Rigid Opposition to the Mainland Will Lead Only to Self-Destruction
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 10, 2016
Executive Summary: Five suspects from Taiwan have been acquitted in the Kenyan telecommunications fraud case. Officials abroad labored three days and three nights. They were unable to overcome Beijing's great power diplomacy. They could only watch as the Mainland plane wafted them away. Beijing ignored the court ruling and hustled the suspects away. Its action, though high-handed, revealed one thing. The DPP government's rigid and arrogant cross-Strait posture is out of touch with reality, and will inevitably lead to shattering humiliation.
Full Text Below:
Five suspects from Taiwan have been acquitted in the Kenyan telecommunications fraud case. Officials abroad labored three days and three nights. They were unable to overcome Beijing's great power diplomacy. They could only watch as the Mainland plane wafted them away. Beijing ignored the court ruling and hustled the suspects away. Its action, though high-handed, revealed one thing. The DPP government's rigid and arrogant cross-Strait posture is out of touch with reality, and will inevitably lead to shattering humiliation.
Imagine the DPP's reaction had the Ma administration failed to return the suspects to Taiwan. What would the DPP be saying? Would it be accusing the Ma administration of "diplomatic incompetence", "ignoring human rights," and "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation"? Would these and other charges be filling the air? In April Kenya extradited several suspects to the Mainland. The Democratic Progressive Party blasted the Ma government just this way. By contrast, when the DPP government is forced to confront its own failures, it utters pro forma expressions such as "deep regret" and "solemn protest". The president calls on government agencies to negotiate in accordance with the "Cross-Strait Crime Fighting and Mutual Assistance Agreement". When President Tsai asks Beijing to repatriate suspects to Taiwan, is she really unaware that the solution to the problem is in her hands?
The "Cross-Strait Crime Fighting and Mutual Assistance Agreement" still exists. But it is no longer honored or enforced. One reason of course, as Tsai Ing-wen knows perfectly well, is that the agreement is predicated upon mutual recognition of the 1992 Consensus. President Tsai refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. Therefore any agreements or understandings based on the 1992 Consensus have been shelved. Beijing seized the suspects in Kenya. This shows that it no longer adheres to the crime-fighting agreement. For Taiwan however, it has more dire implications. It shows that we are powerless to confront the Mainland on the diplomatic front. Kenya ignored the court decision and extradited the suspects to the Mainland. They forced them to board the chartered airliner destined for the Mainland. The situation is clear for all to see.
Ma Ying-jeou was ridiculed by the DPP as "weak". But his strategy of "diplomatic truce" reflected the pragmatism and flexibility required of weaker powers. Suppose the KMT were still in power. Five suspects in the Kenyan case might have been repatriated to Taiwan according to the "Cross-Strait Crime Fighting and Mutual Assistance Agreement". With goodwill across the Strait, repatriation might not have been a problem. But the DPP is now the ruling party. Now all it can do is express moral indignation amd denounce the other side. Such political theater may have value. But for a nation's ruling party, it merely reveals its impotence. At times like this, sanctimonious proclamations about human rights count for nothing.
Besides, scam artists from Taiwan are notorious the world over. They are a disgrace to everyone on Taiwan. The government refuses to crack down on them, and eliminate them in one fell swoop. It acts only when other governments break up these rings and begin extraditing suspects. Then it springs into action and demands repatriation to Taiwan. This does not help. It merely lets people see what we really care about. People have been victimized by these scam artists for years. They detest them. The government invokes "justice and human rights" to persuade others to repatriate them, only to give them a slap on the wrist. Such practices show that our alleged concern for justice and human rights is merely another scam from Taiwan.
This year several overseas scam cases have been prosecuted. Malaysia repatriated several suspects to Taiwan. Other suspects in Kenya, Cambodia, and Malaysia victimized Mainlanders. They were extradited to the Mainland for trial. Many on Taiwan cheered. If having the other side punish the scam artists was what it took to wipe the smirks off their faces, then so be it. In July, Greek police uncovered a 20 man syndicate from Taiwan. Three weeks later, nothing more has been heard. The government sees only what it wants to see. What it does not want to see, remains invisible. But the moment the Mainland seeks extradition, our diplomatic personnel will spring into action and fight tooth and nail over jurisdiction.
The government's attempt to grab suspects in the Kenyan case failed. The two sides are once again at diplomatic loggerheads. The situation calls for pragmatic reflection. President Tsai cannot bring herself to utter the words "1992 Consensus". Perhaps she considers her motives noble. But political, economic, and diplomatic problems continue to bedevil her administration, at the cost of peoples' dignity and trust. Not all of the blame belongs to President Tsai. But Tsai Ing-wen's quest for “national dignity" must include wisdom and the acknowledgement of reality. Otherwise, her administration will continue to butt its head against the wall.
In cross-Strait coopetition, the key to success is a “small and flexible" posture. Arrogance and rigidity are deadly. During her inaugural address, President Tsai told the DPP that the people expect us to "solve problems". But the government's current attitude reveals just the opposite attitude.
兩岸外交不靈活，只會一直撞牆
2016-08-10 聯合報
肯亞詐騙案台灣有五人被判無罪，但我駐外人員奮戰三天三夜，仍難敵中共的強勢外交，眼睜睜看著人被大陸專機送走。中共不尊重司法判決強行搶人，固然過顯蠻悍；但另一方面，這卻也說明民進黨政府刻板、自大的兩岸政策已與現實脫節，必然自陷於窘態畢露之境。
試想，這次肯亞案如果換作是馬政府無法把人要回來，將受到民進黨什麼樣的譴責？不難想像，諸如「外交無能」、「罔顧人權」、「喪權辱國」等指控必如矢石般飛來；四月間肯亞將一批台嫌遣送大陸，民進黨即如此指控馬政府。而反觀民進黨政府面對自己的挫敗，卻只能說出「深表遺憾」、「嚴正抗議」之類的制式詞令，顯得無計可施。當總統府要求各部門全力交涉，依《兩岸共同打擊犯罪與司法互助協議》要求北京遣返台灣人民時，蔡總統難道不知道：「解鈴」的關鍵就在她自己身上？
《兩岸共同打擊犯罪與司法互助協議》仍然存在，只是不再受到尊重和遵守。其中原因，蔡英文當然心知肚明：這項協議是兩岸共同尊重「九二共識」的前提下所簽，如今蔡總統不願承認九二共識，那麼兩岸據此前提而獲致之各項協議及諒解，均可能遭到擱置。這次中共在肯亞搶人，表明不再遵守共同打擊犯罪協議；但對台灣而言，這其實還有另一層意義：我國在外交戰線上缺乏對抗實力，從肯亞警方不顧法院判決強將台嫌送上大陸專機，已一目了然。
從這個角度看，儘管馬英九一再遭民進黨譏為「軟弱」，但他的「外交休兵」策略其實反映了小國的務實與靈活。假設國民黨仍然執政，肯亞案五嫌依《兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議》遣返台灣，或許不成問題，因為兩岸的政治善意存在。反觀民進黨政府，如今卻只能義憤填膺卻無實益地譴責對岸，這些演出，作為在野的政治戲碼或許有其張力，但作為執政者的國是應對則不免暴露其虛無本質；此時，再唱什麼人權保護的高調，均屬枉然。
再說，台灣詐騙集團足跡遍及全球，丟盡台灣顏面。政府如不積極緝獲台灣的首腦，一舉斬草除根，卻只會在其他國家破獲騙案時作出搶人的姿態，不僅於事無補，也只會讓民眾看破手腳。國人長年深受詐騙集團之害，民眾無不恨之入骨。現在政府卻用「司法人權」之名表演搶人，回國後便立即輕縱嫌犯，這種作法要說表現了什麼尊重正義、維護人權的精神，其實矛盾之至，也可笑之至！
今年以來，幾起國外詐騙集團案的遣送事件，除了馬來西亞案有部分嫌犯被遣回台，其餘在肯亞、柬埔寨、馬來西亞犯案的台嫌，皆因犯罪被害人為大陸民眾，遭中共警方帶往大陸受審。對此，不少台灣民眾甚至撫掌稱快，認為就是要借用對岸的嚴懲，才能消滅犯罪集團的氣焰。七月中，希臘警方一舉破獲了一二○人的台灣詐騙集團，事隔三周，仍未見下文。不難想像，對於不在眼皮底下的事，政府儼然就裝作看不見；或者要等到中共出手之際，我外交人員才現身搶人？
肯亞案搶人失利，除了再度訴諸兩岸外交對峙的悲情，我們其實應該有更務實的反省。蔡總統不願說出「九二共識」四字，容或有其自許的高尚動機；但這個高尚的動機，顯然已對於她執政下的政治、經濟、外交層面不斷造成衝擊，甚至到了以人民的尊嚴和信任為代價的地步。其間責任也許不能全部歸咎蔡總統，但蔡英文在追求台灣「國家尊嚴」的時候，如果沒有預留足夠的智慧和現實因應的能力，最後帶給人民的，恐怕將只是不斷撞牆的挫折。
在兩岸競合中，台灣的致勝之鑰在於保持「小而靈活」的自覺，致命之失則在傲慢而僵硬教條。蔡總統在就職演說中說，人民期待的只有「解決問題」四個字；但政府現在的態度，卻與此背道而馳。
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
To Boost the Economy, Change the System
To Boost the Economy, Change the System
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 9, 2016
Executive Summary: Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?
Full Text Below:
The new government has been in power just over two months. Yet hardly one of its policies has escaped condemnation. Hardly one of its actions has escaped protest. The government failed to properly assess its policies before implementing them. The Democratic Progressive Party advocated one policy when it was out of power, but has reversed itself entirely upon its return to power. This is the “hairpin turn phenomenon” that everyone speaks of. It is part of the problem. But the real problem is the gradual disintegration of the nation's system of government. If this problem is not addressed, the economy will only get worse.
Taiwan's economy has been in the doldrums for some time. Both exports and investments have declined. Exports have declined for 17 consecutive months. July data was positive. But with the decline in the global economy, foreign think tanks have steadily lowered their economic forecasts, further marginalizing Taiwan's trade competitiveness. It is difficult to be optimistic about exports. The economy now needs a boost in investments. Unfortunately Taiwan's system of government is increasingly problematic. Both private and public investment have been affected.
Taiwan's system of government requires the government to make compromises between public opinion and the rule of law. It must do this to promote different policies and obtain the best results. But the reality is that Taiwan's system of government has disintegrated. It has lost its legitimacy. It is no longer able to resolve disputes in accordance with the rule of law. The disintegration of Taiwan's system of government has been going on for some time. It collapsed completely during the Ma's second term. Major protest movements, including the Tai Po case, the Wen Lin Yuan case, the Hung Chung-chiu case, and the Sunflower Student Movement, all undermined the authority of the government. Populist sentiment, expressed online, became the deciding force for society and even the government.
The government can no longer promote policy in a rational and professional manner. In the absence of rational debate, the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant was mothballed. The Number One Nuclear Power Plant cannot be started. This summer threatens brownouts. The Executive Yuan under Lin Chuan is pandering to populist sentiment. Media mogul Rex How says he "suspects Taipower of understating its generating capacity". He would "open Taipower up to public oversight", enabling non-professionals to rifle through Taipower's files and obtain confidential information and data.
Consider how the new government has dealt with labor strikes and legal holidays. It failed to carefully assess the situation beforehand or undertake careful planning. It failed to communicate and coordinate. It failed to address the protesters' grievances. The moment protests intensified, it timidly backed down. The result was endless policy flip-flops that curried favor with no one, and rendered problems even more intractable. Power shortages are now more likely. A nuclear-free homeland is DPP policy. Starting up the Number One Nuclear Power Plant when faced of power shortages, is not incompatible with a nuclear-free homeland. But the government lacks the necessary courage. EIAs have long affected investments. When the DPP returned to power, it failed to address this problem. By holding high the banner of environmental protection, the government made companies afraid to invest.
It is difficult to be optimistic about the future. The Ma government promoted FEPZs. But many citizens groups opposed them. They even “declared war” on them. The Tsai government yearns to join the TPP. It too faces naysayers. The new government wants to build public housing. It wants public office buildings even more. But what should be done about nail houses, and opposition from nearby residents and civic groups? The government has no solutions. Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je enjoys high approval ratings. But when he promoted several large-scale urban planning projects, including the Nangang Bottling Plant and the Western District Renewal Plan (Mitsui Warehouse relocation), academics and citizens groups vehemently opposed him.
Simply put, any investment plan on Taiwan today, is going to run into opposition. Some will come from representative citizen groups. Others from small, non-representative extremist groups. The past system of government is utterly impotent. The World Bank studied the reasons why economic development in Africa is so difficult. It concluded the problem was a "crisis of government" afflicting incompetent and corrupt governments. Taiwan's crisis of government reflects the rise of social forces, and an inability to adopt a new model of government. The result, problems with economic development, is the same.
Social change and the rise of the Internet have made different forces harder to control. Trends fueled by politicians are even more important. When the Ma government was in office, virtually all opposition parties sided with civic organizations. They supported civic groups and public protests. They even backed the Sunflower Student Movement, opposed textbook reform, and opposed every policy advanced by the Ma government. The DPP successfully destroyed the Kuomintang and reacquired power. But in the process, it destroyed Taiwan's system of government. Now it is reaping what it sowed.
Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?
