Winning Office with Their Tongues. Staying in Office with Their Tongues
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 13, 2007
Annette Lu surprised everyone. She declared that "The attainment of political power truly does depend upon the ability to talk." It's possible of course that she misspoke. To stress the importance of speech-making, Lu said that wherever she and Chen Shui-bian spoke, she shook hands with everyone, smiled, and by doing so "racked up another vote." If the president and vice president were actually elected on the basis of their silver tongues, then the power of language truly is astonishing.
Chen Shui-bian won political office by means of his tongue. Now however, that same tongue is demeaning the people of Taiwan. "The Pacific Ocean doesn't have a lid on it." Chen declared, "Anyone who thinks China is so wonderful can swim over there!" Does the head of state intend to banish people from their own homes? Was he merely showing off his rhetorical skills, or did his words reflect the narrowness of his mind and the smallness of his heart? Annette Lu wants to underscore the astonishing power of language. Chen Shui-bian, ironically, is doing precisely that. He is providing us with an eloquent demonstration of how he and the Democratic Progressive Party rule the nation.
Chen Shui-bian is unrelenting while holding forth at campaign rallies. He is unrelenting while attacking his opponents. He is unrelenting while promoting his "political achievements." He has reached the point where he now says anything that comes to his mind. Political opponents and party comrades share this perception. Perhaps Annette Lu's indiscreet remark that "The attainment of political power truly does depend upon the ability to talk" was not wrong after all. Saying anything that comes to your mind may be a means of survival in the political jungle, but it is hardly something the average person considers worthy of respect. Chen Shui-bian's manner of speech has become an indicator for observers of Taiwan's political scene and social trends.
Chen Shui-bian's rhetoric comes in several varieties. The most common is what Annette Lu referred to as a way to "rack up another vote." Usually this involves issuing blank checks, making wildly irresponsible election promises. For example, Chen Shui-bian once shouted himself hoarse talking about his commitment to "rescuing the economy." But after holding a much ballyhooed economic summit, he let the entire matter drop. Now he is doing the same with his "Join the UN" campaign. Even Chen Shui-bian himself admits "Nothing will come of it." Yet the Democratic Progressive Party persists in squandering all sorts of resources on this utterly pointless campaign. They don't know how to rescue the economy. Yet they unblinkingly assure us that "our competitiveness equals South Korea's." Financial reform, judicial reform, and education reform have turned into debacles. Yet they unblinkingly assure us they intend to "persevere in their reforms." Such surrealistic election rhetoric, such bare-faced lies, use misleading data and rosy scenarios to deceive some voters. Their ability to govern has repeatedly fallen short of expectations, undermining Taiwan's economic development. This is why so many members of the public are openly complaining, straight to Chen Shui-bian's face, that they can no longer survive.
Chen Shui-bian has a second kind of rhetoric, one that divides society, foments civil unrest, manufactures opposition, and propagates hatred. This is Chen Shui-bian's most unforgiveable sin. Some have directly compared the harm inflicted upon social harmony to Hitler's politics of hate. Chen's remark "The Pacific Ocean has no lid. Swim to China if you like!" is merely the most recent example. Every time a member of the public expresses dissatisfaction with DPP misrule, he accuses them of being "Communists," "Chi-Com fellow travellers," or "Members of the Red Shirt Army." Rival political parties and candidates are slandered and vilified. Chiang Kai-Shek is labelled a murderer. Ma Ying-jeou is maligned as a "Traitor to Taiwan." Chen uses his status as head of state to foment social opposition. Postwar Germany learned a painful lesson. Germany's constitution prohibits language that foments racial opposition. A Bian has sown the seeds of hatred within Taiwan's society. Will it be necessary some day to establish legal standards to heal the wounds caused by this hatred?
Chen Shui-bian has a third kind of rhetoric, as demonstrated by his mean-spirited personality and cultural bankruptcy. He has put his foot in his mouth too many times to mention. He has mocked ordinary citizens with remarks such as "If you can no longer get by, what are you doing at a high end audio and video exhibit?" He has revealed the sort of person he is through his behavior. What sort of person is he? The public has already arrived at its own conclusions. Chen Shui-bian's offensive terminology and obstinate behavior has often been characterized as "lawerly" conduct. Many lawyers have complained that Chen Shui-bian has has tarnished lawyers' public image. A single individual's personal style has resulted in the negative stereotyping of an entire profession. What is this but a case of one bad apple spoiling the entire barrel?
The Democratic Progressive Party has been in power for nearly eight years. The public now complains openly to Chen Shui-bian's face wherever he goes. In response, the president says whatever comes to mind, wherever he goes. After attaining political office on the basis of their speaking ability, Chen and the DPP have no political achievements worth mentioning. So confesses Annette Lu, Chen Shui-bian's own running mate. Now that they are in power, their ability to talk is what they are relying on to maintain their power, as testified by the popular discontent they encounter wherever they go. To write his political legacy, Chen Shui-bian need only open his mouth.
當選只靠一張嘴‧執政也靠一張嘴
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.13 03:45 am
呂秀蓮語出驚人，聲稱拿到政權「真的是靠一張嘴」。這或許只是一場失言風波。呂秀蓮為強調演講的重要，說她和陳水扁到處演講，和大家握握手，微微笑，就「拐到選票」。正副總統搭檔如果真以舌粲蓮花就贏得選舉，只能說語言的力量太驚人。
不過，靠一張嘴贏得政權的陳水扁，同樣的一張嘴，卻也用來凌厲地傷害了台灣人民。「太平洋又沒加蓋，認為中國好可以游過去啊」，國家元首打算把老百姓掃地出門嗎？口出此言，是為展示伶牙俐齒的本事，還是如實反映了心中的褊狹刻薄呢？如果呂秀蓮所欲強調的是語言力量驚人，則陳水扁正是在運用這驚人的語言力量，展現了他個人和民進黨非同一般的執政風格。
陳水扁在競選場子中滔滔不絕，攻擊對手滔滔不絕，宣傳政績滔滔不絕，為自己和家人身陷貪腐風暴而強辯更是滔滔不絕。這種口才已達到了堪稱「口不擇言」的地步，不管是他的政治對手或黨內同僚恐怕都深有同感，也所以呂秀蓮的「靠一張嘴拿到政權」或許並非失言。但「口不擇言」即使是一種生存競爭的本領，卻未見得是一般人認定值得尊敬的人格特質。陳水扁的語言風格，遂成了觀察台灣政治、甚至影響社會風氣轉變的一個研究標的。
陳水扁的語言，大致有幾種類型。最常見、也就是呂秀蓮所謂拐騙選票用的，通常以買空賣空、虛誇不實的選舉語言為主。例如早先曾經聲嘶力竭要「拚經濟」，大張旗鼓開了經發會之後不了了之；如今以更加鋪天蓋地的手法搞入聯，連陳水扁也自承公投後「什麼事都不會發生」，民進黨卻仍賠盡各種行政資源在所不惜；經濟搞不好，仍睜眼說瞎話稱「競爭力不輸南韓」；金融改革、司法改革、教育改革皆一敗塗地，繼續面無愧色稱「堅持改革到底」。這種名實不副、簡直擺明說謊的選舉語言，以誤導性的資料和虛幻的願景麻痺了部分選民；但執政能力每下愈況的結果，是耽誤了台灣的發展機會，至今成為很多小民直接向陳水扁嗆聲「活不下去」的主因。
陳水扁語言的另一類型，以分裂社會、挑激族群、製造對立、散播仇恨為主。這是陳水扁的最大罪孽，有人痛批對族群感情的傷害效果直比希特勒的仇恨統治。「太平洋沒加蓋，可以游過去中國」只不過是最新例證而已；凡遇到民眾表達不滿即扣以紅帽子，或指為中共同路人，或歸為紅衫軍。對於競爭的政黨和對手當然是極盡抹黑和汙蔑能事，從罵蔣介石是殺人元凶到誣指馬英九「新賣台集團」種種，以國家元首的地位卻蓄意製造社會分裂。戰後德國痛定思痛，以憲法明文制止煽動族群對立的言論；如今的阿扁總統所向台灣社會散播的仇恨種子，有朝一日是否須待法律規範才可能修復這種傷痕？
陳水扁的語言另有一種類型，呈現了他尖酸刻薄的人格特質和浮淺貧血的文化底蘊。不管是用錯成語到「罄竹難書」的地步，或譏諷小市民「活不下去還能去看音響展」；就展現其人「人之所以為人」的素質而言，評價如何，已經在一般民眾之間形成公論。陳水扁尖刻傷人的用語和強辯到底的特色，輿論不時以「陳律師」予以形容，卻令很多律師同業抗議其誤導了律師的公眾形象。以一個人的風格即形塑了整個行業的刻板印象，難道不是「一粒老鼠屎，壞了一鍋粥」？
民進黨執政近八年，如今陳水扁所至，民眾嗆聲如影隨形，但總統猶四處遊走口無遮攔；「執政成績空白」與「只靠一張嘴」形成了強烈的反諷。當年拿到政權只靠一張嘴，由陳水扁競選搭檔的呂秀蓮親口證實；如今執政也只靠一張嘴，亦由民怨載道的政治現況所證實。陳水扁用一張嘴，寫下了他的執政紀錄。
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Who is Shamed when Arrogant Rulers demean Ordinary Citizens?
Who is Shamed when Arrogant Rulers demean Ordinary Citizens?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2007
For members of the public to complain about government right to the president and vice president's faces has virtually become a fashion. "Charlie" is a small businessman whose company recently went under. "Pearl" is a struggling meat vendor at a traditional farmer's market. The two have been in the public eye recently for daring to complain openly about the economy in front of the president and vice president. The real eye-opener however was President Chen and Vice President Lu's reaction. Chen and Lu referred to them as "members of the Red Shirt Army." They said they were "being used," that their remarks were scripted, and that they were part of a "conspiracy." Chen Shui-bian added that "The Pacific Ocean doesn't have a lid on it. Anyone who thinks China is so wonderful can swim over there." Ruling DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh said "Red Shirt Army and Deep Blue supporters shouldn't disguise themselves as ordinary citizens." Government Information Office spokesmen referred to citizens who dared to raise a voice against the government as "phony" and "affected."
What is going on here? Democratic Progressive Party leaders have long prided themselves on being close to the people, as those political leaders who were most in touch with the mood of the public. So why are they having fits of apoplexy when members of the public summon up the courage to criticize them to their faces? Why are they going so far as to reflexively label anyone who voices a complaint "members of the Red Shirt Army" and dismissing their impromptu protests as "staged?" Will demonizing everyone who complains really expunge the DPP's embarrassing political record?
In order to consolidate her credentials as a leader who "loves the people" our vice president filled her daily schedule with photo ops, during which she would be close to the people. But do you really wish to be close to the people? Do your really wish to take the public pulse? Are you really willing to listen to the people's feelings? Or do you merely wish to bask in public adulation? Unfortunately upon hearing these expressions of discontent, Frank Hsieh's "I feel your pain" posture completely vanished, and he openly challenged the identity of the protesters, saying that many of them didn't look like "ordinary members of the public." Suppose for the sake for argument that some of the protestors have "Red Shirt Army" or "Deep Blue supporter" backgrounds? Does that mean they are no longer members of the public? Aren't they tax-paying citizens? Don't they have the right to "The Pursuit of Happyness?" Do they somehow deserve to be harangued by the president? To have suspicion cast upon their character by the DPP presidential candidate? To be insulted by the Chief of the Government Information Office?
Think about it. If ordinary citizens' were content in their lives, why would they criticize the national leader to his face, at the risk of being forcibly removed by secret service agents? If every one of these critics of the government were "shills planted by conspirators" why do their vocal protests receive such a sympathetic response among the public? Is the ruling regime truly unaware that the people feel they can no longer survive? Or is it merely pretending to be unaware that this is the way most people feel today?
Face up to reality. You can talk up a storm. You can fabricate statistics. But objective reality cannot be covered up indefinitely. Hasn't the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics insisted that consumer prices have remained constant? Yet even legislators belonging to your own party can no longer remain silent. Haven't you been compelled to sharply revise consumer price statistics upward? Hasn't President Chen said that Taiwan's competitiveness exceeds South Korea's? Yet the latest international competitiveness reports clearly indicate that South Korea's competitiveness has surpassed Taiwan's. Past DPP misrule was blamed on "the mess left behind by the Kuomintang," on older generation Kuomintang civil service officials. You have now been in power for nearly eight years. You have all new DPP civil service officials. Do you intend to continue blaming your poor performance on others?
Besides, no matter how rosy your numbers, no matter how clever your sophistry, you cannot obliterate the public's direct experience. Do high-ranking officials living "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" have the faintest idea what ordinary citizens must do to get by? They must stretch their paychecks, only to find they are fighting a losing battle against rising prices. Shop owners must reduce their overhead, only to find that the rent they must pay increases month by month. Taxi drivers must economize, only to find that they cannot catch up with rising fuel costs. Do these officials know how many members of the public dare not complain about earning too little, for fear that what little they have may be lost? Tens of thousands of universities graduates must fight tooth and nail over some low paying entry level job. Not to mention countless citizens so desitute they are considering committing suicide by means of carbon monoxide. They ask only to get by on three meals a day. Are they all shills planted by the opposition? Are they all part of some vast conspiracy? Are their heart-rending lamentations all "phony" and "affected?"
One can only shake one's head and sigh at these exchanges of verbal fire between the head of state and ordinary citizens. High-ranking Green camp officials wielding the machinery of the leviathan state, using political rhetoric normally reserved for ideological battles with Blue camp spokespersons, against ordinary citizens, questioning their motives, accusing them of being shills, engaging them in verbal duels. For a national leader to take advantage of his bully pulpit to shout down an ordinary citizen who voices the simplest of complaints is hardly something to be proud of.
