Can Corruption Be Tolerated? Chen and His Wife Will Be Imprisoned
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 12, 2010
On the eve of the five cities elections, a string of court rulings have been handed down in the Chen family corruption cases. The "not guilty" ruling in the Second Financial Reform scandal has provoked a public outcry. But yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its third instance ruling in the Longtan Land Acquisition scandal and Diana Chen presidential appointment scandal. Former President Chen Shui-bian and former First Lady Wu Shu-cheng were sentenced to ten years and eight years respectively. Chen Shui-bian and his wife will be required to serve out their sentences. The Chen family corruption scandals have been the source of controversy on Taiwan for the past two years. Finally, the first wave of sentences have been rendered. For the first time in the history of the Republic of China, a former president will do prison time.
The reason the Supreme Court found Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen guilty in its third instance ruling is simple. Under the Punishment of Corruption Act, abusing one's official position to extort bribes is a crime. Anyone who accepts money or property as a result of one's official position, is guilty. This includes accepting contributions disguised as gifts. Whether a relationship exists between the considerations depends upon one's official position and the relationship between the recipient and the donor. The form of bribery, the amount, the time the gifts were made, are all evaluated objectively. The law stipulates that "one may not assume that property exchanged in the name of commissions or gifts bear no relation to official position, or that no quid pro quo was involved."
The Supreme Court further pointed out that "the performance of one's official duties" refers to what civil servants ought to do or must do, within the scope of their duties. As long as their behavior is related to their duties, "that constitutes a substantive relationship the influence wielded due to one's official position."
Chou Chan-chun presided over the Second Financial Reform scandal first instance trial. Can he not feel shame as he reads the Supreme Court's ruling? Chou Chan-chun ignored the law. He selectively cited constitutionally stipulated presidential authority in order to rationalize away Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen's bribe taking. He attempted to justify Ah-Bian's criminal conduct. He argued that Ah-Bian overstepped his presidential authority when he implemented his Second Financial Reform "program." He argued that since his intervention was not a constitutionally mandated authority of the president, therefore he did not abuse his official position. He argued that therefore no criminal conduct was involved. Since there was no crime, he argued that Chen cannot be convicted of money laundering.
If the Supreme Court shared Chou Chan-chun's distorted view of the law, could Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen have be found guilty in the Longtan Land Acquisition scandal? The Longtan Land Acquisition and Diana Chen presidential appointment scandals bore even less relationship with the president's official authority. Had the Supreme Court invoked the same twisted reasoning as Chou, the First Couple would also have been found "not guilty" of money laundering. Fortunately, most judges on Taiwan are nothing like Chou Chan-chun. They have a genuine understanding of the law. They bear no resemblance to Chou Chan-chun, who ignores right and wrong, who renders judgments based on his own selfish political preferences. The Diana Chen presidential appointment scandal involved domestic money laundering. The Supreme Court judge also found Wu Shu-chen guilty, and sentenced her to one year and two months, commuted to seven months.
Judges are also voters. They will inevitably have their own likes and dislikes regarding politicians and political parties. But they are the final arbiters of justice in society. Their independence and professionalism while adjudicating cases is far more important. Even DPP leaders find it impossible to endorse Chou Chan-chun's ruling. Former legislator Lin Cho-shui openly declared that Chou's ruling was wrong. Lin Cho-shui also cited the constitution and pointed out the absuridity of Chou Chan-chun's constitutional interpretation. After the constitution was amended, the president's power to nominate the premier had already become the president's power to appoint the premier. He even had the power to fire the premier. The president can hardly be considered a "virtual president." Especially since the president also convenes the National Security Council. He determines the nation's overall security policy. Economic and fiscal policies are all part of this overall policy. How can such a president be characterized as a president "lacking in authority?"
The Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the Longtan Land Acquisition case and the Diana Chen presidential appointment case. By doing so, they have provided the strongest legal justification for a second instance conviction in the Second Financial Reform corruption case. The case pertains not only to Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen. Most importantly, no legal precedent for the conviction of a president on corruption charges exists in Republic of China history. Therefore we must establish strict standards. No matter how much power a president may wield, he may not engage in corruption. This simple truth is not something any judge can change via distorted legal opinions.
The Chen corruption case is unquestionably the most earth-shaking scandal Taiwan has experienced in recent years. Most honest people find the First Couple's first instance acquittal difficult to believe, let alone to accept. How could someone occupying such a high office, pocket billions via so many different channels? The justice system on Taiwan has prosecuted many corrupt officials and elected representatives. Only presidents have never been prosecuted. Add to this fact serious Blue vs. Green political confrontation, and the resolution of the Chen corruption case is indeed a knotty problem. But this is a matter of right vs. wrong. From the investigation to the trial, the sole issue must remain right vs. wrong. Only then can we remain true to our consciences.
The Supreme Court has rendered its third instance ruling in two of the Chen family corruption cases. Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen will be sent to prison to serve out their sentences. Chen Shui-bian says he wants to go to prison. He also says he wants to go to Kaohsiung. Wu Shu-chen's situtation is somewhat special. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, inmates who might die as a result of physical ailments must be admitted to a hospital or other appropriate facility. There are precedents for seriously ill inmates serving out their sentences at home. Should Wu Shu-chen be classified as "seriously ill?" People may disagree. But the physical condition of the former first lady is definitely a factor that must be taken into consideration.
Chen Shui-bian was elected by citizens of the Republic of China, one vote at a time. He led the nation for eight years. This protracted litigation is not about Blue vs. Green. It is nothing less than a national trauma. But this is merely the first in a long string of corruption case rulings to come. Like it or not, the Chen family corruption cases will continue to impact the political situation on Taiwan for some time to come.
貪汙豈容曲解 扁珍都將入監
2010-11-12
中國時報
五都選舉前夕，扁家弊案接連判決，除二次金改案一審無罪，引爆社會嘩然，昨日最高法院就龍潭購地弊案、陳敏薰人事案三審宣判，前總統陳水扁、吳淑珍夫婦都分別被判刑十一年及八年之刑期，陳水扁夫婦都將發監執行。擾嚷台灣社會二年多的扁家弊案，終於有了第一波的結果，這同時也預告，中華民國將出現第一位坐牢的前民選總統！
最高法院的三審判決，認定陳水扁、吳淑珍夫婦有罪理由簡單明瞭，根據貪汙治罪條例，對於職務上之行為收受賄賂罪，只須收受金錢或財物，與其職務有相當之對價關係，即已成立，且包括假借餽贈等各種名義之變相給付在內。至於是否有對價關係，則要從職務行為的內容、交付者與收受者之關係、賄賂之種類、價額、贈與的時間等客觀情形加以審酌，「不可僅以交付的財物名義為佣金或餽贈，就認為與職務無關，而無對價關係。」
最高法院進一步指出，所以「職務上之行為」，是指公務員在其職務範圍內應為、或得為之行為而言，只要該行為與其職務具有關連性，「實質上為該職務影響力所及者，即屬相當。」
看到最高法院的判決書，二次金改一審法官周占春能不汗顏嗎？周占春跳躍法律，直接從憲法明定的總統職權，罔顧陳水扁夫婦收受賄賂的事實，甚至為扁開脫，指扁介入金改雖是僭越了總統職權，但介入不是憲法所定總統的職權，所以就無所謂違背職務的行為，即然如此，就不是犯罪行為，既非犯罪行為，連洗錢罪都不能成立。
如果最高法院法官也同意周占春扭曲法律的看法，龍潭案哪裡還能定扁珍夫婦的罪呢？因為龍潭購地案和陳敏薰人事案，更不屬總統的職權，從而發生的洗錢也無罪，還好，台灣大多數法官肯定不像周占春，法律條文讀得通透，也不像周占春以一己私心與政治立場之所好，無視是非。陳敏薰人事案衍生的國內洗錢部分，最高院法官同樣判決吳淑珍有罪，刑期一年二個月，減刑為七個月。
法官也是選民，必然會有其對政治人物或政黨的好惡，但是，做為社會正義的最後守門員，法官獨立判案的專業更重要。周占春的判決，讓民進黨人都無法苟同，前立委林濁水毫不避諱，直言周的判決見解有誤，林濁水同樣從憲法指正周占春的謬誤，修憲後，總統對行政院長的「提名權」已變成「任命權」，甚至任命之後還有免職權，當然不是虛位總統。尤其是，總統還可以召開國家安全會議，決定國家全安大政方針，經濟、財政都可能是「大政方針」之一，豈可謂總統「無權」！
最高法院對龍潭案與陳敏薰人事案的判決定讞，已經為二次金改上訴二審提供最佳的法律後盾，這個案子不僅是針對陳水扁夫婦而來，最重要的，台灣史無判例的總統貪汙案，必須確立一個嚴格不容退讓的標準：總統，有再大的權，就是不能貪汙。這麼簡單的道理，不是任何法官扭曲法律見解能改變的。
無可諱言，扁案是近年震動台灣社會的最大弊案，多數淳樸的民眾，很難相信、遑論接受，居最高位者，竟能動輒以億計的價碼，從各種管道收取金錢，台灣司法辦過不少貪官或民代，就是沒碰過總統的弊案，加上台灣政治藍綠對立嚴重，如何處理扁案確實一個棘手的難題，然而，大是大非當前，從偵辦到審判，只有秉持唯是非論是非，才能心無恚礙。
最高法院對扁家弊案中的兩案三審定讞後，扁、珍即將入監服刑，陳水扁曾提出他要入監也要到高雄，吳淑珍的情況比較特殊，根據刑事訴訟法，現罹疾病恐因執行不能保其性命者，得將受刑人送入醫院或其他適當處所。過去也曾有重症者在家服刑的前例，吳淑珍不良於行是否謂之「重症」，容或有不同看法，但不論如何，前第一夫人的身體狀況絕對是執行時，必須考慮的重點。
陳水扁曾是台灣人民一票一票選出來，主政八年的國家領導人，這場漫長的訴訟，非關藍綠，其實舉國皆傷！然而，這也才只是後續一連串弊案終審判決的起步，不論我們喜歡與否，扁案未來還會持續牽動台灣政局與人心好一陣子！
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Chou Chan-chun's Misreading of Presidential Authority
Chou Chan-chun's Misreading of Presidential Authority
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2010
Chou Chan-chun's ruling on the Second Financial Reform scandal has provoked a debate over presidential authority. This is a serious problem with the constitution in its current state. Society can take advantage of the controversy to take a long, hard look at the issue.
In 1997, the fourth amending of the constitution redistributed the powers and duties of the central government. Hindsight shows that the real motive behind Lee Teng-hui and the DPP's repeated amending of the constitution, was to destroy the Republic of China Constitution. This newspaper ran 58 consecutive editorials addressing the constitutional amendment issue. The heading of the series was "Amend the Constitution. Do Not Destroy the Constitution."
At the time this newspaper suggested that since the president was already directly elected, his authority should be increased. But an official's responsibility must be commensurate with his authority. Therefore if the president's authority is increased, so must his responsibilities. A president whose authority has been increased must be elected by an absolute majority. He may no longer be elected by a relative majority. Also, the executive power must be centralized. It may not be divided.
This conspiracy between Lee Teng-hui and the DPP had several consequences. First, President Lee Teng-hui wanted to upgrade the National Security Council, transforming it into a decision-making body. He wanted to make the Premier the Deputy Chairman of the National Security Council, i.e, subordinate to the Chairman of the National Security Council. He wanted to demote the Premier to the level of a National Security Council staff member, to make him its enforcer. This proposal ran aground due to opposition from the Democratic Progressive Party. Secondly, the Legislative Yuan had the right to approve the president's appointments for the premiership. Lee wanted this right repealed. On this, he got what he wanted. Thirdly, he wanted a relative majority threshold for presidential elections. In other words, Lee's goal of replacing the Executive Yuan with the National Security Council was not implemented. Lee's goal of upgrading the National Security Council was not implemented. But the nature of the premiership was changed. The constitution became a semi-finished product. The distribution of central government powers and duties were no longer clear. This newspaper ran a headline that read, "The President under the New Constitution: A Surplus of Political Turmoil, A Shortage of Constitutional Authority."
The new constitution has numerous problems. First, the president can appoint or remove the premier at will. As a result, in law and in fact, the president wields a monopoly over executive power. Secondly, the constitutional source of the president's authority is no longer clear. In 1998, in an attempt to "cite the law instead of the constitution," Lee Teng-hui promoted the "National Security Council Organization Law." He attempted to restructure the National Security Council, transforming it into a decision-making body. He attempted to incorporate it into the Executive Yuan. He did not succeed. He attempted to inject it into the constitution during a fourth amendment bid, but this also failed. Lee Teng-hui has long insisted that the president has authority over "national defense, foreign affairs, cross-strait affairs" and other "fundamental policies." In fact, his claim has no constitutional or legal basis whatsoever. This newspaper referred to it as a "Verbal Instructions Constitution." In 2003, the Chen administration amended the law. It wrote the "Three National Security Powers" into the "National Security Council Organization Act." But questions remain. First, this is still a case of "citing the law instead of the constitution." It still lacks legitimacy. Secondly, dividing executive power into the "president's three National Security powers," and "other administrative powers," is neither reasonable nor feasible. Thirdly, the law can proclaim that the president has "three National Security powers." But the National Security Council remains a non-decision-making body. Fundamentally speaking it has no right to implement these "three powers."
For example, in the real world constitutional framework "cross-Strait economic and trade affairs" are simultaneously "cross-Strait affairs" and "economic affairs." They are indivisible. How can one claim that the president has authority over "cross-Strait affairs" but not "economic affairs?" Another example is military procurement. That is simultaneously a "national defense issue" and a "fiscal issue." How can one claim that the president has authority over "national defense issues," but not over "fiscal issues?" Therefore if one claims that the president has "three national security powers," then factually and legally the president can intervene in all matters of national policy.
The only channel through which the president can intervene in the authority of the executive is through the Executive Yuan. The president can appoint or remove the premier. This is how the president can control the Executive Yuan, in law and in fact. Actually, the president need not be a member of the majority party. Chen Shui-bian headed a minority government for eight years. Under these conditions the president ought to be able to appoint a member of the majority party as premier. This would establish a legal precedent for "system of alternate executive power." The nomination of the premier is a presidential power. It is also a presidential responsibility. But during Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power, he insisted on minority government. He appointed and replaced six premiers. The Second Financial Reform scandal in particular, revealed the extent of his presidential powers. Lee Yung-san, Lin Chuan and other cabinet members have admitted that they acted on orders from the president. Such examples may not constitute legal precedents. But neither can one close one's eyes to them. One cannot ignore one's conscience. Legally and factually, these are not powers belonging to the president under the constitution in its current state.
Chou Chan-chun's behavior is contemptible. He argued that airport trollies were "not part of the president's official duties." He mocked Ma Ying-jeou for "exceeding his authority." But Chou Chan-chun refused to say that coping with Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami "was not the president's responsibility." He refused to say that Ma Ying-jeou was merely a figurehead, and not responsible for Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami. Chou Chan-chun portrayed Chen Shui-bian as a "figurehead leader." He absolved Chen of all responsibility for wrongdoing during his eight years in office. He even argued that Chen Shui-bian lacked the authority to promote the Second Financial Reform program. He "reasoned" that since Chen lacked the authority to intervene in financial reform, therefore he lacked the wherewithal to extort wealth. What is this, but arrant nonsense?
Ma Ying-jeou would like to "retreat to the second line," but given the current state of the constitution, he cannot. By contrast, Chen Shui-bian insisted that the constitution was "moving toward a presidential system with a dual leaderhip system." As a result, every move went his way. The constitutional framework was no longer clear. The system of constitutional rule was now riddled with loopholes. The constitution was now mute. Chen Shui-bian lacked the authority to intervene in financial reform. But he took advantage of the fact that he could fire the premier at will. The constitution no longer constrains such "independent" trial judges as Chou Chan-chun. It no longer prevents them from betraying their professional consciences.
