Abolish Campaign Subsidies: Stop Robbing the Poor to Subsidize the Rich

Abolish Campaign Subsidies: Stop Robbing the Poor to Subsidize the Rich
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 10, 2015

Executive Summary: Shih Ming-teh wants to abolish public subsidies for election candidates. He thinks many candidates run not to win office, but to enrich themselves by pocketing the campaign subsidies. He thinks the law should be amended to cease feeding "political fat cats". In fact, this newspaper pubished an editorial on February 1, calling for just such a measure. Ko Wen-je, the newly elected mayor of Taipei, admitted that he intended to run in order to collect 10 million dollars in subsidies and pay off the mortgage on his father's house. Ko's admission provoked a firestorm. Ko Wen-je's wife was forced to apologize on Facebook and admit that her financial calculations were "inappropriate".

Full Text Below:

Shih Ming-teh wants to abolish public subsidies for election candidates. He thinks many candidates run not to win office, but to enrich themselves by pocketing the campaign subsidies. He thinks the law should be amended to cease feeding "political fat cats". In fact, this newspaper pubished an editorial on February 1, calling for just such a measure. Ko Wen-je, the newly elected mayor of Taipei, admitted that he intended to run in order to collect 10 million dollars in subsidies and pay off the mortgage on his father's house. Ko's admission provoked a firestorm. Ko Wen-je's wife was forced to apologize on Facebook and admit that her financial calculations were "inappropriate".

Each candidate receives 30 dollars in subsidies for every vote cast in his hame. The system was designed to enable candidates without financial resources to run for office. That way the election returns rather than the candidate's wealth would determine the outcome. Alas, the result has run counter to the original intentions.

During the election process, candidates with the most momentum are able to raise the most funds. They receive the most votes, therefore receive the most in publicly funded subsidies. By contrast, disadvantaged candidates, who are the most in need of assistance, receive the least. Often they fail even to meet the minimum threshold for subsidies. They receive nothing. The entire process becomes a "robbing the poor to pay the rich" legal farce.

This contradiction was particularly glaring in last year's Taipei mayoral election. Ko Wen-je and Sean Lien, the two candidates with the most momentum and the most fund-raising ability, received 25 million dollars and 18 million dollars each. The other five candidates were not eligible for campaign subsidies. They even failed to get back the 2 million dollar deposit required to run. These gilding the lily campaign subsidies must be laid to rest!

According to Article 43, Paragraph 3 of the "Public Officials Election and Recall Law", the campaign subsidies received by county and city election candidates ought not be used to establish charitable foundations or pay off mortgages. Doing so may not be illegal, but it is unreasonable. Shih Ming-teh took note of Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen's campaign subsidies. He said they may not be illegal, but nevertheless warrant close scrutiny.

Under ROC law, presidential and vice presidential elections differ from other public official elections. The Presidential And Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law covers the former. The Public Official Election and Recall Law covers the latter. Their provisions differ. For the former, Section 41, Paragraph 2, specifies that subsidies should be turned over to the nominating parties. For the latter, the provisions differ.

Legally speaking, the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Law and the Public Official Election and Recall Law differ. In the former, the political party that nominates the candidates receives the subsidies. In the latter, the individual candidate receives the subsidies. As such, presidential and vice presidential campaign subsidies should be turned over to the political parties rather than the candidates. Practically speaking, it is more reasonable to grant subsidies to the political parties. Unless the presidential candidate is an independent, the political parties expended large sums on campaigns. For the parties to receive the subsidies is consistent with the spirit of party politics.

Ma Ying-jeou received 430 million dollars in campaign subsidies for his second presidential election campaign. He turned it over to the Kuomintang. Chen Shui-bian received 340 million dollars in campaign subsidies for his second presidential election campaign. He turned it over to the DPP. Frank Hsieh gave 20 million dollars to his campaign committee, and 140 million dollars to the DPP. Turning campaign subsidies over to the political party that nominated the candidate is the more reasonable approach.

By contrast, according to DPP news director Wong Chung, following the 2012 presidential campaign, Tsai Ing-wen used her campaign subsidies to establish a "Xiaoying Education Foundation". Such an approach is not merely unreasonable and unjustifiable. It is probably also illegal. Ma, Chen, Hsieh and others refrained from using their campaign subsidies to establish foundations in their own name. Tsai's actions were clearly petty and selfish. Ma, Chen, and Hsieh turned their funds over to their respective political parties. Tsai, by contrast, established a foundation bearing her own name. Ma, Chen, and Hsieh's actions were more consistent with the spirit of party politics. The law clearly stipulated that subsidies should be turned over to the candidates' political parties, Tsai Ing-wen on the other hand, pocketed the money, then used it to establish her own private foundation. This may not be a breach of trust, but it is clearly a violation of the law, and a display of insufficient respect for the law.

This newspaper supports Shih Ming-teh's proposal. The law should be amended. Campaign subsidies should be abolished, At the very least, they should be eliminated in presidential and vice presidential elections, county and municipal elections, and legislative elections. These single member district elections "rob the poor to give to the rich" most flagrantly. Campaign subsidies should be abolished. The law should be amended to specify that presidential and vice presidential campaign subsidies be turned over to the political parties that nominated the candidate. This will eliminate all ambiguity and ensure that candidates who comply strictly with the law by turning over their subsidies to their respective political parties are treated fairly. Subsidies for presidential and vice presidential campaigns, county and city campaigns, and all single member district campaigns, should be turned over to the political parties that nominated the candidates. Only this is consistent with the spirit of party politics.

Tsai Ing-wen, Hung Shiu-chu, James Soong, and all other presidential candidates should announce tha tthey support Shih Ming-teh's proposal. They should support this proposal out of concern for fiscal responsibility, as well as antipathy toward "political fat cats". They should do so even more because the system as it exists today, clearly runs counter to the original intent of campaign subsidies.

反對劫貧濟富 競選補助應廢除

2015年09月10日 中國時報

施明德要求廢除選舉公款補助制度，他認為，許多候選人志不在勝選，只想透過選舉補助款中飽私囊，應修法剷除「政治肥貓」。事實上，本報早在今年2月1日社論中即已提出此議，當時剛剛當選台北市長的柯文哲透露，打算將競選補貼款中的一千萬還清父親借他的房貸。此語一出社會譁然，柯文哲的妻子不得不在臉書道歉，表示這是她的「不當想法」。

候選人一票30元的競選補貼規定，制度設計初衷，希望幫助無財力的候選人參選，讓選舉回歸「才能決定」，而不是「財富決定」，實施結果卻與初衷背道而馳。

因為在選舉的過程中，聲勢愈高代表募款能力愈強，得票也愈多，最後卻領到最多的公費補助。反而，最需要補助的弱勢候選人能領的補助金愈少，甚至未達到最低得票門檻，就完全領不到補助，變成「劫貧濟富」合法謬劇。

這種矛盾在去年台北市長選舉中呈現得最清楚，聲勢最高、最有募款能力的柯文哲與連勝文分獲2500萬元、1800萬元競選補貼。其他5位參選人不但沒有資格領取競選補貼，連200萬元競選保證金都拿不回來，錦上添花的競選補貼，可以休矣！

依《公職人員選舉罷免法》第43條第3項，縣市長類型選舉的競選補助款由候選人個人領取，且未規定用途，因此無論成立基金會做公益或拿去還房貸，雖然「不合理」，卻無「不合法」。但施明德點名馬英九、蔡英文等人的競選補助金流向，卻可能有不合法問題，應該細究。

我國規範總統、副總統選舉的法律，與其他公職人員選舉的法律是不同的。前者規範於《總統副總統選舉罷免法》，其他則規範於《公職人員選舉罷免法》。在競選補貼的部分，二者的規範也有別，前者的競選補貼，依該法第41條第2項規定，應由該推薦之政黨領取，與後者的規定不同。

從法律文義來看，《總統副總統選舉罷免法》與《公職人員選舉罷免法》區別，規定有政黨推薦的候選人由政黨領取，而非如其他公職人員選舉由候選人個人領取，由此觀之，總統副總統的競選補貼，在立法上應有意讓之歸屬於政黨而非候選人。從競選實務來看，由政黨領取也比較合理，因為總統大選，除非是獨立候選人，極大經費是由政黨支出，由政黨領取，較符合政黨政治精神。

如馬英九把二次總統選舉補貼4.3億元由國民黨運用；陳水扁二次總統大選競選補貼共3.4億元，全數由民進黨運用；謝長廷選舉補助款2千萬元回撥競選總部，1.4億元由民進黨運用，將競選補貼交由推薦政黨領取並運用是較為合法的作法。

相對的，民進黨新聞部主任黃重諺說，蔡英文用2012年總統大選補助款成立「小英教育基金會」，這樣的做法，於情於理於法恐皆未合。於情，相較於馬、陳、謝等人皆未把總統大選補助款成立個人名義的基金會，蔡的作法顯得不夠大器；於理，馬、陳、謝把經費交由政黨調用，比蔡拿去成立基金會更符合政黨政治精神；於法，法律既明定由政黨領取，蔡英文卻挪之為其基金會用途，雖未必能謂為背信，但至少與法扞格，對法的尊重顯然不夠。

