Taiwan Japan Relations: Dangerously Dazzling Fireworks

Taiwan Japan Relations: Dangerously Dazzling Fireworks 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 13, 2016

Executive Summary: Only the United States and Mainland hold the power of life and death over Taiwan. Only they can determine Taiwan's long-term stability. Japan has never been a major factor. Japan wants Taiwan to join its anti-China coalition. That is something that can be considered. But Japan must have the strength and strategies to provide Taiwan with strategic guarantees. It must demonstrate its trustworthiness. The Tsai government must not trade illusory Japanese fireworks displays, only to risk our national security in return.

Full Text Below:

A stable nation requires a stable national security strategy. If  its strategic framework develops problems or becomes distorted, the nation will experience internal divisions and encounter external conflict.

During the Ma era, the government maintained a policy of being “close to the US, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly with Japan”. Consequently despite its one China policy, the US defended the cross-Strait status quo. Despite its one China policy, the Mainland promoted cross-Strait peace. Based on the 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations, Taipei maintained relations with both the United States and the Mainland. Despite the three sides' different perspectives, Taipei was able to maintain the “status quo” that the Tsai regime currently enjoys and benefits from.

The new government asserts that it is "maintaining the status quo", even as it dismantles the existing national security framework. First, the new government is abandoning the 1992 Consensus. It is rejecting the "Two Sides, One China" premise embodied in the Constitution. It asserts that it is doing its utmost to “be at peace with China”, even though it has turned a deaf ear to political signals from the Mainland. Communications have been severed between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS). Communications between the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) and the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office have been severed as well. Official government to government contacts no longer exist. Communications through ECFA have also reportedly ceased. The consequences extend far beyond the initially anticipated reduction in Mainland tourism and short-term cessation in exchange students.

Meanwhile, the Tsai government has stepped up its efforts to "be close to the US" and "friendly with Japan". President Tsai has repeatedly begged the US to support Taiwan's membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The cabinet is preparing to allow the importation of US pork containing Ractopamine.  The Minister of Defense has informed the Legislative Yuan of the transport of 40,000 artillery shells to Taiping Island. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been forced to apologize to the AIT and offer an explanation. Six former AIT Taipei Office Directors have given current US-Taiwan relations a thumbs up. The Chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, led by John McCain, will lead the largest congressional delegation to Taiwan in recent years. As we can see, we have sacrificed real benefits in exchang for a fireworks display from the US. Once the fireworks are over, there will be nothing left to see.

Being "friendly with Japan" is even more baffling.

Since the Tsai government came to power, it has issued reckless statements about the status of Cong Zi Niao Reef, all the way from "Its status is undetermined" to "It's a reef". It has promised that negotiations in July will settle the matter satisfactorily, and that "The Cong Zi Niao Reef issue is no longer a fashionable topic". Does the new government even give a damn about Taiwan fishermen and their survival? It intends to permit the importation of irradiated foodstuffs from Fukushima, but has yet to formulate a credible policy. The Tsai government has assigned DPP heavyweights Chiou I-jen and Frank Hsieh to handle relations with Japan. The Tsai government has, intentionally or otherwise,  leaked word that bilateral relations may be revised. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sent his younger brother Nobuo Kishi to meet with President Tsai. These developments clearly show that Tsai Ing-wen intends to chummy up to Japan. We have yet to mention the photo op with Abe's mother seated next to President Tsai, deliberately intended to underscore friendly relations. To the Taiwan public, this was a dazzling fireworks display.

But national interests are not fireworks displays. Fireworks displays may catch our eye, but once they are over, nothing of substance remains. Among nations, friendship is fleeting, interests alone are enduring. If we give Japan what it wants, what will Japan give us in return? What can Japan give us in return? Abe has long hoped to draw Taiwan into Japan's anti-China coalition. But it has not been willing to pay a price. Now the Tsai government has sacrificed Taiwan fishermens' fishing rights and Taiwan consumers' right to food safety -- merely to curry favor with Japan, in return for what?

From a larger national security perspective, the Tsai government has departed from the status quo. It is moving step by step toward a whole new state of affairs, one lacking any corresponding security framework. In other words, the Tsai government may have promised to "maintain the status quo". It then put on a dazzling fireworks display. But amidst all the fireworks, one finds nothing of substance. What, amidst all the fireworks, happened to our national interests?

Taiwan's historical origins and geographical location mean that economically and culturally we must deal with the Mainland, Japan, and the United States. Relations with all three are unavoidable. Taiwan must understand its political and security relationship with the United States and the Mainland. Japan can do no more than negotiate the middle ground between the United States and the Mainland. That is not something Taiwan can change.

As the above shows, only the United States and Mainland hold the power of life and death over Taiwan. Only they can determine Taiwan's long-term stability. Japan has never been a major factor. Japan wants Taiwan to join its anti-China coalition. That is something that can be considered. But Japan must have the strength and strategies to provide Taiwan with strategic guarantees. It must demonstrate its trustworthiness. The Tsai government must not trade illusory Japanese fireworks displays, only to risk our national security in return.

如耀眼煙花的台日關係 非常危險
2016年06月13日 中國時報

要有穩定的國家，先要有穩定的國家大戰略，一旦大戰略架構出現問題或傾斜，國家就會出現內部對峙與外部緊張。

馬政府時代，大致維持親美、和中、友日的大架構；與此相應的外部環境是：美國在自己定義的一中政策下維持兩岸現狀；大陸也在其定義的一中政策下推動兩岸和平發展；台北則依據「九二共識、一中各表」推動對美國與中國大陸的關係，三方定義不同，仍然搭建起一個迄今蔡政府仍然受惠的「現狀」。

新政府宣稱「維持現狀」，卻開始實質改變國家安全大戰略架構。首先，可以看到新政府放棄了原先的九二共識，也不接受「兩岸一中」的憲法定位，宣稱將致力「和中」，卻峻拒大陸釋出的所有政治訊號。我們看到海基、海協兩會斷訊，陸委會和中共國台辦失聯，原先眾多的小兩會也紛紛音訊不通，政府間的實際功能已然歸零，ECFA下的兩岸經合會也告停。這還不算原先的契作停止、陸客驟減、短期交換生終止等。

與此同時，蔡英文政府卻加大「親美」、「友日」力度。蔡總統一再呼籲美方支持台灣加入《跨太平洋夥伴協定》（TPP），內閣閣員則放話準備開啟重大爭議的含萊克多巴胺的美豬進口；國防部長在立法院宣布運送4萬枚炮彈往太平島，外交部長立即被迫前往在台協會道歉解釋。我們同時也看到6任的在台協會台北辦事處處長豎起大姆指稱讚當前的美台關係；美國參院軍事委員會主席麥侃率領近年來最大的議員團訪台；在這一幅圖像中，我們看到的是，我們付出實際利益作代價，但美國所給予的卻是過年節時的煙火，煙花過後，什麼都沒有留下。

至於在「友日」方面，更是令人納悶。

蔡政府從上台起，在沖之鳥礁定位上的發言就是荒腔走板，從「未定」到「是礁」，到7月談判必能滿意，再到「沖之鳥話題不流行了」；真不知道政府把漁民賴以維生的漁權問題，當成什麼來看？意圖開放福島含輻射食品進口，卻也不見一個可信的處理方式。從蔡政府先後派出邱義仁和謝長廷這些民進黨籍的重量級大員處理對日關係來看，再加上蔡政府有意無意間釋出的「修補」雙方關係的說法，以及日本派出首相安倍之弟岸信夫與蔡總統會面一事上，都充分顯示出，蔡英文政府的政策是要向日本方面靠攏，這還不包括安倍之母與蔡總統兩人刻意比鄰而坐，以顯示雙方關係的友好。看在台灣人民的眼中，這又是一個美麗的煙花。

國家利益不是放煙火，不能看時很美，看過後什麼都不留下；國家的友情是短暫的，利益才是永遠的。如果我們給了日本想要的，日本會給我們什麼？日本能給我們什麼？日本長期以來，一直希望拉攏台灣進入日本安倍政府意圖架構的反中聯盟，卻不願支付任何代價；在這一點上，尤其是蔡政府願意捨棄諸如漁民捕魚權、民眾食物免於恐懼權等實質利益，只為拉攏日本，那麼，日本的回報是什麼？

從廣義的國家安全角度來看，蔡政府已經偏離了現狀，正一步步走向新情勢。但我們仍然看不見一個可以維持安全的相應架構出現。換言之，蔡政府離開了她先前所承諾的「現狀」，帶來了一片耀眼的煙花，可是我們卻無法在這片煙花中，找到我們所希望的實質東西；我們要問的是，在這片煙花中，國家利益到底在哪裡？

