How is Assaulting a Police Officer “Freedom of Speech"?

How is Assaulting a Police Officer “Freedom of Speech"?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
July 1, 2016

Executive Summary: If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?

Full Text Below:

President Tsai Ing-wen has made judicial reform a focal point for her new government. She has stressed the need to restore "people's justice", in order to address injustice and increase public trust. But before she peddles her great reform project, would she please answer one question? Does assaulting a police officer constitute "freedom of speech"?

Big problems always begin small. And so it is with the erosion of public trust in the judiciary. During the Sunflower Student Movement, Legislator Lin Tai-hua attempted to bring a Japanese reporter into the legislature, which the students had occupied, in order to hold an interview. Police stationed at the door blocked him. An altercation ensued, Lin Tai-hua lost his temper and pushed or punched the police officer in the chest. Later some members of the public lodged a complaint with the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, which then charged Lin with "obstruction". Last month the Taipei District Court found her not guilty. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed.

Lin Tai-hua assaulted a police officer in a fit of anger. She probably lost control temporarily and had no intention of hurting anyone. But the police officer was enforcing the law on behalf of the government. Was the police officer supposed to turn to jelly merely because he found himself face to face with a legislator? If he is assaulted, must he chalk it up to bad luck? In fact, the core of the problem is not Lin Tai-hua's status, or whether police were according respect. The problem was the wishy-washy attitude of the presiding judge. The judge said he acquitted Lin Tai-hua because she was exercising “free speech” within the legislature. Her action was “protected speech”, therefore the legislature's disciplinary code applied. According to the judge, Lin Tai-hua brought a reporter with her into the legislature. That did not violate the legislature's disciplinary code. Therefore, he claimed, the police had no reason to stop her.

The reasons the judge cited for his ruling were not merely irrational, they distorted the facts and trampled over the rule of law. First, when the students occupied the legislature they shut it down. The legislature was no longer in session. Lin Tai-hua brought a foreign reporter to the scene merely for the sake of a photo op, and to join in on the excitement of the student protest. How could she possibly have been conducting legislative business? Second, the altercation took place at the entrance to the Legislative Yuan. Lin Tai-hua was not even inside the legislature. How could she have been exercising her duties as a legislator at that moment? Third, legislators enjoy "protected speech” during interpolation. Assaulting a police officer involves physical violence.  Lin Tai-hua attacked the police officer. She was not defending herself against attack. Yet the judge had the chutzpah to invoke the legislature's “protected speech” clause in order to give her a free pass. This was a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Fourth, when students occupied the Legislative Yuan, it was under a state of emergency. If the police failed to maintain order at the scene, and allowed people to move in and out at will, Legislative Yuan order and the safety of the students would have been compromised. Yet the judge ruled that the police had no reason to stop Lin. Such a verdict, issued from a judge's mouth, is disgusting.

We have no idea why the judge resorted to such far-fetched rationalizations to acquit Lin Tai-hua. Was it her personal clout as a legislator? Was it the Sunflower Student Movement's phony halo? Was it the change in ruling parties? What we do know is that no judge who cares about justice, whose head is free of political considerations, could possibly hand down such an absurd ruling. Pushing or punching a police officer is not an extraordinarily violent act. Nevertheless it reveals a contempt for the rule of law. But a judge invoked "protected speech” to whitewash such an act, when the legislature was not even in session. He even condemned police officers who stopped legislators from entering. This merely revealed his guilty conscience, and discredited him as a judge.

The DPP has long accused of KMT of “owning the courts”. But the Taipei District Court's judgment makes people wonder whether the ruling party change has also changed who “owns the courts”. Otherwise, why did the court reverse itself the moment a green camp legislator was indicted? Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san recently issued an open letter to prosecutors, demanding that "prosecutorial teams not include black sheep". He said prosecutions must not involve abuses. Nevertheless prosecutors denounced him for failing to grasp the essence of reform. The new government talks a lot about judicial reform. But concentrating exclusively on the issue of  prosecutorial burden of proof misses the point. Many people are deeply dissatisfied with “dinosaur judges” who enjoy tenure, abuse “judicial independence”, and nibble away at the justice system with utter impunity. The dinosaur judge in Lin Tai-hua's case handed down an outrageous ruling. Must people endure such injustices forever? We support the prosecutor's appeal. We hope the next ruling will accord more closely with the truth.

If legislators can assault police officers and be acquitted on the spurious basis of “protected speech”, then the China Airlines flight attendant who claimed that a bomb was planted in the president's plane must also be acquitted. After all, the flight attendant took no real action. He was merely striking for the greater good of the flight attendants as a whole. Would such sophistry be considered valid? Why could Premier Lin Chuan drop all charges against the Sunflower Student Movement, but oppose the exercise of public authority and ignore the assault of a police officer?

襲警是一種「言論自由」？
2016-07-01 聯合報

蔡英文總統把「司法改革」列為新府施政重點，強調要回歸「人民的司法」，解決不公，強化人民的信賴。但在推動這項偉大的改革工程之前，請先回答一個小小的問題：打警察，能算是一種「言論自由」嗎？

大問題都始於小地方，司法失去人民信任，也是如此。太陽花運動期間，立委林岱樺想要帶一名日本媒體記者進入被學生占領的國會議場採訪，在門口遭到駐衛警阻攔；雙方發生口角衝突，林岱樺憤而朝執勤警員胸口揮了一拳。事後有民眾向北檢告發，北檢依「妨礙公務」罪嫌起訴，上月台北地院判她無罪；北檢對判決結果不滿，最近提出上訴。

林岱樺憤而襲警，或許只是一時失控，並非刻意傷害對方；但警察執勤代表的是政府公權力的執法界線，能因遇到立委就腿軟放水嗎？難道，即使挨打也應忍氣吞聲，自認倒楣？事實上，問題核心不僅在林岱樺的身分或公權力的不受尊重，而在法官對此案的和稀泥態度讓人忍無可忍。法官判決無罪的理由是：林岱樺是在議場內行使立委職務的「適度意見表達」，屬於「言論免責」的保障範圍，國會的自律原則應該尊重；且林岱樺帶記者進場並不違反議場管制規定，員警沒有理由阻擋。

這些判決理由，不僅強詞奪理，更是歪曲事實踐踏法治。第一，當時學生以占領議場癱瘓國會，會議早已停開，林岱樺帶外媒前往現場只是為湊學運的熱鬧，哪裡是為了議事？第二，衝突地點是在立院門口，林岱樺根本未踏入議場，這也與行使立委職務毫無瓜葛。第三，立委獲有「言論免責權」，是為了保障其質詢的自由；但推打警察已涉及肢體暴力，且林岱樺是主動攻擊而非基於自衛，法官居然還敢套用「言論免責」之冠冕使其免罪，簡直是明目張膽地欺世盜法。第四，學生占領國會已使立院處於緊急狀態，員警若不在現場維持秩序，隨便讓民眾進出，立院秩序和學生安全都可能受到損害；但法官卻說員警沒有理由阻擋，這種話出自司法人之口，讓人吐血。

我們不知道，究竟是林岱樺的立委身分，或者是太陽花學運的光環，或者是政黨輪替的因素，而導致法官掰出這麼牽強的理由來為林岱樺脫罪。但可以確定的是，法官心中若有一尊司法天平，如果腦中沒有那麼多奇怪的政治考量，絕不可能寫出這樣的判決書來。推打警察不算嚴重暴行，卻是無視法治公權力的表現；然而，法官要援引「言論免責」來粉飾太平，把根本沒開的會說得煞有介事，甚至責指警察不該阻擋立委帶人入內，反而暴露了自己的心虛，也蹧蹋了司法尊嚴。

民進黨動輒指控「法院是國民黨開的」，但看到北院這樣的判決，人們不禁懷疑法院也「政黨輪替」了，否則，為何一碰到綠營立委就轉彎。法務部長邱太三最近向檢察官發出公開信，要求「檢察辦案團隊不能有害群之馬」，起訴不能浮濫；卻遭檢察官群起反嗆，認為他沒有抓到改革重點。的確如此，新政府談司法改革，若只能將目光放在檢察官的起訴舉證責任，恐怕無法抓到要害。事實上，許多民眾深感不滿的，是那些躲在「終身職」及「獨立審判」大旗下苟且因循的恐龍法官，日復一日地腐蝕司法正義，卻無人可奈他何。從林岱樺的案子看，這位恐龍法官的判決理由，人們嚥得下去嗎？我們當然支持檢察官再上訴，也等著看下次的判決將說出什麼道理。

如果立委打警察可以因言論自由而脫罪，那麼，華航空少謊稱總統專機有炸彈一案，恐怕也該無罪開釋。因為，空少並沒有採取實際行動，而且他是為了更高的空服員罷工理想而發，不是嗎？如果認為這樣的詭辯不能成立，請問，為什麼林全可以撤銷對太陽花學生的告訴，卻置因執行公權力而被告的警察於不顧？

How Can President Tsai Show Her Face Before Chairman Tsai?

