The NCC Should Cease Enforcing a Bad Law
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2010
Some of the most prominent companies on Taiwan, including TSMC, MediaTek, and HTC, are Interested in digital convergence. They hope to invest in the radio and television industries. How has the National Communications Commission (NCC) responded? It has turned them down flat, saying it violates the clause stipulating that political parties, the government, and the armed forces may not own media companies. This is the absurd consequence of bad law combined with ossified reasoning by legal hacks.
The Broadcasting Act contains a so-called "Media Reform Clause." Its primary purpose was to correct problems arising from involvement by political parties, the government, and the armed forces in the media industry. The law was a product of its time. It stipulated that political parties, the government, and the armed forces may not hold even a single share in of stock in the electronic media, directly or indirectly. The law was harsh and unreasonable. This has become only too clear over the past two years. The victims are too numerous to list. Superficially, the Broadcasting Act was a highly substantive media reform act that drove political parties, the government, and the armed forces out of the electronic media. In fact it was a bad law that has seriously hampered industry growth and business operations.
Take for example Delta Investment, a blue-chip company which operates Erda, a satellite broadcasting technology company. Erda's products are sold in Chunghwa Telecom's MOD. Government funds have been invested in Delta. Therefore the NCC has ruled that it "violates the political party, government, and armed forces clause," and forced the company to sell off its holdings. Take for example Kai Bo, Taiwan's largest broadcasting network. Foreign shareholders include ASE, the leading domestic IC closed beta testing company. Government funds have also been invested in ASE. Therefore it too is classified as "illegal" and is being punished. Some broadcasting network shareholders are investment companies. Some investment companies are also listed. These listed companies have "shareholders' shareholders," who including government funds. Therefore, they too are off limits.
The biggest victim so far has been Taiwan Mobile, a subsidiary of the Fubon Group. Last year in September it purchased Kai Bo from the Carlyle Group. The total transaction amount was 32.8 billion NT. It also assumed over 24 billion NT in Carlyle debt. Its total investment was nearly 57 billion NT. But this investment failed to pass NCC approval, because Fubon Financial held shares in Taiwan Mobile. A few years ago, Fubon Bank merged with Taipei City's flagship bank, the Taipei Bank, The Taipei City Government holds Fubon shares. The NCC peeled away layer after layer, and lo and behold, it found that once again someone had violated the "political party, government, and armed forces clause." Once again, a company had reached dead end. When Fubon attempted to purchase Kai Bo in a private capacity, the price skyrocket nearly two billion NT in less than a year. The NCC's improper enforcement of a bad law merely provided the Carlyle Group with a massive windfall profit.
Recently, the China Television Company (CTV), under the name of CTVShop, attempted to purchase four channels, including the Travel and Living Channel and the Gala Television Channel. It was rebuffed by the NCC on all counts. The reason offered was equally absurd. The NCC said it "discovered by chance" that the Taipei City Government holds shares in Fubon Financial Holding. Fubon Financial Holding holds shares in Fubon Life. Fubon Life in turn holds shares in CTV. CTV in turn holds shares in CTVShop. Therefore even a company that is merely a "great, great, great grandson" is still considered in violation of the "political party, government, and armed forces clause" of the Broadcasting Act.
The above trail of blood shows what is wrong with the "political party, government, and armed forces clause." Add to this the NCC's legal hack mentality, and the entire industry has suffered a severe blow. The "political party, government, and armed forces clause" was a product of its time, with its own historical background and historical considerations. Its purpose was to prevent political parties, the government, and the armed forces from controlling the electronic media. The NCC, which is enforcing the law, remains oblivious to its underlying spirit. It has single-mindedly fixated on the "may not either directly or indirectly hold even a single share" clause, leading to this absurd and ridiculous result.
Leave aside the industry merger that resulted in the Taipei City Government holdings shares in Fubon Financial Holding. The government owns four major funds that continue to invest in the stock market. Its holdings are mostly blue chip stocks in various large scale industry leaders. The NCC cannot be bothered to ask whether the government has a controlling interest in these companies, let alone the right to operate these companies. Everyone of them is considered suspect and must be investigated. This essentially guarantees that every major public and blue chip company will be prevented from entering the broadcasting industry. Because, as long as one peels away enough layers, one will eventually discover government funds.
The NCC is utterly ignoring the fact that these government funds are merely financial investments. The percentage of shares held is very low. The government has no operating rights and no controlling interest. Even if it invests in the broadcasting industry, it has not in fact violated the spirit or substance of the "political party, government, and armed forces clause" of the Broadcasting Act. The NCC's "strict review" is merely hobbling the growth of the radio and television industry. It is merely making it harder for them to survive. It is merely making it more difficult for them to establish successful businesses and operate them efficiently.
The political party, government, and armed forces clause is unreasonable. The NCC is not totally oblivious to this fact. That is why it has proposed amending and loosening the law. But amending the law will require considerable time. Until the law has been amended, the NCC insists on enforcing the terms of the political party, government, and armed forces clause in an unreasonable manner. It continues to victimize industry. Digital convergence is under way. Television, radio, and newspapers are being combined into one. Frankly speaking, the NCC's approach has retarded the entire nation's economic growth.
In the past, political parties, the government, and the armed forces were a single entity. Their control over all forms of the media is a thing of the past. It was corrected by draconian measures that, if truth be told, amounted to overkill. Perhaps they were necessary at the time. But ruling party change has become the norm. The media has entered an era of intense competition. The Broadcast Act no longer has any meaning. If anything, political party, government, and armed forces interference in the media is far less likely and far less threatening than the large-scale influx of foreign capital. We hope the government will amend the law as soon as possible. Until the law has been amended, the NCC must understand the spirit of the law and the needs of industry. It must not rigidly adhere to the letter of the law, by reviewing cases with the mentality of legal hacks.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.09.10
NCC不應再用廣電惡法把關
本報訊
猜一猜，如果國內最佳的上市公司─如台積電、聯發科、宏達電等，對數位匯流有興趣，要投資廣電事業，國內通訊委員會（ＮＣＣ）會如何發落？答案是：不准，因為違反黨政軍退出媒體條款。這就是一個惡法加上法匠把關，造成的荒謬結果。
廣電三法中所謂的「黨政軍退出媒體條款」，主要是為矯正過去黨政軍介入媒體經營的弊病，其訂定有其時代背景。但訂定法條時，規定黨政軍不論直接、間接，連一股都不得持有廣電媒體的股權，其嚴苛與不合理，這兩年已非常明顯，受害者可說不計其數，表面上是非常落實黨政軍退出媒體條款，實際上則是嚴重影響產業發展與企業經營。
例如，國內績優的上市企業台達電投資從事衛星廣播事業的愛爾達科技公司，愛爾達的產品在中華電信的ＭＯＤ有上架。但因為政府基金有投資台達電，被ＮＣＣ認為「違反黨政軍條款」，經協商後被迫賣掉持股。再如最大的系統台凱擘，因境外股東有國內封測龍頭日月光投資，政府基金也有投資日月光，因此也是「違法」而挨罰。還有一些系統台，其股東為某投資公司，此投資公司又有一上市公司投資，此上市公司的「股東的股東」，又有政府基金投資，所以，也不行。
最「大尾」的受害者，就是富邦集團旗下的台哥大，去年九月從外資凱雷手上買下凱擘，總交易金額三二八億台幣，加上承接凱雷二四○億元的負債，總投資金額近五七○億元。不過，這個投資案最後也過不了ＮＣＣ這關，因為，富邦金控持有台哥大股權，而當年富邦銀行與台北市政府旗下的台北銀行合併時，台北市政府改持有富邦股票。層層算下來，嘿，又違反了「黨政軍條款」，所以死路一條。富邦要以家族個人身份再買凱擘，不到一年時間，價格暴漲一、二百億元，ＮＣＣ的「不當執法」，凱雷算是最大獲利者吧！
日前，中視以中視文化的名義申請生活旅遊台、綜合台等四台被ＮＣＣ駁回，原因，與前述的情況同樣荒謬。因為ＮＣＣ「意外發現」台北市政府持有富邦金控股權，富邦金控又持有富邦人壽股權；而富邦人壽「復持有」中視股權，中視又為中視文化之股權。所以，即使已經算到「孫子的孫子」公司了，還是踼到「違反黨政軍條款」的鐵板。
從以上「血跡斑斑」的案件，顯現「黨政軍條款」的問題，加上執法者ＮＣＣ的法匠性格，整個產業發展都大受打擊。「黨政軍條款」的訂定固然有其時代背景與考慮，但其出發點是不讓黨政軍力量控制廣電媒體。執法的ＮＣＣ不察其精神，一味拘泥在「直接間接都不得持有一股」的型式，終而造成這種荒謬與可笑的結果。
且不談台北市政府持有富邦金控股權的「併購共業」，由於政府四大基金持續在股市進出，且其持有投資標的多是各產業大型的龍頭股與績優股，ＮＣＣ這種可以不論政府基金是否有控制與經營權，一律算到孫公司的孫公司都要算的審查，幾乎擺明所有大型上市與績優企業都不能碰廣電事業，因為，努力多查幾層，最後總會出現政府基金的影子。
ＮＣＣ這種作法，根本無視於這些政府基金都是財務投資，且持股極低，對該企業既無經營權也無控制權，即使該企業投資廣電事業，事實上並未違反「黨政軍條款」的精神與實質意義。ＮＣＣ的「嚴審」，只是讓廣電產業更難發展、更難有活水，更難引進優秀的企業與經營。
黨政軍條款的不合理，ＮＣＣ不是不知道，因此也提出修法放寬，但修法過程緩慢，而在未完成修法前，ＮＣＣ又堅持且持續的以這種不合理的方式執行黨政軍條款，讓產業界一再受害。在數位匯流、三網合一的趨勢下，ＮＣＣ的作法，說嚴重一點是影響整個國家的發展。
過去，黨政軍「合體」，且控制諸多媒體時代，以「矯枉過正」的嚴厲手段打破黨政軍控制媒體，也許有其需要與意義。但在政黨輪替成為常態，媒體又處高度競爭時代，其意義已不復存在。甚至在現階段，黨政軍介入媒體的問題，恐怕還遠遠不及外資大舉介入國內廣電媒體的問題來得大、來得實際。相較其對產業與國家發展的負面影響，我們希望政府有關單位應儘速完成修法，在完成修法前，ＮＣＣ亦應體察法令精神與產業發展需要，不要再拘泥法條、以法匠精神審查相關案件。
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Rehabilitation of EIA System a Priority
Rehabilitation of EIA System a Priority
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2010
Earlier this year the Supreme Administrative Court nullified the Taichung Science Park Phase 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This was the first time a judicial entity has ever nullified an EIA. A halt on Phase 4 development followed. White Dolphin conservation efforts led to controversy over the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical EIA. Repeated fires at the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant made Phase 5 plant expansion EIA approval many times more difficult. The EIA system suddenly came under criticism as utterly useless. Developers criticized it for increasing investment risk. Environmental groups criticized it for lopsidedly favoring economic development. The credibility of government policy-makers and environmental protection agencies hit rock bottom. As a result, restructuring of the EIA system is imminent.
It has been 80 years since the Environmental Assessment Act was implemented. During much of that time economic development trumped all else, even as environmental hazards proliferated. In all fairness, environmental protection agencies, by invoking the magical power of the EIA, succeeded in blocking many environmentally destructive projects. The EIA's current predicament is due in part to changes in the larger environment. These have revealed serious defects in the EIA's original design. Another reason however, is political interference.
For the past half year, much criticism has been directed at the EIA system, at its veto power, and at the Central Committee's black box operations. These have led to technical and administrative problems which must be addressed. But technical issues are of secondary importance to restoring the credibility of the EIA system. The real reason for loss of confidence in the EIA is insufficient will and insufficient understanding on the part of upper echelon policy makers. These upper echelon policy makers should amend the technical aspects of the law. But they should also contemplate the root of the problem.
The ruling administration hopes to strengthen the economy. It hopes to improve people's lives. In its hurry to establish a glowing political record, it often promotes some "project essential to the nation" that "simply must go ahead." Partisan politics forces officials to compress their policy formulation process, administrative review process, or even "guide" controversial projects through a minefield. This leads to insufficient EIA transparency, insufficient citizen participation, and delayed controversy.
Once the root cause of the EIA crisis has been understood, rebuilding trust in the EIA requires addresssing both the human dimension and the legal dimension. Take the human dimension first. Policy makers may be convinced that a particular development project will promote economic growth and the public welfare. But they should nevertheless respect the spirit of bottom up community involvement. They should communicate with the public, seek public support, rather than pressure administrative authorities, demanding that they approve their projects ahead of certain deadlines.
They should not seek loopholes in the multi-layered regulatory mechanism for national infrastructure projects. For example, the Suhua Highway recently triggered a major controversy. Authorities bypassed comprehensive land planning and regional planning requirements. They went ahead with a transportation project that was not a part of national land use plans. Another example is the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Senior government officials repeatedly offered predictions about when the EIA would be completed. By doing so, they could blame the EIA mechanism in the event the project failed to pass in time.
Only by reducing human intervention, can we return to the original intent of the EIA, namely, "To prevent and reduce development that brings adverse environmental impacts." Only then can one rebuid confidence in the EIA system. What matters is not technical fixes for individual projects, but eliminating the problem at its source.
First, the most compelling criticism of the EIA Act is that projects are submitted for approval only after they have already been settled upon. This disregards the need for prevention, early warning, and filtering. The Executive Yuan has an understanding that it will "pre-assess" certain projects, giving them "individual EIA assessments." Before major public policies and major investment and development projects are finalized, they will require "pre-assessment." Developers should invite advance participation from all sectors of the public. One requirement for alternative plans should be "zero development." Only after a project passes pre-assessment and is confirmed as feasible, will it be allowed to undergo the actual EIA process. It should not be allowed to undergo the EIA process in an attempt to bulldoze its way through.
Next, a third party management system should be established for EIA reports, as soon as possible. Currently EIA reports are written by consultants hired by developers. Consultants' reports must conform to developers' wishes. If they do not, consultants may not even receive ghostwriting fees. Therefore a fair and just "EIA management company" system must be established. Developers will be required to pay a specified percentage in EIA report writing fees to EIA management companies. EIA management companies will hire EIA consultants to produce EIA reports. Funds will be appropriated in accordance with the progress of the project. This will avoid the phenomenon of the developer holding the EIA report hostage by witholding report writing fees.
The EIA management company system will require certain preconditions. The authority in charge shall periodically evaluate EIA consultant firms for integrity. Do they put environmental science and environmental justice on an equal footing? Are they fulfilling the role of an environmental early warning system? Are their EIA reports rigorous? Do they increase the efficiency of the EIA process? The EPA should subject these firms to public evaluation. Only then can the EIA process be restored to its transcendent status. Only then can its lost credibility be salvaged.
The Environmental Assessment Act must be rehabilitated from its roots. Upper echelon policy makers must make fundamental changes. The two-stage EIA process is widely criticized as too time-consuming, Should the veto be abolished? How should Central Committee members be recruited? All these problems can be solved. The EIA system can then uphold environmental justice, and help investors to develop environmentally sound projects.