台灣的歷史淵源及地理位置，決定我們在經濟與社會文化上必須和中國大陸、日本及美國交往，缺一不可；國際權力結構又注定，台灣在政治上必須和美國與大陸相關連，台灣只需要掌握與美國、中國大陸的政治與安全關係，日本只能、也只會在美國和中國大陸所構成的兩極中遊走，不足為台灣慮。

從上面描述中，我們可以了解，只有美國和中國大陸對台灣有生死影響力，才是長治久安要追求的結構，日本從來不是主要因素。日本希望台灣加入其抗中聯盟，不是不可以考慮，但日本必須先擁有足夠的國家實力、能對台灣提出充分的戰略保證，更要展現其可信賴度。蔡英文政府千萬不能用日本的煙花式利益，換來國家安全的風險。

Fear Blind Alleys, Not Hairpin Turns

Fear Blind Alleys, Not Hairpin Turns
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 8, 2016

Executive Summary: Premier Lin is "considering restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator”. This shows he has a clear understanding of the reality of domestic supply. The public must not blame him or mock him for telling the truth. Instead it should applaud him. In fact, those who are taking pot shots at Lin Chuan are reckless fools charging headlong toward a precipice. Energy policy hairpin turns are nothing to fear. The only thing one must fear is energy policy blind alleys.

Full Text Below:

Premier Lin Chuan recently said the need for electricity may require the reactivation of the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, provided it is adjudged safe. It would be reactivated but not expanded. No sooner had he spoken, than a public outcry erupted. The new government swore that the elimination of nuclear power plants would not lead to power shortages. Yet not long after taking office, it completely reversed itself. Within two days, the green camp's own legislators and a former chairman of the Nuclear Energy Commission expressed opposition. The Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator was once again stillborn. The new government totally reversed its energy policy twice in two days. The new government's commitment to its own policies is so feeble, even cabinet members are unwilling to stand behind the Premier. As a result the public is deeply concerned.

The new government's energy policy reversal was the result of high temperatures increasing electricity consumption, and a malfunction in the Number Six Thermal Power Plant in Taichung. By May 31, the standby capacity transfer rate had fallen to a mere 1.64%, the lowest in a decade. Another major plant failure, and Taiwan will immediately experience power shortages and brownouts. In order to meet power demands that day, Taipower even ordered thermal power plants operated above their rated capacities. The new Number One Thermal Power Plant in Linkou, which is not even officially in service, was “test run”. Only by adding its generating capacity were demands for power met, and then just barely.

This wave of power shortages was hardly a bolt out of the blue. This newspaper's editorials have warned about the danger for two years. Taiwan's stable power supply is disintegrating. With nuclear power or without, the government must respond, ASAP. Unfortunately, the Ma government failed to prevent the mothballing of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. It also failed to solve the problem of waste disposal for the Number One and Number Two plants. Before taking office, the DPP swore that the closing of nuclear power plants would not lead to power shortages. It coordinated with local governments to limit construction of thermal power plants in order to reduce air pollution. This string of evens has led Taiwan to the edge of a precipice.

Premier Lin wants to restart the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator. The new government's energy policy has now come full circle. But what is the alternative? Force the public and industry to suffer power shortages?

The new government's energy policy has been condemned by domestic experts and the business community. A few days ago the American Chamber of Commerce issued its 2016 Taiwan White Paper. The paper reminded the new government of the need for a detailed energy plan to ensure a stable and affordable power supply. The report said that Taiwan relies almost entirely on imported energy. The abolition of nuclear power generation would lead to power shortages. Can the shortages be made up by renewable energy? The government must provide clear data to support its case.

Energy policy requires a clear recognition of reality. Only then are solutions possible. Only then can one achieve a balance between safe energy generation, stable power supplies, environmental protection, and affordable electricity rates. Lin Chuan performed a reality check. That was why he proposed restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator. Alas, such a glaringly apparent policy reversal gored the party's anti-nuclear sacred cow. Therefore the only thing it could do was slam on the brakes and reverse its policy a second time.

The proposal to restart the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator met with widespread resistance. But the Executive Yuan had a way out. It reaffirmed its goal of a “nuclear-free homeland by 2025”. It ordered Taipower to issue a transparent electricity supply report, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs to implement energy-saving measures. Can the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator really be restarted? The Nuclear Energy Commission would issue an assessment for public evaluation. But these were merely delaying tactics, means by which to avoid confroting problems rather than adopt a pragmatic approach.

First of all, Taipower publishes long-term energy plans and domestic energy supply assessments on an annual basis. Over the past two years, the nation's generating equipment transfer capacity rate has ranged between 14.7% and 11.5%. This year the estimated rate is 9.2%. This is the first time in seventeen years it has fallen below 10%. Last year the government repeatedly warned about inadequate power supplies. This year's situation will only be worse. The information issued by Taipower is already crystal clear. The DPP is deliberately being evasive, pretending not to see. Roy S. Lee recently assured the business community that “there will be no power shortages this year". A few days later, upon assuming office, he changed his tune, saying "We cannot guarantee that there will be no power shortages". Cleary he realized the problem was not so simple.

Besides, the Nuclear Energy Commission only recently issued a press release. It said the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator has already undergone "Taiwan Power Company safety checks, confirming its operational safety, and the information has already been made available to the public". In other words, the Nuclear Eneregy Commission has already acknowledged that the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator, is safe and can operated without fear. Yet Nuclear Energy Commission Chairman Hsieh Hsiao-hsin said doubts remain, and the Executive Yuan wants the Nuclear Energy Commission to issue a safety report. What is this, if not flagrant evasion?

Premier Lin is "considering restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, Number One Generator”. This shows he has a clear understanding of the reality of domestic supply. The public must not blame him or mock him for telling the truth. Instead it should applaud him. In fact, those who are taking pot shots at Lin Chuan are reckless fools charging headlong toward a precipice. Energy policy hairpin turns are nothing to fear. The only thing one must fear is energy policy blind alleys.

政策不怕髮夾彎，只怕開進死胡同
2016-06-08 聯合報

閣揆林全日前說，考量電力需求，核一廠一號機若經評估安全，可思考在不延役的情況下重新啟用。此話一出，輿論譁然，認為強調反核也不缺電的新政府上任未久即如此政策大轉彎不可思議。短短兩天內，綠營自家立委與原能會主委都表態反對，核一一號機重啟案又幾乎瀕於胎死腹中。新政府能源政策兩天內兩度髮夾彎，政策脆弱到連閣員都不挺閣揆，讓人看得膽戰心驚。

此次能源政策急轉彎，緣於上月底氣溫飆高帶動用電量，加上台中火力發電廠六號機故障停機，卅一日當天備轉容量率僅剩一．六四％，創十年新低。只要再有一部大型發電機組故障，台灣立刻面臨缺電與限電。當天，為了撐過燃眉之急，台電甚至要求部分火力電廠「超載運轉」，連尚未正式服役的林口火力發電廠新一號機都以「試運轉」名義併聯發電，才勉強因應。

這波供電緊張，事前並非毫無跡象。本報兩年來社論多次警告：台灣穩定供電的優勢正在崩解，無論要不要核電，政府都必須及早因應。遺憾的是，馬政府擋不住核四封存，對核一、核二核廢料爆滿問題也拿不出魄力解決；此外，民進黨執政前強調反核也不會缺電，並串聯各地方政府要求限縮火力電廠以降低空汙。一連串的變化，將台灣推向缺電的懸崖。

林揆思考重啟核一一號機，確使新政府能源政策繞了一個極大的髮夾彎；但是，若不轉彎，難道要全民與企業墜入缺電的深谷？

新政府的能源政策，不僅國內專家和工商界看衰，日前美國商會發表二○一六年台灣白皮書，也特地提醒新政府應提出詳細的能源計畫，確保台灣享有穩定且具成本競爭力的電力供應。美國商會說，台灣幾乎所有能源皆仰賴進口，廢核之後的缺口是否能靠節電與再生能源補足，政府必須提出明確且有數據佐證的能源計畫。

能源計畫的制訂，首須認清現實，再尋求各種可以運用的方案，最後在能源安全、供電穩定、環境保護、和電價成本四個面向中找到一個平衡方案。林全因為「認清現實」，所以說出「思考重啟核一一號機」；問題是，這個髮夾彎轉彎轉得太大，立刻牴觸黨內的反核神主牌，只好再轉一次髮夾彎，緊急煞車。