How Can President Tsai Show Her Face Before Chairman Tsai? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 30, 2016

Executive Summary: On August 4, 2000, when she was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen said, Taiwan cannot escape the one China issue. From a cultural and geographical perspective, a "future one China" is the only possible choice for the people of Taiwan. In 2016, the question for President Tsai Ing-wen should not be whether to repudiate "one China". It should be what kind of relationship should the two sides have. Should it be a master-slave relationship, or an undivided, share and share alike relationship? Should the two sides jurisdiction be independent of each other? Should it be a central government vs. local government relationship? Should it be constitutionally divided rule?

Full Text Below:

The two sides of the Strait are still wrestling over the 1992 Consensus. American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt recently joined the fray. He told the VOA that when Koo Chen-fu and Wang Daohan met, they never used the term 1992 Consensus in his presence, but that Koo sometimes used the term "1992 understanding". MAC Chairwoman Katharine Chang immediately latched onto Uncle Sammy's comment, and argued that the 1992 Consensus was merely an agreement to “seek common ground, while shelving differences”. She conveniently forgot the part about “one China, different interpretations”. Taiwan independence elder Lin Cho-shui published an article claiming that the United States has abandoned “joint management of the Taiwan Strait”. The Liberty Times published an article entitled “Taps for the 1992 Consensus". It would appear that the DPP government has the United States' backing, and no longer intends to deal with the dispute over the 1992 Consensus.

We have repeatedly made clear that the 1992 Consensus is an artificial term. It was coined by Su Chi as a good will gesture, to extricate the incoming Chen Shui-bian government from a tight spot. He used the neutral sounding term “1992 Consensus” in order to avoid reference to the "one China principle". But the DPP failed to appreciate it. The DPP did not object to the term itself. It objected to what it meant. The term is merely one of convenience. For example, from a distance we see a mountain. But as we come closer, we see towering trees, rocks, streams, plants, and animals. Mountain is merely a term for everything associated with the mountain. Chuang Tzu once related a story about a group of monkeys. The monkeys would be happy when they received four berries in the morning and three at night, but angry if they received three berries in the morning and four at night. The monkeys' minds were fixated on appearances and could not recognize substance.

1992 Consensus includes two areas of agreement, and one area of disagreement. The two sides agreed to "adhere to the one China principle," and to "seek national reunification". The two sides disagreed about the meaning of "one China". In other words, the two sides disagreed about the nature of cross-Strait relations. Beijing saw the 1992 Consensus as an administrative matter. Therefore it adopted a "one China, no interpretations” stance. Taipei argued that the two sides should adopt a "one China, different interpretations" stance, and argued that "one China" means the Republic of China.

Had Koo characterized the meeting as a "1992 Understanding" with “common ground as well as differences”, he would not have been wrong. In 1992, both sides recognized the "one China principle". Koo knew this. Taipei wanted to emphasize "one China, different interpretations". Beijing wanted to emphasize "opposition to Taiwan independence". This was merely a case of “four berries in the morning, and berries at night” vs. “three berries in the morning, and four at night”. Upholding one China is synonymous with “opposing Taiwan independence". The key point was that neither side advocated separatism. Taken a step further, opposition to separatism is merely another name for opposition to war. Put even more simply, it is merely the advocacy of peace. In short, the essence of the 1992 Consensus is the desire for peace.

Taipei equated the 1992 Consensus with "one China, different interpretations". But Lee Teng-hui's "special state to state relations" formulation in 1999, had Beijing worried that "one China, different interpretations" would be interpreted as "one country on each side". As a result, Beijing rejected it. Ma Ying-jeou also advocated "one China, different interpretations". But for him the two sides were not two nations. Therefore Beijing voiced no opposition. But when the same label refers to different things, it acquires a different meaning.

The Tsai Ing-wen government cannot use the term, 1992 Consensus. But Tsai must swear that she will "uphold the one China principle" by some other means. She may wish to swear that she “will not to divide China as a whole". Tsai Ing-wen must find a way to express her cross-Strait policy that Beijing can accept, and that will enable the two sides to enjoy peace.

Since 1949, the two sides have not engaged in a shooting war. They have conducted frequent exchanges. But legally speaking, the two sides are still in a state of civil war. The 1992 "consensus, understanding, facts, talks, spirit, acknowledgement" has already dealt with one problem. But it has not dealt with another problem, namely that the civil war must not lead to permanent division. Just what is the relationship between the two sides? The 1992 Consensus did not say. As a result, the two sides continue to talk past each other.

If the Tsai government insists that cross-Strait relations are foreign relations, and that the two sides do not belong to the same nation, then it is not a case of “four in the morning and three at night” vs. “three in the morning and four at night”. It is tantamount to “walking into the sea”. It is calling the mountain before us by another name. Names are sometimes meaningful. The sequence of events is sometimes important. But when the meaning changes, then labels are either self-deception or deception of others.

On August 4, 2000, when she was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Tsai Ing-wen said, Taiwan cannot escape the one China issue. From a cultural and geographical perspective, a "future one China" is the only possible choice for the people of Taiwan. In 2016, the question for President Tsai Ing-wen should not be whether to repudiate "one China". It should be what kind of relationship should the two sides have. Should it be a master-slave relationship, or an undivided, share and share alike relationship? Should the two sides jurisdiction be independent of each other? Should it be a central government vs. local government relationship? Should it be constitutionally divided rule?

蔡總統如何面對蔡主委？
2016年06月30日 中國時報

兩岸「九二共識」之爭還在角力，美國在台協會主席薄瑞光加入戰局。他接受美國之音訪問時指出，過去和辜振甫與汪道涵會面，兩人都沒對他講過「九二共識」，只是辜振甫有時會說「九二諒解」。陸委會主委張小月立刻扣緊老大哥的話，強調「九二共識」就是「求同存異」的共同認知，對「一中各表」則選擇遺忘，台獨大師林濁水發表文章，認為美國已放棄與大陸「共管台海」立場，《自由時報》也發表文章稱「九二共識熄燈號」。看來民進黨政府已取得美國背書，將不再處理「九二共識」兩岸爭議。

我們曾一再闡明，「九二共識」只是人為的名相，是蘇起當時善意「借箸代籌」，希望替即將上任的陳水扁政府解套，乃使用中性的「九二共識」來迴避「一個中國原則」。但是，民進黨並不領情，因為民進黨不接受的不是名詞，而是其內涵。「名相」僅是一種方便的法門，例如，遠看是一座大山，走進大山，看到的卻是參天的大樹，石頭、小溪、花草、動物。大山只是一整體的名相，內部仍有不同的名相。莊子曾以猴子陷於「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」的怒喜而不自覺，來暗喻這些猴子執著於「名相」，而忽略實質其實沒有改變。

「九二共識」包括兩個同與一個異。同的部分是，兩岸在給對方的信函中，都表示要「堅持一個中國原則」、「謀求國家統一」，異的部分是在「一個中國」的內涵上，也就是對於兩岸之間是甚麼關係，彼此有不同看法。北京認為1992年要處理的是事務性問題，因此「一中不表」；但是台北方面認為應該同意「一中各表」，而且主張「一中」就是中華民國。