我們支持施明德的主張，可修法直接拿掉選舉補貼，至少拿掉總統副總統與縣市長、立法委員等單一名額的選舉補貼，因為這些單一名額選舉的「劫貧濟富」效應最強。若不廢除競選補貼，則應修法明定總統副總統競選補貼歸屬政黨，避免留下模糊的解釋空間，這對嚴格守法把競選補貼交給政黨的候選人不公平。不只總統副總統，縣市長等單一名額選舉的競選補貼也應交給政黨，以落實政黨政治精神。

蔡英文、洪秀柱與宋楚瑜等有志總統大選的候選人，應明確表態支持施明德這項政見。除了從「政府財政」或「政治肥貓」的角度支持這項提議，更重要的是這個補貼制度，已違反了競選補貼的初衷。

Tsai Ing-wen's Unregenerate Us vs. Them Mentality

Tsai Ing-wen's Unregenerate Us vs. Them Mentality
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2015

Executive Summary: Taiwan politics remains mired in vicious partisan power struggles detested by voters. Last year during the nine in one elections, deep green candidate Ko Wen-je vowed to "end blue vs. green partisanship". Taipei voters liked what they heard, and voted him into office. Next year's presidential election is fast approaching. KMT nominee Hung Shiu-chu recently went into self-imposed isolation. Upon emerging, she also called for an end to blue vs. green partisanship. Not to be outdone, Tsai Ing-wen hastily proclaimed that "The era of distinguishing friend from foe is over!" One after another, the candidates have grabbed the headlines. But are their slogans nothing more than temporary expedients? Or is something new actually taking place? Alas it was not to be. Even as Tsai Ing-wen uttered her words, the green camp was waging an all out campaign against Lien Chan. Even a statue of Lien Chan's grandfather, Lien Heng, located in Tainan, was smeared with red paint, all to “distinguish friend from foe”. Many sensed enmity on the rise. Tsai Ing-wen, apparently, is the only one who imagines that this era is over.

Full Text Below:

Taiwan politics remains mired in vicious partisan power struggles detested by voters. Last year during the nine in one elections, deep green candidate Ko Wen-je vowed to "end blue vs. green partisanship". Taipei voters liked what they heard, and voted him into office. Next year's presidential election is fast approaching. KMT nominee Hung Shiu-chu recently went into self-imposed isolation. Upon emerging, she also called for an end to blue vs. green partisanship. Not to be outdone, Tsai Ing-wen hastily proclaimed that "The era of distinguishing friend from foe is over!" One after another, the candidates have grabbed the headlines. But are their slogans nothing more than temporary expedients? Or is something new actually taking place? Alas it was not to be. Even as Tsai Ing-wen uttered her words, the green camp was waging an all out campaign against Lien Chan. Even a statue of Lien Chan's grandfather, Lien Heng, located in Tainan, was smeared with red paint, all to “distinguish friend from foe”. Many sensed enmity on the rise. Tsai Ing-wen, apparently, is the only one who imagines that this era is over.

The gap between rhetoric and reality is our greatest concern. Many remember when Chen Shui-bian trumpeted his "five noes" and "raise our standards" rhetoric. What was the result? Once Chen Shui-bian was firmly ensconced in the presidential palace, cross-Strait relations were soon strained to the limit. Washington and Beijing were forced to step in and provide “adult supervision” over Taiwan. Meanwhile the "Cape 700 Million" Chen embezzled torpedoed the green camp. In 2008, green camp presidential candidate Frank Hsieh trumpeted "reconciliation and symbiosis" even as he enaged in McCarthyite tactics that “distinguished friend from foe”. As we can clearly see, it is relatively easy to talk the talk, but considerably harder to walk the walk.

This is especially true given currently trendy "military parade" political analysis. What is green camp political demagoguery, if not "distinguishing friend from foe" thought? Who participated? Who attended? Everyone has been dragged out and subjected to Cultural Revolution "struggle sessions". Lien Chan is of course bearing the brunt of the attacks. Who cares that he dedicated years of hard work to ensuring peaceful cross-Strait exchanges? Assassination of his character knows no bounds. Even his ancestors have been exhumed and subjected to attacks. Clearly the "era of distinguishing friend from foe" is far from over. When Lee Teng-hui gave a mawkish Japanophile speech, Tsai Ing-wen stressed the need for "tolerance". But when her comrades surrounded Lien Chan and piled on him, she remained silent. Does she really not distinguish between friend and foe?

It is bad enough that her sloganeering is applied inconsistently in order to attack opponents. Even more worrisome is the prospect of such sloganeering applied to policy. That is truly frightening. For example, when Tsai Ing-wen speaks to business leaders, she promises that upon her election Taiwan will not want for electricity. But her own comrades in DPP ruled municipalities and counties forbid the burning of bituminous coal. Yesterday in Yunlin, she rejected the announcement issue by the central government Environmental Protection Bureau. She then ran off to the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant to protest. Never mind that the plant has already been mothballed. Green camp candidates oppose both nuclear power and thermal power generation. These self-styled energy experts do not worry about the lack of electricity. Taipower intends to save itself by building power plants. After all, what if Tsai Ing-wen's "guarantees" turn out to be mere slogans?

The impact of Tsai's thinking on cross-Strait policy is even more frightening. Regarding key issues such as the 1992 Consensus, Tsai Ing-wen has been deliberately vague. She has been ducking all questions on the assumption that can win the election lying down. So why risk taking a stand on the issues? In order to deceive voters, Tsai is intentionally or unintentionally spreading rumors. They include the rumor that Uncle Sammy has decided to back Little Tsai, or that Tsai already has a direct pipeline to the leaders in Beijing. These rumors are made to sound real. Meanwhile green camp standard-bearers and talking heads insist that "The 1992 Consensus does not even exist". Their ultimate argument of course is that "In any event, once we have been elected, Beijing will have no choice but to deal with us". This boast alarms people the most.

Zhang Nianchi is a veteran analyst of cross-Strait relations at Shanghai's East Asia Institute. Zhang recently published a guest editorial saying that "He hopes that Tsai Ing-wen actually has a direct pipeline to the leaders in Beijing... ". Zhang mentioned a conversation he had with a DPP leader whom he later quoted. Zhang expressed incredulity at the DPP leader's flagrant self-deception. He expressed shock at the extent to which the DPP leader actually believed his own lies. These lies include the claim that as long as the DPP returns to power, the Mainland will "resign itself" to the ruling party change and "cozy up" to it. These lies include the claim that as long as the US sides with the DPP, the Mainland will have no choice but acquiesce. Zhang Nianchi dismissed all these claims as outright lies. Assuming Zhang Nianchi's remarks reflect the thinking of Mainland leaders, this is not merely disturbing, but downright frightening.

Much of what Tsai Ing-wen says sounds fine. But after offering her vision, Tsai evades questions about how she intends to achieve it. After spouting high-minded rhetoric, her comrades violate every precept she advocated. After advocating cross-Strait peace, she categorically repudiates the basis for it, the 1992 Consensus. After trumpeting "the end of the us vs. them era", her comrades promplty incite "us vs. them" hatred.

蔡英文的敵我意識從未過去

2015年09月09日 中國時報

台灣政治陷入政黨惡鬥令選民生厭，去年九合一選舉，墨綠的柯文哲以「終結藍綠」為訴求，獲得台北市民認同而勝選。明年的總統大選，國民黨提名候選人洪秀柱閉關自省後，也提出要「終結藍綠」，接著蔡英文也喊出「區分敵我的時代過去了」！一來一往之間縱然都搏到了媒體的版面，但其究竟只是臨時生產的口號？還是一種正在發生的實踐？恐怕落差是很大的，畢竟就在蔡英文喊出這句話的同時，綠營上下正在無所不用其極的圍剿連戰，甚至連戰祖父連橫在台南的銅像還被發現遭人抹上紅漆，區分敵我之別的氛圍，許多人都嗅出正在升高，好像只有蔡英文認為己經「過去了」！

口號與實踐的落差，是我們最擔心的事！相信許多人都還清楚記得，陳水扁當年曾高聲倡議過的「四不一沒有」、「向上提升」……，結果如何呢？陳水扁在總統任內將兩岸關係繃緊到極致，逼得美中出面共管台灣，而他的「海角七億」，更是讓綠色執政一併向下沉淪；2008年代表綠營參選總統的謝長廷，一面高倡「和解共生」，另一面卻盡其所能的藉由「抹紅」區分敵我！這清楚說明了一點，喊口號容易，實踐卻永遠是另一回事！

特別是目前尚在延燒的「閱兵」政治學，依綠營熱烈炒作的方式，不正就是典型的「區分敵我」工程？誰有參加？誰有出席？被抓到全被拿出來批鬥，連戰當然更是首當其衝，他這些年致力兩岸和平交流的辛勞全無人理會，對他的批鬥卻是一路無限上綱，甚至連他的先祖都遭受波及，這般的「區分敵我」操作，實在看不出來已經「過去了」！蔡英文面對李登輝的媚日言論，強調要「包容」，對連戰遭到她黨內同志以「敵我」的規格加以圍剿，卻是一語不發，難道她的「區分敵我」，是有選擇性的？

令人更擔心是，這種口號與實踐不一致，如果只是用來打擊對手，也就罷了，怕的是如果在政策上也這樣，那就令人驚懼了！就好像她一面向企業大老保證，她當選後台灣絕不缺電，但她自己政黨同志執政的地方縣市，正在紛紛禁燒生煤，就在日昨雲林還公開抵制中央環保署的宣告，再加上就算核四都已封存，三不五時還是有綠營候選人跑到核四現場去造勢，如此既反核又禁媒，能源專家莫不擔心缺電，台積電有意自立救濟蓋電廠，蔡英文的「保證」，萬一只是口號呢？

