Elections Require Competition, Nations Require Unity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 13, 2011
Summary: The Republic of China is one hundred years old. The Republic of China and Taiwan have become inseparable. One may advocate reunification or one may advocate Taiwan independence. But one must understand others and care for others. One must not harm others or hate others. Tsai Ing-wen wants Ma Ying-jeou to declare that "The Republic of China is Taiwan." But Tsai Ing-wen and Taiwan independence advocates must also admit that "Taiwan is [an integral part of] the Republic of China." They must also admit that is the "Taiwan consensus." Elections require competition. Nations require unity, There truly is no need to stir up differences over the Republic of China and Taiwan.
Full Text Below:
Ten minutes of fireworks, two hours of troop reviews, and the Republic of China's centennial celebration was over. This is normal for a democracy. The passage of one hundred years presents us with a rare historical opportunity. Every Republic of China citizen on Taiwan has experienced this unique moment in time. This includes DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. She was not present at the National Day celebration. No matter. She attended the DPP's Tainan City flag raising ceremony. She also amended her previous assertion that "The Republic of China is a government in exile." She said the ROC is the same as Taiwan. For both Green camp advocates of Taiwan independence and Blue camp advocates of Chinese reunification, the Republic of China has become the greatest common denominator.
The course of history has never been smooth. The Republic of China has been in existence for a full century. Its capital has been transferred from the Chinese mainland to Taiwan. The Chinese mainland and Taiwan diverged but are now converging once more. The Republic of China was founded on the Chinese mainland. It had a 38 year long history on the Chinese mainland, Taiwan was then under Japanese occupation. It underwent a very different course of development. Neither course of history can be undone. Both courses co-exist. But the two sides' experience overlap as well. Assertions that the Xinhai Revolution had nothing to do with Taiwan, fly in the face of historical fact.
Tsai Ing-wen asserts that national identity on Taiwan must be confined to the Taiwan Region and the inhabitants of Taiwan. She argues that it must not be based on the Xinhai Revolution that took place 100 years ago. She says the Republic of China she recognizes, is the Republic of China after it transferred its capital to Taiwan -- or perhaps the Republic of China after the 1996 presidential election. She says watching the two sides simultaneously celebrate the Xinhai Revolution leaves her with a queasy feeling. She says the celebrations move the two sides in the direction of "one China." She says "It is alrigh to commemorate history, but not to harm Taiwan's sovereignty."
Tsai Ing-wen's objections are superfluous, Commemorating the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution will not harm "Taiwan's sovereignty." Beijing is attempting to outdo Taipei in commemorating the 1911 Xinhai Revolution. Taipei must not allow others to speak for the Xinhai Revolution that founded the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen may insist that she recognizes only the post-1949 Republic of China, or the post-1996 Republic of China, or even the Republic of China that has celebrated its centennial. It makes no difference. The Republic of China exists and will continue to exist. This is indisputable fact. If Beijing views the Republic of China in a positive light, can Taipei do otherwise? At the moment the Republic of China's future is confined to the Taiwan region. Therefore this is where the smoke from the incense commemorating the sacrifices of the martyrs of the Xinhai Revolution is the thickest.
One cannot say that the Xinhai Revolution has nothing to do with Taiwan. When the Xinhai Revolution erupted, Sun Yat-sen's Revive China Society and the Tongmenhui (Chinese United League) conducted revolutionary activities on Taiwan. Taiwan business tycoons such as Liang Teh Yang Hang General Manager Wu Wen-hsiu, Yi Ho Yang Hang Sales Manager Jung Chi-nian, and business world elder Chao Man-chao, were all Revive China Society members. They donated huge sums of money to the cause. When news of the successfuf revolution broke, Penghu fisherman Chang Chi-pu sailed across the Strait to join the revolutionary troops. During the Yuan Shi-kai Restoration and the second revolution against Yuan, Revive China League members Ong Chun-ming and others went all out to raise money on Taiwan. Lin Chu-mi and others even renounced their Japanese nationality and became Republic of China citizens. They returned to Zhangzhou in Fujian Province and persuaded others to join the anti-Yuan campaign. Lin Chu-mi followed Sun Yat-sen and became the Generalissimo's military attache. Taiwanese who restored themselves to Republic of China national status include Lien Chan's grandfather Lien Ya-tang, Lin Chi-ching, Wu Chi-yu and other intellectuals.
On Taiwan a whole string of anti-Japanese democratic revolutionary movements erupted. The best known occurred between 1912 and 1914. Luo Fu-hsing organized anti-Japanese uprisings in Taipei, Keelung, Taoyuan, and Hsinchu. Meanwhile, in southern and central Taiwan, in Taichung, Nantou, and Tainan, additional uprisings took place. Nine hundred and twenty-one people were arrested by the Japanese police. Those arrested were all tried by temporary courts in Miaoli. The Japanese referred to this as the Miaoli Incident.
These are all historical events. They happened. They cannot be dismissed as "reunificationist history." After the Republic of China government transferred the nation's capital to Taiwan in 1949, the 2/28 incident and the White Terror left difficult to heal wounds in the hearts of Taiwanese. They also created a rationale for pro-independence elements. The pain felt by the public on Taiwan, is an integral part of the pain visited upon the Republic of China, Both left marks on the century old Republic of China that linger until today.
Tsai Ing-wen is running for President of the Republic of China. If elected, she will become the leader of the Republic of China government. This government is the product of the Xinhai Revolution, the successful Northern Expedition that took place on the Chinese mainland, the victory against the Japanese in the War of Resistance Against japan, and the Retrocession of Taiwan to the Chinese nation. No one who runs for high office in the Republic of China, can forget the trail of blood and tears trod by predecessors. Even less can they divorce themselves from it. The Republic of China is not past tense, It is present tense. It is future tense. Some DPP leaders insist that the Republic of China is a "government in exile." Yet they eagerly and brazenly pocket Republic of China issued civil service salaries. This demonstrates how remarkably tolerant the Republic of China government on Taiwan is.
The Republic of China is one hundred years old. The Republic of China and Taiwan have become inseparable. One may advocate reunification or one may advocate Taiwan independence. But one must understand others and care for others. One must not harm others or hate others. Tsai Ing-wen wants Ma Ying-jeou to declare that "The Republic of China is Taiwan." But Tsai Ing-wen and Taiwan independence advocates must also admit that "Taiwan is [an integral part of] the Republic of China." They must also admit that is the "Taiwan consensus." Elections require competition. Nations require unity, There truly is no need to stir up differences over the Republic of China and Taiwan.
選舉需要競爭 國家卻需要團結
2011-10-13 中國時報
十分鐘煙花，兩小時閱兵，中華民國一百年生日就這麼過去了，完全符合民主社會的平常。百年一瞬是難得的歷史機遇，所有中華民國在台灣的人們，其實共同走過了這個特殊的歷史時點；包括民進黨主席蔡英文，儘管缺席國慶大典，卻也在民進黨執政的台南市參與升旗，也修正先前所謂「中華民國是流亡政府」的說法，強調中華民國等於台灣。不論台灣內部的藍綠或統獨歧見，中華民國確實已經成為最大共識。
歷史發展的軸線，從來不是平順無折。中華民國歷經一百年，從大陸到台灣，兩條路徑從分到合，中華民國肇建自大陸，曾經在大陸有過卅八年的歷史，同時間的台灣則在日據之下，有著迥然不同的發展歷程，兩者並存都不能抹滅。而且，兩者確乎有重疊交錯之處，要說辛亥革命完全與台灣不相干，也未盡符合史實。
蔡英文強調，台灣的國家認同在於土地和人民，而不是發生在一百年前的辛亥革命。基本上，她認同的中華民國是來台之後的中華民國，甚至是一九九六年總統直選後的中華民國。她認為兩岸同慶辛亥革命讓人不安，是向「一個中國」靠攏，「紀念歷史可以，但是不能傷害台灣主權。」
蔡英文多慮了，紀念辛亥革命一百年並不會傷害台灣主權。當大陸爭搶辛亥革命的歷史傳承時，台灣絕對不能把辛亥革命民國肇建的話語權拱手讓人。不論蔡英文認同的是一九四九之後的中華民國，或者一九九六之後的中華民國；中華民國紀元一百年，而且還要繼續紀元下去是不爭的事實。對岸無法正視中華民國，台灣豈能漠視中華民國？畢竟中華民國此刻、未來都還在台灣，這就是辛亥革命先烈們犧牲生命創建的國家，香火還愈來愈旺。
辛亥革命和台灣不可謂不相干，事實上，辛亥革命爆發前，孫中山領導的興中會、同盟會都曾在台灣進行革命活動，台灣商界人士諸如良德洋行總經理吳文秀、義和洋行買辦容祺年、商界大老趙滿潮都是興中會會員，且捐助大筆經費。革命成功消息傳來，有澎湖漁民章吉輔駕船渡海參加革命軍，袁世凱復辟，討袁二次革命期間，同盟會會員翁俊明等人亦大力號召台籍人士捐輸，林祖密等人甚至申請脫離日本國籍，並隨即加入中華民國國籍，返回漳州號召有志之士參加討袁戰役，林祖密跟隨孫中山成為大元帥的侍從武官。當時，復籍者還有連戰的祖父連雅堂、林子瑾、吳子瑜等知識分子。
在台灣更有一連串的抗日民主革命運動，最為人熟知的即一九一二年到一四年間，羅福星在台北、基隆、桃園、新竹等地準備抗日起義，同時中南部的台中、南投二廳及台南等地也相繼發生多起起義事件，被日警逮捕人數達九百廿一人，被捕者全部集中在苗栗臨時法院審判，日人統稱為「苗栗事件」。
這些都是發生過的歷史事實，不能僅以統派史觀錯認之。無可諱言，中華民國一九四九年來台前後，先有二二八事件，後有白色恐怖，在台灣人民心中確實留下難以撫平的歷史傷痕，也造就了獨派人士的立論基礎。中華民國的傷痛中，包含台灣的傷痛，兩者都在中華民國一百年的歷史過程中留下印記，以至於迄今難解。
但是，不論蔡英文願不願意接受，她正在競選的中華民國總統，承繼的就是中華民國政權。這個政權起源於辛亥革命，曾在大陸北伐成功，領導抗日戰爭取得勝利，而且收復台灣，凡競逐中華民國大位者，不能忘記前人走過的血淚道路，遑論切割。中華民國不是過去式，而是「現在進行式」，部分仍堅持中華民國是流亡政府的民進黨人，還能堂而皇之領中華民國發給的公職薪水，這就是中華民國在台灣實現民主最可貴之處。
時至中華民國一百年，中華民國與台灣已經合為一體，統獨史觀各有立場，需要彼此諒解與安撫，而非彼此傷害與仇恨。蔡英文呼籲馬英九正視「中華民國就是台灣」的事實，同樣的，蔡英文和獨派人士也必須正視「台灣就是中華民國」是對台灣人民最有利的國家共識。選舉需要競爭，國家卻需要團結，真的不必再刻意挑起中華民國與台灣之間的分歧了。
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tsai Ing-wen's "18% Edition of the Republic of China"
Tsai Ing-wen's "18% Edition of the Republic of China"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 12, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen assiduously collects and deposits her 18% preferential interest rate for Republic of China civil servants into her bank account, even as she rails against it. By the same token, Tsai Ing-wen accepts the Republic of China, even as she repudiates the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian's precedent is a warning, Tsai Ing-wen clings to her "18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China." She was unable to unite the DPP. She will surely divide society, She will find it particularly difficult to deal with cross-Strait relations. That is because her 18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China is merely a tool to seize power, It is not a platform for governing the nation.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen assiduously collects and deposits her 18% preferential interest rate for Republic of China civil servants into her bank account, even as she rails against it. By the same token, Tsai Ing-wen accepts the Republic of China, even as she repudiates the Republic of China.
Apparently the only part of the Republic of China that Tsai Ing-wen accepts, is the 18% preferential interest rate. She rejects the Republic of China created by the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, She says the linkage between the Republic of China and the 1911 Xinhai Revolution "makes her feel uneasy." She does not accept "one China, different interpretations." She does not accept the Republic of China as a Taiwan consensus, or as the basis for cross-Strait reconciliation. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen's version of the Republic of China, severs the Republic of China from its past and denies it any future. By the time Tsai is through with the Republic of China, what is left other than the 18% preferential interest rate she regularly collects and deposits in her bank account?
Tsai Ing-wen now says "The Republic of China government is not a foreign government." "The DPP is tolerant enough to include the Republic of China and the KMT as part of Taiwan," It is tolerant enough to say that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." This, ostensibly, is a new and improved rhetorical line. Actually it is ironic in the extreme. This may be a change relative to Tsai Ing-wen's earlier assertion that "The Republic of China is a government in exile." But for years the DPP has repeatedly flip-flopped on its rhetoric regarding the nation and the constitution. Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is actually a regression relative to Chen Shui-bian's "five noes" and "I swear to defend the Republic of China." It is merely another variant of the old "bait and switch" Taiwan independence "backdoor listing" trick.
Taiwan independence elder Yao Chia-wen declared that the Taiwan independence movement only recognizes the Republic of China Constitution's electoral system, It refuses to recognize everything else. Actually, this is exactly like Tsai Ing-wen's "18% preferential interest rate" take on the Republic of China. In other words, the Taiwan independence movement merely wants its candidate elected Republic of China president. It merely wants to skim the cream off the top of the Republic of China. It refuses to accept the Republic of China's past or future. Therefore when Tsai Ing-wen publishes a "new" theory about the status of the Republic of China, Taiwan independence advocates chime in and say, "So what if we have to resort to a little deceit? We'll change the name after we win the election." They say, "Let her say what she needs to say to win. We'll say what we really believe. Together our votes will bring us victory." As we can see from these arguments, Tsai Ing-wen's "new" rhetoric on national identity is merely "campaign rhetoric" and "a little deceit." It is still the same old "backdoor listing" trick. Taiwan independence advocates understand this perfectly,
It's funny when one thinks about it. Tsai Ing-wen hopes to be elected President of the Republic of China. But 90 days before the election, she is still proclaiming that "The DPP is tolerant enough to accept the Republic of China." But if she is elected, can she really refuse to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the Republic of China? Given her attitude, isn't Tsai Ing-wen even worse than Chen Shui-bian in 2000?
