Mainland Naval and Air Defense of Diaoyutai Impacts Asian-Pacific Strategic Picture
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 16, 2012
Summary: Japan recently held a general election, as it turns out, at a critical moment. For the first time ever, Mainland China sent patrol aircraft over Diaoyutai airspace to defend its sovereignty. Japanese fighters scrambled to intercept them. No actual clash occurred, but confrontations between the two sides in and around Diaoyutai are escalating. These confrontations are redrawing the strategic map of the Asian-Pacific region.
Full Text below:
Japan recently held a general election, as it turns out, at a critical moment. For the first time ever, Mainland China sent patrol aircraft over Diaoyutai airspace to defend its sovereignty. Japanese fighters scrambled to intercept them. No actual clash occurred, but confrontations between the two sides in and around Diaoyutai are escalating. These confrontations are redrawing the strategic map of the Asian-Pacific region.
The current wave of clashes between the Mainland and Japan over Diaoyutai were provoked by Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara's "purchase" of the islands. His provocation reawakened historical memories for the Chinese people. Passions old and new flared up. Calls emerged for the settling of old scores. Japan assumed that the US-Japan Security Treaty would cover Diaoyutai, and that therefore it had nothing to fear. But the Mainland was buying time and gathering strength. Now it appears, the time is ripe.
Consider the strategic picture. The United States created its first island chain along the western rim of the Pacific. Its purpose? To deny Mainland China free access to the Pacific Ocean. Populist demagoguery by Japanese rightists is intensifying the the Diaoyutai Islands dispute. It is provoking anti-Japanese sentiment on the Mainland. It has also presented the Mainland with an opportunity to proclaim its sovereignty over Diaoyutai Island waters and to break through the first island chain.
The Mainland has seized the initiative. It has made one move after another, in rapid succession. Japan has been reduced to passivity. It is betting on US intervention. It is hoping that the US-Japan Security Treaty will cover the Diaoyutai Islands, thereby containing the Mainland.
Over the past few years, Mainland ocean surveillance ships have entered Diaoyutai Island waters with increasing frequency. In September of this year, Tokyo announced the "nationalization" of the Diaoyutai Islands. But Beijing beat Tokyo to the punch. It publicly announced its baselines for Diaoyutai Islands territorial waters. It submitted baseline coordinates, tables, charts, and continental shelf outlines to the United Nations. It announced its official nomenclature for the Diaoyutai Islands and the surrounding waters. These actions were in strict accord with international law. Step by step, Beijing laid out the legal basis for sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands.
December 13 was the 75th anniversary of the Rape of Nanking. The Mainland's State Oceanic Administration dispatched maritime surveillance aircraft into airspace only 15 kilometers from the south coast of the Diaoyutai Islands. With this, the Diaoyutai Islands dispute entered a new phase.
Since 1958 Mainland aircraft have never entered the region's airspace. On December 13, Japanese Self-Defense Force radar failed to detect reconnaissance aircraft belonging to the Mainland's Oceanic Administration. When the Japanese belated realized this, they were shocked. They hurriedly scrambled eight F-15 fighter planes and an AWACs plane to intercept it. By then the Mainland's Oceanic Administration reconnaissance aircraft had already left the scene.
The Japanese immediately lodged strong protests. But the Mainland reminded the Japanese that the ocean surveillance aircraft were operating within Diaoyutai Islands territory. Their actions were perfectly normal. Beijing Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei even told the Japanese to "desist from its illegal activities in Diaoyutai Islands waters and air space." The Oceanic Administration even described the flight as "the first air-sea 3D cruise."
The Mainland Oceanic Administration's maritime surveillance aircraft was not a military aircraft. But ocean surveillance ships and warships have entered Diaoyutai Island waters before. Now, for the first time, the Mainland has conducted a sea-air 3D cruise. It is clearly following a script.
One. The Mainland is being more emphatic in proclaiming its sovereignty over the Diaoyutai Islands. Two. It is normalizing missions to Diaoyutai Islands territorial waters and airspace. Three. It is resolute, and shows no fear of escalating the conflict. Four. It is using these accomplishments to consolidate the status of its current leadership. Five. It is countering United States containment in the Asian-Pacific. Using Diaoyutai as its springboard, the Mainland has made steady advances. As long as its actions do not lead to military conflict, it intends to make hay while the sun shines.
Mainland China dispatched reconnaissance aircraft. But it avoided precipitating military conflict. If it dispatches military aircraft to the Diaoyutai Islands, then the conflict will swiftly escalate. A dispute between the Mainland and Japan, will become a dispute between the Mainland and a Japan-US alliance. The United States has declared that the Diaoyutai Islands are covered by the US-Japan Security Treaty. The United States will not allow the Mainland to break through the first island chain if strategically possible.
Mainland national policy calls for stablity and growth. The outbreak of military conflict with the United States would undermine economic development, provoke to social unrest, and even endanger the regime.
The 3D cruise involved sea and air. All that remains is land. If the Mainland Oceanic Administration makes a landing on the Diaoyutai Islands, the Japanese will escalate even further. Open conflict could ensue. A handful of civilian fishing boats landing on the Diaoyutai Islands and planting flags is one thing. This would be something else altogether.
So far the Mainland authorities have not allowed civilians from the Mainland to land on the Diaoyutai Islands. Those who made landings were from Taiwan and Hong Kong. Mainland China's peaceful rise is the focus of global attention. If and when it makes its move, it will be a world-shaking event. The impact would be all pervasive.
That said, the trend is evident. Japan's economy remains in the doldrums. Its national strength has been diluted. All it can do is to follow the US lead. But the United States also has feet of clay. It can barely keep its economy afloat. Its role as a global power is significantly diminished. The Mainland is trumpeting peaceful development. Its national strength grows day by day. In response to this controversy involving a handful of small islands, it has taken the initiative and made its move. Japan remains passive. It can only wring its hands. Changes in the Asian-Pacific strategic picture may well begin in the Diaoyutai Islands.
大陸海空捍衛釣魚台 牽動亞太變局
2012-12-16
中國時報
正當日本處於大選而極可能變天的關鍵時刻，中國大陸首度出動巡邏機進入釣魚台領空，捍衛主權。日本戰機緊急升空攔截，雖未發生衝突，但雙方環繞釣魚台的對峙顯然益趨尖銳，同時牽動的是整個亞太勢力版圖的重組。
中日這波釣魚台爭議，係前東京都知事石原慎太郎喊出購島挑起。一旦挑起，喚起中國人歷史記憶，新仇舊恨，要把總帳算個清楚。日本以美日安保條約涵蓋釣魚台，有恃無恐；大陸卻在爭取時間，蓄積實力，如今時機似漸趨成熟。
此外，在戰略布局上，美國延太平洋西岸對中國大陸布下第一島鏈，防堵其自由進出太平洋。日本右派的民粹操弄，激化釣魚台爭議與大陸民眾反日情緒，給大陸找到進出釣台海域宣示主權、同時突破第一島鏈的著力點。
中國大陸主動出招，一招接一招，日本被動接招，重心在爭取美國介入，以美日安保條約涵蓋釣魚台牽制大陸。
這一、二年來，大陸海監船比以往更加頻繁地進入釣魚台海域；今年九月東京宣布將釣魚台國有化前，北京搶先發布釣魚台列嶼領海基線，並向聯合國提交基點基線座標表、海圖和大陸棚劃界案，接著又公布釣魚台及周邊海域部分地理實體標準名稱。這一連串動作皆依據國際法，按部就班鋪陳其對釣魚台主權的法理依據。
十二月十三日，南京大屠殺七十五周年，大陸的國家海洋局派出海監巡邏機，飛到釣魚台南方十五公里處領空，釣魚台之爭因此進入全新階段。
自一九五八年以來，中國的飛機就不曾進入該區領空。十二月十三日，日本自衛隊的雷達未即時偵察到大陸海洋局的巡邏機，稍後發現時大為震驚，緊急派出八架F-15戰機和一架預警機升空攔截，抵達時大陸海洋局的巡邏機已離開。
日方事後雖立即強烈抗議，但中方認定海監巡邏機是在其領土釣魚台巡航，自屬正常，北京外交部發言人洪磊還要日方「停止在釣島海域、空域的非法活動」，海洋局人士更形容這次飛機出動為「首次海空立體巡航。」
中國大陸這回派出的是海洋局海監巡邏機，不是軍機，但從之前的海監船、軍艦的進入釣魚台海域，到現在的「首次海空立體巡航」，突出空中巡航，顯然是在步步進逼。
一來是更強勢宣示擁有釣魚台的主權，二來讓進出釣魚台領海領空更加常態化，三是展現不畏升高衝突的決心，四在建立功績鞏固當前領導人的地位，五來反擊美國在亞太的新圍堵。藉著釣魚台這個跳板，中國大陸穩步前進，只要不引發軍事衝突，能前進多少算多少。
中國大陸出動巡邏機，有意避開軍事衝突，因為一旦出動軍機，釣魚台問題就會從中日之爭頓時升高到中、日、美對峙。美國已公開宣示，釣魚台屬於美日安保條約之共同防禦範圍；戰略上，只要美國有能力，就不會容許針對中國大陸的第一島鏈在釣魚台遭突破。
大陸目前仍以穩定與成長為國家政策主軸，此時與美國爆發軍事衝突，必然波及經濟發展，導致社會動盪，甚至危及其政權。
「立體巡航」，「海」、「空」後顯然就剩「陸」了。如果中國大陸海洋局進一步登上釣魚台探勘，勢必面對日方更激烈阻擋，可能爆發的衝突規模，遠非兩岸幾艘民間保釣船登島插旗所能比擬。
截至目前，中國大陸不支持自己民眾直接登島保釣，成行的都是台港人士，這也是因為大陸和平崛起後動見觀瞻，一旦出手就是撼動全球的大事，其衝擊將是全方位的。
即使如此，當前的態勢已很明顯，日本經濟滑坡，國力大不如前，唯美國馬首是瞻，但美國也泥菩薩過江，勉強支應國內經濟與全球強權角色已顯力不從心，大陸此時高唱和平發展，國力日強，面對這幾個小島的爭議，主動出招，處於被動的日方，則只能繃緊神經因應。縱觀整個亞太形勢，未來的新變局可能就從釣魚台開始。
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Incorporate the Big Roof China Concept into the One China Principle
Incorporate the Big Roof China Concept into the One China Principle
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 14, 2012
Summary: Consider Beijing's perspective. The recent talks in Taipei resemble the 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations Seminar three years ago. They show that the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan differ in their cross-Strait views. But people on Taiwan as a whole, Blue and Green alike, see "one China" and "reunification" differently. They differ both in their emotional intensity and in their reasoning. They would amend these concepts differently. They have different reservations about them.
Full text below:
Consider Beijing's perspective. The recent talks in Taipei resemble the 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations Seminar three years ago. They show that the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan differ in their cross-Strait views. But people on Taiwan as a whole, Blue and Green alike, see "one China" and "reunification" differently. They differ both in their emotional intensity and in their reasoning. They would amend these concepts differently. They have different reservations about them.
Sun Yafu is Deputy Director of Beijing's State Council Office of Taiwan Affairs. He is in charge of cross-Strait policy theory. As he sees it, historical conditions have changed. The two sides of the Strait must seize upon their points of agreement regarding "one China advocacy." They must take existing provisions as their point of departure. They must affirm that China's territory and sovereignty are indivisible. They must seek common ground while shelving differences. They must seek a shared belief in one China, while shelving differences concerning one China political policy. This will enable cross-Strait relations to move ahead.
Sun Yafu's reasoning was an extension of Hu Jintao's political report at the 18th National Congress. It was a continuation of Wang Yi's talk at the 20th Anniversary Celebration of the 1992 Consensus. It included several important elements. One. It referred to new historical conditions. It implied that "Times have changed." Two. The oft mentioneed one-China principle was recast as "one China advocacy." Three. He and Wang Yi feel that the two sides should seize upon points that express their common belief in one China. Four. He reiterated that the two sides should treat their existing provisions as their point of departure. This means that both sides of the Strait should derive their positions from their own constitutions. Five. Sun said the two sides have yet to be reunified, but that merely means political opposition. It does not mean that China's territory and sovereignty have been divided. Therefore the two sides are still part of one China. We feel that in this context one China ought to refer to the one China undergoing political confrontation prior to 1949. It should not be taken to mean that "both sides of the Strait are part of the People's Republic of China." The People's Republic of China is merely one of two parties politically opposed to the other within one China. Six. Both sides share a belief in "seeking common ground in one China, while shelving differences in one China policy." In Beijing it is referred to as "seeking common ground while shelving differences." In Taipei it is referred to as "one China, different interpretations."
How will the two sides take their respective constitutions as their point of departure? After all, they differ over the political significance of one China policy, even as they seek common ground under one China. How do they seize the common ground in one China and establish points of linkage? We believe the answer is one China, different interpretations under the Big Roof Concept of China, the signing of a peace agreement, or the establishment of some sort of political relations under special circumstances.
This is the only way each side of the Strait can take its own constitution as its point of departure. This is the only way we can seek common ground while shelving differences under one China advocacy. This is the only way we can seize the common ground and uphold one China.
The 18th National Congress Political Report laid out Beijing's Taiwan policy. The Hu Jintao regime invested ten years of its energy in this policy. This is the legacy it has bequeathed Xi Jinping, who will deal with it over the next decade. One of its major innovations was the notion that the two sides must "seek cross-Strait political relations despite the fact that the nation has yet to be reunified, and make fair and reasonable arrangements."
This turned the phrase "yet to be reunified cross-strait political relations" into official policy. It argued that political relations could go ahead if each each side of the Strait treated their own constitutions as their point of departure. They could then seek common ground under one China, while shelving differences over one China political policy. They could then make fair and reasonable arrangements and establish one China points of linkage. What are "points of linkage," if not the big roof concept of China?
The big roof concept of China is an abstract concept. It refers to China as a cultural entity, as an historical entity, as a common people. It also refers to a legal concept. For example, the two sides can use their existing provisions, i.e. constitutions, as their point of departure under a big roof concept of China. They can sign a peace agreement, or set up offices on both sides of the Strait. They can lay down the necessary conditions for a big roof concept of China. They can make the big roof concept of China into law. This, bear in mind, is not "two Chinas." Under the big roof concept of China, the Republic of China is democratic China, and the People's Republic of China is socialist China. Both are part of China. both belong under the big roof concept of China.
