A Feeble Prosecution has turned the Justice System into a Crap Shoot

A Feeble Prosecution has turned the Justice System into a Crap Shoot
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 9, 2007


Left to Right: Prosecutors Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明) Eric Chen (陳瑞仁) and Hou Kuan-jen (侯寬仁) of Taiwan's "Justice System

A Feeble Prosecution has turned the Justice System into a Crap Shoot
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 9, 2007

Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming yesterday convened a Chief Prosecutors' Conference to discuss the Discretionary Fund case. The conclusion of the conference was: Those already indicted will be handled by the courts. Those still being investigated will be dealt with on a case by case basis, based on subjective perceptions, objective circumstances, and other factors. This tells us that prosecutors at odds with each other will remain at odds with each other, and that the conference arrived at no conclusion whatsoever.

For prosecutors to be afraid of settling on a single standard, amounts to leaving defendants at the mercy of Lady Luck. If one runs into public prosecutor A, one is innocent. If one runs into public prosecutor B, one is guilty. If that is the case, what have district prosecutors' offices become, except crap shoots, and defendants high-stakes gamblers? What have public prosecutors throughout the island become, except religious inquisitors? One might as well allow defendants draw straws to determine whether they are guilty or innocent.

We believe this constitutes a serious dereliction of duty within the public prosecution system. Prior to the Chief Prosecutors' Conference, prosecutors conducted an opinion poll. Of the 16 local prosecutors willing to express in opinion, half thought the Discretionary Fund was public money. At the same time, half thought that officials who drew from the Discretionary Fund were innocent of wrongdoing. In other words, regardless of what the legal status of the Discretionary Fund might be, most public prosecutors thought that drawing from the Discretionary Fund did not constitute either criminal intent or deceit. They did not consider it a crime. Under such circumstances, public prosecutors should arrive at a clearcut legal opinion. Any yammering about "case by case determinations" is merely shirking one's responsibility.

The procedure officials must follow for drawing upon the Discretionary Fund is consistent. The uses to which the funds may be put and the procedures for verification must comply with the requirements of relevant accounting departments, and amount to long-established administrative convention. Therefore, unless a particular official has a special situation that demands special consideration, this is a non-issue, and what is the justification for "case by case determinations?" What would be the ruling government's reason for insisting on "case by case determinations," other than to selectively prosecute political enemies? What would be the public prosecutors' reason for "case by case determinations," other than fear of taking a stand against the ruling government? The same goes for the public prosecutors' canned remark that "Those already indicted will be handled by the courts."

It is precisely because the Discretionary Fund case has led to a "guilty in the north, innocent in the south" scenario, and because the DPP's "Four Princes" have been selectively spared prosecution, leading to gross injustice, that a unified opinion by public prosecutors is urgently needed. Therefore the public prosecutors should either decide that everyone is innocent, and allow the courts to understand the prosecutors' reasoning and defense attorneys to argue on behalf of their clients. Or, they should decide that everyone is guilty, and order district prosecutors and special investigative units to aggressively investigate and prosecute each and every case. As it is now, a solitary defendant is being used as a legal test case for all potential defendants, and all responsibility for the outcome is being pushed onto the shoulders of the courts, making judges susceptible to political attacks from different camps. This behavior is weak and irresponsible.

Speaking of Discretionary Fund cases, the rosters of the now defunct Prosecutor General Office's Anti-Corruption Center and its successor, the Special Investigative Unit, include Public Prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen. Initially, Hou resisted requests for coordination from the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office. Hou hastily indicted Ma Ying-jeou, even as he intentionally avoided indicting the DPP's "Four Princes," behaving in an obviously unprofessional manner. Hou Kuan-jen declared that "The Four Princes will be indicted a month from now, due to manpower shortages." But as of today, many months have passed. The Anti-Corruption Center has been dissolved and the Special Investigative Unit has been formed. Would Public Prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen care to update us on the progress of his promised indictments of the DPP's Four Princes? Public Prosecutors assure us that they prosecute cases in accordance with the law, that they don't get involved in politics. But the way public prosecutors have handled the Discretionary Funds case, aggressively prosecuting certain individuals while shamelessly shielding others, means they are already involved in politics. If public prosecutors truly don't understand the distinction, then that is a reflection on their education and training. If, on the other hand, public prosectuors do understand the distinction, then their motive for behaving as they do is even more worth pondering.

Because of the Discretionary Fund case, at least one hundred defendants have been indicted. The public prosecutors' differences of opinon regarding the Discretionary Fund case will inevitably show up again and again under different circumstances. As a result, many individuals may be indicted on the heels of the Ma Ying-jeou case, even as many others evade prosecution. For anyone with an iota of respect for the rule of law, this is inconceivable.

Some people might say, even if prosecutors have differences of opinion, the defendant won't necessarily be found guilty. Some may look to the Judicial Yuan and even the High Court to reach a unified opinion. But even assuming this is the case, the indictment process itself is an ordeal. How will the injustice done to the defendant be compensated? To sum up, the prosecutors' refusal to take a stand is not only a dereliction of duty, it is a failure to uphold the spirit of justice.

In the past public prosecutors who defied their superiors' directives would be punished. When members of the public questioned the fairness of the system, prosecutors would always cite "uniformity of prosecution" as a shield. Today, when we truly need "uniformity of prosecution" in the pursuit of justice and equality, prosecutors have fallen silent, and the answer to the question, "Are prosecutors nothing more than political henchmen?" is abundantly clear.

Original Chinese below:

懦弱的檢方：司法成為各憑運氣的賭場！
【聯合報／社論】
2007.05.09 03:15 am

檢察總長陳聰明昨天召開檢察長會議討論特別費案，會議結論是：已起訴的案件由法院審理，偵辦中的案件則視主觀認知、客觀情形等作個案認定。這意味著分歧的檢方還是分歧，會議根本沒有結論。

檢方不敢定出統一標準，形同聽任被告各憑運氣；碰上甲檢察官無罪，碰上乙就有罪。那麼，各地檢察署豈非成了司法賭場，被告但看手氣；而全國檢察官豈非成了神棍，讓被告抽籤決定有罪無罪即可！

我們認為，這是檢察體系的嚴重失職。在檢察長會議前，檢方曾進行各地檢署檢察官之意見調查，調查結果，在願意表示意見的十六個地檢署中，認為以領據支領的特別費是公款的佔半數，但同時認為支領首長不構成犯罪的也佔半數。換言之，不論以領據支領的特別費之法律性質為何，多數檢察官認為領用首長沒有犯罪故意，以及未使用詐術，而認定不構成犯罪。在此情況下，檢方理當作出一定的見解方屬合理，所謂「個案認定」根本是推卸責任。

就所有領用特別費的首長而言，其支領程序其實是一致的，即按照會計單位的要求辦理；就用途及核銷等而言，亦屬行之有年的行政慣例。因此，除非某一特定首長確有特殊情形而待另行檢討，否則這類以領據領用特別費的爭議案情幾為一致，又何來個案認定的餘地？所謂個案認定之說，當然只是不敢表態的託詞。

至於已起訴的案件聽由法院審理云云，更是遁詞。正因特別費案出現「北有罪，南無罪」的歧異，又有民進黨四大天王涉案遲未處理，造成了極不公平的狀態，亟須由檢方表示統一的意見。因此，檢方應有的作為是：或者決定採無罪說，讓法院瞭解檢方立場，讓辯護人得為被告主張；或者決定採有罪說，而命各地檢署及特偵組積極偵辦其他案件。但像現在這樣，由單一被告為所有潛在被告充當法律實驗品，然後將全部作決定的負擔及風險推給法院，讓法官的判決承受可能來自不同政治陣營的批判，這委實是非常不負責任且懦弱的表現。

說到其他特別費案，從高檢署查黑中心時代到現在的特偵組都列名其中的侯寬仁檢察官，先是拒絕南檢協調要求、急於起訴馬英九於前，卻又故意擱置了民進黨四大天王案於後，顯然最失專業立場。侯寬仁曾說，「四大天王案接案晚一個月、人手不足」所以未辦；但如今，不知幾個月過去了，查黑中心亦已轉成了特偵組，試問侯檢察官目前的進度又在哪裡？檢察官自稱依法辦案，不管政治；但對個案積極偵辦或消極處理，緩急之差異確已造成影響，其實就已經介入了政治。倘謂檢察官對於這一點不能瞭解，那真的有負其所受教育訓練；而若檢察官知道其中的利害關係竟仍然這樣做，居心何在，便殊堪玩味了。

如今因特別費而成被告者至少已百餘案。檢方聽任特別費案意見分歧，則各地檢署受理的案件勢必仍將出現相同案件、不同處理的情況；於是，繼馬英九之後，將有許多人可能因此而遭起訴，但也可能有許多人避開了官司。這對國家法律正義來說，實為不可想像的景況。

或有人說，縱然檢方意見分歧，但起訴到法院也未必定罪；甚至寄望司法院乃至最高法院會考慮統一見解。然而，即使如此，訴訟過程中造成當事人受到的不利境遇，又將如何彌補？總之，檢方這次懦弱不表態的處理，非但失職，亦喪失了主持正義的司法精神。

過去有檢察官辦案不聽上級指揮受到懲處，各界一有質疑，檢方總是搬出「檢察一體」作為擋箭牌。如今，真正需要「檢察一體」，以統一見解來追求公平正義的時候，卻成了噤聲寒蟬。檢方是不是政治打手，現在已是十分清楚了！

What ails France is What ails Taiwan

What ails France is What ails Taiwan
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 8, 2007


Charles de Gaulle, Founder of France's Fifth Republic

What ails France is What ails Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 8, 2007

Nicholas Sarkozy's election as president of France has been characterized as a "hard right turn." The people of France are no longer willing to endure the "French Disease" of long-term economic weakness, political division, isolationism, and moral degeneration. Although Sarkozy's right wing views are controversial, his bold pledge to change France's plight has gained the trust of a majority of French voters.

Looking at France from Taiwan, this election, besides being noteworthy for changing France's own direction, is also noteworthy for its impact on the Republic of China (ROC) government on Taiwan. The constitutional changes we carelessly plagiarized from France years ago, specifically its "semi-presidential system," have resulted in constitutional deadlock. For the past decade, Taiwan's economy has withered, political opposition has escalated, and its international status has become increasingly isolated. What ails Taiwan and what ails France is somewhat similar. Observing how France is overcoming its debilitating illness, may provide Taiwan with a clue on how to treat ourselves.