與周占春論總統職權
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.11
周占春對二次金改案的判決，引發「總統職權」的爭議；這是現今憲政上的嚴重問題，正可藉社會視聽關注之際作一檢視。
民國八十六年的第四次修憲涉及中樞憲政權責的改制，事前即顯露李登輝與民進黨合謀的修憲方案將毀掉這部憲法。當時，本報以連續五十八篇系列社論析論修憲議題，系列的總標題是：《修憲，不可毀憲》。
當年本報的主張是：總統既已直選，即應增加總統的權力；總統既增加權力，即應有權責相副的機制；且權力增大的總統，須採「絕對多數」選制，不可採「相對多數制」；而行政權必須一元化，不可切割。
李登輝與民進黨合謀的修憲結果是：一、李登輝欲將總統主持的國家安全會議提升為決策機關，將行政院長定為國安會副主席（國安會主席的部屬），並將行政院作為國安會的幕僚及執行機關。此議因民進黨反對而擱淺。二、取銷立法院對行政院長任命之同意權。此案通過。三、總統選舉採相對多數制。也就是說，李登輝原想以國安會取代行政院的構想未實現，以致國安會升格未成，但行政院長的性質已變。這個「半成品」的修憲成果，致使中樞權責機制不明，本報當年的評論標題是：〈新憲的總統：掀起政潮有餘，權力根據不足！〉
新憲的問題在於：一、總統可以逕自任免行政院長，使總統在法理及事實上皆操控了行政權。二、但總統的權力根據卻無明確法源。李登輝於八十二年修訂《國安會組織法》，即想用「以法代憲」的方式，將國安會改制為前述決策機構，以收編行政院，但未得逞。其後，又欲在第四次修憲時將之入憲，亦告失敗。因此，李登輝始終自稱，總統擁有決定「國防、外交、兩岸」等「大政方針」之權，根本全無憲法或法律之憑據，本報指其為「口諭憲法」。直至民國九十二年扁政府始通過修法，將「國安三權」寫入《國安會組織法》。但問題仍在：一、這仍是「以法代憲」，正當性不足。二、將行政權切分為「總統國安三權」，及「其他行政權」，不合理，亦不可行。三、總統雖在法條上具「國安三權」，但國安會仍非決策機關，且根本沒有執行「三權」的機關配置。
例如，在實際憲政運作上，關於兩岸經貿政務，是「兩岸加經濟」，若承認總統有「兩岸權」，卻無「經濟權」，如何合理？再如軍事採購，是「國防加財政」，若承認總統有「國防權」，卻無「財政權」，如何可行？因而，若承認總統有「國安三權」，則在法理及事實上即不能排除總統介入總體國政。
總統介入行政權的唯一管道即是行政院，而總統可以全權任免行政院長，則是總統操縱行政院的法理及事實憑據。其實，倘若總統不是國會多數黨（如扁政府八年「朝小野大」），總統應可任命多數黨支持的閣揆，以形成「行政權換軌制」的法例；因為，閣揆提名權非但是總統的「權力」，也是總統的憲政「責任」。但是，陳水扁八年任期，皆堅持「少數政府」，並六易閣揆；在二次金改案中，尤可見其對總統權力的專擅，而他的權力又被閣揆及李庸三、林全等閣員承認並受命行事。這種現象，即使未必能說其權力出自列舉主義的法源，但也不可能閉著眼睛、昧著良心說，這在法理及事實上絕非總統在現行憲制上必然衍生的「職權」。
周占春的無恥可惡，在他只舉機場手推車「非總統職權」，以此譏諷馬英九「逾越」；但周占春卻不敢說，八八水災與金融風暴亦非「總統職權」，所以馬英九這個「虛位元首」不應負責。周占春正是將陳水扁塑造成幾近一名「虛位元首」，簡直開脫了他八年主政興風作浪的一切責任；甚至認為，陳水扁連藉勢藉端假二次金改貪汙的「資格」都沒有（你無權管金改，所以沒資格貪汙），這不是胡說八道是什麼？
現行憲制，馬英九欲「退居第二線」而不可得；相對而言，陳水扁堅持「傾向總統制的雙首長制」，則是無往而不利。憲法的規範不明，憲政的隙漏極大。憲法不能說，陳水扁透過任免行政院長絕無介入二次金改的「職權」；憲法也不能規範像周占春這種「獨立審判」的法官不可喪盡專業、天良泯滅！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2010
Chou Chan-chun's ruling on the Second Financial Reform scandal has provoked a debate over presidential authority. This is a serious problem with the constitution in its current state. Society can take advantage of the controversy to take a long, hard look at the issue.
In 1997, the fourth amending of the constitution redistributed the powers and duties of the central government. Hindsight shows that the real motive behind Lee Teng-hui and the DPP's repeated amending of the constitution, was to destroy the Republic of China Constitution. This newspaper ran 58 consecutive editorials addressing the constitutional amendment issue. The heading of the series was "Amend the Constitution. Do Not Destroy the Constitution."
At the time this newspaper suggested that since the president was already directly elected, his authority should be increased. But an official's responsibility must be commensurate with his authority. Therefore if the president's authority is increased, so must his responsibilities. A president whose authority has been increased must be elected by an absolute majority. He may no longer be elected by a relative majority. Also, the executive power must be centralized. It may not be divided.
This conspiracy between Lee Teng-hui and the DPP had several consequences. First, President Lee Teng-hui wanted to upgrade the National Security Council, transforming it into a decision-making body. He wanted to make the Premier the Deputy Chairman of the National Security Council, i.e, subordinate to the Chairman of the National Security Council. He wanted to demote the Premier to the level of a National Security Council staff member, to make him its enforcer. This proposal ran aground due to opposition from the Democratic Progressive Party. Secondly, the Legislative Yuan had the right to approve the president's appointments for the premiership. Lee wanted this right repealed. On this, he got what he wanted. Thirdly, he wanted a relative majority threshold for presidential elections. In other words, Lee's goal of replacing the Executive Yuan with the National Security Council was not implemented. Lee's goal of upgrading the National Security Council was not implemented. But the nature of the premiership was changed. The constitution became a semi-finished product. The distribution of central government powers and duties were no longer clear. This newspaper ran a headline that read, "The President under the New Constitution: A Surplus of Political Turmoil, A Shortage of Constitutional Authority."
The new constitution has numerous problems. First, the president can appoint or remove the premier at will. As a result, in law and in fact, the president wields a monopoly over executive power. Secondly, the constitutional source of the president's authority is no longer clear. In 1998, in an attempt to "cite the law instead of the constitution," Lee Teng-hui promoted the "National Security Council Organization Law." He attempted to restructure the National Security Council, transforming it into a decision-making body. He attempted to incorporate it into the Executive Yuan. He did not succeed. He attempted to inject it into the constitution during a fourth amendment bid, but this also failed. Lee Teng-hui has long insisted that the president has authority over "national defense, foreign affairs, cross-strait affairs" and other "fundamental policies." In fact, his claim has no constitutional or legal basis whatsoever. This newspaper referred to it as a "Verbal Instructions Constitution." In 2003, the Chen administration amended the law. It wrote the "Three National Security Powers" into the "National Security Council Organization Act." But questions remain. First, this is still a case of "citing the law instead of the constitution." It still lacks legitimacy. Secondly, dividing executive power into the "president's three National Security powers," and "other administrative powers," is neither reasonable nor feasible. Thirdly, the law can proclaim that the president has "three National Security powers." But the National Security Council remains a non-decision-making body. Fundamentally speaking it has no right to implement these "three powers."
For example, in the real world constitutional framework "cross-Strait economic and trade affairs" are simultaneously "cross-Strait affairs" and "economic affairs." They are indivisible. How can one claim that the president has authority over "cross-Strait affairs" but not "economic affairs?" Another example is military procurement. That is simultaneously a "national defense issue" and a "fiscal issue." How can one claim that the president has authority over "national defense issues," but not over "fiscal issues?" Therefore if one claims that the president has "three national security powers," then factually and legally the president can intervene in all matters of national policy.
The only channel through which the president can intervene in the authority of the executive is through the Executive Yuan. The president can appoint or remove the premier. This is how the president can control the Executive Yuan, in law and in fact. Actually, the president need not be a member of the majority party. Chen Shui-bian headed a minority government for eight years. Under these conditions the president ought to be able to appoint a member of the majority party as premier. This would establish a legal precedent for "system of alternate executive power." The nomination of the premier is a presidential power. It is also a presidential responsibility. But during Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power, he insisted on minority government. He appointed and replaced six premiers. The Second Financial Reform scandal in particular, revealed the extent of his presidential powers. Lee Yung-san, Lin Chuan and other cabinet members have admitted that they acted on orders from the president. Such examples may not constitute legal precedents. But neither can one close one's eyes to them. One cannot ignore one's conscience. Legally and factually, these are not powers belonging to the president under the constitution in its current state.
Chou Chan-chun's behavior is contemptible. He argued that airport trollies were "not part of the president's official duties." He mocked Ma Ying-jeou for "exceeding his authority." But Chou Chan-chun refused to say that coping with Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami "was not the president's responsibility." He refused to say that Ma Ying-jeou was merely a figurehead, and not responsible for Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami. Chou Chan-chun portrayed Chen Shui-bian as a "figurehead leader." He absolved Chen of all responsibility for wrongdoing during his eight years in office. He even argued that Chen Shui-bian lacked the authority to promote the Second Financial Reform program. He "reasoned" that since Chen lacked the authority to intervene in financial reform, therefore he lacked the wherewithal to extort wealth. What is this, but arrant nonsense?
Ma Ying-jeou would like to "retreat to the second line," but given the current state of the constitution, he cannot. By contrast, Chen Shui-bian insisted that the constitution was "moving toward a presidential system with a dual leaderhip system." As a result, every move went his way. The constitutional framework was no longer clear. The system of constitutional rule was now riddled with loopholes. The constitution was now mute. Chen Shui-bian lacked the authority to intervene in financial reform. But he took advantage of the fact that he could fire the premier at will. The constitution no longer constrains such "independent" trial judges as Chou Chan-chun. It no longer prevents them from betraying their professional consciences.
與周占春論總統職權
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.11
周占春對二次金改案的判決，引發「總統職權」的爭議；這是現今憲政上的嚴重問題，正可藉社會視聽關注之際作一檢視。
民國八十六年的第四次修憲涉及中樞憲政權責的改制，事前即顯露李登輝與民進黨合謀的修憲方案將毀掉這部憲法。當時，本報以連續五十八篇系列社論析論修憲議題，系列的總標題是：《修憲，不可毀憲》。
當年本報的主張是：總統既已直選，即應增加總統的權力；總統既增加權力，即應有權責相副的機制；且權力增大的總統，須採「絕對多數」選制，不可採「相對多數制」；而行政權必須一元化，不可切割。
李登輝與民進黨合謀的修憲結果是：一、李登輝欲將總統主持的國家安全會議提升為決策機關，將行政院長定為國安會副主席（國安會主席的部屬），並將行政院作為國安會的幕僚及執行機關。此議因民進黨反對而擱淺。二、取銷立法院對行政院長任命之同意權。此案通過。三、總統選舉採相對多數制。也就是說，李登輝原想以國安會取代行政院的構想未實現，以致國安會升格未成，但行政院長的性質已變。這個「半成品」的修憲成果，致使中樞權責機制不明，本報當年的評論標題是：〈新憲的總統：掀起政潮有餘，權力根據不足！〉
新憲的問題在於：一、總統可以逕自任免行政院長，使總統在法理及事實上皆操控了行政權。二、但總統的權力根據卻無明確法源。李登輝於八十二年修訂《國安會組織法》，即想用「以法代憲」的方式，將國安會改制為前述決策機構，以收編行政院，但未得逞。其後，又欲在第四次修憲時將之入憲，亦告失敗。因此，李登輝始終自稱，總統擁有決定「國防、外交、兩岸」等「大政方針」之權，根本全無憲法或法律之憑據，本報指其為「口諭憲法」。直至民國九十二年扁政府始通過修法，將「國安三權」寫入《國安會組織法》。但問題仍在：一、這仍是「以法代憲」，正當性不足。二、將行政權切分為「總統國安三權」，及「其他行政權」，不合理，亦不可行。三、總統雖在法條上具「國安三權」，但國安會仍非決策機關，且根本沒有執行「三權」的機關配置。
例如，在實際憲政運作上，關於兩岸經貿政務，是「兩岸加經濟」，若承認總統有「兩岸權」，卻無「經濟權」，如何合理？再如軍事採購，是「國防加財政」，若承認總統有「國防權」，卻無「財政權」，如何可行？因而，若承認總統有「國安三權」，則在法理及事實上即不能排除總統介入總體國政。
總統介入行政權的唯一管道即是行政院，而總統可以全權任免行政院長，則是總統操縱行政院的法理及事實憑據。其實，倘若總統不是國會多數黨（如扁政府八年「朝小野大」），總統應可任命多數黨支持的閣揆，以形成「行政權換軌制」的法例；因為，閣揆提名權非但是總統的「權力」，也是總統的憲政「責任」。但是，陳水扁八年任期，皆堅持「少數政府」，並六易閣揆；在二次金改案中，尤可見其對總統權力的專擅，而他的權力又被閣揆及李庸三、林全等閣員承認並受命行事。這種現象，即使未必能說其權力出自列舉主義的法源，但也不可能閉著眼睛、昧著良心說，這在法理及事實上絕非總統在現行憲制上必然衍生的「職權」。
周占春的無恥可惡，在他只舉機場手推車「非總統職權」，以此譏諷馬英九「逾越」；但周占春卻不敢說，八八水災與金融風暴亦非「總統職權」，所以馬英九這個「虛位元首」不應負責。周占春正是將陳水扁塑造成幾近一名「虛位元首」，簡直開脫了他八年主政興風作浪的一切責任；甚至認為，陳水扁連藉勢藉端假二次金改貪汙的「資格」都沒有（你無權管金改，所以沒資格貪汙），這不是胡說八道是什麼？
現行憲制，馬英九欲「退居第二線」而不可得；相對而言，陳水扁堅持「傾向總統制的雙首長制」，則是無往而不利。憲法的規範不明，憲政的隙漏極大。憲法不能說，陳水扁透過任免行政院長絕無介入二次金改的「職權」；憲法也不能規範像周占春這種「獨立審判」的法官不可喪盡專業、天良泯滅！
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Cheng Hung-yi's Crocodile Tears
Cheng Hung-yi's Crocodile Tears
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2010
An uneventful election has made people sleepy. But a shocking campaign rally has made people queasy. Yesterday evening Cheng Hung-yi mounted the podium and denounced President Ma, shouting, "F**k your mother!", again and again. The next morning however, he wrung his hands in anguish, and wept in sympathy for the widows and orphans of Taiwan. His mercurial mood shifts are truly astonishing. Cheng Hung-yi can apparently change his demeanor at the drop of a hat. But what about the mobs whose resentment and anger he has adroitly stirred up? Who will help them resolve the hatred in their hearts?
Cheng Hung-yi's subsequent apology brimmed with calculation and hypocrisy. He admitted he should not have spewed obscenities. But he spun his intemperate outburst as boundless compassion. He attributed it to his dismay at seeing Taiwanese suffer. Only then, he insisted, did his obscenities slip out. But Cheng Hung-yi expressed no regret whatsoever for the false accusations he leveled against others. Cheng Hung-yi's inappropriate behavior was contrary to his role as a media star. He fabricated rumors for political motives. He incited mob hatred. If an individual occasionally lets slip foul language in a moment of passion, or confuses the facts out of ignorance, he can be forgiven. But to deliberately incite social divisions, and to deliberately fabricate falsehoods, is unforgivable. The tears that fell from Cheng Hung-yi's eyes that day were not tears of compassion, but tears of deceit.