This is achievable. We need only incorporate the big roof concept of China into the one China principle or one China advocacy. That is because the big roof concept of China was one China advocacy to begin with. Actually the two sides were already engage in big roof concept of China thinking. In 2000, Qian Qichen's "new three statements" was seen as just such a big roof concept. On Taiwan, scholars such as Chang Ya-chung advocate "one China, three constitutions." This too may be regarded as a big roof concept.
Elements on both sides have voiced opposition to the big roof concept of China. On Taiwan, some oppose the one China points of linkage. Others suggest that ECFA represents a final limit to linkage that we must not go beyond. But Taiwan independence has already proven impossible. The Republic of China must find a foothold under the aegis of one China. But the notion that "one China is the Republic of China" is a hard sell. Therefore the big roof concept of China is the best option for the Republic of China. If we cling to "one China is the Republic of China" and "one China, different interpretations," we will eventually end up boiled alive like the frog in the well-known anecdote.
Some on the Mainland are also skeptical about the big roof concept of China. They say this is merely the "two states theory" in a different guise. But the "two states theory" does not advocate a peace agreement signed under the big roof concept of China. In fact, the big roof concept of China is a plus for Beijing as well. One. Beijing knows that reunification is difficult. That is why it now speaks of "political relations under yet to be reunified conditions," and of a peace agreement. Two. Reunification is actually a giant albatross around Beijing's neck. It Is a "commitment quagmire" from which it cannot extricate itself. Let us establish political relations under yet to be reunified conditions. This will benefit Beijing, both within and without the Mainland region. Three. Write the big roof concept of China into law. This will move it beyond the 1992 consensus. One might consider it an upgraded version of the 1992 consensus. Four. In 2016 the political situation on Taiwan will be unpredictable. It may be impossible to establish political relations under a yet to be reunified China conditions. The two sides would descend into reunification vs. independence wrangling.
Under the big roof concept of China, the two sides will be able to common ground while shelving differences. Do not wait until 2016, only to find ourselves trapped. By then It will too late for regrets. .
將大屋頂中國納入一個中國原則
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.14 02:03 am
對於北京來說，這次的「台北會談」與三年前的「兩岸一甲子研討會」一樣，雖呈現出台灣藍綠各方的兩岸論述各持異見，但整個台灣不分藍綠，對「一個中國」或「統一」等概念，皆持不同形態、不同程度及不同理由的批判、修正或保留的態度。
北京方面，此次由主掌兩岸政策理論的國台辦副主任孫亞夫提出主體論述。他的主要見解是：在新的歷史條件下，兩岸雙方要把握「一個中國主張」的共同點和連結點，包括從各自現行規定出發，確認中國領土和主權沒有分裂這一客觀事實，通過求同存異，「求一個中國之同、存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，兩岸關係就有向前發展的條件。
孫亞夫的此一見解及他在會中表達的相關論述，是十八大胡錦濤政治報告的引申，也是王毅「九二共識二十周年」談話的延續，其中包括了幾個重要元素：一、謂「在新的歷史條件下」，有「與時俱進」的意味。二、習稱的「一個中國原則」，此處改稱「一個中國主張」。三、與王毅一樣，認為兩岸應尋求並把握「一個中國」的「共同點」和「連結點」。四、重申兩岸應從「各自現行規定出發」，即是指兩岸可在「各自憲法上立足」。五、又稱，兩岸尚未統一是一種政治對立，而不是中國領土和主權的分裂，因而兩岸還是同屬「一個中國」。我們認為，此處所指「一個中國」應是指在一九四九年以前發生「政治對立」的「一個中國」，而不是指「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」，因為「中華人民共和國」只是在「一個中國」之中「政治對立」的一方而已。六、所稱「求一個中國之同，存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，在北京曰「求同存異」，在台灣即是「一中各表」。
那麼，兩岸如何在「各自憲法上出發」，既「存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，又「求一個中國之同」，進而尋求並把握「一個中國」的「共同點」及「連結點」呢？我們認為，答案是：在大屋頂中國之下一中各表，簽定和平協議，或建立某種「特殊情況下的政治關係」。
唯有如此，始能維持「兩岸各自從憲法上出發並立足」，在「一個中國主張」之上求同存異，戮力尋求出且把握住「一個中國」的共同點及連結點。
十八大政治報告中關於北京對台政策的陳述，是胡錦濤團隊往昔十年的心血，也是習近平團隊未來十年的資產。其中最大的創新與發明，即在：「探討國家尚未統一特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係，並對此作出合情合理的安排。」
這是將「尚未統一的兩岸政治關係」正式作為政策課目，而認為此一「政治關係」可從「兩岸各自憲法出發」、「求一個中國之同，存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，以作出「合情合理的安排」，並建立「一個中國」的「連結點」。試問：這個「連結點」，若不是「大屋頂中國」，還能是什麼？
此處所言「大屋頂中國」，不只是指「文化中國／歷史中國／血緣中國」的抽象概念，而是一個法制概念。例如，兩岸倘若能在「從各自現行規定（憲法）出發」的大屋頂中國架構上，簽定《和平協議》；或在兩岸互設辦事處時，設定約制「大屋頂中國」的條款，即可將「大屋頂中國」法制化。這不是兩個中國，在大屋頂中國之下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，二者皆是一部分的中國，同屬「一個大屋頂中國」。
要做到這一點，只要將「大屋頂中國」納入「一個中國原則」或「一個中國主張」即可；因為，「大屋頂中國」原本即是一種「一個中國主張」。其實，兩岸皆早已存有「大屋頂中國」的思想。在北京，二○○○年錢其琛的「新三句」，即被視為「屋頂理論」；在台灣，如學者張亞中等所倡「一中三憲」，或許亦可視為「泛屋頂理論」。
然而，兩岸亦皆有反對「大屋頂中國」的聲音。在台灣，有人反對關於「一個中國」的一切「連結點」；也有人認為，ECFA已是連結的終局，不宜再踰越。但是，台獨已絕無可能，中華民國必須在「一個中國」的範圍內找到立足點，而「一個中國就是中華民國」的「一中各表」恐終難撐持，所以「大屋頂中國」應是中華民國在「一個中國」架構下的最佳利基。倘若緊守「一個中國是中華民國」的「一中各表」，恐終究將是冷水煮青蛙的結局。
大陸也有人對「大屋頂中國」質疑，認為這是「兩國論」的變形；但是，「兩國論」難道會主張「在大屋頂中國下簽定和平協議」嗎？其實，「大屋頂中國」，對北京也應是正算：一、北京亦知「統一」難期，因此將政策焦點轉移至「尚未統一的政治關係」，如《和平協議》等；二、「統一」其實是北京的重大政治負荷，亦是一種難以自拔的「承諾的陷阱」，倘能確立「尚未統一的政治關係」，對北京的內外治理極有利益；三、「大屋頂中國」若能法制化，即較「九二共識」更進一級，可稱「九二共識的升級版」。四、二○一六年台灣的政治變局莫測，倘若又生政黨輪替，則非但「尚未統一的政治關係」無從建立，兩岸將又陷入暗無天日的統獨角力中。
兩岸應在大屋頂中國之下，化異求同；勿待二○一六年又陷於不可開交，以致噬臍莫及。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 14, 2012
Summary: Consider Beijing's perspective. The recent talks in Taipei resemble the 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations Seminar three years ago. They show that the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan differ in their cross-Strait views. But people on Taiwan as a whole, Blue and Green alike, see "one China" and "reunification" differently. They differ both in their emotional intensity and in their reasoning. They would amend these concepts differently. They have different reservations about them.
Full text below:
Consider Beijing's perspective. The recent talks in Taipei resemble the 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations Seminar three years ago. They show that the Blue and Green camps on Taiwan differ in their cross-Strait views. But people on Taiwan as a whole, Blue and Green alike, see "one China" and "reunification" differently. They differ both in their emotional intensity and in their reasoning. They would amend these concepts differently. They have different reservations about them.
Sun Yafu is Deputy Director of Beijing's State Council Office of Taiwan Affairs. He is in charge of cross-Strait policy theory. As he sees it, historical conditions have changed. The two sides of the Strait must seize upon their points of agreement regarding "one China advocacy." They must take existing provisions as their point of departure. They must affirm that China's territory and sovereignty are indivisible. They must seek common ground while shelving differences. They must seek a shared belief in one China, while shelving differences concerning one China political policy. This will enable cross-Strait relations to move ahead.
Sun Yafu's reasoning was an extension of Hu Jintao's political report at the 18th National Congress. It was a continuation of Wang Yi's talk at the 20th Anniversary Celebration of the 1992 Consensus. It included several important elements. One. It referred to new historical conditions. It implied that "Times have changed." Two. The oft mentioneed one-China principle was recast as "one China advocacy." Three. He and Wang Yi feel that the two sides should seize upon points that express their common belief in one China. Four. He reiterated that the two sides should treat their existing provisions as their point of departure. This means that both sides of the Strait should derive their positions from their own constitutions. Five. Sun said the two sides have yet to be reunified, but that merely means political opposition. It does not mean that China's territory and sovereignty have been divided. Therefore the two sides are still part of one China. We feel that in this context one China ought to refer to the one China undergoing political confrontation prior to 1949. It should not be taken to mean that "both sides of the Strait are part of the People's Republic of China." The People's Republic of China is merely one of two parties politically opposed to the other within one China. Six. Both sides share a belief in "seeking common ground in one China, while shelving differences in one China policy." In Beijing it is referred to as "seeking common ground while shelving differences." In Taipei it is referred to as "one China, different interpretations."
How will the two sides take their respective constitutions as their point of departure? After all, they differ over the political significance of one China policy, even as they seek common ground under one China. How do they seize the common ground in one China and establish points of linkage? We believe the answer is one China, different interpretations under the Big Roof Concept of China, the signing of a peace agreement, or the establishment of some sort of political relations under special circumstances.
This is the only way each side of the Strait can take its own constitution as its point of departure. This is the only way we can seek common ground while shelving differences under one China advocacy. This is the only way we can seize the common ground and uphold one China.
The 18th National Congress Political Report laid out Beijing's Taiwan policy. The Hu Jintao regime invested ten years of its energy in this policy. This is the legacy it has bequeathed Xi Jinping, who will deal with it over the next decade. One of its major innovations was the notion that the two sides must "seek cross-Strait political relations despite the fact that the nation has yet to be reunified, and make fair and reasonable arrangements."
This turned the phrase "yet to be reunified cross-strait political relations" into official policy. It argued that political relations could go ahead if each each side of the Strait treated their own constitutions as their point of departure. They could then seek common ground under one China, while shelving differences over one China political policy. They could then make fair and reasonable arrangements and establish one China points of linkage. What are "points of linkage," if not the big roof concept of China?
The big roof concept of China is an abstract concept. It refers to China as a cultural entity, as an historical entity, as a common people. It also refers to a legal concept. For example, the two sides can use their existing provisions, i.e. constitutions, as their point of departure under a big roof concept of China. They can sign a peace agreement, or set up offices on both sides of the Strait. They can lay down the necessary conditions for a big roof concept of China. They can make the big roof concept of China into law. This, bear in mind, is not "two Chinas." Under the big roof concept of China, the Republic of China is democratic China, and the People's Republic of China is socialist China. Both are part of China. both belong under the big roof concept of China.
This is achievable. We need only incorporate the big roof concept of China into the one China principle or one China advocacy. That is because the big roof concept of China was one China advocacy to begin with. Actually the two sides were already engage in big roof concept of China thinking. In 2000, Qian Qichen's "new three statements" was seen as just such a big roof concept. On Taiwan, scholars such as Chang Ya-chung advocate "one China, three constitutions." This too may be regarded as a big roof concept.
Elements on both sides have voiced opposition to the big roof concept of China. On Taiwan, some oppose the one China points of linkage. Others suggest that ECFA represents a final limit to linkage that we must not go beyond. But Taiwan independence has already proven impossible. The Republic of China must find a foothold under the aegis of one China. But the notion that "one China is the Republic of China" is a hard sell. Therefore the big roof concept of China is the best option for the Republic of China. If we cling to "one China is the Republic of China" and "one China, different interpretations," we will eventually end up boiled alive like the frog in the well-known anecdote.
Some on the Mainland are also skeptical about the big roof concept of China. They say this is merely the "two states theory" in a different guise. But the "two states theory" does not advocate a peace agreement signed under the big roof concept of China. In fact, the big roof concept of China is a plus for Beijing as well. One. Beijing knows that reunification is difficult. That is why it now speaks of "political relations under yet to be reunified conditions," and of a peace agreement. Two. Reunification is actually a giant albatross around Beijing's neck. It Is a "commitment quagmire" from which it cannot extricate itself. Let us establish political relations under yet to be reunified conditions. This will benefit Beijing, both within and without the Mainland region. Three. Write the big roof concept of China into law. This will move it beyond the 1992 consensus. One might consider it an upgraded version of the 1992 consensus. Four. In 2016 the political situation on Taiwan will be unpredictable. It may be impossible to establish political relations under a yet to be reunified China conditions. The two sides would descend into reunification vs. independence wrangling.
Under the big roof concept of China, the two sides will be able to common ground while shelving differences. Do not wait until 2016, only to find ourselves trapped. By then It will too late for regrets. .
