The Group of Eight Summit Adjourns Without Results:
The Inflationary Crisis Continues Without End
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 11, 2008
Summary: The Group of Eight (G8) Summit has adjourned. Leaders of the member nations warned of inflation-related price rises for both oil and grain. They asked oil producers to increase production. In response to global warming, they offered only empty promises, setting pro forma goals without means of fulfillment. The summit adjourned without results. The most memorable aspect of the summit was the irony of high officials pontificating about food shortages while scarfing down caviar. The Group of Eight Summit adjourned without results. Neither inflation nor the global warming problem received any attention. They continue to make matters worse. This tells us that inflation today's conceals a bigger structural problem, that it is a manifestation of the US dollar crisis. Therefore this crisis will not end any time soon.
Full Text below:
The Group of Eight (G8) Summit has adjourned. Leaders of the member nations warned of inflation-related price rises for both oil and grain. They asked oil producers to increase production. In response to global warming, they offered only empty promises, setting pro forma goals without means of fulfillment. The summit adjourned without results. The most memorable aspect of the summit was the irony of high officials pontificating about food shortages while scarfing down caviar.
The summit did nothing to address the urgent problems of the world.
It made one think of last August, when Germany hosted the summit.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel played host, and French President Nicholas Sarkozy played co-host.
They genuinely hoped the G8 would play an important role in dealing with the turmoil facing the world.
For example, the US subprime mortage crisis was already making financial waves. Sarkozy proposed a thorough investigation of the culprits, the three major U.S. credit rating companies, for suspicion of international fraud. He warned of the hazard posed by the proliferation of hot money, and demanded international standards for dealing with hot money. But his comments threatened the interests of the United States, Britain, and Japan, therefore were totally ignored. An opportunity to deal decisively with the matter was lost. Over the past year, the subprime mortgage crisis has raged on. The US Dollar has been rapidly devalued. Inflation has worsened. Hot money has proliferated. Global economic instability has increased. Only recently has the US Securities and Exchange Commission acknowledged that the culprits in the subprime mortgage crisis are the three major credit rating companies. But little good that does the already deteriorating situation.
At the last summit Chancellor Merkel, aware that the Kyoto Protocol would expire in 2012, hoped that between 2007 and 2012 the United States would assume greater responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. The United States reportedly still believes emissions reductions will affect its growth rate, and give emerging great powers such as China and India the opportunity to catch up. As a result, it has rejected pressure from Germany and the EU and refused to make any commitments. Instead it has demanded that large emerging nations such as China and India be included in the emissions reduction targets. The United States hopes this delaying tactic will give it a five year reprieve. But it merely led to last year's Bali meeting adjourning without results. This year's G8 Summit continues the trend. Because the United States refuses to take the initiative to reduce emissions, the G8 Summit can only set empty emissions reduction targets without any means of implementation.
For two consecutive years the G8 Summit has adjourned without results. This is regrettable, but not surprising. In recent months, a World Food Summit, an oil-producing and consuming countries summit, and a global climate summit have been held to address problems of inflation and global warming. But many summits have yielded few results. The reason is the larger countries have no intention of using the meetings to solve problems. They merely want to use the meetings to align themselves with allies, oppose dissenters, and look after their own interests. Such meetings could be held 365 times a year. But what would be the point?
Take global inflation. The key lies with the US's long-term balance of payments deficit, caused by an excess supply of dollars, the expansion of US dollar assets, and the loan-to-dollar credit turmoil that follows bankruptcies. The result is an accelerated depreciation of US dollars, and the proliferation of speculative hot money. During the G8 Summit Bush paid empty lip service to "support for a strong dollar." The dollar is depreciating. Speculative hot money is proliferating. Yet the United States continues to increase its international balance of payments deficit and makes no mention of military spending. Evading these problems ensures that they will never be solved. In short, this is essentially an inflationary crisis caused by a "dollar bubble." The situation will only get worse before it gets better. By now the only solution is to allow the situation to sort itself out. Denmark and a number of other European countries are now officially in recession. If the United States' strategy to dominate the world's oil supply remains unchanged, it will invade Iran or used Israel to fight Iran in a proxy war after this year's presidential election. Oil prices will skyrocket, and the world may well face a Great Depression.
The Group of Eight Summit adjourned without results. Neither inflation nor the global warming problem received any attention. They continue to make matters worse. This tells us that inflation today's conceals a bigger structural problem, that it is a manifestation of the US dollar crisis. Therefore this crisis will not end any time soon.
八大峰會無功閉幕 通膨危機方興未艾
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.11 03:06 am
八大（Ｇ８）峰會已閉幕，與會諸國領袖對油糧雙漲的通膨問題提出警訊，要求產油國增產，卻對地球暖化問題則只做出徒具目標而無手段的空口承諾。這次峰會的無功而散，使得它在人們的記憶裡，只剩下大啖魚子醬談糧荒一幕諷刺劇。
這次峰會對全球迫切問題完全沒有處理的能力，讓人想到去年八月德國當東道主的峰會。上次峰會由德國總理梅克爾女士作東，法國總統沙克吉為輔，他們面對世界動盪初現，確實想讓八大扮演起重要的角色：
例如，當時美國次貸風暴已現，金融動盪初興，因而沙克吉主張應對次貸元凶美國三大信用評等公司涉嫌國際詐欺問題展開全面性的調查；他同時也預見到熱錢氾濫對每個國家的危害，因而要求規範國際熱錢。但因他的意見嚴重損及美英日三國利益，遂完全未被理會。由於坐失果斷處理的先機，過去一年次貸風暴狂吹，美元急貶，通膨嚴重，熱錢氾濫，使得全球經濟失穩擴大。直到日前美國證管會才承認三大信用評等公司為次貸禍首，但這對惡化的情況又有何益？
再如，上次峰會梅克爾總理有鑑於「京都議定書」的協議時效將於二○一二年截止，遂希望在二○○七至二○一二這最後五年，讓美國在溫室氣體排放上負起責任。詎料美國仍認為主動減排會影響其成長率，而讓新興大國如中印等獲得從後追趕、縮短差距的機會，因而，堅拒德國與歐盟的壓力，不願作出承諾，反而要求將中印等新興大國列入減排對象。這是拖延之計，美國可由此而緩和五年的壓力，但也因此而造成了去年底的峇里島會議無功而散。今年八大基本上也延續這個脈絡，由於美國拒絕主動減排，會議只能做出有減排目標但無執行手段的空口承諾。
八大峰會連續兩年皆無功而散，此誠然令人遺憾，但並不意外。近月以來，全球為了通膨及暖化問題，早已召開過糧食峰會、石油生產國及消費國峰會及全球氣候會議等。但會議雖多，卻於事無補。究其原因，是主要國家並無意藉著會議來解決問題，而只企圖利用會議來黨同伐異，藉以捍衛自己的利益。這種會議縱使一年開個三六五次，又有何意義？
就以全球通膨為例，關鍵當然在於美國長期國際收支赤字造成美元過度供給，美元資產膨脹，以及次貸風暴後美元信用的破產；因而導致美元加速貶值，以及投機熱錢氾濫。而八大峰會上除了布希一句「支持強勢美元」的空話外，對美元貶值、投機熱錢氾濫、美國繼續擴大國際收支赤字和軍費等惱人狀況卻隻字不提。當問題重點被如此閃避掉，問題當然也就失去了面對或解決的機會。也就是說，當今這種本質上是「美元泡沫化」所造成的通膨危機，只得回到順其自然、任其惡化的方向。目前歐洲已有丹麥等多國正式進入衰退階段。設若美國宰制全球的石油戰略不變，在今年大選後入侵伊朗或利用以色列打伊朗，進行代理戰爭，則油價沖天飆漲，致使全球面臨大蕭條也未嘗不可能。
八大峰會無功而散，無論全球通膨及暖化問題，都未獲得緩解，仍走在繼續惡化的方向。這其實已更加提醒我們：當今的通膨問題背後潛藏著更大的結構，亦即是美元危機的具體化，故這股風暴在短期內不會結束。
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
President Ma's Leadership Style
President Ma's Leadership Style
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 10, 2008
.jpg)
Ma Ying-jeou visits Berkeley in 2006
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined in his entire life that his popularity would decline so much in such a short period of time. That it would resemble the Taiwan stock market insofar as the bottom is still nowhere in sight. One of the main reasons for this is his character and background. When you are the President, many things are your responsibility. Being virtuous is not enough. If the President was merely a figurehead, then there would be no need to fight tooth and nail over presidential elections. In fact, people do not want Ma Ying-jeou to become another Machievellian political schemer. But for Taiwan's democratic politics to progress, we need leaders who are more aggressive and more willing to sacrifice. So far, we are still waiting for Ma Ying-jeou to show greater concern for the nation than for himself.
Full Text below:
President Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined in his entire life that his popularity would decline so much in such a short period of time. That it would resemble the Taiwan stock market insofar as the bottom is still nowhere in sight. One of the main reasons for this is his character and background.
Prominent political commentator Nanfang Shuo described Ma Ying-jeou's character as one of "gentle obstinacy." Former Control Yuan President Wang Tso-jung said that Ma Ying-jeou's family doted on him as a child, turning him into an egocentric personality indifferent to other peoples' circumstances and feelings. These evaluations of his character have highlighted a key point: Ma Ying-jeou's life and political rise has been far too easy. He has been the recipient of too much public adulation. This great fortune in the first half of his life, is now costing him dearly. Perhaps the credit and deficit columns in Ma's karmic account are about to be balanced.
Ma Ying-jeou was an only son. He was doted upon. He is a man of accomplishments, with exceptional breeding. He has impeccable manners, does everything by the book, and is honest to a fault. He is both erudite and athletic. He is a Harvard Ph.D who speaks fluent English, and an athlete who can run and swim with the best of them. No matter how you look at it, Ma Ying-jeou is the cream of the crop. Parents dream of raising such a son. He is a model student and Prince Charming, all rolled into one. He is like the lotus flower that flourishes amidst the muck of the political arena, but somehow manages to stay clean. As a result he has always remained popular. His legions of screaming fans rival those of major movie stars.
When we look back at Ma Ying-jeou's political career, we see smooth sailing all the way. He had no need to struggle to achieve his goals. His political career was served up to him on a silver platter. At times he found it hard to refuse. Only after the party begged him was he willing to enter the Taipei Mayoral Election. Eventually he would become the sole savior of the KMT and the Republic of China.
Ma Ying-jeou's qualifications were too good. Just by being himself he attracted public adulation. He had no need to do anything. Public adulation and honors automatically came his way. This made him extremely concerned about his image. Any defects or dark spots were intolerable. Because he never had to pay attention to other peoples' needs or feelings, he lacks sensitivity. He does not know how to contribute to others, how to engage in quid pro quo, and does not like dirty politics.
Unfortunately politics is everybody's business. It is hardly something one can engage in alone. Ma Ying-jeou is not good at it. He attaches little importance to interaction with others. His braintrust is too small and too inbred. Most of them are ivory tower intellectuals, politically unsophisticated, fearful of outsiders, isolated, and out of touch with the outside world. This leads to a lack of dissonance during the decision-making process. This undermines the quality and responsiveness of decision-making, and eventually leads to a backlash.
Ma Ying-jeou's list of Control Yuan and Examination Yuan nominees reveals concessions to realpolitik, an effort to defuse confrontation between the Blue and Green camps, and a good faith effort to be a "president to all the people." But the KMT's conduct during the subsequent review process was outrageous. By using innocent Examination Yuan and Control Yuan nominees as scapegoats in order to show Ma Ying-jeou who was boss, KMT legislators merely proved that they were malignant tumors that ought to be excised.
President Ma Ying-jeou is not without responsibility. He failed to consult with the legislature first. Once the matter was out in the open, he tried to be an effective President. But his innate character, remote and aloof, got in the way. His acquired skills failed him as well, due to inexperience. He failed to acknowledge his responsibility to ensure cooperation between his administration and his party. Ma Ying-jeou is like a little white rabbit who has been elected King of the Jungle, who only wants to sit on his throne and remain pure as the driven snow, shielded by his confidants, willing to do what is needed to polish his public image, but unwilling to dirty his paws by coming in contact with the jackals and hyenas. Lacking the necessary ruthlessness and calculation, he delegates the dirty work to others. The office may be elective. But power must be won. If this continues, the weak and pusillanimous little rabbit will soon be exposed for what he is, and the situation will only get worse.
When President Lee Teng-hui took office, he arrived powerless and empty-handed. He pitted one rival against another, gradually building up his power base. Ma Ying-jeou does not need to play these games. People are eager to please him. He is starting from a far more advantageous place. Unfortunately, upon being elected, Ma Ying-jeou has been treating the KMT as an instrument in his service. He feels no obligation to contribute to its political survival. He doesn't consider the reform of this creaky old political party as something he must achieve in order to enhance the quality of Taiwan's political culture. He champions no political philosophy, and offers no national vision. Whatever the Executive Yuan doesn't concern him. Isn't such a presidency just a little too carefree?