辜振甫如果稱這樣的「同中有異」為「九二諒解」，也沒有錯，但是1992年兩岸對「一個中國原則」的共同認知卻是事實，相信辜振甫也會同意。至於台北希望多強調「一中各表」，而北京凸顯「反對台獨」，都不過是「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」。如果說「堅持一中」、「反對台獨」也是一個名相，那麼其核心的法義應該就是當時兩岸均各自表示「不分裂」的意願。再進一步說，如果「不分裂」也算是一個「名相」，那麼更簡單的法義就是雙方不想打仗，希望和平相處。簡單來說，「九二共識」的法義本質就是「和平的渴望」。

台北方面將「九二共識」等同於「一中各表」，但李登輝於1999年提出「特殊國與國」後，北京擔心「一中各表」會被詮釋為「一邊一國」，因而不接受。馬英九雖然也主張「一中各表」，但認為兩岸非「國與國」關係，因而北京也沒有明確反對。這就是看似同樣的「名相」，當其內涵法義變化時，名相也就有不同的意義。

蔡英文政府當然可以不要用「九二共識」這個名相，但是她必須要提出一個包括「堅持一個中國原則」內涵的名相，或者她要提出一個可以承諾「不分裂整個中國」的名相。蔡英文必須提出一個可以讓北京接受，兩岸可以確保和平的說法。

從1949年起，兩岸目前雖然表面上沒有硝煙戰火，交流頻繁，但是就法理上而言，兩岸仍然沒有結束內戰狀態。1992年的「共識、諒解、事實、會談、精神、認知」已經處理了一個問題，就是雙方確定內戰的結果不應該是「永久的分裂」，但是兩岸到底是甚麼樣的關係，1992年並沒有解決，而是自說自話。

蔡英文政府如果堅持兩岸關係為外國關係、兩岸主權互不隸屬，那麼就不是「朝三暮四」或「朝四暮三」何者為佳的辯證；也等於是明明走進大海，口中卻告訴對方，可否用另一個名字稱前面這座「大山」。名相有時有意義，看事情的順序角度有時也很重要，但是當其本質改變時，名相與角度不是自欺就是欺人。

2000年8月4日，時任陸委會主委的蔡英文曾表示：台灣無法逃避「一個中國」問題，從文化、地理來看，「未來的一個中國」是台灣民眾唯一的選擇。2016年的蔡英文總統，應該要做的，不是否定「一個中國」，而是與大陸共同商定兩岸現在應是甚麼樣的關係，是主權互不隸屬、主從關係、還是共有共享的不分裂的關係，兩岸治權是相互獨立、中央與地方、還是憲政分治的關係？

A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster

A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 29, 2016

Executive Summary: Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

Full Text Below:

The first meeting of the Presidential Office National Pension Reform Committee has been in haste amid a storm of controversy. Three representatives of military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers blasted the government, then withdrew in protest. They originally planned to deal with “committee procedures" and “committee member ethics”. Neither was dealt with. Pension Reform Committee Deputy Convener and Executive Director Lin Wan-yi previously vowed to step down if he failed to reform the pension system within one year. After the meeting Lin Wan-yi railed, saying that if the committee cannot reach a consensus, he will force a vote. But a forced vote will undermine the legitimacy of pension reform. It will provoke a powerful backlash, and sow the seeds of future disaster. It must be avoided at all costs.

In order to fulfill her campaign promise, Tsai Ing-wen has made pension reform a top priority. For this she deserves affirmation and support. After all, it is essential to consider global economic trends, government debt, and the equitable distribution of national resources. The current pension system does require reform. But such reform involves the vital interests of the people. One must be careful, especially regarding peoples' expectations about workplace insurance mechanisms. Unfortunately, the new government's pension reform program has gotten off on the wrong foot.

At the first meeting of the Pension Reform Committee, President Tsai solemnly enshrined four principles. One of them was "to abide by the principles of democracy, and to ensure transparency". But the very formation of the Pension Reform Committee has already violated Tsai Ing-wen's promise. The entire process was a black box operation. Tsai Ing-wen has already taken the wrong fork in the road.

The new government has released the names of 37 members of the Pension Reform Committee. But how was the composition of the committee determined? What standards were applied to committee members? The government did not say. Nor did it consult the public. Instead, it unilaterally declared that "a consensus has been reached", and laid down the law. For example, the Pension Reform Committee is supposed to include two private citizens. But by what stretch of the imagination are Lee An-ni and Feng Kuang-yuan private citizens? Both are highly controversial people, especially the latter, who constantly attacked dissenters with obscenities. On what basis can these two people be considered representatives of "civil society"? The government owes the people an explanation.

The legislature is an elective body. Legislators' proposals are important. But the Pension Reform Committee includes only one legislator, who is a member of the ruling party. Do the views of opposition party legislators count for nothing? The composition of the committee is designed to weaken the legislature, and shut out opposition parties. Is this because the government has a guilty conscience and afraid to subject committee members to public scrutiny? Or is this because the government is arrogant and indifferent to the diverse views of society?

All of these have undermined the credibility of the Pension Reform Committee. People will inevitably question the fruit of the poisonous tree. Pension reform is a “river of justice” that everyone supports. But it has been polluted at its source by undemocratic black box operations. How can anyone expect clean water downstream?

The composition of the committee was not the product of the democratic process. A forced vote will only undermine public trust with its pretense of democracy. It will not solve any problems. It will only exacerbate them.

Secondly, the government knows full well that pension reform is a subtractive process. It reduces the number of golden eggs distributed, in order to avoid killing the goose that lays them. The nation's finances are on the edge of a precipice. Long term growth rates will remain low. Reform is urgent. The subtractive process will harm military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, and others. It will undermine trust in the the government. After all, the government promised retirement benefits. That was why many military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers chose their occupations in the first place. How will the number of eggs be cut? This requires fairness. Military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, labor, and farmers. Whose eggs will be cut the most? Establishing objective criteria will be difficult. Ignoring the differences in these occupations and cutting all equally, runs the risk of comparing apples to oranges.

Therefore Pension Reform Committee Executive Director Lin Wan-yi must not casually drop word of forced votes. Such talk only adds fuel to the fire, and undermines reform. Lin Wan-yi must do what Tsai Ying-wen promised to do: "communicate, communicate, communicate". Military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers accused the government of demonizing them. Lin Wan-yi, not to be outdone, lashed back, saying "Since military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers don't want others to demonize them, they should not demonize others!” This was beneath the Pension Reform Committee Executive Director, who ought to remain detached and generous in spirit. Instead, he fanned the flames of conflict and undermined the government's efforts to communicate.

Pension reform has a high degree of public support. In March "This Week" magazine polled legislators. As many as 84% of all legislators, regardless of party affiliation, favored pension reform. This echoed the support for pension reform among the general public in the previous poll, which held at 70%. The support of the public is the new government's most valuable asset. It should have more confidence in itself. It should allow all parties to debate the issue, and not behave in a dictatorial manner.

Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

強行表決年金改革 埋下禍根
2016年06月29日 中國時報

總統府國家年金改革委員會召開第1次會議，火爆中草草結束，3位軍公教代表炮火四射，並退席抗議，原來規畫要處理的「議事規則」、「委員倫理」均未完成。會後曾宣稱「年金改革1年做不到就下台」的年金改革委員會副召集人兼執行長林萬億強勢喊話，若爭論難以取得共識，就要訴諸表決。但我們要提醒新政府，強勢表決不僅會傷及年金改革的正當性，更會引發強烈的反作用力，種下未來激化抗爭的禍源，萬萬不可。

蔡英文總統為實踐競選諾言，把年金改革視為重中之重，這一點應予肯定支持，畢竟全局考慮未來經濟發展趨勢、政府財政負擔及國家資源公平配置等大方向，現行年金制度確有改革必要。但改革涉及全民的切身利益，尤其要改變每一個國民在投入職場加入保險機制時對未來的預期，當然必須謹慎。遺憾的是，新政府年金改革的第一哩路已邁錯了步伐。

蔡總統在年金改革委員會第1次會議時鄭重揭櫫了4原則，其中之一就是：「做到民主原則及資訊透明公開。」然而，年金改革委員會的組成，就先違反了蔡英文宣示的「民主、透明」原則，遭到「黑箱委員會」的質疑，已走上叉路。