重建環評制度是當務之急
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.09 02:33 am
今年初最高行政法院判決撤銷中科三期環評，創下司法機關否決環評首例，接著中科四期遭判決暫停開發，白海豚保育引發國光石化環評爭議，六輕連番大火造成五期擴廠環評難度倍增。一時之間，環評制度遭批評得一無是處，開發商抨擊投資風險不確定，環保團體認為一面倒向開發，政府決策者與環保機構公信力更跌到谷底。至此，重建環評制度已迫在眉睫。
平心而論，環評法自民國八十三年實施以來，在開發至上、環境公害頻爆的年代，憑藉「否決權」這把尚方寶劍，確實相當程度地阻擋了不少高破壞性的開發案。環評之所以陷入今天的困局，除了客觀環境變遷導致原設計機制產生嚴重缺陷，另個根本原因是受到政治干預。
半年多來各界對環評制度的討論，指出了否決權、黑箱作業以致環委產生等技術面、執行面問題應予改進；但這些技術面的檢討，其實是重建具公信力環評制度的「下位」工作。引發今天環評制度信心崩盤的局面，更出在上位決策者的意志及觀念的問題，不宜僅就技術面修法，而應往問題源頭做「上位」思考。
主政者想拚經濟、拚競爭力以改善人民生活，急於創造政績，經常指示一些非做不可的「國家重點建設」，在政黨政治體制下，要求官員壓縮政策形成程序、行政審查程序，甚或介入「護航」使有爭議的開發案達陣，因而造成環評資訊不透明、公民參與受限等缺失，埋下爭議潛因。
確認造成環評危機的因果關係後，重建工作應該「人」、「法」雙管齊下。人的方面，決策者即使認為特定開發案對經濟發展及人民福祉有利，也應循環評法立法精神「民間參與、由下而上」與民眾溝通，爭取支持；而不是對行政機關施加壓力，要求限期儘早過關。
對於現行國家建設的層層規範機制，也不應再取巧規避。例如稍早引發重大爭議的蘇花高，略過了國土綜合開發、區域計畫等上位計畫，直接提出根本不在國土計畫上的交通建設案；再如國光石化案，政府高層不時預告環評何時會過，未達預期即對環評機制多所責難。
減少人為的干預後，才能回歸環評法「為預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響之目的」的立法意旨，修法重建環評制度。特別要強調的是，不是為個別項目作技術性修補，而是要斬掉問題發生的源頭。
首先，環評案最引人詬病的是開發案定案後才送審，完全無視環評的預防、預警、過濾等功能；對這個積弊，行政院已有實施「預審」、「個案政策環評」的共識，重大公共政策、重大投資開發案定案前須先預審，提前邀民間相關各界參與，且開發案的替代方案之一須是「零開發」。亦即，應通過預審、確認可行，再進入實體環評，而不是直闖環評試圖以「打帶跑」手法過關。
其次，應儘速建立環評報告書第三人經理制度。目前環評報告書是開發商找顧問公司寫，顧問公司若不照開發商的意思執筆，可能連代筆費都拿不到。因而，建立公正的「環評經理公司」是必要的，開發商依開發規模提交一定比率的環評費給經理公司，由經理公司遴聘顧問公司製作環評報告書送審，依計畫進度核撥經費，以避免開發商以經費挾制環評說明書的現象。
環評經理公司制度的配套，是主管機關定期評鑑環評顧問業者。顧問公司是否堅持事實，把環境科學和環境正義放在同等地位，發揮環境預警功能？環評報告書是否嚴謹，進而加速環評時效？環保署應公布評鑑，才能回到督導、提升環評效力的超然地位，進而挽救跌到谷底的公信力。
環評法如能從源頭、上位思考做根本的調整，廣受質疑的二階段環評、時效太慢、否決權存廢、環委產生……等問題便可相對獲得解決，從而讓環評制度能秉持環境正義，協助投資者做無害環境的開發。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2010
Earlier this year the Supreme Administrative Court nullified the Taichung Science Park Phase 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This was the first time a judicial entity has ever nullified an EIA. A halt on Phase 4 development followed. White Dolphin conservation efforts led to controversy over the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical EIA. Repeated fires at the Sixth Naphtha Cracking Plant made Phase 5 plant expansion EIA approval many times more difficult. The EIA system suddenly came under criticism as utterly useless. Developers criticized it for increasing investment risk. Environmental groups criticized it for lopsidedly favoring economic development. The credibility of government policy-makers and environmental protection agencies hit rock bottom. As a result, restructuring of the EIA system is imminent.
It has been 80 years since the Environmental Assessment Act was implemented. During much of that time economic development trumped all else, even as environmental hazards proliferated. In all fairness, environmental protection agencies, by invoking the magical power of the EIA, succeeded in blocking many environmentally destructive projects. The EIA's current predicament is due in part to changes in the larger environment. These have revealed serious defects in the EIA's original design. Another reason however, is political interference.
For the past half year, much criticism has been directed at the EIA system, at its veto power, and at the Central Committee's black box operations. These have led to technical and administrative problems which must be addressed. But technical issues are of secondary importance to restoring the credibility of the EIA system. The real reason for loss of confidence in the EIA is insufficient will and insufficient understanding on the part of upper echelon policy makers. These upper echelon policy makers should amend the technical aspects of the law. But they should also contemplate the root of the problem.
The ruling administration hopes to strengthen the economy. It hopes to improve people's lives. In its hurry to establish a glowing political record, it often promotes some "project essential to the nation" that "simply must go ahead." Partisan politics forces officials to compress their policy formulation process, administrative review process, or even "guide" controversial projects through a minefield. This leads to insufficient EIA transparency, insufficient citizen participation, and delayed controversy.
Once the root cause of the EIA crisis has been understood, rebuilding trust in the EIA requires addresssing both the human dimension and the legal dimension. Take the human dimension first. Policy makers may be convinced that a particular development project will promote economic growth and the public welfare. But they should nevertheless respect the spirit of bottom up community involvement. They should communicate with the public, seek public support, rather than pressure administrative authorities, demanding that they approve their projects ahead of certain deadlines.
They should not seek loopholes in the multi-layered regulatory mechanism for national infrastructure projects. For example, the Suhua Highway recently triggered a major controversy. Authorities bypassed comprehensive land planning and regional planning requirements. They went ahead with a transportation project that was not a part of national land use plans. Another example is the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant project. Senior government officials repeatedly offered predictions about when the EIA would be completed. By doing so, they could blame the EIA mechanism in the event the project failed to pass in time.
Only by reducing human intervention, can we return to the original intent of the EIA, namely, "To prevent and reduce development that brings adverse environmental impacts." Only then can one rebuid confidence in the EIA system. What matters is not technical fixes for individual projects, but eliminating the problem at its source.
First, the most compelling criticism of the EIA Act is that projects are submitted for approval only after they have already been settled upon. This disregards the need for prevention, early warning, and filtering. The Executive Yuan has an understanding that it will "pre-assess" certain projects, giving them "individual EIA assessments." Before major public policies and major investment and development projects are finalized, they will require "pre-assessment." Developers should invite advance participation from all sectors of the public. One requirement for alternative plans should be "zero development." Only after a project passes pre-assessment and is confirmed as feasible, will it be allowed to undergo the actual EIA process. It should not be allowed to undergo the EIA process in an attempt to bulldoze its way through.
Next, a third party management system should be established for EIA reports, as soon as possible. Currently EIA reports are written by consultants hired by developers. Consultants' reports must conform to developers' wishes. If they do not, consultants may not even receive ghostwriting fees. Therefore a fair and just "EIA management company" system must be established. Developers will be required to pay a specified percentage in EIA report writing fees to EIA management companies. EIA management companies will hire EIA consultants to produce EIA reports. Funds will be appropriated in accordance with the progress of the project. This will avoid the phenomenon of the developer holding the EIA report hostage by witholding report writing fees.
The EIA management company system will require certain preconditions. The authority in charge shall periodically evaluate EIA consultant firms for integrity. Do they put environmental science and environmental justice on an equal footing? Are they fulfilling the role of an environmental early warning system? Are their EIA reports rigorous? Do they increase the efficiency of the EIA process? The EPA should subject these firms to public evaluation. Only then can the EIA process be restored to its transcendent status. Only then can its lost credibility be salvaged.
The Environmental Assessment Act must be rehabilitated from its roots. Upper echelon policy makers must make fundamental changes. The two-stage EIA process is widely criticized as too time-consuming, Should the veto be abolished? How should Central Committee members be recruited? All these problems can be solved. The EIA system can then uphold environmental justice, and help investors to develop environmentally sound projects.
重建環評制度是當務之急
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.09 02:33 am
今年初最高行政法院判決撤銷中科三期環評，創下司法機關否決環評首例，接著中科四期遭判決暫停開發，白海豚保育引發國光石化環評爭議，六輕連番大火造成五期擴廠環評難度倍增。一時之間，環評制度遭批評得一無是處，開發商抨擊投資風險不確定，環保團體認為一面倒向開發，政府決策者與環保機構公信力更跌到谷底。至此，重建環評制度已迫在眉睫。
平心而論，環評法自民國八十三年實施以來，在開發至上、環境公害頻爆的年代，憑藉「否決權」這把尚方寶劍，確實相當程度地阻擋了不少高破壞性的開發案。環評之所以陷入今天的困局，除了客觀環境變遷導致原設計機制產生嚴重缺陷，另個根本原因是受到政治干預。
半年多來各界對環評制度的討論，指出了否決權、黑箱作業以致環委產生等技術面、執行面問題應予改進；但這些技術面的檢討，其實是重建具公信力環評制度的「下位」工作。引發今天環評制度信心崩盤的局面，更出在上位決策者的意志及觀念的問題，不宜僅就技術面修法，而應往問題源頭做「上位」思考。
主政者想拚經濟、拚競爭力以改善人民生活，急於創造政績，經常指示一些非做不可的「國家重點建設」，在政黨政治體制下，要求官員壓縮政策形成程序、行政審查程序，甚或介入「護航」使有爭議的開發案達陣，因而造成環評資訊不透明、公民參與受限等缺失，埋下爭議潛因。
確認造成環評危機的因果關係後，重建工作應該「人」、「法」雙管齊下。人的方面，決策者即使認為特定開發案對經濟發展及人民福祉有利，也應循環評法立法精神「民間參與、由下而上」與民眾溝通，爭取支持；而不是對行政機關施加壓力，要求限期儘早過關。
對於現行國家建設的層層規範機制，也不應再取巧規避。例如稍早引發重大爭議的蘇花高，略過了國土綜合開發、區域計畫等上位計畫，直接提出根本不在國土計畫上的交通建設案；再如國光石化案，政府高層不時預告環評何時會過，未達預期即對環評機制多所責難。
減少人為的干預後，才能回歸環評法「為預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響之目的」的立法意旨，修法重建環評制度。特別要強調的是，不是為個別項目作技術性修補，而是要斬掉問題發生的源頭。
首先，環評案最引人詬病的是開發案定案後才送審，完全無視環評的預防、預警、過濾等功能；對這個積弊，行政院已有實施「預審」、「個案政策環評」的共識，重大公共政策、重大投資開發案定案前須先預審，提前邀民間相關各界參與，且開發案的替代方案之一須是「零開發」。亦即，應通過預審、確認可行，再進入實體環評，而不是直闖環評試圖以「打帶跑」手法過關。
其次，應儘速建立環評報告書第三人經理制度。目前環評報告書是開發商找顧問公司寫，顧問公司若不照開發商的意思執筆，可能連代筆費都拿不到。因而，建立公正的「環評經理公司」是必要的，開發商依開發規模提交一定比率的環評費給經理公司，由經理公司遴聘顧問公司製作環評報告書送審，依計畫進度核撥經費，以避免開發商以經費挾制環評說明書的現象。
環評經理公司制度的配套，是主管機關定期評鑑環評顧問業者。顧問公司是否堅持事實，把環境科學和環境正義放在同等地位，發揮環境預警功能？環評報告書是否嚴謹，進而加速環評時效？環保署應公布評鑑，才能回到督導、提升環評效力的超然地位，進而挽救跌到谷底的公信力。
環評法如能從源頭、上位思考做根本的調整，廣受質疑的二階段環評、時效太慢、否決權存廢、環委產生……等問題便可相對獲得解決，從而讓環評制度能秉持環境正義，協助投資者做無害環境的開發。
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The President Must Understand the Importance of 12 Year Compulsory Education
The President Must Understand the Importance of 12 Year Compulsory Education
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2010
On August 28 and 29, the Republic of China government held a two-day National Conference on Education. According to reports, about 900 people participated. The participants offered 10 major recommendations, and 28 minor recommendations. The recommendations included everything but the kitchen sink, from college to kindergarten, from teacher training to educational curricula. The conclusions were made into a four hundred plus page conference report. The conference cost several million NT, lasted two days, mobilized several hundred participants, and published a incoherent grab bag of suggestions no is ever going to read. It was nothing more than an expensive show. It showed that the educational bureaucracy doesn't have the first clue where education ought to be headed. Political observer Jaw Shau-kong recently suggested that 80 percent of the cabinet ought to be replaced, members of the Culture and Education Directorate included.
Vanishing junior colleges and how junior high students should be promoted to senior high are issues of the greatest concern. Ironically, these issues of obvious importance were given short shrift. The top ten recommendations of the National Conference on Education include: contemporary citizenship, the educational system, universal participation in sports, entrance exams, higher education, cultural diversity, teacher education, the knowledge-based economy, cross-Strait and international relations, and lifelong learning. This laundry list allowed no conflicting points of view. It was all talk and no action. It offered platitudes about room for improvement, and reached no conclusions of significance. These issues are not unworthy of discussion. But they hardly required a conference attended by over 900 people.
Path-breaking issues require genuine vision and a broad perspective. They inevitably provoke disagreement over the details. The ruling administration was terrified of making any commitments to the public, because they feared controversy over minor differences. Therefore they issued ringing declarations concerning utterly non-controversial matters. This is what was so pathetic about the educational conference.
The educational conference issued 10 major resolutions, and 28 minor resolutions. If one had to pick a single issue, the one with with the greatest impact on people's lives and the most far-reaching consequences for Taiwan, it would have to be 12 year compulsory education. The National Conference on Education promised that these issues would be studied by an inter-departmental group, and that a timetable for their implementation would be announced. This is truly discouraging. Leave the long term aside for the moment. Three and a half years ago, Premier Su Tseng-chang was premier. Lin Wan-yi was Commissioner of Culture and Education. The two boldly promised to promote 12 year compulsory education. The Executive Yuan announced a timetable for the implementation of all necessary measures. Su Tseng-chang is no longer in office, and the ruling party has changed. But aren't governmental policies supposed to have continuity? The plan was passed by the Executive Yuan. Can it really be terminated at the drop of a hat? The Ma administration says it is postponing the implementation of 12 year compulsory education for two years. Doesn't it owe the public an explanation? Is something wrong with the previous plan? If so, what is it? If educational reform programs must return to square one each time the Executive Yuan undergoes reorganization, what does that say about our commitment to educational reform?