When you are the President, many things are your responsibility. Being virtuous is not enough. If the President was merely a figurehead, then there would be no need to fight tooth and nail over presidential elections. In fact, people do not want Ma Ying-jeou to become another Machievellian political schemer. But for Taiwan's democratic politics to progress, we need leaders who are more aggressive and more willing to sacrifice. So far, we are still waiting for Ma Ying-jeou to show greater concern for the nation than for himself.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.07.10
談談馬總統的領導風格
中時社論
馬英九總統大概一輩子也想不到，自己會在這麼短的時間裡人氣跌得這麼快，而且跟台灣股市一樣，還看不到底部在哪裡。這其中，很大一部分的問題，出在他的人格特質與養成背景。
名政論家南方朔以「柔性的剛愎自用」形容馬英九，前監察院長王作榮則指他自小三千寵愛在一身，形成獨霸的個性，不在乎他人的處境與感受。這些評語都點出了一個關鍵重點：馬英九的成長乃至從政過程，實在太一帆風順、太受萬千寵愛了。但這前半生的莫大幸運，卻導致在此時必須付出非常昂貴的代價；人生的得與失，也許終究會有個平衡吧。
馬英九是家中獨子，備受呵護。一表人才，氣質出眾，做事循規蹈矩，操守一介不取。而且文武雙全，不但是英文呱呱叫的哈佛博士，還是能跑能游的運動健將。不論從哪個角度看，馬英九都是菁英中的菁英。家裡養出這樣的兒子，當父母的做夢都會笑醒。他就像模範生加白馬王子的綜合體，在一缸爛泥似的政壇裡，彷彿一朵出淤泥而不染的清蓮，因此人氣始終紅不讓，粉絲瘋狂尖叫的場景不輸大明星。
回顧馬英九的從政生涯，也一路順遂得有如天之驕子。他不必主動爭取，其他人求之不得的職位與機會就紛紛送上門來，有時連推都推不掉。當年是全黨上下千拜託萬拜託，他才肯參選台北市長，最後他更儼然成了國民黨和中華民國的唯一救星。
馬英九本身的條件太優，光做自己就夠討人喜歡了，不必費心去對別人做什麼，眷愛與榮耀就自動歸之於他。這使得他非常在乎自己的形象，對任何瑕疵或玷汙都難以忍受。由於向來不必去注意，所以對別人的感受或需求缺乏敏感度，不太懂得付出、利益交換或拉幫結派這種事，也不喜歡汙濁的政治。
偏偏政治是眾人之事，不適合搞孤單。馬英九不僅不擅長、不重視與他人的互動，決策圈又非常小，而且和他太像，大多是自視甚高的白面書生，政治手腕並不老練，排外封閉遠勝於合縱連橫。這使得決策過程缺乏不同的聲音注入，影響了決策品質和對事情的因應，還會逐漸在內部累積反彈。
憑良心講，馬英九提出的考監委名單，雖然看得出兼顧現實的部分，但也對化解藍綠對立作了相當努力，展現出扮演一位全民總統的誠意，但國民黨後續的審查表現，簡直荒腔走板到了離譜的地步。如果若干高層真的為了給馬難看，拿無辜的考監委當試刀的祭品，那麼只證明自己正是需要割除的陳年毒瘤。
但馬英九總統卻也不是毫無責任，問題不在他有沒有早一點去拜託，而在於此事暴露出，在扮演一個稱職的總統上，他先天個性太過疏離自限，後天的政治手腕也失之生嫩，又未曾認清自己在黨政運作中應有的責任。彷彿一隻被選為叢林之王的小白兔，只想乾淨漂亮地坐在寶座上，被少數親信保護著，願意做有助公關形象的活動，但不想和滿林的豺狼虎豹打交道。而且坦白說，也沒那個狠辣與權謀，寧可把麻煩骯髒的事交給別人代勞。職位是選來的，但權力是贏來的。再這樣下去，軟弱膽怯的兔子愈來愈被看破手腳，處境恐怕還會更糟。
當年李登輝接下總統職位時，手上權力空空如也，靠著拉這個打那個，逐漸建立起自己的權力版圖。馬英九不需要玩這些，就有很多人巴望著被摸頭，他的起點已經好太多了，可惜當選之後，馬英九似乎想當然爾地認為黨是自動會為自己效力的工具，不覺得自己要對國民黨的政治生命付出什麼心力，也不認為改革這個老舊政黨是提升台灣政治品質的必要課題，更沒有再提出什麼政治理念或國家願景，連行政院在做什麼都好像隔了一層。作為一個總統，這樣會不會太輕鬆了一點？
當總統，對很多事情都有責任的，不是獨善其身就夠了。如果我們的總統真那麼虛位的話，大選不會廝殺得如此慘烈。其實，民眾並不希望馬英九變成另一個耍權謀搞鬥爭的政客，但要推動台灣民主政治進一步向前行，需要領導者願意更積極地奉獻投入。而到目前
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 10, 2008
.jpg)
Ma Ying-jeou visits Berkeley in 2006
Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined in his entire life that his popularity would decline so much in such a short period of time. That it would resemble the Taiwan stock market insofar as the bottom is still nowhere in sight. One of the main reasons for this is his character and background. When you are the President, many things are your responsibility. Being virtuous is not enough. If the President was merely a figurehead, then there would be no need to fight tooth and nail over presidential elections. In fact, people do not want Ma Ying-jeou to become another Machievellian political schemer. But for Taiwan's democratic politics to progress, we need leaders who are more aggressive and more willing to sacrifice. So far, we are still waiting for Ma Ying-jeou to show greater concern for the nation than for himself.
Full Text below:
President Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined in his entire life that his popularity would decline so much in such a short period of time. That it would resemble the Taiwan stock market insofar as the bottom is still nowhere in sight. One of the main reasons for this is his character and background.
Prominent political commentator Nanfang Shuo described Ma Ying-jeou's character as one of "gentle obstinacy." Former Control Yuan President Wang Tso-jung said that Ma Ying-jeou's family doted on him as a child, turning him into an egocentric personality indifferent to other peoples' circumstances and feelings. These evaluations of his character have highlighted a key point: Ma Ying-jeou's life and political rise has been far too easy. He has been the recipient of too much public adulation. This great fortune in the first half of his life, is now costing him dearly. Perhaps the credit and deficit columns in Ma's karmic account are about to be balanced.
Ma Ying-jeou was an only son. He was doted upon. He is a man of accomplishments, with exceptional breeding. He has impeccable manners, does everything by the book, and is honest to a fault. He is both erudite and athletic. He is a Harvard Ph.D who speaks fluent English, and an athlete who can run and swim with the best of them. No matter how you look at it, Ma Ying-jeou is the cream of the crop. Parents dream of raising such a son. He is a model student and Prince Charming, all rolled into one. He is like the lotus flower that flourishes amidst the muck of the political arena, but somehow manages to stay clean. As a result he has always remained popular. His legions of screaming fans rival those of major movie stars.
When we look back at Ma Ying-jeou's political career, we see smooth sailing all the way. He had no need to struggle to achieve his goals. His political career was served up to him on a silver platter. At times he found it hard to refuse. Only after the party begged him was he willing to enter the Taipei Mayoral Election. Eventually he would become the sole savior of the KMT and the Republic of China.
Ma Ying-jeou's qualifications were too good. Just by being himself he attracted public adulation. He had no need to do anything. Public adulation and honors automatically came his way. This made him extremely concerned about his image. Any defects or dark spots were intolerable. Because he never had to pay attention to other peoples' needs or feelings, he lacks sensitivity. He does not know how to contribute to others, how to engage in quid pro quo, and does not like dirty politics.
Unfortunately politics is everybody's business. It is hardly something one can engage in alone. Ma Ying-jeou is not good at it. He attaches little importance to interaction with others. His braintrust is too small and too inbred. Most of them are ivory tower intellectuals, politically unsophisticated, fearful of outsiders, isolated, and out of touch with the outside world. This leads to a lack of dissonance during the decision-making process. This undermines the quality and responsiveness of decision-making, and eventually leads to a backlash.
Ma Ying-jeou's list of Control Yuan and Examination Yuan nominees reveals concessions to realpolitik, an effort to defuse confrontation between the Blue and Green camps, and a good faith effort to be a "president to all the people." But the KMT's conduct during the subsequent review process was outrageous. By using innocent Examination Yuan and Control Yuan nominees as scapegoats in order to show Ma Ying-jeou who was boss, KMT legislators merely proved that they were malignant tumors that ought to be excised.
President Ma Ying-jeou is not without responsibility. He failed to consult with the legislature first. Once the matter was out in the open, he tried to be an effective President. But his innate character, remote and aloof, got in the way. His acquired skills failed him as well, due to inexperience. He failed to acknowledge his responsibility to ensure cooperation between his administration and his party. Ma Ying-jeou is like a little white rabbit who has been elected King of the Jungle, who only wants to sit on his throne and remain pure as the driven snow, shielded by his confidants, willing to do what is needed to polish his public image, but unwilling to dirty his paws by coming in contact with the jackals and hyenas. Lacking the necessary ruthlessness and calculation, he delegates the dirty work to others. The office may be elective. But power must be won. If this continues, the weak and pusillanimous little rabbit will soon be exposed for what he is, and the situation will only get worse.
When President Lee Teng-hui took office, he arrived powerless and empty-handed. He pitted one rival against another, gradually building up his power base. Ma Ying-jeou does not need to play these games. People are eager to please him. He is starting from a far more advantageous place. Unfortunately, upon being elected, Ma Ying-jeou has been treating the KMT as an instrument in his service. He feels no obligation to contribute to its political survival. He doesn't consider the reform of this creaky old political party as something he must achieve in order to enhance the quality of Taiwan's political culture. He champions no political philosophy, and offers no national vision. Whatever the Executive Yuan doesn't concern him. Isn't such a presidency just a little too carefree?
When you are the President, many things are your responsibility. Being virtuous is not enough. If the President was merely a figurehead, then there would be no need to fight tooth and nail over presidential elections. In fact, people do not want Ma Ying-jeou to become another Machievellian political schemer. But for Taiwan's democratic politics to progress, we need leaders who are more aggressive and more willing to sacrifice. So far, we are still waiting for Ma Ying-jeou to show greater concern for the nation than for himself.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.07.10
談談馬總統的領導風格
中時社論
馬英九總統大概一輩子也想不到，自己會在這麼短的時間裡人氣跌得這麼快，而且跟台灣股市一樣，還看不到底部在哪裡。這其中，很大一部分的問題，出在他的人格特質與養成背景。
名政論家南方朔以「柔性的剛愎自用」形容馬英九，前監察院長王作榮則指他自小三千寵愛在一身，形成獨霸的個性，不在乎他人的處境與感受。這些評語都點出了一個關鍵重點：馬英九的成長乃至從政過程，實在太一帆風順、太受萬千寵愛了。但這前半生的莫大幸運，卻導致在此時必須付出非常昂貴的代價；人生的得與失，也許終究會有個平衡吧。
馬英九是家中獨子，備受呵護。一表人才，氣質出眾，做事循規蹈矩，操守一介不取。而且文武雙全，不但是英文呱呱叫的哈佛博士，還是能跑能游的運動健將。不論從哪個角度看，馬英九都是菁英中的菁英。家裡養出這樣的兒子，當父母的做夢都會笑醒。他就像模範生加白馬王子的綜合體，在一缸爛泥似的政壇裡，彷彿一朵出淤泥而不染的清蓮，因此人氣始終紅不讓，粉絲瘋狂尖叫的場景不輸大明星。
回顧馬英九的從政生涯，也一路順遂得有如天之驕子。他不必主動爭取，其他人求之不得的職位與機會就紛紛送上門來，有時連推都推不掉。當年是全黨上下千拜託萬拜託，他才肯參選台北市長，最後他更儼然成了國民黨和中華民國的唯一救星。
馬英九本身的條件太優，光做自己就夠討人喜歡了，不必費心去對別人做什麼，眷愛與榮耀就自動歸之於他。這使得他非常在乎自己的形象，對任何瑕疵或玷汙都難以忍受。由於向來不必去注意，所以對別人的感受或需求缺乏敏感度，不太懂得付出、利益交換或拉幫結派這種事，也不喜歡汙濁的政治。
偏偏政治是眾人之事，不適合搞孤單。馬英九不僅不擅長、不重視與他人的互動，決策圈又非常小，而且和他太像，大多是自視甚高的白面書生，政治手腕並不老練，排外封閉遠勝於合縱連橫。這使得決策過程缺乏不同的聲音注入，影響了決策品質和對事情的因應，還會逐漸在內部累積反彈。
憑良心講，馬英九提出的考監委名單，雖然看得出兼顧現實的部分，但也對化解藍綠對立作了相當努力，展現出扮演一位全民總統的誠意，但國民黨後續的審查表現，簡直荒腔走板到了離譜的地步。如果若干高層真的為了給馬難看，拿無辜的考監委當試刀的祭品，那麼只證明自己正是需要割除的陳年毒瘤。
但馬英九總統卻也不是毫無責任，問題不在他有沒有早一點去拜託，而在於此事暴露出，在扮演一個稱職的總統上，他先天個性太過疏離自限，後天的政治手腕也失之生嫩，又未曾認清自己在黨政運作中應有的責任。彷彿一隻被選為叢林之王的小白兔，只想乾淨漂亮地坐在寶座上，被少數親信保護著，願意做有助公關形象的活動，但不想和滿林的豺狼虎豹打交道。而且坦白說，也沒那個狠辣與權謀，寧可把麻煩骯髒的事交給別人代勞。職位是選來的，但權力是贏來的。再這樣下去，軟弱膽怯的兔子愈來愈被看破手腳，處境恐怕還會更糟。
當年李登輝接下總統職位時，手上權力空空如也，靠著拉這個打那個，逐漸建立起自己的權力版圖。馬英九不需要玩這些，就有很多人巴望著被摸頭，他的起點已經好太多了，可惜當選之後，馬英九似乎想當然爾地認為黨是自動會為自己效力的工具，不覺得自己要對國民黨的政治生命付出什麼心力，也不認為改革這個老舊政黨是提升台灣政治品質的必要課題，更沒有再提出什麼政治理念或國家願景，連行政院在做什麼都好像隔了一層。作為一個總統，這樣會不會太輕鬆了一點？
當總統，對很多事情都有責任的，不是獨善其身就夠了。如果我們的總統真那麼虛位的話，大選不會廝殺得如此慘烈。其實，民眾並不希望馬英九變成另一個耍權謀搞鬥爭的政客，但要推動台灣民主政治進一步向前行，需要領導者願意更積極地奉獻投入。而到目前
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Fuel and Electricity Prices: Scrutinize the System Before Raising Prices
Fuel and Electricity Prices: Scrutinize the System Before Raising Prices
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2008
Summary: Taiwan's electric power industry and oil industry are structured irrationally. The main reason is the government subsidizes state-owned energy companies. Under such protective umbrellas, Taipower and CPC have no competition. They need not worry about cost-savings or wasteful expenditures. They willingly accept unreasonable policies, subsidies, and expenditures because any deficits can be passed on to consumers. If profits are below expectations, they need not ask themselves whether their operations are efficient or their costs are reasonable. Price increases are the simplest, most expedient way of solving their problems.
Full Text below:
In July, both fuel and electricity prices increased, fuelling the threat of stagflation. Ordinary people's cost of living increased. But the energy policy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Executive Yuan, even President Ma's inner circle, has so far been merely to toss the people a bone, to offer them a few energy-saving incentives. These consumer-oriented measures are necessary and important. But they do little to ease severe pressure on energy supplies and prices. Reforms must be supply-side oriented to play a real role. This includes the liberalization of the electric power industry and the rationalization of oil prices. For decades the government has done nothing. It has been derelict in its duty.
Taiwan's electric power industry and oil industry are structured irrationally. The main reason is the government subsidizes state-owned energy companies. Under such protective umbrellas, Taipower and CPC have no competition. They need not worry about cost-savings or wasteful expenditures. They willingly accept unreasonable policies, subsidies, and expenditures because any deficits can be passed on to consumers. If profits are below expectations, they need not ask themselves whether their operations are efficient or their costs are reasonable. Price increases are the simplest, most expedient way of solving their problems.
Consumers who have been abroad must remember seeing Exxon, Texaco, Shell, and other service stations at every major urban intersection. These gas stations compete not only over price, but also service. But on Taiwan, besides China Petroleum, there is only Formosa Plastics. These two oil companies control every gas nozzle on Taiwan. Taiwan is the only region in Asia with no access to foreign oil companies. Taiwan's two oil companies have always had an "understanding" regarding price increases. The two compete you say? Consumers don't think so.