新政府公布的37位年金改革委員，分配比例的準據何在？選任委員的標準是什麼？政府未說明，也未經社會討論，就片面以「朕意已決」姿態率爾決定。舉例而言，年金改革委員會設計了2位公民社會代表：李安妮與馮光遠，這2位不但看不出任何「公民社會」的代表性，甚至還帶有爭議性，尤其後者，頻頻以不堪言辭攻訐不同立場者，極具爭議性。憑什麼這2人能代表「公民社會」？政府欠人民一個交待。

國會是民意的代理機關，立法委員的主張非常重要，但在年金改革委員會中只有一位立委代表，而且是執政黨籍，其他在野黨的意見難道不重要嗎？在成員設計上就弱化國會、排斥在野黨，這是不敢接受檢驗的心虛，還是不在意社會多元意見的傲慢？

凡此種種，都傷害了年金改革委員會組成的公信力。就如一顆有毒的樹，會讓人質疑長出的也將是有毒的果子。即便年金改革是一條眾人齊盼的正義之河，但在這河的源頭就被不民主、不透明的黑箱汙染，又如何期盼下游的水清淨可飲？

也正因為委員會組成本身就不是透過民主程序產生的，強勢表決註定只是一個沒有公信、虛矯的假民主。不但不能解決問題，反而會激化問題。

其次，政府當知，年金改革本質上是減法改革，要減少大家原來可以分到的雞蛋，以避免國家財政的金雞母被搾乾。國家財政已在險崖的邊緣，預期未來經濟成長率將長期低迷，改革確實迫在眉睫。但這種減法改革，一則會傷及軍公教等「被改革者」的信賴利益，有違反政府誠信的疑慮，畢竟許多政府原先承諾的退休保障，是當初這些軍公教人員之所以選擇軍公教的考慮因素。二則，雞蛋要怎麼減，涉及的是公平性，軍公教勞農，誰的雞蛋要減多一點？難有客觀標準，若忽略職業不同的屬性，採取齊頭式平等的方式硬砍，則又有陷入拿香蕉比柳丁的錯誤比較之虞。

因此，霸王硬上弓式的強勢表決，身為年金改革委員會執行長的林萬億，實不應輕率地懸之於口，那只會埋下更大的衝突火種，反不利改革的推動進行。林萬億真的該做的，就是蔡英文的名言「溝通、溝通、再溝通」，不能當軍公教團體質疑政府為了年金改革「汙名化軍公教」時，林萬億就不甘示弱地反嗆「既然反對軍公教被汙名化，自己也不要把別人汙名化。」這有失年金改革委員會執行長應有的超然大度，更把自己推上衝突火線，損及政府在改革中的溝通能量。

社會對推動年金改革存在高度共識，《今週刊》在3月對立法委員進行具名調查，不分黨派84%的立委贊成年金改革；反映在歷次民調上支持年金改革的民眾，也多保持在7成以上的水位。擁有民意的支持，這是新政府推動年金改革的最大資本。新政府本應更有信心，讓各方意見充分論辯，以民意決斷是非，來協助推動年金改革，不必也不應獨斷獨行。

年金改革，本應是一條陽光大道，但政府在年金改革委員會的組成上，走了黑箱的錯誤第一步，一步錯，不要步步錯，這黑箱的錯誤，只能以陽光式的開放溝通來修補。強勢表決只會激化甚至正當化抗爭，新政府切莫誤判，呷緊弄破碗，反害了年金改革的大局。

If Business No Longer Trusts the Government, Can the Economy Survive?

If Business No Longer Trusts the Government, Can the Economy Survive? 
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 28, 2016

Executive Summary: We hope all sectors of society, including labor organizations, will remain calm. We hope they will revert to normal, rational labor management negotiations. The old saw about "Labour and management are in the same boat" may be trite. It may sound too high-minded. But it is undeniably true. If labor demands more than management can afford, then businesses will fail, capital fill flee, and labor itself will suffer. The result will be a lose / lose / lose scenario for employers, employees, and the nation's economy.

Full Text Below:

The chain reaction touched off by the China Airlines flight attendants strike is accelerating. Seven major business organizations are blasting the government for reneging on its promise not to add seven more legal holidays. Yesterday they held a press conference to announce the "suspension of all negotiations with the government and labor organizations”. Labor organizations showed up to protest. Labor and management clashed head on. The situation spun out of control. Premier Lin Chuan mouthed platitudes, urging the two sides to “empathize with each the other's position”. Taiwan is riven by divisions between labor and management and between advocates and opponents of pension reform. The new government has made one complete policy about face after another. It has cavalierly reneged on its commitments. It has raised social antagonism to a new level. Ensuring a 1% growth rate this year was already difficult. Now the economic prospects are even gloomier.

Traditionally the business community has always supported the government. Seldom has it sung a different tune. This is the first time in history seven business organizations have issued a joint declaration suspending all negotiations with the government. This is unprecedented, and reveals the anxiety, even anger felt by entrepreneurs.

The business community has suspended negotiations with the government and labor organizations. Labor and management previously reached an agreement providing for two-day weekends and seven additional legal holidays that were only commemorative in nature, and which involved no down time. Ostensibly the business community is protesting the DPP government's abrogation of this agreement. In fact, legal holidays were merely the fuse. The business community was already uneasy about the deteriorating business environment. The legal holidays issue was merely the last straw.

If the issue were legal holidays, the government would not have a leg to stand on. First, the agreement was the result of negotiations between labor and management. The government promised to honor the result of the negotiations. Second, two day weekends, plus legal holidays, plus vacation days, adds up to 126 days. This is one day more than even military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers receive. It is quite a lot, even in Asia. To the business community, adding seven more legal holidays was obviously going too far. The new government reneged on its policy commitment, merely because a few labor organizations protested and petitioned. Obviously the business community considered this unacceptable.

The more important reason however, is that its heart of hearts, the business community no longer trusts the new government. Ever since the DPP came to power, all its actions have worsened investor confidence and business incentives. President Tsai promised to improve the business environment by addressing the business community's “five needs”. Leave that aside for the moment. Consider instead the power supply, one of the issues the business community is most concerned with. The new government has apparently been hijacked by “nuclear free homeland” true believers, and finds itself impotent to respond. Now, when temperatures rise, the standby transfer capacity falls to 3%, and the shadow of power rationing looms. The new government's timetable for the replacement of nuclear energy with renewable energy, is nowhere to be found. The business community is deeply concerned about the cross-Strait “cold confrontation". The MTA and STA remain blocked. They watch helplessly as Taiwan's trade status is marginalized and export competitiveness are lost. How can the business community not be concerned, not to mention furious?

The EPD has even proclaimed that "Environmental protection will no longer be a neglected child bride".  It intends to terminate mineral rights, further discouraging investors already wary of EIAs and other obstacles to investment. Last week, during the China Airlines strike, public sector shareholders caved in to all of labor's demands. President Tsai took the lead, siding with labor. Leave aside the justifiability of the strike for a moment. This successful strike against a publicly owned business has terrified the business community. It is worried that strikes may spread, making survival for already troubled industries even harder.

The government must realize that only healthy economic development can provide provide new jobs and increase wages for young people. None of these objectives can be achieved without the business community. The most important concerns for the business community are sustainable growth and sustainable investment. Sustainable growth preserves existing jobs and economic returns. Increased investment ensures more increased employment opportunities and increased economic output.

The new government has proposed several industrial policies, including a "five creative industries plan”, and an "Asian Silicon Valley Plan". But if the domestic investment environment deteriorates, and the business community has no desire to invest, none of these proposals will succeed. The government cannot achieve these plans. even if it can raise the funds. Put plainly, the government lacks the talent and ability to achieve these goals. If the business community lacks confidence in the economy and the investment environment, industry will scale back, and private capital will evaporate. Taiwan's economy will suffer heavy losses, and its future will be jeopardized.

Seven major business groups have announced the suspension of all negotiations with the government and labor organizations. The government must consider honoring the original agreement. It must not complicate the matter further. Only this can resolve the short-term issues on the table.

Nor can it ignore the business community's unease with the government's policies. The two most critical policies are energy policy and cross-Strait policy. The government must offer credible, workable policies instead. When dealing with labor disputes, the government must remain resolute, and offer sound policies. Otherwise private investment will plummet.