Neither "Charlie" nor "Pearl" are politicians. Like you and me, they are ordinary citizens, laboring away each day at their posts, whose lives are increasingly difficult day by day. They care nothing about the election prospects of the Blue or Green camps. They merely want to survive. They merely conveyed the public's sentiments to the nation's leaders. Their reward was vicious character attacks. These images, these words, will forever be carved in the consciousness of the Taiwan public.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.12
領導人傲慢對應民情 到底羞辱了誰
中時社論
民眾當面衝著元首、副元首嗆聲，最近彷彿成為一種風潮，「嗆聲查理」、「肉販阿珠」短時間內爆紅，但被嗆的陳總統與呂副總統的反應，倒真的令人大開眼界。除了一再回嗆他們是「紅衫軍」，是「被利用」、「被設計」外，陳水扁還說出「太平洋又沒加蓋，覺得中國好就游過去啊！」的語言，執政黨總統候選人謝長廷則說「紅衫軍、深藍支持者不要再假扮一般民眾」，政府發言人更是將嗆聲民眾形容成是「矯情、虛偽」。
這究竟是怎麼回事？一向自許為最貼近民眾，最能捕捉基層民眾心聲的民進黨領導人，面對民眾直接的嗆聲，為什麼會這麼氣急敗壞？甚至反射性就將嗆聲的民眾直接標籤為「紅衫軍」，都是「被設計的」，難道說將所有嗆聲民眾都「汙名化」，就能抹去「政績難堪」的事實嗎？
為了營造「親民」、「愛民」的形象，咱們的正副總統每天都排滿了貼近民眾的行程，但既曰「親近民眾」、「探求民隱」，難道只想領受「萬民擁戴」的假象，卻不願傾聽民眾真實的告白嗎？最令人遺憾的是謝長廷，聽聞這些嗆聲，原有「視民如傷」的情懷完全不見了，直接就質疑嗆聲民眾的身分識別，好似有不少人在他看來根本不屬於「一般民眾」，試想：嗆聲民眾中就算部分人真有「紅衫軍」或「深藍支持者」的背景，難道他們就不算是「一般民眾」？他們都不是納稅的公民？他們就沒資格要求過更好的生活？他們就活該可以被總統詛咒？被總統候選人質疑？被新聞局長羞辱？
嘗試想想：尋常百姓若是覺得日子過得安穩，何至於須要冒著被安全人員架離的危險，當面去向國家元首嗆聲？如果這一切都是「有心人士在幕後設計」，那為何「嗆聲的」反而得到共鳴？執政高層究竟是真不知道，還是假裝不知道，「日子快要過不下去」，早已是今天最多數民眾內心最真實的感受？
面對現實吧！口舌可以逞強，數據可以編造，但客觀的真相終究是掩蓋不了的，主計處的數據不是一路強調民生物價都很平穩嗎？現在連自己同黨立委都看不下去一致痛批，還不是得大幅往上修正！陳總統不是說台灣的競爭力贏過韓國嗎？最新的國際競爭力報告直截了當的公布，韓國的競爭力早已經超越了台灣！過去施政不佳，不是全推給國民黨留下的爛攤子，就是推給國民黨留下的舊官僚，如今執政快八年了，全換成是新官僚了，怎麼還是爛攤子的執政成績呢？
更何況，再好看的數據，再銳利的口才，終究掩飾不了民眾尋常生活的切身感受吧！那些平日錦衣玉食的高層可曾知曉：今天有多少民眾再怎麼精打細算，也拚不過日益高漲的物價？有多少店家再怎麼減少開支，也付不起日漸高漲的租金？有多少個計程車司機再怎麼撙節，也追不上攀高的油價？而更多的民眾如今早就不敢抱怨薪水領太少，而是擔憂連這份微薄的薪資都快領不到！成千上萬的大學畢業生為一分低薪低就的職缺擠破頭，更不必提無數窮到想燒炭的家庭，每日但只求三餐糊口了，請問這一切的一切，能怎麼事先「設計」？又能怎麼去表現「虛偽、矯情」呢？
目睹這些一而再、再而三的「元首與民眾互嗆」的畫面，最令人搖頭嘆息的地方，是這些操持國家機器的綠營高層們，竟把那些平日用來與藍營打口水戰的語言，整套搬來施加在一般民眾身上，質疑他們的動機，扣他們帽子，跟他們去比言詞機鋒。講實在話，一個國家領導人，利用優勢的發言位置，口舌上辯贏一個升斗小民最素樸的抱怨，有什麼值得自傲呢？
查理與阿珠都不是政客，他們與你我一樣都是尋常老百姓，每天辛勤的守在自己的崗位上努力工作，卻感覺生活越過越苦，他們才不管你藍綠什麼選情，只想生活過得下去。他們向國家領導人「訴說民情」，換來的卻是這樣近乎羞辱的回嗆，這幅畫面，這種語言，台灣人真該銘記在心裡！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2007
For members of the public to complain about government right to the president and vice president's faces has virtually become a fashion. "Charlie" is a small businessman whose company recently went under. "Pearl" is a struggling meat vendor at a traditional farmer's market. The two have been in the public eye recently for daring to complain openly about the economy in front of the president and vice president. The real eye-opener however was President Chen and Vice President Lu's reaction. Chen and Lu referred to them as "members of the Red Shirt Army." They said they were "being used," that their remarks were scripted, and that they were part of a "conspiracy." Chen Shui-bian added that "The Pacific Ocean doesn't have a lid on it. Anyone who thinks China is so wonderful can swim over there." Ruling DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh said "Red Shirt Army and Deep Blue supporters shouldn't disguise themselves as ordinary citizens." Government Information Office spokesmen referred to citizens who dared to raise a voice against the government as "phony" and "affected."
What is going on here? Democratic Progressive Party leaders have long prided themselves on being close to the people, as those political leaders who were most in touch with the mood of the public. So why are they having fits of apoplexy when members of the public summon up the courage to criticize them to their faces? Why are they going so far as to reflexively label anyone who voices a complaint "members of the Red Shirt Army" and dismissing their impromptu protests as "staged?" Will demonizing everyone who complains really expunge the DPP's embarrassing political record?
In order to consolidate her credentials as a leader who "loves the people" our vice president filled her daily schedule with photo ops, during which she would be close to the people. But do you really wish to be close to the people? Do your really wish to take the public pulse? Are you really willing to listen to the people's feelings? Or do you merely wish to bask in public adulation? Unfortunately upon hearing these expressions of discontent, Frank Hsieh's "I feel your pain" posture completely vanished, and he openly challenged the identity of the protesters, saying that many of them didn't look like "ordinary members of the public." Suppose for the sake for argument that some of the protestors have "Red Shirt Army" or "Deep Blue supporter" backgrounds? Does that mean they are no longer members of the public? Aren't they tax-paying citizens? Don't they have the right to "The Pursuit of Happyness?" Do they somehow deserve to be harangued by the president? To have suspicion cast upon their character by the DPP presidential candidate? To be insulted by the Chief of the Government Information Office?
Think about it. If ordinary citizens' were content in their lives, why would they criticize the national leader to his face, at the risk of being forcibly removed by secret service agents? If every one of these critics of the government were "shills planted by conspirators" why do their vocal protests receive such a sympathetic response among the public? Is the ruling regime truly unaware that the people feel they can no longer survive? Or is it merely pretending to be unaware that this is the way most people feel today?
Face up to reality. You can talk up a storm. You can fabricate statistics. But objective reality cannot be covered up indefinitely. Hasn't the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics insisted that consumer prices have remained constant? Yet even legislators belonging to your own party can no longer remain silent. Haven't you been compelled to sharply revise consumer price statistics upward? Hasn't President Chen said that Taiwan's competitiveness exceeds South Korea's? Yet the latest international competitiveness reports clearly indicate that South Korea's competitiveness has surpassed Taiwan's. Past DPP misrule was blamed on "the mess left behind by the Kuomintang," on older generation Kuomintang civil service officials. You have now been in power for nearly eight years. You have all new DPP civil service officials. Do you intend to continue blaming your poor performance on others?
Besides, no matter how rosy your numbers, no matter how clever your sophistry, you cannot obliterate the public's direct experience. Do high-ranking officials living "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" have the faintest idea what ordinary citizens must do to get by? They must stretch their paychecks, only to find they are fighting a losing battle against rising prices. Shop owners must reduce their overhead, only to find that the rent they must pay increases month by month. Taxi drivers must economize, only to find that they cannot catch up with rising fuel costs. Do these officials know how many members of the public dare not complain about earning too little, for fear that what little they have may be lost? Tens of thousands of universities graduates must fight tooth and nail over some low paying entry level job. Not to mention countless citizens so desitute they are considering committing suicide by means of carbon monoxide. They ask only to get by on three meals a day. Are they all shills planted by the opposition? Are they all part of some vast conspiracy? Are their heart-rending lamentations all "phony" and "affected?"
One can only shake one's head and sigh at these exchanges of verbal fire between the head of state and ordinary citizens. High-ranking Green camp officials wielding the machinery of the leviathan state, using political rhetoric normally reserved for ideological battles with Blue camp spokespersons, against ordinary citizens, questioning their motives, accusing them of being shills, engaging them in verbal duels. For a national leader to take advantage of his bully pulpit to shout down an ordinary citizen who voices the simplest of complaints is hardly something to be proud of.
Neither "Charlie" nor "Pearl" are politicians. Like you and me, they are ordinary citizens, laboring away each day at their posts, whose lives are increasingly difficult day by day. They care nothing about the election prospects of the Blue or Green camps. They merely want to survive. They merely conveyed the public's sentiments to the nation's leaders. Their reward was vicious character attacks. These images, these words, will forever be carved in the consciousness of the Taiwan public.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.12
領導人傲慢對應民情 到底羞辱了誰
中時社論
民眾當面衝著元首、副元首嗆聲，最近彷彿成為一種風潮，「嗆聲查理」、「肉販阿珠」短時間內爆紅，但被嗆的陳總統與呂副總統的反應，倒真的令人大開眼界。除了一再回嗆他們是「紅衫軍」，是「被利用」、「被設計」外，陳水扁還說出「太平洋又沒加蓋，覺得中國好就游過去啊！」的語言，執政黨總統候選人謝長廷則說「紅衫軍、深藍支持者不要再假扮一般民眾」，政府發言人更是將嗆聲民眾形容成是「矯情、虛偽」。
這究竟是怎麼回事？一向自許為最貼近民眾，最能捕捉基層民眾心聲的民進黨領導人，面對民眾直接的嗆聲，為什麼會這麼氣急敗壞？甚至反射性就將嗆聲的民眾直接標籤為「紅衫軍」，都是「被設計的」，難道說將所有嗆聲民眾都「汙名化」，就能抹去「政績難堪」的事實嗎？
為了營造「親民」、「愛民」的形象，咱們的正副總統每天都排滿了貼近民眾的行程，但既曰「親近民眾」、「探求民隱」，難道只想領受「萬民擁戴」的假象，卻不願傾聽民眾真實的告白嗎？最令人遺憾的是謝長廷，聽聞這些嗆聲，原有「視民如傷」的情懷完全不見了，直接就質疑嗆聲民眾的身分識別，好似有不少人在他看來根本不屬於「一般民眾」，試想：嗆聲民眾中就算部分人真有「紅衫軍」或「深藍支持者」的背景，難道他們就不算是「一般民眾」？他們都不是納稅的公民？他們就沒資格要求過更好的生活？他們就活該可以被總統詛咒？被總統候選人質疑？被新聞局長羞辱？
嘗試想想：尋常百姓若是覺得日子過得安穩，何至於須要冒著被安全人員架離的危險，當面去向國家元首嗆聲？如果這一切都是「有心人士在幕後設計」，那為何「嗆聲的」反而得到共鳴？執政高層究竟是真不知道，還是假裝不知道，「日子快要過不下去」，早已是今天最多數民眾內心最真實的感受？
面對現實吧！口舌可以逞強，數據可以編造，但客觀的真相終究是掩蓋不了的，主計處的數據不是一路強調民生物價都很平穩嗎？現在連自己同黨立委都看不下去一致痛批，還不是得大幅往上修正！陳總統不是說台灣的競爭力贏過韓國嗎？最新的國際競爭力報告直截了當的公布，韓國的競爭力早已經超越了台灣！過去施政不佳，不是全推給國民黨留下的爛攤子，就是推給國民黨留下的舊官僚，如今執政快八年了，全換成是新官僚了，怎麼還是爛攤子的執政成績呢？
更何況，再好看的數據，再銳利的口才，終究掩飾不了民眾尋常生活的切身感受吧！那些平日錦衣玉食的高層可曾知曉：今天有多少民眾再怎麼精打細算，也拚不過日益高漲的物價？有多少店家再怎麼減少開支，也付不起日漸高漲的租金？有多少個計程車司機再怎麼撙節，也追不上攀高的油價？而更多的民眾如今早就不敢抱怨薪水領太少，而是擔憂連這份微薄的薪資都快領不到！成千上萬的大學畢業生為一分低薪低就的職缺擠破頭，更不必提無數窮到想燒炭的家庭，每日但只求三餐糊口了，請問這一切的一切，能怎麼事先「設計」？又能怎麼去表現「虛偽、矯情」呢？
目睹這些一而再、再而三的「元首與民眾互嗆」的畫面，最令人搖頭嘆息的地方，是這些操持國家機器的綠營高層們，竟把那些平日用來與藍營打口水戰的語言，整套搬來施加在一般民眾身上，質疑他們的動機，扣他們帽子，跟他們去比言詞機鋒。講實在話，一個國家領導人，利用優勢的發言位置，口舌上辯贏一個升斗小民最素樸的抱怨，有什麼值得自傲呢？
查理與阿珠都不是政客，他們與你我一樣都是尋常老百姓，每天辛勤的守在自己的崗位上努力工作，卻感覺生活越過越苦，他們才不管你藍綠什麼選情，只想生活過得下去。他們向國家領導人「訴說民情」，換來的卻是這樣近乎羞辱的回嗆，這幅畫面，這種語言，台灣人真該銘記在心裡！
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Election Laws: From Anti-corruption to Pro-corruption
Election Laws: From Anti-corruption to Pro-corruption
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 8, 2007
Tomorrow is the deadline for the Legislative Yuan to announce its legislative elections. Fortunately the Legislative Yuan amended the election laws and completed a third reading on November 6. This avoids a situation in which the Central Election Committee has no legal basis to hold a legislative election, but instead issues an administrative order. The bizarre procedures this bill underwent during its passage reveal how both the Blue and Green camps abet corruption, kill off smaller political parties, and engage in self-serving behavior. Its passage has inflicted serious damage to our nation's electoral politics.
Take for example, the procedure for the amending and reviewing of laws, specifically the provisions for the original review committee and the legislature's two readings. These provisions suddenly turned up during the final stages of the amendment and review process, and were exempted from any discussion or vote by committee members. They were the result of secret, quid pro quo, backroom deals by representatives of the ruling and opposition parties. The Legislative Yuan's party consultative mechanisms were intended only for the review stages, for objections or reservations about articles within a bill. Instead, they were misused to give the amendments a second reading. Legally, only revisions to the swording can be made during the third reading, after consultation with political parties. The two main political camps were hijacked by the non-partisan alliance, and forced to overturn the anti-corruption provisions already reviewed and passed. How are the ruling and opposition parties going to explain the overturning of anti-corruption provisions and the substitution of provisions that abet corruption? The two parties violated the proper procedure for amending the laws. They inflicted grave damage to the second reading review mechanism and the committee review system. Their negative precedent means that future Legislative Yuan amendments will be reduced to undisguised partisan quid pro quo deal-making, carried out in smoke-filled rooms. Ordinary lawmakers unable to participate in political party consultations will be reduced to backstring benchwarmers, unable to influence policy or represent their constituents.