將大屋頂中國納入一個中國原則
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.14 02:03 am
對於北京來說，這次的「台北會談」與三年前的「兩岸一甲子研討會」一樣，雖呈現出台灣藍綠各方的兩岸論述各持異見，但整個台灣不分藍綠，對「一個中國」或「統一」等概念，皆持不同形態、不同程度及不同理由的批判、修正或保留的態度。
北京方面，此次由主掌兩岸政策理論的國台辦副主任孫亞夫提出主體論述。他的主要見解是：在新的歷史條件下，兩岸雙方要把握「一個中國主張」的共同點和連結點，包括從各自現行規定出發，確認中國領土和主權沒有分裂這一客觀事實，通過求同存異，「求一個中國之同、存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，兩岸關係就有向前發展的條件。
孫亞夫的此一見解及他在會中表達的相關論述，是十八大胡錦濤政治報告的引申，也是王毅「九二共識二十周年」談話的延續，其中包括了幾個重要元素：一、謂「在新的歷史條件下」，有「與時俱進」的意味。二、習稱的「一個中國原則」，此處改稱「一個中國主張」。三、與王毅一樣，認為兩岸應尋求並把握「一個中國」的「共同點」和「連結點」。四、重申兩岸應從「各自現行規定出發」，即是指兩岸可在「各自憲法上立足」。五、又稱，兩岸尚未統一是一種政治對立，而不是中國領土和主權的分裂，因而兩岸還是同屬「一個中國」。我們認為，此處所指「一個中國」應是指在一九四九年以前發生「政治對立」的「一個中國」，而不是指「兩岸同屬中華人民共和國」，因為「中華人民共和國」只是在「一個中國」之中「政治對立」的一方而已。六、所稱「求一個中國之同，存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，在北京曰「求同存異」，在台灣即是「一中各表」。
那麼，兩岸如何在「各自憲法上出發」，既「存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，又「求一個中國之同」，進而尋求並把握「一個中國」的「共同點」及「連結點」呢？我們認為，答案是：在大屋頂中國之下一中各表，簽定和平協議，或建立某種「特殊情況下的政治關係」。
唯有如此，始能維持「兩岸各自從憲法上出發並立足」，在「一個中國主張」之上求同存異，戮力尋求出且把握住「一個中國」的共同點及連結點。
十八大政治報告中關於北京對台政策的陳述，是胡錦濤團隊往昔十年的心血，也是習近平團隊未來十年的資產。其中最大的創新與發明，即在：「探討國家尚未統一特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係，並對此作出合情合理的安排。」
這是將「尚未統一的兩岸政治關係」正式作為政策課目，而認為此一「政治關係」可從「兩岸各自憲法出發」、「求一個中國之同，存對一個中國政治涵義認知之異」，以作出「合情合理的安排」，並建立「一個中國」的「連結點」。試問：這個「連結點」，若不是「大屋頂中國」，還能是什麼？
此處所言「大屋頂中國」，不只是指「文化中國／歷史中國／血緣中國」的抽象概念，而是一個法制概念。例如，兩岸倘若能在「從各自現行規定（憲法）出發」的大屋頂中國架構上，簽定《和平協議》；或在兩岸互設辦事處時，設定約制「大屋頂中國」的條款，即可將「大屋頂中國」法制化。這不是兩個中國，在大屋頂中國之下，中華民國是民主中國，中華人民共和國是社會主義中國，二者皆是一部分的中國，同屬「一個大屋頂中國」。
要做到這一點，只要將「大屋頂中國」納入「一個中國原則」或「一個中國主張」即可；因為，「大屋頂中國」原本即是一種「一個中國主張」。其實，兩岸皆早已存有「大屋頂中國」的思想。在北京，二○○○年錢其琛的「新三句」，即被視為「屋頂理論」；在台灣，如學者張亞中等所倡「一中三憲」，或許亦可視為「泛屋頂理論」。
然而，兩岸亦皆有反對「大屋頂中國」的聲音。在台灣，有人反對關於「一個中國」的一切「連結點」；也有人認為，ECFA已是連結的終局，不宜再踰越。但是，台獨已絕無可能，中華民國必須在「一個中國」的範圍內找到立足點，而「一個中國就是中華民國」的「一中各表」恐終難撐持，所以「大屋頂中國」應是中華民國在「一個中國」架構下的最佳利基。倘若緊守「一個中國是中華民國」的「一中各表」，恐終究將是冷水煮青蛙的結局。
大陸也有人對「大屋頂中國」質疑，認為這是「兩國論」的變形；但是，「兩國論」難道會主張「在大屋頂中國下簽定和平協議」嗎？其實，「大屋頂中國」，對北京也應是正算：一、北京亦知「統一」難期，因此將政策焦點轉移至「尚未統一的政治關係」，如《和平協議》等；二、「統一」其實是北京的重大政治負荷，亦是一種難以自拔的「承諾的陷阱」，倘能確立「尚未統一的政治關係」，對北京的內外治理極有利益；三、「大屋頂中國」若能法制化，即較「九二共識」更進一級，可稱「九二共識的升級版」。四、二○一六年台灣的政治變局莫測，倘若又生政黨輪替，則非但「尚未統一的政治關係」無從建立，兩岸將又陷入暗無天日的統獨角力中。
兩岸應在大屋頂中國之下，化異求同；勿待二○一六年又陷於不可開交，以致噬臍莫及。
Apple Returns to America, Taiwan Companies return Home
Apple Returns to America, Taiwan Companies return Home
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 13, 2012
Summary: Early last year, Obama called on U.S. companies to return to the United States to set up production plants, and create jobs in the local community. Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded bluntly. "Those jobs aren't coming back." Jobs died little more than a year later. His successor Tim Cook has announced that he will spend 100 million U.S. dollars on the creation of a MAC computer production line in the United States. Can Cook complete this "Mission Impossible," one that strongman Steve Jobs swore he could not?
Full text below:
Early last year, Obama called on U.S. companies to return to the United States to set up production plants, and create jobs in the local community. Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded bluntly. "Those jobs aren't coming back." Jobs died little more than a year later. His successor Tim Cook has announced that he will spend 100 million U.S. dollars on the creation of a MAC computer production line in the United States. Can Cook complete this "Mission Impossible," one that strongman Steve Jobs swore he could not?
Jobs are being lost, and not only in the U.S. Industrialized nations the world over have suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs. These losses have even led to the shrinking of the middle class. The Taiwan region has had to swallow a bitter pill as well. Bringing factories back home from places where labor is relatively cheap means higher costs, supply-chain disruptions, reduced competitiveness, and other challenges. That is why Jobs said "Those jobs aren't coming back." Today Cook has vowed to set up factories in the United States. If so, he must overcome these barriers. Only then will Apple's "return to the United States " have any real meaning.
The news spread that Apple production was returning home to the U.S. Many in the US welcomed the prospect. But others are dubious. They dismissed this as just another Apple PR campaign, in response to outside pressure. The Department of Justice has accused Apple attempting to fix e-book prices. Apple has been criticized for reaping huge profits from cheap labor in Mainland China, and of hiding tens of billions of dollars in overseas tax havens. Obama has criticized Apple for unfairness to the average U.S. taxpayer. Therefore, Apple is moving some production back home to the United States. This will dispel at least some of the social pressure, and soften accusations of exploitation.
Apple has the largest market cap of any corporation in the world. Apple has a market value of 500 billion U.S. dollars. Investing 100 million in the U.S. is a drop in the bucket. If this can change society's impression, the investment will be a bargain. But given Apple's record, such simplistic attempts to improve public relations are unlikely to win over many Americans. Apple needs to do more. It needs to rehabilitate the "Made in USA" label. It needs to demonstrate the efficiency and competitiveness of American production. It must dispel the curse that manufacturing isn't going to return to America. That is Apple's real challenge. Apple has been highly profitable. But it must face its corporate responsibility.
Cook disclosed few details regarding the planned investments. But when Hon Hai came to the United States and set up factories, it left a number of clues. Apple is returning to the U.S. But it is not acting alone. Part of the production chain is moving there with it. Manufacturing and assembly requires a cluster effect and an umbilical cord. Only this will meet US government requirements for the "Made in USA" label. Apple has invested 100 million U.S. dollars. If it can persuade downstream manufacturers to follow suit, it will have a multiplier effect on production and employment. If Apple can bring MAC production back to the U.S., and successfully make the leap to iTV production in the United States, that will constitute an even greater victory.
Hon Hai, Quanta, and other Taiwan-funded enterprises have long acted as Apple assembly plants and served as Apple component suppliers. If they follow in Apple's footsteps and move to the United States, they can no longer avail themselves of Mainland China's cheap and obedient labor. They will have to seek higher levels of automation and management to reduce production costs. This may present Taiwan's IT industry with an opportunity to undergo transformation. If it can create modes of production other than the Mainland's armies of factory workers, Taiwan foundries may be able to escape the fate of low margin OEM producers. Apple uses a single production line model. This is an important economic experiment. It tests the bottom line capabilities of various enterprises.
Now consider Taiwan. The Ma administration is vigorously promoting its "salmon returning home" plan. It is comparable to Obama's attempt to create more jobs for people in the United States. Many Taiwan companies are affected. Taiwan lacks a world leader such as Apple Computer. But many Taiwan businessmen are experienced in international business. They want to give something back to the community. They understand the Taiwan business model and local business conditions. Therefore in the long-term, individual Taiwan businessmen returning home will be able to create jobs, production, or exports, They will be able to catalyze industry and create a coat tails effect.
Obama is not the only one who wants to "bring manufacturing back to the U.S." This is a challenge for enterprises the world. When all manufacturing moves to low-cost regions, what will happen to the working class in developed countries? How will they maintain balance in the economic structure? Today this problem has been laid at Apple's doorstep. How will it solve the problem? How will it rid itself of the sweatshop label? This will present a major challenge.
從蘋果回美設廠到台商鮭魚返鄉
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.13 01:48 am
歐巴馬去年初呼籲美國大企業回美設廠生產，在本土創造就業機會；當時蘋果公司執行長賈伯斯向他直言：「那些工作回不來了」。在賈伯斯逝世一年多後，其接班人庫克宣布斥資一億美元，在美國開設一條MAC電腦生產線。庫克能完成強人賈伯斯認為的「不可能任務」嗎？
工作機會流失的問題，不唯美國如此，全球工業國都因製造業外移而深受其害，甚至導致中產階級的萎縮，台灣亦飽嘗苦果。然而，要企業把工廠從土地、勞工相對便宜的地區遷回國內，立刻要面臨成本升高、供應鍊斷裂、競爭力下降等諸多挑戰，這正是賈伯斯所謂「回不來了」的原因。而今庫克宣示回美設廠，意味他必須克服上述層層阻障，才可能賦予「蘋果重返美國」實質的意義。
對於蘋果生產線「返美」的消息，美國各界多表歡迎，但也有不少人抱著半信半疑的看法，認為這只是蘋果因應外界壓力的「公關策略」之一。蘋果今年遭司法部指控企圖操控電子書價格，輿論批評它靠榨取中國廉價勞工獲取暴利，包括將數百億美元資金留在海外避稅，也遭歐巴馬批評對美國一般納稅人不公。因此，蘋果將若干生產工作移回美國，至少有助消除部分社會壓力，緩解「剝削」之譏。
作為全球市值最大的公司，蘋果擁有五千億美元市值，斥資一億美元返美投資不過是九牛之一毛；如能因此改變社會對它的印象，當然是划算的投資。但以蘋果一向的企圖，若僅滿足於「改善公共關係」這樣簡單的目標，便未免太過淺薄，也無法贏得美國人的尊重；它要做的，不僅是重新賦予「美國製造」的標籤意義，而且要展現「美國生產」的效率和競爭力，打破製造業「有去無回」的詛咒，那才是蘋果真正核心的挑戰。簡單地說，蘋果在大發利市之餘，必須面對自己作為大企業的「社會責任」。
儘管庫克未透露太多投資細節，但從鴻海隨即傳出將赴美設廠，不難看出若干端倪：蘋果返美其實不是單獨行動，而是有部分的產業鍊配合移動。一方面，這是製造業生產裝配必須營造的群聚效應及臍帶關係；另一方面，這樣才能滿足美國政府對「美國製造」商品的自製率要求。換句話說，蘋果一億美元的投資，若能帶動上下游廠商的投資配合，對生產和就業的推升將是以乘數效果計算的。而蘋果若能藉由MAC產線的返美順利躍向iTV的在美生產，那才是更大的成功。
鴻海、廣達等台資企業一向是蘋果重要的組裝廠及零組件供應商，如果要追隨蘋果的腳步移向美國，自不可能再有中國那樣便宜而聽話的勞力可用，而必須藉助更高階的自動化設計及管理來降低生產成本。從這個觀點看，這倒不失為台灣資訊產業尋求蛻變、轉型的契機，若能創造出有別於在大陸工廠的百萬勞工大軍生產模式，台灣代工廠或者能擺脫「毛三到四」的宿命。而蘋果這種「一條生產線先行」的模式，毋寧是一個重要的經濟實驗，測試著各個企業到底有多少能耐。
回看台灣，馬政府正大力推動的「鮭魚返鄉」計畫，跟歐巴馬想為美國人民創造更多就業機會的企圖其實不相上下，而響應的台商亦不在少數。台灣也許缺乏像蘋果電腦那樣全球首屈一指的企業作為領軍，但許多台商富有國際商戰的經驗，具有回饋鄉土的動機和熱情，對台灣本土的經營結構和條件也極了解；因此，長遠看，個別台商返鄉能創造的不僅是就業、生產或出口，也應能催化產業和經濟的連動效應。
「製造業重返美國」，其實不只是歐巴馬的命題，也是整個世界經濟企待解答的命題：當所有製造業都外移至廉價地區後，已開發國家的工人階層將何去何從？經濟結構的平衡如何維持？這個命題，今天落在享盡光鮮的蘋果公司身上，看它如何解題，如何擺脫血汗工廠的譏評，應是深耐咀嚼的挑戰。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 13, 2012
Summary: Early last year, Obama called on U.S. companies to return to the United States to set up production plants, and create jobs in the local community. Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded bluntly. "Those jobs aren't coming back." Jobs died little more than a year later. His successor Tim Cook has announced that he will spend 100 million U.S. dollars on the creation of a MAC computer production line in the United States. Can Cook complete this "Mission Impossible," one that strongman Steve Jobs swore he could not?
Full text below:
Early last year, Obama called on U.S. companies to return to the United States to set up production plants, and create jobs in the local community. Apple CEO Steve Jobs responded bluntly. "Those jobs aren't coming back." Jobs died little more than a year later. His successor Tim Cook has announced that he will spend 100 million U.S. dollars on the creation of a MAC computer production line in the United States. Can Cook complete this "Mission Impossible," one that strongman Steve Jobs swore he could not?