提振經濟須先解決治理崩壞
2016/8/9 中國時報
新政府上台兩個多月，幾乎沒有一項政策不挨罵，沒有一項作為不被抗議，政府在政策確定前欠缺周詳考量評估，或甚至民進黨由在野到在朝的轉彎問題（髮夾彎現象），固然是因素之一，但更重要的恐怕是台灣的國家治理正逐漸崩解中。台灣如果不能解決治理問題，經濟恐怕只會每況愈下。
台灣經濟低迷久矣，而且是從出口到投資全線潰敗。已連續衰退17個月的出口，雖然7月數據已轉正，但在全球經濟走低，國際智庫都已連續調降全球經濟成長率預測值後，加上台灣競爭力與經貿邊緣化問題，未來出口難期待有太亮麗的表現。此時正是需要以投資提振經濟的時候，但遺憾的是台灣的治理問題日益嚴重，不論是民間投資或是公共投資，都將因此受影響。
所謂的治理問題，是政府在民意與法令間取得平衡，推動各項施政並取得最佳成效的能力。但台灣政府治理的的現實是：國家（或是政府）權威崩解，越來越難依照法令、制度解決爭議與問題。台灣治理弱化問題由來已久，馬政府第2任期更全面崩壞，幾次重大抗議事件，從大埔案、文林苑案、洪仲丘案到太陽花學運，政府權威下滑，網路民粹成為社會、甚至政府決策主導力。
政府再也難以理性與專業的方式推動政策，在缺乏理性辯論情況下，核四遭到封存，核一機組也不能啟動，今年暑假立刻面臨限電危機。林全的行政院更進一步向民粹屈服，出版業者郝明義「懷疑台電藏電」，就打著「開放台電，民間監督」旗號，帶著非專業人士進入台電，索取機密資料與數據。
再如新政府對罷工、勞工休假問題之處理，也可看出政府既未事前審慎評估規畫，又缺乏溝通協調、化解抗爭的能力；抗議聲起，又膽怯退縮，讓政策搖擺不已，結果兩面不討好，問題至今難解。缺電風險提高，非核家園固然是民進黨政策，但在缺電風險中啟用核一機組，其實並不違背非核家園政策，但政府不敢為之。環評過去就一直被視為影響投資的重要因素，民進黨上台後不但未能解決，在高舉環保旗幟下，企業更不敢投資。
展望未來，情勢仍難樂觀。馬政府推自經區計畫，許多公民團體反對，甚至不惜說要對自經區「宣戰」；蔡政府要推加入TPP，同樣要面對那些反對者；新政府要廣建公宅，公辦都更必須大力推動，但對如何化解釘子戶、甚至附近居民反對，以及公民團體的抗爭，仍毫無解方。即使是上任時聲望甚高的台北市市長柯文哲，要推動的幾項大型都市計畫，從南瓶案到西區變革計畫（三井倉庫遷移），都碰上文化人與公民團體強力反對抗爭。
簡單的說，台灣現在任何投資計畫，都要碰上反對聲浪，有些是來自有代表性的公民團體，但也有不少是毫無代表性、極度偏執、人數也少的所謂公民團體，過去的治理模式幾乎全然失效。世界銀行在檢討非洲經濟難以發展的問題時，曾以「治理危機」形容與詮釋，非洲的治理危機大半是來自政府的無能與貪腐，台灣現在的治理危機則來自社會力量上揚，政府無能找出新治理模式，但其導致經濟難以發展的結果，則是相同。
有此結果，除了社會變遷、網路興起，讓各種不同的力量更難控制外，政客的推波助瀾更是重要原因。當年馬政府時期，在野黨幾乎全部站在民間反對力量的一方，支持公民團體、抗爭民眾，力挺學生（太陽花與反課綱等），反對所有馬政府的政策。民進黨成功毀壞了國民黨統治，贏得政權，但在這個過程中也讓台灣的治理崩壞，現在算是自食其果。
政黨可以輪替，甚至消失，但台灣不行，新政府必須解決治理問題，否則未來不僅政府施政寸步難行，民間投資也將全面縮手，台灣經濟絕難有起色。80年代的英國、美國，都曾賴柴契爾夫人、雷根等領導人的決斷與魄力，讓國家重歸治理正道；台灣在解嚴後也曾出現嚴重治理問題，同樣有賴新治理模式與領導人魄力解決。蔡英文是否能稱職扮演那個重拾台灣治理的領導人呢？
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 9, 2016
Executive Summary: Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?
Full Text Below:
The new government has been in power just over two months. Yet hardly one of its policies has escaped condemnation. Hardly one of its actions has escaped protest. The government failed to properly assess its policies before implementing them. The Democratic Progressive Party advocated one policy when it was out of power, but has reversed itself entirely upon its return to power. This is the “hairpin turn phenomenon” that everyone speaks of. It is part of the problem. But the real problem is the gradual disintegration of the nation's system of government. If this problem is not addressed, the economy will only get worse.
Taiwan's economy has been in the doldrums for some time. Both exports and investments have declined. Exports have declined for 17 consecutive months. July data was positive. But with the decline in the global economy, foreign think tanks have steadily lowered their economic forecasts, further marginalizing Taiwan's trade competitiveness. It is difficult to be optimistic about exports. The economy now needs a boost in investments. Unfortunately Taiwan's system of government is increasingly problematic. Both private and public investment have been affected.
Taiwan's system of government requires the government to make compromises between public opinion and the rule of law. It must do this to promote different policies and obtain the best results. But the reality is that Taiwan's system of government has disintegrated. It has lost its legitimacy. It is no longer able to resolve disputes in accordance with the rule of law. The disintegration of Taiwan's system of government has been going on for some time. It collapsed completely during the Ma's second term. Major protest movements, including the Tai Po case, the Wen Lin Yuan case, the Hung Chung-chiu case, and the Sunflower Student Movement, all undermined the authority of the government. Populist sentiment, expressed online, became the deciding force for society and even the government.
The government can no longer promote policy in a rational and professional manner. In the absence of rational debate, the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant was mothballed. The Number One Nuclear Power Plant cannot be started. This summer threatens brownouts. The Executive Yuan under Lin Chuan is pandering to populist sentiment. Media mogul Rex How says he "suspects Taipower of understating its generating capacity". He would "open Taipower up to public oversight", enabling non-professionals to rifle through Taipower's files and obtain confidential information and data.
Consider how the new government has dealt with labor strikes and legal holidays. It failed to carefully assess the situation beforehand or undertake careful planning. It failed to communicate and coordinate. It failed to address the protesters' grievances. The moment protests intensified, it timidly backed down. The result was endless policy flip-flops that curried favor with no one, and rendered problems even more intractable. Power shortages are now more likely. A nuclear-free homeland is DPP policy. Starting up the Number One Nuclear Power Plant when faced of power shortages, is not incompatible with a nuclear-free homeland. But the government lacks the necessary courage. EIAs have long affected investments. When the DPP returned to power, it failed to address this problem. By holding high the banner of environmental protection, the government made companies afraid to invest.
It is difficult to be optimistic about the future. The Ma government promoted FEPZs. But many citizens groups opposed them. They even “declared war” on them. The Tsai government yearns to join the TPP. It too faces naysayers. The new government wants to build public housing. It wants public office buildings even more. But what should be done about nail houses, and opposition from nearby residents and civic groups? The government has no solutions. Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je enjoys high approval ratings. But when he promoted several large-scale urban planning projects, including the Nangang Bottling Plant and the Western District Renewal Plan (Mitsui Warehouse relocation), academics and citizens groups vehemently opposed him.
Simply put, any investment plan on Taiwan today, is going to run into opposition. Some will come from representative citizen groups. Others from small, non-representative extremist groups. The past system of government is utterly impotent. The World Bank studied the reasons why economic development in Africa is so difficult. It concluded the problem was a "crisis of government" afflicting incompetent and corrupt governments. Taiwan's crisis of government reflects the rise of social forces, and an inability to adopt a new model of government. The result, problems with economic development, is the same.
Social change and the rise of the Internet have made different forces harder to control. Trends fueled by politicians are even more important. When the Ma government was in office, virtually all opposition parties sided with civic organizations. They supported civic groups and public protests. They even backed the Sunflower Student Movement, opposed textbook reform, and opposed every policy advanced by the Ma government. The DPP successfully destroyed the Kuomintang and reacquired power. But in the process, it destroyed Taiwan's system of government. Now it is reaping what it sowed.
Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?
提振經濟須先解決治理崩壞
2016/8/9 中國時報
新政府上台兩個多月，幾乎沒有一項政策不挨罵，沒有一項作為不被抗議，政府在政策確定前欠缺周詳考量評估，或甚至民進黨由在野到在朝的轉彎問題（髮夾彎現象），固然是因素之一，但更重要的恐怕是台灣的國家治理正逐漸崩解中。台灣如果不能解決治理問題，經濟恐怕只會每況愈下。
台灣經濟低迷久矣，而且是從出口到投資全線潰敗。已連續衰退17個月的出口，雖然7月數據已轉正，但在全球經濟走低，國際智庫都已連續調降全球經濟成長率預測值後，加上台灣競爭力與經貿邊緣化問題，未來出口難期待有太亮麗的表現。此時正是需要以投資提振經濟的時候，但遺憾的是台灣的治理問題日益嚴重，不論是民間投資或是公共投資，都將因此受影響。
所謂的治理問題，是政府在民意與法令間取得平衡，推動各項施政並取得最佳成效的能力。但台灣政府治理的的現實是：國家（或是政府）權威崩解，越來越難依照法令、制度解決爭議與問題。台灣治理弱化問題由來已久，馬政府第2任期更全面崩壞，幾次重大抗議事件，從大埔案、文林苑案、洪仲丘案到太陽花學運，政府權威下滑，網路民粹成為社會、甚至政府決策主導力。
政府再也難以理性與專業的方式推動政策，在缺乏理性辯論情況下，核四遭到封存，核一機組也不能啟動，今年暑假立刻面臨限電危機。林全的行政院更進一步向民粹屈服，出版業者郝明義「懷疑台電藏電」，就打著「開放台電，民間監督」旗號，帶著非專業人士進入台電，索取機密資料與數據。
再如新政府對罷工、勞工休假問題之處理，也可看出政府既未事前審慎評估規畫，又缺乏溝通協調、化解抗爭的能力；抗議聲起，又膽怯退縮，讓政策搖擺不已，結果兩面不討好，問題至今難解。缺電風險提高，非核家園固然是民進黨政策，但在缺電風險中啟用核一機組，其實並不違背非核家園政策，但政府不敢為之。環評過去就一直被視為影響投資的重要因素，民進黨上台後不但未能解決，在高舉環保旗幟下，企業更不敢投資。
展望未來，情勢仍難樂觀。馬政府推自經區計畫，許多公民團體反對，甚至不惜說要對自經區「宣戰」；蔡政府要推加入TPP，同樣要面對那些反對者；新政府要廣建公宅，公辦都更必須大力推動，但對如何化解釘子戶、甚至附近居民反對，以及公民團體的抗爭，仍毫無解方。即使是上任時聲望甚高的台北市市長柯文哲，要推動的幾項大型都市計畫，從南瓶案到西區變革計畫（三井倉庫遷移），都碰上文化人與公民團體強力反對抗爭。
簡單的說，台灣現在任何投資計畫，都要碰上反對聲浪，有些是來自有代表性的公民團體，但也有不少是毫無代表性、極度偏執、人數也少的所謂公民團體，過去的治理模式幾乎全然失效。世界銀行在檢討非洲經濟難以發展的問題時，曾以「治理危機」形容與詮釋，非洲的治理危機大半是來自政府的無能與貪腐，台灣現在的治理危機則來自社會力量上揚，政府無能找出新治理模式，但其導致經濟難以發展的結果，則是相同。
有此結果，除了社會變遷、網路興起，讓各種不同的力量更難控制外，政客的推波助瀾更是重要原因。當年馬政府時期，在野黨幾乎全部站在民間反對力量的一方，支持公民團體、抗爭民眾，力挺學生（太陽花與反課綱等），反對所有馬政府的政策。民進黨成功毀壞了國民黨統治，贏得政權，但在這個過程中也讓台灣的治理崩壞，現在算是自食其果。
政黨可以輪替，甚至消失，但台灣不行，新政府必須解決治理問題，否則未來不僅政府施政寸步難行，民間投資也將全面縮手，台灣經濟絕難有起色。80年代的英國、美國，都曾賴柴契爾夫人、雷根等領導人的決斷與魄力，讓國家重歸治理正道；台灣在解嚴後也曾出現嚴重治理問題，同樣有賴新治理模式與領導人魄力解決。蔡英文是否能稱職扮演那個重拾台灣治理的領導人呢？
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Tsai Government Treats Diplomacy as Child's Play
Tsai Government Treats Diplomacy as Child's Play
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 8, 2016
Executive Summary: When Tsai Ing-wen was elected president, she issued the DPP three words of advice: "Humility, humility, and more humility”. Sad to say, the DPP has failed to practice humility in either domestic or international affairs. Instead, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a mockery of the term. Preserving ROC diplomatic achievements is not easy. We would remind President Tsai and the DPP government president to exercise caution. Do not treat such matters of importance as child's play!
Full Text Below:
Our diplomatic plight is well known. Even observer status or associate member status in international organizations is difficult to obtain. We lack diplomatic relations with nearly all the world's major nations. It is all we can do to maintain unofficial relations and economic and trade exchanges. The government and the private sector, working together and doing its utmost, may be able to maintain the status quo and preserve our existing diplomatic arrangements. But the new government is not content with our existing diplomatic arrangements. In the absence of a consensus, the new government is doing its utmost to change them. The risk is great. Opposition parties and the public have criticized the new government's moves. But they have remained on the sidelines and allowed the new government to make the attempt.
Recently however, a string of diplomatic debacles have shocked, disappointed, and alarmed concerned parties. The new government's ambitions exceed its abilities. It approaches problems rashly. It revels in special privilege. It is gradually losing peoples' hearts and minds. The consequences are spreading from internal affairs to foreign affairs, and will eventually lead to diplomatic disaster.
The most outrageous diplomatic debacle was the arrest of Chiang Chun-nan, our new Representative to Singapore, for drunk driving. Singapore is one of the ROC's most important allies. The two nations have never enjoyed formal diplomatic relations. But in our interactions with either the Mainland or with Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has long played a key role. Such a diplomatic post requires the best possible representative. It requires someone who understands the importance of diplomacy. Such a position must not be viewed as mere political patronage.
Chiang Chun-nan is a veteran journalist. He once served as deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council. His analyses and commentaries on international relations and politics have long stood out. That much is indisputable. But he lacks diplomatic connections. Singapore requires flexibility and communications abilty. Is Chiang truly qualified? Even before his appointment, he was arrested for drunk driving. For a diplomat, this is no trivial matter. Singapore and the ROC both detest drunk driving. In Singapore the offense is punishable by caning. But on Taiwan, military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers are usually given a demerit and transferred. Chiang Chun-nan was arrested for drunk driving in Singapore. What sort of impression did that convey? The answer is self-evident.
Worse still, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee had the gall to argue that local Singapore newspapers claimed that the Singaporean government failed to comment on the incident. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs judge the political situation based on local newspaper reports? Does diplomacy involve waiting for the other party to explicitly voice its dissatisfaction before we make a decision? The new government is treating international diplomacy as if it were a children's game. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should confirm the Singaporean government's response through diplomatic channels. Only then should it issue a public statement. Only that is prudent. Only then can the public trust statements issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The second most outrageous diplomatic incident took place in the Legislative Yuan. Su Chia-chuan led a delegation to Japan, the first since taking office. He sought to promote goodwill between lawmakers from Taiwan and Japan. But the media revealed a problem. Su failed to distinguish between public and private interests, and exhibited unbridled greed. Japan is an important ally of the ROC, second only to the United States. It is also a pillar of the new government's foreign policy. Leave aside the merits of this policy for the moment. Since the new government has adopted this policy, politicians' exchanges with Japan should be conducted with care. The Japanese are extremely fastidious. They pay close attention to etiquette. Their diplomacy affairs involves even shrewder calculations. Legislative Speaker Su led the new government's first delegation to Japan. The DPP should have paid strict attention to Japanese concerns. It should have instilled Japanese trust the DPP and a willingness to treat the DPP as a strategic partner.
But Su Chia-chuan's delegation to Japan violated diplomatic protocol, by taking family members along. He also violated protocol for official trips. He revealed the DPP legislators' frivolousness, negligence, and lack of discipline. The legislators argued that their relatives and friends paid their own way. But relatives and friends affected the official visit. They received VIP treatment that should have been reserved for diplomatic personnel. They had the red carpet rolled out before them. This failure to distingush between public and private matters, gave grave offense. Legislators brought entire families to official functions. They failed to grasp the most basic rules of etiquette. When Overseas Chinese hosted banquets for legislative delegations, the DPP was even more ignorant. Many brought entire families along with them. Did they really want to embarrass the host, by forcing him to make clear that non-officials and family members were not included? Do our legislators have any sense of propriety?