The legislature's amending of the election laws directly impacted legislators' personal interests as political candidates. That is why they ignored public objections and eliminated the anti-corruption provisions. But only last week, during preliminary review of bills for water management districts, the Legislative Yuan forthrightly added provisions against corruption, ruling that individuals with organized crime backgrounds be disqualified as candidates for water management district managers or committee members. Even a quasi-public water management district election requires explicit anti-corruption provisions. How can one justify the elimination of anti-corruption provisions for regular public servants? The Legislative Yuan's double standards and callous trampling over the rule of law do not pass muster with the public. The purpose of amending the election laws was to ensure the legality of the election process. But the provisions for reducing the size of the legislature by half, for a single winner, one person/two votes system, were already passed in June of 2005. The legislature should have amended the election laws long ago. What was their motive for waiting until the Central Election Committee's deadline, if not to allow the non partisan alliance to hijack the two major parties? The legislature's initial indolence and eventual haste enabled it to be hijacked and undermined the quality of the legislation.
The amendment process seriously damaged democracy and the rule of law. The content of the amendment is an even greater threat to the continued viability of the election process. For example, the new law stipulates that if small parties or new parties wish to register candidates for legislators at large or overseas legislators, they must have five serving legislators or nominate ten legislators. This new requirement means that small parties or new parties must spend nearly three million dollars in registration fees to nominate legislators at large. No wonder people suspect the two major parties of trying to kill off small parties. Another example is increasing campaign limits for legislative elections to 10 million dollars. Legislators make less than 10 million dollars in official salary during their four years in office. No wonder legislators are suspected of making provisions for vote buying. In truth many legislators' election expenses have not exceeded 10 million dollars. Therefore relaxing the upper limit doesn't mean much. It is not enough to change the current situation, in which actual expenses do not match the amounts declared. It does not promote cleaner elections, nor does it discourage vote buying.
The new election law also provides for increased government control over the content of political programming. It is nominally aimed at the fairness of political talk shows on domestic broadcast radio and television. But it is easy to see how such laws could limit freedom of expression. Besides, how does one determine what is fair? Laws do not enforce themselves. The new law may have been intended as a reference standard, but it has instead merely undermined the credibility of the legislature.
The Legislative Yuan's amending of the election laws is highly questionable, both in terms of procedure and content. It is covered with the chisel marks of selfish partisan and personal political motives. The two major political parties, together with the non partisan alliance, formed a partnership in crime. The decadence of our nation's parliamentary democracy is deeply distressing. With such a self-serving, abnormal legislature, how can we have a normal nation, with a normal democratic system, governed by the rule of law?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.08
從排黑到護黑：越修越糟的選罷法
中時社論
趕在明天就要依法進行立委選舉公告的最後關頭，立法院總算在六日將選罷法修正案予以及時完成三讀立法程序，也避免中選會要在沒有法源依據的情況下以權宜的 行政命令方式公告立委選舉。不過這項修正案不論就審議修法過程中的諸多荒謬現象，以至修正案的諸多爭議條文，確已十足凸顯立院藍綠兩大陣營「縱容黑金，夾 殺小黨」，私心自用的真面目，更將對我國未來民主選舉政治運作造成重大傷害。
首先值得檢討抵制的，無疑在於修法審議過程中的諸多爭議做 法。其中最為嚴重的是原始審查會與院會二讀通過的條款，竟在最後階段出現變盤，完全未經委員複議和公開討論表決的程序，而是由朝野黨團協商代表闢室密談進 行赤裸裸政黨利益交換的結果。本來立法院的政黨協商機制，只應計對委員會審查階段有異議而予保留的條文，但選罷法修正案不只已通過委員會來查，甚至也已完 成院會二讀程序，依法三讀階段只能就法條文字做斟酌損益的修改，詎料經過政黨協商，兩大黨團竟遭無黨聯盟的綁架，硬是將原已審查通過的擴大排黑條款予以翻 案封殺。姑不論立院朝野黨團如何解釋為什麼要把排黑條款翻轉為護黑條款，此舉確已違逆了立院自訂立院修法程序的程序正義，更是對委員會審查制度乃至於院會 二讀審議機制的嚴重破壞。我們更擔心此等惡例一開，未來立法院的議事修法將只剩下政黨協商代表在密室進行赤裸裸的利益交換而已。未能廁身參與政黨協商的一 般立委，則將淪為只是聊備一格的板凳立委、二軍立委。
同樣值得關切的是，立院這次修正選罷法，由於直接關係立委自身的參選權益，因而不 顧民情期待封殺排黑條款，但是就在上周，立法院相關委員會於初審農田水利會修正案時，可是正氣凜然的新增排黑條款，規範有流氓背景者不得登記為水利會會 長、會務委員的候選人。如果屬於準公法人性質的水利會選舉都要明列排黑條款，對正規的公職人員選舉卻要硬生生地封殺排黑條款。立法院這種雙重標準的立法模 式，不只不足以服眾，更是對法治制度無情的踐踏。再者，立院此次修法，是為了讓透過修憲更改的立委選制有一個合法的運作程序，但是依憲確立單一選區兩票制 及席次減半的條款可是在九十四年六月就已通過，按說立院早應據以完成選罷法的修正，豈有等到明天中選會即要發布立委選舉公告的最後關頭，才匆匆完成修法。 也正因為修法時限的緊迫，讓無盟黨團有綁架兩大黨的空間。於此更可見立院立法怠惰於先，匆促立法於後，不只影響立法品質，更足以滋生遭綁架裹脅的後遺症。
除了修法過程嚴重破壞民主法制，就實質修法內容予以檢視，則更不啻是在扼殺民主選舉的生機。舉其犖犖大者而言，新法規定小黨或新黨要登記參選不分區及僑選 立委，必須要有五名現任立委或提名區域立委十人以上，這項規定的現實意義就是小黨或新黨要參與不分區立委選舉的入場券為近三百萬元，難怪被質疑是兩大黨夾 殺小黨參選生機的門檻。又如放寬競選經費的上限立委為一千萬元，而立委四年任期的薪資總和甚至還不到一千萬元，因而也被質疑為是縱容黑金買票。惟就此而 論，事實上立委選舉的實際花費鮮有不超過千萬元者，因此修正放寬上限並沒有太大實質意義，更不足以改變目前選舉經費申報名實不副的現狀，對改善選舉風氣、 杜絕賄選歪風可說全無助益。
此外，值得一談的是新選罷法也增訂了政論節目公平條款，這雖是針對目前國內廣電政論節目的公正性備受質疑所 為的補救性條款。但是這樣的條文，一來可能要被視為有限縮媒體言論表述自由之虞，另方面實際運作時又如何認定公平、公正，屆時不是會引發爭議，就是徒法不 足以自行，只能聊備一格，反而踐踏了立法的威信。
綜而觀之，立法院此次修改選罷法，不論程序或實質內容，可以說爭議極大，更充斥政黨與政客私利考量的斧鑿痕跡。眼看兩大政黨併同無盟，形成共犯結構，令人對我國議會民主政治的墮落深感痛心。有這麼私心自用的不正常國會，又怎會有正常的國家和正常的民主法制？
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 8, 2007
Tomorrow is the deadline for the Legislative Yuan to announce its legislative elections. Fortunately the Legislative Yuan amended the election laws and completed a third reading on November 6. This avoids a situation in which the Central Election Committee has no legal basis to hold a legislative election, but instead issues an administrative order. The bizarre procedures this bill underwent during its passage reveal how both the Blue and Green camps abet corruption, kill off smaller political parties, and engage in self-serving behavior. Its passage has inflicted serious damage to our nation's electoral politics.
Take for example, the procedure for the amending and reviewing of laws, specifically the provisions for the original review committee and the legislature's two readings. These provisions suddenly turned up during the final stages of the amendment and review process, and were exempted from any discussion or vote by committee members. They were the result of secret, quid pro quo, backroom deals by representatives of the ruling and opposition parties. The Legislative Yuan's party consultative mechanisms were intended only for the review stages, for objections or reservations about articles within a bill. Instead, they were misused to give the amendments a second reading. Legally, only revisions to the swording can be made during the third reading, after consultation with political parties. The two main political camps were hijacked by the non-partisan alliance, and forced to overturn the anti-corruption provisions already reviewed and passed. How are the ruling and opposition parties going to explain the overturning of anti-corruption provisions and the substitution of provisions that abet corruption? The two parties violated the proper procedure for amending the laws. They inflicted grave damage to the second reading review mechanism and the committee review system. Their negative precedent means that future Legislative Yuan amendments will be reduced to undisguised partisan quid pro quo deal-making, carried out in smoke-filled rooms. Ordinary lawmakers unable to participate in political party consultations will be reduced to backstring benchwarmers, unable to influence policy or represent their constituents.
The legislature's amending of the election laws directly impacted legislators' personal interests as political candidates. That is why they ignored public objections and eliminated the anti-corruption provisions. But only last week, during preliminary review of bills for water management districts, the Legislative Yuan forthrightly added provisions against corruption, ruling that individuals with organized crime backgrounds be disqualified as candidates for water management district managers or committee members. Even a quasi-public water management district election requires explicit anti-corruption provisions. How can one justify the elimination of anti-corruption provisions for regular public servants? The Legislative Yuan's double standards and callous trampling over the rule of law do not pass muster with the public. The purpose of amending the election laws was to ensure the legality of the election process. But the provisions for reducing the size of the legislature by half, for a single winner, one person/two votes system, were already passed in June of 2005. The legislature should have amended the election laws long ago. What was their motive for waiting until the Central Election Committee's deadline, if not to allow the non partisan alliance to hijack the two major parties? The legislature's initial indolence and eventual haste enabled it to be hijacked and undermined the quality of the legislation.
The amendment process seriously damaged democracy and the rule of law. The content of the amendment is an even greater threat to the continued viability of the election process. For example, the new law stipulates that if small parties or new parties wish to register candidates for legislators at large or overseas legislators, they must have five serving legislators or nominate ten legislators. This new requirement means that small parties or new parties must spend nearly three million dollars in registration fees to nominate legislators at large. No wonder people suspect the two major parties of trying to kill off small parties. Another example is increasing campaign limits for legislative elections to 10 million dollars. Legislators make less than 10 million dollars in official salary during their four years in office. No wonder legislators are suspected of making provisions for vote buying. In truth many legislators' election expenses have not exceeded 10 million dollars. Therefore relaxing the upper limit doesn't mean much. It is not enough to change the current situation, in which actual expenses do not match the amounts declared. It does not promote cleaner elections, nor does it discourage vote buying.
The new election law also provides for increased government control over the content of political programming. It is nominally aimed at the fairness of political talk shows on domestic broadcast radio and television. But it is easy to see how such laws could limit freedom of expression. Besides, how does one determine what is fair? Laws do not enforce themselves. The new law may have been intended as a reference standard, but it has instead merely undermined the credibility of the legislature.
The Legislative Yuan's amending of the election laws is highly questionable, both in terms of procedure and content. It is covered with the chisel marks of selfish partisan and personal political motives. The two major political parties, together with the non partisan alliance, formed a partnership in crime. The decadence of our nation's parliamentary democracy is deeply distressing. With such a self-serving, abnormal legislature, how can we have a normal nation, with a normal democratic system, governed by the rule of law?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.08
從排黑到護黑：越修越糟的選罷法
中時社論
趕在明天就要依法進行立委選舉公告的最後關頭，立法院總算在六日將選罷法修正案予以及時完成三讀立法程序，也避免中選會要在沒有法源依據的情況下以權宜的 行政命令方式公告立委選舉。不過這項修正案不論就審議修法過程中的諸多荒謬現象，以至修正案的諸多爭議條文，確已十足凸顯立院藍綠兩大陣營「縱容黑金，夾 殺小黨」，私心自用的真面目，更將對我國未來民主選舉政治運作造成重大傷害。
首先值得檢討抵制的，無疑在於修法審議過程中的諸多爭議做 法。其中最為嚴重的是原始審查會與院會二讀通過的條款，竟在最後階段出現變盤，完全未經委員複議和公開討論表決的程序，而是由朝野黨團協商代表闢室密談進 行赤裸裸政黨利益交換的結果。本來立法院的政黨協商機制，只應計對委員會審查階段有異議而予保留的條文，但選罷法修正案不只已通過委員會來查，甚至也已完 成院會二讀程序，依法三讀階段只能就法條文字做斟酌損益的修改，詎料經過政黨協商，兩大黨團竟遭無黨聯盟的綁架，硬是將原已審查通過的擴大排黑條款予以翻 案封殺。姑不論立院朝野黨團如何解釋為什麼要把排黑條款翻轉為護黑條款，此舉確已違逆了立院自訂立院修法程序的程序正義，更是對委員會審查制度乃至於院會 二讀審議機制的嚴重破壞。我們更擔心此等惡例一開，未來立法院的議事修法將只剩下政黨協商代表在密室進行赤裸裸的利益交換而已。未能廁身參與政黨協商的一 般立委，則將淪為只是聊備一格的板凳立委、二軍立委。
同樣值得關切的是，立院這次修正選罷法，由於直接關係立委自身的參選權益，因而不 顧民情期待封殺排黑條款，但是就在上周，立法院相關委員會於初審農田水利會修正案時，可是正氣凜然的新增排黑條款，規範有流氓背景者不得登記為水利會會 長、會務委員的候選人。如果屬於準公法人性質的水利會選舉都要明列排黑條款，對正規的公職人員選舉卻要硬生生地封殺排黑條款。立法院這種雙重標準的立法模 式，不只不足以服眾，更是對法治制度無情的踐踏。再者，立院此次修法，是為了讓透過修憲更改的立委選制有一個合法的運作程序，但是依憲確立單一選區兩票制 及席次減半的條款可是在九十四年六月就已通過，按說立院早應據以完成選罷法的修正，豈有等到明天中選會即要發布立委選舉公告的最後關頭，才匆匆完成修法。 也正因為修法時限的緊迫，讓無盟黨團有綁架兩大黨的空間。於此更可見立院立法怠惰於先，匆促立法於後，不只影響立法品質，更足以滋生遭綁架裹脅的後遺症。
除了修法過程嚴重破壞民主法制，就實質修法內容予以檢視，則更不啻是在扼殺民主選舉的生機。舉其犖犖大者而言，新法規定小黨或新黨要登記參選不分區及僑選 立委，必須要有五名現任立委或提名區域立委十人以上，這項規定的現實意義就是小黨或新黨要參與不分區立委選舉的入場券為近三百萬元，難怪被質疑是兩大黨夾 殺小黨參選生機的門檻。又如放寬競選經費的上限立委為一千萬元，而立委四年任期的薪資總和甚至還不到一千萬元，因而也被質疑為是縱容黑金買票。惟就此而 論，事實上立委選舉的實際花費鮮有不超過千萬元者，因此修正放寬上限並沒有太大實質意義，更不足以改變目前選舉經費申報名實不副的現狀，對改善選舉風氣、 杜絕賄選歪風可說全無助益。
此外，值得一談的是新選罷法也增訂了政論節目公平條款，這雖是針對目前國內廣電政論節目的公正性備受質疑所 為的補救性條款。但是這樣的條文，一來可能要被視為有限縮媒體言論表述自由之虞，另方面實際運作時又如何認定公平、公正，屆時不是會引發爭議，就是徒法不 足以自行，只能聊備一格，反而踐踏了立法的威信。
綜而觀之，立法院此次修改選罷法，不論程序或實質內容，可以說爭議極大，更充斥政黨與政客私利考量的斧鑿痕跡。眼看兩大政黨併同無盟，形成共犯結構，令人對我國議會民主政治的墮落深感痛心。有這麼私心自用的不正常國會，又怎會有正常的國家和正常的民主法制？
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The Significance of 2.6 Million Signatures on the Petition to Join the UN
The Significance of 2.6 Million Signatures on the Petition to Join the UN
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 7, 2007
One must not underestimate the significance of the 2.6 million signatures on the Democratic Progressive Party's "Petition to Join the UN." If each petitioner pulls in an additional 1.5 signatures for the presidential election, then the Hsieh/Su ticket will receive 6.7 million votes. If so a Hsieh/Su victory is already in hand.