Jobs are being lost, and not only in the U.S. Industrialized nations the world over have suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs. These losses have even led to the shrinking of the middle class. The Taiwan region has had to swallow a bitter pill as well. Bringing factories back home from places where labor is relatively cheap means higher costs, supply-chain disruptions, reduced competitiveness, and other challenges. That is why Jobs said "Those jobs aren't coming back." Today Cook has vowed to set up factories in the United States. If so, he must overcome these barriers. Only then will Apple's "return to the United States " have any real meaning.
The news spread that Apple production was returning home to the U.S. Many in the US welcomed the prospect. But others are dubious. They dismissed this as just another Apple PR campaign, in response to outside pressure. The Department of Justice has accused Apple attempting to fix e-book prices. Apple has been criticized for reaping huge profits from cheap labor in Mainland China, and of hiding tens of billions of dollars in overseas tax havens. Obama has criticized Apple for unfairness to the average U.S. taxpayer. Therefore, Apple is moving some production back home to the United States. This will dispel at least some of the social pressure, and soften accusations of exploitation.
Apple has the largest market cap of any corporation in the world. Apple has a market value of 500 billion U.S. dollars. Investing 100 million in the U.S. is a drop in the bucket. If this can change society's impression, the investment will be a bargain. But given Apple's record, such simplistic attempts to improve public relations are unlikely to win over many Americans. Apple needs to do more. It needs to rehabilitate the "Made in USA" label. It needs to demonstrate the efficiency and competitiveness of American production. It must dispel the curse that manufacturing isn't going to return to America. That is Apple's real challenge. Apple has been highly profitable. But it must face its corporate responsibility.
Cook disclosed few details regarding the planned investments. But when Hon Hai came to the United States and set up factories, it left a number of clues. Apple is returning to the U.S. But it is not acting alone. Part of the production chain is moving there with it. Manufacturing and assembly requires a cluster effect and an umbilical cord. Only this will meet US government requirements for the "Made in USA" label. Apple has invested 100 million U.S. dollars. If it can persuade downstream manufacturers to follow suit, it will have a multiplier effect on production and employment. If Apple can bring MAC production back to the U.S., and successfully make the leap to iTV production in the United States, that will constitute an even greater victory.
Hon Hai, Quanta, and other Taiwan-funded enterprises have long acted as Apple assembly plants and served as Apple component suppliers. If they follow in Apple's footsteps and move to the United States, they can no longer avail themselves of Mainland China's cheap and obedient labor. They will have to seek higher levels of automation and management to reduce production costs. This may present Taiwan's IT industry with an opportunity to undergo transformation. If it can create modes of production other than the Mainland's armies of factory workers, Taiwan foundries may be able to escape the fate of low margin OEM producers. Apple uses a single production line model. This is an important economic experiment. It tests the bottom line capabilities of various enterprises.
Now consider Taiwan. The Ma administration is vigorously promoting its "salmon returning home" plan. It is comparable to Obama's attempt to create more jobs for people in the United States. Many Taiwan companies are affected. Taiwan lacks a world leader such as Apple Computer. But many Taiwan businessmen are experienced in international business. They want to give something back to the community. They understand the Taiwan business model and local business conditions. Therefore in the long-term, individual Taiwan businessmen returning home will be able to create jobs, production, or exports, They will be able to catalyze industry and create a coat tails effect.
Obama is not the only one who wants to "bring manufacturing back to the U.S." This is a challenge for enterprises the world. When all manufacturing moves to low-cost regions, what will happen to the working class in developed countries? How will they maintain balance in the economic structure? Today this problem has been laid at Apple's doorstep. How will it solve the problem? How will it rid itself of the sweatshop label? This will present a major challenge.
從蘋果回美設廠到台商鮭魚返鄉
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.13 01:48 am
歐巴馬去年初呼籲美國大企業回美設廠生產，在本土創造就業機會；當時蘋果公司執行長賈伯斯向他直言：「那些工作回不來了」。在賈伯斯逝世一年多後，其接班人庫克宣布斥資一億美元，在美國開設一條MAC電腦生產線。庫克能完成強人賈伯斯認為的「不可能任務」嗎？
工作機會流失的問題，不唯美國如此，全球工業國都因製造業外移而深受其害，甚至導致中產階級的萎縮，台灣亦飽嘗苦果。然而，要企業把工廠從土地、勞工相對便宜的地區遷回國內，立刻要面臨成本升高、供應鍊斷裂、競爭力下降等諸多挑戰，這正是賈伯斯所謂「回不來了」的原因。而今庫克宣示回美設廠，意味他必須克服上述層層阻障，才可能賦予「蘋果重返美國」實質的意義。
對於蘋果生產線「返美」的消息，美國各界多表歡迎，但也有不少人抱著半信半疑的看法，認為這只是蘋果因應外界壓力的「公關策略」之一。蘋果今年遭司法部指控企圖操控電子書價格，輿論批評它靠榨取中國廉價勞工獲取暴利，包括將數百億美元資金留在海外避稅，也遭歐巴馬批評對美國一般納稅人不公。因此，蘋果將若干生產工作移回美國，至少有助消除部分社會壓力，緩解「剝削」之譏。
作為全球市值最大的公司，蘋果擁有五千億美元市值，斥資一億美元返美投資不過是九牛之一毛；如能因此改變社會對它的印象，當然是划算的投資。但以蘋果一向的企圖，若僅滿足於「改善公共關係」這樣簡單的目標，便未免太過淺薄，也無法贏得美國人的尊重；它要做的，不僅是重新賦予「美國製造」的標籤意義，而且要展現「美國生產」的效率和競爭力，打破製造業「有去無回」的詛咒，那才是蘋果真正核心的挑戰。簡單地說，蘋果在大發利市之餘，必須面對自己作為大企業的「社會責任」。
儘管庫克未透露太多投資細節，但從鴻海隨即傳出將赴美設廠，不難看出若干端倪：蘋果返美其實不是單獨行動，而是有部分的產業鍊配合移動。一方面，這是製造業生產裝配必須營造的群聚效應及臍帶關係；另一方面，這樣才能滿足美國政府對「美國製造」商品的自製率要求。換句話說，蘋果一億美元的投資，若能帶動上下游廠商的投資配合，對生產和就業的推升將是以乘數效果計算的。而蘋果若能藉由MAC產線的返美順利躍向iTV的在美生產，那才是更大的成功。
鴻海、廣達等台資企業一向是蘋果重要的組裝廠及零組件供應商，如果要追隨蘋果的腳步移向美國，自不可能再有中國那樣便宜而聽話的勞力可用，而必須藉助更高階的自動化設計及管理來降低生產成本。從這個觀點看，這倒不失為台灣資訊產業尋求蛻變、轉型的契機，若能創造出有別於在大陸工廠的百萬勞工大軍生產模式，台灣代工廠或者能擺脫「毛三到四」的宿命。而蘋果這種「一條生產線先行」的模式，毋寧是一個重要的經濟實驗，測試著各個企業到底有多少能耐。
回看台灣，馬政府正大力推動的「鮭魚返鄉」計畫，跟歐巴馬想為美國人民創造更多就業機會的企圖其實不相上下，而響應的台商亦不在少數。台灣也許缺乏像蘋果電腦那樣全球首屈一指的企業作為領軍，但許多台商富有國際商戰的經驗，具有回饋鄉土的動機和熱情，對台灣本土的經營結構和條件也極了解；因此，長遠看，個別台商返鄉能創造的不僅是就業、生產或出口，也應能催化產業和經濟的連動效應。
「製造業重返美國」，其實不只是歐巴馬的命題，也是整個世界經濟企待解答的命題：當所有製造業都外移至廉價地區後，已開發國家的工人階層將何去何從？經濟結構的平衡如何維持？這個命題，今天落在享盡光鮮的蘋果公司身上，看它如何解題，如何擺脫血汗工廠的譏評，應是深耐咀嚼的挑戰。
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Use the Taiwan Experience, Reclaim Our National Identity
Use the Taiwan Experience, Reclaim Our National Identity
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2012
Summary: President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.
Full Text below:
Between the 10th and the 11th of this month, the Chinese Integration Association and other organizations held a series of seminars in Taipei. Prominent scholars from both sides of the Strait, from both the Blue and Green political camps, gathered in one location. To some extent this was merely a martial arts "exhibition match." It provided representatives from different camps to read aloud their wish lists. The different camps reached no consensus. But it was a positive development and a worthwhile experiment. It promoted communication and sharing. It deserves affirmation.
During the seminars, academics from both sides of the Strait made little mention of how to promote peaceful cross-Strait relations. But there was little disagreement regarding this premise. Regional security and sound cross-Strait relations require it. People on Taiwan need political and economic hope. People on the Mainland need domestic and international stability. Peaceful development is a win-win-win scenario. It is consistent with the interests of all parties.
Many scholars addressed the issue of identity. Some spoke of values-based identity. Some spoke of feeling-based identity. Some addressed real world interests. Some addressed the differences in the two sides' historical and international development. Needless to say each of them addressed the KMT's anti-Communist education, of Beijing's pressure on Taiwan, of Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and the DPP's de-Sinicization education, from their own perspective..
Academia has long recognized that national identity is an extremely complex issue. It involves many facets and levels. It involves biological descent, political systems, culture, emotions, values, rational considerations, real world interests, national origin, and ethnicity. These may be dealt with using progressive methods. Political socialization, education, and publicity can reshape these attitudes. Advocates with different perspectives must not resort to one-sided, biased, and selective arguments to promote their ideological and political agendas.
The public on Taiwan agrees. Biological descent, life styles, religion, and culture never really posed a problem for national identity. But a narrower sense of national identity emerged. The Nationalist government's anti-communist education succeeded too well. The two sides have been separated for a long time. The Mainland authorities have persuaded the international community that they are the legal representatives of China. The disparity between the two sides' strength has increased. On top of this, politicians on Taiwan have successfully incited hatred toward the Mainland. The result is that many on Taiwan have become alienated from their national identity.
Each of the preceding viewpoints have some basis in fact. Beijing should review some of its practices and change some of its attitudes. But none of these are convincing reasons for people on Taiwan to jettison their identity as Chinese. Anti-Communist education was far more strident in the past than it is today. We oppose the Chinese Communist regime. That does not mean we must deny that we are Chinese. Everyone still feels that China belongs to us. We on Taiwan still have a right to the Mainland, and a responsibility for China's future. The government of the Republic of China has never relinquished its hopes and dreams for the Chinese mainland.
Many people cite democracy, the rule of law, and political reform. They use it to underscore the gap between the two sides of the Strait. Some even demand that the Mainland authorities sell us on reunification by upgrading the Mainland's cultural standards. But consider the problems pragmatically. Consider issues such as responsibility, fairness, justice, the rule of law, efficiency, checks and balances, good governance, and policy transparency. The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing these modern standards as well. But this pursuit requires a process. People on Taiwan can underscore their own successful development. Their success can contribute to the modernization of the Chinese nation.
To cut through the fog, many of these issues are merely a matter of attitude. The public on Taiwan is afraid of reunification. People understand this. They refuse to be reunified under the Chinese Communist Party. But does the public have the ability to turn its thinking around? We on Taiwan boast that we are the saviors of Chinese civilization. We boast that we are its innovators. We feel a sense of superiority. Since that is the case, why can't we turn passivity into activity? Why can't we reclaim the ideological high ground? It matters not whether we advocate one China, different interpetations, one China, two regions, or argue that the two sides of the Strait are one people. The fact remains we all claim to be "Sons of the Dragon." We all advocate the modernization of our nation and our people. Why not let the two sides work hand in hand? Why not work together to achieve democracy and prosperity for the Chinese nation as a whole?
China's history is long. The currents of China's history are turbulent. Relative to China's long history, the two sides have been separated only briefly. They have had different political systems only briefly. Their differing political symbols should not constitute a long-term obstacle to a shared national identity. Chinese culture is inclusive, self-correcting, and infinitely adaptable. This trait has earned the world's admiration. Two CCP General Secretaries in a row, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, have said that the two sides must work together to rejuvenate Chinese civilization. President Ma Ying-jeou said we must strengthen Taiwan so that we may rejuvenate the Chinese nation. The two sides should begin here. They should realize that rejuvenating Chinese civilization and seeking a new future together, is their common destiny.
President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.12
社論－貢獻台灣經驗 重建民族認同
本報訊
本月十日到十一日，由兩岸統合學會及其他相關機構合作，
會議中，兩岸學者似乎對於如何深化和平發展兩岸關係討論較少，
眾多學者爭辯的重點在於認同問題。有人談價值認同，
學界研究早已證實，認同是一個極其複雜的問題，
在血緣、生活、宗教、文化及民族認同各方面，
即使前面的各種論點都有部分事實，
再說，許多人常用民主法治、
說穿了，很多事都是心態和立場問題。一般人或能理解，
在浩瀚的歷史長河中，兩岸短期間政治體制的不同、
如果說馬總統的第一任期是在兩岸之間撥亂反正、創造和平，
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 12, 2012
Summary: President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.
Full Text below:
Between the 10th and the 11th of this month, the Chinese Integration Association and other organizations held a series of seminars in Taipei. Prominent scholars from both sides of the Strait, from both the Blue and Green political camps, gathered in one location. To some extent this was merely a martial arts "exhibition match." It provided representatives from different camps to read aloud their wish lists. The different camps reached no consensus. But it was a positive development and a worthwhile experiment. It promoted communication and sharing. It deserves affirmation.
During the seminars, academics from both sides of the Strait made little mention of how to promote peaceful cross-Strait relations. But there was little disagreement regarding this premise. Regional security and sound cross-Strait relations require it. People on Taiwan need political and economic hope. People on the Mainland need domestic and international stability. Peaceful development is a win-win-win scenario. It is consistent with the interests of all parties.
Many scholars addressed the issue of identity. Some spoke of values-based identity. Some spoke of feeling-based identity. Some addressed real world interests. Some addressed the differences in the two sides' historical and international development. Needless to say each of them addressed the KMT's anti-Communist education, of Beijing's pressure on Taiwan, of Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and the DPP's de-Sinicization education, from their own perspective..