Taiwan's two oil companies have so far avoided giving the public the impression they are in bed together. But they operate within an environment of guaranteed profits. Their cavalier indifference to operating costs was made abundantly clear when the former DPP government froze gas prices. When gas prices were frozen, China Petroleum was able to supply the domestic market by itself. This showed that a considerable percentage of the two oil companies' refining capacity was normally idle. If Taiwan's oil market had free competition, how could it tolerate so much idle equipment? How could consumers obediently accept higher gasoline prices?
The electric power industry's monopoly is even more serious than the oil industry's. Taipower's activities include power generation, transmission, and distribution. Its "Four in One" business model for all forms of electricity is long out of date. In fact Taiwan has about two dozen private power plants. But electric power industry regulations require Taipower to purchase privately-generated electricity at regulated prices. As a result, Taipower and private power plants are not competitors, but partners. This guarantees that the consumer gets exploited.
Taipower's "Four in One" business model has fallen far behind global trends within the electric power industry. These include demands for economic liberalization, increased efficiency and safety, and reduced waste. The Ministry of Finance knows that only a economically liberalized, competitive environment can lead to cost consciousness and efficiency. Only economic liberalization can provide high quality electric power service to households at a reasonable price. But 10 years of liberalization later, it has still taken no action.
Take the Eastern Interconnected System in the United States for example. Over a hundred private power plant managers must accurately estimate fuel prices, personnel costs, the probability of natural disasters, even such variables as industrial sabotage, months in advance. They must make a detailed accounting of costs to keep prices low, in order to be awarded contracts to supply electricity to the Public Utilities Commission. On Taiwan, meanwhile, profits are guaranteed. No one competes to supply electric power. Electricity prices are determined by politics and not by technical expertise.
We all know that in recent years Taiwan has experienced an over-supply of electricity due to industrial outsourcing. Yet the irrational policy of granting special concessions and purchasing electricity from private sector power plants has continued unabated. Taipower has revealed their contempt for consumers by reflexively passing these expenses on to consumers.
Taipower spends nearly 10 billion a year constructing steam and electric cogeneration, wind, and private sector renewable energy power generation plants at preferential prices. These account for over one-fifth of Taiwan's total electrical generating capacity. In order to purchase this electricity legally, Taipower has reduced utilization of its own power generation equipment, or even idled it, resulting in an incalculable waste of hardware. On the other hand, well-heeled private sector power plants use their own lower-cost electricity at peak hours. Off-peak electricity is sold to Taipower at high prices. Since the selling price is guaranteed, why not make the most of it? To make matters worse, Most of the privately-operated steam and electric cogeneration power plants do not use natural gas or other clean energy. They use low efficiency, low-cost, low-yield coal-fired or oil-fired units. Very little waste heat is recovered. The more electricity they generate, the more harm they inflict upon Taiwan's environment.
Taiwan's consumers are of course aware of the grim nature of the energy supply problem. They know the increased costs must be borne by all. But the government must ensure that fuel and electricity prices remain reasonable. They must not treat the people like ATMs, forcing consumers to bear unreasonable costs.
油電事業建制應先檢討再談漲價
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.09 02:48 am
七月油電雙漲，助長停滯性通膨威脅，普羅百姓生活負擔更形加重。但管能源政策的經濟部、行政院，甚至更上層的馬核心，迄今只祭出對民眾「利誘」的一些獎勵節能措施；這些寄望「消費端」的措施雖然該做也重要，但對緩解能源供應的嚴峻及價格壓力卻是作用有限。真正能發揮作用的，是在應當大力改革「供應端」，包括電業自由化、油價結構合理化等，幾十年來政府卻迄無動作，這是政府的失職。
台灣的電業、石油業建制及結構的不合理，關鍵原因出在政府基於歲入考慮，以法律保障國營能源事業收益；在這個「保護傘」的庇蔭下，台電及中油的經營不需要面對競爭，不需要撙節開支或在意成本浪費，對不合理的政策補貼支出也「欣然」接受，只因為赤字可以完全轉嫁給消費者；利潤未達預期，不必檢討經營是否得法或成本是否合理，漲價是最便捷、簡單的方法。
出過國的消費者一定有這個印象，國外城市路口有一家艾克森美孚加油站，緊鄰一定有德士古、殼牌石油等的加油站，不同品牌的加油站不但價格競爭，還有品質競爭。但在台灣，除了中油，就是台塑，兩家油商控制全台加油槍，台灣幾乎是亞洲唯一沒有外國油商進入、競爭的國家；於是，台灣唯二的油商，總是「默契十足」的漲價幅度與時間，說兩者是競爭關係，恐怕消費者不會同意。
台灣兩家油商雖一再迴避外界「哥倆好」的印象，但保證收益的經營環境，卻因先前民進黨政府油價凍漲，完全暴露出習於安逸、不在乎成本的經營心態。試想，油價凍漲期間，中油即可獨力應付國內油品市場供應，這豈不顯示平常兩家油商相當比例的煉油設備是閒置狀態？如果台灣的油品市場是自由競爭環境，哪裡會容忍設備大量閒置，消費者又豈會莫名所以地乖乖接受高油價？
電業的壟斷較石油更嚴重，台電囊括發電、輸電、配電、售電的「四合一」所有電力業務的經營形態早已落伍；台灣其實有二十幾家民營電廠，但電業法規定台電須以保證價格收購民營業者的發電，因此台電與民營電廠間不是競爭關係，而是利益共生。但這樣一來，消費端慘遭剝削已屬必然。
台電的「四合一」經營形態，嚴重背離了近年要求效率、安全、杜絕浪費的全球電力自由化趨勢；雖然經濟部知道電力自由化是國際趨勢，只有自由化的競爭環境才有成本概念，才有效率可言，才可能提供用電戶合理電價及高品質電力；但至今自由化一談十多年，卻始終不見行動。
以美國東部互聯電力系統為例，轄下幾十、上百個民營發電廠經理，必須精確計算幾個月後的發電燃料價格、人事成本、天災頻率甚至勞工怠工等所有變數，詳細核算成本後壓低報價，才能爭取到公用事業聯盟的供電訂單；哪裡像台灣，反正利潤是法定的，沒有人競爭供電生意，電價當然捨專業就政治。
大家都知道近年因為工業外移，台灣的電力已明顯供過於求，但優惠且全數收購民營電廠所發電力的不合理政策仍在持續；這些支出，台電直覺地全數轉嫁給消費者，暴露出視消費者為無物的經營心態。
台電一年要花費近千億元執行優惠價格且全數收購汽電共生、風力、再生能源的民營電廠發電，為了依法收購這些佔台灣總發電量超過五分之一的電力，台電竟然得讓自己的發電設備降低利用率，甚至閒置，造成難以估計的硬體投資浪費；另方面，大有來頭的民營電廠尖峰時用自己成本較低的電，離峰時拚命發電賣給台電賺取高額差價；既有保證價格的收購環境，不去賺豈不是笨蛋？更糟糕的是，大部分汽電共生的民營電廠不是使用天然氣等潔淨能源，而是成本低熱效率也低的燃煤、燃油機組，而且很少回收廢熱，電發得愈多，其實對台灣環境的傷害愈大。
台灣的消費者當然知道能源供應的嚴峻，也知道應該共體時艱分攤成本增加；但政府應該做包括供應端油電商的成本合理化努力，不能老把人民當提款機，硬要消費者承擔無理的支出。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2008
Summary: Taiwan's electric power industry and oil industry are structured irrationally. The main reason is the government subsidizes state-owned energy companies. Under such protective umbrellas, Taipower and CPC have no competition. They need not worry about cost-savings or wasteful expenditures. They willingly accept unreasonable policies, subsidies, and expenditures because any deficits can be passed on to consumers. If profits are below expectations, they need not ask themselves whether their operations are efficient or their costs are reasonable. Price increases are the simplest, most expedient way of solving their problems.
Full Text below:
In July, both fuel and electricity prices increased, fuelling the threat of stagflation. Ordinary people's cost of living increased. But the energy policy of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Executive Yuan, even President Ma's inner circle, has so far been merely to toss the people a bone, to offer them a few energy-saving incentives. These consumer-oriented measures are necessary and important. But they do little to ease severe pressure on energy supplies and prices. Reforms must be supply-side oriented to play a real role. This includes the liberalization of the electric power industry and the rationalization of oil prices. For decades the government has done nothing. It has been derelict in its duty.
Taiwan's electric power industry and oil industry are structured irrationally. The main reason is the government subsidizes state-owned energy companies. Under such protective umbrellas, Taipower and CPC have no competition. They need not worry about cost-savings or wasteful expenditures. They willingly accept unreasonable policies, subsidies, and expenditures because any deficits can be passed on to consumers. If profits are below expectations, they need not ask themselves whether their operations are efficient or their costs are reasonable. Price increases are the simplest, most expedient way of solving their problems.
Consumers who have been abroad must remember seeing Exxon, Texaco, Shell, and other service stations at every major urban intersection. These gas stations compete not only over price, but also service. But on Taiwan, besides China Petroleum, there is only Formosa Plastics. These two oil companies control every gas nozzle on Taiwan. Taiwan is the only region in Asia with no access to foreign oil companies. Taiwan's two oil companies have always had an "understanding" regarding price increases. The two compete you say? Consumers don't think so.
Taiwan's two oil companies have so far avoided giving the public the impression they are in bed together. But they operate within an environment of guaranteed profits. Their cavalier indifference to operating costs was made abundantly clear when the former DPP government froze gas prices. When gas prices were frozen, China Petroleum was able to supply the domestic market by itself. This showed that a considerable percentage of the two oil companies' refining capacity was normally idle. If Taiwan's oil market had free competition, how could it tolerate so much idle equipment? How could consumers obediently accept higher gasoline prices?
The electric power industry's monopoly is even more serious than the oil industry's. Taipower's activities include power generation, transmission, and distribution. Its "Four in One" business model for all forms of electricity is long out of date. In fact Taiwan has about two dozen private power plants. But electric power industry regulations require Taipower to purchase privately-generated electricity at regulated prices. As a result, Taipower and private power plants are not competitors, but partners. This guarantees that the consumer gets exploited.
Taipower's "Four in One" business model has fallen far behind global trends within the electric power industry. These include demands for economic liberalization, increased efficiency and safety, and reduced waste. The Ministry of Finance knows that only a economically liberalized, competitive environment can lead to cost consciousness and efficiency. Only economic liberalization can provide high quality electric power service to households at a reasonable price. But 10 years of liberalization later, it has still taken no action.
Take the Eastern Interconnected System in the United States for example. Over a hundred private power plant managers must accurately estimate fuel prices, personnel costs, the probability of natural disasters, even such variables as industrial sabotage, months in advance. They must make a detailed accounting of costs to keep prices low, in order to be awarded contracts to supply electricity to the Public Utilities Commission. On Taiwan, meanwhile, profits are guaranteed. No one competes to supply electric power. Electricity prices are determined by politics and not by technical expertise.
We all know that in recent years Taiwan has experienced an over-supply of electricity due to industrial outsourcing. Yet the irrational policy of granting special concessions and purchasing electricity from private sector power plants has continued unabated. Taipower has revealed their contempt for consumers by reflexively passing these expenses on to consumers.
Taipower spends nearly 10 billion a year constructing steam and electric cogeneration, wind, and private sector renewable energy power generation plants at preferential prices. These account for over one-fifth of Taiwan's total electrical generating capacity. In order to purchase this electricity legally, Taipower has reduced utilization of its own power generation equipment, or even idled it, resulting in an incalculable waste of hardware. On the other hand, well-heeled private sector power plants use their own lower-cost electricity at peak hours. Off-peak electricity is sold to Taipower at high prices. Since the selling price is guaranteed, why not make the most of it? To make matters worse, Most of the privately-operated steam and electric cogeneration power plants do not use natural gas or other clean energy. They use low efficiency, low-cost, low-yield coal-fired or oil-fired units. Very little waste heat is recovered. The more electricity they generate, the more harm they inflict upon Taiwan's environment.
Taiwan's consumers are of course aware of the grim nature of the energy supply problem. They know the increased costs must be borne by all. But the government must ensure that fuel and electricity prices remain reasonable. They must not treat the people like ATMs, forcing consumers to bear unreasonable costs.
油電事業建制應先檢討再談漲價
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.09 02:48 am
七月油電雙漲，助長停滯性通膨威脅，普羅百姓生活負擔更形加重。但管能源政策的經濟部、行政院，甚至更上層的馬核心，迄今只祭出對民眾「利誘」的一些獎勵節能措施；這些寄望「消費端」的措施雖然該做也重要，但對緩解能源供應的嚴峻及價格壓力卻是作用有限。真正能發揮作用的，是在應當大力改革「供應端」，包括電業自由化、油價結構合理化等，幾十年來政府卻迄無動作，這是政府的失職。
台灣的電業、石油業建制及結構的不合理，關鍵原因出在政府基於歲入考慮，以法律保障國營能源事業收益；在這個「保護傘」的庇蔭下，台電及中油的經營不需要面對競爭，不需要撙節開支或在意成本浪費，對不合理的政策補貼支出也「欣然」接受，只因為赤字可以完全轉嫁給消費者；利潤未達預期，不必檢討經營是否得法或成本是否合理，漲價是最便捷、簡單的方法。
出過國的消費者一定有這個印象，國外城市路口有一家艾克森美孚加油站，緊鄰一定有德士古、殼牌石油等的加油站，不同品牌的加油站不但價格競爭，還有品質競爭。但在台灣，除了中油，就是台塑，兩家油商控制全台加油槍，台灣幾乎是亞洲唯一沒有外國油商進入、競爭的國家；於是，台灣唯二的油商，總是「默契十足」的漲價幅度與時間，說兩者是競爭關係，恐怕消費者不會同意。
台灣兩家油商雖一再迴避外界「哥倆好」的印象，但保證收益的經營環境，卻因先前民進黨政府油價凍漲，完全暴露出習於安逸、不在乎成本的經營心態。試想，油價凍漲期間，中油即可獨力應付國內油品市場供應，這豈不顯示平常兩家油商相當比例的煉油設備是閒置狀態？如果台灣的油品市場是自由競爭環境，哪裡會容忍設備大量閒置，消費者又豈會莫名所以地乖乖接受高油價？
電業的壟斷較石油更嚴重，台電囊括發電、輸電、配電、售電的「四合一」所有電力業務的經營形態早已落伍；台灣其實有二十幾家民營電廠，但電業法規定台電須以保證價格收購民營業者的發電，因此台電與民營電廠間不是競爭關係，而是利益共生。但這樣一來，消費端慘遭剝削已屬必然。
台電的「四合一」經營形態，嚴重背離了近年要求效率、安全、杜絕浪費的全球電力自由化趨勢；雖然經濟部知道電力自由化是國際趨勢，只有自由化的競爭環境才有成本概念，才有效率可言，才可能提供用電戶合理電價及高品質電力；但至今自由化一談十多年，卻始終不見行動。
以美國東部互聯電力系統為例，轄下幾十、上百個民營發電廠經理，必須精確計算幾個月後的發電燃料價格、人事成本、天災頻率甚至勞工怠工等所有變數，詳細核算成本後壓低報價，才能爭取到公用事業聯盟的供電訂單；哪裡像台灣，反正利潤是法定的，沒有人競爭供電生意，電價當然捨專業就政治。
大家都知道近年因為工業外移，台灣的電力已明顯供過於求，但優惠且全數收購民營電廠所發電力的不合理政策仍在持續；這些支出，台電直覺地全數轉嫁給消費者，暴露出視消費者為無物的經營心態。
台電一年要花費近千億元執行優惠價格且全數收購汽電共生、風力、再生能源的民營電廠發電，為了依法收購這些佔台灣總發電量超過五分之一的電力，台電竟然得讓自己的發電設備降低利用率，甚至閒置，造成難以估計的硬體投資浪費；另方面，大有來頭的民營電廠尖峰時用自己成本較低的電，離峰時拚命發電賣給台電賺取高額差價；既有保證價格的收購環境，不去賺豈不是笨蛋？更糟糕的是，大部分汽電共生的民營電廠不是使用天然氣等潔淨能源，而是成本低熱效率也低的燃煤、燃油機組，而且很少回收廢熱，電發得愈多，其實對台灣環境的傷害愈大。
台灣的消費者當然知道能源供應的嚴峻，也知道應該共體時艱分攤成本增加；但政府應該做包括供應端油電商的成本合理化努力，不能老把人民當提款機，硬要消費者承擔無理的支出。
Beware the Destruction of Industry-Academia Cooperation by Politics
Beware the Destruction of Industry-Academia Cooperation by Politics
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2008
Summary: Polaris Securities Group CEO Wayne Bai's suicide set off a bombshell in political and financial circles. It also led to soul-searching in academia. The industrial sector has practical experience and economic might. Academia has human resources with research abilities. Just what sort of relationship should the two maintain in order to create a win/win situation? Just where should the line between the two worlds be drawn? Wayne Bai's death was regrettable. Chang Chun-yen's withdrawal of his candidacy has increased political controversy. But the incident has also highlighted how universities and industry should interact. This issue has become increasingly important. If one does not understand the rules of the game, one can easily fall prey to undue speculation and misunderstanding. When industry-academia cooperation collides with politics, matters can become complicated and calculating. The pitfalls are not necessarily something someone in industry or academia unfamiliar with political machinations can understand or endure. The best solution is to make everything open and transparent, to set clear rules, and to lay all the cards on the table.