For each person to pull in an additional 1.5 votes is within the realm of possibility. If they fail to achieve this, it will be due to two reasons: One, these 2.6 million signatures represent the upper limit of support for the Democratic Progressive Party. Society's repugnance for the Democratic Progressive Party's corruption and incompetentence is intense. Little support can be found for the DPP beyond these 2.6 million signatures. Two, the Kuomintang and Pan Blues will find a way to inspire voters, and prevent the Democratic Progressive Party's support from expanding beyond these 2.6 million petitioners.
The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is different from the 2004 "Guided Missile Plebiscite" and "Cross Straits Plebiscite." In 2004 the two plebiscites were "Presidential Plebiscites" which bypassed the bottom up petition drive process. It was akin to the unidirectional Web 1.0. The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is a bottom up "Petitioners' Plebiscite." It is akin to the interactive Web 2.0. The "Petitioners' Plebiscite" has already become an interactive machine for political mobilization. This of course is one reason why the Referendum Law strictly prohibits the government from sponsoring petition drives for plebisicites in the first place.
The purpose of the petition drive for the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is to "package deal" the plebiscite with the presidential election. It has meaning on two levels: First, those who signed the petition have in effect publicly declared that they intend to vote for the Democratic Progressive Party. Breaking through the 2.6 million mark may lead to a form of herd behavior. Second, those who signed the petition consider their motive for signing the "Petition to Join the UN" to be "Love for Taiwan." They consider it an act of transcendence. By this time, the Democratic Progressive Party's corruption and incompetence have either faded from the petitioner's memory, or receded to secondary significance. They are no longer the determinant that will decide how he or she will vote. By this time, the Democratic Progressive Party has already benefitted from the shift in voter focus.
The reasons why the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" has made so much progress to date are manifold. This paper mentioned one reason in an editorial. The Kuomintang, in response to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN," has chosen to fan the smoke of Taiwanese consciousness. It lacks the determination to extinguish the flames of Taiwan independence consciousness. Even the US has implied that the "Plebsicite to Join the UN" is a "Taiwan independence Plebiscite" and said that it was both unnecessary and counterproductive. Yet the Kuomintang chose to affirm the "Taiwanese consciousness" embodied within the plebiscite. It hasn't had the courage to confront the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" at the level of "Taiwan independence consciousness." So far the Kuomintang has failed to draw a clear distinction between its own "Plebiscite to Rejoin the UN" and the Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN." Instead it has jumped on the bandwagon, effectively endorsing the Democratic Progressive Party's election platform.
Another reason is that the Democratic Progressive Party has flagrantly misappropriated government funds and coerced civil service officials into participating in "Plebiscite to Join the UN" activities. There is little doubt it has violated the Referendum Law. But the Kuomintang has no effective countermeasures. This has encouraged the Democratic Progressive Party to up its ante and behave even more unscrupulously. The Democratic Progressive Party argues that that the government merely initiated a movement to "Join the UN," that it never promoted a plebiscite. It argues that "Joining the UN is something both the Blue and Green camps agree upon," and that the "Kuomintang is also sponsoring a Rejoin the UN campaign." The Kuomintang has allowed itself to come under attack from all sides. Chen Shui-bian has publicly admitted that his intention all along was to package deal the plebiscite with the presidential election. The Kuomintang has watched idly as Chen Shui-bian misappropriated public funds and coerced civil service officials into participating in their plebiscite/election. The Democratic Progressive Party has been using the state treasury as its war chest, and government agencies as its campaign committee. The evidence is clear, yet the Kuomintang has done nothing. Only when the Central Election Committee announced its "single stage balloting process" did the Kuomintang belatedly realize it had to take action.
The impact of over 2.6 million people signing the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" petition must not be underestimated. As noted earlier, one of factors that led to this state of affairs is the public's lack of vigilance regarding the distinction between "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Taiwan independence consciousness." This has enabled the Democratic Progressive Party to play with the fires of "Taiwan independence consciousness," and to raise clouds of Taiwanese consciousness smoke. This has enabled the DPP to use the smoke of Taiwanese consciousness to hide the fire of Taiwan independence consciousness. Another factor is widespread indifference to the Democratic Progressive Party's violations of the constitution and the law. The ruling DPP has misappropriated public funds and dragooned civil service officials into the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign. The judiciary and the general public neither care about right and wrong, nor are they able to do anything about it.
The 2.6 million person petition drive on behalf of a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" amounts to the biggest hijacking incident in history. If the base of 2.6 million petitioners can be expanded to its full extent, it will amount to the most formidable political machine in history. The Kuomintang is surrounded on all sides, like the defenders of the Alamo. This late in the game, it has at most five countermeasures: One: File suit against the government for violating the Referendum Law. But do prosecutorial agencies have the courage to prosecute? Two: Demand a constitutional interpretation. Accuse the government of violating the Referendum Law. Again, can the Council of Grand Justices actually be believed? Three: Attempt to draw a bright line of distinction between "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Championing of Taiwan independence." Done skillfully, this could pull the rug out from under the Green camp. If the fires of Taiwan independence can be extinguished, the smoke of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" will dissipate. But does the Kuomintang have the ability to tackle this issue? If it does not, then the Republic of China, nourished by the blood of martyrs, will perish due to Kuomintang ineptitude, routed by the stillborn fetus that is the "Nation of Taiwan." Four: The Kuomintang can attempt to set the election agenda, It can make the most of its candidate's character traits and appeal to the electorate's economic hopes and aspirations. But does the Kuomintang have this ability? Five: The Kuomintang can win the legislative election. On the strength of a legislative victory, it can set the tone for the presidential election to come. But the question as always is, does the Kuomintang have this ability?
The Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN" petition drive has collected 2.6 million signatures. This is nothing to sneeze at. If these 2.6 million petitioners can pull in enough additional votes, the future will already be decided.
解讀入聯公投連署逾二六○萬人
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.07 03:38 am
不可輕估民進黨「入聯公投」連署達二六八萬人的意義。倘若每名連署人，能在總統大選另拉到約一‧五名未連署者，謝蘇配的得票水位即可達六七○萬票。倘係如此，謝蘇配已是勝券在握。
依情理而論，一人另拉一‧五票，應屬可能。倘若作不到，不外二種原因：一、這逾二六○萬連署，已是民進黨刨地三尺所得；但社會對民進黨的貪腐無能反感極大，二六○萬連署者向外拉票的能量有限。二、國民黨及泛藍能拿出有效方法，感動選民，阻止民進黨二六○
萬連署人向外擴展的連鎖效應。
此 次「入聯公投」，與二○○四的「買飛彈公投」及「兩岸關係公投」不同。二○○四的兩項公投是「總統公投」，由上而下，未經連署，猶如單向操作的 Web1.0；但此次「入聯公投」則是由下而上的「連署公投」，猶如雙向互動的Web2.0。如今，「連署公投」不啻已經成為雙向互動的「選舉動員」機 器；這也正是《公投法》嚴禁政府發動「連署公投」的原因之一。
連署「入聯公投」的作用，是在「公投綁大選」，有兩層意義：一、簽名連署者 形同公開表態願將選票投給民進黨；而連署人數衝破二六○萬，更可使連署的「眾趨行為」更具社會示範效應。二、連署者接受了「入聯公投」，自認為連署的動機 在「愛台灣」，人格境界儼然進入昇華；此時，民進黨的貪腐無能已在連署者腦中消失，或退居次位，不再成為影響其投票的因素。於是，民進黨已收轉移選戰焦點 之效。
「入聯公投」取得今日進展，因素非止一端。原因之一是，如本報社論日前所說，國民黨在因應「入聯公投」時，只知「搧台灣意識的煙， 未能滅台獨意識的火」；連美國當局都將「入聯公投」暗指為「台獨公投」，並謂其「不必且不利」；但國民黨卻僅知在「台灣意識層次」肯定公投，而未能在「台 獨意識層次」討論「入聯公投」的底蘊。迄今為止，國民黨並未將其「返聯公投」與民進黨的「入聯公投」作出明確的「差異化」，反而成了「拿香跟拜」，形同為 民進黨背書。
另一原因是，民進黨公然動支政府公帑及動員公務員參與「入聯公投」活動，確有是否違反《公投法》的疑義。但是，國民黨在這方 面迄無有效反制，遂使民進黨變本加厲，更加肆無忌憚。民進黨說，政府只是發動「入聯」，並未鼓吹「公投」，再加上一句「入聯已是藍綠共識，國民黨亦倡返 聯」，國民黨就陷於全面挨打的地位。其實，陳水扁亦公開承認，「公投」之目的就是「綁大選」；國民黨卻眼看著陳水扁用盡公帑及公務員去「綁大選」，形同用 國庫及政府為民進黨輔選；事態如此昭然，國民黨竟仍是無計可施。直至中選會擬採「一階段領投票」，國民黨才知採取較強硬的反制行動。
「入 聯公投」連署超過二六○萬人，其效應不可輕估。如前所述，情勢之所以進展至今，主因之一是，社會大眾對「台灣意識」與「台獨意識」的分際沒有警覺，致使民 進黨得以「操作台獨意識的火，燒起台灣意識的煙；又用台灣意識的煙，掩飾台獨意識的火」。另一主因則是，司法及社會對民進黨違憲違法，動員公帑及公務員推 動「入聯公投」的罪行，既無是非心，又無制裁力。
二六○萬人連署「入聯公投」，已形成選舉史上最大的「綁票工程」；而二六○萬連署人向外 擴展的拉票能量若充分施展，亦是選舉史上最強大的動員機器。國民黨處此情境，已如四面楚歌。亡羊補牢，不外五途：一、訴訟，控告政府違反《公投法》，但檢 察機關有勇氣查察嗎？二、釋憲，指控政府違反《公投法》，同樣的，大法官會議能相信嗎？三、設法將「台灣意識」與「台獨主張」徹底區隔清楚，釜底抽薪， 「台獨」的「真火」若熄了，「入聯」的「假煙」就會散去；但是，國民黨有能力處理這個議題嗎？否則，何以一個血汗凝結的中華民國，在國民黨的操作下，卻一 直敵不過台灣國那個政治死胎？四、國民黨設法扭轉選戰主題，向候選人人格特質及民生願景發展；但是，國民黨有此能耐嗎？五、國民黨全力贏取立委選舉的大 勝，主導民心走向；仍是，國民黨有此能耐嗎？
民進黨「入聯公投」連署衝破二六○萬人不可輕估，這二六○萬人的拉票能量若爆發出來，乾坤定矣。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 7, 2007
One must not underestimate the significance of the 2.6 million signatures on the Democratic Progressive Party's "Petition to Join the UN." If each petitioner pulls in an additional 1.5 signatures for the presidential election, then the Hsieh/Su ticket will receive 6.7 million votes. If so a Hsieh/Su victory is already in hand.
For each person to pull in an additional 1.5 votes is within the realm of possibility. If they fail to achieve this, it will be due to two reasons: One, these 2.6 million signatures represent the upper limit of support for the Democratic Progressive Party. Society's repugnance for the Democratic Progressive Party's corruption and incompetentence is intense. Little support can be found for the DPP beyond these 2.6 million signatures. Two, the Kuomintang and Pan Blues will find a way to inspire voters, and prevent the Democratic Progressive Party's support from expanding beyond these 2.6 million petitioners.
The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is different from the 2004 "Guided Missile Plebiscite" and "Cross Straits Plebiscite." In 2004 the two plebiscites were "Presidential Plebiscites" which bypassed the bottom up petition drive process. It was akin to the unidirectional Web 1.0. The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is a bottom up "Petitioners' Plebiscite." It is akin to the interactive Web 2.0. The "Petitioners' Plebiscite" has already become an interactive machine for political mobilization. This of course is one reason why the Referendum Law strictly prohibits the government from sponsoring petition drives for plebisicites in the first place.
The purpose of the petition drive for the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is to "package deal" the plebiscite with the presidential election. It has meaning on two levels: First, those who signed the petition have in effect publicly declared that they intend to vote for the Democratic Progressive Party. Breaking through the 2.6 million mark may lead to a form of herd behavior. Second, those who signed the petition consider their motive for signing the "Petition to Join the UN" to be "Love for Taiwan." They consider it an act of transcendence. By this time, the Democratic Progressive Party's corruption and incompetence have either faded from the petitioner's memory, or receded to secondary significance. They are no longer the determinant that will decide how he or she will vote. By this time, the Democratic Progressive Party has already benefitted from the shift in voter focus.
The reasons why the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" has made so much progress to date are manifold. This paper mentioned one reason in an editorial. The Kuomintang, in response to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN," has chosen to fan the smoke of Taiwanese consciousness. It lacks the determination to extinguish the flames of Taiwan independence consciousness. Even the US has implied that the "Plebsicite to Join the UN" is a "Taiwan independence Plebiscite" and said that it was both unnecessary and counterproductive. Yet the Kuomintang chose to affirm the "Taiwanese consciousness" embodied within the plebiscite. It hasn't had the courage to confront the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" at the level of "Taiwan independence consciousness." So far the Kuomintang has failed to draw a clear distinction between its own "Plebiscite to Rejoin the UN" and the Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN." Instead it has jumped on the bandwagon, effectively endorsing the Democratic Progressive Party's election platform.
Another reason is that the Democratic Progressive Party has flagrantly misappropriated government funds and coerced civil service officials into participating in "Plebiscite to Join the UN" activities. There is little doubt it has violated the Referendum Law. But the Kuomintang has no effective countermeasures. This has encouraged the Democratic Progressive Party to up its ante and behave even more unscrupulously. The Democratic Progressive Party argues that that the government merely initiated a movement to "Join the UN," that it never promoted a plebiscite. It argues that "Joining the UN is something both the Blue and Green camps agree upon," and that the "Kuomintang is also sponsoring a Rejoin the UN campaign." The Kuomintang has allowed itself to come under attack from all sides. Chen Shui-bian has publicly admitted that his intention all along was to package deal the plebiscite with the presidential election. The Kuomintang has watched idly as Chen Shui-bian misappropriated public funds and coerced civil service officials into participating in their plebiscite/election. The Democratic Progressive Party has been using the state treasury as its war chest, and government agencies as its campaign committee. The evidence is clear, yet the Kuomintang has done nothing. Only when the Central Election Committee announced its "single stage balloting process" did the Kuomintang belatedly realize it had to take action.