兩岸政策更是令人害怕！要知道，迄今為止在關鍵議題的表述上，特別是針對「九二共識」的立場，蔡英文一直都很模糊，也一直都在迴避，她或許認為反正躺著都會當選，何必要在這些問題上表態？但為了唬弄選民，又有意無意釋出一些耳語訊息，例如什麼美國老大哥這回已決定挺小英，蔡與北京高層早有直通管道等等，講得跟真的一樣；另一面若干綠營旗手與名嘴卻依舊高倡「九二共識根本不存在」論，說到最後還是那句話，「反正只要我當選，北京就非得跟我打交道」，而也就是這句話，讓人聽得特別不安！

大陸資深兩岸問題評論家，上海東亞研究所所長章念馳投書媒體〈希望蔡英文真有直通北京管道…〉，文中提到他與一位民進黨人士的一段對話，章念馳在引述這位民進黨人士的若干論述之後，接著毫不掩飾他對民進黨自我欺騙的驚訝！他的驚訝在於，民進黨竟然相信自己製造的煙幕，例如，民進黨只要執政，大陸必會「迎合」變化，就會對民進黨「靠過來」；再如，只要美國站在民進黨這一邊，大陸就會無可奈何等等。但章念馳坦率指出，這些根本全都是謊言！如果章念馳的論點，反映了大陸高層的觀念，那就不只是讓人不安，還讓人有點害怕了！

不諱言，蔡英文的許多政治語言，都說得很漂亮，但願景提出後，卻迴避要怎麼做，口號展現了她的高度，但同志在實際作為上，卻努力與之「背反」，她高倡兩岸和平對話，卻全盤否定維持這種和平交流的「九二共識」；她高倡「區分敵我」已過去，她的同志卻還在挑出敵人鬥倒鬥臭呢！

How will History Remember Ma Ying-jeou?

How will History Remember Ma Ying-jeou?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2015

Executive Summary: The Executive Yuan National Development Council recently announced that the public satisfaction rating over living standards rose to 82%. Ma Ying-jeou was immediately met with media ridicule. Facebook users wondered "What is the most frightening sentence [you have come across on Facebook]?" Some said the most frightening sentence they came across on Facebook was a call by fans of Ma Ying-jeou to stay on as president for another term. Churchill once said that a ruthless attitude towards its political leaders is the sign of a great nation. In 1998, when Taipei Mayor Chen Shui-bian lost his bid at reelection, this quote was often bandied about. President Ma Ying-jeou must surely understand how Chen Shui-bian felt back then.

Full Text Below:

The Executive Yuan National Development Council recently announced that the public satisfaction rating over living standards rose to 82%. Ma Ying-jeou was immediately met with media ridicule. Facebook users wondered "What is the most frightening sentence [you have come across on Facebook]?" Some said the most frightening sentence they came across on Facebook was a call by fans of Ma Ying-jeou to stay on as president for another term. Churchill once said that a ruthless attitude towards its political leaders is the sign of a great nation. In 1998, when Taipei Mayor Chen Shui-bian lost his bid at reelection, this quote was often bandied about. President Ma Ying-jeou must surely understand how Chen Shui-bian felt back then.

During Ma's term of office, he enabled ROC passport holders to visit 142 countries, visa-free. He enabled people from Taiwan to hold their heads high in the international community, and people from the Mainland to feel envious. He enabled nearly 10 million tourists to visit Taiwan and generate over 400 billion NT in revenues. Cross-Strait relations are the best they have been in 60 years. Over 10 years ago, the Mainland passed its "anti-secession law". The clouds of war that hung over the Taiwan Strait back then, are now long forgotten. Ma proposed an East China Sea Peace Initiative. He signed a Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement that resolved the 40-year old fisheries dispute between Taiwan and Japan. For this he was awarded the Eisenhower International Peace Prize. Crime, suicides, accidents, and drunk driving accident rates in particular, have alll fallen dramatically. These are just a few of the "Little Things that Make Us Happy", Yet none of these could prevent anti-Ma sentiment from becoming PC and de rigeur. We believe there are reasons behind this that Ma Ying-jeou must examine.

Political reality may be unfair to President Ma. His approval has hit rock bottom. Domestically, he is a lame duck with eight months left to his term. What he can accomplish at this point in time, is limited. Therefore he must make a clear distinction between policy implementation and policy direction. He must direct his efforts wisely. He must do what he can for the public on Taiwan. He must achieve something of substance. Only that will consolidate his place in history.

First consider Ma's policy implementation. Although he has only eight months left in his term, Ma Ying-jeou nevertheless occupies the office of the president. He should be thinking about how to make the best use of his authority. He must not exceed his powers. But he should think about how to benefit the nation, and achieve something of substance. For example, not long ago, in order to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the war, President Ma Ying-jeou issued a War Victory Medal which he awarded to select veterans of the war. One 98-year-old veteran was so moved that he said, "The refrigerator door is now open. It is no longer cold." His words touched peoples' hearts. They comforted veterans who 70 years ago defended the nation against Japanese conquest. They left behind a record that will remain after President Ma steps down.

When it comes to comforting war veterans, President Ma is no lame duck. Such actions require only empathy and the wise use of his authority as chief executive. Ma does not have to be a lame duck. Consider the way the sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands, and the human rights of comfort women have been represented in the history books. Ma Ying-jeou has sharply rebutted former President Lee Teng-hui's misrepresentations. This was the right thing to do. This is Ma's prime mission and responsibility as a President of the Republic of China. It also shows that President Ma Ying-jeou's place in history and the Republic of China are inseparable.

The STA has suffered a serious setback. The MTA has been shelved. Ma Ying-jeou must continue to promote improved cross-Strait relations regardless. He must take one step at a time. He must not assume that a change in ruling parties is imminent. He must not assume that his cross-Strait achievements will be credited to others, and therefore devote less energy to cross-Strait relations. Every improvement in cross-Strait relations counts. He is not working on behalf o fthe opposition party. He is working on behalf of Taiwan's stability and security. Given the current cross-Straits atmosphere, one must of course wait to see how Beijing reacts. Ma Ying-jeou's efforts may not lead to a breakthrough, but he must make an effort nevertheless.

Ma Ying-jeou may be on the way out. But that does not mean he can exercise less tact when commenting on cross-Strait relations. Lien Chan was invited to the Mainland, to meet with Xi Jinping and participate in the victory parade. Mr. Lien could perhaps have been more precise in his public statements. But he was maintaining high-level dialogue between the KMT and the CCP. He was helping to ensure cross-Strait peace. He was making a contribution to Taiwan. President Ma's criticisms of Mr. Lien were over the line, and may have sent Beijing the wrong message. Taiwan must of course come first. But we should adopt a more inclusive attitude toward the people and government on the Mainland. When appropriate, we should show greater empathy. We should walk a mile in their shoes. This does not mean sacrificing Taiwan's interests. It does mean showing empathy and promoting win/win.

And finally, consider policy direction. This is where Ma Ying-jeou fell short during his administration. He left too much undone, and what he did, he did poorly. For this he owes the public a sincere apology. Ma Ying-jeou did much for Taiwan. But he failed it in other ways. For example, starting salaries for young people are too low. Housing prices are too high. Reneging on his "six three three" promises provoked public discontent. That may not have been entirely Ma's fault. To some extent all nations that practice democracy and capitalism have suffered the same fate. But national leaders are required to bear total responsibility.

On those occasions when Ma chooses to do nothing, he should allow the KMT to assume responsibility. Ma Ying-jeou is no longer KMT chairman. He is merely an ordinary party member. He may express his feelings about the KMT. But on other matters, he must let Chairman Eric Chu assume full responsibility. He must let presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu assume responsibility for the success or failure of her election campaign. Ma should not reduce himself to the status of campaign worker, standing on firing line trading fire with the opposition. Ma Ying-jeou will soon become a former head of state. The status of former head of state, strictly speaking, does not belong to any individual or party. Ma should transcend attachment to any particular party. He should transcend attachment to blue or green. He should speak out on behalf of the Republic of China as a whole. Chen Shui-bian and Lee Teng-hui failed to live up to this standard. We hope Ma Ying-jeou can and will.

The facts of history have yet to settle. Political accomplishments will not rot. History will eventually render a just verdict. On this point, the person who most needs to show confidence and patience is none other than Ma Ying-jeou himself.