Tsai Ing-wen's new rhetoric raises at least six questions. First, her logic is even less progressive, even more regressive than Chen Shui-bian's "five noes." Second, the DPP's rhetoric concerning the status of the nation has zero credibility. Chen Shui-bian reneged on his "five noes" promise. He performed a complete about face and championed the "rectification of names," the "authoring of a new constitution," and "four demands and one no." Tsai Ing-wen has long maintained that "The Republic of China is a government in exile." She has now performed an about face and allows that "The Republic of China government is not a foreign government." How many more times will she flip-flop in the future? Third, Tsai Ing-wen is running for Republic of China President -- on behalf of the Taiwan independence movement. The DPP's "Taiwan independence party platform" remains in force. Tsai Ing-wen's "new" rhetoric, has invited criticism even from Taiwan independence advocates. How can anyone trust such a platform? Fourth, this "new" rhetoric is merely the same Taiwan independence "bait and switch" charade that has been played out countless times in the past. It is merely "a little deceit," not to be taken too seriously. Taiwan independence advocates will "change the name after we win the election." How is this time any different? Fifth, Tsai Ing-wen talks about the "Republic of China." But she is not referring to the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution as it exists and operates. She is referring to a "backdoor listing" version of the Republic of China. Such an ersatz "Republic of China" will tear Taiwan apart internally. It will make cross-Strait disputes insoluble. Taiwan will once again descend into the dreaded Taiwan independence generated chaos of the past. Sixth, the "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations" is the necessary foundation for cross-Strait peaceful development. But Tsai Ing-wen keeps second-guessing herself. She refuses to state where she stands.
The Republic of China was founded in 1911. That fact is an inseparable part of its history. The Republic of China must deal with cross-Strait relations according to the Republic of China Constitution. This is an unavoidable fact. Tsai Ing-wen would like to cut off the Republic of China from its past, and avoid any mention of its future. She would like to snap of its head, and cut off its tail. Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is nothing more than a minor twist on the same old "backdoor listing" brand of Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian was elected president using this trick. He remained in power for eight years, How is Tsai Ing-wen's approach any different? In sum, the only part of the Republic of China that Chen and Tsai recognize, is the "Republic of China electoral system, useful for seizing power, We refuse to recognize everything else about the Republic of China."
Chen Shui-bian's precedent is a warning, Tsai Ing-wen clings to her "18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China." She was unable to unite the DPP. She will surely divide society, She will find it particularly difficult to deal with cross-Strait relations. That is because her 18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China is merely a tool to seize power, It is not a platform for governing the nation.
蔡英文的「18%中華民國」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.12 01:57 am
蔡英文領十八％，又反十八％。無獨有偶，蔡英文也接受中華民國，又反中華民國。
蔡英文接受的中華民國，彷彿只剩十八％。她不接受一九一一年由辛亥革命創建的中華民國，而認為將中華民國與辛亥革命連結，「讓人感到不安」；她且不接受以「一中各表」的中華民國憲法作為「台灣共識」，及作為未來兩岸折衝的準據。也就是說，蔡英文所說的中華民國，切斷了中華民國的過去，又拒絕承當中華民國的未來；經此七折八扣的中華民國，豈不形同只剩十八％？
蔡英文說「中華民國政府不是外來政府」、「民進黨願將中華民國及國民黨包容在台灣觀念之下」，及「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，而被指稱是一種改善的新論述，這其實是極端諷刺的說法。或許，這套說詞與蔡英文原本所稱「中華民國是流亡政府」比較，已有變化；但是，若與民進黨長期以來在國憲論述上的反覆變化比較起來，蔡英文的論調，較諸陳水扁的「四不一沒有」及「我誓死捍衛中華民國」，其實反而是一種倒退，而根本只是一套「借殼上市」的變體台獨論述。
台獨元老姚嘉文說，台獨只承認中華民國憲法的選舉制度，其他一概否認；其實，這也正是蔡英文的「十八％中華民國觀」。亦即，台獨只想搶當中華民國的總統，只想吃中華民國的甜頭，但拒絕中華民國在過去及未來的承當。因而，當蔡英文發表中華民國新論後，獨派紛紛表態，稱「就是要奸詐一點，選贏了再來改嘛」，「她喊她的，我們喊我們的，票加起來就會贏」；由這些論調可見，蔡英文的國家認同新論述，在獨派的解讀中，只是「選舉語言」、「奸詐騙術」，仍是「借殼上市」。
說來可笑，蔡英文要選中華民國總統，一直到了選前九十餘日，才宣示「民進黨願包容中華民國」；難道她若選上可以不根據中華民國憲法宣誓就職？這樣的蔡英文，豈不較二○○○年的陳水扁還不如？
蔡英文的新論，至少可有六點質疑。一、她的論調，較諸陳水扁的「四不一沒有」，未有超越，只見倒退。二、民進黨人的國家論述不可信。陳水扁可由「四不一沒有」，翻覆到「正名制憲」、「四要一沒有」；則蔡英文由「中華民國是流亡政府」，翻覆到「中華民國政府不是外來政府」，未來還會如何反覆？三、蔡英文是代表台獨參選，且民進黨的《台獨黨綱》依然有效；蔡英文的新論，連獨派對之亦有批評，則憑什麼作為可以信任的競選政見？四、這套說詞在本質上仍只是「奸詐一點，選上再說」的台獨變裝秀；過去已經不知演出過多少次，這次豈有不同？五、如果蔡英文所稱的中華民國，不是完完整整的根據中華民國憲法而存在並運作的中華民國，而是「借殼上市的中華民國」，則對內仍將撕裂台灣，對外亦無以因應兩岸折衝，必再陷入台獨亂台的覆轍。六、「九二共識／一中各表」是兩岸「和平發展」的前提與基礎，但蔡英文卻顧左右而言他，對此仍無回應。
中華民國創建於一九一一年，這是切不斷的歷史；中華民國必須在中華民國憲法的程序下處理兩岸關係，這也是無可迴避的承當。蔡英文那種切割過去，逃避未來，掐頭去尾的中華民國，仍是「借殼上市」的變體台獨；其實，陳水扁正是用此種手段當選總統，執政了八年，則蔡英文的這套手法又有何新鮮之處？歸結而論，扁蔡二人心目中的中華民國，豈不皆是「只承認中華民國的選舉制度，以奪取政權，其他一概不承認」？
陳水扁的殷鑑不遠，蔡英文倘竟仍持此種「十八％的中華民國論」，非但不能整合民進黨，且必將撕裂社會，尤難因應兩岸關係；因為，十八％的中華民國論述，只是愚民奪權的手腕，而絕非繼往開來的治國方案！
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 12, 2011
Summary: Tsai Ing-wen assiduously collects and deposits her 18% preferential interest rate for Republic of China civil servants into her bank account, even as she rails against it. By the same token, Tsai Ing-wen accepts the Republic of China, even as she repudiates the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian's precedent is a warning, Tsai Ing-wen clings to her "18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China." She was unable to unite the DPP. She will surely divide society, She will find it particularly difficult to deal with cross-Strait relations. That is because her 18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China is merely a tool to seize power, It is not a platform for governing the nation.
Full Text Below:
Tsai Ing-wen assiduously collects and deposits her 18% preferential interest rate for Republic of China civil servants into her bank account, even as she rails against it. By the same token, Tsai Ing-wen accepts the Republic of China, even as she repudiates the Republic of China.
Apparently the only part of the Republic of China that Tsai Ing-wen accepts, is the 18% preferential interest rate. She rejects the Republic of China created by the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, She says the linkage between the Republic of China and the 1911 Xinhai Revolution "makes her feel uneasy." She does not accept "one China, different interpretations." She does not accept the Republic of China as a Taiwan consensus, or as the basis for cross-Strait reconciliation. In other words, Tsai Ing-wen's version of the Republic of China, severs the Republic of China from its past and denies it any future. By the time Tsai is through with the Republic of China, what is left other than the 18% preferential interest rate she regularly collects and deposits in her bank account?
Tsai Ing-wen now says "The Republic of China government is not a foreign government." "The DPP is tolerant enough to include the Republic of China and the KMT as part of Taiwan," It is tolerant enough to say that "Taiwan is the Republic of China, and the Republic of China is Taiwan." This, ostensibly, is a new and improved rhetorical line. Actually it is ironic in the extreme. This may be a change relative to Tsai Ing-wen's earlier assertion that "The Republic of China is a government in exile." But for years the DPP has repeatedly flip-flopped on its rhetoric regarding the nation and the constitution. Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric is actually a regression relative to Chen Shui-bian's "five noes" and "I swear to defend the Republic of China." It is merely another variant of the old "bait and switch" Taiwan independence "backdoor listing" trick.
Taiwan independence elder Yao Chia-wen declared that the Taiwan independence movement only recognizes the Republic of China Constitution's electoral system, It refuses to recognize everything else. Actually, this is exactly like Tsai Ing-wen's "18% preferential interest rate" take on the Republic of China. In other words, the Taiwan independence movement merely wants its candidate elected Republic of China president. It merely wants to skim the cream off the top of the Republic of China. It refuses to accept the Republic of China's past or future. Therefore when Tsai Ing-wen publishes a "new" theory about the status of the Republic of China, Taiwan independence advocates chime in and say, "So what if we have to resort to a little deceit? We'll change the name after we win the election." They say, "Let her say what she needs to say to win. We'll say what we really believe. Together our votes will bring us victory." As we can see from these arguments, Tsai Ing-wen's "new" rhetoric on national identity is merely "campaign rhetoric" and "a little deceit." It is still the same old "backdoor listing" trick. Taiwan independence advocates understand this perfectly,
It's funny when one thinks about it. Tsai Ing-wen hopes to be elected President of the Republic of China. But 90 days before the election, she is still proclaiming that "The DPP is tolerant enough to accept the Republic of China." But if she is elected, can she really refuse to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the Republic of China? Given her attitude, isn't Tsai Ing-wen even worse than Chen Shui-bian in 2000?
Tsai Ing-wen's new rhetoric raises at least six questions. First, her logic is even less progressive, even more regressive than Chen Shui-bian's "five noes." Second, the DPP's rhetoric concerning the status of the nation has zero credibility. Chen Shui-bian reneged on his "five noes" promise. He performed a complete about face and championed the "rectification of names," the "authoring of a new constitution," and "four demands and one no." Tsai Ing-wen has long maintained that "The Republic of China is a government in exile." She has now performed an about face and allows that "The Republic of China government is not a foreign government." How many more times will she flip-flop in the future? Third, Tsai Ing-wen is running for Republic of China President -- on behalf of the Taiwan independence movement. The DPP's "Taiwan independence party platform" remains in force. Tsai Ing-wen's "new" rhetoric, has invited criticism even from Taiwan independence advocates. How can anyone trust such a platform? Fourth, this "new" rhetoric is merely the same Taiwan independence "bait and switch" charade that has been played out countless times in the past. It is merely "a little deceit," not to be taken too seriously. Taiwan independence advocates will "change the name after we win the election." How is this time any different? Fifth, Tsai Ing-wen talks about the "Republic of China." But she is not referring to the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution as it exists and operates. She is referring to a "backdoor listing" version of the Republic of China. Such an ersatz "Republic of China" will tear Taiwan apart internally. It will make cross-Strait disputes insoluble. Taiwan will once again descend into the dreaded Taiwan independence generated chaos of the past. Sixth, the "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations" is the necessary foundation for cross-Strait peaceful development. But Tsai Ing-wen keeps second-guessing herself. She refuses to state where she stands.
The Republic of China was founded in 1911. That fact is an inseparable part of its history. The Republic of China must deal with cross-Strait relations according to the Republic of China Constitution. This is an unavoidable fact. Tsai Ing-wen would like to cut off the Republic of China from its past, and avoid any mention of its future. She would like to snap of its head, and cut off its tail. Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China" is nothing more than a minor twist on the same old "backdoor listing" brand of Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian was elected president using this trick. He remained in power for eight years, How is Tsai Ing-wen's approach any different? In sum, the only part of the Republic of China that Chen and Tsai recognize, is the "Republic of China electoral system, useful for seizing power, We refuse to recognize everything else about the Republic of China."
Chen Shui-bian's precedent is a warning, Tsai Ing-wen clings to her "18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China." She was unable to unite the DPP. She will surely divide society, She will find it particularly difficult to deal with cross-Strait relations. That is because her 18% preferential interest rate edition of the Republic of China is merely a tool to seize power, It is not a platform for governing the nation.
蔡英文的「18%中華民國」
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.12 01:57 am
蔡英文領十八％，又反十八％。無獨有偶，蔡英文也接受中華民國，又反中華民國。
蔡英文接受的中華民國，彷彿只剩十八％。她不接受一九一一年由辛亥革命創建的中華民國，而認為將中華民國與辛亥革命連結，「讓人感到不安」；她且不接受以「一中各表」的中華民國憲法作為「台灣共識」，及作為未來兩岸折衝的準據。也就是說，蔡英文所說的中華民國，切斷了中華民國的過去，又拒絕承當中華民國的未來；經此七折八扣的中華民國，豈不形同只剩十八％？
蔡英文說「中華民國政府不是外來政府」、「民進黨願將中華民國及國民黨包容在台灣觀念之下」，及「台灣就是中華民國，中華民國就是台灣」，而被指稱是一種改善的新論述，這其實是極端諷刺的說法。或許，這套說詞與蔡英文原本所稱「中華民國是流亡政府」比較，已有變化；但是，若與民進黨長期以來在國憲論述上的反覆變化比較起來，蔡英文的論調，較諸陳水扁的「四不一沒有」及「我誓死捍衛中華民國」，其實反而是一種倒退，而根本只是一套「借殼上市」的變體台獨論述。
台獨元老姚嘉文說，台獨只承認中華民國憲法的選舉制度，其他一概否認；其實，這也正是蔡英文的「十八％中華民國觀」。亦即，台獨只想搶當中華民國的總統，只想吃中華民國的甜頭，但拒絕中華民國在過去及未來的承當。因而，當蔡英文發表中華民國新論後，獨派紛紛表態，稱「就是要奸詐一點，選贏了再來改嘛」，「她喊她的，我們喊我們的，票加起來就會贏」；由這些論調可見，蔡英文的國家認同新論述，在獨派的解讀中，只是「選舉語言」、「奸詐騙術」，仍是「借殼上市」。
說來可笑，蔡英文要選中華民國總統，一直到了選前九十餘日，才宣示「民進黨願包容中華民國」；難道她若選上可以不根據中華民國憲法宣誓就職？這樣的蔡英文，豈不較二○○○年的陳水扁還不如？
蔡英文的新論，至少可有六點質疑。一、她的論調，較諸陳水扁的「四不一沒有」，未有超越，只見倒退。二、民進黨人的國家論述不可信。陳水扁可由「四不一沒有」，翻覆到「正名制憲」、「四要一沒有」；則蔡英文由「中華民國是流亡政府」，翻覆到「中華民國政府不是外來政府」，未來還會如何反覆？三、蔡英文是代表台獨參選，且民進黨的《台獨黨綱》依然有效；蔡英文的新論，連獨派對之亦有批評，則憑什麼作為可以信任的競選政見？四、這套說詞在本質上仍只是「奸詐一點，選上再說」的台獨變裝秀；過去已經不知演出過多少次，這次豈有不同？五、如果蔡英文所稱的中華民國，不是完完整整的根據中華民國憲法而存在並運作的中華民國，而是「借殼上市的中華民國」，則對內仍將撕裂台灣，對外亦無以因應兩岸折衝，必再陷入台獨亂台的覆轍。六、「九二共識／一中各表」是兩岸「和平發展」的前提與基礎，但蔡英文卻顧左右而言他，對此仍無回應。
中華民國創建於一九一一年，這是切不斷的歷史；中華民國必須在中華民國憲法的程序下處理兩岸關係，這也是無可迴避的承當。蔡英文那種切割過去，逃避未來，掐頭去尾的中華民國，仍是「借殼上市」的變體台獨；其實，陳水扁正是用此種手段當選總統，執政了八年，則蔡英文的這套手法又有何新鮮之處？歸結而論，扁蔡二人心目中的中華民國，豈不皆是「只承認中華民國的選舉制度，以奪取政權，其他一概不承認」？
陳水扁的殷鑑不遠，蔡英文倘竟仍持此種「十八％的中華民國論」，非但不能整合民進黨，且必將撕裂社會，尤難因應兩岸關係；因為，十八％的中華民國論述，只是愚民奪權的手腕，而絕非繼往開來的治國方案！
Beijing Should Acknowledge the Existence of the Republic of China
Beijing Should Acknowledge the Existence of the Republic of China
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 11, 2011
Summary: On Taiwan, the Republic of China government celebrated the Centennial of the Republic of China. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Strait, the Beijing authorities celebrated the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, on a massive scale. Unfortunately, despite repeated calls from President Ma, the Beijing authorities still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China.