We hope all sectors of society, including labor organizations, will remain calm. We hope they will revert to normal, rational labor management negotiations. The old saw about "Labour and management are in the same boat" may be trite. It may sound too high-minded. But it is undeniably true. If labor demands more than management can afford, then businesses will fail, capital fill flee, and labor itself will suffer. The result will be a lose / lose / lose scenario for employers, employees, and the nation's economy.

企業界不再信任政府 經濟還會好嗎
2016年06月28日 中國時報

華航空姐罷工事件連鎖效應方興未艾，7大工商團體反對政府片面毀棄協商共識，增加7天國定假日，昨日舉行「中止與政府、勞方所有協商」記者會，工運團體到場抗議，勞資火爆對槓，場面失控。行政院長林全蜻蜓點水呼籲雙方用同理心看待彼此立場！當前社會瀰漫勞資對抗、年金改革與反年金改革的對立情緒，新政府卻不斷出現髮夾彎決策，朝令夕改、毀棄承諾事件，社會對立情緒更形高張，今年經濟保1已經非常困難，現在對經濟前景更心所謂危。

傳統上工商界基於經營需要，向來支持政府，鮮少與政府唱反調；這是第一次7大工商團體一起對政府發出「中止所有協商」的聲音，不僅前所未見，亦可看出企業界的惶恐不安乃至於憤怒。

工商界決定中止與政府、勞方協商，表面原因是民進黨政府上台後，片面推翻當初全面周休二日後，7天國定假日「只紀念，不放假」的勞資協商共識。事實上，休假問題也只是一個導火線，讓原本已處於不安、擔心經營投資環境惡化的企業界，全面爆發。

如果單以休假政策的改變而言，坦白說，政府的立場確實有可議之處：一來原先的結論是經過勞資協商、政府承諾的結論；二來以休假天數而言，全面周休二日之後加上國定假日，休假天數已達126天，不但比軍公教多1天，在亞洲國家中也不算少，再增7天休假的國定假日，顯然對企業界而言，就已經是「太超過了」。新政府只是因為少數勞工團體的陳情抗議即翻轉政策承諾，更讓工商團體難以接受。

更重要的原因是，企業界心中深處已不再信任新政府。在企業界眼中，民進黨上台以來，幾乎所作所為都在惡化企業界的投資信心與經營意願。不談蔡總統承諾要為企業界解決5缺、改善經營環境，單就企業界最關心的供電問題而言，新政府顯然已被「廢核神主牌」綁架，似已無力解決。現在天氣一熱，電力備轉容量就降到3%，限電陰影揮之不去。新政府要以再生能源替代核電，完成時間卻遙遙無期。企業界最關心的兩岸關係也明顯陷入「冷對抗」，貨貿、服貿至今無解，眼見台灣貿易地位邊緣化，貨品出口競爭力流失，企業界能不憂心如焚嗎？

環保署更宣稱「環保不再是小媳婦」，要終止廠商的礦權，讓原本就困於環評等因素阻礙投資的業界，更不抱期望。上周華航罷工，公營的資方全盤退讓接受勞工條件，蔡總統率先表態挺罷工勞工，撇開罷工的合理性不談，這次公營企業成功罷工的案例，確實讓企業界心驚不已，企業界普遍擔心罷工的傳染性，會讓已陷困境的業者更難經營。

政府應該很清楚，要先有良好的經濟發展，才有更多新的就業崗位，年輕人的薪資才可能提升，這些目標沒有一項不能沒有企業界的努力。企業界對經濟最大的助益就是：永續經營、持續投資；企業持續經營可保住已有的就業機會與經濟成果，增加投資則是提供更多就業機會、拉高經濟產出。

新政府劃出「五大創新產業」、「亞洲矽谷計畫」等重大產業政策，如果企業界認為國內投資環境惡化、不願加碼投資，坦白說，毫無成功機會。因為絕無可能靠政府完成這些計畫，即使政府籌措到資金，說白點，政府也沒有這個人才與能力完成。如果沒有企業界的信任、對未來經濟與投資環境的信心，企業一起縮手讓民間投資減少，台灣不僅當期經濟就要受重創，未來前景更難看好。

面對這次7大工商團體聯合宣布與政府、勞方終止所有協商，我們建議政府首先必須考慮讓休假政策回到原來的協商結論，切勿再橫生枝節，這是解決短期及檯面上問題的必要作法。

除此之外，更不能忽視企業界對政策走向的不安與對政府的不信任。其中最關鍵的供電與兩岸兩大因素，政府必須提出可信、可行的政策與因應方案，日增的勞資紛爭，政府亦必須拿定態度、拿出政策，否則民間投資必將減少。

我們也希望勞工團體與社會各界應平息情緒，回歸理性與正常面對勞資彼此的權益。「勞資同在一條船」這句老話，雖然是老生常談，也有唱高調之嫌，但不能否認的是：事實就是如此。如果勞方的要求高過資方能承受的負擔，企業倒閉、資方出走外移，最後勞方也可能受害，結果是成為勞資雙方加上國家經濟「三輸」的結局。

Post-Strike Impasses Loom Ahead

Post-Strike Impasses Loom Ahead 
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 27, 2016

Executive Summary: Ho Nuan-hsuan, the new chairman of China Airlines has caved in. China Airlines flight attendants have announced an end to their strike, which grounded hundreds of flights and canceled tens of thousands of trips. The flight attendants strike was a roaring success. Ho Nuan-hsuan made substantial concessions, but even more importantly, union solidarity and a successful strategy contributed to their victory. Will the CAL strike become a model for other collective bargaining by workers in other public enterprises? That will be something worth observing. Workers at Mandarin Airlines have already threatened to follow suit.

Full Text Below:

Ho Nuan-hsuan, the new chairman of China Airlines has caved in. China Airlines flight attendants have announced an end to their strike, which grounded hundreds of flights and canceled tens of thousands of trips. The flight attendants strike was a roaring success. Ho Nuan-hsuan made substantial concessions, but even more importantly, union solidarity and a successful strategy contributed to their victory. Will the CAL strike become a model for other collective bargaining by workers in other public enterprises? That will be something worth observing. Workers at Mandarin Airlines have already threatened to follow suit.

The strike was not a "win-win" proposition. First, Ho Nuan-Hsuan yielded to all of the union's demands. All he asked for was an early end to the strike. He was not a particularly skillful negotiator. He gave the union more than it demanded. He showed nothing bu good will. Second, after the flight attendants announced the end of the strike, why didn't they immediately start work the next day? Why did they give themselves another day off, and leave tens of thousands of passengers stranded for one more day? They got what they wanted, then forgot all about the passengers. That hardly seems responsible. Third, the strike not only sacrificed the interests of the passengers, it redirected passenger frustration toward the ground crew, who found themselves on the receiving end of passenger anger. The flight attendants won big. But their colleagues paid the price. The flight attendants need to acknowledge this, and not treat the matter lightly.

In short, this flight attendants strike gained widespread public support because ruling party change involved management level appointments, therefore the strikers readily secured preferential terms. That is something worth celebrating. But flight attendants must now win passengers' respect during their daily routine. They must embody the spirit of customer service. Otherwise, the flight attendants' strike victory will not make China Airlines more competitive. What will happen to them if passengers lose confidence in China Airlines due to the strike, and cease booking flights? Employees must be prudent. They cannot assume that such problems affect only employers.

A re-examination of the recent strike and its causes reveals several important structural problems that must be addressed. The first problem is China Airlines' inept crisis management. Airline strikes affect travel plans for tens of thousands of people, as well as confidence in the airline's flight schedules. Therefore if a strike or other factor leads to changes in the flight schedule, the airline must inform passengers as soon as possible. It must offer alternative flight options, and emergency contacts. If it cannot offer alternatives, it must provide compensation. But China Airlines management response was slow. Many passengers reported that China Airlines provided a mere 100 USD in compensation, and failed to offer a clear explanation of what happened. This may have been because both the chairman and general manager were replaced at the same time. But if the airline's system was sound, the results would not have been so haphazard. This is a management defect that must be addressed.