Sarkozy only announced his candidacy in March, yet within a short time he won over the voters, mainly because he grasped the French voters' disaffection with the current situation, and proposed large scale reforms distinguishing himself from Chirac's government. Although Sarkozy is a Minister of Internal Affairs within the Chirac government, he does not shy away from expressing his own views, nor does he minimize the differences between himself and the Chirac government. Because of this, despite his background as a member of the ruling party, he was able to win over public opinion with demands for reform, and allow the international community to believe that he represented a force for change within France.

Compare this scenario with the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "Four Princes," blindly following in Chen Shui-bian's footsteps, competing to show him their "love," eagerly awaiting his endorsement, as Chen Shui-bian continues manipulating the post-Chen political scene. The difference is like night and day. Taiwan's long drawn out election process wears people out, both politically and psychologically. When a ruler regards "appointing a successor" as something perfectly natural, the "will of the people" has long been consigned to to the back burner.

Sarkozy is a second-generation Hungarian immigrant, with Greek and Jewish ancestry on his maternal side. His diverse background made his election unusually colorful. Two years ago Sarkozy suppressed ethnic minority riots with an iron hand, provoking unease among liberty-loving Frenchmen. This is the principle factor behind the unrest in minority districts following his election. But Sarkozy's ancestral background and political ability seem to have alleviated this unease. It could be said that his election is itself an expression of French racial tolerance. Those still saying that "wai-sheng ren (persons from other provinces) are unsuited to be Republic of China president" please take a look at France's diverse and colorful roster of candidates.

To sum up, Sarkozy's prescription for what ails France includes: First, in terms of the economy, France must reduce taxes, reduce wages, increase working hours, improve the investment environment, revive a flagging economy, and reduce high unemployment rates. Second, in terms of international strategy, Sarkozy hopes that the European constitution, which has been ratified but shelved, and the reestablishment of friendly relations with US, will enable France to free itself of its recent isolation, re-join Europe and re-engage America. Third, in terms of social reform, Sarkozy advocates attacking corruption, crime. and illegal immigration, helping poor youths find employment, and addressing France's crisis of moral bankruptcy.

What ails France is of course not entirely Chirac's fault. It's more like a complication caused by France's "Fifth Republic." The unique characteristic of the Fifth Republic, is that it turned the presidency into the nation's center of political activity, while simultaneously weakening its parliament. Although Chirac did not expand the power of the presidency during his term of office, he underscored how unanswerable the president was to parliament or even public opinion. Taiwan perversely plagiarized this French constitution in which power and responsibility are out of balance, transforming Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian into "imperial presidents." Not only did the system not lead to "left right joint rule," it left a legacy of "Blue Green confrontation" and insoluble deadlock. From this perspective, isn't what ails Taiwan merely a new version of what ails France?

France's election reconsidered the problem of a president who had authority but no responsibility. It also called for a "Sixth Republic." The ROC on the other hand, chose not to include France's provision of run-off elections to ensure that the final winner commanded an absolute majority. As a result the ROC's elections degenerated into a vicious system of dog eat dog, inflicting immense harm upon democracy. Furthermore, Sarkozy will succeed Chirac after only ten days. The Democratic Progressive Party is promoting a two in one election, attempting to move the presidential election up to January, and to hold it concurrently with the legislative elections. if that is the case, the ROC will have a four month period in which there are "two presidents." The potential for back room deals and a power vacuum argues against such a rash measure.

Sarkozy is described as a "New Napoleon" brandishing a sword, sitting astride a rearing stallion. Perhaps that is an exaggeration. But without a doubt he is viewed as a force for political reform within the French nation. That being the case, are either Ma Ying-jeou or Frank Hsieh forces for political reform in 2008, when the fate of the ROC will be decided?

Original Chinese below:

從「法國病」看「台灣病」：改變的動力何在？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.05.08 02:09 am

沙克吉當選總統，被稱為法國的「急右轉」。長期經濟虛弱、政治分裂、孤立主義、道德淪落的「法國病」，已到了讓人民無可忍受的地步；沙克吉的右翼立場雖受爭議，但他誓言改變法國現狀的企圖與魄力，終使他獲得多數選民的付託。

從 台灣看法國，這場選舉之所以備受關注，除了法國本身走向的變化，主要是我們當年憲改草率抄襲了法國「半總統制」，結果使憲政陷入僵局。尤其，十年來台灣經 濟萎縮、政治對立、在國際上更形孤立，這場「台灣病」和「法國病」也有幾分類似；觀察法國如何克服其衰弱症，或可提供台灣自我治療的參考。

沙 克吉三月多才宣布參選，短短時間即贏得青睞，主要在他抓住了法國選民對現狀的不滿，提出了有別於席哈克政府的大幅改革路線。沙克吉雖是席哈克政府的內政部 長，卻不避談自己的獨立見解，也毫不掩飾他與席哈克的歧見。正因為如此，他雖出身執政黨，卻仍能以改革訴求贏得民意，並讓國際社會相信他代表了法國迎向改 變的力量。

這種景象，比起民進黨四大天王亦步亦趨跟隨陳水扁路線、競逐他的關愛、 期待他的加持，而陳水扁更一心一意企圖操控「後扁時代」的政局，真有天壤之別。台灣漫長的大選過程，不僅是政治的消耗，更是人性的折磨；當主政者將「安排 接班人」視為理所當然，選民的意願早已被拋到腦後了。

沙克吉身為匈牙利移民第二 代，且從母系承襲了希臘和猶太血緣，這樣的多元背景，為他的當選增添了幾許傳奇色彩。兩年前沙克吉在鎮壓少數族裔暴動時的鐵腕，曾令愛好自由的法國人感到 不安，這也是選後巴黎少數地區騷動的主因。但沙克吉的族裔背景及政治上的幹練，似乎紓解了這種不安；可以說，他的當選本身就是法國種族寬容的表現。還在說 「外省人不適合當台灣總統」的人，請看看這次法國選舉多元多彩的名單吧！

歸納而 言，沙克吉所開出對付「法國病」的藥方包括幾方面：一、在經濟上，要採取減稅、降低工資、增加工時等措施，來改善投資環境，振興低迷的經濟，降低高失業 率；二、在國際戰略上，希望通過遭擱置的歐洲憲法，並與美國重新建立友好關係，使法國擺脫近幾年的孤立，重回歐美主流的懷抱。三、在社會改革上，主張加強 打擊貪汙、犯罪及非法移民，協助貧窮青年就業，重整法國的「道德破產」危機。

「法 國病」其實不完全是席哈克造成的，它更像是法國「第五共和」的併發症。第五共和的特徵，是使總統變成國家政治活動的中心，同時也導致國會的弱化。席哈克任 內雖未強化總統的權力，卻突出了總統不對國會負責、也不對民意負責的矛盾。偏偏台灣抄襲了法國這套權責不對稱的共和憲法，從而製造出李登輝和陳水扁兩個 「政治超人」；最後，不僅未能片刻實現「左右共治」，卻只留下「藍綠對峙」的無解僵局。由此看，「台灣病」不正是一個翻版的「法國病」？

法 國這次大選，對總統「有權無責」的問題作了重新思考，也提出了「第六共和」的呼聲。反觀台灣，當初修憲未將法國保證絕對多數當選的「兩輪選舉」的設計納 入，演變至今，已陷於一輪選舉的棄保及割喉苦戰，這對民主真是何其兇險！再看，沙克吉和席哈克的總統交接，十天之後就要進行；但民進黨推動的二合一選舉， 企圖將總統大選推前至一月與立委選舉合併舉行，果真如此，台灣將有長達四個多月出現「兩個總統」重疊的景象，勢將造成嚴重的政治黑箱及空窗期，實不宜貿然 實施。

沙克吉被描繪成揮刀躍馬的「新拿破崙」，也許言過其實，但他被寄望為推動法國改變的動力，則已毋庸置疑。那麼，在台灣大勢底定的二○○八大選，馬英九或謝長廷能為我們提供前進的動力嗎？

Hsieh's Win was a Surprise, Chen's Loss was a Certainty

Hsieh's Win was a Surprise, Chen's Loss was a Certainty
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 07, 2007


Frank Hsieh wins Upset Victory over Su Tseng-chang

Hsieh's Win was a Surprise, Chen's Loss was a Certainty
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 07, 2007

Two major surprises. One, Frank Hsieh unexpectedly won a major victory, leading by nearly 16,000 votes. Two, Su Tseng-chang declared that he was forfeiting the party sponsored public opinion poll and withdrawing from the party primaries.

Prior to the election, even the Frank Hsieh camp estimated that Hsieh would lose by at least 15,000 votes. Instead, the result turned their universe upside down, and Frank Hsieh won by nearly 16,000 votes. Yesterday, halfway through the ballot counting, text messages from the Su Tseng-chang camp proclaimed that Su would seek to win the party sponsored public opinion poll, but shortly afterwards Su announced that he was withdrawing from the party primaries.

Frank Hsieh hopes to be the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate in 2008. Two upcoming developments are worth noting: One, on the eve of the election, Chen Shui-bian repudiated the suggestion that "the winner and runner-up should pair up." Su Tseng-chang also declared that he would not accept the vice-presidency. Now Su may have to resign his position as prime minister or else be forced out. Changes in this scenario will surely affect the political situation. Two, once Frank Hsieh, who advocates Conciliation and Co-existence, becomes the DPP presidential candidate, he will control developments within the the party and the ruling government. Chen Shui-bian will no longer be unable to manipulate the strategic picture and may become a lame duck.

Frank Hsieh had to move mountains to win his victory, at least four mountains. One, he affirmed the One China Constitution, Conciliation and Co-existence with mainland China, yet managed to retain the support of a majority within his party. Two, he is involved in the Kaohsiung Rapid Transit scandal and many other scandals. On the day of the vote, Su Tseng-chang even ran an ad proclaiming that Hsieh "may try to shift the focus away from himself, but he cannot change the reality of his involvement." Three, without the support of other factions within the DPP, exclusive reliance on "dummy voters" would not have assured Hsieh his landslide victory. Four, most importantly, Chen Shui-bian obviously supported Su Tseng-chang. Seven DPP mayors and county magistrates publicly supported Su. Every one of these four mountains was intimidating. Frank Hsieh unexpectedly moved them all, achieving a surprising and resounding victory.

On the eve of the vote, it was generally thought that Su Tseng-chang's momentum would increase, and that he would win by at least 15,000 votes. It was reasonable to assume that Su's offensive would draw blood. He attacked Hsieh's affirmation of a "One China Constitution," giving Hsieh more problems than he could handle. He attacked Hsieh's scandals, demanding that party members not vote for Hsieh, arguing that although Hsieh might be able to win the party primaries, he couldn't win the presidential election. These arguments had considerable substance. So why did Su Tseng-chang lose so badly?

