未來時，赫然看見了世界島的甦醒；那麼，此刻仍在冷戰的思維框架中，圍堵中國的日本、韓國與台灣，究竟應歸向近在咫尺的世界島，抑是依戀數萬浬外的美國隊，自願作為美國在太平洋西岸的金門、烏坵與馬祖？
全球化與網路正在泯除西方與東方的界線，國際政治與權力將更大比例地根據現實利益為取捨，而不是依賴意識形態，英法德義奔向亞投行，正是這個現象的表徵。就此而論，台灣豈應再加高兩岸的藩籬，更與世界島阻絕？今天，不只是服、貨貿應該儘速通過，各部門更應思索如何向亞投行叩門。
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Lee Kuan Yew: A Legend Who Broke the Mold
Lee Kuan Yew: A Legend Who Broke the Mold
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2015
Executive Summary: Lee Kuan Yew has passed on. This superstar of history has fallen. His life was dogged by controversy. But when all is said and done, he was without a doubt one of the great men of history. Lee Kuan Yew plus Singapore appears to be an accident of history. But this accident provided a unique solution to the political, economic, and social problems every nation is sure to encounter and cannot ignore. One may praise Lee or condemn him. But Lee's death spells the end of a legend, one whom the world will not see again.
Full Text Below:
Without Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore would not have become the miracle it is today. Conversely, without Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew would not have achieved the standing he enjoys today. Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore to independence. That was his first chess move. That move paved the way for the Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew we see today. Singapore was an ethnic Chinese society that Malaysia expelled from the federation. Lee Kuan Yew successfully transformed Singapore's Chinese society into an "English speaking society". This involved two paradoxes. One. Lee Kuan Yew took advantage of the expulsion. He did not advocate independence on his own initiative. Had he done so, Singapore today would be very different. Two. Following independence, Lee Kuan Yew retained English as the primary language. He took advantage of the fact that ethnic Chinese were the majority, to make English an instrument of Singapore's globalization. Had Lee Kuan Yew indulged in Chinese Chauvinism, had he acceded to majority calls for Mandarin Chinese, Singapore would undoubtedly be very different from what it is today. The policy choices made by Lee Kuan Yew during Singapore's founding revealed his extraordinary magnanimity.
Lee Kuan Yew's political philosophy has a number of notable features. One. Elitism. He often invoked "genetic determinism" and "eugenics first”. For example, he openly advocated that men with university educations should marry women with university degrees, He encouraged women with university degrees to bear more children. Two. Social Darwinism. He advocated fairness and the protection of the poor and underprivileged. In Singapore 84% of the population lives in government housing. But he also advocated social competition, and opposed populist social welfare policies. Three. Platonic Utopianism. Lee Kuan Yew denied any Platonist influences. But Singapore's political and economic structure differs little from Plato's ideal state. It features a philosopher king, Lee Kuan Yew, and a ruling elite. It features soldiers and teachers who protect the nation. It features businessmen and ordinary people. It even features “slaves”. There is of course no current equivalent to slaves. But among the 5.4 million people in Singapore, 1.3 million have the right to work but lack citizenship. Four. Machiavellianism. Lee Kuan Yew agrees with Machiavelli. He said Machiavelli was right about the choice between being loved and being admired. He said that if no one was afraid of him, he would have no value. Five. Paternalism. Lee Kuan Yew created "one-party dictatorship style democracy" in Singapore. Singapore holds regular elections. But it features a special form of partisan politics. The electoral system in Singapore enables Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP to win 60% of the vote, yet occupy 99% of the seats in parliament. This leads to "one-party dictatorship style democracy", under which opposition parties may have 40% of the votes but none of the power. The strict rule of law and generous salaries ensure clean government, with restrictions on freedom of speech. Singapore has a special form of elections and accountability, but lacks changes in the ruling party. Lee Kuan Yew has openly predicted that if Singapore ever implements Western-style political parties, it will inevitably descend into mediocrity.
In summary, politically speaking, the "Lee Kuan Yew model" does not repudiate democracy, but has reservations about democracy. It does not reject the rule of law and accountability. Socially speaking. It emphasizes social competition, embraces elitism, provides for social welfare, but rejects populism that panders to the poor and under-privileged. Singapore does not pander to either left or right oriented major powers. It treats the whole world as its hinterland, making possible the "Lee Kuan Yew miracle."
Lee Kuan Yew has global and historic stature. Obama called him an Asian legend. Kissinger said there is no other national leader who is a better strategist. Lee's role in the Taiwan Strait was also prominent. He visited Taiwan over 25 times. The first Koo-Wang talks in 1993 took place in Singapore. Beijing acknowledges that Deng Xiaoping's determination to embark upon reform and liberalization, began in 1978, when Deng visited Singapore. In fact, the Chinese mainland's political and economic reforms have long been aimed at transforming the Mainland into a "larger scale Singapore". This may be difficult to achieve. Lee Kuan Yew deeply concerned about the relationship between Taiwan and the Mainland. But during his twilight years, many on Taiwan were angry with him, and pessimistic about Taiwan's future. Lee Kuan Yew is gone. Taiwan has lost a close friend willing to speak the truth.
Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore was too small. He said it was so small it could not change the world. But he changed Singapore, making it into a nation that commanded the world's attention. Lee Kuan Yew's rule was a unique and unprecedented combination of democracy and authoritarianism, market competition and social welfare, elitism and populism, globalization and localization. It was the product of Singapore plus Lee Kuan Yew. One may ajudge Singapore a success or a failure. Either way, it is probably impossible to replicate. Having lost Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's prospects are now uncertain.
Lee Kuan Yew plus Singapore appears to be an accident of history. But this accident provided a unique solution to the
political, economic, and social problems every nation is sure to encounter and cannot ignore. One may praise Lee or condemn him. But Lee's death spells the end of a legend, one whom the world will not see again.
聯合／李光耀逝世：一個無可複製的傳奇之句點
2015-03-24 01:40:07 聯合報 聯合報社論
李光耀去世。這是歷史天體中的巨星殞落。他的一生充滿爭議性，但加加減減之後，應當無損其足當被視為歷史偉人的評價。他的成就不僅反映在新加坡的治理，也反映在歷史與全球的高度上。當然，他受到的批評亦復如此。
新加坡沒有李光耀，不會有今日奇蹟；李光耀若不在新加坡，亦難有今日地位。李光耀領導新加坡獨立的第一手棋，即奠定了新加坡與李光耀的今日。新加坡當年是因「華人社會」而被馬來西亞「逐出」聯邦，但李光耀卻成功地以「英語社會」改造了新加坡的「華人社會」。此處有兩個吊詭：一、若李光耀不是善用「被逐出」的氛圍，而是主動鼓吹獨立，新加坡的外在情勢發展必不同於今日；二、獨立後，李光耀堅持以英語為主要語言，藉此將華人的優勢加以概平，英語並成為新加坡全球化的利器；若李光耀當時沉溺在華人優勢的思想，而順從多數主張以華語為國語，則新加坡今日的內部情勢亦必不同於今日。僅就新加坡建國時期的此類政策抉擇言，李光耀已流露出不同凡響的格局。
李光耀的政治哲學有幾點顯著的特徵。一、菁英主義：他常發表類似「基因決定論」及「優生至上」的言論。例如：他公開倡議大學以上學歷的男士應迎娶大學以上學歷的女士，並鼓勵大學以上學歷的女性多生育。二、社會達爾文主義：他雖倡導公平與保護貧弱，例如新加坡有八十四％人口住在政府興建的組屋中。但他更支持社會競爭，反對民粹媚俗的社會福利政策。三、柏拉圖式理想國：李光耀否認受到柏拉圖的影響，但新加坡的政經架構卻幾與柏拉圖的理想國無異：「哲君（李光耀）／金質人（菁英統治）／銀質人（軍人或教師等護國者）／銅質人（工商百業及庶民）／奴隸（不宜今昔相比，但新加坡五百四十餘萬人口中，有約一百三十萬僅有工作權而無公民權者）」。四、馬基維利主義：李光耀不諱言認同馬基維利。他曾說：「在被敬愛及被敬畏之間，我認為馬基維利是對的。如果沒有人怕我，我就沒有價值了。」五、家長式政治：李光耀在新加坡創造了「一黨專政的民主政治」。新加坡有定期選舉，也有特殊形式及內涵的政黨競爭；但新加坡的選舉制度，可使李光耀所屬的人民行動黨雖僅得六十％的選票，卻幾占九成九的國會席位。這種容許呈現四十％的反對者選票的「一黨專政的民主政治」，以嚴明的法治與優渥薪酬維持廉能政府，緊縮言論自由，雖說亦有特殊形式的選舉與問責，卻迄無政黨輪替的表現。李光耀更公開預言，新加坡如果推行西方模式的兩黨政治，「必然走向平庸」。
綜上所論，這種「李光耀模式」，在政治面，他不諱言質疑民主，對民主有保留，但不棄法治與問責；在社會面，強調社會競爭，以高薪收攬菁英，亦維持基本社福，但不以民粹籠絡貧弱。再加上新加坡不在列強之間左偏右袒，而以全世界為腹地，因而成就了「李光耀奇蹟」。
李光耀的地位是全球性的，也是歷史性的。歐巴馬稱他是「亞洲的傳奇人物」，季辛吉稱他為「再沒有比他更好的策略思想領導人」。李光耀在台海兩岸的角色也十分突出，他曾訪台逾二十五次，一九九三年第一次辜汪會談亦是在新加坡舉行；而北京也不諱言，鄧小平的改革開放思想與決心，肇始於他一九七八年的訪星之旅。其實，中國大陸在政經改革上，始終以成為「大一號的新加坡」為目標，但恐難效顰複製。李光耀原對台灣與大陸的競合關係甚表關切，但暮年對台灣的應對不以為然，並對台灣的未來表示悲觀。李光耀走了，台灣失去了一位摯友及諍友。
李光耀曾說，新加坡太小，小得無法改變全世界；但他卻改變了新加坡，使之成為全世界矚目的國家。李光耀的國家治理，將「民主／專制」、「競爭／福利」、「菁英／平庸」、「全球／在地」作成了史無前例的特殊比例組合。但畢竟這是新加坡與李光耀的組合，因而，無論視其為成就，或加以批評，恐怕均不可能再複製，甚至失去了李光耀的新加坡之前景如何，亦是未定之數。
李光耀與新加坡的組合，看似歷史的一場偶然；但這場偶然卻為所有的國家社會必然會遭遇到的政經難題，提供了令人無法忽視的特殊解答。李光耀辭世，這似乎是一個無可複製的傳奇之句點，無論你推崇李光耀或抨擊李光耀。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2015
Executive Summary: Lee Kuan Yew has passed on. This superstar of history has fallen. His life was dogged by controversy. But when all is said and done, he was without a doubt one of the great men of history. Lee Kuan Yew plus Singapore appears to be an accident of history. But this accident provided a unique solution to the political, economic, and social problems every nation is sure to encounter and cannot ignore. One may praise Lee or condemn him. But Lee's death spells the end of a legend, one whom the world will not see again.
Full Text Below:
Without Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore would not have become the miracle it is today. Conversely, without Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew would not have achieved the standing he enjoys today. Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore to independence. That was his first chess move. That move paved the way for the Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew we see today. Singapore was an ethnic Chinese society that Malaysia expelled from the federation. Lee Kuan Yew successfully transformed Singapore's Chinese society into an "English speaking society". This involved two paradoxes. One. Lee Kuan Yew took advantage of the expulsion. He did not advocate independence on his own initiative. Had he done so, Singapore today would be very different. Two. Following independence, Lee Kuan Yew retained English as the primary language. He took advantage of the fact that ethnic Chinese were the majority, to make English an instrument of Singapore's globalization. Had Lee Kuan Yew indulged in Chinese Chauvinism, had he acceded to majority calls for Mandarin Chinese, Singapore would undoubtedly be very different from what it is today. The policy choices made by Lee Kuan Yew during Singapore's founding revealed his extraordinary magnanimity.
Lee Kuan Yew's political philosophy has a number of notable features. One. Elitism. He often invoked "genetic determinism" and "eugenics first”. For example, he openly advocated that men with university educations should marry women with university degrees, He encouraged women with university degrees to bear more children. Two. Social Darwinism. He advocated fairness and the protection of the poor and underprivileged. In Singapore 84% of the population lives in government housing. But he also advocated social competition, and opposed populist social welfare policies. Three. Platonic Utopianism. Lee Kuan Yew denied any Platonist influences. But Singapore's political and economic structure differs little from Plato's ideal state. It features a philosopher king, Lee Kuan Yew, and a ruling elite. It features soldiers and teachers who protect the nation. It features businessmen and ordinary people. It even features “slaves”. There is of course no current equivalent to slaves. But among the 5.4 million people in Singapore, 1.3 million have the right to work but lack citizenship. Four. Machiavellianism. Lee Kuan Yew agrees with Machiavelli. He said Machiavelli was right about the choice between being loved and being admired. He said that if no one was afraid of him, he would have no value. Five. Paternalism. Lee Kuan Yew created "one-party dictatorship style democracy" in Singapore. Singapore holds regular elections. But it features a special form of partisan politics. The electoral system in Singapore enables Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP to win 60% of the vote, yet occupy 99% of the seats in parliament. This leads to "one-party dictatorship style democracy", under which opposition parties may have 40% of the votes but none of the power. The strict rule of law and generous salaries ensure clean government, with restrictions on freedom of speech. Singapore has a special form of elections and accountability, but lacks changes in the ruling party. Lee Kuan Yew has openly predicted that if Singapore ever implements Western-style political parties, it will inevitably descend into mediocrity.
In summary, politically speaking, the "Lee Kuan Yew model" does not repudiate democracy, but has reservations about democracy. It does not reject the rule of law and accountability. Socially speaking. It emphasizes social competition, embraces elitism, provides for social welfare, but rejects populism that panders to the poor and under-privileged. Singapore does not pander to either left or right oriented major powers. It treats the whole world as its hinterland, making possible the "Lee Kuan Yew miracle."