During this debacle, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission failed to properly advise legislators. They even pulled strings, and urged Overseas Chinese to include non-officials and family members. How was this perceived by the public? That should be self-evident. They treated such matters as child's play. Representative to Japan Frank Hsieh actually returned to Taiwan in order to deal with DPP party elections. DPP Legislator Su Chih-fen actually gained entry to Vietnam on a tourist visa in order to promote Taiwan's tourism industry, straining relations between Taiwan and Vietnam. These too were diplomatic debacles that treated such matters as child's play.
Diplomacy is realpolitik. For the ROC, diplomacy is about us seeking favors from others, not others seeking favors from us. That said, diplomacy does not mean we must grovel. As long as we conduct our diplomacy with care, in a reasonable manner, we will be respected. Alas, our Representative to Singapore's drunk driving, our legislative delegation's failure to distinguish between public and private matters during its visit to Japan, as well Frank Hsieh and Su Chih-fen's gaffes, reveal only crudity, negligence, and carelessness.
When Tsai Ing-wen was elected president, she issued the DPP three words of advice: "Humility, humility, and more humility”. Sad to say, the DPP has failed to practice humility in either domestic or international affairs. Instead, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a mockery of the term. Preserving ROC diplomatic achievements is not easy. We would remind President Tsai and the DPP government president to exercise caution. Do not treat such matters of importance as child's play!
兒戲外交 蔡政府何曾謙卑
2016/8/8 中國時報
我國外交處境艱難人人皆知，就算要以觀察員而非正式會員身分參與國際組織，都不易爭取，更不要說我們跟世界主要國家幾乎都沒有邦交關係，只能維持非官方與經貿交流關係。在限制條件下，政府與民間如果能夠攜手合作、全力以赴，或許尚可維持現狀、堅守既有外交成果。但新政府不以現有外交成果為滿足，在國人沒有共識的前提下極力鋪陳外交布局。其中風險極大，反對黨、輿論雖偶有批評，但對新政府仍保持一定觀望態度，讓新政府有機會一試。
然而，最近接連傳出幾起離譜的外交新聞事件，卻讓所有關心台灣外交新局的人感到詫異、失望，甚至憂心新政府眼高手低、遇事輕率、耍特權，逐漸失去民心的現象與惡果會不會從內政蔓延到外交，進一步造成外交崩盤。
離譜外交新聞事件之首，是新任駐新加坡代表江春男酒駕被逮。新加坡是台灣最重要的友邦之一，彼此雖從無正式邦交，但不論在兩岸或台灣與東南亞國家的互動，新加坡一向扮演關鍵的角色。對如此重要的外交據點，絕對要安排最具代表性、重要性且深諳外交手腕的人士出任代表，絕不能當成酬庸。
江春男是資深媒體人，曾任國安會副祕書長，對政治及國際關係的分析及評論一向有獨到之處，這一點無庸置疑。然而，他與外交圈淵源不深，駐新加坡需要超柔軟的身段與八面玲瓏的溝通能力，他是否適任已不無疑問，在就任前夕又發生酒駕被捕事件，這當然不是外交小事。要知道，新加坡與台灣都對酒駕深惡痛絕，新加坡甚至祭出鞭刑，而台灣的軍公教人員如果酒駕，通常只有記過、調職。在這種背景下，酒駕被逮的江春男派駐新加坡，觀感如何，不問可知。
離譜的是，外交部長李大維竟然表示：當地報紙說新加坡政府沒有評論。難道外交部都是依據報紙研判當地政情？難道外交工作要等到對方明確表達不滿，我們才要做決策？這根本就是兒戲！外交部應透過外交管道確認新加坡政府的回應，然後再對外發言，才是審慎的作為，人民才會信賴外交部的發言。
第二件離譜的外交事件出在立法院，蘇嘉全院長上任後首次率團赴日訪問，希望促進台、日國會議員親善，卻被媒體爆出公私不分、吃相難看的新聞。由於日本是台灣僅次於美國的重要友邦，更是新政府新外交策略的支柱，暫不論此策略的是非得失，新政府既有此一策略，政治人物與日本交往當然應該極為慎重。日本人做事仔細、重視禮節，外交事務更是計算精明。蘇院長首次率團訪日，也應該展現民進黨嚴謹、認真、重視日本的一面，讓日本對民進黨產生信賴感，願意以民進黨為戰略合作夥伴才是。
但蘇嘉全率領的國會訪問團，不但違反外交禮儀攜眷同行，公務行程中也多有缺席，展露了民進黨立委輕率、隨意、沒有紀律感的醜陋面。立委們辯稱親友是自費隨行，但請問立委，這些親友沒有影響公務行程嗎？沒有享受駐外人員的飯店安排、交通接送等服務嗎？這就是公私不分，就是失禮！攜家帶眷出席僑宴，更是連最基本的生活禮儀都不懂了。僑界設宴款待國會訪問團成員行之有年，以前有多少非訪問團的立委會攜家帶眷出席？難道真要東道主開口婉拒非訪問團成員及眷屬出席宴會，我們的立委才能知所進退？
過程當中，外交部及僑委會不但沒有給立委們應有的建議，反而還居中牽線，建議僑界邀請非訪問團成員的立委甚至帶眷屬們一同赴宴。觀感如何，不問可知。這當然是兒戲！駐日代表謝長廷日前因為黨內選舉而回台操盤，民進黨立委蘇治芬以觀光簽證去越南從事非觀光活動，造成台、越關係的困擾，這些也都是形同兒戲的離譜行徑。
外交是現實的場域。不容諱言，台灣外交基本態勢是我們有求於人，而不是他人有求於我。即使如此，台灣從事外交工作也不必卑躬屈膝，只要不卑不亢，謹慎從事，自然會受到尊敬。然而，檢視最近發生的駐新加坡代表酒駕與國會訪日團公私不分等新聞，以及謝長廷與蘇治芬的行為，卻只見草莽、輕忽與大意。
蔡英文總統在當選時，曾經給民進黨公職「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」指令，這不僅要落實在內政事務，更必須落實在外交領域。只是，就外交部實際作為而言，謙卑二字已成反諷。台灣外交成果守成不易，提醒蔡總統及民進黨政府，務必認真面對，千萬不可兒戲！
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 8, 2016
Executive Summary: When Tsai Ing-wen was elected president, she issued the DPP three words of advice: "Humility, humility, and more humility”. Sad to say, the DPP has failed to practice humility in either domestic or international affairs. Instead, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a mockery of the term. Preserving ROC diplomatic achievements is not easy. We would remind President Tsai and the DPP government president to exercise caution. Do not treat such matters of importance as child's play!
Full Text Below:
Our diplomatic plight is well known. Even observer status or associate member status in international organizations is difficult to obtain. We lack diplomatic relations with nearly all the world's major nations. It is all we can do to maintain unofficial relations and economic and trade exchanges. The government and the private sector, working together and doing its utmost, may be able to maintain the status quo and preserve our existing diplomatic arrangements. But the new government is not content with our existing diplomatic arrangements. In the absence of a consensus, the new government is doing its utmost to change them. The risk is great. Opposition parties and the public have criticized the new government's moves. But they have remained on the sidelines and allowed the new government to make the attempt.
Recently however, a string of diplomatic debacles have shocked, disappointed, and alarmed concerned parties. The new government's ambitions exceed its abilities. It approaches problems rashly. It revels in special privilege. It is gradually losing peoples' hearts and minds. The consequences are spreading from internal affairs to foreign affairs, and will eventually lead to diplomatic disaster.
The most outrageous diplomatic debacle was the arrest of Chiang Chun-nan, our new Representative to Singapore, for drunk driving. Singapore is one of the ROC's most important allies. The two nations have never enjoyed formal diplomatic relations. But in our interactions with either the Mainland or with Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has long played a key role. Such a diplomatic post requires the best possible representative. It requires someone who understands the importance of diplomacy. Such a position must not be viewed as mere political patronage.
Chiang Chun-nan is a veteran journalist. He once served as deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council. His analyses and commentaries on international relations and politics have long stood out. That much is indisputable. But he lacks diplomatic connections. Singapore requires flexibility and communications abilty. Is Chiang truly qualified? Even before his appointment, he was arrested for drunk driving. For a diplomat, this is no trivial matter. Singapore and the ROC both detest drunk driving. In Singapore the offense is punishable by caning. But on Taiwan, military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers are usually given a demerit and transferred. Chiang Chun-nan was arrested for drunk driving in Singapore. What sort of impression did that convey? The answer is self-evident.
Worse still, Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee had the gall to argue that local Singapore newspapers claimed that the Singaporean government failed to comment on the incident. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs judge the political situation based on local newspaper reports? Does diplomacy involve waiting for the other party to explicitly voice its dissatisfaction before we make a decision? The new government is treating international diplomacy as if it were a children's game. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should confirm the Singaporean government's response through diplomatic channels. Only then should it issue a public statement. Only that is prudent. Only then can the public trust statements issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The second most outrageous diplomatic incident took place in the Legislative Yuan. Su Chia-chuan led a delegation to Japan, the first since taking office. He sought to promote goodwill between lawmakers from Taiwan and Japan. But the media revealed a problem. Su failed to distinguish between public and private interests, and exhibited unbridled greed. Japan is an important ally of the ROC, second only to the United States. It is also a pillar of the new government's foreign policy. Leave aside the merits of this policy for the moment. Since the new government has adopted this policy, politicians' exchanges with Japan should be conducted with care. The Japanese are extremely fastidious. They pay close attention to etiquette. Their diplomacy affairs involves even shrewder calculations. Legislative Speaker Su led the new government's first delegation to Japan. The DPP should have paid strict attention to Japanese concerns. It should have instilled Japanese trust the DPP and a willingness to treat the DPP as a strategic partner.
But Su Chia-chuan's delegation to Japan violated diplomatic protocol, by taking family members along. He also violated protocol for official trips. He revealed the DPP legislators' frivolousness, negligence, and lack of discipline. The legislators argued that their relatives and friends paid their own way. But relatives and friends affected the official visit. They received VIP treatment that should have been reserved for diplomatic personnel. They had the red carpet rolled out before them. This failure to distingush between public and private matters, gave grave offense. Legislators brought entire families to official functions. They failed to grasp the most basic rules of etiquette. When Overseas Chinese hosted banquets for legislative delegations, the DPP was even more ignorant. Many brought entire families along with them. Did they really want to embarrass the host, by forcing him to make clear that non-officials and family members were not included? Do our legislators have any sense of propriety?
During this debacle, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission failed to properly advise legislators. They even pulled strings, and urged Overseas Chinese to include non-officials and family members. How was this perceived by the public? That should be self-evident. They treated such matters as child's play. Representative to Japan Frank Hsieh actually returned to Taiwan in order to deal with DPP party elections. DPP Legislator Su Chih-fen actually gained entry to Vietnam on a tourist visa in order to promote Taiwan's tourism industry, straining relations between Taiwan and Vietnam. These too were diplomatic debacles that treated such matters as child's play.
Diplomacy is realpolitik. For the ROC, diplomacy is about us seeking favors from others, not others seeking favors from us. That said, diplomacy does not mean we must grovel. As long as we conduct our diplomacy with care, in a reasonable manner, we will be respected. Alas, our Representative to Singapore's drunk driving, our legislative delegation's failure to distinguish between public and private matters during its visit to Japan, as well Frank Hsieh and Su Chih-fen's gaffes, reveal only crudity, negligence, and carelessness.
When Tsai Ing-wen was elected president, she issued the DPP three words of advice: "Humility, humility, and more humility”. Sad to say, the DPP has failed to practice humility in either domestic or international affairs. Instead, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a mockery of the term. Preserving ROC diplomatic achievements is not easy. We would remind President Tsai and the DPP government president to exercise caution. Do not treat such matters of importance as child's play!
兒戲外交 蔡政府何曾謙卑
2016/8/8 中國時報
我國外交處境艱難人人皆知，就算要以觀察員而非正式會員身分參與國際組織，都不易爭取，更不要說我們跟世界主要國家幾乎都沒有邦交關係，只能維持非官方與經貿交流關係。在限制條件下，政府與民間如果能夠攜手合作、全力以赴，或許尚可維持現狀、堅守既有外交成果。但新政府不以現有外交成果為滿足，在國人沒有共識的前提下極力鋪陳外交布局。其中風險極大，反對黨、輿論雖偶有批評，但對新政府仍保持一定觀望態度，讓新政府有機會一試。
然而，最近接連傳出幾起離譜的外交新聞事件，卻讓所有關心台灣外交新局的人感到詫異、失望，甚至憂心新政府眼高手低、遇事輕率、耍特權，逐漸失去民心的現象與惡果會不會從內政蔓延到外交，進一步造成外交崩盤。
離譜外交新聞事件之首，是新任駐新加坡代表江春男酒駕被逮。新加坡是台灣最重要的友邦之一，彼此雖從無正式邦交，但不論在兩岸或台灣與東南亞國家的互動，新加坡一向扮演關鍵的角色。對如此重要的外交據點，絕對要安排最具代表性、重要性且深諳外交手腕的人士出任代表，絕不能當成酬庸。
江春男是資深媒體人，曾任國安會副祕書長，對政治及國際關係的分析及評論一向有獨到之處，這一點無庸置疑。然而，他與外交圈淵源不深，駐新加坡需要超柔軟的身段與八面玲瓏的溝通能力，他是否適任已不無疑問，在就任前夕又發生酒駕被捕事件，這當然不是外交小事。要知道，新加坡與台灣都對酒駕深惡痛絕，新加坡甚至祭出鞭刑，而台灣的軍公教人員如果酒駕，通常只有記過、調職。在這種背景下，酒駕被逮的江春男派駐新加坡，觀感如何，不問可知。
離譜的是，外交部長李大維竟然表示：當地報紙說新加坡政府沒有評論。難道外交部都是依據報紙研判當地政情？難道外交工作要等到對方明確表達不滿，我們才要做決策？這根本就是兒戲！外交部應透過外交管道確認新加坡政府的回應，然後再對外發言，才是審慎的作為，人民才會信賴外交部的發言。
第二件離譜的外交事件出在立法院，蘇嘉全院長上任後首次率團赴日訪問，希望促進台、日國會議員親善，卻被媒體爆出公私不分、吃相難看的新聞。由於日本是台灣僅次於美國的重要友邦，更是新政府新外交策略的支柱，暫不論此策略的是非得失，新政府既有此一策略，政治人物與日本交往當然應該極為慎重。日本人做事仔細、重視禮節，外交事務更是計算精明。蘇院長首次率團訪日，也應該展現民進黨嚴謹、認真、重視日本的一面，讓日本對民進黨產生信賴感，願意以民進黨為戰略合作夥伴才是。
但蘇嘉全率領的國會訪問團，不但違反外交禮儀攜眷同行，公務行程中也多有缺席，展露了民進黨立委輕率、隨意、沒有紀律感的醜陋面。立委們辯稱親友是自費隨行，但請問立委，這些親友沒有影響公務行程嗎？沒有享受駐外人員的飯店安排、交通接送等服務嗎？這就是公私不分，就是失禮！攜家帶眷出席僑宴，更是連最基本的生活禮儀都不懂了。僑界設宴款待國會訪問團成員行之有年，以前有多少非訪問團的立委會攜家帶眷出席？難道真要東道主開口婉拒非訪問團成員及眷屬出席宴會，我們的立委才能知所進退？
過程當中，外交部及僑委會不但沒有給立委們應有的建議，反而還居中牽線，建議僑界邀請非訪問團成員的立委甚至帶眷屬們一同赴宴。觀感如何，不問可知。這當然是兒戲！駐日代表謝長廷日前因為黨內選舉而回台操盤，民進黨立委蘇治芬以觀光簽證去越南從事非觀光活動，造成台、越關係的困擾，這些也都是形同兒戲的離譜行徑。
外交是現實的場域。不容諱言，台灣外交基本態勢是我們有求於人，而不是他人有求於我。即使如此，台灣從事外交工作也不必卑躬屈膝，只要不卑不亢，謹慎從事，自然會受到尊敬。然而，檢視最近發生的駐新加坡代表酒駕與國會訪日團公私不分等新聞，以及謝長廷與蘇治芬的行為，卻只見草莽、輕忽與大意。
蔡英文總統在當選時，曾經給民進黨公職「謙卑、謙卑、再謙卑」指令，這不僅要落實在內政事務，更必須落實在外交領域。只是，就外交部實際作為而言，謙卑二字已成反諷。台灣外交成果守成不易，提醒蔡總統及民進黨政府，務必認真面對，千萬不可兒戲！
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Tsai Ing-wen's Troubling One Hundred Days
Tsai Ing-wen's Troubling One Hundred Days
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 5, 2016
Executive Summary: Public support is essential for the President's reforms. President Tsai's poll numbers have plummeted during the first one hundred days since her inauguration. Tsai Ing-wen is losing the bargaining chips she needs for reform. Her honeymoon period is rapidly coming to an end. President Tsai has declared a multi-front war. The people are in distress. Tsai Ing-wen would be well advised to return to the two basic tenets of national governance: promote economic prosperity and ensure cross-Strait peace.
