To Rescue the Stock Market, First Rescue the Economy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 10, 2008
The day before yesterday the stock market rose 351 points, Yesterday it fell 233 points. The rebound was a one night stand, a flash in the pan. The admininistration is wondering how to rescue the stock market. But absent economic momentum and confidence, the stock market has no support. After all, economic issues are not the same as stock market issues. Everyone is experiencing economic difficulties, not just investors.
The global economy is mired in the worst depression since the Great Depression of 1929. This is the international consensus. Many nations have announced programs to revive their economies. The new administration has been in office 100 days. Its financial and economic experts were too eager to claim credit. Therefore each of them promoted his own solution. The result was chaos and disunity. The first of eight half-hearted measures to revitalize the economy received its answer when the stock market fell for five straight days. The policy lost all credibility. Given this lesson, when the administration makes its next move, its must think first and act second. Its objectives must be clear. Its actions must be unified. It must not keep worrying about what people will say.
Based on actual observation, the global economy is on a downward slide. This is the main reason Taiwan's economy is limping along, and it was to be expected, Of continuing concern is the decline in Taiwan's export growth and its industrial competitiveness. Is the situation deteriorating? Currently there are no signs indicate. Inflation rates, interest rates, exchange rates, and market price fluctuations suggest that the economy is stable compared to neighbouring countries. Sluggish domestic demand has been the norm for years. It reflects the public's lack of confidence. Over the past eight years a Closed Door Policy has alienated the public. The new administration, which wants to relax these restrictions, has failed to win public trust. It has run up against sluggish external demand. Nothing can hide the facts. If the problem isn't addressed, it may spin out of control.
Pessimism has followed on the heels of optimism. A sustained downturn could spark a wildfire and spin out of control. The downturn merely reflects fluctuations in the cycle of supply and demand. But what individuals are feeling is pain. Businesses are retrenching, closing down, and even declaring bankruptcy. Personal incomes are falling. The standard of living is declining. Unemployment is spreading through families, leading people to commit suicide or to commit crimes. When fluctuations in the economy become larger, and remain longer, their impact becomes more intense and more widespread. Manufacturing industries close down one after the other. Increasing social friction and chaos threaten public safety. The economy loses its resiliency. It is no longer able to withstand the next wave of economic shocks. This is no laughing matter.
The administration needs countermeasures. But its countermeasures must not swim agains the tide. That would be a waste of ammunition. For example, artificial intervention in the stock market, will only dig the administration in deeper. Nor is the answer taking advantage of the confusion to experiment with all sorts of quick fixes, Such shortsightedness will rebound in the long run. The price would not be worthwhile. The administration is considering an expansion of the five-year tax exemption, and a reduction in document taxes. These measures remain controversial, and their effectiveness in doubt. They undermine the legitimacy and weaken the impetus for property tax reform. Administration plans must not be at the mercy of the global economic downturn. To preserve Taiwan's economic vitality, administration plans must, as far as possible, anticipate future developments. They must minimize and limit long term damage.
The administration must, at the very least, implement the dual rate system and stabilize prices. It must provide a stable business environment. It must avoid making matters worse. The relaxation of controls and reconstruction programs must not be delayed due to economic turbulence. These weapons will be necessary in the event of an economic resurgence. The highest priority must be to bolster public confidence, to reduce turbulence, and above all, prevent aftereffects. "Reduction and Prevention" requires no bag of tricks. All it requires is action. The key is to expand demand in order to alleviate the suffering of those on the economic margins.
The nation's income structure is M-shaped. The administration's countermeasures must also be M-shaped. After all, the middle and extreme right hand side of the M-shape are middle and high-income groups. They have large savings accounts. They have the ability to weather the depression. The administration's programs to increase demand must redistribute the wealth, reducing the impact on the poor. The administration has the money, but if it doesn't spend it, the benefits will not be felt.
On the extreme left hand side of he M-shape are low-income groups. The administration has put forward a work subsidy program to take care of disadvantaged groups. It should pay more attention to the plight of small and medium enterprises and to unemployment. Small and medium enterprises are most vulnerable to economic changes. Cash flow is the key to success. The administration should consolidate its existing resources, and tide them over their difficulties. July unemployment was high due to seasonal factors, and will increase in August and September. But the administration is oblivious to the problem. Unemployment is the beginning of economic deterioration. It is the source of social chaos. The administration must prevent it as soon as possible. It must assist employment agencies, expand training, prevent bankruptcy fraud, and provide unemployment benefits.
救經濟，才能救股市！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.10 02:53 am
股市前天大漲三五一點，昨天大跌二三三點。一日行情，曇花一現。政府正在苦思救股市，但倘若經濟的氣勢與信心皆拉不起來，股市亦無支撐。畢竟，經濟問題不只是股市問題；陷於經濟困境的也不只是股友，而是全民。
全球景氣陷入一九二九年經濟大蕭條以來最嚴重的泥淖，幾乎已經是國際共識，各國的振興經濟方案紛紛出籠，就位剛滿百日的新政府卻因財經首長搶功心切、各自為政，政策出招凌亂分散，第一波勉強出手的八大振興景氣措施，股市竟是以連續重挫五天回應，政策威信盡失。有此前車之鑑，政府再出手，就要謀定而後動，目標清楚、行動一致，不再左顧右盼。
從實體面觀察，全球景氣進入下滑坡道，是台灣經濟走疲的主因，亦在預期之中，須持續關注的是台灣出口成長降幅及分項產業的競爭力，是否出現惡化之勢，而目前尚無跡象；再看物價漲幅、利率、匯率及房市價格的波動幅度，亦相較多數鄰近國家為低，顯示國內總體經濟情勢相對穩定；至於低迷的國內需求，實已持續多年，反映的是人民信心，過去八年因經濟鎖國而民心失離，如今主張鬆綁的新政府也未能收攏，又逢外需不振，已再無屏障遮掩，再不正視，將有失控之虞。
尤其，悲觀的氣氛就跟樂觀的信心自我實現一般，持續的不景氣也會像野火燎原而一發不可收拾；畢竟，總體面的不景氣顯現的僅是供需周期的波動，但個體感受到的是直接的痛苦，在企業是萎縮、歇業甚至破產，到了個人就是收入減少、生活品質下降、失業，進而波及到家庭，再轉換為自殺、犯罪率升高等社會問題。當景氣波動幅度愈大、持續愈久，其衝擊也愈強、愈廣，當產業體系因個體退場而瓦解、社會安全因對立升高而失序，經濟體系也將失去彈性，再無迎接下一波景氣的能力，實不能等閒視之。
因此，政府此時必須要有對策，但其對策不是逆勢而為，那是浪費子彈，例如人為干預股市，反將愈陷愈深；也不是亂開藥方，甚至乘亂夾帶，那是以短害長，代價不貲，像是討論中的五年免稅擴大適用、證交稅下降等，除了效果存疑、並有爭議，更令租稅改革失去正義，破壞賦改會的租稅改革大局；為今之計，應是處此非可完全操之在我的國際經濟逆境之中，盡量保留台灣經濟的元氣，所用之策如須預支未來，亦應以長害最小或可控為度。
在具體作法上，雙率及物價的持穩是基本要求，以提供全民安定的經營環境，避免雪上加霜；進行中的鬆綁及重建計畫，亦不能因景氣波動而放緩，這些都是迎接景氣再起的利器；現下最緊要的，則是全力穩住人民的信心，並以降低不景氣波動幅度、防止不景氣擴散後遺症為優先；「一降一防」不需花稍的招數，只要政府實在的作為，重點就在於以擴大需求，因應及緩解經濟邊緣人的痛苦。
從國民所得結構的Ｍ型化角度而言，這也是必要的Ｍ型對策；畢竟在Ｍ型中右端的中高所得族群，也是擁有高儲蓄者，具備抵禦不景氣寒冬的能量，政府的擴大需求方案確可適度挹注經濟活動，降低打擊面；但現今的問題在於政府有錢卻花不出去，效果也就顯現不出來。
對於Ｍ型中左端的中低所得者，政府已提出工作所得補貼方案、照顧弱勢族群對策等；除此之外，目前更要關注的是中小企業動態及失業情勢。中小企業對景氣最敏感，資金周轉是成敗關鍵，政府應整合現有輔導措施，助其度過難關；另七月失業率已因季節性因素走高，八、九月還將再攀升，但政府顯然還未意識到這個問題的嚴重性。失業是經濟惡化之始，也是社會失序之源，政府必須及早防範，就業媒合機構的強化、在職訓練能量的擴充、預防惡性倒閉的查察及失業給付的補救措施等，都要上緊發條了。
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Second Anniversary of the Red Shirt Movement
The Second Anniversary of the Red Shirt Movement
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2008
Today is the second anniversary of the September 9 Red Shirt Movement. Movement leader Shih Ming-teh requested a face to face meeting with President Ma Ying-jeou, to discuss the United Nations Anti-Corruption Convention, and to respond to public expectations about anti-corruption. Concerned that its actions might be construed as interfering in Chen Shui-bian's prosecution, the Presidential Office refused to grant his request.
Yesterday the United Daily News' "Black and White Files" wondered whether President Ma refused to meet with Shih Ming-teh because Ma was preoccupied with Chen Shui-bian. Ma forgot that opposition to corruption is a universal value, and a matter of simple justice. All Ma could think about was staying away from a political hot potato. Ma refused to allow his teflon coating to brush up against Shih Ming-teh's Red Shirt.
The United Daily News has addressed two issues. One is the nature of the Red Shirt Movement. The other is Ma Ying-jeou's thought processes.
First let's look at the Red Shirt Movement. Viewed from up close, it was an "anti-Chen" movement. Chen Shui-bian was the chief culprit. But viewed from farther away, it was an historic movement, during which society attempted to establish genuine democracy and the rule of law. Having lived through this movement, the public on Taiwan no longer has any place for "President Chen Shui-bian." The movement was a warning to all future presidents and national leaders: You may not embezzle, and the justice system may not betray the people!
Do not reduce the Red Shirt Movement to a Blue vs. Green power struggle. The Red Shirt Movement was not about opposition to Chen. It was a grassroots movement that reflected the public's desire for genuine democracy and the rule of law. These universal values are part and parcel of democracy. Had Chen Shui-bian's scandals occurred in Korea, he would have ended up like Chun Doo Hwan or Roh Tae-woo. Had they happened in Peru, he would have ended up like Alberto Fujimori. Had they happened in the Philippines, he would have ended up like Ferdinand Marcos. Had they happened in Japan, he would have ended up like Kakuei Tanaka. Had they happened in the United States, he would have ended up like Richard Nixon. If people remain mired in realpolitik, they will only remember names such as Chen Shui-bian, Roh Tae-woo, and Ferdinand Marcos. But from an historical perspective, these cases are a test of democracy and the rule of law, when confronted by corrupt national leaders. We too face challenges to democracy and the rule of law. Chen Shui-bian is nothing more than an example from the pages of history.
Only by rising above narrow "anti-Chen" thinking can one understand the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement. We must reaffirm democracy and rule of law. We must confirm that it is able to punish a corrupt president. Chen Shui-bian is merely the case at hand. This is not merely an "anti-Chen" movement. It is a pro-democracy, pro-rule of law movement.
Now let's look at Ma Ying-jeou's thinking. From the very beginning Ma Ying-jeou has kept the Red Shirt Movement at arms length. The very first question he raised was whether the demonstrations could continue through the night. The impression Ma Ying-jeou gave was that he only cared about what they law prohibited, not about what the law protected. Ma Ying-jeou appeared far too concerned about protecting his image as mayor. He was far too rigid about what the letter of the law prohibited. He failed to champion what the law protected, including the right of public assembly and the right of free speech. He also failed to respond to public opinion. Ma Ying-jeou left the impression he was a legal hack and not a political leader.
Ma Ying-jeou reveals this same thinking each time a political incident occurs. For example, during the Chuang Kuo-jung incident, he seemed concerned only about demonstrating his magnanimity. He seemed utterly indifferent to public outrage over issues of right and wrong and questions of justice. During Chen Shui-bian's State Affairs Fund Case, Ma seemed concerned only about behaving "appropriately." Apparently indifferent to public demands for justice. he at first refused to declassify Chen's case files.
Such examples show that the public expects justice, but that Ma Ying-jeou is willing to do only the bare minimum the law requires on behalf of justice. Sometimes he values his personal image more highly than the cause of justice. Otherwise, why would he permit overnight protests even though he initially concluded they were illegal? Also, according to the law, he had the right to declassify the State Affairs Fund Case files, but at first he refused to respond. In the end he found a face-saving measure allowing him to do so.
Ma Ying-jeou's refusal to meet with Shih Ming-teh also seems to be the result of such thinking. Ma Ying-jeou's concern for his image is commendable. But caution to the point where one loses one's audacity and vision is a defect in a political leader. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh. If he is concerned about "unduly influencing the legal process," all he needs to do is state in advance that he will not discuss Chen Shui-bian's case. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh because of Chen Shui-bian. But by refusing to meet Shih Ming-teh Ma has left the impression that he repudiates society's collective memory of that historic movement.
From a realpolitik perspective, the Red Shirt Movement of course included an anti-Chen agenda. But the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement for democracy and the rule of law far exceeds any "anti-Chen" agenda. Ma Ying-jeou, Chen Shui-bian, and Shih Ming-teh were the stars of this drama. But the public must rise above such a limited understanding of the event. It must acknowledge its own role in this spontaneous grass roots movement against corruption.
If Ma Ying-jeou adopts the position that he is opposed to corruption but not to Chen Shui-bian personally, then he can look Chen Shui-bian's corruption case squarely in the eye, from the perspective of history. He will also be able to meet Shih Ming-teh without concern.