Lee Kuan Yew has global and historic stature. Obama called him an Asian legend. Kissinger said there is no other national leader who is a better strategist. Lee's role in the Taiwan Strait was also prominent. He visited Taiwan over 25 times. The first Koo-Wang talks in 1993 took place in Singapore. Beijing acknowledges that Deng Xiaoping's determination to embark upon reform and liberalization, began in 1978, when Deng visited Singapore. In fact, the Chinese mainland's political and economic reforms have long been aimed at transforming the Mainland into a "larger scale Singapore". This may be difficult to achieve. Lee Kuan Yew deeply concerned about the relationship between Taiwan and the Mainland. But during his twilight years, many on Taiwan were angry with him, and pessimistic about Taiwan's future. Lee Kuan Yew is gone. Taiwan has lost a close friend willing to speak the truth.
Lee Kuan Yew said Singapore was too small. He said it was so small it could not change the world. But he changed Singapore, making it into a nation that commanded the world's attention. Lee Kuan Yew's rule was a unique and unprecedented combination of democracy and authoritarianism, market competition and social welfare, elitism and populism, globalization and localization. It was the product of Singapore plus Lee Kuan Yew. One may ajudge Singapore a success or a failure. Either way, it is probably impossible to replicate. Having lost Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's prospects are now uncertain.
Lee Kuan Yew plus Singapore appears to be an accident of history. But this accident provided a unique solution to the
political, economic, and social problems every nation is sure to encounter and cannot ignore. One may praise Lee or condemn him. But Lee's death spells the end of a legend, one whom the world will not see again.
聯合／李光耀逝世：一個無可複製的傳奇之句點
2015-03-24 01:40:07 聯合報 聯合報社論
李光耀去世。這是歷史天體中的巨星殞落。他的一生充滿爭議性，但加加減減之後，應當無損其足當被視為歷史偉人的評價。他的成就不僅反映在新加坡的治理，也反映在歷史與全球的高度上。當然，他受到的批評亦復如此。
新加坡沒有李光耀，不會有今日奇蹟；李光耀若不在新加坡，亦難有今日地位。李光耀領導新加坡獨立的第一手棋，即奠定了新加坡與李光耀的今日。新加坡當年是因「華人社會」而被馬來西亞「逐出」聯邦，但李光耀卻成功地以「英語社會」改造了新加坡的「華人社會」。此處有兩個吊詭：一、若李光耀不是善用「被逐出」的氛圍，而是主動鼓吹獨立，新加坡的外在情勢發展必不同於今日；二、獨立後，李光耀堅持以英語為主要語言，藉此將華人的優勢加以概平，英語並成為新加坡全球化的利器；若李光耀當時沉溺在華人優勢的思想，而順從多數主張以華語為國語，則新加坡今日的內部情勢亦必不同於今日。僅就新加坡建國時期的此類政策抉擇言，李光耀已流露出不同凡響的格局。
李光耀的政治哲學有幾點顯著的特徵。一、菁英主義：他常發表類似「基因決定論」及「優生至上」的言論。例如：他公開倡議大學以上學歷的男士應迎娶大學以上學歷的女士，並鼓勵大學以上學歷的女性多生育。二、社會達爾文主義：他雖倡導公平與保護貧弱，例如新加坡有八十四％人口住在政府興建的組屋中。但他更支持社會競爭，反對民粹媚俗的社會福利政策。三、柏拉圖式理想國：李光耀否認受到柏拉圖的影響，但新加坡的政經架構卻幾與柏拉圖的理想國無異：「哲君（李光耀）／金質人（菁英統治）／銀質人（軍人或教師等護國者）／銅質人（工商百業及庶民）／奴隸（不宜今昔相比，但新加坡五百四十餘萬人口中，有約一百三十萬僅有工作權而無公民權者）」。四、馬基維利主義：李光耀不諱言認同馬基維利。他曾說：「在被敬愛及被敬畏之間，我認為馬基維利是對的。如果沒有人怕我，我就沒有價值了。」五、家長式政治：李光耀在新加坡創造了「一黨專政的民主政治」。新加坡有定期選舉，也有特殊形式及內涵的政黨競爭；但新加坡的選舉制度，可使李光耀所屬的人民行動黨雖僅得六十％的選票，卻幾占九成九的國會席位。這種容許呈現四十％的反對者選票的「一黨專政的民主政治」，以嚴明的法治與優渥薪酬維持廉能政府，緊縮言論自由，雖說亦有特殊形式的選舉與問責，卻迄無政黨輪替的表現。李光耀更公開預言，新加坡如果推行西方模式的兩黨政治，「必然走向平庸」。
綜上所論，這種「李光耀模式」，在政治面，他不諱言質疑民主，對民主有保留，但不棄法治與問責；在社會面，強調社會競爭，以高薪收攬菁英，亦維持基本社福，但不以民粹籠絡貧弱。再加上新加坡不在列強之間左偏右袒，而以全世界為腹地，因而成就了「李光耀奇蹟」。
李光耀的地位是全球性的，也是歷史性的。歐巴馬稱他是「亞洲的傳奇人物」，季辛吉稱他為「再沒有比他更好的策略思想領導人」。李光耀在台海兩岸的角色也十分突出，他曾訪台逾二十五次，一九九三年第一次辜汪會談亦是在新加坡舉行；而北京也不諱言，鄧小平的改革開放思想與決心，肇始於他一九七八年的訪星之旅。其實，中國大陸在政經改革上，始終以成為「大一號的新加坡」為目標，但恐難效顰複製。李光耀原對台灣與大陸的競合關係甚表關切，但暮年對台灣的應對不以為然，並對台灣的未來表示悲觀。李光耀走了，台灣失去了一位摯友及諍友。
李光耀曾說，新加坡太小，小得無法改變全世界；但他卻改變了新加坡，使之成為全世界矚目的國家。李光耀的國家治理，將「民主／專制」、「競爭／福利」、「菁英／平庸」、「全球／在地」作成了史無前例的特殊比例組合。但畢竟這是新加坡與李光耀的組合，因而，無論視其為成就，或加以批評，恐怕均不可能再複製，甚至失去了李光耀的新加坡之前景如何，亦是未定之數。
李光耀與新加坡的組合，看似歷史的一場偶然；但這場偶然卻為所有的國家社會必然會遭遇到的政經難題，提供了令人無法忽視的特殊解答。李光耀辭世，這似乎是一個無可複製的傳奇之句點，無論你推崇李光耀或抨擊李光耀。
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Washington Should Join AIIB, Taipei Can Hardly Remain Outside
Washington Should Join AIIB, Taipei Can Hardly Remain Outside
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2015
Executive Summary: US attempts to prevent its allies from joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB, have clearly failed. Britain recently announced that it has just joined the AIIB. Germany, France, Italy, and others have declared their support. Australia, South Korea, and others are expected to follow suit. How will the AIIB work? That has yet to be specified. Washington has suffered a diplomatic setback. Beijing has scored a victory in Sino-US strategic wrangling.
Full Text Below:
US attempts to prevent its allies from joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB, have clearly failed. Britain recently announced that it has just joined the AIIB. Germany, France, Italy, and others have declared their support. Australia, South Korea, and others are expected to follow suit. How will the AIIB work? That has yet to be specified. Washington has suffered a diplomatic setback. Beijing has scored a victory in Sino-US strategic wrangling.
British support for the AIIB is not about choosing between the United States and Mainland China. It is about national interests. It seeks opportunities for economic growth and investment in Asia. The US has criticized Britain for "accommodating" Mainland China. Instead, it merely demonstrated its own narrow-mindedness. It merely demonstrated that it lacked the generosity of spirit befitting a great nation. Washington cast aspersions on AIIB governance and operating standards. It implied that a Beijing led AIIB would disregard international lending principles and eventually become Mainland China's diplomatic and political tool.
Actually, the United States is worried that the AIIB will weaken the monopoly over international financial organizations the US has enjoyed since the end of World War II, and its unrestricted ability to print money. Takehiko Nakao, president of the Japanese Asian Development Bank (ADB), opposed the AIIB, on grounds that the US-led postwar norms of international finance must remain unchanged.
US attempts to prevent other nations from joining the AIIB were a serious strategic miscalculation. The AIIB is designed to meet Asian countries' need for large investments in energy, electricity, transportation, telecommunications, and other infrastructure. It will promote regional interoperability, and accelerate regional economic growth. The statutory requirement for AIIB capital is 100 billion USD. The founding members have decided that member nation rights and shares will be apportioned according to GDP. As the world's second largest economy, Mainland China plans to invest 50 billion USD. Naturally it will have the largest number of shares. But that does not mean Beijing can do whatever it wants.
Washington's resistance to the AIIB confirms that its Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy was aimed at containing Mainland China. Its alleged desire for “Asian regional peace, stability and prosperity" was mere lip service. The result of obdurate US unilateralism, will probably only further alienate Asian countries.
Beijing has repeatedly stressed that the AIIB is an open, inclusive, accountable, transparent, and equitable multilateral development institution. Its governance structure and operating policies will draw on existing international financial organizations, and strive to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency. Mainland China welcomes countries outside Asia as founding members of the AIIB. It wants broad outside AIIB representation, to create a win-win situation in both Asia and Europe.
Mainland China's GDP accounts for 16% of total global GDP. But in the World Bank, it has only 4.87% of the voting rights, far less than the United States, with 16.28% of the voting rights. It has 3.81% of the voting rights in the IMF, while the United States has a disproportionate 16.75%. In 2010, Obama began promoting international financial organization reform. But so far it has not received Congressional support. This has led to a major loss of trust among US allies.
The United States is unable to raise the status of emerging economies in international financial organizations. It also objects to increases in ADB capital. So why not join the AIIB? On the one hand, it could encourage existing international financial organizations to work closely with the AIIB. On the other hand, it could invite Mainland China to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and jointly establish new norms for international finance.
Britain will urge the AIIB to set high standards for its operational procedures. Britain has repeatedly urged the United States not to boycott the AIIB. It reminded the US of its hope that Mainland China would become a responsible major power. If Washington is worried about its waning political and economic influence, it would be wise to join the AIIB. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently warned that when the Mainland China led AIIB gains general support from US allies, it means America's international influence has declined. Lew's intention was to persuade Republicans to support international financial organization reform. But it also highlighted repeated US attempts to silence Mainland China and other emerging economies. This will eventually weaken the ability of the US to shape international economic standards. This is something the United States must consider.
Fighting for the right to lead global economic and financial regulation during this century, has apparently become one of America's core issues. Mainland China has promoted the AIIB. Last year it led the establishment of the BRICS Development Bank, and invested over 40 billion USD in the Silk Road. America is going to find it difficult to stop the Mainland Chinese from building a new generation international financial order. Washington is worried that Beijing will use AIIB loans to gain political and military strategic advantage. It may conclude that "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
The British joined the AIIB in a dramatic fashion. It realized that the rise of China has led to a reshuffling of the global order. The establishment of the AIIB and "one belt, one road" grand strategy, (Eurasian Economic silk belt and the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st century) will accelerate the economic integration of Eurasia. The global economy is about to be overtur turned on its head. Washington must join. Taipei can hardly remain outside.
美應加入亞投行 我更不能自外
2015年03月23日 中國時報
美國反對其盟邦加入「亞洲基礎設施投資銀行」（AIIB）的政策，儼然已經失敗。英國日前宣布加入AIIB，德國、法國、義大利等隨後表態支持，一般預期澳洲與南韓等國也會陸續跟進。AIIB運作方案尚未具體，華府外交先行受挫，北京則在中美戰略競逐中扳回一城。
英國支持AIIB，並非在中美兩強間選邊站，只是著眼國家利益，為自身與亞洲共創經濟成長與投資的機會。美國批評英國「遷就」中國，反顯出自身缺乏大國的胸襟與氣度。表面上，華府否定AIIB的治理能力與制定低標準的運作規範，質疑北京主導的AIIB恐無視國際貸款原則，最終淪為中國外交與政治工具。
實際上，美國的不安是憂慮AIIB將削弱美國自二次大戰結束後長期在國際金融組織的壟斷性影響力，讓美國擁有無限制的印鈔權。「亞洲開發銀行」（ADB）日籍總裁中尾武彥表明反對AIIB成立，理由就是不想改變戰後美國主導的既定國際金融規範。
美國反對他國加入AIIB，犯了嚴重的戰略誤判。AIIB旨在協助亞洲國家滿足能源、電力、交通、電信等基礎設施所需求的龐大投資金額，進而促進區域互聯互通，加速區域經濟發展。AIIB的法定資本為千億美元，創始成員國決議以國內生產總值（GDP）衡量權力比重與股份配額，身為全球第二大經濟體的中國計畫投入500億美元，自然持有最多股份，但不代表北京可為所欲為。
華府抵制AIIB只印證了亞太再平衡戰略意在圍堵中國，凸顯「樂見亞洲地區和平、穩定、繁榮」只淪於口惠。美國執意孤行的結果，恐難避免與亞洲國家的關係漸行漸遠。
北京曾多次強調，AIIB屬開放、包容、負責、透明與公平的多邊開發機構，未來的治理架構與營運政策會借鏡現有國際金融組織，力求降低成本及提高營運效能。中國表態歡迎亞洲以外國家成為AIIB的創始成員，除了想體現AIIB的廣泛代表性外，主要還是營造亞歐互助共贏的局面。
中國的GDP已占全球總量的16%，在世界銀行卻僅擁有4.87%的投票權，遠低於美國的16.28%，在國際貨幣基金組織的3.81%投票權，與美國的16.75%也不成正比。歐巴馬從2010年開始推動國際金融組織的改革，迄今仍未獲國會支持，間接導致美國在盟邦心中的信用大打折扣。
美國目前既無法提升新興經濟體在國際金融組織的角色和地位，又反對ADB增資，何不考慮加入AIIB，一方面能敦促現存國際金融組織與AIIB緊密合作，另一方面也試著邀請中國加入《跨太平洋夥伴關係協定》的談判，共同建立出國際金融的新規範。
英國承諾會敦促AIIB制定高標準的營運規範，多次期望中國扮演負責任大國角色的美國，更不宜置身事外。華府與其憂心政經影響力是否受到削弱，不如參與AIIB的體制運作。美國財政部長盧傑克最近就提出警示，當中國主導的AIIB獲得美國盟邦普遍支持，亦即表示美國的國際影響力已逐漸下降。他的用心雖然是為了說服共和黨支持國際金融組織改革，但也凸顯了美國再三壓縮中國或其他新興經濟體的發言權，終將削弱美國今後塑造國際經濟規範能力的事實，美國應該有所體認。
爭取本世紀主導全球經濟與金融規範權，顯然已成為中美競逐的核心議題，中國除了倡議AIIB，去年還主導成立金磚國家開發銀行，更投資400億美元成立絲路基金。美國此刻已難阻擋中國打造新一代國際金融秩序的雄心，華府若憂心北京利用AIIB貸款獲取政治與軍事戰略利益，或許「不能打敗他，就加入他」。
就台灣而言，應該就英國戲劇性表態加入AIIB事件，體認中國崛起已帶動全球秩序重組的事實，AIIB的成立與「一帶一路」大戰略（歐亞絲綢經濟帶與21世紀海上絲綢之路）的啟動，將加速推動歐亞板塊經濟一體化的實現，全球經濟座標即將翻轉，美國必須加入，台灣更不能自外。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2015
Executive Summary: US attempts to prevent its allies from joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB, have clearly failed. Britain recently announced that it has just joined the AIIB. Germany, France, Italy, and others have declared their support. Australia, South Korea, and others are expected to follow suit. How will the AIIB work? That has yet to be specified. Washington has suffered a diplomatic setback. Beijing has scored a victory in Sino-US strategic wrangling.