Full Text Below:
On Taiwan, the Republic of China government celebrated the Centennial of the Republic of China. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Strait, the Beijing authorities celebrated the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, on a massive scale. Unfortunately, despite repeated calls from President Ma, the Beijing authorities still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China.
Hsu Cho-yun is a member of the Academia Sinica. On the 99th anniversary of the Republic of China, Hsu recalled the Xinhai Revolution. He wrote: "A century of bitterness, a century of frustration, a century of hobbled progress. Endless foreign aggression, everyone wants to take a bite out of this beached whale. Endless civil strife, groups with different convictions struggle to take control of China. People are driven to war. People are trampled into the dust."
Foreign aggression and civil strife constantly wracked the Republic of China. But a new era has begun. The Republic of China is now one hundred years old. We who are alive at the moment can trace the history of our predecessors by their blood and tears, and the all too real suffering endured by our nation and our people. When we behold our nation's flag, few remember that our nation's flag was made from the blood of martyrs.
The Republic of China government relocated its capital from the Mainland Region to the Taiwan Region. It overcame repeated obstacles, It endured repeated failures. It underwent countless crises. It eventually found its footing while on Taiwan. On the economic front, it implemented land reform and the ten great construction projects. Taiwan's economic miracle stunned the world. On the educational front, it promoted Mandarin education and nine year national education. Today, it is about to implement twelve year national education. On the political front, it instituted open primary elections and the comprehensive re-election of the Legislature, It implemented direct presidential elections and the constitutional transfer of power. It underwent a quiet revolution. It free and orderly democracy is like the air and water on Taiwan, These are the Republic of China's most cherished assets. These are the pride of Chinese people the world over.
Go back one hundred years, to the 1911 Revolution, led by Sun Yat-sen. Go back to the establishment of China's first democratic republic. The Republic of China government still retains effective control over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. The universal values of its revolutionary fathers still hold sway on Taiwan. The Republic of China shattered feudal imperial rule. It returned power to the people. It implemented party politics.
This is an important moment in history. The Chinese mainland endured a half-century of conflict. The central government and local governments have gone all out to celebrate the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, A wave of "republic fever" has swept over the people. Everywhere people are engaging in "republic research" as a reflection of their "republic day" nostalgia. It matters not whether they celebrate the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution or the Centennial of the Republic of China, They share a common historical memory and historical understanding. But the most important question is whether the two sides can use this shared historical foundation to find a common solution for the future? We may be required to once again proceed down the long road of history. But the most important first step must be taken by Beijing. Beijing must acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. The Republic of China has endured for a century. It is still here. It will continue to be here for the forseeable future.
The Centennial of the Republic of China is also the Centennial of the successful Xinhai Revolution. The Xinhai Revolution was the cause. The Republic of China was the effect. The historical trajectory is clear. It cannot be denied. The Xinhai Revolution was an historical event that exists in the past. It can be commemorated. But the Republic of China is a hard fact that exists in the present. It must be acknowledged.
President Ma said that perhaps the two sides are currently unable to recognize each other, but they can at least refrain from repudiating each other. The existence fo the Republic of China is a hard fact. It cannot be denied. The Republic of China government has ceased using the term, "Period of Communist Rebellion." It concedes that the Beijing authorities have effective jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland. The two sides have taken key steps towards opening up communications and the peaceful and stable development of cross-Strait relations. We must not attempt to turn back the clock. As we look back over the past one hundred years, we see that the two sides have endured much hardship. The Chinese mainland underwent the three antis and five antis campaigns and the Cultural Revolution. Today its is a major power on the ascendant, No one wants to revisit past suffering.
Cross-Strait civil sector exchanges are varied and intimate. Calls to "retake the mainland" or "liberate Taiwan" are ancient history. After years of separation and confrontation, the Republic of China has become the most important umbilical cord and blood tie linking Taiwan to the Chinese mainland. The Republic of China has flourished on Taiwan. But it cannot deny its historical origins on the Chinese mainland. This link has intricately linked Taiwan to the Chinese mainland, making its ties difficult to cut.
"From a rocky start, right up until today, Chinese people everywhere are finally making a decent living. But the two sides continue to confront each other. The two sides are both plagued by ethnic strife. New problems such as the gap between rich and poor, environmental damage, rampant materialism, and confusion over values press in from all sides, and threaten future problems. People grow old awaiting the Millennium, hoping to enjoy a time of peace, They hope their successors will pursue the same dreams. One generation follows the next. Eventually they will witness the advent of Universal Harmony." These were the words of Hsu Cho-yun. This was the previous generation's hope. There is not reason why it should not be the next generation's dream.
We are fortunate to occupy a critical moment in history. We must cherish it. We must seize it. We must ensure a variety of possible futures. The Republic of China is the political choice of the public on Taiwan. It provides emotional sustenance for the public on Taiwan. Any attempt to harm the Republic of China or repudidate the existence of the Republic of China, will only harm the common interests of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Republic of China is celebrating its centennial. It is time the Beijing authorities redefined cross-Strait relations. The Republic of China has endured for one hundred years. We patiently await the moment when both sides can simultaneously shout, "Happy Birthday, Republic of China!"
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 11, 2011
Summary: On Taiwan, the Republic of China government celebrated the Centennial of the Republic of China. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Strait, the Beijing authorities celebrated the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, on a massive scale. Unfortunately, despite repeated calls from President Ma, the Beijing authorities still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China.
Full Text Below:
On Taiwan, the Republic of China government celebrated the Centennial of the Republic of China. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Strait, the Beijing authorities celebrated the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, on a massive scale. Unfortunately, despite repeated calls from President Ma, the Beijing authorities still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China.
Hsu Cho-yun is a member of the Academia Sinica. On the 99th anniversary of the Republic of China, Hsu recalled the Xinhai Revolution. He wrote: "A century of bitterness, a century of frustration, a century of hobbled progress. Endless foreign aggression, everyone wants to take a bite out of this beached whale. Endless civil strife, groups with different convictions struggle to take control of China. People are driven to war. People are trampled into the dust."
Foreign aggression and civil strife constantly wracked the Republic of China. But a new era has begun. The Republic of China is now one hundred years old. We who are alive at the moment can trace the history of our predecessors by their blood and tears, and the all too real suffering endured by our nation and our people. When we behold our nation's flag, few remember that our nation's flag was made from the blood of martyrs.
The Republic of China government relocated its capital from the Mainland Region to the Taiwan Region. It overcame repeated obstacles, It endured repeated failures. It underwent countless crises. It eventually found its footing while on Taiwan. On the economic front, it implemented land reform and the ten great construction projects. Taiwan's economic miracle stunned the world. On the educational front, it promoted Mandarin education and nine year national education. Today, it is about to implement twelve year national education. On the political front, it instituted open primary elections and the comprehensive re-election of the Legislature, It implemented direct presidential elections and the constitutional transfer of power. It underwent a quiet revolution. It free and orderly democracy is like the air and water on Taiwan, These are the Republic of China's most cherished assets. These are the pride of Chinese people the world over.
Go back one hundred years, to the 1911 Revolution, led by Sun Yat-sen. Go back to the establishment of China's first democratic republic. The Republic of China government still retains effective control over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. The universal values of its revolutionary fathers still hold sway on Taiwan. The Republic of China shattered feudal imperial rule. It returned power to the people. It implemented party politics.
This is an important moment in history. The Chinese mainland endured a half-century of conflict. The central government and local governments have gone all out to celebrate the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, A wave of "republic fever" has swept over the people. Everywhere people are engaging in "republic research" as a reflection of their "republic day" nostalgia. It matters not whether they celebrate the Centennial of the Xinhai Revolution or the Centennial of the Republic of China, They share a common historical memory and historical understanding. But the most important question is whether the two sides can use this shared historical foundation to find a common solution for the future? We may be required to once again proceed down the long road of history. But the most important first step must be taken by Beijing. Beijing must acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. The Republic of China has endured for a century. It is still here. It will continue to be here for the forseeable future.
The Centennial of the Republic of China is also the Centennial of the successful Xinhai Revolution. The Xinhai Revolution was the cause. The Republic of China was the effect. The historical trajectory is clear. It cannot be denied. The Xinhai Revolution was an historical event that exists in the past. It can be commemorated. But the Republic of China is a hard fact that exists in the present. It must be acknowledged.
President Ma said that perhaps the two sides are currently unable to recognize each other, but they can at least refrain from repudiating each other. The existence fo the Republic of China is a hard fact. It cannot be denied. The Republic of China government has ceased using the term, "Period of Communist Rebellion." It concedes that the Beijing authorities have effective jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland. The two sides have taken key steps towards opening up communications and the peaceful and stable development of cross-Strait relations. We must not attempt to turn back the clock. As we look back over the past one hundred years, we see that the two sides have endured much hardship. The Chinese mainland underwent the three antis and five antis campaigns and the Cultural Revolution. Today its is a major power on the ascendant, No one wants to revisit past suffering.
Cross-Strait civil sector exchanges are varied and intimate. Calls to "retake the mainland" or "liberate Taiwan" are ancient history. After years of separation and confrontation, the Republic of China has become the most important umbilical cord and blood tie linking Taiwan to the Chinese mainland. The Republic of China has flourished on Taiwan. But it cannot deny its historical origins on the Chinese mainland. This link has intricately linked Taiwan to the Chinese mainland, making its ties difficult to cut.
"From a rocky start, right up until today, Chinese people everywhere are finally making a decent living. But the two sides continue to confront each other. The two sides are both plagued by ethnic strife. New problems such as the gap between rich and poor, environmental damage, rampant materialism, and confusion over values press in from all sides, and threaten future problems. People grow old awaiting the Millennium, hoping to enjoy a time of peace, They hope their successors will pursue the same dreams. One generation follows the next. Eventually they will witness the advent of Universal Harmony." These were the words of Hsu Cho-yun. This was the previous generation's hope. There is not reason why it should not be the next generation's dream.
We are fortunate to occupy a critical moment in history. We must cherish it. We must seize it. We must ensure a variety of possible futures. The Republic of China is the political choice of the public on Taiwan. It provides emotional sustenance for the public on Taiwan. Any attempt to harm the Republic of China or repudidate the existence of the Republic of China, will only harm the common interests of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Republic of China is celebrating its centennial. It is time the Beijing authorities redefined cross-Strait relations. The Republic of China has endured for one hundred years. We patiently await the moment when both sides can simultaneously shout, "Happy Birthday, Republic of China!"
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Mourning Jobs: A Model for Our Age
Mourning Jobs: A Model for Our Age
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2011
Summary: Apple Computer founder and chairman Steve Jobs is dead. The Apple board issued a statement reading: "We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."
Full Text Below:
Apple Computer founder and chairman Steve Jobs is dead. The Apple board issued a statement reading: "We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."
Just 24 hours earlier, Apple released its new iPhone 4S. But because it was not the much-anticipated iPhone 5, public reaction was mixed, Many journalists began discussing a "post-Apple era" without Steve Jobs. Twenty-four hours later, Jobs passed away. His 56 year long life could not have come to a more dramatic end.
Less than a week after he was born, he was adopted by a couple in California. He dropped out of college after one semester. When he was 21, he and a friend co-founded Apple. The company experienced its first wave of success. But internal power struggles forced Jobs out. Jobs then founded NeXT computer. Apple performed poorly after Jobs left. Eventually it asked him to return. Apple scaled one height after another, until today.
Steve Jobs was the soul of Apple. He was an key force who changed the world. American pundits say that Steve Jobs bears the same relationship to the beginning of 21st century that Thomas Edison bore to the beginning of the 20th century. Edison was an inventor in an age of inventors. Jobs was a product innovator in an age of product innovation.
Jobs' most famous and most widely read aphorism was, "To live is to change the world. Is there any other reason?" He really did change the world, He not only changed the world, he defined the era.
He defined the computer age. From the 80s second-generation Apple2, to the 90s Macintosh line, Jobs was involved not only in the birth of the personal computer, he also made the computer a popular experience, Today many fans love the Mac interface and its unique style.
He defined a new era of film-making. After leaving Apple, Jobs founded Pixar. He used animation technology to make the "Toy Story" movies. He established numerous film history records, He brought animated film into the digital realm.
He defined a new era of music. The iPod and iTunes were music industry killer devices, He introduced a new generation of digital music. Jobs changed the way music was transmitted and stored. But he always believed that the nature and meaning of music had not changed. Technology merely helped people enjoy music with higher fidelity, more efficiently.
During the last five years of his life, he defined the action era. The iPhone gave birth to the smart phone, It combined the functions of a phone and a personal computer. Mobile services led to a structural revolution. After Apple came out with the iPad, Information Technology entered the "post-PC era." People demanded greater mobility and more entertainment value. This indirectly contributed to the development of "cloud technology," because it enabled seamless integration between different devices.