Academia has long recognized that national identity is an extremely complex issue. It involves many facets and levels. It involves biological descent, political systems, culture, emotions, values, rational considerations, real world interests, national origin, and ethnicity. These may be dealt with using progressive methods. Political socialization, education, and publicity can reshape these attitudes. Advocates with different perspectives must not resort to one-sided, biased, and selective arguments to promote their ideological and political agendas.
The public on Taiwan agrees. Biological descent, life styles, religion, and culture never really posed a problem for national identity. But a narrower sense of national identity emerged. The Nationalist government's anti-communist education succeeded too well. The two sides have been separated for a long time. The Mainland authorities have persuaded the international community that they are the legal representatives of China. The disparity between the two sides' strength has increased. On top of this, politicians on Taiwan have successfully incited hatred toward the Mainland. The result is that many on Taiwan have become alienated from their national identity.
Each of the preceding viewpoints have some basis in fact. Beijing should review some of its practices and change some of its attitudes. But none of these are convincing reasons for people on Taiwan to jettison their identity as Chinese. Anti-Communist education was far more strident in the past than it is today. We oppose the Chinese Communist regime. That does not mean we must deny that we are Chinese. Everyone still feels that China belongs to us. We on Taiwan still have a right to the Mainland, and a responsibility for China's future. The government of the Republic of China has never relinquished its hopes and dreams for the Chinese mainland.
Many people cite democracy, the rule of law, and political reform. They use it to underscore the gap between the two sides of the Strait. Some even demand that the Mainland authorities sell us on reunification by upgrading the Mainland's cultural standards. But consider the problems pragmatically. Consider issues such as responsibility, fairness, justice, the rule of law, efficiency, checks and balances, good governance, and policy transparency. The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing these modern standards as well. But this pursuit requires a process. People on Taiwan can underscore their own successful development. Their success can contribute to the modernization of the Chinese nation.
To cut through the fog, many of these issues are merely a matter of attitude. The public on Taiwan is afraid of reunification. People understand this. They refuse to be reunified under the Chinese Communist Party. But does the public have the ability to turn its thinking around? We on Taiwan boast that we are the saviors of Chinese civilization. We boast that we are its innovators. We feel a sense of superiority. Since that is the case, why can't we turn passivity into activity? Why can't we reclaim the ideological high ground? It matters not whether we advocate one China, different interpetations, one China, two regions, or argue that the two sides of the Strait are one people. The fact remains we all claim to be "Sons of the Dragon." We all advocate the modernization of our nation and our people. Why not let the two sides work hand in hand? Why not work together to achieve democracy and prosperity for the Chinese nation as a whole?
China's history is long. The currents of China's history are turbulent. Relative to China's long history, the two sides have been separated only briefly. They have had different political systems only briefly. Their differing political symbols should not constitute a long-term obstacle to a shared national identity. Chinese culture is inclusive, self-correcting, and infinitely adaptable. This trait has earned the world's admiration. Two CCP General Secretaries in a row, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, have said that the two sides must work together to rejuvenate Chinese civilization. President Ma Ying-jeou said we must strengthen Taiwan so that we may rejuvenate the Chinese nation. The two sides should begin here. They should realize that rejuvenating Chinese civilization and seeking a new future together, is their common destiny.
President Ma's first term brought order out of chaos. It established cross-Strait peace. His second term should be devoted to the rebirth of the nation as well as the consolidation of peace. The consolidation of peace, the promotion of mutual trust, and the restoration of our national identity require a cross-Strait joint effort. But most of all we hope the President will offer a new vision on New Year's Day. We hope he will offer concrete reasons and take concrete actions. With peaceful cross-strait relations as a premise, we hope he will help the nation reach a consensus concerning our national identity, and thereby offer new prospects for cross-Strait relations. Achieving these would ensure President Ma's legacy and his place in history.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.12
社論－貢獻台灣經驗 重建民族認同
本報訊
本月十日到十一日，由兩岸統合學會及其他相關機構合作，
會議中，兩岸學者似乎對於如何深化和平發展兩岸關係討論較少，
眾多學者爭辯的重點在於認同問題。有人談價值認同，
學界研究早已證實，認同是一個極其複雜的問題，
在血緣、生活、宗教、文化及民族認同各方面，
即使前面的各種論點都有部分事實，
再說，許多人常用民主法治、
說穿了，很多事都是心態和立場問題。一般人或能理解，
在浩瀚的歷史長河中，兩岸短期間政治體制的不同、
如果說馬總統的第一任期是在兩岸之間撥亂反正、創造和平，
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Literature's Impact on Hearts and Minds Trumps Political Controversy
Literature's Impact on Hearts and Minds Trumps Political Controversy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2012
Summary: Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
Full Text below:
Have any Chinese ever won the Nobel Prize prior to Mo Yan? Yes, they have. But they include Chen Ning Yang, Tsung-Dao Lee, Samuel Ting, Yuan T. Lee, Gao Xingjian. None of them were Chinese nationals. Has no citizen of Mainland China ever won the Nobel Prize? Yes, but the only winner is currently locked away in a Mainland prison. His name is Liu Xiaobo.
This allows us to understand the significance of Mo Yan's Nobel Prize. It was never purely an individual achievement. It was the result of a century of longing for international respect and affirmation, and a concentrated effort to overcome repeated frustrations. These frustrations include two related but not identical matters. One is national culture. The other is national politics.
People of Chinese descent have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, and other sciences. This allieviated some of the frustrations felt by Mainland Chinese regarding China's culture. But it did not affirm the PRC as a political entity. If anything, PRC leaders experienced even more frustrations. These frustrations were intensified when Gao Xingjian and Liu Xiaobo received awards. One disagreed with the Mainland authorities and sought self-imposed exile. The other chose to remain in the country, but as a staunch dissident. The Nobel Prize affirmed certain values. But these were clearly contrary to those of the Mainland authorities.
One may or may not like Mo Yan. One may or may not agree with him. But he is the first Mainland Chinese recipient of the Nobel Prize. He is the first Mainland Chinese recipient who agrees with the Mainland authorities, who accepts the Mainland authorities, whose receipt of the Nobel Prize represent recognition of the Chinese people. Compared to other Nobel laureates, he is on relatively good terms with the Mainland authorities. His relationship with the Mainland authorities is close. Naturally he stands out.
Therefore Mo Yan will inevitably will be put to the microscope. The Mainland authorities and the Nobel Committee have axes to grind. Therefore people will see Mo Yuan a certain way. They will define Mo Yan a certain way. They will see him and define him not by his literary contributions. They will see him and define him not by his creativity. They will say "He was not a dissident."
Some may pay special tribute to him because he is not a dissident. Others may slander him because he is not a dissident. It is true that Mo Yan is not a dissident. He is not particularly concerned about society's ills. He is an intellectual who holds no strong views about about society. This is a fact. This will not change merely because he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
But here is the important point. Mo Yan is just like hundreds of millions of other people on the Mainland. He did not choose to be a dissent. His relationship with the Mainland authorities. is no better or worse than most other people on the Mainland. Some will demean his work and his conduct. They will denounce him as a lackey. Such characterizations are unfair. They are vicious distortions. They are emotion based demonizations.
Hundreds of millions of people are non-dissidents. But only Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Why? The answer must be found in the field of literature.
The Nobel Prize is awarded only once a year. The award is awarded to only a single individual. This does not mean that the winner is "number one in the world." This does not mean others do not compare. It does mean however that his achievements have attained the highest possible level. Compared to his peers, circumstances this year were in his favor. Hence the award.
Mo Yan's work uses rural vernacular to create rich images and strange fantasies. Mo paints a picture of a northeastern China village that is both familiar and alien. This constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan toiled long and hard on his novels. He deftly moves or shocks readers with novels of different lengths. He is noble, forceful, contemptible, vulgar, brutal, gentle. This too constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan's novels fall between realism and fantasy. They echo trends in world literature. But they do not merely mimic existing techniques. They evince self-esteem and self-confidence. He endlessly searches and experiments with his novel writing technique. He is especially concerned about the magic of story-telling. In this respect he has achieved something that cannot be ignored. He has achieved something from which others can learn.
Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
We hope the political controversy will be temporary. We think it will be. Literature touches our hearts and minds. It is more enduring than political controversy. Mo Yan had no choice. He could not escape. He accepted this historic award amidst controversy. Hopefully, the dust from the controversy will subside. People the world over will reassert the primacy of literature over politics. They will recognize Mo Yan's real contribution to Chinese literature, and even world literature.
文學的感動與思考應該比爭議更長遠些
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.11 03:28 am
在莫言之前，有沒有中國人得過諾貝爾獎？有，但他們，包括楊振寧、李政道、丁肇中、李遠哲、高行健，他們都不是中國籍。難道沒有一個中國大陸公民得過諾貝爾獎？有，但那唯一的獲獎者，現在卻關在中國的牢裡，他就是劉曉波。
放在這樣的背景下，或許可以更清楚看出莫言獲獎的意義。諾貝爾獎對中國而言，從來都不是一個單純的個人成就獎，而是凝聚了一百多年想望與挫折的投射焦點──要在國際上得到尊重與肯定的想望，及久求不得累積的挫折。這種挫折有著相關卻不盡相同的兩面，民族文化的一面，和國家政治的一面。
物理、化學等科學領域選出了華人血統的諾貝爾獎得主，有助於紓解中國大陸民族文化面的挫折，卻對國家政治面沒有幫助，甚至還反而強化這方面的挫折。尤其是高行健和劉曉波先後得獎，一位是不認同中共政權的自我流放者，一位是堅決的內部異議分子，諾貝爾獎肯定的價值，顯然與中國國家立場相反。
不管莫言喜不喜歡、同不同意，他就是第一個認同中共政府，也為中共政府接受，又為諾貝爾獎表揚的中國人。和其他受獎者相比，和中共政府的友善、密切關係，很自然地凸顯出來了。
於是莫言在這方面的所有表現，也就無可避免一定會被放大檢驗、討論。放在這樣的中國與諾貝爾獎的糾結中，人們首先看到了，用來定位莫言的，不會是他的文學，不會是他的創作者身分，而是「他不是一個異議者」。
有人因為他不是個異議者而特別讚揚他，也就有人因為他不是個異議者而痛詆他。莫言的確不是個異議者，他甚至不是一個特別關心社會，對社會抱持特殊意見、立場的知識分子。這是個事實，不會也不能因為他得了諾貝爾獎就改變了的。
不過重點在：莫言不過就是和中國大陸的幾億人一樣，沒有選擇作為一個異議者，他和中共當局的關係，不比絕大部分大陸人民緊張，也不比絕大部分大陸人民緊密。從他的作品和他的行事上硬要將他描繪成體制的奴才，那是不公平的深文周納，過激羅織。
幾億人都採取了這種非異議者的立場，卻只有莫言得了諾貝爾文學獎，為什麼？答案顯然還是只能回到文學的領域裡來尋找。
一年只頒一次，只有一位得主的獎項，一定不可能意味著得主就是「世界第一」，把其他人都比下去了；而是他的成就到達了最高的層級，在和其他同等級的大家相較下，今年對他有利的條件特別多，於是由他獲獎。
莫言的作品創造了一種可以承載豐富意象與奇情幻想的鄉土語言，已知描繪了一個看來既親切又陌生的「高密東北鄉」，這是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言對於小說孜孜矻矻的長久追求，能夠在不同篇幅的小說中自在優遊地書寫出不同的文學感動或震撼，可雄渾可鄙瑣可高貴可粗俗可殘酷可溫柔，這又是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言的小說，出入於寫實與魔幻之間，呼應著國際文壇的浪潮，然而卻又不僅只是片面模仿既有的技法，帶著自尊與自信，他不斷琢磨、實驗自己的小說理論，尤其是關注故事與說故事的人的神奇關係，這方面，他也自有不容忽視，可以提供其他人借鏡的成就。
莫言的成就，可以和之前獲得諾貝爾文學獎的各國大家，無愧並列，平起平坐．莫言對於中文的原創性開展，更是足以讓同屬華文世界的我們欣慰可以不經翻譯直接閱讀領會。
我們衷心期待，政治上的激情爭議是一時的，而文學帶來的深沉感動與思考，可以更為長遠。莫言無可選擇、無可逃避，必須要在爭議中領取這歷史性的獎項，但願爭議塵囂落下後，世人能夠回歸文學本位，認知莫言對於華文文學，乃至於世界文學的確實貢獻。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 11, 2012
Summary: Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
Full Text below:
Have any Chinese ever won the Nobel Prize prior to Mo Yan? Yes, they have. But they include Chen Ning Yang, Tsung-Dao Lee, Samuel Ting, Yuan T. Lee, Gao Xingjian. None of them were Chinese nationals. Has no citizen of Mainland China ever won the Nobel Prize? Yes, but the only winner is currently locked away in a Mainland prison. His name is Liu Xiaobo.
This allows us to understand the significance of Mo Yan's Nobel Prize. It was never purely an individual achievement. It was the result of a century of longing for international respect and affirmation, and a concentrated effort to overcome repeated frustrations. These frustrations include two related but not identical matters. One is national culture. The other is national politics.
People of Chinese descent have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, and other sciences. This allieviated some of the frustrations felt by Mainland Chinese regarding China's culture. But it did not affirm the PRC as a political entity. If anything, PRC leaders experienced even more frustrations. These frustrations were intensified when Gao Xingjian and Liu Xiaobo received awards. One disagreed with the Mainland authorities and sought self-imposed exile. The other chose to remain in the country, but as a staunch dissident. The Nobel Prize affirmed certain values. But these were clearly contrary to those of the Mainland authorities.
One may or may not like Mo Yan. One may or may not agree with him. But he is the first Mainland Chinese recipient of the Nobel Prize. He is the first Mainland Chinese recipient who agrees with the Mainland authorities, who accepts the Mainland authorities, whose receipt of the Nobel Prize represent recognition of the Chinese people. Compared to other Nobel laureates, he is on relatively good terms with the Mainland authorities. His relationship with the Mainland authorities is close. Naturally he stands out.