Full Text Below:
US attempts to prevent its allies from joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB, have clearly failed. Britain recently announced that it has just joined the AIIB. Germany, France, Italy, and others have declared their support. Australia, South Korea, and others are expected to follow suit. How will the AIIB work? That has yet to be specified. Washington has suffered a diplomatic setback. Beijing has scored a victory in Sino-US strategic wrangling.
British support for the AIIB is not about choosing between the United States and Mainland China. It is about national interests. It seeks opportunities for economic growth and investment in Asia. The US has criticized Britain for "accommodating" Mainland China. Instead, it merely demonstrated its own narrow-mindedness. It merely demonstrated that it lacked the generosity of spirit befitting a great nation. Washington cast aspersions on AIIB governance and operating standards. It implied that a Beijing led AIIB would disregard international lending principles and eventually become Mainland China's diplomatic and political tool.
Actually, the United States is worried that the AIIB will weaken the monopoly over international financial organizations the US has enjoyed since the end of World War II, and its unrestricted ability to print money. Takehiko Nakao, president of the Japanese Asian Development Bank (ADB), opposed the AIIB, on grounds that the US-led postwar norms of international finance must remain unchanged.
US attempts to prevent other nations from joining the AIIB were a serious strategic miscalculation. The AIIB is designed to meet Asian countries' need for large investments in energy, electricity, transportation, telecommunications, and other infrastructure. It will promote regional interoperability, and accelerate regional economic growth. The statutory requirement for AIIB capital is 100 billion USD. The founding members have decided that member nation rights and shares will be apportioned according to GDP. As the world's second largest economy, Mainland China plans to invest 50 billion USD. Naturally it will have the largest number of shares. But that does not mean Beijing can do whatever it wants.
Washington's resistance to the AIIB confirms that its Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy was aimed at containing Mainland China. Its alleged desire for “Asian regional peace, stability and prosperity" was mere lip service. The result of obdurate US unilateralism, will probably only further alienate Asian countries.
Beijing has repeatedly stressed that the AIIB is an open, inclusive, accountable, transparent, and equitable multilateral development institution. Its governance structure and operating policies will draw on existing international financial organizations, and strive to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency. Mainland China welcomes countries outside Asia as founding members of the AIIB. It wants broad outside AIIB representation, to create a win-win situation in both Asia and Europe.
Mainland China's GDP accounts for 16% of total global GDP. But in the World Bank, it has only 4.87% of the voting rights, far less than the United States, with 16.28% of the voting rights. It has 3.81% of the voting rights in the IMF, while the United States has a disproportionate 16.75%. In 2010, Obama began promoting international financial organization reform. But so far it has not received Congressional support. This has led to a major loss of trust among US allies.
The United States is unable to raise the status of emerging economies in international financial organizations. It also objects to increases in ADB capital. So why not join the AIIB? On the one hand, it could encourage existing international financial organizations to work closely with the AIIB. On the other hand, it could invite Mainland China to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and jointly establish new norms for international finance.
Britain will urge the AIIB to set high standards for its operational procedures. Britain has repeatedly urged the United States not to boycott the AIIB. It reminded the US of its hope that Mainland China would become a responsible major power. If Washington is worried about its waning political and economic influence, it would be wise to join the AIIB. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently warned that when the Mainland China led AIIB gains general support from US allies, it means America's international influence has declined. Lew's intention was to persuade Republicans to support international financial organization reform. But it also highlighted repeated US attempts to silence Mainland China and other emerging economies. This will eventually weaken the ability of the US to shape international economic standards. This is something the United States must consider.
Fighting for the right to lead global economic and financial regulation during this century, has apparently become one of America's core issues. Mainland China has promoted the AIIB. Last year it led the establishment of the BRICS Development Bank, and invested over 40 billion USD in the Silk Road. America is going to find it difficult to stop the Mainland Chinese from building a new generation international financial order. Washington is worried that Beijing will use AIIB loans to gain political and military strategic advantage. It may conclude that "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
The British joined the AIIB in a dramatic fashion. It realized that the rise of China has led to a reshuffling of the global order. The establishment of the AIIB and "one belt, one road" grand strategy, (Eurasian Economic silk belt and the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st century) will accelerate the economic integration of Eurasia. The global economy is about to be overtur turned on its head. Washington must join. Taipei can hardly remain outside.
美應加入亞投行 我更不能自外
2015年03月23日 中國時報
美國反對其盟邦加入「亞洲基礎設施投資銀行」（AIIB）的政策，儼然已經失敗。英國日前宣布加入AIIB，德國、法國、義大利等隨後表態支持，一般預期澳洲與南韓等國也會陸續跟進。AIIB運作方案尚未具體，華府外交先行受挫，北京則在中美戰略競逐中扳回一城。
英國支持AIIB，並非在中美兩強間選邊站，只是著眼國家利益，為自身與亞洲共創經濟成長與投資的機會。美國批評英國「遷就」中國，反顯出自身缺乏大國的胸襟與氣度。表面上，華府否定AIIB的治理能力與制定低標準的運作規範，質疑北京主導的AIIB恐無視國際貸款原則，最終淪為中國外交與政治工具。
實際上，美國的不安是憂慮AIIB將削弱美國自二次大戰結束後長期在國際金融組織的壟斷性影響力，讓美國擁有無限制的印鈔權。「亞洲開發銀行」（ADB）日籍總裁中尾武彥表明反對AIIB成立，理由就是不想改變戰後美國主導的既定國際金融規範。
美國反對他國加入AIIB，犯了嚴重的戰略誤判。AIIB旨在協助亞洲國家滿足能源、電力、交通、電信等基礎設施所需求的龐大投資金額，進而促進區域互聯互通，加速區域經濟發展。AIIB的法定資本為千億美元，創始成員國決議以國內生產總值（GDP）衡量權力比重與股份配額，身為全球第二大經濟體的中國計畫投入500億美元，自然持有最多股份，但不代表北京可為所欲為。
華府抵制AIIB只印證了亞太再平衡戰略意在圍堵中國，凸顯「樂見亞洲地區和平、穩定、繁榮」只淪於口惠。美國執意孤行的結果，恐難避免與亞洲國家的關係漸行漸遠。
北京曾多次強調，AIIB屬開放、包容、負責、透明與公平的多邊開發機構，未來的治理架構與營運政策會借鏡現有國際金融組織，力求降低成本及提高營運效能。中國表態歡迎亞洲以外國家成為AIIB的創始成員，除了想體現AIIB的廣泛代表性外，主要還是營造亞歐互助共贏的局面。
中國的GDP已占全球總量的16%，在世界銀行卻僅擁有4.87%的投票權，遠低於美國的16.28%，在國際貨幣基金組織的3.81%投票權，與美國的16.75%也不成正比。歐巴馬從2010年開始推動國際金融組織的改革，迄今仍未獲國會支持，間接導致美國在盟邦心中的信用大打折扣。
美國目前既無法提升新興經濟體在國際金融組織的角色和地位，又反對ADB增資，何不考慮加入AIIB，一方面能敦促現存國際金融組織與AIIB緊密合作，另一方面也試著邀請中國加入《跨太平洋夥伴關係協定》的談判，共同建立出國際金融的新規範。
英國承諾會敦促AIIB制定高標準的營運規範，多次期望中國扮演負責任大國角色的美國，更不宜置身事外。華府與其憂心政經影響力是否受到削弱，不如參與AIIB的體制運作。美國財政部長盧傑克最近就提出警示，當中國主導的AIIB獲得美國盟邦普遍支持，亦即表示美國的國際影響力已逐漸下降。他的用心雖然是為了說服共和黨支持國際金融組織改革，但也凸顯了美國再三壓縮中國或其他新興經濟體的發言權，終將削弱美國今後塑造國際經濟規範能力的事實，美國應該有所體認。
爭取本世紀主導全球經濟與金融規範權，顯然已成為中美競逐的核心議題，中國除了倡議AIIB，去年還主導成立金磚國家開發銀行，更投資400億美元成立絲路基金。美國此刻已難阻擋中國打造新一代國際金融秩序的雄心，華府若憂心北京利用AIIB貸款獲取政治與軍事戰略利益，或許「不能打敗他，就加入他」。
就台灣而言，應該就英國戲劇性表態加入AIIB事件，體認中國崛起已帶動全球秩序重組的事實，AIIB的成立與「一帶一路」大戰略（歐亞絲綢經濟帶與21世紀海上絲綢之路）的啟動，將加速推動歐亞板塊經濟一體化的實現，全球經濟座標即將翻轉，美國必須加入，台灣更不能自外。
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Impetuous Mobs and Indolent Politicians Cannot Move a Nation
Impetuous Mobs and Indolent Politicians Cannot Move a Nation
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement revealed the passion of youth. They issued an idealistic challenge to political realism. For that they deserve recognition. But political movements are no substitute for national governance. Simple slogans cannot resolve Taiwan's complex problems. The Sunflower Student Movement touted itself as "citizen politics". It challenged democratic norms. But social movements are no substitute for normally functioning political mechanisms. This is reality.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement revealed the passion of youth. They issued an idealistic challenge to political realism. For that they deserve recognition. But political movements are no substitute for national governance. Simple slogans cannot resolve Taiwan's complex problems. The Sunflower Student Movement touted itself as "citizen politics". It challenged democratic norms. But social movements are no substitute for normally functioning political mechanisms. This is reality.
The 3/18 student movement conveyed a warning. It revealed widespread dissatisfaction among the younger generation. It also revealed a bigger problem, the vulnerability of Taiwan's democracy. The machinery of state could not withstand the impact of a group of students. It was instantly stunned and paralyzed. Why? Not because the students and mobs were tough or ferocious. But because the entire political system was rigid and incompetent. The feeble Ma administration bore the brunt of the impact. By contrast, legislative indolence was ignored, and DPP opportunism was rewarded. This is a truly shocking irony.
In any democracy, the occupation of its legislature is taboo. The students waved banners in the name of “the people". But can they sweep aside members of the legislature elected by 10 million people? Alas, during the student movement, these legislators were the first to jump ship, and allow students to occupy the legislature for over 20 days without voicing objections. No government or opposition legislators gave a whit about our system of representation. The Legislative Yuan is supposed to defend the dignity, autonomy, and sanctity of the legislature. But the only thing on Wang Jin-pyng's mind was how to exploit the student movement to embarrass the Ma administration. Wang went so far as to personally aid and abet the students. Taiwan has undergone over 20 years of democratization. Yet private scores are still settled by public means. This is the ugly reality behind the Sunflower Student Movement.
The student movement also revealed the ugly reality behind the two major parties, that the Emperor has no clothes. Political parties are ostensibly "quasi-constitutional authorities". They are the channels through which the people make themselves heard. They purportedly "shape the will of the people" and "catalyze the national will”. But in recent years, the KMT and DPP have consistently diluted the will of the people, and even divided the national will.
The KMT has long been inept at rhetoric. It has also been inept at rallying support. Last year, critics attacked the STA and other cross-Strait policies. The Ma government failed to advance a strong macro level defense. It could not refute arguments that cross-Strait political and business groups were monopolizing the benefits of cross-Strait exchanges. Worse still, when students occupied the Legislative Yuan, the executive branch sat on the sidelines, watching as the situation deteriorated. It had no idea how to respond to the demands of the community. As a result, Ma administration impotence during the student movement led directly to its nine in one election debacle. The KMT's cross-strait policy has been skinned alive. It has been reduced to passivity on domestic policy, and unable to take positive action.
Whether the Kuomintang wins or loses is a small matter. What matters is that government wheel-spinning is highly detrimental to national prosperity. The Ma government failed to set a new direction for the nation during the "post-Chen era". If failed to summon support for a new political and economic vision. It clung to "post-Lee era" thinking. It failed seize the opportunity to change the nation's direction. This amounted to a dereliction of duty. Over the past two years, one social movement has followed another. On the surface, it would appear that certain social forces are asserting themselves. In fact, social movements are tools of political manipulation. They may have taught the ruling KMT a painful lesson. But government paralysis squanders the people's time, energy, and opportunities.