Full Text Below:
Less than a month from now, President Tsai Ing-wen will have been in office for one hundred days. Former US presidential advisor David Gergen noted that the greater part of a national leader's legacy is established during his or her first one hundred days in office, the “honeymoon period”. The history of modern democracies shows that a national leader's power and prestige do not increase over time. Rather they are at their highest when the leader first takes office. From then on it experiences a steady decline. If the leader achieves litle or nothing during his or her first one hundred days in office, reversing the situation during a later term is impossible. President Tsai made too many promises of reform during her election campaign. Knowing this, she really should be worried.
Recently two pro-green polls set off alarm bells for Tsai Ing-wen. The first poll showed Tsai Ing-wen's approval ratings still topping 50%, but plummeting 14%. The second poll showed her approval ratings slipping slightly, but her disapproval ratings rocketing nearly 24%, from 12.5% two weeks after her inauguration to 36% by the end of July. Why has a newly elected president, swept into office with such great fanfare, fallen so low in two short months? News reports suggest President Tsai over-promised on reform during her election campaign, only to declare five new wars upon taking office. Each of these wars is fraught with peril. The outcome is uncertain, but affect people's perceptions, value systems, and vital interests. Everyone has been swept onto the battlefield. Social unrest is guaranteed.
The first war that Tsai has declared, is with the Mainland. The newly victorious Tsai Ing-wen was initially cautious about cross-Strait relations. Nevertheless upon taking office, she worsened the impasse over the 1992 Consensus. She even told the US media that she rejected the Mainland's deadline for acceptance of the 1992 Consensus. She treated sovereignty over Taiping Island in the same negligent, ambivalent manner as always. When a fire killed an entire tour bus filled with Mainland tourists, she not only refused to mourn the victims, she even bungled the eulogy, further enraging the Mainland public. Worse still, Academia Historica set back academic neutrality by limiting access to scholars from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao. Its policy and personnel appointments reflect glaringly obvious cultural Taiwan independence and de-Sinicization tendencies. These have further exacerbated cross-Strait tensions, and undermined Taiwan's tourism industry, agriculture, and fishing industry. Countless individuals have been caught in its wake.
The second war that Tsai has declared, is against pensioners. Pension reform is necessary. But its implementation has been crude, chaotic, and lacking in credibility. The DPP has habitually demonized military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Winning their trust was always going to be difficult. Yet the first thing the Tsai regime did upon taking office was to appoint long-time critics of the pension system. Groups representing military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, refer to these unqualified and unprofessional appointees as the "Queen's Commissioners". Pension reform has gone awry from the very outset. Reaching any kind of understanding on intractable issues will be difficult. Military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers have long been the most important force for stability on Taiwan. Pension reform that is crude, that demonizes pensioners, is forcing them to take to the streets on September 3. The new government's most positive, stabilizing force, has become Taiwan's most destabilizing force. How can Taiwan possibly know peace?
The third war that Tsai has declared, is against the KMT. Tsai has initiated a political pogrom. The KMT was routed in 2016. But half the voters still prefers the blue camp. They merely failed to vote. Over the years Taiwan has remained mired in blue vs. green political bickering. People are disgusted with the endless political conflict. Yet upon taking office, Tsai not only refused reconciliation, she did the opposite. She used the banners of "improper party assets" and "transitional justice" as pretexts to dismember the KMT. She has made her vendetta against the KMT the highest priority for her government, provoking unrest among blue camp supporters.
The fourth and fifth wars that Tsai Ing-wen has declared, are public relations wars. Tsai has apologized to Aborigines and established an "Aboriginal History and Transitional Justice Committee", and a “Judicial Reform Committee” at the presidential office. These two reform projects are arduous. If Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to take them on, more power to her. But Aboriginal history, identity, and land ownership issues, and Tsai's promised "special relationship with Aborigines" remains empty talk. Aboriginal expectations have been raised. Future agitation and conflict are guaranteed.
The green camp has not even begun judicial reform. Yet Tsai's personnel appointments for President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan have already provoked a firestorm. The people are filled with doubts about the justice system. The criminal justice system is a highly specialized realm. The justice system is far removed from the daily lives of ordinary people. Yet the virtues or vices of the justice system will determine the fate of criminal justice and social order. Judicial reform, once begun, leads to uncertainty and conflict. But it will also have a far-reaching impact on the future of the country.
Public support is essential for the President's reforms. President Tsai's poll numbers have plummeted during the first one hundred days since her inauguration. Tsai Ing-wen is losing the bargaining chips she needs for reform. Her honeymoon period is rapidly coming to an end. President Tsai has declared a multi-front war. The people are in distress. Tsai Ing-wen would be well advised to return to the two basic tenets of national governance: promote economic prosperity and ensure cross-Strait peace.
五面作戰 蔡英文百日政績堪憂
2016/8/5 中國時報
不到1個月，蔡英文總統就職將屆滿百日。曾任美國總統文膽的大衛．葛根指出，國家領導人政績大半就任「百日定江山」，是謂總統的黃金百日。依據近代民主政治歷史規律，民主國家元首的權力與威望，並不會隨著時間累積而增加，反而在上任時達於巔頂，後一步一步走低、損耗。若百日內交不出成績，就很難在接下來的任期反轉局面。從這個歷史規律來看，競選期間做出太多改革承諾的蔡總統，確實應該捏一把冷汗。
最近二個親綠民調接踵對蔡英文發出警訊，其一，蔡英文的滿意度雖然仍過半，但已大跌14%；另一個民調蔡總統滿意度微幅滑落，但不滿意度由就職兩周的12.5%攀升至7月底的36%，陡增近24%。為什麼一個才風光上任的新總統，會在短短2個月內民調大傷？就媒體內容分析可判斷，應是選前做出太多改革承諾的蔡總統，選後急功冒進同時開闢了5個戰場，但每一個戰場都具高度衝突性與不確定性，戰鬥結果都可能影響許多人的認知與價值系統或切身利益，幾乎所有人都被迫走上戰場，社會當然顯得動盪不安。
第1個戰場是兩岸。剛勝選的蔡英文尚看得出對兩岸的穩健謹慎，但上任後卻把九二共識的結打得愈來愈死，甚至對美國媒體表示不接受大陸的「限期接受」；太平島主權問題輕忽於前、首鼠兩端於後；陸客火燒車事件，不至靈堂致哀，又在輓聯處理上失當，加深了大陸民眾的不滿；尤有甚者，國史館竟大開學術中立倒車，限制陸港澳學者調閱資料；在政策與人事上鮮明的文化台獨與去中國化傾向，更使得兩岸緊張關係持續升高，並連鎖衝擊台灣的觀光、農漁與經濟，讓眾多台灣民眾陷於不安。
第2個戰場是年金改革，年金改革雖有必要，但作法卻顯得粗糙、無序並欠缺公信力。年金改革啟動前，民進黨長期汙名化軍公教人員，已難獲軍公教族群信任。年金改革啟動階段，就先任命若干長期為綠營批判軍公教退休金制度、不具年金改革專業的人士擔任委員，被軍公教團體痛批為「御用委員會」，起步已走歪了第一哩路，往後的議事程序與議題安排就難獲得信賴。軍公教長期以來是台灣最重要的安定力量，一個粗糙、針對性汙名化的年金改革，卻逼得軍公教揚言要在9月3日走上街頭。新政府把台灣最安定的力量，變成最不安的力量，台灣焉有寧日？
第3個戰場是一系列清算國民黨的政治追殺，雖然國民黨在2016年大敗，但支持藍營的民眾仍約有半數，他們只是沒有站出來投票而已。這些年來台灣陷於藍綠惡鬥，民眾對政黨永無止盡的對立早已深惡痛絕。蔡英文上台後不知止鬥和解，卻反其道而行，拿著「不當黨產」與「轉型正義」兩面大旗，赤裸裸地企圖支解國民黨，還當成最優先的政務，加劇了藍營支持者的不寧。
第4個與第5個戰場，是蔡英文以國家元首身分向原住民道歉，並在總統府成立「原住民族歷史正義與轉型正義委員會」以及宣示司法改革，在總統府成立「司法改革委員會」。這兩件事，也是非常艱鉅的改革任務，蔡英文有勇氣面對，可給予肯定，但原住民的正義問題涉及歷史觀、認同感及土地所有權問題，甚至蔡總統承諾的「原住民族與國家特殊關係」其定義與內涵仍毫無頭緒，但原住民的期望已經升高，未來的激盪與衝突勢所必然。
至於司法改革，還沒上路綠營內部就為了司法院正副院長的人事案吵翻天，民眾對司法體系也充滿質疑與不信賴，但司法本身是一個高度封閉與專業的領域，可以說司法與社會的距離極其遙遠，但司法制度的良窳將決定社會正義與秩序的存廢，司法改革一旦啟動，就是一連串不確定與衝突的開始，更將深遠影響未來國家的成敗。
社會支持是總統推動改革的重要資產，若以蔡總統民調快速走下坡的趨勢，就職百日後，蔡英文將喪失推動改革的籌碼。面對百日蜜月即將結束，蔡總統與其廣開火線、陷民心於不安，不如回歸治國二本：拚經濟發展、拚兩岸和平。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 5, 2016
Executive Summary: Public support is essential for the President's reforms. President Tsai's poll numbers have plummeted during the first one hundred days since her inauguration. Tsai Ing-wen is losing the bargaining chips she needs for reform. Her honeymoon period is rapidly coming to an end. President Tsai has declared a multi-front war. The people are in distress. Tsai Ing-wen would be well advised to return to the two basic tenets of national governance: promote economic prosperity and ensure cross-Strait peace.
Full Text Below:
Less than a month from now, President Tsai Ing-wen will have been in office for one hundred days. Former US presidential advisor David Gergen noted that the greater part of a national leader's legacy is established during his or her first one hundred days in office, the “honeymoon period”. The history of modern democracies shows that a national leader's power and prestige do not increase over time. Rather they are at their highest when the leader first takes office. From then on it experiences a steady decline. If the leader achieves litle or nothing during his or her first one hundred days in office, reversing the situation during a later term is impossible. President Tsai made too many promises of reform during her election campaign. Knowing this, she really should be worried.
Recently two pro-green polls set off alarm bells for Tsai Ing-wen. The first poll showed Tsai Ing-wen's approval ratings still topping 50%, but plummeting 14%. The second poll showed her approval ratings slipping slightly, but her disapproval ratings rocketing nearly 24%, from 12.5% two weeks after her inauguration to 36% by the end of July. Why has a newly elected president, swept into office with such great fanfare, fallen so low in two short months? News reports suggest President Tsai over-promised on reform during her election campaign, only to declare five new wars upon taking office. Each of these wars is fraught with peril. The outcome is uncertain, but affect people's perceptions, value systems, and vital interests. Everyone has been swept onto the battlefield. Social unrest is guaranteed.
The first war that Tsai has declared, is with the Mainland. The newly victorious Tsai Ing-wen was initially cautious about cross-Strait relations. Nevertheless upon taking office, she worsened the impasse over the 1992 Consensus. She even told the US media that she rejected the Mainland's deadline for acceptance of the 1992 Consensus. She treated sovereignty over Taiping Island in the same negligent, ambivalent manner as always. When a fire killed an entire tour bus filled with Mainland tourists, she not only refused to mourn the victims, she even bungled the eulogy, further enraging the Mainland public. Worse still, Academia Historica set back academic neutrality by limiting access to scholars from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao. Its policy and personnel appointments reflect glaringly obvious cultural Taiwan independence and de-Sinicization tendencies. These have further exacerbated cross-Strait tensions, and undermined Taiwan's tourism industry, agriculture, and fishing industry. Countless individuals have been caught in its wake.
The second war that Tsai has declared, is against pensioners. Pension reform is necessary. But its implementation has been crude, chaotic, and lacking in credibility. The DPP has habitually demonized military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Winning their trust was always going to be difficult. Yet the first thing the Tsai regime did upon taking office was to appoint long-time critics of the pension system. Groups representing military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, refer to these unqualified and unprofessional appointees as the "Queen's Commissioners". Pension reform has gone awry from the very outset. Reaching any kind of understanding on intractable issues will be difficult. Military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers have long been the most important force for stability on Taiwan. Pension reform that is crude, that demonizes pensioners, is forcing them to take to the streets on September 3. The new government's most positive, stabilizing force, has become Taiwan's most destabilizing force. How can Taiwan possibly know peace?
The third war that Tsai has declared, is against the KMT. Tsai has initiated a political pogrom. The KMT was routed in 2016. But half the voters still prefers the blue camp. They merely failed to vote. Over the years Taiwan has remained mired in blue vs. green political bickering. People are disgusted with the endless political conflict. Yet upon taking office, Tsai not only refused reconciliation, she did the opposite. She used the banners of "improper party assets" and "transitional justice" as pretexts to dismember the KMT. She has made her vendetta against the KMT the highest priority for her government, provoking unrest among blue camp supporters.
The fourth and fifth wars that Tsai Ing-wen has declared, are public relations wars. Tsai has apologized to Aborigines and established an "Aboriginal History and Transitional Justice Committee", and a “Judicial Reform Committee” at the presidential office. These two reform projects are arduous. If Tsai Ing-wen has the courage to take them on, more power to her. But Aboriginal history, identity, and land ownership issues, and Tsai's promised "special relationship with Aborigines" remains empty talk. Aboriginal expectations have been raised. Future agitation and conflict are guaranteed.
