Green Camp Occupies the Legislature:
But Where Would It Take Us?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 15, 2012
Summary: The TAIEX is struggling to recover. But Green Camp legislators are "occupying" the dais in the Legislature. People are panicked by rising flood waters. But DPP legislators are prostrate on the floor of the legislature, snoring loudly. Flood victims are struggling to clear debris out of their homes. A typhoon is expected this weekend. But ruling and opposition legislators persist in their power games, calculating how they can wait out the other and claim final victory.
Full Text below:
The TAIEX is struggling to recover. But Green Camp legislators are "occupying" the dais in the Legislature. People are panicked by rising flood waters. But DPP legislators are prostrate on the floor of the legislature, snoring loudly. Flood victims are struggling to clear debris out of their homes. A typhoon is expected this weekend. But ruling and opposition legislators persist in their power games, calculating how they can wait out the other and claim final victory.
The political parties may claim victory on issues such as US beef imports, the capital gains tax, and gasoline and electricity rate hikes. But the public and the nation are the scorched earth upon which the ruling and opposition parties wage their battles. Over the past four months, these issues have been hashed and rehashed, as if Taiwan did not have more important problems to deal with. Today, the end is near. Everyone wants the Legislative Yuan to end these disputes. But the opposition DPP and TSU refuse to allow the legislature to reconvene and deal with these problems.
The DPP issued a 120 hour mobilization order. The TSU issued a five day four night mobilization order. In short, the entire Green Camp is conducting a five day long, brute force occupation of the legislature. It has adopted a take no prisoners policy. Are the opposition DPP and TSU adopting their posture out of concern for the nation? Perhaps if they used the five days to participate in a ruling vs. opposition party debate, they might gain public attention and win public approval. But five days of delaying tactics, just to bring the legislature to a grinding halt, just to ensure that it is unable to get anything done? Will this really win public approval?
The opposition DPP and TSU are guilty of wishful thinking. They think their brute force occupation of the legislature will expose "ruling KMT incompetence and willfulness." But times have changed. Society is not what it used to be. Their theatrics are likely to backfire. One. The U.S. beef imports controversy has dragged on for seven years. The capital gains tax is making a comeback after 24 years. A majority of the public wants these issues resolved as soon as possible They do not want them hanging over their heads. Two. Previously the executive branch dropped the ball. It cannot escape blame for its poor communications and its lack of persuasiveness. But now the policies have been approved. Now the responsibility is in the hands of the legislative branch. But the legislature is unable to carry on its business. The public is pointing the finger at the opposition DPP and TSU, who are violently occupying the legislature and preventing it from functioning normally. Three. The new legislature lacks a track record. Legislators receive the same salary as ministry heads. If they bring the business of the legislature to a halt, aren't they squandering the taxpayers' hard-earned money? Legislators routinely blast executive branch officials as incompetent. But what do they see when they look in the mirror?
The Green Camp's tactics may be bizarre. Its violent occupation of the legislature has brought the Legislative Yuan to a grinding halt. But its theatrics will not win public approval. They will merely expose the Green Camp's barbarism. The DPP persists in opposing US beef imports and gasoline and electricity rate hikes. It boasts that it is "deferring to public opinion." In fact, the opposition DPP and TSU have zero respect for public opinion. If they did, wouldn't they allow the ruling and opposition parties to review the issues in accordance with the law? Wouldn't that be consistent with the spirit of democratic rule?
Currently the legislature has a Blue majority and a Green minority. This is the result of voters casting their ballots in January of this year. Directly elected legislators and legislators without portfolio alike were elected by the two-vote system. The number of seats won by each party reflects the leanings of the electorate as a whole. In this case, Green Camp legislators have staged a brute force occupation of the legislature in order to bring the legislature to a grinding halt. Bluntly speaking, they are attempting to hijack public opinion. They are trifling with democracy. And they have the nerve to claim they are deferring to public opinion? If opposition parties stage a violent occupation of the legislature during normal times, they may capture the public imagination. They may provide them with a topic for dinner conversation. But flood waters have reached peoples knees. The DPP doesn't know how to quit while it's ahead. They continue to occupy the legislature, camping out overnight. They will find it hard to escape charges that they "do not feel the peoples pain."
The Democratic Progressive Party's militancy is staggering. It issued a 120 hour mobilzation order. The excitement of the DPP "legions" was manifest. But equally manifest was the DPP's irrationality and foolishness. Taiwan was been democratic for over 20 years. Yet the DPP is still playing these "crude equals shrewd" games. It is not difficult to understand why our democracy has been unable to progress to the next level. The DPP has repeatedly been relegated to the status of a minority party, election after election. Yet they never seem to recognize their own limitations. The current brute force occupation of the legislature has made its irrationality clear to everyone.
The Legislative Yuan may be a Colisseum, of sorts. But what the people want to see is the ruling and opposition parties in a "battle of wits," not gladiatorial combat. They want to see competition, not obstructionism. The public on Taiwan is not like the ancient Romans who lusted for blood. The political parties must not threaten to draw blood. Politicians must not view the legislature as a battleground that they can turn into scorched earth.
A ship that has run aground can sail nowhere. A legislature unable to function, can lead Taiwan nowhere.
停擺的國會，要把台灣帶向哪裡？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.15
當台股欲振乏力之際，綠營立委攻占了國會主席台；當人們陷於暴雨侵襲的恐慌，民進黨立委卻橫臥在議事大廳鼾聲大作。當民眾在努力收拾家園、並因應周末可能來襲的颱風時，朝野立委繼續在那裡爾虞我詐，盤算如何把這場對峙之局撐到自己最後的勝利。
然而，在美牛、證所稅或油電價等議題上，不論最後什麼政黨能宣稱自己「大獲全勝」，人民和國家其實都已成為朝野攻伐、蹂躪的焦土。四個月來，社會反覆爭辯這幾項議題，彷彿台灣沒有其他值得關注的事；如今會期將近尾聲，大家希望立法院就這些爭議作個收場，在野黨卻根本不讓議事進行。
民進黨下達的是一百廿小時的動員令，台聯則是五天四夜，也就是全體綠委要進行整整五天的浴血抗爭，焦土杯葛。以在野黨這等關心國是的熱情，如果用來舉辦五天的朝野大辯論，或許能博得民眾的注目和認同；但五天的拖延戰術，卻只是造成國會空轉，結果一事無成，這能教民眾苟同嗎？
在野黨的如意算盤，是要藉議事杯葛，凸顯執政黨的無能和蠻幹；然而隨著時間的流轉及社會氣氛的變化，這樣的大動作結果卻可能適得其反。原因是：第一，美牛案拖了七年，證所稅則是廿四年後捲土重來，多數民眾無不希望相關政策早日塵埃落定，不要再懸宕不決。第二，先前決策的顛躓，行政部門的溝通、說服不力固難辭其咎，但如今拍板定奪大權落在立法部門手中，議事卻無法進行，民意問責的箭頭勢將轉向一意杯葛的在野黨。第三，本屆新國會迄今尚無任何具體表現，而立委們平日領取的是部長級薪資，若任憑議事空轉卻毫不作為，豈非虛擲人民的血汗錢？立委平日齜牙咧嘴譴責官員無能，他們從鏡中看到的自己，又是什麼形象？
簡單地說，無論綠營此次的戰術多麼詭奇，杯葛議事、讓立法院無法動彈，恐怕不是能為它贏得掌聲和人心的策略，反而暴露它自己的野蠻。再說，民進黨口口聲聲說反美牛、反漲價，目的是為了「順應民意」；事實上，在野黨如果對民意有任何尊重的話，讓立院朝野政黨依議事程序進行討論、辯證、乃至表決，那才是對民意真正的尊重，不是嗎？那也才符合民主代議政治的基本精神，不是嗎？
目前「藍大綠小」的國會結構，是今年元月才經全體選民投票產生的「新民意」。不論是區域立委或經政黨票選出的不分區立委，都是國會兩票制底下產生的委員，各黨占有的席次，反映的也是全台民眾的集體傾向。在這種情況下，綠營用霸占主席台的方式來杯葛國會議事，說不客氣些，根本是在霸凌民意、玩弄民主，怎好意思說是在反映民意？若在平時，在野黨上演攻占議事廳的戲碼，或許還能提供民眾幾日茶餘飯後的談資餘興；但在大水來犯之際，民進黨不知見好就收，還繼續在議事殿堂高臥夜宿，那就難脫「不知民間疾苦」之譏了！
民進黨的好戰，讓人咋舌。從這次一百廿小時動員令的執行，更可看出民進黨這個「軍團」的亢奮與鬥志；相對的，也暴露了它的理性和智慧不足。台灣民主化廿多年，民進黨還在玩這種「粗魯當高明」的遊戲，就不難理解我們的民主內涵為何遲遲難以提升。而民進黨在一次次的選舉中淪為國會少數黨，卻始終未能認清自己的侷限何在，從這次的杯葛動員，它的非理性已一目了然。
就算立法院是一座競技場，民眾希望看到的是朝野彼此「鬥智」，而不是「角力」；是全力「競賽」，而不是彼此「杯葛」。更別忘了，台灣人民絕不像古羅馬人那麼殘暴嗜血，政黨不必動輒揚言「浴血」對抗，政客也別想把國會殿堂及民生議題變成政治鬥爭的「焦土」。
一艘擱淺的船，哪裡也去不了。而一個無法運作的國會，能把台灣帶向何方？
Thursday, June 14, 2012
The Year of the Legislature Slumber Party
The Year of the Legislature Slumber Party
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 14, 2012
Summary: History will of course remember them. It will remember this group of legislators who held a slumber party in the legislature. One day when we recall what Taiwan was like in 2012, we will remember the buffoons who wrote this ludicrous chapter in Taiwan's political history. They and the dais, so critical to Taiwan's fate, will be written into the history of Taiwan's democracy.
Full Text below:
Over the past several days, Taiwan has been windy, cold, and wet. Disaster relief and reconstruction efforts have stretched available manpower to the breaking point. At such a critical moment, another group of war weary soldiers wishes it could rest but cannot. These soldiers are not busy with disaster relief. They are DPP legislators. Over the past several days, these brave souls have been modern counterparts of the Eight Hundred Heroes who defended the Shihang Warehouse during the Battle of Shanghai. Their nerves are stretched to the breaking point as well. As they gaze up the dais, they endure sleepless nights as well. Meanwhile, the KMT legislative caucus has implemented its "centrifugal deployment" tactic. KMT legislators are the modern counterparts of Allied forces during WWII, attempting to seize a beachhead in Normandy. Their goal? The very same dais.
This magic dais sits in the Legislative Yuan. Can U.S. beef be imported? Can the government levy a capital gains tax? Who will be appointed to the NCC? All manner of questions affecting the people's livelihood, tax justice, and media freedom will be decided on this dais.
This week is the last week in the current Legislative Yuan session. Over 300 bills need review. Yet legislators have adopted a "don't worry, be happy" outlook, as if their sole responsibility is to engage in a Blue vs. Green battle of wits. Some provisions of the draft amendment for the Food Sanitation Management Act pertain to U.S. beef imports. This has led to a major showdown between the ruling KMT and opposition DPP. The DPP legislative caucus has occupied the dais in the Legislative Yuan. Some DPP legislators even brought sleeping bags. They intend to stay the night. They intend to make it impossible for the Legislative Yuan to debate and review bills. KMT legislators have repeatedly threatened to reclaim the dais. They want to allow the legislature to function normally. Collectively these legislators are several thousand years old. Yet they are indifferent to the 200 million dollars in agricultural damage caused by the June 12 floods. They are indifferent to the thousands of people evacuated, to the thousands of households flooded, to the thousands of vehicles snarled in traffic. They are indifferent to an entire range of real problems. These legislators seem to treating the legislature as their own little Arcadia. Blue and Green legislators surround the podium. They don't even realize it has been raining, let alone realize the need for disaster relief.
All Taiwan was reeling from the floods. Yet these legislators conducted themselves in such an infantile, vapid manner. No wonder they felt guilty about what they were doing. Legislators are accustomed to a life of leisure. They could not even endure five days in a sleeping bag. DPP legislators asked that the legislature be cleared. They wanted to show that they too wanted to call a truce. DPP legislators wanted to play hero. But they also wanted to hang back from the front lines. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. The KMT, meanwhile, wanted a cake walk. But it was unwilling or unable to do what it needed to do. It failed to take the bridgehead. As a result all it could do is feel sorry for itself.
During the presidential campaign, former DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's persimmon campaign angered voters. She invoked the parable of The Judgement of Solomon. She boasted that she was "the real mother." What she meant was that although she felt aggrieved, she nevertheless had the larger interests of the people at heart. She said that was why she was willing to let the matter slide. Tsai Ing-wen's self-serving rhetoric overreached. But the incident and the parable are things the Blue and Green parties should think about. The two parties each insist they are upholding the interests of the public. But what really constitutes upholding the interests of the public? Who really has the right to boast that he or she is "the real mother," seeking justice before King Solomon?
Over the past several days, the public has watched bedraggled DPP legislators desperately searching for any excuse to end their "occupy movement" without losing face. But even if they make it through these last five days, what of it? Does that mean the government will no longer have to confront the U.S. beef imports issue? The TIFA issue? Politicians are so obdurate and short-sighted. How can earn the people's trust? How can they assume weighty responsibilities?
Over the past several days, the public has witnessed the KMT's impotence. KMT legislators flapped their mouths. They solemnly swore they would retake the dais. Instead, their members kept vanishing and their numbers kept dwindling. If the KMT really wanted the Legislative Yuan to resume normal operations, it would have assigned at least as many members to do battle with the DPP. The KMT is so halfhearted in defending its ideals. How can politicians like this persuade the public they are willing to fight on their behalf?
If Taiwan were a business organization, the Legislative Yuan would be one of its BUs (business units), but one so inefficient and lacking in dedication, it would have been dissolved long ago. What company would tolerate a business unit so lethargic and irresponsible? In normal times, legislators never burn incense at the temple. But in times of need, they suddenly become "deathbed converts." And slapdash ones at that. If Taiwan were a family, the Legislative Yuan would be a family member, but one so unruly and unwilling to learn, the parents would have given them a whipping and disowned them long ago. What family would tolerate a black sheep who never shapes up?
All Taiwan was being battered by floods. Yet Blue and Green legislators found time to engage in "king of the mountain" games on the legislature dais. It doesn't getting any darker than this. Have they concluded they can get away with anything? That nobody can do anything about them? Voters who waded through waist deep flood waters, voters who were evacuated in panic, remember the names of your legislators. Remember where they were the day of the flood. They sat in air-conditioned comfort, spouting smarmy nonsense.
History will of course remember them. It will remember this group of legislators who held a slumber party in the legislature. One day when we recall what Taiwan was like in 2012, we will remember the buffoons who wrote this ludicrous chapter in Taiwan's political history. They and the dais, so critical to Taiwan's fate, will be written into the history of Taiwan's democracy.