Full Text below:
Polaris Securities Group CEO Wayne Bai's suicide set off a bombshell in political and financial circles. It also led to soul-searching in academia. The industrial sector has practical experience and economic might. Academia has human resources with research abilities. Just what sort of relationship should the two maintain in order to create a win/win situation? Just where should the line between the two worlds be drawn?
The cause of Wayne Bai's death is still under investigation. However, according to people close to him, negative coverage about "buying academic credentials" and "subsidizing" former Chiao Tung University President Chang Chun-yen deeply pained Bai. In fact, many industries provide funds and resources to universities, helping them establish a wide variety of programs. Some schools may be unable to obtain funding for research or construction projects. Nevertheless they would like business community sponsorship. Such sponsorship can help students complete their studies or enter postgraduate programs. They can help schools expand their resources and increase their academic influence. The business community can receive tax benefits, recruit outstanding talent, and enhance their corporate image. That is why so many enterprises are eager to make such investments.
Industry and academia have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. Each have contributed their strengths to the relationship, creating synergy. Academic research and academic activities have been of practical assistance to industry. Practical experience in the outside world meanwhile, has enabled industry to give back to academic institutions. The two complement each other. More and more universities and enterprises are relating to each other this way. In recent years, through campus recruitment, the sponsoring of campus entrepreneurship contests, and Investment competitions, industry influence has penetrated the ivied halls of learning and even affected individual students.
In fact many schools regard the seeking of corporate sponsors as their most important mission. With the government's finances worsening every day, universities must find their own financing, A lack of university funding, coupled with rising tuition fees, make contributions from the business community increasingly important to the university's development, even survival. It is not wrong for universities to seek funding from the outside world. Take for example Chang-Lin Tien, ethnic Chinese Vice-Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, a first-class research institute. Tien once mentioned that the reason he stood out from the rest of the 258 candidates was his superior fund-raising ability. Take Ralph T. Yang, newly elected Fellow of the Academia Sinica, or his brother, Henry Yang, also a Fellow of the Academia Sinica. Henry Yang is currently Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is considered one of the most effective fund raisers among American university heads. People on Taiwan may have difficulty speaking so frankly about fund-raising ability. But in fact, university presidents with the ability to raise funds is a clear trend. In the past, Taiwan's universities have never made much fanfare about fund-raising. But National Taiwan University has long been the recipient of Terry Kuo's 15.2 billion NT contributions. One really has to admire the major universities. The importance of fund-raising is gradually being highlighted. Some universities have even set up "fund-raising offices" to engage in sustained, in-depth fund-raising work.
A few days ago, Academia Sinica Fellow Ambrose King said that in the past only private schools needed to raise funds, but now even public schools need to. Because of fund-raising, contact between universities and the business community will increase. Based on his experience as a university president, King said for universities to become more intimate with the business community it is not a bad thing. One merely needs to know where to draw the line.
Actually, the symbiosis between the Polaris Group and the National Chiao Tung University is not unique. Universities are strapped for funds. Industry on the other hand, needs college trained talent. The same situation as Polaris has occurred with several universities on Taiwan. Wayne Bai was denounced by the media for "buying academic credentials." Universities that cooperated with Polaris should have come forward to explain the nature of this cooperation. The public might have a better understanding of this increasingly common cooperation between industry and academia.
The reason universities refuse to open up and talk about such matters, is society's mores. They make such matters taboo within the academic community. But such cooperation has long been commonplace. Open discussion may help everyone see industry/academia cooperation as perfectly normal. Concern and discussion by the outside world may help universities and industries remain transparent and public.
Wayne Bai's death was regrettable. Chang Chun-yen's withdrawal of his candidacy has increased political controversy. But the incident has also highlighted how universities and industry should interact. This issue has become increasingly important. If one does not understand the rules of the game, one can easily fall prey to undue speculation and misunderstanding. When industry-academia cooperation collides with politics, matters can become complicated and calculating. The pitfalls are not necessarily something someone in industry or academia unfamiliar with political machinations can understand or endure. The best solution is to make everything open and transparent, to set clear rules, and to lay all the cards on the table.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.07.08
小心產學合作被政治鬥爭摧毀
中時社論
寶來證券集團董事長白文正自殺身亡，不但在政治圈、金融圈投下震撼彈，對學術界而言，這個事件也帶來了一定程度的省思。有實務經驗與經濟實力的產業界，和有研究人力資源的學術界，究竟應該維持怎樣的關係才能互蒙其利，創造雙贏，其中的分際又是什麼，頗值得關切。
白文正的死因固然還有待調查，不過，根據他身邊的人透露，「買學位」、「供養」前交大校長張俊彥的負面報導，顯然帶給白文正極大的痛苦。其實，不少業界都 會提供資金、資源，幫助大學完成各式各樣的計畫，特別是一些學校不一定能夠申請到研究經費的專案或建設，總希望能夠得到企業界的贊助，如此既能幫助同學完 成學習、深造的計畫，也能增加學校的資源，拓展學術的影響力，而企業界又有節稅、招募優秀人才、提升企業形象種種的利益，因此使得企業也樂於做這方面的投 資。
長期以來，產業界與學術界之間本來就有很多合作關係，兩者如何透過各自的優勢相互加值，讓學術界的研究以及各種學術活動，能對實務 界有更多的幫忙，而實務界則可以實際的經驗回饋給學術機構，使之相得益彰，這是愈來愈多大學和企業共同努力的事。近年來，透過校園徵才、贊助校園創業競 賽、投資競賽等活動，企業集團的身影和影響力，更加深入校園，並且直接滲透到個別的學生。
不少學校事實上是把尋求企業贊助、捐款視為重 要的使命。在政府財政日絀，大學自籌經費比例日益提高之下，再加上大學經費不足、學費調漲不易，來自企業界的捐款、贊助對大學的發展甚至生存，已經愈來愈 重要。大學爭取外界的資助並非不可，如首位擔任美國第一流研究型大學、加州大學柏克萊分校校長的華裔人士田長霖，就提過，當年他能在二五八位校長候選人中 脫穎而出，「超強的募款能力」正是個很重要的條件；而剛獲選為中研院院士的楊祖保，有位同樣身為中研院院士的哥哥楊祖祐，楊祖祐目前是美國加州大學聖塔芭 芭拉分校校長，他被譽為是美國大學募款能力最強的校長之一。或許台灣還沒有辦法那麼理所當然地公開談論大學校長的募款能力，但事實上，校長要有「吸金能 力」已確是個明顯的趨勢。過去台灣的大學並不會太大張旗鼓地進行募款，但台大陸續得到郭台銘一五二億元的捐款，實在羡煞各大院校，募款的重要性也逐漸被凸 顯；有大學就成立了「募款辦公室」，持續且深入進行募款的工作。
前幾天，中研院院士金耀基說，過去或許只有私校才需要募款，現在連公立學校也得要這麼做了；而因為募款，學校與企業界之間的接觸會愈來愈多，金耀基以其擔任過校長一職的經驗指出，學校跟企業界之間走得近，並不是什麼壞事，只是一定要掌握好分際。
其實，寶來集團與交大之間的產學合作並非獨有，在大學經費日窘、而產業界也的確需要學院培養人才的情況下，國內有好幾所大學都有寶來的身影；如果在他遭受 媒體「買學位」報導打擊之初，與寶來有過合作關係的大學就願意出面說明這種產學合作是如何進行的，或許也可以讓社會各界對這種其實早已日益普遍的產學合作 模式有更多了解。
當然，各大學不願意出來公開地多談這類事情，也是因為社會風氣的關係，使得學術界對此頗為忌諱，但是，既然產學合作方 式早已屢見不鮮，公開討論或許一方面可以幫助大家以一種平常心、正常的眼光來看待大學與企業之間的互動，另一方面，透過外界的關注和討論，也可以督促大學 和產業之間必須以公開、公共化的方式進行合作。
白文正的死亡讓人遺憾，張俊彥的退審也徒增政壇紛擾，但是這整個事件卻也凸顯了大學與企 業之間究竟應該如何往來的這個議題，已經愈來愈重要；若是不了解其中的遊戲規則，很容易產生不當的臆測與誤會；特別是，產學合作一旦遇到政治，很容易就會 變得極為複雜，充滿算計，種種威脅壓力不見得是不熟悉政治操作的學界或者業界能夠理解或者承受的；最好的辦法還是，讓一切公開透明，訂出明確的規則，讓所 有的流程都能「檯面化」。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 9, 2008
Summary: Polaris Securities Group CEO Wayne Bai's suicide set off a bombshell in political and financial circles. It also led to soul-searching in academia. The industrial sector has practical experience and economic might. Academia has human resources with research abilities. Just what sort of relationship should the two maintain in order to create a win/win situation? Just where should the line between the two worlds be drawn? Wayne Bai's death was regrettable. Chang Chun-yen's withdrawal of his candidacy has increased political controversy. But the incident has also highlighted how universities and industry should interact. This issue has become increasingly important. If one does not understand the rules of the game, one can easily fall prey to undue speculation and misunderstanding. When industry-academia cooperation collides with politics, matters can become complicated and calculating. The pitfalls are not necessarily something someone in industry or academia unfamiliar with political machinations can understand or endure. The best solution is to make everything open and transparent, to set clear rules, and to lay all the cards on the table.
Full Text below:
Polaris Securities Group CEO Wayne Bai's suicide set off a bombshell in political and financial circles. It also led to soul-searching in academia. The industrial sector has practical experience and economic might. Academia has human resources with research abilities. Just what sort of relationship should the two maintain in order to create a win/win situation? Just where should the line between the two worlds be drawn?
The cause of Wayne Bai's death is still under investigation. However, according to people close to him, negative coverage about "buying academic credentials" and "subsidizing" former Chiao Tung University President Chang Chun-yen deeply pained Bai. In fact, many industries provide funds and resources to universities, helping them establish a wide variety of programs. Some schools may be unable to obtain funding for research or construction projects. Nevertheless they would like business community sponsorship. Such sponsorship can help students complete their studies or enter postgraduate programs. They can help schools expand their resources and increase their academic influence. The business community can receive tax benefits, recruit outstanding talent, and enhance their corporate image. That is why so many enterprises are eager to make such investments.
Industry and academia have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. Each have contributed their strengths to the relationship, creating synergy. Academic research and academic activities have been of practical assistance to industry. Practical experience in the outside world meanwhile, has enabled industry to give back to academic institutions. The two complement each other. More and more universities and enterprises are relating to each other this way. In recent years, through campus recruitment, the sponsoring of campus entrepreneurship contests, and Investment competitions, industry influence has penetrated the ivied halls of learning and even affected individual students.
In fact many schools regard the seeking of corporate sponsors as their most important mission. With the government's finances worsening every day, universities must find their own financing, A lack of university funding, coupled with rising tuition fees, make contributions from the business community increasingly important to the university's development, even survival. It is not wrong for universities to seek funding from the outside world. Take for example Chang-Lin Tien, ethnic Chinese Vice-Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, a first-class research institute. Tien once mentioned that the reason he stood out from the rest of the 258 candidates was his superior fund-raising ability. Take Ralph T. Yang, newly elected Fellow of the Academia Sinica, or his brother, Henry Yang, also a Fellow of the Academia Sinica. Henry Yang is currently Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is considered one of the most effective fund raisers among American university heads. People on Taiwan may have difficulty speaking so frankly about fund-raising ability. But in fact, university presidents with the ability to raise funds is a clear trend. In the past, Taiwan's universities have never made much fanfare about fund-raising. But National Taiwan University has long been the recipient of Terry Kuo's 15.2 billion NT contributions. One really has to admire the major universities. The importance of fund-raising is gradually being highlighted. Some universities have even set up "fund-raising offices" to engage in sustained, in-depth fund-raising work.
A few days ago, Academia Sinica Fellow Ambrose King said that in the past only private schools needed to raise funds, but now even public schools need to. Because of fund-raising, contact between universities and the business community will increase. Based on his experience as a university president, King said for universities to become more intimate with the business community it is not a bad thing. One merely needs to know where to draw the line.
Actually, the symbiosis between the Polaris Group and the National Chiao Tung University is not unique. Universities are strapped for funds. Industry on the other hand, needs college trained talent. The same situation as Polaris has occurred with several universities on Taiwan. Wayne Bai was denounced by the media for "buying academic credentials." Universities that cooperated with Polaris should have come forward to explain the nature of this cooperation. The public might have a better understanding of this increasingly common cooperation between industry and academia.