More importantly, Jobs defined a new era of leadership. His ideas and aphorisms were published and became a best seller. Jobs' lectures and briefings were popular events. They were even made into university courses. The world Jobs created was a concept, an ideal. His products and technologies were merely a means to realize his dreams. He never felt he was selling hardware or software, but introducing people to a total experience.
Behind every successful individual, there is always an important support team. But without Jobs' charisma as a leader, without Jobs' vision as a dreamer, a strong technical team and smart financial management alone can never change the world.
What do we hope to learn from him? Jobs' leadership style, Jobs' approach to trends and products, should give politicians and businessmen on Taiwan cause for reflection. What makes for a total experience in products and services? What character traits make for a leader with vision? What sort of thinking is worthy of becoming a corporate vision?
Steve Jobs was not God, Some of his decisions have yet to survive the test of time, For example, his closed operating system strategy, his opposition to "machine sea tactics," his belief in focusing on a single product. Jobs was a model of success. But he also created obstacles, by establishing a mythology about himself. Tim Cook, his successor at Apple, said he must not be compared with Jobs, In this world there is only one Steve Jobs. He may not be unique in the history of the world. But he is unique in the world of today.
If he lived for another decade, the world, like it or not, would have been even more different,
悼賈伯斯：定義時代的典範
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.07 03:09 am
蘋果電腦公司創辦人暨董事長史蒂夫‧賈伯斯辭世。蘋果公司董事會發表的聲明寫著：「我們很悲痛地宣布賈伯斯去世，史蒂夫的才華、熱情與活力，是豐富改善人類生活的泉源，世界因為有了史蒂夫而變得更美好。」
距此二十四小時之前，蘋果電腦公司剛發表了新的智慧型手機iPhone 4S，但因為不是眾所期待的iPhone 5，因此外界褒貶不一，許多媒體開始討論沒有賈伯斯的「後蘋果時代」；二十四小時之後，賈伯斯離世，為他五十六年的戲劇人生，劃下了一個簡直不能更戲劇性的句號。
他出生不滿七天，被加州一對夫妻領養；大學入學才一學期即輟學離開；二十一歲時與朋友共同創辦蘋果公司；在公司到達第一波成就之後，卻因內部權力鬥爭，被迫離開去自創NeXT電腦公司；蘋果公司在賈伯斯離開後表現不佳，最後只好再請他回來，從此再創蘋果電腦公司的高峰，直到現在。
賈伯斯是蘋果公司的靈魂，更是改變世界的重要力量。美國評論家形容：他將成為「二十一世紀的開始」，一如愛迪生是「二十世紀的開始」一樣。愛迪生是發明家輩出年代的一位發明家，而賈伯斯是產品導引時代的產品發起人。
賈伯斯最為人傳誦的名言之一：「活著就是為了改變世界，難道還有其他原因嗎？」他也真的做到了，他不但改變了世界，他更定義了這個時代。
他定義了電腦時代。從八零年代的蘋果電腦第二代（Apple2），到九零年代的麥金塔系列，賈伯斯不但參與了個人電腦的誕生，也打造了一種對於電腦的流行體驗，迄今仍有許多的麥金塔迷深愛其獨特的操作介面與風格。
他定義了新的電影時代。離開蘋果電腦之後，賈伯斯投資創辦了皮克斯電腦動畫公司，用新的動畫技術推出「玩具總動員」電影，創下影史的多項紀錄，把動畫電影帶到新的數位境界。
他定義了新的音樂時代。iPod與iTune成為唱片工業的殺手，但也開啟了數位音樂的全新世代；賈伯斯改變了音樂的傳遞與儲存方式，但他始終認為音樂的本質與內涵沒有改變，科技幫助人們可以用更高品質、更有效率的方式享受音樂。
在人生的最後五年，他定義了行動時代。iPhone開啟了智慧型手機時代，讓手機與電腦功能結合，讓行動載具的服務產生結構性革命；在蘋果公司推出平板電腦iPad之後，資訊界普遍認為進入了「後PC時代」，人們對於電腦的需求開始朝向更高的移動性與娛樂性，更間接促成了「雲端科技」的發展，因為使用者要求在不同行動載具之間可以無縫接軌。
更重要的，賈伯斯定義了新的領導時代。他的理念、名言都已成為暢銷著作，而賈式風格的演講和簡報，更是成為一種流行標竿，甚至是大學裡的課程。賈伯斯打造的世界是一種概念、一種理想，他的產品與技術，只是實現夢想的手段；他從不認為他在銷售硬體或軟體，而是在推出一個完整的使用經驗與方案。
每一位成功者的背後，絕對都有重要團隊的支持，但如果沒有賈伯斯獨特的領袖者特質、少了賈伯斯的夢想家魅力，再堅強的技術團隊，再精明的財務管理，也無法創造這種改變世界的力量。
如果問，我們希望從他身上學到些什麼？至少，賈伯斯的對於趨勢及產品的領導風格，可以讓台灣政治界與企業界人士有些省思：什麼是產品服務的完整體驗、什麼是夢想領袖的魅力特質、什麼是企業願景的具體思維。
賈伯斯不是神，他的若干決策都尚有待於更多時間的檢驗，例如採用封閉的作業系統策略；他也不贊成多種產品的「機海戰術」，而強力專注於單一產品。但賈伯斯真的成就了一種典範，塑造了一種障礙，建立了一種傳奇。蘋果公司接班人庫克說，不要拿他與賈伯斯比較，因為這世界上只有一位賈伯斯。他或許不是歷史上的絕無僅有，卻是當今世界的唯一。
是的，如果他能多活十年，相信這個世界會更不一樣，不論人們喜歡與否。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2011
Summary: Apple Computer founder and chairman Steve Jobs is dead. The Apple board issued a statement reading: "We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."
Full Text Below:
Apple Computer founder and chairman Steve Jobs is dead. The Apple board issued a statement reading: "We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today. Steve’s brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."
Just 24 hours earlier, Apple released its new iPhone 4S. But because it was not the much-anticipated iPhone 5, public reaction was mixed, Many journalists began discussing a "post-Apple era" without Steve Jobs. Twenty-four hours later, Jobs passed away. His 56 year long life could not have come to a more dramatic end.
Less than a week after he was born, he was adopted by a couple in California. He dropped out of college after one semester. When he was 21, he and a friend co-founded Apple. The company experienced its first wave of success. But internal power struggles forced Jobs out. Jobs then founded NeXT computer. Apple performed poorly after Jobs left. Eventually it asked him to return. Apple scaled one height after another, until today.
Steve Jobs was the soul of Apple. He was an key force who changed the world. American pundits say that Steve Jobs bears the same relationship to the beginning of 21st century that Thomas Edison bore to the beginning of the 20th century. Edison was an inventor in an age of inventors. Jobs was a product innovator in an age of product innovation.
Jobs' most famous and most widely read aphorism was, "To live is to change the world. Is there any other reason?" He really did change the world, He not only changed the world, he defined the era.
He defined the computer age. From the 80s second-generation Apple2, to the 90s Macintosh line, Jobs was involved not only in the birth of the personal computer, he also made the computer a popular experience, Today many fans love the Mac interface and its unique style.
He defined a new era of film-making. After leaving Apple, Jobs founded Pixar. He used animation technology to make the "Toy Story" movies. He established numerous film history records, He brought animated film into the digital realm.
He defined a new era of music. The iPod and iTunes were music industry killer devices, He introduced a new generation of digital music. Jobs changed the way music was transmitted and stored. But he always believed that the nature and meaning of music had not changed. Technology merely helped people enjoy music with higher fidelity, more efficiently.
During the last five years of his life, he defined the action era. The iPhone gave birth to the smart phone, It combined the functions of a phone and a personal computer. Mobile services led to a structural revolution. After Apple came out with the iPad, Information Technology entered the "post-PC era." People demanded greater mobility and more entertainment value. This indirectly contributed to the development of "cloud technology," because it enabled seamless integration between different devices.
More importantly, Jobs defined a new era of leadership. His ideas and aphorisms were published and became a best seller. Jobs' lectures and briefings were popular events. They were even made into university courses. The world Jobs created was a concept, an ideal. His products and technologies were merely a means to realize his dreams. He never felt he was selling hardware or software, but introducing people to a total experience.
Behind every successful individual, there is always an important support team. But without Jobs' charisma as a leader, without Jobs' vision as a dreamer, a strong technical team and smart financial management alone can never change the world.
What do we hope to learn from him? Jobs' leadership style, Jobs' approach to trends and products, should give politicians and businessmen on Taiwan cause for reflection. What makes for a total experience in products and services? What character traits make for a leader with vision? What sort of thinking is worthy of becoming a corporate vision?
Steve Jobs was not God, Some of his decisions have yet to survive the test of time, For example, his closed operating system strategy, his opposition to "machine sea tactics," his belief in focusing on a single product. Jobs was a model of success. But he also created obstacles, by establishing a mythology about himself. Tim Cook, his successor at Apple, said he must not be compared with Jobs, In this world there is only one Steve Jobs. He may not be unique in the history of the world. But he is unique in the world of today.
If he lived for another decade, the world, like it or not, would have been even more different,
悼賈伯斯：定義時代的典範
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.07 03:09 am
蘋果電腦公司創辦人暨董事長史蒂夫‧賈伯斯辭世。蘋果公司董事會發表的聲明寫著：「我們很悲痛地宣布賈伯斯去世，史蒂夫的才華、熱情與活力，是豐富改善人類生活的泉源，世界因為有了史蒂夫而變得更美好。」
距此二十四小時之前，蘋果電腦公司剛發表了新的智慧型手機iPhone 4S，但因為不是眾所期待的iPhone 5，因此外界褒貶不一，許多媒體開始討論沒有賈伯斯的「後蘋果時代」；二十四小時之後，賈伯斯離世，為他五十六年的戲劇人生，劃下了一個簡直不能更戲劇性的句號。
他出生不滿七天，被加州一對夫妻領養；大學入學才一學期即輟學離開；二十一歲時與朋友共同創辦蘋果公司；在公司到達第一波成就之後，卻因內部權力鬥爭，被迫離開去自創NeXT電腦公司；蘋果公司在賈伯斯離開後表現不佳，最後只好再請他回來，從此再創蘋果電腦公司的高峰，直到現在。
賈伯斯是蘋果公司的靈魂，更是改變世界的重要力量。美國評論家形容：他將成為「二十一世紀的開始」，一如愛迪生是「二十世紀的開始」一樣。愛迪生是發明家輩出年代的一位發明家，而賈伯斯是產品導引時代的產品發起人。
賈伯斯最為人傳誦的名言之一：「活著就是為了改變世界，難道還有其他原因嗎？」他也真的做到了，他不但改變了世界，他更定義了這個時代。
他定義了電腦時代。從八零年代的蘋果電腦第二代（Apple2），到九零年代的麥金塔系列，賈伯斯不但參與了個人電腦的誕生，也打造了一種對於電腦的流行體驗，迄今仍有許多的麥金塔迷深愛其獨特的操作介面與風格。
他定義了新的電影時代。離開蘋果電腦之後，賈伯斯投資創辦了皮克斯電腦動畫公司，用新的動畫技術推出「玩具總動員」電影，創下影史的多項紀錄，把動畫電影帶到新的數位境界。
他定義了新的音樂時代。iPod與iTune成為唱片工業的殺手，但也開啟了數位音樂的全新世代；賈伯斯改變了音樂的傳遞與儲存方式，但他始終認為音樂的本質與內涵沒有改變，科技幫助人們可以用更高品質、更有效率的方式享受音樂。
在人生的最後五年，他定義了行動時代。iPhone開啟了智慧型手機時代，讓手機與電腦功能結合，讓行動載具的服務產生結構性革命；在蘋果公司推出平板電腦iPad之後，資訊界普遍認為進入了「後PC時代」，人們對於電腦的需求開始朝向更高的移動性與娛樂性，更間接促成了「雲端科技」的發展，因為使用者要求在不同行動載具之間可以無縫接軌。
更重要的，賈伯斯定義了新的領導時代。他的理念、名言都已成為暢銷著作，而賈式風格的演講和簡報，更是成為一種流行標竿，甚至是大學裡的課程。賈伯斯打造的世界是一種概念、一種理想，他的產品與技術，只是實現夢想的手段；他從不認為他在銷售硬體或軟體，而是在推出一個完整的使用經驗與方案。
每一位成功者的背後，絕對都有重要團隊的支持，但如果沒有賈伯斯獨特的領袖者特質、少了賈伯斯的夢想家魅力，再堅強的技術團隊，再精明的財務管理，也無法創造這種改變世界的力量。
如果問，我們希望從他身上學到些什麼？至少，賈伯斯的對於趨勢及產品的領導風格，可以讓台灣政治界與企業界人士有些省思：什麼是產品服務的完整體驗、什麼是夢想領袖的魅力特質、什麼是企業願景的具體思維。
賈伯斯不是神，他的若干決策都尚有待於更多時間的檢驗，例如採用封閉的作業系統策略；他也不贊成多種產品的「機海戰術」，而強力專注於單一產品。但賈伯斯真的成就了一種典範，塑造了一種障礙，建立了一種傳奇。蘋果公司接班人庫克說，不要拿他與賈伯斯比較，因為這世界上只有一位賈伯斯。他或許不是歷史上的絕無僅有，卻是當今世界的唯一。
是的，如果他能多活十年，相信這個世界會更不一樣，不論人們喜歡與否。
Looking at Su Jia-chyuan, Reminded of Chen Shui-bian
Looking at Su Jia-chyuan, Reminded of Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 6, 2011
Summary: Su Jia-chyuan has turned into a replica of Chen Shui-bian. Unapologetically corrupt. Stubbornly unwilling to admit wrongdoing, Offering nonsensical arguments in his defense. Leaving the public appalled and disgusted. Chen Shui-bian has stepped down as president. Su Jia-chyuan, on the other hand, newly minted icon of "black gold," aspires to the office of vice president. Where is the justice in this outrage?
Full Text Below:
Su Jia-chyuan has turned into a replica of Chen Shui-bian. Unapologetically corrupt. Stubbornly unwilling to admit wrongdoing, Offering nonsensical arguments in his defense. Leaving the public appalled and disgusted. Chen Shui-bian has stepped down as president. Su Jia-chyuan, on the other hand, newly minted icon of "black gold," aspires to the office of vice president. Where is the justice in this outrage?