The impact of over 2.6 million people signing the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" petition must not be underestimated. As noted earlier, one of factors that led to this state of affairs is the public's lack of vigilance regarding the distinction between "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Taiwan independence consciousness." This has enabled the Democratic Progressive Party to play with the fires of "Taiwan independence consciousness," and to raise clouds of Taiwanese consciousness smoke. This has enabled the DPP to use the smoke of Taiwanese consciousness to hide the fire of Taiwan independence consciousness. Another factor is widespread indifference to the Democratic Progressive Party's violations of the constitution and the law. The ruling DPP has misappropriated public funds and dragooned civil service officials into the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign. The judiciary and the general public neither care about right and wrong, nor are they able to do anything about it.
The 2.6 million person petition drive on behalf of a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" amounts to the biggest hijacking incident in history. If the base of 2.6 million petitioners can be expanded to its full extent, it will amount to the most formidable political machine in history. The Kuomintang is surrounded on all sides, like the defenders of the Alamo. This late in the game, it has at most five countermeasures: One: File suit against the government for violating the Referendum Law. But do prosecutorial agencies have the courage to prosecute? Two: Demand a constitutional interpretation. Accuse the government of violating the Referendum Law. Again, can the Council of Grand Justices actually be believed? Three: Attempt to draw a bright line of distinction between "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Championing of Taiwan independence." Done skillfully, this could pull the rug out from under the Green camp. If the fires of Taiwan independence can be extinguished, the smoke of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" will dissipate. But does the Kuomintang have the ability to tackle this issue? If it does not, then the Republic of China, nourished by the blood of martyrs, will perish due to Kuomintang ineptitude, routed by the stillborn fetus that is the "Nation of Taiwan." Four: The Kuomintang can attempt to set the election agenda, It can make the most of its candidate's character traits and appeal to the electorate's economic hopes and aspirations. But does the Kuomintang have this ability? Five: The Kuomintang can win the legislative election. On the strength of a legislative victory, it can set the tone for the presidential election to come. But the question as always is, does the Kuomintang have this ability?
The Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN" petition drive has collected 2.6 million signatures. This is nothing to sneeze at. If these 2.6 million petitioners can pull in enough additional votes, the future will already be decided.
解讀入聯公投連署逾二六○萬人
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.07 03:38 am
不可輕估民進黨「入聯公投」連署達二六八萬人的意義。倘若每名連署人，能在總統大選另拉到約一‧五名未連署者，謝蘇配的得票水位即可達六七○萬票。倘係如此，謝蘇配已是勝券在握。
依情理而論，一人另拉一‧五票，應屬可能。倘若作不到，不外二種原因：一、這逾二六○萬連署，已是民進黨刨地三尺所得；但社會對民進黨的貪腐無能反感極大，二六○萬連署者向外拉票的能量有限。二、國民黨及泛藍能拿出有效方法，感動選民，阻止民進黨二六○
萬連署人向外擴展的連鎖效應。
此 次「入聯公投」，與二○○四的「買飛彈公投」及「兩岸關係公投」不同。二○○四的兩項公投是「總統公投」，由上而下，未經連署，猶如單向操作的 Web1.0；但此次「入聯公投」則是由下而上的「連署公投」，猶如雙向互動的Web2.0。如今，「連署公投」不啻已經成為雙向互動的「選舉動員」機 器；這也正是《公投法》嚴禁政府發動「連署公投」的原因之一。
連署「入聯公投」的作用，是在「公投綁大選」，有兩層意義：一、簽名連署者 形同公開表態願將選票投給民進黨；而連署人數衝破二六○萬，更可使連署的「眾趨行為」更具社會示範效應。二、連署者接受了「入聯公投」，自認為連署的動機 在「愛台灣」，人格境界儼然進入昇華；此時，民進黨的貪腐無能已在連署者腦中消失，或退居次位，不再成為影響其投票的因素。於是，民進黨已收轉移選戰焦點 之效。
「入聯公投」取得今日進展，因素非止一端。原因之一是，如本報社論日前所說，國民黨在因應「入聯公投」時，只知「搧台灣意識的煙， 未能滅台獨意識的火」；連美國當局都將「入聯公投」暗指為「台獨公投」，並謂其「不必且不利」；但國民黨卻僅知在「台灣意識層次」肯定公投，而未能在「台 獨意識層次」討論「入聯公投」的底蘊。迄今為止，國民黨並未將其「返聯公投」與民進黨的「入聯公投」作出明確的「差異化」，反而成了「拿香跟拜」，形同為 民進黨背書。
另一原因是，民進黨公然動支政府公帑及動員公務員參與「入聯公投」活動，確有是否違反《公投法》的疑義。但是，國民黨在這方 面迄無有效反制，遂使民進黨變本加厲，更加肆無忌憚。民進黨說，政府只是發動「入聯」，並未鼓吹「公投」，再加上一句「入聯已是藍綠共識，國民黨亦倡返 聯」，國民黨就陷於全面挨打的地位。其實，陳水扁亦公開承認，「公投」之目的就是「綁大選」；國民黨卻眼看著陳水扁用盡公帑及公務員去「綁大選」，形同用 國庫及政府為民進黨輔選；事態如此昭然，國民黨竟仍是無計可施。直至中選會擬採「一階段領投票」，國民黨才知採取較強硬的反制行動。
「入 聯公投」連署超過二六○萬人，其效應不可輕估。如前所述，情勢之所以進展至今，主因之一是，社會大眾對「台灣意識」與「台獨意識」的分際沒有警覺，致使民 進黨得以「操作台獨意識的火，燒起台灣意識的煙；又用台灣意識的煙，掩飾台獨意識的火」。另一主因則是，司法及社會對民進黨違憲違法，動員公帑及公務員推 動「入聯公投」的罪行，既無是非心，又無制裁力。
二六○萬人連署「入聯公投」，已形成選舉史上最大的「綁票工程」；而二六○萬連署人向外 擴展的拉票能量若充分施展，亦是選舉史上最強大的動員機器。國民黨處此情境，已如四面楚歌。亡羊補牢，不外五途：一、訴訟，控告政府違反《公投法》，但檢 察機關有勇氣查察嗎？二、釋憲，指控政府違反《公投法》，同樣的，大法官會議能相信嗎？三、設法將「台灣意識」與「台獨主張」徹底區隔清楚，釜底抽薪， 「台獨」的「真火」若熄了，「入聯」的「假煙」就會散去；但是，國民黨有能力處理這個議題嗎？否則，何以一個血汗凝結的中華民國，在國民黨的操作下，卻一 直敵不過台灣國那個政治死胎？四、國民黨設法扭轉選戰主題，向候選人人格特質及民生願景發展；但是，國民黨有此能耐嗎？五、國民黨全力贏取立委選舉的大 勝，主導民心走向；仍是，國民黨有此能耐嗎？
民進黨「入聯公投」連署衝破二六○萬人不可輕估，這二六○萬人的拉票能量若爆發出來，乾坤定矣。
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Communication, not Confrontation: Reclaiming Our Humanity
Communication, not Confrontation: Reclaiming Our Humanity
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 6, 2007
Nobody who harbors any expectations about freedom and democracy can possibly be satisfied with the state of Taiwan's politics. Leave aside problems of corruption, incompetence, even systemic defects. The most distressing fact is that politicians care only about tooting their own horns, and nothing about listening to other people or even their own consciences. The channels of communication between the ruling regime and the political opposition are blocked. No one listens to the public. Such is politics on Taiwan, where people have lost their humanity.
The flames of Taiwan's politics burn red hot. Politicians' hearts, by contrast, remain as cold as ice. Democracy has become a meaningless label unworthy of the name. Declarations of "Love for Taiwan" have become rote incantations. This did not happen overnight. It is the result of long years of political and social neglect. A minority of politicians have destroyed the simple honesty of Taiwan's rustic culture, but members of the Great Silent Majority merely sit and watch as they are turned into sacrificial offerings. How else is one to explain what is happening?
In early 2004, on the eve of the battle for the presidency, this paper introduced a column called "Relativity." It tried to provide a breath of fresh air in the smoke-filled room of politics. It tried to help readers regain some measure of their humanity. People from all walks of life must cease defining themselves by their occupations, and speak to each other as members of a family, regardless of how little they might know each other. Only when they are indifferent to fame or gain, only when it no longer matters if their comments are witty or pungent, fluent or hesitant, can they touch peoples' hearts. Only then can they experience the warmth that the political realm on Taiwan can never provide. Relativity began by interviewing family members, and went on to interview classmates, teachers, students, and friends. Its goal was to create space for deeper human interaction.
These dialogs between characters offered two pleasures. First, these dialogs offered slices of life one could chew over. Second, many touching scenes do not involve words, but glances that elicit a smile and understanding. Often snatches of dialog contain great emotional depth. What is indispensable is one's humanity. Language is merely one of many forms of communication. Sometimes views stated too plainly come across as calculated, excessive, or superficial.
Politics on Taiwan has been just the opposite. Political tests of strength have become verbal jousts. Humanity has been tossed aside. Dynamic factors such as space and time, cause and effect, have all been milked dry. This is what is so absurd about politics on Taiwan. The ruling regime and opposition parties exchange rhetorical volleys at the drop of a hat, on the assumption that those demonstrating superior rhetoric are the most qualified to rule the nation. Based on such logic, citizens of the ROC have been played for fools by opportunistic politicians spouting endless streams of nonsense.
Without dialog, there is no politics. Without dissent, there is no democracy. Without humanity, politics is but an empty stage, or worse, an execution ground. Over the past several years, Taiwan's politics have brought people more suffering than happiness. That is why "affluence" still gets peddled on campaign sound trucks.
Consider how much Taiwan has lost in recent years. People no longer talk of community or social harmony. The ruling regime no longer talks of reducing prejudice. The ruling and opposition parties no longer talk at all. The island has been divided geographically into north and south, and ideologically into blue and green. As long as the knife of ethnic bigotry remains stuck in the back of Taiwan's society, how can anyone speak of community and nationhood? No matter how high prices climb, they have nothing to do with the ruling regime. People live their lives day by day, as if they were on death row.
Fortunately, even though the political fissures are deeper than ever, the people are learning to heal their own wounds. We no longer see friends and family members being torn apart by political differences. More and more people are refusing to become pawns of the politicians. Society is reclaiming its humanity. But awareness is not enough. The public must transform its awareness into a social movement. Only then can they force politicians to behave like human beings. Only then can they reclaim the core values and concerns that have disappeared from Taiwan's political stage.
Relativity ceases publication today. Its motto was: "From another angle. From another perspective." Each of us values things differently. Dialog can promote mutual understanding by allowing us to see the world through others' eyes. We can broaden our own horizons while helping others discover who we are. The keywords are "humanity" and "understanding." No matter how shrewd a debater a politician might be, if he lacks humanity and understanding, he can never be anything but a tyrant who abuses state power.
The curtain has rung down on Relativity. We now await the debut of social dialog.
對話替代對立：找回政治裡失卻的人性
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.06 03:36 am
任何對民主及自由有期待的人，都不可能滿意台灣近年的政治狀況。撇開政府貪腐、失能、體制傾斜等問題不談，讓民眾最感痛心的是，政治人物已陷入一種只顧自我宣示、無意回應或反省的境地，朝野對話的管道封死，傾聽民意的耳朵雙聾。政治落到如此，人性也被扭曲到不忍卒睹了。
台灣政治戰火的熾熱，相對於政客們對人民的冷感，民主儼然已變成了名不副實的標籤，愛台灣的呼喚也幾乎變質為符咒。這個現象，並非一朝一夕形成，而是長年的政治及社會心理塵埃缺乏清理的結果；雖說少數政客恣意摧毀了台灣社會的敦厚和淳樸，但沉默的多數眼睜睜旁觀自己淪為供桌祭品，又要如何解說？
二○○ 四年初，在總統大選前夕的惡戰時刻，本報推出了「相對論」專欄，即希望在漫天政治煙塵中打開一個不同的呼吸空間，幫讀者拾回一些人性的感覺。當各界人物褪去其社會角色，還原為「家人」的身分展開對話，無論親密或恬淡、慧黠或辛辣、暢快或欲言又止，都能喚起人們內心深沉的共鳴，那是台灣公共領域無力再提供的溫暖。相對論後來的訪談對象，從「親人」拓展到同學、師生與知己，目的也在打開更深廣的人性空間。
聆聽這些不同人物的對話，至少有兩種莫大的樂趣。其一，這些對話中所凝斂所濃縮的人生內涵，耐人咀嚼再三，始終滋味甘醇；其二，許多感人的情節，往往不落話語，而在雙方的相視一笑、欲言又止乃至輕淺點撥之間；更大的包容，其實常在彼此沒有道盡的對白中。亦即，在一個有縱深、有情感的關係向度裡，人性才是本質，語言則只是一種載體；有時話說得太白，反而顯得刻意或過度，而顯得淺薄了。
台灣近年的政治現象，恰好與此相反：政治角力變成一味講究言辭機鋒，卻把本質的人性拋在一邊，於是也把時空、因果、行動要素完全抽至乾涸。這正是台灣近年政治最大的荒謬，朝野動不動就喊辯論，彷彿誰的辯才最流暢無礙，誰就最有資格統治國家。在這樣的邏輯下，結果是台灣人民被源源不絕的似是而非的論述所統治，被反覆無常的政客所玩弄。
沒有對話，不成其為政治；不能容納異議，不能稱為民主；而若失落了人性，政治只是一座巨大的公共戲台、甚至公共刑場罷了。過去幾年，台灣政治帶給人民的，是災難多於幸福；也因此，「幸福」這個奢侈品還能放在競選宣傳車上繼續叫賣。
想想看台灣近年失去了多少東西？人們不再談共同體，社會不再談族群融合，執政黨不再談化解歧見，朝野甚至不再對話。橫被切為南北、縱被撕為藍綠、內被插以族群之刀，傷痕累累的台灣，連人民和國家都縫不起來，如何談「共同體」？物價怎麼漲竟都被指為和執政者無關，人民的生活難道不是煎熬如刑場？
所幸，當我們回看這個社會，上層政治的裂痕雖然愈發深刻，民間卻已逐漸懂得自我療傷。多年之前，同儕、家人為政治立場歧異而爭執的景象，如今已不復見；愈來愈多民眾開始自覺，拒絕再成為政客的棋子，這顯示：社會學會了回歸人性。但是，單純的覺醒還不夠，民眾必須將這項自覺提升為有效的公民行動，才能同時促使政治人物也學習回歸人性，重拾台灣政治中失去的核心價值與關懷。
本報「相對論」專欄今日刊出完結篇。正如「相對論」刊頭詞所言，換一個角度、換一個身分，我們對事物的估量就會有不同的輕重。對話，可以增進人們彼此理解；而能透過別人的眼睛看人間，不僅世界更開闊，也能幫助人們發現自己。此中的關鍵語，不外「人性」與「理解」。不管多麼聰明善辯，少了人性，少了理解，政治人物將淪為手握公權力的屠夫。
「相對論」專欄落幕，寄望社會的對話登場。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 6, 2007
Nobody who harbors any expectations about freedom and democracy can possibly be satisfied with the state of Taiwan's politics. Leave aside problems of corruption, incompetence, even systemic defects. The most distressing fact is that politicians care only about tooting their own horns, and nothing about listening to other people or even their own consciences. The channels of communication between the ruling regime and the political opposition are blocked. No one listens to the public. Such is politics on Taiwan, where people have lost their humanity.