歷史將如何記載馬英九

2015年09月08日 中國時報

行政院國發會日前公布國人生活滿意度高達8成2的民調，馬英九立刻遭到媒體訕笑；臉書有人徵求「最恐怖的一句話」，署名「馬英九」的網友留言要繼續連任總統，被推為恐怖第一名。邱吉爾曾說：「對政治領袖無情，是偉大民族的象徵。」這句話，1998年連任台北市長失敗的陳水扁曾經援用過，此時馬英九總統，想必比當時的陳水扁感受更深刻。

即便他任內創造了142國免簽證待遇，讓台灣人在國際間揚眉吐氣，大陸人更羨慕不已；來台旅客創下近千萬人紀錄，創造觀光收入超過4000億元；目前是兩岸關係60年來最好階段，10餘年前大陸通過「反分裂國家法」，台海戰雲密布的恐懼早已遺忘；提出東海和平倡議進而簽署「台日漁業協議」，解決了台日之間長達40年的漁業糾紛，並因此獲頒艾森豪國際和平獎；台灣犯罪、自殺人數、交通事故，特別是酒駕肇事都大幅減少的小確幸成果，雖有這些政績做為後盾，但仍制止不住反馬成為王道、酸馬成為時尚，相信背後必定有值得馬英九反省檢討之處。

政治現實對馬總統未必公平，但他聲望低迷、內政跛腳且只剩8個多月任期，能夠施為之處已相當有限。正因如此，他更應明確區分政策「有為」與「不為」，把力量放在刀口上，為台灣盡心、為人民盡力，做出一些實事，才能真正鞏固他的歷史定位。

先談有為，即便只剩下8個多月的任期，馬英九終究掌有元首名器，該想想如何運用元首高度，做不超越能力範圍，卻又有福國實益、利民實效的事情。舉例而言，不久前，為紀念抗戰70周年，馬英九破例頒發總統署名的抗戰勝利紀念章給抗戰老兵，其中有位高齡98歲的老兵感動的說：「冰箱打開，不冷了。」這段話令人動容，撫慰了70年前為捍衛國家而戰的老兵，也在馬總統卸任前添下佳話。

撫慰抗戰老兵這件事，馬總統並沒有跛腳，這類事只要發揮同理心，善用元首高度就能做到，讓他仍是一匹健壯的勇腳馬。與此類似的，就是在釣魚台主權、慰安婦人權與抗日主導權的史觀詮釋上，對於李登輝前總統一系列謬論，馬英九嚴正反駁，這是正確的強勢。一方面，這是身為中華民國總統無可旁貸的使命與責任，二方面，馬英九總統的歷史定位與中華民國已不可分。

即便在服貿重挫、貨貿被擱置的重重困局中，馬英九還是要把力氣集中在兩岸關係的續進上，多走一步算一步。不可以認為政黨輪替的機會變大，擔心兩岸成果會「為人作嫁」，而在兩岸關係的推進上懈怠。因為，傾盡全力累積兩岸關係的厚度，不是為了在野黨，而是為了台灣的安定與安全。當然，以目前兩岸的氛圍，北京的態度轉趨觀望，馬英九努力也不一定能打破這樣的觀望，但該做的努力，仍要做。

同時，即將卸任的馬英九，其兩岸發言也應有更大的柔軟性，這次連戰應邀前往大陸與習近平舉行連習會並參加閱兵，連先生發言分寸掌握也許不夠精準，但他維繫國共高層對話，持續兩岸和平發展，對台灣還是有很大的貢獻，馬總統對連先生的批評卻過度了些，可能對大陸釋出了錯誤的訊息。台灣優先固然要維持，但也應擁有對大陸民眾乃至政府更大的包容。應適時的採取換位思考，從大陸民眾的角度，多想一層。這不是放棄台灣利益，而是創造互利的同理心法則。

而最後一個「有為」，則是馬英九應為任內做不夠、做不好的地方，真誠的向人民道歉。馬英九對台灣當然有功，但也非無過。例如年輕人起薪低、房價高、六三三跳票這些民眾首怨。即便究其實情，這中間不完全是馬總統的努力不夠，部分是實施資本主義的民主國家普遍遭遇的困境，但國家領袖就該要概括承受。

「不為」的地方，是他應對國民黨放手。馬英九已非國民黨主席，以一介黨員，表達對國民黨的衷心祝福即可，其他的，就讓黨主席朱立倫負起全般的操盤之責，讓總統候選人洪秀柱挑起選舉成敗大擔。馬不必把自己矮化成選戰炮手，頻頻站在火線上與在野黨叫陣，馬英九即將成為卸任元首，卸任元首的名器，嚴格說來並不屬於個人或個別政黨，放下政黨的小執，展現「超越藍綠、只為台灣發言」的高度，這樣的高度，過去在陳水扁與李登輝身上都沒看到，希望可以在馬英九身上看到。

歷史之河會有足夠時間沉澱，政績不會腐朽，歷史會公平評價。而這一點，最該有信心與耐心的不是別人，是馬英九自己。

Hung Hsiu-chu is Resuming Her Unorthodox Campaign

Hung Hsiu-chu is Resuming Her Unorthodox Campaign
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2015

Executive Summary: Hung Hsiu-chu has ended her self-imposed isolation. She has issued a "reflection and commitment" proclamation, reiterating her commitment to her presidential campaign. Hung Hsiu-chu's candid, straightforward, unpretentious and bold spirit is back, with a vengeance. Hung has vowed that her campaign will effect three changes. It will change the social climate, such that virtue will once again reign supreme. It will change the Kuomintang, such that it will win back the public trust. It will change the nation, such that it will get back on track and resume its former glory.

Full Text Below:

Hung Hsiu-chu has ended her self-imposed isolation. She has issued a "reflection and commitment" proclamation, reiterating her commitment to her presidential campaign. Hung Hsiu-chu's candid, straightforward, unpretentious and bold spirit is back, with a vengeance. Hung has vowed that her campaign will effect three changes. It will change the social climate, such that virtue will once again reign supreme. It will change the Kuomintang, such that it will win back the public trust. It will change the nation, such that it will get back on track and resume its former glory.

Hung Hsiu-chu excoriated Taiwan politicians for their lack of integrity. She zeroed in on the problem without equivocation. Taiwan is sick, she declared. “It is sick not because of policy, but because of politics, and even more because of those who take up politics." She said her three changes cannot be implemented by the usual changes in public policy. If Sun Yun-suan and Li Kuo-ting were alive today, they could not implement their policies. Hung said these changes must begin in our hearts.

Chinese culture has long cautioned that without integrity and sincerity one cannot "govern a nation and maintain peace under heaven." Phoniness and insincerity have become the norm among Taiwan politicians. Vulgarity has become politically correct. Hypocrisy has become falsely equated with integrity. Trickery has become falsely equated with abilty. Equivocation has become falsely equated tolerance. Narcissism has become falsely equated with self-respect. Obstinacy has become falsely equated with constancy. Under these circumstances, how can one possibly look forward to sound public policy? How can sound public policy possibly be implemented? Therefore Hung urges us to begin with ourselves. She urges political parties to lay down their arms and wage an election campaign rather than an election battle. She declared her willingness to personally meet with Tsai Ing-wen to discuss the future of the nation, to ensure that rational thought and mob passion determines the course of politics on Taiwan.

Chinese culture has long taught that peace is to be treasured and that failure to advance amounts to falling behind. It has taught us not to view the sky from the bottom of a well and to refrain from ego inflation. When dealing with cross-Strait relations, we must refrain from opposing or hating Mainland China. We must refrain from covert or overt struggles. We must refrain from covert or overt foot dragging. Struggles that reject one China and foot dragging that rejects One China, Different Interpretations will not enable us to muddle through. We will merely become frogs boiled alive. Therefore Hung Hsiu-chu advocates political dialogue with the Mainland and the signing of a peace agreement. Only that will make us a more attractive environment for investment, enable the younger generation to grow, and allow us to create the added value the world wants and expects from Taiwan.

Chinese culture tells us that partisanship, disunity, and discord means the dissolution of any organization. The KMT suffered a defeat in the nine in one elections. But it has made no changes in its party line or organizational structure. Instead, it has chosen as party chairman an individual unwilling to leap into the fire pit, and only willing to serve as party chairman for one year. It has adopted One China, Different Interpretations as its permanent stance. President Ma is jealously guarding his precious "legacy", and is determined to prevent anyone, including presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu, from undermining it. Supporters of the Legislative Yuan Speaker seek to alter party rules, enabling him to cling to power. They persist in floating rumors about a ticket with someone else as president, and Hung demoted to vice president. How can a KMT such as this win the support of the people? No wonder Hung Hsiu-chu addressed this matter in her "reflection and commitment" speech. As Hung noted, "Despite its nine in one election defeat, the party has not engaged in soul-searching convincing enough to move the public. Therefore I hope to address the important or controversial issues in open debate, or discuss ways in which we can work together to formulate a clear policy path, and let people know why they should support this party."

As a candidate, Hung Hsiu-chu hopes to make three changes. To do so, she must shatter three illusions. She must shatter Taiwan's political deceit. Otherwise the public will continue to be manipulated by sleazy politicians. She must shatter Taiwan's populism. Otherwise the public will continue to value party affiliation over truth. She must shatter social convention. Otherwise the public will remain mired in its "insular mindset". The public must awaken to the truth about cross-Strait relations. Otherwise it will not understand the need for peace.

Hung Hsiu-chu wants to change Taiwan. But in order to do so, she must first engage in creative destruction. She must take the lead in changing the way election campaigns are conducted. She must stand on a soapbox, take to the streets, and let people know why Taiwan is sick. She must let supporters know that she is not under Kuomintang control, that the KMT supports her proposals, and is willing to debate its policy path. She must boldly announce that she intends to sign a peace agreement, in order to ensure cross-Strait peace, abide by the constitution, and achieve "separate rule without political separatism".