那一年，我們一起睡過的國會
2012-06-14
中國時報
這 幾天，台灣到處淒風苦雨，各地救災、善後，忙得人仰馬翻。就在這個時候，也有一群人累得兵疲馬困、欲罷不能；當然，他們可不是忙著救災。這幾天，民進黨立 委們像八百壯士死守「四行倉庫」一般，繃緊神經、夜不成眠，盯著一個台子；另一方面，國民黨團則搬出所謂的「向心式部署」戰術，彷彿二戰盟軍要在諾曼地強 勢搶灘一般，而他們的目標，也是這個台子。
這個神奇的台子就是立法院的議場主席台。有關美國牛肉到底可不可以進口、證所稅要怎麼課徵、ＮＣＣ委員是些什麼人等等，攸關台灣民生、賦稅正義以及媒體環境的未來，都與這個主席台關係密切。
這 個禮拜是立法院本會期的最後一個禮拜，還有三百多個法案要審，不過，立委諸公們似乎是「債多不愁」，好整以暇地玩起藍綠大鬥法。因為《食品衛生管理法部分 條文修正草案》中有關美牛進口的爭議，朝野陷入嚴重的攻防戰，民進黨團占據議場主席台，甚至帶睡袋、徹夜防守；總之，就是要讓立法院根本無法討論、審議這 個案子；國民黨立委則幾度揚言要奪回主席台，讓議事正常進行；就這樣，年齡加起來有幾千歲的國會議員們，就是不管六一二水災造成超過兩億元的農損、數千人 撤離、數千戶淹水、全台交通大打結…等現實問題，立法院彷彿成了立委們的「世外桃源」，藍綠立委圍著這個主席台，「不知有雨、遑論救災」！
在 全台大受水患煎熬的時刻，立委們還這麼幼稚、無聊，難道不會心虛嗎？立委平日養尊處優慣了，真的能夠連睡個五天睡袋嗎？其實也不全然如此。民進黨要求國會 淨空，顯示他們也想休兵了，問題是，民進黨既想逞英雄又想安全下莊，天底下哪有這好康的事？同樣的，國民黨既想速戰速決又無法攻堅突襲，奪橋不成也只能遺 恨了吧。
前民進黨主席蔡英文在參選總統時，曾因柿子文宣惹怒選民。當時她以「所羅門王面前那位真正的母親」自居，意思是說，儘管心裡有委 屈，但因為一心以人民為念，所以願意先放下。姑且不論當時蔡英文的這一番自我投射是否得當，這個故事和比喻，也值得此刻藍綠政黨深思。兩黨都說要為人民的 權益把關，但要怎麼做才是真正地顧念人民的需要呢？誰才有資格無愧地說自己是所羅門王面前，那個真正的母親？
幾天下來，人民看到的是，民進黨立委們疲態盡露，只是為了等待一個好的下台階就拚命硬撐，然而，就算撐過了這五天，又怎麼樣呢？難道美牛問題、ＴＩＦＡ問題，台灣都從此不必再碰觸了嗎？政治人物如此任性短視，如何讓人民信賴、委以重任呢。
幾天下來，人民看到的是，國民黨立委們的行動不足，只出一張嘴說要攻堅、要奪回主席台，結果卻人影稀少，如果真的想讓立法院恢復運作，至少跟民進黨出一樣多的人上場啊。捍衛自己的主張卻如此意興闌珊，這樣的政治人物如何讓人相信他們真的肯為人民力拚些什麼！
如 果台灣是個企業，立法院是其中的一個ＢＵ（事業單位），效率、態度這麼差，應該早就被裁撤了吧，有哪個企業可以容忍旗下單位，如此怠惰、如此不負責任？立 法委員平時不燒香，現在連臨時抱佛都抱得七零八落；如果台灣是個家庭，立法院是其中成員，如此頑劣不受教，家長早就「鞭數十、驅之別院」了吧；有哪個家庭 可以忍受歲歲年年總不長進的敗家子。
當整個台灣陷於水災折磨時，藍綠立委們卻還有閒情逸致進行「主席台大風吹」的遊戲，暗黑世界，莫此為 甚！難道他們是吃定了大家拿立法委員一點轍也沒有嗎？水深及腰的選民們、惶恐撤離的選民們，可要好好記住選區立委的名字，記住他們在水患之日，待在冷氣房 裡納涼、扯淡的嘴臉。
當然，歷史也必然會記住他們，記得這一群《那一年，我們一起睡過國會》的立法委員們；當我們日後回憶起台灣的二○一二年時，一定不會忘記這群用愚蠢改寫了政治荒謬性的極限的台灣立委們，以及，這個攸關台灣命運的主席台，他們都將一起被寫入台灣的民主發展史裡。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 14, 2012
Summary: History will of course remember them. It will remember this group of legislators who held a slumber party in the legislature. One day when we recall what Taiwan was like in 2012, we will remember the buffoons who wrote this ludicrous chapter in Taiwan's political history. They and the dais, so critical to Taiwan's fate, will be written into the history of Taiwan's democracy.
Full Text below:
Over the past several days, Taiwan has been windy, cold, and wet. Disaster relief and reconstruction efforts have stretched available manpower to the breaking point. At such a critical moment, another group of war weary soldiers wishes it could rest but cannot. These soldiers are not busy with disaster relief. They are DPP legislators. Over the past several days, these brave souls have been modern counterparts of the Eight Hundred Heroes who defended the Shihang Warehouse during the Battle of Shanghai. Their nerves are stretched to the breaking point as well. As they gaze up the dais, they endure sleepless nights as well. Meanwhile, the KMT legislative caucus has implemented its "centrifugal deployment" tactic. KMT legislators are the modern counterparts of Allied forces during WWII, attempting to seize a beachhead in Normandy. Their goal? The very same dais.
This magic dais sits in the Legislative Yuan. Can U.S. beef be imported? Can the government levy a capital gains tax? Who will be appointed to the NCC? All manner of questions affecting the people's livelihood, tax justice, and media freedom will be decided on this dais.
This week is the last week in the current Legislative Yuan session. Over 300 bills need review. Yet legislators have adopted a "don't worry, be happy" outlook, as if their sole responsibility is to engage in a Blue vs. Green battle of wits. Some provisions of the draft amendment for the Food Sanitation Management Act pertain to U.S. beef imports. This has led to a major showdown between the ruling KMT and opposition DPP. The DPP legislative caucus has occupied the dais in the Legislative Yuan. Some DPP legislators even brought sleeping bags. They intend to stay the night. They intend to make it impossible for the Legislative Yuan to debate and review bills. KMT legislators have repeatedly threatened to reclaim the dais. They want to allow the legislature to function normally. Collectively these legislators are several thousand years old. Yet they are indifferent to the 200 million dollars in agricultural damage caused by the June 12 floods. They are indifferent to the thousands of people evacuated, to the thousands of households flooded, to the thousands of vehicles snarled in traffic. They are indifferent to an entire range of real problems. These legislators seem to treating the legislature as their own little Arcadia. Blue and Green legislators surround the podium. They don't even realize it has been raining, let alone realize the need for disaster relief.
All Taiwan was reeling from the floods. Yet these legislators conducted themselves in such an infantile, vapid manner. No wonder they felt guilty about what they were doing. Legislators are accustomed to a life of leisure. They could not even endure five days in a sleeping bag. DPP legislators asked that the legislature be cleared. They wanted to show that they too wanted to call a truce. DPP legislators wanted to play hero. But they also wanted to hang back from the front lines. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. The KMT, meanwhile, wanted a cake walk. But it was unwilling or unable to do what it needed to do. It failed to take the bridgehead. As a result all it could do is feel sorry for itself.
During the presidential campaign, former DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's persimmon campaign angered voters. She invoked the parable of The Judgement of Solomon. She boasted that she was "the real mother." What she meant was that although she felt aggrieved, she nevertheless had the larger interests of the people at heart. She said that was why she was willing to let the matter slide. Tsai Ing-wen's self-serving rhetoric overreached. But the incident and the parable are things the Blue and Green parties should think about. The two parties each insist they are upholding the interests of the public. But what really constitutes upholding the interests of the public? Who really has the right to boast that he or she is "the real mother," seeking justice before King Solomon?
Over the past several days, the public has watched bedraggled DPP legislators desperately searching for any excuse to end their "occupy movement" without losing face. But even if they make it through these last five days, what of it? Does that mean the government will no longer have to confront the U.S. beef imports issue? The TIFA issue? Politicians are so obdurate and short-sighted. How can earn the people's trust? How can they assume weighty responsibilities?
Over the past several days, the public has witnessed the KMT's impotence. KMT legislators flapped their mouths. They solemnly swore they would retake the dais. Instead, their members kept vanishing and their numbers kept dwindling. If the KMT really wanted the Legislative Yuan to resume normal operations, it would have assigned at least as many members to do battle with the DPP. The KMT is so halfhearted in defending its ideals. How can politicians like this persuade the public they are willing to fight on their behalf?
If Taiwan were a business organization, the Legislative Yuan would be one of its BUs (business units), but one so inefficient and lacking in dedication, it would have been dissolved long ago. What company would tolerate a business unit so lethargic and irresponsible? In normal times, legislators never burn incense at the temple. But in times of need, they suddenly become "deathbed converts." And slapdash ones at that. If Taiwan were a family, the Legislative Yuan would be a family member, but one so unruly and unwilling to learn, the parents would have given them a whipping and disowned them long ago. What family would tolerate a black sheep who never shapes up?
All Taiwan was being battered by floods. Yet Blue and Green legislators found time to engage in "king of the mountain" games on the legislature dais. It doesn't getting any darker than this. Have they concluded they can get away with anything? That nobody can do anything about them? Voters who waded through waist deep flood waters, voters who were evacuated in panic, remember the names of your legislators. Remember where they were the day of the flood. They sat in air-conditioned comfort, spouting smarmy nonsense.
History will of course remember them. It will remember this group of legislators who held a slumber party in the legislature. One day when we recall what Taiwan was like in 2012, we will remember the buffoons who wrote this ludicrous chapter in Taiwan's political history. They and the dais, so critical to Taiwan's fate, will be written into the history of Taiwan's democracy.
那一年，我們一起睡過的國會
2012-06-14
中國時報
這 幾天，台灣到處淒風苦雨，各地救災、善後，忙得人仰馬翻。就在這個時候，也有一群人累得兵疲馬困、欲罷不能；當然，他們可不是忙著救災。這幾天，民進黨立 委們像八百壯士死守「四行倉庫」一般，繃緊神經、夜不成眠，盯著一個台子；另一方面，國民黨團則搬出所謂的「向心式部署」戰術，彷彿二戰盟軍要在諾曼地強 勢搶灘一般，而他們的目標，也是這個台子。
這個神奇的台子就是立法院的議場主席台。有關美國牛肉到底可不可以進口、證所稅要怎麼課徵、ＮＣＣ委員是些什麼人等等，攸關台灣民生、賦稅正義以及媒體環境的未來，都與這個主席台關係密切。
這 個禮拜是立法院本會期的最後一個禮拜，還有三百多個法案要審，不過，立委諸公們似乎是「債多不愁」，好整以暇地玩起藍綠大鬥法。因為《食品衛生管理法部分 條文修正草案》中有關美牛進口的爭議，朝野陷入嚴重的攻防戰，民進黨團占據議場主席台，甚至帶睡袋、徹夜防守；總之，就是要讓立法院根本無法討論、審議這 個案子；國民黨立委則幾度揚言要奪回主席台，讓議事正常進行；就這樣，年齡加起來有幾千歲的國會議員們，就是不管六一二水災造成超過兩億元的農損、數千人 撤離、數千戶淹水、全台交通大打結…等現實問題，立法院彷彿成了立委們的「世外桃源」，藍綠立委圍著這個主席台，「不知有雨、遑論救災」！
在 全台大受水患煎熬的時刻，立委們還這麼幼稚、無聊，難道不會心虛嗎？立委平日養尊處優慣了，真的能夠連睡個五天睡袋嗎？其實也不全然如此。民進黨要求國會 淨空，顯示他們也想休兵了，問題是，民進黨既想逞英雄又想安全下莊，天底下哪有這好康的事？同樣的，國民黨既想速戰速決又無法攻堅突襲，奪橋不成也只能遺 恨了吧。
前民進黨主席蔡英文在參選總統時，曾因柿子文宣惹怒選民。當時她以「所羅門王面前那位真正的母親」自居，意思是說，儘管心裡有委 屈，但因為一心以人民為念，所以願意先放下。姑且不論當時蔡英文的這一番自我投射是否得當，這個故事和比喻，也值得此刻藍綠政黨深思。兩黨都說要為人民的 權益把關，但要怎麼做才是真正地顧念人民的需要呢？誰才有資格無愧地說自己是所羅門王面前，那個真正的母親？
幾天下來，人民看到的是，民進黨立委們疲態盡露，只是為了等待一個好的下台階就拚命硬撐，然而，就算撐過了這五天，又怎麼樣呢？難道美牛問題、ＴＩＦＡ問題，台灣都從此不必再碰觸了嗎？政治人物如此任性短視，如何讓人民信賴、委以重任呢。
幾天下來，人民看到的是，國民黨立委們的行動不足，只出一張嘴說要攻堅、要奪回主席台，結果卻人影稀少，如果真的想讓立法院恢復運作，至少跟民進黨出一樣多的人上場啊。捍衛自己的主張卻如此意興闌珊，這樣的政治人物如何讓人相信他們真的肯為人民力拚些什麼！
如 果台灣是個企業，立法院是其中的一個ＢＵ（事業單位），效率、態度這麼差，應該早就被裁撤了吧，有哪個企業可以容忍旗下單位，如此怠惰、如此不負責任？立 法委員平時不燒香，現在連臨時抱佛都抱得七零八落；如果台灣是個家庭，立法院是其中成員，如此頑劣不受教，家長早就「鞭數十、驅之別院」了吧；有哪個家庭 可以忍受歲歲年年總不長進的敗家子。
當整個台灣陷於水災折磨時，藍綠立委們卻還有閒情逸致進行「主席台大風吹」的遊戲，暗黑世界，莫此為 甚！難道他們是吃定了大家拿立法委員一點轍也沒有嗎？水深及腰的選民們、惶恐撤離的選民們，可要好好記住選區立委的名字，記住他們在水患之日，待在冷氣房 裡納涼、扯淡的嘴臉。
當然，歷史也必然會記住他們，記得這一群《那一年，我們一起睡過國會》的立法委員們；當我們日後回憶起台灣的二○一二年時，一定不會忘記這群用愚蠢改寫了政治荒謬性的極限的台灣立委們，以及，這個攸關台灣命運的主席台，他們都將一起被寫入台灣的民主發展史裡。
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Pragmatism, Responsibility, and Balance Will Resolve US Beef Controversy
Pragmatism, Responsibility, and Balance Will Resolve US Beef Controversy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 12 2012
Summary: When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?
Full Text below:
This week the Legislative Yuan will deal with the Food Sanitation Management Act, which will lift the ban on U.S. beef imports. Yesterday DPP legislators occupied the podium and threatened violent confrontation. The KMT issued a Grade A mobilization order. A scorched-earth war is now about to unfold before our very eyes. It it does, it will contribute nothing to sound policies or the national interest. It will contribute nothing to communication between rival parties or social harmony.
U.S. beef imports are actually an economic issue. But it is an economic issue that involves a number of national interests. DPP legislators should deal with them responsibly and pragmatically. If they stage yet another brawl in the legislature for the international media, they will undermine Taiwan's international image. They will also prevent reasoned discussion and rational decision-making.