The reason universities refuse to open up and talk about such matters, is society's mores. They make such matters taboo within the academic community. But such cooperation has long been commonplace. Open discussion may help everyone see industry/academia cooperation as perfectly normal. Concern and discussion by the outside world may help universities and industries remain transparent and public.
Wayne Bai's death was regrettable. Chang Chun-yen's withdrawal of his candidacy has increased political controversy. But the incident has also highlighted how universities and industry should interact. This issue has become increasingly important. If one does not understand the rules of the game, one can easily fall prey to undue speculation and misunderstanding. When industry-academia cooperation collides with politics, matters can become complicated and calculating. The pitfalls are not necessarily something someone in industry or academia unfamiliar with political machinations can understand or endure. The best solution is to make everything open and transparent, to set clear rules, and to lay all the cards on the table.
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.07.08
小心產學合作被政治鬥爭摧毀
中時社論
寶來證券集團董事長白文正自殺身亡，不但在政治圈、金融圈投下震撼彈，對學術界而言，這個事件也帶來了一定程度的省思。有實務經驗與經濟實力的產業界，和有研究人力資源的學術界，究竟應該維持怎樣的關係才能互蒙其利，創造雙贏，其中的分際又是什麼，頗值得關切。
白文正的死因固然還有待調查，不過，根據他身邊的人透露，「買學位」、「供養」前交大校長張俊彥的負面報導，顯然帶給白文正極大的痛苦。其實，不少業界都 會提供資金、資源，幫助大學完成各式各樣的計畫，特別是一些學校不一定能夠申請到研究經費的專案或建設，總希望能夠得到企業界的贊助，如此既能幫助同學完 成學習、深造的計畫，也能增加學校的資源，拓展學術的影響力，而企業界又有節稅、招募優秀人才、提升企業形象種種的利益，因此使得企業也樂於做這方面的投 資。
長期以來，產業界與學術界之間本來就有很多合作關係，兩者如何透過各自的優勢相互加值，讓學術界的研究以及各種學術活動，能對實務 界有更多的幫忙，而實務界則可以實際的經驗回饋給學術機構，使之相得益彰，這是愈來愈多大學和企業共同努力的事。近年來，透過校園徵才、贊助校園創業競 賽、投資競賽等活動，企業集團的身影和影響力，更加深入校園，並且直接滲透到個別的學生。
不少學校事實上是把尋求企業贊助、捐款視為重 要的使命。在政府財政日絀，大學自籌經費比例日益提高之下，再加上大學經費不足、學費調漲不易，來自企業界的捐款、贊助對大學的發展甚至生存，已經愈來愈 重要。大學爭取外界的資助並非不可，如首位擔任美國第一流研究型大學、加州大學柏克萊分校校長的華裔人士田長霖，就提過，當年他能在二五八位校長候選人中 脫穎而出，「超強的募款能力」正是個很重要的條件；而剛獲選為中研院院士的楊祖保，有位同樣身為中研院院士的哥哥楊祖祐，楊祖祐目前是美國加州大學聖塔芭 芭拉分校校長，他被譽為是美國大學募款能力最強的校長之一。或許台灣還沒有辦法那麼理所當然地公開談論大學校長的募款能力，但事實上，校長要有「吸金能 力」已確是個明顯的趨勢。過去台灣的大學並不會太大張旗鼓地進行募款，但台大陸續得到郭台銘一五二億元的捐款，實在羡煞各大院校，募款的重要性也逐漸被凸 顯；有大學就成立了「募款辦公室」，持續且深入進行募款的工作。
前幾天，中研院院士金耀基說，過去或許只有私校才需要募款，現在連公立學校也得要這麼做了；而因為募款，學校與企業界之間的接觸會愈來愈多，金耀基以其擔任過校長一職的經驗指出，學校跟企業界之間走得近，並不是什麼壞事，只是一定要掌握好分際。
其實，寶來集團與交大之間的產學合作並非獨有，在大學經費日窘、而產業界也的確需要學院培養人才的情況下，國內有好幾所大學都有寶來的身影；如果在他遭受 媒體「買學位」報導打擊之初，與寶來有過合作關係的大學就願意出面說明這種產學合作是如何進行的，或許也可以讓社會各界對這種其實早已日益普遍的產學合作 模式有更多了解。
當然，各大學不願意出來公開地多談這類事情，也是因為社會風氣的關係，使得學術界對此頗為忌諱，但是，既然產學合作方 式早已屢見不鮮，公開討論或許一方面可以幫助大家以一種平常心、正常的眼光來看待大學與企業之間的互動，另一方面，透過外界的關注和討論，也可以督促大學 和產業之間必須以公開、公共化的方式進行合作。
白文正的死亡讓人遺憾，張俊彥的退審也徒增政壇紛擾，但是這整個事件卻也凸顯了大學與企 業之間究竟應該如何往來的這個議題，已經愈來愈重要；若是不了解其中的遊戲規則，很容易產生不當的臆測與誤會；特別是，產學合作一旦遇到政治，很容易就會 變得極為複雜，充滿算計，種種威脅壓力不見得是不熟悉政治操作的學界或者業界能夠理解或者承受的；最好的辦法還是，讓一切公開透明，訂出明確的規則，讓所 有的流程都能「檯面化」。
Monday, July 7, 2008
Will the DPP Listen to the "Atypical" Tsai Ing-wen?
Will the DPP Listen to the "Atypical" Tsai Ing-wen?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 7, 2008
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has proposed "an end to poor-mouthing, and the beginning of constructive criticism." One cannot help being impressed. She said that in the face of the current political and economic quagmire, the DPP "ought to blunt its somewhat sharp criticism, and exercise greater restraint." She said "If the KMT's policies are correct, they should be encouraged. If they are bad, they should be subjected to rational criticism. We must immediately adjust our behavior." She said the people must feel that the DPP wants to help the government survive its financial difficulties. The DPP must demonstrate its willingness to weather the storm alongside the people. No opposition party chairperson has ever said anything like this. The DPP has never said any such thing like this. Nor has the KMT. That Tsai Ing-wen would make such an extraordinary proposal, suggests that she may have a unique way of thinking, and also that she may have a firm grasp of political reality.
Full Text below:
Tsai Ing-wen has proposed "an end to poor-mouthing, and the beginning of constructive criticism." One cannot help being impressed. She said that in the face of the current political and economic quagmire, the DPP "ought to blunt its somewhat sharp criticism, and exercise greater restraint." She said "If the KMT's policies are correct, they should be encouraged. If they are bad, they should be subjected to rational criticism. We must immediately adjust our behavior." She said the people must feel that the DPP wants to help the government survive its financial difficulties. The DPP must demonstrate its willingness to weather the storm alongside the people.
No opposition party chairperson has ever said anything like this. The DPP has never said any such thing like this. Nor has the KMT. That Tsai Ing-wen would make such an extraordinary proposal, suggests that she may have a unique way of thinking, and also that she may have a firm grasp of political reality.
Since May 20, the Ma administration's approval rating has been in decline. The DPP's approval rating however, has not increased. Several opinion polls have noted that despite the prevailing political and economic circumstances, most people still believe the KMT is better than the DPP. Such polls reveal a state of gridlock following the second change in ruling parties.
On March 22, Ma Ying-jeou was elected president. At the time, a United Daily News Editorial noted that this was a "victory with a question mark." The editorial cited the widely held conviction that "If the DPP doesn't step down, Taiwan is done for. But whether the KMT can save Taiwan remains a question mark." Today, this "victory with a giant question mark" hangs high above Taiwan, like the Sword of Damocles. But the situation is even more serious than previously imagined. Polls show that despite public dissatisfaction with the KMT, they still do not trust the DPP.
The DPP wielded power for eight years. It ripped the country into a thousand pieces. It brought the economy to its knees. Predictably, as soon as the DPP lost the election and became the opposition party, it immediately reverted to form. It immediately proclaimed itself a champion of justice. It blamed the Ma administration, which had just assumed office, for every sin under the sun, and skinned it alive. One example will suffice. Recalling the ROC Coast Guard vessel from Diaoyutai was a black box operation left over from the DPP regime's "Japanese Affairs Council." The DPP criticized the KMT government for being "too soft." But when it recalled Koh Se-kai, then ordered Coast Guard vessels to circumnavigate the island, the DPP criticized the government for being "too hard." In almost every case, the DPP found fault with the new administration. The KMT was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't. In the past we had "anti-communist thought." Now it seems we have "opposition party thought." This "opposition party thought" however, requires no thinking. All it requires is relentless bad-mouthing. All it requires is relentless negativity.
This is why even though the KMT's approval rating has fallen, the DPP's approval rating has not risen. Tsai Ing-wen probably knows that if matters continue as they have, the KMT may have not have an easy time of it, but the DPP will not benefit from the KMT's troubles. Hence, another school of thought has arisen, one that has its own handle on political reality.
President Ma and the KMT must bear a certain amount of responsibility for dropping the ball. But the main reason we are in our current mess is: 1. The DPP created this political and economic mess, and left it for its successor. 2. The global economic situation has deteriorated dramatically. As Chairman of the opposition political party, Tsai Ing-wen noted that "external factors, including international oil and raw material price increases are among the factors responsible for the current instability." She added that "the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, having been in office, "feels the pain" of the current administration. These words were compelling. They had finesse, transcended "opposition party thought," and left people nearly incredulous.
The current political and economic predicament constitutes a grave national crisis. The ruling Kuomintang must be cautious and guarded. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party, as Tsai Ing-wen noted, must eschew Schadenfreude. It must not make matters be worse. It must not pour gasoline on the fire. It must not demagogue a national disaster for partisan advantage. Because if the opposition DPP attempts to make political hay out of our political and economic crisis, the ruling party won't be the only one that is embarrassed. The entire nation could collapse. Tsai Ing-wen has issued a timely call to "end the bad-mouthing and refrain from gloating." On the one hand, she is well aware of the severe crisis facing the nation. On the other hand, she hopes the DPP will heed the warning. She hopes it will not destroy itself and the nation by indulging in Schadenfreude and rubbing salt in the nation's wounds.
Was Tsai Ing-wen's proposal a passing whim, or a heartfelt conviction? Did she promise too much, too soon? Can Tsai Ing-wen lead the DPP out of its "opposition party thought?" Can the DPP really do what Tsai Ing-wen urges, and "help the Government survive its financial crisis?"
Lin Cho-shui called Tsai Ing-wen "atypical." Did Tsai Ing-wen's remarks overestimate her own influence? Did they misjudge the DPP's potential? Did they underestimate the DPP's destiny?
非典型：民進黨聽蔡英文的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.07 03:55 am
蔡英文主張「停止唱衰／積極建言」，令人刮目相看。面對當前政經困局，她說，民進黨「要稍微收斂尖銳批評，留意言論尺度」，「國民黨對的政策不吝鼓勵，壞的政策理性批判，協助其及時調整」。她說：要讓人民感覺到民進黨有心協助政府度過經濟難關，要展現民進黨和全民共體時艱的用心。
沒有一位反對黨主席說過這樣的話。過去民進黨在野沒說過，過去國民黨在野也沒說過。蔡英文能有這般「不同凡響」的主張，一方面顯示她可能有別樹一幟的政治思維，另一方面也顯示她對政治現實利害的拿捏或許已有一定的火候。
五二○以來，馬政府的滿意度下降，但民進黨的支持度卻未上升。若干民調更指出，即使政經出現如此困局，但多數民眾依然認為，國民黨主政仍較民進黨好。這類的民調，呈現了二次政黨輪替後的民主僵局。
三月二十二日，馬英九當選總統，本報社論當即指出這是「帶著問號的勝利」。社論引據民間流傳的說法：「民進黨若不下台，台灣死定了；但國民黨上台能否救得了台灣，卻是一個問號。」如今，這個「勝利的大問號」正高懸在台灣的上空，只是比當時想像的更加嚴重。然而，民調顯示：民眾雖不滿國民黨，但也仍然不信任民進黨。
民進黨執政八年，將國家撕裂得七零八落，將經濟體質摧殘得氣息奄奄；詎料，民進黨一朝敗選成為反對黨，突然老臉一抹，竟搖身一變以正義的化身自居，將甫上任的馬政府數落得罪孽萬端，體無完膚。僅舉一例已足：召回釣魚台海巡艦的是民進黨留下的黑機關「日本事務會」，民進黨卻批評國民黨政府「太軟」；待召回許世楷，且海巡艦又繞島一周，又指為「太硬」。幾乎對每一事件，皆用「父子騎驢」的手法來批評。過去有所謂的「反共八股」，如今則儼然有「反對黨八股」；這樣的反對黨根本不必經過大腦，「唱衰」到底就是了，「反對」到底就是了。
正因如此，國民黨的滿意度下滑，民進黨的支持度卻未上升。蔡英文大概知道：像這樣搞下去，國民黨當然不好過，民進黨也佔不到便宜。因此，就有了別樹一幟的政治思維，也對政治現實利害的拿捏另有斟酌。
當前的政經困局，馬總統與國民黨的操作失當，自應負相當責任，但最主要原因仍在：一、民進黨執政留下的政經災難；二、國際經濟情勢快速巨幅惡化。蔡英文以反對黨主席的地位，能指出「造成當前不安局勢，外在因素是國際石油、原物料上漲」，並謂「曾經執政的民進黨感同身受」，因此以「體諒的心情」來看目前的政府；這些話說得真有氣魄，也真有手腕，跳脫了「反對黨八股」，甚至有令人難以置信之感。
當前的政經困局是一個非同小可的國家危機。執政的國民黨必須臨深履薄，戰戰兢兢；在野的民進黨亦須有蔡英文所稱「哀矜勿喜」的認知，不能雪上加霜、火上加油，以玩弄國家災難為能事。因為，在野黨若在如此嚴峻的政經危機中落井下石，那不只是教執政黨出醜而已，而是可能令整個國家無法翻身；蔡英文及時發出「停止唱衰／哀矜勿喜」的主張，一方面自然是察覺了國家危機的嚴峻，另一方面也是希望民進黨勿因「幸災樂禍／落井下石」以致自毀毀國而發出警訊。
蔡英文的主張，究竟只是突發奇想，還是肺腑之言？是否把話說得太早也說得太滿了？蔡英文能否帶動民進黨跳出「反對黨八股」？民進黨又能否如蔡英文所說「有心協助政府度過經濟難關」？
林濁水稱蔡英文是「非典型」。蔡英文的一席話，會不會高估了她自己的影響力，錯估了民進黨的可能性，也輕估了民進黨的宿命？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 7, 2008
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen has proposed "an end to poor-mouthing, and the beginning of constructive criticism." One cannot help being impressed. She said that in the face of the current political and economic quagmire, the DPP "ought to blunt its somewhat sharp criticism, and exercise greater restraint." She said "If the KMT's policies are correct, they should be encouraged. If they are bad, they should be subjected to rational criticism. We must immediately adjust our behavior." She said the people must feel that the DPP wants to help the government survive its financial difficulties. The DPP must demonstrate its willingness to weather the storm alongside the people. No opposition party chairperson has ever said anything like this. The DPP has never said any such thing like this. Nor has the KMT. That Tsai Ing-wen would make such an extraordinary proposal, suggests that she may have a unique way of thinking, and also that she may have a firm grasp of political reality.