Hung is waging an unorthodox election campaign.  She does not depend on elaborate rallies wherever she goes. She does not depend on party princes or machine politics. She does not depend on shaking hands, but on touching hearts. Following her self-imposed silence, her supporters are waiting to see. Will the protagonist in the coming election be the KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu, or Hung Hsiu-chu's KMT? Are the KMT elders willing to defer to Hung Hsiu-chu? Are they willing to let her speak the truth? Will they demand that she be a "good girl"? This election will determine whether an unorthodox election campaign is feasible. Hung must summon up Taiwan's basic virtues. She must rally those willing to change Taiwan's essence. Only then will Hung Hsiu-chu stand a chance of winning the election, Only then can a long benighted Taiwan emerge once again into the light.

洪秀柱站上肥皂箱 重回非典選戰

2015年09月07日中國時報

洪秀柱結束閉關，發表《反省與承擔》聲明，重申她參選的承擔，直言、率真、平凡、但大氣魄的洪秀柱回來了。她承諾，自己的參選將為台灣帶來三個改變：帶動社會風氣的改變，讓良善的價值重新成為最高標準；帶來國民黨的改變，讓人民對它再重拾信任；帶給國家改變，讓國家回到正確的道路，再次奮起。

聲明中，洪秀柱對於台灣政治人物的不真誠，有著嚴厲的批判。她直指核心地說，台灣病了，「病因不在政策，而在政治，更在我們這些從事政治的人」。她表示，這三個改變都不是一般公共政策可以解決，即使是孫運璿、李國鼎今日在世，也無法落實政策。要做這些改變必須從最底層的「心」開始。

中華文化很早就告誡我們，不能「誠意、正心」焉能「治國、平天下」。當虛假的不真誠，成為台灣政治人物的風氣時，當媚俗的「政治正確」才是政治正確時，當真誠等同於偽善、質樸等同於狹隘、能力等同於權謀、包容等同於含混、自重等同於自戀、堅定等同於固執時，我們又能期待什麼好的公共政策？又能落實什麼好的公共政策？因此她主張從自己做起，希望政黨能夠「放下屠刀」，共同進行一場理性的「選舉」，而非是殺戮的「選戰」，她願意親自前往拜訪蔡英文，並共同切磋辯證國家未來應有的道路與方向，讓理性而非民粹重新主導台灣的政治。

中華文化也很早告訴我們，「和為貴」與「不進則退」的道理，更告訴我們不要「井底窺天」、「夜郎自大」。我們今日在處理兩岸關係時，不是「反中」、就是「仇中」，不是「明鬥」就是「暗鬥」；不是選擇「明拖」，就是「暗拖」，或者「不得不拖」。這種以「拒絕一中」為核心的「鬥」與「一中各表」為精神的「拖」，不是讓台灣繼續模模糊糊的坐困愁城，就是像溫水煮青蛙似的坐以待斃。因此，洪秀柱主張要積極地與大陸進行政治對話，簽署和平協定，以為台灣「創造和平」，如此才能真正改善我們的投資環境，同時也為青年朋友開創更開闊的發展空間，更為台灣創造被世界需要的價值。

中華文化也告訴我們，「黨同伐異」、「一盤散沙」、「離心離德」是任何組織瓦解的開始。今日的國民黨在九合一敗選以後，沒有任何路線的調整及黨內文化與組織的反省，卻選出了一個拒絕跳火坑、並只願意做1年的黨主席；還有一個把「一中各表」視為其歷史定位、政治遺產的馬總統，堅決不容許任何人，包括參選人洪秀柱丟掉他的定位與遺產。也看到了一個立法院長的支持者，仍舊期盼修改黨規，得以繼續延續其政治生命，還看到不斷放話「○洪配」的黨內人士。這樣的國民黨如何還能得到人民的支持？難怪洪秀柱在《反省與承擔》文中說：「從九合一敗選後，本黨的檢討似乎並未能感動社會，因此我也非常希望在必要的或有爭議性的重要議題上，以開放方式進行辯論或討論，大家一起把政策路線講清楚，讓人民清楚知道為何要支持本黨」。

洪秀柱參選所期待的三個改變，所必須仰賴的基礎，就是一個「破」字，不破台灣政治的不真誠，台灣的社會繼續會遭政客們翻雲覆雨；不破台灣的民粹，「只問立場，不問是非」的社會氛圍不會改變；不破台灣的「逃避」島國心態，台灣不會認清兩岸真相，人民不會了解「創造和平」的必要。

洪秀柱想要改變台灣，必須要大破才能大立，她必須要自己帶頭改變選舉文化，她必須站上肥皂箱，走上街頭，告訴人民台灣病了的原因；她必須要讓支持者知道，她沒有被國民黨裹脅，國民黨願意支持她的主張，進行路線與政策的大辯論；她必須勇敢地向人民說，為了兩岸和平，也為了遵守憲法，她堅決主張在「分治不分裂」的基礎上簽署和平協定。

這就是一個「非典型選舉」的心法。不是靠華麗的選舉場子，不是靠天王與派系，不是靠能握多少手，而是看能抓住多少心。在閉關以後，所有支持者都在看，未來選舉的主角，到底是國民黨的洪秀柱，還是洪秀柱的國民黨？國民黨的大老天王是否願意將主帥權、論述權交給洪秀柱？洪是否願意直言要求？還是繼續做個乖乖女？這將決定洪的非典型選舉能夠落實！只有能夠召喚台灣原有的良善價值，喚回每一個願意台灣從本質上改變的心，洪秀柱才有機會贏得選舉，台灣的多年暗室，也才能一燈即明。

Lee Teng-hui Scrambles, Tsai Ing-wen Waffles

Lee Teng-hui Scrambles, Tsai Ing-wen Waffles
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2015

Executive Summary: We do not believe Tsai Ing-wen will repudiate the 1992 Consensus and allow 'the ground to move beneath our feet". If she becomes president, Tsai Ing-wen could repudiate the 1992 Consensus, even if it causes the ground to move beneath our feet. Let us hope she does not. But suppose Tsai Ing-wen is elected. Suppose she then succumbs to pressure to recognize the 1992 Consensus? What will Beijing think of her? What will deep greens think of her? Will the blue camp forgive her? Given Tsai Ing-wen's lack of personal integrity, and the loss of trust on both sides of the Strait, one can forget about hopes for an era of peace. Lee Teng-hui traded Diaoyutai for Japanese support for Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen loses all personal credibility, it will not matter whether she ends up in the presidential office. She will find herself sitting on pins and needles.

Full Text Below:

Lee Teng-hui is scrambling to define his legacy. Tsai Ing-wen must ask herself whether she really wants to continue flip-flopping and backing Lee Teng-hui.

Lee Teng-hui has reached the point where he knows only the realization of Taiwan independence will allow him to cling to his legacy. If Taiwan independence cannot be achieved, Lee Teng-hui will be relegated to the role of villain, both on Taiwan and China as a whole. Judging by the reaction from the United States, Lee's befuddled conduct has not been been received well internationally.

Japan has consequently become the sole fragment of driftwood Lee Teng-hui can cling to keep from drowning. Japan has become the only nation that might be able to preserve Lee's legacy. Therefore he has reaffirmed his status as a loyal subject of the Japanese emperor. He has presented Japan with Diaoyutai as a sacrificial offering. He has invoked old dreams of Japanese militarism. He is urging Japan to wage war against China in the hope that Japan will support his dream of Taiwan independence. He sees Japan as an international pillar providing support for Taiwan independence.

Lee Teng-hui is clearly trapped within a fantasy world of his own making. He desperately hopes the show he put on in Japan will gain him an audience on Taiwan. He is fostering illusions about the legitimacy of Taiwan independence among the Taiwan public. Lee Teng-hui spoke of how he "fought for the Japanese homeland". He proclaimed that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan". But such declarations can hardly induce Japan to support Taiwan independence. They can only tear Taiwan apart still more. Future global and cross-Strait circumstances leave even less room for Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui's words and deeds have torn Taiwan apart. But will they really enable him to achieve Taiwan independence?

Taiwan independence is no longer possible. Tearing Taiwan apart will only make Taiwan independence even less possible. Tearing Taiwan apart merely mires the public in mutual hatred and mutual destruction. How can it possibly lead to Taiwan independence? This is Lee Teng-hui's blind spot. This is the Taiwan independence movement's permanent blind spot. Is it Tsai Ing-wen's blind spot as well?

Lee Teng-hui is engaged in a last ditch struggle to secure his legacy. He is attempting to use Japanese rightwingers to reestablish himself as the standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen may choose to be just another fan of Lee Teng-hui. She may "tolerate" Lee Teng-hui. She may even "approve of" Lee Teng-hui. But Tsai Ing-wen may well become the next president of the Republic of China. Lee Teng-hui's "out with the old and in with the new" Taiwan independence rhetoric is not something that Tsai Ing-wen can "tolerate". She must unequivocally declare her approval or disapproval.

Lee Teng-hui declared that "Diaoyutai belongs to Japan", in exchange for the opportunity to mouth rhetoric about "out with the old, in with the new" Taiwan independence thinking, and demand the "severing of relations with [Mainland] China". But the real question is whether Tsai Ing-wen has become Lee Teng-hui's fellow traveler in exchange for his endorsement?