Consider the DPP. On the surface it benefited enormously from the Sunflower Student Movement. It is now much closer to a return to power. But the student movement is also an albatross around the DPP's neck. One. Most people know that during the 3/18 student movement, the DPP played the role of demagogue and profiteer, but did little actual work. Therefore its victory in the nine in one elections was hollow. Two. The Sunflower Student Movement robbed the DPP of its initiative. It no longer has an independent and proactive policy. The DPP knows it must alter its cross-Strait policy. But the Sunflower Student Movement has forced it to revert to the past, revealing its flagrant opportunism. Three. The DPP enjoys the support of social movements. It can lash out against the Kuomintang on certain issues. But the DPP must convince the public that it has the ability to govern. It must formulate an overall framework for national policy. The DPP may have strategies, but it lacks policies. It cannot withstand scrutiny. That is why DPP poll numbers have declined recently.
The 3/18 student movement was a powerful citizens movement. On its first anniversary, “the usual suspects” have returned to the scene of the crime, the Legislative Yuan. They are attempting to claim credit for the movement. Even more alarmingly, the ruling party remains in shock, and the opposition party wallows in Schadenfreude. The public must realize that the student movement may have shown the way. But that is no substitute for national governance. Otherwise impetuous mobs and indolent politicians will leave Taiwan perplexed and in chaos. If so, what will become of the next generation?
躁動群眾與怠惰政客推不動一個國家
2015-03-20聯合報
太陽花學運表現了年輕人的熱血，他們向現實政治挑戰的理想也值得肯定；但必須承認：一場運動不可能替代國政治理，簡單的口號也不可能解決台灣面臨的諸多問題。太陽花學運標舉「公民政治」，旨在挑戰常態的民主過程，然而社運無法取代常態的政治機器運作，這是必須認清的現實。
三一八學運所傳達的警訊，除了年輕世代的不滿，更大的問題是台灣民主體質的脆弱。龐大的國家機器運作，禁不起一批學生的衝擊，瞬間即陷入癱瘓，讓人瞠目結舌；究其原因，其實不是學生和群眾多麼強悍凶猛，而是整個政治體制僵化無能。其中，馬政府的懦弱首當其衝，受到了激烈撞擊；然而，立法院的怠惰卻不曾受檢討，而民進黨的投機反而受到了獎賞，實在是頗為怵目的弔詭。
在任何民主國家，占領國會都是大忌，因為這群學生雖打著「人民」的旗號，無論如何皆不能否定全國一千多萬票所選出來的人民代表。但在這場學運中，立法院卻率先棄守，讓學生占領廿多天而不以為意，可見朝野立委對於代議體制毫無珍惜之心。尤其立法院長，本應嚴正捍衛國會的尊嚴、自主與不可侵犯，但王金平的全部心思卻放在如何利用學運給馬政府難堪，最後甚至自己親自上場做球給學生，拿法案作為交易。台灣廿多年的民主化，仍無法擺脫政治體制與私人恩怨的夾纏，這是太陽花學運牽動的醜陋現實！
除了立法院，學運也揭穿了兩大政黨的「國王新衣」真相。政黨號稱「準憲政機關」，是民主政治將「人民」過渡至「人民主治」的關鍵渠道，負有「形塑公共意志」及「催化國民意志」的責任。然而，近年國、民兩黨的表現，卻是不斷在稀釋公共意志，甚至是在撕裂及分化國民意志。
國民黨一向拙於論述，也拙於凝聚支持者的熱情。去年在服貿等兩岸政策面臨外界質疑時，馬政府始終無法從宏觀大局提出有力的辯論；對所謂「兩岸政商集團」壟斷兩岸交流紅利的說法，亦無力具體反駁。更致命的是，當發生學生占領立院這樣的重大事件，行政部門卻觀望躊躇，坐視情勢惡化，甚至不知如何訴求社會大眾的支持。也因此，在學運中的挨打局面直接導致了九合一選舉的大敗，國民黨的兩岸政策已體無完膚，內政上也淪為看守，難再有積極作為。
國民黨一黨的得失輸贏事小，問題在，政局的空轉對整個國家的發展極為不利。馬政府沒有在「後扁時代」建立完整的國家方向與願景，沒有召喚出支持的力量為台灣政治經濟開拓新的願景，卻仍抱持「後李」時代的思維在為國家掌舵，嚴重失去了時空轉換的方向感，這是它的失職。近兩年社運抗爭一波接一波，表面上看是社會力勃發；然而社運在無法擺脫政治操弄下，雖然嚴重「教訓」了執政黨，國政卻寸步難行，浪費的其實是全體台灣人的時光、能量和機遇。
再看民進黨，表面上它雖大大受益於太陽花學運，距離取得執政權又跨進一大步；但不可否認，這場學運也對民進黨構成了很大的負擔。首先，多數民眾都清楚，民進黨在三一八事件中雖扮演了「煽動者」與「收割者」的角色，但它其實沒有貢獻什麼心力耕耘，它在九合一贏得很「虛」。其次，面對太陽花，民進黨喪失了政策上的自主與主動。民進黨原已意識到必須調整兩岸政策，但在太陽花風潮下，它又被迫退回保守立場，暴露其機會主義作風。第三，民進黨藉由與社運團體的應和，雖能在特定議題上給國民黨重擊，但民進黨要說服人民它具有執政能力，仍必須就總體國政提出架構性的主張和思維。這點，民進黨只有「戰略」沒有「政策」的本質，恐怕禁不起檢驗；民進黨最近的民調下滑，原因也在此。
三一八事件誠是場轟轟烈烈的公民運動，但從一周年當天重返立院現場的隊伍，不難看出是誰想把運動的成果據為己有。更值得警惕的是，執政黨的驚魂未定也好，在野黨的私心竊喜也罷，人們都必須意識到學運可以牽引社會腳步，卻不能替代國家治理。否則，浮躁的群眾加上怠惰的政客，台灣將一直陷於茫然與脫序的狀態。果若如此，下一代的前途又在哪裡？
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 20, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement revealed the passion of youth. They issued an idealistic challenge to political realism. For that they deserve recognition. But political movements are no substitute for national governance. Simple slogans cannot resolve Taiwan's complex problems. The Sunflower Student Movement touted itself as "citizen politics". It challenged democratic norms. But social movements are no substitute for normally functioning political mechanisms. This is reality.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement revealed the passion of youth. They issued an idealistic challenge to political realism. For that they deserve recognition. But political movements are no substitute for national governance. Simple slogans cannot resolve Taiwan's complex problems. The Sunflower Student Movement touted itself as "citizen politics". It challenged democratic norms. But social movements are no substitute for normally functioning political mechanisms. This is reality.
The 3/18 student movement conveyed a warning. It revealed widespread dissatisfaction among the younger generation. It also revealed a bigger problem, the vulnerability of Taiwan's democracy. The machinery of state could not withstand the impact of a group of students. It was instantly stunned and paralyzed. Why? Not because the students and mobs were tough or ferocious. But because the entire political system was rigid and incompetent. The feeble Ma administration bore the brunt of the impact. By contrast, legislative indolence was ignored, and DPP opportunism was rewarded. This is a truly shocking irony.
In any democracy, the occupation of its legislature is taboo. The students waved banners in the name of “the people". But can they sweep aside members of the legislature elected by 10 million people? Alas, during the student movement, these legislators were the first to jump ship, and allow students to occupy the legislature for over 20 days without voicing objections. No government or opposition legislators gave a whit about our system of representation. The Legislative Yuan is supposed to defend the dignity, autonomy, and sanctity of the legislature. But the only thing on Wang Jin-pyng's mind was how to exploit the student movement to embarrass the Ma administration. Wang went so far as to personally aid and abet the students. Taiwan has undergone over 20 years of democratization. Yet private scores are still settled by public means. This is the ugly reality behind the Sunflower Student Movement.
The student movement also revealed the ugly reality behind the two major parties, that the Emperor has no clothes. Political parties are ostensibly "quasi-constitutional authorities". They are the channels through which the people make themselves heard. They purportedly "shape the will of the people" and "catalyze the national will”. But in recent years, the KMT and DPP have consistently diluted the will of the people, and even divided the national will.
The KMT has long been inept at rhetoric. It has also been inept at rallying support. Last year, critics attacked the STA and other cross-Strait policies. The Ma government failed to advance a strong macro level defense. It could not refute arguments that cross-Strait political and business groups were monopolizing the benefits of cross-Strait exchanges. Worse still, when students occupied the Legislative Yuan, the executive branch sat on the sidelines, watching as the situation deteriorated. It had no idea how to respond to the demands of the community. As a result, Ma administration impotence during the student movement led directly to its nine in one election debacle. The KMT's cross-strait policy has been skinned alive. It has been reduced to passivity on domestic policy, and unable to take positive action.
Whether the Kuomintang wins or loses is a small matter. What matters is that government wheel-spinning is highly detrimental to national prosperity. The Ma government failed to set a new direction for the nation during the "post-Chen era". If failed to summon support for a new political and economic vision. It clung to "post-Lee era" thinking. It failed seize the opportunity to change the nation's direction. This amounted to a dereliction of duty. Over the past two years, one social movement has followed another. On the surface, it would appear that certain social forces are asserting themselves. In fact, social movements are tools of political manipulation. They may have taught the ruling KMT a painful lesson. But government paralysis squanders the people's time, energy, and opportunities.
Consider the DPP. On the surface it benefited enormously from the Sunflower Student Movement. It is now much closer to a return to power. But the student movement is also an albatross around the DPP's neck. One. Most people know that during the 3/18 student movement, the DPP played the role of demagogue and profiteer, but did little actual work. Therefore its victory in the nine in one elections was hollow. Two. The Sunflower Student Movement robbed the DPP of its initiative. It no longer has an independent and proactive policy. The DPP knows it must alter its cross-Strait policy. But the Sunflower Student Movement has forced it to revert to the past, revealing its flagrant opportunism. Three. The DPP enjoys the support of social movements. It can lash out against the Kuomintang on certain issues. But the DPP must convince the public that it has the ability to govern. It must formulate an overall framework for national policy. The DPP may have strategies, but it lacks policies. It cannot withstand scrutiny. That is why DPP poll numbers have declined recently.
The 3/18 student movement was a powerful citizens movement. On its first anniversary, “the usual suspects” have returned to the scene of the crime, the Legislative Yuan. They are attempting to claim credit for the movement. Even more alarmingly, the ruling party remains in shock, and the opposition party wallows in Schadenfreude. The public must realize that the student movement may have shown the way. But that is no substitute for national governance. Otherwise impetuous mobs and indolent politicians will leave Taiwan perplexed and in chaos. If so, what will become of the next generation?
躁動群眾與怠惰政客推不動一個國家
2015-03-20聯合報
太陽花學運表現了年輕人的熱血，他們向現實政治挑戰的理想也值得肯定；但必須承認：一場運動不可能替代國政治理，簡單的口號也不可能解決台灣面臨的諸多問題。太陽花學運標舉「公民政治」，旨在挑戰常態的民主過程，然而社運無法取代常態的政治機器運作，這是必須認清的現實。
三一八學運所傳達的警訊，除了年輕世代的不滿，更大的問題是台灣民主體質的脆弱。龐大的國家機器運作，禁不起一批學生的衝擊，瞬間即陷入癱瘓，讓人瞠目結舌；究其原因，其實不是學生和群眾多麼強悍凶猛，而是整個政治體制僵化無能。其中，馬政府的懦弱首當其衝，受到了激烈撞擊；然而，立法院的怠惰卻不曾受檢討，而民進黨的投機反而受到了獎賞，實在是頗為怵目的弔詭。
在任何民主國家，占領國會都是大忌，因為這群學生雖打著「人民」的旗號，無論如何皆不能否定全國一千多萬票所選出來的人民代表。但在這場學運中，立法院卻率先棄守，讓學生占領廿多天而不以為意，可見朝野立委對於代議體制毫無珍惜之心。尤其立法院長，本應嚴正捍衛國會的尊嚴、自主與不可侵犯，但王金平的全部心思卻放在如何利用學運給馬政府難堪，最後甚至自己親自上場做球給學生，拿法案作為交易。台灣廿多年的民主化，仍無法擺脫政治體制與私人恩怨的夾纏，這是太陽花學運牽動的醜陋現實！
除了立法院，學運也揭穿了兩大政黨的「國王新衣」真相。政黨號稱「準憲政機關」，是民主政治將「人民」過渡至「人民主治」的關鍵渠道，負有「形塑公共意志」及「催化國民意志」的責任。然而，近年國、民兩黨的表現，卻是不斷在稀釋公共意志，甚至是在撕裂及分化國民意志。
國民黨一向拙於論述，也拙於凝聚支持者的熱情。去年在服貿等兩岸政策面臨外界質疑時，馬政府始終無法從宏觀大局提出有力的辯論；對所謂「兩岸政商集團」壟斷兩岸交流紅利的說法，亦無力具體反駁。更致命的是，當發生學生占領立院這樣的重大事件，行政部門卻觀望躊躇，坐視情勢惡化，甚至不知如何訴求社會大眾的支持。也因此，在學運中的挨打局面直接導致了九合一選舉的大敗，國民黨的兩岸政策已體無完膚，內政上也淪為看守，難再有積極作為。
國民黨一黨的得失輸贏事小，問題在，政局的空轉對整個國家的發展極為不利。馬政府沒有在「後扁時代」建立完整的國家方向與願景，沒有召喚出支持的力量為台灣政治經濟開拓新的願景，卻仍抱持「後李」時代的思維在為國家掌舵，嚴重失去了時空轉換的方向感，這是它的失職。近兩年社運抗爭一波接一波，表面上看是社會力勃發；然而社運在無法擺脫政治操弄下，雖然嚴重「教訓」了執政黨，國政卻寸步難行，浪費的其實是全體台灣人的時光、能量和機遇。
再看民進黨，表面上它雖大大受益於太陽花學運，距離取得執政權又跨進一大步；但不可否認，這場學運也對民進黨構成了很大的負擔。首先，多數民眾都清楚，民進黨在三一八事件中雖扮演了「煽動者」與「收割者」的角色，但它其實沒有貢獻什麼心力耕耘，它在九合一贏得很「虛」。其次，面對太陽花，民進黨喪失了政策上的自主與主動。民進黨原已意識到必須調整兩岸政策，但在太陽花風潮下，它又被迫退回保守立場，暴露其機會主義作風。第三，民進黨藉由與社運團體的應和，雖能在特定議題上給國民黨重擊，但民進黨要說服人民它具有執政能力，仍必須就總體國政提出架構性的主張和思維。這點，民進黨只有「戰略」沒有「政策」的本質，恐怕禁不起檢驗；民進黨最近的民調下滑，原因也在此。
三一八事件誠是場轟轟烈烈的公民運動，但從一周年當天重返立院現場的隊伍，不難看出是誰想把運動的成果據為己有。更值得警惕的是，執政黨的驚魂未定也好，在野黨的私心竊喜也罷，人們都必須意識到學運可以牽引社會腳步，卻不能替代國家治理。否則，浮躁的群眾加上怠惰的政客，台灣將一直陷於茫然與脫序的狀態。果若如此，下一代的前途又在哪裡？
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Sunflower Countercurrent: Reasonable Questions, Wrong Answers
Sunflower Countercurrent: Reasonable Questions, Wrong Answers
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement exposed an undercurrent of intense anger among Taiwan youth. Alas, these youths have proposed the wrong answers for the right questions.