The second problem that must be addressed is the government's inept personnel appointments. The flight attendants strike was described as a "labor dispute". That is inaccurate. Flight attendants may be labor, but not the CAL board of directors and general manager are not “management”. They are "officials". Personnel appointments and company policy for quasi-public enterprises are determined by government officials. These officials must defer to their superiors, but not to investors, consumers, or lenders. The decision to replace the chairman and general manager was made by Premier Lin Chuan. The "Company Law" expressly provides that "the board of directors choose the general manager". But this provision was totally ignored. This sort of administrative indifference to the rules is one of the reasons why public companies are inefficient, and their crisis management clueless.

The third problem that must be addressed is one of politics vs. professionalism. Personnel appointments for China Airlines, as well as for other publicly-owned or state-owned enterprises, have long been matters of political patronage. Professionalism is often the victim. Take Ho Nuan-hsuan, for example. He is qualified in transportation. But his expertise is in road transport rather than aviation. His emergency appointment as chairman drew largely on his experience in dealing with the Taiwan Railway Administration and the ROC Post Office workers protest, rather than any expertise in aviation. In other words, when faced with a unexpected labor strike and long-term aviation industry management reorganization, the new government chose to address the short-term crisis, and ignored the problem of long-term management and airline market positioning. No wonder Ho Nuan-hsuan immediately yielded to the flight attendants' seven demands. But this was mere politics. Will Ho Nuan-hsuan be as professional when dealing with China Airlines long-term operational efficiency and market competitiveness?

The CAL strike has ended. The flight attendants won a major victory. But they must not forget how many innocent people had to suffer, and how many impasses lie ahead in the dark.

聯合／罷工光鮮落幕後 更多死角浮現
2016-06-27 03:00 聯合報 聯合報社論

分享在華航新董事長何煖軒全盤讓步下，華航空服員宣布結束罷工，讓這場影響上百航班、數萬旅次的停飛危機宣告落幕。空服員罷工成功，除了歸因何煖軒讓步得徹底，主要還在工會團結及戰略成功等主客觀因素；而「華航模式」會不會變成其他公民營事業勞工群起效法對象，值得觀察，至少目前華信已揚言跟進。

要說這次罷工危機的化解是一個「雙贏」之局，恐不盡然。第一，何煖軒對工會的要求照單全收，只在尋求早日結束罷工，並未見他的談判手腕有何高明。他送出的大禮比工會要求的多，也顯示其一味示好。第二，空服員在達到目的後宣布結束罷工，為何不次日立即上工，卻還要給自己「補假」一天，讓上萬旅客多受一天折磨？要到糖果就忘了旅客，似難謂負責的表現？第三，這次罷工不僅以旅客權益為犧牲，更將全部壓力轉移到地勤人員身上，讓他們在機場直接承受旅客的叫罵。空服員贏得漂亮，卻讓同僚付出代價；這點，空服員應知輕重，不能認為理所當然。

簡言之，這次罷工因空服員「顏值」極高而深獲民眾支持，又因政權交替牽動主管異動而輕易爭取到各種優惠條件，值得慶賀。但是，我們要提醒的是，如果空服員不能在日常的工作現場贏得旅客尊重，並落實「以客為尊」的服務精神，空服員罷工的勝利即無法轉換為華航競爭力強大的動力。甚至，旅客可能因這次罷工失去對華航的信任，而不再搭乘華航班機；這點，員工也要有所警惕，不能以為這只是資方需要苦惱的問題。

重新檢視這次罷工的成因和解決經過，有幾項重要的結構問題必須正視。首先，是華航的危機處理。航空公司罷工動輒影響成千上萬人的旅行規畫，以及對航線安排的信心，因此航空公司對於因為罷工或其他因素造成的航班變動，最基本的危機處理，就是要通知近日內訂位旅客其因應方案，包括替代航班的選項、延誤的緊急聯繫、無法替代時的補償等。但華航管理階層對此因應遲緩，許多旅客除了從報導得知賠償一百美元之外，公司連個清楚的說明稿都沒有。這或許與董事長和總經理同時遭到撤換有關，但如果制度明確，應不致如此漫無章法，此一治理漏洞必須補強。

第二，政府處理華航人事的妥適性。把空服員罷工描述為「勞資爭議」其實並不準確，空服員固是勞方，但華航董事會、總經理所代表的並非「資方」，而是「官方」；準公營事業的人事與政策概由政府決定，他們看主管官員的臉色，卻不必看股民、消費者、貸款銀行的臉色。這次撤換董事長和總經理的決定，即來自行政院長林全，《公司法》明文規定「董事會決定總經理」，在此事件中卻可以跳過不管。這種行政處理彈性，與公營事業的無效率、危機處理顢頇，其實正是一體的兩面，相成相因。

第三，政治性與專業性的取捨。包括華航在內的公營或國營事業人事，一直被執政者當成政治酬庸職位運用，往往難以兼顧其專業角色。以何煖軒為例，雖然有交通方面的資歷，但其專長是在道路運輸，而非航空領域。而這次他臨危受命出任董事長，主要是借重他處理台鐵和中華郵政勞工抗爭之經驗，而非航空專長。換言之，在處理突發性的罷工事件，與進行航空事業的長期管理整頓之間，新政府似乎更強調短期事件的解決，而未思及華航長期的管理定位。這也難怪，何煖軒一上桌，就對空服員的七大訴求全盤讓步，以示任務「達陣」；但這只是政治處理，當何煖軒要面對華航長期的營運競爭問題時，他能表現相對的專業嗎？

華航罷工光鮮落幕，空服員贏得亮麗，但切莫忘了多少人因此無辜遭殃，還有暗處死角多少陳年問題積灰深重。

The Political and Economic Consequences of Brownouts and Power Rationing

The Political and Economic Consequences of Brownouts and Power Rationing
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 24, 2016

Executive Summary: During late May Taiwan was on the verge of power rationing. The Executive Yuan considered restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. But DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups voiced strong opposition. As a result that plan was shelved. According to meteorological experts, this year will be an “Anti-El Nino” year. A long, hot summer is inevitable. Brownouts are probable. The new government has clearly failed to think things through. Once power rationing is imposed, serious political and economic consequences will follow.

Full Text Below:

During late May Taiwan was on the verge of power rationing. The Executive Yuan considered restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. But DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups voiced strong opposition. As a result that plan was shelved. According to meteorological experts, this year will be an “Anti-El Nino” year. A long, hot summer is inevitable. Brownouts are probable. The new government has clearly failed to think things through. Once power rationing is imposed, serious political and economic consequences will follow.

Less than two weeks after the new government took office, a heat wave struck Taiwan. Reserve transfer capacity plummeted. On May 31, it fell to a mere 1.64%.  Power rationing almost became necessary. More recently, temperatures have soared. Transfer capacity rate has fallen to 3-5%. Fortunately annual maintenance was completed in time to avoid brownouts. But the situation remains troubling. Taiwan already faces power rationing. That is no longer even in doubt. Premier Lin Chuan was being honest when he said "This year and next year will be the most difficult".

If the Number One Nuclear Power Plant is restarted, estimates are that the equipment transfer capacity will increase, from 1.5 to 1.7%. Frankly that is not enough to eliminate brownouts. But at least it will reduce the amount of power rationing. Nevertheless DPP legislators and anti-nuclear groups continue to voice strong opposition. The consequence has been brownouts caused by ignorance.

People were intitally skeptical of the DPP's energy policy. But Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly assured them that there would be no power shortages. When Minister of Economic Affairs Roy S. Lee took office, he met with the business community. He thumped his chest and also promised them there would be no power shortages for the next two years. These promises are still ringing in our ears. But Taiwan already faces brownouts. Once power rationing becomes a reality, trust in the new government will collapse. People will remember the solemn promises, repeated again and again, broken within a few short months. They will wonder what other promises the new government intends to break? Once the public loses faith in the new government, the political consequences will render it impotent.

The economic consequences will be even more serious and far-reaching. If power rationing is imposed, manufacturing and commerce will be affected. In the short term, manufacturing output and economic output will be reduced. But this is a relatively minor problem. The truly serious, hidden impact, will be to private investment.