Full Text below:
Tsai Ing-wen has proposed "an end to poor-mouthing, and the beginning of constructive criticism." One cannot help being impressed. She said that in the face of the current political and economic quagmire, the DPP "ought to blunt its somewhat sharp criticism, and exercise greater restraint." She said "If the KMT's policies are correct, they should be encouraged. If they are bad, they should be subjected to rational criticism. We must immediately adjust our behavior." She said the people must feel that the DPP wants to help the government survive its financial difficulties. The DPP must demonstrate its willingness to weather the storm alongside the people.
No opposition party chairperson has ever said anything like this. The DPP has never said any such thing like this. Nor has the KMT. That Tsai Ing-wen would make such an extraordinary proposal, suggests that she may have a unique way of thinking, and also that she may have a firm grasp of political reality.
Since May 20, the Ma administration's approval rating has been in decline. The DPP's approval rating however, has not increased. Several opinion polls have noted that despite the prevailing political and economic circumstances, most people still believe the KMT is better than the DPP. Such polls reveal a state of gridlock following the second change in ruling parties.
On March 22, Ma Ying-jeou was elected president. At the time, a United Daily News Editorial noted that this was a "victory with a question mark." The editorial cited the widely held conviction that "If the DPP doesn't step down, Taiwan is done for. But whether the KMT can save Taiwan remains a question mark." Today, this "victory with a giant question mark" hangs high above Taiwan, like the Sword of Damocles. But the situation is even more serious than previously imagined. Polls show that despite public dissatisfaction with the KMT, they still do not trust the DPP.
The DPP wielded power for eight years. It ripped the country into a thousand pieces. It brought the economy to its knees. Predictably, as soon as the DPP lost the election and became the opposition party, it immediately reverted to form. It immediately proclaimed itself a champion of justice. It blamed the Ma administration, which had just assumed office, for every sin under the sun, and skinned it alive. One example will suffice. Recalling the ROC Coast Guard vessel from Diaoyutai was a black box operation left over from the DPP regime's "Japanese Affairs Council." The DPP criticized the KMT government for being "too soft." But when it recalled Koh Se-kai, then ordered Coast Guard vessels to circumnavigate the island, the DPP criticized the government for being "too hard." In almost every case, the DPP found fault with the new administration. The KMT was damned if it did, and damned if it didn't. In the past we had "anti-communist thought." Now it seems we have "opposition party thought." This "opposition party thought" however, requires no thinking. All it requires is relentless bad-mouthing. All it requires is relentless negativity.
This is why even though the KMT's approval rating has fallen, the DPP's approval rating has not risen. Tsai Ing-wen probably knows that if matters continue as they have, the KMT may have not have an easy time of it, but the DPP will not benefit from the KMT's troubles. Hence, another school of thought has arisen, one that has its own handle on political reality.
President Ma and the KMT must bear a certain amount of responsibility for dropping the ball. But the main reason we are in our current mess is: 1. The DPP created this political and economic mess, and left it for its successor. 2. The global economic situation has deteriorated dramatically. As Chairman of the opposition political party, Tsai Ing-wen noted that "external factors, including international oil and raw material price increases are among the factors responsible for the current instability." She added that "the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, having been in office, "feels the pain" of the current administration. These words were compelling. They had finesse, transcended "opposition party thought," and left people nearly incredulous.
The current political and economic predicament constitutes a grave national crisis. The ruling Kuomintang must be cautious and guarded. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party, as Tsai Ing-wen noted, must eschew Schadenfreude. It must not make matters be worse. It must not pour gasoline on the fire. It must not demagogue a national disaster for partisan advantage. Because if the opposition DPP attempts to make political hay out of our political and economic crisis, the ruling party won't be the only one that is embarrassed. The entire nation could collapse. Tsai Ing-wen has issued a timely call to "end the bad-mouthing and refrain from gloating." On the one hand, she is well aware of the severe crisis facing the nation. On the other hand, she hopes the DPP will heed the warning. She hopes it will not destroy itself and the nation by indulging in Schadenfreude and rubbing salt in the nation's wounds.
Was Tsai Ing-wen's proposal a passing whim, or a heartfelt conviction? Did she promise too much, too soon? Can Tsai Ing-wen lead the DPP out of its "opposition party thought?" Can the DPP really do what Tsai Ing-wen urges, and "help the Government survive its financial crisis?"
Lin Cho-shui called Tsai Ing-wen "atypical." Did Tsai Ing-wen's remarks overestimate her own influence? Did they misjudge the DPP's potential? Did they underestimate the DPP's destiny?
非典型：民進黨聽蔡英文的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.07 03:55 am
蔡英文主張「停止唱衰／積極建言」，令人刮目相看。面對當前政經困局，她說，民進黨「要稍微收斂尖銳批評，留意言論尺度」，「國民黨對的政策不吝鼓勵，壞的政策理性批判，協助其及時調整」。她說：要讓人民感覺到民進黨有心協助政府度過經濟難關，要展現民進黨和全民共體時艱的用心。
沒有一位反對黨主席說過這樣的話。過去民進黨在野沒說過，過去國民黨在野也沒說過。蔡英文能有這般「不同凡響」的主張，一方面顯示她可能有別樹一幟的政治思維，另一方面也顯示她對政治現實利害的拿捏或許已有一定的火候。
五二○以來，馬政府的滿意度下降，但民進黨的支持度卻未上升。若干民調更指出，即使政經出現如此困局，但多數民眾依然認為，國民黨主政仍較民進黨好。這類的民調，呈現了二次政黨輪替後的民主僵局。
三月二十二日，馬英九當選總統，本報社論當即指出這是「帶著問號的勝利」。社論引據民間流傳的說法：「民進黨若不下台，台灣死定了；但國民黨上台能否救得了台灣，卻是一個問號。」如今，這個「勝利的大問號」正高懸在台灣的上空，只是比當時想像的更加嚴重。然而，民調顯示：民眾雖不滿國民黨，但也仍然不信任民進黨。
民進黨執政八年，將國家撕裂得七零八落，將經濟體質摧殘得氣息奄奄；詎料，民進黨一朝敗選成為反對黨，突然老臉一抹，竟搖身一變以正義的化身自居，將甫上任的馬政府數落得罪孽萬端，體無完膚。僅舉一例已足：召回釣魚台海巡艦的是民進黨留下的黑機關「日本事務會」，民進黨卻批評國民黨政府「太軟」；待召回許世楷，且海巡艦又繞島一周，又指為「太硬」。幾乎對每一事件，皆用「父子騎驢」的手法來批評。過去有所謂的「反共八股」，如今則儼然有「反對黨八股」；這樣的反對黨根本不必經過大腦，「唱衰」到底就是了，「反對」到底就是了。
正因如此，國民黨的滿意度下滑，民進黨的支持度卻未上升。蔡英文大概知道：像這樣搞下去，國民黨當然不好過，民進黨也佔不到便宜。因此，就有了別樹一幟的政治思維，也對政治現實利害的拿捏另有斟酌。
當前的政經困局，馬總統與國民黨的操作失當，自應負相當責任，但最主要原因仍在：一、民進黨執政留下的政經災難；二、國際經濟情勢快速巨幅惡化。蔡英文以反對黨主席的地位，能指出「造成當前不安局勢，外在因素是國際石油、原物料上漲」，並謂「曾經執政的民進黨感同身受」，因此以「體諒的心情」來看目前的政府；這些話說得真有氣魄，也真有手腕，跳脫了「反對黨八股」，甚至有令人難以置信之感。
當前的政經困局是一個非同小可的國家危機。執政的國民黨必須臨深履薄，戰戰兢兢；在野的民進黨亦須有蔡英文所稱「哀矜勿喜」的認知，不能雪上加霜、火上加油，以玩弄國家災難為能事。因為，在野黨若在如此嚴峻的政經危機中落井下石，那不只是教執政黨出醜而已，而是可能令整個國家無法翻身；蔡英文及時發出「停止唱衰／哀矜勿喜」的主張，一方面自然是察覺了國家危機的嚴峻，另一方面也是希望民進黨勿因「幸災樂禍／落井下石」以致自毀毀國而發出警訊。
蔡英文的主張，究竟只是突發奇想，還是肺腑之言？是否把話說得太早也說得太滿了？蔡英文能否帶動民進黨跳出「反對黨八股」？民進黨又能否如蔡英文所說「有心協助政府度過經濟難關」？
林濁水稱蔡英文是「非典型」。蔡英文的一席話，會不會高估了她自己的影響力，錯估了民進黨的可能性，也輕估了民進黨的宿命？
Friday, July 4, 2008
Welcome Mainland Visitors, Establish a Cross-Strait Spiritual Platform
Welcome Mainland Visitors, Establish a Cross-Strait Spiritual Platform
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 4, 2008
The first batch of mainland tourists to fly directly from the mainland will arrive on Taiwan today. As they would say on the mainland: “Welcome, welcome, we extend you a warm welcome!”
For tourists from the mainland, this is not merely tourism. What they want is bilateral, grass roots, cross-strait dialogue. For Taiwan, the host, this is not merely "the stimulation of domestic demand," this is not merely a practical matter. This includes the hope that their guests will take back memories of a Taiwan Experience.
The reactions of the mainland authorities and the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan to this major event is amusing. The mainland authorities specially selected the first group of visitors to Taiwan. They were afraid they might spit on the sidewalk and embarrass their fellow mainlanders. The Taiwan authorities, meanwhile, busied themselves tidying up everything in sight. They were afraid their guests might see something they weren't supposed to. The reminds one of parents of a prospective bride and groom meeting for the first time. Each sides has its expectations. Neither side wants the other to see one's faults. Therefore this is not merely tourism. Ordinary people on both sides of the strait are clearly establishing a common "spiritual platform." They are checking each other out. They are checking themselves in the mirror. They are contemplating a common future.
Each year four million people from Taiwan visit the mainland, on business. The main attraction today is mainland tourists flying directly to Taiwan. The target is said to be 3,000 tourists arriving on Taiwan every day, nearly 1.1 million a year. News reports focus on the business opportunities and 40,000 jobs 60 billion yuan every year will bring. As a result, all eyes are on the "stimulation of domestic demand," and the economic benefits. We believe however that the real significance of direct flights of mainland tourists to Taiwan is the building of a "platform for spiritual exchange" between ordinary people on both sides of the strait. This will allow the true feelings of ordinary people to come to the fore. The initial exchange on Taiwan will become the subject of future cross-strait reflection. The two sides can then accumulate the private resources necessary to build a common future.
Some people see mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan purely as "economic resources." But we hope people from all walks of life will see their arrival as a cultural and social issue, and consider human feelings. In other words, people on Taiwan should see the arrival of mainland tourists on Taiwan from an elevated perspective, as a cross-strait spiritual exchange. People and money are both important. But people are more important than money. The arrival of mainland tourists should not be seen exclusively as a commercial opportunity. Treating mainland tourists merely as milque cows could kill the goose that lays the golden egg. One could end up winning another's wealth but losing his good will. One could even ened up losing both.
Some people say Taiwan's attractions won't stand up to comparison with Shanghai and Beijing. Taiwan's natural attractions won't stand up to comparision with Huangshan and Jiuzhaigou. Many people have concluded that Taiwan's most powerful attraction for mainland visitors is its "culture." But what is this "culture?" It is the sum total of 400 years of the Taiwan Experience. It has everything to do with the mainland and nothing to do with the mainland. It is the Presidential Palace, which was once the Provincial Governor's Palace. It is Ketegalan Boulevard, in front of the Presidential Palace, where the Red Shirt Army gathered. It is the KMT Headquarters Building, which faces the Presidential Palace, and which has since been sold. It is the 228 Memorial Park and the White Terror Monument adjacent the Presidential Palace. It is Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou. It is oyster omlets at the night market and fried rice noodles. It is how to cast your ballots at the polls, how to get into colllege, how to play the stock market. It is Betelnut beauties lining the roadside. It is the five or six evening television talk shows arguing about everything under the sun. All this is part of Taiwan's culture. To mainland visitors, this is the "Taiwan Experience." We do not believe our highest goal should be to herd mainland tourists through gift shops. If we take them on a deeper spiritual journey, sharing with them the "Taiwan Experience," we may provide visitors with an experience they will not soon forget. We are not talking about "brainwashing." Attempting to do so can only lead to a nasty backlash. We need only be honest and objective. We need only be ourselves. Taiwan's culture and Taiwan's attractions are different from the skyline of Shanghai or the Pearl Sea of Jiuzhaigou.
Actually, when it comes to mainland tourists to Taiwan, it would seem that the two sides are not yet ready. Otherwise there would be no panic to meet President Ma Ying-jeou's July 4 deadline for the first batch of tourists. The guests are already at the door, but the host is still cleaning house. From this day forth, cross-strait relations will be different. Taiwan's reception of mainland guests, and mainland guests' behavior as guests, will impact the "cross-strait platform for exchanges of the soul." Each side will be checking out the other. Each side will check himself in the mirror. Together they will contemplate a common cross-strait future.
Even tour bus drivers have been instructed to smile like fashion model Lin Chi-ling. Taiwanese enthusiasm at the prospect of mainland visitors is evident. We hope that Taiwan merchants along the mainland tourists' route will be eager not merely to profit financially from mainland vistors, but also to reach out to them. Only then will they and Taiwan will profit both financially and spiritually. Mainland visitors are willing to spend money to experience Taiwan. We only hope the "Taiwan Experience" they take back with them will be worth remembering.