紅衫運動二周年：反扁一時，反貪永遠！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.09 03:00 am
今天是九九紅衫運動二周年。運動領袖施明德想請見馬英九總統，面交聯合國反貪腐公約，並反映社會反貪腐的期待；府方因顧慮會被誤認影響扁案司法程序，拒絕所請。
本報《黑白集》昨天指出，馬總統拒見施明德，或許是因眼裡只看到「陳水扁」，卻看不到「反貪腐」的普世價值或天經地義。因此，只知計較是否會惹上現實政治的譏讒，而不願於此際在自己的鍋裡沾上施明德的紅衫色彩。
本文嘗試談兩個角度：一是紅衫運動的本質，一是馬英九的思維。
先談紅衫運動。貼近來看，這是一場「反扁」的運動，因為陳水扁是貪腐的主角；但若抽離來看，這卻是台灣社會追求「真民主」與「真法治」的歷史機遇。經過此次運動，在台灣政治中，不再有「陳水扁總統」這個角色；但這場運動卻是在警示未來任何的總統及主政者：你們皆不可貪腐，司法亦不可背叛人民！
不要把紅衫運動只看成現實的藍綠鬥爭；紅衫運動的價值不在「反扁」，而是以一場公民運動，反映了國人對於真民主、真法治的追求，這是民主政治的天經地義與普世價值。陳水扁這類事件，若發生在韓國，就近似全斗煥或盧泰愚；若在秘魯，就近似藤森；若在菲律賓，就近似馬可仕；若在日本，就近似田中角榮；若在美國，就近似尼克森。如果沉陷在現實政治中，人們只會注意陳水扁、盧泰愚、馬可仕這類的名字；但若從大歷史的觀點來看，這些案例皆是民主法治面對貪腐主政者的大考驗。現在，台灣所面對的也是民主法治的大考驗，陳水扁只是歷史進程中所提供的題材而已。
因此，跳脫出「反扁」的狹窄思維，始能體會紅衫運動在台灣民主大歷史上的價值。現在必須證實的是：台灣的民主法治，有能力懲治貪腐的總統；只是碰巧陳水扁成為目前的個案。這不只是一場「反扁」運動，更是一場民主法治的升級升階運動。
接著談馬英九的思維。馬英九對紅衫運動自始就採若即若離的態度。例如，一開始就面對示威活動是否可以跨夜舉行的問題；馬英九起初的表現，被認為是只注意法律的禁制規定，卻不能闡發法律的保障規定。當時，馬英九表現得太過保護自己的市長角色，也太過拘泥於法律的負面規範；而未能發揮法律保障集會言論之精神，也未能正確回應民意。當時的輿論就認為，馬英九像一個「法匠」，而不像政治領袖。
馬英九的這類思維模式，幾乎出現在他所有的重大政治動作中。例如，在莊國榮案中，他似只想表現自己的人格光彩，卻渾然不知民間對是非價值及正義觀點的認知；再如，在陳水扁國務費案中，他也只想維持他的角色「分寸」，起初不解密，也似完全不知民間對正義的期待。這類事例皆顯示，社會對正義有期待，但馬英九卻只願在法律的最低限度上提供支援，甚至有時將自己的角色形象置在高於社會正義的地位；否則，怎麼會依法有跨夜集會的空間卻起初不予認可，又依法原來有解密的空間而起初不回應（最後以註銷找到下台階）？
現在，馬英九拒絕與施明德見面似乎也是出自此類思維。馬英九的「愛惜羽毛」可以肯定；但若矜持謹慎到展現不出大氣魄、大格局的地步，那恐怕就是身為政治領袖的缺陷。以馬英九拒見施明德而言，倘若避忌流於「影響司法」的譏評，只要事先言明不談陳水扁的個案即可；如今馬英九因陳水扁而拒見施明德，卻亦因拒見施明德，而形同拒絕了那一段反貪腐公民運動的社會共同記憶。
在政治現實中，紅衫事件當然有「反扁」的訴求；但在台灣民主法治的大歷史中，紅衫事件自有超越「反扁」的深遠意義。馬英九、陳水扁、施明德雖皆是這個運動中的角色，但國人應當擺脫跳開這些角色的囿限，讓台灣留下一篇人民自動自發反抗貪腐的民主史詩。
馬英九的心中若存有「只見反貪／不見阿扁」的大歷史觀點，他就能正確面對扁案，也可心無罣礙地會見施明德。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2008
Today is the second anniversary of the September 9 Red Shirt Movement. Movement leader Shih Ming-teh requested a face to face meeting with President Ma Ying-jeou, to discuss the United Nations Anti-Corruption Convention, and to respond to public expectations about anti-corruption. Concerned that its actions might be construed as interfering in Chen Shui-bian's prosecution, the Presidential Office refused to grant his request.
Yesterday the United Daily News' "Black and White Files" wondered whether President Ma refused to meet with Shih Ming-teh because Ma was preoccupied with Chen Shui-bian. Ma forgot that opposition to corruption is a universal value, and a matter of simple justice. All Ma could think about was staying away from a political hot potato. Ma refused to allow his teflon coating to brush up against Shih Ming-teh's Red Shirt.
The United Daily News has addressed two issues. One is the nature of the Red Shirt Movement. The other is Ma Ying-jeou's thought processes.
First let's look at the Red Shirt Movement. Viewed from up close, it was an "anti-Chen" movement. Chen Shui-bian was the chief culprit. But viewed from farther away, it was an historic movement, during which society attempted to establish genuine democracy and the rule of law. Having lived through this movement, the public on Taiwan no longer has any place for "President Chen Shui-bian." The movement was a warning to all future presidents and national leaders: You may not embezzle, and the justice system may not betray the people!
Do not reduce the Red Shirt Movement to a Blue vs. Green power struggle. The Red Shirt Movement was not about opposition to Chen. It was a grassroots movement that reflected the public's desire for genuine democracy and the rule of law. These universal values are part and parcel of democracy. Had Chen Shui-bian's scandals occurred in Korea, he would have ended up like Chun Doo Hwan or Roh Tae-woo. Had they happened in Peru, he would have ended up like Alberto Fujimori. Had they happened in the Philippines, he would have ended up like Ferdinand Marcos. Had they happened in Japan, he would have ended up like Kakuei Tanaka. Had they happened in the United States, he would have ended up like Richard Nixon. If people remain mired in realpolitik, they will only remember names such as Chen Shui-bian, Roh Tae-woo, and Ferdinand Marcos. But from an historical perspective, these cases are a test of democracy and the rule of law, when confronted by corrupt national leaders. We too face challenges to democracy and the rule of law. Chen Shui-bian is nothing more than an example from the pages of history.
Only by rising above narrow "anti-Chen" thinking can one understand the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement. We must reaffirm democracy and rule of law. We must confirm that it is able to punish a corrupt president. Chen Shui-bian is merely the case at hand. This is not merely an "anti-Chen" movement. It is a pro-democracy, pro-rule of law movement.
Now let's look at Ma Ying-jeou's thinking. From the very beginning Ma Ying-jeou has kept the Red Shirt Movement at arms length. The very first question he raised was whether the demonstrations could continue through the night. The impression Ma Ying-jeou gave was that he only cared about what they law prohibited, not about what the law protected. Ma Ying-jeou appeared far too concerned about protecting his image as mayor. He was far too rigid about what the letter of the law prohibited. He failed to champion what the law protected, including the right of public assembly and the right of free speech. He also failed to respond to public opinion. Ma Ying-jeou left the impression he was a legal hack and not a political leader.
Ma Ying-jeou reveals this same thinking each time a political incident occurs. For example, during the Chuang Kuo-jung incident, he seemed concerned only about demonstrating his magnanimity. He seemed utterly indifferent to public outrage over issues of right and wrong and questions of justice. During Chen Shui-bian's State Affairs Fund Case, Ma seemed concerned only about behaving "appropriately." Apparently indifferent to public demands for justice. he at first refused to declassify Chen's case files.
Such examples show that the public expects justice, but that Ma Ying-jeou is willing to do only the bare minimum the law requires on behalf of justice. Sometimes he values his personal image more highly than the cause of justice. Otherwise, why would he permit overnight protests even though he initially concluded they were illegal? Also, according to the law, he had the right to declassify the State Affairs Fund Case files, but at first he refused to respond. In the end he found a face-saving measure allowing him to do so.
Ma Ying-jeou's refusal to meet with Shih Ming-teh also seems to be the result of such thinking. Ma Ying-jeou's concern for his image is commendable. But caution to the point where one loses one's audacity and vision is a defect in a political leader. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh. If he is concerned about "unduly influencing the legal process," all he needs to do is state in advance that he will not discuss Chen Shui-bian's case. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh because of Chen Shui-bian. But by refusing to meet Shih Ming-teh Ma has left the impression that he repudiates society's collective memory of that historic movement.
From a realpolitik perspective, the Red Shirt Movement of course included an anti-Chen agenda. But the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement for democracy and the rule of law far exceeds any "anti-Chen" agenda. Ma Ying-jeou, Chen Shui-bian, and Shih Ming-teh were the stars of this drama. But the public must rise above such a limited understanding of the event. It must acknowledge its own role in this spontaneous grass roots movement against corruption.
If Ma Ying-jeou adopts the position that he is opposed to corruption but not to Chen Shui-bian personally, then he can look Chen Shui-bian's corruption case squarely in the eye, from the perspective of history. He will also be able to meet Shih Ming-teh without concern.
紅衫運動二周年：反扁一時，反貪永遠！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.09 03:00 am
今天是九九紅衫運動二周年。運動領袖施明德想請見馬英九總統，面交聯合國反貪腐公約，並反映社會反貪腐的期待；府方因顧慮會被誤認影響扁案司法程序，拒絕所請。
本報《黑白集》昨天指出，馬總統拒見施明德，或許是因眼裡只看到「陳水扁」，卻看不到「反貪腐」的普世價值或天經地義。因此，只知計較是否會惹上現實政治的譏讒，而不願於此際在自己的鍋裡沾上施明德的紅衫色彩。
本文嘗試談兩個角度：一是紅衫運動的本質，一是馬英九的思維。
先談紅衫運動。貼近來看，這是一場「反扁」的運動，因為陳水扁是貪腐的主角；但若抽離來看，這卻是台灣社會追求「真民主」與「真法治」的歷史機遇。經過此次運動，在台灣政治中，不再有「陳水扁總統」這個角色；但這場運動卻是在警示未來任何的總統及主政者：你們皆不可貪腐，司法亦不可背叛人民！
不要把紅衫運動只看成現實的藍綠鬥爭；紅衫運動的價值不在「反扁」，而是以一場公民運動，反映了國人對於真民主、真法治的追求，這是民主政治的天經地義與普世價值。陳水扁這類事件，若發生在韓國，就近似全斗煥或盧泰愚；若在秘魯，就近似藤森；若在菲律賓，就近似馬可仕；若在日本，就近似田中角榮；若在美國，就近似尼克森。如果沉陷在現實政治中，人們只會注意陳水扁、盧泰愚、馬可仕這類的名字；但若從大歷史的觀點來看，這些案例皆是民主法治面對貪腐主政者的大考驗。現在，台灣所面對的也是民主法治的大考驗，陳水扁只是歷史進程中所提供的題材而已。
因此，跳脫出「反扁」的狹窄思維，始能體會紅衫運動在台灣民主大歷史上的價值。現在必須證實的是：台灣的民主法治，有能力懲治貪腐的總統；只是碰巧陳水扁成為目前的個案。這不只是一場「反扁」運動，更是一場民主法治的升級升階運動。
接著談馬英九的思維。馬英九對紅衫運動自始就採若即若離的態度。例如，一開始就面對示威活動是否可以跨夜舉行的問題；馬英九起初的表現，被認為是只注意法律的禁制規定，卻不能闡發法律的保障規定。當時，馬英九表現得太過保護自己的市長角色，也太過拘泥於法律的負面規範；而未能發揮法律保障集會言論之精神，也未能正確回應民意。當時的輿論就認為，馬英九像一個「法匠」，而不像政治領袖。
馬英九的這類思維模式，幾乎出現在他所有的重大政治動作中。例如，在莊國榮案中，他似只想表現自己的人格光彩，卻渾然不知民間對是非價值及正義觀點的認知；再如，在陳水扁國務費案中，他也只想維持他的角色「分寸」，起初不解密，也似完全不知民間對正義的期待。這類事例皆顯示，社會對正義有期待，但馬英九卻只願在法律的最低限度上提供支援，甚至有時將自己的角色形象置在高於社會正義的地位；否則，怎麼會依法有跨夜集會的空間卻起初不予認可，又依法原來有解密的空間而起初不回應（最後以註銷找到下台階）？
現在，馬英九拒絕與施明德見面似乎也是出自此類思維。馬英九的「愛惜羽毛」可以肯定；但若矜持謹慎到展現不出大氣魄、大格局的地步，那恐怕就是身為政治領袖的缺陷。以馬英九拒見施明德而言，倘若避忌流於「影響司法」的譏評，只要事先言明不談陳水扁的個案即可；如今馬英九因陳水扁而拒見施明德，卻亦因拒見施明德，而形同拒絕了那一段反貪腐公民運動的社會共同記憶。
在政治現實中，紅衫事件當然有「反扁」的訴求；但在台灣民主法治的大歷史中，紅衫事件自有超越「反扁」的深遠意義。馬英九、陳水扁、施明德雖皆是這個運動中的角色，但國人應當擺脫跳開這些角色的囿限，讓台灣留下一篇人民自動自發反抗貪腐的民主史詩。
馬英九的心中若存有「只見反貪／不見阿扁」的大歷史觀點，他就能正確面對扁案，也可心無罣礙地會見施明德。
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Ma's First Year: Fortunately He Still Has a Chance to Redeem Himself
Ma's First Year: Fortunately He Still Has a Chance to Redeem Himself
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2008
President Ma should be grateful. A crisis of governance has exploded during his first 100 days. He still has three years and 200 days to make corrections. If the tidal wave of criticism were to arrive near the end of his fourth year, no one would listen to his repeated apologies. He should appreciate his good fortune. He should hasten to put aside his self-righteousness and arrogance, and bone up on how to be a wise and effective president. He still has time. But he must not waste it currying favour and arranging photo ops.
In retrospect, President Ma's plight may be the direct result of his career path. It has simply been too smooth, too easy. Apart from being indicted over the Administrative Heads Discretionary Fund Case, he has never experienced a major setback in his entire political career. He never experienced the pain Chiang Ching-kuo suffered during his exile in the Soviet Union. He never experienced the nail-biting anxiety Lee Teng-hui must have gone through. He never experienced the repeated election setbacks as Chen Shui-bian. He was quite young when he gained favor with Chiang Ching-kuo. He had little administrative experience at the bureau or department level. Despite his lack of experience, he was made KMT Deputy Secretary-General. During the intense struggles between the mainstream and non-mainstream factions, he deftly kept his head down. He was subsequently drafted by popular acclaim to run for Taipei Mayor. Ma Ying-jeou has never developed any irreconcilable enmities within the Blue Camp. Nor can he find any opponents who are his match in the Green Camp. Only when this darling of the masses ascended to the highest office were his character defects and personal limitations exposed, one after another.
No one will deny that President Ma is a man of moderate character, who seldom speaks ill of others, and who is uncorrupt. That much we know. He is not a president likely to embezzle money and transfer it overseas. He is not a president likely to engage in empty boasting on pirate radio stations after he commits a crime. He does not have a First Lady who lusts after power and money. That said, a good president must be more than just a good person. We cannot simply turn the affairs of the nation over to a person merely because he is good.
Throughout history, far too many good people have risen to high office, only to fall on their faces, and be forced to step down in disgrace. They successfully resisted any temptation to incite social divisions. They successfully resisted any temptation to embezzle public funds. They worked hard. Nevertheless they left behind a sorry record. President Lyndon Johnson's cabinet members were elite graduates of Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Princeton. These elites provided him with the wrong advice from beginning to end. He overcame all sorts of obstacles to pass his Civil Rights Act. Yet the loudest protests came from the civil rights movement. Just before he stepped down he asked: "Why don't they like me?"
President Carter also had a clean image. He was determined to realize his ideals. He spent a great deal of time trying to please the public and the media. He attached great importance to his public speeches. Who knew the Iran hostage crisis would reveal his character weaknesses and expose his leadership defects? In the end, he would step down in disgrace as his poll numbers plummeted. No one will deny that he was a man of integrity. But he is among the lowest-ranked presidents in the history of the United States in terms of political achievement.