Cheng Hung-yi knew full well that the 30,000 NT subsidy for Mainland students was originally instituted by the Lee Teng-hui administration. He knew full well that the policy was continued by the Chen Shui-bian administration, which increased the amount. The policy was maintained by Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Tsai Ing-wen. How can Cheng Hung-yi blame it all on Ma Ying-jeou? How can he assert that it is all President Ma's fault? Tsai Ing-wen and Joseph Wu felt the subsidies would help the Mainland better understand Taiwan's position. But when the Ma administration did exactly the same thing, why was it suddenly accused of "pandering to [Mainland] China" and of "indifference to whether people on Taiwan lived or died?"
Cheng is a recognized political commentator with strongly held political beliefs. That is his prerogative. As a media figure, Cheng Hung-yi may boldly show his political colors. But he may not deliberately disseminate rumors in order to incite mob passions. Cheng Hung-yi not only over-estimated his own role as a media star and as a Green Camp mouthpiece. He lept onto the political stage and assumed that his halo would provide others with a boost at the polls. In the end however, this talking head lost all sense of his own worth. Even Su Chia-chuan, the candidate Cheng was stumping for, was afraid to acknowledge that Cheng was speaking on his behalf.
Cheng Hung-yi was not the only one who wound up looking like a fool. So did the entire Green Camp. Is Tsai Ing-wen truly unaware of the origin of the subsidies for Mainland students? Yet she played dumb, in the hope that scapegoating the Blue Camp would give the DPP a boost in the five cities election, on the cheap. Are Joseph Wu and other DPP legislators truly unaware that the DPP issued these very same subsidies for years? Yet they remain tight-lipped and say nothing. They hide in the shadows and cackle at poor Ma Ying-jeou, who is taking the rap for "selling out Taiwan." Whose mother was insulted is irrelevant. Cheng Hung-yi insulted every mother on Taiwan with his obscenities. Yet normally aggressive women's organizations and educational organizations remained utterly silent about Cheng Hung-yi's vulgar display.
This is the paradox inherent in the five cities election. Public sentiment resembles a pendulum. It detests the old and yearns for the new. The Democratic Progressive Party's initial strategy was to keep a low profile. This appeared enough to create an image of rationality. The DPP would be able to do nothing, yet shatter the myth of KMT "governing capability." Now however, Chen Hung-yi's "F**k your mother!" incident has reminded us that confrontation within Taiwan society continues unabated. The brief peace during the current election is an illusion. So-called "ethnic divisions," (more accurately termed "social divisions") are not obvious in Taichung. Yet the Green Camp is attempting to use them to scapegoat political rivals and sow social divisions. This shows that the calm prevailing during the current election is merely the eye of the hurricane.
Elections on Taiwan are haunted by the spectre of Adolf Hitler. His ghostly image appears in many guises. It appears in cabbies who rip up newspapers. In elected officials who incite mobs to tear down signs. In zealots who issue CDs and DVDs filled with political smears. In politicians who shout themselves hoarse. At first glance, they brim with enthusiasm for reform. At first glance, they gush about fairness and justice. In fact their goal is to fan the flames of hatred and confrontation. In order to incite public passions, their words and emotions must become ever more more extreme. In order to intensify their appeals, they knowingly spread lies and distortions. The DPP issued subsidies to Mainland students for eight years. Chen Hung-yi said nothing. But as soon as the Ma administration issued the very same subsidies, it became a "traitor to Taiwan." Other than hatred and prejudice, what possible motive is there for such accusations?
Actually, this was not a solo performance by Cheng Hung-yi. It was a group performance by the entire Green Camp. Chen Hung-yi choked back tears and gushed sympathy for the downtrodden. But what really stuck in his craw, was his contempt for Ma Ying-jeou, Mainland students, and Mainland China. Using justice as a pretext for individual political bias was the modus operanda of Adolf Hitler and his ilk. Have we forgotten how the German people danced to his tune back then?
看他從眼角滴出了謊言
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.10
一場沒有高潮的選舉，讓人感到乏味；但一場激情亢奮的造勢，卻教人毛骨悚然。鄭弘儀前一夜在台上振臂大罵馬總統「幹Ｘ娘」，第二天卻雙手合十含淚述說對台灣弱者的關懷，此種快速跳接的變臉戲法，令人瞠目結舌。鄭弘儀自己收放自如，但那些被挑起怨恨和憤怒的群眾，誰來幫他們化解心中的仇恨？
鄭弘儀的道歉，充滿狡偽。他承認不該爆粗口，但把自己的激情形容為悲天憫人，全因不捨台灣民眾受苦，才脫口說出髒話。然而，對自己的不實指控，鄭弘儀卻隻字未提，亦毫無歉意。鄭弘儀的失格，在他違背了媒體人的角色，為政治目的而虛構事實、煽動群眾仇恨。因一時情緒失控而爆粗口，或偶因疏忽而不明事實，並非無可饒恕的事；但處心積慮挑起民眾的對立，乃至故意虛構造假抹煞事實，卻是不可原諒的行徑。那一天，從鄭弘儀眼角滴下的不是眼淚，而是謊言。
對陸生的三萬補助，鄭弘儀明明知道是李登輝時代就開始的決策，也明明知道陳水扁時代亦蕭規曹隨，甚至提高金額擴大補助。那麼，這個李登輝、陳水扁、蔡英文一脈相承的政策，鄭弘儀何以獨獨將它套在馬英九頭上，指控說這全是馬總統的罪孽？再說，如果蔡英文和吳釗燮覺得運用經費補助陸生有助加深彼岸對台灣的認同，為何馬政府做同樣的事，就是在媚中傾中，是不顧台灣人死活？
作為一個政論名嘴，持有強烈的政治認同，那是個人的選擇自由。但回到一個媒體人的角色，鄭弘儀可以色彩鮮明，卻不可故意造謠來煽惑群眾。鄭弘儀不僅過度放大了自己的媒體人角色，以綠色喉舌自居；他更跳上舞台助選，以為自己的光環足為別人加持。最後，這個得意忘形的名嘴，弄到連蘇嘉全都不敢承認他在幫自己站台。
出醜的不只是鄭弘儀，而是整個綠營。蔡英文會不知道陸生補助的緣起和由來嗎？她卻裝聾作啞，希望整起「嫁禍」演出能為民進黨五都選舉賺到一點額外的便宜。吳釗燮乃至其他立委會不知道民進黨長期發過這筆錢嗎？他們卻悶不吭聲，躲在暗處笑看「賣台」的帽子落在倒楣的馬英九頭上。一些平日活躍的親綠婦女及教育團體，對鄭弘儀汙辱母親（不管是誰的母親）的低俗演出居然也緘默不語。
這次五都選舉，最弔詭之處就在於此。在民意「厭舊」的鐘擺效應下，民進黨的策略原是保持低調，似乎如此即足以塑造理性形象；什麼都不必做，即能以「治理能力」的神話將國民黨擊倒。但鄭弘儀「幹Ｘ娘」事件卻提醒我們：台灣社會的內部對峙危機片刻未曾稍歇，眼前選季的太平只是一戳即破的假象。連在台中這種族群界線不明顯的地方，綠營都要用這種手法來栽贓、分化，顯示冷淡的選情只是颱風眼的表面寧靜罷了。
台灣的選舉天空，屢屢飄浮著希特勒式的鬼魅，他們以不同的面貌出現：有撕報紙的轎夫，有率眾拆牌匾的官員，有自製非常光碟的狂熱者，有聲嘶力竭的政治人物。乍看之下，他們都滿懷改革熱情；乍聽之下，他們皆滿口公平正義；實際上，他們的目的卻是在點燃仇恨和對立。為了挑激情緒，他們使用的言語和情緒就需要更加偏激；為了強化訴求，他們任意虛構造假、扭曲事實。試想，民進黨發給陸生補助八年，鄭弘儀未曾置一詞；而馬政府一發，即變成台灣罪人。除了仇恨與偏見，其間還有什麼邏輯可以解釋？
這個事件其實不是鄭弘儀的獨舞，而是綠營的集體演出。當鄭弘儀哽咽訴說對弱者的同情時，卡住他喉嚨的，是對馬英九、對陸生、對中國的厭惡。用正義來包裝個人的政治偏見，正是希特勒之輩擅長的事，更別提當年德國人如何瘋狂隨他起舞了。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2010
An uneventful election has made people sleepy. But a shocking campaign rally has made people queasy. Yesterday evening Cheng Hung-yi mounted the podium and denounced President Ma, shouting, "F**k your mother!", again and again. The next morning however, he wrung his hands in anguish, and wept in sympathy for the widows and orphans of Taiwan. His mercurial mood shifts are truly astonishing. Cheng Hung-yi can apparently change his demeanor at the drop of a hat. But what about the mobs whose resentment and anger he has adroitly stirred up? Who will help them resolve the hatred in their hearts?
Cheng Hung-yi's subsequent apology brimmed with calculation and hypocrisy. He admitted he should not have spewed obscenities. But he spun his intemperate outburst as boundless compassion. He attributed it to his dismay at seeing Taiwanese suffer. Only then, he insisted, did his obscenities slip out. But Cheng Hung-yi expressed no regret whatsoever for the false accusations he leveled against others. Cheng Hung-yi's inappropriate behavior was contrary to his role as a media star. He fabricated rumors for political motives. He incited mob hatred. If an individual occasionally lets slip foul language in a moment of passion, or confuses the facts out of ignorance, he can be forgiven. But to deliberately incite social divisions, and to deliberately fabricate falsehoods, is unforgivable. The tears that fell from Cheng Hung-yi's eyes that day were not tears of compassion, but tears of deceit.
Cheng Hung-yi knew full well that the 30,000 NT subsidy for Mainland students was originally instituted by the Lee Teng-hui administration. He knew full well that the policy was continued by the Chen Shui-bian administration, which increased the amount. The policy was maintained by Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Tsai Ing-wen. How can Cheng Hung-yi blame it all on Ma Ying-jeou? How can he assert that it is all President Ma's fault? Tsai Ing-wen and Joseph Wu felt the subsidies would help the Mainland better understand Taiwan's position. But when the Ma administration did exactly the same thing, why was it suddenly accused of "pandering to [Mainland] China" and of "indifference to whether people on Taiwan lived or died?"
Cheng is a recognized political commentator with strongly held political beliefs. That is his prerogative. As a media figure, Cheng Hung-yi may boldly show his political colors. But he may not deliberately disseminate rumors in order to incite mob passions. Cheng Hung-yi not only over-estimated his own role as a media star and as a Green Camp mouthpiece. He lept onto the political stage and assumed that his halo would provide others with a boost at the polls. In the end however, this talking head lost all sense of his own worth. Even Su Chia-chuan, the candidate Cheng was stumping for, was afraid to acknowledge that Cheng was speaking on his behalf.
Cheng Hung-yi was not the only one who wound up looking like a fool. So did the entire Green Camp. Is Tsai Ing-wen truly unaware of the origin of the subsidies for Mainland students? Yet she played dumb, in the hope that scapegoating the Blue Camp would give the DPP a boost in the five cities election, on the cheap. Are Joseph Wu and other DPP legislators truly unaware that the DPP issued these very same subsidies for years? Yet they remain tight-lipped and say nothing. They hide in the shadows and cackle at poor Ma Ying-jeou, who is taking the rap for "selling out Taiwan." Whose mother was insulted is irrelevant. Cheng Hung-yi insulted every mother on Taiwan with his obscenities. Yet normally aggressive women's organizations and educational organizations remained utterly silent about Cheng Hung-yi's vulgar display.
This is the paradox inherent in the five cities election. Public sentiment resembles a pendulum. It detests the old and yearns for the new. The Democratic Progressive Party's initial strategy was to keep a low profile. This appeared enough to create an image of rationality. The DPP would be able to do nothing, yet shatter the myth of KMT "governing capability." Now however, Chen Hung-yi's "F**k your mother!" incident has reminded us that confrontation within Taiwan society continues unabated. The brief peace during the current election is an illusion. So-called "ethnic divisions," (more accurately termed "social divisions") are not obvious in Taichung. Yet the Green Camp is attempting to use them to scapegoat political rivals and sow social divisions. This shows that the calm prevailing during the current election is merely the eye of the hurricane.
Elections on Taiwan are haunted by the spectre of Adolf Hitler. His ghostly image appears in many guises. It appears in cabbies who rip up newspapers. In elected officials who incite mobs to tear down signs. In zealots who issue CDs and DVDs filled with political smears. In politicians who shout themselves hoarse. At first glance, they brim with enthusiasm for reform. At first glance, they gush about fairness and justice. In fact their goal is to fan the flames of hatred and confrontation. In order to incite public passions, their words and emotions must become ever more more extreme. In order to intensify their appeals, they knowingly spread lies and distortions. The DPP issued subsidies to Mainland students for eight years. Chen Hung-yi said nothing. But as soon as the Ma administration issued the very same subsidies, it became a "traitor to Taiwan." Other than hatred and prejudice, what possible motive is there for such accusations?
Actually, this was not a solo performance by Cheng Hung-yi. It was a group performance by the entire Green Camp. Chen Hung-yi choked back tears and gushed sympathy for the downtrodden. But what really stuck in his craw, was his contempt for Ma Ying-jeou, Mainland students, and Mainland China. Using justice as a pretext for individual political bias was the modus operanda of Adolf Hitler and his ilk. Have we forgotten how the German people danced to his tune back then?