Tsai Ing-wen may share Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan independence ideology. But does Tsai Ing-wen actually believe that Taiwan independence is feasible? We don't think so. Otherwise, Tsai Ing-wen would not pledge to "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations", or "defend the current ROC constitutional framework", or "seek common ground on the 1992 Consensus". On the one hand Tsai Ing-wen "tolerates" Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan independence rhetoric. On the other hand she swears that she will "defend the Republic of China's constitutional framework". One can only wonder at her lack of political integrity.

Tsai Ing-wen denounced ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan". Not long afterwards however, she "unconditionally accepted it". She denounced the STA as a "black box operation". Not long aftewards however, she performed a 180 degree about face. Tsai Ing-wen persists in flip-flopping, in both words and deeds. She does not flip-flop once in a blue moon. She does so constantly, demonstrating that she is a politician utterly devoid of integrity who simply cannot be trusted.

Even more serious is Tsai Ing-wen's response to the 1992 Consensus. Tsai has an obligation to tell voters whether she intends to continue pursuing Taiwan independence. This is something people on both sides of the Strait have a right to expect from her. Tsai may may choose to continue pursuing Taiwan independence, or she may choose to help Taiwan independence elements undergo transformation. But Tsai Ing-wen may not simultaneously "tolerate" Taiwan independence movement "out with the old in with the new" rhetoric, while promoting "Taiwan independence in spirit".  Promoting "Taiwan independence in spirit" will only exacerbate social divisions on Taiwan. It can serve as a long term strategy for Taiwan's governance. If Tsai persists in doing so in the face of knowledge to the contrary, then she is utterly devoid of personal integrity.

The Sunflower Student Movement has chosen to pursue Taiwan independence and a Closed Door Policy. Tsai Ing-wen did not dare to offer the movement any promises. She merely promised to "oppose black box operations". She averred that "For the younger generation, Taiwan independence comes naturally". Opponents of curriculum reform allege that "Japanese rule was not colonial rule", and that "The comfort women were not coerced". Tsai Ing-wen did not dare to endorse their claims. Instead she denounced curriculum reform as a "black box operation". She convened a conference of 13 green camp mayors, who vowed to continue using the old curriculum. Lee Teng-hui is promoting "out with the old, in with the new" Taiwan independence thinking. He boasted that he "fought for the Japanese homeland". Tsai Ing-wen did not dare criticize him. Instead she demanded "tolerance". No one is saying that Tsai Ing-wen cannot advocate Taiwan independence. But people on both sides of the Strait cannot allow Tsai Ing-wen to deceive voters. Tsai does not dare champion Taiwan independence. But she aids and abets Taiwan independence, exploits Taiwan independence, and manipulates Taiwan independence. This is more than a matter of policy. It is a matter of character.

We do not believe Tsai Ing-wen will repudiate the 1992 Consensus and allow 'the ground to move beneath our feet". If she becomes president, Tsai Ing-wen could repudiate the 1992 Consensus, even if it causes the ground to move beneath our feet. Let us hope she does not. But suppose Tsai Ing-wen is elected. Suppose she then succumbs to pressure to recognize the 1992 Consensus? What will Beijing think of her? What will deep greens think of her? Will the blue camp forgive her? Given Tsai Ing-wen's lack of personal integrity, and the loss of trust on both sides of the Strait, one can forget about hopes for an era of peace.

Lee Teng-hui traded Diaoyutai for Japanese support for Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen loses all personal credibility, it will not matter whether she ends up in the presidential office. She will find herself sitting on pins and needles.

李登輝的掙扎 蔡英文的搖擺

2015-09-04聯合報

李登輝正為其歷史評價作最後掙扎。蔡英文必須慎思，要不要再用她反覆、搖擺的人格形象為李登輝背書。

李登輝走到今日地步，他深知，唯有台獨若能實現，他始可能保有其歷史定位。但是，台獨若不能實現，李登輝在中國及台灣歷史上，將注定是一負面角色。且李的錯亂反覆，在以美國為參考標尺的國際評價上亦無好評。

因而，日本就成了李登輝自估可能挽救其歷史角色的唯一浮木，於是他向日本回售其皇民的忠貞，將釣魚台獻給日本，召喚日本的軍國舊夢，挑唆日本與中國不惜一戰的心理；在在皆寄望日本支撐其台獨幻想，將日本視為李記台獨的國際支柱。

李登輝顯然已陷迷狂。他欲以在日本的表演，「出口轉內銷」，使台灣人民對台獨的正當性產生幻想與錯覺。但是，憑李登輝幾句「為日本祖國而戰」及「釣魚台是日本的」，不僅絕無可能使日本支持台獨，反而使台灣更加撕裂。且不說未來世局及兩岸情勢已無台獨的空間，大家看一看這個被李登輝此類言行撕裂至此的台灣，豈有可能實現台獨？

台獨已無可能。撕裂台灣，更不利台獨。撕裂台灣，只有使台灣人陷於相互仇恨與毀滅，豈可能因此成就台獨？這是李登輝的盲點，也是向來台獨運動的盲點。然而，這難道也是蔡英文的盲點？

李登輝正為其歷史定位作最後掙扎，欲藉日本右翼重建其台獨旗手的假象。蔡英文若只是作為李登輝的一介粉絲，她自可「包容」李登輝，甚至可「贊成」李登輝。但如今蔡英文有可能在明年出任中華民國總統，對於李登輝的「脫古改新」的台獨論述，蔡英文沒有「包容與否」的餘地，她必須斬釘截鐵地說「贊成與否」。

李登輝用「釣魚台是日本的」，換得在日本發表一場「脫古改新／切斷中國」的空泛演說。但蔡英文能以成為李登輝的同路人，來換取李登輝對她的支持嗎？

即使蔡英文在理念上同情李登輝的台獨思想，但我們不認為蔡英文在理智上會認為台獨尚有任何一絲可行性。否則，蔡英文就不會說「兩岸關係維持現狀」、「現行中華民國憲政體制推動論」，「九二共識，就求同存異吧」。但蔡英文一方面「包容」李登輝的台獨主張，一方面宣示「中華民國憲政體制推動論」；試問：政治人格何在？

蔡英文曾指ＥＣＦＡ是傾中賣台，後來卻「概括承受」，再後來又「反服貿黑箱」。此類顛倒反覆，不斷出現在蔡英文的言行中，已不能只視為政策上的偶一搖擺，其實已呈現出一名政治領袖在政治人格上是否可堪信任的問題。

更嚴肅的問題是：蔡英文必須對九二共識作出回應，也就是必須對是否維持台獨路線作一交代。這是兩岸對蔡英文很正當、也很公平的期待。蔡英文可以繼續主張台獨，也可以引領台獨轉型。但兩岸情勢不容蔡英文一手掌握執政權，一手「包容」台獨運動「脫古改新」，進行「心靈台獨」。因為，「心靈台獨」只能惡化台灣的撕裂，卻絕非可大可久的治國策略。如果蔡英文在理智上明知此路不通，卻又不斷如此操作，這是否為人格的問題？

太陽花作出台獨鎖國的結論，蔡英文不敢承諾，僅稱「反黑箱」，但又稱「台獨是年輕人的天然成分」。反課綱者主張「日本不是殖民統治」、「慰安婦不是被迫的」，蔡英文不敢直言贊同，仍稱「反黑箱」，但又率十三名綠色縣市長堅持採用舊課綱。如今李登輝倡言「脫古改新」「為日本祖國而戰」，蔡英文亦未敢論斷，又以一句「包容」帶過。沒有人說蔡英文不能主張台獨，但兩岸皆不能容忍蔡英文這種「不敢台獨／迴護台獨／利用台獨／玩弄台獨」的投機心態。因為，這不但是政策問題，更是人格問題。

我們不認為，蔡英文在理智上會「否定九二共識／聽任地動山搖的發生」。蔡英文若當了總統，她的確可宣告，本總統即使面對地動山搖，也要堅決否定九二共識。設非如此，卻是在蔡英文倘若當選就任後，在壓力下突然改口宣告接受九二共識。試問：教北京如何瞧得起她？教深綠如何容得下她？又教泛藍如何饒得過她？蔡英文若因此人格破產，失去兩岸信任，也就別妄想治理平順了。

李登輝用釣魚台換不到日本支持其台獨主張。蔡英文若賠上了人格信任，她縱使坐上總統寶座，亦必如坐針氈。

Stay on Message: Hung Hsiu-chu's Only Chance of Winning

Stay on Message: Hung Hsiu-chu's Only Chance of Winning
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 3, 2015

Executive Summary: Hung Hsiu-chu is the presidential candidate making the most effort to get elected. She has pulled out all the stops. Her campaign has made some progress, but not enough. She currently faces three major obstacles. One. The KMT's image for governance remains poor. Two. Kuomintang factional leaders refuse to unite. Three. The KMT's rigid order is cramping Hung Hsiu-chu's style.

Full Text Below:

Hung Hsiu-chu is the presidential candidate making the most effort to get elected. She has pulled out all the stops. Her campaign has made some progress, but not enough. She currently faces three major obstacles. One. The KMT's image for governance remains poor. Two. Kuomintang factional leaders refuse to unite. Three. The KMT's rigid order is cramping Hung Hsiu-chu's style.

Hung must overcome these three obstacles. People must see these three obstacles overcome. Only then will victory be possible. One. People must experience these changes, first hand. They need to see more than ruling party changes. They want "politics as usual" gone permanently, in toto. They yearn for a breath of fresh air. Two. They want the Kuomintang to undergo total transformation. That is the very reason they supported Hung to begin with. They want to change the Kuomintang. They want Taiwan to have a Kuomintang that works. Three. They are no longer willing to sit like frogs boiled alive, watching as the nation drifts aimlessly without a compass. They want a clear direction for the nation.