The Sunflower Student Movement was a reflection of social discontent. This is understandable. One. This generation feels deprived, as a result of social inequality, high prices, low wages, poor education, and job shortages. Two. This generation is concerned about cross-Strait relations, including the distribution of economic benefits, violations of legal process, the weakening of Taiwan centrism, cross-Strait power imbalances, and the prospect of Taiwan being swallowed up by the Mainland. Such concerns are understandable and reasonable.
Unfortunately the answers Sunflower Student Movement leaders have offered for these problems are the wrong ones. One. They fail to understand the distinction between revolution and democracy. Key players in the Sunflower Student Movement concede that they made revolutionary demands, and called for the government to be overthrown. But they hardly had grounds to occupy the Legislative Yuan. By doing so, they forfeited any democratic legitimacy. Two. They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and Taiwan interests. First they demanded a "line item consideration of STA regulations". They then rejected the STA altogether. The hidden agenda behind their opposition to the MTA and FPEZs was Taiwan independence. But does Taiwan independence actually equate with Taiwan interests? Do Taiwan interests equate with Taiwan independence? Three. They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and economic policy. The Sunflower Student Movement is attempting to solve economic problems through Taiwan independence. They have mistakenly attributed Taiwan's economic problems to closer cross-Strait relations. Therefore they demand the suppression of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, and question globalization. But can Taiwan independence really solve Taiwan's economic problems? Won't Taiwan independence make Taiwan even more marginalized and economically isolated?
Here is something especially worth pondering. Many older generation DPP leaders now suggest forsaking Taiwan independence altogether. They have even urged freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. and revising the text of the "Resolution on the Republic of China". Yet this current generation of Sunflower Student Movement leaders have generated a new wave of Taiwan independence consciousness. Betrand Russell said that every individual's political awareness begins with the Stone Age. Over the past 30 years green camp elders have exhausted Taiwan independence. They have come to understand the futility of Taiwan independence. They have begun revising their stand on Taiwan independence. They have even begun jettisoning Taiwan independence. Now however, Sunflower Student Movement Taiwan independence “newbies” have dragged Taiwan independence thought back to the Stone Age. The DPP has become a captive of the Sunflower Student Movement. Is has been taken hostage by this resurgence of Taiwan independence. This shocking countercurrent has set the movement back three decades.
Tsai Ing-wen recently committed two fallacies. One. She said that “for the younger generation, Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient". But this new generation Taiwan independence thinking is merely the product of protracted viewing of the world in green camp/DPP fun house mirrors. It is the result of distortions to Taiwan history and Republic of China history. It is the result of decades of indoctrination. It is not natural, but artificial. For example, Taiwan independence zealots claim that "The Republic of China is a foreign regime". What is the ratio of “natural” and “artificial” behind that claim? Two. Tsai Ing-wen said that if the DPP wins by a large enough margin, [Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP. In fact, Xi Jinping recently said that if the 1992 consensus is destroyed "The foundation will be undermined and the ground will shake". The Sunflower Student Movement's Stone Age Taiwan independence thinking is the product of its inexperience and naivete. Tsai Ing-wen's assertion that "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient” and that “[Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP" are sheer folly. Over the past three decades. Taiwan independence zealots have learned painful lessons about the state of the world and the state of the nation. Do they actually intend to turn the clock back 30 years, merely to pander to the Sunflower Student Movement?
In fact, Taiwan independence is not a “natural ingredient". It is largely an artificial construct. Otherwise the DPP would never have proposed that the Taiwan independence party platform be frozen. Taiwan must deal with external factors such as the challenges of globalization and the threat of "the ground shaking". It is hardly assured that the Mainland will “change to accommodate the DPP ". This matter calls for a wise and rational response.
Tsai Ing-wen rejoices because she thinks "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredients" of the Sunflower Student Movement. But in reality, the DPP should be more worried about these newly-minted Taiwan independence zealots, replete with Stone Age political mindsets. Tsai Ing-wen assumes that "[Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP". But in reality the DPP should be worried that the "ground will shake". Tsai Ing-wen's two aforementioned fallacies make no distinction between reality and falsehood, between safety and danger. For someone with her mindset to return to power, is dangerous indeed.
Tsai Ing-wen sees Taiwan independence as a natural ingredient. This is tantamount to saying that she can only accept it and cannot change it. This amounts to fastening a Taiwan independence leash around her own neck. This is ostrich head in the sand behaviour. Taiwan independence could precipitate political and economic disaster. Tsai Ing-wen must bear political responsibility in the event she returns to power. Tsai Ing-wen is publicly pandering to Taiwan independence zealots. But she cannot govern the nation by means of Taiwan independence. If these contradictions precipitate catastrophe, upon Tsai Ing-wen, upon the DPP, and upon all Taiwan, who will apologize then?
The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence zealots may delight in the Sunflower Student Movement's primitive violence. They may believe they have found a Taiwan independence based solution for the economic and political problems confronting Taiwan. But they fail to realize these are mere relics of the Stone Age. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.
太陽花逆流：問題合理 答案錯誤
2015-03-19聯合報
太陽花事件揭露了台灣青年族群的強烈憤懣，卻為相關問題提供了一個錯誤的解答。
太陽花所反映的社會不滿情緒，誠然是可以理解的。一、世代剝奪：社會貧富不均、高房價、低薪資、對教育成果不滿意、就業困難……。二、對兩岸關係的疑慮：影響經濟利益分配、程序正義不周全、台灣主體性的流失、兩岸均勢失衡造成台灣可能被併吞的危機……。這些疑慮皆是可以理解的，亦是合理的。
但是，太陽花事件為這些問題提供的解答卻是錯誤的。一、革命與民主的錯亂：太陽花要角皆不否認其「革命性」及「推翻政府」的訴求；但占領立院的革命理由不足，而民主的倫理已失。二、台獨與台灣利益的錯亂：運動以主張「逐條審議服貿條例」之程序正義始，卻以推翻服貿協議、反對貨貿協議及抵制自由經濟示範區收尾，亦即是台獨立場的圖窮匕現。但台獨是否等於台灣利益？或台灣利益是否即是台獨？三、台獨與經濟政策的錯亂：太陽花欲以台獨路線來解決台灣的經濟難題，並把台灣經濟難題歸因於漸趨密切的兩岸關係；因此主張抑制兩岸經貿交流，並質疑全球化。但台獨能解決台灣的經濟難題嗎？或台獨反而將使台灣邊緣化而經濟更陷困境？
尤其值得深思的是：正當民進黨內的許多老一輩人物開始嘗試修正台獨路線，甚至主張「凍結《台獨黨綱》」及「改提《中華民國決議文》」之際，太陽花新世代竟然掀起了台獨意識的大回潮。西哲羅素嘗言：「每一個人的政治認知皆是從石器時代開始。」當綠營許多老輩人物三十多年來「用盡了台獨／認識了台獨」，而開始考慮「修正台獨／甩掉台獨」，竟被那些初嘗台獨思想的太陽花人物一舉又拖回到台獨的「石器時代」。而今民進黨已成太陽花的俘虜，被挾持著返回台獨，這是大約倒退三十年的大逆流，令人怵目驚心。
蔡英文最近有兩大謬論。一、她說：台獨已是「年輕世代的天然成分」。但是，台灣新世代的台獨思維，卻是長期在綠營及民進黨的哈哈鏡下，對台灣史及中華民國內涵的變造、扭曲及汙蔑中教育而成的。它不是「天然」，而是「人造」。比如說，台獨稱「中華民國是外來政權」，其中「天然／人造」的比例如何？二、蔡英文說：民進黨若選得好，中國也會向民進黨調整。但習近平卻說，如果九二共識被破壞，將是「基礎不牢／地動山搖」。可見，太陽花若沉溺台獨石器時代猶可說是涉世未深，但蔡英文竟也發表「台獨是天然成分／中國會向民進黨調整」的謬論，卻是匪夷所思。難道這三十年來台獨在世局及國情中的歷練，皆因一次太陽花又退回到三十年前？
事實上，台獨不是「天然成分」，其大部分皆是出自「人為構造」，否則民進黨中即不會出現「凍結台獨黨綱」的思維；而台灣的外在因素，如全球化的挑戰及「地動山搖」的威脅，也不見得會「向民進黨調整」，而須要以智慧及理性來因應。
蔡英文似以太陽花的「台獨天然成分」為喜，實則民進黨當以面對這群石器時代的新台獨為憂；蔡英文似以「中國會向民進黨調整」為傲，實則民進黨更當以「地動山搖」為慮。前述蔡英文的兩大謬論，幾至不識真偽、不辨吉凶的地步，以此心態而欲重返執政，豈非奔車朽索？
蔡英文將台獨視作天然成分，不啻明示她將只能接受之而無法改變之，這不啻在自己的脖子上套上台獨枷鎖，十足是一尾蓋頭鰻；而台獨方案可能面對的政經災難後果，則是蔡若重返執政必須承負的政治責任。蔡英文公開籠絡諂媚台獨，卻顯然不能以台獨為治國方案；其中的矛盾，若陷蔡英文、民進黨及整個台灣於「地動山搖」，試問將伊於胡底？
太陽花反映的民心不滿及國政疑慮皆是可理解的，但解決台灣世代剝奪、經濟困境、全球化挑戰及兩岸競合的方案絕非台獨路線。野人獻曝的太陽花或許猶可沾沾自喜於為台灣找到了台獨的政經方案，卻渾然不知這是石器時代的遺物；但蔡英文與民進黨不可不識其真偽吉凶，更不可隨波逐流，自欺欺人。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.
Full Text Below:
The Sunflower Student Movement exposed an undercurrent of intense anger among Taiwan youth. Alas, these youths have proposed the wrong answers for the right questions.
The Sunflower Student Movement was a reflection of social discontent. This is understandable. One. This generation feels deprived, as a result of social inequality, high prices, low wages, poor education, and job shortages. Two. This generation is concerned about cross-Strait relations, including the distribution of economic benefits, violations of legal process, the weakening of Taiwan centrism, cross-Strait power imbalances, and the prospect of Taiwan being swallowed up by the Mainland. Such concerns are understandable and reasonable.
Unfortunately the answers Sunflower Student Movement leaders have offered for these problems are the wrong ones. One. They fail to understand the distinction between revolution and democracy. Key players in the Sunflower Student Movement concede that they made revolutionary demands, and called for the government to be overthrown. But they hardly had grounds to occupy the Legislative Yuan. By doing so, they forfeited any democratic legitimacy. Two. They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and Taiwan interests. First they demanded a "line item consideration of STA regulations". They then rejected the STA altogether. The hidden agenda behind their opposition to the MTA and FPEZs was Taiwan independence. But does Taiwan independence actually equate with Taiwan interests? Do Taiwan interests equate with Taiwan independence? Three. They fail to understand the distinction between Taiwan independence and economic policy. The Sunflower Student Movement is attempting to solve economic problems through Taiwan independence. They have mistakenly attributed Taiwan's economic problems to closer cross-Strait relations. Therefore they demand the suppression of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, and question globalization. But can Taiwan independence really solve Taiwan's economic problems? Won't Taiwan independence make Taiwan even more marginalized and economically isolated?
Here is something especially worth pondering. Many older generation DPP leaders now suggest forsaking Taiwan independence altogether. They have even urged freezing the Taiwan independence party platform. and revising the text of the "Resolution on the Republic of China". Yet this current generation of Sunflower Student Movement leaders have generated a new wave of Taiwan independence consciousness. Betrand Russell said that every individual's political awareness begins with the Stone Age. Over the past 30 years green camp elders have exhausted Taiwan independence. They have come to understand the futility of Taiwan independence. They have begun revising their stand on Taiwan independence. They have even begun jettisoning Taiwan independence. Now however, Sunflower Student Movement Taiwan independence “newbies” have dragged Taiwan independence thought back to the Stone Age. The DPP has become a captive of the Sunflower Student Movement. Is has been taken hostage by this resurgence of Taiwan independence. This shocking countercurrent has set the movement back three decades.
Tsai Ing-wen recently committed two fallacies. One. She said that “for the younger generation, Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient". But this new generation Taiwan independence thinking is merely the product of protracted viewing of the world in green camp/DPP fun house mirrors. It is the result of distortions to Taiwan history and Republic of China history. It is the result of decades of indoctrination. It is not natural, but artificial. For example, Taiwan independence zealots claim that "The Republic of China is a foreign regime". What is the ratio of “natural” and “artificial” behind that claim? Two. Tsai Ing-wen said that if the DPP wins by a large enough margin, [Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP. In fact, Xi Jinping recently said that if the 1992 consensus is destroyed "The foundation will be undermined and the ground will shake". The Sunflower Student Movement's Stone Age Taiwan independence thinking is the product of its inexperience and naivete. Tsai Ing-wen's assertion that "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredient” and that “[Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP" are sheer folly. Over the past three decades. Taiwan independence zealots have learned painful lessons about the state of the world and the state of the nation. Do they actually intend to turn the clock back 30 years, merely to pander to the Sunflower Student Movement?