對於重啟核一一號機的阻力橫生，行政院的下台階，除了重申二○二五非核家園目標不變外，並要求台電提出透明公開的供電與用電狀況，並請經濟部努力落實節能措施；至於核一一號機是否真能重啟，則由原能會提供評估報告供社會檢驗。這些作法，其實都是緩兵之計，而不是面對問題的務實作法。

首先，台電每年都會公布中長期電源開發方案，對國內供電情況預作評估。過去兩年，我國供電備轉容量率分別是十四．七％與十一．五％，今年的預測值則是九．二％，是十七年來首度低於十％。去年，我國已多次出現供電不足警訊，今年情況只會比去年更糟。因此，台電的資訊其實已經很清楚，而是民進黨刻意迴避問題，裝作看不到。經長李世光就任前曾向企業界保證「今年不缺電」，上任沒幾天即改口「不保證不缺電」，應該就是意識到問題不簡單。

再者，原能會日前才發布新聞稿說，一號機「已完成審查台電公司安全分析和處理措施，確認繼續運轉之安全性，相關資訊均對外公布」。換言之，原能會已確認一號機運轉安全性無虞，但原能會主委謝曉星卻說重啟核一有疑慮，而政院還要原能會公布安全報告，這難道不是推託之詞？

林揆「思考核一一號機重啟」，顯示他已認清國內供電現實，各界不應苛責、挖苦，反而應給予正面看待。事實上，那些砲打林全的人，恐怕才是直衝懸崖的莽夫。能源政策不怕髮夾彎，就怕駛進死胡同。

Tsai Ing-wen's Gratitude toward Chen Shui-bian

Tsai Ing-wen's Gratitude toward Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 7, 2016

Executive Summary: Yesterday Taichung Prison officials announced that that Chen Shui-bian's “attendance” at a June 4 fundraising dinner did not violate the terms of his release. In other words, Chen will probably continue to enjoy his "medical parole". This comes as no surprise, given the “box seat” provided him earlier by the Ministry of Justice. Add to this Tsai spokesman Li Chun-yi's dinner speech thanking Chen for “taking into consideration the big picture”. The picture should be crystal clear.

Full Text Below:

Yesterday Taichung Prison officials announced that that Chen Shui-bian's “attendance” at a June 4 fundraising dinner did not violate the terms of his release. In other words, Chen will probably continue to enjoy his "medical parole". This comes as no surprise, given the “box seat” provided him earlier by the Ministry of Justice. Add to this Tsai spokesman Li Chun-yi's dinner speech thanking Chen for “taking into consideration the big picture”. The picture should be crystal clear.

The June 4 fundraising dinner was packed. Over 2000 Chen fans attended. Everyone who was anyone in the green camp was present. Legislative Yuan President Su Chia-chuan, Chen Chu, Lai Ching-teh and other mayors and county chiefs, as well as green camp talking heads, all showed up. Li Chun-yi apologized to Chen on behalf of Tsai Ing-wen, saying the new government was in an awkward position, therefore could not attend. He expressed gratitude, saying "As long as Chen needs our help, we are here for him". Taiwan independence elder Koo Kuan-min boasted that "The world is now ours". Suppose Chen had taken part in the dinner proceedings? Would anyone have dared to arrest and detain him?

At first Taichung Prison officials warned Chen that if he traveled north to Taipei, his medical parole would be revoked. Later they allowed him to return to his Minsheng East Road home. Eventually they allowed him to attend the fundraising dinner. These three changes revealed the degree to which the rule of law was set back as Chen Shui-bian tested the will of prison officials. It showed that Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san's incantation, "We respect the decisions made by Taichung Prison officials", was mere lip service. In fact, under pressure from Taiwan independence zealots and Ko Chien-min, even the Ministry of Justice was force to bow before politics. Even Tsai Ing-wen was forced to send a representative to express her gratitude. How could lowly Taichung Prison officials possibly withstand this sort of pressure?

When Chen Shui-bian sat in his “box seat” and his fan club regaled him with tributes, he shattered the first window pane in the new government's “rule of law” showcase. When Tsai Ing-wen expressed gratitude towards Chen Shui-bian for “considering the big picture”, she shattered a second window pane. And this was merely the beginning. Chen lost power as a consequence of political corruption, and was imprisoned for his crime. The DPP has never apologized to the people of Taiwan for this. Now that it has returned to power, the DPP is kowtowing before Chen and thanking him. What must the public be feeling as it gazes upon such a spectacle?

The most flagrant example of Taiwan independence arrogance was Koo Kuan-min's boast that "The world is now ours", the premise being that once one is in power, one can do as one pleases, after all, who will stop me? Koo Kuan-min sees himself as a conquering hero. He has revealed his feudalistic mentality. If someone of his ilk, who makes no distinction between public and private, can threaten or even hijack the new government, the harm inflicted upon Taiwan will be endless. Even more nauseating were the green camp talking heads who blasted Chiu Tai-san for being “ungrateful for Chen Shui-bian's promotion." They care only about power. They care nothing about the rule of law or moral standards. Politically their appeal is limited to the home market. How can they possibly advance Taiwan's democracy?

Viewed positively, Tsai Ing-wen's expression of gratitude to Chen Shui-bian involved practical considerations. Chen refrained from making trouble during the election process. He did not hinder her, thereby enabling her to win handily. He was willing to abide by the "three noes". He did not directly participate the dinner ceremonies. He did not openly challenge the law. He took into consideration the new government's awkward position. Viewed negatively however, the president was handed a new mandate. Yet she is unable to boldly follow the law. She must express humble gratitude toward her corrupt predecessor. She must offer quid pro quos to Taiwan independence extremists before she can follow the law. She must send a representative to a fundraising dinner to appease Chen fans. A government such as this has already undermined its image, compromised its principles, and revealed its cowardice.

In short, Tsai Ing-wen failed to use her mandate to draw a bright line between herself and Taiwan independence extremists. She succumbed instead to their pressure, and publicly surrendered her authority. This was her first wrong move. Therefore when Taiwan independence extremists demand a presidential pardon for Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ing-wen will lose the support of moderate voters. This will be the next major challenge to her administration.

In fact, "The world is now ours" sounds more like something a Mafia capo would say. Tsai Ing-wen must guard against this tendency to inflate the importance of the new government and the ruling DPP. She must not allow the government or political parties to walk in the shadow of organized crime. DPP legislators plan to pass an "Amnesty Law" tailor made for Chen Shui-bian. Once they succeed, the new government's highly touted transitional justice and judicial reform will sputter to a halt. In any case, Tsai Ing-wen must not deal with Chen Shui-bian the way that Lin Chuan dealt with Sunflower Student Movement rioters, by withdrawing the charges against them. She must not undermine the credibility of the justice system by pandering to the demands of a few. The result is certain to be self-inflicted injury.

解讀蔡英文對扁的「感謝」
2016-06-07 聯合報

台中監獄昨日評估陳水扁參加六四募款餐會的表現，認為未違反相關規定；換言之，扁應該可以維持現有的「保外就醫」待遇。此一結論，其實是想當然耳的結局，這從稍早法務部給予他「設包廂」的通融，加上當天餐會上李俊毅代表蔡英文致詞感謝扁「顧全大局」，即可一目了然。

六四募款餐會當夜爆桌，二千多挺扁人士參與；綠營更是「群賢畢至」，立法院長蘇嘉全、陳菊、賴清德等縣市首長、乃至親綠名嘴全都到齊。李俊毅代蔡英文致詞時，對陳水扁考慮新政府立場而未能親臨餐會現場的「委屈」表示感謝，並稱「只要能幫助扁的需要，我們都願意協助」。獨派大老辜寬敏更在餐會中放言，「現在是我們的天下」，如果扁參加餐會，有人敢把他捉去關嗎？

從最初台中監獄警告陳水扁北上將遭取消保外就醫，到後來放寬為准許北上返回民生東路老家，到最後准許以「三不」原則在餐會旁的包廂會客，這三部曲的變化，顯示台灣的法治防線已在陳水扁的測試下一步步後退。這同時顯示，法務部長邱太三口口聲聲「尊重中監」的說法，無非飾詞而已。事實上，在獨派的施壓和柯建銘的穿梭下，就連法務部也不得不向政治低頭，就連蔡英文都得派代表致詞感謝，這股壓力又豈是小小的中監所能抵擋？