Business investment must consider the investment environment. An abundant and stable power supply is one of the most important considerations. As TSMC Chairman Morris Chang noted, "TSMC cannot afford power shortages for even one minute". TSMC is hardly the only industry that cannot afford power shortages. Traditional industries and high tech industries alike cannot afford random interruptions of power during the manufacturing process. If sudden brownouts or blackouts occur during the manufacture of semi-finished products, they will be completely destroyed. Manufacturers will suffer huge losses. Orders and shipping will be delayed.

Last year Morris Chang publicly expressed concern for the future of power generation on Taiwan. Recently Lin Chuan revealed that TSMC, Google, and other major companies are building their own power plants. These companies say they have confidence in the new government's ability to solve problems. But the fact that they are building their own power plants is clearly a vote of no confidence in DPP energy policy. Otherwise why go to all the trouble and spend all that money to build privately owned power plants? TSMC and Google are large scale enterprises. They have the financial resources to build their own power plants. Most other companies lack this capability. In the event of power shortages, all they can do is suspend further investments.

Amidst the global economic downturn, Taiwan faces trade and economic marginalization. Cross-Strait relations have also deteriorated. Private investment is already low. Add to that the risk of power shortages, and additional private investment is unlikely, to say nothing of foreign investment. Investments are falling. Economic growth is sluggish. The new government's plans to create jobs and boost staff salaries will remain a rosy dream. This will seriously impact the future of Taiwan's economy.

Politicians and pressure groups who insist on a nuclear free homeland, who are strongly opposed to restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant, also ignore the impact brownouts will have on their agenda. When the power supply is ample, a majority of the people may support a nuclear-free homeland. But when power shortages make their lives miserable, undermine the economy, and take away their jobs, support for a nuclear-free homeland will evaporate. Political advisor Chang Ling-chen put it bluntly. "If power rationing is imposed over the next two years, the private sector anti-nuclear movement will collapse".

Regarding “civilian oversight” of power generation, the government should consider the matter carefully. Some people have accused Taipower of "hiding generating capacity". This is highly unlikely. But in order to dispel any remaining doubts, the government can release more information. It can commission credible experts to provide oversight. But it must not pander to populist sentiment by implementing "civilian oversight". Still less should it include individuals with axes to grind, and who lack professionalism. Doing so would would demoralize Taipower, making the power supply problem even more intractable.

To avoid brownouts and reduce their political and economic impact, to prevent the collapse of public support for a nuclear-free homeland, we suggest restarting the Number One Nuclear Power Plant. This will alleviate our immediate plight. The government should also increase power transfer capacity as soon as possible. It should accelerate the construction of new power plants and renewable energy. The timetable for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants need not be changed. But it should be adjusted depending on overall power supply and demand. This is probably the least risky and most pragmatic approach for the ruling party, for Taiwan society, and for the economy.

社論－正視限電的政治與經濟後果
2016年06月24日 04:10 主筆室

5月底瀕臨限電危機，行政院有意重啟核一廠1號機供電，在民進黨立委與反核團體強烈反對下已宣告擱置。依照氣象專家的說法，今年適逢反聖嬰年，酷暑高溫難免，限電風險很高。新政府顯然仍未想清楚一旦限電成真，可能帶來的嚴重政治與經濟後果。

新政府上台不到兩周，碰上提早報到的高溫天氣，電力備轉容量直線下降，5月31日甚至低到只有1.64%，幾乎就要宣告限電。近日氣溫飆高，備轉容量率又降到3～5%，幸而有機組完成歲修才免於限電。但以目前的態勢而言，無論如何台灣已步入限電風險，殆無疑義。行政院長林全很誠實，他說，「今年、明年是最辛苦的兩年」。

核一廠1號機如能加入發電，估計可增加1.5～1.7%的備轉容量，坦白說，也未必能完全消除風險，但至少降低限電機率，而民進黨立委與許多反核團體仍強力反對，顯然對限電帶來的後果無知。

外界原本就對民進黨的能源政策有疑慮，但蔡英文都信誓旦旦保證不缺電，經濟部長李世光上任後與工商界座談，也拍胸保證2年不缺電。言猶在耳，台灣馬上跌入限電危機中，一旦限電成真，新政府的承諾與社會信任度幾乎就要崩盤。民眾會聯想，一而再再而三的不缺電保證與承諾，短短幾個月就跳票，那新政府還有哪些承諾與保證註定要跳票？新政府一旦失去社會信任，其政治後果可能是未來施政寸步難行。

經濟方面的影響則更嚴重且深遠。如果限電發生，不論製造業或商業的生產、營業必受影響，短期而言，當然是折損了產出與經濟產值。不過，這還只是小問題，真正嚴重又屬「隱性」的影響是對民間投資的打擊。

企業投資必然考量與評估投資環境，電力供應充裕、穩定與否則是其中最重要的項目。台積電董事長張忠謀就說過：「台積電一分鐘都不能缺電」。豈止台積電不能缺電，不論是傳統產業或是科技產業，大部分製造業生產的製程是無法承受「隨機暫停」，若突然限電、停電，前面製程的半成品就要全毀，廠商蒙受損失，訂單與出貨時程也將延誤。

張忠謀去年底就曾公開表示對台灣未來電力供應的憂心，日前林全則透露包括台積電、谷歌等大企業，都準備要自蓋電廠；縱然企業表面上說對新政府解決問題的能力有信心，但某個角度而言，自蓋電廠其實就是對民進黨的能源政策投下不信任票，否則何需大費周章、花大筆錢蓋電廠？台積電與谷歌這種實力雄厚的大型企業，有財力與能力自蓋電廠，但其他多數企業絕無此能力，碰上缺電風險就只能暫停投資再觀望。

在全球景氣低迷、台灣又有經貿邊緣化之虞、兩岸關係也生變時，民間投資意願原本就低，再加上一個缺電風險，民間投資要好也難，更甭提吸引外資來台投資了。投資減少，當期經濟成長表現差事小，新政府期盼的創造就業、拉抬員工薪資，都將成鏡花水月一場空，這將真正重創台灣經濟的未來。

對那些堅持廢核、強烈反對重啟核一廠1號機的政客及民間團體而言，也同樣忽視了限電對他們的理念帶來的風險。在電力供應充裕時，表面上看到有超過半數民眾支持非核家園，但如限電讓民眾生活不便，甚至影響經濟與就業時，非核家園的支持度必然衰退。這點政務委員張景森說得最直白：「若這兩年一旦限電，民間反核的力量就會崩潰。」

至於民間監督電力供應，政府應慎思。外界指台電「藏電」，坦白說，可能性不高；但為釋疑，政府可讓資訊更公開、讓專業有公信力者去監督，但請千萬別再來那套「民間監督」的民粹。更何況列入民間監督小組名單中者，既有明確的特定立場、又乏專業，如此做只會搞垮台電士氣，電力問題更難解。

要避免發生限電，降低政治與經濟衝擊，防止民間非核家園支持度崩盤，我們建議應先讓核一廠1號機重新發電，紓解眼前困境；政府也應盡快強化電力調度能力、加快興建中的電廠與再生能源的推動。各核電廠的除役時間不必先變動，但要視整體電力供需情況而調整。這種作法對執政黨、台灣社會與經濟而言，應是風險最小、最務實的作法。

Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter

Maintaining the Status Quo: No Easy Matter
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 23, 2016

Executive Summary: For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

Full Text Below:

The Tsai government has been in office for only one month. But it has already reneged on its pledge to "maintain the status quo in cross-Strait relations".  Before the election, Tsai Ing-wen vowed to "maintain very good relations with the Mainland". She said, "When I say I will maintain the status quo, it means I will maintain the status quo". She said "I said I can do it, and I will".

Alas, the current situation has already departed from the status quo. The two cross-Strait associations' official channels of communication have already been shut down. The status quo there no longer exists. Premier Lin Chuan says he has not ruled out a second channel of communications. But that is impossible. The status quo there no longer exists. Even the SEF chairman candidates have yet to be chosen, providing even more evidence that the status quo no longer exists.

Rumors that Wang Jin-pyng or James Soong may head the SEF have provoked controversy. Meanwhile  Wu Chi-chia and Kuo Cheng-liang have issued a proposal. They want the DPP to approve a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform” during next month's Party Congress. They want to appoint someone to the SEF who can stabilize the situation. They want to change the party platform to rescue Taiwan from her current plight. The two men have issued a warning: the new government has already failed to maintain the status quo.