The flames of Taiwan's politics burn red hot. Politicians' hearts, by contrast, remain as cold as ice. Democracy has become a meaningless label unworthy of the name. Declarations of "Love for Taiwan" have become rote incantations. This did not happen overnight. It is the result of long years of political and social neglect. A minority of politicians have destroyed the simple honesty of Taiwan's rustic culture, but members of the Great Silent Majority merely sit and watch as they are turned into sacrificial offerings. How else is one to explain what is happening?
In early 2004, on the eve of the battle for the presidency, this paper introduced a column called "Relativity." It tried to provide a breath of fresh air in the smoke-filled room of politics. It tried to help readers regain some measure of their humanity. People from all walks of life must cease defining themselves by their occupations, and speak to each other as members of a family, regardless of how little they might know each other. Only when they are indifferent to fame or gain, only when it no longer matters if their comments are witty or pungent, fluent or hesitant, can they touch peoples' hearts. Only then can they experience the warmth that the political realm on Taiwan can never provide. Relativity began by interviewing family members, and went on to interview classmates, teachers, students, and friends. Its goal was to create space for deeper human interaction.
These dialogs between characters offered two pleasures. First, these dialogs offered slices of life one could chew over. Second, many touching scenes do not involve words, but glances that elicit a smile and understanding. Often snatches of dialog contain great emotional depth. What is indispensable is one's humanity. Language is merely one of many forms of communication. Sometimes views stated too plainly come across as calculated, excessive, or superficial.
Politics on Taiwan has been just the opposite. Political tests of strength have become verbal jousts. Humanity has been tossed aside. Dynamic factors such as space and time, cause and effect, have all been milked dry. This is what is so absurd about politics on Taiwan. The ruling regime and opposition parties exchange rhetorical volleys at the drop of a hat, on the assumption that those demonstrating superior rhetoric are the most qualified to rule the nation. Based on such logic, citizens of the ROC have been played for fools by opportunistic politicians spouting endless streams of nonsense.
Without dialog, there is no politics. Without dissent, there is no democracy. Without humanity, politics is but an empty stage, or worse, an execution ground. Over the past several years, Taiwan's politics have brought people more suffering than happiness. That is why "affluence" still gets peddled on campaign sound trucks.
Consider how much Taiwan has lost in recent years. People no longer talk of community or social harmony. The ruling regime no longer talks of reducing prejudice. The ruling and opposition parties no longer talk at all. The island has been divided geographically into north and south, and ideologically into blue and green. As long as the knife of ethnic bigotry remains stuck in the back of Taiwan's society, how can anyone speak of community and nationhood? No matter how high prices climb, they have nothing to do with the ruling regime. People live their lives day by day, as if they were on death row.
Fortunately, even though the political fissures are deeper than ever, the people are learning to heal their own wounds. We no longer see friends and family members being torn apart by political differences. More and more people are refusing to become pawns of the politicians. Society is reclaiming its humanity. But awareness is not enough. The public must transform its awareness into a social movement. Only then can they force politicians to behave like human beings. Only then can they reclaim the core values and concerns that have disappeared from Taiwan's political stage.
Relativity ceases publication today. Its motto was: "From another angle. From another perspective." Each of us values things differently. Dialog can promote mutual understanding by allowing us to see the world through others' eyes. We can broaden our own horizons while helping others discover who we are. The keywords are "humanity" and "understanding." No matter how shrewd a debater a politician might be, if he lacks humanity and understanding, he can never be anything but a tyrant who abuses state power.
The curtain has rung down on Relativity. We now await the debut of social dialog.
對話替代對立：找回政治裡失卻的人性
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.06 03:36 am
任何對民主及自由有期待的人，都不可能滿意台灣近年的政治狀況。撇開政府貪腐、失能、體制傾斜等問題不談，讓民眾最感痛心的是，政治人物已陷入一種只顧自我宣示、無意回應或反省的境地，朝野對話的管道封死，傾聽民意的耳朵雙聾。政治落到如此，人性也被扭曲到不忍卒睹了。
台灣政治戰火的熾熱，相對於政客們對人民的冷感，民主儼然已變成了名不副實的標籤，愛台灣的呼喚也幾乎變質為符咒。這個現象，並非一朝一夕形成，而是長年的政治及社會心理塵埃缺乏清理的結果；雖說少數政客恣意摧毀了台灣社會的敦厚和淳樸，但沉默的多數眼睜睜旁觀自己淪為供桌祭品，又要如何解說？
二○○ 四年初，在總統大選前夕的惡戰時刻，本報推出了「相對論」專欄，即希望在漫天政治煙塵中打開一個不同的呼吸空間，幫讀者拾回一些人性的感覺。當各界人物褪去其社會角色，還原為「家人」的身分展開對話，無論親密或恬淡、慧黠或辛辣、暢快或欲言又止，都能喚起人們內心深沉的共鳴，那是台灣公共領域無力再提供的溫暖。相對論後來的訪談對象，從「親人」拓展到同學、師生與知己，目的也在打開更深廣的人性空間。
聆聽這些不同人物的對話，至少有兩種莫大的樂趣。其一，這些對話中所凝斂所濃縮的人生內涵，耐人咀嚼再三，始終滋味甘醇；其二，許多感人的情節，往往不落話語，而在雙方的相視一笑、欲言又止乃至輕淺點撥之間；更大的包容，其實常在彼此沒有道盡的對白中。亦即，在一個有縱深、有情感的關係向度裡，人性才是本質，語言則只是一種載體；有時話說得太白，反而顯得刻意或過度，而顯得淺薄了。
台灣近年的政治現象，恰好與此相反：政治角力變成一味講究言辭機鋒，卻把本質的人性拋在一邊，於是也把時空、因果、行動要素完全抽至乾涸。這正是台灣近年政治最大的荒謬，朝野動不動就喊辯論，彷彿誰的辯才最流暢無礙，誰就最有資格統治國家。在這樣的邏輯下，結果是台灣人民被源源不絕的似是而非的論述所統治，被反覆無常的政客所玩弄。
沒有對話，不成其為政治；不能容納異議，不能稱為民主；而若失落了人性，政治只是一座巨大的公共戲台、甚至公共刑場罷了。過去幾年，台灣政治帶給人民的，是災難多於幸福；也因此，「幸福」這個奢侈品還能放在競選宣傳車上繼續叫賣。
想想看台灣近年失去了多少東西？人們不再談共同體，社會不再談族群融合，執政黨不再談化解歧見，朝野甚至不再對話。橫被切為南北、縱被撕為藍綠、內被插以族群之刀，傷痕累累的台灣，連人民和國家都縫不起來，如何談「共同體」？物價怎麼漲竟都被指為和執政者無關，人民的生活難道不是煎熬如刑場？
所幸，當我們回看這個社會，上層政治的裂痕雖然愈發深刻，民間卻已逐漸懂得自我療傷。多年之前，同儕、家人為政治立場歧異而爭執的景象，如今已不復見；愈來愈多民眾開始自覺，拒絕再成為政客的棋子，這顯示：社會學會了回歸人性。但是，單純的覺醒還不夠，民眾必須將這項自覺提升為有效的公民行動，才能同時促使政治人物也學習回歸人性，重拾台灣政治中失去的核心價值與關懷。
本報「相對論」專欄今日刊出完結篇。正如「相對論」刊頭詞所言，換一個角度、換一個身分，我們對事物的估量就會有不同的輕重。對話，可以增進人們彼此理解；而能透過別人的眼睛看人間，不僅世界更開闊，也能幫助人們發現自己。此中的關鍵語，不外「人性」與「理解」。不管多麼聰明善辯，少了人性，少了理解，政治人物將淪為手握公權力的屠夫。
「相對論」專欄落幕，寄望社會的對話登場。
Monday, November 5, 2007
Remember What the Election is About
Remember What the Election is About
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2007
Ruling and opposition party presidential candidates have each put forth proposals to revive the economy. Unfortunately their proposals have been drowned out by political controversies provoked by their fellow party members. Frank Hsieh is concerned about oil prices. He hopes those in power will "feel your pain." He hopes to promote his "Economy of Affluence" program. But not only did the Executive Yuan ignore his suggestion, the DPP and the Chen regime both invested all their energy in the Plebiscite to Join the UN Torch Relay. Ma Ying-jeou has been addressing economic issues since the beginning of his campaign. The economy is the theme of his election campaign. But who knew that suddenly an internal document would emerge from nowhere, deleting the 1992 Consensus and provoking bitter infighting, leaving Ma Ying-jeou once again outside the loop on party affairs, and his election campaign in total disarray.
The Green camp's strong arm tactics in promoting the Join the UN Torch Relay have drowned out the "Economy of Affluence" campaign. Perhaps they decided the issue of the economy would not necessarily be advantageous to the DPP. The ruling regime faces the problem of rising consumer prices, which it is at a loss do anything about. It has only served to underscore the reality of an "Economy of Destitution." The controversy over the 1992 Consensus is a farce. It is much ado about nothing. In the process the focus has been lost. The biggest victim is not necesarily Ma Ying-jeou, but the 1992 Consensus itself. Deleting the 1992 Consensus from specific documents and recognizing the 1992 Consensus are entirely different matters. If Ma Ying-jeou were to spublicly declare that he did not recognize the 1992 Consensus, and was amending the party constitution or its political platform, that would be a serious matter. But Ma Ying-jeou has never made such a declaration. Would a political leader in the midst of promoting his "Plebiscite to Rejoin the UN" campaign have the gall to overthrow the 1992 Consensus? The 1992 Consensus affirms that each side verbally declared that it recognized One China. Isn't the "One China" that the Taiwan side refers to the "Republic of China?"
The 1992 Consensus was one of the most important cross Straits breakthroughs following the Koo Wang talks. Before his death, Koo Chen-fu confirmed the existence of the 1992 Consensus. Washington has also indicated that the 1992 Consensus exists. The existence of the 1992 Consensus has nothing to do with whether it has or has not been deleted from a political document.
This is similar to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution," which continues to exist even though it has been set aside and is no longer discussed. The DPP will suddenly play up its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." After a while it may play up its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." It is unlikely anyone will characterize such moves as "phasing out demands for independence." Besides, no matter how one revises one's language, in the end they are just words, These word games are pretexts for intraparty power struggles. They are of little help to the Democratic Progressive Party's Join the UN campaign or goal of founding a Nation of Taiwan. What difference was there between Yu Hsi-kuen's "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and A Bian's "Resolution for a Normal Nation?" Now that the word games are over, the resolutions just sit there. Who pays them any mind?
The 1992 Consensus was merely an oral agreement, a tacit understanding between the two sides that did not need to be stated too clearly. This tacit understanding was decided by cross Straits dynamics. When cross Straits relations are good, the 1992 Consensus takes effect. When cross Straits relations are strained, either side may consider it non-binding. The Democratic Progressive Party has been in power for more than seven years. During this time it has openly repudiated the 1992 Consensus. When Su Chi was Mainland Affairs Commissioner he advocated "One China, Separate Interpretations." Beijing was willing to accept only the "One China" part of the formula. It was reluctant to accept the "Separate Interpretations" part. Once the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, it overturned the 1992 Consensus in toto. Only then did Beijing return to the 1992 Consensus. This tangled political web is not something that can be resolved with a few political slogans.
The past several years have shown that 1992 Consensus has never resided in any particular document, but in cross-Straits interactions and mutual recognition. If cross-Straits opposition has esclated, mentioning the 1992 Consensus in political documents is useless. If both sides of the Straits wish to improve relations with each other, it may not be necessary to stress the 1992 Consensus. Discussing the 1992 Consensus without the historical context of the Koo-Wang talks, or rational cross-Straits dialogue, is pointless. To worry about whether an irrelevant political document contains the 1992 Consensus is to blow matters out of proportion. It trivializes the 1992 Consensus.