Therefore Mo Yan will inevitably will be put to the microscope. The Mainland authorities and the Nobel Committee have axes to grind. Therefore people will see Mo Yuan a certain way. They will define Mo Yan a certain way. They will see him and define him not by his literary contributions. They will see him and define him not by his creativity. They will say "He was not a dissident."
Some may pay special tribute to him because he is not a dissident. Others may slander him because he is not a dissident. It is true that Mo Yan is not a dissident. He is not particularly concerned about society's ills. He is an intellectual who holds no strong views about about society. This is a fact. This will not change merely because he was awarded the Nobel Prize.
But here is the important point. Mo Yan is just like hundreds of millions of other people on the Mainland. He did not choose to be a dissent. His relationship with the Mainland authorities. is no better or worse than most other people on the Mainland. Some will demean his work and his conduct. They will denounce him as a lackey. Such characterizations are unfair. They are vicious distortions. They are emotion based demonizations.
Hundreds of millions of people are non-dissidents. But only Mo Yan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Why? The answer must be found in the field of literature.
The Nobel Prize is awarded only once a year. The award is awarded to only a single individual. This does not mean that the winner is "number one in the world." This does not mean others do not compare. It does mean however that his achievements have attained the highest possible level. Compared to his peers, circumstances this year were in his favor. Hence the award.
Mo Yan's work uses rural vernacular to create rich images and strange fantasies. Mo paints a picture of a northeastern China village that is both familiar and alien. This constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan toiled long and hard on his novels. He deftly moves or shocks readers with novels of different lengths. He is noble, forceful, contemptible, vulgar, brutal, gentle. This too constitutes a remarkable literary achievement.
Mo Yan's novels fall between realism and fantasy. They echo trends in world literature. But they do not merely mimic existing techniques. They evince self-esteem and self-confidence. He endlessly searches and experiments with his novel writing technique. He is especially concerned about the magic of story-telling. In this respect he has achieved something that cannot be ignored. He has achieved something from which others can learn.
Mo Yan's achievements can be put on the same footing as the works of other Nobel laureates. They are able to withstand comparisons. Mo Yan's originality is apparent in the original text. The Chinese-speaking world can read it directly, without the need for translation.
We hope the political controversy will be temporary. We think it will be. Literature touches our hearts and minds. It is more enduring than political controversy. Mo Yan had no choice. He could not escape. He accepted this historic award amidst controversy. Hopefully, the dust from the controversy will subside. People the world over will reassert the primacy of literature over politics. They will recognize Mo Yan's real contribution to Chinese literature, and even world literature.
文學的感動與思考應該比爭議更長遠些
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.11 03:28 am
在莫言之前，有沒有中國人得過諾貝爾獎？有，但他們，包括楊振寧、李政道、丁肇中、李遠哲、高行健，他們都不是中國籍。難道沒有一個中國大陸公民得過諾貝爾獎？有，但那唯一的獲獎者，現在卻關在中國的牢裡，他就是劉曉波。
放在這樣的背景下，或許可以更清楚看出莫言獲獎的意義。諾貝爾獎對中國而言，從來都不是一個單純的個人成就獎，而是凝聚了一百多年想望與挫折的投射焦點──要在國際上得到尊重與肯定的想望，及久求不得累積的挫折。這種挫折有著相關卻不盡相同的兩面，民族文化的一面，和國家政治的一面。
物理、化學等科學領域選出了華人血統的諾貝爾獎得主，有助於紓解中國大陸民族文化面的挫折，卻對國家政治面沒有幫助，甚至還反而強化這方面的挫折。尤其是高行健和劉曉波先後得獎，一位是不認同中共政權的自我流放者，一位是堅決的內部異議分子，諾貝爾獎肯定的價值，顯然與中國國家立場相反。
不管莫言喜不喜歡、同不同意，他就是第一個認同中共政府，也為中共政府接受，又為諾貝爾獎表揚的中國人。和其他受獎者相比，和中共政府的友善、密切關係，很自然地凸顯出來了。
於是莫言在這方面的所有表現，也就無可避免一定會被放大檢驗、討論。放在這樣的中國與諾貝爾獎的糾結中，人們首先看到了，用來定位莫言的，不會是他的文學，不會是他的創作者身分，而是「他不是一個異議者」。
有人因為他不是個異議者而特別讚揚他，也就有人因為他不是個異議者而痛詆他。莫言的確不是個異議者，他甚至不是一個特別關心社會，對社會抱持特殊意見、立場的知識分子。這是個事實，不會也不能因為他得了諾貝爾獎就改變了的。
不過重點在：莫言不過就是和中國大陸的幾億人一樣，沒有選擇作為一個異議者，他和中共當局的關係，不比絕大部分大陸人民緊張，也不比絕大部分大陸人民緊密。從他的作品和他的行事上硬要將他描繪成體制的奴才，那是不公平的深文周納，過激羅織。
幾億人都採取了這種非異議者的立場，卻只有莫言得了諾貝爾文學獎，為什麼？答案顯然還是只能回到文學的領域裡來尋找。
一年只頒一次，只有一位得主的獎項，一定不可能意味著得主就是「世界第一」，把其他人都比下去了；而是他的成就到達了最高的層級，在和其他同等級的大家相較下，今年對他有利的條件特別多，於是由他獲獎。
莫言的作品創造了一種可以承載豐富意象與奇情幻想的鄉土語言，已知描繪了一個看來既親切又陌生的「高密東北鄉」，這是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言對於小說孜孜矻矻的長久追求，能夠在不同篇幅的小說中自在優遊地書寫出不同的文學感動或震撼，可雄渾可鄙瑣可高貴可粗俗可殘酷可溫柔，這又是項了不起的文學成就。
莫言的小說，出入於寫實與魔幻之間，呼應著國際文壇的浪潮，然而卻又不僅只是片面模仿既有的技法，帶著自尊與自信，他不斷琢磨、實驗自己的小說理論，尤其是關注故事與說故事的人的神奇關係，這方面，他也自有不容忽視，可以提供其他人借鏡的成就。
莫言的成就，可以和之前獲得諾貝爾文學獎的各國大家，無愧並列，平起平坐．莫言對於中文的原創性開展，更是足以讓同屬華文世界的我們欣慰可以不經翻譯直接閱讀領會。
我們衷心期待，政治上的激情爭議是一時的，而文學帶來的深沉感動與思考，可以更為長遠。莫言無可選擇、無可逃避，必須要在爭議中領取這歷史性的獎項，但願爭議塵囂落下後，世人能夠回歸文學本位，認知莫言對於華文文學，乃至於世界文學的確實貢獻。
Monday, December 10, 2012
Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption
Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2012
Summary: Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
Full Text below:
Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
The Republic of China government implemented local autonomy on Taiwan 60 years ago. County and municipal level governments underwent ruling party changes long ago. Within the system we have parliamentary checks and balances. Without the system we have an aggressive media. We have intellectuals concerned about public affairs. We have public interest groups and self-help groups with a high degree of initiative. All these provide checks and balances on government. The executive power is subject to these constraints. County chiefs, city mayors, and other authorities should find embezzlement difficult. But if we local self-government up close and personal, we discover to our dismay that the checks and balances are hollow, and that oversight is not working. Special political and economic interests persist in wanton disregard of the law, and do whatever they wish.
Within the system, county councils and city councils ought to provide effective checks and balances. County councils and city councils have the authority to approve or disapprove budgets. They have the authority to prevent executive waste and abuse of power. They are in a position to expose government abuse of power. They are in a position to challenge the government on behalf of the taxpayers, in accord with the public interest. But in practice these checks and balances have become the very means by which county councils and city council-based special interest groups divvy up the loot. County councils and city councils have their angles. They take advantage of construction projects to distribute political pork. They make sweetheart deals with lobbyists. Businessmen go along to get along with these county councils and city councils. Conversely, businessmen who refuse to play ball find it impossible to receive fair treatment during the bidding process. The result is the hollowing out of parliamentary checks and balances, which have become mere show.
Without the system, the media were once the eyes and ears of the citizens. They provided oversight on the citizens' behalf. They provided a local public affairs forum. But the rise of the Internet has provided us with free information. The traditional media is operating at a loss. It is scaling back operations. It is giving up on the provision of serious content. Reporters seldom cover county council and city council budget reviews. The media seldom reports on such matters. If citizens or citizens groups fail to audit these proceedings, government budgets and their contents will remain unknown. They will be hidden from the light of day. They will become opportunities for government business collusion.
The Government has for sure enacted procurement laws. Tender offers over a certain amount must be posted on the Internet. Major tender offers must be recorded on video. But websites are usually designed for bidding vendors, not the average citizen. The videos of the bidding procedures are merely for backup. They are not made public. They contribute nothing to transparency. From a practical perspective, the higher the visibility, the stricter the constraints. The bidding process should be webcast live, in audio and video formats. Every citizen should be able to listen or watch in real time. The effect would be more powerful than having the Director of the Government Ethics Office in attendance.
Modern digital technology is advanced. Advanced democracies already use digital technology to make the vast amounts of data gathered by the government and the business community available. This promotes open and transparent government. On Taiwan all levels of government use public funds to collect all sorts of raw data. This process must be made as open as possible. It must be made convenient for taxpayers to use. For example, the more that environmental data is made available to public interest groups, the more environmentalists will be able to use the data to protect the environment. The more that police departments provide law enforcement and traffic data, the easier it will be for citizens to avoid violating county and municipal laws.
Current county chiefs and city mayors stand on the front lines. They deal with public opinion. They must remain close to the people. They are surrounded by council factions, special interest groups, ward heelers, wealthy king-makers, and ordinary voters. As a result many decisions involve political risks. The county chiefs and city mayors can use the Internet to make available mountains of administrative data. Increased transparency will enable citizen oversight. It may hinder the officals' own operations. But it would be backed by a majority of the public. It would constrain those tempted to abuse their privileged status. In short, an open and transparent system is more secure than a simple wolf pack.
During an economic downturn, the government is the marketplace's biggest customer. Putting tender offers on the Internet is merely one small step. The Internet Age will increase transparency. All manufacturers who make tender offers must make their information available. They must publish the amount of their tender offers. They must publish their contributions to political parties and elected officials. The raw data must be disclosed. This data must be made available to county chiefs and city mayors. It must be cross-checked against the county chiefs' and county councilors' political contributions and other data. Only then can we ensure market order and fair competition.
Local governments are responsible for local construction projects. These pertain to ordinary folk. There is little need for secrecy. Limiting access to this information merely creates a hotbed of corruption. The iron rule for anti-corruption is openness and transparency. Sunshine is the best antidote to corruption. The Internet provides that sunshine. Digital technology provides the brightest source of light. The government must make this data as open and available as possible. Tender offers must be webcast in real time. The names of the bidders must be made public. The winning bidder must be made public. The names of political contributors to county chief and city mayor elections must be made public. Counties chiefs, city mayors, and ordinary citizens must be able go online and view the information. In sum, the greater the visibility, the greater assurance of fairness.
用網路陽光防治地方貪腐
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.09
中華民國治下的台閩地區只有二十二位縣市長，
一日之內竟有兩名縣長因貪腐案涉訟；一因採購弊案被起訴，一因工程索賄弊案遭收押，還牽拖出一票公務員、學者專家、親戚同陷訟累。納稅人看著這些平日衣冠楚楚的權貴人物，暗室交易時竟如此沆瀣一氣，豈能不對現有法制失望，甚至對好貪的人性悲觀，又豈能不亟思有以救治。
台灣實施地方自治六十年，縣市層級早已實現政黨輪政，體制內有議會制衡，體制外有活躍的媒體、關心公眾事務的知識分子、各種公益團體及機動性高的自救型利益團體，均能監督制衡政府；行政權既受如此制約，掌權的縣市長和機關主管理應難以勾串貪墨。可是細察地方自治實務，卻發現制衡空洞、監督失焦，政經利益共生體仍常無視法紀而為所欲為。
體制面，縣市議會應是監督制衡政府最有力的機構，議會手握預算審查權，可防止行政濫權和浪費，能揭發政府顢頇，代表納稅人問政，行符合公益之事。但實際操作下來，原有制衡功能設計，竟變成議會各種利益次團體分贓的憑藉；縣市政府為求行事便宜，用分配工程預算、釋放政策利多、接受遊說關說等工具妥協，使依附議會主流勢力的商人有糖吃；反之，未附從的公司行號很難有公平競標機會。以致議會制衡空洞化，幾成秀場。
體制外，媒體原是縣市公民的眼睛，可代位監看政府運作，扮演地方公共事務論壇角色。可是網路崛起後，充斥免費信息，傳媒原有的營運利基流失，乃縮減版面，放棄若干嚴肅內容。今天縣市議會審查預算，已少見記者株守聽審，媒體上幾乎看不到相關訊息。公民或團體若不進議場旁聽，亦無從得知公部門預算科目、經費與實質內容，陽光照不到的地方，最容易成為地方政經特權組合的俎上肉。
政府確實頒行了採購法，一定金額以上標案都要上網公開，重大標案開標時會錄音錄影。可是網站設計以參與競標廠商為對象，非為一般公民能輕鬆讀懂而設想；開標現場的錄音錄影，只是備用檔案，並不公開，難謂透明。從務實的觀點而言，有愈多雙眼睛看，便愈有制約的力量，開標影音若上網轉播實況，不特定公民能即時觀察，會比政風室主任臨場坐鎮，更有震懾威力。
現代數位科技進步，民主先進國家已在運用數位技術開放政府和工商界所蒐集的龐大數據，推動公開透明的陽光政府機制。台灣各級政府用公帑蒐集的各類原始數據，理應盡可能公開，方便所有納稅人使用；譬如環保數據公布得愈多，民間公益團體、環保達人必更能發揚才智，共維生態安全。警察局公開的治安、交通數據愈多，縣市公民會更懂得趨吉避凶。
當下的縣市長既站在面對民意的第一線，當然要有融入群眾的親和力；又置身於議會派系、利益團體、抬轎樁腳、政治金主、投票選民的包圍下，故而，很多決策都伴隨風險。縣市長如能借助網路，大量公開行政數據，用透明化導入公民監督機制，雖可能妨礙自己施展，但背靠廣大公民，必能有力約束欲行險謀求特權者的脅制；也就是說，公開透明的機制，比僅憑一己之力周旋於狼群間，安全得多。
不景氣的時候，政府是市場最大宗生意來源，現行把標案公開上網，只是一小步；網路時代，需加速加大公開透明的步伐，凡承做政府標案的廠商均應公開其負責人資料，公布得標件數金額，公開歷來對政黨和民選公職人員的捐獻。唯有公開原始數據，讓這些數據接受與縣市長、縣市議員公布的政治獻金等其他數據交叉比對，才能規範市場公平競爭秩序。
地方政府業務不外基層建設、庶民生活，幾無保密必要，只讓信息在小範圍內公開，反成貪腐淵藪。防貪鐵律就是公開透明，讓陽光當防腐劑；網路陽光，則是數位科技提供的最佳光源。政府應考慮盡量公開各項數據資料，在網路上實況轉播開標，公開審標人員名單，公開得標廠商負責人名字，公開縣市長、議員政治獻金名單，讓縣市公民都能上網檢視。總而言之，愈多眼睛看到的事，愈禁得起公正考驗。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2012
Summary: Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
Full Text below:
Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?