The reasons are manifold, but Chen Shui-bian is without a doubt the key factor in Su Tseng-chang's downfall and defeat. In 2000, Lee Teng-hui dragged down Lien Chan. Today, Chen Shui-bian has dragged down Su Tseng-chang. Actually, everyone knows that this party primary was not merely a choice between Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang. The fact that Frank Hsieh could unexpectedly win a victory over an alliance between Chen Shui-bian, Su Tseng-chang, and seven DPP mayors and county magistrates, reveals the discontent within the DPP, and changes within the hearts and minds of the DPP rank and file.

Given such developments, allow us to offer a guarded insight: Mainstream thinking within the Democratic Progressive Party since Chen Shui-bian's corruption scandals blew up in the party's face has been: "To rescue the party, we must rescue Chen." However, even after being rescued, Chen Shui-bian continued holding the DPP hostage. Therefore, during this primary election most party members supported Frank Hsieh, even though he is also implicated in numerous scandals, because they can no longer tolerate being held hostage by Chen Shui-bian. Only this can explain why most party members voted Chen out.

Some in the Green Camp believe that Su Tseng-chang's downfall and defeat is the fault of the New Tide Faction. They want to absolve Chen Shui-bian of responsibility. But even if the New Tide Faction was a factor, it was not the result of Chen, Su, and the New Tide Faction forming an alliance during the primary election. One need only look at Su Tseng-chang's rout in Chen Shui-bian's hometown -- Tainan City and Tainan County, to see the whole picture.

Frank Hsieh was not Chen Shui-bian's designated successor. From the beginning, Frank Hsieh maintained considerable distance between himself and Chen. This was Frank Hsieh's opportunity to "build his own brand." This was also the DPP's opportunity to begin its "Post-Chen" era. Chen Shui-bian has proclaimed that "In my remaining year in office, I still have many, many matters to attend to." We say it is time for Chen Shui-bian to stand down and give Frank Hsieh, the DPP, and Taiwan a way out.

The turnout for yesterday's election was only 55%, lower than anticipated. This shows that bloody infighting discouraged many party members from voting. Even more worth noting is how the candidates set up stalls in front of the polling booths, issuing party membership cards on the spot. These "voter brigages" marched in and out of the polling booths en masse. They didn't even bother concealing their actions. The problem of dummy voters inflating vote counts within the DPP was laid out under the sun for all to see. These dummy voters performed remarkably well during this party primary, engaging in "split voting."

During the national presidential primary race, the individual consciences of party members kicked in. This resulted in "Hsieh In, Su Out." It also had a significant influence on the DPP's ideological path and body politic. But in the local legislative primary race, the same voters unexpectedly reverted to the status of dummy voters. This led to machine politicians winning by landslides, and candidates who ran on idea-based platforms being overshadowed. The election result amounted to a test of dummy voter loyalty to political bosses. This did not help the DPP improve its image or clarify its political path.

Bloc voting by dummy voters is a congenital defect of the DPP. Instead of trying to reform this system of patronage, the party leadership has institutionalized this perverse system for primary elections, making the problem worse. In certain electoral districts, as long as some candidates are able to win because they control a several hundred dummy voters, they can demand a "Blues Excluded Opinion Poll." Isn't such a system a case of Gresham's Law, of bad currency driving out the good?

Dummy voters voted for legislators. Independent voters voted for the president. This reveals a bizarre self-contradiction within the DPP. Absent a spirit of reform, party members would not have rejected Chen and Su in favor of Frank Hsieh. But at the same time, Lin Cho-shui, Hsiao Bi-khim, Lee Wen-chung, Cheng Yun-peng, and Lin Shu-shan, who have been labeled the "Eleven Bandits" for having the temerity to demand internal reform, brought up the rear in the same election. This is not because party members displayed a commitment to reform only in the presidential primary race. This is because dummy voters were hijacked by legislators during the legislative elections.

This was not merely a DPP primary election. It was a civil war in which no quarter was given and no prisoners taken. Chen Shui-bian could have maintained neutrality. He could also have publicly supported Su Tseng-chang. Instead Chen Shui-bian made a pretense of neutrality, while in fact supporting Su Tseng-chang. As a result, Su Tseng-chang resorted to any and all means to attack Frank Hsieh. The grass roots within the party, not surprisingly, regarded Chen Shui-bian's indifference to Su's excesses as collusion. Chen Shui-bian and Su Tseng-chang used the same ruthless methods they used against the Blue Camp against their own comrade Frank Hsieh. This provoked a reaction against the Chen/Shu alliance, and won sympathy and support for Frank Hsieh.

Chen Shui-bian and seven mayors and county magistrates supported Su. They monopolized all power and resources. Yet they were trounced by Frank Hsieh, who had no resources whatsoever. This was a case of the rank and file lashing out at the high command. This was a case of of the will of the people delivering a knock-out blow to the will of their masters. Because of this, the DPP party hierarchy is now split. The rank and file within the DPP have revealed their desire for rebirth and reform. But the bizarre paradox of "dummy voters voting for legislators, independent voters voting for the president" has left the DPP mired in confusion.

When Frank Hsieh won, he said "Those with the least resources turned out to be those with the most resources." Chen Shui-bian lost. He needs to realize that "Those who abuse their power and resources, may well end up with no resources!"

Frank Hsieh's win was a surprise. Chen Shui-bian's loss was a certainty.

Original Chinese below:

謝長廷贏得意外，陳水扁輸得當然
【聯合報／社論】
2007.05.07 03:39 am

兩大意外。一，謝長廷居然以近一萬六千票的巨幅領先而大勝；二，蘇貞昌放棄進入民調，宣布退出初選。

選前，連謝長廷陣營也自估至少會輸一萬五千票，結果反而乾坤逆轉，大贏近一萬六千票；昨日開票過半之時，曾傳出蘇貞昌陣營仍以簡訊宣示將爭取民調勝出，不料稍後竟宣布退選。

謝長廷可望代表民進黨競選二○○八年總統。接下來值得注意的發展有二：一，由於陳水扁在投票前夕否定了「第一名要與第二名搭配」的說法，且蘇貞昌亦曾宣示「不當副手」，如今更極可能主動或被動地辭去行政院長；未來與此相關的情勢變化，必將牽動政局。二，主張和解共生的謝長廷成為民進黨的總統候選人後，勢須掌握黨政情勢的發展，陳水扁恐難再恣意左右大局，甚至可能跛腳。

謝長廷不啻是移走了四座大山，才能贏得如此漂亮。一，他主張憲法一中、和解共生，居然未動搖多數黨員對他的支持。二，他涉及高捷案等多件弊案，投票當日蘇貞昌甚至還登廣告指謝「轉移焦點不能改變涉案事實」。三，初選以人頭黨員為主體，非獲得超派系之支持，無可能獲此大勝。四，最重要的是，陳水扁明顯支持蘇貞昌，七縣市長亦公開挺蘇。這四座大山，無一不是巍峨險峻，謝長廷居然將之移去，贏得令人拍案驚奇。

投票前夕，一般認為蘇貞昌的聲勢看漲，至少會在黨員投票中贏謝一萬五千票。因為，就情理而論，蘇的攻勢確有打動人心之處。他痛擊謝的「憲法一中」，讓謝捉襟見肘；猛攻謝的弊案，要黨員勿投給即使初選過關、大選也過不了關的謝長廷。這些訴求皆是極其凌厲，但為何票開出來，蘇貞昌輸得如此難看？

原因很多，但陳水扁無疑是造成蘇貞昌落敗的核心因素。二○○○年李登輝拖垮了連戰，如今陳水扁則拖垮了蘇貞昌。其實，無人不知，此次初選不啻是要黨員在謝長廷與扁蘇之間作一選擇。而謝長廷居然能在「四座大山」壓頂之下，勝過扁蘇與七縣市長的聯盟，可見民進黨內的不平之氣，與民進黨內的人心思變。

情勢發展至此，或許可以審慎地提出一種想像：民進黨內自陳水扁貪腐弊案爆發以來的主流思想其實是：「為了救黨，才要救扁！」然而，陳水扁在獲救後竟仍想繼續挾持民進黨；因而，此次初選多數黨員寧可挺弊案纏身、爭議不斷的謝長廷，也要斷然擺脫陳水扁的操弄與挾持。倘非如此，不能解釋為何多數選票棄陳水扁而去。

綠營有人認為，蘇貞昌落敗是受新潮流之累，欲藉此開脫陳水扁的責任。但即使有新潮流的因素，亦因為扁蘇與新潮流於初選結盟所致。只要看蘇貞昌在陳水扁故鄉台南縣市大敗，已可一葉知秋。

謝長廷不是陳水扁所選擇與支持的接班人，而謝長廷自始即與扁維持相當的距離；這正是謝長廷自創品牌的契機，亦是民進黨真正開創「後扁時代」的空間。口口聲聲「在未來一年任期，還有很多很多事要做」的陳水扁，應當已到了放謝長廷、民進黨與台灣一條生路的時刻了！

昨天的選舉，五成五的投票率，較原先預期為低，顯示刀光血影的競爭廝殺，影響了黨員投票的意願。更值得注意的是，候選人在投票所前各自擺攤發證，「投票部隊」毫不避諱地團進團出，也將民進黨「人頭黨員」充斥的問題赤裸裸暴露在陽光下。然而，這些人頭黨員在此次初選中竟然演出了奇妙的「分離投票」。

在全國選區的總統初選部分，黨員的自主意識發揮了作用，這使得「謝上蘇下」，亦對民進黨的路線與體質皆有重大影響；但在地方選區的立委選舉中，同一批選民竟又回復到「人頭黨員」的角色，使金牛型人物遙遙領先，理念型人物黯然失色，選舉結果只是表達了「人頭黨員」的忠貞，對民進黨的體質改善與路線釐清並無幫助。

人頭黨員充斥，是民進黨的先天不良；黨中央不思設法導正，反而設計出這套畸形的初選制度，愈發使之惡化。試想，在若干選區中，有些候選人只要掌握數百張人頭黨員票即可勝出，然後順利獲得「排藍民調」的護送；這樣的制度，不是在進行劣幣驅逐良幣的反淘汰嗎？