迎陸客，搭起兩岸心靈平台！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.04 03:02 am
大陸觀光客「首發團」今日直飛來台，借用大陸的迎賓語，我們要向來客們說：歡迎，歡迎，熱烈歡迎！
對於大陸來客而言，這不只是「觀光活動」，他們所嚮往的應是兩岸雙邊的「民間對話」；對於台灣東道主來說，也絕不可將此視為只有「擴大內需」的工具價值，而是希望來客皆能帶回一個值得存憶的「台灣經驗」。
兩岸朝野對這場盛會的反應令人莞爾。大陸方面，對首發團的「素質」精挑細選，生怕到了台灣隨地吐痰，丟了大陸人的臉；台灣更是到處都在塗漆粉刷，要對來客遮醜。這個景象，儼然有些像是相親的場合，兩方對於對方皆有期待，且不想讓自己的醜處被對方一眼瞧見。因而，這不只是「觀光」而已，而儼然是在兩岸人民之間搭起了一座「心靈平台」；彼此看看對方，再回頭看看自己，再共同想一想兩岸的未來。
台灣每年有四百萬人次的商旅訪遊大陸，所以，「陸客直飛來台」才是今天的主戲。據稱，未來將以每日三千陸客來台為目標，一年就近一百一十萬人；新聞焦點皆強調將帶來每年六百億元商機及四萬名就業機會，因而使大家都將眼睛盯在「擴大內需」的「經濟效益」。但是，我們仍認為，如前所述，陸客來台最重要的意義，是在兩岸人民之間搭起「心靈交流平台」，使真正的民間情懷交互激盪，在台灣第一現場交匯成對於兩岸未來的共同省思，進而累積解決兩岸問題的民間資源，並為兩岸共同的未來尋找方向。
有人將陸客來台視為一個「經濟議題」，視其為「財源」；但我們期望各界更能視之為「文化議題」、「社會議題」，珍惜「人心」在其中的角色。也就是說，台灣各界看陸客來台，應當站在「兩岸心靈交流平台」的高度，若能有「人比財重要」的想法，就可能「人財兩得」；切莫將此視為殺雞取卵的「經濟議題」、「商業議題」，那就可能「得財失人」，甚至「人財兩失」。
許多人說：台灣的都會不如上海、北京，山水不如黃山、九寨溝；更多人的共同結論是：台灣對大陸來客的最佳賣點只有「人文」。這「人文」是什麼？其實就是台灣「與大陸有關，又與大陸無關」的「四百年台灣經驗」的總稱。例如，總統府曾是總督府，總統府前面有個紅衫軍聚會的凱達格蘭大道，總統府前面有個被賣掉的國民黨中央黨部，總統府旁邊有個二二八公園及白色恐怖紀念碑，蔣氏父子、李登輝、陳水扁、馬英九，夜市的蚵仔煎、炒米粉，如何投票、如何升學、如何炒股票，檳榔西施，晚間五六個電視叩應節目在吵什麼……。這些皆是「台灣人文」的項目，在陸客眼中皆是「台灣經驗」的點滴。我們不認為把陸客推進禮品店是最高目標，若能陪他們在現場實地走過一趟「台灣經驗」的心靈「深度之旅」，也許始能教來客不虛此行。必須特別強調的是：我們絕對不贊成「洗腦」，那必招致惡評與反彈，只須忠實、客觀地自然流露，皆是台灣的人文，皆是台灣的賣點，皆是與上海的群樓或九寨溝的珍珠海迥異的另一種風景，另一番意境。
其實，關於陸客來台，兩岸似乎尚未「準備好了」；否則就不必以「首發團」為馬英九總統的「七月四日之約」應急。訪客已經登門，主人仍在手忙腳亂。但從今天以後的兩岸民間關係，已較此前換了人間。台灣接待陸客之道，與陸客作客之道，皆將對「兩岸心靈交流平台」的內涵發生作用；如前所述，彼此看看對方，再回頭看看自己，再共同想一想兩岸的未來……。
連遊覽車司機都被要求「笑得像林志玲一樣」，台灣人迎陸客的熱情可見一斑。我們期望：陸客旅途沿線的台灣商家「人財兩得」，整個台灣也是「人財兩得」；大陸來客則花錢換得開心，更能在行篋內帶回一個值得存憶回味的「台灣經驗」。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 4, 2008
The first batch of mainland tourists to fly directly from the mainland will arrive on Taiwan today. As they would say on the mainland: “Welcome, welcome, we extend you a warm welcome!”
For tourists from the mainland, this is not merely tourism. What they want is bilateral, grass roots, cross-strait dialogue. For Taiwan, the host, this is not merely "the stimulation of domestic demand," this is not merely a practical matter. This includes the hope that their guests will take back memories of a Taiwan Experience.
The reactions of the mainland authorities and the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan to this major event is amusing. The mainland authorities specially selected the first group of visitors to Taiwan. They were afraid they might spit on the sidewalk and embarrass their fellow mainlanders. The Taiwan authorities, meanwhile, busied themselves tidying up everything in sight. They were afraid their guests might see something they weren't supposed to. The reminds one of parents of a prospective bride and groom meeting for the first time. Each sides has its expectations. Neither side wants the other to see one's faults. Therefore this is not merely tourism. Ordinary people on both sides of the strait are clearly establishing a common "spiritual platform." They are checking each other out. They are checking themselves in the mirror. They are contemplating a common future.
Each year four million people from Taiwan visit the mainland, on business. The main attraction today is mainland tourists flying directly to Taiwan. The target is said to be 3,000 tourists arriving on Taiwan every day, nearly 1.1 million a year. News reports focus on the business opportunities and 40,000 jobs 60 billion yuan every year will bring. As a result, all eyes are on the "stimulation of domestic demand," and the economic benefits. We believe however that the real significance of direct flights of mainland tourists to Taiwan is the building of a "platform for spiritual exchange" between ordinary people on both sides of the strait. This will allow the true feelings of ordinary people to come to the fore. The initial exchange on Taiwan will become the subject of future cross-strait reflection. The two sides can then accumulate the private resources necessary to build a common future.
Some people see mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan purely as "economic resources." But we hope people from all walks of life will see their arrival as a cultural and social issue, and consider human feelings. In other words, people on Taiwan should see the arrival of mainland tourists on Taiwan from an elevated perspective, as a cross-strait spiritual exchange. People and money are both important. But people are more important than money. The arrival of mainland tourists should not be seen exclusively as a commercial opportunity. Treating mainland tourists merely as milque cows could kill the goose that lays the golden egg. One could end up winning another's wealth but losing his good will. One could even ened up losing both.
Some people say Taiwan's attractions won't stand up to comparison with Shanghai and Beijing. Taiwan's natural attractions won't stand up to comparision with Huangshan and Jiuzhaigou. Many people have concluded that Taiwan's most powerful attraction for mainland visitors is its "culture." But what is this "culture?" It is the sum total of 400 years of the Taiwan Experience. It has everything to do with the mainland and nothing to do with the mainland. It is the Presidential Palace, which was once the Provincial Governor's Palace. It is Ketegalan Boulevard, in front of the Presidential Palace, where the Red Shirt Army gathered. It is the KMT Headquarters Building, which faces the Presidential Palace, and which has since been sold. It is the 228 Memorial Park and the White Terror Monument adjacent the Presidential Palace. It is Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou. It is oyster omlets at the night market and fried rice noodles. It is how to cast your ballots at the polls, how to get into colllege, how to play the stock market. It is Betelnut beauties lining the roadside. It is the five or six evening television talk shows arguing about everything under the sun. All this is part of Taiwan's culture. To mainland visitors, this is the "Taiwan Experience." We do not believe our highest goal should be to herd mainland tourists through gift shops. If we take them on a deeper spiritual journey, sharing with them the "Taiwan Experience," we may provide visitors with an experience they will not soon forget. We are not talking about "brainwashing." Attempting to do so can only lead to a nasty backlash. We need only be honest and objective. We need only be ourselves. Taiwan's culture and Taiwan's attractions are different from the skyline of Shanghai or the Pearl Sea of Jiuzhaigou.
Actually, when it comes to mainland tourists to Taiwan, it would seem that the two sides are not yet ready. Otherwise there would be no panic to meet President Ma Ying-jeou's July 4 deadline for the first batch of tourists. The guests are already at the door, but the host is still cleaning house. From this day forth, cross-strait relations will be different. Taiwan's reception of mainland guests, and mainland guests' behavior as guests, will impact the "cross-strait platform for exchanges of the soul." Each side will be checking out the other. Each side will check himself in the mirror. Together they will contemplate a common cross-strait future.
Even tour bus drivers have been instructed to smile like fashion model Lin Chi-ling. Taiwanese enthusiasm at the prospect of mainland visitors is evident. We hope that Taiwan merchants along the mainland tourists' route will be eager not merely to profit financially from mainland vistors, but also to reach out to them. Only then will they and Taiwan will profit both financially and spiritually. Mainland visitors are willing to spend money to experience Taiwan. We only hope the "Taiwan Experience" they take back with them will be worth remembering.
迎陸客，搭起兩岸心靈平台！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.04 03:02 am
大陸觀光客「首發團」今日直飛來台，借用大陸的迎賓語，我們要向來客們說：歡迎，歡迎，熱烈歡迎！
對於大陸來客而言，這不只是「觀光活動」，他們所嚮往的應是兩岸雙邊的「民間對話」；對於台灣東道主來說，也絕不可將此視為只有「擴大內需」的工具價值，而是希望來客皆能帶回一個值得存憶的「台灣經驗」。
兩岸朝野對這場盛會的反應令人莞爾。大陸方面，對首發團的「素質」精挑細選，生怕到了台灣隨地吐痰，丟了大陸人的臉；台灣更是到處都在塗漆粉刷，要對來客遮醜。這個景象，儼然有些像是相親的場合，兩方對於對方皆有期待，且不想讓自己的醜處被對方一眼瞧見。因而，這不只是「觀光」而已，而儼然是在兩岸人民之間搭起了一座「心靈平台」；彼此看看對方，再回頭看看自己，再共同想一想兩岸的未來。
台灣每年有四百萬人次的商旅訪遊大陸，所以，「陸客直飛來台」才是今天的主戲。據稱，未來將以每日三千陸客來台為目標，一年就近一百一十萬人；新聞焦點皆強調將帶來每年六百億元商機及四萬名就業機會，因而使大家都將眼睛盯在「擴大內需」的「經濟效益」。但是，我們仍認為，如前所述，陸客來台最重要的意義，是在兩岸人民之間搭起「心靈交流平台」，使真正的民間情懷交互激盪，在台灣第一現場交匯成對於兩岸未來的共同省思，進而累積解決兩岸問題的民間資源，並為兩岸共同的未來尋找方向。
有人將陸客來台視為一個「經濟議題」，視其為「財源」；但我們期望各界更能視之為「文化議題」、「社會議題」，珍惜「人心」在其中的角色。也就是說，台灣各界看陸客來台，應當站在「兩岸心靈交流平台」的高度，若能有「人比財重要」的想法，就可能「人財兩得」；切莫將此視為殺雞取卵的「經濟議題」、「商業議題」，那就可能「得財失人」，甚至「人財兩失」。
許多人說：台灣的都會不如上海、北京，山水不如黃山、九寨溝；更多人的共同結論是：台灣對大陸來客的最佳賣點只有「人文」。這「人文」是什麼？其實就是台灣「與大陸有關，又與大陸無關」的「四百年台灣經驗」的總稱。例如，總統府曾是總督府，總統府前面有個紅衫軍聚會的凱達格蘭大道，總統府前面有個被賣掉的國民黨中央黨部，總統府旁邊有個二二八公園及白色恐怖紀念碑，蔣氏父子、李登輝、陳水扁、馬英九，夜市的蚵仔煎、炒米粉，如何投票、如何升學、如何炒股票，檳榔西施，晚間五六個電視叩應節目在吵什麼……。這些皆是「台灣人文」的項目，在陸客眼中皆是「台灣經驗」的點滴。我們不認為把陸客推進禮品店是最高目標，若能陪他們在現場實地走過一趟「台灣經驗」的心靈「深度之旅」，也許始能教來客不虛此行。必須特別強調的是：我們絕對不贊成「洗腦」，那必招致惡評與反彈，只須忠實、客觀地自然流露，皆是台灣的人文，皆是台灣的賣點，皆是與上海的群樓或九寨溝的珍珠海迥異的另一種風景，另一番意境。
其實，關於陸客來台，兩岸似乎尚未「準備好了」；否則就不必以「首發團」為馬英九總統的「七月四日之約」應急。訪客已經登門，主人仍在手忙腳亂。但從今天以後的兩岸民間關係，已較此前換了人間。台灣接待陸客之道，與陸客作客之道，皆將對「兩岸心靈交流平台」的內涵發生作用；如前所述，彼此看看對方，再回頭看看自己，再共同想一想兩岸的未來……。
連遊覽車司機都被要求「笑得像林志玲一樣」，台灣人迎陸客的熱情可見一斑。我們期望：陸客旅途沿線的台灣商家「人財兩得」，整個台灣也是「人財兩得」；大陸來客則花錢換得開心，更能在行篋內帶回一個值得存憶回味的「台灣經驗」。
Thursday, July 3, 2008
From Direct Cross-Strait Flights to an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center
From Direct Cross-Strait Flights to an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2008
Tomorrow, July 4, 2008, is a landmark day for cross-strait exchanges. 1. The first direct, cross-strait weekend charter flight will take place. 2. Mainland tourists will arrive on Taiwan. The first batch will consist of 750 people.
News reports focus on two points: "mainland tourism" and "the stimulation of domestic demand." But this is only the superficial level. This event is significant because people on Taiwan have finally freed themselves from years of self-imposed incarceration. Through direct cross-strait exchanges, they are seeking to restore Taiwan's status in the Asia-Pacific region.
To spin "mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan" as a panacea that will "stimulate domestic demand" is excessive. Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan are not the same as mainland tourists arriving in Hong Kong -- not yet. Mainland tourists arriving in Hong Kong have freedom of movement. They are free to patronize local businesses, limited only by their pocketbooks. This spreads wealth to all corners of Hong Kong. Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan are only permitted to spend money along their route of travel, at "designated retail spots." Therefore if we want mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan to "stimulate domestic demand," we had better give them greater latitude.
The significance of mainland tourists flying directly to Taiwan is twofold: 1. It shows that cross-strait hostility has diminished and cross-strait exchanges have increased. The ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan and the mainland share the same perspective. This is a valuable step forward. 2. As mentioned earlier, direct cross-strait transportation links may finally link Taiwan with the Chinese mainland. Supplemented by other measures, they may help transform Taiwan into an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center. One day, in addition to cross-strait tourism, the passenger manifests for on direct cross-strait flights may include a whole range of international VIPs. That could be the sign that Taiwan's political and economic status has changed.
If Taiwan develops into an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center" that will be the best guarantee of a "win-win cross-strait" scenario. Each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own calculations regarding bilateral relations. On Taiwan, some fear becoming a "vassal of the mainland." They fear that reliance on the mainland is a path of no return. On the mainland, some hope to bind Taiwan hand and foot. But even if Taiwan were to become a vassal of the mainland, that would be realpolitik, not statesmanship. If future cross-strait relations entails Taiwan becoming a vassal of the mainland, political turmoil on Taiwan and increasing cross-strait hostility are inevitable. After all, Taiwan has a democratic system of government. If future cross-strait relations lead to a loss of dignity, so that the people on Taiwan feel cheated, or bound, or dominated, the backlash on Taiwan must not be underestimated. Conversely, If Taiwan can, through cross-strait exchanges, gradually realize its dream of becoming an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center," if the public discovers that cross-strait relations benefit Taiwan's dignity and interests, cross-strait relations may become ultra-stable. Moreover, if Taiwan becomes an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center," the Chinese mainland will also be an economic beneficiary.