The Republic of China government implemented local autonomy on Taiwan 60 years ago. County and municipal level governments underwent ruling party changes long ago. Within the system we have parliamentary checks and balances. Without the system we have an aggressive media. We have intellectuals concerned about public affairs. We have public interest groups and self-help groups with a high degree of initiative. All these provide checks and balances on government. The executive power is subject to these constraints. County chiefs, city mayors, and other authorities should find embezzlement difficult. But if we local self-government up close and personal, we discover to our dismay that the checks and balances are hollow, and that oversight is not working. Special political and economic interests persist in wanton disregard of the law, and do whatever they wish.
Within the system, county councils and city councils ought to provide effective checks and balances. County councils and city councils have the authority to approve or disapprove budgets. They have the authority to prevent executive waste and abuse of power. They are in a position to expose government abuse of power. They are in a position to challenge the government on behalf of the taxpayers, in accord with the public interest. But in practice these checks and balances have become the very means by which county councils and city council-based special interest groups divvy up the loot. County councils and city councils have their angles. They take advantage of construction projects to distribute political pork. They make sweetheart deals with lobbyists. Businessmen go along to get along with these county councils and city councils. Conversely, businessmen who refuse to play ball find it impossible to receive fair treatment during the bidding process. The result is the hollowing out of parliamentary checks and balances, which have become mere show.
Without the system, the media were once the eyes and ears of the citizens. They provided oversight on the citizens' behalf. They provided a local public affairs forum. But the rise of the Internet has provided us with free information. The traditional media is operating at a loss. It is scaling back operations. It is giving up on the provision of serious content. Reporters seldom cover county council and city council budget reviews. The media seldom reports on such matters. If citizens or citizens groups fail to audit these proceedings, government budgets and their contents will remain unknown. They will be hidden from the light of day. They will become opportunities for government business collusion.
The Government has for sure enacted procurement laws. Tender offers over a certain amount must be posted on the Internet. Major tender offers must be recorded on video. But websites are usually designed for bidding vendors, not the average citizen. The videos of the bidding procedures are merely for backup. They are not made public. They contribute nothing to transparency. From a practical perspective, the higher the visibility, the stricter the constraints. The bidding process should be webcast live, in audio and video formats. Every citizen should be able to listen or watch in real time. The effect would be more powerful than having the Director of the Government Ethics Office in attendance.
Modern digital technology is advanced. Advanced democracies already use digital technology to make the vast amounts of data gathered by the government and the business community available. This promotes open and transparent government. On Taiwan all levels of government use public funds to collect all sorts of raw data. This process must be made as open as possible. It must be made convenient for taxpayers to use. For example, the more that environmental data is made available to public interest groups, the more environmentalists will be able to use the data to protect the environment. The more that police departments provide law enforcement and traffic data, the easier it will be for citizens to avoid violating county and municipal laws.
Current county chiefs and city mayors stand on the front lines. They deal with public opinion. They must remain close to the people. They are surrounded by council factions, special interest groups, ward heelers, wealthy king-makers, and ordinary voters. As a result many decisions involve political risks. The county chiefs and city mayors can use the Internet to make available mountains of administrative data. Increased transparency will enable citizen oversight. It may hinder the officals' own operations. But it would be backed by a majority of the public. It would constrain those tempted to abuse their privileged status. In short, an open and transparent system is more secure than a simple wolf pack.
During an economic downturn, the government is the marketplace's biggest customer. Putting tender offers on the Internet is merely one small step. The Internet Age will increase transparency. All manufacturers who make tender offers must make their information available. They must publish the amount of their tender offers. They must publish their contributions to political parties and elected officials. The raw data must be disclosed. This data must be made available to county chiefs and city mayors. It must be cross-checked against the county chiefs' and county councilors' political contributions and other data. Only then can we ensure market order and fair competition.
Local governments are responsible for local construction projects. These pertain to ordinary folk. There is little need for secrecy. Limiting access to this information merely creates a hotbed of corruption. The iron rule for anti-corruption is openness and transparency. Sunshine is the best antidote to corruption. The Internet provides that sunshine. Digital technology provides the brightest source of light. The government must make this data as open and available as possible. Tender offers must be webcast in real time. The names of the bidders must be made public. The winning bidder must be made public. The names of political contributors to county chief and city mayor elections must be made public. Counties chiefs, city mayors, and ordinary citizens must be able go online and view the information. In sum, the greater the visibility, the greater assurance of fairness.
用網路陽光防治地方貪腐
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.09
中華民國治下的台閩地區只有二十二位縣市長，
一日之內竟有兩名縣長因貪腐案涉訟；一因採購弊案被起訴，一因工程索賄弊案遭收押，還牽拖出一票公務員、學者專家、親戚同陷訟累。納稅人看著這些平日衣冠楚楚的權貴人物，暗室交易時竟如此沆瀣一氣，豈能不對現有法制失望，甚至對好貪的人性悲觀，又豈能不亟思有以救治。
台灣實施地方自治六十年，縣市層級早已實現政黨輪政，體制內有議會制衡，體制外有活躍的媒體、關心公眾事務的知識分子、各種公益團體及機動性高的自救型利益團體，均能監督制衡政府；行政權既受如此制約，掌權的縣市長和機關主管理應難以勾串貪墨。可是細察地方自治實務，卻發現制衡空洞、監督失焦，政經利益共生體仍常無視法紀而為所欲為。
體制面，縣市議會應是監督制衡政府最有力的機構，議會手握預算審查權，可防止行政濫權和浪費，能揭發政府顢頇，代表納稅人問政，行符合公益之事。但實際操作下來，原有制衡功能設計，竟變成議會各種利益次團體分贓的憑藉；縣市政府為求行事便宜，用分配工程預算、釋放政策利多、接受遊說關說等工具妥協，使依附議會主流勢力的商人有糖吃；反之，未附從的公司行號很難有公平競標機會。以致議會制衡空洞化，幾成秀場。
體制外，媒體原是縣市公民的眼睛，可代位監看政府運作，扮演地方公共事務論壇角色。可是網路崛起後，充斥免費信息，傳媒原有的營運利基流失，乃縮減版面，放棄若干嚴肅內容。今天縣市議會審查預算，已少見記者株守聽審，媒體上幾乎看不到相關訊息。公民或團體若不進議場旁聽，亦無從得知公部門預算科目、經費與實質內容，陽光照不到的地方，最容易成為地方政經特權組合的俎上肉。
政府確實頒行了採購法，一定金額以上標案都要上網公開，重大標案開標時會錄音錄影。可是網站設計以參與競標廠商為對象，非為一般公民能輕鬆讀懂而設想；開標現場的錄音錄影，只是備用檔案，並不公開，難謂透明。從務實的觀點而言，有愈多雙眼睛看，便愈有制約的力量，開標影音若上網轉播實況，不特定公民能即時觀察，會比政風室主任臨場坐鎮，更有震懾威力。
現代數位科技進步，民主先進國家已在運用數位技術開放政府和工商界所蒐集的龐大數據，推動公開透明的陽光政府機制。台灣各級政府用公帑蒐集的各類原始數據，理應盡可能公開，方便所有納稅人使用；譬如環保數據公布得愈多，民間公益團體、環保達人必更能發揚才智，共維生態安全。警察局公開的治安、交通數據愈多，縣市公民會更懂得趨吉避凶。
當下的縣市長既站在面對民意的第一線，當然要有融入群眾的親和力；又置身於議會派系、利益團體、抬轎樁腳、政治金主、投票選民的包圍下，故而，很多決策都伴隨風險。縣市長如能借助網路，大量公開行政數據，用透明化導入公民監督機制，雖可能妨礙自己施展，但背靠廣大公民，必能有力約束欲行險謀求特權者的脅制；也就是說，公開透明的機制，比僅憑一己之力周旋於狼群間，安全得多。
不景氣的時候，政府是市場最大宗生意來源，現行把標案公開上網，只是一小步；網路時代，需加速加大公開透明的步伐，凡承做政府標案的廠商均應公開其負責人資料，公布得標件數金額，公開歷來對政黨和民選公職人員的捐獻。唯有公開原始數據，讓這些數據接受與縣市長、縣市議員公布的政治獻金等其他數據交叉比對，才能規範市場公平競爭秩序。
地方政府業務不外基層建設、庶民生活，幾無保密必要，只讓信息在小範圍內公開，反成貪腐淵藪。防貪鐵律就是公開透明，讓陽光當防腐劑；網路陽光，則是數位科技提供的最佳光源。政府應考慮盡量公開各項數據資料，在網路上實況轉播開標，公開審標人員名單，公開得標廠商負責人名字，公開縣市長、議員政治獻金名單，讓縣市公民都能上網檢視。總而言之，愈多眼睛看到的事，愈禁得起公正考驗。
Thursday, December 6, 2012
East Asian Turmoil: Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
East Asian Turmoil:
Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2012
Summary: This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
Full Text below:
This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
North Korea announced that between the 10th and 22nd of this month, it would launch a Galaxy III long-range Satellite Launch Vehicle, carrying a self-developed "Bright Star 3 dual mode (?) satellite. But observers say the satellites launches are mere cover. In fact, North Korea is test firing a Taepodong II long-range ballistic missile.
North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un assumed power in April. North Korea conducted a similar "satellite" launch, which ended in failure. South Korea and the U.S. military seized much of the debris to study. December 17 is the first anniversary of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. It is also Kim Jong-un's first anniversary as his successor. We now face a South Korean presidential election. North Korea has decided to conduct further missile tests. One. It is trumpeting its military might. Two. It is applying pressure on the South Korean elections. Three. It is strengthening the leadership and prestige of Kim Jong-un. It is attempting to make up for the previous failure. Four. It is gathering experience in order to improve its missile launch technology. Five. It is increasing its bargaining chips with the United States.
South Korea's upcoming election pits conservative New Frontier Party incumbent Park Geun Hye against liberal Democratic United Party challenger Moon Jae In. The New Frontier Party has long been tough on North Korea. It differs with the liberal opposition, which has inherited Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy." North Korea has repeatedly issued scathing denunciations of Park Geun Hye. It chose to conduct missile tests during the election. It is obviously trying to undermine Park Geun Hye's election bid. But its move has provoked a public backlash that has given Park Geun Hye a boost.
North Korea's long term strategy has been "marginalism." It uses nuclear weapons, missiles, and other military threats as bargaining chips to protect itself. It uses its geopolitical position to pit Mainland China and Russia against the United States and South Korea, and to maintain the Kim dynasty dictatorship. In the past, South Korea provided aid to North Korea. North Korea interpreted this as South Korean political influence. But the impact on North Korean rule and policy was negligible. This is why advocates of friendly exchanges with North Korea are seldom able to convince others that the exchanges were worthwhile.
North Korean policy is not the decisive factor in the South Korean presidential election. The South Korean people understand that the problem is not with South Korea. They understand that it cannot be solved in the short term. But voters must and will take into account the ability of the candidates deal with the North Korean problem. The president-elect will have to confront the challenges posed by Kim Jong-un, this young North Korean leader.
Japan's future leaders also face major challenges. They must deal with a long-term economic downturn. Mainland China has dethroned Japan as the world's second-largest economy. Japan's aging population is a problem without a solution. Political unrest leads to a new Prime Minister almost every year. Japan's "Lost Decade" has become a "Lost Two Decades," and may even become a "Lost Three Decades." A country lost for so long, is obviously is serious trouble.
The rise of Mainland China has demoted Japan to the number two position in Asia. South Korea is also catching up. Japan has lost its dominance. It feels lost. This anxiety has shaken Japanese society. Political parties are now competing to incite nationalist sentiment. They hope to satisfy the public's desire to restore Japan's national prestige.
Rightist Shintaro Ishihara and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda fought to "purchase" the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then, the dispute over Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty has heightened tensions between Japan, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It has also justified tougher Mainland China assertions of sovereignty over Diaoyutai. The outbreak of anti-Japanese protests on Mainland China have seriously damaged the Japanese business interests. Ironically, Japan is in dire need of the Chinese market if it is to make an economic recovery. Short term grandstanding and nationalist demagoguery may exact a high price on Japan's long-term interests and national prosperity.
The LDP was already rightist. Now the Democratic Party is also leaning to the right. Old rightist Ishihara has joined with young rightist Toru Hashimoto's Japan Restoration Association. This has created a force that cannot be ignored. The Democratic Party lacks policy experience and achievements. It is expected to lose. . The Liberal Democratic Party is expected to win. But it still needs to form coalitions with others. Whether the formation of a stable political scenario is possible remains to be seen. But Japan's domestic and international plight is far grimmer than it was during the old LDP period.