This is a difficult test for both Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh. Jockeying for short-term political advantage is easy. Simply fan populist passions. Addressing economic issues, by contrast, requires professionalism and rational policies. One's proposals may not receive media applause. Political proposals are easy. Simply scream one's head off. Economic proposals are difficult. One must listen to the people. Will Hsieh and Ma be able to stand their ground? The current controversy may become a landmark for future historians, and an indicator of fitness for national leadership.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.05
別讓已定調的選戰主軸再度失焦
中時社論
挺令人遺憾的是，朝野政黨的總統候選人最近都在訴求民生議題的同時，被黨內同志所掀起的政治議題所掩蓋。謝長廷關注油價問題，期待主事者能「視民如傷」，藉以突出其「幸福經濟」的訴求，結果行政部門不僅未理會他的建議，整個黨政部門更是把全部精力都放在「入聯公投」的聖火接力上；同樣的馬英九競選起跑後一路主打民生議題，整個選戰主軸也大致確定，怎麼都沒想到會跑出個內部文件刪除九二共識的爭議，讓馬英九再度陷入黨內外撻伐的處境，讓原已定調的選戰步伐完全被打亂。
綠營強行將入聯聖火的動員壓過「幸福經濟」訴求，或許是判斷打這個議題並不一定討好，畢竟面對眼前的物價上漲問題，行政部門根本束手無策，談多了反而突出了「不幸福經濟」的現實。倒是「九二共識」的爭議問題，從事件初始紛擾到現在，很像是一場無事生非的鬧劇，整個爭議過程一路失焦，受到傷害最大的，倒不一定是馬英九的選情，而是「九二共識」的本身。
其實，在特定文件刪除九二共識的文字，跟在立場上承不承認有九二共識根本是兩回事。如果馬英九公開聲稱不承認有九二共識，並領銜在黨內推動黨綱或政綱的修改，那當然很嚴重。問題是馬英九從來沒做出過這種立場表述與動作。更何況一個正在推動「公投返聯」動員的政治領袖，怎麼會干冒大不諱去推翻「九二共識」呢？九二共識中所謂「口頭上各自表述一中」，在台灣這邊所指的不就是中華民國嗎？
要知道，「九二共識」是當年兩岸在辜汪會談後所達成的重要突破之一，辜振甫先生生前曾明白表示過有「九二共識」的存在，美國方面也曾指出有「九二共識」這回事，它在客觀上存不存在，與它在那篇政治文件中刪或不刪除其實一點關係都沒有。
這正好像民進黨把「台獨黨綱」明白擱置予以存而不論，一會兒推出個「台灣前途決議文」，一會兒又弄個「正常國家決議文」，這些動作大概不會有人說是在「去獨化」吧！更何況，文字修辭再怎麼斟酌考量，它終究也只不過是文字，除了黨內派系領袖拿這種文字遊戲借題發揮搞鬥爭外，對民進黨的入聯動員甚至建國大業，實質助益相當有限。否則講白一點，先前游錫？所主導的「正常國家決議文」，與後來扁版的「正常國家決議文」，差別難道是比誰的文字「比較正常」？現在文字遊戲玩完了，還不就是晾在那裡，有誰會去認真理會呢？
「九二共識」在當年既只是一項口頭約定，它就是兩岸間所達成的一種不必太明說的默契，這種默契可說完全取決於兩岸的動態情勢，兩岸情勢好的時候，九二共識自然有其發揮空間，兩岸關係大壞的時候，任何一方都可以片面不認帳，民進黨執政的過去七年多，不就硬生生的推翻了九二共識？記得當年陸委會主委蘇起剛提出這種說法時，北京方面最初也只肯強調「一中」，不想理會「各表」，後來民進黨執政了，乾脆把整個「九二共識」都踢翻了，北京才又開始重拾「九二共識」的說法，這種複雜的政治糾葛，不是幾句政治口號就能夠理清楚的。
過去幾年的經驗已充分證明，「九二共識」從不是活在那一份特定的文件裡，而是活在兩岸對彼此定位與互動的認知上，兩岸對立一旦升高，就算把「九二共識」放進所有政治文件中也沒用；兩岸若有意改善彼此關係，是不是非要強調「九二共識」也有討論的空間。今天談「九二共識」，如果不放在當年辜汪會談的歷史脈絡上，不放在兩岸理性對話的現實上，卻為一篇無關緊要的政治文件有無刪掉九二共識的文字一路無限上綱，那其實是在糟蹋九二共識！
不論是對馬英九或是對謝長廷，這都是一場艱困的魔考。要訴諸短線的政治議題，不僅廉價輕鬆，又可煽動民粹熱情，相對的訴求務實的民生議題，不僅需要專業的理解，還需要提出理性的對策，更何況相關主張也不一定會得到媒體的青睞。要訴求政治議題只需要情緒與叫囂，訴求民生議題卻需要冷靜與傾聽。謝馬兩人守不守得住自己的選戰主軸，或許也是未來觀察其能否擔任國家領導人的參考指標之一。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2007
Ruling and opposition party presidential candidates have each put forth proposals to revive the economy. Unfortunately their proposals have been drowned out by political controversies provoked by their fellow party members. Frank Hsieh is concerned about oil prices. He hopes those in power will "feel your pain." He hopes to promote his "Economy of Affluence" program. But not only did the Executive Yuan ignore his suggestion, the DPP and the Chen regime both invested all their energy in the Plebiscite to Join the UN Torch Relay. Ma Ying-jeou has been addressing economic issues since the beginning of his campaign. The economy is the theme of his election campaign. But who knew that suddenly an internal document would emerge from nowhere, deleting the 1992 Consensus and provoking bitter infighting, leaving Ma Ying-jeou once again outside the loop on party affairs, and his election campaign in total disarray.
The Green camp's strong arm tactics in promoting the Join the UN Torch Relay have drowned out the "Economy of Affluence" campaign. Perhaps they decided the issue of the economy would not necessarily be advantageous to the DPP. The ruling regime faces the problem of rising consumer prices, which it is at a loss do anything about. It has only served to underscore the reality of an "Economy of Destitution." The controversy over the 1992 Consensus is a farce. It is much ado about nothing. In the process the focus has been lost. The biggest victim is not necesarily Ma Ying-jeou, but the 1992 Consensus itself. Deleting the 1992 Consensus from specific documents and recognizing the 1992 Consensus are entirely different matters. If Ma Ying-jeou were to spublicly declare that he did not recognize the 1992 Consensus, and was amending the party constitution or its political platform, that would be a serious matter. But Ma Ying-jeou has never made such a declaration. Would a political leader in the midst of promoting his "Plebiscite to Rejoin the UN" campaign have the gall to overthrow the 1992 Consensus? The 1992 Consensus affirms that each side verbally declared that it recognized One China. Isn't the "One China" that the Taiwan side refers to the "Republic of China?"
The 1992 Consensus was one of the most important cross Straits breakthroughs following the Koo Wang talks. Before his death, Koo Chen-fu confirmed the existence of the 1992 Consensus. Washington has also indicated that the 1992 Consensus exists. The existence of the 1992 Consensus has nothing to do with whether it has or has not been deleted from a political document.
This is similar to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Taiwan Independence Party Constitution," which continues to exist even though it has been set aside and is no longer discussed. The DPP will suddenly play up its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." After a while it may play up its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." It is unlikely anyone will characterize such moves as "phasing out demands for independence." Besides, no matter how one revises one's language, in the end they are just words, These word games are pretexts for intraparty power struggles. They are of little help to the Democratic Progressive Party's Join the UN campaign or goal of founding a Nation of Taiwan. What difference was there between Yu Hsi-kuen's "Resolution for a Normal Nation" and A Bian's "Resolution for a Normal Nation?" Now that the word games are over, the resolutions just sit there. Who pays them any mind?
The 1992 Consensus was merely an oral agreement, a tacit understanding between the two sides that did not need to be stated too clearly. This tacit understanding was decided by cross Straits dynamics. When cross Straits relations are good, the 1992 Consensus takes effect. When cross Straits relations are strained, either side may consider it non-binding. The Democratic Progressive Party has been in power for more than seven years. During this time it has openly repudiated the 1992 Consensus. When Su Chi was Mainland Affairs Commissioner he advocated "One China, Separate Interpretations." Beijing was willing to accept only the "One China" part of the formula. It was reluctant to accept the "Separate Interpretations" part. Once the Democratic Progressive Party was in power, it overturned the 1992 Consensus in toto. Only then did Beijing return to the 1992 Consensus. This tangled political web is not something that can be resolved with a few political slogans.
The past several years have shown that 1992 Consensus has never resided in any particular document, but in cross-Straits interactions and mutual recognition. If cross-Straits opposition has esclated, mentioning the 1992 Consensus in political documents is useless. If both sides of the Straits wish to improve relations with each other, it may not be necessary to stress the 1992 Consensus. Discussing the 1992 Consensus without the historical context of the Koo-Wang talks, or rational cross-Straits dialogue, is pointless. To worry about whether an irrelevant political document contains the 1992 Consensus is to blow matters out of proportion. It trivializes the 1992 Consensus.
This is a difficult test for both Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh. Jockeying for short-term political advantage is easy. Simply fan populist passions. Addressing economic issues, by contrast, requires professionalism and rational policies. One's proposals may not receive media applause. Political proposals are easy. Simply scream one's head off. Economic proposals are difficult. One must listen to the people. Will Hsieh and Ma be able to stand their ground? The current controversy may become a landmark for future historians, and an indicator of fitness for national leadership.
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.05
別讓已定調的選戰主軸再度失焦
中時社論
挺令人遺憾的是，朝野政黨的總統候選人最近都在訴求民生議題的同時，被黨內同志所掀起的政治議題所掩蓋。謝長廷關注油價問題，期待主事者能「視民如傷」，藉以突出其「幸福經濟」的訴求，結果行政部門不僅未理會他的建議，整個黨政部門更是把全部精力都放在「入聯公投」的聖火接力上；同樣的馬英九競選起跑後一路主打民生議題，整個選戰主軸也大致確定，怎麼都沒想到會跑出個內部文件刪除九二共識的爭議，讓馬英九再度陷入黨內外撻伐的處境，讓原已定調的選戰步伐完全被打亂。
綠營強行將入聯聖火的動員壓過「幸福經濟」訴求，或許是判斷打這個議題並不一定討好，畢竟面對眼前的物價上漲問題，行政部門根本束手無策，談多了反而突出了「不幸福經濟」的現實。倒是「九二共識」的爭議問題，從事件初始紛擾到現在，很像是一場無事生非的鬧劇，整個爭議過程一路失焦，受到傷害最大的，倒不一定是馬英九的選情，而是「九二共識」的本身。
其實，在特定文件刪除九二共識的文字，跟在立場上承不承認有九二共識根本是兩回事。如果馬英九公開聲稱不承認有九二共識，並領銜在黨內推動黨綱或政綱的修改，那當然很嚴重。問題是馬英九從來沒做出過這種立場表述與動作。更何況一個正在推動「公投返聯」動員的政治領袖，怎麼會干冒大不諱去推翻「九二共識」呢？九二共識中所謂「口頭上各自表述一中」，在台灣這邊所指的不就是中華民國嗎？
要知道，「九二共識」是當年兩岸在辜汪會談後所達成的重要突破之一，辜振甫先生生前曾明白表示過有「九二共識」的存在，美國方面也曾指出有「九二共識」這回事，它在客觀上存不存在，與它在那篇政治文件中刪或不刪除其實一點關係都沒有。
這正好像民進黨把「台獨黨綱」明白擱置予以存而不論，一會兒推出個「台灣前途決議文」，一會兒又弄個「正常國家決議文」，這些動作大概不會有人說是在「去獨化」吧！更何況，文字修辭再怎麼斟酌考量，它終究也只不過是文字，除了黨內派系領袖拿這種文字遊戲借題發揮搞鬥爭外，對民進黨的入聯動員甚至建國大業，實質助益相當有限。否則講白一點，先前游錫？所主導的「正常國家決議文」，與後來扁版的「正常國家決議文」，差別難道是比誰的文字「比較正常」？現在文字遊戲玩完了，還不就是晾在那裡，有誰會去認真理會呢？
「九二共識」在當年既只是一項口頭約定，它就是兩岸間所達成的一種不必太明說的默契，這種默契可說完全取決於兩岸的動態情勢，兩岸情勢好的時候，九二共識自然有其發揮空間，兩岸關係大壞的時候，任何一方都可以片面不認帳，民進黨執政的過去七年多，不就硬生生的推翻了九二共識？記得當年陸委會主委蘇起剛提出這種說法時，北京方面最初也只肯強調「一中」，不想理會「各表」，後來民進黨執政了，乾脆把整個「九二共識」都踢翻了，北京才又開始重拾「九二共識」的說法，這種複雜的政治糾葛，不是幾句政治口號就能夠理清楚的。
過去幾年的經驗已充分證明，「九二共識」從不是活在那一份特定的文件裡，而是活在兩岸對彼此定位與互動的認知上，兩岸對立一旦升高，就算把「九二共識」放進所有政治文件中也沒用；兩岸若有意改善彼此關係，是不是非要強調「九二共識」也有討論的空間。今天談「九二共識」，如果不放在當年辜汪會談的歷史脈絡上，不放在兩岸理性對話的現實上，卻為一篇無關緊要的政治文件有無刪掉九二共識的文字一路無限上綱，那其實是在糟蹋九二共識！
不論是對馬英九或是對謝長廷，這都是一場艱困的魔考。要訴諸短線的政治議題，不僅廉價輕鬆，又可煽動民粹熱情，相對的訴求務實的民生議題，不僅需要專業的理解，還需要提出理性的對策，更何況相關主張也不一定會得到媒體的青睞。要訴求政治議題只需要情緒與叫囂，訴求民生議題卻需要冷靜與傾聽。謝馬兩人守不守得住自己的選戰主軸，或許也是未來觀察其能否擔任國家領導人的參考指標之一。
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Selective Prosecution based on Political Affiliation?
Selective Prosecution based on Political Affiliation?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 1, 2007
The Special Investigative Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office has decided not to indict former Chairman of the Judicial Yuan Weng Yueh-sheng for misuse of his Discretionary Fund Account. What standards do prosecutorial agencies apply when deciding whom they will prosecute? Once again this has attracted public interest. Every time prosecutors investigate a Discretionary Fund case, their credibility is dealt another blow. This is a serious problem that must be examined.
First we must examine the prosecutors' standards for deciding whether to prosecute. These standards were totally different in the Ma Ying-jeou case, Hsu Tien-tsai case, Frank Hsieh case, Su Tseng-chang case, and Weng Yueh-sheng case. Prosecutors' understanding of the nature of Discretionary Fund have varied widely. What's worse, so have their investigative techniques, which have ranged from indulgent to unrelenting. Objective observers are not convinced that the system works or that defendants have received justice.
Scrutinize the manner in which prosecutors approach their cases, and the double standards become glaringly apparent. Prosecutors refused to indict Hsu Tien-tsai on the assumption that the Discretionary Fund was a substantive subsidy. But this was the local court's judgment in the Ma Ying-jeou case. So why was Ma Ying-jeou indicted? Why weren't Frank Hsieh, Su Tseng-chang, and Weng Yueh-sheng indicted? None of them claimed their Discretionary Funds were substantive subsidies. For public prosecutors to hold different standards prior to local court judgments is understandable. But when local courts concurred with the decision of the Tainan Prosecutors Office not to indict Hsu Tien-tsai, the Special Investigative Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office suddenly adopted an entirely new legal position. The problem of prosecutorial double standards is so serious it needs no further comment.
Prosecutors' standards for deciding whether to prosecute differ not only with each other, they differ with court opinions. Even the same public prosecutor may apply different standards from one case to the next. Look at how relentlessly Hou Kuan-jen prosecuted the Ma Ying-jeou case. His attitude was "Never say die!" Look at the single-minded manner in which he picked away at any disbursements he did not recognize as public, and at unused funds, which he automatically regarded as intended for self-enrichment. He refused to interpret Ma Ying-jeou's charitable contributions as official expenses, and refused to adopt the "Big Reservoir Theory." Not only did he assume Ma Ying-jeou was committing fraud in order to enrich himself, he falsified court records to ensure Ma Ying-jeou's indictment. Contrast this with his indulgent demeanor when he chose not to indict Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang, when he adopted the premise that "Human beings are basically good." He was an entirely different person. He assumed that disbursements requiring receipts were for official use. He interpreted Frank Hsieh's disbursement of funds to his friends as official expenses. The difference in the way Hou handled the two cases was like night and day. Chief Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang of the Tainan Prosecutor's Office prosecuted Hsu Tien-tsai. When the Special Investigative Unit began prosecuting Weng Yueh-sheng, suddenly Chu had an entirely different understanding of the law. Using receipts to account for disbursements was viewed as long-established convention. Once a receipt, along with original proof of purchase, had been submitted and approved, reimbursement was viewed as unnecessary. Nor was anyone who failed to use of the full amount required to return the balance. But if that was the case, why reject the legal opinion that the Discretionary Fund was a substantive subsidy? Why demand that personal disbursements be deducted from the approved total? Why gild the lily? How can the same public prosecutor, prosecuting the same Discretionary Fund cases, apply entirely different legal standards for different defendants? One really has to hand it to them.