Those who truly understand education know that the most important reason to promote 12 year compulsory education is to remove the bottleneck between junior high and senior high. What junior high and primary school students are taught is general knowledge. They are given a very basic civic education. The purpose of this civic education is to instill an attitude of tolerance for diversity. A civic education is the foundation of modern citizenship. Conceptually speaking, students never should have been graded on the basic principles of civics. Fifteen year olds should never have sorted on the basis of test scores at such an early stage. Students should never have been forcibly herded into certain specialties based on their academic scores. If they are, it will merely encourage students to engage in rote memorization. The result will be rigid thinking, the proliferation of cram schools, the homogenization of education, and the the inhibition of students' social development and aesthetic sensibilities. The consequences are difficult to enumerate. But they will surely manifest themselves in children after they mature. Premature specialization undermines social harmony and is unconducive to national prosperity. In a competitive society, no one objects to specialization. But modern society has an entirely different understanding of specialization. No one favors indiscriminately forcing immature 15-year-old children into this or that specialty based on general education academic scores.
No nation with a per capita income of 20,000 USD has a system like ours. None of them engages in large-scale screening between junior high and senior high. We urge President Ma to discuss the core problems of education with educational experts, to listen to their presentations, and truly understand the key issues in secondary education. Only then will he understand the importance of 12 year compulsory education. The Ministry of Education has raised the issue of inequality between high and mid level occupations. It has raised the issue of recruiting by a small number of elite senior high schools. It has raised the issue of educational funding. But none of these anywhere as serious as 12 year compulsory education. Implementation is more important than believing. Beginning is more important than planning. Getting up and doing is preferable to sitting and talking. One cannot refuse to eat because one might choke on one's food. This cannot be an excuse to delay 12 year compulsory education.
Twelve year compulsory education should have been implemented long ago. Plans were drawn up long ago. A timetable was proposed three years ago. Now the government is refusing to proceed merely because its leader has yet to fully comprehend the importance of 12 year compulsory education. Conferences held within the system will invariably issue recommendations that its leader wants to hear. Therefore the key question is: Just what is President Ma's understanding of 12 year compulsory education?
總統應了解12年國教重要性
2010-09-08
中國時報
八月廿八、廿九日兩天，台灣召開了兩天的「全國教育會議」。據報載，約九百人參與這次盛會，而會議也做成了十大項、廿八小項建議，內容包山包海，上自大學下至幼教，前起師培後迄學制，編篡起來大概又是四、五百頁的結論書。支出數百萬經費、花了兩天時間、動員數百人參與、彙整出沒有人要讀的雜亂意見，除了淪為「大拜拜」之譏外，也凸顯出當前教育主事者對於教育問題根本欠缺方向感。日前趙少康先生說，八成閣員需要撤換，文教首長大概非屬例外。
最諷刺的是，對於明顯重要、最受各界關注的議題，諸如大專院校的退場與國中升高中的學制方式等，卻稀釋在十大項建議之中，而未受到足夠的重視。全國教育會議的十大項結論包括現代公民、教育體制、全民運動、升學制度、高等教育、多元文化、師資培育、知識經濟、兩岸國際、終身學習，其中一大串都是沒有什麼意見衝突的、口說無憑貴在執行的、永遠都有改善空間的，有沒有結論意義並不大。這些雜沓議題不是不能談，但絕對犯不著召開九百多人的會議來談。
相對而言，真正有遠見、有視野、有開創性的議題，難免都有枝節意見歧議。主政者因為小歧異而不敢對人民給予承諾，卻對沒有爭議的瑣碎方向慷慨陳述，這就是教育會議令人悲哀之處。
如果要在這次會議大小廿八項決議中挑出對人民生活影響最大、對台灣未來改變最深遠的一項，無非就是十二年國教。全國教育會議結論說，該議題要召開跨部會研商小組，將來再宣布實施期程；這真是非常令人錯愕的結論。遠的不談，三年半前在蘇貞昌做行政院長、林萬億任文教政委時，就曾經浩浩蕩蕩宣布推動十二年國教。當時，行政院也研擬宣布過相關的配套與期程。雖然蘇貞昌下台了、政黨輪替了，但不是說政府施政是延續的嗎？為什麼堂堂行政院院會通過的案子，可以說停就停呢？馬政府在把十二年國教期程宣布往後拖兩年之際，是否也該對外說明，以前的方案究竟有什麼不對，有什麼不好呢？如果每一次行政院改組，就要將教改方案重起爐灶，那麼我們究竟要改還是不要改呢？
真正了解教育的有識之士都了解；要推十二年國教的最大理由，就是要解決國中升高中虛耗式競爭的瓶頸。國中、國小學生所學習的內容，都是非常基本的通識，是基礎公民教育的內涵，其目的是要培育孩子們健康、包容、多元的理解。 公民教育是現代國民的基礎，在概念上原本就沒有「公民基本智識哪個孩子優、哪個孩子劣」的分殊必要。一旦要在這不該分殊的十五歲階段以基測或採計學校成績的方式強行分流篩選，就會促使學童們反覆記誦練習那些「基本」知識。其結果，當然就是思考的僵化、補習的盛行、智育一元的突出、群育美育的抑制。這些後遺症難以一一名狀，卻絕對會顯現在孩子們長大後的種種表現。提早分流不但傷害社會的和諧、也不利於國家的發展。在競爭的社會，沒有人反對分流；但是在現代人本的理念之下，卻沒有人贊成對未成熟的十五歲孩子依據基礎通識濫行分流。
全世界所有人均國民所得近兩萬美元的國家，沒有一國像台灣這樣，還在國中升高中階段做大規模篩選的。我們建議馬總統花些時間，與真正了解核心教育問題的專家談一談，聽一聽他們的簡報，從概念上確實掌握當前中學教育的關鍵問題，如此才能把握推動十二年國教的重要性。至於教育部所提現有高中職不平等的問題、少數明星高中招生的問題、所需教育經費的問題，相對而言都不嚴重，而且是執行重於理念、起步重於規畫、坐而言不如起而行，不能因噎廢食，做為拖延十二年國教的藉口。
總之，十二年國教台灣早就該做了，早可以規畫了，三年前就提出期程了。現在的政府不做，只因為領導者還沒有真正了解十二年國教的重要性。體制內的會議總是會得出合乎長官意旨的結論；所以問題的關鍵是；馬總統對十二年國教的理解究竟是什麼？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2010
On August 28 and 29, the Republic of China government held a two-day National Conference on Education. According to reports, about 900 people participated. The participants offered 10 major recommendations, and 28 minor recommendations. The recommendations included everything but the kitchen sink, from college to kindergarten, from teacher training to educational curricula. The conclusions were made into a four hundred plus page conference report. The conference cost several million NT, lasted two days, mobilized several hundred participants, and published a incoherent grab bag of suggestions no is ever going to read. It was nothing more than an expensive show. It showed that the educational bureaucracy doesn't have the first clue where education ought to be headed. Political observer Jaw Shau-kong recently suggested that 80 percent of the cabinet ought to be replaced, members of the Culture and Education Directorate included.
Vanishing junior colleges and how junior high students should be promoted to senior high are issues of the greatest concern. Ironically, these issues of obvious importance were given short shrift. The top ten recommendations of the National Conference on Education include: contemporary citizenship, the educational system, universal participation in sports, entrance exams, higher education, cultural diversity, teacher education, the knowledge-based economy, cross-Strait and international relations, and lifelong learning. This laundry list allowed no conflicting points of view. It was all talk and no action. It offered platitudes about room for improvement, and reached no conclusions of significance. These issues are not unworthy of discussion. But they hardly required a conference attended by over 900 people.
Path-breaking issues require genuine vision and a broad perspective. They inevitably provoke disagreement over the details. The ruling administration was terrified of making any commitments to the public, because they feared controversy over minor differences. Therefore they issued ringing declarations concerning utterly non-controversial matters. This is what was so pathetic about the educational conference.
The educational conference issued 10 major resolutions, and 28 minor resolutions. If one had to pick a single issue, the one with with the greatest impact on people's lives and the most far-reaching consequences for Taiwan, it would have to be 12 year compulsory education. The National Conference on Education promised that these issues would be studied by an inter-departmental group, and that a timetable for their implementation would be announced. This is truly discouraging. Leave the long term aside for the moment. Three and a half years ago, Premier Su Tseng-chang was premier. Lin Wan-yi was Commissioner of Culture and Education. The two boldly promised to promote 12 year compulsory education. The Executive Yuan announced a timetable for the implementation of all necessary measures. Su Tseng-chang is no longer in office, and the ruling party has changed. But aren't governmental policies supposed to have continuity? The plan was passed by the Executive Yuan. Can it really be terminated at the drop of a hat? The Ma administration says it is postponing the implementation of 12 year compulsory education for two years. Doesn't it owe the public an explanation? Is something wrong with the previous plan? If so, what is it? If educational reform programs must return to square one each time the Executive Yuan undergoes reorganization, what does that say about our commitment to educational reform?
Those who truly understand education know that the most important reason to promote 12 year compulsory education is to remove the bottleneck between junior high and senior high. What junior high and primary school students are taught is general knowledge. They are given a very basic civic education. The purpose of this civic education is to instill an attitude of tolerance for diversity. A civic education is the foundation of modern citizenship. Conceptually speaking, students never should have been graded on the basic principles of civics. Fifteen year olds should never have sorted on the basis of test scores at such an early stage. Students should never have been forcibly herded into certain specialties based on their academic scores. If they are, it will merely encourage students to engage in rote memorization. The result will be rigid thinking, the proliferation of cram schools, the homogenization of education, and the the inhibition of students' social development and aesthetic sensibilities. The consequences are difficult to enumerate. But they will surely manifest themselves in children after they mature. Premature specialization undermines social harmony and is unconducive to national prosperity. In a competitive society, no one objects to specialization. But modern society has an entirely different understanding of specialization. No one favors indiscriminately forcing immature 15-year-old children into this or that specialty based on general education academic scores.
No nation with a per capita income of 20,000 USD has a system like ours. None of them engages in large-scale screening between junior high and senior high. We urge President Ma to discuss the core problems of education with educational experts, to listen to their presentations, and truly understand the key issues in secondary education. Only then will he understand the importance of 12 year compulsory education. The Ministry of Education has raised the issue of inequality between high and mid level occupations. It has raised the issue of recruiting by a small number of elite senior high schools. It has raised the issue of educational funding. But none of these anywhere as serious as 12 year compulsory education. Implementation is more important than believing. Beginning is more important than planning. Getting up and doing is preferable to sitting and talking. One cannot refuse to eat because one might choke on one's food. This cannot be an excuse to delay 12 year compulsory education.
Twelve year compulsory education should have been implemented long ago. Plans were drawn up long ago. A timetable was proposed three years ago. Now the government is refusing to proceed merely because its leader has yet to fully comprehend the importance of 12 year compulsory education. Conferences held within the system will invariably issue recommendations that its leader wants to hear. Therefore the key question is: Just what is President Ma's understanding of 12 year compulsory education?
總統應了解12年國教重要性
2010-09-08
中國時報
八月廿八、廿九日兩天，台灣召開了兩天的「全國教育會議」。據報載，約九百人參與這次盛會，而會議也做成了十大項、廿八小項建議，內容包山包海，上自大學下至幼教，前起師培後迄學制，編篡起來大概又是四、五百頁的結論書。支出數百萬經費、花了兩天時間、動員數百人參與、彙整出沒有人要讀的雜亂意見，除了淪為「大拜拜」之譏外，也凸顯出當前教育主事者對於教育問題根本欠缺方向感。日前趙少康先生說，八成閣員需要撤換，文教首長大概非屬例外。
最諷刺的是，對於明顯重要、最受各界關注的議題，諸如大專院校的退場與國中升高中的學制方式等，卻稀釋在十大項建議之中，而未受到足夠的重視。全國教育會議的十大項結論包括現代公民、教育體制、全民運動、升學制度、高等教育、多元文化、師資培育、知識經濟、兩岸國際、終身學習，其中一大串都是沒有什麼意見衝突的、口說無憑貴在執行的、永遠都有改善空間的，有沒有結論意義並不大。這些雜沓議題不是不能談，但絕對犯不著召開九百多人的會議來談。
相對而言，真正有遠見、有視野、有開創性的議題，難免都有枝節意見歧議。主政者因為小歧異而不敢對人民給予承諾，卻對沒有爭議的瑣碎方向慷慨陳述，這就是教育會議令人悲哀之處。
如果要在這次會議大小廿八項決議中挑出對人民生活影響最大、對台灣未來改變最深遠的一項，無非就是十二年國教。全國教育會議結論說，該議題要召開跨部會研商小組，將來再宣布實施期程；這真是非常令人錯愕的結論。遠的不談，三年半前在蘇貞昌做行政院長、林萬億任文教政委時，就曾經浩浩蕩蕩宣布推動十二年國教。當時，行政院也研擬宣布過相關的配套與期程。雖然蘇貞昌下台了、政黨輪替了，但不是說政府施政是延續的嗎？為什麼堂堂行政院院會通過的案子，可以說停就停呢？馬政府在把十二年國教期程宣布往後拖兩年之際，是否也該對外說明，以前的方案究竟有什麼不對，有什麼不好呢？如果每一次行政院改組，就要將教改方案重起爐灶，那麼我們究竟要改還是不要改呢？
真正了解教育的有識之士都了解；要推十二年國教的最大理由，就是要解決國中升高中虛耗式競爭的瓶頸。國中、國小學生所學習的內容，都是非常基本的通識，是基礎公民教育的內涵，其目的是要培育孩子們健康、包容、多元的理解。 公民教育是現代國民的基礎，在概念上原本就沒有「公民基本智識哪個孩子優、哪個孩子劣」的分殊必要。一旦要在這不該分殊的十五歲階段以基測或採計學校成績的方式強行分流篩選，就會促使學童們反覆記誦練習那些「基本」知識。其結果，當然就是思考的僵化、補習的盛行、智育一元的突出、群育美育的抑制。這些後遺症難以一一名狀，卻絕對會顯現在孩子們長大後的種種表現。提早分流不但傷害社會的和諧、也不利於國家的發展。在競爭的社會，沒有人反對分流；但是在現代人本的理念之下，卻沒有人贊成對未成熟的十五歲孩子依據基礎通識濫行分流。
全世界所有人均國民所得近兩萬美元的國家，沒有一國像台灣這樣，還在國中升高中階段做大規模篩選的。我們建議馬總統花些時間，與真正了解核心教育問題的專家談一談，聽一聽他們的簡報，從概念上確實掌握當前中學教育的關鍵問題，如此才能把握推動十二年國教的重要性。至於教育部所提現有高中職不平等的問題、少數明星高中招生的問題、所需教育經費的問題，相對而言都不嚴重，而且是執行重於理念、起步重於規畫、坐而言不如起而行，不能因噎廢食，做為拖延十二年國教的藉口。
總之，十二年國教台灣早就該做了，早可以規畫了，三年前就提出期程了。現在的政府不做，只因為領導者還沒有真正了解十二年國教的重要性。體制內的會議總是會得出合乎長官意旨的結論；所以問題的關鍵是；馬總統對十二年國教的理解究竟是什麼？
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Rented Housing Should Replace Purchased Housing
Rented Housing Should Replace Purchased Housing
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2010
Taiwan's housing market and housing policy has never been so chaotic. On the one hand, the price of residential units offered by private sector construction firms in the most desirable parts of the city have skyrocketed. Regional price differences have increased and are in chaos. On the other hand, the government is responding to social problems caused by soaring prices. It is once again offering government housing. The Taipei City Government has announced that it will construct new public rental units in some of the city's most desirable districts. But the government must do far more. Now is the time for the government to promote social housing.