Overcoming these three obstacles requires three changes. One. Hung's advisors must "Let Hung be Hung". She must remain on message. Two. The Kuomintang must engage in thorough soul-searching, factional leaders in particular. They must cease looking out only for number one. They must cease going through the motions merely to divvy up the spoils, indifferent to whether the party wins or loses. They must cease spreading rumors about Hung being replaced, thereby undermining the KMT's final pledge. Three. Blue camp supporters must make themselves heard. They must pressure the KMT to change, thereby changing society's negative impression of the party.

Hung is persistent, straightforward, sincere, and unambiguous. She does not pontificate. She does not grandstand. This distinguishes her from other politicians on Taiwan. She is dramatically different from Tsai Ing-wen, who is deliberately unclear, who answers the easy questions but ducks the hard ones, who lies about her positions on key issues such as national identity. Hung is the polar opposite of James Soong, a master of political trickery and political theater who flip-flops constantly, whose campaign finances are questionable, and whose motives for running are entirely different.

Hung has another unique trait. Her path for the nation's future is crystal clear. To her the core issue is a lack of clarity in cross-Strait relations and the nation's direction. As a result, she seeks cross-Strait peace. Specifically she proposes a meaningful and principled "cross-strait peace agreement". Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, has been deceiving the public by avoiding this problem in hopes of winning the election. Like her mentor Lee Teng-hui, she has learned to conceal her true sentiments, and is utterly devoid of honesty.

Another candidate, James Soong, is a Machiavellian schemer. On the one hand, he sides with the opponents of curriculum reform, and panders to the mob. On the other hand, he exploits his relationship with Beijing. He boasts about being invited to the September 3 victory parade, milking it to give the Green Camp a shot in the arm. On cross-Strait relations he offers nothing but hollow rhetoric. He dances to the DPP's tune, and without bothering to check the facts, denounces Hung's cross-Strait policy as "hasty reunification".

Politics on Taiwan is plagued by a moral vacuum and an indifference to the truth. That said, most people are decent human beings. As long as Hung stays on message, as long as Hung's advisors "Let Hung be Hung", as long as Hung boldly proclaims her intentions for the nation's future, we believe real gold does not fear fire, and justice will prevail. As long as the people are willing to listen to their inner voices, support for Hung will grow.

We hope that KMT leaders will refrain from looking out only for number one. We hope they will refrain from adopting a two-faced strategy of supporting the party's candidate on the surface while allowing local leaders to collude with James Soong beneath the table. With the help of KMT think tanks, Hung has presented a number of new policies, including an improved capital gains tax. KMT Chairman Eric Chu and Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang JIn-pyng have been tracking its progress. The KMT enjoys a legislative majority. It can immediately implement Hung's policy. This would show that the KMT supports Hung. If they fail at this, Chairman Chu and Speaker Wang will be in a serious dereliction of duty, and so-called party solidarity will be nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Only if Chu and Wang succeed at this, will people believe in the KMT's ability to govern, and that they should vote for KMT legislators.

As we all know, Hung's cross-Strait policy differs from President Ma Ying-jeou's in methodology. Her nuclear energy policy differs from Chairman Chu's in scheduling. Shouldn't the KMT take advantage of this opportunity to debate these issues? Only debate will enable outsiders to see that the KMT is a political party capable of self-reflection. Only debate will enable the KMT to create a blue camp consensus.

Hung Hsiu-chu's candidacy is an historical accident. In fact, people hope that a force for good will sweep Hung into office. Whether victory is possible next year depends on whether conditions are right. One can only do what one can. One cannot hope for the moon. No matter what the outcome, Hung can provide society with an exemplar of future leaders. She can give the KMT a new look, new order, and new direction, and force the KMT to change.

The public on Taiwan seeks change. But it knows any change brought about by the DPP could lead to greater unrest. They demand change but fear it as well. Such a political climate offers Hung an unprecedented opportunity. Hung must remain resolute. The KMT has nominated her. But the goal must be more than just a KMT victory. The great silent majority must believe the nation is changing for the better. Only that will win votes. Only that is the correct path.

堅持初衷 洪秀柱唯一贏的策略

2015年09月03日 中國時報

洪秀柱是目前總統候選人中最認真選舉的，幾乎使盡渾身解數，選情略有進展，但仍無大幅起色。目前有三座大山擋在面前，一是國民黨的施政社會形象太差，二是國民黨內山頭不願團結，三是洪個人的特色風格受制於國民黨結構而難以展現。

洪要跨越這三座大山，讓民眾感受到三大改變，才有可能勝選。一是人民感受到的改變，不再只是政黨的輪替而已，而是舊有的政治文化風格被徹底地揚棄，台灣的政治空氣變得清新；二是國民黨徹底的翻轉，也就是人們支持洪，但也同時可以改變國民黨，讓台灣有個健康的國民黨；三是國家的方向不再是模模糊糊的坐困愁城，也不再是溫水煮青蛙式的坐以待斃，而是一條明確的國家發展方向確定了。

要創造這三大改變，必須仰賴三股力量。一是洪必須清楚積極地展現其個人人格特質及堅持參選的初衷；二是國民黨全黨，特別是各山頭必須有深刻的反省，不可以再擁兵自重、虛應故事，以賺取敗選或分裂後的政治利益；不要再造謠放話換柱，傷害國民黨的最後誠信；三是泛藍民眾須大力發聲，給國民黨壓力，要求國民黨翻轉社會的既有印象。

洪的個人特色是堅毅、質樸、真誠，不模糊，不打高空，也不譁眾取寵，這是她與台灣其他政治人物不同的地方。與蔡英文的不清不楚、避重就輕，在如國家認同等關鍵立場上的蓄意不誠實形成強烈對比；與宋楚瑜的擅於權謀、長袖善舞、唱做俱佳、立場搖擺、錢財不清，參選動機不明也有著南轅北轍的本質不同。

洪的另一個特色是國家道路大方向明確，直指台灣的核心問題在於兩岸關係定位及路徑不清楚，因而提出要以創造兩岸和平為未來的重大方向，具體提出要簽署「兩岸和平協定」及其應有的內涵及原則。反觀蔡英文到目前為止，還企圖以模糊蒙混的方式來迴避這個大問題，為了選舉，學習李登輝一樣，隱藏自己內心的真正認同，毫無誠實可言。

另一位參選人宋楚瑜，則是權謀算計地一方面支持高中生反課綱微調，收媚俗之得，一方面在販賣他與北京的關係，甚而以可出席九三閱兵為傲，擺出可為綠營通氣打點之用。在兩岸關係上只有空話，卻跟著民進黨，不問事理地批評洪的兩岸主張是「急統」。

台灣的政治的確有些價值不彰、是非不明的現象，但是絕大多數的民眾是善良的，只要洪堅持自己原有的人格本質，大聲地說出她堅持的道路，我們相信，真金不怕火煉，公道自在人心，只要人民聽進去了，感受到了，洪的支持力量就會快速增加。

我們也希望國民黨的高層，不要再擁兵自重，也不要玩兩手策略，表面上支持黨的參選人，但是卻不避諱地容許其樁腳與宋暗通款曲。在國民黨智庫的協助下，洪已經提出了多項新政策，包括受好評的證所稅改良方案。國民黨從朱主席，到在立法院掌握議程進度的王院長，能否透過國民黨的現有優勢，讓洪的選舉政見立刻落實，以事實驗證國民黨舉全黨之力支持洪。如果做不到這一點，朱主席與王院長其實已是嚴重失職，所謂全黨團結挺柱只是虛話一句。如果能夠做到這一點，才能使人民相信，國民黨的確還有能力治國，將選票投給國民黨的立委才有意義。

眾所周知，洪對於兩岸關係的看法與馬英九總統有方法論上的不同，對核能政策與朱立倫主席有順序上的不同，國民黨難道不應該利用這個機會，進行一場大辯論嗎？只有透過辯論，才會讓外界感受到國民黨是個敢於自我反省的政黨，國民黨的路線才能凝聚泛藍的共識。

洪秀柱出線是歷史的偶然，其實也有人民期待正面力量的必然，把洪推向大選的浪頭，明年能否勝選，取決於因緣是否具足，只能努力不能強求，但洪可以給社會留下一個未來領導者應有的嶄新面貌，帶給國民黨一個新的文化與方向，促使國民黨必須翻轉改變。

台灣社會既希望改變，又擔心透過民進黨改變，是否會帶來更大的不安。這種既想改變，又不安的氛圍，正是洪的契機。洪要堅信，雖然是國民黨提名，但目標不應只是讓國民黨勝選，而是讓廣大的沉默大眾感受到國家可以往好的地方改變，才會有選票，也才是正道。

CCP Must Acknowledge KMT Leadership Role during War Against Japan

CCP Must Acknowledge KMT Leadership Role during War Against Japan
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2015

Executive Summary: Lien Chan met with Xi Jinping yesterday in Beijing's Great Hall of the People. He used the occasion to air his personal views on the 70th anniversary of the War of Resistance Against Japan. A dispute between Taipei and Beijing over which regime led the war effort erupted during Lien's visit. President Ma, Hau Pei-tsun, and others uttered some harsh words. A few media organizations on the Mainland responded in kind. This made Lien Chan's visit to Beijing a sensitive matter, and magnifyied the impact of everything he said or did in Beijing. Permit us to say what we expect from Lien Chan's visit. Now that Lien Chan has made a formal declaration, this may be a good time to examine the matter.