Suppose Su Jia-chyuan is elected vice president. He will brazenly "preside" from his luxury mansion "farmhouse" in Pingtung. Secret Service agents will be at his beck and call. Security will be tight as a drum. His "farmhouse" mansion will become a symbol of authoritarian political domination. If this comes to pass, what will become of the rule of law? What will become of clean government? What will become of all that talk about character and ethics? What will become of all that talk about "agricultural land for agricultural use?" What will become of agricultural policy? What will become of land justice? What will become of the vice president as an exemplar of justice?
Su Jia-chyuan has a better way to deal with his luxury mansion "farmhouse" problem. Su Jia-chyuan's ancestral graves are built on state-owned grazing land. According to the law, one may not build gravesites on grazing land in the first place. Su's lawlessness has resulted in a scandal in which "the dead rent land." Su Jia-chyuan has said he will move the graves to another location. Su may move the graves, or he may not. At least he has acknowledged the facts of the case. Su Jia-chyuan's older brother paved over agricultural land with concrete, turning it into a night market. For the past 20 years, he misused agricultural land and agricultural electricity. For the past 20 years, he charged vendors "electric light fees" for their stalls. When the matter came to light, Su Jia-chyuan admitted it left a bad impression on the public. As a result he suspended operations a week later. This is accountability -- of a sort. So why is Su Jia-chyuan obstinately refusing to admit wrongdoing regarding his luxury mansion "farmhouse?" Why is he digging in his heels and holding out to the bitter end?
Su Jia-chyuan could simply deal with the matter the way he dealt with the ancestral graves and night market scandals. He could "lop off the arm that has been bitten by a snake." He could resolutely declare that since my luxury mansion "farmhouse" has aroused such intense controversy, I am renouncing it as my home, and restoring the agricultural land to its original use. On the one hand, he would be offering an apology to the public. On the other hand, he would be putting the past behind him and starting anew. Why did he do this with the ancestral graves and the night market, but not with his luxury mansion "farmhouse?"
The Su Jia-chyuan family has a problem. Its members are too clever for their own good. They have built family plots on public grazing land. Su Jia-chyuan's luxury farmhouse was built in the name of his wife, who is not a farmer. This makes it even more illegal, even more controversial. His wife's older sister has also built a luxury mansion "farmhouse" in the same neighborhood. His older brother built a night market on agricultural land. This was particularly outrageous. Su's family members installed a phony handicapped plate on their Mercedes Benz. His wife Hung Heng-chu's inordinately swift rise within the civil service system has also raised eyebrows. Su Jia-chyuan is now the DPP's vice presidential candidate. Is this to be his resume? Is this what the DPP wants as its image? If elected, can someone of his ilk really be allowed to assume the vice presidency of the Republic of China? Can he really uphold its national image?
Su Jia-chyuan is mired in the same muck as Chen Shui-bian. Yet the DPP insists on backing him all the way. The DPP is mired in the same muck with Su today, that it was with Chen yesterday. Consider the matter of legality. The luxury mansion "farmhouse" may occupy one-tenth of the total agricultural land, or it may not. But according to the law, roads landscaping, surrounding walls, and other "ancillary facilities" must be included when calculating the area of a farmhouse. Also, a farmhouse must meet the legal definitions for "agricultural use" and "agricultural operations." Can one simply plant a few fruit trees, create an ornamental flower garden, and pass it off as "agricultural land for agricultural use?" Su Jia-chyuan refuses to admit the truth. He has the temerity to argue that "The Pingtung County Government said no laws were broken." In fact, the Pingtung County Government has been reduced to the level of Ma Yung-cheng. In fact, the Pingtung County Government's "investigation report" is identical to Chen Shui-bian's "inventory of rewards." Can such sophistries really silence the whispers? Consider the ancestral plots issue. Instead of admitting that they were illegal, Su argues that "A Mainlander political authority wants to dig the graves of the Taiwanese people!" Consider the mansion issue. Instead of admitting that its construction was illegal, Su claims it cost "only" a few million dollars. He demands to know why a farmhouse cannot be beautiful. Why must it be dilapidated? Chen Shui-bian accused Ma Ying-jeou of "joining hands with the Chinese Communists to attack the Taiwanese people's president!" Su's subterfuge is identical to Chen's. Su's subterfuge is identical to Chen's "nation-building fund." What is today's Su Jia-chyuan, but a perfect replica of yesterday's Chen Shui-bian? What is today's DPP, which backs Su Jia-chyuan unquestioningly, but a perfect replica of yesterday's DPP, which did the same for Chen Shui-bian?
Chen Shui-bian is the DPP's older generation. Su Jia-chyuan is the DPP's newer generation. President Chen Shui-bian is a former president. Su Jia-chyuan is a potential vice president. Emotionally, logically, and legally, the public wants answers. It wants to know whether this person, who is synonymous with black gold, can be allowed to become vice president. It wants answers from the DPP. It wants to know whether the DPP is truly willing to be represented by someone with such a black gold image. The public must also ask itself certain questions. If Su Jia-chyuan, with his black gold luxury mansion "farmhouse" is elected vice president, will there still be any justice to speak of? Will there still be any integrity to speak of?
Chen Shui-bian's most grievous sin, was refusing to admit wrongdoing. He chose instead to stonewall. Today, Su Jia-chyuan's most grievous sin, is also refusing to admit wrongdoing. He too is choosing to stonewall. The DPP wants the public to back Su Jia-chyuan. They want the public to swallow that black gold luxury mansion "farmhouse" in silence. They want the public to allow Secret Service agents to surround it and protect it. If this is Su Jia-chyuan's understanding of conscience, if this is DPP's understanding of justice, if this is Tsai Ing-wen's understanding of integrity, then by all means, they should stonewall to the bitter end. The DPP was willing to back Chen Shui-bian to the bitter end. What's Su Jia-chyuan's paltry little luxury mansion "farmhouse" by comparison?
看見蘇嘉全 想到陳水扁
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.06 03:03 am
蘇嘉全儼然成為陳水扁的複製版。貪腐無狀，死不認錯，胡言亂拗，令人震愕。但陳水扁畢竟是一個下台的總統，蘇嘉全卻竟然像是想以如此這般的黑金面貌上台出任副總統。公理何在，豈有此理？
假設，蘇嘉全當選了副總統，他大剌剌地回到屏東那棟豪華農舍「駐蹕」，國安隨扈前呼後擁，禁衛森嚴，那座豪華農舍將搖身一變成為國家統治威權的政治象徵；若到了這步田地，還談什麼法治？還談什麼清廉？談什麼風骨操守？談什麼農地農用？談什麼農業政策？談什麼土地正義？談什麼副元首亦應當是國家正義的表率？
蘇嘉全其實有更好及更正確的方法處理豪華農舍的難題。例如，蘇家祖墳建在租用的國有農牧地上，依法農牧地根本不准建墳，且本案又出現「死人租地」的醜聞，但至少蘇嘉全自稱將遷移，則姑不論最後遷或不遷，總算是對社會有了交代；再如，蘇嘉全之兄長，將農地全部水泥化後闢為夜市，二十年來並以農業用電向攤商收取「電燈費」，此事曝光後蘇嘉全亦知社會觀感不佳，使其在一周後立即停市，也算是對社會作出了交代。然而，為何蘇嘉全獨對豪華農舍死不認錯，偏偏要死賴硬拗到底？
其實，蘇嘉全大可如處理祖墳及夜市一般，蝮蛇螫手，壯士斷腕，毅然決然地宣告：茲因豪華農舍引起社會強烈爭議，即起宣布放棄將該豪宅作為居所，並擇期恢復其為農地之應有用途；一方面向社會道歉，一方面表現今是昨非的光明磊落胸襟。但是，為何祖墳能、夜市能，唯獨豪華農舍不能？
蘇嘉全家族的風格話題，花樣百出。祖墳蓋在國有農牧用地上，蘇嘉全的豪華農舍則是由其不具農民身分的妻子起造，更有違法超限爭議，其妻之姐的豪華農舍亦在近鄰，其兄的農地夜市尤是駭人聽聞，再加上家族用賓士車居然掛的是殘障牌照，其妻洪恆珠的公職升遷過程亦引人側目……。蘇嘉全如今是民進黨提名的副總統參選人，他的這一張「履歷表」，難道即是代表民進黨的品牌形象？而未來若當選，這種德性又豈能承當中華民國副總統的國家形象？
蘇嘉全已完全陷入昔日陳水扁的情境；而整個民進黨挺蘇嘉全，亦已完全陷入當年挺陳水扁的情境。先談合不合法，不論豪華農舍本體是否佔農地十分之一，但依法應將道路、山水造景、圍牆等「附屬設施」亦應併計入農舍面積，且依法農舍必須配合「農業使用」及「農業經營」，則種幾棵果樹難道就能將豪華庭園說成「農地農用」？蘇嘉全未能誠實面對這些真相，竟然以「屏東縣政府說未違法」來自我辯護，其實這是否屏東縣政府自甘淪落為蘇嘉全的「馬永成」？而屏東縣政府的「勘查報告」是否亦形同陳水扁的「犒賞清冊」？如此狡賴，如何杜天下悠悠之口。再者，談祖墳，不說違法，卻說「外省政權要挖台灣人的墳墓」；論豪宅，亦不說違法，竟說造價「只有」幾百萬，又謂難道農舍不能蓋得漂漂亮亮，一定要破破爛爛？這些遁詞，皆與陳水扁「馬英九與中共一起打擊台灣人總統」如出一轍，亦如將贓款狡辯成「建國基金」一般；現在的蘇嘉全，豈不完全已是陳水扁的複製版？而此時挺蘇嘉全的民進黨，豈不亦如過去挺扁的老戲新演？
陳水扁是老一代的民進黨，蘇嘉全則是新一代；陳水扁是一個下台總統，蘇嘉全則是一個想要上台的副總統參選人。論情、論理、論法，國人要問蘇嘉全：以這樣的黑金面貌，能心安理得地出任副總統嗎？亦要問民進黨：這樣的黑金面貌可以代表民進黨的品格與形象嗎？國人更要自問：蘇嘉全如果帶著這座黑金象徵的豪華農舍出任副總統，國家尚有何公理可言？政風尚有何希望可言？
陳水扁之錯，最大錯在不認錯，還要硬拗；如今蘇嘉全之錯，最大錯亦在不認錯，還要硬拗。民進黨要國人挺蘇嘉全，就是要國人吞下那座黑金豪華農舍，以後並要國安隨扈去環繞護衛。如果這就是蘇嘉全的良知，如果這就是民進黨的公義，如果這就是蔡英文的風格；那就繼續死賴硬拗下去吧，民進黨連陳水扁都能挺到底，何況只是一座豪華農舍加蘇嘉全？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 6, 2011
Summary: Su Jia-chyuan has turned into a replica of Chen Shui-bian. Unapologetically corrupt. Stubbornly unwilling to admit wrongdoing, Offering nonsensical arguments in his defense. Leaving the public appalled and disgusted. Chen Shui-bian has stepped down as president. Su Jia-chyuan, on the other hand, newly minted icon of "black gold," aspires to the office of vice president. Where is the justice in this outrage?
Full Text Below:
Su Jia-chyuan has turned into a replica of Chen Shui-bian. Unapologetically corrupt. Stubbornly unwilling to admit wrongdoing, Offering nonsensical arguments in his defense. Leaving the public appalled and disgusted. Chen Shui-bian has stepped down as president. Su Jia-chyuan, on the other hand, newly minted icon of "black gold," aspires to the office of vice president. Where is the justice in this outrage?
Suppose Su Jia-chyuan is elected vice president. He will brazenly "preside" from his luxury mansion "farmhouse" in Pingtung. Secret Service agents will be at his beck and call. Security will be tight as a drum. His "farmhouse" mansion will become a symbol of authoritarian political domination. If this comes to pass, what will become of the rule of law? What will become of clean government? What will become of all that talk about character and ethics? What will become of all that talk about "agricultural land for agricultural use?" What will become of agricultural policy? What will become of land justice? What will become of the vice president as an exemplar of justice?
Su Jia-chyuan has a better way to deal with his luxury mansion "farmhouse" problem. Su Jia-chyuan's ancestral graves are built on state-owned grazing land. According to the law, one may not build gravesites on grazing land in the first place. Su's lawlessness has resulted in a scandal in which "the dead rent land." Su Jia-chyuan has said he will move the graves to another location. Su may move the graves, or he may not. At least he has acknowledged the facts of the case. Su Jia-chyuan's older brother paved over agricultural land with concrete, turning it into a night market. For the past 20 years, he misused agricultural land and agricultural electricity. For the past 20 years, he charged vendors "electric light fees" for their stalls. When the matter came to light, Su Jia-chyuan admitted it left a bad impression on the public. As a result he suspended operations a week later. This is accountability -- of a sort. So why is Su Jia-chyuan obstinately refusing to admit wrongdoing regarding his luxury mansion "farmhouse?" Why is he digging in his heels and holding out to the bitter end?
Su Jia-chyuan could simply deal with the matter the way he dealt with the ancestral graves and night market scandals. He could "lop off the arm that has been bitten by a snake." He could resolutely declare that since my luxury mansion "farmhouse" has aroused such intense controversy, I am renouncing it as my home, and restoring the agricultural land to its original use. On the one hand, he would be offering an apology to the public. On the other hand, he would be putting the past behind him and starting anew. Why did he do this with the ancestral graves and the night market, but not with his luxury mansion "farmhouse?"
The Su Jia-chyuan family has a problem. Its members are too clever for their own good. They have built family plots on public grazing land. Su Jia-chyuan's luxury farmhouse was built in the name of his wife, who is not a farmer. This makes it even more illegal, even more controversial. His wife's older sister has also built a luxury mansion "farmhouse" in the same neighborhood. His older brother built a night market on agricultural land. This was particularly outrageous. Su's family members installed a phony handicapped plate on their Mercedes Benz. His wife Hung Heng-chu's inordinately swift rise within the civil service system has also raised eyebrows. Su Jia-chyuan is now the DPP's vice presidential candidate. Is this to be his resume? Is this what the DPP wants as its image? If elected, can someone of his ilk really be allowed to assume the vice presidency of the Republic of China? Can he really uphold its national image?