Ractopamine has the lowest toxicity of the many substances used to ensure lean meat. The medical community has yet to reach a conclusion regarding its impact on human health. But so far there have been no cases of proven harm. Therefore it is the only substance approved internationally. The U.S. government sets an upper limit of 30 ppb, Under duress, the Japanese and South Korean governments allowed in U.S. beef imports. As a result, the Lee Myung-bak administration had to weather ta political storm. The EU has imposed a total ban. The United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission will discuss the matter in July.
If one wishes to be absolutely, 100% safe. then of course one should not add any pharmaceuticals to livestock feed. But this is difficult to achieve in practice. Under the circumstances, one must consider the health effects, operating profits, and other factors. If the pharmaceutical inflicts serious harm to human health, then of course it should be banned. But if the health impact is minor, or if small amounts cause no harm, and is beneficial to industry revenue, one can set upper limits. Examples include pesticides, which can cause human death. The ROC government and other governments allow pesticide use but impose upper limits on pesticide residues. Another example is cigarettes and betel nuts, both of which are highly carcinogenic. The government allows their sale and cultivation.
All factors should be considered. The key is to find the proper balance between various concerns. The national interest includes a variety of interests. There is no conclusive evidence that Ractopamine is harmful to human health. Pesticides and cigarettes by contrast, are known to be harmful to human health. Therefore U.S. beef imports ought to be negotiable. Other national interests should be considered. The policy debate should not be monopolized by a single voice.
It is not easy for the ROC to survive amidst fierce international competition. The moment we falter, other nations will pass us. One must adopt a global perspective. The global economy is in turmoil. Seventy percent of our GDP growth depends on exports. As a result, it is in crisis. South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, the other Asian Tigers, are clearly ahead of us. Recently ECFA has given our economy a shot in the arm. Nevertheless we must diversify, We must avoid over-reliance on the Mainland. We must sign free trade agreements with other economies. This is something the DPP itself has long advocated.
The U.S. government has made its position crystal clear. Allowing U.S. beef imports is a prerequisite for TIFA (Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement), It is a prerequisite for FTAs (free trade agreements) and the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement). The public wants the government to sign FTAs with other countries. But free trade agreements are never one way streets. One must give a little to get a little. There is always a quid pro quo between governments. If both parties do the math and come out ahead, the deal is done. The ROC wants other governments to sign FTAs. We must be psychologically prepared to give something in return. The United States is no exception.
The ROC's international status is unique. Other governments often have reservations about talking to us. This is one reason the ROC lags so far behind South Korea on FTA negotiations. The United States is an important export market. It is one of the ROC's long-term allies. It is the nation with which the ROC is most likely to sign an FTA. Signing an FTA with the US could have a bandwagon effect on other governments.
The effects of Ractopamine on the human body are still unclear. The government wants to control its use. Therefore it can impose safe limits. it can distinguish between beef and pork. It can impose mandatory labeling. It can exclude organ meats. It can allow consumers to decide. Just like smokers can decide whether to live with the risks of cigarettes. There is no need to treat U.S. beef imports as more terrifying than pesticides. Besides, many consumers think U.S. beef is better in quality, The U.S. government has limited Ractopamine residues. Therefore the DPP should agree to their importation.
When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. U.S. beef imports have become a Blue vs. Green battlefield. Rational discussion is no longer possible. It has become difficult to distinguish between important and unimportant considerations. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?
務實 負責 平衡 化解美牛爭議
2012-06-12
中國時報
立院本周將處理攸關美牛瘦肉精解禁的《食品衛生管理法》議案，民進黨立委昨天已經占據主席台揚言浴血奮戰，國民黨團則祭出甲級動員令，一場焦土大戰，眼看即將慘烈開打，這樣的發展，既無助尋求最能維護國家利益的決策，也無益於政治溝通與社會和諧。
美牛案其實是一項涉及多項國家利益的民生議題，應該以負責務實的態度處理，如果再度演出一場貽笑國際的國會打架秀，不但有傷台灣形象，也將讓政治惡鬥繼續綑綁理性討論與平衡決策的空間。
在多種瘦肉精中，萊克多巴胺的毒性最低，對人體有無影響醫界尚無定論，但至今未有案例證明對人體有害，因此也是國際間唯一容許使用的。美國自訂上限是三十ppb，日、韓都在美國壓力下開放美牛，李明博政府因此承受了政治風暴。歐盟全面禁止，聯合國食品法典委員會則預定七月進行討論。
如果要絕對百分之百安全，當然是不該在飼養過程中添加任何藥劑。但這在實務界很難做到，在這種狀況下，對於添加藥劑的管理，就必須針對健康影響、營運獲利及其他影響作整體考量。嚴重有害健康的當然禁用，但如果對健康影響輕微或少量無礙，卻對業者營收大有助益，則可以訂定殘留上限。例如毒得死人的農藥，台灣和其他各國都准用但定有容許殘留量；再例如已確認有高致癌性的香菸與檳榔，政府一樣容許販賣種植。
這種通盤的平衡考量，重點在於拿捏各種利益之間的平衡。國家利益包括了許多面向，如果瘦肉精對人體的影響尚無確鑿證據，那麼，和農藥或香菸的管理相比，美牛問題是否可以留下多一些理性討論的空間，平衡考量其他的國家利益，而不是只有一種聲音占據了政策論辯空間？
台灣要在激烈的國際競爭中生存並不容易，只要步伐略有遲緩，馬上便被其他國家超越。放眼世界，國際經濟風暴山雨欲來，ＧＤＰ七成仰賴出口的台灣已陷入莫大危機，同為亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，如今發展都明顯領先台灣。雖然近年來台灣經濟獲ＥＣＦＡ挹注，但就平衡多元的角度，仍然必須避免過度依賴中國大陸，應該加緊與其他國家簽署自由貿易協定，而這也是民進黨所一向主張的。
美國方面已經把話講得很明白，開放美牛，才有ＴＩＦＡ（台美貿易暨投資架構協定），也才能談到ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定）與ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋夥伴協議）。民眾都支持台灣多和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，問題是，自由貿易協定從來不會一面倒地只有獲得而不必付出，國與國的磋商都是在利益交換，有取也有給，兩造算盤打打都覺得划算就皆大歡喜。台灣想爭取和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，一定也要有付出若干代價的心理準備，對美國亦然。
尤其，台灣的國際處境特殊，其他國家和台灣談時往往有政治顧慮，這也是台灣洽談ＦＴＡ的成績遠遠落後於南韓的原因之一。美國是台灣的重要出口市場，又是長期支持台灣的盟友，算來是最有可能在ＦＴＡ取得成果的大國了，更別提可能對其他國家產生的示範效應。
如果瘦肉精對人體的風險不是那麼明確，加上政府針對瘦肉精管理提出「安全容許、牛豬分離、強制標示、排除內臟」四項原則，讓消費者自行選擇，就像吸菸者自己決定是否承擔風險一樣，那麼也不需要把美牛當成比農藥還可怕的洪水猛獸。何況有不少消費者還認為美牛肉質比較好，而且美國政府對瘦肉精殘留量也有管理，因此贊成開放進口。
瘦肉精對健康的影響，應該尊重專家的意見。至於多少風險交換多少利益是划算的，則可以務實理性地深入討論。健康是全民利益，爭取自由貿易商機也是全民利益，如果美牛成為藍綠烽火拚鬥的戰場，便失去了理性討論的空間，各種考量因素的輕重也難以釐清。民進黨雖然在野，但對於促進國家發展競爭力一樣負有責任，一味反對激烈杯葛，真是為國家利益著想？
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 12 2012
Summary: When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?
Full Text below:
This week the Legislative Yuan will deal with the Food Sanitation Management Act, which will lift the ban on U.S. beef imports. Yesterday DPP legislators occupied the podium and threatened violent confrontation. The KMT issued a Grade A mobilization order. A scorched-earth war is now about to unfold before our very eyes. It it does, it will contribute nothing to sound policies or the national interest. It will contribute nothing to communication between rival parties or social harmony.
U.S. beef imports are actually an economic issue. But it is an economic issue that involves a number of national interests. DPP legislators should deal with them responsibly and pragmatically. If they stage yet another brawl in the legislature for the international media, they will undermine Taiwan's international image. They will also prevent reasoned discussion and rational decision-making.
Ractopamine has the lowest toxicity of the many substances used to ensure lean meat. The medical community has yet to reach a conclusion regarding its impact on human health. But so far there have been no cases of proven harm. Therefore it is the only substance approved internationally. The U.S. government sets an upper limit of 30 ppb, Under duress, the Japanese and South Korean governments allowed in U.S. beef imports. As a result, the Lee Myung-bak administration had to weather ta political storm. The EU has imposed a total ban. The United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission will discuss the matter in July.
If one wishes to be absolutely, 100% safe. then of course one should not add any pharmaceuticals to livestock feed. But this is difficult to achieve in practice. Under the circumstances, one must consider the health effects, operating profits, and other factors. If the pharmaceutical inflicts serious harm to human health, then of course it should be banned. But if the health impact is minor, or if small amounts cause no harm, and is beneficial to industry revenue, one can set upper limits. Examples include pesticides, which can cause human death. The ROC government and other governments allow pesticide use but impose upper limits on pesticide residues. Another example is cigarettes and betel nuts, both of which are highly carcinogenic. The government allows their sale and cultivation.
All factors should be considered. The key is to find the proper balance between various concerns. The national interest includes a variety of interests. There is no conclusive evidence that Ractopamine is harmful to human health. Pesticides and cigarettes by contrast, are known to be harmful to human health. Therefore U.S. beef imports ought to be negotiable. Other national interests should be considered. The policy debate should not be monopolized by a single voice.
It is not easy for the ROC to survive amidst fierce international competition. The moment we falter, other nations will pass us. One must adopt a global perspective. The global economy is in turmoil. Seventy percent of our GDP growth depends on exports. As a result, it is in crisis. South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore, the other Asian Tigers, are clearly ahead of us. Recently ECFA has given our economy a shot in the arm. Nevertheless we must diversify, We must avoid over-reliance on the Mainland. We must sign free trade agreements with other economies. This is something the DPP itself has long advocated.
The U.S. government has made its position crystal clear. Allowing U.S. beef imports is a prerequisite for TIFA (Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement), It is a prerequisite for FTAs (free trade agreements) and the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement). The public wants the government to sign FTAs with other countries. But free trade agreements are never one way streets. One must give a little to get a little. There is always a quid pro quo between governments. If both parties do the math and come out ahead, the deal is done. The ROC wants other governments to sign FTAs. We must be psychologically prepared to give something in return. The United States is no exception.
The ROC's international status is unique. Other governments often have reservations about talking to us. This is one reason the ROC lags so far behind South Korea on FTA negotiations. The United States is an important export market. It is one of the ROC's long-term allies. It is the nation with which the ROC is most likely to sign an FTA. Signing an FTA with the US could have a bandwagon effect on other governments.
The effects of Ractopamine on the human body are still unclear. The government wants to control its use. Therefore it can impose safe limits. it can distinguish between beef and pork. It can impose mandatory labeling. It can exclude organ meats. It can allow consumers to decide. Just like smokers can decide whether to live with the risks of cigarettes. There is no need to treat U.S. beef imports as more terrifying than pesticides. Besides, many consumers think U.S. beef is better in quality, The U.S. government has limited Ractopamine residues. Therefore the DPP should agree to their importation.
When determining the health effects of Ractopamine on human health, we should consult the experts. We should weigh the benefits against the risks. We should conduct pragmatic, rational, and in-depth discussions. Public health is in the national interest. But free trade is also in the national interest. U.S. beef imports have become a Blue vs. Green battlefield. Rational discussion is no longer possible. It has become difficult to distinguish between important and unimportant considerations. The DPP is in the political opposition. But it is still responsible for promoting the nation's competitiveness and economic growth. Is staging a a violent occupation of the legislature really in the national interest?
務實 負責 平衡 化解美牛爭議
2012-06-12
中國時報
立院本周將處理攸關美牛瘦肉精解禁的《食品衛生管理法》議案，民進黨立委昨天已經占據主席台揚言浴血奮戰，國民黨團則祭出甲級動員令，一場焦土大戰，眼看即將慘烈開打，這樣的發展，既無助尋求最能維護國家利益的決策，也無益於政治溝通與社會和諧。
美牛案其實是一項涉及多項國家利益的民生議題，應該以負責務實的態度處理，如果再度演出一場貽笑國際的國會打架秀，不但有傷台灣形象，也將讓政治惡鬥繼續綑綁理性討論與平衡決策的空間。
在多種瘦肉精中，萊克多巴胺的毒性最低，對人體有無影響醫界尚無定論，但至今未有案例證明對人體有害，因此也是國際間唯一容許使用的。美國自訂上限是三十ppb，日、韓都在美國壓力下開放美牛，李明博政府因此承受了政治風暴。歐盟全面禁止，聯合國食品法典委員會則預定七月進行討論。
如果要絕對百分之百安全，當然是不該在飼養過程中添加任何藥劑。但這在實務界很難做到，在這種狀況下，對於添加藥劑的管理，就必須針對健康影響、營運獲利及其他影響作整體考量。嚴重有害健康的當然禁用，但如果對健康影響輕微或少量無礙，卻對業者營收大有助益，則可以訂定殘留上限。例如毒得死人的農藥，台灣和其他各國都准用但定有容許殘留量；再例如已確認有高致癌性的香菸與檳榔，政府一樣容許販賣種植。
這種通盤的平衡考量，重點在於拿捏各種利益之間的平衡。國家利益包括了許多面向，如果瘦肉精對人體的影響尚無確鑿證據，那麼，和農藥或香菸的管理相比，美牛問題是否可以留下多一些理性討論的空間，平衡考量其他的國家利益，而不是只有一種聲音占據了政策論辯空間？
台灣要在激烈的國際競爭中生存並不容易，只要步伐略有遲緩，馬上便被其他國家超越。放眼世界，國際經濟風暴山雨欲來，ＧＤＰ七成仰賴出口的台灣已陷入莫大危機，同為亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，如今發展都明顯領先台灣。雖然近年來台灣經濟獲ＥＣＦＡ挹注，但就平衡多元的角度，仍然必須避免過度依賴中國大陸，應該加緊與其他國家簽署自由貿易協定，而這也是民進黨所一向主張的。
美國方面已經把話講得很明白，開放美牛，才有ＴＩＦＡ（台美貿易暨投資架構協定），也才能談到ＦＴＡ（自由貿易協定）與ＴＰＰ（跨太平洋夥伴協議）。民眾都支持台灣多和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，問題是，自由貿易協定從來不會一面倒地只有獲得而不必付出，國與國的磋商都是在利益交換，有取也有給，兩造算盤打打都覺得划算就皆大歡喜。台灣想爭取和其他國家簽ＦＴＡ，一定也要有付出若干代價的心理準備，對美國亦然。
尤其，台灣的國際處境特殊，其他國家和台灣談時往往有政治顧慮，這也是台灣洽談ＦＴＡ的成績遠遠落後於南韓的原因之一。美國是台灣的重要出口市場，又是長期支持台灣的盟友，算來是最有可能在ＦＴＡ取得成果的大國了，更別提可能對其他國家產生的示範效應。
如果瘦肉精對人體的風險不是那麼明確，加上政府針對瘦肉精管理提出「安全容許、牛豬分離、強制標示、排除內臟」四項原則，讓消費者自行選擇，就像吸菸者自己決定是否承擔風險一樣，那麼也不需要把美牛當成比農藥還可怕的洪水猛獸。何況有不少消費者還認為美牛肉質比較好，而且美國政府對瘦肉精殘留量也有管理，因此贊成開放進口。
瘦肉精對健康的影響，應該尊重專家的意見。至於多少風險交換多少利益是划算的，則可以務實理性地深入討論。健康是全民利益，爭取自由貿易商機也是全民利益，如果美牛成為藍綠烽火拚鬥的戰場，便失去了理性討論的空間，各種考量因素的輕重也難以釐清。民進黨雖然在野，但對於促進國家發展競爭力一樣負有責任，一味反對激烈杯葛，真是為國家利益著想？
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
DPP: Why Not Renounce TIFA Outright?