看他從眼角滴出了謊言
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.10
一場沒有高潮的選舉，讓人感到乏味；但一場激情亢奮的造勢，卻教人毛骨悚然。鄭弘儀前一夜在台上振臂大罵馬總統「幹Ｘ娘」，第二天卻雙手合十含淚述說對台灣弱者的關懷，此種快速跳接的變臉戲法，令人瞠目結舌。鄭弘儀自己收放自如，但那些被挑起怨恨和憤怒的群眾，誰來幫他們化解心中的仇恨？
鄭弘儀的道歉，充滿狡偽。他承認不該爆粗口，但把自己的激情形容為悲天憫人，全因不捨台灣民眾受苦，才脫口說出髒話。然而，對自己的不實指控，鄭弘儀卻隻字未提，亦毫無歉意。鄭弘儀的失格，在他違背了媒體人的角色，為政治目的而虛構事實、煽動群眾仇恨。因一時情緒失控而爆粗口，或偶因疏忽而不明事實，並非無可饒恕的事；但處心積慮挑起民眾的對立，乃至故意虛構造假抹煞事實，卻是不可原諒的行徑。那一天，從鄭弘儀眼角滴下的不是眼淚，而是謊言。
對陸生的三萬補助，鄭弘儀明明知道是李登輝時代就開始的決策，也明明知道陳水扁時代亦蕭規曹隨，甚至提高金額擴大補助。那麼，這個李登輝、陳水扁、蔡英文一脈相承的政策，鄭弘儀何以獨獨將它套在馬英九頭上，指控說這全是馬總統的罪孽？再說，如果蔡英文和吳釗燮覺得運用經費補助陸生有助加深彼岸對台灣的認同，為何馬政府做同樣的事，就是在媚中傾中，是不顧台灣人死活？
作為一個政論名嘴，持有強烈的政治認同，那是個人的選擇自由。但回到一個媒體人的角色，鄭弘儀可以色彩鮮明，卻不可故意造謠來煽惑群眾。鄭弘儀不僅過度放大了自己的媒體人角色，以綠色喉舌自居；他更跳上舞台助選，以為自己的光環足為別人加持。最後，這個得意忘形的名嘴，弄到連蘇嘉全都不敢承認他在幫自己站台。
出醜的不只是鄭弘儀，而是整個綠營。蔡英文會不知道陸生補助的緣起和由來嗎？她卻裝聾作啞，希望整起「嫁禍」演出能為民進黨五都選舉賺到一點額外的便宜。吳釗燮乃至其他立委會不知道民進黨長期發過這筆錢嗎？他們卻悶不吭聲，躲在暗處笑看「賣台」的帽子落在倒楣的馬英九頭上。一些平日活躍的親綠婦女及教育團體，對鄭弘儀汙辱母親（不管是誰的母親）的低俗演出居然也緘默不語。
這次五都選舉，最弔詭之處就在於此。在民意「厭舊」的鐘擺效應下，民進黨的策略原是保持低調，似乎如此即足以塑造理性形象；什麼都不必做，即能以「治理能力」的神話將國民黨擊倒。但鄭弘儀「幹Ｘ娘」事件卻提醒我們：台灣社會的內部對峙危機片刻未曾稍歇，眼前選季的太平只是一戳即破的假象。連在台中這種族群界線不明顯的地方，綠營都要用這種手法來栽贓、分化，顯示冷淡的選情只是颱風眼的表面寧靜罷了。
台灣的選舉天空，屢屢飄浮著希特勒式的鬼魅，他們以不同的面貌出現：有撕報紙的轎夫，有率眾拆牌匾的官員，有自製非常光碟的狂熱者，有聲嘶力竭的政治人物。乍看之下，他們都滿懷改革熱情；乍聽之下，他們皆滿口公平正義；實際上，他們的目的卻是在點燃仇恨和對立。為了挑激情緒，他們使用的言語和情緒就需要更加偏激；為了強化訴求，他們任意虛構造假、扭曲事實。試想，民進黨發給陸生補助八年，鄭弘儀未曾置一詞；而馬政府一發，即變成台灣罪人。除了仇恨與偏見，其間還有什麼邏輯可以解釋？
這個事件其實不是鄭弘儀的獨舞，而是綠營的集體演出。當鄭弘儀哽咽訴說對弱者的同情時，卡住他喉嚨的，是對馬英九、對陸生、對中國的厭惡。用正義來包裝個人的政治偏見，正是希特勒之輩擅長的事，更別提當年德國人如何瘋狂隨他起舞了。
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Chou Chan-chun's Political Confession
Chou Chan-chun's Political Confession
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 9, 2010
Executive Summary: Chou Chan-chun's Full Court has acquitted the defendants in the Second Financial Reform corruption case. The public is apoplectic. The most mind-boggling aspect of the case is how the text of the full court's ruling openly admits that Blue vs. Green political biases determined its ruling. The text of the ruling was nothing less than the confession of a political hatchetman. Today's framework of constitutional powers and responsibilities is not sufficiently clear. Nevertheless Chou Chan-chun had no right to make such an absurd leap in logic. In order to let Chen off the hook on corruption charges, Chou equated Ma Ying-jeou's intervention in airport trollies with Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority." Chou's legal sophistry is a blemish on our legal system, and a tragedy for constitutional rule.
Full Text below:
Chou Chan-chun's Full Court has acquitted the defendants in the Second Financial Reform corruption case. The public is apoplectic. The most mind-boggling aspect of the case is how the text of the full court's ruling openly admits that Blue vs. Green political biases determined its ruling. The text of the ruling was nothing less than the confession of a political hatchetman.
For example, the text of the ruling points out that promoting the Second Financial Reform was "not part of the president's constitutionally mandated authority." The text states that although Chen Shui-bian promoted the Second Financial Reform "program." he was "merely perpetuating authoritarian thinking and mistakenly presuming the right to intervene in the affairs of the Ministry of Finance." He merely "exceeded his legally mandated presidential authority." Therefore his actions did not constitute "use of his official position to gain illicit advantage." Everyone, from those who offered bribes to those who accepted bribes, was a victim of a "misunderstanding," therefore all were found "not guilty."
In order to enable Chen Shui-bian to evade punishment, Chou Chan-chun used Ma Ying-jeou as a shield. His ruling stated that Chen Shui-bian receiving vast sums of money as a result of his Second Financial Reform "program," was "no different" that the current president's intervention in the airport trolley replacement issue, military physical fitness standards, and wetland ecology. What Chou Chan-chun meant was that Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding of presidential authority" was identical to Ma Ying-jeou's "exceeding of presidential authority." Both were constitutional anomalies. But judges may not turn two wrongs into a right. They may not cite "use of one's official position" to let Chen Shui-bian off scot free.
Chou Chan-chun presumed to interpret the constitution. But he could not mask his own Blue vs. Green political bias, or his attempt to engage in selective prosecution. When mentioning Ma Ying-jeou, he deliberately chose apparently trivial issues, such as trolleys and wetlands. Why didn't Chou Chan-chun mention Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami? These too involved "exceeding the president's constitutionally mandated authority." Ma should neither have intervened, nor should he have been held responsible for either. But Chou Chan-chunn knew that if he cited Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami, he would have been at odds with public sentiment, and would not have had a leg to stand on. Chou deliberately chose the issue of trolleys. He deliberately ignored political reality. Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou were three directly elected presidents. Each of them assumed control over the nation's business. When Chou ignored this political reality, he injected Blue vs. Green politics into his legal judgments. He used handcarts to harass political enemies such as Ma Ying-jeou. He used sophistries about "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority" to help political allies such as Chen Shui-bian evade criminal prosecution. What is this, but the conduct of a political hatchetman?
Let us return to constitutional issues. Seven constitutional "amendments" have seriously eroded the framework of the constitution. Constitutional powers and responsibilities have indeed been blurred. But lest we forget, when Chen Shui-bian was elected president in 2000, he declared that the constitutional framework is moving in the direction of "a presidential system, with a dual leadership system." He refused to allow the legislature to form a majority cabinet. He insisted on a small ruling party, large opposition party-style minority government. All this can be verified. Chen Shui-bian's control over the reigns of government was hardly the "mere perpetuation of a past authoritarian mindset." Chou Chan-chun attempted to drag his political enemies in the KMT into Chen's morass. Chou was motivated by his political bias, not by any honest misunderstanding. Besides, if during his eight years in power, Chen Shui-bian held total dominion over the machinery of state, as Chou acknowledges when Chen "exceeded the president's constitutionally delegated authority," shouldn't Chou be prosecuting Chen for the crime of usurpation?
Those debating the constitution today cannot look only at the provisions, whose content may be unclear. They must look at how the constitution has actually functioned since martial law was lifted 20 years ago. During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in office, the system "moved toward a presidential system with a dual leadership system." In fact it amounted to a fully implemented "super-presidential system." Six premiers in rapid order can testify to that. Chou Chan-chun wants the public to swallow flagrant absurdities. On the one hand, Chou concedes that President Chen did indeed intervene in the Second Financial Reform "program" and that Chen did indeed accept money from the heads of financial conglomerates. On the other hand, Chou insists that as president Chen Shui-bian "lacked the legal authority" to accept this sort of dirty money. Chen Shui-bian is suddenly no longer president, and as such, not guilty. This is akin to saying that if one grabs another person's knife (usurps another person's authority), then kills someone with it (engages in corruption), one is not guilty of homicide, and should not be charged with murder.
Now let us address the legal controversy. First, let us back up. Chou argues that Chen "lacked presidential authority." But even Chou admitted that Chen Shui-bian took money. The Punishment of Corruption Act stipulates that "taking advantage of opportunities offered by one's status as an official to extort wealth" is a felony subject to heavy penalties. The act reads "opportunities" and "status." It does not limit itself to "official authority." Let us back up even further. Chou Chan-chun insists that the money was "campaign contributions." First, several large suitcases filled with cash were delivered to the president's official residence. Then funds were remitted to overseas dummy corporations. This means that Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng were in open violation of the Political Contribution Law, which stipulates that contributions must be deposited in a specified account and may not be in cash. Not only does the law call for harsh penalties, the recipient can even be fined two to three times the amount of the contribution. In other words, Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng accepted 610 million NT in contributions. Therefore they could be fined as much as 1.83 billion NT. Not only does Chou Chan-chun's interpretation of the constitution receive a failing grade, so does his interpretation of the law. All of which confirms what the Special Investigation Unit said when it heard Chou's judgment. "If one is determined to find Chen not guilty, why bother with legal pretexts?
Today's framework of constitutional powers and responsibilities is not sufficiently clear. Nevertheless Chou Chan-chun had no right to make such an absurd leap in logic. In order to let Chen off the hook on corruption charges, Chou equated Ma Ying-jeou's intervention in airport trollies with Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority." Chou's legal sophistry is a blemish on our legal system, and a tragedy for constitutional rule.
檢視周占春的政治自白書
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.09
周占春合議庭判決二次金改賄賂案無罪，輿論譁然。其中最不可思議處，是在整本判決書暴露了合議庭毫不掩飾地以藍綠政治觀點作出這項判決。這部判決書，根本是一本政治打手的自白書。
例如：判決書指出，二次金改「非憲法列舉的總統職權」，陳水扁雖介入二次金改，只是「延續威權統治思考方式誤以為有干預財政部之權」，及「逾越了總統法定職權」而已；因此，不構成「對於職務上之行為收受不正利益」，收錢者、送錢者皆是出自「誤會」，統統判決無罪。
為了替陳水扁開脫，周占春拉馬英九作墊背。判決書說，陳水扁介入二次金改並收受巨款的行為，與總統插手機場手推車更換、國軍體能測驗標準，及生態溼地是否保留等事例「無異」。周占春的意思是說：陳水扁「逾越總統職權」，正如馬英九也「逾越總統職權」；這是憲政異象，但法官不能「將錯就錯」，以「利用職務」來定陳水扁的罪刑云云。
周占春以憲法解釋者自居，卻不能掩飾他是以藍綠政治觀點而作出避重就輕的解釋。他說到馬英九，故意挑舉幾個似乎無足輕重之事，如手推車、溼地保留等；然而，周占春為何不說，八八水災及金融海嘯等「事例」，也皆「非憲法列舉的總統職權」，馬不應預聞，亦不當負責。因為，周占春知道，他若舉八八水災與金融海嘯為例，那就與國民感情與社會認知勢成水火，根本無法立足。周占春故意挑撿了手推車等事，又故意罔顧自李登輝、陳水扁及馬英九以來三位直選總統在實際上皆操持國柄的事實；如此，等於公然在判決書上操作藍綠，以手推車消遣其「政敵」馬英九，並替其「政友」陳水扁之「逾越總統法定職權」辯護脫罪，這寧非政治打手的行徑？
回頭來談憲法爭議。經七次修憲而遭嚴重破毀的憲政權責架構，確實有權責界際不清的問題。但陳水扁在二○○○當選總統即宣示，憲政權責架構是「傾向總統制的雙首長制」；並拒絕由國會多數組閣，而堅持「朝小野大」的「少數政府」。這些皆可證實，陳水扁操持國柄，絕非「延續（過去）威權統治思考方式」（周占春又將其「政敵」國民黨拖下水），而是出自他的政治認知與深信（而非誤解）。倘若陳水扁八年宰制一切國政皆屬「逾越了總統職權」，周占春是否應當治陳水扁以竊國罪？
論今日憲法者，不能只看條文（條文容或不清楚），而必須兼看解嚴後二十年來的實際憲政運作。陳水扁八年執政始終操持「傾向總統制的雙首長制」（其實是「超級總統制」），且實行得通透徹底（六易閣揆即是一證）。周占春的荒謬在於：一方面在判決書中承認「陳總統」確實介入了二次金改且收了金控老闆的錢，另一方面卻認為「總統」無「職權」收這種髒錢，所以「陳水扁」（他不再是總統了？）無罪。這好比說：你搶了別人的刀子（搶了別人的職權）去殺死了人（去貪汙），難道就不算殺人？就不應判殺人罪？
於是可談法律爭議。退一萬步說，即使「非關總統職權」，但陳水扁拿了錢卻是連周占春也證實之事；則在貪汙治罪條例中，有關「藉勢藉端強募財務」、「利用職務上之『機會』（不僅指職權）詐取財務」、「利用職務上之『身分』（亦不僅指職權）圖利自己」皆有「罪刑法定」之法源根據，且皆是重罪重刑。再退一萬步說，周占春既認定系案金錢是「政治獻金」（先用幾大皮箱送入官邸，繼以匯往海外人頭公司），則扁珍亦明顯違反《政治獻金法》（例如應設專戶，不可用現金），除了依法可判重刑，甚至可處罰「受贈之款」二至三倍的罰鍰。亦即，扁珍收贓六‧一億，最高可罰十八‧三億。周占春非但憲法不通，連法律也不通。這一切都印證了特偵組在聽到判決後的一句話：欲判無罪，何患無辭！
現今的憲法權責架構確實有不夠清楚的地方。但無論如何，周占春從馬英九無權管手推車，以跳躍式的邏輯逕自作出陳水扁「逾越總統法定職權」而貪汙為無罪的判決，這是司法界的政治醜聞，亦是憲政上的司法悲劇。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 9, 2010
Executive Summary: Chou Chan-chun's Full Court has acquitted the defendants in the Second Financial Reform corruption case. The public is apoplectic. The most mind-boggling aspect of the case is how the text of the full court's ruling openly admits that Blue vs. Green political biases determined its ruling. The text of the ruling was nothing less than the confession of a political hatchetman. Today's framework of constitutional powers and responsibilities is not sufficiently clear. Nevertheless Chou Chan-chun had no right to make such an absurd leap in logic. In order to let Chen off the hook on corruption charges, Chou equated Ma Ying-jeou's intervention in airport trollies with Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority." Chou's legal sophistry is a blemish on our legal system, and a tragedy for constitutional rule.
Full Text below:
Chou Chan-chun's Full Court has acquitted the defendants in the Second Financial Reform corruption case. The public is apoplectic. The most mind-boggling aspect of the case is how the text of the full court's ruling openly admits that Blue vs. Green political biases determined its ruling. The text of the ruling was nothing less than the confession of a political hatchetman.
For example, the text of the ruling points out that promoting the Second Financial Reform was "not part of the president's constitutionally mandated authority." The text states that although Chen Shui-bian promoted the Second Financial Reform "program." he was "merely perpetuating authoritarian thinking and mistakenly presuming the right to intervene in the affairs of the Ministry of Finance." He merely "exceeded his legally mandated presidential authority." Therefore his actions did not constitute "use of his official position to gain illicit advantage." Everyone, from those who offered bribes to those who accepted bribes, was a victim of a "misunderstanding," therefore all were found "not guilty."
In order to enable Chen Shui-bian to evade punishment, Chou Chan-chun used Ma Ying-jeou as a shield. His ruling stated that Chen Shui-bian receiving vast sums of money as a result of his Second Financial Reform "program," was "no different" that the current president's intervention in the airport trolley replacement issue, military physical fitness standards, and wetland ecology. What Chou Chan-chun meant was that Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding of presidential authority" was identical to Ma Ying-jeou's "exceeding of presidential authority." Both were constitutional anomalies. But judges may not turn two wrongs into a right. They may not cite "use of one's official position" to let Chen Shui-bian off scot free.