By contrast, during the 1980s and 1990s, President Reagan and President Clinton, who each served eight years, underwent rough periods early in their terms. During Reagan's first year in office, Congress vetoed a stack of his bills. His approval ratings reached a new low for post-war presidents. Shortly after Clinton took office, he attempted to push through his health care program. He suffered humiliating a defeat in Congress. He also found himself mired in the Donorgate and Whitewater scandals. Frankly these two presidents' situation after their first 100 days, was worse than President Ma's. But Reagan and Clinton created economic prosperity. Clinton was a particularly dramatic example. He was dogged by scandal during his seventh year in office. He was under a continual media barrage for eight straight months. The two houses of Congress were already sharpening their knives. No political commentator believed he would survive. But at the critical moment, the public surprised everyone. He somehow managed to ride out the storm. The reason is no secret. Clinton's economic record was brilliant. The people didn't want him to step down.
Whom among those in high office does not want to be loved by the people? Who does not want to be proud of his political achievements? Who does not want a place in history? But as the famed German sociologist Max Weber put it, politics is a calling. Ruling a nation is hardly as easy as Ma Ying-jeou imagines. A few more photo ops of you jogging and selling moon cakes are hardly going to convince people you are doing your duty as president. The people have limited patience for a president who constantly makes apologies. President Ma must not waste any more time with public relations, in an attempt to repair his image. He and his team must engage in a little more self-introspection. What President Ma needs is a little less show, and a little more go.
Fortunately this is his first year. He can still save the day. Eventually however, he will run out of chances. We can't believe that years from now President Ma will want people to remember him and reluctantly sigh, saying that "He was a good man, but a stupid president."
還好是第一年，還有機會挽回
2008-09-07
中國時報
其實，馬總統真的該慶幸，他的治理危機在執政百日就全面引爆，還剩三年兩百多天可以去調整、去扭轉；如果眼前這些排山倒海的抨擊聲浪，是發生在他就任第四年的末期，屆時就算他再三道歉，怕也沒人想理會了。若能體會到這層幸運，就趕緊收起所有的自以為是，放下所有的傲慢自負，趕快補修領導學分，學習做個有智慧、有魄力的總統，別再將寶貴的時光耗費在討好、做秀的虛功上，時間上還來得及！
現在回頭想想，馬總統今天的處境，或許就是肇因於他在邁向權力高峰的道途，實在走得太平順；除了首長特別費被起訴，他從政生涯幾乎沒摔過什麼大跤。他不曾經歷蔣經國流放蘇聯的痛苦；他不曾像李登輝一樣經歷過驚心動魄的流派傾軋；他甚至不曾經歷如陳水扁數度在選戰中挫敗的傷痛。他受到蔣經國賞識時還非常年輕，沒啥黨務經驗就幹了黨副祕書長；部會行政經歷也不長；在主流、非主流慘烈鬥爭的年代，他巧妙地置身事外；隨後，更是眾望所歸之下被拱出來選台北市長。這一路走來，馬英九在藍營找不到勢不兩立的政敵，在綠營也找不到勢均力敵的對手；直到他「集三千寵愛於一身」登上了大位，他的性格缺失，他的侷限性，才一樁樁暴露出來。
沒人會否認馬總統性格溫和，不出惡言，操守也清廉。我們最起碼有信心，他不會是一個膽敢Ａ錢到海外的總統；他也不會是做錯了事還跑到地下電台去「大言不慚」的總統；他更沒有一個既抓權又愛錢的第一夫人。但一個好總統絕不是「找好人來做」就夠了，我們不可能將國政大事交給「好人好事」代表吧？
歷史上，有太多的好人登上高位，最後都摔得鼻青臉腫，難堪狼狽地下台；他們有許多在任內不搞政治對立，不Ａ公款，兢兢業業做事，但照樣在歷史留下難看的紀錄。美國詹森總統的內閣團隊，全是出身哈佛、普林斯頓等長春藤名校的精英，這批頂尖的團隊卻一路獻給他錯誤的決策。他排除萬難地要推動代表族群和解的民權法案，而在街頭對他咆哮最厲的就是民權運動者，他甚至到下台前一刻都在追問：「他們為什麼不喜歡我？」
同樣的，卡特總統形象清新，對許多價值理念相當堅持。他花了不少時間討好民意與媒體，更重視每一篇對公眾的演講；沒想到一樁伊朗人質危機，一次將他的性格弱點、領導缺失全暴露了出來；最後，在聲望跌停中，難堪下台。沒人否認他是個操守無瑕的好人，但他到現在都是美國史上政績排名殿後的總統。
相對的，一九八○年代與一九九○年代，分別做八年總統的雷根與柯林頓，就任初期其實都一樣跌跌撞撞；雷根上任的第一年，一堆法案被國會封殺，曾締造戰後歷任總統聲望的新低；柯林頓就任初期力推醫療健保方案，不僅在國會潰敗地灰頭土臉，他還身陷獻金案與白水案醜聞。這兩位總統在就任百日時的處境，老實說比此刻的馬總統還壞。結果呢，雷根與柯林頓都分別在任內締造了繁榮盛世。柯林頓尤其戲劇性，他任內第七年身陷性醜聞疑雲，被媒體整整撻伐、調侃了七、八個月，國會兩院已經掄起彈劾的大刀，沒有政治評論家認為他會度過此政治風暴，沒想到民意卻在此關鍵時刻逆勢相挺，硬是讓他度過難關；這其中其實沒啥秘密，就是柯林頓任內拚經濟的成績單亮麗，讓人民不要他下台！
歷來晉升大位者，有誰不想受到民眾愛戴？有誰不想政績傲人、青史留名？但就像德國社會學大師所謂：政治是樁志業哪！治國哪有這麼簡單？多跑幾次慢跑，多賣幾盒月餅，並不會讓人民覺得你是在善盡總統職責。要知道，人民面對一位不斷抱歉的總統，忍耐是有限的。馬總統別再虛擲光陰於修補形象的危機公關，趕緊審視自己的問題、自己的團隊，少些虛功，多些治理吧！
真的，還好是第一年，還有許多機會可以挽回，但機會終究是稍縱即逝！相信馬總統絕不希望多年以後，人們憶起他時，只會嘆息地說：他確是好人，但卻是個笨總統！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2008
President Ma should be grateful. A crisis of governance has exploded during his first 100 days. He still has three years and 200 days to make corrections. If the tidal wave of criticism were to arrive near the end of his fourth year, no one would listen to his repeated apologies. He should appreciate his good fortune. He should hasten to put aside his self-righteousness and arrogance, and bone up on how to be a wise and effective president. He still has time. But he must not waste it currying favour and arranging photo ops.
In retrospect, President Ma's plight may be the direct result of his career path. It has simply been too smooth, too easy. Apart from being indicted over the Administrative Heads Discretionary Fund Case, he has never experienced a major setback in his entire political career. He never experienced the pain Chiang Ching-kuo suffered during his exile in the Soviet Union. He never experienced the nail-biting anxiety Lee Teng-hui must have gone through. He never experienced the repeated election setbacks as Chen Shui-bian. He was quite young when he gained favor with Chiang Ching-kuo. He had little administrative experience at the bureau or department level. Despite his lack of experience, he was made KMT Deputy Secretary-General. During the intense struggles between the mainstream and non-mainstream factions, he deftly kept his head down. He was subsequently drafted by popular acclaim to run for Taipei Mayor. Ma Ying-jeou has never developed any irreconcilable enmities within the Blue Camp. Nor can he find any opponents who are his match in the Green Camp. Only when this darling of the masses ascended to the highest office were his character defects and personal limitations exposed, one after another.
No one will deny that President Ma is a man of moderate character, who seldom speaks ill of others, and who is uncorrupt. That much we know. He is not a president likely to embezzle money and transfer it overseas. He is not a president likely to engage in empty boasting on pirate radio stations after he commits a crime. He does not have a First Lady who lusts after power and money. That said, a good president must be more than just a good person. We cannot simply turn the affairs of the nation over to a person merely because he is good.
Throughout history, far too many good people have risen to high office, only to fall on their faces, and be forced to step down in disgrace. They successfully resisted any temptation to incite social divisions. They successfully resisted any temptation to embezzle public funds. They worked hard. Nevertheless they left behind a sorry record. President Lyndon Johnson's cabinet members were elite graduates of Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Princeton. These elites provided him with the wrong advice from beginning to end. He overcame all sorts of obstacles to pass his Civil Rights Act. Yet the loudest protests came from the civil rights movement. Just before he stepped down he asked: "Why don't they like me?"
President Carter also had a clean image. He was determined to realize his ideals. He spent a great deal of time trying to please the public and the media. He attached great importance to his public speeches. Who knew the Iran hostage crisis would reveal his character weaknesses and expose his leadership defects? In the end, he would step down in disgrace as his poll numbers plummeted. No one will deny that he was a man of integrity. But he is among the lowest-ranked presidents in the history of the United States in terms of political achievement.
By contrast, during the 1980s and 1990s, President Reagan and President Clinton, who each served eight years, underwent rough periods early in their terms. During Reagan's first year in office, Congress vetoed a stack of his bills. His approval ratings reached a new low for post-war presidents. Shortly after Clinton took office, he attempted to push through his health care program. He suffered humiliating a defeat in Congress. He also found himself mired in the Donorgate and Whitewater scandals. Frankly these two presidents' situation after their first 100 days, was worse than President Ma's. But Reagan and Clinton created economic prosperity. Clinton was a particularly dramatic example. He was dogged by scandal during his seventh year in office. He was under a continual media barrage for eight straight months. The two houses of Congress were already sharpening their knives. No political commentator believed he would survive. But at the critical moment, the public surprised everyone. He somehow managed to ride out the storm. The reason is no secret. Clinton's economic record was brilliant. The people didn't want him to step down.
Whom among those in high office does not want to be loved by the people? Who does not want to be proud of his political achievements? Who does not want a place in history? But as the famed German sociologist Max Weber put it, politics is a calling. Ruling a nation is hardly as easy as Ma Ying-jeou imagines. A few more photo ops of you jogging and selling moon cakes are hardly going to convince people you are doing your duty as president. The people have limited patience for a president who constantly makes apologies. President Ma must not waste any more time with public relations, in an attempt to repair his image. He and his team must engage in a little more self-introspection. What President Ma needs is a little less show, and a little more go.
Fortunately this is his first year. He can still save the day. Eventually however, he will run out of chances. We can't believe that years from now President Ma will want people to remember him and reluctantly sigh, saying that "He was a good man, but a stupid president."
還好是第一年，還有機會挽回
2008-09-07
中國時報
其實，馬總統真的該慶幸，他的治理危機在執政百日就全面引爆，還剩三年兩百多天可以去調整、去扭轉；如果眼前這些排山倒海的抨擊聲浪，是發生在他就任第四年的末期，屆時就算他再三道歉，怕也沒人想理會了。若能體會到這層幸運，就趕緊收起所有的自以為是，放下所有的傲慢自負，趕快補修領導學分，學習做個有智慧、有魄力的總統，別再將寶貴的時光耗費在討好、做秀的虛功上，時間上還來得及！
現在回頭想想，馬總統今天的處境，或許就是肇因於他在邁向權力高峰的道途，實在走得太平順；除了首長特別費被起訴，他從政生涯幾乎沒摔過什麼大跤。他不曾經歷蔣經國流放蘇聯的痛苦；他不曾像李登輝一樣經歷過驚心動魄的流派傾軋；他甚至不曾經歷如陳水扁數度在選戰中挫敗的傷痛。他受到蔣經國賞識時還非常年輕，沒啥黨務經驗就幹了黨副祕書長；部會行政經歷也不長；在主流、非主流慘烈鬥爭的年代，他巧妙地置身事外；隨後，更是眾望所歸之下被拱出來選台北市長。這一路走來，馬英九在藍營找不到勢不兩立的政敵，在綠營也找不到勢均力敵的對手；直到他「集三千寵愛於一身」登上了大位，他的性格缺失，他的侷限性，才一樁樁暴露出來。
沒人會否認馬總統性格溫和，不出惡言，操守也清廉。我們最起碼有信心，他不會是一個膽敢Ａ錢到海外的總統；他也不會是做錯了事還跑到地下電台去「大言不慚」的總統；他更沒有一個既抓權又愛錢的第一夫人。但一個好總統絕不是「找好人來做」就夠了，我們不可能將國政大事交給「好人好事」代表吧？
歷史上，有太多的好人登上高位，最後都摔得鼻青臉腫，難堪狼狽地下台；他們有許多在任內不搞政治對立，不Ａ公款，兢兢業業做事，但照樣在歷史留下難看的紀錄。美國詹森總統的內閣團隊，全是出身哈佛、普林斯頓等長春藤名校的精英，這批頂尖的團隊卻一路獻給他錯誤的決策。他排除萬難地要推動代表族群和解的民權法案，而在街頭對他咆哮最厲的就是民權運動者，他甚至到下台前一刻都在追問：「他們為什麼不喜歡我？」
同樣的，卡特總統形象清新，對許多價值理念相當堅持。他花了不少時間討好民意與媒體，更重視每一篇對公眾的演講；沒想到一樁伊朗人質危機，一次將他的性格弱點、領導缺失全暴露了出來；最後，在聲望跌停中，難堪下台。沒人否認他是個操守無瑕的好人，但他到現在都是美國史上政績排名殿後的總統。
相對的，一九八○年代與一九九○年代，分別做八年總統的雷根與柯林頓，就任初期其實都一樣跌跌撞撞；雷根上任的第一年，一堆法案被國會封殺，曾締造戰後歷任總統聲望的新低；柯林頓就任初期力推醫療健保方案，不僅在國會潰敗地灰頭土臉，他還身陷獻金案與白水案醜聞。這兩位總統在就任百日時的處境，老實說比此刻的馬總統還壞。結果呢，雷根與柯林頓都分別在任內締造了繁榮盛世。柯林頓尤其戲劇性，他任內第七年身陷性醜聞疑雲，被媒體整整撻伐、調侃了七、八個月，國會兩院已經掄起彈劾的大刀，沒有政治評論家認為他會度過此政治風暴，沒想到民意卻在此關鍵時刻逆勢相挺，硬是讓他度過難關；這其中其實沒啥秘密，就是柯林頓任內拚經濟的成績單亮麗，讓人民不要他下台！
歷來晉升大位者，有誰不想受到民眾愛戴？有誰不想政績傲人、青史留名？但就像德國社會學大師所謂：政治是樁志業哪！治國哪有這麼簡單？多跑幾次慢跑，多賣幾盒月餅，並不會讓人民覺得你是在善盡總統職責。要知道，人民面對一位不斷抱歉的總統，忍耐是有限的。馬總統別再虛擲光陰於修補形象的危機公關，趕緊審視自己的問題、自己的團隊，少些虛功，多些治理吧！
真的，還好是第一年，還有許多機會可以挽回，但機會終究是稍縱即逝！相信馬總統絕不希望多年以後，人們憶起他時，只會嘆息地說：他確是好人，但卻是個笨總統！
Friday, September 5, 2008
The DPP Should Urge Chen to Grant Power of Attorney
The DPP Should Urge Chen to Grant Power of Attorney
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 5, 2008
Chen Shui-bian's money-laundering has been exposed. He knows he has "shamed the DPP." On his own initiative he has announced his resignation from the party. By contrast, the DPP's Committee for Clean Government promised to set up a "Special Court of Inquiry," to investigate Chen Shui-bian. But so far nothing more has been heard from them.