DPP: Why Not Renounce TIFA Outright?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 12 2012
Summary: Today the Legislative Yuan will vote on whether to allow U.S. beef imports. The Green Camp has threatened a bloody struggle. It is engaging in all out obstructionism. Blue Camp legislators are of two minds. Some are ready to run for cover and vote Green. The Legislative Yuan is about to witness yet another ruling vs. opposition party melee. This is hardly surprising. But TIFA has been delayed for seven years. Do the opposition Green Camp parties really not care?
Full Text below:
Today the Legislative Yuan will vote on whether to allow U.S. beef imports. The Green Camp has threatened a bloody struggle. It is engaging in all out obstructionism. Blue Camp legislators are of two minds. Some are ready to run for cover and vote Green. The Legislative Yuan is about to witness yet another ruling vs. opposition party melee. This is hardly surprising. But TIFA has been delayed for seven years. Do the opposition Green Camp parties really not care?
The U.S. beef imports bill must pass. It must pass not because it is a major Ma administration policy initiative. It must pass because it is the final obstacle in the way of restarting talks over the Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). The government must ensure the quality of U.S. beef imports. It must fight for international economic and trade advantages. It can do both. Ensuring economic prosperity does not require sacrificing the health of the people. The Green Camp has declared war. It intends to prevent the import of U.S. beef products. But is it "defending Taiwan's interests?" Or is it standing in the way of Taiwan's economic development?
Some Blue Camp legislators are wobbling. They say they are unsure what they are fighting for. But this is exactly the question we should be asking the DPP. When you insist on preventing U.S. beef imports, just exactly what are you fighting for? Are you fighting for pig farmers? The Ma administration has already persuaded Washington to distinguish between beef and pork. Are you fighting for public health? Japan and South Korea have established strict quality control standards. Haven't these achieved that very goal? Are you "fighting for Taiwan?" Then shouldn't Taiwan's trade relations and economic growth take priority over US beef imports with Clenbuterol and Ractopamine? Is the DPP fighting for any of these ostensible goals? Or is the DPP waging this demagogic battle, and engaging in this populist rabble-rousing merely for its own selfish political advantage?
As the political opposition, Green Camp political parties feel a compulsion to engage in political obstructionism, in order to accumulate political capital. This is the essence of the game of democracy. But lest we forget, beneath the offensive and defensive maneuvers, beneath all the checks and balances, democracy requires rationality -- if it is to survive. Besides jockeying for position against their rivals, political parties must also show us what they stand for. U.S. beef imports and TIFA are both policies the Democratic Progressive Party championed when it was in office. Now that the DPP has been relegated to the status of an opposition party, it has reverted to obstructionism. The DPP's opportunistic behavior tells us it has no core values. If the DPP insists on forcefully preventing U.S. beef imports, it might as well come right out and renounce TIFA. It should openly proclaim that if the DPP ever returns to power, it will refuse to sign TIFA. Only this will absolve it from the charge of flip-flopping, and chronic and habitual deceit.
The DPP boasts that it intends to use the anti-ECFA methods it adopted two years ago to prevent U.S. beef imports. Such intimidation tactics may appear tough, but they are actually confessions of impotence. The Democratic Progressive Party demonized ECFA. It said ECFA would bring disaster upon the nation. It said ECFA was a sugar-coated poison pill that would forfeit sovereignty and humilate the nation. The DPP boasted that it would obstruct US beef imports in the Legislative Yuan. The DPP even threatened a referendum to nullify the US beef imports bill in the event it passed. But ECFA soon proved its effectiveness. During last year's election campaign Tsai Ing-wen suddenly declared that she would not nullify ECFA in the event she was elected president. She was so arrogant before, and so deferential afterwards. Does the DPP really want U.S. beef imports to be a replay of the ECFA fiasco?
Given the current make up of the Legislative Yuan, the DPP's threat of blanket obstructionism is not terribly worrisome. More worrisome is the ruling and opposition parties' zero-sum game. This will result in the coarsening of the legislative process. Take U.S. beef imports. We expect the opposition parties to put forth a more detailed plan for the control of Clenbuterol and Ractopamine. Instead, they are indiscriminately calling for a halt to everything. Take TIFA. We hope the DPP can offer constructive alternatives once the talks resume. They could help ensure a more level playing field during Taipei/Washington negotiations. They could help maximize Taiwan's interests. But so far the Green Camp's only response has been "No!" It has no desire to seek more complex answers. It has no desire to rationally assess the pros and cons. Suppose the Green Camp's sneak attack succeeds. Suppose it brings the legislative process to a standstill. At most it will delay the vote by a few days. But will it win the respect of the public on Taiwan?
Five years ago, the DPP used a U-lock and superglue to lock the Speaker of the Legislature out of the Legislative Chambers. Wang Jin-pyng was unable to preside over the ongoing session. The DPP did this merely to prevent passage of the Central Election Commission Organization Act. Its conduct left an ugly record of coarseness, without the slightest trace of respect for the spirit of democracy. Meanwhile some Blue Camp legislators are whining "We don't know what we're fighting for." They are even more pathetic. They are members of the ruling party. They cannot walk away from questions of right and wrong. They are standing on the battlefield. Yet they have the gall to claim that they cannot tell friend from foe? Are they waiting for acknowledgement and approval? Are they waiting for the party to give them a wake-up call?
In recent years democracy on Taiwan has remained deadlocked. The main reason is that partisan political interests are presented to the public as national interests. Politicians have learned how to play the political game faster than the public has been able to learn how democracy works. But if the DPP thinks it makes no difference whether we sign TIFA, then it should say so, openly. It should not hide behind the shield of US beef imports, in order to hoodwink the public.
民進黨何不直接宣布放棄TIFA？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.12
立法院今天將就「美牛案」進行表決，綠營揚言將流血抗爭，全力杯葛；藍營則有立委首鼠兩端，準備抽腿跑票。立院要加演一場朝野混戰大戲，不足為奇；但對於延宕七年的TIFA，在野黨真的一點都無動於衷嗎？
美牛案之所以必須過關，並非因為它是馬政府力推的重大政策，而是因為它是重啟「台美貿易及投資架構協定」（TIFA）的最後一道關卡。進一步說，一邊做好美牛的把關，一邊爭取台灣國際經貿談判空間，是可以達到「雙贏」的選項，完全不必以犧牲國民健康為代價。在這種情況下，綠營宣稱要浴血抗戰杯葛美牛案，到底是在維護台灣利益，還是在打擊台灣的發展？
就在某些藍營搖擺立委傳出不知「為何而戰」之際，這個問題，恰好也可以拿來反問民進黨：杯葛美牛是為誰而戰？如果是為了豬農，馬政府不是已作出「牛豬分離」的決策嗎？若說是為了國民健康，比照韓日訂出嚴格的管制標準，不是可以達到同樣的效果嗎？若說是為了台灣，那麼台灣經貿發展的問題不會比美牛瘦肉精更迫切嗎？排除這些之後，民進黨會不會只是為了一己的民粹利益而戰？
作為反對黨，綠營當然需要盡其所能地杯葛，以累積自己的政治資本，這是民主遊戲的本質。但別忘了，撇開浮面的政治攻防，民主政治除了反對及制衡，還有理性的一面需要維持；那就是，如何在攻防之間展現自己的精神和價值。美牛和TIFA都是民進黨執政時推動未遂的政策，如今民進黨淪為在野，便又移至杯葛立場，這種投機作法有何核心理念可言？若民進黨今天要強力阻擋美牛案，何不乾脆直接宣布放棄TIFA，聲明將來自己即使執政也絕不推動；唯有如此，才能免去其反反覆覆、欺世盜名之譏。
民進黨近日揚言，要比照兩年前反ECFA的規格，來對付美牛案。這種威嚇手法，外表狠勁十足，內裡卻相當荏弱。試想，民進黨當時大肆妖魔化ECFA，指為禍國殃民、喪權辱國的糖衣毒藥，除在立院大打一場，還揚言重返執政後要舉辦公投決定其存廢。然而，俟ECFA的效用逐漸彰顯，去年底大選前蔡英文便公開聲明當選後不會廢掉ECFA。如此前倨後恭的表現，難道要在美牛案重演一回？
以目前立法院的結構，民進黨的凡事杯葛並不值得太過憂慮；比較令人擔心的，是朝野耽溺於這種「有你無我」的零和遊戲，將造成國會立法的粗糙化與偏頗化。以美牛案為例，我們其實期待在野黨對瘦肉精的管理提出更細緻的主張，而不只是一味在那裡喊「卡」；以TIFA為例，我們也希望民進黨能在復談過程中拿出相對意見，使美台談判能更趨均衡，可以極大化台灣的利益。但現在，綠營提供的答案卻只有一個「不」字，不想用心去思考更複雜的解答，也無意以理性評估大局的利弊得失。那麼，就算綠營今天奇襲成功，使議事根本無法進行，充其量也不過是使表決大戰多拖幾天，這能贏得台灣民眾的尊重嗎？
五年前，民進黨以機車大鎖及三秒膠封住議長進出之門，使王金平無法主持議事，不過是為了阻擋中選會組織法的法制化。那樣的行動，除留下一個狼藉、粗暴的杯葛紀錄，有彰顯任何一絲民主精神嗎？相形之下，藍營中那些喊著不知「為何而戰」的立委，則更可悲。身為執政黨國會議員，不能從大局分斷是非利害也就罷了；身處戰場，竟還敢聲稱不知敵我之分。他們是在期待被摸頭，還是等著黨紀的當頭棒喝？
台灣民主近年膠著不前，主要癥結，便在黨派利益往往假藉民意之名來冒充是國家利益；而攻防戰術的改良，又遠快於民主理性素養的提升。民進黨若覺得TIFA簽不簽無所謂，那就請公開宣示放棄，不要躲在美牛的擋箭牌下欺弄人民。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 12 2012
Summary: Today the Legislative Yuan will vote on whether to allow U.S. beef imports. The Green Camp has threatened a bloody struggle. It is engaging in all out obstructionism. Blue Camp legislators are of two minds. Some are ready to run for cover and vote Green. The Legislative Yuan is about to witness yet another ruling vs. opposition party melee. This is hardly surprising. But TIFA has been delayed for seven years. Do the opposition Green Camp parties really not care?
Full Text below:
Today the Legislative Yuan will vote on whether to allow U.S. beef imports. The Green Camp has threatened a bloody struggle. It is engaging in all out obstructionism. Blue Camp legislators are of two minds. Some are ready to run for cover and vote Green. The Legislative Yuan is about to witness yet another ruling vs. opposition party melee. This is hardly surprising. But TIFA has been delayed for seven years. Do the opposition Green Camp parties really not care?
The U.S. beef imports bill must pass. It must pass not because it is a major Ma administration policy initiative. It must pass because it is the final obstacle in the way of restarting talks over the Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). The government must ensure the quality of U.S. beef imports. It must fight for international economic and trade advantages. It can do both. Ensuring economic prosperity does not require sacrificing the health of the people. The Green Camp has declared war. It intends to prevent the import of U.S. beef products. But is it "defending Taiwan's interests?" Or is it standing in the way of Taiwan's economic development?
Some Blue Camp legislators are wobbling. They say they are unsure what they are fighting for. But this is exactly the question we should be asking the DPP. When you insist on preventing U.S. beef imports, just exactly what are you fighting for? Are you fighting for pig farmers? The Ma administration has already persuaded Washington to distinguish between beef and pork. Are you fighting for public health? Japan and South Korea have established strict quality control standards. Haven't these achieved that very goal? Are you "fighting for Taiwan?" Then shouldn't Taiwan's trade relations and economic growth take priority over US beef imports with Clenbuterol and Ractopamine? Is the DPP fighting for any of these ostensible goals? Or is the DPP waging this demagogic battle, and engaging in this populist rabble-rousing merely for its own selfish political advantage?
As the political opposition, Green Camp political parties feel a compulsion to engage in political obstructionism, in order to accumulate political capital. This is the essence of the game of democracy. But lest we forget, beneath the offensive and defensive maneuvers, beneath all the checks and balances, democracy requires rationality -- if it is to survive. Besides jockeying for position against their rivals, political parties must also show us what they stand for. U.S. beef imports and TIFA are both policies the Democratic Progressive Party championed when it was in office. Now that the DPP has been relegated to the status of an opposition party, it has reverted to obstructionism. The DPP's opportunistic behavior tells us it has no core values. If the DPP insists on forcefully preventing U.S. beef imports, it might as well come right out and renounce TIFA. It should openly proclaim that if the DPP ever returns to power, it will refuse to sign TIFA. Only this will absolve it from the charge of flip-flopping, and chronic and habitual deceit.
The DPP boasts that it intends to use the anti-ECFA methods it adopted two years ago to prevent U.S. beef imports. Such intimidation tactics may appear tough, but they are actually confessions of impotence. The Democratic Progressive Party demonized ECFA. It said ECFA would bring disaster upon the nation. It said ECFA was a sugar-coated poison pill that would forfeit sovereignty and humilate the nation. The DPP boasted that it would obstruct US beef imports in the Legislative Yuan. The DPP even threatened a referendum to nullify the US beef imports bill in the event it passed. But ECFA soon proved its effectiveness. During last year's election campaign Tsai Ing-wen suddenly declared that she would not nullify ECFA in the event she was elected president. She was so arrogant before, and so deferential afterwards. Does the DPP really want U.S. beef imports to be a replay of the ECFA fiasco?
Given the current make up of the Legislative Yuan, the DPP's threat of blanket obstructionism is not terribly worrisome. More worrisome is the ruling and opposition parties' zero-sum game. This will result in the coarsening of the legislative process. Take U.S. beef imports. We expect the opposition parties to put forth a more detailed plan for the control of Clenbuterol and Ractopamine. Instead, they are indiscriminately calling for a halt to everything. Take TIFA. We hope the DPP can offer constructive alternatives once the talks resume. They could help ensure a more level playing field during Taipei/Washington negotiations. They could help maximize Taiwan's interests. But so far the Green Camp's only response has been "No!" It has no desire to seek more complex answers. It has no desire to rationally assess the pros and cons. Suppose the Green Camp's sneak attack succeeds. Suppose it brings the legislative process to a standstill. At most it will delay the vote by a few days. But will it win the respect of the public on Taiwan?