In fact, Taiwan independence is not a “natural ingredient". It is largely an artificial construct. Otherwise the DPP would never have proposed that the Taiwan independence party platform be frozen. Taiwan must deal with external factors such as the challenges of globalization and the threat of "the ground shaking". It is hardly assured that the Mainland will “change to accommodate the DPP ". This matter calls for a wise and rational response.
Tsai Ing-wen rejoices because she thinks "Taiwan independence is a natural ingredients" of the Sunflower Student Movement. But in reality, the DPP should be more worried about these newly-minted Taiwan independence zealots, replete with Stone Age political mindsets. Tsai Ing-wen assumes that "[Mainland] China will change to accommodate the DPP". But in reality the DPP should be worried that the "ground will shake". Tsai Ing-wen's two aforementioned fallacies make no distinction between reality and falsehood, between safety and danger. For someone with her mindset to return to power, is dangerous indeed.
Tsai Ing-wen sees Taiwan independence as a natural ingredient. This is tantamount to saying that she can only accept it and cannot change it. This amounts to fastening a Taiwan independence leash around her own neck. This is ostrich head in the sand behaviour. Taiwan independence could precipitate political and economic disaster. Tsai Ing-wen must bear political responsibility in the event she returns to power. Tsai Ing-wen is publicly pandering to Taiwan independence zealots. But she cannot govern the nation by means of Taiwan independence. If these contradictions precipitate catastrophe, upon Tsai Ing-wen, upon the DPP, and upon all Taiwan, who will apologize then?
The Sunflower Student Movement reflects popular discontent and concerns over national policy. That is understandable. But problems such as generational deprivation, economic depression, globalization, and cross-Strait policy, cannot be addressed by resort to Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence zealots may delight in the Sunflower Student Movement's primitive violence. They may believe they have found a Taiwan independence based solution for the economic and political problems confronting Taiwan. But they fail to realize these are mere relics of the Stone Age. Surely Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP are still able to distinquish between truth and falsehood, between safety and danger. They must not follow the crowd, and persist in self-deception.
太陽花逆流：問題合理 答案錯誤
2015-03-19聯合報
太陽花事件揭露了台灣青年族群的強烈憤懣，卻為相關問題提供了一個錯誤的解答。
太陽花所反映的社會不滿情緒，誠然是可以理解的。一、世代剝奪：社會貧富不均、高房價、低薪資、對教育成果不滿意、就業困難……。二、對兩岸關係的疑慮：影響經濟利益分配、程序正義不周全、台灣主體性的流失、兩岸均勢失衡造成台灣可能被併吞的危機……。這些疑慮皆是可以理解的，亦是合理的。
但是，太陽花事件為這些問題提供的解答卻是錯誤的。一、革命與民主的錯亂：太陽花要角皆不否認其「革命性」及「推翻政府」的訴求；但占領立院的革命理由不足，而民主的倫理已失。二、台獨與台灣利益的錯亂：運動以主張「逐條審議服貿條例」之程序正義始，卻以推翻服貿協議、反對貨貿協議及抵制自由經濟示範區收尾，亦即是台獨立場的圖窮匕現。但台獨是否等於台灣利益？或台灣利益是否即是台獨？三、台獨與經濟政策的錯亂：太陽花欲以台獨路線來解決台灣的經濟難題，並把台灣經濟難題歸因於漸趨密切的兩岸關係；因此主張抑制兩岸經貿交流，並質疑全球化。但台獨能解決台灣的經濟難題嗎？或台獨反而將使台灣邊緣化而經濟更陷困境？
尤其值得深思的是：正當民進黨內的許多老一輩人物開始嘗試修正台獨路線，甚至主張「凍結《台獨黨綱》」及「改提《中華民國決議文》」之際，太陽花新世代竟然掀起了台獨意識的大回潮。西哲羅素嘗言：「每一個人的政治認知皆是從石器時代開始。」當綠營許多老輩人物三十多年來「用盡了台獨／認識了台獨」，而開始考慮「修正台獨／甩掉台獨」，竟被那些初嘗台獨思想的太陽花人物一舉又拖回到台獨的「石器時代」。而今民進黨已成太陽花的俘虜，被挾持著返回台獨，這是大約倒退三十年的大逆流，令人怵目驚心。
蔡英文最近有兩大謬論。一、她說：台獨已是「年輕世代的天然成分」。但是，台灣新世代的台獨思維，卻是長期在綠營及民進黨的哈哈鏡下，對台灣史及中華民國內涵的變造、扭曲及汙蔑中教育而成的。它不是「天然」，而是「人造」。比如說，台獨稱「中華民國是外來政權」，其中「天然／人造」的比例如何？二、蔡英文說：民進黨若選得好，中國也會向民進黨調整。但習近平卻說，如果九二共識被破壞，將是「基礎不牢／地動山搖」。可見，太陽花若沉溺台獨石器時代猶可說是涉世未深，但蔡英文竟也發表「台獨是天然成分／中國會向民進黨調整」的謬論，卻是匪夷所思。難道這三十年來台獨在世局及國情中的歷練，皆因一次太陽花又退回到三十年前？
事實上，台獨不是「天然成分」，其大部分皆是出自「人為構造」，否則民進黨中即不會出現「凍結台獨黨綱」的思維；而台灣的外在因素，如全球化的挑戰及「地動山搖」的威脅，也不見得會「向民進黨調整」，而須要以智慧及理性來因應。
蔡英文似以太陽花的「台獨天然成分」為喜，實則民進黨當以面對這群石器時代的新台獨為憂；蔡英文似以「中國會向民進黨調整」為傲，實則民進黨更當以「地動山搖」為慮。前述蔡英文的兩大謬論，幾至不識真偽、不辨吉凶的地步，以此心態而欲重返執政，豈非奔車朽索？
蔡英文將台獨視作天然成分，不啻明示她將只能接受之而無法改變之，這不啻在自己的脖子上套上台獨枷鎖，十足是一尾蓋頭鰻；而台獨方案可能面對的政經災難後果，則是蔡若重返執政必須承負的政治責任。蔡英文公開籠絡諂媚台獨，卻顯然不能以台獨為治國方案；其中的矛盾，若陷蔡英文、民進黨及整個台灣於「地動山搖」，試問將伊於胡底？
太陽花反映的民心不滿及國政疑慮皆是可理解的，但解決台灣世代剝奪、經濟困境、全球化挑戰及兩岸競合的方案絕非台獨路線。野人獻曝的太陽花或許猶可沾沾自喜於為台灣找到了台獨的政經方案，卻渾然不知這是石器時代的遺物；但蔡英文與民進黨不可不識其真偽吉凶，更不可隨波逐流，自欺欺人。
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
The Sunflower Student Movement: Successful Protest, Failed Evolution
The Sunflower Student Movement: Successful Protest, Failed Evolution
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2015
Executive Summary: Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.
Full Text Below:
Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.
If one considers only the force and impact of a social movement, the Sunflower Student Movement was undoubtedly a success. It attracted attention from society, and established solidarity with the public. It forced those in power to make concessions. The participants demonstrated organizational skills and the ability to make transnational connections. They enabled outsiders to see the new generation's vitality and creativity. They successfully motivated the younger generation to confront the difficulties it faces. The large turnout among younger voters during the year end election, and the government's new found respect for the cyber army, were positive developments. The student movement inspired youth in Hong Kong, and ignited the flames of the Occupy Central movement as a spillover effect.
But if one considers Taiwan's democratic evolution, the student movement was a shock to the system, one that inflicted grave damage to the rule of law on Taiwan. This "youth" and "student" social movement won public sympathy. But the occupation of the legislature crossed the line for social protest by trampling over the rule of law. It laid siege to a police precint station, and turned a deaf ear to appeals to reason. Under the guise of a moral crusade, it endangered the public through institutional paralysis. A closer look tells all. Many of those directing the student movement from behind the scenes, were members of the DPP inner circle. The students may not have felt used. But subsequent developments showed that they were. The DPP effortlessly reaped the fruits of the student movement, as evidenced by its nine in one election victory. Was this not a setback for democracy?
The 3/18 student movement was dualistic in nature, due to a combination of accidental and inevitable circumstances. At the macro level, recent youth protests around the world have all been staged events. The Sunflower Student Movement on Taiwan was of course influenced by the color revolutions in North Africa and Ukraine, and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US. Angry youths felt the need to speak out. At the micro level, the recent economic downturn led to wage stagnation. Soaring housing prices led to a new generation suffering from "relative deprivation". As a result, the STA became a fuse that ignited younger generation collective frenzy.
But comparing the 3/18 student movement to the "color revolutions" is wrong and dangerous. The nations that underwent color revolutions were all authoritarian or totalitarian regimes which have not held elections for several decades. Taiwan is different. It may be an immature democracy, but its system is sound. In any event, the mobs that occupied government buildings in protest, trampled over democracy and the rule of law. Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York were evicted on grounds that the park needed cleaning. The Sunflower Student Movement occupied the legislature for over 20 days. Wang Jin-pyng used the occupation as a means of political retaliation, because Ma Ying-jeou accused Wang of influence peddling. Otherwise the occupation would have been impossible. Mobs occupied the Legislative Yuan, then the Executive Yuan. For them, the government and authority did not exist. Had the Executive Yuan not been cleared that night, Taiwan might well have descended into chaos. Do people really wish to see the nation brought to that level?
Taiwan society has long been happy to see people stand up and fight for their rights. The general public has long been compassionate towards the disadvantaged. But the Sunflower Student Movement resorted to illegal occupations. It took advantage of student naivete to make extreme political demands. It undermined public authority and endangered social order. It made rational consideration of the issues impossible. The legislature is responsible for determining national policy. The mobs brought the legislature to a standstill. They then began debating national policy on the streets outside the legislature. The irony did not escape public notice. If people really think this is the way a democracy should operate, then Taiwan's democratization efforts over the past 20 years has been in vain.
So how should the public respond to the Sunflower Student Movement? The honest response is to seek solutions for low wages, high unemployment, and high prices inside the system. The honest response would be to consider the Executive Yuan sponsored "four methods to increase salaries" and Wen-Je Ko's proposal to build more social housing. A more hypocritical response would be to pay lip service to cyber army demands, but do nothing to resolve their predicament or make substantial improvements. The worst response possible would be to hail a few of the leaders as heroes, encourage them to continue their struggle, profit politically from their efforts, then ignore the younger generations' dilemma. Those who have participated involved in youth movements in the past, should recognize a selfish politician when they see one.
太陽花：成功的抗爭 失敗的演化
2015-03-18聯合報
去年三月十八日反服貿群眾占領立法院抗爭，至今屆滿周年。這場俗稱「太陽花學運」的事件，除在當時激盪人心，更對台灣政治、社會、經濟各方面都造成了衝擊，並導致國民黨去年底選舉的大敗。在事件周年回顧這場波瀾，我們不妨從比較冷靜而深刻的角度，來反省太陽花運動的得與失。
純就一場社會運動的能量與效果而言，太陽花學運無疑是成功的。它不僅吸引了社會的廣泛注目，它也獲取了許多民眾的聲援，並迫使執政者作出退讓。參與者在抗爭過程中展現組織整合、跨國連線的能力，讓外界看到新世代的活力與創意，也成功喚起社會對這一代青年困境的正視。這點，表現在去年底年輕世代的踴躍投票，以及政府重視「婉君」力量，都是正面的發展。甚至，這場學運也隱然鼓舞了香港青年的熱情，點燃了「占中」的火花，這是它的溢出效果。
但是，如果放在台灣民主的進程看，這場學運對於政治的演化卻是一顆意外的炸彈，對台灣好不容易建立的法治價值造成了嚴重破壞。原因是，這個以「青年」和「學生」面貌為表的社運，雖以其特殊的清純攫取了民眾的同情，但它採取的「占領國會」手段，卻踰越了社會抗爭的法治界線，包括後來的包圍警局及拒絕應訊等，皆有假藉抗爭的道德性來癱瘓體制的危險。深一層看，學運的幕後指導者不少是來自民進黨內外環的綠色力量，也許學生們不覺得自己受到「利用」，但後來的發展卻產生了這種效果。民進黨不費吹灰之力，僅拾取學運的落果即在九合一選舉大勝，這難道不是民主的歧路與中挫？
三一八學運之所以有這樣的「雙面性」，是時空條件碰撞的偶然與必然。從大環境看，青年抗爭是近幾年全球各地都在上演的活動，台灣的太陽花自然也是受到北非和烏克蘭的顏色革命及美國「占領華爾街」運動的啟發，覺得青年憤怒不吐不快。從小環境看，近年經濟成長的低迷導致薪資的停滯，房價的飛漲導致新世代「相對剝奪感」的惡化；於是，一個服貿協議的導火線，便引爆了青年世代的集體狂潮。
然而，把三一八學運放在「顏色革命」這樣的脈絡中類比，其實是一個錯誤而危險的思維。那些發生花朵革命或顏色革命的國家，都是數十年未曾改選的獨裁或極權體制，而台灣則是一個不成熟但體制完備的民主國家；無論如何，群眾以「占領官署」的非常手段從事抗爭，完全踰越了民主與法治。試想，即使是紐約的「占領華爾街」示威，最後也僅以「維護祖科提公園的清潔」為由，便將示威者驅逐；而太陽花學運能占領立法院達廿多日，其實是王金平藉此反擊馬英九對他的關說指控，否則絕無可能。再說，群眾在占領國會後又攻占行政院，幾乎是視政府和公權力如無物；如果當夜行政院沒有設法清場，那麼，台灣陷入無政府狀態不是沒可能的事。人們願意看到國家社會墜入那步田地嗎？
簡言之，台灣社會一向很樂於看到不同群體的群眾站出來爭取權益，一般民眾對於弱勢群體也始終懷抱同情；但是，太陽花運動訴諸非法的占領手段，藉用學生的清純挾帶偏激的政治訴求，不僅使公權力與社會秩序瀕於傾頹的險境，也導致外界無法以理性的態度探討相關問題的是非曲直。尤其諷刺的是，理當議決國家大政的立法院遭到癱瘓，大批烏合群眾卻在街道上大談國是；如果人們覺得這是一個民主國家的正常景象，那麼台灣過去廿多年的民主化努力實如付東流。
面對太陽花的怒潮，社會大眾又應如何看待？比較誠懇的辦法，應該是各界努力從制度上尋求破解低薪、高失業及高房價之道，例如行政院提出「加薪四法」、柯文哲承諾廣建社會住宅，皆在朝此方向前進。比較虛偽的應付，則是言必稱青年與「婉君」，表面上對他們爭相拉攏與呵護，卻無意對其困境作任何實質的改善。更惡劣的方式，則是將少數領袖捧為英雄，鼓動他們繼續在各個陣線進行抗爭，藉此收割自己的政治利益，卻對整個世代的處境不聞不問。曾參與那場運動的青年，應該能分辨得出自私政治人物的嘴臉吧！
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2015
Executive Summary: Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.