「人頭黨員」選立委，「自主黨員」選總統；其間透露出自相矛盾的弔詭。倘若黨員不具改革精神，不可能棄扁蘇而選謝長廷；但是，包括林濁水、蕭美琴、李文忠、鄭運鵬、林樹山等被貼上「十一寇」罪名的黨內改革派，卻在這次黨員投票均吊車尾。這不能說「黨員」只在總統初選中才有改革精神，而是「人頭」被立委選舉挾持所致。

這不只是一場民進黨的「初選」，更是一場砍殺見骨的民進黨「內戰」。陳水扁原本可以維持中立，也可以公開支持蘇貞昌；但陳水扁卻謊稱中立，實際上則挺蘇。因此，蘇貞昌攻擊謝長廷之不擇手段，勢必被基層黨員視為陳水扁所包庇縱容。陳水扁以對付泛藍陣營的殘忍手法，與蘇貞昌用來鬥爭黨內同志謝長廷；這使扁蘇同盟遭到反彈，亦使謝長廷獲得了同情與支持。

陳水扁與七縣市長挺蘇，匯集了一切權力與資源，卻被自稱「最沒有資源」的謝長廷擊敗。這是基層擊倒高層，也是民意擊倒上意。民進黨的高層因此分裂，民進黨的基層卻透露出重生再造的期待。但是，「自主黨員選總統，人頭黨員選立委」的矛盾弔詭，亦將使民進黨陷於錯亂。

謝長廷贏了，他說：「最沒有資源，也就是最有資源。」陳水扁輸了，他應知：「最有權力資源，濫用權力資源，就可能變成最無資源！」

謝長廷贏得意外，陳水扁輸得當然。

Taiwan must Move Forward

Taiwan must Move Forward: Strengthen the Economy, Connect with the Asian-Pacific Region, and Adopt a Global Outlook
by Ma Ying-jeou
translated by Bevin Chu, Wu Min-yen, Li Cheng-hsiu
May 2, 2007


Ma Ying-jeou (standing)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow Party Members, County and Municipal Chiefs, Members of the Press, Welcome!

ONE. UNITE OUR FORCES, ENSURE OUR VICTORY

The Kuomintang (KMT) Central Standing Committee has just approved Ma Ying-jeou as the party's presidential candidate in 2008, and will report its decision to the National People's Congress in June this year. I feel honored by their decision. I also feel the the weight of responsibility on my shoulders. Next year's presidential election will determine whether Taiwan can regroup and move forward. I promise to unite our forces to ensure our victory at the polls. I will personally invite Chairman Wang Jyn-ping to be my running mate, and together we will fight for Taiwan's future.

What worries the public on Taiwan the most is the economy. Therefore I would like to take this opportunity to share my vision for Taiwan, and to suggest the means by which this vision can be made a reality.

TWO. THE ISLAND'S ECONOMY IS DEPRESSED, THE PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE HARD

Recently I visited the Wang-kung fishing Port in Fang-yuan Village, Changhua County. I met a 70 year old woman named Yang, whose daily work was shucking oysters. Her work looked hard. I asked her how many hours she worked, and how much money she made. She said she worked ten hours a day, but the economy wasn't what it used to be, so she made only 200 NT a day. When I heard this, I felt a twinge of pain in my heart. This is Taiwan's plight. The common man works long hours, makes little money, and lives a hard life.

Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power, the economy has been in free fall, and the suicide rate has skyrocketed. Incomes no longer keep pace with living costs. University graduates' starting salaries are in decline. Among the Four Asian Tigers, Taiwan's economic performance is bringing up the rear. South Korea's national income has surpassed Taiwan's. The gap between rich and poor increases day by day. One hundred forty thousand schoolchildren cannot afford a nutritious lunch. Unemployment has nearly doubled during the past seven years. Fewer and fewer foreign businesses come to invest. More and more Taiwan businesses list on the Hong Kong exchange. The US and South Korea have reached a Free Trade Agreement. Asean and mainland China have established a Free Trade Area disadvantageous to Taiwan's development. Taiwan is increasingly marginalized.

Confronted with this reality, we cannot pretend to be blind, because people can feel the pressure, and are losing confidence in the future. If the Kuomintang takes office in 2008, we will bring order out of chaos, restore public confidence, and revive Taiwan's economy.

THREE. A STRATEGY TO REVIVE TAIWAN'S ECONOMY: STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY, CONNECT WITH THE ASIAN-PACIFIC REGION, AND ADOPT A GLOBAL OUTLOOK

In 2008, once the Kuomintang is in office, our goal will be an annual growth rate of 6%, and an average annual income of $US 20,000 by 2011.

The specifics of our strategy are:

First: Establish Local Reconstruction Funds to improve Local Finances; Promote Local Development to increase Taiwan's Prosperity

Given the embarrassing state of local finances, payrolls can't be met, making it difficult to promote local development. By the end of last year, long-term local government debt was 600 billion NT, revenues and expenditures were seriously out of balance, and local development was seriously hampered.

Central and local governments should be partners. But for seven years the central government has not only been grabbing all the power, it has been pocketing all the money. Local governments have been poor relations without a penny to their name. During my term as Taipei mayor, I experienced this hardship first hand. Many county and municipal chiefs are in the audience today. Once the Kuomintang is in office, we will reestablish the partnership between central and local governments. The central government should use its surplus revenues to establish a Local Government Financial Reconstruction Fund. It should help local governments pay off their debts, improve their finances, and promote local development. It is not necessary to wait till 2008. The central government should act now.

For the past several years central government tax revenues have exceeded expenditures. Why not use the surplus to help local governments? Haven't local governments contributed to to the central government's budget surplus? In 2005, central government revenue surpluses totaled 188 billion NT. Last year, they totaled 125 billion NT. The total for both years exceeded 300 billion NT. The central government will enjoy a surplus this year as well.

The election is drawing near, and the Democratic Progressive Party government is recklessly writing blank checks, buying political support from all quarters. We maintain that government money should help be used to help local communities. We suggest emulating private sector debt restructuring mechanisms, and before the end of this year, allocating at least 100 billion NT of the central government's surplus revenues to a Reconstruction Fund to help local governments pay off their debts. If we are in office in 2008, we will continue such a policy.

Second: Found Emerging Industries, Promote Traditional Industries, Create 100,000 Job Opportunities

Reviving Taiwan's economy requires founding emerging industries and promoting traditional industries, including service industries, manufacturing industries, and agriculture, directly creating job opportunities. If the Kuomintang is in office in 2008, we will reduce unemployment to less than 3%, and create 100,000 jobs per year.

In the emerging industries, for example biotechnology and the solar energy industry, if the Kuomintang is in office in 2008, we will implement concrete measures for achieving world leadership in emerging industries, and expand the scope of emerging industries, enhancing the potential for economic growth.

In the service industries, we will immediately eliminate unnecessary controls, creating income and job opportunities.

In the traditional manufacturing industries, we will promote competitiveness while upholding strict standards for environmental protection. Some industries face restructuring pressures. We must assist them, allowing these industries to become high value added industries producing products akin to French perfumes, Italian shoes, and Swiss watches. Which of these traditional industries is not a local, traditional industry? Because global consumers follow fashion, they are willing to pay high prices for these products, therefore these traditional industries have all become high valued added industries. If the government is diligent, Taiwan brands and products can be marketed the world over.

Taiwan's agriculture is not a sunset industry. It has the potential to reinvent itself. Once the Kuomintang is in office, we will support agriculture. On the one hand we will transform agriculture into a service industry. On the other hand, we will develop special crops, increasing overseas and mainland competitiveness. The Kuomintang will not cancel Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers. If the National Annuity has not been established as scheduled, Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers should be increased 1,000 NT to 6,000 NT, providing a safety net for senior citizens in rural regions.

Third: Connect with the Asian-Pacific Region by promoting Global Strategies: Transform Taiwan into a Bi-regional Airline Hub for both NE Asia and SE Asia. Transform Taiwan into an Dual Purpose Operations Center

The KMT's third strategy for reviving Taiwan's economy is to exploit Taiwan's geographical advantage, transforming Taiwan into a Bi-regional Airline Hub for both the Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian regions. We will do this by linking Taipei's CKS Airport to Tokyo's Haneda Airport, Seoul's Gimpo Airport and Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport in the north, and to Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok Airport, Singapore's Changi Airport, and airports in the ASEAN nations in the south. We will establish Taipei's CKS Airport as a "double-gold" airline hub, then add existing trans-Pacific air routes. Taiwan-based enterprises can then set up global operations centers on Taiwan, and foreign companies can set up Asian-Pacific regional operations centers on Taiwan, transforming Taiwan into a Dual Purpose Operations Center.

The concept of a Bi-regional Airline Hub and a Dual Purpose Operations Center has implications not only for cross-Straits relations, but for the entire world. It connects Taiwan's economy to the economies of the Asian-Pacific region. We also seek to cooperate with the U.S. and other important economic partners in Asia, and to actively negotiate free trade agreements.

Fourth: Normalize Cross-Straits Economic and Trade Relations, predicated upon "Taiwan and the People First" and "Open as a Rule, Restricted as an Exception"

The ruling DPP knows the importance of the mainland market. However, because of its ideological bias and its Closed Door Policy, no opening is possible. Controls on cross-Straits economic policies should be eased. As long as provisions are made for crisis management, and as long as the Taiwan region and ROC citizens are given priority, Taiwan's policy should be "Open as a Rule, Restricted as an Exception." Specific provisions include:

( 1 ) Control Technology, not Capital when Businessmen from Taiwan invest on the Mainland

Regulations stipulate that companies based on Taiwan may not invest more than 40% of their net value on the mainland. Such restrictions harm only Taiwan, not the mainland. Take Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp. (TSMC) for example. If the government had allowed TSMC to invest on the mainland before the mainland developed its own wafer industry, TSMC would be the leader in IC manufacturing. Instead, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) has assumed that role. Even Intel has announced that it will set up a 12-inch wafer plant in Dalian. Taiwan has lost its edge.

If the KMT regains power, we will control only technology, not capital. If Taiwan -based enterprises keep their R&D on Taiwan, they can develop and own key technology. If that happens, we won’t need to limit the flow of capital. Allow businesses based on Taiwan to explore new frontiers and promote local prosperity.

( 2 ) Encourage Businessmen from Taiwan operating on the Mainland to list on Taiwan's Stock Market

Businessmen from Taiwan operating on the mainland are forbidden to list their companies on Taiwan's stock market. This prevents them from reinvigorating the capital market, from establishing new industries, and from keeping their roots in Taiwan. Permitting them to list their companies on the TAIEX would attract more foreign direct investment, benefiting Taiwan. Last year the number of companies listed in Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea jumped. Only Taiwan experienced a drop. Listings on the TAIEX fell from 691 to 688. Further losses are expected in the near future. More and more companies based on Taiwan are listing in Hong Kong. This trend is definitely hurting Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwan should welcome investments by businessmen from Taiwan operating on the mainland.