The green camp has not even begun judicial reform. Yet Tsai's personnel appointments for President and Vice President of the Judicial Yuan have already provoked a firestorm. The people are filled with doubts about the justice system. The criminal justice system is a highly specialized realm. The justice system is far removed from the daily lives of ordinary people. Yet the virtues or vices of the justice system will determine the fate of criminal justice and social order. Judicial reform, once begun, leads to uncertainty and conflict. But it will also have a far-reaching impact on the future of the country.
Public support is essential for the President's reforms. President Tsai's poll numbers have plummeted during the first one hundred days since her inauguration. Tsai Ing-wen is losing the bargaining chips she needs for reform. Her honeymoon period is rapidly coming to an end. President Tsai has declared a multi-front war. The people are in distress. Tsai Ing-wen would be well advised to return to the two basic tenets of national governance: promote economic prosperity and ensure cross-Strait peace.
五面作戰 蔡英文百日政績堪憂
2016/8/5 中國時報
不到1個月，蔡英文總統就職將屆滿百日。曾任美國總統文膽的大衛．葛根指出，國家領導人政績大半就任「百日定江山」，是謂總統的黃金百日。依據近代民主政治歷史規律，民主國家元首的權力與威望，並不會隨著時間累積而增加，反而在上任時達於巔頂，後一步一步走低、損耗。若百日內交不出成績，就很難在接下來的任期反轉局面。從這個歷史規律來看，競選期間做出太多改革承諾的蔡總統，確實應該捏一把冷汗。
最近二個親綠民調接踵對蔡英文發出警訊，其一，蔡英文的滿意度雖然仍過半，但已大跌14%；另一個民調蔡總統滿意度微幅滑落，但不滿意度由就職兩周的12.5%攀升至7月底的36%，陡增近24%。為什麼一個才風光上任的新總統，會在短短2個月內民調大傷？就媒體內容分析可判斷，應是選前做出太多改革承諾的蔡總統，選後急功冒進同時開闢了5個戰場，但每一個戰場都具高度衝突性與不確定性，戰鬥結果都可能影響許多人的認知與價值系統或切身利益，幾乎所有人都被迫走上戰場，社會當然顯得動盪不安。
第1個戰場是兩岸。剛勝選的蔡英文尚看得出對兩岸的穩健謹慎，但上任後卻把九二共識的結打得愈來愈死，甚至對美國媒體表示不接受大陸的「限期接受」；太平島主權問題輕忽於前、首鼠兩端於後；陸客火燒車事件，不至靈堂致哀，又在輓聯處理上失當，加深了大陸民眾的不滿；尤有甚者，國史館竟大開學術中立倒車，限制陸港澳學者調閱資料；在政策與人事上鮮明的文化台獨與去中國化傾向，更使得兩岸緊張關係持續升高，並連鎖衝擊台灣的觀光、農漁與經濟，讓眾多台灣民眾陷於不安。
第2個戰場是年金改革，年金改革雖有必要，但作法卻顯得粗糙、無序並欠缺公信力。年金改革啟動前，民進黨長期汙名化軍公教人員，已難獲軍公教族群信任。年金改革啟動階段，就先任命若干長期為綠營批判軍公教退休金制度、不具年金改革專業的人士擔任委員，被軍公教團體痛批為「御用委員會」，起步已走歪了第一哩路，往後的議事程序與議題安排就難獲得信賴。軍公教長期以來是台灣最重要的安定力量，一個粗糙、針對性汙名化的年金改革，卻逼得軍公教揚言要在9月3日走上街頭。新政府把台灣最安定的力量，變成最不安的力量，台灣焉有寧日？
第3個戰場是一系列清算國民黨的政治追殺，雖然國民黨在2016年大敗，但支持藍營的民眾仍約有半數，他們只是沒有站出來投票而已。這些年來台灣陷於藍綠惡鬥，民眾對政黨永無止盡的對立早已深惡痛絕。蔡英文上台後不知止鬥和解，卻反其道而行，拿著「不當黨產」與「轉型正義」兩面大旗，赤裸裸地企圖支解國民黨，還當成最優先的政務，加劇了藍營支持者的不寧。
第4個與第5個戰場，是蔡英文以國家元首身分向原住民道歉，並在總統府成立「原住民族歷史正義與轉型正義委員會」以及宣示司法改革，在總統府成立「司法改革委員會」。這兩件事，也是非常艱鉅的改革任務，蔡英文有勇氣面對，可給予肯定，但原住民的正義問題涉及歷史觀、認同感及土地所有權問題，甚至蔡總統承諾的「原住民族與國家特殊關係」其定義與內涵仍毫無頭緒，但原住民的期望已經升高，未來的激盪與衝突勢所必然。
至於司法改革，還沒上路綠營內部就為了司法院正副院長的人事案吵翻天，民眾對司法體系也充滿質疑與不信賴，但司法本身是一個高度封閉與專業的領域，可以說司法與社會的距離極其遙遠，但司法制度的良窳將決定社會正義與秩序的存廢，司法改革一旦啟動，就是一連串不確定與衝突的開始，更將深遠影響未來國家的成敗。
社會支持是總統推動改革的重要資產，若以蔡總統民調快速走下坡的趨勢，就職百日後，蔡英文將喪失推動改革的籌碼。面對百日蜜月即將結束，蔡總統與其廣開火線、陷民心於不安，不如回歸治國二本：拚經濟發展、拚兩岸和平。
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Beware of Return to Authoritarianism under DPP
Beware of Return to Authoritarianism under DPP
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 4, 2016
Executive Summary: Looking ahead, the DPP is likely to morph into an authoritarian political party. Politically, it already controls the legislative and executive branches. Rhetorically, Taiwan independence populism has already become young peoples' mainstream ideology. They may become the vanguard of a new authoritarian regime. Coupled with state violence, they will be able to impose their will on individuals belonging to different parties, who subscribe to different ideologies. Not being subject to judicial constraints, a reversion to authoritarianism is entirely possible.
Full Text Below:
The ruling DPP was once “dang wai”, i.e., “not part of the ruling KMT”. Its banner was "democracy". Its clarion call was opposition to one-party rule and authoritarianism. The dang wai movement began in 60s with Lei Chen, Lee Wan-chu, Kao Yu-shu, who founded the China Democracy Party. They opposed Chiang Kai-shek's re-election to a third term. They later founded the Democratic Progressive Party, based on democracy and human rights.
Beginning this year, the DPP will enjoy “total government”. People are waiting to see what the DPP will do. Will it consolidate democracy, or endanger it? Will it defend human rights, or despoil them? Will it implement democracy, or betray the electorate? Will it cast off the guise of democracy, reveal the face of Taiwan independence populism, and transform into an authoritarian fascist regime?
Based on developments over the past several months, the outlook is not bright. A number of superficially unrelated events, if strung together, reveal clear authoritarian tendencies. Recently the DPP used its numbers to ram through the "Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations". This regulation allows the Executive Yuan to establish an "Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee" that can target any political party and its affiliated organizations. It allows the Executive Yuan to investigate the Nationalist Government's recovery of Taiwan In 1945, to summon people at whim, to search the premises of any institutions, organizations, or individuals with help from police.
According to the current system of justice, if police wish to search the premises of any group or individual, they must first obtain a warrant from a judge. but the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee could ignore judges. As long as the committee has decided that certain groups or individuals have relevant information, it can show up anytime accompanied by police and conduct a search.
From the end of World War II to the end of authoritarian rule, the KMT made no distinction between party and state. This process was hazardous for democracy, but also enabled the government to develop the economy. The Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations are rooted in the former, but the scope of the investigation includes the latter. The committee will gradually discover that many pioneering economic policies were underwritten with KMT party funds. They include agriculture, forestry, mining, textile, the chemical industry, trade, development banks, securities trading, securities financing, securities investment trust industry, the stock market, the semiconductor industry, and the information industry.
Party assets financed economic policy. Therefore all sorts of industries and individuals are likely to be subjects of investigation. Is the Executive Yuan determined to establish a reign of terror? Is it determined to create a modern version of the Dongchang, the Ming dynasty secret police? If so, the
Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations give the committee carte blanche, unrestrained by the rule of law. The articles constitutes a major step in the direction toward authoritarianism.
There is also the intimidation of career officials. DPP legislators without portfolio have denounced the Commissioner of National Health in the Ministry of Health and Welfare. They said “This woman is uppity” and "doesn't know her place". They said she served as Ilan County Chief under the KMT, and is now serving a second term as a Level 3 civil servant under the DPP. They demanded that the Ministry of Health and Welfare “deal with the matter” as soon as possible. Sure enough, she was promptly removed from her current position. Under the rule of law in a democratic society, as long a career officer makes no mistakes at work, she may not be persecuted based on her party affiliation. The vendetta waged by these legislators without portfolio will have a chilling effect on all career officials. It too constitutes a major step towards authoritarianism.
The third matter worth noting, is state indoctrination in Taiwan independence and the rise of populism. During her election campaign, President Tsai claimed that Taiwan independence has become a "natural component" of young peoples' identity. Actually, what young people consider "natural Taiwan independence" or "natural Taiwanese identity" may need to be vetted by many more elections. Besides, for young people on Taiwan, this so-called “natural component” is hardly natural. It is artificial, man-made, inculcated. Since 1996, primary and secondary school textbooks have swung like a pendulum from one extreme to the other. From the KMT, to the DPP. This course curriculum has relentlessly indoctrinated young students with radical Taiwan independence thought and cookie cutter responses.
Looking ahead, the DPP is likely to morph into an authoritarian political party. Politically, it already controls the legislative and executive branches. Rhetorically, Taiwan independence populism has already become young peoples' mainstream ideology. They may become the vanguard of a new authoritarian regime. Coupled with state violence, they will be able to impose their will on individuals belonging to different parties, who subscribe to different ideologies. Not being subject to judicial constraints, a reversion to authoritarianism is entirely possible.
To prevent this from happening, at least two forces are required. President Tsai herself must decide what she values she subscribes to, and what historical legacy she seeks. She must firmly guard democracy, and resist the temptation of authoritarianism. She may believe in Taiwan independence. But she must give priority to democracy and human rights. She must not use authoritarianism to impose Taiwan independence ideology upon the Taiwan public. She must keep the common people in mind, maintain cross-Strait peace, restrain nativist sentiment rooted in hatred of “the other”. She must cease indoctrinating the next generation with such thinking.
The second force is Taiwan society, especially media ovesight and public resistance. When President Chen Shui-bian was in office, his corruption triggered massive protests. If Taiwan reverts to authoritarian rule, the media and the people must rise up and fight. They must not wait until it is too late. They must come forward at the very beginning. Democracy and human rights are universal values. They are something Taiwan can be proud of. The people must never tolerate their destruction and repression.
警惕民進黨新威權政體復辟
2016/8/4 中國時報
執政黨早期是「黨外」，打的名號是「民主」，對人民的訴求是反對一黨獨大、反對威權。「黨外」運動史從1960年雷震、李萬居、高玉樹共同成立中國民主黨，反對蔣介石連任第3任總統開始，到後來民主進步黨成立，都是以民主和人權爭取民心。
今年開始，民進黨已經完全執政。全民都睜著眼睛在看，從現在開始，民主是可以被鞏固，還是反而遭到危機；人權可以被更有效地保障，還是開始被糟蹋；民進黨是要實踐民主，還是會逐漸背棄其過去對選民的訴求，退去民主的外衣，露出民粹台獨的威權面目，成為一個法西斯的政權。
以最近幾個月的情況來看，並不樂觀。有幾個事件，看似單一，但如果把它們串起來，已經顯露出威權主義的頭角。最近民進黨利用人數優勢，強行通過了《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》。這個條例允許行政院所設的「不當黨產處理委員會」，對於任何政黨及其附屬組織，於民國34年國民政府接收台灣日起有關財產的作為，進行調查，包含通知相關人到會陳述意見，也包含該會派員前往機關、團體或個人住所進行類似搜索，而且在此過程中得請警察機關協助。
根據現在司法制度，如果司法警察要到任何團體或個人住所進行搜索，必須先取得法官核可，但「不當黨產處理委員會」的權力凌駕法院的法官。該會只要認定某團體或個人有相關的資料，便可以在警察的陪同下，於任何時間直接到場進行搜索。
從戰後到威權體制的結束，國民黨和國家確實是黨國不分。但這個過程中，有危害民主的威權成分，也有發展導向政府的主導經濟事物成分。這個條例立論在前者，但實際調查範圍擴及到後者。這個委員會將逐步發現，當時有很多經濟政策的執行，所站出來實際投入市場的第一線尖兵事業，是由政黨出錢設立的，包含農林礦業、紡織業、化工業、貿易業、開發銀行業、證券交易業、證券融資業、證券投資信託業、票券業、半導體業、資訊業…等等。
所有當初以黨資參與經濟政策執行的行業及其從業人員都有可能接受調查，株連極廣。如果行政院有心要塑造恐怖政治，創立一個現代東廠，這個條例就給了一把不受法院節制的尚方寶劍，形成向威權體制前進的一大步。
另外一個事件是恐嚇事務官。民進黨不分區立法委員在立法院指責衛生福利部國健署長「這個女士厚臉皮」、「未能知所分際」，說她過去代表國民黨參選宜蘭縣長，如今又續任民進黨政府的三級文官，要求衛福部盡速處理；這個署長果然立刻被調離現職。在民主法治社會，事務官只要在工作上沒有犯錯，是不能因為其政黨傾向而被任意侮辱的。這位不分區立委的出手，將對所有事務官形成嚇阻，進而成為走向威權的另一大步。
第三個要注意的，是台獨民粹的培養和崛起。蔡總統在當選前曾經說，台獨已經成為年輕人的「天然成分」。不過，年輕人究竟是「天然獨」或「天然台」，可能還要經過更多次的選舉才能驗證，何況台灣年輕人這種天然成分，與其說是天然的，不如說是人為灌溉的。1996年來的中小學課綱，從原來國民黨的那個極端，急速地像鐘擺一樣擺到另外一個極端。受到這些課綱和根據這些課綱所編撰出來課本的影響，年輕學生逐漸被偏激的台獨思想影響，走向言論一元化。
放眼未來，民進黨確有可能成為威權政黨。在政權上，立法和行政都已經掌握了。在言論上，台獨民粹崛起，成為年輕人的主流意識型態，也就可以成為新威權體制的側翼尖兵。如果再加上利用國家暴力，強加於不同政黨傾向、不同意識型態的國民身上，不受司法的節制，威權政治就有可能復辟。
要防止這個現象發生，至少需要兩個力量。一個是蔡總統本身對價值判斷和歷史定位的選擇，她必須堅定地守護民主，抗拒威權的誘惑。即使她信仰台獨，也必須把民主和人權放在第一位，不能利用威權體制把台獨強加於人民之上。更希望她以蒼生為念，維持兩岸和平，節制以仇恨為本的本土思潮，不要再用這樣的思潮來教育下一代。
第二個力量，就是台灣本身的社會力，尤其是媒體的監督和人民的抗爭力量。陳水扁總統在位時，曾經因為貪腐形象，而引發大規模的群眾抗議。如果台灣再產生威權政府，媒體和人民均應當立刻起而抗爭。而且，不能到最後階段才提出反對，必須在一開始有跡象時就挺身而出。民主和人權是普世價值，也是台灣可以傲人之處，絕不應容忍任何人對其進行破壞和壓抑。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 4, 2016
Executive Summary: Looking ahead, the DPP is likely to morph into an authoritarian political party. Politically, it already controls the legislative and executive branches. Rhetorically, Taiwan independence populism has already become young peoples' mainstream ideology. They may become the vanguard of a new authoritarian regime. Coupled with state violence, they will be able to impose their will on individuals belonging to different parties, who subscribe to different ideologies. Not being subject to judicial constraints, a reversion to authoritarianism is entirely possible.