The DPP must deal with Chen Shui-bian. One. It must fulfill its promises to society. On the one hand, the Committee for Clean Government has already set up its Special Court of Inquiry. It has publicly vowed to investigate. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian has publicly declared his willingness to be investigated by the committee. Two. This political decision cannot be avoided. The DPP must decide between shielding Chen Shui-bian and saving the DPP.
Unless the DPP has the courage to put its future on the line, it will find it difficult to bring itself back to life. Chen Shui-bian's guilt is becoming more and more obvious. The investigative process has entered a new phase. One can forsee the case dragging on for many years. The spectacle of Chen Shui-bian giving us his impression of a cornered rat will become ever more outrageous, ever more socially unacceptable. If the Democratic Progressive Party allows itself to be dragged down by Chen Shui-bian's prosecution, if it cannot bring itself to disown him, the DPP will never experience a minute of peace, internally or externally. The Green Camp reached a consensus during the August 30 protest march. It would no longer support A Bian. If the Committee for Clean Government, with its Green Camp background, deals with Chen Shui-bian in this manner, and proceeds to disown him, it will minimize the negative impact upon the party and maximize the positive impact upon society. At a time when the Ma administration's approval rating is so low, many people hope the DPP will emerge from Chen Shui-bian's shadow as soon as possible. They would like the two parties to check and balance each other as soon as possible. The DPP must choose between shielding Chen Shui-bian and responding to society's demands for justice.
The Committee for Clean Government has two tasks. One. Uncover truth. Two. Administer discipline. As far as uncovering truth is concerned, the prospects are not good. Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly appeared on television, making lame excuses before the public. The Committee for Clean Government is unlikely to uncover information not already made public. In the end, the only response it will be able to offer is that it will "respect the findings of the justice system." Therefore the real role of the Committee for Clean Government will be to administer discipline. Many people think that means expulsion from the party. But so far the DPP has been evading that responsibility, saying merely that it will "respect the findings of the justice system." The DPP may not have the guts to do anything so drastic as expell Chen from the party, even though it should. Disagreement rages within the party over whether to support A Bian or oppose A Bian. Therefore the Committee for Clean Government's disciplinary measures must sacrifice the demands of justice in order to avoid a schism within the party. In other words, it cannot make a clean break with A Bian. It must make a soft break with A Bian.
A soft break requires Chen Shui-bian to face justice. It also requires that he grant power of attorney to the committee, allowing it to aggressively exercise A Bian's "right to self acquittal."
One the on hand, the Chen family is invoking the "right against self-incrimination." It is refusing to grant the committee the power of attorney. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian is repeatedly holding press conferences and issuing press releases proclaiming his "right to self acquittal." Obviously such declarations are self-contradictory. If the DPP Committee for Clean Government fails to render a opinion regarding Chen Shui-bian's guilt or innocence, if it fails to make a clean break, it must at least persuade Chen to grant power of attorney, in order to conserve precious judicial resources, and to arrive at the truth as soon as possible.
Chen Shui-bian's main offenses were committed while he was both president and party chairman. If the DPP cannot bring itself to expell Chen Shui-bian from the DPP, it must at least stop covering up for him. The public and the Green Camp both hope that the DPP will urge the Chen family to grant the committee power of attorney. Since the Chen family proclaims its innocence, an audit can only help the Chen family exercise its "right to self-acquittal." What reason can the DPP have for not making such a request of the Chen family? What reason can the Chen family have for not agreeing to such a request?
In fact, the Committee for Clean Government should also urge Wu Shu-chen to appear in court. Whether Wu appears in court is a matter of her own defense strategy. But in terms of political responsibility and justice, the DPP has a responsibility to urge her to do so. By the same token, if Chen Shui-bian refuses to grant power of attorney, that is a matter of his own defense strategy. But in terms of political responsibility and justice, the DPP has a responsibility to urge Chen to do so.
Urging the Chen family to grant power of attorney and allowing the committee to audit the Chen family's accounts, is the least the public has a right to expect from the DPP. The Chen family can choose not to sign. But the DPP cannot turn a deaf ear to society's expectations. Or is the DPP afraid even to ask Chen Shui-bian to prove his innocence?
民進黨應促陳家簽署查帳授權書
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.05 02:46 am
陳水扁爆洗錢案，自知「使民進黨蒙羞」，主動宣布退黨；相對而言，民進黨亦承諾，該黨廉政委員會已成立「特別調查庭」，將對陳水扁進行調查，但迄今未見下聞。
民進黨必須對陳水扁作出處置。一、這是對社會的政治承諾：一方面，廉政委員會「特別調查庭」已成立，並公開承諾進行調查；另一方面，陳水扁也公開表示，願意接受委員會調查。二、這是不可迴避的政治選擇：在「包庇陳水扁」與「挽救民進黨」之間，民進黨必須作出果斷的抉擇。
主 客觀情勢皆顯示，民進黨非有壯士斷腕的作為，難以振衰起敝。就客觀情勢言，陳水扁涉案的情節不斷升高，相關偵審即將進入高潮，並可預見未來將有數年纏訟， 且陳水扁困獸之鬥的演出必將更形離譜，更難獲社會諒解；民進黨若被陳水扁的訴訟拖著走，不能與之切割，民進黨的內外環境皆不得清靜。就主觀情勢言，八三○ 遊行，綠營已達成「不挺扁」的共識，廉政委員會在這樣的綠營背景下，對陳水扁作出處置，進行切割，可望將對內部的衝擊降至最低，亦將對外部的社會效益升至 最高。尤其，在馬政府主政績效如此低落的情勢下，不少國人皆希望民進黨能早日跳出扁案的陰影，俾使兩黨制衡早日回歸正常。在包庇陳水扁及回應社會正義之 間，民進黨必須作出抉擇。
廉政會的工作不外兩部分：一、揭示真相；二、作出處分。就揭示真相言，不易樂觀；陳水扁在電視上多次向社會詳述 他的說辭，廉政會不可能獲得超越的資訊，最後也只能以「尊重司法偵審」為託辭；因而，廉政會的功能應在處分部分。談到處分，許多人認為是指「開除黨籍」 等，但民進黨迄今的託辭一直是「尊重司法偵審」，恐怕未必作得出「開除黨籍」之類的處分（其實應當開除）；於是，在黨內「挺扁／反扁」意見分歧的情勢下， 廉政會的處分，必須在「避免分裂／社會公義」之間，尋找平衡點。也就是說，若不能「剛性切割」，亦須設法「柔性切割」。
這個「柔性切割」的平衡點就是：要求陳水扁一家面對司法，並首先應同意簽署查帳授權書，以積極使用「自證無罪」的公民權利。
陳 家一方面運用「沒有自證有罪的義務」，拒絕簽署查帳授權書；另一方面，陳水扁又頻密發表新聞聲明及召開記者會「自證無罪」，這顯然是自相矛盾的作法。民進 黨廉政會若未便對陳水扁的有罪無罪作出評價（剛性切割），但至少可以勸說陳家授權查帳，以節省司法資源，早日釐清真相（柔性切割）。
陳水 扁的主要犯行皆是他在總統及黨主席任內的作為；民進黨即使不能開除陳水扁，但至少不可包庇陳水扁。如今，社會上及綠營內，皆有希望民進黨促陳家簽署查帳書 的主張；且陳家既自稱無罪，查帳亦只是行使「自證無罪」的權利而已。那麼，民進黨有什麼理由不對陳家作此要求，而陳家又有什麼理由不簽署？
其實，廉政會亦應主張吳淑珍應當出庭。吳出不出庭是吳自己的訴訟操作，但就政治責任及社會公義言，民進黨有責任對吳淑珍提出出庭的主張。同理，拒簽授權書也是扁家的訴訟操作，但就政治責任及社會公義言，民進黨亦有責任對陳家提出簽署授權書的主張。
要求陳家簽署查帳授權書，這應是國人對民進黨的最低期望。陳家可以不簽，但民進黨沒有立場對社會的期望充耳不聞。難道連主張陳水扁應積極「自證無罪」，民進黨廉政會也不敢啟齒？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 5, 2008
Chen Shui-bian's money-laundering has been exposed. He knows he has "shamed the DPP." On his own initiative he has announced his resignation from the party. By contrast, the DPP's Committee for Clean Government promised to set up a "Special Court of Inquiry," to investigate Chen Shui-bian. But so far nothing more has been heard from them.
The DPP must deal with Chen Shui-bian. One. It must fulfill its promises to society. On the one hand, the Committee for Clean Government has already set up its Special Court of Inquiry. It has publicly vowed to investigate. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian has publicly declared his willingness to be investigated by the committee. Two. This political decision cannot be avoided. The DPP must decide between shielding Chen Shui-bian and saving the DPP.
Unless the DPP has the courage to put its future on the line, it will find it difficult to bring itself back to life. Chen Shui-bian's guilt is becoming more and more obvious. The investigative process has entered a new phase. One can forsee the case dragging on for many years. The spectacle of Chen Shui-bian giving us his impression of a cornered rat will become ever more outrageous, ever more socially unacceptable. If the Democratic Progressive Party allows itself to be dragged down by Chen Shui-bian's prosecution, if it cannot bring itself to disown him, the DPP will never experience a minute of peace, internally or externally. The Green Camp reached a consensus during the August 30 protest march. It would no longer support A Bian. If the Committee for Clean Government, with its Green Camp background, deals with Chen Shui-bian in this manner, and proceeds to disown him, it will minimize the negative impact upon the party and maximize the positive impact upon society. At a time when the Ma administration's approval rating is so low, many people hope the DPP will emerge from Chen Shui-bian's shadow as soon as possible. They would like the two parties to check and balance each other as soon as possible. The DPP must choose between shielding Chen Shui-bian and responding to society's demands for justice.
The Committee for Clean Government has two tasks. One. Uncover truth. Two. Administer discipline. As far as uncovering truth is concerned, the prospects are not good. Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly appeared on television, making lame excuses before the public. The Committee for Clean Government is unlikely to uncover information not already made public. In the end, the only response it will be able to offer is that it will "respect the findings of the justice system." Therefore the real role of the Committee for Clean Government will be to administer discipline. Many people think that means expulsion from the party. But so far the DPP has been evading that responsibility, saying merely that it will "respect the findings of the justice system." The DPP may not have the guts to do anything so drastic as expell Chen from the party, even though it should. Disagreement rages within the party over whether to support A Bian or oppose A Bian. Therefore the Committee for Clean Government's disciplinary measures must sacrifice the demands of justice in order to avoid a schism within the party. In other words, it cannot make a clean break with A Bian. It must make a soft break with A Bian.
A soft break requires Chen Shui-bian to face justice. It also requires that he grant power of attorney to the committee, allowing it to aggressively exercise A Bian's "right to self acquittal."
One the on hand, the Chen family is invoking the "right against self-incrimination." It is refusing to grant the committee the power of attorney. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian is repeatedly holding press conferences and issuing press releases proclaiming his "right to self acquittal." Obviously such declarations are self-contradictory. If the DPP Committee for Clean Government fails to render a opinion regarding Chen Shui-bian's guilt or innocence, if it fails to make a clean break, it must at least persuade Chen to grant power of attorney, in order to conserve precious judicial resources, and to arrive at the truth as soon as possible.
Chen Shui-bian's main offenses were committed while he was both president and party chairman. If the DPP cannot bring itself to expell Chen Shui-bian from the DPP, it must at least stop covering up for him. The public and the Green Camp both hope that the DPP will urge the Chen family to grant the committee power of attorney. Since the Chen family proclaims its innocence, an audit can only help the Chen family exercise its "right to self-acquittal." What reason can the DPP have for not making such a request of the Chen family? What reason can the Chen family have for not agreeing to such a request?
In fact, the Committee for Clean Government should also urge Wu Shu-chen to appear in court. Whether Wu appears in court is a matter of her own defense strategy. But in terms of political responsibility and justice, the DPP has a responsibility to urge her to do so. By the same token, if Chen Shui-bian refuses to grant power of attorney, that is a matter of his own defense strategy. But in terms of political responsibility and justice, the DPP has a responsibility to urge Chen to do so.
Urging the Chen family to grant power of attorney and allowing the committee to audit the Chen family's accounts, is the least the public has a right to expect from the DPP. The Chen family can choose not to sign. But the DPP cannot turn a deaf ear to society's expectations. Or is the DPP afraid even to ask Chen Shui-bian to prove his innocence?