( 3 ) Change Cross-Straits Tourism from Unilateral Consumption to Bilateral Exchange

Large numbers of tourists from Taiwan visit the mainland each year, but the ruling DPP stubbornly refuses to allow mainland tourists to visit Taiwan. This is irrational. If we wish to increase economic prosperity, we must change cross-Straits tourism from Unilateral Consumption to Bilateral Exchange, and open our arms to mainland tourists. We intend to set a quota of 3000 visitors per day, one million visitors per year, and increase that number to three million visitors per year within four years. By doing so, we intend to create business opportunities totaling 100 billion NT per year.

( 4 ) Set Limits on the Import of Mainland Agricultural Products

We will not unconditionally open Taiwan to mainland produce. We are concerned about the sustainability of some of Taiwan's agricultural products and consumer goods. Mainland produce that threaten Taiwan's agricultural development will not be imported. We will evaluate the impact of low-priced products from the mainland on Taiwan's production. What should be allowed will be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed won't be allowed.

4. CONCLUSION: LET DEPRESSION END, LET HOPE BEGIN

The public on Taiwan has endured a shrinking economy caused by ruling DPP incompetence for seven years. That is seven years too long. Only change can offer hope. Only a change in leadership can bring about a change in our future. Let us work together hand in hand for that future.

Only genuine commitment can unite the people and make Election Day 2008 a turning point. Let depression end. Let hope begin.

Taiwan must not sink. Taiwan must not remain stuck. Taiwan must move forward!

Thank you very much!

Original Chinese below:

台灣必須大步向前行！
壯大台灣，結合亞太，布局全球
馬英九
96.5.2

各位先進、各位同志、各位來自全國各縣市的首長、以及記者先生女士們，大家好！

一、團結一切力量，爭取勝選

中 國國民黨中央常務委員會剛才通過英九代表中國國民黨參選２００８總統一案，並將提報今年六月全國代表大會，個人至感榮幸，並也感受責任的重大。明年總統大 選關係著台灣能否重整旗鼓，向前出發。英九向大家保證，將團結一切可以團結的力量，爭取勝選，我也將親自邀請王院長，擔任競選夥伴，共同為台灣打拼。

如今台灣民眾最關心的還是經濟問題，所以英九想借用這個機會，闡明對台灣經濟的願景以及實踐願景的政策。

二、台灣經濟不振，基層民眾生活艱苦

最 近我到彰化芳苑鄉王功漁港，認識一位阿?，姓楊，已經七十歲了，她每天的工作是把蚵仔從殼裡一個一個挑出來。我看她挑得很辛苦，問她每天工作多久？可以賺 多少錢？她說每天要工作十小時，這幾年景氣比過去差很多，工作一天只能賺兩百多塊。我聽到，一陣心酸。這就是台灣的現狀，基層人民工作辛苦，但收入很少， 生活非常艱困。

民進黨執政以來，經濟不斷向下沈淪，自殺人數創新高；人民薪資趕不上物價上漲；大學生起薪與過去比，變為負成長；台灣經濟 表現落到四小龍尾；韓國國民所得超過了台灣；貧富差距日益擴大；如今十四萬學童繳不起營養午餐；台灣失業人口七年間最高增加將近一倍。此外，外商來投資的 越來越少，台商到香港上市的越來越多，再加上美韓自由貿易協定、東協加中國大陸的自由貿易區等等不利台灣的發展，台灣被邊緣化的壓力越來越大。

面對這些情況，我們不能視而不見，因為人民感到壓力，對未來慢慢失去信心。如果２００８國民黨執政，保證一定撥亂反正，恢復大家信心，重振台灣經濟。

三、重振台灣經濟的策略──壯大台灣、結合亞太、布局全球

2008年，國民黨一旦執政，將以每年經濟成長率6%為目標，2011年時，每人平均所得可達20,000美元。

我們具體政策如下：

第一、設地方重建基金，改善地方財政，推動地方建設，壯大台灣

現在地方財政困窘，連薪水都發不出，難以推動地方建設，影響經濟發展。根據瞭解，到去年底為止，各地方政府長期債務，約達6,000億元，收支嚴重失衡，地方建設大受影響。

中 央與地方應是夥伴關係，七年以來中央集權又集錢，地方政府巧婦難為無米之炊，我在台北市長任內感受至深。今天多位縣市長同志在座，我要提出一項政策，就 是國民黨如果執政，一定重建中央與地方的夥伴關係，中央政府應將超收的稅捐，成立「地方政府財政重建基金」，幫地方政府打消債務，改善地方財政困境，促進 地方建設。我們認為不必等到２００８，中央政府應該立即去做。

近這幾年中央政府稅捐超收，實際課稅收入超過了預算，為什麼不拿超收的錢，幫助地方呢？稅捐超收，地方政府難道沒貢獻嗎？九十四年，中央政府稅捐超收約1,880億元，去年又有1,250億元，兩年加起來已經超過3,000億，今年肯定也會超收。

大 選快到了，我們看到民進黨政府亂開支票，四處綁樁。我們呼籲：政府的錢應該多幫地方。我們建議參考民間債務協商機制，在今年底前，從超徵的稅收中，至少提 撥1,000億，作為第一年「重建基金」，協助地方政府打消債務、解決燃眉之急。2008年以後，如果我們執政，一定繼續提撥。

第二、開創新興產業，振興傳統產業，創造十萬個就業機會

重振台灣經濟必須同時開創新興產業與振興包括服務業、製造業與農業等傳統產業，直接創造就業機會。如果2008年國民黨執政，我們將使失業率逐步降至3%以下，每年多創造的就業機會，要逐步增加到十萬人。

在新興產業方面，例如生物科技、太陽能產業等，2008國民黨如果執政，將研擬具體計畫，以創造具世界領導地位的新興產業及擴充新興產業的範疇，厚實經濟成長的動力。

在振興服務業方面，將立刻訂定振興方案，消除不必要的管制，課以各部會創造所得和就業數量的明確責任。

在 傳統製造業方面，將協助其提升競爭力與配合日益嚴格的環保要求。有些產業則面臨轉型壓力，必須協助他們，努力讓這些產業變成高附加價值的「高級產業」，就 像法國的香水、義大利的皮鞋、瑞士的鐘錶一樣。這些產業哪一項不是當地的傳統產業？但全球的消費者卻趨之若騖，願付很高的價錢買這些產品，所以這些傳統產 業都變成高附加價值的產業。只要政府用心，台灣品牌與產品一定可以行銷全世界。

另外，我們要強調台灣農業並不是夕陽產業，它絕對有轉型再 造的能力。國民黨執政一定扶植農業，一方面將農業服務業化，另一方面發展台灣特殊品種的農作物，增加在海內外市場（包括大陸）的競爭力。我們在此保證，國 民黨執政絕對不會取消老農年金，如果國民年金沒有如期開辦，希望老農年金增加1,000元，成為6,000元，讓農村老年人的生活獲得基本保障。

第三、以雙航圈、雙中心，結合亞太，布局全球

我 們重振台灣經濟的第三項策略，是利用台灣地理優勢，推動東北亞及東南亞雙航圈，向北連結東京羽田機場、首爾金浦機場，上海虹橋機場、向南連結香港、新加坡 和東協各國首都。有了「雙黃金航圈」，配合既有的跨越太平洋航線，就可以促使台商在台灣設立全球營運中心，外商在台灣設立亞太營運中心，也就是「雙營運中 心」。

這個「雙航圈、雙中心」的概念，包含了兩岸政策，但超越了兩岸政策，而是「全方位」布局，也就是以台灣既有的經濟實力，和亞太經濟緊密結合，同時我們也將尋求與美國及亞太重要經濟夥伴，積極協商自由貿易協定，達成布局全球的目標。

第四、在「以台灣為主、對人民有利」及「原則開放、例外管制」原則下，推動兩岸經貿正常化

民進黨政府也瞭解大陸市場的重要，但因為意識形態與鎖國政策，遲遲無法突破。我們認為只要作好風險管理，秉持「以台灣為主，對人民有利」及「原則開放，例外管制」的原則，兩岸經濟管制應該鬆綁，具體政策包括：

1. 企業赴大陸投資應控管技術，不管資金

台灣企業到大陸投資，目前規定不能超過淨值40%，這種限制「對大陸無效，對台灣有害」。

像台積電晶圓廠，如果幾年前，大陸自己晶圓產業沒有成型之前，就讓台積電去布局，現在大陸晶圓製造的市場龍頭地位，就非台積電莫屬，但目前大陸的中芯等廠已經起來，甚至英特爾宣佈在大連設置十二吋晶圓廠，台灣已漸錯過時機。

如果國民黨執政，我們將合理控管技術，不會控管資金。我們堅持台灣企業須持續在台灣進行研發活動，發展關鍵技術、保有關鍵技術。只要這些能做到，就不要限制資金，讓企業自由到外地開疆闢土，提升台灣實力。

2. 鼓勵大陸台商回台上市，活絡台股，根留台灣

目 前大陸台商回台上市，受限投資規定，沒有可行性，但讓台商在台灣的股票市場上市，可以活絡台灣資本市場，帶動新興產業發展，讓台商根留台灣，並且可以吸 引更多外資，對台灣有利。去年不論香港、新加坡與韓國股市新上市公司都大幅度增加，只有台灣的上市公司減少了三家[691降到688]，未來還可能進一步 減少，而台灣去香港上市的公司越來越多，這對台灣極為不利。所以，台商回台上市，應當全面開放。

3. 兩岸觀光從「單向消費」改成「雙向互惠」

在 觀光方面，每年台灣有大批人去大陸旅遊、消費，但不准大陸觀光客來台花錢，實在說不通。要對人民有利，就要把「單向消費」，改成「雙向互惠」，開放大陸觀 光客來台。我們希望每天開放3,000人，每年100萬人，四年內增加到每年300萬人，這樣有機會創造每年1,000億以上的收益。

4. 大陸農產品進口，不輕易開放

兩 岸經貿並不是全部都開放。像台灣許多農產品和消費品，我們必須注意產業的承受能力。貿然開放大陸農產品大量輸入台灣，如果衝擊台灣農業發展，就先不要開 放。另外，大陸低價的消費品，有些也要慎重，評估對台灣不利的影響。所以，我們強調，開放不是放任，當開則開，不當開則不開。

四、結語：鬱卒到此結束，希望從此開始

七年了，民進黨政府無能，經濟一落千丈，大家受的苦已經夠了。大家想過好日子，只有改變才有希望，只有政黨再次輪替才有機會。讓我們大家一起努力，用選票達到我們希望的改變。

只要我們精誠團結，結合廣大群眾的力量，就可以讓2008投票的那ㄧ天，鬱卒到此結束，希望從此開始。

台灣不能繼續沈淪、不能原地踏步，台灣必須大步向前行！

台灣加油！

謝謝大家！

Where is Taiwan's Response to the Mainland's Soft Offensive?