Chou Chan-chun presumed to interpret the constitution. But he could not mask his own Blue vs. Green political bias, or his attempt to engage in selective prosecution. When mentioning Ma Ying-jeou, he deliberately chose apparently trivial issues, such as trolleys and wetlands. Why didn't Chou Chan-chun mention Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami? These too involved "exceeding the president's constitutionally mandated authority." Ma should neither have intervened, nor should he have been held responsible for either. But Chou Chan-chunn knew that if he cited Typhoon Morakot and the financial tsunami, he would have been at odds with public sentiment, and would not have had a leg to stand on. Chou deliberately chose the issue of trolleys. He deliberately ignored political reality. Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou were three directly elected presidents. Each of them assumed control over the nation's business. When Chou ignored this political reality, he injected Blue vs. Green politics into his legal judgments. He used handcarts to harass political enemies such as Ma Ying-jeou. He used sophistries about "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority" to help political allies such as Chen Shui-bian evade criminal prosecution. What is this, but the conduct of a political hatchetman?
Let us return to constitutional issues. Seven constitutional "amendments" have seriously eroded the framework of the constitution. Constitutional powers and responsibilities have indeed been blurred. But lest we forget, when Chen Shui-bian was elected president in 2000, he declared that the constitutional framework is moving in the direction of "a presidential system, with a dual leadership system." He refused to allow the legislature to form a majority cabinet. He insisted on a small ruling party, large opposition party-style minority government. All this can be verified. Chen Shui-bian's control over the reigns of government was hardly the "mere perpetuation of a past authoritarian mindset." Chou Chan-chun attempted to drag his political enemies in the KMT into Chen's morass. Chou was motivated by his political bias, not by any honest misunderstanding. Besides, if during his eight years in power, Chen Shui-bian held total dominion over the machinery of state, as Chou acknowledges when Chen "exceeded the president's constitutionally delegated authority," shouldn't Chou be prosecuting Chen for the crime of usurpation?
Those debating the constitution today cannot look only at the provisions, whose content may be unclear. They must look at how the constitution has actually functioned since martial law was lifted 20 years ago. During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in office, the system "moved toward a presidential system with a dual leadership system." In fact it amounted to a fully implemented "super-presidential system." Six premiers in rapid order can testify to that. Chou Chan-chun wants the public to swallow flagrant absurdities. On the one hand, Chou concedes that President Chen did indeed intervene in the Second Financial Reform "program" and that Chen did indeed accept money from the heads of financial conglomerates. On the other hand, Chou insists that as president Chen Shui-bian "lacked the legal authority" to accept this sort of dirty money. Chen Shui-bian is suddenly no longer president, and as such, not guilty. This is akin to saying that if one grabs another person's knife (usurps another person's authority), then kills someone with it (engages in corruption), one is not guilty of homicide, and should not be charged with murder.
Now let us address the legal controversy. First, let us back up. Chou argues that Chen "lacked presidential authority." But even Chou admitted that Chen Shui-bian took money. The Punishment of Corruption Act stipulates that "taking advantage of opportunities offered by one's status as an official to extort wealth" is a felony subject to heavy penalties. The act reads "opportunities" and "status." It does not limit itself to "official authority." Let us back up even further. Chou Chan-chun insists that the money was "campaign contributions." First, several large suitcases filled with cash were delivered to the president's official residence. Then funds were remitted to overseas dummy corporations. This means that Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng were in open violation of the Political Contribution Law, which stipulates that contributions must be deposited in a specified account and may not be in cash. Not only does the law call for harsh penalties, the recipient can even be fined two to three times the amount of the contribution. In other words, Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng accepted 610 million NT in contributions. Therefore they could be fined as much as 1.83 billion NT. Not only does Chou Chan-chun's interpretation of the constitution receive a failing grade, so does his interpretation of the law. All of which confirms what the Special Investigation Unit said when it heard Chou's judgment. "If one is determined to find Chen not guilty, why bother with legal pretexts?
Today's framework of constitutional powers and responsibilities is not sufficiently clear. Nevertheless Chou Chan-chun had no right to make such an absurd leap in logic. In order to let Chen off the hook on corruption charges, Chou equated Ma Ying-jeou's intervention in airport trollies with Chen Shui-bian's "exceeding the president's legally mandated authority." Chou's legal sophistry is a blemish on our legal system, and a tragedy for constitutional rule.
檢視周占春的政治自白書
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.11.09
周占春合議庭判決二次金改賄賂案無罪，輿論譁然。其中最不可思議處，是在整本判決書暴露了合議庭毫不掩飾地以藍綠政治觀點作出這項判決。這部判決書，根本是一本政治打手的自白書。
例如：判決書指出，二次金改「非憲法列舉的總統職權」，陳水扁雖介入二次金改，只是「延續威權統治思考方式誤以為有干預財政部之權」，及「逾越了總統法定職權」而已；因此，不構成「對於職務上之行為收受不正利益」，收錢者、送錢者皆是出自「誤會」，統統判決無罪。
為了替陳水扁開脫，周占春拉馬英九作墊背。判決書說，陳水扁介入二次金改並收受巨款的行為，與總統插手機場手推車更換、國軍體能測驗標準，及生態溼地是否保留等事例「無異」。周占春的意思是說：陳水扁「逾越總統職權」，正如馬英九也「逾越總統職權」；這是憲政異象，但法官不能「將錯就錯」，以「利用職務」來定陳水扁的罪刑云云。
周占春以憲法解釋者自居，卻不能掩飾他是以藍綠政治觀點而作出避重就輕的解釋。他說到馬英九，故意挑舉幾個似乎無足輕重之事，如手推車、溼地保留等；然而，周占春為何不說，八八水災及金融海嘯等「事例」，也皆「非憲法列舉的總統職權」，馬不應預聞，亦不當負責。因為，周占春知道，他若舉八八水災與金融海嘯為例，那就與國民感情與社會認知勢成水火，根本無法立足。周占春故意挑撿了手推車等事，又故意罔顧自李登輝、陳水扁及馬英九以來三位直選總統在實際上皆操持國柄的事實；如此，等於公然在判決書上操作藍綠，以手推車消遣其「政敵」馬英九，並替其「政友」陳水扁之「逾越總統法定職權」辯護脫罪，這寧非政治打手的行徑？
回頭來談憲法爭議。經七次修憲而遭嚴重破毀的憲政權責架構，確實有權責界際不清的問題。但陳水扁在二○○○當選總統即宣示，憲政權責架構是「傾向總統制的雙首長制」；並拒絕由國會多數組閣，而堅持「朝小野大」的「少數政府」。這些皆可證實，陳水扁操持國柄，絕非「延續（過去）威權統治思考方式」（周占春又將其「政敵」國民黨拖下水），而是出自他的政治認知與深信（而非誤解）。倘若陳水扁八年宰制一切國政皆屬「逾越了總統職權」，周占春是否應當治陳水扁以竊國罪？
論今日憲法者，不能只看條文（條文容或不清楚），而必須兼看解嚴後二十年來的實際憲政運作。陳水扁八年執政始終操持「傾向總統制的雙首長制」（其實是「超級總統制」），且實行得通透徹底（六易閣揆即是一證）。周占春的荒謬在於：一方面在判決書中承認「陳總統」確實介入了二次金改且收了金控老闆的錢，另一方面卻認為「總統」無「職權」收這種髒錢，所以「陳水扁」（他不再是總統了？）無罪。這好比說：你搶了別人的刀子（搶了別人的職權）去殺死了人（去貪汙），難道就不算殺人？就不應判殺人罪？
於是可談法律爭議。退一萬步說，即使「非關總統職權」，但陳水扁拿了錢卻是連周占春也證實之事；則在貪汙治罪條例中，有關「藉勢藉端強募財務」、「利用職務上之『機會』（不僅指職權）詐取財務」、「利用職務上之『身分』（亦不僅指職權）圖利自己」皆有「罪刑法定」之法源根據，且皆是重罪重刑。再退一萬步說，周占春既認定系案金錢是「政治獻金」（先用幾大皮箱送入官邸，繼以匯往海外人頭公司），則扁珍亦明顯違反《政治獻金法》（例如應設專戶，不可用現金），除了依法可判重刑，甚至可處罰「受贈之款」二至三倍的罰鍰。亦即，扁珍收贓六‧一億，最高可罰十八‧三億。周占春非但憲法不通，連法律也不通。這一切都印證了特偵組在聽到判決後的一句話：欲判無罪，何患無辭！
現今的憲法權責架構確實有不夠清楚的地方。但無論如何，周占春從馬英九無權管手推車，以跳躍式的邏輯逕自作出陳水扁「逾越總統法定職權」而貪汙為無罪的判決，這是司法界的政治醜聞，亦是憲政上的司法悲劇。
Monday, November 8, 2010
Judge Chou Chan-chun's Wrongheaded Reading of the Constitution
Judge Chou Chan-chun's Wrongheaded Reading of the Constitution
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 8, 2010
The Full Court, under Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun, has handed down its ruling in the Second Financial Reform scandal. Among the 21 defendants were former President Chen Shui-bian and his wife. Despite the fact that the former President and First Lady accepted hundreds of millions of NT in cash, both were found not guilty.
When the news came out, the public was outraged. Were it not for the former President and First Lady's official status, could they have coerced business tycoons into handing over hundreds of millions of dollars in cash? The cash allowed the tycoons to receive benefits they could not have otherwise. After all, who would part with such vast sums willingly? The former First Couple exploited the former President's status of head of state. During the former President's brief time in office, the couple accumulated a vast fortune no middle class family could have in an entire lifetime. The Special Investigation Unit indicted the First Couple, but has not been able to obtain a conviction. It angrily denounced the judges for being totally out of touch with public understanding of the crime. Naturally it intends to appeal.
The three judge panel consisted of Chou Chan-chun, Lin Po-hung, and Ho Chiao-mei. The verdict, which brimmed over with justifications, stated that, "Occasionally differences may arise between the decisions of judges and unverified common sense," but "justice cannot become a tool for manipulation by political forces." In other words, the judges claimed they had refused to try the case on the basis of political stance, common sense, or public sentiment. The judges claimed they would not be surprised if their verdict provoked an intense political and social backlash. Prosecutors intend to appeal and hope to have the verdict reversed. But they must argue their case on the basis of law, and not merely appeal to emotions.
The Taipei District Court handed down a "not guilty" verdict. The judges argued that the prosecution's indictment was rooted in the Punishment of Corruption Act, which prohibits civil servants from "using their official position" to obtain bribes or illicit advantages. The judges argued that the prosecution failed to indicate how the former President "used his official position" to intervene in the merger of financial holding companies, or prove that he accepted bribes. The verdict included a litany of constitutional interpretations. It listed the powers of the president as detailed in the Constitution. It noted that he may not directly issue orders to Executive Yuan personnel, meet with or telephone government heads, or order the Presidential Office Deputy Secretary-General to demand that ministry heads perform specific tasks. These actions all exceed the president's authority, the judges argued, but they do not amount to "use of one's official position." Therefore the judges concluded that the former President and First Lady were not guilty.
Such legal sophistry Ignores a fundamental legal concept. The purpose of constitutional provisions is to prevent abuses by a head of state. They are not intended to help heads of state abuse their authority or escape criminal prosecution. In order to protect the dignity of a head of state, the constitution grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution during his or her term of office. As the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation of the district court's decision has made clear, former President Chen's immunity from criminal prosecution is not absolute. It is not something he enjoys for life. He remains subject to prosecution of criminal behavior committed during his term in office, once his term expires. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the abuse of political power, not to provide a basis to acquit politicians for abuses of authority. The President or any other civil servant who commits a crime never "uses his or her official position" to commit a crime. He "abuses his or her official position" to commit a crime. The Punishment of Corruption Act punishes "using the opportunities provided by one's official position to extort property." It also punishes "accepting illicit benefits in an official capacity." This is why. It is irrelevant whether the payments received by the former President and First Lady constituted bribery. As long as they involve illicit advantages, it already constitutes corruption. Using the Presidential Office to dispatch Presidential Office personnel to intervene in financial reform, abuses the aura and status of "head of state" to accumulate vast wealth, in violation of the constitution. It is hardly a constitutional right such as the basic human right to politial asylum. A constitution is basically an inanimate object. Whether it can prevent the abuse of political power, depends upon whether the courts can interpret it properly. The key is correctly interpreting the intent of the constitution.
Why did these judges render a "not guilty" verdict in this case? Because they lacked an understanding of the constitution, and because a better understanding of the constitution is required. Also, the judges looked only at whether the former President's "used his official position." They ignored the fact that he "abused the opportunities provided by his official position" to engage in corruption. Was this the result of prosecutorial error during the indictment? Was this the result of the judges not seeing the forest for the trees? This must be cleared up during the second instance appeal.
The court's verdict naturally cannot be based on common sense or public sentiment. But the court must also answer the following question. The former President and First Lady promoted government financial reform. As a result they raked in vast sums of money. If that does not constitute corruption under the law, is that due to a deficiency in the law? Is that due to a blunder by prosecutors? Or is that due to political interference? The verdict was tens of thousands of words long. Yet it failed to explain the verdict, If the verdict has provoked a public backlash, the judges can hardly plead innocence.
The Taipei District Court's decision at least clarifies one long-standing misconception. Now at least we can say that the courts truly are not operated by the KMT.
周占春法官錯解了憲法意旨
2010-11-08 中國時報
二次金改弊案，台北地方法院周占春合議庭宣判，包括前總統陳水扁夫婦在內的廿一名被告，雖涉及總統夫婦收受數億新台幣款項的案件情節，皆判決無罪。
消息傳出，社會側目，總統夫婦若不是因為身居國家元首第一家庭的公職身分地位，焉能使得工商鉅子獻出數以億計的金錢，如果不足以讓獻金者獲得非為此獻金不能獲得的利益，又焉有甘心為鉅款獻金的傻瓜，讓總統夫婦徒憑國家元首的頭銜，在短短的總統任期之中取得中產之家一世辛勤也無法累積的鉅額財富？起訴而不能定罪的特偵組痛批法官的認知與社會常情落差過大，提起上訴，也就成為當然。
閱讀本案判決文之後，我們必須指出，由周占春、林柏泓、何俏美三位法官組成的合議庭，在其論證頗為豐富的判決書中，已經寫明：「法官之判決與一般未經嚴格驗證的『常識』、『直覺』想當然爾所得致之結論，或許偶爾會有某些差異存在」；司法不能「淪為特定政治勢力的操控工具」。也就是說，本案審判庭拒絕依據政治立場、一般常識或者是國民感情做為論罪的基礎，因此而引發激烈的政治社會反應，也在其意料之中，檢方希望上訴翻案，若是不能依法論法有效論罪，而僅僅是訴諸激情，恐怕不是辦法。
北院的判決論證無罪的主要基礎，在於檢方起訴的依據，是貪汙治罪條例禁止公務員「對於職務上之行為」收受賄賂或不正當利益的規定，卻講不出總統介入金控合併的行為是「職務上行為」的道理，證明其所收取的就是「賄賂」。判決書中歷數憲法解釋資料，詳為引證總統的職權已經憲法列舉，不能直接指揮行政院人員，約見或致電政府首長，指派總統府副秘書長要求部長如何行事，確是「逾越」總統職權，但不能構成「職務上行為」的犯罪。總統夫婦因此無罪。
立足於此一法律邏輯的判決詭辯，忽略了一個基本的法理觀念：憲法的規定，是用來規範國家元首的濫權行為，而不是用來為濫權行為脫罪的。憲法為了保障國家元首的尊榮，特別賦予總統於在任期間，不受刑事追訴的豁免特權；大法官在地院判決中的憲法解釋中，曾告訴聲請解釋的陳前總統，總統的刑事豁免權不是絕對的，不是終身享有的。任期中的刑事犯罪行為，在任滿後還是要受到追訴的。憲法主要目的在於限制濫用政治權力，不是提供為濫權行為脫罪的根據。其實，總統，或是任何公務員犯罪，都不會是「職務上之行為」，其基本態樣是「利用職務」犯罪。貪汙治罪條例同時處罰「利用職務上之機會詐取財物」及「對於職務上之行為收受不正利益」，道理在此。總統夫婦收取的款項，不論是否為賄賂，要是不正利益，已是構成貪汙。利用總統的辦公室，差遣總統府人員介入金改，也就是藉用「國家元首」的光環與身分，做出違背憲法以牟取鉅額財富，恐怕不是憲法想要庇護的基本人權吧！憲法本是死物，能不能成為防止政治權力濫用政治權力，的確需要法院善加體會，解釋適用才能奏功，關鍵是要學會正確認識憲法的意旨才行！
本案的判決所以做出無罪的判決，不但繫於法院對於憲法的認識與教育是否應該進一步加強，也在於法官只看到了總統濫用職權「不是」職務上行為，卻不去論述是否為「利用職務上之機會」貪汙的問題，這究竟是檢方起訴的偏誤，還是法院判決時的明察秋毫而不見輿薪，上訴二審時，一定要釐清。
法院判決，當然不能根據常識或激情定罪，但也回答一個問題，總統夫婦推動政府進行金融改革，收了那麼多的金錢，不是法律上說的貪汙，是法律規定少了？檢方起訴錯了？還是因為受到了政治干預？數以萬字計的判決對此沒有說明，因而受到社會非議，不能說是冤枉。
台北地院的判決，也許至少釐清了一項長期存在的錯誤觀念。現在我們可以說了，法院還真不是國民黨開的！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 8, 2010
The Full Court, under Taipei District Court Judge Chou Chan-chun, has handed down its ruling in the Second Financial Reform scandal. Among the 21 defendants were former President Chen Shui-bian and his wife. Despite the fact that the former President and First Lady accepted hundreds of millions of NT in cash, both were found not guilty.