於是，當陳水扁坐在餐會旁的包廂內接受扁迷致敬，新政府的法治櫥窗已經被他打破了一扇；當蔡英文派代表感謝陳水扁「顧全大局」，形同她自己又拿石頭砸壞了一扇。而這些，都只是剛開始而已。陳水扁因貪腐失政入獄，民進黨從來未曾為此向台灣人民道歉；而如今，政權方才失而復得，民進黨卻反而要向他頂禮叩謝，這看在民眾眼裡，又是什麼滋味？

最赤裸裸的是辜寬敏那句「現在是我們的天下」，彷彿一朝大權在握，咱們自己人要幹什麼就幹什麼，誰能阻擋？辜寬敏把自己當成「得天下」的功臣，是其封建思想使然；但是，如果像他這種目無公私界際的人以此要脅新政府，而政府竟然也為其所挾持，那對台灣的傷害將沒完沒了。更令人反胃的是，竟有親綠名嘴在會中點名批判邱太三，指他忘記陳水扁的「提拔」。試想，像這樣眼中只有權力的取予關係，卻完全不在乎法治、道德的規範，政治只能在「家天下」的小圈圈裡轉售，台灣的民主如何進步？

從正面看，蔡英文對陳水扁的感謝，或許有一些現實涵義。例如：感謝阿扁在大選過程中沒有鬧事、沒「幫倒忙」，使她順利當選；感謝他願意配合「三不」不出席餐會，未公然率眾挑戰法律底線，顧及了新政府顏面。但反過來看，一個握有新民意的總統，若不能理直氣壯地依法行事，卻向貪腐者低聲下氣稱謝，拿執法之退讓和獨派交換條件，甚至派代表在餐會向扁迷致詞示好；這些作法，恐怕都賠上了自己的形象和原則，使新政府的施政魄力打了折扣。

簡言之，蔡英文沒有善用自己的民意支持向獨派宣示自己的界線，卻反而屈從對方的壓力，而宣告了公權力的退讓，這是她錯誤的第一步。接下來，當挺扁獨派要求「特赦」陳水扁的壓力源源湧至，蔡英文會因此失去多少中間選民的支持，將是她未來執政之路的大挑戰。

「現在是我們的天下」，這句話其實更像一個「幫派」的炫耀豪語；蔡英文恐怕要慎防這種風潮吹入新政府與民進黨，絕對不要放任政府或政黨走入幫派化陰影。民進黨立委正在串連修改《特赦法》，要為陳水扁量身定作脫身解套的條件；一旦得逞，新政府的轉型正義、司法改革等等宣示，恐怕也要付諸一炬了。無論如何，蔡英文處理陳水扁，絕不能像林全處理太陽花撤告，用損害公權力尊嚴的方式來滿足少數人的利益，結果勢必是自傷自殘。

Cross-Strait Crisis Management during Cold Confrontation

Cross-Strait Crisis Management during Cold Confrontation  
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 6, 2016

Executive Summary: President Tsai Ing-wen avoided any clear statement on the 1992 Consensus in her inaugural address. Everyone now expects the two sides of the Strait to enter an era of "Cold Peace". The first wave of DPP personnel appointments and policy moves have the Mainland wondering whether the new government is engaged in “stealth Taiwan independence” under the cover of the “Republic of China". As a result it has stepped up its criticism. Through official channels such as the Taiwan Affairs Office, ARATS, and the People's Daily, it has demanded that Tsai Ing-wen recognize the 1992 Consensus.

Full Text Below:

President Tsai Ing-wen avoided any clear statement on the 1992 Consensus in her inaugural address. Everyone now expects the two sides of the Strait to enter an era of "Cold Peace". The first wave of DPP personnel appointments and policy moves have the Mainland wondering whether the new government is engaged in “stealth Taiwan independence” under the cover of the “Republic of China". As a result it has stepped up its criticism. Through official channels such as the Taiwan Affairs Office, ARATS, and the People's Daily, it has demanded that Tsai Ing-wen recognize the 1992 Consensus.

That is not all. The Mainland has also interrupted cross-Strait exchanges and official communications. ARATS and the Taiwan Affairs Office no longer respond to MAC and SEF fax communications. It has taken concrete action to show the new government that it is serious. Mainland provincial delegations have ceased coming to Taiwan. Mainland group and corporate incentive group tours have also been suspended. Mainland inspections and quarantines of fruit imports from Taiwan have been tightened. Produce is frequently returned to Taiwan, provoking industry concern.

In other words, the cross-Strait situation is worse than the “Cold Peace" widely predicted. It has gone directly to "Cold Confrontation". Cross-Strait tensions are high, especially on the Mainland. Official declarations issued through various channels, have essentially left the Mainland "riding a tiger, and unable to dismount". There is no room for compromise or change whatsoever, unless Tsai is willing to compromise. Otherwise the Mainland authorities cannot back down.

If Tsai Ing-wen refuses to do so, then the cross-Strait "Cold Confrontation" will probably continue for a very long time. If the crux of the disagreement is not resolved, if conflict and stress escalates to a certain level, we could go from "Cold Confrontation" directly to "Hot Confrontation". Cross-Strait relations would then revert to what they were during the Chen era. This is something people on both sides cannot evade.

The Mainland is too big, and Taiwan is too small. The cross-Strait imbalance in power has increased. Tsai Ing-wen must actively seek solutions to problems. She cannot react passively. She cannot assume that as long as she offers no provocations, and makes no trouble, the Mainland will remain helpless. On the 1992 Consensus, the Mainland can make no concessions. If Tsai Ing-wen refuses to recognize it explicitly, she must offer an alternative, and seek consensus with the Mainland.

The key to the cross-Strait dispute is the nature of cross-Strait relations. Just what is the relationship between the two sides? The Mainland considers it a state of civil war within one China. The current DPP government's traditional position has been that it is “one nation on each side”. The DPP government has not repudiated its “one nation on each side” position. It has declared that it will handle cross-Strait affairs according to the Republic of China Constitution and
the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. The implication is that cross-Strait relations are relations between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. But what is the relationship between these two? Tsai Ing-wen declared that she would preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of China. But within the international community, the People's Republic of China is commonly perceived as “China”. So is their sovereignty overlapping, or unrelated?

During the Ma Ying-jeou era, the 1992 Consensus left significant room for “different interpretations”. But the Tsai government rejects the 1992 Consensus. Therefore there is no longer any room for different interpretations. On the third of this month, the Mainland Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared its sovereignty over Taiping Island, for the very first time. It said "China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters, including Taiping Island”. It clearly asserted People's Republic of China sovereignty over Taiping Island, and repudiated Republic of China sovereignty. This was unheard of during the Ma Ying-jeou era. The Mainland Ministry of Foreign Affairs implied that the two sides might well revert to the “Hot Confrontation” diplomatic war of the Chen Shui-bian era.

The DPP government is dependent upon the Republic of China. The best way to cope is to go beyond the sovereignty dispute, and expand Taipei's claim of sovereignty to include the whole of China. It should declare that relations between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China and not relations between independent nations, but rather betweeen two governments within a single nation. Tsai Ing-wen should also affirm that "People on both sides of the Strait are members of the same family". She must not perceive people on the Mainland as “The Other”. She must also make a genuine effort to help people know each other, understand each other, benefit each other, and trust each other.

The new government must learn from Lee Teng-ui era experience. Premier Lin Chuan could make the above two points in the legislature. He could lead the way for the government's handling of cross-Strait relations and cross-Strait policy. President Tsai could endorse Lin Chuan's statement through a spokesperson. That way the Mainland would no longer have any reason to continue pressuring Taiwan. Instead it would have to deal with the new government on practical matters. This would alleviate the cross-Strait crisis.

Next, it should consider how the Mainland can restore cross-Strait consultations communication channels. In any case, the cross-Strait "Cold Confrontation" would be eased. It would not develop into a “Hot Confrontation”. It  would revert to the status of "Cold Peace", or even “peaceful exchange”.

Appointing an SEF chairman is urgent. Tsai government national security personnel appointments, including its MAC chairman, have all been one-sidedly pro-American. This will increase cross-Strait instability. A timely chairmanship appointment acceptable to the Mainland would undoubtedly help the Tsai government ease cross-Strait hostility.