Full Text Below:
Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.
If one considers only the force and impact of a social movement, the Sunflower Student Movement was undoubtedly a success. It attracted attention from society, and established solidarity with the public. It forced those in power to make concessions. The participants demonstrated organizational skills and the ability to make transnational connections. They enabled outsiders to see the new generation's vitality and creativity. They successfully motivated the younger generation to confront the difficulties it faces. The large turnout among younger voters during the year end election, and the government's new found respect for the cyber army, were positive developments. The student movement inspired youth in Hong Kong, and ignited the flames of the Occupy Central movement as a spillover effect.
But if one considers Taiwan's democratic evolution, the student movement was a shock to the system, one that inflicted grave damage to the rule of law on Taiwan. This "youth" and "student" social movement won public sympathy. But the occupation of the legislature crossed the line for social protest by trampling over the rule of law. It laid siege to a police precint station, and turned a deaf ear to appeals to reason. Under the guise of a moral crusade, it endangered the public through institutional paralysis. A closer look tells all. Many of those directing the student movement from behind the scenes, were members of the DPP inner circle. The students may not have felt used. But subsequent developments showed that they were. The DPP effortlessly reaped the fruits of the student movement, as evidenced by its nine in one election victory. Was this not a setback for democracy?
The 3/18 student movement was dualistic in nature, due to a combination of accidental and inevitable circumstances. At the macro level, recent youth protests around the world have all been staged events. The Sunflower Student Movement on Taiwan was of course influenced by the color revolutions in North Africa and Ukraine, and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US. Angry youths felt the need to speak out. At the micro level, the recent economic downturn led to wage stagnation. Soaring housing prices led to a new generation suffering from "relative deprivation". As a result, the STA became a fuse that ignited younger generation collective frenzy.
But comparing the 3/18 student movement to the "color revolutions" is wrong and dangerous. The nations that underwent color revolutions were all authoritarian or totalitarian regimes which have not held elections for several decades. Taiwan is different. It may be an immature democracy, but its system is sound. In any event, the mobs that occupied government buildings in protest, trampled over democracy and the rule of law. Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York were evicted on grounds that the park needed cleaning. The Sunflower Student Movement occupied the legislature for over 20 days. Wang Jin-pyng used the occupation as a means of political retaliation, because Ma Ying-jeou accused Wang of influence peddling. Otherwise the occupation would have been impossible. Mobs occupied the Legislative Yuan, then the Executive Yuan. For them, the government and authority did not exist. Had the Executive Yuan not been cleared that night, Taiwan might well have descended into chaos. Do people really wish to see the nation brought to that level?
Taiwan society has long been happy to see people stand up and fight for their rights. The general public has long been compassionate towards the disadvantaged. But the Sunflower Student Movement resorted to illegal occupations. It took advantage of student naivete to make extreme political demands. It undermined public authority and endangered social order. It made rational consideration of the issues impossible. The legislature is responsible for determining national policy. The mobs brought the legislature to a standstill. They then began debating national policy on the streets outside the legislature. The irony did not escape public notice. If people really think this is the way a democracy should operate, then Taiwan's democratization efforts over the past 20 years has been in vain.
So how should the public respond to the Sunflower Student Movement? The honest response is to seek solutions for low wages, high unemployment, and high prices inside the system. The honest response would be to consider the Executive Yuan sponsored "four methods to increase salaries" and Wen-Je Ko's proposal to build more social housing. A more hypocritical response would be to pay lip service to cyber army demands, but do nothing to resolve their predicament or make substantial improvements. The worst response possible would be to hail a few of the leaders as heroes, encourage them to continue their struggle, profit politically from their efforts, then ignore the younger generations' dilemma. Those who have participated involved in youth movements in the past, should recognize a selfish politician when they see one.
太陽花：成功的抗爭 失敗的演化
2015-03-18聯合報
去年三月十八日反服貿群眾占領立法院抗爭，至今屆滿周年。這場俗稱「太陽花學運」的事件，除在當時激盪人心，更對台灣政治、社會、經濟各方面都造成了衝擊，並導致國民黨去年底選舉的大敗。在事件周年回顧這場波瀾，我們不妨從比較冷靜而深刻的角度，來反省太陽花運動的得與失。
純就一場社會運動的能量與效果而言，太陽花學運無疑是成功的。它不僅吸引了社會的廣泛注目，它也獲取了許多民眾的聲援，並迫使執政者作出退讓。參與者在抗爭過程中展現組織整合、跨國連線的能力，讓外界看到新世代的活力與創意，也成功喚起社會對這一代青年困境的正視。這點，表現在去年底年輕世代的踴躍投票，以及政府重視「婉君」力量，都是正面的發展。甚至，這場學運也隱然鼓舞了香港青年的熱情，點燃了「占中」的火花，這是它的溢出效果。
但是，如果放在台灣民主的進程看，這場學運對於政治的演化卻是一顆意外的炸彈，對台灣好不容易建立的法治價值造成了嚴重破壞。原因是，這個以「青年」和「學生」面貌為表的社運，雖以其特殊的清純攫取了民眾的同情，但它採取的「占領國會」手段，卻踰越了社會抗爭的法治界線，包括後來的包圍警局及拒絕應訊等，皆有假藉抗爭的道德性來癱瘓體制的危險。深一層看，學運的幕後指導者不少是來自民進黨內外環的綠色力量，也許學生們不覺得自己受到「利用」，但後來的發展卻產生了這種效果。民進黨不費吹灰之力，僅拾取學運的落果即在九合一選舉大勝，這難道不是民主的歧路與中挫？
三一八學運之所以有這樣的「雙面性」，是時空條件碰撞的偶然與必然。從大環境看，青年抗爭是近幾年全球各地都在上演的活動，台灣的太陽花自然也是受到北非和烏克蘭的顏色革命及美國「占領華爾街」運動的啟發，覺得青年憤怒不吐不快。從小環境看，近年經濟成長的低迷導致薪資的停滯，房價的飛漲導致新世代「相對剝奪感」的惡化；於是，一個服貿協議的導火線，便引爆了青年世代的集體狂潮。
然而，把三一八學運放在「顏色革命」這樣的脈絡中類比，其實是一個錯誤而危險的思維。那些發生花朵革命或顏色革命的國家，都是數十年未曾改選的獨裁或極權體制，而台灣則是一個不成熟但體制完備的民主國家；無論如何，群眾以「占領官署」的非常手段從事抗爭，完全踰越了民主與法治。試想，即使是紐約的「占領華爾街」示威，最後也僅以「維護祖科提公園的清潔」為由，便將示威者驅逐；而太陽花學運能占領立法院達廿多日，其實是王金平藉此反擊馬英九對他的關說指控，否則絕無可能。再說，群眾在占領國會後又攻占行政院，幾乎是視政府和公權力如無物；如果當夜行政院沒有設法清場，那麼，台灣陷入無政府狀態不是沒可能的事。人們願意看到國家社會墜入那步田地嗎？
簡言之，台灣社會一向很樂於看到不同群體的群眾站出來爭取權益，一般民眾對於弱勢群體也始終懷抱同情；但是，太陽花運動訴諸非法的占領手段，藉用學生的清純挾帶偏激的政治訴求，不僅使公權力與社會秩序瀕於傾頹的險境，也導致外界無法以理性的態度探討相關問題的是非曲直。尤其諷刺的是，理當議決國家大政的立法院遭到癱瘓，大批烏合群眾卻在街道上大談國是；如果人們覺得這是一個民主國家的正常景象，那麼台灣過去廿多年的民主化努力實如付東流。
面對太陽花的怒潮，社會大眾又應如何看待？比較誠懇的辦法，應該是各界努力從制度上尋求破解低薪、高失業及高房價之道，例如行政院提出「加薪四法」、柯文哲承諾廣建社會住宅，皆在朝此方向前進。比較虛偽的應付，則是言必稱青年與「婉君」，表面上對他們爭相拉攏與呵護，卻無意對其困境作任何實質的改善。更惡劣的方式，則是將少數領袖捧為英雄，鼓動他們繼續在各個陣線進行抗爭，藉此收割自己的政治利益，卻對整個世代的處境不聞不問。曾參與那場運動的青年，應該能分辨得出自私政治人物的嘴臉吧！
Monday, March 16, 2015
We Welcome the Sunflower Student Movement into the System
We Welcome the Sunflower Student Movement into the System
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades.
Full Text Below:
Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement. One year ago, the leaders of the student movement stormed the legislature. But even they probably did not realize that they had just started the largest student movement in Taiwan's history. The impact was a political tsunami that altered Taiwan's political stage and political atmosphere.
The Sunflower Student Movement did not materialize suddenly out of nowhere. It originated with interpersonal relations and shared ideological perspectives. It originated with opposition to the demolition and relocation of Ta Pu, and opposition to the Want Daily/China Times news organization. The flames of this increasingly politicized student movement originally belonged to a social movement. But they were vigorously fanned until they became a political movement for a specific political party.
Consider the broader social context. When Ma Ying-jeou took office in 2008, the two sides of the Strait began formal negotiations. Following a brief slump, the defeated DPP launched a new “anti-China” opposition movement. The anti-China sentiments of the DPP and its allies was cloaked in the rhetoric of "democracy, human rights, and social justice". But their real motivation was "Taiwan independence consciousness, Taiwanese consciousness, and anti-KMT consciousness". This opposition force advanced on the KMT. The Ma Ying-jeou government's cross-Strait rationale was rooted in economic interests and Taiwan's survival and prosperity. But cold economic data and remote international issues, invoked by ivory tower bureaucrats, failed to impress. They were no match for feelings and emotions.
After five or six years of agitation and ferment, the conditions for the Sunflower Student Movement were ripe. The Ma vs. Wang power struggle divided the KMT. The administration and the legislature could not work together. Ruling party rifts stalled the STA. Flames from the student movement spread upwards through the political cracks, eventually erupting into full scale student protests and civic movements. Recall the connivance of those in charge of the Legislative Yuan. Recall the political calculations of Ma and Wang -- their moves and counter moves. Under normal circumstances, as soon as the students stormed the legislature, they would have been immediately expelled. They would never have been able to continue their occupation and receive endless outside aid. The sunflower would never have bloomed.
Sunflower Student Movement influence is significant. Is that influence positive or negative? No matter. Either way, it was a rebellion of Taiwan's younger generation. It was a generational rebellion. Active participants in the student movement were mostly in the 20 to 40 age group. The Sunflower Student Movement was their movement. Movemetn leaders were actually quite opaque in their decision-making. The vast majority of participants were not privy to the “inner circle”. Nevertheless they became enthusiastic participants. They protested, attacked, propagandized, maintained discipline, cleaned, administered medical care, and learned by example. The manner in which they participated in the adult world has been heavily criticized. But in the passion and collective memory is unquestionably theirs.
These passions and memories have altered Taiwan's political landscape for the next 20 or 30 years. Many examples illustrate this point. Take Wen-Je Ko, for example. He said that before the student movement, he was only slightly ahead in the polls. After the student movement, the gap between him and Sean Lien widened significantly. Polls show that the younger generation supported Wen-Je Ko three to five times more than Sean Lien. As we all know, the KMT suffered an unprecedented defeat during last year's nine in one elections. The Taipei mayoral battle highlighted a key factor – the ideological and physical aging of the KMT. The Taipei mayoral election was closely watched and played a decisive role. The Sunflower Student Movement will continue to impact Taiwan's political landscape. Wen-Je Ko illustrates this point.
Equally important is the matter of cross-Strait relations. The media concluded that once the student movement blocked trade negotiations on the STA and MTA, the Ma Xi meeting was probably a bust. The Sunflower Student Movement interrupted Ma Ying-jeou's “[Mainland] China agenda." . If this agenda was Ma's personal agenda, it would not be a matter of importance. But this agenda is critical to Taiwan's survival and prosperity. Did the Sunflower Student Movement have any positive value? Perhaps it reminded leaders on both sides that fairness and justice are important. Emotional factors must also be considered. That said, we must ask the younger generation on Taiwan, what constitutes a reasonable cross-Strait policy? What is the proper balance between economic benefits, social justice, dignity, and sovereignty? This is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement, But society has yet to reach a consensus on these key issues. Obviously election season will lead to even greater divisions. Such divisions are not to Taiwan's benefit. When can we finally approach these questions calmly and peacefully?
The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades. Under these circumstances, Sunflower Student Movement participation in the elections means that it must become more responsible than other party factions. In particular, it must seek cooperation and compromise with voters who hold different positions. It must determine what is necessary for Taiwan's survival and prosperity. It must seek the most feasible option, rather than the most “idealistic” goal.
This is our hope for the Sunflower Student Movement on its one year anniversary.