The "Wu Guo Party Platform" states that the Taiwan Independence Party Platform, the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, and the Resolution for a Normal Nation, are antithetical to maintaining the status quo. As long as these three provisions remain, the status quo cannot be maintained. Instead, the party must replace them with a “New Status Quo Maintenence Party Platform”, that "highlights the party's new mission in a new era of cross-Strait and international relations".

Virtually the same DPP officials proposed freezing the Taiwan Independence Party Platform before the election. At the moment they are avoiding any mention of “freezing the Taiwan independence party platform”. Instead they are saying that “advocacy of the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions is superfluous".

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, everyone in the party agrees that Taiwan independence is already "outdated". Nevertheless, jettisoning either is more difficult than accepting the 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations.

If the DPP can no longer advocate Taiwan independence, then why not accept the 1992 Consensus? Because the 1992 Consensus includes “one China, different interpretations”. The party has yet to deal directly with the Taiwan Independence Party Platform. This leaves some room to maneuver.

Will the party freeze the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the two resolutions? Or will it simply decide that their “advocacy is superfluous”? Either way, all agree that Taiwan independence is at odds with maintaining the status quo. Therefore in the absence of a shared cross-Strait political framework, expecting an SEF appointment to turn the tide and maintain the status quo, is utterly futile.

James Soong may be the DPP's intended SEF appointee. But the PFP insists that "policy is its first priority, personnel appointments are secondary". The PFP has its own priorities. It is also pragmatic. Beijing has said it will not accept the Straits Exchange Foundation recognizing the 1992 Consensus on behalf of the Tsai government. It has said the words must come from Tsai Ing-wen herself.

Therefore, if the Tsai government can accept the 1992 Consensus, it does not need James Soong, Wang Jin-pyng, or anyone else to head the SEF. After all, the two men have their own priorities, and concerns about their public image. As long as the Tsai government changes its policy, the appointment of any qualified person is acceptable. As long as the Tsai government's policy is clear, who it appoints will be secondary, and the appointment process will be simple. Besides, if the Tsai government accepts the 1992 Consensus, it will not be under as much pressure to eliminate the Taiwan independence party platform.

To sum up, the Wu Kuo Party Platform and rumors that James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng will be appointed SEF Chief, confirm one thing. The status quo has already been violated. But as previously mentioned, the Wu Kuo Party Platform actually goes beyond the 1992 Consensus. If the Tsai government has yet to recognize the 1992 consensus, why bother appointing James Soong or Wang Jin-pyng, and provoke an uproar within the DPP?

Now let us return to "maintaining the status quo". The 1992 Consensus is an integral part of the status quo. It is the shared political framework for the status quo. The Tsai government refuses to accept the 1992 Consensus. It also asserts that "If I say I'm going to maintain the status quo, then I'm going to maintain the status quo". This is a clear self-contradiction. The 1992 Consensus is an evolving concept. It is the means by which Taiwan sought to maintain "one China, different interpretations”, "no [immediate] reunification, no Taiwan independence, no use force", and peaceful, mutually beneficial cross-strait economic and trade exchanges. If this framework is shattered, the trade and diplomatic repercussions will do more than destroy the status quo. They will jeopardize Taiwan's survival. Therefore, if the Tsai government cannot maintain the status quo, it may well jeopardize Taiwan's future.

The Wu Kuo Party Platform may be risky, but it makes the hard choices. The SEF appointment political theater on the other hand, fails to see the forest for the trees. If the Tsai government wishes to avoid repeating the cross-Strait policy blunders of the past, it must find some way to recognize the 1992 Consensus.

For the DPP, July 17 is a red letter day. That is when it holds its Party Congress. The Tsai government must cease lying to itself and to the nation. Tsai Ing-wen pledged to "maintain cross-Strait relations under the current ROC constitutional framework”. She must be honest and admit that abiding by the ROC Constitutional framework means recognizing the 1992 Consensus.

聯合／維持現狀 困難重重
2016-06-23 02:45 聯合報 聯合報社論

蔡政府彌月，「兩岸關係維持現狀」的政治承諾已告跳票。
選前，蔡英文信誓旦旦：「我一定會與大陸維持非常良好的關係」、「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」、「我說得到，就做得到」。

但是，現狀其實已非現狀。兩會兩辦的制度化溝通管道已告封閉，現狀不再；閣揆林全聲稱不排除「二軌管道」亦不可得，也是現狀不再；甚至連海基會董事長人選也舉棋不定，這更是現狀無以維持的印證。

最近，以宋楚瑜或王金平出掌海基會引起熱議；與此同時，吳子嘉與郭正亮提案，希望在下月民進黨全代會通過《維持現狀新黨綱》。海基會人選，是想藉人事來穩定情勢；變更黨綱，則是欲藉政策來扭轉局面。二者皆在警示：現狀已不能維持。

「吳郭黨綱」旨在指出：台獨黨綱、台灣前途決議文及正常國家決議文，皆與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違；有此三者，就不能維持現狀，而應代以與時俱進的《維持現狀新黨綱》，「凸顯本黨強化處理兩岸事務和國際事務的新時代使命」。

幾乎是同一批民進黨人，大選前也曾提出「凍結台獨黨綱」之議。此時，他們則迴避了「凍獨」的說法，而稱台獨黨綱及二決議文「實無再予標舉的必要」。

無論是「凍獨」或「實無再予標舉的必要」，皆係認為台獨已「不合時宜」；但凍獨或不再標舉，其實已經超逾了「九二共識／一中各表」的要求與難度。

民進黨若真能不再標舉台獨，則何以不能接納並發展「九二共識」？因為，九二共識畢竟存有一中各表的契機，且亦暫未直接進逼至台獨黨綱之處理，留有緩衝空間。

不過，無論是凍獨或不再標舉，皆在指出台獨的主張與「維持現狀」的宗旨相違。亦由此可見，若不在兩岸共同政治基礎上有所確立，並藉以維持現狀，卻奢望以海基會人事來扭轉局面，恐是緣木求魚。

於是，再說海基會人事。宋楚瑜可能是目標人選，但親民黨方面已稱「政策是第一優先，人事是第二順位」，可謂知所先後，亦算是知機務實。且北京方面已稱，不會接受「海基會代蔡政府接受九二共識」的手法，而必須出自蔡英文本人之口。

因此，蔡政府若能將政策立場轉向九二共識，即無須以宋楚瑜、王金平等出掌海基會，畢竟二人皆有齊大非偶的顧慮。只要政策轉向，任用一篤實可靠之人，政策清朗，人事樸實，當可省去許多橫生枝節之事。而且，蔡政府若接納九二共識，或可暫免處理《台獨黨綱》的壓力。

綜上所論，「吳郭黨綱」及宋楚瑜、王金平的人事傳言，皆印證了「維持現狀」已告跳票。但如前所述，「吳郭黨綱」的要求其實超出了「九二共識」，而倘若接納了九二共識，又何必任用宋楚瑜、王金平，徒惹民進黨內陣陣譁然？

問題回到「維持現狀」四字。九二共識是現狀的一部分，又是一切現狀的共同政治基礎。因此，蔡政府不接納九二共識，卻稱「我說維持現狀，就是維持現狀」，邏輯難以自圓。九二共識是一發展性的概念，台灣努力爭取的「現狀」是「一中各表」及「不統／不獨／不武」，以及兩岸經貿互利與和平交流。萬一失去這個平衡的架構，自經貿面及外交面發生的衝擊，非但會毀了「現狀」，且可能使台灣的生存體質發生無可回逆的致命變化。故而，蔡政府若不能維持現狀，亦可能因此失去了將來。

「吳郭黨綱」雖是操危慮患，卻是捨易就難；海基人事的反覆盤算，則是捨本逐末。蔡政府若不願見兩岸和平發展之舟重蹈覆轍，仍應設法在九二共識上找出路。

七月十七日的全代會又是一個重大節點，蔡政府切勿再自誤誤國。蔡英文既說：「在中華民國現行憲政體制下，維持兩岸關係。」當然亦可理直氣壯地說：「在中華民國憲法架構下，理解並發展九二共識。」