Su Jia-chyuan is mired in the same muck as Chen Shui-bian. Yet the DPP insists on backing him all the way. The DPP is mired in the same muck with Su today, that it was with Chen yesterday. Consider the matter of legality. The luxury mansion "farmhouse" may occupy one-tenth of the total agricultural land, or it may not. But according to the law, roads landscaping, surrounding walls, and other "ancillary facilities" must be included when calculating the area of a farmhouse. Also, a farmhouse must meet the legal definitions for "agricultural use" and "agricultural operations." Can one simply plant a few fruit trees, create an ornamental flower garden, and pass it off as "agricultural land for agricultural use?" Su Jia-chyuan refuses to admit the truth. He has the temerity to argue that "The Pingtung County Government said no laws were broken." In fact, the Pingtung County Government has been reduced to the level of Ma Yung-cheng. In fact, the Pingtung County Government's "investigation report" is identical to Chen Shui-bian's "inventory of rewards." Can such sophistries really silence the whispers? Consider the ancestral plots issue. Instead of admitting that they were illegal, Su argues that "A Mainlander political authority wants to dig the graves of the Taiwanese people!" Consider the mansion issue. Instead of admitting that its construction was illegal, Su claims it cost "only" a few million dollars. He demands to know why a farmhouse cannot be beautiful. Why must it be dilapidated? Chen Shui-bian accused Ma Ying-jeou of "joining hands with the Chinese Communists to attack the Taiwanese people's president!" Su's subterfuge is identical to Chen's. Su's subterfuge is identical to Chen's "nation-building fund." What is today's Su Jia-chyuan, but a perfect replica of yesterday's Chen Shui-bian? What is today's DPP, which backs Su Jia-chyuan unquestioningly, but a perfect replica of yesterday's DPP, which did the same for Chen Shui-bian?
Chen Shui-bian is the DPP's older generation. Su Jia-chyuan is the DPP's newer generation. President Chen Shui-bian is a former president. Su Jia-chyuan is a potential vice president. Emotionally, logically, and legally, the public wants answers. It wants to know whether this person, who is synonymous with black gold, can be allowed to become vice president. It wants answers from the DPP. It wants to know whether the DPP is truly willing to be represented by someone with such a black gold image. The public must also ask itself certain questions. If Su Jia-chyuan, with his black gold luxury mansion "farmhouse" is elected vice president, will there still be any justice to speak of? Will there still be any integrity to speak of?
Chen Shui-bian's most grievous sin, was refusing to admit wrongdoing. He chose instead to stonewall. Today, Su Jia-chyuan's most grievous sin, is also refusing to admit wrongdoing. He too is choosing to stonewall. The DPP wants the public to back Su Jia-chyuan. They want the public to swallow that black gold luxury mansion "farmhouse" in silence. They want the public to allow Secret Service agents to surround it and protect it. If this is Su Jia-chyuan's understanding of conscience, if this is DPP's understanding of justice, if this is Tsai Ing-wen's understanding of integrity, then by all means, they should stonewall to the bitter end. The DPP was willing to back Chen Shui-bian to the bitter end. What's Su Jia-chyuan's paltry little luxury mansion "farmhouse" by comparison?
看見蘇嘉全 想到陳水扁
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.10.06 03:03 am
蘇嘉全儼然成為陳水扁的複製版。貪腐無狀，死不認錯，胡言亂拗，令人震愕。但陳水扁畢竟是一個下台的總統，蘇嘉全卻竟然像是想以如此這般的黑金面貌上台出任副總統。公理何在，豈有此理？
假設，蘇嘉全當選了副總統，他大剌剌地回到屏東那棟豪華農舍「駐蹕」，國安隨扈前呼後擁，禁衛森嚴，那座豪華農舍將搖身一變成為國家統治威權的政治象徵；若到了這步田地，還談什麼法治？還談什麼清廉？談什麼風骨操守？談什麼農地農用？談什麼農業政策？談什麼土地正義？談什麼副元首亦應當是國家正義的表率？
蘇嘉全其實有更好及更正確的方法處理豪華農舍的難題。例如，蘇家祖墳建在租用的國有農牧地上，依法農牧地根本不准建墳，且本案又出現「死人租地」的醜聞，但至少蘇嘉全自稱將遷移，則姑不論最後遷或不遷，總算是對社會有了交代；再如，蘇嘉全之兄長，將農地全部水泥化後闢為夜市，二十年來並以農業用電向攤商收取「電燈費」，此事曝光後蘇嘉全亦知社會觀感不佳，使其在一周後立即停市，也算是對社會作出了交代。然而，為何蘇嘉全獨對豪華農舍死不認錯，偏偏要死賴硬拗到底？
其實，蘇嘉全大可如處理祖墳及夜市一般，蝮蛇螫手，壯士斷腕，毅然決然地宣告：茲因豪華農舍引起社會強烈爭議，即起宣布放棄將該豪宅作為居所，並擇期恢復其為農地之應有用途；一方面向社會道歉，一方面表現今是昨非的光明磊落胸襟。但是，為何祖墳能、夜市能，唯獨豪華農舍不能？
蘇嘉全家族的風格話題，花樣百出。祖墳蓋在國有農牧用地上，蘇嘉全的豪華農舍則是由其不具農民身分的妻子起造，更有違法超限爭議，其妻之姐的豪華農舍亦在近鄰，其兄的農地夜市尤是駭人聽聞，再加上家族用賓士車居然掛的是殘障牌照，其妻洪恆珠的公職升遷過程亦引人側目……。蘇嘉全如今是民進黨提名的副總統參選人，他的這一張「履歷表」，難道即是代表民進黨的品牌形象？而未來若當選，這種德性又豈能承當中華民國副總統的國家形象？
蘇嘉全已完全陷入昔日陳水扁的情境；而整個民進黨挺蘇嘉全，亦已完全陷入當年挺陳水扁的情境。先談合不合法，不論豪華農舍本體是否佔農地十分之一，但依法應將道路、山水造景、圍牆等「附屬設施」亦應併計入農舍面積，且依法農舍必須配合「農業使用」及「農業經營」，則種幾棵果樹難道就能將豪華庭園說成「農地農用」？蘇嘉全未能誠實面對這些真相，竟然以「屏東縣政府說未違法」來自我辯護，其實這是否屏東縣政府自甘淪落為蘇嘉全的「馬永成」？而屏東縣政府的「勘查報告」是否亦形同陳水扁的「犒賞清冊」？如此狡賴，如何杜天下悠悠之口。再者，談祖墳，不說違法，卻說「外省政權要挖台灣人的墳墓」；論豪宅，亦不說違法，竟說造價「只有」幾百萬，又謂難道農舍不能蓋得漂漂亮亮，一定要破破爛爛？這些遁詞，皆與陳水扁「馬英九與中共一起打擊台灣人總統」如出一轍，亦如將贓款狡辯成「建國基金」一般；現在的蘇嘉全，豈不完全已是陳水扁的複製版？而此時挺蘇嘉全的民進黨，豈不亦如過去挺扁的老戲新演？
陳水扁是老一代的民進黨，蘇嘉全則是新一代；陳水扁是一個下台總統，蘇嘉全則是一個想要上台的副總統參選人。論情、論理、論法，國人要問蘇嘉全：以這樣的黑金面貌，能心安理得地出任副總統嗎？亦要問民進黨：這樣的黑金面貌可以代表民進黨的品格與形象嗎？國人更要自問：蘇嘉全如果帶著這座黑金象徵的豪華農舍出任副總統，國家尚有何公理可言？政風尚有何希望可言？
陳水扁之錯，最大錯在不認錯，還要硬拗；如今蘇嘉全之錯，最大錯亦在不認錯，還要硬拗。民進黨要國人挺蘇嘉全，就是要國人吞下那座黑金豪華農舍，以後並要國安隨扈去環繞護衛。如果這就是蘇嘉全的良知，如果這就是民進黨的公義，如果這就是蔡英文的風格；那就繼續死賴硬拗下去吧，民進黨連陳水扁都能挺到底，何況只是一座豪華農舍加蘇嘉全？
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement: Mutual Trust and Mutual Reliance
Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement: Mutual Trust and Mutual Reliance
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 5, 2011
Summary: The SEF recently announced that the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will be held during the second half of this month. The most important goal is to sign a Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-hsiang said three disputes still stand in the way of an accord. They pertain to matters of personal safety, dispute settlement, and investment controls. Progress is being made, but our side is still not satisfied.
Full Text Below:
The SEF recently announced that the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will be held during the second half of this month. The most important goal is to sign a Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-hsiang said three disputes still stand in the way of an accord. They pertain to matters of personal safety, dispute settlement, and investment controls. Progress is being made, but our side is still not satisfied.
The Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement affects many vital investments by Taiwan businessmen on the Chinese mainland. The two sides began negotiations last June, before the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed. It was originally supposed to be signed in December, during the 6th Chiang-Chen meeting. But crucial disagreements prevented the two sides from reaching an accord. Now the two sides have announced that a partial agreement has been reached. The 7th Chiang-Chen meeting has long been viewed as a replay. Originally no consensus was reached on matters of personal safety and dispute settlement mechanisms. But efforts by both sides have resolved most major differences. So far the two sides still lack the determination to push the insurance agreement through, Will the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting enable its smooth passage? Many doubts remain.
The insurance agreement was originally one of ECFA's four major investment agreements. But the two sides agreed to give priority to insurance agreement negotiations. This was mainly in response to the demands of Taiwan businessmen over the years. In recent years the investment environment on the Chinese mainland has changed. Taiwan businessmen have encountered many problems, especially concerning personal safety and investment disputes. The Chinese mainland has a "Taiwan Investment Protection Act." It is the law that protects Taiwan businessmen. But when public safety agencies, public authorities, and government departments violate the rights of Taiwan businessmen, the law is inadequate. Taiwan businessmen hope the two sides will sign an insurance agreement. They want the Taiwan authorities to back them up They want them to protect the rights of Taiwan businessmen.
Our government has signed insurance agreements with nearly 30 nations. The Chinese mainland has signed insurance agreements with over 120 nations. A quick examination shows that the contents of these agreements are largely similar. They include definitions of investments and investors, the treatment of investments (treatment of citizens and MFN), freedom of movement for capital, compensation, collection and compensation, subrogation, dispute settlement, and information transparency. But Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have a special relationship. Cross-Strait insurance arrangements and international insurance agreements are not the same thing. This has led to a number of problems that require mutual consultation.
Taiwan businessmen are concerned about their personal safety. Such concerns are not usually part of international insurance agreements. But strong demand from the Taiwan side have made them part of the Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But jurisdiction over personal safety is a sensitive issue, After much wrangling, the personal safety of Taiwan businessmen was included in the agreement, with certain time limits. Victims must notify their families and the competent authorities within 24 hours. According to Chinese mainland law, when foreign, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao businessmen are detained or held, family members and the competent authorities must be notified within 2 to 7 days. The insurance agreement requires 24 hour notice. According to Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi, this "breaks out of the existing framework" and affords Taiwan businessmen better treatment than the public on the Mainland, But according to reports, the Ministry of Economic Affairs says the 24-hour notice requirement will not be included in the text of the agreement. Instead, it will publish a press release. This shows that the authorities on the Chinese mainland are still reluctant to afford our people the same treatment it affords PRC citizens. If the clause is not included in the text of the agreement, it will inevitably be criticized as demeaning to Taiwan, and lead to internal disputes.
Now let us examine trade dispute settlement mechanisms. Person to person (P2P) disputes will be handled according to commercial arbitration mechanisms. Commercial contracts shall prevail. The key is how to solve disputes between local Taiwan and local mainland governments. This is the person to government (P2G) part. Our side wants international arbitration. The recent Taiwan-Japan investment agreement stipulated that disputes involving individuals and the government would be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce, Abitration would be conducted according to an arbitral tribunal organized according to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations or an arbitration institution agreed to by the two sides.
But International Arbitration touches Beijing's most sensitive political nerve. The Chinese mainland is unlikely to agree, According to reports, the two sides have reached a compromise. They are leaning toward "mediation" instead of "arbitration." But will "mediation" have legal teeth? That is a big question, and shows how complex the problem is.
Now consider "treatment as citizens" and "most favored nation treatment." Originally World Trade Organization (WTO) rules were to apply, But the treatment our side afforded Mainland Chinese businesses was far below WTO requirements. The Chinese mainland understands and is willing to make accomodations. This is clearly an internal matter. This principle was included in the text of the agreement. Our government has probably misinterpreted it. Its hesitancy is not surprising.
Cross-Strait issues are special and complex. But a concerted effort by both sides led to the signing of 15 agreements, including the highly complex ECFA, whose purpose was to establish a free trade area. Mutual trust and mutual understanding achieved a major breakthrough. The two sides must cherish these hard-won achievements. Mutual trust and mutual understanding should enable the two sides to compromise and reach an agreement on the insurance agreement, Can the insurance agreement be signed at the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting? The key to the problem is one's basic attitude. If the insurance agreement is not signed, the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will not have much meaning.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.10.05
社評－互信互賴完成兩岸投保協議的簽署
本報訊
日前海基會表示，第七次江陳會最快在本月中、下旬召開，簽署兩岸投保協議是最主要目標，不過，經濟部長施顏祥透露，投保協議還有3項爭議，包括人身安全、爭端解決及投資管制，目前協商雖有進展，但尚未達到我方的期望。
兩岸投保協議攸關眾多大陸台商投資權益的保障，早在去年6月《兩岸經濟合作架構協議》（ECFA）完成簽署之前，雙方即已展開協商，原訂在去年12月第六次江陳會進行簽署，但因若干癥結問題未能達成協議，僅由雙方公布階段性協商成果。今年第七次江陳會早已將簽署投保協議列為重頭戲，原先未有共識的人身安全、爭端解決機制等，經雙方努力，主要歧見多已獲致解決之道。但迄今為止，投保協議似仍缺少臨門一腳的關鍵決心，能否在第七次江陳會順利簽署，變數仍多。
兩岸投保協議原是ECFA四大協議中投資協議的一部分，但雙方同意優先進行投保協議的商談，主要是回應大陸台商多年來的訴求與期待。近年大陸投資環境丕變，眾多台商遭遇形形色色的問題，其中尤以人身安全保障及投資糾紛最受台商關切。雖然大陸已訂有《台商投資保護法》作為保護台商的法律依據，然而，遇到侵害台商權益者涉及到公安機關或政府部門執行公權力時，大陸法律已不足以保護台商，因而讓台商寄希望於兩岸簽署投保協議，以台灣政府的力量作為後盾，提升保護台商權益的可靠度。
我國和近30個國家已簽署投保協定，大陸也與120多個國家簽署投保協定，檢視其內容皆大同小異，包括：投資及投資人定義、投資待遇（國民待遇及最惠國待遇等）、資金自由移動、損失補償、徵收與補償、代位求償、爭端解決及資訊透明化等。然而，因為台灣和大陸關係特殊，兩岸投保協議的範圍與安排，和國際投保協定很難完全比照，因而也衍生若干雙方協商的複雜問題。
如台商關心的人身安全保障問題，非屬一般國際投保協定的範疇，因為台商的強烈訴求，才納入兩岸投保協議。但是，人身安全涉及管轄權敏感問題，經過折衝，最後只納入台商人身安全受限制時，需在24小時內通知家屬及單位。依據大陸法律現行規定，外商和台、港、澳商涉法遭拘留和羈押時，需在2至7天內通知家屬及單位；投保協議爭取到24小時通知時限，是比照大陸人民的待遇，國台辦主任王毅指此已「突破框架」，但據報導，經濟部指24小時通知時限將不列入協議文本，而是以新聞稿方式發布，顯示大陸方面對此仍有顧忌。而我方爭取到比照大陸人民的「國民待遇」，如果又不列入協議文本，難免被批評遭到矮化，引發內部爭議。
在經貿糾紛解決機制方面，個人和個人（P2P）糾紛可沿用商務仲裁機制，以商業合約為準。最關鍵的是如何解決眾多台商和大陸地方政府間的紛爭，也就是個人和政府（P2G）部分。我方希望援引國際仲裁制度，最近台日投資協議明訂涉及個人和政府的爭端可交付國際商會、依聯合國仲裁規則組成的仲裁庭或兩造同意的仲裁機構進行仲裁，就是最好的範例。
但是，國際仲裁已觸及北京最敏感的政治神經，大陸方面自難同意，據報導，經雙方妥協，傾向以「調解」取代「仲裁」，但「調解」結果是否有強制力，又是很大問題，可見其複雜度。
至於投資的「國民待遇」及「最惠國待遇」，原本就是世貿組織（WTO）的基本規則，但我方迄今給予大陸企業的待遇遠低於WTO要求，大陸方面雖能理解並配合，但顯然為對內交代，故要求將此原則納入協議文本。我政府則惟恐遭到錯誤解讀，猶豫不決自在意料之中。
我們必須指出，兩岸問題至為特殊且複雜，但經雙方共同努力，已簽署15項協議，包括以建立自由貿易區為目標、複雜度極高的ECFA，這是出於雙方互信互諒才能達到的重大突破。是以，兩岸應珍惜得之不易的成果，以相互信賴及諒解的態度，來處理投保協議問題，則不難找出折衷之道。第七次江陳會能否簽署投保協議，關鍵在於處理問題的基本態度；如果不簽，召開第七次江陳會也就沒有太大的意義。。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 5, 2011
Summary: The SEF recently announced that the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will be held during the second half of this month. The most important goal is to sign a Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-hsiang said three disputes still stand in the way of an accord. They pertain to matters of personal safety, dispute settlement, and investment controls. Progress is being made, but our side is still not satisfied.