冷對抗時代的兩岸危機管理
2016年06月06日 中國時報

蔡英文總統在就職演講中沒有對「九二共識」做出明確論述，各界原本預期兩岸將進入「冷和平」狀態，但民進黨政府相關人事安排及首波政策推動，令大陸對民進黨企圖以中華民國之名行「隱性台獨」之實大感憂心，因而加大批判力度，並透過國台辦、海協會及《人民日報》等官方管道要求蔡英文接受「九二共識」。

不僅如此，大陸還中斷了兩岸官方交流與溝通管道，國台辦與海協會不再回應陸委會與海基會的傳真來函，以實際行動向新政府展示態度堅決。大陸省市代表團已完全停止來台，原本常見的大陸團體或企業獎勵旅遊團也宣告暫停。至於貨物貿易領域，大陸也加強進口台灣水果的檢驗檢疫，動輒整箱退貨，引發業者疑慮。

換句話說，兩岸現況低於原預期的「冷和平」，直接墜入「冷對抗」，雙方互動處於緊繃狀態，特別是大陸方面，接連通過官方管道宣示立場，幾乎等同於讓自己「騎虎難下」，根本沒有轉圜或者妥協的空間，除非蔡英文能夠先行做出妥協，否則大陸官方也無法再往後退。

若蔡英文拒絕，那麼兩岸「冷對抗」恐怕將持續很長一段時間，若歧見癥結得不到解決，矛盾和壓力累積到一定程度，也可能升級兩岸衝突，讓「冷對抗」狀態演變成「正面對抗」，兩岸關係將重回扁時代的劍拔弩張，這恐怕將是兩岸民眾的不可承受之重。

大陸太大台灣太小，兩岸實力對比更已失衡，蔡英文必須主動思考問題的解決辦法，不能以保守思維被動應對，更不要錯誤認為只要自己「不挑釁」、「不惹事」就可以讓大陸束手無策。「九二共識」大陸無可退讓，縱使蔡英文不正面接受，也得主動提出替代方案，與大陸謀求共識。

兩岸關係最核心爭議是兩岸關係的性質，也就是兩岸到底是什麼關係？大陸認為是「一個中國的內戰關係」，民進黨傳統立場認為是一邊一國關係，現在的民進黨政府並未否定一邊一國關係，但宣告將以《中華民國憲法》和《兩岸人民關係條例》來處理兩岸事務，隱含兩岸是中華民國與中華人民共和國的關係，那麼這兩個中國又是什麼關係？蔡英文宣示將維護中華民國的領土與主權，而中華人民共和國是國際普遍認知的中國，那麼二者到底是主權重疊關係還是互不隸屬關係？

這個問題在馬英九時代「九二共識」涵蓋下有很大的「各表」空間，但蔡英文政府不接受「九二共識」，各表的模糊空間不再。大陸外交部3日首次針對太平島主權問題發言，稱「中國對包括太平島在內的南沙群島及其附近海域擁有無可爭辯的主權」，明確主張中華人民共和國主權涵蓋太平島，是對中華民國主權的明示否定，這是馬英九政府時代所未見。大陸外交部的表態預示兩岸外交戰可能復燃，那就是陳水扁時代「熱對抗」的最壞情況了。

民進黨政府站在中華民國基礎上，最好的因應方式是超越主權紛爭，將主權主張拉高至整個中國，宣示中華民國與中華人民共和國不是國與國關係，而是一個中國下的不同政權與制度分立。蔡英文還應就「兩岸同屬一家人」提出論述，一方面不將大陸人民視為他者，另一方面也要提出具體政策致力實現兩岸人民的互知、互諒、互利與互信。

借鏡李登輝時代經驗，可由林全院長在立法院就上述兩點做出宣示，並將之引為未來政府處理兩岸關係和兩岸事務的政策基調。同時，蔡總統可透過發表談話為林全院長背書，如此一來，大陸就不再有理由繼續對台灣施壓，反而必須面對與新政府正面溝通的現實問題，兩岸危機得以解除。

接下來就看大陸能在多大程度上恢復兩岸協商的既有溝通管道，但無論如何，兩岸「冷對抗」將大為降溫，不僅不至於發展成正面對抗，而且會回到「冷和平」狀態，甚至有重回和平交流狀態的可能。

當務之急是海基會董事長人選，蔡政府的府院國安人事布局，包括陸委會在內，一面倒偏向對美關係，加深當前兩岸風雲詭譎情勢，適當時機提出一個能為大陸接受的董事長人選，無疑可以為蔡英文政府化解兩岸敵意的努力提供助力。

Nothing is More Urgent than Improving the Investment Environment

Nothing is More Urgent than Improving the Investment Environment
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 3, 2016

Executive Summary: For 30 years the Mainland market has been a source of Taiwan's prosperity. In recent years however, that has changed. Many SMEs have been swept out of the Mainland. Worse still, since last year, even large scale enterprises have been losing money and moving out. The government is nurturing “five innovative industries”. But while doing so, it must remember to facilitate investment for all businesses. Only increased investment can create jobs, increase wages, and promote economic growth.

Full Text Below:

For 30 years the Mainland market has been a source of Taiwan's prosperity. In recent years however, that has changed. Many SMEs have been swept out of the Mainland. Worse still, since last year, even large scale enterprises have been losing money and moving out.

Six years ago, Guangdong promoted its “empty the cage for a new bird” policy. Coastal provinces followed suit. They reduced export tax rebates, combined taxes, passed a new Labor Contract Law, introduced processing margins, and enforced environmental regulations. Taiwan businesses on the Mainland faced wave upon wave of pressure. The highest concentration of Taiwan businesses is in Dongguan. In recent years hundreds of Taiwan businesses have washed out. Some even “abandoned their plants and fled to Taiwan overnight”. As of last year, over 200 manufacturers closed their doors and left the Mainland in search of greener pastures.

This is not limited to SMEs. In recent years, large enterprise investment in the Mainland has fallen. In the early days the Mainland market was enormously lucrative. Many companies even split off their Mainland divisions and listed them on the exchange separately. Now however, they face powerful operating pressures. Last year for example, TCC and Asia Cement lost money on the Mainland. First quarter estimates indicate a net loss. Baocheng, the world's largest shoe factory, quietly moved its operations to Southeast Asia, Vietnam, and India. Its production capacity there already exceeds that on the Mainland. The percentage of Mainland production continues to fall. Obviously the Mainland is no longer Taiwan's investment paradise. As the new government sees it, the time is ripe for its New Southern Strategy, which has every reason to succeed. As a result, the new DPP government has mobilized the machinery of government and begun a full court press.

Unfortunately, the reality is very different indeed. The new government's approach will only repeat the same mistake that predecessors have made for decades. Taiwan has long sought developing nations offering low cost and loose regulations to set up factories, where environmental regulations, labor rights, and corporate responsibility can be ignored, as long as deals can be struck with the local governments. But as soon as wages rise, incentives are withdrawn, labor rights are enforced, and environmental regulations lead to rising costs, they begin looking for another, even more backward and even lower-cost place to set up shop. This is a "nomadic" investment model that has superficially enabled Taiwan businesses to survive. But in fact these businesses will never be able to grow. Sooner or later they will run out of greener pastures.

Businesses seeking to transform themselves may have invested on the Mainland, returned to Taiwan, or followed the government's "New Southern Strategy” and headed south. But all of them must go down the same path. Should the government or businesses go west or go south? These must be market and business decisions. The government's focus should be on improving Taiwan's investment environment, in order to attract increased investment in Taiwan.

Taiwan businesses have encountered problems on the Mainland. Superficially, the problems are the result of the Mainland economic slowdown, falling demand, rising wages, more stringent labor conditions, higher environmental protection costs, and stricter enforcement of the law, from the central government level to the local.  But the real reason is the transformation and upgrading of the Mainland economy. The Mainland economy has gone from higher volume to higher quality, and from world factory to world marketplace. Taiwan underwent this economic and social shift earlier. Businesses must seize this opportunity to transform and upgrade themselves. Only that constitutes a sustainable business model.

Externally, the new government can of course push its “New Southern Strategy”. But it must not squander capital overselling it. From any perspective, whether international trade or international politics, the benefits are limited. The government's priority should be Taiwan's largest slice of the pie, cross-Strait trade. It must not discourage cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges by political means and force businesses to turn south.

Internally, the new government must do more. It must address the “five shortages” that undermine business investment. These "five shortages" are water shortages, power shortages, job shortages, land shortages, and talent shortages. Even more importantly, it must improve government efficiency. No sooner did the new government assume power, than the EPA announced it would terminate sub-soil mining rights, without even bothering to understand the concerns of other ministries. Its failure to examine the scope and duration of mining rights casts doubt on the government's competence. When Largan Precision sought to increase investment in Taiwan, finding a building site alone took years. When TSMC sought to build in the Central Taiwan Science Park, protests by tree huggers led to long delays. Such situations discourage businesses from investing in Taiwan.