民進黨應促陳家簽署查帳授權書
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.05 02:46 am
陳水扁爆洗錢案，自知「使民進黨蒙羞」，主動宣布退黨；相對而言，民進黨亦承諾，該黨廉政委員會已成立「特別調查庭」，將對陳水扁進行調查，但迄今未見下聞。
民進黨必須對陳水扁作出處置。一、這是對社會的政治承諾：一方面，廉政委員會「特別調查庭」已成立，並公開承諾進行調查；另一方面，陳水扁也公開表示，願意接受委員會調查。二、這是不可迴避的政治選擇：在「包庇陳水扁」與「挽救民進黨」之間，民進黨必須作出果斷的抉擇。
主 客觀情勢皆顯示，民進黨非有壯士斷腕的作為，難以振衰起敝。就客觀情勢言，陳水扁涉案的情節不斷升高，相關偵審即將進入高潮，並可預見未來將有數年纏訟， 且陳水扁困獸之鬥的演出必將更形離譜，更難獲社會諒解；民進黨若被陳水扁的訴訟拖著走，不能與之切割，民進黨的內外環境皆不得清靜。就主觀情勢言，八三○ 遊行，綠營已達成「不挺扁」的共識，廉政委員會在這樣的綠營背景下，對陳水扁作出處置，進行切割，可望將對內部的衝擊降至最低，亦將對外部的社會效益升至 最高。尤其，在馬政府主政績效如此低落的情勢下，不少國人皆希望民進黨能早日跳出扁案的陰影，俾使兩黨制衡早日回歸正常。在包庇陳水扁及回應社會正義之 間，民進黨必須作出抉擇。
廉政會的工作不外兩部分：一、揭示真相；二、作出處分。就揭示真相言，不易樂觀；陳水扁在電視上多次向社會詳述 他的說辭，廉政會不可能獲得超越的資訊，最後也只能以「尊重司法偵審」為託辭；因而，廉政會的功能應在處分部分。談到處分，許多人認為是指「開除黨籍」 等，但民進黨迄今的託辭一直是「尊重司法偵審」，恐怕未必作得出「開除黨籍」之類的處分（其實應當開除）；於是，在黨內「挺扁／反扁」意見分歧的情勢下， 廉政會的處分，必須在「避免分裂／社會公義」之間，尋找平衡點。也就是說，若不能「剛性切割」，亦須設法「柔性切割」。
這個「柔性切割」的平衡點就是：要求陳水扁一家面對司法，並首先應同意簽署查帳授權書，以積極使用「自證無罪」的公民權利。
陳 家一方面運用「沒有自證有罪的義務」，拒絕簽署查帳授權書；另一方面，陳水扁又頻密發表新聞聲明及召開記者會「自證無罪」，這顯然是自相矛盾的作法。民進 黨廉政會若未便對陳水扁的有罪無罪作出評價（剛性切割），但至少可以勸說陳家授權查帳，以節省司法資源，早日釐清真相（柔性切割）。
陳水 扁的主要犯行皆是他在總統及黨主席任內的作為；民進黨即使不能開除陳水扁，但至少不可包庇陳水扁。如今，社會上及綠營內，皆有希望民進黨促陳家簽署查帳書 的主張；且陳家既自稱無罪，查帳亦只是行使「自證無罪」的權利而已。那麼，民進黨有什麼理由不對陳家作此要求，而陳家又有什麼理由不簽署？
其實，廉政會亦應主張吳淑珍應當出庭。吳出不出庭是吳自己的訴訟操作，但就政治責任及社會公義言，民進黨有責任對吳淑珍提出出庭的主張。同理，拒簽授權書也是扁家的訴訟操作，但就政治責任及社會公義言，民進黨亦有責任對陳家提出簽署授權書的主張。
要求陳家簽署查帳授權書，這應是國人對民進黨的最低期望。陳家可以不簽，但民進黨沒有立場對社會的期望充耳不聞。難道連主張陳水扁應積極「自證無罪」，民進黨廉政會也不敢啟齒？
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Chen Shui-bian's Magic Act: Win or Lose, Get Rich Quick
Chen Shui-bian's Magic Act: Win or Lose, Get Rich Quick
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2008
Many on the scene observers mocked the Taiwan Society's August 30 Anti-Ma Protest March, wondering whether Chen Shui-bian donated any money to the event? The answer for the moment is nobody knows. However, according to inside information, Chen Shui-bian donated 7 million NT to the September 16 Support A Bian March two years ago. The march two years ago was meant to counter the impact of the marathon Red Shirt Army "Anti-Corruption, Anti-Chen Shui-bian" sit-in. Two years later, people have discovered that the September 16 Support A Bian March was nothing more than Chen Shui-bian supporting himself. On the surface it was a grass roots movement organized by civic groups. In fact these civic groups were merely paid shills hired by Chen Shui-bian. A measly 7 million NT in mobilization costs, created a "I support independence vs. you support greed" stand-off within the Green Camp, helping Chen Shui-bian stonewall for another two years. This truly was a low overhead, high profit proposition.
Recently Chen Shui-bian's magic act made headlines. First Daughter Chen Hsing-yu's angry remark "Which one of you didn't take money from my father?" promptly silenced all criticism from within the DPP. DPP Legislative Caucus leader Ker Chien-ming publicly endorsed her remark, saying "Everything she said was true." Recent disclosures show that Chen Shui-bian did indeed donate a great deal of money to the Green Camp. But Chen Shui-bian also transferred a great deal of money into his own accounts. In the end the money game mired Chen Shui-bian in corruption. The DPP and the Taiwan independence movement were also affected. When they win, they get rich. When they lose, they also get rich. In the end, the DPP's efforts on behalf of Taiwan's democracy, all boiled down to one word, money. How sad.
Taiwan independence elder Huang Kun-hu, who attended the march in a wheelchair, sighed: Chen Shui-bian should not have transferred the money overseas. Indeed, in the eyes of this Taiwan independence elder, Chen Shui-bian's transfer of substantial funds overseas amounted to a betrayal of Taiwan. But the unspoken implication was that if the money had not been transferred overseas, if the money had stayed in Taiwan, then it would have been unnecessary to ask where the money came from. Are elders like Huang Kun-hu the only ones wondering whether their political donations have wound up in A Bian's overseas accounts? Is this the only reason they have finally awoken to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they were betrayed? Many people still believe Chen Shui-bian's overseas funds constitute a "Taiwan independence treasury." Now how bizarre is that?
Over the past two years, Chen Shui-bian's family has transferred at least 700 million NT overseas, to banks on five different continents, to a dozen different dummy accounts, while paper companies keep the funds on the move. This is an time consuming project. Think about it. Chen Shui-bian faces political chaos, increasingly serious charges leveled against him. He doesn't know how to hide these large sums of money. How much time has he had over the past two years to think about the nation's future?
Democracy, Taiwan independence, and political power make up three sides of a triangle. Chen Shui-bian used money to manipulate this triangle. He also caused them to go down together. As a political star and a power broker, his role was to "vacuum up money." He intercepted then transferred all political donations into his own "reservoir." As Green Camp leader, he fulfilled the role of Sugar Daddy. He opened a spigot to party comrades, providing them with campaign funds, allowing the Green Camp to suckle at the teat. While on the road to Taiwan independence, he could certainly afford to spend money on activities such as the September 16 Support A Bian March, and allow fringe groups to run wild. Chen Shui-bian combined Taiwan independence and democracy with money. The result was a concoction that was twice as powerful.
The democracy movement and the "Great Cause of Taiwan Independence" have always needed large sums of money, Chen Shui-bian on the other hand, uses democracy and Taiwan independence to vacuum up money. Once he has wallowed in corruption, once he has his fill, once he has raked in all the money he can, he relies on money to maintain his exalted position as leader. Chen Shui-bian's greed and corruption have reached the stage where they have angered the gods. Yet the Green Camp still lacks the courage to condemn Chen Shui-bian, and to distance itself from him. It still lacks the courage to disown him. The main reason is what Chen Hsing-yu said: "Which one of you hasn't accepted money from my father?"
This a game of money. The Green Camp is not the only victim. Everyone on Taiwan is a victim. The DPP has lost power, and paid the price. But the public on Taiwan has lost its democracy and its prosperity. It faces a divided nation and lost opportunities. Who is going to compensate them for that?
The simple fact is that Chen Shui-bian has used power to acquire money, then used money to retain power. What is Chen Shui-bian's magic act, but another version of black gold politics?
成也金錢，敗也金錢：陳水扁的金錢戲法
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.04 02:54 am
台灣社八三○嗆馬遊行，不少場邊評論譏稱：不曉得陳水扁有沒有捐錢贊助這次活動？答案目前無從知曉，但內幕消息傳出，兩年前的九一六挺扁遊行，主辦的台灣社拿了陳水扁七百萬元。
兩年前的遊行，是為了壓制紅衫軍在凱道夜以繼日集結「反貪倒扁」的氣焰而發動；事隔兩年，人們才知道那原來是陳水扁出錢挺自己。表面上是「民間社團」主辦 的群眾活動，實際上卻是陳水扁自己出錢叫來的戲班子。區區七百萬元的動員，造成「我挺獨 ／你挺貪」的綠營氛圍，幫陳水扁多撐了兩年的場面，真是本小利大。
陳水扁的金錢戲法，成為近日新聞焦點。陳幸妤大罵一句「你們誰沒拿過我爸爸的錢」，民進黨馬上鴉雀無聲；黨團龍頭柯建銘還公開背書稱「她說的都是真的」。 最近揭露的資訊顯示，由陳水扁經手為綠營花的錢真多，且陳水扁自己攢聚和中飽的錢也真多。這場金錢遊戲終使陳水扁陷於貪腐，民進黨與台獨也遭重創。成也金 錢，敗也金錢。民進黨為台灣民主的努力，獨派為建國大業的打拚，最後竟全都栽在一個「錢」字上頭，真是何其可悲！
與此相映照的，是坐著輪椅參加這次遊行的獨派大老黃崑虎的說法，他怨嘆：陳水扁不該把錢匯到國外。的確，在一個台獨大老眼裡，阿扁將大筆資金匯到海外，等 同背叛了台灣。但這類奇特邏輯的言下之意是：錢若沒匯出去，只要錢留在台灣，似乎就可以不問錢的來路。難道只有像黃崑虎那樣長年的金主想到阿扁海外帳戶中 有自己的一份捐獻，才能徹悟阿扁「背叛」的事實？何況，還有不少人將阿扁的匯款諛稱為「台獨金庫」，那更是匪夷所思了。
過去兩年，陳水扁家族將至少七億鉅款在五大洲、十幾個國家的人頭帳戶與紙上公司之間不斷轉匯搬移，這其實是極耗心力的工程；不妨試想：阿扁面對濁亂的政局、步步升高的官司，與不知如何掩藏的大筆贓款，他在最後兩年任期還能有多少心思放在國家大政上？
在民主、台獨和權力的三角關係中，陳水扁利用金錢作了最巧妙的「三合一」操縱，也讓三者同歸腐敗。作為政治明星及當權者，他扮演「吸金機器」的角色，將各 路政治獻金攔堵匯流進自己府邸的「大水庫」中；作為綠營共主，他則扮演「超級金主」的角色，開啟「小閘門」向黨同志分發選舉資金及活動經費，讓綠營上下皆 喝他的奶水；在台獨路上，他當然也花得起舉行「九一六」之類的活動經費，讓周邊團體甘效驅馳。陳水扁將民主與台獨兩味草藥，與金錢的藥引一起煎煮，藥效似 乎加倍有力。
民主運動與台獨大業，原本不免須靠一張金錢大網來維繫及運作。但是，陳水扁卻儼然是靠著民主及台獨在吸金，在中飽，在貪汙；吸足了錢以後，又靠錢來維繫其 至尊無上、呼風喚雨的領導地位。直至今日，陳水扁的貪腐罪行已至人神共憤的地步，綠營竟然仍然不敢「批扁」，仍然不敢「切割」，主要理由竟是陳幸妤所說： 「你們誰沒拿過我爸爸的錢？」
這一場金錢大戲，受害的不只是綠營，而是全台人民。民進黨可推說它已輸掉政權，已經付出了代價；但輸掉了民主和繁榮的台灣人，面對撕裂的國家，及流失的時機，獲得了什麼賠償嗎？
揭開真相，陳水扁的主軸操作，說穿了，也只是「以權弄錢，以錢固權」而已。阿扁的這一齣金錢戲法，豈不是一場另類的黑金政治？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2008
Many on the scene observers mocked the Taiwan Society's August 30 Anti-Ma Protest March, wondering whether Chen Shui-bian donated any money to the event? The answer for the moment is nobody knows. However, according to inside information, Chen Shui-bian donated 7 million NT to the September 16 Support A Bian March two years ago. The march two years ago was meant to counter the impact of the marathon Red Shirt Army "Anti-Corruption, Anti-Chen Shui-bian" sit-in. Two years later, people have discovered that the September 16 Support A Bian March was nothing more than Chen Shui-bian supporting himself. On the surface it was a grass roots movement organized by civic groups. In fact these civic groups were merely paid shills hired by Chen Shui-bian. A measly 7 million NT in mobilization costs, created a "I support independence vs. you support greed" stand-off within the Green Camp, helping Chen Shui-bian stonewall for another two years. This truly was a low overhead, high profit proposition.
Recently Chen Shui-bian's magic act made headlines. First Daughter Chen Hsing-yu's angry remark "Which one of you didn't take money from my father?" promptly silenced all criticism from within the DPP. DPP Legislative Caucus leader Ker Chien-ming publicly endorsed her remark, saying "Everything she said was true." Recent disclosures show that Chen Shui-bian did indeed donate a great deal of money to the Green Camp. But Chen Shui-bian also transferred a great deal of money into his own accounts. In the end the money game mired Chen Shui-bian in corruption. The DPP and the Taiwan independence movement were also affected. When they win, they get rich. When they lose, they also get rich. In the end, the DPP's efforts on behalf of Taiwan's democracy, all boiled down to one word, money. How sad.
Taiwan independence elder Huang Kun-hu, who attended the march in a wheelchair, sighed: Chen Shui-bian should not have transferred the money overseas. Indeed, in the eyes of this Taiwan independence elder, Chen Shui-bian's transfer of substantial funds overseas amounted to a betrayal of Taiwan. But the unspoken implication was that if the money had not been transferred overseas, if the money had stayed in Taiwan, then it would have been unnecessary to ask where the money came from. Are elders like Huang Kun-hu the only ones wondering whether their political donations have wound up in A Bian's overseas accounts? Is this the only reason they have finally awoken to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they were betrayed? Many people still believe Chen Shui-bian's overseas funds constitute a "Taiwan independence treasury." Now how bizarre is that?
Over the past two years, Chen Shui-bian's family has transferred at least 700 million NT overseas, to banks on five different continents, to a dozen different dummy accounts, while paper companies keep the funds on the move. This is an time consuming project. Think about it. Chen Shui-bian faces political chaos, increasingly serious charges leveled against him. He doesn't know how to hide these large sums of money. How much time has he had over the past two years to think about the nation's future?
Democracy, Taiwan independence, and political power make up three sides of a triangle. Chen Shui-bian used money to manipulate this triangle. He also caused them to go down together. As a political star and a power broker, his role was to "vacuum up money." He intercepted then transferred all political donations into his own "reservoir." As Green Camp leader, he fulfilled the role of Sugar Daddy. He opened a spigot to party comrades, providing them with campaign funds, allowing the Green Camp to suckle at the teat. While on the road to Taiwan independence, he could certainly afford to spend money on activities such as the September 16 Support A Bian March, and allow fringe groups to run wild. Chen Shui-bian combined Taiwan independence and democracy with money. The result was a concoction that was twice as powerful.
The democracy movement and the "Great Cause of Taiwan Independence" have always needed large sums of money, Chen Shui-bian on the other hand, uses democracy and Taiwan independence to vacuum up money. Once he has wallowed in corruption, once he has his fill, once he has raked in all the money he can, he relies on money to maintain his exalted position as leader. Chen Shui-bian's greed and corruption have reached the stage where they have angered the gods. Yet the Green Camp still lacks the courage to condemn Chen Shui-bian, and to distance itself from him. It still lacks the courage to disown him. The main reason is what Chen Hsing-yu said: "Which one of you hasn't accepted money from my father?"
This a game of money. The Green Camp is not the only victim. Everyone on Taiwan is a victim. The DPP has lost power, and paid the price. But the public on Taiwan has lost its democracy and its prosperity. It faces a divided nation and lost opportunities. Who is going to compensate them for that?
The simple fact is that Chen Shui-bian has used power to acquire money, then used money to retain power. What is Chen Shui-bian's magic act, but another version of black gold politics?