社論－歡迎太陽花進入體制
2015年03月17日 04:10
本報訊
明天是太陽花學運1周年，那個晚上，當帶領學運的人衝進立法院時，包括他們自己在內，大概都沒有想到，不但開啟了台灣最大規模的學生運動，後續效應更如同「政治海嘯」般，嚴重衝擊並改變了台灣的政治板塊與政治氛圍。
太陽花學運不是無源之水突如其來，從人際脈絡與思想淵源來看，它來自於從反大埔拆遷、反旺中等議題以來，一系列越來越政治化的學生運動，這些原本屬於「社會性」的議題，在不斷延燒之下，逐漸變成了針對特定政黨的「政治性」議題。
從更寬廣的社會環境來觀察，2008年馬英九執政後，開啟了兩岸正式談判協商，民進黨則在重挫敗選後，經過短暫的低潮，開啟了以「反傾中」、「反親中」為號召的新「反對運動」。民進黨及其周邊團體的「反傾中」、「反親中」論述，是以「台獨意識」、「台灣人意識」、「反國民黨意識」為核心，卻包裝上「民主」、「人權」、「社會公義」外衣。面對反對勢力的進逼，國民黨、馬英九政府的兩岸論述向來是「經濟利益」掛帥，間或談台灣的生存發展空間，但冰冷的經濟數據和遙遠的國際議題，從不食人間煙火的政府官僚口中說出，總是無法打動人心，無法和情感與情緒對抗。
經過了5、6年的激盪與醞釀，爆發太陽花學運的客觀形勢已經營造成熟，國民黨卻在「馬王政爭」後，陷入嚴重的實質分裂，府院國會之間無法通力合作。執政裂痕不但造成服貿協議遲遲無法過關，學運的火苗更立刻從政治縫隙向上延燒，最後成為波瀾壯闊的大型學潮與公民運動。我們可以反向思考，如果不是立法院主事者的縱容，以及馬王之間的政治計算與攻防，在通常情況下，學運學生在衝進立法院之後，應該會立即遭到驅離，完全不會存在占領議場以及外援源源不絕的景況，太陽花也就沒有綻放的機會。
太陽花學運的影響是重大的，首先，不論其是正是負，但這確實是一場台灣年輕世代的總反叛，是「整個世代的反叛」。積極參與學運的成員，多是以20至40歲年齡層為主的年輕人，太陽花學運確實是他們的運動。他們當中，由少數人擔任領袖，進行實際上極為封閉的決策，絕大多數參與者無緣進入議場，卻依然成為積極的成員：抗議、出擊、宣傳、維安、清潔、醫護、學習等等都是他們參與的方式，成人世界對他們有很多批評，但無論如何，這是那個世代的激情，那個世代的共同記憶。
也正是這樣的激情與記憶，台灣政局因而大大改變，更可能影響未來至少20年、30年的台灣政治，很多例子可以說明這一點。以柯文哲為例，他自己曾表示，在學運之前，民調支持度僅微幅領先；在學運之後，他與連勝文的差距明顯拉大，各家民調更顯示，柯文哲在年輕世代的支持度竟以3到5倍的幅度超越連勝文。眾所周知，去年九合一大選，國民黨之所以空前的慘輸，台北市長一戰凸顯國民黨在思想與體質上的老化，是關鍵因素之一。台北市長這個職務，動見觀瞻，舉足輕重，太陽花學運對台灣政治格局的衝擊，顯然將會持續發酵，柯P熱正說明了這一點。
同樣重要的課題是兩岸關係，有媒體評論認為，在學運之後，服貿協議擱置、貨貿談判達成遙遙無期，馬習會更已破局，太陽花學運已中斷了馬英九的「中國議程」。然而，如果只是馬英九個人的中國議程，那還是小問題，真正大的問題在「台灣生存發展的議程」。在這方面，太陽花學運若說有正面價值，那就是再度提醒兩岸領導層：公平正義的議題極其重要，情感情緒的因素也需要更為重視，但即使如此，我們仍要追問：對台灣年輕世代來說，什麼是合理、妥適的兩岸議程？什麼是經濟利益、社會公義和主權尊嚴與主體意識的平衡點？這個大哉問，在太陽花學運1周年後，社會仍然沒有共識，很明顯地還會因為選舉熱季而更為撕裂，但這樣的撕裂終究不是台灣之福，我們究竟要何時才能冷靜、持平的深入探討？
從這個角度而來的延伸思考是，在太陽花學運之後，學生領袖以及和他們有密切連結的公民團體與相關人士正摩拳擦掌準備投入選舉。乍看之下，太陽花學運的主導者曾經有「革命」的激情與決心，有「體制外抗爭」的思維與行動，更不缺革命性質的政策主張，但參與選舉就不是搞革命，無論再怎麼激情吶喊，參選就等同對現有體制的承認，基本邏輯就是「體制內改革」而非體制外抗爭，是爭取最多民眾選票，而非發掘最多革命同志。在這樣的前提下，太陽花學運主事者的參選或許有其積極意義，那就是必須更負責任地和其他黨派、尤其是不同立場的選民共謀合作、妥協，找出現實「台灣生存發展議程」的最可行方案，而非理想中的最美好方案。
在太陽花學運1周年之際，我們有這樣的期盼。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades.
Full Text Below:
Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement. One year ago, the leaders of the student movement stormed the legislature. But even they probably did not realize that they had just started the largest student movement in Taiwan's history. The impact was a political tsunami that altered Taiwan's political stage and political atmosphere.
The Sunflower Student Movement did not materialize suddenly out of nowhere. It originated with interpersonal relations and shared ideological perspectives. It originated with opposition to the demolition and relocation of Ta Pu, and opposition to the Want Daily/China Times news organization. The flames of this increasingly politicized student movement originally belonged to a social movement. But they were vigorously fanned until they became a political movement for a specific political party.
Consider the broader social context. When Ma Ying-jeou took office in 2008, the two sides of the Strait began formal negotiations. Following a brief slump, the defeated DPP launched a new “anti-China” opposition movement. The anti-China sentiments of the DPP and its allies was cloaked in the rhetoric of "democracy, human rights, and social justice". But their real motivation was "Taiwan independence consciousness, Taiwanese consciousness, and anti-KMT consciousness". This opposition force advanced on the KMT. The Ma Ying-jeou government's cross-Strait rationale was rooted in economic interests and Taiwan's survival and prosperity. But cold economic data and remote international issues, invoked by ivory tower bureaucrats, failed to impress. They were no match for feelings and emotions.
After five or six years of agitation and ferment, the conditions for the Sunflower Student Movement were ripe. The Ma vs. Wang power struggle divided the KMT. The administration and the legislature could not work together. Ruling party rifts stalled the STA. Flames from the student movement spread upwards through the political cracks, eventually erupting into full scale student protests and civic movements. Recall the connivance of those in charge of the Legislative Yuan. Recall the political calculations of Ma and Wang -- their moves and counter moves. Under normal circumstances, as soon as the students stormed the legislature, they would have been immediately expelled. They would never have been able to continue their occupation and receive endless outside aid. The sunflower would never have bloomed.
Sunflower Student Movement influence is significant. Is that influence positive or negative? No matter. Either way, it was a rebellion of Taiwan's younger generation. It was a generational rebellion. Active participants in the student movement were mostly in the 20 to 40 age group. The Sunflower Student Movement was their movement. Movemetn leaders were actually quite opaque in their decision-making. The vast majority of participants were not privy to the “inner circle”. Nevertheless they became enthusiastic participants. They protested, attacked, propagandized, maintained discipline, cleaned, administered medical care, and learned by example. The manner in which they participated in the adult world has been heavily criticized. But in the passion and collective memory is unquestionably theirs.
These passions and memories have altered Taiwan's political landscape for the next 20 or 30 years. Many examples illustrate this point. Take Wen-Je Ko, for example. He said that before the student movement, he was only slightly ahead in the polls. After the student movement, the gap between him and Sean Lien widened significantly. Polls show that the younger generation supported Wen-Je Ko three to five times more than Sean Lien. As we all know, the KMT suffered an unprecedented defeat during last year's nine in one elections. The Taipei mayoral battle highlighted a key factor – the ideological and physical aging of the KMT. The Taipei mayoral election was closely watched and played a decisive role. The Sunflower Student Movement will continue to impact Taiwan's political landscape. Wen-Je Ko illustrates this point.
Equally important is the matter of cross-Strait relations. The media concluded that once the student movement blocked trade negotiations on the STA and MTA, the Ma Xi meeting was probably a bust. The Sunflower Student Movement interrupted Ma Ying-jeou's “[Mainland] China agenda." . If this agenda was Ma's personal agenda, it would not be a matter of importance. But this agenda is critical to Taiwan's survival and prosperity. Did the Sunflower Student Movement have any positive value? Perhaps it reminded leaders on both sides that fairness and justice are important. Emotional factors must also be considered. That said, we must ask the younger generation on Taiwan, what constitutes a reasonable cross-Strait policy? What is the proper balance between economic benefits, social justice, dignity, and sovereignty? This is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement, But society has yet to reach a consensus on these key issues. Obviously election season will lead to even greater divisions. Such divisions are not to Taiwan's benefit. When can we finally approach these questions calmly and peacefully?
The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades. Under these circumstances, Sunflower Student Movement participation in the elections means that it must become more responsible than other party factions. In particular, it must seek cooperation and compromise with voters who hold different positions. It must determine what is necessary for Taiwan's survival and prosperity. It must seek the most feasible option, rather than the most “idealistic” goal.
This is our hope for the Sunflower Student Movement on its one year anniversary.
社論－歡迎太陽花進入體制
2015年03月17日 04:10
本報訊
明天是太陽花學運1周年，那個晚上，當帶領學運的人衝進立法院時，包括他們自己在內，大概都沒有想到，不但開啟了台灣最大規模的學生運動，後續效應更如同「政治海嘯」般，嚴重衝擊並改變了台灣的政治板塊與政治氛圍。
太陽花學運不是無源之水突如其來，從人際脈絡與思想淵源來看，它來自於從反大埔拆遷、反旺中等議題以來，一系列越來越政治化的學生運動，這些原本屬於「社會性」的議題，在不斷延燒之下，逐漸變成了針對特定政黨的「政治性」議題。
從更寬廣的社會環境來觀察，2008年馬英九執政後，開啟了兩岸正式談判協商，民進黨則在重挫敗選後，經過短暫的低潮，開啟了以「反傾中」、「反親中」為號召的新「反對運動」。民進黨及其周邊團體的「反傾中」、「反親中」論述，是以「台獨意識」、「台灣人意識」、「反國民黨意識」為核心，卻包裝上「民主」、「人權」、「社會公義」外衣。面對反對勢力的進逼，國民黨、馬英九政府的兩岸論述向來是「經濟利益」掛帥，間或談台灣的生存發展空間，但冰冷的經濟數據和遙遠的國際議題，從不食人間煙火的政府官僚口中說出，總是無法打動人心，無法和情感與情緒對抗。
經過了5、6年的激盪與醞釀，爆發太陽花學運的客觀形勢已經營造成熟，國民黨卻在「馬王政爭」後，陷入嚴重的實質分裂，府院國會之間無法通力合作。執政裂痕不但造成服貿協議遲遲無法過關，學運的火苗更立刻從政治縫隙向上延燒，最後成為波瀾壯闊的大型學潮與公民運動。我們可以反向思考，如果不是立法院主事者的縱容，以及馬王之間的政治計算與攻防，在通常情況下，學運學生在衝進立法院之後，應該會立即遭到驅離，完全不會存在占領議場以及外援源源不絕的景況，太陽花也就沒有綻放的機會。
太陽花學運的影響是重大的，首先，不論其是正是負，但這確實是一場台灣年輕世代的總反叛，是「整個世代的反叛」。積極參與學運的成員，多是以20至40歲年齡層為主的年輕人，太陽花學運確實是他們的運動。他們當中，由少數人擔任領袖，進行實際上極為封閉的決策，絕大多數參與者無緣進入議場，卻依然成為積極的成員：抗議、出擊、宣傳、維安、清潔、醫護、學習等等都是他們參與的方式，成人世界對他們有很多批評，但無論如何，這是那個世代的激情，那個世代的共同記憶。
也正是這樣的激情與記憶，台灣政局因而大大改變，更可能影響未來至少20年、30年的台灣政治，很多例子可以說明這一點。以柯文哲為例，他自己曾表示，在學運之前，民調支持度僅微幅領先；在學運之後，他與連勝文的差距明顯拉大，各家民調更顯示，柯文哲在年輕世代的支持度竟以3到5倍的幅度超越連勝文。眾所周知，去年九合一大選，國民黨之所以空前的慘輸，台北市長一戰凸顯國民黨在思想與體質上的老化，是關鍵因素之一。台北市長這個職務，動見觀瞻，舉足輕重，太陽花學運對台灣政治格局的衝擊，顯然將會持續發酵，柯P熱正說明了這一點。
同樣重要的課題是兩岸關係，有媒體評論認為，在學運之後，服貿協議擱置、貨貿談判達成遙遙無期，馬習會更已破局，太陽花學運已中斷了馬英九的「中國議程」。然而，如果只是馬英九個人的中國議程，那還是小問題，真正大的問題在「台灣生存發展的議程」。在這方面，太陽花學運若說有正面價值，那就是再度提醒兩岸領導層：公平正義的議題極其重要，情感情緒的因素也需要更為重視，但即使如此，我們仍要追問：對台灣年輕世代來說，什麼是合理、妥適的兩岸議程？什麼是經濟利益、社會公義和主權尊嚴與主體意識的平衡點？這個大哉問，在太陽花學運1周年後，社會仍然沒有共識，很明顯地還會因為選舉熱季而更為撕裂，但這樣的撕裂終究不是台灣之福，我們究竟要何時才能冷靜、持平的深入探討？
從這個角度而來的延伸思考是，在太陽花學運之後，學生領袖以及和他們有密切連結的公民團體與相關人士正摩拳擦掌準備投入選舉。乍看之下，太陽花學運的主導者曾經有「革命」的激情與決心，有「體制外抗爭」的思維與行動，更不缺革命性質的政策主張，但參與選舉就不是搞革命，無論再怎麼激情吶喊，參選就等同對現有體制的承認，基本邏輯就是「體制內改革」而非體制外抗爭，是爭取最多民眾選票，而非發掘最多革命同志。在這樣的前提下，太陽花學運主事者的參選或許有其積極意義，那就是必須更負責任地和其他黨派、尤其是不同立場的選民共謀合作、妥協，找出現實「台灣生存發展議程」的最可行方案，而非理想中的最美好方案。
在太陽花學運1周年之際，我們有這樣的期盼。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)