Where is Taiwan's Response to the Mainland's Soft Offensive?
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 1, 2007


Now: US controlled Puppet Regime on Taiwan poses Deadly Threat to China

Then: Soviet controlled Puppet Regime on Cuba posed Deadly Threat to America

Comment: The following China Times editorial astutely notes that the puppet regime illegally squatting in the Republic of China Presidential Palace has dropped the ball, big time. The Chen Shui-bian regime, like the Lee Teng-hui regime before it, has proven thoroughly incompetent at anything other than populist rabble-rousing.

Forget any hope that it can increase the nation's long term economic prosperity. The Chen regime doesn't even have the ability to slow the nation's precipitous decline in prosperity.

But when the author of this otherwise excellent editorial wrings his hands over this undisputed fact, and demands that the Chen regime do a better job of countering Beijing's "soft offensive," he is confessing that he can no longer see the forest for the trees.

The China Times, as its name implies, is a Chinese newspaper. It is not a "Taiwanese" newspaper. By that I mean that it is a newspaper in the nation of China. It is not a newspaper in any "Nation of Taiwan." It is not a newspaper in any "Nation of Taiwan" because there is no "Nation of Taiwan."

Since it is a newspaper in the nation of China, presumably concerned with the well-being of the nation it is a part of, should the China Times be wringing its hands over the failure of a puppet regime to advance its traitorous agenda of Balkanizing the Chinese nation?

It is one thing to wring one's hands over the economic plight of the Chinese people in the Taiwan region of the Republic of China.

It is another thing altogether to wring one's hands over the fact that a puppet regime is bungling its efforts to divide and conquer the Chinese nation on behalf of hostile governments in neighboring nations.

The mainland authorities are indeed attempting to use soft, i.e., economic, power to reunite the Chinese nation. Remembering that economic power is the power of persuasion, one can't help asking the author of the China Times editorial, how exactly is that a bad thing?

When did our "pro reunification media" become Taiwan independence fellow travelers?

Now, more than ever, our pro reunification media needs to be clear that the Republic of China is not "Taiwan." The Republic of China is China.

The author of the China Times editorial asks "Where is Taiwan's response to the mainland's soft offensive?"

Permit me to point out that "Taiwan" shouldn't have a response to the mainland's soft offensive. If anybody should have a response to the mainland's soft offensive, it is not "Taiwan," but the Republic of China.

As long as mainland authorities are striving to reunite China in a manner consistent with the values embodied in the Republic of China Constitution, such as free markets and property rights, the pro reunification media on Taiwan should welcome, not dread such soft offensives.

Otherwise Taiwan independence Quislings should stop giving the China Times and the United Daily News undeserved credit by referring to them as "pro reunification media," and begin referring to them as "pro independence media."

Where is Taiwan's Response to the Mainland's Soft Offensive?
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 1, 2007

First problems arose with the introduction of the Olympic Flame to Taiwan. Next, the recent Kuomintang/Chinese Communist Party Forum announced its newest proposal for opening up the mainland to Taiwan. Finally, we saw the ruling regime's response, and we are more worried than ever. On the one hand we are witnessing wave upon wave of increasingly methodical soft offensives on the part of Beijing. On the other hand Taiwan's ruling regime seems to have no response other than sitting on its hands or mechanically repeating the word "No!"

To put it bluntly, the mainland's attitude is one of supreme confidence, throwing its doors wide open to anything and everything from Taiwan. Taiwan's response, by contrast, is to slam its doors shut on anything and everything from the mainland in an unseemly panic. As a result, pandas can't enter, mainland tourists can't enter, even the Olympic Flame can't enter. And judging by the ruling regime's initial reaction, mainland students probably won't be allowed to enter to study at universities on Taiwan either. This situation, in which one side opens up while the other side closes down, is one in which the Taiwan side is always the one dragging its feet, always the one whose position is problematic, and always the one responsible for any failure to reach an accommodation.

Take the current wave of mainland concessions for example. As the party granting concessions, the mainland can decide to give this, that, or the other to Taiwan. Whether Taiwan actually needs any particular concession is beside the point. Whether Taiwan accepts or rejects the concessions is no skin off the mainland's nose. If the Olympic Flame is not allowed to pass through Taiwan, does that mean the Olympics will no longer be held? Of course not! On the other hand, some people on Taiwan are worrying whether athletes from Taiwan will be allowed to participate in their events when the games begin. By the same token, if mainland students are not allowed to study at universities on Taiwan, universities from other nations will fall over each other competing for them. Those truly concerned will be universities on Taiwan already plagued by less than full enrollment.

One might say that these are two entirely different modes of strategic thinking. The mainland's focus is global public relations. By opening the mainland to Taiwan, they are demonstrating their sincere desire to improve cross-Straits relations. Based on global media coverage, they have surely succeeded. But how about Taiwan? Unfortunately, the ruling regime remains focused on internal elections. As a result, the ruling regime's kneejerk response to the mainland's soft offensive, besides saying "No!" is to angrily denounce both Beijing and the Blue Camp. The sole purpose of this kind of maneuver is to mobilize for elections. Even when an election is not pending, the ruling regime will choose to do nothing for fear of offending pro independence sensibilities. When one side is aggressively managing global perceptions, and the other side insists on haggling over short term internal advantage, which side do you imagine is going to gain the upper hand?

If truth be told, the concessions the mainland is granting Taiwan, such as allowing mainland students to attend universities on Taiwan, allowing mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, increasing the number of cities allowed to schedule direct cross-Straits charter flights, increasing the number of ports of entry for compatriots on Taiwan, all require complex negotiations by agencies from both sides of the Straits before they can become a reality. Without consultations, no matter how many concessions Beijing is willing to grant, they will remain nothing but lip service. Everyone knows the key is consultations. As long as the status of these issues is neither official nor unofficial, neither international or domestic, they will remain unresolved. Any discussions will be meaningless. A single technical detail can lead to deadlock. For the past several years, the Beijing authorities have not yielded on a single key issue. Taiwan's participation in the WHO is a clear example. Taiwan's maneuvering room on cross-Straits issues is becoming small and smaller. Under these circumstances, we can not only predict that direct flights will never happen, we can also predict that Taiwan will never be opened to mainland tourists. And you can forget about mainland students coming to Taiwan to attend university.

By contrast, the mainland, through its rapidly growing economy, has been beckoning to Taiwan's professional class. Last year the KMT/CCP Forum recognized diplomas issued by institutions of higher learning on Taiwan, and permitted doctors from Taiwan to practice on the mainland. This time the KMT/CPP Forum has opened the mainland to 15 different kinds of professionals from Taiwan, including economists, accountants, translators, auctioneers, real estate brokers, certified tax agents, and pharmacists. They are welcoming students from Taiwan to register for mainland commercial aviation schools. Aircraft maintenance technicians from Taiwan can also apply for mainland licenses. We should realize that these openings do not require any nod from agencies on Taiwan. The mainland merely needs to make a unilateral announcement to that effect. It takes little thought to realize that in the foreseeable future, these opening measures to Taiwan's specialized human resources will exert an intense magnetic attraction. Within a few years, after manufacturing industries have completed their massive westward migration, talented professionals will follow. In view of this trend, what strategy should Taiwan adopt? Don't ask the ruling regime.

With the exception of certain key industries, the euphemistically named "Exercise Patience, Avoid Haste" and "Aggressive Management, Effective Opening" policies imposed by Taiwan's ruling regime have not prevented the western migration of manufacturing industries. Those industries that have been blocked lost their chance to take the lead long ago. The very next step will be a wave of talented professionals from Taiwan following in their footsteps. Needless to say, we know exactly what the ruling regime is going to say and do. What we want to know is, in these challenges, where is Taiwan's strategic response?

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.05.01
面對大陸軟性攻勢，台灣的總體戰略在哪？
中時社論

先是奧運聖火登台生變，接著國共論壇大陸對台灣拋出的最新開放項目，最後再看到執政當局的相關反應，不諱言說，我們的憂慮真的愈來愈深。因為一方面我們見識北京當局對台灣的軟性攻勢一波接一波，勢道也愈來愈綿密；另一方面台灣的執政當局這邊除了負面的制式反應外，就只剩下不斷的被動接招了。

講得再白一點，目前的態勢是，大陸對台灣擺出的姿態是自信滿滿，這也開放，那也開放，台灣這邊作出的回應也幾乎都是能擋則擋，這也不准，那也不行。於是從先前的熊貓來不成、陸客赴台觀光來不成，奧運聖火來不成，此番開放陸生來台念大學，從此間初步反應看來，看樣子多半也是來不成。這種一邊放、另一邊堵的景況，陷於被動的都是台灣這一邊，可能被檢討的也是台灣這一邊，這一來一往之間，等於巧妙地將兩岸和解破局的責任，都移轉到台灣的這一邊了。

就用送禮做比喻吧！做為送禮的一方，大陸可以選擇要送這個還是送那個給台灣，台灣是不是真的有需要倒不是重點。而台灣接受也好，就算全部都不要，對大陸也不會有任何損失。試問聖火如果確定不繞過台灣，會不會影響奧運的順利舉行？不會嘛！倒是台灣這邊已經開始有人焦慮會不會屆時連運動員都去不成。同樣的，陸生來不成台灣念大學，立即會有很多國家的大學積極爭搶著他們去念，真正會急的將是台灣那些已經面臨招生不足的大學。

可以說，這幾乎是兩條截然不同的戰略思維。大陸著眼的是全球的公關效應，藉由一系列的對台政策開放，向全球的輿論展示他們改善兩岸關係的誠意與努力，這一點從全球媒體報導的取向看來，他們確實做到了。而台灣這邊呢？很遺憾，所在乎的主要還是內部選舉造勢的效應，於是面對大陸的開放攻勢，我們看到最多的制式反應，除了「說不」之外，就是痛批北京外加痛擊藍軍，這種操作模式唯一著眼就是選舉動員。就算碰到非選舉期間，也會基於獨派可能不滿考量下選擇不作為。當一邊積極經營全球視聽的聲勢，一邊則只計較內部短線的消費，試問那一邊會站在較有利的位置呢？