To top it off, businesses face growing anti-business sentiment at home. The general public and social groups oppose investments and development. This also discourages business investment. Formosa Petrochemical, Taiwan's leading domestic petrochemical company, once invested 70 to 80 percent of its capital at home. Now it invests 80 percent of its capital overseas. The reason is relentless criticism from environmental groups, government inefficiency, and insurmountable obstacles to plant expansion. As a result, it was finally driven overseas. The government is nurturing “five innovative industries”. But while doing so, it must remember to facilitate investment for all businesses. Only increased investment can create jobs, increase wages, and promote economic growth.

萬事莫如改善投資環境急
2016年06月04日 中國時報

30年來作為台灣經濟活水的中國大陸市場，近年出現反轉跡象，不少中小企業已被「掃出」大陸，更壞的消息是自去年起，大型企業集團和公司也紛紛出現虧損、遷移現象。

6年前廣東率先推動「騰籠換鳥」政策，沿海各省紛紛效尤，降低出口退稅、兩稅合一及實施新《勞動合同法》，接著又開徵加工保證金、提高環保法規執行力度，大陸台商就此面臨一波又一波的壓力。這幾年台商集中度最高的東莞，幾乎每年都有數百家台商被「洗出」市場，有些甚至被形容是「棄廠連夜逃回台灣」。一直到去年，還是有超過200家廠商結束大陸工廠的經營，離開大陸另覓去處。

不僅中小企業如此，近兩年大型企業的大陸投資也隱然出現反轉。早期大陸市場獲利豐厚，許多企業甚至單獨把大陸投資企業切割上市，但現在已面臨經營壓力。例如去年台泥、亞泥大陸投資都出現虧損，預估今年首季仍難轉為盈餘。全球最大製鞋廠寶成更早幾年就悄然地把生產基地逐步遷移到東南亞，越南、印度工廠的生產比重早已超過大陸廠，且大陸廠的生產比重仍持續下降中。顯然大陸將不再是台商的投資樂土，此時政府啟動新南向政策，應有其利基點，亦有成功的可能性，民進黨新政府啟動政府機器，開始大力宣導推動。

不過，實際情況恐非如此。這種作法其實只是重覆過去數十年台商的一貫作法，找成本低、管制鬆、政治治理不上軌道的國家設廠，什麼環保法規、勞工權益都可唬弄不管，企業責任更不必放在心上，只要打通政府關節即可；待當地的工資上揚、優惠減少，也開始重視勞工權益、環境汙染而導致成本上升後，再去找另一個較落後又成本低廉的地方重新設廠。這是一種類似「逐水草而居」的投資方式，表面上讓這些台商持續生存下來，實質上則是讓這些台商永遠無法提升成長。再往後看，其實這種「水草肥美地區」已所剩無幾了。

因此，對企業而言，生存之道唯有力求升級轉型，不論是在大陸事業的轉型，或是回台加碼在台投資，甚至要追隨政府政策去「新南向」，都必須走此路。至於政府，企業對外投資是要西進還是南向，交給市場與企業決定，政府真正該專注的是台灣投資環境問題的改善，以吸引企業增加在台投資。

由台商在大陸發生的問題來看，表面的因素當然包括：大陸經濟放緩、需求下降、工資上揚、對環保與勞工條件要求不同致成本上揚、從中央到地方政府執行法律較過去更徹底等因素，但深層來看，則是大陸經濟正在轉型提升中，從過去量的增加要轉為質的提升、由世界工廠轉型為世界市場。這種經濟與社會的轉變，其實台灣早年都經歷過，企業更該掌握此機會提升轉型，才是永續經營之道。

至於政府，對外方面，推新南向政策可也，但不必過分強調、花費過多資源，因為不論從經貿或國際政治觀點來看，其效益都有限，政府還是該優先顧好台灣經濟最大的一塊餅：兩岸經貿，而且少用政治手段干擾兩岸經貿往來、強迫推銷企業往南向。

對內方面，政府該做的事更多，也更重要。除了解決困住企業投資的「五缺」（指缺水、缺電、缺工、缺地、缺人）問題外，更重要的是政府效能與治理問題的提升與改善。新政府才上任，環保署就宣布要終止亞泥採礦權，卻未先了解其他相關部會的意見，更未深查其採礦權的範圍與期限等問題，顯然會讓企業對政府的治理有疑慮。再如過去大立光要加碼在台投資，結果單是土地就找了數年，台積電中科投資案的環評，只因環保護樹團體抗議就延宕多時，類似情況都傷害企業的投資意願。

此外，國內日益嚴重的反商、反財團氛圍，社會與各公民團體對企業投資及各種開發案的反對，也嚴重影響企業投資。國內石化龍頭台塑過去投資至少7、8成在國內，但現在已悄然改為8成投資在海外，原因即在長期被環保團體批評，政府行政效率與治理能力亦無法克服其擴廠困難，終而不得不往海外走。政府要扶植五大創新產業時，更別忘了解決所有企業的投資問題，只有更多的投資，才能創造就業機會、提升勞工薪資，並促進經濟成長。

Water Spinach? Or Hairpin Turn?

Water Spinach? Or Hairpin Turn?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 3, 2016

Executive Summary: De jure Taiwan independence is difficult to achieve. Using cultural Taiwan independence as a tool will only destroy both Taiwan and the Republic of China. The mild-mannered KMT may be no match for the DPP, with its ability to turn on a dime. But the DPP's flip-flopping will destroy the fundamental values that enable Taiwan to survive. Lest the DPP forget, when Taiwan is no longer susceptible to reason, but subscribes to the premise that “Might makes right”, how will Taiwan persuade the Mainland to listen to reason, and distinguish right from wrong?

Full Text Below:

Before the election, Tsai Ing-wen was widely known as "kong xin cai", because she obdurately refused to let voters know where she stood. This pun on her name compared her to water spinach, which is hollow on the inside. The implication was that she lacked substance. Following the election, Tsai Ing-wen acquired a new nickname, “fa jia wan”, or “hairpin turn”, because she made one policy reversal after another. So is Tsai Ing-wen water spinach? Or is she hairpin turn? Perhaps she is both. During election campaigns she is water spinach. Upon gaining power, she is hairpin turn. What does this mean, and how does this affect the future? The question is worth contemplating.

The water spinach label is already firmly attached to Tsai the Candidate. Nothing more needs to be said about that. The DPP has been in power only 10 days, yet its hairpin turn policy reversals are already common knowledge. The DPP long opposed US pork imports. But as Tsao Chi-hung, who was preparing to assume the position of COA chairman demurred, "We are hardly in a position to reject US pork imports”. After which Tsao quickly changed the subject. Premier Lin Chuan reneged on DPP pledges to oppose electricity rate hikes to the bitter end. He announced "gradual increases in the future". The list of such policy reversals is endless. The DPP government's “false yesterday, true today” policy flip-flops are truly too numerous to list.

If the DPP hairpin turns were confined to public policy, that would be bad enough. People could fault the new government for changing its position merely because it changed its status. They could resign themselves to the necessary evils of democracy. They could realize this fact about politicians, learn a bitter lesson, and avoid the same mistakes in the future. But the DPP's hairpin turns include matters of national identity, national orientation, and moral integrity. No matter whether the DPP's hairpin turns were a means to an end, or ends in themselves, they constitute moral degradation and foretell Taiwan's decline.

During Tsai Ing-wen's May 20 inaugural ceremony, she solemnly swore to "abide by the Constitution… If I violate my oath, I am willing to accept the nation's harshest punishments". As President of the Republic of China, she has a duty not merely to abide by its constitution, but also to defend its historical perspective. Instead, we see Tsai Ing-wen concocting a "History of Indigenous Peoples". The new government's very first move was to prevent badly needed corrections to school history texts. The DPP has long blasted the KMT for accepting the label “Chinese Taipei”. They claimed that taking part in international activities under the name "Chinese Taipei" betrayed the people of Taiwan. But recently, when the new government attended the WHA, it dared not mention the term “Taiwan”,or even ask its allies' support in using the term “Taiwan”. The DPP's hairpin turns are betrayals of the nation and its constitution.