Five years ago, the DPP used a U-lock and superglue to lock the Speaker of the Legislature out of the Legislative Chambers. Wang Jin-pyng was unable to preside over the ongoing session. The DPP did this merely to prevent passage of the Central Election Commission Organization Act. Its conduct left an ugly record of coarseness, without the slightest trace of respect for the spirit of democracy. Meanwhile some Blue Camp legislators are whining "We don't know what we're fighting for." They are even more pathetic. They are members of the ruling party. They cannot walk away from questions of right and wrong. They are standing on the battlefield. Yet they have the gall to claim that they cannot tell friend from foe? Are they waiting for acknowledgement and approval? Are they waiting for the party to give them a wake-up call?
In recent years democracy on Taiwan has remained deadlocked. The main reason is that partisan political interests are presented to the public as national interests. Politicians have learned how to play the political game faster than the public has been able to learn how democracy works. But if the DPP thinks it makes no difference whether we sign TIFA, then it should say so, openly. It should not hide behind the shield of US beef imports, in order to hoodwink the public.
民進黨何不直接宣布放棄TIFA？
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.12
立法院今天將就「美牛案」進行表決，綠營揚言將流血抗爭，全力杯葛；藍營則有立委首鼠兩端，準備抽腿跑票。立院要加演一場朝野混戰大戲，不足為奇；但對於延宕七年的TIFA，在野黨真的一點都無動於衷嗎？
美牛案之所以必須過關，並非因為它是馬政府力推的重大政策，而是因為它是重啟「台美貿易及投資架構協定」（TIFA）的最後一道關卡。進一步說，一邊做好美牛的把關，一邊爭取台灣國際經貿談判空間，是可以達到「雙贏」的選項，完全不必以犧牲國民健康為代價。在這種情況下，綠營宣稱要浴血抗戰杯葛美牛案，到底是在維護台灣利益，還是在打擊台灣的發展？
就在某些藍營搖擺立委傳出不知「為何而戰」之際，這個問題，恰好也可以拿來反問民進黨：杯葛美牛是為誰而戰？如果是為了豬農，馬政府不是已作出「牛豬分離」的決策嗎？若說是為了國民健康，比照韓日訂出嚴格的管制標準，不是可以達到同樣的效果嗎？若說是為了台灣，那麼台灣經貿發展的問題不會比美牛瘦肉精更迫切嗎？排除這些之後，民進黨會不會只是為了一己的民粹利益而戰？
作為反對黨，綠營當然需要盡其所能地杯葛，以累積自己的政治資本，這是民主遊戲的本質。但別忘了，撇開浮面的政治攻防，民主政治除了反對及制衡，還有理性的一面需要維持；那就是，如何在攻防之間展現自己的精神和價值。美牛和TIFA都是民進黨執政時推動未遂的政策，如今民進黨淪為在野，便又移至杯葛立場，這種投機作法有何核心理念可言？若民進黨今天要強力阻擋美牛案，何不乾脆直接宣布放棄TIFA，聲明將來自己即使執政也絕不推動；唯有如此，才能免去其反反覆覆、欺世盜名之譏。
民進黨近日揚言，要比照兩年前反ECFA的規格，來對付美牛案。這種威嚇手法，外表狠勁十足，內裡卻相當荏弱。試想，民進黨當時大肆妖魔化ECFA，指為禍國殃民、喪權辱國的糖衣毒藥，除在立院大打一場，還揚言重返執政後要舉辦公投決定其存廢。然而，俟ECFA的效用逐漸彰顯，去年底大選前蔡英文便公開聲明當選後不會廢掉ECFA。如此前倨後恭的表現，難道要在美牛案重演一回？
以目前立法院的結構，民進黨的凡事杯葛並不值得太過憂慮；比較令人擔心的，是朝野耽溺於這種「有你無我」的零和遊戲，將造成國會立法的粗糙化與偏頗化。以美牛案為例，我們其實期待在野黨對瘦肉精的管理提出更細緻的主張，而不只是一味在那裡喊「卡」；以TIFA為例，我們也希望民進黨能在復談過程中拿出相對意見，使美台談判能更趨均衡，可以極大化台灣的利益。但現在，綠營提供的答案卻只有一個「不」字，不想用心去思考更複雜的解答，也無意以理性評估大局的利弊得失。那麼，就算綠營今天奇襲成功，使議事根本無法進行，充其量也不過是使表決大戰多拖幾天，這能贏得台灣民眾的尊重嗎？
五年前，民進黨以機車大鎖及三秒膠封住議長進出之門，使王金平無法主持議事，不過是為了阻擋中選會組織法的法制化。那樣的行動，除留下一個狼藉、粗暴的杯葛紀錄，有彰顯任何一絲民主精神嗎？相形之下，藍營中那些喊著不知「為何而戰」的立委，則更可悲。身為執政黨國會議員，不能從大局分斷是非利害也就罷了；身處戰場，竟還敢聲稱不知敵我之分。他們是在期待被摸頭，還是等著黨紀的當頭棒喝？
台灣民主近年膠著不前，主要癥結，便在黨派利益往往假藉民意之名來冒充是國家利益；而攻防戰術的改良，又遠快於民主理性素養的提升。民進黨若覺得TIFA簽不簽無所謂，那就請公開宣示放棄，不要躲在美牛的擋箭牌下欺弄人民。
Monday, June 11, 2012
Pardon for Chen Shui-bian: Only with Admission of Guilt and Expression of Remorse
Pardon for Chen Shui-bian: Only with Admission of Guilt and Expression of Remorse
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 9 2012
Summary: There has been much discussion about how Chen Shui-bian should serve out his prison term. One possible solution is for the president to grant Chen a pardon after all his cases have been adjudicated. But Chen Shui-bian must first admit guilt, express remorse, and offer the public a good faith apology.
Full Text below:
There has been much discussion about how Chen Shui-bian should serve out his prison term. One possible solution is for the president to grant Chen a pardon after all his cases have been adjudicated. But Chen Shui-bian must first admit guilt, express remorse, and offer the public a good faith apology.
Granting pardons is a presidential prerogative. But the president may not behave like a "Great Dictator" or "His Imperial Highness." The President may grant a pardon. But he must consider the principle of justice. He must heed the feelings of the nation. He may not do whatever he pleases.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan was originally sentenced to death for corruption. His sentenced was commuted to life imprisonment. Roh Tae-woo was originally sentenced to 22 years and six months for corruption. His sentence was commuted to 17 years. Chun and Roh both admitted guilt, apologized, and expressed remorse to their political parties and to the Korean people. Only then did President Kim Dae-jung grant them pardons. Chun and Roh expressed their gratitude to the Korean people. Chun Doo Hwan retreated to a monastery. Question: If Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae-woo refused to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer apologies, would Kim Dae-jung have granted them pardons? Would the Korean people have agreed to granting them pardons?
"I refuse to admit guilt. But I demand a pardon." This has been the mistaken strategy adopted by Chen and his supporters. This epitomizes the attitude, "Better that I should be indebted to the world, than the world should be indebted to me." Ironically by clinging to this position, Chen Shui-bian has painted himself into a corner. Clinging to this position has led to a stalemate which has made a pardon impossible. To expect President Ma to pardon Chen Shui-bian when Chen refuses to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology, is expecting too much. A majority of the public would ever consent.
Character determines destiny. Chen Shui-bian obstinately refuses to admit guilt and express remorse. This has led to an impasse that makes a pardon impossible. The more Chen Shui-bian refuses to admit guilt and offer an apology, the longer the case drags on, and the harder it is for him to reverse himself. Chen Shui-bian has already decided never to reverse himself, never to admit guilt or offer an apology. How can anyone offer him a pardon? This is a vicious circle that persists even now.
Chen Shui-bian and his supporters have discovered that refusal to admit guilt while demanding a pardon is self-contradictory. As a result they are now demanding medical parole. Others, such as Buddhist Master Hsing Yun, have humanitarian concerns. Hhe has proposed the "Chang Hsueh-lang model" of house arrest. These calls already violate existing legal provisions.
Two views have emerged. One side argues that Chen Shui-bian "after all, served as president for eight years." Therefore he should receive special treatment. Two. Another side argues that the president commiting a crime is more serious than an ordinary person committing a crime. In fact, since Chen Shui-bian entered prison, the public and judicial authorities have been divided between these two views. Most people think the Chen Shui-bian case is a chance to improve conditions for all inmates. If conditions for Chen Shui-bian are improved, then conditions for all inmates should be improved. If Chen Shui-bian is allowed to have hot baths, then other inmates should also be allowed to have hot baths. If Chen Shui-bian is allowed to appear in court without handcuffs, then other inmates should also be allowed to appear in court without handcuffs. These two views can be implemented simultaneously. In a democratic society under the rule of law, this is the right way to deal with such problems.
Some argue that Chen Shui-bian "after all, served as president for eight years." In fact, the prison system, as one might imagine, has bent over backwards to accomodate this "super inmate." Chen Shui-bian has been provided with every nicety the law allows. Demands that he be provided with reasonable and humanitarian accommodations have ensured that Chen Shui-bian, as "former president," is treated better than other inmates. His cell is 1.3 Pings in size. Approximately 4.3 SM. This is standard. But whether he wishes to live alone, and whether he wishes to work in the prison workshop, have all been left up to Chen Shui-bian himself. Chen Shui-bian's medical problems have been attended to four times. His medical care was overseen by Doctor Ko Wen-Je of National Taiwan University Hospital. Ko confirmed that Chen had blood clots, not tumors, within his prostate. Should Chen be allowed medical parole? That is specified by law. Both "former presidents" and "ordinary people" should receive the same treatment, under the same set of rules. One may not operate outside the law.
We have always believed that the crux of the matter in the Chen corruption case has been the crime rather than the punishment. Chen Shui-bian owes the nation and society so much, and not just for his corruption, He owes them even more for his refusal to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology. The public feels Chen Shui-bian admitting guilt, expressing remorse, and offering an apology is more important than increasing his punishment. The public feels that if he does not admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology, then it has no reason to pardon him.
A presidential pardon, medical parole, and improved prison conditions all pertain to the rule of law. But they also pertain to peoples differing concepts of justice. But the decision to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology is Chen Shui-bian's alone. Why doesn't Chen Shui-bian admit guilt and express remorse to the nation and society, in order to win public forgiveness? Why doesn't Chen Shui-bian demonstrate his sincerity though his own efforts, and fight for a pardon? Why has he refused to admit guilt and express remorse for his attempts destroy the nation's laws for his own sake?
The Chen corruption case is the most significant case of its kind in the history of the Republic of China. A president who violated the law has been forced to suffer punishment alongside ordinary people. Chen Shui-bian made all sorts of demands on the nation's laws. But he should also reflect on his own responsibility and apologize to society. Once the cases have been adjudicated, a pardon is an option. After all, the person who created the problem should solve the problem.
Otherwise, Ma Ying-jeou or any other president, cannot grant a pardon to a criminal who refuses to admit guilt and express remorse.
特赦是辦法，但陳水扁應認罪悔過
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.09
對在監服刑的陳水扁應當如何處遇，一直議論紛紜。我們認為：或許可行的辦法，是在諸案定讞後，由總統給予特赦。但必要的前提是：陳水扁必須真誠地向國人認罪悔罪並道歉。
特赦是總統的特權，但總統不可做「大獨裁者」或「寡人」；總統在行使特赦時，仍必須衡量正義原則，及照應國民感情，不可一意孤行。
韓國前總統全斗煥因涉貪被處死刑後改判無期徒刑而入監，盧泰愚亦因涉貪被處二十二年六月徒刑後改判十七年而入監，全盧二人最後非但認罪，且向所屬政黨及全體韓國人民悔罪道歉；因而，金大中出任總統乃給予特赦，全盧二人向韓國人民謝恩，全斗煥且自此隱居廟中。試問：倘若全斗煥、盧泰愚皆不認罪悔罪道歉，金大中能給予特赦嗎？韓國人又能同意特赦嗎？
「我不認罪，我要特赦」，這是陳水扁及其支持者一開始就誤採的戰略；但這種「寧可我負天下人，不容天下人負我」的姿態，卻使陳水扁將自己陷入牆角。這樣的僵持，使得特赦失去空間；因為，要馬總統特赦堅不認罪悔過道歉的陳水扁，這無疑是強人之所難，也必不能獲得多數民眾的同意。
性格決定命運。陳水扁堅不認罪悔過，造成了特赦的僵局。陳水扁愈不認錯道歉，拖得愈久，自己就愈加回不去了；而陳水扁既已決定不回頭道歉認錯，又如何出現特赦的空間？此一惡性循環，已然存在。
等到陳水扁方面發現「不認罪」與「要特赦」之間有矛盾牴觸，於是又改圖「保外就醫」等路徑；另如星雲大師的人道關懷者主張，可改採「張學良模式」的軟禁，則已超出了現行法律的規制。
於是，出現了兩種觀點。一種認為，陳水扁「畢竟曾任八年總統」，應當優遇；另一種則主張「總統犯法與庶民同刑」。其實，自陳水扁入所入監以來，國人及司法監所當局一直就在尋找上述兩種觀點的平衡；而在大方向上，是朝向如果改善了受刑人陳水扁的處遇，即應一體改善全體受刑人的處遇。例如，回應陳水扁的要求，提供靠背分離式桌椅，其他受刑人一體適用；又為回應陳水扁，放寬提供熱水浴的標準，其他受刑人也一體適用；陳水扁出庭不上銬，也研議調整上銬的規範。我們認為，這是對兩種觀點的兼籌並顧，且是在民主法治社會具有向上及正面意義的應對方式。
陳水扁「畢竟曾任八年總統」，監所為了容置這位「超級受刑人」，其戒慎恐懼、唯恐不周之心情可以想見。法律規定的受刑人權益，陳水扁一樣不會少；而情理可容通的人道處置，陳水扁以「前總統」的身分也只會比別人多。囚房一點三坪，其實是一律的規格；是否獨居，是否下工場，悉聽阿扁之意願。關於陳水扁之健康，則已戒護就醫四次，並在台大醫師柯文哲見證下，證實攝護腺內為血塊，非腫瘤；至於是否「保外就醫」，亦是法律上設置的機制，唯「前總統」與「一般庶民」，亦應在同一標準下一體適用，不宜脫法違法而行。
我們始終認為，扁案的主體是在「罪」，而不在「刑」。同理，陳水扁對國家社會的虧欠，也不只是他的貪腐罪行，而更在他的堅不認罪悔罪道歉。我們相信：一般民眾認為，陳水扁的認罪悔過道歉，比加以刑罰重要；而若不認罪悔過道歉，即沒有理由寬免其刑罰。
關於特赦、保外就醫、改善處遇等，除了關係到法制規定，亦涉及不同的國人各具不同的正義感情；但是，要不要認罪悔過道歉，則只是決定於陳水扁一人的方寸之間而已。然則，陳水扁為何不能為自己的行為，誠心向國家社會認錯懺悔，以取得國人的原諒寬恕，並表現出自己爭取特赦的努力與誠意？卻偏偏要倒行逆施，堅不認錯悔罪，兀自妄圖國法為他一個人曲枉破壞？
扁案對中華民國最大的意義，就是「總統犯法與庶民同罪同刑」。因而，當陳水扁向國法提出種種要求之時，也應反省自己確有無可遁逃的向社會認錯道歉的責任。有了這個領悟，待諸案定讞，或許即有特赦的空間；畢竟，解鈴還須繫鈴人。
否則，不說馬英九，哪一個總統能特赦一
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 9 2012
Summary: There has been much discussion about how Chen Shui-bian should serve out his prison term. One possible solution is for the president to grant Chen a pardon after all his cases have been adjudicated. But Chen Shui-bian must first admit guilt, express remorse, and offer the public a good faith apology.