成也金錢，敗也金錢：陳水扁的金錢戲法
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.04 02:54 am
台灣社八三○嗆馬遊行，不少場邊評論譏稱：不曉得陳水扁有沒有捐錢贊助這次活動？答案目前無從知曉，但內幕消息傳出，兩年前的九一六挺扁遊行，主辦的台灣社拿了陳水扁七百萬元。
兩年前的遊行，是為了壓制紅衫軍在凱道夜以繼日集結「反貪倒扁」的氣焰而發動；事隔兩年，人們才知道那原來是陳水扁出錢挺自己。表面上是「民間社團」主辦 的群眾活動，實際上卻是陳水扁自己出錢叫來的戲班子。區區七百萬元的動員，造成「我挺獨 ／你挺貪」的綠營氛圍，幫陳水扁多撐了兩年的場面，真是本小利大。
陳水扁的金錢戲法，成為近日新聞焦點。陳幸妤大罵一句「你們誰沒拿過我爸爸的錢」，民進黨馬上鴉雀無聲；黨團龍頭柯建銘還公開背書稱「她說的都是真的」。 最近揭露的資訊顯示，由陳水扁經手為綠營花的錢真多，且陳水扁自己攢聚和中飽的錢也真多。這場金錢遊戲終使陳水扁陷於貪腐，民進黨與台獨也遭重創。成也金 錢，敗也金錢。民進黨為台灣民主的努力，獨派為建國大業的打拚，最後竟全都栽在一個「錢」字上頭，真是何其可悲！
與此相映照的，是坐著輪椅參加這次遊行的獨派大老黃崑虎的說法，他怨嘆：陳水扁不該把錢匯到國外。的確，在一個台獨大老眼裡，阿扁將大筆資金匯到海外，等 同背叛了台灣。但這類奇特邏輯的言下之意是：錢若沒匯出去，只要錢留在台灣，似乎就可以不問錢的來路。難道只有像黃崑虎那樣長年的金主想到阿扁海外帳戶中 有自己的一份捐獻，才能徹悟阿扁「背叛」的事實？何況，還有不少人將阿扁的匯款諛稱為「台獨金庫」，那更是匪夷所思了。
過去兩年，陳水扁家族將至少七億鉅款在五大洲、十幾個國家的人頭帳戶與紙上公司之間不斷轉匯搬移，這其實是極耗心力的工程；不妨試想：阿扁面對濁亂的政局、步步升高的官司，與不知如何掩藏的大筆贓款，他在最後兩年任期還能有多少心思放在國家大政上？
在民主、台獨和權力的三角關係中，陳水扁利用金錢作了最巧妙的「三合一」操縱，也讓三者同歸腐敗。作為政治明星及當權者，他扮演「吸金機器」的角色，將各 路政治獻金攔堵匯流進自己府邸的「大水庫」中；作為綠營共主，他則扮演「超級金主」的角色，開啟「小閘門」向黨同志分發選舉資金及活動經費，讓綠營上下皆 喝他的奶水；在台獨路上，他當然也花得起舉行「九一六」之類的活動經費，讓周邊團體甘效驅馳。陳水扁將民主與台獨兩味草藥，與金錢的藥引一起煎煮，藥效似 乎加倍有力。
民主運動與台獨大業，原本不免須靠一張金錢大網來維繫及運作。但是，陳水扁卻儼然是靠著民主及台獨在吸金，在中飽，在貪汙；吸足了錢以後，又靠錢來維繫其 至尊無上、呼風喚雨的領導地位。直至今日，陳水扁的貪腐罪行已至人神共憤的地步，綠營竟然仍然不敢「批扁」，仍然不敢「切割」，主要理由竟是陳幸妤所說： 「你們誰沒拿過我爸爸的錢？」
這一場金錢大戲，受害的不只是綠營，而是全台人民。民進黨可推說它已輸掉政權，已經付出了代價；但輸掉了民主和繁榮的台灣人，面對撕裂的國家，及流失的時機，獲得了什麼賠償嗎？
揭開真相，陳水扁的主軸操作，說穿了，也只是「以權弄錢，以錢固權」而已。阿扁的這一齣金錢戲法，豈不是一場另類的黑金政治？
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Oversight of the Legislature Must Meet Public Standards
Oversight of the Legislature Must Meet Public Standards
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 3, 2008
Ever since civic groups began overseeing the Legislature, whenever information was made public, the result would inevitably be polarization. The result would be criticisms and countercriticisms traded between ruling and opposition party legislators. This was true of the former Legislative Oversight Foundation, and it is true of today's Citizen Congress Watch. The most serious problem is a lack of information and a lack of proper evaluation criteria. Recently Citizen Congress Watch even erred in tabulating its grades. It had to apologize and bow three times to those legislators who received the worst grades, even before its report came out.
Consistent, objective, and unbiased oversight of the Legislature is hard to come by. Attendance rate used to be the sole criteria. Civic groups have been angrily criticized for their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure. In the end, apart from tabulating grades incorrectly, the results were the same. People believed what they wanted to believe. Civic groups cannot attend every session of the Legislature and every committee meeting. They cannot always be on the spot to apprehend the actual situation. They cannot always understand what legislators spoke about, or why the speeches had no impact whatsoever, positive or negative. Legislators' job performance cannot be evaluated quantitively using simple indices.
Citizen Congress Watch has added a new criterion for grading -- whether a legislator signed a pledge to support a Sunshine Law. Frankly speaking, asking politicians to make paper promises is like asking legislators to say "I am a man of virtue." Every one of them will mouth the words. But so what? Citizen Congress Watch is deducting points for not signing, but not following up on the actual performance of legislators who signed the petition. It does not seem to realize how many legislators who signed the petition have already committed acts that violate the letter and spirit of the Sunshine Laws. These acts include participating in construction projects, lobbying on behalf of special interests, falsely declaring one's assets, or accepting subsidies or allowances from special interests.
A legislator has many responsibilities. Some legislators devote most of their energy to holding press conferences and to criticizing opponents. Ruling and opposition party cadres must all do the same job, however unwillingly. Citizen Congress Watch gave KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu its lowest grade. It accused her of being too ideologically oriented. But DPP legislators Ye Yi-ching, Two Shing-Jer, and Lai Ching-teh received Citizen Congress Watch's highest grade. Are they trying to tell us these three legislators are not ideologically oriented? Ye Yi-ching has consistently been an apologist for the Chen Shui-bian family. She has drowned the Legislature with her tears. If this is how Citizen Congress Watch intends to grade Legislators, it is going to have a hard time avoiding accusations of partisan bias. Hung Hsiu-chu is a member of the KMT Central Standing Committee. Some people are going to like what she says. Others are not. Is any ruling or opposition legislator going to be loved by voters across the entire political spectrum?
Take another example. Chiu Yi received a poor grade. Citizen Congress Watch even erred when tallying his score. Citizen Congress Watch claimed he "was not interested in doing his job, but instead liked to do exposes without sufficient evidence." But the Chen Shui-bian money-laundering scandals currently raging were the result of Chiu Yi's past exposes. He is hardly guilty of "doing exposes without sufficient evidence." If Citizen Congress Watch is serious about championing Sunshine Laws, it ought to feel disgusted by Chen Shui-bian's scandals. It should know that when the Taiwan Development scandal broke, Chiu Yi discovered several suspicious Chen family accounts. He even produced considerable material evidence, including suspicious account activities. Prosecutors sat on the case. Chiu Yi could do nothing about it. Legislators have a responsibilty to oversee the government. Chiu Yi cannot be accused of doing anything wrong.
Former President Chen Shui-bian is currently being subjected to the most stringent oversight. Let's not forget that when he was a Legislator, he made his name doing exposes. Those unfamiliar with the operation of the the Legislature may find this hard to understand. But anyone who does exposes, must have specific clues, and even informants who provide critical information. Otherwise the legislator will have nothing to expose. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, he could access information only because former President Lee Teng-hui was in power and because the mainstream and non-mainstream factions were engaged in an ongoing power struggle. Investigators and Prosecutors have been sitting on cases. This has provoked public outrage. As a result, Chiu Yi has received inside information. Chiu Yi's exposes may be good, or they may be bad. But Chen Shui-bian was abusing the power of his office, Chiu Yi's use of the power of Legislative oversight was legitimate and appropriate.
Overseeing the machinery of democracy is essential. Oversight means people overseeing the government. The Control Yuan is an important branch of government. Its job is to oversee the government. The Legislative Yuan is the highest representative of the public. It has an even larger role in overseeing the government on behalf of the people. It reviews the budget, bills, and major policies. Any and all government scandals are subject to Legislative oversight. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, it lacked the authority to investigate. But even then it could and did expose scandals. Today the Legislative Yuan has the authority both to investigate and to expose scandals. The only difference is that the Legislative Yuan still lacks the authority to administer punishment.
The Legislative Yuan must oversee the government. But it too must be overseen by the people. After all, ruling and opposition party legislators are also civil servants who accept taxpayer monies. The Legislative Yuan is hardly exempt from the requirements of clean government. Let's not forget that over the past eight years, countless administrators and legislators have also been involved in scandals. Ruling and opposition party legislators must be subject to oversight by groups such as Citizen Congress Watch. But their methods must be refined. They must more closely approximate the public mandate. They must understand why the people are angry. They must understand what the people find intolerable. As civic groups standing on the frontlines, they themselves will inevitably be subject to close examination. We hope Citizen's Congress Watch will find a more equitable way to oversee the government, one closer to the public's expectations, within the framework of an imperfect system
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.09.03
監督國會 要有孚眾望的標準
中時社論
從 公民團體開始監督國會以來，歷次監督資料公布，反應幾無二致，都會引來朝野立委的批評和反彈。不論早期的國會觀察基金會，或者現在的公民監督國會聯盟，最 大的問題都是評鑑標準和資料來源的缺乏，這一回，竟然發生計分出錯的狀況，導致評鑑結果才公布，隔日就得向評分為最差的立委三鞠躬致歉。
無 可諱言，國會監督本來就很難找到齊一、又客觀公正的標準。過去出席率曾經是唯一標準，公民團體就被痛罵成完全不懂國會議事；後來加上發言次數，同樣見仁見 智，因為公民團體不可能委員會、院會場場都到，不可能實際了解議事現場狀況，朝野立委為什麼發言、發言後有沒有產生什麼正負面效果，都無法以「次數」這麼 簡單的標準，化約為立委的問政績效。
這一次，公督盟還加上一個立委有無簽署陽光國會承諾書，做為計分依據，坦白講，要求政客做「書紙承 諾」，就像要立委隨口說句「我是好人」一般，每個人都會這麼說，說了又如何？公督盟將不簽署者扣分，卻沒能力後續追蹤簽署承諾書的朝野立委實際表現如何， 遑論事前了解簽署承諾書的朝野立委有多少人早已犯下「不陽光」的惡劣行徑，從介入工程到特權關說，從財產申報不實或亂報到收取廠商各種名目的包養或津貼。
立 委問政內容和風格包羅萬象，有人大半心力在開記者會，批評對手，如朝野黨團幹部再不情願，既接了這個職務都得做相同的事，舉例而言，公督盟認為被評鑑最差 的國民黨立委之一洪秀柱，發言太過意識形態，難道被評鑑最優的民進黨立委葉宜津、涂醒哲、賴清德發言不意識形態嗎？葉宜津才為了過去屢屢幫扁家發言，而淚 灑國會。這樣的評鑑，當然難免遭致非議。洪秀柱是國民黨的中常委，發言一定有人愛聽，有人不愛聽，但朝野那個立委開口就得到全國人民愛戴的？
再 舉例而言，被扣分、甚至被計錯分的立委邱毅，公督盟認為他「本業沒做好卻愛做缺乏事證的爆料」，邱毅愛爆料確實不討人喜歡，但是，在扁家洗錢弊案全面爆發 的此刻，回頭去看邱毅過去這幾年的「爆料」，倒也並非全然「缺乏事證」，如果公督盟真正追求陽光政治，應該對扁家弊案深惡痛絕，應該不會不知道台開案爆發 時，邱毅就追出了若干扁家可疑的人頭帳戶，甚至也拿出了部分事證，諸如帳戶的可疑流向，檢察官不辦，邱毅莫可奈何，但站在立委監督政府的立場，不能說邱毅 所為為錯。
別忘了，如今被監督最嚴格的前總統陳水扁，當年擔任立委，同樣以揭弊爆料起家。不熟悉國會運作者或許很難明白，但凡揭弊者，若 非有具體線索、甚至線民，主動提供一定程度的資料，根本爆不出任何料，當年的陳水扁因為前總統李登輝初掌權，因為主流、非主流的權力鬥爭而得到爆料資訊； 如今的邱毅因為檢調不辦權力者所引起的反彈，而得到爆料資訊，不論對邱毅爆料的好與惡，相對而言，陳水扁還是為權力者所用，只要爆料不是無的放矢，邱是正 正當當地監督權力者，何錯之有？
監督是民主政治運作很重要的一環，監督的真義是人民監督政府，監察院當然是監督政府的重要機關，立法院做 為最高民意機關，代表人民監督政府的功能更大，除了審查預算、法案和重大政策，政府部門任何弊端都可以是立委問政的素材，陳水扁時代的立法院還沒有調查 權，都可以揭弊，如今立法院已經有調查權，更可以揭弊，差別只在立法院沒有任何行政懲處或司法懲罰的權柄。
當然，立法院監督政府，也得接 受人民的監督，畢竟朝野立委同樣是領人民納稅錢的公職人員，立法院更不能逃避於廉能政治之外，不要忘了，過去八年，除了數不清的政務官捲入弊案，更有無數 立委涉入弊案，公督盟監督朝野立委的立意完全正確，但是，方法必須更精緻，甚至更貼近「民意」，知道人民真正憤怒的是什麼，真正無法忍受的是什麼。做為公 民團體，既已站在第一線監督國會，難免得接受檢驗，期待公督盟從不甚完善的監督機制中，找到更公平、更孚眾望的評鑑標準和方法。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 3, 2008
Ever since civic groups began overseeing the Legislature, whenever information was made public, the result would inevitably be polarization. The result would be criticisms and countercriticisms traded between ruling and opposition party legislators. This was true of the former Legislative Oversight Foundation, and it is true of today's Citizen Congress Watch. The most serious problem is a lack of information and a lack of proper evaluation criteria. Recently Citizen Congress Watch even erred in tabulating its grades. It had to apologize and bow three times to those legislators who received the worst grades, even before its report came out.
Consistent, objective, and unbiased oversight of the Legislature is hard to come by. Attendance rate used to be the sole criteria. Civic groups have been angrily criticized for their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure. In the end, apart from tabulating grades incorrectly, the results were the same. People believed what they wanted to believe. Civic groups cannot attend every session of the Legislature and every committee meeting. They cannot always be on the spot to apprehend the actual situation. They cannot always understand what legislators spoke about, or why the speeches had no impact whatsoever, positive or negative. Legislators' job performance cannot be evaluated quantitively using simple indices.
Citizen Congress Watch has added a new criterion for grading -- whether a legislator signed a pledge to support a Sunshine Law. Frankly speaking, asking politicians to make paper promises is like asking legislators to say "I am a man of virtue." Every one of them will mouth the words. But so what? Citizen Congress Watch is deducting points for not signing, but not following up on the actual performance of legislators who signed the petition. It does not seem to realize how many legislators who signed the petition have already committed acts that violate the letter and spirit of the Sunshine Laws. These acts include participating in construction projects, lobbying on behalf of special interests, falsely declaring one's assets, or accepting subsidies or allowances from special interests.