Full Text Below:
The ruling DPP was once “dang wai”, i.e., “not part of the ruling KMT”. Its banner was "democracy". Its clarion call was opposition to one-party rule and authoritarianism. The dang wai movement began in 60s with Lei Chen, Lee Wan-chu, Kao Yu-shu, who founded the China Democracy Party. They opposed Chiang Kai-shek's re-election to a third term. They later founded the Democratic Progressive Party, based on democracy and human rights.
Beginning this year, the DPP will enjoy “total government”. People are waiting to see what the DPP will do. Will it consolidate democracy, or endanger it? Will it defend human rights, or despoil them? Will it implement democracy, or betray the electorate? Will it cast off the guise of democracy, reveal the face of Taiwan independence populism, and transform into an authoritarian fascist regime?
Based on developments over the past several months, the outlook is not bright. A number of superficially unrelated events, if strung together, reveal clear authoritarian tendencies. Recently the DPP used its numbers to ram through the "Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations". This regulation allows the Executive Yuan to establish an "Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee" that can target any political party and its affiliated organizations. It allows the Executive Yuan to investigate the Nationalist Government's recovery of Taiwan In 1945, to summon people at whim, to search the premises of any institutions, organizations, or individuals with help from police.
According to the current system of justice, if police wish to search the premises of any group or individual, they must first obtain a warrant from a judge. but the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee could ignore judges. As long as the committee has decided that certain groups or individuals have relevant information, it can show up anytime accompanied by police and conduct a search.
From the end of World War II to the end of authoritarian rule, the KMT made no distinction between party and state. This process was hazardous for democracy, but also enabled the government to develop the economy. The Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations are rooted in the former, but the scope of the investigation includes the latter. The committee will gradually discover that many pioneering economic policies were underwritten with KMT party funds. They include agriculture, forestry, mining, textile, the chemical industry, trade, development banks, securities trading, securities financing, securities investment trust industry, the stock market, the semiconductor industry, and the information industry.
Party assets financed economic policy. Therefore all sorts of industries and individuals are likely to be subjects of investigation. Is the Executive Yuan determined to establish a reign of terror? Is it determined to create a modern version of the Dongchang, the Ming dynasty secret police? If so, the
Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations give the committee carte blanche, unrestrained by the rule of law. The articles constitutes a major step in the direction toward authoritarianism.
There is also the intimidation of career officials. DPP legislators without portfolio have denounced the Commissioner of National Health in the Ministry of Health and Welfare. They said “This woman is uppity” and "doesn't know her place". They said she served as Ilan County Chief under the KMT, and is now serving a second term as a Level 3 civil servant under the DPP. They demanded that the Ministry of Health and Welfare “deal with the matter” as soon as possible. Sure enough, she was promptly removed from her current position. Under the rule of law in a democratic society, as long a career officer makes no mistakes at work, she may not be persecuted based on her party affiliation. The vendetta waged by these legislators without portfolio will have a chilling effect on all career officials. It too constitutes a major step towards authoritarianism.
The third matter worth noting, is state indoctrination in Taiwan independence and the rise of populism. During her election campaign, President Tsai claimed that Taiwan independence has become a "natural component" of young peoples' identity. Actually, what young people consider "natural Taiwan independence" or "natural Taiwanese identity" may need to be vetted by many more elections. Besides, for young people on Taiwan, this so-called “natural component” is hardly natural. It is artificial, man-made, inculcated. Since 1996, primary and secondary school textbooks have swung like a pendulum from one extreme to the other. From the KMT, to the DPP. This course curriculum has relentlessly indoctrinated young students with radical Taiwan independence thought and cookie cutter responses.
Looking ahead, the DPP is likely to morph into an authoritarian political party. Politically, it already controls the legislative and executive branches. Rhetorically, Taiwan independence populism has already become young peoples' mainstream ideology. They may become the vanguard of a new authoritarian regime. Coupled with state violence, they will be able to impose their will on individuals belonging to different parties, who subscribe to different ideologies. Not being subject to judicial constraints, a reversion to authoritarianism is entirely possible.
To prevent this from happening, at least two forces are required. President Tsai herself must decide what she values she subscribes to, and what historical legacy she seeks. She must firmly guard democracy, and resist the temptation of authoritarianism. She may believe in Taiwan independence. But she must give priority to democracy and human rights. She must not use authoritarianism to impose Taiwan independence ideology upon the Taiwan public. She must keep the common people in mind, maintain cross-Strait peace, restrain nativist sentiment rooted in hatred of “the other”. She must cease indoctrinating the next generation with such thinking.
The second force is Taiwan society, especially media ovesight and public resistance. When President Chen Shui-bian was in office, his corruption triggered massive protests. If Taiwan reverts to authoritarian rule, the media and the people must rise up and fight. They must not wait until it is too late. They must come forward at the very beginning. Democracy and human rights are universal values. They are something Taiwan can be proud of. The people must never tolerate their destruction and repression.
警惕民進黨新威權政體復辟
2016/8/4 中國時報
執政黨早期是「黨外」，打的名號是「民主」，對人民的訴求是反對一黨獨大、反對威權。「黨外」運動史從1960年雷震、李萬居、高玉樹共同成立中國民主黨，反對蔣介石連任第3任總統開始，到後來民主進步黨成立，都是以民主和人權爭取民心。
今年開始，民進黨已經完全執政。全民都睜著眼睛在看，從現在開始，民主是可以被鞏固，還是反而遭到危機；人權可以被更有效地保障，還是開始被糟蹋；民進黨是要實踐民主，還是會逐漸背棄其過去對選民的訴求，退去民主的外衣，露出民粹台獨的威權面目，成為一個法西斯的政權。
以最近幾個月的情況來看，並不樂觀。有幾個事件，看似單一，但如果把它們串起來，已經顯露出威權主義的頭角。最近民進黨利用人數優勢，強行通過了《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》。這個條例允許行政院所設的「不當黨產處理委員會」，對於任何政黨及其附屬組織，於民國34年國民政府接收台灣日起有關財產的作為，進行調查，包含通知相關人到會陳述意見，也包含該會派員前往機關、團體或個人住所進行類似搜索，而且在此過程中得請警察機關協助。
根據現在司法制度，如果司法警察要到任何團體或個人住所進行搜索，必須先取得法官核可，但「不當黨產處理委員會」的權力凌駕法院的法官。該會只要認定某團體或個人有相關的資料，便可以在警察的陪同下，於任何時間直接到場進行搜索。
從戰後到威權體制的結束，國民黨和國家確實是黨國不分。但這個過程中，有危害民主的威權成分，也有發展導向政府的主導經濟事物成分。這個條例立論在前者，但實際調查範圍擴及到後者。這個委員會將逐步發現，當時有很多經濟政策的執行，所站出來實際投入市場的第一線尖兵事業，是由政黨出錢設立的，包含農林礦業、紡織業、化工業、貿易業、開發銀行業、證券交易業、證券融資業、證券投資信託業、票券業、半導體業、資訊業…等等。
所有當初以黨資參與經濟政策執行的行業及其從業人員都有可能接受調查，株連極廣。如果行政院有心要塑造恐怖政治，創立一個現代東廠，這個條例就給了一把不受法院節制的尚方寶劍，形成向威權體制前進的一大步。
另外一個事件是恐嚇事務官。民進黨不分區立法委員在立法院指責衛生福利部國健署長「這個女士厚臉皮」、「未能知所分際」，說她過去代表國民黨參選宜蘭縣長，如今又續任民進黨政府的三級文官，要求衛福部盡速處理；這個署長果然立刻被調離現職。在民主法治社會，事務官只要在工作上沒有犯錯，是不能因為其政黨傾向而被任意侮辱的。這位不分區立委的出手，將對所有事務官形成嚇阻，進而成為走向威權的另一大步。
第三個要注意的，是台獨民粹的培養和崛起。蔡總統在當選前曾經說，台獨已經成為年輕人的「天然成分」。不過，年輕人究竟是「天然獨」或「天然台」，可能還要經過更多次的選舉才能驗證，何況台灣年輕人這種天然成分，與其說是天然的，不如說是人為灌溉的。1996年來的中小學課綱，從原來國民黨的那個極端，急速地像鐘擺一樣擺到另外一個極端。受到這些課綱和根據這些課綱所編撰出來課本的影響，年輕學生逐漸被偏激的台獨思想影響，走向言論一元化。
放眼未來，民進黨確有可能成為威權政黨。在政權上，立法和行政都已經掌握了。在言論上，台獨民粹崛起，成為年輕人的主流意識型態，也就可以成為新威權體制的側翼尖兵。如果再加上利用國家暴力，強加於不同政黨傾向、不同意識型態的國民身上，不受司法的節制，威權政治就有可能復辟。
要防止這個現象發生，至少需要兩個力量。一個是蔡總統本身對價值判斷和歷史定位的選擇，她必須堅定地守護民主，抗拒威權的誘惑。即使她信仰台獨，也必須把民主和人權放在第一位，不能利用威權體制把台獨強加於人民之上。更希望她以蒼生為念，維持兩岸和平，節制以仇恨為本的本土思潮，不要再用這樣的思潮來教育下一代。
第二個力量，就是台灣本身的社會力，尤其是媒體的監督和人民的抗爭力量。陳水扁總統在位時，曾經因為貪腐形象，而引發大規模的群眾抗議。如果台灣再產生威權政府，媒體和人民均應當立刻起而抗爭。而且，不能到最後階段才提出反對，必須在一開始有跡象時就挺身而出。民主和人權是普世價值，也是台灣可以傲人之處，絕不應容忍任何人對其進行破壞和壓抑。
Tour Bus Fire: Uncover the Truth, End Populist Hatred
Tour Bus Fire: Uncover the Truth, End Populist Hatred
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 3, 2016
Executive Summary: Over the past several days, the Global Times has incited populist sentiment over the tour bus fire incident. This may not be something that the Mainland authorities want to see. But public antipathy toward Taiwan independence on the Mainland is very real, and cannot be ignored. The tour bus fire incident took place on Taiwan. Taiwan authorities are responsible. They must make every effort to uncover the truth. They must invite Mainland experts to Taiwan. They must use forensic science to reconstruct the accident, and uncover the truth. The accident rate for Mainland tourists on Taiwan is undeniably too high. Are these accidents part of some larger pattern? A thorough investigation must be conducted, one that will enable the Mainland to unravel the mystery, and prevent the two sides from colliding head on.
Full Text Below:
During President Tsai Ing-wen's May 20 inaugural address, she said, "People expect the new government to solve problems". But two months later, the new government isn't solving problems. It's creating more problems. No wonder two recent polls show President Tsai's approval numbers plummetting.
Among the many problems the new government has created, the most outrageous is perhaps the tour bus fire incident that burned 26 Mainland tourists from Liaoning to death. The government pandered to politics and the police fell down on the job, worsening an already bad cross-Strait situation. When the accident first happened, the president declared "There can be no tourism without safety". Premier Lin declared the need to "checkup on the tourism industry". These high profile declarations were hollow. They included no expressions of empathy for the families of the victims burned to death. Arson investigators and crime scene investigators were clueless. The truth remains elusive, therefore the dark shadow cast by the incident continues to grow. Official cross-Strait relations following the DPP's return to power were already chilly. The political flames from the tour bus fire incident spread quickly. President Tsai eulogized the Taiwanese tour guide with a couplet, but expressed no sympathy whatsoever for the Mainland tourists who died. This provoked a major storm in the Mainland media, and will inevitably make cross-Strait relations worse.
Crash investigation and reconstruction is extremely difficult. Everyone on the bus perished. No witnesses survived. No one is left to testify. Clues are nowhere to be found. The flames charred the entire vehicle black. The vehicle lacked a GPS trip recorder. The company had no remote monitoring data, and nothing for investigators to latch onto. The only hope appears to be forensic evidence. The question arises, where are the forensic experts with public credibility?
The Mainland family members want "Mainland participation in the forensic investigation". But the Lin cabinet refused. As a result, it lost the moral high ground. Taiwan is supposedly an open society. Everything is supposedly open and transparent. There is no need for so-called "judicial sovereignty". Not only should forensic experts from the Mainland participate, so should forensic experts from other nations. That is how it is done in international arbitration. Crash investigation and reconstruction must be acceptable to all parties to ensure trust in the investigation. Sadly, Lin Chuan refused. Now clouds of suspicion hang above the Taiwan Strait.
Expert arson investigators on Taiwan investigated the tour bus fire incident. But the case is more than a traffic accident. Political recriminations and public skepticism have rapidly increased. Forensics investigations initially focused on the escape door latches and power overloads. This was not quite missing the forest for the trees, but did little to win the trust of the pubic and the victims' families. Was the vehicle "jury rigged"? The audio video systems may be subject to criticism. But they had little to do with the tour bus fire. The real problem is an inadequate tour bus system.
Taiwan has approximately 17,000 tour buses. Supply exceeds demand. The market consists primarily of Mainland tourists, pilgrims, and students on field trips or graduation trips. The number of Mainland tourists has fallen. The number of bookings by students is rapidly rising. But the Ministry of Education requires buses to be less than five years old. In other words, the buses depreciate much too rapidly. The industry cannot afford to invest in higher quality, safer vehicles. The result is the current vicious cycle.
Soon after the families of the victims returned to the Mainland, a string of revelations surfaced. The tour bus driver was badly intoxicated. A gasoline container was found inside the bus. The driver had been convicted of sexual assault. He was about to begin serving a prison sentence, and was also liable for civil penalties. Prosecutors and police issued a string of mealy-mouthed statements, saying "We do not rule out... [this, that, or the other]”. This created even more uncertainty. As a result, some began to suspect that the police had fabricated a story passing the buck onto the dead driver. Others suspected that a Taiwan independence driver committed an act of terrorism against Mainland tourists. All manner of bizarre speculation began to challenge the credibility of the forensic report.
The tour bus fire incident must revert to the status of a scientific investigation. The report must be made public. It must be subject to challenge. Only questioning, followed by explanations, followed by debate, can persuade everyone to accept the truth. Only such a process can restore objectivity and effectiveness to the justice system on Taiwan. The government's response following the incident was inappropriate. It failed to win over the families of the victims. It failed to take the moral high ground. As the families of the deceased left for the Mainland, they cried, "We demand the truth". Lest we forget, when Mainland authorities bungled the investigation of the Qiandao Lake incident, the families of the victims on Taiwan remained unconvinced. This triggered revulsion towards the Mainland and set back cross-Strait relations.