Full Text below:
There has been much discussion about how Chen Shui-bian should serve out his prison term. One possible solution is for the president to grant Chen a pardon after all his cases have been adjudicated. But Chen Shui-bian must first admit guilt, express remorse, and offer the public a good faith apology.
Granting pardons is a presidential prerogative. But the president may not behave like a "Great Dictator" or "His Imperial Highness." The President may grant a pardon. But he must consider the principle of justice. He must heed the feelings of the nation. He may not do whatever he pleases.
Former South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan was originally sentenced to death for corruption. His sentenced was commuted to life imprisonment. Roh Tae-woo was originally sentenced to 22 years and six months for corruption. His sentence was commuted to 17 years. Chun and Roh both admitted guilt, apologized, and expressed remorse to their political parties and to the Korean people. Only then did President Kim Dae-jung grant them pardons. Chun and Roh expressed their gratitude to the Korean people. Chun Doo Hwan retreated to a monastery. Question: If Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae-woo refused to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer apologies, would Kim Dae-jung have granted them pardons? Would the Korean people have agreed to granting them pardons?
"I refuse to admit guilt. But I demand a pardon." This has been the mistaken strategy adopted by Chen and his supporters. This epitomizes the attitude, "Better that I should be indebted to the world, than the world should be indebted to me." Ironically by clinging to this position, Chen Shui-bian has painted himself into a corner. Clinging to this position has led to a stalemate which has made a pardon impossible. To expect President Ma to pardon Chen Shui-bian when Chen refuses to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology, is expecting too much. A majority of the public would ever consent.
Character determines destiny. Chen Shui-bian obstinately refuses to admit guilt and express remorse. This has led to an impasse that makes a pardon impossible. The more Chen Shui-bian refuses to admit guilt and offer an apology, the longer the case drags on, and the harder it is for him to reverse himself. Chen Shui-bian has already decided never to reverse himself, never to admit guilt or offer an apology. How can anyone offer him a pardon? This is a vicious circle that persists even now.
Chen Shui-bian and his supporters have discovered that refusal to admit guilt while demanding a pardon is self-contradictory. As a result they are now demanding medical parole. Others, such as Buddhist Master Hsing Yun, have humanitarian concerns. Hhe has proposed the "Chang Hsueh-lang model" of house arrest. These calls already violate existing legal provisions.
Two views have emerged. One side argues that Chen Shui-bian "after all, served as president for eight years." Therefore he should receive special treatment. Two. Another side argues that the president commiting a crime is more serious than an ordinary person committing a crime. In fact, since Chen Shui-bian entered prison, the public and judicial authorities have been divided between these two views. Most people think the Chen Shui-bian case is a chance to improve conditions for all inmates. If conditions for Chen Shui-bian are improved, then conditions for all inmates should be improved. If Chen Shui-bian is allowed to have hot baths, then other inmates should also be allowed to have hot baths. If Chen Shui-bian is allowed to appear in court without handcuffs, then other inmates should also be allowed to appear in court without handcuffs. These two views can be implemented simultaneously. In a democratic society under the rule of law, this is the right way to deal with such problems.
Some argue that Chen Shui-bian "after all, served as president for eight years." In fact, the prison system, as one might imagine, has bent over backwards to accomodate this "super inmate." Chen Shui-bian has been provided with every nicety the law allows. Demands that he be provided with reasonable and humanitarian accommodations have ensured that Chen Shui-bian, as "former president," is treated better than other inmates. His cell is 1.3 Pings in size. Approximately 4.3 SM. This is standard. But whether he wishes to live alone, and whether he wishes to work in the prison workshop, have all been left up to Chen Shui-bian himself. Chen Shui-bian's medical problems have been attended to four times. His medical care was overseen by Doctor Ko Wen-Je of National Taiwan University Hospital. Ko confirmed that Chen had blood clots, not tumors, within his prostate. Should Chen be allowed medical parole? That is specified by law. Both "former presidents" and "ordinary people" should receive the same treatment, under the same set of rules. One may not operate outside the law.
We have always believed that the crux of the matter in the Chen corruption case has been the crime rather than the punishment. Chen Shui-bian owes the nation and society so much, and not just for his corruption, He owes them even more for his refusal to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology. The public feels Chen Shui-bian admitting guilt, expressing remorse, and offering an apology is more important than increasing his punishment. The public feels that if he does not admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology, then it has no reason to pardon him.
A presidential pardon, medical parole, and improved prison conditions all pertain to the rule of law. But they also pertain to peoples differing concepts of justice. But the decision to admit guilt, express remorse, and offer an apology is Chen Shui-bian's alone. Why doesn't Chen Shui-bian admit guilt and express remorse to the nation and society, in order to win public forgiveness? Why doesn't Chen Shui-bian demonstrate his sincerity though his own efforts, and fight for a pardon? Why has he refused to admit guilt and express remorse for his attempts destroy the nation's laws for his own sake?
The Chen corruption case is the most significant case of its kind in the history of the Republic of China. A president who violated the law has been forced to suffer punishment alongside ordinary people. Chen Shui-bian made all sorts of demands on the nation's laws. But he should also reflect on his own responsibility and apologize to society. Once the cases have been adjudicated, a pardon is an option. After all, the person who created the problem should solve the problem.
Otherwise, Ma Ying-jeou or any other president, cannot grant a pardon to a criminal who refuses to admit guilt and express remorse.
特赦是辦法，但陳水扁應認罪悔過
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.09
對在監服刑的陳水扁應當如何處遇，一直議論紛紜。我們認為：或許可行的辦法，是在諸案定讞後，由總統給予特赦。但必要的前提是：陳水扁必須真誠地向國人認罪悔罪並道歉。
特赦是總統的特權，但總統不可做「大獨裁者」或「寡人」；總統在行使特赦時，仍必須衡量正義原則，及照應國民感情，不可一意孤行。
韓國前總統全斗煥因涉貪被處死刑後改判無期徒刑而入監，盧泰愚亦因涉貪被處二十二年六月徒刑後改判十七年而入監，全盧二人最後非但認罪，且向所屬政黨及全體韓國人民悔罪道歉；因而，金大中出任總統乃給予特赦，全盧二人向韓國人民謝恩，全斗煥且自此隱居廟中。試問：倘若全斗煥、盧泰愚皆不認罪悔罪道歉，金大中能給予特赦嗎？韓國人又能同意特赦嗎？
「我不認罪，我要特赦」，這是陳水扁及其支持者一開始就誤採的戰略；但這種「寧可我負天下人，不容天下人負我」的姿態，卻使陳水扁將自己陷入牆角。這樣的僵持，使得特赦失去空間；因為，要馬總統特赦堅不認罪悔過道歉的陳水扁，這無疑是強人之所難，也必不能獲得多數民眾的同意。
性格決定命運。陳水扁堅不認罪悔過，造成了特赦的僵局。陳水扁愈不認錯道歉，拖得愈久，自己就愈加回不去了；而陳水扁既已決定不回頭道歉認錯，又如何出現特赦的空間？此一惡性循環，已然存在。
等到陳水扁方面發現「不認罪」與「要特赦」之間有矛盾牴觸，於是又改圖「保外就醫」等路徑；另如星雲大師的人道關懷者主張，可改採「張學良模式」的軟禁，則已超出了現行法律的規制。
於是，出現了兩種觀點。一種認為，陳水扁「畢竟曾任八年總統」，應當優遇；另一種則主張「總統犯法與庶民同刑」。其實，自陳水扁入所入監以來，國人及司法監所當局一直就在尋找上述兩種觀點的平衡；而在大方向上，是朝向如果改善了受刑人陳水扁的處遇，即應一體改善全體受刑人的處遇。例如，回應陳水扁的要求，提供靠背分離式桌椅，其他受刑人一體適用；又為回應陳水扁，放寬提供熱水浴的標準，其他受刑人也一體適用；陳水扁出庭不上銬，也研議調整上銬的規範。我們認為，這是對兩種觀點的兼籌並顧，且是在民主法治社會具有向上及正面意義的應對方式。
陳水扁「畢竟曾任八年總統」，監所為了容置這位「超級受刑人」，其戒慎恐懼、唯恐不周之心情可以想見。法律規定的受刑人權益，陳水扁一樣不會少；而情理可容通的人道處置，陳水扁以「前總統」的身分也只會比別人多。囚房一點三坪，其實是一律的規格；是否獨居，是否下工場，悉聽阿扁之意願。關於陳水扁之健康，則已戒護就醫四次，並在台大醫師柯文哲見證下，證實攝護腺內為血塊，非腫瘤；至於是否「保外就醫」，亦是法律上設置的機制，唯「前總統」與「一般庶民」，亦應在同一標準下一體適用，不宜脫法違法而行。
我們始終認為，扁案的主體是在「罪」，而不在「刑」。同理，陳水扁對國家社會的虧欠，也不只是他的貪腐罪行，而更在他的堅不認罪悔罪道歉。我們相信：一般民眾認為，陳水扁的認罪悔過道歉，比加以刑罰重要；而若不認罪悔過道歉，即沒有理由寬免其刑罰。
關於特赦、保外就醫、改善處遇等，除了關係到法制規定，亦涉及不同的國人各具不同的正義感情；但是，要不要認罪悔過道歉，則只是決定於陳水扁一人的方寸之間而已。然則，陳水扁為何不能為自己的行為，誠心向國家社會認錯懺悔，以取得國人的原諒寬恕，並表現出自己爭取特赦的努力與誠意？卻偏偏要倒行逆施，堅不認錯悔罪，兀自妄圖國法為他一個人曲枉破壞？
扁案對中華民國最大的意義，就是「總統犯法與庶民同罪同刑」。因而，當陳水扁向國法提出種種要求之時，也應反省自己確有無可遁逃的向社會認錯道歉的責任。有了這個領悟，待諸案定讞，或許即有特赦的空間；畢竟，解鈴還須繫鈴人。
否則，不說馬英九，哪一個總統能特赦一
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Ma/Su Meeting Will Birth a Dialogue Mechanism
Ma/Su Meeting Will Birth a Dialogue Mechanism
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 8, 2012
Summary: A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.
Full Text below:
A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.
Party politics is one of the foundations of a democratic society. Checks and balances between political parties are a safety mechanism to avoid excessive concentrations of power, and deviations from national policy. But the Taiwan Region of the Republic of China is different from other countries. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan clash over national identity. Their conflicts revolve around the definition of the nation and whether people are "loyal to Taiwan." The conflicts are too fierce and the stakes are too high. Compromise is nearly impossible. This leads to deeper social divisions and undermines national unity.
Over the years, arguments have raged over "who loves Taiwan," "who is selling out Taiwan," "who is defending Taiwan," and "who is harming Taiwan." This unnecessary and pointless infighting has made progress on Taiwan impossible. By contrast, look at the other Asian Tigers, at South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Every one of them is progressing by leaps and bounds. They have all left Taiwan in the dust. International competition is fierce. The global economic outlook is bleak. Can Taiwan really afford to engage in such internal squabbling?
Political struggle is often a zero-sum game. No wonder politicians are often reluctant to set the ball and allow someone else to spike it. Ruling and opposition party interactions are inevitably the result of careful political calculation about whether they will win points for their side. Which party is putting the public good ahead of the party's good? Which party is worrying only about its own interests? Which party is ignoring whether the nation survives or perishes? The people are watching. They will decide. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan stand in fierce opposition to each other. They lack dialogue. They ignore right and wrong. They oppose each other blindly. They remain locked in a vicious and mutually destructive struggle. Whoever wins office will have a hard time getting anything done.
In fact, the ruling and opposition parties do not really need to oppose each other so fiercely. We are all in the same boat. There is no need to sink it out of mutual spite. The leaders of the two major parties should sit down and exchange views. This would help ease ruling vs opposition party tensions.
When Chen Shui-bian was president, he and Ma Ying-jeou held two Chen/Ma meetings. The first time was on April 3, 2006. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou visited the United States, returned, then requested a meeting with Chen Shui-bian, to offer him some suggestions on cross-Strait policy. The second time was on April 1, 2008. Ma Ying-jeou was then president-elect. During these two meetings, Chen and Ma clashed over whether or not there was a 1992 consensus. Sparks flew. But after the first Chen/Ma meeting, then Premier Su Tseng-chang expressed his approval. He encouraged the ruling and opposition parties to dialogue often, "because we all want the best for Taiwan."
When Ma Ying-jeou became president, the dialogue between the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties stopped. The Presidential Office repeatedly expressed its willingness to talk with DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. But Tsai repeatedly refused. The Two Yings finally met during the presidential campaign, when they debated ECFA. But the debate was televised. It came across as a warm-up match to the presidential election. Each side spoke its peace. Each side appealed to its own constituents. Neither side listened to what the other had to say or sought common ground.
During the presidential campaign Ma Ying-jeou promised that if re-elected, he would issue an invitation to opposition party leaders every six months, to discuss the affairs of state. When Su Tseng-chang was elected DPP Chairman, President Ma phoned him, congratulating him on his victory. President Ma invited Su to meet with him to talk. Su Tseng-chang did not turn him down. Su even said "The KMT and DPP should talk about how to increase the general welfare. If a Ma/Su meeting can achieve this goal, there is no reason to refuse." He apparently favored a Ma/Su meeting. The public would welcome a face to face meeting between the ruling and opposition party leaders
No one is naive enough to think that the chairmen of the KMT and DPP can meet and melt away their differences with a smile. No one is naive enough to think that the opposition party will no longer denounce the ruling party in the Legislative Yuan. But the ruling and opposition parties are important assets to the politics of democracy. Each has considerable public support. If the leaders are willing to meet and communicate, that expresses respect for their rivals. It also expresses respect for the public. They will not be able to reach a consensus on many issues. But it will not hurt to listen to each others thoughts, and to admit that we all share a common goal - Taiwan's survival, growth, and dignity. Our goals are the same. Therefore we should communicate more about policy. The administration wants to promote reforms. It should speak to the opposition parties. It should listen to what they have to say.
Taiwan is our common destiny. We have no internal enemies. Political parties must compete. But they must not engage in vicious infighting. Ruling and opposition party leaders should consider the expectations of the public. They should consider the future of the nation. They should seek mechanisms that enable political parties to move forward, together.