Full Text Below:

Lien Chan met with Xi Jinping yesterday in Beijing's Great Hall of the People. He used the occasion to air his personal views on the 70th anniversary of the War of Resistance Against Japan. A dispute between Taipei and Beijing over which regime led the war effort erupted during Lien's visit. President Ma, Hau Pei-tsun, and others uttered some harsh words. A few media organizations on the Mainland responded in kind. This made Lien Chan's visit to Beijing a sensitive matter, and magnifyied the impact of everything he said or did in Beijing. Permit us to say what we expect from Lien Chan's visit. Now that Lien Chan has made a formal declaration, this may be a good time to examine the matter.

Basically we support Lien Chan's decision to visit Beijing and take part in the commemoration. Why? Because although we differ with Beijing about which regime led the war effort, the war ended 70 years ago. As we reflect upon this tragedy, one fact stands out. China today is no longer the "sick man of Asia" it was before the war. Taipei and Beijing should understand and reflect upon each other's contribution to the war effort. That is far more meaningful than stonewalling. Beijing is currently waging an all out propaganda campaign. If the KMT, the real hero of the war remains silent, it will be completely marginalized.

As one can easily imagine, Lien Chan's trip has been an arduous one. President Ma and Hau Pei-tsun  have both expressed dissatisfaction with the way the CCP has belittled the KMT's role in the war. As a result, anyone who attends Beijing's commemorative ceremony will be seen as endorsing the CCP's spin on history. If Lien Chan wants to prove otherwise, he must speak out on behalf of Taipei. He must at least make clear that the KMT led the war effort, and made the Republic of China a founding member of the United Nations. These are intractable facts that cannot be denied. Lien Chan may not be the KMT's official spokesperson on the war. But he must at least speak up. Because on this occasion, only he has the chance to do so.

On Taiwan's ideological spectrum, only the blue camp takes the history of the war seriously. Many blue camp members hope the two sides can grow and prosper together, and bring about a rebirth of the Chinese nation. But they are pressured to deny that the KMT led the war effort, or even blank out the role of the Republic of China during World War II. That of course, is impossible. Historical facts cannot be denied. Neither can subjective memories. Much of this is intensely emotional. When Beijing made a movie called "The Cairo Conference", Chiang Kai-shek was not even on the movie poster. Those in charge may be motivated by political correctness. But the results of media spin control hurt many people's feelings. That is why Ma Ying-jeou and Hau Pei-tsun spoke out in such harsh terms.

Regrettably, Lien Chan failed to make these points during the Lien-Xi meeting. He make other points quite well. For example, he said "We can not bear to see a straightforward "Taiwan consciousness" misrepresented as separatist consciousness. That will result in lost opportunities for both sides and take us back to the old stand off," He also said "Taiwan must have confidence in the Mainland's reforms and liberalization. It must develop new markets. It must undergo transformation and upgrading. Its people must participate in regional economic integration and international activities. The two sides must improve communications, learn to work with each other, and find solutions to political problems." These are all arguments we have advanced repeatedly. But as we noted before, Lien Chan bore a responsibility to convey an accurate view of history, regardless of whether the Mainland takes offense. As former chairman of the KMT, that is something he should have communicated.

Unfortunately, Lien Chan completely downplayed the matter. He said the KMT led the war effort on the front lines, while the CCP led it behind the lines. He glossed over the facts to please both sides. As a result the presidential office felt compelled to issue an official disclaimer. Both Lien Chan and Beijing underestimated the degree to which the KMT cared about credit due for the war effort.

During the previous century, the Chinese nation endured a painful war experience. Seventy years have passed, but the pain has not. Many on both sides of the Strait experienced that pain first hand. A grand ceremony to commemorate it is essential. A parade in Beijing to highlight China's ability to safeguard national security and regional peace is also desirable. After all, as a former victim of Japan's war of aggression, the Mainland must prove that it is capable of defending world peace and prosperity.

This of course does not mean the CCP can steal credit for leading the war effort. The historical facts must be made clear. The Kuomintang and the Nationalist government's contribution to the war effort must be acknowledged. Much more needs to be done in this respect. Lien Chan's visit rallied those on Taiwan who support cross-strait peace and prosperity. For this, he deserves recognition. The war ended 70 years ago. The two sides of the Strait have been separated for over 65 years. Beijing should offer Taipei a more positive response, especially with respect to the KMT's role as leader of the war effort.

台灣在乎抗戰話語權 大陸要回應

2015年09月02日 中國時報

連戰昨天在北京人民大會堂會見習近平，並藉機發表他個人對抗戰70周年的看法。由於先前出現兩岸有關抗戰話語權的爭議，馬總統、郝柏村等都說了重話，大陸部分媒體還出現反對的聲音，使得連戰這趟北京行，平添了不少敏感性，他個人在北京的所有言行都被放大檢視。我們早先也曾對連戰此行，表達了我們的期待與建議，如今連戰既已正式做了表白，或許也是一個恰當的時機，對之進行檢視了！

基本上，我們是支持連戰赴北京參與此次紀念活動的，理由很單純，不論海峽兩岸對抗戰的史觀有如何的差異，做為抗戰結束70年的此刻，重新反思這場戰爭所造成的悲劇，彰顯今天中國不再是二戰前的「東亞病夫」，甚至讓兩岸重新認識、省思彼此在抗戰中的角色與貢獻，是遠比抵制或緘默的方式更有意義的。畢竟以目前大陸在有關抗戰史觀上的鋪天蓋地式的宣傳，真正做為主角的國民黨若是完全一語不發，就形同就被邊緣化了。

連戰此行之艱鉅，其實可以想像。由於早先包括馬總統及郝柏村在內的發言，都對大陸貶低國民黨在抗戰中的角色感到不滿，因而對任何出席大陸這場紀念儀式的人士，甚至將之視為是在對大陸有關抗戰史觀的背書，連戰如果要證明他無意這樣做，他就必須將台灣這邊的聲音帶過去。至少國民黨怎麼領導抗戰，怎麼讓中華民國成為聯合國的創始會員國等，這些史實怎麼說都是不容抹煞的，連戰就算不是國民黨抗戰論述的代言人，最起碼這些聲音是要傳達出來的。因為在那個場合，也只有他才有機會發出這個聲音。

要知道，在台灣當下意識型態光譜上，認真看待抗戰史實者，大多是偏藍營人士，他們中間許多人或許渴望兩岸有一天能共榮發展，再造中華民族的盛世；但要他們因此就必須否認國民黨在抗戰中領導角色，甚至完全抹去中華民國在二戰中不可取代的歷史位置，那恐怕是不可能的任務，因為客觀的史實是無從篡改的，主觀的記憶也是不能塗抹的，這中間有很大部分所觸及的還是情感的部分，就好像大陸拍攝《開羅會議》，蔣介石完全在電影海報上消失，就算主事者是基於特定政治正確考量，但經過媒體渲染的結果，是傷到許多人的感情的。這亦是為包括馬英九、郝柏村在內的發言都很重的原因。

讓人遺憾的是，連戰在連習會的發言，並沒有很完整地傳達這些聲音。他有些話說得很好，例如他說「我們不忍也不容純樸的『台灣意識』，被誤導為分裂意識，致使兩岸失去時代機遇，走回對抗互斥的老路」，他也主張「台灣應該自信地藉著大陸深化改革開放，來開拓市場、轉型升級；民眾對參與區域經濟整合和擴大國際活動空間，也有強烈需求。這都有待兩岸加強溝通、持續磨合，為解答政治難題探索途徑」，這其實都是我們所一再主張的論調，但也如我們先前所述，連戰此行還肩負傳達正確抗戰史觀的任務，不論內容大陸方面是否會覺得刺耳，做為國民黨的前任主席，他終究是得傳達。

可惜的是，連戰卻完全淡化了這一部分，他用國民黨領導正面戰場，共產黨領導敵後戰場兩面討好的修辭帶過一點，結果竟引來了總統府正面的反駁。這意味了一點，不僅連戰，包括北京都低估了國民黨對抗戰話語權在乎的程度。

做為上世紀讓整個中華民族所經歷的極為慘痛的一場戰爭，儘管已結束了70年，但傷痛的記憶依舊在，包括海峽兩岸在內都有許多人親歷過那段不堪回首的歷史，用盛大的儀式去紀念它是必須的，北京用閱兵的儀典，來彰顯今天的中國軍隊已有能力維護國家安全與區域和平的能力，也是合宜的。畢竟做為一個昔日侵略戰爭中的受害國，大陸必須要證明其為捍衛全球和平發展的穩定力量。

當然，這並不表示中共可以壟斷抗戰的話語權，如何讓史實說話，對當年國府及國民黨對抗戰貢獻，給予更公平的認識與評價，或還有很大的努力空間。連戰此行為凝聚台灣支持兩岸和平發展力量的勇往直前勇氣值得肯定。抗戰已結束70年，兩岸分裂已超過65年，大陸方面或許應更正面回應台灣，尤其國民黨對大陸處理抗戰歷史問題的疑慮。