When the news came out, the public was outraged. Were it not for the former President and First Lady's official status, could they have coerced business tycoons into handing over hundreds of millions of dollars in cash? The cash allowed the tycoons to receive benefits they could not have otherwise. After all, who would part with such vast sums willingly? The former First Couple exploited the former President's status of head of state. During the former President's brief time in office, the couple accumulated a vast fortune no middle class family could have in an entire lifetime. The Special Investigation Unit indicted the First Couple, but has not been able to obtain a conviction. It angrily denounced the judges for being totally out of touch with public understanding of the crime. Naturally it intends to appeal.
The three judge panel consisted of Chou Chan-chun, Lin Po-hung, and Ho Chiao-mei. The verdict, which brimmed over with justifications, stated that, "Occasionally differences may arise between the decisions of judges and unverified common sense," but "justice cannot become a tool for manipulation by political forces." In other words, the judges claimed they had refused to try the case on the basis of political stance, common sense, or public sentiment. The judges claimed they would not be surprised if their verdict provoked an intense political and social backlash. Prosecutors intend to appeal and hope to have the verdict reversed. But they must argue their case on the basis of law, and not merely appeal to emotions.
The Taipei District Court handed down a "not guilty" verdict. The judges argued that the prosecution's indictment was rooted in the Punishment of Corruption Act, which prohibits civil servants from "using their official position" to obtain bribes or illicit advantages. The judges argued that the prosecution failed to indicate how the former President "used his official position" to intervene in the merger of financial holding companies, or prove that he accepted bribes. The verdict included a litany of constitutional interpretations. It listed the powers of the president as detailed in the Constitution. It noted that he may not directly issue orders to Executive Yuan personnel, meet with or telephone government heads, or order the Presidential Office Deputy Secretary-General to demand that ministry heads perform specific tasks. These actions all exceed the president's authority, the judges argued, but they do not amount to "use of one's official position." Therefore the judges concluded that the former President and First Lady were not guilty.
Such legal sophistry Ignores a fundamental legal concept. The purpose of constitutional provisions is to prevent abuses by a head of state. They are not intended to help heads of state abuse their authority or escape criminal prosecution. In order to protect the dignity of a head of state, the constitution grants the president immunity from criminal prosecution during his or her term of office. As the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation of the district court's decision has made clear, former President Chen's immunity from criminal prosecution is not absolute. It is not something he enjoys for life. He remains subject to prosecution of criminal behavior committed during his term in office, once his term expires. The main purpose of the constitution is to limit the abuse of political power, not to provide a basis to acquit politicians for abuses of authority. The President or any other civil servant who commits a crime never "uses his or her official position" to commit a crime. He "abuses his or her official position" to commit a crime. The Punishment of Corruption Act punishes "using the opportunities provided by one's official position to extort property." It also punishes "accepting illicit benefits in an official capacity." This is why. It is irrelevant whether the payments received by the former President and First Lady constituted bribery. As long as they involve illicit advantages, it already constitutes corruption. Using the Presidential Office to dispatch Presidential Office personnel to intervene in financial reform, abuses the aura and status of "head of state" to accumulate vast wealth, in violation of the constitution. It is hardly a constitutional right such as the basic human right to politial asylum. A constitution is basically an inanimate object. Whether it can prevent the abuse of political power, depends upon whether the courts can interpret it properly. The key is correctly interpreting the intent of the constitution.
Why did these judges render a "not guilty" verdict in this case? Because they lacked an understanding of the constitution, and because a better understanding of the constitution is required. Also, the judges looked only at whether the former President's "used his official position." They ignored the fact that he "abused the opportunities provided by his official position" to engage in corruption. Was this the result of prosecutorial error during the indictment? Was this the result of the judges not seeing the forest for the trees? This must be cleared up during the second instance appeal.
The court's verdict naturally cannot be based on common sense or public sentiment. But the court must also answer the following question. The former President and First Lady promoted government financial reform. As a result they raked in vast sums of money. If that does not constitute corruption under the law, is that due to a deficiency in the law? Is that due to a blunder by prosecutors? Or is that due to political interference? The verdict was tens of thousands of words long. Yet it failed to explain the verdict, If the verdict has provoked a public backlash, the judges can hardly plead innocence.
The Taipei District Court's decision at least clarifies one long-standing misconception. Now at least we can say that the courts truly are not operated by the KMT.
周占春法官錯解了憲法意旨
2010-11-08 中國時報
二次金改弊案，台北地方法院周占春合議庭宣判，包括前總統陳水扁夫婦在內的廿一名被告，雖涉及總統夫婦收受數億新台幣款項的案件情節，皆判決無罪。
消息傳出，社會側目，總統夫婦若不是因為身居國家元首第一家庭的公職身分地位，焉能使得工商鉅子獻出數以億計的金錢，如果不足以讓獻金者獲得非為此獻金不能獲得的利益，又焉有甘心為鉅款獻金的傻瓜，讓總統夫婦徒憑國家元首的頭銜，在短短的總統任期之中取得中產之家一世辛勤也無法累積的鉅額財富？起訴而不能定罪的特偵組痛批法官的認知與社會常情落差過大，提起上訴，也就成為當然。
閱讀本案判決文之後，我們必須指出，由周占春、林柏泓、何俏美三位法官組成的合議庭，在其論證頗為豐富的判決書中，已經寫明：「法官之判決與一般未經嚴格驗證的『常識』、『直覺』想當然爾所得致之結論，或許偶爾會有某些差異存在」；司法不能「淪為特定政治勢力的操控工具」。也就是說，本案審判庭拒絕依據政治立場、一般常識或者是國民感情做為論罪的基礎，因此而引發激烈的政治社會反應，也在其意料之中，檢方希望上訴翻案，若是不能依法論法有效論罪，而僅僅是訴諸激情，恐怕不是辦法。
北院的判決論證無罪的主要基礎，在於檢方起訴的依據，是貪汙治罪條例禁止公務員「對於職務上之行為」收受賄賂或不正當利益的規定，卻講不出總統介入金控合併的行為是「職務上行為」的道理，證明其所收取的就是「賄賂」。判決書中歷數憲法解釋資料，詳為引證總統的職權已經憲法列舉，不能直接指揮行政院人員，約見或致電政府首長，指派總統府副秘書長要求部長如何行事，確是「逾越」總統職權，但不能構成「職務上行為」的犯罪。總統夫婦因此無罪。
立足於此一法律邏輯的判決詭辯，忽略了一個基本的法理觀念：憲法的規定，是用來規範國家元首的濫權行為，而不是用來為濫權行為脫罪的。憲法為了保障國家元首的尊榮，特別賦予總統於在任期間，不受刑事追訴的豁免特權；大法官在地院判決中的憲法解釋中，曾告訴聲請解釋的陳前總統，總統的刑事豁免權不是絕對的，不是終身享有的。任期中的刑事犯罪行為，在任滿後還是要受到追訴的。憲法主要目的在於限制濫用政治權力，不是提供為濫權行為脫罪的根據。其實，總統，或是任何公務員犯罪，都不會是「職務上之行為」，其基本態樣是「利用職務」犯罪。貪汙治罪條例同時處罰「利用職務上之機會詐取財物」及「對於職務上之行為收受不正利益」，道理在此。總統夫婦收取的款項，不論是否為賄賂，要是不正利益，已是構成貪汙。利用總統的辦公室，差遣總統府人員介入金改，也就是藉用「國家元首」的光環與身分，做出違背憲法以牟取鉅額財富，恐怕不是憲法想要庇護的基本人權吧！憲法本是死物，能不能成為防止政治權力濫用政治權力，的確需要法院善加體會，解釋適用才能奏功，關鍵是要學會正確認識憲法的意旨才行！
本案的判決所以做出無罪的判決，不但繫於法院對於憲法的認識與教育是否應該進一步加強，也在於法官只看到了總統濫用職權「不是」職務上行為，卻不去論述是否為「利用職務上之機會」貪汙的問題，這究竟是檢方起訴的偏誤，還是法院判決時的明察秋毫而不見輿薪，上訴二審時，一定要釐清。
法院判決，當然不能根據常識或激情定罪，但也回答一個問題，總統夫婦推動政府進行金融改革，收了那麼多的金錢，不是法律上說的貪汙，是法律規定少了？檢方起訴錯了？還是因為受到了政治干預？數以萬字計的判決對此沒有說明，因而受到社會非議，不能說是冤枉。
台北地院的判決，也許至少釐清了一項長期存在的錯誤觀念。現在我們可以說了，法院還真不是國民黨開的！
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Flora Expo: Both Moving and Beautiful
The Flora Expo: Both Moving and Beautiful
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2010
The Taipei International Flora Exposition is opening tomorrow, and will remain open for six months. The expo has opened during election season, amidst the "fog of war." The political bickering may have blunted the public's initial enthusiasm. But people can now leave behind the odor of political rhetoric. They can wander through the Expo's colorful gardens, and appreciate the ingenuity of its green building designs. The public on Taiwan will be left even more amazed at the Flora Expos' soft power.
Although it is known as the "Taipei Flora Expo," it is in fact a venue for horticulture, architecture, culture, art, and technology on Taiwan as a whole. The world flora expo has been held 49 times. Not one of them compares to this one. No one has ever had such ambitions for a horticultural event. No world flora expo has been this extensive. In addition to displaying the artistry of our flower growers and the ingenuity of our horticultural industry, it has shone a spotlight on our local culture, history, and technology. It is far more than a run of the mill flora expo. It is a rare opportunity for us to shine on the international stage.
The Shanghai World Expo has just ended. To a considerable extent it provided a stimulus for Taipei's own "Mini Expo." The two cannot compare, either in character or in scale. But both are six-month events. The Taipei Flora Expo cost 10 billion NT. It will attract 8 million visitors. The Shanghai World Expo cost 400 billion RMB. It attracted 70 million visitors. David must be perfect when challenging Goliath. This means we must not only plan well, we must also be gracious hosts. Only then can we succeed.
The Flora Expo venue covers 90 hectares. Ninety percent of the flowers are locally grown. For years flower growers and the horticultural industry on Taiwan have dedicated themselves to the development of advanced cultivation techniques and a professional division of labor. They have achieved considerable visibility in the international arena. Unusual flowers and trees have been distributed throughout the gardens by skilled craftsmen, in a colorful manner. Flowers and trees are silent. Bees and butterflies arrive on their own. New ground has been broken throughout, leaving visitors amazed. Visitors who come merely to demagogue the "water spinach" issue, will soon discover that their labors are superfluous.
What leaves one stunned are not just the flowers, but the exquisite design of the exhibition as a whole, its attention to detail and to self-improvement. Three tranquil, low profile pavilions, covered with vegetation, have been constructed around existing trees. These pavilions may be disassembled and the land restored to the park. No footings have been poured, anywhere. In an effort to avoid burning the feet of birds and insects that might alight, no concrete or steel has been used, anywhere. Architects introduced water from the Keelung River. After passing through gravel, water spinach, water oats, and other aquatic plants, the purified and filtered water is used to irrigate plants. It is also recycled and used to cool the surrounding air to 22 degrees.
These architects treat design as a spiritual discipline. Self-promoting politicians may stand before the public and rant about 500 NT water spinach. But what are they doing, except administering poison to individuals of talent?
The Pavilion of Dreams uses sophisticated information technology to move visitors. It allows audience members to participate in a dialogue between man and nature. Through electronic sensing technology and giant LCD screens, it allows them to enter the world of flowers, through the eyes of insects, to enter to blossoms, to spread pollen, to breath with and feel the pulse of flowers and trees. The Pavilion of Dreams does not contain a single real flower for blade of grass. It uses science to put the audience into landscapes created by artists. Ultra thin film speakers have been made to look like flowers. These flowers dance in tune with the music. This teaches viewers a lesson about nature while immersing them in beauty.
From a practical perspective, some degree of confusion will be difficult to avoid. Traffic control, park reception, and the maintenance and planting of flowers and trees, will make opening day a real challenge. Organizers must be on guard. Visitors must try to be cooperative. For the public on Taiwan, the exposition is not merely an international flower market, or a horticultural festival. It provides us with a deeper appreciation of beauty, of sustainable development, with a life education. The Pavilion of Trends features a "Ecologicial Ark" design. It is the world's environmentally friendly building constructed entirely out of recycled PET bottles. It takes advantage of wind direction and building slope to optimize light and heat energy, and to achieve maximum carbon reduction. The use of PET bottles to create a green building that is also aesthetically pleasing constitutes a significant breakthrough.
As one enters the Expo, one sees not just colorful flowers and unusual trees. One experiences the rhythm of nature from the perspective of an insect, via high technology. One experiences green architecture, and how it sustains the life of greenhouse flowers. More importantly, it enables visitors to take away an aesthetic experience to be shared with their communities and neighborhoods, It allows them to make their own homes more beautiful. No longer need we endure pockets of wasteland. Builders and architects will be inspired to evince greater respect for the works of man and nature, rather than think only of how to convert square footage into dollar bills.
The Shanghai World Expo has helped Shanghai become more polite and more civilized. Will the Taipei Flora Expo do the same for Taiwan?