Full Text Below:
The SEF recently announced that the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will be held during the second half of this month. The most important goal is to sign a Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-hsiang said three disputes still stand in the way of an accord. They pertain to matters of personal safety, dispute settlement, and investment controls. Progress is being made, but our side is still not satisfied.
The Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement affects many vital investments by Taiwan businessmen on the Chinese mainland. The two sides began negotiations last June, before the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed. It was originally supposed to be signed in December, during the 6th Chiang-Chen meeting. But crucial disagreements prevented the two sides from reaching an accord. Now the two sides have announced that a partial agreement has been reached. The 7th Chiang-Chen meeting has long been viewed as a replay. Originally no consensus was reached on matters of personal safety and dispute settlement mechanisms. But efforts by both sides have resolved most major differences. So far the two sides still lack the determination to push the insurance agreement through, Will the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting enable its smooth passage? Many doubts remain.
The insurance agreement was originally one of ECFA's four major investment agreements. But the two sides agreed to give priority to insurance agreement negotiations. This was mainly in response to the demands of Taiwan businessmen over the years. In recent years the investment environment on the Chinese mainland has changed. Taiwan businessmen have encountered many problems, especially concerning personal safety and investment disputes. The Chinese mainland has a "Taiwan Investment Protection Act." It is the law that protects Taiwan businessmen. But when public safety agencies, public authorities, and government departments violate the rights of Taiwan businessmen, the law is inadequate. Taiwan businessmen hope the two sides will sign an insurance agreement. They want the Taiwan authorities to back them up They want them to protect the rights of Taiwan businessmen.
Our government has signed insurance agreements with nearly 30 nations. The Chinese mainland has signed insurance agreements with over 120 nations. A quick examination shows that the contents of these agreements are largely similar. They include definitions of investments and investors, the treatment of investments (treatment of citizens and MFN), freedom of movement for capital, compensation, collection and compensation, subrogation, dispute settlement, and information transparency. But Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have a special relationship. Cross-Strait insurance arrangements and international insurance agreements are not the same thing. This has led to a number of problems that require mutual consultation.
Taiwan businessmen are concerned about their personal safety. Such concerns are not usually part of international insurance agreements. But strong demand from the Taiwan side have made them part of the Cross-Strait Insurance Agreement. But jurisdiction over personal safety is a sensitive issue, After much wrangling, the personal safety of Taiwan businessmen was included in the agreement, with certain time limits. Victims must notify their families and the competent authorities within 24 hours. According to Chinese mainland law, when foreign, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao businessmen are detained or held, family members and the competent authorities must be notified within 2 to 7 days. The insurance agreement requires 24 hour notice. According to Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi, this "breaks out of the existing framework" and affords Taiwan businessmen better treatment than the public on the Mainland, But according to reports, the Ministry of Economic Affairs says the 24-hour notice requirement will not be included in the text of the agreement. Instead, it will publish a press release. This shows that the authorities on the Chinese mainland are still reluctant to afford our people the same treatment it affords PRC citizens. If the clause is not included in the text of the agreement, it will inevitably be criticized as demeaning to Taiwan, and lead to internal disputes.
Now let us examine trade dispute settlement mechanisms. Person to person (P2P) disputes will be handled according to commercial arbitration mechanisms. Commercial contracts shall prevail. The key is how to solve disputes between local Taiwan and local mainland governments. This is the person to government (P2G) part. Our side wants international arbitration. The recent Taiwan-Japan investment agreement stipulated that disputes involving individuals and the government would be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce, Abitration would be conducted according to an arbitral tribunal organized according to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations or an arbitration institution agreed to by the two sides.
But International Arbitration touches Beijing's most sensitive political nerve. The Chinese mainland is unlikely to agree, According to reports, the two sides have reached a compromise. They are leaning toward "mediation" instead of "arbitration." But will "mediation" have legal teeth? That is a big question, and shows how complex the problem is.
Now consider "treatment as citizens" and "most favored nation treatment." Originally World Trade Organization (WTO) rules were to apply, But the treatment our side afforded Mainland Chinese businesses was far below WTO requirements. The Chinese mainland understands and is willing to make accomodations. This is clearly an internal matter. This principle was included in the text of the agreement. Our government has probably misinterpreted it. Its hesitancy is not surprising.
Cross-Strait issues are special and complex. But a concerted effort by both sides led to the signing of 15 agreements, including the highly complex ECFA, whose purpose was to establish a free trade area. Mutual trust and mutual understanding achieved a major breakthrough. The two sides must cherish these hard-won achievements. Mutual trust and mutual understanding should enable the two sides to compromise and reach an agreement on the insurance agreement, Can the insurance agreement be signed at the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting? The key to the problem is one's basic attitude. If the insurance agreement is not signed, the 7th Chiang-Chen meeting will not have much meaning.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.10.05
社評－互信互賴完成兩岸投保協議的簽署
本報訊
日前海基會表示，第七次江陳會最快在本月中、下旬召開，簽署兩岸投保協議是最主要目標，不過，經濟部長施顏祥透露，投保協議還有3項爭議，包括人身安全、爭端解決及投資管制，目前協商雖有進展，但尚未達到我方的期望。
兩岸投保協議攸關眾多大陸台商投資權益的保障，早在去年6月《兩岸經濟合作架構協議》（ECFA）完成簽署之前，雙方即已展開協商，原訂在去年12月第六次江陳會進行簽署，但因若干癥結問題未能達成協議，僅由雙方公布階段性協商成果。今年第七次江陳會早已將簽署投保協議列為重頭戲，原先未有共識的人身安全、爭端解決機制等，經雙方努力，主要歧見多已獲致解決之道。但迄今為止，投保協議似仍缺少臨門一腳的關鍵決心，能否在第七次江陳會順利簽署，變數仍多。
兩岸投保協議原是ECFA四大協議中投資協議的一部分，但雙方同意優先進行投保協議的商談，主要是回應大陸台商多年來的訴求與期待。近年大陸投資環境丕變，眾多台商遭遇形形色色的問題，其中尤以人身安全保障及投資糾紛最受台商關切。雖然大陸已訂有《台商投資保護法》作為保護台商的法律依據，然而，遇到侵害台商權益者涉及到公安機關或政府部門執行公權力時，大陸法律已不足以保護台商，因而讓台商寄希望於兩岸簽署投保協議，以台灣政府的力量作為後盾，提升保護台商權益的可靠度。
我國和近30個國家已簽署投保協定，大陸也與120多個國家簽署投保協定，檢視其內容皆大同小異，包括：投資及投資人定義、投資待遇（國民待遇及最惠國待遇等）、資金自由移動、損失補償、徵收與補償、代位求償、爭端解決及資訊透明化等。然而，因為台灣和大陸關係特殊，兩岸投保協議的範圍與安排，和國際投保協定很難完全比照，因而也衍生若干雙方協商的複雜問題。
如台商關心的人身安全保障問題，非屬一般國際投保協定的範疇，因為台商的強烈訴求，才納入兩岸投保協議。但是，人身安全涉及管轄權敏感問題，經過折衝，最後只納入台商人身安全受限制時，需在24小時內通知家屬及單位。依據大陸法律現行規定，外商和台、港、澳商涉法遭拘留和羈押時，需在2至7天內通知家屬及單位；投保協議爭取到24小時通知時限，是比照大陸人民的待遇，國台辦主任王毅指此已「突破框架」，但據報導，經濟部指24小時通知時限將不列入協議文本，而是以新聞稿方式發布，顯示大陸方面對此仍有顧忌。而我方爭取到比照大陸人民的「國民待遇」，如果又不列入協議文本，難免被批評遭到矮化，引發內部爭議。
在經貿糾紛解決機制方面，個人和個人（P2P）糾紛可沿用商務仲裁機制，以商業合約為準。最關鍵的是如何解決眾多台商和大陸地方政府間的紛爭，也就是個人和政府（P2G）部分。我方希望援引國際仲裁制度，最近台日投資協議明訂涉及個人和政府的爭端可交付國際商會、依聯合國仲裁規則組成的仲裁庭或兩造同意的仲裁機構進行仲裁，就是最好的範例。
但是，國際仲裁已觸及北京最敏感的政治神經，大陸方面自難同意，據報導，經雙方妥協，傾向以「調解」取代「仲裁」，但「調解」結果是否有強制力，又是很大問題，可見其複雜度。
至於投資的「國民待遇」及「最惠國待遇」，原本就是世貿組織（WTO）的基本規則，但我方迄今給予大陸企業的待遇遠低於WTO要求，大陸方面雖能理解並配合，但顯然為對內交代，故要求將此原則納入協議文本。我政府則惟恐遭到錯誤解讀，猶豫不決自在意料之中。
我們必須指出，兩岸問題至為特殊且複雜，但經雙方共同努力，已簽署15項協議，包括以建立自由貿易區為目標、複雜度極高的ECFA，這是出於雙方互信互諒才能達到的重大突破。是以，兩岸應珍惜得之不易的成果，以相互信賴及諒解的態度，來處理投保協議問題，則不難找出折衷之道。第七次江陳會能否簽署投保協議，關鍵在於處理問題的基本態度；如果不簽，召開第七次江陳會也就沒有太大的意義。。
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Government and the Opposition Should Not Squabble Over the 6:3:3 Issue
The Government and the Opposition Should Not Squabble Over the 6:3:3 Issue
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 4, 2011
Summary: During the 2008 election, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou promised "6:3:3." What he meant was that if elected, he would increase the economic growth rate to 6%, decrease the unemployment rate to 3%, and raise per capita income to US$30,000 a year. This outdated campaign promise has recently become a target for opposition DPP attacks against the ruling KMT. Both sides have already defaulted on 6:3:3. A war of words is premature. Frankly, both maior parties have shown no improvement. Both are living in the past.
Full Text Below:
During the 2008 election, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou promised "6:3:3." What he meant was that if elected, he would increase the economic growth rate to 6%, decrease the unemployment rate to 3%, and raise per capita income to US$30,000 a year. This outdated campaign promise has recently become a target for opposition DPP attacks against the ruling KMT. Both sides have already defaulted on 6:3:3. A war of words is premature. Frankly, both major parties have shown no improvement. Both are living in the past.
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen says that Ma and his staffers promised that 6:3:3 would be achieved in only four years. She says they are now claiming their promise was for eight years, not four. The DPP accuses the KMT of changing its story on the campaign promise it made four years ago.
Frankly, such accusations mean very little. As we all know, soon after the KMT regained power in 2008, the global financial crisis struck. Every nation on earth was affected. Not a single world leader who took office in 2008 was able to fulfill his campaign promises regarding economic growth. Not Barak Obama in the United States. Not Lee Myung-bak in South Korea. Attacking the ruling administration on this issue is unlikely to win public sympathy.
Would such a goal take four years to achieve, or eight years? Common sense tells us it cannot be reached in four years. Consider the US$30,000 per capita income goal. The per capita income on Taiwan in 2007 was only US$17,592. To reach the $US$30,000 goal in four years without a change in the exchange rate, one would have to achieve a 15% annual economic growth rate. Is the KMT foolish enough to make such an impossible campaign promise?
The KMT has dug in its heels and denied reneging on its 6:3:3 promise. It insists that its 6:3:3 promise was an eight year target. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, it is afraid to face facts. A US$30,000 national income in four years is as unlikely as the sun rising in the west. This year per capita income on Taiwan may exceed US$20,000. In order to reach US$30,000 by 2015, the annual economic growth rate would have to be nearly 10%. Is that possible? Of course not.
A reasonable estimate would put annual average income growth at 5% per year. In which case per capita income by 2015 would be US$25,000 or so. To increase the national income to US$30,000 would be possible only with a sudden increase in the value of the NT dollar. Per capita income is figured in U.S. dollars. Even then, the NT dollar would have to increase 20% in value. In other words, the exchange rate would have to increase to NT$26 to US$1. Although not impossible, it is highly unlikely.