The Ministry of Finance National Property Administration recently announced its intention to make three plots of land available. The plots are located in highly desirable parts of Taipei City's Neihu and Da An Districts. In order to establish surface rights, it is holding public auctions for the right to construct rental housing for senior citizens, student dormitories and ordinary residences. Rents will be temporarily set at less than the prevailing market rate. We enthusiastically endorse the Ministry of Finance's policy of providing rental housing. This however must not be the full extent of the government's housing policy.
For the past six decades, the government had no housing policy. The government did nothing. Nearly all domestic residential housing units were built and sold by private builders. At most the government had a half-baked policy for government housing. But its policy, which called for the government to obtain the land, build the units, then sell them to qualified buyers, was riddled with problems. The quality of the buildings built by the government was poor. The outright sale of low cost housing may benefit the buyers of government housing units. But they put the government in the difficult position of having to endlessly obtain land and build units with ever diminishing resources. Such a policy is ultimately untenable. Such a form of government housing is a thing of the past.
Over the past twenty years, housing prices have risen. To help people purchase housing, to salvage the economic boom, and boost the real estate market, the government launched first time home buyers loans, discount mortgages, and Youth Home Loan policies. These however did not constitute a housing policy. This was merely a bunch of quick fixes in the absence of any housing policy,
Let us examine the housing policies of other governments. Singapore, like Taiwan, is predominantly Chinese society. It too subscribes to the notion that "land equals wealth." But Singapore has not experienced the same social problems as Taiwan, where high property prices have generated social problems. The main reason is Singapore's Housing & Development Board, which provides housing to almost 90 percent of the public. It rents government housing to low income citizens. Hong Kong is another region that is predominantly Chinese. Everyone assumes that housing in Hong Kong is continually hitting new highs, and that the general public has a hard time finding a place to live. But in fact the Hong Kong government has a long standing public housing policy. Nearly half the population lives in public housing. Lower income citizens live in housing leased to them by the government.
The United Kingdom survived the financial tsunami. The impression outsiders have is that British housing prices have skyrocketed due to speculation in the housing market. But in fact the British government still provides public housing to low income citizens. Nearly 20 percent of the population lives in public housing units leased to them by the government. Germany has so-called welfare housing. These are high-quality residential units built by the government and rented to those in need at low rates. If one's income exceeds a certain level however, one must vacate these units, or else rent them from the government at prevailing market rates. Sweden provides direct government investment in housing construction. Japan has its "residential parks" which provide new housing units for those in need.
As we have seen from the example of other countries, no matter how capitalistic and no matter how market oriented they might be, other governments intervene in the housing market to a greater or lesser degree. That is because housing is not a commodity that can be provided entirely by the private sector, or whose price can be determined by the market place. Treating housing purely as a market commodity, and allowing private capital to engage in speculation, will eventually lead to skyrocketing housing prices and social problems. After all, society has certain expectations of the government. It hopes that hard-working lower income people will at least have a place they can settle into. That is why so many governments have housing policies, and why the government directly intervenes in the marketplace. Depending on a nation's circumstances, it will rent or sell housing to the public.
Housing prices are soaring. The government would like to make government housing units available once again. It would like to introduce public rental housing. We hope the government will provide a more comprehensive, longer-term housing policy. The government needs a phased strategy to gradually increase the supply of public housing. In the past, housing was sold to the public. Once the units were sold, the government no longer possessed the means by which it could meet society's needs. Therefore, in the future public housing should be leased to the public rather than sold outright. The Executive Yuan plans to build a mass transit line to the airport, as well as 4000 units of affordable housing. These, for the most part, should be rented rather than sold. The government can set certain standards, allowing low income tenants to pay low rents. Tenants whose incomes exceed the standard will be required to relocate. Or else they will be required to pay the market rate, then move within a certain number of years.
The government's current response to the high price of housing is to impose aggressive controls on housing prices. This "kill them all" approach is both laborious and ineffective. It can easily lead to collateral damage. Young people, general office workers, and other ordinary people, are having trouble finding places to live. If the government had more public housing at its disposal, people who could not afford high prices could at least afford low-rent public housing. Current social grievances and social problems could be moderated. If on the other hand, the price of luxury housing skyrockets to two or five million NT per Ping, the government need not be too concerned.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.09.07
推動社會住宅 出租取代出售
本報訊
台灣的住宅市場與政策，從來沒有如此混亂。一方面，原本以民間建商提供的住宅，菁華區價格飆漲，各區域價格差異拉大又混亂；另一方面，政府為回應房價飆漲引發的社會問題，除了國宅重出江湖外，政府也宣布要在台北市菁華區，興建公益出租住宅。不過，政府該作的遠多於此，現在，該是政府推動社會住宅的時候了。
對財政部國產局日前宣布要把台北市內湖與大安區菁華區的三筆土地釋出，以設定地上權方式，採公益性招標，興建只租不賣的銀髮族住宅、學生宿舍及一般住宅，租金則暫訂為低於區域行情的價格。對財政部這項政策，特別是只租不售的作法，我們深表贊同與支持。但政府的整體住宅政策不能只有這樣。
回顧過去一甲子的台灣住宅市場，政府幾乎可說「毫無政策」。政府完全放手，國內的住宅幾乎全部由建商興建出售，勉強稱得上「半套政策」者是國宅政策。但這種由政府找地、興建、再出售給符合某一標準資格之民眾的國宅政策，卻是問題叢生。除了因政府興建，品質控管差外，因為採出售賣斷方式，雖然對購得較低價國宅的民眾而言，是獲利多多，但政府卻陷入不斷找地、興建的循環中，手中籌碼日益減少。終是無以為繼，國宅走入歷史。
至於這廿多年來，或是為因應房價上漲，協助民眾購屋；或是為挽救房地產與經濟景氣，鼓勵民眾購屋以拉抬房地產，政府陸續推出首購房貸、優惠房貸、青年購屋貸款…等政策，則根本稱不上一個住宅政策，充其量只是在毫無住宅政策下，推出修修補補的小作為罷了。
讓我們先看看其它國家的住宅政策吧。與台灣同樣是華人、同樣有「有土斯有財」觀念的新加坡，就未如台灣般，發生高房價引發的社會問題，主要原因就是星國政府的建屋局，提供近九成住宅給民眾；對低收入者，則有政府興建的住宅可租用。另外一個華人地區香港，雖然大家認為香港房價不斷創新高，一般民眾恐難有立錐之處，但事實上港府有一套行之多年的公營住宅政策，近半民眾住在所謂的公屋內，較低收入者則是向政府承租公屋。
即使是英國，雖然在金融海嘯中，外界的印象是英國房價亦炒作翻天，但事實上英國政府的住宅政策，仍有由政府提供住宅租給較低收入者，而且承租政府公有住宅者達二成。德國則有所謂的福利房，由政府興建高品質的住宅，並以低價租給需要的民眾，但如民眾收入超過某一水準，則要退租，否則就要以市場行情向政府承租。瑞典有政府直接投資興建的住宅，日本也有「住宅公團」興建房子提供給需要的民眾。
因此，縱觀各國情況，不論是多麼資本主義、多麼市場經濟的國家，政府都有一定程度的介入住宅市場。因為，房子絕對不是單純的一個「商品」，可以完全由民間提供，讓市場決定價格。把房子視為百分之百的商品，任由民間資金炒作、造成房價飆漲，最後一定成為社會問題。畢竟，社會對政府有期許，希望讓那些努力工作但收入較低的民眾，至少有一個安身立命的居住地。因此，各國政府皆訂有住宅政策，政府也都直接介入市場，或租或賣，視國情與條件而定。
因此，在面對這波房價飆漲，政府要讓國宅重出江湖，推出出租的公益住宅之際，我們期待政府，能提出更完整、更長遠的住宅政策。政府應有步驟、有策略的逐步增加公住宅的供給。而鑑於過去國宅多出售給民眾，出售後政府即再無籌碼因應社會需求，因此，未來政府提供的公住宅應以出租而非出售為主。行政院規畫在機場捷運線興建的四千戶平價國宅，就該以出租而非出售為主。政府可訂定一定標準，以低廉的租金讓中低收入者承租。收入超過標準者則需強制搬遷，否則就要以市場行情承租，且在一定年限內要搬遷。
政府現在因應高房價的重要對策，是努力的「打房」，這種「一律砍殺」的作法，其實是費力多又收效少，更容易「誤殺」。因為，現在問題在年輕人、一般上班族等升斗小民難有立錐之地。如果，政府手上有較多的公住宅為籌碼，這些趕不上房價的民眾，至少能以低廉租金承租公住宅，原有的民怨與社會問題，應可平復。至於豪宅要飆到每坪二百萬還是五百萬，政府就甭太介意了。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 7, 2010
Taiwan's housing market and housing policy has never been so chaotic. On the one hand, the price of residential units offered by private sector construction firms in the most desirable parts of the city have skyrocketed. Regional price differences have increased and are in chaos. On the other hand, the government is responding to social problems caused by soaring prices. It is once again offering government housing. The Taipei City Government has announced that it will construct new public rental units in some of the city's most desirable districts. But the government must do far more. Now is the time for the government to promote social housing.
The Ministry of Finance National Property Administration recently announced its intention to make three plots of land available. The plots are located in highly desirable parts of Taipei City's Neihu and Da An Districts. In order to establish surface rights, it is holding public auctions for the right to construct rental housing for senior citizens, student dormitories and ordinary residences. Rents will be temporarily set at less than the prevailing market rate. We enthusiastically endorse the Ministry of Finance's policy of providing rental housing. This however must not be the full extent of the government's housing policy.
For the past six decades, the government had no housing policy. The government did nothing. Nearly all domestic residential housing units were built and sold by private builders. At most the government had a half-baked policy for government housing. But its policy, which called for the government to obtain the land, build the units, then sell them to qualified buyers, was riddled with problems. The quality of the buildings built by the government was poor. The outright sale of low cost housing may benefit the buyers of government housing units. But they put the government in the difficult position of having to endlessly obtain land and build units with ever diminishing resources. Such a policy is ultimately untenable. Such a form of government housing is a thing of the past.
Over the past twenty years, housing prices have risen. To help people purchase housing, to salvage the economic boom, and boost the real estate market, the government launched first time home buyers loans, discount mortgages, and Youth Home Loan policies. These however did not constitute a housing policy. This was merely a bunch of quick fixes in the absence of any housing policy,
Let us examine the housing policies of other governments. Singapore, like Taiwan, is predominantly Chinese society. It too subscribes to the notion that "land equals wealth." But Singapore has not experienced the same social problems as Taiwan, where high property prices have generated social problems. The main reason is Singapore's Housing & Development Board, which provides housing to almost 90 percent of the public. It rents government housing to low income citizens. Hong Kong is another region that is predominantly Chinese. Everyone assumes that housing in Hong Kong is continually hitting new highs, and that the general public has a hard time finding a place to live. But in fact the Hong Kong government has a long standing public housing policy. Nearly half the population lives in public housing. Lower income citizens live in housing leased to them by the government.
The United Kingdom survived the financial tsunami. The impression outsiders have is that British housing prices have skyrocketed due to speculation in the housing market. But in fact the British government still provides public housing to low income citizens. Nearly 20 percent of the population lives in public housing units leased to them by the government. Germany has so-called welfare housing. These are high-quality residential units built by the government and rented to those in need at low rates. If one's income exceeds a certain level however, one must vacate these units, or else rent them from the government at prevailing market rates. Sweden provides direct government investment in housing construction. Japan has its "residential parks" which provide new housing units for those in need.
As we have seen from the example of other countries, no matter how capitalistic and no matter how market oriented they might be, other governments intervene in the housing market to a greater or lesser degree. That is because housing is not a commodity that can be provided entirely by the private sector, or whose price can be determined by the market place. Treating housing purely as a market commodity, and allowing private capital to engage in speculation, will eventually lead to skyrocketing housing prices and social problems. After all, society has certain expectations of the government. It hopes that hard-working lower income people will at least have a place they can settle into. That is why so many governments have housing policies, and why the government directly intervenes in the marketplace. Depending on a nation's circumstances, it will rent or sell housing to the public.
Housing prices are soaring. The government would like to make government housing units available once again. It would like to introduce public rental housing. We hope the government will provide a more comprehensive, longer-term housing policy. The government needs a phased strategy to gradually increase the supply of public housing. In the past, housing was sold to the public. Once the units were sold, the government no longer possessed the means by which it could meet society's needs. Therefore, in the future public housing should be leased to the public rather than sold outright. The Executive Yuan plans to build a mass transit line to the airport, as well as 4000 units of affordable housing. These, for the most part, should be rented rather than sold. The government can set certain standards, allowing low income tenants to pay low rents. Tenants whose incomes exceed the standard will be required to relocate. Or else they will be required to pay the market rate, then move within a certain number of years.