Last Saturday the United Daily News published an editorial. It examined Hu Jintao's cross-strait approach, and noted that the line separating a politician and a statesman is very thin indeed. Regarding Taiwan as a vassal of the mainland reflects the mindset of a politician. Helping Taiwan become an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center reflects the mindset of a statesman. If Taiwan can become an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center, Taiwan's democratic system will be more stable, and cross-strait relations will be more stable. If Taiwan is treated as a vassal of the mainland, Taiwan's democratic system will become less stable, and cross-strait relations will become less stable. Look at the past to see the future. Look at the microcosm to see the macrocosm. Look at the trees to see the forest. This is what the Beijing authorities ought to be thinking about as the first cross-strait charter flights begin arriving over the weekend.
The world is watching as mainland tourists arrive on Taiwan via direct cross-strait flights. Most people only pay attention to tourist activities and consumption. We would like to remind the Taiwan authorities that direct flights are not just for the sake of tourists. Even more importantly, they are for the sake of the "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center." We should be giving it our full support. We should be actively deploying our personnel to ensure its realization. We would also like to remind the Beijing authorities that tourism is merely the icing. The cake is ultra-stable cross-strait relations, made possible by Taiwan's democratic political and economic institutions. Respond to Taiwan's desire for dignity. Look after Taiwan's interests. Help Taiwan become a "Asia-Pacific Regional Trans-shipment Center." We hope that when Chen Yunlin comes to Taiwan in October, he can straighten out the kinks, and make . weekday charter flights, direct air and maritime transport, participation in international organizations, and the additional international space, a reality.
In welcoming the advent of direct cross-strait transportation links, one cannot help wringing one's hands and lamenting 20 years of wasted opportunities, particularly after 1997. Allowing direct flights to the "the mainland region of Hong Kong" but not allowing direct flights to the mainland region of Shanghai or Beijing, was akin to burying one's head in the sand. Today we are mired in global inflation, perhaps even the shadow of another Great Depression. We are attempting belatedly to open up direct shipping and establish an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center." Has the last train already left the station? Or is another one on the way?
從兩岸直航到亞太平台
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.03 03:08 am
明天，二○○八年七月四日，是兩岸交流具有里程碑意義的日子：一、直航周末包機首航；二、陸客來台觀光「首發團」七百五十人到訪。
新聞的焦點似皆集中在「陸客觀光」及「擴大內需」兩個議題上，但這只是皮相層次；我們認為，此一事件應有的意義在於：台灣終於解脫了多年的自我束縛，得以透過兩岸直航交流，嘗試尋求台灣重建亞太區域角色的契機。
將「陸客來台」炒作成「擴大內需」的良方，其實有點過甚其詞。陸客來台，現階段與陸客到香港的「自由行」不同；「自由行」使陸客的消費隨市場機制「自然散布」至香港各角落；但團進團出的陸客來台，只會把錢花在旅途沿線的幾個「指定消費點」。因此，若真期望陸客來台能「擴大內需」，未來必須在政策上創造更大的空間。
陸客直飛來台，最重要的意義有二：一、顯示兩岸的敵意降低、交流升高，這在兩岸朝野的心理意識上，是一彌足珍貴的進展。二、如前所述，兩岸直航，使台灣終於可能透過與中國大陸的交通聯結，再輔以其他配套手段，設法建設台灣成為「亞太平台」；有朝一日，當兩岸直航班機上的乘客，除了兩岸往來的觀光客外，若能增添許多國際各個部門的菁英及國際觀光客，也許就是台灣政經角色地位改變的徵象。
台灣朝向「亞太平台」發展，是對「兩岸雙贏」的最大保證。海峽雙邊對兩岸直航或有不同算計：對台灣言，有人深恐自此成為「大陸的附庸」，陷入倚賴大陸的不歸路；對大陸言，也有人正想藉此套住台灣，亦即使台灣成為「大陸的附庸」。這是權謀者的心思，不是政治家的城府。倘若未來的兩岸關係，果真陷於「台灣是大陸的附庸」的情境，台灣政局的動盪及兩岸敵意的升高皆不可避免；因為，台灣畢竟是民主體制，倘若未來兩岸關係使台灣失卻尊嚴，使台灣人覺得受騙、被套住，或受到宰制，屆時台灣民意的反彈不可輕估。反過來說，倘若台灣能透過兩岸交流，漸漸營建其「亞太平台」的角色，而使民意深切認知兩岸關係是台灣利益與尊嚴的加分與正數，則兩岸關係始可能出現「超穩定結構」。何況，台灣若成為「亞太平台」，中國大陸在經貿上亦是當然的獲益者。
本報上周六社論討論胡錦濤的兩岸手法指出：權謀者與政治家只是一線之隔。將台灣視為「大陸附庸」，是權謀者的心思；使台灣成為「亞太平台」，是政治家的城府。台灣若能成為「亞太平台」，台灣內部的民主政經體制即可趨穩定，兩岸關係亦可穩定；倘若欲將台灣視為「大陸附庸」，台灣內部的民主政經體制即不可能穩定，兩岸關係亦不可能穩定。看近、看遠？見小、見大？見樹木、見森林？這是北京當局在兩岸周末包機首航日應有的省思。
陸客直飛來台觀光，全世界都在看。一般人皆只注意觀光客的活動花絮，但我們願提醒台灣當局：直航不只為了觀光客，更是為了營建「亞太平台」；應當全面配套、積極部署，全力促其實現。我們亦願寄語北京當局：觀光客只是「熱鬧」，但真正的「門道」是在必須透過台灣的民主政經體制建立兩岸關係的「超穩定結構」，那就是回應台灣在利益及尊嚴上的追求，協助台灣成為「亞太平台」。因此，我們希望，當陳雲林十月來台時，能帶著「截彎取直」、「平日包機」、「海空貨運直航」、「國際參與空間」等「伴手禮」到訪。
迎接兩岸直航的到臨，令人不由得為過去二十年的蹉跎扼腕浩嘆。尤其，在一九九七年後，容許直航「大陸領土香港」，卻不容直航同是大陸領土的上海或北京，真是「自欺欺人」。如今，當我們在全球大通膨，甚至大蕭條的陰影中開放直航，並重新對「亞太平台」升起憧憬，究竟是時不我予，還是來者可追、為時未晚？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 3, 2008
Tomorrow, July 4, 2008, is a landmark day for cross-strait exchanges. 1. The first direct, cross-strait weekend charter flight will take place. 2. Mainland tourists will arrive on Taiwan. The first batch will consist of 750 people.
News reports focus on two points: "mainland tourism" and "the stimulation of domestic demand." But this is only the superficial level. This event is significant because people on Taiwan have finally freed themselves from years of self-imposed incarceration. Through direct cross-strait exchanges, they are seeking to restore Taiwan's status in the Asia-Pacific region.
To spin "mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan" as a panacea that will "stimulate domestic demand" is excessive. Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan are not the same as mainland tourists arriving in Hong Kong -- not yet. Mainland tourists arriving in Hong Kong have freedom of movement. They are free to patronize local businesses, limited only by their pocketbooks. This spreads wealth to all corners of Hong Kong. Mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan are only permitted to spend money along their route of travel, at "designated retail spots." Therefore if we want mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan to "stimulate domestic demand," we had better give them greater latitude.
The significance of mainland tourists flying directly to Taiwan is twofold: 1. It shows that cross-strait hostility has diminished and cross-strait exchanges have increased. The ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan and the mainland share the same perspective. This is a valuable step forward. 2. As mentioned earlier, direct cross-strait transportation links may finally link Taiwan with the Chinese mainland. Supplemented by other measures, they may help transform Taiwan into an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center. One day, in addition to cross-strait tourism, the passenger manifests for on direct cross-strait flights may include a whole range of international VIPs. That could be the sign that Taiwan's political and economic status has changed.
If Taiwan develops into an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center" that will be the best guarantee of a "win-win cross-strait" scenario. Each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own calculations regarding bilateral relations. On Taiwan, some fear becoming a "vassal of the mainland." They fear that reliance on the mainland is a path of no return. On the mainland, some hope to bind Taiwan hand and foot. But even if Taiwan were to become a vassal of the mainland, that would be realpolitik, not statesmanship. If future cross-strait relations entails Taiwan becoming a vassal of the mainland, political turmoil on Taiwan and increasing cross-strait hostility are inevitable. After all, Taiwan has a democratic system of government. If future cross-strait relations lead to a loss of dignity, so that the people on Taiwan feel cheated, or bound, or dominated, the backlash on Taiwan must not be underestimated. Conversely, If Taiwan can, through cross-strait exchanges, gradually realize its dream of becoming an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center," if the public discovers that cross-strait relations benefit Taiwan's dignity and interests, cross-strait relations may become ultra-stable. Moreover, if Taiwan becomes an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center," the Chinese mainland will also be an economic beneficiary.
Last Saturday the United Daily News published an editorial. It examined Hu Jintao's cross-strait approach, and noted that the line separating a politician and a statesman is very thin indeed. Regarding Taiwan as a vassal of the mainland reflects the mindset of a politician. Helping Taiwan become an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center reflects the mindset of a statesman. If Taiwan can become an Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center, Taiwan's democratic system will be more stable, and cross-strait relations will be more stable. If Taiwan is treated as a vassal of the mainland, Taiwan's democratic system will become less stable, and cross-strait relations will become less stable. Look at the past to see the future. Look at the microcosm to see the macrocosm. Look at the trees to see the forest. This is what the Beijing authorities ought to be thinking about as the first cross-strait charter flights begin arriving over the weekend.
The world is watching as mainland tourists arrive on Taiwan via direct cross-strait flights. Most people only pay attention to tourist activities and consumption. We would like to remind the Taiwan authorities that direct flights are not just for the sake of tourists. Even more importantly, they are for the sake of the "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center." We should be giving it our full support. We should be actively deploying our personnel to ensure its realization. We would also like to remind the Beijing authorities that tourism is merely the icing. The cake is ultra-stable cross-strait relations, made possible by Taiwan's democratic political and economic institutions. Respond to Taiwan's desire for dignity. Look after Taiwan's interests. Help Taiwan become a "Asia-Pacific Regional Trans-shipment Center." We hope that when Chen Yunlin comes to Taiwan in October, he can straighten out the kinks, and make . weekday charter flights, direct air and maritime transport, participation in international organizations, and the additional international space, a reality.
In welcoming the advent of direct cross-strait transportation links, one cannot help wringing one's hands and lamenting 20 years of wasted opportunities, particularly after 1997. Allowing direct flights to the "the mainland region of Hong Kong" but not allowing direct flights to the mainland region of Shanghai or Beijing, was akin to burying one's head in the sand. Today we are mired in global inflation, perhaps even the shadow of another Great Depression. We are attempting belatedly to open up direct shipping and establish an "Asia-Pacific Trans-shipment Center." Has the last train already left the station? Or is another one on the way?
從兩岸直航到亞太平台
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.03 03:08 am
明天，二○○八年七月四日，是兩岸交流具有里程碑意義的日子：一、直航周末包機首航；二、陸客來台觀光「首發團」七百五十人到訪。
新聞的焦點似皆集中在「陸客觀光」及「擴大內需」兩個議題上，但這只是皮相層次；我們認為，此一事件應有的意義在於：台灣終於解脫了多年的自我束縛，得以透過兩岸直航交流，嘗試尋求台灣重建亞太區域角色的契機。
將「陸客來台」炒作成「擴大內需」的良方，其實有點過甚其詞。陸客來台，現階段與陸客到香港的「自由行」不同；「自由行」使陸客的消費隨市場機制「自然散布」至香港各角落；但團進團出的陸客來台，只會把錢花在旅途沿線的幾個「指定消費點」。因此，若真期望陸客來台能「擴大內需」，未來必須在政策上創造更大的空間。
陸客直飛來台，最重要的意義有二：一、顯示兩岸的敵意降低、交流升高，這在兩岸朝野的心理意識上，是一彌足珍貴的進展。二、如前所述，兩岸直航，使台灣終於可能透過與中國大陸的交通聯結，再輔以其他配套手段，設法建設台灣成為「亞太平台」；有朝一日，當兩岸直航班機上的乘客，除了兩岸往來的觀光客外，若能增添許多國際各個部門的菁英及國際觀光客，也許就是台灣政經角色地位改變的徵象。
台灣朝向「亞太平台」發展，是對「兩岸雙贏」的最大保證。海峽雙邊對兩岸直航或有不同算計：對台灣言，有人深恐自此成為「大陸的附庸」，陷入倚賴大陸的不歸路；對大陸言，也有人正想藉此套住台灣，亦即使台灣成為「大陸的附庸」。這是權謀者的心思，不是政治家的城府。倘若未來的兩岸關係，果真陷於「台灣是大陸的附庸」的情境，台灣政局的動盪及兩岸敵意的升高皆不可避免；因為，台灣畢竟是民主體制，倘若未來兩岸關係使台灣失卻尊嚴，使台灣人覺得受騙、被套住，或受到宰制，屆時台灣民意的反彈不可輕估。反過來說，倘若台灣能透過兩岸交流，漸漸營建其「亞太平台」的角色，而使民意深切認知兩岸關係是台灣利益與尊嚴的加分與正數，則兩岸關係始可能出現「超穩定結構」。何況，台灣若成為「亞太平台」，中國大陸在經貿上亦是當然的獲益者。
本報上周六社論討論胡錦濤的兩岸手法指出：權謀者與政治家只是一線之隔。將台灣視為「大陸附庸」，是權謀者的心思；使台灣成為「亞太平台」，是政治家的城府。台灣若能成為「亞太平台」，台灣內部的民主政經體制即可趨穩定，兩岸關係亦可穩定；倘若欲將台灣視為「大陸附庸」，台灣內部的民主政經體制即不可能穩定，兩岸關係亦不可能穩定。看近、看遠？見小、見大？見樹木、見森林？這是北京當局在兩岸周末包機首航日應有的省思。
陸客直飛來台觀光，全世界都在看。一般人皆只注意觀光客的活動花絮，但我們願提醒台灣當局：直航不只為了觀光客，更是為了營建「亞太平台」；應當全面配套、積極部署，全力促其實現。我們亦願寄語北京當局：觀光客只是「熱鬧」，但真正的「門道」是在必須透過台灣的民主政經體制建立兩岸關係的「超穩定結構」，那就是回應台灣在利益及尊嚴上的追求，協助台灣成為「亞太平台」。因此，我們希望，當陳雲林十月來台時，能帶著「截彎取直」、「平日包機」、「海空貨運直航」、「國際參與空間」等「伴手禮」到訪。
迎接兩岸直航的到臨，令人不由得為過去二十年的蹉跎扼腕浩嘆。尤其，在一九九七年後，容許直航「大陸領土香港」，卻不容直航同是大陸領土的上海或北京，真是「自欺欺人」。如今，當我們在全球大通膨，甚至大蕭條的陰影中開放直航，並重新對「亞太平台」升起憧憬，究竟是時不我予，還是來者可追、為時未晚？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)