Japan and Korea play a vital role in Asia. The surrounding Asian-Pacific strategic picture is more unpredictable than ever. The new leaders of Japan and South Korea must respond prudently. For the Pacific Rim, 2012 is an election year. Several nations are holding elections or changing leaders. They are responding to extremist political actions that have raised regional tensions and led to regional conflicts. Will these leaders return to pragmatism? Will they promote peace and prosperity? That remains to be seen. Naturally Taiwan must pay close attention to this turbulence in the Asian-Pacific region.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.07
社論－東亞風雲詭譎 日韓大選焦慮
本報訊
本月東亞將有兩場重要選舉，日本眾議院選舉與東京都知事選舉在十六日登場，接著南韓總統大選在十九日舉行，預料日韓都將出現新的領導人。而這兩場選舉，在日中韓領土爭議加劇、北韓試射長程飛彈的背景下進行，益發凸顯了亞太局勢未來面臨的詭譎張力。
北韓宣布將於本月十日到廿二日之間，發射「銀河三號」長程運載火箭，攜載自力研製的「光明星三號」二期實用衛星升空。不過外界多認為發射衛星只是表面說法，實際上是要試射「大浦洞二號」長程彈道飛彈。
四月間北韓新領導人金正恩確定接班時，北韓就進行過同樣的「衛星」發射行動，結果以失敗墜落收場，讓南韓和美軍搶撈了不少碎片帶回去研究。十二月十七日是北韓前領導人金正日逝世一周年，也是金正恩接掌大位一周年的日子，又遇上南韓要選總統，北韓決定再度試射飛彈，一來誇耀軍事力量，二來對南韓選舉施壓，三來強化金正恩的領導威信，為上次的失敗扳回一城，四來吸取經驗改進飛彈發射技術，五來增加與美國討價還價的籌碼。
南韓這次是保守派執政黨「新世界黨」的朴槿惠與自由派「民主統合黨」的文在寅對決，「新世界黨」向來對北韓態度嚴峻，與承襲金大中「陽光政策」的自由派反對陣營立場不同。北韓連番對朴槿惠發出嚴厲批判，並且挑在選舉期間試射飛彈，明顯是想打壓朴槿惠的選情。不過此舉反而激起民意反彈，讓朴槿惠的聲勢獲得拉抬。
北韓向來的策略是走偏鋒的「邊緣主義」，用核武飛彈等軍事威脅製造談判自保的籌碼，藉地緣政治的位置取得中、俄相挺以對抗美國、南韓，其主要目的，是維持金氏王朝的獨裁封閉統治。南韓過去對北韓的援助與交流，被北韓當成影響南韓的政治工具，反過頭來卻沒有對北韓的統治與政策造成太大改變，這也是為什麼主張與北韓友善交往的人到最後往往拿不出足以說服他人的成果。
因此，這次的南韓大選，對北政策並不是決定性的因素，畢竟南韓民眾都了解，大部分的問題並不在南韓這邊，而且這也不是短時間可以解決的事。不過選民一定要而且會考慮候選人處理對北問題的能力，而總統當選人也將面對金正恩這位年輕北韓領導人所帶來的新挑戰。
日本未來的領導人同樣面臨重大挑戰，除了經濟長期低迷，全球第二大經濟體的寶座拱手讓給中國，而人口老化問題無解，政局不安幾乎一年一換首相，也讓日本從「失落的十年」走到「失落的廿年」，如今可能邁入「失落的卅年」。一個國家可以失落這麼久，顯然沉痾不輕。
近年來中國崛起把日本壓成亞洲二哥，南韓也意氣風發急起直追，日本對本身優勢地位的流失，有著相當的失落感，連帶引發的焦慮造成了整個社會的右傾化，以致於政黨競相擺出民族主義者姿態，以滿足民眾希望重振國威之心。
在右派的石原慎太郎與首相野田佳彥搶購釣魚台之後，釣魚台主權爭議激化了日中台之間的緊張，更讓中國大陸有理由對釣魚台作更強硬的宣示主權動作。中國大陸的反日風潮爆發以來，日本企業界的利益大受損傷，而偏偏當今經濟復甦亟需中國市場，短期譁眾取寵的民族主義操弄，卻可能讓日本長期實質利益及國家發展付出代價。
日本自民黨原本就較為右傾，現在民主黨也跟著往右靠，而老右派石原和少壯右派橋下徹的日本維新會結合，形成另一股不可忽視的勢力。一般預料，缺乏施政經驗與成績的民主黨恐將交出政權，自民黨可望勝選，但仍需與其他勢力聯合執政。是否能形成穩定政局，猶待觀察，但日本今天面對的內外局勢，其嚴峻早已遠遠超過昔日自民黨執政時期。
日、韓這兩個國家在亞洲舉足輕重，環繞其周圍的亞太局勢更是風雲詭譎，日、韓新的領導人必須盱衡情勢審慎因應。二○一二年環太平洋地區可說是走了一遭「大選年」，有多個國家進行國家領導人選舉或換屆，而因應選舉發生的各種極端或政治動作，以及所引起的區域緊張與衝突，是否會隨著各國領導人的底定而回歸務實思維，落實和平共榮的目標，仍然相當令人關切；當然，台灣必須密切注意整體亞太情勢的動盪發展。
Anxieties over the Japanese and Korean Presidential Elections
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2012
Summary: This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
Full Text below:
This month two important elections will be held in East Asia. The Japanese Diet election and Tokyo gubernatorial election will be held on the 16th. This will be followed by the South Korean presidential election on the 19th. Predictions are that Japan and South Korea will both witness the emergence of new leadership. Territorial disputes between Japan and Mainland China, and Japan and South Korea have intensified. North Korea has test-fired long-range missiles. These two elections are taking place before this background. This highlights the treacherous situation facing the Asian-Pacific region.
North Korea announced that between the 10th and 22nd of this month, it would launch a Galaxy III long-range Satellite Launch Vehicle, carrying a self-developed "Bright Star 3 dual mode (?) satellite. But observers say the satellites launches are mere cover. In fact, North Korea is test firing a Taepodong II long-range ballistic missile.
North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un assumed power in April. North Korea conducted a similar "satellite" launch, which ended in failure. South Korea and the U.S. military seized much of the debris to study. December 17 is the first anniversary of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. It is also Kim Jong-un's first anniversary as his successor. We now face a South Korean presidential election. North Korea has decided to conduct further missile tests. One. It is trumpeting its military might. Two. It is applying pressure on the South Korean elections. Three. It is strengthening the leadership and prestige of Kim Jong-un. It is attempting to make up for the previous failure. Four. It is gathering experience in order to improve its missile launch technology. Five. It is increasing its bargaining chips with the United States.
South Korea's upcoming election pits conservative New Frontier Party incumbent Park Geun Hye against liberal Democratic United Party challenger Moon Jae In. The New Frontier Party has long been tough on North Korea. It differs with the liberal opposition, which has inherited Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy." North Korea has repeatedly issued scathing denunciations of Park Geun Hye. It chose to conduct missile tests during the election. It is obviously trying to undermine Park Geun Hye's election bid. But its move has provoked a public backlash that has given Park Geun Hye a boost.
North Korea's long term strategy has been "marginalism." It uses nuclear weapons, missiles, and other military threats as bargaining chips to protect itself. It uses its geopolitical position to pit Mainland China and Russia against the United States and South Korea, and to maintain the Kim dynasty dictatorship. In the past, South Korea provided aid to North Korea. North Korea interpreted this as South Korean political influence. But the impact on North Korean rule and policy was negligible. This is why advocates of friendly exchanges with North Korea are seldom able to convince others that the exchanges were worthwhile.
North Korean policy is not the decisive factor in the South Korean presidential election. The South Korean people understand that the problem is not with South Korea. They understand that it cannot be solved in the short term. But voters must and will take into account the ability of the candidates deal with the North Korean problem. The president-elect will have to confront the challenges posed by Kim Jong-un, this young North Korean leader.
Japan's future leaders also face major challenges. They must deal with a long-term economic downturn. Mainland China has dethroned Japan as the world's second-largest economy. Japan's aging population is a problem without a solution. Political unrest leads to a new Prime Minister almost every year. Japan's "Lost Decade" has become a "Lost Two Decades," and may even become a "Lost Three Decades." A country lost for so long, is obviously is serious trouble.
The rise of Mainland China has demoted Japan to the number two position in Asia. South Korea is also catching up. Japan has lost its dominance. It feels lost. This anxiety has shaken Japanese society. Political parties are now competing to incite nationalist sentiment. They hope to satisfy the public's desire to restore Japan's national prestige.
Rightist Shintaro Ishihara and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda fought to "purchase" the Diaoyutai Islands. Since then, the dispute over Diaoyutai Islands sovereignty has heightened tensions between Japan, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It has also justified tougher Mainland China assertions of sovereignty over Diaoyutai. The outbreak of anti-Japanese protests on Mainland China have seriously damaged the Japanese business interests. Ironically, Japan is in dire need of the Chinese market if it is to make an economic recovery. Short term grandstanding and nationalist demagoguery may exact a high price on Japan's long-term interests and national prosperity.
The LDP was already rightist. Now the Democratic Party is also leaning to the right. Old rightist Ishihara has joined with young rightist Toru Hashimoto's Japan Restoration Association. This has created a force that cannot be ignored. The Democratic Party lacks policy experience and achievements. It is expected to lose. . The Liberal Democratic Party is expected to win. But it still needs to form coalitions with others. Whether the formation of a stable political scenario is possible remains to be seen. But Japan's domestic and international plight is far grimmer than it was during the old LDP period.
Japan and Korea play a vital role in Asia. The surrounding Asian-Pacific strategic picture is more unpredictable than ever. The new leaders of Japan and South Korea must respond prudently. For the Pacific Rim, 2012 is an election year. Several nations are holding elections or changing leaders. They are responding to extremist political actions that have raised regional tensions and led to regional conflicts. Will these leaders return to pragmatism? Will they promote peace and prosperity? That remains to be seen. Naturally Taiwan must pay close attention to this turbulence in the Asian-Pacific region.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.12.07
社論－東亞風雲詭譎 日韓大選焦慮
本報訊
本月東亞將有兩場重要選舉，日本眾議院選舉與東京都知事選舉在十六日登場，接著南韓總統大選在十九日舉行，預料日韓都將出現新的領導人。而這兩場選舉，在日中韓領土爭議加劇、北韓試射長程飛彈的背景下進行，益發凸顯了亞太局勢未來面臨的詭譎張力。
北韓宣布將於本月十日到廿二日之間，發射「銀河三號」長程運載火箭，攜載自力研製的「光明星三號」二期實用衛星升空。不過外界多認為發射衛星只是表面說法，實際上是要試射「大浦洞二號」長程彈道飛彈。
四月間北韓新領導人金正恩確定接班時，北韓就進行過同樣的「衛星」發射行動，結果以失敗墜落收場，讓南韓和美軍搶撈了不少碎片帶回去研究。十二月十七日是北韓前領導人金正日逝世一周年，也是金正恩接掌大位一周年的日子，又遇上南韓要選總統，北韓決定再度試射飛彈，一來誇耀軍事力量，二來對南韓選舉施壓，三來強化金正恩的領導威信，為上次的失敗扳回一城，四來吸取經驗改進飛彈發射技術，五來增加與美國討價還價的籌碼。
南韓這次是保守派執政黨「新世界黨」的朴槿惠與自由派「民主統合黨」的文在寅對決，「新世界黨」向來對北韓態度嚴峻，與承襲金大中「陽光政策」的自由派反對陣營立場不同。北韓連番對朴槿惠發出嚴厲批判，並且挑在選舉期間試射飛彈，明顯是想打壓朴槿惠的選情。不過此舉反而激起民意反彈，讓朴槿惠的聲勢獲得拉抬。
北韓向來的策略是走偏鋒的「邊緣主義」，用核武飛彈等軍事威脅製造談判自保的籌碼，藉地緣政治的位置取得中、俄相挺以對抗美國、南韓，其主要目的，是維持金氏王朝的獨裁封閉統治。南韓過去對北韓的援助與交流，被北韓當成影響南韓的政治工具，反過頭來卻沒有對北韓的統治與政策造成太大改變，這也是為什麼主張與北韓友善交往的人到最後往往拿不出足以說服他人的成果。
因此，這次的南韓大選，對北政策並不是決定性的因素，畢竟南韓民眾都了解，大部分的問題並不在南韓這邊，而且這也不是短時間可以解決的事。不過選民一定要而且會考慮候選人處理對北問題的能力，而總統當選人也將面對金正恩這位年輕北韓領導人所帶來的新挑戰。
日本未來的領導人同樣面臨重大挑戰，除了經濟長期低迷，全球第二大經濟體的寶座拱手讓給中國，而人口老化問題無解，政局不安幾乎一年一換首相，也讓日本從「失落的十年」走到「失落的廿年」，如今可能邁入「失落的卅年」。一個國家可以失落這麼久，顯然沉痾不輕。
近年來中國崛起把日本壓成亞洲二哥，南韓也意氣風發急起直追，日本對本身優勢地位的流失，有著相當的失落感，連帶引發的焦慮造成了整個社會的右傾化，以致於政黨競相擺出民族主義者姿態，以滿足民眾希望重振國威之心。
在右派的石原慎太郎與首相野田佳彥搶購釣魚台之後，釣魚台主權爭議激化了日中台之間的緊張，更讓中國大陸有理由對釣魚台作更強硬的宣示主權動作。中國大陸的反日風潮爆發以來，日本企業界的利益大受損傷，而偏偏當今經濟復甦亟需中國市場，短期譁眾取寵的民族主義操弄，卻可能讓日本長期實質利益及國家發展付出代價。
日本自民黨原本就較為右傾，現在民主黨也跟著往右靠，而老右派石原和少壯右派橋下徹的日本維新會結合，形成另一股不可忽視的勢力。一般預料，缺乏施政經驗與成績的民主黨恐將交出政權，自民黨可望勝選，但仍需與其他勢力聯合執政。是否能形成穩定政局，猶待觀察，但日本今天面對的內外局勢，其嚴峻早已遠遠超過昔日自民黨執政時期。
日、韓這兩個國家在亞洲舉足輕重，環繞其周圍的亞太局勢更是風雲詭譎，日、韓新的領導人必須盱衡情勢審慎因應。二○一二年環太平洋地區可說是走了一遭「大選年」，有多個國家進行國家領導人選舉或換屆，而因應選舉發生的各種極端或政治動作，以及所引起的區域緊張與衝突，是否會隨著各國領導人的底定而回歸務實思維，落實和平共榮的目標，仍然相當令人關切；當然，台灣必須密切注意整體亞太情勢的動盪發展。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)