講實在話，大陸提供給台灣的所謂利多，如開放陸生來台念大學、開放大陸人士赴台旅遊、增加兩岸直航包機城市、增設台胞簽注口岸等，幾乎大部分都需要兩岸相關主管部門的繁複協商後才算成局，未經「協商」就算北京釋出再多的利多，也只是停留在「口惠」的階段。而誰也都知道，問題的關鍵就在這個「協商」上，只要類似「官方／非官方」、「國際／國內」的定位爭執永遠理不出頭緒，談什麼都是假的，一個技術性的小細節都有可能讓正在進行中的協商全面陷入僵局。偏偏這幾年，北京當局在核心問題的立場上一步也沒讓過（台灣參與ＷＨＯ即是顯例），台灣則在兩岸定位的立場上，彈性空間越來越少，這種情勢發展的態勢，預示未來不僅直航遙遙無期，連已經啟動協商的開放大陸客觀光也面臨破局，八字尚沒一撇開放陸生來台念大學，就更不必提了。

相對的，大陸也藉由其快速成長經濟環境，向台灣的專業人士全方位的招手。去年的國共論壇已經承認台灣高等院校學歷，並允許台灣醫生在大陸執業，這回更針對台灣相關領域的專業人士開放包括十五種專業技術人員的資格考試，包括經濟、會計、翻譯、拍賣師、房地產經紀人、註冊稅務師、藥師等。還歡迎台灣學生報考大陸民航學校，台灣的機務維修人員可考大陸執照等。要知道，這些開放是不需要台灣相關部門點頭的，大陸那邊只需片面宣布開放即可。而不用想都知道，在可預見的未來，這些開放措施將對台灣的專業人力資源，形成強烈的磁吸作用，不出幾年，繼產業大量西進之後，人才也要大量西進了。針對這個趨勢，台灣因應的策略是什麼？不知道。

台灣實施多年的戒急用忍、積極管理、有效開放等政策，除了關鍵產業外，其實並沒能封阻產業的西進，而被封阻住的產業則早已失去搶進布局的先機。很快的下一步將面臨台灣人才的西進浪潮，不諱言地說，執政當局會操作什麼批判論述我們已經很熟悉，我們在乎的是，因應這一波波的挑戰，台灣的總體戰略究竟在哪裡？

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2004


TV Celebrity Pai Ping-ping, a former Green Camp supporter, denounces Chen Shui-bian's Mass Pardon

Chen Shui-bian wants to declare a nationwide pardon for convicted criminals. Public response has been anxiety and discontent. The president can pardon convicted criminals, but can the public pardon rising crime?

Let's put aside political considerations for the moment and look at the issue purely from the perspective of public safety. Such a large scale pardon, involving 20,000 sentence reductions and 7000 immediate releases, undermines judicial impartiality, police morale, and social order. During his seven years in power, Chen Shui-bian has failed to ensure public safety and social harmony, yet he has the audacity to cavalierly issue mass pardons before his term of office expires. This is a gross abuse of presidential power.

In recent years major felonies and white collar crimes have increased dramatically, even as the legal dragnet has developed gaping holes. One look at the crime statistics tells the entire story. The types of crimes committed have also changed: First, crimes of impulse such as opportunistic robberies, kidnappings and rapes, have increased. This has made crime prevention more difficult and increased public anxiety. Secondly, a variety of misdemeanors have proliferated, including brazen telephone fraud, the theft of iron gates and manhole covers for scrap value, and even the theft of melons from farming communities and the theft of fish from fishing villages. Such crimes are never seriously investigated. They are crimes police usually ignore, but which cause people great suffering. Yet the object of this round of pardons is the perpetrators of these misdemeanors.

If the ship of state were on an even keel, commuting sentences to rehabilitate convicts and promote social harmony would not be an extreme measure. But on today's Taiwan, economic recession encourages the weak-willed to resort to theft or robbery, even as political confrontation leaves the public in a moral vacuum. At a time when the government has failed to maintain public safety, or rehabilitate chronic offenders, or prevent more people from taking the path toward crime, does it make sense to suddenly issue a wholesale pardon, and release large numbers of criminals back onto the streets? Is the government not concerned about adding fuel to the fire?

Consider several cases which occurred in the past week: A university co-ed in Hualien was attacked and raped at night on her way home. Fortunately villagers and fellow students were vigilant, and the perpetrator was captured. A few days ago, a man pushed his ex-wife over a cliff. If not for the persistence of the woman's family members, who looked in every direction and followed up every lead, the truth would never have come to light. Additional cases include the theft of two senior high school students' motor scooters and the theft of one university co-ed's purse. These cases were solved only when the victims themselves obtained security camera footage, then captured the perpetrators on their own initiative. When more and more people must depend on themselves to see justice done, one realizes the "Thin Blue Line" has long since vanished, and the public has long since ceased to expect anything from public authorities.

After the perpetrator of the attack on the Hualian university co-ed was captured, he confessed to six previous offenses; yet no record of of his crimes could be found in police archives. Whether the victims were intimidated into remaining silent, or the police dropped the cases down the memory hole, "public safety" on Taiwan is an empty fiction. Prime Minister Su's boast that "Public safety has taken a turn for the better" is a bare-faced lie. Yet Chen Shui-bian wants to use presidential pardons to demonstrate his "humanitarianism" toward felons? What is he doing to law-abiding citizens, except pouring salt in their wounds?

It is true that commuting sentences is the privilege of a head of state. But for Chen Shui-bian to do so for the wrong motives at the wrong time, merely reveals his callous indifference to the public's state of mind. Consider the extent to which the burden of coping with declining public safety on Taiwan has been shifted onto the shoulders of the private sector. Neighborhoods, high rise buildings, and businesses have all arrived at a point where not hiring private security guards means not having any security whatsoever. Even farming communities and university campuses have resorted to organizing "Self-Defense Brigades" to guard against criminal intrusions. Ordinary citizens have been compelled to invest more and more of their limited resources into providing their own security. The government, meanwhile, is more and more lackadaisical in its fight against crime. Does the ruling regime feel no shame? For years the ruling party has been at a complete loss in dealing with telephone fraud. Yet it has suddenly demanded that the newly established National Communications Commission (NCC) "assume responsibility." This kind of attitude reveals the Chen administration's buck passing attitude.

If Chen Shui-bian has the slightest empathy for public opinion, he should devote himself to improving the economy and reducing political provocations and ideological struggles. If Taiwan's economy could be improved, if poverty induced burglary and larceny could be reduced, that would demonstrate an ability to govern. The president has abandoned his key responsibilities. Ignoring what he must do, he is hoping to use "humanitarianism" as a pretext for an extravagant pardon of convicted felons, for purely political motives. This not only puts the cart before the horse, it is naked grandstanding and mass deception. How can such a fraudulent commutation of sentences, demonstrating sheer contempt for judicial independence, possibly be justified?

Having occupied the presidency for seven years, Chen Shui-bian has tasted all the power a head of state can ever hope to. He has abused that power and milked it for all it is worth. Confronted with a government in decay and a society in chaos, he chooses to engage in an ostentatious commutation of sentences. Does he really have public safety in mind, when he doesn't have the people in his heart? The president can pardon criminals, but can the people pardon escalating crime?

Original Chinese below:

總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.04.27 02:27 am

陳水扁欲實施全國性減刑，多數民眾的反應是不安和不平。請問：總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？

撇 開此舉的政治算計不談，從治安的角度看，幅度如此之大的減刑，兩萬人刑期縮減，七千受刑人可隨即釋放出獄，不僅對司法正義構成削損，對執法人員構成打擊， 對社會治安亦構成潛在威脅。陳水扁執政七年，無能把台灣建設成一個較安全、和諧的社會，卻在即將任滿前大肆減刑，這真是對總統特權的大揮霍。

近 幾年台灣重大刑事及經濟犯罪愈見嚴重，且法網愈形疏漏，僅看通緝犯排行榜，即一目了然。同時，犯罪型態也出現變化：一是「即興犯案」的比率大為提高，諸如 隨機搶劫超商，或隨機擄人強暴；這不僅大大增加了防範難度，也升高了民眾的恐懼。二是「微罪型」的犯罪層出不窮，包括囂張的電話詐騙，從未被認真偵辦的鐵 門、鐵蓋竊案，乃至農村漁村的偷瓜、偷魚賊。這大抵是警力最怠忽的一隅，卻也是全民受害、受擾最深的一環，但此次減刑的對象卻以這些微罪、輕罪犯為主。

如 果國家承平，藉減刑協助受刑人重獲新生，增進社會和諧，尚不失為積極之計。但以台灣目前的狀況，經濟萎縮逼使意志弱者走上偷搶，政治對峙導致人民精神缺乏 追求；此時，不檢討政府對治安的維護能力，不問國家對罪犯的矯正是否周全，不設法預防更多人民步入監獄，卻驟然實施大減刑，把大批人犯放出來，難道不怕助 長亂世的動盪？

且看最近一周發生的幾個案例：花蓮女大學生在夜歸途中遭襲擊強暴， 幸虧村民和同學機警，方才擒獲歹徒。此前數日，狠心男子將前妻推落山谷，若非女方家人鍥而不捨，自行四處查訪、過濾線索，奇冤如何大白？此外，包括兩樁高 中生機車失竊、女大學生皮包被偷，都是受害人自行調閱錄影帶，自力擒賊。當社會上越來越多人須靠自力救濟來討回公道，不啻意味治安防線已瀕於崩毀，人們對 公權力也已失去了寄望。

再看，襲擊花蓮女生的歹徒就擒後，承認自己曾犯下六案；然 而在警方的資料中，卻查不到紀錄。無論受害者是被迫噤聲或遭警方吃案，台灣的治安「黑洞」多麼幽深，已不言可喻。蘇揆誇稱「治安好轉」，分明是違心之論； 而陳水扁要用減刑向罪犯體現「人道」，這無異是選擇對善良百姓雪上加霜！