The government's current response to the high price of housing is to impose aggressive controls on housing prices. This "kill them all" approach is both laborious and ineffective. It can easily lead to collateral damage. Young people, general office workers, and other ordinary people, are having trouble finding places to live. If the government had more public housing at its disposal, people who could not afford high prices could at least afford low-rent public housing. Current social grievances and social problems could be moderated. If on the other hand, the price of luxury housing skyrockets to two or five million NT per Ping, the government need not be too concerned.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.09.07
推動社會住宅 出租取代出售
本報訊
台灣的住宅市場與政策，從來沒有如此混亂。一方面，原本以民間建商提供的住宅，菁華區價格飆漲，各區域價格差異拉大又混亂；另一方面，政府為回應房價飆漲引發的社會問題，除了國宅重出江湖外，政府也宣布要在台北市菁華區，興建公益出租住宅。不過，政府該作的遠多於此，現在，該是政府推動社會住宅的時候了。
對財政部國產局日前宣布要把台北市內湖與大安區菁華區的三筆土地釋出，以設定地上權方式，採公益性招標，興建只租不賣的銀髮族住宅、學生宿舍及一般住宅，租金則暫訂為低於區域行情的價格。對財政部這項政策，特別是只租不售的作法，我們深表贊同與支持。但政府的整體住宅政策不能只有這樣。
回顧過去一甲子的台灣住宅市場，政府幾乎可說「毫無政策」。政府完全放手，國內的住宅幾乎全部由建商興建出售，勉強稱得上「半套政策」者是國宅政策。但這種由政府找地、興建、再出售給符合某一標準資格之民眾的國宅政策，卻是問題叢生。除了因政府興建，品質控管差外，因為採出售賣斷方式，雖然對購得較低價國宅的民眾而言，是獲利多多，但政府卻陷入不斷找地、興建的循環中，手中籌碼日益減少。終是無以為繼，國宅走入歷史。
至於這廿多年來，或是為因應房價上漲，協助民眾購屋；或是為挽救房地產與經濟景氣，鼓勵民眾購屋以拉抬房地產，政府陸續推出首購房貸、優惠房貸、青年購屋貸款…等政策，則根本稱不上一個住宅政策，充其量只是在毫無住宅政策下，推出修修補補的小作為罷了。
讓我們先看看其它國家的住宅政策吧。與台灣同樣是華人、同樣有「有土斯有財」觀念的新加坡，就未如台灣般，發生高房價引發的社會問題，主要原因就是星國政府的建屋局，提供近九成住宅給民眾；對低收入者，則有政府興建的住宅可租用。另外一個華人地區香港，雖然大家認為香港房價不斷創新高，一般民眾恐難有立錐之處，但事實上港府有一套行之多年的公營住宅政策，近半民眾住在所謂的公屋內，較低收入者則是向政府承租公屋。
即使是英國，雖然在金融海嘯中，外界的印象是英國房價亦炒作翻天，但事實上英國政府的住宅政策，仍有由政府提供住宅租給較低收入者，而且承租政府公有住宅者達二成。德國則有所謂的福利房，由政府興建高品質的住宅，並以低價租給需要的民眾，但如民眾收入超過某一水準，則要退租，否則就要以市場行情向政府承租。瑞典有政府直接投資興建的住宅，日本也有「住宅公團」興建房子提供給需要的民眾。
因此，縱觀各國情況，不論是多麼資本主義、多麼市場經濟的國家，政府都有一定程度的介入住宅市場。因為，房子絕對不是單純的一個「商品」，可以完全由民間提供，讓市場決定價格。把房子視為百分之百的商品，任由民間資金炒作、造成房價飆漲，最後一定成為社會問題。畢竟，社會對政府有期許，希望讓那些努力工作但收入較低的民眾，至少有一個安身立命的居住地。因此，各國政府皆訂有住宅政策，政府也都直接介入市場，或租或賣，視國情與條件而定。
因此，在面對這波房價飆漲，政府要讓國宅重出江湖，推出出租的公益住宅之際，我們期待政府，能提出更完整、更長遠的住宅政策。政府應有步驟、有策略的逐步增加公住宅的供給。而鑑於過去國宅多出售給民眾，出售後政府即再無籌碼因應社會需求，因此，未來政府提供的公住宅應以出租而非出售為主。行政院規畫在機場捷運線興建的四千戶平價國宅，就該以出租而非出售為主。政府可訂定一定標準，以低廉的租金讓中低收入者承租。收入超過標準者則需強制搬遷，否則就要以市場行情承租，且在一定年限內要搬遷。
政府現在因應高房價的重要對策，是努力的「打房」，這種「一律砍殺」的作法，其實是費力多又收效少，更容易「誤殺」。因為，現在問題在年輕人、一般上班族等升斗小民難有立錐之地。如果，政府手上有較多的公住宅為籌碼，這些趕不上房價的民眾，至少能以低廉租金承租公住宅，原有的民怨與社會問題，應可平復。至於豪宅要飆到每坪二百萬還是五百萬，政府就甭太介意了。
Monday, September 6, 2010
Ah-Bian is Raking Muck, Again
Ah-Bian is Raking Muck, Again
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 6, 2010
Former President Chen Shui-bian has published yet another book. This time, the "king of muckrakers" has shown a real eye for marketing. He chose October 9, the eve of the 99th October 10 Republic of China National Day to publish his new book. President Ma Ying-jeou will soon be announcing a series of events commemorating the Republic of China Centennial. Former President Chen has chosen to go head to head with President Ma in a contest of political charisma. The timing of the book's release, its title, and even its content, are certain to make Chen the focus of public attention. The title of his new book is "The 1.86 Ping Presidential Office." [Note: 1.86 Ping is approximately 6 Square Meters] Its contents include revelations about Taipei/Beijing/Washington trilateral diplomacy.
It makes no difference how long has been out of office. It makes no difference where he has ended up. Chen Shui-bian always has a knack for making himself the center of attention. Actually, Chen longs not merely to be the center of attention. Chen longs for genuine political influence. At the beginning of the five cities elections, Chen Shui-bian, a guest of the Taipei Detention Center, was nevertheless eager to mastermind the DPP's nomination process and election strategy. When the "Chen Shui-bian card" proved ineffective, former President Chen, ever the realist, acknowledged his defeat at the hands of DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, and praised her as a "brilliant chairman." But Chen Shui-bian remains convinced that his ongoing detention was a key contributor to the DPP's recent string of electoral victories. No matter how much the outside world may change, within his 1.86 Ping jail cell, Chen Shui-bian still believes he can manipulate the strategic political scene. In one sense, he does enjoy greater freedom than he did while he occupied the real presidential palace. He can say all sorts of things the president dare not say and should not say. Within his 1.86 Ping jail cell, Chen Shui-bian is now free of all taboos.
Chen Shui-bian's chief counsel Chen Song-shan said that Chen Shui-bian's book contains over 10,000 words of information never before made public. They include secrets pertaining to the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington, cross-Strait relations, military relations, and foreign affairs. Chen Sung-shan said the contents were explosive. As an ex-president, Chen Shui-bian of course had many opportunities to hear and even make decisions pertinent to the Republic of China's diplomatic interests, national security interests, and national defense interests. He may be an ex-president, but many of these matters remain highly sensitive. Therefore he must exercise prudence before making them public.
Every time Chen Shui-bian engaged in muckraking, he gained media attention. Maybe that is why he became an obsessive muckraker. Some TV pundits are the same way. So are some participants in the ongoing "Life in the Cram Schools" sex scandals. Like Chen Shui-bian, the more they are offered a public forum, the more addicted they become to their notoriety. Chen Shui-bian's retirement office has announced the number of books Chen has sold since his detention. His first book, "Taiwan's Cross," which is now in its sixth printing, sold 47,000 copies. His second book, "Voice that Cannot be Imprisoned," whic is now in its second printing, sold 30 000 copies. His third book, "The 1.86 Ping Presidential Office," has yet to be published. Because of its explosive content, it is likely to become a bestseller. Based on the number of books he has published, the amount of attention they have attracted, and the volume of book sales, Chen Shui-bian must be considered a best-selling author. The book market is in a downturn. Even books authored by powerful and influential people do not always sell. Whether Chen Shui-bian has any writing ability, we leave to others. But his ability to generate controversy is undeniable. Ah-Bian's skills as a muckraker and rabble-rouser cannot be denied.
When Chen rakes muck, he does not discriminate. Everyone and everything is fair game. In his "Voice that Cannot Be Imprisoned," he revealed that his daughter Chen Hsing-yu was a victim of infidelity. The couple was married for nearly a decade. They had three sons. They lived through the Taiwan Development Corporation Scandal, and Chen Hsing-yu's public denunciation of her father in law. Chen Hsing-yu's marriage to Chao Chien-ming may need to be nursed back to health. Chen Hsing-yu has long detested media harassment and media coverage. Chen Shui-bian's daughter and her ex-boyfriend have long since married other people. They are no longer in contact, and neither have made public their past affairs. Why Chen Shui-bian chose to write such an expose so many years later, leaves many people bewildered. These were private matters that affected only the Chen family. Even a compulsive muckraker who made public such secrets, would embarrass only his own family and a few private individuals. He would have little impact on the national interest. Chen Shui-bian might have a big mouth. But as long as his exposes are confined to private matters, the rest of us need not be concerned.
But if as Chen's retirement office said, Chen Shui-bian's third book will be a major expose of the Republic of China's national defense secrets and diplomatic secrets, then the matter cannot be taken lightly. The Republic of China has more than its share of diplomatic problems. Cross-Strait relations are strewn with mines. As a former president, Chen Shui-bian cannot be unaware of this. Many things may be done covertly, may not be mentioned overtly. If they are, it will ring disaster down on the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian said many things he should not have, merely because he was running for office, or because he liked showing off. Officially, Chen was in a sensitive situation. Diplomatically, the Republic of China was in a difficult dilemma. His loud-mouthed behavior negatively impacted the nation. The United States responded bluntly, even insultingly. Chen Shui-bian may have responded by merely "wiping the spit off his face." But frankly, seeing one's president treated in this manner by his counterparts, made many on Taiwan very uncomfortable.
Chen may be attempting to promote book sales. He may be attempting to lash out at his political opponents. But before former president Chen blurts out national security secrets, we urge him and his publishers to think twice. Shooting off his mouth will not merely humiliate Chen Shui-bian and the public on Taiwan. Loose lips could inflict grievous harm on the Taiwan Chen Shui-bian purports to love so dearly.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.09.06
爆料扁又要出書 可別中傷台灣
本報訊
前總統陳水扁又要出書了！爆料天王這次非常有行銷眼光，將選在十月九日、也就是十月十日中華民國九十九歲生日的前一天出版新書。不但在時間上，阿扁總統會跟屆時將宣布建國一百年系列活動的馬英九總統來個總統魅力大車拚，連書名和內容，陳水扁都肯定能夠吸引到所有的目光，因為他的新書叫做《一.八六坪的總統府》，內容則將大爆台中美三邊的外交秘辛。真的夠嗆吧！
不管卸任多久，也不管身在何處，陳水扁總有辦法讓自己成為鎂光燈的焦點，不只是焦點，阿扁要的其實是實質的影響力。五都大戰剛開始時，人在北所的陳水扁依然渴望對民進黨的提名人選與選戰策略下指導棋；「阿扁牌」失靈後，陳前總統識時務地向民進黨黨主席蔡英文輸誠，讚美一聲「主席英明」；但陳水扁至今仍認為自己被收押是民進黨此次選情一路長紅的關鍵性因素。不論外面的世界變化多少，在北所一.八六坪的空間裡，陳水扁當然可以繼續活在他對大局仍有影響的想像中，所以他把一.八六坪的收押空間當做總統府；然而，從某個角度來看，其實這裡可能比真正的總統府還擁有更多自由的滋味。例如，很多總統不敢說不該說的話，陳水扁在這一.八六坪裡百無禁忌。
陳水扁透過扁辦主任陳淞山表示，新書有一萬多字是從來沒有對外公開的資料，內容包括台美中三角關係、兩岸互動與軍事外交等，陳淞山說內容具有爆炸性。曾經身為總統，陳水扁當然有機會與聞、甚至決定很多事關台灣權益與國家安全的外交、國防事務，雖然他已是卸任總統，但這些事是不是已過了最敏感的時間、可以對外公開，仍須謹慎以對。
或許是因為每次陳水扁爆料總能讓他大受外界矚目，讓他成了一個爆料狂，就像電視上一些大嫂團或者人夫團成員、甚至最近熱鬧演不完的「補教人生系列」一樣，陳水扁愈講愈上癮了。扁辦曾統計陳水扁被羈押後所出版書的銷售量：第一本書《台灣的十字架》，共印了六刷、四萬七千本；第二本書《關不住的聲音》印了兩刷、共三萬本；而即將出版的第三本書《一.八六坪的總統府》因內容爆炸，預估也很可能會成為暢銷書。以書籍的印量、引發的關注度與銷售量來看，陳水扁無疑已是暢銷作家；如今，書市不景氣，即使是位高權重者寫的書，讀者也不一定捧場，阿扁的文采如何，外界自有公評，但他的著作之所以總是能夠創造話題，不可諱言，靠著爆料扁與造勢扁雙管齊下，功不可沒。
陳水扁爆料向來葷素不忌，他曾在《關不住的聲音》裡談到女兒陳幸妤當年的情傷事件，大爆女兒被人劈腿。結婚近十年、生了三個兒子又經過「台開案」與「街頭飆罵公公」事件後，陳幸妤跟趙建銘的婚姻或許需要更多調養空間，況且陳幸妤向來非常厭惡媒體追蹤、報導，身為父親的陳水扁為什麼要在事隔多年、女兒與前男友都早已女嫁男婚、各不往來後，公開往事，的確讓很多人不解。然而，無論如何，這些畢竟都是扁家的家務事，就算他有「曝露狂」也只是讓家人或者一些當事人難堪、難受而已，對公共、國家利益沒有太多影響，因此就算陳水扁個人有某種大嘴巴習慣，別人也沒輒。
然而，如果真如扁辦所言，陳水扁的第三本書將會大爆台灣國防、外交的料，那就不能等閒視之。台灣外交困難重重，兩岸關係處處敏感，曾經身為總統的陳水扁不可能不知道，很多事能做不能說，說了會給台灣帶來不利甚至傷害；過去，陳水扁的確有因為選舉或者愛秀等，說出一些不該說的話，以致於對某些身分敏感的人和台灣的處境造成不良影響的紀錄；他也曾因為多話，被美國相關人員予以直接且甚至近似斥責的回應，雖然當時陳水扁選擇唾面自乾，但說實在話，看到自己的總統被他國如此對應，很多台灣人的心裡實在很不舒服。
無論是為了打書還是打擊政敵，如要大爆國安秘辛，還請陳前總統及出版單位三思─這種大嘴巴的結果可能並不只是讓陳水扁自己或者台灣人覺得丟臉而已，因為，如果發言不慎，可能傷及他口口聲聲最愛的台灣。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 6, 2010
Former President Chen Shui-bian has published yet another book. This time, the "king of muckrakers" has shown a real eye for marketing. He chose October 9, the eve of the 99th October 10 Republic of China National Day to publish his new book. President Ma Ying-jeou will soon be announcing a series of events commemorating the Republic of China Centennial. Former President Chen has chosen to go head to head with President Ma in a contest of political charisma. The timing of the book's release, its title, and even its content, are certain to make Chen the focus of public attention. The title of his new book is "The 1.86 Ping Presidential Office." [Note: 1.86 Ping is approximately 6 Square Meters] Its contents include revelations about Taipei/Beijing/Washington trilateral diplomacy.
It makes no difference how long has been out of office. It makes no difference where he has ended up. Chen Shui-bian always has a knack for making himself the center of attention. Actually, Chen longs not merely to be the center of attention. Chen longs for genuine political influence. At the beginning of the five cities elections, Chen Shui-bian, a guest of the Taipei Detention Center, was nevertheless eager to mastermind the DPP's nomination process and election strategy. When the "Chen Shui-bian card" proved ineffective, former President Chen, ever the realist, acknowledged his defeat at the hands of DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen, and praised her as a "brilliant chairman." But Chen Shui-bian remains convinced that his ongoing detention was a key contributor to the DPP's recent string of electoral victories. No matter how much the outside world may change, within his 1.86 Ping jail cell, Chen Shui-bian still believes he can manipulate the strategic political scene. In one sense, he does enjoy greater freedom than he did while he occupied the real presidential palace. He can say all sorts of things the president dare not say and should not say. Within his 1.86 Ping jail cell, Chen Shui-bian is now free of all taboos.
Chen Shui-bian's chief counsel Chen Song-shan said that Chen Shui-bian's book contains over 10,000 words of information never before made public. They include secrets pertaining to the triangular relationship between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington, cross-Strait relations, military relations, and foreign affairs. Chen Sung-shan said the contents were explosive. As an ex-president, Chen Shui-bian of course had many opportunities to hear and even make decisions pertinent to the Republic of China's diplomatic interests, national security interests, and national defense interests. He may be an ex-president, but many of these matters remain highly sensitive. Therefore he must exercise prudence before making them public.