A legislator has many responsibilities. Some legislators devote most of their energy to holding press conferences and to criticizing opponents. Ruling and opposition party cadres must all do the same job, however unwillingly. Citizen Congress Watch gave KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu its lowest grade. It accused her of being too ideologically oriented. But DPP legislators Ye Yi-ching, Two Shing-Jer, and Lai Ching-teh received Citizen Congress Watch's highest grade. Are they trying to tell us these three legislators are not ideologically oriented? Ye Yi-ching has consistently been an apologist for the Chen Shui-bian family. She has drowned the Legislature with her tears. If this is how Citizen Congress Watch intends to grade Legislators, it is going to have a hard time avoiding accusations of partisan bias. Hung Hsiu-chu is a member of the KMT Central Standing Committee. Some people are going to like what she says. Others are not. Is any ruling or opposition legislator going to be loved by voters across the entire political spectrum?
Take another example. Chiu Yi received a poor grade. Citizen Congress Watch even erred when tallying his score. Citizen Congress Watch claimed he "was not interested in doing his job, but instead liked to do exposes without sufficient evidence." But the Chen Shui-bian money-laundering scandals currently raging were the result of Chiu Yi's past exposes. He is hardly guilty of "doing exposes without sufficient evidence." If Citizen Congress Watch is serious about championing Sunshine Laws, it ought to feel disgusted by Chen Shui-bian's scandals. It should know that when the Taiwan Development scandal broke, Chiu Yi discovered several suspicious Chen family accounts. He even produced considerable material evidence, including suspicious account activities. Prosecutors sat on the case. Chiu Yi could do nothing about it. Legislators have a responsibilty to oversee the government. Chiu Yi cannot be accused of doing anything wrong.
Former President Chen Shui-bian is currently being subjected to the most stringent oversight. Let's not forget that when he was a Legislator, he made his name doing exposes. Those unfamiliar with the operation of the the Legislature may find this hard to understand. But anyone who does exposes, must have specific clues, and even informants who provide critical information. Otherwise the legislator will have nothing to expose. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, he could access information only because former President Lee Teng-hui was in power and because the mainstream and non-mainstream factions were engaged in an ongoing power struggle. Investigators and Prosecutors have been sitting on cases. This has provoked public outrage. As a result, Chiu Yi has received inside information. Chiu Yi's exposes may be good, or they may be bad. But Chen Shui-bian was abusing the power of his office, Chiu Yi's use of the power of Legislative oversight was legitimate and appropriate.
Overseeing the machinery of democracy is essential. Oversight means people overseeing the government. The Control Yuan is an important branch of government. Its job is to oversee the government. The Legislative Yuan is the highest representative of the public. It has an even larger role in overseeing the government on behalf of the people. It reviews the budget, bills, and major policies. Any and all government scandals are subject to Legislative oversight. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, it lacked the authority to investigate. But even then it could and did expose scandals. Today the Legislative Yuan has the authority both to investigate and to expose scandals. The only difference is that the Legislative Yuan still lacks the authority to administer punishment.
The Legislative Yuan must oversee the government. But it too must be overseen by the people. After all, ruling and opposition party legislators are also civil servants who accept taxpayer monies. The Legislative Yuan is hardly exempt from the requirements of clean government. Let's not forget that over the past eight years, countless administrators and legislators have also been involved in scandals. Ruling and opposition party legislators must be subject to oversight by groups such as Citizen Congress Watch. But their methods must be refined. They must more closely approximate the public mandate. They must understand why the people are angry. They must understand what the people find intolerable. As civic groups standing on the frontlines, they themselves will inevitably be subject to close examination. We hope Citizen's Congress Watch will find a more equitable way to oversee the government, one closer to the public's expectations, within the framework of an imperfect system
中時電子報
中國時報 2008.09.03
監督國會 要有孚眾望的標準
中時社論
從 公民團體開始監督國會以來，歷次監督資料公布，反應幾無二致，都會引來朝野立委的批評和反彈。不論早期的國會觀察基金會，或者現在的公民監督國會聯盟，最 大的問題都是評鑑標準和資料來源的缺乏，這一回，竟然發生計分出錯的狀況，導致評鑑結果才公布，隔日就得向評分為最差的立委三鞠躬致歉。
無 可諱言，國會監督本來就很難找到齊一、又客觀公正的標準。過去出席率曾經是唯一標準，公民團體就被痛罵成完全不懂國會議事；後來加上發言次數，同樣見仁見 智，因為公民團體不可能委員會、院會場場都到，不可能實際了解議事現場狀況，朝野立委為什麼發言、發言後有沒有產生什麼正負面效果，都無法以「次數」這麼 簡單的標準，化約為立委的問政績效。
這一次，公督盟還加上一個立委有無簽署陽光國會承諾書，做為計分依據，坦白講，要求政客做「書紙承 諾」，就像要立委隨口說句「我是好人」一般，每個人都會這麼說，說了又如何？公督盟將不簽署者扣分，卻沒能力後續追蹤簽署承諾書的朝野立委實際表現如何， 遑論事前了解簽署承諾書的朝野立委有多少人早已犯下「不陽光」的惡劣行徑，從介入工程到特權關說，從財產申報不實或亂報到收取廠商各種名目的包養或津貼。
立 委問政內容和風格包羅萬象，有人大半心力在開記者會，批評對手，如朝野黨團幹部再不情願，既接了這個職務都得做相同的事，舉例而言，公督盟認為被評鑑最差 的國民黨立委之一洪秀柱，發言太過意識形態，難道被評鑑最優的民進黨立委葉宜津、涂醒哲、賴清德發言不意識形態嗎？葉宜津才為了過去屢屢幫扁家發言，而淚 灑國會。這樣的評鑑，當然難免遭致非議。洪秀柱是國民黨的中常委，發言一定有人愛聽，有人不愛聽，但朝野那個立委開口就得到全國人民愛戴的？
再 舉例而言，被扣分、甚至被計錯分的立委邱毅，公督盟認為他「本業沒做好卻愛做缺乏事證的爆料」，邱毅愛爆料確實不討人喜歡，但是，在扁家洗錢弊案全面爆發 的此刻，回頭去看邱毅過去這幾年的「爆料」，倒也並非全然「缺乏事證」，如果公督盟真正追求陽光政治，應該對扁家弊案深惡痛絕，應該不會不知道台開案爆發 時，邱毅就追出了若干扁家可疑的人頭帳戶，甚至也拿出了部分事證，諸如帳戶的可疑流向，檢察官不辦，邱毅莫可奈何，但站在立委監督政府的立場，不能說邱毅 所為為錯。
別忘了，如今被監督最嚴格的前總統陳水扁，當年擔任立委，同樣以揭弊爆料起家。不熟悉國會運作者或許很難明白，但凡揭弊者，若 非有具體線索、甚至線民，主動提供一定程度的資料，根本爆不出任何料，當年的陳水扁因為前總統李登輝初掌權，因為主流、非主流的權力鬥爭而得到爆料資訊； 如今的邱毅因為檢調不辦權力者所引起的反彈，而得到爆料資訊，不論對邱毅爆料的好與惡，相對而言，陳水扁還是為權力者所用，只要爆料不是無的放矢，邱是正 正當當地監督權力者，何錯之有？
監督是民主政治運作很重要的一環，監督的真義是人民監督政府，監察院當然是監督政府的重要機關，立法院做 為最高民意機關，代表人民監督政府的功能更大，除了審查預算、法案和重大政策，政府部門任何弊端都可以是立委問政的素材，陳水扁時代的立法院還沒有調查 權，都可以揭弊，如今立法院已經有調查權，更可以揭弊，差別只在立法院沒有任何行政懲處或司法懲罰的權柄。
當然，立法院監督政府，也得接 受人民的監督，畢竟朝野立委同樣是領人民納稅錢的公職人員，立法院更不能逃避於廉能政治之外，不要忘了，過去八年，除了數不清的政務官捲入弊案，更有無數 立委涉入弊案，公督盟監督朝野立委的立意完全正確，但是，方法必須更精緻，甚至更貼近「民意」，知道人民真正憤怒的是什麼，真正無法忍受的是什麼。做為公 民團體，既已站在第一線監督國會，難免得接受檢驗，期待公督盟從不甚完善的監督機制中，找到更公平、更孚眾望的評鑑標準和方法。
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The August 30th Protest March: Fundamentalism vs. Revisionism
The August 30th Protest March: Fundamentalism vs. Revisionism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2008
Two years ago in September, Chen Shui-bian had been in office six years and four months. The Red Shirt Army was giving him the thumbs down, shouting "A Bian step down!" Last Saturday, Ma Ying-jeou had been in office 100 days. Green Camp protesters also used the thumbs down gesture, shouting "Ma Ying-jeou step down!"
The Green Camp protest march can be judged in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, large numbers of people participated. After all, the DPP received 5,440,000 votes in the presidential election. Arranging last Saturday's turnout was not difficult. What's worth pondering however, is the quality of the event. The Green Camp is adept at camouflaging its actual agenda. The Taiwan independence movement has successfully camouflaged its agenda for several decades now. It exercised considerable restraint in its "Support A Bian!" agenda. The march may not have been a "Support A Bian!" event, but neither was it a "Condemn A Bian!" event. The Green Camp's relationship with Chen Shui-bian has yet to be determined. This was however, a Taiwan independence event. The Taiwan independence agenda was open and explicit.
Taiwan independence organizations and the DPP's Central Committee, led by Tsai Ing-wen, organized and carried out the march. They grappled over whether its theme should be Chen Shui-bian or Taiwan independence. They clashed over how to deal with Chen Shui-bian.
They considered allowing Chen Shui-bian to participate in the march. But then the money-laundering scandal erupted. Huang Chao-tang said he hoped Chen Shui-bian would "vanish from the face of the earth." Tsai Ing-wen said "So the rumors were true!" Chen Gau-tzu played along with A Bian's claim that he had established a "Taiwan independence treasury." Kao Chun-ming and others called on the public to forgive Chen Shui-bian, the same way they forgave kidnapper and serial killer Chen Chin-hsing. The DPP Central Standing Committee accused the "Kuomintang and [mainland] China of colluding to persecute A Bian and Taiwan." A public backlash ensued. Suggestions that they not support A Bian emerged from within the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan independence movement. Chen Shui-bian issued a statement, urging supporters to participate in the procession, "leading the country back in the right direction." The organizers stressed that they "weren't supporting any individual." Tsai Ing-wen said "Very few people still think Chen Shui-bian is right." Koo Kuan-min and Taiwan independence elements distanced themselves from A Bian. Chen Shui-bian responded, saying "Let them cast stones!"
These twists and turns suggest that Huang Chao-tang and Tsai Ying-wen have been trying to distance themselves from A Bian ever since the money-laundering scandal erupted. Older generation figures such as Chen Chao-tzu and Kao Chun-ming however, still want to support A Bian to the bitter end. The result has been a tug of war. In the end the march adopted a position of "no support for any individual." This was merely a stopgap measure. The "No support for A Bian" resolution merely shelved the dispute. The Green Camp and the DPP have not decided how to define Chen Shui-bian.
By contrast, the march's pro-independence position was open and explicit. The DPP did its utmost to camouflage the march's Taiwan independence agenda. Most of the signs displayed platitudes, adopting "filling bellies" as their theme. But most of the homemade signs demanded Taiwan independence. One sign read "Drive the Republic of China government in exile from Taiwan." Emotions ran high. The tone was harsh. A large number of signs attacked Ma Ying-jeou. Almost all attacked his sense of national identity. Some read "Favoring China Means Betraying Taiwan!" or "Traitors!" Needless to say, event organizer Kao Chun-ming repeatedly underscored their aim of establishing a "Nation of Taiwan."
The march had two agendas: Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence. One. Let's look at Chen Shui-bian. For Deep Green elements Taiwan independence and Chen Shui-bian cannot be delinked. The Taiwan independence movement supports A Bian because it supports independence. Chen Shui-bian supports Taiwan independence because he is corrupt. The two are inseparable. After all, over the past several decades, Chen Shui-bian has been the most representative and most effective standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui has already faded from the scene. Tsai Ing-wen is not a fundamentalist. If the Taiwan independence movement is so willing to listen to Chen Shui-bian, it is done for. Chen Shui-bian has been utterly discredited. Yet Kao Chun-ming still refuses to give up on him. The Green Camp still cannot bring itself to condemn A Bian. The Green Camp is still fighting over whether to disown Chen Shui-bian.
The agenda of the march revealed Taiwan's ongoing political polarization. Taiwan remains mired in such dualisms as "betraying Taiwan vs. loving Taiwan" and "defending the Republic of China vs. establishing a Nation of Taiwan." Politics on Taiwan remains a Gordian Knot. Admittedly, the Republic of China is finding it difficult to survive. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-strait policy must be subjected to criticism and oversight. But the Taiwan independence movement's so-called "defense of sovereignty" has nothing to do with defending the sovereignty of the Republic of China. On the contrary, it undermines the sovereignty of the Republic of China. It advocates its replacement by a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." This leaves supporters of the Republic of China with no other choice. It also leaves less negotiating room for cross-Strait policy, because most people do not consider a "Nation of Taiwan" a viable alternative. Within the Green Camp, Taiwan independence elements have long held the Democratic Progressive Party hostage. They prevented the DPP from gaining the support of centrist voters under the single constituency electoral system. The protest march has set the tone for Taiwan independence. The revisionism championed by Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP is a dead letter.
The fundamentalists and revisionists within the Green Camp are fighting over whether to condemn Chen Shui-bian. The fundamentalist will never condemn Chen Shui-bian, because they do not trust Tsai Ing-wen with their "Nation of Taiwan." Preserving the Chen Shui-bian faction allows them to check Tsai Ing-wen. If, on the other hand, the revisionists gain control, they will inevitably escalate their criticisms of Chen Shui-bian. They may even find it necessary to disown him. If Chen Shui-bian weakens, Taiwan independence elements will lose their political icon and their political leverage. A Green Camp hijacked by Taiwan independence elements will rapidly lose power.
The Green Camp march was in fact a stage on which the two major factions within the DPP struggled to determine the party's future. The agreement not to support A Bian was merely a stopgap measure. The two sides still need to decide whether to support A Bian or to disown him.