What's behind these utterly inexplicable differences in the way identical cases are prosecuted? Is the prosecutorial community morally bankrupt? Are public prosecutors totally untrustworthy? Are prosecutors working hand in glove with the ruling party, targeting designated political figureswith the presidential election in mind? The Special Investigative Unit is investigating cases opened before the unit was established. If it wishes to be perceived as consistent, how can it turn a blind eye to the conduct of public prosecutors? If the Special Investigative Unit adopts standards at variance with legal precedents, won't it be accused of engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions? If the Special Investigative Unit turns a blind eye to public prosecutors who allow themselves to become political tools, who handle cases differently based on the political affiliation of the defendant, aren't they concerned about undermining public confidence in the neutrality of prosecutorial agencies?
The Discretionary Fund case is a long term joint effort. So said Su Tseng-chang, who has been exempted from prosecution. The Discretionary Fund case involves years of established procedure. Weng Yueh-sheng has been exempted from prosecution. Because Weng had already emptied out his Discretionary Fund, how his funds were used was considered no longer subject to investigation. This is how the prosecutor reasoned that an indictment against Weng was not required. Frank Hsieh may also be exempted from prosecution. Only Ma Ying-jeou, who truthfully declared his holdings, who did not withdraw funds from his account to spend or make donations, is being required to provide receipts accounting for his expenditures. One man is being forced to bear the entire burden of punishment meted out by the law. Isn't it obvious that if Ma Ying-jeou were an ordinary citizen and not a leading presidential candidate, he wouldn't be in his current pickle? As long as this suspicion remains, the credibility of prosecutorial agencies and the entire judicial system will remain in grave doubt and impossible to redeem.
How much longer must we endure Taiwan's vicious political culture?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.01
起訴不起訴標準，真的因人而異？
中時社論
前司法院院長翁岳生之首長特別費案，最高法院檢察署特偵組檢察官偵結採不起訴處分，檢察機關偵辦特別費案起訴或不起訴的標準究竟何在？再度引起社會關注與質疑，幾乎形成了檢察機關每偵結一起特別費案，公信力就會受傷一次，這背後所突顯的問題，真的值得分析探究。
首先要說起訴與不起訴的標準。這可以分為幾方面來看，從馬英九案、許添財案、謝長廷、蘇貞昌案到翁岳生案，起訴不起訴的標準大不相同，不但對於特別費的性質認定出入甚大，偵查手法是柔和寬鬆還是鉅細靡遺，也明顯有異，完全無法說服客觀第三者，遑論令被起訴的當事人感到服氣。此是從大角度加以觀察的結果。
若再進一步檢驗檢方的辦案標準，在許添財不起訴案係採取實質補貼說，與馬英九案地方法院的觀點一致，卻又與起訴馬英九和不起訴謝、蘇、翁均未採取實質補貼說，並不相同。地方法院判決之前，檢察官自有標準，尚有可說。地方認同南檢不起訴許添財的見解之後，特偵組檢察官忽又改採新的見解，檢方標準不一的問題，已經嚴重得無以復加。
檢方的標準不但相互不同，與法院的見解彼此不同，即使是同一位檢察官的先後辦案標準，竟然也可一再翻異。侯寬仁辦馬英九案的標準何等嚴酷，辦案手法何等鍥而不捨，態度何等不假辭色，嚴格挑撿不予認定為公用的支出，未使用的部分一概視為自肥，不但狠咬馬英九是以詐術圖利自己，還不惜扭曲製作筆錄以坐實馬英九的罪狀；與他在謝蘇案不起訴案中種種與人為善的慈眉善目相比，簡直判若兩人，他對於領據報銷的支出可以一概寬鬆地假設為因公使用，對謝長廷友人的支出款項也可逕予接受為首長的公務花費，對馬英九本人的捐獻則不肯視為公用，也拒採大水庫理論加以扣除，亦不啻雲壤之別？南檢辦理許添財時的朱朝亮檢察長，轉到了特偵組辦理翁岳生案，竟也又有不同的見解，既已認定領據報銷是多年慣例，一旦領據代原始憑證列報即已完成核銷，事後並不要求回報，未用完者也未要求繳回，那又為何捨棄實質補貼見解？又何需再就領據核銷部分去計算總支出減去純私人支出的結餘金額，畫蛇添足，自相矛盾？單一的檢察官，辦的都是特別費案，遇到了不同的對象，可以如此前後不一，真的令人嘆為觀止！
這許多完全無法解釋的辦案標準歧異，背後說明了什麼？是檢察一體原則的徹底破產？是檢察官辦案能力完全不可信賴？還是顯示了此中確實存在著配合選舉節奏，針對特定政治人物動手動腳？如果這特偵組接手之後是採取了一致標準，對於特偵組成立之前的案件難道就可以不問檢察官的責任？特偵組採取異於前案的標準，發生不利前案的結果，難道就不會被指為特偵組另一種政治手段？對於個別的檢察官出主入奴、因人而異的辦案標準不聞不問，特偵組擔不擔心縱容的結果同樣會傷害檢察機關公正中立的執法信用？
回到問題原點，特別費案是多年累積的共業，說出這句名言的蘇貞昌已經獲得了不起訴；特別費案件涉及行之有年的實務慣例，翁岳生因此也獲得不起訴；因特別費使用殆罄而不必追查其真正用途，是檢方發明的理論，謝長廷也可因此獲得不起訴；只有如實申報財產，只是未從存入帳戶花用或為捐獻的馬英九，要就領據核銷的特別費，因為遵行既有的慣例，而單獨揹負集體的共業，「匹夫無罪，競選總統其罪」，難道不是一個極易取信的答案？此種質疑一日不能消除，檢察機關乃至司法整體的公信力，就一日會受到嚴重影響而難以復原。
台灣的政治劣性，究竟還要造業多久？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 1, 2007
The Special Investigative Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office has decided not to indict former Chairman of the Judicial Yuan Weng Yueh-sheng for misuse of his Discretionary Fund Account. What standards do prosecutorial agencies apply when deciding whom they will prosecute? Once again this has attracted public interest. Every time prosecutors investigate a Discretionary Fund case, their credibility is dealt another blow. This is a serious problem that must be examined.
First we must examine the prosecutors' standards for deciding whether to prosecute. These standards were totally different in the Ma Ying-jeou case, Hsu Tien-tsai case, Frank Hsieh case, Su Tseng-chang case, and Weng Yueh-sheng case. Prosecutors' understanding of the nature of Discretionary Fund have varied widely. What's worse, so have their investigative techniques, which have ranged from indulgent to unrelenting. Objective observers are not convinced that the system works or that defendants have received justice.
Scrutinize the manner in which prosecutors approach their cases, and the double standards become glaringly apparent. Prosecutors refused to indict Hsu Tien-tsai on the assumption that the Discretionary Fund was a substantive subsidy. But this was the local court's judgment in the Ma Ying-jeou case. So why was Ma Ying-jeou indicted? Why weren't Frank Hsieh, Su Tseng-chang, and Weng Yueh-sheng indicted? None of them claimed their Discretionary Funds were substantive subsidies. For public prosecutors to hold different standards prior to local court judgments is understandable. But when local courts concurred with the decision of the Tainan Prosecutors Office not to indict Hsu Tien-tsai, the Special Investigative Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office suddenly adopted an entirely new legal position. The problem of prosecutorial double standards is so serious it needs no further comment.
Prosecutors' standards for deciding whether to prosecute differ not only with each other, they differ with court opinions. Even the same public prosecutor may apply different standards from one case to the next. Look at how relentlessly Hou Kuan-jen prosecuted the Ma Ying-jeou case. His attitude was "Never say die!" Look at the single-minded manner in which he picked away at any disbursements he did not recognize as public, and at unused funds, which he automatically regarded as intended for self-enrichment. He refused to interpret Ma Ying-jeou's charitable contributions as official expenses, and refused to adopt the "Big Reservoir Theory." Not only did he assume Ma Ying-jeou was committing fraud in order to enrich himself, he falsified court records to ensure Ma Ying-jeou's indictment. Contrast this with his indulgent demeanor when he chose not to indict Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang, when he adopted the premise that "Human beings are basically good." He was an entirely different person. He assumed that disbursements requiring receipts were for official use. He interpreted Frank Hsieh's disbursement of funds to his friends as official expenses. The difference in the way Hou handled the two cases was like night and day. Chief Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang of the Tainan Prosecutor's Office prosecuted Hsu Tien-tsai. When the Special Investigative Unit began prosecuting Weng Yueh-sheng, suddenly Chu had an entirely different understanding of the law. Using receipts to account for disbursements was viewed as long-established convention. Once a receipt, along with original proof of purchase, had been submitted and approved, reimbursement was viewed as unnecessary. Nor was anyone who failed to use of the full amount required to return the balance. But if that was the case, why reject the legal opinion that the Discretionary Fund was a substantive subsidy? Why demand that personal disbursements be deducted from the approved total? Why gild the lily? How can the same public prosecutor, prosecuting the same Discretionary Fund cases, apply entirely different legal standards for different defendants? One really has to hand it to them.
What's behind these utterly inexplicable differences in the way identical cases are prosecuted? Is the prosecutorial community morally bankrupt? Are public prosecutors totally untrustworthy? Are prosecutors working hand in glove with the ruling party, targeting designated political figureswith the presidential election in mind? The Special Investigative Unit is investigating cases opened before the unit was established. If it wishes to be perceived as consistent, how can it turn a blind eye to the conduct of public prosecutors? If the Special Investigative Unit adopts standards at variance with legal precedents, won't it be accused of engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions? If the Special Investigative Unit turns a blind eye to public prosecutors who allow themselves to become political tools, who handle cases differently based on the political affiliation of the defendant, aren't they concerned about undermining public confidence in the neutrality of prosecutorial agencies?
The Discretionary Fund case is a long term joint effort. So said Su Tseng-chang, who has been exempted from prosecution. The Discretionary Fund case involves years of established procedure. Weng Yueh-sheng has been exempted from prosecution. Because Weng had already emptied out his Discretionary Fund, how his funds were used was considered no longer subject to investigation. This is how the prosecutor reasoned that an indictment against Weng was not required. Frank Hsieh may also be exempted from prosecution. Only Ma Ying-jeou, who truthfully declared his holdings, who did not withdraw funds from his account to spend or make donations, is being required to provide receipts accounting for his expenditures. One man is being forced to bear the entire burden of punishment meted out by the law. Isn't it obvious that if Ma Ying-jeou were an ordinary citizen and not a leading presidential candidate, he wouldn't be in his current pickle? As long as this suspicion remains, the credibility of prosecutorial agencies and the entire judicial system will remain in grave doubt and impossible to redeem.
How much longer must we endure Taiwan's vicious political culture?
中時電子報
中國時報 2007.11.01
起訴不起訴標準，真的因人而異？
中時社論
前司法院院長翁岳生之首長特別費案，最高法院檢察署特偵組檢察官偵結採不起訴處分，檢察機關偵辦特別費案起訴或不起訴的標準究竟何在？再度引起社會關注與質疑，幾乎形成了檢察機關每偵結一起特別費案，公信力就會受傷一次，這背後所突顯的問題，真的值得分析探究。
首先要說起訴與不起訴的標準。這可以分為幾方面來看，從馬英九案、許添財案、謝長廷、蘇貞昌案到翁岳生案，起訴不起訴的標準大不相同，不但對於特別費的性質認定出入甚大，偵查手法是柔和寬鬆還是鉅細靡遺，也明顯有異，完全無法說服客觀第三者，遑論令被起訴的當事人感到服氣。此是從大角度加以觀察的結果。
若再進一步檢驗檢方的辦案標準，在許添財不起訴案係採取實質補貼說，與馬英九案地方法院的觀點一致，卻又與起訴馬英九和不起訴謝、蘇、翁均未採取實質補貼說，並不相同。地方法院判決之前，檢察官自有標準，尚有可說。地方認同南檢不起訴許添財的見解之後，特偵組檢察官忽又改採新的見解，檢方標準不一的問題，已經嚴重得無以復加。
檢方的標準不但相互不同，與法院的見解彼此不同，即使是同一位檢察官的先後辦案標準，竟然也可一再翻異。侯寬仁辦馬英九案的標準何等嚴酷，辦案手法何等鍥而不捨，態度何等不假辭色，嚴格挑撿不予認定為公用的支出，未使用的部分一概視為自肥，不但狠咬馬英九是以詐術圖利自己，還不惜扭曲製作筆錄以坐實馬英九的罪狀；與他在謝蘇案不起訴案中種種與人為善的慈眉善目相比，簡直判若兩人，他對於領據報銷的支出可以一概寬鬆地假設為因公使用，對謝長廷友人的支出款項也可逕予接受為首長的公務花費，對馬英九本人的捐獻則不肯視為公用，也拒採大水庫理論加以扣除，亦不啻雲壤之別？南檢辦理許添財時的朱朝亮檢察長，轉到了特偵組辦理翁岳生案，竟也又有不同的見解，既已認定領據報銷是多年慣例，一旦領據代原始憑證列報即已完成核銷，事後並不要求回報，未用完者也未要求繳回，那又為何捨棄實質補貼見解？又何需再就領據核銷部分去計算總支出減去純私人支出的結餘金額，畫蛇添足，自相矛盾？單一的檢察官，辦的都是特別費案，遇到了不同的對象，可以如此前後不一，真的令人嘆為觀止！
這許多完全無法解釋的辦案標準歧異，背後說明了什麼？是檢察一體原則的徹底破產？是檢察官辦案能力完全不可信賴？還是顯示了此中確實存在著配合選舉節奏，針對特定政治人物動手動腳？如果這特偵組接手之後是採取了一致標準，對於特偵組成立之前的案件難道就可以不問檢察官的責任？特偵組採取異於前案的標準，發生不利前案的結果，難道就不會被指為特偵組另一種政治手段？對於個別的檢察官出主入奴、因人而異的辦案標準不聞不問，特偵組擔不擔心縱容的結果同樣會傷害檢察機關公正中立的執法信用？
回到問題原點，特別費案是多年累積的共業，說出這句名言的蘇貞昌已經獲得了不起訴；特別費案件涉及行之有年的實務慣例，翁岳生因此也獲得不起訴；因特別費使用殆罄而不必追查其真正用途，是檢方發明的理論，謝長廷也可因此獲得不起訴；只有如實申報財產，只是未從存入帳戶花用或為捐獻的馬英九，要就領據核銷的特別費，因為遵行既有的慣例，而單獨揹負集體的共業，「匹夫無罪，競選總統其罪」，難道不是一個極易取信的答案？此種質疑一日不能消除，檢察機關乃至司法整體的公信力，就一日會受到嚴重影響而難以復原。
台灣的政治劣性，究竟還要造業多久？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)