Every time Chen Shui-bian engaged in muckraking, he gained media attention. Maybe that is why he became an obsessive muckraker. Some TV pundits are the same way. So are some participants in the ongoing "Life in the Cram Schools" sex scandals. Like Chen Shui-bian, the more they are offered a public forum, the more addicted they become to their notoriety. Chen Shui-bian's retirement office has announced the number of books Chen has sold since his detention. His first book, "Taiwan's Cross," which is now in its sixth printing, sold 47,000 copies. His second book, "Voice that Cannot be Imprisoned," whic is now in its second printing, sold 30 000 copies. His third book, "The 1.86 Ping Presidential Office," has yet to be published. Because of its explosive content, it is likely to become a bestseller. Based on the number of books he has published, the amount of attention they have attracted, and the volume of book sales, Chen Shui-bian must be considered a best-selling author. The book market is in a downturn. Even books authored by powerful and influential people do not always sell. Whether Chen Shui-bian has any writing ability, we leave to others. But his ability to generate controversy is undeniable. Ah-Bian's skills as a muckraker and rabble-rouser cannot be denied.
When Chen rakes muck, he does not discriminate. Everyone and everything is fair game. In his "Voice that Cannot Be Imprisoned," he revealed that his daughter Chen Hsing-yu was a victim of infidelity. The couple was married for nearly a decade. They had three sons. They lived through the Taiwan Development Corporation Scandal, and Chen Hsing-yu's public denunciation of her father in law. Chen Hsing-yu's marriage to Chao Chien-ming may need to be nursed back to health. Chen Hsing-yu has long detested media harassment and media coverage. Chen Shui-bian's daughter and her ex-boyfriend have long since married other people. They are no longer in contact, and neither have made public their past affairs. Why Chen Shui-bian chose to write such an expose so many years later, leaves many people bewildered. These were private matters that affected only the Chen family. Even a compulsive muckraker who made public such secrets, would embarrass only his own family and a few private individuals. He would have little impact on the national interest. Chen Shui-bian might have a big mouth. But as long as his exposes are confined to private matters, the rest of us need not be concerned.
But if as Chen's retirement office said, Chen Shui-bian's third book will be a major expose of the Republic of China's national defense secrets and diplomatic secrets, then the matter cannot be taken lightly. The Republic of China has more than its share of diplomatic problems. Cross-Strait relations are strewn with mines. As a former president, Chen Shui-bian cannot be unaware of this. Many things may be done covertly, may not be mentioned overtly. If they are, it will ring disaster down on the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian said many things he should not have, merely because he was running for office, or because he liked showing off. Officially, Chen was in a sensitive situation. Diplomatically, the Republic of China was in a difficult dilemma. His loud-mouthed behavior negatively impacted the nation. The United States responded bluntly, even insultingly. Chen Shui-bian may have responded by merely "wiping the spit off his face." But frankly, seeing one's president treated in this manner by his counterparts, made many on Taiwan very uncomfortable.
Chen may be attempting to promote book sales. He may be attempting to lash out at his political opponents. But before former president Chen blurts out national security secrets, we urge him and his publishers to think twice. Shooting off his mouth will not merely humiliate Chen Shui-bian and the public on Taiwan. Loose lips could inflict grievous harm on the Taiwan Chen Shui-bian purports to love so dearly.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2010.09.06
爆料扁又要出書 可別中傷台灣
本報訊
前總統陳水扁又要出書了！爆料天王這次非常有行銷眼光，將選在十月九日、也就是十月十日中華民國九十九歲生日的前一天出版新書。不但在時間上，阿扁總統會跟屆時將宣布建國一百年系列活動的馬英九總統來個總統魅力大車拚，連書名和內容，陳水扁都肯定能夠吸引到所有的目光，因為他的新書叫做《一.八六坪的總統府》，內容則將大爆台中美三邊的外交秘辛。真的夠嗆吧！
不管卸任多久，也不管身在何處，陳水扁總有辦法讓自己成為鎂光燈的焦點，不只是焦點，阿扁要的其實是實質的影響力。五都大戰剛開始時，人在北所的陳水扁依然渴望對民進黨的提名人選與選戰策略下指導棋；「阿扁牌」失靈後，陳前總統識時務地向民進黨黨主席蔡英文輸誠，讚美一聲「主席英明」；但陳水扁至今仍認為自己被收押是民進黨此次選情一路長紅的關鍵性因素。不論外面的世界變化多少，在北所一.八六坪的空間裡，陳水扁當然可以繼續活在他對大局仍有影響的想像中，所以他把一.八六坪的收押空間當做總統府；然而，從某個角度來看，其實這裡可能比真正的總統府還擁有更多自由的滋味。例如，很多總統不敢說不該說的話，陳水扁在這一.八六坪裡百無禁忌。
陳水扁透過扁辦主任陳淞山表示，新書有一萬多字是從來沒有對外公開的資料，內容包括台美中三角關係、兩岸互動與軍事外交等，陳淞山說內容具有爆炸性。曾經身為總統，陳水扁當然有機會與聞、甚至決定很多事關台灣權益與國家安全的外交、國防事務，雖然他已是卸任總統，但這些事是不是已過了最敏感的時間、可以對外公開，仍須謹慎以對。
或許是因為每次陳水扁爆料總能讓他大受外界矚目，讓他成了一個爆料狂，就像電視上一些大嫂團或者人夫團成員、甚至最近熱鬧演不完的「補教人生系列」一樣，陳水扁愈講愈上癮了。扁辦曾統計陳水扁被羈押後所出版書的銷售量：第一本書《台灣的十字架》，共印了六刷、四萬七千本；第二本書《關不住的聲音》印了兩刷、共三萬本；而即將出版的第三本書《一.八六坪的總統府》因內容爆炸，預估也很可能會成為暢銷書。以書籍的印量、引發的關注度與銷售量來看，陳水扁無疑已是暢銷作家；如今，書市不景氣，即使是位高權重者寫的書，讀者也不一定捧場，阿扁的文采如何，外界自有公評，但他的著作之所以總是能夠創造話題，不可諱言，靠著爆料扁與造勢扁雙管齊下，功不可沒。
陳水扁爆料向來葷素不忌，他曾在《關不住的聲音》裡談到女兒陳幸妤當年的情傷事件，大爆女兒被人劈腿。結婚近十年、生了三個兒子又經過「台開案」與「街頭飆罵公公」事件後，陳幸妤跟趙建銘的婚姻或許需要更多調養空間，況且陳幸妤向來非常厭惡媒體追蹤、報導，身為父親的陳水扁為什麼要在事隔多年、女兒與前男友都早已女嫁男婚、各不往來後，公開往事，的確讓很多人不解。然而，無論如何，這些畢竟都是扁家的家務事，就算他有「曝露狂」也只是讓家人或者一些當事人難堪、難受而已，對公共、國家利益沒有太多影響，因此就算陳水扁個人有某種大嘴巴習慣，別人也沒輒。
然而，如果真如扁辦所言，陳水扁的第三本書將會大爆台灣國防、外交的料，那就不能等閒視之。台灣外交困難重重，兩岸關係處處敏感，曾經身為總統的陳水扁不可能不知道，很多事能做不能說，說了會給台灣帶來不利甚至傷害；過去，陳水扁的確有因為選舉或者愛秀等，說出一些不該說的話，以致於對某些身分敏感的人和台灣的處境造成不良影響的紀錄；他也曾因為多話，被美國相關人員予以直接且甚至近似斥責的回應，雖然當時陳水扁選擇唾面自乾，但說實在話，看到自己的總統被他國如此對應，很多台灣人的心裡實在很不舒服。
無論是為了打書還是打擊政敵，如要大爆國安秘辛，還請陳前總統及出版單位三思─這種大嘴巴的結果可能並不只是讓陳水扁自己或者台灣人覺得丟臉而已，因為，如果發言不慎，可能傷及他口口聲聲最愛的台灣。
Friday, September 3, 2010
Expose City Hall, But Do Not Destroy the Flora Expo
Expose City Hall, But Do Not Destroy the Flora ExpoUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 3, 2010
The DPP has turned the Taipei International Flora Exposition into a campaign issue. Their move has left members of the Hao Lung-ping city government on tenterhooks. It has also turned the Flora Expo into headline news, well in advance of its official opening. But when the smoke surrounding the flower growers cleared, many people learned for the first time that the Flora Expo was never a "one man show" for the Taipei City Government. Rather it is an international flower show important to Taiwan as a whole. Taiwan flower growers have high expectations. They hope the Flora Expo will establish Taiwan as a "Kingdom of Flower" on the international stage.
The general public's superficial impression is that the Flora Expo is merely the Hao city government's attempt at self-aggrandizement. It is evidence of budget abuses in the nation's capital. Therefore some think that nearly 10 billion NT for a Flora exhibit of flowers which will eventually wither and die, is simply a waste of money. In fact, the Flora Expo was organized in 2006 by the Ma city government and the flower growing industry on Taiwan. Together they applied to the organizers of the International Horticultural Exposition, and won the right to hold the Flora Expo. It was no mean feat. In other words, the Flora Expo is a stage for everyone on Taiwan. It is not a one man show for Hao Lung-ping. It is not a solo performance by the Taipei City Government.
More importantly, it is different from sporting events such as the Kaohsiung World Games and the Deaflympics in Taipei. The purpose of the Flora Expo is to showcase to the world the diversity, productive capacity, and creativity of Taiwan's flower growing industry. The Flora Expo will promote the manufacturing industry and tourism. It will run for six months. Its planning, implementation, and maintenance will all require the close involvement and cooperation of the local flower industry. Only then will it be able to maintain the quality of the expo and its attractions. The project is vaster, more complicated and more difficult than one can imagine. This is precisely why the Flora Expo requires close coordination between all parties involved. Even more importantly, this grand event will require goodwill and support by outsiders.
The Flora Expo will open in November. It will coincide with the five cities elections. It was inevitable that the Flora Expo would become a campaign issue. The DPP has played the Xinsheng Highway Overpass construction scandal card. Now it is playing the Flora Expo card. Naturally its strategy is to play it by ear. Inattention and carelessnes on the part of Mayor Hau's city government handed the DPP a pretext. The Hau city government has only itself to blame, no one else. We would also like to remind the DPP however, that it cannot equate opposition to the Flora Expo with "whistleblowing." If it lashes out indiscriminately at the Flora Expo in an effort to hit Hao Lung-ping where it hurts, the DPP may fall into its own trap.
One. As mentioned above, the Flora Expo is a stage on which Taiwan flower growers can market themselves to the world, and establish an international image. It represents the common interests of flower growers and the public. Hau Lung-pin is merely the individual charged with the construction of this stage. The public has no desire to see this stage for the entire nation discredited, and even destroyed. Two. The public supports whistleblowing. But it does not support the sowing of confusion and the villification of hard-working individuals. The Green Camp is attempting to equate the Xinsheng Highway Overpass scandal with the Flora Expo. The fact is, among 3000 species of flowers, only four kinds involved excessively high price quotes. The DPP went after a sparrow with anti-aircraft artillery. It seriously undermined the image of the Flora Expo. Its methods were disproportionate to its ends. Three. The flower growing industry has invested four years of hard work in the Flora Expo. The Flora Expo has purchased 20 billion NT worth of flowers from from local flower growers. The Flora Expo is also expected to attract eight million tourists. It will create 14 billion NT in indirect benefits. Four. The Flora Expo, like the Kaohsiung World Games and the Deaflympics in Taipei, are efforts to allow Taiwan to shine. Who can tolerate anyone wantonly discrediting it? It may not be difficult for the DPP to resort to political means to destroy its targets. But is it prepared to assume responsibility for the consequences?
We urge the DPP to be careful. The Flora Expo is a stage that many members of the public value and have invested their dreams for a better future. The Green Camp is beginning to engage in indiscriminate artillery fire. For example, 90% of the merchandise sold on the perirphery of the Flora Expo is made in Taiwan. Yet Green Camp elected officials listen only to handful of people who complain that the souvenirs "are all made in [Mainland] China." Such rhetoric is irresponsible. Perhaps it is the by-product of blasting Hao for becoming too full of himself. But why should the Flora Expo be the one to suffer? Flower growers complained that city officials were too finicky when selecting the flowers they wanted. But what is that, except evidence that the Hao city government was taking great pains to do its job properly?
The Flora Expo is getting closer with each passing day. It is continually creating new miracles in planting and cultivation technology. Its annual output has reached 120 billion NT. This shows how far Taiwan's green industries have come. The Taipei Flora Expo is our first step in challenging Holland's status as the "Kingdom of Flowers." In any event, the Flora Expo must not be aborted by internal bickering. The Flora Expo is a stage to be shared by everyone on Taiwan. Whether Blue or Green, everyone must share this consensus.
A Western proverb says, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." By the same token, a problem arose with the pricing for a handful of flowers. The proper response is to investigate the matter, demand accountability, and determine whether corruption was involved. The proper response is not to tar everyone with the same broad brush. The proper response is not to malign the Flora Expo as a hotbed of corruption, and utterly worthless. If a tree becomes infested with a few insects, should we get eliminate the pests, or cut down the entire tree?