Is an average annual economic growth of 6% over two four year terms possible? Let's look at the numbers. That should enable us to evaluate the likelihood. Between 2008 and 2010, the annual average growth rate was less than 4%. The DGBAS's economic growth forecast for this year is only 4.81%. Given the global economic situation, that number will probably have to be lowered. The estimated growth rate for 2012 is 4.58%. According to these figures, if one wants to achieve an average annual growth rate of 6% over eight years, then the growth rate between 2013 and 2015 must be 8 to 9% to make up for the 6% growth rate over the past five years. That is not merely difficult. It is impossible.
The DPP is relentlessly attacking the KMT for reneging on 6:3:3. It believes it is hitting the KMT where it hurts. Therefore it refuses to let up. It persists in demagoguing the issue. But soon after Ma took office, the global financial tsunami struck. Economic growth in every nation was affected. The DPP persists in attacking the KMT on this point. The public however, is not impressed. These DPP tactics amount to living in the past. After all, if the DPP really believes 6:3:3 is feasible, why is it presenting voters with a ten year plan?
Based on the above data, four years or eight years makes no difference. The bottom line is, the 6:3:3 promise cannot be fulfilled. The KMT however, refuses to admit that its 6:3:3 promise cannot be fulfilled. Its officials insist "It is not impossible in the future." They are living in a dream world.
Consider the current global economic situation. Examine the world's major economies. Japan is sinking into recession. The United States and Europe each have their own intractable problems with economic fundamentals and debt. Even without a recession, a slowdown in Europe and America is certain. The Chinese mainland and other emerging economies must cope with inflation, bad debt, and domestic problems. They have troubles of their own. Therefore no matter which party wins the election next year, it will face severe economic challenges. Instead of meaningless squabbling over 6:3:3, they should offer better economic proposals for the future of the nation, and better strategies in response to the economic downturn.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.10.04
朝野不應在「六三三」上糾纏
本報訊
二○○八年大選時，國民黨馬英九提出「六三三」的政見承諾─即經濟成長率達六％、失業率降到三％，還有平均國民所得達到三萬美元。這個過時的政見與競選承諾，最近一再成為朝野兩黨攻防重點，雙方猛在「六三三」是已經跳票、還是時候未到上噴口水。坦白說，兩黨都不長進，讓自己活在過去與夢幻中。
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文說，過去不論是馬本人或其幕僚，都宣稱「六三三」只需要四年即可達到，現在才說要八年才能完成。民進黨批評國民黨是把四年前跳票的舊政見再拿來騙。
坦白說，這種指責與口水戰意義並不大，因為大家都知道，國民黨二○○八年執政後，當年即碰上全球百年僅見的金融海嘯，所有國家的經濟運行軌道都被打亂。世界各國在二○○八年開始執政的團隊─從美國的歐巴馬到南韓的李明博，沒有一個能達到競選時對經濟成長、國家發展的承諾。以此當話題批判執政者，能得到的共鳴恐怕相當有限。
更何況，到底是四年還是八年要達成，用常識想也知道不會是四年達成的承諾。以平均國民所得三萬美元為例，二○○七年台灣平均國民所得（以平均每人ＧＮＰ算）只有一萬七五九二美元，要在四年達成三萬美元的目標，在匯率不升值的情況下，每年經濟要成長十五％才能達成。國民黨有笨到這種程度、提出這種天方夜譚式的政見承諾嗎？
至於國民黨咬緊牙根不承認「六三三」跳票，硬是強調「六三三」是八年達成的政見，更是不敢正視現實的駝鳥作法，因為，單是一個國民所得三萬美元的承諾，就是「太陽由西邊升起」都不可能做到的目標了。因為今年台灣的平均國民所得預估可破二萬美元，要在二○一五年達到三萬美元，代表未來每年經濟成長率要接近十％，可能嗎？膝蓋想都知道不可能。
合理的推估是假設未來每年經濟成長率為五％，那麼二○一五年的平均國民所得大概能到二萬五千美元左右的水準。如果要讓國民所得拚到三萬美元，只有台幣大幅升值一途，因為平均國民所得是用美元計算。即使如此，台幣也要升個近二成才能達成─也就是說台幣匯率要升值到廿六元左右。雖然不是完全不可能，但顯然難度也是極高。
至於要達到任期八年平均每年經濟成長達六％，我們看看這幾年的數字，大概就能評估出其可能性。從二○○八到二○一○這三年平均成長率不到四％，行政院主計處對今年經濟成長率的預測值只有四．八一％，且以全球經濟情勢趨勢看，再向下修正的機率非常高；二○一二年預估成長率為四．五八％。根據這些數字，如果要達到八年平均每年經濟成長率為六％的目標，代表二○一三到二○一五這三年的成長率，要能補足過去五年不到六％的「缺口」，所以這三年每年至少要有八到九％以上的高成長，這不是「阿婆生子─很拚」，而是完全不可能達到。
民進黨猛攻「六三三」跳票，應該是認為抓住國民黨的痛處，因此不斷猛攻、持續在此議題上打轉。不過，既然在馬執政後，全球發生過金融海嘯，干擾也打擊了全球所有國家的經濟成長軌道，民進黨猛打這點，民眾的共鳴實在有限。民進黨這種戰法，等於是「活在過去」。畢竟如果民進黨認為它做得到，為什麼政見支票都要開長遠的十年呢？
而由以上數據分析可知，不論說是四年或八年達成，反正「六三三」就是不可能全部達成了。但國民黨至今仍不願、亦不敢承認「六三三」難以兌現，官員甚至還在說「未來不是沒有可能達成」之類的話。這其實也猶如活在夢幻中。
以目前全球的經濟情勢來看，全球各大經濟體中，日本已沉淪步入衰退，美、歐各自有難解的經濟基本面與債務問題，即使不步入衰退，歐美成長趨緩已成事實。大陸與其它新興經濟體亦有通膨、爛帳延燒等內部問題，自顧不暇。因此，明年不論那一黨勝選執政，都可能要面臨相當嚴苛的經濟挑戰。兩黨與其在無聊的「六三三」上「勾勾纏」，不如好好提出對未來台灣總體經濟的擘畫，及未來因應經濟變局的策略。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 4, 2011
Summary: During the 2008 election, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou promised "6:3:3." What he meant was that if elected, he would increase the economic growth rate to 6%, decrease the unemployment rate to 3%, and raise per capita income to US$30,000 a year. This outdated campaign promise has recently become a target for opposition DPP attacks against the ruling KMT. Both sides have already defaulted on 6:3:3. A war of words is premature. Frankly, both maior parties have shown no improvement. Both are living in the past.
Full Text Below:
During the 2008 election, KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou promised "6:3:3." What he meant was that if elected, he would increase the economic growth rate to 6%, decrease the unemployment rate to 3%, and raise per capita income to US$30,000 a year. This outdated campaign promise has recently become a target for opposition DPP attacks against the ruling KMT. Both sides have already defaulted on 6:3:3. A war of words is premature. Frankly, both major parties have shown no improvement. Both are living in the past.
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen says that Ma and his staffers promised that 6:3:3 would be achieved in only four years. She says they are now claiming their promise was for eight years, not four. The DPP accuses the KMT of changing its story on the campaign promise it made four years ago.
Frankly, such accusations mean very little. As we all know, soon after the KMT regained power in 2008, the global financial crisis struck. Every nation on earth was affected. Not a single world leader who took office in 2008 was able to fulfill his campaign promises regarding economic growth. Not Barak Obama in the United States. Not Lee Myung-bak in South Korea. Attacking the ruling administration on this issue is unlikely to win public sympathy.
Would such a goal take four years to achieve, or eight years? Common sense tells us it cannot be reached in four years. Consider the US$30,000 per capita income goal. The per capita income on Taiwan in 2007 was only US$17,592. To reach the $US$30,000 goal in four years without a change in the exchange rate, one would have to achieve a 15% annual economic growth rate. Is the KMT foolish enough to make such an impossible campaign promise?
The KMT has dug in its heels and denied reneging on its 6:3:3 promise. It insists that its 6:3:3 promise was an eight year target. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, it is afraid to face facts. A US$30,000 national income in four years is as unlikely as the sun rising in the west. This year per capita income on Taiwan may exceed US$20,000. In order to reach US$30,000 by 2015, the annual economic growth rate would have to be nearly 10%. Is that possible? Of course not.
A reasonable estimate would put annual average income growth at 5% per year. In which case per capita income by 2015 would be US$25,000 or so. To increase the national income to US$30,000 would be possible only with a sudden increase in the value of the NT dollar. Per capita income is figured in U.S. dollars. Even then, the NT dollar would have to increase 20% in value. In other words, the exchange rate would have to increase to NT$26 to US$1. Although not impossible, it is highly unlikely.
Is an average annual economic growth of 6% over two four year terms possible? Let's look at the numbers. That should enable us to evaluate the likelihood. Between 2008 and 2010, the annual average growth rate was less than 4%. The DGBAS's economic growth forecast for this year is only 4.81%. Given the global economic situation, that number will probably have to be lowered. The estimated growth rate for 2012 is 4.58%. According to these figures, if one wants to achieve an average annual growth rate of 6% over eight years, then the growth rate between 2013 and 2015 must be 8 to 9% to make up for the 6% growth rate over the past five years. That is not merely difficult. It is impossible.
The DPP is relentlessly attacking the KMT for reneging on 6:3:3. It believes it is hitting the KMT where it hurts. Therefore it refuses to let up. It persists in demagoguing the issue. But soon after Ma took office, the global financial tsunami struck. Economic growth in every nation was affected. The DPP persists in attacking the KMT on this point. The public however, is not impressed. These DPP tactics amount to living in the past. After all, if the DPP really believes 6:3:3 is feasible, why is it presenting voters with a ten year plan?
Based on the above data, four years or eight years makes no difference. The bottom line is, the 6:3:3 promise cannot be fulfilled. The KMT however, refuses to admit that its 6:3:3 promise cannot be fulfilled. Its officials insist "It is not impossible in the future." They are living in a dream world.
Consider the current global economic situation. Examine the world's major economies. Japan is sinking into recession. The United States and Europe each have their own intractable problems with economic fundamentals and debt. Even without a recession, a slowdown in Europe and America is certain. The Chinese mainland and other emerging economies must cope with inflation, bad debt, and domestic problems. They have troubles of their own. Therefore no matter which party wins the election next year, it will face severe economic challenges. Instead of meaningless squabbling over 6:3:3, they should offer better economic proposals for the future of the nation, and better strategies in response to the economic downturn.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2011.10.04
朝野不應在「六三三」上糾纏
本報訊
二○○八年大選時，國民黨馬英九提出「六三三」的政見承諾─即經濟成長率達六％、失業率降到三％，還有平均國民所得達到三萬美元。這個過時的政見與競選承諾，最近一再成為朝野兩黨攻防重點，雙方猛在「六三三」是已經跳票、還是時候未到上噴口水。坦白說，兩黨都不長進，讓自己活在過去與夢幻中。
民進黨總統候選人蔡英文說，過去不論是馬本人或其幕僚，都宣稱「六三三」只需要四年即可達到，現在才說要八年才能完成。民進黨批評國民黨是把四年前跳票的舊政見再拿來騙。
坦白說，這種指責與口水戰意義並不大，因為大家都知道，國民黨二○○八年執政後，當年即碰上全球百年僅見的金融海嘯，所有國家的經濟運行軌道都被打亂。世界各國在二○○八年開始執政的團隊─從美國的歐巴馬到南韓的李明博，沒有一個能達到競選時對經濟成長、國家發展的承諾。以此當話題批判執政者，能得到的共鳴恐怕相當有限。
更何況，到底是四年還是八年要達成，用常識想也知道不會是四年達成的承諾。以平均國民所得三萬美元為例，二○○七年台灣平均國民所得（以平均每人ＧＮＰ算）只有一萬七五九二美元，要在四年達成三萬美元的目標，在匯率不升值的情況下，每年經濟要成長十五％才能達成。國民黨有笨到這種程度、提出這種天方夜譚式的政見承諾嗎？
至於國民黨咬緊牙根不承認「六三三」跳票，硬是強調「六三三」是八年達成的政見，更是不敢正視現實的駝鳥作法，因為，單是一個國民所得三萬美元的承諾，就是「太陽由西邊升起」都不可能做到的目標了。因為今年台灣的平均國民所得預估可破二萬美元，要在二○一五年達到三萬美元，代表未來每年經濟成長率要接近十％，可能嗎？膝蓋想都知道不可能。
合理的推估是假設未來每年經濟成長率為五％，那麼二○一五年的平均國民所得大概能到二萬五千美元左右的水準。如果要讓國民所得拚到三萬美元，只有台幣大幅升值一途，因為平均國民所得是用美元計算。即使如此，台幣也要升個近二成才能達成─也就是說台幣匯率要升值到廿六元左右。雖然不是完全不可能，但顯然難度也是極高。
至於要達到任期八年平均每年經濟成長達六％，我們看看這幾年的數字，大概就能評估出其可能性。從二○○八到二○一○這三年平均成長率不到四％，行政院主計處對今年經濟成長率的預測值只有四．八一％，且以全球經濟情勢趨勢看，再向下修正的機率非常高；二○一二年預估成長率為四．五八％。根據這些數字，如果要達到八年平均每年經濟成長率為六％的目標，代表二○一三到二○一五這三年的成長率，要能補足過去五年不到六％的「缺口」，所以這三年每年至少要有八到九％以上的高成長，這不是「阿婆生子─很拚」，而是完全不可能達到。
民進黨猛攻「六三三」跳票，應該是認為抓住國民黨的痛處，因此不斷猛攻、持續在此議題上打轉。不過，既然在馬執政後，全球發生過金融海嘯，干擾也打擊了全球所有國家的經濟成長軌道，民進黨猛打這點，民眾的共鳴實在有限。民進黨這種戰法，等於是「活在過去」。畢竟如果民進黨認為它做得到，為什麼政見支票都要開長遠的十年呢？
而由以上數據分析可知，不論說是四年或八年達成，反正「六三三」就是不可能全部達成了。但國民黨至今仍不願、亦不敢承認「六三三」難以兌現，官員甚至還在說「未來不是沒有可能達成」之類的話。這其實也猶如活在夢幻中。
以目前全球的經濟情勢來看，全球各大經濟體中，日本已沉淪步入衰退，美、歐各自有難解的經濟基本面與債務問題，即使不步入衰退，歐美成長趨緩已成事實。大陸與其它新興經濟體亦有通膨、爛帳延燒等內部問題，自顧不暇。因此，明年不論那一黨勝選執政，都可能要面臨相當嚴苛的經濟挑戰。兩黨與其在無聊的「六三三」上「勾勾纏」，不如好好提出對未來台灣總體經濟的擘畫，及未來因應經濟變局的策略。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)