催生馬蘇會 建立對話互動機制
2012-06-08
中國時報
本報日前所做民調顯示，有高達六六％的民眾期待馬蘇對話。在相當程度上，這反映出民意對藍綠長期惡鬥，以致國家元氣虛耗、在國際競爭中節節落後的憂心。政黨之間固然必須爭奪政治版圖，但民眾要的是良性競爭，而不是惡鬥不斷，朝野政黨領袖應該積極回應民意的期待。
政黨政治是民主社會的基礎之一，政黨之間的監督制衡，也是避免權力過度集中及政策偏失的安全機制。不過，和其他國家不同的是，台灣藍綠政黨的最大對立點是國家定位，環繞著國家定義及對台灣忠誠度的爭論，因為上綱層次太高，衝突太過重大，難有妥協空間，帶動的社會分裂也更為深化，對國家團結的傷害至為嚴重。
多年來，為了誰愛台、誰賣台、誰衛台、誰害台，台灣的前進腳步被這些無謂又無意義的內鬥綁得寸步難行。反觀昔日亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，哪一個不是早已飛奔向前，把台灣遠遠甩到後方？在國際競爭如此激烈、未來全球經濟前景堪憂下，台灣還有本錢耽於內耗嗎？
政治之爭常常是零和遊戲，也難怪政治人物往往不願替對手做球，朝野政黨的任何互動，都要先在政治算盤上打個仔細，看能替自己加分多少。但究竟誰真的把全民福祉置於優先，誰只顧自己利益不管國家死活，老百姓終究也會有個評價。台灣藍綠政黨激烈對立、缺乏對話、不問是非一味反對的做法，已經讓政局鎖死在惡性互動中，在這種相互糾纏乃至相互毀滅下，坦白說，誰當家都很難做事。
其實，朝野兩黨實在不必如此仇恨不共載天，我們都在同一條船上，不必鬥到不讓任何人開船。兩黨領導人如果能坐下來交換意見溝通看法，對緩和朝野對立應會有相當幫助。
過去在陳水扁擔任總統時，曾經舉行過兩次「扁馬會」。第一次是在二○○六年四月三日，國民黨主席的馬英九訪美歸來，主動要求與陳水扁會晤，希望就兩岸政策提出建言。第二次是在二○○八年四月一日，馬英九已經成了總統當選人。這兩次會晤，扁馬都對究竟有無「九二共識」針鋒相對，激辯得火花四射。不過，第一次「扁馬會」後，當時的行政院長蘇貞昌曾經表示肯定，並表示非常歡迎、鼓勵朝野常常對話，「因為大家都是為了台灣好」。
到了馬英九就任總統後，朝野政黨領導人的對話始終停擺。總統府方面曾多次表達願意與民進黨主席蔡英文會談，不過一直未獲首肯，直到雙英針對ＥＣＦＡ舉行辯論，這才算是有碰到面談上了話。不過當時採取電視辯論會的形式，宛如一場大選熱身賽，各自陳述立場爭取支持，多過於傾聽對方尋找交集。
馬英九這次大選前曾經宣示，連任後每半年將邀在野領袖共商國是。蘇貞昌當選民進黨主席當晚，就接了馬總統的道賀電話，而且對於馬總統的對話邀約，蘇貞昌在第一時間並未回絕，稍後還表示「當前國、民兩黨應該為增加社會福祉對話，馬蘇會若能達到這個目標，就不必迴避。」感覺對「馬蘇會」的態度似乎比較正面，如果能夠因此促成朝野領導人的面對面溝通，應該為民眾所樂見。
沒有人會天真到以為國、民兩黨主席碰個面就能一笑泯恩仇，從此立法院不再吵架在野黨不再罵政府。但朝野政黨都是民主政治的重要資產，也各自代表了相當的民意基礎，領導人願意見面溝通，不只是對於對手政黨的尊重，更是對對方背後的民意表示敬意。雖然必定會有許多問題無法取得共識，但也不妨聽聽對方的想法，並且承認大家都有共同的目標─台灣的生存、發展與尊嚴。既然方向一致，對於政策的溝通，其實可以做得更多。政府想推動的改革方案，也不妨先與在野黨對話，聽取對方的意見做為參考。
台灣是我們共同的命運，我們的內部沒有敵人，政黨必須競爭，但不能流於惡鬥。朝野政黨領袖應該慎重思考民意的期待，為國家發展著想，尋找一個能讓大家一起向前邁進的政黨互動機制。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 8, 2012
Summary: A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.
Full Text below:
A poll conducted by this newspaper recently revealed that 66% of the public wants a Ma/Su meeting. The public feels that years of Blue vs. Green partisan bickering has exhausted the nation's strength and undermined its international competitiveness. Political parties must of course compete for political power. People want healthy competition. But they do not want endless infighting. The ruling and opposition party leaders must respond to these expectations.
Party politics is one of the foundations of a democratic society. Checks and balances between political parties are a safety mechanism to avoid excessive concentrations of power, and deviations from national policy. But the Taiwan Region of the Republic of China is different from other countries. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan clash over national identity. Their conflicts revolve around the definition of the nation and whether people are "loyal to Taiwan." The conflicts are too fierce and the stakes are too high. Compromise is nearly impossible. This leads to deeper social divisions and undermines national unity.
Over the years, arguments have raged over "who loves Taiwan," "who is selling out Taiwan," "who is defending Taiwan," and "who is harming Taiwan." This unnecessary and pointless infighting has made progress on Taiwan impossible. By contrast, look at the other Asian Tigers, at South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Every one of them is progressing by leaps and bounds. They have all left Taiwan in the dust. International competition is fierce. The global economic outlook is bleak. Can Taiwan really afford to engage in such internal squabbling?
Political struggle is often a zero-sum game. No wonder politicians are often reluctant to set the ball and allow someone else to spike it. Ruling and opposition party interactions are inevitably the result of careful political calculation about whether they will win points for their side. Which party is putting the public good ahead of the party's good? Which party is worrying only about its own interests? Which party is ignoring whether the nation survives or perishes? The people are watching. They will decide. The Blue and Green political parties on Taiwan stand in fierce opposition to each other. They lack dialogue. They ignore right and wrong. They oppose each other blindly. They remain locked in a vicious and mutually destructive struggle. Whoever wins office will have a hard time getting anything done.
In fact, the ruling and opposition parties do not really need to oppose each other so fiercely. We are all in the same boat. There is no need to sink it out of mutual spite. The leaders of the two major parties should sit down and exchange views. This would help ease ruling vs opposition party tensions.
When Chen Shui-bian was president, he and Ma Ying-jeou held two Chen/Ma meetings. The first time was on April 3, 2006. KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou visited the United States, returned, then requested a meeting with Chen Shui-bian, to offer him some suggestions on cross-Strait policy. The second time was on April 1, 2008. Ma Ying-jeou was then president-elect. During these two meetings, Chen and Ma clashed over whether or not there was a 1992 consensus. Sparks flew. But after the first Chen/Ma meeting, then Premier Su Tseng-chang expressed his approval. He encouraged the ruling and opposition parties to dialogue often, "because we all want the best for Taiwan."
When Ma Ying-jeou became president, the dialogue between the leaders of the ruling and opposition parties stopped. The Presidential Office repeatedly expressed its willingness to talk with DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. But Tsai repeatedly refused. The Two Yings finally met during the presidential campaign, when they debated ECFA. But the debate was televised. It came across as a warm-up match to the presidential election. Each side spoke its peace. Each side appealed to its own constituents. Neither side listened to what the other had to say or sought common ground.
During the presidential campaign Ma Ying-jeou promised that if re-elected, he would issue an invitation to opposition party leaders every six months, to discuss the affairs of state. When Su Tseng-chang was elected DPP Chairman, President Ma phoned him, congratulating him on his victory. President Ma invited Su to meet with him to talk. Su Tseng-chang did not turn him down. Su even said "The KMT and DPP should talk about how to increase the general welfare. If a Ma/Su meeting can achieve this goal, there is no reason to refuse." He apparently favored a Ma/Su meeting. The public would welcome a face to face meeting between the ruling and opposition party leaders
No one is naive enough to think that the chairmen of the KMT and DPP can meet and melt away their differences with a smile. No one is naive enough to think that the opposition party will no longer denounce the ruling party in the Legislative Yuan. But the ruling and opposition parties are important assets to the politics of democracy. Each has considerable public support. If the leaders are willing to meet and communicate, that expresses respect for their rivals. It also expresses respect for the public. They will not be able to reach a consensus on many issues. But it will not hurt to listen to each others thoughts, and to admit that we all share a common goal - Taiwan's survival, growth, and dignity. Our goals are the same. Therefore we should communicate more about policy. The administration wants to promote reforms. It should speak to the opposition parties. It should listen to what they have to say.
Taiwan is our common destiny. We have no internal enemies. Political parties must compete. But they must not engage in vicious infighting. Ruling and opposition party leaders should consider the expectations of the public. They should consider the future of the nation. They should seek mechanisms that enable political parties to move forward, together.
催生馬蘇會 建立對話互動機制
2012-06-08
中國時報
本報日前所做民調顯示，有高達六六％的民眾期待馬蘇對話。在相當程度上，這反映出民意對藍綠長期惡鬥，以致國家元氣虛耗、在國際競爭中節節落後的憂心。政黨之間固然必須爭奪政治版圖，但民眾要的是良性競爭，而不是惡鬥不斷，朝野政黨領袖應該積極回應民意的期待。
政黨政治是民主社會的基礎之一，政黨之間的監督制衡，也是避免權力過度集中及政策偏失的安全機制。不過，和其他國家不同的是，台灣藍綠政黨的最大對立點是國家定位，環繞著國家定義及對台灣忠誠度的爭論，因為上綱層次太高，衝突太過重大，難有妥協空間，帶動的社會分裂也更為深化，對國家團結的傷害至為嚴重。
多年來，為了誰愛台、誰賣台、誰衛台、誰害台，台灣的前進腳步被這些無謂又無意義的內鬥綁得寸步難行。反觀昔日亞洲四小龍的南韓、香港、新加坡，哪一個不是早已飛奔向前，把台灣遠遠甩到後方？在國際競爭如此激烈、未來全球經濟前景堪憂下，台灣還有本錢耽於內耗嗎？
政治之爭常常是零和遊戲，也難怪政治人物往往不願替對手做球，朝野政黨的任何互動，都要先在政治算盤上打個仔細，看能替自己加分多少。但究竟誰真的把全民福祉置於優先，誰只顧自己利益不管國家死活，老百姓終究也會有個評價。台灣藍綠政黨激烈對立、缺乏對話、不問是非一味反對的做法，已經讓政局鎖死在惡性互動中，在這種相互糾纏乃至相互毀滅下，坦白說，誰當家都很難做事。
其實，朝野兩黨實在不必如此仇恨不共載天，我們都在同一條船上，不必鬥到不讓任何人開船。兩黨領導人如果能坐下來交換意見溝通看法，對緩和朝野對立應會有相當幫助。
過去在陳水扁擔任總統時，曾經舉行過兩次「扁馬會」。第一次是在二○○六年四月三日，國民黨主席的馬英九訪美歸來，主動要求與陳水扁會晤，希望就兩岸政策提出建言。第二次是在二○○八年四月一日，馬英九已經成了總統當選人。這兩次會晤，扁馬都對究竟有無「九二共識」針鋒相對，激辯得火花四射。不過，第一次「扁馬會」後，當時的行政院長蘇貞昌曾經表示肯定，並表示非常歡迎、鼓勵朝野常常對話，「因為大家都是為了台灣好」。
到了馬英九就任總統後，朝野政黨領導人的對話始終停擺。總統府方面曾多次表達願意與民進黨主席蔡英文會談，不過一直未獲首肯，直到雙英針對ＥＣＦＡ舉行辯論，這才算是有碰到面談上了話。不過當時採取電視辯論會的形式，宛如一場大選熱身賽，各自陳述立場爭取支持，多過於傾聽對方尋找交集。
馬英九這次大選前曾經宣示，連任後每半年將邀在野領袖共商國是。蘇貞昌當選民進黨主席當晚，就接了馬總統的道賀電話，而且對於馬總統的對話邀約，蘇貞昌在第一時間並未回絕，稍後還表示「當前國、民兩黨應該為增加社會福祉對話，馬蘇會若能達到這個目標，就不必迴避。」感覺對「馬蘇會」的態度似乎比較正面，如果能夠因此促成朝野領導人的面對面溝通，應該為民眾所樂見。
沒有人會天真到以為國、民兩黨主席碰個面就能一笑泯恩仇，從此立法院不再吵架在野黨不再罵政府。但朝野政黨都是民主政治的重要資產，也各自代表了相當的民意基礎，領導人願意見面溝通，不只是對於對手政黨的尊重，更是對對方背後的民意表示敬意。雖然必定會有許多問題無法取得共識，但也不妨聽聽對方的想法，並且承認大家都有共同的目標─台灣的生存、發展與尊嚴。既然方向一致，對於政策的溝通，其實可以做得更多。政府想推動的改革方案，也不妨先與在野黨對話，聽取對方的意見做為參考。
台灣是我們共同的命運，我們的內部沒有敵人，政黨必須競爭，但不能流於惡鬥。朝野政黨領袖應該慎重思考民意的期待，為國家發展著想，尋找一個能讓大家一起向前邁進的政黨互動機制。
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
President Ma Ying-jeou: Teflon or Tyrant?
President Ma Ying-jeou: Teflon or Tyrant?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 7 2012
Summary: Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?
Full Text below:
Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?
President Ma first entered office in 2008. Not long afterwards, the "position himself on the front lines vs. retreat from the front lines" controversy erupted. The Legislative Yuan went its own way on Control Yuan, Examination Yuan appointments, and on the Sunshine Laws. Subsequent developments forced President Ma to return to the front lines. They forced him to assume the role of party chairman, and build bridges between the party and the administration. This four year long process can be evaluated from at least two perspectives.
One. The most fundamental issue is our constitutional framework. The current constitution stipulates that the Premier is the chief executive, and is answerable to the Legislative Yuan. The President must "retreat from the front lines." Otherwise he will usurp the authority of the Premier and the cabinet. But the voters elected the president through a direct vote. They expect him to assume full responsibility. The opposition parties set their sights on the presidency as their chief campaign goal. This process endlessly pushes all power and responsibility onto the presidency, leaving the President no room to "retreat from the front lines." President Ma wants to abide by dual-leadership system, but can't.
Two. The real problem is with the culture of democracy. To be fair, President Ma has demonstrated enormous restraint in the exercise of power. He hopes major decisions will be made through "democratic dialogue." But the democratic process is confrontational. It often leads to internal rebellion within the KMT. It often leads to opposition DPP incitement of social divisions. The real world consequence a ruling administration that in the eyes of the public has lost control. The US beef imports controversy is one example. The Ma administration's strategy is to "ensure a public forum." He hopes a public forum will enable experts to convince the people that US beef imports are harmless. He hopes this will affirm the legitimacy of his decision-making. But the public forum is already occupied by his opponents, inside and outside the party. They have already labeled the Ma administration "incompetent" and "a traitor to Taiwan." But this is democracy. Such developments are inevitable. Those in office must have the wisdom and ability avoid these pitfalls. They must not repeat the same mistakes. over and over again.
Allow us to summarize. One. A directly elected president cannot "retreat from the front lines." Never mind that the role of the president has departed from what is stipulated in the constitution. Two. Policies must be formulated and implement through the democratic process. But one must realize that confrontations will inevitably lead to chaos and to charges of "incompetence."
But if the President "must take a position on the front lines," how can we maintain the form and substance of the dual-leadership system? How can we uphold democracy while avoiding the chaos resulting from the democratic process, not to mention charges of "incompetence?"