可以揭市府黑幕，不能拆花博舞台
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.03
民進黨大打「花系列」議題，除讓郝市府團隊繃緊神經，也讓花博提前成為媒體頭條新聞。當花農從硝煙中現身，許多民眾方才了解，花博並不是台北市政府專屬的聲光秀，而是台灣一次重要的國際花卉盛會，它包含了台灣花農以「花卉王國」之姿行銷國際的大期待。
一般民眾的浮面印象，會以為花卉博覽會只是郝市府好大喜功之作，是首都預算浮濫的證明。因此，有人覺得花費近百億辦終究會凋謝的花卉展覽，根本是無謂浪費。事實上，舉辦花博，是二○○六年馬市府和全體台灣花卉業者連手向世界園藝博覽會主辦單位爭取到的主辦權，得之不易。亦即，花博是台灣人民共同的舞台，不是郝龍斌的個人秀，更不是台北市的獨舞。
更重要的是，和高雄世運及台北聽奧等運動賽事不同，花博舉辦的目的，在向世界展示台灣花卉的多樣化，以及台灣花卉業者的生產能力及規劃創意，兼具有產業經濟及帶動觀光的價值。花博展出時間長達半年，從規劃到執行、到維護，無一不需要本土花卉產業的密切參與和配合，才能維持展覽的品質和特色；其工程之浩大、繁瑣及艱難，遠遠超乎想像。正因為如此，花博不僅需要參與各方的同心協調、磨合，更需要外界善意的精神支持，共襄盛事。
花博十一月開幕時，正逢五都選舉，淪為選戰議題自是難免；而民進黨從打新生高工程弊案，一路扯上花博，當然也有其見機行事的戰略考量。郝市長因團隊行事粗疏被抓到小辮子，也只能深自檢討，怨不得別人。但是，我們也要提醒民進黨：不能把「揭弊」和「打花博」混為一談，若以為全力打花博就能擊中郝龍斌要害，最後民進黨可能掉入自己設下的陷阱也未可知。
第一，如上所述，花博是台灣向世界行銷花卉及國際形象的舞台，它代表花農和全民的共同利益，郝龍斌只是統籌布置此一舞台的工作團隊負責人罷了。民眾不會希望看到這個國家舞台被抹黑，甚至被搗毀。第二，民眾支持揭弊，卻不贊成濫用「烏賊戰術」，惡意醜化辛勤工作的人。綠營用新生高來牽扯花博，實際上，在三千多花種中，僅發現四種報價偏高，如此用大砲打小鳥，重創花博形象，其手段與目的似乎不成比例。第三，花卉業者已為花博投入四年心血，除展覽作品有廿一億元是採購自本土花農，展期預計吸引八百萬觀光人潮，可為各業創造一百四十億的間接收益。第四，花博與高雄世運及台北聽奧一樣，所想追求的是台灣的光榮感，誰能忍受對其恣意抹黑？民進黨要用政治手段摧毀這些目標或許不難，但後果它能承擔嗎？
我們之所以提醒民進黨下手要小心，除了希望這個承載許多民眾美好願景的舞台受到珍惜，也因看到了綠營砲火有逐漸濫射的傾向。舉例說，花博發行的周邊紀念商品，九成以上均是台灣製造；但綠營民代隨便根據一二民眾的抱怨，就信口開河痛批紀念品「全是中國製造」。如此不負責任的說詞，或許是批郝批到得意忘形所致，但花博又何辜？包括花農埋怨市府官員驗收時的百般挑剔，不也恰反證郝團隊的行事並不苟且？
台灣花卉產業近年日新月異，在種植及栽培技術上不斷創造驚奇，年產值達一百廿多億元，這是台灣綠色產業進步的表徵。這次的台北花博，是我們向荷蘭挑戰「花卉王國」王冠的第一步，無論如何，不能還沒開展，就先淹沒在自己內部的鬥爭口水中。花博是台灣共同的舞台，無論藍綠，都必須有這樣的共識。
西方有句諺語說：「倒洗澡水的時候，別把嬰兒一起倒掉了。」同樣的道理，幾種花卉價格有問題，應該就此追查其因果及責任歸屬，看看是否涉及舞弊；而不是一味擴大渲染，把花博說成弊端重重、一文不值。一棵樹木長了蟲子，我們是要把害蟲除掉，而不是把整棵樹都給砍掉吧？
A Translation
September 3, 2010
The DPP has turned the Taipei International Flora Exposition into a campaign issue. Their move has left members of the Hao Lung-ping city government on tenterhooks. It has also turned the Flora Expo into headline news, well in advance of its official opening. But when the smoke surrounding the flower growers cleared, many people learned for the first time that the Flora Expo was never a "one man show" for the Taipei City Government. Rather it is an international flower show important to Taiwan as a whole. Taiwan flower growers have high expectations. They hope the Flora Expo will establish Taiwan as a "Kingdom of Flower" on the international stage.
The general public's superficial impression is that the Flora Expo is merely the Hao city government's attempt at self-aggrandizement. It is evidence of budget abuses in the nation's capital. Therefore some think that nearly 10 billion NT for a Flora exhibit of flowers which will eventually wither and die, is simply a waste of money. In fact, the Flora Expo was organized in 2006 by the Ma city government and the flower growing industry on Taiwan. Together they applied to the organizers of the International Horticultural Exposition, and won the right to hold the Flora Expo. It was no mean feat. In other words, the Flora Expo is a stage for everyone on Taiwan. It is not a one man show for Hao Lung-ping. It is not a solo performance by the Taipei City Government.
More importantly, it is different from sporting events such as the Kaohsiung World Games and the Deaflympics in Taipei. The purpose of the Flora Expo is to showcase to the world the diversity, productive capacity, and creativity of Taiwan's flower growing industry. The Flora Expo will promote the manufacturing industry and tourism. It will run for six months. Its planning, implementation, and maintenance will all require the close involvement and cooperation of the local flower industry. Only then will it be able to maintain the quality of the expo and its attractions. The project is vaster, more complicated and more difficult than one can imagine. This is precisely why the Flora Expo requires close coordination between all parties involved. Even more importantly, this grand event will require goodwill and support by outsiders.
The Flora Expo will open in November. It will coincide with the five cities elections. It was inevitable that the Flora Expo would become a campaign issue. The DPP has played the Xinsheng Highway Overpass construction scandal card. Now it is playing the Flora Expo card. Naturally its strategy is to play it by ear. Inattention and carelessnes on the part of Mayor Hau's city government handed the DPP a pretext. The Hau city government has only itself to blame, no one else. We would also like to remind the DPP however, that it cannot equate opposition to the Flora Expo with "whistleblowing." If it lashes out indiscriminately at the Flora Expo in an effort to hit Hao Lung-ping where it hurts, the DPP may fall into its own trap.
One. As mentioned above, the Flora Expo is a stage on which Taiwan flower growers can market themselves to the world, and establish an international image. It represents the common interests of flower growers and the public. Hau Lung-pin is merely the individual charged with the construction of this stage. The public has no desire to see this stage for the entire nation discredited, and even destroyed. Two. The public supports whistleblowing. But it does not support the sowing of confusion and the villification of hard-working individuals. The Green Camp is attempting to equate the Xinsheng Highway Overpass scandal with the Flora Expo. The fact is, among 3000 species of flowers, only four kinds involved excessively high price quotes. The DPP went after a sparrow with anti-aircraft artillery. It seriously undermined the image of the Flora Expo. Its methods were disproportionate to its ends. Three. The flower growing industry has invested four years of hard work in the Flora Expo. The Flora Expo has purchased 20 billion NT worth of flowers from from local flower growers. The Flora Expo is also expected to attract eight million tourists. It will create 14 billion NT in indirect benefits. Four. The Flora Expo, like the Kaohsiung World Games and the Deaflympics in Taipei, are efforts to allow Taiwan to shine. Who can tolerate anyone wantonly discrediting it? It may not be difficult for the DPP to resort to political means to destroy its targets. But is it prepared to assume responsibility for the consequences?
We urge the DPP to be careful. The Flora Expo is a stage that many members of the public value and have invested their dreams for a better future. The Green Camp is beginning to engage in indiscriminate artillery fire. For example, 90% of the merchandise sold on the perirphery of the Flora Expo is made in Taiwan. Yet Green Camp elected officials listen only to handful of people who complain that the souvenirs "are all made in [Mainland] China." Such rhetoric is irresponsible. Perhaps it is the by-product of blasting Hao for becoming too full of himself. But why should the Flora Expo be the one to suffer? Flower growers complained that city officials were too finicky when selecting the flowers they wanted. But what is that, except evidence that the Hao city government was taking great pains to do its job properly?
The Flora Expo is getting closer with each passing day. It is continually creating new miracles in planting and cultivation technology. Its annual output has reached 120 billion NT. This shows how far Taiwan's green industries have come. The Taipei Flora Expo is our first step in challenging Holland's status as the "Kingdom of Flowers." In any event, the Flora Expo must not be aborted by internal bickering. The Flora Expo is a stage to be shared by everyone on Taiwan. Whether Blue or Green, everyone must share this consensus.
A Western proverb says, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." By the same token, a problem arose with the pricing for a handful of flowers. The proper response is to investigate the matter, demand accountability, and determine whether corruption was involved. The proper response is not to tar everyone with the same broad brush. The proper response is not to malign the Flora Expo as a hotbed of corruption, and utterly worthless. If a tree becomes infested with a few insects, should we get eliminate the pests, or cut down the entire tree?
可以揭市府黑幕，不能拆花博舞台
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.03
民進黨大打「花系列」議題，除讓郝市府團隊繃緊神經，也讓花博提前成為媒體頭條新聞。當花農從硝煙中現身，許多民眾方才了解，花博並不是台北市政府專屬的聲光秀，而是台灣一次重要的國際花卉盛會，它包含了台灣花農以「花卉王國」之姿行銷國際的大期待。
一般民眾的浮面印象，會以為花卉博覽會只是郝市府好大喜功之作，是首都預算浮濫的證明。因此，有人覺得花費近百億辦終究會凋謝的花卉展覽，根本是無謂浪費。事實上，舉辦花博，是二○○六年馬市府和全體台灣花卉業者連手向世界園藝博覽會主辦單位爭取到的主辦權，得之不易。亦即，花博是台灣人民共同的舞台，不是郝龍斌的個人秀，更不是台北市的獨舞。
更重要的是，和高雄世運及台北聽奧等運動賽事不同，花博舉辦的目的，在向世界展示台灣花卉的多樣化，以及台灣花卉業者的生產能力及規劃創意，兼具有產業經濟及帶動觀光的價值。花博展出時間長達半年，從規劃到執行、到維護，無一不需要本土花卉產業的密切參與和配合，才能維持展覽的品質和特色；其工程之浩大、繁瑣及艱難，遠遠超乎想像。正因為如此，花博不僅需要參與各方的同心協調、磨合，更需要外界善意的精神支持，共襄盛事。
花博十一月開幕時，正逢五都選舉，淪為選戰議題自是難免；而民進黨從打新生高工程弊案，一路扯上花博，當然也有其見機行事的戰略考量。郝市長因團隊行事粗疏被抓到小辮子，也只能深自檢討，怨不得別人。但是，我們也要提醒民進黨：不能把「揭弊」和「打花博」混為一談，若以為全力打花博就能擊中郝龍斌要害，最後民進黨可能掉入自己設下的陷阱也未可知。
第一，如上所述，花博是台灣向世界行銷花卉及國際形象的舞台，它代表花農和全民的共同利益，郝龍斌只是統籌布置此一舞台的工作團隊負責人罷了。民眾不會希望看到這個國家舞台被抹黑，甚至被搗毀。第二，民眾支持揭弊，卻不贊成濫用「烏賊戰術」，惡意醜化辛勤工作的人。綠營用新生高來牽扯花博，實際上，在三千多花種中，僅發現四種報價偏高，如此用大砲打小鳥，重創花博形象，其手段與目的似乎不成比例。第三，花卉業者已為花博投入四年心血，除展覽作品有廿一億元是採購自本土花農，展期預計吸引八百萬觀光人潮，可為各業創造一百四十億的間接收益。第四，花博與高雄世運及台北聽奧一樣，所想追求的是台灣的光榮感，誰能忍受對其恣意抹黑？民進黨要用政治手段摧毀這些目標或許不難，但後果它能承擔嗎？
我們之所以提醒民進黨下手要小心，除了希望這個承載許多民眾美好願景的舞台受到珍惜，也因看到了綠營砲火有逐漸濫射的傾向。舉例說，花博發行的周邊紀念商品，九成以上均是台灣製造；但綠營民代隨便根據一二民眾的抱怨，就信口開河痛批紀念品「全是中國製造」。如此不負責任的說詞，或許是批郝批到得意忘形所致，但花博又何辜？包括花農埋怨市府官員驗收時的百般挑剔，不也恰反證郝團隊的行事並不苟且？
台灣花卉產業近年日新月異，在種植及栽培技術上不斷創造驚奇，年產值達一百廿多億元，這是台灣綠色產業進步的表徵。這次的台北花博，是我們向荷蘭挑戰「花卉王國」王冠的第一步，無論如何，不能還沒開展，就先淹沒在自己內部的鬥爭口水中。花博是台灣共同的舞台，無論藍綠，都必須有這樣的共識。
西方有句諺語說：「倒洗澡水的時候，別把嬰兒一起倒掉了。」同樣的道理，幾種花卉價格有問題，應該就此追查其因果及責任歸屬，看看是否涉及舞弊；而不是一味擴大渲染，把花博說成弊端重重、一文不值。一棵樹木長了蟲子，我們是要把害蟲除掉，而不是把整棵樹都給砍掉吧？
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Taipei and Beijing Should Establish New Goals
Taipei and Beijing Should Establish New GoalsUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2010
Lai Hsing-yuan recently issued a statement in the United States. Li Yafei flew to Taiwan and issued a response. Since then, cross-Strait relations appear to have undergone a subtle change. Beijing appears unhappy with the Ma administration's slow progress or even back-sliding on cross-Strait policy. Even worse, Beijing appears to be losing faith in the Ma administration's sincerity vis a vis cross-Strait policy. The latter is of course far more worrisome than the former.
Let us first address the issue of trust. The Republic of China government on Taiwan has adopted democracy. Therefore, it is more difficult for whoever is in power to strike a political balance between cross-Strait and internal policy. The Ma administration upholds the One China Constitution. Strategically it upholds a policy of One China, Different Interpretations. It still upholds a One China Constitution. Tactically it upholds a policy of "no reunification, no independence, and no war." This also involves upholding a One China Constitution, and lays a foundation for cross-Strait "peaceful development." It also forms the consitutional and legal basis for the Ma administration's rule on Taiwan. Therefore what reason would anyone have to think he would ever abandon the One China Constitution?
Does the One China Constitution violate the One China Principle? Does the One China Constitution, preclude the One China Principle? If not, how can anyone claim that cross-Strait relations have changed? On Taiwan, some people think the "Republic of China" that Ma Ying-jeou upholds is no longer the original "Republic of China." Some say he has gradually hollowed out the 1992 Consensus to where even One China, Different Interpretations is tantamount to Taiwan independence or an independent Taiwan under the name of the Republic of China. Meanwhile the Green Camp accuses Ma Ying-jeou of "pandering to [Mainland] China, selling out Taiwan, and advocating ultimate reunification." As we can see, whoever is in power on Taiwan is going to find it difficult to strike a balance across the political spectrum when it comes to cross-Strait policy. But no one can plausibly accuse Ma Ying-jeou of violating the One China Constitution, or advocating Taiwan independence or an independent Taiwan. The One China Constitution is the constitutional and legal foundation of the Republic of China and the Taiwan region. We do not believe the Ma administration would undermine the very basis of its own rule.
Now let us address the pace of progress. More progress has been made during the two years since 2008, than any other time over the past 60 years. Progress over the past two years has been the most intensive and concentrated ever, and has yielded the most results. On this no one can have any doubts. Some feel progress has been so rapid it ought to be slowed down. Others feel it is still not fast enough. The biggest disagreement is over when major political issues should be addressed. On this issue, different parties hold different views. This leads to at least two questions. One. Are "political issues" really "reunification issues?" Are reunification issues the only issues? If so, naturally one is going to be impatient and eager to pick up the pace. Two. Isn't progress on issues such as ECFA an equally important indicator of progress? If so, why the big hurry on "political issues?" One might even be inclined to moderating the pace.
Cross-Strait trust and the pace of cross-Strait progress are linked. To understand how, one must define what one means by "political issues." This newspaper published a series of "Six New Year's Day Editorials" on cross-Strait relations. We pointed out that the two sides should "establish clearer goals by beginning with a rational process." We pointed out that a more rational process would accelerate the pace of cross-Strait progress. and that the establishment of clearer goals would increase cross-Strait trust. To clarify our common goals, we must increase our mutual trust. If clarifying our common goals becomes difficult, progress will naturally slow.
Taiwan independence is clearly no longer feasible. Therefore the One China Constitution and the One China Principle are national standards that no Republic of China administration can abandon. Therefore, in cross-Strait relations, mutual trust should no longer be a problem, and no longer the cause of trouble. The real problem is how to clarify our common goals. This requires mutual trust. The real problem is how to establish a rational process. This will have a direct impact on the pace of progress.