走進花博，發現感動，帶回美感
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.05
台北國際花卉博覽會明起將揭開半年的展期。在選戰硝煙中開啟帷幕，或許有些掃興，但民眾穿過腥臭的政治口水噴泉進入花博的堂奧，徜徉在花木繽紛的庭園，欣賞充滿巧思的綠建築設計，會對台灣民間豐沛的軟實力發出更多驚嘆。
雖稱為「台北花博」，它其實是整個台灣花卉園藝加建築、文化、藝術及科技的一次集體大展演。世界花博辦過四十九屆，沒有一個國家像台灣這樣，把詮釋一場園藝盛會的雄心延展到這麼遠、這麼廣；除了展現花農的妙手和園藝業者的巧思，更把台灣文化、歷史和科技的精采面全搬上花博舞台，遠超過一次典型花博的定位。這是台灣難得的國際演出機會。
剛結束的上海世博，相當程度刺激了台北把花博辦成一個「小世博」的企圖。就性質和規模而言，兩者其實不易相提並論，但同樣半年的展期，台北花博以一百億元台幣的經費，要吸引八百萬人參觀；比起上海世博投入四千億人民幣，接待了七千萬人次，以小搏大的算盤打得更精。這也意味，台灣在精心策劃自己的演出之外，還得扮好東道主的角色，才算成功。
花博九十公頃的園區，近九成花卉都是本土栽植。這些年來，台灣花農及園藝業者致力栽培技術的研發及專業分工，在國際上已有顯著能見度。綻放的奇花異木，透過工匠巧手散布在各色風格的庭園中，花木無語，蜂蝶自來，處處別開生面，讓人驚艷。專為「空心菜」而來的訪客，亦會有不虛此行的領悟。
驚艷的不止是花卉，而在整個展區設計理念的細膩、用心和進步。毫不喧譁的新生三館，以謙卑的姿態將自己包覆在草木底下，側身擁抱園中原有的每棵老樹；考慮日後要還地給公園，不在地面打下任何基樁；為避免落腳的鳥類和昆蟲燙腳，完全不用水泥或鋼材。建築師並從基隆河引進水源，經過礫石及空心菜、茭白筍等水生植物的過濾淨化，用來澆灌花木，更循環利用而為周遭送出廿二度的清涼空氣。
像這樣把設計當成修行般在奉守的建築師，若還要為五百元的空心菜站在公眾面前自我辯駁，那不是政治對人才的荼毒嗎？
夢想館的感動，則是運用台灣成熟的資訊科技，讓觀眾親身融入人與自然的對話之旅。透過感測技術和超大型電控液晶螢幕，人可以像昆蟲那樣進入花朵的世界，擁抱子房、散播花粉，用呼吸和脈膊召喚花木一同成長。沒有一株真實花草的夢想館，由科學家將藝術家的創意變成觀眾能置身其中的場景；超薄紙喇叭打造的花葉，可以隨音樂綣縮、綻放、舞動。這不僅是一課絕佳的自然教育，更是珍貴的美感沐浴之旅。
從現實面看，台北花博的營運，從交通控管到入園接待，乃至花木植栽的保養維護，在開幕初期可能充滿著挑戰，亂象難以避免。這點，主辦單位要更繃緊神經，參觀者也必須設法配合。對台灣而言，這場博覽會的意義，絕不只是一場國際花卉市集，或是一次園藝嘉年華，其間還傳達了更深刻的美感及生命教育、乃至永續經營的生態理念。包括流行館「環生方舟」的設計，是世界首座以回收寶特瓶磚打造的環保屋，運用風向與建築高度的相對關係，讓光與熱的利用達到最佳節能減碳效果。寶特瓶也能表現綠建築概念，且具有審美效應，亦是不容易的突破。
走進花博，人們不只看到繽紛花朵及奇花異木，也透過科技化身為昆蟲感受人與自然的律動，並見識綠建築如何維持溫室花朵的生生不息。更重要的是，民眾如何把這些美感經驗帶回家，帶回自己的社區和鄰里，把家園變得更美麗，讓周遭不再有荒煙蔓草的角落；並啟示建商和建築師如何在作品中融入更多對人與自然的尊重，而不是一心只想把容積率換算成更多鈔票。
上海世博讓上海人變得更禮貌、更文明，台北花博也能讓台灣變得更美麗、更有深度吧？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 5, 2010
The Taipei International Flora Exposition is opening tomorrow, and will remain open for six months. The expo has opened during election season, amidst the "fog of war." The political bickering may have blunted the public's initial enthusiasm. But people can now leave behind the odor of political rhetoric. They can wander through the Expo's colorful gardens, and appreciate the ingenuity of its green building designs. The public on Taiwan will be left even more amazed at the Flora Expos' soft power.
Although it is known as the "Taipei Flora Expo," it is in fact a venue for horticulture, architecture, culture, art, and technology on Taiwan as a whole. The world flora expo has been held 49 times. Not one of them compares to this one. No one has ever had such ambitions for a horticultural event. No world flora expo has been this extensive. In addition to displaying the artistry of our flower growers and the ingenuity of our horticultural industry, it has shone a spotlight on our local culture, history, and technology. It is far more than a run of the mill flora expo. It is a rare opportunity for us to shine on the international stage.
The Shanghai World Expo has just ended. To a considerable extent it provided a stimulus for Taipei's own "Mini Expo." The two cannot compare, either in character or in scale. But both are six-month events. The Taipei Flora Expo cost 10 billion NT. It will attract 8 million visitors. The Shanghai World Expo cost 400 billion RMB. It attracted 70 million visitors. David must be perfect when challenging Goliath. This means we must not only plan well, we must also be gracious hosts. Only then can we succeed.
The Flora Expo venue covers 90 hectares. Ninety percent of the flowers are locally grown. For years flower growers and the horticultural industry on Taiwan have dedicated themselves to the development of advanced cultivation techniques and a professional division of labor. They have achieved considerable visibility in the international arena. Unusual flowers and trees have been distributed throughout the gardens by skilled craftsmen, in a colorful manner. Flowers and trees are silent. Bees and butterflies arrive on their own. New ground has been broken throughout, leaving visitors amazed. Visitors who come merely to demagogue the "water spinach" issue, will soon discover that their labors are superfluous.
What leaves one stunned are not just the flowers, but the exquisite design of the exhibition as a whole, its attention to detail and to self-improvement. Three tranquil, low profile pavilions, covered with vegetation, have been constructed around existing trees. These pavilions may be disassembled and the land restored to the park. No footings have been poured, anywhere. In an effort to avoid burning the feet of birds and insects that might alight, no concrete or steel has been used, anywhere. Architects introduced water from the Keelung River. After passing through gravel, water spinach, water oats, and other aquatic plants, the purified and filtered water is used to irrigate plants. It is also recycled and used to cool the surrounding air to 22 degrees.
These architects treat design as a spiritual discipline. Self-promoting politicians may stand before the public and rant about 500 NT water spinach. But what are they doing, except administering poison to individuals of talent?
The Pavilion of Dreams uses sophisticated information technology to move visitors. It allows audience members to participate in a dialogue between man and nature. Through electronic sensing technology and giant LCD screens, it allows them to enter the world of flowers, through the eyes of insects, to enter to blossoms, to spread pollen, to breath with and feel the pulse of flowers and trees. The Pavilion of Dreams does not contain a single real flower for blade of grass. It uses science to put the audience into landscapes created by artists. Ultra thin film speakers have been made to look like flowers. These flowers dance in tune with the music. This teaches viewers a lesson about nature while immersing them in beauty.
From a practical perspective, some degree of confusion will be difficult to avoid. Traffic control, park reception, and the maintenance and planting of flowers and trees, will make opening day a real challenge. Organizers must be on guard. Visitors must try to be cooperative. For the public on Taiwan, the exposition is not merely an international flower market, or a horticultural festival. It provides us with a deeper appreciation of beauty, of sustainable development, with a life education. The Pavilion of Trends features a "Ecologicial Ark" design. It is the world's environmentally friendly building constructed entirely out of recycled PET bottles. It takes advantage of wind direction and building slope to optimize light and heat energy, and to achieve maximum carbon reduction. The use of PET bottles to create a green building that is also aesthetically pleasing constitutes a significant breakthrough.
As one enters the Expo, one sees not just colorful flowers and unusual trees. One experiences the rhythm of nature from the perspective of an insect, via high technology. One experiences green architecture, and how it sustains the life of greenhouse flowers. More importantly, it enables visitors to take away an aesthetic experience to be shared with their communities and neighborhoods, It allows them to make their own homes more beautiful. No longer need we endure pockets of wasteland. Builders and architects will be inspired to evince greater respect for the works of man and nature, rather than think only of how to convert square footage into dollar bills.
The Shanghai World Expo has helped Shanghai become more polite and more civilized. Will the Taipei Flora Expo do the same for Taiwan?
走進花博，發現感動，帶回美感
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.11.05
台北國際花卉博覽會明起將揭開半年的展期。在選戰硝煙中開啟帷幕，或許有些掃興，但民眾穿過腥臭的政治口水噴泉進入花博的堂奧，徜徉在花木繽紛的庭園，欣賞充滿巧思的綠建築設計，會對台灣民間豐沛的軟實力發出更多驚嘆。
雖稱為「台北花博」，它其實是整個台灣花卉園藝加建築、文化、藝術及科技的一次集體大展演。世界花博辦過四十九屆，沒有一個國家像台灣這樣，把詮釋一場園藝盛會的雄心延展到這麼遠、這麼廣；除了展現花農的妙手和園藝業者的巧思，更把台灣文化、歷史和科技的精采面全搬上花博舞台，遠超過一次典型花博的定位。這是台灣難得的國際演出機會。
剛結束的上海世博，相當程度刺激了台北把花博辦成一個「小世博」的企圖。就性質和規模而言，兩者其實不易相提並論，但同樣半年的展期，台北花博以一百億元台幣的經費，要吸引八百萬人參觀；比起上海世博投入四千億人民幣，接待了七千萬人次，以小搏大的算盤打得更精。這也意味，台灣在精心策劃自己的演出之外，還得扮好東道主的角色，才算成功。
花博九十公頃的園區，近九成花卉都是本土栽植。這些年來，台灣花農及園藝業者致力栽培技術的研發及專業分工，在國際上已有顯著能見度。綻放的奇花異木，透過工匠巧手散布在各色風格的庭園中，花木無語，蜂蝶自來，處處別開生面，讓人驚艷。專為「空心菜」而來的訪客，亦會有不虛此行的領悟。
驚艷的不止是花卉，而在整個展區設計理念的細膩、用心和進步。毫不喧譁的新生三館，以謙卑的姿態將自己包覆在草木底下，側身擁抱園中原有的每棵老樹；考慮日後要還地給公園，不在地面打下任何基樁；為避免落腳的鳥類和昆蟲燙腳，完全不用水泥或鋼材。建築師並從基隆河引進水源，經過礫石及空心菜、茭白筍等水生植物的過濾淨化，用來澆灌花木，更循環利用而為周遭送出廿二度的清涼空氣。
像這樣把設計當成修行般在奉守的建築師，若還要為五百元的空心菜站在公眾面前自我辯駁，那不是政治對人才的荼毒嗎？
夢想館的感動，則是運用台灣成熟的資訊科技，讓觀眾親身融入人與自然的對話之旅。透過感測技術和超大型電控液晶螢幕，人可以像昆蟲那樣進入花朵的世界，擁抱子房、散播花粉，用呼吸和脈膊召喚花木一同成長。沒有一株真實花草的夢想館，由科學家將藝術家的創意變成觀眾能置身其中的場景；超薄紙喇叭打造的花葉，可以隨音樂綣縮、綻放、舞動。這不僅是一課絕佳的自然教育，更是珍貴的美感沐浴之旅。
從現實面看，台北花博的營運，從交通控管到入園接待，乃至花木植栽的保養維護，在開幕初期可能充滿著挑戰，亂象難以避免。這點，主辦單位要更繃緊神經，參觀者也必須設法配合。對台灣而言，這場博覽會的意義，絕不只是一場國際花卉市集，或是一次園藝嘉年華，其間還傳達了更深刻的美感及生命教育、乃至永續經營的生態理念。包括流行館「環生方舟」的設計，是世界首座以回收寶特瓶磚打造的環保屋，運用風向與建築高度的相對關係，讓光與熱的利用達到最佳節能減碳效果。寶特瓶也能表現綠建築概念，且具有審美效應，亦是不容易的突破。
走進花博，人們不只看到繽紛花朵及奇花異木，也透過科技化身為昆蟲感受人與自然的律動，並見識綠建築如何維持溫室花朵的生生不息。更重要的是，民眾如何把這些美感經驗帶回家，帶回自己的社區和鄰里，把家園變得更美麗，讓周遭不再有荒煙蔓草的角落；並啟示建商和建築師如何在作品中融入更多對人與自然的尊重，而不是一心只想把容積率換算成更多鈔票。
上海世博讓上海人變得更禮貌、更文明，台北花博也能讓台灣變得更美麗、更有深度吧？
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Obama Called for Change: Now Voters Call for Obama to Change
Obama Called for Change:
Now Voters Call for Obama to Change
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2010
Two years ago, Barack Obama called for "change," and was elected president. He swept both the Senate and the House, achieving a majority in both. Two years later, a majority of voters in the US said "No!" to Obama and the changes he wrought. The Republicans swept the House during the midterm elections, achieving a majority. It gained 60 seats. They also gained six seats in the Senate, where the Democrats now hold a mere one seat majority. In the gubernatorial elections, the Republicans took at least ten states from the Democrats.
Two years ago Obama was elected under highly favorable circumstances. The Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But because Obama wielded a parliamentary majority in Congress, he was too rash while promoting his bills. White House and Democratic congressional leaders refused to compromise on anything -- from health care reform, to economic stimulus programs, to bank reform. Their legislative record was outstanding. But they left the public with the impression they were arrogant.
Obama's governing team also showed signs of disintegration. Cabinet leaders engaged in backstabbing. Many senior White House aides resigned just before the midterm elections, revealing a "rats deserting a sinking ship" mindset. Six months before the election Obama already detected an increase in public dissatisfaction. He even brought back David Plouffe, his 2008 presidential campaign advisor. But the tide had already turned.
The focus of attention this time was undeniably the Tea Party. It failed to receive as many votes as anticipated. Several high-profile candidates, including Christina O'Donnell and Sharon Angle, failed to win. But at least three state senators and a large number of Tea Party congressmen were elected. The Tea Party stressed spending cuts and small government. Overnight it went from a political movement to a political party. It is now entering Congress. Will it form a separate political caucus? Or is it gradually learning the rules of the power game, and about to be co-opted by the establishment? The answer remains to be seen.
The midterm election defeat will seriously constrain the Obama administration over the next two years. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has left office, to be replaced by Republican Majority Leader John Boehner. Every House committee will be chaired by a Republican. The congressional agenda and legislative review process will be controlled by the opposition GOP. As a result no one party will be able to pass legislation. In the House, the Republican majority will surely pass legislation disliked by Obama. In the Senate, the Republicans will find it easier to block legislation they do not like. Of course the White House can veto bills sent to it by Congress. But the end result is likely to be a refusal to compromise by either side. This will lead to congressional deadlock and administrative paralysis. This has happened before. During the 1992 midterm elections, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to a stunning victory and a showdown with President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Even the federal budgets could not be passed. This led to a shutdown of the federal government.
This would not necessarily be bad for Obama. In fact, the Republicans know that if the government were shut down, they would not escape censure. In the end, they would have to share responsibility. Eventually Clinton reached a compromise with the Republicans. As a result Clinton successfully won re-election in 1996, and the Republicans retained their legislative majority. With a little give and take, the two sides each got what they wanted.
On the foreign policy front, diplomacy has seldom been an issue during midterm elections. But people outside the US were surprised to hear Republicans and the Tea Party blast Obama as unpatriotic. As Sarah Palin put it, Obama “doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.” These critics of Obama believe the US is the most powerful, most moral nation on earth. They cannot accept other nations rising up to challenge the US. They believe therefore that the legal norms of other nations should not constrain the US. It was precisely this blind ideology that allowed Bush II to launch his invasion of Iraq. The prospect of Obama losing his bid for re-election two years is unimaginable to the rest of the world. The prospect of people who think this way returning to power is inconceivable.
The international community held high expectations of Obama. But two years have passed, and he has achieved little. The Middle East peace talks are stalled, again. The Iran and North Korea nuclear talks are stalled, again. No agreement has been reached on the Environmental Summit in Copenhagen. The US has suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Even relations with Beijing have regressed. Obama cannot rely on "I'm not Bush" alone to change the impression the world has of the US, The world's problems remain. In the two years that Obama has left, he must find a way to win the world's respect.