解讀830：基本教義與修正主義的角力
【聯合報社論╱社論】
2008.09.02 03:21 am
兩年前的九月，陳水扁執政六年四個月，紅衫軍拇指朝下，高喊「阿扁下台」；上周六，馬英九執政百日，綠營遊行隊伍也出現拇指朝下的鏡頭，高喊「馬英九下台」。
綠 營這次遊行，可從量與質兩方面來看。就「量」說，人數不少；畢竟民進黨在總統大選得票五四四萬，能夠撐出上周六的場面不是難事。值得玩味的是這場遊行的 「質」：一方面，綠營仍維持善於隱忍訴求的特質（台獨時隱時現了幾十年），將「挺扁」的訴求節制至極點；不過，遊行雖未見「挺扁」，但畢竟不是「批扁」， 綠營與陳水扁的關係如何尚無定論；另一方面，由於這畢竟是台獨社團的主場，所以台獨的訴求在遊行中仍是直接、公開而且強烈。
遊行自籌辦至執行，皆顯見台獨社團與民進黨蔡英文黨中央的博弈，角力的主題亦在「陳水扁」及「台獨」兩個項目。關於如何處理陳水扁，雙方折衝曾有以下波折：
本 來不排除陳水扁參加遊行→爆洗錢案，黃昭堂叫陳水扁從世界消失→蔡英文說「過去的傳聞果然是真的」→陳昭姿宣布「台獨金庫」→高俊明等呼籲，用寬恕陳進興 的心情寬恕陳水扁→民進黨中常會指「國民黨與中國聯手迫害」→輿論譁然，民進黨及獨派漸漸浮現「不挺扁」的聲音→陳水扁發表聲明，籲支持者參加遊行，「引 領國家重新回到正確的方向」→主辦單位再申「不挺個人」→蔡英文說「現在還認為扁是對的人，已經很少了」→辜寬敏及獨派均表態「切割」→陳水扁說：「他們 用石頭砸我！」
由前述周折可見，在洗錢案爆發時，黃昭堂及蔡英文似已有趁勢「切割」的意圖；但陳昭姿及高俊明之輩卻仍想力挺，遂又形成拉鋸。遊行最後採「不挺個人」的立場，顯然只是雙方暫時的妥協；所謂「不挺扁」，其實只是擱置不論，綠營或民進黨尚未對陳水扁作出政治定讞。
相 對而言，這次遊行的台獨立場則是直接且強烈。民進黨似已極力設法掩飾遊行中台獨的訴求，因此隊伍中絕大部分的「制式」標語，皆以「顧腹肚」為主題；但是， 大部分的「自製」標語，則在訴諸台獨，例如「流亡政府中華民國滾出去」等，其思想及語氣皆甚強烈。其間又有大量針對馬英九的標語，幾乎全皆攻擊其國家認 同，例如「傾中賣台」、「賣國賊」等。當然，主辦者高俊明等也反覆強調「台灣國」，不在話下。
接下來，仍依「陳水 扁」及「台獨」兩路，來試論遊行後的局勢。先談陳水扁。對於深綠陣營而言，「台獨」與「陳水扁」是不能脫鉤的。「台獨因獨挺扁，阿扁因貪挺獨」，二者已有 難以分割的關係。畢竟，陳水扁是數十年來最具代表性及操作能力的台獨旗手，李登輝已成泡沫，蔡英文亦不似基本教義派；台獨若聽任陳水扁就此傾仆，即幾乎可 以斷言香火將熄。因此，陳水扁臭到這個地步，高俊明等仍不輕言放棄；綠營遂仍不可能「批扁」，而是否要與陳水扁「切割」亦仍將是綠營的路線鬥爭主題。
再 談台獨。此次遊行的訴求顯示，台灣的政治對抗，仍然停留在「賣台／愛台」、「中華民國／台灣國」的對立，這使得台灣政治仍是一個無解的死結。誠然，中華民 國的生存極度艱難，馬英九的兩岸政策須受監督批評；但是，台獨所謂「顧主權」，並非站在維持中華民國的立場說話，而是站在否定中華民國、建立台灣國的立場 發言。這不但使得支持中華民國者沒有第二個選擇，亦使兩岸政策損失了辯證的空間；因為，多數國人不認為「台灣國」是一條生路。另對於綠營來說，由於台獨始 終挾持民進黨，也使民進黨在「單一選區」的選制中失去了向中間開拓的空間。因而，此次遊行既被定調為台獨，蔡英文及民進黨的修正主義即變成了無意義。
未 來，綠營中「基教派」與「修正派」的角力，仍在是否批扁。一方面，「基教派」不可能批扁，因為他們不可能將「台灣國」託付給蔡英文；維持扁系，即可節制蔡 英文。另一方面，「修正派」若欲主導局面，卻必須逐漸深化批扁，甚至與扁切割；因為，扁的耗弱，將使台獨陣營失去最後一個政治象徵及政治槓桿，也就會使台 獨挾持綠營的力量迅速流失。
就此而言，這次綠營遊行，其實是內部「兩條路線」的鬥爭舞台。「不挺扁」只是暫時遮蔽了鬥爭，雙方接下來仍勢須就是否「批扁」及是否「與扁切割」做一個了斷！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2008
Two years ago in September, Chen Shui-bian had been in office six years and four months. The Red Shirt Army was giving him the thumbs down, shouting "A Bian step down!" Last Saturday, Ma Ying-jeou had been in office 100 days. Green Camp protesters also used the thumbs down gesture, shouting "Ma Ying-jeou step down!"
The Green Camp protest march can be judged in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, large numbers of people participated. After all, the DPP received 5,440,000 votes in the presidential election. Arranging last Saturday's turnout was not difficult. What's worth pondering however, is the quality of the event. The Green Camp is adept at camouflaging its actual agenda. The Taiwan independence movement has successfully camouflaged its agenda for several decades now. It exercised considerable restraint in its "Support A Bian!" agenda. The march may not have been a "Support A Bian!" event, but neither was it a "Condemn A Bian!" event. The Green Camp's relationship with Chen Shui-bian has yet to be determined. This was however, a Taiwan independence event. The Taiwan independence agenda was open and explicit.
Taiwan independence organizations and the DPP's Central Committee, led by Tsai Ing-wen, organized and carried out the march. They grappled over whether its theme should be Chen Shui-bian or Taiwan independence. They clashed over how to deal with Chen Shui-bian.
They considered allowing Chen Shui-bian to participate in the march. But then the money-laundering scandal erupted. Huang Chao-tang said he hoped Chen Shui-bian would "vanish from the face of the earth." Tsai Ing-wen said "So the rumors were true!" Chen Gau-tzu played along with A Bian's claim that he had established a "Taiwan independence treasury." Kao Chun-ming and others called on the public to forgive Chen Shui-bian, the same way they forgave kidnapper and serial killer Chen Chin-hsing. The DPP Central Standing Committee accused the "Kuomintang and [mainland] China of colluding to persecute A Bian and Taiwan." A public backlash ensued. Suggestions that they not support A Bian emerged from within the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan independence movement. Chen Shui-bian issued a statement, urging supporters to participate in the procession, "leading the country back in the right direction." The organizers stressed that they "weren't supporting any individual." Tsai Ing-wen said "Very few people still think Chen Shui-bian is right." Koo Kuan-min and Taiwan independence elements distanced themselves from A Bian. Chen Shui-bian responded, saying "Let them cast stones!"
These twists and turns suggest that Huang Chao-tang and Tsai Ying-wen have been trying to distance themselves from A Bian ever since the money-laundering scandal erupted. Older generation figures such as Chen Chao-tzu and Kao Chun-ming however, still want to support A Bian to the bitter end. The result has been a tug of war. In the end the march adopted a position of "no support for any individual." This was merely a stopgap measure. The "No support for A Bian" resolution merely shelved the dispute. The Green Camp and the DPP have not decided how to define Chen Shui-bian.
By contrast, the march's pro-independence position was open and explicit. The DPP did its utmost to camouflage the march's Taiwan independence agenda. Most of the signs displayed platitudes, adopting "filling bellies" as their theme. But most of the homemade signs demanded Taiwan independence. One sign read "Drive the Republic of China government in exile from Taiwan." Emotions ran high. The tone was harsh. A large number of signs attacked Ma Ying-jeou. Almost all attacked his sense of national identity. Some read "Favoring China Means Betraying Taiwan!" or "Traitors!" Needless to say, event organizer Kao Chun-ming repeatedly underscored their aim of establishing a "Nation of Taiwan."
The march had two agendas: Chen Shui-bian and Taiwan independence. One. Let's look at Chen Shui-bian. For Deep Green elements Taiwan independence and Chen Shui-bian cannot be delinked. The Taiwan independence movement supports A Bian because it supports independence. Chen Shui-bian supports Taiwan independence because he is corrupt. The two are inseparable. After all, over the past several decades, Chen Shui-bian has been the most representative and most effective standard-bearer for Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui has already faded from the scene. Tsai Ing-wen is not a fundamentalist. If the Taiwan independence movement is so willing to listen to Chen Shui-bian, it is done for. Chen Shui-bian has been utterly discredited. Yet Kao Chun-ming still refuses to give up on him. The Green Camp still cannot bring itself to condemn A Bian. The Green Camp is still fighting over whether to disown Chen Shui-bian.
The agenda of the march revealed Taiwan's ongoing political polarization. Taiwan remains mired in such dualisms as "betraying Taiwan vs. loving Taiwan" and "defending the Republic of China vs. establishing a Nation of Taiwan." Politics on Taiwan remains a Gordian Knot. Admittedly, the Republic of China is finding it difficult to survive. Ma Ying-jeou's cross-strait policy must be subjected to criticism and oversight. But the Taiwan independence movement's so-called "defense of sovereignty" has nothing to do with defending the sovereignty of the Republic of China. On the contrary, it undermines the sovereignty of the Republic of China. It advocates its replacement by a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." This leaves supporters of the Republic of China with no other choice. It also leaves less negotiating room for cross-Strait policy, because most people do not consider a "Nation of Taiwan" a viable alternative. Within the Green Camp, Taiwan independence elements have long held the Democratic Progressive Party hostage. They prevented the DPP from gaining the support of centrist voters under the single constituency electoral system. The protest march has set the tone for Taiwan independence. The revisionism championed by Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP is a dead letter.
The fundamentalists and revisionists within the Green Camp are fighting over whether to condemn Chen Shui-bian. The fundamentalist will never condemn Chen Shui-bian, because they do not trust Tsai Ing-wen with their "Nation of Taiwan." Preserving the Chen Shui-bian faction allows them to check Tsai Ing-wen. If, on the other hand, the revisionists gain control, they will inevitably escalate their criticisms of Chen Shui-bian. They may even find it necessary to disown him. If Chen Shui-bian weakens, Taiwan independence elements will lose their political icon and their political leverage. A Green Camp hijacked by Taiwan independence elements will rapidly lose power.
The Green Camp march was in fact a stage on which the two major factions within the DPP struggled to determine the party's future. The agreement not to support A Bian was merely a stopgap measure. The two sides still need to decide whether to support A Bian or to disown him.
解讀830：基本教義與修正主義的角力
【聯合報社論╱社論】
2008.09.02 03:21 am
兩年前的九月，陳水扁執政六年四個月，紅衫軍拇指朝下，高喊「阿扁下台」；上周六，馬英九執政百日，綠營遊行隊伍也出現拇指朝下的鏡頭，高喊「馬英九下台」。
綠 營這次遊行，可從量與質兩方面來看。就「量」說，人數不少；畢竟民進黨在總統大選得票五四四萬，能夠撐出上周六的場面不是難事。值得玩味的是這場遊行的 「質」：一方面，綠營仍維持善於隱忍訴求的特質（台獨時隱時現了幾十年），將「挺扁」的訴求節制至極點；不過，遊行雖未見「挺扁」，但畢竟不是「批扁」， 綠營與陳水扁的關係如何尚無定論；另一方面，由於這畢竟是台獨社團的主場，所以台獨的訴求在遊行中仍是直接、公開而且強烈。
遊行自籌辦至執行，皆顯見台獨社團與民進黨蔡英文黨中央的博弈，角力的主題亦在「陳水扁」及「台獨」兩個項目。關於如何處理陳水扁，雙方折衝曾有以下波折：
本 來不排除陳水扁參加遊行→爆洗錢案，黃昭堂叫陳水扁從世界消失→蔡英文說「過去的傳聞果然是真的」→陳昭姿宣布「台獨金庫」→高俊明等呼籲，用寬恕陳進興 的心情寬恕陳水扁→民進黨中常會指「國民黨與中國聯手迫害」→輿論譁然，民進黨及獨派漸漸浮現「不挺扁」的聲音→陳水扁發表聲明，籲支持者參加遊行，「引 領國家重新回到正確的方向」→主辦單位再申「不挺個人」→蔡英文說「現在還認為扁是對的人，已經很少了」→辜寬敏及獨派均表態「切割」→陳水扁說：「他們 用石頭砸我！」
由前述周折可見，在洗錢案爆發時，黃昭堂及蔡英文似已有趁勢「切割」的意圖；但陳昭姿及高俊明之輩卻仍想力挺，遂又形成拉鋸。遊行最後採「不挺個人」的立場，顯然只是雙方暫時的妥協；所謂「不挺扁」，其實只是擱置不論，綠營或民進黨尚未對陳水扁作出政治定讞。
相 對而言，這次遊行的台獨立場則是直接且強烈。民進黨似已極力設法掩飾遊行中台獨的訴求，因此隊伍中絕大部分的「制式」標語，皆以「顧腹肚」為主題；但是， 大部分的「自製」標語，則在訴諸台獨，例如「流亡政府中華民國滾出去」等，其思想及語氣皆甚強烈。其間又有大量針對馬英九的標語，幾乎全皆攻擊其國家認 同，例如「傾中賣台」、「賣國賊」等。當然，主辦者高俊明等也反覆強調「台灣國」，不在話下。
接下來，仍依「陳水 扁」及「台獨」兩路，來試論遊行後的局勢。先談陳水扁。對於深綠陣營而言，「台獨」與「陳水扁」是不能脫鉤的。「台獨因獨挺扁，阿扁因貪挺獨」，二者已有 難以分割的關係。畢竟，陳水扁是數十年來最具代表性及操作能力的台獨旗手，李登輝已成泡沫，蔡英文亦不似基本教義派；台獨若聽任陳水扁就此傾仆，即幾乎可 以斷言香火將熄。因此，陳水扁臭到這個地步，高俊明等仍不輕言放棄；綠營遂仍不可能「批扁」，而是否要與陳水扁「切割」亦仍將是綠營的路線鬥爭主題。
再 談台獨。此次遊行的訴求顯示，台灣的政治對抗，仍然停留在「賣台／愛台」、「中華民國／台灣國」的對立，這使得台灣政治仍是一個無解的死結。誠然，中華民 國的生存極度艱難，馬英九的兩岸政策須受監督批評；但是，台獨所謂「顧主權」，並非站在維持中華民國的立場說話，而是站在否定中華民國、建立台灣國的立場 發言。這不但使得支持中華民國者沒有第二個選擇，亦使兩岸政策損失了辯證的空間；因為，多數國人不認為「台灣國」是一條生路。另對於綠營來說，由於台獨始 終挾持民進黨，也使民進黨在「單一選區」的選制中失去了向中間開拓的空間。因而，此次遊行既被定調為台獨，蔡英文及民進黨的修正主義即變成了無意義。
未 來，綠營中「基教派」與「修正派」的角力，仍在是否批扁。一方面，「基教派」不可能批扁，因為他們不可能將「台灣國」託付給蔡英文；維持扁系，即可節制蔡 英文。另一方面，「修正派」若欲主導局面，卻必須逐漸深化批扁，甚至與扁切割；因為，扁的耗弱，將使台獨陣營失去最後一個政治象徵及政治槓桿，也就會使台 獨挾持綠營的力量迅速流失。
就此而言，這次綠營遊行，其實是內部「兩條路線」的鬥爭舞台。「不挺扁」只是暫時遮蔽了鬥爭，雙方接下來仍勢須就是否「批扁」及是否「與扁切割」做一個了斷！
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)