Yesterday the cross-Strait edition of this newspaper reported a highly instructive development. Zhou Zhihuai, Deputy Director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Taiwan Studies, said that perhaps the two sides should seek a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework. The two sides should attempt to consolidate their consensus and establish shared values. We would like to emphasize something Zhou Zhihuai said, namely that if the two sides wish to introduce policy innovations, they must first make conceptual innovations.
Zhou Zhihuai spoke of policy innovations. This newspaper's "Six New Year's Day Editorials" spoke of "goal clarifications," or "goal innovations." Zhou spoke of finding a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework. This newspaper referred to it as the "roof theory plus the glass theory."
Let us return to "goal clarification." Is the ultimate goal for the two sides "reunification" and nothing else? Does "reunification" mean the elimination of the Republic of China? Is cross-Strait innovation possible? Is a more pragrmatic alternative possible? One that does not exact so high a price for so little political gain? As Zhou Zhihuai put it, is cross-Strait policy innovation possible? In other words, can we establish a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework? Actually, this is what many Mainland scholars mean when they speak of "positioning the Republic of China." Clearly Zhou Zhihuai is not the only one thinking along these lines.
Actually, both sides have many clear-headed people. One must not be confused by foolish people raising alarms about trust and the pace of progress. We must begin with a rational process, and use it to clarify our goals. We must begin with a rational process, and use it to think creatively. We hope the two sides can find new goals. We believe the two sides will find new goals.
兩岸應當共策「目標創新」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.02
從賴幸媛在美談話及李亞飛來台發言以來，兩岸關係似乎出現了微妙的變化。一方面，北京彷彿對馬政府兩岸政策的進度太慢（甚至認為似有倒退），表達不耐；另一方面，北京對馬政府兩岸政策的信任亦彷彿出現動搖。後者當然比前者更值得注意。
先談兩岸信任。台灣實施民主制度，因此主政者在維持兩岸政策的國際、兩岸及國內的平衡上較為困難。馬政府在維持「一中憲法」的原則下，在戰略上「一中各表」（仍是一中憲法），在戰術上「不統／不獨／不武」（還是一中憲法）；這非但是維持兩岸「和平發展」的底線，也是馬政府對內執政正當性的基礎。然則，有何理由認為馬英九會捨棄「一中憲法」的根本立場？
除非北京認為「一中憲法」違反「一中原則」，或「一中憲法」不容於「一中原則」，否則豈能謂兩岸信任關係已生變化？至於台灣內部，也有人認為馬英九所主張的「中華民國」已非原本的「中華民國」，又謂「九二共識」已漸空洞化，甚至將「一中各表」等同於台獨或獨台，相對於綠營之指馬英九為「傾中賣台／終極統一」，皆可見台灣主政者在民主光譜上維持兩岸政策平衡之不易，但恐怕都不至於可到指控馬英九違反一中憲法或變成台獨或獨台的地步。「一中憲法」是中華民國與台灣的生存根本，我們不相信馬政府會自毀長城。
再談進度的快慢。○八後兩年來的兩岸發展進度，其實是六十年來發展最快、最密集、最濃縮、最具正面成果的兩年，此點無人可以置疑。至於有人認為應當暫時慢下來，或有人認為還不夠快，主要皆是對於何時應當處理政治議題的緩急見仁見智所致。這方面至少可有兩種思考：一、所謂「政治議題」，是否就是「統一議題」，或只有「統一議題」？倘若認為如此，當然會感不耐，因此也會傾向主張加急加快進度。二、其他議題，例如簽成ＥＣＦＡ，難道不也是及已是一個重要的政治進度與成就？如果認為是，就不會對「政治議題」太急切，也就可能傾向將進度放緩。
要明白前述「信任問題」及「快慢問題」的糾結所在，必須先對「政治議題」的定義與內涵進行釐清。本報《元旦六論》系列社論指出：兩岸關係應當「從合理的過程到改善之目的」。若以本文題旨而論，「合理的過程」牽涉到「快慢問題」，「改善之目的」則牽涉到「信任問題」。目的若改善，信任就會加強；目的若太困難，進度必然慢下來。
由於台獨已經絕不可行，所以「一中憲法」（一個中國的原則）是中華民國主政者絕無可能否棄的國家準據；亦因此，兩岸關係的「信任問題」可以說不是問題，實在不必因杯弓蛇影而藉以惹是生非。問題在於：如何用「改善之目的」（信任問題），來調節「合理的過程」（快慢問題）。
昨日本報兩岸版的一則報導頗具啟發性。報導稱，中國社會科學院台灣研究所副所長周志懷發表個人看法說：兩岸也許需要在「一中憲法」和「一中框架」之間找到一個連結；可以進一步細化兩岸的共識，構建一個共同的價值觀。我們想強調的重點是，周志懷說：兩岸要「政策創新」，理念上要更有創意。
用本報《元旦六論》的語彙來說，周志懷所說的「政策創新」，就是我們所說的「改善之目的」，也就是「目標創新」；而他說的「在『一中憲法』和『一中框架』之間找到一個連結」，也可能就是我們所說的「屋頂理論加杯子理論」。
回頭來說兩岸的「改善之目的」。兩岸的終極「目的」是否一定只有「統一」一途？而「統一」是否就是消滅中華民國的意思？有無可能兩岸共同「創新」一個比「統一」更有實現的可能性且付出負面代價較小的「政治目的」或「政治目標」？也就如周志懷所問：有無可能「政策創新」？亦即有無可能在「一中憲法」與「一中框架」之間建立一個連結？其實，這也就是許多大陸學者所提出的「中華民國的定位問題」，可見不止周志懷有此想像。
兩岸其實有許多頭腦清醒的人，不要被那些糊塗人用「信任／進度」來混淆了視聽。從合理的過程到改善之目的，從合理的過程到創新之目標；我們期望亦相信，兩岸應能及必能共策「目標創新」。
A Translation
September 2, 2010
Lai Hsing-yuan recently issued a statement in the United States. Li Yafei flew to Taiwan and issued a response. Since then, cross-Strait relations appear to have undergone a subtle change. Beijing appears unhappy with the Ma administration's slow progress or even back-sliding on cross-Strait policy. Even worse, Beijing appears to be losing faith in the Ma administration's sincerity vis a vis cross-Strait policy. The latter is of course far more worrisome than the former.
Let us first address the issue of trust. The Republic of China government on Taiwan has adopted democracy. Therefore, it is more difficult for whoever is in power to strike a political balance between cross-Strait and internal policy. The Ma administration upholds the One China Constitution. Strategically it upholds a policy of One China, Different Interpretations. It still upholds a One China Constitution. Tactically it upholds a policy of "no reunification, no independence, and no war." This also involves upholding a One China Constitution, and lays a foundation for cross-Strait "peaceful development." It also forms the consitutional and legal basis for the Ma administration's rule on Taiwan. Therefore what reason would anyone have to think he would ever abandon the One China Constitution?
Does the One China Constitution violate the One China Principle? Does the One China Constitution, preclude the One China Principle? If not, how can anyone claim that cross-Strait relations have changed? On Taiwan, some people think the "Republic of China" that Ma Ying-jeou upholds is no longer the original "Republic of China." Some say he has gradually hollowed out the 1992 Consensus to where even One China, Different Interpretations is tantamount to Taiwan independence or an independent Taiwan under the name of the Republic of China. Meanwhile the Green Camp accuses Ma Ying-jeou of "pandering to [Mainland] China, selling out Taiwan, and advocating ultimate reunification." As we can see, whoever is in power on Taiwan is going to find it difficult to strike a balance across the political spectrum when it comes to cross-Strait policy. But no one can plausibly accuse Ma Ying-jeou of violating the One China Constitution, or advocating Taiwan independence or an independent Taiwan. The One China Constitution is the constitutional and legal foundation of the Republic of China and the Taiwan region. We do not believe the Ma administration would undermine the very basis of its own rule.
Now let us address the pace of progress. More progress has been made during the two years since 2008, than any other time over the past 60 years. Progress over the past two years has been the most intensive and concentrated ever, and has yielded the most results. On this no one can have any doubts. Some feel progress has been so rapid it ought to be slowed down. Others feel it is still not fast enough. The biggest disagreement is over when major political issues should be addressed. On this issue, different parties hold different views. This leads to at least two questions. One. Are "political issues" really "reunification issues?" Are reunification issues the only issues? If so, naturally one is going to be impatient and eager to pick up the pace. Two. Isn't progress on issues such as ECFA an equally important indicator of progress? If so, why the big hurry on "political issues?" One might even be inclined to moderating the pace.
Cross-Strait trust and the pace of cross-Strait progress are linked. To understand how, one must define what one means by "political issues." This newspaper published a series of "Six New Year's Day Editorials" on cross-Strait relations. We pointed out that the two sides should "establish clearer goals by beginning with a rational process." We pointed out that a more rational process would accelerate the pace of cross-Strait progress. and that the establishment of clearer goals would increase cross-Strait trust. To clarify our common goals, we must increase our mutual trust. If clarifying our common goals becomes difficult, progress will naturally slow.
Taiwan independence is clearly no longer feasible. Therefore the One China Constitution and the One China Principle are national standards that no Republic of China administration can abandon. Therefore, in cross-Strait relations, mutual trust should no longer be a problem, and no longer the cause of trouble. The real problem is how to clarify our common goals. This requires mutual trust. The real problem is how to establish a rational process. This will have a direct impact on the pace of progress.
Yesterday the cross-Strait edition of this newspaper reported a highly instructive development. Zhou Zhihuai, Deputy Director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Taiwan Studies, said that perhaps the two sides should seek a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework. The two sides should attempt to consolidate their consensus and establish shared values. We would like to emphasize something Zhou Zhihuai said, namely that if the two sides wish to introduce policy innovations, they must first make conceptual innovations.
Zhou Zhihuai spoke of policy innovations. This newspaper's "Six New Year's Day Editorials" spoke of "goal clarifications," or "goal innovations." Zhou spoke of finding a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework. This newspaper referred to it as the "roof theory plus the glass theory."
Let us return to "goal clarification." Is the ultimate goal for the two sides "reunification" and nothing else? Does "reunification" mean the elimination of the Republic of China? Is cross-Strait innovation possible? Is a more pragrmatic alternative possible? One that does not exact so high a price for so little political gain? As Zhou Zhihuai put it, is cross-Strait policy innovation possible? In other words, can we establish a link between the One China Constitution and the One China Framework? Actually, this is what many Mainland scholars mean when they speak of "positioning the Republic of China." Clearly Zhou Zhihuai is not the only one thinking along these lines.
Actually, both sides have many clear-headed people. One must not be confused by foolish people raising alarms about trust and the pace of progress. We must begin with a rational process, and use it to clarify our goals. We must begin with a rational process, and use it to think creatively. We hope the two sides can find new goals. We believe the two sides will find new goals.
兩岸應當共策「目標創新」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.09.02
從賴幸媛在美談話及李亞飛來台發言以來，兩岸關係似乎出現了微妙的變化。一方面，北京彷彿對馬政府兩岸政策的進度太慢（甚至認為似有倒退），表達不耐；另一方面，北京對馬政府兩岸政策的信任亦彷彿出現動搖。後者當然比前者更值得注意。
先談兩岸信任。台灣實施民主制度，因此主政者在維持兩岸政策的國際、兩岸及國內的平衡上較為困難。馬政府在維持「一中憲法」的原則下，在戰略上「一中各表」（仍是一中憲法），在戰術上「不統／不獨／不武」（還是一中憲法）；這非但是維持兩岸「和平發展」的底線，也是馬政府對內執政正當性的基礎。然則，有何理由認為馬英九會捨棄「一中憲法」的根本立場？
除非北京認為「一中憲法」違反「一中原則」，或「一中憲法」不容於「一中原則」，否則豈能謂兩岸信任關係已生變化？至於台灣內部，也有人認為馬英九所主張的「中華民國」已非原本的「中華民國」，又謂「九二共識」已漸空洞化，甚至將「一中各表」等同於台獨或獨台，相對於綠營之指馬英九為「傾中賣台／終極統一」，皆可見台灣主政者在民主光譜上維持兩岸政策平衡之不易，但恐怕都不至於可到指控馬英九違反一中憲法或變成台獨或獨台的地步。「一中憲法」是中華民國與台灣的生存根本，我們不相信馬政府會自毀長城。
再談進度的快慢。○八後兩年來的兩岸發展進度，其實是六十年來發展最快、最密集、最濃縮、最具正面成果的兩年，此點無人可以置疑。至於有人認為應當暫時慢下來，或有人認為還不夠快，主要皆是對於何時應當處理政治議題的緩急見仁見智所致。這方面至少可有兩種思考：一、所謂「政治議題」，是否就是「統一議題」，或只有「統一議題」？倘若認為如此，當然會感不耐，因此也會傾向主張加急加快進度。二、其他議題，例如簽成ＥＣＦＡ，難道不也是及已是一個重要的政治進度與成就？如果認為是，就不會對「政治議題」太急切，也就可能傾向將進度放緩。
要明白前述「信任問題」及「快慢問題」的糾結所在，必須先對「政治議題」的定義與內涵進行釐清。本報《元旦六論》系列社論指出：兩岸關係應當「從合理的過程到改善之目的」。若以本文題旨而論，「合理的過程」牽涉到「快慢問題」，「改善之目的」則牽涉到「信任問題」。目的若改善，信任就會加強；目的若太困難，進度必然慢下來。
由於台獨已經絕不可行，所以「一中憲法」（一個中國的原則）是中華民國主政者絕無可能否棄的國家準據；亦因此，兩岸關係的「信任問題」可以說不是問題，實在不必因杯弓蛇影而藉以惹是生非。問題在於：如何用「改善之目的」（信任問題），來調節「合理的過程」（快慢問題）。
昨日本報兩岸版的一則報導頗具啟發性。報導稱，中國社會科學院台灣研究所副所長周志懷發表個人看法說：兩岸也許需要在「一中憲法」和「一中框架」之間找到一個連結；可以進一步細化兩岸的共識，構建一個共同的價值觀。我們想強調的重點是，周志懷說：兩岸要「政策創新」，理念上要更有創意。
用本報《元旦六論》的語彙來說，周志懷所說的「政策創新」，就是我們所說的「改善之目的」，也就是「目標創新」；而他說的「在『一中憲法』和『一中框架』之間找到一個連結」，也可能就是我們所說的「屋頂理論加杯子理論」。
回頭來說兩岸的「改善之目的」。兩岸的終極「目的」是否一定只有「統一」一途？而「統一」是否就是消滅中華民國的意思？有無可能兩岸共同「創新」一個比「統一」更有實現的可能性且付出負面代價較小的「政治目的」或「政治目標」？也就如周志懷所問：有無可能「政策創新」？亦即有無可能在「一中憲法」與「一中框架」之間建立一個連結？其實，這也就是許多大陸學者所提出的「中華民國的定位問題」，可見不止周志懷有此想像。
兩岸其實有許多頭腦清醒的人，不要被那些糊塗人用「信任／進度」來混淆了視聽。從合理的過程到改善之目的，從合理的過程到創新之目標；我們期望亦相信，兩岸應能及必能共策「目標創新」。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)