Over the past several days, the Global Times has incited populist sentiment over the tour bus fire incident. This may not be something that the Mainland authorities want to see. But public antipathy toward Taiwan independence on the Mainland is very real, and cannot be ignored. The tour bus fire incident took place on Taiwan. Taiwan authorities are responsible. They must make every effort to uncover the truth. They must invite Mainland experts to Taiwan. They must use forensic science to reconstruct the accident, and uncover the truth. The accident rate for Mainland tourists on Taiwan is undeniably too high. Are these accidents part of some larger pattern? A thorough investigation must be conducted, one that will enable the Mainland to unravel the mystery, and prevent the two sides from colliding head on.
釐清火燒車真相 止兩岸民粹對撞
2016/8/3 中國時報
蔡英文總統在520就職演說中高亢地說，「人民期待新政府解決問題」，但掌舵兩個月來，人民卻發現新政府不但未解決問題，反而製造更多問題，難怪最近兩份民調蔡總統施政滿意度均急速下墜。
新政府製造的諸多問題中，大陸遼寧旅遊團火燒車26死事件，可能是其中最離譜的一件，政府受政治態度綁架、檢警公權力表現失能，非常可能惡化原已失睦的兩岸關係。沒錯，事故發生第一時間，總統宣示「沒有安全就沒有觀光」，林揆指示「觀光業總體檢」，這些話很高調，也很空洞，對弭平火燒車罹難者家屬的傷痛毫無作用；檢警火場鑑識毫無章法，至今真相不明，事故陰影面不斷擴大。原本兩岸官方關係在民進黨執政後漸行漸遠，火燒車事件的政治猜忌迅速延燒，對照蔡總統在公祭時致贈殉難台籍導遊「典範長昭」輓聯，卻吝於對罹難陸客給予最起碼的同悲，在大陸媒體引發了強烈的風暴，難免對嚴峻的兩岸關係雪上加霜。
重建真相確實難度極高，車上乘員全數喪生，沒有目擊者，無從指證，蛛絲馬跡杳然；烈焰造成全車重度碳化，車上沒有行車紀錄器，公司也無遠端監控雲端資料，全無「科學辦案」著力點，只能寄望鑑識出現端倪。問題出現了，誰來鑑識才是權威，才能獲致信服？
大陸家屬要求「陸方參與鑑識」卻被林內閣拒絕，因而失去了重建真相的「制高點」。台灣是個開放的社會，萬事公開透明，無需被所謂的「司法主權觀」綁架，不但該邀陸方，還可以邀國際權威第三方參與鑑識，以類似仲裁庭的設計，重建可為各方接受的公信調查過程。可惜林全不此之圖，造成如今漫天疑雲與兩岸猜忌。
台灣的火場鑑識菁英在火燒車事件精銳盡出，可惜案件本質已不全然是車禍，政治紛擾下質疑聲浪快速升高。最初鑑識聚焦在逃生門暗鎖、用電超負荷，雖不能說是捨本逐末，但對建構完整案情取得社會及家屬的信賴毫無益處。至於對肇事車輛是「拼裝車」，聲光音響金玉其外但敗絮其中的批評，更與火燒車事件案情關係不大，實歸因遊覽車制度不當。
台灣遊覽車總數約17000輛，供過於求，市場集中在陸客、進香團、校外教學、學生畢業旅行，陸客量萎縮後，學校市場爭得更凶，但教育部規定學校租車車齡應在5年以下，換言之，遊覽車汰換率高，業者很難投資高檔、高安全車輛，造成如今惡性循環局面。
但在罹難家屬離台後，突然持續爆出重大案情，傳出遊覽車司機極度酒醉駕車、車上發現汽油瓶、司機因性侵案遭判決有罪，需入監服刑並承擔民事賠償等駭人情節，檢警一連串以「不排除……」語法重建火燒車拼圖過程，更讓事件更顯得懸疑，因而傳出檢警「編造劇情推給死人」、「台獨司機對陸客恐攻」等離奇猜測，挑戰鑑識報告的可信度。
於今之際，火燒車事件的鑑識要回到科學辦案，鑑定報告必須公布，以接受各方質疑；只有走過「質疑說明辯論」的過程，才能重建為大家接受的「真相」；也才能拾回台灣司法檢警的客觀性及辦案能力。由於政府在意外事件發生第一時間點應對不恰當，未能取得罹難家屬信服的戰略「制高點」，讓往生者家屬哭喊著「要真相」踏上返途。不要忘記當年千島湖事件，案發後第一時間公安調查草率，未取得台灣家屬信賴，引發台灣對大陸的強烈反感，造成兩岸關係的逆轉與退化。
這幾天，《環球時報》以民粹動員方式報導火燒車事件，這未必是大陸官方所樂見，但大陸社會對台灣問題的民粹主張與力量是真實的存在，台灣不能輕忽。陸客火燒車事件錯在台灣，台灣有責任盡一切努力調查真相，並邀請大陸專業人士來台，依據科學鑑識結果共同還原事件過程，釐清真相。陸客來台觀光意外事件發生率與死傷率確實偏高，是否與一條龍模式有關，亦應深入調查改革，方能讓大陸釋疑，防止兩岸民粹對撞。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 3, 2016
Executive Summary: Over the past several days, the Global Times has incited populist sentiment over the tour bus fire incident. This may not be something that the Mainland authorities want to see. But public antipathy toward Taiwan independence on the Mainland is very real, and cannot be ignored. The tour bus fire incident took place on Taiwan. Taiwan authorities are responsible. They must make every effort to uncover the truth. They must invite Mainland experts to Taiwan. They must use forensic science to reconstruct the accident, and uncover the truth. The accident rate for Mainland tourists on Taiwan is undeniably too high. Are these accidents part of some larger pattern? A thorough investigation must be conducted, one that will enable the Mainland to unravel the mystery, and prevent the two sides from colliding head on.
Full Text Below:
During President Tsai Ing-wen's May 20 inaugural address, she said, "People expect the new government to solve problems". But two months later, the new government isn't solving problems. It's creating more problems. No wonder two recent polls show President Tsai's approval numbers plummetting.
Among the many problems the new government has created, the most outrageous is perhaps the tour bus fire incident that burned 26 Mainland tourists from Liaoning to death. The government pandered to politics and the police fell down on the job, worsening an already bad cross-Strait situation. When the accident first happened, the president declared "There can be no tourism without safety". Premier Lin declared the need to "checkup on the tourism industry". These high profile declarations were hollow. They included no expressions of empathy for the families of the victims burned to death. Arson investigators and crime scene investigators were clueless. The truth remains elusive, therefore the dark shadow cast by the incident continues to grow. Official cross-Strait relations following the DPP's return to power were already chilly. The political flames from the tour bus fire incident spread quickly. President Tsai eulogized the Taiwanese tour guide with a couplet, but expressed no sympathy whatsoever for the Mainland tourists who died. This provoked a major storm in the Mainland media, and will inevitably make cross-Strait relations worse.
Crash investigation and reconstruction is extremely difficult. Everyone on the bus perished. No witnesses survived. No one is left to testify. Clues are nowhere to be found. The flames charred the entire vehicle black. The vehicle lacked a GPS trip recorder. The company had no remote monitoring data, and nothing for investigators to latch onto. The only hope appears to be forensic evidence. The question arises, where are the forensic experts with public credibility?
The Mainland family members want "Mainland participation in the forensic investigation". But the Lin cabinet refused. As a result, it lost the moral high ground. Taiwan is supposedly an open society. Everything is supposedly open and transparent. There is no need for so-called "judicial sovereignty". Not only should forensic experts from the Mainland participate, so should forensic experts from other nations. That is how it is done in international arbitration. Crash investigation and reconstruction must be acceptable to all parties to ensure trust in the investigation. Sadly, Lin Chuan refused. Now clouds of suspicion hang above the Taiwan Strait.
Expert arson investigators on Taiwan investigated the tour bus fire incident. But the case is more than a traffic accident. Political recriminations and public skepticism have rapidly increased. Forensics investigations initially focused on the escape door latches and power overloads. This was not quite missing the forest for the trees, but did little to win the trust of the pubic and the victims' families. Was the vehicle "jury rigged"? The audio video systems may be subject to criticism. But they had little to do with the tour bus fire. The real problem is an inadequate tour bus system.
Taiwan has approximately 17,000 tour buses. Supply exceeds demand. The market consists primarily of Mainland tourists, pilgrims, and students on field trips or graduation trips. The number of Mainland tourists has fallen. The number of bookings by students is rapidly rising. But the Ministry of Education requires buses to be less than five years old. In other words, the buses depreciate much too rapidly. The industry cannot afford to invest in higher quality, safer vehicles. The result is the current vicious cycle.
Soon after the families of the victims returned to the Mainland, a string of revelations surfaced. The tour bus driver was badly intoxicated. A gasoline container was found inside the bus. The driver had been convicted of sexual assault. He was about to begin serving a prison sentence, and was also liable for civil penalties. Prosecutors and police issued a string of mealy-mouthed statements, saying "We do not rule out... [this, that, or the other]”. This created even more uncertainty. As a result, some began to suspect that the police had fabricated a story passing the buck onto the dead driver. Others suspected that a Taiwan independence driver committed an act of terrorism against Mainland tourists. All manner of bizarre speculation began to challenge the credibility of the forensic report.
The tour bus fire incident must revert to the status of a scientific investigation. The report must be made public. It must be subject to challenge. Only questioning, followed by explanations, followed by debate, can persuade everyone to accept the truth. Only such a process can restore objectivity and effectiveness to the justice system on Taiwan. The government's response following the incident was inappropriate. It failed to win over the families of the victims. It failed to take the moral high ground. As the families of the deceased left for the Mainland, they cried, "We demand the truth". Lest we forget, when Mainland authorities bungled the investigation of the Qiandao Lake incident, the families of the victims on Taiwan remained unconvinced. This triggered revulsion towards the Mainland and set back cross-Strait relations.
Over the past several days, the Global Times has incited populist sentiment over the tour bus fire incident. This may not be something that the Mainland authorities want to see. But public antipathy toward Taiwan independence on the Mainland is very real, and cannot be ignored. The tour bus fire incident took place on Taiwan. Taiwan authorities are responsible. They must make every effort to uncover the truth. They must invite Mainland experts to Taiwan. They must use forensic science to reconstruct the accident, and uncover the truth. The accident rate for Mainland tourists on Taiwan is undeniably too high. Are these accidents part of some larger pattern? A thorough investigation must be conducted, one that will enable the Mainland to unravel the mystery, and prevent the two sides from colliding head on.
釐清火燒車真相 止兩岸民粹對撞
2016/8/3 中國時報
蔡英文總統在520就職演說中高亢地說，「人民期待新政府解決問題」，但掌舵兩個月來，人民卻發現新政府不但未解決問題，反而製造更多問題，難怪最近兩份民調蔡總統施政滿意度均急速下墜。
新政府製造的諸多問題中，大陸遼寧旅遊團火燒車26死事件，可能是其中最離譜的一件，政府受政治態度綁架、檢警公權力表現失能，非常可能惡化原已失睦的兩岸關係。沒錯，事故發生第一時間，總統宣示「沒有安全就沒有觀光」，林揆指示「觀光業總體檢」，這些話很高調，也很空洞，對弭平火燒車罹難者家屬的傷痛毫無作用；檢警火場鑑識毫無章法，至今真相不明，事故陰影面不斷擴大。原本兩岸官方關係在民進黨執政後漸行漸遠，火燒車事件的政治猜忌迅速延燒，對照蔡總統在公祭時致贈殉難台籍導遊「典範長昭」輓聯，卻吝於對罹難陸客給予最起碼的同悲，在大陸媒體引發了強烈的風暴，難免對嚴峻的兩岸關係雪上加霜。
重建真相確實難度極高，車上乘員全數喪生，沒有目擊者，無從指證，蛛絲馬跡杳然；烈焰造成全車重度碳化，車上沒有行車紀錄器，公司也無遠端監控雲端資料，全無「科學辦案」著力點，只能寄望鑑識出現端倪。問題出現了，誰來鑑識才是權威，才能獲致信服？
大陸家屬要求「陸方參與鑑識」卻被林內閣拒絕，因而失去了重建真相的「制高點」。台灣是個開放的社會，萬事公開透明，無需被所謂的「司法主權觀」綁架，不但該邀陸方，還可以邀國際權威第三方參與鑑識，以類似仲裁庭的設計，重建可為各方接受的公信調查過程。可惜林全不此之圖，造成如今漫天疑雲與兩岸猜忌。
台灣的火場鑑識菁英在火燒車事件精銳盡出，可惜案件本質已不全然是車禍，政治紛擾下質疑聲浪快速升高。最初鑑識聚焦在逃生門暗鎖、用電超負荷，雖不能說是捨本逐末，但對建構完整案情取得社會及家屬的信賴毫無益處。至於對肇事車輛是「拼裝車」，聲光音響金玉其外但敗絮其中的批評，更與火燒車事件案情關係不大，實歸因遊覽車制度不當。
台灣遊覽車總數約17000輛，供過於求，市場集中在陸客、進香團、校外教學、學生畢業旅行，陸客量萎縮後，學校市場爭得更凶，但教育部規定學校租車車齡應在5年以下，換言之，遊覽車汰換率高，業者很難投資高檔、高安全車輛，造成如今惡性循環局面。
但在罹難家屬離台後，突然持續爆出重大案情，傳出遊覽車司機極度酒醉駕車、車上發現汽油瓶、司機因性侵案遭判決有罪，需入監服刑並承擔民事賠償等駭人情節，檢警一連串以「不排除……」語法重建火燒車拼圖過程，更讓事件更顯得懸疑，因而傳出檢警「編造劇情推給死人」、「台獨司機對陸客恐攻」等離奇猜測，挑戰鑑識報告的可信度。
於今之際，火燒車事件的鑑識要回到科學辦案，鑑定報告必須公布，以接受各方質疑；只有走過「質疑說明辯論」的過程，才能重建為大家接受的「真相」；也才能拾回台灣司法檢警的客觀性及辦案能力。由於政府在意外事件發生第一時間點應對不恰當，未能取得罹難家屬信服的戰略「制高點」，讓往生者家屬哭喊著「要真相」踏上返途。不要忘記當年千島湖事件，案發後第一時間公安調查草率，未取得台灣家屬信賴，引發台灣對大陸的強烈反感，造成兩岸關係的逆轉與退化。
這幾天，《環球時報》以民粹動員方式報導火燒車事件，這未必是大陸官方所樂見，但大陸社會對台灣問題的民粹主張與力量是真實的存在，台灣不能輕忽。陸客火燒車事件錯在台灣，台灣有責任盡一切努力調查真相，並邀請大陸專業人士來台，依據科學鑑識結果共同還原事件過程，釐清真相。陸客來台觀光意外事件發生率與死傷率確實偏高，是否與一條龍模式有關，亦應深入調查改革，方能讓大陸釋疑，防止兩岸民粹對撞。
Monday, August 1, 2016
Recovering Party Assets Should Not Be About Humiliating the Kuomintang
Recovering Party Assets Should Not Be About Humiliating the Kuomintang
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 2, 2016
Executive Summary: Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.