的確，減 刑是元首的特權，但陳水扁此時實施，不僅在錯誤的時機提出了錯誤的藉口，他也暴露自己對人民的心情毫無感應。試想，這幾年來台灣治安惡化的重擔，有極高的 比率已轉由民間自行承受。包括社區、大樓乃至企業，皆到了不僱用保全人員不足以保安的地步；連農村及大學校園也組織「自衛隊」，來防止歹徒入侵。人民投注 可觀的資源來維護自身安全，政府在治安陣線的心力反而愈形鬆散，執政者不愧對手中公權力嗎？就如執政黨幾年來對氾濫的電話詐騙束手無策，最近突然要求 NCC「負起責任」。這種作風，在在反映了扁政府「一推二託三狡賴」的本質！

陳水 扁如果對民意稍有感應，他應該致力拚經濟，減少政治的挑撥和鬥爭；若台灣經濟能有起色，「飢寒起盜心」式的偷竊詐欺自可減少，這才是治國之本。現在，總統 拋棄核心的施政責任不顧，卻欲假藉「人道」之名大縱放刑事罪犯，目的無非是為了選舉「割喉」的權謀算計，這不僅本末倒置，更是赤裸裸的欺世盜名。更別說， 施行減刑的手，還是全力侮蔑司法的貪瀆正犯；如此「名不正、言不順」的減刑，如何自圓其說？

當了七年總統，所有元首的權力滋味，作威作福，予取予求，陳水扁已品嘗俱足。面對國政頹唐，社會紛亂，即在臨去之際，他仍無度揮霍其減刑特權。他的心中既已沒有人民，怎麼會有治安？

Tutu gives Taiwan a Lesson in Transitional Justice

Tutu gives Taiwan a Lesson in Transitional Justice
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2007

During his recent trip to Taiwan, former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu shared South Africa's experience with the pursuit of transitional justice. To people from all walks of life, he stressed the importance of forgiveness and reconciliation. For Taiwan, which has also experienced ethnic antagonisms, Tutu's suggestion is worth heeding.

South Africa's situation is similar to Taiwan's in certain respects. In the past, political power remained firmly in the hands of the white minority. With the end of apartheid in 1994, the white South Africa government relinquished its hold on political power, and the African National Congress (ANC), led by Nelson Mandela, assumed power.

Even though South Africa experienced an earth-shaking change in its system, society did not descend into chaos, bloodshed, or an orgy of retaliation. Credit must be given to Mandela's warmth and openness, and to former president F.W. de Klerk's wisdom and courage. Tutu's long term criticism of ethnic apartheid, promotion of South African democratization, demands for the restoration of truth about South Africa's history, the dissolving of racial hatred, also deserve credit. One of the most important tasks following South Africa's political transition, was to reverse and compensate past injustices, in other words, implement "transitional justice." Hence the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with Tutu as president. Past victims of persecution appeared and testified one after the other, restoring the truth about South Africa's history, healing wounds, restoring justice, reaffirming society's norms and values, and serving as a warning to future generations.

The forgiveness and reconciliation Tutu mentioned is the foundation by which South Africa maintains social harmony and pursues national growth. Following political transition, no matter how large the gap between ethnic groups and political parties might be, everyone agrees that ethnic harmony must be maintained and any words or deeds inciting ethnic conflict must be opposed. By the same token, forgiveness and reconciliation must be Taiwan's way to dissolve differences and defuse hostilities.

Archbishop Tutu, who accepted a Taiwan Foundation for Democracy invitation to visit, made numerous statements awakening people to the truth. For example, while speaking with Lin Yi-hsiung, members of the audience asked, how can we reconcile when we haven't uncovered the murderer in the Lin Family Murder Case? Tutu responded that to forgive is something one can do on one's own initiative, that if one insists on waiting until the victimizer apologizes, then the victim will remain under the control of others forever.

The harm done to the victim by the victimizer can be divided into two kinds. The first kind is immediate violence or oppression. The second kind is long term trauma, rage, and anxiety. The victim cannot control the reality of the immediate violence or oppression. But the trauma, rage, and anxiety are phenomenon the victim can heal and overcome. It is not necessary to wallow in past grievances. It is even less necessary to be immobilized by rage and anxiety.

The victim often perceives himself as the weaker party, tends toward passivity, and thinks of the victimizer as the primary subject. Besides demanding punishment and compensation, the victim is seldom conscious of what he ought to do. Naturally, making excessive demands upon the victim is overly harsh. But in the process of pursuing transitional justice on Taiwan, we hope not only to restore justice and equality, to leave behind an example for later generations, but also to establish a happy home. We consider the act of exploiting ethnicity as a label, as a price, or even as a tool, a crime we must never repeat.

The responsibility of the victimizer is of course heaver. If one constantly shifts responsibility onto others, if one cannot face one's past mistakes, if one refuses to engage in self-introspection, if one refuses to apologize to and compensate the victim, then one can never escape the shadows of the past, never be free from accusations and condemnation, and never win the public trust.

During the "International Symposium on Transitional Justice and National Reconciliation" Tutu pointed out that people need merciful and gentle treatment, that the past will not simply vanish. If one refuses to acknowledge the past, the past will return to haunt us. The universe is just. Right and wrong will make themselves known. It may not look that way on the surface, but justice will prevail.

Long term political struggles have undermined Taiwan's ethnic harmony. But if victimizers are unwilling to engage in self-introspection and offer sincere apologies, and if victims remain mired in past grievances, then what will we bequeath ourselves and our children, other than a recurring legacy of trauma and rage?

If on the contrary, when faced with historical mistakes, one can find the courage to face one's responsibilities, if one is willing to open one's heart and forgive, if one is willing to overcome historical grievances and start anew, then one can liberate oneself from the bonds of the past and discover new opportunities for Taiwan's future. If South Africa, with its racial differences and color differences can strive for racial harmony and mutal prosperity, then Taiwan, with its homogeneous society, has no reason to adopt a policy of "kill or be killed."

The mistakes of history must not be forgotten. Victimizers must not be let off lightly, because the refusal to distinguish between right and wrong will sap a society's vitality. But even as we remember history, we must ask ourselves whether a society's cohesiveness and a nation's unity are to be founded on hatred, suspicion and rejection, or on love, tolerance, and reconciliation?

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報 中國時報
　2007.04.26
屠圖給台灣上了一堂「轉型正義」課
中時社論

最近正在台灣訪問的前南非大主教屠圖，此行不僅和台灣各界分享了南非追求轉型正義的經驗，更一再強調寬恕與和解的重要性。對於深受族群對立之苦的台灣，屠圖的建議，的確值得省思。

南 非的狀況其實和台灣有點類似，過去政權長期掌握在少數白人族群手中，一九九四年種族隔離政策終結後，白人政府讓出政權，曼德拉率領的非洲民族議會黨 （ＡＮＣ）接手執政。南非雖然經歷天翻地覆的體制變更，社會卻未陷入混亂失序或流血報復。這當然要歸功於曼德拉的溫暖開闊，和前總統戴克拉克的睿智與勇 氣。而屠圖長期以來批判種族隔離政策、推動南非民主化、還原歷史真相、化解族群恩怨的努力，同樣居功厥偉。

南非政權輪替後的最重要工作之一，是扭轉及補償之前的不公不義，也就是實現「轉型正義」。因此成立了真相與和解委員會，由屠圖擔任主席，昔日受迫害的人現身說法，一一還原歷史真相，撫平傷痛，重建正義標準與社會價值，也作為日後子孫的警惕。

屠圖所提到的寬恕與和解，是南非維持社會和諧追求國家成長的重要基礎。政權輪替以來，無論族群與政黨之間有多大歧見，至少都認同必須致力維護族群和諧，反對任何挑撥族群製造敵對的言行。同樣地，寬恕與和解，也將是台灣社會化解歧見消弭敵意的必要路徑。

接 受民主基金會邀請訪台的屠圖大主教，近日來在台灣發表了不少發人深省的談話。例如與林義雄對談時，有與會者質疑，沒有找到真相，如同林宅血案沒有凶手時， 又該如何和解？屠圖勉勵說，寬恕是可以主動的，如果必須等到加害者道歉，那受害者就永遠會受到控制。受害者應該主動把寬恕的禮物給別人，才不會永遠留在受 害者的角色。

的確，加害者對受害者的傷害有兩種。第一種是當下的暴力或壓迫，第二種是長期遺留的創傷、憤怒與恐懼。對於暴力傷害壓迫的事 實，受害者當時既不能控制，事後也無法抹滅，但創傷、憤怒與恐懼，受害者卻是可以癒療及超越的，不一定要永遠被過去的傷痛淹沒，更不一定要永遠被憎恨恐懼 捆綁得動彈不得。

受害者往往心態上自覺是弱者，傾向於被動、以加害者為主體對象的思考方式。除了要求加害者受到懲罰及提供賠償外，很少意 識到自己也該做些什麼。當然，過度要求受害者也失之嚴苛，但在台灣追求轉型正義的過程中，我們不僅希望重建公平正義的價值坐標，為後世留下可供遵循的良好 典範，也希望構建一個和諧幸福的美好家園。而曾經以族群為標籤、為代價、甚至為工具的各種可恥罪行，我們既覺昨日之非，當然務求永不重蹈覆轍。

相對於受害者，加害者的責任當然更為沉重。如果一味逃避推諉，不能勇敢面對過去的過錯，也不曾誠心反省、道歉及努力彌補受害者，那麼將永遠擺脫不了過去的陰影，無法讓指控與譴責停止，也不可能得到民眾的信任。

在「轉型正義與國族融合」研討會中，屠圖也指出，人需要慈悲與溫柔對待，過去不會就此消失；若不承認過去，過去會回來傷害我們，一定會後悔當時沒有面對過去。宇宙有道德感，是非對錯都會發生影響，也許表面上看不出來，但正義終究還是會勝利的。

不諱言地，長期以來，台灣社會的族群關係曾經深受政治鬥爭之害。但如果加害者不肯誠心反省道歉，受害者又耽溺於傷痛的過去，那麼，我們除了一再複製創傷與憤怒，還能給自己和孩子留下什麼有意義的東西？

相 反地，如果在面對歷史過錯時，能展現出勇氣與負責態度；如果願打開胸襟主動給予寬恕，勇敢跨越歷史傷痕重新出發，不僅能解開捆綁台灣的繩索，也能為台灣的 將來開拓新的機會。如果種族膚色不同的南非，都願努力追尋族群的共存共榮，那麼同文同種的台灣社會，更沒有理由必須廝殺得你死我活。

歷史的過錯不能遺忘，加害者不能輕易原諒，因為是非不分將毀壞一個社會的成長力量。然而，在不遺忘歷史的同時，我們還必須思索，一個社會的攜手前進，一個國家的團結發展，靠的是仇恨、猜忌與排擠，還是愛、包容、寬恕與和解？