Everyone should respect the Aboriginal historical perspective. By the same token, everyone should  respect the Hakka historical perspective, or the Hoklo historical perspective. But as head of state, Tsai Ing-wen must respect and defend the Republic of China historical perspective. Tsai Ing-wen surely realizes that the history of the Republic of China includes the May Fourth Movement, unification, resistance against the Japanese, civil war, and the transfer of the nation's capital to Taiwan. All of these are part of Chinese history and Chinese territory, which include Taiwan, but are by no means confined to Taiwan. Yet upon taking office, the new government immediately changed history texts to read “Taiwan's relations with China” instead of “cross-Strait relations”, in defiance of the authority of the Control Yuan. Put simply, the new government is attempting to misrepresent history in order to sever all links between Taiwan and Chinese history, even with the Republic of China prior to 1949.

Reunification and independence are political choices. They need not be moral issues. But when a political party or an individual pretends to respect a nation's constitution, even as it undermines that constitution, when it uses the Republic of China name, even as it repudiates the Republic of China, then it becomes a moral issue. Tsai Ing-wen swore an oath as President to defend the Republic of China. But as DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen refuses to forsake the DPP's Taiwan independence party platform. What sort of political image does that convey?

The DPP considers elections everything. As long as one wins elections, one is Politically Correct. As long as one is Politically Correct, one may “interpret” the constitution and rewrite history any way one pleases. The KMT has been routed. Therefore the DPP feels no guilt or remorse for its 180 degree policy reversals. It does not care that it is undermining respect for the morality and integrity essential for a functioning society. Its rule is "Winner take all, and the devil take the hindmost". Since the DPP is the winner, it may do what others may not.

Before the new government took office, DPP legislators drafted the "Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations". They changed “two nations” to “both sides of the Taiwan Strait”. The new government was not afraid of the KMT. It was afraid it would anger the CCP. The new government's representative to the WHA dared not use the term “Taiwan”. He dared not ask allies to use the term “Taiwan”. There is only one explanation for this. The new government was afraid rule violations a PRC complaint would prevent our delegation from participating in this conference or even the next. This exemplifies the DPP's "Winner take all, and the devil take the hindmost" mentality. It understands full well the nature of political power. It knows that "when under another's roof, one has no choice but to bend". When the DPP was in the opposition, it used any argument available to discredit the ruling KMT. But now they are up at bat, and are willing to do anything to survive.

De jure Taiwan independence is difficult to achieve. Using cultural Taiwan independence as a tool will only destroy both Taiwan and the Republic of China. The mild-mannered KMT may be no match for the DPP, with its ability to turn on a dime. But the DPP's flip-flopping will destroy the fundamental values that enable Taiwan to survive. Lest the DPP forget, when Taiwan is no longer susceptible to reason, but subscribes to the premise that “Might makes right”, how will Taiwan persuade the Mainland to listen to reason, and distinguish right from wrong?

People who truly love Taiwan, hope that President Tsai, who swore allegiance to the "Republic of China Constitution", will go from Water Spinach to Hairpin Turn, and finally morph into a "loyal defender of the Constitution".

社論－空心蔡乎？髮夾彎乎？
2016年06月03日 04:10 主筆室

選舉以前，外界認為候選人蔡英文是空心菜，永遠不表明自己的真正主張與立場。選舉後，外界又感覺總統蔡英文是髮夾彎，她究竟是空心菜或髮夾彎？或兩者皆是。選舉空心菜、施政髮夾彎代表什麼現象？未來影響如何？值得思辨。

空心蔡印記早已牢牢刻在候選人蔡英文身上，就不多談，民進黨執政僅僅10餘天，髮夾彎現象幾乎已成為社會共同認知。民進黨長期反對美豬開放，農委會主委曹啟鴻上任前一句「哪有能耐不開放」，後來又有轉彎的談話；林全院長一改當年民進黨誓死反電價上漲，做出「未來緩漲」的宣示，還有更多類似事件就不細表。民進黨政府昨非今是，真是「罄竹難書」。

如果髮夾彎只是公共政策立場的轉向，民眾除了批評新政府「換了位置就換了腦袋」以外，也只能摸摸鼻子，無奈接受民主制度的必要之惡，下次認清政客的本質，學乖一點，別再受騙就是了。但是如果髮夾彎涉及的是國家認同、國家方向、道德誠信等問題，髮夾彎不論是「工具論」或「目的論」，都是道德淪喪，更是台灣沉淪的奪命彎。

蔡英文在520就職時，莊嚴宣誓「必遵守憲法，……。如違誓言，願受國家嚴厲之制裁。」作為中華民國的總統，不僅應該遵守憲法，也應該捍衛中華民國的史觀。但民眾看到的是，蔡英文在就職演說中提出要建立「原民史觀」，新政府教育部的第一項政策就是廢除課綱微調。以往批評國民黨政府接受「中華台北」（Chinese Taipei）名義出席國際組織是背叛台灣人民，但是新政府出席WHA時，不僅在發言時不敢提Taiwan，還不敢要求友邦聲援支持我方時使用Taiwan。這些髮夾彎的背後，是對自己的國家與憲法，也是對自己以往堅持的最大欺騙與否定。

任何人都應該尊重「原民史觀」，同樣地也應該尊重「客民史觀」或「閩民史觀」，但是作為國家元首，卻必須尊重與捍衛「中華民國史觀」。蔡英文應該知道，中華民國史觀包括五四運動、統一、抗日、內戰、遷台，它是中國歷史的一部分，領土包括台灣，但絕不僅等於台灣。新政府上任立刻用行政力量廢除一個經法院及監察院都認為沒有不法程序的課綱微調，重新以「台灣與中國的關係」書寫兩岸關係。簡單地說，新政府要從史觀的認同上，徹底切斷台灣與歷史中國、台灣與1949年前中華民國的連結。

統與獨都是一個政治選擇，不涉及誰是誰非的道德問題，但是任何政黨或個人，嘴巴上說要尊重憲法，所做的卻是淘空憲法；打著中華民國國號，但卻是在為否定中華民國累積能量，就是一個最基本的道德問題。作為總統的蔡英文宣示要捍衛中華民國，但是作為民進黨主席的蔡英文卻不願意放棄民進黨的台獨黨綱，這是一個什麼樣的政治圖象？

民進黨深信選舉才是王道，只要贏得選舉，就等於政治正確，憲法由其解釋，歷史由其書寫。面對一個已經遭其徹底擊潰的國民黨，在髮夾彎的道路上，民進黨沒有一絲愧疚或懺悔，不在乎是否已經破壞了社會最需要的道德與誠信，而認為「成王敗寇」才是政治的金科玉律，將「別人不可以，但是我可以」視為勝利者的座右銘。

在新政府上任之前，民進黨立委就自動將《兩岸協議監督條例》草案中，原本堅持的「兩國」改成「兩岸」，這只有一個解釋，新政府不是害怕國民黨，而是擔心觸怒中共。新政府代表在WHA中不敢堅持使用Taiwan，不敢要求友邦聲援時使用Taiwan，也只有一個解釋，就是擔心主辦單位以違反規定為由，或遭到中共代表抗議，致使代表團無法順利與會，甚而影響下次的參與。這充分顯示，「成王敗寇」思維的民進黨，充分了解「人在屋簷下，不得不低頭」的權力政治本質，在野時任意批評詆毀，輪到自己上場，為了偷生苟且也無妨。

將法理台獨作為目的難以成功，將文化台獨作為工具只會讓台灣隨著中華民國的精氣被吸乾而一起滅亡。溫良恭順的國民黨或許不是髮夾彎的民進黨的對手，但是翻雲覆雨的髮夾彎卻會摧毀台灣的基本價值。民進黨更別忘了，當台灣不再講道理，只相信權力就是公理時，未來台灣拿什麼去與對岸講道理、爭是非？

作為真愛台灣的台灣人，期待宣誓效忠《中華民國憲法》的蔡總統，能從「空心蔡」經過「髮夾彎」進化為「忠誠的憲法捍衛者」。

Minister of Economic Affairs Roy S. Lee is Wrong

Minister of Economic Affairs Roy S. Lee is Wrong
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 2, 2016

Executive Summary: Temperatures are soaring. Domestic power consumption is setting new records. Taiwan's reserve transfer capacity rate has plummeted to 1.64%, the lowest point in a decade. The rate is fast approaching the threshold for compulsory power rationing. Roy S. Lee, the new Minister of Economic Affairs, recently promised the business community "No power shortages for the next two years”. He quickly corrected himself, saying "We cannot guarantee that there will be no power shortages". This abrupt about face reveal that Lee's boasts bear no resemblance to reality.