Full Text Below:
The DPP and New Power Party (NPP) have passed the "Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations", or “Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance", for short. Since then, the ruling DPP immediately began sharpening its knives. It intends to set up a "Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee" to promote so-called “transitional justice”. Psychologically, the KMT may be prepared to lose all its party assets. But it questions the legitimacy and constitutionality of the regulations. Once the cleanup of party assets begins, administrative remedies will be required. The eventual result may be battles over constitutional interpretation.
Once the cleanup of party assets begins in earnest, legal battles are sure to ensue. A protracted war involving cut-throat battles will follow. Many scholars consider the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance unconstitutional. For example, the term "improper" is poorly defined, and involves the presumption of guilt. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee would be established under the Executive Yuan. This violates the separation of powers. It also constitutes ex post facto law. The next constitutional battle cannot be dismissed with a few words. Nor can any party be assured of victory.
As for administrative relief, it is possible to demand a constitutional interpretation rather than drag matters out. Even if the DPP regime recovers KMT party assets, the battle could drag on, squander enormous resources and exact exorbitant social costs. The DPP regime could lose the constitutional battle. Its "transitional justice", its “fair competition”, and its “cleanup of improper party assets” could be reduced to a futile and unconstitutional power struggle. Ko Chien-min is concerned that if KMT party assets cannot be recovered, the issue could become the DPP's own Taipei Dome fiasco.
To be fair, KMT party assets have often been a "political ATM" for rival parties. precisely because huge party assets have resulted in unfair competition among political parties. The mere possession of assets makes one look guilty. When Lee Teng-hui was KMT Chairman, he used KMT party assets to interfere with politics. He even manipulated the stock market and consortia, and established a huge “black gold” network that left people in disgust. The general public supports "zero party assets". Many KMT members agree. They feel this burden must be addressed then lifted.
But before debating the justice of any cleanup of improper party assets, one must first acknowledge that KMT party assets are a "shared legacy". The chronology and scope of which is far more complex than most people imagine. For example, the Ministry of Justice Bureau of Investigation, the Ministry of Defense Bureau of Military Intelligence, were once KMT "affiliated organizations". The National History Museum's greatest treasures, the "Dasi Files", were once KMT party assets. Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan Research Institute was also established with funds under the control of the KMT. Even the DPP was a recipient of Lee Teng-hui's generosity, and was “wet nursed” with KMT party assets. All these leave "transitional justice" a tangled web.
Can the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance cleanup improper party assets, achieve transitional justice, and ensure fair competition among political parties? Not if the regulatory framework is defective, in which case any cleanup effort may be counterproductive. Even if the DPP regime successfully liquidates the KMT's party assets, the final casualty could be the rule of law. The final result could be never ending partisan political battles, and the unlimited expansion of executive power.
In fact, the KMT has already committed to "zero party assets". After deducting liabilities, personnel costs, retirement benefits, and other costs, the remaining amount will be donated to the public. This commitment, once implemented, will achieve the goal of "zero party assets". The KMT will no longer enjoy an unfair advantage due to its party assets. Transitional justice will be largely realized. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance may frustrate this goal. The DPP approach may take longer. The outcome may be less certain. The DPP approach violates the rule of law in its attempt to recover party assets. In truth, the DPP approach is not really an attempt to achieve transitional justice. It is merely a pretext to humiliate and destroy the KMT. In the eyes of the DPP, this is the real purpose behind the recovery of KMT party assets.
Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.
討黨產的目的不該是為了羞辱國民黨
2016-08-02 聯合報
民進黨和時代力量聯手通過《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》（簡稱「不當黨產清理條例」），執政黨立刻磨刀霍霍，將成立「不當黨產處理委員會」推動其所謂的轉型正義。國民黨雖有黨產歸零之心理準備，卻也擬就此條例之正當性聲請釋憲；俟「清黨產」程序啟動後，也勢必針對個案提出行政救濟程序，最終也可能走上釋憲之路。
討黨產行動一旦演變至此，勢必演成一場法律戰、持久戰、割喉戰。就法論法，已有不少學者指出《不當黨產條例》的內容確實有違憲之虞；諸如，對「不當」的定義不明、採有罪推定原則，黨產處理委員會設在行政院下，違反權力分立原則，以及違反一般法令追溯時效原則等。這些，未來在憲政法庭上的攻防，恐怕都非三言兩語說得完，更不是任何一方可侈言必勝。
立法院加開臨時會表決「不當黨產處理條例」。 （聯合報系資料庫）
至於行政救濟一途，則可能比直接申請釋憲還要曠日廢時。在這種情況下，即便民進黨政府真的討回黨產，可能是雙方纏鬥多年之後，彼此耗費了大量資源，乃至社會人心。而另一可能的情況是，民進黨政府輸掉憲法官司，所謂為了「轉型正義」、政黨公平競爭的清理不當黨產，不過成了違憲鬥爭的鏡花水月一場。柯建銘擔心，黨產若討不回來，這個問題將變成「民進黨的大巨蛋」，其原因在此。
平心而論，國民黨黨產屢屢成為對手的「政治提款機」，正是因為龐大的黨產造成了政黨間的不公平競爭，至少是「懷璧其罪」。在李登輝擔任國民黨主席期間，國民黨運用黨產介入政治、甚至操縱股市、財團，形成龐大的黑金網絡，在在讓民眾反感厭惡。因此，不只一般民眾支持「黨產歸零」，許多國民黨員也覺得這個包袱必須處理、拋棄。
但在辯論黨產的公義性質前，也必須認清國民黨黨產其實是一種「歷史共業」，其牽扯之時間、範圍與複雜度遠超過想像。例如，目前隸屬政府機關的法務部調查局、國防部軍事情報局，都曾是國民黨的「附隨組織」；國史館的鎮館之寶「大溪檔案」，曾經是國民黨的黨產；而如今李登輝掌控下的台灣綜合經濟研究院，也曾運用國民黨的經費成立。就連民進黨，都曾是李登輝用黨產「餵奶水」的對象。凡此種種，都讓所謂的「轉型正義」充滿糾結。
正因如此，要透過《不當黨產條例》來達到清黨產、轉型正義、政黨公平競爭等目的，由於該條例框架未盡合理，反而是最治絲益棼、且可能一事無成的方式。就算民進黨政府清算黨產成功，最後留下的，可能只是淪喪的法治、永無寧日的政黨惡鬥，以及無限擴張的行政權。
事實上，國民黨已對「黨產歸零」提出承諾：在扣除負債、需支付的人事、退撫等相關費用後，其餘全數捐出作為公益。此一承諾若能落實，就能直接達成「黨產歸零」的目的；未來即不會再有黨產衍生的不公平競爭問題，「轉型正義」也可獲得相當程度的伸張。然而，《不當黨產條例》立法後，此一途徑反而喪失了可能性。從這點看，民進黨決意使用可能耗時更久、成果更不確定、更不符合法治精神的方式來追討黨產，說穿了，並不是真正想要追求轉型正義，而只是想藉著這個可以翻來覆去的追討過程來羞辱、凌遲國民黨罷了。在民進黨眼裡，那才是「極大化」討黨產的政治效益。
如若民進黨政府真有心用最少的資源、最小的衝突，和最大的法治原則，讓國民黨黨產歸零，未來在不當黨產處理委員會運作上，就需要拿出更多的彈性與包容。國民黨承諾的由「公正第三方」清查黨產後捐出，順理成章也可由此委員會擔綱。而國民黨除了自我瘦身，也應重新審視退休黨工的退撫制度。如此，才是兼顧正當性、可行性、目的性的妥善處理方式。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 2, 2016
Executive Summary: Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.
Full Text Below:
The DPP and New Power Party (NPP) have passed the "Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations", or “Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance", for short. Since then, the ruling DPP immediately began sharpening its knives. It intends to set up a "Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee" to promote so-called “transitional justice”. Psychologically, the KMT may be prepared to lose all its party assets. But it questions the legitimacy and constitutionality of the regulations. Once the cleanup of party assets begins, administrative remedies will be required. The eventual result may be battles over constitutional interpretation.
Once the cleanup of party assets begins in earnest, legal battles are sure to ensue. A protracted war involving cut-throat battles will follow. Many scholars consider the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance unconstitutional. For example, the term "improper" is poorly defined, and involves the presumption of guilt. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee would be established under the Executive Yuan. This violates the separation of powers. It also constitutes ex post facto law. The next constitutional battle cannot be dismissed with a few words. Nor can any party be assured of victory.
As for administrative relief, it is possible to demand a constitutional interpretation rather than drag matters out. Even if the DPP regime recovers KMT party assets, the battle could drag on, squander enormous resources and exact exorbitant social costs. The DPP regime could lose the constitutional battle. Its "transitional justice", its “fair competition”, and its “cleanup of improper party assets” could be reduced to a futile and unconstitutional power struggle. Ko Chien-min is concerned that if KMT party assets cannot be recovered, the issue could become the DPP's own Taipei Dome fiasco.
To be fair, KMT party assets have often been a "political ATM" for rival parties. precisely because huge party assets have resulted in unfair competition among political parties. The mere possession of assets makes one look guilty. When Lee Teng-hui was KMT Chairman, he used KMT party assets to interfere with politics. He even manipulated the stock market and consortia, and established a huge “black gold” network that left people in disgust. The general public supports "zero party assets". Many KMT members agree. They feel this burden must be addressed then lifted.
But before debating the justice of any cleanup of improper party assets, one must first acknowledge that KMT party assets are a "shared legacy". The chronology and scope of which is far more complex than most people imagine. For example, the Ministry of Justice Bureau of Investigation, the Ministry of Defense Bureau of Military Intelligence, were once KMT "affiliated organizations". The National History Museum's greatest treasures, the "Dasi Files", were once KMT party assets. Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan Research Institute was also established with funds under the control of the KMT. Even the DPP was a recipient of Lee Teng-hui's generosity, and was “wet nursed” with KMT party assets. All these leave "transitional justice" a tangled web.
Can the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance cleanup improper party assets, achieve transitional justice, and ensure fair competition among political parties? Not if the regulatory framework is defective, in which case any cleanup effort may be counterproductive. Even if the DPP regime successfully liquidates the KMT's party assets, the final casualty could be the rule of law. The final result could be never ending partisan political battles, and the unlimited expansion of executive power.
In fact, the KMT has already committed to "zero party assets". After deducting liabilities, personnel costs, retirement benefits, and other costs, the remaining amount will be donated to the public. This commitment, once implemented, will achieve the goal of "zero party assets". The KMT will no longer enjoy an unfair advantage due to its party assets. Transitional justice will be largely realized. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance may frustrate this goal. The DPP approach may take longer. The outcome may be less certain. The DPP approach violates the rule of law in its attempt to recover party assets. In truth, the DPP approach is not really an attempt to achieve transitional justice. It is merely a pretext to humiliate and destroy the KMT. In the eyes of the DPP, this is the real purpose behind the recovery of KMT party assets.
Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.
討黨產的目的不該是為了羞辱國民黨
2016-08-02 聯合報
民進黨和時代力量聯手通過《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》（簡稱「不當黨產清理條例」），執政黨立刻磨刀霍霍，將成立「不當黨產處理委員會」推動其所謂的轉型正義。國民黨雖有黨產歸零之心理準備，卻也擬就此條例之正當性聲請釋憲；俟「清黨產」程序啟動後，也勢必針對個案提出行政救濟程序，最終也可能走上釋憲之路。
討黨產行動一旦演變至此，勢必演成一場法律戰、持久戰、割喉戰。就法論法，已有不少學者指出《不當黨產條例》的內容確實有違憲之虞；諸如，對「不當」的定義不明、採有罪推定原則，黨產處理委員會設在行政院下，違反權力分立原則，以及違反一般法令追溯時效原則等。這些，未來在憲政法庭上的攻防，恐怕都非三言兩語說得完，更不是任何一方可侈言必勝。
立法院加開臨時會表決「不當黨產處理條例」。 （聯合報系資料庫）
至於行政救濟一途，則可能比直接申請釋憲還要曠日廢時。在這種情況下，即便民進黨政府真的討回黨產，可能是雙方纏鬥多年之後，彼此耗費了大量資源，乃至社會人心。而另一可能的情況是，民進黨政府輸掉憲法官司，所謂為了「轉型正義」、政黨公平競爭的清理不當黨產，不過成了違憲鬥爭的鏡花水月一場。柯建銘擔心，黨產若討不回來，這個問題將變成「民進黨的大巨蛋」，其原因在此。
平心而論，國民黨黨產屢屢成為對手的「政治提款機」，正是因為龐大的黨產造成了政黨間的不公平競爭，至少是「懷璧其罪」。在李登輝擔任國民黨主席期間，國民黨運用黨產介入政治、甚至操縱股市、財團，形成龐大的黑金網絡，在在讓民眾反感厭惡。因此，不只一般民眾支持「黨產歸零」，許多國民黨員也覺得這個包袱必須處理、拋棄。
但在辯論黨產的公義性質前，也必須認清國民黨黨產其實是一種「歷史共業」，其牽扯之時間、範圍與複雜度遠超過想像。例如，目前隸屬政府機關的法務部調查局、國防部軍事情報局，都曾是國民黨的「附隨組織」；國史館的鎮館之寶「大溪檔案」，曾經是國民黨的黨產；而如今李登輝掌控下的台灣綜合經濟研究院，也曾運用國民黨的經費成立。就連民進黨，都曾是李登輝用黨產「餵奶水」的對象。凡此種種，都讓所謂的「轉型正義」充滿糾結。
正因如此，要透過《不當黨產條例》來達到清黨產、轉型正義、政黨公平競爭等目的，由於該條例框架未盡合理，反而是最治絲益棼、且可能一事無成的方式。就算民進黨政府清算黨產成功，最後留下的，可能只是淪喪的法治、永無寧日的政黨惡鬥，以及無限擴張的行政權。
事實上，國民黨已對「黨產歸零」提出承諾：在扣除負債、需支付的人事、退撫等相關費用後，其餘全數捐出作為公益。此一承諾若能落實，就能直接達成「黨產歸零」的目的；未來即不會再有黨產衍生的不公平競爭問題，「轉型正義」也可獲得相當程度的伸張。然而，《不當黨產條例》立法後，此一途徑反而喪失了可能性。從這點看，民進黨決意使用可能耗時更久、成果更不確定、更不符合法治精神的方式來追討黨產，說穿了，並不是真正想要追求轉型正義，而只是想藉著這個可以翻來覆去的追討過程來羞辱、凌遲國民黨罷了。在民進黨眼裡，那才是「極大化」討黨產的政治效益。
如若民進黨政府真有心用最少的資源、最小的衝突，和最大的法治原則，讓國民黨黨產歸零，未來在不當黨產處理委員會運作上，就需要拿出更多的彈性與包容。國民黨承諾的由「公正第三方」清查黨產後捐出，順理成章也可由此委員會擔綱。而國民黨除了自我瘦身，也應重新審視退休黨工的退撫制度。如此，才是兼顧正當性、可行性、目的性的妥善處理方式。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)