The Ma administration says that peace begins at home. Electricity price hikes were actually imposed the day before they were announced. The five-member group reversed its decision and adopted a three-stage incremental rate hike. KMT legislators blasted the capital gains tax from day one. When time came to review the tax bill, they concocted their own version. The process revealed the fragmentation and chaos within the party. Some even took advantage of the occasion to engage in shameless self-promotion. The internal chaos encouraged and legitimized the opposition DPP's obstructionism. This chaos was not "intra-party democracy." It was merely incompetence.
Given the situation, some people want President Ma to "man up." In other words, to behave more tyrannically. But we believe he should instead increase democratic cooperation between the Presidential Office, the cabinet, the party, and the Legislative Yuan. For example, the five-member group must find a way to reach consensus. It must not air the party's dirty laundry in public. By the same token, the cabinet and the Legislative Yuan must consult with each other. They must ensure party/administration cooperation. The Secretary-General of the cabinet must not accuse ministers of ducking him. The administration and the ruling party must establish a democratic mechanism that does not air its laundry in public. Dissenting views must be thoroughly dealt with inhouse. Only then can they speak with one voice without.
In fact, the term "political policy" can be broken into two words, "political" and "policy." The term "political" may refer to a program. The term "policy" may refer to a method. The program should be conceived by a capable think-tank. It should subject the program to detailed evaluation. It should not flip-flop repeatedly. Only then can it offer a sound and convincing program. It must have a method or a technique. Only tnen can it sail through the democratic process, reduce resistance, and reach fruition. Take the gasoline and electricity price hikes and the capital gains tax. The programs were controversial. The methods to promote them were inept. Internal and external opposition and a hostile environment were coupled with a leader who flip-flopped repeatedly. The political policy failed, both as politics and as policy. The result was a mess.
This is practical politics. President Ma cannot be a Teflon president. And being a Teflon tyrant is not his style. He must promote a policy of democratic conflict management. He must prevent political turmoil from exacting an exorbitant social cost. Some accuse the administration of being incompetent. But they must acknowledge that democracy requires cooperation between the presdential office, the cabinet, the legislature, and the ruling party. This is what is meant by the expression, "peace begins at home."
馬總統是不沾鍋或獨裁者
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.07
有人指馬英九總統是不沾鍋，希望他不要「退居第二線」；有人則稱他是獨裁者，說他巨細躬親，不啻形同科長。這兩個極端，難道是指同一個馬英九嗎？
馬總統在二○○八年首任上台，不久即發生「第一線／第二線」的爭議；且立法院在監察院、考試院人事案及陽光法案等議事上也自有主張。後來的發展，如所共見的是，將馬總統逼回了「第一線」，且自兼黨主席以彌縫黨政脫節。四年多來，此一演化過程，至少可從兩方面評析：
一、最根本的問題在憲政體制。現行憲法以行政院長為最高行政首長，且對立法院負責；總統若不留有「退居第二線」的空間，則閣揆對內閣的領導統御即可能出現「架空」的問題。但是，選民概以直選總統為問責主體，反對黨又以直選總統為政爭對象，在這個過程中，不斷地將憲法上明明沒有的無所不包的權力及責任加諸總統身上，使總統全無「退居第二線」的餘地。馬總統想要遵行「雙首長制」，自無可能。
二、最實質的問題則在民主文化。持平而論，馬總統在權力操持上比較自制，亦希望重大決策能出自「民主討論」的過程；但是，民主程序的折衝過程，卻往往成為國民黨內「窩裡反」的戲台，及反對黨撕裂社會的槓桿，以致在實際政治效應上及社會認知上皆演成了主政者的失能失控。例如美牛案，馬政府所採的策略是「不毀鄉校」，希望在公共論壇上由專家帶領社會作出「巴劑牛肉無害」的共識，以建立決策的正當性；但是，這一舞台全被黨內外的反對者所佔據，馬政府則被貼上「無能」「賣台」的標籤。然而，既是民主政治，在過程中這些效應皆是難以避免，只是操持者須有趨吉避凶的智慧與能力，不能自蹈覆轍。
歸納上述評析，可得一綜合印象：一、直選總統沒有退居「第二線」的可能性，儘管此種變質的總統角色已經逾出憲法的規範；二、在政策的制定及推行上，必須通過民主程序，但也應知道，民主折衝的失序，會換來「無能」的罵名。
然而，倘若總統必須站上「第一線」，如何維持「雙首長制」的形式與實質？再者，如何一方面維持民主程序，另一方面又能避免民主程序顯露的混亂，以至被罵「無能」？
就馬政府言，根本之道在「攘外必先安內」。電費漲價，竟於執行日宣布後，在「五人小組」中翻案改採「三階段緩漲」；證所稅案，一路下來以黨籍立委罵得最兇最狠，到了審查當日還在拼湊黨內的版本。在這過程中，黨內的支離混亂暴露無遺，且有人尚以對中樞持異議來自我標榜；而內部的混亂，又助長並正當化了反對黨的挑戰，此種亂局不會被解讀為「黨內民主」，只會又回到那兩個字：「無能」。
在這樣的情勢中，有人希望馬總統「硬起來」，也就是希望他「獨裁」一些；但我們認為，反而應當強化「府／閣／黨／院」四者之間的民主協作。例如，必須設法落實「五人小組」的共議機制，而不要把其中的矛盾搬到外面去演給社會看；同理，內閣及立院之間的黨政協商也須有個深入的互動過程，而不應出現內閣秘書長指部長「不是路過就是來過」。亦即，政府及執政黨的內部必須建立一套有效且對外靜默的民主協作，透過內在機制使得相對意見充分折衝，然後就以一致的口徑對外。
其實，若將「政策」一詞，拆成「政」、「策」二字；「政」可指「方案」，「策」則指折衝的「方法」。「方案」應由強有力的智囊機制來產生，考量周延，端出去後不致搖擺反覆，即可較具說服力；而好的「方案」，亦須有好的折衝「方法」或「技巧」，始能在民主程序中增加助力、減少阻力，獲得實現。以此看油電雙漲及證所稅案，「方案」內容有爭議，折衝「方法」又拙劣，一旦陷於內憂外患、腹背受敵之境，再加上主帥態度搖擺反覆，「政」與「策」即告雙雙失敗，遂致難以收拾。
在現實政治中，馬總統不可能做「不沾鍋」，而「獨裁者」也不是馬總統的風格；他必須在推動政策的民主折衝中，讓人民不致因政局混亂及付出過大社會代價，而認為主政者「無能」，所以他至少必須先做好「府／閣／院／黨」內的民主協作。所謂「攘外必先安內」，斯之謂也。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 7 2012
Summary: Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?
Full Text below:
Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?
President Ma first entered office in 2008. Not long afterwards, the "position himself on the front lines vs. retreat from the front lines" controversy erupted. The Legislative Yuan went its own way on Control Yuan, Examination Yuan appointments, and on the Sunshine Laws. Subsequent developments forced President Ma to return to the front lines. They forced him to assume the role of party chairman, and build bridges between the party and the administration. This four year long process can be evaluated from at least two perspectives.
One. The most fundamental issue is our constitutional framework. The current constitution stipulates that the Premier is the chief executive, and is answerable to the Legislative Yuan. The President must "retreat from the front lines." Otherwise he will usurp the authority of the Premier and the cabinet. But the voters elected the president through a direct vote. They expect him to assume full responsibility. The opposition parties set their sights on the presidency as their chief campaign goal. This process endlessly pushes all power and responsibility onto the presidency, leaving the President no room to "retreat from the front lines." President Ma wants to abide by dual-leadership system, but can't.
Two. The real problem is with the culture of democracy. To be fair, President Ma has demonstrated enormous restraint in the exercise of power. He hopes major decisions will be made through "democratic dialogue." But the democratic process is confrontational. It often leads to internal rebellion within the KMT. It often leads to opposition DPP incitement of social divisions. The real world consequence a ruling administration that in the eyes of the public has lost control. The US beef imports controversy is one example. The Ma administration's strategy is to "ensure a public forum." He hopes a public forum will enable experts to convince the people that US beef imports are harmless. He hopes this will affirm the legitimacy of his decision-making. But the public forum is already occupied by his opponents, inside and outside the party. They have already labeled the Ma administration "incompetent" and "a traitor to Taiwan." But this is democracy. Such developments are inevitable. Those in office must have the wisdom and ability avoid these pitfalls. They must not repeat the same mistakes. over and over again.
Allow us to summarize. One. A directly elected president cannot "retreat from the front lines." Never mind that the role of the president has departed from what is stipulated in the constitution. Two. Policies must be formulated and implement through the democratic process. But one must realize that confrontations will inevitably lead to chaos and to charges of "incompetence."
But if the President "must take a position on the front lines," how can we maintain the form and substance of the dual-leadership system? How can we uphold democracy while avoiding the chaos resulting from the democratic process, not to mention charges of "incompetence?"
The Ma administration says that peace begins at home. Electricity price hikes were actually imposed the day before they were announced. The five-member group reversed its decision and adopted a three-stage incremental rate hike. KMT legislators blasted the capital gains tax from day one. When time came to review the tax bill, they concocted their own version. The process revealed the fragmentation and chaos within the party. Some even took advantage of the occasion to engage in shameless self-promotion. The internal chaos encouraged and legitimized the opposition DPP's obstructionism. This chaos was not "intra-party democracy." It was merely incompetence.
Given the situation, some people want President Ma to "man up." In other words, to behave more tyrannically. But we believe he should instead increase democratic cooperation between the Presidential Office, the cabinet, the party, and the Legislative Yuan. For example, the five-member group must find a way to reach consensus. It must not air the party's dirty laundry in public. By the same token, the cabinet and the Legislative Yuan must consult with each other. They must ensure party/administration cooperation. The Secretary-General of the cabinet must not accuse ministers of ducking him. The administration and the ruling party must establish a democratic mechanism that does not air its laundry in public. Dissenting views must be thoroughly dealt with inhouse. Only then can they speak with one voice without.
In fact, the term "political policy" can be broken into two words, "political" and "policy." The term "political" may refer to a program. The term "policy" may refer to a method. The program should be conceived by a capable think-tank. It should subject the program to detailed evaluation. It should not flip-flop repeatedly. Only then can it offer a sound and convincing program. It must have a method or a technique. Only tnen can it sail through the democratic process, reduce resistance, and reach fruition. Take the gasoline and electricity price hikes and the capital gains tax. The programs were controversial. The methods to promote them were inept. Internal and external opposition and a hostile environment were coupled with a leader who flip-flopped repeatedly. The political policy failed, both as politics and as policy. The result was a mess.
This is practical politics. President Ma cannot be a Teflon president. And being a Teflon tyrant is not his style. He must promote a policy of democratic conflict management. He must prevent political turmoil from exacting an exorbitant social cost. Some accuse the administration of being incompetent. But they must acknowledge that democracy requires cooperation between the presdential office, the cabinet, the legislature, and the ruling party. This is what is meant by the expression, "peace begins at home."
馬總統是不沾鍋或獨裁者
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.07
有人指馬英九總統是不沾鍋，希望他不要「退居第二線」；有人則稱他是獨裁者，說他巨細躬親，不啻形同科長。這兩個極端，難道是指同一個馬英九嗎？
馬總統在二○○八年首任上台，不久即發生「第一線／第二線」的爭議；且立法院在監察院、考試院人事案及陽光法案等議事上也自有主張。後來的發展，如所共見的是，將馬總統逼回了「第一線」，且自兼黨主席以彌縫黨政脫節。四年多來，此一演化過程，至少可從兩方面評析：
一、最根本的問題在憲政體制。現行憲法以行政院長為最高行政首長，且對立法院負責；總統若不留有「退居第二線」的空間，則閣揆對內閣的領導統御即可能出現「架空」的問題。但是，選民概以直選總統為問責主體，反對黨又以直選總統為政爭對象，在這個過程中，不斷地將憲法上明明沒有的無所不包的權力及責任加諸總統身上，使總統全無「退居第二線」的餘地。馬總統想要遵行「雙首長制」，自無可能。
二、最實質的問題則在民主文化。持平而論，馬總統在權力操持上比較自制，亦希望重大決策能出自「民主討論」的過程；但是，民主程序的折衝過程，卻往往成為國民黨內「窩裡反」的戲台，及反對黨撕裂社會的槓桿，以致在實際政治效應上及社會認知上皆演成了主政者的失能失控。例如美牛案，馬政府所採的策略是「不毀鄉校」，希望在公共論壇上由專家帶領社會作出「巴劑牛肉無害」的共識，以建立決策的正當性；但是，這一舞台全被黨內外的反對者所佔據，馬政府則被貼上「無能」「賣台」的標籤。然而，既是民主政治，在過程中這些效應皆是難以避免，只是操持者須有趨吉避凶的智慧與能力，不能自蹈覆轍。
歸納上述評析，可得一綜合印象：一、直選總統沒有退居「第二線」的可能性，儘管此種變質的總統角色已經逾出憲法的規範；二、在政策的制定及推行上，必須通過民主程序，但也應知道，民主折衝的失序，會換來「無能」的罵名。
然而，倘若總統必須站上「第一線」，如何維持「雙首長制」的形式與實質？再者，如何一方面維持民主程序，另一方面又能避免民主程序顯露的混亂，以至被罵「無能」？
就馬政府言，根本之道在「攘外必先安內」。電費漲價，竟於執行日宣布後，在「五人小組」中翻案改採「三階段緩漲」；證所稅案，一路下來以黨籍立委罵得最兇最狠，到了審查當日還在拼湊黨內的版本。在這過程中，黨內的支離混亂暴露無遺，且有人尚以對中樞持異議來自我標榜；而內部的混亂，又助長並正當化了反對黨的挑戰，此種亂局不會被解讀為「黨內民主」，只會又回到那兩個字：「無能」。
在這樣的情勢中，有人希望馬總統「硬起來」，也就是希望他「獨裁」一些；但我們認為，反而應當強化「府／閣／黨／院」四者之間的民主協作。例如，必須設法落實「五人小組」的共議機制，而不要把其中的矛盾搬到外面去演給社會看；同理，內閣及立院之間的黨政協商也須有個深入的互動過程，而不應出現內閣秘書長指部長「不是路過就是來過」。亦即，政府及執政黨的內部必須建立一套有效且對外靜默的民主協作，透過內在機制使得相對意見充分折衝，然後就以一致的口徑對外。
其實，若將「政策」一詞，拆成「政」、「策」二字；「政」可指「方案」，「策」則指折衝的「方法」。「方案」應由強有力的智囊機制來產生，考量周延，端出去後不致搖擺反覆，即可較具說服力；而好的「方案」，亦須有好的折衝「方法」或「技巧」，始能在民主程序中增加助力、減少阻力，獲得實現。以此看油電雙漲及證所稅案，「方案」內容有爭議，折衝「方法」又拙劣，一旦陷於內憂外患、腹背受敵之境，再加上主帥態度搖擺反覆，「政」與「策」即告雙雙失敗，遂致難以收拾。
在現實政治中，馬總統不可能做「不沾鍋」，而「獨裁者」也不是馬總統的風格；他必須在推動政策的民主折衝中，讓人民不致因政局混亂及付出過大社會代價，而認為主政者「無能」，所以他至少必須先做好「府／閣／院／黨」內的民主協作。所謂「攘外必先安內」，斯之謂也。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)