Three weeks from now, five cities on Taiwan will hold municipal elections. Conditions in the US may be different. But the midterm elections in the US offer a number of lessons for Taiwan. First, a midterm election is a vote of confidence in the government. This is true for the US. This will also be true for the five cities elections on Taiwan. If the opposition party receives the endorsement of the public, those in power must heed the warning. But if the ruling party candidate receives the endorsement of the public, the opposition party should also ask itself whether its ideas are outdated.
Secondly, midterm elections usually involve change. Mature and independent voters may change the way they vote. This was true in 1994 with Clinton. This was true when Reagan took over in 1982. Both presidents suffered midterm election defeats. But both were re-elected. Anyone who proclaims that the political climate has changed, may find two years later, that they were overly optimistic.
Finally, the results of the midterm election will be known by midnight on election day. That will mark the official beginning of the 2012 US presidential election. Certain candidates will emerge in the coming two years. Others will be eliminated. Political competition is cruel. There will be even less time following the five cities elections on Taiwan. Only one year and three months. The results of the five cities elections and the presidential election will be even more closely bound together.
號召選民改變 歐巴馬反被選民改變
2010-11-04
中國時報
兩年前，歐巴馬以「Change」為號召，不僅選上總統，也席捲參、眾兩院的多數。兩年後，美國多數選民同樣以選票，對歐巴馬與他帶來的變化說不！美國期中選舉揭曉，共和黨席捲眾議院多數，足足增加了六十席，而在參議院也增加六席，民主黨僅比半數多一席，州長選舉方面，共和黨則從民主黨手上奪下至少十州。
回顧兩年前歐巴馬當選時，情勢非常有利，白宮與參眾兩院都由民主黨控制，但也因為自恃有國會多數，歐巴馬推動法案時，操之過急，從健保改革、刺激景氣方案到銀行改革法案，白宮與民主黨國會領導人都不願妥協，立法效率很高，可是卻給別人傲慢的印象。
歐巴馬的執政團隊也呈現分崩離析，部長們互放暗箭，許多白宮資深幕僚紛紛在期中選舉前辭職他就，呈現大慘敗前先跳船的心態。而早在選前半年，歐巴馬其實就已看到民眾不滿在升高，他還特地把總統選舉的軍師普樂夫找回來操盤，但頹勢已難再扳回。
無可否認，這次矚目的焦點是茶黨，它所獲得的支持並不如事先的預期，幾位知名度高的候選人，包括歐唐納、費歐娜、安格爾都沒有當選，但是至少三個州的參議員，以及為數不少眾議員都打著茶黨候選人的名號當選。強調減少開支、小政府的茶黨，一夜之間，已從政治運動轉化成政治黨派，將來進入國會，是會形成單獨政團？還是逐步學習華府的權力遊戲規則，被吸納入體制？仍有待觀察。
期中選舉的挫敗，對歐巴馬政府未來兩年的運作，將造成嚴重的牽制。除了眾議院議長裴洛西去職，由共和黨多數黨領袖貝納出任，所有委員會主席都將換成共和黨人擔任，舉凡議程安排，法案審查，都會受反對黨控制。導致沒有任何一黨有能力單獨推動政策，在眾議院，占多數的共和黨一定會通過歐巴馬不樂見的法案，而參議院中，共和黨會更有效的阻擋他們不喜歡的法案，當然白宮也可以否決國會送來的法案，最後的結果很可能是雙方都不肯退讓，釀成僵局，行政停擺。這不是沒有發生過，一九九二年期中選舉，金瑞契領導的共和黨大勝，與民主黨的柯林頓總統對著幹，連預算都通不過，導致聯邦政府關門。
這未必對歐巴馬不利，事實上，共和黨知道政府停止運轉，國民的責難無可逃避，最後還是要分攤責任，共和黨後來與柯林頓達成妥協，結果一九九六年柯林頓依然連任成功，而共和黨仍然取得國會多數，各讓一步，雙方政治上也各有所獲。
在對外方面，外交向來不是期中選舉的重要議題，但是美國以外的人卻訝異的發現，共和黨與茶黨的批評歐巴馬不愛國，用裴琳的話來說，是：「不相信美國是世界上僅見、為善的力量」。他們認為美國是最強大的、最有道德的，無法接受其他挑戰美國的國家興起，所以規範其他國家的法律，不應該約束美利堅，就是這種盲目的意識形態，讓布希發動侵伊拉克戰爭，全世界不敢想像，歐巴馬如果再輸掉兩年後的連任選戰，這樣想法的人回來執政，會變成什麼局面。
國際社會曾對歐巴馬有很高的期待，但兩年下來，他並沒有做成什麼，中東和談再度陷入僵局、伊朗與北韓的核武談判停頓，哥本哈根環保高峰會沒有達成協議，阿富汗戰場敗仗連連，甚至與中國的關係都比以前退步。要轉變世界對美國的印象，歐巴馬單單靠「我不是布希」是不夠的，世界的問題都還在那裡，在剩下的兩年中，他必須要拿出辦法來，才能贏得世界的尊重。
三周之後台灣將舉行的五都選舉，雖然國情不同，但是美國期中選舉卻對台灣有若干的啟示。首先，期中選舉是對政府的信任投票，在美國如此，在台灣五都選舉也將會是如此，如果反對黨獲得民眾支持，這是當政者應該深自警惕的，但是如果執政黨候選人受到支持，反對黨也應該檢討自己的主張是否不合時宜。
其次，期中選舉的結果，就像過去的幾次期中選舉一樣，通常是變動的，成熟的獨立選民會來回選擇，在一九九四年柯林頓時如此、一九八二年雷根主政時也是如此，而且這兩位期中選舉遭逢挫敗的總統，都獲選連任，任何人宣稱「政治版圖」已經轉移，兩年之後，都會發現過度樂觀。
最後，從二日午夜期中選舉結果揭曉後，二○一二年的美國總統大選就正式起跑，誰會在這兩年間出頭，誰會被潮流給淘汰，政治的競爭是很直接殘酷的，台灣五都選後的時間更短，只有一年三個月，五都選舉的結果與總統大選，將會更緊密的綁在一起。
Now Voters Call for Obama to Change
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2010
Two years ago, Barack Obama called for "change," and was elected president. He swept both the Senate and the House, achieving a majority in both. Two years later, a majority of voters in the US said "No!" to Obama and the changes he wrought. The Republicans swept the House during the midterm elections, achieving a majority. It gained 60 seats. They also gained six seats in the Senate, where the Democrats now hold a mere one seat majority. In the gubernatorial elections, the Republicans took at least ten states from the Democrats.
Two years ago Obama was elected under highly favorable circumstances. The Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But because Obama wielded a parliamentary majority in Congress, he was too rash while promoting his bills. White House and Democratic congressional leaders refused to compromise on anything -- from health care reform, to economic stimulus programs, to bank reform. Their legislative record was outstanding. But they left the public with the impression they were arrogant.
Obama's governing team also showed signs of disintegration. Cabinet leaders engaged in backstabbing. Many senior White House aides resigned just before the midterm elections, revealing a "rats deserting a sinking ship" mindset. Six months before the election Obama already detected an increase in public dissatisfaction. He even brought back David Plouffe, his 2008 presidential campaign advisor. But the tide had already turned.
The focus of attention this time was undeniably the Tea Party. It failed to receive as many votes as anticipated. Several high-profile candidates, including Christina O'Donnell and Sharon Angle, failed to win. But at least three state senators and a large number of Tea Party congressmen were elected. The Tea Party stressed spending cuts and small government. Overnight it went from a political movement to a political party. It is now entering Congress. Will it form a separate political caucus? Or is it gradually learning the rules of the power game, and about to be co-opted by the establishment? The answer remains to be seen.
The midterm election defeat will seriously constrain the Obama administration over the next two years. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has left office, to be replaced by Republican Majority Leader John Boehner. Every House committee will be chaired by a Republican. The congressional agenda and legislative review process will be controlled by the opposition GOP. As a result no one party will be able to pass legislation. In the House, the Republican majority will surely pass legislation disliked by Obama. In the Senate, the Republicans will find it easier to block legislation they do not like. Of course the White House can veto bills sent to it by Congress. But the end result is likely to be a refusal to compromise by either side. This will lead to congressional deadlock and administrative paralysis. This has happened before. During the 1992 midterm elections, Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to a stunning victory and a showdown with President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Even the federal budgets could not be passed. This led to a shutdown of the federal government.
This would not necessarily be bad for Obama. In fact, the Republicans know that if the government were shut down, they would not escape censure. In the end, they would have to share responsibility. Eventually Clinton reached a compromise with the Republicans. As a result Clinton successfully won re-election in 1996, and the Republicans retained their legislative majority. With a little give and take, the two sides each got what they wanted.
On the foreign policy front, diplomacy has seldom been an issue during midterm elections. But people outside the US were surprised to hear Republicans and the Tea Party blast Obama as unpatriotic. As Sarah Palin put it, Obama “doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.” These critics of Obama believe the US is the most powerful, most moral nation on earth. They cannot accept other nations rising up to challenge the US. They believe therefore that the legal norms of other nations should not constrain the US. It was precisely this blind ideology that allowed Bush II to launch his invasion of Iraq. The prospect of Obama losing his bid for re-election two years is unimaginable to the rest of the world. The prospect of people who think this way returning to power is inconceivable.
The international community held high expectations of Obama. But two years have passed, and he has achieved little. The Middle East peace talks are stalled, again. The Iran and North Korea nuclear talks are stalled, again. No agreement has been reached on the Environmental Summit in Copenhagen. The US has suffered defeat after defeat on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Even relations with Beijing have regressed. Obama cannot rely on "I'm not Bush" alone to change the impression the world has of the US, The world's problems remain. In the two years that Obama has left, he must find a way to win the world's respect.
Three weeks from now, five cities on Taiwan will hold municipal elections. Conditions in the US may be different. But the midterm elections in the US offer a number of lessons for Taiwan. First, a midterm election is a vote of confidence in the government. This is true for the US. This will also be true for the five cities elections on Taiwan. If the opposition party receives the endorsement of the public, those in power must heed the warning. But if the ruling party candidate receives the endorsement of the public, the opposition party should also ask itself whether its ideas are outdated.
Secondly, midterm elections usually involve change. Mature and independent voters may change the way they vote. This was true in 1994 with Clinton. This was true when Reagan took over in 1982. Both presidents suffered midterm election defeats. But both were re-elected. Anyone who proclaims that the political climate has changed, may find two years later, that they were overly optimistic.
Finally, the results of the midterm election will be known by midnight on election day. That will mark the official beginning of the 2012 US presidential election. Certain candidates will emerge in the coming two years. Others will be eliminated. Political competition is cruel. There will be even less time following the five cities elections on Taiwan. Only one year and three months. The results of the five cities elections and the presidential election will be even more closely bound together.
號召選民改變 歐巴馬反被選民改變
2010-11-04
中國時報
兩年前，歐巴馬以「Change」為號召，不僅選上總統，也席捲參、眾兩院的多數。兩年後，美國多數選民同樣以選票，對歐巴馬與他帶來的變化說不！美國期中選舉揭曉，共和黨席捲眾議院多數，足足增加了六十席，而在參議院也增加六席，民主黨僅比半數多一席，州長選舉方面，共和黨則從民主黨手上奪下至少十州。
回顧兩年前歐巴馬當選時，情勢非常有利，白宮與參眾兩院都由民主黨控制，但也因為自恃有國會多數，歐巴馬推動法案時，操之過急，從健保改革、刺激景氣方案到銀行改革法案，白宮與民主黨國會領導人都不願妥協，立法效率很高，可是卻給別人傲慢的印象。
歐巴馬的執政團隊也呈現分崩離析，部長們互放暗箭，許多白宮資深幕僚紛紛在期中選舉前辭職他就，呈現大慘敗前先跳船的心態。而早在選前半年，歐巴馬其實就已看到民眾不滿在升高，他還特地把總統選舉的軍師普樂夫找回來操盤，但頹勢已難再扳回。
無可否認，這次矚目的焦點是茶黨，它所獲得的支持並不如事先的預期，幾位知名度高的候選人，包括歐唐納、費歐娜、安格爾都沒有當選，但是至少三個州的參議員，以及為數不少眾議員都打著茶黨候選人的名號當選。強調減少開支、小政府的茶黨，一夜之間，已從政治運動轉化成政治黨派，將來進入國會，是會形成單獨政團？還是逐步學習華府的權力遊戲規則，被吸納入體制？仍有待觀察。
期中選舉的挫敗，對歐巴馬政府未來兩年的運作，將造成嚴重的牽制。除了眾議院議長裴洛西去職，由共和黨多數黨領袖貝納出任，所有委員會主席都將換成共和黨人擔任，舉凡議程安排，法案審查，都會受反對黨控制。導致沒有任何一黨有能力單獨推動政策，在眾議院，占多數的共和黨一定會通過歐巴馬不樂見的法案，而參議院中，共和黨會更有效的阻擋他們不喜歡的法案，當然白宮也可以否決國會送來的法案，最後的結果很可能是雙方都不肯退讓，釀成僵局，行政停擺。這不是沒有發生過，一九九二年期中選舉，金瑞契領導的共和黨大勝，與民主黨的柯林頓總統對著幹，連預算都通不過，導致聯邦政府關門。
這未必對歐巴馬不利，事實上，共和黨知道政府停止運轉，國民的責難無可逃避，最後還是要分攤責任，共和黨後來與柯林頓達成妥協，結果一九九六年柯林頓依然連任成功，而共和黨仍然取得國會多數，各讓一步，雙方政治上也各有所獲。
在對外方面，外交向來不是期中選舉的重要議題，但是美國以外的人卻訝異的發現，共和黨與茶黨的批評歐巴馬不愛國，用裴琳的話來說，是：「不相信美國是世界上僅見、為善的力量」。他們認為美國是最強大的、最有道德的，無法接受其他挑戰美國的國家興起，所以規範其他國家的法律，不應該約束美利堅，就是這種盲目的意識形態，讓布希發動侵伊拉克戰爭，全世界不敢想像，歐巴馬如果再輸掉兩年後的連任選戰，這樣想法的人回來執政，會變成什麼局面。
國際社會曾對歐巴馬有很高的期待，但兩年下來，他並沒有做成什麼，中東和談再度陷入僵局、伊朗與北韓的核武談判停頓，哥本哈根環保高峰會沒有達成協議，阿富汗戰場敗仗連連，甚至與中國的關係都比以前退步。要轉變世界對美國的印象，歐巴馬單單靠「我不是布希」是不夠的，世界的問題都還在那裡，在剩下的兩年中，他必須要拿出辦法來，才能贏得世界的尊重。
三周之後台灣將舉行的五都選舉，雖然國情不同，但是美國期中選舉卻對台灣有若干的啟示。首先，期中選舉是對政府的信任投票，在美國如此，在台灣五都選舉也將會是如此，如果反對黨獲得民眾支持，這是當政者應該深自警惕的，但是如果執政黨候選人受到支持，反對黨也應該檢討自己的主張是否不合時宜。
其次，期中選舉的結果，就像過去的幾次期中選舉一樣，通常是變動的，成熟的獨立選民會來回選擇，在一九九四年柯林頓時如此、一九八二年雷根主政時也是如此，而且這兩位期中選舉遭逢挫敗的總統，都獲選連任，任何人宣稱「政治版圖」已經轉移，兩年之後，都會發現過度樂觀。
最後，從二日午夜期中選舉結果揭曉後，二○一二年的美國總統大選就正式起跑，誰會在這兩年間出頭，誰會被潮流給淘汰，政治的競爭是很直接殘酷的，台灣五都選後的時間更短，只有一年三個月，五都選舉的結果與總統大選，將會更緊密的綁在一起。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)