Full Text Below:

Temperatures are soaring. Domestic power consumption is setting new records. Taiwan's reserve transfer capacity rate has plummeted to 1.64%, the lowest point in a decade. The rate is fast approaching the threshold for compulsory power rationing. Roy S. Lee, the new Minister of Economic Affairs, recently promised the business community "No power shortages for the next two years”. He quickly corrected himself, saying "We cannot guarantee that there will be no power shortages". This abrupt about face reveal that Lee's boasts bear no resemblance to reality.

Upon his appointment, Roy S. Lee was asked about the mothballing of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Lee was supremely confident. He said that by 2025, we will have a nuclear-free homeland. "There is no room for discussion". Construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant will cease. The Number One, Two, and Three Nuclear Power Plants will not be expanded. The general election showed that a nuclear-free homeland is what the public wants. Not everyone agrees, he said, but the signal is clear. He also said that by September 2025, the power grid and required generating capacity will be complete. The percentage of energy derived from renewable energy sources will approach 20%.

Roy S. Lee is committed to a nuclear-free homeland. Is he correct? Perhaps. But his attitude and rationale are wrong. First, he misinterprets the election results. The January elections showed that most voters support the ruling party. But they do not mean everyone agrees with every one of Tsai Ing-wen's policies. Still less do they mean that the voters have given Tsai Ing-wen carte blanche. Second, his timetable is wrong. Elections are held every four years. Those in power may declare their long-term goals. But even if Tsai Ing-wen wins a second term, she can remain in office only until 2024. So what is she up to? Is she providing herself with an escape hatch? Is she attempting to pass the buck to her successor? Third, his expectations are too high. Achieving a nuclear-free homeland by 2025 might be possible with real progress. But the new government is merely shouting slogans. It has no concrete real plan to achieve its goals. Its ideals are empty talk.

When the Democratic Progressive Party was out of power, it exploited the anti-nuclear and nuclear-free homeland issues. It uses them as part of its "I love Taiwan" rhetoric, and did in fact enjoy widespread support. The DPP painted a pretty picture of the future. But it never explained how it would realize these visions. It never offered any plans by which it would meet the need for generating capacity. Its "green energy" initiative has never been anything more than hot air. It has simply assumed it could achieve its objectives, without ever bothering to formulate a concrete plan of attack. When the DPP was in the opposition, people may not have minded its pie in the sky promises. But the DPP is now the ruling party, and its Minister of Economic Affairs still thinks he can use the old playbook. He thinks he need not formulate and implement a detailed plan. One really has to wonder. Does the DPP think a nuclear-free homeland going to fall out of the sky?

In early May, Roy S. Lee, promised no power shortages within two years. By late May, he had taken back his words, and reneged on his "no shortages" guarantee. A minister's "guarantee" had a shelf life of less than a month before turning rancid. How sad is that? If the temperature rises even further, Taipower will be forced to ration power. In addition to eating crow, Roy S. Lee will have to reverse himself on the mothballing and shutdown of nuclear power plants. Otherwise maintaining a normal power supply will be impossible.

The Tsai government has embarrassed itself repeatedly with its policy flip-flops on one issue after another. That it is reneging on its promise of "no power rationing" probably come as no surprise. But once power rationing and brownouts become a reality, once peoples' air-conditioning units die in the middle of a long hot summer, once their personal computer screens go black without warning, once Taipower is forced to purchase energy at exorbitant prices to meet demand during emergencies, the public will realize the price they have paid for the DPP's reckless energy policy. By then, they will have gotten a taste of the DPP's overhyped "nuclear-free homeland". By then, they will realize the price they are paying because green camp county and municipal governments oppose local thermal power plants. By then everyone will know the truth.

No one wants brownouts or power rationing. Will the recent Taipower reduction in reserve transfer capacity wake up the new government? Will it force the new government to behave more more pragmatically, and revise its energy policy? If so, perhaps it was a good thing. In fact, we have yet to see Roy S. Lee contribute anything to economic growth. His previous remarks about a nuclear-free homeland by 2025, with "no room for discussion" reveal more than lop-sided economic decision-making. They reveal arrogance and bigotry. A general election victory means qualified voter support. Roy S. Lee inflated that support in his own mind, then declared "There is no room for discussion". What sort of high-handed attitude is that? The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant cost over 200 billion dollars to construct. It is currently mothballed. If the DPP wants to dismantle it, the people deserve a referendum.

We would remind Roy S. Lee that economic growth and the normalization of generating capacity must precede the elimination of nuclear power generation. Only that is consistent with the interests of the Tsai government and its larger policy objectives.

李世光的理由是錯的
2016-06-02 聯合報

近日氣溫持續飆高，家戶用電激增破表，全台備轉容量率僅剩一．六四％的十年新低，逼近實施限電的門檻。新經濟部長李世光稍早才向工商團體拍胸脯，保證「未來兩年不會缺電」，近日連忙改口「不能保證不會缺電」。這樣的轉彎速度，暴露了他的政策大話完全跟不上社會現實。

在就任記者會上，李世光被問到核四封存問題時，他斬釘截鐵地說，二○二五年要完成非核家園，「沒有討論的餘地」；核四要停建，核一、核二、核三不延役。理由是，大選結果反映非核家園是最大公約數，雖不是全民都贊成，但是一個清楚的訊號。他並稱，到二○二五還有九年，必須把電力結構、發電機組布建完成，再生能源發電比率要達廿％。

李世光致力推動非核家園的目標或許是正確的，但他所持的理由和態度卻是錯誤的。第一，選舉解讀的錯誤：一月大選結果顯示多數民眾支持政黨輪替，卻不表示全民認同蔡英文的所有政見，更不等於全部埋單。第二，期程設定的錯誤：大選是四年為期，主政者雖可宣示長期理想，但蔡英文就算能連任，任期也只到二○二四年為止。因此，設定二○二五達成非核家園，若非在為自己預留退路，也形同把責任推給他人。第三，眼高手低的錯誤：二○二五能否達成非核家園，要看現實的進展而定；若新政府高喊口號，卻提不出足以達成目標的手段，理想也只是空話。

民進黨在野時，以反核及推動非核家園作為「愛台」訴求，確實獲得許多民眾的支持。問題在，民進黨把未來願景勾勒得如此美好，卻從未翔實指出滿足這些願景的路徑何在；不僅在電力的「供」和「需」兩端說不出平衡之計，在發電結構上所謂的「綠能」也始終只有「膨風」的假設目標，而無具體方針。民進黨在野時，人們可以不關心這些虛設的目標；如今民進黨執政了，經濟部長仍以為自己只要根據先前政見照本宣科即可，卻不落實緊盯每一個環節，試問：非核家園會從天上掉下來嗎？

五月初，李世光才保證兩年內不會缺電；五月底，他就改口收回自己「不缺電」的保證。一位部長的「保證」，竟維持不到一個月的保鮮期，即已變餿，這是多可怕的事！如果天氣的考驗更嚴峻些，一旦台電採取限電，李世光除了要面對承諾「跳票」的難堪，他關閉核電廠的原則恐怕也要改弦易轍，否則正常供電即難以為繼。

在蔡英文政府難堪的各種「髮夾彎」政策中，多一個「不限電」承諾的急轉彎，看起來似乎亦不令人意外。然而，一旦「限電」變成事實，當民眾在酷暑中要忍受突然冷氣跳電，或者電腦無預警瞬間變黑，或者台電要花更高代價去向用電大戶買電回來應急時，人們才會知道自己要為民進黨輕率的能源政策付出什麼代價。屆時，民進黨說得天花亂墜的「非核家園」究竟是什麼滋味，綠營地方縣市反火力電廠的抗爭究竟要付出什麼代價，大家即能領略其中真相。

缺電或限電不是人們希望看到的事，也因此，近日台電備轉容量降低引發的危機，若能喚起新政府的警惕，從而務實修正其能源政策並加速調整，倒不失其積極作用。事實上，我們尚未看到李世光領導經濟發展上的任何表現，但他先前那番二○二五非核家園「沒有討論餘地」之說，卻暴露了他在經濟決策順序上的失調，也暴露了他的傲慢和偏執。一次大選投票，反映的其實是對當選者有限度的支持，李世光卻自己作了太多擴充解釋，並聲稱「沒有討論餘地」，這是何等霸道的心態。何況，耗費了兩千多億興建的核四目前只是「封存」狀態，要廢掉它，政府仍欠民眾一次公投。

我們要提醒李世光：將發展經濟及正常供電放在廢核之前，才更符合蔡政府的利益和總體政策目標。